Perhaps my opinion stems from my love of Tarantino’s work so far, but Inglourious Basterds was easily the best film I’ve seen this year.

Inglourious Basterds

Starring: Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger, B.J. Novak, Sam Levine (“Freaks and Geeks” represent!), Christoph Waltz, and many more.

Rated: R (for violence, language, a brief (but hilarious) sex scene, and lots of Nazi-killin’.

IMDb Rating: 8.3
RottenTomatoes: 82%

The film is told in the standard five chapter plot that viewers have come to expect from Tarantino (see: Kill Bill). It begins in the Nazi-occupied French countryside, where a dairy farmer must choose between the safety of his family and revealing the whereabouts of a missing Jewish family.

From there, the film flash-forwards four years to 1944, to the last struggles of the war. Aldo Raine, played by the continually surprising Brad Pitt, gathers a team of very angry Jewish Americans to show the Nazis just how angry they are. There is some excellent violence, and, of course, the by turns funny and grave dialogue that audiences have come to love.

The film definitely kept me guessing. Just when I was busting a gut laughing, someone would be killed off, or a tense scene would be cut with something funny and I couldn’t help but laugh. I loved that I was never really settled into the movie. Another thing that I loved was that this film featured two very strong female characters.

The movie’s greatest strength was the acting. I mentioned that Brad Pitt was great, but Diane Kruger, who played a turncoat actress named Bridget Von Hammersmark, surprised me as well. She spoke German through much of the film, and when she switched to English she maintained a beautifully subtle accent. Not only is she stunning, her acting was remarkable. Even director Eli Roth, who plays the vengeful “Bear Jew,” was not as awful as I predicted!

But the actor who stole the show was Christoph Waltz as the “Jew Hunter” Hans Lander. He is the lead villain, not Hilter as I initially thought. He played the role brilliantly: frightening, perceptive, ironic, sardonic, and even humorous. He toyed with almost everyone in the movie, but in the end got what was coming to him. He won the best actor award at Cannes Film Festival this year. Expect him to earn a nomination, if not win, for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars.

A great film, and one that I will surely be adding to my collection when it is released on DVD. I may even go to the theater to watch it again. It’s well worth the price of admission and then some.

I tried to see this film at the midnight showing, but a score of nerds beat me to it. The line wrapped around my local cinema, and many kids and young adults were wearing Potter-esque costumes. So, I had to wait until the evening to see the movie, and people were still dressed up. While some aspects of the movie were disappointing, on the whole I really enjoyed it.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Rated: PG (I strongly suggest that young children not be taken to this film because of a scene described below…Spoilers Ahead!)

Starring: The usual cast of Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, (the lovely) Emily Watson, (the brilliant) Alan Rickman, (the acceptable) Michael Gambon, and an assortment of various British actors in lesser roles.

IMDb Rating: 8.2

There are three intertwining plotlines in the book: Harry and Dumbledore’s journey through various memories involving Tom Riddle and their search for the Horcruxes, Draco and Snape’s missions, and the mystery surrounding the moniker, “The Half-Blood Prince.” While I felt that the first two plots were sufficiently portrayed in the film, the final one, from which the film derived its name, seemed as though it was merely an afterthought. There was no mystery, no build-up, and it didn’t even really fit into the film very well, especially the big reveal at the end.

That said, I did enjoy this movie. The acting, especially, was great. Tom Felton, who played Draco Malfoy, really impressed me this time around. Before, he was simply the school bully, a brat with no real reason to be the jerk that he was. Here, there is plenty of motivation for him to be moody and withdrawn, and he portrays Draco with such burden and doubt that it can even be seen in his eyes. This is the first time I’ve really noticed Felton’s acting as anything other than annoying. He did a terrific job.

Another delight was Alan Rickman as Severus Snape. Not since the first film has he really been given a chance to shine as the character, and here, while he doesn’t say a whole lot, his face is simply stricken with grief over what he must do in order to save the Muggle and Wizarding worlds. And, of course, the rest of the cast was good, with notable turns by Evanna Lynch as the brilliant Luna Lovegood, and the appearance of my favorite characters Lupin and Tonks.

While there were some strange pauses in the movie (which I can only attribute to poor editing or direction), this is quite a funny film. But the film is also an emotional roller coaster, dragging the audience down into the darkest depths of Harry’s life. I mentioned in the film outline that this film is rated PG, and I sincerely believe that was a mistake, an attempt by the industry to lure in more ticket sales through unsuspecting parents bringing their younger children.

One scene in particular shows Harry forcing Dumbledore to drink an obviously painful potion to the last drop, while Dumbledore begs him to stop, almost to the point of death. It was an incredibly emotional and traumatizing scene, and the young children in the audience could be heard gasping and crying. I might have shed a few tears myself…

On the whole, if you can forgive the wonky plot and the strange pacing of the film, this is a great addition to the series. It really paves the way for the film, The Deathly Hallows, which has been split into two parts. Since The Deathly Hallows was my least favorite book, I imagine I won’t like the films much either. But hopefully they suprise me.

Keeping with the Watchmen theme, G4′s “Attack of the Show” will be having two special guests tonight to debate differing opinions on the long-awaited film.

SPECIAL GUESTS DEBATE “WATCHMEN” ON “ATTACK OF THE SHOW”

MONDAY, MARCH 9, AT 7PM, ONLY ON G4

For the first time on television, two of the best known movie bloggers will square-off about one of the most anticipated movies of the year – “Watchmen,” offering two very different perspectives on the film.

Drew McWeeny of HitFix, formerly Moriarty from Aint it Cool News, and David Poland from Movie City News will join “Attack of the Show” live, in the studio for a very special roundtable debate.

Don’t miss this special event and please encourage your readers to tune in – MONDAY AT 7PM, ONLY ON G4!!!

I’m interested to see how these two dudes view the film. I’ve gotten a lot of negative feedback from the public in general, and a lot of hardcore fans that absolutely loved it. Is this simply a case of a movie made for the fans alone?

So the advertisements looked awesome. I wasn’t sure what to expect. And I’m still not sure what to think.

Watchmen

Starring: Billy Crudup, Jackie Earle Haley, Malin Ackerman, Javier—I mean, Jeffery Dean Morgan, Carla Gugino, Matthew Goode, and Patrick “The Ass” Wilson.

Rated R: Graphic violence, big blue appendages, and an amazing two minute sex scene set to Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah.”

IMDb Rating: 8.3 (Top 250: #132)
RottenTomatoes: 65% Fresh

Sample Review:

…a strange and gorgeous beast indeed, not without problems, a mesmerizing epic folly of the sort hardly anyone attempts any more. It is absolutely sick with ambition…

This was my favorite review because it truly encapsulated my feelings on this movie. I had not fully read the graphic novel before going to see the film, so I was simply mesmerized by the awkward pacing and interjections of random characters throughout.

It wasn’t until hours after seeing the film that I took another look at the book, and I was amazed how sincerely accurate it was. Snyder literally translated the comics, frame for frame at some points, to the screen. Where my feelings for the movie had been mixed before, I found myself respecting his efforts. The movie is still far from perfect, but it certainly becomes more enjoyable if the viewer is familiar with the source material.

But this is also where I have a problem with the movie. It’s three hours long. Obviously much of the movie-going audience hasn’t read the Watchmen series. So why would Snyder make a film so devotionally geared toward fanboys and fangirls? It’s equally surprising that the film earned top spot at the box office this weekend. Such a grand, three hour epic based on amoral superheroes doesn’t seem like the type of fare to compete with “Medea Goes to Jail.”

The saving grace of this strangely plotted, unevenly paced movie is that the characters are all interesting, each being flawed in some way. Rorschach, played brilliantly by former child actor Jackie Earle Haley, is perhaps the best feature. At times dryly humorous and downright insane, this heroic psychopath unites the film’s occasionally flimsy storyline. Patrick Wilson, and his amazing butt, also does a good job as the square, nerdy Nite Owl II.

Dr. Manhattan is an interesting character, as well. At first, I was put off by the big, buff, blue giant and his soft, effeminate voice. But he eventually grew on me, in part because he suffers from a bad case of the emo. If I were an indestructible human, I don’t think I would be nearly that sad all the time.

I was extremely disappointed in the female lead, Silk Spectre II. Malin Ackerman is horrid in this movie. She can’t act. Perhaps she does well as eye candy, apart from her humongous mole, but she really needs to learn how to deliver lines properly. She was even more distracting than Dr. Manhattan’s exposed smurfy genitals.

The film is an extremely faithful adaptation of the beloved graphic novel, and is definitely worth seeing. I might have to watch it again, just to fully appreciate it.

Wow, that was a thrill ride.

How awesome was Wolverine’s opening song and dance number?

I had very little hope for Hugh Jackman as a presenter, and I’m not sure why. I suppose it’s because I was used to comedians such as Steve Martin,Whoopi Goldberg, Ellen Degeneres and Jon Stewart hosting the show. To see a man famed for his action movies and turns on Broadway really made me stop and wonder. But he did a fantastic job.

As for the awards, Slumdog Millionaire was a shoe-in. It was a great film and deserved its recognition.

There were four categories that I was most concerned with, though, and here are my thoughts on what transpired.

1.) Best Supporting Actress – This was a come from behind victory for Penelope Cruz. It was unexpected, and I was a little disappointed because I was rooting for Amy Adams or Viola Davis, who both gave great performances in Doubt. Oh well, good for Penelope.
2.) Best Supporting Actor – A very well-deserved posthumous Oscar to Heath Ledger for his role as The Joker. That was a performance that will, I believe, be remembered for a long, long time.
3.) Best Actress – The marvelous and talented Kate Winslet finally picked up the golden statue. I’ve always been fond of her, but her work in The Reader actually helped to elevate the film.
4.) Best Actor – This was the biggest upset of the night for me. Mickey Rourke completely and utterly deserved this award. And to hear that his precious little dog died just days before the ceremony? Equally as heartbreaking.

All in all, from the stoner skit with Seth Rogan and James Franco, to the interesting set designs, to the outcomes, this was a very enjoyable Oscar night.

I realize that this is an Americanized version of a Korean horror film. However, that does not excuse the film’s adoption of a different, and exponentially lamer, ending. What could have been a great little ghost story jumped aboard the Shamalamawagon.

Warning: A few spoilers, but nothing too specific.

The Uninvited

Starring: Emily Browning, David Strathairn (hubba^2), and Elizabeth Banks.

Rated: PG-13

IMDb Rating: 6.4
RottenTomatoes: 34% Rotten

Sample Review:

The ending annoyed me so much that it nearly erased my memory of anything worthwhile earlier in the film.

The horror genre needs to shape up. How many years has it been since The Sixth Sense came out? How fast has M. Night’s career gone down the drain? Why do filmmakers still insist on trotting out the same boring plot devices and twist endings?

The Uninvited has a lot going for it. It’s a relatively small cast, all very competent. Emily Browning is a hauntingly beautiful young actress with a lot of talent. Even Elizabeth Banks is good in her role as the would-be evil stepmonster. The atmosphere is creepy; a lonely beachside home where a pair of sisters lost their ailing mother to a fire.

The younger sister, Anna, cannot remember the details of the fire. She has been in a mental institution for 10 months trying to decipher dreams she’s had, and to explain the deep cuts on her wrists. They appear to be self-inflicted. Her counselor tells her that it is safe for her to return home to “finish what she started.”

She returns home to find that her father has married her mother’s nurse. In every scene where the nurse, Rachel, is alone with Anna, her words are threatening, even the music reflects this. The score is perhaps one of the only truly great aspects of the movie. At times it is somber, others nonexistant, especially when the tension is at its peak.

Soon, Anna begins to see visions, including the charred corpse of her mother, and three young children who seem to have been dead quite a while. These are all very creepy, and the tension mounts throughout the film.

I would say that this is a film worth watching if you can forgive the resolution. I had a hard time forgiving it because I think it went the easy way out. Still, the atmosphere, acting, and concept are good, and worth catching on Netflix one gloomy afternoon. It might deliver a few scares…

From time to time I enjoy watching movies aimed at kids. Though I’ve never read the book, I decided to give Inkheart a try. I’m an adult and even I could figure that film out. I can’t imagine what a five year old, who has just learned to stop picking their nose in public, might make of it.

Inkheart

Starring – Brendan Fraser (Really? REALLY?), Helen Mirren, Andy Serkis, Paul Bettany, Eliza Bennett, Jim Broadbent.

Rated – PG

IMDb Rating – 6.7
RottenTomatoes – 37% Rotten

Sample Review:

This folklore-filled children’s story about the love of literature is disappointing because of its poor execution.

I would call this review accurate. There were several qualities to be admired about the film: the cinematography, the sets, the imaginative idea. This is all squandered by a pointless and convoluted script and a duller than dull leading man.

As I mentioned, I haven’t read the book. I have to wonder whether it is as scattered and unfocused as the film ultimately turned out to be. We begin with narration, which we don’t hear again, concerning a father (Fraser) reading to his infant daughter Maggie while her mother looks on. Flash-forward to a van driving through what I imagine to be Germany (?). The mother is absent, the daughter is twelve or thirteen, and Brendan Fraser has some horrid hair plugs. Seriously, that crap is distracting; it’s almost as bad as his acting.

The father is searching for a book entitled Inkheart, though it isn’t clear why. We discover later that it is because he is a Silvertongue, one with the power to make the written word come to life. Interesting concept, as “silvertongue” usually holds a negative connotation as someone who can lie very well. He can read, but he can’t control what part of the book happens. For every person or thing that comes out of the book, a person has to go into it. Hence why the mother is missing; he accidentally read her into the book, and he has been searching for the out of print copies ever since.

Too much happens before we’re introduced to the conflict that the audience ends up playing catch-up the entire time. In addition to that, the characters are traveling all over the place for unknown reasons. From Germany (?), they drive to Italy to meet the aunt that Maggie has never known. She is played by Helen Mirren, who shows some good comedic timing.

From there, the baddies are introduced. They’re a band of thieves from the book Inkheart, originally “read out” by Fraser when he lost his wife. Paul Bettany plays a guy called Dustfinger who can wield fire with his hands. Admittedly, he’s kind of cool, albeit a conflicted character that suffers from inopportune bouts of cowardice. The real bad guy is Andy Serkis, completely free of make-up and special effects. And let me tell you, that man is absolutely horrifying. They have employed a replacement Silvertongue who has a stutter, so characters have been read out of the books stamped with ink still on their faces. So they kidnap Brendan Fraser and his daughter so that he will do their bidding.

Scattered amidst this confusion are characters and creatures from other well-known works including The Wizard of Oz, Arabian Nights, and Peter Pan. Great concept, except that it’s all handled so sloppily that they’re nothing more than set pieces.

I wish I could go into more detail about the movie, but there’s simply too much packed into two hours to reiterate. Too many characters, too many settings, too much! Even the actors seem confused. I can’t imagine this movie keeping the attention of children for the first half hour, let alone the full running time.

Warning: This review contains spoilers and some adult conversation that may cause itching and burning sensations, specifically in the ocular area. Proceed with caution.

Blindness

Rated R: For disturbing violence, disturbing sexuality, and disturbing images. (Did I mention it’s disturbing? Because yes.)

Starring: Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Gael Garcia Bernal, Maury Chaykin (!), and Danny Glover.

IMDb Rating: 7.2
RottenTomatoes: 42% Rotten

Sample Review:

A stark, uncompromising look at a dark part of human existence exposed when the most basic sense is taken away.

Obviously there is a fair bit of discrepancy between the entirely user-driven IMDb rating and the RottenTomatoes meter, which is based completely on critics’ rating. I’m not entirely sure why, but I’ll venture a guess that it has something to do with the way this film was marketed.

The trailer for Blindness was spooky. It promised a world-wide epic disaster film on par with The Happening or The Stand. It was neither of those things. Blindness is a deeply resonant character study that comments on the degradation of a society due to hysteria and social control. I equate it more to the film Children of Men. Yes, at times the film is spooky, but the discomfort comes not from the affliction itself, but from the animalistic behavior of those who suffer from it.

So the movie isn’t a horror or a thriller, though there is tension throughout. It begins on a relatively normal day in a normal city, where a man becomes caught in traffic…and goes blind. But this isn’t the typical darkness that most people attribute to blindness. Instead, we get a glimpse of his perspective, and are greeted by a milky white film that permeates his vision. Immediately, concerned citizens flock to help him, and one in particular drives him home, before promptly stealing the blind man’s car. This theme of being taken advantage of becomes a thread throughout the rest of the film.

The man’s wife takes him to the optometrist (Ruffalo) who is flummoxed; he has never been exposed to this kind of instant white blindness. Except that he has, because the next morning he wakes up and cannot see.

His wife, Julianne Moore, shows no symptoms of the apparent disease that is causing cases of blindness to spring up all over the city, and accompanies her husband to be quarantined under the false pretense that she is blind as well.

The disease is a quiet one, infecting almost everyone who comes in contact with the carrier. The CDC swiftly dispatches to clean up the mess before it can spread further, collecting the carriers and depositing them in an abandoned hospital. Soon, the ward is crowded and locked, guarded twenty-four hours a day to ensure that no one escapes. Now, the blind are no longer locked up for precaution…they are prisoners.

This is when the film takes a turn from intriguing to down-right depressing. The ward of the blind becomes a festering, putrid place. Though the doctor’s wife attempts to retain order and keep the place clean, she is merely one person in a sea of confusion. She maintains the deceit, attempting to keep the peace.

A group of trouble-makers in Ward 3 declares themselves the rulers of the food supply and demand money and goods. Soon, The King of Ward 3 (Bernal) goes a step further, demanding women be sent up in exchange for food. Apparently, the brutal (though blurry and confused) group rape scene that ensues affected American audiences in a profound way. The boards on the IMDb are full of commentary about how uncomfortable the scene made audiences.

I was affected by the scene, but not in an uncomfortable way. It felt, at its core, entirely realistic, and cruelly sad. Without this scene, I felt the film would have lacked the power of simply how animalistic those trapped in this enclosed Hell had become.

The performances were very good in the film, especially from Julianne Moore. Her anguish and despair at being the only sighted person trying to care for the blind masses is palpable, and her heartbreak runs deep. I was especially surprised to see Maury Chaykin (the suicidal General from the first few minutes of Dances with Wolves) in a hilariously vile role.

If you enjoyed Children of Men, and its bleak, dystopian view of society, then this film is for you. While Blindness is not the caliber of the aforementioned, it certainly causes a lot of thought about the world and your fellow human beings. And sometimes those are the best films.

I don’t understand how three seasons of hilarious television, which gave David Cross, Henry Winkler, and Liza Minelli steady work, could have possibly escaped me.

Seven hours. That is how long, cumulatively, I have spent catching up on “Arrested Development,” which I had been sorely oblivious of until last week. Just as I was falling for the family, Michael Cera, the delightful scamp who has made a film career for himself following his turn in the series as George Michael, dropped the bomb that the much-anticipated movie was not in the works. On his publicity rounds, promoting his film “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist,” which opens Friday, he has openly discussed that there is no possibility of an “Arrested Development” film.

This comes as a surprise, considering that show’s star, Jason Bateman, announced as recently as June that a “twisted” “AD” film was imminent.

If you’re not familiar with the series, which FOX cancelled last April, allow me to elaborate on it. The show, narrated by Ron Howard, concerns the dysfunctional Bluth family and their hijinks following the arrest of their patriarch George Bluth Sr., played by Jeffrey Tambor. Lucille, his wife, is a controlling, boozing wretch who has blithered away the family business’ funds.

Their children are four very different siblings. GOB (SNL Alum Will Arnet), an acronym for George Oscar Bluth pronounced like the Biblical Job, is a failed illusionist with a cock of the walk complex. Michael (Bateman) is the middle son, the straight man of the family, the one with the steady job and the gumption to keep things running smoothly as they slowly fall apart around him. He manages to take care of his awkward teenaged son George Michael (Cera), who has a hopeless crush on his own cousin.

Michael’s twin sister Lindsay (Portia de Rossi), is like a mini version of their mother, except with a slutty streak. She ignores her rebellious daughter Maebe, and her hilariously homoerotic psychiatrist-turned-actor husband Tobias Funke (David Cross), who suffers from a fear of being nude. Lastly, there is poor Buster, the youngest of the four siblings, and the lap dog of his mother. He is prone to panic attacks and painfully uncomfortable social encounters.

The show’s focus is not so much on the situations or slumps that the family gets into, but rather on the individual characters. I’ve found the writing to be sharp, witty, and fast-paced. The actors are spot-on, playing off each other and dwelling in the wackiness of their characters.

Running gags abound in the show including: Mr. Bananagrabber, Lindsay’s inability to successfully cheat on her husband, the rousing use of Europe’s “The Final Countdown,” and the jail’s rule of no touching where George is incarcerated.

The thought that this show will not have the appropriate ending that it deserves, after being so abruptly cancelled (and having obviously not reached the audience it should have), is sad on so many levels. This movie could have been the success that “Stuart Saves his Family” was not.

I just got back from two hours and twenty-two minutes of pure awesome. Do not read this post if you don’t want to be spoiled. I’ll try my best not to reveal too much, but trust me, the ride is well worth the wait…

The Dark Knight

Starring – Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Julia Roberts’s brother.

Rating – PG-13 (For violence and because kids under thirteen won’t appreciate its slendor.)

IMDb Rating – 9.6 (3rd out of 250)
Rotten Tomatoes – 94% Freshness

Sample Review –

With only three short words comprising the film’s enigmatic title, it also boasts three epic claims to fame: the role of a lifetime for the late Heath Ledger, one of the best films of 2008, and one of the greatest superhero films of all time.

I have to say, this is one movie that has surpassed my expectations and lived up to the hype. It rocked.

As you might have guessed by reading some of my posts leading up to this review, I’m somewhat of a Batman franchise fan. It began as a love of the original Tim Burton films, which to this day I still cherish. I decided to expand my love of Batman and read a few of the comics, the best of which being the wonderfully evil graphic novel, “The Killing Joke,” upon which much of the Joker in this film is modeled. My favorite part of the franchise remains Batman Returns, in all its gothic glory, but The Dark Knight came crashing in at a close second tonight.

Why is the film so great? Hopefully, by now, you’ve seen the film so I won’t be spoiling anything for you. One of the best things about TDK is that it is just a great movie. Pacing is well-done, driven by the excellent score. The plot is exceptional; intriguing, with thrilling twists and unexpected character deaths. It is propelled above the level of the standard comic book movie, and is simply a really great crime thriller. Often times, it’s easy to forget that the man fighting crime is not Commissioner Gordon, played by the fantastic Gary Oldman, but a man in a mask with pointy ears.

Another good part of the film was, as I have come to expect from the series, the gadgetry. Early on in the film, Bruce quips that he would like a suit that actually allows him to move his head. This is an obvious balk at the costumes of the Batman films of yester-year; 50lbs of pure rubber and anguish that the actors had to endure. The New-and-Improved Batmobile makes an appearance again in this film, but with the added bonus of a detachable Batbike. Yup, you read that correctly. And it’s pretty sweet.

The characters were also excellent. As always, Lucius Fox (Freeman) added quite a bit to the film for the few scenes he had, as did Michael Caine as Alfred. I was a bit disappointed with Maggie Gyllenhaal, but not for her performance. She was light-years better than Katie Holmes as Rachael Dawes, but she just does not have the same classically pretty face. I find her features to be quite sad and expressive. It was difficult to see beyond those sad eyes and see her as the love object of two handsome, wealthy, powerful men.

Aaron Eckhart’s portrayal of Harvey Dent, on the other hand, was extremely convincing, and he injected DA Dent with what felt like true morality. It was a tragic end to see a man who seemed so hell-bent on cleaning up such a teeming cesspool of crime, sinking to such a low level just to seek revenge. As Two-Face, Eckhart was true to a vision that the character was acting out his aggression solely for retribution, because he felt that justice had not been served properly. This is a wonderful counterpoint to the madness of the film’s other, more notable, villain.

Which brings me to the highlight of the entire film. I take back every doubt I ever had about Ledger. He proved me totally wrong, and it makes me regret that we’d never seen the side of him as an actor that he showed on that screen. He was maniacal, hilarious, scary, brilliant. I found myself cringing and laughing at the same time; perfect reactions to the Joker. He made the Joker what he needed to be, a psychopath who doesn’t give a damn about money, with no future and no plans, wreaking havoc upon a city just to see the carnage and destruction.

So, do I have anything negative to say? Yes. The timing at the end was off. Does that really matter? No, because this movie was amazing, and I don’t mind that they added a little bit of comic-book dialogue at the end. It, I believe, has paved the way for Batman, who has been outlawed of his own volition, to possibly team up with The Riddler. And, if you don’t know how I feel about that, well…

When I first saw the preview for the film The Ruins, I couldn’t help but laugh. It was as if the producers of the trailer threw all of the worst bits of the movie together and called it a day. Were they trying to scare people away from the movie? In any event, my viewing experience of The Ruins, new on DVD this week, was not nearly as bad as I had anticipated.

The Ruins (Please be advised that there will be spoilers in this review, not only of this movie, but others as well.)

Starring – Immensely talented (and sorely under-utilized) Jena Malone, Shawn Ashmore (X-Men), relative newcomer Laura Ramsey, and Jonathan Tucker (the poor man’s Tobey Maguire).

Rated – R (for some extremely disturbing, and awesome, gore)

IMDb Rating – 6.2
Rotten Tomatoes – 45%

Sample Review –

Well filmed and acted, but with a plot as cheesy as a 1950s B-movie, this film is fairly creepy but not very scary.

I may have to agree with everything that reviewer stated. I would also like to add that this movie made me want to read the book, which is an accomplishment unto itself.

The “cheesy” plot revolves around two young couples vacationing in Mexico, doing what privileged white kids usually do; neglect worthwhile experiences and culture for poolside drinks and debauchery. They meet up with a hunky German named Mathias who informs them that his brother had run off with an archeologist to go explore some Mayan ruins, and promptly invites the kids to come along. With a shrug, they all venture to a desolate corner of the jungle, where they are confronted by, what they first assume to be, thieves. Thieves who don’t speak Spanish. Nor English.

Here is where the film transitions from the tired routine of slasher-flick set-up to an interesting study of man vs. nature. The protagonists are quarantined to the top of a rather small tower, where they find the corpse of Mathias’s brother entangled in the vines. With very little water and even less food, they are presumably left up there to wait for rescue, that is unless something else gets them first.

I have to be honest. I don’t find plants all that frightening. The recent up cropping of plant-related horror, such as The Happening and, more indirectly, Signs, were poor efforts to convince movie-goers of the threat of deadly flora. However, The Ruins manages to adequately toss in a few scares into the mix. This part I won’t spoil, but if you’re curious, and have a strong stomach, you can take a look at a few screenshots of the well above average gore

Click to Enlarge

(Muchos gracias to Rich from fourfour.)

One interesting factor of the film is the motivation of the villagers. With shotguns and bows, they shoot anyone who tries to get too close, and yet they leave the kids alive to be devoured. It is never explained why they don’t simply kill all five of the tourists as soon as they come in contact with the murderous plants that line all four walls of the ruins. At first I thought it was a major plot hole, but then I realized that they may have been appeasing the plants, and that the kids were actually human sacrifices. A very creepy realization indeed.

What the film has going for it is its beautiful cinematography, which captures the loneliness and dispair of the characters, as well as the excellent pacing and decent acting. While not exactly a pinnacle of filmmaking, The Ruins has much more to offer than many people, most of them critics, give it credit for.

Well I broke down and purchased a PSP Slim. The major hesitation on the purchase was it’s price tag. It has great games that brought back fine memories of my GBC and made this system purchase well worth it.

I had a chance to sit down and compare the orignal PSP versus the slim and by far the slim is the way to go. First thing that stands out is the weight. The original is a much bigger system. At times it feels a little to bulky. Especially since the idea is to portable. The slim models shoulder buttons seemed to be laid out better and right where you need them to be. One of the biggest selling points for me was the extra ram. This tends to lessen the blow of the load times. Loading times seem to be the greatest downside of PSP’s.

Onwards to the design, I have to say, I love the big screen. I own a DS Lite and the viewable area is the first thing that stood out. There was never a moment of squinting to see what’s going on. Also the PSP Slim looks nice. It’s a system that you wouldn’t mind showing off and has an iPod feel to it. Of course with an iPod feel the downsides become apparent. The monitor in all it’s glory is a dust and hair magnet. I find myself constantly cleaning it off. There is the lovely smudge effect each time. You know the type where your finger prints are everywhere.

Extra features make this system fantastic including watching movies and browsing the web. The only downside to the internet it is still utilizing wireless b. This of course made me raise an eyebrow. Even the DS has G. Other then that you can customize your opening screen download themes and even listen to mp3’s. Which I think Nintendo should take note of. I’m all about the game system first however playing mp3’s are pretty standard nowadays and watching a movie is always nice.

So far I’ve only played a handful of PSP titles and so far they are GREAT!!! Something that sets this system apart from the DS is the game titles. Most of the games are more adult orientated and the graphics are stunning. Granted it comes with a price ($199). The awesome games such as God of War start at $39.99.

The load times can be a little long and Jeebus that freaking UMD reading noise is one of the most annoying things the system has. Thankfully there are headphones.

Overall I would say this system is a good buy. There are a few downsides to it, the games can be pricey and I still haven’t found that ultimate portable game, most have been great games that I would have played on a console. The idea of the Playstation Store keeps me optimistic that this system has a future especially with original titles that simply make this a great system.