Reviews

I have never really been a fan of Harry Potter, and I truly do view this series as a passing fad, nothing more. I have never read the books, and I am only reviewing this as a film, nothing more.

Well, folks, we have finally come to the end, the last Harry Potter film, THANK GOD.

How does this film end? Not well. Instead of a coherent story, we get flashbacks and other excuses for a lack of a decent script this time around.

The plot, or lack there of, finds Mr. Potter and his two friends looking for pieces of the villain Voldemort's soul while at the same time, their boarding school is attacked by minions of his enemy.

What should be an exciting scene, or battle, instead becomes a frustrating experience, with scenes cutting back and fourth, back and fourth. We get a scene with Harry, then cut back to the "battle" over the school, then back to Harry, we see people seriously injured or dead, but we don't know how. That is another reason why these films are so frustrating to watch, because a person should not have to read a book to know what is going on.

Another case in point, Voldemort clearly kills Harry Potter at one point, but then he "miraculously" comes back to life, and in their final wand fight, Harry clearly kills his adversary, but the film clearly doesn't not explain why very well.

I found the ending completely anti-climatic, confusing, and dull as well. Even worse, many of the performances are completely wooden, including Harry's red headed girlfriend. At the end of the film, which takes place 20 years later, she looks about as uninteresting as a person can be.

I'm sure that many Potter fanatics will disagree with my review of this film and the others in the series, but oh well, I'm entitled to my opinion and I am sticking with it and I always will.

The Potter films have always been a frustrating and dull experience for me and this film is no different. Give me the Chronicles of Narnia any day over these headaches any day. The best thing I can say about Deathly Hallows parts 1 and 2 is that Harry Potter is FINALLY OVER. Thank goodness! Please Academy, ignore this tripe and give the awards to far better films this year!

Overall this film is FFO, For Fans Only, nothing else!

The third Chronicles of Narnia film, this time called The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a step in a new direction for the fantasy film series.

The first film was a step in a magical world with four children freeing a magical land from the evil White Witch.

The sequel, Prince Caspian, was far more violent and dealt with a war within Narnia to return it's rightful ruler, Prince Caspian to the throne.

This time around two of the Pevensies (Lucy and Edmund) return along with their bratty cousin, Eustice to return the seven swords to Aslan's table. Two of the Pevensies, (Peter and Susan) simply make cameo appearances since he is away at University and she is visiting America in the new film.

This time the children are rescued by the infamous Dawn Trader ship, which is King Caspian's ship.

All in all the effects were surprisingly good, (especially when Eustice becomes a sea dragon) and this time the film is in 3D, which should bring smiles from the little ones this Holiday season. If you are looking for a fantasy film this summer, I would give recommend this film over the latest Harry Potter film, which quite frankly was too pointless.

Bring on The Silver Chair!

That is what my wife asked me half way through yet another long, boring, and pointless Harry Potter film (Warner Brothers must be desperate for cash these days, this got stale and old years ago) Anyways, here we are with yet another Harry Potter film. This time the seventh. What is the point this time? I have no idea, the plot for every film is the same, the villain, Voldemort wants to kill Harry Potter, and yet, this simple plot line has been extended who knows how long.

What was at one time slightly amusing has become rather stale, tired and just plain boring.

This time around the three leads, Harry Potter, and his friends Ron and Hermoine are on the run looking for something called horcruxes which are supposed to kill off the evil Voldemort. (which is something that should have been done years ago) In any case, what probably works well on the page doesn't work so well on film. This episode called Deathly Hollows continues the same tired and stale storyline of the last several films with absolutely no pay off yet again.

I know that many will state I am being too hard on Harry Potter but I have never found these films to be as enjoyable as it's fan base. I think I checked my watch over a 100 times waiting for this film to end.

Over forty years later, a little show that played on NBC in the late 1960s quickly became the biggest and most profitable science fiction television franchise in history.

Television writer, Gene Roddenbury, a visionary of science fiction television, came up with a unique idea for television in 1966, a series about a starship that visits other worlds, not to conquer them but to "seek out new life and civilizations and to go where no man has gone before." It was such a unique concept that two pilots had to be shot.

William Shatner became a household name in his portrayal of the greatest captain of the starship Enterprise, James T Kirk, the commander and leader of the Enterprise.

Joining him was his first officer, Vulcan Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy, Medical Officer Leonard "Bones" McCoy, played by DeForrest Kelley, Chief Engineer Montgomery "Scotty" Scott, Helmsman Hikaru Sulu, played by George Takei, communications officer, Uhura, played by Nichelle Nicols, and security officer, Pavel Checkov, played by Walter Koenig.

Of course for three solid seasons, some of the best science fiction stories ever made were shown on NBC. It was canceled in 1969, but what happened afterwords changed not only television but history as well.

Star Trek was then shown on syndication where it flourished and quickly spawned off a short lived animated series which completed Kirk's five year mission in space, and in 1979, Star Trek fans were rewarded the first of six highly successful films on the big screen.

It was followed by the spin off syndication series, Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1987 and three other spin off shows.

Star Trek going where no other science fiction franchise has gone before living long and prospering for over four decades.

I was a teenager still in school when the premiere of Star Trek The Next Generation happened in mid-1987. A lot of die-hard Trekkers, including my father dismissed the news of a new television series based on the beloved 1960s show as nothing more than a fluke riding on the wave of massive popularity thanks to the huge box office returns of the first four Star Trek films.

But, when TNG premiered, I was absolutely blown away, here we had a (then) state of the art Enterprise, capable of separating during battle, a holodeck where people could interact with computer images, and a bridge that looked more like a hotel lobby than the old bridge of the 1960s shows.

Even the costumes were very 80s! Taking in tight fitting one piece spandex uniforms over the glamorous 60s costumes from the original show.

The standout, of course is Royal Shakepere Company actor Sir Patick Stewart as Captain Jean Luc Picard, while not as much of an action captain as his predecessor, was a stand out authoritarian. Brint Spiner taking the Spock role as the android Data, Gates McFadden as the sexy Dr. Beverly Crusher, Jonathan Frakes taking on the first officer role, Commander Riker, Sexy Betazoid shrink, Deanna Troi, played by Mirina Sirtis, The grouchy Klingon Worf, played by former Chips star, Michael Dorn, the late Tasha Yar, played by Denise Crosby, and of course the child prodigy, who was designed to attract younger viewers, Wesley Crusher, played by teen actor, Wil Wheaton.

For seven seasons, the Enterprise D took her place alongside the original Enterprise as a great vessel of adventure, and excitement. What followed were four average Next Generation films which could not live up to the television show's popularity.

All in all, I would say that Star Trek definitely lived long and prospered with The Next Generation, a show that equals in both popularity and quality with the beloved Original Series from the 1960s.

Michael Mann's Heat, his masterpiece action film from 1995, is definitely one of my favorite films of all time, from the great storyline, to the characters, to one has got to be one of the greatest action set pieces in modern film-making, Heat has it all! Al Pacino plays Los Angeles Homicide Detective Vincent Hanna, the man on the hunt for his prey. He has no social life, no time for his family, and no time for B.S. The man's sole purpose is to go after his prey, nothing more.

On the opposite end, Robert Deniro plays master thief and heist operator, Neil McCaley, a man with a sole mission in life, to take down scores, he lets, no one, nothing stand in his way. He is calculated, precise, and above all, he makes little mistakes.

In between the two lead characters is an all star cast, all at the top of their game, Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore, Ashley Judd, Jon Voight, Wes Studi, 24's Dennis Heybert, Prison Break's William Fincter, and Natalie Portman all give their best to Michael Mann's unforgettable screenplay.

The entire film is about the relationship between Hanna and McCaley, one takes down scores, and the other is determined to use whatever means to take him out.

The action, fantastic, and the bank heist, near the end has to go down as easily the best action sequences ever filmed in the 1990s.

The directing, Michael Mann proves he can direct with the best of them with this fantastic film.

Heat, unfortunately was not nominated for any Oscars, but, in recent years, has gained a huge and appreciative following from those who enjoy their crime films, without the presence of annoying actors (Leonardo DiCaprio) or over directing from Martin Scorsese.

1995's Heat remains an underrated classic of unprecedented proportions and that's saying a lot!

Yes, I have to admit, that chick flicks are not my thing (Never have been, never will be either, heck I even hated Titanic!) My wife really wanted to see this movie since she is a fan of the book it is based on, and since this weekend's movie night was her choice, I decided to tag along.

However, I cannot tell you how ridiculous this movie was, I simply could not relate to either of the leads, and I have seen far better vampire films than this one.I easily preferred both of the Underworld films, which covered similar territory to this film.

Yes, I realize that a lot of teenage girls will be upset about that comment, but I stand by it. Twilight is easily one of the most dull and boring vampire films I have ever seen! Give me Underworld any day over this. Sorry ladies! Please end the agony of this nonsense soon.

I enjoyed the book of The DaVinci Code and, to my surprise, everything that was interesting in the book was seriously missing in this film, there was no suspense, any real sense of adventure, and no real surprises at the end.

Tom Hanks is completely miscast as Langdon, and I pictured a more interesting character than his interpretation. Hanks does nothing really interesting in this film other than reacting to others and their emotions.

Audrey Tautou is also not much better as Sophie, and I also pictured another actress in this role.

The only "actor" in this film who completely redeems himself is the great Sir Ian McKellan as Teabing, even though, I pictured someone like Sir Anthony Hopkins in the role instead.

This is not like a Ron Howard film, and it shows, Howard, who is a very talented director, with such hits as Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind, is completely wasted, as he puts in the storyline of the book, with none of the advent's tone of the book.

Like the Harry Potter movies, the book is a whole lot better than the finished product.

Not as controversial as many people think, but nowhere near as interesting either not at all.

I admit, I have never picked up a Harry Potter book in my life, and I am judging this film, solely as a movie, not as a book.' With that being said, this film is an editorial mess, jumping from one frame to another with little exposition.

Granted, I saw a cut of it at Warner Brothers studios back in 2005, before it was released to the public, but, I am fairly sure that the cut I saw was the final release cut of the film.

The flow of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is atrocious. It simply jumps from one bad CGI scene to the next.

The characters are bland at best, and I really don't care about what happens to them.

Some of the sequences are unintentionally funny, such as Voldemort's cohorts, which look like members of the KKK at a Klan rally.

The film is a giant mess, and unless you're a huge fan of the books, you really won't enjoy this film at all. I could care less what happens to him or any of his companions in the future.

Ralph Fiennes is badly miscast here, in one of his usual ham it up villain roles.

His Amon Goeth, from Schindler's List would eat Voldemort for breakfast! Not to mention, Michael Gambom, an excellent English character actor does a horrid job of playing Dumbledore, the headmaster of Harry Potter's school who dresses in extremely shabby clothing.

He looked more like a weird hippie wizard wanna be, in my opinion.

Overall, Goblet of Fire is more of the same old Harry Potter, bland and uninspiring! Two stars out of four at best.

After months of disappointing remakes, sequels, and big budget CGI fests that were badly written. (Avatar comes to mind.) I am happy to say that one director, Christopher Nolan, proves that story always triumphs over eye candy, with his latest flick, Inception.

Two years after breaking box office records, with his previous flick, Christopher Nolan returns with a vengeance, with his latest film, Inception, which isn't a sequel at all, but an entirely original idea.

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a thief who specializes in a "special kind of security" that of the mind. He and his team of specialists are given a task by a CEO named Saito, played by Ken Wattanabe, of not extracting information from a young CEO, Robert Fischer, played by Cillian Murphy. Normally I find DiCaprio to be annoying in many of his films, but here, he doesn't overact, and I think it's good to finally see DiCaprio in a film that isn't directed by Martin Scorsese for a change.

Cobb's team goes deeper and deeper into Fischer's subconscious when Saito is shot, which means if he dies, that person may never wake up. The layers include, a hotel battle without any gravity, a slowly falling van off of a bridge, a battle in an arctic layer, and a beach filled with crumbling buildings. In each layer, Cobb must battle with his own personal demons, including his wife, Mal, played by Marion Cotillard. Who may or may not be what she seems.

I understand that this film will be quite confusing to many viewers, including the ending, which may seem quite on the upbeat side, until you realize it also may not be what it really seems.

All I can tell you about this film is that it will be discussed for many years, with people debating on what is real and what is not real, sort of what happened with the Matrix craze during the 1990s.

Inception, the latest masterpiece from director, Christopher Nolan.

James Cameron, THIS is how you make a movie!

I know that many people are going to knock me around for this review, and I understand that, but I really throughly enjoyed the new animated film Despicable Me.

I see many films every year, including How To Train Your Dragon from my own studio, Dreamworks, which was an excellent film. Shrek 4, not so much. Then comes Toy Story 3, the latest adventure with Buzz and Woody. While it was great to see them back on the big screen, I wasn't as impressed with the third film as many critics and fans of the series were, and I feel that the inevitable fourth Toy Story film should go back to basics and focus on the central characters like Buzz and Woody again.

Which leads me to Despicable Me. Now, like most other people, the trailers really didn't interest me at all. It was only after my young daughter had heard from her classmates how great the film was to watch and how much that children had really enjoyed it.

So, I took my family to see this film, and man, I really enjoyed it! Steve Carrell's Gru is the first animated anti-hero that I really enjoyed watching. Where Toy Story 3 was filled with many mean spirited characters that actually frightened many small children (I heard many children screaming at times.) Despicable Me was definitely more light hearted. Was Despicable Me a better written movie than Toy Story 3? No. But was it more enjoyable? Yes, I would have to say so. I enjoyed the light hearted spirit of the film, rather than the dark tone of the latest Pixar film and the minons easily steal the film.

I can see Despicable Me become a series of animated hits for Universal and with great word of mouth spreading, I think that the filmmakers have made one winner of a great animated film. Despicable Me was far better than the last Shrek film, and more enjoyable than the latest Toy Story film for me and my family. I understand many will disagree with my review, and that's fine with me.

David Lynch has always been one of my favorite directors. From Eraserhead, to Twin Peaks to Lost Highway, he has never disappointed. To say his films are weird are an understatement as his films definitely have an acquired taste.

Mulholland Drive, which was released back in 2001, was originally another television pilot which was going to be used by ABC, after the resounding success of Twin Peaks in the early 1990s. However, the network found the episode a little too strange for their taste, so they decided to pass it up. Lynch, being the visionary that he is, found international funding and was able to make his truly weird vision for one of the most unique films of the last several years.

Betty Elms has just arrived in Los Angeles from Ontario Canada with dreams of stardom in her mind. She stays at her aunt's apartment and has an audition immediately scheduled. Another mysterious woman, named nicknamed Rita, is found after a car accident with no memory of who she is, but all we know about her is that she has a lot of the mob's money in her purse.

In all Lynch glory, the tables are turned on both characters and nothing is what is really seems. Characters and situations are not what they seem, and this is a film that needs to be seen several times to figure out the clues as the the real meaning of the ending of the film.

All I can say is that I hope that Lynch can continue making great movies as he has not had a big mainstream hit since 1999's The Straight Story, his first and only G rated film.

Mulholland Drive, definitely a film for true Lynch fans, and definitely not to be missed.

Ridley Scott's triumphant Black Hawk Down is easily one of the best war films ever made, combining the graphic battle footage made famous by Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan and combining them with the relentless editing made famous in Scott movies like Gladiator.

It's 1993, Bill Clinton is the new president and the country of Somalia has plunged into civil war with tens of thousands of people dying from war and starvation the situation escalates to the point where the United Nations and the United States bring in American servicemen fresh from their victory in the 1991 Gulf War to assist in distributing food and other supplies. But the residents of Mogadishu have other plans. Led by a vicious Somali warlord named Mohamed Farrah Aidid whom the United States plans to capture.

What was going to be an easy extraction became easily the most violent military episode since the Vietnam war with nearly 20 American servicemen graphicly killed and hundreds of Somalis killed in the process.

What was originally a small civil conflict is pushed right in front of your eyes in Scott's remarkable film where hundreds of Americans literally fight for their lives to escape the city of Mogadishu.

Top notch action, acting, and direction from the great Ridley Scott and a personal triumph for producer Jerry Bruckheimer famous for those Pirates of the Carabeean films. Definitely one of the best war films ever made!

Pixar is back at it again, with a film that fans have been waiting for over 11 years, Toy Story 3. All of the great toys are back, Buzz Lightyear, Woody, and so fourth.

(There are serious spoilers in this review so beware!)

The first and ending parts are the best, but I felt that the middle story was really weak, and this series is really starting to show it's age.

The first film, which was released back in the mid 1990s, was the first CGI animated film in history was was another great milestone in Disney animation, and Toy Story 2 was released four years later, and is considered by many, including myself, to be the best film of the series.

Now 11 years later, Disney and Pixar are back with Toy Story 3. This time, Andy, the owner of the toys is now 17 years old and about to depart for college. He hasn't played with his toys for a long time, and they are starting to miss their interactions with him. After a very imaginative opening, which takes the opening of the first film to a new level, the very long mid-section begins, which takes the characters from Andy's house to a daycare center called Sunnyside, to a landfill, and this section is very long and prodding. Aside from a few humorous moments such as Buzz speaking in Spanish, the story lags in this section. Woody finds a young girl named Bonnie who is a child who attends Sunnyside, and goes to her home. I also seriously missed BoBeep's interactions with Woody from the first two films.

Some of the middle sections are extremely cheesy to watch, such as Ken and Barbie, and a bad fashion show set to the tune of 70's disco hit "Le Freak", which has got to be the low point of the series. After the high note of Toy Story 2, which doesn't have a weak moment in it at all, I found quite a few low notes in Toy Story 3. Sure, many will disagree with my points here, but as a fan of this series, I felt that the middle section needed a lot of work.

The end brings it all home as Andy is reunited with Buzz and Woody and the last time he plays with them and says goodbye to his beloved toys is easily the best part of the film. With that being said, when Pixar makes a fourth Toy Story, I say that they start from scratch and focus on the central characters as the third film had far too many characters interacting in a very weak mid section which was nothing more than an animated prison escape film. I loved the first two Toy Story films, as well as other Pixar classics like Up, Monsters Inc, and The Incredibles, but I didn't enjoy Toy Story 3 as much as the first two Toy Story films. It's great seeing Buzz Lightyear and Woody back on the big screen, but next time, hopefully Pixar will focus on the central characters rather than adding too many characters next time around in the inevitable fourth Toy Story movie. I would give this three stars or a 7 rating. However these characters are timeless so we'll see them on the big screen again guaranteed.

The Hurt Locker, which was released last summer, is one of the best Iraq war films ever made, tense, exciting, and a true point of view of one of the most unpopular wars in recent memory.

Jeremy Renner plays Army specialist William James, an EOD bomb disposer who has diffused nearly 900 bombs in the Iraq war, he's a thrill seeker, performs well under pressure, and keeps his teammates alive.

Bigelow, wisely avoids politics of the war, and like other great war dramas like Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan, uses the soldier's point of view in combat.

William James and his team diffuses several bombs in the film, including removing a detonating devise buried in a boy's body, the last bomb, which is chain strapped to an Iraqi civilian, is especially tense, and it's thrilling to watch James work his magic under extreme pressure.

It just goes to show the heroism and courage our fighting men and women go through everyday to keep us safe. We can hate the politicians and the people for dragging our troops into harm's way, but, movies like The Hurt Locket make me especially proud of our people in uniform.

Congratulations, Mrs. Bigelow. You should prepare your Oscar acceptance speech any day now!

The Hurt Locker winner of six academy awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. Congratulations to all involved in this fabulous film!

Juno director Jason Reitman has done it again. Up In The Air is by far the most enjoyable film of 2009. Bristling with outstanding performances led by George Clooney, this film is rightfully the Oscar front runner, and if the academy is wise, reward this film with the Best Picture Oscar!

Up In The Air, is not only highly enjoyable but it's also by far one of the most relevant Oscar front runners in years. The country is in an economic meltdown not seen since the great depression (all thanks to the incompetent leadership of George W. Bush, but that's another story!) Ryan Bingham, played by George Clooney is a guy who works for a company that "lets go" of employees all over the country. He makes it easier for companies to lay off workers who are too timid to do it themselves.

He's so good at his job that he has nearly racked up ten million frequent flier miles. In fact, that's where he feels most at home, "Up In The Air". Bingham's company hires a new employee, Natalie Keener played by Twilight's Anna Kendrick, who has developed a new program of laying off workers from behind a computer screen, making it easier and more cost effective to lay off workers without the high cost of flying and hotel rooms.

Bingham takes Keener under his wing to show her how to do the job correctly, and in the process meets another lay off specialist Alex Goran, played by The Departed's Vera Farmiga, with whom he shares a close relationship. Bingham's philosophy is to have as little attachments as possible, nothing personal, to keep things completely casual.

It's a philosophy he shares at regular speaking engagements. It's the same philosophy that he shares with many of the people he lays off. However during the course of the film, he realizes that personal relationships are the key to surviving a lay off, and that human companion ships are worth having.

Clooney has never been better, Anna Kendick, does a terrific job of playing a hungry Cornell graduate who finally realizes the human toll of letting people go from their jobs, and Farmiga is Clooney's equal in the film.

Jason Reitman is one of America's most promising new directors from his debut in Thank You For Smoking to the great Juno to this.

Up In The Air, truly deserves the Best Picture Oscar at the Academy awards, and there isn't enough praise for it's cast or storyline. Truly the best film of 2009, and far better than the hugely overrated Avatar.

Yes, I was able to see an advanced screening of James Cameron's long awaited science fiction film, Avatar.

So, what's good about it? The visuals are among the best ever seen, the planet Pandora truly comes alive, and the creatures, wildlife, etc. All look fabulous on the big screen.

What's bad about it? Cameron's trademark lame dialog is back, as well as his less than ordinary scriptwriting. The characters, with the exception of Signorey Weaver's scientist character, and Stephen Lang's Colonel Quarritch all feel wooden. The hero doesn't feel alive, he feels generic, and I felt the bad guys "humans" were cardboard caricatures. Not to mention the story is far from original. It's basically Dances With Wolves/ Pocahontas meets Aliens.

What's the story about?

(SPOILERS AHEAD!)

In the future, Marine soldier, Jake Sully, (Played by Austrailian Sam Worthtington) is a paralyzed veteran, whose twin scientist brother was killed. The Resources Development Association, a greedy energy corporation, similar to the one used in Cameron's Aliens film gives him an opportunity to take his brother's place in the Avatar program designed by the RDA to infiltrate the natives of Pandora called the Navi, who stand ten feet tall, have blueish skin and act like Native Americans, plus they speak English. (What a surprise!) The RDA have brought in a group of marines led by the evil Colonel Miles Quarrich, easily the most interesting character of the entire film, to make sure that the Navi are displaced from their home so that the RDA can extract a mineral called "Unobtainium", which is worth $20,000,000 an ounce, since the Earth is in an energy crisis.

The film has some of the greatest visuals ever recorded on film, but after a while your eyes can get a little exhausted from seeing every little detail in 3D. After Jake's introduction to the Navi by "driving" his Avatar body, the film slows down as Jake and his new found love, Neitri, played by Zoe Saldana, fall in love, and Jake discovers how the Navi tribe works. But, time is running short, Quaritch and the RDA want to displace the Navi, by force if necessary, to mine the unobtainium from the Navi grounds.

The ending involves marine equipment of every sort, gunships, robotic suits, etc, all while the Navi face them down with flying dragons, dinosaurs, bows, arrows, etc. It's one of the grandest visual effects scenes ever put on film.

All in all, how did I feel about this film? Well, it's certainly an improvement over Cameron's previous entry Titanic, but his clunky dialog, and shoddy storytelling are still present, and most of the characters really aren't fleshed out very well. Worthington's Sully doesn't really feel alive, Saldana's Neitri is basically Sully's Navi love interest with little to do. Giovani Ribisi's greedy corporate shrill, Parker Selfride, is a whiny irritant, and Michelle Rodriquez, plays a sympathetic marine pilot who does little in the film. Only Weaver's Dr. Grace Augustine and Stephen Lang's Quarritch stand out among the crowd. Where Cameron succeeds is in the technical aspects of the film, the visuals, by Peter Jackson's effects company WETA digital, are first rate. Also, most of the action feels unoriginal since we have seen a lot of this material in Cameron's far superior Aliens film. Plus, it never even comes close to reaching the heights of his best film, 1991's Terminator 2 Judgement Day. Plus as I said earlier the dialoge is borderline retarded, hearing lines out of Quaritch's mouth is so bad, I was hoping for some cotton balls for my ears every time I heard one of his annoying speeches. Not to mention the logical thing for the RDA to have done was to negotiate with the Navi for the unobtainium instead of taking it by force, but then again, Cameron doesn't want to use logic, he sees corporations as the ultimate evil. Very little gray in this film. The RDA is evil and the Navi are good, end of story.

Would I see this again? Maybe, maybe not, but the slower aspects of the film and some of the dialog are very irritating to listen to. My wife actually got a migraine headache from wearing those 3D glasses for over two and a half hours.

To sum it all up, the visuals shine, the story lags, and the dialog is awful.

Avatar is not bad, but not great either. I would say it's average.

You would think that the stereotypical African American welfare story has been done to bits, but, alas, Oprah Winfrey, and one of the producers of Monster's Ball have struck again.

Precious, which is based on a controversial fictional 1996 book called Push, regards a poor, highly illiterate teenage mother living in Harlem, combating poverty, drug addicted father, who has impregnated her twice, and a highly abusive mother, who abuses her both physically, and mentally for "stealing her man" I found the stereotypes in this film to be highly offensive, and I think that this film will reinforce what most Americans feel about poor African Americans, even after our historical election last fall of the first African American president in history.

My objection to this film once again lies with the stereotypical African American living in the ghetto. While it's admirable that the lead character is facing unsurmountable odds, it's also highly offensive to re-enforce negative stereotypes.

All in all, I found this film to be overrated, offensive, and at times slow. This was like watching a Lifetime movie of the week mixed with harsh language and child abuse thrown in. I feel this movie is simply racist and stereotypical.

Jennifer's Body, which stars current it girl Megan Fox, and Mamma Mia star Amanda Seyfriend, is my pick of the worst film of the year so far.

The Oscar winning writer of Juno, Diablo Cody, is back with her second script, the very UNfunny Jennifer's Body. While her snappy dialog propelled her first feature to box office success, and an Academy Award for her script, her second feature, Jennifer's Body, shows that so far, Cody seems to be a one-trick pony.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD: Jennifer is a teenage cheerleader who gets picked up by some devil's worshipers and become a demon who eats the guys who like her. The whole thing plays like a bad horror comedy. Fox can't act and has a great difficulty portraying anything remotely believable as the lead. She's nothing more than eye candy here.

Amanda Seyfriend fresh from Mamma Mia and the hit show, Big Love, is far better as Jennifer's best friend, appropriately named Needy.

The ending, while a shock, sets things up for another film, and I heard a lot of whining from the audience by the time the credits rolled.

My advise, wait for this one on DVD, save your money for a better movie.

I am a HUGE fan of Quentin Tarantino. I think that Reservoir Dogs is a great early 90's heist film. Pulp Fiction is one of the greatest films of the 1990s, Jackie Brown is a homage to early 70's blacksploitation films and very entertaining, Kill Bill, while a little on the long side, was really fun, and I absolutely loved Grindhouse, (both films) But, I am one of the few people who really found all the over the top historical revisions in Tarrentino's Inglorious Bastards to be a little too much nonsense for me, and therefore I have to admit I hated Tarantino's new film.

While I think Quentin Tarantino's over-the-top violent antics works in some genres, I just can't take an over the top violent World War II comedy like Inglorious Bastards the least bit seriously, and that's why I really didn't enjoy it. I really hate it when directors like Tarentino conveniently re-write history just to entertain themselves.

Another problem with the film is that it goes on for far too long. This is the first time I nearly fell asleep reading endless subtitles with people speaking in French and German. And, there is absolutely no way that a German commander would let a hillbilly speaking in crappy Italian into a theater full of SS people. And their is no way that Hitler would allow himself to be gunned down so easily by two of the bastards.

I love World War II films, such as Saving Private Ryan, and I think that Tarantino is one of our most unique directors, but the two don't match up at all. Perhaps, he can bless the world with a Pulp Fiction sequel someday. Perhaps.....

David Fincher's frightening 1990's detective thriller, Se7en, is easily one of the most underrated and overlooked films in the genre.

Like the 1991 best picture winner, The Silence of the Lambs, Se7en, concerns another mad killer, this time with the moniker, John Doe.

It's up to the two lead detectives, Somersett, and Mills to find him.

SPOILERS: In an east coast city (the name is never revealed, but, it's very likely NYC) A mass murderer is leaving dead bodies with revealing clues as to their behavior for the police.

Police homicide veteran, William Somersett who is days from retirement has been asked to find the killer along with new rookie, David Mills, played by Brad Pitt.

Through a series of clues, and very dark subplots we find that the police have actually become the pawns in a very dangerous game.

I will not reveal the shocking ending, but to say it's one of the best twists in this genre is an understatement. John Doe can take his place alongside Hannibal Lecter for pure unrelentling evil.

One of my favorite thrillers of the 1990s.

A 9 on a scale of 1-10.

Watchmen, which was released earlier this year by Warner Brothers was both a critical and financial disappointment. I understand completely why now. The storyline, which takes place in an "alternate universe" demonstrates how a group of costumed vigilantes must struggle with themselves to see whether or not humanity is worth saving from nuclear war. The characters are flawed in this film. Nite Owl, suffers from impotence, Silk Spectre, comes from a troubled childhood. Dr. Manhattan, a glowing blue nightmare who walks around fully nude, contemplates the value of human life. Rorshach, is a psychopath who walks the streets braking people's bones and dispensing his own form of justice. Oxymandias, feels that humanity must be saved by destroying it, and The Comedian is a full blown idiot, who serves his own agenda.

Many audiences who in years past have enjoyed many critically acclaimed box office comic book hits were severely disappointed with this film and I can understand why. First of all, much of the music is highly questionable, and some of the scenes such as Nite Owl and Silk Spectre getting it on inside of his owl shaped spaceship elicits unintentional laughter from the audience. Second is the unnecessary graphic violence. There is absolutely no reason to show a prisoner getting his arm's sawed off in a jailbreak whatsoever, other than to shock the audience for cheap laughs.

Plus, the storyline goes off in a thousand different directions, with one storyline choosing a philosophical point of view, the next choosing a violent point of view, and the third storyline choosing a humorous point of view. I'm sorry but with a film going in so many different directions it's hard to maintain interest in the storyline, or many of the seriously deranged characters here. All in all this feels like the dysfunctional family syndrome of comic book movies. I was highly disappointed, and I feel this is one of the weakest comic book movies ever adapted for the big screen.

One and a half stars out of four. One of the worst comic book movie ever made.

Michael Mann's Public Enemies can be best described as The Untouchables meets his 1995 hit Heat. Johnny Depp, back in serious mode, plays notorious 1930's bank robber, John Dillinger who leads his gang of bank robbers, known as the "public enemies" robbing banks all over the country. He steals money from the banks and gives it to the little guy. On the other side of the law is Melvin Pervis, FBI agent, played very well by Christian Bale in a nice return to dramatic form after starring in one of the biggest action films of all time.

And in the best role of the film, recent Oscar winner, Marion Cotillard, plays Dillinger's loyal girlfriend, Billie Frechette. The film spans several years, involves the capture and escape by Dillinger in a maximum security prison, only to have the FBI led by Hoover, assign Pervis to bring in "public enemy #1" John Dillinger.

As a fan of gangster movies, this one is near the best filled with terrific acting, great dialog, and top notch directing by Michael Mann. Depp, Bale, and Cotilliard all stand out in their roles, and, even minor characters such as Pretty Boy Floyd are allowed to stand out. Heck, even famous gangsters like Frank Nitti show up in Chicago. All in all, a tragic ending to one of this country's most famous bank robbers, and easily the best film by Michael Mann since his 1995 Heat. Despite the mild reception from some critics, this is my pick of the best film of the summer so far.

I'll be laughed at by some for saying this, but I really feel that with the academy now picking 10 nominations for best picture, Public Enemies should be one of them!

Three and a half stars out of four! A must see!

After swearing that I would never watch another Harry Potter film after the last five less than average films, I saw a free advanced screening of the sixth average installment, titled, Half Blood Prince, after hearing about most of the critics rave about it. (Thank goodness I didn't have to pay for this!)

There is a lot of hype for this film, but, outside of the pure fan base, there are going to be a lot of very disappointed viewers. Critics seem to really think this is their slice of pie. However, many people in the audience I saw the film with were left confused, and applause was mild at best.

Daniel Radcliffe returns as the most famous school boy wizard in the world, to his sixth year at Hogwarts, the city of London has been attacked by Death Eaters, in the only true action scene of the film. Bridges are destroyed and the city is in a panic.

After that, and for over 90 minutes the film gets slow, and I mean really slow. The school of Hogwarts is supposed to be in immediate danger, but, instead the children are playing around with love potions and falling in love with one another. Half of the time I stared at my watch hoping the entire thing would finally end. Some of the comedy goes way over the top, and there were some groans coming from people on occasion as well. This film definitely has a lot less action than the previous installments.

Michael Gambon returns as the hippie wizard, Dumbledore, who is supposed to be 150 years old, but doesn't look a day over 70. He spends his time warning Harry about the rise of his nemesis, Voldemort and gives him information on the memories of a former student named Tom Riddle who later became Voldemort. So, he introduces Harry to a former teacher, played by Jim Broadbent, who might have information into how Harry can defeat his enemy forever. Voldemort separates his soul into objects called "horcruxes" to avoid his imminent destruction. (It wasn't explained very well by Broadbent's character.)

The ending which takes place in a dark cave, guarded by dead creatures brought back to life, which Dumbledore quickly sets fire to. Dumbledore and Harry return to the Hogwarts campus where Alan Rickman's Snape kills Dumbledore with Harry just standing there. The ending was extremely dull and anti climatic. There was two and a half hours of nothing and it simply ended... It definitely didn't change my mind about this series, which is definitely F.F.O. "For Fans Only". The special effects and cinematography were good, but the storyline skipped from one scene to another, and it felt like the same old Harry Potter formula preparing you for the last and final film of the series. As a matter of fact, many will feel cheated by this film because nothing is resolved yet again.

Half Blood Prince never felt like a complete film, this felt more like a teaser as to what is yet to come. Those who have not read the books, like myself will be quite confused as to some of the events of the film. Worst of all, we never really quite see Voldemort in this film, just images of his younger self as a former student of the school, and that's it.

All in all, the Harry Potter formula is getting more and more stale with each episode. Call me disappointed again. I have never read a Harry Potter book in my entire life. One should be able to enjoy a film without having to reference a book to understand the plot holes missing in the screenplay. I think this series, like the Twilight series, appeals to a certain segment of society. Fortunately, I am not a part of that segment that enjoys having to read a book to understand the movie.

EASILY THE MOST OVERRATED FILM OF THE SUMMER. One star.