I don't need a blackboard or a classroom to set an example.

 Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

To this day I still can't explain why I love Cameron Diaz. Even if the movie is a terrible abomination, if it stars her I will see it first day, first showing. At first I just thought it was just because she was hot but there have been much hotter women whose films I refuse to see. There's just some sort of je ne sais quoi about her that I love and now her new film Bad Teacher is out and so of course, like the fan I am, I'm there day one. So what did I think? Well it has it's moments where it IS grip your sides funny and Diaz is charismatic, beautiful and hilarious as always but the film falters in a lot of other places which keep it from being the great comedy that it could have been.

 Diaz plays Elizabeth, a vain, lazy, superficial, bitter, golddigging, possible alcoholic and drug abusing teacher whose main goal in life is to marry someone rich, never work another day in her life and spend his money. A monkey wrench is thrown in her plan, however, when her rich fiance dumps her and she begrudgingly goes back to teaching, which mostly consists of her showing movies in class while she sleeps. Fortune, however, comes in the form of Scott, a sweet, naive, and filthy rich substitute teacher whose come to work at the school. Immediately she sees him as her ticket out and so gets to work trying to seduce him. Problem is Scott likes Amy, Elizabeth's rival and stick in the mud colleague and only thinks of her as a friend. So her big goal is this: get $10,000 for breast augmentation so she can win over Scott. And how's she going to get that money? Car washes, lying and winning the big bonus that goes to the teacher with the highest test scores. All the while she's getting hit on by a gym teacher who she rejects at every turn.

 The plot works for the most part and it's paced pretty well, but there is just something off about the film. It's raunchy, sexual, crude and abrasive, in yet has these moments of pure cheese and sappiness that just don't really seem to fit in with the rest of the movie. It's like if Superbad had Scrubs/Modern Family esque heartfelt wrap up moments dispersed throughout the movie. And the ending, which I won't spoil, feels way too happy for a film this blue. I blame most of that on the difference in styles between the writers and the director. The director did Walk Hard, another raunchy comedy, while the writers are mostly known for their work on The Office, writing some of the more heartfelt episodes the series has had. Their only silver screen credit is the abysmal Year One. I think that is what really brings the film down. It's like two opposing styles, clashing to make a film that could have been much funnier than it was.

 The acting is pretty solid all around. I think Anya Colloff and Amy McIntyre Britt (the casting people) did a great job of finding people who work well together in a comedy environment. Diaz is fantastic and hilarious throughout and I loved watching every minute of her. I will say though, and this is mostly the fault of the writers, Elizabeth is sometimes really hard to like. I mean the odd shifts in tone make her seem more human but for the most part it's like rooting for the bitchy character in a movie, it doesn't fit. But I don't blame Diaz for that moreso than the writers. Justin Timberlake, who plays Scott, does considerably well considering, besides SNL, he doesn't have a TON of acting experience. Granted that's changing as we speak but he's grown into a pretty good comedic actor. Lucy Punch is funny as Amy and a good antithesis to Elizabeth's crazy antics. And Segel is great as always. I love the big lug and his timing is as perfect as ever. Now I know that seems like an unusual amount of praise but I really did enjoy the acting. If only the writing and the weird off putting tonal shifts didn't bring down the rest of the film. I would have much rather seen them all improv a film script together than what the final product ended up being. I'm willing to bet an improvised movie by them would have been much better.

Bad Teacher suffers from a serious case of the "could-have-beens." It could have been great, if not for the shoddy writing and tonal shifts. It could have been great if it would have been improvised or if other people had stepped in to write. It could have been great if they let Diaz go even more wild than she did (I saw the Sweetest Thing...she can go there). The list goes on for a week but in the end we are left with a mediocre comedy with great acting. I still say it's worth seeing for the cast alone but probably wait until it's out on video.

And since I figure everyone's using this pun I guess I might as well to: This movie gets a C (Insert laughter)

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

A man with a scooter can accomplish anything

 Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

Ever since I got into films as a young boy and even before then I've always loved Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. My mother's VHS collection was comprised mostly of their movies so growing up I saw a lot of Big, Forrest Gump, My Best Friend's Wedding ect. I mean Disney played the biggest role in my life movie-wise growing up but I can quote Forrest Gump like a cheerleader can quote Bring It On. That said, besides Playtone and the work he's done with Spielberg, I haven't been a fan of his stuff behind the screen. He's a competent writer and director, but he's far from a Clooney or an Eastwood. So going into Larry Crowne, which was written, directed and starring him I was slightly worried. Despite having Julia there to star along side him and Nia Vardalos there to help with the writing I was still worried that it would be a well acted but poorly done movie.

Well Larry Crowne proved me slightly wrong...slightly. It's still a muddled mess for the most part and is almost so sweet it verges on being hokey, but the chemistry between Roberts and Hanks is undeniable and the acting is done well enough that you can almost overlook the glaring flaws in the writing and execution....almost.

 The story follows Larry Crowne, a Navy veteran who works at a big box store (a Wal-Mart rip off) and gets along with everyone. He's always happy, even after facing a crippling divorce which put him into tons of debt, and always looks out for everyone, sometimes to the detriment of others. He's a simple man, his only indulgence being records and he's best friends with his neighbors Lamar and B'Ella, who run a perpetual yard sale despite Lamar winning a Wheel of Fortune-esque game for 50,000 dollars. On the day he thinks he's winning his ninth consecutive Employee of the Month award, he learns that he is let go because he never went to college (he joined the Navy instead). After getting rejected by almost every employer seemingly known to man he decides to go to college where he meets two woman that change his life: Talia, a free spirit scooter enthusiast who tries to give Larry a fresh outlook on life and Mrs. Tainot (Roberts) an English/Speech teacher who has had it up to HERE with her job as well as her marriage.

It's a pretty formulaic story once it really gets going, and you can predict everything that happens ten minutes before it occurs, but the story is competently done and resolves in a way that will leave audiences mostly cheerful so I can't really fault it too much. Not every film is Citizen Kane so I got what I came for and liked it. That said the plot has a lot of weird pacing and unresolved issues going on. Subplots are picked up and dropped at random, bits almost seem missing from the movie and some scenes seem like they go on forever or that you blink and you miss them. Also most of the characters sans Crowne and Tainot are either underdeveloped or non-existent, even when giving their big time to speak. I know it's a Hanks cenric film but sometimes it feels like the scene from Mister Bean's Holiday with Willem Dafoe  Like everyone else gets nothing while him and Roberts get everything.

 

 All that aside, the acting is actually really well done. Despite always being maniacally happy for the most part, Hank's Crowne is actually a really compelling character at times. He is human and in between the smiles you can sometimes see glimpses of the cracks. He's funny, charismatic, and dammit he's lovable. It's really hard to hate Larry Crowne and Hanks is the main reason because of that. Behind the camera however he's still working out the bugs. There's never any REAL big goofs but I did catch a few continuity errors and framing issues spread throughout the film. Hanks' center is not a usual center you see in film and sometimes can be offset occasionally. But overall he did fine considering. Roberts is also as charming as usual although most of that charm is buried underneath a thick layer of apathy and disgust her character puts on for most of the film. She's likable even when she's mean and sometimes that smile comes out when you least expect it. Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Talia also pretty well, along with her on screen beau Wilmer Valderrama.

The rest of the acting is really hard to judge though mostly due to the issues I mentioned before (the under or lack of any real development with the other cast members) but for the most part it's competent. There are no annoyingly bad actors and it's always nice to see George Takei and Bryan Cranston in movies despite their roles being fairly limited.

Overall Larry Crowne is an inoffensive, formulaic movie that is sometimes charming and funny, sweet as saccharine and has some good acting from it's two leads. It's brought down by its poor writing and lack of character development outside its two leads and can be eye rollingly cheesy at times but if you let yourself, you can have fun with it and you'll probably leave smiling. Maybe skip it in theaters but worth a weekend rental at least for sure.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT 

Protect the dagger no matter what the consequences. That was my sacred duty. That was my destiny

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

Video game movies...where do I begin? They all fundamentally suck. There are some exceptions for guilty purpose sakes like Doom or for acting sakes like Timothy Olyphant in Hitman but for the most part they all suck. Gamers don't like them, movie goers don't like them so why do they keep churning them out? Easy money.

Well the next one on the churning turnstile is the movie adaptation of the classic game series "Prince of Persia." Although based more along the lines of the first (and maybe the second) game in the Sands of Time Trilogy, this film tries to embody the entire series into one film. It also tries to embody every single action epic ever made. I know I'm not alone in that one.

The film follows Dastan, a street rat turned royalty, who has just raided Alamut, an ancient city that holds a secret and loads of weapons, at least according to the higher ups. Dastan is a gifted athlete, a great warrior and charismatic to boot and he easily takes down this peaceful and unprepared city. Dastan stumbles upon a dagger, which he decides to just keep since it's pretty. The princess Tamina sees Dastan with the dagger and tries to get it back, but to no avail. Instead she opts to marry Dastan, to which Dastan is for once speechless. The audience sees this as a ruse to get the dagger but Dastan is like a deer in headlights. At the celebration party, Dastan gives his father, the king, a robe. This robe kills the king and Dastan and Tamina have to escape the palace, or face certain death.

Tamina is spoiled, unruly, talkative, sassy and smart. She tries at every turn to get the dagger but to no avail. Dastan wonders why it's so important and learns the hard way of its true powers: it can rewind time briefly. Tamina is adamant about not letting the dagger fall into the wrong hands and decides it best to return it to its original place, while Dastan is determined to find out who murdered his father. Battles, traveling, large CGI filled jump sequences ensue.

The story isn't fundamentally bad. It's really cheesy and hokey but it works considering this film tries SO hard to be a classic action epic. You can see elements of almost every single action epic or swashbuckling adventure ever in this film. It's slightly a rip off, but it works. The casting is odd (Jake Gyllenhaal is NOT Middle Eastern) but the cast does well with what it has and Jake is actually pretty fun to watch. The action is exciting and fast paced and I was never really bored with this film.

The major flaws come with what I mentioned: cheesiness, hokiness, rip-off(iness) but the only other one is the ending. I won't spoil it for you but the ending will make or break the movie for you and to me it was a really cheap way of cleaning up your film to make it happy. I really didn't like it.

It's not a bad film, it's good for kids, has some laughs, tons of action and good performances. Worth a weekend rental.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

I'm innocent I swear!

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

As someone from a smaller town I usually hate crowds in theaters. That's why I make an effort to go to the cheaper, ghetto theaters near my house instead of the nearest Regal theater. Sure the Regal theaters are nice but the crowds are just too much. If I'm shoulder to shoulder with someone, the movie becomes less fun. So what if a speaker is shot, the dialogue is at a whisper, and there is an occasional fight in the theater? I'd rather sit through that then crowds. What does this have to do with Salt?

Well one of my mother's best friends is a cop. He works for the local PD and so whenever there is a sneak peek of a film up in Seattle at this one giant three story wooden multiplex (which worried me in case of an electrical spark) he would get notice right away in case they needed someone to cover it. So on day 1 they became available Bob (his name) grabbed 8 passes. The passes themselves were free but they came with a catch: you must come early or your pass doesn't count. They only have 450 seats in the theater and they hand out over 600 passes. But Bob grabbed the passes and invited his fiancée, her niece and fiancée, her brother and his partner and my mother and I. We waited in the middle of the bulk for about an hour (I brought The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest to read) and then were seated. After some balloney about free T-Shirts the movie started without any previews.

The film follows a CIA intelligence agent named Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie). She is a decorated agent, skilled in brains and brawn and is one of the most respected agents in her division. On her anniversary with her husband she encounters one last walk-in before leaving for the day. The man is named Orlov and he tells a story about a man and a woman whose child is taken away, forced to become a super agent for Russia, taught in the ways of American culture and taken to America to live as a sleeper agent until she is needed by her country. Lee Harvey Oswald was apparently one and there are hundreds out there. But that's not the only reason that he's there. Apparently there is going to be an assassination attempt on the Russian president at the funeral of the Vice-President. The agent responsible's name? Evelyn Salt.

When Evelyn get's the news she flees. She says, and we are shown, the reason she's running is to find her husband who was kidnapped. But at the same time she is also apparently going to try and assassinate the Russian President. So who really is Salt? A good woman and a good agent trying to clear her name or a Russian mole on a mission of destruction?

Salt's biggest glaring error is it's story and writing. For one there are a lot of plot holes and inconsistencies. These only become more apparent when the second problem, twists, comes into play. This film has a LOT of twists. It never has any deep twists like in the Sixth Sense but it has a lot of the writer trying to make you go "Bet you didn't see that coming." The problem is that you DO see it coming and when you don't see it coming it only makes you think about the massive plot holes that opened up because of them. So it becomes a slippery slope there. On top of that there is a lot of exposition heavy sequences early on and the film has a knack for flashbacks. Whenever Jolie stares directly into the camera they seem to pop up. It becomes annoying after the second time because you realize the director is trying to force an opinion or an emotion onto you. On top of all of that the dialogue is mostly predictable action movie fodder and the character motives for a number of them are really hard to follow.

The acting also suffers in a lot of places. Angelina Jolie is awesome as always (I have no problems with her at all and that's not just my hormones talking) but the rest of the acting is meh. Liev Schrieber continues to be a monotone asshole in every single role he does but he does show slight range (shocker) when his voice cracks during a line (which caused me to laugh). Chiwetel Ejiofor is okay but seems to have this constipated look plastered on his face the whole time. That and he suffers from the monotones as well but that could just be from hanging with Schrieber the whole time. August Diehl who plays her husband is weird and has a thick German accent that makes everything he say unintelligible. The only other good performance besides Jolie would be Daniel Olbrychski as Orlov but he is only in the film briefly on and off.

On a plus note the action is pretty awesome and you can tell that Jolie does her own stunts. That and the film has one really awesome kill move that will definitely be in my top 10 scenes of the year. It's creative, unique, brutal and it's badass to watch. It still doesn't make up for the crap writing or acting but it's pretty awesome.

Despite all my negative ranting about the film it wasn't terrible. Jolie is a good actress, the action is nonstop and intense and it's not overly long. The film suffers from bad writing and sub-par acting but if you want action with a hot chick, you get action with a hot chick. At least worth a rental.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

(PS: If you want the nitty gritty it's like a better version of Tomb Raider...if that helps)

You're going to be a force for good and a very important sorcerer. But for now, you're my apprentice

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

The earliest film I ever remember watching in the theaters was the Disney classic (and still one of my favorite films to this day) The Lion King. After that, besides religious viewing of Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Wars, all I ever watched was Disney movies. And despite loving most of them, the one that always stuck out to me for some odd reason was Fantasia. It was so different from any other film I had seen that it intrigued me from the get-go. The music, not a written story, guided the film and for that, even at a young age, I could appreciate that on a deeper level. My favorite scene from that movie though, or at least the one I could remember the most clearly, was The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Maybe it was Mickie's involvement or the whole spectacle of the thing but it's still stuck in my mind to this day.

So when I heard that Disney had decided to make a live action movie loosely based on that segment I was intrigued. When the crew from National Treasure (Bruckheimer, Turteltaub and Nic Cage) attached itself to the film my intrigue slowly transformed into confusion. But nevertheless the film looked interesting enough so I decided to give it a look.

The story follows Balthazar and Dave. Balthazar (Nic Cage) is an apprentice of Merlin who, in 740 AD, imprisoned an evil witch named Morgana in a magical prison called the Grimhold and was given the task of protecting the Grimhold whilst finding the Prime Merlinian aka the person who would be the successor to Merlin himself. Besides Morganians (the people who want to release Morgana) Balthazar's major threat to the safety of the Grimhold is Horvath (Alfred Molina), a former apprentice and Morgana's partner in crime.

In 2000, Balthazar encounters Dave and gives him a dragon ring which is used as the indicator for the Prime Merlinian. The ring attaches itself to Dave but before Balthazar can do anything, Dave accidentally releases Horvath from the Grimhold (he'd been imprisoned in there) and Balthazar and Horvath are both imprisoned in an urn for ten years. Ten years later Dave (Jay Baruchel) is in college and is confronted by an angry Horvath who demands the Grimhold. Dave throws the Grimhold away and is saved by Balthazar. Now it's up to Balthazar and Dave to retrieve the Grimhold, or at least keep it away from Horvath and all the while Balthazar must teach Dave magic since he could very well be the chosen one.

(My Google spelling exploded while I was trying to write those last two paragraphs. Oddly enough Morgana was the only odd name that didn't get the wrong spelling red line. Huh...)

I don't really have any major qualms with the story to be completely honest. It's nothing that we haven't seen before (training, finding oneself, fighting bad guys) but it was interesting and it kept my interest throughout the whole film so for that I give it credit. It also did provide some laughs but oddly enough not many from Cage. Cage tends to be a comedy goldmine whether he means to be or not but he's a much more subdued Cage then I've seen in recent memory. Instead Baruchel delivers a lot of the laughs. Then again when you sound like Christian Slater Jr and you have as good of a comedic timing as him then whatever you say tends to be funny. And I liked the nods to Fantasia, albeit brief and the re-do of the original scene with the brooms was definitely impressive.

My major problem with the movie actually isn't the movies fault I think. I just wasn't blown away by the whole thing. The acting was good, the effects were pretty, albeit cheap looking on occasion, and the story was good but I just wasn't blown away by the whole thing. It was supposed to be this epic blockbuster in yet it ended up just being a decent fantasy film. I could blame Cage for not overacting the heck out of  his role but sometimes his overacting isn't necessary for a film to be good. Molina was a good villain, but I never really truly felt threatened by him. Maybe it was just me.

Sorcerer's Apprentice is not a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination, but just not that great either. All the parts work fine but I just never felt that sense of excitement that I feel the film was really going for. If you happen to catch it on TV then give it a look, otherwise I'd wait on this one.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

We needed to be here. Our kids were turning into little brats.

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

Comedians who are past their prime are hard to watch. There are those who are on the verge like Jim Carey and Robin Williams, but both still have some juice left in them. On the other side of the coin you got Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy who are so past their prime that they are just withered plants stinking up the joint. I'm not the only one who thinks that though. Ask anybody and they will tell you that both of them are waay past their prime.

But then there is this group of comedians. They are an odd assortment of comedians, with three distinct groups seperating each of them: the stand up comedians turned A-List actors (Chris Rock and Adam Sandler), the comedian turned TV superstar but hasn't made a good thing since the show ended (Kevin James) and the unfunny comedians who you want to go away but won't (David Spade and Rob Schneider). So it's funny when you put all of these guys together in a movie because you get that odd mix of comedy that's both fun AND painful to watch.

Grown Ups was probably written on a used cocktail napkin one night when Adam Sandler and Chris Rock were having drinks. "What if we get five best friends together and have them meet each others families?" That's the basic idea of this film. Lenny, Eric, Kurt, Marcus and Rob are five best friends. When their basketball coach and mentor passes away, they all go to a lake house to mourn, spread the ashes, and spend some quality time together. All five of them are goofballs and all five have very different personalities and family types.

That's really it. I'm pretty sure the majority of the film was improvised and the plot basically worked as a vessel for these comedians to tell their jokes or their little quips at each others expense. There's not much development, character or plot-wise, but a good number of the jokes work and got a laugh out of me. Then again though, when you have two really funny actors and one kinda funny actor telling constant jokes, I guess you really don't need a WHOLE LOTTA PLOT.

The acting is what you'd expect with these actors. Sandler is entertaining, funny and sweet when he needs to be. Chris Rock is hilarious playing outside of his comfort zone as an effeminate stay at home dad (not gay though). Kevin James is hit and miss but funny in his more physical humor (like the pictured rope swing scene). Schneider is gruesome to watch and Spade is snarky, boring and unfunny. The rest of the cast is just as varied but overall works for the most part.

I wouldn't NOT recommend this film. It's decently funny, has heart, and some good performances. If you don't mind giving up plot and dealing with two unfunny actors, then you will probably get a kick out of this movie. A good rental comedy.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

*400th post* Doesn't He Own A Shirt?

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

Well that was a surprise? The Twilight Saga: Eclipse doesn't suck. It's still no award winner (despite what the MTV Movie Awards keep telling it) but believe it or not I actually enjoyed it. Not in an "OMFG guys greatest film ever!!" enjoyed like the people sitting next to me but a "Well this is gonna suck *two hours later* hmm..." kind of enjoyed. I could attribute it to a lot of things but I think the most obvious would be David Slade taking the helm. Usually I wait till the end to talk specs but I figure since he's such an integral part I might as well bring him up now.

David Slade, whose previous two films 30 Days of Night and Hard Candy, took over as director for this installment of the billion dollar franchise and boy is the series better for it. Slade is best at two things as a director: finding beauty in nature and close shots. Well Twilight's best quality is the Vancou...I mean Washington landscape and the camera has been relentless in the past two films with shoving the camera in the face of the characters so it's good that it's in the hands of a professional. The scenery is gorgeous in this film and every time you see a mountain in the background or he pulls out enough where you can see the landscape it's beautiful. And in the close shots he lessened the cheese factor and went more for either wit or intimate. But his contribution to this film was very necessary and it added a lot to the film.

The plot shouldn't really matter at this point. If you are going in to see Eclipse then there is a good chance that you have already read the books and know everything that's going to happen. But for those boyfriends/husbands/friends who get dragged into it kicking and screaming here is the jist:

Bella Swan, our heroine, is conflicted. She is in love with Edward, a 109-year-old vampire but she also has feelings for childhood friend and werewolf Jacob Black. Bella doesn't know who to choose and with graduation coming up in a month she's gotta figure out who she wants to be with. It also doesn't help that Edward and Jacob hate each other.

While all this is happening, a bunch of mysterious murders have been happening. The culprit? The red headed vampire vixen Victoria. She is pissed at Edward for killing her lover and so she plans on taking him down and getting her revenge. How so? Her and her army of new vampires are going to kill Bella so that he will know how she feels inside. When they hear this news, Edward and Jacob decide to team up to protect Bella.

The action scenes are actually pretty cool and the CGI looks much better than the first two. The acting is still abysmal though. I'm pretty sure that's never going to change. Kristin Stewart slurs a good number of her lines and Pattinson is still dull as ever. The always shirtless Lautner (why I picked the Edward quote) is actually pretty good in this movie and has a lot of charisma. It always sucks though that either Edward or Bella or both are on the screen as well. The support cast ranges from great to decent with some standouts from Bryce Dallas Howard and the brief spot from Anna Kendrick. It's not horrible overall.

Look if you love Twilight than what I say doesn't matter. You will see this movie and love the heck out of it. I can't stand Twilight but I still enjoyed it. Not an award winner and certainly not a great film but a step in the right direction for the series. Who knows...by the time the last film comes out it might be a three and a half/four star film...

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

I didn't say anything about being simple.

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

The Far Cry game series has never been a popular one, or at least in my opinion. All the games (to my knowledge) have received sub-par reviews claiming shoddy controls, repetitive enemies, idiotic A.I and an enormous sandbox area with nothing to do. I have played the first one and let me just say I agree with them. I'm not much of an FPS gamer (more like JRPG) so it was already knocked down a peg, but the controls on the first one, as well as the crap AI made it hard to enjoy. The story was typical adventure story flair but it kept the game moving so I enjoyed it. Not every game can be Monkey Island or Heavy Rain. But otherwise a sub-par game.

So then why make a movie out of it? Well before the first game was released, the film rights were bought by Uwe Boll. Why? I'm honestly not sure but I think he saw promise with the game. Either way he bought the rights and started developing the film. He hired Til Schweiger to play the hero Jack Carver. Why? Still not sure since Jack was a US marine with brown hair and brown eyes and an American accent and Til is German with blonde hair and grey (they may be brown) eyes. He then padded in all the regulars from his film and was off.

The story follows Jack Carver, an ex military man who now runs whale watching tours for annoying as all hell tourists. Well he gets hired by Valerie, a reporter, to take her to an island where her uncle is. Well since action films are never easy we learn that said island is run by a madman bent on creating super soldiers to take over the world. Well basically s**t happens with explosions, fight scenes, and unnecessary comic relief to lighten the tension and then the movie is over.

I probably should have hated this movie. The writing is pretty poor for the most part but I just attributed that to it being an action film with a guy who can't speak English worth a damn. I also should have hated the shootouts but it's Uwe Boll so that means they are going to be handheld, filmed with fast cuts and in the dark. I also should have hated the comedy bits (the whale tourists/Parker/one liners) but it was on par with Postal's chuckle worthy humor if you watched it in the right mind set. And I should have hated the acting but Til was Hugo Stiglitz so I can't hate too much. It's on par with other Boll films.

My biggest problem was three things: the pacing, the ending and the soldiers. The pacing seemed really off with ACTION SCENE...boring...boring...still boring...ACTION SCENE. In the game it's pretty much nonstop idiots for the whole game, not pointless talking. The ending is typical Hollywood action but the "Hey we are an R rated action film that has been totally fine showing deaths and gore throughout this whole movie in yet for the last 10 minutes we will turn into a PG-13 action film where almost all the non stomach head shots are off screen, especially the one person we all as the audience wanted to see with our own eyes get his head blown off." See this film and you will know what I mean. As for the soldiers only one thing bothered me and it was a small thing. If there skin was bulletproof and could bounce off anything...how are they getting penetrated with needles? That's kind of stupid...

It's typical action film, it's typical Uwe Boll, so at this point you like it or don't. See it if you do, skip it if you don't.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

What is the difference between a duck?

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

Before getting into the review I have a message from General Patton telling us what he thinks about this movie:

Thank you General but I have to disagree with you. While Postal may not be a great movie, it's enjoyable, it's funny, it's laughably bad in places and it's got a few scenes which really make me die laughing. If you want to talk about S**T, then let's talk about Indiana Jones 4 (I went THERE!) If you couldn't tell that is Uwe Boll himself, who went on a marketing campaign spree with this film, dressing up as George Patton and talking about Postal, problems in the world, hookers, Starbucks toilet paper and much more. It's actually quite clever and it just proves my thoughts that no matter how bad of a director you think he is, he is actually a pretty awesome guy. Need more proof? Read my interview with him or listen to his commentaries.

Anyway I'm reviewing Postal. Shot back to back with Seed, Postal is based on the extremely violent and controversial PC game that is hectic, hilarious and awesome. And unlike Boll's other game adaptations, Postal stays very true to the source material it's based on and captures the spirit of the game in film form. Is it Citizen Kane? No. Is it the funniest thing ever? No. But is it enjoyable? Yes.

The "plot" of Postal follows the Dude (Zack Ward). He's mocked at a job interview, kicked out of unemployment and his wife, whose really fat, is cheating on him with pretty much any and everybody with a pulse. He finally just loses it and decides that he needs to get out of town ASAP and get enough money to make it on his own. So he teams up with his Uncle, (Dave Foley) a doomsday cult leader, to steal a bunch of rare dolls and sell them for a lot of money. While all this is happening, Osama Bin Laden, whose been in the same town as the Dude since 9/11 (thanks to help from his best friend George W Bush), wants to get the same shipment but instead of selling it he wants to inject it with Bird Flu and give it to kids.

So Al-Qaeda and the Dude/Cultists go to where the shipment is being sent to: a nazi theme park run by Uwe Boll. Things seem okay until Vince Desiderio, the game creator, attacks Boll and all hell breaks loose.

Needless to say the rest of the film is silly jokes, gunshots and explosions mixed with scenes of nothing.

Postal isn't the best written film. It has some pacing issues, most of the actually funny jokes happen early on with the rest being unintentional (so bad its funny) and the action is pretty tame until the aforementioned hell breaking loose scene. But it DOES work for the most part. I never was bored watching this film and I did get some good chuckles out of it. The acting was pretty good overall considering except for Chris Coppola, who was pretty annoying and really over the top. Everyone else was pretty good and it was nice to see Dave Foley.

Postal is a hard film to rate. It's not the best film technically or writing wise but it's entertaining, enjoyable and it gets a chuckle out of me. The best way to describe it is the live action version of the sub-par seasons of South Park: enjoyable, funny, goofy, somewhat violent, but not the best by any means. I've watched it a few times now and I still get a kick out of it. If you like silly comedies, want to be mildly entertained or enjoy the video game then you will like this film.

If anything else you see Uwe Boll shot dead. I know a lot of people want to see that.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

I learned the truth a long time ago. Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it can't kill you.

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

Well as I mentioned in my House of the Dead review, the two films I'm reviewing today are special because they both had Director's Cut's which drastically altered my opinion on the original film. While one got exponentially better, one got worse. This is the former of the two.

Alone in the Dark is Uwe Boll's second dive into the world of video game based films. After the horrendous but laughably bad House of the Dead, you'd think he'd improve right? Well not exactly. On top of being based on a video game series whose plot changes with every game (thus making it hard to predict what exactly is going on), Uwe got his hands on the script. Originally it was going to be more of a straight up horror film with little action. Well Uwe didn't want that and he didn't think people would want that either so him and his team changed the script to be more action based and based more on The New Nightmare instead of any of the games in the series. New Nightmare was more action oriented then the other games in the series.

The film follows the story of paranormal investigator Edward Carnby. Edward was an orphan raised at an orphanage. He lost his memory when he was ten and soon afterward joined Bureau 713, getting a job as a paranormal investigator all the while trying to figure out his past. Currently Edward is working on the disappearance of the Abkani tribe, an ancient race which disappeared suddenly but left clues for people to find. He enlists the help of his archaeologist ex-girlfriend Aline to try and find out what happened to them. While all this is happening, Lionel Hudgins, the professor who was the cause behind Edward's memory loss, breaks open an old Abkani tomb which unleashes an evil demon spawn upon the world. On top of that, people who were experimented on by Hudgens as kids (aka the people in Edward's orphanage) are now possessed by the Abkani and sent to kill and destroy those who try to stop the Abkani.

The story could have been a decent action thriller if not for the piss poor pacing, the awkward sex scene, the terrible acting across the board, the lack of gore, the lack of any seeable action (it's all in the dark mostly), the lack of demon showing, the exposition padding, and the giant plot holes. All of that makes this a film SO bad that it deserves to be punted off a cliff. I was never a fan of the video game series but man this film had so much wrong with it.

MY VERDICT: ABOMINATION TO CINEMA

Then something came around that caught my attention...a Director's cut of the film...

This wasn't any ordinary Director's Cut though. No this was a revamped, unrated Director's Cut. So what's different? Well Tara Reid (Aline) is cut out almost completely and all the excess scenes with her (including the sex scene) are gone. Also most of the pacing issues have been taking care of. And they added some awesome and gory fight scenes with the demons. The acting is still bad but now more tolerable than before, mostly due to a better pacing and Tara's almost absence. I mean Slater and Dorff aren't Academy Award winning actors but you can tell, especially in this version, that they're actually trying...something neither of them have done since. It's almost as if Uwe Boll realized he had made a bad film and fixed what he could with it.

It's still not a great film but this version has better action, better effects, gets rid of a lot of my plot and acting gripes and is definitely a mindless guilty pleasure.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

You have to look beautiful for your funeral. This is how they are all going to remember you.

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

Films that deal with the idea of death have always intrigued me. Whether it's about the Grim Reaper or a Reaper-esque character, the idea of death, or what happens after death I have always been interested. But one idea of death or near death has always freaked me out: what if you're alive but everyone else thinks you're dead? Stephen King did a great story on it called "Autopsy Room 4" in which a guy had to get a hard on to prove that he was not dead (it's scarier than you think). The Twilight Zone did a great piece on that as well. It's also one of Roger Ebert's biggest fears in life. So the idea is nothing new. But when I heard about a movie called After.Life I got interested again.

The story is of Anna (Christina Ricci). She has a good life, a great boyfriend and everything going for her. But after a small fight with her boyfriend she storms off and drives away. While she is driving she get's in a horrible car accident. She wakes up on a slab in a funeral home, scared and confused. A man named Eliot (Liam Neeson) tells her that she is dead and that he is preparing her body. She thinks that she is still alive and that he is crazy. He says that he can see and communicate with the dead and that it's his job to help guide them to the other side and help them accept death.

But a young boy sees Anna moving around and goes and tells Paul (Justin Long), her boyfriend, that she is still alive. Paul believes the little boy and decides to try to find a way to get to Anna, who is trapped inside the funeral home with Eliot. So it's up to Paul to figure out what to do, Anna to try and cope with the idea that she's dead and Eliot to lead her to the other side.

It's a good story but it suffers from being in the gray zone too much. Is Anna really dead? If so how did the boy see her? Does the boy have powers? How did Eliot get the powers? Is Eliot crazy? There are so many unanswered questions and the movie never really places itself at one end of the spectrum or another. It teases the idea that she is dead but teases almost as much that she is alive. The movie never states whether she is alive or dead. Now I realize that would work for the Sixth Sense and maybe work to create tension but it becomes tedious at times during the movie and makes the overall feel of the movie frustrating. The one good thing it has going for it when it comes to it's writing is it doesn't depend on jump scares. It uses genuine tension and suspense to make the audience jump. A nice surprise compared to the norm.

Where the movie does WELL though is in the acting department. Justin Long is witty and charming as ever finding almost a niche in these thriller films a la Bruce Campbell. Ricci is actually pretty good and believable as Anna. You really do FEEL for her and care about her character's well being. Neeson is great as always. Calm and soothing voice, an eerie feel about him but also a sense of gentleness and a "Why me" attitude. He works great with the film's tone and makes the film actually fun to watch.

After.Life is a decent thriller that suffers from too much gray. The tension and suspense are good and the acting is great but overall it's a pretty forgettable film. Still worth a rent though.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

Why are you screaming? I haven't even cut you yet...

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

With every passing week I get more and more assured that Hollywood has run out of ideas. But unlike some people I really don't mind remakes, endless sequels (I love Saw don't I?), and when films steal ideas because of that very reason. Hollywood can't make anything original. One person that has really perpetuated this and that is Michael Bay and his production group Platinum Dunes. Since 2003 they have remade most to all of the original slasher films (besides Halloween which Rob Zombie got) like Friday the 13th, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (both of them), The Hitcher and The Amityville Horror. Now Michael Bay and crew are back and this time they are revamping the classic series A Nightmare on Elm Street.

A Nightmare on Elm Street has always been one of my favorite horror series of all time. Besides the abysmal second one the series has maintained a sense of creepiness, actual scariness without jump scares and it's campy as all Hell. As the series went on Freddy got more and more vocal and by Freddy's Dead he was a snarky bastard who was as creepy as he was funny. Then in 1994 A New Nightmare was released during Wes Craven's "Tongue in cheek F-U horror films" phase. A New Nightmare saw a more evil Freddy, a more demonic Freddy and it brought him to the real world. Freddy then disappeared for nine years, resurfacing for the campy but fun "Freddy vs Jason." It's been seven years now and Freddy has finally returned, this time with a new face. And that face's name is Jackie Earle Haley.

This version of Freddy is a much more creepy than scary Freddy. Part of that is due to an actually touching but horrifying back story that they show about halfway into the film. In it, Fred Krueger is a gardener whose life revolves around the children at a local pre-school. (WARNING SPOILERS BUT REALLY IF YOU'RE SEEING THIS YOU KNOW THE STORY) Fred is a kind man and loves to play games like hide and seek and tag. He also lives in the basement of the pre-school. Down there is his "secret cave." In his "secret cave" he would bring the children down to paint and draw pictures. He would also get them to take pictures...and if you've seen Diff'rent Strokes you know how the rest goes. Anyway the kids told on Fred and Fred decided to flee only to be caught by the kids parents and burned alive. Unlike the original series it's never revealed how Freddy came back to life and how he got into people's dreams but it's a 90 minute horror film so what do you expect?

Either way it's many years later and the film starts with Dean and Kris. Dean keeps falling asleep and seeing this man. Kris tries to assure him he's not real...right before the dream man forces a knife into his throat. At the funeral Nancy, a local diner waitress, reveals that she sees the man as well but she keeps trying to forget and ignore him. A few days later Jesse, Kris' ex boyfriend, comes over to Kris' house after Kris has a horrible daydream in class that causes her to freak out. Jesse decides to stay the night only for Kris to get murdered in her sleep. Jesse gets arrested and dies shortly afterwards and now it's up to Nancy and her buddy who has a crush on her Quentin to figure out how to stop this man who reveals himself to be Freddy.

(END SPOILERS)

The film doesn't reinvent the wheel. In fact I don't think it tries to. It knows it's a modern day remake of a classic 80s slasher flick and in fact this new Nightmare tries to be a little more campy in some ways. It's not ha ha funny like the fifth and sixth film but most to all of Freddy's lines as Freddy are pretty tongue in cheek or more along the lines of an action hero who talks in one-liners. But where some films would become eye-rollingly bad from this walking one liner dispenser it's helped by the phenomenal acting of Jackie Earle Haley. Haley is the reason to stay and watch this film. He embodies creepiness and, despite him sounding like Rorschach the entire film, he actually pulls Freddy off quite well. And especially in the back story scenes he conveys this dark innocence and malevolence that only someone who starred in Little Children could do. He's the best thing this movie's got to offer. That's not to say the other actors are bad however. In fact most of them are pretty good. Their main problem however is that you don't really care about them. They are all kind of emo so it's really hard to root for them...except Nancy but she's the protagonist so you have to root for her.

But even with all the positives I've listed there are a few nagging errors in this film that DO bother me. The first is that they only use jump scares to induce fear. The back story scenes are a welcome change but everything else is "Quiet....AHHHHHHH....quiet.....AHHH!!" the entire film. There is barely any music (which is sad since the composer does a great job) and so it's a bit off putting to keep getting VERY LOUD musical sting after musical sting. Like the Wolfman and many horror films nowadays musical stings have become the only source of scariness in films. With the original it was more in your face. Johnny Depp got pulled in the bed and there was no jump scare with it. It was just "Oh he's getting pulled down...WTF is happening? OMG BLOOD GUSHER!" That was awesome. And instead of a musical STING it was like the Jaws theme in there. And THAT was scary.

See what I mean. That's scary. The music sting/jump scare thing is really the only major gripe I have. Otherwise my only other problem is it's a bit abrupt, poorly paced at times with lot's of talky pieces in between the death scenes and as a slasher junkie there weren't enough kills. There were a lot of off-screen ones that you only briefly hear or read about but only a few people die in this film. Remember Freddy's Dead? He killed thousands in that film!

Overall A Nightmare on Elm Street is a decent horror remake of a great film and features overall good acting that suffers from bad pacing, one note scaring tactics, characters you don't care about and not enough slashing. I recommend it but only after you've seen all the other films...besides two...this is MUCH better than two.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

What is this? What are you doing to us?

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

I never have nightmares anymore. The last time I had a nightmare was after watching Antichrist. It's not because the film was scary but mostly because foxes eating themselves saying "Chaos Reigns" and a woman chopping her private parts off with rusty scissors is enough to make me never want to sleep again. And I thought after laughing my way through Seed, Saw and Hostel films that I was totally desensitized to creepy torture porn or weird horror films but I guess I was wrong. Well who do I thank for this. Well I thank the controversial Dutch director known as Tom Six who wrote and directed a little film called "The Human Centipede." Needless to say that film gave ME nightmares.

The plot is as follows: Dr Heiter is an evil mad scientist. He kidnaps a truck driver and we never see him again until later. Meanwhile Lindsay and Jenny are two American tourists whose car breaks down. They end up at Dr. Heiter's house to see if they can find a way to fix their car and when they finally get INSIDE the house...the shit hits the fan. The girls are drugged and forced into a makeshift hospital ward where they wake up and see the truck driver. He is killed for not "being a match" and the girls then wake up again to find a NEW replacement named Katsuro, a Japanese tourist. The Doctor explains that he is a world renowned surgeon known for separating conjoined twins. He has this idea to join three people together through their digestive track, a "human centipede" of sorts, and wants the three captives to be the guniea pigs.

Long story short, they end up joined together, are forced to do tasks, Katsuro gets angry and gets the crap beaten out of him, Lindsay is forced to swallow crap, Jenny's dying of blood poisoning, a couple of police officers show up, they go, Katsuro stabs Heiter, commits suicide, the officers return and Heiter and the officers get shot. Jenny finally dies of her blood poisoning and Ashley is left alone with two dead people attached to her.

This is one MESSED UP MOVIE. It's helped by the fact that it's well acted and written for the most part but it's still messed up. Heiter is a great mad scientist and one of the best villains I've seen in a while. The cops are good and, besides Katsuro, the captives are all pretty good actors. And the plot doesn't really screw around much which is appreciated. Don't worry there won't be any "Wait for 45 minutes before anything happens" going on in this film. Once it gets going...it gets GOING.

The special effects are good and I HAVE to applaud the make up department. The lighting and the cinematography are quite good as well. The film has a very nice atmospheric feel which really adds a good tone to the film. My only huge issue with the movie is I couldn't get this out of my head...

Overall the Human Centipede is a messed up but decent horror film that takes risks and is quite original. It's not for the weak of heart or stomach but there are certainly worse films out there...

so if you're even slightly interested...give this one a look.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

Fried food can kill me, a mugger can kill me. You're not so special down here, Jones!

Make your own banner at MyBannerMaker.com!

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

Well the Prophecy series has reached its end...well there WERE two movies after but they don't count because Walken wasn't in them. So does Prophecy 3: The Ascent live up to the other two movies standards? Well that answer is really hard. It's both yes and no. In a lot of ways Prophecy does well from a trilogy standpoint by bringing almost all of the plot points to a close and giving closure to the viewer. Add onto that Christopher Walken's amazing performance (as usual) and his even crazier outfits and wigs and some good action and special effects and you'd think that it would be the best. Well IMDB, for the most part at least, does in fact believe this. But even as a fan of the series I do have to admit that besides these couple of points I mentioned, the film really does lack in other areas.

The main issue however is the acting. Vincent Spano and Dave Buzzota, who are good actors (Spano recently did great playing Virgil in the Dante's Inferno video game and animated movie while Buzzota I mostly remember being good in She's All That) they just really lack in their roles here. Spano, who plays Zapheal comes off as a little too stiff and robotic and doesn't ever feel truly menacing. He's supposed to be the villain but gets out shined by Walken every time. Even when he is truly being foreboding he never really is. As Buzzota he is playing our main character Danyael. He is supposed to be half angel, half man in yet he can't seem to hold his own too well. At times he even feels a bit dopey, never really fitting in with his "hero" role. Maybe a bigger focus on Walken would have been much better in my opinion as he was already an established character and has much more presence as a "hero" type.

Well that's all my complaints now onto the story:

The story takes place 18 years after the second one ended. The war in heaven is still going on, people are pissed, angels are pissed and Danyael, a half human, half angel hybrid and was prophesied as the one who would end the war. Well Zapheal will have none of this and makes it his mission to take out Danyael. But Gabriel, now human and having switched sides, makes it his duty to protect him. Fighting, special effects and speeches ensue.

Overall it's an okay film with decent acting that works because of Walken and good writing. Watch the first two for sure but think before watching this one.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT

Do what you do best...chase after the girl!

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

For years I have heard about the B movie studio juggernaut known as The Asylum. Since 2000 they have made mockbuster (spoof on blockbusters) after mockbuster. To tell you the truth most of them suck pretty bad. I will give Asylum credit for going outside the box though with what little budget they actually have. One of the more recent mockbusters that has come out is a film simply known as "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes." No this is not the Guy Ritchie version with Robert Downey Jr. (although its funny how Holmes brother calls him Robert) and Jude Law, no instead this one focuses on Sherlock Holmes vs Dinosaurs, Octopuses and Dragons...

...I'm serious. The plot is that a ship carrying gold was attacked by what some bystanders called a monster. Nobody believed it really since monsters seemed like a preposterous idea, that is till the giant octopus showed up as well as a dinosaur and a dragon. It's hard to dismiss THAT as preposterous after that. Well its up to Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson to defeat these creatures and find out what's going on. Twists and turns are abound as not only do they fight these creatures but ROBOTS as well. It's honestly hard to take this plot TRULY seriously but considering it IS a B movie and that it's actually more loyal to the book series (if you'll believe that) the story is almost better than the Downey version. Granted I enjoyed the Downey story better but I was at least entertained and shocked when the twist came.

The acting is...well they're acting. It's not that it's bad but if you can accept the movie for what it is than it's really not that bad. Like I said, it's closer to the books and entertaining and if nothing else T-Rex vs Holmes is a funny situation to see, although like the Cloverfield monster I have no idea how it sneaks up on people considering its size.

Overall the Asylum has crafted one of their better mockbusters even with an absurd plot and spotty acting. If nothing else it's entertaining, fun to watch and it's certainly action packed. A decent film and great B movie overall.

MY VERDICT: RENT IT