Avatar (2009) ***1/2

James Cameron returns twelve years after drowning Leo and encouraging teenage girl to go to the movies over and over and over again with his latest project, returning to the sci-fi realm that he ruled with such talent before he sunk his ship.

Avatar stars Sam Worthington as Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-Marine who replaces his dead twin brother in a project on the far away planet of Pandora. The planet holds a mineral called unobtainium (snicker if you like) and an indigenous species called the Na'vi, a blue skinned, humanoid like creature that lives in harmony with the planet. Jake's mission is to control an avatar that was created for his brother. An avatar is a biologically bred Na'vi that is controlled by the mind of it's driver, which in this case is Jake. His mission, being led by Dr. Augustine (Sygourney Weaver), is to examine life on the planet and come up with a compromise between the Na'vi and their human visitors. Jake inadvertently stumbles into Na'vi life and customs, greatly pleasing his military and science superiors. The problem is that Jake, who feels what it's like to walk, fly, and love for the first time in a long time, begins to understand the Na'vi attachment to their planets nature.

Of course, when you look right at Avatar you can see the metaphors. Environmental destruction. The elimination and relocation of natives. Military maneuvers to achieve natural resources. Cameron juggles these without being too preachy. I'm not saying it doesn't come off preachy, but it's not as much of a sermon as you may thing. The sad part is that some of the messages in the film tend to bog it down a bit, causing a "we have to get this in" attitude even at the cost of the story. From a screen writing point of view this is not Cameron's best work. The film tends to drag itself down a bit as it plays out. It starts out great, gets a middle that slows to a crawl, and then picks up during the last thirty minutes. It's the middle that gets you.

The acting is great, considering most of the characters are digitally rendered. This leads into the effects. The special effects of Avatar are state of the art and reveal some breathtaking shots of Pandora and the Na'vi. This is probably the first film I've seen where I forget a being is just a bunch of 0's and 1's. Cameron has created a triumph of digital effects and 3D that will benefit the next decade of film making to a degree. The action sequences are first rate, as they always are in a James Cameron film.

So what is the verdict on Avatar? Is it a revolutionary film that will dictate how movies are made or is it Cameron's folly? No, I don't think it will be as successful as Titanic due to its running time and dull middle, but it is a film that steps ahead of the curve a little bit and gives us a glimpse of things to come. There's been a lot of comparisons between Avatar and Star Wars and how each film defined how movies were seen and made during their respective eras. Both films held great technical achievements with Star Wars being the standard bearer for decades after its release, but there is a defining difference between the two films. Star Wars had a very approachable story that pulled from various sources through centuries of myth and story telling to create a story that was easily approachable for kids and adults alike. You were glued to the screen as the events played out like never before. With Avatar, the story is hard to get to, especially if your mentality tends to lean one way or another. The story grabs you in the beginning, but fails to hold you in its grasp for the entire picture. The effects are center stage, and they should be praised for that, but the story tends to push you away a bit. You could also compare Avatar to Toy Story in that each film represented what was to come before it, but the story is what made a good effects film great.

Now don't get me wrong, Avatar is a good movie that deserves some praise, because when it picks up it is a very entertaining action piece and will mesmerize during the first quarter of the film and subsequent points throughout. It just tends to allow itself to slow down too much for a film of this genre. Avatar isn't James Cameron's finest work, but it's still good to have him back.

The Departed (2006) *****

Now you have to face facts at some point: Martin Scorsese is at his best when he's doing a gangster picture. We can go back to Mean Streets, through to minimal gangland influences in Raging Bull, jump forward a decade to the great Good Fellas, past Casino, and finally arrive at The Departed. It's funny looking at that list because it almost seems like not having DeNiro in his movie was why he won an Oscar.

The Departed takes place in Boston, a town that has been on the edge for two hundred years and probably will be for two hundred more. It opens with a flashback of crime boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) working a grocery store and meeting a young Colin Sullivan (played later by Matt Damon). This is where Frank becomes the young Sullivan's mentor, molding him into the perfect tool for a notorious crime boss- a mole inside the police department task force investigating Costello.

Meanwhile, Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) has just graduated the police academy, attempting to shed the demons of his families past. Due to this past he's asked if he will become and informant working undercover in Costello's crew. Yes, each side has a rat planted in their pantry. Instead of a plot about committing crimes and stopping them, The Departed is actually a film about being a rat, while trying to find a rat and hoping no one busts your ass doing it.

Based on the Japanese film Infernal Affairs, Scorsese delivers another rich gangster film that doesn't follow the parameters that he himself helped set in his own crime drama film making through the years. Damon and DiCaprio don Boston accents and grow out of the babyface personas they were pigeonholed into. This is a great performance for each of them. Nicholson is Nicholson, crazy as hell and finally jumping from the romantic comedy market into his specialty- crazy son of a bitch market. Of course you have Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, and Mark Wahlberg filling out a great cast, but the one guy that gets left out when discussing this film is Ray Winstone as Mr. French. This right hand man of Costello is played with such brutality and intensity by Winston that he should have been nominated for a supporting Oscar over Wahlberg.

Now this is a Martin Scorsese picture, so it's going to be good and won the Oscar for best picture. But is it better than Taxi Driver? Is it better than Raging Bull? Is it better than Goodfellas? Each of those films were screwed at the Oscars and The Departed seems to be payback for picking the popular schlock of the era of these masterpieces (take a look at what they lost to). The Departed is a great film, but will it be a member of that holy trinity of Marty films? It might, but it will be the younger cousin to those great masterpieces.

Now don't get me wrong, it's a great movie. Just don't go into it thinking it's his best, because it's not. But Scorsese at his worst is 10x better than most director's best.

District 9 (2009) ****

Refugees on boats are replaced with refugees in a mothership that ends up hovering above Johannesburg, which we all know is the beacon of equality. District 9 is the area that the refugee aliens known as "prawns", are ushered into after a split second of humanity ends up being a police state. Of course, that old George Carlin bit about NIMBY (not in my back yard) takes hold with the demand for their removal pressures a private corporation into evicting the aliens from their shacks in District 9 to their new tents in District 10. These aliens are social outcasts because they don't know earthbound norms and look like a 6 foot cross between a crawfish and a grass hopper. Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) heads the eviction process, which spirals out of control when he is infected by an alien liquid, putting him on the other side of the fence.

This is a rare item today. A movie with amazing visuals, effects, AND a good story. The film is basically a documentary that book ends 72+ hours of Wikus' life. Obviously, there are parallels between District 9 and apartheid, posing as a history lesson into what was policy in South Africa twenty years ago. It's hard to get an alien to show emotion and even harder to get a digital alien to show emotion. District 9 achieves this with it's main alien being a single parent trying to get his child out of the hell that is District 9. As the movie progresses, his reasoning changes for wanting to leave this planet and return to wherever home may be. It's a nicely written film that is full of action and doesn't disappoint the viewer. Sure it has a message, but it's able to make that pill go down smoother and not be as preachy as other films.

Seeing how the film plays out and some major plot points that come up, there will be a sequel to District 9. It's inevitable and will also be an interesting picture as the prawn population grows and the human races begins to make payments on the sins they have committed.

Julie and Julia (2009) **1/2

Every once in awhile someone gets what they think is a great idea which usually isn't the beacon of greatness they think it should be. With Julie and Julia someone came up with the idea of taking two books, Julie and Julia and Julia Child's autobiography, and make a sort of hybrid film out of the two. What you get is a film where half of it is very good and the other half is blah, dragging the whole movie down the drain.

Since this review almost reads like the typical good news and bad news cliche, I'll start with the bad news. Julie Powell (Amy Adams) is sick of her life and apparently needs a task, so she decides to cook her way through the Julia Child cookbook and blogging about it. So what we get is to watch someone who actually made money and a career from writing a quirky blog, whereas the other billion schmucks out there ripping on chick flicks and pre-teen pop culture (ahem) are broke. That's that side of the film. Dull, sad, and tedious.

Now for the good news. The scenes that flashback to Julia Child's introduction to cooking are great. Meryl Streep pulls off the hyperactive Child while Stanley Tucci is much more interesting than Julie Powell's narcoleptic husband. These sequences of the film are great and were very enjoyable to watch, which leads to the problem with this film. By the midway point you really don't give a rat's ass about Julie Powell's blog or any of that crap. Whenever we cut to her cooking and pissing and moaning, you're wanting more Streep as Julia. That fact is the huge crack in this film.

The sad part is I have no idea why they did it this way. Obviously Julie Powell got some kind of big movie check for her blog this is the result. What could have been a great bio-pic about Julia Child dorwns in the whole blog story. It would have been preferable to bookend Julia's story with Powell's, instead of interweaving them together because the only link between the two is on the surface. If there was some link (or the pair of title characters actually meeting each other at some point) the film would have worked better. Instead of a very good film starring Streep and Tucci we get a to and fro mess.

Heartbeeps (1981) 1/2

Heartbeeps is the story of two robots (Andy Kaufman and Bernadette Peters) that meet in a factory, fall in love, and build a baby. Oh, and they're being chased by a poor man's Robocop. Now you can guess how great a movie it is by this point. Many of you have probably never heard of this one, even if it does have the legendary Dick Miller in a cameo as a security guard or an early appearance by serial hotel stiffer Randy Quaid.

Now for the skivvy. This movie sucks. And I don't mean boring, horrible acting, dialogue, and all that stuff. I mean that it sucks like getting in a nail gun accident or being Tiger Woods. The only good thing about this movie is its running time (79 minutes) meaning that you only cringe for a little over an hour. The wonderful dialogue about circuits and power packs will bore you to tears and a plot where they take a walk through the woods then walk back is as eventful as waiting in line for the portapotty at a music festival, which also has one other thing in common in that they are both full of shit. This movie should be avoided at all costs. If you see it in a video store it must be destroyed. Fire works best, although I have seen garbage disposals work just as well.

Kill Bill, Vol. 2 (2004) *****

Quentin Tarantino's second volume to his epic Kill Bill saga follows a more cerebral story than the first film. The action is scaled back to make room for a movie that Sergio Leone would love. It's a film filled with close ups, deranged dialogue, and a great sense of itself. It's hard to believe that at one time both these films were going to be one long movie. Volume 2 is so much different than it's predecessor that you have to wonder if both films as a whole would have been as great as they were separate.

After killing half of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, The Bride (Uma Thurman) prepares to murder and maim through the rest of her former co-workers and finally face the man that put a cap in her crown, Bill (David Carradine). That's the basic storyline- it's still a revenge tale that sweeps us across the country on a mission from hell. Whereas Volume One owes its soul to kung fu movies, Volume Two was born at the breast of the spaghetti western, where there were no consequences, just vast verandas to be filled with the carnage of the day. Tarantino knows the art of Leone and paints the first half of the film with images that Sergio and John Ford would be proud off. The desert is a dark and sinister place at night. Add to it the recklessness of Bill's brother Budd (Michael Madsen) and The Bride's arch nemesis Elle (Daryl Hannah) and you get what amounts to a Mexican stand off in the desert. No one trusts each other and they shouldn't- they're killers.

Once again Tarantino proves that he is a great artist who uses dialogue as his medium, particularly during the confrontation where Bill compares the Bride to Superman. No matter how much she tries to disguise herself as the pregnant wife of a record store owner she will always be a killer- she'll always be Bill's killer. It's dialogue like this that makes a scene that is typical Hollywood fluff and makes it cool. That's the thing about Tarantino- he makes well worn cliches cool.

Of course, the $64,000 question is which volume is better. It's really all a matter of preference. If you grew up with kung fu movies and their ilk you will enjoy the first volume. If spaghetti westerns are your game then you will prefer volume 2. I prefer the second volume, mainly because it slows itself down almost to a crawl, but you don't notice it. It's more cerebral than the constant hack and slash of the first movie and delivers an ending that may seem "wimperish", but is more grandiose than most. Kill Bill, Volume 2 is a great and enjoyable ride.

Santa's Slay (2005) 1/2

Starring Bill Goldberg. That says it all. That tells you how utterly shitty this film is and the pain it is to watch it. Goldberg's a killer Santa. I'm not even going to go even deeper into it beyond that fact. This guy was a failure as a wrestler, so you know an Oscar isn't in his future. This film is 78 minutes long (thank god) and you have to wonder which Arab prince threw money away on such a piece of garbage. It was nice to see The Nanny getting her head burned off, but why James Caan, why?

Yes, this is the kind of movie that you scrape off your shoe after stepping on it in the front lawn. It belongs in a poopy bag at the park to be thrown away shortly after falling out of a dogs ass.

Inglourious Basterds (2009) *****

I must admit before I get started- I wasn't the biggest fan of Inglourious Basterds the first time I saw it. It was still a very good movie, but I felt that some of the dialogue went much too long even for a Tarantino movie. I was disappointed as hell. So I revisited the movie a few days later and found that on a second viewing the dialogue flows a lot better than in my original viewing. So let this be a lesson to you- watch it twice, especially if war films are not your forte.

Inglourious Basterds is a World War II saga about a group of Jewish Allied Soldiers that act as an assassination squad, killing and scalping every German they come in contact with, owing Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) one hundred Nazi scalps. The film centers on their exploits to eliminate the entire German high command and end the war once and for all.

Now before you go into this film thinking it's Saving Private Ryan or The Longest Day, please remember that this isn't an action filled movie. There's a ton of dialogue that makes this film more of an espionage flick than an action one. But Tarantino is so good at crafting this film that you don't notice as the Basterds develop a plan for the ultimate execution.

The film owes a lot to the classic World War II films that preceded it, mainly the Dirty Dozen, Kelly's Heroes, Where Eagles Dare, and the original Inglorious Bastards. These films take the stance of a group of outcasts leading the way to winning the war against unthinkable odds. Tarantino draws on the basic storyline of these films and updates them in his own unique way of telling a story. Just as he did with the Kill Bill films, he merges several genres and eras of film making into one movie and it works yet again.

Quentin Tarrantino is the world's biggest film student. He's absorbed every film he's ever seen and uses them whenever he writes or directs a film, giving us a history lesson in the cinema of the 1960's and '70's. Just as with his other films, Inglourious Basterds is another unique film that doesn't redefine a genre because it doesn't belong to any one genre. With Tarantino, every film is a unique experience that you're not going to get anywhere else.

Terminator Salvation (2009) ***1/2

So what do we call Terminator Salvation? A sequel? A prequel? It's hard to define and even harder to explain the in's and out's of the Terminator franchise to an someone coming into it cold. What this film does is follow the war between the machines and the Resistance, a small group of survivors trying to destroy that evil programming called Skynet. (insert Vista joke here)

The film basically follows the exploits of John Connor (Christian Bale), who is considered a prophet by the Resistance because he can see the future. No, actually he has the tapes his mother started recording in the first film. It does beg the question- How did he find a functioning tape deck in the post-Apocalyptic world? Why couldn't he put them on his iPod? There's plenty of room between the Guns N' Roses tunes.

John Connor isn't the main character in this fourth installment. Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) awakens from a coma during one of the battles and enters this new world that he doesn't know. He literally stumbles into Connor and Connor's father (who is only a teenager at this point) Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin). Remember that Reese copulates way back in 1984.

This is basically a futuristic war film with effects that mesmerize beyond belief. Sadly, there isn't much of a story to go along with it. That's the problem with the film- if you haven't followed the original films you will be confused, wondering what the hell is going on as the film plays out. Worthington is the highlight of the film, playing a man lost in the brave new world to which he has awaken. Bale seems underused in the film and has adopted his gruff Batman voice that people freaked about last summer for this film as well.

This film seems to be opening another trilogy of Terminator films and even though it outshines the third film, Terminator Salvation fails to achieve the greatness of James Cameron's original films. This film is full of great action, but fails to deliver much of a story behind it. Not the best of the franchise, but it still delivers a nice ride.

The Shootist (1976) ****

The Shootist represents John Wayne's swan song, the final film where the legend that is John Wayne appeared on the screen. The film follows the final days of J.B. Books (Wayne). Dying of cancer, he visits an old doctor friend (Jimmy Stewart) who informs the old gunslinger that he doesn't have much time left. Books takes up lodgings with a Mrs. Rogers (Lauren Bacall) and her son Gillom (Ron Howard). When the area finds out that Books is in town and dying it seems that everyone wants a piece of him, coming out of the woodwork with money making schemes as this shootist prepares for one final battle.

Directed by Don Siegel (Dirty Harry) The Shootist is Wayne's best acting since The Searchers almost twenty years earlier. Instead of the invincible cowboy he plays a man at the end, preparing for what may lay beyond this world. The legend is still there, but he's a little humbler. Just looking at the rest of the cast, you know the films going to be good, though it does suffer from an almost Made For TV feel.

John Wayne survived almost three years beyond the release of The Shootist. He never made another film. Having this film as a bookend to a career that was simply legendary was a great capstone. He was THE premiere MAN for over thirty years and brought his persona to his films in a way that has never been repeated except by Clint Eastwood. John Wayne was a man and a character that grew beyond the confines of the silver screen and into American culture.

Barry Lyndon (1975) ****

Barry Lyndon allows us to travel back to the Old World and visit an era where a man can go from being an Irish farm boy to European aristocracy based on pure bullshit. There's no claim or heredity. Just bullshit from the title characters stand point.

The film stars Ryan O'Neal as Redmond Barry, who falls in love with his cousin, but she finds him to be but a boy and shuns him for an older British officer. This situation sets off a chain of events that leads Redmond into fighting for two armies and eventually becoming British nobility under the name Barry Lyndon after marrying the Lady Lyndon (the beautiful Marisa Berenson). Barry becomes the typical 18th century nobleman by pissing away his wife's money and whore mongering, leading to a slow and painful downfall.

Directed by Stanley Kubrick, Barry Lyndon is yet another technological achievement for the legendary director. Now before you ask what in the hell I'm talking about and assume I've gone crazy since this is a film set in the 18th century let me explain. The film was shot with specially designed cameras so that natural light can be used instead of the arc lamps typical in Hollywood productions. What does this achieve? Kubrick gets a look that feels primitive because it's bathed in natural light. There's a sense of going back to the old days where there was no electricity or running water.

The film does get dull from time to time and Ryan O'Neal isn't great as Lyndon. What the film is really good at is expressing Kubrick's inspiration- paintings of the era. The film is shot like multiple paintings, beautifully detailed and lit. For this, the film is a work of genius, even though the story is a bit blah. This is one of Kubrick's forgotten films, sandwiched between A Clockwork Orange and The Shining. It's an OK period piece that is polished up with the Stanley Kubrick magic.

The Hunter (1980) **

There are only three reasons I gave the Hunter two stars. First, it was Steve McQueen's last film and he is very good in it. Second, Eli Wallach is in it and Eli makes any movie better (except The Holiday). Lastly, Steve McQueen drives a Trans-Am.

Other than those three things this film is horrible. Directing, writing, acting. It all sucks except those three things. McQueen is a bounty hunter that can apparently go around driving into things, blowing stuff up, and causing mayhem. And he's not even a cop. Where the hell do I sign up? I want to blow up a chemistry classroom, too. Levar Burton shows up- he's wanted for selling old books without covers as a side line to Reading Rainbow.

Enough of that crap, let's talk about McQueen and the T/A. Sadly, a plot to the story is that his character is a bad driver, but the sad part is that McQueen drives a Trans-Am badly better than most people drive normally. Of course it gets blown to hell, but it's a good ten minutes.

Seriously, I can only recommend this for McQueen. It's sad that the guy in the movie that's actually dying is the only actor in the movie that isn't dying on screen. McQueen, Wallach, and Trans-Am are awesome. The rest of this is shit.

Observe And Report (2009) *1/2

2009 will be remembered as the year of the rent-a-cop with this film and the horrible Paul Blart gracing our screens throughout the country. Both films are basically the same story of a guy that takes his job way to seriously and both fail to be anything close to funny.

Seth Rogen stars as Ronnie, the head security guard at a local mall who goes on the offensive when a flasher goes to work around his mall, prompting him to go into overdrive. He has a crush on the mall slut (Anna Farris) and the detective in charge of the case (Ray Liotta). He makes an ass of himself throughout the film- you know that already.

The funny thing about Observe and Report is the way it harkens back to Scorsese's masterpiece Taxi Driver. A loner that's psychologically unbalanced takes it upon himself to purge society of it's ills- his society being the local mall. Sadly, this isn't Taxi Driver. This isn't even the last season of Taxi. It pushes the dark envelope, it just doesn't do anything with it and when the movie tries to be funny, it fails because we know that our hero is just a sick, twisted bastard.

That's the feeling you get when you finish the film. Sadness. This guy's not funny, he's just coo-koo. Not a funny nutty, just sad. Sure, he screams profanities left and right, but it just doesn't work in the end. Please, no more mall cop movies. Please. Stop.

Firefox (1982) *

The 1980's were not great to Clint Eastwood. For every good movie he did during the decade, there was another that was borderline horrible. You know their names: Pink Cadillac. City Heat. White Hunter, Black Heart. Holding a special place in this list of Eastwood flops from the Reagan era is Firefox, a film that's dull as hell and is the worst miscasting of Clint Eastwood's career.

The film is about a mission to steal a new Russian jet called Firefox, which is able to achieve obscene speeds and runs just by the pilot thinking. That means you have to get a pilot to sneak into to Russia that is the same build, great at flying, and can speak Russian. That narrows he list down to Mitchell Gant (Clint Eastwood), a former pilot in Vietnam living with shell shock (if you don't know what that is, please look up the George Carlin bit) that fits the criteria perfectly. It's up to Gant and the Moscow underground to get him to the plane so that he can steal it for the USA.

The first thing I noticed watching this film is the number of people willing to die so that Eastwood can steal this plane. It's not like it's the atomic bomb or you're going to stop mass genocide- it's a damn plane. We'll have the Japanese build one that's smaller, faster, and better. Don't sacrifice yourself.

Basically, the entire movie is a cat and mouse game. The KGB are going to get him and....................oh, Eastwood escapes yet again. That's the movie. Over and over again. What should have been a MacGuffin plot in a James Bond film is now a full blown movie with Clint Eastwood as the super spy. But he isn't. It's Clint Eastwood. He isn't sneaky and able to slip through the cracks. Let's imagine Dirty Harry trying to be sneaky. Doesn't work, does it? Eastwood's legend is the guy that roars in, guns blazing with witty remarks against his dumbfounded superiors. Firefox doesn't do that and shows Eastwood in the uncomfortable state of an unstable spy behind the Iron Curtain. It's a failure for the legend.

Sadly, he also directed this film too and with the special effects sequences at the end and the espionage plot throughout he fails to keep our interest. We're just bored as hell and when the big finish starts we're treating to some of the worst special effects seen in the 1980's. You have to remember that this film came out the same year as E.T. and was sandwiched between two Star Wars films and the other effects heavy films of the early '80's. Firefox's effects are laughable.

This film is for Eastwood completists only! It's an artifact. It's a legend stretching himself too much into a role that in no way suits him. This film is a complete disaster. A true plane crash. (Hardy-har-har)

Lolita (1962) *****

Lolita provided a watershed for Stanley Kubrick's career. Sure, he made Spartacus and Paths of Glory before 1962, but Lolita proved one thing to the world: that Kubrick had the balls to do whatever film he wanted to do. This film made him that untouchable, mad genius that everyone believes he was, but it really proves that he can make a great movie no matter the subject matter or the constraints put against him.

Lolita is based on the 1955 novel by Vladimir Nabokov about Professor Humbert Humbert (James Mason) and the lodgings he has taken in the town for his new position. He is a boarder in the home of Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters), a widow who seems to be hopelessly in love with any man that breathes and knows about her existence. Also living in the house is Charlottes teenage daughter Lolita (Sue Lyon). Humbert becomes obsessed with this "nymphet" and goes out of his way to be near her, even marrying her mother for the chance to show her affection. A relationship develops that's hot and cold between the two and is also strained by the presence of another "beau", Quilty (Peter Sellers).

James Mason scores as Humbert, pocessing the European demeanor of the character while being able to transmit the lust, the longing, and the conniving throughout the film. This was a ballsy move for Mason and it pays of in his performance. Sue Lyon is also excellent as Lolita, playing a girl that's a bit younger than her actual age. You can tell that she's grown way beyond her years and has more experience than her mother and even Humbert. Peter Sellers pulls out his thousand faces and voices routine throughout the film and delivers a nice performance, though it is brief. Honestly, the real standout is Shelley Winters. Sure, she's Lolita's mother, but it almost seems like there's a competition between the two. It's like a sort of jealousy that Charlotte holds against her daughter because of her relationship with boys and even men that mother just doesn't seem to get. So she's mean to her. Winters expresses all of the e,motions at the same time and can turn them on and off at will. She's briefly in the film, but she makes an impression.

Kubrick continues to hone his craft into his classic period which would start with his next film, Dr. Strangelove. The opening scenes in the mansion are shot masterfully with Kubrick making you uneasy just being in the place without using cob webs and coffins lying around. You know something's going to happen, you just don't know what it is. The film feels like a comedy/thriller. Sure, the hilarity is right there for all to see, but you have the thrill of Humbert getting caught in his games throughout the film that actually keeps you on the edge of your seat. Nabokov gets the writing credit, but the film is built by Kubrick.

As I said in the beginning, Lolita was a turning point in Stanley Kubrick's directorial career. For many, it was his first true film and set up that golden age of Kubrick films that ran from Lolita through A Clockwork Orange. It's a masterpiece of playing by the rules while breaking them all at the same time.

Bullitt (1968) *****

The world wasn't quite sure about Steve McQueen before Bullitt. Sure, he was famous, a great actor and all that. But his best work was ensemble pictures (The Great Escape, The Magnificent Seven). Could he really carry a film on his own. There were a few good movies. Bullitt is the great movie that turned him from movie star to icon.

Frank Bullitt (McQueen) has been plucked by a political wannabe (Robert Vaughn) to guard his witness. The problem is that the witness gets shot and killed under Bullitt's watch and now he wants to know who did it and why. That's the basic story. Simple, yet complicated as the film progresses. A little too complicated. I'm not going to lie, the script isn't that great. It's McQueen and that damn car chase that makes this movie great.

This is McQueen's defining role. Hell, we've got him selling new Mustangs on TV because of Bullitt. He was cool to begin with, but Bullitt made him uber-cool. And he sold a shitload of Mustangs with it. He maintains the movie and rises miles above a script that would be a bottom of the barrel affair with most other actors. McQueen fleshes out the film because he can. He creates something on screen that you can't put your finger on, but damn it, you know it's there.

Of course there's the car chase. Often ripped off, but never duplicated mainly because of the kick ass cars doing the chase (Bullitt's Mustang and the bad guy's Charger). I can't forget the white Firebird (the Trans-Am wouldn't show up for another year) three times and the green VW Bug they pass at least six times. Sure, there are continuity errors in the chase, but who cares. It's spectacular. Just like Ned Beatty's pig scene and the surprise in the Crying Game, you've all heard of the chase in Bullitt.

That's the funny thing about Bullitt. It's such a horrible script when you think about it, but the McQueen factor raises it to classic status even above the stink of the writing. It's rare that an actor and director (Peter Yates) can elevate a movie beyond the anchor that is its script, but these two accomplish it with such a great movie that it's amazing. A true piece of late '60's film making that created the genre of the anti-hero cop that would be later defined by Eastwood and ripped off by everyone (including John Wayne himself). This is one of those true classic films.

Hud (1963) *****

Movies always portrayed cattlemen as married to their life as if it was the only thing they thought about and their life was caught in a time warp of only having a horse or maybe an old pick up truck. Hud shatters that American image of the rancher as married to his land, to a degree. It's like a new generation has come to take the reigns of what once was, even if the old generation wants it to happen or not.

Paul Newman plays the title character, a life long rancher by day and a gigolo by night, drinking and fighting and leaving Mrs. Whoever's house at six in the morning. He lives and works with his father Homer (Melvyn Douglas). Their relationship is as estranged as you can get while living together. There's a definite chill in the air when both are present. Also on the ranch is Hud's teenage nephew Lon (Brandon De Wilde), an impressionable young man who is torn between the influence of his uncle and his grandfather. Patricia Neal plays the housekeeper Alma, a presence that represents the opinion of the opposite sex in a world full of men and causes some sexual tension within the household.

The film begins with one of the herd dying of an unknown ailment that suddenly becomes a dire situation when the fear of foot and mouth disease suddenly becomes a possible reality. Homer is despondent, worrying throughout the film while Hud continues trolling around in his pink Cadillac and drinking and fighting and screwing throughout the town. It's like a morality piece between the old ways and the new ways.

What Hud represents is actually the battle for Lon's soul. Homer shows his grandson that work and dedication are the ways to get where you want in life. Hud's philosophy is to take as much as you can. When the first talk of foot and mouth Hud's plan is to make a quick sell of the cattle and be damned if their sick or not, much to the displeasure of his father. The two are polar opposites with Lon stuck in the middle. The question that this film offers is what path will Lon follow? Is he strong enough to follow his grandfather's example or is Hud to much of an influence on the young boy.

Paul Newman gives a stellar performance as what is essentially the bad guy. Of course he was written as the bad guy, but in an era that was post James Dean and Marlon Brando you can see him as more of a rebel than an opportunist, though it can be said that Brando learned a lesson during the Wild One. Hud learns nothing from start to finish. Melvyn Douglas is Newman's equal as the old and broken down Homer. Homer is still calm and cool, even in the face of everything he's up against. He's old school all the way.

Directed with a great eye for the landscapes by Martin Ritt, the film doesn't let them overtake the film. There are no sweeping John Fordesque Monument Valley shots that become the centerpiece of the film, but there is some terrific landscape that fills in the areas that the actors aren't taking up. It's really a mesmerizing film based on the work of Larry McMurtry, whose work would later show the real life in a Texas town with The Last Picture Show.

Hud is really the first gleam of Paul Newman's excellence as an actor. His portrayal of Hud is a hypnotic piece of acting. Is Hud a bad man? It's hard to say. He could just be like every cattleman's son in Texas. Maybe no one ever fought for his soul?

Funny People (2009) ***

Funny People is an examination of the world of comedy from both ends of the spectrum- the ones that have nothing to the ones that have everything. The lesson we learn is that none of them are happy about it. The film stars Adam Sandler as George Simmons, a conglomeration of stand up comics, including himself, that finds out he's dying. He decides to do some stand up shows, happening on Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), an aspiring comic who is better at his day job slinging meat at a deli. Eventually Ira becomes George's assistant as George goes through the whole "I'm going to die process" only to find out he's not dying. Does George learn anything? Not really and continues to make his own life miserable while he takes Ira along for the ride.

Funny People starts out great. I'll be the first to admit it. Following both lives in the comedy world is actually interesting and entertaining, especially when you throw in Ira's roommates played by Jonah Hill and Jason Schwatzman and George's old flame Laura (Leslie Mann). I was really into this movie until the last third, when they spend and eternity at Laura's house. It was like taking the Concorde and slamming it into the moon. This section feels like watching the second hand tick during your last class period of the day. I don't know if someone failed to have the balls to say that "You could probably cut this a bit" or what but this section is the biggest failure of the movie and the thing that takes it from a good movie to average. Perhaps director Judd Apatow got a little pretentious with this film and particularly this section because his wife and kids were in it- over and over again.

That's probably the hardest pill to swallow. I like all of Apatow and Co.'s previous work, but Funny People feels like a glamour project from it's length to some of the scenes that go way too long. Rogen tends to great on you, but- and I can't believe I'm saying this- Sandler is great in his role. It's a funny movie, but it drags a bit. No, it drags a lot.

Norbit (2007) 1/2

Hey! You want to know why Eddie Murphy didn't win an Oscar for Dreamgirls? This is it.

I've learned not to expect much out of Eddie Murphy. Has he actually done a good movie in awhile? I can't remember. What makes Norbit so special? Why is Norbit accepted as such a horrible film across the globe? I couldn't figure it out. It bothered me, it tore at my soul. So I had to find out for myself. And within the first few minutes I had my answer. The film also stars... drum roll please.... Cuba Gooding, Jr. That's right, the guy that won the Oscar and then let his career swim in a sewage treatment plant is in Norbit. It's not Eddie Murphy! It's Cuba!

The film has Eddie Murphy playing Norbit, his rotund wife and probably some other characters that I didn't care about. It was cool twenty years ago Akeem, but that stuff got old and we get enough of that in Mike Meyer's movies. The orphanage plot is horrid with acting that isn't really acting but trying to keep up with Mr. Eddie's ad-libbing. The film centers on saving an orphanage. No, Norbit isn't on a mission from God, he's playing a foil to his large wife and her criminal family, who are the ones that want the orphanage for other investment gains. Of course there's the cute girl (Thandie Newton) that got away, who- that's right- is there to save the orphanage because in the movies only good looking people are good and people that look like me are evil.

I have to say once again that the fact that Eddie Murphy is in this should have been a brown crap flag from the start. It's OK, we can blame Eddie since he also helped write this piece of shit. Shame, Eddie. Shame. I don't know what to tell you. What happened to the Eddie Murphy that wore blue leather suits with 75 zippers and was going to be the next Richard Pryor. I guess Eddie really has followed Richard Pryor in that the movies he did in the twilight of his career were crap too.

The Love Guru (2008) 1/2

Every once in awhile and actor comes along that you just want to beat the hell out of. That actor is Mike Meyers. I don't know why but with him doing the same schtick over and over again, constantly flashing that god awful Canadian smile at us I just pisses me off. I don't get it. I just hate his guts.

It's probably because The Love Guru is just another version of Austin Powers with Meyers playing up excrement and masturbation humor to its fullest. Wait a minute! I can't use the word humor because they're not funny. Now before you label me a prude, I enjoy a good joke about poop. One of my guilty pleasures is a film called Night Patrol, a 1984 film featuring a farting Billy Barty and a masturbating Pat Morita. Even a scuzzy film like that can make it funny. After years of Mike Meyer's doing it as Austin Powers and now as Guru Pitka it just seems desperate. Very, very desperate.

The Love Guru is about a hockey player named Darren Roanoke (Romany Malco) who leaves his wife (Meagan Good) for some "bitches", but becomes obsessed with her coming back after she hooks up with goalie Jacques "Le Coc" Grande (Justin Timberlake). The Maple Leafs owner (Jessica Alba) decides that the way to win the Stanley Cup is for Guru Pitka (Meyers) to come to Toronto and cure Roanoke of his problem and get him back together with his wife.

Yeah, the movie sucks just as much as the plot. I could bash Meyers some more, but we all know what his problem is. Instead of actually having his face in films he decided to take the quick payday and voice Shrek for half the decade (I really, really, REALLY wish that they would give us a cut of the first film with the original voice of Shrek- Chris Farley). So what happened? Austin Powers got stale real fast and people like Sandler and Rogen took over Mike Meyers spot. As I said, the Love Guru is just another Austin powers movie that was rewritten to not quite be an Austin Powers movie. This film is such a piece of utter garbage that words can't describe how universally awful it is. If Ed Wood was alive he would say that The Love Guru is shit. I could talk about the acting, but it's awful and there's no point in wasting the time. Ben Kingsley is in this! Ben Kingsley who won and Oscar for being Gandhi! He goes back to the well and use his Gandhi skills for this piece of shit? What the hell's wrong with you, Ben? Remember Schindler's List? Just say no, man. Just say no.

God, even thinking about this movie again is giving me a headache. I just realized something. Some people like to be whipped. Some people like to use clothespins in areas. I like to watch toilet remains like the Love Guru. Isn't it kinky?

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009) *

I have been looking forward to this movie for so long. Why? Because I'm a huge fan and have read all the books? No. Because Robert Pattison is such a fine actor? No. Because I enjoy films starring Shark boy? No. I have been looking with great anticipation because I knew how horrible the movie was going to be. And guess what? I GOT MY WISH!!!

New Moon picks up where Twilight leaves off with Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) having a birthday. Bella is afraid she's getting too old at the ripe, old age of 18 and goes birthday Nazi, except for the bloodsucker birthday hosted by Edward Cullen (Robert Pattison). While at the party Bella gets the worst paper cut in the history of the world, causing the Sideshow Bob look vampire to go all after all that, causing the ruin of a perfectly good piano. Edward decides to leave as a way to protect Bella, even though other vampires and werewolves, and Crips are lurking in the Washington forest. She soon becomes and adrenaline junkie that gets visions of Edward playing Smokey the Bear where she does dangerous stuff, leading her to hang out with Jacob (Shark Boy) and spend weeks working on a pair of motorcycles that they only ride for two minutes. Jacob cuts his hair, takes his shirt off, becomes and ass, and becomes a dog. Edward decides to kill himself (thank God) and it's up to Bella to stop the Liberace Vamp from getting pulled apart by Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning.

Did you get all that? The movies as messy as that paragraph and even worse than its predecessor in the "lets make the tweenies swoon" department. Robert Pattison's introduction in this film made me laugh out loud, being so damn ridiculous. It looks like a bad Abercrombie commercial complete with music. This is the happiest depressed vampire I've ever seen. And another thing: the next time I hear people complaining about William Shatner's acting, I want this guys name brought up. He pauses every two words. Bella....................................................do you.......................................................want............................................................black olives......................................................on your..................................................................sub? No wonder this movies over two hours! Could you imagine if these guy was in the film more than the small amount he appears (give me an AMEN!)? Kristen Stewart is a better actress than this garbage, but it's a steady job that will get great PR. Just don't pull a Mark Hamill, dear. We can't forget Taylor Launtner, who obviously has gone to the McConoughey school for acting which means you need to have your shirt off as much as possible- who cares if you act for shit? Even on a rainy day in Washington in February. What's better than that? Four guys with their shirts off. What's even better? Edward Pattinson showing off his Michael Jackson post-mortem physique near the end of the picture. I'm serious folks. It's like comparing me in 1996 to The Rock.

I could go another hour about the dialogue. It's hilarious. I have to applaud these actors and actresses because I don't know how they can say this shit with a straight face. The one redeeming thing about this movie was Michael Sheen as the Lestadt like head vampire that is always so damn happy. The reason he's got a smile on his face is because he can't believe that script either. He is actually very good in the movie, though he won't be noticed because he doesn't take his shirt off and have crappy metro sexual rock tunes playing in the background.

The film is too long by at least fifteen minutes, which could have been fixed by having Pattinson talk a little faster and cut the depressed looks of the cast down by about 50. There's also a storyline dealing with another vampire named Victoria that gets no real resolution and didn't need to be in there other than to pad the numbers. If the books are as badly paced as this movie its no wonder the world is going to hell in a hand basket.

But at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think. Ladies between thirteen and 90 and their mothers, aunts, and sister will all flock to this movie and bring some poor schmuck of a guy with them to see the vomit that is being projected onto the screen. Just like Star Wars fans would flock to a movie with George Lucas wiping his ass with one hundred dollar bills for two hours as long as there's the big title sequence and a light saber, ladies will flock to this cess pool vampire soap opera as long as it has unkempt hair and topless child stars. Even more so than the first film, this is an example of a huge money making enterprise that has no redeeming value other than selling tickets, merchandise, and more books.

After The Sunset (2004) **

After The Sunset is another example of what James Bond does when he retires.Sometimes he becomes Harrison Ford's dad. Sometimes he ends up in The Spice Girls Movie or Boat Trip (+1). Occasionally he ends up being in films co starring The Nanny or Daffy Duck. Or you end up being George Lazenby. So welcome, Pierce, to the pasture that holds all of the former 007's. You'll never live it down (unless you're Scottish).

The film is about a jewel thief (Brosnon) who commits his last heist with his girl (Salma Hayek) so that he can retire to the Bahamas. Of course, we know it won't be his last heist because there's still an hour and a half left in the film. The couple are living the good life to its dullest until the FBI man he ruined (Woody Harrelson) shows up to harass our thief over a cruise ship docked on the island that holds yet another huge, unsellable diamond.

To make a long story short. Sure, the film is way over the top with most of the characters having telekinetic powers. It's like a criminal X-Men because they can plan each others moves like clockwork. The script is ridiculous and knows it. That's what's OK about this film. it knows its borderline crap and goes with it. There isn't much action involved with Brosnon making Harrelson look like a horses ass throughout the film, but it's acceptable because it won't really bore you. And it's better than Mamma Mia.

I Love You Beth Cooper (2009) *1/2

I Love You Beth Cooper takes the high school standard of "THE" girl that ruled the roost over the four years of education you go through and the infatuations that males had for her and wraps them up in a neat little bow that presents the class geek (Paul Rust) professing his love during graduation. An interesting premise, I must say and it could have worked if the script was written with any kind of sincerity, the direction was worth a damn, and had acting that was above the putrid level of two geeks at a bus stop doing Monty Python skits.

What invariably happens is that the geek and his best friend (Jack Carpenter) end up, through a series of circumstances, on the town with the geeks queen Beth Cooper (Hayden Panettiere) and her entourage. Of course there's the party that gets crashed and the pissed off boyfriend, but it's what happens during this final night of high school insanity that the geek realizes the Venus-like girl in his head is not the wild teenage girl crashing into his parents Volvo.

As a plot on paper the film sounds pretty good. It's an age old formula for decades, but it sounds like something different compared to most of the teen comedies out there. But then we get the script, which is an atrocious series of misadventures that zig zag without anywhere to land. There's the psycho, coked up, Army boyfriend (I though they gave drug tests) who is this Superman chasing our harem throughout the night, yet is defeated in a towel fight, never to be seen again. The acting is terrible due to the fact that it rests on Panettiere, who isn't the greatest actress in the first place. A poorly acted movie that's only saving grace is Alan Ruck as the geeks father. Yes, Cameron had a kid (see if you can get that reference).

I Love You Beth Cooper is essentially resume filler for the cast with Panettiere being able to say that she had a starring role in a film. This film was directed by Chris Columbus, who quit making the Harry Potter movies after the first two. Now we know why.

The Midnight Meat Train (2009) *1/2

So I was going through the video store, looking around at the garbage that Hollywood produces these days and lo and behold I found a film called Midnight Meat Train. Whoa! This movie doesn't belong here! It belongs in the back behind the beaded curtain. Then I notice Vinnie Jones and blood dripping across the window and realized that this is some kind of horror movie.

Midnight Meat Train follows the exploits of a butcher by day, butcher by night played by Vinnie Jones who boards a late night subway train, gets a few people alone, then proceeds to slaughter them in some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. I'm serious, Abraham Lincoln would laugh at this CGI. Throw in a photographer (Bradley Cooper) who starts investigating our butcher and you get a film that tries to be a little Hitchcockian, but ends up flat, tasteless, and dull. The photographer's decent into the obsession is supposed to be the intriguing part, but it just comes off as a tedious plot point to climb over as we wait for more Vinnie Jones slaughter. Sure Vinnie is a bad ass, but could they have given him at least one other facial expression. It wasn't much of a stretch for Vinnie. Just tell him his favorite soccer team sucks and you have "the look".

Written by Clive Barker, who is still riding the greatness that was the first Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train is basically a very cool name with a shit movie attached.

Whatever Works (2009) ***1/2

Whatever Works follows the life of Boris Yellnikoff (Larry David), a genius physicist who blows all that stuff off to teach kids how to play chess and spread the good will of his philosophy to the masses. Cynical to the extreme. One night while returning to his ram shackled apartment he stumbles on a Southern teenager living on the streets named Melodie (Evan Rachel Wood), who Boris reluctantly helps and develops into a disciple of his own Borisology. Of course, the two end up falling in love and getting married with the most shocked party being Boris himself. The problems arise when Boris' new in-laws that are obviously of the red state mentality are thrust into the way of life in NYC- and make Boris' life a living hell.

Whatever Works represents a turning point in Woody Allen's career. The film breathes like some of his best stuff from the '70's and '80's, but he's realized one important fact- he is too old to play himself anymore. Boris is so blatantly Allen that it should be announced before the film that "the role usually reserved for Woody Allen will tonight be played by Larry David. You can obviously hear these lines come from Woody Allen's mouth ten or fifteen years ago. Larry David fills in fine and seems to know when to let his inner Woody come out and when to pull a Costanza.

The rest of the cast is very good with Wood playing the naive southern belle up for all its worth, giving a comedic turn that I haven't seen from her. Patricia Clarkson plays Melodie's mother who succumbs to the "hedonism" of New York City and instead of making dinners for her husband (an awesome Ed Begley, Jr.) decides to become a photographer and enter into a relationship where she lives with two men. That damn NYC!

Whatever Works is a Woody Allen movie. love him or hate him, he makes a good movie here or there. This isn't one of his greatest films, but it's definitely not one of the worst and has some very funny moments, usually coming from Boris' mouth. Being your typical Allen movie the characters go through a series of hellish, obscure, defining events, but in the end there's a moral to the story that you can either take with you or send off to neuron oblivion.

Drag Me To Hell (2009) ***1/2

After that piece garbage that was Spider-Man 3 Sam Raimi returns with what is essentially a cousin to the films that became his calling card, The Evil Dead saga. Drag Me to Hell stars Alison Lohman as loan officer Christine, who's trying to get the big promotion, yet appears too meek to pull it off. When confronted with an old woman (Lorna Raver) who asks for another extension on her house, Christine uses this as an opportunity to show that she has the brass balls to shut someone out of their home. Well, it turns out that this is the wrong old, crazy broad to do that to because after a scene in the office and an attack in a parking garage where Christine has a button stolen it soon becomes apparent that Christine is now a victim of a curse that is slowly getting ready to drag her to hell.

Drag Me To Hell is a sort of hybrid between Evil Dead and Evil Dead II. Evil Dead was a genuine thriller that had little bits of comedy thrown into it, while its sequel tended to go slapstick almost to a Stooge level. Drag Me To Hell balances that all out. It's not particularly scary, but it doesn't seem to be meant as a jump out of your pants thriller. Most of the hilarity comes with the gross out scenes. Eyes popping out, corpses vomiting on people are met with an initial "ugh" but soon turns into a little chuckle over how over the top it really appears on screen. Most of the cast is alright, most being typical background actors you may have seen a few times before. What's nice about a film like this is that it doesn't take itself too seriously and keeps its running time in order. I for one am sick of sitting down to movies that are two hours plus and could have easily been cut to the 105 minute point.

In all, the film is a great little horror flick that doesn't really scare too much, but still keeps you enthralled with its pacing and shenanigans. It's not a perfect film by any means, but serves as something a little more original than remakes and sequels that the horror genre has been hammered with in recent years.

Year One (2009) *

I've been sifting recent reviews lately (I know it's been a while) and have realized that most of these films have been crap. Pure crap. Now I can not give an honest review of Year One because I slept through half of it. Why did I do that? Because a) seeing these two guys meet someone who eventually screws them over seven times in a row tends to lead to vomiting and drowsiness and b) the film really isn't that funny. If you've seen History of the World Part One (not Mel Brooks' best) you've seen a good portion of this with a cast just as great. The problem with Year One is that it just isn't funny.

Obsessed (2009) *

What I love most about Obsessed is that it makes no sense. I could give you a long, drawn out plot synopsis or I could just ask you if you have seen either Play Misty For Me or Fatal Attraction. You have? Well now you have the basic plot except in those two films there's an actual relationship between the stalker and the stalkee. In Obsessed the psycho (Ali Larter) sees her prey (Idris Elba) on an elevator and the fun begins! Throw in Beyonce as the wife that's as psychotic as the stalker and you get a craptastic ride on a script that should have been written on toilet paper. I was on the edge of my seat because I wanted to see how stupid the stalkee was going to be in his next scene. Let this be a lesson to all of you guys out there: when a blond molests you in the mens room stall and you resist because you're a married man, please tell your wife. Otherwise you're going to have to explain how said blond is naked and OD'd in your hotel room. Unless your with the Rolling Stones.

Miss March (2009) *

Guys in sex comedies are always running into obstacles when they're about to get laid. Remember Pee Wee's problem when he was about to meet Cherry Forever? How about Judge Reinhold being caught in the beating it moment by Phoebe Cates? What about humping an apple pie? Miss March opens with our hero Eugene (Zach Cregger) downing some shots as he plans to bed his high school sweet heart for the first time. Of course he runs to an obstacle which is falling down a flight of stairs and going into a four year coma. When he wakes up he finds out that sweet, innocent Cindi (Raquel Alessi) is Playboy magazine's Miss March. Spurred on by his horny friend Tucker (Trevor Moore) he begins his quest to... well, we really have no idea.

This movie wouldn't have been half bad if it had actually been funny. Yes, the guy defecates on himself from the coma, but how many times are we going to use that in the movie. On that note how in the hell can a guy in a coma go road tripping in the matter of days? What's up with the killer firemen? Why is the script as flimsy as toilet paper on chili night? And finally what is up with the current trend of having the ugliest looking guys being players? I have to harken back to Sex Drive where a guy that looks like a young Roger Ebert and dresses like Borat is the heir apparent to Wilt Chamberlain. Sure Tucker is shot down at the Playboy Mansion, but you would have to be some kind of masochist to even spend five minutes alone with this guy.

Miss March seems to try to strike the Girl Next Door lightning, with Fox going so far as mimicking the packaging of that original release. As I said earlier Miss March would have been a good sex comedy if it had actually been funny. It's not even a stupid funny, it's just like a bad taste in your mouth from drinking too much cheap beer- it tries to be the good stuff, but it's still just crap.

Watchmen (2009) ****

The year is 1985. The United States won the war in Vietnam. Richard Nixon is in his fifth term as President. The St. Louis Cardinals have won the World Series (oh, that actually happened). And in this alternate 1985 costumed superheroes have been outlawed, existing for the last forty years and helping change those little historical tid bits I listed above (except the World Series). Watchmen explores this odd 1985 that is filled with retired superheroes and a world on the brink of nuclear annihilation. The film opens with the death of Edward Blake, also known as the Comedian, a retired costumed superhero who is beaten to death in his home. The rebelious Rorschach (Jack Earl Haley) who sports a mask that chnages into- you guessed it- Rorschach images. As the film progresses other former superheroes such as Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson), Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman), and Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) are pulled into a shceme that proves to be much bigger than the simple murder of a former member of their clan.

The Watchmen aren't like a Justice League or X-Men. Excluding Dr. Manhattan they have no real super human abilities other than they can kick your ass better than anyone else. Dr. Manhattan is another story all together. If God created man then man created a God on Earth when our good doctor was irradiated in some Marvelesque experiment. He can do anything. Nothing hurts him. He is perfection.

With Watchmen director Zack Snyder (Dawn of the Dead, 300) has the daunting task of putting writer Alan Moore's masterpiece on the big screen. A daunting task considering that Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns are considered the old and new testaments of comic lore. The film is a political statement for 1985 with Snyder wisely avoiding updating the film to present times that drug down Moore's other adaptation from this era V For Vendetta. I've never read the graphic novel so I have no idea how that piece compares with the film other than what people have told me which is the usual "they left a bunch of stuff out". The movie's two hours and forty minutes long: you have to expect the studio to try to make some money back. Snyder does get a good flow in the film, though some bits do seem rushed in the long run.

I have to say that Watchmen wasn't the earth shattering experience that we're led to believe is contained within its confines. As a comic book movie (excuse me, graphic novel) it is above average, mainly due to Moore's source material that plays more intelligently than the standard fare coming out of Hollywood. It's not anything great, but it is a very good film. Maybe I'll crack the comic book (graphic novel) sometime.

Sex And Death 101 (2007) 1/2

It's not very often that I get the privilege of seeing a film as terrible as Sex and Death 101. I thank everyone for the opportunity to see what crap looks like first hand and appreciate the effort that didn't go into this movie.

The film is about Roderick Blank (Simon Baker) who gets an email listing all of the women he has or will ever have sex with. So what does he do with this information? He proceeds to lay more pipe than a plumber while awing his friends at his sexual conquests. When it's finally revealed that Rodericks last conquest on his list is a Black Widowish killer Death Nell (Winona Ryder) it's almost a race to not get laid in this unfunny spectacle from director Daniel Waters.

The way the movie plays out is about as interesting as a late night infomercial about Spam. Here's the movie in a nutshell: Gets list, has sex, has sex, repeat one and two. If there was actually anything funny in the film it might have been interesting, but we're left with the same stupid quips and the screenwriters passion for films from 1971. Add to this the fact that this film is close to the two hour mark and you get a ridiculous beating to the head as the same schtick continues over and over again. The acting sucks, but not as bad as the screenwriting which tries to be high brow but ends up being just a low rent Skinemax screw movie.