House of Games

This movie is steamy. It feels like old time noir, and thats a great compliment. The story is of a psychiatrist who goes to a bar to seek out a mysterious man named Mike. He has threatened one of her patients that he will kill him if he doesn't pay him back. The shrink finds out that Mike is a con-man, and a very good one, and she gets trapped in his world. This movie has the effect of a stopper being taken out of a full sink, it pulls you in until you're an empty shell--shocked and in absolute admiration. This movie has a lot of skill in it, the cinematography is gorgeously subtle and the dialogue, oh, the dialogue is some of the best that has every appeared in a film. The director, David Mamet, writes plays and screenplays, this was his first film, and what a debut! Characters return to their words: I'm looking for Mike. You're looking for Mike? Yes, Mike, I'm looking for him. And the actors convey this language like they are the only ones on earth who can speak in. If you look closely, the entire film is a con, just like the characters, just when you think one thing is the truth, it tricks you, and you fall into it's trap again. But this is no gimicky film, it is masterful. It does what any great movie does and makes you need to see it again, to beat out the characters in the movie. I realize I have not said much about the actual plot of the film. Too bad, the experience is one I cannot spoil and I envy anyone seeing it for the first time.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

I would be lying if I didn't honestly say that I did not like this film. After rewatching and catching bits of wit within the early Potter movies, this one was a huge disappointment. It doesn't mean anything. It's nothing. The book was dark and disturbing, I'm not sure if I like it very much. It is so unrelenting in its cruelty that it angered me, and the payoffs where the kids strike back at the Voldemort denying Ministry puppets were not good enough. There is no magic in this movie. Or there is very little. There is no comedy. I also admit I couldn't help but enjoy the characters and the wonderful actors who by this point are so natural in their parts some are star making (Emma Watson). But this is a devious movie. It has one especially sick scene where the entire group of students who have been secretly practicing to protect themselves are sitting before a fat old woman carving into their hands. And it's not at first noticeable, but look closer and be sickened. However, there are some very good bits of the movie, despite its many problems (which is inevitable in a film series as long as this). Some of the scenes at the ministry are very well done, as are some of the early scenes (the scene with Dudley is masterful). I don't think that this movie should be forgiven for not being very good. I love Harry Potter, and this isn't bad, but after so many good films, it's such a disappointment to see a mediocre one like this.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: ★★

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

The Goblet of Fire is a most dark Harry Potter film. It marks the end of happiness and the descent into the real world. It is also a most difficult film, for it does many things very well, and some quite awkwardly. The story revolves around Harry's three tasks that he must complete in a Wizard tournament he has been put into against his will. We later discover that he has been placed in the tournament to allow the evil Lord Voldemort to return to power by transporting Harry in the thick of an unsupervised maze. The film was directed by Mike Newell, who has made some excellent films: Four Weddings and a Funeral, Donnie Brasco, and some not so good ones: Prince of Persia, Love in the Time of Cholera. And that seems to be the trouble with this film. I remember being outraged that the film started off immediately during the Quidditch World Cup, leaving out much of the beginning, and then bypassing the quidditch scene entirely. Seeing it now I also noticed that the male characters all sported long and stereotypical teen hair. This was a stupid addition, but it is fixed in the next film. I also did not enjoy the scene with the dragon, which seemed silly. Looking at my complaints, I still have to admit that the Goblet of Fire is a damn good movie. It's exciting, it's mysterious, the characters are colorful (especially Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody) and the subplots are very well done. The tone is perfect and despite complaints like the character's hair, they don't milk the characters for moody teenagers (that's a different Potter film). It can be funny when it wants to be, and then it can be heartwrenching, it's skillful and one of those movies that actually excites you. It's very good.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: ★★★1/2

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Prisoner of Azkaban tells of Harry's third year at Hogwarts. Once again he is in great danger, for a traitor to his parents has escaped from Azkaban (the wizard prison). Also, Harry is met with fear in the form of the ghastly dementors, who suck the life and soul out of people. This is a very different sort of Harry Potter film. It also marks a point in the franchise where you would have had to have seen previous Potter films in order to fully enjoy and understand it. The movie is directed by a very talented director: Alfonso Cuaron. But Cuaron brings a very unique style to the Potter films. It is probably the best stylistic Harry Potter film. The way the the palate is darker, the camera is quick and restless, and the older Potter characters themselves makes the movie edgy and mystifying. This Potter movie is also the first to stray away from the books, but having not read the book in several years, the film seemed to get all of the important details in. Some very well done scenes are in the end, where time travel is done logically and cleverly, keeping the pace of the film steady, which is a hard thing to do when time is indefinite. I also must mention that the actor to play Professor Lupin was a damn good choice, he gets just the right tone. As does the always good and perfect Alan Rickman as Snape. There's a scene here that foreshadows the future with Snape, and it's  simple, but deep. The Prisoner of Azkaban is a very interesting movie, its not as lively as the earlier films, but it still gets across what a fan would want to see, for no matter how dark the films and books get, the characters are still witty and amiable. It's a worthy entry to the franchise.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: ★★★1/2

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

The actors are slightly older in this second installment of Harry Potter. In Chamber of Secrets, a mysterious force is petrifying the students and causing mayhem at Hogwarts. The trio of friends attempt to discover the culprit of the attacks. This second movie is quite a bit darker than the first film, which was extremely lively. This one is pretty lively in comparison to later films, but contrasted with the first movie, it's definitely darker and presents greater danger towards the characters. One of the more appealing things about the second film, is that in needs little explanation or introduction. Instead, we are thrust into the magical world abruptly. Chamber of Secrets is the second and last great Harry Potter film (unless the very last installment doesn't undermine the penultimate one, in which case the last two are great). It is filled with life and quickness, it is extremely well directed and envisioned, while it stays very close to the book. It is also very uplifting, probably the most uplifting of all the Potter films. Chamber of Secrets is just between too many things going on and not enough. In the later films, so much information demanded by the fans is included, thus slower and happier moments are not allowed. And Sorcerer's Stone is not wholly integral, for their magical skills are limited. However, Chamber of Secrets allows for just the right amount of everything to be in it. It's great.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: ★★★★

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One

This is a great film. It is the most beautiful of the Harry Potter movies. Not much happens in it in retrospect, but while you're in it, it feels endless. That is not a bad thing, for it feels like its own world (one that we return to every once and a while). The first Harry Potter is about magic and loyalty. It thrusts you into a magical world that every kid at some point has wanted to be in or thought about tenderly. But the movies and the books grow gradually darker. Harry Potter 7 is the darkest. It is about being alone, and old titans you thought were invincible falling. I had reservations about the film before going to see it, for I felt Yates' (the director) adaptation of the sixth book was not well done at all. But this is a trenchantly tender film. There is little action and much brooding. It is gorgeous and has two specific scenes of absolute great acting. The first is by Emma Watson (a star) when she wipes clean the memories of her parents. She is doing it to keep them safe, we realize, but the way her face contorts itself and her solitary walk alone is one of great power and nuance. We realize the metaphor of this film of leaving the magical world of childhood and entering the vast, dark world. The second great scene is when Alan Rickman (Snape) watches one of his old friends killed by Voldemort. This is another scene where the nuances of Rickman's face are just perfect, foreshadowing the greatest reveal of all the Potter books and Snape's intentions are made clear. That scene will no doubt be in the second installment. HP7P1 has great acting in it, not only by the myriad of great british actors who play all of the supporting roles, but by the three leads, who are so comfortable and natural in their roles. Harry Potter is a tender and nostalgic film, however it is bothersome that there is still one more installment. That should be great, and together they will make an outstanding finish to one of the greatest movie franchises ever.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1: ★★★1/2

The Big Sleep

There is a myth about old movies. That they are corny and have no glimpse of real life. There is no more devious a movie (or books) than the Big Sleep. This movie immediately has four great things going for it. Humphrey Bogart, the best (considering who you are) actor to have ever lived is the star. The director is one of the old masters: Howard Hawks. The writers: Raymond Chandler and William Faulkner, two of the best writers of the 20th century. The Big Sleep is a classically appealing story, a private detective is given the run around, encountering dangerous dames and tough guys. The plot is much to complicated to go over here, and it would be far less eloquent than the way it is played out in the film. There is a languor to it, a certain lethargy that is broken apart by the evil of the world. By murder, my flirtatious girls, and cigarette smoke puffing into someone else's face. The Big Sleep is also a great film in the way it indirectly considers insanity. This is expressed in two of the Sternwood girls (who are the clients of Bogart). The Big Sleep looks beautiful, sounds tough and real, and has bits of direction so well done, you are left in shock at it's absolute brilliance.
The Big Sleep: ★★★★

The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Here is another summer action movie with a good director, but considerably less appealing than, say, SALT. The reason seems to be that it is based upon a video game. This causes for just a myriad of journeying ventures that lead nowhere and action sequences with various baddies. However, the film is better than one might think. For, Jake Gyllenhaal as the lead is actually quite appealing, and some of the action is silly enough to grin at. In the movie, Gyllenhaal is an adopted prince who receives a magical dagger that allows one to travel back in time. His father (the king) is murdered and Gyllenhaal is framed. He escapes from the palace and seeks to redeem himself by proving who the real murderer is. Prince of Persia unfortunately missteps largely in the second half (although the first half was not really so good, except for one very funny sequence with a flock of ostriches). These missteps lie in logic. It logically makes no sense and it is frustrating to watch the characters take leaps of faith. "You can't put the magical dagger in it's magic rock holster or else somethin' bad might happen and we'll all die," is about the extent of the dialogue. The movie would then proceed to contradict itself by something awesome happening when putting the dagger in the magic rock. This could have been good or at least appealing with a better script, but the second half especially is so dimwitted that it's not worth it.
Prince of Persia: ★★1/2

Salt

There's a damn fine director behind Salt, the quasi-different summer action movie starring Angelina Jolie. Because of this, the film embraces ridiculousness. Upon doing that, possibilities of obviously implausible but fun sequences become possible. Especially appealing in Salt, is the confusion that it causes, and the trust that the audience puts in Jolie. Jolie stars as Evelyn Salt, an agent at a company who is revealed to be a Russian Sleeper Spy (but things are not what they seem). The ways that Jolie delves into the point of no return wholeheartedly in astonishing. The way the character almost dares you to dislike her is a great aspect of the film. Salt has good enough action sequences and chase scenes that are actually entertaining. It is everything anyone could want out of a summer action movie, although the way it is suddenly forgettable and less exciting afterwords makes it only marginally enjoyable. Salt obviously ridiculous, but that's part of the fun of a summer movie.
Salt: ★★★

Cop Out

Cop Out is supposed to be a comedy. It tells the convoluted (why does it have to be so complex if it's just a comedy?) story of two cops (Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan) who are attempting to regain their honor by going after a big case. Cop Out seems like the crappier version of The Other Guys. Bruce Willis is mean and always has the same look on his face, while Tracy Morgan yells and imitates movies nobody watching has ever seen. This movie truly sucked. It felt so long and so forced to put in every cliché of buddy movies that after two minutes you become exhausted. It also falls into many lines of comedy that have never really been funny. For example, copying what someone else says was maybe funny in the 1st grade, but not in an R rated comedy. The film also continues to go round and round without actually getting anywhere, except by some miraculous stroke of luck. Cop Out is so bad it barely deserves a review. It's so bad because you can tell there was some talent behind it, and they were just too lazy or too unfunny to get anywhere. Also, if something is not funny once, doing it over and over for 90 minutes makes it exasperating. This was.
Cop Out: ★1/2

Clash of the Titans

The most exciting moments of this movie were not in the movie. They were in the trailer that I saw a million times before seeing the movie. The atmosphere of the 'o shit that's going to be great' feeling that swept over the crowd when they saw the trailer was a feeling not is absent during Clash of the Titans. The excuse made for this is that is was supposed to just be campy fun. But that's not what the movie was supposed to be. It was supposed to be high-level action. It wasn't. Clash of the Titans was rather very boring and killed two of the myths from 2009. The first killed is that 3D is going to take over. The glum and dark shade over Titans and the bullshit reasoning for putting it in there killed that. The second is that Sam Worthington of Avatar can act. He can't. All he does is wave his sword around and give the same glum face that they could modify to look lively in Avatar. That all being said, Clash of the Titans is not a bad movie. However, it is extremely corny, the effects and plot are ridiculous, it's pretty dimwitted (the mythology is pulled out of a movie producer's ass) and it's slightly sadistic. The plot is that the people are sick of the gods and they are going to fight back. It doesn't go over well considering that the gods have full reign over creepy crawly monsters (and the Kraken). Characters get picked off one by one as Worthington searches for some godly answer to defeating the gods, and Worthington just sort of shrugs his shoulders at each graphic death. In one scene where the teenage warrior is shattered into a million pieces, he moves on in about 2 seconds. Spoiler: At the end of the film, the girl who helped him on his journey is brought to life but no one else. Clash of the Titans is campy (in a bad way) and pretty unnecessary.
Clash of the Titans: ★★

Green Zone

Green Zone begs to be compared to the Bourne movies. The lead is the same (Matt Damon), the director is the same (Paul Grenngrass), and even the shaky-cam 'put-you-in-the-moment' style is the same. However, Green Zone is quite the different film that the Bourne movies. It is slow going at first and (also like the Bourne films) has a strong supporting cast. The story revolves around Damon who is at first an obedient soldier but begins to stray from the path and look through his own eyes at the events surrounding him. The films takes place during the beginning of the invasion of the Middle East, and Damon is tasked to find the WMD's (which don't exist). His frustration at this run-around makes him investigate on his own, have a couple of tense and very well done shoot outs, and then come back home again where everybody wishes they could shoot him. It is superb in the way it moves, it is engaging and has a strong story (which most action films lack nowadays). There has been a lot said of the film as purely a political agenda film. Even if this were so,  it's damn entertaining. But Damon's investigation is obviously fiction, although his frustration about the WMD's and his reluctance to break away from the pack are very real. Green Zone is a decent film and good entertainment. It's not particularly emotionally compelling, but that's not what a summer action movie requires.
Green Zone: ★★★ 1/2

The Star Wars Saga

There is no movie that has more greatly affected how movies should be. I saw Star Wars when I was four. It is one of the earliest movies I can remember watching other than Casablanca, Pinocchio, and Scooby Doo Escape From Zombie Island (which is probably slightly less good than the other two films). But Star Wars fully embodies the intent of the cinema--to entertain and to escape. Star Wars does this by creating an entirely different world that spawns a myriad of creatures and characters. Star Wars is a mythology, one that is extremely complex. There is not a single creature or character that appears in Star Wars that does not have its own backstory and line of comic books circling about. It is a great achievement of special effects as well. I still believe that the Millennium Falcon looks more real than the Starship Enterprise of Star Trek (2009), which looks so obviously computer generated and blubbery. The Falcon was real. The space scenes seem real--empty and desolate instead of filled with bullshit colors that don't exist in space. The films are so fun too, so simple. The characters are top notch with Harrison Ford and such a simple idea that placing it in space makes it supremely appealing. Star Wars creates a world and takes you in it, it makes you care and it interests you completely in the motives of people (Darth Vader). It is not only one of the most influential films of all time, but one of the most timeless.
Star Wars: ★★★★

Killers

Killers is the worst movie of the year. I can't imagine anything else surpassing this level of absolute shittiness within a film. I have never experienced so much pain, discomfort and hatred towards a movie in a theatre. The experience was not elevated by giggling 60 year old women who applauded at Heigl and swooned at Kutcher. Not only are all of the characters total imbeciles, but they then feel like they have the gall to give lectures during a shootout. The plot of Killers is a dumb one, a blonde (Katharine Heigl in shrieky overload) falls in love with a charmer (Ashton Kutcher) while on vacation. It is revealed that Kutcher is a spy and he leaves his old spy life for Heigl in a stirringly retarded monologue where Heigl is asleep and Kutcher doesn't notice. Years later they are happily married and living around amiable neighbors with decent jobs. All of a sudden their neighbors start trying to murder them both. It is not explained until the end why the neighbors are doing this, but it is evident that they were sleeper-killers. What's really stupid, is that in the years a first-rate spy was living among these planted neighbors, he never thought twice about their reliability. The action sequences that follow are standard and boring: lots of explosions and PG-13 deaths. Here is the worst part of the movie: While Heigl and Kutcher are shooting it out with their murderous neighbors, Heigl gives a feminist (and due to her stupidity it is in actuality anti-feminist) speech about how Kutcher is a bad husband and a liar and yada yada yada, to which Kutcher replies: I told you all about me! Heigl: I WAS SLEEPING! Killers is one of the worst movies I have ever seen and the worst movie of 2010.
Killers: 1/2 of a ★

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

This film is about loss, and what we choose to believe. It is rather grandiose in its intent to materialize what we choose to believe into mechanized, banal decisions. The film is not a love story, although it has been called that. It is not anything. It is like its dreams, ideas popping up and shattering down. The film stars Jim Carrey (in a role that is better than anything he has done and ever will do) and Kate Winslet. There are a few other characters played by Kirsten Dunst and Tom Wilkinson. To reveal how people are made to forget and which characters are made to forget certain things, would be spoiling the movie. Thus, I describe the experience of watching it. It is extremely creative and original, it almost seeps with it, pleasing its viewers at its wit and ideas. It is also very simple, despite the plot's complexity. For the ideas behind the film are simple. They are ideas of loss, creativity, strength, love, pain. But these emotions are at such a high level of familiarity that they become very prominent to the movie's success. It is a movie that applies to most everyone. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one the best movies of the last decade.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: ★★★★

A Christmas Story

This is a movie about olden days, and for some, it was made in the olden days. This is a film that will never age because it goes after a certain period, and a certain feeling. A period that pervades the Christmas spirit of today. It is not really about how these events only took place in its specific time period, but that these events and feelings still exist in today's world. A Christmas Story is the masterpiece of Christmas movies, it's truly 'a movie for the whole family', but that does not diminish it's greatness. It's story is very simple, it tells of the events over a month or two of young, sarcastic Ralphie, a 9 year old 1940's kid, hopeful and idealistic, all he wants for Christmas is a toy bb gun. This could have been schmaltzy or mawkish, but its one of the films ever crafted. It's funny in a series of imaginative situations given by Ralphie. It's amiable in its spirit, color, and mood. It's realistic in it's depiction of the cruel santa and the kind but quiet father. This film is mostly about human nature, the kindness and the outbursts of cruelty. The film is seen through a child's eye and situations are elevated or decreased based on this spectrum. There is not really a more subtle comedy, except for the one's so subtle that everyone must be an idiot in order to not notice that it's funny (The Office). A Christmas Story perfectly captures idealism, and it is wonderful to see it paid off just because the character is a good person.
A Christmas Story: ★★★★

The Other Guys

The concept behind The Other Guys is a pretty good one. The real cops are accoladed fuck-ups and the one's at the desk do what they do well, but look for glamour--they're the other guys. They're played by a screeching Mark Wahlberg (who accidentally shot Derek Jeter) and the always good Will Ferrell. The story is pretty standard. The two guys are searching for glamour by cracking a specific case they're too unwieldy to handle. But the film isn't very good at doing that, because we never really care if Ferrell becomes a cop he doesn't want to be, and we don't care if Wahlberg will because he's just an asshole. The real meat in the story is in the script. The director know's what he's doing too, and there are a lot of laugh out loud moments in the film. Ferrell's character is the best part of the film, his strangeness and mystique are enthralling and it would be to the films detriment if I attempted to explain them in my words, for the film does it perfectly. That being said, the film is too long, and I wondered where they could possibly go next from one scene to another.
The Other Guys: Marginal ★★★ (A return for Will Ferrell to being funny lets this film deserve it).

Iron Man 2

The first Iron Man was pretty great; it was surprisingly great. Thus, the expectation for Iron Man 2 became: this film should 'wow' us. It doesn't. But that's not a failure, for Iron Man 2 delivers upon what any movie sequel should. That being: it shouldn't suck, and Iron Man 2 is decent. The story is kind of lame, an arrogant Tony Stark (Iron Man) neglects his friends, work, and being Iron Man. We discover that this is because he is slowly dying because of the device in his chest that simultaneously keeps him alive as Iron Man, but is poisoning his body. There are also a lot of filler moments in the film. Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Samuel L. Jackson are the duo who are testing out Stark for the inevitable Avengers film. (Which is due out in 2012). Despite the film's problems, like these filler moments and endless mopey Tony Stark, the action delivers and it moves well. The action is pretty great, especially in the last part of the movie. There is a purely 'non-stunt' scene with Scarlett Johansson that is especially satisfying. Iron Man 2 is a decent film, but probably should have been a lot better. The script should have been looked at more. Iron Man 3 is in the works for after The Avengers.
Iron Man 2: ★★★

Little Miss Sunshine

Little Miss Sunshine is not by any stretch an intelligent film. However, you can tell that it's writer was. For the film allows the misadventures of the family to display the level of retardation of many different peoples. The film is about a family that is traveling to a child beauty pageant in their shitty hippie bus. The bus can only start by rolling down a hill and reaching a certain speed (this results in one of the best parts of the movie where Olive (the girl for the pageant) is left at a gas station). The film is pretty good, although it has the tendency to be too quiet or too annoying. The deadpan Carrel as the suicidal gay uncle is very well played, and Alan Arkin as the inappropriate grandfather is also excellent. The rest of the family (the mother and father) are obnoxious. The way that the film gains speed though, is very pleasant to watch. The characters are at such a high level of bullshit within their own lives and in dealings with others, that its funny to watch them try to live in the real world. Shit keeps piling up and this family is placing all their hope in a beauty pageant where 10 year olds are dolled up as women. This is funny, so's the movie.
Little Miss Sunshine: ★★★1/2

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Nine years ago this film came out. I'm sure I didn't see it in theatres, but I remember that after reading the first book I wondered how the hell they could make a movie out of it. The result was one of the best fantasy pictures ever made. It sounds silly to suggest it, but the film was magical. It was dark and felt cold, the castle felt way too big and the creatures looked so realistic. The actors in the film were especially great. Especially Emma Watson as Hermione. They are so convincing and natural in their parts. Usually movies based on the book leave a lot out, and I supposed Sorcerer's Stone does leave a lot out, but its the most faithful of all the films. The direction is also very smart, Chris Columbus specializes in this kind of movie. I suppose the worth of Sorcerer's Stone lies in how real it feels, despite it's magical qualities. I also note that Dumbledore is very well played in this film. Snape is also excellent. Harry Potter effected me in the same way that Star Wars did. It creates a whole other world.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: ★★★★

South Park, Season 14

I wholly believe that South Park is one of the greatest things to ever happen to television. I will not use this post to attempt to convince anyone that it is. However, I will say that it is genius because it lures stupid people in and shows them truth through satire. South Park did this for many years, but it was around season 12 or 13 that they began to fall. They started to just make fun of the freak of the week and made their characters less important than the people they were pissed off at. This season especiall featured some absolute shit: Sexual Healing (about Tiger Woods), Scrottie McBoogerballs (Butters is a shock writer), You Have 0 Friends (about Facebook), It's a Jersey Thing, Poor and Stupid, and Crippled Summer. I admit that 200 wasn't awful, the BallCancer one was marginally funny, and the ones about the Coon were decent. But South Park should not be making bad episodes. In their good years, they never made a bad one. It wasn't until Season 13 that they made a bad one. I am reminded by one of their great episodes entitled Free Hat (Season 6). In it, the boys are pissed off that Spielberg and Lucas are fucking with their old films. They implore the Directors that their work belongs to their audience. The creators of South Park should now realize that they are failing at their work. "South Park is our life", said one of the creators. But it also belongs to their audience, shocked at how shitty the episdoes are getting. "South Park used to be about showing people how retarded a lot of things were, but now all they do is tell you: hey that thing that you already know is retarded, we're going to prove to you they are"- Paraphrase of Owen Peterson.
South Park Season 14: ★★

Ghost World

Ghost World is a weird movie. In it, two teens on the brink of adulthood go their separate ways. They are assholes. They are mean to everyone and they like being mean. They are played by Scarlett Johansson and Thora Birch. It wouldn't be correct to call theme indie, because they probably hate indie people, but they are both very unique people. Ghost World isn't very well known, but I am sure of its greatness. It is witty, odd, and thought provoking (as a movie should be). There is a specific scene in the film, where the Thora Birch character sees a man waiting at a bus stop where the bus stopped going by. It has been years since the bus stopped there but the man stands there every day regardless. One day, he is gone into a bus that stops there. This is a beautiful scene. The whole film is a metaphor for the breaking away from high school into life. It's about the expectations, the reality, the bad, the good. It's about breaking away for laziness. Ghost World is one the the best films of the last decade.
Ghost World: ★★★★

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Steven Spielberg is the most successful director ever. He makes films that everyone has seen. Consider Indiana Jones, ET, Jaws, Close Encounters, Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan. Raiders is probably his most fun film. It is wholly reliant upon the power of Harrison Ford who is the best movie hero imaginable as Jones. Raiders does what every action film aspires to do. If you've recently seen an action movie, I'd bet it had a chase sequence in it, and that it wasn't very good. But the chase scenes of Raiders are creative, quick, realistic, and without explosions. Well, the explosions come at the very end. And they're good explosions. Jones is also a humble hero, he has merely a whip and a gun instead of these bullshit heroes with machine guns. (It's not hard to shoot the shit out of an enemy with a machine gun). But the majesty of Raiders is within how it was made. It is dark (the scene where they uncover the Ark), it is light (the love scenes), it is everything it wants to be. It is the joy of the moviegoing experience to watch Raiders. Jones often fails, he's often a jackass, he's funny, he's smart. We care about him from the opening sequence. Raiders is a movie that will endure because it's so appealing and so well made.
Raiders of the Lost Ark: ★★★★

Sin City

Sin City is simply the best  action movie ever. Raiders of the Lost Ark is an action movie, but has different levels of meaning to it and different tinges of genre. Sin City, however, is purely an action film. It is quite horrific and cruel, a noir film in the classic tradition of being fucked at the beginning. There are three stories in Sin City. The first is of Bruce Willis' character. He's a cop who's trying to protect a girl from a nepotism protected pedophile. Willis is cool and languid, evoking sternness and age. The second story is of Marv (Mickey Rourke) an ugly disgusting man who seeks revenge for the death of Goldie (a whore with a heart of gold). Marv is the toughest character in movie history. He stomps through windshields of moving cars, fights rotweilers and saws slices of his enemies off. The third story involves Clive Owen's character going after a corrupt cop. Clive Owen has never and will never again be so cool. He drives sexy cars from the 50's and is meaner than shit. The movie is also one of the best looking movies of recent years. It was shot digitally and is very, very clean, dark, and creative with color. Now, a film can be as brutal as hell (see Hostel) and still suck. But it is the noir aspect of Sin City that allows it to succeed. Also the acting and direction.
Sin City: ★★★★

Midnight Run

Midnight Run is not widely seen by my generation. However, upon it's release in the 1980's (and it is trenchantly an 80's movie) it was seen as the epitome of the buddy movie. It's a comedy about a bounty hunter (Robert DeNiro) who has to retrieve someone for a shit ton of money and bring him back by midnight in a few days. However, the FBI is also going after the same man, so in order to get the guy in on time, he has to avoid the FBI and do this supposedly easy job, quickly. It is so good at what it does that I smiled at how well it was doing it. Anyone who believes that the recent: Due Date is a great film should go back and see this. It is a comedy in the tradition where the characters don't know that what's happening is funny. In Grown Ups, another recent, dumb film, the characters are all laughing at each other. That is retarded. For a comedy to be good I don't want the characters in it to be having a good time, I want myself to be having a good time. I require things happening to the cosmos or their idiocy. That is supplied gleefully in Midnight Run. It is a wonderful feeling to watch a film get better and better. It's almost too much. I remember pausing the film to walk out of the room for a breath because it was so damn exciting.
Midnight Run: ★★★★

Toy Story 3

Disney movies used to inhabit the world of what kids saw. There were certain waves too. The first of which was the Disney Classics (Pinocchio, Snow White). The second included very dark and grim films like Bartok the Magnificent and The Secret of Nimh as well as An American Tail. The most recent wave is a reimagining of the Disney Classics with last year's The Princess and the Frog. However, Pixar, their venture of the late 90's and 00's has never made a bad film. That is an astounding achievement. Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are films of childhood, they are characters that we would like to return to, characters we care about. At the midnight premiere of Toy Story 3, the audience was filled with teenagers who had grown up with Toy Story and wanted to return to those days. The film was about the misadventures of the Toys, given up (wrongly) to a Day Care and dealing with the corrupt powers there. The innocence of the toys is endearing. The day care is well set up, the humor updated and quick. It also looks great (better to see it without the 3D). But the meat of Toy Story 3 is not in the adventure and misadventures, which are there purely to make it Toy Story. But the end of the film is a stroke of genius. I will not reveal it, but I will say that it is about moving on, and hope. It's a great film and one of the best of the year.
Toy Story 3: ★★★★

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

SPVTW is directed by Edgar Wright who specializes in spoofs of genre movies while simultaneously creating an effective genre piece. His Shaun of the Dead is somewhat of a cult classic (meaning it has achieved a sort of great status within certain circles. So has Summer Heights High). SPVTW is his newest venture featuring the one-note but appealing Michael Cera as the lead. In the movie, Cera is tasked with defeating the seven evil exes of the girl he likes. This could have easily been bad. Fight scenes in movies are so boring and predictable nowadays that they induce yawns. But it is the creativity within Edgar Wright that makes it so....groovy. The film is on steroids and it knows it. It's in a sort of video game tradition that is inexplicable except to say that many video game players will adore it. The rest of everyone else probably will too. It's very appealing. The colors and creativity make it look like a comic book. Each fight scene also could have been boring (shit, we still have three more of these?) but that never happens. SPVTW is not a perfect movie by any stretch, but a very appealing summer movie.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: ★★★1/2

Inception

Christopher Nolan is a great director and writer. He is part of a new generation of filmmakers that adore films and how they can toy with them to creative new types of storylines. I believe all of his films are great ones, except perhaps Following (1998). For those that don't take the two seconds to google him, he made The Dark Knight, which was the most non-superhero superhero movie that can exist. Inception is a movie in a classic tradition, it is spectacle with a good story. That doesn't exist much anymore. It is so original that people gawked at it's wit while I watched it. It was one of the best movie-going experiences of my life. (Moviegoing=seeing a film at a theatre, there are myriads of great experiences had at home). The joy of the audience was inexplicable. The film revolves around a man named Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) who goes into people's dreams to extract information, he is tasked with planting an idea into someone's dream in the film. How this is done is wonderful. Roger Ebert (the best film critic alive) informed his audience once: It is not what a film is about, it's how it's about. (This not only explains my lack of summarizing the films but why films are so good). Inception has about two moments in it where I dropped my jaw. The first, where DiCaprio reacts to his wife on the window sill, the second the hallway fight scene. I saw Inception three times. The first two were back to back, because I was convinced to find out what it all meant. (What actually happens in Inception is not hard to figure out). It is a film that will last, for the greatness of it lies in its own inception of an idea in our mind. Of what happened in the end (which is also the beginning). The experience of walking out of the theater and talking to a stranger about what happened in inexplicably hopeful to the future of films. Inception was one of the best films of the year.
Inception: ★★★★

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Honestly, the only reason anyone went to see this schlock is Megan Fox. I also admit the first film wasn't bad. TROTF is an appealing film--that I also admit. It's dumb, and dumb movies are easy. Hollywood loves to make dumb movies for dumb people. Dumb movies can be great (Dodgeball) but they can also be so dumb that he want to shove a fork in your eye. Now, I have heard that TROTF is a great film, because it is so fun and filled with great action sequences. That it is not. Action is relative. If you keep blowing shit up in my face, at one point I realize all explosions look the same. This action is not creative. Creative action can be found in films like Kill Bill or the great Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, you care about those characters, and no one cares about Shia LaBeouf. He's a terrible actor, so is Fox. But TROTF is so long, so stupid, so boring, that it is one of the worst movies ever made. The story is bullshit and so is attempting to make films based on action figures. What adults saw this film?
Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen: ★

Taxi Driver

Scorsese is the quintessential director: he lives and breathes movies, and quite a few have almost killed him. There's a story about the making of this film: it was going to be rated X due to it's violence. Scorsese sat in his room drinking whiskey (or some other malt liquor) and all of the big heads of Hollywood had to come visit him to convince him to not shoot the movie rating people dead. He sat there with a gun and alcohol all night. In the morning, he reduced the color of the gore by 2%, and the movie was released as R. That is the passion in this film. The steam rises from the New York streets like they're hell. The story revolves around a fuck-up named Travis Bickle. Bickle has some variation of insomnia and gets the taxi driver job so that he won't be bored. He carries around all of the trash of the city and mocks them. One day he Bickle (Robert DeNiro) notices a gorgeous blonde in a political campaign headquarters (Cybill Shepherd). He courts her, but loses her when he takes her to a porno thinking she'd have no quibbles. She does and walks out on him. He begins to see whores in the streets, sympathizing with them, especially one about 14 years old played by a young Jodie Foster. Bickle goes crazy (or if he isn't going crazy is the question of the film). He attempts to get his girl back and save the young whore. It's a pleasure to watch, even this 8th viewing of the classic. It is the best film of the 1970's. To watch this film is to watch real life. The performances are so good it's hard to call them performances, the film is alive with energy and things it wants to say. There is one scene so perfect, every time it is viewed I am in total awe. This is the kind of movie that, if I am interrupted watching it, I will probably have to stop watching it all together, for I have been brought outside of the world Scorsese has put me into. There is a certain reality in Taxi Driver, a certain prejudice that is brought to familiarity, as well as insecurity. It is an essential movie. If there was only one film that you could ever watch, this would be the one.
Taxi Driver: ★★★★

Hereafter

Clint Eastwood is a big time director. He is not only commercially successful (he makes a shitton of money, especially with 2008's Gran Torino) and critically successful (his movies are of quality). Eastwood used to just be an actor, making spaghetti Westerns and playing the toughest, meanest son-of-a-bitch possible. It was around the 1980's when he started to direct, and he's good at it. This new film, Hereafter, ventures after the idea of the afterlife. It does it very well, without attempting to convince you one way or another how the Great Question should be answered. It is also a sublimely moving film. Six or seven times in it, I was deeply moved, writhing in my front-row seat and unable to eat my snacks. Hereafter begins with a woman having a near-death experience in the Tsunami of several years ago in Indonesia. She is one of the triptych of characters. The other two being a twin who has lost his other half and Matt Damon playing a reluctant psychic (seeing the dead is too much for him). What happens in this film is of little interest. For it's director of gritty realism--Eastwood, making a personal and contemplative film is an oddity. But there is a sort of gritty realism in death, as Eastwood displays. It is incomprehensible, the film argues to lose someone and have lost them forever. All of the characters in this film hope for an afterlife and try to seek it. Enough summary, if you're looking for summary IMDB is fine for that. But this a film of great power, it's one of the best of the year (so far). It might take you aback, how should you react to something so horrid, so empty of answers? The acting in this film is excellent, the direction obviously well done. It is merely a film that attacks how we look at movies, it attacks our original perceptions of them and forces us to think about the meaning in a film--which can be hard to encounter these days.
Hereafter: ★★★★