Reviews

You really have to admire Ridley Scott's moxie.

Even though the 70-year-old director has long established himself as one of Hollywood's best and most durable directors; having helmed some of the most entertaining films of all time, in virtually every genre (including sci-fi classics like Alien and Blade Runner); and having been nominated no less than three times for the Best Director Oscar (Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down), to decide to take on theme that has produced exactly zero blockbusters thus far – the Middle East and terrorism – takes an incredible amount of chutzpah.

But it does help if you have the help of two of the biggest actors in Hollywood at the moment, those being Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe (who has worked with Scott on two previous films, Gladiator and A Good Year). It's ironic to think that the last time these two actors shared the screen was back in 1995, with the clichéd-but-entertaining oater The Quick and the Dead. Of course, at the time, Crowe was a complete unknown and DiCaprio was a 21-year-old newcomer with only a couple of notable titles under his belt. But oh, how that's all changed now.

It's not easy to describe the plot of Body of Lies without giving too much away. DiCaprio plays CIA operative Roger Ferris, who is trying to flush out a terrorist leader named Al-Saleem in Jordan. He gets his orders from Ed Hoffman (Crowe), a man for whom results are the only satisfactory outcome, delivered with a fair amount of arrogance and a cocky Southern drawl. Ed plays the situation like a kid playing a video game, and has the resources to change the rules anytime he feels like it, dispensing his orders from his office, from his backyard, from his daughter's soccer game, for Pete's sake! This, of course, infuriates Ferris to no end, because he is the one who is in the trenches, chasing the bad guys, dodging bullets, ducking explosions, and procuring the badly-needed intelligence that Hoffman needs. Ferris is also trying to build a productive working relationship with the head of Jordanian Intelligence, Hani Salaam (Mark Strong), a relationship that is made even more tenuous by Hoffman's double-dealings and hidden agendas.

There are so many ways that Scott could have screwed this up. A lesser director might have chosen to ramp up the action, sacrificing intelligence for entertainment. A lesser director could have taken this story of espionage and twisted it into a convoluted and indecipherable Gordian knot. A lesser director would have gotten less convincing performances from his lead actors.

But Ridley Scott is not a lesser director. Though the plot is indeed complex, with many layers and sub-layers, deceit and treachery, Scott never lets you lose sight of the overall picture. He tells a solid, wonderfully entertaining story, without the need to drive home its message with sledgehammer subtlety (after all, very few things are black and white). And most of all, he gets electric performances from Crowe and DiCaprio, whose symbiotic relationship with a thinly-veiled veneer of mutual contempt is a pleasure to watch.

I don't know if Body of Lies will end up breaking through the barrier that every movie in this genre couldn't; but for what it's worth, I hope it does. One thing's for sure… if anybody can, Ridley Scott can.

For this and other reviews, please check out www.thelatestmoviereviews.com.

The greatest thing about "Crossing Jordan" is that it never, for even one moment, ceases to make us care about its characters. It seamlessly gives us a mix of tragedy and comedy, as well as humanity and warmth, which is no mean feat, considering the profession all of the main characters have.

With the abundance of shows cropping up in the last few years with a theme of "investigation", the profession of Medical Examiner has been thrust into the limelight of the public's eye that it never has been before. One needs to look no further than the ratings of all of the "CSI" shows to find proof; the minutiae and drudgery of police and forensic work, once thought to be bland, boring and completely without entertainment value, now has viewers glued to their sets.

But "Crossing Jordan" is much more than that. While I applaud shows like "CSI", and to a small extent, "Law & Order" for their ingenious writing and convincing story lines, none of those shows has ever really developed its characters to an extent where we care more about them than about the details of whatever case they happen to be working on at the time. "Crossing Jordan" has developed it's characters very, very well. Consider:

The main character, Jordan Cavanaugh (Jill Hennessy): when the show first started, we knew her to be a mouthy, bitchy, seat-of-the-pants, lives-by-her-own-rules kind of girl, who would always be in trouble but somehow, always gets to the truth. And while the appeal of such a character is undeniable, such a routine would have gotten old really fast, as well as the "haunted-by-her-mother's-as-yet-unsolved-murder" story line. I understand that early on, we knew that this is what drove Jordan to be the person she was, but it felt like that particular story line was used as a crutch to hold the series up. I think her character is now sufficiently developed to get past it now. She's still mouthy, and still lives by her own rules, but not as often as before. She's truly grown up.

Dr. Garret Macy (Miguel Ferrer): Originally played up as the crotchety, curmudgeonly boss, who walked around with the "how-in-hell-did-I-end-up-in-this-line-of-work" look on his face. Despite his somewhat abrasive character, there's no doubt that he possesses a tremendous inner warmth to go with his incredible intelligence. It's those rare occasions when he shows his softer side that make for some of the series' best moments.

Lily Lebowski (Kathryn Hahn): In the beginning, she seemed like a fragile dandelion of a person, nursing a not-too-subtle crush on Dr. Macy. I was afraid that her character would never expand beyond two dimensions, but she has become the moral center of the show.

My two favorite sidekicks, Nigel and Bug (Steve Valentine and Ravi Kapoor): it was these two that kept me coming back, week after week, during this show's growing pains. The tall, lanky Brit and the diminutive entomologist from Bangladesh are without a doubt the best on-screen duo in prime-time. One smiling and ebullient, one moody and sullen, they play off of each other so well... I can't aptly describe it in words.

Det. Woody Hoyt (Jerry O'Connell): Though his character hasn't really developed much, beyond the on-again, off-again relationship he seems to have with Jordan, it's nice to see him get more and more screen time now.

Several other characters have come and gone: Jordan's father (Ken Howard) and M.E.'s Trey Sanders (M. Ali), Peter Winslow (Ivan Sergei), Elaine Duchamps (Lorraine Toussaint), and Dr. Devan Mcguire (Jennifer Finnigan), have all contributed during their brief stints on the show.

Every single character has experienced tragedy and loss, in various degrees, all while helping total strangers deal with their loss, and that has made them all bond together into a very tightly-knit group... almost a family, if you will. It is a family that I wish I could be a part of... and that is the TRUE yardstick of a great show.

Always fresh, never dull. I hope that "Crossing Jordan" will continue to draw the audience it deserves.

Most animated movies are aimed specifically at kids or teenagers, as that is the age group that watches the most cartoons. Going to see "Shark Tale," I was hoping that even though my adolescent years are way behind me, I could still enjoy it on the same level that made me enjoy movies like "Shrek 2" and "Finding Nemo".

Mission not accomplished.

For one thing, I wasn't a big fan of the animation. With the exception of the sharks, most of the characters were drawn as if someone just stuck a human face on a fish's body, complete with eyelids and squared-off teeth. It didn't look good to me, and that made me care about the characters less.

The second thing was the story line, which ran about as deep as a puddle. The humor was too juvenile for me to find humor in, and the more adult side of the story, the "mob" story, has been played out too many times for me in too many stories to peak my interest.

If I were 20-25 years younger, I'm sure I would have enjoyed it a lot more. But, for me, "Shark Tale" will get put into the file in my memory labeled "Saw it once, won't see it again."

My score: 6 out of 10.

P.S. Note to the writers: It's about a decade too late for M.C. Hammer take-offs!

Having seen both "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and both "Kill Bill" movies over the last two years, it's regrettable that acrobatic high-wire swordplay scenes don't impress me as much as they used to.

I know going in to see "Hero" that I would be comparing it to "Crouching Tiger"; most of us who have seen both of these films have in common the fact that we are typical Westerners who don't see very many Asian films. The comparison is inevitable, there simply is no other frame of reference.

That being said, there's no denying the power of the drama that the plot of "Hero" presented. The pageantry, the scope and the depth of the characters justify the many foreign film awards it has won. Add to that the fact that this is the most expensive movie ever produced in China, and you have a textbook definition of the work "epic".

I would like to think that I am capable of seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to movies like this - which is to say, lift my preferences out of the slam-bang action flicks or lowbrow comedies that are the usual fare for summer audiences. But the truth is, by the time "Hero" went into its last half hour, I was bored. Watching the same scenes play out from different perspectives got tiresome. (But I will say that having the characters' outfits change color depending on the mood of the moment was a nice cinematic touch.) The story line became a kind of Kurosawa-meets-Shakespeare plot of betrayal and assassination, and by the time the movie ended, I found myself not even caring which side won or who lived and died.

Take my review for what it's worth - that of a average Joe who tried for two hours to raise his intellectual bar to a level where he could see where all the critics' four- and five-star ratings were coming from, but was ultimately unable to do it. I have no doubt that many people will succeed where I failed, and they will no doubt enjoy this movie a lot more than I did.

My score: 6/10.

Forget the plot holes. Forget the implausibility of the story. This is Grisham, the modern-day master of legal and political conspiracy and intrigue.

This movie centers on one thing: the chemistry between the on-screen duo of Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington. And they do not disappoint. Both give absolutely stellar performances, Washington as the reporter who desperately wants his story to see the light of day but is not afraid to let his compassion show through, and Roberts as a terrified law student engulfed in a situation where she is way over her head, trying simultaneously to survive and avenge the death of her lover. There is not one scene, not one bit of dialogue, verbal or non-verbal, that doesn't make be believe everything they say, and that is a testament to the acting abilities of Roberts and Washington, two of Hollywood's best.

For pretty much the entire second half of the movie, Denzel and Julia's characters work together to find proof of the conspiracy that resulted in the assassination of two Supreme Court judges, while at the same time dodging unscrupulous lawyers, heavies and an international hitman.

In their final scene together, when Darby is taking the FBI director's private plane out of the country, the bond that has grown between her and Gray is extremely noticeable. They deplane, and Gray shows Darby the headline exposing the conspiracy. Darby smiles, shakes Gray's hand, and proceeds to walk to the car that will take her to her new location.... but no, a handshake is just not enough, not after what they'd been through... so she goes back and gives Gray a huge hug, which he returns. The mutual respect is there for all to see. No words are spoken throughout the entire scene, they are not necessary.

Having read many of Grisham's books and seen all of the movies adapted from those books, I wondered how "The Pelican Brief" would stack up against all the others in the long run. In my opinion, it is still the best of the bunch.

My score: a solid 10.

If one did not know going in that this was a Tarantino movie, one would be able to discern that fact within five minutes. From the violence of the opening scene segueing to Nancy Sinatra's haunting "Bang Bang", it would be obvious to all who know QT's work.

Then we go right to a fight scene, where she dispatches the 2ND person on her "Death List Five"; what a deliciously funny moment when both characters have to pause their knock-down, drag-out catfight because a school bus carrying Vernita's daughter pulls up right outside!

Then we go back in time to the scene where the Bride wakes from her coma... and she exacts revenge on the orderly who had been pimping the coma patients for a few bucks! (Who but QT would throw something that perverse in just for laughs?) I remember the first time I saw that scene, when Buck is explaining "the rules" to his would-be customer, I said aloud to the screen "Boy, you picked the wrong girl on the wrong goddamn day!"

The Anime segment detailing O-Ren's origins was a very nice touch... it's been said that this whole film is a live-action cartoon, and having actual animation within it seems apropos.

From there we go to Okinawa, where the Bride acquires the services of a retired sword-maker, getting him to relinquish his vow to never create another instrument of death. This scene was a little overly long, but a wonderful precursor to the bloody scene that was to follow.

And then, at last, the final third of the movie: The Showdown at the House of Blue Leaves. One of the best fight scenes ever filmed! Some may find it gratuitously violent, and rightly so, but people offended by such things should have known better than to go see a QT movie in the first place! Such people may also take note that the most gratuitous part of the fight scene switched to B/W, so as to tone down the bloodiness of it without detracting from it.

My best friend, whose name was Larry, sadly, passed away in the year 2000. He was an avid moviegoer - he loved spaghetti westerns, he loved Asian martial-arts movies, and he loved QT. I look at this film and I know without a doubt that it would have made his list of all-time favorites, and it saddens me that he never got to see it.

I must add that I was a little bit disappointed with KB2; though I didn't expect KB2 to be a carbon copy of KB1, it seemed to be lacking the campy spirit that KB1 had. QT's movies all have certain themes in common; violent action, wacky homages to his favorite genres, and memorable dialogue in the scenes that are purely for exposition. In my opinion, KB1 is an outstanding movie because it had all three of these qualities; KB2 is just okay because the exposition far outweighed the action.

If gratuitous violence offends you, or if blood and gore makes you squeamish, then you should probably avoid this movie at all costs. If, on the other hand, you like exploring what I like to call "the dark underbelly of film-making", which is the essence of QT's work, then you will love this movie, and want to watch it over and over again.

My Score: An unqualified 10.

John Cusack is, and always has been, one of America's most underrated actors. He's done comedies (like One Crazy Summer and Grosse Point Blank), dramas (like Identity and Runaway Jury) and action movies (like Con Air). That in itself shows what a range he has, and his face is so expressive that every nuance of emotion comes across as perfectly natural.

Better Off Dead, one of John's first in a starring role, is an incredibly wacky movie, with a predictable plot but enough crazy characters and hilarious lines to make it worth seeing over and over again.

It's always depressing when people come up to you and ask you if they can ask your ex-girlfriend out now, but when such people include: your MUCH OLDER teacher, your mailman, and Barney Rubble....

John does such a great job playing the lovable loser here; we know that everything will work out eventually, but it's a great ride.

Just look at the supporting cast: the shallow-as-hell girlfriend, and the stereotypical blonde jock she dumps him for. The druggie best friend. The absolutely clueless parents. The smarter kid brother. The horrible neighbors from Hell. The Japanese brothers. Lane's boss, who just happens to be Porky! All memorable, and all hysterical. And of course, let us not forget the most determined and fearsome paperboy on the face of the Earth!

And last but not least, Diane Franklin as the scrumptious French exchange-student Monique. I mean, that image of her skiing down the mountain in that cute little pink outfit.... the stuff that teenagers' wet dreams are made of.

9 out of 10. See it over and over again.

Ok, bad pun - couldn't resist.

I am not one of those people who bash movies because they are unrealistic. That's what science FICTION is supposed to be. You think, "Hey, what if....?" If the premise is interesting, the story will be too, no matter how implausible it is. And this movie was interesting, from start to finish.

First, the good things:

1. Uma. 'Nuff said.

2. Paul Giamatti - Stole the show, wish he could have been in more of it.

3. The motorcycle chase scene. Way Cool.

4. The 20 items. I love the way such a complex story centered around the where, when and how to use them all.

Now, the not-go-good:

1. Ben. I'm sorry, but the guy has yet to prove to me that he can actually act. Just like Keanu Reeves, thinking you're cool doesn't make it so.

2. John Woo's trademark of two characters holding guns on each other despite the fact that they are stading only a few feet apart. Check out any John Woo movie, you will see that. In this movie, we saw it twice!

3. Aaron Eckhart's George McFly 'do.

Some movies are enjoyable because they make you think. Others are enjoyable because you don't need to think. And then there are movies like this, which want to make you understand what is going on but it's not required. I liken this movie to "Total Recall"; lots of action (although TR was way more violent), a sci-fi setting, and a plot that made us think. Granted, Ben has about 1/10 the screen presence that Arnie has, but that doesn't make "Paycheck" any less enjoyable.

My score: 9.

I am a little ambivalent when I think about how this movie affected me. I left the theater having not enjoyed myself nearly as much as the first two, that's for sure... but there was a lot to enjoy about the movie anyway.

Let me start by saying that I have not read any of the books; take that in any way you want.

If I didn't already know that there was a different director this time out, it would have been apparent immediately. Chris Columbus did such a magnificent job of translating the first two books to the screen that I expected something very similar here, but that's not the impression POA left on me.

The whole tone of the story was so much darker and scarier than the first two stories, I wasn't sure how to react: it wasn't really scary enough to be called a "scary" movie, but it was also not "fun" enough to really call it enjoyable. Maybe that was the point, because I've been told that the books are the same way.

Let me list the things that I enjoyed the most:

1. The acting jobs of Daniel, Rupert and Emma. Those three have become the embodiment of their characters, so much so that I hope they won't be typecast once the HP movies are over and done with.

2. Alan Rickman as Prof. Snape. He exudes arrogance and disdain but I am convinced deep down he feels admiration and protective of Harry. I have a feeling that something big will brew between them down the line.

3. The overall atmosphere at Hogwart's. This is a place where supernatural and otherworldly things happen hourly, but until now the place has seemed like a funfair haunted house. Kudos to Cuaron for doing that, although I did miss John Cleese's character!

4. The Dementors - a truly scary sight, and well realized.

What I didn't like:

1. What made the first two movies "fun" were the parts that could be described as "kid stuff" - the innocence and inexperience with doing magic, the Quiddich matches, etc. All of that was missing here. Yes, I know the kids are older and more experienced, but they are STILL KIDS. Emma Thompson's character said it best when she told Hermione that she had the heart of an old maid (or words to that effect). Kids are most enjoyable to watch when they having FUN being kids. Even the Quiddich match in this movie was dreary, an extension of the seriousness of the plot rather than a break from it.

2. Michael Gambon as Dumbledore - granted, stepping into Richard Harris's shoes is a very tall order (no pun intended), and I have nothing against Michael as an actor, but I have come to think of Dumbledore as a warm, charming, kindly character, rather like Santa Claus with magical powers. Michael tried his best to pull it off, but some of the warmth was just missing.

3. The omittance of Maggie Smith's character - it was her matronly demeanor, so typical of schoolmarms the world over, that added such as sense of believability to the first two movies. In this movie, she was practically a non-entity. Let's get this straight; Maggie Smith is a classically-trained, experienced actress with an acting resume that stretches back decades, and I applaud whoever convinced here to play this role, and keep playing it. Again, maybe her diminished role in this movie was in keeping with the book, which I haven't read, but I was very disappointed in her absence.

4. The "Defense Against the Dark Arts" Teacher - three movies, three teachers, with yet another one coming in the fourth installment. It's almost become a running joke that whoever takes the position will not last the movie, rather like the drummers in Spinal Tap!

I don't know in what direction this series is headed; the fourth installment, "The Goblet of Fire", is being filmed as we speak and will probably be released next summer. I am glad that they handed the reins over to Mike Newell, a veteran director with a proved track record for hits. For those who don't know, he has directed such films as "Four Weddings and a Funeral," "Mona Lisa Smile", "Enchanted April", and going further back, the "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" on TV. I think that this is an excellent choice - I am hoping that he can infuse some of the "fun" back into the series without taking away from the more serious overtones of it.

Just as we enjoy kids grow up on TV, I too enjoy watching these kids grow up on the screen. Next time out, I understand that for the first time there will be romantic interests for both Harry and Hermione. In Harry's case, it will be with an Asian character whose name I don't know; the actress playing her will be a complete unknown, which is just what the director wanted. As for Hermione, maybe she'll hook up with Ron - if she and Harry are not going to become involved, Ron would be the next best choice! The other supporting kids probably won't change their characters much; Neville will still be a bit of a weenie, Draco will be an arrogant prick, etc.

For those reading this who skipped over the body of this review and are only reading the final line, I'll just say this - if you are a stalwart Harry Potter fan, you must see this movie. If you enjoy fantasy movies where kids are the stars, you should see this movie. But if you go expecting the same kind of movie as the first two, you will be disappointed.

My score: 7 out of 10.

I have read all the bad comments about XXX - knocking the movie's unfounded comparisons to the James Bond films, slamming Vin Diesel's acting ability, charisma and screen presence, and thoroughly lambasting the film's cookie-cutter Euro-baddies and illogical story line.

You know what? You are all correct. And you know what else? I couldn't care less.

Comparing Xander Cage to James Bond is like comparing the Incredible Hulk to Superman. Both are comic book "heroes", but they have little in common. Bond is suave and debonair; Cage is muscular and quite throughly un-handsome. But it really doesn't matter. I went to XXX with no illusions about what I was going to see. I expected a 100-minute-long music/extreme-sports video, and that's what I got. And I was entertained every step of the way.

When I was a teenager, I enjoyed all the lowbrow Arnie movies that came out (Commando, Raw Deal, Running Man); you watch them now, and you wonder for a moment why you like them. Then it hits you; because they are simple, good-guy/bad-guy shoot-em-up entertainment. And that's why XXX works; sometimes you need to watch a movie where you can just enjoy it without having to think too much about it! There comes a time in everyone's life when one, for the most part, grows out of movies like that. I will still go see the occasional lowbrow shoot-em-up, but not as often as when I was younger. Sometimes I am entertained, and sometimes not, but that's the risk you take with any movie. In this case, I was entertained. Very much so!

It's a bad pun, but there are two kinds of films: movies with action, and movies with acting. If one goes to a movie and expects one thing but gets another, they will be outraged, and pepper this website with negative reviews. My advice to them: just enjoy it! How can one watch the scene where X snow-surfs down the mountain just seconds ahead of the avalanche and not go "Whoa!" That alone was worth the price of admission!

In this day and age, all movies will be analyzed, dissected and scrutinized down to the microscopic level - that's a fact that won't change. But as far as this movie is concerned, I say only this: put the magnifying glass down, park your butt on the couch and enjoy XXX; a campy, overly macho, thoroughly implausible, completely enjoyable romp.

My score: 9 out of 10.

I figure I have paid to see roughly 500 different movies in theaters over the course of my lifetime, rented hundreds more, and seen a few thousand others on cable. And I can say this without hesitation: The Return of the King is the best movie I have ever seen, hands down.

I won't give a long exposition about the plot, or how deserving it's Oscar sweep was; that's already been done by countless others before me. I will say, however, that if Peter Jackson never made another movie again after this, he will still be remembered 100 years from now.

One of the most beloved and most-read series of books EVER, the LOTR trilogy was thought, many years ago, to be unfilmable; it was too long, too broad in scope. You'd have to cut so much out in order to tell the story. And at the time, it was true. But with movie effects and technology having progressed to the point it has, the time was right for the telling of this story. And, viewing the three movies as a whole, I wouldn't change one thing about it.

There were changes or omissions from the original story, of course: the roles of the female characters, Arwyn and Eowyn, were hugely embellished for cinematic purposes; and the disappearance of Saruman from the 3rd installment is the only real niggle I have about the whole series. But I think that if JRR Tolkien had lived to see his work portrayed on the big screen, he would be more than satisfied with Jackson's work.

Having read the books, I wondered just how much of the "after" story would make it into the final cut. Again, they left a lot out, but when you have a movie that is already 3 1/2 hours long, I guess certain sacrifices must be made! Of course, part of me hoped that the movie would never end.... and I know that's a sentiment shared by many.

It's weird to note that ROTK nabbed 11 Oscars without even a single nomination for acting. Many would say that the story's epic-ness and volume were on such a massive scale, that it became difficult for individual performances to stand out. And that is a shame. Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen and Elijah Wood all did such and incredible job infusing their characters with warmth and inner strength that they almost became members of our family while we were watching them.

The word "epic" is sometimes overused when it comes to movies. Any movie that incorporates thousands of extras, huge sets and big-budget effects these days could be called an "epic", but only history will be the judge of how it will hold up. "Titanic" was an epic, in every sense of the word. And for a year or two, it seemed to be the only movie that people saw, or talked about. But look at it now! Yes, it still stands as the #1 grossing movie of all time, a record that may stand for years to come. But it's already played itself out. Everyone has seen it, and few really have any desire to see it again. LOTR, the whole series, will not suffer the same fate. This movie will generate just as much positive buzz ten, twenty years from now as it does today. True, technology and computer effects will continue to grow, evolve and improve. There will be more "epics". But there will never, ever be another series like this one again.

My score: an unqualified 10.

When this movie came-out, many people I know called it a "poor man's Matrix". I can see their point, to a degree; Matrix had cooler effects, better action sequences and more notable actors in the lead roles than the 13th Floor. But there the similarity ends.

True, the FX from the first Matrix movie were fantastic and ground-breaking, but what else about it, as well as the two films that followed it, do people give high praise for? Not the story line. And not the acting either. Of the whole cast, only Laurence Fishburne did anything that can be remotely considered "acting".

Don't get me wrong, "The Matrix" is a great movie for what it is; but "The 13th Floor" is a great movie for something else entirely. It is a compelling story with real characters, and it didn't bog itself down by trying to be too apocryphal.

Of all the actors in this movie, only Vincent D'Onofrio (and perhaps Dennis Haysbert, thanks to "24") would be considered a household name, and that's all right too. A movie this intelligent should not be overshadowed by the actors playing it out.

Let me just say at this point that Vincent D'Onofrio is one of the best actors in Hollywood; he simply does not do a bad job, ever. If you haven't seen him on Law & Order: Criminal Intent, check it out; even if you're not an L&O fan, it's worth watching just to see him operate.

But I digress... sci-fi movies, much more often than not, are either wildly overblown, over hyped or over-FX'd, or they are campy and seriously exempt of any intelligent thought at all. The idea behind the Matrix, for example, was a very original idea; it would have stood on its own very well, I think, even without all the wall-walking and slo-mo gun battles. The 13th Floor is similarly crafty, proffering the notion that not only can one create a virtual world, but that a character from that world can re-inhabit our bodies should we die in that world. Kudos to the writers that came up with it.

Had I been casting this movie, I may not have cast Craig Bierko - even though he hasn't had much acting experience in a lead role, you have to admit he's got two of the best eyes in the biz! Gretchen Mol I didn't know much about either, but I think both of them did just fine in the finished product.

As a lifelong fan of the Sci-Fi genre, I highly recommend this movie, as long as you go in with an open mind; if your kind of movie is the kind where you can basically switch your brain off for the duration and you can marvel at all the pretty explosions, than this movie isn't for you. But if you like clever, intelligent cinema, you will like this film.

My score: 9

For similarly well-written and well-acted sci-fi movies, I would also recommend "Dark City" and "The Arrival".

Few movies in the history of movies inspire its fans to memorize every scene, every bit of dialogue, every microscopic nuance to be brought out later at social gatherings. Such is Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

The Pythoners once said in an interview that when they wrote their characters, their scripts, it was NEVER about what they thought would make millions of people laugh. It was about what made the six of THEM laugh, and that is a fitting testament to Python's genius.

John Cleese once commented that the British are a people who are desperate to be made fun of. When many people think of England, the first images most people the world over conjure up are either the horrible weather or the stuffed shirts that make up the aristocracy. The best British comedies through the years. Python, Benny Hill and the Black Adder series, to name a few, were all made immortal because they railed against the stiff, boring world they grew up in by displaying the wacky irreverence that made even the status quo laugh.

The Knights Who Say "Nee!" The French Taunter. The Castle Anthrax. The Rabbit. Lancelot's stint at Swamp Castle. "Bring Out Your Dead." The Bridge Keeper. You mention these things to people, and they instantly know what you mean, even if the name of the movie hasn't even come up! But even the smaller bits are worthy of remembrance: The Opening Credits. The Coconuts. The Witch Trial. Sir Robin's Minstrels. The old man clapping on the dungeon wall. The 10-second (PSYCH!) intermission. The Holy Hand Grenade. And the aptly named Sir-Not-Appearing-In-This-Film. The list goes on and on. Every second of this movie belongs in the Comedy Hall of Fame.

I'd bet that his film is on more people's Top 10 Funniest Movies of All Time than any other. It has become a standard in the industry.

"Strange women lying in ponds..." "Bet you're gay!" "No I'm not..." "I got better..." "...silly English Knnnnnnniggets" "Run Away! Run Away!" "Well, perhaps I'll stay a BIT longer..." "We want.... a shrubbery!!"

10 out of 10.

Ice Age was a very entertaining movie, with broad appeal for viewers mature and young. Right from the beginning, when we chuckle at Skrat's futile attempts to crack his prized acorn, we are hooked.

The actors chosen to play the main characters' voices played their parts to the hilt, most notably John Leguizamo as the (extremely) goofy-looking but lovable sloth Sid. How could you not laugh at one of his opening lines... "They migrated without me... they do this EVERY YEAR!!" Sid is joined by Manfred (Ray Romano) and Diego (Denis Leary) as three beasts very atypical of their species, and sure enough, they start to gel as a group when faced with the daunting task of returning a human baby to it's tribe after it's mother dies while fleeing a pack of saber-toothed tigers.

I won't go into great detail about the rest of the story; it is not difficult to predict. The good guys win and there is a happy ending; but hey, this is an animated movie aimed at kids, what other kind of ending could there be? Still, putting that aside, the 75 minutes between start and end are extremely entertaining.

My score: 9.