Movie of the Day - April

April 1st, 2012 - Sometimes, every now and then, a remake comes along that is actually...well...quite good. Don't get me wrong, "Fright Night" isn't fantastic, but in the grand scheme of things, it actually makes sense for the original to be remade. See, gentle reviewer, as most of you know, "Twilight" REALLY screwed up the vampire genre. Suddenly, vampires were sexy, romantic, and above all, sparkly. People forgot why these characters were ever horror movie icons. "Fright Night" reminds people of how violent and insane vampires can be. While we're still not on the overly-serious concept of the vampire genre the likes of "Blade", "Interview with a Vampire", and "John Carpenter's Dracula", "Fright Night" finds a way to make the movie intense, while still standing as alot of fun. Colin Ferrell as film nemesis Jerry Dandrige stands as the perfect metaphore for the movie as a good looking vampire, but willing to kill and feast on you as quickly as he will look at you. Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Toni Collette, and Lisa Loeb also offer fantastic perforances, but without a doubt, the entire show is stolen by The Doctor himself, David Tennant as Peter Vincent, magician and self-proclaimed vampire hunter. Tennant was actually the entire reason I watched this movie in the first place, and he did not disappoint. However, there are a few negatives about the movie as well. Despite the overall good cast, the film's protagonist, Charlie Brewster (played by Anton Yelchin) is bland as bland can be. I like Yelchin from his roles in "Star Trek" and "Termiantor Salvation" (he played both Kyle Reese AND Chekov! This dude should be a geek god!), but he never really screamed 'leading man' to me. Also, the film has a habit of constantly erking me with its ideals of what 'sexy' and 'hip' is supposed to be, sorta in the same exact way I felt the first time when I saw 'xXx' (how does Vin Diesel save the day with such a big-ass fur coat?). Despite all that, "Fright Night" is still a fun and entertaining movie for those who are willing to turn off their sense of seriousness and just enjoy a good ol' fashion, silly slasher/monster flick. I give this film 3 out of 5 stars.

April 2nd, 2012 - What has been said about this movie that hasn't already been said? It's crap. Pure crap. HOWEVER, the main problem with this movie is the same problem I always point out to anyone who moans about a bad video game movie: say the plot of the movie outloud to yourself. Nine out of ten times, the plot is something that wouldn't work for anything but a video game. Hence the problem with "Super Mario Bros", the story of two plumbers who go to the mushroom kingdom to save a princess from a giant dinosaur named King Koopa....Im sorry, you lost me at 'plumbers'. However, unlike all the other reviews for this movie, I will actually point out some good. Bob Hoskins, all in all, is the PERFECT casting for Mario. He looks the part. He sounds the part. He was Mario. Also, I feel the same way about this movie as I did for "Street Fighter": as much as they missed the point, this movie is crazy with easter eggs from the game: Toad, Yoshi, Iggy, Spike. Hell, we even got mushrooms, Goombas, and bombs. Sure, its a spectacular train-wreck, but in its heart of hearts, at least some effort can still be seen. Nevertheless, its a bad film. Really bad film. The film isn't sure when it wants to be funny and when it wants to be serious, the script is written too close to the movie when it may have been a better decision to make its own world and its own rules, and a husband-and-wife directing team should never ever EVER be in charge of a franchise film. EVER! Bob Hoskins, as much as I like him, said that this was the absolute worst film he has ever been in, and the man has done "Son of the Mask". That tells you how crappy this flick is. For easer eggs, and...basically just easter eggs, all I can give this movie is a single star out of 5.

April 3rd, 2012 - What do you get if you take three of the most beautiful actresses in the world, one of the greatest comedic minds of all time, a hip, young director, a well-established franchise, celebrity cameos up the whazoo, and top of the line special effects and stunt work? A relatively mediocre film, that's what. In "Charlie's Angels" defense, there is alot to like. The Angels themselves are likeable, and they seemed to be good friends off set, so their chemisty on the screen really helps the audience buy the fact that they are practically family. Bill Murray is PERFECT as Bosley ("Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" will never ever EVER be a 'Movie of the Day' simply because his role was re-casted), and led to some seriously laugh out loud moments in the film. The story itself is interesting, leading to alot of interesting twist and turns, playing in the role of a really good episode of the original series......however, "Charlie's Angels" is the movie eqivilent to the ying-yang side. As much as there is good, there is also quite alot of bad. First of all: the music. I! HATE! THE! MUSICAL! NUMBERS! There isn't a single moment of silence in this movie! Every scene either has obnoxious pop songs (with the exception of 'Barracuda'. Friggin' LOVE Heart) or angry techno music. It gets old REALLY quickly. Also, and this is just a personal pet peeve, but the way characters are stereotypically perceived somewhat kill the flow of the movie for me. Drew Barrymore is cute as hell, but I never reall saw her as the sex-symbol the movie tries to make her out to be. Also, Sam Rockwell spends alot of the movie as the likeable loser, but towards the end, he starts smoking like a chimney, and BOOM! He's the badguy. What, no Snydley Whiplash mustache? Again, movies based on TV shows are never going to be the greatest films of all time, but if there simply weren't dozens of minor annoyances in this movie, it could have been quite good. Instead, its just sorta an average, run of the mill movie. If you watch it, you'll most likelly enjoy it. Though for your own sake, you might want to lower your standerds and suspend your disbelief. I give it an average 2 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 4th, 2012 - Two days ago, during my review for "Super Mario Bros", I stated that if a franchise movie has a subplot that seems like it would be hard to take seriously, the best way around that is simply to re-write the entire world. "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" shows EXACTLY how to do that, and do it right. Yes, its a movie about humanoid turtles trained in the world of martial arts. Yes, they like pizza. Yes, they live in the sewer. Though, the reason that this movie works is because the world it is built around is slighty a parody of New York (hell, the original Ninja Turtles comic book was a parody itself of Daredevil and the X-Men, so what the hell?), but it still sticks to its roots and borrows from both the cartoon and the comics, allowing it to be as realistic as Ninja Turtles can get. Instead of going overboard with Krang, the Technodrome, and Dimension X, it sticks closer to that of a comic age story of four brothers trained in the martial arts, forced to finally make themselves known when their beloved master is taken prisoner. In its core, its the story of self-discovery, family, and acceptance. Hell, I still say that this movie's portrayal of the Shredder is the best I've ever seen! The movies ending when the Shredder is able to take down all four Turtles at once blew my mind when I was a kid. I also loved how well the Turtles were established, keeping their personalities in check while still allowing character growth and build up, including my personal favorite character, Casey Jones, being built up from a single cameo episode of the cartoon. However, the film isn't perfect, and some things just seemed out of place. In all due respect to the actress, Judith Hoag is NO April O'Neil. She seemed bland to me, with all her character growth seeming like nothing more then wishful thinking. In fact, all the characters of the movie seemed like cartoon characters come to life, even more then the Turtles themselves. Charles Pennington is a dick. Chief Sterns is loud and angry. Tatsu grunts alot. Sam Rockwell is Sam Rockwell. And then...there is Danny. Lord, I hate Danny. While he does offer Splinter a perfect way to give his backstory, he offers nothing more then the be the eyes of the audience in a way to see what's appealing about the foot clan (because I guess all 9 year olds want to smoke cigarettes and steal stuff?), and the worst part is that he never gets the asskicking he so rightfully deserves. Nevertheless, "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" is the best Turtles flick of the four released ones, and its nice to know that this movie exists before Michael Bay releases "Ninja Turtles" and rapes my childhood once again. I give this movie 3 1/2 out of 5 stars, and a guarantee that if you are a Turtle fan, you will no-doubt love it.

April 5th, 2012 - Try as I might, I find it hard to look at "George of the Jungle" with any type of a feeling other then...meh. It's not a good movie, but at the same time, its not a bad movie. I know, its a Disney family flick, so it should be taken with a grain of salt, but its hard to. First, the acting roles for the film are pretty good. Brendan Fraiser really goes bring George to life as a loveable, fun character, but from there, the roles are relatively phoned in. Leslie "Let's get some ****in' French Toast" Mann as Ursula is almost annoyingly sweet, Thomas Hayden Church is the stereotypical 'dick for the sake of being a dick', and even the legendary John Cleese as the voice of 'An Ape named Ape' seems a tad bit on the forced side. But, then again, comparing the actor's roles to the characters are relatively spot on compared to the show, and the overall plot is interesting with seeing George react to the real world. All in all, I can sorta give Disney credit with this film, allowing kids to laugh at more adult oriented jokes and never really dumbing the film down (or...dumbing it down as low as "George of the Jungle" can be). At the end of the day, it's a relatively likeable family flick, but in my mind, it's nothing really above average. I give it 2 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 6th, 2012 - From the directing team of "The Matrix", "V for Vendetta" stands as one of the finest comic bok films ever made. Despite it's action packed, special effects outer shell, the really beautiful thing about this movie is how much it touches upon, ranging from government tyranny, love, sex, freedom of speech, parody, torture, and the personal choices we make everyday. V, himself as a character, stands as one of the most mysterious and aw-inspiring characters ever designed, and the concept of him being an identityless masked man helps promote his personal message of men are born to die, but legends, like ideas, live forever. It really is a beautiful thought, once you think about it. Natalie Portman gives it her all for this film, and it pays. Going as far as to actually shave her head for the role shows her commitment, and the character of Evy plays the perfect partner for V's grand scheme. Alot of people point out a certain distain for this movie, seeing this as an anti-Bush film, and showing terrorist acts in a heroic light. Personally, I don't really view either in this film. The Anti-Bush claims are silly, unbacked and unproven, and V's terrorist like tactics weren't shown as a means to show the benefit of terrorism, but more to the point that its the people who have the overall power, not the governments. Agree or disagree with the thought process, it either way don't take anything away from the film. My only complain about the movie is, ironically enough, the action scenes. Don't get me wrong, they are beautifully done, but all in all, they aren't necessary. The film stands up so well on its own that the high-detailed stunt work and special effects (explosions aside) are almost overkill at one point, but what the hell, you have to get the Matrix crowd happy, I guess. Still, "V for Vendetta" is a beautiful film that says alot and opens up alot of thoughts and ideas your average comic book film would be afraid of. I give the film 4 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 7th, 2012 - Like many of the other DC direct animated movies, "Justice League: Doom" is good, but also like the other STV films of the franchise, it still retains the same irks as well. First, the good: this film is probabily the greatest casted DC Animated film of all time, getting the voices who literally made these characters what they are today in their animated film. Tim Daly (Superman: The Animated Series), Kevin Conroy (Batman: The Animated Series), Susan Eisenberg, Michael Rosenbaum, Carl Lumply (Justice League) and Nathan Fillion (Green Lantern: Emerald Knights) come together to make a strong Justice League on their own, making the film a literal love letter to the fans of the animated properties. Also, it must be stated that this was the film work of Dwayne McDuffie, long time writer for both the DC animated and comic book properties, who passed away earlier last year, leading to the film being dedicated to his memory. Sadly, my biggest pet peeve is the same as most of the other DC films: the length. There is so much to be crammed into the movie that it's time, in less then an hour and a half, doesn't give the film enough justice to tell the entire story. Also, another thing that bothered me about the film is the way that the Legion of Doom is able to 'beat' the League using Batman's own defense plans against them. In the comic book, it was more to the point of Ras Al Ghul' posioning the League's minds, and using their own strengths against them (blinding Green Lantern, making Martian Manhunter unable to keep his shapeshifting stable, turning Superman's skin to red Kryptonite, etc), but Vandal Savage's plan seems to either make the League feel bad, or simply shoot/beat them to death, leading to the League to be acting slightly out of character. Still, aside from minor complaints, "Justice League: Doom" is an entertaining film that comic fans will love, and I especially like seeing a film that taks the relatively obscure character, Cyborg, and gives him a spotlight side by side with DC's biggest heroes for the first time since "Challenge of the Super-Friends". I give this film 3 out of 5 stars.

April 8th, 2012 - Before I say anything, I need to state that I absolutely, positively LOVE this cast. Zoe Saldana, Jefferey Dean Morgan, and especially Chris Evans, who steals the show in this movie. Everyone on the acting front works hard to make this movie shine...but sadly, that's as far as the pros go for this movie. "The Losers" is sadly a wishy-washy movie that wants to be both a bad-ass action movie, and a fun filled "A-Team" style get along flick as well, which both of which would be fine on their own, but combining the two into one really hurts the overall effect. Like "Constantine" and "V for Vendetta", "The Losers" comes directly from DC Comics' Vertigo line, a line of comic books that feature a more adult oriented, R-rated style of story telling...an R rating that this PG-13 movie REALLY needed. THe plot for this movie is all over the place, twisting and turning and making members of the Special Forces team turning on eachother, but then revealing that they weren't actually betrayed until they are really betrayed, but not really, but then the other member of the team really DOES betray them, and...my head hurts just trying to think about putting the plot together. Dumbed down: special opts team are betrayed, re-team to take down their betrayer, things go boom, people live happily ever after, and sadly, dumbing it down is the only way you'll really enjoy this movie. If you're alright with likeably dumb action films with guns, explosions, and minor laughs, you'll like this movie...just don't go into it expecting the same thought provoking styles of "V for Vendetta". I give "The Losers" 2 out of 5 stars.

April 9th, 2012 - *MY 100TH REVIEW!!!* Without a shadow of a doubt, "Kick-Ass" is my guilty pleasure movie. It's not the greatest comic book movie, filled with a tad too much gore, unnecessary language, and filled with enough ideas to make you lust after a 12 year old girl (I didn't, don't worry...), but holy god, is this movie fun! The interesting thing about "Kick-Ass" is that I go into it as the same way I do watching "The Mask" or "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles": yes, they are based on comic book movies, but to really enjoy the film, you need to watch them as comedies, and in its heart of hearts, "Kick-Ass" is a comedy. Granted, it has ideas like 'standing up for yourself', 'fighting evil with everything you've got' and 'how a small idea could build to something bigger', but seriously: 12 year old girl assassins? Jetpacks? Bazookas? A man being blown up inside a giant microwave oven? This movie is like Tex Avery on a budget! Before the movie, I was a big fan of the "Kick-Ass" comic book, and I can tell you, they nailed the cast. Aaron Johnson IS Kick-Ass. Christopher Mintz-Plasse IS The Red Mist. Chloe Grace Moretz IS MOST CERTAINLY Hit-Girl, and of course, Nicholas Cage as Big Daddy is one of the actors best roles in years, and you can tell that he had alot of fun playing the role. I am happy to consider "Kick-Ass" a guilty pleasure because it fits that role so perfectly. It doesn't have any specific reason to be good, like the gritty seriousness of "The Dark Knight" or the artistic power of "Sin City", but its good because its...simply fun. Simple brain rotting, ultra violent fun. I give "Kick-Ass" 4 out of 5 stars.

April 10th, 2012 - Like my original "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" review, "TMNT" does an excellent job in taking itself seriously, actually going as far as for this to be the un-official 4th film of the franchise, and why shouldn't it be? It's good....but it's not great, sadly. The animation is top notch, the voices are stellar (featuring Patrick Stewart, Sarah Michelle Gellar, the late Mako, and another fantastic performance by Chris Evans), the film captures the Turtle's identities perfectly (even giving us the epic Leo vs. Ralph battle we've always wanted to see), but I can't help but find things in the movie that simply turn me off. First, I hate the idea that the creative team went into this movie as a sequel. Anyone who hasn't followed the first two Turtles film will have no idea what's going on, so the pre-teen demographic that the film aimed at would simply be lost with what the characters are talking about. Also, and maybe its just me, but the TMNT franchise has some of the best villains ever created, Shredder aside. Krang? Leatherhead? The Rat-King? Anyone from Dimension X? So why do we need to create a baddie and focus on some idea of capturing monsters to send an immortal away? What is this, "Monster Rancher"? Buuuuuuuut its a small price to pay to see the heroes in a half shell back on the big screen in beautiful animated bliss. Fans of the franchise will love it, and who knows? Maybe a pre-Bayed "TMNT" film will be enjoyed all the more after "Ninja Turtles" comes out and ruins everything. Still, I give "TMNT" 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 11th, 2012 - This is the perfect movie for everyone who enjoyed "Die Hard" and thought to themselves "Damn, this would be awesome if John McClain was a fat guy!" Yes, gentle reader...this movie blows. It blows terribly. In all the world of 'Happy Madison Productions' that gave us such turds as "Grown-Ups", "Little Nicky", and "Zookeeper", "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is probabily the shiniest turd of them all...but truth be told, I sorta feel back giving it a bad review. I mean, its a stupid, bad movie, but it doesn't specifically attempt to hurt feelings or do any harm, so who am I to dump on it....theeeeen again, this movie (written, produced, and starring Kevin James) REALLY seems to find the audience to be relatively stupid to buy some of the stuff in this 'plot'. First and foremost: the entire concept of the movie involves a mall security guard defending his mall from theives looking to cash in from the profits on Black Friday. Folks, I've both worked and shopped on Black Friday, and the profits are NO WHERE NEAR the pricetag the theives are aiming for. Second, a repeat gag in this movie involves James' character suffering from low bloodsugar to the point that, without sugar, he literally passes out. This leads to a scene late in the film where he has to eat a disgarded lollipop off the floor to have the energy to save his family...did ANYONE on the production team crack open a biology book to know that sugar intake DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT? Its a series of gags that all lead up to one scene that falls flat. The rest of the cast range from the boring to the forgetable. Jayma Mays (who I really want to like, but I can't understand why everyone wants to bang her in every single project she is in) has no actual characteristic in this movie other then simply being there, wasting her talents on this movie as a whole. Keir O'Donnell acts as the films villain who brings a whole new meaning to the term "You have a gun! Just shoot him!" to the film's cat and mouse came. Evenpoor Erick Avari, a man who is too damn good to keep turning up in crap movies ("Mr. Deeds" "Home Alone 4" "Flight of the Living Dead") is forced to be in this suckfest, god bless him. I could literally go on and on all day about how and why I hate this movie, but at this point, it would be like insulting a special needs child: its just in bad taste. I'll sum it up like this: Kevin James is a hilarious television actor and stand up comic. His work on "King of Queens" was hilarious, but the man is NOT a writer. "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is the idea of taking a small, subtle joke and running it into the floor. Another example of taking a small joke and running with it THE RIGHT WAY will be in my next review. In the meantime, when it comes to this movie and its waste of a cast, phoned in performances, and all in all bad, unfunny plot, I give this movie 1 out of 5 stars.

April 12th, 2012 - In my "Paul Blart" review, I pointed out the concept of taking a moderately funny idea and turning it into a full length feature can either be incredibly good or horribly bad. While "Paul Blart" represented how the idea of a 'heavyset, comedic version of Die Hard' was overkilled and done to death, "Machete" is the otherside of the coin. Designed by Robert Rodriguez (who keeps making me grown with every Rated-R movie he is announced to make, but keeps proving me wrong every single time) as nothing more then a fake trailer to go with the "Grindhouse" double feature, the demand was far too high for the film about a 'pissed off Mexican' to get made for it to be ignored, thus, "Machete" was made. If I had to describe this film in one sentence, it would be: "Violent, over the top, offensive, and fun as hell". Machete is played by actor Danny Trejo, and honestly, I couldn't think of anyone else who could play the role. Trejo has always been able to do any range of emotion from cold-hearted killer to kid-friendly fun uncle, sometimes in the same role, and his role in this film is as a rough and tough 'been there, done that' mentality, adding many interesting layers to the character. It may have been overkill to have every single female character in the movie want to bang him, but hell, its mock-exploitation, so why not? The cast is excellent, including Michelle Rodriguez, Don Johnson, Cheech Marin, Jeff Fahey, Robert De Niro, and surprisingly good performances by Jessica Alba, Lindsay Lohan, and even Steven Segal in his first theatrical film in almost a decade. The overall plot is hard to pinpoint. Its clearly exploitation, bringing up the issue of illegal immigration and making everyone in the film who is anti-immigration immediatly being portrayed as the film's villains, but its obviously intentional to the point where the viewer is supposed to be aware of how intentional it is, so who am I to say if the overall subject matter is good or not. What I can say, however, is that a film of this magnitude and design could only be done creatively by a handful of people in the entertainment business, and Rodriguez is the man for it. Like Trejo playing the title role, I couldn't see anyone else directing it. While the explotation designs are done on purpose, I will be the first to admit that they do get a tad bit over the top and distracting at some points, and this most certainly is the type of movie that people not in the loop can AND will be offended with. You either get it or you don't, and I most certainly do. I give Machete a solid 4 stars out of 5.

April 13th, 2012 - No, don't get me wrong, I don't 'like' this movie, but honestly...I don't have the raw hatred for it that other people have. Is it bad? Yeah. Though really, "Dragonball: Evolution" is the cinema version of a frog in biology class: one can't simply say its a bad movie, but rather, it needs to be disected and taken apart bit by bit to uncover why exactly its bad. First of all, let's discuss the 800 pound elephant in the room: the build-up. Ever since I was in high-school, my friends (who were much bigger "Dragonball Z" fans then myself) were begging for a live action "Dragonball" movie, wanting to see this thing get made. Like the "Star Wars" prequel before it, I get the feeling that even if the production team were to get this flick right, the true fanbase still would have hated it. Next, like the "Ninja Turtles" and "Super Mario" franchise movies before it, let's actually say the plot for "Dragonball" aloud, shall we: an alien monkey comes to earth, learns to fight, and battles the forces of evil in the attempt to unite 7 mystical Dragonballs to get one wish....you lost me at 'alien monkey'. The truth is, the Dragonball story is one that can only exist in manga and anime. Hell, outside of perhaps Cowboy Bebop, few animes can be brought into live action goodness. But I dygress, let's focus on the film itself. "Dragonball Evolution" is one of those films that tries so hard to please that, at the end of the day, it entirely misses the point of why it was so beloved. Again, I will admit that Im not a massive fan of the franchise, but I don't think the awkward teenage years of Goku were ever covered...so why would they focus a movie on it? Let's be honest, everyone wanted "Dragonball Z", with an adult Goku with unlimited power beating the crap out of everyone who tried to use the Dragonballs for evil. No one wanted the 'what is my place in the world' supposed to be style Goku. And really, the character mistakes don't end there: Chi-Chi is too damn sweet, Piccalo is too generic, and for god only knows why, Bulma is the Terminator (couldn't even give her a full head of green hair. What the hell?). Then, there is the acting..aside from Yamcha's weird overdubbing (what is this? "Flash Gordon"), most of the acting is simply...meh...with two exceptions: James Marsden would have been the essential Piccalo if they would have let him take the character and make it his own, ala Spike, Brainiac, and Lex Luthor before him. Mardsen is the type of actor who is best when he is allowed to do his own thing, and that would have dramatically saved the character. Another character's work that I really did like, which I know I will get alot of crap for, was Chow Yun-fat's Master Roshi. Of anyone in the movie, Yoshi is perhaps the closest to his anime/manga counterpart, an all knowing, horny old man who acts as Goku's mentor. Even if the rest of the movie falls apart (and it does), at least Roshi is entertaining. All in all, "Dragonball: Evolution" not only seems like a total rip from it's original property, but it also seems like a half-assed total rip from its original property. I still hope that a "Dragonball Z" movie is one day made, but thankfully, after this movie, whoever is making it would at least know exactly what NOT to do. I give "Dragonball: Evolution" a disappointed 1 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 14th, 2012 - As it has beome apparent by most of my reviews, I have many, MANY pet peeves when it comes to cinema. Pointless sequels. Dreadful remakes. Though through them all, most of these pet peeves I can stand. Hell, some of these pet peeves have actually created movies so bad that I find myself entertained by them simply by the 'son bad its good' factor. However, through it all, there is one pet peeve I simply cannot stand: "overhype for the mediocre". Seem gentle reader, if there was one movie that sparked my mindset to do these movie reviews in the first place, it's "Snakes on a Plane". They say you can't judge a book by its cover, so why every single one of my friends were losing their minds for this movie is lost on me. Yes, it has Samuel L. Jackson, but so did "Formula 51", "The Man", "The Spirit" and "Jumper", and those flicks ranged from forgettable to simply awful. No, the overhype for this movie all led back to its title: Snakes on a Plane. Let's be honest, folks: the title isn't even that funny to begin with. Hell, not taking it literal, it might as well be the title of a 1950s spy thriller. Oh well, enough about my rants about overhype and the title, let's get into the movie itself. My overall opinion of the movie itself is honestly.....meh. It's fine. It's not a good movie, but it could have been a hell of alot worse. Everything about the movie screams 'stereotype'. The moment the passangers board the plane, you can tell exactly who everyone is. The douche foriegn business man. The preppy woman with the dog. The kid and his brother. The rapper. Hell, its pretty obvious how much post-production and re-shoots went into this movie, otherwise, I doubt Kenan Thompson (who was, at the time, becoming quite well known again due to his recently joining 'SNL') would have turned out as the hero of the movie (he plays alot of Playstation so he knows how to land a plane? BULLCRAP!) . "Snakes on a Plane" to me shows the negative side of internet buzz. Like Rebecca Black, "The OC", and "The Human Centipede" (someday, somehow, I WILL be getting to it...), just because everyone is talking about it doesn't mean its good. Samuel L. Jackson DOES give yet another decent performances, but one could easily find a much better film with him. Despite so-so effects, an understandable enough script, and the actors and actresses giving enough effort just to make the film par, I give "Snakes on a Plane" 2 out of 5 stars.

April 15th, 2012 - When the original "Shrek" movie came out, it wasn't one of the best movies ever made simply because it, itself, wasn't quite sure what it wanted to be. Was it a kids movie? A parody? A dark comedy? It was hard to tell, but one thing was for sure: it was on to something good, and as soon as it found it's specific identity with "Shrek 2", that's exactly what it became. Good. Damn good, in fact. Like all good sequels, "Shrek 2" took everything that was great about the original movie and raised the stakes, never taking itself too seriously, and twisting the concepts of myth and fairy tales to a whole new length. The cast of Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, and Eddie Murphy are still constantly funny, but the addition of Julie Andrews, John Cleese, and Antonia Banderaes as the show-stealing Puss N' Boots was the last missing piece of the puzzle the franchise needed. The jokes were also much more thought out and creative, such as Far Far Away coming off as Beverly Hills/Hollywood, and the entire massive Gingerbread Man storming the castle. There are a few minor issues that I have with the movie, such as Shrek spending a little less then half of movie in his human form (seriously, the best parts of the flick technically don't even have Shrek in them. Just some...Scottish Dude we're supposed to follow), but it more then makes up for it with the brilliant design of stallion Donkey. Genius. "Shrek 2" stands as one of the best animated movies of the 21st century, and could very well stand as one of the best of all time. I give "Shrek 2" 4 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 16th, 2012 - Now THIS is a movie based on a TV show done incredibly right....but I personally feel like it's not as good as the world makes it out to be. First, it needs to be stated: this is an amazing cast. No one else could do this movie justice but Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones, which really gives the film an interesting aspect, since this movie is a 'cat and mouse game' between two characters who find eachother as rivals, but ironically enough, neither of them are the villain of the movie. I only really have two complaints about this movie, but they are both pretty damn big complaints. 1.) This should NOT be an action movie. The original Fugitive series was interesting because it never really needed to fall back on major stunts or explosions. The action was more psychological, leading to the main objective being a mind game, rather then a physical one. Leaps into a raging dam and train explosions make the film into something completely different, and something rather off subject. Also, 2.) this movie has waaaaaay too many moments of random coincidence. I understand that Ford's character needed means to escape from Jones' and his team, but it gets a little silly after a while. Ford's prison bus just happens to crash, freeing him, then his escapes are a series of 'nick of time' events that 'just happen' to have means to assist him. Bullet proof glass. Security guards. AN ENTIRE DAMN PARADE! It gets silly. "The Fugitive" isn't a bad movie whatsoever, and I can understand that the action and escapes were needed to keep the plot interesting (this is a relatively LOOOOONG movie too), but there is interest, and then there is overkill. I give "The Fugitive" 3 out of 5 stars.

April 17th, 2012 - It's almost ironic to a certain degree. In a summer filled with the God of Thunder, a Super Soldier, and a Green Lantern, it was "X-Men: First Class", a movie featuring the B, C, and even D-List X-Men characters that stood out in most fans' minds as the best comic book movie of the season. To me, this movie is a double pleasure in my mind. First, as I said, this is a movie that mainly features the characters of the X-Men franchise that are often overlooked and, more or less, ignored. Beast? Banshee? Havok? Not bad characters at all, but in a world where Wolverine is box office gold, for the writers and producers to go the opposite route is brilliant. It was a serious gamble, and it came out perfectl. The second pleasure is the reaction people had BEFORE they saw the movie. Stuffy geeks from all over the world assumed that this movie was going to be a trainwreck, requesting people not to see the movie out of protest to send a message to 20th Century Fox...BOY, were they wrong! The movie stands as a perfect companion piece to the rest of the X-Franchise, probabily standing side by side with "X2: X-Men United" as the best of the genre. It really is interesting to see the friendship build and eventually end between Xavier and Magneto...however, I think my main problem with this movie is that it is relatively rushed. In the end of the movie, Xavier and Magneto are bitter enemies, but it seems to just...happen. Its as if they have one disagreement, Xavier is shot, and then BOOM! Nemesis. Also, along the same lines, the Mystique/Beast relationship is just...stupid. I understand how they used beast and Mystique as a means to have Beast go blue, but the entire 'Mutant and Proud!' concept is rather lost in translation once you think about it: Beast transforms into a monster, and Mystique, a shape-shifter, constantly turns into anyone but herself. If anything, they're NOT being themselves, but hell, that's just nitpicking. Nevertheless, "X-Men: First Class" is an excellent movie, and brings a new, fun element to the X-Men legacy. I give it 4 out of 5 stars.

April 18th, 2012 - There are three things that I love: Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly, and slapstick comedy. However, "Step Brothers" has simply stood out in my mind as....eh. I have close family members who think that this is the funniest movie of all time, and frankly...I just don't see it. Sure, it has its moments, but its in no way in the league of the likes of "Anchorman" or "Walk Hard". Whenever I ask someone why they like this movie so much, Im usually told that its due to funny lines and quoteable dialogue. Okay, so it has funny lines and a funny premise: two middle aged men who live with their single parents who end up getting married to eachother, making the two into brothers. Funny, but it sounds more like the plot to a bad 80s sitcom then a full length movie, and at the end of the day, that's the main problem with the movie: its the same joke over, and over, and over again. Two adult step brothers who are forced to live together who hate eachother. Funny. From there, everything else simply seems like filler: the drums, the sleep walking, the Chewbacca mask. Everything that is noteable about this movie might as well be stupid sayings on T-Shirts. "Step Brothers" falls short because it has so much potential, but at the end of the day, it settles with lowbrow. Low-low-low-low-LOW lowbrow. I give "Step Brothers" 2 out of 5 stars.

April 19th, 2012 - You know that obnoxious stoner each and everyone of us know in our everyday lives who never shut the hell up about weed and getting stoned, making you believe that its all just an act; that they use the 'stoner' gimmick as a means to establish a personality they simply are unable to have on their own? "Super High Me" is EXACTLY like that. This movie is horrible. Its a little less then two hours of seeing Doug Benson (who, admittingly, is a funny comedian, but sure as hell isn't in this thing) not smoke pot for 30 days, then go 30 straight days of smoking pot...and in the end, nothing is accomplished. Aside from the fake that Benson doesn't seem to inhale on camera...at all...Benson seems to act exactly the same both stoned and not stoned, sorta making the overall plot of the movie completely pointless. Now, this documentary DOES offer some itneresting insight into medical marijuana stores, including the trials and tribulations into just keeping the damn things open, but its too far seperated from seeing Benson's little experiment. It's almost like two seperate documentaries were being filmed at the same time, and they decided to splice them together, creating a virtual waste of time. If this documentary would have focused on the ideals, culture, and nature of cannibus itself as opposed to Doug Benson's brilliant insight such as "That guy's hat makes me want to get high.", maybe this movie could have been interesting, but instead, its a waste of film, and a waste of time. Being straight edge, I don't get high myself, but I don't have a problem with anyone else 'partaking'...though the studio HAD to be high to let this trainwreck get released. I give "Super High Me" 1 out of 5 stars.

April 20th, 2012 - "Iron Man" is one of the best comic book movies ever made simply because it is exactly what it should be: a comic book movie through and through. The action is big, the effects are spot on, its never overly serious, and its fun, through and through. Like everyone else, what stands out most in my mind are three little words: Robert. Downey. Jr. When it was first announced that Downey (when, last was seen, was something of a bad boy, party animal) would play the role of Tony Stark, people were taken aback, thinking that it was a horrible choice...and the geeks of the world could not be anymore wrong. Like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and Ron Pearlman as Hellboy, no one else could possibly be invisioned for the role now. He nailed both the man and the Iron Man in one swoop. Downey Jr. aside, the rest of the cast is pretty damn near perfect: Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts was perfect, standing out as one of the only actress who could actually keep up with Downey. Granted, in the comics, Pepper was never really her own character as much as Stark's love interest, but Paltrow made the role her own, and nailed it. Jeff Bridges as Obediah Stane is also a brilliant casting, as Bridges is able to play both Stark's mentor AND nemesis in one swoop. Bridges' Stane is so good that when he does turn, its almost heartbreaking because we got to know and even like the character. Terrance Howard is....not my favorite person to cast as James Rhodes. In the comic book, War Machine is a bad-ass, tough as nails, take no prisoners MFer who is Stark's equal in everyway. In the movie, Rhodes is...not. He's a push over, a babysitter, and never really stands as the airman he's made out to be. The story is fun filled, creating an origin for Iron Man for a new generation, and leads the entire franchise in the build up towards "The Avengers". "Iron Man" is, without a doubt, one of my favorite movies of all time, and I give the film a well deserved 4 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 21st, 2012 - "Iron Man 2" is good...but its certainly no "Iron Man". It does a decent enough job of continuing the story of Tony and the gang, but it simply has WAY too much involvement with "The Avengers". Instead of the subtle hints we had in the first flick, Avengers hints and easter eggs are violently thrown at the audience, Scarlett Johanson as The Black Window standing out as the most obvious example. Don't get me wrong, she's okay, but she didn't necessarily do anything in the movie other then look hot (no, breaking into the Hammer compound to unlock the War Machine armor doesn't count because Stark's armor would have already have a means to unlock it himself; Tony is that damn good). But really, at its heart, "Iron Man 2" still has its fun. Its interesting to see Stark hit rock bottom, then come back, better then ever. Stark's concept of 'inventing an element' that just so happens to be the cure to his poisoning is a tad bit much, but overall, the good outweighs the bad. Don Cheadle is a BRILLIANT replacement for Terrance Howard, standing as everything Rhodie should be: strong willed, focused, and able to kick Stark's ass if need be. Sam Rockwell is also a fantastic addition to the cast, taking the once old, senile Justin Hammer and turning him into his own character, knocking it out of the park...and then, there is Whiplash played by Mickey Rourke. I personally have mixed feeling about this character. Acting wise, Whiplash is amazing. Calm, cool, and collected around chaos, but able to murder without a moment's hesitation. Its an interesting idea because alot of the movie takes place from the villains perspective, giving us insight as to what his modivation is. Storyline wise, Whiplash isn't that great. If this movie wanted to build towards Avengers, I feel like stakes should have been risen a little more then simply Whiplash, giving Tony and equal, but at the same time, the two times Iron Man and Whiplash face eachother, Stark kicks his ass in less then a minute (especially the second battle, which is a SERIOUS fizzle). If the producers wanted to build up Avengers, they should have given him an Avengers level threat; if they wanted the story more Tony focused, they should have given the treatment less Avengers throughout the flick (minus Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury, of course, which was awesome on every frame). "Iron Man 2" stands out as a movie that wants to be two things at once, making the entire thing slightly overkill. Its not bad, but it had a hell of alot to get up to its original's league. I give "Iron Man 2" 3 out of 5 stars.

April 22nd, 2012 - It really is too bad that 'The Incredible Hulk' found its way to stand as the red-headed step child of the Avengers movie (considering that essential nothing in this movie but the CGI Hulk looks to appear in the "Avengers" movie), considering the fact that it's really good. I think the worst thing held against it was its poor release time. After all, weeks before, the godly awesomeness that is 'Iron Man' had already come out, allowing Hulk to slip right under the radar. The movie itself is good, standing as a nice hybrid between the 70s television show and the comic book, all the while telling the early 2000s "Hulk" movie where it can shove it. The movie is exactly as it was designed to be: a chase movie. There is no deep inner termoil or emotional scars that Bruce Banner has to get over this time around. Just a nice guy caught in a science experiment who tries to find a cure for the beast within. The cast is as solid as a cast can be...but with minor exceptions. Edward Norton is a fantastic choice for Bruce Banner, but as much as I like Edward Norton, there are very few instances where he takes a character and makes it his own. Honestly, 80% of the movies he is in, its almsot like Norton is playing Norton. Liv Tyler is a decent enough Betty Ross, but she is waaaaay too mellow for the role. Considering that she is on the run from the governement with a deadily monster, she seems to be taking things way too well, only two times in the movie does she even raise her voice. William Hurt and Tim Roth play the role of General Ross and Abomination well, though considering their dialogue, and Roth's role as the next line of 'super soldier', it seems like they were designed strickly for Avengers teases. Still, I think the really great thing about this movie is the effects and the action. Coming off of the original "Hulk", people were a little iffy due to the poor designs and symbolism instead of action course the movie took. This time around, both were nailed perfectly. The Hulk, himself, looks amazing, taking a more realistic, muted take on the character, building him for action, and leading to a battle with Abomination that is perhaps the best fight to date of all the Avengers movies. I look forward to seeing what Mark Ruffalo does with the character, but even if it doesn't work out for the best (highly doubt it!), we'll still have this movie. "The Incredible Hulk" is the Hulk flick we all wanted, and it was really hard to be disappointed. I give "The Incredible Hulk" 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 23rd, 2012 - I really hate to say it, because so much effort went into the movie (and don't get me wrong, it shows)...but when it comes to "The Avengers" movies, "Thor" is, sadly, the worst. Its not a bad movie itself, but the real thing that bothers me about it is that it took the Avengers hints from the other movies (Phil Coleson, a well known Marvel based prop, a cameo appearance, etc...) and builds an entire movie on it. Yes, we all know that "The Avengers" is the main event, but the other movies worked so well because they were their own movies, telling complete stories, and standing on their own two feet. With "Thor", unless you've seen the other movies first, its really hard to tell what the hell is going on. However, its not all bad. Alot of the cast really does bring the characters to life, especially Chris Hemsworth as Thor and Tom Hiddleston as Loki, but really, the cast is almost too good...Sir Anthony Hopkins as Odin is a great casting, but aside from the beginning and the end, he offers little for the movie (and Rene Russo is given practically nothing whatsoever). Natalie Portman, I also have an issue with as Jane Foster. In the comic book, Thor is interested in her because she is a paramedic, amazed at the fact that she is a normal woman who is still willing to do whatever she can be save lives and be a hero. In the movie, Thor likes Jane because...she's hot...that's it. That's really all she brings to the table. If the character is going to play hot and hot alone, any actress could have filled the role. The story is...fine. Just fine. It establishes the origins and story of Thor, creating some interesting concepts and gives backstory on Asgard, and exactly what we view as 'gods' are, but the story is far too Avengers filled, leading to a throw down with SHIELD that is rather out of place, as well as a cameo by Clint "Hawkeye" Barton which was the weakest tease yet, considering that he doesn't actually do anything. Overall, its hard for me to call "Thor" a bad movie, but I really expected alot more. With any luck, this movie will serve as "A New Hope" of the Thor saga, simply standing as a means to introduce the story, and the sequel will be alot more "Empire Strikes Back". I give "Thor" 2 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 24th, 2012 - Words cannot express how horrible this movie is. Even the most dedicated and well thought out of sentences cannot convey how much I hate it. This movie...frankly...shouldn't even exist. Like all Sandler movies, Adam Sandler tries to create a character that is, at first glance, obnoxious and over the top, but through the movie, we find a way to love them for exactly who they are....sadly, in this movie, "Jill" is nothing more then Sandler in a dress...a concept that stops being funny 2 seconds into the bit (toss in the fact that 'Jill's' voice is the 'c**k n' balls' woman from Sandler's first comedy album, and you have a trainwreck ready to happen). "Jill" never stands out as loveable, as Sandler completely lacks the talent for us to ever take him having a twin sister seriously, making the audience's attempt to at least be entertained by "Jack" as impossible because he is a dick himself. And then...we have Al Pacino, playing the role of Al Pacino. First and foremost, he's TOO FRIGGIN' GOOD FOR THIS MOVIE! You can tell that he is having so much effort into playing a stereotypical version of himself in the movie, but by the time he arrives in the flick, its so unfunny that even he can't save it. On the plus side of the flick, it does have quite alot of celebrity cameos who do actually spark a laugh or two, from Regin Philbin to Johnny Depp to Gared from 'Subway' who actually gets the best laugh of the movie. All in all, ironically enough, I can review this movie by actually using a quote from Al Pacino in the movie:

"This should not be seen by anyone...find every copy...and burn it."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

For having absolutely no value other then a few well placed camoes, I give "Jack and Jill" 1/2 out of 5 stars...I would have done a full star, but they got David Spade in drag too...

...god, I hate this movie...

April 25th, 2012 - "Drawn Together", as a TV show, was rude, insulting, racist, disgusting, and absolutely funny as hell, so when I heard there would be a direct to video movie standing as the shows finale, I was excited to check it out...however, the fact that the movie went without limits may have been more of a blessing then a curse. One of the fun things about "Drawn Together" was seeing how far they could go on TV, and just how much they could get away with. With the movie being unrated, nothing was off limits, so it kinda defeated the purpose of crossing the line. Things in this movie were sorta disgusting for the sake of being disgusting, not really being funny in the process (a challenge of stomping puppies to death, a Toot/Foxy sex scene, a monster that eats its own fecal matter, Captain Hero having sex with a dead body, etc). Don't get me wrong, these things aren't exactly 'offending' me, but I simply don't find the humor. Sue me. Though, one thing has to be pointed out: like the show itself, the voice acting is AWESOME. Legends in the field of voice acting such as Tara Strong, Cree Summer, and Jess Harnell are back and better then ever, as well as pop culture god, Seth MacFarlane, offering his services as the movie's Boba Fett style character, I.S.R.A.E.L. When not being utterly disgusting, the movie has alot of fun at its own expense, taking its own cancellation and characters being nothing more then bad rip offs of other popular cartoon characters as storyline points, leading to a few resolutions longtime fans could appreciate. "Drawn Together Movie: The Movie" is a serious mixed bag. Like "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Move", long time fans will appreciate the flick, while people who have no idea what they are getting into will be either offended, confused, or offended and confused. Its far from the worst movie on earth (even by DOV standards), but it may be a little too gross, even from "Drawn Together". I give the movie 2 out of 5 stars.

April 26th, 2012 - This is a very interesting movie for three reasons. 1.) Its a mockumentary about comic books, which is already the best idea EVER! 2.) Aside from celebrity cameos, the cast of this movie is completely made up of voice actors (Tom Kenny, Jess Harnell, Billy West, and many many more), allowing these talented individuals to have a turn in front of the camera, and 3.) the film is directed by and starring perhaps the biggest geek on the planet, Mark Hamill. Filmed on set at the 2003 San Diego comic con, "Comic Book: The Movie" deals with all the frustrations and experiences we all feel around Con time: the annoyance of a big-budget comic book movie missing the point, the exhaustion of the con itself, trying to hit on a cos-playing fangirl that we have no chance with, etc. A direct to DVD movie, the flick is good, but I guess my only real complaint about it is that it really didn't have to be a mockumentary. To actually follow Mark Hamill and all these talents around Comic-Con would have been excellent on its own, o for so much of this to be a fictional storyline sadly is a bit out of place (though, disc 2 of the DVD does feature a Q&A from the con with all the talent, which more then makes up for it). If you are a fan of movies like "This is Spinal Tap" and "Best in Show", or you are simply an all-bases comic geek, you'll most likelly enjoy this movie. I give "Comic Book: The Movie" 3 out of 5 stars.

April 27th, 2012 - A third straight Jess Harnell movie? WHAAAAT? "Wakko's Wish", based on the universally popular "Anamaniacs" television show, stands as the shows first full length movie for the franchise, as well as a finale for the show. As far as the finale aspect goes, this movie fills the role perfectly, adding a nice touch and offering resolutions for the many storylines throughout the series (Who exactly are the Warner Bros, Rita and Runt finding a home, the Goodfeathers quest for respect, etc), making sure to include practically everyone from the show (no Katie Kaboom, but what can you do?). the movie is exactly what you'd expect from the Anamaniacs: funny, sarcastic, brilliant insider jokes, and lots and lots of heart, though I do have two major complaints about the movie: first, I don't really like the aspect of the movie taking place during the winter in a fictional kingdom. I always liked that the Anamaniacs took place in the modern day, leading to the jokes and cameos to be fresh and current. The kingdom makes it come off more as a fairy tale, which isn't really the flick's style. Also, I don't want to give it away, but towards the end of the movie, something happens that had a humorous conclusion, but before it reaches it...its dark. Its extremely dark. If I were of a younger age and saw this, it would have broken my heart. Still, despite these complaints, "Wakko's Wish" is a fun filled, zany ride that takes my personaly favorite character from the show, Wakko, and spotlights him. Its fun for fans of the show, as well as fans of animation in general. I give "Wakko's Wish" 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 28th, 2012 - One has to respect Melissa Joan Hart. The one time 'Clarissa Darling' will probabily be known throughout her entire career by her soft, teeny bopper projects, such as "Sabrina the Teenage Witch", "Holiday in Handcuffs", and the recent sitcom "Melissa and Joey". So, the idea of her wanting to break away and do an R-rated suspense/horror flick isn't a horrible idea when it comes to breaking typecasting and doing a project one wants to do as opposed to a project one has to do, and for that, I do respect her. The problem is, however, that the project in question is "Nine Dead", a film about nine individuals handcuffed together by a madman who tells them that they all have something in common, something that is so bad that they deserve to die for it. Every hour, he will kill one of the nine unless they can solve the riddle. The idea of chance coincidences leading to the cross-streams of life is an interesting concept, and had that be the only focal point of the flick, this would be a decent movie. The problem with the movie, sadly enough, falls on Hart herself. In the movie's defense, half of it is...alright. A solid B flick, but not too much to complain about. However, at about the halfway point, the movie (which Hart and her production company also produced) seems to focus directly on Hart's character for no particular reason, aside from the fac that she is the most well known actress in the movie. Without warning, random twists appear that annoy more then drive towards telling a good story. Hart's lawfirm faked evidence to win a case. Hart had an affair with one of the other prisoners that led to her having a child he doesn't know about. Hart was raped, and then murdered her rapist in cold blood. These facts all build up to absolutely nothing, and then the movie simply...ends. No really. No real ending. Hart's character runs blindly through a factory, police closing in, and...credits. "Nine Dead" is a B movie, and absolutely NOT in the fun kinda way. If Melissa Joan Hart wishes to stretch her acting chops, she might want to try a movie she isn't personally producing. I give "Nine Dead" 1 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 29th, 2012 - "A Goofy Movie" seems to me like one of those movie people would either enjoy with all their heart, or hate with a passion. I look at the movie as the red headed step-child of the Disney animated flicks because it really is unlike any of the other animated films that have come before it, "Ducktales" included. It's set in modern day. There are no princesses. It focuses on a high schooler who is anything but Prince Charming. It has a certain sense of realism to it that I can really appreciate it. Being a fan of the "Goof Troop" animated series, I wasn't sure how this movie was going to go. Would it be a continuation of the series, or were they going to start from scratch? Luckily, its a happy medium. Goofy, Max, PJ, and Pete all return from the animated series, as well as new characters, Roxanne, and......Paul Shore for whatever reason. The thing that I really enjoy about the movie is the music, with "Stand Out", still to this day, being my favorite Disney song of all time. The movie is really good, but there are irks that bother me, most of which sadly being with Max himself. In the movie, Max sorta comes off as...well...sorta an *beep* thinking about himself and how he wants to get with the girl. The saddest part is that all Max had to do was tell his Dad that there was a girl that he liked, and the hassle would have been subsided...but then again, there would be no plot either. another thing that bothers me is Max's luck. The ending when he and Goffy arrive at the Powerline concert sorta gives the message of "Remember, kids, if you lie and BS your way through life, things will work out for themselves". Sorta a bad message, but hell, Im not watching "A Goofy Movie" for life lessons. The movie is fun, the jokes are laugh-out-loud funny, and like I said, the songs are catchy as hell. I give "A Goofy Movie" 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.

April 30th, 2012 - While Im sure that my opinion of this movie will be followed by several replies saying how I "didn't understand the film" or that Im "missing the point", Im just gonna say it...I don't really like the Austin Powers franchise as much as the next guy. Don't get me wrong, the movies are okay, and I can usually find myself entertained by them, but I think it all stems back to Mike Myers. Again, I have nothing against the guy, but at the end of the day, he's known for four things: British accent, scottish accent, Dr. Evil, and Jewish mother. To me, "Austin Powers" goes back to that same pet peeve I have: it feels like a long SNL bit. Yes, the spy franchise is ripe for parody, but everytime Austin himself is on stage, it feels like its back to the well again. Also, to be fair, the movies have, ironically enough, seemed to have slightly improved with time, doing away with soem of the more annoying bits and focusing more on the good. In "International Man of Mystery", one of the more obnoxious parts was Myers' need to 'pause for laugh' after everything Austin says. "Name? Austin Danger Powers. Sex? Yes please!" [Pause for Laugh]. Now, there are things that I love about this movie too. Despite the repetition, I think Dr. Evil is one of the best characters created in the last 20 years. Myers put so much attention to detail in the character that, really, the franchise should be his. I think a movie that focuses on the arch-villain would have been phenominal, a concept that was later taken and expanded upon in "Despicable Me". Everything else about the movie ranges from good to...eh. The co-stars, including Elizabeth Hurley, Robert Wagner, Seth Green, and others are pretty good (even though some scenes with Hurley are rather phoned in), and the cameos are okay, though I still get a big belly laugh from the entire Tom Arnold bathroom scene ("Bite your lip and give em' hell, son. We're gonna get through this!" Love it). Still, the movie evens out to being...okay. I don't really see the hype about it, but then again, my opinion of the Austin Powers franchise is still above my opinion of the Napoleon Dynamite franchise, so what can you do. I give "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery" an average 2 1/2 out of 5 stars.