Not bad at all. What is wrong with people? I knew the critics had to have been at least partially wrong considering that despite it going to DVD supersuper fast, the DVD keeps selling out at Best Buy!

Good reasons to watch:
a) Antoine Fuqua (Training Day!) is a good director, so you figure it’s got to be at least a SOLIDLY directed movie. It is.
b) Marky Mark. Hello. And shirtless. Doh!
c) A dog. And the reason to NOT let something go? SPOILER IN THE NEXT LINE! HIDE YOUR EYES! (But it is only a tiny sort of “doh! of course!” spoiler…) “I don’t think you understand. They killed my dog.” I am a child of my mother, that is vengeance reasoning I can totally get behind.
d) Great performance by Michael Pena, in a very Mark Ruffalo type way.

Reasons why it’s not THAT good?
a) predictable.
b) predictable.
c) predictable and kinda cheesy.

Not a GREAT movie. But worth watching in my book.

The acting (by almost everyone) in this movie is so stiff it makes Matt Damon’s performance in The Good Shepherd look overly emotional.

The most boring espionage movie I’ve ever seen. And think about it: you’ve actually got to WORK to make a spy movie boring. Because hello: spies? NOT BORING.

Baaad.

If you liked Zodiac, you’ll probably like this as well. Unsolved crime from years ago, completely obsessed in-this-case private eye (in-that-case reporter) who winds up endangering the rest of his life with his need to figure out what happened.

Slow moving, with a constant intercut between the PI (Adrien Brody, usually creepy but very effective here!!) in the present and Reeves and Mannix (Affleck and Lane, both giving great performances!) in the past. Moody with strong subcurrents of regret on growing old, lost opportunities, mishandled relationships. Very noir-ish. (I wish they would have shot this in black & white!)

I particularly enjoyed Bob Hoskins and hello flashback Kathleen Robertson (Steve’s girlfriend “Claire” in the later seasons of 90210!!!).

The presence of so many great actresses kept me interested in this one, despite the reviews, but in the end, Roger Ebert’s assessment of (I’m paraphrasing) “a movie to cry in, that doesn’t make you cry” was correct. Seemed to be many different motivations going on, leaving things convoluted and not necessarily making sense.

Some good performances (some = eh) but too many moving parts / too many subplots that crisscrossed or were dropped. A lot of regret and contemplation of the past, and while one character seems insistent on that meaning everything, another character tells her it means nothing.

Had potential, but definitely fell short.

This is one of those movies with so many absurd plot twists and coincidences that you just have to decide to GO WITH IT if you don’t want to be driven crazy.

Harvard b-baller (Adrien Grenier) is sleeping with Girl A (the daughter [Sarah Michelle Gellar] of a mafioso) and Girl B (his philosophy professor [Joey Lauren Adams]). When he needs $$$ from Girl A and fixes a b-bball game to get it, the FBI (Rebecca Gayheart and Eric Stolz!) comes after him. Fortunately Girl B is currently engaged in a menage à trois with those same FBI agents and is able to help him out. There’s also an LSD subplot and lots of (actually interesting) philosophy lectures and musings.

It’s a quite a (wackjob) trip but I found it very entertaining. Plus it starts w/ a fairly hot sex scene. So there you go.

Wow, Edith Piaf’s childhood was really awful. Not sure, at least from the way the movie played it, whether she ever really got over it. Thought the movie was very well done, some really impressive performances. Wondered about the point of the timeline jumps. Is the end meant to be more profound since we keep returning to it over and over? In some movies (Memento, Run Lola Run, etc) the nonlinear progression of time has a reason. Here, it didn’t seem to add anything to the story.

Well worth seeing. A long movie that didn’t FEEL long at all – unlike other recent viewings, two and a half hours passed by without notice.

All three of these movies suffer from an overabundance of slickness. The boys are all nice enough to look at, but otherwise it’s a lot of posturing. Felt this entry in the series actually lacked some girlie action (i.e., actual “relationships” as the Ellen Barkin character is just a mark and not anyone Linus actually cares about) that might’ve made it more human.

Entertaining enough for a nice air conditioned break from the heat, but nothing special.

Better than Pirates 2, not quite as good as Pirates 1, but certainly enjoyable. The “many Johnnies” scenes were entertaining, but I could have done without them: they didn’t really lend anything to the plot (and certainly added to the overall length of an already long flick).

The ending was actually quite poetic and lovely. A half hour (or more) shorter and I would be wholeheartedly in favor.

Totally terrifying. Just as good as the first one.

I do get more scared in horror movies than the average person, however, so take it with a grain of salt.

But the best part? “Stringer Bell”* on the big screen. He is mighty, mighty fine to look at.

*the character he played on The Wire.