The Rundown

Do you smeeeeeelll what the Rock is cooking? Well The Rock has beencookingup a whole load of goodies ever since his less then stellar debut on theWWFcircuit. Not only has his popularity in the wrestling ring improvedgreatlyfrom the days of `Rocky Sucks!’ but he has been able to do what fewfellowwrestlers can: Break away with a successful acting career. After alargelyhyped appearance in The Mummy Returns, Dwayne `The Rock’ Johnson starredinthe Mummy spin-off film, The Scorpion King, which was able to gross $84million in the summer of 2002 and have him labeled as the next actionstar.Universal Pictures, seeing the great investing potential of this formerwrestling icon, quickly signed him up with his next project teaming TheRockup with Seann William Scott, who has already had success this year withAmerican Wedding. Dwayne Johnson has been able to work well in the actionarea but can he bring comedy into the mix? The studio definitely hopes soafter investing $75 million in The Rundown (aka `Helldorado’ aka `Welcometothe Jungle’) and releasing it in a time period that is not known to havetoomany top earners.

The story centers on a hit-man who’s out for one last job but this smallassignment is more then he bargained for. Beck, an efficient man forhire,is not the normal kind of person in his line of profession. He givespeopleoptions, he would prefer cooking to fighting, and hates to use guns.After abrawl in a bar one night, Beck decides he wants out but his boss isn’tgoingto let him off so easy. He sends him out on one more job: Travel to theAmazon, picking up his no-good son, and bring him back to the house. Ifhecompletes the job, he gets out of the hit-man profession and can open hisown restaurant, the one thing he seems most passionate about. Beckbelievesthis will just be another typical job but things change quickly. Not onlydoes he have to deal with horny monkeys and quarrelsome natives, Beckknockshorns with Hatcher, the ruthless tyrant of Helldorado. Both men are afterthe same thing and both will do anything to get him but the question liesonwho wants him more? The story for The Rundown is, quite surprisingly,fabulous. This is quite possibly one of the most original action/comedyfilms of the year with a wonderful blend of well choreographed fightscenes,hilarious comedy, and a balanced story to back it all up.

Though the cast is small, most members perform beyond expectations whileothers achieve the normal acting level. Dwayne `The Rock’ JohnsonflattensStalone, Willis, and even Schwarzenegger becoming the next culturalactionstar. Every fight sequence is packed wall to wall with high testosteroneaction and The Rock proving he can kick some serious ass in a grandstyle.And who knew he could be so funny? Well, a good amount of people who sawhimperform on Saturday Night Live last year, but outside of that group, notmany. For those not lucky enough to catch that one of the few truly funnySNL episodes in recent years (And, yes, the show has been pretty bad foracouple of years now), he proves all the skeptics wrong in this film.SeannWilliam Scott, who performed earlier this year in Bulletproof Monk andAmerican Wedding (the latter being the much bigger success), sure proveshehas the comedic idiot act down pat though not as hilarious as he was inthelast American Pie film. Perhaps it was the absence of using the F-bomb somany times but maybe it was the fact that the movie-going public isn’tuseto seeing him as the idiotic yet nice guy in comedies. ChristopherWalken,as usual, never fails to amaze us. Once again he is able to mix comedyanddrama well together without balancing one or the other. There wereseveraljokes made by the talented actor that took awhile to get the point of butwhen the punch-line came, the jokes really paid off. And Rosario Dawson,anot too well known performer, was moderate at best but the main problemwasthat, as semi-important as her character was, wasn’t featured as much assheshould have been. There weren’t too many that showed off her actingchops,which is quite a shame since there could have been plenty of potentialhadthey allowed her to showcase her talent.

Overall, The Rundown smashes, blasts, and bombards the movie theater witheverything its got and, quite surprisingly, the audience is left wantingmore, which, for once, isn’t a bad thing. Dwayne `The Rock’ Johnsonproveshe can live up to all the hype declaring him as this generation’s actionstar and shows off some true acting chops that few from his former lineofwork can do. As good as the film was, it wasn’t quite as funny as othercomedies like American Wedding were. The problem lied in the fact thatTheRundown took awhile to really get going by setting up a decent back storyand stuff like that, which can be good on its own but when you’re dealingwith a buddy comedy such as this, it can come off as being a bit of adisappointment. The time length of the feature seemed a little too shortbutthis is quite a minor squabble compared to all the praise one can sayaboutthis film. The Rundown is another valiant effort from The Rock andUniversalPictures that proves action flicks can be funny, intense and dramatic allinthe same feature without outbalancing itself.

My Rating: **** out of 5 (Grade: B+)

For the past while, there has been a malaise in the action genre, not justwith American-made ones, but with foreign action movies as well. Thismalaise can also be felt in this movie. It’s not The Rock’s fault - he showsa willing-and-able attitude, and he has a charisma that puts a little lifein his scenes. It’s just that the rest of the movie has little to offer toboth him and the audience. The action scenes are poorly filmed - sometimesthey are too dark and shot too closely, like the opening club scene or thecave sequence. Most often than not the action is photographed to be tooblurry for the eye to focus and be able to appreciate. Come to think of it,there isn’t that much action in the movie anyway. That fact may have beenmade up for by the rest of the movie, but isn’t. The story is a bore, whereeven the Amazon location can’t disguise we’ve more or less seen it allbefore. We don’t even have an interesting villain - Walken’s screen time isbarely more than an extended cameo, and he looks and acts very tiredwhenever he appears. Come to think of it, maybe the title is supposed to bereferring to him.

This movie sucks! None of the things its real! Come on, get a geographybook!!! Eldorado is a city that was left behind in the INCAS time!! Themonkeys aren’t from Brazil, they are from Africa! The mines, well, thatis true that we have this kind of problem, but we are working it out.Anyways, just go to any site that have any thing about Brazil, lookup… get some geography and history classes, before doing such astupid movie! Get real!! Anyway, the actors aren’t that bad, is justthat the script is totally irrational. I think it is better to notwrite then doing stupidity like this, its a waste of time! Please,check it out in some GOOD sites about Brazil, we aren’t just nakedwomens, football and carnival!!! WE HAVE HISTORY JUST LIKE ANY OTHERCOUNTRY!!!

R.J. Stewart, you stole two hours of my life, and I’ll never getthem back. I also blame Christopher Walken, for involving himself in aventure as bad as ‘The Rundown’. Dignity, Walken, dignity… thatmonologueabout the tooth fairy? For goodness’ sake.

This movie has now entered the hallowed halls of my Top Five All-TimeWorstMovie Experiences. It rubs elbows with such stellar productions as: ThePallbearer with David Schwimmer and Gwyneth Paltrow; Vampire in Brooklynwith Eddie Murphy; The Postman with Kevin Costner; and Beverly HillsNinjawith Chris Farley. It has gently nudged Medicine Man starring SeanConneryfrom these prestigious ranks. Congratulations, Mr. The Rock — you suckwiththe best.

R. J. Stewart (whose resume I will include below), blatantly, blatantlystole from other Hollywood films to cobble together his shoddy script.Romancing the Stone. Indiana Jones. Apocalypse Now (they actually madeCh
ristopher Walken use the phrase "Heart of Darkness" in a speech to the"backwards natives"). Not to mention The Three Amigos (Walken as ElGuapo).And I guess you could make an argument for a certain link betweenAmericanPie II — with its humping dogs and Seann William Scott — and thehumpingmonkeys and Seann William Scott in The Rundown.

Save your optic nerve the pain of having to transmit this trash to yourbrain. Do not let my sacrifice be in vain.

I would like to say that who ever the director was they should quit thefilmmaking business. Bad lighting and bad camera angles.

the music score didn’t seem to fit the movie either. the actors lookedstupid saying their bad lines as well.

two words WALK AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was expecting to really like this movie. It was advertised as the "2ndcoming of Arnold Schw.." It got 3 1/2 stars from Ebert. How wrong theywere….!!! This movie was a sub-B poor imitation of Romancing the Stone. The guy who played Stifler in American Pie was really miscast. I wantedThe Rock to kill him almost immediately to put us all out of our misery. The Rock was good enough as a kind of Kung Fu character, but, to compare himto Arnie or Stallone in their heyday is ludicrous. The action never quitesucked you in nor did the sophomoric comedy. If 5th grade comedy is whatyour want, look toward Disney who does it much better. The special effectswere right out of the 50’s; did you see how they tossed around the big GOLDthing like it was cardboard? I love Chris Walken and was looking forwardto seeing a great Walken riff in this movie. It never really happened; hejust phoned it in.

First when The Rock is entering the disco and says hello to ArnoldSchwarezenegger (or however its spelled!) I was all excited and like WAUW,Arnold, this movie just gotta be cool, BUT:IT WASN’T COOL, you always knew what was gonna happen next, and the onlything in this movie I had not seen before was the big fall, which wasboringanyway…If you like Indiana Jones at some bizarre level or just loves to wasteyourmoney go watch this one.This movie should have been made for TV only.But again, maybe I just have a bad taste for movies!

The is a completely mindless action film, the plot is ridiculous andthe dialogue is bad. There is nothing here that you haven't alreadyseen somewhere else done better.

The characters are all action clichés but at least the leads are playedwell.

Johnson is likable as the hero although the over-used pose of the herowho doesn't like guns (Indiana Jones anyone!) grates on the nerves veryquickly as he keeps throwing weapons away instead of using them.

Scott is good as a comedy side-kick although you will recognise hischaracter from every other film he's been in, not much range in hisacting so far.

Walken is wasted in his role, his only chance to act is near the endand he hams it up in a cringe-worthy exit sequence.

Unfortunately, for an action film, the action sequences are awful. Theyaren't even slightly believable.

There is a spectacular jungle fight where, to facilitate the hero notusing guns, everyone puts aside their weapons and fights usinggymnastics in ways that don't make sense and are reminiscent ofwrestling matches at their most fake.

The end battle is the worst in the film with bullets flying and the badguys somehow missing everything and Johnson literally tearing downbuildings and flying when he jumps on a few occasions.

If you want action watch one of the Bourne films don't waste your timeon this.

The movie started well but that all ended with the nightclubscene.

The Rock continues to show he is quite a good actor despite being awrestler.

Sean William Scott continues with the usual character, for the most partit’s no longer funny. An example being the bird noises, he did exactly thesame thing in "Evolution", it wasn’t too funny then and it’s even less funnysecond time around.

Walken is usually always reliable but the script does him no favours, cringeas he acts the tough guy through telling a story of the toothfairy.

it’s as entertaining as wrestling!

Good trailer, bad movie. I thought this might be a fun diversion, butinstead, it was painful boredom.

If The Rock wants to be an action star, he needs to take find a betterdirector than Peter Berg. The biggest problem with this movie’snumerous action sequences is that you can’t see them. Lots of tightclose-ups and bone-crunching sounds, but I never really got the sensethat The Rock could really beat up half of these people. Where are themoves? Seann William Scott is normally a funny guy. Here, thescreenwriter(s) didn’t figure out what to do with him, so he alternatesin motives and personality on a regular basis. Christopher Walken has afew bits of humour, but it only makes you wonder if the paycheck wasreally worth his precious time for this one.

The best thing about this entire movie is the cameo in the first scene.It just makes you wish that the particular guest had stayed around andThe Rock had left.

read comments (0)

The Recruit

If you take off the beginning and the last five minutes or so o the film, and you actually have a pretty decent movie on your hands. First of all, I won’t ruin it for anyone, but the beginning is just too quick and unrealistic. One second Colin Farrell is a genius/jock/bartender and the next he is training to be in the CIA. It was like some weird slight of hand trick. And the ending! Just walk out for the past five minutes, for Al Pacino just absolutely provides some of the crummiest and most clichéd dialogue I have seen in a long time. So show up late and arrive early, because the middle sequences are just absolutely brilliant. Sometimes funny, and often times cool, just stay for the beefy and tasteful middle section of the film.

The beginning, the training scenes, acting, and suspense where great.ColinFarrell, can act with Al Pacino; there is a chemistry. I hope they domorefilms together. This film has many twists and turns, but one too many.Theending is a joke, I figured it out, and said you got to be kidding. Farfetched. Still, a good film in spite of the weak ending. The BourneIdentity is better. Hey how can I get a job with the CIA? I give this a7/10.

THE RECRUIT (2003) ** Colin Farrell, Al Pacino, Bridget Moynahan, GabrielMacht. Listless action thriller with towheaded computer whiz Farrell astheeponymous CIA enlistee who finds himself embroiled in a complicated worldofmind games and manipulation courtesy of his suspicious recruiter (Pacino)while falling for his sexy fellow recruit Moynahan. Boring in itsexecutionwith little to offer to a hit-and-miss genre with Farrell in themore-or-less father issue role Tom Cruise would be pitched for. (Dir:RogerDonaldson)

In "The Recruit," Al Pacino plays a variation of the character he played inDonnie Brasco, only this time Johnny Depp is replaced by Colin Farrell andthere are computers. This is not a bad thing in itself - Pacino turns in asuperb performance and Farrell smolders intensely as humanly possiblewithout actually igniting. Thanks to this, the film is very entertainingfor the first two-thirds; it’s the jaw-droppingly convoluted last act thatruins it all and leaves us less than satisfied. Something cool DOES happentoward the end, involving a bluff (all I can say), and that worked at least.

It’s a wonder USA still is a super power, if CIA was behaving like it alwaysis in the movies. "The Recruit" is another field agent training film withanother field agent trainer, which here is Al Pacino. Is he that out ofmoney that he has to appear in this? It’s much worse than"Insomnia".

The plot here is not to be believed, to express it in a moderate gentle way.If everything is so secret, why do the characters communicate in mobilephones? Why don’t they check out for microphones in the cars while dealingwith classified information? The "unpredictable" end is not unpredictable atall. You’re are rather aware of who the bad guy is.

Keep away from this film. It’s a recommendation.

This movie throws every plot twist your way and keeps you guessing at everyturn. It eventually becomes a typical nothing-is-as-it-appears and you can’ttrust anyone type movie, but I liked it. Al Pacino gives a terrific,over-the-top performance in the lead, and Collin Ferrel and Bridget Moynahangive solid supporting roles. I liked it a lot.

*** out of ****

This likeable thriller offers some good dialogue opportunities for Pacino’sspy specialist, but also makes you restless with it’s drab, romantic momentsfeaturing runty bad boy, Colin Farrell, whose leading lady makes him looklike the passive player in their relationship. It’s a cat and mousethriller, and Pacino always makes for a good fat cat, and, now that I thinkabout it, Farrell is a pretty good choice for a mouse.

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A MealInstead*Avoid At All Costs

Al Pacino and Colin Farrell headbill this utterly forgettable pot boilingthriller,a mildly intriguing premise completely overwhelmed by aslumberous,unintelligible plot that never seems to develop any pace andnever seems to actually go anywhere.It’s fairly well acted though,withPacino delivering his standard forceful prescence and Farrell convincingenough as the central protagonist.It also contains some engaging dialogueand things do heat up toward the end,with Pacino really coming alive in theclosing scene,but ultimately it’s too little,too late.It’s from the directorof the admittently excellent Thirteen Days,Roger Donaldson,here proving notas adept handling a thriller as he was a drama.He does make it workthough,but only just and certainly not as well as it could havedone.***

The best thing I can say about this dud is that Al Pacino doesn’t yelltoomuch in it. Preposterous from the first scene, with unbelievablecharacters,ham-fisted dialogue, and wooden performances all around. Director RogerDonaldson has some some OK work in the past (Smash Palace, No Way Out, 13Days), but this here is a clunker of near biblical proportions, andshouldonly be viewed on the slowest of possible evenings, assuming you’vealreadyseen everything there is to see, and have already seen even the bad onestwice. I give a generous 2, only for it’s production values. Skipit.

This is by no means Al Pacino’s best movie or even Colin Farrel’s but it isa good film that has you thinking all the way through and although theending is predictable it dos not spoil the film.Farrel is fast becoming a big hit in Hollywood is quite rightly so and asfar as i’m concerned he actually outshines the best actor alive at themoment , Mr Pacino.A good movie.8 out of 10.

read comments (0)

The Station Agent

I rented this movie after seeing Peter’s film work credits. I have comeaway from this film wanting more. It has merits of seeing friendshipsin a whole new light. It was one of those quiet films that entertainedan audience if you skip over the rough language. When the film came toan end, I wanted to see more.

The script was great. The action out of this film was very well doneand the actors made these characters very real for me. It’s lushscenery makes you want to find such a place to escape to. It also givesyou a glimpse of life that is not always seen, much less talked about.There are a lot of people that like to do things alone, but it doesmake one want to see another person view of life in a different light.

It sort of like having "Second Hand Lions" meets "Places in the Heart"feel good movie. Peter should have had an Oscar award for hisportrayal.

The main characters in The Station Agent include Fin, Olivia, and Joe.From first glance it looks as though all of these three characters haveclinical mental disorders. In actuality, it is difficult to diagnosethese individuals as having clinical mental disorders. Take forinstance Fin. At first he looks to be depressed and somewhatantisocial. But he actually does not fit the criteria to be diagnosedwith having either disorder. It is true that Fin seems to be sad and/orempty a lot of the time like when he does not socialize with Joe whenJoe offers to hang out with him and he does not seem to take anypleasure out of activities he does partake in like when he istrain-watching. But he is also not losing any weight because he stilleats regularly, not having trouble sleeping because the movie showsthat he does sleep pretty soundly, does not seem to be out of energybecause Fin does walk a whole lot, and Fin does not think about killinghimself because he does not try to commit suicide in the movie. Eventhough Fin does not like to be around people, he is not a violentperson, nor does he do anything that is unlawful. Rather, Fin seems tohave built a wall around himself so that he is kept safe from harmpeople can do to his feelings. In fact he shows more characteristics ofhaving schizoid personality disorder. Fin likes to spend time alone,when Joe asks him if he can go on the walk with Fin, Fin replies no. Helikes to be alone. Fin also seems to not invite other people into hislife. He answers other people’s questions shortly, without anyelaboration. It is as though he does not want any friends. Fin issimilar to Gilbert Grape in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, by way ofhaving flat affect like that of Gilbert Grape. There is no emotion inFin’s voice. He does not show any expression in his voice nor in hisface. In this way, Fin has characteristics of anhedonia. From firstglance, Olivia looks to have Major Depressive Disorder and she showssigns of being absentminded and overly open about her life. It is truethat Olivia did go through a difficult time with having her son diewhen he was still a child two years ago. That tragic event paid a bigtoll on her mental well-being. Olivia’s life went downhill from thatmoment. She moved away from her home, became separated from herhusband, and avoided any real relationships with other human beings. Soit is true, Olivia does have Major Depressive Disorder. Olivia doesseem to have a depressed mood for most of the day because Joe said thatOlivia has never really opened up to him before, Olivia seems to beenjoying her painting but that seems like all she is interested in,Olivia seems to be out of energy or at least not full of energy just bylooking at the way she moves around, and Olivia does seem to feelguilty for her son’s death because she did emphasize to Fin that sheturned away from her son and he fell off the monkey bars. For her othercharacteristics, she seems to just be absentminded and open about herlife when she feels that she will not be judged, and that is why sheopened up to Fin because she thinks Fin will not judge her. Joe seemsto be very eccentric and dependent on others. It is easy to jump to theconclusion that Joe has a Dependent Personality Disorder. But ifsomeone studies more of what Joe is like by watching the movie, it iseasy to rule out that he has Dependent Personality Disorder. it is morelike he is lonely. He is stuck running his father’s catering businessin the middle of nowhere. He is just looking for someone to talk to andto pass the time with.

Sadly, the most interesting thing about this film is that the leadingman is a dwarf. I had heard a lot of positive things about it andwanted to like it, but was very disappointed. Other than the dwarffactor, I think the film falls short (no pun intended) on many levels.It’s okay that the story unfolds slowly, but there were so manydirections it could have taken; and yet, it goes nowhere. It revolvesprimarily around three characters whose lives intersect. The characterdevelopment is half-baked and the characters themselves are notinteresting enough to sustain the story. The dwarf (Finn) wants to beleft alone — this we find out quickly. Is that enough to make him andthe movie interesting? Do we care about the other two characters? Justbarely. Anything else going on? Not really. Peter Dinklage is great –but I feel he is wasted here in what could have been a landmark rolefor a dwarf as leading man. At one point in the film, his characterstates that in spite of the fuss often made about his size, he isreally a boring person; and we get the sense that he is right — he isboring, and ultimately so is the film.

After seeing some good reviews of the film, without reading spoilers idecided to watch this bore. What a mistake. The main character, Finn isa completely miserable person and because of this and reading otherusers comments i cant believe how anyone found this a fun orinteresting film. He rarely speaks and i understand why, due to beinglooked down upon by people all his life. What i don’t understand is whyit gets awards for simply having a short guy in a terrible transientplot less film. The characters themselves were vaguely interesting buthaving a film with no actual substance to it just seems like a completewaste of time. No comedy no plot no point. If you remotely like actionfilms - avoid. If you like fun films - avoid. If you like delving intoevery aspect of characters on screen without having to worry aboutANYTHING else happening in the film - This is your film and i don’tunderstand you…. 4/10 and thats only for the 2 accidental rundowns.

The Station Agent is a movie that I have wanted to watch for a whilenow. After finally watching it I was left wanting more from the endingand the lack of resolution; however, the DVD was saved with the extrascenes that were truncated. I wish the filmmakers had retained theending with Joe and Olivia calling Fin’s cell phone. It seem to bringtogether their friendship and Fin "coming around". It also tied up theloose end with the condition of Joe’s dad. Putting that aside, Ienjoyed the Fin’s character development and the relationship betweenFin and Emily. Overall the movie is slow to develop but entertaining. 7OUT OF 10.

I just got finished watching this movie, and it captivated me from start tofinish! This is the definition of a great film! God bless independentcinema, because you would never see a major studio film that centers on adwarf, a Hispanic man and a woman in her 40’s. Yes, people like this existin the world and they have feelings too.

Peter Dinklage gives a pitch-perfect, topnotch performance. It’sunfortunate that it’s hard for actors like him to get good roles in themovie business, because he possesses as much talent as every popular moviestar combined. He plays a man of extremely few words, yet you can read hisemotions with every facial expression and piece of body language. The actorwho plays his buddy, Joe, also gives a wonderful performance. It helps thathe plays a hugely lovable character. But he’s lovable in a believa
ble way. He’s doesn’t serve as some tool to elicit giant "awwws" from the audience. You see people like him everyday. People who live lonely lives (in thiscase, he’s a man confined to sitting in a lunch truck day-by-day), who aresimply looking for folks to talk to and make friends with. The minute hesees that our main character is living close to his lunch truck, he finds anopportunity for friendship. It’s frustrating as we watch our maincharacter, Fin, brush off people who are trying to make friends with him,but at the same time you understand his reasons. A close friend of his justdied and he has to deal with the baggage of living his whole life as adwarf, and being the object of ridicule. So when he sees people so eager tomake friends with him, he doesn’t know whether their feelings are genuine orthey’re just patronizing him because of his condition. And the beautifulthing about this movie is none of those character motivations are laid outon the table in a heavy-handed, expositional way. The writer-director madethe film in such a way that you’re able to interpret these details fromtheir normal, everyday activities. The cast of brilliantly talented actorshelp us interpret those details as well. Aside from the two actors I justmentioned, Patricia Clarkson gives a wonderfully subtle performance. I’mguessing she achieved most of her fame from the hit show "Six Feet Under." Unfortunately, I don’t have cable and am not too familiar with her work,other than various supporting roles she has played in the past. There isnot one bad apple in this bunch of actors. Even the girl who plays Cleo(who was previously in "Lovely and Amazing") does a wonderful job, thoughher role is moderately small. Then again, there are no small roles, justsmall actors–and she certainly doesn’t fit that bill.

I can’t say enough about this gem of a motion picture. As I always say,good films come more often than I think, but great films are rare. This isone of those rare, great films that is deserving a perfect score. "TheStation Agent" serves as further proof that it doesn’t matter how little abudget you have; great films can be made for little or no money, andsometimes money even ruins films. Independent cinema rules!!!!!

My score: 10 (out of 10)

The Station Agent was one of the great arthouse films of the year 2003. First time director Thomas McCarthy delivers a wonderful film, and hopefullyit will not be long before he makes another film.He tells a simple story, about how a reclusive dwarf named Finbar (PeterDinklage) adjusts to like in a small town, and befriends two of thetownspeople, Joe (Bobby Canavale) and Olivia (PatriciaClarkson).It sounds deceptively simple, even boring, but it is one of the mostrelaxing and refreshing motion picture experiences I have everhad.Dinklage is the heart of the movie, creating a character who is often thecentre of attention, but who is, in his own words, "ordinary". Canavaleprovides a burst of energy with his portrayal of Joe, who is emotionallywounded because of his father’s issues, but desperately wants to be friendswith Finbar. And Patricia Clarkson (whose Oscar nomination should have beenfor this film) is the frail Olivia; Clarkson is heartbreaking in herrole.See this movie if you can, because you will not regretit.

I placed the DVD in the player with some trepidation – I’d bought thistitle based solely on one DVD review. What seemed a few minutes laterI’d watched the film, played all the deleted bits and was firing it offwith the commentary track – and then I looked at the time and realizeda couple of very enjoyable hours had passed.

I do not normally write reviews but in this case the writer, crew andactors have all combined to produce a wonderfully entertaining film.

I cannot recommend this film enough. It tackles what could so easilyhave been a sugar coated nonsense or as easily have been a tale of woeand bitterness, with such subtlety and humour.

This is a very low budget independent American film that was releasedwith little fuss, but has slowly built up a real following due to goodword of mouth over the last year. It would be tempting to describe thisas a ‘cult’ movie but that would probably give the people the wrongidea and put to much of the emphasis on this being ‘quirky’ (aren’t yousick of hearing that expression about so many ‘indie’ films thesedays)and weird. Yes, the main character is not the kind of person we’reused to seeing in a lead role (well, physically at least) but this is avery simple, sweet tale which deals with very real human emotionalissues.

Plot wise there’s nothing spectacular here, the film tells the story ofloner Finbar McBride, a seemingly sad, solitary man (brilliantly playedby Peter Dinklage)who inherits an abandoned railway station followingthe death of his friend. Fin’s only real passion in life appears to betrains, and as we quickly see he has a tendency to reject companionshipand seems to desire a life of solitude. However into his life come thechild like hot dog salesman Joe (a charismatic Bobby Cannavale) andOlivia (the brilliant Patricia Clarkson), a free spirited butcomplicated painter who is still coming to terms with a family tragedy.We see how these three characters interact and influence each otherslives, and ultimately form a very unlikely friendship.

Director Thomas McCarthy allows the film to unravel at a deliberatelyslow pace, allowing each actor to breathe life into their characters togreat effect. It’s at times funny, sad and thought provoking, yetimportantly I feel manages to avoid falling into the trap of feelingself indulgent or pretentious.

The best thing I can say about this film is that by the end it feelsnot so much like a movie, but more like you’ve been invited to spend 90minutes in the company of three old friends, and it certainly left mewanting more. As has been stated by several people on this site, theending does at first feel fairly abrupt but on repeated viewings itseems somehow right.

Not for everyone’s taste to be sure, but fans of quality, intelligentfilm making would be strongly advised to check this little gem out.

Just a fabulous movie all around, in every respect. What a beautifulperformance by Peter Dinklage! Patricia Clarkson was superb in TheGreen Mile, and she’s every bit as wonderful in this one. BobbyCannavale is absolutely hilarious when he’s supposed to be, and henails the more dramatic parts every single time as well. Three trulyoutstanding performances from three very gifted actors.This was one ofthose movies that stayed with me for days after I watched it (in a goodway — other movies, like Dead Man Walking, haunted the hell out of mefor nearly a week). This is one of those films that you are truly gladto have experienced. I laughed out loud at the funny parts and wastouched deeply by the more emotional ones — and I am a VERY difficultperson to impress when it comes to movies. Everything about this filmis genuine; there’s nothing contrived or false about it. It’s wonderful– and it takes a lot to make me say that about a movie nowadays.

read comments (0)

The United States of Leland

I was looking forward to seeing this at Sundance, and I have to say, Iwas abit disappointed. This was beautifully filmed, and the actors werewonderful in their roles, so as a film, I couldn’t find much fault withit.Kevin Spacey was awesome in his small role. My problem with the film isthat it was rather one sided. The director, after the showing Iattended,got up in front of us and said that he wanted to show both sides of thestory, but I don’t think he did. The goal seemed to be to show thatmurdering teenagers are not monsters, as most people seem to think theyare.They have issues. Well, yeah, I suppose that’s true. But I didn’t seemuch sympathy for the victims of such horrible crimes. Yes, some of thecharacters referred to the murdering teen protagonist as a sick messed upkid, but then they met him and found out there was more to him. Themotherof the autistic victim didn’t even shrug, much less shed a tear when hersonwas killed. I can’t say this was a bad film, but I don’t think I wouldseeit again.

"The United States Of Leland" is one of those movies where you'realmost afraid to admit that it did nothing for you. Don't be. How couldyou feel any other way when the characters keep saying profane things("there's so much sadness in the world") that are supposed to be reallymoving and deep.

Not only because of the presence of Kevin Spacey and Jena Malone doesthis movie feel like a mixture of "American Beauty" and "Donnie Darko".In fact, if you took Donnie Darko with his constant blank expressionand put him in "American Beauty" this movie would be the outcome.Really, the parallels are stunning and I'm amazed that Kevin Spaceywould want to star in a movie that similar again.

As in "American Beauty", at the beginning of "Leland" we learn that amurder has happened and the story is being told in retrospect. The linethat I quoted above about the sadness in the world is being repeated afew times and it's more than just a little reminiscent of "There's somuch beauty in the world" as said in "American Beauty" byannoying-guy-with-a-hat-and-a-camera, another one of those blank facedteenage characters that some people in Hollywood seem to thinkrepresents today's youth so poignantly. Hell, the similarities even goas far as both movies referencing the U.S.A in their title.

At the end of the day "The United States Of Leland" is nothing but apoor rehash of other movies that weren't that great in the first place.It's trying hard to move you, but fails to do so. Instead the makersannoy with their perception of the problems in modern society. As DenisLeary once put it: "Life sucks, get a f…. helmet!"

I’ve watched this movie two times and I still don’t think I know whatit’s all about. I mean I know what was film about but I can’t getpoint. It was hard to watch this movie because it shows to us howcomplicated and weird are world and our minds. We can’t imagine howsome perfect child can killed someone and doesn’t even cared. In myopinion the most important moment in "US…" is when Leland says "Itdoesn’t change anything but I’m sorry" and for me that’s the point. Thecreator wants us to understand that when we did something wrong and wewant to make it right, first we gotta understand that we made somethingbad and no matter what it was our fault. This movie teach us about muchmore things and I really recommend it.

"Everyone has excuses"

THE UNITED STATES OF LELAND (2004) *** Ryan Gosling, Don Cheadle, JenaMalone, Chris Klein, Kevin Spacey, Lena Olin, Michelle Williams, MartinDonovan, Ann Magnuson, Kerry Washington, Sherilyn Fenn, Michael Welch.Gosling stars as a young man whose killing of his girlfriend’s youngermentally challenged brother sets the stage for stunning heartbreak,anomie and angst and in general disbelief with the big question of WHY?With the feel of a novella come to life novice filmmaker Matthew RyanHoge has a lot to say about the state of America’s seeminglynumbification and social strata crumbling in suburbia as well as towhat is expected of as a human being and what is not. The film has thefeel of a tragic event unfolding with an almost hypnotized cast in anether that cannot be broken until the film’s unraveled last act whichmakes up for some of its prescience. The ensemble cast is excellentwith stand-out turns by Cheadle, Malone and Donovan has one singularmoment of articulated rage that speaks volumes for anyone whose everlost a loved one under the scrutiny of the media. Nice also to see Fennback onscreen in a sadly sweet turn. Spacey produced through hisproduction company Trigger Street Productions.

I was surprised when I saw the high rating this movie had on imdb.combecause I didn’t find it that great. First of, I did like it fairly but Ifound it to be a little slow and long lasting for my taste. This is probablynot the best film to watch if you are sitting with your friends on a Fridaynight ready to enjoy a movie. The story is simple; a guy stabs another guyand kills him for what seems to be without reason. In prison he meatsteacher Pearl Madison who is very interested in finding out why Leland didcommit this horrible crime. The more they talk with each other the more yourealize that Leland is, well I am going to be frank, crazy. That is myopinion though. I will not tell you more about this movie because I want youto make up your own opinion about it. But to sum it all up, it is enjoyablebut a little long and slow and filled with odd characters. And by the way,Kevin Spacey is hardly even in the movie although they have put him as oneof the main characters. I rate this movie 6/10

An anonymous California city where time goes by in an ordinary way seesone day something devastating and unexpected. The whole plot, split inmany unnecessary subplots, focuses on everybody (citizens, media, theentire community) trying to figure out what exactly and why itoccurred. Telling this story of teen violence and family dysfunctiongets thinking a lot, it’s very provocative but the final results aremore melodramatic than convincing. In spite of Ryan Gosling’s sensitiveperformance, the movie finally looks like a serial TV drama and doesn’tsucceed in answering all the questions. Kevin Spacey, a very talentedactor, is here under his usual standards.

While this is clearly a very good movie with an excellent performancefrom Don Cheadle, I actually didn’t get what it was all about. I mean,what really happened here? I think the parts were actually bigger thanthe sum, or something like that. I felt the same way after seeing TheLife Of David Gale, and Kevin Spacey was in that too, so if a film hasKevin Spacey in it maybe I should pay more attention. While watchingthis I also couldn’t help but think, "This is Donnie Darko". Some otherthings that made me think of Donnie Darko, was the gun in in shoebox.That was right out of Donnie Darko. This is a good movie but I liked itthe first time i saw it and when it was called Donnie Darko

This film is great in many ways. it gives us a different view of ourlives and who we look at ourself in everyday lives. The title of thisfilm is another great example of the film. Acting in this film is greatas well Ryan Gosling betraying the role of Lealand is great. the rolesuited him very well in showing his emotions in the film. Don acting asthe teacher who cares about Lealand and actually wanting help himrather than his dad (kevin Spacey) and wanting to get a book at theend, don in the end finally learns something from Lealand. This film isworth watching by yourself and actually makes think at the end and seethe world through his eyes more.

In a world awash in frivolous, inconsequential movies targeting thelowest common denominator (not that all of such are with
out a certainamount of entertainment value), "The United States of Leland" is ablessedly thought-provoking film, full of substance and significance.

Ryan Gosling is extraordinary as Leland P. Fitzgerald, a detachedteenager coming to grips with his feelings of disillusionment anddisconcertion regarding the meaning of his life, and in doing so,commits an unforgivable and seemingly meaningless act of violence.

Don Cheadle, playing Pearl Madison, the teacher at the juveniledetention facility to which Leland is sent, is as always, fantastic.The complexity of his character fluctuates between infidelity with hisgirlfriend; to a genuine concern for Leland; to his self-servingstruggling, part-time writer alter-ego that pushes him to find thereason and circumstances behind Leland's inextricable actions.

Kevin Spacey plays a part he seems to have been born to play: Aself-absorbed, callous man, insensitive to those around him who sufferhis wrath. Playing a successful writer (Albert T. Fitzgerald, Leland'sfather), his condescension and distance toward others lays, in part,the foundation of the implied decline of his marriage, and perhaps, thereason lurking behind his son's ultimate horrific decision.

Jena Malone (who played 'Mary' in "Saved!") portrays Leland'sgirlfriend, a young teen fraught with personal demons, the least ofwhich is a drug addiction that threatens to destroy her most intimaterelationships, as well as herself.

An extremely well-written script, and a supporting cast of actors suchas Lena Olin, Chris Klein, Ann Magnuson, and Sherilyn Fenn contributingfine performances, create an unforgettable portrayal of a teenager'slife in emotional turmoil.

This film is not for anyone looking for a quick fix to boredom, or apicker-upper for those feeling down or depressed. It is an utterlyabsorbing character study filled with heartache and desolation, as wellas a very telling example of life in these United States.

OK, so there's this kid who had a not-so-great life and, like, did thisbad thing. He goes to a kiddie-jail and makes friends with his teacher.His teacher does some good things, but he also does some bad thing,too. But not, like, as bad as the things the kid did, but, like, stillbad things. And then some, like, stuff happens, and like, you neverreally find out why. It's there just to be there.

Like, the end.

Garbage. Total garbage. Anybody who says this is a movie worth watchingis such a pretentious ***hole that they forgot how to see crap whenit's staring them in the face.

read comments (0)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

When 4 teenagers are traveling to a rock concert, driving through Texasafter taking a stop in Mexico to get their illegal substance of choice,they make the mistake of picking up a deranged and unhinged hitchhiker,whom after seeing that they're going the way she really doesn't want togo, takes a gun out of her snatch and kills herself. Thus begins theyet another horror remake in a long LONG line of redone horror movies.And given my disdain for warmed over carbon copies of earlier bettermovies, i found myself unexpectedly enjoying this one…well to a pointat least. The unmasking and softening of Leatherface was a misstep ofmassive proportions in my eyes and the addition of new family membersreminded me more of the simply atrocious "TCM: the Next Generation"than anything else. Both of these things soured the movie a bit for me.However, I found R. Lee Ermey to be quite good in this film andcompared to other remakes, it's still above average, if nothing closeto the enjoyability of the high point of the "Dawn of the Dead" remake.

My Grade: C-

2 Disc Platinum Edition DVD Extras: Disc 1) Commentary by directorMarcus Nispel, producer Michael Bay, executive producers Andrew Pormand Brad Fuller and New Line co-chairman Robert Shaye; Secondcommentary by Nispel, cinematographer Daniel Pearl, production designerGreg Blair, art director Scott Gallagher, sound editor Trevor Jolly andcomposer Steve Jabinsky; Third commentary by Nispel, Bay, Porm &Fuller, screenwriter Scott Kosar and actors/actresses Jessica Biel,Erica Leerhsen, Eric Salfour, Jonathan Tucker, Mike Vogel & AndrewBryniarski

Disc 2) 7 deleted/ Alternate scenes (including an alternate opening &ending); music video by Motogrator; Screen tests of Jessical Biel, EricBalfour, and Erica Leerhson; the 72 minute documentary "Chainsaw Redux:Making a Massacre"; 2 stills galleries; a 25 minute doc on Ed Gain; 7TV spots; Teaser & Theatrical trailer; and trailers for "Highwaymen","Willard", "the Butterfly Effect", & "Ripley's Game" (it also hasDVD-Rom content but I couldn't get that to work)

It dont matter what movie it is that gets the remake treatment people willalways say “it is cr*p“ or “not as good as the original“.Well in this case it`s better than the original way better the only goodpoints to the original were: leatherface, and the atmosphere of it nothingelse that stupid woman running around screaming all the time was soannoyingshe should have had head smashed in with hammer oh yes.

she was so annoying more annoying that any other woman i have ever seen inamovie, just scream scream scream was all she did.we all expect some one in that position to scream but for Godsake not asmuch as that.

anyway onto the remake:

This was and is to me better and more entertaining than the original, notthat the original is bad it`s just i think bigger budget better movie (butthis isn`t always the case as we know - resident evil = big budget = cr*p,dawn of the dead = low budget = great.).

but the remake is what Tobe`s version would have been like if he had moremoney, but the guy had talent as he showed us with the budget he had fortheoriginal.

this one will be in my collection as will chainsaw 2 and 3 but not 1 or4.

what i am tired of is people saying “oh the original is better andremakesand cr*p“, well most of the time yes they are but not in this case andjustbecause just because the one Tobe Hooper did is the original doesn`t meanitis the best.

this movie is slightly ahead of the original because of that stupid womanscreaming which almost ruins the original she had talent she was in howmanymovies after the original ? yes sir her career rocketed after thanmovie.

Jessica Biel is a better actress than who ever played the part of theoriginal woman being chased by the leather faced one, better looking andnotannoying and has more talent.

they should have had Gunner Hansen back as the chainsaw welding nutterthatwould have been cool :), and the guy who played the dad of the family theyshould have him in a cameo as well.

rating for this movie 9/10.rating for the original 7/10.rating for original leatherface 10/10.rating for new leatherface 8/10.rating for Jessica Biel 12/10.rating for that woman who ever she is that got away from leatheface in theoriginal 6/10.

First and foremost I have to say that I tend to dislike remakesregardless. Second of all I’d have to say that this one is one of theworstperpetrators of remake mistakes. The film completely forgets Tobe Hooper’soriginal vision. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was, and still is, aclassic horror film, not because of it’s star power of excellent screenwriting, but because of it’s realism. The lead female character, played byJennifer Beal in this remake, is not the empowered female figure this filmportrays her to be. After seeing her friends killed and experiencinglivinghell, the character would more likely be suffering from a complete emotionand psychological breakdown rather than thinking and acting like an actionfilm hero. The scariest part of the original wasn’t the chase scenes ortheviolence, but the sick and twisted nature of the people who committedthesecrimes. We must not also forget that the family who butchered these teenswere, indeed, real people, in one fashion or another. The remake takes ahorrible true event and turns it into another Hollywood piece of garbage.

All of this aside, we can also look at the fact that this new filmcompletely bastardizes the original story. I realize that it was rewrittenand adapted from the original screenplay, but several key pieces aremissing. The lead female character was traveling with her brother, a facttaken out of the remake. The brother was also permanently tied to a wheelchair, yet one more piece of information taken out of the remake. Inaddition to this the very nature of the Hewitt family was distorted. Theoriginal didn’t need a cast of six or more family members to scare thepantsoff of audiences. The way in which the family opperates was alsocompletelychanged. In the original the purpose of their killing was in order tosupplymeat for the roadside barbecue store. A truely horrifying idea when youthink about it. This aspect was completely ignored which made the Hewitt’sappear to be simply a family of crazed lunatics. And after all of this Ibelieve that the camera focused too much on Jennifer Beal’s chest.

Over all I’d say it was a crappy remake. But more than that I’d sayitwas simply a crappy movie. There are far too many problems with this filmfor it to be taken seriously.

No, not Tobe Hooper’s 1974 masterpiece, this putrid little film offersnothing as far as a "reinvisioning", unless of course your idea ofimprovements are rampant profanity, drug use, buckets of blood and themoderatly tasteful but nonetheless blatant use of the rather curvaceousassets of Misses Jessica Biel and Erica Leerhsen.

This is a film made for those people who today think of a horror film as thelatest cute actors/actresses, buckets of blood, soundtracks and the conceptof suspense being a "scary noise". Acting is laughable it’s so bad, withthe exception of a wonderfully insane R. Lee Ermey.

Why is Hooper’s film a legend and this one a joke? Well, for starters, it’sscarier when we don’t know why. The explanation of Thomas Hewitt’s(Leatherface) reasoning behind the killing is straight out of the Columbinereport (he was teased). Secondly, Marilyn Burns’ mad hysterics in theclassic is offset by the humorous attempt at it by Biel and Leerhsen. Bielmakes so much noise while trying to hide that I was about to grab the sawand show Hewitt where she was.

There used to be 4 words against remakes of classics..they were "Gus VanSant’s Psycho". Now, (at least till I see the new Dawn) there are 5 "TheTexas Chainsaw Massacre 2003"

0 out of 5 > 

The original Texas Chainsaw MAssacre is a classic partly due to it’sabilityto instil fear in the viewer using simple techniques. It was not so muchwhat we saw as it was what we didnt see that scared us. Sure, there weresome grim scenes such as the girl on the meat hook and the infestedkitchenbut ultimately, Tobe Hooper used psychological techniques to scare hisaudience.Fast forward thirty or so years and welcome to Texas Chainsaw MAssacre ofthe 21st Century - a clever reworking of the original material. MarcusNIspel is obviously a big admirer of Hooper’s version yet he also bringsinhis own ideas in order to make up for the originals lack of cohesion innarrative. Nispel keeps the blood pumping at all times. No sooner has thefirst character been dispatched of, are the next batch being primed fortarget by an unruly sherrif. The 1974 film occasionaly seemed like we werejust waiting for the next thing to happen. You dont get much of that here.The blood and gore is relentless and this is one of the negatives of thefilm. It indeed makes very uncomfortable viewing and you feel quiteexhausted by the final credits.The gritty filming technique pays homage tothe original and this film also attempts to give a backstory to thereasonswhy old Leatherface wears his victims skin as masks..I won’t spoil it buthey, its all good. And you can’t fault the acting either. Biel makes aplucky heorine whom you root for, and supporting actors Tucker, Balfour,Vogel and Leehrson are all nicely fleshed out as her friends who one byonefall victim to the local hood! Even the most unsympathetic amongst them,whowanted to dump their hitchiking suicidal passenger at the start of thefilm,are made to be seen as resourceful and caring before their demise.

So we all kinda know what is going to happen here, especially if you haveseen the original. What makes this better than most remakes is the factthatit is not a scene by scene rehashing of a classic circa VAn Sant’s Psycho.Extra scenes, more characters, story backlog and impressive sets- TheTexasChainsaw MAssacre 2003 throws up a few surprises and still leaves youhorrified and jumping every five minutes and for that reason, i givethis ahearty 8/10. Just make sure you have a pillow with you whilst youwatch!!

I saw it this weekend and don’t care for it at all. It disappointed mequitea bit..I never saw the original one so I don’t have that to compare it to.My aunt said they made this almost just like it..so why did they make itagain? I’m really not understanding why they are remaking all this oldmovies..for money I guess.

"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," the remake of the 1974 horror tale thathelped launch the modern slasher genre, debuted as the top weekend moviewith $29.1 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.

It seems to have made more then most openers have been lately..or at leastIthink…

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is all about 3 things: screaming teenagers,bloody chainsaws, and a whole lotta meathooks.

Five youths are on their way to Dallas to get concert tickets or weed (Notsure which one, I was 20 minutes late). They pick up a hitchhiker tellingthem they’re all gonna die and she then shoots herself in the head. Theshaken teens go to a nearby town for help and make a fatal mistake byentering a large strange house. One of the guys wanders around the houseand the audience is taken completely by surprise when Leatherface axes himin the back. Yikes! While this is going on, the teens are oblivious totheterror inside…until they meet up with Leatherface himself, and he comesafter them with the the famous chainsaw.

A curious thing about this film is the tagline: "Inspired by a truestory".More like, "Loosly inspired by a story that has been hacked to pieces bycountless urban legends." You won’t believe how many sites I’ve seenaboutthis movie with e-mails to the administrator like, "My brother was in jailwith the real Leatherface". Sorry to dissapoint 12yr old boys all aroundthe world but Leatherface is like the toothfairy: he doesn’t exist.

Overall: This was dissapointing film. Shockingly, I wasn’t that scared byit. I saw "Gothika" later that evening and I got a lot more emotion outofthat. Rent this unless you want a scare of the moment but it’s nothingmorethan a fat guy with a mask.

4/10

This was truly one of the worst films I’ve ever seen in the past fewyears.It wasboring, unscary, and painful to sit through.

In the original, we were given great wide shots of the desolate Texaslandscapeto underscore the feeling of being stranded in the middle of nowhere withthisgroup of kids. In Nispel’s remake, we get nothing but dark, tight shots inwhichwe cannot decipher any of the character’s surroundings.

The original gave us sparse dialogue between the characters–we didn’tknowmuch about them, and we didn’t care. In the remake, we learn WAY too muchabout the characters that we could do without (it’s horror–we don’t needtolikethe people getting slaughtered).

The original used a creepy, deliberate style of directing that built upthetensionand dread into a series of psychologically disturbing scenes. The remakejumped right into the gore and just kept throwing in scenes that weresupposedto be freaky, but ended up being detached and tiresome.

What a complete mess this movie was. Not one scary moment; too many scenesthat don’t belong in horror films (c’mon, she saves the baby at the end?);pitifuldirecting and an overall lack of understanding about what made theoriginalsogreat. When I saw Ebert’s ZERO STAR review, I thought for sure that he wasbeing too harsh. But after seeing this piece of crap, I fully understandwhere hewas coming from.

If you want to see an effective modern remake of a classic horror flick,seeDawnof the Dead (2004). But whatever you do, avoid TCM 2003 like theplague.

Wow, this film was fantastic. It was gripping, downright scary as Hell andone thing it paid its respects to the fans and the original. Thescreenwriter knew that there were things that he could not improve on oreven duplicate. That’s why they are differences in the remake from theoriginal. The original captured magic and they say that lightning does notstrike twice so why try. They made a film that updates the film for amodernaudience because I’ve met plenty of people who would not watch theoriginalsimply because it was made in 1974. They were respectful of the originalanddid their best to honor it. Plus just because Marcus Nispel comes from amusic video background, do not dismiss the guy immediately because he hasaneye. If given the opportunity I would love to work with him. But back tothereview, what this film did that none of the sequels and semi remakes didwasmake Leatherface scary again. No more was he a cross dressing scaredlittlebaby. Now it was more about resentment and pure, raw animalistic fury.Leatherface was human but his pursues were superhuman. He just would notstop and gives him a head and shoulders edge over supernatural killerslikethe Creeper, Jason Voorhees or what they multilated Michael Myers into. Iloved the original film and thought that there was no way to top this andthe remake does not want to top it but it wants to bring back the audiencein the world of Travis County Texas and the skin wearing Leatherface. Theperformances in this film were great all around. Mike Vogel did a greatjobmaking an unsympathetic character into someone that almost made me cry tosee die. The same with Jonathyn Tucker. But the heart and soul of thisfilmwas Andrew Bryniarski, R. Lee Ermey and Jessica Biel leaving her 7thHeavenimage behind. This film scared me and we need more horror films like thisintheatres instead of garbage like Darkness Falls or Jeepers Creepers2.-Trent Gein

A group of idiotic a**holes decide to go down to Mexxxico for spring breakand end up driving through a deserted Texas town. Of course they decide to do thestupid
thing and get themselves into serious trouble. The only enjoyable portion of the film isbeing able to enjoy the main actress’s large bust and curvaceous buttox. I heard that she workedout quite a bit for this role and it shows. Unfortunately there is no nudity is thisdisasterpiece, and the premise of the film is so fudging stupid that there is no reason for viewingthis. Thumbs down.

read comments (0)

Tupac: Resurrection

According to AMG.com, "2Pac became the unlikely martyr of gangsta rap,and a tragic symbol of the toll its lifestyle exacted on urban blackAmerica. At the outset of his career, it didn’t appear that he wouldemerge as one of the definitive rappers of the ’90s — he started out asa second-string rapper and dancer for Digital Underground, joining onlyafter they had already landed their biggest hit."

This 2003 documentary film, "Tupac: Resurrection," directed by LaurenLazin, is about the life of slain rap artist Tupac Amaru Shakur, and isboth a testament to his career and legacy and is also an insightfullook into 2Pac, the man behind the controversy.

There’s no question of the impact of 2Pac’s legacy on rap music, andall of music in general. He’s sold almost as much posthumous materialas Elvis Presley and Jimi Hendrix combined. As a fan of the hip-hopculture and rap music, I have nothing but love for 2Pac, even though mygreatest admiration of him has always been his music and his message,never his media-exaggerated persona and seemingly contradictoryphilosophies.

But at the same time, it’s very distressing for me to realize that heis best remembered for his death, much rather than his life andachievements, such as his "Thug Life" code and "One Nation" project,which was aimed at squashing East/West beef and curiously enough stillhasn’t gotten off the ground.

"Thug Life" and Black Panther political rhetoric were his signature.His "don’t-give-a-f**k" attitude permeated his early rap career onrecords like "2pacalypse Now" (1991) and "Strictly For My N.I.G.G.A.Z."(1993), all of this following his brief stint with rap/"P"-funk heroesDigital Underground. His black militancy stance did of course catch thefuror of every moral-minded politician in America, as he did also jointhe ranks of every other rap artist who came under fire by the anti-rapcircles active in this country.

Even after seeing this film, I’m reaffirmed in my beliefs about 2Pac’sdepth and message as an artist. He was one of the most gifted rappersthat the industry has and ever will see. His performances in films like"Juice" (1992) and "Above the Rim" (1994) were thematically deep,intense, and incredibly "real," almost too real for some people tohandle.

Of course, 2Pac and his friend, the Notorious B.I.G., had beef, puttheir respective coasts on the map, and were both killed seven monthsapart from another - 2Pac died on September 13, 1996 (the day after my11th birthday that year), six days after being wounded in a Las Vegasdrive-by shooting; the Notorious B.I.G. was killed in a Los Angelesdrive-by on March 9, 1997. Both men came to be recognized in subsequentyears as the tragic symbols of the East Coast/West Coast rivalriesbetween artists and a lesson to future generations about not just mo’money and mo’ problems, but the entire industry as well.

They both died so other artists could continue in hip-hop. I can recalltelevision interviews from the time with other prominent rap artists,such as Nas, or Lord Jamar of Brand Nubian, both of whom seemed hardlyovercome with any kind of grief over the murder of 2Pac, but werelamenting the fact that people were now idolizing him because of thefact he was dead.

Lazin’s film offers some careful and thoughtful insight into the slainrapper’s revolutionary and troubled life, from being born a month afterhis mother, former Black Panther Afeni Shakur, was released from jailafter having to face a laundry list of bogus conspiracy charges, to hisimpoverished upbringing, his rap and film careers, and finally hisdeath and resurrection, as 2Pac himself narrates his own story frombeyond the grave.

2Pac wasn’t perfect and I think that was something he frequentlyacknowledged and this film, using hours of archive footage and hissongs, allows for the audience to see the different sides to hispersonality. Even in today’s world of 2005, I’m still a bit angry withhim because of the so many mistakes that he made, and letting his egoand emotions get the better of him especially when he seemed to knowbetter.

He made a number of contradictory statements in his songs and image,and committed a number of harmful actions against himself and others,many of which may or may not have played into his death. For me, it washis getting involved with Marion "Suge" Knight, Death Row Records, andthe whole East/West rivalries that brought about his downfall, and 2Pacseemed to recognize that his own demise was imminent.

Also, his frequent court troubles, like the alleged sexual sodomizingof a female fan in 1994 and his fight with the Hughes Brothers on theset of "Menace II Society" (1993), were also detrimental to hischaracter and image. But again, I still respect 2Pac because he tookthe time out to acknowledge his mistakes and at least try to correctthem.

Lauren Lazin has directed a skillful and poignant film that lets itsdeceased subject matter speak for itself. The life of Tupac AmaruShakur is an intense study of progress and change seen through the lifeof a revolutionary artist who tried his best to change himself and thetroubled world that he lived in.

10/10

Tupac Resurrection is a MUST SEE. Regardless if you know who Tupac isor not, this film gives a deep and interesting perspective on the lifeof Tupac. A TRULY GREAT Portrayal OF A LEGENDARY FIGURE. Thisdocumentary/film looks at how Tupac was brought up and how his life haschanged many. It is all explained in Tupac’s own words, which helps addto the feel of the film. In many ways the autobiography he never got towrite, Tupac: Resurrection features the artist in his own words,examining his complicated life and the controversial decisions thatplagued him while he was alive. Tupac: Resurrection captures, as neverbefore, his boundless passion, searing honesty, and stunningintelligence, and showcases a range of never-before-seen writings,letters, screenplay ideas, lyrics, poems, photographs, and personaleffects, and stands as an indelible testament to the artist’sastonishing cultural legacy.

Tupac Resurrection is a great documentary about a man who probablyexperienced more pain in his life than any Hip hop artist or any famousperson in the world. The film gives us everything you ever wanted toknow about the man himself from the stories behind his poetic music,his childhood and growing up in violent ghettos with his mother (AfeniShakur who was a well known crack addict)and to his times on Death Rowrecords which set the spark to the Tupac/Biggie feud. What i like mostabout this film though is how the narration is actually done by Tupachimself! that makes it very realistic and quite spooky in away,especially since nothing like that has ever been done before in adocumentary. Obviously to be into a film like this you might have to beinto a bit of rap music and be familiar with Tupac, But if not it doesnot matter because the film is just a too good story to miss. Thesoundtrack is also hot, featuring ‘Runnin’ (dying to live) a song withboth Biggie and Tupac recorded while both men were alive which wasnever released until now and a couple of other great Tupac hits onlynow released. Altogether i loved this film an easy 10 out of 10.

2pac along with Biggie was the main reason why I started listening to Rap.Not only did he have good music, but he also had a story to tell and itinfluences not only his fans, but other rap artists. This documentary wasvery interesting to watch and I was amased to see what a strong minded manhe was, which is why I respect so even more after seeing this masterpiece.Eminem, 50 cent, Jada Pinkett smith and Snoop Dogg are one of the few thathave expressed their feelings towards his death. It was a tragic moment thatis defenately not forgotten, but he has left us more music that gives mostof us the impression that he is still alive. From his childhood memories tohis career, he
explains it all in his own words. This is no doubt one of thebest documentaries ever to be released.

I saw this movie last night and it was great! It didn’t depict Tupac in agoody two shoes way but it did show me what I’ve always known, That Pacwasthe Mutherfreakin truth!!! He told us during the film that he makesmistakes. And sometimes his mouth is too big and that he can sometimes bearrogant. However, the good parts about him seem to outweigh the bad ones.And he really got to talk about being a Gemini and how we have two sidestous. A lot of folks don’t understand Gemini’s and think we’re complex.

Although I got to see it for free last night i’m definately going to gobackto support it when it hits theaters on Friday. It told me a lot of stuffabout Pac and even about the Biggie situation that you would have neverknown if you left it up to VH1, MTV, or even BET. I recommend you go andcheck this out if you’re a fan or even if you are interested in seeing anintelligent person speak. This was the best movie I’ve seen all year long.

I just saw an early screening of this when I was out in LA. Let mefirstsay that I have always greatly respected Tupac as both a musician and anactor. Today in the world of P. Diddy’s, DMXs, 50-Cents and Ja Rules weasan audience and as consumers miss out on what Tupac had to offer. Gone isthe thoughtful, albeit sometimes graphic, music that Pac produced.Instead,today we must endure the stereotypical crap that is thrown in our face.Tupac recorded arguable one of the best rap albums ever produced, "AllEyezon Me (a double cd) in a two week span. This is unheard of today from thecommercial rappers of today.The documentary does a wonderful job of portraying Tupac’s complicatedpersonality. At one time he’d appear to be a preacher, rapping about howblack youths should better their situation and rise up out of poverty andviolence.ie. "Keep Ya Head Up" and Benda’s Got a Baby." Then he wouldthrowviolence in your face with edgy tracks like "Hail Mary" and my Mom’spersonal favorite, "Hit ‘em Up." In the end it was this violent side thatbrought about his personal demise. However, as the film shows, thischaracter flaw was more of a product of his image and society rather thanthe man himself.This movie is important for today’s generation because it displays howtalented Tupac truly was. As an actor he was superb and as a lyricist heisunparalleled. He also had a charismatic quality that is lacking today inhip hop artists. I recommend that everyone of all ages see this tributetoa great artist.

One of the best movies of the year. I was never a big Tupac fan but thisfilm will appeal to anybody who is even remotely interested in the impactand importance of hip hop and the cultural significance of Tupac Shakur.Furthermore the film is a lesson on the most important racial andeconomicissues of our time. It is recommended to all!!!!

"Tupac :Resurrection" gave me a little more insight into the mind of agifted and at times troubled artist. However, the film felt less like adocumentary and more like a compilation of most of the material that I hadalready seen on MTV and VH1. The problem is that the director fails tocreate a theme. The overuse of aerial "pretty" shots of sand dunes, LasVegas and the clouds become less reflective and in short repetitive.Overall, as a Tupac fan I enjoyed listening to him and seeing his lifegiventhe attention it deserves.

An incredible look into the life of a complex artist. This movie exposesaside of Tupac that the casual mainstream American never sees. If youwatchthis movie and still dismiss Tupac as merely another thug, consideryourselftoo narrow-minded and/or racist.

the movie was great, it isnt a story of a rapper, its a story of anamericanwho came from almost nothing and made something of his life. it doesntdwellon his death and the movie is by no means creepy. i recomend this toanyone,even my mom and little sister liked it. peacenlove.

read comments (0)

The Order

Heath Ledger plays a priest. As does Mark Addy who is seriously miscastfor anyone British watching this. Peter Weller (Robocop) plays a veryevil Cardinal about to become Pope, but that plan gets scuppered downthe lead. No idea who the girl playing the female lead actually was butshe looked so much like Lisa Bonnett from the Cosby Show I thought itwas her.

Heath is sent to hunt down and kill the Sin Eater. Who kills his insanegirlfriend. Which in turn drives him to eat her sins and he becomes TheSin Eater. Which you can see happening from a mile off. The film has noreal ending, and the plot(what there is of it) is extremely weak.

Take the movie in stride. The one thing about watching a film involvingreligious ideas, is that you shouldn't take it seriously. Then again,you should never take a fictional story without a message seriously.It's a horror film, and that's all. It's even a pretty good one, if youjust sit down and watch. Don't obsess about little details, like thehistory of the catholic church, or how blasphemous character actionsmight be. Truth is, it's just a story. Once a person can understand andappreciate that, they might find it pretty scary. There are certainlysome creepy aspects to it…and slightly depressing ones. Frankly, tobe offended by THIS movie out of all of the modern tripe one could befar more so offended by…is ridiculous.

I thought this was a good movie. The actors in this movie worked goodtogether. I think the movie was interesting and made you think. It madeyou open your mind up to be more aware of what could happen and whatpeople believe as true or untrue. It makes you look at the CatholicReligion in a different light. You also feel for the characters in thismovie and you want to understand what they are trying to do and believein. It was a very well done movie and Heath Legder has grown as anactor. Shannyn Sommason has grown as a actor too. They both have goodchemistry as actors. I would recommend this movie to anyone who waswilling to watch something different, and you enjoy B movies with goodactors, as I do, I strongly recommend this movie to you.

I can see how this movie might offend or bore people. The maincharacters aren't good or evil, they are complex. It's NOT an actionfilm nor is it about demon hunting. It more questions what is power,what is eternal, and who decides what's best for people.

*May contain mild spoilers* I was reluctant to see The Order because Ihate horror and didn't want to see another Excorcist knock off, butthis movie was everything I could have hoped for in a creative andintelligent film. The Order suffers from the same poor marketing thatwas given to The Village. Both were portrayed ashorror/suspense/monster films when they were actually more like parableor mystery. I'm amazed that this film even got made considering thetrend towards films to do anything to shock, scare and shake youremotions these days. This film is more for shaking your mind.

I'm shocked that the film got such low ratings. I guess people are moreinterested in mindless entertainment. What I got out of the film wasvery deep. It questions if the Catholic church is the only way towardssalvation. The main character is a Priest who's part of a renegadeorder. It's like a coming of age story in a lot of ways and questionshow much control a person has towards the direction his life takes.Anyone who complains that some parts were predictable must not havebeen paying attention to the film. One of the points was the priestslife being set up like dominos to fall in a certain order (no punintended). Even with the predictability, there are surprise twists andquestions of freewill. The main characters are more symbolic of apersons psychological make-up if anything. It's a very complex film andkept my attention. It's not for people with ADHD.

What a waste. So many things could have been done to make this movie a winner, but instead, it simply became crap. They should have released it as The Sineater instead of rename it after some Jean Claude Van Damme castoff. The performances were all subpar and average, for even the enchanting Shannyn Sossamon and the ultra-cool Peter Weller looked lost and confused. Heath Ledger took the cake in regards to being miscast in a role. Maybe they should have shelved this movie and made Knight’s Tale 2. It would have certainly been less obnoxious.

This film had the possibility to at least entertain but instead it tankedinto a boring formula vampire film. I wouldn’t even suggest looking atthison a Sunday night when there is nothing else on TV, its that bad. Itconcerns a priest (Ledger in a miscast role) and his attempt to find outabout a "sin eater" played by a German actor who was in a few German hitswho can’t speak English and he’s dull and boring. There is no emotionalresponse in the film, it does nothing at all. ….

In New York, Alex Bernier (Ledger) is a young priest and one of thethree last members of an arcane order called Carolingians. When the oldleader of the order dies, Alex goes to Rome with his friend MaraSinclair (Shannyn Sossamon), a troubled painter who tried suicide inthe past and for whom Alex is in love with. Thomas Garret (Mark Addy),the other member of the Carolingians, meets them in Rome. Alex notesthat the body of the old priest bears two marks on the chest and afurther investigation reveals that they are the symbol of the ‘SinEater’, a renegade priest called William Eden (Benno Fürmann) whoexchanges absolution per money. Lots of mystery surrounds Alex, Maraand Thomas while they stay in Rome. This movie has a good premise,cast, director, photography, budget, locations, but something ismissing or does not work well, and in the end the plot is very confusedand quite boring. A waste of a good idea. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): ‘Devorador de Pecado’ (’Sin Eater’)

So, yea, I just thought I'd write this. This rating (something around5? below 5?) is, as other reviewers have hinted, what you get when amovie is marketed to the wrong people. People came to see this moviewho don't like good movies, and they are members of this site and camehere and gave it a 1. It is the first time I've seen this site's ratingsystem fail miserably, I had always figured that good films weregetting their due, that it all averaged out and that the ratings werereliable.

I saw it once, and from what I can remember perhaps the only flaw wasthe inclusion of horrific imagery at times for no reason, forced in bypeople involved in the production who think these things are needed toentertain. Obviously even they were not enough… The movie was, infact, about an 8 or 9 out of 10.

…and then writer/director/co-producer Brian Helgeland (Oscarwinner forL.A. Confidential’s script) starts to get us, or at least me, to not caretoo much about the fate(s) of the main players. Even Shannyn Sossmann,whoseems the most intriguing of the characters (Heath Ledger was onlysatisfactorily convincing) as Mara the artist who’s had mental anguish attimes, starts to loose interest all too soon.

There is a story worth telling here, and it begins as such: Ledger playsAlex Bernier, a priest working by himself for the past years, is one ofthelast of his order of Carolingians (I’ve never heard of them, but thenagainI’m not of the Catholic faith), and is summoned to Rome to investigate thesuicide (or possible murder) of his leader. When he gets there, he findsthat things of the supernatural were at work with his master’s death, anditinvolves a "sin-eater" who can take away the sins and send a person toheaven without the proper means from the official Church.

This basic story seemed sufficient enough for a religious/horror film fromthe previews, possibly as in the vein of 1999’s Stigmata, and yet when itbegan to take
off it sputtered disappointingly into dialog that tried tobeamusing when it shouldn’t of been and delivered occasional visual effectsthat were muddled and dim. To sum up Helgeland’s "The Order", it has agoodmovie in it somewhere, and the ideas were a little intelligent fortheologists, however it wasn’t executed in that way. Grade:C-

This review may sound abstract, but in an effort to preserve the surprisesand events of the film, I was only left with my own feelings on it.Hopefully it will help to persuade everyone to see this wonderful work ofart.

I just came back from the theater after seeing this film with friends.Onesaid it was the best film she had seen all year, and the other said shewasvery confused, while I was unable to form a concrete thought. I justwantedto sit in a quiet room and reflect. I was finally able to come to theconclusion that I need to see the film again. It was extremely intenseandalmost disturbing look at a subject that has always puzzled me:Religion.

I now want to sit down and have a critical discussion of the film and allofthe issues it addressed. I love this type of film, and would recommend itto anyone who enjoys thinking during and after films, and who likes uniquestory writing and fresh looks at controversial issues.

Besides the great writing and overall effect of the film emotionally andintellectually, the characters and actors can not be ignored. A huge fanofHeath Ledger going into the theater, I came out with a deeper appreciationof his talent. The conviction of the entire cast brought the whole filmtogether, making what could have been a ridiculous collection ofcharactersand events into a convincing piece of high quality art and storytelling.

read comments (0)

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

This movie is awful, the ending was longer than any battle scene. Theentire final battle was completely meaningless, the humans might aswell have stood there because the only ones that did any fighting werethe ghosts, very anti-climatic, and the ending was about 35 minutes toolong. Even the most hardcore of fans has to agree on those two points,the only good part about this movie was the final battle, it seemed,and then the ghosts came and completely dominated everything, thereforemaking the previous half hour meaningless. I want my 3 hours of my lifeback and also my ten bucks. In all, the action was meaningless, and themovie would have been much better had it been about 2 hours long tops.

Holy Smokes, this has got to be one of the most pointless trilogiesI’ve ever seen. I do not even know how it scored this high, there wasnothing that made it stand out at all. Throughout the 9 excruciatinghours of watching Frodo turn into a mentally disoriented fool, I cannotrecount a single moment in time where I said, "Wow, that’sinteresting." First off, the plot is simply unenjoyable; it has notwist, no character building and for god’s sake, its about a possessivering. Watching the characters go through pointless trials to burn asingle ring is not something i can find appealing. In fact I was readyto watch any of these uptight Hobbits meet their end. That is a hugeproblem in this series, not one character was tragically killed in themidst of any orc battle. OK, there was that no-name in the Fellowshipof the Ring, but the audience didn’t give a damn as to what was goingon with him. What made me even more angry was that these fools lookedalmost invincible. When Legolas and Gimli were slaying orcs left andright as easily as brushing snowflakes away I was ready to step out ofthe theater.

I can see why people liked this movie. The action was indeed thrillingand had great deal of special effects thrown into it. I rememberLegolas’ first arrow being launched smoothly into an orc, what amarvelous scene. Then I looked and he was launching another arrow in asimilar fashion, then another one, and another one! Sure it lookedgreat, but it was so repetitive I got bored. Every battle in this movieis almost exactly the same: swords swinging, arrows launching, andpeople screaming, I just can’t see what was so special about it. I alsocould not get through my head the final battle scene. Honestly an armyof the undead destroying the orc forces, gee that must have been adifficult victory. It was so predictable and unfair I simply hated thismovie.

For all of the action attempts and turning a really old trilogy into amovie, I was considering giving this film two stars, but then Iremembered the conclusion. Frodo and Sam were being saved by a bunch ofhawks or something and everything seemed to be at peace - not a badending. Then the story stretches into farewells and goodbyes, good luckand god bless - OK I can tolerate this. Now Bilbo is going into a boatand heading off to god knows where - When is this bloody movie going toend? By the time I got out of the theater it was nearly half an hourafter the part where the movie would have made an effective conclusion,my behind sweating like an oxen from boredom. I would definitely notrecommend this movie to anyone, unless you are amazed by a couple ofspecial effects. I don’t know how this movie did so well, I think onecritic said it was a good movie and it spread like wildfire or maybethere was simply nothing else to do but worship elves. Whatever thereason, I do not want to see this ever again!

Peter Jackson managed to make an outstanding film version of the favoritebook of millions of people all over the world and justified their hopes.Heis worthy of respect. It’s great film! Go to the cinemaimmediately!

However, the real acting triumph of the film is Elijah Wood as FrodoBaggins. He continues his descent into corruption with an incredibletalent that many could not pull off. Wood’s performance is so criticalto the film because it determines the ring’s power to corrupt, which,needless to say, is absolute.

The first two films established Jackson as an incredible visionary,shooting vast landscapes from his native New Zealand. With ‘Return ofthe King,’ Jackson really gets a chance to show off. With, hands down,the most beautiful visuals of the trilogy, Jackson makes ‘Return of theKing’ a gorgeous feast for the eyes, while never resorting to McG levelover-the-topless. Jackson stays very grounded in his characters, notletting the effects tell the story, but only assist the wonderfuldialog and characters. Think of ‘Return’ as a mix of ‘Fellowship’ and’Two Towers,’ with enough action and character development worthy ofending a film event of this magnitude.

The bottom line, fans of the films will not be disappointed. HardcoreTolkien lovers might be upset by plot changes and interpretations madeby Jackson and the other writers, however, it is unrealistic to expecta completely true adaptation of the novels, being that film is anentirely different medium. Despite the alterations, Jacksonconsistently stays true to the major themes and ideas from the originaltext, while adding some of the finest film-making ever put to screen.’The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King’ is one of the mostfinely tuned and cinematically perfect films ever made. Not only thebest of the trilogy, but a crowning achievement in epic film-making.

Lord of the Rings is an overlong piece of crap from one of the biggesthacks in Hollywood. Peter Jackson used to make low-budget horror filmsthat were amazing. Now he makes big Hollywood movies with big Hollywoodstars. His aim now isn't to make good movies. His aim is now to make asmuch money as he can. Why can't Hollywood start making films that areactually good instead of films that they make to reel in cash? Whoneeds so much money? Why does Peter Jackson need more money???Seriously, Peter Jackson needs to stop making movies. He ruined KingKong recently, and he made three films that are ENTIRELY TOO LONG basedon a crappy OVERLONG series. Get this film off the top 250 of all time.IT SUCKS.

Follow in "The Lord of the Rings" creator's (J.R.R. Tolkien's)footsteps. Project a malevolent universe. Invent a world and animate itwith creatures in conflict. Make the conflict a battle between good andevil, but don't identify clearly the moral value or purpose of eitherside. In fact, remove morality's essence altogether by eliminating thepower of choice for your characters. Emphasize the corruptibility ofmen. Glamorize the supernatural. Dwell interminably on the preparationsfor and the wreaking of violence and destruction, on the fragility ofhope and happiness. Name the scene of action: Middle-earth. Sound likean environment you'd care to envision? Would you "live" there? If so,fate alone will decide its survival and your own. You can visit thispredetermined "paradise" by watching/enduring/suffering Peter Jackson'selaborately filmed adaptation of Tolkien's epic trilogy, whichconcludes with "The Return of the King." I hold it is true that what isnot worth contemplating in life is not worth contemplating in art. Forits dismaying lack of meaningful moral definition, its pervasivepictorial ugliness, the quantity of its scenes of mind-numbing graphicviolence, and its minimizing of the value of happiness, "The Lord ofthe Rings" films–including this one–ought to be shunned and damned.

I just saw the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and I amspeechless. Not only is it the best in the series, but it is one of thegreatest movies I have ever seen in my life. It will make you laugh, feelfull of pride, and reduce you to tears. Amazing story, acting, music itjustcall came together. At 3 1/2 hours it will give you more than enough to beentertained, in fact the movie is so good it is overwhelming, if this doesnot win b
est picture, the Academy Awards are useless, because quite simplyits the best motion picture of 2003. Just go see it and tell meohtherwise.This whole series has been magical, and this will go down in history asthegreatest third installment of the trilogy in movie history, because it isbetter than its two predecessors. I bow down to Peter Jackson, this mandevoted years of his life to this project, and it paid up, the AcademyAwards owes him that best director oscar and everyone knowsit.

NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie ever made!!!!! NOT MUCH TOOSAY, this is the best movie ever made!!!!! NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this isthe best movie ever made!!!!! NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movieever made!!!!! NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie ever made!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie ever made!!!!! NOT MUCH TOOSAY, this is the best movie ever made!!!!! NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this isthe best movie ever made!!!!! NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movieever made!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie evermade!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie ever made!!!!!NOTMUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie ever made!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY,this is the best movie ever made!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the bestmovie ever made!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie evermade!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie ever made!!!!!NOTMUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie ever made!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY,this is the best movie ever made!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the bestmovie ever made!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie evermade!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie ever made!!!!!NOTMUCH TOO SAY, this is the best movie ever made!!!!!NOT MUCH TOO SAY,this is the best movie ever made!!!!!

Come on People, How can you rate this movie as no 3 all time??? I doagree it is a very good movie based on an excellent novel or series ofnovels (the one I read had all three in on book). Yes it swept theacademy awards (just the third one though) but where is Al Pacino, orMarlon Brando, or Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman? And to make thingsworse, the other 2 Movies are in the top 15!!! Don’t get me wrong I didenjoy all three movies and if I sat down and made a list of my top 25movies ROTK would probably be around 20th but definitely not top 10 or# 3 of all the movies ever made, or at least voted on in this list. Ijust don’t think a movie should be voted one of the best of all timewith no Great Actors in leading roles. Just my opinion, sorry my littleHobbit friends.

The films try to explain too much, and present too much mombo-jumbophilosophy with no point to make or prove. All the conversions betweenthe characters were very dull and strung out for melodramatic effect.The films were also very predictable; like when Gandalf (I think that’swho it was) saves that guy in ROTK, seconds before he was about to beburnt to death. That was one of the worst Hollywood clichés I’ve seenin years. The film doesn’t deserve to be in the top 250 for that scenealone.

And to battle scenes relied too heavily on CGI. It was like watching avideo game you couldn’t play that went on forever, and ever. But hardlyany of the main character’s died in any of the scenes, and all thebad-guys suffered from "Stromtropper Syndrome". Another bad Hollywoodcliché in the film.

Overall; the films were very mediocre and boring in my opinion.

read comments (0)

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

An astonishingly soulless movie — like the Pirates of the Caribbean orWild Wild West, which all get 3-4/10 from me.

This is a prime example of the modern genre of cgi-overkill c/whistorical fantasy.

Like a zombie, it’s soulless. It doesn’t live, doesn’t move thewatcher.

Initially, in the production phase, no one has fallen in love with theconcept or the script.

No one has taken it under their wing. This one even wastes SeanConnery, which just goes to show again that even the best of actors arenot infallible when choosing roles.

This type of movie could do it, but it’s still to be seen.

The finest part of the movie was the ship Nautilus. Otherwise, gimme abreak..

This movie keeps you on the edge of your seat! The toilet seat, that is.You’re going to be spending lots of time in the bathroom during this pieceof trash, and if you’re not the kind of guy who shells out $20 for drinksand popcorn, you’re going to wish you were very quickly.

The plot of `The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen,’ set in an AlternativeVictorian Age in 1899, revolves around the German Army who has harnessedtechnology of the future and aims to start a global war. The leader of thearmy, M (Richard Roxburgh), hopes to achieve global dominance by amassinglarge sums of money through the sale of these advanced tech products tobotharmies.

To stop this from happening, a group of seven humans with extraordinaryabilities forms. Led by the hunter Allan Quartermain (Sean Connery), theleague also contains a vampire, an immortal, a beast, an invisible man, aspy, and a scientist. Director Stephen Norrington then proceeds to butcherliterature by portraying Captain Nemo as a Muslim and Tom Sawyer as aspy.

`LXG’ soaks itself in action, but it’s not the kind of action we want tosee. What’s the point of watching a battle if we know that every member ofthe league is practically immortal? In one scene, a solitary league memberstands in the middle of a circular room as twenty men point their guns athim. Guess how the insignificant encounter ends.

The film also shortchanges the view in the special effects department,withexplosions looking more like zits popping. When league-member Dr. Jekyllchanges into his alter ego of Mr. Hyde, there are four obvious gaps in theotherwise dynamic transformation process. Why not make the entire processone single shot?

The movie cliché count skyrockets towards the midpoint of the film, with aclassic subplot. Later, a soldier appears with a flame-thrower.Unfortunately, the movie shortchanges us yet again by not including arobotic ninja training camp in the cliché-filled ending. Definitely one topass on.

As far as book or comic-to-screen adaptations go, we have not been letdown by film such a ‘Batman’, From Hell’ or ‘Stand by me’ and,personally, I think this adaptation did not let us down either. Grantedit got an absolute slating and the special effects were a big let down,but there were some great points. It was fun and with a swashbucklingstory line similar to the classic action films like ‘Indiana Jones’ and’Around the world in 80 days’ (the original!). I do not think itdeserved the bad press from people who call themselves ‘critics’ andshould be watched with an open mind.

The Acting was nothing special and the casting of Sean Connery wasquestionable but the remaining cast were good, all opening uppossibilities for more successful roles. Stuart Townsend was certainlyone of these as his character (although not in the original graphicnovel) made a lasting impression. Not as bad as people make out and agood Saturday night movie all round!

The story takes place in a slightly alternate reality where a bunch ofliterary icons are summoned to help to save the world from maskedmadman the Phantom.

Based on a graphic novel, LXG never managed to get me excited. I couldnever really accept the premise of these characters getting together inthe "same universe". They just feel too different from each other.Throwing in Tom Saywer and Dorian Gray in the mix just feels a bitdesperate. Surely there must be other fictional characters that couldhave been better suited for the job as some kind of superhero?

With such a plethora of different characters, it takes time tointroduce everyone and present them to the audience. In fact, you couldsay that the first 45 minutes or so are nothing but characterpresentation. The plot is not much more than a device to get thecharacters together on film. Take for example the destruction ofVenice. In another film, this would probably have been a climax ofsorts - here, it has no real function at all, except that it allows forsome action sequences.

The script would have been better if it just had stuck to the conceptof some heroes fighting a bad guy who wants to destroy the world orsomething. Instead, there are some unnecessary "twists" and redherrings that really don’t go anywhere. There are also quite a numberof plot holes that makes it hard to enjoy the film: everything thathappens in Venice, Hyde going soft all of a sudden, and the evilgenius’ master plan…

It’s also fairly obvious that the script and budget didn’t match. Alltoo often the effects look shoddy. It’s not horribly bad, but theyshould have kept things small (like X-Men) instead of going over thetop (like Van Helsing).

The acting is OK (Townsend’s Dorian Gray actually worked best), but thescript doesn’t seem to allow for much character development, which is ashame considering that there are some potentially interestingcharacters here. The first 10 minutes are surprisingly good, but afterthat things just go downhill. It’s not the biggest disaster I’ve seen,but it’s simply too sloppy and boring too be any fun. [1/10]

The league of Extraordinary Gentlemen. What more can I say other than itwasa mildly entertaining romp through the 19th century. It was okay for awhileand worthy of some notice, but not enough to leave a lasting image in mymind. I would give it a 2.8 out of 4 because a 3 would most certainlystretch it.

I was a bit surprised when I got home from the movie and saw all the badreviews it’s gotten. I found it quite enjoyable, with humorous dialogue.And, if some parts were a bit corny, they were few, and were funny enoughthat I thought they were intentional.

I do hope they make the sequel still, even with the bad press. I knowmostof them are signed on for it, so here’s hoping!

After seeing "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" I must admit I waspretty disappointed, while its special effects are quite good the generalfeeling you get from this movie is that it has a weak plot. An averagemovie. 6/10

I didn’t know this movie was based on a comic book until I saw the DVD.I wanted to see it because I have read all the books these characterswere based on. It’s not my favorite movie, but I didn’t hate it. Onit’s own, without comparison to any other book or movie it brought asmile to my face.

My 2 biggest complaints were 1. Hyde was such a bizarre shape. Again,the DVD said it based his "larger than life size" on the comic book, Ibased my opinion on the original book. 2. What was Mina doing out inthe sunshine? In the original novel Dracula, where she comes from, noneof the vampires go out in the sun. But I thought Dorian Gray wasexactly as I had pictured him in the book. I guess everything is amatter of perspective. I based my opinion on the original books. Iliked the idea of what it would be like if these fictional charactersgot together. So if you haven’t read the comic and you are looking foran old fashioned, not so serious, adventure movie, sit back and enjoy.

This isn’t a bad movie, it’s more of a just miss. It was just never asexciting or involving as it should be. And while it had some impressivespecial effects, visually t
hat gun-metal gray look wears out its welcomefast; if you’re going for a monochromatic look you have to really make thevisuals pop to even it out, and this movie instead has a drab, ratherdepressing look to it.

I like the basic premise of a group of literary heroes and villains teamingup, and the movie does have its notable moments. But the story isn’tespecially gripping and or original and there is something lazy about theway it’s put together. While I wouldn’t fault an otherwise enjoyable moviefor changing Mr. Hyde into The Incredible Hulk (in movies Hyde rarely hasmuch to do with Stevenson’s psychologically fascinating original) and wouldonly be mildly perturbed by Mina doing something near the end of the moviethat would be impossible for someone with her condition, but in terms ofthis movie these mistakes seem to typify a mental sloppiness in the wholeenterprise (which is why Kane Thompson’s nit-picking of the movie seems lesssilly after seeing it than before).

I was hoping for an old-fashioned, rollicking adventure like The Mummy, butI got a little less, leaving me just a bit dissatisfied. Not a terriblemovie, but not what it should have been.

I won’t beat on this movie because it diverges from the comic book. Iwill beat on it because it swims in the same cesspool as so many otherbig budget action films. The "action" scenes are so full of cutshotsthey are impossible to enjoy. The characters have no sense of reaction.We are treated to Ms. Harker sucking the blood of an enemy. All the menfolk do is act slightly put off and then are unconcerned that one ofthem is undead. Apparently they’re fully familiar with each others’exploits (at least as far as Nemo, Quatermain, and the invisible manare concerned) but have never had an inkling that such things asvampires exist. Next they have no reaction when Mina turns vampireagain and starts to fly around with her bat brigade whereas when DorianGray gets shot up, there are gasps aplenty. How about when the hotel inKenya gets blown up? Quatermain moans about the people he lost in hislife but when the place blows up he doesn’t react at all to the loss ofthe people in the bar whom we’re led to believe he was friendly. And weare to believe the Nautilus displaces no water whatsoever when itsurfaces or cruises the Venice canals? Just slipshod stuff.

I like to have my disbelief suspended, believe me. But I want morecontext and plot mixed with my action. Ultimately I couldn’t make itpast Venice. Horrid. I feel badly for Alan Moore.

read comments (0)

The I Inside

The movie is about Simon, who finds himself waking up in a Hospitalroom after a car accident. The doctor tells his name, the date and thathis wife is waiting outside. But… what… I have a wife? Isn’t it theyear 2000 instead of 2002? Who’s Mr. Travitt? And so on, this is howthe movie goes on. We see the struggling of Simon from his innerperspective, in a ‘Beautiful Mind’ style, jumping back and forth intime ‘The Butterfly Effect’ style, meeting people he does not rememberto know them ‘The Bourne Identity’ style and watching himself from theoutside doing things he doesn’t willing to do.

At the beginning, it was interesting to me to do these jumps and tofigure out the whos, the whys, but after the first half of the film, Ijust got tired to keep track of. I hesitated whether to stop watchingor go on and finish and wait for the clue - finally I went for thelatter, but what I got was under my expectations. It made me rememberto the ending of ‘The Others’, just no so polished and not so shocking,in fact, it was sort of predictable as we got closer to the last scene.What is more, it wasn’t really clear to me, what actually happened, whywe had these time travels, how the peaces of the puzzle should reallyfall into place. However this was not because many questions were leftopen, but the storytelling was dubious. I couldn’t decide whether thisis a thriller, or a psycho-drama. This is a pity, while the movie wouldbe about to take the journey with the main character, Simon, and solvethe mystery with him, to be an entertaining thriller the storylineshould have been more complex, to be a psycho-drama, characters andSimon’s inner process should have been more sophisticated; the film wasnot boring to me, but not exciting either. The movie seems to borrowfrom many other good movies and tries to adapt and integrate on its ownstyle, but to my opinion finally fails at that and the result is justdigestible to me. If this had been the first film I see of this kind, Iwould have been excited, however, I have already seen a number of muchbetter titles.

Acting in the movie is average - though not outstanding, but OK forthis kind of movie; pictures and shooting were acceptable, too. Thereis no sex, but a some amount of blood and violence. I rate it 5/10, itbrings the entertainment like watching an average episode from theX-files.

I was totally not expecting the whole sixth sense twist. I reallythought he had lost his memory and that someone was trying to kill him.The end totally confused me. Why did Simon wake up again at the end?Was he about to relive past mistakes all over again? Apparently by thenumber of bottles of wine on his brothers desk he’d done it before. Ikeep wondering why he followed his brother up the stairs each time. Orfor that matter, why he never bothered to answer the phone? I guessI’ll have to watch it again with a more observant eye. It reallybothers to me to watch a movie and not have all the answers. At leastthe sixth sense took the time to explain its self in the end.

I gave this 5 stars. It held my interest throughout. The film is veryfast paced. It is only an hour and 35 minutes and there’s no laganywhere.

A man named Simon finds himself in a hospital, and he seems to bestricken with amnesia, and that’s not all that’s going on in Simon’slife.

Besides having to deal with which woman is his wife and how does eachof them feel about him, he soon finds himself jumping from 2002 to 2000and back again.

It’s all quite confusing and frightening for Simon, and before it wasall finished it was more than a little confusing to me as well.

I did catch on to what the deal finally was as to what was happening tohim, but it still left a lot of unanswered questions. Like,just whatdid really happen to Mr. Traveti? I don’t know, I never did figure thatpart out.

My main complaint with the film is the actor playing Simon — like mostyoung men these days, he lost his razor and has the usual,unattractive, grubby, three day stubble. He apparently also lost hisshampoo from the looks of his hair. Ditto for the actress playingClaire–stringy, messy, thin hair.

It would surely be a pleasure to see well-groomed people with shavedfaces and clean, combed hair on screen again. Ah, well, I can hope.

A Fine Movie, but lacking in story… A puzzle-box movie, similar torather Butterfly Effect than Memento.

Mostly it turns you on in the beginning, sliding through the story,keeping you thinking - when starts the thrill. Some good moments -similar to the Butterfly Effect.

Sarah Polley reminded me her next movie - My Life Without Me - all thetime. It’s a pity. Ryan Philippe though had his best presentation yet.

Still worth a look. Liked characters, and it had some style. Not allthe answers will be answered, but still most of the points it lost aredue to the ending…

This film begins extremely well and you are looking forward to aninteresting and intriguing plot. Instead this film is too confusing,and you do not feel satisfied or entertained at the end. Ryan Phillipeportrays the character Simon extremely well, and his performance isworthy. Although I do not understand why directors insist films be socomplicated we actually loose the simplistic enjoyment film audiencesrequire. I found this film to be extremely disappointing and didn’tfully understand the meaning of the text? This is actually the firstfilm I have watched and thought what?? Very Very Disappointing! Irecommend watching twice with a pen and paper in order to take notesand then you can maybe begin to understand the over complicated storyline. I would recommend this movie for Film/Media Students. I likefilms with complicated twists but this was not the best. I recommendyou watch Butterfly Effect, it is a much better attempt of this genre.

"The I Inside" is an excellent psychological thriller which will lingerwith you days after you see it. Simon (Ryan Phillippe) wakes up in ahospital with no memory of how he got there and no memory of the lasttwo years of his life. Early on he meets Claire, whom he doesn’tremember and Anna, a wife he doesn’t know he had. Simon is also notaware his brother Peter is dead. The last thing Simon remembers is thathe went to see his brother in 2000 and that he had an auto accidentthat evening.

Thus begins a tale of past and present as Simon relives the experiencesof 2000 and 2002, discovering along the way he can change change pastand present.

Some have compared this to "Memento," but the story is really closer inspirit to an old TWILIGHT ZONE episode, titled "Shadow Play" and theplay "Steambath," with touches of "Mulholland Drive" and "The SixthSense" though lacking the emotional wallop or terror of the others.Nonetheless, "The I Inside" is a great psychological suspense film andI highly recommend it.

WARNING: SPOILERS

Some seem confused about the nature of Mr. Travati, Simon’swisecracking hospital roommate" and the reason for the "2002". Simonsaw "Mr. Travati" walking down the passageway of the hospital, hookedto an IV bottle, when he was brought after the car accident. Simon isDEAD, and his conscious integrated Travati, Anna and the emergency roomdoctors into his illusion, in order to give cohesiveness to theillusion that he was still alive and experiencing "time travel." The"2002" was actually 20:02, military time (8:02 PM), when the emergencyroom doctor called Simon’s death.

END OF SPOILERS

This movie was released directly to cable, where, fortunately, thereshould be a big audience for it. I predict "The I Inside" will become acult film and is certainly worthy of a "9".

Just like the TV series "Lost", it seems all exciting while you watchand wait anxiously for the ending, which is supposed to explaineverything, but when it
ends, nothing is explained.

The whole point to movies like this is the ending which is usually areally fascinating twist, explaining why things happened the way thatthey did, e.g. "The Others", "6th Sense". This one had absolutely noconclusion and left me feeling cheated and like I had wasted the last 2hours of my life.

At least it's fun to sit here and write how sh1t this move was and hopesomeone reads it By the way, I can't stand the TV series "Lost"either, and I did understand every single word in the Matrix, so I'mnot dumb.

I will make this brief.

This is a decent movie. Is it completely groundbreaking? No. Will youenjoy it?

I DID.

There are ton of people on here talking about how it doesn’t makesense, theorizing about the ending…comparing it to ButterflyEffect/The Jacket/… yadda yadda.

If you have half a brain in your head, you will at least think thismovie is worth watching. The end is NOT hard to figure out. Therereally AREN’T any massive plot holes. Its just a good psychologicalthriller… with a hint of sci-fi/horror. The acting is 85% good.

This movie will not change your life. But. If you are like me and youhave seen almost everything else the world of cinema has to offer….this movie really isn’t as bad as a lot of what is out there.

Oh. P.S. The fact that every time a movie like this comes out… peoplecompare it to THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT… makes me want to vomit.

Butterfly Effect = 2 stars. The I Inside = 7 stars.

The I Inside is a complex movie and while some may dislike it for it’scomplicating story lines others may just because of it.

When Simon(Ryan Phillippe:Cruel intentions,Gosford Park) awakens in thehospital after a near death experience, amnesia has erased the past twoyears of his memory. He learns that his brother(Robert SeanLeonard:Drive,Dead Poets Society) was killed, he has married a youngwomen he doesn’t remember (Piper Perabo:Cheaper by the dozen,CoyoteUgly)… and he is haunted by mysterious visions of the women whom heloved(Sarah Polly:Dawn of the dead,Go). Soon he starts to uncover thetruth behind his brothers death and unravel the unbelievable turns hislife has taken! So in my opinion if you enjoyed the movies Identity,The Jacket, and Memento you will probably enjoy this Psychologicalthriller.

How unfortunate to spend time on these sort of inadequate movies. Isuppose Butterfly Effect was even a better movie at least it was moreentertaining than this one. The Script was bad and inadequate, actingwas terrible the actors must have picked up on a rush or they didn'thave enough budget for good ones. Neither of Simon (Phillippe) isuppose due to the script and director, Dr. Newman (Rea), Anna(Perabo), Claire (Polley) or Peter (Leonard) could act, i think theonly good actors in this movie was Mr. Travit(Lang) the patient andNurse Clayton (Ayola). The opening was like trying to create a suspensewhich fails and the audience were literally pushed to that suspicionother than naturally creating the atmosphere, he killed Mr. Travit andhe was there in the future and suddenly started to bleed, he bangedAnna's had and she had the bleeding in the future all of a sudden whichdoes not correspond with the other events if u changed the past ithappens so you wont see it in the future, it would be the past. Theending was meaningless does it mean he has another chance and why Dr.Newman was his father then became Dr. Newman again in the ending…such a waste of time and money…

read comments (0)