Two Reviews for the Price of One!! Django Unchained and Lincoln!!

DJANGO UNCHAINED
Is there a filmmaker working today who is more creatively unhinged than Quentin Tarantino? I can't possibly ever believe it. Time and time again, Tarantino has proved that he is a cinematic prodigy; one of the finest writers/directors of not only our generation, but of all time. It's difficult to pick a single favorite from his rich, spectacular filmography, which includes the likes of Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Inglourious Basterds. He may have a miss every so often (Death Proof, anyone?), but even those can't keep him from churning out the goods year after year. And yet, even with these masterpieces under his belt, nothing he has made may quite measure up to his latest work: The unrestrained and downright balls-to-the-walls insane Django Unchained. His Spaghetti Westernizing of slavery in the 1800's is revelatory and there is no doubt in my mind that Tarantino has delivered yet another masterpiece.

The thing that really makes Tarantino a great filmmaker is the way he upends the conventions of any well-known genre and reshapes them to be completely fresh and original while still being instantly recognizable. Django contains all the traits that make his films such a joy to watch and here he cranks them up past eleven (Spinal Tap would be envious). Every single frame of this film is bursting at the seams with action, clever dialogue, suspense, humor, and, naturally, a kick-ass soundtrack. It's filled to the brim with filmmaking fervor and with every twist and turn, one can picture Tarantino bouncing around with excitement as he inspires unbridled glee from his viewing public, the kind of glee that only he is capable of producing.

As always, Tarantino has filled his roles with another perfect cast. Jamie Foxx is Django and he has never been so purely awesome. Christoph Waltz also makes a welcome return to the Tarantino universe as the bounty hunter who takes Django under his wing, serving as his friend and mentor and guiding him on his quest to reclaim his wife from the evil Calvin J. Candie, played with sinister perfection by Leonardo DiCaprio. Other supporting cast members include Tarantino regular Samuel L. Jackson as Candie's wickedly funny house servant Stephen and the lovely Kerry Washington as Django's long lost bride. Both are naturally spectacular.

At nearly three hours long, Django never once drags, nor does it overstay its welcome. It is endlessly entertaining, providing a thrilling story with rich, well-drawn characters spouting razor sharp dialogue. In all honesty, if the film had been another hour longer, I wouldn't have minded in the slightest. It really is that fantastic. There are very few things in this world as thrilling as watching a master filmmaker in complete control of their craft. With Django Unchained, Tarantino continues to prove himself as a cinematic force to be reckoned with. This talk of an early retirement better be codswallop or I shall make it my life long duty to force Tarantino back into action. Let us hope that the writing/directing bug never ceases to pester him. For as long as Quentin Tarantino is making films, the moviegoing world will always have something to rejoice.

FINAL RATING: 5/5

LINCOLN
God, I love Steven Spielberg. Say what you will about his career as of late, but one thing cannot be disputed: The guy knows how to make great movies. His latest film Lincoln is a passion project of his that he's reportedly been working on for the past decade and his affection for the material and the man at the center of it all is rather apparent. Still, it's not every man who can take a story about politics and elderly gentlemen sitting around large desks discussing them and make it captivating for a general viewing audience. But, Mr. Spielberg is no mere man and, once again, he has made a deeply felt work that not only ranks as one of 2012's best, but one of Spielberg's finest films in his more recent years.

Lincoln tells the story of our legendary 16th president and his tireless attempts to pass the 13th amendment, which will guarantee the abolishment of slavery once and for all. Spielberg weaves this tale with the greatest of ease. Working with a phenomenal script by Tony Kushner, he manages to combine fascinating drawn out political debates with humor and, above all, a strong sense of humanity. Fascinating is a word I never thought I'd ever use to describe a political debate, but that's part of the genius of this film - It manages to enthrall despite it's potentially dry subject matter. Most importantly, it never loses its focus on its characters and it is they who provide this film with its much-needed heart and soul.

Great direction aside, it's the performances that really make Lincoln shine. The cast is chock full o' talent, showcasing some of the finest performers of all time doing what they do best. It goes without saying that Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal as Abraham Lincoln is magnificent and mesmerizing. His resemblance to the historical figure is uncanny to the point where if you replaced his profile with the real Abraham Lincoln's on a five-dollar bill, I doubt many would notice the difference. His heartfelt, powerful performance helps steer the film to greatness. Equally as spectacular is Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. Jones brings his standard, always welcome world-weariness to the role along with a wicked sense of humor that makes this one of his best performances to date. The supporting cast also includes the likes of Sally Field as the strong-willed Mrs. Lincoln, David Strathairn as Secretary of State William Seward and James Spader as Republican party operative William N. Bilbo. Even Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who's been popping up everywhere, makes an effective, if all too brief, appearance as Lincoln's son Robert.

Lincoln is virtually flawless and if there's any fault with which it can be attributed, it's the inclusion of a short sequence involving its title character's tragic assassination. These shockingly abrupt scenes contribute nothing to the final product and actually serve to diminish the overall impact of the film's ending. But, despite this minor defect, Spielberg proves once again why he is arguably the greatest filmmaker of all time. His mastery of the craft is impeccable and along with deeply felt performances and a strong sense of humanity, the ballots are in: Lincoln is magnificent.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Shea's Review

      It's never a good sign when I show up on this blog. Everybody knows a movie has been very naughty and above all, disappointing when I come around. Sadly, the latest pre-installment/literary amalgamation in the Lord of the Rings universe has certainly been both those things. With a superlative cast, excellent craftsman such as Andrew Lesnie, Dan Hennah and Howard Shore behind the camera and a story crafted by one of the greatest storytellers of the last generation and perhaps all time; what could have possibly gone wrong?  Peter Jackson, the golden child of Middle Earth and the inducer of many a sticky trouser within the realm of geekdom, resumes his directorial duties and seeks to lead casual patrons and Tolkienites alike back into the familiar throes of a not so nostalgic Middle Earth. For most people there was a quiver of joy resonating from somewhere most uncivil when they heard the announcement that "The Hobbit" was to be given the same big screen treatment as its older brothers. For anyone with an education and the faintest whiff of common sense, there was a quiver of disgust. The prospect of yet another profitable franchise was the only motivator which propelled the fabled hills of the blessed Shire back before our eyes. And when the project's reins were offered to the architect of the original series he politely, yet firmly, denied. In fact he had to keep denying them, he grabbed prospective director after prospective director and pushed them in front of himself as if to say "Take anyone but me!"The studio searched high and low across all the land for a worthy successor but found no one. For a time Jackson thought he had escaped when Guillermo Del Toro was assigned to the rank of captain but alas, fate tugged him in a different and more prudent direction.

      When Del Toro jumped ship, the studio swung their large, lidless eye; wreathed in flame, back to Jackson. And that's what we, the audience, were left with. That lack of fervor shows in the final product. His frustration with the original source material is the root of the film's problems. The filmmakers attempts to rememdy that insecurity by borrowing and swapping passages and subplots from other sources such as "The Silmarillion" and "The Lord of the Rings" appendices were earnest but tragically futile. The numerous and varied influences cause the film to wobble onward with no clear tone or pace; wracked by lengthy scenes of exposition and superfluous details that are shoved through, kicking and screaming, in order to lend a few more minutes to the alreaday astronomical running time while we crawl oh so slowly towards that friggin mountain where that friggin dragon is lying with all their friggin gold.

      Pacing aside (for now) we turn to casting and performances. For many people, one of the film's bright spots was the role of Bilbo Baggins, portrayed by an ever boyish Martin Freeman. I happen to disagree with those people. If they had described his performance as stuttering, externality based and a shadowy pastiche of the turn offered to us by Ian Holm as the older, more poised and less flinchy Bilbo then I would heartily agree. The films 1st act campiness is bolstered by Freeman's befuddled blinking as a series of saturday morning cartoons roll around his house, devouring his food, singing and tracking mud on the carpet. By the time he settles down in the 3rd act the pace has gone horribly amiss and then abruptly ends after the most pathetic excuse for an emotionally satisfying climax I've seen in a movie this year. I originally liked Freeman in the role of Bilbo when he was announced for the part but ultimately he lacked the determination and focus to hold down the role with any kind of consistency. Whether this was due to poor direction or something else entirely is irrelevant.

      Instead of Freeman I found the breath of fresh air to be in the performance of Richard Armitage as "Thorin" the proud young Dwarf Heir/Prince/King. He harnessed all the steely reserve of a scorned Tom Cruise, the focused and totured intensity of Liam Neeson, all the while maintaining just a touch of Tom Hanks naive, yet earnest idealism. It was by no means a perfect performance, there seemed to be an internal conflict on how exactly his character should arc. If the film had maintained a consistent and traditional pace it might not have been so difficult. As it stood though, characters who dramatically and precisely arced through Tolkien's book were forced to complete an entirely new arc in just the first 3rd of that book in order to facilitate the studios desire to make 2 more movies. I hardly blame Armitage for his frustration and potential confusion when weighing how to handle that role.  Much like a high-school reunion I wouldn't absolutely hate going to, all the old familiar faces have returned and waste no time at all in filling their roles with the effortlessness of a well worn leather glove. Ian Mckellan, Cate Blanchet, Christopher Lee, Andy Serkis, and Hugo Weaving bring their A-Game. They are, no question, the backbone of the film. But it's so strange to see them in this setting, where their most dire conversations take place while discussing the rebirth of a great evil, hinting morbidly about the return of Sauron. If I hadn't already seen Lord of the Rings then I might, perhaps, be intrigued by this great returning evil that they whisper so loudly about while taking special care to never look at each other unless rebuking or being rebuked.

      The trouble is that none of it matters. Even with actors giving above adequate turns in their roles at the end of the day it's just a bunch of whiny dwarves forever moaning about their gold and the fate of their stupid mountain home. Calm down. So the dragon wants to sleep in your gold for 60 years, big deal. I've seen middle earth 4 times now for a grand total of 10 hours and I've seen about a dozen different mountains that are just as big as your old one. Go live there. The stakes are so miniscule when compared to the original series and it feels insulting to have the studios earnestly believe that this story is worth my time and money. Looking beyond the filmmaking mistakes there is simply a lack of interest or gravity in the story, it has nothing to offer me in the form of emotional engagement and thus I don't feel compelled to watch each frame as it passes meaninglessly in front of my face. It's as if Peter Jackson were a small child pulling you by the hand to his room where he can gleefully show you his toys and neat-o Hot Wheels collection. That's all well and good  Mr. Jackson, but we've moved on now.

      The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie is nothing short of standard and imprecise. Nothing outstanding yet nothing too terribly abhorrent. I elected to NOT see the film in 48fps because I came to the theater to see Middle Earth and not an NBC Soap Opera set. Being one who has shot footage at this speed before I could not consciously give my money to watch a film that employed that particular technique. I did, however, get to watch it for free in 3d IMAX after the 2D screening was too full. The 3d was unnecessary and there were many sweeping shots that were panned to quickly in order to take full advantage of 48p causing the shutter to blur in a rhythmic glaze across the scene. In all their rush to push technology forward they forgot the bread and butter of their trade and committed the most atrocious crime that a talented artist can perpetrate in this industry..........they were mediocre. There were no balls to the wall, there was no risk. Just a half baked gamble tied to a dead-weight story all thrown together by a man who was loathe to be there from the beginning.

      You don't have to be a scientist or even a sub-par filmmaker to see why this is a poorly made movie. I long to see the day when a studio discovers that you can't just take a previously successful franchise, throw money at it and receive gobs of money in return. But for now the general viewing public disappoints me and thus we will continue to have sub-standard movies such as this, of which I shall continue to have to pay money and see it just to say I've seen it and have an opinion.   

Les Misérables? More like if I see one more close up of a weepy face, I'm gonna punch a baby.

Back in the good ol' days of 2006, a local high school put on a production of Claude-Michel Schonberg and Alain Boubil's Les Miserables. I knew little to nothing about the content of the play, but I had a couple friends who were cast members and I told them I would come see it. Naturally, I arrived late to the show, thinking it started later than it actually did, but I was able to catch the second half of the show. Despite having little to no idea about who the characters were or what the nature of the story was, I was captivated. The power and beauty of the music and performances were mesmerizing and through the years I have held the memory of this show - Still the best high school production I have ever witnessed - near and dear to my heart. Over the years, I've always wondered what the rest of the story was. The play is so beloved and well-known and my limited experience with it has only further enforced why this is the case. So it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to Tom Hooper's cinematic adaptation. Boy, oh boy, was I disappointed. As far as I can tell from the film on display, Les Miserables may very well be a captivating tale of love, courage, forgiveness, and redemption; I can't say for sure though. Not when the tale is so poorly rendered. Despite a strong, moving performance from Anne Hathaway, the rest of the film seems hopelessly lost in a state of limbo, a direct result of mediocre performances and abysmal direction.

I have never been the biggest fan of Hooper's directing. The King's Speech was a fantastic film, but in it Hooper showed that he hadn't the foggiest idea how to tell a story visually nor even how to frame a shot. Here, Hooper not only continues to display his complete lack of understanding regarding visual language, but his directing choices for each musical sequence are so stale and uninspired it's baffling. Every single musical sequence mimics the one preceding it: Close up of actor over-emoting with every note that blasts from their vocal chords; wider shot of actor standing in an awkward position; cut back to close up; maybe throw in a two shot to compensate two people singing together...but not for too long!! Who needs two-shots when you can resort to the handy dandy shot/reverse shot technique, showcasing both performers' nose-hairs in suffocating close-ups!! Oh, and maybe throw in an uninspired crane shot for good measure. That'll make everything seem infinitely more epic than it actually is. Honestly, I didn't think it was possible to shoot a movie comprised almost entirely of close-ups, but Hooper seems dead set on proving it with uninspiring results.

The cast appears to have been told to belt out every single song/emotion with everything they've got, leaving no room for subtlety or subtext. The extreme amount of bombastic emotions dulls the senses after a while and, after being bombarded with so many close-up's of so many weeping faces belting their hearts out, it's hard to feel anything for anyone. The only true standout performance here is Anne Hathaway's. Hers is the only one that feels genuine as opposed to manipulative. It's a shame she's only in the film for 20 minutes or so. Even so, her performance is so strong that her presence is felt over the remainder of the film's near three-hour running time. It may be why so many people have been tricked into thinking the film is spectacular, but, rest assured, it is no such thing.

The rest of the cast performs as if they were just shown early footage of Hathaway's performance and were fearful of losing their Oscar attention. As a result, everyone over-emotes to the point of parody and rarely does a single moment contain an ounce of truth. Hugh Jackman is decent as Jean Valjean, but the storytelling and direction do him no favors and this fascinating character's journey carries none of the impact that it should. Samantha Barks as Eponine is also sweet and sincere, despite the fact that she has little to nothing to actually do. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter also provide some sparks of life as Monsieur and Madame Thenardier. The rest of the performances range from non-existant to downright dreadful. The worst showcases of acting are Eddie Redmayne as Marius and Russell Crowe as Javert. Redmayne resembles an overgrown choir boy desperately trying to prove he is a singing prodigy the likes of which the world has never known. With every single note he belts out, his lip quivers as if it's possessed. It moves more than he does, actually, and it got to the point where I just wanted to slap him. Crowe may be even worse. His performance is stiff and his singing sounds more like a man with a cold than a force to be reckoned with.

Oh, yeah! Amanda Seyfried is in this movie too!

...

Anyway, where was I?

Oh, right!!

Les Miserables is overwrought with pandering, manipulative direction that ensures its audience is well aware of their heartstrings being desperately tugged on. (A tip from the Tom Hooper school of direction: If you want to elicit further sobs from your audience, be sure to insert a shot of an adorable orphan boy with a single tear rolling down his cheek) The main story is a resounding cry for the beauty of life and love, but everything about this production is passionless and dull. Every emotion is played as broadly as can be and the more it's beaten over your head, the easier it is to become indifferent to it all. Needless to say, the only tears I shed were those of unmitigated boredom.

For any fans of this film, (And I've seen many who seem to be under the impression that its release is some form of the Second Coming) I ask you to consider this: Are you truly a fan of the work being done here or are your fond memories of the musical dominating your common sense? No one will fault you for admitting you were disappointed. Admission is the first step.

As for me, I'll be more than happy to stick with my fond memories of the second half of that high school production I saw long ago - A performance which, with a miniscule fraction of the budget of this overblown big screen iteration, ends up being vastly superior and infinitely more moving.


FINAL RATING: 2/5

Capsule Reviews!!! Life of Pi; The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey; Silver Linings Playbook

My goodness, I've been behind on my reviews!! This simply will not do. To make up for a complete lack of reviews over the course of the past month, I've decided to give you three for the price of one post!! This week we have Life of Pi, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and Silver Linings Playbook. Enjoy!!!

LIFE OF PI
I've never had the pleasure of reading Yann Martel's highly acclaimed novel, but if it's anything remotely as revelatory and moving as Ang Lee's adaptation, I shall have to look into rectifying that immediately. Life of Pi never aspires to be anything less than one of the most beautiful films ever made and it succeeds. Following the story of Pi (Suraj Sharma), an open minded young man who's a self-proclaimed Catholic Buddhist as well as a Muslim. His father owns a zoo in India and is highly cynical towards religion. Naturally, his son's fascination with all facets of the subject frustrates him to no end. Pi's father decides to move the family zoo to Canada and, during their journey, a massive thunderstorm hits, sinking the boat and leaving only Pi and a few of the zoo's inhabitants, including a vicious Bengal tiger named Richard Parker, as its survivors. And so we pay witness to an incredible tale of survival, courage, and friendship all wrapped up in a universal question: "Does God truly exist?" And if this film is the best argument that one can muster for proof of the existence of God, then God must be rather pleased.

From beginning to end, Ang Lee's adaptation is a visual masterpiece with a profound soul. Its beauty knows no bounds and presents images so stunning that your jaw grow weary of hitting the theater floor. The cinematography by Claudio Miranda is nothing short of majestic. I had the pleasure of catching the film in both 2D and 3D and this is one of the few times I will recommend seeing the 3D version over the 2D. Like Avatar and Hugo it was clearly designed to be viewed in this way.

Performance-wise, everyone is strong across the board - Especially Suraj Sharma as our hero Pi. He practically carries the entire picture on his shoulders as most of the picture involves him acting opposite animals. Speaking of which, I'm not sure which animals were digital as opposed to real-life; the visual effects are easily the best of the year (Eat your heart out, Hobbit) and some of the best I have ever seen.

The effects may make it a front-runner for the Oscar come awards season, but its heart and soul are what make it a transcendent, meaningful work of art and one of the finest pictures of 2012.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Peter Jackson's first installment of his new money-grubbing Hobbit trilogy. Based on Tolkien's fun, flimsy novel, An Unexpected Journey is certainly flimsy, but not much fun. The Hobbit is a short, simple narrative, but Jackson has seen fit to stretch it out over the course of three films, the first of which is nearly three hours long. Jackson adds additional subplots that may or may not be in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings (I haven't bothered to check), but none of them enrich the story. With the addition of many superfluous storylines, the tale loses its sense of innocence and simple fun and adventure.

That's not to say the movie is a complete failure - It most certainly isn't dreadful. It's just that for every strong moment (Usually taken directly from the source material) there are two to three moments serving as attempts to pad out the mind numbing running length and only serve to weigh the whole thing down. These additional fun-spoiling moments are not actually taken from the book on which the film is based. This is one case where sticking to the simpler source material may have resulted in a more enjoyable film.

Thankfully, Martin Freeman provides some joy and levity with his excellent performance as Bilbo Baggins. This performance is mostly lost amidst the extraneous plotlines and boring supporting characters. Maybe I'm stretching a bit to suggest that a movie entitled The Hobbit should have focused on its title character a bit more? Other performances fall into their regular paces including a welcome return for Ian McKellen as Gandalf. However, due to the massive amounts of characters and dull plotlines, there's not much to invest in emotionally. As a result, the stakes don't ever rise to be much more complex than your average video game - Though, truthfully, video games these days are actually more thoughtful and entertaining than this lameness. It's a bit insulting that New Line/Warner Bros/MGM want us to dish out the $$$ for three separate tickets to a trilogy of films that could easily have been one.  

It's disheartening to think that the same minds who created the cinematic masterpiece that is The Lord of the Rings went into creating this drivel. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey may not the most disappointing film of the year (Hello, The Dark Knight Rises), but for the first time in my life, the prospect of returning to Middle-Earth is not something I'm anticipating with much excitement.

FINAL RATING: 3/5

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
Silver Linings Playbook is this year's The Descendants. For many, that may be enough cause for celebration. For me, it means I must be submitted to another sitcom episode that fancies itself to be a whole lot deeper and more meaningful than it actually is. In my review for the 2011 film directed by Alexander Payne and starring George Clooney, I wrote, "I went into [The Descendants] with high expectations, considering all the acclaim it had been receiving and its best picture nod, but what I witnessed was a cliche-ridden story so full of contrivances and obvious story beats that I couldn't help but be deeply disturbed at all the high praise it's been receiving." The same thing, sadly enough, applies to Silver Linings Playbook, which, while it hasn't officially been nominated for Best Picture, is certainly one of the front runners for a nod.

Performances are strong from Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, but the screenplay by David O. Russell is a shallow jumble of one predictable moment after another. My eyes rolled so much that if the only way they could have gotten more of a workout would have been if the film had been in 3D. Thank God it isn't; Russell's direction is headache inducing enough as it is. Every character introduction is graced with a dramatic push-in to close up and the chaotic editing is so confounding that I found myself wishing I was watching Quantum of Solace. Okay, I'm exaggerating. But only a bit. This might actually be the worst directed film I've seen all year and this is a big shame since I've been a fan of Russell's other works, especially The Fighter and I Heart Huckabees.

The whole second act is a dreadful bore, but things wrap up nicely for a wonderfully contrived dance competition, which results in every character getting exactly what they want to the point where I was half expecting to hear an audience laugh/applause track. On second thought, a laugh track might have made the movie more entertaining. At the very least, it would have easily drowned out the sound of my annoyed sighs and groans.

FINAL RATING: 2.5/5

Oh, How Spiffing! Presents Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in Shawn's Bond Films Ranked!!

Well, here we are, ladies and gentlemen!!! In honor of the 50th anniversary of James Bond, I have provided an official personal ranking of every official James Bond film including his latest outing Skyfall!!! James Bond has proven over the course of the past half-century that he is one of cinema's greatest treasures and one of the greatest joys I've had in all my life is being able to participate in such glorious movie going experiences - Even when the films have been anything but glorious. I hope you enjoy reading as much as I enjoyed compiling it! So, without further delay, let's get this started!

23. DIE ANOTHER DAY

If outlandish stunts chock full of CGI and oodles and oodles of stupidity are exactly what you crave in your moviegoing experiences, then Die Another Day will probably seem like the best 007 outing ever. For the rest of us, however, it's a headache inducing mess that single-handedly destroys the Bond franchise by indulging far too much in the series' excesses. Halle Berry's arrogantly annoying performance as Jynx is so grating and painful to watch that you'll weep for the fate of humanity. It's even more disappointing when one considers how promising the opening is with a sequence that involves Bond being captured and tortured - a first for the film series. Though it may not be as tired as some of the worst Roger Moore entries, Die Another Day is the only Bond film that, without fail, makes me hate 007 with a passion. Pierce Brosnan deserved a better finale than this.

22. A VIEW TO A KILL

Poor Roger Moore. Even in his final outing, he still retains the charm that made his portrayals of Bond so damn enjoyable even when the movies built around him weren't. With A View to a Kill though, it's more than glaringly apparent that at the ripe age of 57 it was time for Moore to hang up the tuxedo. Everything about this entry is tired - The plot, the villain, the action. The only thing about the film that shows any signs of life is the fantastic theme song by Duran Duran. Christopher Walken is here, but never given much to do; the immensely unattractive Grace Jones beds Roger Moore, confirming once and for all that neither should ever be seen without clothes on ever again. Easily Moore's worst film.

21. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

The first truly horrible Bond film is not without its  moments. The opening is an inspired plethora of nonsensical sequences that are nothing short of hysterical. (This includes a moment in which Bond strangles a woman with her own bikini top) The film's final scene in which two henchmen give one last attempt to kill Bond is comic genius. There's also a nice fight scene between Bond and a henchman in an elevator as well as a decent car chase through Vegas. Overall, though, Diamonds are Forever is intelligence insulting drivel and not even Sean Connery seems to be enjoying himself.

20. MOONRAKER

Moonraker actually isn't nearly as outlandish as I recalled. Sure, the laser battle in outer space at the film's climax is sheer madness, but the first half of the movie is relatively low key. Still, it ranks low on this list for two reasons:

1. It reduces Jaws, one of the greatest Bond villains of this whole franchise, to a shallow cartoon character;

2. It's just so damn boring.

You'd expect a movie with lasers to be infinitely more exciting, but Moonraker goes out of its way to disprove this theory with every predictable, uninspired moment.

19. LIVE AND LET DIE

In his debut as agent 007, Roger Moore is suave and charming. If only the same could be said for the rest of the picture. With the exception of a gorgeous Bond babe (A young Jane Seymour), a cool stunt with some alligators, and one of the best main villain demises of any film ever, Live and Let Die is incomprehensibly stupid, boring, and even slightly racist. But, hey, it has the best theme song of all the Bond films, so I suppose that counts for something!
                                     
18. OCTOPUSSY

Yes, this is the one where James Bond disguises himself as a clown. (And with this gesture, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to note that the series was very clearly accepting itself as a joke) Maud Adams (The only actress to portray a Bond girl in two separate films) is unmemorable as the title character and the theme song 'All Time High' may be the series' worst. But, overall, Octopussy really isn't terribly dreadful. It has a great opening and a stunt-acular train action sequence. In his penultimate outing as Bond, Moore is clearly too old for the role, but that wouldn't stop him from coming back to the fold for a miserable final hurrah.

17. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

Out of all the Bond films, this may be one of the most disappointing. The concept of James Bond facing the world's 'greatest assassin' is full of promise and could have been enormously exciting and entertaining. Add Christopher Lee to the mix in this villainous role and there's no way it could go wrong!...Right? Unfortunately, The Man with the Golden Gun squanders the potential of its concept by choosing to follow in the footsteps of the awful Live and Let Die. It throws ridiculous scenarios and lackluster action together with bizarre features - Scaramanga has a third nipple; his servant is a midget named Knick-Knack; a Karate School??? J.W. Pepper returns???? (Whoever thought this was a good idea should hang their head in utter shame) There's a really wonderful dinner scene between Bond and Scaramanga that hints at what could have been, but, otherwise, the film is a crushing disappointment.

16. LICENCE TO KILL

Licence to Kill is another great concept undone by uninspired execution. After all, who doesn't want to see a film in which Bond's infamous licence to kill is revoked due to his unquenchable desire to avenge a close friend? Sadly, the film never quite lives up to its potential. It's boring with a capital yawn. It contains not a single distinguishing feature with which one could identify it as a Bond film and doesn't even manage to succeed as a quality action feature. It's also uncharacteristically violent (Another attempt no doubt to try and keep up with phenomenal action films such as Die Hard and Lethal Weapon) which only contributes to its immensely uncharming nature. Like A View to a Kill, Bond was again struggling to find relevance in the action movie world. Unlike Roger Moore, however, Timothy Dalton was only two movies into the Bond legacy before the series was in dire need of another revamping.

15. QUANTUM OF SOLACE

Quantum of Solace falls into the same category as Licence to Kill - a mediocre, identityless action movie that has very little going for it and practically nothing to distinguish it as a James Bond flick. What makes Quantum of Solace even more disappointing is the fact that it failed to deliver on the promise of the brilliant beyond all reason Casino Royale. It's currently the only Bond film that functions as a direct sequel to a preceding story and, while that sounds like an intriguing idea on paper, Quantum serves as nothing more than an extended epilogue to a vastly superior film that needed no such thing. It certainly doesn't help that Marc Forster shoots every action sequence in shaky-cam close up and the atrocious editing makes it all nearly entirely incomprehensible. Still, Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are so great despite having so little to work with that it keeps the movie from being completely disposable.

14. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH

You know what? I don't mind this one. Sure, its plot is a mess and runs in every which way and sure the villain isn't particularly great and sure Denise Richards' performance is about as dense as her breasts, but it's not without its small pleasures. First and foremost is Robbie Coltrane reprising his role as Valentin Zukovsky. I love this character so much and I'm glad he got another moment to shine even if his inclusion in the plot feels rather forced. I also like the storyline involving Bond's love affair with the lovely Elektra King. I never quite bought the relationship between the two of them, but there's an interesting glimpse into Bond's humanity when he's forced to kill this a woman he had cared for so much. It also features Desmond Llewelyn's final performance as Q, which is fitfully touching. There are a couple great action sequences such as the opening boat chase that keep this movie from being completely disposable, but the overall package feels superficial and drags on for far too long.

13. THUNDERBALL

For a long time, I considered Thunderball to be one of the best of the Bond films. It has an iconic opening featuring a strategically (If not awkwardly convenient) placed jet pack and has a few great sequences. However, upon rewatching it more recently, I discovered a reaction that I didn't recall having in my earlier screenings of the film: boredom. Thunderball takes everything that made Goldfinger so great and tries to crank it up to even bigger heights. The whole thing buckles under the weight and it ends up moving slower than its numerous underwater sequences. While I'd still put this in the category of good Bond films, it's rather boring and that's a characteristic that shouldn't be anywhere near a description of a Bond film.

12. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY

After the outlandish Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only brings things back to earth with a much more grounded back-to-basics approach. This is standard procedure for the Bond series - When the formula is stretched to its limits (And sometimes its breaking point - See Die Another Day), the best option is to return to the essential core of what makes the character so great in the first place. With that in mind, For Your Eyes Only is exactly what the series needed after Moonraker and it doesn't hurt that it's a lot of fun too. If there's one issue with For Your Eyes Only, it's that it's almost too grounded. With the exception of one or two great action sequences, there's not much that stands out about it. Still, it's nice that Moore got one other really good Bond film under his belt before descending into complete and utter lameness.

11. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE

There was a time when, in a conversation regarding everyone's favorite secret agent, someone would bring up On Her Majesty's Secret Service and the other parties in the conversation would wince and dismiss it as 'the odd ball out.' It was relatively ignored when it came to those infamous 'Best of Bond' lists and not a single person would even dream of calling it a favorite. Then suddenly people started taking notice of its daring plot involving a more emotional Bond. Throw in a seal of approval from esteemed director Christopher Nolan and all of sudden On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a misunderstood masterpiece and one of the best Bond films EVER!! What the film is in all actuality though is an intriguing albeit slightly mundane entry that is neither the complete disaster it was considered to be back in the good ol' days of Connery dominance, nor the utter masterpiece that so many have labeled it in this day and age. It received a lot of praise for 'daring' to expose the thoughtful, emotional side of James Bond, but, when it comes down to it, OHMSS (That's On Her Majesty's Secret Service in case you're wondering...though I suppose by typing it out I've just negated the purpose of the abbreviation in the first place. Dammit) isn't actually all that thoughtful nor emotional. With the exception of a rather spectacular tragic ending featuring the death of the 'only woman Bond ever truly loved,' it doesn't do much to examine the psychology of Bond, so I'm not exactly sure why people sing its praises as being 'deeper' and 'braver' than the rest. In addition, OHMSS is not helped by an overwhelmingly underwhelming performance by George Lazenby who is painfully awkward and quite incapable of filling Bond's shoes in a satisfactory manner. Still, it's nice to see this early attempt at the series trying to do something new and this keeps the film from being completely dismissible, but it's no surprise that the producers would return to a more generic formula in addition to the return of Connery with the film that followed.

10. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS

After the dreadful A View to a Kill, Bond was in desperate need of a revival. Enter Timothy Dalton and The Living Daylights, a premature 'reboot' in a way that makes Bond more exciting than he had been in years without quite reaching the heights it so desperately strives for. Even though OHMSS gets more of the credit for attempting to craft a more emotionally resonant Bond, The Living Daylights is actually more successful at giving the character a bit more depth. This is in no small part due to Mr. Dalton himself who was highly intrigued by the prospect of returning to the source material in order to dictate which direction the character should go. But, The Living Daylights is caught in a state of limbo. It's not nearly as serious as some have claimed. In fact, some sequences are so goofy they'd be right at home in one of the worst Roger Moore entries. And, despite being an obvious step in the right direction, The Living Daylights feels prematurely tired. The series was flailing desperately to be significant in addition to finding a new path for its character. An unmistakable air of uncertainty hangs over the proceedings, which keeps the film from being truly great. Still, there's a wonderful chase scene involving a cello case and a frozen lake (That's right, Die Another Day. Someone else did the car chase on ice first! And WITHOUT CGI) and a spectacular airplane stunt at the film's climax. (Clearly an inspiration for the fantastic video game Uncharted 3) The Living Daylights is enjoyable in spite of the fact that it's not quite sure what to do with itself.

9. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE

You Only Live Twice is perhaps the first Bond film to embrace epic spectacle wholeheartedly. Despite Connery's growing disinterest in the role (Which begins to rear its ugly head in this entry), he leaps into the action in a way that makes the proceedings infinitely more exciting than in the slow paced Thunderball. This is also the point where the series began to descend into pure absurdity. It has the huge, evil volcano layer, spectacular action sequences, a maniacal villain with a distinguishing facial feature, and so much more!! In an even more outlandish sequence, Bond is transformed into a Japanese man so he can go undercover, but he comes out on the other end looking more Spock than Asian. The excesses on display here would later be the series' undoing, but this early in the game they come across as charming and entertaining.

8. TOMORROW NEVER DIES

Tomorrow Never Dies serves as one of the two only good Pierce Brosnan entries. After the breath of fresh air that was GoldenEye, Tomorrow opts to settle in for a more traditional Bond adventure and that's certainly not a bad thing. From its opening to its overblown, almost hilariously violent climax, it's a non-stop rush full of spectacular action and a great deal of charm. It also sports two, count 'em TWO spectacular chase sequences which are so inventive and fun that they deserve their own call outs. First is the 'Backseat Driver' sequence in which Bond operates his gadget-filled BMW from its backseat using a remote control. The sequence is pure Bond and the glee that fills Brosnan's face as he operates the vehicle and its many, many hidden perks is palpable. The 2nd chase is one that features Bond and his new best friend - Chinese agent Wai Lin - handcuffed together on a motorcycle, leaping from roof to roof as they are chased down by a helicopter. With the exception of these sequences and an inspired opening that serves as one of the series' best, the action is a mesh of uninspired shootouts. Jonathan Pryce is fun, but almost too ridiculous in his role as the villainous media mogul Elliot Carver. He revels in his ability to chew scenery, but it's a bit too self-aware which makes the performance a bit less charming. Overall, though, Tomorrow Never Dies is a highly entertaining entry in the Bond canon and a worthwhile follow up to GoldenEye.

**As a side note, this was my very first Bond film and, even though it's not the best the series has to offer, I stand by the opinion that it was one of the best possible introductions I could have had to the character.

7. DR. NO

And now we come to it at last - the one that started it all. What strikes me the most about Dr. No is that, at its core, it's essentially just a generic detective story. The principal villain Dr. No even has the gall to call out Mr. Bond as nothing more than a 'stupid policeman.' But, with inspired direction, a fantastic theme song, a gorgeous babe, and a masterful performance by Sean Connery, Dr. No was a spectacular debut and a big indication that the action genre would never be the same again. What's refreshing about watching this legendary first entry is that it's very straightforward and features none of the ridiculous gadgets and gimmicks that would become the series staples as well as their biggest undoing. With that in mind, Dr. No can't help but feel incredibly slow-paced when compared to the action in the other films of the series. But, in the end, this really doesn't matter. There are so many great moments here ("That's a Smith and Weston. And you've had your six.") and so many little hints at the even greater brilliance to come that it easily cements itself as one of Bond's very best adventures.

6. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME

After the just plain awfulness of Live and Let Die and the overall bad taste in the mouth feeling of The Man with the Golden Gun, the future of the Bond franchise was uncertain. The diminishing box office returns of the series indicated that it would need something grand to pull it out of its slump. The Spy Who Loved Me is just that and so much more. Finally, Roger Moore got the chance to strut his stuff in what is easily his best outing as 007. It's his first real Bond film featuring all the epicness that a Bond picture demands, something that was sorely missing from his first two entries. Throw in a great Bond girl (The beautiful, though actingly challenged Barbara Bach) and an EXCELLENT, iconic villain in the form of Richard Kiel's Jaws and you've got all of the elements for greatness. But, The Spy Who Loved Me strives for more than just mere greatness and in nearly every way it succeeds with flying colors. Ignore the dated score, the occasionally wince-inducing punchlines, and the sleepwalking performance of Barbara Bach to enjoy Moore's Bond at his very best.


5. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
While Dr. No was little more than a generic detective story, From Russia with Love is pure espionage from start to finish. Its plot is so convoluted at times that it's hard to keep track of who's who and what the hell is going on. Despite this, Russia is sheer brilliance in every which way. There is so much to love about this film. First and foremost you have a stunning knockout of a Bond girl in Tatiana Romanova who has a much bigger, more integral role than Honey Ryder had in Dr. No; you have the iconic Rosa Klebb, who is as sinister as she is just plain creepy; you've got Bond's first official gadget - A briefcase with all kinds of hidden goodies. (Presented to Bond by Q in his first series appearance) More than anything else in this movie, though, I absolutely adore Red Grant. Robert Shaw is a magnificent actor and his performance as Grant is nothing short of stunning. The train sequence involving him and Bond is so utterly brilliant and for as long as I live I can never say enough good things about it. The action sequence that follows their nail-bitingly suspenseful conversation is so intense and brutal that I'm amazed it's even in the film. It holds up incredibly well, even by today's standards, which is kind of funny considering the lackluster quality of the fight sequences in subsequent Bond flicks. Many consider this to be the best film of the series and I have no cause to argue with that; it's simply splendid.

4. GOLDENEYE

After the uncertainty of the Dalton era, Bond faced a six year absence from the silver screen - his longest since the series' beginning in 1962. With the Cold War a thing of the past, Bond's relevance was more questionable than ever. The only irrefutable certainty was this: Bond needed a comeback in a big way. Thank the maker for GoldenEye, an essential entry in the canon that not only brings Bond back with ferocious style, but sees the Bond formula perfected in a way that hadn't happened since 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me. Perhaps no scene is more representative of GoldenEye's nature than the moment Bond comes crashing through a brick wall in a tank - Marking the return of the cinema's greatest action hero as well as the beginning of one of the best chase scenes in any film. Pierce Brosnan perfectly embodies the role of 007, channeling elements of all the Bond's before him to create a spectacular amalgamation of everything that makes the character so wonderful. Famke Janssen is wonderful as Xenia Onatopp - the best Bond side-villain since Jaws. Izabella Scorupco gives a really lovely performance as well that seems to be overlooked in the midst of all the madness. She's the heart of the movie and she brings out Bond's emotions in a way that had been attempted unsuccessfully in the Dalton films. GoldenEye is certainly starting to show signs of age, but very few Bond movies pack such a visceral punch and it undoubtedly ranks as one of the best in the series.

3. SKYFALL

Okay, okay, I'll admit it - It may be a bit premature to put Skyfall so high on this list. After all, the film was only just released today and I've only just seen it. It really hasn't had the necessary time to sink in in order to find its rightful place on this list. But, let me be quite frank with you when I say that, as far as I'm concerned, this latest entry in the Bond canon has nowhere to go but up in these rankings. What I am completely certain of is this: Skyfall is an absolute masterpiece that surprisingly serves as yet another series reboot in a way. It reinvigorates the franchise with bold choices and stunning set pieces, setting the stage for all future entries to follow. I'd already proclaimed Daniel Craig as the best Bond after witnessing his glorious performance in Casino Royale, but his performance in Skyfall takes the cake. There can no longer be any doubt or question about Craig's portrayal. He IS James Bond. 'Nuff said. Judi Dench finally gets her time to shine as well and it is more than worth the wait. Additionally, Javier Bardem's Silva is already one of the series' most sinister villains and easily one of the best. This is also the most visually stunning entry the series has to offer, which comes as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with Cinematographer Roger Deakins work. He really is the best cinematographer working in this day and age and this is some of his best work yet. Yes, the visuals are undoubtedly gorgeous, but the story and character choices are, to put it mildly, beautiful. I have never felt so moved by a Bond flick. It goes above and beyond to excite, compel, and stir emotions in a way the series has never attempted. Sam Mendes, the producers, the writers, the cast, and the crew should all be commended for this masterwork.

Truth be told, I wanted to put this entry even higher on the list, but at the moment it's a tough call.  It could very well make it to the top some day, but only time will tell. (Discipline, 007. Discipline) Despite my uncertainty in regards to where exactly it ranks in the highest of high numbers on my own personal list, one thing is beyond certain: This film truly is a thing of beauty (And who would ever have guessed that 'beautiful' would be the best adjective to describe a Bond flick?) At the ripe age of 50, Bond has never been so lively. Nobody does it better indeed.

2. GOLDFINGER

Goldfinger is the quintessential Bond film. Practically anyone will tell you that. After two great entries, Bond's third adventure cemented him as a cinematic force to be reckoned with. It established the Bond formula - A formula that worked so well, it would keep the series alive for 50 years. (And, as evidenced by the previous entry, is still going strong, albeit with a few essential tweaks) What's not to love about that classic Aston Martin?? The spectacular henchman Oddjob? The character of Goldfinger himself?? ("Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!") The amount of praise showered upon Goldfinger by Bond fans and critics alike overshadow the fact that its second half is a little generic and strays a bit too far into comically outlandish set pieces, (Pussy Galore's Flying Circus, anyone?) but there can be no denying that Goldfinger is Bond firing on all cylinders to deliver a transcendent moviegoing experience. It established Bond as the character we know and love today and that alone earns its place near the top of every 'Best of Bond' list.

1. CASINO ROYALE

So here we are. It's been a long trudge, but we've finally made it through to my number one favorite Bond flick of all time.

If Die Another Day's mission was to bury the Bond franchise, Casino Royale's was to bring it kicking and screaming back to life. With Die Another Day, Bond had trudged into territory so ridiculous that even his producers had to stop to reconsider what they were doing with their iconic character. Their solution was to start afresh and adapt the very first Ian Fleming Bond novel, bringing the character back to its roots in a way the franchise had never attempted. The result was sheer perfection. A perfect plethora of action sequences, humor, and raw emotion the likes of which had never been seen in a Bond film. It's gritty, it's intense, but perhaps most of all, it's fun. Casino Royale may take steps in a more serious direction, but it is unmistakably a Bond film. It's laughable to think back to a time when people were saying that Daniel Craig would ruin the whole franchise, but that was exactly the case when the news of his casting had been announced. "He's blonde!" "He doesn't look anything like Bond!!" "I hate things!!" Oh, how wrong those silly children were. In Casino Royale, Craig delivered the best Bond performance the franchise has ever seen. Bond is not only badass, but he's vulnerable and that essential human element elevates this Bond above all others. Eva Green may also win the prize for the best Bond girl yet with her portrayal of Vesper Lynn. The way the two of these performers make you care for these characters is nothing short of astonishing. One of the best scenes in any film involves Bond comforting Vesper after a particularly brutal fight that threatened both their lives. It's a deeply moving moment in a film series that, up to this point, had been nearly entirely absent of anything remotely resembling genuine human emotion. Casino Royale reinvigorated the franchise with the greatest of gusto. It's absolute perfection in every way and earns its place on this list as the number one Bond film of all time!


And there you have it!! Every Bond film ranked and reviewed!! Agree? Disagree?? Let's hear all about it!!!! Thanks for reading!! I love you all, Marta!

The Perks of Being a Wallflower Review!

Stories about high schoolers finding themselves through writing/music/poetry/love/life/dancing/drinking/smoking/friendship/raising their arms in triumph as a choice tune plays in the background are quite the dime a dozen now-a-days. It's gotten to the point where the moments that once seemed poignant and moving now come across as forced and cliched. It's hard not to roll one's eyes every time some teen tries to explain how that certain girl is the key to unlocking the meaning to his existence or how he wants to be something special, but feels dead inside. These stories and characters have become so stock and Hollywood-ized that it's difficult to remember just how effective they can be when they are treated with thought and care. So, thank the maker for The Perks of Being a Wallflower, a film which reminds one of the power of the coming-of-age genre when it's done right.

Perks follows the high school trials and tribulations of Charlie (Logan Lerman), an intelligent, socially awkward freshman with the dream of being a writer. (All protagonists want to be writers in these kinds of stories) His life takes a turn for the better when he meets the flamboyant, life-embracing Patrick (Ezra Miller) and his sweet, almost unbearably gorgeous stepsister Sam. (Emma Watson) The film follows their exploits, their loves, their joys, and their pains with an earnestness that is rather refreshing. Sure, there are many stock moments that every coming-of-age story feels necessary to cram within its running time in addition to some rather contrived plot points, (There's a gift giving scene about halfway through the movie that feels particularly phony) and a particularly monumental twist regarding one character's past near the film's end feels tacked on rather than a natural progression of the story. Still, when the talent both in front of and behind the camera is as passionate as what's on display here, it's hard to let such minor thoughts ruin such an affecting picture.

And speaking of which, allow me a moment to talk about the brilliant, brilliant cast. Logan Lerman, who may be best known for his role as the title character in the Percy Jackson film, is wonderful. One can't help but adore his take on Charlie and every moment of his journey feels authentic.  Emma Watson holds her own as well, proving that she has an acting career after Harry Potter, though one could hardly have doubted that much considering how wonderful she was in those movies. She perfectly encapsulates the transcendent girl that confounds and enraptures all young boys seeking out the one. Of course, much praise has been thrown at Ezra Miller who is fantastic as Patrick. I haven't seen him in his breakout role We Need to Talk About Kevin, but I'm very excited to give it a looksee. The supporting cast is also strong, but it's these three principals who carry the movie and they do so with the greatest of gusto. Their incredible performances help the film transcend its genre to become something wholly unique and rather special.

Of course, credit must also be paid to Stephen Chbosky, the writer of the source material the movie is based on as well as the writer/director of the film itself. From the talent on display here, I would never have guessed that this was Mr. Chbosky's big-screen debut. He directs with confidence and expertly adapts his material to best fit its cinematic iteration. His music choices are also spot on and lend every moment with the emotional kick they need - His use of Dexy's Midnight Runners 'Come on Eileen' during the Homecoming Dance scene was particularly inspired and hilarious. I sincerely hope he continues to make films such as this because if Perks proves anything at all, it's that he has a very promising career on the horizon.

I went into Perks feeling hopeful, but skeptical. Lately, it's been hard for me to truly enjoy the 'finding oneself and true love' genre because it seems every movie has to force its phony emotions down my throat. Perks occasionally slides into that territory, but the overall product is moving, genuine, and immensely heartfelt. It's certainly one of the finest films of 2012 and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if in a future age it becomes mentioned in the same breath as other teen classics such as The Breakfast Club.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower may not be perfect, but in this moment I swear it feels infinite.


FINAL RATING: 4/5

Dredd Film Review!

I'm not sure who was begging for a triumphant return of the Judge Dredd character to the silver screen, (And judging from the box office numbers, those crazy kids were too busy exerting justice elsewhere to fill those theater seats) but I'm kind of glad someone listened. Dredd is not particularly smart, nor subtle, nor even all that spectacular. It has a paper thin plot, little to no characterization, and plenty of your standard modern day action movie slow motion shooting sequences. Still, despite its shortcomings, Dredd is undeniably entertaining and ends up being perhaps the guiltiest guilty pleasure of 2012.

So, we're thrown into the mix of this dystopian future with a little exposition courtesy of your obligatory voiceover. We learn that crime has gotten so bad, that the duty of judge, jury, and executioner has been assigned to a law enforcement group known simply as 'Judges.' One of the most esteemed and all-around bad ass of this group is none other than Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) who is assigned to evaluate the latest recruit Judge Anderson. (Portrayed by the ever so lovely Olivia Thirlby) Long story short, they get caught in a lockdown of a large apartment complex run by the villainous Ma-Ma. (Lena Headey) They spend the majority of the movie getting caught up in all kinds of chaos and badass shootouts trying to escape the place. Like I said, simple stuff.

However, this simple stuff has quite a bit of flair to boot. The joy of this film comes in its execution. Pete Travis directs a script by Alex Garland (Of 28 Days Later screenwriting fame) as if it's the B-Movie to end all B-Movies and in some ways he succeeds. The action is top notch and thrilling and the violence is absolutely insane. Make no mistake, this is not fun for the whole family. (As some idiotic parents discovered after bringing in their five year old and removing her about half an hour into the movie) All of this would be for naught though if Karl Urban wasn't so bloody fantastic as the film's title character. Urban is slowly but surely moving through the ranks as one of the finest character actors of this generation and Dredd is no exception. He gets it. He gets the world; he gets the character and every single one-liner is delivered with nothing but purest, delectable perfection.

So, with Dredd we do not have the action movie to end all action movies. Its violence is a bit off-putting at times, but it's enough fun to be at least slightly worth your time. However, if you and your friends are drunk off your asses, you might end up being convinced that Dredd is the best picture of the year and who am I to judge you for that?


FINAL RATING: 3/5