bsl05

Some small spoilers included: This movie was unbelievable. It may not be the best movie ever, but the unknown story it tells - and the unashamed way it does it - was truly riveting. Looking back at the opening scene, it seemed funny at the time that Ray would say he lost his vision on a Normandy beach. By the end of the movie, you realize it was just foreshadowing his future problem of lies - especially to himself.

Jamie Foxx gives an amazing performance. Although I have not watched the other nominated actors from 2004, I know why he won and why he deserved it. However, I think he was not only the second best actor in the movie, but also the second best Ray. I believe C.J. Sanders gives a truly magnificent performance. Foxx's performance was dead-on, but a sizeable portion of it was really imitation (ironic at times that he was imitating Ray Charles' imitations of other artists during Ray's early years). He had a lot of information, footage, and Ray Charles himself to work with. But Sanders did not have that luxury. Also the fact that he is young and had to show such emotion is only over-shadowed by the fact that he does it so convincingly.

Another unexpected performance that would not have been better came from Sharon Warren as Ray's mother. If the roles of young Ray and his mother would have made up more of the movie, we would have heard a lot more about these performances. But the movie was rightfully dominated by Foxx, since that was Ray we all wanted to see. I think we will see a lot of great work in the future from Sanders and Warren, as well as Foxx, of course.

This show has a few clichés and a few over the top, Dawson's Creek-like moments (a 16-year-old talking about way back when life made sense?), but overall it seems like a decent show. Most of the characters seem very real, and the story seemed to move along well in the pilot - ending with a good lesson in the end. I just hope every episode doesn't turn out to be life-altering like the first, that would just be too much drama for this vehicle. Jeremy Sumpter does an excellent job as a teenager with a passion for baseball, I believe a lot of us could relate to his awe and sometimes tunnel vision for the team that he always wanted to a part of.

Van Helsing was a decently entertaining movie. It does not start off too well, but improves once the action picks up a little bit. It does seem to use parts of other movies, but not necessarily monster movies as you would expect. I definitely noticed scene or line similarities with LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Fifth Element, and The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly among others. This is not a good thing. It's OK to pay homage to classic movies of the same genre, but to take from a spectrum of different ones does not help a movie.

A lot of eye-rolling scenes, but entertaining enough. 7/10

I actually saw this movie in the theater and wasn't much interested going into it (read: my girlfriend, now wife, chose the movie that night). As I watched, the movie was lacking very much until the scene where DiCaprio and Danes meet with "Kissing You" being sung in the background. That part changed the whole movie for me because of the easily recognized chemistry between the two of them - all without saying a word. Since then I have come to appreciate this movie even more, and watch anytime it's on TV.

The acting is excellent. So good in fact, that the ending everyone knows will happen seems illogical - you believe they deserve so much better, that it will work out. Leo showed why he was one of the best actors in Hollywood, pre-Titanic. And I don't mean "best under 25 or 30 years old," I mean overall. Before the Titanic backlash, he was as solid as anyone. Also, Perrineau was unbelievable, stealing every seen he was in. And Leguizamo again shows why is such a highly underrated actor. I believe Danes was perfect casting for Juliet, nailing the role.

The style may turn a lot of people off, but Baz Luhrmann made it worked very well as he always does. Overall, this is a very good movie carried by the exceptional performances of the mentioned actors and even Pete Postlethwaite in a small role being his usual solid self.

9/10

Lance Henriksen has a knack for being the top name in a B-movie, even in this case starring along side Charles Napier, Master Control Program, and Joe Don Baker. As always he does a great job of being the bad guy, but the plot is just bad (don't even get me started about the ending). And the editing is so horrible it might actually be a thing of beauty. Is it just me, or does it seem that Joe Don Baker was spliced into the movie at the last minute? Also, anytime glass is broken in this movie, the editing is so anti-phenomenal. Lastly, after watching this, I figure David Warner is dying for Tron 2.0 to finally get the green light.

Unfortunately for Felony, this will be the third movie I give the rating of 1/10, joining Iron Eagle IV and No Mercy.

First off, I was born and raised in Louisiana so I rolled my eyes through most of this travesty. Like other movies, New Orleans seems to be stuck in a time long ago. It contains most of the stereotypes people have of LA, which are exactly that, stereotypes - dirty people, illiteracy, inaudible gibberish, corruption (OK, well corruption is still there for the most part). Therefore the film has quite a few inaccuracies that are hard for someone with my background to watch. The only positive is the accents were better than what I remember from the "The Big Easy." 1/10

A friend of mine rented this movie and I was a little suspect. I remember never thinking much of it, and the horrible memory of Harrison Ford doing that hip-thrusting move in the commercial - noooooo!

But I will say that I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. It has some genuinely funny parts, and it was also interesting to see who was going to make the next cameo (my favorite being Dre 3000 and his movie "Nasty"). My liking of this movie probably has a lot to do with perception - expected crap, but turned out to be OK. I'll give it 7/10.

I'll admit, I hardly watched this movie - therefore I'm not going to actually give it a numerical rating. But the parts I did see were pretty bad. Example scene with bad guys: "Everyone's running away from us. Oooh, there's a line of unattended cars! Let's walk menacingly while taking turns blowing them up in an evil manner!"

It also seemed to be kind of a rip-off of Superman II. Just look at the 3 bad guys and you've got the same demographics in each movie.

I could see how someone may not like this movie at all, but I thought it was enjoyable. It was borderline, not quite good yet quirky enough to be "good enough." As a big baseball fan I wish I could have this sort of life - just go to ballpark and hang out with people who I may or may not know and have a good time. 7/10

This movie was very, very slow. You almost feel like you are a thief casing a joint for three weeks like the characters in the movie. But that is not a good thing when you're sitting in a movie theater. Although it is slow and uses a very unoriginal plot (one last heist for old thief who is partnered with a younger cocky thief), the last 20-30 minutes of the film are good. Unfortunately, they do not save the movie. 5/10.

The story of a murderer committing his crimes to preach to the world is a great idea for a movie, and it was carried out very well. The story of a retiring cop teamed with his new replacement is a story that has been recycled over and over. But it was done extremely well in Seven. This movie is full of suspense. Both Pitt and Freeman give wonderful, believable performances. The movie is somewhat gruesome, but if you can stomach some violence, it is well worth watching.