Without being a landmark movie, 8 Mile manages to go a little beyond just being a movie that features Eminem and his music and stands as such on its own.

The other star of the movie is Nicholas Hoult, as Marcus, the unadapted kid raised only by his messed-up hippy mother (Toni Collette). Marcus decides that two persons (him and his mother) are not sufficient to look after each other and he decides that Will is a good candidate for the "back-up" position. Will, on the other hand, is just happy with his new discovery - the fact that single mothers make for excellent affairs, and doesn't step back even from lying about having a son, in order to get into the right "circle"...

"About a Boy" is a romantic comedy, but it's not as much about Will finding his love, but it is about a more general realization: that genuinely caring for others is rewarding by itself and will help open the doors for true love and warm relationships. Sure, there are corny scenes in the movie and a number of cliches as well, but in the end they dissolve in a nice, funny (sometimes cynically so) and witty story that can easily warm up the evening of whoever is open to enjoy it.

Watching a movie about how the same movie was created is very Pirandellian in structure but although a bit confusing at times, the film manages to keep the attention of the viewer through witty dialogue and strong satire targeted especially at the Hollywood void promotion of stereotyped, but guaranteed to attract the average public, stories and techniques.

Using a less surreal, but rather a more meditative tone than in Being John Malkovich, Jonze and Kaufman manage to create another refreshing story that lends itself to repeated viewings and discussions about the intended message.

Martha (Martina Geddeck) is a high-class professional chef, obsessed with perfecting her work but, not surprisingly, not as successful in her personal life as her only social contact seems to be her sister. Everything in Martha's life will be completely shaken however as her sister dies in a car accident and she remains in charge of her little niece

The movie moves however at a decent pace and if you can close our eyes to the amazing parade of secret agent movie cliches (honestly, very few are left unused by this movie), one can enjoy a relatively decent action movie. Fans of the genre should go see it in theaters, the rest can probably settle for a rental.

I cannot help but make a comparison between Catch Me If You Can and Blow as they are very similar in overall structure: kid turning on the illegal ways out of the desire to provide for his family; a father figure that is the center pillar of his existence, whose love they have unconditionally and whom they love similarly in return. Christopher Walken is excellent in his portrayal of the father while DiCaprio is credible as the young talented con. Nice movie for a light evening. (Hmm... did anyone else notice how much DiCaprio looks like Matt Damon in this movie?)

The movie continues as the situation between the two evolves into a war, although both characters are tentatively portrayed as good, thoughtful persons, that just happened to meet at the most unfortunate of times and that are pushed by the circumstances into reacting aggressively against each other and doing things they regret... Well... I am being harsh here, but this attempt of building two powerful, multidimensional characters, fails completely for me. Spoilers ahead, so read at your own risk.

The actions that the two take are completely contradictory: Banek doesn't want to forge a new file as his senior partners recommend, but he calls a guy that "takes care of things" to mess with Gipson's credit and bank account to force him to return the file! Gipson, in return, although was almost ready to return the file at some point starts blackmailing Banek on a possible flirt that he has with his secretary and messes with his car almost getting him killed on the highway! These are only a sample of the weird decisions that the two make... In the end however, everything rolls onto the beloved Hollywood end with each of the two realizing their mistakes, taking corrective actions and straightening things in their life, and even helping each other to do so... Sure, the message is nice and valuable, but... give me a break - there are less convoluted ways to convey it.

Perhaps the aspect that defines Chicago best is its cynical depiction of superficiality in early 20th century Chicago society where stars are more readily created through well placed bits of false information but they vanish from public attention as soon as another "hot" story is on the horizon. Roxie Hart (Zellweger), a modest aspiring singer/dancer gets to learn the hard-way how the world works but, helped by her initially repressed vanity, she learns quickly how to become a master at this ellusive game, managing to outshine even her original idol Velma Kelly (Zeta-Jones). And hmm... I wonder why there was no need to "modernize" the script in order to adapt it to the modern days... Maybe because the society (and not only the show-biz part) is lead the same way today as it was back then? :-)

Death to Smoochy attempts to work both as a comedy that kids would enjoy because of all the goofiness involved as well as a absurd satire targeted at the adult audience. Whether it succeeds or not... is up to each individual viewer, as I've seen many that loved this movie and just as many that hated it. For me this was not a love/hate movie. I watched it mainly because of the cast and I enjoyed it a bit more than I expected.

Of the similarly themed action movies of the year, Die Another Day falls clearly behind The Transporter and some might even rank XXX higher because of the relative freshness. I feel that rather than focusing on the gadgets and on the complex twists the writers would pull a more captivating movie if they would center their attention on a strong story.

The premise of the movie sounds rather silly and not particularly original, but The Emperor's New Clothes manages to avoid most of the pitfalls of the premise and deliver, with the help of an excellent performance by Ian Holm, a genuine romantic comedy, that can be easily enjoyed when in the mood for a light movie.

Given this background we are treated to a story whose development and end can be easily predicted and which abunds in unbelievably corny lines, but all is presented with a a style that rivals and even surpasses the best sci-fi action movies. The fight-sequences are impressive and original, Christian Bale is perfect for the role of the normally emotionless cleric John Preston that is torn upon rediscovering his emotional side. In the end I thoroughly enjoyed the movie for its pure entertainment value and some interesting raw ideas that are however not properly exploited by the script.

The movie starts with police agent Doyle (Boothe), officer in charge of a serial killer investigation, being visited at the police station by a suspicious character - Fenton Meeks (McConaughey) who claims that he knows who the killer was and that everything is actually over, since the killer itself is now dead. I don't want to enter into the details of the story because it is very gripping and it's worth enjoying it without any previous knowledge.

I am, however, quite torn in my appreciation of Frailty: as any good thriller, there are certain twists and surprising developments of the story so that we are kept guessing until the very end when, in this case, everything is revealed. In this context I am quite puzzled as to why one of the main twists of the story is not only predictable, but absolutely obvious from the very beginning of the movie?! It's true, as the story starts to unfold. it is quite engrossing, so it is easy to forget the initial hunches. This was not the case for me, and that's why I give a rather modest rating, but I recommend the movie quite strongly nevertheless.

Gangs of New York is well made and very well acted. Daniel Day-Lewis delivers a great performance and equally strong are John C. Reilly and Jim Broadbent in supporting roles. DiCaprio handles well his part as the young boy that saw his father being killed and comes back 16 years later to seek revenge. The final outcome of the story is predictable, and the movie seems a bit too long, but provides a vivid portrayal of those times and an overall valuable history lesson for the masses.

For some this movie is one of the best of the year, for others is among the worst. I will place myself in the middle, because I did like the movie, but without before I see it for a second time, I feel that the movie, despite its ending, lacked somewhat the punch to make it memorable. But then that's how life proceeds most of the time, with muted dramas that pass unnoticed by many until it is too late.

The Guru is a lighthearted romantic comedy, modeled after the Bollywood movie style and offering good unpretentious entertainment.

Adapting the Harry Potter books is an increasingly difficult task, as they become darker and more subtle in their themes from one book to another. Faced with this challenge the Chris Columbus chose to go for a version that counts on the special effects to wow the viewer and to scare them at key points, rather than go for a more subtle, dialogue based approach which would accentuate the deeper aspects of the story. I felt that The Chamber of Secrets was funnier and scarier at the same time than The Sorcerer's Stone but as I saw the movie soon after reading the book, I felt quite a bit disappointed. Still, Kenneth Branagh was perfect as the self-absorbed Gilderoy Lockhart and I am looking forward to the third movie, although the big question mark surrounding the movie is who will replace the departed Richard Harris as Prof. Dumbledore.

The acting by Farrel is good and so is Marcel Iures as the German colonel. However, the hollowness of the script and the absolute lack of originality of the movie, makes viewing "Hart's War" pretty much a waste of time.

However, my initial discomfort doesn't really take anything away from appreciating a well-crafted movie, one of the most intriguing adaptations in recent years. The movie follows Virginia Woolf (Kidman) as she is writing her famous novel Ms. Dalloway while struggling with her mental illness. In parallel we are also seeing the lives of two other women one living in the 50's, the other one in current time which are both influenced or even identify with Dalloway's character. The movie shows a series of moments that define these women's lives and force them to make various decisions. We watch the separate struggles that lead the characters to different decisions, but we feel that there is a more general meaning to what we see. In a sense I think the movie tries to ponder about any woman's attempt to define and discover happiness and meaning in her life.

There are many things that shine and stand out in The Hours, but two things impressed me most: Nicole Kidman reaches another height in her acting career by completely immersing herself in the role and delivering yet another remarkable performance. Philip Glass's score is basically the narrator of the story, tieing together the different timelines, punctuating the inner tumult that the characters go through or the serenity of their more peaceful moments. The Hours is not an easy movie to follow and understand, and perhaps its biggest fault is that it takes us on a journey that's too rich in content to be able to digest on first view.

• We have an annoying little guy that gets in trouble and is saved by a solitary, benevolent big guy. The annoying little guy then continues on to hang with the big guy in spite of his protests and after some adventures together they will end up being best buddies. Remember last year's Shrek anyone???
• Then we have a little kid that gets in the hands of some fury creatures. Instead of eating the infant, the creatures set on a quest to deliver the kid back to its normal habitat. Remember last year's Monster's Inc anyone???

The movie is about a veteran crime investigator (Pacino) that comes to a little Alaskan fishing town (in the original the action took place in a remote Norwegian village) to help the local police solve the case of young girl that was murdered. The investigation is intriguing to begin with, but things will quickly take an even more unexpected turn.

I will refrain from revealing more about the plot, because, while Insomnia relies more on character development than on plot twists alone, the uncertainty and complexity of the situation the main characters get pulled into is an important part of the movie. This is a good remake and a crime thriller that avoids the cheap thrills in favour of more subtle, powerful drama, doubled by excellent acting by the three main protagonists.

From the matchmaking scene in the beginning - where Zaza is introduced to a beautiful teenage potential wife, to the passionate and honest love scene between Zaza and Judith that will probably remain in cinema history as one of the best of the kind for its naturality, to the conflict between Zaza's family and Judith and up to the final resolve of the movie, we are continuously discovering aspects of the society the main characters live in and how different personalities choose to cope with this lifestyle.

The ending of the movie may surprise some, disappoint others or even seem absurd to a few. And it's hard to argue with any of these feelings. However, upon closer inspection, it all makes sense: Zaza is a rebel, but he is not a revolutionary. And even if he was, changing traditions that last for uncounted generations is not a war that can be won overnight.

Clearly recommended.

"Life or Something Like It" is a light movie about Lanie Kerrigan (Jolie), a TV reporter who values her carrier above everything else, but who is forced to abruptly reevaluate her priorities when a "prophet" (Shalhoub) she interviews (a bum that makes prophecies in the streets of Seattle in order to earn a living but who was never wrong in his predictions if you know how to listen to him) tells her that she has only one more week to live.

The movie is clearly not a masterpiece, as one can predict the whole development after only watching the first 20 minutes, but it redeems itself through the quality of the acting by Jolie, Shalhoub and Burns.

If you've seen any preview/trailer of the movie you already know what I just told you above. And you are probably weighing all the factors about this movie and wonder which will have a bigger impact in the end: the fact that the movie is based on a short-story by Philip K. Dick? The potential this gives the movie to become a second Blade Runner maybe? The fact that Steven Spielberg is capable of making such a movie but, at the same time, he might not be able to restrain from adding his usual family feel-good touch to a story that is meant to be rather gritty and gloom? Or how Tom Cruise's presence will affect the outcome by potentially shifting too much the attention on himself, rather than the story?

In my opinion Minority Report manages to be an interesting movie and any science-fiction fan should go and see it. It is not a Blader Runner in my opinion, and all of the doubts mentioned above play a role in my conclusion. Spielberg manages to create the gloomy atmosphere that the movie requires, but he cannot stay away from overuse of cliches both as far as the script goes ("You have a choice!") as well as in terms of visual effects (the symphony-conductor-like interface with the computers, the chase sequence). Still Minority Report is a good movie and if you manage to get "into" the story in the beginning you will enjoy the trip until the end, despite its various flaws.

However, "Monsoon Wedding" is not a deep serious movie, but a romantic comedy (which India excels at producing) that however gives enough of a glimpse in the life of a middle-upper class family that prepares for the (arranged) wedding of their daughter, with enough detail that we can distinguish the personalities of almost a dozen characters.

There are cliches in the movie and the plot is clearly predictable, but Monsoon Wedding does not pretend to avoid any of these. What it does however is present a vivid image of modern India that is fun to watch, with a pace that never slacks and exuding a contaminating spirit. If you're open to this, you will leave the cinema feeling optimistic and possibly even singing :)

Indeed, it is the warm, natural humour and a display of real tender feelings are what made My Big Fat Greek Wedding the unexpected end-of-summer blockbuster of 2002. And while apparently the story is not one that everyone can directly identify with, in reality we are drawn into the Greek universe of an American-Greek family where Toula Portolakos (Vardalos) is a 30 year-old single woman "trapped" in the ever-Greek universe of her family heritage: she went to Greek school as a kid, she works in the Greek family-owned restaurant and their average Chicago neighbourhood house is modeled after the Parthenon, complete with Corinthian columns and guarded by statues of gods. In this Greek world, where all that is expected of her is to marry a Greek man, make Greek children and feed them for as long as she lives, Toula manages to fall in love with... Ian Miller (Corbett) as genuine an American as you can get, with no trace of Greek blood in his origins whatsoever.

What is amazing about My Big Fat Greek Wedding is that it manages to cover an impressive range of nuances in each character's description and it doesn't just poke fun at the sometimes idiosyncratic traditions of the Greek community, but it completes the picture with a sense of complete understanding about the values of family and tradition that ultimately each community upholds in their own ways. Gus (Constantine), Toula's father is the head of the family, that strongly believes that nothing will ever get done if it wasn't for his wise decisions, but is gently manipulated by the strong women of the family Maria (Kazan) - his wife and Voula (Andrea Martin) - his sister.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a movie that will not only stay with you for weeks, but it will make you want to see it again since you can enjoy it with your friends for lots of laughs, with your significant other for the start of a nice romantic evening, with your parents for good family time and even with your parents in law as it's a rare chance to get them to actually like you for an evening :).

One Hour Photo is a thriller done in the classic style that does not rely on cheap tricks and "surprise twists" to maintain the suspense atmosphere. We know from the very beginning that Sy is going to do something rather drastic and it becomes quickly obvious that it is going to involve Will (Michael Vartan) who is less than the perfect husband or father that he is supposed to be, but we don't know exactly what is going to happen and we continue to follow Sy's actions trying to get a glimpse into his reasons and into his obsession until the final scenes play out. Unfortunately, looking back once the movie its over, we are left with a rather uneven and incomplete portrayal of the main characters. Furthermore, we do not really get to care about any of the characters: Sy is a psychopath but we don't hate him, neither do we feel a lot of sympathy for him; Nina (Connie Nielsen) is a good mother, beautiful wife, and we sure like her, but her drama is only present in order to trigger Sy's reaction more than as a story on its own, while Will, the bad husband, is basically the average neglectful husband that considers that bringing money in the house can make up for the lack of affection and actual involvement.

Decent overall movie but you can wait until the video is available for rent.

The decent acting and the nice filming, cannot compensate however, for the extremely insipid script: Mother and daughter buy huge house in Manhattan, which is equipped with a "Panic Room": a surveillance chamber, protected by thick steel walls, and prepared to allow its occupants to hide and call for help in case the house is attacked by burglars. And, big surprise, the house is attacked by burglars, they do get to hide into the room, only that the burglars know about the room. In fact, they want to get to the secret safe that is hidden inside the room. The rest of the movie, especially the second half, reminded me more of "Home Alone" than of any decent thriller. There are no twists to the story and everything you will predict to happen, it will. Including the ending!

I did feel however at various times throughout the movie attempts at sentimental manipulation from the part of the script. While I do believe that the adaptation of Szpilman's autobiography is not romanced, it is possible that the biography itself has a certain tendency of accentuating all the details that contribute to the increased drama and sadness of the story. I don't think this detracts from the value of the message or from the power of the movie, but it did bother me at times during the movie, which is what makes me reluctant to give a better rating...

I enjoyed Red Dragon, although the ending was a bit of a letdown and some things didn't add up for me. I am looking forward to see the original made in 1986, Manhunter, which many consider to be the definitve Hannibal Lecter movie, before Anthony Hopkins brought the character the fame that it has today.

The Ring tells the surreal thriller of a videotape that kills whoever watches it, exactly 7 days later. Journalist Rachel (Naomi Watts) starts following the story and gets drawn into it more than she actually wanted. Naomi Watts manages another solid performance after what I thought was a best actress performance last year in Mulholland Drive. The adaptation doesn't have the same intensity of the original but it did manage to bring this classic thriller to the large public attention. Not recommended for those faint of heart.

The movie follows Sullivan's road to revenge but focuses equally on his growing relation with his son. The mood and atmosphere are very well recreated in an understated fashion. However, my appreciation of the movie ends here, as I was unable to really connect with Sullivan's character. Tom Hanks has a good performance with respect to the father-son relation, but doesn't convince as a gangster, while the slow pace of the movie makes the rather contrived story even less believable. I will give the movie a second viewing, but I was underwhelmed the first time.

Leaving the preconceptions aside however, I think "Scooby Doo" delivers what is expected of it: an episode of classic Scooby adventures with the typical situations and quirks that the fans love, and with well chosen actors as the main characters playing Scooby's friends. As I am not a fan nor a kid, I find it quite difficult to give a fair ranking, but I think that neither fans nor kids will be disappointed. However, I still hope we don't get to see "Donald Duck" or "Tom and Jerry" with real actors in the near future...

Al Pacino plays Viktor Taransky, a non-compromising director who doesn't manage to find his place in the Hollywood money-eager business. When his new project is blocked by the studios, and major stars are no longer interested in working with him, his luck improves as he is given control of a computer program simulating a real actress. The program is extremely advanced but more importantly is capable of further evolving through training and by connecting with databases of existing movies and great acting examples. Taransky turns Simone into the biggest hollywood star of the moment, without anyone realizing she is not a real person.

S1m0ne is a bit too long and it loses focus at times but overall is quite entertaining. Worth renting.

As far as the comic book adaptation goes, the fans have been more than pleased. As I am only a moderate fan, I am not as pleased as they are. Sure, the adaptation is great: true to the comic, trying to pay attention to the changes that come with the development of his powers, creating a good background... But the problem I have is: this is no adaptation! It's a letter-by-letter transposing of the comic book to the screen and that just doesn't work well. Dialogue like "Uh oh! Someone has to stop this bad guy!" looks great in a comic book but sounds quite lame on the big screen...

I wasn't too impressed with the special effects either. At times they looked cool, but sometimes they were too artificial. An entertaining movie overall, but it got out of me and my friends more laughs than the creators intended.

It is difficult to give a short answer, but here goes nothing: AOTC is no "Star Wars" or "The Empire Strikes Back". And quite likely Episode III, won't equal those either. Maybe it's because all of us that comment on the new Star Wars movies now, have seen the other 3 episodes at a time and age when we were easier impressed with the story about the struggle between the two aspects of the Force; maybe because there is no Harrison Ford in these new episodes; or maybe we are wrong and it's for the kids that (will) see the saga in the "correct" order to decide how captivating these first episodes are and then see if they are drawn into the story as much as we were when we first saw Star Wars or The Empire Strikes Back.

Episode II contains a mix of cheesy lines (especially when presenting the romance between senator Amidala (Portman) and young Anakin Skywalker (Christensen)), good battle/action sequences and some of the "magic" of the battle between the dark side of the force and the jedi council. The movie does a good job of showing Anakin's struggle with complying to the Jedi rules, while he feels he is already beyond them and how signs of the dark side gradually start to manifest in him. It also focuses a lot on the political battles within and outside the Republic as the danger of an attack of the dark force increases. Some of the plot elements are not clearly explained and they may look like frustrating omissions at first, but they are probably done so on purpose so repeated viewing will help discovering subtle hints that clarify the story and round it together.

It's easy to argue against Episode II if you are a non-believer. But the good news is that it's not that hard to argue in its favor when you're talking to fans (even casual) of the saga. So... whoever saw some of the previous installments and wasn't interested will definitely not change their mind now. Whoever liked to some degree the previous parts, will probably not be disappointed with AOTC.

Moving from a young successful attorney, to a middle-aged math teacher and his wife; from a young, modest house-cleaner to a middle company manager each character has their own different questions about life and different perspectives that they are forced to reevaluate.

A good, slow movie for whoever enjoys thinking about life in general and is open to accepting different perspectives beyond their own experience.

Jason Statham plays Frank Martin, a high-class "transporter" renowned for his quality services and confidentiality in delivering "packages" without asking any questions. He leads his life and his business by simple rules which he never breaks until... the package turns out to be Lai, a pretty chinese girl whom he doesn't manage to get rid of, after an unsuccessful delivery.

The Transporter is very effective not only through great car-chase and fight sequences, but also through the general performance of the actors and a less pretentious overall feel than other movies of the genre (XXX for example).

Thus being said, The Two Towers is an epic movie of even grander proportions than The Fellowship of the Ring. The battle of Helm Deep is possibly the most epic battle presented on screen, while Gollum is without a doubt the best CGI character to appear in a movie.

I am anxiously waiting for the 3rd installment which I hope would be the best one in the trilogy and I can't wait to watch the three extended versions back to back on DVD. The wait has begun.

Connie Summer (Lane) accidentally meets Paul Martel (Martinez), a young handsome French book collector, and starts cheating on his husband (Gere) falling prey to a powerful attraction. The affair continues and the husband will soon realize that something is wrong. However, the movie doesn't quite turn into a yell-and-scream or slasher drama, but rather tries to explore the internal struggles of each of the Summers.

In the end, Unfaithful is nowhere near being a masterpiece, it is quite predictable and it's not likely to cause any revelations to the viewers watching it (unless maybe they are in the same situation as the protagonists). However, it is a rather intelligent movie, which can be worth seeing in front of the TV...

...And I can say that I'm happy I did! We were soldiers is not a masterpiece. Mel Gibson, as expected, stands without flinching in the middle of enemy fire that kills everyone around him, and never gets a bruise. Nor is he in the least worried about the possibility. There are the standard tear-jerker scenes of Col. Moore (Mel Gibson) with his family (praying with his children, etc.). But beyond these standard issues, the movie manages indeed to be different. It does try to throw a shadow of doubt over the appropriateness of the American intervention in Vietnam. It does show that the viet soldiers were also men, with family and wives just like the American young soldiers were. It does show a battle of wits between to leading officers on the two sides of the front, not just good American strategy against a horde of savages. It does show people in doubt, realizing that there is no winner in that war, and it does show people that don't have a clue about what's going on, spreading the news about the great victories... It shows that the actual soldiers did not fight for the triumph of democracy, for the power of America, but that they mostly fought to survive.

It is a movie worth seeing for all these messages. It is worth seeing even only for the scene towards the end where the young reporter that was in the frontline throughout the whole battle, is surrounded by the pack of reporters that arrive after the dust has settled and bombarded by a set of, what he now realizes are, idiotic questions. And he looks at them photographing the "realism", the "poetry" and the "patriotism" of this war that they don't know anything about, that they do not understand, but that they will retell to the rest of the nation that knows even less, back home.

Vin Diesel manages to be quite natural in his role and has a certain rough charisma that is absolutely necessary for this kind of role while Samuel L. Jackson is always bound to be noticed in any role he plays. However, if you are going to see this movie expecting good acting or intelligent plot you must be thoroughly confused. If you expect fast-paced action scenes and completely over the top stunts "glued" together by dialogue consisting mostly of one liners and hope for the occasional unintentional laughter, then this is the right movie.