LeroyBrown-2

I have reviewed about 60 films on this site, I'm really not that into it. But occasionally I see a film that I have to say something about. "The Boondock Saints" is one of those movies. It's a bloody comedy crime film. It's also a bloody good time. The writing is not as clever as a Tarantino film but certainly very good on it's own. The movie is about a pair of Irish brothers who takes justice into their own hands to kill mobsters in Boston. In pursuit of them is an FBI agent who is seriously conflicted. He knows they are criminals but as the same time he wish he could be them. The agent is played by the great Willem Dafoe, who plays the role just over the top to chew up and steal every scene, without destroying the movie. I think the problem with this movie was that its release was not well handled The scene were the brothers fell through the ceiling. Alone had it been featured on the TV ad. Would guarantee at least 1 million tickets sold. The filmmaking was excellent. I think the director Troy Duffy might actually be better than Quentin Tarantino behind the camera what he needs is a better writer (Duffy wrote the screenplay by the way).

Plays by nature are very talky and it demands more attention from an audience than say, a silent film. Good actors enhances a play because they make the play more entertaining and create characters that we could care about. Anthony Shaffer's "Sleuth" is a very talky play with a lot of twists and turns, demanding audience members pay specially close attention. It's one of the most produced play because it allows actors to interpret a pair of great characters and at the same time allow them to be deceitful and playful at the same time.

This film version of the play, I'm afraid to say, is not the one to see. The play is still basically intact and it contains great performances from the two leads unfortunately Kenneth Branagh's directing just got in the way. He uses to many artsy shots that really does not enhance the movie. It just detracts from the actors. This play more than many other plays requires us to focus our attention on the actors because they are playing mind games with each other and us.

Mr. Branagh's directing shows us too much overhead shots and shots through the slats of blinds. There are even shots when we are looking at nothing but we hear the actors talking. When he choose to focus on the actors he sometimes show us close ups that's too tight. He also shows us quick cuts back and forth from one actor to another while they speak. Basically making us dizzy. The effect of all these tricky shots Mr. Branagh shows us is like an experimental film from the 1960s gone mad. We lose the focus on the actors and the story line, and we end up focusing more on the shots we're seeing on the screen.

What's really bad about Mr. Branagh's directing is that it got in the way of two very good performances. Michael Caine plays Andrew an elder very successful writer who has been cuckolded by his wife. He's very much at the top of his game making Andrew clever and charming. Jude Law as Milo, the role Mr Caine played back in the 1972 film version, very much kept up with Mr. Caine. These two actors played off wonderfully against each other. Each one playing every scene to the hilt.

Anthony Shaffer came up with one of the greatest plays of the 20th century in "Sleuth". Michael Caine and Jude Law gave two great performances but everything is almost brought down by Kenneth Branagh, Mr. Branangh's direction is intrusive and overbearing.

"The Last Legion" tries to tie in the last Caesar with the legend of King Arthur. The legend of King Arthur has been for a longtime been linked to the Romans. The latest linking is that Arthur was a Roman soldier who commanded Sarmatian cavalry men in Britain against barbarians. Anyway "The Last Legion" mix in historical characters with mythology. Very rarely is a movie very accurate in telling historical events, mixing in legends you know that historical facts are out the window.

The movie begins with the naming of a young boy as the new Caesar, Romulus Augustus. Soon Barbarians invade Rome, kills the boy's parents and capture him. Of course there's treachery involved, I mean what's a Roman story without a good backstabbing? However there are a few soldier who will support the new Emperor no matter what. And they set out to rescue him and take him away from the clutches of the evil barbarians, hoping they could take him to the 9th legion or 'the last legion' in Britannia.

The movie's premise no matter how ridiculous, has the making of a good action adventure fantasy, but out right the movie misses out on that. First off a good fantasy film must have a good dream like quality in the cinematography and the lighting. This movie is too bright, specially in the outdoor scenes. It has none of that dusky look that makes fantasy films look more like a dream. The action is pretty decent but the ones with the female warrior just seems too choreographed. The sets have that crumbling look as befits the waning days of the Western Roman Empire.

The acting was not all that bad Ben Kingsley did a decent job as the Ambrosinus, he plays it with enough playfulness as a role in a movie like this requires. Kevin Mckidd makes a decent villain although I wish his performance was a little more over the top because the role required. The big surprise for me is Colin Firth, long have I dismissed him just like American producers have as the bland good looking guy in the movies who rarely if ever gets the girl. Here he's very good as the commander, he shows a quiet strong and authoritative presence plus he gets the girl, Aishwarya Rai. I don't know how her part got in the movie? She's just not the least bit believable as a female warrior, she doesn't have that ferocity that Lucy Lawless as "Xena the Warrior Princess" had. And as for her being the most beautiful woman in the world, I'll take Diane Kruger anytime.

The screenplay really doesn't explain too much to us, particularly the reason the commander and his soldiers remained royal to the young emperor. Neither did it explain why the boy became the new Caesar. Historically the boy's father completed a successful coup d'etat and made him a figurehead while dear old dad became the power behind the throne. The movie doesn't even give us a line lamenting the end of the Western empire.

The movie just fail on so many level and I put the blame squarely on the the director, producers and the writer. What they made is an action adventure pretty much like the ones from the 60s starring Steve Reeves

This movie brings back a lot of memories for me. I was living in Chicago at the time this movie was being shot and it was on the news once or twice. I only saw it recently as I really did not want to see a movie with Billy Crystal and Gregory Hines as a couple of tough cops. Neither one looked like they can take down a girl scout let alone Chicago's toughest criminals. Neither one even know how to hold a gun properly. Plus at the time male cop buddy movies were a dime a dozen.

The movie is about a couple (Crystal and Hines) of Chicago cops who suddenly find themselves on the trail of a big time drug dealer(Jimmy Smits). When the guy gets out on bail the boys are so mad that their captain tells them to cool off and they go to Florida. I'm not sure what their respite in the Sunshine state had to do with the movie but it was enjoyable to see Florida during the Miami Vice era again, complete with women in tiny bikinis. Anyways the boys get the idea of retiring and running a bar, but first they have to finish the case.

Getting back to Chicago means it's time to get back to the case, which means there are going to be shootouts and car chases, typical of the buddy films of that era. The action sequences in the film are very good. They were fast paced and very well done. Not amateurish at all. There are several gunfight scenes, one in particular that really sticks out was shot in the then newly opened State of Illinois building. The car chase taking place on the 'L' or elevated train alone is worth putting this film on your Netflix list. It's easily one of the best car chases from that era.

Casting Mr. Hines and Mr. Crystal as cops was a curious choice. As I said neither of them looked like they could take down a Girl Scout, but they sure do know how to deliver funny lines. Billy Crystal in particular certainly knows how to make things funny. When he was in shadows pretending to be an old lady and when he was pretending to be his boss on the phone. His comedic range is pretty good. Others in the cast played their role basically straight and really without much originality. They're all just straight men to the two leads.

"Running Scared" is a good action comedy that has no pretension of being anything else. It's a funny and entertaining. I have to say I'm a little biased because I lived in Chicago a long time and seeing the city again brings back so much memory. I mean I remember having been in some of the locales. Also I have to say seeing this movie is a reminder how lovely Darlanne Fluegel was. She played Billy Crystal's ex-wife. She's as lovely as Sharon Stone was during this era and a much better actress.

"Jerry Maguire" has to rate as one of the most quotable movies of the last decade and a half. It's given us the lines "Show me the money", "Help me, Help you", "You had me at hello" and "You complete me". And it's that last line, that really describe this movie. It's really about the growth of an individual. We see Jerry Maguire the character, grow from just an agent to becoming much more, it's not an easy trip but for the most part it's an entertaining one.

Jerry Maguire is a top sport agent. He has a decent amount of big names as client and he's engage to a beautiful woman. Then one day while visiting one of his client in the hospital, the client's young son confronted him after he gives the client a shallow encouragement. The confrontation stick in his mind and would even get him to write a "mission statement" for the company. The "mission statement" basically lays out a plan that the agents give their clients more personal attention. Unfortunately his boss doesn't like it.

The movie gives us a look at the world of the sports agents. Who are they that gets a cut of an athlete's earning and do they really deserve it? In the beginning they're just there to negotiate the numbers and get the athletes as much exposure. In the end, Jerry has become more than a guy who makes deal for an athlete. It also gives us a look at some clients they're more demanding than the agents are prepared to handle. But if handled right they will prove to be worth the trouble.

Jerry Maguire is played by Tom Cruise, and he gives one of his best performance. I think it's every bit the equal of Cuba Gooding Jr's. Oscar winning performance. Both men were on top of their game playing off each other. It's sad that his erratic behavior of late has caused harmed to his career because Tom Cruise is a very good actor. So too is Mr. Gooding and Renee Zellwegger, who plays an office worker in Tom Cruise's office and who joined him as he tries to put forth his "mission statement" into practice.

All in all, I think it's a good movie with a very observant script, complimented by great acting.

Back when I was a kid one of the local station in my town would show this movie frequently. My brothers and I would watch it every time we can and it became a personal favorite. As the station grew more prosperous and moved on to other things, this movie disappeared along with dozens of old movies. The innocence of childhood made war movies enjoyable. Of course we all know now the old cliché "War is Hell". Anyway, of all the war movies that I enjoyed in my childhood this one was special. It inspired me to try and get into the air force, (4F).

The movie of course is a wartime propaganda made to boost morale of our nation. There are dozens like these made during that time but I think this is one of the best. The movie begins with the flight crew of the B-17 bomber the "Mary Ann' on a routine flight from San Francisco to Honolulu on the evening of December 6, 1941. During the flight we get to meet the crew and they are just the standard WWII crew in any movie. The New York cabbie ("It ain't New York once you cross the Brooklyn bridge."), the farm boy, the old vet who would fight anybody who demeans the air corp and the outcast.

The dialog for the most part isn't very original, but what Howard Hawks knew then was that dialogs in on itself can be entertaining specially if they are delivered in his usual Rat-tat-tat style. Mr Hawks know how to make any movie entertaining, even when the crew were just listening to the radio it was very entertaining. But the movie was a war propaganda and we soon plunge into the attack on "Pearl Harbor", the combat scenes in this movie are some of the best I've seen in movies from that era. They're very exciting and fast paced as a matter of fact I think some of the scenes when they were airborne and fighting off the enemies might have inspired the scenes in "Star Wars" when the 'Millenium Falcon' was under attack.

The special effects on this film garnered it an Oscar nomination (one of four the film got it won best editing) and it's pretty decent for the 1940s. The miniatures are obvious now, specially if compared to some of the latest CGIs, nevertheless it's very well done. Although I still don't know if the shot over the Golden Gate bride was real or not.

Yes the movie had a racist tone and yes it has a rah-rah feel to it. But one must remember the times, the United States was attacked because our transgression against the Japanese was we cut off supply to them after they invaded China and Manchuria (Korea) and slaughtered hundreds of thousand innocent civilian. The movie also has a problem with it's time line, from the bombing of Pearl Harbor, to the last stand at Wake island to the evacuation from Manila to the Battle of Coral Sea? Coral sea took place five months after Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless it's a very good film and will remain a favorite of mine for a long time.

"Galaxy Quest" is one of those rare movies. It parodies a TV show, its actors and the fans of the show yet at the same time the movie is a tribute to them. The TV show in question of course is "Star Trek", which is a very easy target. After all the show, to a certain extent, took itself more seriously than it should and and has spawned a couple of generations of followers. The movie itself stands out on its own, it's actually a pretty good action film that at the same time allows the characters to grow on us. Much like the show itself.

Tim Allen stars as Jason Nesmith, the egotistic actor who stars as the Captain of an intergalactic spaceship. Since the show has been canceled he and his cast mates has been reduced to making personal appearances to earn a living. I'm not a big fan of Tim Allen's acting but he does a decent job here. He also gets support from two very good actors Sigourney Weaver, who's not playing Ellen Ripley, and Alan Rickman who's playing an ex- Shakesperean actor who has grown to resent the character that has made him famous. Rounding out the cast are Daryl Mithcell and Tony Shalhoub. The Rickman character is very interesting because it shows how being identified with a very popular character can be detrimental to an actor's career no matter how good they are.

The story, of course, is that Nesmith is recruited by aliens to lead them in a fight against their enemy and he brings his crew along with them for the fight. The movie have fun with this premise as it takes the actors to a strange and yet familiar situation. They have to operate the gizmos they have been playing with on their TV shows but now it's for real. One particular funny moment is when Mitchell is trying to get the spaceship out of the docking bay and there are many more.

The fans of Star Trek and other SCi FI TV shows or Movies are easy targets that gets picked on by stand up comedians, TV and Movie columnists as well as other TV shows. In most situations the fans are basically being sent a message to move on and get a life. Here they get their due as it were the fans with their encyclopedic knowledge of the show that would be instrumental in the defeat of the enemy. I wouldn't say it encourages one to be a craze fanboy but more to have to have fun with it and not take it too seriously, as this movie did

"Galaxy Quest" is a good entertaining movie that works as a comedy, action movie, and as a tribute not just to "Star Trek" but other TV shows that have a strong cult like following.

"Semi-Pro" is the story of a team in the old ABA. The ABA was a basketball league formed in the 60s to be a competition for the NBA. The league existed from 1967 to 1976 until they could no longer exist and they had to merge with the NBA. Now we have a movie not about the league or its history but about a movie about a team in the waning days of the league. But basically it's just a sport movie and not even a very good one.

Outright the movie tries to elicit laughter by having the team we're supposed to follow be called the 'Tropics' from cold northern Flint, Michigan. The team is owned and coach by one of the players Jackie Moon (Wil Ferrell). The 'Tropics' are a miserable team and Jackie is a miserable coach. He would stop play in the middle of the game to chastise a fan for bringing his own food into the stadium. What he is is a great promoter or better yet a great self- promoter. He opens the game singing his one hit song. He's also a deluded guy who thinks that he can take his team to the NBA when the two leagues merge.

The movie really doesn't even try to be a real sport movie instead it tend to be a showcase for Jackie Moon's idiocy. In other words it show case Wil Ferrell doing idiotic stuff and call it comedy. When the teams are told that they are going to need to increase their attendance in order to be considered for the merger. Jackie comes up with all kind of crazy things including wrestling a bear for halftime entertainment. It's like in some other Wil Ferrell films, the film stop the regular narrative and watch him do things that are supposed to be funny. I'm going to say it, HE ISN'T. He's just like all the other Saturday Night Live actors, they're not very good actors and I find most of their presence in movies a bit of a mockery.

The one good thing about this movie is the Woody Harrelson character. He's an old pro who has been to the NBA and actually have a championship ring. Not only does he teach the team how to play the game properly and actually start winning, he has a decent romance with his ex-wife (Maura Tierney). but then this part of the movie has that done that been there feeling. But it's still better than the rest of the movie.

Personally I think the ABA deserves a better treatment than what it got from this film. In some ways it revolutionized Pro Basketball. They came up with the 3 point shot, they allowed the freewheeling streetball style offense, (back in the day an NBA player showboating is going to get chastised by the coach, the ABA just let it go). If women's baseball can get "A League of Their Own" why does the ABA have to be stuck with this?

I heard a lot of good things about "Dan In Real Life", good things not great things. There's a good reason why they are good things not great things and that's because it is a sweet romantic movie but nothing special. Anybody who has seen the TV ads pretty much know what happens, Dan Burns (Steve Carell) meet a pretty lady named Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a bookstore and later on meets her again at a family gathering as his brother's girlfriend. They didn't just meet they share a large muffin together and talk. This is where American romantic movies fail, for the most part the conversation just flash through, a couple of complete anecdotes lasting a couple of minutes would make the conversation better. Unfortunately the art of conversation has pretty much died in the movies.

At the gathering we meet Dan's family, well sort of we really don't get to meet them individually and they could be interchangeable for all I care. None of them had a distinctive personality except for Mitch, Marie's boyfriend. The scenes with Dan and Marie sneaking trying to talk to each other are sweet but not really amusing, even the bathroom scene. The only time it became mildly amusing was when Dan has a blind date and Marie gets jealous.

Juliette Binoche is very lovely and played her scenes well, she's seems to be very adept at these kind of movies. Steve Carell on the other hand seems too much of a sad sack which really brings the movie down. There's a scene when he took some of the kids out and what could have been a good source of laughter just didn't work. Mostly Mr. Carell tended to be too low keyed on those scenes. Mr. Carell's low keyed stone faced sad sack performance in "Get Smart" is my main complaint about that movie. He needs to bring out that jerk from "The Office" once in a while.

The main problem I had with this movie was that it was a little too low keyed. There's nothing wrong with the pacing, the pacing was right but the movie was too subdued specially the acting. For a comedy this movie really just doesn't have as much energy as it should. There were some pretty good laughs but they tend to be sandwich in scenes that feel so morose. Even the look and the soundtrack of the movie feels morose. I think this movie could have been better had they lighten the mood up or made it as a straight drama, because as it is it just didn't work as well as it should.

Overall this movie could have been much better had the director, Peter Hedges lighten the mood up and Steve Carell didn't play the sad sack again.

I know very little of this movie until I saw it. All I know is that it's about a railroad engineer and his wife who's suffering from cancer. There's another element in the movie that I didn't know about until I saw the movie and it's about a young boy who has a troubled mother. Somehow the lives of the couple and the young boy would intersect literally and tragically. All this sounds like a melodrama from the 1930s. And in many ways it is, but it also has a brutal frankness in it that the 1930s movies didn't have.

The movie stars Kevin Bacon as the train engineer and his wife played by Marcia Gay Harden, we could see that there's a riff in their marriage. He would much rather work than spend time with his wife even though his boss is telling him he could have some time off. She doesn't understand why he's being so distant. It's obvious he's burying himself in work as she faces a dire future. This part of the movie is very frank as we see the despondency both have.

The other element in the movie is the boy played by Miles Heizer. He has a troubled mother, it's obvious he has become the adult in the relationship. He enters the engineer's world angrily and he blamed the engineer for the death of his mother. The engineer's wife would take pity on him and soon he finds himself staying with them. Somehow the tragedy that took the boy's mother would bring something that the boy has never had and the couple thought they lost.

It's really a simple melodrama but it has a frankness in it that they would never consider in the 1930s. One unforgettable scene is when she looked at herself in the mirror and see the scar cancer has left and breaks down, while he was on the other side of the door not knowing what to do. During one argument he blurts out angrily "Because You had cancer", it sounds as if he were angry at her. Obviously he's angry at the disease for what it has taken away from him, the possibility of children and now his wife. Also when the boy was crying out blaming himself for the death of those he love. It's very honest and frank how children sometime blame themselves for things they do not understand.

Credit and blame goes to both the writer Mickey Levy and director Allison Eastwood created a group of characters who are very complex and are facing difficult situations but then it spirals into sentimentality. The story of the engineer and his wife by itself is powerful then add the story of the boy trying to go on with his life and understand what's going on would make the movie even more powerful but when the two story is combined it became too sentimental.

Miss Eastwood's directing style is very similar to that of her father, tell the story in a straightforward way and get out of the way of the actors, The acting is superb, it's obvious that both Mr. Bacon and Miss Harden are very good actors but young Mr. Heizer proves too that he has talent. He's definitely a young talent to keep an eye on.

All in all I think it's a good modern melodrama but with the frankness of modern times but then it spiraled into an almost shameless, unabashed treacle.

Most great athletes have a hard time giving up the game that they love. Just think Brett Favre or better yet think Michael Jordan. He had the perfect ending, he stole the ball and then he made the shot that sealed his 6th NBA championship. Then he comes back with the Washington Wizards. This movie tries to tell the story of one such athlete Ron 'Big Cat' Catlin. It's obvious his career is over but he refuses to accept it. He's well past his prime, He has too much pain to continue but he just can't give it up.

The movie takes place in a one week time frame. It opened on the last preseason game and end on the season opener. During that week we see Catlin, played by Charlton Heston, weigh his options of retiring or keep playing. We see stories on the newspapers saying he's retiring. We see the opportunities being offered him. We also see his marriage crumbling as his wife seems to be having more success now than him. Throughout this time what's foremost is that a man is aging and have a trouble time adjusting to it. There's a scene where Catlin act nasty to a waitress mostly because she's young. I suppose one can see this movie as "the greatest generation" adjusting to a new generation coming along.

One of the main problem with the movie is the screenplay. Most of the dialog are too lame to even be memorable. The most important scene in the movie was when one of Catlin's former teammate ask him for a loan and Catlin ask him why he continued playing football even though he knew he wasn't great. The screenplay and the actor speaking the lines just couldn't get that part right.

Also, the screenplay created characters that were not very interesting. For the most part the minor characters seem to just exist only when they're around Catlin. The two that seemed alive are Catlin's friend and favorite receiver played by Bruce Dern and a gay assistant of Catlin's wife. Need I say that the wife works in fashion.

The casting is another problem with this movie. I like Charlton Heston as an actor, and he gives this role a good shot but let's face it he looked far too old for the character. The character is supposed to be 40 but he looks about ten years older. For the record he was 46 when the movie was made. He always has a commanding presence so he looks right during the huddle but very unconvincing when he has to throw the ball.

Jessica Walters who played Catlin's wife and Diana Muldaur the woman he cheated with should have traded roles. Although they're equally beautiful, Miss Muldaur is not only older than Miss Walters but always acted more mature. Both women were just wrong for their part. The best performance belong to Bruce Dern although the character is your typical '60s swinger.

I have to say that I like watching movies from 1960s that were contemporary, mostly because they have a look to them that I like, especially the outdoor scenes. Seeing New Orleans as it were in the 60s is quite a treat either in day or night. The indoor scenes on the other hand looks like they were obviously shot on a sound stage. For one thing they were too brightly lit. This movie was obviously made when too much lighting is still acceptable for movies.

The ending is one of the movies biggest mistake. It should have allowed Catlin to at least end it with dignity but instead it went for one of the more obvious endings.

"Get Smart" is one of the iconic TV shows of the the 1960s. After all it spoof one of the greatest icon of the the decade, James Bond. The show was escapist fun with a few action scenes thrown in. The creators, Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, took regular sitcom humor right to the edge at the time and sometimes it borders on the surreal if not stepping over completely. They took every opportunity available to add a gag or a one liner. It was of course a hit and miss situation but they had more hits than misses. Now we have a movie trying to live up to one of the funniest sitcoms of all time.

This big screen adaptation of that classic series is actually the second one. The original Maxwell Smart, Don Adams, appeared in 1980's "The Nude Bomb". Anyway just as that movie had to live up to the greatness of the TV show so too does this version. Like the other version this one failed. My main problem with this movie is the tone and pacing. Where as the TV show had a playful tone this movie doesn't have as much of that. I don't know if it's the actors' fault or the director's they just doesn't seem to be enjoying themselves as much as their TV counterpart. Also the pacing is a little slow, the original TV show feels as if a gag or a joke is being thrown at the audience every 30 seconds. This movie have spots where there are no attempt at humor whatsoever.

The acting is another problem I have. Steve Carrell's portrayal of Maxwell Smart is not nearly as good as Mr. Adams'. He doesn't have the self confidence or overconfidence that the TV Maxwell Smart had. Part of that probably had to be because they turned his character into a rookie field agent. How much funnier had he been a bumbling veteran agent. Terence Stamp playing Smart's nemesis Siegfried, is also a disappointment. He'd been better playing the character like General Zod from the Superman movies he did. Also Academy Award winner Alan Arkin as the chief just did not get his character right, like Mr. Stamp his performance was too straight. Anne Hathaway never looked hotter as agent 99, and she played the straight man to Mr. Carrell's Maxwell Smart. It would have been funnier had she been the rookie instead of Max. Dwayne "The Rock " Johnson continues to be a surprise, he's actually a good actor and here his performance was right on the mark.

TV shows turned into movies tend to have cameos, this one has an interesting one. Fans of the old show will remember that Maxwell Smart drove 3 different cars throughout the run of the show. And all three cars make a cameo here a Sunbeam Tiger, an Opel GT, and a Volkswagen Karmann Ghia. Sharp eyed fans will recognize the driver of the Opel as the original Seigfried, Bernie Koppell.

Overall this movie has a couple of big laughs but so much of it just didn't work out so just 5 out of 10 stars.

Bettie Page was an icon of the '50s, she has been called the pin up queen, the bondage queen among others. She was without doubt one of the most photograph women of the decade gracing countless girlie magazines. She would also gain notoriety for appearing in numerous one reel burlesque films as well as bondage films. Whereas there were hundreds of women who did the same things as Bettie, most of them disappeared into obscurity. Miss Page would have a revival of sorts in the 1970's and cement her position as an icon of the 1950's.

This movie "The Notorious Bettie Page", is a film biography of Miss Page. In many ways it's a typical biography and in some ways it isn't. Had this been made for Lifetime television it would probably portray Bettie as a victim of men. Early in the movie we see this to be somewhat true. We see her being possibly abused by her father, being married young and having to deal with an abusive husband and going on a car trip with a stranger and nothing good happening. Instead of seeing a broken woman though, as would be a case in a Lifetime movie what emerge is a stronger and more confident Bettie.

When she finally make it to New York we see her as a woman not afraid to take on new challenges. It's interesting how this movie portrays the porn industry of that era. We don't see mobsters running things, what we see is a more mom and pop business. Yes it's still a low class industry but one that where the participants actually enjoy being with each other. We don't see Bettie get pushed or threatened to do something against her will. As a matter of fact the threats come more from the Authorities, particularly from politicians who want to make a name for themselves. This is where the movie really divert from what could have been just a typical biography. It shows us the attitude towards sex during that era. There's obviously a demand for it but the authorities continue to have a very restrictive attitude. Bettie and her cohorts are threatened with jail time even though what they were doing was basically tame.

In the heart of this movie is Gretchen Mol. She gives a magnificent performance. How the Oscars overlooked her I don't know. I have to admit I have had a crush on Miss Mol for a while now and I thought not only did she looked great in this movie she also showed her acting ability. Yes she did a lot of nudity in this film but what's so remarkable is that she was so at ease in front of the camera pretty much what you see with the real Bettie Page. When she spoke, she spoke with a natural southern accent and even her voice sounded different. I couldn't think of a better actress for the role. Gretchen Mol won me over with her looks a long time ago, this time she won me over with her acting.

"The Notorious Bettie Page" is more than your typical film biography, it shows us the inner strength of a woman and the rather unhealthy attitude toward sex of a particular era. On top of that we get a dazzling performance from a beautiful and talented actress.

I read the review for "Oldboy" a few years ago and have since read praise about the movie from IMDb posters. Often times movies with that kind of hype tend to fall short and is a major disappointment. I don't know anything about Korean cinema so I had fairly low expectations. I had expected it to be a simplistic revenge film, shot in bad film stock. Well I have to say that I'm glad I was wrong, and even gladder still that I actually watched this film.

The basic story is that a man named Oh Dae-Su is kidnapped and held captive for 18 years and then released. He has no idea who or why this is being done to him. While in captivity he readies himself for the day when he gets out and take revenge on those who imprisoned him, and to find out why he was imprisoned. So far it sounds just like any old revenge martial art flick and up to this point it pretty much is, but it's incredibly well crafted. I have to admit I have not paid much attention to Asian martial arts films since Bruce Lee died and maybe I should now. Mainly because this movie doesn't have the jumpy camera work, or bad editing of those old flicks. This movie is a crisply shot as any Scorcese film. That alone elevates this movie to a higher plateau.

Once he is released, Oh Dae-Su goes on a quest to find what happened to his family and to find the identity of those who had him captured. During the quest for the bad guys, the movie played out like an old fashioned detective movie. The search wasn't rushed and neither was it boring. I suppose the set up made us want to go on this quest with Oh Dae-Su which sounds like Odysseus, and just as Odysseus went on one incredible quest so did Oh Dae-Su.

It's when he finds the man who had him held captive that the movie truly departs from being an average revenge film to something that is extra ordinary and extraordinarily disturbing. It's at this point that I have to say that the less said the better. It's something totally out of the ordinary and something that I think will repulse some viewers, but at the same time one can't help have sympathy for all the characters even the man who ordered Oh's incarceration.

The acting in the movie is excellent. I had no idea that Korean cinema has such skillful actors. They all really played their part incredibly well. Min-sik Choi, who played Oh Dae-Su was incredible. He goes through the rigors of being a desperate captive, to being a determined man on a mission. Along the way he runs through the gamut of so much emotion and not once did he hit a false note.

Overall I have to say that this movie is incredibly well crafted and as good as everybody say, however I find it a little disturbing so I can't give this movie a ten. But don't let my not giving the film a ten scare you away it's a good, enjoyable film.

The sword and sandal genre has been around since the beginning of the motion picture. And why not you have incredible sources like the Bible, Mythology and, as in the case of "300", ancient History. The movie 300 is based on a historical event that took place in 480 B.C.E. when the mighty Persian empire was invading Greece and 300 Spartans fought them at the pass at Thermophylae. It's one of the greatest historical battles that should be told and had been before in 1961's "The 300 Spartans". That movie, which was made at the height of Hollywood's sword and sandal epics, benefited from the film technology of the era. It was shot in Technicolor and in Cinemascope, 300 benefits from CGI. No matter what the technology a film still depends on a good script.

I have to say outright that 300 is one of the most visually stunning movie I have ever seen. This is the kind of film I envisioned when I was reading about Greek Mythology in High school. To see a real historical event gets this treatment is something beyond my expectation. From the very first shot you know this is something you have never seen before and it just maintain this level throughout. It's like every frame was drawn by Boris Vallejo, it's a unique visual feast.

The main problem with this movie is the script. We never got a good background to the conflict between the Greeks and the Persians. We know the Persians wants to rule over the Spartans but why? We don't see the Spartans cooperating with the other Greek city states except when a token force from Athens show up to fight by their side. Hollywood movie treatment of historical events, unfortunately are incomplete and highly inaccurate and 300 is no exception once you get down to the bare bones of the script.

The other thing about the script is that it was written as to be recited not spoken. And the actors perform it as such. The dialog and the acting is stilted just as was the case with many of the sword and sandal epics from the 1950s and 60s. Gerard Butler's performance as King Leonidas was as expected, he gives one of those larger than life performance that Charlton Heston specialized in back in his epic days. The rest of the cast pretty much followed along the same line. The one exception was Lena Heady, who played Leonidas' wife. She gave her role a little more humanity than the others, but she really didn't have enough screen time to flesh the character out more.

All in all I would have to say that this movie is an entertaining and incredible visual feast but at the same time it's just another sword and sandal epic with a lot of short coming when it comes to background information and your typical stilted dialog and performance.

Serial killers has been a favorite of the movies since "The Boston Strangler" and "No Way To Treat a Lady", and I suppose it will be around for a long time. "Untraceable" is just one of the latest entry in the long history of serial killers. The only difference this time is that this one is more high tech than the early ones. This time around the murderer use the computer to help him commit his atrocious acts. Despite being tech savvy the movie can not escape its main shortcoming, and that is that it's just too by the numbers.

The movie begins by introducing us to characters we've met before. The heroine (Diane Lane) who's an FBI tech head who goes after criminals on cyberspace. Of course she has a coworker and very good friend (Colin Hanks) and she's a single mom. We then see the bad guy in the shadows committing his first crime. As one expects he's a brilliant criminal, it appears nowadays Hollywood can't sell a run of the mill serial killer they have to go with the super-smart serial killers. Then we are introduced to a cop who could be a romantic interest.

The movie then goes on to predictable events. An early crime that the heroine's boss thinks doesn't matter, to the first actual brutal crime met with skepticism. We get the prerequisite red herring setting us up for a big disappointment. To where the hunters become the huntee , and to where our heroes lives are in danger. We even get the old family get together is interrupted by an emergency routine, that hasn't been used in a thriller in a while. Nothing in the whole chase for the killer part of the movie is new, we even get the boss who will get in the way of the investigation. Although I have to admit it's a little more tolerable this time.

We get decent performance out of the main actors. They gave it a decent shot but there's nothing original for them to do. Just say their lines and follow the steps laid out for them. I have to say though that the movie was well crafted. Credit has to go to Gregory Hoblit, the director. His camera work was superb. It's obvious that he knows how to frame a shot, he also directed "Frequency" a movie that I liked very much, which also had a serial killer and was quite original. This one does not have any originality at all. It's strictly by the numbers and very predictable.

"The Hoax" is based on Clifford Irving's book of the same name. It is about Mr. Irving's attempt to ghost write and sell the biography of eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes. At the time it cause a sensation, to finally read the own words of one of the richest and most fiercely private person in the world only to find out it was a gigantic fraud played on the public, the media and the literary world. The movie skillfully shows us a fanciful tale of rather unique individuals who partake or are victims of one of the most daring fraudulent acts.

The movie begins with Clifford Irving (Richard Gere) trying to sell his latest book to his publisher, but his publisher is less than thrilled with the product. Irving, whose literary star is dimming would eventually come up with the idea of ghost writing the autobiography of Howard Hughes. He recruits his wife (Marcia Gay Harden) and his best friend (Alfred Molina) on his wild plan. Although there is some resistance for the plan, mostly from the best friend, they soon are on their way. We see how they used questionable tactics to get information that would at least give the book an air of authenticity. Mostly what we see is Irving pulling a great con job on his publisher as well as seeing Irving losing himself in his subject.

The movie is well crafted and there is high quality in the production. Director Lasse Halstrom did himself proud. He moved the story along at a good pace never plodding along. His camera movement is certainly crisp and precise, I love how when Gere is driving we see how the camera follows the car from an overhead shot. Mr. Hallstrom certainly know how and when to use zoom in shots and tight close up. Truly a man who knows his way with the camera. The sets and the production values of the whole movie are excellent, from the look of a big conference room to that of narrow hallways. Everything seems to have been thought out well.

The acting is generally good. My main complaint is a big one, Richard Gere in the lead. I have to admit I have never been a big Richard Gere fan, I always felt that sometimes he was holding back in his performances. Here he gives one of his better performances but it's still lacking. He played Irving as a con man less as a writer. A guy who's more interested in pulling off the scam than one who's actually writing a book. I suppose that's how it was planned to begin with but I can't help wonder how a better actor would have done in the role.

The screenplay for the most part is well thought out. It made the Gere character as somebody who is quick witted schemer, but at the same time it made his victim not as dullards but people who are skeptics but at the same time hopeful of publishing a once in a career book. To me the biggest flaw in the screenplay and yes the movie is when Irving starts to see his book as something that would bring down President Nixon. He sees the Nixon- Hughes connection and deduct that it would bring down the President. Although the Nixon- Hughes connection was one of the possible reason for the Watergate Affair, I seriously doubt the real Clifford Irving believe that his book would have as major an impact.

Overall, it was a well made and entertaining movie with two very serious flaws, Richard Gere's casting and how the book is linked too much to Watergate.

I have heard a lot about how Uwe Boll is the absolute worst filmmaker in the world. I have read how he deserves to never be allowed near any camera and have seen endless assault on him online and other sources. I have had no interest in watching any of his film except that this one was on and there wasn't anything else I that piqued my interest. I had expected it to be bad but I have to admit I've seen worst as a matter of fact the last movie I saw before this, "Delta Farce" was even worst.

The movie was supposed to be based on the video game "Dungeon Siege", there by itself is a clue as to where it first went wrong. For the life of me I could never understand the desire of any movie producer to make a movie based on a game. It just seem like a bad idea. It's even worse when there's no attempt to make a good movie. This film unfortunately does not even try. There seem to be an idea to just follow a story laid out already. No reason for the actions, no character development, very little background development.

The main problem with this film of course is the script. It just basically plunge us into the action without explanation. I know that the wizard or magi Galien wants to take over a kingdom and we have no explanation as to why other than it's land and that he wants it. We also have no explanation as to how he made alliances inside the kingdom just brief hints at what his allies really wants. The dialogue is cheesy and there are used of phrases and words that absolutely did not belong in a Medieval sword and sorcery film. I mean they were using modern colloquialism like "Don't be so melodramatic". It just doesn't work.

Also the characters are underdeveloped. They all are just one dimensional characters that basically just exist to do their deeds on this movie. They're not really characters that you think about after the movie is finished neither are they characters you could really care about. They're about as transparent as can be. There are no surprises in what they're going to do or how they're going to act. They are what they are.

The acting is mixed, the older actors at least gave it a try. John Rhys Davies has done numerous of these horrible B and C grade movies and remains professional, so has Ron Perlman. neither just recite their lines you can see in their eyes that there's something behind them. Burt Reynolds on the other hand just gave up after a few scenes, he was good in a few scenes then it seems as if he just fell asleep. Leelee Sobieski is just not a good actress neither is Matthew Lillard. Jason Statham is a martial artist and you don't expect them to be good actors, he's almost as bad as Steven Seagal. Claire Forlani and Ray Liotta did what they could and it makes you wonder how their careers can sink so low. Mr. Liotta had an auspicious beginning appearing in "Goodfellas" and Miss Forlani had appeared with Brad Pitt and was on her way to bigger and better things. Both could use new agents.

As for Mr. Boll's directing his camera work was not bad at all, I would have to say that some of the action sequences moved a little slower than you expect from a film like this. I don't know Mr. Boll's background I would suspect that he was a music video or television commercial director. He knows how to handle the hardware but he knows absolutely nothing about story telling or creating characters. To top it all I don't think he knows how to work with actors.

This is one of the most horrendous movies I have ever seen. It's supposed to be a comedy but It wasn't very funny at any moment. And I don't know if it has a political message, is it pro Iraq war or anti, either way I couldn't tell. It's just a mess that should be avoided at all cost, it has no original joke and every joke has been told before. More than that, every joke and every situation that's supposed to be funny has been telegraphed and expected.

The movie is about a trio of redneck buddies who are in the Army reserves and are called up to duty to join the fight in Fallujah. Needless to say they did not make it there, but the redneck part is played to the hilt. From the first time they were introduced up to the time they landed at the wrong destination. Everything they do emphasize their ignorance and none of it is particularly funny. It's like the worst of "The Beverly Hillbillies" it's not even ignorance in some cases just stupidity. And it makes the movie more painful to watch than already is.

None of the jokes and situations are original, and most of them are telegraphed and quite very early. The situation with Larry and his girlfriend (Christina Moore) was pretty much where it was going to go. You can't convince me that you didn't know what she was going to say. Even the sight gags were so obvious, sending us endless message that this trio are a bunch of rednecks and they're suppose to do the redneck cliché.

Old jokes can sometimes still work if you have the right people to deliver it. Suffice to say this cast of goofballs just are not the right people. For the most part they know they're delivering a one liner or a punchline. It's been said that the best way to play comedy is to play it straight. These guys know they're in a comedy and what's worse is that they know it's bad comedy. None of the three leads are particularly good actors and what they do isn't create a character but rather create caricatures. Personally I find that that's common with comedians who try their hands at acting.

This movie is an unoriginal, unfunny, clichéd film. The jokes are clichéd and so are the situation. To make matters worse none of the lead are any good as actors.

The movie "The Black Dahlia" is based on the novel of the same name by James Elroy. He also wrote the novel "L.A. Confidential" which was turned into one of my all time favorite movie. I'm such a big fan of that movie that it is one of the very few DVDs I own for which I paid full price. So I had high expectation for this movie, specially with Brian DePalma directing and Aaron Eckhart as one of the leads. However it turns out to be quite a disappointment.

To begin with the story is not about "The Black Dahlia" murder exclusively. The movie would divert from the Elizabeth Short (aka The Black Dahlia) murder and would introduce characters and follow a story line involving them. As a matter of fact the titular murder does not occur until about one third of the way into the movie. By then we're introduced to the lead cops and their rather odd relationship with a woman. Later on we would be introduced to the family of a wealthy albeit sleazy real estate developer. Somewhere in the movie we see ex-cons that one of the cops have a vendetta against. Yet in the end the movie tries to tie up all this convoluted mess together. But it doesn't work. Some of the links are just too far fetch.

The acting is another problem I have with this movie, Aaron Eckhart of course is an excellent actor but the two younger actors he had to play opposite are rather weak. Josh Hartnett and Scarlett Johansson. Hartnett, in my opinion is just not a very good actor and more than that he doesn't have the presence nor charisma to carry a film. Johansson on the other hand is rather bland and despite all the magazine covers she's just not as beautiful as say, a young Sharon Stone. Hillary Swank has proved she can act but her performance in this movie as a socialite just doesn't work. She has a fake accent and combine that with her attempt to act like a '40s screen siren, it's best that she leave this off her resume.

The best thing about this movie is the craftsmanship and the look. The movie has a great look to it although a little neater than it should be, but it captured the atmosphere right. Mr. DePalma's positioning and movement of his camera is never in doubt. Witness the scene when the body of the Black Dahlia is discovered, just an excellent shot. Also when the coroner is examining and explaining the injury of poor Miss Short.

All in all the movie introduced too many elements and try to bind it together in the end only to fail miserably. Also the acting was not very good, other than the look of the movie and the craftsmanship in the film-making there's really nothing to recommend.

This is one of the first movies that was shot entirely on location in New York city. It's a great way to see how the city really look then and how bustling it really was. It's a well made film that really takes the viewers out of the sterility of Hollywood studios into the hustle and the grit of a real city and a very realistic crime. It is also one of the earliest police procedural ever produced. In fact I think even now it holds its own against police procedural movies and TV show. The criminals are closer to the realistic criminals one sees in the world not the criminals that get rounded up in the parlor and are made to confess like in so many Hollywood mysteries of earlier eras.

From the opening aerial view you know immediately that this is like no other movie made before it. We see the city when it's late at night and most people are asleep and when crime is most likely to happen. We also see the city awake and commuters are going to work. The director Jules Dassin, takes us along with the cops walking down actual crowded NY city streets following leads. I like how the onlookers had to be held back as they try to see anything pertaining to a headline making case. Take any murder case in your city that lands on the front page and you'll see rubberneckers standing by and this movie shows that. Of course the climactic scene had to take place on one of the city's bridges, the Williamsburg bridge I believe.

The early scenes of the investigation shows us early scientific methods of investigations. Think of it as CSI the early years. Some of the methods haven't changed much like the finger prints and consulting the Medical Examiner with the Cause Of Death. Then the movie becomes police investigation part of "Law & Order". In fact the producers of L & O must have blueprinted much of their investigation from this film. We see suspects and witness being questioned and then we see layers of deceit slowly unfold. It really holds one's interest as guilty party or parties are methodically revealed. Clever fans of L&O will probably figure things out earlier than I did.

In many of the early murder mysteries, particularly the old gather everyone in the parlor so we can expose the guilty person kind of mysteries, the guilty person is after just one person. This movie have more in common like the other films noir of the 40s. We see criminals ruthless enough to take what they want and are not afraid to go and get it no matter who's in the way. And if you're in the way be prepared to get lost or be prepared to meet your maker. The ruthlessness of the criminals might not be shocking to anyone today but in the 1940s I'm pretty sure it made people take pause.

On the whole the acting was great. Barry Fitzgerald played LT. Muldoon and he played the character very well, although I have to say his Irish accent really got in the way early on but his commitment to the part just made you forget about his accent. Don Taylor, the young detective who was partnered with Muldoon, at first seem aloof. Eventually he grew on me. I remember Mr. Taylor as Lt. Dunbar in "Stalag 17" and I thought he was unconvincing in that role and disliked him. Here I have to say he was very good and he's won me over. The most recognizable member of the cast is probably Howard Duff who plays a charming cad. He really didn't display much charm, I wouldn't say he was wooden but more tense than he needed to be.

Sharp eyed film fans who appreciated great characters will spot Kathleen Freedman and James Gregory. Mr. Gregory in fact had only one scene but it was pivotal.

All in all I think this movie will please movie fans, especially those who are big fans of film noir and police procedural.

This is one of the most fun movies I have seen in a while. It's a horror B-Movie that's a throw back to the '50s horror movies where the monsters are literally jumping out at you. Except that this movie have dozens of snakes jumping at the poor victims. There is not much in term of blood and gore but there's definitely scary stuff especially if you don't like snakes even CGI ones.

The premise is self explanatory. There are snakes on the plane, how it and why it was put there I wouldn't bother to say. Anyway the passenger manifest seems like a modern take on the Hollywood stereotyping, there's the pushy businessman, there's the annoying horny couple, the annoying sick couple, a couple of kids, a woman and her baby, a flight attendance on their last flight but then you add an heiress complete with a Chihuahua, a rapper and his entourage, and a jet Li lookalike. Yeah it becomes a guess who gets it next game.

What I like about this movie is that it has tremendous energy and moves headlong into one catastrophic situation to another. From snakes getting into the plane's avionics to snakes threatening people by coming out of the plane's cracks and fissures. When the snakes were finally discovered then the panic and the fun REALLY get started. It's when you can't help but laugh at how ridiculous the situation is as everyone panic running around.

I love how the camera follows the snakes as they slither through tight spots and how they move beneath passenger seats. Of course we see snakes attempt bites that are near misses, but they still make you flinch. Some of the snake attacks are obvious and where telegraphed, which means you expected them but some of those were really funny but incredibly painful to think about.

Despite it being an obvious B-Movie, the actors played their parts real well. Samuel L. Jackson as the FBI agent is the same Samuel that he usually plays but he doesn't let up even though he knows this not Oscar material. So does Julianna Marguiles who plays one of the stewardesses. As a matter of fact all of the cast members completely professional and nobody just phoned in their performance.

The snakes are obviously CGI for the most part they don't look realistic at all. There are a couple of question marks about this movie. How come there are only two people in the cabin operating a jumbo jet? Shouldn't there be a navigator also? Overall I think it was an enjoyable and fun film, the kind you watch while you're giving your brain a rest.

This movie has been discussed as not being true to the novel, frankly I think it doesn't matter. I think this movie circumvent the comparison with the novel and stand on its own. It is a very good film. It captures the feel and the essence of film noir. It's very atmospheric and at the same time it has the wear worn feel of its hero. This film makes us feel weary as it threads its way through the L.A. underworld of the 1940s. Yet with every twists and turn the movie makes us more determined to discover the secret that has caused a pretty high body count.

For the life of me I couldn't think of an actor better for the role of Phillip Marlow than Robert Micthum. Perhaps he should have made the movie 20 years earlier, as some people had suggested that he was too old at the time the movie was made. But even at this stage of his career he certainly could carry this movie. He embodies the film noir hero or antihero like nobody else. He had the world weariness, the cynicism, the grit and the toughness.

Is there any character in the history of movies sexier than Charlotte Rampling's Helen Grayle, She'll give you a look you could feel right in your hip pocket, that's how sexy she is. She's not aggressively coming on to anybody she's just so sexy she draws you in. Between her and Mitchum you already have a great cast for a film noir. But then throw in great character actors like John Ireland, Anthony Zerbe, Harry Dean Stanton and you got yourself a heck of a movie. Also a young Sylvester Stallone is in the movie although in a non speaking role.

The movie was set in the 1940s and it even look like it was made then. Other movies like "LA Confidential" and "The Devil in a Blue Dress" both neo noirs that have the props right but look too clean and new, whereas this movie look like everything has been worn out a lot which fits perfectly the tone of the film. The building looks like they have cracks in them, the streets have that unswept feel. All in all the movie doesn't have gloss over look just grit.

The story is about a Detective's search for an ex-con's missing girlfriend, but then it gets more and more complicated than that. Phillip Marlow (Mitchum) finds his search taking him from the seamy underground to the world of the down and out and to the antiseptic world of high society. All throughout this, his search is complicated by endless red herrings, traps and deception and through all this he always remained true to his client. Never giving up even though it could be bad for his health. And when it's crunch time he comes through like a hero.

All in all I rank this as second only to "Chinatown' as best of the neo noir from the 1970's.

This movie has an interesting premise, it goes back in time over again and again to show the vantage point of several people during a terrorist attack. Hence the title "Vantage Point", The movie repeats the same 14 or 15 minutes and show what several people were doing just as a terrorist attack a meeting involving the President of the United States. We're shown the views of Secret Service Agents, tourists, reporters, the terrorists and even the President himself. It's like "Rashomon" where we see the same few minutes again and again but from the perspective of different people. But then as the movie continues it would turn into a chase film as the terrorists' plot is uncovered and revealed.

The movie has an International cast, although the majority is American, they all played their parts well. Although frankly I didn't think a single one of them really stood out. The closest would be Forrest Whitaker. Of course with his imposing presence it's easy for him to stand out. He plays a tourist who finds himself taking care of a lost little girl in the middle of all this chaos. Dennis Quaid who was in the middle of the action and supposedly the hero just didn't stood out. He certainly gave a good performance but not one outstanding enough to carry the movie. I suppose in many ways that's the problem with Mr. Quaid, and that's why he never became a film superstar. He just doesn't have the screen presence to carry a movie.

The film is well crafted, the fast paced action sequences moved incredibly well. It's incredible to see an auto chase taking place in the narrow streets of Spain while there are still people (probably stunt men) on the them. These action sequences were the equal of the ones in "Ronin". The camera movements as they follow people through their vantage points is crisp and very well made. All the way to the terrorist attack we see how well crafted it is. But then we see the real terrorist plot and it's one of those plot twist that's so convoluted that it stretches credibility to the snapping point. Even how the terrorists' carry out the plan is non credible.

Filmmakers nowadays are so keen on outsmarting the audience that they take their twists to a level that's unbelievable and unbelievably bad. I call it the "Flightplan" plot twist, I know that producers started doing it a long before "Flightplan" but that's when I decided to give it a name. Basically it's a plot twist that's so convoluted and so lacking in credibility or realism that it destroys the rest of the film.

The first Coen brothers movie I ever saw was 'Blood Simple', I thought it was one of the best movie of that year and one of the finest crime drama I ever saw. When I saw 'Fargo I thought it was brilliant, it was clever and entertaining. Comparing it to 'The English Patient', which beat it for best picture Oscar, I thought that the Coen Brothers were robbed. Now with all the praise being heaped at "No Country For Old Men", I was expecting a lot. Unfortunately what I saw was a film that pales in comparison to the previous two films. I have not seen any of the competition but if this IS the best film I have to say what a disappointing year.

My main problem with this movie is that it moved too slow. A lot of times a scene lingers before the payoff. We see the character of Chigurh prolonging a scene before the inevitable and since we know he's a ruthless killer we know what he's going to do. It also take a long time before the main plot line gets rolling or at least it felt like a long time. Some of the scenes with Tommy Lee Jones as the sheriff also just feels so painfully slow. Making Tommy Lee Jones seem boring takes a lot of shall we say wrongly applied effort.

The main plot line of the movie involves found money, a drug deal gone wrong, a ruthless assassin. and the cops trying to solve things. I don't need to say anything else about the plot because it's pretty easy to figure out. We know what Chigurh was after but we don't know how he got involved in the first place did he set the drug dealers up? There are numerous plot holes that opens up a lot question but does not answer them.

I don't know why the Coen brothers set the movie in 1980, I suppose that's when it was set in the novel but it certainly has a faded look to it and at times even painful on the eyes. The movie has virtually no music. I have said that in my comments on "Cache" and "Abre los Ojos", that the lack of music in thrillers is refreshing. However in this movie the lack of music is deafening. It doesn't work this time.

The acting is very good. Javier Bardem, who plays Chigur, is very scary. He plays it like a human terminator. Very emotionless, he doesn't flinch, he doesn't blink, and he doesn't take no for an answer. Although I have said that Tommy Lee Jones was dull at times I have to say that he was good at playing his character. Josh Brolin who was at the center of the action finally is beginning to convince me that he has a future in the big screen something that eluded his dad.

Overall It's a movie with a plot that's easy to comprehend, but just plods along in certain areas and have many situation that was unanswered.