shanebeacham Reviews

The Great Gatsby (2013)

A Great Movie Downgraded By Its Focus On Spectacle Rather Than The Story

[7/10 · 25 November 2014]

I didn't (and still haven't) read F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, which many consider to be the epitome of the great American novel. However, I have seen some of director Baz Luhrmann's work, being Romeo + Juliet, which I thought was absolutely atrocious and a failure at what it was trying to accomplish. Luckily, walking out of the theater I was not displeased or annoyed, but I felt like I had just watched what could have been one of the best movies of the year...had a few things been changed.

First off, I got to mention Leonardo DiCaprio as Gatsby. I know it is a cliché to say that DiCaprio nailed it in a movie, but I felt like he really took over the role of Gatsby and breathed life into it. Every time he's on screen, he completely holds your attention. I'm not sure how his performance matches with the character from the book, but as far as I'm concerned, he killed it as Gatsby. I also have to give credit to Joel Edgerton as the antagonist Tom Buchanan. You absolutely hate his character and root for Gatsby to win in the end.

There's also a really great script here. The dialog is fast-paced and well written, and the way the story goes and comes together is definitely well done. And it had characters that I was invested in. I was interested in seeing where Gatsby came from and how the main character (played by Tobey Maguire) dealt with being around all this madness. It also ends really sad too, and it definitely felt effective in many ways.

Sounds like a pretty fantastic movie, right? Well, a lot of these things I enjoyed about the movie are often masked by the focus on the visual aspects. This movie has great visuals, sure. The costumes are excellent, the cinematography is gorgeous, and the visuals, when needed, look great. But they completely take over and feel so bombarded in your face that it took me out of the movie at multiple times. This felt very loud, in sound and style, and the modern rap songs played when the film is set in the 20's felt completely out of place. It feels like Luhrmann was trying too hard to make this modern and a spectacle, and in the process forgot to focus on the already fantastic script and actors in order to drive the movie.

However, I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy The Great Gatsby. It was fun, well-acted, and had a great story and dialog. Even though I complained about the visuals being loud and distracting, they're still fun to look at and look spectacular. So while it may not be a perfect film, The Great Gatsby is one that I would recommend checking out, even if you're not a fan of Luhrmann's previous work.

Maniac (2012)

So Much Beauty, Too Much Gore

[7/10 · 17 October 2013]

Maniac was definitely a movie that I was interested in checking out. From the trailers I saw, I really liked the direction that they were going for: the first person perspective inside the mind of a serial killer. Of course the original is famous for its violence and even had the equivalent to an NC-17 rating when it first came out. And if anything this film does fulfill the prophecy of this being a rather violent flick, but don't look at that as a positive.

First of all, there is a lot to love about Maniac, the biggest being the way it was shot and edited. You feel like you're right inside Frank's head, feeling his torment, witnessing the violence for yourself. They even have it down to the head movements. There's a scene where Frank turns his head from side to side while looking in the mirror, and the camera moves along with it. The technique really works for this film, and really enhances the horror.

Speaking of horror, this movie is undeniably chilling. There are some really messed up moments in the film, and each kill scene in the movie is very sickening and hard to watch, particularly one which takes place in a hotel. The first person perspective also helps with this, as I mentioned above, and the film overall captures a very chilling atmosphere.

There's also some really good acting here, particularly from Elijah Wood as the demented main character. Originally when I saw the first still of him holding the bloody blade, I wasn't quite sure how he would fair in this film. The only "demented" character I had seen him play before was Kevin from Sin City, and other than that not much else. However, he kills it here, and it's nice to see them give him a lot more depth than you would see from a typical slasher film.

In fact one of the hails of his movie is the fact that it doesn't resort to your typical slasher flick stereotypes. Obviously this takes the more art-film approach (but don't let that turn you off), but it's nice to see, as I mentioned above, more depth found in here than you normally get from a lot of modern-day horror films. There's definitely a lot of psychological undertones here, which definitely makes the film very captivating at times to watch.

However, if anything could detract the film from these great qualities, it would have to be the violence. Now obviously going into a slasher film you're going to have a lot of violent content and of course violent content is very much needed. However, there were times where they took it way to for almost to the point where it was distracting. It was so in your face that it really distracted you from the overall story, which is a great one. I think if they had toned down on the violence a little bit, this movie would probably have gotten a higher score from me, and while I did like this movie, the gore factor really leaves me hesitant when it comes to viewing this movie a second time.

Overall, Maniac is not a bad film at all. In fact, it's actually one of the most interesting films I've seen all year. It's got a great cast, great story, beautiful cinematography, a great style, and ultimately it does serve the purpose of horror films by creeping you out. It really stinks that the violence got to me so much that my rating and re-playablity for this movie has gone down a notch. Trust me, I wish it didn't, because there is a lot to love about this movie and I think if they had toned it down maybe a little bit, the film would have possibly made my films of the year list. That said, I will say to check this one out, but be wary and know what you're in for when it comes to this film.

The Hunger Games (2012)

From The Eyes Of Someone Who Has Not Read The Book

[9/10 · 24 March 2012]

I wasn't really sure what to expect from The Hunger Games. I had heard of the books, but I never read them nor did I know anything about how much of a fan base it has until recently. As for the trailers, they didn't seem to really excite me; they didn't look bad, but it didn't really get me hyped up to see the movie. I'm glad I gave the film a chance, because honestly, this is probably my favorite film of 2012 so far.

Now this film is directed by Gary Ross, director of Pleasantville and Seabiscuit, and while he hasn't directed many movies (he has written quite a few though), when he does direct he's actually really good. And same goes for The Hunger Games; he really did a good job of bringing this story to the screen. And he's also one of the writers of the story, along with Suzanne Collins (the book's author), and they both turn in a great script here, with great dialog, great story, and great characters. And this movie really gets you involved with what's going on, even for the minor characters. When a person dies in this movie, even if they've had less than five minutes of screen time, it was kind of shocking.

Speaking of the characters, let's get to the actors. Jennifer Lawrence is absolutely amazing in this film, and not just in beauty (my future wife, ladies and gentlemen), she really can act. Now I've only seen her in X-Men: First Class and in this film (haven't seen her in Winter's Bone), but this is probably the best I've seen of her. She is outstanding. And while I'm not the biggest fan of Josh Hutcherson in the few films that I've seen him in (mostly kids movies so maybe that's why, he was never really given a chance to act ever), but here he does a really good job, and he's sort of like the underdog of the story. There are also some great secondary performances by Woody Harrelson, Wes Bently, Donald Sutherland, Lenny Kravitz, and Stanley Tucci. All of them do a great job, in fact there is probably not a single weak role in this film.

And the action sequences are just fantastic in this film. There's been a few complaints about the use of shaky cam in the movie, but I think it actually made the scenes better because it really showed the intensity of the situation and the chaos of it all. And this movie is violent for PG-13, in fact there are a lot of bloody moments. This isn't something you should take your kids to see, young ones anyway. The pacing was also really good, and for a movie clocking in at almost two and a half hours, it felt neither too long or too short; it felt just right.

The funny thing was that I thought this movie would get boring after the first half had passed through, because I was so wrapped up in just getting to know the characters and wasn't really interested in seeing the actually Hunger Games section of the story. But it caught me off guard; not only did the second half keep me interested, it got even more and more better as the film went along. It has been a while since I've seen a movie that did that to me. In fact this is so good, that I can't really say anything wrong about it. It just succeeds in every way that it should have. Check this movie out if you haven't already. Don't worry if you haven't read the books at all, you will enjoy this movie as well. I never read them, but I may now after watching this. And yes, this is my favorite movie of the year so far.

I give The Hunger Games a 9/10.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

My Review For "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo"

[9/10 · 20 December 2011]

I was really looking forward to The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo ever since I learned that David Fincher had been attached to it. Now normally I'd be angry at the fact of a foreign film being remade, having seen and loved the Swedish version of the film, but I made an exception with this one because of the cast and crew for this film. Fincher, who directed films such as Fight Club, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, and most recently The Social Network (my favorite film of 2010 and what I thought should have won over The King's Speech), has a fantastic eye for filmmaking and has always impressed me with his movies, save for Se7en which I wasn't as huge a fan of as everyone else was and even on that film I enjoyed a good bit. You throw in the writer of Schindler's List and Gangs Of New York, add actors like Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer and so many others, a score from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (who also scored The Social Network), and base it off the best selling book by Stieg Larsson (that's right, this isn't a remake but rather a re-adaptation), it all equals out to, in my opinion, the best film of the year by far.

Now the first thing I want to say about this movie is Rooney Mara's performance. She knocks it out of the park portraying Lisbeth Salander. She captured the mystery, the strangeness, the darkness, the out-of-the- norm personality that this character had. She was absolutely fantastic and I'm gonna be shocked as hell if she does not get an Oscar nomination. And she really makes you feel for her in the darker parts of this movie, which we'll get to in a moment. And all the other performances are great as well. Daniel Craig is great as usual and there is great chemistry between him and Mara. Christopher Plummer, as little as he's in the movie, does a great job as well, in fact all the actors do. This is a really well acted movie.

Another thing that a lot of people have been talking about with this film, as it was with the book and the Swedish film, was the moments where sexual violence appears on screen. And while there are some really uncomfortable moments in the film, that's the reason why these scenes succeed. They shock you and make you want to look away. And that's good, especially when the themes of this movie as well as the source material were about this sort of thing, and the movie conveys it perfectly. And while these scenes do linger in your mind, they never distract you from the basis of this movie, which leads into my next praise for the film.

The story is really engaging. Even though I had seen the Swedish movie and knew how the story as a whole was going to play out, I was able to be really engaged in the movie and not focus on other things. It really sucks you in, and Steve Zaillian, the writer of this movie, structures the film in a way that is both similar and different to the Swedish version, therefore doing what I hoped this film would do, which was taking something that I already knew about and had watched before and made it to where it was still interesting and there were changes made to where I didn't know how it was going to turn out. And that's great.

And everything technical about this movie succeeds. The score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is fantastic and really sucks you into the tone of the picture. Jeff Cronenweth, who worked with Fincher on both Fight Club and The Social Network, delivers fantastic cinematography. The editing, the direction, the shots, everything about this movie succeeds, making it a near perfect film.

Now one small complaint I have about this film stems a little bit from me viewing the Swedish version, in which they reveal a little more about who Lisbeth is and one of the things she did in her past that made it so troubled. And they didn't use that here which kind of threw me off a little. However, the more I think about it, the less it becomes a concern because 1.) You can't compare the two films and 2.) there are bits and pieces shown in the films climax that shows that Lisbeth deep down does have a soul. So the movie manages to overcome that obstacle, and overall, I have nothing to say bad about it.

Overall, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a masterful film, it's one that you should definitely check out and I'll definitely be checking it out sometime soon. It's directed, written, and acted well, and succeeds in all that it sets out to do. You feel the emotion and darkness of the film, Rooney Mara blew me away with her performance (and that body, damn), and overall it lived up to my expectations. So out of ten, I got to be honest, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a 10. Go see this movie NOW.

Valhalla Rising (2009)

Visually Staggering, Boldly Brutal, A True Form of Art

[9/10 · 19 July 2010]

Welcome to my review for the Nicolas Winding Refn independent film "Valhalla Rising," starring Mads Mikkelsen (Casino Royale). This film is set of course in 1,000 AD and we follow a mute one-eyed man named One-Eye, who is quite a warrior; everyone he fights is defeated quickly. But he's treated more like a prisoner than a warrior, and the only real relationship he has is with a boy named Are. After escaping one day, the boy and One-Eye meet Christians who are traveling to Jerusalem to fight in the Crusades. After several days of drudgery and being caught in mist, they end up in a much more different place than what they wanted, some of them believing that One-Eye took them to Hell.

Valhalla Rising was released independently this weekend and I got a chance to see it. I had first heard about it when a picture was released of One-Eye standing the same way he does in the poster, and afterward I was interested in seeing where this film went.

I want to give a little bit of a warning to those of you who are thinking this film is gonna be an action packed viking movie, it's not. In fact, it hardly has a plot, character development, and story arc. But what makes this different from other films is that its lack of character and plot development doesn't ruin the movie but helps it. And here's why: Valhalla Rising is an art film. It's a film that incorporates brilliant cinematography and story telling at best. It's a film about the meaning of life, and the questions that lay within it: What am I here for? When will I die? Is there a God? Why did this happen to me? That's what captured my attention. Some people have called this film boring and pretentious, and I feel that goes back to the deceptive marketing of this film. While it has plenty of action in all the right places, it's following people who are covered in mud and grunge and are trying to find out about what life has in store for them.

The violence itself is brutal, but would not nearly be half as brutal without the setting and mood of the film. And it definitely is a creepy film, which certain moments feeling less hopeful then others. And the films ending is quite an interesting take as well and brings the point across in the best way.

Visually staggering, boldly brutal, a true form of art, Valhalla Rising may not be as action packed or character driven as many would hope, but still manages to suck you in and take you back to a time like this. It brings out the meaning of life while making us feel the ominous nature of the film.

Valhalla Rising gets a 9/10.

The Last Airbender (2010)

Shyamalan Needs To Stop Making Movies

[3/10 · 3 July 2010]

I'm quite a fan of the show Avatar: The Last Airbender, and I was actually looking really forward to the movie version. Even with M. Night Shymalan directing it. So I got a chance to see it today. And you know what? It's bad. Really really bad.

The basic plot of the film is that the four nations of Earth, Water, Fire and Air are all ruled by the Fire Nation. Later two characters named Soka and Katara find a boy frozen in a large iceberg, named Aang, who turns out to be the Avatar, who is meant to master all four elements in order to defeat the Fire Lord. Meanwhile, the fire lord's son, Zuko, is trying to capture the Avatar in order to regain his honor. Or something like that.

Now normally I don't review movies based off other material on how well they compare to the source material, but I feel I have to make an exception with this one. This film was rushed. They basically took episodes from the first season and either shortened them and rushed to the next scene or didn't use them at all. And I know some people are gonna give me crap for basing this review on how it compares to the show, but at least the show had story arc, character development, and actual entertainment.

We don't know anything about these characters. Everything is moved from one scene after another. We don't get time to stop and let these people breathe or give us a reason to care about them.

Every action scene in this movie was anti climatic. It's just one big tease after another, where you think something really cool is gonna happen like what was in the actual cartoon and it just screws it up. That or they are poorly shot and have terrible CGI.

And I know this is really weird to talk about, but what was up with how they pronounced names in this movie? Since when is Aang sound like "Ung"? Since when does Soka sound like "Suka"? That just annoyed me the whole time.

There are several other things that I could point out, but I think you already got the idea. The Last Airbender is a waste of time, and if you wanna see it so badly, you can just buy the cartoon seasons on DVD instead. This is another perfect example why M. Night Shymalan needs to stop making movies because it's just embarrassing.

I give this movie a 3/10.

[Rec]² (2009)

REC 2 Continues The Creepy Atmosphere Of It's Predecessor While Giving Something New

[9/10 · 18 June 2010]

I am huge fan of the original horror film "REC," which of course inspired the American remake "Quarantine." So of course, once I heard that they were making the sequel I was up for it completely. The first film still scares me to this day, even though I've watched it several times. While I'm not sure I could have the same experience with REC 2, the movie is still a great horror film.

REC 2 starts almost immediately after the events that took place in the first film, and follows members of the S.W.A.T. team going to the apartment complex from the first film. Equipped with video cameras, they go in to find any remaining characters, and find the antidote to the virus that is spreading. We also follow a group of teenagers who end up finding their way in too. We see both vantage points, including the horror that both teams face.

The way this film is shot is breathtaking. In the first film, we had only one perspective from a TV camera. In this film, the S.W.A.T. team uses cameras that can link to mini cameras so that when one of the characters is on his own we can see what's going on. Some may feel this doesn't keep the realism, but I feel it does. Law-enforcement men take cameras with them all the time, and if you were a kid going into the apartment to see what's going on, naturally you would have a camera. In terms of a technical achievement, REC 2 definitely brings it up a level.

In the last film, what this virus may be is merely hinted at. In here, the directors move more into the mythology they created and expand it. We learn, without giving too much away, that the virus is much more than what we thought it was, something that leads back to the Vatican and religion in general.

While I wouldn't say the second film is as scary as the first, it still carries the creepy atmosphere set up in the first REC. There are many scenes were you feel trapped and you can't get out, and not knowing what's gonna happen next.

I was very pleased that they brought back Angela Vidal (the main character) for the second film. I felt that the actress did well, and the directors brought her character to the right point, which leads into my next topic: The ending. I was wondering how the film's climax would be and if it would top the first film's ending, which goes down as one of the most frightening things I've ever seen. The answer is yes, it does go in the right direction, shocks you, and sets you up for the third film.

The biggest problem that I can say about REC 2 is that while characters in the first film were well developed and memorable, you don't get that with these new characters. Sure we fear for them, sure they're not bad characters at all. But none of them really made me think about them afterward, and the only character that was memorable was Angela Vidal, who was in the first film.

It felt a little too shaky at times for me. While it does keep the film tense especially in it's more obscure moments, I really wished the camera could stop and calm down at a few points.

While REC 2 may not be as incredible as the first, it still takes things that were done well in the first film and makes them better. So if you liked the first movie and you're hyped for the second, you shouldn't be disappointed.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

I Think Some People Need To Watch This As A Film And Not As An Adaptation

[7/10 · 18 June 2010]

Thanks for checking out my review for The Lovely Bones starring Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz and Stanley Tucci. Now the basic premise follows Susie Salmon, like the fish, who is raped and murdered by her neighbor from across the street. Once dead she is caught in the "In Between" which is the middle between Earth and Heaven. There, she watches over her family and see how they are dealing with the situation, and she watches over her killer and seeing who his next victim may be.

I was looking forward to seeing The Lovely Bones once the trailers started coming out. I have never read the book, and I believe that no matter what how good the material is, a film should stand on its own. Once the reviews started coming out, I wasn't so sure about what was gonna happen. But a lot of the reviews have been concerning the adaptation in comparison to the book. And because I didn't read the book, I loved the movie.

On the good side, the cast were easily the best part of this movie. My two favorites in this movie were Stanley Tucci and Saoirse Ronan. Ronan is the soul of this film. She pushes it along and makes us care for her, cry for her, afraid for her. Stanley Tucci is incredible and is just creepy in this film. He makes you scared of him and just hate him. Mark Wahlberg is great as well as Rachel Weisz, which leads into my next praise for the film.

A lot of the emotion comes from the scenes where the characters are grieving the loss of Susie. When that happens, Mark Wahlberg is at his best, and Rachel Weisz is at her best.

A lot of the reviews have pointed out how the film is more about the visual effects than the story. I feel more that the visuals help tell the story. The scenes in the In Between are the best parts visually. It makes you feel like you're in Susie's head.

The film's message about moving on after a terrible loss is used so well in the film. And this will affect some more than others depending on if you've been in that situation.

Having said all that, basically calling this movie a lovely film (no pun intended), it does have some things wrong with it. There were some times where the film felt a little bit too melodramatic. It was only about 2 or 3 times, but they were definitely noticeable.

Also, Susan Sarandon, while not bad, was the weakest role in the film. She's basically supposed to be a bit of comic relief in the film, and sometimes it worked because you think, "Oh, that's just how she would act in this situation, trying to bring the family back together." And then there are times where it just feels a little too silly. It didn't ruin the film, but it kinda went a little overboard in some bits.

The music they use doesn't work. Not the score per Se, but the scene where they use source music, and I get what they're doing: They're trying to bring us back to the seventies. But there are times where it just doesn't work at all. Like the scene in the beginning where Susie is rushing her brother to the hospital; it's supposed to be a serious scene, but the music is played like it's meant to be "The Lovely Bones: Comedy Hour" and she's trying not to get hit while the music is playing.

Fortunately, the good outweighs the bad and in the end, I loved The Lovely Bones. It was a beautifully made film, directed well, and while not Peter Jackson's best film, it was still a wonderful movie. If you're a fan of the book, maybe skip this one, but if you are like me and you didn't read it, get it on DVD.

I give The Lovely Bones an 8.5/10.

The Hurt Locker (2008)

Many Films Have Been Made About The War in Iraq...Very Few Have Been As Good As The Hurt Locker

[9/10 · 1 April 2010]

I've been reading a lot of the comments on this website from people and I don't understand what they are coming from. Calling it overrated and inaccurate. Don't believe a word. All the awards, honors, #1 spots The Hurt Locker has gotten, it deserves it.

The film explores the clichéd "War is hell" approach, but in a totally different way. We explore our characters and they do act like many army men. Anthony Mackie as Sergeant Sanborn is the normal army man who shows no emotion until the film ends. Brian Geraghty as Specialist Eldridge is the kind of army man who questions about what's going on there. The only one different from the pack is Jeremy Renner as Sergeant James. He's an adrenaline junkie, and he plays his character so well. He definitely deserved his Oscar nomination.

The direction is so good as well. The way this film was shot is like you are there, in the action, experiencing what the characters are experiencing. The film taps into humanitarianism.

I also really enjoyed the cameos from Guy Pearce, David Morse, and Ralph Fiennes. I know some people have complained about this, saying they didn't have enough time, but they're cameos. That's why they are so short.

Many films have been made about the War in Iraq...very few have been as good as The Hurt Locker. Overall, in my opinion, this was the best film of the year and one of the best films possibly ever.

The Golden Compass (2007)

Visually Great, But The Story Wasn't Told Right

[5/10 · 18 February 2010]

I've read the book by Phillip Pullman, and while I'm not a fan of the series, I thought it was an alright book. Still, the movie looked impressive and that's why I read the book in the first place.

After Lord of the Rings came out, everyone has been wanting to make the next big fantasy film. Some have actually succeeded, like Pan's Labyrinth and The Chronicles of Narnia. Others have failed miserably, like Eragon. So is this the next fantasy film or is it another failure disappointment? Everything from the design, clothing, the visual effects, everything visually was great. They made the world come to life. The actors are actually great. Daniel Craig in the small bit of the film that he's in. Sam Elliot is amazing and makes the film better whenever he's on screen. Ian McKellen, Ian McShane, Nicole Kidman, they were all great.

And the polar bears were amazing. I hope they make like some sort of spin-off of the film where we go into the mythology of these polar bears because they were easily the best done.

But the problem is Chris Weitz has no idea how to treat this material and how to get this on screen. And you can just tell they wanted to make another Lord of the Rings so they even have Christopher Lee show up for less than a minute and have him never show up ever again.

The film has no soul. You never get to know these characters, they're motives, what's the point of this scene or this scene, what's the point of this whole film. And the reason is they are always going from one place to another and not having anytime to get used to that place. Like one critic said, it felt like watching a cliff notes version of the film and it was still a two hour film.

You're waiting for this incredible climactic scene at the end of the film. Instead all you get is a battle of no real significance to the story and they just left it hanging for the next film, which will probably not happen now. And many people who loved the book will hate the ending because they cut it out. There was no ending at all.

Overall, this is not a bad movie, but it isn't a great one either. I think if Weitz had taken the time to explore this material and get it right on screen, we would have ended up with a great fantasy piece. Unfortunately we didn't get that. I was gonna give this a five but Sam Elliot lit up the screen so I'm gonna give this a six. Again, not a bad film, but I'll probably forget about it in a week.

Spartacus (2010–2013)

A Little Too Much Sex, But a Whole Lot of Fun

[9/10 · 23 January 2010]

I've been looking very forward to the Starz original series "Spartacus: Blood and Sand." And I'm happy to say that if you were looking forward to it, you're in for a wild ride.

They tell you right in the front of this show that this is meant to be an intense depiction of Rome. And it is to a certain point. There is definitely a ton of blood, language, and sexuality (one of the female characters is fully naked), but it is all there for a reason and it defines the characters, shows you who they are.

Many won't like this the same way they didn't like 300. And I can say that no one will be able to watch this without thinking about 300, and that's the biggest flaw. It has a speed up slow motion and blood flowing everywhere. It is one of the most graphic TV shows I've ever seen.

However, if you liked 300 (which I did) and you see the slow motion as a way to rise the intensity and that the graphic violence/sexual content is meant to connect with the characters towards some degree, you will enjoy this show. But it's not only a story full of blood and gore and sex and nudity; it also has a lot of character to it and a lot of substance.

Andy Whitfield is brilliant as "Spartacus." He drives the character and makes you feel for him. His acting is perfect. In fact, all the actors are incredible, including Lucy Lawless, Craig Parker, and John Hannah.

The battle scenes in this show are outstanding. Again, very bloody, 300 style battles, but still entertaining. The gladiator fights are well shot and very gritty.

I know it's television and the visuals aren't always the best, best the visuals in this show are gorgeous. There was one moment where it looked like a video game, but only for a second.

it's not only a story full of blood and gore and sex and nudity; it also has a lot of character to it and a lot of substance.

So if you like sword and sandal epics and you don't mind gore and nudity, Spartacus: Blood and Sand is the show for you. I personally thought it was a fun, kick ass, macho show, and while it does have a little too much sex and reminds me a lot about 300, it'll definitely keep my attention for the next episode.

Spartacus: Blood and Sand airs on Friday at 10 o' clock on Starz.

Quarantine (2008)

Alright...But I've Seen It Before

[6/10 · 1 January 2010]

In case you didn't know, Quarantine, starring Jennifer Carpenter from "Dexter," is based off the Spanish horror film REC. The great thing about REC was that it felt real, even though it was a "zombie" flick, just because it was shot like Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield, both great films. It was true horror and not that nonsense we see in a lot of the horror films that come out nowadays that show how much of a stupid society we are becoming as Americans.

I was not looking forward to Quarantine because of a fear of mine: This is a remake, and it looks like REC, but in English. Unfortunately that came true.

This is not even a bad movie. Not at all. It still scares you, even with the same scares, and it doesn't do anything wrong except....it's the same thing. I was watching REC while watching Quarantine and vice versa. It was the same thing and yet it never added up to the level of greatness that REC had.

And sometimes when they did make changes it didn't work. For example, the cameraman in REC never shows his face, and that adds to the illusion of the character. But in Quarantine, first shot of the freaking movie, he walks out from behind the camera to fix the girl's hair. For one thing, it ruins your imagination, and two, it just feels like the director's had to make an excuse to get the guy on screen.

There are some things that I did like about this film though. In the original REC, while the police were there you never saw what would happen if someone tried to escape. In Quarantine, things that weren't shown in REC are placed in Quarantine and that makes the film in some ways scarier. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a better movie.

My overall verdict, go watch the original version. But if you are like a lot of people out there who refuse to watch subtitled films, check this one out instead.

Troy (2004)

Theatrical Version VS Director's Cut

[8/10 · 22 December 2009]

I've seen two versions of the film Troy, starring Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, and Peter O'Toole. The first version I saw was the cut that was released in theaters at 162 minutes. Many people hated this film, but I don't understand why. I found it to be very entertaining. The acting was decent, despite some weak moments of dialog. Eric Bana was great, Peter O'Toole, who's not even in the film that much, is one of the more stand out characters, along with Brendan Gleeson and Sean Bean. Brad Pitt was great in this film, and he makes the character of Achilles much more of a flawed character rather than just a god like warrior.

The action was very fun to watch. Some of it felt a little PG-13, but that didn't bother me too much and I had fun watching them. I was mostly impressed with Beach of Troy Battle; there were some things we haven't seen before, and it was very fluent and you could tell what was happening, which is more than I can say for "Alexander." I also liked that the film was more realistic than "The Illiad" which this film is based off of. Like I mentioned, Achilles is more a flawed, selfish character rather than a god like man that can only be killed by an arrow through his Achilles tendon. I also liked who they didn't have Greek Gods used during the war scenes.

Now I did have a problem with some of the acting, especially from Orlando Bloom, Diane Kruger, and-gulp-Brian Cox. Some moments of the movie were just ridiculous and reminded me of 50's epics. But still, I had fun with it, and it stands as one of those fun movies that I own on DVD.

Theatrical Cut: 7.5/10 Now when I heard there was a director's cut out, I instantly went out to get the movie. The director's cut adds a little more than a half hour of additional footage, the running time now at 196 minutes. Normally director's cuts nowadays just add back in a minute or two of gore, sex, and nudity. And while Troy does do that in some ways, it adds much more than that.

This version of Troy is in some ways a lot better and in some ways it isn't. The one problem I faced with the Director's cut was the way the music was edited. Sometimes they edit it in the wrong places, and it feels like the director's cut rather than full version of the film. And also the acting is re edited and it sucks, especially from Brad Pitt who ruled in the theatrical cut.

Having said that, the director's cut is much better than the original. The color tone is much more beautiful, the story is longer, the sound design is epic.

The thirty minutes added give us more character development, especially from Peter O'Toole and Sean Bean. You get a sense of why all these characters are fighting and what their motives are.

The film also adds a great amount of graphic violence. The theatrical cut had some graphic violence, but it still remained as something twelve year old kids could go see. The director's cut changes that, and now what was once a thin cut across the throat is now a gaping wound with lots of blood and gore. There is also a decent amount of nudity and sex added, but it isn't a gratuitous as the violence. It is merely there for some historical accuracy (people did sleep naked), and to underscore one or two love scenes.

The director's cut is more flawed then in the original, but it still feels like better. I like both versions of the film and I give them both the same rating, 7.5/10. Troy overall is a flawed epic, but still entertains you enough to forgive it's faults.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Lots to Love, Lots to Hate, and the Twins SUCK

[5/10 · 16 December 2009]

I'm a huge fan of the first Transformers film. It had everything a summer blockbuster should: great action, great visuals, just a fun time at the theater. And yes, I can understand why some people hate it, but just as a film itself, I thought it was an amazing picture. So I was pretty excited when they announced that there would be another Transformers film. However, when the reviews started coming out, I felt a little discouraged. Then the film made so much money and I thought "Maybe this won't be so bad." Unfortunately, it was great either.

There is a lot to love about Revenge of the Fallen. The action scenes are better, the visual effects are more stunning than they were in the last film (which surprised me, seeing as the visuals in Transformers was some of the best visual effects in history). The scenes between Sam's mom and dad made me laugh like crazy in the theater. Linkin Park's song New Divide is a really great song, though many will disagree. We have two really hot women, Megan Fox as Mikeala and Austrailian hottie Isabel Lucas as Terminator babe! (I gotta get me one of those). The things I loved about the first film were better.

But there was also a lot to hate about Revenge of the Fallen sadly.

Okay, for one thing the film is two and a half hours too long. I literally almost fell asleep in the theater. They should have cut it down and gotten rid of some things we didn't need to see. And even the last battle took a while to wake me up.

As well, there are two characters named Skids and Mudflap, and they are one of the most stereotypical, annoying characters I've ever seen on screen. They both sounded like autobots being voiced by the Wayan Bros. And the character of Weelie, which is basically a Joe Pesci robot, is just as bad. He is loud, obnoxious, and just a pointless character.

I'm fine with humor, and the humor in the first film was great and wasn't done throughout the film. In this film, pretty much every word of dialogue is followed by a punch line and some pretty awful ones at times. Dogs humping each others? WTF? The devastator has testicles? Come on.

Megan Fox is a beautiful thing. She has been crowned Earth's finest woman, and I agree she is. But she also does a terrible job in this movie. I'm not saying she's one of the worst actresses on the planet, and I'm not judging her based on the films she's been in. She was actually fine in the first film (even though I spent more time looking at her than listening to her words). But in this film she's not great at all.

There's this character, Leo, who is Sam's roommate. And he serves no purpose to the story, does nothing but yell and scream.

The first hour of this film is the best part, but the rest of the film gets weaker and weaker and weaker, and unfortunately I can't say I liked it. I didn't hate it, but I can't say I liked it. It's sad, because I loved the first film so much.

Watchmen (2009)

"This city's afraid of me...I've seen it's true face!"

[10/10 · 3 December 2009]

The spoilers in this review are minor, but they are spoilers. This is not really a review in a sense that it is more of a defensive argument against the many negative comments about this movie, coming from the divided reviews.

The biggest thing people have complained about with this film is that it's 163 minutes long, a near three hours. Now being a fan of movies that are long, because they give more character and story development, I can say I had no problem, but the reason why I'm defending this is because this is how long it is supposed to be to get the whole story out. Hell, there's a Director's Cut (which I've seen) that's 184 minutes and there's an even longer cut that just came out. So if you don't preferred the running time now, remember it could have been longer.

Another thing that has been said so much is about the character of Dr. Manhattan and the fact that he is nude most of the time he's on screen. For one thing, it is in the graphic novel, so if you have a problem go argue with the guys who wrote the graphic novel and not the filmmakers who adapted it. Plus, it's been mentioned many times that Manhattan has lost his touch with the human race, and therefore, he wouldn't have the need for clothes. And the thing (and I'm not addressing it to everyone) that I find hypocritical is that it's frightening to show the male sex organ, but it's okay to show boobies or occasional female frontal nudity. If you can't handle it, then that's your problem.

And the slow motion has been complained over in this film and in director Zack Snyder's previous film 300. People hate this more than I hate bugs. For one thing, the slow motion was not used in every scene and while it is used, the action is still very fluent and lacks the use of wires. Besides, that's his style of film making. If you want to see bad slow motion, go watch Max Payne.

And some people have even complained about the violence and sex in this movie. Need I remind you that this is an R rated film, and it's that way for a reason. And if you're one of those people that takes they're kids to see movies you want to see without looking at the rating system and the parental guide, you should change that or you shouldn't go see movies at all.

Anyway, I think that the film is a masterpiece, and I don't understand people who bash this film. Sure it isn't Schindler's List, sure it isn't The Godfather, but it's still directed brilliantly and in time, maybe some people will accept it more. It still remains my favorite of the year (even though UP is the best), and the director's cut is even better.

Twilight (I) (2008)

Not as Bad as I Thought...But Still A Bad Movie.

[4/10 · 20 November 2009]

Okay, first of, the books suck. The sad truth is that Stephenie Meyer, who wrote the books, cannot write, and broke the number one rule when you've write a book: show, don't tell. The books suck ass. Therefore I didn't care to see this movie. That's why I didn't see it in the theaters. When it came out on DVD, I decided to check it out.

Look, it's not as bad as I thought,...but it's still pretty bad.

I can give the film credit for some things. For one things, teenagers are portrayed accurately, the villain, James, is a cool character, and cinematography was interesting. But that's all I can draw from this film.

For one thing, the visual effects are awful. For example, there's a baseball scene in this film, and it so clichéd and cheesy. The music was also awful. If I wanted to listen to emo music playing, I would've sat down and listened to My Chemical Romance (who suck, I might add).

They take the best character in the whole movie, who isn't even in the film that much, James, and they waste his character and basically give him The Phantom Menace treatment.

Plus every scene in this movie sounds something like this: "Bella, you shouldn't be around me. I'm a vampire who could suck your blood." "But Edward, I wuv you!" "Okay, fine. Let's make out." "YAY!" Plus, while on the topic of vampires, THESE ARE NOT VAMPIRES! A vampire has fangs and doesn't sparkle in the sunlight! They ruined vampires, and probably ruin some other horror creatures.

This whole movie is just bad. It's not a horrible movie, but it isn't good either. It has an audience, but I cannot recommend it.

REC (2007)

When Many Horror Films Now A Days Are Weak and Lame, REC is a Scary, No Nonsense Horror Film

[10/10 · 5 November 2009]

REC is fantastic. I really can't say much because I don't want to give away too much of the plot or spoilers. But the one thing you have to know is that with a ton of horror films coming out today that are riddled with weak dialog, bad actors, and "not so scary" loud noises, REC does things that horror films coming out today don't do today: provide entertainment. This film gave me nightmares, which let's you know that it is a great horror film; I haven't had a bad sleep like that since Blair Witch.

If you haven't seen the film yet, REC is worth watching. Go see it NOW. I don't care if you don't like reading subtitles, go see it. One of the very few films I've given a perfect rating.