The Saint (1997)

I was apprehensive about watching a 2 hour film whose misleading trailer seemed to offer a dull plot and gushy romance, but The Saint was a pleasant surprise full of delight, charm and quality.

I liked the plethora of disguises the titular character plays hot potato with, an enigmatic and troubled character brought to life by Val Kilmer, who could've done so much more with Batman as his talents are evident in this film.

No nonsense Russian villains, especially Ilya (Valeri Nikolayev) fuel the suspense while the scenery invites the viewer into a cat-and-mouse caper whose biggest punch comes from the question of "how will 'the saint' outsmart his enemies?" Meanwhile, the dull progress of the villain's endgame is appropriately left in the background.

Elisabeth Shue is delightful as ever in a gentle, fragile and sweet role. The obligatory romance isn't gushy despite being fanciful. It is held together by a subtle focus on emotional yearning that binds the core themes together. Everyone needs to have their needs fulfilled, yet their coy nature seeks to deprive them of it while their lives become something completely different. The film could've gone further down this emotional route, but favored action and feelgood cliches instead.

Overall, it was hasty in some places but nonetheless fine and well worth the duration.

Die Another Day (2002)

Taking plenty of futuristic liberties, Die Another Day is certainly colorful as are the opening credits, despite cool special effects that obscure any explanation for a madman's genius intellect. Nevertheless, a vigorous effort to make Bond splashier than ever before is certainly nice to look at. This weekend adventure for Bond feels sillier than past installments but offers splendid cinematography and set pieces that are packed with nifty creativity.

Halle Berry is a joy to look at. However, the inspired scene that has her splashing out of the water in an orange swimsuit isn't given the best camerawork nor the most fitting color arrangement. A sultry sequence shortly thereafter compensates for it, as do two other scenes that have her wearing a pink dress with poor wind resistance and white undergarments that better showcase her complexion and beauty.

Berry's character is elevated to Mr. Bond's unofficial colleague, avoiding eye candy doom unlike our favorite womanizer's previous acquaintances. While little exploration is taken to her character, it's strange to see someone other than Bond be so nested in the action. By the end of the film, the eye candy role becomes confused but Berry shows tender, vulnerable and cheeky qualities throughout that fortify the role.

Overall, Die Another Day is a fitting title. It lacks the sober attraction of previous outings but better serves itself by favoring frivolity and being more self-assured than the confused Goldeneyes that came before it.

Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon

After sitting through the mess of a sequel, the epic trailer for "Dark of the Moon" made me wonder if the franchise could redeem itself. At first, I was worried because it started with Shia LaBeouf making funny faces and boisterous displays I simply didn't understand.

However, he is most effective when being given believable emotion to portray through raw intensity on screen. For the most part, "Dark of the Moon" realizes this and tips the scales appropriately.

While the character he is given to play is not the most conventional "fight the good fight" hero but instead ill-tempered and off-putting, it is also filled with altruism and a good heart that make up for it. Luckily "Dark of the Moon" has a greater story to set free, along with slight mystery, and it finally does before the awkward silliness from the previous film cripples this portrait.

"Dark of the Moon" is still just a rousing action film, but it offers a previously unvisited level of humanity, astonishing CGI, exciting environments, internal consistency and less complexity.

Total Recall (2012)

As a fan of Colin Farrell, I felt hopeful going into the theater. Sadly, the first hour of Total "Rekall" is jarring and laden with intrusive chase scenes that prevented me from appreciating the effort in futuristic elements and impressive CGI. I normally like quick camera cuts, but this doesn't need them or the hectic pacing. Enough, already.

The picture finally slows down, and the good scenes (if not minimum) become available. I was reminded of "Paycheck", about how the past self can cunningly leave clues and tools for their future self. These scenes offer the largest amount of character depth and information. Since they are over in 5 minutes, the film could use more of them.

Meanwhile, I was still confused. How does the plot device--I mean, how does the vast technology in the world of "Total Recall" function? Why are there women with 3 breasts, and inexplicable flashy waves overlapping the picture? Confusion can be intriguing, but only in small doses. If you lose your audience, it's over. There are moments in "Total Recall" that made me believe the filmmakers didn't care if they were the only passengers in a vehicle that goes absolutely nowhere.

And nowhere, indeed, is where this film goes. Yet, as I slowly begin to understand (or at least begin to form an understanding) the plot, another pointless chase scene emerges. Enough, already. How many times do I have to say it? Why bore the audience with yet another wasteful chase scene? We know Mr. Farrell isn't going to die--at least not yet. Instead of taking 5 minutes only for him to elude capture (again), dig some character depth or at least think up an interesting personality.

At its core, "Total Recall" is a neat concept. It has a chilling musical score, decent tension at times and a solid lead in Farrell, though he isn't given much to do here. With a duration of 2 hours, this film should've amounted to more than it actually does--and I don't mean 'tries to become'. This incoherent film doesn't try whatsoever. It's as if "Total Recall" becomes self aware (like the robots in Terminator, a much better futuristic film, and much simpler too) and knows it fails to be effective, so it lazily offers a dull conclusion that is unworthy of the profound elements it seemed to introduced earlier.

Lacking the zest and simplicity of the Jason Bourne movies, or even "Paycheck", this film becomes a victim of its own self-imposed low ceiling. The plot mostly runs in circles, ignoring my confusion and lack of excitement about a dull civil war in a world that has flying cars! When a film fails to be exceptional, it has no redeeming quality. Other than for this review, "Total Recall" is not worth being "recalled."

Men in Black III (2012)

While it is the 3rd entry in the franchise and these characters aren't doing much new of anything, Men in Black III far surpasses the abysmal sequel that came before it. While the plot about time-traveling is neat, it is limited and small in scope, but it still works and I found myself liking it. The humor is still there, the aliens are still there, and so is Josh Brolin who I enjoyed as a younger Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones). As a fan of the lesser known comedy group, "Flight of the Conchords", I was also pleased with Jemaine Clement as the charismatic and wily antagonist.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Everything to be loved from the original Spider-Man films, but better in every way. More color, more humor, more energy, less sappy romance, more lighthearted tones, more action and far better CGI.

Andrew Garfield dons the "tekkie" Spider-Man suit in this dark and edgier reboot of the series that started going in reverse and thus needed a new portrayal. This film certainly drives forward with good pacing and high energy. The one word to describe this adaptation compared to the others? Intense. Everything is revved up, more faithful to the comic books and also more modernized for today's youth. Spider-Man sports some nifty goggles and it's neat!

Of course, there are the cliched "comic book movie" elements, e.g. Spider-Man makes his own webbing, but never runs out of it, using it up faster than a paycheck in some scenes that are great for humor but bad for realism. Then again, this is Spider-Man, so I'll leave the silliness of lizard-men and death-defying swinging to the pedants.

This is a great popcorn flick. The romance between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy is cute and not nearly as imposing as the MJ & Spidey one from the first trilogy. This portrayl of young love might actually go somewhere, without needing steamy kisses in the rain or excessive sex appeal to get it done, thus feeling more natural and less pretentious. Also gone is the be-all, end-all comic book rule: Nobody can know the super hero's secret identity. This is shaved away early on, without any melodrama, and it's a refreshing dismissal of a tiresome plot device we've seen so many times before.

This "Spider-Man" movie has more attitude and flavor than its predecessors, and it's definitely a good thing. It felt more serious to me without delving into campy humor like the old ones. This was effected by the stronger character depth, rather than the heavy and mawkish message from the others. These people feel realer and less like characters in a fantasy story about a boy who suddenly gains spidery abilities.

Ghosts of Mars (John Carpenter, 2001)

Of course, Jeff Imada did the fight choreography. It's solid, but Natasha Henstridge made me wish Sandra Bullock was the star here, and I use "star" quite loosely. Anyone with an ounce of sex appeal or stage presence would've been better in the "lead" role. There are no A-listers when there should be at least one, or a girl with higher sex appeal at least. All I got was Ice Cube & Jason Statham, who provide the only charisma for this film, aside from the goofy machete-wielding presence of the crazies.

The situation, however, writes this curious tale into a corner. In most shows, when a hero is put into a seemingly inescapable position, they must escape SOMEHOW for the show to continue. Even after they do manage to flee their captors, the viewer must wonder, "why'd they bother doing that bit in the first place?" It is tiresome and cliched. With "Ghosts of Mars", one has to wonder why it intentionally limits itself instead of growing into something that is far more captivating.

Just how could the heroes ever defeat this mystical "ghostly" parasite? At one point, the most knowledgeable person of the plague doesn't even have a response to that question. Even worse films leave their hero with some hope of a victory.

What are these people fighting for, and why are they always fighting 200 of these crazy beasts? Do these maniacs breed as fast as they run? Better yet, why not just heed the warning of the "ghosts" and go back to Earth? Mars can't be all it's cracked up to be if you're constantly being overrun by maniacs that love throwing razor sharp discs at people.

Don't get me wrong; "Ghosts of Mars" is better than I remember from the first viewing years ago. I completely forgot it had Jason Statham in it (of whom I'm a big fan), but he's underused here and let's just say character depth is duller than the red pigment of the planet.

I was also annoyed by the forgettable nature of the film. Yes, it's a John Carpenter flick and it has all of the feelgood action film touches, like the good guys being pinned down, gun battles galore, and some humor.

But what else does it actually offer? Unlike Aliens, it has no redeeming quality. 'Humans are stupid and should be slaughtered for exploring Mars' is all I received. "Ghosts of Mars" is not intelligent. It's half-baked, and it truly has nowhere else to go other than to give the heroes 500 more magazines of ammo so they can continue to shoot at an impervious entity rather than take a shuttle back to Earth.

I guess Ice Cube and the poor man's Sandra Bullock are doomed to die by the end of the film.

Surely, it didn't have to be that way.

Ghost Rider (2007, Mark Steven Johnson)

Ghost Rider isn't breathtaking or touching, but it was imaginative and spooky enough to capture my eye. As a fan of the darker side of fiction, the plot appealed to me and the natural elements are used creatively, even if each element's respective time-to-shine is inexplicably cut short. This turnout bothered me due to the wrongly lopsided balance of buildup/exposition and execution/payoff. But as I said, Ghost Rider isn't going to linger long in my mind. If it were, the brief action sequences would be a larger issue.

There is a lot of CGI in this picture. The presentation of it is too clean and sleek--or maybe it's a literal presentation--because it can't escape that "computer generated" look, even if certain effects like fire and wraiths stand out in a good way. Along with the heavy use of CGI, there is the typical poignant back story of any other comic book hero. Johnny Blaze was once a meager youth, and it's all very dull, even if young Johnny's concern for his father's smoking habit is genuine and wholesome. The problem is, we all know where the story is going to wind up so it can actually start, and the introductory exposition is overlong. Especially when it is all meant to justify the obvious outcome of the cliched romance that will serve later as a plot device, I much prefer the quick intro approach we saw in DareDevil. Nevertheless, the ball eventually starts rolling.

Nicolas Cage fits the role, but he is confined here. I'm not certain it's for the best, either. While the film's low ceiling of scope does "cage" the zany actor's crazy side, there isn't much he can offer to the role other than read the lines in a misguided southern accent, ostentatious lines that feel ripped right out of a comic book, those superficial statements that belong on posters, not as natural dialogue.

I did feel an inconsistent mixture of tones from Ghost Rider. Is it supposed to be campy, dark, action-packed, or solemn? I would've liked to see the film take a more solid approach down one of these avenues than see all this hodgepodge. When you're doing a story about fiery bounty hunters and 'Old Scratch', himself, it is expected for one to go full blown comical like "Bedazzled" or pitch black dark like "The Devil's Advocate." I'm not saying the comical bits rolled by without chuckles, but it clashes with the spooky villain's satanic plot of death.

Speaking of characters, there isn't much in that department, either, nothing on the level of inner struggle you'll find in the Spider-Man or Batman films. There are "good" guys, wicked incarnate fiery bounty hunters that are starving for adrenaline, and evil guys that just are. I do wonder why the evillest of them all looks so pampered, though, compared to his scary cronies. There must be a air-conditioned salon in Hades where one can get a nice shave, a bombastic demeanor and strapping overcoat.

Because it doesn't go deeper, even though I begged it to try, Ghost Rider was still enjoyable as a spookier-than-usual popcorn flick but clearly doesn't have the impact of other films, even those from the same genre, and suffers from the formulaic "comic book movie" blueprint it is "cursed" to follow.

Hollywood Homicide (2003)

Hollywood Homicide is a mash-up of humor and the buddy cop trope, a mash-up that ultimately feels jammed and misguided.

While the humor grew on me, along with the running jokes, all of it started to fizzle due to the slim plot that offers no mystery or authenticity. It feels like a gag, especially with such throwaway villains.

That's not to say Hollywood Homicide isn't well-made for whatever it was meant to be; Ford is a hoot and Hartnett brings a charismatic awkwardness to his role. Sadly, it's a bad batch of funny and serious. It just doesn't work, and the themes aren't explored deeply enough to be taken in with more than a passing chuckle.

Goldeneye (Martin Campbell, 1995)

Although it is excessively irreverent, Goldeneye contains the essential ingredients of a feel-good Bond film: Action-packed chase scenes, a bad guy with an evil plan, seductively secretive women, cool gizmos and a tenacious MI6 Agent we know all too well.

Goldeneye prospers once the plot picks up steam and is an enjoyable film overall, but it suffers from an incoherent intro, a so-so endgame, an unconvincing romance and a contrived nature. Yes, Mr. Bond has a bullet deflector, and yes, the film should merit a pardon for its lack of realism, which is normally accepted for any action-packed adventure.

But Goldeneye ultimately feels off-center, forced, routine, rushed and simple. It has a deeper story than what is permitted to be told, holding itself back and thus lacking the attractive complexity of other Bond films, yet sadly also the pizzazz we've come to expect.

Stardust (Matthew Vaughn, 2007)

I've never had a problem with being swept away into a magical land where the rules of real life cease to apply, a land bustling with unicorns, evil witches, dark magic and huge pirate airships. Each experience of this kind is usually the same adventure simply told in a slightly different way (and a good one), generally full of color, imagination and likeable characters.

Stardust, for the most part, lives up to the tradition of magical storytelling but also embraces the limitations that come along with it. A mostly predictable outcome that one can see coming from miles away, a greedy bunch of bad guys and very slight mystery. Most of the answers we get are obvious from the start, as is the straightforward and basic plot, but the adventure is still, again, for the most part, an enjoyable vacation from the real world.

The acting is sufficient, the pacing is up to par, with a rousing musical score and apparent humor, but the ambiguous world is barred further by a shoddy screenplay that falls apart. There isn't an outstanding quality inside of Stardust, and frankly it stops making sense, as do some of the characters. If it was meant to be a dreamy wonderland, clearly I'm left wondering why common sense stayed behind during some moments. This has been a sad fate for too many otherwise great films.

For what could've been a fascinating adventure of a dazzling alternate realm, Stardust fails to keep our eyes popping once our curiosity beckons us in for a taste of the appealing unknown. It is too confusing and hobbles itself, like a bad tour guide of this fantastical world.

I feel as though I was left at that doorstep, without a remarkable and rewarding sensation to take back home with me, left with naught but a copy of the novel to perhaps explain things better. Frankly, in the world of cinema, a film shouldn't have a fallback plan. Where is the solid translation of this story? Roger Ebert said it best: "There is a kind of narrative flow that makes you want to be swept along, and another that's just one thing after another." Major sequences should be efficient, or these filmmakers need to stop insulting our intelligence.

Baby Boy (John Singleton, 2001)

John Singleton chauffeurs us to 'the hood' for this sobering tale of responsibility, purpose and fear.

The portrait is led by Tyrese, who is shockingly good as a "baby boy", a 20-something momma's boy who still lives at home, gets girls pregnant on the weekends and generally does little if anything at all. Tyrese not only has the brawn for this film, but also a convincing range of emotions, as the "baby boy" cycles through insecurity and bravado. To think, I had only known him beforehand as the comedic relief from 2 Fast 2 Furious.

A talented ensemble of African-American performers fill out the handful of a cast that compliments the contained atmosphere of the film. Each one constructs a character that is colorful, flawed and unsure about their future or purpose in life, all of which is authentic within the confines of their urban prison. Taraji P. Henson is outstanding as the love interest, showing sweetness and goodness that imbues pity for her plight as a virtually single mother.

The only exception is Snoop Dogg's inclusion as a worthless thug. Not only is he given the obligatory yet vile role that is devoid of any positive qualities whatsoever, but Snoop Dogg also manages to inject his breezy star presence. The result is jarring and takes us out of the portrait once he comes on screen. Since it is a Singleton film about 'the hood', I'm not surprised to see Snoop Dogg, since Singleton once hoped to cast the entire group of NWA for Boyz n the Hood, which you might remember Ice Cube from, who clearly did better.

If you've seen Singleton's Boyz n the Hood, the atmosphere won't feel new to you, but it should become a pleasant and more cheerful reunion with Singleton's earnest and meticulous direction. There are clearly several elements that feed Singleton's underlying message. A higher power, divine intervention, 'ghetto' mentalities, the little engine that could and even the Oedipus complex show up as these people tussle with the silly nature of their lives, lives that honestly expect more from them. While these characters borderline on preposterous, it is merely a painful reminder of how troubled, foolish and hypocritical people can be in life. The bonds of friendship and love will take them places. Yes, they will stumble along the way but these inspiring unions are really all they have, unless they improve their lives.

While there will be a moment that makes you think you're watching Boyz n the Hood simply 'shot' through a different lens, fear not, for it is replaced by the smarter choice, albeit capricious and fanciful. The effect casts an uplifting and feel-good message for viewers who can be touched by this cleansing tale. Clearly, Singleton didn't want to rehash old stories and it pays off. Pacing and editing go by undetected in a good way (especially for a 2 hour film) and the figures in this portrait are so shamelessly likable that you can't stop looking at them and wish them the best, hoping they can break away from their repetitive shortcomings.

The Chamber (1996)

Sadly forgotten and talented Chris O'Donnell (Scent of a Woman) plays the obligatory curiously tenacious party in "The Chamber", penned by none other than John Grisham, whose convolution is ripe as ever in this trip down 'Intolerance Lane', a visit I found to be more charismatic and inviting than usual. Maybe it's the direction, the quick cuts from the camera, or maybe it just flows!

As a fan of the charming blue-eyed O'Donnell, I liked him more than say Tom Cruise in The Firm. It's a shame his career left the serious route, since he clearly does better with deeper roles. Gene Hackman convincingly melts into his own. Don't expect another riddle-speaking Hannibal Lecter here; Hackman is merely a irritable and unsatisfied Klansman.

His interaction with O'Donnell flows well and despite the Klansman's crude nature, Hackman's portrayal struck me as humorous, throughout his heated arguments with O'Donnell which refreshingly comes back onto screen before too long to keep the plot growing.

Given that its a Grisham story, something deeper always lies beneath and the can of worms is slowly revealed. Characters are realistic, exhibiting raw emotional reasoning rather than callousness for their actions, whose beliefs have simply become tough meat that is hard to chew and accept as reasonable.

Delightful scenery inside and away from the courthouse keeps the pace up to par while something wicked manifests itself waiting to rattle O'Donnell's poor unassuming lawyer, including a scene straight out of The Shawshank Redemption, set in the prison yard, in which Hackman's Klansman veers a wary eye to the watchtower.

It's a Grisham story; we know what is hiding up there. But… it's still worth looking at. There is a softness to this one, a nice change from the formulaic style.

Revolver (Guy Ritchie, 2005)

I don't see what you did there! A little slower, please!

Addictive, restless and wordy introspection fuels Guy Ritchie's colorful, edgy, lively and offbeat exploration of an ex-con with a grudge (Jason Statham), with hair this time around, who looks to outsmart a cautious and powerful bad guy (Ray Liotta). A plot emerges through the intended void of comprehension, as Andre 3000 appears as a smooth-talking loan shark that wants to use Statham.

Pre-established characters offer little personality development; everything feels somewhat empty as a result. Statham is (as usual) the bold and tenacious protagonist, but his hollow personality leaves much to be desired. Somehow, he is cerebral enough to be a wiz at chess, but is easily confused by comparatively far simpler conundrums. A chat with Guy Ritchie would be desirable, though I wouldn't be surprised if the puzzling nature of this film was still too abstract for me to understand.

The concept of chess teases the audience at being a major theme along with wise sayings. The obligatory flood of details makes following Statham's plight quite a challenge. The development of the high-octane story is so frenetic, one must pay attention and maintain it or lose all hope of understanding things. In the windstorm, character substance clearly suffers.

Embracing its jarring nature that often feels overloaded, Revolver manages to be fascinating despite its eccentricity and lack of conventional appeal. Quick camera cuts and zany comic book interludes cripple the viewer's ability to relax. Revolver amounts to being a refreshing and diverse phenomenon, offering action (a given, considering Statham's presence, although on a much lesser scale), a strange sense of humor and gritty street-talk.

X-Men: First Class (Matthew Vaughn, 2011)

"The Future Is Not Set." Oh, wait, wrong franchise.

The unofficial reboot of the X-MEN franchise is definitely the best X-MEN film yet and presents a mature and respectful approach to these beloved characters, which for the most part will have any comic book fan brimming with joy. The plight of Magneto, the brilliance of Professor X, and the diabolical nature of the Hellfire Club is all on the table in this one and the casting is brilliant. Michael Fassbender reigns in applause as the new Magneto, and his eyes tell a cold, convincing and traumatic childhood.

First Class is not without fault, however. The exposition, run-time, introductory style, the slow pace and some uninspired minor characters might have fans of the franchise scratching their heads in confusion, wondering why better characters couldn't have been chosen, although the character of Azazel is done well.

Overall, it is a great film. Powerful scenes pile up, and it is great to see. CGI couldn't be any better, and there is dark humor as well. Yet, the probability of it all going to waste is high, as long as FOX studios still pilots X-MEN's course, with the evidence of prior lackluster films (from a non-commercial sense) not withstanding. First Class could wind up as 90% promise, 10% follow-through concerning any future installments that might tarnish this commendable effort.

It is clear the future of X-MEN is not set, but if FOX can somehow turn out a good effort once, why not do it again? The fans would certainly appreciate it and the dollar signs First Class raked in should be incentive enough.

Just Like Heaven (2006)

Mark Ruffalo carries this delightful embrace of fantasy, loneliness, loss and romance and shares pleasant on-screen chemistry with Reese Witherspoon.

While this film fails to exceed the rank of "good and enjoyable", it is still good and enjoyable! As a fan of Ruffalo, I enjoyed him as the thinly written, albeit earnest and likeable, protagonist in a film that is coated in simplicity but still manages to warm the viewer's heart. The romance made me smile.

The pacing rolls along at a breezy pace, which is odd considering the film offers little more than a lonely struggle that is sliced and presented in two different yet intersecting ways. Characters have only one layer of pulp, but they fit well inside of the snug package this film wants to be. Some people might be turned away by Jon Heder's lethargic "Napoleon Dynamite" routine in a side role, but I endured it and wonder if these performers would be suited for stronger, more demanding versions of their respective roles.

While I wish I could've seen a deeper tale of these characters, it is clear this was meant to be a small and enjoyable film.

Two Mules for Sister Sara (1970)

Clint Eastwood? Check. Gritty protagonist? Check. Humorous themes? Check. So… what went wrong?

Along with an eccentric music score, this film plays like any other Eastwood flick but things take an amusing turn by showing the odd and awry interaction between a discarded nun and a lonely desperado. With his own life story of gunfights to write, things are rough between them at first, but a man is likely to develop sentiments for a woman, even a nun. Sadly, I felt the story didn't focus on this humor enough.

This was a bond that could've been a classic one, and the film tries to force it later on, but clearly the magic is already lost because the film reduces itself into a forgettable shooting gallery with basic characters that remain untapped. Simple can work, and it does for most of Eastwood's films, but the mere premise of this one deserves complexity. After an impressive train explosion, the film stagnates into dullness. I was glumly disappointed.

City Hall (1986)

Harold Becker teams up with Al Pacino once again in this earnest depiction of moral character and human error. The pairing of Cusack and Pacino (as a fan of both) is a delight and their on-screen chemistry blends perfectly with the design of an inspirational role model and their admiring, aiding protégé. With a plot that appears simplistic, far more is churned out along the lines of ethics, including personal integrity and selfless devotion--the fabric that defines our actions. Exciting elements like the mafia and the hectic justice system combine for a saucy mixture. Pacino reels in a believable performance as an honest mayor that cares for the people of New York City. While Cusack's southern accent is an erratic peculiarity, he melts into his role and delivers a busy and relaxed performance. The result is very satisfying and devoid of any drawbacks. My only criticism would be the contrived introduction and epilogue, especially since the meat of the film quite reaches the destination by itself without superfluous narration.

True Grit (Coen Brothers, 2010)

True Grit is a captivating tale that blends flawed humanity with pure tenacity and thrives on portraying the wills that define men. Jeff Bridges gradually becomes likable, despite his character's flaws, and Matt Damon melts into his role as a Texas ranger. Perhaps the most tenacious and concentrated role belongs to Hailee Steinfeld, who does well with wordy dialogue, vulnerability and courage while maintaining a good heart as the most innocent character. Humor tags along like one of the many horses seen in this film and the landscape is colorful and breezy, authenticating the journey of these people as does adequate costume design. On the whole, it is a satisfying western that feels refreshingly rich in this day of age with a pleasant and uplifting musical score. Go back to the Wild West and enjoy creative dialogue, practical beliefs, awesome (as always in westerns) shootouts, strange but functional exchange between outlaws and marshals, solemn characters of good heart despite their errors, fulfilling resolution, and a sweet mixture of themes in this hit by the Coen Brothers.

Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000)

Ridley Scott helms this historical epic. Russell Crowe is a scorned war hero turned gladiator (obviously) and Joaquin Phoenix is a brooding, mousy and power-hungry Emperor. The action is pleasant at times, but I thought it would be on a higher scale. Obviously, there is a softer side to this portrait. But I can't say it was fully received. Pacing is slow and the climax comes and goes. There is a spiritual aspect, but, again, it fails to resonate before the credits roll. It is a different tale, but I doubt the film sought to stand out. It certainly wowed many eyes and won awards. But from my perspective, it was only above average, overlong without much flavor and burdened by simplicity.

Mirror Mirror (2012)

In this refreshing spin on the classic "Snow White" fairy tale, Lily Collins shows flashes of Jennifer Love Hewitt and Winona Ryder and is cutely fitting for the lead role. The fantasy atmosphere is a delightful touch. This way, the film avoids being dreary and flows well. The costumes are dazzlingly bursting with rich color and the sets are lovely. Julia Roberts compliments the picture in what is more of a backstage role, which opens the gates for great humor, creative props and lively dialogue. The shining stars of this picture are the 7 dwarves. Their exchanges are merry, solemn and yet sympathetic. Rather than being a rehash, this film sparkles with charm that the whole family will enjoy.

Driving Miss Daisy (1989)

Morgan Freeman plays a righteous caretaker and Jessica Tandy plays a goodhearted and sensitive elder in this heartwarming and magical gem by Alfred Uhry. I had heard about it once or twice, but until I saw the trailer I wasn't "driven" to watch it. Boy, how wrong I was!

It is a beautiful portrait about human emotion, how everyone has their own strengths, weaknesses, needs and hearts. It is filled with delightful humor and silliness, adequate production quality but most importantly a deeper message. It is not a message that is new or hasn't been conveyed before, but Driving Miss Daisy cruises past other attempts to instill such a pacifying and sweet meaning.

My only criticisms are few. I'll start with the erratic time displacement. Years fly by and it is jarring, especially since I wouldn't have minded a much longer run-time that continually shows the ripening bond between the two central characters.

There is a mild focus on (the obvious) racial tension, but I didn't mind it because it cemented the time period and it didn't feel forced. I am glad the film wasn't pinned down by escalating elements in this regard and it was best portrayed on a mild scale.

By the conclusion, I was deeply touched to a definite degree by this picture, far more than from others in recent memory, but had the film been longer and perhaps included more dramatic tension (at least between the two central characters), I would have been even more moved by the picture. Still, a wonderful ending that epitomizes the intimate bond between Miss Daisy and Hoke is fine by my standards. A truly magical experience, with credit to all who helped bring this splendid portrait to life, as it is truly worthy of its acclaim.

Ballet Shoes (2007)

Ballet Shoes is a sophisticated tale set in the 1930s that focuses on three orphans from across the world that are adopted by a rich British paleontologist. They grow up, but when he vanishes on a journey, the family falls upon hard financial times. Meanwhile, the trio of girls are aching to grow up and find themselves, grasp their dreams and realize their potential. One is fond of aviation, another yearns to be an actress and the other is destined to be a ballet dancer. This is where the film finds its title, for when the latter was a baby, her mother left a pair of ballet shoes with her, hoping she would use them well.

The film plays like a typical British affair, dainty and otherworldly, from language to the mentality of the characters. As the girls struggle with their respective aspirations, they retain their sense of frivolity and childhood which was a joy to see. Despite the abrupt ending that leaves the characters trotting on the surface level, Ballet Shoes is still devoid of major problems and hindrances. Sadly, the run time is too short and doesn't let these characters truly transform into something remarkable. I wish the plight and resolution of each character could have been extended and shown more clearly.

When a character obtains a moment of joy, it is premature and underwhelming. Other characters aren't given any breathing room whatsoever. It feels like a C+ book report that a student rushed through and glanced over the heart of the story. We don't get to truly know these people, which is odd considering other emotional British films from the past.

They're all likable people, but it is clear that the source material would be a better representation of their evolution over the years. The conclusion is an impasse, one I was left stuck in. The film couldn't pry me free because it had already ended. So, it's only natural to forget these characters.

Tightrope (1984)

The opening sequence will have you thinking it's a Hitchcock film.

Tightrope definitely tries to be, deviating far enough from the Dirty Harry series to be diverse. Eastwood (despite looking no different than that other detective) degrades himself in a good way, in this murky 80s film that features some nice background locations and atmospheric touches. I would deem it the heterosexual Cruising, a ripe and splendid mixture of kinky, dark, spooky and adult themes with Clint Eastwood as a part-time sexual deviant, part-time frank detective, detached father and lonely man.

The dull parts, believe it or not, come with the standard cop thriller elements, e.g. trying to solve the case as a good cop, making due with scant evidence, a rising body count and balancing the "tightrope" of being a flawed but still likable protagonist. Yet as overdone and repetitive as they are, it is the sexually-themed and eerie sequences that offer the most refreshing qualities.

Overall, I'd been waiting a while to watch this one and finally gave it a viewing. It was worth it. The film isn't optimistic or poetic; it offers a bleak sleazy view on human (primal) nature with lots of nudity and darkness, in which the killer is always lurking. Tightrope offers a pleasant, risqué and working mixture that is missed in most of today's films.

The Babysitters (2007): Mostly BS

David Ross writes and directs this strange film (off a cliff) about the mutual discontentment of high school girls and married men. I was humored by the opening quarter of the film, but ultimately confused and disappointed by the whole picture. But is there a whole picture here? The premise develops between the two major characters (one being John Leguizamo, of whom I am a fan) but then the misguided resolution smacks it off course. The result is a three-headed hydra that thinks it is a fire-breathing dragon. At times, this film reflects the work of Larry Clark, but doesn't allow much natural process or thought to explain the actions of its characters.

All it winds up doing is chipping away at an iceberg (a concept that requires far more elaboration) that never truly melts into tea. Whether this film was meant to be hot or iced, or even tea at all, is impossible to say from the 90 minute run-time. I honestly would've preferred sweet tea (the cute bond between Leguizamo & Waterston), something akin to The Panic in Needle Park, but I was left moved, but only intermittently, as if half of my mind was still trying to explain what happened elsewhere in the film--or better yet--why something happened (because it made zero sense) at all.

I don't know what they were shooting at because it seems they failed to load the gun. All I received was "corruption has terrible effects on confused people", i.e. "greed corrupts", but in today's age, a film has to offer more--something deeper--and this film failed to do it. Why? Because in-between creating that simple concept of corruption's harm, it threw in other foreign elements that didn't belong or contribute at all.

The NeverEnding Story

The Neverending Story is a fascinating, sweeping fantasy tale written by German author Michael Ende, a clearly intelligent man who dipped his talents into many realms in his life. This is the first story I have read by him, and I am certain it will be the last. Why? Not because it is a deterrent. But because it is spectacular! Rich upon rich detail, describing the most colorful, vivid and grand atmospheres, structures and landscapes. I wonder how a writer like Ende can make every single sentence flow like honey, resonating sweetly in my mind as it becomes one with my imagination. It is a truly remarkable talent that will be obvious to appreciative readers. I blew by the pages in about half a day. The pacing is very well done and never drags for an instant! That is… until what would've been the conclusion in any other book.

If you've seen the film adaptation of the novel, you might wind up just as perplexed and slightly jarred by the additional superfluous mini-story after the climax as I certainly was. Dozens of new characters inexplicably thrown in with lots of confusing names, lots of confusing places in every chapter and for what…? For some elusive symbolic or metaphorical purpose? I understand the book has a political message behind it, but my comprehension only delves so far. I found myself lost in the details, as if Ende was piling them on simply because he could, but… the sparkly detail, vivid imagery and magic were suddenly gone. As if the dreaded Nothing had consumed them and regurgitated them into 50 or more so pages that didn't need to be written. I can't understand why, but luckily I have no problem putting my own end marker after the otherwise natural conclusion is over. Judging from that basis, it is still a wonderful tale.

Onto the film adaptation by Wolfgang Petersen...

Ende got into a fight with the filmmakers about their "unfaithful" adaptation. I don't agree so strongly with the author. There were parts in the book that benefited from a bit more complexity, but on the surface, these details were unnecessary in the film (which is one of the reasons why movies cut so many parts out of the source material). I think of the film adaptation as the plate which has been filled from a buffet line. The screenwriters dipped into each part of the story enough to gain a taste that could be construed to the viewer and nothing more. There are wonderfully imaginative creatures and concepts in the novel (like the Wind Giants and endless worlds of Fantastica) that would make a possible future remake (which some thought has gone into, to my knowledge) more intriguing than the original adaptation as well as some nice aesthetic and metaphorical depth that was missed in the film.

Overall, however, the slight changes are not deadly enough to tarnish the message nor the beauty of the story, despite some narrow-minded reviews by critics way back when. You still have the magic of Falkor, the terror of G'mork, the auspicious bookworm in Bastian and the great quest of Atreyu. Having now read the book, I can see how a sequence here or there in the film was a snippet of a chapter rather than a complete transfer from the book. The characters are mostly the same, and that is a good thing. Because Fantasia, or Fantastica, or whatever it wishes to be called, is about these characters. To see these delightful creatures fleshed out a bit more in that elusive remake would be a joy. And for the most part, the movie got it right. Other elements like pathos and a deeper level of symbolism were missed in the film adaptation now that I have finished reading the book, but all is well in Fantasia. May the water of life slake everyone's thirst and bring about a much merrier world where dreams can become a reality far more often!

The Lazarus Project (2008)

Shutter Island done right, or at least to the same degree of memorability.

Paul Walker stars in this derivative mind-twisting mystery. If you've seen the likes of the comparison above, you won't be surprised by the plot or the twists and turns along the way. Also, given the synopsis and ominous title, I was expecting a higher level of depth than there actually turned out to be.

However, despite a rather contrived opening act, it was thoroughly enjoyable. Walker does well and his diligent effort is noticeable in lieu of an original plot. As I said, it isn't a refreshing tale and suffers from a myriad of tropes. On the whole, it is a good film, though it could've benefited from a longer running time, mostly to elaborate on the opening act as we learn about the perfect home life for Walker's protagonist.

The pros of the film are its meek attitude, unlike Shutter Island which pretended to be bigger and better than it was, when treated with a standard mystery plot, along with a pleasant use of lighting, mood and suspense. The cons are that the evil side could have been, of course, supplied with a fresh branch to add to a tired premise and execution. But at least this film doesn't leave you begging for things to make sense or for characters to not be subdued by cliches. That being said, the conclusion is weakened by the passive nature of the antagonist(s), but I was left with a warm hopeful feeling as a result.

Hard Target (1993)

This film is a mixture of good & bad. Immediately, you'll be able to tell it's a John Woo film. The action is insanely over-the-top, with countless explosions making for enough absurdity that you'll want to be the one that finally kills the invincible protagonist.

Luckily, the protagonist is Jean-Claude Van Damme (of whom I am a big fan). However, despite his cool trench coat and slicked-back hair, this is not one of his best, though I can't fault his efforts. He still manages to sneak in his trademark 360* spin kick and does moderately well with the role, but the script is lacking and the action would benefit from some lacking.

Woo tries his hand at symbolism that feels out of place (at least to me) with goofy background music and random editing touches like use of slow motion. The plot (or lack thereof) veers off, as if the script was originally a slug that became a buckshot round, scattering in multiple directions, all of which are merely basic and not overly intriguing. Abandoning disbelief is a wise choice. For someone who is accustomed to preposterous action flicks, I was miffed by the silliness of it all.

Overall, it is a disappointment, especially since I thought a film with Van Damme & Lance Hendricksen (of Aliens fame) would be worthwhile. There are some well-done action scenes, but hardly anything more of merit throughout this strange mash-up of The Running Man and The Marine.

John Carter (2012)

John Carter is a refreshing tale with sweeping landscapes that introduces an entire new world. That is always a curious scenario in movies, and John Carter knows it. Taylor Kitsch breaks out from his typical southerner roles and transforms into a selfish wanderer from 1881 (which provides some nice historical touches) that is both attractive and mysterious throughout the lengthy picture. There are times when his character lacks a continuity of personality, or a conventional muscle-bound appearance, along with some cliches and meandering moments that bog down the brisk pace of the film, but it's forgivable. Things don't stay wedged for too long.

The contrast of the mysterious explorer with the bear-all atmosphere of Mars is a good one, but the movie is long and overbearing at times. Also, subtitles would have helped with the hard-to-hear dialogue whose whispering plot development is overshadowed by loud music. Some of the most important points in the film are hard to understand because of this, but also because it is hard to comprehend Carter's inner turmoil. Why does he have such a hard time attaching himself to situations, regardless of how perilous they might be?

We don't get to know much, and that does damper any hopes of clarity for conviction. Characters are mostly weak and 1-dimensional aside from the titular focus. There are far greater concepts in this film whose meaning is never quite revealed. But on the plus side, we see (visually) plenty instead! Though the film is roughly 95% CGI, the wonderfully magnificent structures and overall atmosphere of Mars is breathtaking with immersion! And the CGI is good, as it should be for such a large budget. I wanted to learn more about these settlements along with the people and cultures they represent. In a movie that is over 2 hours long, one might think there would be some exploration. But as we saw with Avatar, films tend to leave these attractions at surface value. Still, the world of Mars is incredible, though the CGI is a mild distraction.

To be pedantic, I couldn't agree or disagree with Disney's target audience. Some of the film's most delightful aspects are derived from a less adult style, but I found myself (as a 21 year old) wondering how a more mature telling would have fared in comparison. There are some mature aspects to the film (scantily clad women and blunt violence) that feel misplaced for a "kids"--in lack of a better term--film. In short, the humor is done well and I never felt parched watching a movie that is roughly set in the desert for the middle half.

I hate to relate it to pictures like Avatar (ilke others are doing as I write this), but John Carter suffers from the same premise-over-execution curse. This is a whole new world! But after the film concludes, I was left hungering for a sequel that explored more of this fascinating odyssey that captivated the protagonist just as strongly. Also, the plot could've been more straightforward and clearly fumbles at some points, but a strong finish and satisfying twist do well as compensation.

Overall, I do wonder what has plagued this film, when its predecessor Avatar raked in the box office with a far more basic script and imaginative world. Should we blame Disney, or misguided advertising? How about the obscure title or simply bad timing, both from a release date perspective and genre? In a way, this film was misfired into a lopsided effort, but I definitely enjoyed it more than other films with similar qualities and themes. And to those who say it is a rip-off of earlier films, it isn't-- it was written over 100 years ago! On Mars, no less.

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)

As a fan of McConaughey, I quickly warmed to his character's cunning swagger as a hot-shot defense attorney. At first, he coolly runs through the errands of his profession in a nonchalant regard with a money-first concentration. But the passion for his work (despite the flaws of the justice system) comes out as the plot develops and he portrays it strongly. He's a likable character. Overall, the performance feels natural, realistic and relaxed as he is stretched to his breaking point. As a lawyer seeking to figure out the truth, McConaughey does well portraying the facial meditation.

The plot sort of veers off prematurely in a complex manner quite quickly, but as long as you're paying attention, you shouldn't get too lost by the sudden flow of the legal rhetoric or the sweeping transitions (which are a vague distraction). The film has a rocky start, but picks up with interest.

The input by Marisa Tomei is refreshing as she rides smoothly off her sultry role in The Wrestler. Also, as a fan of their acting, I appreciated Josh Lucas's (Glory Road) and John Leguizamo's small roles. Meanwhile, Ryan Phillipe is no longer the young boyish hottie I remember and he feels miscast in this picture, unlike his other more comfortable serious role in Breach.

The film prospers from the elements of mystery that can be found in any standard legal thriller, which as a fan of the genre appeases me much. It also has a raw dark atmosphere, offers a vicious view of the legal system's hypocrisies and benefits from solid dialogue.

Changing Lanes (2002): It's Never Too Late

Themes of impatience and moral consequence dictate this frenetic portrait of human interaction. The philosophical atmosphere dominates the characters who remain confined on a moderate level. There is little to smile about in the film, other than the auspicious introduction, leaving me feeling disjointed as the pace stays high throughout without the film offering any escape from the ensuing chaos. It could have been longer and would've benefited from some bright moments instead of clinging to literary devices that served a deliberate purpose. Overall, the bleak and dull nature, while convincing as a mirror of real life, doesn't make for a colorful exciting adventure.

On the upside, Affleck is fierce yet vulnerable, especially in one scene when his lawyer is faced with the utmost of revelations. Ironically, it is Jackson who carries a pitiful softness with his character's plight. Other notions such as endless (but self-rejected) regret, blissful silliness, exhaustion and smoldering denial of one's unhappiness beneath the surface level make this quite a thoughtful injection for the viewer, serving as a reminder fort a better way to function as a person day after day.

It is never too late to change lanes in life. It simply depends on each individual's choice and the other people they claw at from time to time.

Witness (1985): A Plain Tale

Immediately, we are granted a bug's eye view of a wind-swept field. Maurice Jarre's tranquil score softly plays in the background. Suddenly, over the grass emerges a group of Amish settlers. This is their home.

We bear witness to their hard-working, yet peaceful lifestyle… until a son and mother cautiously venture into the city. After the boy witnesses a murder, he is brought to Harrison Ford, who plays Detective John Book, an experienced, by-the-book, nonchalant lawman. Obvious and often humorous contrasts of lifestyle present themselves between the two walks of life: one says a prayer before a meal and the other simply eats the food and feels awkward during the other's practice.

Symbolic tones, earnest characters, silent scenes overlaid with ominous music and a comfortable pace add to what would otherwise be a tired premise. Yet, suspense and action-packed shootouts lurk just around the corner when you least expect them. Unconventionality, mediocrity and simplicity fuel one's desire to see something more, but those aspects hinder this portrait from being great, though it is still enjoyable due to Ford's more-passionate-than-usual performance.

Troy (2004): Is There No One Else?

Even for someone who knows nothing about The Iliad, I had put off watching it in fear that the romance would be overblown, but was thoroughly pleased upon realizing it was more of an afterthought/backdrop than the main focus of the film. I enjoyed it 95% of the way, since it had performers I am fond of in it. I thought Eric Bana did a wonderful job as Prince Hector of Troy and the fighting was well done along with the performances. I particularly appreciated Peter O'Toole as the King of Troy, who had a very emotional and noble performance.

However, the climax is what harmed the film in my eyes. I understand why it happened, but would have rather seen something else, given the build-up of the prior battles. I also did not care for the romance with Achilles or Orlando Bloom's typical performance, sounding British for some reason in a movie set in Greece. Not to be pedantic, but does he ever change his voice? I also don't understand how they crafted a giant model of Poseidon in 12 days. What was it made out of, and where did they get the supplies for it? I'm open to suggestions, but it felt out of place and abruptly disturbing to the established tone of the film. Contrived, but whatever.

Otherwise, the music was pleasant in his poignancy and the film was mostly enjoyable. I didn't mind Pitt at all, whose stigmatic presence failed to hinder the film.

George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead (2009)

I went into this thinking it was going to be another typical zombie movie. I'm not well-versed in Romero films, so watching this film was basically a crap-shoot.

Honestly? I was blown away. It was 100% enjoyable. The story, characters, atmosphere and small focus on silly gore was delightfully surprising.

Alan Van Sprang was great in the lead role as the ex-commando with a monkey on his back, and I thought everyone in the film was perfectly suited for the roles. Each character was likeable in their own way, the perfect mixture of flaws and conviction.

For someone that has been displeased by the brunt of the Resident Evil films and a handful of other zombie movies, I was quite pleased by this one. I kept worrying if the film was going to ruin itself with overblown plot development or an exaggerated climax, but the characters were treated with respect (unlike in Miner's Day of the Dead) and the film was spared of a cheap finale. The atmosphere felt quite contained within its own limits and I liked that.

4/5, with my only criticisms being that it feels more like the first act of a film rather than some grand telling of the zombie apocalypse. Perhaps there is another film in the works that concludes the arc of the characters? I dunno.

One Week (2008): To Strive, to Seek, to Find, and Not to Yield

"What would you do if you knew you only had one day, or one week, or one month to live?"

Writer/Director, Michael McGowan, presents this bittersweet odyssey about Ben (played by shrewd-looking Joshua Jackson) who has been diagnosed with cancer.

Like so many people, he can't cope with the reality of cancer or obtain the necessary conviction to see it through. So he capriciously buys a motorcycle and departs, and then departs some more… into the beyond, far away from his disappointing life. His loved ones suffer from his absence, but they never give up on him. He likens his preliminary bout with cancer to "staring at a wall he can't get over." Others don't understand him or support his extended journey, but he adamantly follows his heart and continues to explore further into the west.

With the backdrop of an all-knowing narrator, the story is set in Canada and boy is its scenery bustling! There are countless sights that Ben visits on his road trip. Along with pleasant cinematography and several cameos by Canadian-known celebrities (including the NHL's Stanley Cup trophy), everything from landmarks to waterfalls, vast forests to never-ending prairies is showcased. It almost plays like a visual advertisement for Canada, but its tranquil and sweeping beauty cannot be denied.

Some nuances include snippets about chance events and Ben's influence upon other people's lives as he meets others who are experiencing their own version of his struggle. Throughout his adventure, he is detached from his former life but never quite abandons his responsibilities to his family and lover. Ambivalent, he keeps in contact and weathers the storm of erratic mood swings.

It is chock-full of soft music that plays in the background, reflecting Ben's struggle perfectly while also offering insights that he can't find by his lonesome. Overall, "One Week" feels like a vicarious tag-along experience. While the premise is about cancer, the actual film is about Ben and benefits from humor at times, as it rolls on with nice symbolic touches that echo Ben's plight.

One remarkable scene has him surfing upon waves that span as far as his eyes can see, as he glides in search of some elusive resolution. The water is an endless gray conveyor belt. Is his journey to find solace an endless one, or is it his potential to find it that is endless?

Suddenly a whale surfaces in the distance. Ben smiles and realizes how it is the journey--a lifetime's worth of pictures- that has been worth it, the same journey that is now over. He finally returns home to Toronto, knowing that despite his inability to change the scenario he is still capable of adapting to it. Softly, the film ends with a definite optimism and a slight twist that is neither ambiguous or revealing but somewhere in the middle. That's where Ben was for his, "One Week."

Game of Death (2010)

"Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. I am a killer."

Those words sum up this movie. Despite being a staggering 85 minutes, I still liked it. No star power that I recognize other than Wesley Snipes, though.

Over time, I've become a fan of Snipes and his action films. While he doesn't have the pizzazz and star power of more famous performers, he is likeable by his earnest style. I've seen him in better films, but this was still pleasant.

The film, however, is... strange. It doesn't have the frenetic and goofy pace of Shoot 'Em Up or Rambo and feels flat overall. The plot description had me imagining a far different portrait than it actually turned out to be. There are visual effects that never have an explanation, other than a brief blurry sequence in which we learn Marcus (Snipes) is diabetic and this visual overlay, along with his diabetic condition, vanishes for the latter part of the film, aka the next 25 minutes or so.

There is--again--a brief focus on redemption and all that Christian jazz, along with a cameo by Ernie Hudson, but there is still much to be desired. For people who can appreciate the most straightforward of films (no character background whatsoever) then this might be the film for you. But don't expect much. The film doesn't avoid the same silliness of countless action films before it. Marcus definitely has unlimited ammo, and judging by his accuracy, that is a good thing because he and the bad guys exchange more rounds than Ali & Frazier.

Oddly, I had no problems with it, 4/5. As a fan of martial arts, it was well-shown (think Bourne Trilogy), I didn't feel as though my time was wasted and Marcus was likeable enough. This film was fine within its own padded room, not willing to explore. Clearly it didn't offer anything in which a problem could occur, but I will say that the camera quality was very clear, but again the substance being shown through it was awkwardly paper thin. Seems like a waste of camera quality on such low quantity.