Right off the bat, you can tell this is an unnecessary sequel. They destroyed pretty much everything gained in the second of the series immediately. In spite of that, it was still a great movie.
The best part about Alien 3 is that it restores the power and scariness of the Xenomorph that Aliens took away. It is once again a very difficult to kill creature that has astounding killing ability.
The plot was lacking in quite a few aspects, but it was still quite enjoyable. Some parts really felt unrealistic-- for example, the Alien's surviving molten lead. It never really made much sense having Ripley have a chestburster, much less a queen, in her. Also, how could she tell it was a queen?
It was still a lot of fun, and I enjoyed it more than Aliens, though it still isn't up to par to the original installment of the series.
MPAA Rating: R for monster violence, and for language.
Rating: 
Alien 3
Coraline
It's quite a rare thing for me to enjoy a film adaptation of a novel more than the actual book itself-- offhand I can only think of The Shawshank Redemption and The Godfather. This film joins the ranks of that very small but elite list.
Don't get me wrong-- I enjoyed Neil Gaiman's novel very much. It was very solid and well-plotted, especially for a children-to-young adult novel. It was much darker than I ever expected. This film took the things that were good in the book and then took them to the next step, while cleaning up some points in the plot that could have used more clarification. Wybie, for example, was not in the book at all but adding him helped make some more sense out of everything.
The stop motion is beautiful and has a lot more detail, especially in facial expression, than I ever expected. It was very well done. The world is artistically very beautiful at times and very dark and intimidating when it needs to be.
The voicework was spot-on, with each character being fitted excellently to a great voice actor.
I really wish they hadn't been so extreme in the play scene-- nobody should ever have to see that. If you've seen the movie you'll know what I mean. *shudder*
It's just a great movie, but here's a warning-- it's not for kids, like the trailers seemed to indicate. I would recommend it for ages 11 and up, as there are parts that are quite frightening in nature.
MPAA Rating: PG for thematic elements, scary images, some language and suggestive humor.
Rating: 
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
This sequel of the very entertaining Transformers film was nothing special. Of course, it features some great visuals with some exciting action sequences, but the plot was much less tangible than the first and the humor was extremely stupid and forced.
The plot idea was pretty cool, but overall it just didn't deliver. It had much to explain about the Fallen, and though it told a lot, it missed on some very basic things-- like maybe his actual name. I was curious the whole movie and it never told me. They should have given more logic behind why it had to be the dagger to revive Optimus, instead of something like the cube shard? More explanation about the past and the teleportation that happened would be nice too. All of the president's desires were totally retarded. Bumblebee should have still been able to talk.
Characters-- why did they have to bring back that Section 7 agent? He was retarded in the first one. The roomate was worthless and annoying, as were the twin Autobots.
The humor was stupid. It consisted on random crude references and the apparent humor in a robot swearing or acting like a gansta. The marijuana brownie stuff was dumb (well, the mom was pretty bad the whole time). The dogs or the little Decipticon humping stuff was really really retarded and totally unfunny.
It's not something I'd go see again. Entertaining, but that's about it.
MPAA Rating:PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material.
Rating: 
28 Days Later
Wow, another movie that I feel very indifferent about.
I have often heard this movie regaled as one of the greatest zombie (I'll throw in my response to the debate of whether or not this is a zombie movie in a second) movies ever made. What a lie that is.
This is a very well-loved movie, and I don't mean to insult, but my honest opinion is that it was boring. If any horror movie is boring, that's a very bad sign indeed. The main source of the boredom I felt in watching this film was from the camera style-- it was just terrible! There were so many long shots and scenic shots that I kept getting bored between the action sequences (which there were far too few a number of).
The acting wasn't anything to be very impressed with, either. Everybody seemed so fake. Much to my surprise, Cillian Murphy was particularly unimpressive (a big disappointment as I really enjoyed his work in Nolan's Batman movies and in Red Eye). The characters were pretty bland as well.
It just didn't feel very realistic to me. There would be times where the main characters would be worried to get attacked in any given situation and other times it was like they were on a nice holiday with not a care in the world. The infection time being like 12 seconds was way too fast to be realistic. There were times when characters would say something and then do the exact opposite (example-- the leader of the soldiers tells Jim they'll give him a chance to cooperate and then immediately take him out in the woods to shoot him). If Rage were so infectious more people would be infected and less dead.
Oh, and having Jim be totally nude in the first scene he's in was totally unecessary and really lost some points in my book. Wow, I sure wanted to see Cillian Murphy's manhood when I came expecting a zombie movie!
It was a good idea, but it really just fell short across the board, making a mediocre film-- not bad nor good, just "meh."
And now for my argument about zombies: Traditionally, the definition for the fictional creature, zombie, was a person who was dead and came back to life as a monster seeking human flesh. As time has gone on, storytellers have come up with more and more realistic ways to explain zombies. It used to just simply be magic, then it went to cosmic things (parasites or rays) from space. Soon we had zombies as the result of radiation. Today, the most popular explanation is a disease, usually caused by a virus.
A growing number of stories (books, short stories, films, and other media) began to have monsters that were textbook zombies in every way except being dead. They were struck by some terrible virus and, though still technically living, are now mindless monsters seeking human flesh. I feel that these monsters still count as zombies. They are a new class of zombie, not the living dead but the mindless living. I still feel these monsters capture the essence of the horror of zombies. I'm not saying one or the other is better, though still-living zombies are probably more realistic and more frightening in that aspect.
There are many examples of these new zombies in popular culture-- in the 28 Days/Weeks horror movies, in Resident Evil 4 and 5, in Left 4 Dead, in Quarantine, and in many horror stories.
Back to 28 days later-- the "what if" alternate ending where Jim dies is a lot better. It fits the story better, it makes it come full circle. The plane thing was dumb.
MPAA Rating: R for strong violence and gore, language and nudity.
Rating:
City of Ember
If I were to describe this film in one word it would have to be "meh."
It's not bad, it's not good, it's simply unremarkable-- not to the point of disliking it, it just wasn't anything special.
It's an interesting premise-- a group of scientists create an underground city to "save humanity." This city is unaware of anything else after one generation (hey, kinda like The Village...). After 200 years, a box left to the people of the city is supposed to open up and tell them how to get out. Stuff happens, nobody knows about the box, some kids find it during the crisis that their generator is failing. Not the best premise, but at least intriguing.
Well, unfortunately the movie kinda skims over a lot of the essential "why" stuff. Why does humanity need saving? Wikipedia tells me that in the novel it explains something about an apocalyptic war. If nukes are involved then that would help explain the giant animals you see every once and a while. That would help the audience. Why was there a problem when the 7th mayor died, thus resulting in the loss of the box? What are half of the characters' motivations (the mayor, for example)? There's just a lot of blanks that, if filled, would make this a much better film.
Overall, the characters were bland in development and in the way they were acted, so you didn't really care about any of them. A lot of people seemed to like Poppy, but I found her annoying. The effects were unimpressive and behind-the-times. It just felt like a sloppily made movie, as though they figured it would just sell because of the medium-popularity of the book, so they didn't really have to try very hard.
Once again, not a bad movie, but nothing special at all.
MPAA Rating: PG for mild peril and some thematic elements.
Rating:
Mars Attacks!
I was very surprised at how star-studded the cast for this film was-- Jack Nicholson, Glenn Close, Natalie Portman, Pierce Brosnan, Danny DeVito, Michael J. Fox, Jack Black, and more. This roused some concern in me, as generally movies that are half this star-studded are trying to compensate for a bad movie by having a bunch of famous people.
This wasn't so much the case.
This is definitely a far stride from Tim Burton's best work, but it is still a very entertaining film. When you look at what it essentially is-- a parody of B-budget sci-fi films such as Attack of the Bodysnatchers-- instead of watching it as a serious film, the humor and fun of the plot comes out.
It is undeniably a funny movie. That's not to say you'll be busy rolling with laughter, but rather you'll get some good chuckles in here and there, noting some clever bit of satire or the like.
The acting is overdone, but that's all part of the parody. The effects are just so-so, but it was made to look like a B-movie while still having the large budget. I really did enjoy Danny Elfman's score-- it fit the movie perfectly. I enjoyed the film, it's just fun.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sci-fi fantasy violence and brief sexuality.
Rating: 
Hannibal Rising
It's a strange thing to be almost cheering for a serial killer, but Hannibal Lecter is a character that you can't help but be attracted to. He is very interesting and complex, and this grows the more you discover about him. You really pity his tragic life, and are fascinated by his response to it.
This is the second film featuring Hannibal Lecter I have seen thus far, the first being the brilliant Silence of the Lambs. As Lecter played a considerably smaller role in that film but still was so fascinatingly brilliant, it was good to see and understand him more. This is a very interesting origin story of the serial killer-- showing why he is a cannibal, how he started killing, and showing the origins of his high-class interests in art and behavior.
It would be nice to see the bridge between the events of this film and his psychological work and murders in the US, but I suppose I'll just have to piece more together in Red Dragon and Hannibal when I watch them.
The acting is very good, and the selection for the youthful Lecter does the character some justice. You can tell his performance is very studied out to play the role like Anthony Hawkins. Admittedly, this young actor can't fully fill the shoes of that great man, but he did a much better job than most ever could hope to achieve.
MPAA Rating: R for strong grisly violent content and some language/sexual references.
Rating:
Evil Dead 2
The acting is noticeably worse, especially in the characters Ash and the male country bumpkin. Ash wasn't that bad before, but this time around he's way campier.
There are times when Ash is making verbal noises on the audio track but isn't moving his lips at all visually. Things like that really indicate how sloppily this film was done. It feels lower-budget than the first, which I know isn't actually the case.
There's a lot of random stuff obviously meant to be creepy, like the inanimate objects laughing scene, but it just takes away from any horror elements and replaces them with camp.
At times, just to mix things up, they change the color of blood from red, to black, to green. The quantities of blood are beyond absurd. Ash's level of griminess changes up and down frequently and without any explanation.
People also become possessed at the drop of the hat, no explanation given for their transformation.
The “professional” camera work made me nauseated when films like The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, and Quarantine didn't.
It's not without it's good points-- the idea of a chainsaw hand is fun. It comes together a lot more at the end, especially concerning its sequel, Army of Darkness.
It's not scary or funny-- it's jumpy and campy. Here's hoping Army of Darkness is better than this one, because this one didn't hold up to the original.
MPAA Rating: R for violence, gore, and language.
Rating:
Clerks
Definitely very witty with some of the dialogue of the film, but there is an over abundance of unfunny crude content that really just takes away from what could have been a true gem of independent film. It has an interesting message that I did enjoy.
As it was filmed in the 90s, I thought the choice to film in black and white to be a very interesting one. It worked, but I didn't really see a purpose behind it. I can only guess that black and white film was cheaper at the time of filming.
It's definitely a low-budget film. There are some parts where it can easily be seen that the actors half-mess up and catch themselves with lines, but instead of doing another take (probably too expensive) they just stick with it.
There isn't much plot, but the characters do have pretty vivid personalities. Overall, it's worth watching segments of, such as the discussion of Death Star contractors in Return of the Jedi, but the rest of the film's references to things of a sexual nature ruin it.
MPAA Rating: R for use of sex-related dialogue.
Rating:
Anger Management
This is definitely a funny movie. I laughed quite heartily throughout.
This is also one of Adam Sandler's best movies. As I've gotten older I've realized that I really don't care for most of his stuff. This is a pleasant exception.
Jack Nicholson was a great actor, as always. He was perfect for the role, and played it great.
Other than disliking some of the cruder humor, my big problem with this movie was the ending-- it felt really sloppy, forced, and unrealistic. I felt like they couldn't think of anything better so they just had that over-the-top conclusion.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 on appeal for crude sexual content and language.
Rating:
