Airplane!: A Quick Review

Just watch it. It's been called one of the greatest comedies of all time and everyone should see it once and form their own opinions on it. It is a disaster movie spoof that takes place on a plane. Yep, that's why it was named what it was named. Lots of people on the plane are getting food poisoning - including the pilots, so one of the passengers has to land the plane. It's a fun time had by all, especially with Leslie Nielsen as a doctor on a plane...just please don't call him Shirley. The two main characters actually really annoyed me as well as another guy who is ridiculously annoying and unfunny...but that doesn't stop the movie from being funny. I happen to find a white woman singing R-E-S-P-E-C-T to a black man, Barbara Billingsley speaking jive to a couple black men, a flashback where a soldier in a hospital in convinced he's Ethel Merman ("I am serious and don't call me Shirley"), as well as several other great lines/scenes hilarious. Sure, there's some not so great lines, but nobody's perfect. However, "The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!" is the funnier movie. There is just no way to contradict that statement. It's faster-paced, the one-liners come fast and furious, there's hilarious physical comedy, and there's more Leslie Nielsen...and Priscilla Presley, George Kennedy, Ricardo Montalbon, and O.J. Simpson - the same team made both movies. After reviewing "Airplane!" I really want to watch "The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!"...I'm a little bit happier knowing that movie exists.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Space Cowboys: A Quick Review

"Space Cowboys," which came out in 2000, both stars and was directed by Clint Eastwood. He certainly is at home behind as well as in front of the camera. If you have read any of my other Clint Eastwood movie reviews you know my opinion of the film maker. He is joined in "Space Cowboys" by Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and James Garner. Marcia Gay Harden and James Cromwell also co-star. Clint Eastwood plays an engineer who, about 40 years previously, had helped to develop a satellite. The satellite is about to crash and no one knows how to deal with it because the technology is so old. This is where Clint Eastwood and his friends come to help. They were part of the team involved...not just senior citizens selected at random. Some people at NASA feel that the four guys are too old to be going into space to fix a satellite...but that a huge falsehood. Alright, they are kind of old, but that's not the point. The four actors are fantastic and talented and work very well together. The movie has great characters that interact well with each other and makes for a good mix of drama with a little comedy thrown in. The movie is a bit long but is, for the most part, engaging - especially towards the end which is pretty intense. I liked the final scene a lot, too...once I stopped being confused. So I definitely felt like I got my money's worth out of the movie...I just can't resist Clint Eastwood movies in the 5 dollar bin at Wal-Mart. Watch it if you're a fan of Clint Eastwood...or if you're not because you really should be.

-Joseph Sbrilli

The Boat That Rocked (aka Pirate Radio)

"The Boat That Rocked" is written and directed by Richard Curtis. Someone decided to change the name of the movie to "Pirate Radio" which was a really dumb idea since the original title was way better. The movie starts Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Bill Nighy, Rhys Ifans, and Nick Frost.

The movie takes place in the 1960s. British radio stations won't play rock and roll. So a group of musical pirates, as it were, set to the high seas and start their own radio station on a boat so all the wonderful English people can get some of that old-time rock and roll. The English government doesn't take too kindly to this and tries to shut the radio station down.

This is based of a true story - one which I know nothing about since the events of the movie were all news to me.

The actors are good, but I didn't think the characters were extremely likable. The guys on the boat drink, smoke, do drugs, and have promiscuous relations whenever a woman is on the boat. Oh yeah, and they also play music. There's really no sympathy for these characters, but I guess for this kind of movie there's no need for stuff like that. The actors had some good lines that got a good laugh, and then others that made me wonder if the writer had just typed random sentences and hoped that they would be funny...which who knows, it could have happened. Some of my favorite scenes were actually between the really serious British people who were trying to get rid of the pirate radio station. Watching stuffy people is just amusing to me, I guess.

The soundtrack to the movie is one of best parts of the movie. Throughout the movie there are song by artists such as The Who, The Beach Boys, Cat Stevens, The Supremes, The Kinks, Jimi Hendrix, and numerous other great people/groups. Listing them all would just be really tiring. The songs fit the tone of the movie perfectly and just made sense because it was 1960s music in a movie taking place in the 1960s. People should really consider buying this soundtrack for its sheer variety and entertainment value.

The cinematography is the other best part of the movie. Some frames of the movie had parts of the picture blurred. This visually looked very good and was a good approach to some scenes. Also, the camera "rocked" up and down as it was filming scenes on the boat in case people watching the movie forget the majority of the movie takes place on a boat. Reaction shots from characters as well as just good camera movement are also evident. So the movie looked great is the main point of this paragraph.

The movie was way too long and I thought the end was awful. Toward the end the film makers decided to go all "Titanic" on us. This caught me by surprise since it was previously a comedy. The ending didn't really make sense and seemed forced and ridiculous. I won't ruin the ending...but yeah...didn't really like it...then again I kind of lost interest by then because it started to drag.

Sountrack and cinematography made the movie for me. Both were great...and that's where the movie gets 2 stars of 4 from me. I was in a really bad mood when I was watching this so that may have had something to do with me not liking it that much...who knows...but still....a good 20 minutes could have been cut and some lines changed and it would have been better...so yeah...seeing it once was enough for me...

-Joseph Sbrilli

Coming to America: A Quick Review

"Coming to America" has a great cast. This includes Eddie Murphy (before he started making awful family movies for which he should be ashamed) and Arsenio Hall. Both actors portray about half the characters in the movie since they are that talented. James Earl Jones, with the greatest voice in the history of the world (besides Morgan Freeman, who sadly is not in this movie), John Amos, and Samuel L. Jackson also show up for the fun. Yes, that man is somewhere in every movie ever made. Eddie Murphy plays a prince in some random African country. It's that time of life where he gets thrown into an arranged marriage. He doesn't want an arranged marriage and decides to find a wife on his own. And everyone knows the greatest wives come from Queens, New York. So Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall haul their tuchuses off to New York City and pretend to be poor and stuff, looking for the woman of Eddie Murphy's dreams. The movie is too long. It's pushing 2 hours, but the script doesn't really warrant the length of the movie. By the end it gets kinda tiresome. Some stuff could have been cut out - like awful lines and drawn-out scenes. There are definitely some funny parts, though. The cast helps and John Landis directing it didn't hurt. I wouldn't buy it. But it's good to see at least once...it's not bad at all.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Jurassic Park: A Quick Review

"Jurassic Park" was directed by Steven Spielberg, has a score by John Williams and features great special effects. All three of those elements are key in order for "Jurassic Park" to be a success (oh yeah, and maybe a good script somewhere in there), which it definitely is. Great cast: Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Richard Attenborough. Great supporting actors: Wayne Knight and Samuel L. Jackson (who it's always wonderful to see show up randomly in pretty much every movie in the past 20 years). So in this great movie known as "Jurassic Park" these none too smart scientists decide to not only clone a bunch of dinosaurs from DNA they found but also throw them all into an amusement park of sorts...which is just such a bad idea on a variety of levels, but it leads to an intensely entertaining movie. In case you forget the movie is intense, John Williams's score will jog your memory. Honestly the movie is worth seeing just for the scene with the dinosaurs in the kitchen trying to find those stupid kids. And we learn from this movie that dinosaurs indeed were capable of opening large metal doors with complicated handles, way back when. Those aforementioned kids, however, are horribly annoying - as is the annoying young man in the beginning. They really serve no purpose whatsoever and add nothing to the story. The adult cast could have replaced them in their scenes...unless Steven Spielberg wanted us to have simpathy for the young people. I kind of would have preferred they just get eaten...and while the dinosaurs were at it they could eat Jeff Goldblum too because, oh my goodness, that man was annoying to watch and listen to for more than 8 seconds. Now that that's out of the way the special effects in this movie are so amazing. They are way better than the awful special effects that film makers decide to use now (ahhh George Lucas!). They actually look realistic. The dinosaurs were made using a combination of computer generated images and animatronics. And the end result is spectacular. So yeah, it's a great science fiction/action movie. The main cast work well together and everything and Samuel L. Jackson made me really happy and Wayne Knight had some funny scenes. 1993 was apparently a very good year for Steven Spielberg and his bank account since "Jurassic Park" and "Schindler's List" both were released. See it!...then learn to love Steven Spielberg if you don't already.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Catch Me If You Can: A Quick Review

Steven Spielberg's "Catch Me If You Can" was visually stunning and generally just a really fun, entertaining movie all the way through. This came out in 2002, a whole 6 years before Steven Spielberg and George Lucas decided to completely destroy Indiana Jones and leave him writhing in pain (although I still love Steven Spielberg - anyone who directed "Jaws," the "Indiana Jones" trilogy, "Schindler's List," "Saving Private Ryan," etc is great by me...so I blame George Lucas and his unhealthy obsession with computer generated effects and ruining franchises). Well anyway, the cast of "Catch Me If You Can" is amazing and includes the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio (who is actually a really good actor - I'm just a little indifferent toward him), Tom Hanks (who is one of my favorite actors and one of the best actors of the past 20 years or so), Christopher Walken, Amy Adams, and Martin Sheen. Most know the story but here goes anyway: Leonardo DiCaprio plays Frank Abagnale Jr., a brilliant con artist who made millions of dollars by pretending to be a doctor, pilot, and lawyer. This was all done before he turned 19, which is why I referred to him as a brilliant con artist instead of just a normal one who takes a while to learn his "trade" (this movie is based off a true story by the way, for those who didn't see/read that on the poster above). Then Tom Hanks comes in as the FBI man, Carl Hanratty who tries for a few years to catch Abagnale...if he can. The movie starts in 1964 and finishes up 3 years later with a little bit of switching back and forth from the past to the present. This works well for the movie and helps get a look at how the events unfold. Leonardo DiCaprio is convincing as Abagnale and is great at faking various jobs as well as having some good on screen chemistry (although different kinds) with Christopher Walken (Frank Abagnale Sr.), Tom Hanks, and Amy Adams. The music is fantastic, which is what I personally have come to expect from John Williams who composes the scores for all Steven Spielberg movies. It fits the comedic/dramatic tones of the movie extremely well. The cinematography is great to look at as well, having some portions of a scene out of focus, close ups of characters, and just general very fluid, wonderful camera work. This was done by Janusz Kaminski (one of the few reasons why "Funny People" wasn't a terrible movie), who is a great cinematographer, just look at all the other movies that he worked on with Steven Spielberg. The movie suceeds at being at times very serious while never forgetting to throw a fair amount of humor in there. The dialogue is great and good thing too, because wasting this cast and crew would have been a terrible thing. "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" won Steven Spielberg a combined 3 Academy Awards and are such great, powerful movies, destined to become classic. But don't let that take away from "Catch Me if You Can" which proves that as of 2002 Steven Spielberg could still round up a great group of people to work with and make a memorable film.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Mystic River: A Quick Review

"Mystic River," released in 2003, was directed by one of the greatest American film makers, Clint Eastwood. The cast is fantastic: Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Laurence Fishburne, Marcia Gay Harden, and Laura Linney. Combine these two things with a great story/script and we get one of the best movies of the decade, in my opinion anyway. The movie takes place in Boston. Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, and Kevin Bacon play Jimmy, Dave, and Sean, respectively. They were childhood friends and then years later Jimmy's daughter is killed. Dave is accused of the murder and Sean is the main cop on the case. The movie has a great cast of characters. Every actor gives a highly powerful, memorable performance which makes the movie so great to watch. Besides the great acting the plot is just an engaging mystery. It's really a fun time when you watch a movie and the actors are actually capable of acting and portraying believable characters and the screenwriters are capable of doing what their job title implies. Being the great director and Hollywood icon that Clint Eastwood is, the movie looks great and is just very well put together. The movie is over 2 hours long which usually means I stop paying attention and get antsy and really confused. But for the most part that didn't happen. Although I gotta say, it took me forever to figure out who played who in the movie. My memory really is a sad thing. So basically I loved this movie. I love the all-star cast. I love Clint Eastwood. It wasn't dragged out so much that I was angry by the end - like some movies we no longer talk about because as far as I am concerned they never happened. So rent it! Buy it for $5 at Wal-Mart. Watch it online. Do something to see it. Clint Eastwood's still cranking out great movies even into his 70s and it's a wonderful thing... This man pretty much destroys the movie efforts of most directors nowadays, many half his age, but less than half his ability. Although if you are expecting Clint Eastwood to sing in the end credits you will be disappointed as that does not occur.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Cast Away: A Quick Review

"Cast Away" is the last movie that Robert Zemeckis directed before he went crazy and became obsessed with making motion capture movies ("The Polar Express," "Beowulf," and "A Christmas Carol"). This is really a shame because before this he made some great, normal movies such as "Back to the Future, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," and a certain Academy Award winner and one of the best movies of the 1990s...or ever: "Forrest Gump." "Cast Away" was released at the end of 2000. Earlier that year Robert Zemeckis's "What Lies Beneath" with Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford was released. The movie was actually a pretty good supernatural thriller. The beginning was a little slow but the end was pretty intense. And Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford are just great actors to begin with. Okay, back to "Cast Away," which starred Tom Hanks, and Helen Hunt showed up at the beginning and the end. I'm assuming you all know the plot but I'll give a brief synopsis anyway: Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks) works for FedEx and is dating Kelly Frears (Helen Hunt). While on a plane with several other employees they fly into a storm the plane crashes into the water and Chuck ends up on an island for four years. If you are going to watch just one actor carry almost an entire movie completely on his own, it might as well be Tom Hanks. The man is just a great actor having done comedy. drama, and whatever is in between...He spends about an hour and a half of the movie on an island by himself. The result is anything but boring. Tom Hanks plays the character so well as he tries to fend for himself on the island and deals with being stranded alone for four years and "befriending" a volleyball he calls Wilson. Although he doesn't talk a whole lot, plenty happens on the island as the years pass and it is entertaining to see and it is no surprise that Tom Hanks got an Oscar nomination for his role. Helen Hunt is also great, but she is in hardly any scenes. Although the movie is pushing 2 1/2 hours, the pacing is perfect and every scene feels like there was at least a little point to it being there. Throughout the whole movie there is just a lot of great film making in general, which is what I have come to expect from Robert Zemeckis. So if you have already seen it, great - and if not then by all means rent it because it's worth the time and money...if only for a great Tom Hanks performance.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Rat Race: A Quick Review

This movie stars the likes of John Cleese, Jon Lovitz, Whoopi Goldberg, Rowan Atkinson, Cuba Gooding Jr., etc (aka some really funny individuals). So the assumption is that if "Rat Race" is not funny then it's not the cast's fault...it's the writer's. Lucky this is actually a very funny movie thanks to the great cast and some hilarious scenes. It may just be me but I thought the scenes with the bus full of Lucille Ball impersonators, Jon Lovitz's character and his family stealing Hitler's car, and Kathy Bates as "the squirrel woman" were hilarious. The plot is definitely not original, but these actors and the funny script make it work. There are also a handful of just really dumb scenes in the movie like any scene involving that stupid cow. A couple scenes could have been completely omitted and most people probably would not have missed them at all. The ending is really awful though...I don't really understand why someone thought it would be a good idea to end with a Smash Mouth concert trying to raise money for the hungry of the world. So great cast, but not a great movie. Definitely funny though and just generally enjoyable...Wayne Knight also had a hilarious small part as an ambulance driver and Rowan Atkinson playing an Italian tourist - that was just really fun for me. And remember...you should have just bought the squirrel...

-Joseph Sbrilli

Who Framed Roger Rabbit: A Quick Review

The main thing that I wondered as I was watching "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" was why in the world would a woman ever marry a rabbit. I just don't understand the logic behind this. The movie is great though. It came out in 1988, during the period of time before Robert Zemeckis went crazy and decided to only make motion capture movies...which look nice...but he should seriously consider going back to making normal movies like "Back to the Future," "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," "Forrest Gump," etc. Even in these he was still able to use tons of special effects. I've decided that cartoon characters coexisting with live characters in a movie is one of the coolest things a person can hope to do in movies. The special effects in the movie are great and the interaction between the actors (mostly Bob Hoskins and Christopher Lloyd) and the cartoons actually feels normal. Also, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is the only time in the history of the world that Disney characters and Warner Brothers characters have been in the same movie...which I find really interesting. The movie is a great combination of comedy mixed with a mystery...since Roger Rabbit is indeed framed for murder...the title of the movie isn't a lie. Great acting (from the actors and the voice-over actors), great script, and groundbreaking special effects are just a few of the several reasons why "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" has become regarded as classic.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Friday the 13th (2009): A Quick Review

The original "Friday the 13th" from 1980 wasn't a great movie. It was camp-y, simple, predictable, and more violent than genuinely scary. But at the very least it was an entertaining 1980s slasher movie...which spawned so many sequels it's ridiculous. The new "Friday the 13th" is a combination of the first four movies in the series. The result is nowhere as good as the original. The original made a little bit of sense...this new one does not....at all. Who the heck would continue going to Camp Crystal Lake after Jason Vorhees (and his mother) has hacked, dismembered, or otherwise violently killed every single person to set foot near the camp in the last twenty-nine years? The answer: the unbelievably stupid teenagers in the newest incarnation of the movie franchise. They were all so unbelievably annoying and really should have kept their clothes on...once they come off it's mere seconds before they are bloody and dying...just a fun little fact about horror movies. Almost every single person is unlikeable/drunk/high/making awful decisions/etc. Just about everyone dies...oops...sorry, I ruined the movie. And by the way, the beginning of this movie ruins the original...so see the original first. The plot is pretty non-existent, most of the cast is awful, and the music at times just got me in a bad mood. So yeah, it's your typical slasher movie...not a horror movie...a slasher. There is a difference - slashers are just violent and bloody whereas horror movies actually have a plot and characters that lead to genuine scares and suspense. These are often psychological or a little demonic depending on the movie. So quite honestly if you are thinking to yourself "I want to watch a horror movie. Why don't I rent the new "Friday the 13th." Don't do it (unless it only costs you a dollar)...rent "Psycho," "The Exorcist," "Jaws," "The Shining," "Poltergeist," etc. It will be a better use of your money and "Psycho" may be the greatest movie ever made because Alfred Hitchcock is an amazing director...hmm kind of got off track from the movie actually being reviewed...But the main point of this review is that there is no legitimate reason to see this movie because it is awful and of course Michael Bay would produce it.

-Joseph Sbrilli

The Shining: A Quick Review

First of all, I have not read Stephen King's "The Shining" (I have started it...but have yet to finish it) and Stephen King did not like Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of his novel (several aspects have been changed in the film version). So judging the movie just as a movie, and not an adaption of a book, "The Shining" is great and one of the best horror movies that I have seen. The reason for this is the great cast led by Jack Nicholson, who is fantastic as usual and someone with whom you would never want to be snowed in at a hotel in Colorado... The rest of the cast includes Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd (the reason you do not know who the heck this is is because he made this movie, then a TV movie - yep, one of those, then quit acting to become a teacher and was essentially never heard from in Hollywood ever again), and Scatman Crothers.

Everyone's acting is great in this movie and just adds to the suspense and intensity. The music score in "The Shining" is amazing as well (the same cannot be said for the score in "Carrie" which was awful and ruined a potentially really good movie). The score adds something to every scene and the movie most likely would not have been as scary without it. It fits with all the scenes so well. Would the shower scene in "Psycho" be as famous without the amazing score by Bernard Hermann? Would "Jaws" be "Jaws" without John Williams's score?...the answer is no...don't even argue with me.

Finally, the camera angles in this movie are great and I love talking about them. We start off with beautiful aerial shots of snowy Colorado then throughout the movie there are plenty of great tracking shots and just really well set of scenes. You really need to experience this movie for yourself...plenty of suspense, horror, fun things like that...although a couple scenes I felt didn't have a point and the ending really confused me...that may just be me...I have issues following things...short term memory loss. So yeah...watch it and love it and make sure you are never alone with anyone like Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson) unless you have a baseball bat...

-Joseph Sbrilli

Gran Torino: A Quick Review

In case there is any doubt in people’s minds, I love Clint Eastwood. This includes him as both an actor and as a director. Last year's “Gran Torino” was a great vehicle for the man. He played Walt Kowalski, a Korean War veteran, recently widowed, who doesn’t like his Asian neighbors (and the whole kid-trying-to-steal-his-1972-Ford-Gran-Torino doesn’t help matters). Walt then goes on to teach the young man the error of his ways and actually gets involved with gangs and such. Clint Eastwood is the best part of the entire movie. He is a great actor and every scene with him is fantastic. He threatens people with guns and growls from his front porch. It is pretty great. The man just has unbelievable screen presence...as he has had for about 50 or so years now. The Asian actors on the other hand can’t really act, but in their defense: for almost all of them this was their first movie. The writing in places gets a bit sketchy, but overall a very good movie...I thought Clint Eastwood’s other 2008 movie “Changeling,” with Angelina Jolie, was the better movie (just a bit too long and a little slow at parts). The ending to the movie is great...without it the movie would have basically had no point. So everyone should rent it...it's only a dollar at the Redbox at Hannaford so there really is no excuse not to...and chances are "Gran Torino" is better than whatever movie you were planning on renting in the first place. And if you ever wanted to hear Clint Eastwood sing (don't anyone try to deny it)...then this is the movie for you...Mr. Eastwood does so during the ending credits.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Whatever Works: A Quick Review

First of all, if you have never watched a Woody Allen movie (he writes and directs all his movies by the way, and years ago used to star in them too...fun little fact right there) before, stop reading this review and go watch"Annie Hall" (aka the only other Woody Allen movie I have personally watched and also one of Woody Allen's best). It's a great, funny movie from 1977 that stars Woody Allen and Diane Keaton. Anyway, back to "Whatever Works"... It has a strong cast that includes Larry David, Rachel Evan Wood, Ed Begley Jr., and Michael McKean (who is a great comedic actor and is used far to little in the movie). The plot is pretty predictable: somehow Larry David's character, an extremely angry man who basically doesn't believe in anything and hates all people, falls in love (sorta, kinda) with Rachel Evan Wood's character...she runs away from home and ends up at Larry David's house...yes. Larry David is a good 40 years older...yes, that is weird and gross on a couple levels. Let's move on...their whole relationship seems contrived and there really is no chemistry between the two...of course the end comes and everyone gets thrown a little curveball. The ending by the way isn't that great and I found it to be unbelievable and abrupt...but the movie as a whole was pretty funny. Larry David had the best lines, many times talking directly to the audience which I do like, but Woody Allen did it better in "Annie Hall." And generally speaking, angry people ranting about everything they can think of is pretty amusing for me...but Woody Allen could have done better...and the fact he is 73 is no excuse. A certain Clint Eastwood is nearing 80 and still making wonderful movies (yes, I would call "Changeling" and "Gran Torino" both wonderful. If you haven't seen them yet...what are you waiting for? Just do it....two of the best movies of 2008 in my opinion).

-Joseph Sbrilli

Marley and Me: A Quick Review

First of all, I want to apologize to anyone who is a really huge fan of this movie or of Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston. Because I think they are two of the most annoying people in Hollywood and "Marley and Me" (yep...that's Marley, the rascal pulling at the leash) is an awful movie. It's based off a book and the theory is that books are usually better than their movie adaption, but come on! How interesting can a married couple and their dog and their kids getting into shenanigans possibly be? It's ridiculous to think that someone thought it was a good idea to turn the book into a movie. So we have Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston play a newly married couple who are apparently very fertile because a couple kids do pop out during the 115 minutes. Dogs are always annoying in movies...always. There is no exception except maybe Lassie...but come on, Timmy needed a friend. All the emotions are so forced in the movie. Nothing at all is convincing...nothing. I didn't care about any of the main characters. The only part of the movie that wasn't awful was Alan Arkin. He is a great actor and extremely funny. Arkin got the best lines and his scenes were actually enjoyable. That's about all I have...except I gotta say I am ashamed of the director...he could have had a better follow-up to "The Devil Wears Prada" (which was actually a pretty good movie) of course I would have never watched it if not for Meryl Streep being in it, but that's just a technicality.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Doubt: A Quick Review

Well, if anyone has read my reviews for "Mamma Mia!" and/or "Julie & Julia" or if you have ever talked to me for an extended period of time, one thing is bound to come up...my love for Meryl Streep - and for good reason. For the past three decades this woman has proved that she is an amazing actress. She is capable of playing every single role that people can possibly offer her. Watch this, then watch "The Devil Wears Prada," then watch "Julie & Julia," and you will see how amazing an actress she is...and that's just looking at roles from the past 3 years. Wow, that took up a lot of space...sorry about that. The rest of the cast of "Doubt" is fantastic as well: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis. The four main actors all got Oscar nominations earlier this year and they deserved each one. The script also was nominated, having been adapted from a play. The movie takes place at a Catholic School...I'm aware this may turn people off from the movie right away, but let's be open-minded...where Meryl Streep and Amy Adams are nuns (Sister Aloysius and Sister James, respectively) and Philip Seymour Hoffman is a priest (Father Flynn). Yep...now the cross shaped poster makes more sense, doesn't it. Well anyway, Father Flynn is accused of molesting a black boy and Sister Aloyius is convinced he's guilty and Sister James thinks he is innocent. That's the really brief plot synopsis. The movie is primarily character-driven, so strong dialogue is always helpful. This movie is not for everyone obviously...but I thought it was very well-done and one of the best movies of 2008. The cast is just so good. The ending may also bother some...but I'll go with "it just promotes discussion"...

-Joseph Sbrilli

Saturday Night Fever: A Quick Review

First of all, can anyone honestly resist a movie that has this great poster with John Travolta in his famous white suit disco dancing? Most Americans cannot (my opinion...not an actual fact). "Saturday Night Fever" is that great movie that caused Mr. Travolta to think he was way too good for "Welcome Back, Kotter" (which, quite honestly, he was) and quit the show and move on to a great career (minus the majority of the '80s and those stupid movies with Kristie Alley, that angel movie, and that Scientology movie that almost the entire human race despises among a couple other questionable choices) that includes Grease (made the year after "Saturday Night Fever"), and "Pulp Fiction." Yeah...that whole period in between those two movies was pretty awful for him. But John Travolta is fantastic in his Oscar nominated role of Tony Manero. And proved, among other things, that he is quite a talented dancer. The movie has a fantastic soundtrack also - primarily dominated by the Bee Gees. So between John Travolta, the Bee Gees, and a pretty gritty (not sure how I feel about that word but I couldn't think of a better one) look at the hell hole that was New York City in the 1970s, we have a classic '70s movie that people still watch and love now which is pretty darn impressive. Oh yeah...and Fran Drescher shows up briefly (minus her harsh New York accent...which I happen to love) in her acting debut. This movie's not for everyone, but it's one of my personal favorites.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Air Force One: A Quick Review

"Air Force One" is a very good movie. This may have something to do with the fact (yeah, it's now a fact and not merely my opinion) that Harrison Ford is amazing actor (ignoring "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," which was most certainly all George Lucas's fault), and that Harrison Ford has great screen presence, and is strangely believable as the President of the United States. It also might have something to do with the fact the supporting cast, including Glenn Close (the Vice President), Gary Oldman (the head terrorist who is taking control of Air Force One), and William H. Macy (a Major...as in member of the armed forces) are all fantastic in their roles. Also Wolfgang Petersen is a great director (he directed "In the Line of Fire" four years before this movie...Clint Eastwood's in it and I love the movie with every fiber of my being). Well anyway, "Air Force One" is a good thriller and you actually care about the characters in it...which is good because otherwise watching movies is a waste of time, eyesight, and brain power. Except for the rarity of some really awful dialogue (for which the writer should be utterly ashamed of him or herself...but Harrison Ford probably should have spoken up about this - but he's amazing so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) and a couple unbelievable scenes, the writing is well-done. Visually, the movie also succeeds...great action and effects. And honestly, when given the choice, why would anyone mess around with Harrison Ford? It just seems like a bad idea. Well, that's all I've got...after all it is a quick review...

-Joseph Sbrilli

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day

Well, that was one way to completely destroy one of the most beloved cult movies of all time. Let's kick this off with a quick review of the original cult phenomenon. First-time writer and director, Troy Duffy, somehow convinced someone to make his movie. It made like $10,000 dollars in the theaters and every critic hated it like it was the spawn of Hitler, Mussolini and Spiderman 3. The movie picked up an incredible cult following when it was released on DVD and is now a personal favorite in my collection. Brilliant, funny writing, an overused plot that was still original, good acting by little known actors (aside from Willem Dafoe and Billy Connolly) and intense slow-motion action sequences. You should all see it right now.

Since "The Boondock Saints" made like 27 million off of DVD sales, and has a humongous following, everyone kind of expected Troy Duffy to come back with a second one. It took ten years, but he did it. "All Saints Day" has raped one of my favorite movies almost as hard as Indiana Jones was raped by George Lucas. It is absolutely ridiculous. I sat in the theater trying, TRYING very hard to find some redeeming qualities in this movie - anything that was reminiscent of its predecessor. Nothing. Could not find a thing.

The plot makes about as much sense as letting a pet rattlesnake free in your house because you think it needs more "together" time. If anyone saw the first movie you know that the movie ended after the brothers and their dad effectively destroyed the Yakkavetti (spelling?) crime family in Boston - vigilante justice at its finest. For some reason, and contrary to everything in the first film, they just quit. The feds were helping them kill bad guys, and they just quit and moved to Ireland. 10 years later someone murders a priest in Boston and makes it look like the MacManus brothers did it. They get all pissy and ship back to Boston to kill everyone responsible. Along the way they adopt the most stereotypical Mexican in existence and try to rely on him for comic relief (spoiler alert: it doesn't work). He's not even their friend, they just find him on the ship and he wants to tag along. Then the director went, "Yes! Character development sucks! Go guns!"

For some reason Troy felt it necessary to replace Rocco (The brothers' friend, who gets killed in the first movie) and replace Willem Dafoe. This is the part that made me so mad I swore in the theater about how stupid it was. Dafoe was replaced by a female protegee of his...and she has a southern drawl. I don't know about you, but if anyone has a southern drawwwwwwwllllllll in a film, they better be on a porch, 80 years old, and holding a shotgun. This woman pissed me off. She pretended she knew everything and because someone thought she was pretty, the director had a lot of scenes of her looking at the camera, smiling like an idiot.

Troy Duffy must have watched "Wanted," "Punisher 2," and every Nicholas Cage action movie, before writing "All Saints Day." The plot makes no sense, and a ridiculous backstory just convolutes everything just that much more. I'm not sure where the dialogue went, but just to note, because you use the word "gratuitous" in front of the word "violence" does not make you Shakespeare. Every memorable scene in the first movie, and almost every dialogue (good and bad) is repeated to a mind-numbing effect. There is almost no way this movie could have been worse. (trust me, the ghost of Rocco shows up, it's god-awful).

Grade: half a star out of 4, and that's only because I like watching people shoot other people in slow-motion with silenced pistols.

-Christ0pher O'Connell

Disney's A Christmas Carol

"Disney's A Christmas Carol" is directed by Robert Zemeckis ("Back to the Future," "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," "Forrest Gump," "The Polar Express," etc). The movie stars Jim Carrey ("The Truman Show"), Gary Oldman ("The Dark Knight"), Cary Elwes ("The Princess Bride"), Colin Firth ("Bridget Jones's Diary"), Bob Hoskins ("Hook"), and Robin Wright Penn ("Forrest Gump").

Since this is about the 87th time that Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol" has been adapted in some way, shape, or form, I am assuming that the majority of the human race knows the story. There really is no excuse to not know it...even if it's just "The Muppet Christmas Carol" version you're familiar with. But I guess I'll give a recap anyway since this is the section of the review where I usually talk about the plot. Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey plays Scrooge at every stage of life) is your generally unpleasant person who is obsessed with his job and money and hates everything about Christmas. And following with his nature, he treats his employee Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman) and just about everyone else horribly. Well, anyway, one night, Scrooge gets a visit from the ghost of Jacob Marley (Gary Oldman again!), Scrooge's old business partner. The ghost of Jacob Marley tells Scrooge that he will be visited by the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future (Yep...all 3 ghosts are played by Jim Carrey...hmm this is kind of like when Tom Hanks played every single character in "The Polar Express" 5 years ago.) Well anyway, Scrooge is real scared and all since they are ghosts and everything...and...yeah...I won't ruin the end for the one person in the world not familiar with this story thats been around in various forms since 1843 when a man named Charles Dickens first wrote the book.

The voice cast for "Disney's A Christmas Carol" is great. I was impressed at how several of the voice actors were given multiple parts to play and everyone does it so well. I was just about to say how impressed I was with all the English accents then I found out everyone except Jim Carrey (who's Canadian if you ever wanted to know) and Robin Wright Penn are actually British...so that's really not special at all. Jim Carrey by far had the hardest job, voicing essentially 6 characters, if you count the younger Scrooges. And he took the challenge and succeeded. He was able to change the sound of his voice depending on the character so many times that it was hard to tell it was even him. His change as Scrooge from the beginning of the movie to the end was well-done and believable (well, I don't know if that drastic a change would actually happen...but who knows with 1840s London).

Although it has been while since I've read the book, I'm pretty sure that this newest adaption stayed very true to the book. The script was written by Robert Zemeckis and some lines are taken directly from Dickens's "A Christmas Carol." A couple parts I think might have been changed/added for this version but that is to be expected with each new adaptation to the classic story. The only part that I really didn't like was near the end where Bob Cratchit decides to talk to the audience. It feels very weird and unnatural and narration would have worked far better.

The animation in the movie was great. Motion capture was used to animate this movie. This is where the actors essentially have a body suit on and there are sensors all over it so their movements can be recorded. Then this information gets put on a computer and everything else is digitally added. For this reason the characters look like the actors that play them, to some extent. Jim Carrey is probably the most obvious...as his face shows up on a variety of characters. Although motion capture can look a little bit strange and not feel natural, I felt it worked here. The motion capture-animated characters looked better here than in "The Polar Express"...at least that's what I thought. The main area where the animation shines is in the depiction of 1840s London. There are some great scenes where the camera is just moving quickly all through London and it looks wonderful. The animation is just beautiful...and I am usually really judgmental about movies that aren't animated by Pixar. Texture and depth were definitely there throughout. I saw the movie in 3D so this was more evident. Although the 3D glasses dim the color a little bit, it was very well done, giving depth to the scenes, instead of just being gimmicky. 3D animation is definitely getting better...and many movies are using this technology.

Who would have thought that Jim Carrey would be joining the likes of Reginald Owen, Alastair Sim, Albert Finney, George C. Scott, and Michael Cane playing Ebenezer Scrooge? But he does and he is actually quite good...although not as memorable as the aforementioned actors. Robert Zemeckis's version of "A Christmas Carol" is true to the book and visually stunning. Overall just a good movie experience...3 out of 4 stars...and I would see it in 3D at least once...Disney Digital 3D is pretty great.

-Joseph Sbrilli

The Men Who Stare at Goats

"The Men Who Stare at Goats" is a comedy (and kind of a war movie...) directed by Grant Heslov (he wrote 2005's "Good Night, and Good Luck" which was directed by and co-starred George Clooney) The cast includes George Clooney ("Michael Clayton"), Jeff Bridges ("The Big Lebowski"), Ewan McGregor (the new "Star Wars" movies), and Kevin Spacey ("American Beauty"). It also has Stephen Root ("Office Space" and TV's "NewsRadio") in a small part at the beginning of the movie...which is great because I love when Stephen Root randomly shows up in things.

According to the beginning of the movie, "More of this is true than you'd believe"...hmm, we'll see about that. The movie centers on members of an elite military group that wants to stop war as it is conventionally done. They use their minds (rumor has it that they are psychic...a man killed a goat with his mind...so the logical next step is to now fight wars with the mind instead of weapons...) Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) is the reporter to investigate this phenomenon. His wife has left him so he goes to Iraq to investigate his story, spending some quality time with Lyn Cassady (George Clooney)...the man who said is to have killed the aforementioned goat. Also included in the psychic fun are Bill Django (Jeff Bridges) who is a leader of sorts...who reminded me of "The Dude" from 'The Big Lebowski" and Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey) who just kind of hates everyone.

The cast of the movie is great. George Clooney plays the lead character well...he's one of the best lead actors currently in Hollywood...and I'm sure his paycheck would back me up on that last statement. He had great chemistry with Ewan McGregor. This works out nicely since the the two have some intense bonding time in the desert and just about everywhere else. Jeff Bridges seems to be right at home playing a character that may or may not be all there (his character in the movie has taken tons of drugs...so he most likely is in fact not all there...but then again just about every character in the movie was at under the influence of at least a little LSD). And um...Kevin Spacey was quite the jerk in this movie, but he plays it well...so that's a success as well.

Well, this movie does take place during war time, but I'm pretty sure there was no serious parts to it...accept possibly one. Whereas "M*A*S*H" was able to be the perfect mix of comedy and drama, "The Men Who Stare at Goats" leans heavily to the comedy side of things - which is not a bad thing...I just feel like there could have been more jokes in the movie. What is there is usually funny (although a couple scenes were strange and unnecessary) so the actors were not wasted...like in "Year One"...and to a lesser extent "The Invention of Lying" and I did enjoy it more than "Funny People"...I watch a movie with the word "funny" in the title and for some reason I actually want it to be funny...but most of the funny parts in "The Men Who Stare at Goats" were in the trailer, which usually isn't a great sign. But I happened to love the trailer so the darn script writers should have tried a little harder.

The movie's pretty short so it doesn't get boring or drawn out...ahhh, like "Funny People"...comedies should never be 12 hours long...

So the movie was pretty good...nowhere near the quality of "A Serious Man"...because the Coen brothers are ridiculous and have to physically try to not make a great movie. But that kind of quality is hard to come by in the time where smart comedies are usually not made - must take too make effort. 2 1/2 out of 4 stars...and if my reviews are too long and people just skip to the rating - which is possibly because I just type for a while and see what comes out - here's the condensed version. Great Cast. Could have used more jokes. Better than a certain movie that I hate and have already mentioned twice in this review ("Year One"), but not as good as another that I also mentioned and love so much ("A Serious Man").

-Joseph Sbrilli

A Serious Man

"A Serious Man" is a dark comedy written, directed, and produced by Joel and Ethan Coen ("Barton Fink," "Fargo," "The Big Lebowski," "No Country For Old Men," "Burn After Reading," etc). The cast includes several not very well known actors: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed, and Sari Lennick. Yep...probably the most well-known cast member is Richard Kind who was part of the "Mad About You" cast.

First of all this movie kind of has a plot! (unlike a certain "Big Lebowski"). The movie takes place in Minnesota, circa 1967. Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) has the typical life. He's a physics professor at a college. His brother, Arthur (Richard Kind), is living on his family's couch. He has a wife, Judith (Sari Lennick), who is having an affair with Sy Abelman (Fred Melamed) and one night decides she and Larry had better start talking about getting a divorce and that it might be a good idea for him to move out of the house and into the "Jolly Roger" motel. Oh yeah...Larry also has a son, Danny, who smokes marijuana, watches more "F Troop" than the average person, and is about to be bar mitzvahed, and a daughter, Sarah, who may or may not be stealing money from her dad to get a nose job. So Larry's life is falling apart (including an Asian man who wants to sue him for failing his son on his exam). He is trying to make sense of it all...and being a respectable Jewish person seeks help from a wide range of rabbis.

The acting in this movie is fantastic. Cast-wise it's the complete opposite of the Coen's last movie, "Burn After Reading," which had an all-star cast. Nevertheless, a cast of mainly unknowns in "A Serious Man" worked so well. A great group of actors was chosen. They all had tremendous chemistry with each other and were just convincing in their roles. Michael Stuhlbarg was perfect as the lead character. He is very believable as a man whose life is coming to pieces and is just trying to get some clarity while he puts up with way too much. He also has some great dream sequence scenes that let us know how the crazy things in his life have affected him. Richard Kind, as his brother, was also a result of some great casting. He is just such a funny actor and seems like the right choice to play someone who spends most of his time on the couch, in the bathroom draining something gross, or gambling. I won't talk about every single actor in the movie...most of which I had never heard of before...but trust me they are all good...except the kids really annoyed me.

The movie is unbelievably funny...and no cheap laughs to be found here either...since those are rarely, if ever, funny. The writing is just so smart with slight dark undertones and it works out wonderfully. Nothing is exaggerated and, for the most part, people say their lines straight. The way Larry just lets things happen to him is just great and works out to be pretty hilarious many times. It wouldn't even make sense to list the funny things in the movie...since reading funny things isn't usually that fun of a time...although I will say both neighbors in the movie have very funny scenes. Just watch the movie and experience it for yourself...watch the trailer first to get pumped.

The visuals and the sound in "A Serious Man" are stunning. Everything looks like it's actually from the 1960s (of course my perception of what the 1960s looks like mainly comes from "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and "Bewitched"). The coloring of all the set pieces and everything made out for a nice little slice of suburbia. The camera movements throughout the film are also used effectively. There are several close ups to get facial expressions from characters as well as long shots changing to close ups as the camera zooms in. All of it flows very naturally and makes the movie appealing. Sound in the movie is often exaggerated for great effect. Larry's head banging against the wall, a secretary coughing, ice knocking together in a glass, etc, are all overly pronounced and just add an artistic piece the film that I thought worked well and complimented the cinematography.

The beginning and ending of the film actually really confused me. I didn't see how the beginning related to the film and I thought the end was abrupt. Then Larry Bean explained it to me and everything was fine.

The Coen brothers make great movies. Their movie-making style is a little different and a little darker than most, which is what makes their movies so great. Of the 8 films by the Coen's that I have seen, "A Serious Man" is now definitely one of my favorites. The acting, writing, cinematography, soundtrack, etc, just come together incredibly well in a wonderfully put together and highly memorable experience. And it's just incredibly funny...and it is so hard to make a good comedy these days. 4 out of 4 stars...and don't worry...according to the end credits "No Jews were harmed in the making of this motion picture."...it honestly says that and I thought it was great...

-Joseph Sbrilli

Paranormal Activity

"Paranormal Activity" is a horror movie that was made in 2007, on one of the smallest budgets the universe has ever seen. It started playing in a few areas a couple months ago and due to popular demand is now released nationwide and making an awful lot of money. It would be kind of pointless to list the director and the actors here like I usually do since they are all no names...and this is either their first movie or darn close to it.

"Paranormal Activity" is about this couple, Katie and Micah, who move into a house together. Of course their house is not normal because if it were then there would be no point in this movie. The house is essentially haunted...all of the strange occurrences happening at night. Katie thinks it may be demons that have been following her throughout her life. So her boyfriend decides to set up cameras while they sleep to try and figure out what is going on in the house. The whole movie is the footage from his camera.

The movie got a lot of a hype. And for the most part I did not think that it lived up to it. Although the movies is not boring - it's not really long enough to get boring and the plot is pretty interesting - it could be very slow at times. This mainly is seen in the beginning where very little happens...or so we think...leading up to the climax.

Like I mentioned before, the movie is low budget...we are talking only thousands of dollars here. It is basically all handheld cameras used throughout which leads to an extremely shaky movie. Which makes sense for the kind of movie this is, but it can get distracting. The movie doesn't even have opening are closing credits...so that kind of caught me by surprise. I've got to say that it is really impressive that such a low budget movie is now being shown all over the country.

The acting in the movie is okay...nothing too awful. We essentially are just working with random people here as opposed to actually actors, so that makes sense. The guy in this is also pretty annoying. He's trying to solve the whole possessed-house thing on his own when in reality all he and his girlfriend need is Tangina (aka: the midget from "Poltergeist") to remove any unwanted spirits from the house.

I feel like the poster lied to me...I was told "Don't see it alone" and after seeing it I feel like I could, in fact, definitely see it alone as it wasn't as scary as so many people are making it out to be. Then again I don't get scared during movies...but if I was one to get scared I would have only been scared a couple times...mostly near the end.

So basically, I found the movie just a little scary near the end and for the most part pretty slow...too slow to call it suspenseful...but given what little they had to work with it's pretty impressive...just don't believe all the hype that has been heaped on the movie. 2 out of 4 stars.

-Joseph Sbrilli