Reviews by SJMJ91

I didn't really want to see this film at first because I'm not really a big fan of vampire films. I was really surprised and curious of why this film was so popular and overrated at the same time which is the only reason why I watched it. I thought that Twilight was going to be an absolutely awful film but I thought it was an enjoyable film with flaws. It is a silly story but is a fun one to watch. I have to say that Twilight is one of the most over-hyped films ever. I think it's because of the popularity of the books and also of Robert Pattison being in the film especially when he played Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire. To me, Twilight feels like the 2008 Golden Compass. Reasons are because both are popular winter blockbusters, both are the first of a series of novels and films and both are films that people love or hate. I think I am going to try and watch the next films of the Twilight series.


Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen was a decent character but I think that Pattinson only attracted young girls for looks not playing the character. He is an over-hyped actor already after appearing in two blockbusters and still being only in his early 20s. Edward is a nice character but is a rather silly one like the whole film is anyway. Kristen Stewart is already a Hollywood actress even though she's only 18 (only 1 year older than me) after Panic Room, Zathura and Into The Wild but Twilight is a good performance from her but I wouldn't call it a brilliant one though. I could feel the love she had for Edward and what she would do for him despite the consequences of him being a vampire.


This is one of the very rare films that has been directed by a woman. I think only this and Lost In Translation are the only films that I have seen that have been directed by a woman. I think this would have been a good Andrew Adamson film because of the two Narnia films. I hope that they stick with the same director as this one for New Moon, Eclipse and Breaking Dawn otherwise it will ultimately fail.


Overall, Twilight is a good film that has some bad qualities that I am glad I watched but probably wouldn't watch again. I don't see why people rave about it so much. It's the same thing with High School Musical apart from that is ultimate crap and Harry Potter and I love the films in that franchise. There haven't been hardly any winter blockbusters at all in 2008 but I'm embarassingly saying that Twilight is best winter film.

Max Payne is a film that I was predicting to be a bit crap but I wanted to watch it to see what it was like. When I did see it, it didnt surprise nor disappoint me. Also, a good friend of mine told me about it aswell about how bad it was. So, I took her review into consideration when I saw it. I did think that the story of Max Payne in this film didnt really feel like a story in the game. To me, I find the film a bad example of a great game like Max Payne. It is like a rip off of it. I love the Max Payne game but was deeply disappointed with this one. I used to play the game a lot when I was a kid. To be perfectly honest, I wouldnt call this film good and I wouldnt call it awful neither. I was hoping that it was going to be a complete action packed thrill ride but I dont think it was really. The action was really good but wasnt a thrilling film at all really. I find it to be a film that has all bad qualities apart from sound and visual effects.


Mark Wahlberg delivers a really bad performance as Max Payne. I do think that he had that body and facial type for the character but didnt really seem that acting type for the character. I find his performance as Max Payne like Nicolas Cages performance as Johnny Blaze in Ghost Rider. I didnt feel any emotional drama for Max at all. I feel that Max Payne was a different character with Mark Wahlberg when comparing the game to the film. It felt like Max Payne was reborn but into a different person but with the same name. I think that Wahlberg will earn a Razzie nomination or even a win for Worst Actor. For a moment, I thought to myself, if Mark Wahlberg was British and was charming with women he would have been a good James Bond but after watching Max Payne, I guess I was totally wrong. The rest of the cast including Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, Chris O'Donnell and Donal Logue were all absolutely appauling too. I thought the direction was absolutely dreadful too because it seemed to me like the director didnt have a clue what he was doing. I thought to myself after hoping that it would be as original as the game was: "Has the director ever seen, played or even heard of the Max Payne game before?". I would consider John Moore for Worst Director Razzie award too. The script was pretty dreadful aswell which didn?t really connect with what the game is like. This film in my opinion tries to take the reputation of visual effects from Sin City because of the dark colours and yet really colourful colours used in the film too but it failed miserably. The Max Payne character is like a real assassin or a bad cop so to speak but I dont think he felt like a cop at all. This was a lot like a science fiction film because of obviously the bird thing and also because of the stupid blue solution used too.


I couldnt feel any chemistry between any of the characters at all within the film. All I could feell was that Max Payne was getting revenge for his film. I couldnt really feel anything for Max and his involvement with the characters at all. The setting was really good I have to say with a Sin City or Sweeney Todd like dark colours. The same with the cinematography and costume design. The sound effects were awesome but were a bit booming at times which were a bit over the top. The visual effects were good aswell. This film rips-off a lot of Sin City in my opinion and probably in most peoples opinion.


This is my least favourite Mark Wahlberg film and is one of most disappointing films of 2008 so far. It isnt on list of one of best and one of worst neither. It was a bad film really that could have been better like any film can be. I dont think there will be a sequel to Max Payne and if there will be one, that will be even worse.

I had very high expectations for The Spirit because it is Frank Miller graphic novel, it has a good cast and I adored 300 and Sin City. The Spirit was very different to both because story was weirder and characters were similar to characters from other films. I was disappointed but not greatly. I don't think it is as bad as some people say it is. It had that kick-ass sort of taste to it but has a rather lame story. It takes and copies from quite a few films. For example, The Crow and The Dark Knight. The story of The Spirit is very similar if not precisely the same as The Crow.


Gabriel Macht was rubbish as The Spirit/Denny Colt. I don't think it showed how effective the character was to Central City. Also, it doesn't show what type of person he really is. His character rips off Eric Draven and Batman not only because Spirit is a dark hero as well but because of how he behaves with people around the city. I mean, he's a good character but not THAT good. Samuel L. Jackson was good as Octopus because it shows how much of a psycho he can be playing a villainous character. Octopus is a stupid name really for a villain but he did have that kick-ass sort of style for the character but the negative thing about his performance was that I couldn't completely understand what Octopus was actually doing within the city. I thought to myself at first "About time that Samuel L. Jackson has been in a film like this. Michael Clarke Duncan was awesome as Manute in Sin City but Samuel L. Jackson would have been better I think." When isn't Scarlett Johansson good? It was very strange seeing her play a villain because she never has done. I was blown away by how hot she looked as Silken Floss (not like she doesn't anyway). She would have been good in Sin City as well as either Nancy or Shellie. From how Silken was dressed she seemed a bit like a stripper or a prostitute. Eva Mendes was good but not brilliant as Sand Saref. Yes, she was sexy enough for the characters but she wasn't exactly talented enough to play that type of character.


Frank Miller has directed a film that is just entertaining nothing more. It was well done but it is the weakest of the Frank Miller novels so far. I don't think any Frank Miller film will ever beat Sin City because that is just a masterpiece that I think everybody loves. I found the script to be rather lame because it had some pointless and inappropriate scenes and there wasn't any kick-ass line from characters which is what we would expect from Frank Miller.


Overall, The Spirit is a film that focuses more on the art of how it was filmed rather than the story and the characters. The Spirit is a bad film that was watchable. It was just a piece of entertainment nothing more. It is like a Razzie Worst Picture win compared to 300 and particularly Sin City. I would only recommend The Spirit to people who just look for action-packed entertainment. If you are one of those who are looking for just that then you will probably like it but if not and you're looking for a decent story then you probably won't like it.

Body Of Lies is a minor disappointment. It is decent but it could have been a lot better. What was flawed about this film was that the plot wasn't as realistic as I was hoping. Also, I thought that the action wasn't as intense or exciting as I was anticipating. Personally, the title "Body Of Lies" didn't really give me a brief description of what the title meant to the story. The action felt sort of rushed and too short for my liking. I thought the torture scene was interesting and that is it.


Leonardo DiCaprio was totally miscast for this film. I really love his films but I think it was because of him that I didn't feel the powerful realism of the story. Also, I don't think he fits very well with the action genre. Yes, he was in Blood Diamond but that was more of a deep-thought story than an intense action thrill ride. Russell Crowe's collaboration with Ridley Scott is absolutely brilliant! Out of the 4 films together that I've seen and that have been made, it is the worst of them. I hope Robin Hood becomes a breakthrough and improves their collaboration and determination for great films.


Ridley Scott is a director who can improvise a film at any kind of genre. Sometimes, he can pull it off but sometimes he can't. Films like Body Of Lies, Hannibal and Kingdom Of Heaven are his three films that he unfortunately was unable to pull off and suceed. All three of them could have been better but unfortunately weren't.


Ridley Scott was certainly the wrong director to direct Body Of Lies. A director like Michael Bay might have pulled it off better than Ridley Scott did. Body Of Lies is a disappointing film that I was really hoping would be good but now after reading negative reviews about and being shocked about it first, I now realise what they mean. Come on, Ridley Scott! Make Robin Hood a lot better than this!

I sort of knew that I wasn't going to like this film because it's a remake of a classic sci fi film, it is one of a few sci fi films that have been piles of crap in 2008 like The Happening, Awake and this. This film doesn't have a decent director neither. It is a film that didn't even try and surpass the original version. I wasn't that keen on the original film really but I still liked it of course. 2008 has released quite a lot of shit blockbusters like this, Max Payne, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, 10,000 B.C. and Hancock. The story was very powerful only by reading it but when you watch it, it isn't at all.


Surprisingly, this film has a good cast (apart from Keanu Reeves) which includes Academy Award winners Jennifer Connelly and Kathy Bates. I have never liked Keanu Reeves at all because he is rather poor with the characters he plays. He plays an alien visistor/messenger to Earth which sounds like a good character to play but unfortunately from a bad actor like Keanu Reeves. He didn't show any enthusiasm at all and doesn't make me fear for the Earth at all. Jennifer Connelly is a really good actress and can do so much better than be in a film like this. Her character was unrealistic, weak and unfearful for the Earth. Will Smith's young son Jaden Smith was quite good in this film. Sometimes I find that children are sometimes better actors than adults are. Kathy Bates was rather weak because Kathy is a very powerful actress and she didn't even bring any power towards Regina Jackson's personality which is part of it. I don't think John Cleese was in this film for very long but he was decent.


The director had no clue how to direct a film like this. I mean, its supposed to be a remake of a classic but didn't feel that way. The script was lazy, dumb and very stupid. The Day The Earth Stood Still isn't the worst film of 2008 but it is one of them. Jennifer Connelly, John Cleese and Kathy Bates can do so much better than this. This film is probably best to avoid. Good effects involving sound and visual effects and that's it. It isn't as good as the original version.

Even though I have never seen the TV series, I had neither high nor low expectations for this because not only hadn't I seen the series but nobody in my family and not many of my friends have seen the Sex And The City series. I needed to watch this film because it was a summer blockbuster and try it out. Before I saw it and when it was already released, I have recieved mixed opinions from alot of people. Particularly whether I needed to see the series before I saw the film. When I watched it, I must say that you don't need to see the series before the film. As far as I'm concerned it is just another romantic-comedy blockbuster. 2007 was an amazing year for films. Probably the best year for films this decade but it had a fairly weak share of summer blockbusters apart from Ratatouille, Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix, Simpsons Movie, Transformers and Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End. But in 2008, there haven't been any blockbusters that have disappointed me that badly. This film made me laugh because of the bringing together between the characters or the breaking down between the characters. I did think that it was a bit too long. I think that they could have cut a few scenes in it which could have cut at least 15 minutes. It was still a really good and clever film to watch. Most of the time, when a film is adapted from a TV series is quite bad but this isn't one of them. Will look forward to the sequel.


I liked Sarah Jessica Parker as Carrie Bradshaw because at over 40 years old, she still has that gorgeous, sexy and irresistable charm. She still has that so she can get with different men and have sex with them. It is pretty much the same with her other friends. Parker's performance is one that people would expect to be the same because of the TV series and she would be used to the character by now since 1996 when the TV started and ended in 2004.


The direction made this film like a TV programme more than a film because of the type of comedy involved which is why I find Sex And The City like comedy show Friends. It is like an long episode from the TV series. It was written like a TV series writer would write it. It had very light flaws but most of it was awesome. All I can say to finish this review is that this is a fun comedy that everybody should at least try. It isn't no masterpiece but it is a fun piece of entertainment.

To be perfectly honest, I was unsure of what to expect out of this film. All I could say is that it would be a bit like The Golden Compass which is what it did turn out to be. The only difference is that The Golden Compass was a lot better. City Of Ember is one of those films that are visually amazing but doesn't greatly focus on the plot and characters. I enjoyed it for its effects but as far as the story and characters are concerned it isn't good. It is a really fun film for the family but nothing else. The visual effects are absolutely amazing!! As far as I'm concerned, it is The Golden Compass of 2008.


Despite it only been 1 year after Atonement, Saoirse Ronan seems almost like a totally different person because she has grown so much. She was good in this film but it seems a little out of her league so to speak because I prefer her in dramas. She was outstanding in Atonement which lead to her first Oscar nomination and I am excited about seeing her in Peter Jackson's upcoming film The Lovely Bones. Bill Murray is a fantastic actor and I think he was miscast in this one too. Tim Robbins made an appearance in this film. Despite he wasn't in that many scenes of the film he still was miscast just like everybody in this film was.


Gil Kenan is a director of extraordinary visual effects in his own way. His work in Monster House is awesome! However, his work in City Of Ember wasn't as good this time because the film was way more focused on the effects more than the actual story and characters within the film. Sometimes, this kind of thing works but it doesn't quite work in this film. For example, it did in The Golden Compass because the story was very interesting and kept me going all the way through whereas this one didn't very much at all.


Overall, City Of Ember is an average film that I loved for the effects but hated for the story and characters within it. It isn't a bad film and it isn't a good film either. It is a good film for the family but I don't think everyone within it will like this one. I wouldn't recommend it and I wouldn't say it's a film you should avoid either.

By viewing the poster of this film, you might get the impression that it 's a chick flick but when you watch it, it isn't one at all. This film has that taste that makes it like a romantic comedy in which it has but has a slight piece of drama and tension involved between the characters. Vicky Cristina Barcelona was a humourous film but I wouldn't call it an ultimate laugh-out-loud hilarious comedy. It seems more of a black comedy to me which is why I find it to be quite a dark comedy because there is a man who loves three different women at the same time. I wouldn't call it one of the best films of 2008 nor the best comedy but it is the best romantic-comedy of 2008. Vicky Cristina Barcelona is an enjoyable film but what disappointed me a bit was that Penélope Cruz wasn't in it as much as I thought she would be.


These past two years have been very different for Javier Bardem. He portrayed a cold-hearted, murdering monster in an Oscar winning performance in Coen's No Country For Old Men and then playing a man with mixed tastes for women. We see Bardem behave like he would with his real friends and family regarding his Spanish accent and speaking lots of Spanish. His acting wasn't Oscar worthy but it was a very enjoyable performance with a really interesting character. This film does have an absolutely awesome cast. As much as I love Scarlett Johansson and her films, I would call her performance as Cristina a slightly flawed one because Cristina was in love with Juan Antonio Gonzalo and I couldn't really understand her feelings but the one thing I must say is that she was HOT as always. Rebecca Hall was better as Vicky. Vicky travelled to Barcelona with her friend Cristina where they both meet Juan Antonio Gonzalo. Hall's performance was better than Scarlett Johansson's. Penélope Cruz was amazing as Maria Elena because she made her character very dangerous, selfish,, an ultimate bitch, irresistible and a slightly kind caring woman. Cruz worked hard when portraying Maria because of using a lot of Spanish with Javier Bardem in front of their American/British co-stars.


Woody Allen is a really good director for making romantic comedies and that is something not many directors are good at. He makes this film seem like a chick flick but it isn't at all as I said. Allen has created Oscar winning films such as Annie Hall but films like Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Match Point are films that are just really entertaining. The way this film was written was very original with a lot of special moments between the characters and the absolutely beautiful sceneries of the buildings, inside the houses, the markets etc.


This film won and was nominated for 1 Oscar: Best Supporting Actress (Penélope Cruz) beating Amy Adams, Viola Davis, Taraji P. Henson and Marisa Tomei. It won 1 Golden Globe out of 4 nominations. It won Best Picture Musical/Comedy beating Burn After Reading, Happy-Go-Lucky, In Bruges and Mamma Mia!. It was nominated for Best Actor Musical/Comedy (Javier Bardem) but lost to Colin Farrell in In Bruges, Best Actress Musical/Comedy (Rebecca Hall) but lost to Sally Hawkins in Happy-Go-Lucky and Best Supporting Actress (Penélope Cruz) but lost to Kate Winslet in The Reader.


Vicky Cristina Barcelona isn't one of the best films of 2008 but it is a very enjoyable film nothing more. Cruz's performance is amazing and very much deserved the Oscar award. It is the most disappointing Scarlett Johansson performance so far. Woody Allen's least best film so far after Match Point and Annie Hall. It is a really good film that I could only watch once just like maybe some other people could.

After seeing The Reader becoming an Oscar Best Picture contender but probably the least favourite to win, my expectations were fairly high because I thought it had to be as good as Slumdog Millionaire and Milk. When I did see The Reader, I thought it was a good film but I was mildly disappointed because I don't really think that The Reader exactly made me feel any emotion for Michael Berg because I personally think that kind of character has been used too many times in a film where characters have just drooled over another one. One thing that every film must have is music but I think that there was a little too much particularly within the first 30 minutes of the film. Don't get me wrong it was well directed, written and produced but I wasn't really that fond of the story. I don't really get what the meaning of the tagline is: "Unlock the mystery." I knew that she was on trial for crime but the problem was I was predicting that there was a deeper mystery within the film that could have made a twist. Also, I was pretty disappointed with the ending of the film. It was a good film but I don't think it deserved a Best Picture nomination. It should have gone to in my opinion Revolutionary Road. Others might have included The Dark Knight, WALL-E, Doubt, Changeling and The Wrestler.


The acting in this film was the best thing about The Reader. Kate Winslet's performance as Hanna Schmitz was an oustanding one but I don't think she should have won the Oscar for that film. She should have won the Oscar for Revolutionary Road instead. I was going with Kate in my predictions for the Oscars before I even saw The Reader but out of the 5 nominees, Meryl Streep was the best. Kate delivers the best female leading performance of the year and of her career in Revolutionary Road. I liked her in that more than Meryl Streep. Since Titanic, Kate Winslet hasn't really shown any real nudity on-screen and realistic sex but in The Reader she becomes more crude than she has ever been. She appeared naked from the top quite regularly especially with the sex scenes in which there were quite a lot of. There aren't many actresses who are willing to expose nudity in a film and Kate Winslet is one of those rare actresses who don't let their naked body bother them while on-screen in front of directors, producers, cinematographers etc. It was rather strange regarding the awards for Kate because she won the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress in this film but won the Oscar and BAFTA for Best Leading Actress for this film. Well, it is a leading film but I think it was Kate Winslet vs. Kate Winslet because it was like a battle between her performance in The Reader and Revolutionary Road. I liked David Kross as young Michael Berg. He was very brave in this film because he appeared totally naked front and back in sex scenes and while Kate Winslet was naked as well. It was really good acting from both of them because Kate knew he was a man who is 15 years younger than her and Kross is 15 years younger than Kate. I think his acting in the love making scenes and the ways he was being with his family were really good but I couldn't feel very much sympathy or heartbreak within him because of Hanna. The great Ralph Fiennes gave me a better impression of the character and I felt sorry for Michael then because Ralph Fiennes is an actor who never disappoints and can draw real emotion as well as fear regarding other characters he has played in the past. He has been in 3 films in 2008 and he isn't in that many really. He was in In Bruges, The Duchess and The Reader and they were all awesome performances from him.


The directing from Stephen Daldry was good but I am not that fond of him as a director because I absolutely hated The Queen (apart from Helen Mirren's ace performance as our present queen and the disaster that struck Britain hard). He is an actor who tries to get us focused and deep into the character's personalities. In The Reader, I think that Daldry tries to give the audience impressions that they would grow really deep into the film itself and to make the characters lovable and deeply interesting. The script was good but I have seen better scripts. At first after reading the story, I thought it was an original script but after seeing and hearing that it's a novel, I then knew that it was an adapted script.


Overall, The Reader is a good film that in my opinion is rather flawed. My reasons are in my review. The Reader features another outstanding performance from Kate Winslet. The best leading actress performance of the year and of Kate's career is still Revolutionary Road. Out of the 5 Best Leading Actress Oscar nominees, Meryl Streep is the best even though I went for Kate Winslet before I saw the film and before the Oscar ceremony. Ralph Fiennes was good as always and now David Kross has become a force to be reckoned with because of his brave exposure of nudity and his young talent. His performance was good but not amazing. The Reader is a film that is good and disappointing that in my opinion didn't deserve the Best Picture nomination. It robbed it off Revolutionary Road. If not that film then should have been The Dark Knight, WALL-E, The Wrestler, Doubt or Changeling.

Cloverfield is one of the silliest films that I have ever seen in my whole life but it is one of the best filmed films of all time. I think it is only the visual effects that are good in this film and that are it. The story is very stupid and very badly thought film but it was amazingly filmed which is why I have an average rating and review for this film. I found this film hard to watch because of the way it was filmed. Don't get me wrong, it is filmed brilliantly but I think it is a film that can make some people feel quite sick particularly in the cinema because it is like watching a video from a video camera. I did like how the actors, director and producers wanted the audience to approach it. It was like they wanted the audience to feel thrilled to feel like they were really there. It is a good film but is bad as well. The ending of this film seems like there is going to be a sequel.


The acting was pretty bad to be honest because I found some of them so annoying I wanted them to be killed off by the monster. Not knowing what the monster is and what it looks like is a terrifying mystery but problem is that the character never added any spice to the quality of the story. Yes, it is a pretty stupid film but the acting should be good at least but this film failed at the acting.


This film was brilliantly directed which was the best quality of this film. It was directed like it was really happening but I think the lack of believability within the film was the biggest flaw within the film due to its realistic filmmaking. The script was pretty lame and that was another thing that made Cloverfield a very unrealistic film.


The visual effects on the film were the only good thing in this film and the filmmaking itself was good too but wasn't a very realistic film to watch. Cloverfield was a film that received 5-stars only because of the filmmaking but not on the actual story, acting and screenplay of the film which is where this film is overrated. I don't like it any less because of that. I neither hated nor liked this film really. I would only recommend it to people who look films that are tense and scary but if you're looking for a masterpiece with fantastic filmmaking and fine qualities you might not be in luck because the acting and screenplay doesn't mix with the excellent direction at all. It is one of the most disappointing films of 2008.