Reviews by sharath

"I Still Know What you Did Last Summer" is about Julie James played by Jennifer Love Hewitt and its been a year since they killed a man and since Helen and Barry were murdered because they didn't want to go to the police. Shes not seeing Ray that much because she doesn't want to go back to Southport to see the festival(which Helen was involved in) and instead her new best Friend Karla Wilson played by Brandy(aka Moesha)wins a holiday to the Bahamas and Julie, Karla, Tyrell and will Benson go on holiday, Julie asked Ray but he say no and he is going to meet her there with a surprise proposal. When they get to the island they find out they will be the only ones there because its hurricanes season. suddenly bodies start dropping and only Julie encounters them and when she tells the others no one believes her until its to late. Ray knows something is wrong with this sudden trip and hurries off to rescue her because the Ben Willis gets her. i wont say what happens because it may ruin it for others. Acting: the acting was dreadful because in the original it had Sarah Michelle Gellar and shes the one that made that movie, but Brandy cannot be a serious actress (or a comedic actress) Jennifer kept this film on its feet and made it seem real. Mekhi Phifer was like Ryan Phillpe screamed at everything and he is a rubbish actor, Matthew Settle he was pathetic (enough said) last but not least Freddie Prinz Jr- once again he didn't have a big part, but he cant act anyway, so not a huge loss.

7/10 thats all its worth.

Millions, two huge stars, a director with a reputation and a fictional sounding name, and of course, Venice! Nothing works, nothing! The chemistry between Depp and Jolie is virtually non existent. She is dressed in ridiculous, supposedly elegant, gowns but she looks as if she's wearing costumes. Remember Audrey Hepburn? She was never worn by her dresses, she was ahead. The dialog is not to be believed - Julian Fellowes is listed among the writers but, I can't believe it's true. The meet-cute on the train, done so beautifully in th past by a variety of directors and stars, falls flat here, flat! Johnny Depp is one of my favorites but here he looks puffy and detached. How can anyone managed to make Depp look bad? I don't know but they did. Jolie is a big star but here, she seems unused to wear dresses. I couldn't believe her walk through Venice. "Hot to Trot" comes o mind. Imagine, Audrey Hepburn walking purposely through Venice in a ball gown. Or Carole Lombard, or Grace Kelly, or Loren or Deneuve, Gene Tirney, Kay Kendall... I can think of dozens. This was really bad. The only saving grace a running joke that has Depp's character, not speaking Italian, speaks Spanish to the Italians and the Italians respond in Spanish, specially the scene with Christian De Sica (son of Vittorio) in which De Sica replays "De nada" So, the lesson learned is the eternal cliché. Not everything that glitters is gold. And this one, from a distance, glittered, big time

Saw this at Fantastic Fest over the weekend and was very surprised at how great Zombieland really was! At first I was very skeptical. I had seen my share of Shaun-of-the-Dead wannabe films and have had a gut full of even hearing about zombedies.

To be fair, this isn't really a comedy. It's more of a really funny horror film.

The story itself is not complicated at all. Pretty much what you see in the trailer is what you get story-wise. There is no explanation for what's going on and there are no "bad guys" other than zombies. It's just four "friends" (lack of a better word) surviving the apocalypse. This isn't a bad thing because it provides so much entertainment!

The film really hits the mark with the humor. It never gets excessive and sometimes the audience laughed so hard, I couldn't hear the movie. It's crazy how dead-on the humor is. The actors also brought a lot the their roles (especially Woody Harrelson) and each one was a PERFECT choice. I laughed so hard watching Abigail Breslin explain to Woody Harrelson about Hannah Montana. Don't know why- it was just well acted and timed.

Although it is a very funny movie, it never lends itself to being a true comedy because it is filled with scares and awesomely grotesque violence. Nothing like a good banjo to the face.

The best part of the film was the violence. Seriously, if you aren't watching a brutal, slow motion kill, you're watching Woody Harrelson kick zombie ass like a pro. Zombie fans need not worry because these zombies are vicious and bleed a LOT.

The best way to describe Zombieland is a hilariously badass adaption of Left 4 Dead. I'd venture to say it is way more entertaining than Left 4 Dead ever was, though.

The film is just a tad bit short, but it is relentlessly re-watchable.
Do yourself a favor and go see it.

It's the Fourth of July, and Julie (Jennifer Love Hewitt, TV's "Party of Five"), Ray (Freddie Prinze Jr.), Helen (Sarah Michelle Gellar), and Barry (Ryan Phillippe) are intent on celebrating their graduation from high school, which, for them, means driving to a secluded beach, getting drunk, telling ghost stories and making out with each other. But later that evening, on the way back to town, they accidentally hit a man with their car, apparently killing him. After thinking things through, the group reluctantly decides to dump the body in the sea, and swear to take the secret of what they did that night to their graves. One year later, a still guilt-ridden Julie returns from college to her hometown, and finds an incriminating message in the mail: somebody knows what they did last summer. After rounding up her circle of former friends, she tries to figure out who alive could have seen them leave a man for dead. But the events surrounding the accident may be more complicated than any of them had originally thought.

Last year, screenwriter Kevin Williamson came out of nowhere with 'Scream, a self-referential satire on the teen slasher oeuvre wrapped warmly in classic Wes Craven thrills. Unexpectedly, but deservedly, a surprise runaway box office success followed. Based on the reception of his feature debut, and before Craven and the folks at Dimension came knocking for a 'Scream' sequel (due out this winter), Williamson took it upon himself to bring author Lois Duncan's novel 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' to the big screen. The end product is a decent teen slasher film, but one can't help feeling that Williamson missed a big chance to send up traditional horror archetypes once more.

As the world of 'Last Summer' wasn't originally Williamson's own creation, it's to be expected that the film not be strung through with the same knowing streak of humour that was the driving force behind 'Scream'. Or maybe it's just that Williamson had grown tired of the same old jokes, and opted to shun them out of 'Last Summer' altogether. But through opting to stay within the lines for his latest film, Williamson has gutted what made his first so special. Sadly, 'Last Summer' does not stand apart from the crowd of horror films that Kevin Williamson so skilfully mocked ten months ago. That said, this is perhaps the first slasher film to come out since 'Scream', and, against the odds, this serves to the film's advantage, as it's almost quite enjoyable watching the clichés play out in front of you exactly as predicted.

Ironically, British director Jim Gillespie ('Joyride'), in his first Hollywood production, has made a good effort to mimic the works of Wes Craven, specifically with the commanding score by John Debney. Marco Beltrami's work on 'Scream' is the template used by Debney here, and the versatile composer manages to accentuate the tension well, despite signalling some of the scares. However, Gillespie makes the mistake of depicting the death scenes too graphically. Gore could have been used well in 'Last Summer', but Gillespie leaves the camera rolling for too long during the vicious attacks on the killer's victims, which end up more repulsive than anything. Gillespie ain't no Craven, that's for sure.

The cast (or should I say group of attractive teens that are waiting to be offed?) also seem to be taking this project a little too unsmilingly, with actors Freddie Prinze Jr. and Ryan Phillippe more concerned with trying to see which one of them can ham it up the most than actually developing characters worth caring about. Jennifer Love Hewitt is decent enough here, but her performance never fully convinces. It's up to Sarah Michelle Gellar to strap ably into "damsel in distress" mode (something that the actress should know about, starring on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" week after week), and does more than necessary to make the audience truly feel for Helen Shivers as she laments her shattered dreams. Jamie Lee Curtis, you might want to keep an eye on your Scream Queen coronet.

The final act of the film is hard to resist, as it stages a series of nice set pieces that keep you close to the edge of your seat at all times, right up to the agreeably trite, sequel-friendly ending. But Williamson needs to learn how to wean the parody away from his screenplays without completely robbing them of any innovativeness. I admire the man for not repeating himself, but he seems to have progressed right into a career corner with 'Last Summer'. 'Scream 2' will most likely return him to the top of the pyramid once again, but I'd rather not think about what might happen after that.

My Take: Energetic, mindless summer eye-candy entertainment.

It's easy to smirk or be nit-picky at something quite as silly as a $92 million big-screen version of CHARLIE'S ANGELS. Looking back, its roots date back to a successful yet critically-reviled TV series in the 70's. Bring it here, at our modern period, and be sure to be laughed at. Joel Schumacher did it, in his 1997 mega-expensive bomb (if you call any movie grossing more than a hundred million dollars, a bad as it is, a bomb) BATMAN AND ROBIN, which was immensely hated by everyone (including yours truly). Now comes CHARLIE'S ANGELS, another big-budget comedy action film lifted from some age that probably no longer exists (at least not on our generation). It's director is a former MTV director. And the script, forget it! How could they make a movie like this? Or maybe a more interesting question would be, after watching it, how could I have possibly loved it? Yes! Regardless of having to remind myself that it was meant to be ridiculous, I positively loved CHARLIE'S ANGELS, silliness and all. You can nitpick all the dumbness and stupidity of the script, but here's someone (among a surprisingly high number of others) who are happy to defend its silliness. It's pure style-over-substance matter, and the style really won me over. The stunts are completely unbelievable, the story probably never left the 70's and the script, the whole script, injects enough camp to make this piece sit right there with the original TV show (of which I wasn't exposed to). But the great thing about that is it was thrown in for laughs and a whole lot of fun. The entire piece never took itself seriously, throwing it a lot of brainless fun at every turn. Director McG (born Joseph McGinty Nichol) uses his stylish skills as an MTV director to good use. Every bit feels like an exhilarating no-questions-asked playhouse of brainless style, and I mean that in the nicest of ways.

The film is one-part MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (and in one instance, after the Angels have described their plan to break in to a room, like that in the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE movie, one of their superiors tells them "That's impossible", followed by a "Sounds like fun" response of excitement from the crime-fighting Angels), another-part John Woo action flick, one-part pure 70's camp and another part spoof of it all, and thrown in, for good measure, some MATRIX-inspired slow-mo stunts. After opening with one of its first few outrageous stunt sequences, the story proceeds, concerning a new set of Angels, including smart and uber-sexy Natalie (Cameron Diaz), tough-cookie but never-not-attractive Dylan (Drew Barrymore) and no-nonsense and no-less sex-appeal Alex (Lucy Liu), as always taking orders from unseen voice-in-a-speakerphone Charlie (voiced by John Fosythe, returning to his voice-acting role form the TV show). Their new mission: Retrieve a stolen voice-recognition software from wealthy programmer Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell). They suspect it may be the owner of a rival company (Tim Curry), but the plot thickens. But what plot? This is all but a clothesline for a series of gravity-defying (or at least every form of science imaginable) stunts (an extremely enjoyable array of fight sequences and a slam-bang helicopter finale). There's humor too, provided by the always reliable Bill Murray as Bosley, Charlie's liaison and the Angels' reliable comic-relief sidekick. Bonus points go to the oddball Crispin Glover as the "Creepy Thin Man" for providing the finest silent villain since Jaws in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.

CHARLIE'S ANGELS is still bound to create a sort of love-hate relationship amongst its viewers. Some will probably hate it for its total disregard of logic and sense. Others will embrace it for what it is: A good, fluffy entertainment (a guilty pleasure if you will). I'm joining that club!

This was a very enjoyable film; maybe not as exciting and a bit more contrived than I'd been looking forward to, but it was still very enjoyable in the main.

But one thing stood out above any other in this film; and that was: Paul Bettany's performance as Dustfinger.

He was just brilliant, and absolutely stole the film for me. I thought he was a good actor anyway, but the moment he came on I had to stop and think "wow!", and I continued to be impressed throughout the film, as his character development just got more and more interesting. I felt far more sympathy with his character than Brendan Frasers (even though I think he's fantastic!), and I felt that he was the true 'main character' of the film (in the same way as Sam is to Lord of the Rings).

If anyone is unsure about seeing Inkheart, I would suggest that it is a must-see if only for Paul Bettany's absolutely stunning performance; he is intense, emotional, funny, troubled, heroic and just plain brilliant.

Also high praise for Helen Mirren and Jim Broadbent, who were very refreshing. I did feel more could have been done with Andy Serkis and Brendan Fraser, they didn't wow me as much as I'd expected.

But overall a very enjoyable film!!

Though I hate to admit it, Karen McCullah Lutz and Kirsten Smith have scored again. "She's the Man" is a ridiculous but ultimately entertaining teen movie which takes the gender-bending action of Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night" and drops it in the middle of a modern-day American boarding school. The premise should sound familiar because screenwriters Lutz and Smith also penned "10 Things I Hate About You," another twist on Shakespeare, starring the likes of Julia Styles and Academy Award nominee Heath Ledger (before he was an Academy Award nominee).

It's more of the same, of course, but seeing Shakespeare's work go Hollywood, and, thus, be ripped to shreds, continues to amuse. "She's the Man" also focuses on a decidedly less bitter heroine than the shrew, Katarina, played in 1999 by a very stilted Styles. If that makes the film less witty, who cares? Not half of this film's target audience, who came mostly to see Channing Tatum with his shirt off.

Like Kat in "10 Things," Viola (Amanda Bynes) is a tomboy and a soccer star on the women's team at Cornwall Prep. Her life is soccer, which becomes a problem when her school cuts the women from the sports program. Better than most of the boys, Viola wants to suit up with them but is snubbed by both the coach and the team's captain – her boyfriend. So it's "end of discussion … end of relationship." Viola hatches a plan to pursue her sporting dreams at rival school Illyria, where her twin brother has just enrolled. Twin brother, Sebastian, is skipping off to England for two weeks and nobody at Illyria has ever met him.

If you missed the set up, read "Twelfth Night." It's pretty obvious what happens from here. Viola disguises herself as her brother and moves into the dorms where she meets her roommate and fellow soccer player Duke (Channing Tatum). She begins to gear up for Illyria's season opener against Cornwall and has to navigate a complicated love-triangle, in addition to other challenges like taking a shower alongside her male teammates, without them finding out about her girl parts.

In reality, nobody who looks like Bynes could get away with impersonating a 17 year-old male. Viola is too pretty to be a boy; in other words, dressed as her brother, she makes Orlando Bloom look like a frost-bitten lumberjack. This fantasy aspect doesn't detract from the film, though. Viola puts on her wig and fake sideburns and, suddenly, she's the most socially awkward nerd-boy you've ever seen. Suspension of belief works.

The Sebastian disguise doesn't have to be convincing. What matters is that all the other characters are oblivious to facts that are obvious to the audience. The laughs come from seeing Viola get away with a ridiculous scam. In one scene, Duke and fake Sebastian hug each other, but Viola slips out of character and gets a little too friendly. It's not that homoeroticism or homophobia are inherently funny, it's the knowledge that Duke is disturbed by being frisked by someone who is actually a girl that makes us laugh.

Other than that, "She's the Man" offers audiences the simple pleasure of Amanda Bynes who seems to be a natural in comedic roles. Her Sebastian/Viola is definitely a caricature but it's a perfectly illustrated one. From her mixed-up half southern, half Canadian drawl (her misguided version of the typical teen boy cadence), to her crotch grabbing and Eminem-like posturing, Bynes has a lot of fun and, as a result, the jokes land.

It's a teen movie, so the ending is typical and cheesy. While sister film "10 Things I Hate About You" had a wild feminist streak in it and touched on somewhat weighty issues, such as the pressure to have sex, "She's the Man" lacks a serious undercurrent. But this is probably a good thing. "10 Things" was, at times, too earnest and moralizing. "She's the Man" doesn't pretend to be more important than it is. It'll earn a spot on the shelf, in between "Bend It Like Beckham" and "Legally Blonde." (And, like Reese, maybe Bynes will win an Oscar in 10 years. Anything is possible – just look at how "Crash" won Best Film.)

You may have seen trailers for this terrible-looking romantic comedy about two CIA agents who fight over the same girl. My friend and I attended an advance screening with the expectation that I would hate the movie.

We loved it.

The movie was a delight from start to finish. It was gorgeous, for one thing, and I am not just talking about the actors, although they're gorgeous, too. The cinematography is splendid.

Furthermore, the characters were actually multi-dimensional, including Lauren Scott (Reese Witherspoon), the woman in question. Far from being a trophy, she was smart, competent, and talented, and she had her own issues to work out and her own lessons to learn about love. Although the movie was undeniably more about the men than it was about her, I didn't feel like she was just there to motivate them, which is always a danger in this type of romantic comedy.

The theme of the movie was communicated through her as well as through the men—which brings me to my next point: the movie actually had themes and character development. I typically expect only to be entertained by a comedy, not to be impressed in any intellectual way, but in addition to being nonstop hilarious and occasionally moving, this one was all over proper writing technique.

My friend and I ended up being completely in love with it, and we cannot wait for the official release so that we can share it with all of our other friends and see it again ourselves.

Yes, young people like myself will enjoy this movie, but it's also targeted for late twenties-late thirties people thinking about love and marriage. I saw a lot of older couples at the theaters and they were enjoying it just as much—they were laughing loudest, in fact! I'd give this movie a 9/10. Pure enjoyment.

So my issue: WTF Critics? You give this movie zero credit. Is it because of the actors? They're all great actors. Plot? Actually pretty good—somewhat predictable in hindsight but I'd still watch the movie again. Director? Supernatural and Nikita both have a fanbase, and aren't that bad with action or drama. If they actually watched the movies they wouldn't have rated it that low; I think they were going off plot summary. Back off, critics! When more people see this movie the ratings will go up! Rotten tomatoes said audience enjoyed it 71% so far, but opening day isn't even over yet. Critics give it 33%? Come on.

I remember seeing this movie as a kid, and I loved it even then. I was a fan to the Casper cartoons, and to me, this was a great movie. As a kid, it was just entertaining. Looking at it again as I am older, I now love this movie more than just because it's about my favorite friendly ghost. This movie does a good job clenching the issue of death and either letting it go and hang onto it as a ghost with unfinished business. The atmosphere, although often times comical (which is how it is with the cartoons too XD), has a really deep and emotional air to it, as we look at Dr. Harvey and Kat's loss at the wife/mother's death, as well as Casper's mourning for his life and loneliness as a ghost. The music itself is very beautiful, and the set gives a perfect background for both spooky and sentimental moments. If you're one who is looking for a good emotional ghost story, this is a great example, even though it was based on a cartoon. If you're looking for something comical, well, the three ghosts Stretch, Fatso, and Stinky are there to provide laughs, as they really do seem to be having a ball being floating ethereal beings capable of shifting themselves into horrific (and hilarious) shapes.

I don't remember much from the Casper cartoons, but it's not like you can totally base an entire movie on just those. The plots for the cartoons vary, and this movie could be counted as some sort of canon, I suppose. Either way, it does a good job capturing the lonely, friendly ghost that is Casper on the big screen (and TV set).

Go ahead and rent the movie; I'm looking forward to searching for a DVD for it so I can watch it again and again. I love it. I totally recommend this for everyone, kids and grownups alike.

Creep is the story of Kate (Potente), an intensely unlikeable bourgeois bitch that finds herself somehow sleeping through the noise of the last underground train, and waking up to find herself locked in the tube station. After somehow meeting workmate and would-be rapist Guy on a mystery train that runs after the lines have closed, things go awry and she finds herself pursued by what lurks beneath the city's streets. Her story is linked to that of George (Blackwood), an ex-con working in the sewer system; they meet in the final third of the film, brought together by their attempts to escape the monster that pursues them.

The pair proceed through a set of increasingly unlikely locations; from the Tube station, they end up in the sewage works before somehow finding themselves in some sort of abandoned underground surgery. Most Tube stations don't have toilets, so how one has a surgery is beyond me. Naturally, the film cares to explain that the surgery doesn't have running water. Yet it has electricity? Just one of many inconsistencies that work against the atmosphere of everyday believability that the film tries to create.

The monster itself is a problem. There's a complete lack of reasoning for its actions, it just kills people for no obvious reason. And then of course it keeps some alive for no real reason either, perhaps just so that they can eventually escape and give the film an extra 15 minutes or so running time. I understand that natural evil is supposed to be scary, but then the film attempts to explain itself via a photo of a doctor and his son, and a few shots of some jars containing babies, and yes, it is just as tired and pathetic as it sounds. It also fails to explain how the creature has been underground long enough to lose the ability to speak, communicating only in raptor screams, but not long enough for its pair of shorts to decay. Hmm.

This doctor business leads to scene that is the film's desperate attempt to implant itself on your memory, and while it is gory and uncomfortable to watch, it just isn't enough. The final third of the film hinges on an emotional relationship that never existed, and the characters break down and recover for little or no obvious reason. George breaks down, unable to cope with something despite stating that he wants to escape so he can see his daughter again, and Kate becomes emotionally tough seconds after going to pieces over someone that ripped her off for a travelcard. Yeah.

After starting out as a "this could happen to anyone" movie, it quickly falls apart as it introduces ideas that make it more and more unrealistic. A complete lack of emotional interest in the characters and an absence of suspense make this one to avoid.