Bada Bing!

Hot Tube Time Machine (2010)

2010-03-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

"Hot Tub Time Machine" Review

By Paolo Sardinas

"Hot Tub Time Machine", yes this really is the title, tells the tale of three men in their 40's who try to re-capture their youth. No, that isn't a joke and yes, that is the main plot of the film. The film features an assortment of crude, raunchy, obnoxious, jokes which are nonetheless funny but not a laugh riot. If your fan a fan of this comedy then you will feel absolutely satisfied with your viewing experience. Those of who remember the rockin' 80's will definitely have their own sense of nostalgia, even if the things that make you remember are fairly obvious and expected.

Nick, Lou, and Adam, the three friends who wish to reclaim their youth, are awashed in middle aged madness, haunted by memories of their youthful selves back in the 1980s, the time that they were young and dumb yet so innocent. Adam (John Cusack) has just been dumbed by his live-in girlfriend. Nick (Craig Robinson) has a stable marriage, if you consider his wife is cheating on him stable. He works at the local dog grooming salon, a constant reminder of the music career he could've had but ultimately didn't. And Lou (Rob Corddry) is an alcoholic divorce whose riding the "Crazy Train" towards self destruction. The film doesn't ask you to feel sorry for them, it instead makes you laugh at their own self misery.

The three are joined by Adam's geeky, 20-year-old nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) as they head down to their once favorite hangout spot. A ski resort that holds some vague memories and was once the scene of their own youthful mischief. The place is nothing like it was before, a run down ski lodge which could pass for a Motel 6. After one night of partying, the three end up inside of a-yes, a Hot Tub Time Machine-and wake up back in the year 1986 when the place was filled with bad haircuts, Jerry curls, Miami Vice memorabilia, casset players, and of course neon colors. Even Chevy Chase pops up.

Taking inspiration from classic 80's films, more so "Back to the Future" thany anything else, the film starts the same ol' beginning of last year's hit "The Hangover". Three friends waking up after a night of partying to find themselves in an unpredictable predicament. George McFly and Crispin Glover also pop up for an appearance or two.

John Cusack is, of course, an 80's icon himself. Starring in films like "Say Anything" and "The Sure Thing", but the fact of the matter is that Cusack isn't funny. As an 80's icon playing a character who re-visits the 80's he might be able to create some chuckles but he doesn't have the comedic power that his co-stars like Robinson and Corddry have themselves.

Giving a plot summary would be a waste of time considering the fact that there really isn't a plot. Director Steve PInk, along with a trio of screenwriters (Josh Heald, Sean Anders and John Morris) create absolute madness. The film never stops. Delivering one dirty joke after another, after another, after another. Each scene, or each frame I should say, is filled with more jokes than there should be. Which is something that can really make you question why you just payed money to watch this film. But at times the strategy works, the uncanny madness and barrage of raunchy sex jokes prove to be quite titillating and never cease to pull some kind of expression out of the audience.

After the crazy plot calms down a bit, which it never really does, you start to expect and ending of sorts. Probably the kind where everyone learns a lesson and goes home happy with a new outlook on life. Well the real ending is kind of like that. The problem with the actual ending is that it really is just and ending. Maybe its because the its so utterly imaginative that it never really cements itself in your brain and maybe thats because of the fact that you're still trying to figure out what the hell just happened. Its a big wish that catapults the film into another realm of wishful thinking while at the same time almost ruining your movie going experience.

The movie suggests, well at least this reviewer thought so, that the 80's were filled with heavy metal, spandex, cheesy shows, bad haircuts, hip hop that was somewhat old school, and cocaine and that it wasn't easy growing up. Which is fairly obvious in the facial expressions of Nick, Adam, and Lou's younger selves. They are scared and confused. The movie itself is the latter but it never ceases to bring some form of laughter. It becomes apparent that the three amigos aren't happy now, in the 21st century, but they weren't all that happy in the 80's. I mean after all, its what Cusack said "All we had was Reagan and AIDS."

Grade: B-

For more reviews head on over to http://www.movieweb.com/u/filmfreak2395/reviews

The Runaways (2010)

2010-03-20T09:43:00.000-07:00

''The Runaways'' Review

By Paolo Sardinas

Most bio-pics about hard rocking rockers all begin with the person or band that the film is based on, searching for themselves and looking for a way into the music scene. "The Runaways" fallows suit in almost every way possible but does so it a true and visceral way. The film is set in sunny Southern California a place where teenagers are left out to search for themselves while hanging out at the local burger joints and experimenting with new "things", many of these teens are looking for a way into the music biz, Joan Jett and Cherie Currie, played by Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning, found a way in making rock a place for women as well as men.

The film works as a double biopic following the tale of Currie (her memoir is what the film is based upon) and Jett as they struggle with fame and making music. Joan seems to be a bit more calm than Currie, who was nearly booed off the stage when she sang her David Bowie's "Lady Grinning Soul" at her school's talent show. Their big break come in the form of Kim Fowley (Michael Shannon), a flamboyant promoter and record producer who takes the girls under his control. Fowley brings in Currie and Jett and a couple of other girls and teaches them how to strut like their male counterparts.

Dakota Fanning as Curie proves her acting skills once again reaming in total control of herself and then letting loose and will on the stage while eventually leaving the band because its all a bit much. Their is an obvious romance between Jett and Curie but its a combination of love and drugs that send Curie out of the band while Jett moves on to create other music. The film is well made but at time it can feel like they could have done more to get inside of these young girls' heads. Floria Sigismondi, a director of music videos, makes her feature film debut here and its fairly evident she knows how to shoot music. Cheri is the pin-up girl and the front man, or woman, for the band while Jett is the hard edged backbone. The two's relationship, an on screen kiss has been the center of discussion for the past few months, are also the biggest enemies , each attempting to get somewhere. Evidently its Jett the one you root for. her iconicism is what makes her relate able to today's teens. The punk aesthetic and raw nerve is what makes her the one you root for.

Both Stewart and Fanning's performances are the reasons as to why you want to watch this film in the first place. They create these real and believable people who are relate able to all of those punk rockers out there. Stewart, who only other real on-screen experience is playing Bella from the crappy Twilight films, really shows a bit of maturity by taking on this calm, cool, and also complex role. But in the end its Fanning who steals the show from Stewart. Her acting abilities, which have been evident since we first saw her as a child, expands on those abilities here in this film and never lets her character become dull or second rate. At times you'll either be dazzled by her or appalled by her but either way your eye is captured on her performance.

Michael Shannon as Fowley shows just the right amount of acting prowess that he showed in Revolutionary Road, for which he gained a Best Supporting Actor nod, and creates the whole fearful, but cliched, record producer that has become all too common throughout films like these. But he fits the role and does his best while offering something new.

Cinematographer Benoît Debie shoots the film in a grainy and smeary look which recreates the gritty looks of the 70's punk asthetic. While director Sigismondi's good eye for detail helps guide the film's period piece aspect along. "The Runaways" is not a perfect film nor does it pretend to be, its an energetic re-creation of the wild times and happenings that come along with creating a band; a roller coaster that never seems to end. At times the film loses focus of just who it wants to follow, but whether it be Currie or Jett, Sigismondi shoots each scene with enough energy to immaculate that never ending coaster of "The Runaways".

Grade: B

Brooklyn's Finest (2010)

2010-03-09T09:01:00.000-08:00

'Brooklyn's Finest' Review

By Paolo Sardinas

Within the first fifteen to twenty minutes you can begin to tell that this film, 'Brooklyn's Finest', is pretty much going nowhere. The opening scene, featuring Vincent D'Onofrio as a washed up drug dealer and Ethan Hawke crooked cop sitting in car. The film's main theme is thrown around, "There is no right and wrong, just righter and wronger". Antoin Fuqua's last attempt at a tale o crooked cops was back in 2001 with Training Day and since then Fuqua has done pretty much nothing but flops. Fuqua's obviously in his own realm here, his comfort zone, but we, the viewers, aren't.

The film takes place in gritty Brooklyn, obviously, and tells he tale of three cops whose lives intertwine more than they know. The first being Richard Gere's Eddie. A cop whose a week from retirement and couldn't give a damn less about things. He wakes up every morning with his typical swish of booze and the thought of blowing his head open. He's constantly ridiculed and mocked by his fellow officers who find Eddie, much like his young new partner, a mess. He's just going with the flow until he can get out and romancing with a prostitute he regularly visits played by Shannon Kane. You do get the hint that there is more between Gere and his friend, intypical Gere fashion.

Ethan Hawke plays Sal. A detective whose deep into religion and has four kids with two on the way and a house thats infested with mold. He's the first one to go in during all of the drug stings and is always the first one to find the cash, cash that he needs to support his family. Don Cheadle plays the third intersecting character Clarence/Tango, a cop who has gone undercover and managed to infiltrate one of the biggest drug trades in the projects and has created a brotherly bond with main gangster Casanova "Chaz" Phillips played by Wesley Snipes. Their relationship conflicts Tango who has a real ball-breaker on him played by Ellen Barkin. A couple of conflicted cops who attempt to pave a way through life while also getting their hands a bit dirty.

Cheadle does well in his role. Maybe a little too well. His undercover cop is played with strong emotion and dedication to the job while also being conflicted as to whether or not he's gotten too far in. The role suits him unlike our other conflicted cop Eddie. Richard Gere, in my opinion, doesn't suit the role of the suicidal, booze drinking, soon to be ex-cop. It simply doesn't fit the mold to deliver a performance that can elevate this character to its full conflicted possibilities. Throughout the film we never feel as if we should feel bad for him and hate him. Whether or not to revel in his pain, something that was all too abundant in Fuqua's Training Day but is left out from most of Brooklyn's Finest.

Fuqua's film moves quick, it doesn't take the time to sit you down and explain the whole ordeal. Chopped up and delivered to you on a silver platter. The script, written by a former transit worker named Michael C. Martin. The films falls to its over the top and way too obvious cliches one too many times. Fuqua seems to have been more interested in showing the bloody sequences take take place throughout the film rather than actually developing his characters and taking a hard look into true justice. The ending seemed like a clash of all of the film's cliches and over the top theatrics and accomplishes absolutely nothing by its tragedies.

Another actor that appears is Lili Taylor who plays Hawke's wife. But the little screen time that is given too her doesn't help to reinforce the relationship that her Hawke's character share together. The interplay is done well but ultimately feels forced. What saves the film, in all, are the performances of the actors. When the script goes flat, which is most of the time, the actors pick up again. Especially Cheadle with his slow burning performance. And while Gere is mis casted the rest of the film isn't. All-in-all, Antoine Fuqua's entertaining but ultimately over the top 'Brooklyn's Finest' is a complex film that never reaches its potential due to its abundance of typical cop film cliches.

Grade: C

The Crazies (2010)

2010-02-28T17:12:00.000-08:00

'The Crazies' Review
By Paolo Sardinas

The Crazies, a modern day re-make of a George A. Romero classic, joins the slew of other horror re-makes released over the last couple of years. But what sets this one apart is its free spirited, yet faithful, atmosphere that creates a thrilling experience. Its not your typical horror re-make, nor is it just any other horror thrill. Its a well made, well shot, and well acted thriller that always manages to keep you enthralled and entertained on whats happening on screen.

Timothy Olyphant's town sheriff is standing in the stadium at a local baseball game when the town drunk shows up. He seems, well, drunk but with an extra twist. He's carrying a loaded shotgun. Whether or not he realizes what he's doesn't matter, what does matter is that he isn't drunk. Yes, he is a "crazy" but after a heated confrontation the man is shot and killed. The sheriff immediately knows something is up when accounts of "people killing other people and then just sitting there" are rising. Eventually men wearing gas masks take away the infected, which we later find out are going bonkers do to water contamination, to little concentration camps and they all get examined. Our main protagonist breaks through the barrier to go rescue his wife who is thought be infected. This is actually when the movie starts.

After a slow beginning "The Crazies" picks up and never lets go. Its a tense and suspense filled 101 minutes filled with plenty of wide angle shots that bring you in to the "theres something right behind you" aspect of the film. Olyphant is entertaining and does well throughout the second half of the film when him and his group of friends attempt to escape from the quarantined area. At points the film's narrative will take a little joy ride but in the end it never loses focus of the route its trying to take.

Director Breck Eisner, veteran TV commercial maker, does well with his first feature flick. His use of, like I mentioned before, wide angle shots help to create that tension and suspense that is abundant throughout the film. The original George A. Romeo version from the 70's was fun. Filling up the screen with these "zombies that aren't really zombies" type characters while still managing to entertain no matter how preposterous. This is one horror re-make that gets it right. It improves on things from its original counterpart while also injecting something new and fresh to the overall product. "The Crazies" is fun, filled with plenty of blood, gore, and suspense.

Grade: B+

Box Office Report

2010-02-28T14:33:00.000-08:00

Weekly Box Office Report

February 28, 2010
Shutter Island is once again numero uno at the North American box office. The thriller starring Leonardo DiCaprio grossed $22.2 million. The fourth collaboration between the DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese is proving one of the year's earliest hits. The week's the big releases, Kevin Smith's homage to buddy cop films Cop Out and the well-made horror re-make The Crazies, made a decent $18.5 million and $16.5 million respectively. Avatar continued its stay on in the top ten at fourth place with $14.0 million with Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lighting Thief rounding out the top five with $9.8 million. Check below for the full list.

1) Shutter Island - $22.2 million
2) Cop Out - $18.5 million
3) The Crazies - $16.5 million

4) Avatar - $14.0 million
5) Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief - $9.8 million
6) Valentine's Day - $17.1 million
7) Dear John - $7.3 million
8) The Wolfman - $ 9.8 million
9) Tooth Fairy - $4.5 million
10) Crazy Heart - $3.0 million

The Ghost Writer (2010)

2010-02-27T22:15:00.000-08:00

'The Ghost Writer' Review
By Paolo Sardinas

It would seem that Polanski is one of, if not the only, director alive who knows perfectly well how to create paranoia on the big screen. His classic films like Repulsion show perfectly well the capabilities of a paranoid person when under extreme situations. After spending most of his young life living in an intense fear of paranoia (running from the Nazis as a child, growing up in Communist era Poland), Polanski knows what it is. That's why his latest film, The Ghost Writer, plays out so perfectly well. Its hard to ignore the director's current "predicament" but its hard to ignore his art.

The Ghost Writer, his first in four years, follows an author (played by Ewan McGregor who is tasked to write the memoir of an exiled and controversial British prime minister named Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan who is the best thing about this film). Yes, feel free to make the Tony Blair connections. McGregor is the replacement for Lang's former "ghost" writer, oh by the way McGregor is never given a name, he's just the "ghost", who was found dead in the water, ala Chinatown. Now of course no one just "falls" into a roaring body of water. Luckily that first "ghost writer" wrote a first draft of the new memoir.

Now of course that writer dies days before a controversial new scandal would arise claiming that Lang approved the act of torturing suspects in the Middle East. But of course a Polanski political thriller isn't like everyother political thriller. This one features an outstanding cast which also includes Olivia Williams playing Lang's strong and, quite frankly, powerful wife and Kim Catrall (yes from Sex and the City) playing his assistant. McGregor begins to investigate this political conspiracy and the death of his predecessor and unravels a rather twisty plot.

Unlike other political thrillers, Polanski takes the time to truly delve into a story. Lighting up the screen with an intense feeling of suspense. Is it a slow burn, yes, but its a good burn. The film, based off of a novel by Robert Harris, is engrossing. It follows one story and then, when least expect it, it turns around into something else.

The film's acting, like I already mentioned, is superb. Real performances which help bring the screen and characters to life. McGregore shines in his role, one which is fits him perfectly. I personally haven't been to satisfied by his latest performances; he returns to the screen with this role which is, arguably, one of his best. Pierce Brosnan plays that exiled prime minister to a T and delivers the most compelling performance on the screen. Also making an appearance is the always great Tom Wilkinson playing a rather shady character. Polanski leads all of these fine actors in a rather outstanding film which is not his best but is, for a film edited in a prison cell, rather extraordinary.

Grade: A-

Brand New Nightmare on Elm Street trailer

2010-02-27T21:11:00.000-08:00

Here is the brand new trailer for the re-make of the horror classic Nightmare on Elm Street. Will it be good? Judge for yourselves below.

Shutter Island (2010)

2010-02-27T14:41:00.000-08:00

'Shutter Island' Review

By Paolo Sardinas

There is a scene early on in Shutter Island, the latest from master filmmaker Martin Scorsese, that pans from side to side and features an entire group of Nazi guards being killed. To call the scene jaw-dropping would be an understatement but to call Martin Scorsese just another filmmaker is an understatement. At sixty-seven years old the famed director is still making movies that entertain. His latest, Shutter Island, is a psychological thriller that takes place on, and in, a mental asylum in the middle of the ocean. Its not Scorsese's best work but within another ten years or so, it will more than likely become one of his most underrated films.

The story follows Leonardo DiCaprio (in his fourth outing with Scorsese) playing U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels and his partner Chuck Aule played by Mark Ruffalo. They're sent to investigate the disappearance of Rachel Solondo, a patient who possibly escaped from the mental asylum Ashecliffe Hospital. The two are barricaded in when a hurricane its the island cutting off all connection. The two are trapped between the hospital's warden, played by Ted Levine, and the head administrator Dr. Cawley (Sir Ben Kingsley). His treatments for curing the "insane" are considered revolutionary, don't forget its set in the year 1954. Teddy is plagued and haunted by visions and nightmares of his dead wife, played by Michelle Williams, and the atrocities he witnessed during World War II. All while digging deeper into what really goes on on Shutter Island.

Dennis Lehane's novel, the same author who wrote Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, is a twisty and turning thriller. But if you love The Twilight Zone, or just know how to use your head every now and then, you should be able to figure out the book's big twist finale by the middle of it, or at least know in which direction its going in. Now that doesn't mean you can't enjoy the ride. The same can be said for the film adaptation. The film starts with an old norish and Hitchcock feel to it which is guided along by the fantastic score. By the middle you should already have a clear sense of what's going on but yet the film holds you in your seat, even though you can more or less surmise whats going to happen next.

I enjoyed the film for its style. Its an atmospheric film which is more chilling and creepy then just outright scary. Scorsese was inspired by director Sam Fuller, the director of Shock Corridor, and it shows. But you can never hold the film's B-movie style against it. The cast that leads this film is the main highlights and keeps the film going even when it starts to lag.

DiCaprio, like any great actor, gets better every time he makes a film. Or at least every time he makes a film with Scorsese. I'm fairly positive DiCaprio can play just about anything he wants and his portrayal of a man disturbed and haunted by events in his life is no different. Since the film, essentially, revolves around the character of Teddy Daniels its important you have a great actor to play him. DiCaprio may not be De Niro but hes one of the better actors around. The rest of the cast in this film is particularly good. Ben Kinglsey, like always, delivers a fine and chilling performance followed by the equally chilling, but fairly absent, Ted Levine. Mark Ruffalo is definitely an underrated actor who always delivers something good and here is no exception. We also get some scenes with Max Von Sydow, Jackie Earl Haley pops up and Emily Mortimer even joins the cast.

Scorsese spends the entire film creating a mood. An atmosphere that no matter how much you may dislike, keeps you totally invested throughout the film's 2 hour and 18 minute running time. While somethings are cliched, the flickering lights being the most obvious, it always manages to keep you focused on the screen and not on your watch. The film's authenticity keeps it afloat even when it bogs down about halfway through and then picks back up during the start of the third act. The cinematography is gorgeous along with the art direction. Scorsese knew the kind of film he wanted to make and in my opinion, he just about succeeded. After making almost fifty films over the past four decades Scorsese proves he's still got it even though Shutter Island is no Raging Bull.

Shutter Island is an atmospheric thriller. Its also Scorsese's most "Hollywood" film since Cape Fear but that doesn't mean its dumb Hollywood. Its a smart thriller that definitely know where its going but does hit a few bumps while getting there. When the story doesn't come through the acting does and makes the ride a whole lot smoother. When compared to the director's previous work it doesn't come close but as its own stand alone film, Shutter Island engrossing, atmospheric, thriller whose ending makes it worth the wait.

Grade: B+

Edge of Darkness (2010)

2010-02-27T14:38:00.000-08:00

'Edge of Darkness' Review

By Paolo Sardinas

It's been seven years since Mel Gibson last acted in a film. Within his seven year hiatus he directed the hugely controversial "The Passion of the Christ" and the thriller centering around the Mayans "Apocalypto". His return to the big screen charts familiar territory; its a revenge thriller. Now The thing with revenge thrillers is that, for the most part, they are simplistic little films. They follow their own formulas and time and time again just about every one of them falls flat to that same formula. Martin Campbell's latest action flick centers around corporate conspiracies and the tale of one man's revenge. While Edge of Darkness doesn't do much to get away from that common formula it does offer some suspenseful moments, most of which are well done, and delivers a long awaited return to the screen by Mel Gibson.

"Edge of Darkness" starts with former Boston detective Tom Craven (Mel Gibson) getting a much awaited visit from his daughter Emma (Bojana Novakovic). Throughout the entire film's opening minutes we automatically get the sense that something is wrong. Aside from the vomiting of green vomit Emma seems distraught and something is definitely wrong. As they make their way to the doctor's office Emma is gunned down on Tom's front porch by an unknown assailant. Initially the media believes that it was a hit targeted towards him but it turns out there is something else at play. Emma worked for a nuclear research corporation named Northmoor who has various shady operations and government contracts. Tom believes they had something to do with his daughter's death, so he sets off to investigate the murder and eventually discovers a corporate conspiracy.

Tom gets some help from and equally shady cleaner from the US government named Darius Jedburgh. Originally the role was supposed to be played by Robert De Niro but Ray Winstone does a fairly good job. He travels the state of Massachusetts looking for answers and the truth. Be the movie doesn't lag as it offers sporadic moments of violence to keep things moving along and prevents the film from becoming one overly long and redundant film.

Gibson's last on screen performance was the 2002 cheeky sci-fi thriller Signs. But in this film Gibson proves he hasn't lost his talent. He seems to have aged quite a bit since the last time we saw him in front of the camera but his aged and almost scarred face helps to bring the character of an enraged but deeply vengeful father to life. His believability as the mourning father can be felt but he never over does it. Gibson injects the right amount of tension an emotion to the role to help guide the film along. He also dons a native Boston accent which, from my understanding, sounds quite original and believable. During the action scenes we get Gibson doing what Gibson does best, kicking ass. But none of it is delivered in a pop-corn ridiculousness that we are so used to seeing nowadays.

The rest if supporting cast, along with Gibson, help to bring the film to life. Winstone does equally as good in hat role about the corporate cleaner. A British man whose outlook on life is about as dark as his black jacket. A man whose equally as charming as he is dark and mysterious. Danny Huston stars alongside the two powerhouse actors as the film's main baddie. He, while it may not be his best performance, does remarkable well. Novakovic isn't in the film for a very long time so she doesn't exactly leave a lasting impressions but all in all the actors do a fine job.

Based off of the original British mini-seris starring Bob Peck created in the 80's, the film follows its original material faithfully, to a point. Its common knowledge that adapting a six hour along mini-series into an almost two hour along movie doesn't always end up so well. Mainly because of the fact that its four hours less of time that you have to expand on things. This is the most flawed area of the film. The story and structure. While the film stars out fairly good the rest of it always feels like its missing something. Frankly I would of enjoyed seeing this movie run a little bit longer and actually extend some of its scenes. The adaptation was written by William Monahan and Andrew Bovell. Monohan penned Scorsese's Oscar winning "The Departed" and returns hear with some Bostonian touches to the film's plot.

Campbell, who also directed the extremely well made re-boot to the James Bond franchise Casino Royale directs Edge of Darkness with a short but strong punch. He never lets the film fall victim to some of the genre's overly used cliches and common errors but he never quite perfects what could of been more of an emotional film. Most of which comes from Gibson's performance. Nonetheless Campbell gives this genre just what it needed, something that is a bit different and isn't your typical political thriller. While it may not be the perfect film for Gibson's comeback to the screen its definitely a step towards that goal. Edge of Darkness may not be perfect but its definitely an enthralling film, you know, the kind we don't really get anymore

Grade: B

The Book of Eli (2010)

2010-02-27T14:28:00.000-08:00

'The Book of Eli' Review
By Paolo Sardinas

Lately we have had a huge surge in post-apocalyptic films. Whether its the bleak and deserted feel of John Hillcoat's The Road or the bombastic end of the world drunken on CGI like in 2012. Yes, we have seen our fair share as of late but the latest is a mix of action and religion, philosophy and typical end of the world, roving biker gangs, ala Road Warrior which find Denzel Washington as a man whose on a quest. Now granted its the middle of January so no one is expecting any cinematic achievements, but as hard as I tried to enjoy this supposed "action thriller" for what it is and not focus on the negatives, the truth is that there are so many that its hard not to.

Alan and Albert Hughes, a.k.a The Huges Brothers, direct The Book of Eli which takes place in the previously mentioned post-apocalyptic wasteland which is roamed by biker gangs, thieves, and thats about it. Its been thirty years since the "flash" that wiped out the entire populations and practically destroyed Earth. Denzel comes across a shanty little town, while heading down west, which is governed by Carnegie (the always entertaining Gary Oldman). He hangs out in his bar/brothel thing that all of the bikers come in to have a drink, or two. It turns out that Carnegie is looking for a book, a very important book I might add which has great power. Well it just so happens that Eli is caring that book and happens to be carrying the book. After Eli refuses to hand the book over Carnegie chases after him and we get gun fights, explosions, and cannibalistic old people.

The Hughes Brothers shoot everything a very monochromatic style which features some slow-motion. The only problem is that we've seen it again and again and again. The same cliches that appear time and time again in other films are abundant throughout The Book of Eli's run. It all feels old, wasted, and totally unoriginal.

Rather than continuing the story line throughout the entire film, whatever storyline it had, the film becomes weighed down by its third act which focuses on everything faith related. Now its not necessarily a bad thing seeing as how it could make sense. But the problem with it is that it never really grasps your attention. It just all lies by as more philosophical mumbo jumbo in a slow moving, and depressing, action flick. And since the entire film is set up with the logic that Eli is a complete bad-ass, nothing can stop him, he'll whip your ass with his machete, that once the film reaches it's supposed "twist ending" anything that happened before turns out to make no sense whatsoever.

Both Washington and Oldman do the best with what they have. Which is virtually nothing. Oldman has most of the lines and while being a bit over the top still manages to entertain, like he always does. Washington however has virtually no lines, or at least less than what you expect him to have. He does his best trying to convey some kind of emotion towards this character. But the real scene stealer is a quick appearance by Michael Gambon as an old man who along with his wife, played by Frances de la Tour who not only kill but also eat their visitors. They actually make the scene worth watching as it leads to one big action sequences which is, ideally, the only real action sequences throughout the film. One long continuous shot that goes on for a little bit long than it should have but is nonetheless one of the only positives in the film.

The Book of Eli ends up being one big stylized action film thats just as weak on its story as it is on its use of color. The Biblical references and the entire theme about faith that literally consumes the entire third act of the film was a bit of waste since nothing can really save the previous forty five minutes that was already endured.

Grade: D

44 Inch Chest (2010)

2010-02-27T14:21:00.000-08:00

'44 Inch Chest' Review

By Paolo Sardinas

Love is a job. It is a working relationship between two individuals that requires some teamwork and some damn good effort. Whether or not the other really cares is out of the question. This an many other quips about love are said by ray Winstone's character Colin Diamond in the latest achievement in British film-making 44 Inch Chest. At a first glance the film's opening sequence can seem a bit comical considering the fact that Diamond is seen lying on the floor with the entire living room looking like a trash heap. And the fact that Harry Nilsson's "Without You" is playing in the background only adds more to the ominous setting. It sets up the movie, and the audience, for whats about to happen in an unconventional way for an unconventional ninety minutes.

The main concept of 44 Inch Chest centers around the story of Colin's wife, Liz (Joanne Whalley), and extra marital affair. In simpler terms, she's getting her goodies from someone else. Her lover turns out to be a French waiter this of course drives Collin ballistic, hence the trashed living room and depressing music. Collin enlists the help of some of his friends who later drive down to "Loverboy's" workplace and kidnap the poor fellow. This "Band of Brothers" includes some rather interesting characters, Meredith (Ian McShane) is a gambler, who always wins, that also happens to be gay, Old Man Peanut (John Hurt) whose an old and pissy little fella who seems to be all for beating the living hell out of the man, then we got Mal (Stephen Dillane) a ratty womanizer, and Archie played by Tom Wilkinson, Colin's best friend who also happens to live with his mother.

The fearsome five kidnap Loverboy, the only name we're given to associate him by, and lock him away in a filthy London flat. They kill time by discussing their previous night, Meredith won a couple thousand euros, old gangster friends, all while awaiting the final decision of Colin whose too busy drowning himself in whiskey. I won't ruin the whole but 44 Inch Chest plays out like a stage production, in many ways, it is a stage production. The entire film takes place in this one room setting while Colin cries and contemplates on how to get the love of his life back. Its essentially a gangster pic even though nothing exceedingly violent happens nor does it substitute the great dialogue for anything thats un-needed.

Each actor knows what hes doing and adds their own personal touch to each of their characters making them not only seemingly real but relatable. Aside from the never ending use of strong language, most of which comes from John Hurt whose proving again why hes one of the best, the film has entertainment woven throughout. Its a dialogue heavy film written by the writers of the very well made Sexy Beast. Granted we don't have Ben Kinglsey as a hitman but what we do have is Ray Winstone whose performance as an emotionally broken man is completely believable even though at times you just want it all to pick up the pace. Hurt's grumpy old man is not only funny but also needed. He's that extra push that Collin needs to keep him going while he also driving him mad.

First time director Malcolm Venville does a fine job of capturing every detail in every scene. He even uses some inter cuts of Cecil B Demille's Samson and Delilah to describe Peanut's own perspective on women. He captures the characters interplay between each other and makes the film worth while. The movie, though, isn't flawless. There some scenes which tend to go on for longer they should have and some that could of gone on a little bit longer. The editing isn't terrible but after seeing some of Colin's daydreaming sequences the movie starts to lose its path and you can't help but wonder, "Where is it all going?"

Besides the few slip-ups, 44 Inch Chest is a great piece of filmmaking. It includes some incredibly real but also intriguing characters which never become "types" in another actiony British gangster flick. It offers something that new and fresh. While it sometimes has a tendency to lose its way to getting to the point, its still builds up to something that may be a downer to some but what may also signify a fresh new start for the film's main protagonist. Its a surprisingly good British "gangster" flick that never succumbs to the genre's countless cliches. Its not exactly new but it isn't old either. Well except for Old Man Peanut. He's pretty old.

Grade: A-

Up in the Air (2009)

2009-12-30T18:44:00.000-08:00

'Up in the Air' Review

By Paolo Sardinas

Every once in awhile we get a movie which features some of that original Hollywood magic. The ability to make movies which can combine various genres and create a masterful film is long gone. Until Jason Reitman came in. Though I wouldn't consider Up in the Air a masterful film, it's certainly a one of a kind comedy. One which already sets the tone, bar, and humor with the audience before it even begins. Adapted from the 2001 novel by Walter Kirn, this is an exceptionally entertaining film which is a fine craft.

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), the film's main protagonist, is an interesting man. With an interesting, if not depressing, job. He is the literal version of "The Bearer of Bad News". Everyday, Ryan, walks into a another office in another city. He sits down at the opposite of a middle-class, hard working employee and spills the beans. "You're Fired" is the frank version of the whole "Don't worry this isn't the end but rather the beginning" yada yada bullshit. The fact of the matter is that Ryan's job is to fire people. Sit them down and tell them, very nicely, what their bosses don't seem to have the cajones, pardon the language, to say. Ironically enough he also happens to be a part time motivational speaker. That's right, the man whose sole life and job career is based on the fact that he fires people, actually gives helpful advice to others. It's almost like he's prepping them for his big visit.

But Ryan's new challenge is the new program being unleashed at his firm. Its a new piece of software that allows his fellow colleagues to virtually fire other people through the use of a web-cam. Bingham takes the young, and techno-savy, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), the software's designer, on a little road trip to witness the impact of firing someone face to face truly has. Of course Ryan is truly afraid of the fact that he just might be grounded thanks to this newly invented software. He's a man who enjoys his frequent flier miles, expensive hotel stays, and very "fun" lifestyle. Even if it means firing people as a career choice. That career, by the way, is an undeniable link to the current economic status and they way things are currently "going down". The film takes a great turn in a nice, but not sappy, turn as Ryan begins to get involved with Vera Farmiga's Alex Goran. It turns out they both work in the same field. They have a connection which is the first actual human connection that either of these character's endure throughout their entire careers.

These actors takes the film to new heights. Despite how unlikeable Clooney's Bingham is, you can't help but like him. His heartfelt attempt of trying to connect with the "client" may not come of as a truly inviting one; sometimes it doesn't come out at all. He could care less about the company and what financial turmoil they're going through. Through his job he's able to make these peoples final hours of working as pain free as they can possibly be. And through his connection with Goran, he's able to see just how much of his own humanity he's lost; eventually finding it all over again.

Director Jason Reitman has crafted a finely tuned film. Between his faithful script and some well done performances, he has created an in-depth film which manages to question just how much inner humanity one man can lose. Through his profession Bingham is able to live his life in air-ports and spend his time in lay-overs. Clooney's performance as a broken and lost man only makes the film more and more thought provoking while making is seemingly entertaining. It never falls flat and always continues to both make you laugh and may make you see things in another light. But Up in the Air is definitely one of the better films that 2009 has offered; it's the story of a man ready to make a connection. No matter how small or large.

Grade: A

Top Ten Movies of the Year

2009-12-30T18:40:00.000-08:00

By Paolo Sardinas

Honorable Mentions:

Honorable Mention #1: A Single Man

Honorable Mention #2: UP

Honorable Mention #3: Anvil! the Story of Anvil

Honorable Mention #4: District 9

Honorable Mention #5: Moon

Top 10

10) The Messenger

9) State of Play

8) Food, Inc.

7) The Fantastic Mr. Fox

6) The Hangover

5) A Serious Man

4) Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire

3) Up in the Air

2) Inglourious Basterds

1) The Hurt Locker

Avatar (2009)

2009-12-30T18:05:00.000-08:00

'Avatar' Review
By Paolo Sardinas

Lets face it, James Cameron has come a long way since his days working as a truck driver. The man has given us some of the most iconic films and characters of the 20th century. As cheesy as the first and second Alien might have been, they were no less innovators of a time where movies were evolving into the giant spectacles that they are now. T2 was pure fun and enjoyment at its best, True Lies, while not perfect, was definitely entertaining, and Titanic (as overrated as a I think it is) got him his first Oscar win and made Leonardo DiCaprio a star. His latest endeavor, Avatar, has been in the works for about a decade, if not longer, now. While its definitely a breathtaking film, visually, it is hardly as innovative as his other films were.

Avatar's dialogue, most of which is a tad bit cheesy, its unstructured story line, and weak performances, though Sigourney Weaver still proves she can kick ass, are hardly finely tuned. But lets be frank, that's not what we are going to see it for. We are going to see it for the stunning visuals that will blow your mind and the stunning world that was created using tons of computers. Cameron's films have always been visual spectacles and Avatar's are nothing less than beautiful. In fact it seems like that's all he focused on. For such a brilliantly striking film, you would think that the story would be a bit more engrossing. Instead its two and a half hours of whatever mumbo jumbo came to mind. It seems that Mr. Cameron spent so much time perfecting the light shades on Pandora's trees that he forgot to focus on everything else.

The story takes place in the future. Obviously. It follows Jake Sulley (Sam Worthington), a Marin hero who is paralyzed from the waist down. Why? No one knows as Cameron "forgot" to delve more into the characters back stories. The film is set on Pandora, a planet where Sulley has just been chosen to become an avatar. No not the little picture defaults on your social networks. The avatars are genetically engineered look a likes of the planets indigenous Na'vi people. These creatures are about six or seven feet tall, have giant yellow mountain lion eyes, long braids which, when connected to something, give them some control over animals and allow them to talk to a tree. Now the real plot is that the military post which is based on the planet is hoping to mine out a rare mineral which will is their problem solver for some energy problems back home.

Jake takes control over one of these avatars and goes out deep into the planet where he meets Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) who saves him in the forest one day. The two take a liking into each other and Jake becomes here soldier in training. Jake shoots arrows, rides giant gryphon like creatures, fights of a horde of weird looking dog things, and eventually is accepted amongst the indigenous people. Cameron, using his natural talent, creates this whole fairy tale like world where every one is one with the nature and talk to some god hiding amongst the trees and plants. They all live under a big tree which happens to be sitting atop of the largest deposit of government wanted minerals. Jake makes the decision to help the Na'vi fight off against the "sky people" and save their land.

The film's narrative is messy to say the least. It jumps in without any explanation as to what the hell's going on and doesn't really introduce us to any of characters. They all could have used some dimension to them. Each one has their own personal traits and have could have been characters which were really special or just plain dumb. They happened to be the later. The cast does a "so-so" job of "acting". Cameron's dialogue doesn't help out either since its filled with plenty of cheesy lines and scenes that feel like they go on forever and some which don't go on long enough. Sigourney Weaver definitely delivers the movie's finest performance and proves that she is still a great actress who can do anything.

Its not just the one dimensionality of the characters thats bothersome, its the whole fact that there was so much that they could have done with them. There is a huge mythology that could of been explored but was sadly left out. The film is choppily edited and quickly put together, even though it rolls on and on for about two and a half hours. The blue skinned creatures are entertaining with their snarling but after the first thirty minutes, the accents and "plug it in" braids just become stupid and tiring. It doesn't explain anything and even after they destroy the Na'vi's giant living tree the movie still goes on for another twenty minutes of visual orgasms and joys. The thid act gets all Dances With Wolves on us and has no real conclusion.

James Cameron proves, once again, that he is the master of visual joy rides. But his so called "masterpiece" is nothing more than visual eye candy. Its performances are light and weak and its narrative shortcomings are far to obvious. If you're lucky you should catch the film in its 3D format. This way you are able to truly enjoy Cameron's enticing visuals. As for the story, well, I wish the same could be said.

Grade: C+

A Single Man (2009)

2009-12-30T18:00:00.000-08:00

'A Single Man' Review
By Paolo Sardinas

Now I know what you're thinking. "Why in hell would I want to watch a film about a middle aged, gay, depressed, man who lives in the 60's?" You know what? You're right. Why would you? In fact that's how I first felt when I first heard about Tom Ford's directorial debut A Single Man. I figured it would be the next Brokeback Mountain and continued to enforce the presence of homo sexuality at the award shows and would be nothing more than a boring little film that wouldn't resonate with anyone. Well, after seeing A Single Man I can honestly admit, that I was wrong.

A Single Man follows Professor George Falconer who is a middle aged gay man living in 1962 Santa Monica. Over the entire span of one single day, November 20, 1962, we witness series of montages and flashbacks to happy days spent with Jim (Matthew Goode), George's partner for 16 years. George, after suffering for the past couple of years from Jim's death, plans out his final day on Earth. Yes, that's right he plans on killing himself. We also meet Charlie (Julianne Moore). George's best friend whom he also happened to enjoy a brief affair with. The movie plays throughout this man's final day with enough emotion, intensity, and realism too convey more feeling than most of this year's films have been able to offer.

The film starts out in a bleak, bleached out tone. As the day progresses, the colors intensify and become more in sync with the Technicolor realism of the world. Throughout his entire day we get the sense of the despair that George is suffering from, the loneliness, and the eventual, re kindling for the love of life. While many critics will praise Firth's performance as being heartfelt and pure genius, I'm afraid, I'll have to agree with that statement. Firth, whose films I never enjoyed, delivers something truly unique in his depressed English professor. His co-star, Julianne Moore, is another pleasure to watch. She gives one of her best performances, since Children of Men to be exact.

These two fine actors help to bring emotions and characteristics that make these people so entertaining. In a world where we are plagued with pointless teen age wannabee actors its nice to see some more experienced actors come out of their shell and try something new. As the day progresses you don't wish for the movie to be over, you want more.

Director Tom Ford has his directorial debut with A Single Man and my oh my was it a job well done. His attentive focus to detail and his keen eye helps to make the movie flow. Adapted from the novel by Christopher Irshwood, the movie plays out allot smoother than you would imagine. The flashbacks and montages actually help the film and aren't as annoying or confusing as you would think. The film is finely edited and its musical score helps to guide it along. Ford is able to fool the audience member into thinking that he's been doing this for a lifetime when really, he hasn't.

Many will praise the film's set design and art direction. And they have every right to. Using the same set designers from the hit TV show Mad Men, the film looks and feels like it was made in the early sixties. The cars, the clothes, the furniture, the Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho billboard in the background. Everything has a nice flow and a sense of true realism and authenticity. Tom Ford, a former fashion designer, was actually able to make a film without looking and feeling like it was made by a fashion designer. Brilliant.

A Single Man isn't exactly flawless. There are some imperfections here and there and some minor flaws which could have been fixed. But all in all, Tom Ford's directorial debut is definitely a one of a kind film. The performances by its lead and supporting actors are sharp and ravishing. The style is unique and the bleak, transitioning colors are truly keen. While its filled with plenty of insightful morals and deep meaning, A Single Man never stops being entertaining. It is arguably one of the year's best made films.

Grade: A-

Invictus (2009)

2009-12-30T17:56:00.000-08:00

'Invictus' Review

By Paolo Sardinas

Many filmmakers would argue that their talent and work gradually become worse as they age. Clint Eastwood is the complete opposite of that. The man has starred in a cornucopia of classic films and has directed some of the best films of the last twenty years and of the decade. His films can balance between crowd pleasing entertainment, and Oscar gold. His latest film, Invictus, leans more towards the former. Its both your average underdog story yet at the same time, it isn't.

The film is based on South Africa's real life triumph during the 1995 Rugby World Cup . The film follows a bond that is made between star player Francois Pionaar (Matt Damon) and Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman). Mandela sees the opportunity in attempting to unit the black and white problems of his torn South Africa. The team, Springboks, are the underdogs and it just so happens that South Africa is hosting the games. Mandela has just been freed after serving 27 years in prison and has been elected president of South Africa. Springboks has one white player, the rest are black. This of course poses a problem for the racially divided country which finds its blacks often rooting for the opposite team. Mandela calls on Pionaar for help in order to form a "rainbow nation".

Invictus doesn't spend time on the details. It doesn't way itself down with soapy inspirational nonsense that has no business being in the movie. It doesn't focus on how the game changed certain people's lives, which I wouldn't of minded seeing, but rather how it changed a nation. This is both a pro and a con. Pro: The film doesn't waste anytime on nonsense. Con: It doesn't take enough time to delve into it's characters and really show us what they're thinking and what they truly believe. But this proves to be only a minor flaw as the acting done by Freeman and Damon help to save the day.

Freeman is an absolute joy to watch. I mean really, come one, can you picture any one else playing Mandela? I can't. Freeman does it with enough pride and detail to make you believe he's the real deal. The chameleon actor delves deep into his character even though the movie doesn't and delivers one of the year's best performances. Matt Damon, as the bulked up, blonde haired, rugby captain, is good but not perfect. While he creates a believable character, he wouldn't be my first choice to play Pionaar. But at least Damon is proving that he's the next generation of character actors and has another film to add to his expanding resume. One which includes one of the year's best performances for The Informant! Both actors do a fine job of complementing the other and make the film a true joy to watch.

The film is based on the book written by John Carlin called "Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Made a Nation." While some would argue that its script is bit underdeveloped I thought it was perfectly fine and delivered plenty of good dialogue while complementing these actors' immense talents.

Director Clint Eastwood, who will be turning 80 next May, does well in capturing the film in full detail. Many, including myself, never thought that Eastwood would be able to pull out an "inspirational film" out of his sleeve. But hey he did. At times the movie may not feel as finely tuned as some of his other pictures. And just because it's a Clint Eastwood film doesn't mean it's perfect. Invictus has its fair share of flaws and problems. It could have dug deper into the characters and the soundtrack could of been a bit better. Also visually the film doesn't have the same tone as some of Eastwood's other movies.

With all that aside, Invictus does what its supposed to do. Entertain. Its a crowd pleasing movie that doesn't pretend to be, or mean, anything more than what it is. While it may not be as inspirational as some might of led it to be, it does offer us one of the better sports movies made in a long time. Invictus doesn't try to say that this one Rugby game healed all of the countries wounds, but hey at least it was a start.

Grade: B+

The Road (2009)

2009-12-30T17:53:00.000-08:00

'The Road' Review

By Paolo Sardinas

After 2007's No Country for Old Men, it became pretty obvious that novels written by Corman McCarthy can be successfully adapted into live film adaptations. The only problem is you have to accomplish this without deviating off track. You can't swerve off from the path that the author has already taken because, if you do, it doesn't make shit sense. Now, Australian director John Hillcoat, seems to have learned from the Coen Brother's masterpiece and has followed the same route. Adapting McCarthy's novel, The Road, into a live film adaptation. But, while following the book to almost exact precision, has been able to make craft something that can stand on its own. The Road is arguably the most depressing film of the year, but aside from the darkness it tends to be utterly brilliant.

The original novel is a shier work of art. Short, but still a work of art. Very much like the novel the story doesn't rely on exact details to engross the audience. An unnamed man (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) are living in the aftermath of an unnamed apocalyptic event which has screwed up most of America. The exact location isn't do exact either. The two are heading on down to the South to escape the horrors of the destructive aftermath. Charlize Theron plays the man's wife and the son's mother. We find out that she is no longer with them since she committed suicide a little while back. She's only present through sets of flashbacks. During the journey the two have to face against the horrors of the wasteland, robbers, cannibals, and the overall destruction of the eco system. Yes don't worry it still is Christmas time. And while the film isn't exactly ringing holiday bells of joy, is there really any other time this movie could have been released? It’s already been postponed once before.

Visually the film is perfect. The unnamed apocalypse and the masses and masses of destruction are unbelievably believable. The sky is a ashy gray, and every corner lurks with danger. And this is more toned down than the book. Believe me, the film still maintains that "this could happen" feeling, it just doesn't preach it.

The film doesn't bore you down with a whole video montage of what happened before. It quickly jumps in and allows your imagination to do some of the work. The story, as the dark the setting is, is fairly heartwarming. A father's devoted love towards his son. They truly have nothing to live for but one another, this only makes the film more real, and it all manages to stay true to the original source material. It makes its father/son story interesting without being over the top and sappy. That would be utterly pointless considering the fact that the entire world is has gone bananas. With this tale of love, the movie manages to be dark, but not to dark, but while your heart may worm at the love between the pair, you still can't help but feel saddened by not only the events but the pair's current predicament. One which puts their life's in constant danger.

Mortensen's compelling performance is a sure bet come nominations. Though I doubt it will win. But it equally deserves as the other nominees. His sad and terrified expressions are enough to make the film utterly believable. I personally have not seen a performance this good that has made me draw a couple of tears since Will Smith's A Pursuit of Happiness. The real show stopper is Smit-McPhee who delivers the film's best performance. The sadness can break anyone's heart and the tears streaming down his face are enough to reduce the biggest and toughest audience members into tears of their own. The film's overall look, feel, and aesthetics are spot on. The makeup and costume work is very well done. The clothes are dirty, ragged, and makeshift, and the fussed hair and dirt faces are enough to make me believe that this is what the true apocalypse would look like.

For fans of the novel you will notice a difference between the dialogue from the book and the ones written for the film. Though it’s not a big deal you can obviously tell which ones are originally from the book and which aren't. But this is only a minor flaw as the actors' performances cover it up. As well made as the soundtrack was, Nick Cave and Warren Ellis composed it; it surprisingly becomes a bit redundant and overly dull as the movie progresses. That is the only real flaw of the film, seeing as how the movie, visually, was amazingly well done but the composition could have been worked on a bit more.

Looking past the slight flaws, The Road is sheer brilliance. The acting is outstanding and the visuals are wrenching. The Road proves once again that Cormac McCarthy's realistic, often grim, tales make interesting concepts for the silver screen to exploit. And as heartwarming as the father and son topic may be, don't be surprised when you leave the theater feeling a bit depressed. But don't worry it'll all go away once you reach for that box of Kleenex.

Grade: A-

Bad Lieutenant Port of Call New Orleans

2009-11-18T19:35:00.000-08:00

Bad Lieutenant Port of Call New Orleans

By Paolo Sardinas

The problem with Nicolas Cage is the simple fact that if you don't cast him right, well then he just doesn't do well. Hes an actor of intense magnitude but can only be challenged, and entertaining, with certain roles. Roles which Hollywood seems almost definite on not offering. Cage can bring his own sense of style and loopiness to the role and can at times become loopier than the character itself. While Bangkok Dangerous and Knowing didn't exactly scream Oscar Buzz, Leaving Las Vegas did. Hell it got him an Oscar win. In Werner Herzog's Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans Cage plays a crooked cop. One whose one morality and morals are tested by his post-Katrina surroundings. A morally devastated man in a morally devastated city.

Herzog's very loose remake of the original 1992 Abel Ferrara re-make can hardly be called a remake. Its more of a re-telling of the original story; borrowing many of the same elements of the main character but telling it in a different way. Ferrara's remake was set in the dark and gritty streets of New York with Harvey Keitel playing the titular character. I personally enjoyed the original film, though as controversial as it was, I always thought that Keitel definitely deserved his shot at the Academy Awards. Well Nic Cage brings his own sense of style to the role, this one being a little bit more lighthearted and not as dark and gritty. Cage's is definitely more loopy and silly but also finds himself in some fairly complicated situations.

For those of you who don't know, the original 1992 classic followed the story of a man, simply called "Lieutenant" as he investigates the rape of a nun and embarks on his own self journey of change and redemption. Though the original focused more on the whole redemption factor, this re-do focuses more on the character at hand. Less on those redemption qualities and more on what he's trying to redeem himself of. Cage's Lieutenant actually has a name, Lt. Terence McDonagh. In the opening he's awarded for his rescuing a man from a flooded room. While afterward doing some drugs and forming the addiction. Its this sole addiction which slowly consumes Lt. McDonagh as his life slowly and slowly becomes more and more dependent on the coke. He eventually beings to do anything for his new favored treat and gets involved with murderers, drug pushers, and imaginative iguanas.

Rather than having a straight forward plot-line the movie seems to be more like a series of events which ultimately end in his self-realization of just how screwed up he is. Where as Keitel's new how screwed up he was and still love what he was doing. He just had the moral dilemma to deal with. Herzog's retelling is definitely and little bit more light hearted, not allot, but a little bit more than the original. I personally never really cared for Mr. Herzog's films. Not that they're terribly made, though he does have that sleazy B-movie style to his films, they just never appealed to me. Rescue Dawn was fairly entertaining but missed some of that emotional depth of other war movies made in the past.

The story-telling, for me, was a bit off and though its a definitely entertaining film, I just felt that it could of ultimately been better. Working with cinematographer Peter Zeitlinger, Herzog depicts the city of New Orleans and its soceiety as falling apart. The seams are ripping sort to speak, and as the city and the fabric of society crumble into nothingness so does a little piece of Nic Cage's lieutenant who ultimately just wants to be saved. Joining in on the cast is Eva Mendes plays a hooker and ultimately Cage's love interest. Ms.Mendes definitely delivers a performance which is definitely a step up from her Ghost Rider and Spirit days. Also joining the cast is Val Kilmer, absent from the silver-screen as of late, plays Cage's partner. Who also seems to be the only one who isn't losing his mind.

The entire cast do a fairly impressive job but the ultimate hit and scene stealer is Nicolas Cage. Becoming more and more like his character was definitely the main number one reason why he was so damn great. Making weird facial motions and gradually worsening his behavior just as the character himself does. Garbling his words and seeing imaginative things makes it all the more believable. No matter how fun and silly it may all seem. Though his performance will sadly be overlooked this coming award season, its just as deserving as some of the other rare ones that we've seen this past year. Hell it's either him or Mr. GI Joe over there.

This "re-telling" may appeal to viewers as more loopy, silly, and ultimately not as dark. And while Nic Cage's performance is ultimately the real life saver the story makes good on its entertainment value. Though it might not all make sense at first it might make better sense in the end. And though Cage's Lt. McDonagh doesn't get that ultimate redemption, necessarily, hit still is a fun ride to see him try and realize just how morally corrupt of man he is. But if he hadn't its okay, cause his soul would still be alive, well, and dancing in his own self madness which could only be conjured up by Cage's own menacing madness.

Overall: 4.5/5(A-)

Fantastic Mr. Fox

2009-11-14T23:25:00.000-08:00

Fantastic Mr. Fox

by: Paolo Sardinas

Director Wes Anderson(The Royal Tenebaums) doesn't exactly seem like the ideal choice for adapting a kids novel into a kids movie. Fantastic Mr. Fox, an original short story written by Roald Dahl, is the first attempt for the director in the field of animation. But after you've seen this glorious achievement animation you'll think he's been doing it his whole life. The irony is that he's always been making cartoons throughout his whole career. I mean think about it, The Darjeeling Limited is just about as cartoony and "animated" as you could get. And Tenebaums doesn't exactly scream out a dark and gritty drama. The truth is that Anderson was born to make cartoons. No matter how unbelievable the may seem. Its shockingly true.

Adapting the famous story into his own crazy imagination he manages to be faithfully true to the source material. The story follows Mr.Fox (voice of George Clooney). A former athlete and master of chicken thieving. Mr.Fox finds out that Mrs.Fox (voice of Meryl Streep) is pregnant. Then quickly flashing forward to 12 "fox years" later Mr. Fox has left his chicken thieving ways and is quickly tempted back into reclaiming some of that glory. Sonny boy Ash (voice of Jason Schwartzman)is now a awkward and has problems living in the shadow of his father. Wow such strong topics for a kids film. An old "addict" going back to his evil ways and an awkward teen who has problems living under his fathers shadow. But don't worry it isn't that strong.

As Mr.Fox begins to go back to his evil ways his actions send waves throughout the entire animal community. He manages to upset three of the farmers, Boggis, Bunce, and Bean, and manages to force all of the animals to move underground. Yes below the three foul farmers. After one member is kidnapped, a tool to get Mr. Fox out of hiding, he must use all of cunning and wit to out do those rascally farmers. The film manages to stay true to the original novel and can, at times, be even more enjoyable. Unlike the Where the Wild Things Are adaptation, Fantastic Mr. Fox knows what kids want. It doesn't bore itself with unneeded messages, and definitely isn't a dark and scary place to watch. It feels more like it was made by children for children rather than made by adults and meant to be for children. This films captures what a fun and exciting childrens book adaptation should be like. A touching story that can remain just as timely as ever.

Anderson is a great filmmaker, even if you don't enjoy his films, I don't, but they're always entertaining and always consist of some rather interesting subject matter. He also has a knack for gathering together some of Hollywood's finest. George Clooney and Meryl Streep play a great couple. Whether their characters were real or not they fill the screen with their presence, or at least their voice. Schwartzman plays a great kid. You'd actually think he truly was a child himself if you had no idea who the hell he is. Which considering the fact that most people don't that wouldn't be a real surprise. Bill Murray also makes an appearance as Badger (yes he is a Badger) and so does Willem Dafoe as a rat and Owen Wilson as Ash's coach. Though their roles are small, they bring plenty of greatness to this already star studded cast. They each bring something unique to their characters. Animation is all about bringing fake characters to life. And these fine actors do a job well done.

Fantastic Mr. Fox still has plenty of Anderson's style and is quite frankly one of his best films in a long time. He even brought his cast to a real life farm (how exciting) so their voices actually matched what was happening. It makes you feel only closer to these lovable characters. Note that this isn't a Pixar 3-D film. Most of its style and execution will likely be enjoyed more by adults or those of us who can't seem to grow up. But there is still enough in here that would make a child fall head over heels for this charming story. It also manages to be more entertaining than the other Roald Dahl adaptation James and the Giant Peach. Though they both use stop-animation. Fantastic Mr. Fox is far better and more definitely more entertaining. The great thing about the stories of Roald Dahl is that you can imagine them being made into films. They feature touching stories which can be easily animated. Mr. Fox is probably the best one.

The trick with animation is that if the characters are lukewarm or uninteresting for anyone to give a damn, than none will give a damn. The story needs to be interesting and the topics can be as outrageous as you want them to be. In a world where every animation consists a far fetched tall tale combined with some inner meaning and moral, Fantastic Mr. Fox is something fresh and new. Sure it still has the morals and touching story but for once it isn't over to over the top for the average child. This and its incredible cast manage to be, by far the year's best animated flick. After seeing release after release using the same old 3-D animation its nice to have a little change. Combined with its touching story, lovely setting, and interesting characters. Its a great animated tale which can be enjoyed by all ages. And you know what the best part is? It manages to entertain with the most entertaining creatures: animals. Not gigantic scary beasts that dance around. Fantastic Mr. Fox is a little movie that definitely deserves your time and money.

Overall: 5/5

Women In Trouble (2009)

2009-11-14T21:28:00.000-08:00

Women in Trouble

by: Paolo Sardinas

Movies which are made with an all female cast tend to not do so well. Mainly due to the fact they they usually only appeal to women. A dramedy which is lead by an all female cast doesn't exactly scream entertainment to men. Unless is there's sex. Which, I must honestly say is the only real reason I decided to watch this film in the first place. Hey what can I say men love sex. And in Women in Trouble there's plenty of it. Not it's not like those sappy and mundane "rom-coms" nor is it the latest batch of Sex and City. As far as I'm concerned very few all female casts are able to create characters which truly jump off the screen. Well Women in Trouble does it with enough style that, once you get past the wild and extremely messy plot line, manages to be a somewhat entertaining film.

Director/writer Sebastian Gutierrez obviously had some difficulty creating this all female cast. Bad acting and campy sex is obviously the first thing that comes to mind when hearing the premise of a film which follows the lives of ten women living in L.A. Well at least the bad acting is gone. Gutierrez's other work is nothing even remotely close to this. Gothika and Snakes on a Plane didn't exactly throw out Oscar winning performances and definitely didn't featuring creative stories, nor did it offer us a good time at the movies. Those films featured more of the bad acting and campiness than you could ever imagine. Though Women in Trouble managed to get some laughs out of the various crowds, its still features one of the craziest stories I've seen in awhile and is quite a mess. A fun mess.

All ten women all have different situations and problems. All of which seem to collide on the same day. You got Electra Luxx, a definite cult classic, played by the wonderful Carla Gugino. She has just found out shes pregnant to some drummer of some band. Oh did I mention she's a porn star. And that drummer just so happens to be the always entertaining Josh Brolin. Daddy tries to woo a lovely flight attendant played by Marley Shelton. While trying to get in contact with the daddy to be, Elektra runs into Doris(Connie Britton). A neurotic woman whose seems to be emotionally trapped by her daughter played by the director's(yes I'm tired of spelling his name) daughter, Isabella. Then we have Maxine, a therapist whose played by Sarah Clarke. She's just discovered that her husband(The Mentalist Simon Baker) has been sleeping around with Addy (Caitlin Keats). Thrown into the mix are two party girls played by Adrianne Palicki and Emanuelle Chriqui.

The film is ridiculously complicated but since the story mainly revolves around the women previously mentioned theres no reason to really talk about anyone else. Shot in about two weeks it's amazing they were able to get this much done in that amount of time. Though the film doesn't exactly reach any levels of dramatic depth, it does offer plenty of laughs and leads which are undeniably entertaining. These characters' and their ever so changing lives are oddly fascinating. For example Palicki's character is a porn star. Yes whoope, but she isn't just any porn star. Shes one who has some trouble doing her scenes. She also vomits. Allot. Though most of these scenes feature her getting close and personal with other women she doesn't really like that too much. All of the films actresses and actors do a fine job of bringing their characters to life. No matter how unflattering the material may be.

The movie pretty much rests on Carla Gugino's performance. Her character will be appearing in an upcoming trilogy, this being the first, and deals with most of the film's subject matter. Motherhood and what not are not easy subjects. But when placed into a female lead film its virtually impossible for it not to come up. Most of the cast, including Gugino herself, have to go through the weird plotline. Which, as entertaining as the film is, is bad...to say the least. The lives of ten women living in L.A. isn't exactly interesting. Yes there is a difference between interesting and entertaining. There are some which are both entertaining and interesting but this is one of those films which is entertaining but features a plot which makes you question just why in God's name are you watching this. Because its fun to watch. It kills time and offers some good laughs. Which should crack you up. No matter what gender you are.

Though the supposed "emotional dimensions" aren't really noticeable you can tell that they at least tried to give the film some emotional depth. Those teary subject matters may not have come out directly but they are there. You just have to sniff though it all. Bottom line is the Gutierrez did an alright job in bringing his script to the big screen. While it offers plenty of laughs and enjoyable performances, the story is to wild and zany for most people to stay for the whole thing. But at least it offers something for everyone. Men get the sexy images and women get their teary and emotional subjects. Everyone wins.

Overall: 3/5

Mad Men Season Two DVD (2008)

2009-11-14T21:25:00.000-08:00

Mad Men Season Two DVD

by: Paolo Sardinas

The Feature

Getting back on your feet after having a wonderful first season is a major difficulty for just about every major TV program. Luckily Mad Men, still hot on the heels after a phenomenal first season, bounced right back up after a short summer break. The sophomore season had plenty to prove, A) that it could maintain an audience no matter how small, B) the stories aren’t absurdly stupid, boring, or mundane, and C) that they would continue to be just as, if not, better than the previous season. Well the second season of this Emmy award winning series definitely came back stronger than ever.

Matt Weiner defietly knew what he was in for after his freshman series first one the best TV show award back in ’08. His creators would have to work harder than before if we they wanted to avoid the sophomore slump which has plagued so many ( does Heroes ring any bells?). The Sterling Cooper gang returns and it’s the year 1962. Once you get past the confusion in the first episode you find out that it’s been about a year since the first season ended. Don Draper(Jon Hamm) is still the main attraction but some new there are some new additions to the company.

Duck Phillips (brought in at the end of Season One) is played by Mark Moses. He doesn’t exactly see eye to eye with some of the other co-workers but hey who cares. He’s a Brit. And he’s also a fixed part of the company. Roger Sterling(John Slattery) is back after his heart attack. He and Duck don’t exactly get along. Peggy is now part of “the boys club” and is still rocking the world of secretaries. Plus she has a baby, who was born at the end of Season numero uno. At first we don’t exactly know what happened to her or her baby but we do find out later. Don’t worry she gave it to an orphanage. Oops.

Though this season may not be structurally well made like the first, it’s definitely a great one. Viewers might find each episode more like a film rather than a full fledge episode with some kind of resolution at the end. But that adds some beauty to it. Not knowing what the next episode will feature adds even more to the excitement of tuning every Sunday. Though most of these structure problems die towards the end of the season, the acting remains top-notch and definitely the best on television. Jon Hamm returns to the top of his game as the conflicted Don Draper who we find out this season isn’t exactly who we think he is.

Betty (January Jones) realizes just how many times she’s been cheated on and attempts to cope with those facts. Though they show some inner stronger sides it also reveals some not so nice sides. Both of which are a little scary at times. Don has his whole self exploration thing going on with himself and each episode featuring his visit to South California is an absolute joy to watch. Not necessarily because we see more and more of just who Don is but because they feature some great scenes which allows Hamm the perfect opportunity to show off his acting chops. Pete(Vincent Kartheiser) and Peggy remain two of the shows most refreshing characters. Always adding a different side to things. This season also focuses one their little relationship and the fact the Peggy gave up their kid.

Visually, the show continues to captivate you-the audience-with their lavish scenery and beautifully recreated set pieces. The 60’s are back in full swing here at Sterling and Cooper. Though this season was a little bit more laid back and, dare I say, more fun to watch, it was still the same old great Mad Men we know and love. In fact, is I have to truly say, this Second season I though was better than the first. It truly kept you guessing for what was in store.

Video & Audio

The picture quality is once again presented in the same ravishing aspect ratio as the first season DVD. Definitely one of the better looking shows on TV in the first place, the colors are crisp, fresh, and new and everything is just so damn wonderful. The audio track is once again a 5.1 Dolby Digital Soundtrack which features all of the shows amazing songs and scores in a crisp, clear quality we all can enjoy.

The four disc set comes in a clear cover box set which features a definitely eye catching cover picture. A clean white suit with a tie can definitely be seen as a metaphor for the seasons “stripping the characters down” aspect. The cover happens to be a little booklet that comes along and features plenty of insightful details about the show and its production. Though there’s plenty of room between the cover and the inside content for it to get squished, It still manages to looke crisp, clean, and cool.

Special Features

The special features themselves once again feature commentaries. Two per episodes which collectively amount to 26 commentaries in all. The music sampler is definitely a cool addition as it allows you to take little snipets of each song used throughout the show and listen to them all. The music ranges from different artists to different genres. Definitely another standing ground for just how cool the show is. The “Birth of a Woman” documentary is definitely an interesting one. No matter what gender you are. The film features the feminist movement during the 60’s. It’s in two parts and runs about 20 minutes each one. Various historians and researchers discuss the topics of the feminist movement throughout the 50’s and 60’s. Definitely a captivating one.

Overall
All in all the second season of the Sterling & Cooper gang was a real treat and joy to watch. Featuring plenty of memorable episodes, scenes, and performances Mad Men was definitely able to avoid that sophomore slump. A definite must have in any TV collector’s cabinet shelf.

The Feature: 5/5

Video & Audio: 5/5

Special Features: 4/5

Replay Value: 4.5/5

Overall: 5/5

North by Northwest 50th Anniversary Edition Blu-Ray (2009)

2009-11-11T09:57:00.000-08:00

North by Northwest 50th Anniversary Edition

by: Paolo Sardinas

The Feature

Alfred Hitchcock was undeniably one of the greats. He was a true master of form whose films defined the genre and era. Since I’ve seen most of Hitchcock’s masterpieces I can say without a doubt that Psycho is his undeniable best. But one of his other famous releases is North by Northwest. One of the director’s other masterpieces couldn’t have been released at a better time. Hitchcock was on a winning steak with his movies-Vertigo the year before in 1958 and Psycho the year later in 1960-this classic features plenty of the director’s trademarks. Action, suspense, humor, a great lead and a beautiful blonde. North by Northwest celebrates its 50th anniversary this year and here on this special two disc edition it gets the special remastered edition.

This film features the fourth and final collaboration between actor Cary Grant and the “Master of Suspense”. The story follows Roger Thornhill; charming, successful, and smartly dressed. Roger has been mistaken for George Kaplan, a CIA agent (supposedly) who’s wanted for murder. Phillip Vandamm (James Mason) mistaken good ol’ Roger for Kaplan and along the way meets the beautiful blonde Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint) whose just as mysterious as everyone else is. Roger is now a fugitive running away for a crime he didn’t commit and running from those who want him dead. Filled with wonderful set pieces and beautiful locations North by Northwest features plenty of amazing sights and sounds and features plenty of classic scenes. Crop-duster ring any bells?

Cary Grant plays the dashing Roger Thornhill with enough class and style you’d think he was the American James Bond. One of the original Hollywood legends-along with Marlon Brando, Clark Gable, and Humphrey Bogart-delivers another fine performance. Along with a cast which is truly admirable. Plus they all look gorgeous on the new HD treatment. Eva Marie Saint is amazingly beautiful, playing one of Hitchcock’s trademark blonde. She, of all the others, is undeniably the most entertaining-compared to the likes of Kim Novak and Janet Leigh. An outstanding cast for an outstanding movie.

Composer and movie music guru Bernard Hermann’s collaboration with Hitchcock was one of the highest honor. He himself would later return to provide the score for Hitchcock’s compelling Psycho the year later. His wonderful score provides the movie with most of its suspenseful scenes and makes them even more entertaining than the last. Hitchcock created a true classic with North by Northwest. A movie which has stand the test of time and is still one of the undeniable greats. The special edition features plenty of special features and a newly remastered sound and picture quality. Hitchcock never looked so damn good.

Video & Audio

Clocking in at about 131 minutes, North by Northwest needs to look beautiful, and it surely does. Thanks to the new 1.78:1 aspect ratio which is enhanced for the larger screens. Though the original 2000 re-release looked pretty damn good, this newly re done version is absolutely amazing. The true way movies are meant to be seen. The original Technicolor looks just as brilliant as ever and the blacks are blacker and the colors are deeper and brighter. The Blu-Ray version of course looks even better with its 1080p and the colors and faces look even more glorious. Mount Rushmore never looked so good.

This edition features a very well done English 5.1 Surround track. Its wonderfully remastered and the original score and music which made those twisty scenes so famous is here and it sounds better than ever. There are some additional mono tracks available in French, Spanish, German, Italian, and Portuguese.

Special Feature

The most notable and probably the best special feature offered is a special one hour long documentary called “The Master’s Touch”. Various film historians and directors-Scorsese and Friedkin to name a few-deliver their takes and the master’s works. Even in his own words Alfred Hitchcock offers his own opinion and insightful look into his moviemaking process. Though there are plenty of scenes and clips of “Dial M for Murder” there are none for his more famous classics. Which nonetheless its still great to see some of his other works receive recognition. Other special features include Commentary by Ernest Lehman, a documentary on Cary Grant, The Making of North by Northwest, Still Gallery, TV spots, Guided Tour, Theatrical Trailer, and a Music-Only Track. One of the better additions.

Overall

Overall this 50th Anniversary Edition looks and sounds great. Whether you purchase the DVD or Blu-Ray versions your sure to have an undeniable great sitting in your movie cabinet. This film, as classic as it is, hasn’t changed one bit over the past five decades. It still offers plenty of suspense, thrilling action, and plenty of excitement. Cary Grant delivers one of his finest performances and director Alfred Hitchcock created another masterful work of art. Whether you’ve seen it a thousand times before, or never, North by Northwest 50th Anniversary Edition needs to be on your shopping list this Christmas.

Feature: 5/5

Video & Audio: 5/5

Special Features: 5/5

Replay Value: 5/5

Overall: 5/5

Mad Men Season One DVD/Blu-Ray (2007)

2009-11-11T09:51:00.000-08:00

Mad Men Season One

by: Paolo Sardinas

The Feature

Every now and then we, as in those of us who actually watch the TV, receive something which is absolutely groundbreaking. No it's not the new talk show premiering next week or what happened on Oprah. Every once in a while a show comes along that can define that little rectangular device we watch, also known as "the tube". These "out of the box" shows consist the likes of Miami Vice, The Shield, and The Sopranos. The writer/creator of the latter, Matt Weiner, has outdone himself again. His new "ground-breaker" is breaking ground over on AMC. Mad Men is impacting practically every single award show available for TV wins. Centering on the lives of some fairly interesting characters, Mad Men: Season One, was an absolute joy to watch. Well made and extremely addictive, this show about ad-men is a delight.

Don Draper(Jon Hamm) is the ad executive for Sterling Cooper, an ad agency. The show revolves around this agency and lives of those who run it. From the first shot of this crisp freshly shaven man with dark hair hiding underneath a Brooks Brothers suit and puffing a cigarette you know he’s got power, presence, and undeniable mystery. Those who literally engulf the life of Draper are an array of finely tuned stars who each have their own story arcs which makes the show extremely slow burning, but well worth your patience and viewing in the end. Now I don't want to sound like someone whose been around and knows everything, since I don't, but for an age of instant gratification it’s nice to see a show which takes its time in unraveling the nice little surprise hidden throughout and manages to offer us something new exciting and fresh. No lame CGI and/or useless plots will be found in any of Mad Men's future seasons to come.

Some of these "engulfing" characters consist of mostly Don's fellow co-workers at the agency (where most of the action occurs). In the first season you have Peggy (Elisabeth Moss), the new secretary of Sterling Cooper who gets a higher role in Season Two but we won't worry about that one for now. Then we have the beautiful and voluptuous Joan (Christina Hendricks) whose basically the queen of the office. Her gorgeous looks are enough to fool even the smartest men. Vincent Cartheiser stars as the weasel Pete, junior exec whose only as brilliant as he thinks he is. Though he's a bit self centered and concerned about no one but himself, he still manages to get the job done. John Slattery as Roger Sterling, one of the head honchos of the company. Robert Morse(the Cooper part) is the other head honcho.

Now Janurary Jones plays the other very interesting and very entertaining part of the show. Her character, Betty Draper, is quite obviously the wife of Don Draper. Her role at the beginning of the show isn't entirely clear as she starts being kinda strange yet sexy. But her housewife persona is quite the other half of Don. The two have a children together and have a wonderful normal 60's American family together. By the second season things are heating up. There's my little spoiler for everyone.

Despite the strong characters and leads, the other strength of the show lies in its great attention to detail. Everything from the cars, to the rooms, paintings, clothes, fashion, everything is fully recaptured in this homage to the 1960's and all of those ideals. Hell even the milk cartons look the same. Even, of course, the ads used are original vintages of the early 60's. A time when everyone thought that space was the answer to man's problems we also have problems which are a bit more down to earth. Family values, relationships, work ethics, racism, and just life in society are general topics which are questioned all throughout the entire first season of Mad Men. Though now most of those original family values are gone, nonexistent some might say, its great to see them re-lived through the acts and lives of these finely tuned characters.

Matt Weiner has truly done it again. Just like his previous success, The Sopranos, Weiner has created another groundbreaking, critically acclaimed show which will continue to set the bar. Though it may be slow to get in to, if you give it a few episodes you will surely be hooked to this riveting and truly amazing show.

Video & Audio

The video of Season One is presented in a crisp and clear 1.78:1 transfer with crisp colors, saturation, and presentation. Definitely one of the finer jobs done within the realms of the TV season DVDs. The sound s presented in a also very crisp and fine Dolby 5.1 soundtrack. Now you can hear all of David Carbonara's amazingly moody compositions and scores for the show in perfectly crisp sound. Even the numerous songs used throughout the entire season, mostly at the end of an episode, are heard in great quality and help to bring back those good ol' days of the 60's.

Special Features

The best special feature which is offered is the Zippo lighter case which contains all four discs. Yes in re-creating the 60's smoking is a big deal. An interesting commentary for all 13 episodes is a pretty basic and generic but still fairly interesting. Disc 1 features an interview with the composer Carbonara as well as some music that is features throughout the entire first season. Disc 2 contains the very short "Advertising the American Dream" documentary which probably one of the other better special features featured on the DVD. Disc 3 features the hour long documentary "Establishing Mad Men" which obviously consists of the shows production and future productions. The special features are fairly entertaining. They're great in terms of material and information but I'm not to sure that anyone whose not an already fan of the series is going to really care for them.

Overall

Overall this Season One DVD is a fairly good deal. For the price you get plenty of special features and very good picture & audio quality. Though the special features will only entice fans of the show they're still good enough for the first timer to watch. So go ahead an give it a shot. A couple of episodes and I promise you will be hooked on this great show which redefines what it means to be a TV show.

Feature: 5/5

Video & Audio: 4.5/5

Special Features: 4/5

Replay Value: 4/5

Overall: 4.5/5

Editors' Letter

2009-11-10T22:50:00.000-08:00

I wanted to take some time to address the fact of some current changes that have been and will be occurring. First and foremost the sites' design has been obviously changed. The new look is newer, fresher, and will continue to change as I make adjustments to the layout. Also coming soon will be more reviews. More reviews which will broaden things a bit here and will expand more into the DVD/Blu-Ray fields along with TV programs. Some new, recently written reviews will be uploaded first thing in the morning. Also will be more movie and entertainment related stories(trailers, headlines, box office etc). Don't worry this will still be a sit which focuses on reviews but just to incorporate more topics in. The rating system used will as well change. The letter system, frankly, is getting a bit old. So beginning at the end of December I will be introducing a new rating system based off of the 5-star system. 5=A,4=B,3=C, so on and so forth. So thank you for being here and supporting this site. More exciting new posts and features are soon to come so hang tight.

Thank you,
Yours truly

Bada-Bing!

Also if you have a review which you have written feel free to send it to me an I'll post it up on one of the new features which is coming.

The Box (2009)

2009-11-05T16:32:00.000-08:00

"The Box"

by: Paolo Sardinas

Richard Kelly is undeniably one of the smartest film-makers of the 21st century. Though his previous attempt, Southland Tales, was a bit of a flop, his directorial debut-Donnie Darko-is still one of the greatest cult flicks of all time. Kelly's latest film is The Box. A witty, convoluted, frantic, and, entertaining mess. Though it has that entertainment factor I mentioned, its still is a mess. The Box is one of those films you really have to pay attention to to understand, yet at the same time its the kind where you question "Why in Gods name are you watching this?" Its the sort of Sci-Fi fable you don't really see anymore, with a Twilight Zone twist.

The film is based off of a short story written by Richard Maetheson(Button Button), The Box revolves around a couple living in Richmond, Virginia. Arthur and Norma (James Marsden and Cameron Diaz) are, like most couples nowadays, financially strapped for cash and will do anything to get it. Even questioning their morals. When one day they discover a box sitting on their porch they set off a ridiculous chain of events.

No matter how unrealistic Diaz and Marsden might be they still manage to offer something fresh to the movie. Even as it gets weirder and weirder throughout. After receiving their new toy the couple get a visit from a Mr. Steward(Frank Langella). Langella plays a very mysterious and, well, creepy man whose missing half of the left side of his face. Though the man has an undeniably eerie presence he dresses sharply and has quite the vocal tone. He informs them both that they can push the shiny red button on the box and they will receive a million dollars in cash. But, like always, there is a catch. One person, some-where in the world, will die because of their little button pushing fingers.

Thus beginning the weird and moral conflicts which arise in Richard Kelly's strange tale. At the beginning the couple bicker on and on about pushing the damn thing until finally they do. Here is when the movie takes off from the original story. Diaz's maimed foot plays an "important" role in the film and all of their close friends start having nose bleeds and a bunch of other hoo-ha. This is where Kelly's imagination comes forth and the movie goes from a traditional campy Sci-Fi film into a messy, campy, Sci-Fi film. The story begins to get so damn confusing and so full convoluted that you need to re-wind, in your mind, and figure out what the hell is going on.

The zany script and story don't help to clarify things up either. They in fact make things worse. The film features an interesting concept but gets lost amongst the whole Sci-Fi weirdness of it all. Oh by the way its based in 1975. Kelly leaves a little too much up to the imagination and not enough is delivered throughout the movie experience. Though the films creepiest scene comes in the most random time its still on of the better parts to the entire film. Its not exactly the best movie to be released now for this coming holiday season, it would've been better off being released during the Spring time.

Just like the "Twilight Zone" episode which was based off of the original story, the movie sort of floats off of that original source material and trys to do its own thing. At times it feels more like they tried to adapt the episode for the movies. Rather than the story for the movies. Somewhere along the second half, when you think it gets better, is actually when it gets kind of dumb and predictable. Kelly spends too much time filling up the screen with eye candy and weirded out storytelling that it loses sight of what it originally was. Or what it should be.

Though Kelly is an undeniably creative film auteur, he often lets his imagination get the best of him and allows his movie to suffer. His cast delivers fine performances. Though they could of been better. And the film's biggest scene stealer is Langella with his creepy Mr. Steward. A man who adds some style, suspense, and substance to every scene he's in. Kelly does create an undeniably entertaining film, but sadly it falls under the weight of his over active imagination. If you're a fan of Kelly's breakout hit Donnie Darko then you might like this film. Despite its campiness and ridiculous story its still rather entertaining. Just be ready to enter another dimension while watching. Grade: C

Rated: PG-13 for thematic elements, some violence and disturbing images

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

2009-11-04T19:07:00.000-08:00

The Men Who Stare at Goats
by: Paolo Sardinas

Most political and war satires are generally funny. Most of these satires take on subjects which tend to be way over the top for the average comedy but most do a fine job. The Men Who Stare at Goats, directed by Grant Heslov, is one of those political/war movie satires. Only its one of the few which fails to make their mark.

The story, based off of the novel by Jon Ronson, follows a reporter named Bob Wilson(Ewan McGregor). Bob is looking for his next big story and finds it in a special forces agent who reveals to Bob the existence of a secret, psychic unit in the military. What follows is a quirky, weird, wacky, and, at times, convoluted satire of war. Though there aren't enough adjectives to describe the dumbness of Men Who Stare at Goats, there are plenty of word in general. The film works of off the original novel and an adapted screenplay written by Peter Straughan. The movie starts off well and then gets lost in its own mind-numbing weirdness somewhere throughout the second act. The third act picks it up, sort of, and manages to be both funny and weird. All the films wonderful actors do their best with the given material but none of it truly accentuates the true gift of these actors. That is quite a shame. From the look of the posters, trailers, and ads, this satire seemed to be a great spoof. It turns out to be a little spoof which could've used a more complete story. One which didn't bounce back and forth between the present and past and didn't confuse the living hell out of the viewer.

The film stars, McGregor as the hopeful reporter. You have George Clooney as the snitch Lyn Cassidy, Kevin Spacey as the "evil genius" Larry Hooper, and Jeff Bridges being, well, Jeff Bridges. These four main actors actually save the film from being a total mess while delivering plenty of laughs which should keep you focused on the funny rather than the brains. George Clooney, with his weird looking mustache, is quite a pleasant sight to watch as he plays this military man who believes, with all his heart, he can do stuff with his mind. Which later on becomes less Sci-Fi and just plain Fi. Kevin Spacey is the scene stealer, as always, with his awkward toupee and comedic brilliance. His timing is always right and his incredible acting abilities are relevant all throughout the film. And Jeff is Jeff.

Director Heslov, a producer who has never really directed his own film before, has worked with Clooney in the past. Good Night and Good Luck ring any bells? But with this outlandish comedy, Heslov does nothing more than just slap together images and hope that they work out well. More could've definitely been done on his part. His actors take over the front of the camera while he does nothing behind it. Though Heslov's budget was small, he could've added more flair to the film. Making it seem less like a shamed and floppy political satire and more of a brilliant comedic spoof. Which is really what Men Who Stare at Goats truly is. A spoof movie which could've been better.

All in all, The Men Who Stare at Goats features an absorbing and hilarious cast but it fails to offer a story which stand out on its own and manages to create some logical and entertaining. Though the director is a first timer he has had plenty of experience working with some of Hollywood's biggest names. The film features plenty of these big A-listers but fails to take advantage of them. Overall the movie features plenty of laughs but never any true comedic brilliance. The Men Who Stare at Goats features plenty of questions which, sadly, never get answered. Grade: C+

Rated R for language, some drug content and brief nudity

Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire (2009)

2009-11-04T19:03:00.000-08:00

Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
by: Paolo Sardinas

In a time where Hollywood is dishing out action blockbusters like Transformers and GI Joe you can't help but wonder whose' left to make a genuinely entertaining American movie. Well the Oscar season is upon once and it's time, once again, to dish out the best of the best to compete for our top prizes. Though the ceremonies as of late have been exceptionally dry and boring the Oscars this year will be getting an extra dose of creativity and originality. There are plenty of opportunities for this film to be nominated for some large categories and will definitely be considered for Best Picture this year. Especially now that the categories have been expanded. One of these films has been all around the country premiering everywhere and has definitely made some buzz surrounding it's concept, themes, and subject matter. Though this film is graphic it is absolutely riveting and absolutely stunning.

Lee Daniels' exceptionally well made film "Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire" is an absolute mesmerizing and extremely well done film. One which can truthfully be considered as one of the year's best films. Originally premiering at every film festival in town, Sundance, Chicago etc, the movie has definitely made its mark. Receiving high praise and definite award buzz this little movie is about to get some Hollywood treatment as it makes its debut in a limited release this coming weekend. Though the film can be hard to watch at times it will-along with its lead-steal your heart and make you leave the theater talking.

"Precious" is the story of an obese and illiterate teenager named Clareece "Precious" Jones (breakout star Gabourey Sidibe). She’s been raped and impregnated twice by her father and her relationship between herself and her mother is a little more than rocky. Precious gets a chance to change her life when invited to an alternative school. The first half hour of the film can be almost unbearable for some to see. But it nevertheless captures your attention and offers you something to open your eyes. Its a story written by a teacher in Harlem. One which is all to common in the Big Apple and the type which rarely gets any attention what so ever. Though the topics on incest, rape, and abuse (all concerning a child) don't exactly sound appealing to all viewers, "Precious" tells it like it is. It enjoys the fact of being different and has that same energy of uniqueness flowing out of it's main character.

By now you've probably heard of the supporting cast. Mo'Nique plays the mother from hell who almost makes you wonder whether or not she’s' got a little demonic soul in her. Her performance throughout is riveting and captivating and is a sure fire bet fort his Oscar season. Her demented mother abuses the living hell out of her daughter, even throwing one of her babies around. A definite change for the actress whose know for her raunchy and low rated comedies. Mariah Carey plays a Social worker whose one of the few who give a damn. A rare glimpse at the pop icon without make-up is almost a rarity but it’s also a joy. To me, seeing actors and actresses taking risks is what makes it all worth it in the end. Lenny Kravitz appears in here as well as John, a nurse, who adds a nice humorous flare to this very dark story. The entire supporting cast makes this film a definite watch and adds more to this story which makes it more entertaining than you would think. All these actors are definitely out of their realms but still put in 100% and makes it an absolute joy.

Gabourey Sidibe is a definite bet for the Supporting Actress category and will definitely be making her rounds on that red carpet come award night. He performance as this tormented teen makes it all the more saddening but hope comes in the form of a teacher played by Paula Patton who comes to aid of "Precious" and helps aid her through her very unfortunate life. Sidibe, a college student who got the role after entering a random audition, is a pure joy. Though most our young stars now are, well, terrible and will probably end up throwing their life's away for drugs and whatnot, Sidibe definitely proved that she has what it takes to make it some where in this buisness. One which focuses more on your looks than you're real talent. That is just a shame. Sidibe proves that you don't need money, and you don't need to "fit the look" to be good at something. Her performance is so real you almost believe its the character herself. And I have the feeling we'll be seeing more of Sidibe through the coming years.

When the story takes form you begin to see that the other ladies in Precious' class are more of a family than just fellow classmates. They make her feel like she can do anything and be anything. A feeling which is all to misplace throughout her daily at home life. Director Lee Daniels makes a truly heart-warming film which is definitely one of the year's best. The script, much like the novel, helps to-in graphic detail-create a surreal experience which isn't preachy nor is it deafeningly dumb. While most movies which feature stories like "Precious" change from something undeniably real into something which makes it seem like everything is solved in a day this film actually proves that with some self determination you can overcome anything you want. Though the films subject matter and depictions of both physical and emotional abuse may not seem appealing "Precious" is definitely Oscar bait and a movie everyone should see.

Combined with the talents of these fine actors and actresses and a script which defines a personal narrative Lee Daniels' masterpiece is an absolute joy. A harrowing story which takes you someplace you didn't even think existed and creates a surreal experience which can be disturbing but nonetheless true, real, and riveting. Move aside Oscars, here comes Precious. Grade: A

Rated R for child abuse including sexual assault, and pervasive language

An Education

2009-10-30T14:49:00.000-07:00

"An Education"

by: Paolo Sardinas

While watching Lone Scherfig's extremely well made drama "An Education", you feel as if shes been making movies all her life. The Danish native is completely new to me. Never seen her movies before. But her latest one is an absolute breath taker. Filled with an array of very talented actors and a story which is absolutely tantalizing, "An Education" proves to be one of the year's best films.

The film was written Nick Hornby(famous for About a Boy and High Fidelity) the story follows 16 year old Jenny(Carey Mulligan). Shes a teenager and still is a virgin. Jenny meets 35 year old David(Peter Sarsgaard). The two forge a romantic relationship in the year 1961. A year when teenage girls were just as perplexed as they are now. Jenny's parents, Jack and Marjorie, are played by Alfred Molina and Cara Seymour. A middle class family which isn't too poor but not too rich. They fill their home with love and affection and wish the best for their girl. Then they meet David. The smooth and much more older gentleman who falls in love with Judy one day while standing there in the rain. As you watch this movie you soon realize that this is only the backdrop of the film. The story evolves and changes, much like its time, into one of the breakout hits of the year.

Carey Mulligan, already being compared to the likes of Audrey Hepburn, is an absolute joy to watch on screen. Her character, Jenny, loves her new found love and of course uses it to the best of her advantages. Fancy restaurants and cars are all throughout the film. Of course David is thinking of one things and shes thinking, "Why not?". She completely engrosses not only the screen but the audience and the rest of her cast. She outshines the likes of Alfred Molina and Dominic Cooper and grasps all of your attention away from your beeping cell phones and leaking popcorn buckets towards the screen and attracts you to her imminent beauty. Peter Scaarsgard is quite possibly one of our next great leading men. His character David, the much older lover, is an absolute joy to watch on screen. His character, like Jenny's, knows what he wants from this girl. I mean after all she is a virgin. But both of these leading stars take over their roles and make them their own.

While the film's supporting cast is an absolute joy to watch as they all mingle with one another. Alfred Molina and Cara Seymour are a joy as they play Mum and Dad. Their joys turn into fears as they meet their daughter's newly founded love; only their not so loving. Dominic Cooper and Rosamund Pike play two of David's friends which are just as calm, cool, and smooth as David is. They help to guide along the movie rather then just throwing in characters like a mixing pot. They serve a real purpose as you, the viewer, watches this story unfold. They present this sort of backdrop and charming addition to the life of Jenny. Ever so mad it is. Emma Thompson and Olivia Williams come along as two of Jenny's school's members. Both are teachers actually. Thompson, as brilliant as she usually is, turns in another entertaining performance which is a nice addition to her already expansive career. And Olivia Williams plays the teacher which makes Jenny wake up and realize just what the hells going on.

David as sly, charming, and secretive as he may be Jenny is no good little angel herself. She enjoys this lifestyle which David lives, he embodies, to her, all of her hopes and dreams. He's seen the things she wants to see and lived the life she wants to live. At school Jenny finds David to be an alternative to school and eventually finds her way through a professor(Olivia Williams) who states that David may not be all that interested in her qualities. David, though he looks and seems like he really loves her, might just be in love with the image and the ideal behind Jenny and not necessarily Jenny her self. The movie treads these waters while not being sappy and boring about it. The concepts and subject matter shown throughout the film is quite rocky in itself and might be a controversial one as well. I mean a movie about a 16 year old dating a 35 year old really isn't a comfortable one for most people.

It's style and mannerism is well a joy to see because while its based in the ever so changing 1960's, its before the whole peace and Beatles movement. Before London was the place to be throughout the ever so fun time changing ways of the world. "An Education" plays on those themes of uncertainty and gives us something which does more than just bore us down with tears and sniffles. It actually makes you think. While I would've liked to see more expensive traveling and what not, "An Education" is an absolute joy to watch. Its a completely entertaining and gloriously smart movie which manages to offer something to keep an eye out for this award season. Grade: A

Michael Jackson's This is It (2009)

2009-10-28T17:30:00.000-07:00

"Michael Jackson's This is It"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last four months you know that the King of Pop past away this past June. Circling his death was an array of rumors, speculation, and, of course, shock. What was once a trademark of the icon had lately been filed away underneath piles and piles of accusations? The Michael we once knew and love was, well, gone. But no matter what the issues or problems were it was the fans that were always there beside him. While watching "Michael Jackson's This is It" you get the feeling that this film was made not only to bring back the magic of Michael Jackson but was also meant for the fans. A sort of thank you for standing by the King of Pop during everything. And ultimately there’s no one more deserving of it.

"Michael Jackson's This is It" is a series of rehearsal footage that was shot while the iconic performer was rehearsing for his highly anticipated 50 show tour. While Jackson, in most of the public's eyes, died a long time ago, this concert film manages to bring back that old Michael Jackson to life. You know the one we fell in love with. While at first seeming like an opportunity to bank on the star's death, the film actually turns out be quite the tribute and never loses its sight of what its trying to show. The old Michael Jackson is alive and well in this film. Though the film becomes a resonating tribute to everyone-fans and non fans alike-you of course have to admit their are various flaws throughout. For one the film never depicts Michael's use of drugs which of course is no secret. Neither is Dr. Conrad Murray ever seen in any of the footage. Its hard to watch this film and get the sense that it ignored some of those important subjects which did make his final days less glorious then what’s depicted. But director Kenny Ortega, his partner in making all this come together, manages to focus the movie entirely on his music. Even though it would of been nicer if it focused more on the man rather than just the music.

No matter who you are you can't deny the fact that this film was rushed. While the footage is amazing there is less than what was hoped. More of the same scenes keep popping up. But at least the film has a beginning, middle, and end. The beginning has testimonials from his crew. These are absolutely heart felt despite how staged they look. The entire middle of the film cuts in and out of their 3-D mini movies and rehearsal footage, and the end shows what the final product would have been had Michael been able to finish this glorious production. In the end you walk away feeling even more sad rather happy. Throughout the film we do have little cuts in and out, really only two or three scenes, of the personal Michael. The one which was gone for such a long time. Through these scenes we get some genuine human emotion, which makes Michael seem more like a human being rather than some freak. Whether or not he would have enjoyed this film is a question which will probably never be answered.

The film does depict scenes of him forgetting lyrics and not being perfect. Though he always gave his all. Considering the fact that its not perfect might be what gave the film some of its magic, but there definitely could of been more of it. While it's definitely obvious that they tried to maintain his image as an iconic performer there was, undoubtedly, I'm afraid we never get to see the real Michael. The one who was frightfully thin and underweight. Also the Michael Jackson who was taking various drug medications is absent throughout the entire film. Obviously the makers of this film set out to preserve his image as a performer and legend. But without those dark details, which are a blemish to his career, "This is It" fails to paint a full portrait of the real Michael Jackson. And while those details are not ones which are to just be thrown out their for the public eye they are part of the bigger picture which never was. As you watch the film you can definitely tell that Michael was of course not in his top physical form, but the movie does its best showing him as full of energy. Which is true. Michael definitely gave it his all and delivered time and time again. Proving that those rad singing and dancing abilities weren't gone, they were just lost. His amazing dance crew absolutely takes over the screen. Job well done to the choreographers and to of course Michael himself. Who undeniably fills the room with his aurora and energy. And though the film isn't always as accurate as people would of liked it to be it still shows the same magic of Michael we love.

His dancers help to add to the greatness of the singer himself. He was and still is the one who future dancers and performers can look up to. Though there will never be another, these performers, musicians, dancers all prove that they could hold their own next to the man himself. The entire film features many of Jackson's hits. Including "Smooth Criminal", "The Way You Make Me Feel, and of course, "Thriller". An open song book and catalog to the life of this mega-star. Though I would have liked to see more of these songs used in a bigger way you still get the same feeling and enjoyment out of all of them. These songs are all incorporated into these little music videos which feature Michael in some pretty interesting situations. The final product of "Thriller" is an absolute masterpiece. The video features Michael's dancers shimming and grooving as zombies while Jackson himself is up top singing the world famous song. "Smooth Criminal" features him in some black and white shots which feature the great Humphrey Bogart. All of these help to add to some of that magic and excitement which made those original songs so damn fun to listen to.

Whether or not you're a fan of the late King of Pop is entirely up to you. And whether or not you believe he was guilty for his past is up to you as well. But what this film manages to do is to show this man doing what he did best. Entertaining people. While its not the spectacular concert film everyone had expected it is a rather entertaining film. And while its filled with just as many mistakes and flaws as the man it’s showing "This is It" manages to offer the fans of Michael Jackson and the rest of the world that one final goodbye. Grade: B+

Miami Vice Season One (2009)

2009-10-26T19:37:00.000-07:00

"Miami Vice Season One"
by: Paolo Sardinas

The 80’s were undeniably a time of greatness. Especially in Miami. Whether It was the Mariel Boat Lifts or the rise of South Beach, Miami definitely had its fair share of change. Of course along with great change comes great tentertainment. One of the pivotal changes in the face television was a show which introduced something new, fresh, and exciting to the world of television. “Miami Vice” came to scene in the year of 1984, every Friday at 10:00 people would submerge themselves in the world of undercover cops James “Sonny” Crocket and Ricardo Tubbs(played by Don Johnson and Phillip Michael Thomas. What started out as a cop show with Phil Collins In the Air Tonight became a cult sensation which undeniably changed television.

The first pilot episode of the series, we’re introduced to the characters. First we have Ricardo Tubbs who goes from a detective in the Big Apple to later being transferred down to sunny Miami. Then we have Crockett who just lost his partner during an undercover assignment and gets partnered up with Tubbs. The show Is filled with plenty of cheesy moments. Throughout its entire five season, 111 episodes, run the show always had this in explainable attraction. This sort of addiction where you just couldn’t take your eyes off of the main characters. Everything they did,even something as mundane as sitting on the crapper was entertaining to watch. Maybe it was how believable the characters were. Who knows? But soon after that pilot episode not only was television changed but virtually society went along with it as well.

The whole scene of the 80’s, besides the things mentioned previously, was filled with change, not to mention crime went up. Drugs were all the rage now, not like they never were but they were just more popular now, and Miami was definitely the place to be. Between their pastel colors and sockless loafers they were great Crockett and Tubs. The first season was undeniably one of their best. It introduced us to plenty of new characters and set the tone for plenty of season to follow. Each episode had an interesting plotline, for the most part, and even had feature guest stars. Throughout their entire five season run more celebrities guess starred on Miami Vice then on any other scripted show. That’s pretty damn impressive.

The show was produced by Michael Mann, who would later direct the 2006 big screen adaptation. Its gritty topics and lucrative subject matter were not for everyone. Drugs, sex, violence, beautiful women and pastel tones…a perfect kids show. But these MTV cops definitely knew what made audiences happy. These cops did more than just arrest crooks. They did it with such style, attitude, and, well, coolness they were undeniably the coolest cops on TV. The cream of the crop and the biggest new attraction in Miami. And even 25 years later they still look good in white blazers.

The Picture
In this newly released, not really that new, box set you can enjoy all of your favorite episodes form the first season of “Miami Vice”. Every episode is presented in its original full frame aspect ratio of 1.33:1. If I must be honest the overall picture quality is a bit dated. While I was hoping for a more crisp and shaper image what I got instead was pretty much an old fashioned episode looking exactly the way it did 25 years ago. Which is fine, I just figured that they would use some more recent technology to reimage everything.

The Sound
The audio is actually fairly brand new and sounds sharp. The audio and sound quality is surprisingly better than the picture quality. Which is really a surprise. Its delivered in a Dolby Digital 5.1 and while the overall sound isn’t 100% perfect it still manages to be better than the picture.

The Extras
The extras, most of which are located on the first disc, are actually very limited. Very dry. We get five features which are dedicated which are mostly about the entire series and how it impacted things. Most of which are below a thirty minute time frame. While the special features aren’t exactly exciting they do make for a reasonably entertaining time.

Overall
No one can deny that Miami Vice changed television. Whether it was for better or worst is entirely up to. But the show still remains undeniably entertaining even after all these years. While the DVD release isn’t quite as exciting as the show its still nice just to able to see all of these episodes again and again.

The Feature: Grade: A-
The Picture: Grade: B-
The Sound: B
The Extras: B
Overall: B

The House of the Devil (2009)

2009-10-25T15:30:00.000-07:00

"The House of the Devil"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Horror, no matter how you look at it, was always about being scary rather than gory. Sure one or two films are able to pull of both but after awhile it just gets pretty damn boring. None of our horror flicks now focus on what’s actually important in a horror film. Scary... they never are. So when a film comes along that’s able to bring back some of those old frights that made going to movies during Halloween both fun and exciting. Well it's a breath of fresh air.

Though most people will dismiss it as a slow, boring, and sometimes utterly snooze inducing, Ti West's horror masterpiece is, sadly, none of the above. This VOD(Video on Demand) release is something new, fresh and exciting. It takes the horror genre and re-invents it in a way thats truly a tip of the hat to the previous horror classics. You know that one’s which everyone wants to remake now. The classics are classic. That’s why they're called classics, so why remake them? Well Ti West doesn't remake he re-invents. And its a job well done.

The story follows Samantha Hughes, a college student, who takes on the task of babysitting. A task which is never an easy one She’s babysitting in order for her to make a down payment on her new apartment. She gets taken to the house by her friend, Megan. Once there she meets the owners Mr and Mrs Ulman who confess to now owning any children. She quickly discovers what’s going, she’s trapped. And as a lunar eclipse closes in she quickly discovers that the Ulmans are planning on doing a satanic ritual. And shes in the center of it.

Now the story may not seem like much, but throughout the entire movies there is always this slow burning builds up as to what’s about to happen. For some people it may be too slow for a horror film but that’s the beauty of it. It doesn't just jump right in and start hacking off all of its main characters. It slowly but surely builds up to the event that occurs and slowly engrosses you in the process. Now it’s been awhile since a horror film has actually been scary, but "The House of the Devil" actually manages to pull off scary while making a retro style tip of the hat to the old 70's and 80's horror films.

The performance by its lead Jocelin Donahue, who in my opinion just might have a future in this business, is absolutely breathtaking. She’s able to portray another one of those innocent babysitters which gets innocently thrown into some pretty extreme situations. She also manages to not be annoying or stupid. Just scared. The two actors portraying the Ulmans are Tom Noonan and Mary Woronov the two work well together and are able to convey a sense of the creepiness. The two strangers who own that strange and creepy house is a plot element often mimicked but never duplicated. At least not well.

Director Ti West creates the perfect atmosphere for his soon to be horror classic. Though this film premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival it hasn't received much attention. Well all I have to say is that "The House of the Devil" is a pure horror classic. One which develops the perfect horror atmosphere and offers something more than just teens getting hacked off. It manages to be both exhilarating and fresh. Fun and new are what this movie is. And as a plus it actually manages to be scary. This is something that this generation of movie makers doesn’t seem to know how to do. Well Ti knows best. Grade: A-

Rated R for some bloody violence

The Maid (2009)

2009-10-25T11:44:00.000-07:00

"The Maid"
by: Paolo Sardinas

In Chile the sights and sounds are beautiful. Well at least most of the sights are. But another feature of Chile, which is rarely ever examined in movies, is the social class system. Sure it may seem like nothing but it really is something. "The Maid" takes a hard look into that social class system and presents it all in a truly entertaining form. While its not perfect, director Sebastian Silva manages to make a fairly impressive feature and the movie is even better with it's undeniably extraordinary lead.

"The Maid" in question is played by the wonderful Catalina Saavedra. She plays a woman so bitter and so pissed off that at times you almost find yourself questioning why the family just doesn't kick her the hell out. Well that's because shes been working there for twenty years. She is, or at least she thinks she is, just as much a part of the family as everyone else. Raquel is the housekeeper's name by the way. The families matriarch is played by Claudia Celedon. Ms Claudia decides on hiring a new maid to help out Raquel, well Raquel doesn't like that. Raquel does everything in her power to get rid of her, including torturing a poor little cat.

Yes I know the film just quickly changed tones here but fret not because all of this is done in a way which shows just how attached to this family Raquel is. She is the family. So she thinks. Shes only around for as long as the family wants her there, but on top of that the relationship between her and the oldest daughter of the family is beyond strained. Of course they hire more and more maids to help her out but each one just gets the boot. Until they hire Lucy, played by Marianna Loyola. Lucy doesn't put up with this, and of course shes able to melt right through Raquels rough and tough exterior and becomes her friend. How nice.

Though the direction and acting are superb "The Maid" does lack a little in its plot-line. Sure the film is filled with themes, morals, and insider looks but I'm talking about the plot-line. I wish that the relationship with the kids were more explained and maybe if some of the other family members got some more screen time, but hey its still pretty damn good. The only real reason were able to see just how pissed off Raquel is because of the amazing performance. The films tag-line also helps to some up things fairly well, "Shes more or less family."

Throughout the entire film Catalina Saaverda is an absolute joy to watch. She creates a character whose so hell bent on being the one and only maid you almost forget she is a maid. Shes plays a woman whose always on verge of going nuts but she never actually goes over the top. Always keeping some amount of cool while being treated horrendously. That is something to admire. And director Sebastian Silva takes hard look into the social class systems of Chile. Something which really isn't a surprise considering the fact that he himself grew up in an upper class family in Chile. In fact the entire movie is shot inside of his previous home. He, with the help of his extraordinary cast, help to create something which is undeniably unique.

Its something which manages to combine, seemingly without any effort, entertainment and though provoking images. Thinks which will make you think twice about the next time you shrug off your house keeper. A film which is not worth missing. No matter what country your in, "The Maid" is relevant to, really, all the social class systems in all the world. A hard look at us and how we treat our family members, even if they are extended family members. And thanks to this award worthy performance Catalina Saaverda just might be another household name. Though it isn't 100% perfect, it is about 90% there, it still is undeniably amazing. Grade: A-

Saw VI (2009)

2009-10-24T22:11:00.000-07:00

"Saw VI"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Like clockwork the latest addition to the seemingly never ending "Saw" franchise has been released. Becoming almost like an annual tradition this latest film tackles subjects of a different nature. Amongst the torture traps and mindless violence we also get some political relevance. Health care(more on it later) is a fun little topic, especially with the way things are now. But for the first time the "Saw" movies, going on six, have actually tackled this subject. Which is kind of strange considering the whole subject matter of these films. Rather than being preachy about the much needed reform it instead mimics the decisions made by big health care companies. Yes, this does sound weird, but fret not you Saw fans. There is still plenty of gore to go around.

This film tackles the much heated subject matter with its main character William, the CEO of a major health insurance company who gets taught a lesson by John Cramer aka Jigsaw(Tobin Bell). Essentially the main goal was to prove to Willy that his day job is essentially playing God, so this all is supposed to come some concluding revelation about himself but it really doesn't make much sense. The film plays out with flashbacks and daydreams which offer nothing more than just a confusing time at the movies. Something that the Saw franchise has always been able to do really well. Confusing the audience is there game and Jigsaw's, whose been dead for the last three movies, games are never better. In fact they seem to get dumber by the minute.

In a "big scene", which is only as smart as it thinks it is, Will has to decide, from a group of six strangers, which ones live and die. They are all strapped to a spinning carousel and must make the ultimate choice. Another throwback to the fact about him practically playing God at work. This scene is very very dry. Dry in the sense that the viewer doesn't care-at all- about these six idiots. We don't care about their past, what they're doing there, or why these films even exist. And considering the fact of how the mechanism works, the creators don't care either.

Of course like every installment in the franchise they are always offering up some new toys. Each one gets dumber and dumber but at least they tried. "VI" yes this is the six installment actually manages to have some fairly interesting inventions, well despite the one I mentioned above that is just plain stupid. Most of them still are dumb and ridiculously unnecessary but they still make this sixth installment kind of fun to watch. Sure it's just as dumb as the others but hey every now and then we just need something to diverge our attention away from our everyday problems. Something that the fifth and previous installment didn't quite accomplish.

The story line, which I'm sure you've already figured out, is increasingly confusing. For those who haven't watched the previous films here a little refresher course. Yes three films ago Jigsaw died, but he left behind pre taped videos which describe to all of his predecessors, who are all vying for his "power", what to do. Pre taped torture vids. Sounds great. That is more or less it in a nutshell. Granted there are more details throughout but those are long and will take awhile. Another feature in the Saw films that never seems to go away. The confusing plot-line throughout "Saw VI" is constantly jumping back and forth. Making less and less sense of what its trying to say. The flashback and day dreams add nothing to the story and in fact make it harder to understand, rather than making it easier.

Tobin Bell returns, in his series of pre taped torture vids, and delivers another thought provoking performance. One which, like all the films, is the only real reason to watch. Even as the movies get older and seem to lose their quality, Bell will always be a stand point. The one thing which is always entertaining to watch. No matter how dumb the rest of the film is.

No matter how much more fun these toys are to watch as they chop up people, you still have that little part of your brain which will constantly question you. "Why the hell am I watching this?" is what you'll always be thinking. But when the twist ending comes than you might think differently. The twist ending, which makes "VI" the only real reason to watch, is and actually makes sense. Now I won't give anything away since then there will be no reason to watch. But you should know that when the next installments are released they might actually, dare I say, make sense. "Saw VI" overall manages to be somewhat entertaining but still will confuse the hell out of you. That I can guarantee. Grade: C-

Rated R for sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture, and language.

Antichrist (2009)

2009-10-24T13:08:00.000-07:00

"Antichrist"

by: Paolo Sardinas

Originally premiering in the Cannes Film Festival, "Antichrist", the weird psychological horror film from Lars Von Trier, would later be premiering in just about every other film festival in the world. The overall reaction was the same: half stayed and applauded the other got the hell out of there. Now after seeing this "art film" I can understand why half of them left. But I can also understand why the other half stayed. It's a mixed movie, one which takes more than one viewing to fully understand and one that just, unless you think hard enough, is just completely freaking weird.

The story follows "He"(Willem Dafoe) and "She"(Charlotte Gainsbourg). A couple who have just suffered a horrific travesty. Their son died. Yes the circumstances-he falling out of a window while they were making passionate/crazy love sex- might be a bit out there and while the whole scene featured above is immensely graphic it still manages to be believable. Somewhat. "She" has totally lost it because of grief and has therefor been put on medication in order to help her deal with the pain, cause they solve everything. "He" thinks that the meds aren't working and are therefor actually making it harder for her to reabilitate. "He" takes "She" to her apparent favorite spot, Eden, some cabin in the woods.

Once here at the cabin is where things get weird, graphic, mad, confusing, and yes weird. The entire film is split into five sections; Prologue, Chapter One: Grief, Chapter Two: Pain, Chapter: Three Despair, Chapter Four: The Three Beggars (more on that later), and Epilogue. All five are in a chronological order and each one gets stranger than the last. Apparently "She" has gone completely and utterly mad by the third chapter and by the fourth she is just f-ckin crazy. This is what I think is officially one of the best performances by an actress this entire year. Gainsbourg delivers a performance so maddening and so real it makes you wonder if whether or not shes actually going through hell. While the movie may feel like hell at times, she is able to make it seem more than just another physiological drama, and creates a woman whose taking a trip through the darkest corners of the mind, and comes back.

While the beginning intro might startle some viewers with its intense sex and graphic scene of a baby falling out of a window, you can't help but love the sense of, well, art. Not the baby dying part that's just sad and sick, but how the whole scene plays out. In a very real photographic black and white, the whole scene has no sound whatsoever but it guided along by the score, which as well deserves an Oscar. But later on throughout the film you feel as if that's all there is. Nothing but art. Sure visually Von Trier's maddening tale is visceral, real, and visually unique, but it lacks in it's form of story telling and is no real surprise that the final section is what everyone gave a "0" to. The third and fourth parts or chapters in the film are the ones which will, if you're not paying close enough attention, lose you. They feature "She" as she goes incredibly psycho on "He", who by this point is actually questioning the viewer on whether or not he actually loves her. She does things so humanly unimaginable you have to leave. You are compelled to leave, but that's what Von Trier wants. His movie is made to divide audiences, to create something which will resonate in the viewers mind. The only sad part is that it resonates a little too long.

Willem Dafoe, whose no stranger to taking on roles that are weird, actually delivers something unique and interesting. His performance as "He" is mostly dialogue related but as hes tortured by "She" he never loses that magic of taking over the screen. No matter how much more interesting "She" is. Throughout the entire the film you spend most of the time questioning the fact of his love. How deep is it? Does he truly love her? This and many other "soap opera" questions arise throughout their entire stay here in the middle of the forest. And Dafoe proves once again that he is a truly versatile actor.

Lars Von Trier has made a very weird and maddening movie experience. It's no surprise why the Cannes film festival practically banished the movie from all existence. It's themes of misogyny and exaggeration of violence and sex might not be appealing to some viewers. Its an art house film that lacks in story, but offers some unique visuals here and there. And while it might not click with audiences it still makes you want to keep on watching. Unless if you can bring yourself to leave the theater. Grade: C

No Rating

Law Abiding Citizen (2009)

2009-10-16T17:05:00.000-07:00

"Law Abiding Citizen"

by: Paolo Sardinas

F Gary Gray knows how to make an action scene. He can play the camera to make the viewer believe that what hes showing are absolutely possible. Whether it be the wild and crazy car chase from his version of "The Italian Job" or the very well made "The Negotiator". This is the reason why his latest flick "Law Abiding Citizen" does nothing more than puzzle me. And I’ts not because of the ridiculous plot, or the mediocre acting, nor is it the simple fact that this movie takes unrealism to a whole new level. No, its the fact that they actually spent money to make this movie.

The whole story is about a man named Clyde Shelton (Gerrard Butler) who, after witnessing his wife and daughter murdered and is later told that one of the two men accused of the crime is getting off, spends the next ten years of his life planning on how to get back at the system. Standing in his way is Jamie Foxx who plays Nick Rice(the assistant D.A. who told him that one would get off) and what ensues is a mad tale which pretends to have some deeper meaning than what it truly is. It does and will bore you down with over unnecessary violence as Clyde goes after everyone originally involved with the case and, well, kills them.

Not only is it dumbly written but its also very exaggerated. The whole premise about one person getting back at the justice system is nothing new. Plenty of films have dealt with that subject, most notably Death Wish, but it’s not the boring premise which kills the movie, its everything after it. Sure nobody else is going to bitch about how unbearable to watch it is, the men will be too busy watching the cars blow up and the women will be too busy watching Gerrard Butler strip down before being arrested. The level of violence throughout is a bit more than what was needed. The whole concept of him getting back at them while being in bars is not only absurd but just plain dumb. And the supposed surprise ending comes as nothing more than another added scene.

Jamie Foxx, who was the original highlight of seeing this film, actually doesn't offer anything new. The Oscar winner has officially lost his vote with me. After doing the outstanding Ray and the flawed but entertaining Dreamgirls, Foxx proved he could be a versatile actor while still bringing something new and original to the table. But after seeing this, you know realize it was just another pay day for Mr. Foxx. And though he gives a better overall performance than his co star, it still is the same dreary boringness and gives you the feeling of "Why am I watching this"? Gerrard Butler, who has headlined two other major and critical bombs this year, does nothing new to prove he’s actually got some skill. Not only does he not look interested, he looks like a potato faced idiot while delivering lines that seem like they were ripped from a TV program.

While Gary Gray offers enough gore to keep the splatter fans happy he still fails to offer something new and something that is completely and utterly stupid. Something which is only as smart as it thinks it is and features another absurdly stupid title. Don't even get me started with that one. Grade: D-

R strong bloody brutal violence and torture, a scene of rape, and pervasive language

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

2009-10-12T20:05:00.000-07:00

"Where the Wild Things Are"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Spike Jonze, the director of some fairly creative and intelligent films (Adaptation, Being John Malckovich), took on the incredible tasks of adapting one of the, if not the greatest, children's books of all time. The book, originally written by Maurice Sendak, has been around for nearly 50 years. While it's something thats been enjoyed by many generations before, its message about childhood and the many wonders about it has never ceased to be meaningful. In fact its only gotten more meaningful as the times have flipped on from bad to good and vice versa. While its nearly impossible to create these gigantic "wild things", Jonze makes it a task that seems almost easy, if only it were.

The story as many of us know follows a young boy named Max who, while wearing a wolf costume, makes quite a rumpus(take note of that it comes in handy later), and gets sent to his room for punishment. The movie changes that a little bit with Max creating a mayhem when his mother brings home her new boyfriend but hey we'll let that one slide. While there in his room he follow Max on his imaginary trip to the land of the Wild things. Once there he declares himself of all the "Wild things" and embarks on an imaginary trip through all of the trials and tribulations of "Wild land". Along with that they all start a rumpus, sing and dance, and just have a great time. Even though these people are fairly scary, Max is able to have the time of his life. While the movie differs from the book, mostly in small things, you still have to give them osme amount of credit. I mean they only had nine sentences to work with.

The main role of Max is played by Max records a boy who you can almost vividly imagine him being Max. And no its not because of the name. He delivers a quite fine performance as the little child with an wild imagination. But also too it can't be easy when all of you're co-stars are, well, inanimate. The other two co-stars which are alive are Catherine Keener as Connie(Mom) and Mark Ruffalo as the new boyfriend. Along with these three stars we also have the amazing talents-voices- of some of the greatest actors currently residing in tinsletown. Which is a nice surprise because I could never imagine them as doing these voices.

James Gandolfini plays Carol the giant poster boy for the "Wild Things". Then we have the likes of many other stars: Forest Whitaker, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper, Paul Dano, Catherine O' Hara and Angus Sampson. All of these actors lend a hand or voice in helping to bring these characters to life. The only real concern with these monsters is that, at an attempt to bring some realness to the characters, the writers instead made them a bit too real and created some characters which are a bit too real for its target audience. While the film is a true embodiment of the spirit of children, the overall tone and intensity might be something to off pit parents in their decision making process.

Don't let the PG rating fool you. "Where the Wild Things Are" is a truly masterful film. Though most of that greatness comes through in the technical department. Sure they sing and dance, but along the way we soon realize that these monsters are quite real. They are little humans stuck inside of some fairly large monsters. These cross images might cause some young viewers(their main target audience) leave the theater in either bewilderment or just plain confused. Becuase when the fun happens, there is plenty of fun, but there is also the same question that arises throughout the entire film, "Why are the monsters so sad"? I mean sure they're huge monsters but some are a bit too depressed to really make much sense to a six or seven year old. Unless if you want to describe to them about anti depressants, than that is for a while other day.

Director Spike Jonze truly does create something masterful here. He manages to use some CGI without using CGI. These gigantic monsters truly where built from scratch and are very tangible. Without going over board with the whole visuals and animation he still was able to make a truly convincing world no matter how confusing it may be. And while the entire performances throughout the film are very well done, you still can't help but feel that you're younger sisters, daughters, sons brothers aren't necessarily going to jump right into the whole complex narrative. While it is a childrens movie that overall concept focuses on having as much fun as possible, but still trying to through in some real drama. It's a kids movie, let it be a movie for kids. "Where the Wild Things Are" shines more in technical department and sets new heights, but fall a bit short in the narrative field. But hey at least Max had plenty of fun. "Woo-Hoo!" Grade: B

Rated PG: mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language

Black Dynamite (2009)

2009-10-11T18:20:00.000-07:00

"Black Dynamite"
by: Paolo Sardinas

The thing that makes the blaxploitation films of the 70's so damn entertaining is that, amidst the whole outrageousness and craziness of them, they always managed to never take themselves to seriously. Granted most of these movies focused more on the entertainment value rather than Oscar winning performances, they always kept their promise to deliver a fun and "groovy" night at the movies. 30 years later and we get nothing even close to the magic that these films created. Until now.

"Black Dynamite" is a fun and rather exciting homage to the blaxploitation films of the 70's. It also manages to offer some new things. The story is based in the year 1972 the story follows ex CIA agent "Black Dynamite". He gets called back into duty as the Italian mob kills his brother and black orphanages is being filled with heroine. The story is a typical 70's film, the superhero that makes love to six different women at once while using some kung fu skills to beat the hell out of drug dealers. But rather than just coping those original ideas, it manages to give it its own little creative twist to it. The whole story unfolds into a full fledged conspiracy theory and climaxes with a very entertaining nun chuck battle. It manages to combine story elements from all sorts of different films. It has a little bit of the kung fu, a bit of comedy, and lots and lots of style.

Michael Jai White stars as the main protagonist and manages to pull off a fairly interesting character. While it doesn't require much acting skills, he's able to make this "bad-ass" cop seem more like an anti hero rather than an officer of the law. The type of person you wouldn't mind having a beer with just as long as you don't piss him off and don't call shotgun. He is a basically a remake of Shaft. In fact if you didn't know any better you would assume they were brothers. Especially with their whole funky/groove thing going on amongst themselves. The rest of the cat is fairly unknown except for a handful of porn stars that star as his "Ladies of Leisure".

Besides the fact that its one big genre parody, it still manage to be its own film and succeeds in creating the mood and feel of an old 70's viewing experience. No matter how absurd it may be. The attention to detail and the appreciation for it seems almost a little to perfect at times, but at least it doesn't force it down your throat. Instead it patiently awaits you to come to your senses and realize that this is one stupid movie. But you still can't take your eyes off of the searing colors, women, grooviness of this day and age.

Now back to the genre blending, at time it feels more like a mix of Austin Powers and Shaft, but at other times it feels like something ripped right out of the mind of Tarantino. Something which manages to sustain all of the visual aesthetics while still creating something new, fresh, and real. Scott Sanders directs with a real sharp precision which never lets you forget just where it came from. His attentiveness takes you on a spiraling voyage back to the good ol days. The costumes and the color technique(nice little look of an old 70's porn flick) take you back to days of 'froes and hoes. The days which, unlike myself, you were able to love, ravish, and live in. No matter how screwed up they were.

All though by the time we get to that eventual climax between Dynamite and Tripy Dick you feel like the writers have outdone themselves a little bit and have offered us a little bit more than what he originally asked for. While this isnt necessarily a bad thing, iits always a gamble whe you don't know how the audience will react. Luckily the reaction isn't too bad but you still get that "this is kinda stupid feeling" after watching.

While it's not 100% perfect, it is about 90% there. "Black Dynamite" does manage to offer a fairly new and fun viewing experience. And even though it misses some of its intended comedic marks it still does offer some good old fashion 70's mayhem. While, just like its ancestors, it never taking itself too seriously, no matter how heated things get. Its main sense of "how funny can we make this without making it totally stupid and absurd" does manage to pay off. Despite the fact that it does appeal more to fans of the spoof genre, it still has plenty more to offer. You just, for once, have to actually think about it. Grade: A-

Rated R for sexuality/nudity, language, some violence and drug content.

Audiences checked in with "Couples Retreat".

2009-10-11T12:05:00.000-07:00

The Vaughn/Favreau comedy scored well with audiences over the weekend. Although the movie was generally unliked by many critics it still managed to rake in an estimated $35.3 million.

Zombieland slipped into second place with a modest but still impressive $15million while Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs(12 million), Toy Story 3D(7.7 million), and Paranormal Activity(7.1million) rounded out the top five.

With Paranormal Activity hitting 1,000,000 "demands", it will begin it's nationwide release on Friday October 16th as promised.

1. "Couples Retreat," $35.3 million.

2. "Zombieland," $15 million.

3. "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs," $12 million.

4. "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2" in 3-D, $7.7 million.

5. "Paranormal Activity," $7.1 million.

6. "Surrogates," $4.1 million.

7. "The Invention of Lying," $3.4 million.

8. "Whip It," $2.8 million.

9. "Capitalism: A Love Story," $2.7 million.

10. "Fame," $2.6 million.

Couples Retreat Review

2009-10-10T14:51:00.000-07:00

"Couples Retreat"
by: Paolo Sardinas

The topic of couples is always a fun one to exploit in movies. Why? Well because they usually get it wrong or just plain screw up. These "movies" about "couples" usually is nothing more than just some fairytale ideal and the belief that all love problems can be resolved within a 90 minutes time frame. Really it takes a couple of day in the movie but it just feels like 90 minutes.

These "films" usually are one of two things: One they over exaggerate and just make you hate it cause of all the lies. Two they're under exaggerated and fail to show a complete understanding of the "rough and tough" life of a couple. And every now and then we get a little surprise which manages to incorporate elements of both. "Couples Retreat" is the latter.

Now the comedic pairing of Vince Vaughn and John Favreau is not one which was a mistake. Rather it was a god send. Sadly over the last few years one has flourished while the other has, well, died. Favreau is having plenty of fun giving us movies about elves and men who dress up in an iron suit and fight crime, while Vaughn is having fun doing nothing. "Couples Retreat" is written by the comedic pair but sadly it's very un-funny rather than just plain, regular funny. The story follows a group of couples as they travel to the lovely Bora Bora on vacation. What they don't know is that while they're for fun in the sun, one of the other couples is there to try and rekindle their dying relationship. The others soon realize that they pretty much have to participate in the couples therapy program and things just go crazy from there.

Now the whole feeling of the movie is kind of scary seeing as how the whole premise of the film is about these couples having to stay on the island and can't have a fun time. It would make a decent horror film if they hadn't used that idea before. "Retreat" contains a very star studded cast including Vince Vaughn and Malin Akerman(Couple 1), Favreau and Kristen Davis(Couple 2), Jason Bateman and Kristen Bell(Couple 3), and Faizon Love and Kali Hawk(Couple 4). Now all of these couples, to me, seem a bit out of place. Firstly we have Vaughn with the sexy Akerman, a modern twist on Beauty and the Beast. Then Kristen Bell who’s kind of annoying and weird and Bateman whose, well, Jason Bateman. And Faizon over there looks like he married a teenager. The only real couple who actually makes sense is Favreau and Davis who not only look like they match but are the only one who at least look like their having fun.

Overall most, if not, all of these actors look about are about as entertaining as a plank of wood. No fun just a bunch of lame and lousy one liners to keep things afloat. Now while the film was rated PG-13, you always get that feeling that the original R rating was what they had originally intended. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Who knows? Who cares? The film does turn into nothing but pure mindlessness with nothing more than one or two scenes of mild funniness.

The film is directed by Peter Billingsley, yes little Ralphie, who also makes his directorial debut. While it's been ages since we've seen Billingsley do anything worthwhile, I think he could've chosen something with a little bit more foundation for his debut. It's not that Favreau and Vaughn aren't funny; it's just that their script is. Rather than truly letting you laugh it almost forces these wannabe comedic situations down your throat and never truly gives you time to breath. Or to enjoy the very beautiful beach scenery shots of the island.

While the film has one or two funny scenes throughout, it's still one of those under and over exaggerated couple’s flicks. Never really showing the true side of being a couple truly is. It’s more of one big mindless joke that never seems to end. While the beautiful location shots are enough to maybe rent the film, its best you just avoid this trip altogether. Grade: D

Zombieland Kills at the Weekend Box Office

2009-10-04T15:29:00.000-07:00

The horror comedy "Zombieland" managed to rake in $25million this past weekend making it Woody Harrelson's biggest debut yet.

The Family Cartoon "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" slipped to second place with $16.7million. Both films were released by Sony.

Toy Story 3-D managed to secure the third spot with $12.5million. Ricky Gervais' new comedy feature "The Invention of Lying" opened with a very modest $7.4 million slightly ahead of Bruce Willis' "Surrogates"

Michael Moore's new documentary opened with a low $4.9 million and Drew Barrymoore's directorial debut "Whip It" opened and tied at seventh place with the previous total.

Here are the total rankings:

1: Zombieland
2. Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
3. Toy Story/Toy Story 2 (3D)
4. The Invention of Lying
5. Surrogates
6. Whip It
7. Capitalism: A Love Story
8. Fame
9. The Informant!
10. Love Happens

Paranormal Activity

2009-10-04T15:21:00.000-07:00

"Paranormal Activity"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Now I know the Blair With Project comparison is used often. Almost too often. Is it used way too often? Yes it truly is. But the fact of the matter is that that one single film was able to set the bar up so high, it's nearly impossible to compare anything in horror genre to it. Almost like comparing The Godfather or Goodfellas to any other gangster film. Nothing positives really comes out of these comparisons mainly because there has never been anything since that can compare to the film it's being compared to. Nothing is ever "worthy" of being compared to that all great one. Usually because the comparisons never truly capture the magic of the previous. They may have the style but never the substance. The same magic is gone. But finally after ten years of worthless horror flops we finally, finally, get the answer to our prayers.

"Paranormal Activity" is the latest horror flick to use the almost tiring video camera technique, but it's also the only one in recent years to actually be worthy of the "Blair Witch Project" comparison. Shot with nothing but a nice little video camera from your local Best Buy, this movie manages to create some of the most terrifying and altogether frightening moments in film. The story is rather simple. A newly wed couple named Katie and Micha move into their brand new house in San Diego. Now of course, reminiscent of X-Files, one is a believer and one is a non-believer. Katie believes that she's haunted. Strange occurrences have followed her all through her life from house to house. Micha, of course, decides to videotape their bedroom while they sleep. This of course leads to a strange happening of occurrences and a pure 90 minutes of pure terror.

These occurrences seem to be getting more and more aggressive. Terrorizing our new couple as they try to sleep but can't; in fear of what will happen if they do. Now I'm not going to ruing the surprises that lurke throughout the whole film. That would be a waste of time. In order to truly see this wonderful movie going experience you need to get up and go find a movie theater which is playing this limited release feature. Here in Nevada there is only one.

Shot for a very small budget of only $10,000, "Paranormal Activity" feature a no name cast and only takes place in one setting. The house. Directed by Oren Peli, this cheaply made, but very real, movie going experiences is truly one of the best in a long time. The film almost compels to you and tricks you into thinking it's real. Mostly because of the fact it feels real, it looks real, and it sounds real. Everything about this new horror gem screams(no punt intended) classic. The new type of horror is born with this flick. The actors, unknown, do an absolutely amazing job with what they have. In I would bet money on the fact that most of it was improve. Damn good improve.

These scares actually are something much more than just quick little ones. There scenes of pure terror, unlike anything we've seen before. The whole premise of "what happens while you sleep" is something far more scarier than what just landed from outer space. The film's tagline, "Don't see it alone", has some meaning to it. You really don't want to see it alone.

Oren Peli steals most of the show, despite him being behind it. He not only directed this masterpiece but also wrote and edited it. A combination of his writing and the strong performances help to make this the best horror film of the last 10-15 years. The visceral images which are presented on screen not only help but almost force you to be scared. They ravish in the suspense in terror which you know is coming, but you stil don't know when. The only sound you could hear throughout the theater was the sound of people adjusting themselves and getting ready for what was about to occur. The true shock and awe of the movie.

Now for me to call this the best horror movie of all time would be a bit of a long shot. Bu at the same time, it wouldn't. Paranormal Activity manages to create something more than just a couple jumping scenes. Something more than seeing attractive young teens get butchered alive by some man in the forest, or high school, or neighborhood. It manages to create true, nerve wrecking fear. Something missing from today's horror adventures. Rather than just simply offering two hours of nothing but blood and body parts flying across the room, this film actually manages to create deep true fear. Something, which at times, is hard to shake off. Even when you leave the theater. A nice little comeback for the horror genre and a nice addition to the year. Horror isn't dead(persay) it just needed a little boost. Grade: A

Zombieland Review

2009-10-02T15:39:00.000-07:00

"Zombieland"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Remember that time when zombies were the pinnacle of horror. They were the number one thing to be scared of. These mind less ex humans who are hungry for blood were just plain scary. And that is what they're always perceived as being. Usually it's do to the fact of how realistic the circumstances are. Wide spread epidemic is the most popular and it's also the most widely used. The truth of the matter is this..Zombies are and have always been overrated. There's nothing really ingenious about them and they stopped being scary after George A Romero's original Dawn of the Dead. If you want dumb witted, mind-less drones just walk out into the street. In fact horror in general has become a laughing matter. it's no longer a truly respectable movie genre but rather just an excuse for adolescent hormonal kids to "get some" at te movie theater. There is no pride and no respect with doing a horror movie in the 21st century. So hey why not make a comedy with a tad of horror. Ingenious.

"Zombieland" attempts to re-invent the zombie image in this newly released horror comedy. Directed by Ruben Fleischer this raving mad zombie comedy is an absolute bast. Balancing together the "iconic" zombie image along with some pure 100% original comedy. Along with it's superb cast, this is a film which manages to not only poke fun at all the other zombie films that have been released, but just horror in general. It's both fun and entertaining and always manages to never take itself to seriously while still giving us characters which are both entertaining, engrossing, and just plain real.

The film features Jesse Eisenberg, who delivers a very well crafted performance in this leading role. He plays Columbus a survivor of this post-apocalyptic world in which everyone is a zombie. He eventually meets another survivor named Tallahassee(Harrelson) and they go cross country killing zombies. They later run into Little Rock(Breslin) and Wichita(Stone), two sisters who have their own plans for our two leading men. These two "sistas" are actually able to convince Tallahassee the supposed zombie killing bad ass and Twinkie loving Columbus to take them to a suppose zombie free amusement theme park. Along the way they basically scour the land killing zombies, create some love, and deliver plenty of laughs.

The cast is to die for(no punt intended). Eisenberg really is able to give us this teenage protagonist which isn't annoying or just plain unnecessary. He's even entertaining when he attempts to belittle his growing affection towards Emma Stone. Both of our leading ladies, including the very entertaining Breslin, add a nice touch to this supposed guy flick which turns out to be great just about any gender.

Woody Harrelson though is the absolute scene stealer. Having a bit of a hiatus from the leading man roles, he's able to create another outstanding comedic character which is and always reminding of why he is one of the best at what he does. His lone warrior type character actually turns out to be more likable than what you would think and he even adds more to the surprise of how good this movie is.

The script, story line, and directing are as well very very good indeed. Director Ruben Fleischer is able to create an interesting world. Despite how we've seen it used time and time again, the world of "Zombieland" never gets old, it's never bores you down with some hidden religious or political reasoning as to why people are zombies. It just simply is a fun and exciting movie. Which also is able to combine some pitch perfect elements of both the horror and comedy genres to of which feel like they're just as dead as the film's main antagonists.

Zombie comedies aren't anything new to the world of movies. We've had "Shaun of the Dead" the supposed greatest horror comedy of all time. While it does manage to be pretty damn funny it doesn't come close to being as original or creative as Zombieland is. Even though they both have the same concepts and one has a killer clown.

Overall, "Zombieland" is a very fun and enjoyable comedy. A nice little refresher to a very bland and moody year. While it isn't always so perfect it's still better than what we had expected. Brings a whole new life(so to speak) to the zombie image, and really renewed some popularity in it's leading star Woody Harrelson. It's one big ball of fun that is able to entertain and excite you into seeing it again and again. It's also one of the first zombie movies which actually manages to have some heart. Grade: A-

Surrogates Review

2009-09-25T17:36:00.000-07:00

"Surrogates"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Robots. They're something that have entertained us for years, decades and almost an entire century. The belief that we could actually have someone or "something" do all of our work for us has been around for hundreds and thousands of years and it never really quite works out. Most science fiction media is usually revolved around the belief that in the next decade we'll have robotic slaves and flying cars. It's an eternal episode of "The Jetsons". "Surrogates" the latest from Bruce Willis, focuses on that belief and the fact that people aren't happy with themselves.

Set in the year 2017, the story follows Willis stars as FBI agent Agent Greer. A man who, with the help of his own "surrogate" investigates the first murder in years. Of course, like most sci-fi movies, the case gets more and more complicated and eventually leads Greer into having to leave the comforst of his own home for the first times in years. Now for those of you who don't know these "Surrogates" are robots. Controlled by a human, these robots embody the form of their "controller" and basically carry one the persons life. No one leaves their house anymore because there is no reason to. Just send out your robot and everythings fine.

Of course this means the human population is pretty much isolated in their own home. Now this might sound familiar in the sense that just about everyone is confined to their own homes. With prices the way they are and gas being as expensive as can be, people are staying more and more inside their homes. Funny how real life always mimics that of a movie.

Willis of course looking like a scruffy Mr. Clean makes you wonder how and why he has stooped down to this level. Remember the last time he made a truly exceptional film, with the exception "Live Free or Die Hard". No I didn't think so. The actor-as of late- has been getting the roles no one really wants. Sure he adds some pizazz to his movies but it's a real shame their not offering someone with his talent better material. The rest of the cast including Rosamund Pike, his wife, and Radha Mitchell, his partner also deliver some second rate, lackluster performances.

Adapted from the mini comic book series, the movie is somewhat faithful to the original source material, despite the change of date from 2054 to 2017. Director Johnathan Mostow creates another cheesy and boring sci-fi flick which is a throw back to his previous attempt "T3: Rise of the Machines". The same with that film, he uses some good actors but always puts them in plain uninteresting position which does nothing but leave the viewer wondering is its ever going to make sense.

"Surrogates" is a movie which offers us an interesting concept but is executed badly. Although there are some catchy action scenes here and there the film still lacks in its "surprise" department and still offers us nothing new. The same topic which we have seen over and over again. Even though the concept seems more real than every, robots taking our place while we "chill" at home, it's still doesn't make for an interesting time at the movies. Unless it'd done right. But until it's actually real we're just going to have to get our ass up and move. Grade: D

Director Spotlight: Sergio Leone

2009-09-25T17:31:00.000-07:00

"The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Sergio Leone, often cited as one of the greatest directors of all time, gave his all in creating the script for end of the "Dollars Trilogy". After the critical success with his first two films, Sergio Leone returned in 1967 to release "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". The third installment in the famed "Dollars Trilogy" was the greatest of them all. Something very uncommon amongst trilogies. The script, written by three different writers including Leone himself. It reunited director Leone with his favourite leading man Clint Eastwood along past co star Lee Van Cleef(For a Few Dollars More).

The story centers around three men, all of which are looking for gold during the Civil War and amongst all of the battles, rapid expansion into the West and the war torn nation. The beginning of the film starts out with "The Ugly" Tuco(Eli Wallach) escaping from a group of bounty hunters. Miles away "The Bad" Angel Eyes(Van Cleef) is interrogating a man about the where abouts of that rascally gold. Eventually shooting the man and his son. We later meet Blondie "The Good"(Eastwood) who finds Tuco being arrested by a group of Bounty Hunters. Blondie kills the mercenaries and rides off into the town to collect the money.

The story continues on with, Blondie almost being killed by Tuco, spying, lying, action, excitement and of course the famed three way Mexican standoff at Sad Hill cemetery, where supposedly the gold is buried. Even though the ending is a bit predictable, and logical in a sense, it still leaves you with that that happy ending where after all the violence, shooting and killing, the hero still rides off into the sunset. All three actors are superb in the roles. Delivering exciting performances which make the movie even more enjoyable. Here's a breakdown of our three characters and their performances:

The Good: Clint Eastwood offers a masterful performance as the drifting ant-hero. Much like his two previous dollar installements, "A Fistful of Dollars" and "For a Few Dollars More", he tops both of those performances and almost combines them into making one more superior than all the others. A character which is still just as unbelievably cool as it ever was. A true movie icon. Of course he shares the screen well with his fellow co-stars.

The Bad: Lee Van Cleef teams up again with director Sergio Leone to give us another masterful performance as "The Bad" guy. His performance this time around is even more intriguing and entertaining than before. The absolute master of villainy.

The Ugly: Eli Wallach, after starring in a few westerns himself, returned to the west to give the absolute show stealer of the movie. His performance as Tuco, "The Ugly", is anything but. Absolutely flawless in every way imaginable. He steals every single scene he's in. The movie is his for the taking, and although a different ending on his part would of been more interesting, he still lives to fight or steal another day.

Director Sergio Leone partnered up these three incredible actors to deliver a movie worthy of all the highest honors. Once criticized for its excessive violence Sergio Leone calmly replied with this quote "the killings in my films are exaggerated because I wanted to make a tongue-in-cheek satire on run-of-the-mill westerns... The west was made by violent, uncomplicated men, and it is this strength and simplicity that I try to recapture in my pictures." Not an easy task, but he never the less was able to achieve and create something absolutely unique and extra ordinary.

"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is an excellent example of movie making at its finest. Uniting some of our greatest actors of all time, this film serves up something we all enjoy. Filled with action, excitement and fun, this is a movie everyone loves and is something worthy of every honor available. Sergio Leone created the perfect ending to an iconic character and despite its repetitiveness it's always great to see "The Man with No Name" ride off into the sunset. Grade: A

Director Spotlight: Sergio Leone

2009-09-25T17:26:00.000-07:00

"For a Few Dollars More"

by: Paolo Sardinas

After creating his 1964 classic "A Fistful of Dollars", Sergio Leone became THE director of westerns. Not only did he create a new star for the 20th Century, he created a new breed of westerns. A genius idea which no one else really thought. Why not take our western stories and instead of shooting them in the states, shoot them in the far more beautiful, and exciting, Italy. Spaghetti Westerns, nicknamed after being shot in Italy(obviously), quickly became the number one western. Featuring more complex and darker concepts, much more violence, better music, and more stylized than all the westerns before it.

"For a Few Dollars More" is by far, more enticing and intriguing than its predecessor. Returning are Sergio Leone and star Clint Eastwood, in the role that made him famous. Sergio Leone once again uses his amazing shots of landscape and flawless cinematography, and Eastwood delivers a far better performance. The story is flawless and more enjoyable than the first. Of course, as with any anti-hero, he needs someone whos just as equal to him. Here, in this installment we get another character just as engrossing as its main protagonist. "For a Few Dollars More" is all around better and more enjoyable film than the previous.

The time the story follows "The Man with No Name" as he is on pursuit of a man named "El Indio". Also hot the trail "El Indio" is the stories main antagonist Colonel Douglas Mortimer(The Man in Black), Lee Van Cleef. The two men are both bounty hunters in this flick. "El Indio" is a ruthless criminal who has just escaped from prison along with his entire gang. He is also wanted for the rape of a young woman, who killed herself there after. There is the darker storyline I was talking about. The two bounty hunters team up to go after "El Indio" and capture their reward.
Their first hour of the film just explodes with action, violence, and excitement. After Mortimer stops an incoming train, he kills the whole crew and finds about another man whose been around town, this of course is Eastwood going by the given nickname of "Manco". The find out that Indio is planning on robbing a bank and the two go after him to stop him. Manco gets into the gang and when Indio returns the next day to rob he notices Manco, now reunited with Mortimer, trying to take back the stolen money and to kill them all. They get beaten and left there. Thanks to Indio being stoned on marijuana he lets them both go in hopes of having the gangchase after them and he take all the money.

A shoot out of immense proportions takes place with Manco and Motimer killing of most of the gang. After being held down by Manco he notices that the picture of the woman he raped, inside of his pocket watch, is also in Mortimer's pocket watch, it's later revealed that this was his sister. Manco rides off into the sunset, once again, along with the bounty. Yes I did just ruin most of the movie.

Twice as good as the first this film truly is. The direction in this film is twice as good as the first, the story and acting is far better as well. Clint Eastwood heightened the interest in his character, and gave it his all. Lee Van Cleef was the absolute scene stealer in this film. Creating a character which is both believable, entertaining, mysterious, and cool. Playing the brother looking for revenge isn't easy but he makes it look as easy. Sergio Leone crafted a marvelous thrill ride of excitement, something to watch over and over again. And it keeps you always awaiting the return of the Clint Eastwood riding on that horse. Grade: A

Director Spotlight: Sergio Leone

2009-09-25T17:21:00.000-07:00

"A Fistful of Dollars"

by: Paolo Sardinas

Often considered as a lost art, "Westerns", used to be one of the only genres of movies. Every actor had to do one, they just had to. Westerns were defining movies in an actor's career, and were only getting better and better as they advance through the years. Between the 30's and 80's hundreds of Westerns were released, qucikly becoming one of the most popular "type" of film. Sadly, this art from has begun to die. How many westerns do you see being made now? None. Last year we had the refreshingly original "Apaloosa" which was a damn good western film. But not since 1992's "Unforgiven" had we seen a true western. One of those defining westerns was Sergio Leone's 1964 classic "A Fistful of Dollars".

This classic western helped to revolutionize the western genre. It took the western name and added spaghetti to it. The story follows Clint Eastwood's iconic "Man with No Name" as he enters a small town bordering Mexico. While there he is introduced to a local feud between two mafioso style families. The Rojo brothers and the family of town sheriff John Baxter. "The Man" seizes the opportunity for a "fistful of dollars" and plays the two family's against one another. Later he rescues a woman named Marisol from one of the Rajo brothers, but is eventually beaten and tortured when captured. When escaping from his captors, he manages to kill all the Rajo brothers and ride of into the sunset.

Clint Eastwood's performance is absolutely superb. Creating this lonely, drifting, good doer he manages to capture your imagination and offers one of the most iconic characters ever seen on film. He would return in the two sequels "For a Few More Dollars" and "The Good the Bad and the Ugly". The other performances in the film are equally as captivating. The Rojo brothers are played by a group of very talented actors. Gian Maria Volontè plays the more intelligent brother of the group and would later return to play his part in "For a Few Dollars More" as the sociopath El Indio.

Sergio Leone's masterful story telling only helped the movie achieve higher greatness. His revolutionary directing and film making was able to create a new breed of Westerns. Spaghetti Westerns. The more violent and stylized side of cowboys proved to be more entertaining than good old moral stories about good doing cowboys rescuing the bank from robbers. An excellent film created by an even greater director.

Although its often considered as the weakest of the "Dollars Trilogy", "Fistful of Dollars" is still a a captivating movie. The story telling is more basic than the others, but it still serves up a nice heaping plate of fun. It manages to be both entertaining and stylized but still doesn't lose the old style of the ones who came before it. Throw in Leone's excellent filmmaking and Eastwood's superb acting and you got one hell of a movie. "The Man" is what catapulted Eastwood to fame and proved that he was always as cool as ever. Even in the end when he rides off in the sunset we await his return as "The Man with No Name". Grade: A-

Jannifer's Body Review

2009-09-19T21:30:00.000-07:00

"Jennifer's Body"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Diablo Cody became quite the star for her writing for the 2007 teen pregnancy comedy, "Juno". "Juno", as teenish as it was, still managed to do something that her latest flick, "Jennifer's Body" doesn't, entertain. The film gets weighed down heavily by the whole conundrum of high school girls being bitches and how Megan Fox attracts so many guys. Two of the most general things that just about everyone knows. The other difference between "Juno" and "Body" is that the former is more intelligent and actually makes sense. While "Body" is just another teen horror/comedy which makes absolutely no sense beside the fact that Fox likes to eat boys.

The story, as if I haven't explained enough, centers around a nerdy bookworm (Amanda Seyfried) named Anita and her conceded cheerleader best friend Jennifer(Fox). Despite the fact that neither of them have anything in common they still somehow manage to get along. After attending a concert and the club burns down, Jennifer leaves with the band only to later come back covered in blood and puking black stuff out of her mouth. Anita just automatically assumes her friend is a demon and goes on a hunt to find out the truth about what happened to her friend, and all the other kids who have been eaten alive.

Now the story, as you can obviously tell, is original but is still weird, and both underdeveloped and overdeveloped. The story doesn't give many details but then it almost bores with its "facts" about how high school if hell, but its no where near as bad Jennifer eating boys. This film is a bit of a surprise in terms of Cody, granted its supposed to be kinda dumb and stupid. But it doesn't need to be this stupid. Luckily the film isn't long, or even if it is you don't really notice because you're too busy thinking about how I can leave this movie and not get jumped by a bunch of hormone raging teenagers. More specifically boys.

The acting, as you can imagine, is bad. Not terrible, thanks to Seyfried, but it's still pretty bad. Megan Fox shows off her "incredible" acting abilities while tearing apart boys and jumping on cars. Not to mention swimming in a lake... naked. Both actresses still make you feel like you're watching an old B-movie horror flick, but without the style of a B-movie. Its more like a D-movie. Now of course most people will go see this movie with the sole intention of seeing her, and her only, but is it really worth it. No its not. Keep your money where should be, in your wallet and don't waste it on this.

Overall, "Jennifer's Body" fails to impress, and does nothing but give you an excuse as to why you were so late getting home. Its one big excuse, that's all it is. An excuse for teenage boys to go out, watch this movie and love Fox even more. Granted she looks great but acting is career she has no future in. The movie has one or two funny quips here and there. But it's still not enough to save this movie from being exactly what it is. Another second rate, horror flop. Grade: D-

Grindhouse Review

2009-09-17T16:19:00.000-07:00

"Grindhouse"
by: Paolo Sardinas

In their fun homage to the exploitation films of the 70's, Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino craft something that is both utterly original and incorporates the style of old B-movies. The whole point of "B-movies" were freedom. The freedom to do whatever they wanted. Sex, violence, nudity, language, whatever they wanted it was theirs for the taking. "Grindhouse" brings back those glory days. The film never takes it self to seriously, but yet if it did then it wouldn't be much of a tribute. "Grindhouse" features not one but two movies. These two "fun films" are also filled in with fake trailers made by some of the same cast and crew. The two films are "Planet Terror", Rodriguez, and "Death Proof", Tarantino.

First off is "Death Proof", Tarantino's tribute to the old B-movie stalker flicks is not necessarily bad, but its not great either. Rather than having women get chased through a forest, they actually get offed, off, by the mysterious "Stuntman Mike", played by Kurt Russel. The first group of unsuspecting victimes are three gals enjoying a fun filled weekend. These three unsuspecting victims are Arlene(Vanessa Ferlito), Shanna(Jordan Ladd) and "Jungle" Julia(Sydney Tamiia Poitier). While on their way to the bar, Arlene notices a black 1970 Chevy Nova following them around, this of course is Russel. After a night of parting, the girls are driving off when they get into a collision with Suntman Mike, who crashed into them on purpose, and they all die. Earlier before we got a glimpse of Rose McGowan, looking as wonderful as ever, in a very very blonde wig. She also happens to be Mike's first victim of the night.

A year later, Mike has moved from Texas to Tennesee and spots his next group of gals, only this time hes not so lucky. The film climaxes with an excellent car chase reminsecent of the old 70's and a little mix of "Bullit". The chase ends with Mike getting beat by the lucky ladies. Now its not that the movie isn't entertaining, it is like every other Tarantino flick, its just as captivating as the others. He definetly nails down the whole B-movie ideal down very well, better than his partner in crime Rodriguez. But film is more talky talky than action action. Granted its all Tarantino dialouge, but it still isn't as engrossing as his previous films. The acting was top notch by all of these lovely ladies, and Tarantino once again shows off his love for the ladies. And their feet.

The second feature in this double flick is "Planet Terror", directed by Rodriguez, "Terror" is more captivating, and a bit more entertaining than his fellow directors. The story revolves around stripper "Cherry Darling"(Rose McGowan) who gets caught in the middle of a government facility which is being over run by zombies. All after Bruce Willis shots up a tank of radioactive material. This film is complete opposite of "Death Proof". More action and less talking, but what "Planet Terror" lacks in is its characters. "Death Proof"'s are far more believable and like able than "Terror"'s.

The real shining factor of this film are the little fake trailers than are shown throught. Well made trailers which capture the real essence of the 70's B-Movies. The essential highlight of them all would be "Machete" which stars Danny Trejo as a hired gun who is left for dead and comes back for the people who betrayed him. The film is pure B-movie style, and with Cheech Marin as a pastor with a shotgun, this just might be next summer's blockbuster.

"Grindhouse" is a well made film, the only problem is that the little movies within in it are better separate rather than being in a whole. The fake trailers capture the true essence of the 70's. With their over the top storylines, they could just be the blockbusters of coming years. Tarantino and Rodriguez both show of their love for films of exploitation the only downside would be that the film feels like a bit too much to absorb all at once. But it still is an entertaining action/thriller that doesn't take itsself too seriously. When was the last time you saw a drama starring a chick with a machine gun for a leg. Grade: Death Proof: B-, Planet Terror: B

Director Spotlight: Quentin Tarantino

2009-09-16T20:27:00.000-07:00

"Kill Bill Vol. 2"
by: Paolo Sardinas

"Vol. 1" was fun and original. That usually what Tarantino's movies aim for. That's their target, to be as fun as possible, and they always hit that bulls-eye. The first volume in the "Kill Bill" films, was not perfect but was still enjoyable, fun, entertaining, and just an all around great film to watch. Now imagine "Vol. 2" having the same fun energy, and double it. Uma Thurman returns in her role. Yes it is HER role. As "The Bride", the woman who was massacred on her wedding day and lost her child. So she thought. She actually wasn't killed but still ended up in a coma, when she awoke, three years later, she began her search for Bill. Her former "boss". In the first flick she to kill two of the members of the "Deadly Viper Squad". Now she only has three more to go.

Daryl Hannah, Michael Madsen, and of course David Carradine are the remaining, and they are about to get hell. The film continues off right where we last left off, with that same familiar scene of Uma Thurman being shot in the head. It explains the wedding day, how Bill found her, and how they all got killed. It then of course comes back to present day as Thurman is driving her car, in a very classy, sexy, and very cool way, reminiscent of Film Noir, and talking about how Bill is the last one left. Of course it shows how the other two got killed but thats not even the fun part. The fun part is watching her and Gordon Liu go at it. A scene reminiscent of Luke and Yoda in the second Star Wars.

The acting, as always, is pitch perfect and "Vol. 2" benefits from having more of that classy Tarantino dialogue, a bit much at times, but none the less great. Uma Thurman once again takes control of practically the entire film and never lets go of it. Her role as "The Bride" is hers and only hers. She owns it and owns us every time we pop it into our DVD players. The rest of the cast is excellent as well, expecially Carradine, who gets more screen time than before. He's able to show off his skills a bit more in this film than he was in the first he was mostly a shadow hiding in the dark.

This movie also features those same great movie references which made the first one so memorable. This one features those same combinations of Spaghetti Westerns and anything Japanese. But "Vol. 2" seems more like the modern Kung Fu movie. While still violent and fun, it gives a sort of a newer feeling and is more of an original film, while also being a homage to the ones of the past. "Vol. 2" manages to be double the fun, double the talk, and just double the greatness than the first. The movie never lets you go, always keeps you entertained and intersting. Even at the end when she gets her daughter, and is actually happy for once. You still love her and shes still the bad ass. Cause you know after a long and tiring journey, which spanned all across the globe. You know that she finally got what she wanted. She "Killed Bill". Grade: A-

Director Spotlight: Quentin Tarantino

2009-09-16T19:54:00.000-07:00

"Kill Bill Vol. 1"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Kung Fu films. Everybody knows them, everyone loves them. They're fun, entertaining, corny, cheesy, and the audio doesn't match. But hey, who cares? These movies are something that action movies lately have failed to do. They usually sacrifice good stories for mindless action. Kung Fu movies find a way to combine both, and you know what.. it works. Sadly not only are they not made as much anymore, they will probably never be as great. But then the movie gods gave us a nice little surprise. "Kill Bill Vol 1" is everything and more of what a Kung Fu movie is. It manages to be both thrilling but doesn't sacrifice a good story. Of course a movie of this magnitude can only be made by.. Quentin Tarantino.

The story revolves around a woman, well actually she used to be an assassin working for the late great David Carradine, but more on that later, who, on her wedding day, gets a hell of a surprise. It turns out the past she though she left behind acutally wasn't all that much in the past. Her old team have come back to deliever a nice heaping plate of revenge and massacre her friends. They even shot that black fellow who plays the piano. Now of course thinking that she was dead, they all go their separate ways and 3 years later she wakes up. It turns out she wasn't dead but actually in a coma. The film now shifts focuse over to her bloody rampage as she finds the ones who betrayed her and of course, "Kill Bill".

She is played by the beautiful Uma Thurman. Her real name is Bea, but we don't find that out till "Vol 2". Bill is her ex lover and hes the one who shot her in the head and managed to put her in a coma. Now it would be a stretch to say that the acting was the best ever, but it was pretty damn good. Thurman of course steals with her enthralling and entertaining performance. Late, great David Carradine also steals the show as Bill. Sucks to be Bill. The rest of the supporting cast, which also makes up her old team the "Deadly Viper Squad" consists of actors who bring on their "A game". Including Vivica A Fox, Lucy Liu, Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen. Of course they all deliver spectacular performances.

All throught the movie there are various references to various movies. The "Shaw Scope" logo at the beginning, the film also incorporates many different elements of those old Kung Fu movies along with a bit of Spaghetti Westerns, and exploitation films. The main exploitation here is of course violence. The fight at the end between "The Bride" and "The Crazy 88" is absolutely mesmerizing. Truly an original scene.

As you can tell Taranino's homage to Kung Fu and Revenge films is a complete and total success. Filled with numerous film references, terrific acting, a script that never runs dry, and of course violence. That good old violence first associated with Tarantino flicks back with "Reservoir Dogs". The keeps you waiting in anticipation as to whats going to happen next. Because you can never get enough Kung Fu action. Relentless and entertaining "Vol 1" is almost a perfect film. Although it isn't perfect its almost there. But that yellow jumpsuit could never look better on anyone else. Grade: B+

Director Spotlight: Quentin Tarantino

2009-09-16T19:35:00.000-07:00

"Jackie Brown"
by: Paolo Sardinas

The 70's were filled with fun, excitement, and uncertainty. Uncertainty of the world that seemed like it was always changing. Of course whenever times are good, bad, or just plain fun, there are always excellent movies that are made. The 70's were filled with them. One of the most iconic films of the 70's was "Shaft". The classic film is often considered as the pinnacle of "Blaxploitation" and an icon. "Jackie Brown", Tarantino's third flick, attempts to bring back the style and class of the good old days. And yes, it does succeed.

The story/script are filled with tons of great dialogue, as always, the story follows more than one character, another trademark of Tarantino's. The film is set in Los Angeles and follows Mexican air flight stewardess Jackie Brown(Pam Grier) who is able to smuggle money in and out of the country for her "friend" Ordell Robbie(Samuel L Jackson). Ordell is an arms dealer. When Jackie is caught with $50,000 and a bag of cocaine, she devises a plan to not only get Ordell arrested and charged, but to walk off. With the money. Along the way we meet an array of characters including Ordell's friend Luis Gara, and ex con, also we meet one of Ordell's girlfriends Melanie(Bridget Fonda). Robert Forster also jumps in as bail-bondsman Max Cherry, the guy who gets Jackie out of a night in prison and eventually develops an attraction to her. The story plays out great, even when they do the money exchange and it gets all confusing, it still is a joy to watch.

The performances are an absolute thrill to watch. Samuel L Jackson gives a pitch perfect performance, a man with a fondness of using the "N-word" on a regular basis. Pam Grier also shines in her role as the titular character. With this performance she was able to actually re-create her career, and since then hasn't done squat. Both Robert Forster and Robert De Niro turn in some excellent performances, not to mention it's probably the last time De Niro actually tried to act. OR at least looked like it. Bridget Fonda, inheriting her father's skills, also does a great job as the sexy yet somewhat annoying "blonde surfer girl".

Overall, Tarantino's third flick is a fun movie to watch. Perfect for those weekends when you don't have much to do, but still need something to do. The film is both fun, inventive, and original. Even though the drop off might take a few viewings to actually understand what the hell just happened, the movie is nonetheless captivating. A job well done by its director and actors. Working his movie magic Tarantinos crafted one of his better films to date, a perfect homage to the 70's, or in other words.."Groovy." Grade: A-

Director Spotlight: Quentin Tarantino

2009-09-16T16:08:00.000-07:00

"Pulp Fiction"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Tarantino did it again. Not only was he the indie talk of the town with "Reservoir Dogs", he was quickly becoming an A-lister and with "Pulp Fiction", he became more than just the talk of the town. He became God. His magnum opus was released back in 1994, and won the Palm De Or awards at Le Festival de Cannes. Yes that is a big deal. On the outside it doesn't seem more than some cooky action film filled with tons of stars. On the inside come the big surprise, an explosion of pop art bliss, damn good acting, and Uma Thurman. the film rich with dialouge, it has plenty of good old action, a bit a of good old comedy, and basically just a bit of everything.

The plot revolves around three central stories: the two hitmen (Travolta as Vincent & Samuel L as Jules) who work for "big man" Ving Rhames. The main focus of that part is the date between Vince and Mia(Uma Thurman), Rhames's wife. The boxer and his French wife, who was supposed to throw a fight but didn't, and the two robbers who decide to rob a diner. Of course this is where Tarantino decided to experminet with a non linear storyline. Of cource "Pulp Fiction" is one of the few movies were it actually works. The script is not only rich with plenty of pop culture references its actually able to mix together, a healthy blend, of both humor and violence. Not that killing people is funny, but here its got that sort of dark/comedic/ironic twist to it.

The acting could never of been better. Filled with A list actors who were at the top of their game. John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson star as the two hit men. Travolta gives a very intersting performance which was also what made him a star again, and Samuel L Jackson always looks great when belting out foul mouthly bantering at people. Don't forget he is the shepered. Also here we got Bruce Willis as the boxer. One of the more interesting characters of the film, who decides to go back to his apartment -while running from the mob- all to get his grandfather's watch. As explained by the great Christopher Walken, its been traveling for awhile. Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer also star as the two diner robbers, "Pumpkin" and "Honey Bunny", a throw-back to "True Romance", also written by Tarantino. The whole cast is just plain amazing, along with the performances of these fine actors we also have Harvey Keitel as Mr.Wolf. The man who came along to help out Vince and Jules when they "accidentally" blow out a guys brains. In their car.

Uma Thurman is the fellow show stealer here, playing Ving Rhames's wife Mia. The one who Travolta takes out on a date. Also infamously known for here scene in the film in which he OD's on Travolta's drug dealer's carpet. She delievers a fierce and fine performance and whether shes dancing to Chuck Berry or Urge Overkill she always looks her best.

"Pulp Fiction", at first, may seem a bit confusing. With its nonlinear storyline and quirky dialogue its simply a work of art. Nothing more than pure greatness. It was the movie that started Travolta's career and help revitalize Travolta's. Simply "Pulp Fiction" can always be described as fine wine. And yes Ving it does get better with time. Boy o boy does it get better. Grade: A

Director Spotlight: Quentin Tarantino

2009-09-16T15:25:00.000-07:00

"Reservoir Dogs"
by: Paolo Sardinas

"Lookin' back on the track for a little green bag, got to find just the kind or I'm losin' my mind." Those are the words that started that unforgettable scene of seven men walking across the parking lot in black and white suits. The movie is "Reservoir Dogs", which is just as unforgettable and classic as that scene is still today. The first film by ex video store clerk Quentin Tarantino, is not only a riveting heist movies, its just plain fun.

The story shows the before and after of a jewel heist gone bad. But what so ingenious about this film is that you never actually see the heist. Tarantino leaves it all entirely up to you and your imagination. Now to play and incredible group of robbers you need an incredible group of actors. These just your every day actors, these are some of the finest men that have ever worked in Hollywood. Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, and Steve Buscemi lead an all star cast. The robber's names are all a mystery, to each other they're just five strangers in a room, stealing diamonds. Naturally, as to not reveal names, they get assigned "nicknames", sort of. Named after colors (nice little movie reference to the original Pelham 123), these four men embark on their journey and we never anything of what happened, but we still gotta piece it all together.

Words can't described how well these actors portrayed their characters, in fact lets look at them all:

Mr. White/Harvey Keitel: Keitel is, without a doubt, the pinnacle of cool. After their little heist goes bad, he sort of becomes the leader. Him and everyone else trying to figure out what the hell just happened. Keitel delievers a first rate performance, as always, and of course Tarantino would later work with him againin "Pulp Fiction.

Mr. Orange/Tim Roth: Every criminal gang always has a rat. It's natural, it's almost become a way of life. Roth is that rat. He plays the cop who goes undercover and eventually gets shot. Although most of his performance involves him being drenched in his own blood, he nonetheless give a rather amazing performance.

Mr. Pink/Steve Buscemi: Pink also happens to be the only who survived, possibly. His fate is never really known, but thats what makes it all the more enjoyable. Buscemi of course has an excellent performance and aboslutely steals every scene he's in. Constantly reminding the rest of the gang to "act like professionals", he absolutely steals the movie and never stop doing what he does best. Act.
Mr. Blonde/ Michael Madsen: The sociopath of the gang. Madsen plays the ex-con just freshly released from prison, during the robbery he supposedly killed several innocent people. He even tortures a cop buy slashing his face, cutting off his ear, and drenching him in gasoline. Of course only Madsen can play a sadistic maniac and still make it interesting to watch.

Quentin Tarantino also makes an appearance as Mr. Brown. Even he was only around for awhile, it was still great to watch him talk about the true meaning of "Like a Virgin". Of course Tarantino's acting was superb as well. He was able to make a heist movie which doesn't bore you with unnesecary car chases or action shootouts. It simply has a great cast of actors which also allows the actors to do what they do best... act. Grade: A

Director Spotlight: Francis Ford Coppola

2009-09-15T17:04:00.000-07:00

"The Godfather"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Francis Ford Coppola's 1972 epic, about the crime underworld in New York City is an exceptionaly well made film, about power and those who both want and need it. "The Godfather" still remains, to this very day, just as riveting as it was when it was first released back in 1972. This classic tale about Vito Corleone, head of the Corleone crime family and his son Michael. Both actors are played by Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. Set in the heart of New York, when Vito is shot and almost killed, Michael takes over, but only after his older brother Sonny(James Cann) is brutally killed. Story moves on with Michael being married (twice), the whole crime world going into chaos, and a story so plain on the outside, yet so complex on the inside, that remains just as entertaining today.

Led by a superb cast of actors with Marlon Brando starring in the role of Vito. He not only plays the wise old Mafia man, he practically plays a king. A king was able to not let the power get to his head, while he competitors attempted to force it into his head. Brando gives the best performance of his career. After watching his performance in "The Godfather", you not only believe that Brando deserved that Oscar, which he did win, it was practically his birth right. Starring in the role of his son, Michael, is a very young Al Pacino. Giving the performance which practically made him into the star he is today. Playing the son of a Mob boss is not easy but Pacino makes it seem that way with his riveting performance. He would return twice more in the same role in parts "II" & "III".

The rest of the cast includes Diane Keaton as Michael's wife and mother of his children, John Cazale as one of Michael's brothers, Fedo. The man who would later try to kill Michael is one of the most believable characters ever created, but of course he was played by such a believable guy. Also starring in this film is James Caan as the oldest of the brothers Sonny, the tough headed and ruthless brother who is shot down and massacred by the rival mob. Robert Duvall also turns in a A+ performance as the adopted step-brother Tom Hagen. It's hard to say that one actor is better than the other, simply because there are no actors, there are only characters. These "actors" were able to truly becom the characters they were portraying, and that is something to admire.

Based off of the novel by write Mario Puzo, as are the next two films, the movie is actually better than the source material. The novel is actually one big crime mystery, not as intriguing as the film. But the somehow the movie just ends up being better. A rariety, especially now when just about everything is based off of some previous material. Whether it be a book or whatnot, they're never able to be quite as good as the original material. This movie is. The Godfather was also able to spawn something that was never, and still isn't, possible to this date... a great sequel. It was actually able to make sequel that was just as creative and indulging as the original, without boring you out or just not being interesting. It's amazing.

"The Godfather" is and always will be considered as the greatest movie of all time. Its a given, nothing that has ever been released can even measure up to the standards set by this film and its successor. Nothing so far has equaled it, and nothing ever will. This film is a one of a kind, something that can't be duplicated. Ever. Between its amazing story, incredible acting and direction, it's hard to pin point exactly where or why "The Godfather" is simplye put as a one of a kind. It's simply an offer you can't ever refuse. Grade: A

Director Spotlight: Francis Ford Coppola

2009-09-15T16:46:00.000-07:00

"The Godfather Part II"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Just about everyone from the original 1972 classic returns to continue the story of Michael's rise to power, the story takes place seven years after the first. Cuba, Vegas, and Miami are all becoming hotspots for tourists, money, and crime. Michael is enjoying his life, the life of a criminal, in his beautiful estate in Lake Tahoe. Michael puts his half brother Tom Hagen(Robert Duvall) in charge while leaving to make business and to let things calm down before returning. He also just survived an assassination attempt by his brother, Fredo. What continues on are the up's & down's of living the Mob life, and world as it changes from one day to next. Just about all of the original cast returns for the second part in the series.

A story parallel to this is that of Michael's father Vito Corleone and his rise to power during the early 1900's. Vito, originally played by the amazingly well talented Marlon Brando, is played by a young Robert De Niro. Both of the main characters, Vito & Michael, Father & Son, are parallel and similair it's like looking in a mirror. They both share the same blind ambition, but are both flawed. While Michael shares many of the same attributes of his father, he also happens to share the same flaws. This can only be done by three amazing actors, who not only created the series, but were also part of a long list of actors who created movies.

The cast is just as flawless and perfect as before. John Cazale returns as the troubled brother Fredo. The older brother, that's still alive, who is also jealous of his brother's recent rise to fame and power. Also returning is the always stunning Diane Keaton, playing the wife who struggles to live the normal life with her two kids. The film is filled with tons of excellent performances all from an excellent group of actors who are not only talented but just plain no what they're doing. One of the other acting highlights of the film is Robert Duvall who returns to his role of Tom Hagen. The half brother who was always considered part of the family but really isn't. His performance is commanding and just plain great.

Francis Ford Coppola returns, of course, to direct the second feature. His direction was spot on and you could tell they took more time with this installment than they did with their third film. Ford Coppola is an amazing director, one of the best. Only he could of made this film and the first what it is today. No other American director can even be imagined to direct these two films. No oneelse has the mind of Francis Ford Coppola. It's only a shame he would wait another 16 years to direct the third.

"Part II" is filled with allot of history. An excellent representation of the world at the time and the way it was always changing. The scenery couldn't of gotten any more beautiful. From Havana, Cuba to Miami, even New York. The film is always something that movies aren't today, entertaining. Not only was it double everything(story, actors, settings), it also won double the Oscars of the first one. "Part II" is and will never cease to be the greatest sequel of all time. It shows us how far people will go to acheive the ambitions, their dreams, and their quest for power. That ladies and gentleman, that is the true American Dream. Grade: A

Director Spotlight: Francis Ford Coppola

2009-09-15T16:44:00.000-07:00

"The Godfather Part III"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Francis Ford Coppola's third and final installment in the "Godfather" trilogy is also the weakest. "Part III" picks up with Michael feeling remorseful over his blind ambition and years of self indulgence in crime. At this time Michael is 60 and has abandoned his estate in Lake Tahoe, along with that his brother Tom Hagen(Robert Duvall) has died. In an attempt to make amends on his life of crime, Michael creates a charity in name of his father, Vito Corleone. Which provides money for a better Sicily. The film itself was released 16 years after the second, and at times feels just plain weak. The film rolls on with Michael eventually being pulled back into the life of crime, and dies. Alone and in silence.

When you make a film as significant as "Godfather: Part II" you can't expect to revive the series almost two decades later and still have people like it. This is what Coppola tried to do but ultimately failed. As interesting as the characters and stories may seem to be, it's almost exactly what you'd expect and the film almost never offers up any good surprises. After few years of hits and misses, Al Pacino obviously returned to the role which made him famous. Only this time he doesn't give an A plus performance, but was rather weak and uninterested. Granted he didn't have much to work with. I always felt that he deserved the Oscar for his previous two performances, a mistake which did nothing but make the academy look like idiots. A fine actor who was given the award for a ridiculous film, and was always ignored for his better ones. What a crazy world we live in

The rest of the performances were so-so with the exception of two actors, Andy Garcia and Sophia Coppola. One great, one awful. I think you know which is which. Let's start with Gracia. Andy Garcia gives a bonified and riveting performance as Vincent Mancini, the child of Sonny Corleone and Luci Mancini. Never really considered part of the family, hence a different last name, he absolutely steals the show. He was the most deserving out of all the nominees to win that Supporting Actor Oscar, but sadly lost. The second one to talk about is Sofia Coppola, who plays Michael's daughter Mary. She was the only true miscast in the entire film. As bad as it was to watch her performance, I have to say it ultimately was nothing more than a time waster, and the role should of gone to Winona Ryder. Like originally planned.

The script, as underdeveloped as it was, does nothing to help the actors. It only takes these incredible talents, and makes them suffer. Sure the film offers some good moments here and there but its ultimately does nothing more than to waste time. A big big time waster. The at times confusing storyline jumps in and out, and introduces characters from all over the place. Never stays on one clear cut path and usually loses your attention. Whether it was rushed, sloppy, or just plain bad we'll never know. Only is the film was as good or somewhat as good as its predecessor would we have been more satisfied. Who knows? Nobody really knows, but what has happened has happened. A series which should of ended with second installment, can be summed up with one quote. "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.", sadly it didn't pull us in enough. Grade: C

9 review

2009-09-09T20:24:00.000-07:00

"9"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Between the dwindling economy and shortage of money, everyone is in a pretty fowl mood. So of course you would thing the last thing anyone would want to see are movies about the end of the world. Wrong. It seems that lately flicks like the "Terminator" series, are flourishing. Even later this year, despite all the rumors about the world ending in the year 2012, they're still releasing a movie called, "2012". Yup, you guessed it, its about the end of the world. So of course its only natural that this subject matter would translate into a childrens movie. And thats exactly what "9" is.

"9" centers around the story of a group of rag-dolls, a.k.a the "Stitchpunks", who come out to save the world, after its already ended. Kinda late. Now as dark and familiar as the film's premise is, it still manages to create something that is somewhat original. The story is both dark and lively, it quickly grasps your attention from the beginning and it never really lets go. Even though at times it feels like we've seen this a hundred times before, or even in a younger child's "Bionicle" comic. Based off of a short film, created by Shane Acker, and produced by none other than Tim Burton. Who once again reminds us all of how much he enjoys weird stuff.

Now a place that is sometimes, sadly, overlooked when "dissecting" an animated film, is the acting. "9" features a superb cast lead by the "Hobbit' himself, Elijah Wood. It seems he has a real knack for playing the "chosen one". The supporting cast is absolutely fascinating. Jennifer Connelly, John C Reiley, Cripsin Glover, and Christopher Plummer, all help to bring these very creative and joyous creatures/characters to life. Although not perfect, I might add, you still have to admit they did a job well done. I mean after all they are playing potato sacks. I especially enjoyed Plummer's performance as 1. The older and self proclaimed leader of the "punks", who is both sly and clever, but also slow and quick tempered. An excellent performance by an excellent actor.

But the main thing which always attracts the crowd is, of course, the animation, which in "9" is nothing short of spectacular. Creating a whole new world, which is just covered in ruble, debris, and destruction. Very similar to that of last year's hit, "Wall E". Of course you would need an excellent team of computer artists to bring of bunch voodoo dolls to life and make them feel as real as you and I. The "Creatures", yes that is plural, C-R-E-A-T-U-R-E-S, look absolutely marvelous, frightening, and amazing. Enough to scare any youngling and even some adults. But if you're an adult who got scared by them, than you need to see someone.

Despite the fact that its a cartoon, "9" is nothing less of pure frightening. After all it was slapped with a giant PG-13 rating. This is one animated film you might want to leave the kids at home with. Unlike "Wall E", which tends to sometimes drag a bit on its message of a "cleaner earth", this film doesn't drag. Ever. It's constantly moving at a fast pace. Always entertaining. This might, at times, even give your "young ones" some nightmares, especially those "Creatures".

All in all, "9" is a well made film. Always entertaining and never ends with the creativity. As familiar as the premise is, it still manages to thrill some, while ravishing others. The visuals are amazing and couldn't of been any better. But hey what do you expect? They're all playing a bunch of potato sacks. "9" might be looked down on by critics, but it all comes down to a matter of taste. Per say. Grade: B+

Big Fan Review

2009-09-09T15:56:00.000-07:00

"Big Fan"
by: Paolo Sardinas

You've seen them just about everywhere. Whether it be at you local football or basketball game. High school or college. Little League or Pros. You've seen them at one place or another. Who are they? The fans. The guys who thro on their favorite jersey, filled with hot dog/pretzel stains. The makeup, wigs, words written on guys, one letter per. The fans are always at the top of their game, even if the players aren't. "Big Fan", the latest from comedian Pat Oswalt, is a look at those "fans", and how our obsession with athletes has driven us to the deep end.

The story follows parking garage attendant, Paul Afiero(Oswalt). A man who not only lives in Staten Island, New York, he lives with his mother in Staten Island, New York. Paul just so happens to be a big fan of the Giants. And I mean BIG! Whose favorite "passtimes" include going to the stadium and watching games on a TV, in the parking lot, while being accompanied by his good friend, Sal(Kevin Corrigan). On top of all this he also enjoys phoning in on the local sorts talk show hot, "Sport Dogg", and ranting about how much the Philadelphia Eagles suck. Often ranting against Eagles fan, "Philadelphia Phil".

One day Paul and Sal(hey that rhymes) spot the Giant's star player, Quantrell Bishop(John Hamm), and his "posse" in Staten Island and kinda follow him around. When Quantrell finally meets them inside of a strip club, and finds out they have been following him the whole day, Quantrell doesn't like that. So he does what any reasonable man would do.. he beats the living hell out of Paul.

After the incident, Bishop is fired, Paul is released from the hospital, Paul is pressured into suing Bishop for millions. Now after I ruined about half of the film, I might as well give you a little taste of whats come. Paul manages to befriend Eagles fan "Philadelphia Phil", and after cornering him in the bathroom, shoots him. Don't worry its with paint-balls, red and blue paint-balls. After being beaten and humilated by his hero, Paul continues to be a fan. It turns out the beating actually strengthened his liking in Bishop. OOPS! Well there goes the ending.

The acting is superb. Oswalt plays the best role of his career as this over crazed fan, an example of how crazed we are over just one sport. You never realize how obsessive you are over your favorite team, until it smacks you in the face. The supporting actors also prove their time in the spotlight to be worthwhile. The script, written by Robert Siegel(The Wrestler), is also his directing debut. And may I say a job well done Mr. Siegel. Job Well Done!

Not only is "Big Fan' one of the more funnier comedies of the year, its also just one of the best films of the year. The performances are excellent, the writing/directing is excellent. Everything about "Big Fan", from its first trailer to its geekish "Taxi Driver"ish ending, "Big Fan" is a big win. A complete and utterly captivating movie. If only those fans at the football games were as funny. Oh wait they kinda are.

"Big Fan", is a very funny and at times kinda dark, look at how much we've strived to do one thing and one thing only, root for the team. It almost looks us in the face and laughs. Laughs at not only our rabid obsession, but the obsession of the world. And that is just plain sad. Grade: A

Extract Review

2009-09-08T17:44:00.000-07:00

"Extract"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Over the past few years, Mike Judge has become one of the funniest men in Hollywood. His cartoon characters, Beavis and Butt Head, defined stupid. "Office Space" defined what it means for a comedy to be a cult classic. Even "Idiocracy" was a somewhat joyous and abit underrated. Thats why it saddens me to say that "Extract", his latest comedy, is shockingly his worst.

The story revolves, REVOLVES, around Joel. The owner of a food flavor extracting factory, and follows him as he deals with his boredom, workplace problems and his personal problems. His wife, Suzie(Kristen Wigg), is absolutely obsessed with reality TV. So if Joel doesn't make it home before shes tugs those sweatpant ties, he basically "gets none". Joel, as expected, turns to the aid of his best friend, Dean(Ben Affleck). What follows is a somewhat comedy about how life can suck.

Compared to Judge's previous films, the performances in this one fell a bit flat. Bateman, playing the stories main protagonist, gives a flat and boring performance for a character whose having a mid life crisis.. times two. Mila Kunis, a newly arrived con woman who begins to work at the bottling line, also gives a weak performance. The movies this character driven you need characters, which is what "Extract" fails in. The only good or decent performance in the whole film, is that of Ben Affleck. He does well playing a bartender who basically does nothing. The slacker of the slackers. Out of the whole cast, Affleck is the one who has some fun.

The script, boring at times and just plain original at others, manages to deliver a few clever moments, but nothing that really WOWS you. The whole way it develops and plays out, could've been thought out a bit more. At times you can't help but feel that Judge focused a bit more on trying to recreate the fame and status he established with "Office Space", rather than truly creating something unique and fresh.

As over the top as it is, Wigg falling for a moronic gigolo is a good example, it still is able to prove, at times, that a comedy can be as ridiculous as it can be and still be somewhat entertaining. "Extract" still manages to kind of captivate the viewer, while not taking itself to seriously. The script is both over and under developed, and I think both Beavis & Butt Head can sum up that cast's acting. "These guys are cool - for a bunch of mimes." Grade: C

Gamer Review

2009-09-08T16:18:00.000-07:00

"Gamer"
by: Paolo Sardinas

Remember two years ago, when we first got a glimpse at the power and intensity raging inside of Gerrard Butler. Sure you do. That movie was 300, the already cult classic, released about two years ago shined not only visually, but it also shined Butler. Since then, Gerrard's movies have gone from, "RAWR!" to "WHAH!".

"Gamer", the latest from the creators of "Crank 1&2", is not necessarily terrible, but it is pretty bad. Based in the year 2034, mind control is all the rage, and a brand new game is taking the world by storm(I guess things haven't changed that much). The game, called "Slayers", allows the player to control death row prisoners in grand scale death matches. Think of Death Race, minus the cars and add in raves. Any prisoner who can live threw 30 games gets to go free. Doesn't sound so bad. Simon(Logan Lerman) controls Kable(Butler), the Mr.Olympia of death row prisoners. What ensues is explosions, adrenaline(lots of it), and more explosions.

Now its not that the whole premise to "Gamer" is a bad one. Its just to drunk, and overdosed on adrenaline, that you end up caring more about the explosions and lesbian make out scenes, than really the characters themselves. The performances throught the film aren't terrible but they're not good either. Gerard Butler gives another second rate performance. His other failures were the romantic comedies, "P.S. I Love You", and "The Ugly Truth", which was, well, ugly. Kyra Sedgwick plays the future Oprah. Her performance, very similar to that of Joan Allen's in Death Race, is abit second rate as well. A surprise coming from the star of "Cable's #1 show!"

The only truly entertaining performance was that of Michael C Hall. A terrific actor, who can not only tackle many different roles, but can just act in general. "Gamer" is filled with a boat load of unnecessary things. The main one is actor/rapper Ludacris, who not only kills the movie, he pretty much shoots it in the head. The visuals as well made as they were still could've been abit better.

The film not only plays like something we've seen millions of times before, it also brings nothing new to the table. The story, as original and clever as it may be, gets lost amongst all of the other "adrenaline-fueled action". Butler will eventually turn into an action star. As unpredictable as that may be, its still the truth. A shame in his case. All in all, "Gamer" wasn't a bad idea it was just executed poorily. Instead of actually entertaining you after you left the theater, it instead established something else that was already known, men love boob shots. Grade: D

Summer of 2009

2009-09-05T20:31:00.000-07:00

Well this is it. The big summer filled with, robots, mutants, more robots, and drunks turned out be one of the worst ones we've ever had. But hell, at least it made money.... right? Well heres a look back at the best and the worst of the past summer.

The Best:

The Hurt Locker (A)
Inglourious Basterds (A-)
The Hangover (A-)
Up**(A-)
Harry-Potter and the Half Blood Prince(A-)
District 9 (B+)
(500) Days of Summer** (B+)
World's Greatest Dad*(B+)
Public Enemies (B)

The Worst:

The Taking of Pelham 123(C+)
Angels & Demons(C+)
X Men Origins: Wolverine(C-)
Terminator Salvation(D)
Bruno(D)
Funny People**(D)
The Goods: Live Hard Sell Hard(D)
The Proposal**(F)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen(F)
GI Joe: Rise of Cobra(F)
Land of the Lost** (F)

(*Review not up yet)
(**Review was never posted)

Also here's a shout out to the ones we lost.

David Carradine(1936-2009)
Michael Jackson(1958-2009)
Farrah Fawcet(1947-2009)
Billy Mays(1958-2009)
Walter Cronkite(1916-2009)
Edward "Ted" Kennedy(1962-2009)
Adam Goldstein "DJ AM"(1973-2009)

NEW Title of Blog!

2009-09-04T15:52:00.000-07:00

Editor's Letter
by: Paolo Sardinas

Hi, I just wanted to let everyone know that starting today, "Cinema Talk" will no longer be called "Cinema Talk" but rather, "Bada Bing: Movie Reviews & News". Thank you all to those who have been supportive of this blog and who continue to read it. Please recommend it to those you know. I would gladly appreciate it!

Thank You!

Just finished reviews for all four James Bond Box Sets and also two new reviews for Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

Coming Soon: Reviews for the following films:

Extract
Big Fan (maybe)
Gamer
All About Steve (maybe)

Boondock Saints 2 Red Band Trailer

2009-09-04T15:51:00.001-07:00

Quantum of Solace 2 Disc Review

2009-09-04T14:36:00.000-07:00

"Quantum of Solace"
by: Paolo Sardinas

After "Casino Royale" ended and he credits rolled, you were left feeling like, "Whats next?", "What else do they have to offer?". Well this was it. This is what they had to offer.. "Quantum of Solace" is not necessarily a bad movie, in fact I'd rank it somewhere in the middle between the Connery classics, and the worst of Moore and Brosnan. But it just doesn't offer us what all of the previous films did. Bond.

"Quantum of Solace", the craziest title to give a Bond flick, actually gives you a sense of Deja Vu. The whole movie gives off this sort of Bourne persona. It never really is its own movie, but rather a copy-cat of another. The story is what, in all essence, killed the movie. Sure it starts great but it quickly turns pretty pointless and stupid.

Directed by Marc Forster, "The Kite Runner" and "Finding Neverland, focuses more on the little details. Which there is nothing wrong with that, details are important, but the ones that he focuses on are abit pointless and too small to really care about. Throught the whole film you can tell where and what they cut. Thats why we were given a 90min running time. After the main credits we get the interrogation scence between Bond and Mr. White. Throught the whole conversation, Forster cuts back and forth between it and a race happening outside. I could frankly care less about whats going on outside.

The acting is not bad but it could of definitely been better. Once again Daniel Craig steals the show as the, internally, tormented and complex secret agent. Working the best that he can with the given material, he gives one of the better performances in the franchise's history. We once again return with two Bond girls, Gemma Arterton( Agent Fields) and Olga Kurylenko(Cammile Montes). Both of which deliver fairly decent performances. Even though I prefer Arterton's over Kurylenko's. Judi Dench once again returns as M. Once again giving a short but near perfect performance. But all in all the real show stealer is bad guy Mathieu Almaric(Dominic Greene). Absolutely steals the entire film with his superb acting.

The action sequences were what really saved the movie from being a total mess. Even though they are, once again, mediocre, they still give you that little satisfaction from watching things blow up. The special effects, mainly during the airplane scene, were pretty bad. Although very reminescent of the scene from "Moonraker", they still have differences between them. Mainly cause the one from "Moonraker" didn't use effects. They just jumped out of a plane. Another down side were the locations. Most of them were good choices, especially Haiti. But the worst one of them all was Bolivia. I honestly don't want see Bond in Bolivia. Of all the places to go they choose Bolivia. And on top of that they build a mysterious hotel in the middle of the Bolivian dessert. Who's genius idea was that?

"Quantum of Solace" is not terrible, its not bad, but its also not good. Its average at best. Even though it strives, mainly through its acting, the film does leave some questions unanswered. Such as the conversations between Bond & Greene and Bond & Vesper's Ex. Another question left unaswered was, "Who chose Alicia Keys & Jack White for the Bond song." The song truly wasn't that bad it just seems like a terrible pairing. C

Casino Royale 3 Disc

2009-09-02T16:07:00.000-07:00

"Casino Royale"
by: Paolo Sardinas

"Casino Royale", the 21st installment in the Jame Bond franchise is completely and utterly, outstanding. Still recovering from the "Brosnan era", "Royale" is a breath of fresh air. Something that says good bye to the jokey antics of the 70's, the outrageous stories from the late 90's and the invisible car. But something it doesn't get rid of is that classic Bond style.

After the Roger Moore films people felt like, OK what else is there. People wanted something new and something fresh. Dalton came and went, although one of the better Bonds. Then Pierce Brosnan came, somebody who seemed destined to play the famed British secret agent. Wrong! Now its not that Brosnan was bad its just his movies, after Goldeneye, were. Then after motorcycle chase scenes, Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist and the invisible car, yes I still bring this up, it seemed like the franchise was dead. Until about four years ago, in 2005, that it seemed there was a light in the tunnel. The announcement of another Bond flick. "What is it about?", "Who will play Bond?" all frequently asked questions which would eventually be answered. And when that first trailer premiered, boy o boy, was it worth the wait.

"Casino Royale" doesn't just reinvent all the things that made Bond well Bond, it also brings in new things. Things we never would've of even imagined. But damn are they great. The movie starts off right when Bond is achieving his "007" status, making a second kill. While conversing with his target, the scene also cuts back and forth to his first kill. A very violent and entertaining brawl in a public restroom. After Bond makes his kill and the main titles roll, we are now taken to Uganda, where a very mysterious Mr. White has set up a meeting with the leader of a guerilla group, seeking a haven for his moneym and a banker who just so happens to deal with terrorists.

After this meeting we catch up again with Bond in Madagascar, which climaxes in the already infamous crane chase/flight sequences between Bond and a know bomb maker. After do a little bit of romance Bond is able to thwart a terrorist bombing in Miami, pissed off M, and shown that he is one hell of a card player. Off course know is the part where Bond recieves his mission, to enter the Texas Holed Em tournament at Casino Royale, in Montenegro, and to compete against none other than that terrorist banker, that I mentioned, Le Chiffre. Bond enters the tournament in hopes that a loss would force Le Chiffre to turn over the the "Brits" and reveal all of his clients. What follows is a very exciting and suspenseful card game, a car chase, a torture (not for the faint of heart), more of Bond's mad card skills, and of course his first love (which he is later betrayed by but lets stick with the positives).

Now what I love so much about this film is the fact that it just doesn't start. It doesn't just give you Bond, after or during sex, and all of a sudden he's got a mission. It doesn't give any time for some development or a story really. In "Casino Royale" it gives you time to relate to the character, time to see what he is really like, and how much of a "cold hearted basterd" (oh sorry post-"Inglourious Basterds" mistake) he really is. But you still love him. You love the fact that he has no super inventions or gadgets to hide behind. All he has is himself and in real life that doesn't always out very much. Were so accustomed to seeing the Bond of the 60's, 70's and even 90's, the one that can get out of every situation and still be as suave as possible. For something like getting your balls beat to be unaffected to him. Well with this Bond its very affecting.

The acting is superb. Daniel Craig makes the perfect Bond since Connery. The reasons for which were mostly all listed in the previous paragraphs. The dark, soulless, but also a bit more human like Bond is something that always a joy to watch. Eva Green as the beautiful Vesper Lynnd is absolutely stunning. Not that I ever questioned her acting before its just that she never did anything that would make you not want to question her acting ability. Judi Dench is pitch perfect as M, who practically steals every seen shes in. But to me the real show stealer is Mads Mikkelson, a Danish actor who was barely known at this time. He is excellent as Le Chiffre, and has formed, in my opinion, another great villain for us all to hate.

Overall, "Casino Royale" is the Bond we've all been waiting for. That light at the end of the tunnel, something fresh & new for our times, and just something well, plain great. And with this first installment in the "Craig Era", you know he has officially earned the right to say, "The names Bond, James Bond." A

Taking Woodstock Review

2009-08-28T15:18:00.000-07:00

"Taking Woodstock"
by: Paolo Sardinas

The latest from director Ang Lee is a movie about the people who started the cultural music festival, Woodstock. Yes, its about the people who started it and not necessarily the "party" itself. And yes this is the same guy who directed Brokeback Mountain.

Ang Lee's films tend to deal with mostly sexual themes, "Brokeback Mountain", about two gays or "homosexual" cowboys, "Ice Storm", practically sex in Conneticut, and "Lust Caution", sex in China. Now there's "Woodstock" which was, to say the least, one big drug induced orgy. But nonetheless it was one thing that this movie isn't, fun.

"Taking Woodstock" centers around the story of young gay interior designer who comes home to help his family's motel, El Monaco, from practically falling apart. Elliot (Dimitri Martin), the gay guy New York, organizes a music/arts festival to help out his folks bring in much needed cash. And that's about it. What follows is really a big mess of confusion, drugs, nudity, Liev Schreiber cross dressed, Martin kissing a construction worker, and mud sliding.

One thing, if I had to choose one thing that killed this movie, it would be the acting. With some terrific supporting actors, Eugen Levy and Liev Schreiber, its the script and storyline that falls through. Demitri Martin could have given a much better performance than what he did. Martin, more commonly known for his "Demitri Martin Show", is pretty flat as far as acting goes. He doesn't really convey the whole personality you would expect from someone who was just organizing one of the biggest festivals in history. Also too that nose doesn't help out much either.

Ang Lee falls a bit flat as well with his directing. He focuses more on the kids than anything else, which is pointless. Hell I would've preferred more scenery than a bunch of kids getting high.

The movie makes the festival look like one big excuse. An excuse for teens to hide behind saying its an art/music festival and really just end up going for the boobs and weed. But if you really think about it, was there much else? C

Five Movies I Want to See..

2009-08-27T16:57:00.000-07:00

1: The Informant (R)

Starring: Matt Damon
Directed by: Steven Soderburgh

2: Nine

Starring: Daniel Day Lewis, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench, Sophia Loren
Directed by: Rob Marshall

Nine - Trailer

3: Sherlock Holmes (PG-13)

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Racheal McAdams
Directed by: Guy Ritchie

4: Avatar

Starring: Sam Washington, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez
Directed by: James Cameron

5: The Lovely Bones

Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Mark Whalberg, Susan Sarandon
Directed by: Peter Jackson