Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"This is bullshit!" (an actual quote that accurately describes everything about this movie as well!)

Meet the Spartans is a film I wanted to avoid and at the end of the day should have avoided. After the creators of the appalling Date Movie and Epic Movie announced yet another spoof...I was almost in tears. Just spare a thought about the money the duo of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer have wasted while making these fruitless, futile spoof movies! That could have been enough to fund a few small movies, or altogether could have funded one bigger movie. There's a few potentially decent films we will never see!

In the spoof movie world, there are funny spoofs...and there are Jason Friedberg/Aaron Seltzer spoofs. The former may not produce brilliant results, however they are at least entertaining enough due to the high levels of hilarity that emerge in multiple scenes. The latter...well, you'll be hard-pressed to find the slightest urge to laugh. I have no idea why the talentless duo continues to produce elaborate hack jobs that waste money, time and potential talent. (In this case I'm looking at you, Diedrich Bader. Shame on you for agreeing to star in this mess!)

Meet the Spartans is about as funny as being sexually violated by a horribly disfigured elephant and about as painful. I must give props to the two guys for making the standard for their comedies lower and lower...Date Movie being their best (this is an astoundingly faint praise), Epic Movie resulting in worse results, and Meet the Spartans not only resultant in their worst effort, but possibly the worst film of all time! This is the cinematic equivalent of receiving a very painful enema! How bad are we talking? Well, when I watched the movie I felt sick to the stomach and had to possess a vomit bucket on stand-by. This is a teenager who is saying this...a member of the supposed target audience! Meet the Spartans relies on childish, puerile humour consisting of sometimes insensitive cracks about society and juvenile sex/potty jokes.

I heard reports of people in the cinema yelling out "This is crap!" and other such things. Normally I abhor those who yell stuff in the cinema...but this is an exception. Who am I to quibble? This film is pure crap! It needed to be said.

The film is ostensibly a simple spoof of the hit 2007 film 300. Okay, so the idea of spoofing a highly stylised film adaptation of a graphic novel may seem like a decent idea. There's plenty of material for a raft of clever gags, right? Wrong! The screenwriters only incorporate the obvious and predictable laughs. The pacing is always affected by a scene turning into something from American Idol, Deal or No Deal, Dancing With The Stars, and America's Next Top Model (some of which have been slightly modified to suit the setting). What does this do? It saps all the tension and fast pacing that was set up...instead adding an extra 5 minutes to the already minuscule running time. The film also takes a stab at several other recent movies and even video games! It's all incredibly mindless and pointless! But is it funny? Absolutely not!

Just when you think they've run out of ideas, they decide to spoof Stomp the Yard and have a dancing competition. Then when you've come to the conclusion that things can't get any worse...a competition consisting of people exchanging 'Yo Mamma' jokes! Interestingly enough, they managed to choose the jokes that aren't funny. Yes, it's that bad! But wait...there's even more! You'd think they've run out of ideas, right? It seems they haven't as they incorporate several instances of blatant product placement and commercials. Just like the added TV shows, it slows the pacing and makes the audience even more bored. Worse has yet to come - soldiers walk around the battlefield carrying blue screens to use digital effects to give the impression of a menacing army. In all fairness, I think the filmmakers couldn't find many extras who were willing to be part of the production. If I was offered money to be an extra I wouldn't do it! It'd taint my image, and even if my name was omitted from the credits I would be mentally scarred from so much as stepping onto the set!

In the midst of this cinematic chaos emerges a cast that you feel forced to pity. Carmen Electra's performance always seems to repeatedly reinstate the message to the audience of "I can't act...but I'll always take a role if you want big breasts and zero acting talent!" Sean Maguire never looks committed or convincing. They are supported by a cast that are all standard for the genre. Did they really need the pay-check to suffer through this mess?!

Meet the Spartans only supplied one single line of funny dialogue. But it came in the first minute of the film's running time...thankfully the entire movie only went for about 68 minutes (still too long). I was still forced to sit through over an hour of poorly written gags and a terribly executed screenplay! Then, just when you think the film is finally over, the credit roll is accompanied by the cast singing and dancing followed by a montage of deleted scenes. Ever heard of DVD extras, guys?! This just adds insult to injury!

I'll keep it short, sweet and simple: do not let curiosity get the better of you! There is a line, and Meet the Spartans crossed it. If you ever watch the movie please make sure there is no food in your stomach as it will be explosively hurled in disgust. The movie lacks humour and an entertainment value. The constant stream of parodies are merely based around recent movies and TV programs, and continue to question the viewer's decision to ultimately watch the movie! I can't recall a recent movie I've seen that is worse than this turd on film! In a few years when the potency of the pop culture references have disappeared there won't even be a scrap of laughter to be found. I will never watch this movie again in whole or part, not even if I was paid. Afterwards I felt violated and raped. It gets worse...the same duo are making another spoof film. R.I.P modern cinema!

0.0/10

"The police have asked us to give you the following safety tips: Stay in well lit areas, never travel alone whenever possible, ALWAYS wear front to back, and remember, never EVER believe someone when they tell you that shaving your pubic hair will rid you of crab infestation."

Every generation deserves its own spoof movie to rule them all. David Zucker's 1980s classic comedy Flying High! (known as Airplane! in America) still remains to be the king of all spoof films. Before him it was Mel Brooks with such films as Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles. Despite internet rumours that rapidly circulated, Scary Movie is definitely not the definitive spoof movie of this generation. The film is brisk and silly and, even though it's not one of the best spoof movies of late, Scary Movie is filled with side-splitting laughs and some clever parodying.

This film sets a new standard for low-brow humour, even by the standards of the Wayan brothers. How low-brow are we talking? Try to imagine the sort of profanity ridden things 12-year-old boys exchange when they think no-one else is watching them. Start at that point and move your way down.

The script of this movie is ostensibly based upon the plot of Wes Craven's Scream. The original title of this film was Scream If You Know What I Did Last Halloween which will pretty much sum up the films that it ultimately parodies. Fundamentally every major film hit of the 1990s - from The Matrix to The Blair Witch Project...even a bit of American Pie - is shamelessly parodied. The film is merely a spoof that also shows how talentless the Wayan brothers are at screenwriting due to their lack of class and civility. Through their eyes as much profanity, dirty language, nudity, sex jokes and crude humour as possible equals a funny comedy. Sorry guys, but good humour means witty jokes and dialogue. Flying High! and classic Mel Brooks movies got away with a PG rating without the profanity. I suggest you take notes from the comedic genius those filmmakers exhibit.

Anyway, Scary Movie takes the central plots of Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer and amalgamates them in solidarity. One of the immediate key flaws that can already be indicated is that Scream is itself a parody of the slasher genre. It's an intelligent flick that uses all the clichés in more realistic situations: parodying the genre while also being part of the genre. The same cannot be said for Scary Movie.

A serial killer wearing a ghoulish mask begins stalking the teenage population of a simple suburban community. Cindy Campbell (Faris) and her group of friends are still harbouring a secret amongst them: that they accidentally killed a man on Halloween a year earlier. It seems the serial killer is targeting Cindy and her group of friends who were involved in the accidental killing. As the victim count rises, Cindy must survive the carnage and stop the killer.

The film is literally beleaguered with standard one-dimensional characters and mindless spoofs. As this is just a spoof movie meant for light entertainment, it's kind of easy to overlook these flaws. Your enjoyment of Scary Movie depends on your age range and taste for comedy. If profanity easily turns you off, this film is not for you at all. If you're not comfortable with gore and sexual references I suggest you never opt to watch this one. When I first saw this movie I was 11 years old and absolutely hated it as I fell into the aforementioned demographic. Now, upon revisiting, I've matured and have become more comfortable with laughing at this kind of film. It's not a masterpiece by any means and it never will be; however the film is riddled with a few notable laughs that come so commonly that I literally almost choked on my own saliva.

This is one of those comedies that should only be screened to a vast audience, and preferably an audience whose standards for comedy aren't too high. There are a few funny moments of course, but this is not going to be remembered as a film on par with The Godfather. Followed by Scary Movie 2. Be sure to stay until the end of the credits.

6.1/10

"I tried to stand up and fly straight, but it wasn't easy with that sumbitch Reagan in the White House. I dunno. They say he's a decent man, so maybe his advisors are confused."

Raising Arizona is now considered a classic gem from currently-renowned filmmaking duo Joel and Ethan Coen. Now that the pair have achieved such success with their crowning jewels such as No Country for Old Men, Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou? to name a few, it's an interesting experience to revisit some of the earlier films created by the Coen Brothers. Taking all their succeeding films into account, Raising Arizona is a top-notch production and is unmistakably the effort of Joel and Ethan Coen. It is simply their type of movie: wildly offbeat, surreal, atmospheric and unique. However their style of humour will certainly not be appreciated by all tastes.

In this bright and moderately unconventional slapstick comedy, we are initially introduced to criminal H.I. McDunnough (Cage). H.I. (known as "Hi" among friends) is a repeat offender who is continually arrested for armed robbery. Every time Hi is arrested he meets Ed (Hunter), a police photographer. With each new arrest, the two continue developing a relationship. Hi vows to give up his life of crime when he mounts a successful marriage proposal to Ed. All is wedded bliss until it is discovered that Ed is unable to fall pregnant, and due to Hi's former persistent dedication to crime they are subsequently rejected by every adoption agency in town. Things become desperate when the inability to have children places a strain on the marriage and the relationship between Hi and Ed. They soon learn that well-known furniture tycoon Nathan Arizona (Wilson) has recently welcomed quintuplets that he feels is too much to handle. In an attempt to finally gain a baby, Ed and Hi plan to kidnap one of the babies from Nathan Arizona and pass it off as their own. When things look shaky, the happily wedded couple grab the baby and hit the road. In typical Coen Brothers style, pure mayhem and chaos ensues.

Raising Arizona is an interesting twist on your usual comedy, in fact it's one of the most inventive, original and off-the-wall comedies I've seen for years. Interestingly enough, the only wacky comedies that can compare to this film are none other than the other works of the Coen Brothers. This film is wicked fun from the get-go. It's incredibly fast-paced and well made; featuring top-notch performances, effective direction, inventive cinematography and solid directing. For a film made in the late 80s it still looks pretty damn good in terms of production values and the extremely innovative utilisation of the camera. On top of this the film is skilfully edited and contains some music that effectively sets the tone and atmosphere. The chase sequence is a particular stand-out in this film. For something this wacky, you can only find two possible people at the helm (yes, Joel or Ethan Coen...or both).

Nicholas Cage convincingly pulls off the title role. His accent always sounds genuine and he never strikes a false note. Heck, even his facial expressions towards the film's conclusion are enough to make you laugh! Holly Hunter is also quite excellent. The chemistry between Cage and Hunter is outstanding. These two are supported by an excellent bunch of actors including John Goodman, Trey Wilson, William Forsythe and Frances McDormand among others.

Overall, Raising Arizona is a very funny movie and still one of the best creations of the Coen Brothers. From a simple storyline the duo were able to create a mesmerising landscape, deft one-liners and some very off-the-wall characters. Although the script is a little clichéd and the ending is fairly standard, the whole movie is very satisfying; featuring fight scenes and chases that are skilfully choreographed and filmed, as well as being exciting and entertaining. In a nutshell: this film is great enjoyment and is destined to keep you extremely entertained.

7.9/10

"I believe in a long prolonged derangement of the senses to attain the unknown... Although I live in the subconscious, our pale reason hides the infinite from us."

Acclaimed and controversial director Oliver Stone has yet again tackled heavy subject matter and trodden on dangerous ground with this rock biopic. The Doors is a film that takes a look at the band of the same name and their profound influence on rock music during the 1960s. There is no doubt that the lead singer of the band, Jim Morrison, virtually defined the rock god image. Despite imitators being a regularity no-one has ever done it better than the talented young rocker. The Doors has always been among my favourite bands as I am fond of classic rock music frequently produced during the decade of hippies, drugs and sex. Stone's biopic interested me for two reasons: Stone is a good director who habitually produces fine work, and I like most of the music produced by the band.

The Doors examines the band's history, beginning from the formation until the eventual demise of leader singer Jim Morrison (Kilmer). More importantly, the film's central purpose is to examine the career of Jim whose life was cut short at the appallingly young age of 27. The opening few scenes bring the audience up to date with the happenings in Jim's past before proceeding to stardom.

After dropping out of film school, Jim meets one of his old fellow students, Ray Manzarek (MacLachlan), on Venice Beach. Ray is profoundly moved when he hears the poetic lyrics written by Jim and suggests they should form a band. Ray and Jim are soon joined by drummer John Densmore (Dillon) and guitarist Robbie Krieger (Whaley). Together the foursome created some of the seminal sounds of the 1960s - namely their principal hit Light My Fire. As the years go by and their popularity skyrockets, lead singer Jim Morrison eventually spins off in an uncontrollable spiral of drugs, alcohol and sex. His true love Pamela (Ryan) becomes increasingly frustrated with Jim's erratic behaviour and egotistical pleasures. His career as a singer is something budding musicians would have wet dreams about; however record-breaking songs and wealth does not give Jim satisfaction he seeks - instead finding satisfaction in booze, drugs and girls. These life choices eventually lead to a fateful prosecution following a gig in Miami, after which he decides to attempt to live a serene life with Pamela in Paris.

In all my years of viewing films, I have never seen such attention to detail and such potency in a depiction of the 1960s. Stone captures every detail and models it to perfection. This includes several graphic illustrations of drug usage and sex. Characters are regularly stoned. There is also explicit nudity (prominently female) and many scenes that feel like a prolonged drug trip.

The film is very atmospheric with its realistic depictions of the period and frequently playing a song by the band; however the whole film feels incredibly tedious and towards the end just downright excruciating! It's impossible to actually feel engaged in the events during the final third. Stone has defended the film's feeling of an agonizingly lengthy drug trip, but I feel it's not overly very entertaining. The film is not a documentary and hence was never meant to accurately show the history of the band...on the other hand it's hardly an entertainment piece. In amidst all the depictions of the 60s the whole film is lacking something...and the script continually meanders.

The character of Jim Morrison is played passionately by Val Kilmer. In most of the scenes Kilmer even does his own singing. If you didn't know better, you could honestly say Kilmer actually is the real Jim Morrison: his mannerisms, his voice and even his looks. The resemblance is uncanny! This is the performance of Kilmer's career!

Overall, The Doors is a film that was dealing with difficult subject matter. Stone is a talented filmmaking who possesses the potential to make a film a lot better than the one we've been presented with. Even the real Ray Manzarek finds the film an appalling look at the history of the band. Draw your own conclusions...

6.2/10

Jake Rodgers: "I'm the Black Rambo!"
Gina: "...Blambo?"

Ever seen a film entitled The Bourne Identity? If you have, then you'd be futilely massacring your precious time with Code Name: The Cleaner as it is essentially the same movie. If you haven't seen The Bourne Identity, watch it immediately so you won't ever feel the need to expose yourself to this rubbish!

2007 has been forced to bear a number of dreadful film releases with an inadequate number of masterpieces thus far. Code Name: The Cleaner is yet another unspeakably appalling comedy released at some stage during 2007. The film is primarily The Bourne Identity with a different cast. The plot is horrible, characters are all weak not to mention stereotypical, and performances are simply abysmal. Sure, casting Cedric the Entertainer as the lead in a movie may appear like a good idea...but they missed the mark unreservedly. In my opinion Cedric is no longer an entertainer, as I was not in the slightest bit entertained while watching this conventional baloney.

A guy named Jake (Cedric the Entertainer) wakes up in a hotel room next to a corpse with no clue about his identity. As flashbacks of his past come flooding back, he has a memory of being a special ops secret agent. But his allies around him claim he is merely a janitor. The convoluted, non-existent plot then turns into some story about a microchip and the FBI who are trying to track down Jake. Inadvertently, Jake is then entangled in some government conspiracy.

As I previously stated, Code Name: The Cleaner appears to be a pointless rehash of The Bourne Identity with the standard sexual gags and an attempt to include witty dialogue. These films are released far too frequently in this contemporary age of cinema. The filmmakers aim to gain a PG-13 rating from the MPAA to soak up every last dollar they can upon release. They realise it won't win any Oscars so their objective is to supply a bit of fun. This film is not fun at all! It's devoid of any laughs as there is nothing clever or remotely funny included in the film! The only parts I laughed at were merely out of pity because of how dreadful all the gags are. It's obvious there was room for Cedric to do some improvisation while on set, but he adds absolutely nothing to the film. Perhaps it's not my type of humour, or perhaps it was just woefully screen-written. Judging by the other reviews I've seen, I'm guessing it's the latter.

There are a few big names thrown into the cast...unfortunately none of the actors could redeem the embarrassing screenplay! Cedric the Entertainer is an African-American in PG-13 humour territory. The filmmakers seem to be under the impression that people find it funny when someone like Cedric makes cracks about sex or the attractiveness of a woman. This may be a controversial statement, but the only time I've seen this done right is in the Rush Hour movies. Cedric walks through the movie looking lost and confused. Lucy Liu does not even slightly possess any talent or acting skills evident here. Her aim is to utilise agility and acrobatic skills in an attempt to look impressive on screen. Every line she delivered that was meant to be funny...backfires completely. However I can't imagine any actor - no matter how talented - could have possibly redeemed the script. Not even the best screenwriter in the world could have redeemed the awful concept. What does that tell us? The film was doomed from the moment it was conceived and every second of this movie proves it.

The only reason I decided to watch this movie was because one of the featured actors shares the same first name as me (Callum), but watching this brings shame to my name and others who share the same title. To put it bluntly and simply; Code Name: The Cleaner is flat and witless, and among the worst films to transpire during 2007. It's tragic that comedies have sunk this low. Every predictable cliché in the book is shamelessly trotted out.

2.2/10

"You have a serious problem of distorting reality. You could sleep with the entire planet and still feel rejected."

The Science of Sleep is a wildly inventive and imaginative film from the same writer/director who also brought us Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Like most of Michael Gondry's movies it's an acquired taste. While the film was not warmly received by critics who called it pretentious, incomplete and confusing, I found the film to be a wonderful and unique experience. In a nutshell: The Science of Sleep is a surrealistic concoction of the weird and wonderful, the magical and inspirational, and the infantile and mischievous.

This is Michael Gondry's bizarre imagination at its very finest: awe-inspiring visuals, great concepts and enchanting characters. As Gondry is addressing a scientific mystery of the chemical imaginings of the brain (that is, dreaming) you can definitely expect something vastly distinctive and different.

This deep, provocative film presents the story of a young man who thrives in the dream world, but appears awkwardly dysfunctional in reality. Since childhood, Stéphane Miroux (Bernal) has often been withdrawn from reality both psychically and emotionally. Stéphane has been living in Mexico for years, but is drawn back to his childhood home in France following the death of his father. His mother Christine (Miou-Miou) promises her son a creative job; however Stéphane soon realises that this "creative job" is a mundane career at a calendar-printing company. Stéphane is charmed when he inadvertently meets Stéphanie (Gainsbourg): a girl who has recently moved into his building. Although Stéphanie is initially charmed by the enigmatic Stéphane, she becomes increasingly confused by his childish nature and an unstable connection with reality. As Stéphane is unable to find tranquillity in his newfound love for Stéphanie, he searches for the answer in his dream world.

There's also a fascinating sub-plot concerning the happenings inside Stéphane's head: there's a charismatic host of "Stéphane TV" expounding on "The Science of Sleep" before an assortment of cardboard cameras.

For viewers with an actual imagination, you will find the blurred line between dreaming and reality both fascinating and mesmerising. Director Gondry creatively utilises cinematic techniques to help the audience distinguish reality from the dream sequences. Subsequently, it's an easy task to comprehend the world from Stéphane's complicated, surrealistic point of view. Gondry even uses a smattering of admirable low-tech animation techniques that are a prominent of the dream scenes. I must also mention the creative contraptions featured in the film: from the one-second time machine to the 3D glass, and even cardboard objects that principally feature whenever the surrealistic side of Stéphane has taken control.

This is a beautifully conceived film that uses brutality in its honest portrayal of relationships and friendships. The Science of Sleep can accurately be described as an eloquent dream - each scene is not constructed in a clear linear narrative order: instead the film is structured as a series of moments which are stimulated by the protagonist's perplexed emotions as well as his need to love and be loved.

Gael García Bernal delivers an appealing, lively portrayal of the confused central character. I couldn't fault his performance at any point throughout the movie. He is the one who carried all the dream sequences, and was supported by minor characters. Charlotte Gainsbourg is one of the key characters who rarely appears, surprisingly. But she is a pivotal cog in the machine and is memorable when given screen-time.

The Science of Sleep is highly entertaining viewing. This is a small-time gem directed to perfection by Michael Gondry. The visuals deserve recognition and are essentially faultless. The only marginal flaws lie in the script. It meanders frequently and plods despite some talented filmmaking. However this is insignificant and slightly detracts from the overall film value. Aside from that the film is a beautiful creation imbued with marvellously strange characters and an obvious vivid imagination.

8.25/10

Harold: "I like you, Maude."
Maude: "I like you, Harold."

Harold and Maude is an outstanding black comedy that reminds audiences the reason why films exist. In short, films exist to tell a story: a potent tale of characters who encounter a series of events that unfold during the film's running time. More importantly, films are worthwhile when they actually have a valuable message.

Harold and Maude has a meaningful message about taking advantage of life while you are still on this Earth. It also delivers the poignant message that age is no issue when it comes to relationships. These messages are rife and abundant in the form of this short, cult classic black comedy that is still regarded as one of the best films of all time.

20-year-old Harold Chasen (Cort) is a morbid young man with an affluent background who is obsessed with death - specifically suicide. Ever since Harold was reportedly killed in a chemistry lab accident at school and after subsequently witnessing his mother's priceless reaction, he concluded that it's more interesting to be dead than alive. When Harold is not staging elaborate phony suicide attempts he frequently attends the funerals of people he never knew. His mother (Pickles) attempts to break Harold of this unnatural obsession by sending him to a psychiatrist and hooking him up with young ladies. However this just encourages him to stage more phony suicides. Things look pretty hopeless for Harold...

Enter Maude (Gordon): an elderly 79-year-old woman who is soon going on 80. Maude tries to get Harold out of his shell and persuades him to enjoy life. To do this, Maude includes Harold in her never-ending string of lunatic adventures. Harold and Maude strike up an unusual friendship and as time passes by the fixation that Harold has with death gradually initiates a change into a thirst for life.

It has been several decades since Harold and Maude was initially released. Time has been very kind to this film; instead of its appeal disappearing it actually heightens with each year and each new screening. The film is indescribably charming and appealing. This black comedy will always remain basically unmatched. Interestingly, now that I've seen the film I envy those that have not seen it. I would do anything to travel back in time and watch it for the first time once again. What does this indicate? Quite simply: films containing this appeal and ingenuity are few and far between in this day and age. With Hollywood continuously forgetting the meaning of filmmaking and instead releasing a countless number of movies for money, it's relieving to revisit classics like this from the golden age of Hollywood. Harold and Maude holds up despite its age. In a sense it has a wonderful period flavour: featuring clothes and traditions of the time. Because of all these facts, the film is simply timeless.

Upon first release, critics did not like the performance from Bud Cort. They described him as simply flat. However it seems they have missed the whole point of the character: Harold is morbid, flat and dreary. His macabre nature is captured wonderfully by Cort. Ruth Gordon is best remembered for her Oscar-winning performance in Roman Polanski's 1968 film Rosemary's Baby. In this black comedy, Ruth is absolutely fabulous. She seems warm and friendly. Scenes featuring Bud and Ruth are sizzling. The chemistry between them in particular is insurmountable. Whenever the two actors are exchanging lines there's a gold-mine of witty dialogue brought to life with wonderful performances.

Overall, Harold and Maude is one of history's finest black comedies. Many filmmakers have tried, but the brilliance and originality of this magnificent cult classic remains fundamentally unmatched. The film is brilliant because it's atmospheric, grim and entertaining. Its appeal cannot be accurately described in words. The film is fun and frequently hilarious. Harold's phony suicide attempts are particularly hilarious! I heartily and emphatically recommend this movie!

9.2/10

K.C.: "Well, what do you think?"
Joe Gavilan: "Write this down... Cheeseburger, well done. Raw onion, pickle, ketchup. Nothing else."

What is there to expect from an aging Harrison Ford featuring in a buddy cop action/comedy film? Following the surge of bad reviews Hollywood Homicide was shamefully forced to bear, I certainly didn't expect much even considering talent involved. The trailer did look extremely funny; however the aforementioned negative reviews resulted in my decision to skip the theatrical run and perhaps eventually hire it when it is cheap to do so. It really pains me to say this, but the film is a lot more fun than some critics gave it credit to be. Hollywood Homicide is far from being even considered a great movie, maybe not even a good movie. Be that as it may, there is no denying that the film at least stocks a good supply of laughs and some of the action is lively and energetic.

Hollywood Homicide is equipped with an appallingly stereotypical plotline that we have literally seen hundreds of times before. Its structure and series of events in particular is clichéd beyond all comprehension. It pretty much goes without saying that the plot is the film's biggest downfall.

The incredibly convoluted story concerns a murder investigation. Said investigation is instigated following the murder of an up-and-coming rap group who were performing in a nightclub when violently blasted by masked gunmen. Assigned to take the case is aging LAPD detective Joe Gavilan (Ford) with his young rookie partner K.C. Calden (Hartnett). The two detectives moonlight dual careers: Joe is also a real estate broker who struggles to sell houses when not scrutinising a murder (currently attempting to sell an expensive heavy elephant), while K.C. has tremendous aspirations as an actor (currently working on staging a performance of A Streetcar Named Desire) as well as a yoga teacher to a bevy of young women who are searching for their inner spiritual being. The two cops then delve into the recording industry, thus beginning a tale of modern LA detectives on the Hollywood beat; attempting to juggle two careers that spontaneously take precedence.

So what else happens in amidst this convoluted plot I hear you think? Joe is desperately trying to sort out another real estate deal, K.C. is a busy stud, Joe is under investigation by Internal Affairs and Joe begins dating a radio psychic named Ruby (Olin).

Like I previously stated, the central plot of Hollywood Homicide is barely present. It seems all the sub-plots that endlessly emerge are dreadfully clichéd and only included to stretch out the film's lengthy running time. The pacing is an issue because the film plods - by the one hour mark nothing has really happened that advances the story at all. It takes a while for some of the action to kick in. Thankfully, the two chases present in the film are some of the genre's finest and funniest. I'm happy to report that some of this action does represent a redeeming feature.

Harrison Ford doesn't look very enthusiastic to be present in the cast. Occasionally he does do some embarrassing things that are worth a giggle or two, and some of his lines are very funny; however he does the same role over and over again. Josh Hartnett doesn't get beyond two-dimensional as the rookie detective-come-actor-come-yoga-teacher. Once again there are a few clever lines but nothing else to find here. It's a regrettable fact that most of the funny dialogue moments are spoiled in the trailer. It certainly does have its fair share of laughs. It's just unfortunate that these laughs are few and far between.

Hollywood Homicide is forgettable, and confusingly stuck between comedy, action and crime. The clash of the genres doesn't produce excellent results by any stretch of the imagination. On occasion the film is incredibly silly and stupid while also being funny and entertaining. Writer and director Shelton should have focused on the one genre, and should have made the film taut. Aside from its flaws it's an occasionally entertaining film that I would watch again. Look out for cameos by Eric Idle, Lou Diamond Phillips and many others.

6.0/10

"There's a difference between a failure and a fiasco. A failure is merely the absence of success. Any fool can achieve failure. But a fiasco, a fiasco is a disaster of epic propotions. A fiasco is a folk tale told to other's to make other people feel more alive because it didn't happen to them."

It has been many years since Cameron Crowe accomplished consecutive mind-blowing success when he wrote and directed 1996's Jerry Maguire and 2000's Almost Famous. However, even with such triumph underneath his belt, his next film Vanilla Sky was met with severe panning from critics and audiences alike. After watching Vanilla Sky I ascertained that Crowe's career was gradually heading downhill and after that film I lost all faith in the man. Needless to say, without any qualms I gave Elizabethtown the dismissive cold shoulder upon theatrical release. Now that I've finally seen the film I can confirm that it is about as bad as I had anticipated, and Crowe's career has undoubtedly sunk to an all-time low.

Successful shoe designer Drew Baylor (Bloom) causes a loss of one billion dollars in his company, and is fired for his mistake as well as being dumped by girlfriend Ellen (Biel). In severe depression and on the verge of suicide, Drew then learns about the sudden death of his father Mitchell who was still residing in Elizabethtown, Kentucky when he suffered a fatal heart attack. Drew is given a whole new perspective on life upon arrival in Elizabethtown with the intention of attending his father's memorial. During his flight to Kentucky he meets quick-witted flight attendant Claire Colburn (Dunst) with whom he gradually falls in love. As his father's dying wishes and funeral plans (including a debate between cremation and burial) are sorted out, Drew's romance with Claire possesses the potentiality to get his life back on track.

Elizabethtown has many strengths; including a myriad of extremely cute moments and some bright humour. Crowe has even filled the movie with worthwhile messages about life. Unfortunately these messages about life are ripe and abundant in many other movies...including films that he has done in the past. The humour is unfortunately buried and exceedingly hard to unearth. Why? Rather simply because the film is boring beyond all comprehension! After the first hour I started losing interest. There is no substance past the first hour. If there is any comedy after this point in the film I didn't spot it. At the end of the day it also seemingly goes on forever!

But I digress to another extensive list of negatives that shamefully detract from the film's overall value. At every point in the film, director Crowe keeps making the film increasingly pretentious and unrealistic. The whole thing is clichéd from the opening few scenes. Even every character is stereotyped. The locals of Kentucky are shown as one-dimensional hicks with absolutely no depth. Then there are the gaping plot holes and anomalies. I mean a billion dollars to launch a new shoe? A widow learning tap-dancing, stand-up comedy, organic cooking and DIY repair in a few weeks? I could go on forever.

At least the cast were a marginal redemption of the otherwise bleak movie. I have never been a fan of Orlando Bloom, nor will I ever become one. It seems he has a knack for starring in cheesy romance flicks ever since his initial success in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now he's just doing sappy stuff like Troy, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc. Bloom is at his usual standard here. In this film it sometimes looks like he's acting...now that took a few minutes to sink in. I couldn't believe my eyes!! Dunst is the usual conventional love interest. Her performance is fair. I thought Susan Sarandon was mediocre at best, but her stand-up comedy routine was almost painful.

Overall, Elizabethtown is another weak film from director Cameron Crowe. At the time that this review is being written, Crowe hasn't tackled another project since and he has no plans to. If I ever produced a film like Vanilla Sky, then followed it with this film I would have happily left the film industry.

4.8/10