Movie in a Minute: Rocky Balboa

Another Rocky movie? Are you serious?! YES, I am! Thank you Sylvester Stallone for not leaving it at Rocky V, one of the biggest disappointments in all of filmdom. Written, directed, produced and starring John Rambo, Judge Dredd or whatever stereotypical Stallone action hero you choose. As is very evident in the film, Stallone has aged quite a bit, but still holds his own. Nearly everything about this movie was good. Nearly everything. There were the now cliche lines one would hear from Balboa, but you almost come to expect them. The acting in the film was as good or better than most of the other films (excluding possibly the original). The cinematography made this movie, along with the seemless interspersion of flashbacks from the previous movies. This movie has heart - and a lot of it - which is tough to come by in a film these days. Two things I must mention: 1) The use of black and white with color accents is great and 2) the fight is filmed as if it were a PPV fight (with the exception of the final round, of course) with info boxes and commentary. Awesome job, Sylvester Stallone...just don't make anymore please. Don't judge this movie until you've seen it!
The Cinema Standard Overall Score: 8.3 out of 10
--Reviewed by Brady

Children of Men

Film Title: Children of Men
Year: 2006
MPAA Rating: R
Length: 109 minutes
Film Genre: Action / Drama / Sci-Fi / Thriller
Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Producer(s): Armyan Bernstein, Thomas A. Bliss
Writers(s): Alfonso Cuaron, et. al.
Players:
Clive Owen as Theodore Faron
Claire-Hope Ashitey as Kee
Julianne Moore as Julian Taylor
and Michael Caine as Jasper Palmer
Plot: For reasons unknown, humans have become sterile and to make things worse the youngest person in the world - an eighteen year old - has just died. In the chaotic world of not-too-distant-future England, a refugee girl has turned up pregnant and a few brave people must attempt to get her to scientists who can figure out the "cure" to infertility.
Acting: Children of Men is a good movie and better thespian efforts (along with some plot adjustments) could have made this a great movie. Clive Owen is a great actor, but he cannot hold this one up on his own. Julianne Moore proves, yet again, why she should not be allowed to have any serious roles: uninspired and unconvincing come to mind.
Cinematography: Some blurry camera work makes for headaches, almost literally at points, escpecially during close-ups and zooming shots. Otherwise, the cinematography is good. Minus a few easliy recognisable set-up shots, the filming draws you into the story in a very "real" way.
Visual: Settings were often reminiscent of Orwell's descriptions in 1984 and Equilibrium's Libria: the wealthy in their beautiful Greek and Roman inspired neo-cathedrals and the poor or middle class, as it were, in chaotic slums. Scenes of confrontation with police and government authorities are brutal and graphic, many victims with missing limbs and bloody wounds.
Audio: Sometimes the sound seems to come from places it should not, like in a conversation including several persons. The voices come from every direction, but often from the wrong side. A tad bit confusing (and frustrating) for audiophiles, like the author of this article.
When I watched it last: A few hours ago
What to watch for: A good story (maybe poorly executed at times, but still a very good story), a sometimes-exciting thriller
What to watch out for: Language, Strong Violence, Momentary Nudity, Some Drug Use, Julianne Moore
IMDB Rating: 8.0 out of 10
Roger Ebert Rating: NA
The Cinema Standard Overall Score: 7.1 out of 10; Some may find it entertaining, but not a great movie by most any means, but a decent film nonetheless.
--Reviewed by Brady