Thank you, Roger Ebert.

My tribute to the late, great Roger Ebert can be found at Mr. Brown Verses. if the Count wants to post the article here on BAD, he may do so if he so wishes.

__________________________________________

As a kid growing up, there were a few things I spend my time doing on Saturdays: getting up early to watch Saturday morning cartoons, going to the movies with my parents, playing outside with my roller-skates, and watching the latest edition of Siskel & Ebert on television. In fact, that was probably one of the moments of the day I was looking forward to. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert didn't just debate about the latest movies that had just been released; they didn't just argue back and forth about why this movie worked or why it was awful. These men didn't just love movies, they lived, breathed the power of cinema as an art form. And I don't think no one person exemplified this kind of mad-hot passion for, well....anything better than Ebert himself. Even after Gene's death in February of 1999, the man still carried on and talked about his love of the movies, with other critics and cinemaphiles, from Lisa Scwartzburn of Entertainment Weekly, to Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News, to legendary filmmaker Martin Scorsese. Richard Roper of the Chicago Sun-Times would eventually become his partner from 2000 up until 2006, when post-surgical complications with thyroid cancer left him unable to speak, but his love of the big screen wouldn't diminish. If anything, Ebert found a new voice in which to communicate his excitement for a movie, or his utter disgust for what had transpired on the screen through Twitter, and he still had his columns on his own personal website, and he still wrote reviews for the Chicago-Sun Times, and held film festivals. In short: his burning spirit wouldn't keep him from what he loved: the cinema. Ebert's place was in the balcony of a movie theater, and for one afternoon on a Saturday, I - along with everyone else who loved film as much as he did, or simply wanted to hear his thoughts - were allowed in to listen, argue, and debate the movies. The fact that tonight, we no longer have that voice with us, is a tragedy in of itself. Ebert is a big reason why I loved going to the movies: I wanted to capture the same passion for watching films as he clearly had, and is a continued inspiration for me as a amateur critic with a blog, and it's a continued hope of mine that it comes through with each review I write. For the days I spent sitting in the living room, watching him give the trademark "Thumbs Up," or "Thumbs Down" to eagerly seeking out his reviews on the latest movie to hit theaters, I say thank you Roger Ebert, for making me a lover of the cinema, and forevermore, the balcony will be closed. 

Will Bond Get A Best Picture Nomination?

It's been 50 years since 007 made his screen debut with the 1963 spy film, Dr. No. Five decades, five versions of the MI6 agent, two lawsuits over rights to the franchise, one atrocious spoof by Woody Allen and $6 billion dollars later, Bond may be finally getting his due from the big-wigs at AMPAS:

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences announced on Friday that the 85th annual Academy Awards ceremony will include a tribute to 007. The secret agent celebrated his 50th anniversary in 2012, marked by the release of "Skyfall."
"We are very happy to include a special sequence on our show saluting the Bond films on their 50th birthday," said producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron in a statement. "Starting with 'Dr. No' back in 1962, the 007 movies have become the longest-running motion picture franchise in history and a beloved global phenomenon."

But it looks like Oscar could be doing the franchise one better: It could be nominated for Best Picture come Thursday morning. The biggest indicator of this is Skyfall nabbing a nomination for Best Film from the Producers Guild of America this week, one of a handful of major indicators of a film's chances of gaining a Best Picture nomination.

As someone who's only introduction through Bond comes from the Brosnan/Craig eras and an advocate of having well-made box office blockbusters getting recognition from the stuck-up members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, I'm grateful that they may be finally ready to give the Bond series recognition for becoming a global icon in film history. Granted, I wish they would have given similar treatment to other well-made mainstream films like The Dark Knight or any of the Harry Potter movies, but it's a good freaking start if this happens.

The Dark Knight Trilogy

Tonight at midnight, director Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy comes to an end with the release of The Dark Knight Rises. I'll be there at the midnight show, waiting to see how it all ends, but before that, I'm going to review the first two chapters in Nolan's series, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Batman Begins - Let's go back a few decades. After Tim Burton released the follow-up to 1989's Batman with Batman Returns, Warner Bros demoted Burton to a producing role due to the dark and violent nature of the 1992 sequel, in hopes to make the Caped Crusader more accessible to mainstream viewers (see: more family friendly). Joel Schumacher was hired as director and already, there was issues with the greenlit sequel. First, Schumacher wanted to adapt Frank Miller's graphic novel of the Batman legend, titled Batman: Year One into a prequel of Bruce Wayne's origins and how he became the costumed vigilante. The studio shot the idea down because they wanted a sequel and because they wanted eight and ten year-old boys watching the movies, along with their parents. Second, Michael Keaton - who played Batman in the first two films, decided not to return for the next installment, claiming he was unhappy with the new direction the series was going. A few days later, Val Kilmer was brought on to play Wayne and his alter ego. Lastly was the in-fighting between the actors and Schumacher; most notably between him and Kilmer. Batman Forever was released in the summer of 1995, and to huge success: Forever made $184 million in North America and $152 million overseas, bringing the total to $336 million globally, surpassing Returns and  was the 2nd highest grossing movie in North America in that year (the highest was Pixar's debut feature, Toy Story). Reviews were mixed, as some critics liked the campy, visual look and feel of Batman's world, while others disliked how the series sold out it's dark, harrowing and haunting nature for something that would be more approachable for younger audiences and their families.

Then came Batman and Robin, the movie that (still) puts a shiver down the spine of every comic book fan, and every movie geek out there, and the movie that i'm certain George Clooney would take back, had he know just how badly he and the rest of the cast would damage the Batman name. I'm going to keep this brief because going into a synopsis of this...thing would drive me mad, so here are the bullet points you need to know:

• First off, you're probably wondering why I mentioned George Clooney and not Val Kilmer? The beef between Kilmer and returning director Schumacher was so bad that Kilmer refused to return for the fourth installment, with Clooney taking his place.
• Schumacher wanted to pay homage to the camp value of the 1960's television show starring Adam West as Batman, which explains the casting of Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze and those terrible ice puns ("What killed the dinosaurs? The Ice Age!").
• Warner Bros, basking in the success of Batman Forever, demanded that the filmmakers begin immediately on the sequel, which started August of 1996 and ended January of 1997, two weeks ahead of schedule.
• The fourth installment was released in June of '97, but to abysmal reviews and a very disappointing box office run (it finished with just under $110 million, due to the negative word of mouth after the first week of it's release).
• Many people involved, including co-star Chris O' Donnell as Robin and the director himself were apologetic for the movie. Clooney himself vowed that he would never play this character again, and for that, we are all very thankful.

After the Batman and Robin fiasco, the studio had been attempting to reboot the series, but with no success. There was plans for a fifth entry, titled Batman Triumphant, but due to the backlash of the fourth, the project was shelved. Had it been green-lit, Clooney, O'Donnell and Schumacher would have been attached to the project (sure dodged a bullet there). Later on, Warner Bros. made another attempt in 2000 with Batman: Year One. the studio hired Darren Aronofsky to write and direct the reboot based on the graphic novel of the same name by Frank Miller, but just two years later, the studio shelved the project.

This (finally) leads us to Christopher Nolan. In 2003, Warner Bros tried yet again to reboot the franchise and this time, it finally took! Nolan was hired to direct and co-write with David S. Goyer. Their aim was a for a more realistic and darker atmosphere and to take the series down to bare basics: the untold story of Bruce Wayne himself. Nolan wanted the audience to care about Mr. Wayne and his alter-ego, and in 2005, he did just that.

Batman Begins, right from the start, doesn't open with Bruce's alter-ego, fighting crime or watching Gotham at night like a hawk. Nolan wisely catches the young Mr. Wayne (a terrific performance by Christian Bale) in the act of exploring the criminal underworld: what makes him or her tick and why does a criminal commit crimes like theft and/or murder. His journey begins the moment he loses his parents, as they were gunned down by a drifter looking to score some money. His journey takes him far way from the mean, gritty streets of Gotham to a remote location in Asia, where he is brought under the tutelage of Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) and the mysterious League of Shadows, an ancient organization determined to bring about true justice around the world, lead by Ras Al Ghul (Ken Wantanabe). There, Wayne learns how to confront his fear and use it as a weapon to prey on the criminal underworld. Wayne decides to come out of his self-exile and returns to Gotham, a changed man, ready to take on the criminal underworld that has taken over the city. With the assistance of his loyal butler Alfred (a wonderful Michael Cane), the sly hi-tech/gadgets/weapons manufacturer Lucius Fox (a sly Morgan Freeman), the crusading DA assistant and childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) and the city's good cop Sargent Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Bruce becomes The Batman and takes on the head the Falcone crime family (Tom Wilkinson) and Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) a shrink who isn't on the level with Rachel, the law, or his practice.

I have said before in many reviews that character overload usually dooms a movie, and trust me, this film is filled with characters, especially on the villain side. Yet, Nolan gives time for all the players to have their moment in the sun and their onscreen time has weight and it flows within the story. The pacing is just right, allowing characters to come in and out with just the right amount of time and for the story to evolve with them. The set pieces are extraordinary, in particular, the city of Gotham. On the surface, Gotham has the look and feel of a thriving metropolis, but on the inside, the city is rotting and dying. Mobsters, thugs and corrupt bureaucrats take what they want and terrorize the helpless, and no one says a word out of fear. The wealthy and privileged wine and dine and ignore the plights of others, while the rest are left to fend for themselves. It's a world that feels very much like our own, like Nolan is forcing the audience to stare at a mirror image of what we've become.

Probably the film's downside was Katie Holmes as Dawes. I imagine Dawes as a tough, sassy fighter who doesn't scare easy, not the soft-spoken assistant for the city's justice department which Holmes provides. That and the film's third act, which the action sequence with Batman trying to stop the League from poisoning Gotham's water supply basically turns into the standard, yet thrilling race to stop the madman from destroying the city. It's still a nice climax, but it's shorter than I would have liked. Other than those minor complaints, Batman Begins is a dark, compelling and thoroughly satisfying re-imagining of Batman and his quest to save the city from itself. Simply, this is the Batman movie we've been waiting for and deserved to see realized on the big screen......who knew, though, that this reboot was only just the start of what Nolan would deliver?
***1/2 stars out of ****

The Dark Knight - How do you expand upon what was introduced in 2005 with Batman Begins? How does writer/director Christopher Nolan continue Batman's journey in saving Gotham City from itself? The answer lies in a line of dialogue Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) utters at a dinner between playboy billionaire Bruce Wayne (once again played by Bale) and DA assistant Rachel Dawes (now played by Maggie Gyllenhall): "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become a villain." This  statement alone will test Wayne's commitment to being Gotham's watchful protector, and it eventually paints a weary Wayne who wonders if all his efforts are really moving the city toward a better tomorrow. This statement will also test Gotham's new District Attorney as everything he cares about and it will test Jim Gordon (Oldman) and the deals he's willing to make for the greater good. This statement lies at the heart of Nolan's sprawling and epic crime drama/sequel to his Batman trilogy. A criminal mastermind known only as The Joker (Heath Ledger, in his last completed work before his untimely death in 2008) comes into Gotham, just as Batman, Gordon and Dent are on the cusp of delivering a final blow to the Falcone crime family that has long terrorized the city, by hitting them where it hurts: their pocketbooks. At first, this psychotic clown robs from the mob for kicks, but this, as it turns out, was merely done to get their attention. his ultimate goal is anarchy: complete and total anarchy. He kidnaps and kills Gotham's important citizens, such as the Commissioner, a Judge, etc. and blows up hospitals and he hijacks boats for his own amusement.

Behind his trail of death and madness, there is a method and point behind his vile and sadistic nature. The scene where him and Batman square off in a detention facility is as thrilling as any action sequence Nolan conjures up, and that's including where Wayne and CEO Lucius Fox (Freeman) travel to Hong Kong and pick up a key accountant for the mob who holds all their dirty money due to the fact that the city is beyond Dent's jurisdiction, or the chase sequence in Downtown Gotham that's a total showstopper. Despite the action, which is top-notch, The Dark Knight is hunting bigger game. Nolan is out to expand out themes he laid the groundwork in Batman Begins; he's out to show not only the rotting society that we're becoming, but to show to what ends are we willing to take in order to do to save it or, in this case, to stop a lose cannon like the Joker. All of our characters are caught in moral and ethical traps that there are no escape from, and it leaves the audience with questions on whether they did or are doing the right things. All the characters bring their A-game and no performance is wasted. Aaron Eckhart is the unsung hero in this movie, showing his fall from grace as tragic and downright frighting into the lost, revenge-filled monster he succumbs to. Michael Cane is wonderful as Alfred, trying to serve as a father-figure Bruce never really received as a child, and as his faithful advisor on Wayne's journey. I really can't say enough about Christian Bale as Bruce/Batman, other than he is the character we've been waiting to see: a battle-worn man who's nearing his breaking point.

The actor who triumphs in The Dark Knight is, of course, the late Heath Ledger as the Joker. We've seen him in good to terrific roles before (The Patriot, Monster's Ball, A Knight's Tale, Brokeback Mountain) but his role as this criminal mastermind is nothing short of astonishing and chilling. His commitment to the role, the way he threw himself into this character - from the voice, to the makeup which made him damn-near unrecognizable, to the bone-chilling cackling laugh - this is a performance that comes around in a blue moon, where an artist leaves everything he has in a performance for all to witness. This is, to me, one of the great performances that I have ever seen in film. The Dark Knight is a movie of the rarest kind: it's a terrific piece of pop entertainment, a haunting and thrilling crime drama that ranks with Scorsese's Mean Streets and Michael Mann's Heat, a thought-provoking social commentary, and a movie that raises every bar - superhero genre, summer film, crime-thriller - and asks every other movie to match it's epic scope. It is simply, a masterpiece.


**** stars out of **** 

Rush Doesn't Know Jack About Comics

In January of 1993, comic book writers Chuck Dixon, Doug Moench and Graham Nolan created a new villain for the Batman in Bane: a super villain who is every way his equal in terms of intelligence and brute strength, and in the Knightfall story arc, his stamp was cemented by becoming the villain who "broke the Bat". In the upcoming third and final sequel to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises, Bane makes his onscreen appearance, played by British actor Tom Hardy. It took me all but 5-7 minutes to do research on the history of the fictional comic book villain (a good half-hour reading about the back story of this character in reality), and I doubt it would have killed Rush Limbaugh if he actually did before mouthing off that Christopher Nolan purposely made up Bane to make a political statement about presumptive Republican candidate Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital.

RUSH: Have you heard this new movie, the Batman movie, what is it, The Dark Knight Lights Up or whatever the name is. That's right, Dark Knight Rises. Lights Up, same thing. Do you know the name of the villain in this movie? Bane. The villain in The Dark Knight Rises is named Bane, B-a-n-e. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran and around which there's now this make-believe controversy? Bain. The movie has been in the works for a long time. The release date's been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental that the name of the really vicious fire breathing four eyed whatever it is villain in this movie is named Bane?

That's right, Rush: Screenwriters David S. Goyer, Christopher Nolan and his brother, Jonathan knew that Mitt Romney would run for President in 2012, knew that the Occupy Wall Street movement would rise out of nowhere and hold public protests in response to the decades-long policies that favored corporate greed over the common citizen, and created a character that would stick it to Romney in the middle of the 2012 Elections! I wish I were making this up. This is the new crackpot conspiracy theory Rush has thrown out into the ether of right-wing talking points for the brainless followers to latch onto and repeat ad-nauseum, I shit you not.

Bad Boys II Revisited

To be honest, my original review of Michael Bay's atrocious Bad Boys II was just ok. I thought I could have gone more in-depth into just how god-awful this turd was, so I decided to rework it. Here is the new and improved review of the worst movie of the last decade. Enjoy!

Over the last ten years, i've watched some truly terrible and hideous movies that, somehow, found their way to movie screens. Take the repugnant and cliched My Sister's Keeper, for example. Director Nick Cassavettes took an already heartless and disgusting premise - a family with a terminally-ill daughter conceive another child for the sole purpose of using said child as a one-stop organ shop for Sofia's (Sofia Vassilieva playing the elder daughter) needs - and turned it into an over-dramatic ethical/courtroom/family drama of a mother at war with her youngest daughter, Anna (Abagail Breslin, fire your agent) that threatens to destroy the rest of the family and that demands that you cry, damnit, cry! The only thing it did was make me pray to the movie gods that this tedious melodrama would end.

Another movie, Good Luck Chuck, a rom-com that churns out the same recycled sex gags we've seen in better and funnier films like The 40 Year-Old Virgin and American Pie, but goes one step further: it's premise of a dentist (a never unfunnier Dane Cook) who's cursed with getting laid but never being able to find true love, whist the other partner is, hearkening back to the stereotype that all men want is sex; and women, a relationship and children. The filmmakers go about beating this same drum in mean-spirited ways, from Charlie being raped by his receptionist, to him putting the curse to the test on a grotesque, obese woman, this bad sex comedy never once reaches your funny bone.

How about Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, a sequel to the 1999 movie, Charlie's Angels, which was stunningly lazy in its execution, lame in its action scenes, and filled to the brim with bad writing and terrible acting by everyone involved, including Demi Moore, who we all thought would be her triumphant return to the silver screen. Never had a sequel looked this lazy and joyless.

And what else can I say about the entirety of the The Twilight Saga that I already haven't said before?

These movies are, again, just ghastly and unpleasant films in general. I haven't even mentioned the other bad features, like Men In Black II, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Freddy Got Fingered,Battlefield Earth, The Happening, Little Fockers, The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, etc. None of the movies i've mentioned hold a candle to Michael Bay's Bad Boys II, the most unpleasant, mean-spirited, vile, and degrading piece of filmmaking i've seen in quite sometime. Before I get on with this review, allow me to take you back a decade and four year ago.

The year was 1998, and Bay made it big with the sci-fi/disaster flick, Armageddon, grossing over $553 million worldwide. Despite the film recieving a drubbing by the critics, many of them saying his blockbuster feature was filled with many plot holes, a ridiculous premise, underdeveloped characters that would barely be considered one-dimnensonal, and staging overlong, loud and bombastic action scenes for the sake of stretching out the film's 150 minute-runtime, his success at the domestic and international box office signated to Bay that all of his detractors could go fuck themselves: in his mind,  the audience didn't really care about story, character developement or a plot that's logical or has continuity. To him, all that mattered was that he give what his audience wants: carnage and destruction - quick cuts, overlong and head-pummeling action scenes, shit blowing up, stuff about stoping the enemy in the name of freedom, and hot pieces of ass that serve as fan service and to be in love with our main protagonist. 

Little did we know, Bay's style of direction (which can be equated to a 12 year-old riddled with ADHD) was just the beginning. Throught his career, he would go on an almost uninturrped streak of blockbuster hits, Bad Boys II  being part of that collection. Now, onto my review, and to do so, i'm going to paraphrase one of my favorite movie critics, Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, because it really does sum of this.....thing, in a nutshell (and, mind you, this is what he actually wrote about this paticular film):"Bad Boys 2 has everything: everything loud, dumb, violent, racist, sexist and homophobic director Michael Bay and producer Jerry Bruckheimer can think of puking up onscreen." There is not a single moment in this film's 2 hour, 22 minutes that isn't ugly, that doesn't make you wish you were watching a better, more enjoyable action film.

Our "protagonists" are two Miami police detectives, Mike Lowrey and Marcus Barnett, who are once agian played by Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, respectively. I used "protagonists" in quotation marks because these two are, arguably, some of the worst on-screen heroes to come along in ages. The pair open fire in street corners, filled with innocent civilians, to adminsiter their brand of "justice" onto the criminal underworld in South Beach (and, by justice, I mean Will Smith takes out a semi-automatic rifle from the comaprtment of his Ferrari and starts pumping shells into one of the drug dealers trying to escape - not a joke, this actually happens in one of the movie's laundry list of action scenes!); they cause obscene amounts of damage on the freeways of Miami, because it's not a good day at the office (or an action movie, apparently) without getting into a reckless car chase that could serverly injure other drivers and/or pedestrians, and endanger the lives and careeres of those working with the pair. This goes for Mike especially, because his trigger-happy personality constantly ends up putting himself and Marcus in danger. Hell, even Marcus himself admits his partner's shoot-first, ask questions never mentality early in a scene: "He's crazy! He has emotional anger issue problems! He goes to bed early for this sh*t, just to wake up to pop one in a motherfu**er!"  

Seriously, it's a miracle that the Captain of the department (Joe Pantoliano) doesn't strip the pair of their guns and badges and have them kicked off the force for their reckless behavior! In fact, Pantoliano spends about most of his screentime bitching to the Terrible Two about how their latest stunts have landed his character in hot water with higher-ups in the Miami Poliece Department. "I've got so much brass up my a** that I can play the Star Spangled Banner," he yells to the pair at one point during the film. If that's the case, Captain, then why don't you take the logical course of action and have them fired on the spot!? Oh right, I forgot: there wouldn't be a movie if this happned, and, to quote Matthew Buck of That Guy With The Glasses.com, "because the plot says so!"

Speaking of, the "plot" of this movie is almost razor thin and it takes forever to get it going, amidst all the endless shootouts, car chases and "wacky" comedic segments (i'll get to those later): a Cuban drug lord (Jordi Mollà, in what can only be described as a fourth-rate impersonation of Pacino's iconic role as Tony Montana in Brian De Palma's Scarface) is smuggling hordes of ecstacy from his homeland of Cuba to the shores of Miami, where he's on the verge of becoming the drug kingpin of South Beach. He does this by selling it at nightclubs, which is owned by the Russian mob (yes, the Russian mob cliche is used in this movie). In order to take full control of the drugs and the money, he takes out his partners....key members in the Russian mob, a scene shown in loving, graphic detail as Marcus and Mike infiltrate the home of the Cuban druglord. To quote General Maximus, "Are you not entertained?"

This would have been a standard shoot-em-up action film, if Bay hadn't filled his movie with endless action scenes to pad out the movie's length and actually explored the character dynamics of the two partners. Oh, wait! He does, but in the worst, most offensive and tasteless ways ever concieved, passed off as "comedy". The first scene clocks in about 30 minutes in, where Mike and Marcus find a tape and have to go to an electronics store to watch the footage for clues. What they get is a woman getting fucked in the backseat of a car, the audio and video being transferred to every TV screen in the store. Are you laughing yet? The pair go to the back end of the store and share a buddy-cop moment, as Marcus talks about how hiim getting shot in the ass (yes, that really happens in the film's opening sequence)  and how he isn't able to get an erection because of the incident. By the laws of comic contrivance, that very room they cops are in just happens to have a digital camcorder playing back every word that's being uttered, to the horror of the customers at the store. If you've guessed the punchline to this "joke", then congratulations, you've spotted a cheap and tasteless pratfall the filmmakers use to get the audience to laugh hysterically! To cap off this mean-spirited and homophobic gag, an African-American woman complains to the manager about what she, and her children have seen: "IN FRONT OF MY BABIES, YOU GOT PORNO AND HOMO SHOWS UP IN HERE? WHAT KIND OF FREAK-A** STORE IS THIS? MMmm, and you two motha' f***s need Jesus! Cover your ears baby." 

This is the level of humor you can expect from this steaming turd, and believe me - that's not the worst of it all. There's worse. 

I stated earlier that Bay likes using his female characters as little more than eye candy and fan service for the mostly-male deographic who watch his movies. Apparently, dead females can't escape Bay's glorious and masterful objectifacation of the female anatomy. Mike and Marcus infiltrate a hospital where they think the drugs are being smuggled. The pair find out that Johnny Tapia, the Cuban druglord, is using corpses to smuggle the ecstacy into the country. The pair find the drugs, but not before they get a look of a recently deceased woman with large breasts. What happens next is obvious: Mike leers at her breasts, with Marcus making this comment (and i'm paraphrasing here), "this bitch has some big ol' titties!" Yes, Michael Bay, Martin Lawrence and Will Smith are actually going there: objectifying a dead woman's corpse. Funny, right? But wait, this gets better: Marcus, disgusted by the sight of dead bodies and Mike pulling out the organs in one of said dead bodies, accidenally opens the bag of ecstacy, and by the power of contrivance, two of those pills end up in a drinking glass. If you've guessed that Marcus accentally ingests the drugs unknowingly, then contratulations, you've spotted another painfully obvious gag that fails to hit the funny bone later on!  Apparently, no one on the set knows the meaning of the term, showing respect for the dead.

An hour in (this thing runs for almost 2 1/2 hours and already i'm pleading that this fucking thing ends with some mercy) and you've thought there's no way Bay and the crew can scrape the bottom of the barrel even more, that they've (finally) tapped out......if only that were so. This.......i'm not even goign to try and explain what happens when Marcus and Mike grill a 15 year-old boy trying to ask out Marcus' daughter on a date, because this has to be seen in order to be believed. Ladies and gentlemen.....the "Reggie" Scene.

Trust me when I say, this has to be the most painful and exahusting review i've ever had to write, becasue there are so many crimes committed in this one movie alone, that i'm skipping over other tasteless and crude scenes that rightfully deserve my scorn and yours as well. Here's a list of the other "hilarious" scenes that happen in the soul-crushing film:

• Dead corpses fall out of a moving van, which Marcus and Mike run over....many times.
• Tapia, pissed off that the two cops infiltrated his home and put his little girl in danger, shoots one of his lakeys in the head in public. Tapia's mother sees this and asks what happened, with his degenerate son lying to hher, claming that he shot himself in the head.
• Marcus watching two rats fucking. Literally. It's shown thrice, thrusting away.
• The final car chase in which the Bad Boys, along with a squad named Alpha 7, enter Cuba, start firing on Tapia's men, rescue Marcus's sister (Gabrielle Union) who's acted as a mole to bring down the Cuban druglord, fire on Cuban soldiers, and race to the U.S. Naval base on Guantanamo Bay, going through a shanty town and destroying the shacks in the process. Not a joke, this actually happens.

This is what Michael Bay thinks his audience wants to see, and you know what: He was right! Really.Bad Boys II grossed $46 million opening weeked, was the no.1 movie in North Amercia, and went on to a finish of almost $140 million domestically. This exercise in lowest-common denominator excess made big money at the box office, and now, there's word that Bay wants to make another sequel, Bad Boys III, in the near future. This cynical, hateful, uncarring, loud, long, racist, sexist, homophobic and degrading sack of dogshit was loved by its audience, because Michael Bay knew what they wanted and gave it to them, and then some. If this is what passes as entertainment, then it truly does speak to how effortlessly it takes to entertain the American public. Hell, a James Cameron wannabe hack could do it, it could be the worst movie of the last decade and it very well could be a frontrunner for one of the all-time worst films of the century! Wait, it's already been done, and i've just finished talking about it. Congratulations, Michael Bay. You've done it. 

Bad Boys II: The Worst Film of the Decade

Over the last decade, i've watched some truly terrible movies that found their way to movie screens.
My Sister's Keeper, for example, took an already heartless and disgusting premise - a family with a terminally-ill daughter conceive another child for the sole purpose of using said child as a one-stop organ shop for Sofia's (Sofia Vassilieva playing the elder daughter) needs - and turned it into an over-dramatic ethical/courtroom/family drama of a mother at way with her youngest daughter, Anna (Abagail Breslin, fire your agent) that threatens to destroy the rest of the family that demands that you cry, damnit, cry!

Another movie, Good Luck Chuck, a rom-com  that churns out the same recycled sex gags we've seen in better and funnier films like The 40 Year-Old Virgin and American Pie, but goes one step further: it's premise of a dentist (a never unfunnier Dane Cook) who's cursed with getting laid but never being able to find true love, whist the other partner is, hearkens back to the stereotype that all men want is sex, and women, a relationship and children, and goes about beating this same drum almost mean-spirited way, and it never reaches your funny bone.

How about Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, a sequel to the 1999 movie, Charlie's Angels, which was stunningly lazy in its execution, lame in its action scenes, and filled to the brim with bad writing and terrible acting by everyone involved, especially from Demi Moore, who we all thought would be her triumphant return to the silver screen? Never had a sequel to a movie looked so lazy and lifeless.

And what else can I say about the entirety of the The Twilight Saga that I already haven't said before?

These movies are, again, really terrible movies in general. I haven't even mentioned other ghastly features, like Men In Black II, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Freddy Got Fingered, Battlefield Earth, The Happening, etc.

None of the movies i've mentioned hold a candle to Michael Bay's Bad Boys II, the most unpleasant, nasty, mean-spirited, and hateful piece of filmmaking i've seen in quite sometime. Before I get on with this review, allow me to take you back a decade and four year ago: the year was 1998, and Bay made it big with the sci-fi/disaster flick, Armageddon, grossing over $553 million worldwide. Despite the film recieving a drubbing by the critics, many of them saying Bay's blockbuster feature was filled with many plot holes, a ridiculous premise, underdeveloped characters, and staging overlong, loud and bombastic action scenes for the sake of stretching out the film's 150 minute-runtime, Bay's success at the domestic and international box office signated to him that the audience didn't really care about story, character developement or a plot that's logical or has continuity, and that all they wanted to see was carnage and destruction: shit blowing up and loud, long, head-pummeling acting scenes is what they want, the it's shit blowing up they'll get!

Little did we know, Bay's style of direction (which can be equated to a 12 year-old riddled with ADHD)  was just the beginning. Throught his career, he would go on an almost inturrped streak of blockbuster hits, Bad Boys II being part of that collection. Now, onto my review, and to do so, i'm going to quote one of my favorite movie critics, Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, because it really does sum of this.....thing, in a nutshell: "Bad Boys 2 has everything: everything loud, dumb, violent, racist, sexist and homophobic director Michael Bay and producer Jerry Bruckheimer can think of puking up onscreen." There is not a single moment in this film's 2 hour, 22 minute runtime that isn't ugly, that doesn't make you wish you were watching a better, more enjoyable action film.

Our "protagonists" are two Miami police detectives, Mike Lowrey and Marcus Barnett, who are once agian played by Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, respectively. I used "protagonists" in quotation marks because these two are, arguably, some of the worst on-screen heroes to come along in ages. The pair open fire in street corners, filled with innocent civilians, to adminsiter their brand of "justice" onto the criminal underworld in South Beach (and, by justice, I mean Will Smith takes out a semi-automatic rifle from the comaprtment of his Ferrari and starts pumping shells into one of the drug dealers trying to escape); they cause obscene amounts of damage on the freeways of Miami (because it's not a good day without getting into a reckless car chase that could serverly injure other drivers and/or pedestrians!), and endanger the lives and careeres of those working with the pair; this goes for Mike especially because his trigger-happy personality constantly ends up putting himself and Marcus in danger. Hell, even Marcus himself admits his partner's shoot-first, ask questions never mentality early in a scene:

"He's crazy! He has emotional anger issue problems! He goes to bed early for this sh*t, just to wake up to pop one in a motherfu**er!"

Seriously, it's a miracle that the Captain of the department (Joe Pantoliano) doesn't strip the pair of their guns and badges and have them kicked off the force for their behavior!

The "plot" of this movie is almost razor thin and it takes forever to get it going, amidst all the endless shootouts, car chases and "wacky" comedic segments (i'll get to those later): a Cuban drug lord (Jordi Mollà, in what can only be described as a fourth-rade impersonation of Pacino's iconic role as Tony Montana in Brian De Palma's Scarface) is smuggling hordes of exctacy from his homeland of Cuba to the shores of Miami, where he's on the verge of becoming the drug kingpin of South Beach. He does this by selling it at nightclubs, which is owned by the Russian mob (yes, the Russian mob cliche is used in this movie). In order to take full control of the drugs and the money, he takes out his partners....key members in the Russian mob, a scene shown in loving, graphic detail as Marcus and Mike infiltrate the home of the Cuban druglord. Entertained, yet, folks?

This would have been a standard shoot-em-up action film, if Bay hadn't filled his movie with endless action scenes to pad out the movie's length and actually explored the character dynamics of the two partners. Oh, wait, they do! But in the worst, most offensive and tasteless ways ever concieved, passing off as "comedy". Brace yourselves, folks, for the two clips I have prepared for you demonstrate Bay's disdain for the audience. The first scene clocks in about 30 minutes in, where Mike and Marcus find a tape and have to go to an electronics store to watch the footage.


Yes, you really did watch that correctly: Bay goes for the lowest-common denominator in humor, so why not go for the gay sexual innuendos, the contrived portable camera that happens to be playing whilst the patrons watch the conversation takimg pace on ever screen in the establishment, complete with this homophobic and disgusting line, passed off as comedy: "IN FRONT OF MY BABIES, YOU GOT PORNO AND HOMO SHOWS UP IN HERE? WHAT KIND OF FREAK-A** STORE IS THIS? MMmm, and you two motha' f***s need Jesus! Cover your ears baby."

Surprisingly enough, that's not the worst of which Bay's comedic pratfalls comes rearing it's ugly head: here's another scene, in which Marcus and Mike grill the former's daughter taking her out on a date. Ladies and gentlemen, all of the film's spiteful and nasty nature in one mean-spirited, vulgar gag (note: this scene contains gratuious use of the n-word, so skip this clip if you find such coarse language to be distressing):


A few comments on this scene: First - what was the goddamn point to this scene, other than to add some cheap laughs to an already ugly and hateful picture? Did Michael Bay, Smith and Lawrence really think that this scene was actually funny, having their characters essentially threaten the boy's life if he had sex with Marcus' daughter!?And secondly - who's parents actually allowed the kid who played Reggie, to act out a scene like this?! Did the parents not read the fucking script before letting their son act in this vulgar and tasteless scene?

Add in a chace sequence in which Mike and Marcus manuver over dead corpses (and they run over a few of them in the process) while chasing drug dealers, rat fucking, the two police detectives objectifying a dead woman's corpse over her tits, and a finale that includes the Terrible Two ramming their Hummer H2 through a slum of Cuba, and you have Bad Boys II, a crass, despariring and spiteful example of excess that the film and the filmmakers happily wallow in. What makes this movie so godaful is the fact that this made almost $140 million domestically, and over $270 million internationally! People actually payed money to watch shit being flung at the screen and they enjoyed it so much, that there were repeated viewings. That's what makes this so painful: it's that Michael Bay will continue to make these kinds of repulsive movies and that he's laughing (at us) all the way to the bank doing it.

Skyfall poster

The new poster for the next James Bond movie, Skyfall, due out November of this year. The big question: what does the Count think of the teaser poster?

Also: the trailer for Skyfall will be released on Monday.

Avengers Assemble!

Going to tonight's midnight screening of Marvel's The Avengers. From what i've heard, the lines are going to be long, and many theateres are going to make room for more midnight shows. Needless to say, I am stoked to see this. Full review should come in tomorrow.

My review: In a word...wow! Just wow! The Avengers lived up to the hype, and then some. This is a film that has huge set pieces, top-notch visual effects, a middle brimming with tension and great fight scenes between Marvel giants, and a third act that really has to be seen to be believed. Yet, for all of the film's non-stop action, it never loses the the more important aspects: story, engaging characters, and a consistent plot. A moment on the characters: normally, character overflow drags a movie down (see: Spider Man 3, Iron Man 2) but here, the numerous characters works in the film's favor, because writer/director Joss Whedon knows the Marvel universe and what motivates each individual character to do what they do. (I should warn you that if you haven't seen any of the movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe -- Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger -- you'll be somewhat lost, as Whedon doesn't take time for audiences to play catch-up) After Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is banished from Asgard, he makes an alliance with a militant alien race that sends him to Earth to retrieve the Tessaract, an ancient power source that acts as a portal to deepest reaches of space, and as an unlimited source of energy for the peacekeeping agency S.H.I.E.L.D. When Loki captures the device, the world's security is thrown in jepardy as Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) begins a recruting effort of assembling superheoroes in order to stop Loki's plans from coming to fruition: The banter between Iron Man (the ever-terrific Robert Downey Jr.) and Captain America (Chris Evans, perfect as the leader of this rag tag of "lost creatures" as Loki described them) is pitch perfect, highlighting the polar opposites of their characters: Tony Stark is a narcissistic playboy who's all about style, while Steve Rodgers is a natural leader who isn't searching for attention for his heroics. Thor (Chris Hermsworth) wants to bring his adoptive brother to Asgardian justice, and non-superheroes of the group, Agents Natasha Romanoff (a bad-ass Scarlet Johansson) and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner, playing a modern-day Legolas) want to atone for sins committed in a past life. All the actors bring their A-game and not a minute of screen time is wasted, but the star of The Avengers is Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner, the scientist who turns into "an enormous, giant green rage monster" in the Hulk. Ruffalo lets us show the menace simmering underneath, as well as his conflict to keep the monster at bay. He was born to play the Hulk, and finally, the visual effects team get look of the unstoppable juggernaut right! The last leg of the film, in which NYC becomes a warzone, is where Whedon unleashes the team, and the action is something to behold. The Avengers, is simply, the most fun you'll have at the movies all year.

***1/2 stars out of ****

Shut Up and Watch This

Don't Take A Hollywood Bio Pic As Gospel...

 Max Baer was The Heavyweight champion of the world from 1934-1935. He would lose the title to a Journeyman fighter named James Braddock in a fight that would be inspire a movie in 2005 called Cinderella Man and still remain part of boxing lore. Baer never bothered to take Boxing, nor much of anything else for that matter, seriously and as such most boxing historians regard him as supremely talented but his career as ultimately disappointing. Two movies made nearly 50 years apart would cloud the true nature of his character and spawn much controversy.

I hate to take a break from Rev. Sam. to ask a question. Do people really take hollywood Bio-picture that seriously? In 2005 Ron Howard made a bio pic of the Boxer James J. Braddock's life called Cinderella Man. I was one of about 1 of 10 people who actually saw the film in the theater and thought it was excellent. However it was not without controversy. The movie depicts Max Baer Sr, whom Braddock won the heavyweight title off of, as a mean thoughtless blood thirsty savage. This portrayal greatly upset the Baer family. Mainly Max "Jethro Bodine" Baer Jr. Whom threatened a law suit. In truth Baer Sr. Was a fun loving, good guy whom lost to Braddock, and other fights he should have won, not because he was a blood thirsty savage but he because was in fact the opposite. Baer Sr. was a good time guy who would rather laugh, drink and "grab a broad" instead of train for a fight. His famous quote after losing the title to Braddock "He needed it more than I did. he's got 3 kids I don't know how many I've got." gives us much insight to Baer Sr's true personality really was. Also upsetting however to the Baer family was the Portrayal of Baer's attitude about killing a man in the ring. (which happened) In the movie Baer again is portrayed as a blood thirsty savage reveling in the death. In truth the incident bothered Baer until he own death at the relatively young age at 50 and may have contributed in Baer's seemingly nonchalant attitude towards his own fight career.

If the only movie we had to base Baer's true personality and character off of was Cinderella Man maybe the family would have more of a point about the false portrayal. However it is not. There was another movie thinly based on the life of another boxer named Primo Carnera made in 1957 called The Harder They Fall. Unlike Cinderella Man which flopped, The Harder They Fall was and is still one of the most popular "fight pictures" of all time. The film would be Humphery Bogart's last was an expose of the way fighters are exploited by criminals in the fight game. It was Carnera whom Baer would beat for the title. And who would play the character Buddy Branned whom was clearly based on Max Baer? Max Baer! That's right. Baer played the role of a boxer based on himself whom was every bit mean, blood thirsty, and rotten, not to mention also reveling in the fact he killed a man, as his character would be in Cinderella Man. And he had to have known that the role he was playing was based to be himself.

So even before Ron Howard took the life story of James Braddock and embellished many aspect of the story including the true personality of Max Baer Sr, to make a better movie, Baer playing himself did the very same thing some 50 years earlier. In fact you could make a very good argument that The Harder They Fall showing Baer acting in such a fashion did more to harm the legacy of the man than Cinderella Man did where Baer's character was embellished to make Braddock's achievement look that much more impressive. Would Cinderella Man have the same emotional ending if the film had shown Braddock beating a fat out of shape Baer who spent the fight clowning as was the truth instead of making it look as if Braddock beat some unbeatable brute against all odds?

I say all of this to ask this question. Should people or their families really get that upset over their portrayal in a Hollywood film? The way I look at is most people, if they have any smarts at all, are going to know to take what they see on the screen with a grain of salt no matter how truthful a biopic purports to be. All movies, even ones based on the truth are going to at least 30% fiction. They have to be or they would never have hold your attention.. Baer certainly didn't seemed to mind taking money to play himself as in such a fashion Why did his family have such an issue when Craig Bierko did? My own personal answer as somebody who liked both Cinderella Man and The Harder They Fall is I'm smart enough to know that both Baer and Bierko were making an Hollywood version of a real event. Based on truth but was embellished to tell a story. Others watching these films and other bio pictures like them are also smart enough to take what they see on the screen as face value. And if they are not that says more about themselves and their own intelligence than it says about the people being portrayed.

The Count Goes To The Movies

I got dragged to The Descendants. Not my kind of movie but I actually thought it was quite good. I wish the sound from other films weren't drifting into the theater however. BTW. I liked the film and maybe this isn't fair without seeing his competition but while I thought Clooney was solid in the film I DID NOT think he gave an Oscar worthy performance.

The Liquidator Is On TCM Tomorrow!

As many of you know I am James Bond geek and one his most famous knockoffs was a coward named Boysie Oakes whom through a series of fluke accidents manages to convince the head of British Secret Service that he is a vicious killer. The character is the work of British spy and action novelist John Gardner who created the Boysie as a parody of James Bond and away to make a statement about the sillier aspects of spy novels   because the author found was not a fan of the Bond franchise or it's knockoffs. The irony of course is that in 1981 when the Fleming folks decided to start putting out new Bond books they tabbed Gardner as the new author. 16 years and 14 novels and 2 novelizations later Gardner would be most know for his work as a  James Bond author.


17 years before Gardner got the Bind gig he put out his first Oaks (first book period) novel The Liquidator. The book got good reviews and a year later was made into a movie which did not get so good reviews. You can read my review of the book here if you so choose. I have my recorder set to record the movie so I can finally judge it for myself. Friend of BAD Bob Peters offered to give me a copy of the film but as you might imagine I didn't feel real comfortable giving him my home address.

Oscars Thread

Tonight is Hollywood's biggest circle-jerk....uh, I mean night, as many of us will see which movies and performances will takes home the golden statue at this year's 83rd annual Academy Awards ceremony. Feel free to discuss and chat about the show and who wins what on this here thread!

Javier Bardem to be in Bond 23?

Things are quckly moving on Bond 23: Last time, MGM announced that the next entry in the 007 franchise would be going foreword after all, and will plan to release it in November of 2012. Today, we learn that we may have Bond's new villain: Oscar-winner Javier Bardem.

Following word over the weekend that Javier Bardem has been offered a major role in the upcoming (still untitled) 23rd James Bond film, the LA Times spoke with the actor and confirmed that the part in question is, indeed, the film's villain.

"I’d be playing Bond's nemesis, yes," Bardem explains, "but it's not that obvious. Everything is more nuanced. It's very intriguing... They're changing the whole thing, the whole dynamic."

Bardem acknowledges his interest, saying that he's a big fan of the franchise, but will not make a decision until he has the opportunity to read the full script. That said, meetings so far with director Sam Mendes certainly seem to have left him intrigued.

Bardem would make a great Bond villain. Why? He's played one in the Coen Bros. No Country For Old Men, and to great effect.

John Barry 1933-2011

007 returns in 2012

After all the drama about whether or not Bond 23 will get off the ground, the guys at EON Productions and MGM have announced that the man with a Licence to Kill will be back in theaters next year. I'm sure the Count is doing backflips over this.

True Grit: The 10 Best Films of 2010

2010 nearly became a sea of dreck: from godwaful summer hits (I'm looking at you Sex and the City 2) to overrated Oscar-hopefuls (The Town really bummed me out) it looked like slim pickings. Then came David Fincher's mesmerizing and simmering Greek tragedy in the form of the most powerful social networking site around, Joel and Ethan Coen's new classic re-telling of "The Duke's" only Oscar-winning role, a vampire movie that didn't suck and who name doesn't begin with Twilight, and the the beginning of the end for a beloved boy wizard. Add a lesbian couple's marriage on the rocks, a writer investigating corruption in the life of a public servant, and thieves pulling the perfect crime in our dreams, and we have 10 of the movies that not only didn't suck, but had true grit (forgive the pun) as well.

1. Inception - No other movie this year dared to dream bigger and dug deeper than Christopher Nolan's follow up to the '08 smash The Dark Knight. Leonardo DiCaprio is haunting as Don Cobb, a thief-for-hire who steals ideas from corporate bigshots while their victims are counting sheep, but can't get his deceased wife (played by the excellent Marion Cotillard)out of his head - literally. The ultimate prize is offered to Cobb by Mr. Saito (Ken Wantanbe) so he can go back to America without having to face a trial and jury for his corporate crimes in the past, if he and his team can perform the impossible: planting an idea into Saito's main competitor for energy, instead of extracting one, or inception. From there, we dive down the rabbit hole where laws of physics are bended and broken to one's will, and Cobb's secrets threaten his ticket home. Props to Nolan who's imagination is as vast and uncompromising as when Ariadne (Ellen Page) bends the Louvre on top of itself. To quote Cobb's right-hand man Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), "There's nothing like it."

2. Black Swan - Natalie Portman gives the performance of the year as a rising ballerina in the New York Ballet company who's landed the biggest role the production of Swan Lake. As the opening draws near, she faces a mental breakdown as she begins to explore her darker side as the Swan's alter ego in the recital. What could have been a total melodrama with a memorable steamy girl-girl sex scene between Portman and her co-star, a surprising, sensual performance by Mila Kunis, director Darren Aronofsky, along with longtime collaborators cinematographer Matthew Libatique and composer Clint Mansell take us on a harrowing, dark, and erotic journey into Nina Sayer's head, where her drive to being perfect threatens to destroy her and the production. The last line floors you: "I felt it. Perfect. I was perfect." It's the best way to describe Portman's tour-de-force and Aronofsky's latest, and best, creation.

3. The Social Network - A movie about Facebook? Hollywood has jumped the shark you might say. That guy from N'Sync, a handsome-looking but largely unknown British actor, and the kid in Zombieland? This has to be a fucking disaster, and in lesser hands, you would be correct. Director David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (TV's The West Wing) don't give a damn about how LOL and OMG became part of our online vocabulary, the pair are hunting bigger game in how gifted genius, ruthless ambition, sex, money and betrayal paved the way for Zuckerberg to become the world's youngest billionaire and how his own shortcommings in social communication brings about the social networking phenomenon. Jesse Eisenberg gives the best performance of his young career as Facebook's founder, genius techie, and all-around brooding prick, while Andrew Garfield laces loyalty and heartbreak as Edwardo Saverin, Mark's best and only friend he eventually screws over for Napster founder Sean Parker (an excellent Justin Timberlake).

4. The Ghost Writer - Roman Polanski may be a sick, deplorable child fucker, but he's never been better as a filmmaker in this Machiavellian and haunting political thriller. Ewan McGregor is shines as a Ghost writer, hired to write the memoirs of former British Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) who's in self-exile in America as the International Criminal Court moves to convict him for engaging in torturing prisoners of war (all names have been changed in this movie to protect the guilty). A simple assignment becomes a cat-and-mouse hunt for the truth and a fight for his life the deeper the Ghost digs into Lang's rise into politics, and Polanski - along with composer Alexandre Desplat, and cinematographer Pawel Edelman - create a claustrophobic web of intrigue and ruthless power that hooks you until the final frame.

5. The Tillman Story - We all know the story of Cpl. Pat Tillman: how he turned down a lucrative deal to continue playing for the Arizona Cardinals in order to serve his country after 9/11. We all know how the Pentagon and the Bush Administration covered up his death (he died via friendly fire by his own unit) in order to use him as a recruiting tool for the military and to make him an American hero back home. Director Amir Bar-Lev and narrator Josh Brolin go further to uncover how our government tried to block the truth on how he died to a grieving family, and revealed the man behind the propaganda. The result makes the documentary all the more heartbreaking and sickening as Congress and the media looked the other way. The Tillman Story sticks with you long after the credits roll.

6. 127 Hours - A claustrophobic thriller/true story where the hero is incapable of movement? Sounds like another bland, weepy docudrama. Danny Boyle, who won the Oscar for Best Director in 2008 for the masterful Slumdog Millionaire, avoids the cliches and pitfals, and follows up with a brilliant, inspiring and harrowing journey into the six days that defined Aaron Ralston's life as his hand was pinned down to a boulder in a canyon in Utah. James Franco has shown off his acting chops before (see Harvey Milk's first partner in Milk) but he digs deep to show us what's going through Aaron's head as he comes face-to-face with his reckless/lone-wolf behavior, and with certain death. You feel like you're just as trapped as was the real hiker was, with hope fading minute by minute, which makes 127 Hours unforgetttable: Boyle and Franco make you believe.

7. The Kids Are All Right - In a year where comedies range from the painfully unfunny (Grown Ups) to the cliched sitcom antics of two people trying to make it work (Going The Distance), leave it to acting legends Julianne Moore and Annette Benning and first-time director Lisa Cholodenko to show everyone else how its done. For those who are expecting to see girl-on-girl sex from its two lead actresses, snap out of it. Yes, the subject is gay marriage, but if you dig beneath the surface, you'll see something universal: two imperfect people who are trying to make a relationship work when it seems the love has begun to fade.

8. Let Me In - It's a miracle! A vampire movie that doesn't suck, and an American remake (2007's mesmirising Sweedish horror movie Let The Right One In) that improves on the original. Matt Reeves, who wrote and directed the film, doesn't coddle to the fangirl base by plugging a couple of attractive leads and doesn't skimper on blood-sucking and feeling. Abby is played by the fantastic Chloe Crace-Moretz, the vampire who befriends Owen, a young boy who's tormented by bullies at school and his alcoholic, Bible-thumping mother, who is played with tenderness and traces of bubbling menace by Kodi Smit-McPhee. The relationship that forms turns deadly and deeply moving as the body count begins to pile up in the small town of New Mexico, as a local cop (Elias Koteas) tracks Abby and her guardian down (the always reliable Richard Jenkins).


9. True Grit - First the Facebook movie, now Hollywood remade the classic 1969 western staring John Wayne in the only role in which "The Duke" snagged the Best Actor Oscar? Again, this would be a walking disaster in lesser hands, but leave it to Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country For Old Men) to take a vastly different approach and come away with a new Coen Bros. classic. Much like No Country in 2007, the directing duo don't just understand Charles Portis's novel of the same name, they know how the characters act, think, and breathe. The dialouge is among some of the finest the pair have ever crafted, as each line is laced with ferocity and stinging humor. Cinematographer Roger Deakins captures the open range with both breathtaking beauty and the lurking danger that spring at a moment's notice. As for the man who plays Wayne's Rooster Cogburn? Jeff Bridges dons the eye patch and does the The Duke proud by making Cogburn into a fat, drunkard with quick aim and glimmers of regret. The movie, though, belongs to newcomer Haliee Steinfeld, playing Mattie Ross, the 14 year-old smartmouthed, headstrong girl who hires Cogburn to hunt down Ton Chaney (Josh Brolin), the man who killed her father. She's a live wire.

10. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I - Rounding out my list is probably the most unappreciated movie of the series. The rap is that Part One of the two-part finale of J.K. Rowling's epic fantasy series, is that its a huge tease: it's all buildup, zero release, and no payoff. Yes, it sets the stage to the final battle between Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and the sinister Lord Voldemort (Ralph Finnes) and I will agree that the middle does lag in certain areas, but the payoff is in the performances of its three leads. For over a decade, we've seen Radcliffe and pals Emma Watson and Rupert Grint grow and mature from wide-eyed kids who'd let their Macaulay Culkin-esue facial expressions do the acting for them, to young leads with serious acting chops. Grint has usually been reduced to comic relief as Ron, but in Part One, there's a harder, more vulnerable edge to him that we've never seen before. Watching him charge with fury as a piece of jinxed jewelry unleashes his fear of losing Hermione to Harry is heartbreaking. Watson's Hermione has always impressed me for the start, but she takes it to a new level by introducing something we haven't seen in her character: the burden of being the brains of the trio and the conflicting emotions she has for both Harry and Ron. And Radcliffe as Harry shows him losing his faith in the late Dumbledore's request in finding and destroying the remaining Horcruxes (bits of the Dark Lord's soul hidden in various objects) without a clue where to search and how to destroy them.

I Can Do Nothin For Ya Son

I usually leave the Movie reviews to Jonathan But I'll just say now that I have finally seen True Grit I absolutely loved it. *****/*****



Late Edit: I thought the suits at Paramount Pictures were absolutely nuts when they announced they were going to remake the 1969 movie that won John "The Duke" Wayne's only acting Oscar. When I heard that Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country For Old Men) are behind the director's chair and that Oscar-winner Jeff "The Dude" Bridges is going to play Rooster Cogburn, I thought this just might hit the bullseye, or miss the mark. The Coen Bros. love of dialouge and out-of nowhere gritty violence has never been better than it has in this faithful adaptation of the Charles Portis' novel of the same name, and it boasts the most surprising and best supporting acting work of 2010 in newcomer Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross, the smart-mouth, headstrong 14 year-old girl who hires Cogburn to hunt down her father's murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) because of all the U.S. Marshalls in the town of Fort Smith, Arkansas, the one-eyed trigger-happy lawman has "grit". So does Steinfeld. She's a live-wire. ***1/2 stars out of ****

Nien Nunb

I knew he had to have a name. Now I can quit calling him Lando's Co-Pilot.

R.I.P. Blake Edwards

scenes from A Shot in The Dark by far the best movie in the Pink Panther series.