brettlu

Rarely have I watched a movie that was so tedious and tiresome to complete, especially with such a talented cast. Zero on-screen chemistry, labored and strained accents, and lack of cohesive editing make this a failure of epic proportions.

Bradley Cooper and Carey Mulligan are some of the best working actors today, and Bradley's directorial follow-up to "A Star Is Born" was highly anticipated, but Maestro falls flat in all areas. A simple and linear documentary about Bernstein would have been more effective and entertaining.

The unnecessary flourishes of changing film color and ratio formats is merely a distraction. The one controversial element (prosthetic nose) might be the most interesting part of the whole movie.

As a longtime John Woo fan, I had high hopes for his return to America cinema; he managed to dash these hopes within the first 20 minutes.

We can praise the merits of Joel Kinneman's performance, but unfortunately it doesn't save the movie.

This movie might have worked as a straight-to-VHS release starring Dolph Lundgren in 1994, but is painfully cliche and uninspired today.

Similar to the result of M:I 2, there is not enough visual flair to compensate for the ridiculous script, and unnecessarily somber tone.

I found the entire movie to be painfully boring, and gratuitous without reason. Disappointing.

Not since the Nuremberg Trials has justice been so resolutely served. Excellent pacing and editing make this one of the best crime documentaries since The Thin Blue Line.

Poorly produced, much of the same stock footage is used for b-roll, and they obviously were unable to secure many music rights (imitation, karaoke versions of songs are used for soundtrack instead). A few golden nuggets with Peter Grant clips I hadn't seen before, but otherwise you could get the same info from a 10-minute bio read on Allmusic or Wiki.

Excellent concept, horribly executed. Worst offending element was the soundtrack.

Really wish I could give this movie less than one star.

Zach Snyder and Joss Whedon have managed to create the biggest piece of Schumacher in the history of comic book movies. Incoherent, childish, goofy, terrible CGI, worse dialog than Arnold's Mr. Freeze. It's almost an epic achievement that a studio paid $300 million to make and promote this turd.

Some studio executive needs to reign in Mr. Verbinski's ego and rationally explain that a movie and still be well-paced, coherent, and artistic when edited to UNDER two hours long. This isn't The English Patient or Schindler's List, no reason at all for it to drag on for 2.5 hrs.

Normally I'm not a big fan of stupid high school romantic comedies aimed at shallow teenagers that are based on pure fiction and only derive laughs from inane and crude humor. And that is exactly the type of movie I expected to see when some friends of mine dragged me along to see Mean Girls.

To my surprise, Mean Girls is actually one of the best movies I've seen so far this year. And it also features one of the most intelligent, honest and well written screenplays of the year (by Tina Fey of SNL). Instead of embracing and glorifying all of the teen stereotypes and cliches, this movie either sidesteps them completely or employs them in a realistic context.

There have been countless stupid teen movies to come out over the past few years, movies that are emotionally shallow and irrelevant. Mean Girls is quite the opposite, it's a genuinely funny, honest and positively inspiring movie (and I would recommend it to any teenager anyday over some of the tripe they're being fed like She's All That, Can't Hardly Wait, 10 Things I Hate About You, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, American Pie, etc). Overall I give the movie **** out of four stars.

Magnolia is one of my personal favorite movies. But after reading some of the reviews here, and after talking to friends who have seen the movie, it is definitely not for everyone. A lot of people complain about a convoluted story, or pretentious direction, but to each his own.

Let me explain why I liked this movie... First off, I don't watch movies just to be entertained. Entertainment is part of the experience sure, but that is not the sole merit by which I judge a movie. Art is about creative, emotional, political, and surreal expression. Viewing/listening/reading art is about your personal interpretation of or response to it and about how it affects you. Second, I believe good movies are not defined as good movies because of what they are about, but because of how they are about them (hopefully that makes sense).

For some reason I was inexplicably drawn to Magnolia. All of the emotions expressed throughout the movie were so tangible and relevant to me. The style of direction and overall story arc of the movie is a bit exaggerated in comparison to real life, but the emotions expressed through the actors and the situations they are in are the most real and profound I have ever seen in a movie. The reason they were real, profound and relevant to me is because I could easily relate to most all the emotions and feelings in the movie, they correlate to feelings and situations I have experienced in my life.

I didn't just like this movie because of the emotional connection and intensity though, it is also an extremely well directed, well acted, well written, funny and entertaining movie. P.T. Anderson handles multiple characters and storylines with skill comparable to Robert Altman, and successfully creates one of the most amazing film experiences ever. But as I stated before, this is not the type of movie everyone will enjoy. People who only watch movies to be entertained, or people who require a coherent and straightforward plot will probably not like it. Overall I rate it **** out of four stars.

I have to try and condition myself to think of the movies separately from the books, because the books carry such a strong sense of nostalgia for me and because the movies are an entirely separate interpretation of the books than my imagination was.

I think Return of the King is definitely my favorite of the three movies. It's first and foremost a visually amazing movie. It's also extremely entertaining. I mean, how many movies get made about a medieval/fantasy/d&d type setting (a setting which I find very interesting), and how many of those movies are actually really good? Aside from the Lord of the Rings movies, not many.

Thinking about Return of the King objectively, it's definitely not the best movie I've ever seen, not even remotely close. But was it entertaining, was it visually stimulating, was it original and creative, did it bring back fond memories of reading the books? For me, yes it did, and that definitely counts for something. Overall I give it **** out of four stars.

This is probably one of the funniest movies I've seen all year. But it's not just your average stupid/funny movie, it's actually witty, original and sincere (and it rekindled my love for classic rock & roll, I went home and put Zeppelin and Pink Floyd in my cd player).

It's got a good cast (Jack Black, Joan Cusack and Sarah Silverman), good script (Mike White - Orange County, The Good Girl) and good direction (Richard Linklater - Waking Life, Dazed and Confused).

I love music and enjoy the crazy antics of Jack Black, so this movie really appealed to me. Overall **** out of four stars.

P.S. I have no idea why it was rated PG-13.

Fun stuff, and I think Depp is definitely the best part about the movie. My major qualm with the film is that it was way too long, this could have been cut down to a 90 minute non-stop adventure movie. But instead it gets a little repetitive and unnecessary at times (fighting the undead?).

The second major annoyance was that the fight scenes were shot too close. The cinematography was very fast paced and close up (remember Moulin Rouge?), there are really no long drawn out panoramic shots here. This may seem trivial, but I had trouble following the action, it seemed very rushed and inconsistent.

The acting was pretty good, given the fairly straightforward, cut and paste adventure movie script. With the exception of Depp's eccentricity, the dialogue is mainly to advance the plot instead of develop any interesting characters. Geoffrey Rush overacts as normal but is an entertaining villain. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are at times a bit stale, but otherwise do a decent job with the material.

Overall, Depp is entertaining, and good swashbuckling action is rare these days. I'd give it *** out of four stars...

Not having read the book, I didn't really know what to expect, but this is one of the most surprisingly good movies I've seen this year. It could have easily been just another con artist (or David Mamet ripoff) type movie, but no, they went the extra mile here.

I think the thing that impressed me the most was the script, especially how they handled the ending. Nicolas Cage is also one of my current favorite actors, he always does a good job and almost always makes good movie choices (I think he redeemed himself for Windtalkers by doing this movie and Adaptation). Overall I give it **** out of four stars.

First off let me reiterate that Kevin Costner has made some of the worst crap I've ever seen in my life. A lot of movies I see are so terrible that they become funny, but Costner movies go beyond even that kind of bad. They go to the "make me want to tear my eyes out and jam a hot poker in my ear" kind of bad. Here are some examples:

The Postman - Does anyone else remember before this came out that there was actual oscar buzz about it? It was long, boring and almost as entertaining as dog crap. Waterworld - What a colossal failure. One of the most expensive movies ever made, along with a very original story somehow got turned in a steaming pile of poo. And numerous other Costner movies have sucked, he even tarnished Sam Raimi's career with For Love of the Game.

So with all of that said, my expectations weren't extremely high for Open Range. I had read some good reviews, but I still was skeptical. After I saw it what was the end result? One of the best movies of the year!

This is by far one of the most compelling and original westerns since Unforgiven. Sure there have been good westerns since then, but Maverick was more of a comedy and Tombstone was more of an action flick.

The acting is first rate, coming mainly from the central Duvall and Costner characters. This is a movie about the characters, and the plot follows the characters, so the story doesn't have that epic feel of a Sergio Leone western. But unlike some of Leone's work, this is not a cookie cutter, Clint Eastwood shoot 'em up, spaghetti western (even though it does feature one of the best shootouts I've seen in a long time). One of the main things I also noticed about the film was the realism. The sets, the dialogue, the characters, the gunfights, everything seemed to bear more resemblance to the actual "west" than most people like to imagine.

Most of the complaints I have heard about the movie revolve around the love story. Many people say it seems forced and unnecessary. I did enjoy most of the love story aspect of the movie, but I do agree that much of it seems tacked on for the sake of a well rounded story. And without revealing anything about the movie I will also say that I didn't think the ending really fit with rest of the movie, it seemed a bit over the top.

Despite the shortcomings, this is by far one of the best movies I've seen this year. I give it **** out of four stars.

Ang Lee is a very talented director, and Jennifer Connelly and Eric Bana rarely choose poor projects to be involved in, but the end result of Hulk is a bit of a mixed bag.

When it comes to movies, action and special effects are completely secondary for me, so I was excited to hear that Lee had chosen to develop the dramatic instead of dumb down the movie for 12 year olds. I want a intriguing and involving story, and interesting characters that grow. Maybe my expectations were a bit high, and maybe I forgot how Ang Lee can confuse boredom for character development (anyone see Ride with the Devil?).

I thought the last 1/3rd to 1/4th of the movie was pretty good, lots of revelations and an over the top feel that is true to the comic book style. I thought the bright, comic book colored motif and the frame and panel camera effects were some of the most original and entertaining elements of the movie. But most of the first half of the movie is extremely boring. Too much stale dialogue and too many random events that don't contribute to the story or character development.

Overall I give it ** out of four stars...

Probably the best action movie I've seen this year. With Terminator 3 and Cradle to the Grave in second and third respectively.

I think I heard Roper say that Johnny Depp is turning into a Christopher Walken type actor where every part he does is interesting and fun to watch no matter how good or bad the movie is. I have to agree, he really makes this movie.

Once Upon a Time in the West was somewhat less than I expected (yet was still good). It had a very different feel than the first two movies, it was more stylish, had a more rounded story, and more interesting characters (all of which are good things), but it had less action (which was the disappointing part).

I might even be giving the movie more credit than it deserves because I so greatly respect Rodriguez's one man band operation. And I'm really glad that he's getting back to making good movies (after the Spy Kids series and the Faculty). Overall I give the movie *** out of four stars.

One of the most original movies (in that post-modern sort of way) since Being John Malkovitch. It combined reality with fiction in a way that has rarely been done before. Filled with satire and irony, while still maintaining an emotional appeal. I also thought the direction, acting and script were all excellent. **** out of four stars.

This is definitely the most entertaining movie I've seen this year, but it's not up to par with Tarantino's other work IMHO. My main impression of the movie is that it serves as the ultimate homage to a variety of asian martial arts films, mixed with a heavy influence from anime and cheesy 70's action movies. Kill Bill is all style and little substance, which is not necessarily a bad thing because this is an amazing movie to watch.

It's hilarious throughout, has a great cast, and could be regarded as the first authentic live-action anime. But Tarantino's trademark depth of characters and storytelling is oddly lacking, and extended scenes with little to no dialogue makes the movie seem longer than it should be.

Overall this is an extremely entertaining movie and is tons of fun to watch, but lacks some of the emotional depth prevalent in Tarantino's other films, I give it **** out of four stars.

David Fincher is a very inventive director (Seven, The Game and Fight Club), and I really expected more from him with Panic Room. It's stylish and suspenseful, but not quite as good as I hoped. Decent acting all around, and a fairly good script. But there are no ending revelations or shocking surprises, what you see is what you get. It was definitely better than Alien 3, but aside from that I think this is probably my least favorite of Fincher movie. Overall I give it **1/2 out of four stars...

The director from American Beauty (Sam Mendes) shows he has definite talent. In Road to Perdition, just as with American Beauty, there are very strong images that stick in your head and there are very prevalent emotions that you can't always relate to, but can understand.

The movie had some amazing scenes, ones that I will remember for a long time. And a super-great cast. Really the only area of disappointment was the script, just too many formulaic elements were used (the ending and some generic mafia themes), and too many were underused (the effects of violence and loyalty are a few themes that could have stood out more).

Tom Hanks is amazing as always. I was talking to a friend the other day and we both agreed that there is not one Tom Hanks movie that we absolutely do not like. He's had some fairly stupid ones, but not ever one that doesn't have some watchable merit. I think the same goes for Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise.

Two things with the cast though, the actors playing the sullivan sons weren't great, and the Paul Newman character is grossly underused. Jude Law remains one of hollywoods most underrated actors and I really was intrigued by and wanted to see more of Daniel Craig's character, John Rooney's son.

Overall it just seemed a little too distant and impersonal, which is pretty much the only thing I can see that was holding it back from standing with the greats of mafia movies like the Godfather and Goodfellas.

Well worth seeing, but I wouldn't hold my breath for any oscars. I give it *** out of four stars.

After seeing Reloaded, my expectations for Revolutions were lowered, I realized that the Wachowski's weren't going to be able to make good on all the promises and expectations from the first movie. But that being said, I still was looking forward to see how they wrapped up the story. I just never imagined it would be this stupid. Truly a disappointment...

This movie draws from so many different genres, philosophies, archetypes, cliches, etc that it becomes boring and pretentious. The Wachowski's shoot for the moon but miss horribly. You can't say they didn't try though, they have a very visually entertaining and original style. Revolutions is visually appealing (most of the CGI in the movie is very well done), but their storytelling still needs some work. They try to handle multiple storylines and characters with the attention span of Michael Bay movie instead of the meticulous care of a Robert Altman movie.

Revolutions is not a complete failure, there are many scenes that work well. These involve more of the subtle and surreal aspects of the story (ie the ending sequence in machine city, the deeper look into how the matrix program works or the exploration of the moral philosophies of sentient artificial beings). The epic, patriotic, and sappy aspects of the story however do not work well (ie the ending mech battle or the overdramatic love story). And what's with the cheesy one-liners and thinking-aloud statements? I spent half the movie laughing at the rediculous ways the characters acted and spoke.

It's obvious that the Wachowski's are extremely talented, hopefully now they will start using that talent on good original material (and maybe they'll take some writing classes too). Overall I give Revolutions ** out of four stars.

I thought Ocean's 11 was a fun little movie with a good cast and a good sense of humor. Not too much substance though. And certainly not too much intelligence in the writing department, this is probably one of the most absurd and unrealistic heist movies.

But still, it was a nice side project for Steven Soderbergh. I thought it merited *** stars.

I really didn't have high expectations for T3 seeing as how T2 was one of the best action movies ever made. But T3 really exceeded my expectations, I was surprised that they actually made a movie worthy of the Terminator name, especially since it's directed by Jonathan Mostow (anyone see U-571?).

The movie provides a satisfying completion to the story, yet it still leaves it open for more. I liked Nick Stahl's John Connor better than Edward Furlong, but Kristanna Loken's Terminator wasn't half as menacing or as cool as Robert Patrick's was. I enjoyed it more than T1, but it's still not quite as good as T2. Overall I give it ***1/2 out of four stars.

Well, Speilberg has done it again. Created an original and entertaining sci-fi movie, that works on many different levels. Instead of taking successful elements from recent popular action or sci-fi movies, Speilberg draws inspiration from classic sci-fi work and uses it to create his own masterpiece that stands on its own.

This is much more cohesive and entertaining than his last try (A.I.) and it's definitely one of the best movies Cruise or Speilberg has done in a while. And sadly, aside from perhaps Tigerland, this is probably one of the only great performances we'll ever see from Colin Farrell.

Minority Report has a great noir feel with some good action/mystery/thriller elements thrown in. There are a few annoying parts in the script that seem pretty contrived. But otherwise a very well made, good cast and overall entertaining movie. I give it ***1/2 out of four stars.