SPOILERS:
There are few Horror writers with as wide a fan base as Stephen King. Loved by many, King has written some of the most surreal, dark and occasionally twist laden stories of all time. When you get a decent King story and you pair it with one of Hollywood's golden boys, you expect success therefore. "Secret Window" is the outcome and whilst it's not quite as good as it could be, it is still fun enough and well acted, to keep people entertained throughout.

Mort Rainey (Johnny Depp) is a well known author who is going through a messy divorce. As if life isn't complicated enough, when Mississippi born John Shooter (John Turturro) arrives accusing Rainey of plagiarism, things begin to get even worse.

Everybody likes Johnny Depp. Most women adore the man and most men admire his acting talent. With a wide range of skills, Depp can switch from humorous to deep in a matter of seconds. In "Secret Window" he again shows this skill as the tormented Mort. Pushed around, occasionally violent, always disturbed and occasionally funny, Depp's character is a difficult one to play, yet he manages admirably. We witness a Johnny Depp masterclass and we should feel grateful for being allowed to experience it.

The story itself is also a pleasant enough experience. Not quite as good as some of King's other works, we are still given large numbers of clues to keep us guessing, and even when people predict events, for many the twist at the end is still a solid enough surprise.

Perhaps the one major flaw with "Secret Window" is the way certain routes aren't taken. The window never feels fully explored and certain potential mystic events aren't explained at the conclusion. In fact, the conclusion as a whole is a bit of a disappointment. After things come together and we find out the truth, you tend to expect a well constructed finale. Unfortunately though the last ten minutes feel like they die a slow death and you can't help but feel slightly disappointed when the end credits roll.

It's not the best Stephen King adaptation ever, and there are countless better films released every year, but "Secret Window" is still worth watching. Led by a brilliant performance by Johnny Depp, the story has enough going on in it to keep you hooked and entertained throughout. Good nighttime viewing, but if not for Depp it wouldn't be worth the effort.....

Jack Reacher is entertaining and a solid film. It is a crime drama genre with some action and a little more humor. It is a story driven film with enough character development to make sense, but leaves some mystery about the main character Jack Reacher to keep it interesting. Having not read the books it is based on, the story was well done enough that I would want to see any future installments of the series. While the lead actor, Tom Cruise, is believable in the role he would not have to continue playing the lead character to keep the story interesting. He added to the film and made the character believable but the character Jack Reacher is interesting enough that other actors could do a decent enough job, as it is seen in the James Bond franchise.

It is worth adding that Tom Cruise did such a good job in the role it was possible to forget who the actor was, and enjoy and believe the character; though the character was given some of Tom's charisma, and it did work for the character.

As a whole, the film is reminiscent of a high budget TV crime drama but in movie form. The action scenes are there to drive the story along and not over the top but kept down to earth (i.e. obeys the laws of physics) as much as Hollywood can. It has a few plot twist in the revealing of the crime mystery. The acting is believably good (Robert Duvall is noteworthy in his small role that could be argued he equaled or did better than Tom Cruise's performance). Rosamund Pike also did a good job acting and making the character work for the film. The directing, cinematography, editing, soundtrack, and screenplay writing are all above average and better than the sum of their parts. Meaning there is positive synergy at work. It is refreshing to experience a film out of Hollywood that keeps me interested the whole time and not critiquing it during the viewing.

I would recommend this film to anyone who likes the crime/mystery drama genre or who just likes the actors involved. It is entertaining, engaging, and a good 2 hour 11 min of escapism... :D

Surprise Surprise! Another remake of an Asian Horror film. Hollywood sure has a lot to thank Asia for since they are grabbing tons of their ideas. Is this is a sign showing who is more original? Surely this remake must just suck because it's a remake right? Well guess what? As much as I'd like to say that, I don't think I can! Wow that is surprising! Because in most cases, in particular when they remake Asian horror films, they always turn out to be crap.

But I was pleasantly surprised in the fact that they did a decent job, though A Tale of Two Sisters still lights the candle for me. But Emily Browning pulls the weight of the film together and captures the innocence and timidness appropriate for the lead character, and does emotionally pull you towards her. I will commend her for that and for the filmmakers.

I didn't like how they made her sister however, a bit too tomboyish because for me it wrecked the relationship that was so special between the two sisters which was captured so well in the original. This was a really important thing and the original had so much emotion in particular with the ending that you were left with a sorrow and melancholy but also made you feel satisfied.

The acting in The Uninvited is decent. However, they didn't really capture Anna's (Emily Browning) illness very well, and was pretty much rushed in the beginning. People don't just snap out of an illness like that quickly.

Since this is made for Americans, I can forgive it for sticking to the formula. But I do wonder if they tried a bit of what the Asian horror films do; perhaps give it a bit of more style, something unique, that it could actually work. I mean the scary scenes are quite predictable, which is where I find myself going 'yeah something is gonna pop up', 'yep that is definitely a dream sequence' - and in most cases I am usually right. The original left you hanging because you weren't exactly sure what was happening.

The Uninvited also goes at a much quicker pace, which is good because you aren't left hanging too long. This is both good and bad depending on quickly you want to solve the mystery, but the Korean one went at a more slower pace, but it kept you guessing more and wondering what the house was about also. What's more, the original didn't reveal it so quickly what the hell was going on in the house in the first place.

OK, there are my comparisons. Remakes should essentially be judged by themselves, but of course it will get comparisons. Let met just say that to western audiences - If you can't read subtitles, then how can I expect you to read road signs when you are driving since you only get a few seconds and have to keep your eyes on the road? If you can do that, then reading subtitles will not kill you!!!! Nevertheless, this is a decent remake and I was satisfied with it, but the original is what you should really check out if you want something that feels more original (even if you see this first), authentic, better cinematography, more depth and overall, a better movie...

If you go expecting to see a gut-busting laugh-out-loud comedy like the usual Jim Carrey-Tom Shayac production, you'll be disappointed. (But it also doesn't have the bathroom humor -- a relief to me.)

But INSTEAD I suggest you think back to those great religious epics of the 1950s -- but with many light-hearted moments (instead of the heavy melodrama those movies had). I think then you can just sit back and enjoy this movie.

Steve Carell is a master of subtle comedy -- the comedy of character nuances. He's not a big broad over-the-top comedy actor like Jim Carrey. So it's not really fair to compare him to Jim and the Ace Ventura movies.

It must be a lot of pressure on him: "You're the star of the most expensive comedy ever made! Talk out of your butt or something!"

They have him doing some slapstick while clumsily building the ark, but it isn't really funny. The film is stocked with expert comedy actors, but only Wanda Sykes got any laughs out of the audience. (But then, it's said Wanda Sykes can get laughs just reading a phone book.)

Sadly John Goodman is wasted as "the heavy". Over the closing credits, you see a moment of him comic dancing and you remember how funny this guy is.)
So if you turn off your laugh-o-meter expectations and just look at it as a sweet story of faith with a few smiles and a lot of delightful animals and some great disaster effects, you'll enjoy it.

I couldn't fix an ailing automobile if my life depended on it so the workings of cars don't fascinate me.....this movie fascinated me. The '58 Plymouth Fury, alias "Christine," is absolutely gorgeous. What a piece of machinery!

This is a horror story but there are no ghosts or monsters nor is there any gore. A car is the star of the film, a very jealous and vengeful one at that. Man, that sounds silly but, if you're reading this you have probably watched the movie so no sense going into details. It's hard to describe the story in a paragraph without it sounding stupid....but it's not. Maybe the quickest way to explain it is that it is about a car that is alive, like a human, and you mess with it, you pay!

It is definitely one creepy, well-made, unique and always-entertaining film.

The car is a lot better than any of the people, sad to say. No, I didn't like any of the kids in this film (high schoolers who all look 30 years old!) and the language is a little too rough in spots, but that can be filtered out.

The car, the '50s music, the unique story, the satisfying revenge angle all make this very watchable.

Political satire takes an equal amount of balls and tact. Too often does a satire movie end up too preachy, too safe or too overdone that it crosses that thin line. It takes a master to craft a film that delivers a good punch without being too painful. Enter "The Dictator", a witty, funny, biting political and social satire that can easily be the most hilarious film this year.

Larry Charles and Sacha Baron Cohen team up once again to bring us black comedy at its finest. If the snide opening dedication to the late Kim Jong Il does not get you at least grinning or chuckling then you know you're in the wrong theatre. You are not here to watch some tame little romantic comedy. You are here to behold the rise and fall and rise again and fall again of Admiral General Aladeen; the perverted, anti- westerner, immature and slightly off his rocker ruler of the North African republic of Wadiya. His lecherous decadent life is shattered on a fateful trip to address the UN over talks of stopping Wadiya's development of nuclear weapons. Betrayed by his uncle Tamir (Ben Kingsley effectively reprising his role of treacherous right hand man from Pince of Persia), replaced by a mentally challenged decoy, and shaved of his trademark beard by a hit-man, Aladeen embarks on a clandestine scheme to get back into power by joining forces with a Wadiyan refugee (whom he supposedly executed) and a tomboyish political activist named Zoey.

Strip the story down to its bones and it is "Prince and the Pauper" or "Emperor's New Groove". Heck, it's "Lion King" complete with treacherous uncle and African monarch. A sheltered leader falls from power and soon learns the simple joys of a simple life. Not very original there. Yet it is in the pitch perfect execution of this tried and tested plot that The Dictator stands out. Sacha Baron Cohen IS Admiral General Aladeen. He plays the role with such earnest vigour that, like his previous film portrayal of fictional Kazakstanian Borat, you would be hard pressed not to believe Aladeen exists in the real world as a real person. Ironic in that his overblown antics are anything but real. He is a caricature, much like The supporting cast consisting of caricatures of typically oppressed demographics of a population; the minorities, the disabled, those who are different etc. All put on performances beyond excellence but one cannot help but pity how Ben Kingsley has been so under utilized as an actor of late.

The Star attraction is of course, the satire aspect. Other satires may bare their political teeth, but The Dictator sinks its whole jaw into themes of racial oppression, the contradictory nature of democracy, the recent world economic situation, the rise of China and it's own brand of "democracy" etc. It is intentionally crafted to tick off the right people and entertain everyone else. Crude without being overly offensive, . Even the more "icky" stuff are played strictly for laughs. You'd get it if you had a sense of humor. The hard hitting jabs at politics and social issues are interspersed with looney toons style slapstick and a tender emotional subplot that actually feels right in place.

One downside is that this film does require the viewer to have a bit of knowledge of current world socio-political issues. Failing which, a good number of the jokes and jabs would just fly over the heads of the ignorant such as a rousing climatic speech by Aladeen extolling the virtues of dictatorship. (It is not as straight forward as you think. Those that get it will get it good).

Without the aforementioned prerequisite, The Dictator would come across as just another "Prince and the Pauper" comedy clone.But for those in the know, for those willing to think through all the little mocking points raised by the narrative, it is the softer spiritual cousin to "Team America", the vulgar dysfunctional third nephew to "Fahrenheit 911" and the crude great grandson of Charlie Chaplin's 1940's classic "The Great Dictator". IF anything, The Dictator serves to establish Sacha Baron Cohen as possibly the finest comedy actor of our decade. May his reign be long, hard and full of.................well, you get the point.

How do we begin?The President is shot, Secret Service agents chase down a "shooter", unconnected characters intersect in increasingly meaningless ways. Oh and did I mention the GROUNDHOG DAY-esqe time rewind? Audible audience laughter is not what you expect to hear in a thriller. When a film with such a reasonable premise is butchered and ultimately ends up dying an ignoble death, my first question was where was the strong hand of the director? Or the screenwriter? This film stinks of heavy handed hacking after test audience screening. It must hurt to lose control of your film.

I was teased by what appears on paper to be a stellar cast-William Hurt, Dennis Quaid, Sigourney Weaver, Forest Whitaker, Hollywood's favourite LOST boy-Matthew Fox. I can only hint at the angry disappointment I felt after the credits rolled. All of these actors have performed admirably in similar roles--here they are groundless, and the prestige they could have brought to the film is squandered.

Sigourney Weaver brings some pathos, only to be cast aside when her story plot is terminated. Dennis Quaid tries his best as the Secret Service agent trying to quell his demons, but he's not Clint Eastwood, and this is not IN THE LINE OF FIRE. William Hurt can be Presidential in his sleep, give him some depth please. Matthew Fox has no reason speaking bad Spanish when his co-pilot is speaking perfect English, Forest Whitaker does his best mumbly, stumbly, heavy faced bit, but his part in the story is simply meaningless, I'm happy he gets to reconcile with his wife and son, but please people, The President has been shot, blown up, kidnapped, drugged and tossed around an ambulance in a multi-car pile up....so is it ESSENTIAL to waste a final shot on Forest talking on a cell phone to his unseen son??...Someone must have some minutes to use up.

Ultimately VANTAGE POINT is half the film it could have been, it lacks sufficient character motivation or back story, the characters are caricatures, the script is diluted to the point of meaningless and while it sports a great climatic car chase, the final scene is as implausible as they come-----a highly trained band of ruthless conspirators, toting the latest in high tech gadgetry, killing co-conspirators as they see fit, assisted by an inside man, successfully pull off TWO intricate operations and on the road to getting away scot-free, only to be undone because an irrelevant character JAYWALKS!

Come on, we are smarter than that and as film makers you should be smart enough to know that.