Sure the movie is a blatant rip-off of Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window". But who cares? Most people under the age of 30 haven't even heard of "Rear Window". And those over 30 never saw it.Quick Summary: Boy loses father, becomes mild deviant, goes under house arrest for 3 months and spends his time watching the neighborhood around him. Cute girl moves in next door and together they investigate their strange neighbor after they witness some seemingly sinister occurrences.
Before I get too far in the review it's important that I note that I think Shia LaBeouf is going to get far in Hollywood. The boy can act. He proved it with "Holes" and "The Greatest Game Ever Played". He puts most of the young actors out there to shame. His performance in "Disturbia" is no different.
The movie is a typical thriller. The real things that it has going for it is that it is well written and well acted. The directing is at least good enough not to drag the movie down but isn't any spectacular. That's not surprising though considering the director D.J. Caruso. He's got "Nick of Time" and "Taking Lives" on the good side, and "Another Stakeout" and "Drop Zone" on the other. That's pretty hit-and-miss.
Not the greatest thriller ever made but worth watching. A pretty good date movie filled with jumps, shocks, wit, and action.
Rating: 7.5 out of 10
This proves that I will see any movie out. If you haven't heard of Aqua Teen Hunger Force DO NOT see this movie. If you have heard of Aqua Teen Hunger Force DO NOT see this movie. If you own a Meatwad T-Shirt and you find yourself quoting Carl on a daily basis, SEE THIS FILM!
The only path this movie is going to find is quickest path to the Wal-Mart bargain bin. Take the worst elements of Beastmaster, Highlander, and The Last of the Mochicans and you've got yourself Pathfinder, or as I like to refer to it, a recipe for a steaming pile of excrement. And that's being kind.
I don't think Tarantino can do any wrong (other than Foxy Brown, I don't know what he was thinking on that film). Film after film Tarantino proves again and again that he is an unstoppable creative force. Death Proof is a crazy, well-written stunt spectacular that brings the best from the worst of the 70's.
From the director who brought us classics like "Nightmare on Elm Street 5", "Lost in Space", and "Predator 2", we're given another crappy movie with "The Reaping". The ten plagues reappear in a small Southern town and the citizens think a girl from the bayou is causing them. So they pack their pickups with shotguns and head out for a lynching.
Will Farrell did it again. He took the same script he had in Anchorman, Elf, Kicking and Screaming, and Talladega Nights and just changed the occupation of the main character. This time he chooses an ice skater. I'll give Will Farrell credit where credit is due though; the man does have a brilliant sense of comedic timing. He can say anything, but as long as he says it at the right time, he's funny.
As far as animated films that have come out lately, this is probably the most forgettable film. The story is barely strong enough to hold the movie together for the full hour-and-a-half. The animation is well done, but it doesn't have that extra kick that makes it anything special. 
The Hills Have Eyes 2 is a sequel of a remake which itself is a remake of a sequel. Who would have thought that they would remake a film that went straight to video the first time and got worse review than Glitter and Gigli combined? I didn't. If Wes Craven's name hadn't been somewhere in the credits of this film (showing up as producer and co-writer with his son on this one) this movie had have hit the bargain bin faster than Little Man 2. With all of that said, this movie was a complete waste, although it did have to slide by on the its gore-factor alone.
Who would have thought that a cartoon about humanoid turtles with Kung Fu abilities going through puberty would make for a good show? Seems like a bunch of high, out-of-work 20-somethings put a bunch of random words in a hat and drew them out in this order: Teenage, Mutant, Ninja, Turtles. Hopefully this won't be the method that writers use in the future for coming up with new plots. Who knows, we could end up with: Uni-brow Alien Platypus Senior Citizens, Miniature Angry Gangster Soccer Moms. The combinations are endless. It would be like writing a Madlib screenplay.
Critics have been raving about this film, some calling it a modern day Jaws, other hailing it as the new Godzilla. In my opinion, this movie should have gone straight to the late night sci-fi channel pile. The only thing I really enjoyed about this movie was the first 15 minutes of the film. In it, a sequence bordering on genius flashed across the screen where a sea monster runs rampants through the streets. The rest of the film was tired, poorly constructed, and not worth watching.
300 is a non-stop action flick from opening to end. In the first few minutes a guy holding a string full of skulls gets drop kicked into a dark pit. In the last few minutes of the film a camera pans out on a battlefield riddled with dead soldiers. For the 2 hours in-between, non-stop battle sequences full of shock and awe. Definitely not a date movie, 300 is a movie full of testosterone and violence appealing to the lizard-part of the male's brain. Original, well-done, and artistically engaging, 300 delivers on the hype that surrounds it. 
This movie is basically a slow-moving documentary of the real-life Zodiac murders. Most of the information for the movie was taken from police case files. If you're looking for a movie with a lot of action, try another film. If you're looking for an accurate account of a horrific series of murders told through the conversations of newspaper reporters and cops, then this is your movie.
Being a big fan of comic books turned movie, I was interested to see what they were going to do with this film. Little did I know that it was going to be a horrid mess of a movie that ranks it with such losers as Daredevil, Catwoman, Fantastic Four, The Punisher and Dick Tracey.
The movies commercial does a good job of explaining and setting up the premise of the movie. Jim Carrey reads a book and becomes fixated on the number 23. The movie has enough content to keep it going for the full 2 hours and does a fine job wrapping it all up in the end. That's what this movie had to have to be worth seeing, and that's a well-crafted ending.
Made in the spirit of Quentin Tarintino and Guy Richie, Smokin' Aces was an alright romp through an hour-and-a-half gun fight. If it wasn't for Jeremy Pivens, this movie would have sucked harder than a Dyson vacuum (I'm running out of metaphors). The only real attribute of the movie that held it together was its cast of characters. Each hit man was unique and well developed. Too bad they didn't get much screen time. It would have been nice to see the movie extended and to see more depth and story played out in the ensemble cast.
Thomas Harris is a brilliant author crafting stories that captivate and entertain. His adaptation of his own book into the screenplay was a complete failure of epic proportions. Anthony Hopkins is thespian genius, using his lifelong craft of the act to fully-realized potential as he stepped into the role of Hannibal Lector. Gaspard Ulliel who took on the role of a young Hannibal for this movie was about as a good fit as a square peg in a round hole. He has the acting talents of a cast member from Laguna Beach. It was like watching a high school drama student try to open a Broadway show. Catastrophe would be a kind word to describe this movie.
This movie was like a bad remake of Police Academy. Sure there are some shock value gems spread sporadically throughout the film, but not an hour-and-a-half worth. Sitting through this movie was like sitting through five, commercial-free consecutive episodes of the show, which is four episodes too many. 
Someone should have sent Sam Raimi's production company a message not to green-light this film. Ghost House production studios has now cranked out two movies that follow the identical horror-movie formulas. Take a weak story, set it in a dark, creepy house, then make the audience jump with thunderous sounds. Which would all be great and dandy if I was a brainless movie-goer with expectations lower than Ford Motor's current profit margins. But, myself, like many other horror movie fans out there, have minimum expectations that include good acting, a decent script, and tension built on true suspense, not loud folly work.
The movie takes place during the Spanish Civil war and focuses its attention on a small girl named Ofelia. Ofelia is surrounded by violence, torture, cruelty, and sadness. To help her cope with these events in her real life, she retreats to a dream world. But the darkness of her real world soon begins to blend with that of her dream world creating a nightmarish landscape and a perilous journey.
The story chronicles a period in the life of Christopher Gardner, a man who is determined to achieve against never-ending challenges. It begins in 1981 in San Francisco, and depicts a journey of a man and his son through poverty and homelessness to success. The occasional narration of the main character is appreciated, if not humorous at times. 
I'm a big fan of Luc Besson's movies. He is a master at crafting unforgettable action films. But I have to be brutally honest when I give you my opinion of this movie and that is to tell you that's its pure crap. I've never seen such a hyper-active heap of hopelessness as this film. There isn't one redeming quality that makes this film watchable. 
I really don't need to spend much effort or time writing a review for this film because the Oklahoma City Gazette nailed it with their critique. Basically, this is a poorly done remake of "Star Wars". You've got all the signature characters just with different names. The plot is amazingly similar as well: Young Eragon goes to join the rebel forces to stop the destructive power of evil ruler over the land. You could also say this movie is the off-spring of Narnia and Harry Potter because they share common traits like directing style, editing, and scripting elements. 
There's nothing like celebrating the holidays with a remade slasher flick. I really don't understand it. How could Hollywood possibly give the green light on remakes whose original film didn't make a lot of money? It just doesn't make any sense to me. Black Christmas isn't the only one. House on Haunted Hill, 13 Ghosts, and the up coming The Hitcher. Do we really need to see how a director can breathe new life into a film that never had a life to begin with? I guess so.
Fun and whimsical, Night at the Museum takes us back through history to help inspire a younger generation that the past can be cool and that museums can be enjoyable. The movies is about a man with dreams who can't keep a job getting a chance at employment at a museum. Each night, because of a golden Egyptian tablet, the museum comes to life. Comedy ensues as the amateur night watchman tries desperately to keep the exhibits under control.
I'm not really looking for a lot of character depth and self-examination in my boxing movies, that's why I was never really a fan of the first Rocky. Now Rocky IV, where he goes fist-to-fist with Dolph Lundgren, the unstoppable Russian powerhouse. Now there's a plot. Watching this latest Rocky was like watching a old person re-tell stories of the glory days over and over again. It was for the most part, tiresome and uninspiring.