TheWylde

Admittedly, I don't really like children's movies. Even when they have adult themes or humor. No matter what they always have enough stuff throughout that is geared toward youngsters that just loses me. I didn't like kids movies as a kid and I don't like them now.

Up was really good. The first 10 minutes set up a movie that really made me care about the very touching character moments in between the kiddie stuff I loath so much. The second act was all silly kid humor all the time. Of course this wasn't my thing but it didn't last too long and there was plenty of great stuff in the second half that really worked. The running "kiddie" joke in the third act was actually really funny to me so it all worked for me.

My roommate says I have no soul and I should get in touch with my inner child. I don't have one... at all... but I liked this film anyway.

What happens when a no talent film maker covers up his lack of creativity with attention grabbing violence? From the high rating on here, apparently idiots rejoice! I guess when a film maker makes the pretentious and terrible decision to keep a camera moving constantly we're supposed to applaud his creativity. We're not talking Tony Scott style camera moves, we're talking unapologetic messy camera movement with ZERO redeeming quality. Yes, the scenes are blocked well and it's obvious the camera man was told to hit "point A" at "beat 1" and "point B" at "beat 2" but between these beats we have constant rocking of the camera that simulates nothing but the rocking of a camera. It doesn't feel like we're on a boat or falling or much of anything at all. Just a rocking camera. Bravo, jackass.

The soundtrack. Just annoying, nothing more (it didn't nauseate me). Its just bad... obtrusive and bad.

Okay, so now we get to the violence that is allegedly "brave" or to be commended. I'm a fan of genre films and violent movies but don't insult my intelligence. It seems to me that it is only there to shock and detract from a boring movie. It reminds me of when someone is mad and they want to make you mad so they go out of their way to insult you. You're trying too hard and I'm not blind to the pile of s**t you're feeding me. You wanna impress me? Make a movie where that kind of s**t is necessary to the story. Make a movie where you can actually defend the violence. It takes no talent or creativity to put violence in a movie. Zero... the talent lies in giving it REAL purpose beyond its own presence.

This movie only gets noticed because simulating rape in porn is illegal and this is the closest people can get for now. There is a taboo about rape and rebellious people like to embrace taboos to show how truly against the grain they really are. Don't mistake your stroke material for good film making. You're just embarrassing yourself when you do.

Lastly, those of you that liked this pile are defending it in your head saying "He missed the point... its supposed to make you uncomfortable. You're not supposed to enjoy it." Hand a camera to a 5 year old and let him run around with it for a while, set it to a soundtrack of songs you hate and tell me how comfortable you are. That kid's gotta be Spielberg!

We're getting into Troll 2 territory with this film. Oh, did I say "film"? I meant video. Obviously the red JVC VHS video camera Marty Mcfly is using in Back to the Future was lent to these folks. Sound? It becomes obvious they are using the mic on the video camera whenever an actor in the foreground is audible and the actor in the background is totally inaudible. Shame on everyone involved in this... I'm looking at you Jesus! The comedy happens when it is revealed just how out of touch the "filmmakers" are with the "hood" subject matter. One character INJECTS crack and then exclaims "I LOVE DRUGS!". There is a pimp with some posters on his walls. You know, standard gangsta stuff; Scarface, Matrix, The Mummy... ummmm... Flipper and Space Jam!? There are plenty scenes like this and at 70 minutes (a VERY padded 70 minutes with some scenes being shown 3 times during the course of the movie) its well worth a watch but only as an epic failure.

... It might be.

As always, I will not indulge in masturbation via the typed word, nor will I give anything away.

(It may be late but DO NOT read Bill "sportsguy" Simmons' column on espn's webpage regarding the movie. He writes things that take away from the overall movie watching experience... and he's a douche.)

This movie was well acted, as everyone has written a million times. Mickey Rourke's entire career arch happened so he could play a role like this in his advanced years. I'm typically not a fan of Aronofsky (nor do I care if that is spelled correctly). I find his movies to be ham-handed and over stylized. I'm a "characters over style" kind of guy... always will be. In this he keeps it modest and documentary-like. Being from Jersey I feel as though he really captures all the nooks and crannies that give the state it's character as he does the with Rourke and Tomei. This film showed a lot of restraint and never took a sappy turn that a Clint Eastwood directed film may have. Kudos on that, Aronofsky.

Oddly this movie is a lot like Rocky Balboa in it's subject matter (ie: it's main character). It sounds absurd but I feel like this is the grittier more realistic little brother of that movie. It hits on similar plot points and similar emotional notes. Am I the only person that dares acknowledge this? Probably but whatever, it's a fantastic movie.

If you have watched the trailer and know this movie is two hours and forty minutes long you know what you are getting into and should not be disappointed. This movie delivers on every level of film making, be it cinematography, acting, or writing. Casey Affleck delivers a fantastic performance in how he portrays Robert Ford as the bright eyed fawning kid in a way so sincere it makes the audience uncomfortable even when it shouldn't. Brad Pitt underplays his part as Jesse James hitting all the right notes while never saying much. Exactly the way one would expect an outlaw to act when they have everything in the world to hide. I can't say the movie didn't FEEL two hours and forty minutes long but I never wanted it to end sooner than it did. I guess I just enjoyed the time I got to spend watching these characters for the full running time.

I loved this movie. Unfortunately, a long western without action is something seemingly impossible to sell to the public these days. It would be to the advantage of the studio to sell this like The English Patient was sold 10 years ago. Just make people feel like ignorant idiots if they don't like it! As much as it pains me to say it, I think most people don't care enough to bother seeing what makes this movie so great. The only other option to make this a success is to fool them into THINKING they love the movie. I'm really curious how many folks out there that like the movie agree with me here.

It's always tempting to nitpick a horror movie when you don't like it but I am going to steer clear. This is a love it or hate it movie and which side you are on depends on how attached you are to the original.

To those of us that are big fans of the original series (even the shitty ones)and buy into "The Shape" being unexplained pure evil, carefully stalking his prey with no emotion; this version of Michael Myers is more the angry wrestler type that breaks a lot of things with vengeance as a motive just doesn't represent the Halloween franchise as we know it. That's all there is to really say about it.

If you never cared for or never even saw the originals then you will probably enjoy this for the horror movie it is. It's got kills, got action, and got production value. It's just not really Halloween.

Most horror sequels are entertaining but completely unnecessary. Hostel 2 justifies it's existence by elaborating on things fans were curious about and creating a very different tone while keeping the flavor of the original. Hostel bordered on "Rated R teen comedy" before switching gears to "horror/thriller". This sequel is largely a pitch black darkest of dark comedy. The movie certainly contains horror but it is in the form of individual scenes and there is even an overall sense of doom that hovers over the eventual victims that the first movie never had in it's first act. Even still, the movie is largely a dark comedy; very aware of it's own ability to create uncomfortable laughter. In my opinion, Hostel 2 is a fun movie that delivers the goods and never feels like a rehash. That's all anyone can ask of a sequel.

One last bit on it's running time. While every summer blockbuster tries to come in at about 155 min. Hostel 2 comes in at a shade over 90. It's refreshing leaving a movie wanting more rather than thanking Christ the movie is finally over.

Keeping this short and sweet, as I do with all of my reviews.

Rocky Balboa is a great Rocky film. The cynical crowd will complain about the sappy nature of the movie and that is understandable. I personally enjoyed the sentimentality. Maybe I'm a sucker but I can't help but think every single "sappy" line of dialog Stallone delivers comes straight from the heart. I was moved by many of the "moments" and I'm not embarrassed to admit it. I could have used a more hated or fleshed out foe but that is a a bit nit-picky. At the end of the day we want to love Rocky Balboa the character and the movie. People will sell the movie short but what more do you want? The movie had great characters, a great training montage (although nowhere near III and IV's) a ton of heart, and of course one more fight where Rocky tries to shock the world.

I'm happy to see the series end on this note, I believe the character deserved it. The haters, the cynics, the non-Rocky fans may have no reason to be won over by the movie, but those that look forward to enjoying it should not be disappointed.

I look forward to future projects by writer/director Sly Stallone and I hope he reads, and appreciates this review. He has always been a favorite of mine.

I am not the biggest fan of Bond movies. They have always been a bit silly to me and over the years I have seen them all but get most of them confused with each other. For those of you in the same boat as me, those that always thought the movies were a bit too silly to take as a serious action movie, this is the 007 movie for you. Everyone has mentioned the grittiness of the movie and the performances ad-nausea(sp?) so I will just skip ahead to my main opinion and leave it at this: As an action movie fan that never loved 007 movies this movie kicks plenty of ass without crossing over into that Bad Boys 2, Die Hard 3 arena of the absurd.

First Blood, Terminator 2, Die hard... these are the types of action movies I have always loved and Casino Royal will look nice on the DVD shelf right next to them.

(The movie could have been trimmed by about 20 minutes, hence 8/10.)

A silly slow movie with gimmicky visuals that lucked out by being the "Hip" movie of the year that it was uncool to dislike. Every year or two an unconventional movie comes out and becomes the trendy movie of the year that everyone loves. It's as if latching on to this unconventional movie gives the average movie going public some indy-cred amongst their friends. The unfortunate irony is that they are just attaching themselves to something they found was pre-approved, but whatever. Being John Malkavich benefited from this, Lost In Translation (a movie I like actually) did as well as Napolean Dynamite and Sin City. Even if you find something positive or personally satisfying about any of the above movies it is hard to deny that the blanket worship by the mass movie-going public is suspect. Ask yourself, Is this really the kind of movie that makes 200 million dollars? Not typically, but here everyone is, regardless of personal tastes and film smarts, worshiping it. Is this really a movie that appeals to the masses or just an example of group-think? Being that the movie has silly dialogue, a slow pace and a middle 30 minutes that is just embarrassing in it's cheesiness I am inclined to think people are just desperate to fit in and not look stupid for "not getting it".

I'll save everyone a huge whine session here and get to my gripe. I just don't appreciate the layout of the movie. There seems to be far too large of a disconnect between the main story (The Present), and the others (Past and Future). I "got" the movie but feel as if the choices the director made created a more frustrating movie than it needed to be. By strategically placing scenes of past and future in the places they are within the movie; it (in my humble nerd of an opinion)just makes it harder to follow in the first half and thus a much LONGER feeling movie than it really needed to be. I assure you I understood the movie and got the undertones, I just think it could have been laid out in a much more enjoyable fashion. This is the first review I've done on IMDb so don't bust my onions.