Sex and the City 2 review

As we return to the world of "Sex and the City", the highly successful book series, television series and now film series I'd like to note that yes as a young male this film is NOT geared towards me or my demographic. I'd also like to comment that I have watched various episodes of the show and did in fact watch and review the first film so I'm not unknown to this world and these characters. With the first film we leaped into the life of Carrie Bradshaw and and her gal pals as they bitched over a span of two years about the problems they were having with the men in their lives until they all finally pretty much realize that several of the issues were caused by themselves and their neglect, ignorance or idiocy. After resolving all their past issues (which were boring and pretty damn nonsensical) Carrie and "Mr. Big" get married and that was that.

So now we meet the girls again two and half years later for "Sex and the City 2" where Carrie and Big's marriage has lost it's spark. All he wants to do is sit at home and watch black and white movies while bathing in Old Spice and all she wants to do is to graze out under the stars every night. Samantha Jones aka Skank-o-tron 1000 is in full swing popping two fists full of pills to keep from looking like the Crypt keeper while still managing to go about the planet fucking anything that moves. (thanks Dennis Hopper, we'll miss ya) Charlotte is having a break down because she can't get control of her possibly retarded children that either continuously cry or fight tooth and nail to get some of mommy's precious attention. And then there's Miranda the walking corpse, whose googly-wide eyes, bleached white skin, flaming red slicked back hair and tiny Irish teeth could scare anyone better than the best Hollywood effects artist creation. Oh... yeah she's supposed to have a problem right? Hold on.... oh yeah, her male boss didn't like her cause she was a woman and all so she quit and started working with a bunch of happy hippie lawyers and then she was happy again. Spoiler alert.

But let's hop into the real meat of this film. Here is Michael Patrick King's second 'SitC' picture that is just as painfully long (146 minutes, longer than "Robin Hood") as the first film, but manages to be unfunny, borderline disgusting and yes pretty racist and insensitive. While I'm not going into this looking for well written humor (actually I'm going in to make up the humor with my friends, mission accomplished by the way), I would expect something clever or witty to slip out of one of these walking 'What Not to Where' promos. Instead we're treated to some of the out and out lamest ass jokes you could hear in modern cinema. I mean just hand in your face lame. The opening sequence which was a gay wedding decided to go as over the top as they probably could until they send it ONE STEP FURTHER by having the God of the gay men Liza Minelli sing a Beyonce song. That was the first scene in which I had my head in my hands... the first of many.

As we continue into that slow, steady descent into shitsville we head around the world to Abu Dhabi where the girls are on a free vacation of complete and utter vomit inducing decadence. I mean the fucking money these wee-brains spent while on this trip would really make you a bit sick to your stomach. At one point Carrie's hotel shadow aka paid slave tells her about how his wife lives in India and every three months they have enough money to see one another. After telling this to her friends the next morning over an elongated table filled with food, they quickly suggest going on a desert trek and picnic. I could only think about how everything on that table was probably a year of that guy's salary. But seriously what do they care? They've got their own problems like if Charlotte's smiling tub a goo husband is going to cheat on her with her large chested and bra-less Irish nanny. No readers this lovely lass says no, no, no to the shackles of the modern world of female undergarments and thus lets it all swing-a-ding loose. But hell at least she's good with the kids unlike their actual mother.

Honestly it's rare to see a two and half hour film completely filled with nonsensical bullshit. Not even the dreadful "Twilight" movies go as far as to make me just feel depressed watching it. While in the middle east they figure, hey this is the NEW middle east; a world without war, oppression or a super conservative moral code, religious belief system and law structure towards open sexuality so why not just grab on to a dude's erect cock at the hookah table?! This then brings about more sequences of ill done humor and general offensive bad taste. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for offending people but only when it's done for a point. Here, no point... just a bunch of bullshit to get horny older women and impressionable younger women laughing and mildly aroused.

Seriously though this film actually manages that moment where the film hits rock bottom. I've only witnessed this in a few pictures; not all terrible movies have a moments of complete and utter shit where the house of cards comes crashing down and all that is left is a horrible image on screen you'll remember for as long as you see movies. For "Sex and the City 2" it would be Kim Cattrall in the middle of an Abu-Dhabi market air humping in a linebacker like fury while swinging around a sheet of condoms and tossing out the finger like high fives after a Panthers game (ra-Oww!). This then leads to a scene that is equally as ridiculous and idiotic, but without that furious botox rage face and protruding Hulk veins. Really this is a horrible movie and as it stands the worst film of the year. The only plus side to the film is as a cinematic experience it was far funnier than watching "Macgruber".

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time review

I remember when I was first getting hardcore into movies one of the first names I learned was that of producer Jerry Bruckheimer. I've probably mentioned this in past reviews, but I wasn't someone who began to love film via French new wave, the works of Goddard and even smaller power pieces by modern auteurs like Soderbergh. I enjoyed spectacle and things that were exciting to the eye and at least mostly tolerable to the mind.

I feel a bit sad every time I see his name placed on yet another half assed police show or another family geared, mild adventure movie. I remember the days of "Crimson Tide", "The Rock", "Con Air", "Armageddon", "Bad Boys" and "Enemy of the State". Days when he really pulled out all the stops and had hella stylish and original (or at least fairly original) fun with the films he presented. After the mega success of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films he's chosen to stick with these types of movies (or lower like fucking "G-Force"). Not that I'm a hater of PoTC, but it's not something that has the same glorious excitement as his older work.

Now this is his first video game based property and something that... well... COULD'VE been fun enough to watch; although I've liked NONE of the games older or newer for this, but I see how in film form it could be ok. Instead "Prince of Persia" is a bland bowl of ice cream that's poppy and watchable, but not in the slightest bit memorable or unique or all that fun honestly. I will say that in true Bruckheimer fashion he casts against the usual grain and goes with his proven and usually pretty cool formula. See he picks two fairly un-proven for the genre leads with a film like this. Usually people with good or even great track records and then surrounds them with vets that have done everything under the sun. So we get Jake Gyllenhaal as Daston and Gemma Arterton as Princess Tamina and they're placed along side Sir Ben Kingsley in villain form as usual and Alfred Molina as the comic relief.

They all sell their roles as best they can in this. Gyllenhaal isn't a proven action hero, but he is a proven actor that has a lot of range. Arterton is literally what prompted me to want to see this as I loved her (or loved looking at her) in "Clash of the Titans" and remember her quite well from "RockNRolla" and "Quantum of Solace". Both are really allowed to have fun and play around with their characters, but it's all done in that classical romantic adventure sort of way which is generic and sort of cheesy at times. Which is what people wanted "Robin Hood" to be like. They have chemistry as well and that goes a long way towards making their conversations less cheesy and distracting. The major problems lay with the directing choice and the story they went with. Granted this is based on a video game and this is the first in that version of the series of games, but it's presented in a kind of boring ass way.

Basically the dagger has magic sand in it and it can turn back time and Kingsley and the other bad guys want to get their hands on it. Most of the movie however is a desert trek that's... well... boring? Nah, I'll just say dull; after all there was ostrich racing! Nothing wrong with a little bit of that. (Fingers crossed this leads to Bruckheimer producing a live action version of "Joust") The problem is the fight scenes which are... seemingly well blocked off, are shot with about a billion close up cuts that greatly kills what fun could be in there. Director Mike Newell who did make by favorite Harry Potter film, just doesn't seem cut out for this sort of action setting honestly. The fighting is very much designed around parkour which as we've seen before can be pretty damn cool... but if it's done through 10000000 quick shots, then it's boring. Can I say that Pierre Morell, Martin Campbell or even "District B13: Ultimatum" director Patrick Alessandrin could have been better suited for this job? Yep! And that even with a dull-ish story it might have still been alright.

But alas we end up with another very run-of-the-mill action adventure picture that is better than most video game movies, but still doesn't work anywhere near enough to be called good. At the least people can see that Gyllenhaal is someone who wants to extend his range into more action fair and I think given all the work he put in it will pay off. Arterton is a strong actress that deserves stronger female roles and God willing that will happen for her too. Who knows maybe they'll even be used again in a film worthy of both their talents and looks.

Robin Hood review

Walking into "Robin Hood" this evening I stepped with heavy doubts. Simply put I read bashing after bashing of the film and with them pretty much saying the same things about it both things that were good and things that weren't. After the 148 minutes of crashing, bashing, slashing and galloping I could see why people weren't so loving of Ridley Scott's new epic vision of the birth of a legend however I wasn't one of those people. Granted I can't say I love "Robin Hood", but it was an entertaining and well made adventurous battle movie. And that right there is why it's getting handled this way critically. Is this really a Robin Hood picture as we know it? No. It's maybe... 30% a Robin Hood story. Traditionally Robin Hood films are high, frolicking adventure tales of nobility, honor, friendship and love. Robin is a quirky sort of man that loves causing trouble for those who abuse their authority and harm the good english people for personal profit. He vies for the love of Maid Marian and loves the adventures he has with his merry men. By the way I'm not saying this as some back-handed insult, I think that stuff's great and really feel like there are so few adventure tales told in todays cinema, because not as many people are interested or it's simply done in a very watered down, highly commercialized way as to never stick out too much.

Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" is about the birth of who that character COULD become given another film or what not. So instead of high adventures and swashbuckling, it's waring, ravaged lands, people being burning alive in houses, grit, grime, crime, corruption and betrayal. On second thought maybe I do kinda love it. The thing of it is (and I REALLY do get this) is that most critics (or at least the ones I read) have a certain expectation of the character and story due to be accompanied with this stuff and as you can see this ain't what's expected. This is a battle movie that at times attempts to bring about the concept of high adventure, but it's never frolicking, it's still brooding. And a heavy thanks to that goes to Russell Crowe, king of the brooding actors. But that's not to say some fun is had here and there. Once in a while he interacts quirky and freely with his men as does he with Marian played by Cate Blanchett. The moments are far between but there are little kick back and relax moments that occur when there is no fighting to be done.

Really the story is about the death of King Richard the Lion Heart, played by Danny Huston and the crowning of the tyrannical and oppressive King John the lying dick wad played by Oscar Isaac. John doesn't really give a damn about the people, just about money and power. Mark Strong plays Godfrey who is secretly working for the French and is bringing them into England to try and take over while Richard and his troops are still at war. Robin and his men fought with their king till his death in which they fled and aimed to get home rich. Well long story short shit gets poppin' and things don't go the way they're planned and now Robin, Marian and the merry men gotta go get badassed up and roll on these jive suckas. Again if you're a lover of the legend, not your cup of tea, however I'm not so in my book that's a simple case of bring on the mayhem. And it's Scott at his best bringing a stylish and grim eye to the battlefields that's still impressive even after seeing his proof that he's the best at this several times before.

Personally when it comes to the stories of Robin Hood I've never been a huge fan. I don't think I find them boring, I just don't find them too interesting. On film I've seen Flynn as Robin (cool, but I preferred 'The Count of Monte Cristo'), Kevin Costner (nice cast, boring as shit movie), Mel Brooks' 'Robin Hood Men in Tights' (which is fairly funny, until compared with other Brooks films in which it doesn't hold a candle) and then Disney's. That last one's probably my favorite and even then I wasn't a grand lover. Oh and that crappy TV show. So for me it's like going in with a blank slate and just hoping to, at the very least be entertained. As a Ridley Scott fan I'll say that visually it's quite a notch in the belt. I wasn't so sure from some of the trailers, but it appears that he went to great lengths to not show case the same landscapes we've been seeing since 'The Lord of the Rings' while also digging back into his stylistic past to present a much more interesting looking color palate. I will say it's biggest flaw is Brian Helgaland's screenplay which is pretty point blank and lacks much of the complicated depth we get in most of Ridley's pictures. It's not one dimensional story by any means, but considering both of their last couple films I would've expected something much more complex than this.

At the end I can say it was a good ride and one of the more rich looking and flowing summer films I've seen thus far. It's not a perfect film either for it's genre or Ridley Scott, but it's like B-Ridley Scott. You know like "Black Rain", "Legend" or "The Duelist". I'd also think it might treat people differently by knowing what kind of picture it is before hand rather than thinking it'll be like all the other Robin Hood films of the past fifty years. It's not that and really it's not a re-tread of "Gladiator" either (still not a big fan of that one by the way), it's more like grim adventure on an epic scale. Now if down the line things worked out and an idea for a sequel made on the concept of the stories we all know, but using this film as the foundation; that would be something interesting to see. I imagine it'd be dark yet still thriving with frolicking adventure. Best of both worlds I think.

Shrek Forever After review

Is "Shrek Forever After" aka The Final Chapter the grand send off for the major animated franchise of the past decade? I'm hoping it is. While this newest installment is nowhere as bleeding tear boring as "Shrek the Third", it still doesn't live up to the glowing originality, humor, wit and intelligence of the first two. This time around the basic construct of Shrek is that of 'It's a Wonderful Life' where Shrek is never born after he gets all bitchy for not feeling like a 'real ogre' anymore. The subtle point at the end being that parenthood ain't easy, but always be thankful for what you've got.

So he signs a contract with Rumpelstiltskin who in turn plays the trading game where Shrek will get his one day of being a feared ogre again for a day he doesn't remember, that ended up being his birth. Awwwww snap, the playa got played! This then takes us down remake road where Shrek has to do basically the same things he did in the first film just with less death and depth. The only way to break the contract is for true loves kiss so he has to find the now warrior queen Fiona and get her to fall in love with him again and along with way re-friend the loud mouthed and only slightly humorous Donkey and the now retired and overweight Puss who isn't bringing in the laughs either, but he's doing a better job than the others. Oh and he has to defeat a small man with a big ego. Ah memories.

Ok, but seriously I don't hate this film. In fact I don't really dislike it, but it doesn't do anything for me. "Shrek Forever After" is 100% forgettable. Like "The Rocker"! You watch it, you shrug it off then you eat and go about the rest of your day. Nothing in this film is funny, but nothing is so blatantly unfunny as to make me hate it. Thus I'm not having to re-watch "How to Train Your Dragon" which is a film that I STILL go over and think of just how annoying and headache inducing those terrible jokes were and how tired I am of the overly cartoony and uninspired designs being used in a lot of these movies. Oh and don't get me started on Baruchel's fucking voice. Instead this final chapter plays is safe and does things that work to move along the fairly weak little story while not carrying on too long or throwing in too much.

I will say that the multitude of pop culture song uses have worn out their welcome and at this point it's like watching an episode of "Cold Case" and seeing what oldie they've got headlining this weeks episode. So what comes next in the animated world? I have zero interest in Universal's "Despicable Me", which MIGHT have been just a mediocre idea until they decided to turn it into complete junk by giving him kids to take care of. There's "Toy Story 3" of course which will probably be alright as most Pixar movies are, but I doubt it'll send us forward in anyway. And then to round out the ones being pushed now and that HAVE a chance to be something (that's right "Alpha and Omega", you look like shit, sound like shit and probably are shit) is "Megamind" which is basically a lot like the plot of "Despicable Me", but without kids and with a better cast including Brad Pitt. In anycase I don't feel like any of these will recapture that special something the first "Shrek" had. That certain kick that the animation world needed where they didn't think kids just wanted pop culture references and silly jokes, but that they could understand at least some form of satire and parody.

MacGruber review

You know I talked a lot of shit about "MacGruber" before it's release, but there was heavy praise from critics as well as from advanced viewers I started thinking that despite the lackluster trailers and my general lack of love for comedian Will Forte and this SNL skit that I could be quite surprised and delighted in the glorious R-rated humor and excitement of all that is "MacGruber". And you know what? It didn't happen. Not for one second of this steaming pile of fecal matter did I feel like I was enjoying myself. So to the critic whom stated "The Best SNL Movie since "Wayne's World", you sir or madam are an idiot.

To summarize MacGruber is an idiotic former Marine who can basically do what MacGyver did on tv and also tends to dress and carry himself in a similar manner by keeping a 1980s mindset while in the modern world. On the other hand he also fucks everything up as constantly as possible while [SPOILER ALERT] still defeating the bad guy played by Val Kilmer [END] who killed his wife and has now stolen a nuclear warhead that he plans to blow up Washington D.C. with. I wanna first deal with why this sucks quite as much balls as it does. On the surface one could simply call the movie boring and forgettable because honestly it is but certain things have an ability to work. Kristen Wiig who plays MacGruber's love interest and partner Vicki St. Elmo is never really let to have too much fun, because she's forced to play straight-ish second fiddle to whatever bullshit Forte does. But there are one of two moments for her that really work. Both Kilmer and Powers Boothe (who plays Col. Faith) could sell just about anything on their worst day and here they try to make the most of what they've got. And Ryan Phillippe, God bless him even pulls off the dumbest of moments kind of well. The major huge annoyance of the movie is sadly enough star and co-writer Will Forte.

Basically the man jumps around, tries to impersonate action heroes and makes really, really, REALLY bad jokes the entire film. The only scene that works for him his a sex scene between him and St. Elmo and even that is made better due to it's editing. Beyond that he's just on one long ass running joke that no one finds funny except maybe himself. And I'm not saying this because I'm not a fan of the dude. He's no Ashton Kutcher to where I cringe even at the thought of him getting another movie, I just don't think he's that funny most of the time. He's like David Spade, with the right people around him and the right writing he can be pretty damn ok, but without it he sucks the big one.

The film is actually quite comparable with another powerfully weak action, comedy for this year, Kevin Smith's "Cop Out". And while both films work to try and kill the genre by created some really, really lame ass low brow jokes that never ever work, I can at least say SOME of "MacGruber" has action scenes that look nice. Mainly the opening scene which involves little to no action, but it's shot damn well after a bloody ambush had taken place in the desert. "MacGruber" is directed and co-written by Jorma Taccone, one of the members of The Lonely Island, which for my money has big hits and nice sized misses. He was also a big part of Andy Samberg's big one piece "Hot Rod" which I still have fond memories of, but by no means is it a great comedy. In fact its humor and style is lodged way up the butt of "Napoleon Dynamite", but it's was still kind of funny.

Now to what could've made this crapsterpice work. Something I've remembered since the Coen's "Burn After Reading" was that it proved once and for all you don't need the usual suspects for comedies to make a really, really funny movie; you just need the right people. This needed writers that A: knew how to make dirty jokes that were actually funny. Meaning poop jokes that worked, sex jokes that worked, gay sex jokes that work etc. B: could create a real sense that this was an action piece, but everything in it is just hilarious because of these crazy characters. And C: people that could tell some sort of a story. Even with the most basic genre example as Piere Morrel's over the tip top film "From Paris with Love", you always felt like you were in an action piece, but the antics worked so well. Even when Travolta would lay down some lame shit like 'wax on, wax off' (referring to his name and killing people), then Meyers' reaction would make it all worth while. Plus it pulled off some surprises with it's story and at the end you have had a good time filled with cursing, violence and low brow humor. That'll be on DVD soon by the way and if you're thinking of watching "MacGruber", save you cash and spend a buck to pick up "From Paris with Love" from Redbox instead.

Now with all this said, I do think there is something important to be learned from this film. This is yet another failed action/comedy genre piece and I think this puts a little extra pressure on Sony and Adam McKay's "The Other Guys". Sue me even when Will Ferrall's at his lowest he can make things at least fairly watchable and considering the extensive cast of with and against the grain performers this can work out... if it's done right. I think this and "Cop Out" are great examples of what NOT to do and should be considered as heavily for this genre as "The Heartbreak Kid" is considered what not to do when making a sex/rom-com.

The House of the Devil review

Ti West's "The House of the Devil" is one of those movies that probably once you know what you're walking into it becomes a stronger overall piece, but less frightening. I'm not saying this to knock the movie either, because it's much more of a simple suspense story rather than a full fledged horror movie. The film is heavily mimicked after similar styled films of the 70's and 80's and begins with a similar 'based on true, unexplained events' tag, when it's about as real as the Coen's "Fargo". It could happen, but we don't know if any of this did and as long as it's interesting we really don't care too much. Jocelin Donahue played Samantha, a college girl that's trying to move out of her dorm and into a house off campus. The real estate agent (cameo by horror legend Dee Wallace, always great seeing her) waves the fees so long as Samantha can come up with the first months rent by Monday. Regardless of her waving the other fees, that's still money she doesn't have.

At school she notices a babysitting ad on the board and gives it a ring. There is no answer. However as she walks away the pay phone she called from rings and it's the man who posted the wanted ad. Surely this must be a bizarre sign. Eh, maybe not, but after meeting the man played by Tom Noonan ('Manhunter'), his wife Mary Woronov and generally being in their very secluded house for a little while and THEN something might click that this place and these people are bug nuts. However the plot REALLY thickens when he informs Samantha that there is no baby and instead they have to look after his wife's elderly mother. He even offers her four hundred dollars for the work. She accepts.

What happens then is really tough to play out, but it's something that relays HEAVILY on the viewers patience and willing to wait for it to get into it's real horror elements. I will say that once it does it doesn't last too long which is unfortunate because it works quite well. Stylistically "The House of the Devil" feels quite old and not in a showy sense, but in a low budget and slightly off cliter technically sense with some real talent behind the camera. West is honestly on his way to getting his name really out there and I'd love to see this guy get a real budget and some other talents for a horror picture. I won't say this is something completely new, but it does offer up a lot of well done suspense that's never in a rush to get to the juicy stuff. That restraint is something very admirable in this day in age where there's always a mad rush to get into the violence or macabre.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo review

Oh those crazy Swedes and their sex and violence filled ideas... ahh... but seriously this is a thriller that does have it's healthy dose of both. "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is one of those films that includes many elements for which we've seen before in thrillers, mysteries and horror films, but finds a way to piece them all together in an interesting and provocative way. At the same time it's a much rougher film than I expected including sadists and rapists coupled with the already running who-done-it and what'd-they-do mystery.

Our girl with the dragon tattoo is named Lisbeth Salander a punk, qusi biker/goth sleuth and hacker that works for a major security firm in Stockholm. After she's put onto the job of tracking a magazine mogul/ reporter after he's sentenced to prison she continues looking into him after her job has ended. The magazine reporter, Mikael Blomkvist is spending his remaining six free months by taking a job in another part of the country for an old man trying to find the killer of his favorite niece. Fun part, a body was never found and the incident happened over 40 years ago. Needless to say he's got a lot of work ahead of him. The man is one of the heads of the Vanger group, which was a family owned corporation with a lot of secrets. However what is not so secret is the fact that most of the family hates one another and so it could have been any number of them who killed her. As time passes Mikael delves further and further into the families past and uncovers more and more dirt, but still not much of anything to link a single person to a crime with no clues. Not until Lisbeth comes to the forefront of his life.

Now going into to her background is a bit tricky as I don't want to give much away in the area of the darker, nastier things in the picture. But I'll tell you that she's not somebody to fuck with and have her just take it as she proves throughout a number of scenes. Noomi Rapace plays Lisbeth with a bit more doe-eyed-ness then I would've expected, but there's something within her performance that works. I guess I like the idea of the tough sleuth character considering we see so many sheepish ones in films nowadays. I'm sure with the other two films probably making their way to the U.S. soon we'll see what the rest of her story is really about, but there's a lot of hints to her sorted past. Fun stuff me thinks.

As a whole I don't find it as perfect a thriller, but a damn entertaining one made with a lot of style and guts. There are things that remind of 'Se7en' as well as elements that pop up in a very novel fashion like they would and probably do in the book series. It's not something enough to shout out rip off or anything or even enough to distract from the picture. Fact is I'm just damn pleased to see so many well made mystery based films in one year that are getting big press. "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is one of those that'll be talked about highly for a while before disappearing (like "The Vanishing", pun not intended) or perhaps it's fate will be decided upon the release of the next two films in the series; who can say just yet. But it's a film for those who love crime thrillers and grim character pieces. It's got its thrills and bumps and humor and sex appeal to go with it's expansive and classy yet gritty storyline. If the film is near you it's definitely something to go check out.

Never Sleep Again review

It's things like this that remind me why I love movies, why I love horror movies and why these movies are important. If you're a horror buff, film buff, love the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' world or just have a curiosity into what it takes to make elaborate looking films with little to no money then this is epic, four hour documentary is for you. "Never Sleep Again" covers all seven Freddy Krueger films as well as "Freddy vs. Jason". You'll see tons of interviews with the stars of those movies (barring a couple who are quite large now) and their various creators as well as hear the tale of the birth of New Line Cinema. I do recall years and years ago hearing that New Line was the house that Freddy built and now I know why.

Wes Craven created the original story from hearing of real events in which people (mainly in Asian countries after the Vietnam war) were having vivid nightmares and trying their best to stay awake. One such story was of a boy who told his parents that he couldn't sleep or else he would die. The boy's father was a doctor and gave him sleeping pills. He never took the pills but after a few days without sleep he finally blacked out and they put him to bed finding the pills rolling around under the bed sheets and a coffee maker in the closet. That same night the parents awoke to the boy screaming and by the time they made it to his room he was dead. I happen to agree with Craven in saying, now that's an interesting story. Well he and others go in the every little detail as does the others involved about the thought process, filming, writing and effects design of each film in the series. If you've never gone through and watched all the Freddy movies then I would actually say go for it.

Unlike the "Halloween" or "Friday the 13th" franchises, Freddy is a different kind of lead; and while he did become a bit of a game show host after he was pimped out as much as possible he still had so much more than the other slasher hosts. Freddy could be funny and dark and make it all work together. Now I'm not saying all those movies are good, because that's not the case. But are they watchable? Yes. Can you find something entertaining about going through those films and looking at the crazy set designs and the old school effects and delve into it's cheesy charm? Yes. In many ways this made me long to see more horror done in these pre-CGI ways that's NOT torture porn or some clever variation of torture porn (lookin' at you "The Human Centipede"). It is fact possible to say that no other horror franchise is as original or interesting to sit through than that of the 'Elm Street' collection.

Granted my favorite slasher picture remains John Carpenter's "Halloween". There's many, many creepy, classy and trashy things I love about that film and I'll never forget the fear I had as a kid trying to watch it and jumping throughout the whole movie. But "A Nightmare on Elm Street" always fascinated me and I wished I'd gotten to see it when I was younger because while almost everything in it I already knew about, I could have still be freaked by some of the stuff around that age (I wanna say I was 7 or 8 when I saw 'Halloween' and had never seen a horror movie before that). I think the idea of a man that can kill you in your dreams is a shit load scarier then anything else really. It's hard to control you're mind in a dream. It's more like watching a movie rather than playing a video game so easily someone could snap your neck in a dream and that'd be your end.

There is nothing like this around anymore and it's kind of sad. Some people might want to argue that "Saw" is that, but it's not. There's not different between "Saw II" and "Saw V". It's all a continuously stupid series of senseless stories, bland characters and traps that are not longer interesting. Also it's main character Jigsaw is a boring mix of John Doe from "Se7en" and Hannibal Lecter. The 'Elm Street' series while not always having the best stories, still brought an original vision to the table and had fun with it each time. Those films aren't fun they're just clunky editing and lame set ups that kill any sense of terror. I know in twenty years or so they'll be a documentary of those films as well, but it won't be deserving. Hell I'm even sure the one for "Friday the 13th" was deserving, but this one... yeah I guess it is.

What this saga did was help launch acting careers for the likes of Johnny Depp and Patrica Arquette as well as careers for writers and directors like Wes Craven, Frank Darabont, Chuck Russell, Renny Harlin, Stephen Hopkins and Brian Helgaland. It made a horror movie character a superstar known the world over, granted causing him to lose much of his fear effect for fun and games, but for a while he was a mega star. Now I wish I could say the Platinum Dunes remake was worth while and I wish I could say, yeah in a few years we'll see Nightmare 2 with a bigger cast and budget and maybe even somebody a little more tested behind the camera. I wish Jackie Earle Harley, who's performance of Freddy Krueger was in fact quite impressive will get a second chance to expand on his version of the character. Unfortunately I can't say those things cause I don't see it happening. P.D. played it pussy and turning in a shitty, shitty film. Almost as shitty as what Tim Burton did with "Alice in Wonderland". It's made some money so yeah... perhaps Bay and company will throw down some more cash and look for better names for a sequel. But what's the point if you're not going to be original and daring with what you do?

Rather than think hey we have to stay as close to this film as we possibly, why not take away the lessons those sequels taught us. Do they have to connect? No. Does it have to be scary all the time? No. But we must be original and fun. I know they can do that and I'd love, LOVE I tell you, to see Harley as Krueger again with some real writing talent going on behind and a director who's not afraid, has unique vision of surreal horror and knows how to make a fun movie. I think it's possible, but not going to happen right now. But in the mean time pick up the DVD for this or watch it online ( as I did) and kick back for a lengthy look at the creative world of horror cinema at it's best, worst and everything in between.

Babies review

The main point of Focus Features new picture "Babies" is that babies are cute. Well generally they are. I've seen some not so cute babies, but for the most part those tiny people are cute and often very humorous to look at as they gaze around seemingly taking in the world around them. Is that enough for a documentary? Meh, sure why not. "Babies" is a pretty original concept and the film carries no narration and very little talking from the parents in the scenes with their children. Sometimes there will be music, but for the most part you're watching pure, raw, baby biz and I really like that.

But I'll say it works like a basic nature documentary sense of something you might see at an IMAX. You watch it, it's interesting and what not but you're always watching it and never really invested into it. It's not like that's a bad thing as it is pretty much designed as such, but it doesn't make me love what I'm seeing. Another point about "Babies" is that it's really a personal preference kind of movie. If you really love babies and/or kids or have never really experienced being around them, then this movie is right up your ally. If you have kids or not really a child person then it still might offer something fresh and interesting for you to view nonetheless, but you'll never like it as much as the first crowd probably. It is a very polished and well shot and edited documentary which includes families from Africa, San Francisco, Tokyo and Mongolia with the first and last families yielding the most interesting footage. For the most part the U.S. and Japanese families are a display of modern world parenting and what not which is all stuff we've seen over and over again. Sure they do cute things like the child getting noticeably frustrated about her toy and all, but there was always something really interesting seeing the other kids with their parents in the dry lands of Africa playing with rocks and bottles or stepping over goats and playing with their siblings in a field.

Clocking in at 73 minutes was also a wise choice as this isn't something that could carry on for a full hour and half or longer. Yes it's polished and looks like a movie, but too much of it might leave you feeling like you just got sucked into watching someones youtube playlist of their baby doing funny little things and you lost track of time. Personally it did take me a little while of watching to really get into it. I'm not a big kid person in truth. I like them well enough, but I'm not wild about em'. I know some day that'll change, but for now that's me. When I did start enjoying the footage it did work me over in the cuteness department and made me smile throughout the rest of the picture and perhaps laugh here and there.

"Babies" is as advertised and it works. I won't say run out and see it or anything like that, but it's nice and different. I'll admit while I didn't fully review Disney Nature's "Oceans" I did quite enjoy that a lot more than expected and while it too has that same lack of emotional investment, it was surprisingly large in scope and photographed several highly impressive and awe inspiring real world events. In the same token some people might call a child's first steps awe inspiring. I wouldn't go that far, but that's just my personal feelings on the matter. However I dare anyone not to smile when a baby laughs. That is undeniably cute always.

Iron Man 2 review

As I stated in my last post, the hype machine got to me and I actually started looking forward to the return of Tony Stark. To recap my feeling on the first film they are now as they were two years ago. "Iron Man" was an good origins story, a nice character piece, but a slight bore of an overall movie. The few action set pieces weren't anything new and the finale was drawn out and yet still unimpressive. At the end of the day it was something I thought of on the same lines as Bryan Singer's first "X-Men" film. It works, but it's got problems. So this brings me to "Iron Man 2". At no point did I think, 'man this movies gonna suck'. Because I didn't feel that way, I just didn't feel like it would blow me away like the first did for everybody. Interestingly enough the films been capturing favorable reviews, but not as favorable as the first. Perhaps it's me but could someone out there explain why the first was considered so damn wonderful. Anyways, no I actually liked "Iron Man 2" more than expected, but it continues to suffer from a few very key flaws. The biggest one is that they pack the film with characters and major names, but tend to under use them. For example Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow has almost nothing to do in the movie and the little she does do could have come from a number of blank characters and actors. I'd have been more impressed if they used her in the same grand reveal way as Sam Jackson at the end of the first film. Paltrow doesn't really perk up till the final act or Cheadle for that matter so really it's a one man show for the majority of the film. That said when they do have a chance to really bring something to their scenes they do so quite well. I just wish they were given Downey Jr. screen time to a certain extent.

The climax arrives quickly after massive amounts of build out however it is more impressive than the first film's ending so I'm thankful for that. 'Tropic Thunder' co-writer and Lynch Mob member (group of actors connected with filmmaker David Lynch, not a group of people going around hanging other people. I can't stress this enough) Justin Treroux mainlines a surprisingly funny and quirkier than before story that isn't afraid to push Tony's disregard for peoples feelings or safety into the forefront of the picture. They show him more so for who he is which is a bad drunk and kind of a horse's ass. But it always boils down to he's our funny horse's ass and I guess that's something. Now for Micky Rourke, he fuckin' sold it. He plays Ivan to a tee and isn't a snarling villain, but a slightly more dimensional villain that does have a reasons for what he's doing and it's fairly valid. Samuel L. Jackson's extended Nick Fury cameo is also great because he really decides to lay into the role. He doesn't play it quiet and reserved but much more human. He's funny and witty, but on the level so as to never become a comical character there just for laughs.

Another beef I had with the first film was the lackluster action scenes which thankfully and to the films saving grace have been fixed. It appears director (and actor) Jon Favreau has learned some new tricks and puts them to use well within the movie. The best part of it... is that it's not all CGI. There's quite a bit of live action practical stunts being done and they really make a difference in some of these big sequences. Now they have a better feel to them whereas before it was like a cut scene from a video game. The race track sequence where Ivan attacks Tony is a prime example of the use of practical stunts that were noticeable and impressive as well as doing some very fine CGI and real world integration work. Neither film is action heavy which is a good thing and also neither films plots have calling for them to be action heavy. No, the main focus is very much Tony, his major problem and the man that he is at this point. He's flawed as all hell and is on a self-destructive path. At the end of this film we don't feel like he's any closer to a break through which will allow him to not do the things he does to people; we simply feel that Tony has lived to play another day.

But what can you say really? It's a big summer tent pole movie that kicks off the season and honestly it did a nice job of that. It's a solid super hero picture that'll provide it's share of enjoyment for a few weeks and works on those nice geeky, but not too geeky levels that the public can really dig into. Hell there's nothing wrong with popcorn fun as long as it's actually fun and this is. Now... for the secret scene or whatever you wish to call it. Unlike with the first film where the world was buzzing about what was at the end, I heard almost nothing about this one. Luckily someone told me to just stay and watch and I'd see for myself and that I did. It's a fabulous little tease of who we'll be seeing next summer from the Marvel universe. On a film lovers note said film in discussion has a fantastic cast and an interesting an extremely against the grain director behind it which could equal something very fresh for the genre. As a fan of the character in question I must say FUCK YES! No longer are we dealing with simple men and their devices, for now we have a film about a man born into badassery. I wait with baited breath that first official teaser trailer.

Summer Film Interests...

I think I've mentioned it on here before, but this summer doesn't have me as jazzed as it usually does. It's not that I've outgrown the spectacle of blockbusters, it's just that several of them this summer just don't have me pumped like I'd like. Last year even with the massive shit that was "Terminator Salvation", I was still excited to return to that world. I was loving everything I saw for Raimi's "Drag Me to Hell" and I couldn't get enough stuff for Michael Mann's "Public Enemies" and Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds". Not to mention the quiet gems that were "Moon" and "District 9". This year it seems that remakes are the name of the game and that's always a touchy subject. Nonetheless I'll see tons of stuff whether I'm game for it or not, because sometimes you get surprised and that always a great feeling. However I did still come up with a list of films that have me particularly looking forward with anticipation and a small honorable mentions list for. So here we go...

1. "Inception"
Christopher Nolan is arguable one of the very best writer/directors working today. He possesses that strange ability to never be showy, but to craft things so brilliantly and carefully as to make them always stand out and be unique. With "Inception" it appears he is jumping ahead another space in creativity by delivering an "extensional science fiction action thriller". The trailers in themselves are works of mysterious art by never telling you a thing other than showing off really cool shit and letting us know that Leonardo DiCaprio is rockin' the picture. But ho, not just him is on this boat; this is probably the coolest cast I've seen in a long, long time (too many to name so imdb it). Furthermore we can expect more IMAX shooting and DP Wally Pfeister will again deliver some more beautiful scenes of controlled choas. It's release date is something also that's interesting as it's due out in the middle of July, a well down no-brain zone for moviegoers, yet here comes something designed for thinking viewers, but caries along action and massive set pieces as well. Daring, very daring.

2. "Predators"
After two rotten as can be "AVP" movies, FOX got wise and wanted to revamp the 'Predator' franchise solo and brought on the Mariachi man himself Robert Rodriguez to godfather the project. So he hired Nimrod Antel (director of 'Kontroll', 'Vacancy' and 'Armored') and together they have made what looks to be a film worthy of it's title. Not only that but they brought together a cast of massive diversity and against the usual grain for this kind of film. Sure they did kind of do that with Danny Glover in "Predator 2", but we can all agree that... well... that one just isn't quite as cool as it should be; and I do like that one. But we have Adrien 'The Pianist' Brody, Alice Braga, Laurence Fishburne, Danny 'Machete' Trejo and Topher 'Foreman' Grace to name a few doing battle on the Predator home world with far less CGI than would be used for these kind of films normally. Needless to say TICKET SOLD!

3. "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World"
You've seen the trailer, tell me how many comic book movies really go this far out? Not too many sadly. Edgar Wright's the man for the job and God willing will be the man for the 'Mission Impossible 4' job (seriously that would kick ass), but here he's pulling out all the stops for a funny, crazy, manic action, romance comedy with Michael Cera workin' hard to make me like him again, fighting for the love of Mary Elizabeth Masterson ('Death Proof'). Awesome as well is that the film already comes with director approval from qusi-twin and two time Oscar nominated film maker Jason Reitman ('Thank You for Smoking', 'Juno', 'Up in the Air').

4. "Get Low"
Head to youtube right now and see this trailer. "Get Low" appears to be a dramatic mystery with humor about a cranky old hermit (Robert Duvall) who goes to town funeral home owners (Bill Murray and Lucas Black) wanting to have a funeral where he's still alive and wants the whole town to be there. But why? That's the million dollar question. Honestly I know the films been in festivals and what not, but I want no part of it. I want to go into this bad boy fresh as possible because this has greatness written all over it.

5. "Splice"
I'd love for this film to be a massive hit. Not a cult hit, but a straight as an arrow box office smash. I've tried to keep my readings of this low, but I've been seeing stuff for it for a long while now and everything about this story is unsettling. Again we see the greatness that is Adrian Brody gracing the screen along with Sally Polley! Seriously we need more of her, either as an actress or a director. Produced by Guillermo Del Toro and directed by 'Cube' creator Vincenzo Natali, it is my hope that "Splice" won't be a fall by the wayside horror film for the summer, but something people really flock to.

6. "Centurion"
I'm a huge Neil Marshall fan. Seriously I grew up watching John Carpenter movies (good and bad) and Marshall is the only guy I've seen tap into a lot of the same feelings that classic Carpenter did. "Centurion" had a surprise premiere at SXSW this March and from what I hear did really well, it's currently set for a limited release, but hopefully that extends. Basically what we have is a Roman sword and sandal picture about the Roman legion that went missing. Lead by former 'Basterd' Michael Fassbnder, the film follows the few survivors being hunted across the countryside by former Bond girl Olga Kurylenko, whose characters family was killed and her raped and her tongue cut out. Again TICKET SOLD!

7. "The Other Guys"
I've got a soft spot for Will Ferrell movies. Sure a lot of them aren't too good, but there are those select titles that still do the job. He reunites with 'Anchorman', 'Talladega Nights' and 'Step Brothers' director Adam McKay for a cop action comedy which boast a cast including Mark Wahlberg, Samuel L. Jackson, Dwayne Johnson, Michael Keaton, Eva Mendas, Ray Stevenson and Damon Waynes Jr.. The trailer works well, the set up appears to work even better and really THIS is the kind of movie Kevin Smith's "Cop Out" wanted to seem like. I really hope it works out.

8. "Robin Hood"
Ridley Scott's return to ye ole ass kicking movies... or shall we say butt kicking considering it's PG-13 rating. Either way it's a Ridley Scott film in which Russell Crowe plays Robin Hood, Cate Blanchet, Maid Marian, William fucking Hurt as the King and Mark Strong as the random badass whose name escapes me right now that Robin must fight. It doesn't have me feeling like it's destined for greatness, but it could be a lot of fun. Plus Ridley's going anti-CGI with a lot of the battle sequences I hear. Me thinks there will be true grit.

9. "The Last Airbender"
Yeah that's right, I'm looking forward to this. Make your M. Night Shyamalan jokes and I won't disagree, but I like the dude. Despite everything he's stuck to what he wants to do and not what's popular in the eyes of everyone else. I respect that even if they do make things I'm not really digging. Now, I hate the idea of 3Ding this so late in the game... or for that matter 3Ding it at all; however as a 2D film I'm very much liking the crazy, batshit fantasy stuff. I'm sure when the film drops it won't be some masterpiece or necessarily a groundbreaking fantasy picture, but his ideas seem in the right place and being a fan of the cartoon series (yep, I used to watch it at work on slow days and online) he appears to be getting a lot of that same tone. I do hope it's not all doom and gloom though as Ang did have fun in life even with people after him. I hate when humor is lost from characters, that's what often displays their humanity best.

10. "Iron Man 2"
It's taken a while, but the hype machine and good word of mouth has gotten into my head. Also Tyler Stout's killer poster really made me think that this might be the geek delight the first was supposed to be. I maintain that I wasn't blown away by the first movie. I think it had some good ideas, Downey Jr. made a nice character albeit softer than the source material character (but understandably so) however the action sequences were highly lacking and the climax was kind of bland for me. I have seen the beginning of the film and first off I love the dirtier look of it and the tone. Rourke may have a classic villain role on his hands and I've heard nothing but good things about the rest of the lot. I'm still not super, super excited, but I am really hoping this sequel works better than the first.

HONORABLE MENTIONS


-"Ondine"
Neil Jordan's Irish-ed up version of Ron Howard's 'Splash' but it appears to have a strong romantic line to it that's less goofy fun and more stone faced. I'm a mild Jordan fan, but the mild cheese in it's trailer and all did interest me. Serious toned fantasy is really tough so I'm damn interested to see if he can pull this off.

-" Toy Story 3"
It takes quite a bit for me to really, really get super excited for Pixar movies now. Maybe when "John Carter of Mars" rolls around that will change, but I think it just has to do with the lack of difference in many of their pictures. I have no doubt 'Toy Story 3' will be good (like 99% of Pixar products). I like the trailers, the 3D is probably alright and the whole cast (sans the late Jim Varney) is back.

-"Piranha 3-D"
I may not love 3D, but anyone willing to exploit it for extra fun and NOT just for extra cash is cool with me. I really had fun with "My Bloody Valentine 3D" last January (the creators of that by the way have a 3D follow up called "Drive Angry" with Nic Cage that sounds like the coolest thing since 'Grindhouse') and now 'The Hill Have Eyes' remake director Alex Aja is getting in there with flying man eating fish and apparently double D breasts in three dimensions. Not what I'd call classy but the casting of Elizabeth Shue, Ving Rhames, Richard Dreyfuss, Jerry O' Connell and Christopher 'Doc Brown' Llyod sell the movie for me. Good times ahead hopefully. Good trashy, nasty and bloody times.

-"Takers"
A heist film produced and starring rapper T.I. doesn't really sound to awesome. But throw in Matt Dillian, Idris Elba, Michael Early (who we need more of), Paul Walker, Jay Hernandez, Zoe Saldana, Chris 'Rihanna beatin' Brown and even Hayden Christensen mixed with a very mainstream flashy, but kind of cool trailer and it's enough to get a rise outta me. Particularly the Mann-inspired digital photography during portions of it. The plot seems like a straight and narrow heist/double cross story, but who knows. Could be something more to it, could be less. Screen Gems once in a while does surprise me with something fresher than expected and I'm hoping this handsome looking picture is it.

-"The Expendables"
Honestly I love the idea more than the trailer. Granted there's some cool shit blowing up throughout and we get a nice glimpse at the impressive cast of today and yesterday action heroes, but then the final piece of it includes a lame as hell song-movie tie in that's piss. However that aside the fact that there exists a movie that has Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis all on one frame of film gets me all giddy. I think I'll wear my Rambo shirt to this one.

-"The A-Team"
Another man on a mission movie, but with the PG-13 treatment (more than likely). The trailer is packed with retarded sequences that are impossible and almost hilariously impossible, but I did hit that age when I watched a shit ton of old tv shows and The A-Team was one of my favorites. I think the casting was quite impressive and I dig director Joe Carnahan a lot and really hope we get HIS film and not a FOX film, which considering his very vocal nature I'm guessing we're getting his. Easily the film could go too crazy and end up like 'Charlie's Angels', but with any luck it'll land just a few blocks away from self-parody.

The Best and Worst of 2010's Spring Season

Time for a countdown blog already? Well kids now that it's May and this Friday the summer movie season gusts in with "Iron Man 2", the spring season is now behind us. So this will be my little step back and look at some of the films I had a blast with, along with the ones I... didn't have a blast with. These lists are always fun and work as a great reminder of really impressive work that sometimes gets forgotten after the giant run of blockbusters so these gems usually have to just sit it out on DVD and blu ray and hope that people who missed them before didn't forget them and do give them a watch. All and all I was actually very pleased with the spring and I'm hoping I have the same surprise level with some of these summer movies, as there's far less than usual that have me really on board to see them. But regardless of how that goes, I'll always have these.

*******************THE BEST********************************
(in no particular order)

-"Green Zone"
The whole deal with Iraq movies is just that it doesn't seem to matter who's in it or what awards it's won, it's just not going to be a movie that people rush out to see. Yes, Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" was great (I maintain it was NOT the best film of 2009, but still worthy of it's nomination(s)) however even on DVD it's not been a big seller. It just boils down to what people want right now is escape and if that means missing stuff that's good and doesn't necessarily provide that, then so what. I place Paul Greengrass' "Green Zone" is this because it's an Iraq movie that successes on multiple levels. It's an entertaining thriller that bares an unpolished 'Bourne' look, but is far from a 'Bourne' film in just about every other way. It's also a smart thriller that makes it's ideas known and doesn't try to sugar coat it (which is always nice to see in this day and age of sugar coating controversial politic thoughts. It's an ensemble peace and a war story where the hero isn't trying to be a hero so much as he wants to know the truth behind all the bogus info that's been putting himself and his team in danger constantly. No speeches, no war sympathy, just a out and out strong, ballsy thriller that remains unseen because of lackluster trailers and a bad case of Iraqi movie syndrome in the public eye.

-"The Book of Eli"
Nowadays it's hard as hell to make a movie with a religious undertone and not attract eighty idiots wanting to bitch about it. You know cause there's nothing else going on in the world of major importance, so let's complain about a movie using a religion as a piece of it's story; yes this sounds like a great cause to rally together for. Ok, rant over. The Hughes brothers have reemerged with a futuristic science fiction samurai western in which they give Denzel Washington a far differing persona than usual (i.e. someone who doesn't have all the answers) and allows Gary Oldman to go bug nuts as the bad guy for what seems like the first time since Luc Besson's "The Professional". However it's the vast supporting cast and the attention to imagery that made me love the film. Tom Waits, Mila Kunis, Jennifer Beals, Malcom McDowell, Ray Stevenson and Michael Gambon all ranging in their roles, but they paint this post apocalyptic world in such a bold light ranging from dark humor to straight iron clad badassery. Is it a religious film? Yes and no. Is it trying to push religion on you? Absolutely not. By the end there's many questions involved with even why the world is the way it is and did religion have something to do with it. Does it matter in the end? I don't really know, but here was a much more involving apocalypse film then we're used to seeing, far more exciting and far more creative in many respects.

-"The Runaways"
Kristen Stewart made likable? Yup. Finally that snarl and look on her face like she smelled some piss is put to not just to good, but pretty damn great use as Joan Jett. But wait... she smiles?! And laughs to? Damn she's on her way to actually playing someone who doesn't just stand in one place looking like a porcelain dollar while cock-teasing two mythical creatures. Not to be outdone Dakota Fanning makes damn sure she's picking up roles like this that really display range, a bit of grace and a good deal of roughness. This ain't a teenage angst movie or a straight and arrow band film per say. But a stylish explosion of rock, excess, teen girls already bad and getting worst and Michael Shannon killing it in every single over the top scene he has. Honestly, just about everything in this film rocked the shit.

-"The Ghost Writer"
Roman Polanski may not be a particularly good person, but as a filmmaker... well... simply put he's still top drawer. 'The Ghost Writer' will arise to the top of his filmography resting aside his classics like "Chinatown", "Rosemary's Baby" and his Oscar winning WWII story "The Pianist". Taunt, smart and never in a hurry is the best kind of mystery and damn if he doesn't get it right on the nose. In addition to that all the performances in the film are pitch perfect, including Pierce Bronsnan, who sells me completely as this qusi-shady former prime minister who wants to be liked desperately, but doesn't want to tell the truth. It's a surprising picture and Polanski employs some subtle old tricks engross you more in the sorted tale. Seriously if this is playing near you, see it.

-"Shutter Island"
Well worth the wait I'd say. The last time Martin Scorsese made a thriller was 1991 with the well done remake of "Cape Fear", however with "Shutter Island" he provides the kind of old school, smart, scare-house mystery that almost never come around anymore. He directs it beautifully and master cinematographer Robert Richardson knows how to paint the scene with tension and foreboding whether in broad day light or grim nights. Leonardo DiCaprio also has fun giving a well ranged performance that is among his tip-top best, up there with his work in "Revolutionary Road". The films imagery is also among some of the best looking stuff Scorsese has ever done and I really hope that come awards season this one isn't forgotten in the ways that "Zodiac" was.

***************SILVER STAR AWARDS***************
-"Edge of Darkness"
A damn well done UK styled noir story that reminded me why Mel Gibson was still important to the film world. Filled with surprises, a little cheese, some great character acting by all and Martin Campbell (for whom this is a remake as he was the director of the 80's BBC miniseries) shows that his impressive work on "Casino Royale" wasn't a fluke.

-"Hot Tub Time Machine"
Far more creative and funnier than "The Hangover", with it's 80's pride flag flying high it brings together a perfect comedic cast that's perfectly balanced. This is a breed of comedy not so much out to dictate a story, but really to tell jokes that 9 times out of 10 kill. No easy feet.

-"Kick-Ass"
How many independently made films can you say involve this much gleefully over the top situations? Probably not too many since the early 90's of hard R-rated (and some NC-17) rated ideas. Matthew Vaughn and company have hit a creative nerve with their adaptation and hopefully it'll cause for more and more daring and creative minds to do the same. Or at least try.

-"The Losers"
PG-13 rated, action exploitation can't work anymore. Says wh0? Apparently the hipster working at the art house sporting skinny jeans, a flamboyant fanny pack he obviously made himself and an odor as if he's been living in a hut with twelve camels for three weeks. Ah, actually show me a hipster that knows what an exploitation film is and I'll be impressed; anyways yes, here's a movie we've seen but here it is again done better and done in a time when we don't really get gleefully, over the top PG-13 man on a mission movies. Furthermore it's against the grain casting choices were a great call and the films look is a nice lightened degree. Really just a cruise controlled fun film when everything out right now has a message or is trying to be dark and have a message. Bruckheimer and Besson would be pleased.

*********************THE WORST*************************
-"Cop Out"
If you have Kevin Smith on your twitter then you know that he's a pretty funny and witty guy. He knows how to handle high and low brow comedy well, but why he would think anything about this turd works is beyond me. "Cop Out" wants to be a comedy, it dreams of being a comedy, but it isn't funny. So unfunny that it almost reaches that headache inducing unfunniness level. The only thing I'm thankful for is that at least Willis and Morgan didn't play the kind of bitchy, self-absorbed characters that fill some of Smith's other films I really didn't like ('Mallrats', 'Dogma', 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back')

-"How to Train Your Dragon"
I wasn't a aware that as long as you place currently hip names in an animated film, throw in some horribly dated jokes that were never funny and try to make badass creatures overly cute that you could get one of the best reviewed films on the year so far. Honestly a small part of me wants to suck it up and brush this off, but far more of me wants people to wake up and start accepting just anything as a good animated movie because it's cute. Honestly that's a pretty lame ass reason so say it's a good movie because beyond it making dragons seem cute and cuddly it fails.

-"A Nightmare on Elm Street"
One of Platinum Dunes worst and wimpiest films to date with the only plus being Jackie Earle Haley's casting as Freddy Kruger. Nothing else in the film works, plain and simple. Nothing is scary, there's only a couple of dream sequences that work, a lot of the acting by the 'teens' is rancid and worst of all the mid section which involves an alright story turns into boring mush after it drones on for too long.

-"Alice in Wonderland"
Ok, if Jackie Earle was the one thing that helped 'Nightmare...' not lay face down in a pool of it's own vomit, then this would be the passed out party goer who's goin' out like Hendrix. Tim Burton has made his worst film since "Corpse Bride". Not only is 'Alice...' visually boring, but the writing is awful, Johnny Depp almost appears to know that this isn't going so hot while shooting this mess and the injected action sequences look like they're out of a really cheap video game. The film was boring as sin and not anywhere near as creative as it should've been given the director and it's impressive cast list.