just felt like reviewing 300. i saw it on the midnight showing and it was packed.

300

if you haven't seen the trailers/rabid fanboys on forums, 300 is a movie based on frank miller's graphic novel of the same title. it's a highly fictionalized rendition of the battle of thermopylae where a small number of spartan warriors defended sparta from a larger number of persians (the "highly fictionalized" portion of 300 is the major exaggeration of the numbers).

6/10 (for those who have forgotten, keep in mind this is the same as 3 stars out of 5)

pros
+ ridiculously well-done fight scenes
+ interesting use of filters

cons
- the filters are hit or miss
- portions of the script are horrible
- the music

this movie is packed with testosterone. after you watch this movie you just want to grab a spear and charge at the next person you see. to be honest, if the action scenes weren't as amazing as they were, this film would be looking at a 4/10 at best. the fight scenes are phenomenal. period.

there's also the (almost excessive) use of a filter to make the film look grainy. there's also an interesting use of colour, but it's slightly amateur in execution.

throughout the movie, the lines aren't too bad (and i assume they quote the graphic novel every now and then) but there are parts where it seems like the script writer wanted to take a break and handed a pen (or keyboard) to a 13 year old fanfiction writer. similarly, that 13 year old went off to the sound studio and gave them his favourite cd's (mostly NiN) and they put it in for kicks. i'm not angry that metal isn't historically accurate, but the sounds of wailing electric guitars and percusion freak outs are a bit too much.

all in all, if you walk into the movie with the expectations of a badass action movie, you will come out of it highly satisfied. it delivers what it promises. your jaw will drop when you see those thong-clad spartans mow their way through a shitload of persians.

i highly doubt anyone reads this anymore (i don't think anyone did to start with) but i've just been too lazy. it's funny too because i've been seeing more movies now than ever. i've probably seen every big release on opening date for the past 2 months at least. i just want to take this entry to talk about one movie because i can't stand all the hate for it.

the fountain

this is not going to be in the format of my other "reviews."

i know ratings are meant to be relative, and when i first saw this movie, i would've given it an 8.5 or 9. however, with all this hate, i need to shift my rating to try to compensate.

10/10

this movie can be summed in a couple words: beautiful, gorgeous, stunning, breath-taking, and simple.

after the release of this movie and the following reviews, i must say aronofsky has to be one of the most brilliant, misunderstood director of our time, and that's with only three movies under his belt. when requiem for a dream was being compared to trainspotting, i knew he was going to be wrongly accused with everything he did. i was right.

the fountain has been seen as a love story, then people who looked into it more saw it as a story about immortality. i'm not saying that it isn't about immortality, but it's not the point. the movie is a love story. simple. the immortality is simply a byproduct of the love portion. it's just a man loving his wife. sure, there are parallel timelines, but don't worry about them. don't try to analyze if they were real, a dream, a story. it's all just stories about this man falling in love with this woman and not being able to tear away from it.

one aspect that everyone can agree on is that, aesthetically, this movie is gorgeous. aronofsky must have spent all his money getting the colours and lighting right. not one scene is less than breath-taking. his earth tones and golds worked together with the perfectly under-played soundtrack. furthermore, to anyone who's interested, aronofsky didn't use CGI effects (aka, computer graphics), but rather filmed chemical reactions in petri dishes so the film would stand the test of time (courtesy of imdb.com). it's all these meticulous innerworkings that make the fountain as beautiful as it is.

i don't want to get too much into it because there's no point. as rachel weisz (who plays her most beautiful and attractive role yet) said, "It’s a love story, very passionate, raw love story." that's it.

please, do yourself a favour and don't watch this movie if you want to dig through every bit and try to understand everything. it's not meant to be understood, just experienced. hell, ignore this review and any other review and just watch it without any mindset. just sit, and watch the story that unfolds. enjoy.

snakes on a plane (theatres)

it's snakes on a plane. snakes...on...a...plane. i had to see it.

for those who get this movie: 10/10
if you don't find the title to be genius: 7/10

pros
+ snakes on a plane
+ sam jackson
+ good burger!
+ excellent comic sense to serious horror
+ great deaths, excellent suspense throughout
+ it's snakes...on a plane!

cons
- not enough swearing from sam jackson

i'm not joking when i say this is the best movie i've seen this year. i'm also now terrified of airplane washrooms. because this movie has a particular target audience, it really depends on what side of the fence you're on. nonetheless, snakes on a plane is an excellent horror flick.

to those anticipating this film and following the internet phenomena, this film delivers. you will be surprised at how excellent the movie is instead of being a simple, campy, b movie.

to those just wanting to watch a regular movie, you'll also be surprised at how good a movie with such a title can be. you will probably not be anticipating "the line" by sam jackson as much as others, but there's more than enough other content that any horror fans will be amused.

whether you're praising or scoffing at the title, this movie is surpisingly good with an excellent horror element fused with black humour. so fans and haters alike, just come and watch, you won't be disappointed.

note: this movie is rather violent and the deaths are rather graphic. there is also one slightly explicit sex scene. but then again, if you're worried about this at all, you wouldn't even consider this movie at all.

---

superman returns (theatres)

despite mixed reviews, i decided to give this movie a shot. i always enjoy seeing the translation from comic book to big screen and wondering how they fit in the incredible feats of everyone's favourite super heroes.

6.5/10

pros
+ good performance by routh (superman)
+ excellent special effects
+ decently fleshed out character

cons
- terrible performance by spacey (lex)
- too much of a homage
- no new music

my biggest gripe about the movie was that it tried too hard to simply be a homage to the superman christopher reeve immortalized and did not even try to be its own, independent movie. it even reused marlon brando's jor-el and the original music (as good as the superman theme is). it is not a sequel as much as it's an attempt to recreate reeve's performance (which you may enjoy).

i must also note that superman does not throw one punch in the entire movie (for those looking for an action movie).

---

miami vice (theatres)

i have been looking forward to this movie ever since i saw the preview (despite the jay-z/linkin park song/remix dealie). i am a big fan of mann and wanted to see his translation of the police drama, miami vice.

5/10

pros
+ excellent shoot-outs
+ beautiful shots

cons
- not enough shoot-outs
- no on-screen chemistry
- terrible love side-stories (two shower scenes. a bit much huh?)

my main verdict is that fans of mann may think of it as a decent movie from the genius but nowhere near as good as heat or collateral (although, personally, i didn't like collateral as much). mann's shots are perfect, as always, bringing you into every scene. his shoot-out is loud and in-your-face and very much like the famous shoot-out in heat. it is a perfect example of mind-blowing style over substance.

however, anyone who has the slightest doubt in mann's directing ability should stay away from this movie. the gorgeous shots and the shoot-out in the end is the saving grace of this movie and will not be as anticipated as those who do not like mann's work.

---

talladega nights (theatres)

i thought anchorman was a decent movie and i loved the previews for talladega nights so i decided, on a spur with my buddy, to watch this movie.

7/10

pros
+ will ferrel's humour
+ suprisingly funny performance by michael-clarke duncan
+ ridiculous characters
+ ridiculous stunts

cons
- will ferrel's humour
- frenchie gets old quick

not much to say; if you like ferrel, give this movie a shot, if not, avoid this movie like a plague. the humor is pretty much the same. almost anyone who liked anchorman will tell you that this movie is inferior. i am not one of these people; i found talladega nights much more funny with a lot of quotable material.

---

brick (home release)

i saw the trailer for this movie at a roger's video and was entranced. i literally stopped moving just to watch the whole trailer. i had to see it. i never heard of this movie before so it was a huge surprise when i finally sat down and started watching it.

8/10

pros
+ great translation from adults to teenagers
+ brilliant shots
+ perfectly fitting music
+ captures the noir feel
+ good script and delivered very well by all the actors
+ absolutely loveable characters

cons
- sometimes the dialogue is hard to understand (lots of slang)
- awkward shots of teens with their parents may hit or miss (comedic value)
- very farfetched (huge underground drug-ring in a high-school setting?)

this movie blew me away. i was literally stunned at how good it was. it's an excellent neo-noir film that uses shots, characters, and dialogue to capture the noir feel.

the movie has excellent pacing while being (mostly) coherent and totally grips you from the beginning.

if you are under 30 (i really doubt that adults will be as amused) and like detective stories, watch this movie.

---