Title: Trainspotting

Starring: Ewan McGregor, Ewen Bremner, Jonny Lee Miller, Kevin McKidd, Robert Carlyle, Kelly Macdonald, Peter Mullan

Director: Danny Boyle

Plot: Renton, deeply immersed in the Edinburgh drug scene, tries to clean up and get out, despite the allure of the drugs and influence of friends.

Review: An older film, but it has scored very well on imdb and I have often heard that it is an “excellent” movie, as well as the fact that it was directed by the same guy who made 28 Days Later, which I really enjoyed, motivated me to check out this movie. I was wary of it because to me it seemed to be another Requiem for a Dream, a movie about drugs that was highly praised but that I didn’t really understand nor think it was all that great.

And as it turns out, I was right. Now don’t mistake me as this movie isn’t really all that similar to Requiem for a Dream, only in that even though they are highly regarded I didn’t really care for either movie. Which I guess mainly is because of the subject matter, as I myself am not really into the whole drug scene. I understand the appeal of drugs but I never felt that movies like this which “exposes” addicts’ plights, were never necessary. It is just that we get it already, drugs are bad. And even though this probably isn’t what this movie is trying to show, I just thought that this was kind of pointless.

I think that another problem is that this movie was praised for really tapping what the youth drug scene when it was made, and watching it now I can’t really appreciate that aspect.

The acting was pretty good as the main characters where all pretty well drawn but it still came to the point that their interactions were ultimately pointless. Forgive me for not putting it in a spoiler box, but as it is fairly vague I think I can get away with it, but in the end nothing that has really happen meant anything and it ends extremely open endedly. So I didn’t enjoy getting there and then the ending lets me down as well.

It was interesting but I just didn’t enjoy this movie all that much.

* * * * * * _ _ _ _ (6 out of ten)

Popularity: 27% [?]

Title: Night at the Museum

Starring: Ben Stiller, Carla Gugino, Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, Bill Cobbs, Jake Cherry, Ricky Gervais
Director: Shawn Levy

Plot: A newly recruited night security guard at the Museum of Natural History discovers that an ancient curse causes the animals and exhibits on display to come to life and wreak havoc.

Review: To enjoy this movie have only one piece of advice, don’t go in expecting a really good movie. As long as you just go into it just to be entertained and nothing more, you will be.

My first major concern about it was that it was going to be just a movie pulley for a younger audience, and though for the most part this was true, there was still enough to keep me interested and there were some “coy” moments for the more adult viewers (i.e. “Good lord man, why are you slapping you monkey?”).

There was plenty that was fine about this movie, but some things that I took issue with I just couldn’t let go of. One such thing was the apparent immediacy with which Larry accepts the predicament he is in. In real life one would, unless already highly delusional, would be a little more surprised about what was happening to him, I would think. Another such thing was the rage and anger that the pharaoh seemed to have, until he was let out, at which point he became merely a “figurehead”, and what I couldn’t figure out was that with all his magic he was still content to stay at the museum.

Though it was aimed at the younger audience, I felt that the humor was generally appealing because of the manner in which Stiller was able to deliver it. In this movie he was gave a very good performance and I just enjoyed him as an actor. I thought that the rest of the characters were also well done and I especially thought that the character of the curator, portrayed by Ricky Gervais, was very funny. I delighted in his half speak, and I thought it was a strong performance.

I think that you may enjoy this and it would be an adequate distraction for a bit.

* * * * * * * _ _ _ (7 out of ten)

Popularity: 25% [?]

Title: Desperation

Starring: Tom Skerritt, Ron Perlman, Steven Weber, Annabeth Gish

Director: Mick Garris

Plot: When a sheriff arrests a writer, a family, a couple, and a hitchhiker and throws them in a jail cell in the deserted town of Desperation, they must fight for their lives.

Review: Desperation is the two hundred ten minute made for TV adaptation of the Stephen King book of the same name. The short version is that, while this was interesting and had some decent acting, it just fell flat with too many flaws for me to overlook.

Just to get it out of the way, I absolutely hated the little boy; both character and actor. It was probably a combination of aspects of the performance, the fact that he was portrayed by a horrible actor is part of it, I mean it can’t be easy being a child actor among adults, but come on. The other reason that I probably didn’t like him was the annoyingly integral part of the plot that their whole salvation lay in him being told what to do by god. I’m not sure who this crappy plot device was pulled off in the book, and here it was almost redeemed by the use of the sister’s ghost. I expected this to be poor, but it was actually pretty good, however the “flashback” of the movie about what happened was unacceptable; I don’t know how to describe it, besides just being plain crappy. I also don’t know why, but it was easier for me to accept that some ancient being was taking control of people than it was to accept that god had some vested interest in telling this boy to make all these people blow up Tak. Not to beat a dead horse, but even just God’s guidance would have been ok, but the arrogance and certainty with which this boy decided he was being told by god.

I know that I stressed that point, but it was probably the most annoying and unenjoyable parts of the movie, and probably was the downfall of the movie for me. Other things that I did not like were the poor acting aside from a few. Ron Perlman did a good job as the sheriff but we saw so little of him. Other good performance were on the part of Tom Skerritt and Steven Weber among a few others, the rest were either weak performance or they suffered too much from what they all did, with so many characters a few would be understandably underdeveloped, however they all seemed to be lacking even though this was much longer than a normal movie.

I wouldn’t recommend this because, while there were some standouts, the rest seemed unimagined and unmemorable.

* * * * _ _ _ _ _ _ (4 out of ten)

Popularity: 25% [?]

Title: Jesus Camp

Starring: (various children and other individuals interviewed and observed)
Director: Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady

Plot: A documentary on kids who attend a summer camp hoping to become the next Billy Graham.

Review: Some of what I might say will be a little convoluted but this is because I was recording my thoughts as the movie progressed so they are not in any particular order. I did it this way because, you make think it’s a good thing or maybe it’s a bad thing, but there was so little criticism of what was being said that I was straining to keep from yelling at the screen. I think that overall this really was a good method because this way people are not told how to interpret it but can see the insanity of it for themselves.

My first problem is that the attendee’s are told to believe and not to think over things, and this seems like the typical Christian ideal, don’t think, pray.

They attack science as just being based on beliefs, which it isn’t, does anyone else see the irony in this? CHRISTISANITY is a freaking system of beliefs.

A mother claims that this nation was founded on Judeo Christian beliefs, while the only basis of this is that the first settlers were Christian. While in fact there is evidence that many of the founding fathers

Mike Papantonio, a radio show host seemed to be the only voice of reason, which is saying a lot as it is not often I agree with Christians. I wish that all Christians would be this logical and reasoned as he was, the world would be such a better place.

A little girl just said there beliefs to a T “it doesn’t matter what you think, God’s word vs. Man’s”

She said that democracy is a bad thing because we have to give other people equal rights.

These little kids make a pledge to the flag, the Christian flag, and then they pledge to the bible. This is brain washing, it is all that it is. They make sure these kids know without a doubt how they stand with “the lord” all before they are ten years old. I don’t know about any of you, but as ten year old, I was an idiot. But these kids are not given a chance to think about the decisions that are being made for them; they are simply led to believe that “this is what you believe now, its right no matter what anyone tells you, only the bible is right”

They watched a video in the movie called “Creation adventures”, it was just another way to insist to these kids that the world and all existence started 6000 years ago in the garden of Eden.

“Let me say this about Harry Potter, HARY POTTER IS THE ENEMY OF GOD AND IN THE BIBLE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO DEATH!!!!!”

These little children are told that they are evil and that they must believe without question to make sure that they don’t burn in hell.

And I have to stress this again, THESE ARE KIDS, kids with, not beliefs, but certainties that they are right no matter what someone says. But they can’t think about what is being said to them, they just have to accept it to cope with what is being shoved down their throats.

Something that struck me was that some of these children weren’t worshipping God, they were worshiping the preacher.

One particular part was extra hilarious was the part during which Ted Haggard spoke against homosexuals.

It frightens me how diametrically opposed to the separation of church and state these people are. But not only is this separation attacked but science itself is attacked, it is once again the willing ignorance that it doesn’t matter what is true only what the beliefs of the bible are.

This was a well done eye opening movie and you all need to see it. It was a documentary so it wasn’t that exciting or entertaining but this needs to be seen.

Someone once said something that I thought was in extremely bad taste, but after seeing this movie I am not so offended by the statement, “Abort Christians before they can be born again.”

This movie seriously shook me and I don’t think that I would even like to meet anyone who sees this and isn’t shocked. You need to see this to know that we can’t sit idly by as these “forces of god” gain more political power and more and more control of our lives. They are being indoctrinated and brainwashed into fighting common sense and reason and we must fight back.

* * * * * * * _ _ _ (7 out of ten)

Popularity: 21% [?]

Title: The Evil Dead II

Starring: Bruce Campbell, Sarah Berry, Dan Hicks, Kassie DePaiva, Ted Raimi, Denise Bixler, Richard Domeier, John Peakes, Lou Hancock
Director: Sam Raimi

Plot: The return of Ash Williams as the “Deadite slayer”, back to fight off the manifestations of the Necronomicon

Review: There have been some mild arguments (usually among fan boys) about whether or not this is a sequel or a remake. Originally there was a whole new plot envisioned but after adequate funding wasn’t to be had they pushed ahead (this idea can be seen in the end of this movie and the third installment). Also, footage from the previous movie couldn’t be obtained so creative license was taken with plot to continue with the production. And I really believe that this was the best possible decision. As a sequel I think that this even exceeded original. It may have not been as serious, but with an upped budget, and upped gore it was truly a GREAT experience.

The gore here was taken to extreme lengths, as evident in the hand in the wall scene; this wasn’t just gore to be bloody though. At least as I saw it, this was taken to, and then past, the point of extremity. I can’t speak on behalf of Sam Raimi or anyone involved in the film, but I saw this as maybe a wink and a nod to the violent obsessions of some horror movies. There is a point at which it stopped being gross out bloody and it started to just be funny. And this is one of the things which made this movie enjoyable. This sequel wasn’t so intent on being serious that it had a humor about itself and as a viewer I enjoyed this.

Part of this humor was the character played by Bruce Campbell; this movie was the first where the character really became what fans know and love. Shooting out one liners left and right that I always found amusing. And when talking about the comedy of The Evil Dead II, one is obliged to mention the incident of his right hand. Not only is he forced to remove it after it turns on him, he replaces it with a chainsaw, if you can not see the genius in this then you must have a very limp upper arm.

Srsly guys, you need to see this movie.

* * * * * * * * * * \ (9.5 out of ten)

Popularity: 21% [?]

Title: The Evil Dead

Starring: Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker, Hal Delrich, Teresa Tilly
Director: Sam Raimi

Plot: Five friends travel to a cabin in the woods, where they unknowingly release flesh-possessing demons.

Review: I have seen my fair share of low budget horror movies in my time, and while I wouldn’t say that I am an expert, I can feel very comfortable in saying that this is a horror movie classic. This starts as your standard campy horror movie, a group of people heading into the woods for an enjoyable time; the kind of situation that anyone who has seen any horror movie knows can’t turn out too good. Although this may leave the plot a bit standard and predictable it was still pretty enjoyable, as horror movies go, delivering the shocks and gross out expected today. The only minor shortcoming of it was how long it took for something to actually happen, while there were short episodes they all seemed like teasers

Because of the nature of the film, one can’t expect that the acting will be Oscar worthy, but not only did I think that the acting was adequate for this film, I thought that Bruce Campbell did a pretty good job in this roll. Although this was probably as a result of the minimal requirements of the part. One person referred to this as the Ash/Solo effect, the more pain and tribulations that they are subjected to, the more the viewer enjoys it. I thought that this was funny because of the resemblance that Scott in this movie bore to Harrison Ford.

I have always enjoyed zombie films and this is a great one, this is odd however because of the differences between it and your typical zombie movie. It was a lot more on the “mystical” side of the spectrum which wasn’t necessarily a bad thing; I just tend to prefer a more scientific approach. This mystical approach however actually did turn out to be a good thing, cinematically that is, because something I thought that was very “cool” was the unseen force from the woods.  Even though we never see what it was, we see from its perspective and this was always very amusing, pushing through the woods destroying everything in its way. It wasn’t just “cool” though, it was, in my opinion, an effect that was very well done and effective at what it was trying to do.

I really suggest that you see this movie, as long as you don’t mind a bit of gore and enjoy the horror genre. It may have been a “B” movie, but it was well done and has gone down as a great movie.

* * * * * * * * _ _ (8 out of ten)

Popularity: 21% [?]

Title: High Fidelity

Starring: John Cusack, Iben Hjejle, Jack Black, Todd Louiso, Joan Cusack, Tim Robbins, Catherine Zeta-Jones

Director: Stephen Frears

Plot: Rob, a record store owner and compulsive list maker, recounts his top five breakups, including the one in progress.

Review: Something that immediately stands out in this movie is the breaking of the fourth wall, the main character directly addressing the audience as a narrator of the story (this same style is like that in Malcolm in the Middle). Though it may be a little annoying to some, because there is no warning when he just starts talking to the camera, I thought that it wasn’t all that obstructive. In fact I enjoyed it, as this was an adaptation of a book this was probably the best way to replicate its feel without giving up much of the narration that would have been in the book.

I thought that the acting in this movie was very well done. John Cusack has delivered a spot on performance in almost everything I have seen him in and this was no different. The supporting cast also did a very good job; I thought Jack Black stood out in his performance here.  He wasn’t as overbearing as his personality may tend to make him; he was just a funny supporting character. The girlfriends who in general played a minor role were all pretty well played. The only actor who I didn’t really like in this movie was Tim Robbins as Ian. Maybe it was the nature of the character itself, but I just didn’t like it.

Luckily this was a minor part of the movie and he wasn’t in all that many scenes. One of the funniest parts of these movies did in fact have this character. In the scene where Ian confronts Rob, the re imaginings of the scene were hilarious. Much of the rest of the movie was pretty funny and usually came from the characters. The socially inept workers and the exceeding obsessive nature of Rob was one that I can’t say I’m not completely unfamiliar with.

This was a funny movie with good acting and even an “awww” moment or two, I would suggest it as it was highly enjoyable.

* * * * * * * * _ _ (8 out of ten)

Popularity: 20% [?]

Title: Man of the Year

Starring: Robin Williams, Christopher Walken, Laura Linney, Lewis Black, Jeff Goldblum, David Alpay

Director: Barry Levinson

Plot: On a lark, the host of a late-night political talk show decides to run for president. The thing is, he never expected to win.

Review:  This movie started off with a good idea, today so many people, myself included, get news from shows like the Daily Show, and so a movie appealing to this portion of the population seemed like a sure thing. There were some pretty funny parts, but unfortunately it felt like some of it was forced, and instead of just being funny it was like the “political” element needed to be there so really both fell short.

Based on what I saw in advertisements this was made out to be a comedy with great deal of the Robin Williams style comedy. However this masked a “thriller” element as well as an awkward romance that I didn’t think was very well enacted. So these other aspects were ok but really, I for one would have enjoyed seeing more comedy. Just because I thought it could have used more don’t think that there wasn’t any, and that which was there was very funny. The scene when at the debate was particularly funny; it was also probably the most politically charged scene of the movie. This was unfortunate because it felt like the punches were held back. I can understand wanting to try and keep the movie timeless, but this took a lot of the poignancy out of the movie, giving it that feeling that it was lacking something.

The acting was on very well done by Williams, and Christopher Walken is in a role that is perfect for him, letting him add a great amount of comedy. These two are part of what made this movie watch able. The end however was one of the worst in the history of movies instead of just running with the idea of a president who might actually be good for America they do this sad little cop out. So you may enjoy this movie like me, but this movie overall was a let down, not achieving what it claimed it would.

* * * * * * \ _ _ _ (6.5 out of ten)

Popularity: 20% [?]

Title: Snakes on a Plane

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Nathan Phillips, Julianna Margulies
Director: David R. Ellis

Plot: On board a flight over the Pacific Ocean, an assassin, bent on killing a passenger who’s a witness in protective custody, lets loose a crate full of deadly snakes.

Review: When speaking of Snakes on a Plane it is necessary to reference the “internet phenomena” so lets just get that out of the way now. As soon as this movie was announced people of the internets heard its name and ran with it. Its simplicity allowed for the thousands of variations and imaginings which came to be. This online involvement is highlighted by the inclusion of some material into the actual movie.

Because of all this hype, as it were, it was impossible to go into this movie without any preconceived notions. But this wasn’t the hype strictly from the internet; it was that which was spawned when New Line Cinema decided to jump on this advertising. The commercials stopped being “watch this movie, its cool” and became “were so cool we say Snakes on a Plane and you quiver in anticipation of our coolness.”

Even with this, which I thought was VERY annoying, Snakes on a Plane turned out to be a pretty good movie. Jackson is one of those actors who you just enjoy; almost every time he is on screen I think that he does a good job no matter the role. The rest of the actors I guess did ok, but even on the part of Jackson there was little development. I think that it took to many people to really “develop” a single one, so lucky for it this movie wasn’t really about the characters, but the surreal situation they are in. Now this movie really is comparable to old fashion horror movie, it does have a cheesy premise and little importance of plot. However even though the premise of snakes on a plane is essentially impossible, at least an attempt was made to explain what was happening and how, an attempt which I thought was a success. The plot of this was no more flawed then any other Hollywood movie and so I think that people calling this surreal is stretching the definition a bit.

This was a fine action, “horror”, comedy that entertained and while I don’t think that it lived up to all the hype about it, this hyped it far beyond the realm of any movie. Because it entertained and surprised give it a chance.

* * * * * * * * _ _ (8 out of ten)

Popularity: 16% [?]

Title: Hellboy

Starring: Ron Perlman, Doug Jones, Selma Blair, John Hurt, Rupert Evans, Jeffrey Tambor
Director: Guillermo del Toro

Plot: A demon, raised from infancy after being conjured by and rescued from the Nazis, grows up to become a defender against the forces of darkness.

Review: I have enjoyed some comic book adaptations and Hellboy did not disappoint, in fact I thought it was one of the best adaptations I have seen. By this I mean that it turned out to be a pretty good movie, not that it was a great translation from page to screen. As I have not read the comics I can’t make this distinction. Back to the movie, Hellboy was surprising in the sense that it actually had an inkling of character development. Quite the feat seeing as the main character had to convey emotion with only his eyelids visible through his costume.

Plot wise this movie was decent but could have been developed more in the second half, luckily this was fairly balanced out by the aforementioned character development and great effects. I think that Hellboy came out great, as well as the costume for Abe Sapien. The rest of the movie was pretty good in the effect department, my only complaint was the fire effect for Liz; there was just something about it that seemed a little off to me.

The character of Hellboy was interesting in another aspect; he managed to be an odd and off putting “demon”, while at the same time he was able to by a sympathetic person. I thought the cats were a nice touch. The comedy in this film was sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant, but it was a witty, black humor that made it genuinely funny. The action was a strong point as it was fast and exciting, only seeming to be a bit “quick”, especially in the last fight scene.

In the end, this was a solid movie, and while nothing “spectacular” it still exceeded your typical comic book movie in my view. If you enjoy the superhero movie than this won’t disappoint, and even if your just looking for a decent action movie.

* * * * * * * * _ _ (8 out of ten)

Popularity: 15% [?]