Overrated Movies: Gosford Park.

Warning: Minor Alluded Spoiler (as to who dies, not to who kills).

I had thought about doing a Top 10 for Overrated Movies, but felt it might be better to just do a recurring article and do one at a time. So that brings us to this movie: Gosford Park. I had the (dis)pleasure of watching this movie for the first time last night (I DVR’d it off IFC). Gosford Park is about…um… absolutely nothing up until somebody gets killed about an hour and a half into the movie. Okay, honestly, it’s about a bunch of rich English aristocrats (and Ryan Phillippe) and their servants who all get together at this mansion to go shooting/hunting. When one of them dies, it turns into a (relatively boring and slightly predictable) who-dun-it.

So this movie has a massive cast full of top-notch actors: Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, Stephen Fry, Geraldine Somerville, Emily Watson, Clive Owen, Helen Mirren, Derek Jacobi, Ryan Phillippe, and a whole bunch of others. As I’ve joked, Ryan Phillippe seems to be the most out of place (and he’s not even the only American in the movie. Bob Balaban plays an American movie producer/director, and even he seems like he could be there. Ryan Phillippe’s character just seems to be like a random red herring that normally wouldn’t be there otherwise).

Anyway… so the movie starts off with this young woman (I didn’t really bother to learn anybody’s names, because not only did they change once they got to the mansion, but there were too many people to bother remembering), going out into the rain to help Maggie Smith’s character open a thermos. Yeah. I’m not kidding. So then they get to the mansion and everybody meets up, they talk in quiet voices about stuff you can’t understand and move on to the next person before you can get a grasp on what was being said. Then they cook dinner and then eat it. And the process cycles for the next hour and a half. And then Dumbledore dies TWICE. Then what has to be the most incompetent detective (Stephen Fry) shows up (though he was one of my favorite parts of the movie, albeit insanely out of place).

The movie was incredibly obvious as to whom at least one of the killers was. The other was what I like to call a ‘pull-out-your-ass’ ending. These types of twist endings are those that leave absolutely no clues for the reader or watcher to pick up on to figure it out, and then pull this random ending out their ass so they can point and laugh at you because they pulled a fast one on you, when in reality, there is no respect for that type of ending. For shame, Robert Altman… for shame.

So yeah… incredibly boring and pointless first half (save for a few key scenes in dropping ‘killer’ hints) that you can’t even understand. Then a really random second half that is only made up for by the funny and random Stephen Fry. I know this movie was supposed to be this social commentary thing, but I didn’t even care for it as that, and I like movies with social commentary. I can’t believe this movie won Best Original Screenplay over Memento (or, hell, even Amélie or The Royal Tenenbaums… neither of which I’ve seen, but I’m sure both are much better movies). I can’t believe I’m about to use the following rating… as even Stephen Fry’s short character appearance couldn’t make me watch this again.

She's Gone From Suck to Blow!

(P.S. I think it’s funny how at least half the cast has either been in, is related to somebody who has been in, or is somehow linked to Harry Potter. Gotta love British ensemble casts).

2 In 1: Chaos and Dog Day Afternoon.

Alrighty. After watching The Bank Job this past Friday, I got in the mood to check out some more heist movies, so I went to rent Dog Day Afternoon. While there, I rented some other movies, one of which was a movie called Chaos with Jason Statham, which could also be considered a heist movie (and better, I thought, than The Bank Job, also starring Jason Statham). Watching both, I felt I could turn this into a 2 in 1, so here we go.

Chaos.

Chaos has an interesting take on the heist film. It actually reminded me a bit of my last novel (without the supernatural/religious elements). The plot of Chaos is thus: After a disastrous hostage situation on a bridge in which both hostage and hostage taker die, Detective Conners (Jason Statham) is suspended and basically blacklisted, while his partner is fired. But when a bank robber who calls himself Lorenz (Wesley Snipes) takes hostages and seemingly tries to rob the place, he only has one request: to have Conners be the negotiator in charge. So Conners is brought back in and is partnered up with the young Detective Dekker (Ryan Phillippe). But when the robbers escape and people start dying randomly, the two detectives believe it has to do with the Chaos Theory—a bunch of seemingly unrelated events are all connected somehow.

The movie is just plain fun, really. The acting is alright… it’s basic thriller-genre acting (and Jason Statham). The plot is really cool, I thought, though highly predictable (though that could be a bad thing, considering the point of the plot is to be unpredictable). I figured out way too much early on, but that honestly didn’t stop me from enjoying the movie. Even though I figured out the final twist before it happened, I was still able to enjoy it with a smile on my face as it was revealed.

I think this is really the first time Jason Statham hasn’t really done his thing in one of his movies. He does kick some ass at one point, but its more cop-type brawling than anything. But I don’t think that’s a drawback or anything. And Wesley Snipes plays a pretty cool bad guy. He just has this “Oh, I’m cool, I’m a badass, I’m totally big pimpin. Look at my hat!” air about him every time you see him. And all the characters were more than just one-dimensional. They each had some kind of backstory to deepen their characters (at least to a degree).

So yeah, really, this is just one of those movies you have to not look too much into, but just sit back and enjoy it. But you also gotta pay attention toward the end, or it might go too fast for you to keep up (I know my dad started trying to talk to me during this point, and I was trying to pay attention to the movie, too. But I got the basic gist of what was going on; plus, I had already figured it out by that point, anyway).

I Am McLovin!

Dog Day Afternoon.

So I just saw it for the first time last night. Better late than never, right? Dog Day Afternoon is based on the true story of a simple bank robbery gone bad. Sonny (Al Pacino) and Sal (John Cazale) go to rob a bank, but being the down-on-their-luck overall nice guys, they take too long and attract police attention. The day lingers on with the employees no longer feeling any threat from the two men (except maybe Sal), and some even refusing to leave when they have the opportunity (by the way, just a random bit of trivia: this is known as Stockholm Syndrome, when the hostages begin to become attached to their hostage takers). Anyway, it gets all over the news, and the two men (moreso Sonny) start getting many fans. The only question left is… how are they gonna get out of this?

I thought this movie was excellent. Its two hours flew by. It was hilarious, sad, and dramatic. The acting was phenomenal, especially by the then young Al Pacino. The subtle performance by the late John Cazale was good, too, making you feel both frightened of and worried for him. The twist about halfway in when you find out exactly why Sonny is robbing the bank was unexpected (at least for me). But it worked (I’d hope so, considering it actually happened that way).

Afterwards I read an article from the real ‘Sonny’ and said he loved the movie, but was highly upset at how some of the things were portrayed and “Hollywood-ized,” and that the movie was really only about 30% true. Still, the movie version of the events was great in its own right. I just rented this movie, but I have a feeling I’m gonna end up going out and buying it. Let’s all go to the country of Wyoming!

Royale With Cheese

THE BANK JOB.

Apparently I couldn’t be a professional movie critic, because I’d be disagreeing with what seems to be everybody on the planet. I thought I was going to see a heist movie… and I did, I suppose… though I’m not too sure… and I don’t think the movie was sure, either. The Bank Job is the true story about this one guy who is this drug dealing pimp black radical gangster who gets accused of all said charges, but the cops can’t do anything because he has illicit photos of one of the royal family that he can use as blackmail. So the cops get this one chick to get Jason Statham (who gets a crew of his own) to find a way to rob the bank and safety deposit boxes that the photos are held in. Unfortunately, that’s not all they take, and they end up over their heads in numerous scandals such as dirty cops and compromising sexual photos of prominent figures.

I first have to say that, even though this was based on a true story, it seemed way too complicated for what it was. Don’t get me wrong, by the end of the movie I understood everything that was going on and wasn’t confused whatsoever, but during the movie, everything was twisting and turning and this was going on while that was happening and so-and-so was being undercover while this-that-and-the-other were doing whatever the hell else was going on. And to me, the undercover woman who was with the black radical guys seemed to be an unnecessary subplot just used to complicate the matter.

The first act of the movie seemed too random and confusing at the time (with an insane amount of nudity). The second act of the movie, the actual heist, was way too short. The third act of the movie, the part where all the crooked cops and whatnot are trying to get back their information and such, seemed way too long. It also seemed like the movie wasn’t sure what it was trying to be. The first act seemed like a dark comedy (with a bit of drama). The second act was like a heist drama (with a bit of dark comedy). And the third act was just a violent, overdramatic, depressing thriller. When that third act hit, I was shocked. I wasn’t expecting that amount of violence and such, or for some of the people to die who did. The first half of the movie just didn’t set me up for that.

It wasn’t a terrible movie by any means, but I don’t think it deserves the awesome praise it’s getting from what seems to be almost every professional critic. The acting was alright, and it was pretty funny at times. The big fight at the end of the movie was some Jason Statham action, as always. And I really liked the idea behind it: a bunch of small-time crooks robbing a bank, finding more than they can chew, and then trying to get out of the situation both alive and while trying to do the right thing. I just don’t think it was executed as well as it could have been.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

2 In 1: American Gangster and Inside Man.

The theme for this one would be Denzel Washington… and I can already tell I’ll probably be blasted for my views and opinions in this posting. Denzel, to me, is great. He’s great to watch, and he’s full of intensity. However, he really only plays one of two characters in each movie: good Denzel and bad Denzel (in respect to morals, not acting ability). This article has both. Please don't hurt me too bad.

American Gangster.

I had low expectations going into this movie. I figured it might have some exceptional acting, but overall, I thought it was going to be boring and overly long. Unfortunately, I was right. It’s the 1970s, Vietnam Era, and Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) is the new big heroin king. But Detective Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is looking for somebody to bust, and Frank just happens to end up at the top of the list.

Let’s get the bad out first (assuming I have some good). The first 20 minutes of this movie lost me. I had almost no idea what was going on. Once I got a handle on the situation, I realized I really couldn’t give a rat’s behind about Frank Lucas. His character had no depth or development. He was just boring. Detective Roberts was at least a bit more interesting with the whole family trouble aspect, but even that kind of goes to the wayside. What’s sad is that I’m more of a fan of Denzel than Crowe, and I enjoyed Crowe more than Denzel in this movie.

The Lucas family was vastly underused in the movie, I felt. And how the hell does Ruby Dee (Frank’s mother) get a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination? She’s in probably a grand total of 5 minutes in the 2 and a half hour movie, and speaks probably a total of 3 of that, if even. The Academy must have been incredibly desperate.

Another random note… it felt that every time an f-bomb was dropped in this movie, it was used in the wrong place and felt forced. And it’s sad when you notice that kind of thing. But this brings us to the acting. The acting was pretty good. Denzel was “bad Denzel,” which is always entertaining. Crowe was good, as well.

I don’t know… I just didn’t dig the movie. It was too long, and it seemed as if it wasn’t sure what it was trying to do. When something of importance actually happens, you’re left wondering how they got to that point or how it actually came about. It has the Ridley Scott epic feel, but it fell flat for me. It was a good effort, but not good enough. In other words, I think this movie is a bit overrated and tries too hard.

Feed Me, Seymour!

Inside Man.

This movie, on the other hand, is very entertaining, and stars “good Denzel.” Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) and his crew show up in a bank dressed up as painters, lock the place down, and seemingly try to rob it. Detective Frazier (Denzel) is the cop trying to figure out what’s going on. Meanwhile, Madeline White (Jodie Foster) is hired to get some information taken safely out of the bank that could ruin the owner (Christopher Plummer).

Heist movies are always great, in my opinion. This movie actually helped me get inspired and stay in the mood for my last novel, which is, in essence, a ‘perfect heist’ story. I just really enjoy the idea of incredibly intelligent bad guys who always know what they’re doing and can easily outsmart the good guys at every level.

Denzel’s acting is great, as always. Clive Owen is Clive Owen: deeply monotone and mysterious. But this time he does it with a mask over his face the majority of the time. And both characters have depth. They have purpose and are just round characters. As for Jodie Foster's character, the idea behind her character is cool, but I don’t necessarily think she was needed. The first time I saw the movie, I thought her character was completely pointless. The next time I saw it, I gathered a bit more purpose for the character, but that’s about it. I still think the script could have been written in a way to exclude her completely, even though she gave it a bit of edge. And there were, I admit, one or two scenes that she gave meaning to.

It’s hard to talk about this movie without giving much away. It’s a much more entertaining movie than the previous one, I thought, and the pacing is much better, as well. It has its faults, of course, but I don’t think they’re nearly as big. Great movie all around, though.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

R2D2... The One With Superheroes.

Yeah, so... there's been a bunch of superhero movie (not the actual Superhero Movie, but movies with superheroes) news lately... felt like sharing.

- First, it was just recently confirmed that Harley Quinn is going to be in The Dark Knight, played by Sarah Jayne Dunn. It wasn't confirmed how much she's actually going to be in the movie, but she'll be there.

- Man, that new Iron Man trailer is sweet.

- I read a few days back that the reason Galactus was just a floating blob of a cloud in Fantastic Four 2 was because they're waiting to reveal the actual Galactus in the Silver Surfer prequel/origin movie they're working on (which does not involve the Fantastic Four). That should hopefully be much cooler.

- Good God, who ISN'T going to be in the upcoming Wolverine movie? Will.i.am from the Black-Eyed Peas, Dominic Managhan from Lost and LOTR, and even Ryan Reynolds is gonna be in it (which is exciting). The most exciting, however, is not an actor, but a character. GAMBIT is *finally* going to be on film! It's just odd that they waited until the Wolverine prequel to put him in.

- I don't know what's funnier: the fact they're actually making an Astro Boy movie, or the fact that Astro Boy is gonna be played by Freddie Highmore.

- Oh, I know what's funnier... they're making a Shazam! movie (Billy Batson and the Legend of Shazam!). Seriously... Captain Marvel? And The Rock is playing the badguy, Black Adam.

- I can't tell if it's ironic or disturbing that Heroes co-stars Milo Ventimiglia and Hayden Panettiere are now dating, since a lot of fans wanted their characters Peter and Claire (respectively) to hook up on the show prior to finding out the characters were uncle and neice.

Anywho, I think that's about it for now!

CHARLIE BARTLETT.

Charlie Bartlett is a pretty simple movie: Charlie Bartlett (Anton Yelchin) has gotten kicked out of every private school, so his mother (Hope Davis) enrolls him in public school. It starts off bad for Charlie Bartlett, as he’s plagued by a bully, Murphy (Tyler Hilton). But soon, Charlie Bartlett becomes the most popular kid in school, acting as a psychiatrist to the students and prescribing them medications. Unfortunately, he’s also started seeing Susan (Kat Dennings), who happens to be the daughter of the troubled alcoholic principal (Robert Downey Jr.).

First, I might as well get it out of the way… there can be two different drinking games played during this movie: First, anytime somebody uses the full name of “Charlie Bartlett” instead of just “Charlie.” Second, anytime Robert Downey Jr. downs some liquor himself.

Okay, so on to the review. The movie is rather predictable, and you can pretty much figure out what’s gonna happen by the end of the movie. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good movie. Honestly, I really enjoyed it. It started off rather slow, as it feels it takes ages to get to the psychiatric stuff. But overall, it was really good and entertaining. And it had heart.

The acting was actually really good. Anton Yelchin (you might recognize him from Alpha Dog) does rather well, really, except for the really forced closing line of the movie. Kat Dennings (you might recognize her as the daughter in 40-Year-Old-Virgin) is the movie’s eye candy (and plays it well), but she acts her part out nicely, too. The props go to Robert Downey Jr., though, who was really able to pull off that whole down-on-his-luck drunk really well (…hmm…*cough*).

There were some really funny scenes, some really heartfelt scenes, and some really sad scenes (and it’s pretty easy to figure out which characters those might emit from very early on in the movie). I really don’t see the comparison people have been making to Ferris Bueller (granted, those are typically the people who have yet to see the movie). Oh, and I probably would have really rolled my eyes at the whole Ritalin segments had I not actually known people who have been on it and heard some Ritalin-induced horror stories. Anyway, it’s a great movie all on its own. I’d recommend it to anybody that doesn’t get easily annoyed by Anton Yelchin’s voice.

I Am McLovin!

VANTAGE POINT.

I will warn you now that there is going to be quite a bit of comparison in this review. The reason is because the idea behind this movie’s technique is rare, but has been done a few times before… imagine seeing a new movie that plays backwards: it would be impossible to review it without comparing it to Memento.

Anyway, like a few movies before it, such as 11:14, Go, Rashomon, and even the first half of Atonement, Vantage Point’s technique has the audience see an event from one perspective, rewind, and then see it all over again from another perspective until all the truth is out on the table. This time, the President (William Hurt) is shot during a peace conference, and the movie takes us through every important Point of View (POV), from a secret service agent (Dennis Quaid) to a tourist in the crowd (Forest Whitaker) to the bad guys at the end, until we know the entire story.

The one thing that this movie does differently than its predecessors (except maybe Atonement) is that it only shows a character’s POV up until right before their big climax, then it stops, rewinds, and starts again from somebody else’s POV, waiting to use all the climaxes together at the end. Another difference is that this has to be the most action-packed attempt at this technique I’ve yet to see. The action almost literally never stops, and it all culminates into a really cool car chase scene at the very end.

One of the improvements and drawbacks happens to be in when they do the rewinds. The point of multiple POV movies, at least in the past, has been to conceal a mystery until the final POV. But in doing this, each POV is fully completed upon their turn. This is the innovation and creativeness with this technique: having the ability to write a story where you can tell a full story from different POVs completely without giving anything away until the end. This movie simply stops right before something vital is revealed and keeps the viewer waiting until the very end of the movie when it compiles all of the climaxes into one uber-climax. It is an improvement because it keeps the audience in suspense until the end of the movie to find out what exactly happened with each character’s story. However, it’s a downfall because it can potentially annoy its audience (quite a few in my theater were very vocal about it, even after the fourth or fifth rewind). It also seems to say “we can’t write it well enough to keep everything a surprise if we finish each story individually.” I have to admit, though… the climax was rather suspenseful, and everything did come together fashionably well. It’s really a double-edged sword the way it was done.

Also, because the movie simply revolves around an action-packed sequence of roughly 10 minutes each (except for the longer climax POV), there’s very little time for character development… as there is none… but that’s really not the point of this movie, either. Along with no character development, the acting tends to be kinda bad every now and then, specifically from Dennis Quaid (moreso toward the end of the movie, where he really has some cheesy lines).

I found that the best POV and character was Forest Whitaker’s. He seemed to be the easiest to latch on to and connect with, probably because he’s the everyday tourist, the most human and relatable. He also, I believe, gives the best performance of them all in the movie. Though that is to be expected; I mean, come on, it’s Forest Whitaker.

The ending isn’t too predictable unless you paid attention to the movie trailer. But seriously, I even had it spoiled for me a few months back and I still didn’t expect it, mostly because I had both forgotten and gotten too wrapped up in the action to really think about it. The only bad thing about the big reveal is that it’s not really explained much, so it almost doesn’t make much sense, but I went with it anyway.

So overall, it was a great action movie that took a cool idea and put it to decent use (the thing that bothered me most is that it’s seemingly taking credit for creating this technique, when it’s been done a few times already, but with less commercial films). The acting could have been better, but this wasn’t made to be an Oscar winner. It’s a summer blockbuster that was accidentally released about 4 months early, apparently. And if you liked how Vantage Point was done, go see it done better with Go and 11:14 (they’re like this movie, but with less action and deeper characters). Time to rate this bad boy…

I Am McLovin!

ATONEMENT.

Finally came here, finally saw it, so here goes: My feelings on Atonement are quite mixed, really. But before I get into that, here’s the rundown: Robbie (James McAvoy) and Cecilia (Keira Knightley) are in love. Cecilia’s little sister Briony (Saoirse Ronan), in a fit of (supposed) jealousy and rage, accuses Robbie of a major crime he didn’t actually commit. This lie disrupts everybody’s lives, which are sent into disarray, making Briony grow up trying to be forgiven for what she did.

It’s really that simple. I also say supposed jealousy, because she at one point admits to having had a crush on Robbie, so I just figured that had something to do with it. But anyway, to the review. I enjoyed the first act (pre-war) of the movie the most. Saoirse Ronan was utterly engaging (those eyes were just captivating). Just everything that occurred in that first act made for some good drama and entertainment. The second act (war and 18-year-old Briony) started to lose me. It wasn’t bad; it just didn’t keep me nearly as entertained as the first act. The quite short third act (future Briony) was just bizarre, taking a big turn with a not-so-surprising reveal (I was already raising my eyebrow to the fact it was 3 weeks in the past during act two and Robbie was home from the war).

I really loved the rewinding and re-showing of scenes from different perspectives, but after the first act, that really slowed to a halt. Yet another reason I liked the first act the most.

As far as acting is concerned, Saoirse Ronan did amazingly well. Keira Knightley was okay, as was James McAvoy. However, I really wasn’t feeling the romance part of the story, which is really bad considering the movie is centered around their romance. I never cared if Robbie and Cecilia would ever get back with each other, nor did I really care if they would end up with each other in the first place. I felt almost no chemistry between them. Let me put it this way, I felt about 20x more chemistry between Dane Cook and Jessica Alba in Good Luck Chuck than I felt between these two. As for the character of Briony, Saoirse’s version was the best version. I didn’t give a hoot about the 18-year-old version, or really even the old version at the end. Neither were even close to being as captivating or watchable.

However, there were some excellent, excellent things about this movie. For starters, the music was amazing. I loved how, at least half the time, the props or noises from the sets ended up adding to the music (such as opening a door, lighting a cigarette lighter, or banging on the police car). Then, of course, the typewriter was the best. But on top of the music, the movie was visually stunning, as well, especially in the first act. However, after the first act ends, the movie seems to be more selective where it wants to be pretty or artsy. The most notable parts from the war sequence were walking down the grass and seeing the planes fly by in the stream next to them, and, obviously, the nearly five minute continuous shot on the beach. The last real cool shot of the movie was seeing 18-year-old Briony on what I’m assuming to be a train, and the lights flickering on her face.

Personally, I believe the music and the visuals make up for some of the issues, much like how the visuals of The Assassination of Jesse James made it a better movie for all its flaws. It’s a difficult movie to score, honestly, but I suppose I have to give it something…

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Is a woman really going to keep the exact same haircut for her entire life? Seriously now...)

DEFINITELY, MAYBE.

The selling point of this movie to me was Ryan Reynolds. I’ve loved him in everything he’s done. It’s a little different with this movie, as he’s playing something I don’t believe I’ve seen him do before: a dad. The premise is very simple: Maya (Abigail Breslin) has Sex Ed one day at school and goes home with her divorcing father Will (Ryan Reynolds) and asks about how she came to be. At first he refuses because it’s too complicated, but he decides to do it as a love story mystery type thing in which he changes all the women’s names. So thus begins the intertwining love adventures between Will and Emily (Elizabeth Banks), April (Isla Fisher), and Summer (Rachel Weisz).

As far as romantic comedies go, this one was pretty good. While it was predictable at times and had a by-the-book ending, it threw in a unique twist to the story, being the flashback-laden story, which the majority of the movie takes place in. For the most part, the acting was actually done very well, though it got pretty sappy and a bit cheesy toward the end. I still loved Ryan Reynolds in this, as he kept his usual Ryan Reynolds wit and charm. Rachel Weisz was okay, but her character was pretty boring to me. Elizabeth Banks was good, too, but my favorite, of course, was Isla Fisher (which is probably because the movie sets it up that way. In other words, if this had been your average Rom Com with only one main female to fall in love with, it would have been Isla Fisher).

The props, however, have to go to Kevin Kline’s horny professor, Hampton Roth. It was an interesting role for Kline, but it worked. He was entertaining every time he was on screen. Actually, he was probably the good half of the Rachel Weisz part of the story. On the other hand, Abigail Breslin, for the little bit of movie she was actually in (as I said, a huge chunk of the movie was in flashback), did very well. She actually had some of the funniest lines in the movie, but that could be because you don’t really expect a girl of her age to say some of the things she does. It catches you off guard.

All in all, I didn’t think the ‘mom’ was as predictable as everybody is saying, but the ending itself was quite predictable. But it fit, too, as this is a Rom Com. So yeah, it was pretty good for what it was. Ryan Reynolds wins me over again (it really sounds like I have a crush on the guy).

I Am McLovin!

(P.S. Did anybody else who saw it suddenly get the strange urge to go out and read Jane Eyre afterward?)

JUMPER.

Remember that movie a few years back called The Covenant? This movie is basically like that movie: a simple and relatively unimportant plot, really freakin awesome action, and an ending that makes you feel they’re setting it up for a trilogy that might never come. Except this one has Hayden Christensen in it.

The basic movie is thus: 15 year old David (Max Thieriot) is all crushing on 15 year old Millie (AnnaSophia Robb). He gives her a snow globe as a gift, but a bully throws it out on the ice. When he goes out to get it, he breaks through and is about to drown when he suddenly teleports to safety. His home life sucks as his mom (Diane Lane) ran off when he was 5, and his dad (Michael Rooker) is a drunk. So he runs away and starts a life of independence and bank robbery. So 8 years pass and David (Hayden Christensen) is living the good life, but decides to make a trip back home. He meets up with his old crush, Millie (Rachel Bilson) and decides to take her on a trip to Rome. However, he also meets up with a Paladin, people who hunt Jumpers, named Roland (Sam Jackson), as well as a fellow Jumper named Griffin (Jamie Bell). Griffin informs David that Paladins will kill everybody he knows and then him and welcomes him to the war. Action ensues.

Now, the premise is very cool, which made me super excited about the movie. However, besides the premise, all the movie has going for it is the action, unfortunately. As far as acting goes, it really isn’t the best, especially with Hayden, who seems to be channeling his performance as Anakin. His voice-over at the beginning couldn’t sound any more unenthused and dry. His acting in some of the scenes literally made an image of a piece of cardboard flash into my mind.

As for Millie, I liked AnnaSophia’s portrayal more than I did Rachel Bilson’s. They should have just left them 15 years old and let the two 15 year olds play the part. It would have been much better. And David and Millie’s first meeting after 8 years of being missing is bordering ridiculous. David’s dad and even Millie’s mom are all brought to tears because he’s just been missing and presumed dead for 8 years. But Millie is just like “Hey, what’s up?” like they had never been apart. Not to mention he shows up out of nowhere in 8 years, asks her to go to Rome after talking for about 10 minutes, and she accepts immediately.

And Sam Jackson wasn’t really in the movie a whole lot, to be honest (I mean, he had his fair share of scenes). But when he was, he said a lot of the same lines over and over again (“I’m from such-and-such government agency” and “Only God has the right to be everywhere at once!” and “He got away!”).

Oh, and Diane Lane’s subplot was almost completely irrelevant unless they plan on using it for a sequel. She literally only has 2 scenes in the entire movie, and one of them only lasts about 15 seconds at most.

The one character who did save the show, though, was Griffin. He was funny, witty, and a pretty neat character. Ironically, from what I’ve heard, he’s the only character that’s not from the original book (he was added just for the movie). The only thing I disliked about Griffin’s character was that he seemed contradictory with himself. The whole beginning he’s following Hayden around all stalker-like. But once they finally meet and he tells him about the Paladins, he no longer wants anything else to do with Hayden’s character whatsoever and complains because Hayden won’t leave him alone. It’s almost like “what’s the point, then?”

But what was really cool was the action. The visual effects and just the action in general is worth seeing this movie, especially toward the climax. It’s just super fun to watch. Unfortunately, a lot of things were left hanging and unanswered. You don’t know what happens to a handful of characters. Everything is just left with you asking “…but what about…?” And the screenplay was co-written by the same guy who did Fight Club, which is interesting. Oh, and for those interested, the soundtrack was on-again-off-again with me. Sometimes it had some really cool orchestral stuff, other times it was rather forgettable… so it mirrored the movie nicely.

So really, the only thing going for the movie is the action and such, which is insanely cool. If it weren’t for that, it’d probably have gotten a lower rating from me, but the action itself is worth seeing the movie.

Feed Me, Seymour!

10 Years, 10 Great Screenplays.

In light of the Writer’s Strike having just ended, I thought it might be a fun idea to write an article based around 10 really great movies within the last 10 years (1 movie per year) that were just incredibly smartly written. Whether it be dialogue, scenario, or just brilliance all around, something about each of these screenplays turned out 10 magnificent movies. Each of these descriptions isn’t overly long, and they say roughly the same thing. I just felt it was important to at least state some reasons why I thought these movies were chosen for their specific year. So let’s get started.

1997 – Chasing Amy.

Written by: Kevin Smith

Arguably one of Kevin Smith’s best movies (though maybe not his wittiest, which would go to Clerks), Chasing Amy is a story about a lesbian and the man in love with her. Whether you are straight, gay, or bi, you can’t deny that Chasing Amy has heart. And its script is really well done, at that. My personal favorite scene would be when Jason Lee is trying to explain to Ben Affleck why the relationship can’t work, using examples with Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Man-Hating Dyke. It’s just classic Smith dialogue.

1998 – The Big Lebowski.

Written by: Joel and Ethan Coen

Very quick, smart, and hilarious. It’s a movie full of memorable characters and scenarios. And when the main character is known as The Dude, you know you have a classic (in one form or another) on your hands. Fuck it, let’s go bowling.

1999 – Fight Club.

Written by: Jim Uhls (based on the book by Chuck Palahniuk)

This was the hardest year to choose from. Do you have any idea how many great movies came out in 1999? A large chunk of them, actually. It was almost like everybody was afraid the world was going to end with Y2K and decided to get all their best movies out all at once. From movies such as The Matrix, The Sixth Sense, and American Beauty, it was incredibly hard to pick just one. But I finally decided to stick with Fight Club. Yes, it’s based on a book, but it was just so smart and witty that it was hard not to choose it. There’s so many scenes in this movie that are memorable, dialogue-wise, it’s hard to even pick one thing. And to top that off, you even have that narration about the ‘I am Jack’s’ such-and-such. At the very least, it was intelligent adaptation.

2000 – Requiem for a Dream.

Written by: Hubert Selby Jr.

On the other hand, 2000 was the year of a lot of crap, with such gems as Battlefield Earth. It seems that in getting out all their best ideas in 1999, and upon realizing the world didn’t end come 2000, they realized “Well hell, we still have movies to make… um…” I’ll be honest, I haven’t completely watched this movie all the way through because I didn’t care for it while I was watching it. It’s possible that it was because I was watching it after midnight, but still… this was one of the only highly acclaimed movies of the year, so I chose it.

2001 – Memento.

Written by: Christopher Nolan (based on a short story by Jonathan Nolan)

(See what I did there?). And that scene where he’s running from somebody thinking he’s chasing somebody and realizes he’s being chased instead is classic. The idea behind this movie was brilliant in and of itself. This movie can’t get enough recognition. So what can I say about Memento?

2002 – Donnie Darko.

Written by: Richard Kelly

This movie is such a mind-freak (sans Chris Angel). It still boggles the minds of us years later. It’s twisted, dark, and smart. Time travel is tricky business, and this movie handles in a great way.

2003 – Adaptation.

Written by: Charlie and ‘Donald’ Kaufman (based… around?... a book by Susan Orlean)

After the first time I saw this movie, I couldn’t watch another movie without it messing with my brain. This is the movie about movies that will forever alter the way you see movies. Love or hate Nicolas Cage, this is one of his best flicks. Not to mention it was written by Charlie and Donald Kaufman about Charlie and Donald Kaufman… and Donald Kaufman doesn’t even exist. Seriously… a movie about adapting a book that cannot be adapted so he adapts his own life and merges it with the story of the book he can’t adapt… all of this being based on the true story of how Charlie Kaufman being unable to adapt a book that cannot be adapted so he adapts his… yeah, you get it. My brain hurts, too.

2004 – Shaun of the Dead.

Written by: Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg

This movie has one of my favorite scripts in existence. I continue my claim that this movie was one of the most brilliant things ever written. Everything in this movie is either said or done at least twice in two different circumstances. And everything that happens in the latter half of the movie is foreshadowed in the first half. It had to have taken ages to plan this movie out to the degree it was. I still catch stuff in this movie after countless times of seeing it. It’s a hoot.

2005 – Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang.

Written by: Shane Black (based on a book by Brett Halliday)

Regardless of the entirely overcomplicated and confusing ending, this movie was insanely quick-witted and smart. The story is tight and the characters are vibrant. It’s funny and it’s just good all around.

2006 – Brick.

Written by: Rian Johnson

Originally, this year had gone to Stranger than Fiction. But then I realized that Brick came out the same year, and I already had one movie that was somewhat similar to Fiction in premise (Adaptation). So Brick it is. It has a great idea: Take a classic Noir Film with your basic 20s detective or whatnot… and set it in a present-day high school with the same type of dialogue and everything. You have to know what you’re in for before watching the movie or you’ll be utterly lost and confused, but once you get into it you realize how well and smartly written this movie really was.

2007 – Juno.

Written by: Diablo Cody

Possibly not the best film of 2007, but it was certainly one of the most original and funny. The characters are round (in the literature sense), the dialogue was fast and snappy, and everything about this movie screamed “love me, I’m brilliant.” You can’t help but love the character of Juno and her quick wit.

2 In 1: The Dead Girl and 11:14.

For this 2 In 1, I’m concentrating on two movies that have a large ensemble cast of decently-known actors and actresses, that have 5 inter-connected stories, and that have at least one dead body at the center of its plot. Also, both movies end with the last story being the one of the actual dead person. The first one I will discuss, The Dead Girl, is a movie I just saw on television for the first time, and it reminded me somewhat of another movie I actually own that is entitled 11:14.

The Dead Girl.

This movie’s cast is just full of ‘wow, I wasn’t expecting them to be in this movie’ moments. The more well-known names on the list include: Toni Collette, Giovanni Rabisi, Rose Byrne, James Franco, Marcia Gay Harden, Britney Murphy, and Josh Brolin. Each story is broken down into a title segment, and each segment is connected in some form or fashion to this particular dead girl. The basic stories are as follows:

The Stranger focuses on the very timid and quiet Arden (Toni Collette) who lives at home with her verbally abusive mother (Piper Laurie). One day, she stumbles across the dead body of a young woman (Britney Murphy) and calls it into the police. Unfortunately, this gets her some attention that she doesn’t want, nor that she can really handle, especially when a very frank grocery bagger, Rudy (Giovanni Rabisi) grows attracted to her and asks her out.

The Sister focuses on Leah (Rose Byrne), a young mortician whose sister disappeared 15 years prior, and whose mother (Mary Steenburgen) is overly obsessed with continuing to find her, which just drives Leah into a deeper and deeper depression. But when Leah stumbles across a Jane Doe of the young dead girl, she believes it might be her sister. With hopes of closure ensuing, Leah is able to finally free her emotions and become attached to long-time crush, Derek (James Franco).

The Wife focuses on Ruth (Mary Beth Hurt), a religious woman whose husband, Carl (Nick Searcy), owns a storage facility. He often leaves her, sometimes for long periods of time, which drives Ruth into an angry depression. However, when Ruth accidentally stumbles upon a storage unit that has stuff in it, mostly a dresser full of women’s clothes, when it’s supposed to be empty, Ruth starts wondering if her husband is behind these recent disappearances and murders.

The Mother focuses on Melora (Marcia Gay Harden), the mother of the dead girl after her identity is found. Her daughter had run away from home to Los Angeles and became a hooker. Melora goes to where her daughter had lived and learns as much about her daughter as she can from her old roommate and friend, Rosetta (Kerry Washington), including the fact that her daughter has a daughter of her own.

The Dead Girl focuses on Krista (Britney Murphy), the actual dead girl before she dies. This is the shortest of the stories and basically focuses on Krista trying to get a birthday present to her daughter by the next day, including trying to bum a ride off her friend and occasional lover, Tarlow (Josh Brolin).

Overall, the acting is really good, but there was just something that felt lacking, and I can't put my finger on it. The movie starts off awkwardly with The Stranger, as Toni Collette’s performance is very quiet, subtle, and awkward in and of itself. The scenes between Giovanni’s character and hers can best be described as a tense awkwardness. But this is in a good way, considering that’s the character’s point. This first segment is also the most beautifully shot. The Sister is decent, but it underused James Franco, who really brought the Charisma to the segment. When The Wife begins, I felt immediately annoyed with Ruth and her mannerisms, but it actually became one of the most interesting segments of the movie as it focused on the possible killer. The Mother, though, was the best segment, I have to say. It was the most informative, the best acted, and the most heartfelt. You can really feel Marcia Gay Harden’s sadness over her daughter, as well as the subtle pain from Kerry Washington. The movie ends with The Dead Girl, and it felt like a pretty weak ending. There wasn’t much special or surprising about what happened. You don’t see her get killed, but you know it’s coming. Though, the sole voice singing over the ending credits is very haunting. I had a hard time scoring this movie, because it did have a huge emotional impact... but like I said, something just felt missing.

I Am McLovin!

11:14.

I’ve discussed this movie before in my Top 10 Twists article. Therefore, I won’t spoil the ending here. If you want to know what happens, you can see it there. However, here is the list of the biggest names in the movie: Henry Thomas, Hilary Swank, Shawn Hatosy, Colin Hanks, Ben Foster, Patrick Swayze, Jason Segel, and Rachel Leigh Cook. This review will be pretty short to make up for The Dead Girl’s being rather long. To make it easy, I can just copy and paste my plot synopsis from my Top 10 Twists article, as it basically says it all:

A story is told from five different perspectives that revolves around the events that occur at 11:14 PM. 1) Jack (Henry Thomas) is driving down the road talking on a phone. The next thing he knows, a human body lands on his windshield from out of nowhere. 2) A group of misfits (Stark Strands, Colin Hanks, Ben Foster) is driving down the road when they accidentally hit a girl. 3) Duffy (Shawn Hatosy) wants to rob the convenient store that he and his friend Buzzy (Hilary Swank) work at so he can give his girlfriend Cheri (Rachel Leigh Cook) money for an abortion. 4) Frank (Patrick Swayze) is Cheri's dad, and goes out to try and protect her when he stumbles upon the dead body of Aaron (Blake Heron), the guy Cheri went out with that night. 5) Cheri's story.

I really love this movie. It’s similar to the movie Go, in which you see one story, and the movie rewinds and you see the whole thing again from a different point of view. By the time the movie is over, you know everything that lead up to 11:14 PM and why. I actually like this movie better than Go, and I think it was just done really well. The only bad thing is that Ben Foster really got the short end of the stick in this role (…that’s a really bad joke for those who have seen the movie). The acting might not be the best in the world, but the story makes up for it. Plus, dark comedies are awesome.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

You know the drill: Oscar Movie + Small Town = Me Going ASAP. This time it was No Country for Old Men. This movie is about Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) who, while out hunting one day, stumbles upon a drug deal gone badly, as well as a couple million dollars in a suitcase. He does everything he can do to keep the money, but he’s being pursued by a crazy killer, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), who is leaving bodies in his trail. However, local police officer Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is also trying to find him, but to protect him.

For the most part, this movie was excellent. The acting was great, the story was good, and it was overall intriguing. There was very little music, but that was okay. The acting was good on all accounts, although Javier Bardem was very intimidating all on his own (he even made me nervous). And Anton’s air gun thing was an awesome weapon.

There’s only one real downer, and that’s the last 15-20 minutes or so of the movie, whenever the motel thing occurs and everything after that. It’s just like “that’s it? That’s how it ends? That’s lame.” It reminded me of Sunshine, except less confusing; it was just really disappointing. I guess you could call it anti-climactic, in more ways than one. And I'm pretty sure I understand what happened. I think I was able to put everything together (if you want my theory, hit me up in the comments). I still think the ending sucked.

Honestly, that’s about all I have to say about it. Great acting, great characters (and I almost laughed when Woody Harrelson appeared, because I totally wasn’t expecting it), and a decent story. It did remind me a bit of Fargo, but much better. Fargo annoyed the crap out of me. I couldn’t stand that movie when I watched it (I know, blasphemy). Anywho, I guess I’ll just score it, then…

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(Edit: After going back and reading Fletch from Blog Cabins' review of the movie, I have to say it's quite funny that our reviews are actually insanely similar, even down to mentioning Sunshine.)

2 In 1: Jesse James and King of Kong.

Every now and then I buy a couple movies on DVD and, because of the randomly silly rule I set for myself with this review blog (only give formal reviews to movies in theater, everything else gets discussed in some kind of article), I find it increasingly difficult to actually do just that. However, it’s always fun trying to find loopholes to my rule (because I’m too stubborn to break it). Therefore, I’ve come up with this idea to do an article where I just review two movies on DVD or whatnot together, but in a shorter fashion. So here I go.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

First I’ll start with the good. The acting was great, and I’m stumped as to how Casey Affleck received an Oscar nod but Brad Pitt did not. Both were great, but Brad Pitt was just purely fantastic. The whole time watching, I never thought “hey, that’s Brad Pitt.” But anyway, as I said, the acting rocked. Another great thing, which is a vast understatement, is the cinematography. This was really one of the most beautifully shot films I have seen in a long time. Every frame of this movie felt like a piece of art. Finally, the movie’s musical score was awesome, as well, especially the song played during the initial train robbery and at the end after Jesse James gets shot (if you call me on a spoiler for that, you need to be slapped). I loved that theme.

If this movie had any downfall, it was the actual story. Or the lack of one, really. There were quite a few times in this movie where I had no idea what the hell was going on (moreso in the first hour and a half or so than the second half of the movie). But really, there is no over-arching plot. It’s seemingly just a bunch of random occurrences strung together, like somebody opened up a biography of Jesse James, pointed out some key chapters, and filmed it. And, like the title, the movie was a tad too long. Without the ending credits, it’s about 2.5 hours long, with half of that time frame being scenes mostly unimportant to the little story there was. It just seemed to jump from one character to the next and back again with nothing in between, and the voice-over narration didn’t do much, as it was basically reading from the aforementioned biography book detailing what will happen to characters after the timeframe of the movie. I’m a very visual learner, so following along with a history lecture in an auditory fashion was very difficult for me.

However, that doesn’t make this a bad movie. I really think the great acting and the beautifully stunning cinematography keep it pinned to a high rating. And if this movie doesn’t win the Best Cinematography Oscar, I’ll be upset. It better. Anywho, my rating is…

A Keanu 'Whoa'

King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters.

Now THIS is a great movie. I can’t comment on the acting, because there wasn’t any. It’s a documentary, so these are just real people doing their thing. I can’t really comment on cinematography, because, as I said, it’s a documentary, and those aren’t known for breath-taking camera angles and wide-lens masters. But what I can discuss is entertainment value. This documentary really feels like it’s a scripted movie, though it isn’t. You have your villain and overall hypocritical jackass, Billy Mitchell. You also have your down-on-his-luck, family man, school-teacher, and overall underdog, Steve Wiebe (pronounced Wee-Bee). You have your villain’s henchman, Brian Kuh. And you have the nice, old middleman, Walter Day.

For those that don’t know, this movie is about the ultra-competitive sport that is arcade games, specifically Donkey Kong. Billy Mitchell took the all-time high score back in 1982 and kept his title. However, after being laid off from work, Steve Wiebe takes up Donkey Kong to pass some time and thinks it might be fun to try and beat the high score. What he didn’t realize is the hardcore world he was getting him and his family into. And after he beats Billy’s score (by a lot) and submits it for the records, it’s refused by a really depressing series of events. So this leads Steve to go to any competition around the U.S. to try and publicly beat Billy’s score.

I didn’t know what to expect when going into this. I had heard nothing but good things, so my expectations were rather high. And, needless to say, they stayed that way. It starts off a bit slow, but once it really gets into it, it’s addictingly entertaining, much like video games themselves. It was a lot like watching Survivor, I think, because you grow attached to some people (Steve and Walter), annoyed by others (Brian), and just plain hate some (Billy). Seriously, Brian Kuh reminded me of like a cartoon sidekick, willing to hump his master’s leg and do any evil deed that was wished, while Billy often made me think back to characters like Dr. Claw from Inspector Gadget. He never showed his face, but he was always in the background doing dastardly deeds.

Anyway, this movie was great, entertaining, and funny. By the end, I was gripping my bed sheets in suspense, just praying that Steve would beat Billy’s high score. So I suppose this one will get…

Royale With Cheese

THE EYE.

I had seen, and loved, the original Chinese version of The Eye a few years back. When I first heard they were remaking it, I was both excited and nervous. This project has been in the process of being made for a long time now. It had gone off radar for a while, but then, not too long ago, it showed up again, and it was starring Jessica Alba. So now that it’s out, I’m finally able to give my verdict. To catch people up, The Eye is about a blind violinist, Sydney (Jessica Alba), who gets a corneal transplant. However, she soon starts seeing things that she shouldn’t be, namely horrible situations, ghosts, and the very angry ‘shadows’ that transport them to the afterlife.

Now it’s been a while since I’ve seen the original, but I did get flashbacks while watching this version. So, in other words, there are some similarities between the two. However, I still think the original was better (of course). This one didn’t awe me as much (or creep me out as much) as the original, though that could be partially due to the annoying jerks sitting behind me who liked to talk really loud and refuse to silence their phones (Four times it rang, and he answered. FOUR).

Anywho, the only real characters you can get attached to are Sydney and this dude named Miguel, though Miguel isn’t in the movie enough to really matter. But he’s a nice guy nonetheless. Everybody else is either ‘blah’ or a jerk. The biggest ‘blah’ character is Sydney’s sister, Helen (Parker Posey), who gives such a mediocre performance that she’s really more like a random woman in the movie. The biggest jerk would be the potential love interest, Paul (Alessandro Nivola), who really is just a big a-hole. Sydney even calls him on it at one point. But then they randomly throw in scenes where you’re supposed to like him, or that Sydney’s character is supposed to grow more attached to him, but it just doesn’t work. The whole time you’re just sitting there like “This dude’s an ass.”

The visuals were good, though the ‘shadows’ reminded me of like a mix between Voldemort and the vamps from I Am Legend. The movie had a few creepy moments, but really only one or two big jump-scares. The original, again, was much creepier, though; especially the elevator scene, which was much more effective in the Chinese version. And the “Have you seen my report card?” kid in the original was creepy, though the one in this version was almost laughable.

Though, the movie wasn’t horrible. It did manage to entertain for what it was. But it didn’t do anything special, either. There was even a point in the movie where it makes fun of itself, as Sydney is about to say “I see dead people,” but Paul finishes her sentence and then laughs in her face. So in the end, this movie wasn’t awesome, but it didn’t suck, either. If you thought the premise was cool, you can check this one out, but I’d much recommend the original first. At least that one doesn’t have voice-over narration by Jessica Alba. The Eye gets…

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

(P.S. The girl who plays Ana Christina Martinez totally looks like the girl who plays Alex on Lost. I would have sworn it was her while watching the movie, but it’s not.)

THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

This movie finally decided to come to my little town, so I went and saw it ASAP. I know I’m a little late into the game with this movie, but here I go anyway. I pray nobody decides to burn me alive over this review, because I’m not giving it a ‘perfect’ or ‘best film of the year’ like basically everybody else. Granted, it’ll be close, but not the best. Anywho, now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, I can get into the review. The movie is about Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his quest for Oil. He’s brought to a small California town by Paul Sunday (Paul Dano). There he stays, at first, with the Sunday family, including Paul’s brother, Eli (also Paul Dano). And he finds oil. That’s about the gist of it.

Just to get it out of the way first, the acting in this movie was phenomenal. I can totally see why Daniel Day-Lewis was nominated for an Oscar. The character of Daniel was breath-takingly acted. However, everybody gushes over Day-Lewis, but not many people focus on who I thought was the guy who stole every scene he was in, Paul Dano. He played his character(s) with such subtlety (at least when he wasn’t doing the preaching thing) that you just wanted to strangle him. It was that good. I actually realized that the parts I disliked most about the movie were the parts that Paul Dano weren’t in. And that brings us to the movie’s first strike.

There were some really confusing parts in this movie. Two parts strike me the most. First, the opening 10 minutes (AKA the stuff where nobody says a damn thing). The first 10 minutes bugged me for a few reasons. And no, it wasn’t because nothing was being said. I thought that was fine. It’s just I had a hard time understanding what the heck was going on. First he’s digging for silver, and then he’s hunting oil? Where was the transition? How did he go from one to the other? And why? If the point was the oil, then why start the movie with the silver mine? I just completely did not follow that. Another thing about the first 10 minutes was the music, but I’ll get to that in a moment. The second part of the movie that struck most to me was the entire chunk of the movie involving Daniel’s ‘brother’. Now it wasn’t his actual brother that bothered me. That was fine. I just mean the entire portion of the movie starting when he shows up and ending at the portion when he… goes away. Everything that happens during that period of time makes little sense, especially why Daniel’s son seemed to be so pissed off at his dad, and why he sets the cabin on fire. There were some other things in that part of the movie, but I can’t remember specifics. It just felt like that whole section brought the movie down a notch for me (and, coincidentally, this entire section was void of Paul Dano, as were the first 10 minutes. I smell conspiracy!).

Now I mentioned the music. Again, the music was great, for the most part, and was really fitting for most of the scenes. But there were two or three scenes in which the music felt so badly placed that it took me out of the movie. For instance, the first 10 minutes of the movie… nothing exciting is really happening, yet the movie is playing this really tense and scary music like you’d find in a killer-chasing-victim scene of a thriller. It was just completely out of place. And there were at least one or two other times in the movie this happened.

However, those are the only faults I found with the movie. Everything else was spectacular, from the acting to the visuals (Though I still maintain what I said for the LAMB posting that it’s great, but probably won’t win Art Direction. But what do I know?).

So now, for the first time using my new rating system, I give There Will Be Blood…

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I drink your milkshake! I drink it up! *slurp* - If there were a ‘Best Line in a Movie’ Oscar, that would take it.)

(P.P.S. It took me a large chunk of the movie to realize it, but I realized that there were quite a few times when Daniel Day-Lewis' voice reminded me of Sean Connery.)