To be honest, up until an hour before I saw this movie, I had assumed we were going to see a documentary about pot growers - and was not looking forward to it.

But that is not what this movie was at all. It was actually a movie with real, honest to goodness actors, and a pretty compelling story to go with it.

After seeing his potential medical future go down the drain, Peter involves himself with a woman and takes a trip to her home with her, where she quickly abandons him. And he must find his way back home by himself - but does he even want to go back?

The meat of the movie strikes me as being about running away. Running away from society, your responsibilities, even your parents. Running away so much some times that you are inevitably running back towards what your parents were themselves running from.

For most people they will see the movie poster or see some promotional material and think oh, that's just a drug movie. But it's not. It's much more.

This is very much a character driven movie, that some people don't have the patience to sit through anymore. But it's nice to see a film were you can actually see a character grow and change throughout a movie. Where they can actually learn something about themselves and you can see it unfold with them and for them.

It's sad that studios don't see an audience for these kinds of movies in the theaters. In cases like this, they are usually worth seeing.

It is funny, that you can have a movie with an Oscar winner and so many well known actors and come out thinking that you just watched such a small movie. That's a testament to either how hard someone worked on the film to give it that feel, or how hard it was to actually get the movie made.

After listening to Helen Hunt talk about making the movie, you definitely get the feeling it was both.

'Then She Found Me' is a small movie about a near baby crazy school teacher (Helen Hunt) who, after being left by her husband (Matthew Broderick) and losing her adoptive mother, is approached by her birth mother (Bette Midler) to re-enter her life while at the same time falling for the father (Colin Firth) of one of her students.

It's interesting that this movie is able to keep its sweetness about it with all of the drama that seems to follow Helen Hunt's character. From Helen Hunt's mouth she says that this is a movie about betrayal and she couldn't be more right.

From the infidelities, to the lies and anger, no one character can stand apart in this movie and feel like they have always done the right thing. Until the very end when it seems like Hunt's character realizes how long she has been betraying herself.

The performance in this movie are top notch, especially Colin Firth, who brings a lot of emotion into this role as a single parent of two children and manages to bring an equal balance of both humor and anger to the part.

The movie is both sad and funny, much like real life, and deserves an audience. With the way that most movies are marketed and shown now-a-days, I worry that this is the type of movie that will be ignored for lack of marketing, but it truly is a movie that should be seen and enjoyed.

Obviously, based on the line spilling around the block and the number of seats being held in reserve this movie is popular here at SXSW. The stars of the movie are here and the crowd is bustling with excitment.

That very much carried over into the film as well, cheers and yelps from the audience as antics ensued on screen that made this an almost 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' experience.

But was the movie any good. It's hard to give a movie like this an unqualified thumbs up or down, because there are just people out there who don't get this kind of humor. It offends them, it's beneath them, or any other reasons that they will create to keep themselves from an enjoying a very funny movie.

I sorry if it comes off as stupid to that type of person, but Neil Patrick Harris as a bad-ass is very funny, and will always be funny.

The storyline as you can garner from the ppreview, picks up hours after the first film ends and finds the main characters preparing to leave for Amsterdam. Hilarity ensues.

You can expect the same drug humor, racist humor and political commentary found in the first movie and it all works just as well here. Yes, just as much nudity, maybe even more. And I believe just about everyone from the first movie makes an appeparance in this one, with a couple new faces added into the mix.

I think this movie hits the theaters at the end of April and with the popularity the first one had on DVD this one should be quite well recieved. It's good fun.

This movie, now probably long gone from the theaters and the Top 20, was not bad. Not at all.

But don't look at the poster or any promotional material for this movie and expect to find a young love story. Because you won't rally find that here.

More than anything it's a slice of life movie about three people, Adam Brody, Kristen Stewart, and Meg Ryan, coming together at different crossroads in their lives and how each of them can help the other find their own way and meaning through the difficult times.

A nice character study, each of the actors in the film is quite good, and not having paid attention to Meg Ryan since 2001's 'Kate and Leopold' seems to have successfully transitioned to a parent-role nicely. Adam Brody, who will be popping up in 'Smiley Face' and 'The Ten' later this year was quite likable as the male lead against Kristen Stewart, who seems to have grown up quickly since 2002's 'Panic Room'.

All in all, this is a movie I would recommend to people. I suppose it's considered a chick-flick more than anything, but don't hold that against it.

Hmmmm, not quite sure what they were going for in this movie, but where ever it was, they didn't get there.

I'm going to guess that a lot of people had a bunch of free time on there hands and decided to spend a weekend making a movie.

Tom (Zach Braff) and Sofia (Amanda Peet) are married and expecting their first child and when Tom blows it at his current job, they decided to pack it up and start over in Ohio, with Tom working for his Father in Law and Sofia raising the child at home.

Enter Chip (Jason Bateman), an old high school flame of Sofia who always loved her and now wants to get her back. But Chip is in a wheelchair and as Tom tries to defend his honor and save his marriage in one wacky situation after another, he comes off as extremely insensitive.

Now there are a couple of funny moments in the film, but more than anything the film is a series of scenes strung held together by the thinnest of threads. The laughs that do exist in the movie don't make up for the poor script and direction of the movie.

I've seen everyone in this movie play these same exact roles in other films with much more success, so I can't say that I would recommend this to anyone. Watch it on cable if you get bored one night.

This is a hard review to write, because I'm not really sure how much I enjoyed the film. Especially after Spider-Man 2, which for me, is arguably the best comic book movie ever. But they did so many things wrong in this movie.

Starting with having a character as important as Gwen Stacey and her father reduced to a few throw away scenes and as a poorly executed romantic wedge between Peter and Mary Jane seems to be a waste of a character who was integral to the Spider-Man story. Especially when the Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus are in the movies. There was an opportunity to create a great comic book story line that they decided to pass up on. (And based on the way they are portrayed in the film, who could ever pick the sourpuss that Mary Jane has become over Gwen.)

The film version of Evil/Black Suit Spider-Man was kind of a bust. As the overly aggressive and angry Spider-Man I suppose it worked, and I liked his encounter with Brock, but the over-confident, disco wanna be jerk that Peter Parker became, I think failed. And while funny for a minute, it became cringe-worthy very quickly.

Put bluntly, 3 dance scenes and 2 songs in a Spider-Man movie are too many. I don't know what the right number would have been, but I would have recommended Zero.

And the star of the show Venom. Ahhhh Venom. How the fans craved your character's appearance in the movie. But will they enjoy it?

The look of Venom is slightly off. He's a lot smaller than in the comic, but then so is Brock and that didn't bother me all that much. More work could have been put into Brock's back story and motivation. He was a background player in the comic for months before he finally revealed himself. One problem that I had with the portrayal of Venom was that they did nothing to the voice of Topher Grace when he was Venom. It didn't seem to fit what we've, or I've, come to expect as the voice from the monster that is one of Spider-Man's greatest villains. I would have preferred something more menacing and threatening as opposed to the cackle of Topher.

All that being said, did anything work in the movie?

Well, anytime Spider-Man is on the screen, it's a joy because of how well they are able to portray his powers in the movies. The wall crawling and web swinging is just great. And the action/fight scenes of the movie are all great. Sam Raimi does a tremendous job when it comes to the action sequences and the scenes in this movie are no exception.

Harry's Green Goblin didn't really bother me. With Harry we have a character that has evolved over three movies into someone with a back story and a motive. While I may not like the direction they took the Green Goblin, the character works at least.

The Sandman, I thought, was nicely done, but I would have definitely preferred more Thomas Hayden Church Sandman as opposed to the CG mass of sand flying and forming all over the city. And interjecting him into Spider-Man's past seemed quite unnecessary to me and added very little to the film. But the fact that I wanted more Sandman is a testament to how good he was when he was there.

With all that though, the film is obviously review proof and who can blame someone for going. I mean, it's Spider-Man! I can only hope that more care will be taken in crafting the next movie. I mean everyone knows there is going to be a sequel so there isn't so much of a need to cram so much into each movie.

Look, I can't in good conscience sit here and tell you the 'The Condemned' is any sort of quality cinema. And looking at the box office numbers, the rest of the country seems to feel the same way.

But if you like movies that are so bad they are good, and if you liked movies like 'The Running Man' and 'Surviving the Game' (awesome movie) then you will probably like 'The Condemned'.

Very simply, 10 prisoners from death rows around the world are rounded up and plopped on an island to fight to the death. The last one standing gets his freedom and a boatload of cash. But Stone Cold Steve Austin isn't (as you might guess) your average prisoner....

Bad dialog and acting are pushed aside in favor of a think plot with good fight scenes, and if they made this movie to become the next 'Road House', or a cable/dvd success, they might have succeeded.

There are only a few people I know that I would ever tell to see this movie in the theaters, but that being said if you catch it on cable it's a fun diversion for 90 minutes.

It seems to me that the producers of this movie got together and said, "OK, we have enough money to make a 2 hour horror movie here, or we can get a couple of 'name' actors and drop it to 1:25. Thoughts?"

Well, based on the money it's pulled in, I think they made a mistake, creatively, maybe not.

I liked this movie. I liked seeing actors who wouldn't normally appear in a horror/slasher film running around for their lives. It was different than your normal teen slasher film, and added an interest level for me.

The buildup to the goings on might have been a little long and the back story was poorly fleshed out, but when the banging on the walls starts about 45 minutes into the movie, you do get the horror movie jitters.

I did think we were going to avoid the typical horror movie ending for something more gruesome, but I guess the film makers didn't want to go in that direction.

Nevertheless, it's a pretty good movie that you'll probably have to wait for dvd or cable for, as it's falling fast in the box office.

So this is 'Rear Window' for a new generation I guess. Well, no I won't demean it by comparing it to Hitchcock's classic, there's no way it could stand up to that and to try and compare it would make it look worse than it is.

'Disturbia' is certainly a passable teen thriller. I'm a David Morse fan and he is certainly creepy enough for the role. There a a couple of jumps and the girl is certainly cute, so it's success is not to much of a surprise in the build up to the start of the summer movie season.

I'd probably catch this one on DVD and would recommend it as a nice little thriller to most.

Mark Wahlberg can put out an entertaining movie from time to time and this one is no exception. Bonus points for being partially set in my hometown of Philly.

Very 'Fugitive'-esque in it's storyline with one exception. An innocent man, wrongly accused of a brutal crime, except instead of returning to prove his innocence, he seems more interested in returning and killing everyone.

Nevertheless that acting is strong and the action scenes are entertaining. Something seems a little off with Danny Glover though. But I can forgive that.

This is definitely an entertaining movie and I would recommend this to most people.

You know, news reports would have you believe that this movie was a failure and did not live up to the studios expectations. While it may not have, they needed to take a closer look at what they were offering up here and realize that they landed pretty much where they deserved.

I suppose we were supposed to get behind this idea that a movie is so bad its good and that this double feature experience would be a great marketing idea. Well, when you have a movie that's so bad it's good... guess what, you still have a bad movie.

Besides movie geeks like myself, I'm not entirely sure who they thought was going to see this movie. An insanely bloody zombie movie attached to a car chase movie with a whole hell of a lot of talking.

Now, I know that Quentin Terentino is supposed to be the master of dialog, but a lot of dialog doesn't mean good dialog. I could have fallen asleep and taken a 10 minute nap during any conversation of 'Death Proof' and woken up to the same conversation and not missed a beat of the movie.

Funny, but 'Death Proof' was the one I was looking forward to, but 'Planet Terror' actually entertained me a lot more. Some of the deaths were nice and bloody, there was good action throughout and I felt like everyone was actually having fun during that movie. And while I love Kurt Russell, 'Death Proof' didn't feel like a movie to me at all. More like a collection of scenes from a bigger movie.

The type of movie goer who would enjoy this movie is a very specific type of person, and if you're not that person (and you know if you are), you're just not going to enjoy these films.

How long was this movie sitting on the shelf before they decided to release it. I started seeing previews for this film in the Spring of 2006 for a Summer release and now they finally release it months, almost a year, later.

And it looks like a movie that's been tinkered with. Some not so right narration and scenes and shots that seemed to be filmed completely separate from the movie abound throughout.

That being said the movie is enjoyable.

Now, people tell me that I like every movie, and to a certain extent that's true. But I find that after years of seeing so many movies, I am able to accurately gauge my expectations going in, and most of the time, I'm right on. And as long as a movie meets my expectations, it's at least ok in my book.

Now, this movie is no 'Last of the Mohicans', but I didn't expect it to be. I expected an average script with, average acting, some blood and some cool fight scenes and it delivered. Actually if you are squeamish, it could be a little much for you in parts, as some people I was with didn't enjoy the blood.

I wouldn't exactly recommend the movie, but if you happen to catch it on cable or dvd, it can be a fun diversion.

Is it May already? 300 is a movie that in any year could be a summer staple film, being used as a launching point for the summer movie season. But the producers decided that March was their best chance to get this movie seen, and by the box office numbers they may have been correct.

Historians can argue the accuracy of the movie and history behind it, but the movie is based on the events surrounding the Battle of Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans who defended and held off tens of thousands of Persians for three days, by using the geography of Thermopylae as a choke point to their advantage, while at the same time, portraying the political power plays back at home to mobilize the rest of the army.

The movie is bloody, violent and brutally graphic to say the least, and is entertaining from start to finish. A very stylized movie, much like Sin City, another Frank Miller story, the movie delights the eyes, that is if you don't feel the need to turn away at the sight of flying limbs.

Just saw this film last night and I'll try and review the contents of the movie without regard for the three bastards sitting in the back row chatting the entire time.

Uhhh, It was pretty bad. I remember being affected by the first movie a couple years ago. Walking out of that movie and realizing that I could never recommend that movie to anyone that I know because some of the imagery was so jarring and disturbing that I didn't know anyone at the time that could handle it. It was that intense, I felt.

This movie starts with a pretty decent scene for a horror movie and then completely goes downhill from there.

This time the victims are not wayward travelers, but a squad of 9 National Guard on a delivery mission, who find that all is not well when they arrive at their destination.

A sorrier group of military I have never seen in a movie in my life. Immediately upon introducing them as characters one has to look at the screen quizzically and wonder, "This is a military unit?"

On another note, when seeing a mutant monster movie, one might expect that the characters would be killed by said mutants. Of the military people that get offed, only 2 of them come into physical contact with the enemy. For a mutant slasher movie, the killings were quite poor.

I'll let you imagine how bad the acting actually was. I believe anyone in the film who was able to mutter a convincing line was killed the scene following said line.

And what happened to the make up effects? Couldn't the masks from the first movie be saved? What passed as mutant make up for this movie was sub par to say the least, and the bar isn't that high to begin with.

Much like the first movie, I couldn't recommend this movie to anyone, but for different reasons all together.

MotionDefined.com

This was an… extreme film to say the least. Graphic in its use of language and violence and extreme in its performances, this film was quite an experience.

The performances in this film, which basically amounted to a two person play, were way over the top while staying quite entertaining. Alan Cumming, in I believe his directorial debut, was able to pull a performance from David Boreanez, who previously seem to come from the George Clooney school of brooding acting, that I didn't think possible. They way these two are able to run around the house expressing themselves the way they do really made this movie quite memorable for me.

Whether audiences will ever get to see this in a theater, I don't know. But if there is ever an opportunity to see this film, seize it, you will enjoy it.

This is an enjoyable film. Lean, tight, not a lot of fluff. It has a direction and stays with it till the end.

A nice, dramatic turn for Paul Rudd, who I'm used to seeing in comedy, playing a soon to be out of work clam digger in 1970's Long Island, as the larger corporations move in and take all of the jobs. As he and his sister deal with the death of their father, he and his friends have to deal with the reality of losing their jobs in the increasingly corporate world.

Strong performances across the board make this a great little actors movie. Unfortunately, I don't believe it is destined to hit many theaters, so this will have to be a DVD movie for most people, but I would highly recommend it as it was one of the best movies at SXSW.

This will probably go down as the best movie appearing at SXSW this year, and the most popular.

The lines to get into this movie were unlike any of the other films I had seen for any film at the festival, including the opening night premiere of 'The Lookout.' And the movie does not disappoint in any way.

Seth Rogan plays Ben an out of work, internet wanna be loser living off of a fourteen thousand dollar settlement he received 10 years ago from a postal truck accident. Katherine Heigl plays Allison Scott, a recently promoted E Television personality, who on a night of celebrating and through a verbal misunderstanding gets pregnant after a sexual encounter with Seth Rogan. Hilarity ensues. And it actually does.

I haven't decided if this was funnier than 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' or not, because it is so different in its tone. Still equally as vulgar of course, but different in a way that more people can relate to.

The supporting cast is great in this movie, especially Ben's roommates and their thoughts on life. Equally as entertaining are Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann as Allison's sister and brother-in-law, with a tremendous highlight of the movie being a getaway trip to Vegas.

This is definitely a movie to see in the theater and I believe it will be released in June. I'll probably have to see it again as in the old Paramount Theater the sound system couldn't compete with the laughter in the audience.

MotionDefined.com

Flakes was a movie I was looking forward to seeing at SXSW.

Starring Zooey Deschanel and Aaron Stanford, this romantic comedy centers around a cereal bar and Zooey's desire for Aaron to motivate himself a little more and follow his rock dreams and get away from his dead end job. Along the way a rival bar opens across the street and Zooey jumps ship in order to try and help Aaron's motivation.

Movies starring Deshanel usually have a quirk factor that wasn't present here, and at the same time, sorely missed. While entertaining, there was nothing significant that would make this movie stand out above any other romantic comedy that hits the theater on an almost weekly basis.

The performances were fine, the story fine, and overall the movie was fine.

My first movie premiere and my first trip to SXSW all in one. Quite exciting.

The first thing I noticed with the kickoff film of SXSW was the line. By the time the movie started I think it covered 3 of the 4 blocks around the building, broken into groups of badge holders, pass holders and ticket buyers.

Also present along the red carpet were a few bits of media and of course people dressed as Superman and the Hulk. They were of course promoting another movie, but still, an odd thing to see at this premiere in such a prominent spot.

Starting about 10-15 minutes late Scott Frank the writer/directer of the movie came on stage to speak for a few minutes and introduce a few members off the cast such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt of '10 Things I Hate About You' fame and Isla Fisher, significant other of Borat and from the film 'Wedding Crashers'.

From IMDB…
Chris (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a once promising high school athlete whose life is turned upside down following a tragic accident. As he tries to maintain a normal life, he takes a job as a janitor at a bank, where he ultimately finds himself caught up in a planned heist.

Scott Frank has written quite a few enjoyable if not great movies over the past 15 years which include 'The Interpreter', 'Minority Report', 'Out of Sight' and 'Dead Again'.

The difference between this movie, his directorial debut, and his previously written films seem to be the ability to get an A list cast attached. The acting in this film was great, but I don't for see this movie being as bankable as others he has worked on, just by virtue of having a cast of mostly unknowns. With the exception, of course, of Jeff Daniels, who manages to steal every scene he is in as the blind, almost mentor-like roommate of the lead Gordon-Hewitt.

As an exploration of a person dealing with a life altering disability, I think the film works beautifully, and I wish that it was explored a little more.

As a crime-thriller it needed a little bit of work to me. While it may not be the right word, it had an almost ponderous build up to the crime and an all to quick resolution after the fact.

While playing her role nicely, Isla Fisher was almost unnecessary to the film, except as a means to lure Gordon-Hewitt into the crime and then disappear. And her sudden odd departure from the movie seemed to have a lot of heads scratching in the theater.

Scott Frank has proven time and time again that he can write a strong screenplay, but I guess I wish that he got the chance to open SXSW '95 with 'Get Shorty' instead of this year with 'The Lookout'.

A good movie, maybe not a festival opener though.

Stephen Collins - www.motiondefined.com

If you are trying to do something different as a director, I can definitely get behind that.

If you feel that what you need to do in your film requires you to use a language that 99.9% of the world has never been exposed to, then more power to you.

But as a paying customer, who is supporting your 'vision', I'm asking that your 'vision' do with out the testicle jokes and icyhot on the penis jokes. Just as a small favor to me.

If I have to sit through 2 and 1/2 hours of your Mayan language, I can do without the Mayan potty humor.

Beyond that the movie was great.

'Apocalypto' is a very violent story about the more technologically advanced parts of an ancient civilization devouring up it's less advanced groups, but quickly becomes a revenge/chase movie when a prisoner kills the wrong man in his escape attempt. While at the same time, trying to return to his village to rescue his wife and children from impending death.

With the exception of the long walk to prison, the movie moves quite quickly and entertains the entire time. There is not a heavy amount of dialogue, so subtitles never become a distraction.

The movie IS violent and quite graphic in nature. Expect a lot of blood and organs if you go see it.

I don't know how many people are put off because its a Mel Gibson movie, but if you can stomach the graphic nature of the movie, it's quite enjoyable.

I realise that this movie review is going on a month old at this point, but I figure I should put it up just for th archive.

Ehh.

Taking the basic premise of the TV show he created and doing his best to increase the cool factor, Michael Mann drags us all back down to Miami to revisit the drug trade.

Successful in adding more cool to the movie, yes, bringing a decent story to the table, no.

It was really hard trying to find anything interesting to grab onto in this movie. Yeah there were a few nice shootouts, but the screen seemed to be more focused on Colin Farrel and Jamie Foxx trying to out-star and out-cool each other.

Watching these two guys pushed down my throat as part of the new Hollywood elite isn't a meal I'll enjoy eating. I've yet to see Colin Farrel drive anyone to a film and reading stories of Jamie Foxx having tantrums when he's not treated better than Eddie Murphy on the set of their next film hardly gets me excited for a project from these two. Hey Jamie, 'Ray' was nice, but come on, Eddie Murphy has made some real scratch in this town, don't get your panties in a twist.

Watching this movie made me realize that Don Johnson actually brought something to the table in the original series... some personality.

The Descent is easily the scariest movie of the year.

It's also odd in the way the studio decided to release the film. Movie previews and promotion began for this film last summer, long before even the bad version of this movie, The Cave, hit theaters. The film was then released globally before it came to the US and it is now here and not an easy film to find.

But if you can, it's quite a delightful horror film.

Set one year after the death of one of the character's daughter, a group of friends get together for the first time since the accident to have some fun cave diving.

Now this movie is terrifying enough watching these women crawl through the smallest tunnels I have ever seen, but really kicks into high gear when they meet the cave's, shall we say, residents.

Scary, claustrophobic, and quite bloody, I would recommend this movie to any horror fan.

Now that it is alleged that Owen Wilson has broken up Kate Hudson's marriage, I guess it's time to actually post a review for this movie.

It's not bad, and actually better than I thought, but not great.

The movie has some really good, funny moments, and in general Owen Wilson can't help but be funny more often than not. But I've never really been a Matt Dillon fan. He works well for me in dramas, but he comes off as too wooden for me in comedies.

Michael Douglas and Kate Hudson are both fine in the film. Kate Hudson looks amazing and for some that alone may be enough to see the movie.

Be on the watch for a hilarious albeit brief Lance Armstrong cameo.

This movie will be a great rental, but you could probably skip the theater.

Clerks isn't for everybody. How could it be?

Throughout all of the Clerks' universe movies, the references can come and go so fast that if you don't already know what they are talking about, you're lost.

But if you are part of the intended audience for the latest Kevin Smith film Clerks 2, you will enjoy the hell out of it.

The dialogue is fast and witty, the characters have progressed to exactly the place you want them to since the last movie (nowhere) and the new characters blend right in perfectly. With the small exception of being expected to believe that Rosario Dawson would look twice at these losers, the casting is great.

Even the storyline works. I mean, for two of the greatest slackers of our movie generation, the thought of actually quitting your job and moving IS a movie worthy event.

The donkey scene was hilarious even if the mere thought of it caused Joel Siegel to storm out of the theater. If you haven't seen the movie, I'm not giving anything away, but for me the funniest line in the movie may have been, "Oooh, Cake."

Loves lost and found, dirty jokes, friendship and Star Wars lie at the heart of Clerks and if you can keep up, you will love it.

It is sad to me that science is now politics. And that I can't go to this movie and recommend it without people constantly trying to convince me that it's all BS and Al Gore just has this agenda and it's going to help him back to the White House.

Why can't Al Gore just be a guy who has had a life long concern for the environment, and has dedicated a good portion of his life, pre and post VP, to trying to inform the world that we just might be hurting the planet.

There are facts and figures in the movie that right wing politicos will argue are skewed just to make his point. So there is almost no point in arguing their merit here. If your not going to believe Al Gore's argument, you won't believe mine either.

But there is one fact in the movie that I don't think you can't really argue with, and a somewhat logical conclusion to that fact.

From basically the beginning of time, through the 1800's the population of humans grew to about 2 billion people. Then in the last 100 years we went from 2 billion to about 8 billion.

How could this insane population growth not hammer the planet and it's resources? And maybe, possibly, negatively impact the planet?

I wanted to see this a second time before I posted my review but, alas, that isn't going to happen.

This movie has become a box office monster, above and beyond what everyone expected, but was it any good? Box office doesn't always equate to quality.

I think the movie was good. It had some problems, but it was good. It was not as good as the first one, but what movie is? OK, maybe Empire Strikes Back.

This movie had a few scenes that were fall down hilarious. And yet, for a small stretch of the movie, I was bored. I can't explain it. Maybe there was too much in the movie and I had to disconnect myself from the film to recharge, because they try and throw alot at you.

Alot of it is good too. But there is still a little too much. When Johnny Depp played Captain Jack in the first film, his character came out of nowhere, surprised people and stole the entire movie.

Now, with Jack basically expected to lead the movie, it might not work as well. Jack works better running around with things happening around him. Not leading the way. And it may have backfired a little here.

Storytelling-wise. Obviously not box office-wise.

The biggest complaint I hear about the movie is about the ending and the cliffhanger. I guess I pay just a little too much attention to movie news, but people in the theater did not know that there was going to be a third film next summer.

Much like the Lord of the Rings, the film just ends and many people, even people I was with, let out a few "What the…?"'s. Almost leaving angry that they had to wait another year to see the finale.

I'm a little behind in my reviews, and I thought I'd catch up with what may actually be the best movie of the summer.

The story is pretty simple and most people are familiar with it at this point. Anne Hatheway is a beginning journalist wanna be and Meryl Streep is her satan like boss.

Meryl Streep comes alive and just eats this part up as the devilish boss of a world reknown fashion magazine. As Anne Hatheway stumbles through her best attempts to please her boss, Meryl Streep digs in, and digs, and digs and never lets up.

Even at the end of the movie when we get our 'everythings peachy' ending, Meryl Streep still doesn't let up enough to make it seem feel good.

Most men will probably want to avoid this movie, as was evident by the proportion of women to men at the showing that I was at. But I wouldn't pigeon hole this as a chick flick just because it's about a fashion magazine and has an almost all women cast. This is basically an evil boss movie and I think that's something almost everyone can relate to.

3 weeks.

That's how long it took Dead Man's Chest to surpass the original Pirate's total theatrical gross.

It now stands at number 16 on the all-time blockbuster list. (That's not adjusted for inflation.) and looking ahead at the list, I wouldn't be surprised if it ended it's run between Spider-Man and Star Wars Episode III at number 7. It seems to be keeping one day ahead of all of the Episode III records in the book, so it only seems appropriate that it will end right past it at close to $400 million.

With a little help and a small push, it could potentially hit number 3, passing Shrek 2 at $436 mil, but I have my doubts that it can reach number 2, where Star Wars sits with $461 million. $436 to $461 million seems like a little too much of a gap to cover late in a movies release.

You can never predict Titanic numbers ($600 million) because movies like that come around every blue moon and almost can't be explained.

And while Pirates 2 was not as good as Pirate 1, and no I don't think it was, it was certainly good enough that there will be incredible interest in the next movie, and I think it only helps that the movie arrives next summer to capitalize on the interest immediately.

Then it can go head to head with Spider-Man as the next trilogy king, to see if either can surpass Lord of the Rings as the second highest grossing trilogy of all time.

I waited until I saw this movie for a second time, so I could try and get my thoughts in order for this review and make sure my gut reaction was my real reaction and not just a fanboy reaction.

Well, I loved it. More the second time than the first.

Most of the complaints I hear have to do with the fact that we aren't really covering any new ground in this movie. Well, there is truth to that. Superman vs Lex in some diabolic scheme. Lois swooning over Superman and having another flying over the city moment.

I was ready to hear "Can You Read My Mind?" again.

But, it has been 20 years since the first movie. So some rehashing has to be expected to bring people back up to speed. Most people that I know who have seen the original don't even remember it.

My biggest worry about the film actually, was the kid. I had storyline fears going into the movie and the fears were realized, but was handled in a way that actually, I thought, added to the movie, rather than harm it, like I was expecting.

I thought Kate Bosworth and Frank Langella were both fantastic as Lois and Perry. I always had a problem with Jimmy Olsen. He always annoyed me and does the same here.

James Marsden as Lois' fiance was good casting and played the part well. I'm a Parker Posey fan and thought she was funny as Kitty, and actually wished she had a little more dialogue.

Kevin Spacey as Lex was great and he nailed the 'Gene Hackman' Luther, if that's what you were going for. And I'm assuming that is exactly what they wanted as they also cast Brandon Routh.

Brandon Routh is Christopher Reeve. Not only does he have a passing resemblance, but his voice IS Chirstopher Reeve. To close you eyes and listen to the movie you would think Reeve was on screen.

His performance almost completely mimics Reeve's Clark Kent. And as Christopher Reeve IS Clark Kent and he IS Superman, you could do alot worse than trying to replace him with his virtual clone.

And Routh pulls it off. He looks like Superman, sounds like Superman and feels like Superman. He just works.

Of course the special effects are amazing and it's almost a waste of space to talk about effects in this day and age. But it was great to see flying done right. You will believe a man can fly.

Rumors are that if this movie doesn't make $200 million, there will be no sequel. This movie needs a sequel, so please if it starts to struggle in the 180's go see it again.

I touched on this in a previous article, but saw a couple of news stories today that I wanted to touch on, in regards to this attacking of the Superman movie and character.

There is the story Why not a gay Superman? where the gay Superman rears its head again, and Superman eschews longtime patriot act where it complains that Superman is not American anymore.

I can't believe how much this 'gay Superman' story has taken hold in the media, it amazes me sometimes. It seems to me that whenever there is a guy who is clean, good looking and getting alot of attention from women, as Brandon Routh has, the heterosexual male defence mechanism kicks in and the 'gay' attacks fly.

I mean, how many times have you seem women oogle at a man and hear another man say that he's probably gay. Happens all the time.

And, this story that Superman isn't American anymore, can we please grow up and join the rest of the world now? To quote a line from one of the movies, he's here for all of us. Not to mention the obvious interstellar heritage.

So the bad press has begun with the box office results for Superman. It's day one and since it didn't break every box office record, it's obviously on its way to failure.

Here is a story I found linked to from Drudge. Click for Story.

Look people, calm down. The movie opened on a Wednesday before a long 4th of July weekend, what did you expect. No one is anticipating this movie more than I am and even I decided to wait until the weekend to see it. Why try fitting it into my Wednesday in the middle of the work week, when I have 4 days that I can go see it at any time.

I would be highly surprised if by next Tuesday night it hasn't collected a cool $150 million and the article will be complaining that it didn't make $200.

People are expecting Spider-Man 2 numbers but this isn't Spider-Man 2. The anticipation for Spider-Man 2 was incredible after Spider-Man and the box office showed that. People need to realize that Superman Returns is following not just 2 bad movies, but 2 of the worst movies ever. Superman 3 and 4 were so bad, that the director is basically asking the audience to pretend like they don't exist.

And I don't understand where the 'gay' campaign is coming from. I guess since Bryan Singer is gay that everything he works on is all of a sudden 'gay'. Like that's a bad thing or something.

But people, Superman is a love story between Superman and Lois and the last time I checked. Lois was pretty feminine. And in the last couple of Superman incarnations, pretty darn beautiful to say the least. I guess I'm trying to say that Superman doesn't appear to be attracted to the same sex.

It's funny to me that of the 3 X-men movies, the one that has the 'gayest' message is the one that he didn't direct. So why people are looking for hidden messages is beyond me.

So, lets just go enjoy the movie. It's getting pretty good reviews around the country and will make a ton of money, even if it doesn't become the next Titanic.

Personally, I'm betting about $310-$330 domestic and close to $600 worldwide.

I wasn't quite sure what to expect from this film. The cast is large and I'm a fan of most of them. But having never listened to the radio show on which this is based I had nothing to go into the movie with.

Well, finally maybe we can stop hearing about Vaughnistan, or whatever the heck they are calling this couple, now that the movie has been released.

There are going to be two different camps when it comes to this movie, I believe. Those who know the X-Men from the comics and those who know the X-Men from the movies.

The DaVinci Code was… long. Not entirely without merit, just… long.

Now, I have to say initially that this is not a bad movie. It has good performances and it's sufficiently creepy, and my problem with the movie is not really with the movie itself.

Poseidon, Poseidon, where did you go wrong. A weak remake of a campy, but very fun, 70's disaster movie, Poseidon seems to be missing some back story and character development that might have made this a good movie.

When I look at Michael Jackson over the past several years, I always think the same thing… God damn that guy is talented, why the hell does he have to be such a freak?

It really seems to me that Tom Cruise is going in that direction. He isn't there yet, but everytime I talk about him with others I find myself saying, "Yeah, he's a little off, but he can make a damn good movie."

Well ok, now everyone who has seen this can take a deep breath.

The simplist word to use to describe this movie is "intense" and thats almost and understatement.

Nuclear testing in the 50's leaves a town of miners angry and mutated when they don't leave the radiation infected areas and stay and continue to procreate and yeah, kill people to.

A nearby gas station owner will, for payment, occassionally send travellers down a wrong road only to be ambushed by these people and killed. And so begins this movie.

In the first encounter with the mutated people we leave with 2 murders, a rape, and a kidnapping. Be warned this movie is not for the faint of heart. I have heard it described as torture porn, and I find it hard to argue with that.

But for many people who go to horror movies, gore and torture is exactly what they are looking for and here that is exactly what you will get.

As scene after scene ended I could hear my movie companion sighing, trying to prepare for the next onslaught of violence wondering how much longer he would actually stay in the theater before he decided he's had enough.

The plot is really no more complicated then to just get out alive with as many survivors as possible.

If you go to horror movies hoping for violence and gore, you will enjoy this movie. If you want more thought put into a story or if you are uneasy about graphic images don't even think about it.

I love Harrison Ford. Always have and probably always will. But yes, you have seen this movie before. The question is does it bother you?

Do I want someting new and better from Ford? Do I want him to stop playing the same character over and over again? Yes, of course I do, but that doesn't mean I don't get a kick out of watching him do what he's done best.

In Firewall, Harrison Ford play a bank security manager, whose family is kidnapped and held for ransome. Pretty simple plot and nothing we haven't seen from him or others before.

Others of note in the film are Virginia Madsen as Harrison's wife, who played a fine mother/wife in distress, but seemed pretty underutilized.

Also appearing here is Paul Bettany who place a nice villian. I like Paul Bettany and have enjoyed his movies and this is no exception. I expect to continue to see more and more of him as his career grows.

The movie itself is rather run of the mill. Nothing fancy or suprising going on here. It's hard to build an exciting scene in a film where most of the action takes place on a computer.

Of note though would be the final confrontation between Paul Bettany and Harrison Ford in a fight that suprised me with its brutality. It was almost as if the film makers took all of the humanity/emotion that was missing from the computer hacking scenes and put it into the final fight of the film.

All in all, it was nice to have another Harrison Ford action movie to hit the cinema, but here's hoping that his next few movies stretch his acting a bit and show us something new.

Except for Indy IV. I'm ready and waiting.

Much like Hostage, the last Bruce Willis action flick to hit theaters, this film surprises at how well it works.

I've never hidden that I am a Bruce Willis fan. I enjoy the films he is in and find that he isn't typecast into a particular role. He will play almost anything and has enough of a range that, for me, he usually pulls it off.

In this near real-time action thriller, Bruce Willis is charged with transporting a witness 16 blocks from the station to the courthouse before the grand jury adjourns for the session. The only obstacle in his way happens to be most of the city police force who is trying to keep the criminal (Mos Def) from testifying against a cop.

Bruce Willis, actually playing 'older' in this movie, is very credible as an old beat up cop. Mos Def plays his role quite well. Many will find his mannerisms quite annoying in this film, but as the film plays on, they start to feel like the character and you just start to buy it. David Morse is great as the 'bad' cop in this film. I've always felt that Morse is a solid actor who always serves up a good performance and this movie is no exception.

The movie's action builds and builds and then climaxes surpisingly with a conversation instead of a bang down action scene. And it works.

I would recommend going to see this movie in the theater. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

We all know the plot of the Final Destination films at this point don't we. Well this one continues the plot from the previous two, while dropping any character that might have survived from those movies.

Now this was a surprise. Lot's of action, violence, nudity and a really creepy pedophile scene coming out of nowhere in the middle of the film all lends itself to a pretty successful movie.

Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine is writing a book based on his writing for Wired Magazine called 'The Long Tail'. Here I would just like to mention his post on 'The Death of a Blockbuster' and something I think he is misunderstanding.

Go read the article and the lively comments for a good read.

I think Chris is misunderstanding what movie studios are producing now a days. Movie studios today create 'Content' not movies. Years ago when the Motion Picture industry was in its infancy, there was only one distribution method and that was a movie theater. Those days are long gone.

Today's movies find their audiences through theaters, dvd's, television, toys and theme parks.

When Chris writes 'The Death of a Blockbuster' what he really should be writing about is the death of the movie theater, not the movie.

George Lucas didn't make enough money to create ILM, Lucasarts, Pixar and Skywalker Sound because the Star Wars movies made 2 Billion at the Box Office, it's because the Videos, DVDs and toys made all the money that they did.

If the movie Spiderman makes $300 million and sales of the Spiderman comic book double, then Spiderman didn't just make $300. Those comic book sales should be figured in to the movie's actual profit power.

So are blockbusters dying, no not at all, but are movie theaters dying, yeah, maybe they are.

Maybe that will change if they put in cell phone jammers, though.

Picking up almost immediately where the last film left off, the movie continues the battle between the werewolves and vampires to what appears to be its conclusion.

I have to say I was looking forward to this one, but it really went wrong. Wasn't this movie supposed to be about Jamestown, John Smith and Pocahontas.

Well it Oscar nomination time again, and for the most part it's the same old story again. There are rarely any REAL surprises when it comes to nomination time, as you can usually guess the nominations months in advance, just based on the press clipping and reviews. And this year isn't any different.

Here are some thoughts on a few of the categories.

Based on the classic novel by CS Lewis, 4 children are sent away to a professors mansion in the country to be protected during World War II. While playing hide and seek one day, the youngest finds a wardrobe in an empty room and when opened, leads to the magical world of Narnia, where the children find their destiny to save Narnia from the evil White Witch.

This was the kind of movie that should have made me cry, but couldn't. There was something about the film, an emptyness or hollowness that kept me from getting pulled in.

I expected very little from this film, and almost didn't go see it. It struck me as the kind of movie Heath Ledger needed to make to prove he wasn't gay, after starring in Brokeback Mountain. But I was pleasantly suprised that this movie actually had something to offer.

It's funny, my expectations for this movie where raised really high when I started reading some of the reviews for this film. Especially the review by Harry at Ain't It Cool News which praised Director Eli Roth for not only growing up as a filmmaker but surpassing all expectations.

Now don't get me wrong, the movie is fun, but come on already.