Exodus (2007)

2/5

Ho-Cheung Pang's Exodus is a bad movie, plain and simple. The whole of events could be retold in a 10-30 minute short. And we would lose nothing but frustration. What was initially an interesting concept quickly turned into boredom, as if the writers were searching for something to happen and found nothing but the banal. A cop interrogates a man caught videotaping women in a bathroom, who claims that there is a syndicate of women plotting the murder of all men. The confession goes missing, but when he re-interrogates the man, his (obviously?) ludicrous story changes after a female cop talked to him. Could it be true?

There seemed to be no point to the movie. It said nothing about male-female interactions, despite the rather rampant possibilities, and nothing new about the human and collective conscious. The dialogue was blunt and meaningless, as far as I could tell. The Engrish subtitles didn't help. There were some good parts, such as the (overlong) intro and the (overlong and unnecessary) finale, especially in terms of cinematography and music. But they felt out of place, bookends by a talented director added in to even out a crappy middle by a terrible director. I could have enjoyed 90 minutes of my life if I had not seen this movie, so be sure to thank me when you end up turning down this crap because of my review.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091616/

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

5/5

When I first saw Eyes Wide Shut, as a capstone to a semester's work analytically examining Stanley Kubrick's entire oeuvre, I thought it was the embodiment of everything he had strived for as a filmmaker. A fantastic, flawless finale to an already exemplary career. This time, however, after forgetting a lot of our classroom discussions of his works, I failed to see the same brilliance I originally found so evident. Not to say it wasn't there, just that it wasn't obvious. Instead, I found a powerful, engaging, ambiguous, intellectual foray into the nature of men and women, the masks and labels we wear, the fears and uncertainties we experience, and our deepest dreams and desires. The depth of thematics, matched with the depth of technical expertise, convince me more now than ever that this movie is deserving of a 5 star rating.

The plot follows Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) and his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman) as a seemingly happily-married couple in the luxurious areas of New York City. After they attend an opulent cocktail party with tantalizing hints of infidelity, Alice reveals a moment of sexual weakness a year prior. Jealous, Bill experiences a number of dream-like events that push him to the limits of sexual infidelity, but never past it. Everyone he interacts with reacts to him as a sexual object, to such an unrealistic level as to appear wholly impossible and fabricated. Is it all in his head? Not only does the film examine the human psyche, but in so doing it analyzes the difference between lust and love and the need for sex in marriage. It additionally tackles the concepts of social standing and money as valuations, identities, and reasons for remorse and guilt. Indeed, there is little this film does not cover.

The one complaint I had with the movie was its slow pacing. Most of the time I found it fluid and natural, but there was one scene in particular that I found unbearably slow. The editing itself was not to blame--the dissolves were used as perfectly as they were in The Godfather and every scene itself was necessary--but rather the delivery of the painfully banal dialogue. The characters talked very deliberately, which is not a bad thing, but it can be a bit much to take in for 2 hours and 45 minutes. The script as a whole is a mixed bag; nothing interesting ever occurred in the dialogue, but the overarching story itself and the introspection it forces us to consider are worth every minute. The acting was phenomenal, managing a lot on the screen from very little on the page. Cruise and Kidman fleshed their characters into complex human beings with subtleties and mistakes we recognize exist outside of the film. The music was an integral part of this movie, as necessary and unforgettable as it was in 2001. The cinematography was just as beautiful as all his previous films, especially his use of repetition and symmetry to match with his thematic exploration.

This film remains poorly criticized as a result of bad marketing, but it is not a film to be missed. Even if you disagree with its message or with its methods, it brings to light issues that should be discussed openly instead of kept in the dark. Maybe not at cocktail parties, but perhaps between partners. And lucky for us, if there's a topic that makes you uncomfortable, there are a million others you can talk about.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120663/

The Reaping (2007)

3/5

The Reaping was a surprisingly effective supernatural horror movie. The plot follows Hilary Swank as an atheistic zealot out to scientifically disprove all miracles. When a small, religious Louisiana town starts being struck down by what they fear are the ten Biblical plagues, David Morrissey asks her to go down and investigate. The plagues keep coming, and she finds herself at a loss to explain every single one. The townspeople don't, however; they blame it on a 12 year old girl who may be the devil incarnate.

The best part about this movie by far is its ending. The epiphany at the end, following by the obligatory final twist, was perfect. It made you rethink the entire movie in new terms, which is exactly what a twist should do. Unfortunately, the way it accomplished this feat was the worst part about the movie. Flashbacks. Terrible, convoluted, nagging flashbacks. In fact, when combined with the ubiquitous dreams and hallucinations, it was pretty difficult to understand what was real and what wasn't. Until the end anyway, and even then some stuff was still quite random and inexplicable. The second best part is the visual experience. Not simply its composition and cinematography, but its stunning, striking, shocking images and concepts that you will forever associate with the film. The second worst part is the acting and the dialogue. Though I actually liked Swank's character and performance, the rest of the cast remained unquestionably two-dimensional and forgettable. (I did like Morrissey's accent, though.) The third best part is the mood. It was frightening, to say the least, as the film effectively utilized both quick scares and unsettling ideas/images. The third worst part was an irrelevant and unnecessary intro detailing just what exactly Swank's job was (although it did have a cool House vibe). After all that, it ends up about even, although I definitely recommend it if you were ever interested in it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444682/

The Mummy (1999)

2/5

I will, for once, start out my review by saying that it is an unfair assessment. I was not paying attention for most of the movie due to a number of distractions, mostly involving volume, exhaustion, and my contact lenses. (For example, I did not realize that the female protagonist was Rachel Weisz until I looked it up on IMDb later to write this very review you are now reading!) However, I remain confident in my reviewing abilities and am fairly certain my star rating is accurate, give or take 0.5 stars (which I don't use anyway).

To get more to the point: The Mummy takes place in the mid 1920's, except for an intro involving an overbearing voice-over narration, a nearly-nude Egyptian woman with a complicated and oft-repeated name, a pharaoh, a high priest, their love triangle, and an ancient curse involving reincarnation, which takes place ~3,500 years earlier. Back to the 1920's, Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, and her onscreen brother go and wake the mummy up from the dead and then eventually send him back to the dead by film's end. The plot really is quite preposterous and predictable (Sameer figured it out 45 minutes in and then left). It reminded me of a mix between Aladdin, Star Wars, The Da Vinci Code, and The Ten Commandments.

I did actually notice a few shots that I thought were fantastic. Typically they were not, however. The editing and music did not do much; in fact, the mood was so dead for most of the movie that the rhythmic humming of a nearby dishwasher made the movie far more tense than it intended to be. I found the acting surprising, for two reasons. 1) Brendan Fraser was not as bad as I thought he'd be and 2) Rachel Weisz was not as good as I thought she'd be. The character I liked the most was Weisz's brother, who was always hilarious. The action itself was alright, although it never really held my attention. Neither did the first hour. Still, it will probably keep you glued to the screen if you find it playing on TV, whether you like it or not. So I guess that counts for something.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120616/

Zeitgeist (2007)

1/5

The biggest crime about Zeitgeist is that it claims to be a documentary when it is nothing but propaganda dreck. I felt like I was watching Triumph of the Will, except bad. It asks us to believe in it with the same blind faith it hopes to dispel. The movie is basically a series of preposterous conspiracy theories with little relationship to each other and little factual basis behind them. It names Jesus as an Egyptian astrotheological allegory, the 9/11 attacks as government-backed, and the Federal Reserve as the principal instigator of the world wars, as well as Vietnam and Iraq (despite previously suggesting it was the US Government). It is about as believable as Wanted or Audition, except it thinks it's real. Imagine if either of those movies were billed as docs, and you have Zeitgeist.

As if its own contradictions and spelling errors weren't enough evidence that this "documentary" was made with little preparation and littler background research, the cheesy Windows Media Player visualizations paired with incessant, inane, boring voice-over monologue should serve as further proof that even the filmmakers care not the least for its subject matter. This easily could have been made in Windows Movie Maker in half an hour with default transitions and effects. While interesting at first, it gradually manipulates you into believing more and more of its absurd theories. It may well be the worst-made movie of all time to appear on IMDb in any way, shape, or form. This is almost as bad as Audition. Seriously.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1166827/

Kung Fu Panda (2008)

4/5

Kung Fu Panda is a delightful animated comedy about a panda (Jack Black) in ancient China who dreams about kung fu but is stuck making noodles for his father. When happenstance names him the Dragon Warrior, he must train with his idols, the Furious Five, under the tutelage of Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) in order to save the town from the recently escaped Tai Lung (Ian McShane). He must fight against his comrades' prejudices and his own insecurity to fulfill his destiny as the Dragon Warrior. Yes, the plot is pretty simple, but it had a very good "believe in yourself, be an individual" message that suburban parents love having their kids hear.

The acting and music were adequate. The real joy of watching this movie was in the wonderfully comic moments and the exquisitely choreographed fights. The animators understood that they were unrestrained by a physical camera and took advantage of that fact to do impossible angles, slow motion, and long takes that enhanced the humor and fun. The compositions and movement within each frame flowed seamlessly with the tight editing. While WALL-E tried to make itself seem filmed, Kung Fu Panda made sure you knew it was animated. For that reason alone, I think I prefer Kung Fu Panda to WALL-E. It may not be as memorable or timeless, but it's certainly a step in the right direction as far as CGI is concerned. If you want solid entertainment, consistent laughs, and a chance to see animation exploring its limits, make sure you check this movie out.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0441773/

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

2/5

The Da Vinci Code is a faithful adaptation of a trashy airplane novel. Sure, it works, but at what level? The plot follows Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou as they try to uncover the mystery surrounding Tautou's grandfather's death in the Louvre. They soon realize that it is part of a far greater mystery involving the Holy Grail, the Priory of Scion, and Opus Dei. For those that care or know little about religion, this movie will surely bore you, as 90% of the time they are solving puzzles relating to ancient Christian cover-ups and lies. For those that hate the French, this movie will surely aggravate you, as 50% of it is in French. But for the rest, you might find it acceptable. After all, Hanks and Tautou are always excellent, and do their best with the somewhat lacking source material. While Howard's directing was expectedly subpar, it did provide some level of entertainment, albeit frustrating at some points.

After Howard and his incessant stylized flashbacks, mediocre cinematography, and terrible editing, the script was easily the next worst part about this movie. The writers were so faithful to the book that they decided to keep in all the bad parts. Novels must be adapted to work on the screen, not simply converted to the proper format. The first main problem is the pacing of the story. The book has about five different endings, which is bad enough in book form, but in movie form it just makes the last half hour drag painfully on and on and on. The second main problem is the atrocious dialogue. The plot elements themselves were quite silly and far-fetched, but interesting nonetheless. Still, I thought I would hate the movie based on all the negative reviews and anecdotal evidence I had heard about it, but I was surprised at how captivating it was. At least, how captivating it was late at night while simultaneously talking to friends online. I wouldn't go out of your way to check this out, but if you were excited about it at one point in your life, it might not hurt to catch it on TV.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/

The Break-Up (2006)

3/5

The Break-Up follows the humorous end of Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston's relationship. One good thing I can say about the movie is that I really had no idea how it was gonna end; it could have gone either way. That's a really rare trait in a romantic comedy these days. (And the wonderfully bittersweet end far exceeded my expectations.) Some of the antics felt really gimmicky. While they were advertised the most, the dialogue was really the focus. My two favorite parts were the arguments and the side characters (Justin Long as an exuberantly gay receptionist, Jon Favreau as Vaughn's friend, and Jason Bateman as their realtor). Oh, I also love movies set in Chicago now.

The acting actually impressed me, although it obviously wasn't Oscar-worthy. The editing was a bit experimental, especially for a studio film, and it didn't always work. The cinematography was pretty mediocre most of the time, although there was a surprisingly slick shot with Vince Vaughn's gawking face blocking Jennifer Aniston's naked body. The music fit, although it wasn't particularly noteworthy. All in all, a decent romantic comedy with some cheesy moments, but a story with heart. If you like romantic comedies, check this one out. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452594/

In Bruges (2008)

4/5

Martin McDonagh's wonderfully-crafted In Bruges centers around hitmen Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson in Bruges following the former's botched first job. Ralph Fiennes plays their foul-mouthed boss, who has to go to Bruges himself when their second job there is botched. He also delivers a phenomenal line after he finds out they failed. The movie is, for the most part, a comedy. There is a bit of action too, and some tension, along with emotion and drama, but to say it is anything other than a comedy is difficult. But it's the great kind of character-driven comedy that delivers a complete appreciation of its inhabitants, their strengths and weaknesses, their steadfast morals and inescapable failures--all while laughing.

Visually, it was a real treat to watch. The cinematography, editing, and music were all exceptional. The plot progressed naturally and switched between moods effortlessly. The writing was exemplary, the acting even better. You truly get a sense of who these people are and miss them at the end. I did, however, find the accents extremely difficult to understand, and we had to turn on subtitles half an hour in. While it destroyed the punchline for a couple jokes, it also revealed quite a few more. While I liked the dialogue, I found the script on the whole a bit simplistic. The ending was a bit predictable and a bit of a let-down for me. It's not that everything was tied up in the end, it's that they added coincidence to tie it up so cleanly. All in all, I had a great time watching it. I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780536/

The Interpreter (2005)

3/5

Sydney Pollack's The Interpreter is a skillfully-made political thriller. The plot follows Nicole Kidman as a translator of African tongues. One night after hours she hears about an assassination threat. The next day she reports it and Sean Penn from the Secret Service is assigned to protect her. The only problem is he doesn't believe her, because she may be closely involved in the situation. I really liked the plot and how it unfolded; the mystery consistently intrigued me while the suspense kept me on my toes. The tense atmosphere is without a doubt the best part about the movie. I could feel my pulse racing through almost the entire second half of the movie. Unfortunately, the pieces relating to the politics were pretty generic, made more worthless by being completely fictitious.

I actually liked the acting, although I found the characters a bit cookie cutter. The writing and dialogue were poor, whereas the cinematography was adequate and the editing was excellent. The music melded perfectly with the editing to create the appropriate energy and excitement. As far as thrillers go, this is top notch. It's just the rest of the stuff that's under par. If you were interested in seeing this when it came out, I don't think you'll be disappointed. But I won't be recommending it to anyone who hasn't heard of it before.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373926/

Bad Boys (1995)

3/5

Michael Bay's Bad Boys tries to be many things and doesn't always succeed. The plot centers around cops Will Smith and Martin Lawrence as they attempt to regain a large amount of stolen heroin while simultaneously protecting Tea Leoni, a witness to a related murder. One part of the story involves a cheesy gimmick wherein Lawrence must pretend he's Smith, but it only serves to confuse the plot and add unfunny attempts at jokes. The dialogue was very poorly written. They attempted realistic back-and-forth arguing as you'd see in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia or Knocked Up. But it wasn't funny. Which just made it annoying. Only about half the action scenes are truly exciting; for the rest, we're just watching stuff happen. As the camera rotates around us. The technical aspects are pretty uninspired and unimpressive. The worst part is that it takes a long time to really get into the meat of the story, the funny jokes, and the thrilling action. You have to put up with half of the movie before you're really rewarded in any way. So, watch it at your own risk. Just don't expect too much out of it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112442/

Rush Hour 3 (2007)

3/5

Brett Ratner's Rush Hour 3 continues in its tried and true tradition of black-Chinese action-comedy. You pretty much know what you're getting into when you start watching this movie. There are no surprises. This time, the team goes to Paris to get to the bottom of a mystery involving the Chinese triad and help prevent the assassination of the Chinese ambassador. Most of the jokes were awful and groan-inducing (they even did a who's on first bit with Chinese men named Yu and Mi). On the other hand, most of the action scenes were truly awesome and extremely well-choreographed. They were exciting, fun, and funny. All of the rest was pretty standard stuff (cinematography, editing, script, acting, etc. were all unimpressive).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293564/

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

2/5

Star Trek: The Motion Picture, produced by Gene Roddenberry and directed by Robert Wise, was made 10 years after the television series was canceled. The plot? When a dangerous and curious life form plots a course straight for Earth, Admiral Kirk retakes command of the Enterprise to investigate and prevent the Earth's demise. While it may hold very special sentimental value for many viewers, I grew up on The Next Generation and have no nostalgic feelings for it. I value it as a movie, and not too highly at that. While there was doubtless acres of history I missed out on, the movie subtly hinted at it without boring those who already knew it. And it was probably just as exciting as the show used to be, but much longer.

The pacing is abysmally slow. Much of the movie seems to give us time to be awed by what we are seeing on the screen, but the dated special effects do not amaze us. In fact, they bore us. (Although I guess it's better than the George Lucas alternative of re-editing the movie with CGI to satisfy our modern sensibilities.) The score is reminiscent of Italian horror films like Deep Red--in a word, atrocious--although it was great to hear the familiar theme music once more. The acting and dialogue were also laughable, as was the costuming. The best part about the movie was the alien life form, more specifically how it raised questions regarding the nature of life. It explored some very intriguing philosophical thematics as it approached its finale. Still, it's not enough to see this movie. If you love the original Star Trek, you will probably love this movie. As for myself, I cannot help but laugh at it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/

The Apartment (1960)

4.9/5

Billy Wilder's The Apartment is pure moviemaking bliss that only he knows how to do. The movie stars Jack Lemmon as a nobody insurance agent who rents out his apartment to his bosses for several hours so they have somewhere to take their mistresses. He finds himself attracted to the elevator girl Shirley MacLaine, who unfortunately finds herself attracted to Lemmon's married boss, Fred MacMurray. Our hearts fill with empathy for Lemmon, seemingly the nicest man on earth, willing to sacrifice everything for others, and with sympathy for MacLaine, trapped by her love to a married man. And we find ourselves believing and trusting MacMurray. Every character is pitch perfect, achingly so.

Being written by Billy Wilder, the dialogue is flawless. While his writing makes every character endearing, it is the actors who make them full and rich and real. They are flawed, but so are we, and we see ourselves in the people on the screen. And we don't want to leave them when the movie ends. While Wilder writes a human story we can all relate to, he shoots it with the utmost precision. The cinematography in this movie is stunning; it is miles above every other romantic comedy I've seen. He lets scenes play out in mid and wide shots. He leaves room to breathe in long takes with dynamic blocking. He keeps the editing to a minimum and paces the film without a wasted second.

All in all, The Apartment is one of the finest romantic comedies ever made. Although not as high on my personal favorites as Roman Holiday and Annie Hall, it definitely beats out Chasing Amy and Knocked Up. They really knew how to make 'em back then. Especially Billy Wilder.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053604/

Cloverfield (2008)

4/5

Cloverfield, produced by the seemingly unstoppable JJ Abrams, is a remarkably thrilling and engaging monster/disaster movie. It kept me on the edge of my seat nearly the entire time. The brilliant marketing campaign (mysterious trailer, viral websites, etc.) created a hype that it was actually able to meet. And I'm sure it will become a cult classic very quickly. I was a bit skeptical, although intrigued, when I first heard that it was to be entirely hand-held POV, but it performed past my expectations. Coming to the movie as a filmmaker, I know how unrealistic much of the POV explanations were. Many shots wouldn't have been edited, wouldn't have been as steady, and wouldn't have even existed (the camera probably would have been left behind a number of times). Still, these sacrifices were made for the sake of the audience and the story, and it was never so bad that I was unable to suspend my disbelief. (Cleaning the blood off the camera lens with his shirt was a bit laughable though.)

The special effects were absolutely phenomenal. I have no idea how they did what they did, but they deserve some serious congratulations. Sound design, editing, and cinematography were all above average. The acting was believable and I felt like I got to know the characters well. The cameraman was a bit too glib given the situation, but his humor went much appreciated by me. The backstories of all the characters, including the monster, were surprisingly fleshed out, considering the relatively simple storyline and short runtime. Beyond these technical aspects is the mood, the atmosphere, the experience of watching it. And I must say, it was exhilarating. There were scenes of pulse-pounding tension (the spider attack) and tender emotions (the phone call with his mother). The movie did not try to explain everything, but it explained enough to satisfy you while simultaneously keeping you curious. There were flaws--the biggest being a rather weak ending--but none that can't be ignored. And none that will ruin the movie. I highly recommend it. JJ Abrams knows how to give the people what they want.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/

John Tucker Must Die (2006)

3/5

John Tucker Must Die is a silly high school comedy for all the girls who aren't actually in high school yet. Its juvenile humor, dialogue, and acting worked for its target audience, but not for me. The plot concerns three high school hotties who all have a "special bond"--not a relationship--with John Tucker, only to realize he's a true player and cares not the least for each of them. They team up with a new kid in school, Kate, to make her into the most sought after prize and have her reject him. The plot gets a little more complex, as she realizes she's falling for him and that he may be worthy of redemption, but she also gets closer to Tucker's brother Scott. I truly found myself on the edge of my seat wondering how it would end. Unfortunately, the ending is lame and unintelligent. A food fight is involved, as well as a reference to an earlier scene, in itself bad, made worse by repetition. Perhaps that was the best ending they could come up with to satisfy as many of its audience members as possible.

There were some really clever gags and practical jokes. And it was always fun to see how John Tucker would spin it so that he came out looking even better than before. It was actually a pretty funny movie throughout. Kyle will attest to me laughing at least 3 times in Google Talk in all caps. (It was late though, and I probably laugh more when it's late.) Still, I had a very good time watching it, until the disappointing ending. If you're forced to see this movie, I don't think you'll claw your eyes out. Hey, you might even be pleasantly surprised. But I wouldn't make any effort to see it.

Note: The only reason I saw this was because I know the screenwriter, Jeff Lowell, and was tricked into seeing his latest film, Over Her Dead Body. I was told that this one was better; it was, but not by much.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455967/

Disturbia (2007)

4/5

DJ Caruso's Disturbia was an exceedingly well-made suspense thriller about a teenager who suspects his neighbor is a serial killer. A remake/modernization of Hitchcock's Rear Window, it must inevitably be compared to its source material. And I'm glad to say that it stands its ground surprisingly well. The basic framework of the movie stays pretty similar, except we are in the suburbs instead of an apartment complex, we have teenagers instead of adults, and our main character is kept immobile through house arrest, not a broken leg. Also, they add a little bit of romance in this version (he's already engaged in the original), which I could've done without, and a lot more tension and excitement, which was a wise choice for its target audience. The last thirty minutes or so were absolutely terrifying (although the logic behind it is a bit shaky). As far as all these differences go, most of them worked really really well.

Much was also kept the same. I'm glad that they had multiple neighbors and multiple side stories. While not as charming as in the original, they were still engaging and entertaining. One thing that made the original so good was the use of first person shots. They continued that technique here, albeit in a more muted fashion. They move exactly as we would move, and show exactly what we want to see. This natural movement helped us get involved in the storytelling. Technically, it was better than a lot of movies, but not exceptional. The acting was on point, the characters believable, and the dynamics between them fleshed out and full. The pacing seemed to be effortless perfection. The cinematography and editing worked well together. The music was sometimes out of place or overbearing, but on the whole it kept the mood nicely. I highly recommend this movie, to those who have seen Rear Window and those who haven't, and to those who just want a truly suspenseful and thrilling movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486822/

The Rock (1996)

4/5

Michael Bay's The Rock is one of the finest action movies made in the 90's. Yes, I know we all love to poopoo Michael Bay, but here he has actually made a movie worth watching. The plot concerns Ed Harris as a former military commander who takes hostages on Alcatrez and threatens the US government with a civilian attack as an act of patriotism. He demands payment to each family who was lied to concerning their relative's death as a black ops agent in Desert Storm. Nicolas Cage plays a dorky chemical weapons expert and Sean Connery plays an ex-SAS agent who is brought in because he was the only man to have escaped Alcatrez alive. They infiltrate Alcatrez and take down Harris in a series of wonderfully exciting action sequences.

I was actually impressed by how technically proficient the movie is. There are some really great shots and camera movements in this movie that added to the action and sense of cool. The rapid-fire editing was effective without being an eyesore, but the music emphasized the mood and atmosphere a bit too much; it could be very overbearing. The acting on the whole was excellent (Harris and Connery were on point, but Cage was a bit overdramatic) and the dialogue was always funny (half the time from good writing and half the time from bad). All in all, a very thrilling action comedy.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/