Reviews

Please excuse any mistakes as my English is not very good. There are no spoilers in this review.

I had the pleasure of seeing 'Inside Out' at the Cannes Film Festival and I must say it was wonderful and a huge step-up from Pixar's recent efforts. The trailers don't really do it justice. The story may seem complicated for younger viewers, but the way Pixar tells the story fits for both adults and children. The pacing is in the vein of Wall-E, and in that sense it is very much a film for adults as it is for kids (like most Pixar movies). The story here is surprisingly raw and emotional, one that has very deep underlying themes that adults will connect with. Many of the audience members were crying at the end. It has one of the most original stories for an animation in the last few years, and I believe many people (especially adults) will form a connection to it.

Speaking of animation, the film is breathtakingly beautiful. There is a nice contrast of colors that make it look vibrant, like Pixar's 'UP'. The voice cast did a wonderful job and you couldn't ask for better direction from Pete Doctor and co. I cannot wait to see this a second time with family and friends. Highly recommended.

PS: The short that played before the film, 'Lava', was also beautiful. It was sort of a musical, and it was quite funny and clever. The audience even applauded at the end of it, myself included. In that sense, it provides the entire package a nice balance of joy and laughter (Lava) followed by deep storytelling and emotion (Inside Out).

What a fulfilling, complete film. It's pretty much Drive meets Killing Them Softly with family themes thrown in. But it's better than either of those films. It's never dull or boring even with a 140 min run time because it keeps changing things up and has three very distinct acts. In fact, I feel that it was too short for its high ambitions. I would not have been against it being three hours long.

The direction is superb and the one shot takes that are frequently used are breathtaking. Acting was great with Gosling stealing the show. It's not perfect, but the flaws that some people mention are rather nit-picky. Not going to forget this admirable story and its hard-hitting themes anytime soon.

The best horror remake since The Ring. I wouldn't call it a remake though. It's more of a re-imagining of a classic horror story. It takes the perfect amount of goodness from the horror classic to make it nostalgic without the "been there, done that" feeling and adds many new elements to it that make it its' own.

While this may not hit cult classic status like EDII did, this is still an amazing horror film. The effects are admirable. You can tell they didn't use computer generated effects by the quality. I'm not a gore fan in horror films because they usually substitute the story for the gore, but this wasn't the case here. While I didn't laugh as much as I did with the original Evil Dead films, this was still one of the funnest theater experiences I've had in a while.

You already know if this film is up your alley or not by the trailers, so critics are irrelevant in this case. A lot of love was put into this re-imagining by Raimi and the promising director Alvarez. The female lead was also wonderful and, as far as lead females in horror go, could potentially become iconic. She absolutely steals the show with some very memorable scenes and a face made to show fear. By the end of the film, with the perfect conclusion and the sound blasting into my ears, I couldn't help but think I was watching something special.

If I were to describe my thoughts on Drive in one sentence it would be that... it's probably the best film I have ever been so disappointed with. Yes, that pretty much sums it up. I hadn't been this excited to see a film in a long time. Needless to say, I expected a lot out of Drive. However I left the theater disappointed.

The first half of the film is simply beautiful. You sort of envision what's to come. The characters are interesting, the scenes are tense, and the story builds along smoothly.

The acting is wonderful. Despite what many say, I thought Gosling had a certain presence and mystery to him that a different actor might not have had. He played his role to near perfection and made it easier to imagine being put into his shoes. I enjoyed the subtlety of his performance when he's with his neighbor and her son; the way his face lights up when it's never shown but rather more "felt" on-screen. Carrie Mulligan also did a wonderful job. I would say that the acting was spot on throughout. Even the little boy had the acting chops, and Bryan Cranston played his part as good as you'd expect (although a bit weird seeing him in a different role than Walter White from Breaking Bad).

The story is well-told. The story has a lot of things going for it. You care about the characters and are interested in where it will head. Unfortunately, it ends on a very anti-climactic ending that takes a lot of the atmosphere away from the film, and it felt a bit rushed.

I also thought the direction was hit-or-miss. Not being a fan of Refn (the director), I was surprisingly loving the direction he was taking the film by the mid-way point. After that, it seemed clear that he had run out of ideas. He over-uses the same shots and it gets tiring. The music, although in the first half of the film was extraordinary, in the second half it is borderline cheesy. It took me right out of the atmosphere, which is disappointing. Refn in my mind has always been the most pretentious filmmaker today, and sadly I still feel the same way after viewing Drive. He seems to love being different and doesn't care if it hurts or enhances the film, which in the case of Drive, his decisions do a little of both.

To give an example, I thought the Refn's direction was sort of like how a child thinks. If a child does something funny, and you laugh, they will continue to do the same funny thing over and over, expecting you to keep laughing. You'll laugh, but only to make them happy. This is the same feeling I got from the direction. Refn throws something cool at you, then throws it again and again and again, while at the same time you're trying to focus on the story. It just doesn't work and for a relatively unknown director it's inexcusable, especially when you're engaged and immersed in the story.

I still enjoyed Drive. Although leaving the theater I was disappointed by the missed potential, it was still a ride worth taking. Although not the best film of the year, it will still be one of highlights of 2011. Which is sad, because the outstanding first half made it seem clear that it was going to be one of the best films in the last few years.

I would also like to warn the viewers about the trailer. I'm sure most of us have seen trailers for comedies that tell all the jokes, and same holds true with the trailer for Drive. It gives away many of the best scenes in the film, including my favorite scene. It is best to stay away from the trailer.

That sort of sums up my experience with Drive, a lot of potential but doesn't deliver the whole based on the sum of its parts. Refn chooses style over substance when the style isn't nearly as good as the substance.

Trust is an important film. This isn't fantasy, this is reality. For whatever message Trust has, it's also about the emotion, pain, and internet obsession.

If Trust was to be used towards educating, it isn't geared towards the victims, but rather the people around the victim. The victims won't be watching this film (for the subject matter), and it was a smart move to portray the daily lives of teenagers realistically while still showing the pain that occurs when situations like this happen. It's something special when you can believe and feel what is happening on screen and the creators of Trust did a terrific job keeping it true. There are other subjects involved, such as how internet communication is "breaking" the formalities of communication, how easily predators can manipulate people by knowing their strengths and weaknesses, and how you may not actually know your loved ones as much as you think you do. There are many subject matters thrown into Trust, and they all play out realistically to the point where the viewer will most likely relate to them.

The performances were outstanding and, even if this is a 2010 film, should be nominated at the next Academy Awards. Newcomer Liana Liberato steals the show with one of the greatest performances I have seen portraying a broken teenager. In a year where there were a few outstanding performances by young actors (Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit), I think Liana Liberato's underrated performance was the best of last year. Clive Owen gives his most dramatic performance to date and Catherine Keener has a few brilliant moments. Chris Coffey, who plays Charlie the predator, gives a creepy (if brief) performance in the vain of Stanley Tucci in "The Lovely Bones".

David Schwimmer (Ross from the show "Friends") did a surprisingly good job directing Trust. He got the most out of the actors and, considering the serious subject matter, had a bleak, disturbing tone to the film. The combination of a happy neighborhood/school/family worked well with the one black spot which is the daughter, the victim. After the assault happens, you see the world change and everyone's life becomes a little darker.

Should you watch Trust? Yes. The performances and the story alone make it one not to miss. There are a couple of moments where you may shed a tear. It's haunting for any age or gender. These crimes DO occur, and they happen often. While it's not a film you watch with friends; it's not an enjoyable film in the least, Trust is just one effective tale that may stay in with you for a long time.

I enjoyed The Resident. It's more thriller than horror, but it does contain a few cheap scares that never deterred from any enjoyment. It's a suspenseful tale; one that feels like a late 90s thriller that I enjoyed at a younger age.

The storyline is basic. A new tenant, through various events, suspects that something abnormal is occurring. Maybe she is not alone in her loft, and maybe it all has to do with the landlord. There's no mystery hidden in The Resident, everything is spoon-fed to the viewer and there are no surprises what-so-ever.

Let's just get this out of the way: The Resident has many elements that make certain modern horror films terrible. The acting, even including Oscar-winner Hilary Swank herself, is terrible throughout. The storyline is never fully explained. Things just seem to happen in order to move along the film rather than to tell a satisfying story.

The camera work is brilliant. Every shot was memorable and at certain moments it features many iconic filming styles that were immediately noticed. The Resident is also suspenseful to the point where my heart started to pound. This truly shows that the filmmakers have the ability to make a quality thriller. Here's hoping for a better script next time around.

Overall you will not be disappointed with The Resident. Hilary Swank, surprisingly, made this film her own simply by her presence. Even though it contains many flaws seen in most horror films nowadays, you'll find a lot of enjoyment from this short, thrilling major film debut from Antti Jokinen. Just make sure you give it a chance before completely disregarding it based on its' weaknesses - the strengths do outweigh the weaknesses in The Resident.

Ever since I saw the first trailer, I counted down to the day I would watch Black Swan. It has my favorite actresses Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis, one of my favorite directors Darren Aronofsky, and ultimately it had the feeling of a David Lynch film. I've tried everything to stay away from any clip, review, or piece of information, even blocking advertisements with my hand on the screen. I was pumped. So pumped the night before seeing it I could barely sleep. With this amount of hype towards anything, it's easy to be disappointed. Black Swan surprised me.

First and foremost, the performance Natalie gives is haunting. She always plays the character she began with even when the script demands more and her mental frailty shows throughout Black Swan. She handles every situation with passion and intensity. Mila Kunis also gives her usual performance that always boosts the quality of any film.

Having seen all five Aronofsky films to date, I would rank them as:

Black Swan > Requiem for a Dream > The Wrestler > The Fountain > Pi

All of his movies offer something unique and interesting, but Aronofsky was never able to mix the unique with the realistic as perfectly as he did in Black Swan. This is his best work and, looking at his upcoming work, which in my opinion will underutilized this brilliant director/writer, it will continue to be his best work for years to come.

Who knew a film about ballet would be so interesting? The story is brilliant. It's intense, passionate, frightening, sexual, sad, funny, demoniac, romantic, and above all artistic. Everything you could ever want in a film plus more. With that said, I don't believe Black Swan is for everyone, but if you found interest in the trailer than there is a great chance that you will love it as I did. I look forward to watching it again and again in the future. It's THAT good.

With a year of massive disappointments, a year where boundary-breaking films were nonexistent, Aronofsky comes in and makes 2010 worthwhile. Black Swan has a safe place as one of my favorites in life. That's right, 'favorites'. It breaks away from being just a film and takes a place as a brilliant memory and piece of work that will stay with me for the rest of my remaining life.

Frozen is a slow-paced indie horror film that surprises and frustrates. Three friends are trapped in a chairlift at a ski resort. Great plot for a horror movie, right? Going into it I wasn't sure if I would be surprised or disappointed, and by the end I got a little of both.

Where Frozen surprised me the most was the acting and the writing. Adam Green, who wrote and directed Frozen, is talented when it comes to writing the dialogue. These characters feel realistic and thus you care about them more than most horror films. They all have a back story and you get to know these characters through the 90 minutes. The script is also top-notch and I never once said "why don't they just..." These people are screwed from the get-go. The directing gets the job done, but nothing amazing.

What I found disappointing is how held-back Frozen was. It could have easily been better. Right as the credits started rolling, many ideas popped into my head on what could have been added to make a more interesting and tense-filled horror flick. Despite its' interesting plot, it was underwhelming.

There's more good than bad in Frozen, and every horror fanatic should certainly check this one out. It's not perfect; that feeling of pointlessness certainly came into effect, it is a bit slow-paced, and a tiny bit repetitive. That said, you will not find many modern horror pictures with characters you actually get attached to. It's gut- wrenching entertainment at its coldest.

Burning Bright is a horrific gem. One of those films where you ask yourself, "why wasn't this released in theaters?" That is exactly what I was wondering while watching. I felt my heart beating throughout the 50 minute action sequence. The premise will immediately catch your attention, a young women and her autistic brother are trapped in a house with a hungry tiger during a hurricane. The house is barricaded.

~How did the tiger get into the house? Will they survive?~

It's surprising the amount of things occurring throughout and it's a nice change from almost every one-dimensional horror films nowadays. It is also extremely believable; this can happen to anyone of us. If you thought Freddy Kruger was scary, try taking on this tiger. It's unfortunate that it was never credited because the tiger is the star of the film. Briana Evigan also gives a terrific performance as the hot women in trouble and fits this film perfectly.

There are no real flaws in Burning Bright. It is quiet perfect of how to make a suspenseful thriller. It's a thriller that actually thrills. It goes the extra mile making sure your heart is pounding out of you chest at every moment. A couple of scenes are simply unforgettable.

Burning Bright is a bright light for every inspiring filmmaker out there. It doesn't matter if your film gets the attention it deserves, someone will notice and appreciate the work that was done. The filmmakers know how to make a great film. They didn't just think of the good plot, they also spent time perfecting it and it's noticeable.

Burning Bright was never released in theaters, and frankly it should have been. It's one of the most thrilling films I have seen in years. The suspense will eat you alive.

This film is much better than given credit for. It is a true story of imprisonment and torture of a young girl in the 1960s.

The performances here are outstanding. Ellen Page gives a brutally good performance and Catherine Keener steals the show with her truthful performance. An American Crime is set in the 1960s and it's evident that it is from the look to the carelessness compared to today. Their take on the 1960s is a strong point in An American Crime.

The story is well-structured. It takes place in a courtroom but the movie itself is a retelling of what had occurred through the witnesses. I never found myself bored, even in the beginning, and it only ratcheted up until the conclusion. When finally I thought that these filmmakers messed up some where, they take the audience by surprise and completely trick us. I found it brilliant.

Another film, "The Girl Next Door", is also based on the same incident and was also released in 2007. While it is a good film in its own merit, "The Girl Next Door" is much more of a horror-type film where the idea was taken simply to make a disturbing film where as An American Crime feels like a much more professional and serious effort.

An American Crime is a must see. It has all the qualities of a fantastic film and is a flawless one at that. Forget what the some critics may tell you, and check this one out. However you may feel about An American Crime in the end, you will undeniably have seen a unique, under-appreciated gut-wrenching masterpiece.

Rabbit Hole is a tragic tale that won't sadden viewers. That is simply not the purpose despite what the plot and trailer may show. Rabbit Hole is a story of how two previously happy couple cope with the loss of their four-year-old son. The what/who/where/why/how is what makes Rabbit Hole one of 2010's finest films.

Right off the bat you will notice what surrounds this couple; a world filled with joy and life at the worst moment in their lives. This feeling does not lend itself to that Oscar-feeling feel it may have wanted but it certainly works.

These actors give highly realistic performances that fit perfectly with this demanding plot. Nicole Kidman steals the show with her best performance (and movie) since 'Eyes Wide Shut'. Aaron Eckhart also gives a terrific performance as the grieving husband and father and, after 'Love Happens', shows that he is back to serious acting as he was in 'The Dark Knight'.

The best aspect of Rabbit Hole is how you begin by knowing very little about these characters but end up knowing them as if they were your own neighbors. You progressively learn what happened to their son and other details within their past that fit perfectly together without feeling as they are giving the audience answers. The dialogue also lends itself to this method and, surprisingly, never feels directed to the audience.

What I found unique is how with such a depressing feel to the film, it never actually makes the viewer sad, but interested. It is a film that will make you laugh more than cry and I found that impressive. It isn't your normal tear-jerker; you are watching this couple live their lives and deal with this death in an interesting way. Rabbit Hole never has a dull moment; my eyes were glued to the screen from the start.

Rabbit Hole is simply one of the finest films of 2010. Its execution is sometimes brilliant and the feeling of self-awareness and thought it lends to the viewer is unlike anything you may have ever seen. It's not your run-of-the-mill Oscar contender. Rabbit Hole is a beautiful tale of life. And death.

The directors of Vampires Suck manage to pull off something they previously could not; make an enjoyable spoof with a few laughs. It's undeniably stupid, yes, but where there are two "what the f" moments, where you think "here we go again..", Vampires Suck will give you a chuckle.

I have never seen the Twilight movies and I didn't feel as I needed to. I understood the gist of the series, and I never felt that I was unable to laugh due to an inside joke that only Twilight fans could enjoy. If you've seen the commercials, you'll understand Vampires Suck and enjoy its' gags. Where Vampires Suck fails is sending out its' message, as by the end I was actually intrigued and wanted to check out the Twilight saga. Now granted, I probably won't spend my time watching those (long) movies, it's not my genre, but I received an urge to watch the saga that I never had before.

The acting is similar to what you'd expect in any other spoof, it's dumb and the actors never take it seriously. In which I ask, how much were these actors paid? It must have been a blast working on the set. Kristen Stewart was "portrayed" hilariously spot-on.

The reason I think Vampires Suck works, while other spoofs like "Epic Movie" and "Superhero Movie" don't, is that there is an equal amount of hatred, if not more, than there is love for the series. "Epic Movie" pokes fun at, well, epic movies. Movies that many people watched and enjoyed, where there couldn't be many jokes thrown in to make the viewers laugh. Who could poke fun at outstanding films such as The Dark Knight and Iron Man? It simply does not work. Vampires Suck did feel recycled, you've heard these jokes before, but there is a joy in seeing it on-screen with a couple of pals.

While I did enjoy it, I do feel as I am being too easy on Vampires Suck. From the directors of some of the worst movies in the last decade, saying I had no expectations is a huge understatement. With the amount of quality films coming out this summer, don't waste your hard-earned money on Vampires Suck. Rent it and you'll probably enjoy it, especially with a group of friends. Let me put it this way; if you happen to be in a good mood while watching Vampires Suck, you'll be surprised, but not amazed.

Inception is a flawed masterpiece. You're unsure as to what to expect going in but you're positive Christopher Nolan simply will not let you down, and boy does he deliver. This film, quiet simply, is brilliant. Going in, I felt a connection with every character as I have seen most of these in other films I enjoy. DiCaprio, Gordon-Levitt (500 Days of Summer), Page (Juno), Murphy (Red Eye, 28 Days Later) do an outstanding job while a few others that do a respectable job. Marion Cotillard (Public Enemies) gives a superb effort and a downright "Joker" quality performance at times.

Why do I call it a masterpiece? It is a dream. Take this as a positive or negative aspect, but you will literally forget what occurred in this movie a day later similar to a dream. Not all aspects, as few scenes in the film are unlike anything seen before in all of cinema and are simply unforgettable, but the main plot of the film will become a blur. Unlike Memento, where this occurred because of time-line transportation, this happens in Inception because of the several twists and turns it makes on the viewer. Several things go through your head trying to piece together what is happening that at times the movie watching experience becomes something greater. It is something unreal and new to the brain, and it is quiet difficult to convince yourself to believe. It's an extraction/inception "how to" lesson with outstanding visuals.

The visuals are like 3D done in 2D. It sucks you into the screen and makes you believe. It takes all our inspiring filmmakers self-esteem to an all-time low. It is simply unreal. Is it CGI? It looks too real to disbelieve but too extraordinary to believe.

I understood the main plot of Inception that I knew exactly what was occurring during the film, but there were too many times where little aspects did not make much sense. Also, Inception takes thirty-forty minutes to get going. I instantly realized that the action was a major factor in Inception's greatness. Once the first major action scene started, my eyes quickly widened. The storytelling and the action are equally important in Inception.

The scope of Inception is mind-blowing. It is as epic as the Lord of the Rings trilogy but is also set in a modern-esquire environment which is quite an accomplishment. Although it didn't transport me to a new world like a few other modern films with a contemporary setting, like District 9, it gave me a new thought process on the power of dreams.

Inception is a rare case where a film is demanded to be seen more than once. It is easier to view it knowing what you have seen already and incorporating it into the storyline from the start. But unfortunately, unlike other films that offer similar questions (Mulholland Dr), I also had a "so what?" feeling leaving the theater. I did not care enough about these characters to try to answer the questions Nolan puts forth, some of them unanswerable. I felt frustrated and confused throughout most of the film because certain aspects went against what I knew was going on. I wasn't amazed at the story itself but more on the idea of it, and the shootout sequences felt forced and annoying several times. But at the end, you question if these are actually flaws, or just aspects of a realistic dream. Nolan created a flawless film with possible flaws. I know.

While not perfect, the overall package, I believe, will become iconic. Nolan has crafted something unbelievably imaginative in Inception, one that will undoubtedly become a global phenomenon in storytelling, action and debate.

As a film, you might dislike Avatar. As an experience, it's the best of the decade. Cameron had a lot to live up to as people placed Avatar alongside Titanic, Terminator 2, and Aliens years before Avatar was released. "He delivered" is a huge understatement. The film looks gorgeous. This is due to the technology, but even more to the outstanding CGI work and Cameron's direction of every scene. The suddle 3D creates a more lively world of Pandora. The creatures, the Avatars and the 2154 gadgets are highly imaginative. It is impressive how Cameron was able to humanize these tall bluish creatures and makes the viewers feel anguish as terribly sad events happen them. My legs had a mind of their own at times during Avatar's exhilarating action scenes. What absolutely blew me away however are the affectionate romance scenes between Jake and Neytiri. Neytiri is an outstanding female warrior character that will stick in the minds of many. Her heart and love for her tribe sometimes makes her uncontrollably emotional and those scenes in Avatar are particularly spectacular. What Avatar lacked in a simplistic plot was filled by passionate scenes throughout, similarities of problems seen in today's society and the depiction of those problems seen through Avatar. Avatar's innovation is equivalent to how Psycho/Star Wars/Matrix/Lord of the Rings changed cinema. Cameron not only created a revolutionary experience that should not be missed, but also created a new culture, language, customs and race. Avatar will be remembered as the film that created the experience.

Where The Wild Things Are takes the setting of the 1963 children's book and adds more story and detail to the simple tale. Although the book is well-suited for children, I believe this film is intended for teenagers and adults that loved the book at a young age. Much of the film might haunt children as I did not expect the level of tension and sadness that I received. The clever first twenty minutes are promising. It is a terrific alternative to what occurred in the book and certainly won't make any fans angry. In fact, the entire film will make fans of the book smile. This Spike Jones adaptation is true to its' source material and then some. The acting is surprisingly effective and the characters were nicely voiced. The technology, going back-and-forth between CGI and real costumes, gave the film a fantastic look but also gave it an independent-type feel. The flaws however are too big to dismiss. The events that occur throughout the movie are extremely forgettable which is sad because this is one of the most original films of the year. Once the credits started to roll, I felt much of the film was pointless in a way that not much occurred throughout the film. An under whelmed feeling. Nonetheless, I believe Spike Jones created a film that will hit the classic status years from now for its' originality, simplicity, outstanding characters, and imaginative world.

Sin Nombre is a Spanish film about gangsters, the harsh life of illegal immigrants and a tragic love story. The plot is too interesting not to include it in this review, especially considering not many people have seen Sin Nombre. Teenager Sayra locates her father after many years and they (and her uncle) decide to migrate to New Jersey. They realize it's a grueling journey but one worth taking. The other part is a thrilling gangster story filled with suspense and pain. Not giving too much away, one of the gangsters kills the leader of his gang to save Sayra. The film then turns into cat-and-mouse chase filled with suspense and emotion. I did not recognize any of the actors yet they all managed to give realistic performances, even the young gangster Smiley. The cinematography is quiet outstanding. The director captures the highs and lows of Mexico perfectly. After the first ten minutes, there is never a dull moment. This film is full of excitement but is also highly emotional at times. I also found it to be a useful character study of the complicated life of a gangster. It's depressing to see that so few people have seen one of the best movies of 2009. Sin Nombre is a film that will stay with you long after the credits start rolling.

I'm unsure as to why I'm writing this review. Not only is this movie hard to review, but no matter what anyone tells you, your mind has already made the decision of viewing or skipping "The Human Centipede". There is a huge dividing line between your decision. First, you must be a hardcore horror fanatic to sit through one of the grossest movies to ever grace the cinema. Secondly, the plot of the movie needs to interest you. A psychotic surgeon holds three humans hostage, surgically attaches them together to form a centipede. If you are still reading my review, you'll probably end up watching "The Human Centipede".

Now onto my personal opinion. This movie is a huge "MEH". There are many great aspects and many horrible aspects. While I applaud the writers for somehow creating a realistic feeling to this film's absurd plot, there are several moments where the viewer is frustrated by the low level of intelligence of these characters. The film is divided into English, German and even Japanese. Whether this is a positive aspect or not, this is where a few laughs come into "The Human Centipede". Since the surgeon is German, he is difficult to understand at times when speaking English. But luckily, the dialogue itself is unnecessary. The main gross-out factor comes not from the blood or gore, but from how the humans are attached themselves. I urge everyone to skip the trailer. The trailer is a time-line of the movie and ruins 75% of the what gives this film some interest to the viewer.

I will recommend this film to certain people simply because in an age where most horror films are disappointing, "The Human Centipede" is a fresh, unique, fast-paced disgusting thrill ride.

Nothing is as it seems in "I Love You Phillip Morris". The film loves to play tricks on the viewer and it is often hilarious. Many people will be turned off by the plot. Steven (Jim Carrey) gets into an accident and realizes his love for males shouldn't be kept a secret for anyone, including his wife, for his remaining life. Yes, it is literally what those ignorant people would call "Brokeback Mountain". It is seriously homosexual, and I'm not afraid to admit that I absolutely enjoyed it. It isn't trying to change your views and opinions. It is smart, witty and beautifully directed.

The directorial effort is wonderful. You can tell the director had several smart ideas and his experimenting clearly paid off. I cannot stress this enough; this film is beautifully shot. I have seen nearly every Jim Carrey film out there, and he has never disappointed in his acting ability. When people say he should do more serious roles, they mean it. This has to be the best Jim has acted in his career. This movie is not perfect though; sometimes it is difficult believing the occurrences throughout the movie and it can feel repetitive at times. Beside those two minor setbacks, "I Love You Phillip Morris" is one hilarious film that will have you addicted until the credits start rolling.

Running at around 85 minutes, this is the perfect rental from the director of 'Re-Animator'. Stuck has an interesting plot and an impressive film to back it up. Mena, a young NA (hey, that's my job too!) decides to get high during a party. On the ride home, she hits a bum pushing his kart. He is stuck through the window, and she panics and decides to drive home. In her garage, she notices that he is still very much alive.

The acting was a surprise considering I can't name any of these actors, who did I fine job giving a realistic feel to Stuck. The dark humor is plentiful but never feels forced, and trust me when I say this; you will look away at parts. Filmmakers of the horror genre should take note, the gore is there and it'll make you feel squeamish. It has the feel of an indie but the quality of a much larger film. This is a grade-A B-movie.

Never in a million years did I think I would enjoy this movie as much as I did. It has many different genres in mind, but they all manage to blend together to create something special.

Now fantasized, Halloween II proves that Rob Zombie never understood this franchise. Michael Myers is transformed into a psychotic but weak pansy. The aspect that made Michael so horrifying in past Halloween films was the fact that viewers hadn't a clue of what was going through Michael's head (couldn't see his face either)and the unpredictability factor he had. What does the viewer receive instead? A superman-like Michael that can magically flip over cars and for some reason sees his mom and his young self dressed in white, and horses. My prediction is Zombie loves his vivid imagery and uses this gimmick to make himself happy but leaves the audience annoyed. It's a cross between House of 1000 Corpses and his first Halloween film. I thought that, since this is a Halloween film, it should have been more claustrophobic by keeping the action in one town or area, but it goes all over the place; from a hospital to a farm. The overly-bleak and dark world (not to mention everyone says the 'F' word fifty times) makes it hard to feel any sympathy for the victims. Zombie tried to make this film somewhat emotional but failed. The main reason I dislike this movie though is the fact that Zombie did the unthinkable and actually showed Michael's face. Not only is that a huge no-no, but Michael looks like a normal person. He was a bit cute looking like Man from 'The Road'. He was huggable for god's sakes.

Now for the good. Zombie knows how to direct a horror film. The directorial effort is quiet outstanding and I applaud Zombie for his work. He knows how to create real stabbing motions and sounds that will make you feel queasy. The movie has a great beginning and ending and is cinematic throughout. Halloween II is an unmemorable disappointment for fans of the franchise but it's also an entertaining, gory and cinematic horror flick that might be worth viewing for those Zombie fans.

Law Abiding Citizen is a violent film that gets progressively worse until the credits start rolling. By half-way through the movie I was quite surprised by the polish and cinematic value I was getting from Law Abiding Citizen, but then it becomes absurd and just plain dumb. The acting is awkward. Two actors are thinking masterpiece while everyone else has cheesy B-horror on their mind. Butler, without much competition, gives his best performance, and Fox gives his usual great performance, while nearly everyone else gives the level of acting one might expect from a Saw flick. I despise the fact that there are numerous unanswered questions in Law Abiding Citizen. With all of the negatives said, I still enjoyed it. It is a fun mash-up of gory horror, action and a tiny bit of drama thrown in. Is this movie for you? If the plot interest you, then you will most-likely receive a little enjoyment out of Law Abiding Citizen. Just don't forget to turn off your brain first.

Paranormal Activity is a movie that divides audiences. Some people will love it, and some will not. I loved it. The scares felt real and everything was authentic. If this movie was released ten years ago, I can imagine many people believing that the footage was real and the events did occur. Every time a bedroom scene occurred, my heart went pumping. This movie is 30% scares and 70% backlash to what occurred in the bedroom. I also loved the acting. Sure Katie was too whiny and Micah was too "heroic", but their annoyance added to the realism. I'm glad this movie is earning what it's worth, and it's an example that anyone can make a movie and have it be a huge success. If you have an imaginative mind, you can make another Paranormal Activity-like success story. I thought this movie was superbly thrilling, a movie that I won't soon forget.

I had the pleasure of viewing the theatrical ending and the original 2007 ending. The theatrical ending felt too cinematic and totally out-of-sync with the rest of the movie, as if the first ninety minutes was independent and the last ten Hollywood put together in a weekend.

Perfection; a word that is Michael Jackson and a description of This Is It. This Is It is music documentary of the greatest show that never was. I was amazed throughout the movie because I did not realize this much footage was taken during rehearsals, and how complete they felt. This movie is, quite simply, a collection of clips taken during the many rehearsals of Jackson's final tour. Kenny Ortega did a fine of job putting it all together. He knows when to add the perfect clip and song at the perfect time to make you feel certain emotions, and you could not ask for a better ending. I was grabbed by this movie from the first five minutes. The most outstanding aspect of This Is It, however, is how it creates the feeling of attending concert front and center. Leaving the theater, I gained the knowledge of what happened backstage but also felt as I watched the full concert. If you enjoy Jackson's work, it is hard to not fall in love with This Is It. Long Live the King of Pop.

Mary and Max is a well-crafted film for adults; it deals with depression, suicide, drugs, sex, and death. The plot is basic but the film is anything but. Mary lives in Australia and Max lives in New York. Both have lonely, depressing lives, until one day they become pen pals and their lives change for better/worse. I am excessively surprised how polished this low-budget film is. The attention to detail is unparalleled, and it might be one of the most unique animated film ever created, not based on the plot, but what occurs throughout the film and the themes you'll see. You will be wowed by their relationship and dialog and may even be able to relate to them. My only complaint is that I did not feel the emotion that many others felt. The creators did a poor job of portraying the sad occurrences in the film through screen; no need for tissues. Stop-motion movies are a rare form of cinema, and it is movies like Mary and Max that prove that stop-motion is one of the premier ways to tell a story.