Reviews

This seems to be quite the problem with fans of Frank Miller: fans expect to see one thing and he gives them another. I'll be the first to admit it, I was expecting to see Sin City 1.5 when I bought my ticket to see the Spirit and if you are expecting to see that you are going to be sorely disappointed.

The Spirit is not the next Sin City, Dark Knight, Spider Man or X-Men. It is tongue-in-cheek, over the top, half-satire and half-insanity bottled into an hour and a half of screen time. When I came out of the movie theater I was like "What did I just watch?" unsure to believe that was the movie I came expecting to see. The movie I expected to see sucked, didn't happen. That said, I was pretty happy with what I didn't expect to see.

First off, this is a comic book movie and you need to know Miller emphasizes "comic". There is no two-sided characters, deep writing like Batman the Dark Knight Returns. No, this is to movies what Dark Knight Strikes again is to his comics: old-school, clear as crystal, heavily exaggerated heroes, villains, and dialog. It is everything what Comics used to be before Miller smashed it with DKR. Now, he's going back this time with the Spirit, who in all honesty, was similar to what he was in Eisner's comic: a typical, one-dimensional comic book hero.

And that I enjoyed. It was refreshing and bold to see Miller try something he knew most people weren't going to want to see. I had a feeling it would go down this road after I saw the first trailer which emphasized the women and knew that I wasn't going to see Sin City 2, no matter how much it looked like it. Yeah, the dialog, the story, and even the characters were stupid. But that's the satire of everything. Comics aren't always supposed to be philosophical, that's what novels and authors like Balzac are for. Comics are supposed to entertain any way possible and Miller does that with the Spirit.

That being said, this movie has flaws. While the art and style of the film is superb, it is inconsistent at times and without any clear theme--In sin city, only certain things were colored and for reason, Spirit doesn't have that, the details seeming random (like the shoes) rather than meaningful. Also, Miller tends to drag in dialog, sometimes being too contemplative and hyper-wordy when he really doesn't need to be. Yet Miller is not a born director, he's a comic book writer and artist and if he had been given a director with more experience like in Sin City, I'm sure he could have pulled off his rookie mistakes a whole lot better.

But then again, maybe that's why Miller directed this, because no director would have the kind of confidence to carry out Miller's vision of the Spirit. I'm sure producers were fuming in their pants when they saw the first cut, saying "what is this garbage? We want Sin City 2!" Is it as good as Sin City, 300 or any other comic book movie recently? Maybe, maybe not, it depends if you like comics. Those who don't will hate it, those who do will at least appreciate the effort. In these days, when comic book movies try to teeter both lines, its refreshing to see a director go all in, even if it may be suicidal.

First off, if you've seen the Outsiders, prepare to be surprised and blown away. If you've seen That Was Then, This Is Now, be prepared to be surprised and blown away times 100. Rumble Fish is a completely different animal from Coppola's previous Hinton novel adaptation as well as the overly 80's poppish TWTTIN. What we get instead is a mature, gritty, sad and heartbreaking rendition of Rumble Fish, one that keeps the spirit of the movie, but breathes new life into it like never before. Believe me, i thought the Outsiders was as good as it got as far as SE Hinton novels, but Rumble Fish, well...it's in another league, far surpassing anything The Outsiders could accomplish.

First off, the reason Rumble Fish excels so well is because of its mature story. The Outsiders was about good kids being mislabeled by society, well Rumble Fish is more about a kid misreading society itself. Coppola accurately and vividly captures through Black and White film (Bravo to Coppola for doing so, despite probably a lot of grief given to him by the studio), the struggle of Rusty James and his obsession to resurrect gangs to the prominence that they once were when he was younger. Matt Dillon is excellent, portraying Rusty James' lost delusional character, who is unable to cope with the realities of the world, even as it comes crashing down around him. In the end, after James' fall, you feel sympathy for him, his character as well as his situation.

However, while Dillon is solid, nobody steals the show like Mickey Rourke. Rourke is absolutely incredible, it's safe to say that it was movies like this that makes it a shame Rourke didn't make more out of his acting career. Rourke's character of the Motorcycle Boy is the opposite of Dillon: neurotic, quiet, aloof and almost cynical with society and the world itself. Your always wondering about the Motorcycle Boy, throughout the movie, wondering what his next motive is or who he really is. Of course, you do figure it out at the end, but i won't spoil it for you. Yet Rourke's performance is one of the best of his career and deserves extreme recognition even though it doesn't because of the lack of popularity of this movie.

Like the Outsiders, lots of big-name actors make their appearance when they were very early in their career. Nick Cage, Lawrence Fishburne, and the late Chris Penn all appear in this movie. Furthermore, if you're a guy, you should rent or see this movie (it's free on Encore On-Demand) for the smoking Diane Lane. If you thought she was pretty in The Outsiders, she'll absolutely make your jaw drop in this. She's absolutely gorgeous.

This is one heck of a movie. My only gripe with it is that it's a bit confusing in some parts, and what seems like important parts either get too quickly resolved or unresolved at all. Yet that is more a problem with the book itself, rather than the movie, which faithfully recaptures the book in almost every way. However, despite it's confusing nature, this movie is a must for every nostalgic film fan. It's the heart and soul movie from Coppola that shows this was the real SE Hinton film he put everything into and not The Outsiders like many believe. Watch Rumble Fish, it won't disappoint any Se Hinton let alone any viewer period. It's absolutely vivid and spellbinding.

Rating: 8/10

I saw the Criminal on Palm Pictures VOD and i must say, while at first I was skeptical, I thought it was a fantastic movie that unwounded perfectly with many twists and turns along the way. Each scene gets better and better and the story only gets more confusing but in a way that works towards its advantage rather than the opposite. Once the movie ended, I was just stunned, in almost awe of the film I saw, for everything will come unraveling at the end and doing so in a fantastic way to boot.

The acting I admit was a bit mediocre. The main character was decent, but his acting wasn't award worthy by any standard. The other cops do an okay job as well, with the male police officer being the best, but overall this won't win any awards for acting (note to director: the American girl was awful! She shouldn't be allowed to act ever again!). However, what really wins over is the plot. It does a good job revealing little hints throughout the movie e.g. Usual Suspects to provide the viewer with a grasp of what's going on. But viewer be warned, when you think you know it all, you'll be in for a real surprise. Believe me, i thought this movie was going to be a real cookie cutter noir film. It's much more than that, you just have to be patient with it.

Is The Criminal the film of the decade? Probably not. But it's one hell of a ride. After thirty minutes in you'll be so immersed in the story you might forget all about the mediocre acting. With a great plot, intense action, and unbelievable suspense, The Criminal is one of those surprise films that should get recognized more in the states but probably won't. It's definitely more refreshing than the usual Michael Bay garbage we're used to here.

Everyone pretty much had low expectations for this movie when it came out. And saying that, i can't blame them. I mean, after the woefully bad Rocky V, did the world need another Rocky? Well, probably not, but at least this serves as a better finisher than the previous finale, even if the subject matter is a bit past its prime like Stallone himself.

First of off, Rocky is Rocky and it's either a love him or hate him kind of character. Surprisingly, I was enamored with his character this time around. No stupid conflicts here, no US vs. Russia, no trainer vs. student stuff, in this sixth version, just a simple character study, much like the first two. Of course, for those who are impatient with their movies probably won't like this, but then again, if a viewer can't stand all the Philly talk, Pauly's yapping, and Rocky's interesting take on life, then they shouldn't be watching Rocky movies in the first place. Rocky Balboa, the movie, reminds the viewer what it was like and brings it into a modern day world. Those who truly loved the series especially the first two movies, will like Stallone's choice to bring it back to its roots.

However, despite the nostalgia of Rocky Balboa, the movie really fails to bring anything new. In fact, if anything, I can see why it is called Rocky Balboa rather than Rocky VI. It isn't a sequel, but almost a remake. A modern day remake of the first Rocky. With that being said, none of the supporting characters other than Rocky and Pauly make an impact because it seems as if they're being compared to the superb cast of the first Rocky. Mason Dixon can't hold a candle to Apollo Creed, the new trainer who helped him in Rocky IV isn't no Mick, and of course Marie ain't no Adrian. Granted, Stallone's intention probably wasn't for Rocky Balboa to be compared so closely to the first and best Rocky, but with it being so close in material and spirit, comparisons can't help but me made, and that's what ruins it more than anything.

That shouldn't take away from one's movie experience though. If anything, Rocky Balboa, is worth the price of admission and furthermore, it should be a reminder of how great the first couple of Rocky movies really. It only took over 30 years, but finally Rocky gets the conclusion it rightfully deserves. Maybe not the champ, but with respect nonetheless.

Final Analysis: Recommended. A definite must for fans of the Rocky movies.

The Crow was a surprising film, maybe because nobody expected anything from it in the first place. The Crow wasn't (and still isn't even despite the film) a successful or very well-known comic book character. However, the dark atmosphere, story and tone of the movie was a hit with fans and served as inspiration for many superhero flicks that wanted to transition to a much darker side. Additionally, a lot of the buzz around Brandon Lee's death in the film also attracted so many to the flick, since it was an extreme travesty that was a once in a lifetime occurrence.

So despite Brandon Lee, there was a sequel made, hoping to cash on the wild cult popularity of the original, dark and moody Gothic flick. City of Angels really does only one things good here. It definitely captures the spirit of the first Crow and didn't butcher it too bad like some sequels do (Batman Forever ring a bell?). The dark settings, the creepy atmosphere, it's all there in it's gloomy Gothic glory. However, once you get past the fact that you're in the Crow's world, everything goes south pretty quick. And I mean real quick.

First of all the acting is atrocious. Maybe it's the acting or maybe it's the script, but it's probably a combination of both. Vincent Perez sure doesn't capture the spirit of the Crow character completely, but then again, this a wildly different character from Brandon Lee's in the first film. He doesn't need to be Brandon Lee, so I didn't care if his personality was different. However, Perez nor anybody involved in the film didn't understand that, and they tried so hard to emulate a character like Brandon Lee that they just did a laughable job and Perez suffered because of it. Kershner and everybody else were awful as well, but then again, maybe it was the script. It was almost as if i was watching the first crow done again, seeing the same characters trying to play roles similar to ones in the first movie, only this is supposed to be a sequel, not a remake. Somebody didn't tell the dircetor that i guess.

If the acting is bad enough, things still go sour. The story is a mixed up piece of trash. It was okay at first, I liked the idea of a man getting revenge because of a slain son, but the whole film detracts from that idea and tries to capture a superhero good vs. evil thing. The only thing, it does a poor job doing that. So instead of getting a simple story, which the first crow did, and did well, we get a whole crow mythology which isn't developed enough and only falls flat on its face. If anything, this film should've stuck to either one story: the revenge of his son or the mythology of the crow, because combining the stories only left with a muddled plot that seemed rushed and corny beyond belief.

I wanted to like the Crow: City of Angels. I loved the first movie's plot, its atmosphere, the bizarre world that seemed to blend fantasy and reality oh so well. Unfortunately, while it does a good job capturing the first film's atmosphere, everything is a mess, a glorious mess of when a director goes too far in order to recreate something that doesn't need to be recreated. All the City of Angels really needed to be for me was its own movie with its own story, its own style. Unfortunately, I didn't get that, only a pile of muck that has sunken the Crow comic and character only deeper into mediocrity.

The Promise directed by Chen Kaige, who directed the excellent but depressing Farewell My Concubine, is pretty much being hated by people everywhere on this database. Everybody claims that it's not a real martial arts film, that the cast is terrible, the special effects are cheesy, the story is garbage and the directing is just plain awful. Well, there is some truth in some of those comments. But instead of looking at it a negative way, one should look at those negatives with a glass half-full approach, and one realize there is a very enjoyable movie underneath all this massive criticism.

Yes, The Promise is not a martial arts movie, i'll be the first to admit that. It's such a shame that this movie is being compared to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hero because this movie is not at all like those films. For starters, this movie is less Jet Li and more Lord of the Rings, but with an Asian influence. That being said, i found that element of the movie quite intriguing, for the costumes and the cultures of the characters in the movie made me feel as if i were reading a fantasy novel rather than merely watching a martial arts film. Furthermore, since this movie is not a martial arts film really, one should realize that this movie isn't about China, contrary to what many people think. So it makes sense that there is a range of other Asian actors in this film, despite what everyone else making it out that it is ludicrous. The director Chen Kaige wanted to present a story in a land that was just limited to Chinese people, Japanese people or one simple Asian people. He wanted to create his own land, with his own people, perhaps his own mythology one could say. I find it quite intriguing when people create their own mythology, after all, it works for Frank Miller and Quentin Tarantino, why can't it work for Kaige? So the story excels, not perfect, but it is still intriguing enough. So what about the acting? Not superb either, but still quite solid. Though i was a little disappointed in Cecilia Cheung, i was surprisingly enamored with Nicholas Tse. For some reason, his character had me hooked, intrigued, and his role at the ending may be either clever or stupid depending on your openness to this movie. Hiroyuki Sanada was also quite a surprise, but i felt a little let down by his performance as well, expecting perhaps too much from a character that was limited. As for the slave Kunlun, he perhaps had a very stellar performance as the slave turned hero, but to me, he didn't compare to Nicholas Tse.

The effects of the movie aren't the greatest, at times they are cheesy and some part even had me chuckle a bit, making me feel as if i were watching an anime film and not a real movie. Yet contrary to what many people say, it doesn't take anything away from the movie. And as far as the directing, i believe Chen Kaige did a fantastic job. He is a very underrated director, which is hard to say for a guy that won the 1993 Cann Palm D'or, but i believe he needs to have some supporters with all the critique he gets from movie audiences all over the world.

The Promise is a glorious film and i was enamored with it from beginning to end. It may not be one of the best Asian films out there (Wong Kar Wai is still the king of Asian Cinema), and i'm still scratching my head on why the government of China would sponsor a film like this (considering it really is about any Chinese history whatsoever), but it is enjoyable. If you're looking for a fun, fantasy romance that has a little bit more substance than the simple hack and slash fantasy film, this is your call. If you're looking though for a dramatic martial arts film in the mold of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, you might be a little disappointed. But nonetheless, it's a good film that deserves recognition.

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring is one of those unique films. A film that is beautiful watch and incredibly tough to digest. Without a doubt, this movie requires deep thought, but with careful examination, this movie is definitely one that strikes into the deepest of hearts and souls. The film's chronicle of a young monks journey from an innocent youth, to a troubled adolescence to a reborn adulthood is extremely deep, with all kinds of messages that emphasize the importance of spirituality and the dangers of lust and sexual obsession.

The film technically speaking is beautiful to behold. Korean movies generally come out of the same mold. In other words, they are very colorful and the picture of their films are sharp and vibrant. This is especially true in the widely popular Memories of Murder (Or Salnui Cheouk) and Kim's follow-up film, 3-Iron (Or Bin-Jip). The environment of the forest is especially engaging to the eye and it adds to the isolated atmosphere of the film as well as the isolated personalities of the characters. Techinically speaking, Kim does a fabulous job with this film and the beautiful cinematography is one of the many reasons why Kim is slowly becoming one of the more recognized Asian filmmakers of his generation.

However, cinematography can't do it alone. The theme of the film as well as the development of characters is extremely important in a film. Kim goes with a different approach in this film that most filmmakers aren't bold enough to do: he relies on silence and actions rather than dialog (much like his follow-up film, 3-Iron, in which his main male protagonist doesn't say one word). It sounds eccentric, but the characters do show their personalities well and the theme of the film is also carried out in a way that words could never do. While this further shows Kim's greatness, a great deal of credit goes to the actors as well. Their excellent performances with such a limited script is commendable and a premiere example of a new kind of art form that is developing in film during this century.

Without a doubt, film purists and art-house film lovers will adore this film, but overall, anyone who has an open mind should feel at home with this film. Granted, like his other film, 3-Iron, this movie is not the kind of film that you can sit back with your friends and laugh away with a tub of popcorn. Instead it is a serious film that displays that film is art and a brand of literature, and like those two genres this movie should be studied and analyzed in order to get the most out of this film. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring is a pensive film, but for those who put the time in analyzing this film will be rewarded with a message and work of art that is like no other. Kim's latest film, 3-Iron was a study of love and relationships. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring is a study of the growth, fall and rebirth of life.

Final Analysis: Excellent! Highly Recommended!

From the director who brought you the Name of the Rose, Seven Years in Tibet and Enemy at the Gates, comes a movie that has all the tangibles of an epic. A man gets stranded in the mountains and must overcome all obstacles to get back home. Now, it sounds like this movie would be two to three hours long, but surprisingly it's little over a half-hour. Yes, a half-hour, which is incredibly surprising since it is starring big names such as Val Kilmer and Tom Hulce (Mozart in Amadeus). However, this was the first dramatic piece for Imax, and since Imax specialized in science theater at the time, which only ran about a half-hour a piece, they were worried that their audiences would have the patience to sit through a two hour film. Thus, they grabbed this film, a rather heartfelt but incomplete film that has good intentions, but rather poor execution. Thus, it is no surprise that this movie was released in Imax theaters rather than traditional theaters nationwide, simply because regular movie goers would be outraged by such a short and half-done film.

Imax movies tend to be technological achievements more than anything. They're basically nature specials on a huge screen, but because of that screen and sound, they seem better than they really are. Unfortunately, Wings of Courage doesn't take advantage of Imax's technological advantages, thus it's a surprise why this movie even was released in such an atmosphere. However, despite it's technological "miscast" the movie is hardly worth Imax's steep price of admission (yes, i saw this in theaters amazingly). The plot is simple and heartwarming, but the characters really never pop out or grasp the audience's attention. They seem aloof and conservative, which is not a good thing to do in a short film. Thus, the audience never seems to get into the characters, and the plot suffers because of it, because instead of getting an inspirational story, it just seems as if the story drags. Thankfully, it doesn't drag on too long since the movie is only 40 minutes.

Anothe problem with the movie is the casting. In all the promotions, Val Kilmer was on everything, from movie posters to all the commercials. However, Val Kilmer really makes a glorified "Cameo", saying a few lines and dying in a newspaper article. It's bad enough that the director deprived Kilmer of any lines, but depriving him of his own demise? Come on! Thus, the movie suffers without any real star power, because none of the other actors really flourish. Whoever was in charge of the promotion obviously did a good job of fooling people, because instead of getting a movie with Val Kilmer, like everyone expected, the audience gets a film with a few lousy actors who never do a good job in their role, making this movie a total bore-fest.

It's a shame that Imax's first drama was such a sappy and boring one, but thankfully they have released much longer and more feature films, most recently Batman Begins. However, while Imax's blunder was great and perhaps costly (i'm sure this movie tanked for them), the director really should be a bit embarrassed with this flick, for it seems as if they ran out of money during production and were forced to do a forty minute flick instead of a two hour epic. While there are some positives in the movie, such as good cinematography, the rather boring plot, lifeless actors and short time make this movie a frustrating snooze-fest that has viewer grinding their teeth after realizing they had just wasted 10 bucks. Too bad they don't give refunds for bad movies.

Better Luck Tomorrow is a teen movie, and it's hard to shake it from that category since it is about teenagers in high school and their adaptation to the society around them. However, in this day of age of corny teen movies where there's nudity a plenty, kegs in every other scene and stereotypical ethnic characters, Better Luck Tomorrow is a refreshing reminder that there are other stories of high school that are much darker than the usual. This movie is one of those stories, and even though it starts out a bit slow, and seems to follow in the beginning all of the stereotypes that we are accustomed to seeing in normal run of the mill teen flicks. This film will surprise plenty of audiences and show a much darker brand of people that we aren't accustomed to seeing in this Post-Columbine Era.

The story is a bit simple at first, and seems to be the usual garbage that we see in teen movies everywhere: Shy guy is in love with cute cheerleader girl, but is unable to hook up with her. The first thirty minutes seem to be a bit hard to watch, mainly because it seems like this film will be no different than American Pie, but only with Asian-Americans.However, the movie takes a certain turn when the main character begins to meet more Asians like him, and pretty soon, like a house of cards,everything begins to fall apart and he is brought up in a whirlwind of deceit, greed and even murder. Thus, with elements like these, this film keeps the viewer glued to his or her seat awaiting every twisting turn that is going to happen next. Even though the ending is a bit anti-climatic, making the audience wanting to know what would happen next, it is still a story that is truly original and a breath of fresh air from the usual happy go lucky high school stuff.

With the cast being primarily Asian, it was interesting to see how the characters would be depicted. With most teen movies, Asians are stereotyped extremely bad, usually playing roles where the English is butchered and they are computer and library nerds that do nothing but study and watch Japanese Animation. However, the characters are a bit two-sided, which is a great credit to the writers of this film. For at first, the movie seems to follow that stereotype, depicting the Asian kids as nerds who competed in Academic Decathalons and wrote liberalized articles for the school newspaper. But, like the plot of the movie, the characters take turns in terms of personality, and throughout the movie the viewer begins to see the savage personalities and the characters that are really behind the masks of those stereotypes. While the screenwriters deserve credit for these characters, the actors are the real winners, for this unknown cast does a great job depicting these two-faced Asian kids that are half-Honor Roll caliber and half-gangsters. The only familiar face in the movie is Harold from Harold and Kumar, but his role is relatively small compared to the other main actors. While it is hard to remember there names off the top of my head, there performances were extraordinary, filled with subtleness, emotion and anger that is characteristic of good actors. This movie is quite a good stepping stone for these young Asian-Amercian actors, and it will be interesting to see what other movies they will grace in next.

It won't be surprising to see many Christian parents hating this movie. The issue of teen violence and drug usage is a very sensitive issue in this day of age, especially after Columbine. However, this is a wonderful movie that is savage and enlightening, for it puts a whole new view on Asian American students in high school, and helps destroy the stereotypes that have accompanied them for years. In its essence, this movie is not about high school kids, but about racism to a certain degree. It shows that stereotypes and premature predilections can not always be accurate, and thus should be avoided in our society today. However, that is a complex message and it requires a true intellectual to pick up on the director's message of racism and stereotypes, but if the audience can't pick up that message, there is still one hell of a movie in Better Luck Tomorrow. For it is a teen movie, but a teen movie that has the grittiness of a pulp indie such as Reservoir Dogs, thus making it enjoyable fare for those who have gotten sick of the usual "boy meets girl" comedies and dramas.

It took about three tries, but finally Frank Miller will receive the credit he deserves as one of America's finest comic book writers after an excellent translation of Sin City to the big screen. While the other two movies (Daredevil and Elektra) tanked mainly because the directors compromised Miller's material in order to satisfy dim audiences and producers, the translation of Sin City is seamless, and while Miller deserves all the credit in the world for his amazing story that is noir at its best, Robert Rodriguez should also receive a fair share as well, as a director that perhaps is up there with fellow director and friend Quentin Tarantino. Without a doubt, Sin City is a film that will shock audiences and punch them in the mouth, but for a true fan of the crime and pulp genre, this is a film that is heaven on a silver platter.

Of course, the most glaring positive of Sin City is definitely the cinematography, which should win an award at the Oscars if the Oscar guild knows any better. The fantastic mix of Black and White and color is amazing on the eye, and adds to the seedy tone of the movie, making the movie less of a big screen film, and more of a moving comic book. In addition, Rodriguez's idea of having the movie's backgrounds being completely computer-generated was ingenious, and without a doubt more of a technological breakthrough than the film that tried this method before, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Thanks to Rodriguez's idea of computer-generated background, everything from strip clubs to highways to even barns match the graphic novel exactly and give the film an even grittier feel that not even the best independent pulp film out there could give.

Computer graphic can't make a movie though, and it is quite obvious from such stinkers as AI and Twister, where all the amazing special effects are only frosting on a bad cake. Yet Sin City amazingly exceeds even greater in other areas, such as acting where mesmerizing performances are given from nearly all the actors, adding onto the already fascinating story. The most breakthrough performance of the bunch is from Mickey Rourke, an 80's actor of previous fame from the also controversial film 9 1/2 Weeks. Rourke's performance as Marv is not only the best of the film, it is probably the best of his career and the best job of narrating in a film in a long time (it probably stands up there with Morgan Freeman's narrating in Shawshank Redemption even). In addition, while Marv is the tough guy that stands the most in the film, famous tough guys such as Bruce Willis, Benicio Del Toro, and Michael Madsen also give commendable performances that stand out and give extra balls to a movie that has more than enough to begin with. Clive Owen also does a decent job in the movie, but doesn't compare to the tough guys such as Willis and Rourke, making the 2nd part of the film, The Big Fat Kill, a bit tough to watch. This miscast though is only a minor problem though, for the other male actors make up for the slack, and the female tough-girl performances from Rosario Dawson, Jessica Alba, Brittany Murphy and Alexis Biedel surpass it by miles, making people forget all about Owen's slight miscast. Surprisingly, Biedel's performance is pretty much the most surprising of the film, for she does an incredible job of making the transition from her geeky and boring show, Gilmore Girls into an incredible movie like this and playing her role perfectly. She is definitely an actress that deserves much better roles in much more mature movies than the "Teen" dramas such as her newest film, "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants".

Sin City is a masterpiece, no bones about it. It's a film that will get a lot of attention from angry Christian mothers about it's violence, gore and sexuality but the bottom line is, this movie is not meant to be made for children. Just like Frank Miller's comic, Sin City, wasn't made for children either. It is testament to pulp lovers everywhere, people who had fond memories of the hard-hitting in your face action from books such as "I, The Jury" by Mickey Spillane and "The Maltese Falcon" by Dashiell Hammett. However, the film is not limited to that, for it is a film that is hardcore enough for pulp geeks everywhere and mainstream enough for the casual, adult fan. Fans of cinema will adore it, bible bashes will be disgusted, but it is still an incredible film that deserves to be seen by film lovers everywhere, because it is definitely a film that lives up to the hype and goes much, much beyond.

Bottom Line: Best Crime Movie ever, if you have a pulse see it.

Night at the Golden Eagle is a gritty film, yet gritty isn't half the word to describe it. Even though films such as Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, The Usual Suspects and even the mediocre Way of the Gun have all been praised for their gritty atmosphere, Night at the Golden Eagle blows them all away with a gritty atmosphere that perfectly replicates the locations depicted in great novels from pulp legends such as Mickey Spillane and Dashiell Hammett. Night at the Golden Eagle is pure pulp, with an emphasis of illustrating the means streets and back alleys themselves rather than the story of the two old ex-convicts and the other people in between. The result is a fantastic movie, that utterly shows what life in a slum is like and the lives it creates for the poor people that cross upon its path.

However, viewers seeing this movie should not look for story, because it is non-existent or weak at best. The story of the two-old ex-cons is never really developed and leaves the audience somewhat confused since the director wants to be "Tarantino-like" and ambitious and switches between three sets of characters. While the story of the whores, both old and young, is a nice interlude, the emphasis on the two old black men is rather pointless. It is nice the director decided to show the laziness of some people, yet a good chunk of the movie is just dedicated to the old man watching TV, which deprives the audience of further understanding the more important characters such as the whores and ex-cons.

Yet despite this strange blunder by the director/writer with the story, the acting is great. The two men do a great job at their parts, giving great and quite believable performances as the two ex-cons, with both giving great mixtures of cynicism and paranoia in their dialog. Their acting is truly enjoyable, and makes the audience only yearn for more. The young girl does an admirable job as the young whore, for she constantly is the only reminder of innocence throughout all the chaos and sleaziness of the hotel. Hence, her performance sticks out greatly and is a sleeper performance that deserves some recognition, but probably won't because of the serious holes in the plot.

It's a shame this movie isn't more recognized because it is a fantastic film with a fantastic atmosphere that literally puts the settings in Tarantino and Guy Ritchie flicks to shame. While movies these days tend to be more glamorous and over the top, this movie is the epitome of an indie film, breaking the rules in all sorts of ways in order to depict an environment that only great pulp authors dream about. The story is disappointing, yet after watching the film, the audience really doesn't care about the film. The only thing stuck in their minds is the maniacal characters, the sleazy hotel and its dirty surroundings. This is truly a masterpiece "pulp indie" film that should be seen by any kind of "crime fiction" lover, and shows audiences there is more to "pulp" than a few guns, broads and some "Tarantino-esque" dialog. Not to say that I don't love the man, but a little variety is necessary, and this film fits the bill perfectly.

My analysis: If you consider yourself a fan of the "Pulp" genre, see this or you're truly a "pulp" poser.

Jean Claude Van Damme is characterized as a superstar of "craptacular" films, and to be perfectly honest, he is. His list of films in 90's weren't very good: Universal Soldier, Double Team, Legionnaire. All those movie were forgettable. His real big movie that everyone seems to remember him from is Kickboxer, but honestly that movie should be banned from the United States because it is so bad. Yet Van Damme did have a decent film, and a movie not many know about simply because it was his first film. This movie is Bloosport, and compared to a regular film, it's decent maybe average at best. However, compared to other Van Damme movies, this is a slice of heaven. Not only does it have a decent plot based on a true story that is not wacky or corny in the slightest way (okay, it is corny in some parts, but not to the extent of Kickboxer), but the fighting scenes actually are the best of any American choreographed martial arts film out there. That list is not very prestigious, but for those who thought the Karate Kid was the best martial arts movie out there, prepared to be blown away. Thus, this movie is a "craptacular" masterpiece, and a film that needs to be recognized.

Even though it is a decent movie, the acting still is horrible. And horrible is a nice word. Since this is Van Damme's first movie, this is him at his worst, and it's extremely hilarious. Throughout the movie, he butchers the mood and the music constantly with his bad acting, making what should be a serious moment and comic one. While his master does a decent job at acting, everybody else follows Van Damme's lead and is equally bad saying lines that don't even make any sense. "Dux my man!" Okay, was there a contest for Fruit Loops allowing 12 year old girls from Japan to write the script for this movie? Probably, since half the movie doesn't even use proper or understandable English. In addition, the king of bad actors has a role in this film as well: Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds 1, 2 and whatever other one they made after that. His acting alone should make audiences buy this movie, and I don't mean see it...I mean buy it.

I may be a little sarcastic through this thing, but I can't help it. I can't take this movie seriously. It's awful. However, if one watches it with my attitude it will be a delight because amidst all the terrible features is a decent film that every father should watch with their kids, just so the kids know that there are people out there who are way tougher than their dads.

Oliver Stone has a habit of writing extremely controversial films that are either extremely well done (e.g. JFK) or extremely corny (e.g. Natural Born Killers). Scarface is one of those corny ones unfortunately, even though it seems hard to believe that this film could be mediocre considering it has one of the greatest directors ever at the helm (Brian De Palma), and one of the greatest actors of our generation gracing the main role (Al Pacino). Unfortunately, while Pacino's performance is one of the best (and maybe his most overacted)of his career, the film itself is filled with mediocre performances, a cheesy and linear storyline, and bland, one-dimensional characters that prevent this crime movie from being anything more than a popcorn action flick.

Pacino does an amazing job throughout the film playing Tony Montana and truly stands out amongst all the mediocre acting and performances. While Steven Bauer does a decent job as his buddy Manny, Michelle Pfeiffer's character, Elvira, is atrocious. Not only is she a drugged up junkie that is the same character throughout the movie, but she doesn't say anything of significance throughout the movie other than cynical, sarcastic comebacks that make the audience think she is PMSing 24-7. Even her last line in the film is a corny and somewhat uninspired line that has the audience chuckling rather than sympathizing with her, which is just another example of Oliver Stone trying way too hard with his scripts. However, Al Pacino rescues all the mediocre performances with his emotional portrayal of Tony Montana. Throughout the movie, Pacino is passionate in his role, usually screaming everything at the top of his lungs or following anything he has to say with a curse word or two...or three. While at times Pacino does say some lines that have the audiences scratching their heads (which is not Pacino's fault but rather Oliver Stone's), Pacino's performance helps overcome those obscure lines and makes the audience yearn for more.

The same can't be said of the story of Scarface however. Despite its great potential, the film' story falls flat on its face, lacking any real depth or any personality at all. Even though Stone and De Palma wanted to simplify the story and dialogue from the original 1932 classic (which was set in New York and about Al Capone), they simplified it too much and thus the story suffered because of it. With everything now simple and quite linear, making the story is easy to follow for the casual viewer; the film still lacks any punch other than the tremendous amount of violence. When the movie comes to a close, the audience feels deprived in a way, feeling as if the film had no purpose or any personality of its own. While De Palma and Stone did accomplish their goal of telling a simple story of an American gangster, they only did a mediocre job. For it is just that: a simply story of an American gangster and nothing else. That may have been fine back in 1932, but compared to other modern gangster films such as Godfather, Good Fellas and heck, even Pulp Fiction, there is nothing Scarface has to stand on its own two feet in comparison to those films.

It's a shock to see that a wonderful and passionate actor such as Al Pacino have all his talents go to waste on such a mediocre film. While the movie itself isn't a total lost cause, it is just not a film that truly stands out on its own. Pacino's performance saves it from total doom, but without it, Scarface is nothing more than a cheesy story that could probably be used for a CBS Tuesday Night movie following CSI. However, while this all sounds negative, it is not a total waste and deserves to be seen at least once, just because of Pacino and the action. However, actually buying the mediocre film would be a challenge, especially when the only version on sale on DVD is an expensive two-disc Collector's set.

Adam Sandler films usually are comedies filled with slapstick humor and a hefty doses of cursing. Punch Drunk Love is an exception to that formula. Adam Sandler plays a complex character that shares some of the characteristics that he is used to playing in this movie: he is emotionally unstable, he has the mouth of a sailor and he uses a lot of physical comedy by acting like a klutz half the time. However, what separates this film from his rather sub-par and unoriginal films such as Little Nicky and 50 First Dates, is the fact that Paul Thomas Anderson is directing it, and thanks to finally some decent direction and screen writing, Adam Sandler is able to finally take on a whole new kind of role that surprises critics and audiences alike: a serious one.

The film itself is wonderfully put together as it chronicles the life of a bumbling, emotionally rocked entrepreneur who's life is put in a spin after meeting a woman he is romantically attached to (played by Emily Watson). Sandler does a great job portraying the bumbling protagonist, acting much differently from other role in his other rather uninspired films. While at times he does show shades of his former past through his outbursts, most of the time he is the anti-Adam Sandler character. He is paranoid, self-doubting and totally detached from human society (much different from the Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison audiences have known and loved). In addition, Sandler's character isn't so attractive to the audience in terms of entertainment and humor, but instead the audience sympathizes with Sandler's character Barry, understanding his emotional problems and hoping that he is able to overcome it with the help and love of Emily Watson's character. Sandler doesn't need slapstick humor to accomplish that feat, and the result is a wonderfully played role that is by far up and above anything he has done before.

Paul Thomas Anderson wrote and directed this film and did a wonderful job, giving a film that is a suitable follow-up to his mega-hit and widely-received film Magnolia. Like Magnolia , the story is amazingly psychotic and complex, and for some strange reason, strikes at the core of the human psyche, for the audience realizes that all of us share Barry's (Sandler) characteristics in more ways than one. However, while the music, the direction and the enjoyable story are all great reasons to see the film, the real winning feature of the movie is Sandler who is able to prove critics and audiences alike that he is ready and more than capable of taking a serious role and doing it extremely well. Granted though, this is not a typical Sandler film, so viewers who are seeing this movie expecting big laughs will be gravely disappointed. However, this movie is still enjoyable nonetheless and the opportunity to see Adam Sandler in a whole new scenario is just one of the millions of reason to see this enjoyable film from Paul Thomas Anderson.

In theaters everywhere, The Village, directed by M. Night Shyamalan was billed as a horror film. It was to be a tale of suspense and fright that was to be as intense and as riveting as his previous and rather popular semi-horror films The Sixth Sense and Signs. Yet, the movie is nothing like a work of horror, or his former films (except for the twist ending). In fact, it hardly has any elements of horror at all, which is unusual for a Shyamalan film. However, while Shyamalan deprives the audience of a horror flick, he also pulls a surprise from his seemingly never-ending bag of tricks and presents us with a story that deals with complex and engrossing issues as love, trust and courage all in a puritan-looking village. In addition though, the film is about no ordinary "village" for the inhabitants are fearful superstitious colonials, who fear one thing in their lives: the creatures that inhabit the "forbidden woods". While this seems to set up the right formula for a typical horror film, Shyamalan refuses to follow the rules, and instead presents us with a movie that is far from the typical popcorn suspense flick that audience have gotten too accustomed to.

In addition to the complex story of the "isolated village", the acting is a key component of the film that keeps the audience engaged from beginning to end. While underrated actor Joaquin Phoenix gives another solid performance, the real star of the film is Bryce Dallas Howard, who gives a riveting and sensational inaugural performance as Phoenix's blind love interest, Ivy. Amazingly, the chemistry between the two is amazing, yet Ivy seems to be the one that stands out the most. The emotion that she is able to display through her face and body language is a true characteristic of her professionalism and also a good sign that she is a competent actor that is capable of more roles in the future.

The Village is not a horror film by any standards, and that is mainly why critics everywhere have panned the film and given negative reviews. However, while it may not be a horror film, it is an unbelievable film nonetheless. In its basic essence, it is a movie that is more complex than his previous film Signs, and strikes to the heart much deeper than any of his previous three films ever did. Granted, it takes an open mind and a patient soul to get everything Shyamalan has to offer from this movie, which is something audiences aren't used to doing. However, in this day of popcorn horror and suspense films and boring linear dramas, this is a movie that definitely stands out from the crowd and is worth the price of admission in more ways than one.