Movie Review: ANACONDA

ANACONDA

1997
PG-13


You can watch the trailer here

It's amazing how many big-name celebrities can fit into a pile of (insert necessary term here).

Usually when a movie is this bad, I like to start with the things that went wrong and end with the things that went right, so as to salvage some of the movie's respect. Unfortunately for Anaconda, there didn't seem to be much positive anywhere I looked. For starters, we've got a screenplay that's essentially Jaws in the Amazon. The only difference is that Jaws was actually compelling, with interesting characters and a real sense of thrill. Anaconda was just flat. Bad job, director Luis Llosa.

Oh, and the acting was impeccable! (Read: sarcasm). We're given a string of some big-named individuals: Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube, Jon Voight, Owen Wilson, Jonathan Hyde, and even a cameo from a young Danny Trejo. It's not that the acting was horrendous; most of the actors were just playing their normal character, so it wasn't much of a stretch for any of them. However, Voight, our villain aside from the giant friggin' snake swimming around, was absolutely horrendous. He had an accent that I couldn't even come close to placing, and his timing of speech made it sound like he had to call for his line every five seconds. I couldn't help but laugh every time he said a word because it was just too ridiculous.

To top it all off, we have to look at the titular creature itself. The anaconda doesn't even remotely resemble anything actually living. At least, when it wasn't in CGI. The computer-generation was actually pretty good, especially when it showed the snakes in full rather than just the head. They got the movement down just right, I think. However, the puppet-type anacondas that interact directly with the people on-screen looked so fake that I just couldn't take them seriously.

Overall, this movie is a complete train wreck. There's nothing truly redeeming about it. It's boring, and at best, you're going to laugh where they wanted you to be scared. You'll get more of a thrill searching real anaconda videos on YouTube.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: F
Current All-Time Rank: Worst - #77
Thumb... Down

Movie Review: SAW 3D

SAW 3D

2010
R


You can watch the trailer here

I don't think I've ever been so pleased with such a bad movie.

Let me get this out of the way: Saw 3D is not a good movie by any means. In relation to the rest of the films in the Saw series, I've definitely given it the lowest grade, although Saw V was pretty damn terrible. Despite this, I probably rank this latest (and supposedly final) installment, which was directed by Kevin Greutert, in the series in the top three in terms of satisfaction. Allow me to explain.

If I wanted to go into detail about everything that's wrong with this movie, I could talk for hours. Instead, I'll skim over the main pieces that cause total and utter mayhem. To start, the story is extremely convoluted, much like the two previous installments in the franchise. Characters that we've never seen are introduced, and it's as though the writers wanted us just to accept that they were there and had probably always been there. In a way, it's fitting - so many people (especially cops) are killed in each movie that there needs to be a constant carousel of newer and supposedly more experienced lawmen stalking the Jigsaw killer. Still, I never thought I'd actually be wishing to have Donnie Wahlberg back (see: Saw II, originally).

People see the Saw movies for one of two reasons: either they're going for the story and the twists (like myself), or they're going for the gore. While Saw 3D does dish out the gore readily, I just felt as though it wasn't quite as exciting as it has been. Maybe seven years of these movies have desensitized me, but none of the traps truly seemed all that edgy. Save for one nostalgic death late in the film, I wasn't impressed with the visual effects. If this is going to be the final movie, they should have gone big.

Now, none of the movies in the movie had terribly great acting, but this may hit a new low. I just couldn't believe that any of the characters were actually real people. Everything just seemed so forced. I had a little bit of hopes here with the addition of Sean Patrick Flanery into the ensemble, but he was arguably one of the worst to grace the screen. Just a very low effort all-around here.

Despite all of the evidence pointing to a horrible movie, I still found it very enjoyable for two reasons: the beginning and the ending. As fans of the franchise already know, every Saw movie (save the original) starts with a snippet of one or more of Jigsaw's victims caught in one his traps. The nature of the game this time around is irrelevant, but the picture above shows a little piece. The thing that I liked about the scene was that Jigsaw placed the trap in a public place, as you can see by the crowd in the background. Throughout the scene, the three people in the game scream outside for help while the masses just continue to watch. Camera phones appear, and the entire situation seems entirely voyeuristic. I got the sense that the writers were trying to send a message to the audience about watching gore for the sake of gore, but at the same time, I think it's making a statement about the lack of sensitivity in the world today. Yes, it's a reach, but it's just the vibe I got from the scene.

However, the reason I can call this movie a success is the ending. For the past few years, I've been hoping for a certain resolution when the final Saw film finally came around, and I am happy to say that the writers have completely delivered. I was so overjoyed with the final realization that I literally had goosebumps. Obviously, I don't want to give away this final twist, but I will say that I am always a fan of stories coming full circle. The twist may not save Saw 3D, but it definitely validates the Saw franchise as a whole.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: F
Thumb... Sideways

Movie Review: HOLY ROLLERS

HOLY ROLLERS

2010
R


You can watch the trailer here

If you read my review for When in Rome, you'll remember that I said that the romantic comedy has become much to cliché. It's basically the same-old story wrapped in a different type of paper, theoretically bringing something new. In a sense, that's exactly what Holy Rollers does with the drug-trade story.

Sure, the movies about the drug trade do tend to vary a little more than your average romantic comedy, but in all fairness, there are a few more variables to consider. First, you have to pick your drug, be it marijuana, heroine, cocaine, or as is the case with Holy Rollers, ecstasy. Second, you have to pick your drug lord, whose nationality is usually directly related to your choice for option one. Third, you have to find an offbeat, seemingly lawful guy who gets swept up in the trade, hits it big then crashes and spirals to the end of the film. Not to be too disheartening, however, you have to give us a little ray of hope at the end because it would be horrible to leave the audiences depressed.

That was essentially the storyline for Holy Rollers, which was directed by Kevin Asch. But for all intents and purposes, I could have easily been describing 2001's Blow. What makes Holy Rollers a little different is that we have Hasidic Jews diving into the ecstasy trade. It's supposedly inspired by a true story, but nowadays, what movie isn't supposedly true?

The acting is good, but it's really nothing to rave about. Jesse Eisenberg does well as our lead, and he actually has a few good scenes (see: the ending), but overall it's pretty par for the course. You're better off seeing him in The Social Network, also a movie about an extremely commonly-used and highly addictive drug called Facebook. Ari Graynor also has a few good scenes in limited screentime.

Overall, it's nothing I've never seen before. Sure, the twist is interesting, but it didn't do enough to captivate my interest. Sadly, Holy Rollers commits the worst atrocity a movie can commit: it's just flat-out boring.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: D
Thumb... Down

Movie Review: WAITING FOR "SUPERMAN"

WAITING FOR "SUPERMAN"

2010
PG


You can watch the trailer here

This review could either be very short or very long, depending on how much I want to diverge from the whole point of the review. I'll try to keep it short, however.

Essentially, we've got a documentary from the Academy Award-winning director of An Inconvenient Truth - Davis Guggenheim. This time around, he's tackling education and education reform in the United States. He partially follows five students from New York and California as they wait to see if their name will be called in a lottery, allowing them to attend a higher-end public school that will exponentially increase their chances of succeeding in the future in comparison to the education they would receive from their local public school. In the in-between segments, Guggenheim fills us in with the history of education reform (or lack thereof), giving the good and the bad and his reasons for why reform has yet to be truly successful.

The film is most compelling when it's following the five kids and their families. You can see and feel the difficulties of the public school system right alongside the parents, and you truly want the best for the kids. The final scene, composed of the various lotteries at different schools, is both crushing and heartwarming. It's simply too difficult not to get emotionally attached to these kids.

However, it loses some of its compelling storytelling in those in-between segments, and I felt like I was just thrown figure after figure. It was really hard for me to keep up with it all. When seen as a whole, I just didn't feel like I could relate. Yes, I'm not exactly the type of student they were portraying on-screen, most of which were poorer minorities from lower socioeconomic statuses than my own. Also, I didn't attend a public school until high school, and even in that case, I attended a magnet school designed to prepare me for college success. So, in a way, I probably just couldn't connect on a large scale.

Some of the interviewees were interesting, but even those got to be a little bogged down in technicalities. And there was a time or two where I immediately thought of a counter-argument to something proposed on-screen, and that's not very good for a documentary. I mean, if you think of a counter-argument a couple hours later while you're thinking about it, that's fine; but to think of it in immediate reaction? That's either not good film-making or not a good idea.

It's not to say the film is bad - all evidence to the contrary. I'm sure someone with more interest in the subject will find it incredibly telling, but for me personally, I just got a little bit bored with it as time went on.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B
Thumb... Slightly Up

Movie Review: SAINT JOHN OF LAS VEGAS

SAINT JOHN OF LAS VEGAS

2010
R


You can watch the trailer here

It really is a shame what gets made into movies these days. Sometimes it's as though anybody with an idea can make a film, which in some cases is a very good thing. However, not everyone's ideas are always "very good." For a film to be successful, you need a good screenplay as well as a good cast. Saint John of Las Vegas, which was directed by Hue Rhodes on got half of that equation.

Let's talk storyline. We open on our titular John (Steve Buscemi), an ex-gambler now residing as an insurance claims operator in Alburquerque, New Mexico. He tells us via monologue that he is a very lucky man, except that he only receives "bad luck." He decides to ask his boss for a raise, and in the process gets himself assigned to a fraud case with a very successful insurance fraud agent (Romany Malco). The two set out on a road trip towards Las Vegas in search of the answers that will prove that the insurance claim in their current case is, in fact, fraudulent.

The problem with this movie isn't the acting. Buscemi is his typical self, and his consistent "bugging out" works very well for the character. Malco plays a bit of a badass whose presence commands the screen. Even Sarah Silverman, John's supposed girlfriend Jill, is convincing. However, if anybody's stealing the show, it's Peter Dinklage, who in very little screen-time stamps himself as by far the funniest character. The film may actually be worth the watch just for his two scenes.

Sadly, none of these actors really had much to work with in terms of a script. The writing is off-key, and although there are a few funny scenes, they are just too few and too far between. Aside from the brief synopsis I already gave, nothing else really happens, although it feels as though there are other plots afoot. The ending also left something to be desired; it makes it seem as though John has come full circle and now knows the error of his ways, but personally, I feel as though he came full circle, back to square one. The final scene can be described as anti-climactic, at best.

Although there are a number of good performances that may be worth your time, the movie just feels empty. It starts out with a very good premise but then slowly starts its descent into mediocrity. It's just too bad that they wasted so much talent.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: C-
Thumb... Sideways

Movie Review: WHEN IN ROME

WHEN IN ROME

2010
PG-13


You can watch the trailer here

I guess everybody needs a paycheck every now and again.

It's not to say that I had extremely high hopes going into When in Rome - in all honesty, I watched it on a whim at the expense of my boredom - but I could have hoped for a little more than what I got. With a cast speckled with some well-known names in comedy, it's sad to think that their talent was wasted so easily. Director Mark Steven Johnson should have been able to do a little bit more.

At the beginning of the film, we find ourselves following Beth (Kristen Bell), a workaholic New Yorker with no time for love. On a trip to Rome for her sister's wedding, she thinks she may have found a quality guy in Nick (Josh Duhamel), but when she sees him with another woman, she plunges herself into a literal "fountain of love" (based off the real Trevi Fountain) where she proceeds to remove five coins from the bottom of the fountain. Unbeknownst to her, when a coin is removed from the fountain, the person who threw the coin in will fall in love with the person who removed it. From this point, we see a quartet of men following Beth to New York, stalking her everywhere she goes, and all the while, Beth is trying to fall in love with Nick.

Now tell me: does any of this sound familiar to anyone else? I have often blamed the romantic comedy genre for being much too cliché, and When in Rome only helps to prove my theory. In a sense, we've got our basic rom-com storyline (girl meets boy; girl falls for boy; girl gets boy) with a few minor twists and tweaks to make it seem fresh. However, at its heart, it's the same old tale, stale and unoriginal.

I don't personally have a problem with Kristen Bell, although there has been some talk that film studios are trying to make her America's new sweetheart, and I can see where they're coming from. With films like this one and You Again, it's hard to argue that she's been getting a good number of starring comedic roles in recent past. She plays her usual self here, and it works for what it's worth, but it's nothing really special. Duhamel certainly carries a good amount of charm, and it's always nice to see him on the screen, but he really didn't have much to work with this time around. Maybe stick to those oh-so-wonderfully-written Transformers flicks? (Read: sarcasm).

If anything's working in When in Rome, it's the four potential suitors chasing Beth all over New York. They all bring something a little different to the table: Will Arnett plays an Italian (or is he?) artist; Jon Heder comes in as a street-side magician; Dax Shepard plays a male model (and giant tool - a character he has come to perfect over the years); and Danny DeVito plays a sausage company king. They all bring a certain quirkiness necessary for each of their characters, and they all help to spur the realizations about love that Beth desperately needed to find. However, I just feel as though there were too many guys gracing the screen at once. If Beth would have only had to deal with one or two stalkers, I think the movie would have been a little more manageable; as it stands now, however, it's just a bit of an overload.

Oh, and a couple cameos, from the likes of Efren Ramirez, Shaq and Keir O'Donnell, prove to be pretty funny as well.

All in all, When in Rome is supposed to be a comedy, so it's overall success lies in whether it could actually make me laugh. Aside from a couple of random chuckles here and there, I just could not find the humor in it. It started off a little to silly and slapsticky for me to want to take it seriously later in the film, and that greatly hurt its chances of being a quality film. I do concede that I was not the target audience for this flick, but my review stands as is.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: F
Thumb... Down

Movie Review: HEREAFTER

HEREAFTER

2010
PG-13


You can watch the trailer here

When you hear the name Clint Eastwood, you immediately think of quality cinema. Whether you're pondering his roles in countless Westerns or as the iconic Harry Callahan, or you're thinking about his numerous directorial features, you can easily come up with some of the greatest movies ever made. He has proven himself on both sides of the camera, and every ounce of respect he receives he has dutifully earned. That's why it is, with a heavy heart, that I must write this review for his newest film, Hereafter.

I should have seen it coming - his last two films (2008's Gran Torino and 2009's Invictus) left me with quite a bit of want. I had issues with the acting decisions in Gran Torino, and while Invictus was very good, it just left something to be desired, and I couldn't quite put my finger on just what that was. Still, I held out some hope that Hereafter could be good, despite the mixed critical response it has thus far received.

Let's go with the storyline. We're following three characters: a French television journalist and tsunami survivor (Cécile De France); a no-longer-practicing psychic with true ability (Matt Damon); and a young boy who loses his twin brother (dually played by Frankie and George McLaren). Each character has been touched in some way by death, and each is trying to deal with that in their own way. Eventually, their paths intertwine, and the rest, as they say, is history.

On paper, this very well could have been a fantastic success. However, not every idea can be transferred well into a movie. It took me a little bit of thought to figure out where the problem lied here, but I think I got it: it tried way too hard to pack as much emotion into everything in the film. Obviously, with the subject matter, we can assume that things are going to get a little bit emotional, but it seemed as though Eastwood was trying to force the emotions onto the audience. It was heavy-handed and slow, and I just didn't feel a thing for any of the characters. I understand that they were going through some terrible situations, but I felt absolutely nothing, and I'm a pretty emotional guy when it comes to the movies.

In terms of acting, I can't really complain. The performances are good, especially from Damon and De France, but it's definitely nothing spectacular or Oscar-worthy. However, Bryce Dallas Howard did surprise me in a very limited role, and I was left hoping to see her again in the film. Sadly, her character departed abruptly, and I lost all connection to the movie whatsoever.

Were Eastwood not as successful as he is, I don't think he could have made this movie. It's one of those films that you can only make after you've established yourself as a directing force (See: Christopher Nolan's Inception or the Coen brothers' Burn After Reading). Unfortunately, Hereafter did not play out to what Eastwood probably assumed it could be.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: C-
Thumb... Slightly Down

Movie Review: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2

2010
R


You can watch the trailer here

(I'd like to start by saying that when I first heard of the plans to make swift on the heels of the overnight success of its predecessor, I definitely had my doubts about whether or not it would be a good film. It seemed as though the planets were aligned for this movie to fail, and I was only giving it a shot out of my pure love for my pure astonishment with Paranormal Activity. I would like to continue by saying that I am a man who can admit when he's wrong.)

It's extremely difficult to make a sequel that can be considered better than an original film, but it has been done in the past. For example, most people view Terminator 2: Judgment Day as a step up from The Terminator. Some people would argue that The Empire Strikes Back stands above the original Star Wars. The Godfather: Part II is often considered the best of The Godfather trilogy. However, to make a sequel in the horror genre that is better than the first is almost unheard of.

That's why I was genuinely surprised with the effectiveness of Paranormal Activity 2, which is good considering Tod Williams took over for Oren Peli in directing the film. I can't give away too many plot details because I don't want to ruin the movie before you get a chance to see it. However, I can say that it delivers just as many thrills and chills as the first Paranormal movie, and then some. As you can see from the trailer, we get a little bit more of a human interaction this time around; rather than simply having our young couple, we have an entire family being terrorized by everyone's favorite demon.

Katie Featherston reprises her role, and we even get a couple of scenes with Micah Sloat. However, the movie really centers around our new family (who is related to Katie in the film), consisting of the father (Brian Boland), the mother (Sprague Grayden), a teenage daughter (Molly Ephraim), a toddler son and a German shepherd named Abby. The entire family is effective and convincing, but the addition of the infant and the dog really amp up the terror.

Someone once told me that you can have a movie where a million people die, and the mass public will love the movie, but as soon as one child or one dog gets hurt, they will hate the movie in a heartbeat. This logic almost follows through here, but for some reason, the addition of both an infant and a dog only enhances the effect of the film. It's as though there's more of a human element in Paranormal Activity 2 that the original simply did not have. One of my biggest (and only) gripes about the first movie was Micah, who drove me bonkers, and I wanted him to get offed eventually. But by bringing in a baby and a dog, I feel as though the movie drew me in even more, and pulled at the heartstrings a little bit. It's not easy to see things happen to those two, but they filmmakers made it work.

In all honesty, I found Paranormal Activity 2 to be a slight step ahead of its predecessor, simply because it stuck to its roots, in a sense, while giving us more reason to empathize with the characters on-screen. I'd like to remind everyone that this is not a horror film in the vein of the Halloween remakes with your cheap thrills; this is more about suspense. If you can't let yourself fall into a film like that, then this is not for you, and you should stick to such drivel as the Halloween remakes. However, if you liked the first Paranormal Activity movie, I'd bet that you'll like this one just as much.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: A-
Thumb... Up
Addition to Awards

Movie Review: DIRTY DANCING

DIRTY DANCING

1987
PG-13


You can watch the trailer here

At the risk of sounding like a total sap, I have to confess that I thoroughly enjoyed Dirty Dancing. The jokes and stabs at my sexuality may now commence. But at least hear me out!

Dirty Dancing was directed by Emile Ardolino and follows Frances "Baby" Houseman (Jennifer Grey) as she spends a summer vacation with her family at an upscale resort in the early 1960s. The 17-year-old soon finds herself infiltrating the workers' quarters, where she meets Johnny Castle (Patrick Swayze), who runs the resort's dance sessions. Through a series of events, Baby becomes Johnny's new dance partner, and a relationship begins to develop between the two.

The screenplay is a little conventional at times, but I still found myself thoroughly engrossed within the story. I may have known exactly where the film was going, but it didn't take me out of the film at all. Maybe I'm just a sucker for the occasional romance film, but the story in Dirty Dancing is just that good.

And what can I say about the acting? The supporting cast does a pleasant job filling in the space between our sightings of Baby and/or Johnny, but the movie really belongs to Grey and Swayze. At least one of them is in every scene of the film, and they simply demand the camera's presence. Although the story revolves around Grey's character, I couldn't help but think that Swayze truly stole the show. He seemed most in his element while he danced, as though he truly had become one with the music. Simply incredible performances by both of these actors.

Oh, and what can I say about the soundtrack? Obviously, the Oscar-winning "(I've Had) The Time of My Life" is probably the song most remembered from the film, but the entire soundtrack just goes to enhance each scene of the movie. You can check out the track listing here, and I strongly recommend that you do.

Sure, I may be a sucker for the occasional romance flick, but this is definitely one worth watching. If you're into this kind of movie, then don't hesitate to give it a chance!

Grade: A-
Current All-Time Rank: Best - #222
Thumb... Up

Movie Review: DIE HARD: WITH A VENGEANCE

DIE HARD: WITH A VENGEANCE

1995
R


You can watch the trailer here

Any time you get a chance to watch Bruce Willis as his alter-ego John McClane, you're definitely in for a treat. Although the latest installment in the Die Hard franchise (2007's Live Free or Die Hard) was a bit of a step down, it can't take away from the series as a whole. Die Hard: With a Vengeance was the only film I had yet to see, but now I can say that I have seen, and am a fan, of the entire Die Hard saga. John McTiernan took this film and ran with it.

The story this time around doesn't take place at Christmastime like the other three films. Instead, we see a suspended McClane brought back into active service when a madman with an explosive edge demands that he lead the investigation. Speaking merely in rhymes and riddles, our villain sends McClane and a "good Samaritan" named Zeus (Samuel L. Jackson) around New York City looking for bombs placed at various locations. However, through all of the turmoil, a deeper plot is uncovered, and the identity of the villain becomes a piece of the puzzle. I won't give away that little twist, but it happens early enough in the film that it's hardly a spoiler. Anyways, gratuitous and sometimes ridiculous action ensues, and the rest can be left to the imagination.

The screenplay this time around is decent, but it's nothing truly spectacular. Granted, it would be tough to oust the original Die Hard film (which I believe is one of the greatest action films of all time), but this film definitely carries its own weight. The story starts off incredibly well, with a clever foe leading our heroes on a wild goose chase throughout the big city streets. The clues are thought-provoking and fascinating, and the villain is painted as a worthy adversary for our mostly-brute-but-sometimes-brains McClane. However, as soon as we finally see the bad guy, things start to spiral into your standard action flick, and it loses a little bit of its cleverness along the way. Still, it is just an action movie, so you can't knock it too much.

I don't have any complaints about the acting. Bruce Willis is Bruce Willis; I mean, he's taking a stab at a character he's already played twice, so I don't think there was really much contemplation about changing the psyche of John McClane. However, there are a couple interesting additions to the cast list that prove very effective. Jeremy Irons is great as our villain (a familiar role for him, if you take a glance at his filmography). He doesn't have a terribly large amount of screen-time, but he makes the most of the time he's given. If the Die Hard franchise does anything extremely well, it's that they present villains who aren't psychologically disturbed or absolute nutcases; rather, they give us brilliant individuals capable of developing mastermind schemes while keeping a sense of calm about them. Irons does well to continue this tradition. The second standout addition this time around is that of Samuel L. Jackson as our "good Samaritan." He saves McClane early in the film then becomes caught up in the action, much to his chagrine. Jackson plays a good character opposite Willis, and their banter throughout the film gives a rise in the tension as well as provide the occasional comic relief.

If I had any real beef with the film, it was just the overuse of the march, "When Johnny Comes Marching Home." It seemed a little out of place in the movie, and it was used over and over again. I constantly found myself taken out of the film just to think about why they put that instrumental bit into the movie. Then again, that's just personal preference; maybe you won't even notice it.

Personally, I think Die Hard: With a Vengeance stands as the second-best film from the franchise, barely squeaking ahead of its immediate predecessor. Obviously nothing will beat the original, but this is still a fun little movie if you're itching for some action.

Grade: B
Thumb... Up

Movie Review: DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE

DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE
1920
Unrated

You can watch the trailer here

Dusting off a piece of classic, silent cinema can lead you in one of two directions: it can either be a boring humdrum of work, or it can be one of the best films you've ever seen. Thankfully for me, I found Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which was directed by John S. Robertson, to be of the latter category.

Technically you can call this a horror film (see: the picture above), but obviously by today's standards, there's not much shock or terror value (then again, if you want shock and terror value, you can watch the much less pleasing Halloween remakes, which were drivel at best). Instead, the audience is given a taste of drama this time around, with the necessary thrills and chills needed to make this a legitimate horror classic.

I have a hard time associating the word "screenplay" with silent films, simply because the main storyline is either acted out or told on title cards throughout the movie. Instead, I'd like to refer to them simply as stories because they're really giving the bare necessity for the viewer. Fortunately, the story presented here is rather good, and it's very easy to follow along. In today's culture, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't know the story of Dr. Henry Jekyll and his famous alter-ego, Mr. Hyde. In a wanton desire to further a scientific train of thought, Jekyll creates a formula that essentially removes the evil element from himself, transposing it into a completely separate body. This creature (Hyde) then goes about and fulfills all of Jekyll's desires that may go against normal, upstanding convention. However, as time begins to pass, Jekyll begins to spend more and more time as Mr. Hyde, ultimately finding great difficulty in staying either one man or the other.

The key to this film's success is the acting of our lead, John Barrymore. While the rest of the cast does a good job keeping up, Barrymore himself steals the show as our Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. The dual role called for two completely opposite characters, and Barrymore nails both of them on the head. However, some of the most convincing scenes are the ones in which the line between Jekyll and Hyde has become more of a gray area than the black-and-white we see early in the film. Barrymore convincingly conveys the struggle within him between good and evil, and at times, it's heart-wrenching to behold. At the same time, his Hyde brings heaps of terror to the screen; I wouldn't want to run into that on the street.

Also, on a brief side note, some of the visual effects are simply astounding considering this film was made in the early 1900s. The transitions from Jekyll to Hyde (or vice versa) are simple by today's standards, but incredible considering they're about ninety years old now. Oh, and I can't say enough about the makeup for Mr. Hyde; it's stunningly grotesque.

Now, I would love to recommend this movie to everyone, but I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who wouldn't want anything to do with a silent film. However, if you're like me and love a bit of classic cinema every now and again, do yourself and favor and take this one in. You won't be disappointed.

Grade: A-
Current All-Time Rank: Best - #126
Thumb... Up

Movie Review: THE BREAKFAST CLUB

THE BREAKFAST CLUB

1985
R


You can watch the trailer here

I understand that it's close to blasphemy that it took me this long to watch The Breakfast Club, but now that I've seen it, you can all get off my back about it!

Essentially, we've got five teenagers from vastly different social circles all thrown together in a Saturday detention hall. We are introduced to "a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess and a criminal" who absolutely loathe one another from the outset of their time together. However, as the day progresses, they begin to see that maybe they're not all that different after all.

With a plot so relatively simple, one can imagine that the film could have turned into a run-of-the-mill flick that was both cheesy and predictable. Instead, we're presented with a movie that they might as well have called "High Schooler Psychology 101." This is the most psychologically-infused look at what it means to be an individual in high school that I have yet to see. John Hughes hit the nail on the head with this one, and it's a shame I've wasted so much time without this film under my belt. The screenplay is tightly-written and extremely clever. Hughes definitely had his finger on the pulse of life as a teenager when he created this work of art. He crafted a film that's hysterical, touching and heartfelt all at the same time. It's hard not to laugh and cry along with the five characters presented to us on the screen.

The acting is also pitch-perfect as each character is brought to life with such authenticity that it's hard not to think about seeing these groups in your own high school years. Each actor brings both comedy and drama to the table, and it's hard to pick one as the stand-out of the group because they all have their moments. Just a stellar ensemble cast all around.

Oh, and can I just make the quick mention that the music was fantastic? From Simple Minds's "Don't You Forget About Me" bookending the film to the perfectly-scored instrumental sequences, the music is just perfect.

I'd really love to go into more detail, but I'm about to fall asleep at any moment, so I'll have to cut this off here. However, if you haven't seen The Breakfast Club yet, don't wait like I did - go watch it right now.

Grade: A
Current All-Time Rank: Best - #38
Thumb... Up

Movie Review: SEX & DRUGS & ROCK & ROLL

SEX & DRUGS & ROCK & ROLL

2010
Not Rated


You can watch the trailer here

I first heard about Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll a few months ago on the tailwind of early Oscar talk. All the buzz for the film centered around the lead performance of Andy Serkis, most famous for his work as Gollum in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, as Ian Dury. Admittedly, I knew absolutely nothing about Dury or his life going into the film, but considering the film's title, I could easily imagine just what the movie might entail.

Unfortunately, you can easily predict every twist and turn this movie's going to take. Perhaps Dury's life actually went like this, but it's essentially the standard tale of every rock and roll legend: they gain fame, the fame gets to their head, they dabble in drugs, they crash, they resurrect, then they die. In that sense, I just felt like I'd seen this story oh so many times before. This screenplay was a little jumbled, and it skipped over a lot of time without really making much reference to the in-between stages. It seemed as though director Mat Whitecross and writer Paul Viragh wanted to focus on the ups and downs of Dury's career rather than his music or his influence on the punk genre.

If the film does have one thing going for it, it's the acting. Serkis is every bit as good as the buzz suggests, and he's extremely captivating to watch. He brings a wide range of emotions to Ian Dury, and it makes him a likable lead worthy of your full attention. In addition, we have a few supporting characters that definitely carry their own weight. Naomie Harris is great as Dury's girlfriend Denise, and Bill Milner is fantastic as his son Baxter. I have no beef with the performances in the film; every actor brings something to the table.

Still, I just couldn't find a way to bring myself fully into the film. I'm gonna have to say it's a result of the jumbled screenplay that started off strangely and didn't give me the opportunity to implant myself in the film. However, Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll may be worth the watch simply for Serkis's great performance.

Grade: C+
Thumb... Sideways

Movie Review: JACKASS 3D

JACKASS 3D

2010
R


You can watch the trailer here

Honestly, there's really not much to saw about this one. I did not see this movie in 3D (I didn't want to pay the extra three bucks to see vomit and fecal matter thrown at me in the third dimension), but I could tell that it was your basic 3D schlock.

It's not that I hated this movie - far from it. I definitely laughed as much as I was supposed to, and I definitely wanted to vomit alongside Steve-O and the various cameramen at the appropriate junctures. I just couldn't seem to get into this one as much as I had enjoyed Jackass Number Two. However, I am willing to assume that the drop in my overall enjoyment stemmed from both the theater and the fact that I went alone.

Some of the pranks were pretty good, although they didn't have any complex, well-planned gags laid out ahead of time like they did in the last movie. Still, I laughed, cringed, and felt the waves of nausea accordingly. Some of the best bits this time around involved some pretty interesting cameos, ranging from the ever-present Spike Jonze to Minnesota Vikings defensive end Jared Allen, who was actually pretty damn hilarious. Oh, and a couple of Johnny Knoxville's co-stars (Edward Barbanelle and John Taylor) from the 2005 film The Ringer even show up during the closing credits.

All in all, if you're into the Jackass franchise, you're probably gonna love this one as well. It's already made an estimated $50 million, so everybody else is seeing it too.

Grade: C+
Thumb... Slightly up

Movie Review: RED

RED

2010
PG-13


You can watch the trailer here

I don't want to say, "Oh, how the mighty have fallen," but it's the first thing that comes to mind. On paper, Red seemed like a movie destined to succeed. With an all-star cast, whose four top bills have combined for eleven Oscar nominations and two wins, and a seemingly pleasant script, this action-comedy looked for a road to success. However, what you sometimes see on paper doesn't always translate well to the silver screen. Director Robert Schwentke should've been able to do better.

The screenplay itself is relatively simple: it follows Frank Moses (Bruce Willis), a retired CIA operative, as he tries to piece together the reasoning behind a CIA hit squads attempt on his life. Joining forces with some old associates, as well as a newfound love interest, Moses attacks the CIA itself in order to find the answers he's looking for. Like I said - pretty basic. With an action-comedy, you can't really afford to have too detailed of a plot, so the storyline worked relatively well. My problem, however, was that there just wasn't enough action or comedy to carry the film. The action sequences were few and much too far in-between, and the comedy relied on a variety of desperate grabs for laughter. Yes, I laughed throughout the movie, but the laughs seemed relatively cheap, and I couldn't begin to bring myself into the goings-on of the film.

Acting-wise, I have no real complaints. Willis is a little off-key with a character that's part John McClane from Die Hard and part Mark Wahlberg from The Happening. As one can imagine, this didn't turn out very well. Luckily, some of the supporting actors partially lived up to their billing, even if the material they had to work with wasn't entirely well-formed. John Malkovich and Helen Mirren stand out about the rest, and it's always a delight to see Morgan Freeman grace the screen.

Although there's nothing glaring that I can point out from this movie, it just didn't hook me and bring me into the story. The characters seemed one-dimensional, and the screenplay just didn't allow for much room to run. A cast like this should have knocked this one out of the park, but Red simply settles for the sacrifice bunt.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: C-
Thumb... Sideways

Movie Review: SUPERMAN

SUPERMAN

1978
PG


You can watch the trailer here

I realize that this is one of those movies that I probably should have seen ages ago, and in retrospect, I think I've seen bits and pieces over the years. However, I had not seen the entire film, so it was probably a good thing I put it onto my NetFlix queue. As usual, I have a few things I would like to say about the movie. The film was directed by Richard Donner.

Let's start with the story. By now (meaning 2010), everyone and their mother knows the basic story of Superman: he was born on the planet Krypton and sent to Earth by his parents as his home planet exploded. Once on Earth, he was taken in by a small-town farming couple who raised him into a young man. Upon the death of his surrogate father, he made his way north to the Arctic where he witnessed the construction of the Fortress of Solitude, where he would learn many of the secrets of his heritage. Upon reaching full adulthood, he entered the real world as Clark Kent, aspiring journalist. Taking up a job at the Daily Planet in Metropolis, Kent continued life, balancing his day job with his alter-ego, Superman.

You can fill in the pieces where need be, but that's the basic gist of it. In this particular film, Superman takes on Lex Luthor (played well by Gene Hackman, who's given much too little screentime), who's planning to sink the western coast of California. I don't have any major qualms with the screenplay, but I don't think it was spectacular by any means. The first hour of the film, which shows the demise of Krypton and Kent's beginnings on Earth, prove to be the film's most intriguing pieces. Once "Superman" actually appears, everything loses a little bit of luster. Don't get me wrong, it's still entirely entertaining, but it goes from a movie with a hefty amount of drama to a somewhat goofy action flick. This would be totally fine if things didn't seem to go perfectly for Superman. Everything seemed a little too gift-wrapped as it happened; I would've liked to see a little bit more negativity thrown his way.

The acting is fine all-around. As I previously said, Hackman did a very good job as the evil genius plotting against the world, but his screentime left something to be desired. Maybe I'm just a little used to the 21st-century influence on superhero flicks where the bad guy spends a lot of time as the center of attention. The late Christopher Reeve is good as Superman/Clark Kent, and Ned Beatty provides a couple of laughs. If anybody's gonna take the acting cake this time around, it's Marlon Brando as the ill-fated Jor-El. His small role in the beginning of the film lays the groundwork for Superman's upbringing, and his presence on the screen is unmatched by anyone else in the movie. He is the godfather, after all.

The movie does have a couple things going for it. The special effects, although cheesy by 21st-century standards, were probably state of the art back in 1978. Aside from the obvious green-screen (well, probably blue-screen back then) effects with the flying, the rest of the effects are actually pretty well-done. However, the one major selling point for Superman is definitely the musical score. John Williams, who in the three years prior to this film had scored both Jaws and the original Star Wars film, continued his role of classic scores this time around. It may not be as memorable as the other two films I just mentioned, but it fits the Superman saga perfectly.

Although I have my grievances with the screenplay, Superman still set the standard for the superhero genre. It's only been in recent years that that bar has begun to be re-set, but this one should always be able to stand the test of time.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B+
Thumb... Up

Movie Review: SPLICE

SPLICE

2010
R


You can view the trailer here

Splice was one of the major hits coming out of the Sundance Film Festival, so it was only a matter of time until it got its due release to the public. It tells the story of a young pair of scientists striving to push the moral and ethical boundaries in relation to human genetics and cloning. The two genetically splice human DNA with animal DNA, and a new organism is born. However, nothing can be assumed, and things quickly turn for the worse. I won't say any more lest I give up the ending!

Let's start with the screenplay: it's innovative and original, and it really draws you into the story. There hasn't been a movie quite like this before; yes, there have been other films referencing the ethics of human cloning, but this puts a very different spin on the idea. As the two scientists progress with their study (and affection) of this creature (aptly named "Dren," the reverse of "NERD," which is the acronym for the lab at which they work), we see their relationship with Dren develop as well as their continued concern for whether this experiment was right or wrong. I did, however, have a little bit of issue with the film's climax; however, it does stick with the thriller genre in that regards.

The acting throughout is good, for lack of a better word. Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley are just fine as our leads, but they don't really stand out as much as I would have liked. Delphine Chanéac is very good as Dren, giving partial life to the creature (I say partial in that a lot of the creature is created through CGI). There are a few ancillary characters as well, but they're so seldom seen that it's really a bother to even mention them.

Now, Splice does have two pieces that truly work. The first is Vincenzo Natali's direction of the film, which is simultaneously dark and brooding as well as thoughtful and thought-provoking. Natali does a very good job here, and if anything, that's what brought me into the movie even more. The second lies with the film's special effects. It's not the CGI-overload that many big-time blockbusters have become accustomed to using; instead, we see a very limited, but extremely effective, use of computer-generation. Dren, in all of its evolutionary stages, is quite a sight to behold, and the ability for the actors to interact with these special effects is at times mind-boggling. My hat goes off to the special effects crew; they did an astounding job.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B-
Thumb... Halfway Up

Movie Review: GET HIM TO THE GREEK

GET HIM TO THE GREEK

2010
R


You can view the trailer here

Two years after the smash hit Forgetting Sarah Marshall, director Nicholas Stoller once again teamed up with British comic superstar Russell Brand to take another look at his character, the raunchy-yet-lovable rock-n'-roll superstar Aldous Snow. This time around, Brand steps more to the forefront of the storyline, teaming up with Jonah Hill as Hill's character (Aaron Green) tries to get Snow back to Los Angeles in time for an anniversary concert at the Greek Theater. As one can imagine, the trip from London to Los Angeles doesn't go exactly as planned; however, the hilarity that ensues makes the movie worth watching. I mean, who would want to watch a movie about a record company intern completely controlling an out-of-control musician? It would be downright boring.

Stoller wrote the screenplay and really takes the audience into the lifestyle of the no-longer sober Aldous. Rather than following along with Aaron's strict desire to do his job, Snow pulls him into the partying lifestyle to which he has become accustomed. Essentially, we watch the pair move from city to city and party to party, consuming a plethora of drugs and alcohol along the way. The film even has its serious moments, where Brand showcases that he can turn a little bit darker. It made me want to see him in a more dramatic role someday.

Unfortunately, I found that the movie did get a little too mired down in its own brooding close to the end. I understand what Stoller was going for (the aging rocker out of his prime coming to grips with the fact that he feels alone in the world), but something just didn't click with it all. Whereas Forgetting Sarah Marshall balanced the comedy and drama very well, Get Him just didn't have the same type of flow.

In terms of acting, there isn't really that much to complain about. Brand resurrects Aldous Snow in true form, and it's a delight to see him grace the screen once again. Hill plays his typical self, which is getting run a little bit dry, but his personality counters Brand well this time around. Surprisingly, Sean 'Diddy' Combs stood out with the most comedic value throughout the movie. He's not by any means a good actor, but his manic approach to the owner of a record-production company who knows how to treat his artists proved to be downright hilarious. A number of cameo appearances also add a little fun, with the likes of Aziz Ansari, Meredith Vieira, and a somewhat-random Tom Felton adding to the hilarity.

If Get Him to the Greek does anything right, it's the inclusion of some more original material from Aldous Snow's band, Infant Sorrow. In Forgetting Sarah Marshall, we got tastes of "We've Got to Do Something" and "Inside of You." Now that Brand is essentially the star, we get a slew of new material, highlighted by the ever-awful "African Child (Trapped in Me)," "The Clap," and "Furry Walls." In fact, nearly the entire soundtrack (available on iTunes) is comprised of songs by Infant Sorrow. Just the music makes this one worth watching.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B
Thumb... UpAddition to Awards