fatmaninatrenchcoat

This is a great low budget fantasy film. For what was obviously a ridiculously low budget, they have made a complex, dense and inventive film about dreams, monsters and family. Wonderful use of Denver for the locations (I'm a native, we don't get to see D-Town in flicks too often. Love it!) and intelligent, effective effects work really helped to flesh it out. It is hampered at times by the low budget. It was obviously filmed using medium quality digital cameras, and the writing and acting were a bit dodgy at times. But overall, the story and the feel of the world they created almost completely overcomes these failings. I really think that if word spreads, this could be come the next Donnie Darko-esq cult hit. Powerful, entertaining and imaginative, if you are thinking about watching this, don't let the low budget look stop you. This movie is definitely worth your time.

First of all let me say, I love Darabont, sometimes love King, and like Thomas Jane. When I first heard of the mist I was extremely excited. Great concept, great talent behind it, should be a great film. However, it fails on almost every level. The only positives that I can say about the film is the absolutely perfect cinematography, and the overall very decent acting. Some of it was over the top, but basically pretty good. Now on to the bad points of the film. First of all, the CGI looked TERRIBLE. I really mean that. It looks pre Jurrasic Park. Every time there is a digital creature, you can instantly tell its digital. Why not use practical effects?

Next, we have the terrible character development. I didn't truly care for any of the characters in the film, save for possibly Ollie, the cashier at the store. Characters with no prior screen time would show up, do something completely bizarre, and then basically disappear again with no building or explanation as to why they had done this. The only explanation given is their conversion to religious zealotry, but this happens so fast that it holds no weight. There is no real suspense, and overall, really bad dialog. Top it off with an ending that should have made me want to fall down and weep, yet only made me (and many others in the theater) laugh out loud. One of the most disappointing films I've seen in years. Too bad, considering the talent involved.

So this flick was by no means great, but it did what it wanted to do, be a good bad action flick. Swearing, blood, fighting, no CGI, I had a great time watching it. Which really surprised me cause I HATE stone cold, but even he was pretty good. If you just wanna turn off your brain and watch a well done bad action flick, check this out. And yes I have seen battle royale and the running man, and yes this rips them both off fairly liberally, but what the hell, an action flick is an action flick, enjoy it for what it is. And Vinnie Jones is great as the super evil bad guy. And it even has some social commentary about the media's influence on our culture. Granted, its heavy handed and obvious, but seeing as I was expecting a movie on par with a Segal straight to DVD flick, any level of intelligence is appreciated.

I had no real intention of seeing this movie, but was bored and decided to check it out. Surprisingly, it was a pretty good flick. Kevin Costner plays Mr. Brooks, a very successful and seemingly well adjusted man. He is an excellent business man, a wonderful father and husband and all around nice guy. Who also happens to have an alter ego and is addicted to killing people. Costner was great as Mr. Brooks. He played the part to perfection. The nice guy side to the character isn't an act. He is truly a nice man. A caring person, who just happens to have the desire to kill. What I liked about it was they did not overplay the nice guy side. It came off as very genuine and honest. As far as the killer side to his persona, there are no redeemable qualities to the murders. He does not kill bad people. He just picks folks at random and murders them. What makes this movie so good, is it unorthodox take on the serial killer/cop hunting the serial killer genre. There are no stupid games between the two. In fact, Demi Moore and Costner never share screen time. And William Hurt as Marshall, the Alter Ego was great. He really played up the dark comedy angle to perfection. But what really made the movie for me was the Dane Cook story line. He is an amateur photographer who happens to snap a shot of Costner killing a couple. Instead of blackmailing Costner into paying him off, he wants to be taken along on the next killing. He essentially wants to be taught how to be a successful serial killer. And this unique twist is really what makes the movie shine. All in all a well made movie. Well acted, with the exception of one poorly shot shoot out, it was well directed, and it was always methodical about the killings. Mr. Brooks is a very thorough killer, and you truly believe that he would get away with it because he is so damn good about it. While this is by no means a great movie, it is very intelligent and entertaining. I highly recommend it.

OK, so I definitely enjoyed this movie, but it really has its flaws. But, personally, I've felt that all the Spidey movies have big flaws. And their biggest weakness is their ability to adhere, in tone at least, to their source material. Spiderman has always had the worst dialog imaginable. Atrocious. In all mediums. And the trend continues here. Cheesy line after cheesy line are a constant source of irritation for me. But, I can get past that. Its other things that I found bothersome, and many things that I found to be fantastic. First, The Bad. When Pete acquires the simbiote (I hope I'm spelling that right) he becomes a much meaner and darker person. Or rather, a bad emo characterization of an actual person. Dancing greasily down the street? Hitting on every woman he sees? What the hell? Cant Raimi & Friends make a genuinely dark character? Apparently not, they turned Pete into some bad Emo band "I'm 17, depressed and want to kill myself, but only because it sells records" idiot. This segment of the film lasts for some time, and really drags down the pace. Also, not enough time was devoted to Flint Marko/Sandman. Thomas Hayden Church excels in the role, or the little he's given. Most of his characters time is spent as a hulk-like sandstorm. What little he does have is devoted to the worst writing in the film. Yet, still he pulls it off well. I wish they would have dropped the Emo stuff and spent some time on him. Now, the good. Tobey is good as always, as is the rest of the cast. I even enjoyed Topher Grace as Eddie Brock. The CGI is good, but for the $300,000,000 they pumped into the flick, I was hoping for a little better, but now Im just nit-picking. Venom looks great, and spideys fights with the Goblin are fantastic to say the least. Easily the best action of the film. Overall, this was exactly what I expected. Good, not great with some awful dialog's and some great fights.

I have to say, I really don't see where all the dislike and criticisms come from. Granted, Cyborg is a far different film from all of Park's other works, and especially in the world of romantic comedies falls into the really freaking weird category, but I found it to be really entertaining. It was very sweet, but in a good way. No excessive cuteness, no magical cure to being crazy. The crazy people are crazy, and that ain't gonna change anytime soon. The cinematography and visuals were great. I really loved the set design of the hospital. And all of the side characters were a great cast of crazies. I have not watched a great deal of Korean cinema, and have never seen the leads in anything before. I live in Korea, so I'm very aware of Rain (or Be, as its pronounced here), but I thought that both pulled off their rolls very well, especially the girl. If you are looking for something fun, light hearted and a little bizarre, check this out. Just know that it is not your normal Park Chan Wook film.

Let me repeat: Do not read this review if you have seen the film. It will spoil an amazing experience. Go see this film. It is incredible. OK, now that I've gotten that out of the way, I feel that I have to write down some thoughts about this movie. I loved it. It was a really beautiful film. Every aspect of it was executed wonderfully. Marc Forster has proved again that he simply refuses to adhere to convention. He has yet to make two films that even come close to falling into the same category as the others. And in my opinion he gets remarkably better with every passing work. This is, with the exception of Dustin Hoffman, the high point of the careers of everyone involved. Will Ferrell plays Harold Crick as the perfect straight man. This is definitely not Ricky Bobby. The script is amazing. Laugh out loud funny very often, and it damn near made me cry when he got hit by the bus. I'm sure the ending has caused a great deal of irritation among many viewers, and generally I enjoy a good hero's death. But I think his survival was the perfect end to this film. His reaction to the book after he read it was a truly moving moment when he spoke to the author and told her to kill him. It brings up the question of weather its good to die for something or for nothing. That something can be as simple as dieing for a novel or as significant as dieing for a young boys life. What is worth dieing for? When Harold chose to die he chose to die not for the author or for the book, but to make the world a better place. Her book was something special, something that would be important and meaningful to possibly millions of people. And Harold is a man with no significant connections to anyone. In the grand scheme, his life has no meaning except to cause pain to those he audits. His sacrifice for the greater good would make the world a better and happier place. But as his author points out, a man like that should live. I truly enjoyed this film, and it is a shame it missed out on the awards last season. I hope I didn't ruin the movie for you.

I have included a spoiler warning, but honestly this is not a movie that is really subject to spoilers. Looking at this film from a purely technical aspect, it is truly impressive. Set up as a documentary of Bush's assassination, every tiny bit of this film feels real. It is a truly professionally orchestrated piece. Onto the subject of the film...the fictionalized assassination of a sitting US president. Regardless of your opinions of the taste of this idea, you have to admit it has balls. Honestly, I was hoping for a different film. I was hoping to see a more widespread view of the American landscape after the assassination. What would the reaction of the public at large be? How would the government react? How would US society be affected? While all of these questions are addressed, they are not approached in depth. Surprisingly, this is the films biggest strength. Rather than trying to discuss the long reaching scope and ramifications of the event, which could easily have become a ridiculous exercise, they choose instead to focus on the investigation of the assassination. This was a brilliant move. They were able to insert all of their social commentary in this forum. US treatment of Muslims, soldiers and the threat of expanding law enforcement and executive powers. This film is extremely relevant in this time. It is a truly intelligent and well thought out political discussion. The film in no way endorses the idea of assassinating a president. On the contrary, nothing good comes from the act. If anything, this piece has a secondary accomplishment of discouraging such attempts. The film never takes leaps of faith or claims ridiculous results of the assassination. It remains firmly grounded in reality for its entire length. Regardless of your political leanings, this film is a must see. It is an intelligent look at what would happen if Bush died. It is not a snuff film, the actual assassination holds almost no screen time, only the time it takes for a person to be hit by a bullet. Rather, it is a look at American society, and the ways in which we would deal with such an event. It is an interesting piece to go along with studies of the Kennedy Assassination. See this film, make up your own mind, and create discussion.

I just watched Babel, and found it to be a phenomenal film, just like all of Innaratu's previous work. If you like what he's done in the past, I think you will enjoy this too. For me, this was a completely different movie experience than anything I've seen before. I am currently living in South Korea, and completely forgot that the movie is in 4 languages until the movie began. So I had to watch 3/4 of the film without understanding what was being said. While it lead me to general confusion regarding the Japanese storyline (I have since read the boards here and wow, I was totally lost with regards to that plot line), it gave me an interesting insight to the film. Not knowing what was being said allowed me to view the film from a physically emotional perspective. I had to gage the emotional display of the actors in order to ascertain what was happening much of the time. And while I was not able to understand the troubled past of the Japanese girl, her acting truly displayed the emotional turmoil she was experiencing. It was almost like watching a silent film with no dialog cards. Truly phenomenal film.

To start I would like to say that I have tried not to include many spoilers, but do beware if you have not seen the film. It is probably better to go into this film with a VERY open mind. I have been a Gilliam fan for a long time, and I love nearly everything hes done. Even the Brothers Grimm, while easily his weakest film, was still pretty entertaining. And though it bears absolutely no resemblance to it, I would say that this film is closest to Brazil, in that like that film, Tideland creates a whole new kind of weird from previously existing Ideas. This is Gilliams Alice in Wonderland. But make no mistake, it is in no way a true adaptation of that story. It is Alice if Gilliam had written it. (granted, he took the idea from a book, so this is not entirely true).

Like most of Gilliams work, this is an incredibly original vision. The cinematography, script and acting are all top notch, especially Jodelle Ferland, the young girl who portrays Jeliza- Rose. Jeff Bridges is at his absolute best, and show his constant ability to completely disappear into any role. The actors who portray the neighbors Dell and Dickens are also amazing.

Even though this is an extremely odd film that deals with many very disturbing issues involving the 8 year old Jeliza (she preps Heroin needles for her dad so he can take "vacations" I felt that the tone was right on. It manages the difficult task of judging the characters and their actions only through the eyes of an innocent and quite loony young girl. The film never condemns the sometimes evil actions of the adult characters unless Jeliza herself condemns them.

Visually, this is maybe Gilliams most "normal" film. There are a few bizarre animated sequences, but they are the dreams of a strange little girl and feel as such. For the most part the storytelling and imagery is quite straight forward. The films flows in a linear, easy to follow fashion, which really surprised me. And, in part, that is what makes the film so strange. The subject matter and the characters are so other-worldly, depraved and surreal that almost down to earth tone threw me off. I was expecting a visual trip. Gilliam forsake that approach for a purely psychological one. But then, you do get to see the inside of "The Dude's" rib cage, so maybe I've just watched to many weird films to be jarred. Its truly a shame that Ferland and Bridges were ignored by the slew of awards committees, because both of their performances are truly exceptional, especially Ferland's. Scenes that would have failed horribly with even the best child actor are some of the greatest scenes of the film because she has the ability to sell even the most ludicrous situation to the audience. Her abilities are so sincere its hard to believe you are watching a child. Yet her best asset is to never let us forget that she is a little girl, Unlike Natalie Portman in the professional who sold the maturity of her youth. Here, her innocence is the sell.

Tideland is a quite unsettling film at times, and many people will also find it to be on the slow and sometime uneventful side. Also, I would not recommend it to people who are bothered by seeing children immersed into a world of very disturbed adults who expose her to the most vile of things. But, much to the credit of his restraint, Gilliam never goes for the easy shock of turning her into a sexual victim. A fact which I feel is a true indication of how great Gilliam really is. This easily could have been a pedophilia movie, and he wisely decides not to damage the innocent nature of our protagonist.

This is a truly excellent film, and the only reason I give it 9 stars and not 10 is I was expecting more from the fairly predictable, but fitting, ending. This is a must see for fans of Gilliam, and for fans of all strange cinema. But if you are looking for an entertaining flick for a Saturday afternoon or something to watch with the kids, go somewhere else.

And in your adventures, always remember that Squirrel butts don't glow.

I've been a fan of Nolan for a long time, ever since Memento. He has the ability to create mood and deep, well rounded characters better than almost anyone in the thriller genre, ever. For my money, only Hitchcock was better. And the Prestige was something worthy of the Master himself. Its is a dark, twisty, surreal film that truly goes unexpected places. Nothing is what it seems. And Nolan manages to pull of the twists, turns and surprises expertly, never once make a jump in logic that you don't take with him without question. The acting is phenomenal, Bale, Jackman and Caine are all excellent. But it is Jackman who owns this film. Between this and The Fountain (which I still don't know if I liked or not) he has really come into his own as an actor. Its a shame he was completely ignored at awards time this year. Towards the end of the year, there were some truly great films, but this is unquestionably the best. Its a well paced, thoughtful, intricate thriller that is better written than almost anything I have seen in years. Nolan is one of the most talented directors of his generation, something he continues to prove film after film. Howmany of todays "franchise" directors take a break in the middle of a superhero franchise to make a moody, dark period thriller about dueling magicians? The man is a master, only a notch below Hitchcock himself, and this film is his masterwork, so far.

Wow. What a weird flick. First of all, Im not all that familiar with Asian cinema, and the only other Miike film I've seen is Audition, which I love to death. Let me say that I definitely did enjoy Ichi. But this movie is one odd duck. I had to watch it twice in a row to understand what was going on, but after that second watching I think I understood most of it. (I still don't understand where the kid got the tongue from...wtf?) And the two main characters are some of the most unique I've seen in a long time. My biggest problems with the movie are Miike's fairly vague story structure, like flashbacks with no indication that you are watching a flash back can get fairly confusing. But the only thing I really disliked about it, and the reason my rating is not a 9 is his use of really obvious and bad CG for wounds and blood. Other than 1 or 2 things, his usage of CG was totally unnecessary. Almost everything could have been done with traditional effects, and they would have worked much better. Also, the level of blood when people were injured anywhere in the throat area. Not that the blood bothers me, but I just thought the movie would have been more effective with a more reasonably realistic amount of blood. But, that may be a stupid request of a film that is this off the wall. Overall, great flick if you can deal with the utter insanity of if. A truly demented film, but not as brutally violent as I expected. Oh, and since it seems to be compared to Oldboy a lot, Ill just say that I think Oldboy is easily the superior film. 7/10. Two severed thumbs up.

There has been a noticeable lack in quality Sci-fi in the last 5 to 10 years. There have been a few entries, but for my money The original Matrix and Serenity are the only ones to write home about ( I may be forgetting something, who knows). When this film was first released I had a vague memory of "Firefly", and knew that everything else Joss Wheadon had done I really hated (Still do). But the "Firefly", Serenity saga is exactly what sci-fi should be. I takes place in a well designed universe so far in the future there will never be any danger of proving it wrong. A truly classic Anti hero in Mal Reynolds (the perfect Nathan Fillion), and with the operative, a truly menacing villain, much better than anything the new Star War trilogy produced. Add some great Han Solo-esquire one liners and truly phenomenal effects, Serenity is not to be missed if you are a Sci-Fi fan. "We may experience some slight turbulence, and then explode, Thank you" - Mal

Just got out of an advance screening, and wow was this movie hilarious. Possibly better than the first one, but at least its equal. If you don't like jackass, or really unnecessary amounts of male nudity(way more than in the first) then stay far, far away. But if you dig the whole Jackass thing, then this movie will not disappoint. Toro Totter is the greatest invention ever. OK. so my review wasn't long enough... All else i have to say is poor, poor Dunn, they really kick the crap out of him in this. So if you enjoy masochistic humor, and prolific male nudity, and by far the most disgusting female nudity ever (John Waters is involved, need i say more?) then this movie will keep you in stitches for it entirety. I never stopped laughing, and actually came out drenched in sweat.

Wow, equally impressive as Ong Bak, fighting wise. Equally dumb story wise. But, this is a kung fu movie, and hey who needs a plot. This one involves his favorite elephants getting stolen and taken to sydney for reasons that I guess the filmmakers wanted to keep secret, so as no one else will try to steal Thai elephants. OK, enough of that silliness. The fighting is amazing. There is one scene where the fight continues for a good 4 or 5 minutes with out a cut. It is awesome to see Tony Jaa nearly reach the limits of exertion as the scene goes on. Impressive to say the least. If you are up for some great martial arts, Jaa is probably as good as the legendary Bruce Lee, no lie. I loved it.

Seriously, can't they read? Keifer's character, besides being very cookie cutter was OK, But Douglas' character was just plain dumb. And I found it impossible to sympathize with him. He WAS a traitor, to his job anyway, because he was sleeping with the first lady. Not only it that unprofessional, but it means that he cant do his job while he's boinkin her, putting everyone around him at risk. And when he ran from his apartment, it just seemed like a petty, save my own ass move. Not to mention the "plot." I can't even begin to count all of the stupid things this movie did. And how, with seriously limited resources Douglas was able to basically solve the entire nefarious scheme by him self with very little effort. It is a shame to see two of my favorite actors working with such drivel. Every relationship within the film seemed forced, just like the plot "twists". I mean, was there ever any question who the bad guy was? And if you are not able to make your audience believe the president blew up on the helicopter, why waste time on such a crappy explosion? Don't get me wrong, I like a good silly action movie. I expected this to be very by the numbers and obvious. But you gotta be able to surprise me with somthin, or at least give me a good bad guy, or some gratuitous violence. Hell, I'd even take a sex scene. But this movie thinks that it is a well crafted thriller. For your money your better off with Eastwood's "In the line of Fire." Or even better, just go get the first season of "24". Now there's an assassination plot for ya!

I loved this movie!!!! First off, for the record, let me say that SoaP is Definitely a BAD movie. And it is not a horror movie. It is first, foremost and completely a comedy. Everything in the movie, from a snake biting off a nipple to Sam Jacksons brilliant solution to the Snake problem is designed to make you laugh. This movie is brilliant because it is so self aware, and it knows that its audience is aware that it is self aware before they even step into the theater. It is a genius marketing ploy, and it works to perfection. It is obviously designed to be seen by the fans who have been following it progress for the last few months. And let me tell you, the crowd I watched it with was definitely in on the joke. We even recited, in mass, Sammys I'm tired of these mother@#$@$@ snakes line as he said it. Great B movie, If you love pure, silly entertainment this is the film for you. If you are looking for an actually quality horror film, see the Descent instead.

First of all, let me say that I did not see the polar express, so this is my first time seeing Real D's motion capture, and it was excellent. And the basic story was fairly descent. And that is where the quality ends. The jokes all fell flat, there did not seem to be any characters who existed in the world other than those who have direct effect on the story. (How did nobody notice that there was an enormous house rampaging through the streets?) I am all for the suspension of disbelief, but come on. And I also love kids movies, and the scary atmosphere was there. But it had nothing to back it up. Save your money, go see Miami Vice instead.

I would like to thank all of the people who made this movie. I just finished watching the DVD, and in fact I am still watching the interviews. The story of Abbie Hoffman, which I feel is one of the most important of recent American history, is not one that is told very much any more. The film did an excellent job of getting the historical issues and events right, and D'nofrio played Hoffman to the t. However, I would like to say shame on who ever decided that this film didnt deserve a large release. It is a film that everyone needs to see, and it did not recieve the publicity it deserved. Please go see this movie, buy this movie, and most importantly lets carry on the leggacy of Abbie through our own actions. Maybe this film will imspire you the way that all aspects of Hoffman have inspired me.

10/10

I love westerns and like john wayne, and he was really good in this film. But i just could not get over the HORRENDUS acting by the girl and the texas ranger. I honestly have never seen worse acting in a major film. she was most definitaly the most annoying character ive ever seen put to film.

Some things were ok, but all overshadowed by the acting.

When i first saw the posters and previews of john woos Windtalkers, i was really exited. Woo is known for his glamous and incredulous action films, but i thought that this would give him a chance to prove his abilities. I was very very wrong. The entire movie is nick cage running around like stallone killing every japenese soldier in sight. He seemingly took on the entire pacific detachment of troops by himself. The action and acting were cheesey and contrived. And nearly every war cliche known to hollywood was included in this film, often more than once. If you ever get the chance to see this film, dont. 0 of 10

I personally loved this movie. It has flaws, mostly the fact that the slow pacing can be very wearing(as much as i liked it, i dont think i want to see soderbergs 150 minute master cut) Solaris is very much a thinking mans sci-fi film. there is no action, almost no special effects, just great acting and even better directing. But because of the offbeat tone and slow pace, i doubt this film will ever be more than a cult classic. George Clooney should definitaly get an oscar nomination for the best work hes ever done, by far. And soderberg should get a nod for best director, but i dont think best picture will even be considered, considering the strangness of the film. 8/10

**SPOILERS**The ring is easily the scariest film ive seen since the original psycho. the mood was perfect. the script and acting great. and the special effects were really to notch. *Small Spoiler* : some people on this sight say they wanted to know where the tape came from. 1st of all these are probably the same people who loved not knowing what was in the briefcase in pulp fiction (i am one of those people). what they fail to realize is if you pay attention they say. the pictures that the girl makes in the asylum are described as pictures from her mind. she didn't draw them in the standard sense. her mind made them. same with the tape. *end spoiler* there were not 2 minutes that i wasnt on the edge of my seat in this one. after seeing this i saw the original japenese version, ringu. another horrifying movie, but not as good as the remake. the video of death in the new version is much, much scarier and the u.s. director does a much better job of keeping you constantly on the edge of your seat. he does a great job of drawing a scary scene out as long as he can, and he has a great sense of when to end a scene. And the ending was perfect.

Easily 10/10

While this teen flick was not a great or memorable movie by any means, it was at least very nice and very entertaining. Better than the movie itself were its stars. Colin Hanks shows a strong resemblence too some of the comic work of his father. And Jack Black is better than ever and just as insane. If you are in the mood for a well written and well acted teen comedy with out any bodily fluids, see this movie 7/10

I just saw this movie this weekend and I have had to take a week to digest it. You will leave this movie not knowing how to think, except that you hate each and every character (except the girl who sent Van Der Beek love letters). Many people have had a problem with the fact that you dont really care about what happens to the characters. What most people have failed to see, in my humble opinon, is that you are not supposed to care. That is somewhat the point of the film. This is a very nihilistic movie.

Avery uses some very interesting tools in this movie, including split screen and reverse motion. The reverse motion is a very original and unique way to introduce the characters and Avery is very smart about knowing when to stop using certain camera tricks. About half way through the movie it goes into a sup plot about Sossamon's "boyfriend" (Kip Pardue) backpacking drug induced trip through Europe. It goes through about three months in Europe with out missing any event of any importance and it does it in about ten minutes. If you like strange and disturbing you will probably like this movie. While not as good, it is as weird and nihilistic as Clockwork Orange or Fight Club. 8/10