Tombstone (1993)

Westerns tend to fall into two camps. Either they present a difficult message about the morality of a time gone by, wistful recollections of lives and loves lost and a country that still had some mystery to it. Or they are simply about the a bunch of the manliest men doing the manliest thing a man could do in the manly Wild West: killing folk with six-shooters. Unfortunately, this falls into the later category. That doesn't mean it's a bad film, per se, but if you're going to show off famed lawman Wyatt Earp's handiwork at the O.K. Corral, it seems a waste that the lasting impression the movie tries to shove around is “look how awesome this was!” Still, the frontier town vibe, the optimistic, if simplistic, motives of everyone involved, and the presence of some of the most impressive facial hair in cinema history make this worthwhile if you're after a solid no frills western. Watching Val Kilmer chew on scenery as Doc Holiday for two hours is worth the price of admission alone. While it seems hard not to knock the film for what it ain't, what it is is generally pretty good.

7 out of 10.

Terminator (1984)

Some classics don't age entirely well. Despite being the star-maker for The Governator himself, this is a film with some exceptional qualities held back by production that may have been trendy and cutting edge at the time, but today seems quaint at best. Set as a story of a cyborg assassin sent back in time to kill the mother of a future leader, the tale told is barely enough to fill a short story, yet the film plays this to its advantage by filling with lots of action and a few great character moments. The action scenes themselves are very well done, showing off a young James Cameron's aptitude for exceptional staging, but it's the moments of suspense that really stand out; the relentless finale especially is a heart-pounding chase of incredible intensity. What ultimately holds the film back, however, are the trappings of the era in which it was made. While the teased hair and garish neon culture of the early 80s can be forgiven as set dressing, it becomes increasingly difficult to overlook the sound mixing and film score, which frequently undercuts some of the best scenes. It's a damn shame too, as a little more longevity in this area would push this great film into the same league as its legendary sequel. For now it's a good film with some dated key elements—fun to watch, and exciting, but flawed.

7 out of 10.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)

James Cameron has a knack for sequels. After turning the Aliens franchise from horror legend to action masterpiece, he returns to followup on his original film about a coming war between humans and machines. This time two robots are sent back in time both sent to deal with the future leader of the resistance. What plays out is a whip-smart action movie with incredible stunts and big explosions, yet more character and soul than most Oscar-bait. It is a remarkable movie, deftly bouncing between exceptional suspense and mega-budget effects, to thoughtful musings on the human condition, parenting, destiny, and the burdens of leadership. Arnold Schwarzenegger returns to his career-making role of the T-101 model terminator, almost perfectly finding balance between his trademark coldhearted stare and making him just human enough to be relatable. Linda Hamilton also does incredible work as the strong, though deeply troubled, Sarah Connor. The remaining cast does exceptionally well across the board. Once in a long while you get a film that comes along with everything: intelligent characters, quotable lines, iconic action, and a solid set of messages. There aren't really any areas to knock this film; it's about as good as this genre gets.

10 out of 10.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

From a plot point of view, there really isn't much wrong with the film considering what was left to work with after the second: more robots are sent back in time, but now they are preparing for the coming nuclear holocaust as best they can for their side, rather than trying to prevent or ensure it. The problems with the film mostly lie in how it is presented and, often, scripted. A series begins to lose its impact when it starts to rely on sly, winking references to the previous films, and the first half-hour is largely one obnoxious sight gag after another. Similarly, the casting is all over the place. Arnold does due diligence to the role he made a movie icon, and Kristanna Loken does well as yet another new model of terminator. However Nick Stahl is a bit limp as future resistance leader John Connor, and Claire Danes, a fairly accomplished actress with considerable talent, is completely miscast. Still, there are a few highlights, including an obscenely destructive car chase, and an ending that remains remarkably effective. As a whole, the movie is competent, but just barely. There is nearly none of the sharp intelligence or pure suspense of the previous entries, but things still explode nicely and the plot still chugs along.

6 out of 10.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Wow. What went wrong? Let's all be honest here: you shouldn't expect much from a movie based on a cartoon that was based on a series of toys. Still, somehow director Michael Bay managed to make magic happen with the first film, concocting a light romp in which giant robots beat the snot out of each other for our amusement. It was funny, exciting, quickly paced, and pleasantly inconsequential. This film, on the other hand, is a morass of terrible screenwriting on top of embarrassingly bad acting, and an air of over-inflated self importance. Even the exceptionally glossy sheen of absurdly good special effects can't overcome this half-cocked mess of gaping plot holes and horrendously irritating characters. Meanwhile the action, the one part you could hope to count on, is nothing but a few slow motion explosions splattered over a some confusing whip-pans. There are a pair of decent action sequences in here, but twenty-five minutes of awesome is not worth enduring two additional, excruciating hours of tripe. This film goes down about as easy as swallowing a cheese-grater.

3 out of 10.

Terminator Salvation (2009)

Everyone who has followed the series thus far has been waiting for this. Up to this point, everything Terminator has been about preventing Judgment Day, the nuclear apocalypse set off by rogue computer Skynet, who would later go on to send robots back in time to assassinate the future leader of the resistance. Now Judgment Day has passed, the world is a blasted nuclear hellscape, and the surviving humans struggle against a ruthless robot army. Sure sounds exciting, doesn't it? In truth, it's quite bland. While the film has an inexhaustible special effects budget, and more explosions per minute than even the most accident-prone fireworks factory, the story, the characters, and sadly even the action consistently fail to impress. What could have been an interesting reset for the series instead inexplicably skips the early part and dives straight into the middle chapter, with the resistance up and running, and Connor already positioned to be the anti-robot messiah. There's no character struggle, and surprisingly little humanity given the series's themes so far. It jettisons almost everything fans have come to care about and fills in the blanks with bigger, more opaque blanks. And yet, there's still the nuggets here and there, where even the most jaded observer gets curious, or is wowed by a great effect or explosion. It's at these points, and only these points, where the film has a purpose. See it to munch on popcorn, turn your brain off, and watch the white noise. Do not see it because you care about the franchise.

4 out of 10.

Taken (2009)

For all of Liam Neeson's considerable acting talent, for the cinematic history he's made as a Jedi, a Batman villain, an Irish revolutionary, and Oscar Schindler himself, he just can't seem to pull off an American accent. Or smile, for that matter. Luckily, for this tale of a father on the rampage to retrieve his kidnapped daughter, he has little time to speak and almost no reason to smile. All told, this is very much a by-the-numbers action thriller, but there's a sense of uncomfortable awkwardness both in Neeson's performance, and the director Pierre Morrel's apparent inexperience in the big chair. The result is something far more spastic, and far less dramatic, than necessary. You're rarely, if ever, given the chance to buy in to the events going on. This holds true to the action as well, which frequently uses obnoxiously disorganized editing in place of actual choreography. Still, there's a nugget of fun to be had in its time—the situation presented is appropriately horrifying with or without the actor's help selling it, and when Neeson has to appear threatening and moody, well, history shows us he's quite good at that. The result is a film with a few decent high points among a mostly droning, passive spectacle. It'll scratch an itch, but it's quite forgettable.

5 out of 10.

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Let's get this out of the way: Ben Stiller is still not funny. Luckily, most everyone else in the film is. The setup is simple enough: a foursome of self-absorbed movie stars try to make an Apocalypse Now style war film, and the director decides it would be easier to keep his cast in line by sending them out into the tropic jungles of Indonesia. Broadly painted, R-rated hilarity ensues. By all rights, this is a film that tries way to hard to make us laugh, throwing hundreds of obvious, predictable punchlines shouted through a powerful surround mix while explosions dance around on the screen. It's frequently too much, however a sufficient number of gags penetrate the miasma of noise and still hit home. In particular, Robert Downy Jr. as a method actor in gloriously offensive black face for the movie's duration manages to send up both racial stereotypes in film as well as the practice of method acting in general. Also a delight is an extended cameo by Tom Cruise that shows the controversial actor still has his sense of humor. So it's a lot of pointless noise for it's own sake, and the leading man is pretty much dead on arrival—it really doesn't matter. There's enough charm left in its overblown production to make its two hours go down with a smile.

7 out of 10.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Terrance Malick isn't known for making bad movies, which is just one of the reasons why The Thin Red Line is so surprising. This intensely introspective World War II drama isn't really about war at all, but about the internal dialogue and mid-traumatic stress disorders folks get while in the thick of a firefight. The problem is it's so laboriously paced and thoughtfully meandering that most of the film is taken up by copious amounts of the beautifully shot scenery. Still, it's got a ridiculously great cast, which includes at least a half-dozen household names (George Clooney, Nick Nolte and Sean Penn, for example), and a good ten other folks that any film geek could easily recognize (such as John C. Reilly, Thomas Jane, and Adrien Brody), almost all cast as mere extras or single-line, single-scene characters. That such a huge amount of talent and money was used on a film that is at least an hour too long by a director who many consider one of the eccentric greats is such a shame. While I give some credit to the gorgeous scenery, and even a fantastic performance by Nolte, the majority of the movie seems to just drag on and on and on. If you're wanting a thinking man's war film, go ahead and slop another point onto my score. Otherwise, there are far better ways to look inside a soldier's head than this, both figuratively and literally.

5 out of 10.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Paul Thomas Anderson and I have the same agreement that Stanley Kubrick and I used to have: I don't like his movies, but that doesn't stop me from thinking they're brilliant. I think Anderson's directing style is so overbearingly character-focused that it becomes easy to forget there's a bigger picture at work. This is again the case with Blood, in which Daniel Day-Lewis plays an oil baron bringing up a new well in a quiet no-man's land where the closest thing he has to competition is the local preacher. The ensuing 160 minutes study him slowly unraveling as he deals with a populace having to choose between faith, family and finance. Day-Lewis plays his character to the hilt as the ruthless bastard that he is. Every inch of him is appropriately easy to hate, but in delving into the nature of evil within his fanatically capitalist extortion, the larger themes, and indeed the whole picture, become a nuanced portrait of a time, place and people. That might sound like intellectual avoidance, but the ideas at work here are deeply complex and as such difficult to divulge. It's the kind of film that will spark discussion regardless of the viewer's like or dislike of the film. It could be interpreted in a dozen different ways, and though I may personally have had difficulty enjoying the film itself, the onslaught of food for thought here tickles like only the very best of movies do. If you have it in you to be genuinely challenged by what cinema has to offer, then this is an absolute must-see.

10 out of 10.

Talk to Me (2007)

Occasionally touching, extremely well acted, but sadly lacking in the second hour, Talk to Me is a film at odds with itself. For the first half, watching Don Cheadle's take on 1960s Washington D.C. disc jockey Petey Greene is a master class in character acting. He utterly loses himself in the role, creating a caustic prophet for the black community during times of exceptional strife. You understand his pathos and though he can be tough to like, Cheadle's performance is flawlessly realized. Then the second half focuses on his manager Dewey Hughes, played with equal clarity by Serenity star Chiwetel Ejiofor. The problem is that while Petey Greene is a firebrand of controversy and hard living, Dewey Hughes comes off as a man of tempered ambition and moderation. While the oil-and-water chemistry and brotherly love between the two is readily apparent, when put on their own Hughes is by far the less interesting. This renders the film a mixed bag. While it portrays its era with fantastic skill and craft, it just can't overcome that the more involving story all but walks out halfway through the movie.

7 out of 10.

The Triplets of Belleville (2003)

Also known as Les Triplettes de Belleville.
As enchantingly clever as it is impenetrably obscure, this is the kind of rare movie that can create both wonder and confusion in a single effortless breath. Strictly as a movie, it's difficult to describe even at its most basic elements. In a way, it's kind of a Pink Panther cartoon on some toe-tapping steroids, but there's a kind of mime-inspired craft at work here that's truly unlike anything else. The visual styles in play are a combination of 1940s pop art and comic book sketches that really jump off the screen and bring everything to life. The animation is just wonderful from start to finish. There's almost no dialogue—I counted about a dozen sentences total, almost all in French and not a one relevant to the story—yet still a full tale is told with some wonderful wit, peculiar twists, and very enjoyable characters including a humorously overweight dog with more expression and character than some entire movies. What sound is used is largely ambient, though peppered throughout the film are a few outstanding music numbers done in a jitterbug jazz style. Even with as much praise as I've heaped on the film, however, I cannot recommend the movie to everybody. The absolutely strange way in which the yarn is woven will very likely prove very slow and dull or confusing to some, and there's a subversive and viciously dark subtext throughout the entire production. Still, if you find pleasure in a bit of light bewilderment, solid if sparse tunes, and great art, you won't find many better ways to tweak your noggin than this.

8 out of 10.

30 Days of Night (2007)

For a movie that spends so much screen time developing our heroes it's amazing how little you care when they die. Here's another great concept for a horror flick—Vampires in the long night that is the Alaskan winter—wasted on a poor script, a few underrated actors, and a director with better past projects. Sure it's got its creep factor, but how hard is it to jump out behind something and yell boo? If you want to make someone leap out of their seat, that works fine, but that isn't what makes a movie memorable. And it's great that the film gives plenty of time for character development, but there's nothing there to develop. Oh, and don't even get me started on the vampires. They didn't even try to develop them! They're just sadistic dickholes who like to eat people. I've been more sympathetic to zombies! This movie just doesn't work. It's two hours of empty jump scares and blood-stained snow, and pretty much nothing more.

3 out of 10.

This Girl's Life (2003)

Porno! Now that I have your attention, let me tell you a bit about this neat little indie flick about an adult film star (played by Juliette Marquis), her disabled father, and her struggle to define herself beyond her body of work (bad pun). It pretty much manages to tick off every box that the promise of independent filmmaking provides. Unique moral perspective? The lead enjoys her line of work and has an interesting philosophical take on it. Unconventional topic? Well it is about porno! Content befitting its rating? We've got drug use, plenty of sex, and nudity (male and female). And how about piles of character actors? James Woods, Rosario Dawson, Michael Rapaport, Ioan Gruffodd, Isiah Washington, and Cheyenne Silver round out the cast. Meanwhile, the directing works, and the acting is likable all around, though really nothing special. The script is interesting and clever, but has trouble wrapping it's various threads toward the end. All in all it's a well made movie that has enough T&A for the guys, enough character for the ladies, and is sufficiently unique to keep the movie snobs off their collective soapbox.

7 out of 10.

300 (2007)

So that. Was. Sparta. Call me cynical, but I always pictured something a little less... digital. Make no mistake, whatever else the film may be, it sure looks good! The acting, meanwhile, is generally passable but more from the Michael Bay school of performance than, say, Shakespeare. Queen Gorgo probably comes out best, whilst the one-note King Leonidas injects some testosterone, dials his voice up to 11 and has at it. At the same time the script he shouts doesn't bother giving these fellows much reason to fight other than being generally indignant, so basically the whole film is an exercise in angry bloodbaths with a criminally dull side of toga politics. I guess it comes down to what you want out of your movies. If your idea of a good time is watching a few thousand things die in gruesome detail, while a king paradoxically screams about freedom and reason in front and inside of sublime visual canvases then this movie is everything you could possibly hope for and then some. But if you care why these people fight, or what these people fight for, or just want to see a toga debate given the same loving detail as a battle scene then your mileage may vary.

7 out of 10.

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Being the story of an outlaw and a family man in the American south(-wild-)west as told by actors Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, an Aussie and a Brit respectively. Are we so low on manly man actors in this country that we need to outsource? As to the film itself, there really is very little to complain over, but at the same time nothing to start calling friends about either. The script is well written and engaging, the film's pace set to a steady and sure 'amble', the costuming and accents correct in their place, and the acting solid all around, especially Ben Foster's turn as a brutal second banana to Crowe's first... pineapple? Everything seems to skate the line of “very good” from start to finish, but never quite makes the jump into “great”. The only disappointment about the whole thing is that its ending takes what becomes a fascinating study of moral ambiguity in the wild west and lends it a level of uncomfortable certainty, simultaneously confusing and insulting the audience in the process. Worth seeing if you're a fan of non-ironic (except that whole Brit/Aussie thing), old fashioned westerns. Good to see Alan Tudyk is still getting work.

8 out of 10.

TMNT (2007)

I can't believe I'm about to say this: I hope this movie gets a sequel. While it falls into many of the traps that aimed-mostly-at-kids films tend to fall into, it nonetheless manages to come across as wonderful return for four+ of my childhood idols. The acting is great, the animation is spectacular, and the action scenes are exceptionally well done (the fight in the rain is particularly exciting). The movie tends to be a bit too quick-paced for its own good at times, preferring to throw you through plot with redundant exposition at a break-neck speed, but the personalities of the entire crew, from the four turtles to April, to Casey Jones and the rest managed to tickle my nostalgia bone for all the right reasons. Even with everything it gets right however, it still has trouble keeping its footing for the majority of its running time. The things it gets right are stellar, but there are just enough hard-to-define off balance elements that keep it from being what it could be. A more focused sequel could fix a lot of these elements and bring in more outstanding action scenes as well. Maybe somehow bring in Shredder too... Till then, I'm mostly pleased with what I saw.

7 out of 10.

Tideland (2005)

If Raising Arizona, Pan's Labyrinth, Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas, and Castaway had some freaky four way sex, this would probably be their illegitimate bastard movie child. It's just a shame that it isn't as good as any of those movies. Except Castaway, but that isn't saying much. Starring a soon-to-be-jailbait kid, a lobotomized epileptic and a prosthetic Jeff Bridges, it's the kind of film that makes you wonder why you started watching it in the first place, and keeps you watching to see if it ever devolves into full-on train wreck or just skirts around the idea. The pun was unintentional. It's a fascinating movie that maintains Terry Gilliam's kung-fu grip on fantastic camerawork, but never quite coalesces into truly solid narrative till literally the last five minutes. That it remains interesting if occasionally grating throughout is to its credit. Gilliam's work has always been about keeping the audience off balance (recall his animations for Monty Python back in the day), but some stuff comes off better than others. Tideland pretty much manages to show that he's still got the gift to make a great movie, but that sadly this isn't it. Still, if you like Gilliam's work it is absolutely worth watching.

7 out of 10.

Transformers (2007)

Two hours of explosive, nerd-happy action. Honestly a movie like this doesn't need to be anything more than 140 minutes of Godzilla-bots beating the crap out of eachother. Mission accomplished.

9 out of 10.

28 Weeks Later (2007)

Not as good as the first, but still pretty damn good. A few glaring gaps of logic, and the problem of focusing the story on 2 intrepid fugee British children keep it from being the mature, thinking man's zombie movie the first managed to somehow be. It still manages to maintain the same sense of visceral urgency and brutality, however. When the limbs start flying the film is at its strongest, giving its exceptionally well-realized post apocalyptic war zone a sense of plausibility and reality few other other movies bother to portray. If only the characters had managed to be as detailed as the settings and the carnage. I guess we'll just have to settle for being almost as good as its predecessor.

7 out of 10.