Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Now that I've seen the 168 minute long third installment of Pirates of the Caribbean, I can safely say that I hope to God and all his minions that this is the end. The Jack Sparrow schtick is getting old, and I for one am sick to death of it. Granted, the first film was great, seeing as it brought new interest to the somewhat-ignored area of Pirate Movies. Jack Sparrow was the bumbling pirate who always seemed to be three sheets to the wind, and Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley were still relatively new faces in Hollywood. The second film was just... unneccesary... especially with the inclusion of Barbossa at the end. I left the theatre scratching my head, wondering "didn't he die in the first one??" and disappointed with the contrived Jack/Elizabeth plotline, which did nothing for the movie except make me dislike both characters. The only redeeming features of the second movie were the visual effects, Bill Nighy as Davey Jones, and the fact that Jack Davenport had a beard. Which is not saying much.

So, with that in mind, you can see where I'm going with this review. The visual effects were still fantastic, and Bill Nighy was still great, complete with tentacley face. Jack Davenport apparently shaved his beard, and thus lost a little something, but he was really the only character I was interested in. Actually, the monkey was the only great character in the entire thing. Anyway, on to the plot. Like the Knocked Up review, I'm writing this a few weeks after seeing it, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details. I'm pretty sure it opened with Will, Elizabeth, Barbossa and their posse of pirates going to Singapore (or maybe Shanghai? I don't know) to propose teaming up with Chow Yun Fat, who says no and tries to kill them. Obviously, they escape, and sail around trying to find Jack, who's been sent to Davey Jones' locker. At this point, the scene changes to focus on Johnny Depp, who's apparently had an acid trip... either that or my M&Ms were laced with LSD because, for no apparent reason, there are about 40 Jack Sparrows wandering around. Needless to say, it's out of the blue and completely fucked up. Regardless, he meets up with the posse and they manage to escape Davey Jones' locker. The plot kind of unravels at this point (not that there was much of one in the first place), and this is only about 30 minutes into the movie. Somehow Elizabeth gets captured by Chow Yun Fat and his dudes, and Will gets trapped on Davey Jones' boat, but they all find each other and a huge naval battle ensues.

Of course, Keith Richards makes an appearance, and there's a needless meeting between all the pirate lords, who disappear at one point, even though there are like 8 of them, plus all their cronies. The ending is disappointing, open-ended and nauseating. I didn't bother to stay until the end of the credits, because I just wanted to get the hell out of there, but apparently there's a little scene at the end alluding to possibly another movie. To that I say, HELL NO. You could not drag me to see another goddamn Pirates of the Caribbean movie. What really disappoints me is just how greedy studios have become. Movies that were great by themselves and as such, big box office hits, have been needlessly turned into trilogies (Shrek, Pirates, The Matrix), and it just shows a complete lack of originality in Hollywood these days.

Knocked Up

This review is long overdue...

Anything that has Seth Rogen in it is usually a good laugh, considering he's been in the short-lived, but hilarious "Freaks and Geeks", the short-lived, but also thought-to-be-hilarious "Undeclared", and The 40 Year-Old Virgin, but add in "Freaks and Geeks" alums Jason Segel, Martin Starr, and Leslie Mann, throw in Paul Rudd and Alan Tudyk, and you've got a recipe for something that TV and movie nerds everywhere will love. Or just nerds.

The premise is fairly obvious from the trailers: Guy meets girl, they have a one-night stand, girl gets pregnant, guy and girl try to work it out. It's a pretty standard storyline. I wasn't convinced that this was going to be as funny as I expected, but it actually surpassed my expectations. Seth Rogen, thankfully, keeps his character from becoming another one of those useless schlubs who somehow get the girl in the end, and the relationship between the two main characters is actually believable, complete with weird friends and numerous fights (including a really funny fight in the examining room at the doctor's office). Paul Rudd is as hilarious as he always is... anyone who's seen Wet Hot American Summer can attest to the fact that this guy can play comedy like no one else. There's a scene akin to the "you know how I know you're gay?" scene in The 40 Year-Old Virgin, but it's not so similar that you feel as if they lost interest in the writing.

In a sense, the end of the film is pretty predictable, but what movie isn't these days? Most of the time, if you've seen the original film (due to the enormous number of remakes), or read the book (due to the number of book-to-film), or seen the first film (again, gross number of sequels), you can pretty much predict the ending to any movie nowadays. Luckily, it doesn't really matter that you know what will happen in Knocked Up, because the trip to the conclusion is just so incredibly enjoyable. I swear, there were parts where I literally thought I was going to choke I was laughing so hard. I think I may have actually found this funnier than 40 Year-Old Virgin, just because the jokes were a little less immature. In short, it's definately worth a look.

Rescue Dawn trailer

The premise for Rescue Dawn is as follows: "Dieter Dengler was a fighter pilot who was gunned down and captured during the Vietnam war; he then staged a remarkable break-out from the camp in which he was interned. RESCUE DAWN finds Christian Bale playing Dengler in this adaptation of his life, while famed and controversial filmmaker Werner Herzog directs."

Now, I'm a huge fan of prison escape movies (with the except of Papillion, dear *God* it just never ended!), and the plot of this movie is right up my alley, considering how much I enjoyed studying the Vietnam War. But the premise of this film just pisses me off. First of all, the trailer starts with the requisite "secret mission into Laos", then the predictable plane crash in enemy territory and the resulting POW status. That's fine. What pisses me off is the overwhelming theme of RAH RAH America in this trailer. I hope to God the movie is slightly different, because if they paint Laotians as violent warmongering animals, I am going to be livid. Believe me, I have a whole rant lined up if this turns out to be how it appears from the trailer:

28 Weeks Later

It's been a full four years since 28 Days Later hit theatres, so frankly, I think this sequel is a little late in arriving. Actually, scratch that. I'm not even sure they should have made the sequel in the first place. 28 Days Later actually had an ending... and a surprisingly happy one, as the three (or two, if you watch the alternate ending) survivors presumably get rescued and the "infected" are dying off of starvation. So why the sequel? I'm guessing it did so-so at the box office, but the DVD sales made the studio realise that they could make more money off of this "rage virus infects Britain" storyline, so they decided to make a movie without the original cast, the original director and the same bloody plot. And by bloody, I mean bloody.The movie opens with the semi-predictable family gathering of survivors in an old farm house, but then the predictably dumbass young girl peeks out of a crack in the kitchen wall and is attacked by one of the infected, thus infecting the house. Only Robert Carlyle survives, at least, that's what we're supposed to think, as he deserts his wife in a bedroom full of infected and the audience presumes that she either becomes one of them, or she dies. Fast forward a bit (they go through a series of time periods on screen detailing what happened after all the bad dudes die... something to the effect of "infected die of starvation, american army comes in rah rah rah rebuilding starts". Robert Carlyle's two kids return to Britain from "a school trip" (they never say where) and are reunited with their father, who tells them their mum is dead. But *cue dramatic and creepy music*, the kids sneak out of the safe area to get some stuff at their house and find their mum alive and well, and most importantly, not infected, although she is a little crazy. So of course, the kids are pissed at their dad because he said she was dead, and the army medical officer Scarlett (Rose Byrne) discovers that dear old Robbie's wife got bitten, but due to some gene in her DNA, she is only a carrier of the rage virus. Cue scary music again. Robert Carlyle visits wifey, says sorry, kisses her and DUN DUN DUN becomes the first infected person in Britain in 6 months. Cue panic. Cue army shooting people. Cue predictable meeting up of medical officer Scarlett, the two kids, and hot army sniper Doyle (Jeremy Renner). Cue blood. Cue gore. Cue ridiculous open-ended conclusion leading to assumption that there will probably be a 28 Months Later.

I'm being a little hard on this movie actually, but considering how creepy the original is, 28 Weeks Later fell flat. The first half was fairly good, but after people started getting shot and the blood and gore started flying, it seemed like the writers forgot about the plot and opted for overwhelming guts and blood. What makes the first film so frightening was not the actual rage virus, or the bloodthirsty, blood-spewing, flesh-happy infected, but scenes like the opening sequence, as Cillian Murphy walks around a completely deserted London, or when they head to the army camp and they're the only car on the highway. The acting in the first one was pretty good, considering the plot, but you bought into the fear and panic and relief that the actors portrayed. The acting in the sequel, prior to the outbreak, isn't bad either, but it was weird to hear Rose Byrne (who is Australian) with an American accent. Once the rage virus hit, the acting was only so-so, but I was pleasantly surprised by the two kids, and Jeremy Renner, who always seems to play the bad guy (ie Dahmer and S.W.A.T.). The sequel lacked the humour and originality of 28 Days Later. There were no lighthearted moments, or even unpredictable moments when something would pop out at you. Granted, the last scenes in the sequel are freaky, mainly due to the setting, but overall it seems like the new director opted to make a horror film about zombies.

It wasn't completely awful, but if you like the original, there's no point in seeing the sequel; you'll only be disappointed.

Hot Fuzz

Hot Fuzz

After convulsing with laughter during Shaun of the Dead, and pretty much anytime anyone referred to a line from it, I had to go see this movie. Granted, there aren't any zombies and Simon Pegg doesn't play a slacker-turned-hero, but it is just as funny.

Written by Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg, the film starts with listing the numerous commendations in Nicholas Angel's (Simon Pegg) career as a policeman- no, police officer, with the Metropolitan Police in London. He's so good that his superiors (Martin Freeman, Steve Coogan and Bill Nighy) decide to send him to the tiny village of Sandford, where there's little crime (excluding the missing swan) and a high number of accidents. His first night in town finds Angel in the local pub drinking cranberry juice and arresting underage drinkers. He almost gets run over by a drunken lout (Nick Frost, Ed from Shaun of the Dead) who is revealed the next day to be the inspector's son. The majority of the characters in the movie are parodies of the type of people portrayed in Britcoms, or British movies that are meant to portray tiny villages as "quaint" and "colourful": the stumbling cop, the sleazy town merchant, etc. The plot basically revolves around the "accidental" deaths of two of the town's inhabitants, who are decapitated after their horrifying portrayal of the Romeo and Juliet movie on stage.

What Shaun of the Dead did to zombie movies, Hot Fuzz does to action. The most prominent references are to Point Break and Bad Boys II, two of possibly the worst action movies ever made. But the references are great, specifically because they take the mickey out of both films, and Danny (Nick Frost) ends up using one of the more hilarious scenes of Point Break at one point. Although it is a comedy, there are a lot of action sequences within the humour, including a long gunbattle, and a chase scene. Essentially, it boils down to a buddy cop comedy with some gore, some colorful characters and great scenes with Martin Freeman, Bill Nighy, Jim Broadbent, Timothy Dalton and Steve Merchant.

There was actually a point in the movie when the entire audience was laughing uncontrollably for about 10 minutes, it's that funny. So I'd recommend it. I mean, it's not going to make any Top 10 Greatest Films of All Time lists any time soon, but it's enjoyable, and hilarious... and that's all that really matters, right?

DVD Review: Highlander

Amanda's been talking about this movie pretty much since the day I became friends with her (I should have realised this was a sign of things to come), so we finally rented it the other night. I actually told her I would start this review with "What. The. Fuck." Sorry Amanda, I figured I'd just mock you instead.

Really though. What the fuck? That's all I could say for the first 20 minutes or so of this movie. Wrestling? Swordfighting in a parking garage against some 50 year-old acrobat? Decapitation and lightning? EIGHTIES HAIR? oh God the humanity! I was confused when Christopher Lambert all of a sudden had flashbacks to a Braveheart-style battle while he was watching team wrestling inside Madison Square Garden(s?), but I guess I'd zone out too if I had to watch that.

The audience gets his backstory in a series of flashbacks where he's got long ratty hair and wears a kilt, all the while affecting a terrible Scottish accent. He's Connor McLeod! Proud member of the McLeod clan, defender of freedom, lover of some blond-haired wench, fighter of guys in skull-decorated armour... oh, plus he's immortal. Anyhoo, he gets thrown out by his village because they think he's a witch and he sets up camp elsewhere, manages to find another blonde-haired wench in the process. Sean Connery shows up... hilarity ensues... mainly because Christopher Lambert is an American playing a Scotsman who doesn't sound like a Scotsman, and Sean Connery is a Scotsman playing an Egyptian with a Spanish name who sounds like a Scotsman. He teaches Connor all about being immortal, even going to the lengths of pushing him into the lake, even though he can't swim, but obviously he can't die, so no harm, no foul. Connery blabbers on about not dying and the quickening and the gathering, but then the dude with the skull armour shows up and decapitates him, cause apparently that's an immortal's only weakness. Strangely enough, decapitating a mortal only makes them stronger......

In modern times, Connor's changed his name to something Nash (not Pluto) so people don't know that he's like 400 years old, and he crosses paths with a woman who is investigating the death of the acrobat guy he decapitated in the beginning. She has fairly terrible eighties hair, belts her shirts and thinks that hiding a gun in a set of drawers in plain sight is terribly sneaky. Regardless, they have a fairly graphic sex scene, in front of a picture window looking out on the entire city no less, and then he has to go fight the skull-armour dude so that the gathering can happen.

Seriously, this movie is hilarious. It is one of the most unintentionally funny movies I have ever seen (Doom will always be number one though). From Lambert's hard-to-place accent, to Sean Connery playing a guy named Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez, to the over-usage of lightning effects and the phrase "There can be only one!", do I really need to explain the utter mockability of this movie?

Just a sidenote: This movie somehow managed to get a 71% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. How in the hell did that happen?

Grindhouse

I don't know what preceeded any of the other showings, but our theatre played the fake trailer for Hobo with a Shotgun, which was actually directed by a guy from Dartmouth and filmed in and around the HRM. That second-long clip of the hobo running along a submarine was filmed on the waterfront. It pretty much just shows this hobo who wants to get out of the hobo life, but while he's gazing longingly through a store window, he sees some kids getting rustled up by some bad guys, so he buys a shotgun and causes some shit. Rodriguez's own trailer for Machete absolutely killed me though. Everyone in the theatre loved it! Here's a taste: "You've fucked with the wrong Mexican".

Planet Terror:

Robert Rodriguez's segment of the movie stars Freddy Rodriguez (no relation), Rose McGowan, Josh Brolin, Marley Shelton, Bruce Willis, Naveen Andrews, Michael Biehn and a whole lot of ugly guys and gals.

Opening with a go-go dancer named Cherry (Rose McGowan), who quits as soon as she's finished her dance, the story pretty much follows her, as she heads down the highway, goes to a BBQ restaurant, only to run into her old boyfriend Wray (Freddy Rodriguez), who gives her a ride. While they're getting reacquainted, Naveen Andrews and his posse (including Bruce Willis) accidentally-on-purpose release a chemical into the air that makes anyone who comes in contact with it (or the bodily fluids of anyone infected) turn into a bubbling blood-exploding mess that likes to eat humans. This little situation ends up fucking over our not-so-favourite recent solo star Fergie Ferg, whose brain ends up being eaten... I hope it was Fergilicious boys.

Cherry and Wray are in his towtruck talking about romantic things, like roadkill, and how people 'in these parts' eat roadkill, because when you see a deer in 'these parts' you can't swerve or else you're dead, so you just have to kill the deer. Wray suddenly sees something in front of them, and swerves, resulting in them crashing. While they're hanging upside down in the truck, Cherry says my favourite line in the entire movie: "I thought you said you weren't supposed to FUCKING SWERVE". She gets dragged out by the crazies, who tear off her leg.

Anyway, I don't want to ruin it for people. But let me just warn you, it's pretty damn gross. I'm talking about exploding pustules on people's tongues, melting genitalia, a plastic bag full of testicles... you get the picture. It's still great. It's all worth it in the end. And the film itself, I mean the process and everything, is great. There's a scene interrupted by the film literally melting and then a sign comes up saying "Missing Reel - we apologise for any inconvenience - Mgmt.". Awesome. Oh, and I'm sorry, but Michael Biehn was just plain fantastic.

In between the two films were some fake trailers by other famous directors. Werewolf Women of the SS by Rob Zombie, Don't by Edgar Wright (which was definately my favourite after Hobo and Machete) and Eli Roth's Thanksgiving which was just plain disgusting.

Death Proof:

Tarantino's film stars Kurt Russell as an aging stuntman named, fittingly, Stuntman Mike. But the movie opens with three girls (Sydney Tamiia Poitier, Jordan Ladd and Vanessa Ferlito) cruising around in their car, listening to music and figuring out: a)where they're going to score some weed and b) what their plans are for that evening. They end up in a divey bar where they dance, and drink and flirt with some guys before the camera floats over to Stuntman Mike, who's eating nachos like it's nobody's business before Pam (Rose McGowan) asks if she can get a ride home later. His car has a white skull painted on the hood and a duck hood ornament... what a chick magnet. After he explains that the car is "death proof", hence the title, she gets into the passenger seat, only to be told once they're on their way that "This car is 100% death proof, only to get the benefit of it honey, you really need to be sitting in my seat" before he slams on the brakes and she flies forward. He then kills the three girls from the beginning of the movie by slamming into their car at a ridiculously high speed.

A year later, he's at it again, targeting four girls in Tennessee (Rosario Dawson, Tracie Thoms, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Zoe Bell), three of which decide that playing 'ship's mast' on an old Dodge Challenger is a super-fantastic idea. Needless to say, Stuntman Mike crosses paths with them and hijinks ensue.

Both films were fantastic in their own right. Planet Terror was more bloody and definately more campy, but it was still entertaining. The plot was thin as hell, but the effects were awesome... I mean, who doesn't love seeing a girl with a semi-automatic as a leg? Shooting bullets out of it?? Kick. Ass. Death Proof was a little more character-driven, allowing the audience to bond a little bit with the characters before they meet their fates. And the ending was just... sheer genius. I mean, the theatre audience actually cheered and yelled "yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaah!!" when THE END showed up on screen.

DVD Review: Casino Royale

I'm not going to lie and say this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen... but I definately wasn't as entertained as I should have been, considering it's supposed to be one of the better Bond films of late. After the utter shit that was Die Another Day, I was really hesistant to go out and waste my money on this in the theatre... so I'm glad I waited until one of my friends rented it.

First of all, let me just get this out of the way: I have never, still don't and never will agree with the choice of Daniel Craig as James Bond. A) He's blonde, B) he's a beefcake and C) just... blech. Never in my mind will he stack up with Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore and god help me, George Lazenby. I'm only expressing this so you understand how I felt going into this movie.

So it starts with... er... oh wait, I remember, in black and white, to which Maggie (who'd never seen a Bond film before) goes "is this whole goddamn movie in black and white? *sigh*", which was pretty funny. Anyway, so there's this dude, and he goes into his office, but of course Bond is sitting there being like "I'm a 00 agent now, so I'm going to shoot you in the head because I already killed your associate and it takes two kills to make me 007 and naner naner naner" etc etc. So I'm already bothered by the fact that Bond has mercilessly killed this guy in cold blood by drowning him in a bathroom sink because James Bond is supposed to be all quippy and dry wit when about to kill an enemy. But I digress...

Anyway, then there's some stuff in other places with guns and bad guys and chase scenes and people getting blown up, which is pretty typical of Bond movies... the good ones anyway. James Bond goes back to London, breaks into his boss' house, which she doesn't seem to perturbed about, and they decide he should go join a high-stakes poker game (or some other card game, who the fuck cares really) so that he can catch the bad guy. He meets a lady on the train, thinks she's pretty, makes some joke about her ass, or his ass, or something, I quickly make the call that she's either evil, or dead meat. Card game goes on, James Bond gets a drink (NOT a martini shaken not stirred). Blah blah blah... with most Bond films you can sum the plots up in about 5 seconds, and this one is no different. So I was a little thrown when along comes this 20 minute long sequence (could have been longer, or shorter, either way it felt like waaaaay too long) of Bond and the evil/dead girl being schmultzy. Gross.

I'm going to stop with the summary here, partly because I really don't remember a lot of the details and partly because I don't want to ruin the entire thing for those who haven't seen it yet. For those of you who *have* seen it, spare me the whole "but it's to explain WHY Bond is the way he is in the other movies" argument. I do. not. care. For that argument to hold up, this movie would have to take place in the past, not the present... frankly, I think the space-time continuim just got a little fucked up because of it. Isn't the world supposed to explode when that happens? I mean, how hard is it to base a movie about spies in the 1940s? You could have Bond fighting the Nazis! And he could earn his 00 status while retrieving ancient relics while his crotchety Scottish dad goes around and - oh wait.

ARG... Becoming Jane trailer

Ach! Anne Hathaway is playing Jane Austen in the film Becoming Jane. I find this extremely annoying. Not only did she ruin my favourite book Ella Enchanted by being in the absolutely terrible movie version, she is most likely going to ruin this film as well. I agree with everyone else cast, as James Cromwell (on 24 as of now, but is famous for Babe), Maggie Smith and Julie Walters (both from Harry Potter), and James McAvoy, seeing as they're either ACTUALLY British/Scottish, or they're capable of imitating the accent. Anne Hathaway? Let's forget that she was the only non-British cast member of Ella Enchanted (because even that wouldn't have saved it from being terrible) and go straight to the point: She is not a great actress. The only reason why everyone believes she did so well in The Devil Wears Prada is because of Meryl Streep, plus it was also a fluff movie. Ugh. This news annoys me. I hope it turns out to be like the "Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet" thing, but I have a feeling it won't.

Knocked Up, Penelope trailers

When I first heard about this movie, I thought it sounded like utter crap. But, it *does* have Seth Rogan, Paul Rudd and Jason Segel in it, and how can you go wrong with two of the main guys off of Freaks and Geeks? So here's the trailer for anyone interested:




Another movie that looks pretty good is Penelope, starring Christina Ricci and rising star/hot Scot James McAvoy.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End trailer

I'm entirely over the whole Pirates of the Caribbean thing. Sure, the first one was entertaining, plus it was back when Orlando Bloom wasn't a poncy jackass, and when the Jack Sparrow schtick wasn't grating as hell. I was really disappointed with the second one. The plot was so thin, and the only thing I enjoyed about it was Jack Davenport. BUT, saying that, I'll probably end up seeing the third one. It looks entertaining enough, and it looks like they've abandoned the whole "let's get Jack and Elizabeth together to see how the audience reacts" thing. Anyway, here's the trailer if you're interested:

300

I ended up seeing this movie with two people who were not all that interested in seeing it. Of course, by about 20 minutes of seeing a bunch of hot muscled men running around half-naked, they were won over, and I think I saw Maggie actually fanning herself at one point. It wasn't just the eye candy that made me want to see this movie, and it wasn't the fact that it was clearly going to be a hit... it was partly the visual appeal, and partly the fact that David Wenham is in it.

Based off of Frank Miller's graphic novel (which I have yet to read, but it's on it's way), the plot is fairly simple: 300 Spartan soldiers under the command of King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) fight against the Persian armies in 480 B.C. at the Battle of Thermopylae. It begins with the story of how Leonidas became King of Sparta; almost got tossed off a cliff as a baby, then beat up some kid when he was sent away from home in Spartan tradition, killed a wolf in the woods, etc. The audience then learns that he pissed off the Persian "god-king" Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) by kicking his messenger and his hangers-ons down a well ("This is madness!" "Madness?... THIS. IS. SPARTA!" fun dialogue, and I'm pretty sure there were someone behind me who said it along with Butler). Unfortunately, his decision to punt some dudes down the well pretty much ensures that Xerxes is going to want to attack, but Leonidas doesn't get permission from the Oracle to take the Spartan army north to meet the Persians. Instead, he takes his 300 finest soldiers and marches towards the coast.

At this point, the 300 soldiers meet up with Arcadians, who are like "wtf? you only brought a handful of guys?" to which Leonidas asks a few Arcadians what their professions are, and of course none of them say "soldier", so Leonidas makes a point of asking the Spartans what their profession is, and they all yell in unison and it's all very silly and masculine. They then see a village burning in the distance, so of course they investigate and Dilios (David Wenham), who is also the narrator, finds the villagers dead in a tree as some sort of sick message. Once they finally get to the Haut Gates, or whatever they're called, that's when the real action starts. Army after army of the Persian empire attempt to defeat the tiny Spartan contigent only to be chopped up into teeny pieces.

The battles themselves are filmed in a really interesting way: they speed up the action in parts and slow it down in others, so it's more interesting to watch than something like Braveheart where the battles seem incredibly dull and long. In 300, you get to see legs and arms chopped off, and even heads! It's very cool. The costumes were great. I read somewhere that they had to dye the cloaks numerous times to get it to the Spartan red, which is some crazy dedication, considering the phalanx itself was changed from being historically accurate because the film version's phalanx "looked cooler" (direct quote from the director, Zack Snyder). The one thing I had a problem with were the weird creatures in Xerxes camp (the dude with the goat head? the fat troll guy with the saw-like arms?... crazy). I mean, maybe they're in the graphic novel, but everyone in the theatre laughed at that point. I wasn't too fond of the Oracle scene or the sex scene between Leonidas and his wife, mainly because they were just awkward to watch.

While the Spartans are chopping left and right, and just generally making the women in the audience all hot and bothered, Leonidas' wife Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) is back in Sparta trying to persuade senators to send the rest of the army north. Needless to say, she runs into some opposition from Theron (Dominic West), who's just basically a dick about everything.

Essentially, this movie's mostly action and eye candy, with bits and bobs of plot, but it was extremely entertaining and enjoyable to watch. It wasn't as gory as I expected, and the gore was done, for the most part, pretty tastefully so that it was more artsy rather than bloody.

Even though it's basically a historical epic with some gore and is not actually considered historically accurate since it's based on a graphic novel, I thought the acting was pretty good. Granted, there was some serious cheese in it, mainly in the battle scenes ("Give them nothing... but take from them everything!", and "not right now, I'm busy"), but overall it was pretty good dialogue. David Wenham's narration was great as well, and it was nice to hear him get some laughs from non-slapstick style dialogue a la Van Helsing (ie "it's only an eye, luckily God was sensible enough to bestow me with a spare" or something to that effect). Butler was great, as usual. Hopefully this will get him out of his preference for being in relatively stupid movies after this blockbuster (need I remind you of Timeline, Reign of Fire, or Phantom of the Opera?), although it looks like he's going to be in a remake of Escape from New York, so I guess we'll have to wait on that. Lena Headey really impressed me. I've only seen her in The Brothers Grimm, which was not an entirely fantastic movie, but she won me over in this. I thought she was fantastic. I can't even express how much more I love David Wenham now because of this movie.

It's funny when you're in a movie theatre and you can hear people in the audience exclaim things at certain points during a film. I heard a number of different people say "oooooh shit!" during 300, specifically at points during the battles (the arrows blacking out the sun, the rhino, etc). It was great. I don't think I've ever enjoyed seeing a movie in a theatre so much. I only wish I could have been one of the uber-geeks and gone to the midnight release.

Ghost Rider

While looking for this picture (which is laughable in itself) in google images, I noticed there was a variety of opinions on the film: "Ghost Rider is quite disappointing", "Ghost Rider wow it was a great film" and my personal favourite "Ghost Rider So Bad It's Enjoyably Funny".

I didn't go to the movie theatre last night planning to see this movie. But it was the only thing playing around the time that I got there, and, since 300 was sold out, I figured, why the hell not? It could be a laugh.

You don't go into a Nicholas Cage movie expecting to be wowed. Ever. I enjoyed National Treasure, sure, but I didn't walk into the theatre going "hm, I bet this movie is going to be fantastic". Maybe that's why I wasn't disappointed, seeing as my expectations were so very low to begin with. This same phenomenon didn't occur with Ghost Rider.

Going back to the three opinions above, I'd say I fall between the first one and the last one, because I wasn't completely disappointed, and I thought it was funny, but not enough to convince me that it was worth the money.

Essentially, the movie boils down to this: Johnny Blaze sells his soul to the devil (Peter Fonda) to rid his father of terminal cancer. But, once his dad is healthy, the devil kills him in a motorcycle accident. Blaze then grows up into Nicholas Cage, who has apparently become a huge celebrity by making incredible jumps on his motorcycle (we're talking over 20 18-wheelers through fire, etc etc blah blah blah). Once he's completed his super crazy Guinness Book of World Records jump over 6 helicopters with their rotors going and over a distance of a football field, he reconnects with his old flame (ha ha get it? flame??), but then the devil decides to use him to get a contract of 100 souls, which, for some reason, makes him turn into skull-on-fire dude who can transform his motorbike into a chrome monstrosity. So he goes through all the hooplah of becoming Ghost Rider, then meets up with the 4 main evil dudes of the movie, three of whom represent elements, and the main guy, who looks like he stepped out of a My Chemical Romance video (not a compliment), who is revealed to be the son of the devil (no his name is not Damien, sadly). Anyways, the gist of it is that he decides to become the "devil's bounty hunter" and fight these four dudes, while romancing his highschool sweetheart and creeping out his best friend.

The CGI wasn't that great, there was a ridiculous amount of terrible dialogue ("you sure you can keep up?" "no, thank you kid", etc), emo kid had way too much make-up on, water dude was creepy and gross-looking, wind dude looked like a caveman, plot holes, plot holes, plot holes. I ended up laughing for the last hour just because it was so unbelievably camp, and not in a good way.

One last thing: it seems that blouses that button all the way up were of short supply on the set, because Eva Mendes' boobs were popping out the entire movie.

300 trailer

The trailer for Frank Miller's "300" have been floating around the internet and tv for ages now, but I'm still going to post it. This is the one movie that I have been looking forward to seeing for the past 4 or 5 months. Not only because David Wenham's in it, but also because it looks spectacular visually. The producers look like they've worked really hard to maintain the look of the graphic novel. The one gripe I have about it is Gerard Butler, mainly because he's supposed to be Greek and he sounds Scottish, as per usual. I understand that his accent may be his "thing", seeing as Sean Connery apparently tried to get rid of his early in his career only to be told that he had to keep it to get jobs (resulting in the Spanish character he plays in Highlander to sound like he came from the Highlands), but I've seen Butler play characters that have no business sounding like they do. Beowulf? Not Scottish. But I digress... it'll still be a great film.

I was going to post both trailers, but since this one has David Wenham narrating, I figured this is the better one to post. There's also some great footage on the website of the making of the film which I was going to post, but instead I'm just going to provide the links.

Video Diary 1 - First Look
Video Diary 2 - Production Design
Video Diary 3 - Spartan Training
Video Diary 4 - Wardrobe
Video Diary 5 - Stunt Work
Video Diary 8 - Creatures

I'm not posting the links to every single one, because there's eleven of them, and only a few of them are vaguely interesting. Go to the movie's official website if you're interested in the rest.

The Prestige

The Prestige

Wow.

I have to say, I never really liked magicians growing up. Mainly because they always did the same crap (the coloured hankerchiefs, wand, etc etc). It just didn't seem impressive.

This movie impressed me. I don't know how it compares to The Illusionist, and frankly, I don't really care. I don't need to see Jessica Biel and Ed Norton affecting a British accent for two and a half hours (and aren't they supposed to be in Russia or something?... odd). It doesn't really seem like the two movies are about the same thing anyway. The Illusionist looks like it's more about the personal lives of the characters, whereas The Presige.... well, you're basically guessing what the two main characters are up to the entire time.

I already figured I would like this movie, since Christian Bale, Michael Caine and David Bowie are in it... with the added plus of a little Andy Serkis. I was worried Scarlett Johannsson was going to be weak, but she actually impressed me. Say what you will about her, but she *can* act. And pretend she's British pretty convincingly. Everyone already know how great both Christian Bale and Michael Caine are, so it was really Hugh Jackman that had to convince me that buying this movie before seeing it wasn't a waste of my money. And he was pretty good... no scratch that, he was really good.

The plot though, is fantastic! I mean, it really is a thing of genius. I saw in the credits that it's based off a novel, which makes me interested in reading it. For some reason, I can't see it as a book, which says a lot for the screenplay writers.

If you haven't seen it yet, I guarantee that you won't be disappointed if you rent it. It's jaw-droppingly good.

2007 Oscars Predictions

And off we go...

Performance by an actor in a leading role
Leonardo DiCaprio - BLOOD DIAMOND
Ryan Gosling - HALF NELSON
Peter O'Toole - VENUS
Will Smith - THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS
Forest Whitaker - THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND

I'd like to think that Leonardo DiCaprio's fantastic performance in The Departed would give him enough to win the Best Actor, but apparently Forest Whitaker is amazing as Amin, plus I think he won the BAFTA for it, so it'll probably go to him. Which is too bad for Ryan Gosling, but who knows, maybe our hottest Canadian male will sneak in from behind and take it! Cross your fingers!


Performance by an actor in a supporting role
Alan Arkin - LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
Jackie Earle Haley - LITTLE CHILDREN
Djimon Hounsou - BLOOD DIAMOND
Eddie Murphy - DREAMGIRLS
Mark Wahlberg - THE DEPARTED

Mark Wahlberg was SO great as the foul-mouthed Dignam, but Alan Arkin was hilarious, so I hope he gets it. Eddie Murphy also might win, just because he's got such a crap movie out.


Performance by an actress in a leading role
Penélope Cruz - VOLVER
Judi Dench - NOTES ON A SCANDAL
Helen Mirren - THE QUEEN
Meryl Streep - THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA
Kate Winslet - LITTLE CHILDREN

Duh. That's all I have to say about that.


Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Adriana Barraza - BABEL
Cate Blanchett - NOTES ON A SCANDAL
Abigail Breslin - LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
Jennifer Hudson - DREAMGIRLS
Rinko Kikuchi - BABEL

Gag. Abigail Breslin should win, but she won't because of stupid Nightmaregirls.


Best animated feature film of the year
CARS
HAPPY FEET
MONSTER HOUSE

Random guess. I think this is the second year in a row where I haven't seen at least one of the animated movies. Guess I've grown up (nooooooooo!).


Achievement in art direction
DREAMGIRLS
THE GOOD SHEPHERD
PAN'S LABYRINTH
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST
THE PRESTIGE

Because come on... it's called ART direction for a reason.


Achievement in cinematography
THE BLACK DAHLIA
CHILDREN OF MEN
THE ILLUSIONIST
PAN'S LABYRINTH
THE PRESTIGE

Probably won't go to either... but it's a toss-up for me. The cinematography in both was just so fantastic. I hope it goes to Pan's though.


Achievement in costume design
CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER
THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA
DREAMGIRLS
MARIE ANTOINETTE
THE QUEEN

Could go to Marie Antoinette, even though the rest of the movie apparently sucks. Hope it goes to The Queen though.


Achievement in directing
BABEL
THE DEPARTED
LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
THE QUEEN
UNITED 93

Martin Scorcese will probably get this. Babel's practically Crash, and Haggis won for that last year, didn't he? Eastwood has got one. I don't think Scorcese has one, so he'll probably get it.


Best documentary feature
DELIVER US FROM EVIL
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS
JESUS CAMP
MY COUNTRY, MY COUNTRY

I hear Jesus Camp is creepy as hell, but An Inconvenient Truth is relevant to today (global warming AHHH!) so it'll win.


Best documentary short subject
THE BLOOD OF YINGZHOU DISTRICT
RECYCLED LIFE
REHEARSING A DREAM
TWO HANDS

Um.... quick, guess!


Achievement in film editing
BABEL
BLOOD DIAMOND
CHILDREN OF MEN
THE DEPARTED
UNITED 93

Again, this could go to anyone, but the editing in Children of Men was great, especially the 7 minute long scene at the end with no cuts. Fantabulous.


Best foreign language film of the year
AFTER THE WEDDING
DAYS OF GLORY (INDIGÈNES)
THE LIVES OF OTHERS
PAN'S LABYRINTH
WATER

A tiny part of me wants Water to win, since it's the Canadian entry... but there's no goddamn way it's going to beat Pan's Labyrinth. No. Way. If it does, it'll be similar (for me anyways) to Brokeback winning Best Original Score. And don't even get me started on that.


Achievement in makeup
APOCALYPTO
CLICK
PAN'S LABYRINTH

Duh. Again.


Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score)
BABEL
THE GOOD GERMAN
NOTES ON A SCANDAL
PAN'S LABYRINTH
THE QUEEN

No idea. But Pan's had some great music. So did The Queen. I'm going with The Queen though, because it has to feel some love too.


Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song)
"I Need to Wake Up" - AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
"Listen" - DREAMGIRLS
"Love You I Do" - DREAMGIRLS
"Our Town" - CARS
"Patience" - DREAMGIRLS

Personally, I think it is completely unfair and utterly insane to have THREE FUCKING SONGS FROM ONE DAMN MOVIE NOMINATED. So I'm going with "I Need to Wake Up" to say a big FUCK YOU to Dreamgirls.


Best motion picture of the year
BABEL
THE DEPARTED
LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
THE QUEEN

This is so hard for me, because I loved The Departed, Little Miss Sunshine and The Queen, plus everyone I know who's seen Babel loved it, and Letters From Iwo Jima sounds really good too. But I think The Queen's going to take it, simply because it is awesome, but I'll be happy with any one of these movies winning.


Best animated short film
THE DANISH POET
LIFTED
THE LITTLE MATCHGIRL
MAESTRONO
TIME FOR NUTS

Erm... guess again!


Best live action short film
BINTA AND THE GREAT IDEA (BINTA Y LA GRAN IDEA)
ÉRAMOS POCOS (ONE TOO MANY)
HELMER & SON
THE SAVIOUR
WEST BANK STORY

Uh... ??


Achievement in sound editing
APOCALYPTO
BLOOD DIAMOND
FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS
LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST

I've only seen one of these movies... and it sucked... so I'm going to go with the one I *wanted* to see.


Achievement in sound mixing
APOCALYPTO
BLOOD DIAMOND
DREAMGIRLS
FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST

Blah. Will probably go to Dreamgirls.


Achievement in visual effects
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST
POSEIDON
SUPERMAN RETURNS

Even though the movie itself sucked, the visual effects were cool.


Adapted screenplay
BORAT CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN
CHILDREN OF MEN
THE DEPARTED
LITTLE CHILDREN NOTES ON A SCANDAL

Screw you Borat. Go Children of Men!


Original screenplay
BABEL
LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
PAN'S LABYRINTH
THE QUEEN

I really really really hope it goes to Pan's. Or The Queen. Or Little Miss Sunshine. But Pan's the most.

Pan's Labyrinth

Pan's Labyrinth

I really can't express how much this movie rocks. I actually think I was speechless while walking out of the theatre. Both Alanna and I were trying to hide the fact that we were crying at the end haha. But really, it is a fantastic movie. Don't judge it by the pictures you've seen in the magazines or papers, or wherever. The creepy dude with the eyes in his hands is only a small section of the story, so if he creeps you out, that should be reassuring. The young actress who plays Ofelia, Ivana Baquero, is just fabulous. She pretty much carries the film, and she's great. It's just too bad foreign language actors and actresses don't get recognition at the Oscars, because screw Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine), this girl is best actress material!If you don't know anything about this movie, the main thing you need to know about it is that it's a Spanish language film, with English subtitles. So if you don't enjoy reading some parts of a film, get over it... because this movie is too good to miss.

The story centres around Ofelia, who's about 10, and the fairy tales she invents in order to deal with her everyday life. It takes place in 1944, in Spain, as General Franco's army is trying to repress the rebellion. You learn early on that Ofelia's father has died during the war, and that her mother has remarried a Spanish captain who doesn't care for anything except his unborn son. The fairy tale aspect is introduced when Ofelia encounters a "fairy" on the way to the old mill where her stepfather's unit is located. This fairy later leads her into a maze at the back of the house, where she meets a faun who reveals to her that she is the long-lost princess of the underworld and she must complete three tasks in order to join her true father, the king, again. There are other narratives in the film other than Ofelia's, but hers is really the most important. The characters within her story, such as the faun, the pale man, even the toad, are just amazingly created. The scenes with the pale man scared the crap out of me. I was literally shrinking in my seat.

It's up for 6 Oscars tomorrow night: Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Foreign Language Film, Best Makeup and Best Art Direction... and if it doesn't win at LEAST Best Foreign Language and Best Makeup, something is seriously wrong with the Academy.Someone asked me where the "Pan" comes into it... and I actually had no idea until I realised that the title in Spanish is "El Laberinto del Fauno" and that the faun's name in the film is Pan. Which makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Anyways, this is a fantastic movie, and I absolutely cannot wait to see it again. If you do see it, be prepared to ride an emotional rollercoaster. It's intense.

Trailers...

I'm kinda bored, so I've been watching movie trailers on the apple website.
Is it just me or have movie companies decided to complete fuck up beloved children's stories? Case in point: Flicka, Charlotte's Web, but the ones that piss me off the most are Transformers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Firstly, the Transformers movie is directed by Michael Bay. What else has Michael Bay directed that has been any good?..... think now....(and if you say Bad Boys and/or Armageddon, I can no longer respect you)... that's right, Michael Bay has directed nothing good. Ever. And the movie's premise is something retarded (or as much as I can tell from the trailer) like the "robots in disguise" (awesome theme song) smash a Mars rover and then travel to earth to... what? destroy it? I'm confused. Plus Josh Duhamel is in it, which is pointless. Unless he dies. Although I have to give the producers props for getting the original voice of Optimus Prime.
Secondly, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie is animated. And it's the fourth Ninja Turtles movie. Enough is enough. Maggie brought up a good point for both movies: Does anyone from their target market remember these tv shows? The reason why I sound so fanatic about the fuck-up-age of this stuff is because I watched both shows, avidly. Hell, I even watched the animal version of Transformers... called... er.... Beast Wars (I swear, I love imdb), where the main character was a gorilla called Optimus Primal (do NOT ask me how I remember that). Anyway, Maggie's point is valid. People who remember the tv shows will go see the movie for the nostalgia aspect... and I suspect they'll be severely disappointed.
Some other cool-looking movies coming out within the next year are The U.S. vs John Lennon, which is a documentary about Lennon's struggle for peace while Nixon tried to win the war in Vietnam. It looks fucking awesome. The Departed looks kind of interesting, even though it has Jack Nicholson in it (and I'm getting rather sick of him). Children of Men looks kind of interesting in an end-of-the-world-so-we're-all-fucked kind of way, and it has Chiwetel Ejiofor in it (who, in my opinion, is freaking brilliant and completely awesome). But the movie that looks the most interesting, and the one that I want to see the most is The Last King Of Scotland. If you don't bother to watch any of the other trailers I'm putting here, watch this one at least. It looks amazing. Actually Borat looks hilarious in a completely offensive way.
And then there are the stinkers: Jon Heder is stuck forever as Napoleon Dynamite, Trying to be Sin City, only it's UNORIGINAL, Crash set in Africa, Old dude mentor + new cocky jackass = been done before, thank you, let's move on, Title's too long, you suck.
I also think it's kind of weird that there are two different movies about magicians coming out within a few months of each other: The Illusionist (in August, starring Ed Norton, Jessica Biel and Paul Giamatti) and The Prestige (in October, starring Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine and Scarlett Johansson). Personally, I hate affected British accents. If the actor isn't British, they usually can't pull it off. So why on earth would they choose to have the all-American cast of The Illusionist affect British accents? It sounds awful in the trailer. But maybe I'm picky. Anyway, The Prestige looks better. I don't like Scarlett Johansson (because she's a brainless twit), but she can act... though apparently not British (sigh). Christian Bale is actually a Welshman, so his cockney accent is believable. Plus, him and Michael Caine together again so soon after the kickass Batman Begins? Sweet. And yes, that IS David Bowie in the trailer... heh.
Okay, clearly I'm a movie geek, but check some of these out.

The Lake House, The Omen

Final verdicts:

The Lake House: If you ignore the fact that the plot really doesn't make sense (ie the being able to contact each other even though they live two years apart) and the fact that they never explain how said contact is possible, it's actually an okay movie, if you enjoy romances. And I do. I also enjoy Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. Granted, neither of them will be awarded an Oscar anytime soon, but this movie was entertaining. Plus the ending was so very heart-warming and squishy.

The Omen: Sucked. With a capital S. Laughable and campy. I really REALLY wanted Liev Schreiber to kill the kid in the end. *I* wanted to kill the kid by the end. He was not scary. Every time he glared at Julia Stiles (or "mummy"), the entire audience LAUGHED. Ugh. Just plain stupid. The only parts where I jumped were when they basically threw shit at you (weird thing in mirror when Julia Stiles closes cabinet... crazy nanny jumping on Liev Schreiber's back, etc). Maybe I'm just not one of those people who get scared at "freaky weird kids who scare people shitless with their weirdness" movies, since I thought Rosemary's Baby was a huge waste of time (they never even show what the kid looks like!) and I thought The Grudge was garbage. I felt bad for David Thewlis' character though. Poor guy. Anyway, waste of money, Don't go see.

The DaVinci Code

The DaVinci Code

I've seen a bunch of movies lately that I just haven't been in the mood to review (X-Men 3, The Proposition, The Break-Up), but since I saw The Da Vinci Code again yesterday, I might as well post something about it.

Alright, so I've read about a bajillion reviews for The Da Vinci Code, none of them being particularly kind. Some critics lauded it as the "thinking man's action movie" before it was actually screened for the media. Frankly, the hype killed this movie. Everyone was wetting themselves in anticipation for it, and when it finally hit theatres, the press just went "meh". Well you know what, movie critics? You can suck it. I liked it. Everyone I know who went to see it didn't think it was the piece of crap that you thought it was. So just suck it. I didn't like you before, and now I know that you're all just a bunch of prissy know-it-alls who think they have their fingers on the pulse of today's movie-going population. Clearly you don't, considering every reviewer of The Break-Up said it was a piece of shit, but it's still raking in the dough at the box office.

Uh, anyhoo...Firstly, the translation of the book into movie wasn't really all that successful, so I'm going to blame that on Ron Howard, simply because he deserves a kick in the groin every so often just for being him. And also because he has millions of dollars. But I digress... They skipped some integral scenes from the book that I thought deserved to be in the film, such as the fact that there was another cryptex inside the first one... although I doubt they would have had time to add those extra clues, especially with all the damn flashbacks they decided to put it. The entire movie was flashbacks that weren't necessarily needed. And frankly, the filmmakers should have either elaborated on Silas' background (which explained nothing in the flashback to those who hadn't read the book) or they should have left that scene for the editing room floor. Other than that, the movie lacked the fun and mystery of Dan Brown's book, which is odd, considering it practically read as a script. All it needed was the sound effects in italics, which you can usually find in Matt Reilly's books (which, incidentally, would be awesome movies). But, given all that, it was still an entertaining movie. And not in the way that Mission: Impossible 3 was (ie "this is entertaining because I'm laughing at how STUPID Tom Cruise is and how this movie has no plot *bizarre insane laughter*"). It may not be "the thinking man's action movie" but it's intelligent, and it's got action. I've heard people complain that they thought it was too slow-moving, but to be fair, the movie wouldn't make any sense if it wasn't for the scene where Langdon and Sophie are in Teabing's study (which I'm sure is what people are complaining about).

Anyway, on to the actors. As soon as I heard that Tom Hanks was cast as Robert Langdon, I cringed. Why? I asked myself, Why would they choose someone who clearly doesn't fit the "Harrison Ford in Harrison Tweed" image that Dan Brown uses within the first 30 pages of the novel. I'm not a huge fan of Tom Hanks. Mainly because I feel like he doesn't play anyone other than himself in any movie he's in. He never plays a bad guy... at least in any film I've seen. And those who know me well know that I love actors who can play a wide range of roles (take David Wenham in The Proposition and compare it to his role in Dust or The Bank; Colin Firth in Shakespeare in Love or Circle of Friends compared to his roles in Pride & Prejudice or Love Actually). Tom Hanks always plays Tom Hanks... he may pretend to be a bad guy, but by the middle of the movie, it's always revealed that he has a heart behind that annoying receding hairline face of his (read: You've Got Mail). I hated Forrest Gump. So consider my SHOCK when I didn't mind him as the film's main character. He wasn't that bad. Hell, even his "serial killer hairstyle" didn't bother me.

The film really belonged to the secondary characters though. Ian McKellen steals the show in every movie he's been in lately. Jean Reno was excellent. But the real stand-out was Paul Bettany as Silas. Not only was he dressed the part, he was creepy as hell. Even his fake Italian accent won me over. Critics were so-so about Audrey Tautou as Sophie, but I really can't see anyone else doing as good a job as she did.The music was great, though I won't be rushing out to buy the soundtrack anytime soon. I just mean that it added to the movie, which is what a great soundtrack does (not just annoying the HELL out of audiences because it's 8 notes over and over in stupid breaks in the plot... UGH fucking Brokeshit Mountain). The locations they shot at were, obviously, amazing... actually, the best part about seeing this movie the first time was the fact that I had been to Westminister Abbey that day, although we couldn't go right up to Sir Isaac Newton's tomb, like they do in the movie.

As for how pissed off people are getting at the book, leave it alone. I mean, honestly, it's FICTION. That's why it's in the FICTION section in bookstores. No one got pissed when he wrote Angels & Demons. Or when Christopher Moore wrote Lamb, which takes the Christ story and puts sex, demons and kung-fu into it, along with the stupidest angel God could find.The bottom line is that the movie is good. It's entertaining, it's actually worth the 10 bucks, in my opinion, and you won't be sorry if you skip The Break-Up to go see The Da Vinci Code instead, because at least Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou don't scream at each other for 2 straight hours.