dmbjam29 Reviews

Eragon (2006)

I Guess Every Young Generation Needs Their Fantasy Franchise

[5/10 · 12 June 2007]

I have not read the books, but after watching this movie I was rather unimpressed. The story is blatantly similar to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, let's examine the basic plot, a young boy living with his aunt and uncle who is destined to save the kingdom (uhm, Luke Skywalker anybody.) There is a scene where Eragon's back is facing the screen and watching the sunset. It was so obviously the same scene in "Star Wars: A New Hope," that I couldn't help but cringe. Also Brom (Jeremy Irons) is clearly the equivalence of Ben Kenobi from Star Wars that it distracted from the movie.

In addition the fantasy and Medieval theme just screams Lord of the Rings. Durza (Robert Carlyle) is too similar to Sarumon and shares physical attributes with Grima Wormtongue. That right there is the major downfall of the movie, it never differs from these two films and by the end it just looks like a dumbed down version of those movies.

The movie was not horrible but I could never personally get into it, I always felt there were barriers, whether it was the blatant influence from other movies, the mind-talking dragon, or watching John Malkovich thinking he was in a Shakespearean play.

All in all this is an average movie that is not unwatchable, but surely will only grip the young children who immensely love the books.

5 out of 10.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Surprisingly Consistent

[7/10 · 12 June 2007]

I felt the original Pirates of the Caribbean was the best in the series and after being mildly unimpressed with the second installment, I was actual impressed by the surprising consistency of the third Pirates movie.

The movie is Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Without Johnny this franchise wouldn't have any legs to stand on and in this movie, similar to the previous two, Depp carries the torch across the finish line. The movie is bigger and larger. It has a longer running time, there's more action, more plot and more battles.

The gang travels to Asia and then to the End of the World to rescue Jack Sparrow from the afterlife. There were some avant-garde and experimental scenes in the afterlife which was unlike a summer blockbuster to contain (Think of the scene in "Being John Malkovich" where every character is John Malkovich.)

I felt the screen writing was more witty and flowed more effortlessly than in the second installment. And even though the ending was not what I was expecting, I was certainly surprised with it, and with that it gained my respect.

the only thing I didn't enjoy was how it opened it up for a fourth movie. However despite its length and the superfluous monologues from Keira Knightley...did we really need to give her that many speeches, this is a good movie. Not as good as the original but the second best in the series.

7 out of 10, good summer blockbuster fun.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Let's Hope Batman Doesn't Follow This Franchise

[6/10 · 12 June 2007]

The lightheartedness of the first Spiderman movie was entertaining. The seriousness of the second Spiderman was enthralling, and the third Spiderman movie was just disappointing. Let's hope that Batman continues its momentum and doesn't end the way of Spiderman.

The main complaint is the movie is too long and jumps around way too much. The relationship between Peter Parker/Spiderman (Tobey MacGuire) and Harry Osborn/Young Goblin (James Franco) is so erratic it's like watching a tennis match. They are trying to kill each other, they are friends, they are trying to kill each other, they are friends etc. It was exhausting keeping up with it.

Also, the scene where Peter Parker becomes the 'black Spiderman' is very distracting. I know it's vital to the story but how the director composed it was bad. There's 1970s pimp music as Peter walks down the street and watching Tobey MacGuire trying to act like a pimp and cool cat was so hilarious and awkward it took me out of the movie.

I just felt the movie tried to accomplish too much. I am not a fan of the comic books and I could tell the writers had a hard time concluding this series. There are hundreds of stories of Spiderman how do you condense it down to three films? I certainly understand the dilemma but the screenwriters and producers came empty with this film.

The special effects were certainly visually appealing but the story was a major let down to the previous two. Sorry Spidey, let's hope the franchise ends with this film.

6 out of 10.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

The Best Harry Potter Film So Far

[8/10 · 12 June 2007]

As many fans of the series will agree the third book, 'The Prisoner of Azkaban," is the best book. Similar to its literary counterpart, the third installment of the Harry Potter movies is also the best so far!

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and gang are in their third year at Hogwarts and new dangers and adventures lie around the corner. Primarily, Sirius Black (Gary Oldham) is a prisoner who has escaped Azkaban prison and is believed to be after Harry. This is because Sirius supposedly played an integral part in the death of Harry's parents.

The film-making, along with the plot, become considerably darker. Many scenes occur through thunderstorms and ominous dark clouds. The lighting hardly ever gets light or happy, but rather filled with an abundance of black and gray tones.

But what makes this movie the best is the plot. You must compliment the director completely for letting the amazing plot and storyline carry the movie. He does not try to overact, overproduce or over-do any scenes. He just lets the characters develop in the scenes and the plot carries the story from there.

This is the best of the first 3 Harry Potter films and contains a more mature watch-ability level than the two previous films. This is a movie that older children, young adults and parents will all enjoy.

8 out of 10.

Moonraker (1979)

Arguably the Worst James Bond Movie

[4/10 · 2 May 2007]

In 1979, Roger Moore released his fourth film as James Bond and this film might have the infamous honor of being the worst in franchise

Nothing in this film works. To begin with the plot is very weak, James Bond is sent to investigate the hijacking of a space shuttle and discovers that a megalomaniac is planning on eliminating all life on Earth. Secondly, the script is uninspiring. It seems Christopher Wood was attempting to set the record for bad one liners in a James Bond film. Thirdly, the acting was atrocious. Lois Chiles might have the distinction as one of the worst Bond girls as Dr. Goodhead. Her lines are so poorly delivered it's hard not to cringe.

However the main reason for the movie's failure all falls on the director, Lewis Gilbert. After participating in previous Bond films you would think he would have more of an understanding to maintain the integrity of the franchise. The interaction between the characters is shockingly awkward. There seems to be no leadership behind the camera. The lines delivered from all actors are contrived and artificial.

Also, all the scenes with potential turn into calamities. The opening sequence with Bond jumping out the plane is a great moment but then its ruined with cheesy music and Jaws flapping his arms and landing into a circus tent. By the end of the movie, it just becomes a joke. The story has so many holes and there's a laser fight in space! When did James Bond become a Star Wars movie?! The Force is definitely not with this film.

A stain in the James Bond franchise.

4 out of 10.

Batman Begins (2005)

Batman Reigns Supreme

[8/10 · 29 April 2007]

This is the first great Batman movie. I thought the Tim Burton ones were good at the time, and they were compared to the garbage of the latter two films. But finally, there is a great Batman film, and all thanks goes to Christopher Nolan.

Nolan is one of the best director in Hollywood now, all his films are captivating, superb and wonderfully constructed. Nolan gets rid of all the hokey-comic book cheese that surrounded the early Batman films and even the 1960s TV show with Adam West. This is a dark, gripping action story that examines the back-story of Bruce Wayne to his intricate path in becoming the Dark Knight.

Other than the direction of Nolan, the movie is so powerful because of acting, solid cinematography and a great script. Christian Bale is the best Batman yet. Young enough where we can see the cocky and brash Bruce Wayne and manly enough where we can see the aggressive super- hero. Michael Caine as Alfred was probably the best casting yet. His performance is phenomenal not only with Christian Bale but also as the guardian of the young-orphaned Bruce. Cillian Murphy gives an emphatic breakthrough performance as Dr Crane. Liam Nesson has carried his Jedi-presence and wisdom onto this screen as Ducard, Batman's mentor in the League of Shadows. Add in Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldham and this is truly a blockbuster cast.

The cinematography was masterful as well. The scenes in the ninja training with the choreography are excellent. The effects of the hallucinogen drug are hypnotically frightening. The quick paced fast movement camera work of the action sequences are dizzying but wonderfully chaotic.

The screenplay is superb. This film makes Batman seem real and that he could actually exist in today's society. I know that seems rather far-fetched, but that's how captivating the script is. There were some simple yet profound lines and there were moments of perfect comic relief. This film seemed to have it all.

This film was one of the best surprises in 2005. Batman is back and proves he is better (and more) than just another comic book action hero. thank you Christopher Nolan, thank you.

8 out of 10.

You Only Live Twice (1967)

The Last Original Bond

[6/10 · 25 April 2007]

I don't blame Sean Connery with growing weary of the James Bond series, by the time "You Only Live Twice" was released they had done five movies in five years! That being said this is the last original Bond with Connery (not counting his return in "Diamond are Forever" and "Never Say Never Again). These five movies will always be the iconic Bond movies, but by the end of this film one could predict the franchise was on its way down.

This film takes James Bond to the Far East to investigate the kidnapping of US and Soviet spacecrafts which could eventual lead to war between the two powers. Roald Dahl, yes the same Roald Dahl who wrote "James and the Giant Peach" did the screenplay for this film, and he does a commendable but not extraordinary job. Some of James Bond's best one-liners are in this film, like "Oh the things I do for England," and "you sound like a commercial," most likely in credit to Dahl's creative touch.

The strength of this movie is that the franchise moved away from Europe and sent Bond to Asia. The Japanese background is excellent as are the Japanese Bond Girls, Aki and Kissy and the Japanese agent Tanaka. The action sequences are just OK. There's one good fight scene at the Osaka Corporation, it's similar to the "From Russia With Love" train scene and the opening fight in 'Thunderball.'

However compared to its predecessors, this movie fails to deliver. The editing and pace seems to slow down significantly once Bond has to get married and become Japanese. The enemy's lair seems over-the-top and fantastical, even more so than Dr. No's lair. Even with Connery's flair and grace one can see how anything less than an 100% effort isn't going to make a movie great, even a James Bond film.

Despite its minor hiccups, I still think this is an enjoyable Bond. Not as great as the preceding four films, but still solid. Yet one can't ignore the ominous signs that the Bond franchise was on its way down. For the last 40 years, minus some good films thrown in that time, the Bond franchise has never duplicated the magic and bedazzlement that it had from 1962-1966.

A Good James Bond film but not great. 6 out of 10.

Dr. No (1962)

Bond, James Bond.

[8/10 · 17 April 2007]

It was 45 years ago when James Bond made his cinematic debut with "Dr. No." Since then the franchise has gone through ups and down, face-lifts and tuning but in that one film in 1962 everything we know about Bond was born and perfect.

The movie is actually not the first story of the Ian Fleming series, that's 'Casino Royale,' but it is a great cinematic start to the franchise. In the story, Bond jets off to Jamaica to discover the murder of a fellow agent and once he gets there he realizes he's into more than he knows. Sean Connery's performance in this film is legendary. All his movements and lines are magnetic, he literally carries the movie through its entirety.

The larger than life mise-en-scene throughout the whole movie is excellent. The gorgeous women, the exotic locations, the high-octane espionage and the diabolical villain with a humongous lair. These are the recipes that are synonymous with Bond.

However, despite all its extraordinary features, I do not believe "Dr. No" is the best Bond film. I think the plot and pace at times seem too slow, especially when arriving to Crab Key. And also the ending is rather slap-dash and anti-climatic in my opinion. They didn't have the crescendo that 'From Russia With Love' or 'Goldfinger' had at their conclusions.

But this film is a cinematic masterpiece, it helped defined the blockbuster action genre. 45 years after its release the greatness of this movie is still recognized, as it will be even 45 years from now.

8 out of 10.

Rounders (1998)

Good Movie But Too Much Poker

[7/10 · 27 March 2007]

This was a good movie but I think there was too much poker. I honestly could not recall a scene where there was not a poker game, a discussion about a poker game or some other reference to poker (minus maybe one or two scenes at law school) and yet despite the poker over-saturation the movie is still captivating, and I'm not even a poker guy.

The greatest strength is probably the acting ensemble. Matt Damon carries the lead wonderfully, Ed Norton is always spot-on and add that to John Turtutto, Martin Landau and John Malkovich attempting to play a Russian and its an overall great acting performance.

The plot and pace never dragged, the script is predictable but enjoyable, and in the end I was entertained, what more can you ask for?

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

So Close to Bond Greatness

[5/10 · 18 March 2007]

The thing that upsets me the most about "The Man With The Golden Gun" is the potential that it could have been a great movie.

It has some excellent ingredients. For instance, the acting ensemble was superb. Christopher Lee as Scaramanga is one of the better villains, Maud Adams and Britt Ekland were radiant Bond girls, and Herve Villechaize was entertaining as Nick Nack. The locations were certainly exotic with Bond traveling to Macau and Thailand. The story was pretty basic, but entertaining enough.

However there were many downfalls to this movie. I felt the scene when Bond escaped the Karate School was poorly assembled. The pacing seemed awkwardly composed and it interrupted the flow of the film. However the most asinine decision in the Bond franchise is what makes this movie's value free fall immensely. The pointless, stereotypical, and obnoxious sheriff from Louisiana that we saw in "Live and Let Die" has somehow decided to take a vacation with his wife to Thailand!!

Not to mention the irrationality of that type of character to be traveling to Southeast Asia for his precious vacation and in the early 1970s none the less. His presence makes this film one of the worst in the franchise. A movie where such a useless character is in the film for a solid 20 minutes plus is unacceptable.

This Bond movie frustrates me the most. It has so much potential to be the best Roger Moore film and possibly one of the better Bond films in the whole franchise, but you visually watch the film unravel, it's too much to handle by the end. Even though the ending sequence is enjoyable.

A regrettable 5 out of 10.

Munich (2005)

Political Drama from Spielberg

[7/10 · 19 February 2007]

"Munich' is a gripping drama about the aftermath of the 1972 Munich Olympic tragedy involving the death of Israeli athletes. I was not disappointed after watching the movie, but it certainly wasn't the best movie of Spielberg's career.

The story evolves around Avner (Eric Bana) who along with four other men are sent to eliminate the Palestinian culprits one by one.

At first I was hesitant that Spielberg would make the movie overly biased in favor of the Israeli perspective but I found that he did a delicate job of promoting his beliefs while never crossing the line of propaganda. There are scenes where there is Palestinian sympathy as well.

But the movie is more than just an Israel v Palestinian examination. It's about the path and development of Avner's character. From a naive, inexperience agent to a paranoid, political hit-man who begins to question the validity of his assignments and his role in the whole 'game.'

That to me was the strength of the movie, the character of Avner. However there was an ensemble cast which also carried the movie with excellence. Daniel Craig (Steve) played a great role as an aggressive Israeli hit-man, Geoffrey Rush (Ephraim) was wonderful as the Government officer relaying orders and the best surprise was Michael Lonsdale (Papa) as an engaging role of an informant providing information to any one who pays for it. These characters were tremendous additions which further strengthen the movie.

So why is this movie only rated a 7 and didn't win best picture for 2005. I believe the main reason is length. The movie is just too long. It runs at 2 hours and 44 minutes and doesn't need to be. The problem is the movie follows the group as they seek out 11 individuals one at a time. This means that there are 11 assignments and each assignments has their own ebb and flow, their own climax and downfall. However by the fifth or sixth assignment, the slow pace begins to get repetitive. I believed that this was the only weakness of the movie.

However despite its length, Spielberg created an enthralling story with some tremendous characters and that is what made the movie enjoyable.

7 out of 10 stars

Spare Parts (2003)

Slovenian Film That Doesn't Deliver

[4/10 · 15 February 2007]

I was intrigued seeing this movie available at my local library. I have visited the country of Slovenia and wanted to see what sort of films came from the small but lovely country. With 'Spare Parts' I was quite disappointed.

The story is a look at two Slovenians who smuggle immigrants from Croatia into Italy. I respect the filmmakers approach of examining the film from a purely middle unbiased stance. There's no attempt to sway the viewer's outlook on this is bad and this is good, but with that approach I also had some personal difficulties. The two lead characters were wrong. They were taking advantage of immigrants for economic and personal gain. I understand the plot was based of actual events in Slovenia, but still I was unable to truly connect to the characters.

Another reason I was disappointed was a lack of character development. I felt that Rudi's character was not development enough. Why is such a young person deciding this lifestyle? What events brought him to such an extreme profession? With Ludvik at least the film touched about his reasons and motivations (widowed, cancer victim).

All in all the film just did not grab me. Despite the filmmakers best efforts of having some good moments in cinematography and directing, I just felt the film was blasé. And it was certainly one of the slower 84 minute films I have ever seen.

4 out of 10 stars.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)

Surprised This Film Doesn't Get More Credit

[8/10 · 6 February 2007]

"Confessions of a Dangerous MInd' was excellent and I'm surprised it doesn't receive more credit.

The story is an 'autobiographical' tale of TV producer Chuck Barris (Sam Rockwell) who doubles as a CIA-assassin. The movie is based on the book with the same name and the beauty is that no one knows if Barris made up this story or if the events are true. Regardless of its reality or not, the film is a tremendous example of great movie making.

This is an all-star movie. George Clooney stars as CIA-agent Jim Byrd and also directs the film. He has such a cinematic eye. The scenes in which he incorporates the movie with real- life clips of the game shows is brilliant. The acting is superb with Rockwell delivering what should have been at least a Golden Globe nomination. Also in the movie is Drew Barrymore (delivering one of her better roles), Julia Roberts, Rutger Hauer, and cameos by Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and Maggie Gyllenthaal. The cinematography is superb, and Director of Photography, Newton Thomas Sigel, creates a film with such innovative lighting and tones, and to top it off, the screen play is written by one of Hollywood's best, Charlie Kaufmann (wrote 'Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine).

The movie was shadowy but not dark, humorous but not too light, mysterious but not deceptive and was honestly one of the most original films I've seen in a long time.

The only minor hiccups I had with the movie was 1) inaccuracies with aging characters. Barris was born in 1928, yet the scenes in the late 1970s and early 1980s he looks like he's still in his thirties! At least the movie was consistent in not aging any of the characters; and 2) I felt the pace dragged slightly at times. There were moments when I felt the momentum falter inexplicably and the opener was slightly slow as well.

But those details are very minor and do not take away from the strength of this film. This is an engaging film, one that is intelligent and well-written, one that is acted superbly and crafted with such subtle craftsmanship from the best Hollywood has to offer. Great film! I'm surprised it doesn't get more credit

8 out of 10!

John Q (2002)

What's More Surprising?

[2/10 · 30 January 2007]

What's more surprising about this movie, the fact that it was so awful, or that so many great actors got roped into this Hollywood babble?

The movie is about a father, John Archibald (Denzel Washington) who goes to extreme measures after his young son has a heart failure. After being rejected by their insurance company and the hospital, Archibald decides to hold the hospital hostage so that his son can be saved.

I felt like I was being preached to and being force-fed immature stereotypes, that doctors are soulless puppets for insurance companies, that insurance companies are evils, that health care should be universal, that cops are incapable and stupid, blah blah blah. The problem is that instead of showing us the moral of the story through a mature combination of cinematography, acting, set design and dialog, screenwriter James Kearns forces the garbage down our throats as the characters in the room babble their views for two hours. Not even the tremendous acting of Denzel Washington could save this movie.

The most thrilling aspect was that so many great actors (Washington, Liotta, Woods, Duvall) were in this movie. The film desperately tries to show the duality of life and tries to answer the question how one life is worth compared to another, but its done so immaturely that it's baffling. The movie proves that even with an all-star cast, a poor script and poor directing can ruin the whole thing.

Waste of time.

2 out of 10

GoldenEye (1995)

Pierce Brosnan's First and Best Bond Movie

[8/10 · 30 January 2007]

After the 6 year lay-off from 1989 "Licensed to Kill," the Bond franchise returns in 1995 with "Goldeneye." I believe this film proves to be not only be one of the best Pierce Brosnan film, but one of the better movies in the whole franchise.

During the six year lay off, the international spectrum changed with the Berlin Wall and communism falling. The Cold War was always the force which drove the James Bond series and the filmmakers needed to transition Bond into the New World Order of the early 1990s.

The movie has many great strengths, the strongest being Pierce Brosnan himself. There has not been a better Bond since Sean Connery. Both men seem to have this incredible presence on camera, and look dashing in their suits. Another strength is the plot. Unfortunately for spoiler reasons I can not disclose much information, but the movie examines a personal side of Bond in regards to his relationship with one of his former Double-0 agents. Another strength is the addition of Judi Densch as M. She is absolutely terrific in the role. She provides a perfect contrast to Bond and the franchise certainly took a tremendous leap forward in her casting.

The rest of the typical Bond ingredients are there, exotic locations (Meditterean, St Petersburg and Cuba). The gadgets with Q (Desmond Llewelyn) and the action sequences are great (primarily the opening sequences, climatic fight at the end and the tank chase in Russia).

The only negatives were very slight. I felt that there were too many witty one-liners, I thought Natalya Simonova (Izabella Scorupco) was a little bit less than average in the performance as Bond girl and I thought the musical score was unnecessarily bland. The music was very disappointing along with the theme song.

Looking back at the four films Brosnan did this one is the best. It took the Bond franchise in a slightly new direction (however not as drastic as the Daniel Craig film would). And from top to bottom it has one of the strongest plot, action sequences and feel of a Bond film not only being the best in Brosnan's career but being one of the better films in the whole franchise. It is a must see for Bond fans and should be an enjoyable experience for movie goers alike.

8 out 10!

The Big Lebowski (1998)

The Coen Brothers Best!

[8/10 · 29 January 2007]

This movie is the Coen Brothers best film!

It is their funniest, most original and most engaging film of their illustrious careers. The movie is about The Dude (Jeff Bridges) a dead-beat hippie-bowler who becomes entangled in the affairs of well-to-do Hollywood figures Mr. Lebowski (David Huddleston) and Jackie Treehorn (Ben Gazzara).

The strength of the movie is the uproarious relationship and dialog between The Dude, Walter (John Goodman) and Donny (Steve Buschemi), all partners on a bowling team. Their lines might be some of the most memorable and quotable in recent comedic history.

Along with the three main characters, the Coen brothers have a bizarre mixture of characters (nihilist Germans, porn star thugs, uptight artists, bowlers, Spanish bowlers, peace-loving cab drivers, and interpretive dancing landlords.) The ingredients appears to be outrageous, but the Coen brothers make it work!

This is a comedy that makes you laugh hours/days/weeks after watching it. It has a tremendous cast, did I mention Julianne Moore and Philip Seymour Hofman are also in it. It's one of those movie where outrageous characters, situations and ideas are thrown together and it makes one of the most hilarious movies ever made, it is certainly the Coen brothers best! Highly recommended!

8 out of 10!

A Mighty Wind (2003)

A Mighty hilarity

[7/10 · 24 January 2007]

Christopher Guest does it again, and this time his victim is the genre of folk music. Known for such films as "Spinal Tap", "Waiting for Guffman," and 'Best in Show," Guest delivers a hilarious 'mockumentary' hit with "A Mighty Wind."

After the death of an influential folk manager, Mr Steinbloom, his children decide to bring together three folk groups to commemorate his life with a tribute concert. The three groups are diverse and personify differences which exist in folk music. Whether its the cheesy-gloss of The New Main Street Singers, the bluegrass trio of The Folksmen, or the romantic duo of Mitch and Mickey, each group represents an aspect of Folk Music and their relationships and tiny rivalries towards one another is well played.

However, the most impressive aspect of this movie isn't so much the comedy, but the music. I was shocked to find out that the actors themselves wrote, performed and recorded these songs. Most might have humorous lyrics, but the songs are musically dynamic and genuinely impressive.

The genius of Guest & Co. is their combination of subtle humor. The foundation of the Mr. and Mrs. Bohner (Jane Lynch, John Michael Higgins) relationship, the psychosis of Mitch (Eugene Levy), and the Mitzvah rant of Lars Olfsen (Ed Begley Jr.) are just some examples of the tiny comedic details that Guest provides.

The most enjoyable aspect of this film is that it's fun to watch and I can visually see that the actors have a fun time making these movies. It truly comes across the screen.

The only set back to this movie is that it's rather slow moving and certainly attracts a certain type of humor (less slapstick and more situational subtly). However, this is a hilarious film and I would rank it just a notch below "Best in Show." Christopher Guest strikes again.

7 out of 10!!!

The Last King of Scotland (2006)

Intriguing African Thriller

[7/10 · 22 January 2007]

Africa is in. Whether its stars adopting babies or directors making movies. Africa is in. The latest film to capture the continent is "The Last King in Scotland' a story based on Ugandan dictator, Amin (Forest Whitaker), who befriends a young, Scottish doctor, Garrigan (McAvoy), during his regime in the 1970s. The result is an intriguing African thriller directed by Kevin MacDonald.

The strength of the movie is the acting performances by both Whitaker and McAvoy. Whitaker won the golden globe for best actor, and deservedly so. His character is horrifying and likable, all at the same time. Likewise, McAvoy is vibrant and versatile, this will certainly be his breakout role.

The plot chronicles the relationship of the two men. Garrigan is Amin's personal doctor and becomes so entrenched with the President's life that it becomes impossible for him to accept the fact that Amin is more than just the charismatic statesmen.

The story was well documented but in the end it really didn't stand out from any other African movies I have seen recently. MacDonals uses a distorted coloring tone for the film, similar to Meirelles in "The Constant Gardener." And the film has disturbing moments like in 'Hotel Rwanda." Let's be honest, many movies based in Africa have disturbing scenes, because Africa is not the most cheery of all places. There are diseases, poverty, violence, political unrest, etc. There are some scenes in this movie which will make even the strongest of viewers squirm, even though it is all done very well.

The ending result is an intriguing African thriller. Forest Whitaker and James McAvoy are the movie and carry the movie, successfully. Kevin MacDonald does a good job as director and the end result is a solid two hour of entertainment.

7 out of 10!

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

A Roger Moore Film That Works

[7/10 · 15 January 2007]

'For Your Eyes Only' was the fifth Roger Moore film as James Bond and by 1981 his personality as 007 was well established and developed from the preceding Connery and Lazenby.

Moore's films were more light-hearted, slapstick and rather silly than previous films. In some of the movies it doesn't work well (like Moonraker or View to A Kill), however in this movie it works wonderfully.

One of the strengths of this film is the plot. 007 must retrieve a missing ATAC system which is pivotal to British Defense. It's not about narcotics or cheesy-space domination, it's a classic cold-war showdown of UK vs USSR in trying to recover or obtaining the device. Another strength is the wonderful locations, either Spain, Italy, Albania or Greece, 007 moves so actively throughout the story that by the end you'll be amazed he accomplished so much in only 2 hours.

Another strength is the great action scenes. Whether by helicopter, on skis, underwater, or in a hockey rink, the action sequences are not to be missed, especially the climatic ending at St. Cyrills. It is one of my favorite sequences in the whole franchise. There are great ensemble characters as well, Kristados, Topol, and Locque make a great addition to the movie.

However, considering this is a Roger Moore film you know there is gonna be a little cheese. The open sequence is a little slapstick, especially considering how important Blofeld was for the first 15 years of the franchise. The 80s music and cars is humorous (can't really penalize that because of the times), the Identograph, Moneypenny looking very old, the parrot, Margaret Thatcher and the actresses performances (neither Carole Bouquet nor Lynn-Holly Johnson were memorable, Lynn-Holly Johnson was border line annoying), yet despite these few mishaps the film still works.

John Glen (director) and Richard Maibaum (screenwriter) had a great combination of action, plot and pace. This is one of those movie that whenever it's on TV I get sucked into. It is definitely one of my favorite Roger Moore films and it is in the upper-half of all James Bond movies. There's a little cheese and a little slapstick, but combined with all the other elements it works! And I love it!

7 out of 10.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

The Definitive Sci-Fi Movie

[8/10 · 11 January 2007]

This movie is Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece and it is the definitive sci-fi classic of cinema.

' '2001' is an epic journey from Prehistoric Man to Man colonizing space. The film is also a visual display mesmerizing at times like one was watching a surreal light show at a planetarium. This movie has such an important role shaping cinema that without this movie we would never have had 'Star Wars,' 'Star Trek' or even modern films like "The Matrix."

One could write a term paper (I'm sure some have) on the scientific, cinematic and societal meanings in the film, but in the short review I will just say that Kubrick is a genius. And for all the things I understood and didn't understand, I can acknowledge that Kubrick was a film- maker light years beyond his peers.

The movie runs at 140 minutes and there is very little dialogue considering the length. Long, overdrawn periods of silence and visual movement accompanied by music is a major theme to this movie, and it is done so well.

This movie is a classic and it is a must-see for every movie fan. It is the definitive sci-fi movie. The only reason this movie does not get a 9 or 10 is because I think it is too long and I think it lacks replay value (unless one was writing a paper on it). I know the review says 8, but in actuality it would receive an 8.5/10. Great film!

Kicking & Screaming (2005)

Your Average Comedy

[5/10 · 5 January 2007]

Will Ferrell is the movie and makes the movie. I couldn't really complain about his performance, there were funny quotes and he was hilarious as usual. However, the rest of the movie is pretty empty. The screenplay is normal, think Bad News Bears on the soccer pitch, and the movie is quite predictable. You can just sort of see Robert Duval and Will Ferrell going through the motions. But this is a kid's movie (they'll probably enjoy the slapstick comedy) as is not intended for audiences of Old School and Anchorman. It's just an average comedy. Something to rent once and be moderately entertained for an hour and a half. If you want a better Will Ferrell kid movie Elf is by far the better choice.

5 out of 10.

The Italian Job (2003)

Hip Heist Film

[7/10 · 4 January 2007]

I went into this film with low expectations, and I came out very pleased. This film is a great, edgy and a hip heist film.

I was curious how hip-hop music video director Gary Gray would do directing this movie and he created an entertaining experience. The characters were believable and charming. Gray mixed exotic locations (venice, Italian Alps, LA) with great humor, Seth Green's character was hilarious as the comic relief. I was entertained the entire time through and enjoyed watching the Mini Cooper Car Chases and the climatic cat and mouse ending.

I have never seen the original with Michael Caine and after seeing Gray's rendition, I certainly can't wait to see the first one.

Live and Let Die (1973)

Just Doesn't Feel Right

[5/10 · 2 January 2007]

I'm an avid Bond Fan and this is one of my least favorite Bond films, it just doesn't feel right.

Harlem, New Orleans, Bayou, Voodoo, Human Sacrifice, Heroin Smuggling. The ingredients seem more adapt for an Indiana Jones Film than James Bond. Roger Moore does a good job as Bond, a little too pretty, but the screenplay and pace just drag along. However the aspect that makes me cringe the most is the Louisianian Sheriff. He's unnecessary, annoying, stereotypical and in the movie WAY too long. I literally have to fast forward his scenes. His inclusion is the single worst mistake in James Bond Franchise. (not too mention his unwelcomed Cameo in Man With a Golden Gun, cringe!).This movie doesn't feel like a Bond Movie. It sounds like one, great Theme Song!Looks like one, good actors, good action sequences, love scenes...but it just doesn't feel like a James Bond Movie.

5 out of 10, I'd pick many other Bonds before this one.