Primal Fear is the movie you're referring to klydon and yes it was very good

Thanks, Irish.

No prob klydon

Rocky Balboa (2006; Stallone) ***

Stallone did it. He's delivered the best Rocky since Rocky II and has finally recaptured the spirit of the original. The story is improbable, but that is Rocky, the ultimate underdog story. The music, featuring composer Bill Conti back for his first Rocky film since III, helps this film again capture the great atmoshpere of the original. It's cinematography is gritty and fits perfectly with the familiar places we have become acquainted with over 30 years.

The acting is top notch and the casting for every part was pretty much spot on. The fight seen was pretty realistic and features again, Stallone's meticulous direction. I liked this film alot and while it's probably Rocky bowing out as he did in the end, the Rocky films ended fittingly.

I gotta agree with DA, and this coming from someone that doesn't like the ROCKY movies.

I mean, the original ROCKY is a pretty effective drama that works everytime I watch it. But ROCKY II basically was Stallone writing a piss-poor romantic melodrama, though that movie mostly works until the coma, which kills whatever positive momentum it has.

Now ROCKY III and ROCKY IV became the cartoonish go-go USA sequels, much like their RAMBO cousins. Instead of a down and out Italian meathead in Philadelphia getting a shot at the title, and then winning it in the re-match...its now Stallone being a pompous bitch after winning, getting whopped by Mr. T, crying like a little bitch, then regaining the title.

But ROCKY IV...I mean, the finale sequence is laughable. Tell me folks, would the American President stand up and applaud a Russkie fighter trashing an American boxer at Madison Square Garden? Come on!

Less said about ROCKY V the better.

Thing is, ROCKY BALBOA felt like a sincere return to the naturalism of the first movie without mostly the sillyness of the sequels. I say mostly because many scenes of Rocky's kid and the girl from the original movie seem rather forced, but I'll let them slide.

Why? Because like Don Andrew said himself, it returns to the fact that in ROCKY, Balboa simply wanted to prove that he could last it out with the world's best fighter, and not another meathead hack boxer. With ROCKY BALBOA, its a has-been legend wanting to show that he aint a has-been, and against perhaps the first ROCKY in-ring film opponent that is sympathetic. A worthy champion that came a generation too late, for now he is the king fish of simply a little pond.

I liked this movie. I was hoping that it would make up for the nonsense of ROCKY III, IV, V, and parts of ROCKY II, and it does.

Hell, like DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE, I now believe that ROCKY BALBOA is the only true "sequel" to the original ROCKY.

Thanks all to DA for reminding me about the flick.

ROCKY (1976) - ****
ROCKY II (1979) - **1/2
ROCKY III (1982) - **
ROCKY IV (1985) - *1/2
ROCKY V (1990) - * - BOMB
ROCKY BALBOA (2006) - ***

Saw III ** 1/2
(Second Viewing)

After eluding the cops, psychopathic killer Jigsaw turns an abandoned warehouse on the edge of town into a gruesome torture chamber in this third installment of the horror series. Jigsaw's new protégée Amanda kidnaps a doctor who's forced to keep the evil master alive. Barely clinging to life, Jigsaw begins to carry out his gruesome plans for the lady doc and another helpless victim.

I think as the Saw franchise has gone on in time, the movies have gotten worse. Not to say that they're terrible, but I feel that Saw II wasn't better than Saw and futhermore I feel Saw III wasn't any better than Saw II. These are still enjoyable movies, but I'm REALLY wondering how they're going to make a Saw IV before the end of the year no less, with what transpired in this latest installment. Writer Leigh Whannell, who has written all 3 Saw screenplays has that task ahead of him. I still do however consider Tobin Bell as the best choice for the Jigsaw character and Shawnee Smith has done a good job in the last 2 films as his apprentice.

Since the 3rd of this month, I've seen the following. Preceding each title is a link to my short review.

>>> Werckmeister harmóniák Werckmeister Harmonies
Béla Tarr 2000 Hungary 2nd time; DVD

>>> Julien Donkey-Boy
Harmony Korine 1999 USA 2nd time; DVD

>>> 2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her
Jean-Luc Godard 1967 France 1st time; DVD

>>> Marnie
Alfred Hitchcock 1964 USA 1st time; TV

>>> Uzak Distant
Nuri Bilge Ceylan 2002 Turkey 2nd time; DVD

>>> Koza
Nuri Bilge Ceylan 1995 Turkey 1st time; DVD

>>> Ivanovo detstvo Ivan's Childhood
Andrei Tarkovsky 1962 USSR 1st time; DVD

>>> Nostalghia Nostalgia
Andrei Tarkovsky 1983 Italy 1st time; DVD

>>> Tempo di viaggio Voyage in Time
Andrei Tarkovsky / Tonino Guerra 1982 Italy 1st time; DVD

>>> Offret The Sacrifice
Andrei Tarkovsky 1985 Sweden 1st time; DVD

>>> Heimat - Eine deutsche Chronik Homeland: A German Chronicle
Edgar Reitz 1984 West Germany 1st time; DVD

>>> To Catch a Thief
Alfred Hitchcock 1955 USA 1st time; TV

>>> Children of Men
Alfonso Cuarón 2006 UK / USA 3rd time; big screen

>>> Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai
Jim Jarmusch 1999 France / Germany / USA / Japan 2nd time; DVD

>>> Kárhozat Damnation
Béla Tarr 1987 Hungary 3rd time; DVD

Science of sleep **

As the title indicates, this movie is about the dreams of a man. Weird and intriguing, just like dreams. This is the type of movie that would give Capo an orgasm

Today I saw Gone With the Wind for the second time, on the big screen. First time round I was mightily impressed by its scope and detail; this time I was bored.

Gone With the Wind
Victor Fleming / George Cuckor / Sam Wood 1939 USA 2nd time; big screen
A stubborn heroine lives through the American Civil War, driven by her three passions - two are men, the other her homeland.
Grandiose treatment of an important time in American history, balancing the brutalities of Civil War with a complicated love story which has its ups and downs, and certainly moments of delight. But on the whole, it is a tiresome, rather frivolous affair, all effort and little reward. It is a crafted film, not an artistic one, for which the producer, not the director(s), should get all the merit. Can production values alone save a film, though?

Big Trouble In Little China * 1/2
(First Viewing)

When trucker Jack Burton agreed to take his friend Wang Chi to pick up his fiancee at the airport, he never expected to get involved in a supernatural battle between good and evil. Wang's fiancee has emerald green eyes, which make her a perfect target for an immortal sorcerer named Lo Pan and his three invincible cronies. Lo Pan must marry a girl with green eyes so he can regain his physical form. Now, Jack must save Wang's fiancee from Lo Pan and his henchmen, and win back his stolen truck.

Some pretty weird Chinese sh*t was going down in this movie that was, well...weird. Kurt Russell kind of had this John McClane-esque to him but I felt Kim Cattrall's efforts were wasted in this movie. She's a better actress than this and I just felt it wasn't a good character for her.

Irish, whats so weird about BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA anyway?

I mean, I might understand why such a remark for the pretty trippy REPO MAN, but BIG TROUBLE?

Besides, "Some pretty weird sh*t" is getting old as a standard reply to movies that feature metaphysics or insanity.

THE FOUNTAIN - "Some pretty weird Mayan shit!"

BLUE VELVET - "Some pretty weird sex shit!"

A SCANNER DARKLY - "Some pretty weird drug shit!"

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE - "Some pretty weird British shit!"

Bored? Fiddle-dee-dee.

PS. My second name is Scarlett. Honest.

The Departed (2006; Scorsese) ****

Alright! Marty might just get his Oscar. A nice, tightly woven plot is helped out even more by the acting, which is outstanding. Nicholson is Nicholson, DiCaprio and Damon shine, and the supporting players are even pretty darn good. The music is very good, although I didn't care for Van Morrison's cover of "Comfortably Numb," I could deal with it. Great film.

Oh, really it is?

Well quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

Glad you dug the movie, DA.

Anyway, if Scorsese doesn't win in Febuary, then he will NEVER win a competitive Oscar. Not that he needs recognition from those stupid FUCKS at the AMPAS. But yeah, compared to GANGS OF NEW YORK and AVIATOR, THE DEPARTED is one that if Scorsese win, he might actually be a deserving person (especially if Greengrass, Cuaron, and Aronofsky get NO nominations).

Curse of the Golden Flower ***
(First Viewing)

China, Later Tang Dynasty, 10th Century. On the eve of the Chong Yang Festival, golden flowers fill the Imperial Palace. The Emperor (Chow Yun Fat) returns unexpectedly with his second son, Prince Jai (Jay Chou). His pretext is to celebrate the holiday with his family, but given the chilled relations between the Emperor and the ailing Empress (Gong Li), this seems disingenuous. For many years, the Empress and Crown Prince Wan (Liu Ye), her stepson, have had an illicit liaison. Feeling trapped, Prince Wan dreams of escaping the palace with his secret love Chan (Li Man), the Imperial Doctor's daughter. Meanwhile, Prince Jai, the faithful son, grows worried over the Empress's health and her obsession with golden chrysanthemums. Could she be headed down an ominous path? The Emperor harbors equally clandestine plans; the Imperial Doctor (Ni Dahong) is the only one privy to his machinations. When the Emperor senses a looming threat, he relocates the doctor's family from the Palace to a remote area. While they are en route, mysterious assassins attack them. Chan and her mother, Jiang Shi (Chen Jin) are forced back to the palace. Their return sets off a tumultuous sequence of dark surprises. Amid the glamour and grandeur of the festival, ugly secrets are revealed. As the Imperial Family continues its elaborate charade in a palatial setting, thousands of golden armored warriors charge the palace. Who is behind this brutal rebellion? Where do Prince Jai's loyalties lie? Between love and desire, is there a final winner? Against a moonlit night, thousands of chrysanthemum blossoms are trampled as blood spills across the Imperial Palace.

Zhang Yimou is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors now with Hero, House of Flying Daggers and now Curse of the Golden Flower. Visually, this man brings it to the table with thousands of extras, costumes, scenery, etc. Not as much action in this film as I might of anticipated but still very good nonetheless. However, there were some bada$$ ninjas in the film that EASILY made up for the lack of action. I'm looking forward to whatever Zhang Yimou puts out next and it was also good to see Chow Yun-Fat, whom I haven't seen since Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Finally, Gong Li is an international star and for good reason. She really puts together an enjoyable performance as Empress Phoenix: strong, independent, defiant. And for those interested, Harry Knowles put together a pretty humerous review on his website, Ain't It Cool that I TOTALLY agree with!

It's not a cover, it's Roger Waters with Van Morrison for his In the Flesh tour.

Flyboys **
(First Viewing)

The adventures of the Lafayette Escadrille, young Americans who volunteered for the French military before the U.S. entered World War I, and became the country's first fighter pilots.

Good special FX and aerial fights/shots but overall, I felt this was a poor attempt at trying to be a Disney movie. The movie tried so hard to be a "family movie" but yet didn't commit to it 100%. There was of course the sappy love story that appears to HAVE to be in ever war movie now (ENOUGH ALREADY!) and I just didn't buy some of what the movie was selling. For example, there is one African-American actor on the 6-man team, Eugene Skinner, and no one wants to room with him. So here comes James Franco's character, Blaine Rawlings, who's from Texas, who just happens to want to room with him. I'm sorry, I DON'T BUY IT! Skinner's father was a slave and here comes a good ol' boy from the deep south who wants to room with him!? Get the f*ck outta here with that sh*t. Don't spit on my cupcake and tell me it's frosting. Now don't get me wrong, James Franco did a fine job, but ultimately the poor guy doesn't have much of a career outside of the Spider-Man franchise.

Ok, I probably should have clarified, some pretty weird Chinese sh*t is boring and TOTALLY not relevant to me. Again, this was another movie that I only watched based on a recommendation and I let my feelings known to that person that I felt this movie sucked. I just thought the visual effects were bad and I just was bored throughout the entire movie. Basically, and what it ALWAYS boils down to me is story! STORY STORY STORY and this film's story I didn't find any particular interest in. I hope Gary Goldman & David Z. Weinstein who wrote the movie found it very theroputic because viewing the film was anything but for me.

I felt the EXACT same way after I watched Lawrence of Arabia

Poor Irish. Tsk Tsk Tsk...

I'm warning ya mate, some BB.Net movie men think you have no rep or pop.

I disagree. As soon as I find the Quentin Tarantino praise blurb, you'll correct yourself.

Ask me if I care You wanted me to write my reviews so I wrote them. If they don't like them, then they don't have to read them. I'm not hear to try to gain a "rep" or friends for that matter.

Somebody on the film board once said that Tim Burton's films are "uniformly pretty but never beautiful". Lawrence of Arabia is beautiful for me, but Gone with the Wind is uniformly pretty.

There is nothing cinematic about a story.

Somebody on the film board once said that Tim Burton's films are "uniformly pretty but never beautiful". Lawrence of Arabia is beautiful for me, but Gone with the Wind is uniformly pretty.

There is nothing cinematic about a story.

Irish, for someone that doesn't care, you're rather touchy.

You should follow my example. Anyone basically gives a love tap against your argument, you counter-argue it in a very stern tone. Fight Irishman, you're Irish! Fight! Don't let someone attack you all the time and simply be a push-over. Take a gun to the next knife fight.

Anyway Irish, you envoked the "You don't need to read!" argument is fine and all, but tell me this. Why should someone read your review in the first place? Hell, why should I bother with you or DV or Capo's reviews? Why should they bother with me?

Take a classmate of mine. I was surprised when he outright challeneged my rather well-positive review of THE FOUNTAIN. He argued that I was jumping into a band-wagon in order to appear to be "hip," for you must remember, THE FOUNTAIN mostly either got negative or supportive mixed reviews from the media.

I replied that being "hip" for a movie that bombed in theatres and with critics is a rather bad plan. Besides, the sci-fi critic darling of 2006 is CHILDREN OF MEN by a Reagan-Mondale landslide. People trying to "hip" always latch onto something thtas very popular and supported by the general media, and the public.

Thing is, despite him attacking my controversial stance on THE FOUNTAIN as being possibly the best movie of 2006(remember, I declared it the BEST movie fo 2006 before I finally caught CHILDREN OF MEN in theatres), I liked the guy's fighting spirit. Fights are good for you, believe it or not Irish. Thats why I would rather have him instead some of my more sheepish colleagues on the other end of a film debate.

Fights forces one to confront his core beliefs and values, and decide what matters, whats worth pissing someone off over. Too many people try to be civil or diplomatic, not because they are courteous, but they want to avoid being embarrased or outright avoiding an argument of a fight.

Take BB.Net's very friggin cool Fame. He took it to the max when he tried to defend the much (rightly) maligned TROY. After his massive argument, where he did try to point out why TROY is better than say BATMAN BEGINS or KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, I still thought TROY was a very mediocre film.

Yet he actually made me concede on some points, especially about the obvious foreshadowing First Act moments in BEGINS and HEAVEN. He even made me re-evaluate my earlier mediocre grade on TROY.

Irish, a good critic is one that dictates the reader to their knees, argument-wise. A good critic is one that while they might lose, they would give a very good fight against you. Even in losing, honor can be acheived.

You are improving with your reviews Irish, but you lack...what's the word...you lack punch.

You gotta make people get hooked on your review. That fact is why I've been on a sabbatical from major movie reviewing for the AndersonVision website. Why?

Because I feel that for the last few weeks, all those reviews I posted here were very banal and worse, seemingly typified. I needed to be inspired, both in love and hate, to give my own tribute(or gunshot) against a movie.

The best compliment I ever got was from the late great Plawrence, a man that TWICE wrote that I made him realize that I was right in regards to analysis I conducted of Scorsese's CASINO and Cimino's YEAR OF THE DRAGON. I miss him.

You all seem like that you are competing against eachother..Ronnie it seems like you are putting Irish down with his reviews,should just worry about yourself instead of others..

Shut up.

Cinema is about nothing but competing, to see who can perform the most impressive tricks.

Competing for What?

DeNiro, my problem is that when people want to know "should I rent this movie?" for a certain catalogue title, I do know that some folks trust me, or at least seem to think I'm at least decent with recommendations.

REPO MAN? Really good 1980's cult classic.

BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA? Popcorn-fun post-modernistic joke on the 1970s/1980s Action/Martial Arts protagonist.

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake and prequel? Dogshit.

Then again, its like Devin Farraci of CHUD, a critic that tends to piss me off.

I remembered when he bodyslammed BATMAN BEGINS harder than anyone ever did to Paris Hilton. Unfortunate, but hey not everyone digs Batman or comic book movies or whatever. Shit happens.

Then he praises the piece of moronic garbage FANTASTIC FOUR.

Logical consistency is nice. Take Capo and his pretty negative reviews for SCARFACE and MIAMI VICE. Two different movies, decades, filmmakers, etc., yet his logic consistency with both is sufficient.

Of course, I guess logical consistency is impossible to uphold. Hell, Roger Ebert trashed DIE HARD, yet put DIE HARD 2(you know, the crappy movie of the trilogy) on his top 10 list for 1990.

Go figure.

All I know is, I remembered being pissed at an English professor because he made me read THE CHOCOLATE WARS. Basically, kid told to sell chocolates to get funds for his school. With a poster in his locker saying "Disturb the Universe," he refuses to sell them, and he gets his ass ostricized, literally and figuratively, by the rest of the school. I thought originally, "what a downer of a depressing ending."

My professor's response?

"Remember the poster? Its half-complete. It should read "Disturb the Universe, but be ready for the consequences!""

So true, and this applies with criticism as well. I liked the idea that Irish keeps backing EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, since its the new ragdoll for hate against recent crappy Hollywood comedies on the internet. He's on the right path. He's starting to make his own mark!

Self-truth.