CS at the movies

In chronological order:

 

Scream 3 (2000).  I know this one is probably the movie I'll catch the most flack for, which is why I'm talking about it first.  And anyway, eff you, this movie is awesome. When the first Scream movie came out, some claimed it was the death of the slasher genre. That's not the case; they actually revitalized the genre.  The first and second came out in the late 90's, so I can't put them on the list of top horror movies of the past decade.  Back to Scream 3.  The ending wrapped up the saga in a pretty definitive way, while helping connect the previous two films.  I know, I know, before you say it: They weren't written as a trilogy.  I know that, but they work well that way.  No movie in the series nullifies anything that happens in any of the others.  That's rare for a horror movie saga, especially a slasher movie series.  It's also unique because the killers in each movie are irrefutably dead by the time credits roll in each film.  They manage to introduce killers with surprisingly plausible motives in each flick.  Plus, any movie which references movies and Hollywood so openly is great.  It's a nice touch of irony.  This is the very thing that many people claimed was Scream's method of killing the genre.  But I think it served to bring humor to the genre- humor that had always been there, because most slasher flicks are the kind awful that makes you laugh... Only deliberate humor is better for a horror movie than accidental humor... like in Cursed which I bought because the whole thing was absolutely hilarious, and as much as I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm pretty sure that only a third of it was intentional.

 

Battle Royale (Batoru rowaiaru) (2000).  HOLY SHIT, Battle Royale!  Alright, so kids in Japan are getting way out of control.  They're disrespectful and well on their way to being criminals.  So there's this law where they take an entire class of ninth-graders (randomly selected in kind of a lottery type of deal) every year and put them on this island.  They wear collars that will blow their heads off if they try to remove the collars, leave the island, or stay in restricted areas.  They're told that they all have to kill one another; that only one can survive (after four days, if there's more than one kid left alive, all survivors are killed by the collars).  So imagine a strange high school class dynamic of kids, plus weapons, plus free reign to kill classmates however possible.  That's Battle Royale, and it's awesome.  This is a great delight for me because I am of the firm believe that humans from the age of 7-17 are not people. And it was great fun to watch school-aged children kill and maim each other.  This one is really worth seeing, and word is, there's an American remake in the works.  While I'm sure it won't be nearly as awesome as the original, I'm going to watch it when it comes out.

 

28 Days Later (2002).  This film looked at the zombie genre and said: okay, post-apocalypse- scary. Ease of becoming infected- scary. Isolation- scary.  Dead, rigor-mortised, slow-moving monsters- not as scary as you think, akshully.  So they took zombies and turned them into fast moving diseased/infected with hyperactive aggression- kind of like Super Rabies (I know, I know, Quarantine did this later, and it was an okay movie, but this isn't a review of Quarantine, so eat it).  They filmed it with a kind of grainy, raw lens which made it feel almost like you were watching home movies of the zombie apocalypse, minus constant shaking and inability to focus the lens on what's important. They used GUITARS to create a really unique soundtrack. And after you've finally adjusted to the zombie apocalypse, they comment on humanity itself.  You realize that, when left unchecked, the REAL horror monster is man kind.  BUT, screw 28 Weeks Later.  They really should have just made a movie that was unrelated, not a sequel, not related to the first- I mean, they pretty much did it anyway (ditching the original movie's cast and specific plot), why pull the title of the first into the picture and sully what was otherwise a perfect end to the movie?

 

High Tension (2003).  This one starts with two french women traveling out to visit one of the girl's families.  That night you discover that one of the women is probably gay and seems to have some non-platonic feelings for the other one.  So a dude shows up and attacks the family and kidnaps the straight girl.  The lesbian, in her undying love for her friend, chases them in an attempt to rescue her.  Well after a long, terrifying pursuit, she comes face to face with the bad guy and the battle commences. But don't let this fool you.  If you haven't seen this movie, it shines a whole new light on friendship and the idea of good guy vs bad guy.  With "New Born" in French by Muse, a gritty look, and very little dialogue for the vast majority of the movie, it's little wonder where they get the title of the film from.  And it really delivers on that promise.

 

House of 1000 Corpses/Devil's Rejects (2003/2005).  Now, it's important that you consider these two as a pairing when you looking at them in my list of top horror movies of the decade.  The reason being that they serve as two unique counter point views on the same stories.  In House, it's obvious that the people we're supposed to hate and fear are the members of The Family.  They're awful cartoonistic exaggerations of murderous lunatics.  But in Devil's Rejects, they're the people you're supposed to actually sympathize with, which, by the end of the movie, believe it or not, you actually do.  Alone, neither of these films would be on my list.  But together, as an interesting dichotomy (which was deliberate, says Rob Zombie, and is the reason he gave them two entirely different titles), they're both terrifying in totally different ways and it's incredible how RZom manages to make you sympathize for the same Family of heartless, murderous psychopaths that you just watched, two years prior, kill a group of road-tripping kids, and some cheerleaders.

 

Shaun of the Dead (2004).  The ads for this movie implied that it was a zombie parody movie.  I half expected something more along the lines of... Scary Movie... But what I found was a really delightful romantic comedy with zombies.  You've probably seen this movie by now.  It starts over in England, with Shaun in a failing relationship, two less than ideal roommates, a lousy job at an electronics store, and a step father he can't stand.  The next day, zombies are walking the earth. Prior to Shaun of the Dead, I had seen my fair share of zombie movies, but was never really passionately in love with the zombie movie genre.  I mean, there were lots of things I didn't get/buy about the zombie genre.  Then Shaun of the dead came along.  Don't get me wrong, there were zombie movies which redefined our expectations of zombies, and that's great.  But Shaun of the Dead managed to be both a romantic comedy AND a zombie horror movie.  That's a tough one to do, but they did it.  And unlike most horror movies, this love connection isn't contrived. Shaun of the Dead probably won't keep you up in the middle of the night because it was terrifying, but it's really delightful, with lots of replay value.  It's just all around a great movie that I'll never get tired of.

 

The Descent (2005).  Our lead loses her husband and daughter in a tragic accident.  When her friends decide to take her along on one of their regularly scheduled adventurous expeditions, they get trapped in a series of underground caves which also house humanoid monsters which of course, intend to eat them.  The movie doesn't just have the group getting picked off one by one.  The film also focuses on the all-too-common mistrust among female friends as the group destroys itself.  We watch on in horror.  The good guys are flawed- some more so than others.  Whenever someone asks me about horror movies, I tell them to rent this one.  It's one of those movies that sticks in your mind after you've watched it.

 

Paranormal Activity (2007).  Okay, I know it's also new... well, not really.  See, it was an independent film that was actually made in 2007 and didn't make main stream until 2009. And I'll probably catch a lot of flack for this one too.  Let's cure you of any misconception.  This was not real footage from an actual event. This wasn't even based on a true story.  They obviously wanted it to look and feel real.  But it wasn't.  At all.  BUT, it's amazing how many viewers it fooled into believing it was real.  That really says something for the movie.  ALSO, it really uses the classic horror tool, suspense.  A lot of movies nowadays like to jump right into the horror, the macabre.  Many other horror flicks show you someone getting murdered in the first scene and then let you see the monster/killer over and over throughout the movie.  This one takes its time getting scary.  It builds a little at a time.  You get to know the two main characters.  You get to know about their dynamic, about their family history, about how they got where they are, and about what they might be up against.  You don't have to see the monster to be afraid.  Because it's so "new," I'm going to avoid spilling any possible plot points, but really, a spooky movie, worth watching... with a friend or two, because if you're by yourself, you'll probably need a new pair of pants.

 

Cloverfield (2008). I know there's a divide in the general public about this movie.  I am of the school of thought that this movie was good, scary, and 100% worth watching... repeatedly.  You're in New York with a group of people having a going away party for their friend who plans on moving to Tokyo.  The man about to leave has feelings for this woman who's now at the party with someone else.  You see footage of our lead and this woman being a cute couple sporadically throughout the movie (seems they decided to record the going away party right over top of the only video of these two being romantic).  The love interest leaves the party early in a huff.  The monster comes and that's the end of the party.  Our friend who had been the guest of honor at this party drags some of his friends on a trek across the city to save the girl we all can tell he loves.  Now, I have absolutely zero interest in the two main characters and their shitty failed romance.  I like Hud, our photographer for the majority of the movie.  Now, this movie adopts the shaky cam outlook, as this is supposed to be recovered footage from the camera of the people who star in the movie.  The monster is scary, but its scales which drop down after it's been shot... those are really terrifying.  It's a really great movie.  And Hud's commentary is classic.

 

Zombieland (2009).  I know that it's still super recent.  I also know it was a comedy... But there was lots of gore and there were zombies, so I'm putting it on my list. So we find the protagonist in a gas station parking lot trying to go to the bathroom and narrating to us about the rules for survival.  Then he comes across some zombies.  So he starts running... In large circles around his car.  When I saw this movie in theaters, the people sitting behind me (mind you, this is 5 minutes into the movie) said, "Dis movie is ridicalus. Why's he runnin' in circles?"  Why is he running in circles?  Because if he runs in a straight line, he'll be far as shit from his car when he finally gets away from the zombies.  If he runs in circles, he's got time to kill them and he won't have to walk back across town to get to his car.  That's what's great about this movie.  It's thoughtful.  A few minutes later, he meets Woody Harrelson... Well, if you had any wonder as to whether this was a serious zombie movie, that probably cleared it up.  Seriousness vs silliness aside, this movie has a variety of good zombie kills.  It also has astounding cinematography.  It's really impressive.  I'm going to try not to spoil any of the details on this one. If you've seen it, you probably know why it's on this list.  If you haven't seen it, you should.  If you've seen it and didn't like it, then you and I can't be friends.  Seriously. Don't talk to me.

 

(Finally,) Hard Candy (2005).  I know this is out of order.  BUT it's pretty much my favorite ever, so I saved the best for last.  Hayley Stark and Jeff Kohlver have been talking online for some time now. The movie starts with their instant message conversation in which they decide to finally meet.  But it's painfully obvious that this man is far too old be interested in a girl so young.  There are five characters, and you only see three of them for a combined total of five minutes.  The other two are the only people you get for the whole movie. I know this isn't usually classified as a horror film.  It's usually classified as a thriller or a psychological drama.  But if you're a man, you're going to consider this to be a horror.  Every male friend I've ever shown this to, has considered this a horror.  Just watch it.  The cinematics are incredible, the writing is truly convincing, the acting is superb, and the movie is overall fantastic.

 

Now, there were SEVERAL really great horror movies that I didn't review, for a variety of reasons...  But you need to watch: Pitch Black (2000 - Chronicles of Riddick should die in a fire), American Psycho (2000), Frailty (2001), May (2002), Love Object (2003), A Tale of Two Sisters (2004), Dawn of the Dead (2004), Saw (2004- but only if you don't know how it ends), The Grudge (2004- there are three moments in that movie that still haunt me to this day- sacrilege, I know, but I prefer the American version),  Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005), Pan's Labyrinth (2006- I still don't agree with the horror classification, but it's a must see anyway), The Hills Have Eyes (2006), Slither (2006), Sweeny Todd (2007), Pandorum (2009- I was angry at it for the first half of the movie, but came around before the end).

 

 

 

 

 

Iron Man: Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Terrance Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow,  Directed by Job Favreau.

Everyone knows the back story to the comic book superhero that is Iron Man... And if you don't shoot yourself for being a clueless shut-in. 
First off, just for having Robert Downey, I was already going to like the movie.  Poor Robert Downey, if he'd just stop abusing himself with his addictions, maybe people would actually realize how great of an actor he really is.  He's absolutely amazing.  They added Jeff Bridges (that's right, The Dude, who abides) as Stane, and Paltrow as Pepper Potts, with a touch of Terrance Howard as Col. Rhodes.  This batch of actors is, in spite of some speculation, or backlash to certain films they might have made in the past, highly talented. 
The writing was strong, touching upon all the necessities for making this a great film (even if it IS a little long for some people's tastes).  The plot is firm, character development is great, action tucked nicely into the folds, and overall, a strong script with very few plot holes. 

Now, it's no secret that superhero/comic book movies have been a dying breed for some time...  Spider-Man 1 and 3, Bullseye, Elektra, Superman returns, the first Incredible Hulk (which Hollywood as a whole is pretending never happened, and is releasing another Hulk film with exactly the same title),  and so on...  A few exceptions can be made though; Batman Begins, Hellboy (or so I've been told, as I've avoided it like the plague), Transformers (if you can call that a superhero flick- I don't), and so on. 

Some complaints made about Iron Man:  The ending.  I liked it.  But I've heard from a friend of mine, the same friend who lives for WWE/pro wrestling, that the ending sucked.  I disagree.  It left room for a sequel without being painfully cliff-hung.  It shows that, even though Tony Stark might have undergone a change, having been humbled and shifted his values, he also still retains a bit of his passion for the movie star life, proclaiming, in spite of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s advisement, that he is, in fact, Iron Man.  Then they dropped good ol' Sammy Jackson in (as Nick Fury), just for good measure... And really, what movie isn't made instantly better with Samuel L?  The only reason I even went to the theater for Jumper, was because of Sam's role.  I think that's the only reason my friend (boyfriend at the time) went as well. 
So actually, I have NO complaints about the movie. It was moving where it needed to be, funny wherever it could be, and all around everything that it could be

I give it 5 of 5 stars. 

Back-Story: New Salem is an upper class, small town, suburban heaven. But recently, Jennifer Tollen, a local New Salem Junior College student has been abducted. She’s found dead, missing her right hand and right calf. This apparently meets some criteria for the FBI’s search for a serial killer. Not long after, Aubrey Flemming goes missing. About 17 days later, a girl is found laying in a ditch along side of the road, her hand and calf had been severed but sewn back on. The problem? This girl, identical to Aubrey in every way, believes herself to be Dakota Moss.

The Plot: Dakota swears she’s not Aubrey. She tells the FBI that she’s the daughter of a deceased crack addict, and that she doesn’t know what her attacker looked like. She says that Aubrey is still probably out there, since she herself is Dakota Moss, and not who everyone else thinks she is. As the movie goes on, the audience is exposed to Dakota’s life prior to dismemberment. And soon, Dakota’s need to prove to herself and others that she really is not Aubrey subsides, and becomes a need to find Aubrey, and the connection between the two.

My two cents: First off, avoid watching any further ads that you might be bombarded with. Trust me. You know how ads go on about 30 seconds longer than they should… well, they’ve just started doing that for this movie, and if you watch those last 30 seconds, you’re not going to enjoy the movie nearly as much. Secondly, if you don’t like left field twists, then don’t watch this movie. If you don’t like fairly blatant cinematic shifts in color and film style as a method to differentiate thoughts or personalities, then don’t watch this film. Because there’s a lot of that. The most obvious example being the shift from blue for everything to do with Aubrey, and red for everything that is inherently Dakota.
Aside from that though, and even including that, I enjoyed this film. The acting was good. Not amazing, but good. And the loose ends are tied up pretty neatly at the end. There’s a big dry horse pill to swallow that takes the movie and crosses over from just another amnesia/split personality/mistaken identity mixed with thriller/horror/mystery/slasher/who done it, and into the semi-supernatural realm. But I promise, if you can swallow down that pill, you’ll be fine. Oh, and if you can tolerate unnecessarily long “Dakota is a stripper” (as I like to call them) scenes. And sorry, guys, no Lohan boobs or butt crack in this one.
Oh yea, did I mention Lohan is the lead? If you haven’t seen the ads and you didn’t know that, you do now.

Stars: I’m surprised to say this, but 4.5. It gave me an un-anticipated twist… that, had I seen the new ads they just started running on TV, I would have seen coming. That’s why I’m seriously advising you not to watch the ads for this movie… or any other movie you really want to see for that matter.

okay, the cast because I'm impressed by this

Dan Castellanta  -AS-  Homer Simpson/Itchy/Barney/Grampa/Stage Manager/Krusty the Clown/Mayor Quimby/Mayor's Aide/Multi-Eyed Squirrel/Panicky Man/Sideshow Mel/Mr. Teeny/EPA Official/Kissing Cop #1/Bear/Boy on Phone/NSA Worker/Officer/Santa's Little Helper/Squeaky-Voiced Teen

Julie Kavner -AS- Marge Simpson

Nancy Cartwright -AS- Bart Simpson/Maggie Simpson/Ralph/Nelson/Todd Flanders/TV Daughter/Woman on Phone 

Yeardly Smith -AS- Lisa Simpson

Harry Shearer -AS- Scratchy/Mr. Burns/Rev. Lovejoy/Ned Flanders/Lenny/Skull/President Arnold Schwarzenegger/Kent Brockman/Principal Skinner/Dr. Hibbert/Toll Booth Man/Smithers/Guard/Otto/Kang 

Hank Azaria -AS- Professor Frink/Comic Book Guy/Moe/Chief Wiggum/Lou/Carl/Cletus/Bumblebee Man/Male EPA Worker/Dome Depot Announcer/Kissing Cop #2/Carnival Barker/Counter Man/Apu/Drederick Tatum/Sea Captain/EPA Passenger/Robot/Dr. Nick

Greenday -AS- Themselves

Tress MacNeile -AS- Sweet Old Lady/Colin/Mrs. Skinner/Nelson's Mother/Pig/Cat Lady/Female EPA Workers/G.P.S. Woman/Cookie Kwan/Lindsey Naegle/TV Son/Medicine Woman/Girl on Phone 

Tom Hanks -AS- Himself.

Alber Brooks -AS- Russ Cargill

Pamela Hayden -AS- Milhouse Van Houten/Rod Flanders

Russi Taylor -AS- Martin

Joe Mantegna -AS- FatTony

Maggie Roswell -AS- Hellen Lovejoy

Crazy, isn't it?

Back-Story:  If you know nothing about The Simpsons, then screw off and don't watch this movie.

The Plot: Homer Simpson screws all by dumping the very last piece of garbage into the local lake- which causes it to become so badly polluted, it becomes toxic.   Government official, Russ Cargill, now of EPA, quarantines them under a dome.  And from that point on, it's great quotes and silliness, in what is basically an hour and a half long Simpsons episode.  

My two cents:  I know that the show has been losing steam for a few years, but the movie absolutely had me laughing for almost the whole thing.  As far as suggestions, I have none.  

Stars: 5.  That's right.  I said it. 


"This is Tom Hanks saying, if you see me in person, please, leave me be."

Back-Story: Johnny Blaze [played in the beginning by Matt Long, and later on by Nicolas Cage] loves Roxanne Simpson [played at first by Raquel Alessi, and later by Eva Mendes]. Blaze is a carnie with his dad, doing motorcycle stunts. Papa Blaze has cancer and is very clearly dying. Roxanne is going to leave town soon, and Johnny just isn’t going to be able to leave with her. Then the devil shows up and promises to save Papa Blaze from cancer, in exchange for Blaze’s soul. Blaze accepts, but he dies the next day in a stunt gone wrong. So, naturally, Blaze jumps town. Years later, Blaze is famous stuntman and Roxanne is a reporter. 

The Plot: When Blaze sold his soul to save dear old dad, he agreed to become Ghost Rider in the future. Well, around the same time Roxanne comes back into his life, so does the devil. And then, Blaze is torn between what he has to do and what he wants to do. Unfortunate, I know. You see, the funny thing is that the stuff the devil wants Blaze to do isn’t really that bad. Kill murderous demons, and claim a few sinners along the way. Not a terrible gig. Plus, you get to be in fire and ride up buildings and use a chain as a whip, a grappling hook, a lasso, and even a fan. Sounds to me like this gig is right up Blaze’s alley. And in the end, Blaze keeps the power- I’m not sure how someone can double cross Satan when without Satan, you’d have no power, but whatevs. Anyway… So apparently, the devil’s brat kid wants to absorb all these super evil souls and become ultra evil himself, making hell on earth. And for whatever reason, Satan’s not cool with hell on earth, and in comes Ghost Rider to… save the day…? Does anyone else think it’s odd that Satan wants to save earth so badly? 

My two cents: Well, let’s not kid ourselves about the acting. The dad from Grounded for Life is one of Blaze’s handymen, and he’s probably the best actor in the film. Now, I don’t know if you’ve seen his bit work in films like, oh, let’s say Blade, but it’s humorously terrible. And, sorry, but Eva Mendes is only ever really cast in parts because she’s cute. By the way, did anyone else notice that she had a slight lisp in this movie? Has she always had that? And Nicolas Cage. Oh god, Nicolas Cage. For starters, Nicolas Cage does not act. Period. He stars in films, but he does not act. More or less, they grab him and say, “we’re gonna pay you [blank amount] to just stand where we tell you and respond when people say [blank name].” Don’t get me wrong, I love him for this. Him and Keanu Reeves both. But it doesn’t make for a high quality piece of cinema. And I’m sorry, but the devil, aside from the whole killing dad the next day bit, really isn’t all that bad. I don’t particularly dislike him or what he does in this movie. 

Stars: Well, I think it’s unfair in general to rate all movies on the same scale. As far as BLOCKBUSTERS go, this is a 4.5 –but as far as regular cinema is concerned, this is a 2.5 at best. Sorry guys, but you cast Nicolas Cage. You had to have known it wasn’t going to be great. Plus, the graphics; not all that great. I remember at least two scenes from birds-eye-view where someone oops-ified the shot by making ghost rider as big as some of the houses he was riding by. How the hell do you fuck up a far away, out of focus shot like that? The world may never know. Plus, the bad guy you really hated was Satan’s kid, not Satan. And that’s just weird. PS, why does the devil want to save earth? Dear Hollywood, stop doing that. Seriously. I’m sure the Devil wouldn’t want to save us. So stop writing him that way, k?

firstly, I'm dropping the cast section of the review, as I usually touch upon that in the "My Two Cents" category. 

Back-Story: Sandra Bullock is a wife and mother of two children, Linda Quinn Hanson.  Her husband, Julian McMahon/Jim Hanson, as you may have figured out from the ads, has been fooling around with a woman from work, Amber Valletta/Claire.  And in the start of the film, Linda doesn't yet know about Claire, and Jim is on a business trip.  A cop comes to the door, and bam, the movie picks up.  Jim's dead, and Sandra Bullock is crushed.  It's not until she wakes up "the next day" that the movie gets weird.

Plot: Sandra Bullock is either living her days out of order until she can change her fate/the fate of her husband, or she is baving premonitions, or it's all a dream... whatever.  All you know throughout the movie is that to everyone else, she looks crazy because she knows some things she shouldn't, and doesn't know some things she should.   You spend the whole day with her, each day not in consecutive order, and at the end, all you know for sure is that some how, prior to the last ten minutes in the movie, she was experiencing/seeing the days out of order.

My Two Cents:  Well, to be frank, the acting was alright, and the plot was decent, but the movie just wasn't nearly as good as it could have been.  And I watch Sandra Bullocks character knowingly fuck herself and say/do things that would put her in a bad position- rather than changer her course of action and do something out of order that she hadn't done yet.  Like put stickers on the window, or burn a page from the phone book so she couldn't get it later.  Anything that would have helped prevent HER situation, and save some grace for herself.  But I suppose that's just because I'm clearly a genius...  Unfortunatly, you can't see me rolling my eyes, but believe me, I did.  Big time.

Stars: Honestly, 3. I so desperatly wanted it to be 4 or 5... but it's just not that great.  If a movie had a great plot and fantastic acting, with great cinematics, then I wouldn't mind if it didn't explain the one question it made  you ask yourself throughout the film.  But it really didn't explain itself, the cinematics  were average, the acting was decent, but not mind-blowing, and the plot had a lot of potential, but was left in the fetal stages of development for this movie.  Even Donnie Darko answered the main questions you asked yourself during the movie: "What's with the narley bunny?" and "What is the narley bunny counting down to?"  -And so you could forgive it making you ask yourself another weird question at the very end.  In Premonition, you still don't know WHY she's experiencing her days out of order, or why there were continuity errors in the movie, or why the hell Jim died in the first place if the second to last scene was the cause of his death in the first place.  AND then it asks you another question.  How they wrap it up- It's all so deus ex machina.  And boy to I hate that kind of ending, especially on a film that had great potential.

The cast features a barrage of unlikelies for a film in the kid genre.  Patton Oswalt voices Remy, the lead.  Brad Garrett voices Gusteau.  Lou Romano voices Linguini, and boy can you ever hear the Romano in his voice.  Peter O'Toole is Anton Ego. Janeane Garofalo is Colette.   Will Arnet is Horst.  Brian Dennehy is Django.  A large cast of usually adult actors is assembles to make a kids' film.  Perhaps, not surprisingly, because these actors had to hack it out in the real world, the voice acting was actually pretty believable- and not so rehearsed.

Back-Story: Remy is a member of a large rat clan.  Now, I was under the impression that adult rats lived as loners, but it's entirely possible that I was misinformed.  Well, Remy has been reading cook books and watching food channels for some time.  He has developed a heightened sense of smell and taste which would enable him to become a chef, I suppose.  Only, his family eats garbage.  They see no need to cook food or prepare special combinations of food.  Rats also apparently hate humans, because we set traps for and try to kill mice and rats.

The Plot:  After being chased out of the house the clan had infested, Remy gets cut off from his family and friends.  He starts imagining the spirit of his idol, the great chef Gusteau, almost as a new-fangled version of Jiminy Cricket.  He finds himself in Paris, where the best food is supposedly made, and where the now dead Gusteau's restaurant still stands.  Remy crosses paths with Linguini, who cannot cook to save his one life.  The two pair up and viola, kitchen magic ensues.

My two cents: I wasn't really looking forward to seeing this film.  I really only went because my kid cousin, who, for reasons unclear to me, adores my very existence, begged see it with him.  But after watching for 30 seconds and recognizing Patton Oswalt's voice, I was intrigued.  So, I gave it my attention and wound up actually enjoying myself a bit. 
Of course, the problem with Ratatouille is this:  it IS, in fact, a kids' film.  Granted, adults can still enjoy it.  BUT the problem with its genre is that if you see it in the theater, inevitably, you're going to be stuck listening to some kid three rows off crying, another kid in the middle of your row, asking questions every 2.5 seconds, a little girl -unsupervised- running up and down the aisle for twenty minutes at a time, the kid behind you kicking your seat, and any other kid in the theater making some bizarre sound at any given moment during the movie.  Hence, I recommend waiting until this movie is available to rent.  

Stars: All in all, it's an enjoyable flick.  A tad bit predictable, as most children's movies are, but it can be enjoyed by all ages, even teens, if they'll let go of their "I'm too cool for that" mental long enough to get inside.  If the voice acting hadn't been so superb, I'd probably only give a 3.5, but since it was, as I had mentioned, superb, I'll give it a 4 out of 5. -because, all good aside, it was a wee bit predictable.  [But I DID love the "anyone can cook" metaphor for life, and the not-so-subtle dig at critics who are full of themselves.]

 

Let's preface this review by touching upon the previous films in this series.
1→ The actors are a little old for the roles they play, but being that a lot of teen movies do that, I can't hold that against these films.
2→ I appreciate the fact that these films have been getting darker in mode with each release.
3→ Since these films are based off of books, there are certain facts that we all know about these films- that give away the main plot points of each film.

The cast is nothing new. We've seen these characters for a while, and we're all starting to adjust to their quirks... How terrible Daniel Radcliffe is at pretendind to have a nightmare. How Emma Watson speaks with her whole face and her body moves exagerated with her breathing. How Rupert Grint is always half eating his bottom lip and half pouting like wounded puppy. How Gary Oldman seems to almost have a crush on Harry Potter. We've all adjusted to these things. And all those things aside, it's a strong cast with more than just a little bit of talent. 

Back-Story:  If you haven't watched the previous films to figure this one out, then you should.  

Plot:  Voldemort is back and doing some big bad things.  The ministry doesn't believe that.  The Order of the Pheonix is explained to Potter.  Dumbledore is being all weird and emo.  The ministry sends Unbridge to change Hogwarts to meet their politics.  Potter starts to assemble a group of students to learn to defend themselves against the dark arts.

My two cents:  My only qualm is that a major character dies and the way it's films is about as anticlimatic as possible.  It's a good movie, that's not as dark as it could have been and not as cinematic and impactful as it should have been.  But all in all, it's a good flick.  

Stars: 4 out of 5.  Because of how they really didn't give the audience time to emote after one character's death.  And because of certain unresolved issues throughout the movie that were covered in the book.  It's definately a movie worth watching.  And it's even re-watchable.

The cast: Well, to say that the acting in this film is good, would be to say that stepping in dog poop isn't in the least bit upsetting.  But it's not god awful acting to the point that you can't get over it.

Back-Story: A family looses its mother and father by unknown means.  The oldest son takes care of the remaining family.  There are three brothers: the oldest, the twin, and the youngest, emo kid.  There is one sister: the other twin.  The oldest brother is a stiff, cardboard cut out, censored for kid's TV.  The twins are super creepy semi-goth, promiscuous weirdoes.  The youngest is a whiney emo boy who runs around filming the whole mess.

The Plot:  The family is apparently a group of serial killers.  The emo kid is struggling to establish his own identity and resist his family's nature.

My two cents:  Well, talking in detail about this movie, it's difficult not to expose the large twist at the end... But I recommend watching it.  And to be frank, I'd like to see a good remake of it.  For an indie horror flick, it's about as good as one could hope for.

Stars:  well...  The acting isn't the best.  The script isn't fantastic.  The way the oldest brother censors himself is obnoxious.  The deaths are not high enough in quantity or quality.  There aren't enough moments that sit in your brain, lingering and terrifying.  BUT, the plot and the twist are great.  The idea is incredible, it just needs a bit of work in its execution...  and so...  it gets 3.5 Stars.  Because a movie can only be so good without a strong script and good acting.  But the story itself redeems the movie.

 

DM Cast: Mediocre at best.  I'm sorry.  There were even some good actors who lent themselves to this film, but- either through bad scripting, bad directing, bad editing, or even bad acting; this was just a massively disappointing flick.
EM Cast:  Pretty much the same as for DM, only the actors were less good to start with.

Back-Story/Plot: Each is a spoof of the genre its title would suggest that it's making fun of.  Each combines the plots of the top films of its genre, and some films that aren't even related to the genre.  

My two cents:  "Why," you ask, "Were the Scary Movies so much better than Date Movie and Epic Movie?"  
I'll tell you why.  First, the Scary Movies, if you recall, really weren't all that fantastic to begin with, in fact some outright sucked.  But, back on point, you simply cannot make successful comedic spoofs of films that are already meant to be funny.  The idea of a spoof is that it laughs at the mimicked genre for all the idiosyncrasies that all films of that genre have.  A spoof makes jokes about the movies it mocks, laughing at parts that were not intended to be funny.  So why are Date Movie and Epic Movie so terrible?  Because their subject matter was already intended to be pretty light hearted in nature and even funny by majority.  The movie being spoofed was funny because it already made whatever jokes that could be made, at the times that they would be funniest.  So a spoof can't possibly be funny if it's spoofing a well-planned comedy, or a light-hearted cinematic romp.

*I will lend exception to this in two cases:
1- Not Another Teen Movie
and 2- does anyone else remember the American Pie Sagas?  One, Two, and Wedding... not the side ones about band camp or the naked run... But those were the closest to being spoofs of teen movies/romantic comedies that will be good; I'm almost certain of it.

It's that simple.  So please, stop spending money on these terrible third and fifth rate spoofs, and maybe they'll finally stop making them, huh?

Stars:  I give them a combined total of 1 star.  Most of that goes to Epic Movie because it sucked just a little bit less than Date Movie.  I have to give them something other than zero, because they were at least movies by general standards.  They had actors, some semblance of plots, and they were over an hour long.  So, yes, they are movies, but no, they are not good by any stretch of the imagination.  Period.