TOP 10 COMEDIES OF 2010

When the Mayans predicted that 2012 would be the end of the world they also predicted that 2010 would be the funniest year.

So let’s see if that’s correct. Here are the best comedy movies of 2010:


10.DINNER FOR SCHMUCKS

Synopsis: When he finds out that his work superiors host a dinner celebrating the idiocy of their guests, a rising executive questions it when he's invited, just as he befriends a man who would be the perfect guest.



9.LOVE AND OTHER DRUGS

Synopsis: Maggie (Hathaway) is an alluring free spirit who won't let anyone - or anything - tie her down. But she meets her match in Jamie (Gyllenhaal), whose relentless and nearly infallible charm serve him well with the ladies and in the cutthroat world of pharmaceutical sales. Maggie and Jamie's evolving relationship takes them both by surprise, as they find themselves under the influence of the ultimate drug: love.




8.GOING THE DISTANCE

Synopsis: A romantic comedy centered on a guy and a gal who try to keep their love alive as they shuttle back and forth between New York and San Francisco to see one another.




7.HOT TUB TIME MACHINE

Synopsis: Four guy friends, all of them bored with their adult lives, travel back to their respective 80s heydays thanks to a time-bending hot tub.




6.THE BOUNTY HUNTER

Synopsis: A bounty hunter learns that his next target is his ex-wife, a reporter working on a murder cover-up. Soon after their reunion, the always-at-odds duo find themselves on a run-for-their-lives adventure.



5. DATE NIGHT

Synopsis: In New York City, a case of mistaken identity turns a bored married couple's attempt at a glamorous and romantic evening into something more thrilling and dangerous.




4.COP OUT

Synopsis: A comedy about a veteran NYPD cop whose rare baseball card is stolen. Since it's his only hope to pay for his daughter's upcoming wedding, he recruits his partner to track down the thief, a memorabilia-obsessed gangster.




3. THE OTHER GUYS

Synopsis: Two mismatched New York City detectives seize an opportunity to step up like the city's top cops whom they idolize -- only things don't quite go as planned.




2.GET HIM TO THE GREEK

Synopsis: A record company intern is hired to accompany out-of-control British rock star Aldous Snow to a concert at L.A.'s Greek Theater.




1.DUE DATE

Synopsis: High-strung father-to-be Peter Highman is forced to hitch a ride with aspiring actor Ethan Tremblay on a road trip in order to make it to his child's birth on time.

TOP 10 HORROR MOVIES 2010

So it’s that time of the year again, when no exciting or fun news hits the wire as we wind down the year and every movie site devolves into making top 10 lists for all of the movies they’ve seen since last January. All joking aside, out of all the articles I write over the course of the year, this is the one I assume is an absolute gimmie every single year because I don’t have to think of any new topics.

The fact of the matter is that it’s extremely difficult to not only track down all of these movies but also to rank and file them in a coherent piece that exists not to stroke my own ego, but to hopefully spread the word of some really magnificent genre films that I truly believe deserve more respect than they get. So in an attempt to do just that I give you Djibril’s Top 10 Horror Movies of 2010. (All synopsis’ are from IMDB.com)


10.PREDATORS
Synopsis: A group of elite warriors are hunted by members of a merciless alien race known as Predators.




9.MY SOUL TO TAKE
Synopsis: A serial killer returns to his hometown to stalk seven children who share the same birthday as the date he was allegedly put to rest.




8.A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET
Synopsis: A re-imagining of the horror icon Freddy Krueger, a serial-killer who wields a glove with four blades embedded in the fingers and kills people in their dreams, resulting in their real death in reality.




7.PIRANHA 3D
Synopsis: After a sudden underwater tremor sets free scores of the prehistoric man-eating fish, an unlikely group of strangers must band together to stop themselves from becoming fish food for the area's new razor-toothed residents.




6.PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2
Synopsis: After a sudden underwater tremor sets free scores of the prehistoric man-eating fish, an unlikely group of strangers must band together to stop themselves from becoming fish food for the area's new razor-toothed residents.




5.SAW 3D
Synopsis: As a deadly battle rages over Jigsaw's brutal legacy, a group of Jigsaw survivors gathers to seek the support of self-help guru and fellow survivor Bobby Dagen, a man whose own dark secrets unleash a new wave of terror.




4.AFTER LIFE
Synopsis: A young woman caught between life and death... and a funeral director who appears to have the gift of transitioning the dead, but might just be intent on burying her alive.




3.SHUTTER ISLAND
Synopsis: Drama set in 1954, U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels is investigating the disappearance of a murderess who escaped from a hospital for the criminally insane and is presumed to be hiding on the remote Shutter Island.




2.THE CRAZIES
Synopsis: About the inhabitants of a small Iowa town suddenly plagued by insanity and then death after a mysterious toxin contaminates their water supply.




1.DEVIL
Synopsis: A group of people trapped in an elevator realize that the devil is among them.

HALLOWEEN WEEK.........GET YOUR SPOOK ON!!!

After being quiet for months,I'm now back (although not with a BANG...lol...).As we all know,it's the last week of October and that can only mean one thing....Halloween is here!!In the past few years we have been treated with great horror movies opening on the Halloween weekend.And this year is no different....

Horror movie fans are going to get one amazing October if all the Hollywood magic goes down as planned with two major features being released which will likely rock the box office in a heavy way. Both Saw VII 3D, the continuation of one of the biggest grossing and longest running modern horror series facing off against last year’s major slayer of demonic possession, Paranormal Activity. Film critics will likely be quick to dash both films since they do not tend to be kind to the darlings of the horror genre, but that likely will not dissuade fans who love a good sequel from their favorite scary franchises. This seventh installment of the highly popular Saw franchise is almost guaranteed to bring in big money for the companies and has become a very bankable cinematic endeavor.



SAW literally assaults moviegoers’ senses with its over-the-top, gruesome scenes, and probably spawned the term for the genre, “torture porn.” Lions Gate continues to attack us with these offerings, one a year since 2004. Why? Because they’re cheap to make and people turn out in droves to see them.



If you are not a 'torture porn' fan then check out last weekend’s fright fest “Paranormal Activity 2,” which hooked audiences and critics alike, scoring a cool $41.5 million at the box office, $6.3 million of that just from Thursday midnight showings. That’s a record for a three-day horror film opening, just in case you were wondering.

It also garnered solid reviews from critics, many of whom said that while it wasn’t as novel or as terrifying as its predecessor, it had its moments… and plenty of them.





Paranormal Activity 2 is directed by a new director to the horror genre, Tod “Kip” Williams who is known for his previous work on The Adventures of Sebastian Cole and The Door in the Floor. The original Paranormal Activity was shot on a very low budget and was something of a massive hit for audiences after the online campaign to bring it out in theaters proved to be successful. It was shot for $15,000 but it grossed nearly $200 million across the globe. This will be a very tough act to follow, but the coffers should be filled with enough money to give it a good shot at taking down Saw VII 3D this year during the prime horror season.

And while “Saw”’s baddie Jigsaw and a disembodied malevolent spirit might catch some viewers’ fancy, I’m also hooked on punk badass Lisbeth Salander, the protagonist of Stieg Larsson’s Millenium Trilogy that includes “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” “The Girl Who Played with Fire” and, now, “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest.”



Talk about a scary character! Lisbeth, played in the Swedish movies by actress Noomi Rapace , might just be able to hold her own against “Lamb”’s Hannibal Lecter. Just reading the scene in “Dragon Tattoo” in which Lisbeth exacts revenge on a man who tortures and rapes her gave me the chills and I’d love to see it on the big screen.

But, of course, it’s a good news-bad news situation. The third installment of these Swedish imports is coming to American theaters in limited release.

That's all I got for you folks......Have a great/spooky Halloween Week ......hahahaha(evil laugh).....!!!!

The Last Exorcism......Hopefully the LAST one ever!!!

How do you take a creepy story and a filmmaking style that adds creepy realism and turn it into an hour and a half of boring? That's easy, bad writing, bad acting and bad music.

As with most horror films the build up seems to take to long. The film starts talking to a preacher (Cotton) and his family about how he used to be an exorcist and thinks it's all fake and is going to make a documentary to show that it's a scam. In the style of Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch Project, The Last Exorcist is a fake documentary and therefore had a realistic and creepy feel to it, or at least it should have. Not sure why they went with a camera that takes 2 minutes to get into focus.

The acting and writing right away ruins the movie. As the story continues and we follow Cotton into deep Louisiana to find his client, I already started to not care what happens. As I watched it I couldn't help but think, "Who talks like this?" it wasn't normal bad horror movie conversation, it was below average. It was two of the worst things that can happen together (bad acting and bad writing) because if it was a good actor saying bad lines sometimes they can pull it off, or if its good dialog and bad actors sometimes you can not notice. However, when you team these up it gets painful.

My third problem with the film is the music. If you decide to make a movie as a documentary, try to make it realistic, KEEP THE MUSIC OUT OF IT! The lack of music is usually way more creepy than overdone "spooky" music that has been used by every ghost TV show and every horror movie ever. When you finally get to the "scary" parts that the trailers show you get excited, "alright the movie has been bad, but maybe it will be scary and save itself." Nope. Doesn't happen. Though they had scenes that should have been awesome and made you wide eyed and ready to freak, that music comes in to ruin it. What you're left with is a one cheap jump and no nightmares.

I will say with all the bad stuff aside, the film did have some things I liked, though few. They did a good job making some creepy scenes, though they were ruined. When we first see her sitting in the motel room, when we see her bending weird, that quick smile as the door closes and her sitting on top of the furniture in her room. All of these scenes were well crafted and would have stayed in my thoughts, but ruined due to acting, writing, and music.

I cant help but notice the trailers resemblance to Exorcism of Emily Rose. Both showed the "scary" scenes and made you think the movie was about a possessed girl, (like the exorcist) however both times the trailers showed all the time the girl was acting weird. They leave out the other hour and twenty minutes that had nothing. Well, good for them, they tricked me and got my money

Now, to that ending:

I've heard that many people are upset with the abrupt ending, but that's the least of the ending problems. Honestly, at this point I can't wait for the ending. First off, as I'm sure many people noticed, the Rosemary's Baby's ending. I don't really have a problem if during a movie you reference or pay homage to classic horror films, but you don't take that movies twist ending and use it for your ending, especially not twice. Taking the Rosemary's Baby's ending and strapping it to The Blair Witch Project's ending made that abrupt ending a godsend. I felt like yelling at the film to stop when I saw the baby being born and all the townsfolk being a cult. Then what do I see? The camera man running through the woods. I kept waiting for him to stop and look into the camera and say, "I'm so scared." (also, If your getting attacked by a cult would you really run away with the camera? Especially with the camera on your shoulder? I don't think so.) Then the brother shows up, cuts the cameraman's head off, the end. (Fart noise)

I really wish this story would have gotten into somebody else's hands, because it had potential

Wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. Obviously some people like it but don't take that chance. Because most likely you will leave disappointed.I'm a big horror fan,meaning that I watch almost every horror movie (from Uwe Boll's low budgets to Michael Bay's remakes/blockbusters),but this was too much for me to handle.

Nanny Mcphee Returns.....Straight from the Land of Poo!!

errrrr...... well....... Don't bother watching this unless it’s a frustrating Tuesday afternoon, it’s raining, it’s half term and that little voice in your head kids are screaming "I’m bored". They will enjoy it, but the potential for the adults to enjoy it goes out of the window after you have seen all the actors enter. It just doesn't have any real depth, plot or point to it. One of the biggest gripes with this, is the cast is excellent, so it annoys me to see Rhys Ifans, Ewan McGregor, Bill Bailey, Maggie Smith, Katy Brand and obviously Emma Thompson all just looking like they have turned up for some pocket money, or something to do for a couple of weeks. I mean that cast is superb and better than some of the huge block-busters that are out. But when the story is just plain dull, the saying comes to mind that you can’t make a "xxxx" beautiful. LOL

Personally I actually didn't mind the first film (As I'm more of a thriller/horror kind of guy) because it had a point to it. I just thought the movie was very drab and boring .The storyline was very predictable as well. Basically it's just the first movie with a different set of characters. It seemed to be very short as well, but I don't know if that was because of the fact that I was texting through most of it.

The first Nanny Mcphee had a single father looking after 7 children who are running wild and scaring off every nanny that he hires. So McPhee enters and saves the day. But this latest one didn't have a point. It just had a family affected by the war, where the father is away all the time, so the children have to, and seemed keen enough to, help out around the farm. I mean looking into it they seemed happy enough, and did more work and appreciated family values than most kids in the world today. The mother leaves them at home every day to go work at a local shop, so they completely run the whole farm by themselves. So just because some city children turn up and they have a bit of a fight with them, that means that they need good ol’ Nanny McPhee to sort them out. UH?? A good slap and early bed I say. DONE!! No need for the film. (P.S I don't condone violence to children).

Overall I thought the SFX was weak and the second half of the film lacked much of Nanny Mcphee's character, yeah she was there but didn't say or do much.
I am actually really surprised that the IMDb rating for this is so high. I thought this movie was a waste of time and pretty much awful.

The nauseatingly corny and clichéd excuse for a climax is the icing on the cake of Susanna White's horribly naive direction, which unfortunately – together with Thompson's rather sloppy script – represses her and the rest of the remarkably adept cast, tragically capping their potential.

The only good thing this film offers, is the swimming pigs. But that’s about as much magic and fun there is in this film. I feel that kids’ films should appeal, or at least create some entertainment for the adults (who pay for the tickets in the first place). I think most kids will enjoy this film but it’s no epic. If Nanny McPhee was a TV series, then this would be the rubbish one where she fixes a family who don't really need fixing. Oh and also there isn't a BIG BANG!!!!!

Eat Pray.....Puke!!

If you've kept up with my reviews (let’s pretend you have), you are going to find that the genre I touch most seldom is romance. They are by nature a contagious quagmire of failed puns, roads repaved with familiar plots, and their stars have signed with the devil. Enter Julia Roberts, queen of the romcom. No doubt a talented actress, if not the most famous of her generation, Julia has played a big role in cashing in on the average woman's dream.

In her latest effort Julia plays Liz Gilbert in the autobiographical book turned movie Eat Pray Love. Liz is a writer visiting Bali in search of a wise/toothless medicine man. He reads the palm of her hand and she takes everything to gospel. Leaving behind husband Stephen (Billy Crudup), Liz seeks out new adventure in the form of exotic cuisine, Eastern religion, and male suitors.

Eat Pray Love is directed by Ryan Murphy. Murphy is best known as the creator of Glee, last year's breakout TV show about misfits who triumph through songs. With his name in the mix people are going to be disappointed that Julia and friends don't break out into songs and dance. Even if you consider that Murphy could have interests outside of musicals, you'd expect some sassy dialog exchanges like those seen on the show between the characters Will Schuester and Sue Sylvester. Hate to disappoint you but that's not going to happen either.

This is a story about a self indulged woman who has a great life; loving husband, great job that allows her to travel, is interested in going back to school and she decides it's not enough.

Completely out of the blue she divorces her husband (for no good reason) and she decides she needs to find herself and bitch about a terrible life that 90% of people can only aspire too. Julia Roberts comes off as a daddy's girl who has always gotten what she has wanted and now that daddy's out of the picture she decides she needs to be doted on like a princess, but she comes off as a spoiled bitch whose antics infuriates her friends and doesn't deserve anything she gets.

This was made into a movie because of Oprah who decided to put this book in her book club, which means every house wife in America read this pile of trash and all of them seem to think that it is some great find, it's not. This movie reminds me of a good travel guide documentary that explores the beauty of the world only instead of a smart host who knows when to step aside and just let you enjoy the background and immerse them in the beauty of everything that surrounds them, we get a woman that needs to be center of attention and enough is never enough.

That being said some of the shots are truly beautiful and the food they show in Italy is stunning and makes me want to eat pasta for weeks, but I can get that from the discovery channel so why do I fork out money for something I can get for free at seven in the evening? Julia Roberts does try and save her character with her trademark charm but by that point it's too late and nothing can save this powerfully bad movie.

Apparently this book suffered from "right place, right time" syndrome which lead to it being picked up by Oprah, the movie on the other hand suffers from "endorsed by Oprah, guaranteed audience" syndrome.

I gotta say that the description of this movie didn't appeal to me, and I only saw it because I got a free ticket to a preview.

I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because a few of the supporting characters sometimes call out Liz (Julia Roberts) on her self-absorbed superficial antics. I liked them (the characters, not the antics).

The movie is too long, but Italy, India, and Bali are showcased nicely (if superficially). I bet Julia Roberts signed on because filming this must have basically been a paid vacation.

The script is pretty bad. Liz complains that one character always seems to talk in bumper stickers, but she should look at her own speech patterns.

The movie is also too long.It felt like watching those John Wayne movie marathons on AMC.

I imagine that this movie will be enjoyed by real life casualties of love who believe that they are owed love and fulfillment as an inalienable right. It is a movie that teaches us nothing, provides a warped view of what love and relationships really are and leaves no lasting impressions, save the sweet sounds of fingernails on a blackboard that will leave most movie goers yearning for relief. Read the book and skip the movie.

Final Statement:Eat Pray and Run, as fast as you can away from this movie.

Charlie St...........Blow Me!!

Charlie St. Cloud Review: A young teenager's younger brother is killed in a car accident and when running away from his funeral, he finds his brother’s ghost and they play catch. But of course, Charlie (Efron) meets a girl and now he has to choose between the girl and the stupid kid. Amazingly terrible story that makes no logical sense what so ever. Put a lot of effort into making us think and feel that his younger brother was a ghost. Not. It was just awful acting to and it was really over-done and over-rated. I don't know what this film was trying to achieve but it’s just going to go down from here. Charlie St. Cloud is terrible! Do not see, you will have wasted your money!

It's entirely possible that Zac Efron can really act. We may never know. He always plays the same character: a good-looking, sensitive, semi-credibly athletic, Boy Scouty high-school kid with Clairol-model floppy hair. He could do it in his sleep. He could do it on speed. He could do it on Ritalin. He may be able to do it after he's dead, and they just prop him up and let his corpse go through the motions!

Efron will never have a career as great as Brad Pitt’s and although he already has been booked for several movies, his career is already in danger. Very bad actors, as Bruce Willis is, have had a great career only because they are very good at choosing what to do. Orlando Bloom destroyed his career acting in "Elisabethville" with Kirsten Dunst. Dunst and Bloom are actors without personality and started their careers just being in Blockbuster Movies (Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean (Bloom) & Spiderman (Dunst). Now they have been already burned while acting in Elisabethville, whose destiny was an obvious flop from the beginning. Jennifer Aniston is a star because she has been in Friends and married and lost Brad Pitt, becoming a constant presence in gossip magazine, but her movies don't cash, why? Because they are ugly and she is not able to choose the good ones.

Now on the movie itself; first, Efron's character talks to dead people. I was like "What the heck? He needs to go to a psychiatric institute!" It is not believable. And the punch of the story is just ridiculous. At the end, I was still thinking that Efron's character needed to go to an institute. And for good. And the whole story is based on a relationship that we do not even know well. The brotherhood between Charlie and his brother did not seem that strong... Nothing works in this movie. The whole story sucks. That was the problem. I don't even want to read the book, life is too short. I was very disappointed and after seeing this movie, I was like "I should have seen Inception for a second time. At least this film is more realistic." It gives you an idea.

Ray Liotta (one of my favorite actors of all time) has a tiny, tiny part which should have been developed much more fully. Kim Basinger is totally forgettable. Efron's love interest, Amanda Crew, is very hard to like. The film hardly explores her character and I found myself responding to her supposedly dramatic scenes very negatively. The young actor who plays Sam does an okay job. He tries to be the awe-struck younger brother but Efron doesn't give him enough to work with.

There are a few additional wrinkles that you can pick up by actually sitting through the whole movie. One is that this game of catch has been going on for an hour a day for over 1800 days now, and even after all that time neither kid can throw a baseball worth a damn. Another tidbit is that Charlie is able to talk to other dead people besides Sam. Also, he's artistic. And really, really sensitive. (Did I mention that already?)

The only good thing in this film? The song "Airplanes" in the trailer. That's all.

So that leaves us with the only real dilemma posed by this low-wattage would-be tear- jerker: mawkish or maudlin, mawkish or maudlin?

3D......"Da Detrimental Dimension"

There are indications that Hollywood's rush to extract extra cash from cinemagoers in return for an extra visual dimension might be doomed to follow previous 3D initiatives into the cutting room bin.

The release of Avatar last December - the James Cameron epic which grossed $2.7bn - had movie execs licking their lips at the prospect of taking punters for an extra fiver if they could just persuade them to don a pair of 3D specs.

The tridemensional landrush soon delivered dedicated 3D pics such as Alice In Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon and Shrek Forever After. However, as the Avatar effect began to fade, audiences appeared to be abandoning the novelty.

I tried to come up with a number of reasons why 3D sucks:

1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows against the horizon”? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

2. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION. Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn’t. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus. I don’t believe this is necessary, and it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus.

3.THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D. Yet when you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theater, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn’t charge extra. Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the projectors are paid off? What do you think? I think 3-D is a form of extortion for parents whose children are tutored by advertising and product placement to “want” 3-D.

4. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D. Neither can directors. Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D at its New York opening. The medium seems suited for children’s films, animation, and films such as James Cameron’s Avatar, which are largely made on computers. Cameron’s film is, of course, the elephant in the room: a splendid film, great-looking on a traditional IMAX screen, which is how I saw it, and the highest-grossing film in history. It’s used as the poster child for 3-D, but might it have done as well in 2-D (not taking the surcharge into account)? The second-highest all-time grosser is Cameron’s Titanic, which of course was in 2-D. Still, Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a surcharge.


Looking at this year's Box office charts,I have noted that most of the movies which held the number one spot are in 3D.The likes of Alice in Wonderland,Despicable Me,Toy Story 3 and Clash of the Titans have all had the luxury of caressing that number one spot.This trend makes the movie directors/producers think that they can get away with any crap that they come up with.

Some of this year's 3D movies will make you want to shoot yourself in the head.


JACKASS -The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O’s you-know-what in that way.The previous Jackass movies made me want to puke my guts out.Now I don't know what this one will do to me.

STEP UP 3D - This is surely a completely rubbish film from start to finish.I don't know who'll want to watch a bunch of 'street dancing wannabes' flaunting in 3D.First the movie (if you can call it that),has no story at all,it's basically an excuse to start dancing.

CLASH OF THE TITANS - the movie was not filmed in 3-D and is only being shown in 3-D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2-D, and let me tell you, it looked terrific.” And it did. The “3-D” was hastily added in postproduction to ride on the coattails of Avatar. The fake-3-D Titans even got bad reviews from 3-D cheerleaders.




HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS:PART 1 - I don't even know where to start here.This will leave J.K Rowling speechless (and not in a good 'euphoric' kind of way).Releasing Harry Potter in 3D will only contribute and further worsen the notion that Daniel Radcliffe is too old now and not cute anymore(not that he used to be cute anyway).I can not wait to see the reaction of the 'teenage girls' after they see Dani's aging face.

Those movies represent a '3D Debacle'.I don't know what's next in the 3D business.Perhaps the adult film industry may want to start their own trend of '3D Pornography',that should be refreshing (no pun intended).

Bow Down to 2010's Leornado Dicaprio....Thanks to Scorcese & Nolan

2009 was a quiet year for Leornado Dicaprio.After 2008's Revolutionary Road (which I thought was a horrible attempt to reunite Kate n Leo),I thought he was going through a 'career downturn'.Little did I know of what he had in stores for 2010.He came back with a big bang.First it was SHUTTER ISLAND then INCEPTION.His movie choices were spot on this year.Working with Martin Scorcese and later on Christopher Nolan was the best decision he made.

---

First let me start with Shutter Island:This is a difficult film to review. The way the film unfolds is an interesting one, but is difficult to put into words without spoiling everything from the film. It strings you along so many different paths that guessing how the film ends is nearly impossible. While watching the film, however, nothing really made sense until the last twenty minutes or so. Between Teddy's hallucinations and what's transpiring on the island, it's almost exhausting trying to grasp what's actually happening in the film and what's occurring in Teddy's head. The finale to The Departed, another Martin Scorsese/ Leonardo DiCaprio pairing, was (and still is) one of the most talked about endings when it comes to recent films. Shutter Island doesn't necessarily top The Departed, but is along the same lines. Its ending gives new meaning to at least one repeat viewing of the film.

There's no denying that I've been a fan of Martin Scorsese's films for quite some time. Films like Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Cape Fear, Casino, and Gangs of New York are prime examples of some of the best films ever.Dicaprio's work in Shutter Island puts his acting skills on display for the world to see. His devastation towards the end of the film is not only believable, but absorbing as well.

The cinematography is on a level you'd come to expect from a Scorsese picture. The way Ward C, the ward built during the Civil War that contains the island's most dangerous prisoners, is filmed in particular may be the high point as far as cinematography is concerned. The never-ending darkness makes you think something is going to jump out at you at any moment and its metal cage-like structure that constructs the walls feels claustrophobic; like you're a prisoner yourself. That "rat in a maze" line from the trailer really fits the film well. Everything in the lighthouse with the spiral staircase is pretty amazing, as well.

An interesting note about the film is that the soundtrack is used sparingly. I didn't notice one throughout the majority of the film. It seemed to only be used during dramatic moments. There's also a gunshot towards the end of the film that is going to make you jump because it's so damn loud. Seriously. It's insane. For an R-rated Scorsese film, it seemed pretty mild in the language department. The F-word is said 422 times in Casino, 296 times in Goodfellas, and 237 times in The Departed while it's only said a handful of times in this film. Just seemed a bit odd for a Scorsese picture.

Shutter Island is pretty confusing until the finale (basically from "Why are you all wet, baby?" to the end). It's pieced together slowly and is a combination of Teddy's memories, hallucinations, and what's actually occurring in reality. The way it unfolds is kind of like trying to solve a Rubix Cube. It takes time and a little bit of effort, but is well worth it in the end. Shutter Island is a film that makes you think. Remember that going in. Teddy has quite a few lines towards the end of the film that are going to stick with me for a very long time. It's a film that will only get better with repeat viewings. When it's all said and done, it was well worth waiting an extra four months for this film.






Now on Dicaprio's second movie of the year.INCEPTION:

What is the most resilient parasite? An Idea! Yes, Nolan has created something with his unbelievably, incredibly and god- gifted mind which will blow the minds of the audience away.Usually I try to be careful with over hyping a film, or setting the expectations too high, as film geeks all are guilty for, however for Christopher Nolan's Inception, this really is not possible.


Dom Cobb(Di Caprio) is an extractor who is paid to invade the dreams of various business tycoons and steal their top secret ideas. Cobb robs forcefully the psyche with practiced skill, though he's increasingly haunted by the memory of his late wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who has a nasty habit of showing up in his subconscious and wreaking havoc on his missions. Cobb had been involved so much in his heist work that he had lost his love!

But then, as fate had decided, a wealthy business man Saito( Ken Watanabe) hands over the responsibility of dissolving the empire of his business rival Robert Fischer Jr.(Cillian Murphy). But this time his job was not to steal the idea but to plant a new one: 'Inception'

Then what happens is the classic heist movie tradition. To carry out the the task, Cobb's 'brainiac' specialists team up again with him, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), his longtime organizer; Tom Hardy (Eames), a "forger" who can shapeshift at will; and Yusuf (Dileep Rao), a powerful sedative supplier.

There is only one word to describe the cinematography, the set designs and the special effects, and that is Exceptional! You don't just watch the scenes happening, you feel them. The movie is a real thrill ride. The action scenes are well picturised and the music by Hans Zimmer is electronically haunting. Never, in the runtime of the movie, you will get a chance to move your eyes from the screen to any other object.

This movie is not for everyone however. It is not a late night, brainless action movie like 2012. It requires the audience to have smart brain-think. So on a scale of 1-10, Inception is about a 12. This, without question, the best movie of the year. If The Academy snubs Nolan out of this Oscar, I think I might kill someone. He should have the Best Director award in the bag. However, to truly enjoy it, you have to pay attention. It's complex, but never confusing. If you enjoy a great thriller that is anything but straightforward, this is the movie for you. And be prepared to use your mind. =]

To conclude, I would just say before your life ends, do yourself a favor by experiencing this exceptionally lucid classic created by Nolan!

Karate Kid......more like 'Karotten Kid'

This so-called Karate Kid starring Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan,is two hours and twenty minutes of raw sewage funneled through an old sweat sock.From the previews I knew this movie wasn't going to do justice to the original. I wasn't planning on watching it, but my best friend wanted to see it and I gave in. Bad idea. It was a waste of my money.I went in with very low expectations and, sadly, those were still too high for this movie.

I'm just 30 minutes in and the "good guy" intentionally pisses off the "bad guys"....wth?? I can't root for the "good guy" anymore and I hope he gets man-handled for the remainder of the film for acting like such an idiot.At the end,I was really pissed off for wasting 2 hours of my life which I would have spent productively watching paint dry.

The acting is very annoying. The plot is very annoying.Also the title makes no sense as the film is based on Chinese kung fu and not Karate.

The plot is derivative and insulting:Non-Asian goes to China as a fish out of water, gets bullied, but is trained by a mysterious fighting master. In a few months, the non-Asian wins against all odds against fighters that have trained longer than him and wins the affection of an Asian chick............Boo hoo!!!

Also the kids were too young. In the real Karate Kid, teenage boys beat the crap out of each other, and it was believable and bearable because teenage boys really do beat the crap out of each other like it's a hobby. Watching a handful of 70 lb. pre-teens wailing on each other is just disturbing. And, of course, they aren't allowed to bleed,since it's a PG movie, so the fights were nothing but choreographed stunts set to loud music.

I really like Jackie Chan and, I believe, he did a good job in the movie, but his overall participation did most certainly not compensate for the almost non-stop appearance of Jaden Smith who can not act.

No doubt puckering up to Will Smith's and Jada Pinkett-Smith's collective asses, the movie-makers spent way too much time trying to make sure Jaden looked cool. From his tightly-styled corn rows to his soulful mugging for the camera, Jaden did pretty much everything in this movie except for act.I don't care if he's Will Smith's son, it's not like acting is genetic. He was just trying too hard to be funny, and too hard to be serious. It didn't seem natural, like he was in the moment.

No self-respecting casting agent would have casted him if he auditioned the old-fashioned way. He's too young, too scrawny, and too inexperienced to carry such a role.What would happen if Jaden Smith was not the son of Will Smith and if he would audition for a small role in a movie as a mentally handicap toilet cleaner?I bet a gazillion dollars,he would not get that role.

It would have made more sense to cast Jaden Smith to play Chucky in a remake of Child's Play. That would result in a remake that could at least improve one thing, it would scare the hell out of you and since Child's Play is a horror movie, it would be fitting. Then again, Jaden Smith isn't scary, he is sad.

The geography was all over the place. Once the mom and the kid are in China, you have no idea where you are in relation to anywhere else. One minute, Mr. Han seems to live in the apartment building. Another time, Jaden runs a few blocks to find him. There are no specific sets to lock onto. No Mr. Miyagi garden to walk around in and enjoy. And the school experience is a random collection of buildings, times, and days.

Neither does the whole jacket-on, jacket-off training trick. In the real Karate Kid, the wax-on, wax off, paint-the-fence, side-to-side, sand-the-floor stuff is brilliant because it's excellent physical training disguised as manual labor. Having Dre throw his jacket on the ground over and over for hours and then days on , is both pointless as an action and transparent as a training gimmick.

There's a love-story shoe-horned into the plot. It doesn't work for as many reasons as the movie itself doesn't work. The girl is too good for Dre. He hasn't done anything to earn her attention. And they're both too young. There's no sexual tension,so who cares? I'll spoil the movie by telling you they kiss. eww.....gross. It felt like child molestation.

The real Karate Kid was a feast, laden with humor, drama, action, and soul. This piece of crap is an overpriced entrée with all the right ingredients but it's been put together by a lobotomized monkey.

Vampires Suck......and Werewolves Stink........

I feel violated after watching 'The Twilight Saga: Eclipse'.I regret doing so,as those were the two hours of my life I can't get back.

I have decided to write a letter to this 'frustrating Bella' (if she was for real):

Dear Bella,




If I happen to fancy you but you're openly flirting with another dude who spots some unbelievable abs, I'll leave you. Or if you're exhibiting this stubborn indecisiveness, I'll walk too, because I'll help you make up your damn mind. You're not the only tree in the forest, but unfortunately in this show, you happen to be the only sole object of desire who wears a skirt that everyone, from werewolves to vampires both nice and badass, all want a piece of. You're hot property, but still, make up your mind, will ya?




Frustratingly yours,


Djibril

I'm not sure which wiseass touted this as the movie event of this summer/year/decade, but that person ought to have his or her sanity checked. The trailers though is crafted by someone who knows just how to entice the fence sitters to the film, because that's about all the action you're going to see from Eclipse, fast forwarded, with this climatic fight given to you as a reward for your 1.5 hours worth of patience in witnessing yet another slow rehash of relationship woes from the earlier films. Even then, what was promised to be the fight of the century turned out to be pretty lob-sided, and worst, full of CG shots against actors playing characters you have no idea who they are, other than carrying out their sole purpose of chalking up the body count.

Why then did I decide to watch this since I'm not welcome nor fit into its intended demographics? Well, as any 'classic guy' would say,"my girlfriend forced me to watch it". I'm still pretty much piqued by the gazillion dollars this movie raked in from its initial screenings, and how it contains this certain mysterious X formula that have droves, yes droves, of females hitting the cinemas, packing it right up to the front and corner seats, which to me is the worst possible seat to place one's bum on in a widescreen cinema hall, for 2+ hours. Apart from Sex in the City's obvious selling point, this film with vampires and werewolves caught up in some serious love triangle seem to play pied piper to womenfolk all around the world.

The gist of the plot, if there is one, is how Bella (Kristen Stewart) has to exercise her choice between Edward (Robert Pattinson) the vampire possessing that perfect face with lamb chop sideburns and skin that glitters in the sun (and by the way,I thought vampires are supposed to burn when exposed to the sun), and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) the werewolf, who seems like the better deal when tackling laundry since he prefers to strut around shirtless to flaunt those perfect pecs and abs, so much so that Edward decided to keep his clothes on for this one, and making snide comments from the side that reeks of pettiness and envy. Each actor continues with their cardboard characters still dealing with the same old issues that if resolved nicely, wouldn't stretch so many books and films.

Yes my friends, Bella still cannot decide! And to make things worst, she's playing both sides whether intentional or not, especially Mr doggie boy there by sending out so many conflicting signals, you feel like knocking some sense into both those guys that she's not worth the trouble. And she's a Trouble Magnet (TM), with Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard) assembling an army of newborn vampires you don't give two hoots for, to avenge her loss two films ago. So it's up to the Cullen family of immortal vampires to protect Bella, and forming an uneasy alliance with the howling pack to protect Forks from the Seattle invaders, or well as the animals put it, to want to get into a fight as a form of brutal exercise.

Credit can possibly go to Bella for uniting the long time foes together, and what could possibly be the only interesting plot point here, is the background stories of the wolf tribe ancestors, and some of the Cullen family members, which to me brought back memories of a more superior film about immortals duking it out, such as the Clan McCloud of Highlander. The first film focused more on the story of the vampires, the second on the wolves, and now, to bring them together in co-opetition mode. And the best scene to epitomize this will be that in a tent high up in the mountains, where a candid discussion between the boys brought out their innermost fears and desires nicely in a rare session of male bonding.

However, David Slade of Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night fame, still churned out what is possibly the worst of the series thus far, making the earlier movies look like the work of geniuses (which they are not). As mentioned, it's not as dark as it's touted to be, and the action is severely limited to the ending. Too many characters make appearances, such as Dakota Fanning, whose bit role in New Moon became yet another bit role in Eclipse, snarling through those red contact lenses and patsy white makeup. Bryce Dallas Howard takes over the Victoria role from Rachelle Lefevre because she's more famous, only to be nothing more than just another glorified supporting role frolicking in the snow with Edward, by virtue of a stunt double. D'uh.

So here's my verdict: Eclipse, like its name implies, is clueless in its darkness, and it stinks just as bad as how the characters complain about the odor from the wolves. Perhaps it's a calculated move, so that the finale, split into two halves to milk the cash cow, can more or less meet expectations since it's already driven so low by this film. Seriously David Slade, what were you thinking? Should have stuck to your guns and steered clear with a 10 foot pole and not touch this material at all. I cheered when the end credits came on, but only because I fancied the track "Heavy in Your Arms"........No Homo!!!!!!!!!