The Island 2 1/2 out of 5 (maybe)

Rated: PG-13

Cast: Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johansson, Djimon Hounsou, Steve Buscemi


I'm not even going to waste a lot of time on this one. I can't say it was a big disappointment because I wasn't really expecting that much. But, it would have been nice to have been pleasantly surprised.

Good idea bad execution, pretty much sums this one up. I'll star with the good stuff. It's a cool idea for a movie, (though similar things have been done before) a joy for any sci-fi fan. Futuristic clones trying to figure out who they are and why they are there. O.K. now that I'm done with that on with the bad...

This movie feels like the story was rushed. They couldn't find a script that suited everyone, so they settled for some mediocre crap. In fact I would say the first half of the movie is fine. But the whole second half I couldn't help but think, why?

I am about to give a SPOILER, so if you don't want to know about it before you waste your money seeing this movie then stop reading now. SPOILER. My biggest problem was this, Djimon's character, the Blackhawk security guy, is a cold killer. Throughout the movie he does not worry about killing innocents bystanders or police officers. In fact he shoots a guy in the chest and then 5 minutes later in the film he has a change of heart and helps save the day. What were these people thinking? We would forget how evil this guy was and now see him as a hero?

O.k. I don't even want to go into more detail and no one cares. This movie could have been a lot better and should have been. If you have to see it wait to rent it, or even better wait until a friend rents it and then watch it.

High Rental Value (Updated)

Every once in a while a good movie slips by me in the theatre. When this happens I must resort to visiting my local video store so I can try and decipher whether a two evening rental, which used to be a two day rental is the same thing. Then I think, why does it matter? There are no more late fees. Oh, but there is a restocking fee. But, I digress. (I've always wanted to say that). Thanks to contributing poster Jared*, I recently viewed two excellent pics.

Million Dollar Baby 4 1/2 out of 5


Rated:PG-13

Directed by: Clint Eastwood

Cast: Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman



I will be honest, I normally don't give much credit to the academy for their selection of films but, they hit the nail on the head on this one. Of course the fact that Clint directed this and stars both he and Morgan Freeman should be a big clue. This is by far one of the best screenplays I have seen in a long time. The story is excellent. In fact this movie is all story and great acting. There are no special effects, there's not a lot of action, or suspense.

With that being said it's hard to say what this movie is about. Of course you're thinking it's about boxing. But, to say this movie is about boxing is like saying is like saying Star Wars is about interstellar commerce. You could see it that way but, you would be missing the point. It's about people and what they love in life. Their hopes, dreams, and their fears.

I can tell you this, this is not your typical underdog story. There is a twist in the tale that makes the story what it is. If you don't already know then don't find out before you rent it.



And by the way, the only reason this should not be your next rental is because you're renting this one...


Hotel Rwanda 5 out of 5


Rated: PG-13 for Violence, Disturbing Images and Strong Language

Cast: Don Cheadle, Nick Nolte, and some other people I've never heard of.

Now don't think that just because a film wins a bunch of awards that it's a great movie. Think that because I said so. This is one of the best films I have seen in a long time. There are two big reasons why I think so much of it.

One, it's based on a true story. A story that everyone should be familiar with. The genocide that occurred in this film took place in 1995. Most of us, myself included, are intelligent beings and feel we are at least aware of what's going on in the world, even if it's just from the brief snippets we hear from the talking heads. But, I bet very few of us knew this was going on in 1995. I know I didn't and I have spoken to many others in person and on message boards that were as caught off guard as I was. You would think that after all the horror that was experience during WWII, we as a people would have vowed to never let that happen again. But, not only did it happen in 1995 but, it appears to be happening again today in Darfur. If I sound like I'm ranting like some hippy just watch the move and then make your decision.

The second reason is Mr. Don Cheadle does the best acting job I have seen in a long time, maybe ever. He makes you feel what is going on. Even when he's not saying anything, you can see he's thinking, struggling, fighting all without uttering a word. Seeing his performance alone is a reason to see this film.

Both of these things together plus some good old fashion story telling make this a great film. I wouldn't say this move is uplifting in the traditional sense of the word. Nor is overly depressing but it is an eye opener and accomplishes this without beating you over the head with overly graphic scenes.

Pic this one up on your next trip to the Blockhuslter and let me know what you think.






*O.K., I failed to give the proper credit to why I saw these movies. It was actually reknee who rented them.

What Falkland Island Ya Talkin A'bot?

You've got Treasure Island, Cutthroat Island, Giligan's Island, and even the Falkland Island(say it with a Brooklyn accent, it's O.K.) but what is The Island? Well, from what I can tell it's a dash of Logan's Run(*), a hint of the Matrix, a sprinkle of Total Recall, and a smidgen of THX 1138. If you want details on the plot, click here. So the question is, will it be any good? According to Entertainment Weekly, Stephen Spielberg(Jaws, E.T., Jurassic Park, Etc.) approached Michael Bay(The Rock, Armageddon) about this script for the Island. Right there you've got to think it's going to be pretty good. Two of the biggest and arguable most talented guys around have given the go ahead on this movie. Then throw in McGregor, who's no slouch, and the attractive Scarlett Johanson, and it appears we have a decent film on our hands. But appearances can be deceiving. Apparently the script that was good enough to get Spielberg and Bay excited wasn't good enough for Dream Works execs, and two new screenwriters were brought in to "radically" change the second half of the movie. I smell trouble. To complicate matters more, audiences of test screenings didn't care for the ending so a last minute scene was added and voiced over lines were edited in, just TWO WEEKS ago. I'm interested in seeing this film, but I wouldn't say excited. My prediction is that the majority of the movie will be pretty good, but the ending will be it's downfall. The kind where people leaving the theatre will say "that movie was pretty good, but the ending..." Anyway, at least it's not a remake.

Hollywood's Ode to Recycling-The Remake

I tried to find a list of all the remakes that have come out recently or are coming out within the year, and here is what I have come up with: Bewitched, Dukes of Hazzard, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Bad News Bears, King Kong, War of the Worlds, The Longest Yard, The Amityville Horror, House of Wax, and I'm sure there are a lot more but you can go find them. Again, I don't want to argue what a remake is, but let's agree that all of these had a movie or TV show already. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? I'm not sure but in my opinion there are four reasons why a movie should be remade, and here they are.

1. Good idea, poor execution. This to me should be the pillar of remakes. Hollywood seems to want to remake things that were successful in the first place. Guaranteeing them a recognizable product to their customers who then are already sold. But these films don't need to be remade. Films that flopped the first time because they were executed poorly BUT, had a good idea or story, should be given to new directors, new writers and given a new life.

2. Technology- Though the original had a good story, the technology at the time did not lend itself to proper visualization, due to lack of CGI, special effects, etc. You would think this would be a common occurrence, but honestly, I can't think of a movie that this would apply too. Most good movies are so good that one can look past poor special effects, and if the movie is poorly written, then better CGI will just make it a crappy movie in a prettier package.

3. Because a director wants too. This may sound crazy but if a director is sitting back at home and watching a movie and says "I could tell this story way better than that," then he should. Great movies come from talented individuals with drive. And if one of these guys(or girls) has the motivation to make a better movie than someone else, then we, as an audience would benefit. This should not be confused with a studio saying "that movie did well, we could make money off a remake."

4. Introduce the movie to a new generation. This is perhaps my favorite and maybe the only one Hollywood comes close to today. Some movies are so old, so removed from today, that no matter how good they are, your average fan is not going to seek it out to watch it. A remake however could bring the film up to date(without changing too much of the story we hope) and introduce a lost treasure to a generation that would have missed it otherwise.

The problem is I tried to find remakes that fit into one of each of these categories and it was tuff. As mentioned before the predecessors of most remakes were good movies in themselves, and few were improved on by their remakes. Making money from a remake is not the worst thing in the world, we all hope movies make money, it's good for everybody. But, when it costs roughly 100 million dollars to make one, why not put all that effort into telling new stories that we have never heard before. Of course the argument could be made that if I'm spending 100 mil then I want to spend on something that's proven and has more of a chance at getting a return. I'm not putting down the remake, just how and which ones are chosen to be remade. Here's a list of movies that I think they should remake and why. Let me know what you think, and what movies you would like to see revamped.

Tron - Not for the reason you think. In fact if they were to remake this one I would hope they would use the same process for simulating the "computer world." It looked awesome then and still looks pretty cool today. No, I think this should be re-done today because when it came out(1982) computers were a novelty to the general public. Today with at least one in almost every household, computers have a new meaning to us. Given to someone like George Lucas, I think this would be a big hit.

The Philadelphia Experiment-I have four words for you; based on true events! Do people even know this. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if you throw those words in front of a movie like this in today's market, whew! Big money. Oh yeah, we're not doing it for the money. Seriously, the original is good, but it almost has a B movie feel to it. It's one I would categorize under good idea, but not executed to it's fullest potential. Sign Mr. Spielberg up for this one.

Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter-I'll have to admit I was up at about 2:00am when I saw this one. But, I was impressed and couldn't believe I had never heard of it. To me it's what Van Helsing should have been. This one has a different take on the vampire genre and doesn't try to drown you with as much blood as possible as current vampire flicks do. I just think all Vampire movies are all the same now(Blade was different sure enough but still relied heavily on the blood and gore factor)

Paycheck- I know what you're thinking, I've gone crazy right. No, these are the ones that should be remade, the ones that stunk. This could have been an awesome sci-fi classic but...It's not. This is one of those that had an awesome idea, just listen. After being told that he had his memory erased an engineer discovers he gave up a large sum of money in exchange for 19 ordinary items. He must piece together this puzzle while being chased by the authorities. Let's give the screenplay to Steven E. de Souza(Die Hard, Running Man,48 hrs), or Scott Rosenberg(Gone in Sixty Sec, Con Air) and let's get a decent actor and I'm in line with my $8.50.

O.K., I'm done. And for heaven's sake, don't just read, leave a comment!

Willy Wonka 3 1/2 out of 5

Rated: PG ( for just plane weirdness, I guess)

Cast: Johnny Depp, Freddie Highmore(as Charlie), David Kelly (as Grandpa Joe), Deep Roy(as Oompa Loompa 1), Deep Roy(as Oompa Loompa 2), Deep Roy(as Oompa Loompa 3), Deep Roy(as Oompa Loompa...Well you get the picture)

I always start my reviews with a little preface, and this ones no exception. There are two things, that if you avoid, you will enjoy this movie immensely. First, don't read the book, but if you do, forget it. Second, lose whatever affection you had for the 1971 film, and don't compare the two. Not to argue what a remake is, but according to director Tim Burton, this is his "version" of the story that should stand on it's own and not an attempt to remake anything. O.K., now that I've got that off my chest...

This movie immediately brings you into a world that could be our own, but there is a hint of magic, silliness, and things that are just plain wired. It doesn't take long to get up and running and before you know it 5 children, including poor little Charlie, have been chosen from around the world to visit the chocolate factory of the reclusive Willy Wonka.

The most controversial part of this film and for sure the deciding factor of whether you like the film or not is Johnny Depp's portrayal of the eccentric, strange, and perhaps agoraphobic, Willy Wonka. He has played many strange characters in the past, some of them praised, others...not so much. These include films such as Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow, and most recently Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. This last one, more than any of the others, according to Burton, allowed studio execs to green light Depp's casting of Wonka without any arguments. It was a good choice, and one that I think few others could have succeeded at. As mentioned before, Wonka's character is an odd fellow, and Depp's forte is playing odd people.

The movie felt like I was on a bizarre Disney World ride. Crazy rooms with dancing and singing Ooompa Loompas(which I thought were pretty good). There were also many subtle jokes peppered throughout the film, not meant for "bust a gut" type of laughter but chuckles. One point of interest is that Burton chose to give a history to Willy Wonka, to give us some background on why he is the way he is. I felt this made it more of a complete story, including both Charlie and Willy. I really injoyed this film and was rather surprised that I did. If you don't see this one on the big screen make sure you catch it on DVD.

Wedding Crashers 4 out of 5

Rated: R for sexual content/nudity and strong language

Cast:Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, and a couple
others you will recognize when you watch the movie.



Let me start with the negative and go from there. This movie is rated R and for good reason. There is a lot, and I mean a lot of sexual content as well as very strong language in this film. I always find it difficult to completely enjoy a movie when the *f* bomb is being thrown like candy at a parade. For those of you who don't have a problem with that, you should enjoy this movie a lot.

To me, though comedies are difficult to make, they are easy to review. Unlike dramas, thrillers and action movies, their goal is very clear, to make you laugh. If they accomplish that, in my opinion anyways, little else matters. This movie definitely made me laugh and is probably one of the funniest movies I have seen in a while. I am a big Owen Wilson fan and looked forward to this film to set him apart. But, Vince Vaughn beat him to it. He was hilarious, and this is his best work yet, by far. Think of the character that he played in Old School, and multiply that by ten, then pair him with Owen Wilson and you get Wedding Crashers. Owen Wilson does a fine job as well and if you have liked him in his other movies you will enjoy him here too.

There was a point in the movie where I don't think I stopped laughing for about 30 minutes. The movie is self explanatory and doesn't try to get too complicated. It's just funny. Vince has developed this art of rambling, and saying things that are hilarious but continuing on without missing a beat. Other than the R rating(which I understand for some folks isn't a factor) I would recommend this movie as the best comedy out right now, and give it a 4.

Kong wants to be King

So there I was sitting in the dark waiting to see War of the Worlds, and up on the screen appears the trailer for King Kong...And it got me excited. I'm not sure why, but I think it is this; Kong is a classic story and the first Kong movie is a Hollywood classic. The black and white scenes of Kong standing on top of a building swatting at biplanes are still familiar to audiences today. Now the thought of someone taking a classic film and tinkering with it might make a movie fan tremor with fear. After all Hollywood doesn't have the best track record of remakes; for example Psycho-1998, Thunderbirds, Godzilla-1998, that must have been a bad year, and, they are working on many more this year alone(but hey, that's for another post). But knowing that Peter Jackson, the man that brought us The Lord of the Rings, arguably one of the best trilogies ever, is directing this one, well, that just turns my nervous anticipation into childlike excitement. (I have to make a side note here. One of the things that impresses me the most about Peter Jackson is that he shot all three of LOTRs at the same time. This is a monumental feet. He might be filming one scene from the third film with the "fist" crew, and then as soon as he's done he would meet with the "second" crew and film a scene from the first film. This is an incredible demonstration of his work ethic, attentions to detail, and commitment to perfection. Ok, Im done, sorry.) So I think the fact that I already know the story, I don't have to be sold on it, and that Peter Jackson is directing, and that the trailer does look exciting, all add to up make me want to see this one.
O.k. if you're not excited by now, check this out. You know when you buy the DVD there are all those behind the scenes footage, well Mr. Jackson has provided a production diary of the making of the movie at http://www.kongisking.net/index.shtml. There is already several HOURS worth of footage available.
I don't think this will be a CGI driven movie any more than LOTR was. I do think it will be an element heavily emphasized but, only to add to the overall feel of the film. Well let me know what you think, and thanks for reading!

Fantastic 4 Review (Spoilers- well, kinda)

PG-13 Ioan Gruffudd(Reed Richards), Jessica Alba(Sue Storm), Chris Evans(Johnny Storm), Michael Chiklis(Ben Grimm), Julian McMahon(Victor Von Doom)

Before I begin let me say that I am not looking at this movie as an attempt to copy the comic book perfectly, therefore I won't hold any of the discrepancies (and there are many) against it. I am sure you will read many a review of those who bash it on those merits alone. And maybe they should.

Alright, I'm not going to use any silly play on words like, The NOT so Fantastic Four, or this movie was anything but Fantastic. But, I would like to. If you need a little synopsis here goes...Four scientist go into space to conduct an experiment. While in space they are bombarded with "cosmic rays" giving each of them fantastic powers. (See pic to the left for example of each) After struggling with their transformation, they band together to fight the evil Dr. Doom, who also received special abilities during the space experiment.

The first twenty minutes of this movie were kind of dry for me. The director here had a difficult task of introducing us to several characters, and then have them discover their powers and learn to use them. Few movies have done this well with one or two characters, much less four. Unfortunately I don't think it was executed well here. Most "super hero movies" that have done well, in my humble opinion, have taken the time to introduce the characters to the audience well before they gain their powers. Thus, we already like them or at least feel for them before they become super.

Anyway, shortly after the four decide to become a team they meet up with Dr. Doom and defeat him, end of story. That's it, movies over. Doom, who we care the least about, takes the longest to develop his ability, and once he does, he attacks the Fantastic Four and is defeated. Climatic fight scene lasts about 5 minutes. I don't understand, this movie lasts an hour and a half. That's about twenty minutes of time that could have been used to develop the characters or, hey, what the heck, blow some stuff up. The conflict with Doom could have taken much longer. Or- we could have seen the Four battle other crimes, anything.

There are some positive notes. Chris Evans who plays the Human Torch(Johnny Storm), does a great job. He's funny, cocky, and adds flavor to an otherwise bland cast. Well, he and The Thing. Michael Chiklis(from The Shield on FX) does a pretty good job as well. His banter with Johnny Storm breaks up the monotony and stale dialogue coming from the other actors.

Even though I spent most of my time complaing about this one, I still give it a 3. It was fun, and funny and worth a rent at least.

Fantastic 4 (pre-show)

NO, I haven't seen this one yet. I just thought I would get a head start and give someone out there a huge opportunity. (Ok, it's not really huge) If anyone out there sees this before me, and will email me or post their review, I will put your review right here on the big screen. That's right, I will give you the space that is normally reserved for professionals like myself. You won't have to settle for the "comment" section, instead I will be commenting on your review. Now, I know this probably won't happen unless someone gets exposed to cosmic radiation but, I wanted to give everybody the opportunity.

And since I have some time to kill here is some info to chew on before you go see the movie:

The FF(as they are known in the biz) were created by one of my all time favorite superheros, Stan Lee, in 1961. These guys were totally different than anything that had come before. First of all they had no secret identities, like Superman or Batman, and they were made up of very non-stereotypical characters. For example Reed Richards who even though had super stretchy powers "was still human enough to be a long-winded bore when explaining things to others." Johnny Storm, though a teenager, was just as much part of the team as anyone else and not a sidekick as most teenagers were portrayed at the time. Sue Storm broke the female mold of being the damsel in distress and became a full fledged fighting super hero. And then there is the thing. Who would think that an ugly rock "thing" would make a good super hero? It certainly didn't follow the comic wisdom of the time. But, Stan was and is a different guy, and by doing things his way and not following the trend of the day he created one of the greatest super teams ever. The comic is still in print today and has finally made it to the big screen(after a superhumanly crappy attempt in 1994, so bad it wasn't even released, but that's for another time.)

'nuff said

War of the Worlds

PG-13 Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Tim Robbins



To me this is a classic summer movie. This is the kind of movie that you see when you are a little kid and remember when you are older. The kind of stuff that is so big it only looks right on the movie screen. Ok So, obviously I thought this was a good movie and one definitely to be seen in the theatre. Aliens attacking earth is a classic movie genre and who better to bring us an updated version of H.G. Wells classic story than Steven Spielberg. The movie gets running within the first ten minutes and doesn't really slow down for about an hour. The suspense was very good and accompanied by just the right amount of action to keep you on the edge of your seat. But wait, there's more. Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, and Justin Chatwin give the audience a family that's interesting and we actually care about throughout the movie. Tom Cruise does an excellent job and even though he has the lead role he doesn't dominate the film like he tends to do in his other movies. He is merely playing is role in the story. Dakota Fanning does an awesome job and only makes you wonder what kind of movies she will star in when she gets older. Ok, back to the film. This movie had classic "alien" elements while diverging from typical story lines at the same time. Not to give too much of the movie away but the first 30 minutes of Independence Day and War of the Worlds could be considered one in the same. But the two movies take considerable different paths after that. There is also an interesting balance of levity and comic relief with dark scenes that give you a sense that all is lost. I have a feeling that the ending may disappoint a few. I won't say more until others have scene it and posted in the comments section. All in all I thought it had a good blend of action, suspense, story and special affects.




On a couple of side notes, I thought it was interesting how Steven Speilberg implemented some of the post 911 events with how people reacted after the alien invasion.

Also there were several scenes where you saw what was happening indirectly instead of straight on. In other words you are seeing what is happening through reflections from glass in a car, building or a mirror. There is also a shot through a camcorder. I thought this was interesting and noted it throughout the movie but I'm not sure if it has any significance. If anyone else noticed this or other "shot" patterns let me know.