Okay, folks. Here’s the deal. I thought that I wrote up this meview 9 months ago but apparently I didn’t…or it was lost. So, that being said, I’m not gonna spend a great deal of time on it.

Donnie Brasco is a fine movie. It’s not the best “undercover-in too deep” cop/agent movie I’ve ever seen, but the actors elevate the material and make it better than it might have been otherwise. Its based on a true story, which is intriguing, but it’s also very “by the numbers”, so it feels like an inauthentic Hollywood picture written by committee. The story follows Johnny Depp as an undercover agent (I don’t remember if it’s CIA or FBI) and his relationship to a mobster played by Al Pacino. Their relationship is at the heart of the story, which I suppose is interesting, but it was not explored enough to be memorable. Donnie Brasco has a few thrills and a moderate sense of tension, but it was nothing special to me. In fact, I felt it was really a mundane genre exercise. Other than Al Pacino’s last scene, I remember nothing specific about it; it was just kinda “blah”–NOT BAD though. I’m not saying it’s bad. I’m just saying it was sufficient. It was fine. That’s really all I’m gonna say about it. Donnie Brasco gets a 4 from me because I thought it was a good, watchable, fine entry into a genre I find interesting–but honestly, the film was nothing special to me.

Death of a President is an interesting little film. I won’t say it’s a documentary, because it’s not. It’s a fictional story, told with the tools of documentary filmmaking, but it’s no documentary. Frankly, it’s just a thriller, but it’s elevated to more because of the ingenuity of its creators to tell the thriller through the documentary tools. For that alone, it gets points in my book, becuase it’s something I had never seen done with seriousness up to this point (I realize that the documentary style has been used for comedy in the past a la Spinal Tap).

Death of a President is of course the fictional depiction of the murder of current United States President George W. Bush, as told by the people at the event. The government agents and officers are painted to be either incompetant, hard-nosed, or bully. The innocent people affected by the assassination are treated as heroes and saints. The hard details of the murder, and the true impact of the event are vague but offered. So, what does that leave. Well, if nothing else, an interesting experiment.

See, I’m not sure how I feel about the “ethics” of making a picutre about the assassination of a person. I mean, how would I feel if someone made a psuedo-documentary called, “The repeated torture of Christopher Stunkard”, and the film showed home video footage of me intercut with scenes of brutality and actors playing people involved talking about it. I don’t know. I’d be flattered, I think. But I’m a megalomaniac, so my outlook is probably different than most. then again, if someone made a movie called, “The repeated torture of the very likable Kirk Cameron by the bastar Christopher Stunkard”, then I might have a problem with it. I guess, in this instance, because the film is obviously fictional and becuase it really does not directly slander or libel Bush, I don’t have a huge problem with it. Maybe I should. Maybe I’m monster. I could be worse. i could be torturing Kirk Cameron.

All that to say, while I dig the experiment of Death of a President, I really don’t think it’s that great of a movie. Don’t get me wrong, it is interesting, but not nearly as fascinating as it could and should have been. In fact, the amount of untapped possibilty is shocking in retrospect. The movie has a real opportunity to talk about the world following this event, but it instead takes a much a more microscopic look at the incident and its players–which makes for a good story but a lackluster one given the material and scope of the event. It’s actually not so much a well-made and well-told story as it is an interesting experiment.

Given everything I’ve said above, I’m gonna give Death of a President a 4. I like waht it’s trying to do, and I appreciate the experimental nature of it. it’s a bold, new way of telling fictional mysteries that I sure hadn’t seen before, and I hope to see more in the future. I dig it for that. Of course, the disappointing execution leaves a lot to be desired. I guess if I were really gonna sum up my thoughts on it, I’d say, “Yeah, I don’t really love Death of a President but I’m excited to see what other movies come as a direct result of it, because I’ll bet I enjoy many of those”

Don’t see this. Don’t even think about it. Don’t even read this. I picked up this flic from the “Roger Corman Classics” collection for $1.99 at Gamestop, and I feel jipped. Stay away. That is all.

PS - If you read the above, and you think I’m joking. I’m not. This is an unbearable mess of a flic with recycled shots, needless nudity, a straightforward yet still hardly understandable plot, and alot of David Carradine in a loin cloth, which might sound great on paper but isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Trust me on this.

Hitchcock’s Rear Window gets a modern update with Disturbia, an exciting teen thriller examining voyeurism in the technological savvy age of today. The story follows a young man who is under house arrest after punching his teacher in the face. While in lock down, the boy becomes a voyeur of his many neighbors, one of whom he thinks is a serial killer.

Shia Lebouf, perhaps the up-and-coming young male lead in Hollywood is fantastic and shows once again that he has range, comedic timing, and charisma. David Morse gives another excellently restrained performance as Lebouf’s nemesis. And Cary Ann Moss is very serviceable in her role as Lebouf’s mother. The movie is full of great surprises, well-timed humor, and an overall sense of tension and impending danger. It’s a taut, well-told thriller, particularly given that it’s outside of the current teen-slasher-torture-porn-trend. Kudos to the studio for greenlighting a film that goes against the tide of popularity. Seeing that film made $80 million in domestic theatrical Box office alone (4 times what the movie cost), it seems the gamble paid off. Understandably, as with most thrillers, I’m unsure how this film will hold under further viewings; but it has enough comedy to at least make it enjoyable.

Ya know, I’m gonna give Disturbia a very solid 5. It’s exciting, well acted (except for the lead female), and fun from start to finish.

I love documentaries. the more I watch the more I become a fan of the genre. While no documentary should be viewed in a vaccuum as objective truthtelling, each comes with a theory, purpose, or meaning and should be viewed as editorial pieces. This isn’t a bad thing. It’s a good thing, because it gives you a full case for one side of an argument. If you want the other half, you can do your own research (or find another documentary) in order to come to a somewhat learned conclusion. Some documentaries are very good at simply stating the facts without judgment–particularly Vernor Herzog’s “Grizzly Man”, but other, most in fact, are strongly arguing for a particular judgment of an event or situation.

For me, part of the fun of these documentaries is to play “What do they want me to think here?” This is a fun game while watching because it allows you to see where the filmmakers are attempting to manipulate you or make you believe that 2+2=5, because you see the math on paper, even if it’s incorrect. The documentaries that do this the least tend to be the most moving and meaningful to me; and luckily Deliver Us from Evil is one of them. I only had warning flags about misinformation or, at least, manipulated information twice (and I’ll list them at the bottom).

Given that these two points are very small in the grand scheme of the documentary, I am exceedingly happy to say that Deliver Us From Evil is a powerful, moving, extraordinary piece of work. It’s a captivating study of child rape in the Catholic church that is haunting and unfuriating. IT’s the type of film that many would put on the “naughty” list for all the wrong reasons. This is not an exploitative piece on how pederasts are victims of nurture (though there is hint of that), it’s not about the sexual disfunction of abuse victims (though it’s touched on), and it’s certainly not an antireligious diatribe of Michael Moorish tomfoolery. No, Deliver Us from Evil is a frank, honest, and very firm look at a particuarly problem in a particular place. That place happens to be the Institution of the Catholic church, and that problem happens to be people in authority sodomizing children, sometimes in their own home. That has nothing to do with whether or the Christian religion is true (though some victims explore that), and it has nothing to do with sensationalism. This is truly explorative analysis of a specific problem in the world, how it affects the world, and how in the world it all happened. Frankly, it’s a near-perfect masterpiece. Less the closing montage and the two points below, I found nothing short of excellence in this movie.

Deliver Us From Evil gets a very solid 6 from me. It’s not “one of C.J.’s All time favorites”, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an exceptional film, made by very concerned and seemingly honest people. I don’t like to make “recommendations”, but I think that this film is a safe bet for anyone over the age of 18 and teenagers above age 13 who will be engaged in meaningful discussion afterward. This movie is that good and, personally, very important. It was fantastic.

Now, for those points of interest I mentioned earlier. There are two things that the mindful viewer will want to note.

The first involves correspondence between the pedophile Father O’Grady and the Bishop Roger Mahoney. The movie paints a picture that the correspondence shows that Mahoney was vested substanitally in O’Grady’s continued freedom despite pedophilia; however the letter they use really appears to be nothing more than a form letter that I am sure Mahoney has sent to countless men under his authority.

Second, the movie makes a point at the end to tell the audience that, at the Vaticans request, George Bush failed to persecute the pope for his involvement in covering up the scandal. This should not surprise anyone who understands politics. George Bush was voted in by a relgious majority built in part by Catholics and to attack their highest religious leader and undermine the values and beliefs he appealed to during his campaign would not only have been political suicide for himself (with his constituency hating him and his enemies calling him a traitor) but also for the Republican party. Bush’s decision, regardless of ethics, is one of obvious political motivations that should not shock those with even a novice understerstanding of the way the game is played. I’m not excusing Bush’s actions in the least or spinning them, I am simply pointing out that the motivation behind them may be more complex and politically motivated than the film lets on.

Okay, I totally thought I wrote a meview for The Da Vinci Code; but apparently I didn’t save it, which sucks because NOW I am only willing to write a short blurb to get the movie up on the site. Ok, here ya go.

First, the movie isn’t really exciting, but I thought it was interesting. Though I consider its fundamental history to be fictional or, at the very least, grossly misrepresented, it made for interesting viewing experience. At least for me.

Second, I felt it was adequately produced. It was well directed, with a few noteworthy shots but nothing truly awe-inspiring. The performances, less the female lead, were good, with Ian McKellan particularly making himself endearing despite villainous intent. Overall I felt that it made for a watchable outing.

Okay, that being said, Da Vinci Code gets a 4 from me. It’s adequate, even if it is off in its historicity.

My feelings on Deep Blue Sea are strongly tied to emotional memories and, as such, it receives an immense amount of grace. If my ties to the film were not so strong, it’d be an easy 3, but memories and the power of positive reinforcement are just strong enough for me to give it a pass where I porbably shouldn’t, placing into my “good” category.

I first saw Deep Blue Sea on a July weekend trip to the beach, and we swam the next day in the deep blue sea, or Atlantic shore as it is commonly called. So I saw it under perfect conditions with good friends on a good trip. Yeah, sweet memories. In fact, on later viewings, Deep Blue Sea retains all the goodness and fun of the first time; but it’s weaknesses and faults are much more glaring. Oh well, sometimes that happens.

What is Deep Blue Sea? It’s the story of sharks that are given growth hormones, who in turn grow large brains, and of course, become smarter–so smart in fact that they can solve puzzles, gain new capacities, and manipulate their captors into unknowingly sinking their own laboratory. The captors are turned into prisoners in their own complex and forced to attempt several different escapes only to be picked off one-by-one in standard horror style.

Yeah, it’s bogus. Yeah, I thought the direction, pacing, and overall tone was B-movie execution with an A-list budget. Yeah, the acting is pretty crappy (less the fantastic performances of Tom Jane, Michael Rappaport, and LL Cool J). Oh, and the sharks only look remotely good half the time…

But on the other hand, LL Cool J blows up a shark, prays comically and punches a shark in the face. Sam Jackson gives a harrowing speech to rally the survivors. Tom Jane stars as a “Shark Wrangler”, which is pretty much the coolest job a person can have outside of “Ninja”, “Secret Agent”, or “Croc Wrestler”. There is also plenty of crazy shark action, even if some of it’s goofy. There’s also LL Cool J…and my memory of the first time I caught this flic, at the beach, with good friends, prior to swimming.

So, taking the Pros and Cons into account, Deep Blue Sea retains a strong 4 for me. Despite itself, I really enjoy it and I’ll probably watch it every summer for the rest of my life, along with Jaws.

Deliverance is one of those movies that worked for me on a very base level of entertainment. from start-to-finish, I was tense and waiting for things to go awry; and when they did, it was often much worse than I had anticipated. That being said, it was a ride–maybe not like the Michael Bay-influenced Tour de force rides we get nowadays, but one worth going on, nonetheless.

IN fact, in our current climate, Deliverance could be best compared to the rickety, old wodden roller coaster at the theme park full of the new, exciting rides that go faster, are higher, and nearly induce heart attacks. The old caster is slower and unrefined, but it has charm in its dated construction and architecture, and it can still be appreciated by those willing to be open to it for what it is.

In much the same way, Deliverance seems somewhat dull and archaic next to the high-octane action films of today. It moves slowly, offers moderate action, and has an overall generic shot selection and appearance. It’s score does not manipulate one into a certain emotional state. It does not make use of a lot quikc-cut editing or fancing camera trickery. It’s straightforward storytelling of a classic nature, and it has all the bravura of a salad with nothing buy cucumbers and iceberg lettuce.

This isn’t to say the film is not good. On the contrary, it’s very entertaining. It is consistently tense and sometimes shocking, with a well-paced plot and great characters, particularly those played by Burt Reynolds and Jon Voight. These two actors turn in career-defining performances in their respective roles, with the charm Reynolds’ machismo only matched by the pitifulness of his later injuries.

The movie contests to be a harrowing tale exploring man’s natural instinct to kill when necessary as well as nature’s way of bringing this trait to the surface. Frankly, I think this is portrayed well, but it is hardly a deep exploration. 2006’s The Descent did it in a much more layered (albeit unrealistic) way.

Overall, Deliverance is getting a strong 4, leaning toward a 5 for me. No, actually…Deliverance gets a 5 from me. It’s a very tense, well-paced movie with shocking horrors and interesting theme that, while inadequately explored in the film, is still great food for thought and conversation.

WARNING: The following review contains numerous counts of obscenity becuase I wanted to honestly convey how I was feeling during this movie, and I feel that honesty outweighs possibly socially moral implications of obscenity.

I have never cursed as much in my life as when I watched The Descent. The entire time, I was on edge, and with each new major dilemma, all I could think, and say was, “No, noway, that’s bullshit.” And I’m not lying, that little phrase escaped my lips about 4 to 5 times. Moments of this film are that unbelievable. I also uttered “What the hell!!!” once or twice as well. Why? Becuase The Descent is probably one of the single best thrill rides I have ever been on while sitting on my couch. Look, I rarely demand anything from my readers, but I implore you, behoove you, beg you, to see The Descent and come back here and comment. Okay. Just do it, becuase I need to know if my wife and I are crazy for how tense this movie made us. We were on edge like a couple of kids hiding pot in their backpacks.

I don’t want to ruin anything about the movie, so I am giving as little away as possible. 6 girls go spelunking into a cave, problems ensue. It’s a horror movie. Okay, that’s all I’m going to say becuase I don’t want to spoil anything. That’s it.

Look, here’s the thing. I’m big into being clever, which is ironic consider how unclever I tend to be, but the fact is that The Desceent has everything to do with theme. It’s a film of ideas, about environment, circumstance, and a person’s reaction to it. The film isn’t perfect I’m sure; but I was so heatily engaged in it, so completely enrapt in what was happening onscreen, that I couldn’t find the problems; and I was trained to look for them (thanks, college). The movie is that good. It’s not for the faint of heart, the movie is tense, gory, and had my wife and I on the edge of our seats. In fact, I can’t remember the last time we were that afraid of anything on screen, at least not together. I really talk about one aspect of this film, the antagonists, so-to-speak, but I’ll wait to do it in the comment section once people have seen the flic and write in. Please do it. If you’re near me and want to borrow it, just shoot me a line.

I think it goes without saying that The Descent gets a 7. It is rated R for Obscenity, Violence, Gore, and Nightmarish Images.

Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story is a docu-drama/biopoic about the life of Martial Arts Master Bruce Lee. While the movie takes licenses with the actual factual events of Lee’s life, the movie has the blessing of his widowed wife, Linda Lee Caldwell, and as a result, has been considered a valid, if somewhat overly dramatized, retelling and dramatizition of Lee’s life as legendary warrior, teacher, lover, and friend.

Now, that’s all good. Dramatizitions are meant to be dramatic, to make a life of greatness, more great, to make an epic event more epic, to make people into legends. I understand that, and that’s all cool. To those who love dramatiziations, more power to you.

Me, I want to like this movie more than I do. I really enjoy the acting, the pace, and the overall tone and feel of the movie. It treats Lee as a man of great passion, constantly pursuing greatness and philosophical purtiy amidst the prejudice of others. It has some great 90s US-Produced Martial Arts action (which isn’t saying much), and it is entertaining. Oh, and the SCORE IS AMAZING!!!! It contains some of the most used trailer music of the last ten years, and it lends great potency to the emotion of the film. However, because of what I DO KNOW of Lee’s life, particualrly regarding several ultra-dramatized events of the movie, I really find it hard to take the movie seriously. The other info came from various documentaries and interviews with the man himself (and his students); and they refute some of what’s conveyed in the film. So, for me, that makes it very difficult to believe ANYTHING in the film and nullify alot of the pleasure I want to gain from it, which sucks cause I want to love this movie.

I’m not an information or taste elitist in any way, but this is one of the situations where I have been unable to reconcile my knowledge of the truth with my desire to escape from it. It’s unfortunate since I want to like this move; but it’s the way my mind is working right now. It’s a pain.

I have to give Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story a 3. It is entertaining, and I want to like it; but I just can’t accept it despite my sincere attempts.