Stranger than Fiction (2006)

Synopsis: "This story is about a man named Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) and his wrist watch." That's the opening line of the film and that's what this film is really about. Harold is an IRS auditor and for those of you who don't know what an auditor is, I will explain it to you, because I didn't know what it was either. An auditor is a person who goes around investigating people who practice tax fraud. They work with numbers and people hate them. But Harold is a lovely person and there is no reason why anyone would hate him. In fact, there would be no reason for anyone to know that he exists at all because of the solitary life he leads. But someone knows him. As a matter of fact, someone knows him very intimately. And that person is the author writing his life as her story. The trick is that he can hear what she's typing and she mentions one day that Harold's death is inevitable. This freaks the hell outta Harold as it would for anyone who was told of their urgent death and goes on an adventure to find how he can stop from dying while learning how to live life along the way. Oh yeah, he falls in love too with the person he's auditing, Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal).

Should You Watch It? This is a quirky little film which is set up like a romantic comedy but it really isn't. It is really like a tragic comedy which is funny because those two genres are on the complete opposite sides of the spectrum but somehow this film does it. On a deeper level, this film talks a lot about living your life and society and even pokes fun at the government. But it does everything with a super light tone which makes it all fun. Even the sad parts are still fun! And who says the IRS is boring?!

Things to Watch Out For: All the nice little graphics that come on screen to show us Harold counting and calculating every small thing he sees. These graphics work nice in their function but it adds a bit of flavour since it's used in the credits and pretty much everywhere in the film where applicable. Emma Thompson's performance as Karen Eiffel is superb as well as she embodies the hermit writer in writer's block in a very stereotypical way but it works like the rest of the fim!


Things You Don't Expect: Just how effective good story telling can be to make you feel for a guy and make you invested in not only the hero but the antagonist as well. It seems to me, that in the beginning of the film, Karen Eiffel is the antagonist and that it was Harold's job to overcome her writing and find a way to live. But as the story progressed, the antagonist became less clear and by the end you're left scratching your head thinking about who the villain of the film is. In fact, everyone is their own villain which is a neat way to portray the theme that sometimes we're our worst own enemy. And the only way to live life to the fullest is to face our own fears about the possibility of failure.

Final Comments:
Story: 8.5 (Zach Helm)
Direction: 7.5 (Marc Forster)
Acting: 8.2
Cinematography: 7.8
Music/Sound: 7.2

Entertainment Value: 8.0

Capote (2005)

Synopsis: Truman Capote (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) is considered the best American author, ever. The reason why he's so famous is because of his famous book, In Cold Blood where he describes the killings of a Kanas family by Perry Smith and Dick Hickock. This film explores the intimate relationship Capote shared with these murderers and how that affected the way he viewed them and ultimately in the way they are portrayed in his book. This is a tale of perception as Capote not only has to deal with society breathing down his neck forcing him to portray these two men like monsters, but from his own personal struggle between writing a great novel, and writing a real novel.

Should You Watch It? I know why this is good. Or I know how why it's critically acclaimed which sometimes doesn't mean that it's very good. This subject matter almost has to be considered "good" cause no one wants to come out and say that this movie sucks because it's talking about some guy who's labeled as the best ever. But I'm going to come out and say it anyways. I didn't like this movie cause it was slow and it's more of a character study than anything else. Which is fine, cause that's what the movie is about but it was just too slow and too much talking for my liking.

Things to Watch Out For: Hoffman is brilliant in this film and he was very well recognized by taking home the Oscar for best male actor in a leading role. Just the fact that he was able to sustain Capote's high pitched voice for that long in that many scenes is a feat in itself. But God! was it ever annoying to listen to. He brings the personality to life and after the end of the film, I really felt like I knew this man on a personal level.

Things You Don't Expect: Catherine Keener is amazing this film as she plays Nelle Harper Lee. She is Capote's friend and colleague and her role is simple as someone Capote explains stuff to. But just the energy she brings on screen, contrasted with Capote's soft nature really works well in showing people the dynamic between not only those two characters but between Capote and the rest of the world.

Final Comments:
Story: 6.5 (Gerald Clark: book, Dan Futterman: screen play)
Direction: 7.0 (Bennett Miller)
Acting: 9.6
Cinematography: 7.2
Music/Sound: 5.5

Final Score: 6.8

American History X (1998)

Synopsis: Daniel Vinyard (Edward Furlong) is a skin head. He's been a skin head for as long as he remembers. The reason why he's a skinhead... his brother Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton). Not only is Derek a skin head, he's the mother of all skin heads. He's smart, he's aggressive, but more importantly he's pissed off at anyone who isn't white. The story begins with Derek being released from prison and Danny, in a similar prison, high school. Danny wrote an essay on Mein Kempf and his principal, Dr. Sweeny, isn't too thrilled about it. As punishment, Danny is assigned to write a new paper on his brother Derek's incarceration and the impact it has on Danny. It's a lot more difficult than what Danny had imagined as he delves back into the depths of his memories to relive how his once happy family has transformed into a neo-Nazi camp and realizing that to get out, someone has to pay with their life.

Should You Watch It? Grim, grim grim. i'm not going to pretend I know anything about neo-Nazism in the United States and it's something I'm glad I'm not actively involved in. I don't know if this film does portray the true events that it's based off of, in a correct manner but it feels real enough and the violence is definitely real, if not exaggerated. This film is not for everyone. The protagonists are a bunch of racists and extremists and their actions in this film may sour many away from the emotional roller coaster that Danny goes through when recounting the way his brother fell into anger and the depths of hatred. If your stomach and hearts can take it, this film is definitely one to watch.


Things to Watch Out For: Half the film is in black and white. That is, all the flashbacks involving Derek is told in black and white. This stylistic choice is interesting and works well in painting the black and white nature in which Derek's mind operated at the time. The present is always in colour which is used to contrast Derek's current state of mind. It was a clever move to portray the flash backs this way and it adds a lot of flavour. Also, just the amount of Nazi paraphernalia that they collected for this film is amazing and the amount of detail that went into decorating the rooms and Norton's tattoos were equally impressive. The use of water in the beginning, middle and end of the film as a symbol for cleansing is nicely incorporated as well.

Things You Don't Expect: There are many themes in this movie and the main one has to be the last sentence of the film. But there are other minor themes in the film as well which are presented nicely from the skin head point of view. This film really demands you to question everything. Take any certainty in life and question it. Equality and freedom are things that everyone is afforded but is that right? of course generally we agree that everyone is equal and freedom is universal but this movie demands you to even look at something so fundamental as that and question it. It does it well by showing the argument of both sides and it's phrased so cleverly that it never comes off as imposing.

Final Comments:
Story: 8.2 (David McKenna)
Direction: 8.0 (Tony Kaye)
Acting: 9.4
Cinematography: 7.5
Music/Sound: 7.0

Final Score: 8.8

Sunshine (2007)

Synopsis: Capa (Cillian Murphy) is the physicist on a crew of eight astronauts and scientists on a mission to re-ignite the sun. And the vessel that will carry them there is Icarus II. How do they do this you might ask. Well, basically, Icarus II is a space station strapped to a gigantic bomb that will launch itself into the sun and give the space station four minutes to escape. Upon entering the sun, it will explode and re-ignite it. Sounds simple enough. And it starts out being real simple. But what ever happened to Icarus I? And what are the chances of them coming back home alive especially when they're all alone and the thing they're all trying to save is their worst enemy?

Should You Watch It? I am going to overrate this film hardcore and I know it. Despite all it's brilliance, this film isn't for everyone. The style and execution is very different than what people would expect from a space movie. This isn't really fair because space films have been stereotyped by blockbusters such as Armageddon, Star Wars and etc. This film looks at the other qualities of space travel and takes influence from the horrors of such movies like Event Horizon and even Red Planet. It deals a lot with the theme of isolation and fighting against fate. This is combined with great cinematography but it's missing that key action element that many audiences will expect and be disappointed with its exclusion.

Things to Watch Out For: The sunshine! Alright that was lame. But seriously, this movie is beautiful and you want to look at it but it hurts your eyes. Which is pretty much the theme of the film. There are just so many visual wonders that this film employs that it will be rude to mention them because I will inevitably miss something vital and then Brandon will give me crap for it lol! But there are plenty of small things that people should look out for. The gold suits were very interesting because it is a new take on future technology. Also, the whole idea of darkness vs light and human's struggle in the pursuit of light but their inevitable destructive nature which will bring them into darkness, was interesting as well.

Things You Don't Expect: Okay, so this film is directed by Danny Boyle whom I'm a big fan of because of Trainspotting and 28 days Later. And like those films, he didn't wuss out or sell out. This movie is grim. And it should be grim. Again, this might not be for everyone but it definitely feels right for the few and especially the ending will be satisfying for anyone who truely enjoys this genre. It got a bit draggy in the end but I think each characters deserved a little bit of an extended denouement anyways. Oh, and the Asian community is well represented in this movie. But then they had to ruin it by hiring the Human Torch Chris Evans who will be inevitably hitting on all of them because they are not hot.

Final Comments:
Story: 7.6 (Alex Garland)
Direction: 9.2 (Danny Boyle)
Acting: 7.2
Cinematography: 9.6 (Alwin H. Kuchler)
Music/Sound: 9.0 (John Muprhy & Underworld)

Final Score: 8.4

Rescue Dawn (2007)

Synopsis: Christian Bale is back in all his snake eating glory as he plays the real life hero, Dieter Dengler who was an American bomber pilot shot down in Laos during the prequel leading up to the Vietnam War. He gets caught and sent to a POW camp. If anybody still believes that these camps are a place of refuge for enemy soldiers, well you are too naive because it's anything but a haven. He meets other Americans there including a veteran of the prison, Duane (Steve Zahn). Together, they work together to set up an elaborate escape plan which will take them from the prison and hopefully into Thailand where they will seek help. But the biggest challenge isn't getting out of the prison. Oh no! Once they're out they realize that "the jungle is the real prison."

Should You Watch It? This movie is solid and because it's based on a real person, it makes it even more satisfying in the end. The film is a bit slow at times, and Dieter is a bit of an arrogant jerk and he doesn't really change in the end. It doesn't really take anything away from an otherwise very authentic reproduction of survival for POWs during the Vietnam War. Even if you are not a fan of war films, the tense moments associated with all prison breaks will keep you on your toes and entertained for the two hours.

Things to Watch Out For: This film is pretty old school. I say that because of it's presentation. The opening long ass credit sequence is something that is common in older films and the black and white title is also a throw back to the previoius generations. The cinematography is interesting as well because the sun's white light washes over most of the colour and although things happen in a jungle, often times everything feels very bland. This, I think, is to portray the immense heat and overwhelming feeling that Dieter went through during his struggle for survival. And how thin some of the actors got for this movie is also amazing.

Things You Don't Expect: Werner Herzog is a writer/director and at times it really showed. The dialogue was a bit lacking at times, but it wasn't very glaring. Some of the things the character says seems a bit out of place but it doesn't pull you out of the film. There are some minor issues with plot which isn't a very big deal. That is, there are things set up that aren't paid off in the end which is understandable and not a big deal but I'm just nit-picking here cause that's what they pay me for. Or... that's what... you get my point.

Final Comments:
Story: 6.5 (Werner Herzog: screen play)
Direction: 7.8 (Werner Herzog)
Acting: 8.0
Cinematography: 8.2
Music/Sound: 7.6

Final Score: 7.8

Civic Duty (2006)

Synopsis: Terry Allen (Peter Krause) is a true blue American! And like all good laid off American accountants, he spies on his Middle-Eastern neighbor who he thinks is a terrorist with pretty much no good reason. Sounds reasonable, we all suspect our neighbors of fool play and they probably suspect us. But you see, Terry is haredcore and when things go from bad to worse on the home front with his wife Marla (Kari Matchett), he turns all his hatred towards this new neighbor. Convinced he's a terrorist and with no help from the FBI, Terry takes it on himself to perform his civi duty and stop terrorism once in for all. But sometimes, the only way to fight terror is with terror itself!

Should You Watch It? I'm a bit iffy on this one. Personally I quite enjoyed it. It had a nice progression of a normal guy who goes from being this ideal husband into a crazy vigilante. But on the other hand, nothing really happens and nothing really gets resolved. Having said that, this is a movie which poses a question on society and the war on terror more than it tries to be an entertaining product. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Despite the guy with the gun in the poster, it's definitely more of an intellectual film.

Things to Watch Out For: Most of the movies nowadays really hide their character arcs and all that theme bs. But this movie focuses on that and one of the things it uses is the television. Sure, sometimes it's annoying to be watching a TV while watching a movie, but it works in this film sorta because Terry is constantly subjected to CNN's attaack on terrorism which this movie portrays a form of brainwashing. That's an interesting little side note for all of you who get bored with watching a guy spy on another guy for like 80 percent of the film.

Things You Don't Expect: I had a real tough time with sympathizing with the main character. I mean, all the elements are there to make him the hero and make the audience want to see him pull through but it's just missing something. His arc is deserved I guess, but there is just something about the ending that bugs me. Also, there is a musical interclude that plays during all the spying and CSI moments in the film which is kinda cliche but it works. If it works for CSI then why not!

Final Comments:
Story: 7.5 (Jeff Renfroe)
Direction: 8.0 (Andrew Joiner)
Acting: 7.0
Cinematography: 7.6
Music/Sound: 7.0

Final Score: 7.4

Born into Brothels (2004) (Doc.)

Synopsis: Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman take you on a journey into the red light district in Sonagchi, Calcutta. They lived in the red light district and developed a very close relationship with nine children born into prositituion. There, they taught them photography and the idea that there is a life outside of those narrow alleys. But these children have it tough and prositution is a way of life for their families and their families before them. The only way for these children to have a shot at a normal life is for them to be transfered to a boarding school, but who would ever accept children born in the red light district? This is an emotional tale about one woman and nine kids' struggle to overcome, culture, tradition, family, and a million other obstacles just to get a chance at living a normal life.

Should You Watch It? I don't really like documentries. I find them pretty boring and sometimes a bit too preachy. But this is something everyone should watch. Not only does it show us what actually goes on the parts of the world we have no idea even existed, but it also makes us look at ourselves and really forces us to appreciate life. I thought I appreciated everything I have but really, we could all do a little reflecting and this movie definitely is the place to start.

Things to Watch Out For: When Zana Briski went there to teach photography, she gave each of the children a camera for them to go explore the city and take pictures of areas she can't go to. This film is really told through these pictures and it really puts a very unique focus on the film. Each child goes through their own struggles and it's important to remember who is who but sometimes it's hard. There are two kid that will stand out. Avijit is an extrodinary boy and along witih Kochi a bright girl. They are the central figures in this film.

Things You Don't Expect: Just how powerful this film is and how much one person can do to change the world of others. People in the world who are willing to sacrifice years of their lives for a cause that only they believe in are truely extrodinary and that to me is amazing and something I totally did not expect from anyone in this world anymore. This film has gave me a new respect for humanity.

Final Score: 8.5

1408 (2007)

Synopsis: Michael Enslin (John Cusack) is a brilliant writer who, instead of writing real books, goes around the country and explores "haunted" hotels. He's a pro but he has never found a paranormal experience. That is, until he gets a strange postcard telling not to go into 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel in New York. Upon further inspection, he discovers that this hotel room has been the host for over 20 suicides in the last 50 something years. Well! So what does he naturally do? Go stay in it, of course! The only problem is that the room is off limits and the manager, Mr Olin (Samual L.) insists that he not stay in there. But Enslin insists right back and eventually gets the keys. Once he's in there, the legend says that no one has survived over an hour. And yup, once he's in there, he can't get out, the room owns him and takes us along for the ride.

Should You Watch It? If you're a girl who insist that you like watching horror movies but not really but want to prove to some guy that you like horror movies and are totally not scared, then this is a movie for you! This is a horror movie lite as the scare scenes are predictable even though they are well constructed. The best part of the film isn't the scary parts, which is bad for a horror film, but it's actually Enslin's past that the room uses to torture him for the hour. His arc as he overcomes his past and the room is the most rewarding part of the film which can be a blessing or a curse depending on the audience.

Things to Watch Out For: Obviously, I'm not going to tell you the scare scenes cause well, that's stupid. But it is important for the audience to follow Enslin's progression through the movie as he changes the way he looks at the world and his decisions in the end. It might be a bit tough to focus and follow a character develop with a whole bunch of shit going on in the room but if you try you'll be rewarded.

Things You Don't Expect: In addition to the movie not being scary, there really isn't much else that's not expected. Right near the end of the second act was a very confusing part for me and it took me a while to understand the point of it. The room is evil and it owns you and it'll never let you go. The theme is pretty nice as well as it's all about burning your past to save your future. It's old but a classic nonetheless.

Final Comments:
Story: 7.0 (Stephen King: short story. Matt Greenberg, Larry Karaszewski, Scott Alexander: screen play.)
Direction: 7.0 (Mikael Hafstrom)
Acting: 8.4
Cinematography: 8.2
Music/Sound: 6.5

Final Score: 7.2

The Sting (1973)

Synopsis: Back in the day, there were only two sure things in life, women and money. Those two things got you everything else. In John Hooker's (Robert Redford) life, he never had any problem getting those things but he always had a problem keepin' 'em. Hooker is a fast talking, smooth sailing con man and he's made a living off the streets. But when his partner, Luther, decides to call it quits, Hooker needs to leave his small pond and explore the bigger con. That's where he meets Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) who's a old time con guy with a dark past. Well, don't they all. Shit hits the fan when Luther bites the dust propelling Hooker into a huge con to not only settle the score against Luther's killer, but also to set himself straight as well as give Gondorff some closure. It's a light hearted affair though where the stakes are high but the fun is even higher. All you need is some confidence!

Should You Watch It? This might be the first con film that does it well and on a big scale. The job is big, the cast is big, and the overall experience is big and satisfying but this film manages to keep everything light-hearted with plenty of humour along the way. Overall, the experience is rewarding because it's simple and everyone should be able to catch on to what they did to pull off the job. Sorry for ruining that part, come on! you knew they were gonna do it! haha

Things to Watch Out For: I usually have a problem with the music and sound effects in these old films not because they suck. Well, they do, but I mean for that time they were probably pretty good. But this film, I had no problem with the music because they took all of Scott Joplin's piano music and put it in there. Not only does it solve a lot of the issues with original music scores back then, it keeps things light as the rag time tunes really give this movie an up beat tone and mood. As for the sound effects, well, Scott Joplin never composed sound effects.

Things You Don't Expect: The only problem I had in this film was the love interest. I won't spoil anything but it doesn't feel natural at all the way it went down. I don't know, I think it might just be me being bitter that Redford can get any girl and I can't get any at all. They use a lot of old school transitions too. They use a whole bunch of wipes ranging from side wipe to page wipes. They also show you each step of the con just so you don't get lost which is helpful for all of us dumb audiences out there.

Final Comments:
Story: 8.0 (David S. Ward)
Direction: 7.0 (George Roy Hill)
Acting: 8.5
Cinematography: 6.8
Music/Sound: 6.8

Final Score: 7.8

The Player (1992)

Synopsis: Griffin Mills (Tim Robbins) is a producer in Hollywood. He's cold, calculating, and knows a hit pitch when he hears one. But the thing with Hollywood is that everyone thinks their idea is a hit so what happens when a person like Mills brushes them off and tells them their idea is crap? Those people get angry. Mills begins to get threatening postcards from a writer that he pissed off ages ago because he never got back to him about a crap idea. The postcards are getting more and more frequent so Mills takes it on himself to stop the writer, so he kills him, but he kills the wrong writer! On top of all that, he has to deal with a hot shot new exec that's trying to move into his terrritory. And on top of that, there's a whole bunch of other drama that comes with job. money, women, Scandal... But hey! Like they say: It's Hollywood, Baby!

Should You Watch It? This is a movie for the Hollywood people. There are a lot of inside jokes in there that I don't get because I'm not in Hollywood. But maybe someday! The point is, if you ever wanted to get a behind the scenes look at the biggest movie making machine out there then here's your chance. It's not all glamour and fairplay. But that's drama and that's what we wanna see in a movie.

Things to Watch Out For: Other than those inside jokes that you won't get, there are a lot of cameos by real movie stars and they're quite fun to spot. Tim Robbins is amazing of course, and he plays the role of a back stabbing suit to perfection. The film in itself is a satire on how Hollywood never creates a movie that's "real." That is, the things they portray never happen in real life. Well, this movie is pretty much not as real as they come but they make it so obvious that it's funny and very well concieved, especially the ending which some can argue is up or down.

Things You Don't Expect: The information about the biz really comes at you hard and sometimes you just don't wanna be a writer anymore after seeing this movie. But this movie can inspire you to break through the odds and pursue your dream of walking into a big Hollywood office and giving a pitch in 25 words or less and then having it thrown back in your face. Ah... that will always be the dream.

Final Comments:
Story: 8.8 (Michael Tolkin: novel, screenplay)
Direction: 7.5 (Robert Altman)
Acting: 9.2
Cinematography: 7.6
Music/Sound: 6.0

Final Score: 8.0

Double Indemnity (1944)

Synopsis: Walter Neff is a fast talking insurance salesman. He is the leading salesman in his firm, the All Risk Pacific Firm. He meets his match when he goes on a routine automobilie renewal run and runs into Phyllis Dietrichson. She's the wife of a wealthy oil executive but she hates her husband. Ah... don't we all. She hates him so much that she wants him dead and collect some insurance while she's at it. But Walter Neff is good, he's real good at spotting the phonies. Partly because of his best friend, Keyes who works at claims. Like Neff, Keyes is the best in the biz and nothing gets by him. Neff tries to walk away from the femme fatale but he just can't quite do it. A life of a man is a tricky business like they say. Neff succumbs to this murdering beauty and plots with her a plan to kill her husband and collect double indemnity on his death. Neff knows all the tricks you see, he knows what's coming, except he can't see it, even when it's straight down the line.

Should You Watch It? If you have ever wondered what real film noir is like then you've come to the right film. Not only is this movie a straight up noir film, it practically defined the genre when it was made in 1944. The rich black and white style at the time was probably a neccessity for than a stylistic choice but it suits this film like a glove. The characters all talk in that sorta cool guy banter that noir is famous for. Every film lover should sit down and give this one a look unless they're just really not into black and white then okay.

Things to Watch Out For: Being a noir film, there are a lot of symbolism and thematic elements to it. The honeysuckle flavour that Neff refers to is quite interesting as well as the anklet that Phyllis wears. These things all come back again and again and it adds great flavour to a brilliant plot line. The beauty of this film is in the simplicity for sure.

Things You Don't Expect: The only thing that dates this movie except for the colour or lack there of is the sound. I know, I know, it's like a long time ago and sound isn't what it is now, but sometimes it's a bit distracting. That is only a minor complaint though and it only happens once in the movie where it catches any attention.

Final Comments:
Story: 9.0 (James M. Cain: novel, Billy Wilder & Raymond Chandler: screenplay)
Direction: 8.0 (Billy Wilder)
Acting: 7.8
Cinematography: 7.5
Music/Sound: 5.5

Final Score: 8.0

Black Snake Moan (2006)

Synopsis: Samuel L. is greater than ever in this movie where he plays Lazarus, a God fearing washed up blues musician. His wife dumped him and he's in the process of questioning his life until he meets a beat up Rae (Christina Ricci) lying outside his house. Rae is quite the spark plug or in better terms, she's the town bicycle. It's not like she's a slut, okay, well she is. But she's more of a slut because of some sort of mental condition. At first, it just seems like she's a sex addict but as the movie develops, we learn much more about the brutal past Rae has been through and how that has affeected her growth and the way she lives her life. So now, it's up to Lazarus to reform Rae into a proper citizen and teach her the value of the one life that everybody is given and that living it proper is the most important thing. The only problem is that Rae is very unwillingly to reform, hence the chain, and Lazarus doesn't really seem to know how to live a proper life himself.

Should You Watch It? Christina Ricci is pretty hot in this movie. I mean, I don't know if it's just because it's in the south and everything is naturally hot there. But damn! Smokin'! but after you get past all the sex and crazy drugs and alcohol, the movie itself is quite powerful and really makes us question our own lives and how we're living it. If that's not reason enough to see this movie then ummm Justin Timberlake is in it. And you get to see him with his shirt off. So ladies, there you go.

Things to Watch Out For: The dyanmic between Rae and Lazarus is really quite interesting. They are completely opposite but similar in so many ways. The obvious being she's a crazy hoe and he's not. But their similarity lies in them having lost their way in life and they're both finding it with each other even though they don't know it. There are a tonne of symbolism in there. Of course the chain=chasity and all that stuff but there are subtle things that are set up in the beginning. You should look for them if you're up to it. It's not that hard actually.

Things You Don't Expect: The music is amazing. And it plays a big part in the overall tone of the film. It has a distinctive southern twang to it and it shifts and slithers according to the mood of the characters. There are some real interesting lighting effects in there that reflects the emotions of the characters. This creates a very artistic feeling and somewhat surreal experience. If you listen close enough you might actually hear the Black Snake Moan.

Final Comments:
Story: 7.8 (Craig Brewer)
Direction: 8.5 (Craight Brewer)
Acting: 9.0
Cinematography: 8.0
Music/Sound: 8.8 (Scott Bomar)

Final Score: 8.4

Paris, Je T'Aime (Paris, I Love You) (2006)

Synopsis: Ah... Paris! the city of love is alive and well in this briliant film which redefines the meaning of ensemble cast. This movie is in a sense, 18 separate movies which shows all the sides of love. Every kind of love situation, well maybe not every kind, but most of the common ones are presented in here and presented well. Each segment is really only about eight minutes and sometimes even less. Each segment is directed by someone different and acted by different actors, of course. They aren't really connected with each other except by theme. And yes, the theme is definitely love and how love makes life worth living. And there isn't a place on Earth like Paris when it comes to love.

Should You Watch It? Before all you girls get giddy and think that this is another Love Actually I'm going to stop you and tell you right now that it's not. Love is actually very different according to this movie. This movie looks at love in a more realistic way for the common people and the hardships that love faces and overcomes with courage and commitment. So if you want a lesson in love, then come along, children!

Things To Watch Out For: Each segment is separated by a title and the director(s) who directs it. There isn't a connection physically, between the different parts so don't look for one. This film is all set in Paris and combines the brilliance of American and French film makers. I recognized quite a few actors and directors but there were some that I didn't know. Each of their style is very different and I especially enjoyed the noir type ala Sin City style short with Elijah Wood. Very interesting.

Things You Don't Expect: They speak a lot of French in this film. Of course that's expected and they're properly subtitled. I was disappointed to see less international relationships. Of course, there were some and it's a love story about Paris and people who live in Paris so it's only a small disappointment. Although, some white guy hooks up with some Asian chick which is always encouraging of course haha. Bitter!

Final Comments:
Story: 9.8
Direction: 7.8
Acting: 8.5
Cinematography: 7.0
Music/Sound: 6.0

Final Score: 8.0

Chinatown (1974)

Synopsis: J.J. Gittes (Jack Nicholson) is a retired cop who used to work in Chinatown. He retired and took up the job of a private eye and he's good at it. He specializes in adultry cases. You know the kind. Exposing cheating husbands to suspicious wives and vice versa. When Mrs. Mulwray asks Gittes to follow her husband around because she thinks he's sleeping with another man, things get interesting. It turns out that Mrs. Mulwary's husband is in charge of the water in Los Angeles. Things get even more interesting when Gittes finds Mr. Mulwray making out with some chick but that chick turns out to be the real Mrs. Mulwray (Faye Dunaway). Oh how the stakes go up! Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse for Gittes, Mr. Mulwray is murdered at the water resevoir. Gittes is immediatley plunged into the investigation with a series of water related murders as a suspect but he also gets hired by Mrs. Mulwray who is a suspect herself with a secret to hide. The twists and turns follow in what is truely a crime classic.

Should You Watch It? Classic movies are great because you can watch them anytime and still appreciate them. Sure technically this movie won't stand up to a crime film today but what sets it apart is great writing and great directing. All the characters in this movie are classic including the support characters. They don't write 'em like they used to so if you wanna see how they did it in the old days, here's your chance.

Things to Watch Out For: Chinatown isn't really a big part of the story as only the last part of the movie takes place in Chinatown. Instead, Chinatown is mentioned by Gittes through out the movie which is used to shed some light on Gittes character and the events that's made him the man he is today. Of course, his whole experience in Chinatown is happening to him again when he's out of Chinatown which is a nice metaphor for you can't run away from your problems sorta thing. Faye Dunaway plays the classic female lead and does a good job supporting Jack Nicholson. I don't think she's that hot, but apparantly she is sooo haha.

Things You Don't Expect: I know it's the 1970s and stuff but I was disappointed with the sound effects and editing the sound. Sometimes the music is just real off and the dubbed over sfxs are just bad. It's minor of course and it doens't take anything away from the experience. The story is pretty deep, alot deeper than what I had anticipated and at times you might seem to be overwhelmed at what's really at stake here. It's important to pay attention to the introduction of characters and events in the beginning even though they seem to have nothing to do with anything.

Final Comments:
Story: 8.8 (Robert Towne)
Direction: 8.2 (Roman Polanski)
Acting: 9.0
Cinematography: 7.0
Music/Sound: 5.5

Final Score: 8.4

The Accidental Tourist (1988)

Synopsis: Macon Leary (William Hurt) writes travel guides for a living. He teaches people who hate to travel how to travel while feeling like they never left. He, in a sense, teaches people to not connect with anything around them. Macon is a pro at this and he stops connecting with everyone, especially his wife, Sarah (Kathleen Turner). This results in a divorce leaving Macon all alone with his dog, Edward. Things get interesting when Macon has to go on an emergency business trip and he has no where to put Edward. He brings him to a kennel where he meets Muriel Pritchett (Geena Davis). She's very forward in pursuing Macon and does get him. But how does a man make another connection when all the ones before have failed so miserably and his entire living has been dedicated to avoiding connections as it is.

Should You Watch It? I'm going to be very frank with you. This movie is really really slow. But it's pretty good if you're willing to wait. The film uses a clever gimmick relating the travel guide that Macon is writing to what is actually going on in his life. In the book, he gives suggestions to readers of what not to do but he's breaking all the rules with his relationship with Muriel. It's a clever character study which eventually invovles Macon's family whom are like him: afraid of connections. If you hate action and love the drama then this is the film to watch.

Things to Watch Out For: Being a character study film, it's very metaphorical with a lot of pokes and jests at what people do wrong in their lives and how they should get more invovled with society in order to live happier. These metaphors are non-stop and ranges from direct dialogue to how Muriel trains Macon's dog. It's hard to spot all of them and if you try, it might get a little annoying. So maybe you should just spot the obvious ones for fun and just turn your brain off and focus on... Well, there really isn't much else but maybe the subplot with Macon's family will be enough.

Things You Don't Expect: This film is quite long and the ending is a bit meh. In fact, I think they could have shortened the whole thing by 20 minutes if they really wanted to. Other than that, there are some moments worthy of hair pulling with how stupid the characters are sometimes. Come on, Macon. When some hot girl is throwing herself on you, you go for it!

Final Comments:
Story: 7.8 (Anne Tyler: novel. Frank Galati & Lawrence Kasdan: screen play)
Direction: 7.0 (Lawrence Kasdan)
Acting: 6.8
Cinematography: 6.0
Music/Sound: 5.0

Final Score: 6.2

The Iron Giant (1999)

Synopsis: Hogarth Hughes loves adventure and exploring the unknown. Well, the unknown comes to him when a space ship crash lands in the forrest beside his house. He explores the crash site and finds a huge iron giant eating the power plant. The giant gets caught up in the wires and Hogarth saves him. The two become friends as Hogarth teaches the giant about his world and society. But the giant has to learn quick when a government agent, Kent Mansley, uncovers the secret and sends in the army. It's a heart warming story about discovering the secrets of friendship, compassion, sacrifice, and that you are whoever or whatever you want to be.

Should You Watch It? If you are not familiar with this film, it's directed by Brad Bird, the director of all the Pixar films these days. If you haven't read my review for Ratatouille then just let me reillerate how much of a genius this guy is. Well, actually, I'm not going to blow his horn anymore, cause it's pretty worn out. Just, go watch it. It's for your own good.

Things to Watch Out For: The animation of course is not as clean or crisps as the new Pixar films but for 1999 it is pretty good. The theme is great in this film and really appropriate for children. Be what you want to be is the theme and is expressed through not only the giant's arc but Hogarth's as well when he takes responsibility for the giant's safety and realizes the importance of understanding. The voice acting is pretty great especially when you have Jennifer Aniston as the mother, Annie Huges, and you even have Vin Diesel in there as the giant.

Things You Don't Expect: The movie is short. Well, I guess that's expected. I mean, how long can an animated film be, right? The relationship between the giant and Hogarth is obviously the main plot but I think they could have done more with the relationship between Annie and Dean, a scrap yard owner. Their arcs are simple enough and expected but could have added a lot more depth to the film and give it a nice romantic subplot if they explored it a bit more. Oh well.

Final Comments:
Story: 8.0 (Ted Hughes: novel. Tim McCanlies: screenplay)
Direction: 8.2 (Brad Bird)
Voice Acting: 8.6
Animation: 8.0 (Warner Bros. Animation)
Music/Sound: 6.5

Final Score: 8.2

The Godfather (1972)

Synopsis: Michael Corleone's (Al Pacino) family is in the mob. Well actually, his family is the mob and his father, Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando), is the Don. The whole family works for the Don but Michael doesn't want to have any part of it. But the reluctant hero is dragged into the business when a rival mob family in New York puts out a hit on Vito. Suddenly, the Don is in the hospital fighting for his life while Michael's brothers are fighting for the family. Michael slowly begins to realize that nothing in the world is more important than family, something his father has always preached and practiced. Now Michael is on the path that he swore he would always avoid. But is it for power, or for family?

Should You Watch It? If you have not seen this movie like me until today, then you are definitely missing out on a classic and the defining movie in the gangster/mafia genre. This movie brings you into the patriarchal society within a mob family. This movie brought so many new things into film that it's really amazing for 1972. I don't think anyone can talk like Marlon Brando nowadays and not be considered in the mob.

Things to Watch Out For: Al Pacino when he was young is crazy! I didn't recognize him for almost half the movie. The movie follows him through his reluctancy to his full acceptance of his family duties. The movie focuses on the family and cleverly brings Michael into the family instead of chasing him around. This way, the audience is able to see all the other members of the family and how they react differently to responsibility. The change in Michael is brilliant and one of the best character arcs I have ever seen. The music motif that plays whenever the Godfather does something dooming is used nicely with Michael's arc as well.

Things You Don't Expect: This movie is freakin' long. I mean it's almost three hours. It doesn't really drag in any parts but it does feel that there are certain parts where they tried to put too much into it. Some of the dialogue is unneccessary for the film but it does add flavour to the characters and really makes it hit home when those characters get offed. The climax was a bit weak because you really don't know when it's coming and you're not sure when it's gonna end because it coulda ended in two or three parts. But the ending is satisfying and very well portrayed.

Final Comments:
Story: 8.2 (Mario Puzo: novel. Mario Puzo & Francis Ford Coppola: screenplay.)
Direction: 9.4 (Francis Ford Coppola)
Acting: 9.5
Cinematography: 6.5
Music/Sound: 8.0

Final Score: 8.6

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Synopsis: Raoul Duke, a journalist (Johnny Depp) and his lawyer, Dr. Gonzo (Benicio Del Torro) travel to Las Vegas to cover a number of news stories in the 1970s. It's not a difficult task seeing how Duke is a brilliant journalist and can write the hell out of anything. The only problem is that these two are completely strung out of their minds by doing every drug known to man. It's to the point, where they are on a constant high and have completely lost touch with reality. Duke, now, must find a way to regain enough of his consciousness in order to find reality again and get ride of the devil haunting him. But is reality all that much better than the magical drug world?

Should You Watch It? This movie is a definitely behind the scenes movie because it shows you exactly what it is like to be high, all the time! The way a drug addict perceive the world while being high is very well portrayed in this film. The only problem that this film may run into with some viewers is that there really isn't much else beyond seeing the world through the eyes of a drug addict. The highs and lows of being on a drug is related to the 70s anti-war protest and how society, like being on a drug, goes through the highs and the lows, and is always trying to find their true identity which is constantly being hidden by drugs we can't see.

Things to Watch Out For: I don't even want to think about how a person would watch this film if they were high themselves. Their head might just explode. The camera and cinematography is a work of art mixed in with brilliant acting. It is truely a treat to watch. But it might get old during some parts because there is not really a structured story in there. There are also plenty of cameos by noticable stars including: Tobey Mcguire, Cameron Diaz, Christina Ricci, Ellen Barker, and Gary Busey.

Things You Don't Expect: This movie is very episodic, meaning that Duke goes around from one place to another doing crazy drug induced things along with his crazy lawyer. There really isn't a resolution of any kind. There really isn't even a realization on Duke's part of what he has to do. Of course, the moral of the story is that drugs are bad so you shouldn't do them and here's what happenes when you do. But the heroes of this movie, especially Depp's character just doesn't do enough to make us feel that he's really changed. I don't know, perhaps that was the intended resolution based on the ending in the novel but for a film, it felt imcomplete.

Final Comments:
Story: 7.5 (Hunter S. Thompson: Novel. Terry Gilliam, Terry Grisoni, Tod Davies, Alex Cox: Screenplay)
Direction: 8.5 (Terry Gilliam)
Acting: 10.0
Cinematography: 9.0
Music/Sound: 7.8

Final Score: 8.5

Transformers (2007)

Synopsis: On some distance planet live a bunch of huge robots. They have been waging a war so great that their planet was destroyed. The giver of life for that planet, a giant cube called the Allspark was lost in space and just happened to crash land on Earth. Now, the Autobots (good guys) and the Decepticons (bad guys) come to Earth to wage the final battle that will determine the fate of not only their race, but ours!

Should You Watch It? I'm really at a conflict of interests here. To tell you not to watch it, would be doing my duty as a objective reviewer of films, but then you would probably miss out on the biggest film event of the summer. Not because the movie is good, mind you, but because everyone will be talking about how bad it is, that you'll feel left out! But, if I told you to see it, then well, I wouldn't be doing my job now would I? So, really, I guess you should go see it just because it has a bunch of nice CG robots duking it out over a big city. I guess for some people, that's enough. Oh, and watch out for the blatant advertising haha it's pretty great.

Things to Watch Out For: This movie is not an epic. I repeat, this movie is not an epic. It might seem like an epic with the scale of which the movie presents itself. But because the protagonist is one man, and one girl. Okay, so the girl is really hot and the guy is the perfect underdog that we all like to cheer for, doesn't make this movie feel like an epic even with the world is hanging in the balance. Positives, positives... my therapist always told me to focus on the positives. Yes, I needed to see a therapist to quesiton my profession after watching this film. The robots are good. All your favorites are in there but because the Autobots are the good guys, you see them and learn a lot more about them. The Decipticons are only there as the bad guys and you know nothing about them except for Megatron. The transformations are probably the coolest part of this film cause everything else just looks the same.

Things You Don't Expect: The freakin' dialogue. Holy shit. Pardon my language but everything that everone says tries to be philisophical. Everytime a fucking robot opens their lips, yes they have lips, they want to make some broad statement that's supposed to shed some light on humanity and existence. And if you've seen other Michael Bay films, then you would have seen all the camera angles and shots already cause he recycles them for this movie. He even took the soundtrack from Armageddon. Damn you Bay!

Final Comments:
Story: 6.0
Direction: Fail (Michael Bay)
Acting: 6.0 (Megan Fox, you are the saving grace)
Cinematography: 9.4
Music/Sound: 7.0

Final Score: 6.5

Ratatouille (2007)

Synopsis: Remy is an awesome chef. He has the talent to be the best bistro chef in all of Paris. The only problem, he's a rat. To make matters worse, his family forbids him to interact with humans. But when the rat colony gets separated, Remy finds a new home at Gusteau's restaurant which is on the downward spiral from a 5 star rating to a tourism spot. There, he meets Linguini, the young heir of the late Gusteau trying to hold down a job at the restaurant. Remy and Linguini decide to work together to become the number one chef in Paris and bring Gusteau's name back into Paris's elite cuisine. But they have to over come plenty of obstacles including the stingy head chef, Skinner, and the food critic from hell, Anton Ego. But Gusteau believed that anyone can cook, anyone!

Should You Watch It? This film is amazing. I don't care who you are. You have to watch it. I don't care if you hate puppies and wanna kill all pets, you have to see this movie.

Things to Watch Out For: 90 minutes of pure entertainment. Oh yeah, and the beginning short film is the best one I've seen from Pixar in a while. The beauty of this film lies in the simplicity and how open everything is to the public. There are no hidden meanings or metaphors or stuff like that. Everything is made clear and used to entertain. Absolutely brilliant.

Things You Don't Expect: How the hell does Brad Bird do it every year? This guy is some sorta, master story teller or something. Everything he touches turns into gold. He's amazing. It's to the point where if he told me to poke my eyes out cause it would make me a better writer, I'd do it.

Final Comments:
Story: 9.0 (Brad Bird)
Direction: 9.5 (Brad Bird)
Voice Acting: 9.2
Animation: 10.0 (Pixar)
Music/Sound: 7.8

Final Score: 9.2

Perfume: The Story of Murderer (2006)

Synopsis: Jean-Baptiste Grenouille is gifted with a great sense of smell. He can literary smell better than a dog. His story begins from when he was born in the fish market all the way through his childhood, growing up in an orphanage. He eventually gets sold to a tannery where he worked or more like survived, until he was around 16 or 18? He makes a delivery to a master perfumer, Baldini whose trying to unlock the ingredients of a rival perfume. Jean-Baptiste does it with ease and makes the perfume even better! Baldini buys him from the the tannery guy then uses Jean-Baptiste to create the most beautiful perfumes Paris has ever smelt. Except Jean-Baptiste isn't happy with his life of perfuming. He wants to make the ultimate perfume, a perfume that captures the essense of a woman's beauty. Conventional methods are impossible so he travels to some other place to study the art of preserving scent. He learns that the only way to preserve a woman's scent is to own them first then cut them up. Oh, it's grim alright, but Jean-Baptiste will stop at nothing to create the ultimate perfume.

Should You Watch It? Well, this movie is based on a best selling novel so you know that the story is going to be good. The thing is, this movie is pretty artsy and it doesn't really talk about how Jean-Baptiste uses his perfume to get power and whatever. The entire movie is about him owning these woman in the process of making this perfume and how the town is trying to hunt him down. I'm not going to tell you how it ends, obviously, but let's just say that the theme of this movie is greed destroys all, literary.

Things to Watch Out For: Jean-Baptiste is obviously the protagonist in this film but it doesn't really feel like it. He doesn't really talk and he's a bit crazy with his obsession. He doesn't really interact with any other character other than Baldini at first. His whole being is obsessed with this ultimate perfume. As a result, Jean-Baptiste isn't the greatest hero in film and you might have a hard time liking the ending because of it.

Things You Don't Expect: I guess perfume provokes a kind of euphoria and euphoria is tied into sexual pleasure. So, in a sense, perfume, if strong enough, can evoke the same kind of sexual pleasure in people. So this movie has a lot of sexual content. Not in the beginning or the middle, but a big way in the end. So, this isn't a movie to watch with the kids.

Final Comments:
Story: 7.0 (Patrick Suskind: Novel)
Direction: 7.5 (Tom Tykwer)
Acting: 7.2
Cinematography: 7.8
Music/Sound: 6.8

Final Score: 7.0

パプリカ (Paprika) (2006)

Synopsis: Have you ever wondered what if your dreams are really real and what you precieve as reality isn't real at all? Well, that's what this movie is about. Tokita is a genius who invents a machine called the DC Mini which enables therapists to go into the dreams of troubled sleepers and helps them solve whatever is bothering them. This sounds pretty sweet and at first it is sweet but when three DC Minis go missing, dream terrorism occurs as people begin to loose track of reality. The only person that can stop it is a scientist, Chiba who is Paprika in her dream state. Paprika has the ability to go into people's dreams even without this machine. Now, it's up to her to stop the dream terrorist before he destroy more dreams and ultimately replaces reality with a dream world.

Should You Watch It? Are you confused yet? If you are then good! cause this movie is hella confusing. It's definitely a thinker but if you put in that extra effort, the rewards are well worth it. The animation style alone should be enough to convince any fan of the genre to go take a look. It's an interesting new take on surrealism and the merging between reality and dreams. The story, after some thought, is very interesting and raises a few interesting questions about dreams and society in general.

Things to Watch Out For: The central question in the A plot is whether there is a difference between dreams and reality and how can we truely differentiate between the two. The deeper question is about perception and if what we percieve is in fact reality. This movie asks us to look around and think about our daily judgments. It's common practice to look at someone or something and just past judgment, cause it's our perception but often times that's not the reality. Also, is reality something that can be manufactured? Is TV reality? What about the internet and virtual realism?

Things You Don't Expect: I did not expect this movie to be so much like Akira. If anyone has seen it, and I would like to think many of you have, then you will know the unique style that I'm talking about. Although, this isn't as revolutionary, it is quite good and has some nudity which is nice to see. Not cause of the nudity but because it's bringing animation to an adult audience which is something that North America as yet to do.

Final Comments:
Story: 9.5 (Yasutaka Tsutsui: Novel, Seishi Minakami: Screenplay)
Direction: 8.8 (Satoshi Kon)
Voice Acting: 7.0
Animation: 9.0 (Masashi Ando)
Music/Sound: 8.0 (Susumu Hirasawa)

Final Score: 8.2