Slashfilm has an early review of the new GI Joe film and...shocker...it's not positive!  According to the source, who's saw a rough cut back in March, the movie's pretty laughable.  He even goes so far as to suggest that the whole cast could/should get Razzie nominations.  Ouch!   On a more upbeat note, he does say that a few of the action sequences are pretty cool. Check the full review here.  

So, to preface this review a little bit...I read both The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons.  I liked both books but, like most people it seems, I liked Angels & Demons better.  Now, that being said, I felt like the first movie was boring and overall, poorly executed.  Needless to say I went into the theater without very high expectations.

Seeing Watchmen today? Personally, I don't give much stock to reviews. If I want to see a movie, I want to see a movie -- no matter what Peter Travers or Ben Lyons say (chances are they say it's good anyway). But, here's a sampling of reviews, if you're into that kind of thing:

• The New Yorker: "The bad news about 'Watchmen' is that it grinds and squelches on for two and a half hours, like a major operation. The good news is that you don't have to stay past the opening credit sequence--easily the highlight of the film."
• Salon.com: "Dense, intense, tragic and visionary, this is the kind of movie that keeps setting off bombs in your brain hours after you've seen it."
• Entertainment Weekly: "Watchmen isn't boring, but as a fragmented sci-fi doomsday noir, it remains as detached from the viewer as it is from the zeitgeist."

Everyone's had the situation come up where you're excited to see a movie, and you've been looking forward to it for quite a while, and...then you see it and your hopes are shattered. That happened to me last night with Be Kind Rewind. Everything about this movie seemed to be right, at least in theory. All the pieces of the puzzle were there, great director, talented cast, creative story, but nothing came together.

The movie begins with 3 likable guys: Jack Black, Mos Def, and Danny Glover. All live in Passaic, NJ and are connected to a VHS video store named Be Kind Rewind. The store is not doing well and it's building is facing demolishment by the city to make way for a new development. Danny Glover, the store's owner, goes away and leaves it to his only employee, Mos Def, to keep it running smoothly. Things don't go so well however when his best friend played by Jack Black becomes magnetized (long and not interesting story) and erases all the tapes in the store. They then hatch a last minute plan to re film Ghostbusters for a customer thinking she won't know the difference (since she hasn't seen the original). Well, her son sees the film and knows it's not the original (and is only like 20 minutes long) but likes it anyways. And so their businesses new found success begins. Other people begin to flood the store to request remakes of other movies (a process they refer to as sweding the film). Everything seems to be turning around for them until the movie business sues them and abruptly brings their success to an end. They then have to try and make things work again to save the store.

Michael Gondry, the film's writer and director, has some pretty impressive credits to his name. He teamed with Charlie Kaufman on both Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Human Nature both of which were quirky and unique and totally awesome. Then he made The Science of Sleep which he also wrote. Now, it was quite weird and I didn't totally love it, but I loved the idea of it and it was definitely different from other movies out there and had something to say. Then comes Be Kind Rewind with a great premise but Gondry really fails to deliver here. He tries to make this movie unique and put his stamp on it and at times he succeeds but mostly just falls flat.

The movie is a mess from start to finish. There's potential for this to be very charming story but there's more focus on the comedy which doesn't seem to cut it the majority of the time. It seems disjointed in terms of the flow of the main story and the only parts of the movie that seem to work are the 'sweded' parts. The sequences of the friends sweding the movies are hilarious especially with the Ghostbusters remake. This is not only the first movie they swede but also the one that we get to witness the most in depth. This part of the movie is a homerun. It's charming to watch these two friends earnestly try to remake this classic so that one of their customers has a movie to watch (mostly so she won't tell the boss that all the movies are screwed up). This scene of the movie had me laughing my ass off...if only the rest of the film had the same effect.

Jack Black is stale. He and Will Ferrell are in the same boat except for the fact that Ferrell is more charming and has wider appeal. That's not to say that Black hasn't been great in some movies, High Fidelity was great as was The School of Rock, but his performance in this movie is absolutely predictable. He doesn't give any more than what we've seen before so it just ends up feeling familiar (and not in the good way). Mos Def is probably the highlight of the movie. He plays the main protagonist, a very lovable loser who's never had anything but nevertheless has a perpetually optimistic attitude. Mos Def becomes his character and that's the difference between him and Black - one is playing a part in the movie and one is playing himself.

All in all, Be Kind Rewind had tremendous potential but wastes most of it and just leaves the viewer with a so-so taste in their mouth. There's nothing at all outstanding about this movie and in fact ends up pretty boring except for the scenes with the friends sweding the movies. The movie's not all bad but it just pales in comparison to what it could/should be.

What do you get when you take an interesting premise and then muck it up and overdo it to the point it gets painful to watch? You get Vantage Point, a film with a great cast and pretty much nothing else going for it.

So, the plot synopsis is a little complicated, but here's the dumbed down version (which would probably have made for a better film if told in a straightforward narrative). The president of the United States (everyone in the movie tries to look cool and refer to him as POTUS, whatever) is in Spain to support this anti-terrrorism summit when the unthinkable happens...he is shot! Things are however, not so simple, US intelligence got wind of this scheme and sent a body double for the pres while the real deal is chillin' in a hotel ridiculously close by. The terrorists aren't stupid however and know where the real deal is and use this assassination attempt as a distraction while they kidnap ol' POTUS. Enter Dennis Quaid as the president's star secret service officer who's already taken a bullet once to protect the president and now has some major anxiety issues. Turns out he's probably the only one who can break this thing open and save the president...again.

Now, I actually think this could have made for a cool movie, The filmmakers have taken the stance that they're gonna tell the story from different people's perspectives...or vantage points if you will. This could be done well, but with each new version of the story we're give little to no information. Most of it ends up being a complete waste of time and gets old very fast. Like I said above, the movie would have probably been better if they had decided to film it more traditionally and actually used some creative editing to reveal all the different story lines simultaneously. This would have cut out a LOT of crap and given them time to develop some of the key characters a little better.

Perhaps the most glaringly unnecessary part of the film is it's beginning. The film is set up by following a news crew led by Sigourney Weaver (whose only in the first 10 minutes or so) and Zoe Saldana. This whole segment could have been edited out of the movie. As great as Weaver is, she adds nothing to he movie and it's really annoying to see her wasted by being featured for such an insignificant role. The filmmakers use the news crew to give us some background info (ie the fact that Dennis Quaid's character has been recently wounded as above and is making his first appearance guarding the president since his recovery) but honestly, this could have been done better and in ways that would make us identify with the characters. This way just ends up being like a fancy, albeit unecessary, voiceover - and we all know how many weak films need voiceover to aid in set up.

Dennis Quaid is passable in the role of the emotionally fragile but fiercely loyal secret service agent. But really, the role doesn't seem like much of a stretch for him (see his other films The Alamo, Flight of the Phoenix, The Day After Tomorrow).  He plays it well, but again, not a stretch. Matthew Fox plays Quaid's secret service agent partner guy and he is amazingly annoying as such. He's just kinda blah and doesn't bring much of a character to his role - just seems kinda one-dimensional. Forrest Whitaker rounds out the "big names" in the cast (except for William Hurt who plays the president but isn't really noteworthy in any way). He plays an American tourist in Spain and gets himself wrapped up in the middle of all this crap in what I think is a pretty unrealistic way. He's never really bad in any role I've seen but this role seems much more indicative of his body of work that his Oscar winning role as Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland. I think that maybe was his moment to shine and the rest of his movies end up being middle-of-the-road.

In summary, Vantage Point isn't really a movie that I would recommend to any of my friends unless they're looking for an action film with an interesting premise but over-use of a gimmick and poorly utilized acting talent. Personally, I don't know many people looking for films in that vein though. 

What can I say about Semi-Pro? It's not a bad movie - at all. It's actually quite funny as all of Will Ferrell's movies have been. Don't get me wrong, it's no Talladega Nights or Old School, but it's good - along the lines of Blades of Glory.

The plot is totally predictable, but who really goes to see a Will Ferrell movie for the plot. The movie is set in the mid seventies and revolves around Ferrell's character, a one-hit wonder named Jackie Moon who used the profits from his hit single to buy an ABA basketball team in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. The ABA is being absorbed by the NBA and Moon gets the idea that the leagues 4 best teams should be the ones to join - this is somewhat of a bad idea given that Moon's team, the Tropics, have the worst record in the league. The remainder of the movie sees that Tropics trying to win out to be one of the top 4 teams all the while trying to boost attendance via some pretty wacky schemes.

So, to first state the obvious: Will Ferrell always plays the same character. He's totally lovable and goofy and really funny, but he doesn't have any range whatsoever. Even Stranger Than Fiction which was his somewhat dramatic departure was just a variation of himself. That's not to say Hollywood doesn't need him. He has something that really no one else in the industry has right now, but he's totally wearing his welcome thin at this point. He kinda needs to go away for a while and then come back once people aren't so used to his schtick.

The rest of the cast is pretty good. Andre Benjamin plays the star of the team athletically speaking. He's the typical cocky athlete with a heart of gold. His is one of the most likable characters by the end of the film. Woody Harrelson is the washed-up basketball star who's brought onto the team to lend some much needed experience and ends up becoming the team's emotional center. One thing that is a real shame though is the fact that some of the supporting talent was wasted. Andy Richter who might be one of the funniest men alive was totally squandered - he still hasn't really found a forum to showcase his hilarity since he left Conan O'Brian. Will Arnett's talent was also wasted here - he was genius on Arrested Development but falls flat in this role. Both men were given tiny roles that left no room for their talents to shine through.

What more is there to say about this movie that makes a point of being pointless. It relishes in the fact that it's ultimately going nowhere and recycles gags from every underdog sports movie ever adding Will Ferrell's signature style - for better or worse.

Jumper makes you feel like you're missing part of the story. And, you are. It's the first of a planned three films and it's largely a vehicle to lead you to the other two movies. You can't help but leave the theater feeling like the real story hasn't even begun and that you just watched an hour-and-a-half long prologue.

Jumper is a movie with a strong premise - a dude with the ability to teleport basically anywhere in the world he wants. The execution of that premise sometimes falters, but overall it's an enjoyable ride. That's not to say the film doesn't have its' flaws - pretty big ones too.

There Will Be Blood has received positive attention for a number of reasons - Daniel Day Lewis' performance, the outstanding score, and Paul Thomas Anderson's outstanding vision.  This movie deserves all the praise it's been receiving and more. He offers up a mesmerizing look at a turn of the century oil man that won't soon be forgotten.                          

PT Anderson is an amazing film maker. Every movie that he's made has been well written, well acted, and exceedingly detail oriented.  He's definitely one of the most talented writer/directors working in Hollywood today. The other great thing about PT Anderson is his range - he's gone from a gritty casino-set drama in Hard Eight (aka Sydney) to the world of seventies porn in Boogie Nights and to a modern day ensemble piece that's too complicated for summation in Magnolia. He now expands his impressive repertoire with There Will Be Blood - an achingly deliberate, beautiful film.

The movie follows the life of Daniel Plainview who starts the movie as a humble prospector and ends up  a ruthless but wealthy oil tycoon. It is of course, more complicated, but that's really the concept of the story which is based on the novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair. The film spans over 20 years of Plainview's life and follows him through the good - striking oil, growing wealthy- and the bad - pretty much everything else in the movie.

Anderson has a reputation as an actor's director - someone whom actors want to work with and who can elicit the most amazing performances from his cast. This movie is no different. The acting is superb all around. Any review of this movie without speaking of Daniel Day Lewis.  He gives an amazing performance as Daniel Plainview - so staggeringly amazing that one forgets that he's even acting.  He has the ability to inhabit his characters which has been obvious throughout his career (see My Left Foot, Last of the Mohicans, and Gangs of New York if you doubt his abilities) but this performance takes the cake. If he doesn't win the Oscar this year, then there is just no integrity to the selection process anymore.

 The rest of the cast is really a means of telling his story and figure into the plot rather superficially.  The only other characters who impact the movie significantly are Plainview's son H.W. (who is struck deaf at the age of 10 in a mining explosion) and an over the top, young preacher named Eli Sunday (played by Paul Dano).  The latter figures heavily into several key plot points but it's how he influences Plainview that is the topic of the film.

The movie has a really unique tone, vascillating  between moments of extreme tension and deliberate slowness.  This is due, in large part, to the score - an eerie collection of ethereal tones composed by Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood.  Never before has a score so influenced my emotional involvement in a film.  PT Andersons' use of visuals also contributes to the tone and pacing.  He opts for long takes which are frequently wide angle, allowing for a full appraisal of the action.  This approach is extremely successful in conveying the despair and isolation essential to the story.

Novels make great novels. They rarely make great movies. Case-in-point: There Will Be Blood. Director / Writer PT Anderson failed to translate Upton Sinclair's brilliant, character-driven novel into anything remotely close to an entertaining film.

This is gonna be a pretty short review seeing as there's not much to say about the film.  If you've seen the previews, you've pretty much got the whole movie. There's a serial killer on the loose and he's broadcasting his victim's torture and death on a website called KillWithMe.com.  Anyone who enters the site not only witnesses the torture and eventual death of the victim but contributes to their death.  The site comes to the attention of the FBI's cybercrimes unit.  Diane Lane is one of the investigators and happens to be assigned to head up the case and cooperate with the local sargeant played by Billy Burke.  Colin Hanks plays a fellow FBI agent and Joseph Cross plays the killer (don't worry, that doesn't give anything away). 

Basically, this movie has very few if any redeeming qualities.  The dialogue is terrible as is the acting - which really annoyed me because the actors themselves are all really good or at least have been in previous roles.  The plot is obviously predictable (I bet you can guess what happens in the end) and the direction leaves much to be desired.  The story actually has the potential to be interesting but the opportunity was wasted at every turn.

It's a bad sign when the only interesting parts of a film are its last five minutes. Atonement is a dull movie whose thin plot could've been wrapped up in about 30 minutes, and I think I'm being a bit generous.

What's most frustrating is that the story had potential. Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan, daughter of Paul Ronin), as a 13-year-old aspiring writer, dramatically up heaves the lives of several people when she wrongly reports that she saw one of the house servants, Robbie Turner (James McAvoy, The Last King of Scotland, Chronicles of Narnia), rape a young cousin living in the family's enormous country estate. Robbie is hauled off to prison and Briony's sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley, Pirates of the Caribbean) is left longing for the man she's just realized she loves. Briony (later played by Romola Garai, Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights) spends the rest of her life seeking atonement that she more or less never gets until near present day, when as her final act as a writer, she writes the story her own way (then played by Vanessa Redgrave, Nip/Tuck, Girl Interrupted).

Though the filmmakers had a universal theme and stunning actors to work with, they weren't able to take that story anywhere interesting. Atonement is simply, entirely, totally--boring. The most compelling moments come when Redgrave's character reveals the true story and we find that what we were watching wasn't what really happened. Unfortunately, that's also the end of the film.

From a technical standpoint, the film has its moments, but those are even somewhat uneven. Its beautiful cinematography and lighting are often overshadowed by a garish and widely inappropriate musical score from Dario Marianelli. He juxtaposes loud, large classical numbers against what should be tender, quiet scenes. There is a skill to that kind of contrast and he doesn't have it.

If there is a upshot, it's the acting. Saoirse Ronan's Oscar nomination for best supporting actress is well-deserved (whether she should win is another story), though Romola Garai and Keira Knightley would have been better choices. They both deliver outstanding performances, particularly Garai. Still, the acting's not enough to save this particularly dull and pretentious film. But that's not to say it won't sweep the Oscar's next month (it's sitting on a boatload of nominations, some legitimate, some not - like Marianelli's). After all, the Academy loves the dull and pretentious. Too bad they can't add entertaining to that list.