SPaS

Yes, I've said it!

I actually wrote a longer intro for this... but then just decided to drop it. I mean, whats the point dissing "Crystal skull"; and/or nitpicking about the shortcomings of the source material (I read the novel 4 years ago and rated 7/10 with a verdict "utterly unfilmable")... when the outcome is - against all odds - is a solid eight out of ten!

Yes - I've said it. A strong EIGHT. And a sign that mr. Spielberg doesn't need my support.

For those who disagree - and there seems to be a lot of them - I have a question: WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? All the adds said "based on a novel of a holy grail of pop culture". Did you all just happen to miss the fact that we're talkin FANTASY fiction instead f sci-fi, with major basis on 80s nostalgia. For you hardcore sci/fi- fans, there's movie you might want to check out. It's called "2049". you should check it out. But t I could give "Taxi driver" a 1/10 and that despite it's name it doesn't tell about commuting.

My two cents are, that the screenplay (by Zan Penn and Ernest Cline) is a vast improvement in the source material, and that Spielberg's knowing/experienced (do I need to even explain?) direction lifts this movie... well, beyond its fan-based roots. I mean

First off: THE BUZZ IS REAL - this movie is a dud.

I took my 13yo son to see this on the opening night. We both had seen the trailers, hated them, and had lowered our expectations accordingly - mine was at about IMDb 5. Of course you could ask why we bothered at all to see the movie if we had doubts. Well, in short - because we love the original and were desperate to like this one too. On the positive side I must say the new Ghostbusters started off alright and the first 30 mins or so showed genuine promise: the "comedic" scenes didn't drag as bad as they seemed in the trailers (might have been trimmed after backlash) and the scary scenes were undeniably scary. However, after a kind-of- promising start the movie started to edge the "horror" out of the "horror comedy" in favor of your typical Wiig/McCarthy humour. And as the movie progressed also the jokes started to lose steam because they followed the same formula. You know: deadpan comment on event or situation - deadpan response - deadpan response (repeat) - and then cut to action. Basically the last half of the movie I was checking my watch and waiting for another gratuituos cameo, or for it all to just end.

Sony, do the smart thing and instead sequel, hit reboot. It's just like with the "Hulk" - movies: do them until you get them right. The world didn't need a sequel for a "Spiderman" starring Andrew Garfield. The cast (along with director Feig) are undeniably talented, but this is just your typical case of team not in sync with the material at hand.

This time of year people either go for the undeniable Christmas classics... or set their bars lower and go for some by-the-numbers British/American-yuletide-ensemble cast-romcom, or a lukewarm (at best) holiday-themed comedy made by Adam Sandler or Wayans brothers or someone. Or something that features just cute furry talking animals etc. This is what people expect, so why offer more? Well, enter Netflix. I like Netflix. I like their "Zoetrope"- like attitude and balls to tackle on projects like "Wet hot American summer- the series", and "A Very Murray Christmas". In "Very Murray Christmas" Bill Murray plays... Bill Murray who's snowbound in New York and whose Christmas special is about to go bust. He wanders around the studio building, bumping into celebrities and regular people (played by celebrities) in similar blue situations. And very often these situations turn to singing numbers. The overall feeling is deliberately a little off-putting. It's a thinking man's comedy. Sombre, subtle, and a little meta for good measure. There's no slapstick. No Christmas trees fall down and nobody gets kicked on the balls-and heck, even two of the best Christmas classics, "Die Hard" and "Home alone", went for those in the end! But not "A very Murray Christmas". That's why I really, really, really wanted to like it. I'm sure on paper this looked promising... but in the end the non-comedy just bites itself in the tail. Dropping 2-3 songs in favor of some honest broad comedy would have definitely put this on my yuletides favourites watchlist for years to come. But sadly: no cigar. Actually we're not even so close to one that I should mention 'a cigar'.

Anyhow, hats off to Netflix for an attempt full of heart. The idea of it was so great that I really have high hopes Netflix gives this another shot next year. Just instead of Sofia Coppola pick Judd Apatow. Even the idea is ready: 'Bill Murray doesn't want to do another Christmas special because his special last year got so bad reviews'. And because it's BILL MURRAY, it'd be nice to see other fellow seasoned comedy veterans. Dan Aykroyd, Chevy Chase, Steve Martin, Martin Short anyone?

This one worked for me as good as "The other guys". I assume the two people who read this review are familiar with the plot, so I'll just lay down the goodies. Script = smart. There's a plot onto which the jokes are glued on, and not vice versa. It works both on the meta - level (parody) as also a conventional comedy. The emotional spots and parts where it digs into the "nerds vs. hunks" - setting is good, and it truly rises above the material when it analyzes friendships. Acting = spot on. Jonah Hill delivers his usual goods and wisely gives more light to - applause - Tatum Channing. This guy has charisma and has managed to carve out his niche in both drama and action roles. Now he delivers an absolutely hilarious comedic performance out of the bushes. L-effin-OL. Deadpan, check. Timing, check. Also, he isn't trying to steal scenes (Will Smith- style) and is game even when his character is the butt of the jokes. Watching him is like watching an R-rated version of Joey from "Friends".

It's a bit shy on the action, but it pays off with comedy. The chemistry between Hill & Channing is exceptional so I'm really looking forward to see a sequel.

Every now and then I pick up something old to watch from the public library. I hold Chaplin's and Keaton's stuff in high glory, but I've found stuff preceding Clint's "Dollars" - trilogy to be somewhat outdated. "Magnifecent seven", "Dirty dozen" and "Where eagles dare" are still as kick-ass-stuff as "Raiders of the lost ark" to me, but Wayne's "Searchers" and "Rio Bravo", and Bogart's "Maltese falcon" just feel boring and outdated. Even Kurosawa has been so much re-used that it pales in comparison to, say, "Lone wolf and the cub" to me. So I really didn't have high hopes for "Sierra madre". I thought it'd offer some lame action, lines and situations quoted to death, misplaced Chaplin-gags and not much more. However, I was wrong. From the get-go it just took a grip at me and didn't let go until the end. Action is scarce, but the stuff in-between is STRONG. Dialogue, characters and situations make sense and advance the plot in beautiful balance, and a whole lot of stuff happens in Spanish without subtitles so that you STILL follow the plot so that it makes "Die hard" with its 'bits in German' pale in comparison. To sum this up short: if you're not allergic to old-old school action, try it. Definitely. If "Raiders of the lost ark" is "World of warcraft", this is "Nethack".

Saw this when it came out and I was pleasantly surprised. I'd say this falls in the better one of the new wake of remakes 1998 and on. The premise and plot line aren't smarter or less contrived than other offerings in the genre, but My bloody valentine makes up in every other department: the pace is tight, the characters are good (played a bit better and in just a bit more fleshed-out characters than usual), anchoring performances by seasoned actors are good (Tom Atkins & Kevin Tighe), script with its twist is good (Todd Farmer had better luck with this one than with his own "Hatchet") and the whole movie knows better than to take itself fully seriously. Also 3-D is really taken advantage of with this one. Here you get kicks out of it about two thirds out of way, while in Tron 3D, Saw 7 3D and the last two Final destinations you really get about one third. So, highly recommended - no, but recommended - yes.

As quoted by my 8-year old son right after seeing this, Spielberg's latest movie. Well, ditto. The Adventures of Tintin: The secret of the unicorn is one damn fine adventure yarn and by far the most enjoyable entertainment movie from mr. Spielberg since the original Jurassic Park (-93). Technically it's nothing but well made but production values aside, this movie has a HEART. A honest, warm heart. Something Spielberg's offerings have been lacking for a long time. After Spielberg's "serious season" I found his "War of the worlds" to be cold and cynical. After the travesty of "Indy 4" I was afraid he's just lost his "honest touch" for good. For Tintin I had hopes, but dared not to expect much more than trivial entertainment with fancy graphics. Well, I'm happy to say I got more than I bargained for. Sure we got the best eye-popping technology money can buy, and a polished script, but above all, I say above all, this movie made me feel like a kid again. our basic movie night turned out to offer some great dad & son - time. Provided by Herge, Spielberg & Jackson. Thanks, guys, we'll be waiting for the sequel!

PS. I believe the prolonged 30-year wait helped the movie. First of all, there's technology: only this way the look is right. Peter Jackson was right to persuade Spielberg out of the live-action option. And before Avatar this look wouldn't have been possible. Second, the geeks. Now we got 30+yo fanboys, comic-cons and a ton of movies from comic books to prove that there's money to be made if you invest in a movie from a comic. And that you get better feedback the more loyal you stay to the source material. Third, I think a younger Spielberg would have been too cocky to do it right. Age and a couple of misfires (especially Indy 4) can teach you a few lessons about film - making.

Fresh out from the theatre, my initial reaction is "meh".

I had been waiting for this ever since the Weinsteins announced it. Wasn't too keen on the idea of a whole new trilogy of "Screams", though. And after seeing part 4 I kind of hope parts 5 and 6 never materialize- unless they can do better than this.

The biggest problem here is lack of fluency. Seems like Williamson had collected these suspenseful little scenes that played out a bit against his "old rules" in order to be fresh; along with comments about remakes, sequels and changes in pop culture and media in the 11 years since the last Scream. All good material for a script, but it all seems to be more or less crudely "hammered" together. Craven's directing is as good as in parts 1 and 2 (thus far better than in part 3), but the movie still has kind of a "stop and go" feel.

Also, the movie doesn't seem to happen in the "Scream 1" - reality but instead in the "Friday the 13th part 19" - land where people don't seem to realistically relate to the situation of a killer on the loose, or be affected by deaths of neighbours, friends or local kids. Everyone's quoting horror movies, naming clichés and talking to killers on phone when they should be getting out of town, buying pepper spray or at least staying in groups; and every once in awhile reminding themselves that instead of something supernatural, the bad guy is just a person with mental disorders in a suit. You can almost say it's ironic how Scream 4 has somewhat turned into the very thing Scream 1 was made to make fun of.

However, despite being uneven Scream 4 carries to the end. It drags here and there, but there are also some good scares. And as a whodunit it works; the identity of the killer remains a mystery up until the end.

So there you have it.

Saw it in the movies. Loved it. Bought the DVD. Just watched it => felt obliged to spend my 2 cents on it. I think this along with the original "Dawn if the dead" are two of the best zombie movies ever, period: DotD delivers the message with blood n guts, ZL delivers the laughs with blood and guts... and some. On the surface, this is like "Hatchet" with Zombies with some of that post-Scream self-aware. But I'm also willing to claim that under the surface, there's more: I would go so far as to say that this is like both a parody and a right-on-the-spot take on the post generation-X comedies... a Kevin Smith movie, "Dazed and confused"... or perhaps, most fittingly, "Say anything" with zombies. Jesse Eisenberg is perfectly cast as "Columbus", a geek who gets a rude awakening into a world suddenly overrun by flesh-eating corpses. Woody Harrelson is perfectly cast as a trigger-happy mentor who picks Columbus as his sidekick. And Emma Stone... perfectly cast, playing the damsel in distress/ femme fetale along with... (sorry. I just got lost in her reindeer-in-the-spotlight eyes. Did I mention she's perfectly cast?) with an okay Abigail Breslin on her tow. That's about all you need to know. Won't spoil you the fun, but all I can tell you that there's plenty of it: I'm an 34 year-old Finn with a master's degree, and I laughed my ass off along with all the 18-year-olds in the crowd. "Zombieland" instantly got into one of my top-five experiences in a movie theatre. Can't wait for the sequel!

Yep, I enjoyed almost every minute of this movie. To sum it up short, it's like the best of Ferrell, cut short on where the jokes go too long and awkward. Combined with jokes written just right for Wahlberg (he did worse in "Big hit"). Combined with action a cut above the rest (for the genre), the chemistry between the duo, and the unbelievable home-run ratio of the "awkward jokes" (TLC quotes by Keaton for example). Topped with some VERY funny cameos. Direction is all good, along with the editing. The movie showed signs of running out of steam in the middle, but towards the end it picked up the momentum again and ended on a high-enough-note. To sum it up VERY short, it's this year's "Rush hour". So if that's anything up your alley, go see it. From recent offerings, I hope this one gets a sequel along with "Expendables" and "Prince of Persia".

Wow! For the past last month, I've been catching up on movies I missed on the big screen last year. So far "Sherlock Holmes" seems to have been the best thing I missed. Sometimes I wonder who the hell calls the shots in Hollywood. I mean, Guy Ritchie to direct a big action genre movie? But hell, I also like it when I'm wrong, especially when I expect to see an IMDb 6 movie and get an IMDb 8 one! To sum it up, this is what "Wild wild west" should have been, and more! It delivers on the grass-roots level as well as on big scale entertainment. I liked the plot, I liked the treatment (opens up like a Sherlock Holmes novel with all elements falling into place in the end), I liked the casting... everything. And about Ritchie's straight involvement: I loved every single frame of this movie. I mean, this movie FLOWED. Great stuff. Give me Sherlock Holmes. With the same director, please.

Yep. Whenever I come across a bad genre movie, fanboys shout out "what did you expect?". Well, Expendables is a *GOOD* genre movie, and if anyone has anything bad to say about it, he's definitely in the wrong crowd. This IS supposed to be loud, dumb fun. A machismo over-the-top hailback to the 80s: nil plot, full-on action. Testosterone calls all the shots while female characters exist only as excuses for "men of action" to nix cardboard-cutout baddies in three-digit numbers. Bad guys miss, good guys walk heads up high and never-ending clips in their guns and mow them down. Dialogue exists not to flesh out characters, but to produce one-liners. Yes, I had fun watching this. Solid stuff which provides exactly what it promises. The old school action stars missing this one out (mainly Kurt Russell, Wesley Snipes, Steven Seagal and Van Damme) deserve a kick in the butt for doing so. But I still hope to see them in Expendables II. Especially Russell (c'mon, "Tango and Cash", mother fo!).

First things out of the way: I like the original. It's definitely in my top twenty action movies to grow up with when one's a kid in the eighties. I also like Predator 2. (Of course) it's not as good as the first one, but it has its undeniable strengths. It also contributes to the whole mythos, and these additions - the spear, the look of their ship, hunting methods, social behavior - have not since been questioned, but accepted. Halloween II - effect (lacking sequel, but Laurie is Michael's sister from then on) instead of the Elm Street 2 - effect (lacking sequel. So we can just ignore it).

Predator 3 kicks on immediately (actually it offers pretty much the kick - assiest intro since, well, anything I recall) and the momentum carries on well into the second act. The end sags a bit, but it doesn't stall the movie. The characters are introduced and we are told just enough background so that it doesn't slow the "scare-or-carnage/blow sh*t up" - narrative down. Which actually pays off as we've already seen these characters about a hundred times. But, mostly thanks to inventive casting, I bought them. Mostly. The dialog could have been a bit better; sometimes it sounded like it belonged into a lesser movie. Like it was accommodated to more cardboard-y genre characters and they forgot to "boost it up" to level after casting did just that. The same goes for a few situations; mainly the repetitive scenes where the remaining cast walk up into a line, then stand and watch in amaze at the revelation. As it's revealed to the audience, we hear one of them say "I think we're got a problem" or some other classic hammy line. But Predators is a genre movie, and you can forgive a few speed bumps if the rest is good, and it *is*! IMHO the strongest assets are: Producer Rodriguez's magic touch makes the 45 million budget seem like an 80 million budget. The cast takes this a level up (regardless if they have to blurb out an establishing genre idiotism every now and then), and the director kicks this up an additional level. I can't believe it's the same guy who did that awful "Armored". (for those who haven't seen it it's as bad as this year's "Losers", and for those who have missed both "Armored" and "Losers", congratulations. They're both as bad as "Speed 2". I'm going to stop this now since you know what I'm aiming for).

Predator 3 sports the feel and the look of the original, and it also uses Alan Silvestri's iconic soundtrack. Wwhich just started playing in my head and won't probably go away for a week. It also lifts a few "cameos" from the original, and on top of that, plot elements and situations. Up to a point where I found myself confused whether this was supposed to be a sequel or a remake. However, similarities can be at least partially explained; Predators' hunting tactics aren't changed that much. The setting in both this and the original is jungle. So, if both Arnie's and Brody's characters, survivor types with military training and practical long-time expertise on the field face up a similar challenge, wouldn't you expect similar results? Well, the escape-by-accident-via-high-drop-to-a-lake is a stretch, but then again, I'm also picking up a hint of something else: Rodriguez doesn't always take his movies completely seriously. So with all the remakes, reboots, re-imaginings and whatnot's, maybe Rodriguez pulled off his own thang; a sequel that's also kind of a quasi-remake. Maybe he'll come up with a name for it and the next 80s splatter remake uses this mold. Or maybe I'm reading too much into this. Perhaps Rodriguez's original 1995 script wanted to pay (too much) respect for the original and they didn't fix it now. But whatever the case, the plot could have used a bit more originality, since they mention the events of part 1 (clearly pointing out that this is supposed to be a sequel). Also, ignoring the events of Predator 2 completely feels to me, a fan, like a slap on the face. I would have liked it to be mentioned also. Even addressed to as an "unconfirmed rumor", if nothing else.

Anyhow, Predators is the best thing on the silver screen the "A or P" line have had to offer in 20 years (yep, this is better than A3 or A4. Or those two so-called AvP schlocks) so... strongly recommended.

Where to begin? Guess I could start with the evolution of raunchy, R - rated yet smart high-concept comedies where three - dimensional key characters must deal with over - blown situations and charicatured characters in modern - day America, learning lessons in life in the end. These include such modern classics as American Pie, There's something about Mary and about a dozen examples by Judd Apatow and co. in the last five years. However, this would be just tooting my own horn, and since most of you have seen those movies, who gives a rat's a$$?

So, here we have the latest inclusion: a comedy about three guys waking up in a terrible hangover in Vegas, only to realize they have lost the groom along with their memory in a barchelor party gone way out of the map, and that they have only about 48 hours to find him and get to the wedding. Directed by Todd Phillips, who also gave us "Road trip" (and which I've always considered superior to "American pie" for the sake that "RT" is just more laid-back).

Unlike for example most of Apatow's comedies, "The Hangover" is not "smarter" than what the premise lets you in on. You can't break it down to analyze it, because it's just what the one - line description says. I guess the film-makers considered two choices: re-write it and force it into the successful "Apatow" mold, or play it out like it is: like an "eighties" comedy. They did the latter, and with that, the right choice.

The Hangover's biggest assets are that it's been crafted to the hilt on all distinctive areas: - The characters. When you meet them at first, you go like "ok, so they are not clear caricatures, but how could these guys ever be friends?". But, along the movie, you grow into accepting them, with their pros and cons. You get to recognize their roles and how they "complete a full circle" without it being too obvious from the get-go. Huge plus.

• The dialogue. Well, the usual Kevin Smith/Judd Apatow - stuff. Kind of like "Friends" but with F - words and pop culture references. Good stuff, though.

• Plot. The whole thing plays out like a good mystery and gives a 100 minutes of laughs without missing one beat, losing pace or losing focus (basically this is what "Dude, where's my car", SHOULD have been). Let's just repeat the thing that really struck me in "The Hangover": there are no lulls. This, I consider a defining strength: when one clue has been solved, it moves straight into the next one. The "ok...what now?" - bits have been surgically removed. Also, you will NOT check your watch when the film moves from the second act to the third. Now THIS is rare.

Gotta hand it also to Phillips (whose best movie so far) and to the cast - along with castING. Bold having this many new names in key roles.

8 out of 10 stars. Hope they won't ruin this with the already green-lit sequel.

Because it's horrible, awful, BS, pure cr@p! I just don't understand people who pay their good money for a mental "Deliverance" - treatment with this BS, and won't even admit it! Yes, people, we were screwed! Hard! Instead, they get back here and give this DOA flick 6, 7 stars, because "it wasn't boring. And because the popcorn tasted good". G-sus, people! Like a bunch of wussies against two school bullies that are Bay and Spielberg! I can not believe last year we were treated with summer movies like "Batman II" that got its bucks deservingly, and now this cr@p is NOT flopping, because "everyone says it's this summer's must-see". I didn't like the first one, but I gave this a chance. Last time they were testing the CGI, the characters, the budget. Now they were secured - and they could have spend all the time ON the characters, on the plot, on everything.

They didn't. It's blurry effects, no plot, stupid coincidences and all that cr@p that didn't work in the first part, ALL OVER AGAIN! Just with a bigger budget. In a perfect world word-of-mouth would kill these sorry-ass attempts before they make a profit.

Misters Bay & Spielberg - shame on you. Spielberg - you've lost your keen eye and have demented from the gifted child - minded revisionist into an overbloated megalomaniac who can't tell the difference between touching fantasy and childish melodrama anymore. Bay, from your days of "Bad Boys" and "Rock", you've just kept losing your magic, and now it's gone. Both of you forget directing, forget executive, stick to just producing from now on.

I think this movie sucks. Not a whole lot, it just easily could have been so much better.

I WAS about to bash it with 3 IMDb points, when I thought... crap, it's not the movie, it's ME! I am 32 years old, and I belong more into the section of "disagreeing parents" than the target audience.

Times and people have changed from the stone age called now "the 80s", so I CAN say I relate to the teens who go see this and dig it more than MY patents did to the original F13s (and the Elm street and The evil dead - movies) 25 years ago; however, I can also understand how they felt when I watched that crap back then - and when such travesty as "Psycho 2" was made, more for gorehounds than fans of the original.

In retrospect, I think my dad got the same crap from my Grandma when he went to see "violent B-grade popcorn poop" like "Goldfinger" or "Psycho 1" in the sixties... oh well, times change. And let's not forget there's always been teen horror disapproved by their parents. I mean, how much novelty is there in the original "Blob", for example? In teen horror genre there are only a few examples that truly stand the test of time... and the original "Friday the 13th" is not one of them. Popular, yes, but okay at best.

So, now we have the NEW Friday the 13th, that has a full legacy to root from. Is it good - Can't really say so. Is it well written or acted - HELL no! Can you spot the future star? - not really. The body count and level of gore are above par, and the direction is solid, but it all feels somewhat forced; as if Nispel, who headed the surprisingly good "Texas Chainsaw" remake, was forced back to square one to prove his talent after the godawful "Pathfinder".

All that said, just a few things come to my mind: - Kids: check out the original Elm Street, the Evil Dead, Friday the 13ths part 1 - 4, and Child's play. Sure some of the effects look cheesy and... latex, but they DO make it up in other areas. At least in casting (we got Johnny Depp in NOES 1, "Morpeus" from "Matrix" in "NOES 3" and Kevin Bacon in "F13th part 1"...) Plus: you can relate to your folks when you watch them. - Friday the 13th part 2 is something to look forward to: it's bound to be less uptight (=better written) and bigger (=bigger budget). Secured by the box office by this and guaranteed because it's the 13TH MOVIE OF THE SERIES! - They won't have to twist any arms trying to find away to resurrect Jason. Yea, they sure "killed" him in this one... ;)

One word summary: Amazing.

With more then one words: first of all; Mr. Boyle, I'm sorry. I didn't get "Trainspotting", I taught "The beach" proved you're mediocre (as a side note: my parents there then, on a holiday near where it was shot) and I also thought that "28 days later" was a lucky shot. "Slumdog" proves once and for all I have been misjudging you - you DO have the talent. "Slumdog" is one of those rare examples that come by you only now and then in a lifetime. In my life the earliest example of this was "E.T." back when I was 6, and the last time was "Shaolin soccer" some years back. This year I was already treated with "Gran Torino", so I REALLY wasn't expecting anything of this level - and hey, it's only February! As a struggling scriptwriter - sort of myself, this has thought me more than just one lesson. The idea of a poor man's journey through life giving him just the right answers for scoring it big on a TV show is a flash of genius, juggling with traditional issues like "fate" and "destiny" with those of popular culture. That alone would have secured any British director a sure 6.5 IMDb - point Hugh Grant Box office - hit. And no doubt all but one would have done just that (as would any American director). Now, for some reason, mr. Boyle wanted to put a spin on it (or keep the original premise?), and set it in a foreign culture; India. That's risky. And most who have tried this, have failed... but not in this case.

Mr. Boylse handles everything suavely and professionally. He doesn't preach pro or against; instead, he fully accomplishes in taking the best of both worlds as he simply tells the story in another culture.

The whole beauty of it, with the whole beauty of it surroundings. In the end, you WILL feel that even if the movie took you in another place to tell the story, that that WAS the place the story was meant to be told in. And that the 2 hours it took to tell it, there wasn't a minute too much.

That's rare. And that's a reason to go see this movie.

I am truly happy this movie has managed to find an audience, lingering in the top 10 all these weeks (working its way from the bottom up !) and scoring all those 8 Oscars, DESERVINGLY!

I saw this at the movies when I was 11 or so, and ate every minute of it. Now I watched it again at the age of 32, and even now I kinda like it. As a scriptwriter (sort-of) myself, I'm amazed at the 3 qualities of it:

• The maturity of the subject, combined with - The respect of a foreign culture (especially in American cinema in the 80s) - The ashameful popcorn attitude of the whole package

It's one thing to have all these present in the original script (by Robert Mark Kamen, no wonder this talent is still working full-time), but that the director also saw this as a whole, and went through to have all these qualities in the end product, is at least a small miracle.

Because let's face it: this is entertainment. This was supposed to be an 80s non-educational popcorn date - movie, thus about 80-90 minutes long. Here we're talking 110 minutes, with the emphasis on drama, not action. Instead of a PG-"Rambo", we're talking "Out of Africa"!

However, the gamble pays out. Just like it's predecessor, which took it's own risks (It's even longer, Italian-American in the lead, emphasis "on the heart instead of the fist" etc.)

Part one is an epic underdog story, and part 2 a worthy sequel that also brings the story into a full circle. Despite the same writer, director and main cast, part 3 doesn't exist for me.

I like Joseph Gordon - Lewitt. Have liked him since "3rd rock from the sun" and even liked his bit part in "H20". Wondered why he never got the big parts. Because of him, I saw "the lookout". Now this is not a big movie. This is a little b-movie, from the bottom shelf of a video rental store. There are no big bangs, but because it has J G-L in the title role AND Jeff Daniels in a vital supprorting role it's either an overlooked gem with good ideas (in the vein of "True Romance") or... crap, deservingly on that bottom shelf of the video rental store. well, it ain't no "True Romance", but as a "fan" of J G-L, I'm glad to say it's closer to it than the other end. It starts out well, drags an hour or so, but FULLY redeems itself in the end, that is, in small-movie terms, with all the pieces coming together nicely. For fans of challenging thrillers, or, if you liked "Lakeview Terrce", this is definitely a better choice than "Hancock".

After the trailer I had the feeling this would be the best of the sequels. Now, having just seen the movie itself I can't believe this... but "Rambo 4" challenges even the original "First Blood" - which I have always considered one of my all - time favorites.

What amazes me the most is the tone: how can a movie be BOTH a serious movie with a message and a solid, mindless action movie? Especially when we're talking nostalgia trip here with an over-aged hero. All other nostalgia trips seem to be dodging this and heading for fun action: Terminator 3, Die Hard 4 and Indy 4. But Stallone has a different agenda. He wants some serious substance with a fitting tone. So just like the character he portrays, Stallone grinds his teeth and takes on the challenge. Both of them also take a beating for it (critics who seem to be having issues with Stallone), but both of them will also beat the odds, and come out winners!

I dare say "Rambo 4" is not just the best action movie, but the best DAMN movie I've seen in 2 years! So Mr. Stallone - thank you for going out there one more time and getting an iconic hero back home the way he deserves.

Wow! This movie is fantastic! The surface is all straight-to-video B-movie "Wild things"-wannabe "watch-it-once-then-forget-for-good", but under the surface lies both a clever satire on, AND a perfect study of, human nature. Paul Verhoeven should love this movie! Three people wash ashore of a deserted island: we got your basic WASP (the always underrated Zane), his trophy wife (the beautiful Brook) and your basic mcjob cabana boy.

Without a link to 'the world', things start to go "lord of the flies": in isolation, where your knowledge, money and social status mean nothing and you are measured by your primal abilities - hunt for food, build a shelter - the woman truly becomes a trophy as the cabana boy finally has his day, being supreme to the so-called "educated man".

Now I believe some people would call this movie thin and questionize the main trio's actions and reactions. Well for those sore comments I say, open your eyes. If you want proof, watch 2 episodes of "Big brother". The darker side of humanity is back-stabbing, oversexed, lying, cheating, provocative... and violent. As a disclosure, let me sum up the characters for you.

The cabana boy = the player. All us guys know he's the type who doesn't give a damn for women's mind but fakes it damn well (proof: if there were other women on the Island, he wouldn't rest until he'd slept with all of them). Around this self-indulgent male women lose control of themselves and fall for his brown eyes, even WHEN he turns out to be very persistent on the sex business (respect, yeah)... and even though he said she could decide what happens between them (yea, right). Women still fall for this... His motto: "Don't think about him, he doesn't deserve you. Let's dance"

The woman = the trophy. Does she control the situation or vice versa? Beats me. All I can say is, whatever she told her husband on the aisle turns out to mean squat when there's either a more providable alpha male (or a puppy-eyed cabana boy) around. Her mottoes: "Can't we just forget this ever happened?" or "It was your fault!"

The WASP = turns out to be the bad guy, (again). Yep, no sympathy for the white collar. Even though he's a hard-working and loving husband. He sees the cabana boy making moves on his wife - a situation NOT helped by the fact that his wife tries to deny it - so he does what he'd do in the world also when there's competition, he works double time. To provide shelter and food for his wife. Who just can not be thankful for his self-sacrifice. Ironically, this way he's away from "home" more AND stressful when he comes back, with his mind full of doubts from the time he was away! So he's kind of "pushing his wife" away, patting the way for the cabana boy. Wonderful metaphor of today's competitive lifestyle, alienated, unthankful housewifes and opportunist cabana boys!

"Three" - racist, pessimistic and extreme... or clever and VERY observant.

PS. Why the totally unnecessary Voodoo-mumbo-jumbo side plot?

Before seeing this, I had doubts. Serious doubts. It's not humanly possible to squeeze anything fresh from this formula, right? Since "6th sense" (1998) we've seen a dozen variations of the same stuff: ghost(s) give some poor guy a puzzle and if he doesn't solve it in time, the ghosts will kill him, or something like that. And the ending is always a twist the lead character (and the viewer) didn't expect. The Hollywood versions have been going downhill: "Ring" => "Grudge" => "Ring 2","Dark Water", and lately also the (original) Asians have been running out of good ideas - for example "One missed call": few good ideas, but it just tries too hard. But it's only natural. You can milk the same cow only so much. BUT, here we have "The Shutter"... Without spoiling too much, I'll just say 3 things: 1) See it. It's among the best (and creepiest) 3 movies of this genre I've ever seen. 2) "Shutter" is to Asian ghost movies what "Scream" was to splatters. It makes fun at the clichés (and also a few American horror movies...), but without losing its grip. This ain't a parody. 3) The amount of story there usually is in these movies, is covered in the first half hour. But after that... it just keeps on building up! In terms of storytelling this is a masterpiece. Do yourself a favor. See it.

Mediocre war movie. You know how they go: first half training, second half fighting. Hard to believe these days someone would still use the old 80s formula... let alone trade the action of the latter half to "making a point". Please! Sure I care for the characters but 10 bucks for politics instead of fireworks in a war movie - that's a cheat! This story is better off as a book, but I guess "somehow" Hollywood is obliged to release a big budget war movie every so often...

To put it short, "Jarhead" criticizes the war on Iraq. In a way the superior "Three kings" already did 6 years ago, minus the action, minus half the entertainment, minus half the story... yes, *sigh*. Well, you don't actually need to get a pillow for this (except maybe for the last 10 minutes when they *try to* sum it up) because there are some truly effective scenes, but as a whole it lacks punch. As did Sam Mendes' previous attempt, "Road to Perdition". Makes me wonder if "American beauty" had really been (even) that good without Kevin Spacey. Gyllenhaal gives a fine performance (doesn't he always) but he can't save this film.

OK, most of "Date movie" is almost painful to watch. There are probably 3 minutes of 'good stuff' in this movie and roughly 1/3 of the material might have been usable in talented hands. I still gave this a "3", because I've got the hots for Ms. (I hope!) Hannigan.

The "writers" had a few jokes on the subject, just enough for a credible pitch, but in the end no talent or even real enthusiasm to fill it up right. So they did what the "writers" of spoofs do today. Have been doing for the past 13 years, starting from "Fatal Instinct": steal familiar scenes from movies of the genre and other current movies. Add in a bad joke - or just act it out bad, and PRRRESTO! ...that is, IF the "writers" even needed that. They could have just walked up to their buddy at the studio and said "we wrote Scary Movie, right? Now we gonna write a Date Movie spoof! Cough up the dough, DOG!"

The end product is 80 minutes of forced and excessively lengthened scenes, most of them unfunny, just linked together. Did this even look good on paper? Well, if the ZAZ guys are making movies like "Scary movie 4" these days, what can you ask for? Obviously NOT a spoof worth the ticket. "Airplane!" "Top Secret!" "Naked Gun"... *sigh*

This surreal entry, along with part 3, counts as "one of the better sequels" in both "Elm street" and the whole splatter universe. The task was both easy and hard: with not much effort this was sure to bring the bucks back, because in 1987 splatters (especially NOES, ESPECIALLY after the good previous sequel) still were hot but to follow the saga worthy of part 3... well, that's another trick. Looking at this one now, almost 20 years later, and having seen the direction of the series AND a whole lot of other splatters from that time it's easy to point out the good & bad.

Good: Director Harlin. Not scary, but imaginative. Something fresh. No lulls. Good: Writer. Even though the plot lacks punch (Harlin cleverly gets past this) and the climax is just pulled out of the sleeve you won't get bored. Good drive. In part 3 we had Frank Darabont and Chuck Russell, here we got Brian Helgeland + Ken & Jim Wheat - and Renny Harlin! Considering the genre, what are the odds?

In-between: Humour. F13 switched to humor with part 6, too, so... guess this was an inevitable attempt to keep the genre alive. Still, who didn't crack when Freddy put on the Wayfarers on the beach :D

Bad: Talentless cast. No careers after this, which is to no-ones wonder. Apart from Lisa Wilkox, she had some of "that something". Bad: hurried and somewhat forced effort. Easy to see.

3 out of 5. Good enough for me