2.35:1 Widescreen

I'm sure we all remember when it was rumored that Brett Ratner was going to direct Superman Returns and Bryan Singer was going to direct the third X-Men film. Well we all know how that one turned out. Ratner made a decent film while Singer made a better film but not without it�s own faults.Superman Returns takes place roughly five years after the events of Superman II. Superman aka Clark Kent (portrayed by Brandon Routh) has left on a journey back to his home planet of Krypton. Upon returning, Superman notices everything is different. Most important to him is that Lois Lane (portrayed by Kate Bosworth) is married (and worse off has a child). Superman learns that Lois was kind of pissed that he suddenly zoomed off without saying goodbye to her and everyone else. In fact she was so angered by his sudden departure that she wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning article on �Why the World Doesn�t Need Superman� (something that obviously hurts Clark).

Superman�s arch enemy, Lex Luthor (this time portrayed with little to no emotion by Kevin Spacey) is out of jail (yes like a common sense world would release a super criminal like Luthor out just because Superman couldn�t testify) and is ready to create more havoc. This time Luthor intends to use a few kryptonite crystals to make cities right in the middle of the ocean. And what is Luthor�s goal in this? Why to make money of course (imagine the cost he asks). Doesn�t Luthor have enough money?

Invincible (2006) marks the latest in a string of sports-underdog films from Disney, following such hits as 2002's The Rookie and 2004's Miracle. This time, we have a film inspired by the real-life Cinderella story of Philadelphia Eagles' alumnus Vince Papale.

Papale's story is so similar to that of fictional Philadelphia son, Rocky Balboa, that calling Invincible a remake of Sylvester Stallone's Rocky isn't much of a stretch. But then, the sports long-shot genre is tried and true, so as far as my enjoyment goes, I have few issues with this film's formulaic plot.

Halfway through The Celestine Prophecy, I was exasperated and ready to turn it off. If I hadn't been watching it for this review, I would have, and would have been better for it.

When this DVD came across my plate, my interest was piqued. I'd never heard of the film, or the worldwide bestselling book it's based on, and the cover quote said, "...a huge leap forward in spiritual adventure films." My first thoughts were, "if it's based on a bestseller, maybe it has a great script" and "hey, I didn't even know there was a spiritual adventure genre".

Adapted from the hit stage musical, Norman Jewison's film version of Fiddler on the Roof has established itself as a classic over and over again since its release in 1971.

"He loves her. Love, it's a new style... On the other hand, our old ways were once new, weren't they?" I'll hardly be the first to write it, but the reason Fiddler on the Roof, a story about Jewish people and their culture, is so popular, is that its themes have universal appeal. In fact, in a way it hardly matters th...t the characters are Jewish. As we learn from a famous anecdote, when the first Japanese production of the stage musical opened, the show's creators traveled to Japan to meet the producer. He said to them, "I don't understand, I don't know how this piece can work so well in New York. It's so Japanese!"

Honestly, was anyone really surprised when Universal announced a sequel to the ultra successful (and ultra-good) film The Mummy? The easiest comparison one can make is that Universal was trying to create their Indiana Jones series ala Fox. Even though neither Mummy film will EVER approach the quality of any of the Indiana Jones films (even the weakest Temple of Doom), The Mummy films, especially The Mummy Returns, are damn fun to watch.

Rick O�Connell (Brendan Fraser) and Evie (Rachel Weisz) are a happily married adventure seeking couple. Having just returned from another treasure hunting trip (this time looking for the bracelet of Anubis). We zip to another scene where we learn that Anuksunamun is trying to bring her old love Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) back to life. The only big problem is that this particular year, 1933, happens to be the year of the Scorpion (a little back-story is that The Scorpion King sacrificed his soul to the god Anubis in exchange for victory over his enemies). If someone gets a hold of this bracelet and puts it on, The Scorpion King will rise in seven days (which is exactly what Imhotep and company want as they hope to steal The Scorpion King�s power). Well imagine what exactly happens and you have a pretty solid (if loop-holed) film.

Let me tell you something about myself. I am surrounded by hundreds, sometimes thousands, of snakes every day. As I write this review, there are about 500 snakes just a couple hundred feet away. I'm not on a plane, of course, but snakes are a big part of my life. I'm a snake breeder. I'm also a musician who has just released an entire CD of reptile tracks (see footnote). So it was with more than the little bit of curiosity that I just had to see this film. I knew everybody would be asking me what I thought. So what did I think? This film is a hell of a lot of fun. I've long since learned to forgive the use of common non-venomous species to play these nasties on screen. These are actors, for crying out loud. And at least Samuel L. Jackson's worth a ton of jack, so it really wouldn't be a great idea to place him in a confined space with a pack of cobras or mambas. At least they made some effort to mimic the deadly kinds. I had a little bit of fun trying to see how many species I could identify. Then the game becomes how many of them do I own. Quite a few, as it turns out.

Snakes On A Plane rocks. If you didn't catch this when it was out, you must at least rent it now. What I love most about this film has almost nothing to do with the snakes. This film pretty much puts it out there. As Jackson is fond of saying, you just know exactly what you're going to get with the title. There were efforts to tone down the gore and silliness, but Jackson wanted nothing to do with any of that. And so the film is a romp, but it never told you it would be anything more. The same can be said of Jackson himself. When you go to one of his movies, unless George Lucas has anything to do with it, you pretty much know what a screen full of Sam Jackson's gonna be. The supporting cast is your obvious planeload of stereotypes, but again, this is all what you paid your admission to see. There will be F Bombs littered across the dialogue. His in your face persona will make or break the film, not anything in the script. Lots of guys curse, but Jackson makes the language his own. I often complain in these pages about the use of vulgarity for vulgarity's sake ruining an otherwise nice film. Here I don't think there was enough. I first saw the film in a theater and when Jackson delivered his battle cry, the room exploded. Honestly, isn't that what we all came to see? Snakes? What snakes? Oh, those MF snakes. Got it.

Written by Jason Smilovic, Lucky Number Slevin is an adaptation from the 1961 Japanesse film Yojimbo. Maybe a more referable title, 1964�s A Fistful of Dollars with Clint Eastwood which was also based on Yojimbo, or even another film starring Bruce Willis, Last Man Standing. Basically Lucky Number Slevin keeps the main plot elements, a protagonist playing off both sides of a gang rivalry, but retells the story in modern times along with a handful of notable actors. Among them...include; Bruce Willis, Lucy Liu, Stanley Tucci, Josh Hartnett, Morgan Freeman, and Ben Kingsley. I think it goes without saying that its rare that an action movie disappoints when its headlined by Bruce Willis, not to mention the ensemble of other great actors its backed by, so how does Lucky Number Slevin end up?

The film opens up in an undetermined airport terminal where an old man in a wheel chair referring to himself as Smith (Bruce Willis) tells the story of a fix on a horse race back in 1979 leading to the deaths of an entire family. The sole listener of the story is enthralled, thus becoming distracted at which point Smith stands up and snaps his neck, killing him instantly. At this point in the movie this has no relevance to the audience, other than introducing Bruce Willis� character, the world famous assassin Mr. Goodkat.

While this is not a film that has specific comedic elements, James Garner seems to be the perfect choice to play this role. Up until this point in his career, almost every role that Garner had fulfilled on the big screen had been that of a soldier. Now, halfway through his TV stint as Maverick, he returns to the silver screen to bank on his new popularity as the star of a unique war film.

When I come across movies like this one, I think of films like Behind Enemy Lines and Spy Games; ente...taining and slightly above average films that will sadly not be remembered as time marches on. The fact is, only the best of the best films stand the test of time, while there are plenty of perfectly entertaining, well made films that just fade away from our collective consciousness.

After seeing Casino Royale it's hard to look at a Bond film the same way, and when Roger Moore inhabited the guy who likes martinis, fast cars and dangerous situations, it may have been a little cheesy. Granted, Moore did appear in a couple of notable Bond misses, but in the tenth release of the James Bond franchise, The Spy Who Loved Me stands as one of his best, if not the best Moore film.

From a screenplay by Richard Maibaum (his 7th Bond film) and Christopher Wood (his first) and directed by Lewis Gilbert (his 2nd Bond film), this new situation finds James at first in Austria, being chased by assassins, with everyone on skis. The end of the chase, whether you like it or not, is one of the better (maybe the best) in Bond film history. Once he gets settled, he is sent to find out why nuclear submarines are going missing. Complicating things is that James has to work with a Russian agent, a striking female named Major Anya Amasova (Barbara Bach, Caveman). Together, they find out the cause of the disappearances, a reclusive businessman named Stromberg (Curt Jurgens, The Longest Day, The Enemy Below) and his henchman, the ginormous guy with metal teeth, lovingly nicknamed Jaws (Richard Kiel, The Longest Yard).

Some of you might know the book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream, then others of you might known the movie simply called Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but one way or another you know about the crazy days Hunter S. Thompson had in Vegas. Hunter Thompson along with his buddy Oscar Zeta Acosta are the credited creators of Gonzo Journalism (Journalism with indistinct lines between fact and fiction), so the book and movie are partially based on their accounts, except replace Thompson with Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp) and Acosta with Dr. Gonzo (Benicio del Toro). The movie is very similar to the book, and Thompson had a large role in the production of the film, even lending Depp clothes and accessories for authenticity.

Raoul Duke and lawyer buddy Dr. Gonzo are sent to Las Vegas to cover a motorcycle race for a magazine, to prepare for the trip the two have come armed with two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole multi colored collection of uppers, downers, laughers, screamers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls. It goes without saying that the rest of the movie consists of these two and there adventures around Las Vegas while taking copious amounts of narcotics, and I can assure there is very minimal journalism done.