Zombieland may very well be the most fun you will have at the movies this year. The film's combination of action and comedy with horror elements is done in such a uniquely outrageous way that it is infectious. Anything wrong with the film? Well, yes. It is definitely a bit unfocused. Act I is a straight-up horror comedy, with plenty of outrageous physical humor. Act II almost ignores the zombies altogether and becomes a more character-driven comedy in the vain of a Judd Apatow picture. Act III is basically an action comedy. The zombies are back, yet a lot of the horror elements are still missing. It is still a lot of fun, though. Thankfully, the ending ties together all of these disparaging elements quite well, but one can't help but feel like they saw two different films sandwhiched together at times. In short, every element of this film is outstanding, yet the whole does not equal the sum of its parts. These rather glaring problems will probably hurt this rather excellent film in terms of its replay value. Having said that, I appreciate the fact that a film of this nature went the extra mile to make the characters fairly three-dimensional and sympathetic, and Woody's Harrelson's character is one of the most memorable movie characters in a while. Despite its flaws, Zombieland is a great horror-action-comedy and shouldn't be missed by anybody who isn't sensitive to depictions of...[more]...

I have not read any of the Harry Potter books. That must be made clear right away so you know my perspective on reviewing this film. I have followed the movie series, but I have not read a single book. Therefore, I cannot accurately comment on the quality of this film as an adaptation. I can only comment on my view of the film on its own terms. My favorite film in the series thus far is Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Unlike the other Potter films that came before it, Goblet's story was not focused purely on magic and fantasy, but also on the new challenges our three heroes face from the daily realities of growing up. This gave the film a heart that I felt the prior entries did not have enough of. After that point in the series came Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which, despite having the most impressive fight scene in the series to date, lost those crucial elements that made Goblet excel. In fact, Phoenix focused on the magic more than any entries in the series, and featured far less character development and humor. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is, in my opinion, the second best film in the series. It retains much of the heavy dramatic thrust that was Phoenix's strong point, but reincorporates the characters' dealing with growing up, as well as the underlying humor that comes with such agony, just as Goblet...[more]...

The Ice Age series has never been synonymous with cinematic mastery. The first entry was good, though not particularly impressive, and the second was decent, but lacked energy and contained A LOT of humor which simply fell flat. Thankfully, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs is more on par with the first entry in the series. This entry has the weakest overall storyline of the series, but makes up for it by being the most well-directed, as well as containing more raw energy and entertainment value than what came before it. The lush jungles of the dinosaurs are a welcome change of scenery from the snow and ice, and the film is more action-heavy than any of the others. Also, a new character is introduced who is quite enjoyable and oftentimes funny. He succeeds where the possums failed in Ice Age: The Meltdown. Also, the Scratt sketches continue to improve with each installment, and they are at their best here. These sketches have been the best part of the series since the beginning, and that's still true here. These scenes contain a delightful sense of creative whimsy reminiscent of the classic cartoon era. Unfortunately, the the rest of the series does not possess this level of inspiration, and, as usual, there is a lot of humor in this film that doesn't work as well. If you never liked the other Ice Age films, this isn't going to change that. If you enjoyed either of the...[more]...

2007's Transformers was a DECENT movie. It contained good action and some fun humor, but was ultimately soulless, shallow, and rather trashy. It wasn't so much an actual movie as an adolescent boy's dream, where the cars are fast and look good, and the women are faster and look even better. Megan Fox did not play a character so much as an adolescent boy's fantasy, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if feminists were somewhat offended by the portrayal of women in the film. Michael Bay also cut too fast and used too much shaky cam, making the fights disorienting and confusing. Finally, the film was overlong. There are two things improved in this sequel: the action and the humor. Bay doesn't employ too much shaky cam this time, and there is far more humor mixed into the script. It is still, however, soulless, shallow, and rather trashy. In fact, it outdoes its predecessor in such regards. Megan Fox's character serves no useful function in the script. She is simply there to look good, and the camera clearly loves lingering on her body throughout the entire film. Bay's cuts are STILL too rapid in the fight scenes. This film is even LONGER than its predecessor. At least 30 minutes of this film could have been excised entirely. The film's main problem, however, lies in the script. It's no secret that the film's script was rushed into development because of...[more]...

Will Ferrell's Land of the Lost just doesn't work. It is a bad movie, yet it certainly isn't boring, and most will find it entertaining. For this reason, I've split my score for this movie straight down the middle. The cast is oftentimes quite funny, using their comedic mastery to help wring some laughs from a script that never seemed to have any written into it, though it tries. A comedy that contains several funny scenes certainly isn't a complete failure. The problem lies with the script. Frankly, it's a disaster. Characters are never adequately developed and behave contrary to how they've been set up to on more than one occasion. The movie has a simple plot, yet it is hard to follow, as most of the film's scenes are random gags and most of the plot is sandwiched into long expository passages that simply are not compelling. The pacing is also totally off. The central plot isn't really established until halfway into the film, and it isn't addressed again until the film's final scenes. These script problems are very basic and even most brand new screenwriters would most likely avoid these obvious mistakes. How this script was green-lit is beyond me. It was most likely one of those projects that was green-lit before a script was written, and that almost never turns out well. Hollywood never learns!

Drag Me to Hell is a horror film fans of the genre having been waiting for years for. It is Sam Raimi's (of Evil Dead fame) fist return to horror since 1987's Evil Dead II. Critics and fans alike have hailed it as one of the best horror films of recent years. Don't listen to them. Now don't get me wrong, much of what people have been saying about this movie is true. Sam Raimi is still just as chaotically creative in the genre as he ever was, and it's certainly entertaining and engaging on a carnival attraction thriller level, and should certainly be seen with a large group, which will likely have a lot of fun with the film. So why is my rating so low? There are three primary reasons. First is the approach Raimi took to this. It is not the unrelenting experience in grueling terror that the first Evil Dead was, but it isn't blatantly comedic like its sequel either. Raimi decided to go for a balance between the first two Evil Dead films. In my opinion, this makes the film neither scary enough nor funny enough. The second problem lies in the plot. I am a fan of some very over-the-top, implausible horror films, but Drag Me to Hell makes The Evil Dead look like a documentary in comparison. The plot to this film is SO ridiculous that the film is robbed of much of its fear...[more]...

Let's get this out of the way. No Terminator film after Terminator 2 is going to come anywhere close to measuring up to the first two, unless James Cameron is involved. He was not involved with Terminator: Salvation, so let that set your expectations realistically first. The only other Terminator film Salvation can realistically be compared to is Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, and I am happy to say that Salvation is definitely superior to it. While T3 did have Arnold, and may be more entertaining overall, it simply felt too much like a poor man's retread of Terminator 2. It's action sequences are similar, and it even contains the humor of the second. Sadly, the latter film overdid the humor to the point where it felt like the series had come to parodying itself. In brief, Terminator 3, while entertaining, showed little respect to the prior entries in the series, and the tone of the film was simply too light and "safe" when compared to the other two (WAY too many daytime scenes). Salvation, in terms of tone, mood, and humor, is more akin to the original Terminator than either of it's sequels. This film is a dark, intense, action thriller that takes itself very seriously and is almost humorless. Thankfully, this is the first entry in the series to stray from the "send two individuals back to the past" formula that had grown tired by the third film, and is in fact the...[more]...

Star Trek

**** out of ***** (8/10)

I have to admit, when it was first announced that the original series was going to be rebooted with new actors, I was skeptical to say the least. Well, I am happy to report that this movie annihilated my skepticism. Star Trek works on almost every level. The script is solid, it is well-directed, and, most significantly, it is well cast. The actors here do an excellent job of reinterpreting these iconic characters while still staying true to the essence of who they are. Chris Pine is excellent as Kirk, but particularly successful are Zachary Quinto as Spock, Karl Urban as McCoy, and Simon Pegg as Scotty. The film keeps a delicate balance between being new and original, while still honoring the original series it came from. With the group I saw it with, which ranged in age from 13 to 78 (I believe), all enjoyed the movie, which means the film is cross-demographical to a rare extent. My only real complaints are that the film is too fast-paced and the lead villain is not well-developed. Also, the film mostly lacks the big ideas and concepts that Star Trek is known for. However, this is still an excellent film and comes highly recommended.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a decent, entertaining movie experience, but could have been so much more. It tells a rather compelling story, but the primary problem is the film's length. It condenses a rather large, epic story into a mere 107 minutes, causing the scenes to often feel rushed and underdeveloped, so the supposedly emotional moments never resonate like they should. The film needed at least an additional 20 minutes to flesh out the story and characters to a satisfactory degree. The other main problem lies in the film's second act, where the story to seems to meander around aimlessly for a bit, containing several frivolous action sequences to fill in the gaps. Fortunately, the film seems to find its footing again in the third act and arrives at a satisfactory, albeit predictable conclusion (a problem inherent in prequels). The film is partially saved from these major, however, by the cast. Almost every casting decision made for this movie is close to perfect, and the acting is far above par for a script of this caliber. Hugh Jackman is still a great Wolverine, and he still shines here. I recommend this film to fans of Wolverine, Hugh Jackman, or the X-Men film franchise. Others should probably wait for the rental.

This is not a good time to be a sci-fi fan. It seems that the comic book movie has replaced science fiction as the go-to Hollywood blockbuster. It doesn't help that the most recent studio sci-fi offerings have been very sub-par. First with last December's The Day the Earth Stood Still remake, and now with an Alex Proyas dud called Knowing. It has been advertised as an action packed sci-fi disaster thriller. It is nothing of the sort. It is really what I would call "religious science-fiction", a genre not known for its consistency because it is hard to do right. Knowing has a lot of good ideas, but they simply seem to have been thrown into the movie haphazardly, and never form a cohesive narrative throughline. The message is muddled, the pacing is inconsistent, and the attempts at human drama fall flat. The one thing helping give this movie a mediocre rating instead of a bad one is the fact that it was directed by sci-fi maestro Alex Proyas. Despite the poorly written script, Proyas is still a great director, and manages to create a film that is often tense and visually involving. Unfortunately, it's still not enough to save the film. If your a fan of science fiction and religious thrillers, then rent the DVD. Otherwise, stay away.

This is a hard film to review because it works, yet it doesn't. This is far smarter than your average comedy, and definitely does, in a subversive manner, get you to think about things after it's over. However, the pacing and tone of the film fluctuates wildly throughout, and the story is unfocused. The film also seems to communicate a very negative message. The basic message is that everyone is cruel and out to get you, so to succeed in life you must become self-focused and look out solely for number one. However, even that doesn't work right because other aspects of the story and characters contradict that message. In other words, though most the film's individual scenes are very strong, they don't come together to form a strong, cohesive whole. The film is partially redeemed, however, by what may be Seth Rogen's best performance. His performance here is simply excellent. Sadly, it is not really enough to redeem the jumbled mess that is this movie. I recommend it to lovers of dark comedy and Seth Rogen only.

I really don't have a lot to say about this one. As a remake it is definitely superior to the very mediocre original. The movie is effective and intense, but, simply, much of what was in the film was unnecessary and the cameraman seemed like some sort of pervert in certain shots. I understood the film's desire to satisfy gore hounds, but this particular story just didn't require it at all. There is also one scene at the very end of the film that was completely tacked on, and was trashy, unrealistic, and unnecessary. These things are unfortunate, because this remake is actually one of the more engaging, well-made Hollywood horror films to come along in some time, but the unnecessary level of gore, coupled with a cameraman who seemed to like to linger on certain parts of teenage girls, greatly mars the experience.

Slumdog Millionaire is a masterwork of filmmaking craft. It is an integrated mix of arthouse drama and uplifting, inspirational Hollywood tale set in a completely new and original setting (for most Americans). Virtually everything about this film works, from sound and video editing, to directing, to the script, to music, to acting. The movie tells a wonderful, utterly compelling story and you are guaranteed to leave the theater with a smile on your face, without later feeling like you've been manipulated, as is the case with many Hollywood films. This is a film I would recommend to anyone. My only real complaint is that this film takes place in a world completely foreign to most Americans, and much of the story is deeply rooted in Indian culture, yet the filmmakers make very few attempts to explain these cultural elements of the story to us, sometimes forcing us to play catch up. There are only a few instances where this is a problem, however, and hardly detracts from the film at all. See this movie as soon as you can!

What a wasted opportunity! In doing a reboot of this franchise, they finally had a chance to make a real movie with actual characters, and, most importantly of all, actually make it scary! Unfortunately, there is very little new here to offer, and it is, for the most part, nothing that hasn't been done countless times before. Having said that, it's definitely one of the best looking films in its genre, and it is mildly entertaining. It does what slashers are supposed to do, and, for the most part, does it right, but anyone actually looking for a legitimately good film will be disappointed. This is Marcus Nispel's second horror remake. He also did the reboot for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in 2003. That earlier film was an effective remake that made for a genuinely frightening film, but the terrible screenplay lets Nispel down this time (to be fair, Chainsaw's screenplay wasn't exactly good either, but it was at least serviceable, and was also elevated by performances from Jessica Biel and R. Lee Ermey). If you're a big fan of this horror franchise, see it. If you're not, don't bother.

This is one of the best performances of Clint Eastwood's career! He somehow manages to be an over-the-top character, and be subtle, nuanced, and believable at the same time. Eastwood is also well supported by strong performances by most of the rest of the cast. The script is rich with deep characters and complex relationships. Having said that, the film does have some pacing problems, and there are MANY scenes that could have been excised. Even these scenes are mostly interesting, however. In short, in the midst of all the lackluster films that come out in January, here is a film actually worth your time and money. Don't miss it!

This film's script is quite messy, and, for some reason, makes an incredibly simple story somewhat hard to follow by insisting on not giving the audience hardly ANY plot information until near the end of the film. Since we are not aware of our protagonist's motives for most of the film, we are not nearly as invested in the character as we should be. The ending to the film is quite powerful, however, and the entire second half is quite effective at eliciting an emotional response from its audience. The film's primary saving grace comes from its two leads. Will Smith and Rosario Dawson have great chemistry together and their performances are both excellent. In short, I highly recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of Will Smith (as I admittedly am). If you are not a fan, then Seven Pounds should make for a good rental.

This a powerful, superb film, and definitely one of the best of the year! The main attractions for this film are the incredible script and the pitch perfect acting performances. The script, written as a play and adapted to the screen by John Patrick Shanley, is beautifully layered and compelling, and draws rich characters with plenty of dialogue to keep its audience thinking long after the end credits roll. This film has received four different acting nominations at the Golden Globes, and all four deserve to win (although it's impossible, since Amy Adams and Viola Davis are competing in the same category)! Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep are particularly perfect in their respective rolls. These two are quite possibly the two greatest actors working today! Amy Adams accomplishes the impressive feet of giving a performance almost the equal of these two greats. I already knew she was a good actress, but not THAT good! Viola Davis was also nominated for her role in a single, yet powerful scene, and she is also outstanding in her role. This movie touches on deep, universal themes of doubt versus certainty. Of religious liberalism versus conservative egalitarianism. My only real complaint is that the film, adapted from a play, comes across to much as such in this film. In other words, the director, John Patrick Shanley (again), does not succeed at taking full advantage of the unique medium through which he is telling his story. This is honestly just a minor quibble,...[more]...

Valkyrie is a difficult film to review. It based on a truly riveting and truly heroic story, and that story is well-conveyed here. Most of the acting performances are also high quality (INCLUDING Tom Cruise!). Bryan Singer once again reminds us of why he's one of the best mainstream directors working in Hollywood today. Unfortunately, the film spends too much time on plot, and not enough on characterization, so we never come to care about the characters as much as we should. Most criminally, however, is how rushed this film seemed to be. It seems as if it were released before it was even finished. The editing, performed by famed composer John Ottman, of all people, is very haphazard, and oftentimes just plain random. What's truly shocking, however, is the fact that the boom mic can actually be SEEN in several shots! I have never before seen this in even the most amateurish independent films. There is simply no excuse for this in a professional Hollywood production. There is even a shot where the video information can be seen at the top of the screen! I don't know how this happened, though I plan to look into it. It is as if MGM forced the film into theaters before it was ready. If you can get past this EXTREME unprofessionalism, there is a good, though flawed, film here. The advertisements are an accurate representation as to what to expect from this film, so if it looked...[more]...

I wish I could score this movie a 9 or 10. The film is a visual masterpiece and Brad Pitt delivers one of the greatest performances I have ever seen! The makeup is also beyond great. This is a very emotionally powerful film, and it comes highly recommended for lovers of art. However, I arrived at my ultimate score due to the fact that the narrative aspect of the film is quite flawed. Simply put, at 159 minutes, the film is simply too long. Twenty minutes (probably even thirty) could easily have been left on the cutting room floor. This would have greatly helped the film with some of its sluggish pacing, as well as alleviate some structural confusion. Sadly, the overlong running time greatly hinders the film and prevents it from being hailed as a masterpiece. Still, films like this don't come from studios very often, and is not to be missed!

Does Yes Man mark the grand return of Jim Carrey as the king of cinematic comedy? No, but, overall, it's still a good movie. The premise is interesting, and it allows for some truly funny moments. Unfortunately, I can't really say there are more than one or two truly hilarious moments, and a lot of the jokes that are set up are not payed off to their fullest potential (the Harry Potter party is probably the best example of this). Still, if you're a fan of Jim Carrey, and looking for an entertaining and often funny movie, than Yes Man is certainly worth seeing.