Digital Polyphony

For a Quick Film Database, Click Here

 All Ratings are on Scale, 0 (worst) to 5 (best) with 2.5 being average.

Titles are listed alphabetically

Last Few Reviews:

 Dec 28: The House of the Devil, Broken Embraces

Dec 27: In the Loop

 Dec 23: Crazy Heart

 Dec 22: Avatar, Nine, Brothers, Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

Dec 15: Me and Orson Welles

 Dec 14: Invictus

Dec 12: Peter Jackson Review Special: Heavenly Creatures, The Frighteners, King Kong, The Lovely Bones

Dec 11: Up in the Air, It's Complicated

 Dec 10: A Single Man, The Road

Dec 9: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Dec 8: Ratatouille

Dec 6: The Messenger, Coraline, A Serious Man, Precious, Pirate Radio

Dec 1: The Informant!, The Informers

Nov 29: Cameron Review Special: Piranha 2, The Abyss, True Lies, Titanic

 Nov 28: Antichrist, Where the Wild Things Are

Nov 27: 9, Fantastic Mr. Fox

 Nov 24: Surrogates

Nov 23: Moon, An Education

 Nov 21: Blade Runner, Planet of the Apes, Gattaca

Nov 19: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Nov 17: The Last Station

Nov 16: David Lynch Review Special (Part 2) - Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, Lost Highway, The Straight Story, Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire

Nov 13: David Lynch Review Special (Part 1) - Eraserhead, The Elephantman, Dune, Blue Velvet

 Nov 11: Alien Nation

Nov 9: Anvil! The Story of Anvil!

Nov 7: The Men Who Stare at Goats, Public Enemies

 Nov 4: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

In this futuristic tale, a highly advanced robotic boy named David is 11 years old. He weighs 60 pounds. He is 4 feet, 6 inches tall. He has brown hair. His love is real. But he is not. He is a marvel of cybernetic progress who really only wants to be a real boy, loved by his mother and his father in that happy place called home. But David journeys out into the forests to find a way to become a real boy.

The Good: One of the most controversial films in Spielberg’s filmography has always been scrutinized and analyzed, mostly for the worse and mostly by die-hard Kubrick fans who think that master could tell the story better than this master. No…he couldn’t. In fact, Kubrick even admitted to it. He couldn’t make the film work cohesively, he was horrible with child actors and all his hired writers couldn’t get it the way he wanted. Nor could he figure out how to end it. Sometimes “fresh eyes” are what a project needs and what was a labor of love for Kubrick turned into one for Spielberg. It’s a collaborative film and it shows. It’s full of depth, a story on par some of Kubrick’s best (you can sense him throughout the film), a fantastic vision and a subtle emotional tapestry of love and wanting to be loved, loss, resentment and innocence. It’s complex and represents what science fiction, something Kubrick and Spielberg both share a fondness for, is supposed to be. While this is often under scrutiny of Kubrick fans, the film actually received good reviews. As a fan of Kubrick myself, I loved the film and felt a great meeting between the great storytelling of Spielberg and the richness and depth, not to mention intelligence, of a Kubrick film. It gets a bad rap but for the wrong reasons.


The Bad: A think there’s no better example of a “flawed masterpiece” than A.I. It’s a patchwork of ideas and themes, the story tends to meander back and forth and it is aimless at times. When it’s powerful, it is ten-fold. When it’s not, it can lull you to sleep. This is where the biggest problem resides: the pacing. It grabs you one minute, then tosses you aside again. You don’t know what to feel, what is important and what you need to pay attention to. It sometimes comes across as callous and cold. It’s a chore to get through, all the special effects in the world can’t help the mismanaged pace and uneven story that, obviously, has two directors pulling at it (one posthumously).  

The Ugly: "Eighty percent of the critics got it all mixed up. But I could see why. Because, obviously, I've done a lot of movies where people have cried and have been sentimental. And I've been accused of sentimentalizing hard-core material. But in fact it was Stanley who did the sweetest parts of A.I., not me. I'm the guy who did the dark center of the movie, with the Flesh Fair and everything else. That's why he wanted me to make the movie in the first place. He said, 'This is much closer to your sensibilities than my own.'" - Steven Spielberg

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Doctors are being murdered in a bizarre manner: bats, bees, killer frog masks, etc., which represent the nine Biblical plagues. The crimes are orchestrated by a demented organ player with the help of his mute assistant. The detective is stumped until he finds that all of the doctors being killed assisted a Dr. Vesalius on an unsuccessful operation involving the wife of Dr. Phibes, but he couldn't be the culprit, could he? He was killed in a car crash upon learning of his wife's death...

The Good: Note to self: do not anger Vincent Price. I would say "do not anger Dr. Phibes" but really differentiating between the two is pretty much impossible because Dr. Phibes is Price at his most Vincent Priciest. It's campy. It's over-the-top. It's utterly ridiculous, but such is many films from the era and especially those that starred Vincent Price. Luckily, the always fantastic Joseph Cotten keeps things at least a little level-headed. It's a simple tale of vengeance and revenge, but so unbelievably campy it often comes across as darkly humorous. It's a classic entertaining piece of camp horror.

The Bad: I know these types of movies. I know we shouldn't take them seriously and because of that we find ourselves having a good time with them, However, the degrees to which Dr. Phibes constructs his revenge is utterly absurd. I suppose if he was just another run-of-the-mill killer, it wouldn't be so loved, but to base every kill elaborately on the ten plagues of Egypt is a little unbelievable. Sure, Dr. Phelps has lost his mind, and we chalk up insanity to it, however he doesn't really have any connection to anything biblical that explains his decision to take that route other than that he studied theology. What's the message he's trying to send? Or is is merely a contrived way to make a fun film (which it is). If you look at Se7en, John Doe was a man obsessed with the seven deadly sins and he planned everything out because of it to send a message and remind people of their sin. Here, it's really not explained other than to be inventive in death scenes. Because of this, Dr. Phibes isn't nearly as sympathetic oas he probably should have been or perhaps was intended to be. We never really get to know him despite the Price monologues and his own obsessions. The character falls short of being memorable as a result.

The Ugly: Boy, those are some hungry locusts.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

When an American nuclear submarine crashes, the United States Government believe the Russians to be responsible. They enlist the help of a team of underwater drilling platform workers who are to help the deployed Navy SEALS locate the crash site. As they get closer to their destination, the friction between the two teams increases. When some workers report seeing UFO's underwater, the SEALS grow increasingly suspicious and suspect a Russian mini-sub. After a series of near-fatal disasters, the workers find that they are the only people who are capable of stopping World War III. But they are not the only inhabitants of the deep, and strange things are happening back at the surface.

The Good: While overlong and perhaps a little preachy, The Abyss, I find, is one of the best science fiction movies ever made. Not because of the concept, although the mysterious aliens of the deep was intriguing, but more for what James Cameron always is able to manage in most of his films: its characters. The man knows how to balance the plot and action with his delicate take on his characters that are so easy to become attached to. On paper, that would seem so simple, but I think the utter failure to do so for many other action directors shows how difficult it is to pull off. Cameron has repeatedly. Although the Abyss is probably his least "actiony" of his films, even when put up against Titanic, it manages to gives us tension, drama and special effects that are all timeless.

The Bad: It has to be said that the final portions are melodramatic and overblown even for Cameron's standards, and are arguable the one aspect that keep the film from being a masterpiece. I feel as though he simply toys with us to pursue some message that, by that point, was pretty apparent and didn't really need to be re-drilled into our heads. All the subtext and nuances that the film was going for suddenly becomes pointless once the reveal is given.

The Ugly: I miss Michael Bien, and this movie really shows his range as an actor. Bien was in my office about a month ago, I barely recognized him, yet I have to admit I really felt like gushing over the fact he was there. This was Kyle Reece. This was Hicks. This was goddamn Johnny Ringo. I've always found it odd that Bien was the lead hero in two action classics yet never really reached the success of Stallone or Schwarzenegger - which is sad considering he's a better actor than either.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

*Note: this would be my score for either cut of the film (theatrical and preachy director's cut). The endings are different, but the overall films are unchanged.

A meek word processor impulsively travels to Manhattan's Soho District to date an attractive but apparently disturbed young woman and finds himself trapped there in a nightmarishly surreal vortex of improbable coincidences and farcical circumstances.

The Good: If there's one thing Scorsese knows how to do, it's having a dark character study of his characters. After Hours does this to perfection as we wade through the yuppie-infestation that was the 1980s. It's slow pace of the story and thematic development has David Lynch-like tendencies; satirical, paranoid, intense, surrealist and uncomfortable. He takes on many new styles and approaches with bravo and succeeds across most of them. Like many of his early films, Scorsese explores New York and New Yorkers. The faults of the city and those within it are as apparent in After Hours as they were in Mean Streets or Taxi Driver. Notably, this is through Paul, played brilliantly by Griffin Dunne. Dunne is one of those classic 80s actors that kind of disappeared from the public eye over the years and only when you go back and see his performance do you see how good he was at his craft. He's perfectly cast and gives the performance of his career that is as subtle as it is inspired. With him leading the way and Scorsese in full command of a tight story and the camera, you have a very focused and candid look at a regular guy stuck in an irregular world.

The Bad: The film isn't a comedy in the vein of "joke, meet punchline" or situational humor, but is one that works in making you uncomfortable and laughing at the fact the character is uncomfortable or you're feeling uncomfortable. Due to this rather interesting dichotomy and non-traditional approach to trying to be funny while being dramatic, it's hard to determine whether or not it succeeds in doing so. Some feel it's a parable of Don Quixote, more akin to A Confederacy of Dunces than a Marx Brothers film, others just feel uneasy with it all (something Scorsese often did in many of his early films but didn't try to be funny while doing so). As a dark satire, it's brilliant, as something someone might want to watch again and get involved with, it fails. Unlike some of Scorsese's other films, After Hours isn't quite as timeless and noticeably set in the 1980s. The styles and look reflect that, but also the context of the story which can feel dated and not as accessible.

The Ugly: I'm not sure how, or even why, After Hours was labeled and marketed as a comedy.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Society scion Newland Archer is engaged to May Welland, but his well-ordered life is upset when he meets May's unconventional cousin, the Countess Olenska. At first, Newland becomes a defender of the Countess, whose separation from her abusive husband makes her a social outcast in the restrictive high society of late-19th Century New York, but he finds in her a companion spirit and they fall in love.

The Good: The Age of Innocence is to Scorsese what Barry Lyndon was to Stanley Kubrick. It's a period piece, a slight departure from the usual repertoire and style showing subtlety and patience; it's ambitious and at its heart a unique character study full or romantic ideals. It's elegant, although not without its darker side, and beautifully told romantic film that makes all those awkward romantic stories Scorsese has told in past look one-dimensional. It's complex with its love-triangle story and one film you need to pay attention to nearly every word spoken to fully understand, luckily the acting (as always with a Scorsese picture) will keep your attention but it's let's not forget the real character (again, as with many of Scorsese's pictures)- New York City.

The Bad: A common criticism, and one I share with those critics, is the overabundance of voice-over narration (by Oscar winner Joanne Woodward). Rather than sit and explore the delicacies of a shot or scene, often we're told about it through actual passages read from the book...and it sounds like actual passages read from a book and comes across as self-serving rather than interesting. It's slow and draws itself out, even monotone with no personality although strangely fitting at times. The visual feast and fantastic performances can't overcome it and it hinders the entire film.

The Ugly: More should see this film, it's one many tend to overlook, mainly because it seems nothing like a Scorsese film.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Kaneda is a bike gang leader whose close friend Tetsuo gets involved in a government secret project known as Akira. On his way to save Tetsuo, Kaneda runs into a group of anti-government activists, greedy politicians, irresponsible scientists and a powerful military leader. The confrontation sparks off Tetsuo's supernatural power leading to bloody death, a coup attempt and the final battle in Tokyo Olympiad where Akira's secrets were buried 30 years ago.

The Good: Many hail Akira as the greatest piece of Japanese animation to exist. Well, I know it’s the most popular, most people have visions of Akira when someone says the word “anime,” but I kind of hold my reservations in claims like that. Nonetheless, it is a fantastic and compelling work. It shuns the notion of a simple plot, diving deep into a neo-Tokyo world with its own history that you have to pay attention to if you want any chance to understand what is happening. It’s a morality play but not as simple as good versus evil. It’s about good and evil, but how that is sometimes not always the same as right and wrong or moral versus immoral. Hell, sometimes evil isn’t even intentional at all, and intentional good can be seen as the true evil when all is said and done. If you look at it through those lenses, perhaps the same way you’d look at a Kubrick or Bergman film, you can see how easy it is to view it as a masterpiece of animation and raises the bar of what people can expect from their animated films. I feel the strongest aspect, though, is simply the world and look of it all. It’s Tokyo if Blade Runner got a hold of it, and it’s utterly stunning how detailed and fantastic, yet completely real, it all seems.

The Bad: I sometimes think that many love Akira simply because everyone else loves Akira. Oh, it’s not a bad film by any means, but it’s a flawed film, overly confusing for its own good with characters that you find a hard time to enjoy being around. You need a high tolerance for something like this, similar to a film like Requiem for a Dream or Blue Velvet where odd things occur or the story perhaps jumps around but it all has a point to it. Akira, though, doesn’t quite make that point entirely clear and leaves you scratching your head rather than enjoying what the film has to offer on screen. Like other anime that is on the cusp of true perfection, Akira is drawn back by spending too much time showcasing violence rather than trying to develop its story and characters better.

The Ugly: The final “showdown,” I feel, is intentionally absurd but unintentionally humorous.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

When Alice Hyatt is suddenly widowed after years of domesticity, she decides to travel to Monterey, California with her 11-year-old son Tommy to resume a singing career. In Phoenix, Arizona she gets a job singing at a piano bar and begins a relationship with Ben, who turns out to be married and a spouse abuser. In Tucson, she puts her dream of singing on hold and becomes a waitress. She meets a farmer, David and begins to think about a new life of domesticity.

The Good: Ellen Burstyn's Oscar-winning performance as Alice is the single most load-bearing beam on Scorsese's half-drama half-comedy house. Without it, it would all crash. Thanks to Alice, we're enthralled as we go with her as she tries to rebuild a life. It's not a pretty path most of the time, and Alice is an emotional wreck about as much, but there's a degree of sincerity, beauty and kindness in her that we can only wish for in the best of people. She feels real, she acts real, and as a result she is real and the story that much more believable and impactful. It's one of Scorsese's more conventional films and his usual stamp is few and far between, but he gets the best of his actors and his script as usual with this subtle little trip through Alice's life. The child actor, Alfred Lutter, is of equal interest and importance. He's an odd kid but the chemistry between he and his mother, Alice, and her potential beau, David, is another strong foundation to the whole story and his performance rather impressive for one so young and arguably carries the weight of some of the best scenes in the film (which so often feel like home movies from the mid-west than a typical narrative film).

The Bad: As strong as Alice is at times, she's also a tad on the strange side, almost bi-polar in how she treats herself and her son. One minute she's likeable and loving, the next she feels bitter and cold. While Burstyn plays it all beautifully, it's still a tad difficult to fully like her. You'll feel pity one minute and then shrug and ask "why did you do that?" the next. I suppose it's this element that, at the time, put many on opposite sides on whether the film was for or against women's right and equality. It can play off as feminist one minute, then misogynistic the next with Alice as weak and apparently perfectly fine being a diner waitress, a stereotype single mothers were synonymous with then and today.

The Ugly: Harvey Keitel's small cameo will stay with you, his stage-presence is outstanding. He's ruthless and the few scenes he's in are remakable, overshadowing a lot of other performances in the film. Had he been in it more, he surely would have received some accolades.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

When a mining ship lands on a planet to investigate upon a suspected SOS, the entire crew are unaware of the terror which they would unleash upon their ship. When a alien life-form attach's itself to the face of a crew member, the rest of the team act fast to try and separate the two organisms. Unbeknownst to everyone, this is the start of the terror which would affect every member of the seven person crew.

The Good: People often throw the word "masterpiece" around too often. Not for this movie, as far as I'm concerned. It's the greatest science-fiction/horror movies, and one of the best films period, to be shot. Ridley Scott creates a whole new universe for us to buy into. This isn't the future we hoped for, nice and neat, this is the future that's full of bureaucrats, dirty cargo ships and, of course, nasty creatures. It's cold, lonely, isolated and unforgiving. Few films give us that sense of loneliness and despair on this level. Fewer films are able to pace and plot itself perfectly, building tension flawlessly to a perfect and fulfilling climax. The story isn't Alien's strength, it's the way its told, how its told, and how it lets it all sink in. On top of that, we have our heroine, one of cinema's best, in Ellen Ripley who moves from the subservient role to a woman who takes control. By the end, you sense her fear of the alien that has stalked and killed her crew, at the same time you sense her loathing of it. The low budget helps Alien just as it helped Jaws: we barely see the thing. Not seeing what's around the corner is far scarier than it just jumping out, again a testament to perfect plotting and tension.

The Bad: The film tries to give us an insight into the characters, but outside of Ripley and Ash, the characters really aren't much more developed than your typical slasher movie. Many feel like placeholders to merely meet their untimely deaths and barely have a personality to speak of. With the rest of the movie so much better than your standard killer-victim scenario, far more intelligent than its given credit for, it's actually a little disappointing the character aspect is as shallow as a Friday the 13th movie despite the cast and characters older, as though they've been doing this for decades (which I love). This is Ripley's story, however, so it's a minor fault to say the least.

The Ugly: Honestly, would you go back for the cat? I know it's important thematically, how it's the last pure thing left and Ripley feels obligated, but it is a cat. At least Aliens made it to be a little girl. That I could buy.

Final Rating: 5 out of 5

Ellen Ripley, the sole survivor of the alien attack on the mining ship Nostromo, awakens half a century later when she is found by a salvage ship. The welcome given to her by the "Company" officials is far from warm, since they refuse to believe her discovery of alien existence and strip her off her flight officer's license. Ripley also discovers, much to her horror, that the planet LV-426 where her crew had encountered an alien species for the first time, is now colonized by the company. But when all contact from the planet is lost Ripley is called back into action again as an advisor to a team of tough space marines with lots of firepower. To get rid of her recurrent nightmares about the alien creature, Ripley prepares for a final battle with the monsters - and this time, there are hundreds of them out there.

The Good: Despite the contrast in setting, style and approach (the desire to go in guns ablazing rather than be intelligent or logical) Aliens, for some reason, feels consistent to the original. It shouldn't, but it does. Much of that has to be Sigourney Weaver, who solidifies Ripley as one of the great screen heroes in this film, and her speaking of the past incidents and references ties the first film well to this one. Again, she starts in the subservient role, and again she takes control because now she knows what she's up against...and now she has guns. Strangely, this sequel fixes the issue I had in the first film with the characters.  It's a great assortment of characters and the actors all feeling distinct yet together. While not as visually striking as Alien, there's a great deal of consistency from the first film combined with original concepts and creations. Again, we get that sense of loneliness, even with a large team, not to mention isolation thanks to the character of Newt showing the results and her detachment from humanity. Now, though, it's a place ravaged by the aliens as though this team of soldiers came upon hell itself. It builds tension, taking a cue for Alien with the simple beeping getting louder and faster of the motion/proximity detectors, an obvious sound cue to a heartbeat getting faster, and the ominous score by James Horner.  

The Bad: Unfortunately, the story itself is no where up to par. It's a typical action film, offering little in terms of plot and story progression: aliens come, fight, hide. That's pretty much the repeated standard for the entire film, there's little in terms of originality or depth. As great as the action is, and it offers some interesting twists in terms of plot, it repeats the cycle far too often.

The Ugly: I'm sorry, but Newt gets pretty damn annoying in the film. We get it. She's a cute innocent little girl, I don't need that bashed repeatedly into my head.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

After escaping from the alien planet, the ship carrying Ellen Ripley crashes onto a remote and inhabited ore refinery. While living in the ore refinery until she is rescued by her employers, Ripley discovers the horrifying reason for her crash: An alien stowaway. As the alien matures and begins to kill off the inhabitants, Ripley is unaware that her true enemy is more than just the killer alien.

The Good: David Fincher's big-screen debut, and although he, like everyone else, wishes he could take it back (he walked out after principal shooting), he does give the film it's best aspect: it's visuals. The dark, gloomy industrial feel, the warm tones and cold facades and the intense angles and first-person perspectives are all well presented and showcases a director still not quite ready to fulfill his destiny (he wouldn't find that until the film Se7en three years later). Weaver does what she can and shows Ripley's power and resourcefulness, although her character arc is, again, a retread from the first two films, but she can't overcome the muddy plot and the overall dullness of everything else

The Bad: There's simply no heart (and no pun intended) to Alien 3. It's a cold film with little in terms of relateability and humanity. It's hard to draw a liking to a bunch of convicts and even Ripley seems a cold shell of her former self. As much as I try to find something redeeming about the film, it's hard to. It's an ugly movie and a mess of a story (thanks to numerous writers trying to work on it). Fincher was brought in last-minute, and it shows as he could only work visually and not try to develop the material. Scenes were scattered and cut almost as much as the script was. It's simply put a bad film and damn near unwatchable.

The Ugly: It's obvious Alien 3 was a salvage operation. Most can credit Fox president Joe Roth for more or less ruing the film as the producers and creators of the Alien franchise had originally pitched it The producers wanted to write Ripley out, only giving her a cameo, and retool the series with a new approach and concept focusing on the "Corporation" and the rising military aggression. Michael Biehn was to take the reigns at least for this third film. Roth, though, hated this idea and forced the producers to do what the studio wanted which was to make and market another Ripley-centered film (and, truth be told, this was a good point from Roth, Ripley was a great hero), this lead to conflicts between them, the producers and directors (yes, that's plural), the various writers/drafts and so forth. The result was disownment of the film by everyone involved as well as people who worked on Alien and Aliens (such as James Cameron who called the film a "slap in the face").

Final Rating: 1 out of 5

200 years after the conclusion of Alien 3, the company is able to resurrect Ripley through the process of cloning and the scientists successfully take the Queen Alien out of her. But, Ripley's DNA gets mixed up with the Queen's and she begins to develop certain alien characteristics. The scientists begin breeding the aliens, but they later escape. Soon the Xeno-morphs are running amok on the ship, which is on course to earth. The Queen then gives birth to a deadly new breed of alien, which could spell disaster for the entire human race. It's up to Ripley and a band of space pirates to stop the ship before it reaches earth.

The Good: I love the way this film looks. It's got a sense of style and smartness to it. Jean-Pierre Jeunet has a keen eye, nobody will deny that, and the visual craftsmanship shows and is easily the best aspect of the film. The movie (story and visuals) takes more cues from Aliens than anything, focusing on action and violence even more so than Cameron ever did. Here, though, it's done with a little bit more panache and style and, overall, can be fun at times. There's a bit of campiness to it now, a tongue-in-cheek approach saying "We know you've probably seen this before, now for something completely different." I actually ended up liking this new tone (especially after the soulless third film) and took it for what it offered: entertainment.

The Bad: Alien: Resurrection changed a lot of the formula that we knew about the Alien moves, notably Ripley. One thing it changed and failed at, though, is what the Alien movies are about. They're supposed to be scary and full of tension, yet Resurrection does not do that. Instead, it exchanges that fear with a sense of discomfort and uneasiness. Also, much like Alien 3, it's a little hard to like anyone in this movie (although Pearlman is pretty enjoyable as usual), even Ripley. That's because it's not Ripley. Sure, it may look like her, talk like her, but there's something gone. I would have to say it's the human side of her and the spirit she gave in the previous three films. The Ripley we knew and love is 200 years dead, now. The film is far from memorable, and it tries hard to wrap its story into a neat package like Alien and Aliens did, but, while admirable at times, it's a very forgettable movie. If the first two movies are the Big Mac, this one is a decent quarter-pounder (Alien 3, I would say, is at best a McNugget)

The Ugly: There's a lot of ugliness to the film. From Weaver clones that are deformed to the weird Alien-hybrid that gets sucked out small hole in space. As mentioned, the film seems more inclined to cause uneasiness than scare you.

Final Rating: 2.5 out of 5

A few years from now, Earth will have the first contact with an alien civilization. These aliens, known as Newcomers, slowly begin to be integrated into human society after years of quarantine but are victims of a new type of discrimination. When the first Newcomer police officer, Sam Francisco is assigned his new partner, he is given Matthew Sykes , a mildly racist veteran, the animosity between them soon gives way to respect as they investigate the Newcomer underworld, and especially Newcomer leader William Harcourt.

The Good: Believe it or not, some of the best science fiction came from the 1980s. Who would have thought a decade full of heavy metal, cocaine and yuppies would give us classic science fiction films and television. Alien Nation is one of those that has become a bit lost over the years, as well as its television series, but is really one of the more original (at the time) and entertaining films, but perhaps for those fans of the genre as the common moviegoer probably wouldn't enjoy it (of course, I could say that when it came out as well). While a B-Movie at heart, it has a crime-drama and conspiracy angle that keeps it interesting and characters that are compelling, if at least enough, to really draw you into a world that does feel as though aliens are now a part of. Like Robocop, another 80s sci-fi classic, the world and aesthetic take is the film's greatest strength, more than the story itself.

The Bad: I know James Caan is a fantastic actor, but he really doesn't quite fit in for this role. I think he's supposed to be a hard-edged, tough cop but I can't say as I really buy any of it. Often, he's upstaged by Mandy Patinkin. The film also seems overly ambitious for what its budget will allow and it ends up apparently having to make compromises resulting in a lackluster ending that feels thrown together.

The Ugly: I haven't seen the movie in years, only recently seeing it again about a month or so ago. Wow...it has not aged well. Oh, it's still entertaining, but it is distinctly an 80s movie. I don't hold that against movies, though.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

Pete is a pilot who drops water on forest fires at very low heights. His intended Dorinda is also a pilot who doubles as a radio controller for the pilots who do this work. Pete always takes chances, confident that his skill will bring him through. One day it doesn't and he is killed. He finds himself returning as an invisible ghost who's presence is barely felt giving advice to his successor. Pete then finds that his successor is also falling in love with Dorinda.

The Good: To be honest, there’s not a whole lot to write in this section this time. It might play to your melodramatic tendencies and maybe move you, as contrived as it may be, with emotional scenes, but that’s about the core of the whole thing. It’s the concept that I would label “good” but the execution a little more geared towards the “bad” side (maybe mediocre is best). The concept is great fantasy. A man dies and his spirit is sent back as a kind of guardian angel. Unfortunately the man he’s sent back to be a guardian angel for is striking up a relationship with the dead man’s wife. Now that concept is great, and to be fair if it were made today it would probably end up being a comedy, but Always is dramatic through and through...and maybe that’s when we just start to get a little tired of it. At least it manages to be a little funny and get a smile to crack once in a while.

The Bad: Enough niceties, though, if any of that qualifies. The film is the showcase a director a little too sure of himself and tackling a subject completely new to him. Sounds a little like Spielberg’s attempt with 1941 to do a comedy, here he is doing a dramatic love story (although sometimes funny). It has elements that is good for the director’s comfort zone about fantasy and nice special effects. Despite that it feels dated and bored with even itself. There’s not vibrancy or liveliness in the film (and for Spielberg that’s a surprise). It’s overly sappy (and overly long now that I think about it) in nearly every facet without trying to explore actual intimacy or true emotion that feels believable. It tries too hard for its own good For some, they like that. For others, we just roll our eyes.

The Ugly: Richard Dreyfuss is at his most nasally Dreyfussy in this flick. It's this movie that all the impressionists seem to base their act on. It’s actually kind of charming in hindsight.

Final Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Antonio Salieri believes that Mozart's music is divine. He wishes he was himself as good a musician as Mozart so that he can praise the Lord through composing. But he can't understand why God favored Mozart, such a vulgar creature, to be his instrument. Salieri's envy has made him an enemy of God whose greatness was evident in Mozart. He is set to take revenge.

The Good: It’s so easy to call Amadeus a “grand” picture. It is about Mozart, his life, his music, and a time where hedonism was prevalent. Amadeus is a difficult film to review. It’s a simple, understated drama with the backdrop of the exuberant and somewhat decadent 17th Century Europe (in this case Vienna). It looks like a costume drama, but it anything but. Instead we are told the story of Mozart through the eyes of his (supposed) rival Salieri, played brilliantly by F. Murray Abraham and bringing him an Oscar (one of 8 for the film). What Amadeus gives us a smaller tale of Mozart through Selieri’s eyes and, maybe, his bitterness and jealousy. It’s his account and, thus, his interpretation of it all about this young, genius composer who had the world in the palm of his hand and it all ending by the time he was 35. It’s also a tale of regret and greed as Salieri is just as flawed and amoral as the composer he critiques and condemns. It’s a richly complex film, beautify shot by legendary director Milos Forman and has, arguably, some of the best use of music to grace a film, you feel the joy and sincerity from the characters within it and when they hear it. Then again it is Mozart compositions and we should be thankful it graces our ears at all…as little of it as there actually is.

The Bad: The life of Mozart was no doubt complex and difficult to both comprehend and, thus, appreciate. This isn’t a full recreation of him or his life, we actually know very little about the man, and instead this can be dubbed a caricature of who he was-an idea more than a literal representation. As beautiful as the film is, the problems actually stems from the original play and Peter Shaffer’s, let’s just say “dramatic license” of nearly everything. Salieri is difficult to get a grasp on, we never really know if he’s full of regret or actually happy in his actions. A great scene at the end showing Salieri and Mozart working together is hard to figure out as Salieri appears sincere one minute to be there, then cold and callus the next only caring about the music. Is there no human attachment? His wife, too, is represented more as a harpy and a tailcoater one minute, distant and reclusive, and then a consummate lover the next. It’s difficult to feel sympathy for any of them. Inconsistencies and hard to grasp personalities and motivations aside, in the end, I suppose the biggest flaw is we never really got to know Mozart and now just know him as this young genius…but maybe nobody knew him in the first place. Maybe he was just a used man, by his father, his rival, his lover...and if anything Amadeus reminds us how tragic he really was, even if we knew little about the man himself. The film is also a little to reliant on showcasing various operas. They often parallel what is going on in the story, but unless we have Salieri's voiceover, by the third or fourth one it merely comes across as unnecessary padding, even if they are beautiful to behold.

The Ugly: Can we forgive Amadeus for giving us “Rock by Amadeus” by Falco? The jury is still out.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Lester Burnham is suffering a mid-life crisis that affects the lives of his family, which is made up of his super bitch of a wife Carolyn and rebelling daughter Jane, who hates him. Carolyn is a real estate agent, a little too wrapped up in her job, who takes on an affair with business rival Buddy Kane. Meanwhile Jane seems to fall in love with Ricky Fitts, the strange boy next door, who is a drug dealer/documentarian and lives under a roof governed by a very strict marine father and a speechless mother. Lester's mid-life crisis causes him to drastically change his life around when he quits his job and works at a fast food restaurant. He starts working out to gain the attention of Angela, a friend of Jane's, who brags about her sexual exploits every weekend. Lives change and not for the best.

Patrick Bateman is handsome, well educated and intelligent. He is twenty-seven and living his own American dream. He works by day on Wall Street, earning a fortune to complement the one he was born with. At night he descends into madness, as he experiments with fear and violence. Based on the novel by Bret Easton Ellis.

The Good: Before we knew him as we do today,  Christian Bale utterly lit up the screen in 2000 with a flawless performance of serial-killer-socialite Patrick Bateman. Unlike other serial killer films that are told from the killer’s perspective, often overly dark and serious, there’s a certain amount of whimsy and joy, not to mention satirical comedy, in American Psycho and Patrick Bateman himself that really sets it apart from most films. In fact, I would go as so far it’s on the same satirical level as The Player, MASH, Sullivan’s Travels and Dr. Strangelove. Behind the glitz and glamor is a man, like many men, desensitized and removed from society on every level that would classify him as “human.” It's so easy to just start doing what Patrick ultimately ends up doing. He's perfectly groomed for it. The issue and subject matter is serious, but we laugh at it because it seemingly laughs at itself and the utter absurdity of this killer, the 1980s and the entire “yuppie lifestyle.” True, that laugh might by a man drenched in blood holding an axe after killing a colleague because he was able to get reservations at the posh restaurant he couldn't, but that’s what’s so unique and insanely fun about it.  It’s Bale’s voiceover as Bateman that utterly sells the film and the character (as well as allow for some very quotable bits of dialogue from the very tightly-written, although sometimes uneven, script). If it wasn't for him, it would have failed miserably.

The Bad: American Psycho is an extremely pessimistic and cynical film. It’s ugly and filled with hate in this regard as it doesn’t quite know what to say, other than that it has nothing to say. Call it Nihilism if you want, but a story like American Psycho feels like it wants to make a point, but ultimately never quite does. We might enjoy the journey, but the final destination leaves you as empty and hollow as its anti-hero.

The Ugly: Some people might actually look to try and be like Bateman rather than realize the irony of his existence. He’s strangely become a role model for many, similar to Tyler Durden in Fight Club.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Two American students are on a walking tour of England and are attacked by a Werewolf. One is killed, the other is mauled. The Werewolf is killed, but reverts to it's human form, and the townspeople are able to deny it's existence. The surviving student begins to have nightmares of hunting on 4 feet at first, but then finds that his friend and other recent victims appear to him, demanding that he find a way to die to release them from their curse, being trapped between worlds because of their unnatural death.

The Good: One of the first great horror films to balance comedic elements with legitimate scares. Before, either a film was a straight comedy with some scary moments (various Abbot and Costello films come to mind) or simply a horror film with a funny character or two. It's able to touch upon a human element as well, more than many horror movies can hope to do. You legitimately care for our hero and his conflicts and, sadly, you know it's not going to end well. He knows this, everyone else knows this, but to admit that you are what you are is tough even without the transforming into a hideous beast (The movie is often noted for its makeup effects, still impressive to this day. It shows the agony and pain of transformation and the practical effects truly make you feel David's pain, shock and horror). David Naughton and Griffin Dunne have fantastic chemistry on screen, even better than the romance subplot, that shows two friends who technically died long before they even arrived in London. Now it's just picking up the pieces as David (Naughton) is haunted by his friend, his victims and disturbing dreams of his family. It's his encounters with his friend Jack, though, that give the a air of lightness despite the rather dark tones in it all. Their conversations and dialogue are easily the most memorable parts of the film. The way Landis handles some scenes is also interesting as they too have a lightness in them, such as David waking in a zoo completely naked and scampering around hiding from the public eye with the classic line "A naked American man stole my balloon."

The Bad: Although the friendship with David and Jack is well developed, every other character is pretty sub par and the romantic angle is an absolute mess. There's also a sense that it feels incomplete, or at least haphazardly thrown together, but I honestly think that can be said for every John Landis movie that build on ideas rather than cohesion (Animal House and the Blues Brothers climatic finales are proof of this and are equally as messy). The script could have used some rewrites, that's for sure, because it feels as though something a little tighter and focused would have done wonders for the overall package.

The Ugly: The film cheesily has a soundtrack based on the moon. I think it's meant to be thematic, but it comes off as funny instead. I don't think that was the intention.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Amistad is the name of a slave ship traveling from Cuba to the U.S. in 1839. It is carrying a cargo of Africans who have been sold into slavery in Cuba, taken on board, and chained in the cargo hold of the ship. As the ship is crossing from Cuba to the U.S., Cinque, who was a tribal leader in Africa, leads a mutiny and takes over the ship. They continue to sail, hoping to find help when they land. Instead, when they reach the United States, they are imprisoned as runaway slaves. They don't speak a word of English, and it seems like they are doomed to die for killing their captors when an abolitionist lawyer decides to take their case, arguing that they were free citizens of another country and not slaves at all. The case finally gets to the Supreme Court, where John Quincy Adams makes an impassioned and eloquent plea for their release.

The Good: The story of the Amistad is one that they don’t teach in history books. When a high-school student opens up a text there’s simply a blanket chapter about slavery and that’s often the end of it. Films, too, often a fail to tell more than necessary, are rarely detailed and almost never try to put a face to the victim. Outside of the made-for-TV route (Roots, A Woman Named Mosees) there are few of significance. Amistad shows it in all its gut-wrenching glory. It’s not an easy subject to tackle and Amistad has all the elements to present an epic film. It’s a thriller, a court-room drama and a mystery story.

The Bad: One thing Amistad sets out to do is to “humanize” the slaves in its story. By this I mean to have the characters of the time realize that these are human beings and they have rights and emotions, families and friends…no different than any other person on the earth. The film, though, while convincing the characters in the story fails to have them come across to an audience as more than that. What happens to them is powerful, deeply moving, but we still know nothing about them other than where they come from and that they went through some horrors. In fact, the entire film, while giving great performances and showcasing historical figures, fails to go beyond that. It plots through its timeline, its court-room drama, but doesn’t put any more depth into its characters other than to say they were there, this is what they did and this is what happened. Spielberg showed he can do that in his past films, balance an epic story with human drama and characters with subtle depth, but seems to barely bother in a film that, really, seemed to demand it.

The Ugly: The deposition given detailing the atrocities of the slaves is heart wrenching and difficult to watch. The film had only spoken of the horrors, then to see them is going to make some people squeamish.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

A coming-of-age story about a teenage girl in 1960s suburban London, and how her life changes with the arrival of a playboy nearly twice her age.

The Good: Strong performance and superb direction make a bit of a "been there done that" plot far more intriguing and compelling, not to mention its excelled set design and artistry in recreating 1960s London. The film is about the education of youth, and it parallels life education and lessons learned with school education and lessons studied. It's not quite a romance movie, not quite a family drama, but just simple story of a girl going through the trials and tribulations of life. That girl is played by Carey Mulligan who is incredibly strong in her role and, simply, the film would be nothing without her. She balances the nievity of a young girl with the strong yearning of a woman wanting to find her place in life. She is slightly upstaged, however, by Alfred Molina who is utterly amazing as her father. It's an actor's piece, but also film that really uplifts the typical "coming of age" story to new heights.

The Bad: If there's one issue, it's that the film begins so originally and unconventionally, then ends so predictably and conventionally. It's as though one writer came up with a great script for 90% of it, then someone completely different came in for the final 10%. This is shown no better than in the inconsistency of two major characters. One is our central character, Jenny, who shows strength for most of the film. She sticks up for herself, expresses her opinion and will tell it to your face. Then comes in a scene where she should continue that, yet does not. Rather, she sits and stays quiet, then pouts. Jack, her father, is another that is inconsistent. No better than his forceful nature for her to get an education, then does a complete 180 and says she should run off with a man. I feel these two fantastic performances are utterly wasted on inconsistency, which is overall sad. Then you have the plot itself which seems wonderfully unique and original and ends up all tied up neatly in a bow that feels a little too happy for happy's sake (it even includes a montage sequence and voice over ending). As I said, 90% of this film is brilliant if not beautiful. The rest is unfortunate and had that 10% been stretched out over the course of the film rather than the final push to the end, it would have not been nearly as noticeable.

The Ugly: I'm having trouble deciding whether or not I like the fact that David drops out of the picture. On one hand, I understand why because it's a reflection of life and the story itself. In reality, he would drop out and you'd never hear from him again. Afterall, we only saw David through Jenny. At the same time, we still became invested in him yet know little to nothing about him. Then again...apparently Jenny didn't know him as well as she thought either. Perhaps this interesting take, arguably daring enough to cut him out, makes up for the inconsistent characterizations elsewhere in my final score.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

When a murder of a physicist, Leonardo Vetra, finds a symbolist, Robert Langdon, and Mr. Vetra's daughter, Vittoria, on an adventure for a secret brotherhood, The Illuminati. Clues lead them all around the Vatican, including the four alters of science, Earth, Air, Fire and Water. An Assassin, working for the Illuminati, has captured four cardinals, and murders each, painfully. Robert and Vittoria also are searching for a new very destructive weapon that could kill millions.

The Good: Tom Hanks gives us a great performance again, making Langdon an appealing character. Also noted is the fantastic performance of Ewan McGregor. While the character himself has problems towards the end, McGregor really shines through what, unfortunately, ended up being a very contrived and muddy script. Howard's directing, too, emerges well from it, along with his trademark cinematography with Salavatore Totino, but it doesn't save it entirely. The pace is brisk, moving better than the Da Vinci Code for sure, and keeps you on your toes, but it all stops a little short. The parts are greater than the sum, but the parts are good in and of themselves.

The Bad: Hanks is seemingly the smartest man alive. He comes across as far too nonchalant, almost infallible, in his assessment and figuring out mysteries. There's a lack of exploration and trying to understand, it just comes far too casually. That can be minor, because Tom Hanks does give a good performance. What isn't minor is the final 30 minutes of the film. Up to a point, it's a thriller of a movie and pretty solid. People are getting killed, time is running out to prevent the next one. Although repetitive, it's engaging....Then a point comes where it just becomes ridiculous and, sadly, predictable. Far too melodramatic. The tension is gone, the pace is altered and everything ends anticlimactically. Far too over-the-top plot devices that blindside you. Far too neat in the very end.

The Ugly: So...you're telling me that you have all this high-tech security in the Vatican Archives, and not a goddamn manual release lever?  Really, movie? Who the hell designed that place?

A couple lose their young son when he falls out the window while they have sex in the other room. The mother's grief consigns her to hospital, but her therapist husband brings her home intent on treating her depression himself. To confront her fears they go to stay at their remote cabin in the woods, "Eden", where something untold happened the previous summer. Told in four chapters with a prologue and epilogue, the film details acts of lustful cruelty as the man and woman unfold the darker side of nature outside and within

The Good: I have a feeling most people will decide in the first opening scene if this is a film they want to see or not. As always with Von Trier, it's beautifully shot, well acted, yet strangely hypnotic if not downright disturbing. It is the pure definition of a film that some, surely not most, will watch once then probably never see again - but that's sometimes Von Trier's films as a whole, sometimes he can be too artistic for his own good, and sometimes too pretentious (such as found in his film Dogma, one I wasn't especially fond of). While not as entertaining as Dancer in the Dark or Breaking the Waves, Antichrist is utterly compelling, if anything, as a character study. That pretension is still very much there, but so is his storytelling and psychological, as well as philosophical, study of grief and despair that takes precedence over his own self-serving views this time.

The Bad: Films like Antichrist are difficult to review. It's not a bad film. It's well shot, well acted, well written, well paced. Its subject matter is interesting yet, sometimes, appauling and disgusting...visceral and raw without inhibition. Either way you're compelled by it so it surely fits Von Trier's needs.

The Ugly: Some of the imagery and scenes...it's a very haunting picture...not really in a good way I might add. This film is not going to make you feel good once you're done seeing it.

Final Rating: Hmmmmm....tough call here. I say see it if you want, I can only warn you so much, otherwise skip. Personally, 3 out of 5

At 14, best friends Robb Reiner and Lips made a pact to rock together forever. Their band, Anvil, hailed as the "demi-gods of Canadian metal, " influenced a musical generation that includes Metallica, Slayer, and Anthrax, despite never hitting the big time. Following a calamitous European tour, Lips and Robb, now in their fifties, set off to record their 13th album in one last attempt to fulfill their boyhood dreams.

The Good: Beloved by critics and moviegoers, Anvil: The Story of Anvil shows more the pitfalls of being a rock star (or former star...or not even a star at all) than the glamor you might read or hear about. Anvil is the negative of a Motley Crue or Van Halen, lost in the history of rock and roll alongside the likes of the Kinks or Badfinger. Sure, you have heard of them, or their songs, but probably wouldn’t seek our their records or concerts. Anvil focuses on one of countless metal bands that really came to fruition in the 1980s, had a hit or two, then faded away like many of them. Unlike those that just break up, Anvil still continued on. All I have to say about the film is that you journey with them and truly hope for the best as you become closer and closer to Steve and Robb, who are incredibly likeable, during their tribulations (which is likely a daily thing with them, making it all the harder to watch them still grasping for that dream) . You see the men behind the leather-clad rock and roll, the entire idea of hope and patience that someday that fame that slipped through their fingers might just come back a little. It’s dramatic, funny, touching...really everything you’d love in a documentary.

The Bad: Of course it’s expected this documentary will paint everything in good light, but it briefly makes mention of personal problems and drug use (assumingly still going on) that never seems to go anywhere. It’s not quite as candid as it wants to be. It also isn’t so much the “Story of Anvil” as much as it is “Where are they now?” It goes little into Anvil’s past and focuses solely on their current situation. I think there is plenty of room for that history of rock and Anvil, but barely touches on it.

The Ugly: If I hear the word “rocumentary” one more time...

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

When his brother is killed in battle, paraplegic Marine Jake Sully decides to take his place in a mission on the distant world of Pandora. There he learns of greedy corporate figurehead Parker Selfridge's intentions of driving off the native humanoid "Na'vi" in order to mine for the precious material scattered throughout their rich woodland. In exchange for the spinal surgery that will fix his legs, Jake gathers intel for the cooperating military unit spearheaded by gung-ho Colonel Quaritch, while simultaneously attempting to infiltrate the Na'vi people with the use of an "avatar" identity. While Jake begins to bond with the native tribe and quickly falls in love with the beautiful alien Neytiri, the restless Colonel moves forward with his ruthless extermination tactics, forcing the soldier to take a stand - and fight back in an epic battle for the fate of Pandora.

The Good: If you aren't entertained by Avatar, then why the Hell do you bother going to the movies? It may not be perfect, but it's as entertaining and engaging a movie-going experience you will ever have. James Cameron reminds us what it means to make a movie, coming back after over a decade to show he is still King James in every since of the word. Avatar has much in common with his past films, from the characters, themes, pacing and special effects to the quality story that he somehow weaves through fantasy and science fiction better than any other filmmaker today. He always reminds us of the humanism and emotion that should come in this genre, not be absent due to it. Avatar brings back the wonder that is filmmaking. It is something you haven't seen before, yet is familiar so you feel comfortable in it. The unseen is the world, the special effects, the 3D while the familiar grounds you through story and character. To be too much "new" would have caused an unseen distance, but because our relationship to the characters and story, as stock as they may be, we can focus on the wonder of the experience, the action and the setting itself - all this being Cameron's intention from the beginning when he set out to implement ideas from his favorite Science Fiction stories. He goes one step further into the relm of fantasy as well with Avatar and creates a place, people, language and makes us actually believe it, feel for it, care for it and sometimes wish we could actually be there.

Of course, the major performances are done through CG, with Worthington and Saldana being the main focus in their giant, blue cat-like personalities. As expected, not only are they convincing and you eventually throw aside the notion they aren't real, there's an entire new layer to them that is rare with CG characters. There's a subtlety in the mannerisms, expressions, their dialgoue delivered like real speech and eyes full of life. The last convincing CG character was probably Gollum in the Lord of the Rings films, and Cameron, like Jackson, takes a similar approach in treating the characters like actual people and performances shot with cameras, not just a special effect with no weight to it. The 3D, too, is approached in similar fashion with it rarely drawing attention to itself as most 3D films tend to do. Here, it feels a part of the movie to where you can't even imagine it without it. How this will play out in the home video market will be interesting.

Avatar may not be the best movie ever, it's not be the best in Cameron's canon even, but he absolutely delivers what he promised and shows us how an action, fantasy epic could be done. See it in 3D, sit back, and just enjoy the ride.

The Bad: Some corny dialogue, heavy-handed themes and predictable plot, but that's not to say the characters aren't engaging and storytelling not superb - this comes with James Cameron terriotory and none of this should surprise anyone who's seen any of his films. It does rush to a third act, and the beginnings are a tad drawn out, but it gives a sense of time and scale to it all and, let's not forget, this is by definition of Fantasy Epic and the best of its kind since the Lord of the Rings films - being lenghty and perhaps long-winded is to be expected. The only element I wish had been elaborated on is the humans to be focused on as much as the "savages." Many of Jake Sully's human team are very background-oriented with his friendships with the Na'vi taking full focus. Sully is new to both worlds, it would have been nice to see his human relationships developed a little further.

The Ugly: The amateur and juvenile critics need to grow up. You can read more thoughts on this in the blog section.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Phenomenal public success contrasts with private behaviors close to madness: Howard Hughes from the late 1920s to the late 1940s, from "Hells Angels" (spending a fortune on details) through the only flight of the Hercules, a huge, money-losing transport plane. Along the way, the public Hughes sees the big picture - in movies and in aviation, building TWA and leading it through a fight with Pan Am and the US Senate. In private, phobias and compulsions threaten him with self-imposed solitary confinement. How long can his imagination, drive, and the sympathies of Katharine Hepburn, Ava Gardner, and the men who work for him stave off these internal disorders?

The Good: The Aviator is not only the story of Howard Hughes, which it tells wonderfully, but a story of a lost time. The glamor and celebrity of Hughes parallels that of America, notably Hollywood. The cars, the movies, the women...it's the decadent rich lifestyle and "American Dream" that is the story here, Hughes is merely the vehicle as we take a trip through this Golden Age. He was a tragic man, obviously with a mental illness and social awkwardness, I can't help but look at a similar film to compare it to: Citizen Kane. The characters are engaging yet mournful and, despite all the stories and perspectives we see and hear, we really don't know that much about him. The difference is Hughes was a real man, flawed yet remarkable, and it's all the more tragic as a result. Similar to Gangs of New York, the film is full of vivid imagery and beauty. There's a care and delicacy here that is somewhat realistic yet somewhat glamorized, which seems to be a reflection of Hughes himself.

The Bad: When it comes to biography pictures, we often demand to see candidness and be enlightened on the person's life. The Aviator, while candid at times about Hughes, doesn't quite tell us anything about him we didn't already know. It's more our interest in the things we heard and now seeing that draws us in, but we don't really learn anything from his life or the experience in watching him falter for his lofty dreams. It's hollow, impassive and occasional stoic in how it handles it all.

The Ugly: DiCaprio is great in the role as Hughes, although some might have problems with his youthful look and some just didn't like him in it. I think it's the performance of his career-showing how great Scorsese works with actors.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Marty McFly, a typical American teenager of the Eighties, is accidentally sent back to 1955 in a plutonium-powered DeLorean "time machine" invented by slightly mad scientist. During his often hysterical, always amazing trip back in time, Marty must make certain his teenage parents-to-be meet and fall in love - so he can get back to the future.
 
The Good: Marty McFly is a likable guy. In fact, when it comes to teenage movie characters from the 1980s, he and Ferris Bueller always jockey for position. If it weren’t for him and Michael J. Fox’s performance, Back to the Future simply wouldn’t work. You need that strong lead and all-American boy with that slight hint of teenage rebellion. Fox hits the mark perfectly and it’s not so much we’re watching Marty go on an adventure as much as it is we feel we’re joining him on that adventure. He become a friend to us and so we take that much more investment in his predicament and goals. We also enjoy the company of his friend Doc Brown, probably one of the great movie characters in cinema, who’s excitement and energy leaves us forcing to catch our own breath when he still hasn’t caught his. Back to the Future isn’t so much about time travel, you see, as much as it is about characters. You love them from the very beginning. The comedy is a melting pot of comedic styles, all somehow coming together seamlessly. You have the brilliant dialogue banter of a Wilder movie, a bit of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd and a whole lot of Frank Kapra. It's a brilliant film that is often overlooked when people discuss the great comedies.
 
The Bad: As Marty unwillingly disrupts the timeline and altering the future, Doc Brown works with him to try and set it right. He brings up the repercussions of mucking with time and even subtly brings in time travel theory without a ton of exposition. At the same time, he willingly disrupts it because he thinks it will set it right, but you have to ask "how does he know?" I mean, Marty still screws with the timeline and when he returns to 1985, thins are still changed only now for the better. It's hard to know what would happen if Marty didn't go back in the time, does a parallel timeline become created. Is there another 1985 that Marty didn't return to and his parents cry in heartache over the disappearance of their son? As with any movie dealing with time travel, someitmes asking too many questions just causes headaches. You should enjoy the ride, but Doc Brown's constant reminding us about travel theory causes us to ask a lot of questions.
 
The Ugly: As Ted from another 1980s time travel movie once said "It's your mom, dude."
 
Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

The second part of the trilogy begins as Doc, Marty and Jennifer take the time-traveling DeLorean into the year 2015 to straighten out the future of the McFly family. But Biff Tannen steals the time machine and gives his younger self a book containing 50 years of sports statistics, which the young Biff uses to amass an enormous gambling fortune and transform idyllic Hill Valley into a living hell. To restore the present, Doc and Marty must return to the events of their previous adventure in 1955 and retrieve the book.
 
The Good: Although the “traveling to the future” element is what got people into the theaters, lets face it that part is a lot of fun to see with the various flying cars and hoverboards, the real meat of the story is the alternate timeline that is created and the return to 1955. Like the first film, the highlight here is the characters. In particular the character of Biff and rather brilliant performance by Thomas F Wilson who plays teenage Biff, awkward adult Biff, sleazy adult Biff, teenage Griff (who is like teenage Biff only little twitchier), and elderly Biff. Michael J. Fox was no slouch either playing young Marty, old Marty, his daughter and his son and having to redo shots from the First Back to the Future at the same time. This is what made the movie so fun and just a great ride. It’s about generations, family and how, in the end, we’re all relatively the same. Ending in a cliffhanger was brilliant, giving the whole trilogy a great sense of continuity although I recall a ton of groans in the theater back in 1989.
 
The Bad: Any movie that deals with traveling to the future sadly only has the relevance of when it was made. In 1989, many of the references were fantastical yet believable, now they’re merely laughable. However, I don’t hold this against the film. It’s a product of its time just as 2001: A Space Odyssey was. It’s fun, with lots of goofy gags and observations that are reminiscent of a Jetson’s cartoon, but is merely there to throw set up the real elements of the story. Once those begin, that’s when the real movie starts and you start to realize how seemingly pointless (despite the foreshadowing to the third film) that the future plots seemed to be. I’ve also always found it interesting that Doc Brown, so obsessed about not harming or altering the timeline, is so gun-ho about jumping to the future to save Marty’s kids (and drag his girlfriend along for the ride). That element of his character seemed to be tossed out the window and instead of looking at it as a scientist (if not a philosopher) he changes his tone solely for the sake of having an adventurous story for a movie.
 
The Ugly: Wait…so we can predict the exact moment that rain stops yet apparently have poor mail service? What’chu talkin’ ‘bout, Doc?
 
Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Stranded in 1955, Marty McFly receives written word from his friend, Doctor Emmett Brown, as to where can be found the DeLorean time machine. However, an unfortunate discovery prompts Marty to go to his friend's aid. Using the time machine, Marty travels to the old west where his friend has run afoul of a gang of thugs and has fallen in love with a local schoolteacher. Using the technology from the time, Marty and Emmett devise one last chance to send the two of them back to the future.

The Good: From the very first film, this thrid film was forshadowed (especially the 2nd film, which the third reflects and references many times). It's puns and gags are a way of showing how time and things repeat, such as Marty quite good with a gun thanks to videogames or taking a cue from Clint Eastwood on how to act a cowboy. It's as "sweeping epic" as you can ask a time-traveling movie to really be with wide vistas, cliche's old west towns and facades and, of course, cowboys who'll shoot first and ask questions later. It's more a celebration of old westerns, a little John Ford with a dash of Sergio Leone, and the fish-out-of-water plot we've loved so much finally comes to an end. It even managest to dish out a nice and charming romance story in between it all. It's a solid send-off with characters we've come to love and, once the credits roll, we realize how much we'll miss.

The Bad: I suppose the biggest problem is how this, the climatic finale, is utterly "basic." There's no great orchestral choir and uplifiting concerto, just a four-piece chamber ensemble that peters out. As fun as the movie it is, it's not much of a difference than a lot of western comedies, which it emulates from start to finish, rather than a funny adventure through time that the previous two movies were a part of. Perhaps its the lack of connections the characters, Doc and Marty, have to the old west where the times of 1955, 1985 and 2015 they were direct with. We see them and their families progress through those times, in our finale we see the original generations. Nice concepts, but perhaps should have been a small portion of something grander and more fitting as we've seen in two previous films. There's also the odd conundrum of Doc Brown and his family who are, apparently, the "Time Family" as best I can describe. They exist in and out of our own time, jumping from era to era...putting right what once went wrong...and hoping each time that his next leap....will be the leap home.

The Ugly: A Time Train?  Really? A bit rediculous, even for Back to the Future standards and really forced way to end on a high note. But that ensemble is weary by that point anyways, but at least it's still fun to listen to.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Redmond Barry is a young, roguish Irishman who's determined, in any way, to make a life for himself as a wealthy nobleman. Enlisting in the British Army, fighting in the Seven Years War in Europe, Barry deserts from the British army, joins the Prussian army, gets promoted to the rank of a spy, then becomes pupil to a Chevalier and con artist/gambler. Barry then lies, dupes, duels and seduces his way up the social ladder and enters into a lustful but loveless marriage to a wealthy countess named Lady Lyndon, takes the name of Barry Lyndon, settles in England with wealth and power beyond his wildest dreams, then slowly falls dramatically into ruin.

The Good: Strangely one of Stanley Kubrick’s more overlooked films, Barry Lyndon is one of his more refined and all around polished pieces- authentic, moving and quite epic. Clocking in at around 3 hours, it’s now considered by most critics as the director’s best work overall, reeling back the philosophical ramblings of 2001 or the ideological head-pounding of A Clockwork Orange, it retains those thematic elements but Kubrick underplays the cards. It’s Kubrick’s approach to minimalism and being subdued that allows this film to work the way it does and thus we have a fantastic sandbox for him to play with as our hero is already detached and cold before Kubrick even needs to say “action.” It’s about irony, satire and a time when human beings seemed insignificant. It was a bold approach to filmmaking as well, as Kubrick insisted only a camera, actual locations and natural light be used through the production. Aesthetically, I would go as far to say this his Stanley Kubrick’s best by quite a margin.

The Bad: While it’s finely crafted, acted and an overall beautiful, vivid film to look at, it, like 2001: A Space Odyssey, lacks the core entertainment value to sit through and watch. It’s the artistic vision that draws you in, but when it comes to storytelling it lacks the ability to match that visual vigor. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “boring” but comparing the slow, arduous storytelling to the visual craftsmanship and acting, or even the set and costume designs, the disparity is obvious.

The Ugly: The time of the shoot? 10 months. That’s just principal photography. Throw in pre and post production, and you have a film years in the making. Compare that to most films that are shot in three months and out three after that, and you can get the idea. I hope the crew got overtime.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Terence McDonagh is a drug- and gambling-addled detective in post-Katrina New Orleans investigating the killing of five Senegalese immigrants.

The Good: There's really nothing like watching a movie where are central character isn't above doing anything and everything. Watching a complete psycho can be entertaining if done right and, for the most part, this movie does do that right. Cage is daring in his portrayal of a cop that has one foot over the edge and the other foot in the grave. Watching an actor exploit his fearlessness is a joy and Cage, although sometimes a parody of himself in films, is absolutely superb here. It's an interesting subject matter for Wener Herzog as well, this is a bit of a departure in nearly every facet for him. Like the original Bad Lieutenant, this film is more a character study with some surrealist elements (in other words, like McDonagh, you aren't sure what is real and what is it...it could all just be a dream). If it wasn't for Cage, and his off-the-wall antics, this movie would probably be nothing. Then again, that can be said for the original Bad Lieutenant as well only that film took itself far too seriously most of the time. Cage emits glee and Herzog presents it in unabashed glory. As a result, we have something daring yet at the same time darkly funny. It's the perfect tone for this type of movie. The question is, though...is that intentional?

The Bad: Sometimes a movie can just try too hard, and in the case of BL:PCNO (Yes, I just did that) it seems to indulge itself in trying to show just how depraved McDonagh can be and how utterly nuts, although it's a brave nuts, that Nicholas Cage can appear. We find humor in this as a result, but is the film trying to be funny or, especially considering it is Herzog, is it tragic in its depiction of the character? There's really no story here to justify either scenario, just a series of events, and there's really no character development because the entire film does a complete 180 and, instead, has everything wrapped up nicely and tied up in a bow that, again, feels almost comedic. Funny or not, so forced is this "happy ending" that it utterly brings down the entire film as a result. It's obvious, it's contrived, it's all handled in a period of five minutes. Everything is going to be fine, when they really should not be. McDonagh hasn't really learned anything, those around him haven't fully figured him out and how insane he is and there's no solid "just desserts" that he really gets.

The Ugly: I have to say, Xzibit has, time and time again, show some pretty good acting chops in television and film. Playing a drug dealing villain here is a good turn for him as he often plays good-guy roles. It brings a good balance to Cage's antics.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

In 1941, New York intellectual playwright Barton Fink comes to Hollywood to write a Wallace Beery wrestling picture. Staying in the eerie Hotel Earle, Barton develops severe writer's block. His neighbor, jovial insurance salesman Charlie Meadows, tries to help, but Barton continues to struggle as a bizarre sequence of events distracts him even further from his task.

The Good: A movie about classic Hollywood filmmaking by fans of classic Hollwyood. It may come on the verge of pretentiousness at times, but Barton Fink is a story about consciousness more than anything. What a man wants to do isn’t always the path he takes, and what he finds himself doing isn’t the path he wants. Barton Fink is about writing and, as Fink says in one of the opening scenes, there’s a gut feeling over what is good and what is merely adequate. It gets into the head of our writer, his thinking and observations and, of course, his serious block due to his lack of conviction of having to parlay his talents to mere adequacy. Like Miller’s Crossing, there’s a stylish surrealism to everything. It’s realistic yet almost neatly so. Every prop has as much purpose as every word spoken, but it’s all rooted neatly in the early 1940s - at least what we think of the 1940s as looking like in our imaginations.  The Coens bring in their distinct style, noting small observations  (like Fink never able to get a word in or drink his coffee) against the bigger issues of the scene. They are masters at this, and this is probably the first film where that mastery is really seen in full.

The Bad: The Coen brothers films are known for having a combination of satire and dark humor mingled in with classic comedic presence. Even in their dramas, they often manage to add those elements in somehow. Barton Fink, though, sometimes doesn’t know what kind of approach to comedy it wishes to be and often we’re confused on how it wants to handle the material. When its in its stride, its fantastic, other moments feel as though it’s full of malice and fear, even anger, and the changes in tone sometimes can be jarring. In fact, one scene goes from calmly odd to comedic banter and dialogue to comedic observation to sudden sense of fright in less than five minutes. Then there’s a point where it turns utterly dark, even for a Coen movie, turning the entire film into a mystery noir and some plot points becoming unresolved or dropped entirely which is something the Coens play around with in their movies from time to time. Offbeat is an understatement, it’s a Coen brothers movie of course it is offbeat, but it’s also a little less focused than some of their other gems yet still more creative than others. I think that’s a fair trade, though, in an otherwise brilliant piece of filmmaking.

The Ugly: John Turturro made his career with the Coens, appearing in a majority of their films. He is so under appreciated and has given top-notch performances, yet has yet to even really acknowledged outside of his win at Cannes for this film. Now he’s doing bit roles in Transformers movies. Damnit.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

When Batman and Robin are called out to rescue Commodore Schmidlapp, they are unaware that they are actually being fooled and the real Schmidlapp is being kidnapped by four of Batman's most feared enemies. The Catwoman, The Joker, The Penguin and The Riddler are working together to try and take over the world once and for all.

The Good: It's a fun, campy style Batman and Robin as only Adam West and Burt Ward can deliver. Slapstick, sometimes poking fun at itself, and absurd. The story is completely nonsensical and there just to get all the bat-villains together from the television show.

The Bad: If you prefer the Batman from the 1980s to now, this is not for you. It's very much set in its era and if you approach like that, you'll enjoy it. If not, you'll hate it.

The Ugly: Batman versus Shark, enough said, and worth a laugh but really shows how far the character has come.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

Gotham City: dark, dangerous, 'protected' only by a mostly corrupt police department. Despite the best efforts of D.A. Harvey Dent and police commissioner Jim Gordon, the city becomes increasingly unsafe. We all know criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot...so his disguise must be able to strike terror into their hearts. He becomes a bat. Enter Vicky Vale, a prize-winning photo journalist who wants to uncover the secret of the mysterious "bat-man". And enter Jack Napier, one-time enforcer for Boss Grissom, horribly disfigured after a firefight in a chemical factory...who, devoid of the last vestiges of sanity, seizes control of Gotham's underworld as the psychotic, unpredictable Clown Prince of Crime...the Joker. Gotham's only hope, it seems, lies in this dark, brooding vigilante. And just how does billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne fit into all of this?

The Good: Tim Burton brings an amazing sense of style and artistic vision to Gotham and Batman himself. Michael Keaton plays Batman well, dark, foreboding, a silent threat and Jack Nicholson steals the show as the Joker, bringing a good balance of the 1960s Cesar Romero Joker with the more darker and sinister Joker we've come to expect. You can tell he's having a great time with the character.

The Bad: While Keaton is great as Batman, as Bruce Wayne there is a major sense of underdevelopment. We really know little about the man behind the mask despite the screentime. The music by Prince has not aged well and really dates the film when used, especially in contrast to the brilliant Danny Elfman score.

The Ugly:  There's also an often debated issue in Burton's Batman movies regarding Batman killing people, which he does. Batman isn't regarded as an "anti-hero" in this sense, yet Burton portrays him as such. This mainly can be an issue to those dedicated to the character. Good or bad? It depends on how you view Batman to begin with.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Having defeated the Joker, Batman now faces the Penguin - a warped and deformed individual who is intent on being accepted into Gotham society. Crooked businessman Max Schreck is coerced into helping him become Mayor of Gotham and they both attempt to expose Batman in a different light. Earlier however, Selina Kyle, Max's secretary, is thrown from the top of a building and is transformed into Catwoman - a mysterious figure who has the same personality disorder as Batman. Batman must attempt to clear his name, all the time deciding just what must be done with the Catwoman.

The Good: Another visually stunning film, now with a gorgeous palette of the dark Gotham cityscape contrasted with snow. Keaton gives his best performance, and this time we see a little more on the Bruce Wayne side of things. Michelle Pfeiffer is sexy, Devito disgusting, and Walken, well, Walken. A solid cast.

The Bad: The movie has a hard time with both villains, the Penguin and Catwoman, neither of which live up to The Joker from the first film. It sometimes feels as though it just doesn't know what to do with either and the story itself feels a little thrown together. I agree with Roger Ebert on the issue in that it's not a bad film, just a misguided one.

The Ugly: Probably the darkest out of all the Batman films, the violence, sexuality and the grotesque Penguin caused a backlash from the media and parental groups.

 Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Batman's third film follows the practice of the second by giving him two villains to face, Two-Face and the Riddler. Two-Face blames Batman for his disfigurement and simply wishes him dead. The Riddler is a disgruntled inventor who worked for Wayne Enterprises and is terribly jealous of Wayne's success and sophistication and uses his riddles to show his superiority over Wayne and Batman. Added to this mix are a sexy abnormal psychologist who is not only studying the criminals, but has a thing for Batman as well and Dick Grayson, (Robin) is introduced. Gotham is still a dark and foreboding place in which Batman begins to come to grips with his own psychology as he relives the deaths of his parents in his dreams.

The Good: A step back, no doubt, but it's a fun film. Val Kilmer steps into the role well. Jim Carrey gets top billing and, although over-the-top (as is the whole film, similar to the original Batman series) he pulls off the Riddler pretty well. Some of the better action scenes in the franchise, and the film does what the studio hired Joel Schumacher to do: entertain us.

The Bad: Nearly everything else. The loss of Burton's dark style is supplanted by a lot of green and shiny things, it's like throwing a piece of aluminum foil into a monkey house and watch them stare at it for a few hours. Don't mind the horrible story on top of that, we'll just throw in a few fight scenes. Kilmer and Carrey are wasted in the film and Chris O'Donnel might as well been a talking sock puppet.

The Ugly: Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face takes a favorite character and turns him into a mumbling sidekick that just agrees with everything Jim Carrey wants to do.Both he and Jim Carrey feel like they're doing parodies of the Joker, only  in different costumes.

Final Rating: 2.5 out of 5

The dynamic duo are back but this time they are up against the nefarious Mr. Freeze, who is bent on turning the world into an iceberg, and the slyly seductive but highly toxic Poison Ivy, who wants to eliminate all animal life and turn the Earth into a gigantic greenhouse. And Batman's butler Alfred is dying for a mysterious disease that Freeze's wife has. It's up to Batman, Robin the Boy Wonder and the new heroin Batgirl Alfred's niece to fight all three villains and save Alfred before he dies! But unfortunately Mr. Freeze holds the key to save his life.

The Good: *crickits chriping*

The Bad: This isn't regarded as one of the worst movies made for nothing. Nearly everything will make you cringe, roll your eyes, or vomit profusely into your popcorn. It's one of those movies where I don't even know where to begin in describing. The large scope: the acting is horrible, one-liners and dialogue nauseating, Robin is annoying, the plot is literally that of the 1960s series along with the characters themselves, the action uninspired, the music forgettable and, goddamnit does Batman actually have a "Batman" credit card? The only thing missing are the comical "Unmps" and "Cracks" popping up during the fight scenes. We can at least say it got one thing right: it killed off the franchise to allow for it to start from scratch.

The Ugly: The barrage of one-liners from Arnold Schwartzenegger is the pinnacle of annoying muscle men in tights. It takes the character and makes him into a comedian. Oh, and nipples on the suit and the up-close shot of Batman's ass as he puts the suit on.

Final Rating: 0 out of 5

In tone with the early "Batman: Year One" style comics. As a boy a young Bruce Wayne watched in horror as his millionaire parents were slain in front of his eyes, a trauma which led him to become obsessed with revenge but his chance is cruelly taken away from him by fate. After disappearing to the East where he seeks counsel with the dangerous but honorable ninja cult leader known as Ra's Al-Ghul, he returns to his now decaying Gotham City overrun by organized crime and dangerous individuals manipulating the system whilst the company he inherited is slowly being pulled out from under him. The discovery of a cave under his mansion, and a prototype armored suit leads him to take on a new persona, one which will strike fear into the hearts of men who do wrong - he becomes, Batman. In the new guise, and with the help of rising cop Jim Gordon, Batman sets out to take down the various nefarious schemes in motion by individuals such as mafia don Falcone, the twisted doctor/drug dealer Jonathan 'The Scarecrow' Crane, and a mysterious third party that is quite familiar with Wayne and waiting to strike when the time is right.

The Good: Toning back the camp and approaching Batman more seriously is exactly what the franchise needed. Christian Bale is great both as Batman (I'm lineant on the voice, unlike some) and Bruce Wayne as a misogynistic playboy and he has great scenes with Michael Kane as Alfred.  The story is very well paced, and showing the past of Bruce, his training and eventual emergence of Batman is plotted perfectly with a gradual build to the climax. A big note to Morgan Freeman as Lucious Fox and Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon, both fitting perfectly into their roles. Liam Neeson as Ra's al Guhl does well with what's given to him, especially considering he doesn't have a lot screen time to begin with.All in all, it did what none of the previous Batman films did: allow us to spend some time with the characters and get to know them a little better.

The Bad: The action scenes are hard to follow, cutting away far too much to see what's really going on and way too close to comprehend what exactly is happening. I think this is more due to Nolan's inexperience with shooting such scenes, he's improved much since then. Also, the ending and final chase sequence is pretty contrived, putting Gordon in the Batmobile, and, again, having Batman more or less kill the villain (even his 'justification' is shoehorned in to try and bring credibility, but it just doesn't make sense). Also, I don't think Scarecrow is given his due, Cillian Murphy does well with what he's given, as little as it is (yet more than Ra's), but the character really is a footnote to the mob/Ra's Al Guhl storyline.

The Ugly: The Microwave Transmitter is walking the line of campiness and really sticks out in Chris Nolan's otherwise very real world. Why not just have al Guhl steal a large warhead or something? At least we know those exist. I guess that wouldn't fit as nicely with drug-running plot.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

When "The Dude" Lebowski is mistaken for a millionaire Lebowski, two thugs urinate on his rug to coerce him into paying a debt he knows nothing about. While attempting to gain recompense for the ruined rug from his wealthy counterpart, he accepts a one-time job with high pay-off. He enlists the help of his bowling buddy, Walter, a gun-toting Jewish-convert with anger issues. Deception leads to more trouble, and it soon seems that everyone from porn empire tycoons to nihilists want something from The Dude.

The Good: If I may be so bold, I will have to throw out a moment of self-serving conceit and claim that Jeffrey “The Dude” Lebowski is one of the greatest characters to every be put on screen. To have an actor so embody a character is a sight to behold, and Jeff Daniels pulls it off to where we both love “The Dude” and hate “The Dude” simultaneous. We love his occasionally innocence in the matter, just a free loving guy who wants his rug back, but hate the fact he probably takes the most insanely difficult path in doing so. With him are other great characters, Walter his friend a different kind of nutcase and the Alpha Male of the group with The Dude more a passive observer who waits more than takes action (and when he takes action, it’s usually poorly planned). The Big Lebowski is purely a character film. The story itself is nothing here, the Coen brothers pointing it out by simply having the Dude’s search for a new rug the main plot. Instead, it’s about the oddballs that come and go as Dude goes on his quest in a Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure style of strangeness and surrealism. The entire film feels as though it’s set just right outside the room labeled “reality” and we end up indulging ourselves in one of the best comedies to ever be created. The precise directing, the music and the characters all build up to a Coen brothers classic and one of the top films in their repertoire that is now as much a cult classic as A Clockwork Orange and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

The Bad: Although the Coen brothers strip down the main plot to something simple, they still manage to over complicate things on our journey through it. By the end of the movie, you don’t even know what the original point of it all was to begin with. In a way, I suppose that’s reflective of The Dude’s quest itself, he doesn’t even know what the hell just happened and we share that utter ignorance with him and unlike some other Coen films, the odd and messiness of it all feels completely deliberate. That doesn’t mean we can just simply accept that, though, as there are times when things out of left field are so out of left field you will never be able to put the pieces together of the odd puzzle the Coen’s have given us. By all accounts, The Big Lebowski shouldn’t engage you at all, but maybe that’s why it completely does.

The Ugly:  Peter Stormare playing a weird, unsettling foreign guy? You don’t say.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

With only a few days before their high-school graduation, Bill S. Preston, esquire and Ted 'Theodore' Logan are doomed to flunk out of school. The history teacher, Mr. Ryan, decides to give Bill and Ted a chance. If they can ace an oral exam on the topic of how a famous historical personality might react to modern times, they will be allowed to pass. If not, Ted's father will place Ted in military school, thereby disbanding the Wyld Stallyns, the heavy metal band that was formed by Bill and Ted. Bill and Ted get help from an unexpected source: Rufus, an Emissary from the Future. It seems that in Rufus' time, Bill and Ted's music is the basis of all existence, and if the Wild Stallyns are disbanded, Rufus's world will no longer exist. Bill and Ted are whisked off in a time machine to retrieve a few historical characters for their oral exam so they can pass, but Bill and Ted soon discover that finding the historical characters and getting them to the high school won't be easy.

The Good: Inventive, original and imaginative. I feel originality can go a long way and overshadow a film's shortcomings. There's really nothign else quite like Bill and Ted. It's smarter than it presents itself and endearing to those that grew up during the era of Bill and Ted. The story does a great job staying focused and keeping movie, and for less than an hour and a half it does a great job cramming a lot into it while not feeling too rushed. The strength, though, comes from Bill and Ted themselves. They're fantastic characters you can really find yourself wanting to hang out with. George Carlin does his bit well and each historical figure is distinct and memorable, with enough. It's a classic fish-out-of water tale from many angles and is subtle in how it deals with its story and character arcs.

The Bad: While original and fun, the film is still pretty predictable. We know how things will end up and where they will go. Also, the movie, while smart with Time Travel at times, does imminently have issues of plot holes that seem to emerge with many films dealing with time travel theory. With the light feel of it all, there's some things you can just grin and take, such as setting traps and diversions, but the more you think about it, the more you wonder why they didn't set up everything in the first place. Also, the ending show presentation Bill and Ted put on is pretty hokey, but it had to end the way and at least had some funny moments. There's a slight issue with the music, but that's likely because of the film being independent and unable to really have the rocking tunes that Bill and Ted reference.

The Ugly: Showcasing the film's subtlety, the scene of Sigmund Freud hitting on two girls at the mall with a corndog in hand, only to slowly lower it as they reject him, is funny yet disturbing considering who is holding the corndog.  "

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

The world of our distant future is a veritable utopia, thanks to the lyrics of two simple-minded 20th Century rock and rollers, Bill S. Preston, Esq. and Ted "Theodore" Logan. However, a would-be conquerer threatens to throw history off-track by sending "most non-non-heinous" evil robot Bill and Teds back to kill their good counterparts. Finding themselves dead, the boys must outwit the Grim Reaper and traverse Heaven and Hell to return to the land of the living, rescue their "babes" and have a "most triumphant" concert at the all-important Battle of the Bands.

The Good: Like the first film, it's imaginative. The visualization of Heaven, Hell and Death's realm are fantastic. It may not have as many memorable moments as its predecessor, but the games with Death, the halls of Hell and the odd sights of Death (the best character in the film) staggering around the real world looking bored are original and funny. Of course, the strength, again, is Bill and Ted who are really about where we left them off in the first film, struggling even more now because they have to find real jobs and still try to be with their girls. Their dose of "reality" has sunk in, and they know they have a long ways to go before they reach "savior" status they are destined to be. You really feel their frustration. They also show how they've grown, now dealing with things like bills and rent, thinking a little more on their feet rather than just wading through life and overall showing the lessons they learned in the first film. 

The Bad: Bogus Journey is film that you'll love one minute, but get annoyed and hate it the next. Throwing Bill and Ted into the afterlife is a great concept, and the execution works through about 2/3 of it, but the final act tells us the writers and creators really tried to force the issue to close it out. Along the way it repeatedly trips itself up by leaving our beloved Bill and Ted for "evil" Bill and Ted who are more annoying than threatening. I don't know know why you would program the wannabe-Terminators to do that. If you can send them back in time, then...oh, don't get me started. It's finale, too, is even cheesier than the first film's and at a point you really want it to end. It also does a poor job dealing with the first film's closed-story. Again, I can bring up the time-travel element, but that's not a focus here (at least, not until the very end of the story where future Bill and Ted show up, which makes me think I might be right in critiquing it as the whole setting up of traps and tricks just doesn't make sense). Concluded story arcs in the first are either not dealt with or rehashed, such as Ted with his father. It's a movie with good intentions but a poor execution.

The Ugly: The aliens are bad additions to this story. There's no exceptions to this fact. They come in too late and feel too forced in. On top of that, their look and effect is horrendous and end up just being an annoying commodity to Bill and Ted. Also the "Reaper Rap" at the end. I had to cringe on that one.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

Spoiled socialite and notorious practical joker Melanie Daniels is shopping in a San Francisco pet store when she meets Mitch Brenner. Mitch is looking to buy a pair of love birds for his young sister's birthday; he recognizes Melanie but pretends to mistake her for an assistant. She decides to get her own back by buying the birds and driving up to the quiet coastal town of Bodega Bay, where Mitch spends his weekends with his sister and mother. Shortly after she arrives, Melanie is attacked by a gull, but this is just the start of a series of attacks by an increasing number of birds.

The Good: I've always wondered how the various "killer animal" or "killer giant animal" movies from the 1950s  are often looked at as campy and goofy yet once Alfred Hitchcock does one, it's a piece of suspenseful brilliance. The set ups and formulas are pretty much the same and the whole "nature run amok" idea wasn't new back in 1963. The truth is, though, The Birds is every bit as much a B-Movie as you would think it would be without Hitchcock's name plastered all over it. Still, he too creative approaches to it in regards to special effects, gore (such as a pecked-up, eyeless corpse that was pretty graphic at the time) and use of music (such as there isn't any in the entire film). It's just you, the characters, a lot of bird sounds and a constant sense of dread because the number of birds (and the violence) escalates as the film progresses to its final climax. It may be a B-Movie at heart, but it's crafted with A-Caliber technique and ability (similar to Raiders of the Lost Ark). Hitchcock made birds scary. Just remember that. This isnt' a shark or a giant snake which are already frightening. These are just regular seagulls, sparrows and crows.

The Bad: I would argue that The Birds is one of Hitchcock's more lazy films, yet also one of his most beloved. He really shows little care to the story and to the characters and focuses solely on the tense situation at hand. Usually he balances both remarkably, but perhaps the larger scale of the film and the emphasis on special effects was something he was more in tune with than trying to hand us a story or memorable characters (thanks to less than memorable leads as well, I might add). The fact he doesn't try to explain why the Birds are attacking is actually the best element of the story, the fact that there's no investment into the story and really no love given to the characters at all are easily its weakest. It's built upon set piece after set piece. As great as those are, it also feels like cheap scares at times.

The Ugly: I still love the eyeless corpse and how Hitchcock absoltely doesn't sway the camera away. It's completely explicit and in your face and shows that these birds aren't messing around.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

The story of 1970s African-American action legend Black Dynamite. The Man killed his brother, pumped heroin into local orphanages, and flooded the ghetto with adulterated malt liquor. Black Dynamite was the one hero willing to fight The Man all the way from the blood-soaked city streets to the hallowed halls of the Honky House.

The Good: Taking more a Mel Brooks road than a Scary Movie/Date Move/Epic Movie pop-culture laced road, Black Dynamite will sure be a hit amongst moviegoers, especially those that enjoy the filmmaking process and can laugh and giggle at boom-mics, poor edits, missing scenes and obviously bad fight scenes that so dominated Blaxpoloitation Cinema in the 1970s.  I think those that come with that background will appreciate the film more, because many probably won’t quite understand the concept and exactly what Blaxploitation was. Michael Jai White is solid in this role, his martial-arts background and charisma illuminating every scene and his one-liners infinitely quotable. It’s goofy, intentionally funny rather than accidentally funny or full of shocks to get you to laugh. It’s funniest moments come when it’s attempting to recreate Blaxploitation. It’s still a parody, but it’s funny because it’s exactly what would have been done in 1973, only done today makes it hilarious. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to not realize it was made just last year.

The Bad: Eventually, the parody and comedy begins to wear on you. While a few scenes might still get you to chuckle at the half-way point, by then it’s really run its course and the martial-arts filled finale can’t even save it. It’s a worthy film to watch once but sadly probably won’t have staying power even as a cult film due to its inconsistent bouts of humor and rushed ending.

The Ugly: Three people involved with the screenplay and it doesn’t quite hit its stride, and instead it’s a series of seemingly episodic parody scenes. What that says is that it’s some friends, who got a camera, and just went with it. Sometimes it works, but after a while it doesn’t.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

A vengeful witch and her fiendish servant return from the grave and begin a bloody campaign to possess the body of the witch's beautiful look-alike descendant. Only the girl's brother and a handsome doctor stand in her way.

The Good: A beautifully shot, atmospheric piece of black and white horror cinema that was one of the most influenctial films of its time and put Italian aueteur Mario Bava on the map. Black Sunday is a purely "creepy" type of horror film, as anything regarding satan, witchcraft and possession probably would be, and is one of the most gorgeous looking and orginally direced horror films you could ask to see, implementing long takes and interesting (and still frightening) use of light, shadow and the camera's movements. It's a classic approach, with an old castle, secret passageways, and a good sense of storytelling that really reels you into its world. It's also a shockingly gory film with blood and sexual overtones that made it banned in the UK and censored in the US. What it might lack in characters it makes up for in character.

The Bad: The characters are mostly one-dimensional, although with good personalities, and the villains are theatrical (although this is an Italian film so its understandable). The story is told well, however it doesn't offer a lot of originality or twists to the formula. It pretty much takes a formula and does it well. In older horror movies, I don't think we can ask for much more than that.

The Ugly: Why would you have two giant portraits of a satanic copule that haunt your nightmares in your own home?

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

The Ultimate Western Spoof. A town where everyone seems to be named Johnson is in the way of the railroad. In order to grab their land, Hedley Lemar, a politically connected nasty person, sends in his henchmen to make the town unlivable. After the sheriff is killed, the town demands a new sheriff from the Governor. Hedley convinces him to send the town the first Black sheriff in the west. Bart is a sophisticated urbanite who will have some difficulty winning over the townspeople.

The Good: A movie like Blazing Saddles would never get made today. It’s too insulting, too racist, too politically incorrect…and damn is it good. It’s intelligent on top of it all, somehow finding a perfect way to shock us, be intelligent and not insult us yet still be a parody and satire. Blazing Saddles is one of those films that is immensely rewatchable, quotable, memorable and just loved by just about everyone. Why? Simply put, it is film making fun of films. It throws everything at us without thinking twice. It mocks and criticizes racism and prejudices, stereotypes and bigotry but being racist and full of stereotypes itself. It’s lewd and raunchy and shows the ridiculous nature of being stupid and prejudice. It’s so shocking, the story is in there somewhere, but it’s more a critique than anything; a hodgepodge of…well, everything. The characters and their lines are legendary and many would consider this Mel Brooks best films. I don’t know if it’s his best, but it’s his most wild and memorable, that’s for certain.

The Bad: For about 90% of the film, it’s rather straight-forward  and funny…then it goes wild. It becomes a montage of jokes, gags, styles, parodies. It’s not a polished piece of filmmaking, it’s like Brooks reached into a bag, pulled something out and said “here, do this.” Then he does that for at least a dozen or so times. It never feels together and is merely a series of scenes that sort of work together. The randomness makes for hilarity, and is why most people love it including myself, but it also makes you wonder if Brooks put forth the effort to be more cohesive what he would have come up with….I suppose that would have been Young Frankenstein which came out the exact same year. Looks like we got the best of both worlds from him in 1974.

The Ugly: Will there ever be someone with as big of balls as Mel Brooks to do a movie like this? Well…yes, actually. Many consider Sacha Baron Cohen as a spiritual successor in the way he handles similar material on his old television show and films A different approach, as he plays various characters, but the same shocking results that maybe will remind people of Brooks genius again. Unfortunately, as I noted, today’s society is so uptight and politically correct that more people take issues and burn effigies than just enjoy a good laugh.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Abby is cheating on her saloonkeeper husband, Marty. The object of her affections is Ray, one of Marty's bartenders. Marty hires Visser, an unscrupulous detective, to kill them. But Visser has other, more lucrative plans of his own. So begins a calculating round of double and triple crosses that build to a bloodcurdling, surprise-filled climax.

The Good: A tight script and restrained, smart directing is what the Coen Brothers are known for and showcased in their very first film. Unlike a lot of debut films from filmmakers, Blood Simple is surprisingly well-crafted, acted and an overall solid, if not timid at times, thriller. It loves to weave its story in and around its characters, something the Coens eventually come to master by their third film, and everything feels so utterly deliberate yet utterly nonchalant at the same time. It’s darkly humorous and the Coens, as they will continue to do for the next few decades, really get the best out of their actors (M. Emmet Walsh and Francis McDormand being highlights here). It’s a type of thriller that gets to the real nitty-gritty of life’s minutia, because sometimes the smallest things can be what brings you down. This film, to me at least, always felt like a classic Shakespearian tale. All the elements are there, that’s for sure, and maybe Bill S. would have been proud.

The Bad: Oh, but that minutia can be a fickle one, demanding our undivided attention through a slow pace which can come across as a chore more than an indulgence (intellectually or not). Blood Simple is a smart film and well crafted, but also full of self-serving snobbery that film brats are often known for despite their own addition of whimsy to it all. All that isn’t particularly exciting, as though they are simple observations with little relevance, and it revels in that fact rather than really bring it to have an impact on an audience. Perhaps the Coens were just not there yet, their next two films hitting those marks with easy and joy. Then again, in their notes on the recut, the Coens write that “a pace that was once glacial is now merely slow and scenes that were once inept are now merely awkward.” Well, at least they’re good sports about it, and at least the film isn’t bad because of it.

The Ugly: Who would have thought that we owe the emergence of Joel and Ethan Coen to the likes of Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell?

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

A man returns to his home town after being away and discovers a severed human ear in a field. Not satisfied with the police's pace, he and the police detective's daughter carry out their own investigation. The object of his investigation turns out to be a beautiful and mysterious woman involved with a violent and perversely evil man.

How can I say something bad about a movie where a character screams "I'll fuck anything that moves!"? Well, you can't, really, because Blue Velvet is about as flawless of a film as you can make. Still, there's that underlying David Lynch tone, so it's also not for everyone at the same time. In the right mindset, though, you can come to really appreciate this rather noir-like story set in a Lynchian dream/nightmare world full of odd characters, odd events and severed ears.

Dennis Hopper is our primary character here. Sure there's Kyle Maclachlan who's technically our "main character" (in similar to Jack Nancy in Eraserhead, coming off as an observer) but Hopper is synonymous with this film because he brings to the screen one of the craziest, most insane and simply fucked up people to life in his portrayal of Frank Booth: a man who loves to fuck and also loves blue velvet...and cursing...and inhalants...and fighting and guns..you get the idea. As much the film is about Jeffrey (Maclachlan) falling deeper into this strange world and lifestyle, it is about Frank and how he is so far gone and depraved there's no going back.

I can't really decide if Blue Velvet is entirely accessible for people. It's got a pretty coherent story for Lynch, but still has that rather weird style and pace to it all that turns people off of Lynch in the first place. For me, I think it's a perfect balance and easily his best film. If you like it, then explore more of the Lynch universe, if not, then his films aren't something that you'll enjoy. It's not so much a matter of taste, it's an understanding that Lynch is so different and odd that some people enjoy his work, others don't (a similar approach to Peter Greenaway, Luis Bunuel or Stan Brakhage - the movies aren't bad, but not a good fit for some moviegoers). Blue Velvet is one I think most enjoy, Lynch fans or otherwise.

Final Rating: 5 out of 5

After the release of Jake Blues from prison, he and brother Elwood go to visit the old home where they were raised by nuns. They learn the church stopped its support and will sell the place to the education authority, and the only way to keep the place open is if the $5000 tax on the property is paid within 11 days. The brothers want to help and decide to put their blues band back together and raise the the money by staging a big gig. As they set off on their "mission from god" they seem to make more enemies along the way. Will they manage to come up with the money in time?

The Good: A cavalcade of plot, characters, slapstick, screwball comedy that plans its antics precisely when they need to be revealed. It’s chaotic at times, but in that chaos we find our ground with Jake and Elwood, two rather idiotic but incredibly endearing characters that help us through it all. We may only see a few days out of their lives, but they show us deadpan expressions as though this type of stuff just happens to them all the time. Full of music and energy, the film makes sure you have a good time even if some of those times are a little disorganized.

The Bad: Chaos is hard to control, and it shows. The story gradually becomes more and more over-the-top as it progresses and more nutty characters introduced that are on Jake and Elwood’s trail. It’s almost like a fable, but not a particularly reasonable one, and while the trip is fun, it just gets a little too crazy and hectic as it goes on and we lose sight of what we really love about the film to begin with and what drew us in the first place: Jake and Elwood. Their journey turns into a series of chases, car wrecks and the gradual escalation of people chasing them. A large concert/assembly is already a movie cliché for an ending, but it also throws in a final chase which is even more of a cliché…it plays it more safe when it seemed it would be anything but.

The Ugly: The music is the film centerpiece, from beginning to end, and it’s going to get stuck in your head. I guarantee it….they’re on a mission from God.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

In 14th Century Scotland, William Wallace leads his people in a rebellion against the tyranny of the English King, who has given English nobility the 'Prima Nocta'.. a right to take all new brides for the first night. The Scots are none too pleased with the brutal English invaders, but they lack leadership to fight back. Wallace creates a legend of himself, with his courageous defense of his people and attacks on the English.

The Good: If there’s anything that can be universally praised about Breaveheart: it is old-school filmmaking through and through. It’s raw and simple yet somehow has the style of a David Lean epic, amassing “a cast of thousands” (a term used so widely during the height of the “epic” films in the 50s and 60s).  With it comes a beautifully photographed piece, lavish music and memorable war-rallying lines. It’s not a complex film, thankfully, and the story is simple and straightforward enough, rallying itself on basic emotions and plot points that we can take it all in and appreciate its simplistic beauty, even if that means it's going to be soaked in buckets of blood.

The Bad: Self indulgent? Yeah. Historically inaccurate? Definitely. While inaccuracies come with the territory, it’s not as though anyone alive was there to give their input, it does alter things that are pretty widely known in terms of William Wallace and his companions (notably Robert the Bruce who is badly downplayed in terms of his importance yet is revered as a Scottish national hero). It’s the romanticized version of William Wallace, the idolized myth that exists in the mind of Mel Gibson. IN that regard, Braveheart works as it plays off of Gibson’s own ego combined with the Wallace that it placed on a pedestal. Yet, due to the fact it sacrifices the context and the fact its dubbed a historical epic is why it ultimately fails. It’s not historic. It’s period, yes, but not historic…but maybe we put too much stake in our movies to begin with. Despite the mythological status of Wallace, that Gibson whole-heatedly achieves, in the end we still know very little about him. We know what happens to him, that he believes his own form of freedom and conviction is absolute but as a human being, other than his basic emotions that we can somewhat latch on to, if anything the film simplifies him a little too much.

The Ugly: One thing that is polarizing to some is the graphic detail of the battles (gore and blood something that Gibson has become synonimous with). I fall on the side of "I bet it was a lot worse if you were there." I liked that attribute quite a bit. Sometimes you have be unfliching if you're going to try and be realistic, Braveheart is just that.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

The film deals with the situation of British prisoners of war during World War II who are ordered to build a bridge to accommodate the Burma-Siam railway. Their instinct is to sabotage the bridge but, under the leadership of Colonel Nicholson, they are persuaded that the bridge should be constructed as a symbol of British morale, spirit and dignity in adverse circumstances. At first, the prisoners admire Nicholson when he bravely endures torture rather than compromise his principles for the benefit of the Japanese commandant Saito. He is an honorable but arrogant man, who is slowly revealed to be a deluded obsessive. He convinces himself that the bridge is a monument to British character, but actually is a monument to himself, and his insistence on its construction becomes a subtle form of collaboration with the enemy. Unknown to him, the Allies have sent a mission into the jungle, led by Warden and an American, Shears, to blow up the bridge.

The Good: It would be so easy to just label David Lean’s masterpiece as a “war movie.” That couldn’t be anything close to accurate, however. Instead of merely telling a story, director Lean does what he does best: tell the stories of individual people, really no different than you or I, set against a large scale backdrop. The primary story is of two officers and two different ideals. One is British, played by Alec Guiness, and the other American, played by William Holden and their time spent in a Japanese concentration camp. Their performances are the best of their careers, and considering the career both had it’s saying quite a lot.  It’s a complex film, perhaps overly long for the story it wishes to weave, but is also one that a little bit of everything within its frames. It’s like a slow simmer than a perfectly timed boil. Gorgeous, as always with David Lean, to watch, it’s really ever sense we have he stimulates, as well as every emotion.

The Bad: Is there anything inherently bad about Kwai? No, not really. It might be a little long, but this is David Lean we’re talking about. In fact, the only time this film is ever downplayed is in comparisons to Lean’s other masterpiece, Lawrence of Arabia. If one were to say anything, though, I suppose I might as well. There comes a point in the film where you simply stop understanding Col. Nicolson (Guiness). The man was broken, yes, and obviously wasn’t sure of what he was doing, so does that mean all his men, too, were broken? Do they so blindly follow his orders without question? Do they not see how, for lack of a better word, insane and obsessed Nicolson becomes? That might be why we love to see Guiness perform, but that question of loyalty to a man who obviously lost his mind leaves one wondering if the story, so focused on individuals, lost its focus outside of its three main characters.

The Ugly: “Madness!!” Really…is that the best thing you can say when all goes to hell? I know curse words weren’t used often in these films, but even a “my God!” would have been more suited.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

48 hours in the life of a burnt-out paramedic. Once called Father Frank for his efforts to rescue lives, Frank sees the ghosts of those he failed to save around every turn. He has tried everything he can to get fired, calling in sick, delaying taking calls where he might have to face one more victim he couldn't help, yet cannot quit the job on his own.

The Good: There are flashes of brilliance in this film, from Scorsese's return to gritty style directing and one of Nicholas Cage's better performances. Brilliant dialogue and narration by Cage and an overall tightly written script by Scorsese's old friend and collaborator, Paul Schrader (Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ, Taxi Driver). It's not entirely doom and gloom, there's often some light with humor and sarcasm throw in with the dreary, dark visual imagery. I see it as an honest, naked, sometimes poetic journey of the few days we see Frank struggle through. It can be quite beautiful one minute, then hit you with the harsh reality the next. A personal favorite of mine, but it's not without its problems.

The Bad: Bringing Out the Dead is by-the-book for Scorsese. Although well crafted, it lacks the energy he seemed to have in similar New York stories like Taxi Driver and Mean Streets. It's lethargic and slow, attempts to be deep and philosophical, but ultimately ends up just an average story lifted up to better heights by the camerawork and acting. It dawdles with its intentions and even can turn boring after extended watching, luckily it's roughly two hours, which is short compared to many of Scorsese's films, although it arguably could benefit from being a tad shorter.

The Ugly: It's so odd to see films with Tom Sizemore in them these days. He's such a good actor, but his personal life problems makes it hard to see him in a film as anything other than a drug addict and jail bird. In fact, of this writing, he was arrested again just a few days ago. I don't pity him, I pity the talent he's wasting.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Harry Caine, a blind writer, reaches this moment in time when he has to heal his wounds from 14 years back. He was then still known by his real name, Mateo Blanco, and directing his last movie.

The Good:  While not as rich and compelling as his other works, Almodovar delivers exquisite visuals, engaging dialogue and characters a story that is beautifully told. The story, on the surface, is about a filmmaker who loses his sight and has his life, love and career stripped from him (much before he lost his sight). However, it's more about regrets, I found. The kind we have purposefully and those we have unintentionally. Almodovar knows how to construct his films to showcase an intimate story, yet at the same time has a courtesy to it in that we don't see every intimate detail. He balances that incredibly well because we still get a sense of completion, or satisfaction, but not having all the answers. In the case of the subject matter, regrets, it also draws in a sense of loss and unfulfilled feelings that we feel from the characters...that those intimate embraces (hence the title) will never come again. Almodovar is one of the finest filmmakers today, his muse Penolope Cruz showcasing the boundless quality of her acting ability, and his films always unique and wonderful to sit and watch.

The Bad: I can't say much bad about anything Almodovar has ever done. Everything feels so purposeful and intentional. It does tend to sway towards melodrama, and forceful plot devices to stay interesting through a very simple story (although the layers speak for themselves). To compare it to his other works, it does fall short, but if this is considered a "sub par" Almodovar, then we should be fearful once he creates his masterpiece.

The Ugly: I chuckled during a scene when Cruz, looking in the mirror, says to herself "I look awful." No...no you don't. Cruz couldn't look awful no matter how hard she tried.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

When a decorated Marine goes missing overseas, his black-sheep younger brother cares for his wife and children at home‹with consequences that will shake the foundation of the entire family.
 
The Good: A film full of emotion, it's hard not to get caught up in it and feel for the characters: all are well worthy of your attention and appreciation. Maguire's strife is clear and concise, and he pulls it out well as a man simply not there, and Gyllenhaal as the "opposite" brother shows a sweet, caring side to his character that makes him all the more believable as a real, tangible human being also trying to find his way in life. Brothers isn't going to wow you, but you will still find enjoyment in seeing it -
even if just once. The story of Sam and his loss of emotion, feeling, what it's like to be with his children, acceptance from his wife...his scrambles to retain and find a mend to the connections that were stripped form him is harrowing and sympathetic. Maguire really shines in these instances as a man who survives because of his love, but returns to find his love may have been gone already. It's bittersweet, sometimes utterly heartbreaking, and despite the flaws a worthwhile picture from Jim Sheridan who capably directs it from beginning to end as he always does.
 
The Bad: Brothers is simply far too melodramatic at times to be taken seriously (Sheridan's In America had a similar vibe). There's no particular character study here, there's really little development, and the sentimentality, while good in nature, can come across as forced. Jake
Gyllenhaal showcases a great performance that becomes a footnote to Maguire, who gives a strong effort but far from convincing as a military man (a military boy, perhaps, would have been more fitting). I can't discredit it too much for being overly sentimental, in a way that's how it is with
family, marriage, regrets and lost paths of life.
 
The Ugly: The development of the grandfather seems to drop right off an edge and never heard from again. There's an emptiness to it all.
 
Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Brüno is a gay Austrian fashion guru. He has his own fashion based television show, Funkyzeit, the most popular German-language show of its kind outside of Germany. After he disgraces himself in front of his Funkyzeit fan base, he is ruined in German speaking Europe. He decides that in his quest for worldwide fame, he will move to Los Angeles and reinvent himself. Accompanying him to the US is Lutz, his former assistant's assistant. Lutz is the only person left in his circle that still believes in Brüno's greatness. Brüno goes through one reinvention of himself after another, ultimately straying to areas far removed from his own self. Perhaps when Brüno finds an activity that he truly does love, he will also find that über-fame he so desperately desires.

The Good: There's no doubt you will be surprised, shocked and surely uncomfortable. If that was the goal of Sasha Baron-Cohen, then he succeeded. Bruno is a caricature of a gay man, and at times funny in his portrayal and surely brilliant in his ability to have no shame whatsoever. Sadly, I have more respect for the process Baron-Cohen probably went through in putting this film together than the end product itself.

The Bad: The ultimate and utter failure of Bruno lies in the character himself. It's simply hard to sympathize or even remotely like Bruno. He's extrovert, yes, but more in-you-face than is comfortable, homosexual or otherwise. Annoying, contrived and simply a character you don't want to spend any time with. Any type of commentary that Sasha Baron Cohen is attempting to make regarding homosexuality and prejudice is completely undermined by the fact that the character of Bruno is just obnoxious. It's not the formula or even the story of the film that doesn't work, it's the fact that Bruno is simply not a good vehicle to relay it all through. It's hard to buy the fact that he is that dumb and oblivious to everything, unlike Borat where his innocence and charming ignorance is what allowed certain dynamics to work far better (notably bringing out dialogue with people rather than forcing it out of them as Bruno does). Everything is artificial and a bore after the first thirty minutes. His goal, almost a complete opposite of the unwittingly gullible Borat, is Bruno's desire to become famous. That's about as much depth of the character as you can expect, eventually it all just tuns into a parody of itself; no better than a gnat that keeps buzzing by your ear and on par with, at best, the likes of Tom Green.

The Ugly: The biggest problem, and this occurs more than once, is the fact that you start to sympathize more with the people Bruno encounters more than he, which should never be the case. For example, if I were in a audience in anticipation of seeing a bout, and instaed two men began having sex in the middle of the ring, I would be pretty damn upset. Bruno is missed opportunity from beginning to end. Another example is the brief encounter with an anti-gay rally. It was perfect fodder for Baron-Cohen to approach those people and show how utterly stupid they are, and instead he turns it into a dumb joke that says nothing. Borat, at the very least, would have tried to talk to them. That previous film hit the fomula right on the head, as did Ali G In Day House. That's all he needed to do, the people would respond and probably show their stupidity. Bruno never gives anyone that opportunity, he's in your face, then on to the next set-up for an absolutely uncreative knock-down. It goes to show that you can only take so much of the character, which is why his small bits on the Ali G show work and anything longer than that will just turn you off.

Final Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Based on the Bram Stoker Award nominee short story by cult author Joe R. Lansdale, Bubba Ho-tep tells the "true" story of what really did become of Elvis Presley. We find Elvis (Bruce Campbell) as an elderly resident in an East Texas rest home, who switched identities with an Elvis impersonator years before his "death", then missed his chance to switch back. Elvis teams up with Jack (Ossie Davis), a fellow nursing home resident who thinks that he is actually President John F. Kennedy, and the two valiant old codgers sally forth to battle an evil Egyptian entity who has chosen their long-term care facility as his happy hunting grounds.

The Good: Who would have thought that one of the best depictions of rock legend Elvis Prestley on film would have come from Bruce Campbell?  Then again, who would have thought we'd ever see an elderly Elvis team up with John F. Kennedy (who is now black and has sand as a brain, according to him) to take on an ancient mummy that preys on people of their retirement community by sucking their souls out of their rectums. "A shit eater" says Elvis, although Kennedy insists he was after his soul. It's a film that is familiar terriorty for Campbell who really sells it with his voiceover narration and pitch-perfect Elvis accent. Its tone is similar to that of Raimi's Evil Dead series of films although a little less gory and a little more intelligent. Much has been written about its themes of death and the fear of aging. By all accounts, this movie should be utterly awful, yet there's this odd joy when watching it. It's not quite a "so bad it's good" joy, there are times when it's so bad it's bad,  but it's a film that understands its elements and has a good time being comedic while also endearing us to characters that are supposed to be dead yet refuse to die.

The Bad: Despite its budget, the film has a solid style and look and aesthetically better than it probably should have been, that is until the finale where it struggles to bring it all home and it turns messy, visually boring and uncreative. There's also many moments in the script that simply aren't relevant and make no sense to what is going on (such as bathroom hieroglyphs) and are only fitted in to try and explain the existence of a soul-sucking mummy rather than just relishing in the fact there's a soul-sucking mummy in the first place. Truthfully, though, the best parts of the film have nothing to do with the mummy whatsoever and its strength lies in the friendship between Elvis and John, Elvis's voiceovers and flashbacks and the people of the retirement community. Hell, it makes me wonder if it needed the mummy at all.

The Ugly: The mummy design is both cheap and laughable. The film is full of absurdities, but the first image of the mummy will probably make you laugh in that "really, you're going there?" mentality than be seen as a legitimate threat. At the same time, though, Bubba has become a cult image of a cowboy mummy with a feathered hat that, if there were a movie prop figurine, I would probably buy.  Oh wait...there is.  Best $13 bucks I'm going to spend....ah, and it's part of a set. Ok, best $39 bucks I'm going to spend.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

The Good: A strong cast keeps the film afloat and engaging. The utter mediocrity of everything else tries to sink it. I liken Burn After Reading to a board game with a lot of pieces missing. Sure, you can still play it, and at times it’s a lot of fun, but you still hit occasional ruts and problems along the way.

The Bad: A completely average film that is as uneventful and uninteresting as the worst of the Coens’ efforts, yet more noted here due to its complete sense of displeasure in itself. That’s unfortunate considering Burn After Reading is supposed to be a comedy. Other than some blissful moments with Brad Pitt, there’s little to really laugh or gawk at. It’s a film where you can see what it tries to do but it never quite comes through clearly enough to be enjoyable. It feels lazy, haphazard and pretty unneeded for something the Coens really needed to even tackle. The only actor with any energy is Pitt and the only character worthwhile is from Malkovich who reminds us all how great of an actor he is if given the right role.

The Ugly: The biggest laugh comes from the reveal of George Clooney's "invention." That might be a good sign, but in reality, relying on a funny reveal as the only major laugh-out-loud moment doesn't really make the journey worthwhile.

Final Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Sam Bowden is a small-town corporate attorney/"Leave It to Beaver"-esque family-man. Max Cady is a tattooed, cigar-smoking, bible-quoting, psychotic rapist. What do they have in common? Fourteen years, ago Sam was a public defender assigned to Max Cady's rape trial, and he made a serious error: he hid a document from his illiterate client that could have gotten him acquitted. Now, the cagey, bibliophile Cady has been released, and he intends to teach Sam Bowden and his family a thing or two about loss.

The Good: Scorsese has always gotten the best out or Robet DeNiro. Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy, Mean Streets and so on. Cape Fear is, without question, one of their most engrossing collaborations. Not because the film is particular good, it's not, but because DeNiro's performance makes it good. Everything plays off of him and his presence on screen. Max is every bit a psychopath and we relish in it every minute. It's an intense movie, moving a breakneck speed at times as though a small spark will ignite it at any given moment, and will have you intently from the very beginning. Scorsese gives us some fantastic scenes of tension and just pure evil, making Max one of the best on-screen bad guys we've ever seen, even surpassing Robert Mitchum's original interpretation.

The Bad: While it attempts to be a stylish thriller, Cape Fear ultimately fails in a major aspect: its tone. While Max is menacing and enthralling, the things he says and does to Sam come off more as funny to watch occur than menacing and intimidating. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the Bowdens themselves are rather unlikable and when Max tests their mettle, we end up laughing rather than hoping they find a way out. Moral ambiguity and shades of gray are nothing new for Scorsese, but it simply doesn't work in this film when we're supposed to feel sympathetic and sorry for the family being harassed. The original was a taught thriller and a classic, this was arguably an unneeded remake.

The Ugly: As solid the directing is, Scorsese does try to get a little too smart with the shots and some noticeable "special effects" can be seen throughout it. This can take someone out of the real tone of it, almost making it appear a fantasy.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

Carrie White is a shy young girl who doesn't make friends easily. After her class mates taunt her about her horrified reaction to her totally unexpected first period one of them takes pity on her and gets Tommy Ross, her boyfriend and class hunk to invite Carrie to the senior prom. Meanwhile another girl who has been banned from the prom for her continued aggressive behavior is not as forgiving and plans a trick to embarrass Carrie in front of the whole school. What she doesn't realize is that Carrie is ... gifted, and you really don't want to get her angry.

The Good: What is evil? A question asked in Carrie because, if anything, Carrie is definitely not evil. The true horror of Carrie is that of her mother, played brilliantly by Piper Laurie (both Laurie and Spacek nominated for Oscars, rare for a horror film). Carrie shows us that evil isn't always inherent. It's molded, shaped, and truly takes the "nurture" side in the nature versus nurture debate. Carrie, a social outcast, is given a chance of a lifetime. Nothing she does is bad until it's forced upon her. She hates this thing, this unknown ability, within her yet, probably, also loves it. In a better situation she might have even used it for good. But, as mentioned, the true horror of Carrie is that she never even had a chance. It's all those outside elements that cause her to become what she eventually becomes: a mass-murderer. If her mother was loving, if her schoolmates were accepting and if that bucket had confetti instead of blood, maybe Carrie could have been what, in her heart, she really wanted to be: just a normal girl. I utterly love this dynamic and question in the film, strengthened ten-fold by the outstanding performances by the cast. Brian de Palma also has a daring, stylish and in-your-face approach to it all with a climatic ending that is part of film history (and, no doubt, was incredibly difficult to shoot and edit). A classic film and exercise in stylish horror that still holds up incredibly well to this day.

The Bad: Carrie slowly brews until it boils over...then it continues to uneventful fare. It's not quite "jumping the shark" as much as it is an epilogue that just pales in comparison to the events at the prom. There's one instance in particular that feals a little too "neat" to bring some closure to everything, then the final scenes at Carrie's home that are beautifully done (the slow pace, the washing up etc...). It also dwells in melodrama a little too much as well as overusing slow-motion that, while effective in the climax, is still a little overdone and overlong. The characters, too, are far too unforgiving for us find any appeal in them. Although Carrie and her mother are the centerpieces, the entire supporting cast is just bland and are really nothing more than dead bodies at the end and contributing about as much to the story then as they did when they were alive. They're there to merely be hated, then killed. Even the ones we supposedly liked.

The Ugly: I've never liked the cheap scare at the end of Carrie, it felt out of place to the rest of the film and thusly felt cheap in comparison to a  film that seemed to intelligently design itself. At the same time, it was also one of the first to really do that, influencing countless horror films to this day.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Colorful characters abound in Casablanca, a waiting room for Europeans trying to escape Hitler's war-torn Europe. Humphrey Bogart plays Richard "Rick" Blaine, a cynical but good-hearted American whose café is the gathering place for everyone from the French Police to the black market to the Nazis. When his long-lost love, Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman), surfaces in Casablanca with her Resistance leader husband, Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid), Rick is pulled into both a love triangle and a web of political intrigue. Ilsa and Victor need to escape from Casablanca, and Rick may be the only one who can help them. The question is, will he?

The Good: Roger Ebert, arguably the best film reviewer in history, likens Casablanca to music: in particular a person’s favorite album. You can watch it repeatedly, at any moment, and it never gets old. It’s familiar but not tiresome and instead you find yourself merely appreciating it. Casablanca can play to a viewer as a simple tale of love and loss, regret and bravery in times of crisis and at the same time play as a complex metaphor about American values and World War. The characters make the film, embodied by the legendary actors who portrayed them and their delivery of classic banter and conversation and, of course, the one-liners that most people quote and often haven’t even seen the film. Considered one of the greatest scripts ever written, all great films start at that juncture first, it’s also the performances and Michael Curtiz’s subtle directing that brings it all to life (which was a slight stretch for Curtiz, who was more known for his action/adventure and gangster films). It’s Bogart’s most renowned role as well but for completely different reason than his usual gangster-persona. He’s the everyman stuck in the middle of a difficult situation. He could take the easy road numerous times. He doesn’t. He could end up with the girl. He doesn’t.  In fact, we really don’t know how Rick will end up, only that we liked him and wish him the best as he fades into the fog of a Casablanca airstrip with Reault (the always fantastic Claude Raines).  Casablanca is both a film that stays with convention, defies convention and creates its own conventions throughout its various layers. It’s a film rarely surpassed in the numerous aspect of cinema it succeeds at, living up to its own mystique, and is one of the few legitimately perfect films to ever be created.

The Bad: Absolutely nothing.

The Ugly:  The only detractor I’ve read is of pretentious novelist Umberto Eco, who considers it mediocre, and Pauline Kael who was known for making her career by taking the opposite of stances on most films that are universally loved (The Sound of Music, most Charlie Chaplin films, most David Lean films, Casablanca, It’s a Wonderful Life most notably). Then again, she even admitted to falling for its romanticism. Kael was more influential as an observant writer than a film reviewer, but her scathing was influential. Maybe I’ll write something about her myself one day.

Final Rating: 5 out of 5

This Martin Scorsese film depicts the Janus-like quality of Las Vegas--it has a glittering, glamorous face, as well as a brutal, cruel one. Ace Rothstein and Nicky Santoro, mobsters who move to Las Vegas to make their mark, live and work in this paradoxical world. Seen through their eyes, each as a foil to the other, the details of mob involvement in the casinos of the 1970's and '80's are revealed. Ace is the smooth operator of the Tangiers casino, while Nicky is his boyhood friend and tough strongman, robbing and shaking down the locals. However, they each have a tragic flaw--Ace falls in love with a hustler, Ginger, and Nicky falls into an ever-deepening spiral of drugs and violence.

The Good: While not as focused narratively as his previous mob masterpiece, Goodfellas, Casino still tells an entrhalling tale with some engrossing, if not difficult to watch, scenes, eclectic characters and fantastic dialogue delivered as only the likes of Joe Pesci and Robert DeNiro can deliver. Fast, natural, sometimes even frightening in the casualness of it all, these characters feel real, act real and the fact that they were real makes it all the more frightening. This is like going to a reunion. Not only are Pesci, DeNiro and Scorsese invited, but so is Nicholas Pileggi, the author of the books Casino and Wiseguy (Goodfellas) and their respective screenplays. It's authentic from beginning to end and, let's face it, when it comes to criminals it's hard to not be engaged form the moment DeNiro's car blows up in the first few minutes of the film.

The Bad: As mentioned, Casino likes to jump around a lot. There are a lot of intertwining stories and the storylines become difficult to manage and fully realize, the fact you're going through it for three hours makes you wonder why it needed all that time to not clear it up and focus a little harder on the characters a bit more, something he did beautifully in Goodfellas. It doesn't quite reach the perfect craftsmanship and even poetic beauty of Goodfellas, but it's still one of Scorsese's best.

The Ugly: Pesci. Cornfield. Baseball bat. Still one difficult scene to watch.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

An FBI agent tracks down and catches a young con artist who successfully impersonated an airline pilot, doctor, assistant attorney general and history professor, cashing more than $2.5 million in fraudulent checks in 26 countries.

The Good: Catch Me if you Can could have easily been a traditional caper film. It could take itself seriously and just end up as another drama lost in the shuffle. Thankfully, it doesn’t do any of that. The fact the film doesn’t take itself too seriously, almost as though it’s enjoying itself as much as we are it, is what allows the whole thing to work. It celebrates the time, it is tongue-in and it moves at a brisk tempo that lets you just enjoy it, the characters and the nostalgia at a constant and consistent pace. It’s often considered one of Spielberg’s “lighter” films but it is also one with a lot of heart. DiCaprio’s character’s family is the centerpiece and catalyst for everything and the pain he feels for them, and they for him at times, is etched on everyone’s faces. We pity him, and rightfully so, and can only hope to wish him the best even if what he is doing isn’t necessarily “legal.” The film doesn’t make out those after him to be the “bad guys” either. In fact, there are no “bad guys” in the film, just a man being chased and maybe for the legal reasons, but not necessarily the right ones. It’s a feel good film from beginning to end and you often find yourself happy once the credits start to role. Both Hanks and DiCaprio are fantastic, both obviously having fun with their characters and the time period, and you get to love both of them as they, as the title suggests, run around the world and chase each other. It's one of the more enjoyable and simply entertaining movies Spielberg has ever done.

The Bad: For a movie that is a rather small story, it seems to just never end. The universal critique of it is that, while fun and charming, it’s just far too long for the story it needs to tell. It’s entertaining still, yes, but its length can cause a viewer to keep thinking its going to end, antsy at the expecting of it (and there are numerous times when it feels like it will end) but it just doesn’t.

The Ugly: Walken is great, but he’s almost a parody of himself at this point. Can you believe he won an Oscar? It’s not even the same guy anymore…but that doesn’t mean he isn’t enjoyable.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Protagonist Alex DeLarge is an "ultraviolent" youth in futuristic Britain. As with all luck, his eventually runs out and he's arrested and convicted of murder and rape. While in prison, Alex learns of an experimental program in which convicts are programmed to detest violence. If he goes through the program his sentence will be reduced and he will be back on the streets sooner than expected. But Alex's ordeals are far from over once he hits the mean streets of Britain that he had a hand in creating.

The Good: Malcolm McDowell owns this movie and embodies his role to absolute perfection. Really one of the best performances in film history, he has become synonymous with Alex even to today; as though the two can’t be separated. The voice over narration and his voice makes this movie work and pushes the story forward. Daringly directed, the film balances a small, paranoid reality with a fanatical surrealist quality, both visually and with its narrative, showing the duality of human existence and of our title character. It’s a bold film from numerous perspectives, notably philosophically and an observation of societal problems, apathy and hypocrisy.While it's just as deep as Kubrick's other pieces, it also manages to give us a very interesting look at a dystopian future where violence rules, laws are made to be broken (as though it's a badge of honor) and any man with a knife and completely lacking morals can become king.

The Bad: Probably the quintessential Kubrick film, it’s a slow-paced, talkative and ideologically-ridden piece that more or less conveys Kubrick’s own belief and commentary on society, hence why he was so attracted to the book. Often, when a filmmaker goes out to make a “message” movie that is more or less a mouthpiece for them, we can get a bit of a messy film. A Clockwork Orange is no exception and more or less proves the fact. Far from understated as some of Kubrick’s other works, such as Dr. Strangelove or Barry Lyndon, it puts it all out there, more or less preaching, and can cause you to turn away from its pretentiousness (although some may say the director does this to shock us into this world, the air of needing to feel self-important still resides). There’s also an issue with the language, which was also prevalent in the book, and it doesn’t help when trying to understand what was going on with the made up slang of Burgess’s world.

The Ugly: The rape scenes are still pretty brutal to this day. The film has an all-around aura of uneasiness and discomfort…which is exactly what Kubrick wanted you to feel. Unfortunately, as per usual by this point, we hear bad things about Stanley Kubrick and his often unchecked ego during production.  

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Cableman Roy Neary is one of several people who experience a close encounter of the first kind, witnessing UFOs flying through the night sky. He is subsequently haunted by a mountainlike image in his head and becomes obsessed with discovering what it represents, putting severe strain on his marriage. Meanwhile, government agents around the world have a close encounter of the second kind, discovering physical evidence of otherworldly visitors in the form of military vehicles that went missing decades ago suddenly appearing in the middle of nowhere. Roy and the agents both follow the clues they have been given to reach a site where they will have a close encounter of the third kind: contact.

The Good: While George Lucas’s film broke box-office records in 1977, Spielberg’s masterpiece of science fiction was released to critical acclaim and box office success. How does one shoot an intangible thing like “awe” and “wonder?” Well, Spielberg did. In fact, he would go on to do that for the rest of career. But it all started with this (notoriously over budget) film that was his dream project from the very start. Close Encounters appears so simple on the outside. It tells of obsession and the strange draw of people to mysticism. They want their questions answered. They might even lose their minds if they don’t, and we go on their journey with them as they avoid military personnel and scientist and push their friends and family away until culminating in one of the finest climaxes and endings of any film. But it’s more than just that. Hollywood loves aliens and UFOs visiting, but there was never a “real” approach to them outside of 2001: A Space Odyssey (of which there are no aliens, only theories of them) and the legendary The Day The Earth Stood Still (to which Close Encounters owes much to). Often they would arrive to the United States, destroy landmarks and kill anything that moves. Close Encounters transcends that rather shallow and gullible notion that everything wants to kills us and is a story about communication. We reach out, they reach out, and maybe we can shake hands in the middle while we sit and awe of something that we can’t comprehend. It’s the human condition in ethereal believability blended in with real emotion and real people. What sets it so above all else, though, is the idea of plausibility. Much of this can be thanks to the fantastic acting, which is never campy but rather subtle and down-to-earth, and the slow progression and reveals that come through. Not twists, necessarily, but more like those awes and wonders finally becoming reality as ships dart down a road or shadow mountain finally stretching up over the horizon. There hasn’t been many plausible movies about aliens, but it wouldn’t matter anyway. Every person, more or less, thinks of Close Encounters of the Third Kind as the way it would all probably go down and those monuments of ours won’t be blown to smithereens….at least we can hope.

The Bad: Close Encounters is about patience. Maybe a little too much. I can appreciate the willingness to not give us instant gratification, it is a mystery film at heart, but it tends to move quite slow for what it wishes to tell us and newer cuts of the film have it going even longer. But length of a movie isn’t a flaw, unless it is absolutely unneeded. Close Encounters uses every second with a purpose so it doesn’t drag however a lot of that might depend on the viewer and his or her interest in the subject matter. The second act, showcasing the obsession of Roy, is usually the point that many lose interest. It’s a hill that has to be climbed and leaped over for the finale. I think it’s worth it, though, and over the years others have really caught on to the pure brilliance of this, easily one of Spielberg’s masterpieces.

The Ugly: There are various cuts of this film, one notoriously showing the inside of the alien ship at the end. If you want to know the definitive version, watch the 1998 Collectors Edition overseen by Spielberg. It’s basically the 1977 version with some tighter editing and better scenes and is the one the illustrious director considers finally “final.” There’s the regular 2001 DVD and the 2007 version which contains it and the other two more well-known versions as well. But just stick with the final one, and lets not get any more confused than we already are.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Pool hustler Fast Eddie Felson finds the young, promising pool player Vincent in a local bar and he sees in him a younger version of himself. To try and make it as in the old days, Eddie offers to teach Vincent how to be a hustler. After some hesitations Vincent accepts and Eddie takes him and Vincent's girlfriend Carmen on a tour through the country to work the pool halls. However, Vincent's tendency to show off his talent and by doing so warning off the players and losing money, soon leads to a confrontation with Eddie.

The Good: A sequel to the 1961 film, The Hustler, starring Paul Newman. Like that film, it's Newman's performance and charisma that outshines everything else. Tom Cruise gives a solid performance, one of the better ones of his career, as the young and ambitious upstart who seems to follow the same path "Fast" Eddie went through in the original film. The story follows a similar track to the original film, The Hustler, and is full of a certain love for the game of pool that many films just can't capture. I suppose, at its core, it's a "sports movie" but it's far more cynical than the typical uplifting films like Hoosiers or Rocky.

The Bad: Unlike the Hustler, however, is the rather bland and uninteresting plot that more or less recycles the story from the original film with less ambition and less interesting characters. I've seen the term "generic" thrown around with this film by critics, and I sadly would have to agree with that assessment. There's no personality to it. It's by the books and by the numbers from beginning to end that could have been directed by anyone non names Martin Scorsese, who's style and technique appear only in small flashes throughout.

The Ugly: This simply should have not been Paul Newman's only Oscar winning performance. Not only was his character better in The Hustler, but he had done so many other fantastic characters over his great career. Some consider his win a "make good"  and I suppose it's better than nothing.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

Steven Spielberg's masterful adaptation of Alice Walker's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel stars Whoopi Goldberg, in her impressive screen debut, as Celie, a sharecropper's daughter living in rural...  Steven Spielberg's masterful adaptation of Alice Walker's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel stars Whoopi Goldberg, in her impressive screen debut, as Celie, a sharecropper's daughter living in rural Georgia. The film opens in 1909 when Celie is a young girl, a victim of incest, pregnant with her father's child. Ugly and unloved, separated from her children and her sister, Celie's only option is marriage to an abusive, philandering husband (Danny Glover) who treats her little better than a slave. Her life changes forever when her husband brings his mistress, a beautiful blues singer named Shug, into the house.

The Good: There’s an honesty to the whole picture that’s subtle and moving. Spielberg wasn’t known for being a dramatic storyteller and to tackle a subject like Alice Walker’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel is probably not the best way to stick your feet in those waters. Spielberg does it, though, but mainly thanks to the cast that sells the story, world and characters to us. In fact, The Color Purple is probably Spielberg’s least directed film as far as him drawing notice to the camera or using any particular technique. It lets us focus on these characters, their struggles and the time period it all takes place in, which is what it should be focusing on to begin with.

The Bad: It’s a romanticized story, there’s no denying it. It wallows in its own melodrama it creates and, although the characters are lovingly memorable, tends to simplify them to mere cardboard cut-outs with no depth beyond “this is why you’re here, do this.” There is little humbleness to it all when it’s a film that, perhaps, is best suited for an up-and-coming art house director than the then “golden boy” of Hollywood blockbusters.

The Ugly: The Color Purple is simply a love or hate it film for many and for the varying reasons stated above. It’s probably Spielberg’s most polarizing piece of cinema. Either way it was one of his most lauded with eleven Oscar nominations.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

A young girl walks through a secret door in her new home and discovers an alternate version of her life. On the surface, this parallel reality is eerily similar to her real life - only much better. But when her adventure turns dangerous, and her counterfeit parents (including Other Mother) try to keep her forever, Coraline must count on her resourcefulness, determination, and bravery to get back home - and save her family.

The Good: Gorgeous stop motion, a beautiful aesthetic style and fantastic voicework make Caroline, easily, one of the best animated films of 2009. Simply put, it's a classic fairy tale but with a dark and menacing tone to it. This tone is fantastic because once you reach the end, and I don't think it's a spoiler if I say it ends on a good note, it's that much better of a payoff. The stop motion animation is utterly superb and beautifully artistic with Coraline a fantastic character herself. Sure, she is your typical bored girl stuck in a house she doesn't want to be in (very Beetlejuice-esque in this regard) but she has a fun demeanor as a kid with an imagination waiting to escape. Boy does it ever. Noted, this film is dark, maybe even frightening for children, but it never stop being fun at least.

The Bad: Henry Selick is arguably the finest stop-motion film director out there, but there's a lifeless quality in Coraline that I am not accustomed to with him. Sure there's the appealing characters and dreamy atmosphere, but there's little heart in it like we had seen in James and the Gian Piece and especially A NIghtmare Before Christmas. Perhaps this is noticeable because, unlike those two films, the story itself is ground that has been treaded often (even recently, such as Pan's Labryinth and so on) so we look for something a little more and little deeper. Coraline really doesn't have that element to offer.

The Ugly: It's unfortunate 3D has yet to make the transition to the home market. The film shows segments that I'm sure would have been gorgeous, more than it already is, in 3D had I seen it in a theater.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Bad Blake is a broken-down, hard-living country music singer who's had way too many marriages, far too many years on the road and one too many drinks way too many times. And yet, Bad can’t help but reach for salvation with the help of Jean, a journalist who discovers the real man behind the musician.

The Good: Bad Blake isn't so much bad as he is lost. Alcoholic by day and night, singer when the mood fits him, genius songwriter if he can be sober for five minutes. Jeff Bridges embodies Blake and we soon forget, only after a few minutes, that it's an actor behind it all. Blake is charming, pitiful, endearing, and sometimes annoying. But he has, as the title suggest, a crazy heart that is all over the place, he's just looking for that right direction to take it. Scott Cooper has never directed anything in his life, which is amazing consider the subtlety and craftsmanship, the patience and trust in his actors, that he shows in his debut film. Crazy Heart may be relatively by the numbers in terms of story, but its the storytelling here, and the characters, that draw us in. Stories are stories, and when told right you simply must appreciate them. The film also has a strong focus on music and, surprisingly, some of it us utterly beautiful in their stories (as always) of country tragedy and heartbreak. There have been a lot of surprsiging films in 2009, some right out of left field. Crazy Heart appears to be typical and run-of-the-mill story of a down on his luck musician. Well, it may be that...but the heart and authenticity in it makes it so much more and Bridges single handedly makes it a heart worth caring about.

The Bad: You've seen this story before, and you will no doubt see the major plot points coming a mile away. Just go with it, I say, but you simply can't have the story any other way. It is what it is. That aside, there are a lot of characters that come and go in Blake's life that we see, fleeting yet we get a sense there's a history there. We never really know this history, however, and in fact we really know very little of Blake himself. Maybe it's meant to be the mystery of life, or in Blake's case just regrets, but some are prominent and a tad more explaining on who they are (especially in the case of apparently close friends, or rivals) would have been nice. I've heard the book details these characters quite a bit, of course I have not read that. It's a minor complaint, Blake is too much a focus to really notice those in the background to begin with.

The Ugly: Although he has the voice and the talent, I simply can't buy Colin Ferrel as a country singer. Also, do you know I can't stand country music? Well...I loved this music, maybe because for once I actually understood the story behind it all.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

John Murdoch awakens alone in a strange hotel to find that he has lost his memory and is wanted for a series of brutal and bizarre murders. While trying to piece together his past, he stumbles upon a fiendish underworld controlled by a group of beings known as The Strangers who possess the ability to put people to sleep and alter the city and its inhabitants. Now Murdoch must find a way to stop them before they take control of his mind and destroy him.

The Good: A film rich with depth and complexity that if you blink, you'll probably miss something. Drawing from numerous sources ranging from George Orwell and Fritz Lang to Philip K Dick and Dashiell Hammett, writer/director (with a little help from Lem Dobbs and David Goyer) Alex Proyas brings forth one of the more original and visually stunning films in the past twenty years. There's an energy from beginning to end, the film known for its brisk pace and numerous edits and cuts, but it keeps the pace up. While that might be a turn off for some, and for me it sometimes is, but as long as it keeps it up, it feels exactly right and how it should. The jumps and transitions, fast pace are almost a reflection of John Murdoch's state of mind. Everywhere and anywhere.

The Bad: While the story might have a consistent fast pace, it brings with it an unfortunate side effect. The story wants us to have a connection emotionally to the characters, but its barrage of imagery and scene transition never lets us catch our breath, spend time with them, get to know them and perhaps relate to them. We can see the effects emotionally on screen but rarely share it ourselves. Dark City is more concerned about its content and world, the idea of it all, rather than looking to create a connection between the story and its audience.

The Ugly: I have heard, actually from Proyas's own interviews, that he agrees the pace of the theatrical cut is extremely brisk. Thus he released a directors cut last year that makes it more of a "leisurely and thoughtful piece it was meant to be" and that he speeds up the story if something isn't playing right (hence the quickness of the original)...I still have yet to watch it.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

With just one year having passed after taking out Ra's Al Ghul's plan to have Gotham eliminated and the mysterious disappearance of Dr. Jonathan Crane AKA the Scarecrow, and after the city was nearly plundered with his toxins, Bruce Wayne and his vigilante alter-ego the Batman, continue the seemingly endless effort to bring order to Gotham, with the help of Lt. James Gordon and newly appointed District Attorney Harvey Dent. But a new threat has now emerged into the streets. The Dark Knight faces a rising psychopathic criminal called The Joker, whose eerie grin, laughter, and inhuman morality makes him as dangerous than what he has yet to unleash. It becomes an agenda to Batman to stop the mysterious Joker at all costs, knowing that both of them are in an opposite line. One has no method at all and seeks to see the world plunge into the fire he has yet to light. One represents the symbol of hope and uses his own shadow to bring the peace and order he has yet to accomplish doing.

The Good: A complex, dark crime story about corruption, morality and evil itself. Unlike Batman Begins, the action is shown solidly and methodically done - all really done by pulling back the camera a little and allowing longer takes. Bale is great as always, the entire returning cast, as expected, is solid. Of course, the one that steals the show is Heath Ledger as we see the Joker rise, plot, plan, and emerge as the main villain by the end of the film (Batman brushes him aside early on). He's dark, twisted, ruthless but still has that unmistakable Joker humor - you know, the kind that thinks it's funny to cause mass murder and would probably laugh at a bucket full of burning kittens. The philosophical approach of his character contrasts fantastically with Batman's, allowing for a unique debate on what is right, what is wrong and what really causes evil in the world: the people or the establishment. For the Joker: it's just fun to see it all burn down. A big note on Harvey Dent, who really is the core of the whole thing: issues, theme sand story and played perfectly by Aaron Eckhart - it's too bad Heath Ledger's Joker is so good that is causes Dent/Two Face to play second-fiddle. I honestly think the film would have been just as enjoyable if it didn't even have the Joker and was more about Dent and Two Face, but that's a testament to great writing and directing, if anything.

The Bad: Sometimes the story is a little too complicated for its own good, causing contrivances in the plot to emerge (such as the planning from the Joker, who can come across as invincible at times). The biggest issue, though, is the pacing of the film, which could have used more exposition in scenes and allow things to develop rather than the barrage of scenes thrown at us. It's frantic, a lot happens, but the content would lend itself better if it were reeled back to allow you to take it all in.When watched next to Batman Begins, this shows much much more and it makes me curious on the change by Nolan, running time I'm sure played some factor.

The Ugly: There are really obvious edits and cuts made to get the film's PG-13 rating, in hindsight these can be pretty distracting. I suppose we have to wait for the director's cut/extended edition to see the original vision, if that ever happens. Also, I can't decide if Maggie Gyllenhaal is attractive or not, I think it depends on the lighting.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

In this sequel to "Night of the Living Dead", it's a few weeks later after the events of "Night". The situation is getting worse, so two reporters, along with two SWAT team members, decide to steal a helicopter to find a place where they can hide from flesh eating zombies. They find a secluded mall and decide to stop there for the night in order to get some sleep. They decide to stay in the mall, and they barricade themselves in a small room while periodically going downstairs to get things they need, while defending themselves against the zombies and a biker gang in the meantime.

The Good: Dawn of the Dead is a mixed bag of many things. It's mixed in its scare tactics, from gory and violent for shock to creepy and moody atmosphere and a jump-out scare thrown in for good measure. It's a mixed bag of storytelling as well, giving as a solid final couple of acts but an utterly sloppy first act. It's also a mixed bag of special effects, some very well-done and others laughably bad (notably some make up and the blood). What it really strengthens itself on, though, are the characters. They're all distinct, believable, and develop throughout the film consistently even when everything else is inconsistent. You become attached, you spend that time (months) with them and feel their struggle for survival. You share their hatred for the threat of it being taken a way, and their joyousness when they take out the zombies and the "bad guys" that eventually show up. Because of their appeal, and of course the fun nature of having a mall to yourself and zombies to maim, the film is full of energy and is overall a great piece of entertainment.

The Bad: Sadly, the movie doesn't start really getting started and feeling "cohesive" until our survivors finally make it to the shopping mall. The events before that are haphazard, inconsistent and overall uninteresting. Only until the mall do we start getting a quality story and really start to know and appreciate the characters and the dire situation they're in. Let's face it, when you watch the movie, you're waiting through the first portions in anticipation of the finales. It stretches, lengthens and extends itself more than have anything relevant to add and it shows; becoming a bore until things begin to pick up. Once things get going though...there's few horror films that can really touch it.

The Ugly: Still not sure what I think of "blue zombies" but zombies were pretty new at the time.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

When a sphere from outer space lands in the Central Park in Manhattan, a group of scientists are summoned by the American government under the call of the Secretary of Defense Regina Jackson. The reborn alien form Klaatu is brought to a military facility and Dr. Helen Benson decides to help him to escape and become the only chance to save the mankind from destruction.

The Good: Somewhere, layered beneath the pretentious, self-serving story, bad acting, sub-par special effects and nauseating characters is, at the very least, a good message and theme. Too bad it doesn't matter. Keanu Reeves fits into the role, as it doesn't require emoting, but so little is known of him and there's even less to be able to relate to. Yes, he's an alien, but we still have no idea who he is, where he comes from and, despite all his exposition, no real understanding of why humanity needs to be destroyed without question.

The Bad: There are bad films, then there are insultingly bad films. The Day the Earth Stood Still is the latter. First things first, kids in movies can make or break them. War of the Worlds, similar in many respects, at least had characters with meaning and, more importantly, a child character that was believable and even relateable. This film has a child character you want to smack around and sit in a corner for a time-out. Jayden Smith is a perfectly fine child actor, but his character is unlikeable from the start. By the time he and his step-mother,Jennifer Connely who's character is about the only one worth standing, resolve their issues, it's too little too late. What does it say about your script when your human characters are as unrelatable and uninteresting as the alien that comes to visit them? The main problem is the script, a catch-all philosophical and moral preaching that thinks its smarter than it really is.What actually occurs isn't important because it's too busy on trying to tell us something, yet in the end says nothing. The original was subtle and its message didn't draw attention to its rather ridiculous story, the producers of this remake apparently didn't see that movie.

Character arcs seem to go nowhere (and Smith's character does a sudden turn that makes no sense whatsoever) and in the end, despite the preaching and the exposition, what do we learn? Nothing. Other than that you wasted money on seeing it. 2008 saw some pretty bad films, with so little redeeming values in this one, it is by far the worst.

The Ugly: The special effects are horrible. The CG looks as though it was done by a second-rate team at Masters FX Inc (if this is one of their first films, then it shows). Great special effects on a film, especially one that is supposed to be so rooted in a real world,cant' be so obvious to where it's distracting.Their ugliness is most notable in the large

Final Rating: 1 out of 5

A ski vacation turns horrific for a group of medical students, as they find themselves confronted by an unimaginable menace: Nazi zombies.

The Good: Zombie Nazis. Or is it Nazi Zombies? When does one cease being a Nazi and is just a Zombie, or vice versa? It could be just any zombies, really, but this German film made it specifically Nazis, which probably says more about National Socialism than it ever would with merely run-of-the-mill undead devouring people. As much as I'd like to think Dead Snow is that consciously aware, it's far too idiotic of a film to really justify that conclusion. It's a joyful idiocy, however, one that knows its a horror movie (even referencing other movies directly) that does absolutely nothing new, knows this, and now that it acknowledges it we're sent on a ride that is pure fun to watch. They aren't your typical zombies. These are smart ones that plan and think. They'd be regular crazy Nazi killers if it weren't for the undead part. The movie needed them to be this way, most likely, otherwise it would be boring fare with the threat so low. Taking cues from films before it, especially the Evil Dead movies, Dead Snow is worth punching your ticket for, or at the very least renting on DVD.

The Bad: Cheap scares is probably the film's biggest downfall, that and a rather messy script. Nearly everything has been done before and done better, but it feels almost like a copout here because the film tries to set itself up as a nice looking, self-aware (overly so at times) piece of horror that knows it's not reinventing the wheel. However, just because you aren't reinventing the wheel, though, isn't an excuse for obvious retreads and poor storytelling. It wants to be something more but relegates itself to mediocrity in the grand scheme of things. The fun peters out two-thirds into it as the film tries to take a more serious tone and the characters are largely forgettable, but at least are entertaining for the little bit of screen time most of them have.

The Ugly: The gore is insanely over-the-top, even for a zombie movie, and at the same time manages to not be funny as Dead Alive or Evil Dead, which how the film likes to see itself as.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

Two separate sets of voluptuous women are stalked at different times by a scarred stuntman who uses his "death proof" cars to execute his murderous plans.

The Good: A low-key story that gives focus on its characters. Out of all of them, though, its Kurt Russel that shines. This is his film, don't forget that, even when he's not on screen. Tarantino went out of his way to tailer this specifically for him, and its proof yet again that Tarantino is really an actor's director. He knows them, what they're capable of and ends up getting perfects fits in every one of his films. This is Russel at his best. Of course, the highlight of the film is the car chase, it's the climax of the film (despite the scene taking place before the events leading up to it). It's a classic chase with classic muscle cars and Tarantino ended up giving us exactly what his intentions were, it's just unfortunate he spent the rest of the film giving us filler.
 
The Bad: A self-absorbed mess of movie that wallows in its own desire to be narcissistic. The elements of Kurt Russel's performance and car chases are ruined by useless conversation scenes with characters we simply do not care about at all and, sadly, wish them dead. Stuntman Mike obliges, but that ruins his character because we shouldn't be routing for him...this then ruins the movie. The material is shallow despite Tarantino attempting to give us reverence of grindhouse cinema and relevance of a quality film. Simply put: there are flashes of brilliance, but overall he's better than this.

The Ugly: Again I have to bring up the fact that we find ourselves routing for Mike. He's not a villain, but we have no choice because it's so damn easy to despise all his victims more than him. It tries to make them sympathetic, but Tarantino's dialogue and their delivery has them coming across as pretentious women that feel they're better than everyone.
 
Final Rating: 3 out of 4

A musician witnesses the murder of a famous psychic, and then teams up with a fiesty reporter to find the killer while evading attempts on their lives by the unseen killer bent on keeping a dark secret buried.

The Good: "Giallo" is subdivision of horror from primarily Italy (and some Spain) that is known for its melodrama, excessive violence, lots of blood and often nudity, sex and psychological twists. At their heart, though, they're pretty much thriller/mystery films with a dose of the slasher genre (as it's always a pretty straightforward whodunit to be solved). The master of this style is Dario Argento, no question. He didn't receive the nickname the "Italian Hitchcock" haphazardly, the man was as much a master of suspense as his British counterpart, although due to the "giallo" styling he rarely left much to the imagination. His films were often psychological, if not disturbing, to express the mind as much as the physical reality of a murder, who it reaches and influences and what it can do to the psyhi. In other words, the films were often more intelligent than the blood and violence would lead you to believe. Deep Red is Argento at his best with a fantastic mystery story, a script that is a wonderful excersize in foreshadow and suspense. David Hemmings, best known previously from Antonini's Blow Up, is one of the more overlooked British actors I can think of and is fantastic in his ability to have a man full of assurances, yet able to show him out of an element, uncomfortable and always looking for answers.  Argento's directing is in top form, just great compositions and artistry and the oh-so underappreciated sense of timing and reveals masterfully done. It's often down between this and Suspiria for many on which is his best film.

The Bad: Having an international cast often means you'll have many different styles of acting come through. The rather straight-played Hemmings could be having a scene with a very exuberant Italian actor (such as Gabriele Lavia), which really gives an odd balance that doesn't sit quite right. In a few cases, the tone of a scene can be completely destroyed because of the lack of cohesion and chemistry between the various acting styles. I could, however, justify this as Hemmings really is the only British person in the film and he's in a strange and foreign land, so things are going to seem and appear odd to him.

The Ugly: Depending on what version you have, there are sometimes issues with the audio tracks in many Argento films. Sometimes the audio will suddenly switch to Italian (the film itself is in English) with bad dubs. It's a long story, basically it has to with international casts, overdubbing etc...however it wouldn't be an issue if there were subtitles in these versions. That's why I always recommend the Blue Underground version which you can buy on Amazon. On a side note, I love reading reviews on Amazon, it's hilarious - especially when they type in all-caps.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

In South Boston, the state police force is waging war on Irish-American organized crime. Young undercover cop Billy Costigan is assigned to infiltrate the mob syndicate run by gangland chief Frank Costello. While Billy quickly gains Costello's confidence, Colin Sullivan, a hardened young criminal who has infiltrated the state police as an informer for the syndicate, is rising to a position of power in the Special Investigation Unit. Each man becomes deeply consumed by his double life, gathering information about the plans and counter-plans of the operations he has penetrated. But when it becomes clear to both the mob and the police that there's a mole in their midst, Billy and Colin are suddenly in danger of being caught and exposed to the enemy-and each must race to uncover the identity of the other man in time to save himself. But is either willing to turn on the friends and comrades they've made during their long stints undercover?

The Good: Every bit as engrossing as Scorsese's other gangster masterpieces, The Departed is return to form for the master from the subject matter, the characters, the storytelling, the style, the music...it's like visiting an old friend and you can't help but love every minute of it. As someone who enjoys fantastic characters in his films, I couldn't help but revel in the indulgence of every single one in the Departed. The performances and casting is absolutely perfect and the flare Scorsese has with the camera is purely joyful as we watch an old master at work. I wouldn't call it a "return to form," as some have suggested, I don't think his form was ever absent, but I would call it a return to the crime story and nobody does it better. Deserving of his Oscar (finally) and for Best Picture, Scorsese finally comes full-circle with his wins and a film that represents everything he's about.

The Bad: In similar fashion to Casino, the film is fast and frantic and perhaps more complicated narratively than it needs to be. It's not as subtle as Scorsese's best pictures nor is it as streamlined as them either. I have no doubt he was like a kid in a candy store, and his picking and choosing of scenes looks just like that: great scenes that never really seem to blend together, rushing from place to place, plot point to plot point and idea to idea. There's no sense of time passed and you often have no idea the timeframe things happen in or what is or isn't a flashback. In the hands of a lesser director, it would have been ruined, Scorsese doesn't let that happen, but it does hinder the fantastic nature of everything else.

The Ugly: The original Chinese film, Infernal Affairs, is every bit as engaging and well-done as this remake. It's been overshadowed from its deserved glory by Scorsese's mystique, but film fans should give it a look.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

After a tragic accident, six friends reunite for a caving expedition. Their adventure soon goes horribly wrong when a collapse traps them deep underground and they find themselves pursued by bloodthirsty creatures. As their friendships deteriorate, they find themselves in a desperate struggle to survive the creatures and each other.

The Good: What it might lack in originality it makes up for in its approach: smart and purposeful directing and cinematography, believable characters (although a somewhat unbelievable situation) and practical effects. It also has a good strength in its layers and the relationship of two the primary girls Sara (our hero) and Juno (our villain). The focus is, of course, the creatures killing off our spelunking ladies one by one, but there's an entire subplot involving Sara, her family, her husband, a car accident and Juno's relationship to it all. You then have the thematic motifs of feminism, masculinity and so forth wrapping it all together in one very tense, claustrophobic nightmare.

The Bad: The Descent has developed quite a following and really put Neil Marshall on the map (although I would say Dog Soldiers probably did that initially). Unfortunately, what the film really has going for it is the individual scenes. there's really no cohesion through the. Those scenes are frightening and intense, but it's not much different than a poorly-lit slasher movie that merely goes from kill to kill, becoming repetitive after the first 20 minutes. I also have a hard time buying that anyone would lead their friends into an unmapped cave without telling them, then give some lame excuse of it being to "re-strengthen friendships." I would think that the choice of cave wouldn't matter, just spending time with each other. Well...now you're dead. So there.

The Ugly: Be warned. The Descent isn't exactly a "feel good" movie. The original version, anyways (The US cut tidies it up, but we will have none of that, now will we?)

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

It's been 28 years since the aliens made first contact, but there was never any attack from the skies, nor any profound technological revelation capable of advancing our society. Instead, the aliens were treated as refugees. They were the last of their kind, and in order to accommodate them, the government of South Africa set up a makeshift home in District 9 as politicians and world leaders debated how to handle the situation. When MNU field operative Wikus van der Merwe is exposed to biotechnology that causes his DNA to mutate, the tensions between the aliens and the humans intensifies. Wikus is the key to unlocking the alien's technology, and he quickly becomes the most wanted man on the planet.

The Good: It's rare for action movies to rise above the genre they're so rooted in. The great ones usually have a degree of craftsmanship rarely seen: the story might move you, the action and special serves more a purpose than being just action and spectacle and the characters draw you in to where you truly care what happens to them. The great scripts and directors know how to do this - the James Camerons, Steven Spielbergs and Ridley Scott's of the world. Similar to my approach to the film The Hurt Locker from earlier in the year, a great action movie knows how to use action as a means, not an end. District 9 is just that way and showcases a new filmmaker that people need to watch for. In a year already full of blockbusters, it's the $30 million District 9 that has risen above the shallow mediocrity of summer shtick and shows how a film like this should be done. Intelligent, moving and even humble, District 9 is what action films should strive to be. Wonderfully original, compelling and well crafted.

The Bad: A few odd story holes tend to arise throughout the film. Being "in the moment" with the documentary style is fantastic, but as result we aren't allowed a lot of explaining of many plot points, such as wanting to kill our "hero" one minute then proclaiming they need him alive the next. It feels a little sloppy at times, but is minor. But the film knows it can't stay with the documentary style, it just can't, and instead we have a bit of a melting pot of film styles that jump back and forth between a regularly film structure and a documentary style that sadly does nothing but allow for inconstancies. There will be numerous times where you'll be wondering if it's part of the documentary and information shared with the world, and everybody knows the truth, or if it's the real story we see with Wikus and his perspective and tribulations. It doesn't make an effort to really separate the two, only jumps from TV cameras, security cameras we have to assume are a part of the documentary (but may not be). The narrative-point of view needs to be as consistent as the story itself. There's also the rather rushed third act, taking the great premise and storytelling set before and, instead, turning it into lots of bullets and people exploding. As kinetic and engaging as this is, the story felt as though it would build up to something better.

The Ugly: Much has been made of Armond White's scathing review, even by those in the reviewing community such as Roger Ebert who, after seeing White's track record of film reviews, labeled him a "troll" of which I'm in complete agreement in. You see, there's no problem in faulting District 9 and criticizing it, but White's history and rather pretentious demeanor, as well as labeling those that like it "fools" is absolutely something that should never been done by a reviewer. The man has no credibility yet is the chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle. I'll defend any reviewer's right to say what they will, what I won't defend is a reviewer so far removed of what it means to be a "film reviewer" that we can't understand his point because he fails to clearly make one and that shows no respect to his readership yet expect respect back. Arguably the worst reviewer out there today.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

 A group of travelers spend the night in the mansion of an elderly couple who are dollmakers. However, one of the travelers' children discovers that the dolls the couple makes are actually humans that the couple has miniaturized and turned into tools for their evil plans.

The Good: Reminiscent of a classic fairy tale, Stuart Gordon (a horror directing legend) offers us a simple film about those little things that go bump inthe night. Legitimate scares and creepiness, more the old house than the dolls themselves. Good timed reveals and pacing gives us a solid thriller. Plus, our two 'heroes' are pretty likable. Works more on the moodiness factor than jump-out scares, which is perfect.

The Bad: Wow, most of the other characters are extremely, extremely unlikeable. Hammy, overacted cliched horror movie archetypes they may be, the absolute black and white of the good people and bad ones is a pretty large gap. When it comes to horror movies, you don't want to make a film where you're routing for your characters to die. Nonetheless, this is a little different than your typical horror movie. The dolls are judges, in a sense, but it's a little hard to route for them also when they kill with brutality and without impunity.

The Ugly: Honestly, this feels like a really good episode of Tales From the Crypt. That's good, yet bad at the same time. A solid film nonetheless. 

U.S. Air Force General Jack Ripper goes completely and utterly mad, and sends his bomber wing to destroy the U.S.S.R. He suspects that the communists are conspiring to pollute the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people. The U.S. president meets with his advisers, where the Soviet ambassador tells him that if the U.S.S.R. is hit by nuclear weapons, it will trigger a "Doomsday Machine" which will destroy all plant and animal life on Earth. Peter Sellers portrays the three men who might avert this tragedy: British Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, the only person with access to the demented Gen. Ripper; U.S. President Merkin Muffley, whose best attempts to divert disaster depend on placating a drunken Soviet Premier and the former Nazi genius Dr. Strangelove, who concludes that "such a device would not be a practical deterrent for reasons which at this moment must be all too obvious". Will the bombers be stopped in time, or will General Jack D. Ripper succeed in destroying the world ?

The Good: One of, if not the, greatest political satires in film history. Dr. Strangelove is as relevant today as it was in 1964 with a darkly comic tale of a potential doomsday scenario. At its heart, it’s a classic comedy of errors now punctuated with the end of the world as a potential, and inevitable, outcome. The ineptness, ignorance, or just plain stupidity of the so-called world leaders leaves you wondering who exactly is in control of our fates.

Peter Sellers excels in this film, playing the title character, former Nazi scientist Dr. Strangelove, the incompetent President of the United States and British exchange officer, Captain Mandrake.  All are distinct in personality and appearance showing that Sellers was one of the greatest character actors to ever live. George C. Scott also gives us a great performance, easily one of his best because he's so out of his normal element, as the Gung-ho “only ten to twenty million killed, tops” General Buck Turgidson. Kubrick loved to show incompetence of authority, in one form or another, and his brief dabbling into a dark irreverent comedy makes you wish he had done more.

The Bad: The entire film is paced perfectly, save for once instance: the final few scenes. It lacks the edge and wit of the rest of the film and feels like they just scribbled down an ending for all the characters before giving us the iconic cowboy-riding-bomb finale. The bits before that could have gone longer and bring a little more closure to our “heroes.”

The Ugly: If only Peter Sellers was willing to play the cowboy bomber, as intended. This would then go down as his masterwork. Three great characters out of four isn’t bad. Also…what exactly are “precious bodily fluids?”

Final Rating: 5 out of 5

After a harrowing ride through the Carpathian mountains in eastern Europe, Renfield enters castle Dracula to finalize the transferral of Carfax Abbey in London to Count Dracula, who is in actuality a vampire. Renfield is drugged by the eerily hypnotic count, and turned into one of his thralls, protecting him during his sea voyage to London. After sucking the blood and turning the young Lucy Weston into a vampire, Dracula turns his attention to her friend Mina Seward, daughter of Dr. Seward who then calls in a specialist, Dr. Van Helsing, to diagnose the sudden deterioration of Mina's health. Van Helsing, realizing that Dracula is indeed a vampire, tries to prepare Mina's fiance, John Harker, and Dr. Seward for what is to come and the measures that will have to be taken to prevent Mina from becoming one of the undead.

The Good: There's a quiet, dream-like quality to 1931's Dracula. I can only compare it to the dream-like quality of silent cinema where you watch in a dark room, intently, yet feel just removed from reality. The fact that sound in film was still relatively new probably contributed to that, the fact there's no music in the movie at all probably contributed even more. It's in that we come to understand what really makes this version of Dracula so engrossing: Bela Lugosi's screen presence. There is not one piece of dialogue, one shot, one angle or movement that isn't thought out or meant to present Dracula as a truly ominous and mysterious figure. The story is secondary, it's a relatively understated story to begin with in this version, but Dracula...oh Dracula. There's no other figure quite like him that sets such an intense mood in every scene he's in. Lugosi' carries the weight of it as he keenly glides about a room, or gives a nonchalant delivery as he says  "I never drink...wine." Also of great note is Dwight Frye, who you almost wish had a whole film just about him. He's so good that he is only outdone by Lugosi, and unfortunately overshadowed by him as well. A classic for a reason and iconic to the final frame.

The Bad: I could go on a tangent on how inaccurate the film is to the book, but I usually don't do that first off and secondly it's completely pointless here.  Movies during this era weren't about being accurate in adaptations (this was actually based on the play that was based on the book, but the point stands), they were about shaping an idea into a story. The idea is a vampire, and that's really about it. What I can say I've never been hugely fond of is its slow demeanor in comparison to other Universal Monster Pictures of the era, notably Frankenstein which is full of energy and released shortly after. But Dracula was the first, so perhaps it was a slow climb to better understanding of the genre (and of movies as a whole). It  can be a test of patience at times, its story isn't nearly as interesting as Dracula himself, but also allows appreciation of the slow walk through its dark corners and atmosphere.

The Ugly: It amazes me that, after decades and decades later, Lugosi's Dracula is still one of the most recognizable characters and costumes in the world. He actually looks nothing as Dracula was described yet is so ingrained in our culture I don't think we would have it any other way.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Note: I'm not a fan of revisionist filmmaking, so I have actually never seen the version of Dracula with the Phillip Glass score from 1998 included. I might out of curiosity some day, but I actually like its lack of score.

Christine Brown is responsible for loans in a bank and expects to be promoted to the open position of assistant manager after dealing a big contract. However, the new hire Stu Rubin is a collusive coworker that scheming against Christine to be selected by the manager Mr. Jacks to the position. When Mrs. Ganush, an old gypsy with appearance of witch that has been evicted by the bank, requests a third extension of her mortgage, Mr. Jacks tells Christine that it is her call. Christine denies the loan to prove her boss that she can take tough decisions. Mrs. Ganush begs for the loan but Christine shames the woman calling the security. In the night, Christine is stalked by Mrs. Ganush in the parking lot and they struggle. Out of the blue, Mrs, Ganush removes a button from Christine's coat, curses it, returns the button to her and vanishes. Later, while going home with her psychologist boy-friend Clay Dalton, they pass by the fortune teller Rham Jas, and Christine decides to consult him. He advises her that Christine has the fiend Lamia, the Black Goat, upon her. When Christine is haunted by the dark spirit during the night, at home, she tries to fix the situation releasing the loan of Mrs. Ganush.

The Good: Leave it to a master to remind us how a horror movie should be: scary, fun, and unpredictable. Drag Me To Hell is, without question, one of the best horror movies to come a out in a long while. It's a simple premise, something a lot of horror films shun in favor of "twists" and false complexities, with some wry humor, gross-out sequences that Raimi is known for and legitimately scary moments (something rare in movies today). How can a handkerchief be scary? See this film and you'll see why. Drag Me To Hell knows its audience, from beginning to end, and instead of pounding it's scares and story into our heads, it simply invites us in and engages us quickly with solid characterization, a fun, well-told story and perfectly timed frights, not to mention a nice bit of cheesy moments thrown in for laughs. You have exactly what the horror genre is supposed to be about - conventional while being unconventional.

The Bad: Allison Lohman's performance is a tad uneven. She plays the sweet girl well and knows how to look frightened, but trying to show anger or give us depth to her character shows something really forced behind it all. She struggles in those moments, sadly. There's also a perfectly-timed convenient plot string tied up at the end that also forces the issue a bit and really wasn't needed other than to throw us off guard again, something Raimi is a master at doing.

The Ugly: Hi Sam. I'm Jeremy. Big fan. Tell you what, why don't you forget about that Spiderman franchise and give us more movies like this? Please? I'm beggin' here, man.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

David Mann is just what his name suggests: an everyman with a mediocre job who has trouble standing up for himself. While driving through the desert to an important appointment, he passes a slow-moving, rusty tanker truck. The driver proves to have a severe case of road rage and takes offense at this action, devoting the rest of his day purely to killing Mann. The malevolent driver is never seen, giving the impression that it's the truck itself that is the aggressor.

The Good: There’s something about the open road that is strangely frightening. There’s quite a few movies based on exploiting that fear. The Hitcher, Black Dog, Breakdown, Joy Ride, The Vanishing, Jeepers Creepers and of course the Hitcher remake all can be traced back to the idea of Duel. You are alone on a highway (maybe you have a friend with you) and something bad happens. It’s you versus the enemy and all you have is a car, your wits and miles and miles of open road. Duel is this concept in simplest form and as a result, one of the more enjoyable “road thrillers” you could ask for. It borrows heavily from Hitchcock, escalating tension that gradually grows out of hand, all because of happenstance. One driver, a trucker, feels offended and takes out on our protagonist causing him paranoia and fear. There’s very little talking and dialogue in the film, Spielberg keeps you in the moment from the high speed chases to paranoia at a highway restaurant and we simply don’t know who to trust.

The Bad: It’s hard to be too critical of a made-for-tv movie. Let’s be honest, the standards on those are low to begin with and simply don’t have the budget and box office power theatrical films do. As a thriller, it’s effective. As a piece of entertainment, it’s merely average. The voiceovers are the first thing you will notice and every scene and every thought is fully explained by David Mann in detail. This becomes tiresome and rather boring. Most of the scenes would be perfectly fine without a voiceover at all and are completely self explanatory yet we are constantly reminded of thoughts and emotions the main character is thinking and feeling although his expression says more than enough.

The Ugly: The film doesn’t draw attention to itself. It’s minimalist filmmaking at its finest and due to it so streamlines, it can come across as trying to expand its length with unnecessary shots of highways, cars and lots of driving.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Set in a distant future where life in the universe and space travel is dependent upon a spice found only on the planet Dune, this film tracks the rise of young Paul Atreides, son of good Duke Lito, from the time of his father's betrayal and murder by a rival lord, Baron Harkonnen, to his discovery of the great secret behind the planet Dune and his own destiny, which is to free the planet and its denizens of the cruel rule of the Emperor.

A mess? Yes. But damnit is it ever an inspired mess. Dune turned David Lynch off of the typical "hollywood" film for the rest of his career and if you've heard the various stories concerning its production and release, you would understand why. The fact the film came out so strangely, not quite a sci-fi b-movie, not quite a sophisticated thought-provoking a-movie, but lost somewhere in the middle, only shows why Lynch demanded control of all his pictures after this experience. It's a slow movie that takes its time... actually no it's just slow because it pretty much has no idea where it wants to go or what it wants to do. It just sits like a child waiting for the story-bus to pick it up.

I've always wanted to see the full four hour original cut, of course that will probably never happen due to Lynch's disownment of the film and the fact he's fine with the 3 hour version. There's been various cuts, more than even Blade Runner I think, so it's hard to know which is which. What I do know is that the overall problem is still retained in all of them: it's just incomprehensible as a narrative film. It's full of great artistry, solid performances, convincing special effects and some solid action scenes, but molding it all together into one makes a movie that is just all over the map.

Still, though, it's a movie that some do enjoy and for good reason. I think that reason is simple: atmosphere. That's something the movie has perfected. The strange feeling you get when watching it, and seeing this odd world and people, is something that is always prevalent and enjoyable. Sure, I couldn't tell you a thing about the story, but man those sandworms are awesome, architecture impressive and I love those spiffy costumes. While the bad probably outweighs the good, the good is still really good.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

While visiting the Earth at Night, a group of alien botanists is discovered and disturbed by an approaching human task force. Because of the more than hasty take-off, one of the visitors is left behind. The little alien finds himself all alone on a very strange planet. Fortunately, the extra-terrestrial soon finds a friend and emotional companion in 10-year-old Elliot, who discovered him looking for food in his family's garden shed. While E.T. slowly gets acquainted with Elliot's brother Michael, his sister Gertie as well as with Earth customs, members of the task force work day and night to track down the whereabouts of Earth's first visitor from Outer Space. The wish to go home again is strong in E.T., and after being able to communicate with Elliot and the others, E.T. starts building an improvised device to send a message home for his folks to come and pick him up. But before long, E.T. gets seriously sick, and because of his special connection to Elliot, the young boy suffers, too. The situation gets critical when the task force finally intervenes. By then, all help may already be too late, and there's no alien spaceship in sight.

The Good: It might be cliché to praise this film now. It’s one of the most beloved family films ever made and known the world over. Does it live up to such lofty heights?

Yes, yes it does.

I’m in the school of thought that when something is praised, loved and renowned, it deserves it for one reason or another. Whether I like it or not, there are others that do. The objective has to take precedence. Luckily, I love ET about as much as anybody and have nostalgic tendencies when it comes to it, should that happen I’ll keep that child to the side at the moment and look at the film solely as a film. There’s a certain amount of love that this film had put into it and that love and affection comes through the screen in every frame. It was nominated for 11 Oscars, including Best Picture, and even Richard Attenborough conceded on stage that he was certain E.T. would win it as he accepted the Best Picture Oscar for Gandhi. It was the highest grossing film of its time, brought statesmen (and women) and presidents to tears and was something that captured the hearts and minds of the entire world in its 115 minutes. The story is charming, yes, and even easy to understand from beginning to end. It doesn’t try to be more complex than it needs to be, it knows it doesn’t need to be. When a film knows what it is and enjoys what its giving us, we enjoy it back ten fold.  It’s not without its depth, though, as it’s the themes of tolerance and friendship that it excels at. It’s uplifting, if not bittersweet, and for a few moments, the world was in a collective awe of it all.

The Bad: I dare you to find one.

The Ugly: I know some thought E.T.’s scream was cute…that noise annoyed the hell out of me. It sounded like a lamb being slaughtered.

Final Rating: 5 out of 5

Jerry Shaw is an amiable slacker with an over-achieving twin brother. After his twin dies in an accident, strange things happen to Jerry at a dizzying pace: a fortune shows up in his bank account, weapons are delivered to his flat, and a voice on his cell phone tells him the police are on their way. Jerry follows the voice's instructions, and soon he and a woman he's never met are racing through the city, on to a plane, and eventually to the Pentagon, chased by the FBI. She is Rachel Holloman, a single mom; the voice has threatened her son's death if she doesn't cooperate. The voice seems to know everything. Who is behind it, what is being planned, and why Jerry and Rachel?

The Good: At least it tries. That’s about all I can say. Eagle Eye tries to be a thriller, tries to be a mystery, tries to be intense and engaging…it even tries to be a good movie on numerous occasions. There’s some decent enough set-pieces for action and the directing works, but it’s the script and story that causes the movie to ultimately fail.

The Bad: There’s only so much a person can sit and say “yes, that’ would happen” in action movies. Most have one or two moments that are implausible, unless they’re campy and just full of them. But that’s he thing with Eagle Eye. It’s not campy, it actually takes itself incredibly seriously. It’s harrowing life and death from beginning to end. Once the reveal is shown, you can’t believe that it took itself so seriously to begin with. I won’t spoil it for you….no….actually I will because I don’t want you to waste your time with the film. As you know, Shia and Michelle (I don’t recall the character names because the movie doesn’t seem to give a shit about them) are being monitored and told what to do by a mysterious voice on the other end of the phone. It’s watching them and guiding them. Guess what…it’s a fucking computer. Yeah, a top-secret government super computer, apparently, that was designed to gather information and intelligence around the world and is hidden away in the depths of the pentagon. Why is she bugging Shia and Michelle? Well, apparently Shia’s twin brother (yes, twin brother, this is like a soap opera here, folks) was a tech guy working on the supercomputer who discovers a conspiracy by the supercomputer to assassinate the president and locks the computer out of her…program, I guess…and the computer gets pissed and kills him. Apparently he didn’t think to lock out its other programs either. This is all revealed in a classic Bond-villain-esque scenario when the supercomputer is about to kill them.

Oh, we’re not done yet….and I’m getting ahead of myself.

The computer is after little Shia because the program it needs was locked by his brother and can only be unlocked by him. Ah, but they are twins, you see, and Shia impersonates his brother to unlock the whole thing. The reason Michelle is there is to kill Shia so he doesn’t relock it. She doesn’t, not that the thing needs help anyway and somehow they escape. Forgive me if I don‘t remember, I‘m sure there was running involved because there seems to be running involved every ten minutes or so right on cue. Then it goes on to begin its assassination attempt and now Shia and Michelle have to stop that. Of course the explanation of why the supercomputer can’t kill the president unless its program is unlocked is never explained, she kills Shia’s brother just fine, nor is it explained why she can’t kill him in the same fashion once she uses him..she already controls all the cameras, phones and electronic equipment…how much goddamn help does she need? Hell…I haven’t’ even scratched the surface, but as you can tell, it’s just a bad film. If you just read that and still think it’s a good movie, then I pity. I just pity you.

The Ugly: If you want to see a movie that does this better, rent 1998’s Enemy of the State. Over ten years old, far more believable and just as relevant today.

Final Rating: 1.5 out of 5

Based on the true story of Joseph Merrick, a 19th-century Englishman afflicted with a disfiguring congenital disease. With the help of kindly Dr. Frederick Treves, Merrick attempts to regain the dignity he lost after years spent as a side-show freak.

One of David Lynch's most celebrated films (earning 8 Oscar Nominations, notably Director, Lead Actor for John Hurt and Best Picture), The Elephant Man is probably the most straightforward and standard film on Lynch's repertoire, showing a man that can do various styles and tackle linear stories should he decide to. In fact, it looked as though Lynch was going to be the next Stanley Kubrick or Scorsese when this came out in 1980 (his next film would alter his entire career path, but more on that later).

The Elephant Man is shot in gorgeous black and white, quite astounding cinematography, and still retains a distinct Lynchian feel despite the rather straightforward story (for Lynch, of course). It's noted for being incredibly accurate, even going so far as to cast the actual prosthetics from the action cast of the real Elephant Man from the London Hospital museum archives. That being said, it also only shallowly touches on things without going in-depth on it; it's a clinical exercise in factual storytelling than anything with a huge amount of substance to it.

Hurt and Hopkins are dynamic in this film and play off each other well amongst many layers thematically, narratively, and character wise. It's a powerful and heartbreaking film that is really one of those you will watch once, appreciate, then probably not watch again.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Based on J. G. Ballard's autobiographical novel, tells the story of a boy, James Graham, whose privileged life is upturned by the Japanese invasion of Shanghai, December 8, 1941. Separated from his parents, he is eventually captured, and taken to Soo Chow confinement camp, next to a captured Chinese airfield. Amidst the sickness and food shortages in the camp, Jim attempts to reconstruct his former life, all the while bringing spirit and dignity to those around him.

The Good: Empire of the Sun is a perfect example of “it’s not the destination that matters, it’s the journey.” So true is this as Spielberg takes us a fantastic journey and tells a fascination story that touches all the senses. It’s emotional, it has a bit of adventure, it even manages fantastic human drama against the backdrop of Shanghai during World War II, and all with the visual splendor a then maturing filmmaker. It’s a story about the gradual loss of innocence, both for our main character, Jim (played marvelously by Christian Bale) and the world as a whole as we see the ravages of the land, the imprisonment of our fellow man and the mistreatment of each other out of fear rather than bravery. We see the struggles and war through the eyes of a child. It doesn’t glorify it or attempt to have us understand it, no more than a boy stranded with no home and family in the middle of World War II would, anyways, through his glossy eyes in a one-of-a-kind coming of age story. It’s a powerful piece of cinema and one of Spielberg’s most underappreciated best pieces of work.

The  Bad: “Empire of the Sun” is considered Spielberg’s first “epic” film. It’s sweeping, beautiful and rather rich in its story and period presentation. However, Spielberg, at times, struggles to keep up. It loses a bit of focus and pace about two-thirds into it and with it the gripping character development and story.  It’s a very tight script up to that point, with every scene having a purpose, then it halts. The story moves from location to location and settles primarily on a camp for American soldiers. It’s here this odd halt seems to occur as you expect it to move on or for something significant to happen. It never really does and goes for a few beats longer than it needs to before leaving the camp and picking the story back up and to stagger to the emotional ending.

The Ugly: Damn is it hard to seperate Christian Bale now from the child in the film. "I'm Batman"or "I'm going to be Batman" will no doubt run through your head while watching.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Is it a nightmare or an actual view of a post-apocalyptic world? Set in an industrial town in which giant machines are constantly working, spewing smoke, and making noise that is inescapable, Henry Spencer lives in a building that, like all the others, appears to be abandoned. The lights flicker on and off, he has bowls of water in his dresser drawers, and for his only diversion he watches and listens to the Lady in the Radiator sing about finding happiness in heaven. Henry has a girlfriend, Mary X, who has frequent spastic fits. Mary gives birth to Henry's child, a frightening looking mutant, which leads to the injection of all sorts of sexual imagery into the depressive and chaotic mix.

Eraserhead blew up the movie world back in 1977. When I say "Blew Up" I mean it literally. Eraserhead is probably one of the greatest debut films to ever come from a newcomer garnering praises from critics but, more importantly, peers in the likes of Mel Brooks, Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and the like. It's a nightmare, plain and simple, full of the notion of adultery, repression, sexuality, parenthood and various other themes as interpreted by a subconscious mind as things that are feared. It's a grainy film, independent, but this quality, to me, is like playing back a dream itself. It's not quite right and there's something a little off, and the visual aesthetic contributes to this enormously.

Jack Nance plays our title character, Henry, and gives an outstanding performance as a quiet man. He tells us a lot with just his eyes and expression and our reaction to the events that are unfold are pretty much identical to his. He's out outlet into this world and our experience is all the better for that, otherwise we wouldn't find any appeal (nearly all of  Lynch's films have central characters that are all in this same mold, but some aren't quite as appealing and thus the film suffers)

A significant and important entry into the history of cinema that should certainly be watched by any fan of film.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

In the year 2047 a group of astronauts are sent to investigate and salvage the long lost starship "Event Horizon". The ship disappeared mysteriously 7 years before on its maiden voyage and with its return comes even more mystery as the crew of the "Lewis and Clark" discover the real truth behind its disappearance and something even more terrifying.

The Good: We really don’t see anything new with Event Horizon. It takes elements of many other films ranging from 2010: The Year We Make Contact to Jacob’s Ladder but thanks to solid acting and production values, a solid sense of pace and building, this B-Movie at least rises to be give us a sense of something A-quality. It’s scares are intense, with both types done well: the moody and atmospheric tension scares, that ominous sense of isolation and claustrophobia, and the jump-out and scare you kind. Horror-movie icon Sam Neil’s performance is also one of his best as a man haunted by his wife’s suicide. Again, this is slightly derivative of Solaris but having it all mesh fairly well into one experience doesn’t diminish its enjoyment.

The Bad: It’s unfortunate that such a great buildup turns into nothing but a series of gore and disturbing images. The moody atmosphere and sense of dread, reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s “Alien” is completely shunned for lots of blood and killing-more than is necessary. It starts with class and style and special effect, and it ends with gore, style and special effects. It tries to be smart, and for the first half or so it is, but overall it fails. It tries to be philosophical, spouting the right of man to break God’s laws and our innate fears coming to life, it fails. It tries to be consistent, building up with great pace and anticipation, but it fails. Instead of playing of the “madness,” as it appears to want to do, it simply turns it into disgust and cheap thrills. A little over half of this movie is fantastic, the rest pretty awful. The final rating reflects that.

The Ugly: I’m sorry, but are engine cores meant to have large black spikes and look like something out of H.R. Geiger’s imagination? I can understand the odd design of the ship as far as its practicality, the movie does a good job explaining it, but the core itself is just the opposite and the characters‘ reactions to it are the same as ours “what…the hell?”

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

A movie actress taking up temporary residence in Washington D.C. has her troubles. The script for the movie she's filming seems inadequate. Her ex, who is also the father of her adolescent daughter, Regan, neglects to call the girl on her birthday. And the attic has rats. Meanwhile, Father Karras, a priest and a psychiatrist, is losing his faith; and he's dealing with a sick mother who needs medical care he hasn't the money to provide. Another priest, the old and ailing Father Merrin, has just returned from Iraq with forebodings of evil. These three persons meet when the sweet and cheerful Regan turns foul-mouthed and violent. But her sickness is beyond the reach of a medical doctor or a psychiatrist. What Regan needs is an exorcist.

The Good: I've always loved The Exorcist. Not because of what most people love it for (and deservedly so). Most love the in-your-face nature of it, the possessed girl, the evil voice, the vomiting, the crucifix, the legitimately scary moments and those moments that haunt you after the credits are done and you're home alone when you hear a bump in the night. It also haunts on and preys on our vulnerability as human beings and that some things may someday happen we can't control. Yes, all that is great and fantastic, but what I love is the acting by Max Von Sydow and especially Jason Miller who was nominated for his subtly wonderful performance as a Priest in doubt of his own faith, even when the devil himself is right across the room. That dynamic and layer is what really lifts The Exorcist above a majority of other horror films and shows a dramatic and meaningful meat behind an otherwise standard story of a devil possessing a little girl. "Standard" isn't the right word, actually. I suppose I should just call it the "surface narrative" because it too is rather brilliant, but the "core narrative" the real purpose to the whole thing. That real purpose is what gives the Exorcist its legacy even if the utterly demanding possessed girl gets all the headlines.

The Bad: Many have noted the serious lack of a "happy ending" in the film. Not happy in the sense that it's a downer, it's easy to say it was and you can see that's probably what will happen, but in that it never feels fulfilling for the characters even if redemption is finally found. Perhaps the brutality of good and evil, though. I've noticed over the years that those with such issues of the movie are often those that have such problems with the ideas and themes in their real lives (perhaps they find it vile and unnerving to their own faith when, to me, I feel it would reinforce it). There are those that love the film as a great piece of unnerving horror and storytelling and others that find it exploitative and awful. I see both sides on this, because really both sides are right, but find myself far more compelled by that unnerving idea that the one side enjoys by utilizing the exploitation the other side criticizes rather than be compelled in spite of it. The film shows the best and worst of humanity and spirituality. You can't have one extreme and not show the other.

The Good: To this day, that crucifix scene still makes me uneasy. Uneasy in that Linda Blair had to do it even when she didn't know exactly what she was doing on camera. What's funny is that I don't even consider The Exorcist really all that scary, not the "scariest movie of all time" as it's often called. Disturbing and troubling perhaps, but not scary. I simply find it a great piece of dramatic filmmaking.

Final Rating: 5 out of 5

A doctor becomes obsessed with having a sexual encounter after his wife admits to having sexual fantasies about a man she met and chastising him for dishonesty in not admitting to his own fantasies. This sets him off into unfulfilled encounters with a dead patient's daughter and a hooker. But when he visits a nightclub, where a pianist friend Nick Nightingale is playing, he learns about a secret sexual group and decides to attend one of their congregations. However, he quickly learns he is in well over his head and finds he and his family are threatened.

The Good: As is the case with most of Kubrick’s films, especially his later ones, only in hindsight does it seem we can be more appreciative of them. Upon release, Eyes Wide Shut received mixed reviews, as most of his films do, yet, now years later, it’s often praised for it’s uniqueness and, again, a fantastic film. One such unique thing is the city of New York, where Kubrick shot much of it sound stage, building blocks of the city to shoot on. This was an artistic decision, as everything in the film is, and gives everything a dream-like quality as though reality for these people is just slightly out of touch. As one of Kubrick’s more complex movies, it’s hard to fully get a grasp or even describe, but at it’s raw core, it’s about ambiguous ideas, such as jealously, temptation, lust, frustration, sexual insecurities that, somehow, are able to manifest themselves visually. At the same time, we have an intriguing, almost Hitchcock-like (if he wanted to make a movie about sex) story about a man teetering on the edges of repression and liberation, unsure of which way he‘ll fall when he wishes to express them. It’s a movie that grows on you over time.

The Bad: Kubrick is known for his slow and painstaking pace, as I’ve noted in most of the reviews on his films. For his last film here, though, it seems it’s the first time it’s a serious problem. Once the scenes themselves get going, they’re interesting and enthralling, but it just needs to get them going first; as though it’s pulling a few times on the cord of the boat engine before it can take off. Then you have the many moments when that boat is just adrift, looking for the next dock. The long runtime doesn’t help matters and much of the movie could have been told or made it’s point within the first hour and a half or two ours rather than nearly three.

The Ugly: That is one weird orgy...but when are orgies not weird?

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

After a long journey, Philip arrives at the Usher mansion seeking his loved one, Madeline. Upon arriving, however, he discovers that Madeline and her brother Roderick Usher have been afflicted with a mysterious malady: Roderick's senses have become painfully acute, while Madeline has become catatonic. That evening, Roderick tells his guest of an old Usher family curse: any time there has been more than one Usher child, all of the siblings have gone insane and died horrible deaths. As the days wear on, the effects of the curse reach their terrifying climax.

The Good: Thanks to a well-written script by novelist Richard Matheson (yes, that Richard Matheson who collaborated with Roger Corman a number of Poe-adaptation, no doubt the best films of Corman's career) The Fall of the House of Usher is a restrained piece of classic horror cinema that relies more of mood and mystery than scares, shock and blood. The film takes a more psychological appraoch, relying on tense scenes of unsettling overtones (literally, as the the house creaks and groans) and conversation with Roderick Usher, played sinisterly, yet oddly sympathetically, by Vincent Price. It's a complex film thematically, diving into things such as incest, the destruction of old generations and codas and showin the crumbling foundations that will soon be supplanted by a new generation (a popular theme in the 1960s)

The Bad: The plodding pace is noted solely for the reason that the film tries to stretch itself out as much as possible. This is due to the original story merely being roughly 20 pages in lenght and the previous popular film adaptation in 1928 barely running 13 minutes. In other words, there was a lot of filler and lenghtening that had to take place. It sadly never comes across as natural, though, and you can tell which parts are important and worthy of your attention and which are there merely for padding. Also, is Roderick's affliction ever explained? I won't spoil it, but it feels weird and needlessly added to just give the characters something to talk about. However, I can't recall if this was in Poe's story or not. I suppose I just didn't understand the need for it.

The Ugly: The palette of the film comes a cross as a dull technicolor, which isn't intentional yet completely fitting.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

It is the story of one Mr. Fox and his wild-ways of hen heckling, turkey taking and cider sipping, nocturnal, instinctive adventures. He has to put his wild days behind him and do what fathers do best: be responsible. He is too rebellious. He is too wild. He is going to try "just one more raid" on the three nastiest, meanest farmers that are Boggis, Bunce and Bean. It is a tale of crossing the line of family responsibilities and midnight adventure and the friendships and awakenings of this country life that is inhabited by Fantastic Mr. Fox and his friends.

The Good: Distinctly Wes Anderson, Fantastic Mr. Fox isn't so much for family or kids, although it tries to be, as much as it is a labor of love and a film for Wes Anderson fans. It's a typical tale of Anderson, only now with stop motion animation. The dialogue, characters, themes, detail, music and style are all his and it's, without question, his most fresh, unique and overall entertaining piece of cinema from the auteur. Sometimes to grow as a filmmaker, you have to take risks. He takes one here, while still keeping his sensibilities, and ends up with something quite magical. The voicework is all pitch-perfect in the deadpan Anderson style, George Clooney, Michael Gambon and Bill Murray two standouts, and the characters themselves are like any written by him (and Noah Baumbach) and to see those personalities in animation is utterly unique and downright fun.  I have no problem in stating this is one of Anderson's best movies.

The Bad: Coming off the lukewarm reception of The Life Aquatic and The Darjeeling Limited, Anderson's overhaul may be refreshing but at the same time not without its own problems. While all the characters are distinct and enjoyable, there's a rush of new ones towards the end that we never really know or even knew about. While I personally like the darker tone of things, this is a kids movie for adults and there are echoes of those classic dark Grimm fairy tales, it's a film that simply won't appeal to a mass audience. Then again, Anderson's movies rarely do.

The Ugly: Not necessarily ugly, but there's a rough-around-the-edges aspect to the animation...and I wouldn't have it any other way. Sometimes to step forward, you have to take a step or two back.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Jerry Lundegaard is in a financial jam and, out of desperation, comes up with a plan to hire someone to kidnap his wife and demand ransom from her wealthy father, to be secretly split between Jerry and the perpetrators. Jerry, who is not the most astute of individuals, hires a couple of real losers from the frozen northern reaches of Fargo, North Dakota for the job. Then things begin to slip from bad to worse as Jerry helplessly watches on.

The Good: Considered one of the great modern thrillers of film, Fargo seems to be the Coens universally accepted masterpiece for good reason. The story has many merging paths and styles, from mystery to caper to comedy to slight satire. The Coens have been here before and their ability to juggle multiple plots, styles, characters and stories finally amounted to a film that feels like they’ve been trying to make for over a decade. It shows their experience, control and restraint as well their trust in actors and understanding of scene directing, use of space and smart dialogue. We feel the frustration of these characters, the imminent danger around the corner and the holes that some people, here Jerry, tend to constantly be digging themselves deeper into. You hope he gets out, you wish he would, but at the same time hope he gets caught which is a unique look inside a character that’s full of regrets. There’s a great sense of his isolation, as Fargo itself is isolated, as well as claustrophobia of his world and the rising paranoia.

The Bad: While I can’t say that any of the characters are inherently likeable, I can say that they are all at least interesting. McDormand’s character is probably to be our outlet of having someone to like, however her blandness (the character’s, not McDormand’s performance) is as distant from us as Jerry or the kidnappers. In fact, Jerry is the one we actually like yet know we shouldn’t.  

The Ugly: Who in their right mind would live in such a place? I’ve lived in places where it ices and snows, but North Dakota is just ridiculous.


Final Rating: 5 out of 5

An American military base in Canada is developing a missile control system based on nuclear energy and is facing problem with the people from the nearby town. When four locals, including the Mayor, are killed, Major Jeff Cummings (Marshall Thompson) is in charge of the investigation. When the coroner examines the one of the corpse, he finds that the brain and spinal chord was sucked out and Major Cummings defines the creature as a mental vampire. He looks for Prof. R. E. Walgate (Kynaston Reeves), a retired scientist that lives in town, and he discloses the scary secret.

The Good: Red scare, science fiction and atomic radiation. That pretty much defines the 1950s, especially the science fiction part. Fiend Without a Face is considered a classic by many due to its rather solid special effects and the idea of being "gory." Of course, it's really not that gory by today's standards, but at the time it was considered "revolting." Like a lot of horror and science fiction films of the era, it concentrates greatly on military and insane theories, only this has invisible creatures that run around and suck out brains; invisible creatures that are later visible and you see they're actually brains themselves, pushing along on spinal columns with little eye antennae searching for their next victim. The stop-motion effects are solid and the various exploding "fiends" in bloody pools are what really set the film apart from other films of the era. Good directing (especially in coordination with the effect) and a pretty good cast of characters (acting aside) make the film a fun piece of entertainment.

The Bad: Story elements simply don't quite come together as well as the script wants them to, namely the romance plot which is shoehorned in and a climatic finale that is both repetivitve (just brains being shot, obviously the focus of the entire film) and obsurd (shutting down a nuclear reactor by blowing it up). It's well paced but not balanced very well; the early scenes moving along almost like a slasher movie with people turning up dead then halting for exposition and explanation of everything that's going on, then cramming in the finale. Luckily it's short enough to where it doesn't dwell too long in the middle portion and you can get to the fun brain-destructions at the end.

The Ugly: Fiend Without a Face isn't bad enough to be on the Mystery Science Theater 3000 chopping block, but I couldn't help but think of the show when watching it and how many comedic opportunities they would have.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

After it looks as if she's left his life for good this time, Tom Hansen reflects back on the just over one year that he knew Summer Finn. Despite being physically average in almost every respect, Summer had always attracted the attention of men, Tom included. For Tom, it was love at first sight when she walked into the greeting card company where he worked, she the new administrative assistant. Soon, Tom knew that Summer was the woman with whom he wanted to spend the rest of his life. Although Summer did not believe in relationships or boyfriends - in her assertion, real life will always ultimately get in the way - Tom and Summer became more than just friends. Through the trials and tribulations of Tom and Summer's so-called relationship, Tom could always count on the advice of his two best friends, McKenzie and Paul. However, it is Tom's adolescent sister, Rachel, who is his voice of reason. After all is said and done, Tom is the one who ultimately has to make the choice to listen or not.


The Good: "This is not a love story...this is a story about love." If there's a genre of film that I often have a love/hate relationship with, it is the romance movie. Often I find myself disliking the typical romantic comedy: the formula, the predictability, the shallowness and the generic simplicity of its take on that silly thing called "love." (500) Days of Summer doesn't fall in line with that more akin to Linklater or even Wilder in its approach, and instead treats love as it should be treated: complex. It's something we never can explain yet we know, and what this film does is not try to explain it, focus on the context of love - those fleeting moments and disjointed memories and emotions - rather than do a simple "boy meets girl" story. It tells you in the first scene "This is not a boy meets girl story" and I knew right then, despite that pretentiousness, that this would be a film that would try to show the complexities of love rather than use love and romance as a vehicle to comedic effect. The film's humor comes from those fleeting moments and emotions, not in mere set ups and punchlines best suited for sitcom writing, and through those fleets we find our connection. It's approach, its characters' thoughts and emotions are our own as though we're looking in a mirror and causes us to conjure up our own memories. Sometimes we don't like what we see, but that's love and (500) Days of Summer is, if anything, honest in the reflection it shows us. Gordon-Levitt it a delight as always, truly one of the best young actors today, and Deschanel is utterly enchanting, if not outright hypnotic as we, somehow, fully understand Gordon-Levitt's character as she merely gives a soft glance or smile. Marc Webb's approach, a directoral debut mind you, and a brilliant screenplay Scott Neustander and Michael H. Weber show a degree of sophistication, charm, respect of the audience and the characters and appreciation of those fleeting things in life called love that is lacking in a lot of romance movies.

The Bad: Sloppy voiceover and a bit of a convoluted plot (likely due to its nonlinear approach) can take a person out of the story's real focus which is Tom, and Tom alone although some critics are upset that Summer doesn't get enough backstory yet fail to realize she gets a lot more than Tom does. People drift in and out of lives, sometimes what we think we know isn't entirely the truth and in the end, Summer merely is there to show how we can strong feelings for people who maybe don't have those feelings back. Nonetheless, despite the fact we share those feelings of Tom's, Summer makes it difficult to like her at times and we're as confused as her potential beau in her approach to their relationship. If anything, this shows the complexities of human relationships and interaction and not putting Summer on a mantle with the title "flawless" makes her that much more real, just as it does for Tom.

The Ugly: The film could have easily been about obsession or even lust, but its light charm keeps it from doing that and ends up being about moments, the good and bad everyone goes through when it comes to these things. If this is lost on someone, then they simply haven't had those moments yet, or perhaps more bad and good and think the film ends too neatly (which it does to an extent). I think that, due to the popularity of the film that we'll maybe (maybe) see a new approach to the romantic comedy. Lord knows it needs it, but I thought that after seeing Before Sunrise and look how that turned out. A gem, a rarity, and a brilliant film that hopefully won't be soon forgotten.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Irwin "Fletch" Fletcher, Los Angeles journalist, really lives for his profession. As Jane Doe, he publishes articles that have caused several heads to roll in the past. Now, Fletch is at it again: In disguise as a bum, he lives at the beach, researching drugs and their dealing. One day, Fletch is addressed by Alan Stanwyk, a rich man, who asks him, the bum, a favour. For the sum of $50,000, Fletch should kill poor cancer-ridden Mr. Stanwyk with a gun, so that his wife will get the insurance money. What the guy didn't think of was Fletch's real profession. Returning into normal life, Fletch instantly takes up research not only to find out that Mr. Stanwyk is healthy as life itself but he also runs into certain connections between drug dealing at the beach, Alan Stanwyk, his private jet, the police and a very expensive piece of Land in Utah.

The Good: A film vehicle for a comedian can either be hit or miss. On one spectrum, you might have something brilliant that plays off of a comedian’s ability, such as Steve Martin in The Jerk or Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop. The other end would either be something less natural yet funny  or something completely natural and not funny at all (such as Kevin James in Paul Blart: Mall Cop). It’s rare to find the happy medium, luckily Fletch does for the most part and keeps the gags and one-liners Chase is known for coming. In fact, much of the film is ad-libbed (and this shows both good and bad qualities) and you get the sense that it’s a bunch of people, obviously familiar with each other (they were) and shooting Chase doing his thing.

The Bad: Fletch isn’t for everyone. In fact, I would say it’s not for most. It’s deadpan comedy that made Chevy Chase a legend at Saturday Night Live as well as the Lampoon Vacation movies. The difference between Fletch and those, though, is that Fletch simply isn’t a likeable person. He’s too cynical, too deadpan  and mundane and tries to be too witty for his own good. You like the guy, but really don’t want to spend any more time than necessary with him. It’s a rather basic, vanilla comedy that works because it plays to Chase’s strenghts, there’s little in terms of puns and gags outside of his comedic ability and even less in terms of story. The story, really, makes no sense and the film is more or less a series of gags and funny one-liners that can wear thin after the first hour.

The Ugly: This was Chevy Chase’s first film after getting “cleaned up” from drugs and was supposed to be his “bounce back” film. I think it was his next film, European Vacation, that really bounced him back and reminded us more of why we liked Chevy than Fletch ever did or could.

Also Joe Don Baker. Fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 probably know him well.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

Peter is a composer and a likable sad guy who's devastated when his girlfriend of five years, Sarah Marshall, the star of a cheesy CSI-style crime show, dumps him. He weeps, he rails, he mopes. Finally, his step-brother Brian suggests Hawaii, so Peter heads for a resort on Oahu where, as he's checking in, he sees Sarah and her new beau, Aldous, a polymorphously perverse English rocker. The weeping and moping starts again, until Peter is rescued by Rachel, a thoughtful hotel clerk who invites him to a luau and to hang out. Although he constantly runs into Sarah and Aldous, Peter starts to come alive again. Will Sarah realize what she's lost, and what about Rachel?

 The Good: For a while we were undergoing a major comedy drought. Outside of one or two gems, comedies in the late 90s to about 2005 were bad. So when Judd Apatow came on to the scene, bringing with him the John Hughes style of heart, character and laughs, the floodgates opened. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a perfect example of that, showing realistic characters in scenarios most people can relate to, no matter how extreme or subtle they may be-the film covers them all. Because of this relatable aspect to the situations and the characters, this film shines better than most that would strip it down to merely set ups and punchlines. It's a slow brew of a film, getting better on repeated viewing, but pays off in the end. It's a romance move made for guys, but women will fall for the film as well due to its charm. Smart dialogue punctuates the script and the directing by Nicholas Stoller, his first effort, shows potential for a future director to watch.

The Bad: I mentioned that this is Stoller's first time directing, and it shows at times. While the performances and scenes are well done and carry the bulk of the film, there's a sense of it stumbling over itself as though it has trouble finding its footing. Scene transition through the film is choppy and never fully comes together as a continuous feel, characters come and go and the main characters of Peter and Rachel are the only with any type of focus-everything else is secondary and as a result feels crammed into the story haphazardly.

The Ugly: Penis.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Dr. Frankenstein creates a monster from various posthumous 'donors' and combines them into a massive creature, to whom he wishes to bestow life. The movie centers on this monster and his struggle in this 'life after death'.

The Good: I would be lying if I said this wasn't a personal favorite of mine. Sure, it is completely inaccurate to the book, but as mentioned in the Dracula (1931) review, films of this period were simply more about shaping an idea to entertainment, like revising a myth, rather than being accurate. I know most attribute the success to Boris Karloff as the iconic Monster, and rightfully so really, however I think the driving and epic force of the film is through the title character, Dr. Frankenstein. He's perhaps not as imposing as his creation, but he demands as much screen presence at the lumbering oaf. Colin Clive may not have ended up being the star here, but he is so gleefully mad and absolutely self-righteous that you can't but absolutely adore him. His approach to morality and ethics is really no different than a child with a new toy to play with...and we enjoy watching him play.

The Bad: Many would laud the sequel, Bride of Frankenstein, as a superior film in nearly every aspect. I can't say I agree with that, perhaps a review of the film is in order, but it is surely on par but for different reasons. I feel the only way to see flaws in something as iconic as Frankenstein is when it's compared to Bride of Frankenstein, which had a better script, better acting, better directing (from the same director mind you) and more risks taken all around. Frankenstein was where director James Whale began as a horror/thriller director, a couple of masterpieces later, he probably achieved near-perfection with Bride of Frankenstein (and had complete freedom in doing so, which he richly deserved). On its own merits, however, it's hard to find major faults other than obvious sets and some poor lighting at times. It's a simple film, it doesn't try to muck it up nor does it try to glorify itself. It gives it to you straight up, no frills but a lot of meat to savor.

The Ugly: I love the utter genius found in Young Frankenstein. It is, without question, one of the most brilliant comedies in history. Yet it comes at a price because no longer can you simply watch Frankenstein, now you watch and are often taken out of it by thinking of Young Frankenstein. It's hard to not watch one and automatically think and reminisce of the other. Thanks to Mel Brooks.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

William Friedkin's gritty police drama portrays two tough New York City cops trying to intercept a huge heroin shipment coming from France. An interesting contrast is established between 'Popeye' Doyle, a short-tempered alcoholic bigot who is nevertheless a hard-working and dedicated police officer, and his nemesis Alain Charnier, a suave and urbane gentleman who is nevertheless a criminal and one of the largest drug suppliers of pure heroin to North America. During the surveillance and eventual bust, Friedkin provides one of the most gripping and memorable car chase sequences ever filmed.

The Good: If you want to see how to make a crime drama you have to look no further than this Friedkin masterpiece. There are no absolutes in this world. You have the law and you have the criminals, but as far as moral upholding and seeing the world in black and white, you can throw it all out. It’s gritty, its hard edged and, above all, it’s realistic. There are no major shootouts, no unrealistic chase sequences, no hero we can even fully get behind (although we do route for him).  Gene Hackman, who won an Oscar for his performance, embodies everything we love yet hate about cops. They may enforce the law but they’re always upstanding citizens themselves. Doyle is a cop that will get it done no matter the cost and the movie relishes in his obsession, its central theme. The French Connection is one of the most important films made. It throws out the melodrama and perfect heroes and cops and brings it all to a gritty and bleak reality, giving way to future films such as Serpico, the Seven Ups and Dirty Harry.

The Bad: While it is a point that Hackman’s “Popeye” Doyle is amoral as they come, as a result it’s sometimes hard to appreciate him. One minute he’ll be a guy you want to hang out with, he’s smart, funny at times…then comes the other side of him. He obsesses, womanizes, is a bigot. Instead we find ourselves liking his partner, Buddy, played by Roy Scheider. In fact, we end up liking him more because we see Doyle through his eyes more often than not and can simply appreciate all the bullshit his partner producers on a daily basis. Doyle is a character that’s hard to put a finger on. He’s complex and difficult to understand…as a result that’s why we love him but hate him at the same time.

The Ugly: The ending might turn some people off. It’s sudden and never fully seems to bring a climax for the viewer While I can understand that, I don’t think it could have ended any better.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Welcome back to Crystal Lake in a chilling re-imagining of the classic horror film. Searching for his missing sister, Clay Miller heads up to the eerie woods of legendary Crystal Lake. Against the advice of police and cautions from the locals, Clay pursues what few leads he has in the search for his missing sister, Whitney, with the help of Jenna, a young woman he meets among a group of college kids up for an all-thrills weekend. But they are all about to find much more than they bargained for. Little do they know, they've entered the domain of Jason Voorhees.

The Good: It all looks nice on the outside, much like Crystal Lake itself, and the film moves briskly through its story, or the series of death scenes I should say. Director Marcus Nispel seems to capture the world of Crystal Lake wonderfully - it's a place that can be beautiful one minute, and vulgar and horrible the next, again much like the film itself. All the old elements are here that make slasher films popular: gratituitous violence and nudity, smart camera and lighting usage and a few humorous moments even. The best part of the entire film is the "new" Jason, one that rekindles the first four movies with a killer that is a man, not a monster. He's smart, fast, and apparently quite the hunter. He's convincing, which is good, and feels like a threat once more. The first 20 minutes or so are brilliant done. Well-paced, the characters likeable for the most part during this Act, and Jason is incredibly frightening. Then it changes to a new group of kids and a brother looking for his lost sister (from the first act). It's downhill from there.

The Bad: There is nothing we haven't already seen here, in fact you'll probably see what's going to happen before it actually happens. The characters are laughably cliche, the story nonexistent and confusing and the violence, the whole purpose of these types of films, unoriginal and boring. Some things are just absurd, such as Jason apparently moving at the speed of light to get from one point to the next (such as the roof of a two story house) and the characters are more dumb that the typical horror film and you almost hope they get killed rather than route for them to escape. For a "reinvention" of the franchise, it seems to be more regressive than progressive. The Halloween remake by Rob Zombie, despite all its flaws, at least got that right.

The Ugly: Simply put, Jason goes out pretty weakly here. He's a legitimate threat through most of the film and, sadly, is put down in the dumbest way possible.

Final Rating: 2 out of 5

For young Charlie Brewster, nothing could be better than an old horror movie late at night. Two men move in next door, and for Charlie with his horror movie experience, there can be no doubt that their strange behavior is explained by the fact that they are a vampire and his undead day guardian. The only one who can help him hunt them down is a washed-up actor, Peter Vincent, who hosts Charlie's favorite TV show, Fright Night. Vincent doesn't really believe that vampires exist, but does it for the money...

The Good: Have you ever had a creepy neighbor you just weren't too sure of? Maybe an old spooky house down the block that he might have lived in (or, god forbid, right next door)? Did he stay in a lot, especially during the day? Did he ever threaten to kill you if you divulge to everyone that he is a vampire? Well, Charlie Brewster has such a house in his neighborhood and such a neighbor. What's great about Charlie is that he really is the all-american teen. He does alright in school, loves old horror movies and has a girlfriend. He's about as vanilla as ice cream, but that's why we end up finding him so appealing. He's a regular guy thrust into a crazy situation, draging his friends and family along with him and stalking his idol for help because there's simply no other person to turn to. Often, a vampire movie only focuses on the blood sucking and not much else. Fright Night is interesting because it focuses on one of the Vampire's classic powers: hypnotism (or entrancement). He's masculine, debonair as they say, and Chris Sarandon plays that villain role to utter perfection. To his villain we have, not Charlie, but rather Van-Helsing wannabe Roddy McDowall's Peter Vincent. There's great chemistry of all the characters in the film, actually, and we see them all grow, learn and sometimes not come out on the best end of things. That development is rare for a horror film and thanks to a focus on the small cast, Fright Night exceeds its relative rudimentary foundations of a simple vampire story and turns into something rather charming, sometimes funny and always engaging horror classic that noticeably influenced another vampire 1980s classic, The Lost Boys.

The Bad: There's nothing profoundly scary about Fright Night. It's sometimes more a satire than it is a scary movie and often more gory than it is frightening. It tries to achieve a balance that was probably perfected with An American Werewolf in London, combining a tale of horror but balanced with comedic overtones and situations. It does better when it doesn't try to be scary but also when it doesn't try to be comedic. Rather it succeeds as a succession of well-done scenes, some are bloody and perhaps moody with a fantastic sense of dread, and others oddly funny and humorous. Once those are combined into the overall package, though, it just doesn't quite work. Thankfully its consistent characters keep it all grounded so when it does switch from ominous to funny, rather than combine the two, it's not quite as noticeable.

The Ugly: Fun fact, actually. Did you know Chris Sarandon is the voice of Jack Skellington in the brilliant A Nightmare Before Christmas? Yeah, pretty neat. He was also Prince Humperdinck in The Princess Bride...I swear, the man is one of those weird childhood personas that you don't even realize until you write a review.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

After a car accident in which his wife, Debra, was killed and he was injured, Frank Bannister develops psychic abilities allowing him to see, hear, and communicate with ghosts. After losing his wife, he then gave up his job as an architect, letting his unfinished "dream house" sit incomplete for years, and put these skills to use by befriending a few ghosts and getting them to haunt houses in the area to drum up work for his ghostbusting business; Then Frank proceeds to "exorcise" the houses for a fee. But when he discovers that an entity resembling the Grim Reaper is killing people, marking numbers on their forehead beforehand, Frank tries to help the people whom the Reaper is after!
 
The Good: Michael J. Fox is fantastic in this lead role, playing horror-comedy in the same vein of a Bruce Campbell might have in the Evil Dead series. It doesn't quite have that presence, but his banter and overall sense of "fun" prevails and allows The Frighteners to actually be better than it probably should or even deserves to be. It's no doubt an off-beat, entertaining picture that, as strange as this may sound, is fun to watch repeatedly when the time is right (ala Halloween). It has a lot of character and uniqueness and the special effects, even after all these years, are used smartly and in way that, even stranger for me to say here, reminds me of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Of course, this fails in other categories that doesn't lift it up to that level, but you can see what Jackson was going for. It simply misses the mark.
 
The Bad: The Frighteners suffers from one thing that Peter Jackson will become notorious for: trying too much. Notably here in the ending that is too long, too neat and too forced. The concept is very much there, but it just ends up in one big, self-gratifying mess that lacks the personality of an Evil Dead (or Brain Dead, for that matter) and the sense of fun Jackson tries so hardily to invoke. Ebert likens it to a demo reel of ideas and concepts, not a cohesive  hole. I couldn't agree more in that and god bless Michael J. Fox for at least trying to hold it all together with his character because Jackson simply keeps feeding us way, way too much.
 
The Ugly: I hate to say it, but a similar film that came out a few years before did the concept better (although not by much): Heart and Souls. Yeah...I just said that. At least that film had some characters you could actually care about, not that I would rate it any higher.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

A two-segment story that follows young men from the start of recruit training in the Marine Corps to the lethal cauldron known as Vietnam. The first segment follows Joker, Pyle and others as they progress through the hell of USMC boot-camp at the hands of the colorful, foul-mouthed Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. The second begins in Vietnam, near Hue, at the time of the Tet Offensive. Joker, along with Animal Mother, Rafterman and others, face threats such as ambush, booby traps, and Viet Cong snipers as they move through the city.

The Good: One of Kubrick’s most memorable, quotable, sometimes unintentionally funny films is a look not so much at war, but the human psyche as a result of it. In a departure for Kubrick, well, sort of, he says a lot yet in the end says nothing. The whole film is one big observation in war: a lot goes on but by the end everything is meaningless. The auteur thinks on numerous levels when making a film. It’s not merely telling a story (and in some cases, that lack of focus shows) but it’s about how to tell the story behind the camera as well, off to the side, with the music or supply the core narrative without needing to say a word. I sometimes wonder if that’s a little game he liked to play. “I’m making a movie about war. War is meaningless, therefore I need to make a movie that is meaningless.” The structure, the design, the outcome itself: all this reflects the primary purpose of the story. For example: duality of man- two distinct styles of film, two different stories, two personifications of the main character, two outcomes that still showcase the notion of it all being pointless. That’s just one example. Nonetheless, it moves stinkingly well through both stories, this being one of Kubricks more tightly-made films (and, again, the film showcases his technical craftsmanship trough the camera lens), as we see the rise of these young men from normality to abnormality through war, brain-washing, violence and selfishness as they follow orders from superiors.

The Bad: People have now, more or less, defined Full Metal Jacket as not a two-act film, but two small films into one. Whether or not the disparity in style between the first half and the second half is a fault is up to the viewer, the themes still connect the two. What I would consider a fault, though, is the completely dislikeable nature of nearly every character in it, even those that are well-acted. There’s really nobody to relate to or even distinguish apart from the next, even the main character Joker comes off as though his personality was omitted from the draft. Kubrick made everyone “shells” and empty, but that doesn’t mean we have to hate them, do we? There’s also a sense of misdirection and sometimes aimlessness, perhaps, again, Kubrick thinking on a different level, but also making it hard to follow or understand where the story is heading. This can be up to the viewer, as Kubrick intentionally escaped convention on the narrative, so others may rate it lower, others higher, either way, while faulty, it's still a fantastic film.

The Ugly: Many people quote this movie and sometimes doesn’t even know where the quote originated. Hits like “Me so horny.” “Me Sucky Sucky.” “Me love you long time.” “This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is fighting, this is for fun.” “What is your major malfunction, numbnuts?” and the ever so popular chart-topping hit “Only steers and queers come from Texas.” Sadly, while they might be able to quote it, most couldn’t tell you what happens in the movie…even if they did see it.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

An elite military unit comprised of special operatives known as G.I. Joe, operating out of The Pit, takes on an evil organization led by a notorious arms dealer.

The Good: A good, or at least passable, effort to blend nostalgic principles of a beloved toy line and cartoon series to an updated experience. This should have probably been called GI Joe: The Next Generation with it being set in the future (a good decision, as far as I'm concerned as it allows for the comical attributes and technology to be at least acceptable). Despite the glitz and action pieces, which are finely done with a frantic pace, the characters, story and awful script bring down a film that could have been, at least, better than its parts. Many compare it to a James Bond film, and it has that similarity to the Moore era of Bond goofiness...but many, I think, forget that the Moore era wasn't that good to begin with and its still only marginally better than GI Joe. Strangely, though, the tone and feel of the movie is exactly what I was hoping it would be, even if it overdoes the so-called "story."

The Bad: Despite its best efforts to at least be fun and entertaining, the melodrama and complete dead-pan seriousness of the film overshadows any effort at being fun and entertaining. It should have downplayed its own story more, actually. It doesn't quite reach that perfect balance of drama and comedy and only hopes the action can at least carry it seeing as how the story, plot and characters can not. The action is fun, at least better organized than the likes of a Michael Bay appraoch, and the special effects may be solid in that "slight fantasy" sense, but the film misfires more than connects on its hits. Of course, what I find incredibly amusing in movies like this is the complete disregard our heroes have for civilians. The amount of destruction caused and people killed during a chase sequence probably exceeded whatever plot our little terrorists would have began. Not that their plot makes much sense to begin with, the rules of our warheads were stated in the beginning that the controlled destruction would contiue forever until told otherwise (nanotechnolgy so precise, it seems) yet they so specifically have to get to one exact target. Sure, it's neat to see our heroes flying around, yet they're running into cars, jumping through them in some cases, as missles and bullets fly towards them. Sure, they can dodge, but nobody in that corner cafe or near those cars could. Then again, the film also sets the rules regarding Cobra's soldiers that have no pain, fear or emotion, yet we see them show emotions, screaming and showing pain ten minutes later. Consistency is all I think we can ask for in cartoon-flavored action movies like this, but when it fails to even do that, it stops being "dumb fun" (which this should have been, ala those old Roger Moore Bond films) and merely ends up being "dumb."

The Ugly: That's right, a Brendan Frasier cameo. If that doesn't seal the deal of quality, I don't know what does. Speaking of which, I feel that the fun quality of the Mummy films, of which Steven Summers directed the first solid two, is still found in GI Joe, but it still mismanges things that even the Mummy films got right.

Final Rating: 2 out of 5

Richard Attenborough's award-winning epic recounts the life and times of Mahatma Gandhi. In South Africa, a young Indian lawyer is booted off a train for refusing to ride second-class. Fed up with the unjust political system, he joins the Indian Congress Party, which encourages social change through passive resistance. When his "subversive" activities land him in jail, masses of low-skilled workers strike to support his non-violent yet revolutionary position. Back in India, Gandhi renounces the Western way of life and struggles to organize Indian labor against British colonialism. A strike costs many British soldiers their lives, so the crown responds by slaughtering 1,500 Indians. Enraged, the ascetic, spiritual leader continues to preach pacifism until he has lead India out from under the tyranny of British imperialism.

Having seen his father killed in a major gang fight in New York, young Amsterdam Vallon is spirited away for his own safety. Some years later, he returns to the scene of his father's death, the notorious Five Points district in New York. It's 1863 and lower Manhattan is run by gangs, the most powerful of which is the Natives, headed by Bill "The Butcher" Cutting. He believes that America should belong to native-born Americans and opposes the waves of immigrants, mostly Irish, entering the city. It's also the time of the Civil War and forced conscription leads to the worst riots in US history. Amid the violence and corruption, young Vallon tries to establish himself in the area and also seek revenge over his father's death.

The Good: Daniel Day Lewis. I can think of no better way to start of the good aspects of this film than with his bringing to life one of the great cinematic characters. Lewis overshadows every other actor, which seems to always be the case with him, with his complete change into Bill the Butcher. Every other actor, although solid, seems lacking in comparison. His presence is rare in films and this film would be nothing without him, just another slightly interesting and somewhat haphazard period movie. Gangs of New York is a surmising and culmination of all Scorsese has done to that point. If Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas are his finest albums, Gangs of New York acts like the Greatest Hits compilation. Every theme and idea, weaving crime fables, visual style, great performances, character arcs, revenge tales...it's all right here in a three hour piece of exquisite cinema.

The Bad: Overindulgent and perhaps a tad overzealous, Gangs of New York seems more a celebration of the time and place than trying to tell us its story with its fantastic characters. It's messy, a hodge-podge of set-pieces and scenes focused to give us great dialogue and interactions than an overaching storyline about revenge- something that gets lost in the tale of romance, political manipulation and corruption, gang histories and vendettas outside of Vallon's. It lacks the focus of Scorsese's usually tight-narratives but, thankfully, doesn't lack the conviction

The Ugly: 2002 had a slew of great actor performances. While the Oscar went to Adrian Brody, Nicholas Cage in Adaptation, Daniel Day Lewis here and Michael Caine and Jack Nicholson were brilliant, it makes you wish you could give an Oscar to all of them, it was a tough year (the Best Actress nominations were pretty darn difficult too). Too bad the whole thing was ruined by giving the Best Picture to Chicago, a self-indulgent and uninspired picture, when you have The Pianist winning everything else.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

In the not-too-distant future, a less than perfect man wants to travel to the stars. Society has categorized Vincent Freeman as less than suitable given his genetic make-up and he has become one of the underclass of humans that are only useful for menial jobs. To move ahead, he assumes the identity of Jerome Morrow, a perfect genetic specimen who is a paraplegic as a result of a fall. With some professional advice, Vincent learns to deceive DNA and urine sample testing. When a colleague is killed he is finally scheduled for a space mission, but a colleague suspects his origins and the police begin an investigation.

The Good: Gattaca is, without question, a contemporary classic and is a great example of modern-day science fiction being as reverent and dynamic as it really should be. Andrew Niccol has done little since Gattaca, as far as directing goes, but I would say he was able to bring a new interest to intelligent science fiction as a result of his effort here. All the players give a solid performance, but it’s Niccol’s script and vision of future human perfection that is the selling point (in case you aren’t aware, concept and realization is far more important than anything else in science fiction – you have to sell the vision to draw the audience in). Gattaca does that in spades. When it comes to a sci-fi movie showing us a future setting, it’s all about the possibilities and vision of the time the film is made, perhaps our own hopes and wishes (or fears) than a legitimate prediction of what will come. Gattaca shows us fear on gene therapy, human conditioning and, of course, technology. This is nothing new to science fiction, especially in terms of literature, but is also something that is difficult to execute. Luckily Gattaca, for the most part, is able to and really suck you into its tale and world. Tense, smart, and one of the best films of its decade.

The Bad: There’s nothing necessarily “Bad” about Gattaca, but it is a rather sterile and cold film that, upon watching again recently, makes me wonder if I should be finding these characters appealing or not..or perhaps wish to find them appealing as they have slowly lost a sense of their own humanity due to the desire of perfected humans. The concept draws you in, yes, but perhaps a character to relate to would have given this film a little more emotional resonance.

The Ugly: The movie is over 10 years old, yet Thurman, Law and Hawke look exactly the same. My theory is they did genetically enhance them them during production.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

The year is 2029. The world has become intensively information oriented and humans are well-connected to the network. Crime has developed into a sophisticated stage by hacking into the interactive network. To prevent this, Section 9 is formed. These are cyborgs with incredible strengths and abilities that can access any network on Earth.
 
The Good: If there's one movie I would introduce a person to Japanese animation with, it would no doubt be this. It's not only a great piece of anime, but a great piece of science-fiction. While it may not be the most streamlined story, it offers the solid plot, ideas and quality that people really should expect from their anime. It's action is smartly utilized, often brief and kinetic, and the world is remarkable and captivating in a realistic yet dreamlike way. It's science fiction elements touch the very heart of the genre with the simple, although sometimes overused theme, of human existence versus technology. What really defines us a tangible or real? Does that eqate to life? If a machine mathematically equates to it life, is the machine alive? What is a soul? Great science fiction has you asking questions, often rhetorical, but always intriguing. The animation is utterly stunning, possibly one of the most beautifully animated movies to be made. It's as detailed as the story and equally overzealous.

The Bad: Unlike Akira, the film Ghost in the Shell is often compared to, it isn't quite as over-ambitious and keeps the fact its a detective story grounded while maintaining an intricate plot. Like Akira, though, we have issues with characters that are unlikeable and there are moments when it's simply overwritten. The characters are cold and robotic, intentionally of course but difficult to really connect with in any level or have you caring about what happens to them. Rather, the film (much like 2001: A Space Odyssey only not as sluggish) wants you to focus on the themes. It enjoys being intelligent for intelligence's sake. In that, it completely succeeds however it fails to bring that important human connection that would make those themes even more personal and relevant. That's something films like Blade Runner of the Star Trek series manage to balance incredibly well, in Ghost in the Shell I wonder if humans even exist at all. Then again, maybe that's the point to begin with.
 
The Ugly: There have been efforts to try and recapture this film in television series and sequels, basing off the expansive universe from the original manga. Simply put, they're mere shadows. It's no surprise the best thing to come from Ghost in the Shell had nothing to do with it other than inspiration was The Matrix. The cycle of film life, ladies in gentlemen. From one brilliant piece to another.
 
Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Punted from a New York university grant program for their less-than-orthodox approach to research, three scientists decide to go into business for themselves as exterminators. Only it's not cockroaches they plan to wipe out - it's spooks. A derelict firestation, jazzed up ambulance, and some unlicensed nuclear accelerators later and our boys are in business. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) are the Ghostbusters.Before long business is booming, but there's some serious nastiness brewing in the Big Apple. Local musician Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) - an instant love interest for wiseguy Venkman - notices some ever-so-slightly gruesome creatures hiding in her fridge behind the hamburgers and, quite literally, all Hell breaks loose.

The Good: A timeless comedy and no-doubt Ivan Reitman's best film. You have all the elements of a great action comedy.The special effects still hold up well after all these years, especially the infamous Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. What allows Ghostbusters to rise above its own plot and concept are the characters and specifically Bill Murry as Peter Venkman, who has some of the best lines. All three of the main team (and Winston eventually) feel together like old friend, the actors being friends in real life no doubt had a lot to do with that. New York City itself is a character and there's no denying that there's a love the filmmakers seemed to have with it (which is why it's considered one of the great "New York" movies). Unique, funny and endearing, it's arguably one of the greatest films ever made.

The Bad: The ending feels haphazard and rushes to end itself. Although the ending is satisfactory, it seemed to really force itself to happen.

The Ugly: Walker Peck is one of the best villains in cinema. Here you are, spending time with the characters you love, cheering for them, happy to see them succeed, then up comes Pecker and he throws it all away. Yes, it's true, your honor, this man has no dick.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Five years after the events of the first film, the Ghostbusters have been plagued by lawsuits and court orders, and their once-lucrative business is bankrupt. However, when Dana begins to have ghost problems again, the boys come out of retirement only to be promptly arrested. The Ghostbusters discover that New York is once again headed for supernatural doom, with a river of ectoplasmic slime bubbling beneath the city and an ancient sorcerer attempting to possess Dana's baby and be born anew. Can the Ghostbusters quell the negative emotions feeding the otherworldly threat and stop the world from being slimed? 

The Good: "Suck in the gut guys, we're the ghostbusters." Their better days behind them, we now see an older group of Ghostbusters trying to make ends meet. All four members have taken up odd-jobs and it's interesting to see what they would be doing if they never were Ghostbusters to begin with. We feel as though we didn't miss a beat and fall for these characters all over again, and again that becomes the film's strongpoint.While not as many memorable scenes as the original, it definitely has its moments with the river of slime, subway tunnels and the classic courtroom scene. It's a good followup and an entertaining movie despite the weird story and nonsensical villain.

The Bad: I find it hard to believe the GBs would be a laughing stock to the people in New York, there's a mutual love they have and a sudden turn doesn't fit. It also recycles a lot of the first movie's gags and laughs.

The Ugly: There's a lot of weird things that happen in the movie, and it is polarizing to a lot of people, but one that comes to mind is when Janosz appears to fly across the New York skyline dressed as a nanny and kidnaps Dana Barret's baby. He looks like a ghost, but we know he's not, and he also stretches his arm 20 feet. This is never explained, weird stuff.

The story begins as "Don" Vito Corleone, the head of a New York Mafia "family", oversees his daughter's wedding. His beloved son Michael has just come home from the war, but does not intend to become part of his father's business. Through Michael's life the nature of the family business becomes clear. The business of the family is just like the head of the family, kind and benevolent to those who give respect, but given to ruthless violence whenever anything stands against the good of the family. Don Vito lives his life in the way of the old country, but times are changing and some don't want to follow the old ways and look out for community and "family". An up and coming rival of the Corleone family wants to start selling drugs in New York, and needs the Don's influence to further his plan. The clash of the Don's fading old world values and the new ways will demand a terrible price, especially from Michael, all for the sake of the family.

The Good: Everything about the Godfather is perfect. No questions asked. While some might not like the slower pace, perhaps spoiled by the Mafioso tales of Martin Scorsese in this respect, The Godfather plays out like a classic piece of Greek drama. It takes its time, simmers and occasionally explodes with effectiveness and poignancy. The characters are beautifully rendered, Al Pacino’s subtle and lyrical performance as Michael showing one of the greatest character studies in film history, and Marlon Brando is, well, he’s Brando and creates a character that has become a part of our culture to this day. With a script adapted to every little detail by Mario Puzo, Francis Ford Coppola gives a film that is more than just a “mafia movie” or even a “period film.” It’s simply one of the most beautiful, engaging if not heartbreaking pieces of drama and storytelling to be made. For me to sing praises is almost redundant at this point as it’s one film where pointing out flaws is impossible, and I admit to that not as a critic but as a lover of fantastic cinema. The truth is, if you haven’t seen it, then what good are you? The Godfather is surely fantastic cinema in every aspect and one that any true fan of film not only must see, but must appreciate because it’s impossible to do otherwise.

The Bad: Not applicable, sir. (and I’m not saying that to be facetious, it simply doesn’t have anything wrong with it other than a bad film transfer which, I hear, has been corrected with the new Blu-Ray editions and looks gorgeous. Take care of your films, studios, please.).

The Ugly: The Sonny Corleone “fight” scene is utterly hilarious, and utterly easy to see as badly choreographed and comical. Punches don’t land, the dialogue is it’s all over the place.

Final Rating: 5 out of 5

The continuing saga of the Corleone crime family tells the story of a young Vito Corleone growing up in Sicily and in 1910s New York; and follows Michael Corleone in the 1950s as he attempts to expand the family business into Las Vegas, Hollywood and Cuba.

The Good: The second part of the epic gangster saga is more reliant on its fantastic performances than it is a quality script, but that doesn’t mean the story isn’t interesting (half of it at least). Pacino shows Michael Corleone beginning to dive into a dark place of his life as the head of his family. He’s pressured, even paranoid, and beginnings to make enemies that perhaps he can’t quite control. He’s also become rather arrogant, as anyone would. His story parallels with that of Vito, played brilliantly by Robert DeNiro and got him his first Oscar. It’s a great dynamic, these two stories, to show the beginnings and the fading dream simultaneously in great, understated Francis Ford Coppola fashion. He allows scenes to develop, trust in his actors even moreso than he did in the original film, and brings to life a world that nobody reading this could possibly understand. Most notable, though, is the art direction of this one. The first film gloriously recreated a period so perfectly, you don’t even notice. Here, it goes even further back and gives us an exquisite painting of early 20^th century New York. The people, the shops, the growth of New York and the dark alleys that it was built upon.  In that, Coppola matches the detail and atmosphere put into the first film, if not exceed it entirely.

The Bad: Being heavily reliant on flashbacks can often bring down a film, and in The Godfather Part II it doesn’t so much bring it down as much as it causes an unevenness between the present story with Michael and the past story with Vito. Let’s face it, the present story with Michael, despite showing the parallels between he and his father, is pretty much secondary here. This has a lot to do with Michael’s story being written later because the story of Vito was actually written in the original novel and was originally going to be apart of the original film. Taken from the source material, it works. Trying to fill in elements after the fact makes it feel more arbitrary than really something of interest and Micahel’s story is relatively subdued and, simply, not that interesting despite his dealings with his brother (the only main point of it). The primary story is Vito, simple as that, Michael’s is nearly irrelevant.

The Ugly: The entire Senate Committee scene comes across as mere filler and is an utter bore and ultimately pointless other than to show Michael trying desperately to hold on to what is left. The true story here was about his brother, Fredo, not the politics. The film can lose sight of that from time to time.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

In the final installment of the Godfather Trilogy, an aging Don Michael Corleone seeks to legitimize his crime family's interests and remove himself from the violent underworld but is kept back by the ambitions of the young. While he attempts to link the Corleone's finances with the Vatican, Michael must deal with the machinations of a hungrier gangster seeking to upset the existing Mafioso order and a young protoge's love affair with his daughter.

The Good: The black sheep of the Godfather trilogy isn’t as bad as many like to claim it to be, but shows a drop off in style and quality that is difficult to accept. It has some brilliant moments, particularly the ending and very final shot, that are moving and meaningful not to mention poetic. The Godfather Part III might have some elements that are necessary and need to be told for the trilogy and for Michael Corleone’s story, but most is merely there to get to those points.

The Bad: By this point, Al Pacino simply could not do a film without chewing some scenery in the process. Perhaps, as an overall arc for Michael Corleone, he shows how much of Michael he really is and we would expect Michael to follow a similar path as Pacino did: become arrogant, loud, and even a parody of himself. Twenty years can change a man, that much is for certain, but to be dropped in and see how much different causes him to appear unrecognizable. Maybe some like that, I don’t because Michael was pretty well established in the first two films as intelligent, quiet and thoughtful (which is why his father loved him). Now he’s what Pacino wishes him to be, which is pretty much Pacino at this stage in his career. There’s also a drastic change in how the film is presented and the story content expressed. Coppola’s first two films were understated and subtle, being smart with how it uses violence and to be realistic in doing so. There are flashes of it here, but most is outlandish and overly bloody (such as a helicopter scaling a hotel and gunning down everyone in a room). The script also suffers from a serious lack of clarity and simply being told well as an overall pertinent and important story that needs to be told, something the previous two films did incredibly well.

The Ugly: Part III is exactly what Coppola expresses it as: an epilogue. I say “why bother?” It’s not a horrible film, but it would feel needless and unnecessary even if was a “great” film to create something 20 years after its relevance.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

Henry Hill is a small time gangster, who takes part in a robbery with Jimmy Conway and Tommy De Vito, two other gangsters who have set their sights a bit higher. His two partners kill off everyone else involved in the robbery, and slowly start to climb up through the hierarchy of the Mob. Henry, however, is badly affected by his partners success, but will he stoop low enough to bring about the downfall of Jimmy and Tommy?

The Good: The defining film of Scorsese's career. Does much more need to be said than that statement? It's a hypnotic film, so full of visceral energy and emotion that it demands your attention in the very first scene: three guys driving down a road with some strange noises coming out of the trunk. They pull over to discover that the man they thought they killed and stuffed back there was sadly still alive. A few stabs and gunshots later, we're given to the main character's voiceover: "As far back as I could remember, I always wanted to be a gangster." Perfect, almost poetic in a sense, and the rest of the film equally so. Goodfellas is one of the best stories and overall finely crafted pieces of cinema in history and one that reestablished Martin Scorsese as one of the greatest American filmmakers to ever live. It's a film of history, nostalgia, suspense, romance, and good-ole-fashioned "route for the bad guys" stories. You know you shouldn't, and if you met them in real life you'd start walking on the other side of the street, but here we see them and love them. The characters are so well-rounded, intensely and believable friendly to each other and often tragic that we feel as though they're sitting right next to us. It often shares "Greatest gangster movie of all time" with Coppola's The Godfather...and even then it's a bit of a toss-up.

The Bad: If you've read many of my reviews here, especially those I rate highly, you'll notice that some are just hard to say anything bad about. I could nit-pick regarding a few rushed areas of the story and so forth, but sometimes those things just don't really matter. Goodfellas is another example of a film that deserves every bit of the title "masterpiece" or "greatest" and, strangely enough, it's the third film from Scorsese I do it without question. When it comes to the greatest films of all time, the man has three that are casually tossed around as much as the ones from the likes of Billy Wilder and David Lean. As of Goodfellas in 1990, though, Scorsese still had yet to get an Oscar despite the Best Picture wins.

The Ugly: I don't know if Dances with Wolves deserved all the praise it got, but I know that Goodfella's is far more in the hearts and minds of filmgoers and film critics. Scorsese's history teaches us that Oscars, all in all, really don't mean much more than something to put on a poster or DVD cover.

Final Rating: 5 out of 5

Walt Kowalski is a widower who holds onto his prejudices despite the changes in his Michigan neighborhood and the world around him. Kowalski is a grumpy, tough-minded, unhappy an old man, who can't get along with either his kids or his neighbors, a Korean War veteran whose prize possession is a 1972 Gran Torino he keeps in mint condition. When his neighbor Thao, a young Hmong teenager under pressure from his gang member cousin, tries to steal his Gran Torino, Kowalski sets out to reform the youth. Drawn against his will into the life of Thao's family, Kowalski is soon taking steps to protect them from the gangs that infest their neighborhood.

The Good: A simple log line doesn't do the story justice. At the surface, it's about an old man who learns a lesson about acceptance. It goes much much deeper than that.  Atonement, redemption, friendship, family...the movie deals with all these themes through the life of the main character, played brilliantly by gravely-voiced Clint Eastwood in, easily, one of his best performances of his long career. The supporting cast is absolutely outstanding, feeling and acting like real people in real situations. I know nothing of Thao and Sue's culture, no more than Walt does, and their life and world is introduced as it would had we been there. We experience it all through the bitter old eyes of Walt and start to understand both sides. While dramatic, it should be noted the movie with make you laugh with its dialouge. Walt receives about as much as he dishes out with the blatant bigotry and racism (or in his case, more ageisim), but you can't ever deny the man's heart and passion, as cold and weathered as his old face, that eventually begins to pump again. Simply put, Clint is a master on and off the screen.

The Bad: There's a sense of emptiness in Walt's life that deals with his family. While Sue and Thao become his family in a sense, his real family wants nothing to do with him. The script has them pop in and out on occasion, but there's never a sense of fulfillment or satisfaction in terms of closure to the story regarding them. They didn't learn anything, never got to understand Walt as we did.Walt is a hard man, but why does his family (especially his grandchildren) treat him like garbage? The story builds to the point where we think they will finally  learn who Walt is and understand, even if they don't embrace or say they love each other, but that never comes.

The Ugly: Some people will hate the ending. In hindsight, I don't think it could have ended any other way. 

Final Score: 4 out of 5

Setsuko and Seita are brother and sister living in wartime Japan. After their mother is killed in an air raid they find a temporary home with relatives. Having quarreled with their aunt they leave the city and make their home in an abandoned shelter. While their father's destiny who was a soldier is unknown the two must depend on each other to somehow keep a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. When everything is in short supply, they gradually succumb to hunger and their only entertainment is the light of the fireflies.
 
The Good: If someone were to say to me to find a film that represents poetry, I would quickly throw Grave of the Fireflies across the room and knock them in the head. A majority of casual anime fans really know nothing about this film; far too much focus on the ultra violent and stylish kind, and far too many film fans know about it even less, many tossing aside animated films as having no weight or impact to their emotions - simply cartoons that are either full of action or full of comedy. There is no middle ground. The human condition is a difficult aspect to capture of film, yet here is a film that's fully animated and captures it incredibly well. It's a muted film, focusing on the silence more often than the sound. Film critic Roger Ebert compares it to that of the auteur Yasujiro Ozu in its
tone, and that's pretty accurate considering Ozu's style of simple shots, long takes and profound quietness. I've always thought that, had Ozu made an animated film in the same vein of Good Morning or Tokyo Story, this would surely be it. It's a character drama and beautifully moving in every since of the word. It's also one of the greatest animated films to be made, each cell perfectly thought out, each watercolor-like background beautifully detailed and each step closer to its end making you realize how utterly horrible war truly is.
 
The Bad: As much as I would hate to say that it's hard to believe that people would be so mean towards two orphans, the fact is a lot of it is based on actual occurrences. I'm sure much was done for dramatic effect of the novel and film, but it doesn't change the fact that two children probably could have used the help of the many people around them, no matter how awful one person's own life would be. It's obvious they don't know how to take care of themselves, wasting money and playing house more than having a home, and that's where the truly sad portion kicks in. As much as you route for them, you know they're absolutely doing the wrong thing.
 
The Ugly: The novel was written as an "apology" to the sister? I just got goosebumps.
 
Final Rating: 5 out of 5

A Las Vegas-set comedy centered around three groomsmen who lose their about-to-be-wed buddy during their drunken misadventures, then must retrace their steps in order to find him.

The Good: If there’s anything that seems to be downplayed by many critics, it’s the comedy genre (the horror genre is up there as well). This has to do with one aspect of comedy: everyone laughs and finds different things funny. So when reviewing a comedy you can objectively discuss its story, characters and script flaws, but as far as what is “funny” depends entirely on the reviewer. A movie like The Hangover is far from a universal comedy. Many people may not find it funny. The characters are pretty one-dimensional if not complete jerks and the various styles of comedy range from dry banter  and quotable lines to raunchy toilet humor and slapstick. It’s all over the place and this is what makes The Hangover so great. I may not have laughed at everything, but it still made me laugh. The characters are hard to like as well but the script is incredibly smart and witty. The Hangover is eclectic and, if anything, reflects the absurdity that is Las Vegas. If it was completely one-note humor while having the setting in Vegas, we’d all be saying how bland it was and how much opportunity was missed. The Hangover does have that issue. Everything you think will happen while a bunch of guys in Vegas would do they probably did.

I say probably because that is what makes The Hangover so smart. Many movies would simply show their night. Instead, we’re trying to piece together what happened that night by following them on the days after. Outrageous doesn’t describe their night, and to have it told to the guys that did those outrageous things yet don’t remember it is something we get to share and enjoy alongside them (or cringe, there’s quite a lot of that). It’s really just a solid comedy and one of the more original and creative ones to come out in some time.

The Bad: It’s unfortunate that a film that prides itself in originality has to end itself so unoriginally. Everything kind of ends up exactly as you’d expect it to, which is the exact opposite of what the film was about. It was about the unexpected, not the conventional. Perhaps it had to, but the change in tone and style is noticeable as it wraps itself up. The characters are outrageous as ewll. We actually develop a bond along with the three guys looking for their friend and trying to figure out all that happened. We share their surprise, their regrets, their humor. The only downside is, outside of Ed Helms character, we really know very little about them and in some cases they come across as complete assholes that are hard to feel sorry for. They have issues as well…but they don’t really resolve them as Helms character does. Then again, those other two didn’t marry a stripper and, while Galifinakis seems to get the most laughs, Helms gets the most story and personality. Either way, they’re all guys you can see yourself hanging out with, maybe sharing a drink or two…just make sure you don’t take the rufees.

The Ugly: Like I can point out one thing from this movie that’s going to qualify? Instead, I’ll take it outside the film on this one: the writers also wrote Ghosts of Girlfriends Past and Four Christmases. I have a feeling a lot of that pent-up testosterone was finally unleashed.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

In the sixth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft, and in both wizard and muggle worlds Lord Voldemort and his henchmen are increasingly active. With vacancies to fill at Hogwarts, Professor Dumbledore persuades Horace Slughorn, back from retirement to become the potions teacher, while Professor Snape receives long awaited news. Harry Potter, together with Dumbledore, must face treacherous tasks to defeat his evil nemesis.

The Good: Visual and imaginative, as always with the Harry Potter series, Half Blood Prince reunites us with our old friends and Hogwarts as a whole. The film, as always, is about a mystery but this time with a sinister twist that really changes the series as it ends far more on a down note than many will be accustomed to. Having already knowing this twist, I think the film does a good job leaving you in suspense on how it will happen, although it does little else to explain what is going on half the time. Yates brings the world to life, but I'm beginning to think the life was stolen from the characters to make that happen.

The Bad: The problem with Half Blood Prince is the same problem I had with David Yate's last foray into Harry's world with Order of the Phoenix. There's simply no heart in the film. It's cold, distant, and the characters seemingly going through the motions rather than feel like people with weight and purpose to their lives. Even emotional scenes have no weight to them as a result and, again, simply feel as though they were done to mark off the day's shoot. This is even more disappointing when you realize it's two and a half hours long. Entertaining, as the films always are, but soulless if not tedious.

The Ugly: Many common characters of the series are pretty much in the background in this one. Disappointing, after five films I think a lot of people have become invested with the, now they're all but forgotten.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

In Los Angeles, a gang of armed thieves is hitting serious targets - major banks, vaults, and armored cars. These thieves are led by arch-criminal Neal MacAuley. One of their operations, an armored-car robbery, goes bad and the armored-car guards are murdered by the gunmen - putting LAPD homicide detective Vince Hanna on the trail of the thieves. Hanna knows it will take a lot to bring these dangerous, armed thieves down, and it will end in a horrifying gun battle when the thieves try to rob a major federal bank...

The Good: One of the finest suspense and action movies you can think of. The cast if fantastic, Pacino with the quotable lines, DeNiro with the scenes, Kilmer....being Kilmer. Throw in the supports Jon Voight, Ashley Judd, Tom Sizemore, William Fichtner and even a young Natalie Portman, you can bet the acting will be up to the fantastic and interweaving story felt with human drama, politcal beuracrats and bank robbers. Then you have the visceral action and some of the best shot sequences to grace film, the bank heist being the main treasure. There are many others to name on top of it. It's smart, playing into everyting from its themes of good and evil, and that maybe it's just a big game, to musical cues and poetic imagry with foreshadowing and intelligent dialogue. No question is this Michael Mann's crowning achievement.If you don't like this movie, you simply don' t like movies.

 The Bad: Too long for its own good? That can be argued. There's a lull in the film at a few points where you await for something to happen. Mann likes to have the camera linger, and maybe show people just not doing anything, but sometimes this lingers a little too long.

The Ugly: Pacino's wife is a bitch, a major one. Why would he even consider getting back with her? That whole story was a bit of a mess, and I was hoping DeNiro would show up and shoot her. Maybe the theme of forgiveness and redemption shouldn't have applied to her, I wanted to push the murder button.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Based on the true story of Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker, two close friends who share a love of fantasy and literature, who conspire to kill Pauline's mother when she tries to end the girls' intense and obsessive relationship.
 
The Good: There is no question here that Heavenly Creatures, from beginning to end, is Peter Jackson's very best and most consistently gratifying film. The relationship between Juliet and Pauline is so bizarre you can't help but be compelled. There's a bit of happiness to be found in seeing it, two like-souls that appear so different finding friendship...the the darkness of it all begins to settle in. The sexual overtones. The loss of the mind. The eventual horrors of two young women who become completely separated from reality. It's nearly  a horror film, something Jackson at this point in his career was notorious for, but is able to showcase drama thanks to the performances (a young Kate Winslet tearing up the screen) that makes it much more, and better, than that. Jackson was an absolute perfect fit and he strikes a remarkable balance between the menacing and the joyous.

The Bad: Jackson really makes no effort to get us to like Juliet and Pauline. Both are ear-gratingly annoying and incredibly off-putting. As a result, we end up feeling the same as those around them rather than them themselves. They become characatures, simple fleeting girls that enter, then leave and appear like walking, talking dreams than actual human beings. But we shouldn't necessarily be feeling anything for them either. We aren't supposed to understand them, but there are times when we do love them and their utter insanity. At least until a point is reached where they go down paths even we won't be willing to follow.

The Ugly: One thing you can never deny with Jackson, he knows how to cast and has an eye for the right person for the right role. This was Kate Winslet's film debut, and she is utterly fantastic. She hasn't let us down since and shows how all those wannabe young actresses in Hollywood today really have no class or sense of direction. Winslet has always been admiral and is now considered one of the best actresses of her generation. Damn her for being so perfect.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

A young man transporting a car to another state is stalked along the road by a cunning and relentless serial killer who eventually frames the driver for a string of murders. Chased by police and shadowed by the killer, the driver's only help comes from a truck stop waitress.

The Good: I love movies where there's a case of mistaken identity or there's a character put in a threatening situation but nobody believes him. In fact, he's often the lead suspect. I suppose that's why I love Hitchock so much as many of his films deal with that exact element. The Hitcher isn't quite as well-crafted as Hitchcock, perhaps even a retread of Spielberg's TV Movie, Duel, but it's still a fantastic piece of suspense. Many throw it aside to just another 1980s horror film, but I see hints and glances of North by Northwest and Strangers on a Train where we have a character, here a teen, threatened by a villain that loves to toy and play with him. Of course, this is the 1980s slasher take on those classic formulas and the villain often walking a line between insanely smart and just insanely preposterous. Rutger Hauer is that villain, John Ryder, and he's really one of the great horror characters in history despite his often ridiculous approach at times. He's calm, his eyes always showing his analyzing and thinking, planning and scheming, and his dialogue, what little there actually is, show his as an intelligent killer who is so nonchalant in his demeanor as he explains how he killed a person and dismembered him or when he calmly says "I'm going to sit here...and you're going to drive." If only we understood why.

The Bad: John Ryder is meant to be the devil (and the road symbolically life). However it wants to stay grounded and realistic, which is hard to believe considering the sometimes invincible nature of Ryder. Much of what happens is very thought out and planned, however this goes against the nature of Ryder being a random hitchhiker and much of what happens being spontaneous. It tries to develop a relationship between Ryder and Jim (Howell) but it never quite reaches that mark, and as a result we never really understand what Ryder's deal was. It's assumed he has  a death wish, but how that relates to Jim in some loose connection is never really developed.

The Ugly: The remake of The Hitcher did one thing right: make us realize how good the original was despite its flaws. At least we can "it's not the 2007 version." We also realize by comparison how fantastic Hauer was in the original film. It showed subtlety and restraint. As a result, I'm ending up giving The Hitcher probably a slightly better Final Rating than I would have five years ago.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Peter Pan  has grown up to be a cut-throat merger and acquisitions lawyer, and is married to Wendy's granddaughter. Captain Hook kidnaps his children, and Peter returns to Never Land with Tinkerbell. With the help of her and the Lost Boys, he must remember how to be Peter Pan again in order to save his children by battling with Captain Hook once again.

The Good: Imaginative, colorful, a great sense of adventure. Yes, that is what Peter Pan is all about and this “reimaginating” of it stays true to the classic book and even the Disney animated feature from 1953. It’s like going to a high school reunion, and in a way Robin Williams as Peter is doing just that, where everyone is the same as you remembered but you’re the one that has changed. He doesn’t quite recognize his old friends, forgets how to have fun and has to learn his old ways before he can relive them. The film is always moving forward, rarely catching its breath, and in this fast-pace we maybe get a sense of what it’s like to be Peter at his high-school reunion. Of course, his old principal is there too, and he’s just as much of an ass as he was when he was young. Dustin Hoffman as the title character far and away steals the show. His costume is perfect, voice influxuated with a sense of empowerment yet naivety, and he is the actual load-carrier of the entire film; its anchor and the best thing about it. The other performances are passable. Williams is childlike as he should be and balances the adult Peter and youthful Peter well. The confrontation between he and hook is a fitting and fulfilling climax, even if we’ve already seen it before.

The Bad: Somewhere between the bland sets (the entire film was shot on a sound stage, sadly this shows) and boring story lies something imaginative and impressive. Or, should I say, that’s what should have come out from the film. The idea is there, the players in play and well cast, the music enjoyable. Somehow, though, it feels off. “Off” isn’t an acceptable critique, afterall I need to give the “why if feels off” not that it simply does feel “off.” Yet that’s where the problem lies. It’s hard to put your finger on it, and all I can say is that it should be a fun movie. There should be a sense of joy and unabashed amazement to its magic. It presents itself as so…but it isn’t there. It’s bogged down by its own exposition and the fun adventure simply doesn’t come across as well as it should. The children are annoying, Williams sleepwalking and the one shining light, Dustin Hoffman as the title character, would do better had the script been more about him. Instead, it’s simply a retelling of Peter Pan and not much else.

The Ugly: Spielberg, Williams and Hoffman weren’t paid a dime for the film. They money they earned would be based on how much money the film made…it’s a good thing those reviews didn’t stop it from earning.

Final Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Aidan Breslin is a bitter detective emotionally distanced from his two young sons following the untimely death of his devoted wife. While investigating a series of murders of rare violence, he discovers a terrifying link between himself and the suspects in a chain of murders that seem to be based on the Biblical prophecies concerning the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death.

The Good: To find Horsemen, you’ll probably have to search hard for it, meaning it likely won’t be something you accident catch. To be fair, though, the directing itself isn’t too bad and Quaid gives one of his better performances (although still very Quaid-esqe, he’s obviously been type-cast), but it can’t save the horrible and abysmal script and supporting cast of characters.

The Bad: Predictable and a film that likes to think it’s smarter than it really is. In fact, it seems to glorify its intelligence so far that it just ends up being dumb. “Look here” it might say “isn’t this cool?” No…I’m afraid it’s just moronic and contrived. Most of the “twists” you’ll see coming. Unlike many films with those, though, you actually find yourself hating the film for the direction it takes you down, one being it thinks its being original and unique and doing so when its not, the other being you just don’t care about people being killed because the convoluted story has you scratching your head more than paying attention and trying to understand it. There’s a sense of self-loathing in it, and as a result it causes you to loathe it as well. I’ll go ahead and spoil it for you, I know you won’t waste your money on this, but basically a bunch of angst-ridden teenagers look to send a “message” to their negligent parents and family by killing them or people they love. Oh, and Dennis Quaid’s son is the apparent ringleader. Why? Because he’s an angry teen, of course…what more motivation do you need? What’s sad is that a) you know from the moment you look at him he’s in on it and b) you don’t like him so you really don’t care what message he wants to send his dad who is not nearly as bad as angry teenage son thinks he is, but in the world of self-importance and teenage angst, who cares, right? This is especially hard to swallow after Quaid (don’t ask me the name of the characters, I had no investment in them) reaches out to his son very sincerely before its even revealed he’s in on the whole thing. Could have ended there, but the story pushes onward to fully achieve, what I can best describe, as a worthy piece of bland mediocre pile of garbage. What more do you want, kid? Then again…what the hell did you want in the first place? I want my money and time back, and a movie has to be pretty insultingly bad for me to demand that.

The Ugly: As you can tell, I really gave no effort in trying to write a nice review or one even particularly well-written. It’s what I call a “driveby review.” So wave goodbye on this one before turning the gun on yourself. I haven’t seen a movie this bad in a while. I’ve read there were problems with the production…and boy does it show. I had to review the thriller masterpiece Se7en to get the bad taste of this one out of my mouth.

Final Rating: 1 out of 5

In the 1980s, college student Samantha Hughes takes a strange babysitting job that coincides with a full lunar eclipse. She slowly realizes her clients harbor a terrifying secret; they plan to use her in a satanic ritual.

The Good: Crafted from head to toe with 1980s aesthetic, from the art design, to the music, to the directing and camerawork itself, this has the makings of a cult classic. The story is really nothing new, and you probably have seen a dozen other movies and TV shows with the same concept, but it's never been this well crafted. In a sense, it's an ode or homage to those old films, hence the 1980s setting, and is a slow-burn thriller, full of tense anticipation, by Ti West, a young director making a name for himself in the genre. Despite the slow pace, you never really feel it. It always progresses, moves and hits the right marks as it does so. In a year full of solid horror, the one that might be written off as a regression ends up being one of the most memorable, and thrilling.

The Bad: As noted, it's a slow burn movie with really nothing happening until the final third that would get most to take notice. While it always seems interesting and compelling, the unoriginal nature of most of it might cause some to lose interest. While I personally never did, I did find myself noting other films it reminded me of. Perhaps that's intentional, it wasn't due to boredom, but I'm thinking not and while it understands its own nature and is self-aware, a dose of unpredictability could have gone a long way in making The House of the Devil a modern horror masterpiece (using old horror techniques, at that).

The Ugly: Talk about an awesome Tagline: "Talk on the phone. Finish your homework. Watch TV. DIE." ...hope that wasn't in the babysitter ad.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Sidney Young is a disillusioned intellectual who both adores and despises the world of celebrity, fame and glamor. His alternative magazine, Post Modern Review, pokes fun at the media obsessed stars and bucks trends, and so when Young is offered a job at the diametrically opposed conservative New York based Sharps magazine its something of a shock! It seems Sharps editor Clayton Harding is amused by Young's disruption of a post-BAFTA party with a pig posing as Babe. Thus begins Sidney's descent into success - his gradual move from derided outsider to confidante of starlet Sophie Maes. Initially helping him out at Sharps is colleague Alison Olsen, who has her own secret.

The Good: As my roommate said, Megan Fox. But I would throw in a fun story with Simon Pegg, while a little typecast, giving us all a good show and is likeable as usual. Jeff Bridges, although hard to get a good feel for on his character, is good as well. The story itself is fun, more of an adult Devil Wears Prada, but while well-told isn't anything new.

The Bad: There's a sudden turn with Pegg's character that seems to just pass by suddenly, blink and you'll be lost. Also Kirsten Dunst who, again,is cast as a romantic lead and is someone who I'm just not convinced can pull that off. Sometimes she's ok looking, other times....The story, as mentioned is well-told, but is also very predictable. Thankfully the characters are enjoyable.

The Ugly: The stripper scene is, well, not for the faint of heart. Oh, and Kirsten Dunst.

Final Rating: 3 out of 5

When Waring Hudsucker, head of hugely successful Hudsucker Industries, commits suicide, his board of directors, led by Sidney Mussberger, comes up with a brilliant plan to make a lot of money: appoint a moron to run the company. When the stock falls low enough, Sidney and friends can buy it up for pennies on the dollar, take over the company, and restore its fortunes. They choose idealistic Norville Barnes, who just started in the mail room. Norville is whacky enough to drive any company to ruin, but soon, tough reporter Amy Archer smells a rat and begins an undercover investigation of Hudsucker Industries.

The Good: I can’t say I know what exactly I should be taking away from Hudscuker Proxy, although I did find the film itself at least entertaining. It’s a technical achievement, beautiful even, with a dreamlike world to play around in. There are times when The Hudsucker Proxy brings out a Terry Gilliam-like whimsy to it seen in the likes of Brazil. It doesn’t sway from the fact it’s a fantasy, from beginning to end. The shots, the effects, the sense of charm with the idea of a circle and Robbins spouting “You know…for kids.” Everyone is fast-talking and complete stereotypes of the time, and that is what actually makes it all so endearing. I also must make a quick mention of Paul Newman, who is utterly fantastic in the film and, in my humble opition, absolutely steals the show.

The Bad: While the Coen’s vision and technical style of the film is actually one of my favorites, the story is sadly an utter mess. Even an hour into the film, new important characters are introduced and end up coming across as a Deus Ex Machina (or forced plot device for those not sure what that is) than anything. Many reviewers have noted its inability to really find an identity, many elements that are inspired (or lifted) from older films coming across as an overindulgent lampoon. I noted in Barton Fink how it also caresses many genre elements and sometimes doesn’t work, but it’s overall story and characters maintain a steady pace. Here, though, the characters are little more inhuman and more caricatures which puts the lack of identity front and center and incredibly noticeable and the film becomes a shining example of “style over substance.” While I probably enjoyed the film more than most, it’s not without some fairly significant problems.

The Ugly: Bruce Campbell is a pretty underappreciated actor. He shows solid range in this film, although I think the off-beat nature helps. It’s pretty cool to see him in a different kind of role yet one he is so perfect for.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

An intense portrayal of elite soldiers who have one of the most dangerous jobs in the world: disarming bombs in the heat of combat. When a new sergeant, James, takes over a highly trained bomb disposal team amidst violent conflict, he surprises his two subordinates, Sanborn and Eldridge, by recklessly plunging them into a deadly game of urban combat. James behaves as if he's indifferent to death. As the men struggle to control their wild new leader, the city explodes into chaos, and James' true character reveals itself in a way that will change each man forever.

The Good: There are times, numerous times actually, while watching The Hurt Locker where you’re almost convinced it’s not a movie. Rather, it feels more like watching a documentary. It’s gritty, grainy, shaky and unflinching. More importantly, though, is that it’s honest. It doesn’t sugar-coat, the middle east, Iraq or American soldiers. It’s not melodramatic. It’s not even a linear story. It’s scene after scene of everyday life, its victories and its failures, only this it takes place in war-torn Iraq where car bombs and gunfights are always on the daily agenda. What’s great about Kathryn Bigelow’s film is that it captures the feel of it all to a T thanks to the directing and the utterly