Movie Thoughts

The Unborn is a new movie out from the co-writer of The Dark Knight. While little buzz is being generated about this flick, it got my attention because it stars Glockthoughts favorite, Miss Odette Yustman.



Also, speaking of horror films, what's the deal with the My Bloody Valentine 3D movie? Great idea or horrible idea? Is everyone going to die by thrown pick axe or other random object being tossed at the victim? If I was 15, I would definitely go see this.



For a movie I haven't heard anything about and only saw trailers for, that Taken movie looks pretty solid.

Movie Review: The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight made $155 million this weekend. That means a lot of people saw it. So, I'm not really censoring myself spoiler wise. I'm not going to blow the whole movie, point for point, but there are some things I want to touch on that might ruin certain surprises to the movie that those who have not. So I'm warning you now. Read ahead, or go see the flick then check this out.



Considered by most to be the most anticipated movie of the summer, The Dark Knight opened under a ton of fan excitement and critical buzz. Pushed to a new level of fandom via a hardcore viral campaign. People became so enthralled with the idea of this movie that many were ready to proclaim it a masterpiece based on the trailers alone. While I was excited about Christopher Nolan's follow up to Batman Begins, I held any judgments until I actually saw the flick.

Needless to say, the writer/director did not disappoint. After all is said and done about this film, the one thing that left me the most pleased and surprised was the script Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan put together. The story encompassed everything from Batman lure and suspenseful action along with references to Star Wars, The Godfather, politics, religion, philosophy, and probably some more modicums of intellectual grandeur I'm not smart or fortunate enough to know about. Seriously, some of the story points and visuals Nolan uses in this film is the kind of stuff people write books about. You can interpret the entire scope of the film by these categories and probably make a pretty interesting argument.

Just for example, from my own education, is a theme of the philosophical theory of utilitarianism. Without referencing my college notes, utilitarianism is the theory that one should act in the manner that is in the greater good of everyone, and not for personal gain. Therefore, the outcome of an action is judged by the affect it has on the greater good. In short, the ends justify the means. There are numerous nods to this concept in this movie, and as I mentioned, this is only a small part of the overall interpretation. The Nolans really deserve a lot of credit for creating such a deep and complex script out of a comic book movie of all things. Also, Christopher Nolan shot about 20 minutes of the movie on IMAX film for a grander scope. It worked out incredibly, and if you have an IMAX theater in proximity to you, you must go see it in this format. It isn't even close compared to regular projection.

The acting was stellar as usual. Most importantly, the Rachael Dawes character was recast from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal. While maintaining the weird faced attractiveness of Holmes, Jake's sister definitely added an acting punch. The other notable addition not named Heath Ledger (more on him later), Aaron Eckhart picked up the role of Gotham District Attorney Harvey Dent, who of course eventually becomes Two-Face. Eckhart really portrays Gotham's white knight wonderfully. The Two-Face makeup didn't exactly do him any favors, seeing as it was quite cartoonish, but he is able to show Dent's darker side before the eventual Two-Face transformation takes place.

The returning actors benefitted from expanded roles since the audience was now familiar with their characters. Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman all enjoyed a greater impact in TDK over BB. The one person that sort of lost a step was actually Christian Bale. He spends most of this movie as Batman, not Bruce Wayne, which left him in a one dimensional phase, but when Bale was allowed to be Batsuit free, he is able to hold his own as an emotionally devoid and lonely billionaire attempting desperately to find his normal life.

Of course a lot of the hype behind this film came from the late Heath Ledger's performance. Tasteful or not, the studio execs really made Ledger's Joker the focus of the film. His performance is certainly something special, and will surely take the stage as one of the best villains ever put to film. Everything you hear about his performance is an understatement until you see it for yourself. Foregoing any sort of back story, The Dark Knight introduces this new version of The Joker as a pure menace. A personification of fear and panic, The Joker is all together a criminal mastermind, funny, scary, unpredictable, charismatic, likable, intimidating, and strange. All of these aspects highlight Ledger's performance and there truly isn't enough screen time spent with The Joker. For the Oscar talk, Ledger definitely deserves a nomination, but in the Best Supporting Actor Category. He carries the same presence as last year's winner, Javier Bardem, did in No Country for Old Men. He won't win Best Actor, but he will definitely be a front runner for Best Supporting. Who would have guessed the guy from 10 Things I Hate About You had the potential to be a great actor? Guess you never know.

Sadly, it was pretty clear by the end of the movie that The Joker was due for at least one more go around with Batman, but that will only happen with another actor taking on the role.

With all those good things to be said, there were some negatives. There was a main story arch that carried the movie up until about the 1hr 45min mark, then the last half hour or so felt disjointed and dragged a bit. The situations seemed out of nowhere in relation to the beginning of the film, and dare I say, some of the film felt a bit Batman Foreverish...not Batman & Robinish, but Batman Foreverish.

Also the way the film handled the transformation of Harvey Dent to Two-Face seemed rushed and rather simple as The Joker manipulated Dent to go from a symbol of good to a symbol of evil. Without giving away too much, Two-Face is motivated by his love for Rachael Dawes, and well, things don't really work out for them. For this to be a believable motivation for Two-Face, there has to be more longing and time between when things fall apart for Dent/Dawes, and when Two-Face goes around killing people. I mean longing makes the heart grow fonder, plus let's face it, even in the fictional city of Gotham, these two were probably due for a divorce anyway. He's the DA for one of the most crime-riddled cities in the world. He has to work long hours and deal with the scum of the Earth, under unbelievable amounts of stress. Then Rachael is either working with him, which is never good when married people work together, or at home taking care of their kid while Harvey is out giving his all to the city. You don't think she'll feel neglected, or he'll grow tired of the hassle of being married? Their marriage would have been doomed from the get go.

That last segment of the movie could have been edited to be the first half or even the entire third movie, with an easy ending added to The Dark Knight instead. This would have solved some of The Joker issues, and allowed Two-Face to take the necessary amount of time to make his character progress as need be. Now the third movie is really in limbo. Any multitude of things could take place, and it could go really good or really bad.

That is several years away, so no need to think too much about that at this point. Just enjoy this truly intense and surprisingly dark film that will have you engaged from the opening heist to the final scene.

Directing:8.0/10
Acting: 9.5/10
Plot: 9.0/10
Re-Watchability: 10.0/10
DVD Purchase: 10.0/10

Overall: 9.3/10

Movie Review: Iron Man

Iron Man kicks off the Summer Blockbuster Season. Stop me if you've heard this before. Yes, it is true, Summer and Summer Blockbusters are coming. Screw plot, acting, and intelligence, let's get some CGI, explosions, sequels, and overly attractive people that can't act. While Iron Man applies to to most of those stereotypes, the reason I didn't write off Iron Man all together is that Iron Man is portrayed by Robert Downey, Jr. Also, with this whole "origination" superhero movie that started with Spider-man and was taken to a new level by Batman Begins, superhero movies have gone up a notch beyond just parading guys in tights in front of the screen.

To be honest, all I really knew about Iron Man were a couple of cartoon episodes I watched when I was a kid, and of course the Jerry and George debate on Seinfeld as to whether Tony Stark aka Iron Man wore some sort of undergarment beneath his suit (the answer is yes).

Commercial break: I'm watching TV and this Budweiser commercial comes on. It's talking about the 100+ years of brewing tradition and how it is the "Great American Lager." Listen guys at Bud...we all know Budweiser sucks. It tastes horrible, leaves your stomach in knots, and isn't of high regard for most people. Technically, it's not even a beer, let alone a lager. The ingredients make Bud more of a rice wine than a beer. Give it up, Bud. You're not fooling anyone.

So what I was really looking for from Iron Man was his origins. Unlike Superman, Batman, Spider-man, etc. I wasn't sure what made Iron Man tick or why billionaire arms developer, Tony Stark took on this new persona. The beginning, although slow, was really the main point of interest for me. Ok, so Tony Stark was a kid genius, inherited his dad's weapon manufacturer, and as many spoiled genius kids are...they develop a drinking problem and live a lavish life womanizing and driving awesome cars. Oh, the second best part of the movie, Tony Stark's Audi R8. It is an amazing car, and coincidentally, I saw an all black one rolling down the streets of Philly the next day. That's $110,000 base model, folks. I would kill for less.




Anyway, back to the origin, Tony Stark is captured and fill in the spoiler blanks, he becomes Iron Man. That part, as I said was slow, but not unbearable as long as there is a pay off for it. However, there was none. Iron Man slacks once it gets into the whole fighting the villains, plot part. There are a couple of interesting moments where Iron Man dismantles a terrorist network in some generic Middle Eastern city, as far as the action is concerned, but there isn't any real drive or purpose behind the action, the villains, and why Iron Man is taking these people down.

The villain is obvious from the get go of the movie, laying waste to one of the worst "Surprise! You thought I was a Good Guy Guys" ever. Then, who is Iron Man fighting? Terrorists? The "SYTIWAGGG?" There needs to be some focus there. Also, I'm not appreciative of the whole, generic terrorists angle. There was no reason why they did what they did or reasoning as to why they acted the way they were. We were just supposed to assume, oh these guys are from the Middle East somewhere, they must want to kill the United States and destroy our way of living because that's what Middle Eastern people do. Just a little more thought to certain aspects like that are what separates a great superhero movie from an average superhero movie.

Also, it looks like Iron Man just deals with global problems. He doesn't stop bank robberies or local problems like your typical superhero, but he uses his suit to tackle world issues. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not, but it appears to be the situation.

Iron Man tries to be an outstanding superhero movie though. As I mentioned, they cast Robert Downey, Jr. as a superhero, which is odd to say the least, and they went after Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Terrence Howard to round out the main players. All of them had particularly forgettable roles and weren't given much to work with character wise. They were all very one dimensional and just second fiddle to Downey's role.

Director Jon Favreau does an admirable job with his first Blockbuster, but his lack of experience does show on the major plot and story points. He seems to be more concerned with the effects, rather than the character development that has made him a successful director up to this point. Despite the wide palate of possibilities Favreau is presented with, he keeps this movie pretty by the book. There aren't any truly memorable moments, nor was there much creativity on Favs part. He even gave himself an overdone cameo as Stark's bodyguard. Plus, would it have killed him to throw in an answering machine scene?

Overall, Iron Man does kick off the Summer Blockbuster season with the hype, promotion, effects, and big box office returns that one would expect. This is not Batman Begins more Fantastic Four (minus Jessica Alba). Major Boo points. Anyway, this movie will entertain those that want to be entertained, but beyond some improvised lines from Downey and the R8, Iron Man proves to be pretty forgettable.

Directing:3.0/10
Acting: 7.5/10
Plot: 4.0/10
Re-Watchability: 6.0/10
DVD Purchase: 2.0/10

Overall: 4.5/10

EDITOR'S NOTE: Just picked this up after I posted my review, but I left out the best thing about the whole movie experience. I went to see it at the Ritz in Voorhees, and who should walk in the lobby as I was enjoying a coffee, but Brian Dawkins. That's right B-Dawk was in the house looking as if he wasn't trying to be noticed, except for the fact that I know what Dawk looks like and I'm betting the average movie goer isn't ripped to shreds like he is. Sure enough, he was going to see Iron Man with two guests. Of course I went in after he entered the theater and sat about 10 feet away from him. It was a cool experience, but I didn't say anything because I didn't want to ruin his evening and draw attention to him. Good times though.



Yes, that is a photoshopped picture of a fully uniformed Brian Dawkins making love to Jessica Simpson while Romo cries. Guess it was funnier when Romo and the uglier Simpson sister were still together. Oh well, funny nonetheless.

Movie Reviews

Well it's the day after the Academy Awards, and I'm not ashamed to say I am one of the few men on this planet that actually watch the whole thing. I really am interested in seeing what movies and actors win the Oscars. This year I was pleasantly surprised as the show was actually tolerable thanks to Jon Stewart hosting the show yet again and the debut of the non-Edith Piaf-ed, Marion Cotillard, which was good.

Typically, it would make sense for me to have done some sort of Oscar predictions or something, but I haven't seen nearly enough movies to do anything other than regurgitate things I had heard from critics. As far as I was concerned the best movie of the year was down to There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men. Although I did think Zodiac was overlooked for Best Picture and especially Best Cinematography. Anyway, like I said, not much more I could add due to the lack of movies I saw this year. With that said, here are two movies I did get to see.

In Bruges


From Oscar award winner, Martin McDonagh, this movie sort of came out of nowhere for me. The flick stars Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, and Ray Finnes based off of the play of the same name. Popularly described as "Waiting for Godot," only Godot shows up, I prefer to think of it more as Seinfeld with guns.

Set in the medieval town of Bruges, two hitmen are stuck awaiting their next assignment from their boss. During this time, the overly anxious Ray (Farrell) and touristy Ken (Gleeson) spend their time seeing the sights and meeting unique characters. What this all amounts to is a series of random events and sharp dialogue that makes every moment of this film funny, sad, entertaining, and dark in some way or another.

Filled with that dark humor I love, this movie did not disappoint. Every scene had some significance and meant something in the grand scope of the film. Then, in the Seinfeldian fashion, everything came together in the end to serve the film's moral and comedic scope beautifully.

What really was a surprise was the acting of Colin Farrell. You know what you're getting from Gleeson and Finnes, but in a rare moment of brilliance Farrell executes his job with near perfection and none of the annoyances that made you hate him in movies like Miami Vice and The Recruit. Granted the writing was about 98% better than those two projects, still it is a nice change of pace that could have crippled this movie.

Directing:6/10
Acting: 7/10
Plot: 7/10
Re-Watchability: 8/10
DVD Purchase: 7/10

Overall: 7/10

There Will Be Blood


Being a Paul Thomas Anderson fan, I previously mentioned how eager I was to see this film. The two main things you know about going in are Daniel Day-Lewis's performance and the "controversial" ending. First off, you're going to see a Paul Thomas Anderson film. Have you ever seen one? Every one has a controversial ending.

Boogie Nights (Penis)
Magnolia (Frogs)
Punch-Drunk Love (Car Crash)
There Will Be Blood (Bowling Pin)

Not too much to be shocked about. Also, another popular criticism was Daniel Day-Lewis supposedly over acting to a point that it was a sin and verged on ruining his whole performance. Without giving too much away, I feel like the way Daniel Plainview acted in the final scene is a perfect epitome of what he had become. All that he had he got from fury and hatred for others and it has now boiled over to the point of insanity and self-destruction. There is even a shot that pictures Plainview as an almost Godzilla type creature destroying fleeing Japanese.

Enough about the ending, but as for the actual film it was spectacular. Visually and thematically the movie takes you on a journey through the depths of this character of Daniel Plainview and at the same time critiques capitalism and what someone so motivated by personal gain can become.

Daniel Day-Lewis does dominate the film, and rightfully took every best acting award this year. He was fierce, and truly developed a character that was once in a lifetime. Sometimes he dipped a little bit into his Bill the Butcher from Gangs of New York (complete with moustache), but I felt that character was underused anyway.

The supporting cast sort of fails DDL, but he is definitely up for carrying the whole film. To be honest, along with PTA's vision of the film and his adaptation of the Upton Sinclair novel, "Oil!" that is really all you needed to have the 2+ hour movie fly by. You really had no choice but to take in this movie for all that it was worth. Hopefully this will spring PTA back into form and he'll get his next movie out a little quicker than this one.

Overall, this movie was the first true departure for PTA from his past flicks. It was not originally written from PTA, and also some of his famous tracking shots and memorable soundtracks take a back seat to a much more stripped down and cinematic movie that gives him a place of his own with movie directing elites. It wasn't better than No Country, but definitely lived up to my expectations.

Directing:10/10
Acting: 9/10
Plot: 9/10
Re-Watchability: 8.5/10
DVD Purchase: 8.5/10

Overall: 9/10

Movie Review: Cloverfield

Cloverfield burst onto the scene attached to the Coming Attractions of Michael Bay's Transformers. The obscure trailer that further intrigued the audience by leaving only 1-18-08 as the name of the film. Throughout production Coverfield went under many covers, such as the infamous Slusho!. This surely stirred up a lot of interest throughout movie geekdom. As the campaign gained steam everyone knew this: J.J. Abrams/monster movie/hand held camera. All of which served to build up the necessary audience to surely make this movie a January hit.

I too was intrigued by this film. I'm no big Lost fan, so J.J. Abrams didn't do anything for me, and monster movies aren't a particular favorite, but it is a genre where I am always interested to see a fresh take on making something exciting. However, I had these two notions going into the film that I knew to be true:

1. The movie is shot first person from a handheld camera, so don't expect much detail or explanation of things.
2. I won't be able to get past the fact that some guy is going to be racing from a killer giant monster from another planet, and filming this thing the whole time...in frame.

Both of those things are primarily damning in regards to my ability to fully accept this movie, so I was skeptical at best as far as this being a complete movie. For better for or for worse, throwing those conceptions out the window allowed me to take in this movie on a more basic level. Is it going to be exciting? suspenseful? scary? If it can accomplish those things then I can enjoy this film.

What ended up happening is that this movie was more style than substance. It was Blair Witch with a budget. I do give credit to J.J. Abrams and director Matt Reeves for attempting something against the standard mold of movie making. I can appreciate the effort, but it only lasts for so long. By following these 4 or so friends along their night as all this chaos unravels you have to develop a relationship with these characters strictly on the remnants of this video tape. It is something that you have to sell yourself on, and it is a tough leap to accept the relationships these characters have with so little background.

Even more difficult is the primary relationship of Rob and Beth. We are caught up to their situation via video clips and people gossiping, but for us to care about whether Rob can reunite with Beth during this monster attacking New York is not a primary concern. I know that I was much more interested in what the monster was doing, or where this monster is from, are there others? Obviously, none of this can be answered from first person view, but these are more interesting questions than a love story.

Fulfilling some of those needs may take away from the aspect of this movie being different than your typical monster movie, but why bother with the monster? It's like Titanic in the way that impending doom surrounds the characters, and yet the main focus is on a love story. The difference is that we know the ship is sinking. We know that Leo and Kate Winslet have only so much time until it is all over. With Cloverfield, we know nothing about impending doom or what is going to happen.

Something I found particularly funny is the monster's sense of the theatric. It's attacking New York City, ripping the head off the Statute of Liberty, destroying the Brooklyn Bridge. It all makes for great imagery. I know, I know, it's necessary for the intrigue of the movie. I don't think anyone would want to go see a monster from another planet destroy Richmond, Virginia or something. Giant alien monsters must just be against major cities. More stuff to knock over, more destruction for them to inflict of tiny people running for their lives.

As for the handheld camera, like I said, it was interesting, but it cannot hold up for the entire movie. You get a reason for why Rob's friend, Hud, insists on filming everything, but as they are being attacked, running, and escaping horrible doom you can't accept that he wouldn't just drop the camera and fucking run for his life. There is no way past it.

Also as the movie progressed the filming was plainly just too good to be believable. When a scene would past where monsters are attacking, people are running, buildings are blowing up would be filmed so everyone knows what is going on, the director is sure to have a scene where the camera drops to the character's waist for 20-30 seconds as dialogue takes place. To be honest, I would have like to see a really dramatic scene out of focus or with the camera pointing at the ground to have an aspect of suspense.

This is all to add a new aspect of realism and intimacy to the movie, but then there are the actors. While the acting is not the issue, the issue is that all of these people are typical actors. They don't look like you and me, but as Matty Ballgame from Filmspotting said perfectly, "It's like watching four GAP models running from a monster." Take Rob, played by Michael Stahl-David, best known for the short lived show The Black Donnellys, he's got the full model beard going on, and he's supposed to be the VP of some huge company? Not likely.

Then there is Beth, played by Odette Yustman. No one on your block or my block looks remotely like Odette Yustman, and that is a travesty. If you're going to sell me on the realistic take on a monster movie, then give me some true to life characters. Don't throw Odette Yustman in front of my face and tell me this is reality cause I ain't buyin it. And yes, I will refer to Odette Yustman by her full name for the rest of my life. Odette Yustman.

Lastly, the movie doesn't even function on a scary or suspenseful level. The monster is interesting, but not overtly scary. You don't feel any great desperation even though the circumstances couldn't be more dire. There are a few scenes where one might gasp, but the overall execution of fear is lacking.

I will say that if you're intrigued, then go see the flick. It's not a bad movie, just lacking in some areas that could leave the audience fulfilled. It is one of those movies, where if you are going to see it, then go see it in the theater. Seeing it on DVD would lose the full aspect of the film.

Directing:7/10
Acting: 6.5/10
Plot: 5/10
Re-Watchability: 6/10
DVD Purchase: 1/10

Overall: 5.1/10

Movie Review: No Country For Old Men

Before I say anything, I would like to say a few words to all the Tom Brady and Tony Romo fantasy owners who enjoyed the ride of a lifetime as these QB's packed in record seasons as they propelled hundreds of thousands of fantasy teams into the playoffs this week only to leave those teams and the owners' hopes in shambles. In what is probably the most unexpected and horrendous let down in fantasy history, this is what fantasy football playoffs are all about. It's not fair and the best team doesn't always win. Take a life lesson from these things. Anyway, ONWARD!

Based on the Cormac McCarthy novel, the Coen's get back to business by doing what they do masterfully...tell a great story.

In the week since I intended to write this review No Country has gone on to pile up numerous awards from the New York Film Critics and National Board of Review and other people in charge of giving out praise for film in categories like Best Actor, Supporting Actor, Directing, Screenplay, and Ensemble Cast. All of which this film deserves. What also has emerged is the likely Oscar contenders with teen pregnancy dramedy, Juno, taking the Little Miss Sunshine spot, Atonement for the period piece, and No Country and There Will Be Blood rounding out the legitimate contenders spot. I am exuberantly ecstatic about P.T. Anderson's latest, and I will be sure to let you all know what I think about it once it is released. Anywho...

Following previous lackluster effort by the Coen's in the form of: The Lady Killers, Intolerable Cruelty, The Man Who Wasn't There, and O Brother Where Art Thou? (which I enjoyed, but some did not), No Country is much more in the vein of Fargo and Miller's Crossing. The story is centered around great characters, an enthralling story, and just enough existential commentary on society that those brain cells of mine that really enjoy such things were jumping for joy.

The basic outline of the film follows drug money, the man that finds it, the man that wants it, and the men that try to figure out what is going on. I guess the main driving force of the film is Javier Bardem's character, Anton Chigurh. A Mexican bounty hunter out for the lost drug money. Chigurh is one of the most interesting characters and one of the best villains in recent movie history. The perfect blend of a psycho, killer, cerebral, and principled character, Bardem is able to bring to life an incredibly complex character whose presence not only makes the characters in the film uneasy when he is around, but also makes the audience feel anxious for what this madman will do next.

Chigurh is essentially an Angel of Death, where whenever he is present odds are someone is going to die. However, what makes Chigurh most interesting is that he is not a pure madman, but a rather disciplined killer who does not pursue innocent people, but rather kills those that choose to involve themselves in his path. Of all the people Chigurh kills in the movie, none of them were unwarranted in his frame of mind. Each person interfered or involved themselves in Anton's business without him provoking them.

Similarly to Omar in The Wire, for those that watch, these kinds of principles are what allow Chigurh to survive in a business where violence surrounds him and he should be dead. For those that don't know, Omar robs drug dealers for cash and drugs. Now, normally, Omar would be killed, but his honor in doing what he does protects him in what he does. There is something very poetic about that aspect.

The main character being chased is Llewelyn Moss, played by Josh Brolin. While he too is gaining attention for his performance, I must say I enjoyed Brolin more in Planet Terror. Moss has the misfortune of stumbling onto some drug money, which he decides to take, setting in motion his fate.

Finally, as a moral compass is the good old Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, played by Tommy Lee Jones. Jones is the old school sheriff who is trying to figure out what is going on. Bell is a second generation sheriff who was raised on principles of honor and duty. His voice actually opens the film speaking of the old days where sheriff's didn't have guns and all men had honor. A novel idea, but as the film unveils itself, it is clear that such notions are in the past.

In the end, as the story moves along, you are certainly pulled into the pursuit of the money, the characters involved, and the back stories they have which the Coens mostly just hint at. Bubbling underneath this suspenseful film is a tale of morality and the paradox that comes about when a man has principles. The three main characters are all lead by choices they make, and their principles lead them down their own road.

Moss is an Army vet who lives in a trailer with his wife. While he does have a strong will, his morals are in question. When left with the choice to take this drug money or leave it, his desire to better his life moves him to take the money. With good intentions, but a poor choice, Moss is sent on the run and forced to deal with the fear and paranoia that comes with the money.

Sheriff Bell is a man who has strong convictions and principles. He is lead by his desire to solve the crime, to get rid of the bad guys and have a peaceful county. However, his principles turn out to be dated. As a result this man who operates with a very high moral code is left to be useless and rather pathetic in the end. A sad state on the affairs of society when such a person is left in such a hopeless state.

Finally, Anton is a man who, as I said before, has principles for a killer. In order for him to continue to live he must keep doing what he does. To kill those that are in his way, and to maintain what he believes to be right. While what he believes is misguided, it is his ability to continue to pursue these ideals that keeps him safe from the punishment of such misgivings. There is a scene in the end of the movie where Anton, for a split second, has his eyes wander to children enjoying themselves. Right after that he is badly injured in a car accident. I took this as to meaning his purpose in life is to be a killer. To do anything else will lead him to his death. There is no other option for him. This enables him to survive in this society.

Overall, the movie is great. It can be a tad long at times, but there is the typical Coen humor and suspense that makes this movie a must see.

Directing: 8.5/10
Acting: 9/10
Plot: 10/10
Re-Watchability: 10/10
DVD Purchase: 9/10

Overall: 9.3/10

Top 5: Guys I'd Wanna Be

In the spirit of Halloween, where children take on the persona's of ghosts, goblins, super heroes, and magical entities, I decided to create a list of a kind of Halloween for guys in their mid-20's. Here's how it's going down. I've compiled a list of the Top 5: Guys I'd Wanna Be. Meaning that as of this instant, I would trade lives with said person.

Now, when compiling this list I had to weigh in a lot of factors. By taking over this person's life, I would inherit everything that goes along with it. The person's personal life, finances, age, public perceptions, and daily pressures. For example, if I picked Alex Rodriguez I'd have a lot of money, but I'd also have the pressure to perform during the baseball season, a horrible public perception of being a total jerk and a selfish ass, and I'd be married to a wife I may or may not cheat on with Canadian strippers. So those are the things you have to weigh out when making these selections. Perhaps when you think about such a list some aspects may be more important to you than not (i.e. public perception, relative anonymity, marriage). Every one's standards are different, but I've compiled this list in respect to my personal preferences. Feel free to do the same for yours.

Just to be clear, whomever you choose, you'd maintain his ability/talent. So if you pick an athlete, singer, actor, whatever you keep his individual talent.

HONORABLE MENTION
These guys are all worthy candidates, but specific flaws or complications in their lives eliminate them from serious contention.

The Married:

Tony Parker, age 25, Pro Basketball Player

The Good: The French-born Parker plays point guard for the San Antonio Spurs. He won his third NBA Championship last year, also garnering Finals MVP. As a star in the NBA he easily pulls down millions of dollars a year via contract plus any sponsorships he may get.

The Flaw: After winning his 3rd NBA Title, Parker wed Desperate Housewives star Eva Longoria. Sure no one is complaining, but I would need to be unfettered.


Tiger Woods, age 31, Professional Golfer

The Good: Tiger Woods is a global icon. He makes more money than any athlete on the planet and is far and away the best golfer on a putting green now and probably for the next 10 years. He has his golf winnings, multiple endorsements, and the respect and admiration of pretty much any dude on the planet.

The Flaw: The life of a golfer is all consuming and strenuous, so it's good for Tiger to settle down and have some balance in his life. So in late 2004, he wed his one-time nanny, and more importantly one-time Swedish bikini model, Elin Nordegren.


Christian Bale, age 33, Actor

The Good: Christian Bale is probably the most bad ass actor out there today. His versatility and dedication to his roles are legendary and has such great movies under his belt as American Psycho, Equilibrium, Harsh Times, oh and he's Batman. He has the respect of his fellow actors, and he currently tops my list of favorite actors. He is a couple years away from an Oscar and the requisite pay checks will follow. Originally from Wales, he even has an accent.

The Flaw: Bale married Winona Rider's assistant in 2000.


The Old:

Richard Branson, age 57, Entrepreneur

The Good: The self-made British billionaire, Branson, has his hands in many ventures, the most successful being his company, Virgin, he started in 1970. Virgin now encompasses music, airlines, and retail stores.

The Flaw: While Branson lives his life out as a young man, the $7.8 billion he is worth isn't enough for me to want to be 57 years old. That's quite a leap.


Bruce Dickinson, age 49, Musician

The Good: Lead singer for metal god's Iron Maiden, Bruce has rocked sold out arenas around the world since the early 80's. Despite the recent flux towards pop-rock and away from metal, Maiden still remain relevant around the world. Nothing can be cooler than being the lead singer of a rock band in front of thousands of people. He is known as a revolutionary front man, ushering in the operatic rock that Maiden is known for. His solo release, "Chemical Wedding," is also probably the greatest album of all-time.

The Flaw: Despite being fucking awesome, a pilot, world-class fencer, song writer, and of course front man, Bruce may have his best years behind him. Maiden recently announced a World Tour, and he can handle it now, but years to come may only make him shakier.


Jack Nicholson, age 70, Actor

The Good: Nicholson is a Hollywood icon and one of the coolest guys ever. He has tons of awards, all the respect in the world, and is known as not giving a fuck about anything. Known for being kind of a loose cannon, he represents old Hollywood, and there's nothing wrong with being a living legend.

The Flaw: If I had to pick a 70 year-old to be, it'd be him. He still gets the ladies, and has floor seats to the Lakers. Not a bad gig.


The Dads:

Colin Farrell, age 31, Actor

The Good: Farrell has been known to accompany many women to bed, which adds to his rough and tumble persona. He seems to get pretty decent projects thrown his way, working with directors like Terence Malick, Steven Spielberg, and Oliver Stone.

The Flaw: He has a kid wandering around somewhere from a past relationship. Beyond that, a lot of his movies are pretty awful and you have to wonder about his shelf-life longterm.


Brad Pitt, age 43, Actor

The Good: Pitt obviously has a lot of things going for him. One of Hollywood's elite actors, Pitt has a sparkling career and has great movies like Fight Club and Se7en to his name. Pitt recently began branching out in real estate and starting his own production company. Regarded as one of the best looking guys in Hollywood, Pitt is always referenced for his looks as well as his acting. He also ended his marriage with Jennifer Aniston to upgrade to Angelina Jolie. That's some man points right there.

The Flaw: Despite dating one of the hottest women on the planet in Jolie, again not complaining, he has about 15 adopted kid and one of his own. Just too much headache and concern to walk into.


Tom Brady, age 30, Professional Football Player

The Good: The "Golden Boy" was just that, and by all accounts still is. After winning the Super Bowl three times, the former 6th Round pick had the world at his finger tips. Well regarded as the best quarterback in the NFL, along with Peyton Manning, Brady is in the middle of a record setting year on his way to his 4th championship. Privately, he is known for being well-dressed and dating super models and actresses. He recently signed a large contract, and despite many offers, turns down many endorsement dollars. He also has God status in the New England region.

The Flaw: After dumping ex-girlfriend, actress/model, Bridget Moynahan, things were going as planned for Brady as he moved on to super model Gisele Bundchen. However, Brady soon became a daddy as it turned out Moynahan likely pulled the goalie on the Golden Boy. Some controversy arose, but Brady handled it like a champ and things seem to be fine.

The Just Missed:

Prince Harry of Wales, age 23, Royalty

The Good: There's nothing wrong with walking up to a girl in a bar and going, "Hi, I'm a prince." Plus being second in line the odds are he'll never have to worry about taking the throne, but still gets access to all the goodies.

The Flaw: Being a Prince, his life is constantly under the spotlight, and being the red-headed 2nd son will always be viewed as lower than his older bro, Prince William.


Ryan Gosling, age 26, Actor

The Good: Gosling is THE up and coming actor of the day. He will pretty much have any role he wants in a couple of years, and he has already been nominated for an Oscar. Recently single after ending his relationship with "The Notebook" co-star, Rachel McAdams, Gosling is free to roam about, which shouldn't be hard since "The Notebook" made him an instant favorite to many ladies out there. He maintains a low profile, which is good for living a normal life.


The Flaw: He may not have the most preferable bankroll at this point, making it a bit of a gamble. Plus, he's Canadian.


Lewis Hamilton, age 22, Formula One Driver

The Good: Hamilton burst onto the stage as a F1 phenom. Finishing 2nd in total points after his rookie year, the young Hamilton has what it takes to fill to void left by retired F1 great Michael Schumacher. He gets to drive incredible cars incredibly fast, and I'm sure that goes a long way. As for the money issue, Schumacher was the 2nd highest grossing athlete two years ago behind only Tiger Woods so money won't be a problem.

The Flaw: Could be a bit of a gamble, like Gosling. Hamilton could be the Tiger Woods of racing, leading to an eventual move over to NASCAR, but he could die in a fiery crash. I'm not comfortable going with that.




THE TOP 5:
These are the head honchos. The guys that have pretty much everything going for them. Their flaws are limited, and you'd really have to dig to find something unpleasant about their lives.

5. Derek Jeter, age 33, Professional Baseball Player

The Good: Jeter gets $18 million a year to play shortstop for the New York Yankees. He won 4 World Series titles already, and is constantly referred to for his leadership, ability to win, and baseball skills (though sometimes overrated). Also being the premiere athlete in New York for the past 10 years, Jeter has been rumored to have been with: Mariah Carey, Jessica Alba, Scarlett Johansson, Gabrielle Union, Adriana Lima, Jessica Biel, Vanessa Minnillo, and former Miss Universe Lara Dutta. That's a murderer's row right there (clearly he prefers brains over beauty). I view Jeter's dating life like this: He's a gorgeous woman expert (see. wildlife expert) and it is his duty to tag and release these girls back into the wild. It's almost a right of passage for hot women to date Jeter to offically get hot woman status. He also finally won the immortal battle of Who Would You Rather Be: Tom Brady or Derek Jeter? It was close, but Tom's kid gives the win to Jeter.

The Flaw: As I said, Jeter dated all those women, see the past tense...not dat-ING, dat-ED. So that does nothing for me. Also, while he essentially gets a free ride from the New York media for his on-field ability, that soon may end as the Yankees may struggle in the years to come as his skills begin to diminish with age.

4. Prince Albert von Thurn und Taxis, age 23, Royalty

The Good: Prince Al is worth $2 billion from a German family fortune that dates back to the Holy Roman Empire. He is the youngest member of the Forbes Billionaires list, and basically doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. His fortune lies in real estate, art, and tech companies.

The Flaw: He's in Germany. He rules a lot of Germany. I don't wanna be in Germany, and I may have to stay there since it's my hood. If I didn't have to stay there, I'd buy a couple sports teams and hang out.

3. Cristiano Ronaldo, age 22, Professional Footballer (Soccer)

The Good: Cristiano is regarded as one of the top footballers in the world at the young age of 22. Having signed on with English giant, Manchester United, Ronaldo has the spotlight of being the top player on the world's top team. He is under contract until 2010, but after that you can be sure he'll sign one of the biggest contracts in sport. Think of him as the new David Beckham, only with 100x more talent. Also, at a young age Cristiano is constantly in British tabloids that focus on what model he is currently with.

The Flaw: The constant sports pressure of having to perform all the time. While Ronaldo does have respect from a lot of people, there is still a lot of criticism about his whining and poor temper on the pitch. Plus, having it all tends to send a lot of negative energy your way.

2. Justin Timberlake, age 26, Musician

The Good: Coming from 'N SYNC, JT has done the impossible and shed his boy band image to be one of the top music acts in the world. Perfecting his pop, hip-hop mix, Timberlake has earned the respect of musicians from all different kinds of music. He has worked alongside 50 Cent, Timbaland, and T.I. to push his street cred to new levels. Recently, he has begun to branch out into acting and other avenues that will only add to his bankroll. He also is an excellent Saturday Night Live host starring in the legendary "Dick in a Box" song and one of my favorite skits "The Barry Gibb Show." While that is miraculous in itself, what really puts JT at #2 is that since his split from 'N SYNC, the only legitimate poor career move you can pin on him is dating Cameron Diaz for too long! He was with Britney Spears and like a stock broker, sold that stock at its highest peak as her career fell apart and his sky rocketed, then moved onto Cameron Diaz for a few years, and he is now with Jeter ex, Jessica Biel. I say he shouldn't have been with Diaz for so long because he's a young guy, he should be out there, not tied up to an older woman. Even if that woman is Cameron Diaz.

The Flaw: I don't think I could ever move passed the whole boy band thing. It would eat me up inside and probably lead me to a drug overdose.

1. Theo Epstein, age 33, General Manager of the Boston Red Sox

The Good: Theo is the brainchild of the Red Sox. He brought Boston their first World Series in 86 years, and he was the youngest General Manager in professional sports. Recently, he brought yet another championship by holding onto younger talent and not mortgaging the future. Although some of his moves have been suspect, he was man enough to let go of some key players from the 2004 Red Sox team that allowed the Sox to win again this past year. The proof is in the pudding, and Theo just wins. He is young and, like Brady, had God-status. What makes Theo's life most preferable is that he has my dream job, GM of a baseball team, he makes plenty of money, and most importantly of all, he can still live a semi-normal life. Epstein doesn't have the allure of mega-stars like Timberlake, and he will only have to be judged on his moves as GM, something I'm fine with. Also, he is unfettered with no wife or kids. He still has plenty of quality years ahead of him, and eveything is going right for the guy.

The Flaw: None.