Disapointing a sequal that is worse than the original is very rare(for me). The three main problums are:
1.IT'S 90 F****** MINUTES LONG
2. Galatgus is a F****** CLOUD
3. THE SILVER SURFER CANNOT KILL GALATGUS
$ HE'S A...
[+] Read Full Review

Disapointing a sequal that is worse than the original is very rare(for me). The three main problums are:
1.IT'S 90 F****** MINUTES LONG
2. Galatgus is a F****** CLOUD
3. THE SILVER SURFER CANNOT KILL GALATGUS
$ HE'S A F****** CLOUD

Three words: Pile of s***

best movie of all time. filled with special effects and action this movie also finishes all of their story lines

He is lost, he is alone, and he is 3 million lightyears away from home. An exta terrestrial is left behind, and he is befriended by a boy named Elliot, and his older brother Micheal, and his sister Girte. They call him E.T. They help E.T. try and...
[+] Read Full Review

He is lost, he is alone, and he is 3 million lightyears away from home. An exta terrestrial is left behind, and he is befriended by a boy named Elliot, and his older brother Micheal, and his sister Girte. They call him E.T. They help E.T. try and go back home, and protect him from government scientist. E.T. is an instant classic film, and still is a strong film scince 1982. This is one of Spielburge's best work. This movie had outstanding performances by Henry Thomas, as Elliot. The most classic and the most famous part that the audience enjoyed when the film first came out the theaters was the flying bikes, where Elliot, Micheal, Tyler, Steve, and Greg were all flying high on their bikes, and the most tear jerking part was when E.T. left where his last words to Elliot was "I'll be right here." This movie had many favorite quotes like "Ouch", and like "E.T. phone home." E.T. is a spectacular film, and very entertaining. Steven Spielburge's directing was outstanding, and amazing, in a film where it isn't his type of movie. Overall E.T. is an outstnding, touching, enjoying, and tear jerking film where all will enjoy

Dr. No is the first of the Bond films. Though it dosen't have the flasy Aston Martin or the gadgets, Dr. No does have the plot, the villian, the girls, and the famous entrance of Sean Connery saying "Bond. James Bond". Sean Connery is...
[+] Read Full Review

Dr. No is the first of the Bond films. Though it dosen't have the flasy Aston Martin or the gadgets, Dr. No does have the plot, the villian, the girls, and the famous entrance of Sean Connery saying "Bond. James Bond". Sean Connery is great as 007. He looks the part and acts it well. He is especially good in the casino entrance and later when he cold-bloodly shoots Professer Dent. Joesph Wiseman is a great Bond villian. he has a sense of menace that has been matched by few other villian in the history of cineama. He has the normal Bond villian things like a deformatiy (in the form of his metal gloves), the lair (brillantly designed by Ken Adam), and the end fight with 007. Ursuala Andress is great as the sexy and independant if not naive girl honey Rider. Her entrance is worth watching the whole film to see. Jack Lord is great as Felix Leiter, Bond's friend and contact. The sets are excellent. Ken Adam began a long held Bond tradition with his sets. The Music is low key, but THIS is the first Bond film. Terence Young brought a lot of style to this film, as did Peter Hunt's excellent editing. This is a great Bond film. Go see it!

James Bond fans had to wait an extra year for this movie to come out, because Pierce Brosnan wanted a year off from playing James Bond. You would think that with the extra year, the wirters could come up with something semi original, but sadly...
[+] Read Full Review

James Bond fans had to wait an extra year for this movie to come out, because Pierce Brosnan wanted a year off from playing James Bond. You would think that with the extra year, the wirters could come up with something semi original, but sadly this doesn't happen. You would think that the end result would have been better. This is the 20th movie in the series and this movie borrows something from every film. I am a huge James Bond fan, and I wish the writers could come up with something original. Bond being captured was a step into the right direction. And for those of you who think Bond should never be captured and that he should always get away, read Ian Fleming's first Bond book, Casino Royale. Bond in that book is tortured. There are two things that I didn't like about this movie that really stand out at me and those are Halle Berry and director Lee Tamahori, but lets first go over why I didn't like Berry. The reason why I didn't like Halle Berry much is because of the character she played, Jinx. Jinx is a fellow agent and helps James Bond towards the ending of the movie. Since Halle Berry played the role I think she kinda took the spolight away from James Bond. Its a James Bond movie and its biggest character should be James Bond. Also, I didn't like the short haircut she had throughout the movie. With the exception of Carey Lowell, I don't think any other Bond girl has had short hair. The Bond girls should look feminine not masculine. Also, if they are planning on making a Jinx movie, I think this is a dumb idea. Who would want to see that movie? Now on to Lee Tamahori. I hate what Tamahori did in this movie and that is the overusage of CGI. Bond movies should never contain CGI unless its to improve a shot or to create something that isn't there. CGI in a Bond film should never be used during a major action scene. When I saw Bond parasurfing down the waterfall, I laughed. It looked really pathetic and poorly done. Bond should not become like a XXX type movie in which an action consists of more CGI, instead of using stunt men to perform the stunts themselves. The Bond movies have been famous for using real stuntmen and have tried to stay away from CGI. In Bond 21, there should be next to NONE of CGI Die Another Day is Pierce Brosnan's Moonraker. Ever Bond actor has had a movie like this. Then the next movie to follow would be a more down to earth Bond movie, which is what I think should/will happen in Bond 21. The next film should be just like what the producers did after making Moonraker, in making For Your Eyes Only, which I think is one of the best Bond movies. Bond needs to be more realistic in the next movie, or else the series will go down a path in which it doesn't want to go. That path would lead them to being like standard action movies that are unbelievable and sometimes funny to laugh at. BOND 21 MUST BE A FOR YOUR EYES ONLY TYPE MOVIE, I CAN NOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH. As for Pierce Brosnan, I think Bond 21 should be his last. He is 50 right now and by the time this movie will be out, he will either be 51 (2004 release) or 52 (2005). He is getting up there in age, and I think it showed in Die Another Day. Then once he leaves the series, the film after that (Bond 22) should be released in the year 2007 because of the 007 on the end. Who would be my top choice to replace Brosnan? IMO, I think Hugh Jackman would be the best for the job with Christian Bale being second and Clive Owen third. I think Jackman just fits the part perfectly and by the time 2007 rolls around, he would be around the right age. The same can be said for Bale. I think if Owen were to be cast, I think we would get the same type of Bond movies that Dalton made, and the general public didn't like those movies, especially License to Kill which opened to a 4th spot at the box office in the summer of 1989. I thought Dalton was good and I would rank him 4th out of the 5 Bonds. I know that sounds bad, but the first three were just better than what he did and that is saying something, Dalton was really good. Overall, I liked Die Another Day because it was part of the Bond series. I thought some of the action scenes were good (exception of the parasurfing)and the music as well. It is nowhere near being a classic Bond movie, but its good for what it is.

Sean Connery returns after a 4 year (or 1 movie) absence as gentleman spy James Bond once again after Blofeld in revenge from....wait I can't spoil On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Anyways, Connery comes back it seems to give a performance bad...
[+] Read Full Review

Sean Connery returns after a 4 year (or 1 movie) absence as gentleman spy James Bond once again after Blofeld in revenge from....wait I can't spoil On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Anyways, Connery comes back it seems to give a performance bad enough to equal the last one he was in (You Only Live Twice). Charles Grey tries to take over what Telly Sevallis created in Ernst Blofeld, Bond's archenemy but just can't. Connery leaves...again..and ushers in the new Bond.

“The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe� is a magnificent film. After the success of “The Lord of the Rings� and “Harry Potter� on film, there is already a high standard that...
[+] Read Full Review

“The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe� is a magnificent film. After the success of “The Lord of the Rings� and “Harry Potter� on film, there is already a high standard that has been set for film adaptations of beloved novels and stories. C. S. Lewis’ classic story of the land beyond the wardrobe has been brought to the screen with grace and care. There is no lavish spectacle that takes the viewer’s mind off of the story…even though there are times when the visuals are awe inspiring. With such a short story to follow, the screenwriters had the task of “filling in� the blanks to create a film with some length beyond that of a TV movie. This was done with care and without added subplots or rabbit trails that distracted from the original story. Andrew Adamson’s direction was noteworthy. Having only directed the “Shrek� films, this was no small task to undertake…and he did it well. The children, who could easily have been the films downfall if miscast, were excellently directed and the film as a whole was a success because of the care that Adamson put into it. There were more than a few moments where Adamson relied too heavily on suspense to build unneeded tension in a scene—but it did not pass the point of tolerance. The acting of the children was wonderful. They believably became siblings and the characterization of the children was matched so well with the characters in the book. The most notable acting in the film was that of Tilda Swinton. Her portrayal of the White Witch/Jadis was absolutely chilling. She was kind and eerie at the same time and did very well when it came to playing the manipulative side of the Witch. The supporting cast was excellent. Jim Broadbent as the professor was absolutely delightful and no other actor could have brought the same charm to the role. The visuals were the weakest part of the film. With today’s technology in CGI, there is no excuse for poor special effects. Regretfully, WETA only had a say in the physical special effects—like that of the beasts and the elaborate costuming. The digital work was shoddy and could have been much better. Aslan did look good and believable, but perhaps they spent all of there time trying to perfect that aspect of the digital animation and ran out of time to work on anything else. The natural landscapes were exhilarating and the cinematography was well done. All of the sets that were used were wonderful and added great color to the story. The screenplay was very well done. At times, there were moments that went on a little too long…but for the most part, the film had good pacing. The adaptation of the book was one of the best in recent years. There was little deviation to the original text and the main story points were all covered. C. S. Lewis’ work has been made into a fine film which will hopefully cause others to go back and read the original text. Remember, there are seven books in all and this story only touches the surface of the world of Narnia.

I didn't expect it to be as good as the first, but it is still good. The reason many people don't like it is because the entire movie and set sets off to weird of a vibe for a Batman movie. Yes, Tim Burton did good on the first but this is just...
[+] Read Full Review

I didn't expect it to be as good as the first, but it is still good. The reason many people don't like it is because the entire movie and set sets off to weird of a vibe for a Batman movie. Yes, Tim Burton did good on the first but this is just going overboard with changing the style of a batman movie. To me, it will always be a good movie because I grew up with it as a kid. It does have some good fight scenes, but it lacked some. It's worth seeing for fans of batman like me.

Help us Tim Burton! Where are you in our time of need? Where are you when we have a horrible actor for Batman, a overly eager sidekick, a pitiful female role by Nicole Kidman, and two villians, one who you are supposed to laugh at but you don't...
[+] Read Full Review

Help us Tim Burton! Where are you in our time of need? Where are you when we have a horrible actor for Batman, a overly eager sidekick, a pitiful female role by Nicole Kidman, and two villians, one who you are supposed to laugh at but you don't (Riddler), and you aren't supposed to laugh at but you do (Two-Face). Seriously, a demented villian with Harvey Lee Jones? Did you see how lame Two-Face's character was in this film? And I can't even begin about the Riddler, who was meant to be funny (why they hired Jim Carrey, a funny guy like him should stay away from this) but wasn't even close. You have a person who changes costumes, for God's sake every scene. He had to have atleast 10 different riddler costumes in that movie. And both villian's base of operations, the iron island with the mind-control device...where did it come from? How did he build it in a matter of...days!?
Oh, and you'll love Gotham City...now they drive around on statues and buildings are held into the air by giant gold statues. What happened to Gotham City before it became GOTHIC CITY? Bottom line: This movie did not need to be made. It ruins the success of the first two.

Ummmm i thought this was one of my least favorite Batman movies it needs a lot of work and it was kind of a little cheesy. But yet i still loved the casting i thought Uma was a perfect Poison Ivy but was to girly girl she was kind of boring....
[+] Read Full Review

Ummmm i thought this was one of my least favorite Batman movies it needs a lot of work and it was kind of a little cheesy. But yet i still loved the casting i thought Uma was a perfect Poison Ivy but was to girly girl she was kind of boring. Arnold was a good Mr. Freeze he just kind of sucked at acting in this movie but i dont know it was ok and i wish it was better because it could of been and should of been. I think Tim Burton should come back and fix these movies before they go down the drain even more.This time around Batman needs saving.

Dark overtones sets the scope of this expansive retelling of a crime fighting caped crusader inspired by Frank Miller graphic novel ‘The Dark Knight Returns’ and based on the DC comic classic by Bob Kane. With the unexpected cruel...
[+] Read Full Review

Dark overtones sets the scope of this expansive retelling of a crime fighting caped crusader inspired by Frank Miller graphic novel ‘The Dark Knight Returns’ and based on the DC comic classic by Bob Kane. With the unexpected cruel death of his parents, millionaire Bruce Wayne [Michael Keaton] lives a solitude life of swallowed anger and sufferation. Gotham City is rampantly over-run by crime, amply frustrated with the situation Wayne channels his disturbing anger to deliver his own breed of justice in the form of a vigilante, disguised as costume wielding hero known as Batman. The Dark Hero is faced with the most diabolical villian in Jack Napier a.k.a. The Joker [Jack Nicholson], who’s no hold barred relentless crime streak mixed with his laughable demeanors causes quite a showdown. Artistically creative, director Tim Burton delivers a magnificent spectacle of fantasy styled rendition with an excellent storyline of well explained in-depth structure written for the screen by Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren. Burton masterful vision mixed with the Academy Award winning Art Direction of Anton Furst and Peter Young, orchestrates a unique blend of artistic flair entwined in a dark imaginative setting. The onscreen combination of Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson is absolutely flawless, as there offers to the audiences decisively accurate performances in there portrayal of varied characters. Considered to be the ultimate duel of good versues evil, between a rogue crime fighter who carries a sadistic torch for all perpetrators and a grotesque madman with an inflatable taste of cruel humour, inevitably squares of for a highly climatic battle. Tim Burton was instrumental in the resurrection of the ‘Batman’ franchise, as the then worldwide based comic book monopoly was undeniably falling short of it’s now major competitor of the time, Marvel comics. Like it’s comic book brother in arms Superman, Batman is stylish adaption with a most memorable character of triumphant excellence, and regarded as one of the best derivation from comic pages to movie magic.

the last chapter of the marty mcfly-doc brown saga is just as exciting as the first two.it ties up all the loose ends that part two left and all the characters end up happily ever after.

Probably the most highly anticipated sequel ever.
Visually, like the first film-it is spectacular but story-wise it gets really damn confusing and can be frustrating.Even at times, the film can be mean spirited.The laughs aren't there as...
[+] Read Full Review

Probably the most highly anticipated sequel ever.
Visually, like the first film-it is spectacular but story-wise it gets really damn confusing and can be frustrating.Even at times, the film can be mean spirited.The laughs aren't there as much as in the first and the sense of wonder is considerably less but then again, it would be impossible to re-create the sheer joy and success of the first,that's almost an impossible thing to do and part 2 tries its best and it isn't bad. Overall, despite the considerabe faults-it is quite good.Picks up right where the first left off and then takes us on a frenetic journey back and forth and almost loses us along the way.It is pretty confusing so the best thing to do is to not read into it very much and just sit back and ride the wave.It's fun and entertaining with stark visuals and a still charming lead performance by Michael J.Fox and a charismatic supporting role by Christopher Lloyd.A little too much Biff here for my liking and that's were most of the mean spiritedness comes from.Still the sets and style is very slick and very cool and you should get a kick out of all of the gadgetry.
Never boring and quickly paced. Yes, it's a let down but not as bad as it could've been or as a lot of critics claimed it to be.

Steven Spielberg at his best I thought. Since I happen to be a fan of fantasy this movie just made all my dreams come true. The story made sense, even though it was confusing for me the first time I watched it since time travelling can be pretty...
[+] Read Full Review

Steven Spielberg at his best I thought. Since I happen to be a fan of fantasy this movie just made all my dreams come true. The story made sense, even though it was confusing for me the first time I watched it since time travelling can be pretty confusing. But in all this is one of the best movies Steven Spielberg has ever made. I don't even have to watch all of his movies because I know this one would be so much better than most of them. I found Christopher Lloyd amazing and very funny. He was perfect for the part of Doc Brown. Michael J. Fox was very good as well. This movie was actually what made me like him. If you're interested in fantasy, going back in time, or just plain humor, then this is the movie for you!

It's been two years since the events that unfolded in the first film. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has a full plate, taking college classes, working as a photojournalist for the Daily Bugle and, of course, saving the world as Spider-Man. Mary Jane...
[+] Read Full Review

It's been two years since the events that unfolded in the first film. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has a full plate, taking college classes, working as a photojournalist for the Daily Bugle and, of course, saving the world as Spider-Man. Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) has become a successful model and is about to star in her first Broadway show. Parker continues to keep Watson at a distance, fearful that a romantic involvement may put her own life in danger. Balancing all these issues at once is starting to affect Parker and he's now having some difficulty using the powers he's commanded so gracefully. Meanwhile, Harry Osborn (James Franco) is now running his father's old company, investing heavily in a promising new scientist named Doctor Otto Octavius. Parker himself is an admirer of Octavius' work and Harry introduces the two. When Octavius is set to unveil his life's work, utilizing a set of four mechanical arms that are injected into his back, things go horribly wrong and a new supervillain is born. As Parker struggles to decide the future of Spider-Man, the city comes under attack from the newly renamed Doc Ock. Sequels always have a built in stigma attached. These days, the presence of a sequel no longer means that the first film was necessarily a good film, but only that its financial success means that producing a sequel makes business sense. Spider-Man set high expectations in all areas. Financially, it was a no-brainer, but creating a sequel also meant the challenge of following what is considered by many (myself included) one of the best comic book films ever made. Whether I set my expectations too high, I cannot say for sure, but Spider-Man 2 just doesn't live up to the original. I hear filmmakers say again and again that the sequel to a comic book movie will be better because they've gotten all the backstory stuff out of the way. Spider-Man 2 suffers here, featuring a story that is so convoluted that there isn't nearly enough devotion to the action. Instead of using the now-developed characters as a jump off for a fast moving story, the plot is the enemy, bogging down our hero and the story's pacing. Many of the themes are the same: Instead of discovering his newfound abilities and learning to use them, Parker is now discovering the trappings of a double-life and learning to balance. Instead of Mary Jane being unattainable because of high school standing, Mary Jane is now unattainable because Parker is a superhero. Aunt May gives a speech about heroes that feels directly lifted from the fist film. One reason for the first film's success was the decision to cast the film with lesser known but highly talented actors. 2 is no different. For the villainous and infamous Doctor Otto Octavius, Raimi and crew cast indie veteran Alfred Molina, arguably one of the most gifted actors of his generation and, in the words of Raimi himself, a "chameleon." Molina is known for reaching so deeply into the roles he plays that most of America probably doesn't even realize that they've seen him in multiple films in the past. Molina gives fresh breath to the series, but he isn't used to his full potential. His performance is very good, but seems restrained, much in contrast to Willem Dafoe's brilliantly over the top performance as the Green Goblin. Props to the designers for Molina's look, though. Doc Ock is a visually stunning character and the special effects team made full use of his extra limbs, giving them a personality all their own.

On the subject of the look, Spider-Man 2 features many of the same dazzling visuals of the original. The CGI is a bit overused, occasionally resulting in a bit of a videogame look, but, for the most part, the visuals are tight and very nice to look at. Spider-Man's movements are fluid and graceful, even when you know he's doing something there's no way a human could do. The strong cast remains the backbone of the series. Maguire is the perfect Peter Parker and Kirsten Dunst is the perfect Mary Jane Watson. They continue to have a fluid chemistry and remain engaging to watch. These are well-developed, layered characters that you care about. The story moves slowly at times, but the acting abilities of Dunst and Maguire keep things compelling enough to keep us interested, if not fully enthralled. The rest of the supporting cast, including J.K. Simmons, James Franco and Rosemary Harris are strong and continue the feel of the first film. As the story of Spider-Man 2 unfolds, drama is the name of the game. There are exceedingly long gaps between action sequences, particularly towards the middle of the film. I'm not saying that the film has to be all out action or anything, but the drama gets a little too heavy at times, focusing on conflicts that really aren't that compelling. Come on, does anyone really believe that Peter Parker is going to abandon his powers? It's just very difficult to create effective drama when the situation's outcome is so obvious. I understand the necessity of this scenario, but way too much time is spent here. Spider-Man 2 is, on the whole, a success. It just doesn't live up to the high standards set by the first film. The action sequences that are in Spider-Man 2 are spectacular. Also retained is the sense of humor the first film succeeded with so well. There's even a reference to a certain pre-production rumor that those "in the know" should appreciate. Without the first film to compare, Spider-Man 2 could hold its own against the better comic book films. The first was groundbreaking and Raimi has been credited as the director who finally got the comic book film "right." Raimi is in fine form in the sequel. One Doc Ock sequence borders on horror, a clear sign that Raimi is allowing his touches to come across and having a good time working on these films. In the end, story is the culprit.

Who am I? You sure you really want to know? If anybody told you I was just a writer who got lucky enough to get paid to see movies, they'd be wrong. It is my destiny, it is my curse, to review Spider-Man.

Why is it a curse, you...
[+] Read Full Review

Who am I? You sure you really want to know? If anybody told you I was just a writer who got lucky enough to get paid to see movies, they'd be wrong. It is my destiny, it is my curse, to review Spider-Man.

Why is it a curse, you ask? Simple – no matter what I say about this film, I'm going have to install asbestos email filters and put my family into hiding until Attack of the Clones comes out, which I thankfully won't be reviewing. There will be another moving target then and I'll be off the hook until the next big film I review which will start the cycle all over again.

It's not that Spider-Man is a bad film, it's just that it's not a good film. I'd almost have liked it better if it were awful instead of showing so much unfulfilled promise. Still, this is about as good as a comic-to-film adaptation gets.

Screenwriter David Koepp and director Sam Raimi get points for getting right into the story by not giving us too much of young Peter Parker's life in high school. Within 10 minutes, we've had the basics of the Spider-Man origin and we're off and running. Young Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider during a science class field trip. After returning home, he feels sick and goes to bed (which begs the question why someone who was an admitted science geek wouldn't have instantly thought, "Hey, I wonder if that thing was venomous?"). In the morning, Peter has had the "Charles Atlas while you sleep" course. He can climb walls and shoot sticky, gooey stuff from his wristsPeter gets his super powers and immediately starts figuring out how to use them. Of course he tries to use them to make a few bucks so he can buy a car to impress the girl next door, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). The film's first act has Raimi's distinctive style all over it – lots of movement in scenes, graphics merging with live action. The sequence where Peter dives into designing a costume reminded me of a similar sequence in Raimi's other super-hero film, Darkman. Since we wasted little time getting the origin out of the way I hoped we would be able to get right into the meat of the story early in the second act. No such luck, true believers.

The second act is where the film begins to stall out. Peter, his best friend Harry Osborn and Mary Jane all move into the city and Peter embarks on his career as New York's #1 web-slinger. Unfortunately, while there is some mention made of the effect it has on Peter's life we don't really get to see any of it. Just once I'd like to review a film that I don't have to sit through and mentally mark all the spots where the extended DVD release will be better. Spider-Man will be a great DVD in 6 months or so.

Raimi's visuals give way to a lot of CGI shots of Spider-Man over New York City. It's almost like Raimi got a little too worried about the fact he was making a movie based on an established icon and got too cautious. The action seems a little too standard and straightforward and could have benefited from more of Raimi's trademark visuals. Even so, some of the shots of Spider-Man taking down criminals and the fight scenes are fun to watch, even if they don't do much for the story. Which brings us to one of the film's biggest problems: the final interpretation of the script. Having read just about every draft of this script since the early '80s, I can say that the final script read better than it played out on the screen. It had a few of the flaws but the characters were right and could have carried the film. The story just never takes off. A good action film fully engages the audience and a super-hero action film should be no different. Films like Die Hard, which, it could be argued, is a super hero film, just without the funny costumes, take you into the action but also deliver a plot. The antagonists have a purpose which brings them into conflict with the hero. The conflict here is completely contrived – Spider-Man spends most of his time reacting to the Green Goblin, not stopping any sort of plot or plan the Goblin has. Forget how dorky the Goblin costume looks – he's just a paper cutout villain lacking even the most basic of dimensions. I realize that he might not be the most rational villain in film history but even schizophrenic super-villains can and should have more personality than this. Hell, he should have a couple of them. There is an interesting piece of acting by Willem Dafoe where he switches from Norman Osborn to the Green Goblin and back again repeatedly while having a conversation with himself. A little more of this kind of conflict could have made the Goblin a much more interesting character. But then we have to come back to the fact that there's nothing for the Goblin to do. Sure, he's psychotic and has some cool toys with super strength but he's really not doing anything beyond his initial little strike against Norman's enemies.

The supporting characters do a decent job but we still don't get enough to work with. James Franco as Harry Osborn (son of the Green Goblin) is supposedly an emotionally fragile man who craves his father's approval. We really don't get a lot of that, possibly because it's hard to buy it from a guy who looks and behaves like Franco. He comes off a little too self-assured for someone who really is that much of an emotional basket case.

Kirsten Dunst gets a little more to work with as Mary Jane Watson but not much more. Constantly making her a Lois Lane clone that seems to constantly need rescuing by her hero in tights doesn't add a lot to her character. There's a lot of potential here for the future films but again, we're going to have to wait for the DVD release to see it in this film.

The other supporting characters, such as J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson and Rosemary Harris as Aunt May, are almost perfectly cast and should add a lot to the inevitable film series. Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben provides a lot of the moral base that makes Peter Parker / Spider-Man who he is. It's a short appearance but a pivotal one. Here's to hoping he gets some flashbacks in the sequel A surprising area where the film is lacking is in the musical score by the usually good Danny Elfman. Like the film he's scoring, Elfman's music isn't bad, it's just kind of there. There are no catchy hooks, no iconic riffs that will forever be identified with the character, something Elfman has been very good at with other characters. It says something when the piece of music that most defines the character plays at the end of the closing titles – the theme to the 1960s animated Spider-Man series. Elfman should have done some sort of an Elfman-esque version of this for the opening titles and even incorporated it into the score. It couldn't have hurt.

The final act is pure Marvel Comics – good guy fights bad guy, fate of girl and numerous Cub Scouts lie in the balance. In fact, the climax to the fight is almost completely lifted from the classic Spider-Man #122 (I won't recount it here – those of you who know what happens will know what I'm talking about and those who don't will find out in the theater). The film's final scene between Peter and Mary Jane is almost inexplicable. After setting up the fact that Peter has been in love with the girl since he was 6, the act of pulling away from her when she finally gives in is so against character it almost drove everyone in the theater I was sitting in insane. One person in the back yelled, "Are you NUTS?" and I have to admit, I was thinking exactly the same thing. The Tobey Maguire narration at the end just doesn't work, either – it sounds far too much like a guy reading lines.

Spider-Man is far from perfect but as good as it gets. I was hoping for an "Excelsior!" but I think we wound up with something closer to a "No-Prize."

Batman Begins has been a long time coming for comic fans and fans of the Dark Knight in particular. Lewis Wilson first portrayed Batman on screen in the serial films of the 1940s. These were decently made for the time, but today appear horribly...
[+] Read Full Review

Batman Begins has been a long time coming for comic fans and fans of the Dark Knight in particular. Lewis Wilson first portrayed Batman on screen in the serial films of the 1940s. These were decently made for the time, but today appear horribly dated. The '60s saw the "Pow," "Kaboom!" evolution of Batman in Batman: The Movie in which Adam West portrayed, well, you can't really call that version the Dark Knight, can you? Anyway, he played Batman. Campy and wildly over the top, the film was initially intended for release before the '60s television series, but wound up coming out after season one. While fun-spirited, it was in complete contrast to the dark, brooding character fans of the comic had known for years. In the late 1980s, another attempt at Batman hit the screen, this time with the unlikely casting of Michael Keaton in the lead role. Keaton was surprisingly suited for the part, but the final result was still missing something, focusing much more on Jack Nicholson's classic portrayal of The Joker than on the title character. The sequels were more of the same, devolving into the travesty that was 1997's Batman and Robin. I was going to say that this one was arguably the worst of all Batman movies, but there's no argument. It's fact. Batman and Robin was a terrible film, sealing the fate of the series for years to come.Finally, a few years ago, talk started brewing of a new film, possibly a fresh take on the origin of the Batman character. Surprisingly, in all the years, that had never been done, at least not in a way that was satisfactory by any means. Little by little, a reinvention of the franchise came together. Hard-core fans and laymen such as myself have watched the evolution of the project with a tense anticipation. It all sounds good, but somehow, they're going to screw it up, right? Then Christopher Nolan was chosen to direct, an inspired choice. Bale and the rest of the cast seemed perfectly suited to their parts. What would go wrong to mess up this version? The answer is nothing at all. Believe the hype. Finally, 66 years after the inception of the Batman character in Detective Comics #27, the Dark Knight has been gloriously reborn on film.Directed by Christopher Nolan from a script by David Goyer and Charles Roven, Batman Begins features Christian Bale in the lead role as Batman and his billionaire dual identity, Bruce Wayne. The stellar supporting cast includes Liam Neeson as Ducard, Michael Caine as Alfred, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman as Lt. James Gordon, Ken Watanabe as Ra's Al Ghul, Tom Wilkinson as Carmine Falcone, Rutger Hauer as Richard Earle, Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes and Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane and The Scarecrow. Opening with Bruce as a young boy, Batman Begins follows the evolution of young Wayne from the murder of his parents on through to his training to become the caped crusader. The death of his parents leaves Wayne with an unfocused anger. As a young man, he turns to the underworld he despises so much, hoping that by submersing himself, he will understand his enemy better. We pick up Wayne in a prison in a distant land, where he is picking fights with unseemly inmates, which he terms as "practice." Ducard (Neeson) is impressed by his spirit and invites him to train under the tutelage of Ra's Al Ghul and the League of Shadows. After an unspecified time of intense training, Wayne returns to Gotham with the intent of cleaning up the corrupt city where he was raised, a town that has gotten so bad most citizens believe it is far beyond reprieve.This is the Batman film you've been waiting for. Batman's evolution into the fabled crime fighter is carefully constructed from the first piece of the puzzle to the chiseled and fierce ultimate evolution. Each part of the process is chronicled with astute precision. Nolan actually finds a way to set-up and explain why a guy runs around in a bat suit. He explains every nuance of the character, from why he chooses the bat as his symbol to why he dons a cape to why he uses the weapons he uses. Nolan leaves no stone unturned. During one sequence, the Batmobile jumps from cityscape rooftop to rooftop. It occurred to me watching this, how exactly does he know that he won't crash through the roofs of these buildings? On the second viewing, however, I noticed something. They thought of that too! Batman has a GPS-like navigation system that gives him info on the rooftops before he topples onto them. By the end of the film, you can try to pick it apart all you want, but you will find that Nolan has covered his bases extremely well, explaining each and every aspect of the Batman arsenal.

Christian Bale was a fan fave during the casting of Batman. For once, studio chiefs and comic fans saw eye-to-eye, and it's very good thing. Bale has evolved into one of the sharpest young acting talents in recent years. For proof, simply watch Bale as a murderous psychopath in American Psycho and then as a tortured, lonely, haunted factory worker wasting away in The Machinist. Bale is a dedicated, driven actor the likes of which we haven't seen since Robert De Niro. Judging by his choices thus far in his career, playing Batman is a strange choice, but Bale continues to take unexpected roles and work with exceptional directors. As the tortured soul that is Bruce Wayne and eventually Batman, Bale gives the character a depth he has never before enjoyed, at least in his on-screen depictions. As Wayne, Bale gets to have a little fun playing a rich playboy. It also helps that the character of Wayne himself is only "playing" a rich playboy. As the force that will become Batman, Bale appropriately seethes with an unfocused, loose anger. He's not just brooding, he's deeply disturbed. He knows he needs to do something important with the resources he's been bestowed, and you really believe Bale as he searches for the appropriate outlet. The only minor criticism on Bale is that, when he's in the bat suit and uses the "Batman voice," it is a bit corny. It only distracted me briefly in the film though. Alfred has always been an important character in the Batman universe, but here Michael Caine elevates the dedicated butler to a new level. He is Bruce Wayne and Batman's foremost confidant. He understands why Wayne has become Batman and he helps him to create and initiate his vision. Caine is terrific in the part, undoubtedly the best choice one could imagine. Lucius Fox, who was a slightly different character in the comics, also becomes an integral part of Wayne's crusade. Now we can understand where Batman gets all his wonderful toys and how he learned to put them to their appropriate uses. Gary Oldman is another great choice as James Gordon. This is an early incarnation of the character, before he became commissioner. The character is played very differently from prior visions of Gordon. Here he is a quiet, dedicated cop, one of the few legit men left in a town rife with corruption. Oldman is excellent, and Gordon and Batman have a very nice connection that will serve future films well.Unlike the rest of the Batman films, the villains here are second fiddle. Ken Watanabe is effective in a brief turn as Ra's Al Ghul. Cillian Murphy is an actor many will be witnessing on screen for the first time. As Dr. Crane, Murphy is perfectly creepy, with piercing eyes and a look of quiet, murderous intent. He almost doesn't even need to don the Scarecrow mask. When he does, the mask itself is pretty scary – especially during the drug-induced visions he creates, forcing his prey to see a frightening, maggot-ridden hood staring back at them.

Liam Neeson's Ducard is smartly played, the man who gives Wayne's intense inner turmoil a focus and channeling for his raw strength. Neeson is commanding in the role of Wayne's mentor, a sort of harsh version of Wayne's own father. Ducard and Wayne share a connection that will become quite poignant in the course of the story.

Tom Wilkinson is a little bit over the top as Falcone. Wilkinson is decent in the part, but his tone feels a bit out of line with the rest of the film, a comicky character in a film decisely un-comic-booky. Katie Holmes is okay as Dawes, but her character isn't terribly important to the story. Her beaming smile and perfect dimples somehow don't seem to fit into the seedy underworld of Gotham City. It's not a big deal, but I'm just not entirely sure Holmes was the best choice for the part.

The Batmobile certainly deserves special mention. It is indeed a character of its own in the film. When fans first saw the stealth-like look of the new vehicle, radically different from any of the other previous, ultra-slick incarnations, they complained and complained. I heard statements like "stupid-looking" and "ridiculous." Many felt it was just too different from the vehicle seen in the previous films or in the comics. Well, prepare to be proven wrong. The new Batmobile is the best Batmobile of all. It is one bad mutha-******. For once, this is a Batmobile that makes sense. It's tough and functional. Period. It can race through city streets, knock any obstacle out of its way, smash through walls, leap across rooftops and more. Why would Batman drive around in a sleek sports car if all he is concerned about is ridding the streets of criminals? This new Batmobile is more military vehicle than sports car, which makes sense in the context of this origin film. Batman needs a car that can achieve results, not a car he'll look cool in. There is a simply incredible chase scene with the new vehicle and if that sequence alone doesn't convince you, well sir, you are beyond reason.One of my favorite aspects of Batman Begins is the lack of computer-generated effects. Nolan and his crew use a staggering amount of practical stunts for this day and age. CG is an aid rather than an overwhelming force. Because of this, the CG work is subtle and exquisitely integrated. It enhances and never distracts.

Christopher Nolan's work on Batman Begins is truly outstanding. He has taken command of the franchise and raised the bar for comic-based films. Nolan had never really directed action before, but he handles the intense action sequences of the new Batman film like a seasoned veteran. And unlike action maestros like John Woo, Michael Bay or George Lucas, Nolan doesn't gloss over the story or the drama that surrounds the action. Instead, he interweaves all of these aspects into a film that you can't even call a comic film. It's too accessible for that. Even when compared to the greatest comic films ever made, such as 1978's Superman and 2002's Spider-Man, Nolan's Batman Begins is better just by the fact that it isn't reserved only for those familiar with the comic. Nolan creates a realistic world and unveils Batman's origin in a manner that doesn't have to be explained away with, "Oh, it's from a comic book." He backs up the world and completely grounds it in reality. Batman Begins lives up to its title in every way, a film that is undoubtedly the best set-up ever for a series, but also a near-perfect standalone film.

It is a world where genetic mutations can give a person strange powers. Mutants are feared and hated by regular human beings and must live in hiding. Professor Charles Xavier seeks to help humanity with mutant powers while his former friend...
[+] Read Full Review

It is a world where genetic mutations can give a person strange powers. Mutants are feared and hated by regular human beings and must live in hiding. Professor Charles Xavier seeks to help humanity with mutant powers while his former friend Magneto seeks to rule humanity rather than be persecuted by it. Xavier forms a team called the X-Men to further his goals while Magneto forms the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants to further his. Magneto wants to force humanity to accept mutants by force while Xavier wishes to have mutants accepted by their merits. While Magneto plots to force his will upon humanity, Xavier and his X-Men, aided by new recruits Wolvering and Rogue, work to stop him. Based on The X-Men comics line, created by Stan Lee and Len Wein.

THE GOOD:

X-Men has been one of the most scrutinized films in recent history, right behind George Lucas' Phantom Menace and not without good reason. Hollywood's track record at adapting comics (especially comics from Marvel) has been pretty dismal. There are still a legion of former Warner Brothers executives who don't understand just why Batman and Robin is so loathed by the general public.

Having said that, it's nice when a group of producers and a director actually get it. They still may not please everyone but they know the difference between what's acceptable and what's not and do their best to walk that fine line. This is the case with director Bryan Singer and X-Men.

Don't get me wrong, X-Men is not perfect. Fans will gripe about all sorts of things in the film, from the changes to certain characters to the black leather uniforms. Cramming over 30 years' worth of stories into a film is tough work, sort of like walking the high wire without a net over a pit of vipers called comic book fans. One slip and they will rip you to shreds.

Singer has managed to not only make his way across the chasm, he's created what may be one of the better comic book adaptations in years. While Singer has managed to include a lot of references and characters from the comic series for the fans (the shot of Kitty Pryde walking through a door for one), he's managed to work most of those scenes in such a way that they actually work for the non-comics literate members of the audience. Kitty Pryde's cameo, while exciting for the fans, also shows the audience just what kind of kids Xavier is teaching at this private school in Westchester. X-Men is full of examples like this and it's to Singer's credit that the whole thing works as well as it does.

Singer has also managed to get to the core of what X-Men has been for so many years in the comics – an allegory for prejudice of all kinds in the form of comic book heroics. The original comic series addressed thoughts that every person entering puberty has dealt with: "Why am I different? What are these changes that are happening to me? Who am I?" In continuing these themes in the film version, Singer has undoubtedly directed the most intelligent comics-to-film adaptation yet. Unlike Superman or Batman, people in the audience may actually find a connection with the characters, be it the benevolent prodigy of Professor X or the more proactive actions of Magneto's Brotherhood. Unless you're from another planet or a rich orphan with a vengeful streak, it's doubtful you could say the same for the other super heroes.

Of course, it's not like Singer didn't have some good talent to work with. Hugh Jackman is poised to become the next Russell Crowe or Mel Gibson. There aren't any better actors than Patrick Stewart (Professor X) or Ian McKellen (Magneto), which is probably why those two names seem to come up in 75% of the projects floating around Hollywood these days. Anna Paquin, while her Southern accent does tend to wander a bit, does a great job playing the confused Rogue, trying to find a home while not being able to touch anyone for fear of taking all of their life's energy.

Much more so than any super hero film, even Marvel's own Blade, this film manages to hit its target – creating an entertaining film experience for fans and non-fans alike. It looks like the Marvel Curse (that all live action projects based on Marvel comics will invariably suck) has finally been broken. With rumors already circulating about films 2 and 3 (the actors all have 3 picture deals), the future for X-Men looks very bright if people like Producers Lauren Schuler Donner (Ladyhawke) and Ralph Winter (Star Trek VI) can keep quality people like Bryan Singer at the helm.

THE BAD:

While I hesitate to single them out as bad, the film has some flaws. Magneto's plan to transform many of the world's leaders into mutants, thereby forcing world powers to adopt a better attitude, is very poorly thought out. While most film villains would get away with this (how many times has a Bond villain's scheme really looked like it was a good idea but we bought into it anyway?), Ian McKellen's Magneto is just too intelligent to have not thought this thing through. Also lacking in the film is any motivation for the rest of Magneto's group. Why does a savage beast like Sabretooth (Tyler Mane) follow Magneto, let alone the shape-shifting Mystique (Rebecca Romjin-Stamos) or Toad (Ray Park, the coolest Lord of the Sith in the last 10 years)? All three of these characters look like they'd rather be out knocking over banks than making a political statement. And if you have someone like Mystique on your payroll, why bother with some super device when you could just have her impersonate key people and change legislation? There were only a few missed opportunities in this film but I really felt the Brotherhood could have been fleshed out a little more.

That's not to say the X-Men get much more development. We know that Cyclops (James Marsden) is kind of a stuffed shirt and engaged to the telekinetic but otherwise bland Jean Grey (Famke Janssen). I actually thought that Janssen was playing Grey as a pretty dull character until I realized that the character always was a little dull. In that respect, Janssen nailed the character.

If there was one bit of miscasting it would have to be Halle Berry as Storm. While a number of the fans have complained that she didn't "look" enough like the part, I just had a problem with her overall portrayal. Berry never looked like she was comfortable in the part, something I found kind of distracting.

Something else that didn't quite sit right was the while "mutant menace" campaign being waged by Senator Kelly (Bruce Davison). We got to see precious little of Kelly being a Senator or any of his motivation for hating mutants. Again, a lot of potential missed with the character. The sense of a public outcry or fear against mutants just didn't look like it was as big a deal as we were being told it was. The only Senator speaking out during a panel on the subject is Kelly. Have you ever seen C-Span? There would have been some kind of debate (probably raucous) and that would have added to the world that we were being asked to buy into. Still, these are mostly minor points considering that so much of the film does actually work. THE UGLY:
Well, Toad's kind of ugly but I know a lot of women who thought that tongue was pretty cool.

X2 – not to be confused with the forthcoming xXx2 (ahem) – is the first of this summer's blowout mega movies. A very direct sequel to 2000's X-Men, X2 picks up almost immediately where its lackluster and dispassionate predecessor...
[+] Read Full Review

X2 – not to be confused with the forthcoming xXx2 (ahem) – is the first of this summer's blowout mega movies. A very direct sequel to 2000's X-Men, X2 picks up almost immediately where its lackluster and dispassionate predecessor left off. But the similarities end there: X2 is a radically different beast than its progenitor.In a startling display of self-awareness and humility, franchise producers Bryan Singer, Lauren Shuler Donner, and Ralph Winter have clearly evaluated and understood many of the shortcomings which marginalized the first adventure of Professor Charles Xavier and his band of misunderstood "mutants," and have corrected the deficits with pinpoint accuracy. Where the first installment felt meandering and unfocused, X2 is tight and propulsive. Where X-Men seemed spineless and devoid of spirit, X2 has teeth, balls, and heart. The sequel's plentiful action sequences are dizzying in nature and execution, filled with kinetic velocity and visceral brutality. The first film feels like an episode of Teletubbies compared to this outing. X2 is a dazzling cinematic experience.The difference in substance and quality between the two films is evident across the board. John Ottman – pulling double duty here as X2's editor and composer – infuses every movement of the film with crisp intensity. Returning cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel utilizes a broader and deeper color palette this time around, bringing depth and nuance to even the most mundane passages. Photography of X2's slam-bang action is top notch; a few set pieces are among the best put on screen in quite some time. Screenwriters Dan Harris & Michael Dougherty...and director Bryan Singer...are smart enough (and bold enough) to let X2's gargantuan ensemble cast be characters unto themselves – not via long pontifications of mutant angst, but through small moments and quick asides. Little, fleeting instances that bring a welcomed (and needed) humanity and accessibility to a story that is, in many ways, about being much more than human. This being said, X2 is not a perfect film. James Marsden as Cyclops/Scott Summers is an agreeable screen presence, but fails to convince in a sequence demanding his complete dramatic believability – diminishing the potency of an otherwise impactful scene. X2's overall narrative begins to drift in the last quarter of the film – it feels like it's threatening to derail, although it never fully jumps track. X newcomer Lady Deathstrike, played by the impossibly hot Kelly Hu (I'm so very single...and my little boy really needs a mommy!) is underutilized, but finds redemption in a climactic fight sequence only the most ingeniously demented soul could have conjured. And, perhaps most dangerously (or cunningly), X2 demands close familiarity with the first film – an interesting narrative device allowing "educated" viewers to plunge headfirst into the continuation, but a creative decision that may limit newbies' abilities to figure out and appreciate what the hell is going on in this movie.X2 could easily have been a lumbering, gangly, unappealing mess of a film – with a decentralized storyline and desperate visual style mimicking the decades-long slate of miserable comic-to-film adaptations. Instead, it is a graceful, smart machine driven by a clear vision and unwavering comprehension of what it is, and what it ought to be. Perhaps the most artistically legitimate and conceptually substantive comic-to-screen adaptation since Richard Donner's Superman in 1978, X2 is something special – destined to hold its head high in a seasonal marketplace already compromised by behemoths like The Matrix Regurgitated – errr – The Matrix Reloaded, and Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.In interviews over the past week, the X2 production team has been discussing the possibility of multiple X-Men sequels. Given the checkered history of such endeavors, this would normally send chills up the spine of any self-respecting moviegoer or comic fan. This time around, however, it seems that maybe...just maybe...this group might be able to pull it off, and raise their adaptation of this franchise to a level of quality some of Hollywood's most gifted filmmakers have long sought – but never been able – to attain...

I'm a sucker for costumed epics, especially those of the swashbuckling nature. You know, the films that manage to mix opulent production design with just the right mixture of action, debonair flair, and tongue-in-cheek humor. Films like The Three...
[+] Read Full Review

I'm a sucker for costumed epics, especially those of the swashbuckling nature. You know, the films that manage to mix opulent production design with just the right mixture of action, debonair flair, and tongue-in-cheek humor. Films like The Three Musketeers (Richard Lester's campy excursions from the '70s, mind you), The Princess Bride, and pretty much anything starring the late Oliver Reed. It's a tough genre to master, to be sure. Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of The Black Pearl manages to come close, though never quite reaching the pinnacle that would qualify it as an epic. Nevertheless, it presents itself as an entertaining summer diversion with a keen sense of style, a few wonderful turns by selected cast members, and some genuinely eye boggling special effects.

The story is a fairly simple one revolving around the conceits of love, lust, betrayal, honor, and duty. Oh yeah, there's a curse thrown in for good measure, as well as the requisite quest for self-awareness/self-fulfillment on behalf of the hero(es). Our tale unfolds as a royal ship bearing Governor Weatherby Swann (Jonathan Pryce) and his very young daughter Elizabeth (Lucinda Dryzek) makes its way to the town of Port Royal. Along the way they encounter the wreckage of a ship and rescue a lone survivor: Will Turner (Dylan Smith).

Flash forward several years and young Will (now realized by Orlando Bloom) has become an ace blacksmith and swordsman. He's also in love with Swann's daughter (now portrayed the beguiling Keira Knightley, who bears more than a striking resemblance to an older Natalie Portman with blonde hair). Naturally, this being a pirate movie and all, the action shifts dramatically with the entrance of the eccentric Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), pirate of the high seas and a mischievous instigator if ever there was one. Soon after Sparrow's arrival young Turner finds himself not only battling the arrogant Commodore Norrington (Jack Davenport) for Elizabeth's affections, but also engaged in dire combat with a cadre of bloodthirsty pirates led by the vile Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). Oh yeah, there's the curse of Cortez' Aztec gold to be dealt with.

In terms of the acting, Depp easily steals the show, delivering a quirky performance that has him teetering around like a flamboyant dandy with cerebral palsy – his mannerisms are a combination of limp-wristed gestures, wobbly, almost drunken posturing, and a continual smirk that borders on lecherous extravagance. This all combines to raise the bar considerably in terms of Depp's trademark weirdness found in his past roles. Yet what's so prescient about his performance is the fact that he could easily have breached the top and gone way overboard. Instead Depp lingers just this side of the edge, literally teetering on it precariously. The result is an inspired turn that is equal parts eloquent camp and disarming aloofness. Truly inspired.As for Orlando Bloom, he could very easily have been burdened, dare I say succumbed, by the chore of playing the straight man to Depp's eccentric pirate. Yet the young actor rises to the challenge, playing off of his co-star's quirks with sophisticated charm. Oh yeah, he ain't a half bad swordsman, either. Rush is equally hypnotic as the deviant Barbossa, utilizing a suitably smarmy glint in his eyes to wondrous effect (plus the monkey on his back helps quite a bit, too).The rest of the cast is solid, though somewhat clichéd – Jonathan Pryce is a stodgy, almost prissy official, and Davenport's take on a British nautical commander is by the book, yet also instilled with a sense of humanity and humility, which is rare, especially for this type of stock character. As for the pirates, the two main ones are portrayed by Mackenzie Crook and Lee Arenberg, who do their best, bumbling Laurel & Hardy/Abbott & Costello routine (yep, one is tall and lanky, the other short and squat). The rest of the scourge of the seven seas are a mixed bag of blokes with bad teeth prosthetics crammed into their mouths.

Without revealing one of the major surprises of the film too much, one of the highlights comes in the form of the cutting edge skeleton effects crafted by the folks at ILM. Yes, there are skeletons in the film (as you no doubt have gathered from the trailers saturating both television and the cineplex preview reels). The realism of these walking bags of bones is beyond amazing, elevating the effects pioneered by Ray Harryhausen in the Sinbad movies to another level of intensity altogether. There are several sequences involving the ILM-generated skeletons that are simply mind boggling not only in their execution, but in terms of how real they appear (in fact they come off so real that at first you shrug them off as being routine, then your brain begins to grasp the time and energy that went into making the skeletons move with such realistic human fluidity that your jaw drops a few notches). These are easily some of the coolest SFX to hit the big screen this summer and the fact that they are delivered with such a nonchalant sense of flair makes them even cooler.

Despite solid thespianism and some wondrous eye candy, the film is not without its faults. Where the film falters most is in the execution of some of the fight sequences. More often than not they are shot up close, causing a claustrophobic aura to wash over the swashbuckling and make the action come off cluttered and messy – an initial spar between Turner and Sparrow is a prime example of this flurried technique that literally removes all flair from the fight. Additionally, some of the scenes, specifically the bombardment of Port Royal, rely too heavily on over exaggerated explosions and flying bodies (there are so many generic shots of cannonballs exploding and people flying that it almost seemed as if they were reusing the same footage over and over again). There are also some minor editing flaws in terms of several scene cuts throughout the film. These erratic shifts come off rather choppy and fail to create the sense of smooth transition from scene to scene. As a result there are a few rough and sometimes confusing scene shifts, especially when the thrust changes from action to drama or when the locale moves from land to sea. Yet in spite of these sloppy moments, the film still has enough of an engaging look about it to keep your eyes fixated on the screen.

Director Gore Verbinski along with screenwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio haven't really brought anything new or surprising to the table, in fact both the direction and the story are pretty routine. But thanks to the wonderful weirdness of Depp, balanced out by Bloom's classicism, Rush's reigned in malevolence, and some eye catching effects, the end result is a fairly entertaining pirate yarn. Plus, when you stop to think about the fact that it's all based on an ancient Disneyland ride, well that's a feat in and of itself.

Much as they did with Bryan Singer's first entry in the X-Men film franchise, the fanboy community has spent the last year or so coiled with dread and anticipation over X-Men: The Last Stand, which opens Friday. While it is nowhere near the...
[+] Read Full Review

Much as they did with Bryan Singer's first entry in the X-Men film franchise, the fanboy community has spent the last year or so coiled with dread and anticipation over X-Men: The Last Stand, which opens Friday. While it is nowhere near the disaster that the naysayers and axe-grinders would have you think, the third (and, by most accounts, final) X-Men film is not as rewarding or complete an experience as it should have been.

The plot revolves around a cure for mutation that has been developed by Worthington Labs and the U.S. government. This poses a moral quandary for mutantkind: take the cure and erase what makes you unique for the sake of conformity, or resist and face persecution or worse. The Brotherhood, led by Magneto (Sir Ian McKellen), decides to finally wage a full-on assault to end this threat; the X-Men, despite their misgivings about the cure, opt to stop them. Meanwhile, Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) has returned from "the dead" but as the twisted and god-like Phoenix. Tragedy ensues for several of the series' most important characters. That's X-Men: The Last Stand in a nutshell.

This is a good example of a film where the parts are greater than the whole. While there are many entertaining segments sprinkled throughout the movie, the set-ups are stronger than the payoffs. Last Stand is certainly the most comic booky of the trilogy. It is colorful, exclamatory, briskly-paced and melodramatic. But for all its attempts at emotional and thematic complexity, the film remains rather simplistic and hurried in its execution. If there were less characters and subplots to contend with then this might not have been the case.

Very little time is spent following through on most of the new characters, with notable actors such as Bill Duke, Olivia Williams, Shohreh Aghdashloo and Josef Sommer playing what are usually bit parts in a Sci Fi Channel telepic. Warren "Angel" Worthington (Ben Foster) is wasted here. He gets a few scenes in the beginning that get you interested in him but then he's essentially dropped from the story. Angel hardly gets any dialogue and he's barely a member of the X-Men to boot. His subplot with his father peters out; its resolution during the final showdown doesn't resonate.

Beast (Kelsey Grammer) fares better than many expected. As someone who has walked the line between homo superior and homo sapiens, Dr. Hank McCoy could be viewed as either a sellout or a thoughtful public servant who works within the system. Grammer brings a dignity and heft to the role despite the hit-and-miss make-up.

Anyone who has seen Hard Candy will attest to Ellen Page's acting chops but her Kitty Pryde/Shadowcat is not much more than an Anna Paquin substitute here, since Rogue largely sits out the action this time. Page's small amount of screen time does hint at what she could have done had she been given the chance. Her flirtation with Iceman (Shawn Ashmore) is, like so much of the film, all set-up and no payoffThe good guys aren't the only characters glossed over. New Brotherhood members like Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones), Callisto (Dania Ramirez) and Multiple Man (Eric Dane) aren't used to their full effect. Juggernaut desperately cries out to be a CG-enhanced character but instead comes off like a better version of Mr. Hyde in LXG. Callisto has one scene where she gets to mouth off to Magneto as well as a catfight with Storm, but she otherwise left much to be desired. Multiple Man was a nice addition; I wish they had made more use of him.While Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is still ostensibly the main protagonist, he is not as central to the plot or as dynamic as he was in the first two installments. Ditching the exploration of his past in favor of his unrequited love for Jean, the storytellers overlook much of what made Logan so enigmatic and intriguing. He's basically the grumpy uncle stuck minding the kids now. Still, the question Wolverine faces – will he have to kill the woman he loves in order to save her and his "family"? – is compelling. Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite as well as it did in the comics' "Dark Phoenix" storyline since one-third of the tale's love triangle – Cyclops (James Marsden) – is not in the equation for this film.

Jean Grey/Phoenix is the film's true main character. She is the one that all of the plotlines revolve around. Her past relationships with Professor X (Patrick Stewart), Magneto, Wolverine and Cyclops will affect her choices and actions. But this Phoenix lacks the grandeur and all-powerful menace that she possessed in the comics. This is painfully clear during the finale where Jean/Phoenix could have easily ended the entire fight before it even began but instead stands there impotent and conflicted for the longest time.

Professor X is finally given something more to do than spout little chestnuts of wisdom or use his telepathy to find someone. A cloud of ambiguity hovers over the actions and motives of Charles Xavier this time where there was once moral certainty; Magneto smartly exploits this when trying to recruit Jean into his Brotherhood. Magneto and Xavier remain flip sides of the same coin, like two brothers in a Depression-era melodrama where one grows up to be a gangster and the other a priest.

It may sound as if I hated The Last Stand but I did not. It was often fun, like watching an old serial. If I were 8 years old again, I'd probably adore it. It really was like an episode of the cartoon or an issue of the comic juiced up for the big screen: action-packed, fast-paced, lots of colorful characters and cool set-pieces. But the film also possesses all the same problems as a cartoon or a comic: many characters are all dressed up with nowhere to go; Big Things are brought up but never satisfactorily resolved; and dialogue scenes – you can almost see the dialogue balloons over characters' heads here – are flipped through in order to get to the next big brawl.The series' new director, Brett Ratner, largely adheres to the tone of Bryan Singer's films, but he and the screenwriters ramp up the melodrama (something which has always been a part of the soap opera-ish X-books) to an incessant, often histrionic degree. Although I never expected this movie to be as slow or cerebral as Singer's films, more variations in tempo, some narrative peaks and valleys, would have been appreciated. Unlike most films being released nowadays, The Last Stand actually needed to be longer with more time for the audience and the characters to breathe.

As interesting as the cure idea is, this storyline is a variation of the last two films' plots: a government/corporate entity poses a threat to mutantkind, leading to a fight between the X-Men and the Brotherhood; there is a MacGuffin that will either turn humans into mutants or vice-versa, culminating in a battle royale, usually set at a U.S. landmark. The formula largely works but it's undeniably familiar by now.

While X-Men: The Last Stand was largely fun and engaging, it never quite came together as a satisfying whole. Like the trilogy itself, the film got more right than it did wrong but grew overwrought and overstuffed, managing to both thrill and vex this X-Men fan.

After over a year of intense media interest, fanboy scrutiny and arduous production, Casino Royale -- the 21st James Bond movie -- opens this Friday. The Martin Campbell-directed film, based on Ian Fleming's first Bond novel, is nothing short of...
[+] Read Full Review

After over a year of intense media interest, fanboy scrutiny and arduous production, Casino Royale -- the 21st James Bond movie -- opens this Friday. The Martin Campbell-directed film, based on Ian Fleming's first Bond novel, is nothing short of an amazing accomplishment. After decades of bloat and self-parody, the franchise has been revitalized. Casino Royale makes 007 cool, relevant and real again.

Campbell has made perhaps his best feature film to date here. Working from a screenplay adaptation by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and Oscar winner Paul Haggis, Campbell's film is a lean, mean thriller about a killer being cultivated into a gentleman spy and the emotional and spiritual toll that transformation takes on him.

Despite what some critics have said, the plot to Casino Royale is relatively simple. Newly minted 00 agent James Bond (Daniel Craig, more on him later) pursues the powers-that-be behind a bomber-for-hire he killed in a very controversial embassy battle. The trail leads the arrogant Bond to Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), an enigmatic math genius, gambler and banker to the world's terrorists.

After 007 foils Le Chiffre's latest scheme to bilk the stock market using his clients' money, the villain must win back over $100 million before his clients catch up and kill him. Le Chiffre intends to win back his losses in a high-stakes poker tournament at the titular casino in Montenegro. Bond is the best cardplayer in the service so his boss, M (Judi Dench, the sole holdover from the Brosnan era), assigns him to beat Le Chiffre. MI6 then hopes to bring Le Chiffre in so that he will roll over on his terrorist allies.

Serving as the British government's "money" and eyes and ears on Bond is Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). She is clearly attracted to 007, but does not succumb to his charms that easily. She is also no mere bimbo; she is a mature woman -- a professional and every bit Bond's mental equivalent. After beating Le Chiffre, Bond finds himself tied naked to a chair and facing torture. What ultimately results from this turn of events is something the misogynistic, sexual conquistador Bond never thought he'd fall victim to: love. Unable to use the golden gun in his pants for quite awhile, the recuperating Bond genuinely and deeply falls in love with Vesper and they plan on a new life together. She has stripped him of his emotional armor. But before you can never say never again, Bond realizes the bad guys are not quite done with him yet. By the end, Bond is becoming the icy, lethal secret agent -- "the blunt instrument" that Fleming envisioned -- that men want to be and women want to be with.
The action sequences -- several of which, like the opening parkour set-piece, must be seen to be believed -- are breathtaking and return Bond to his down and dirty roots. There hasn't been a truly vicious brawl in the Bond films since Sean Connery and Robert Shaw duked it out in From Russia With Love. Now Casino Royale shows the new Bond can kill barehanded as efficiently as he can with a Walther PPK or a tricked-out Aston Martin.

As solidly crafted as the story and direction are, it is the performances that ultimately make Casino Royale work so well. One can only imagine how foolish those CraigNotBond.com guys are going to feel come Monday. Craig is a revelation as 007, making the role his own without losing any of the traits that have made James Bond such an icon. Craig gives a nuanced, fully realized portrayal. He is not just standing around in a tux, smirking and tossing off one-liners while judo-chopping some dime-a-dozen henchmen. Craig's 007 is a finely tuned machine who is absolutely believable as someone who could clear a room, and as a cold, hardened man who has buried his heart as far away from harm as possible. Fleming would be proud.

Likewise, Green -- who won the role after a long, highly publicized casting search -- may have just become the Bond leading lady to beat. She may not have the catchy moniker of **** Galore, the curves of Honey Ryder or the distinction of being Mrs. James Bond like Tracy di Vicenzo had, but Vesper is the only woman that the onscreen 007 has met thus far that you'd believe could have such a profound and lasting impact on him. That she never scampers around semi-nude only adds to the gravitas that makes her character so attractive.

The rest of the cast are top-notch as well. After surviving King Arthur, Mikkelsen finally gets his stateside breakthrough here as Le Chiffre. He is ice, ice baby and, refreshingly, a villain whose motives and methods are real and that much more frightening. Jeffrey Wright makes for a great Felix Leiter, Bond's CIA "cousin;" fans will be chomping at the bit to see these two reunited in future sequels. Caterina Murino is sexy yet understated as Solange, Bond's first romantic conquest. Isaach De Bankolé (last seen in Miami Vice) is frightening as Le Chiffre's client Obanno, while Giancarlo Giannini brings a wry wit and world-weariness to his role as Bond's contact, Mathis.

The heart of Casino Royale -- both the novel and the film -- is the love story between Bond and Vesper. Thankfully, the filmmakers have pulled it off with class and heart. But the point of Fleming's story was always about how Bond -- after suffering at the hands of Le Chiffre and then facing even greater pain later -- realizes his place in the world and that he must go after the threat behind the threat. In other words, James Bond literally and figuratively gets his balls back, and that testicular fortitude is exactly what this 44-year-old franchise has needed for many years now.

Good to have you back, 007.

Superman Returns opens with a great homage to the first film. There is the pulsing John Williams theme and an updated version of those familiar blue-outlined credits shifting backwards into space, just as seen in the opening of the '70s and '80s...
[+] Read Full Review

Superman Returns opens with a great homage to the first film. There is the pulsing John Williams theme and an updated version of those familiar blue-outlined credits shifting backwards into space, just as seen in the opening of the '70s and '80s film series. As Williams' famous score hits the crescendo, it's hard not to feel those goosebumps of excitement stream down your forearm. For those who aren't already familiar with the concept, Superman Returns is intended as a sequel to Richard Donner's 1978 film Superman and 1980's partially-Donner-directed Superman II. Five years have passed since the events of Superman II. Superman (Brandon Routh) has left Earth mysteriously. Metropolis' crime-rate has grown and Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has gone free when Supes failed to appear at his court hearing. Warner Brothers Suddenly, Superman's space ship crashes back to Earth in front of his adopted mother Martha Kent (Eva Marie Saint). After a few days of family time back at the farm, Superman (along with alter-ego Clark Kent) returns to Metropolis. Supes shows up to save the day during a nearly disastrous plane crash and a bumbling Clark Kent returns to the Daily Planet. Luckily, through the aid of his trusty horn-rimmed glasses, no one takes notice of the coincidence. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has moved on, now engaged to the editor's nephew Richard White (James Marsden) and a Pulitzer prize-winner for her piece, "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman."

Meanwhile, Lex Luthor is up to his usual no-good, concocting another real-estate scheme with the aid of his new leading lady, Kitty Koslowski (Parker Posey). As Superman tries to re-establish himself and make Lois understand why he left, his return is met with almost universal delight, particularly by the Daily Planet's head-honcho, Perry White (Frank Langella). But the question of why he abandoned Metropolis still looms large. Warner Brothers Superman Returns is directed by Bryan Singer from a script written by Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty. The supporting cast includes Sam Huntington as Jimmy Olsen, Kal Penn as Luthor henchman Stanford and Stephen Bender as Young Clark Kent. Marlon Brando also returns from the beyond via archive footage as Superman's father, Jor-El. Bryan Singer's affections for the films he fell in love with as a child are immediately evident to any fan of the series. Besides the noted credit homage, the entire feel of Singer's new film is based in that universe. Those who've seen the films as many times as he has will also notice some more subtle nods to the originals, such as particular dialogues and the overall feel of the film, especially at the outset. The idea of using archival footage of Brando seemed strange or possibly inappropriate, but it actually fits into the film nicely. The big question mark going into Superman Returns is, of course, Brandon Routh. Some have worried that he is simply too young for the part, though it should be noted that Routh is about the same age as Christopher Reeve was when he originally played the part. Reeve just looked a bit older. With that said, Routh is impressive as Superman. It's a bit strange at first to see someone essentially emulating another performance, but Routh manages to keep in step with many of the charms that enabled Reeve to take such command of the part. As Superman, Routh is nearly as good. As Clark Kent, Routh never really nails that sweetness that permeated through the bumbling do-gooder so perfectly embodied by Reeve. He still works well enough as Kent. The only real disappointment in Routh's work is that Superman himself ultimately feels a bit flat and under-developed, though this is more a fault of the storyline than Routh's work. What you know about Superman going in is what you know going out. He returns to Earth and goes back to doing what he does, but his character is never given any greater depth. Warner Brothers So the answer is that Routh pulls it off. He may look a little young, but he fits into the part nicely and you soon forget about his age. On the other hand, Kate Bosworth is entirely too young to play Lois Lane. In fact, she's wrong in more ways than that. Okay, so Bosworth doesn't look at all like a traditional Lois Lane; that kind of goes without saying. But seeing as these films are supposed to be viewed as a continuation of the first two, Bosworth is just no Margot Kidder. She doesn't do an emulation of her, which is fine, but through her interpretation of the character she never captures the tough-girl feel that Kidder was so great at. Why is Lois Lane tough? Because we're told she is. Why is she a good reporter? Because we're told she is. Remember that scene early in the original Superman where Clark and Lois are pulled into an alley? Lane kicks the gun out of the robber's hand and nearly gets shot, but Clark catches the bullet. Great scene. And a great intro to Lois. With Bosworth's incarnation, I never get the impression she could protect herself. She's just a whiney damsel-in-distress.
So what about the chemistry of Lois and Clark and Lois and Superman. There is none whatsoever. Their relationship is all on the surface with absolutely no depth. They have no connection and it becomes increasingly hard to care about their relationship as the story moves along. Lois is in the movie because she has to be, and also as a reason to add a cute (depending on your view) kid into the mix. The kid may well be the movie's worst element. Really, do we need a kid in this one? Couldn't he have been saved for desperate times in an unwanted sequel further down the line. Lois' child feels more akin to the trend of '80s sitcoms, bringing in a young, cute kid when they were running out of ideas and feared audiences were turning away. While on the note of TV and for lack of a better terminology, the kid is involved in what can be called a jump-the-shark moment, but you'll have to witness this for yourself. Warner Brothers The perfect casting choice of Superman Returns is Kevin Spacey. Channeling Hackman's villainous creation and adding a darker edge, Spacey's Lex is relishing being evil, exactly as Lex should be. Spacey is so good as to generally overshadow almost everyone else in the movie. It's not quite to the level of Nicholson in 1989's Batman, but at times it's darn close. Parker Posey as Kitty Koslowski adds a fun counterpoint to Lex. She enjoys being bad, but has a little more of a conscience than Lex. Posey is as on-point as ever, delivering witty dialogue with her always sharp tongue. She elevates any film she appears in (yes, even Blade Trinity), and with Supes she proves that she's up to the challenge of scene-stealing, even amongst the biggest stars within the biggest movies. The action in Superman Returns is top-notch. The effects, such as the exceptional plane sequence, are spectacular. The general look of the film's action is good, possibly even great, with sharp visual-effects work held to the highest standards. Sadly, there isn't as much action as you might expect in a Superman film, but what's there is very cool. Warner Brothers Superman Returns is beautifully shot by cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel, who previously teamed with Singer on The Usual Suspects. Filmed on the new high definition standard, the pricey Panavision Genesis camera, the film has a clean sharp look to it with a bright color palette that fits the comic feel nicely. Bryan Singer's unconditional love for the original movies may be damaging to the final product. Some moments work perfectly and some feel as though they are either unnecessary or need more to support them. This Superman feels incomplete, as if there was more footage that might have better expanded the story (I know there was) or that possibly cutting the film down might have worked to create a better-flowing, quicker moving version of the film.

Without saying exactly what happens in this final act, the dramatic tension that Singer, Dougherty and Harris were going for never really hits the way it should. There are some surprises that can't be discussed. Some smaller ones work, one of the big ones is very, very schmaltzy. The final portion of Superman Returns is slow-moving and poorly paced. It drags down everything that came before it and serves as a sad letdown to the prior two acts. Warner Brothers With a running time around two hours and forty-five minutes, there are some holes in the storytelling. For one, the explanation of Superman's absence is glossed over and never fully explained. He was just away, okay! Forget about it and move on people! Couldn't we have at least gotten a few more lines of explanation here, a speech about the importance of exploring his homeland, his origins, anything? Secondly, where is the payoff moment between Lex and Supes? They rarely share the screen and certainly never for the grand moment you'd expect. Finally, the origin story. Either have one or don't, but the quick flashbacks don't really add anything to the movie. It's hard to say whether those unfamiliar with the original films will get into this new film in the same way as those who've followed the whole series (minus the third and fourth movies we've all tried to forget). It would seem that those audience members would feel almost as if they came in during the middle of the movie. A lot of passion went into the making of this film, which makes the problems all the more disheartening. Superman Returns is a film that really wants you to like it and that you really want to like, but certain elements are just missing. Resting on the laurels of the originals works to a point and is certainly fun, but there needs to be more. Perhaps the problem is partially that the Batman series hit its high watermark entry, Batman Begins, just a year ago. Perhaps it's that Donner's original films were just so great as to make living up to them a near-impossible challenge, even for the most talented director. Singer's work is generally strong, but Superman Returns is only two-thirds of a good, never great, film.