The Official Fletch Film Rating Scale

All the homework has been finished, the polls have closed, the votes tallied. Here is the revolutionary Fletch Film Rating Scale (patent pending):


"You're the best...around!"
Awarded to: The Best of the Best, Most Outstanding films.





"It's in the hole!"
Awarded to: Excellent films





"Darn tootin'!"
Awarded to: Very Good films





"You seem a decent fellow, I hate to kill you"
Awarded to: Good films




"Whatever."
Awarded to: Fair films





"I want you punch me as hard as you can."
Awarded to: Painful films




"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"
Awarded to: The Worst of the Worst, Most Epically Bad films.


To avoid confusion, this legend will soon be posted along the side of the page. Accompanying any review will be a smaller version of the rating icon, along with the quote. At some point, I will probably go back and retroactively rate my prior reviews.

I only wish this was as fun for you as it was for me. Being a geek entitles you to cheap thrills every now and then, I suppose...

And then...

Thinking of Oscar...a day late.

* Really, I’m glad that Alan Arkin was honored. The guy cracks me up usually just on sight alone. That said, he had no business winning Best Supporting Actor. And yes, I’m still upset that Adam Beach did not even get nominated. What a joke there.

* I still haven’t figured out what the purpose of the Cirque du Soleil-type “figure shapers” were. They shape-shifted into things from various movies, but what the common thread between those films were, I still have no idea. The Devil Wears Prada and…Casino Royale???

* Likewise, I’m not sure what the point was of the Will Ferrell/Jack Black/John C. Reilly song number, but I’m glad as hell that it was there, because it was probably the funniest thing of the night (next to Jack Nicholson’s shaved head, of course).

* Speaking of Jack Nicholson’s shaved head, Jack Nicholson had a shaved head. Wasn’t sure if you had heard that or not. (It was a bit surreal.)

* Gossip hounds J-Lo, Benaflek, and Tom Cruise were all presenters at one point or another during the telecast. Mysteriously absent? Crossroads star Britney Spears, though word is that she was getting the 411 on Nicholson’s haristylist. (Thank you! Thank you! That was this week’s “Bad Bald Britney Joke of the Week!”, brought to you by Head & Shoulders Shampoo. Thanks – you’ve been great!)

* The Chris Connelly “start filming while standing next to the “paparrazi,” then walk out to the Oscars china cabinet and stop” bits were the worst segues I had seen at the Academy Awards since the “Peter Coyote at the MC desk” they had a few years back. Just embarrassing – and I even like Connelly, on occasion.

* Is that George Clooney? Wow, he must be seeing Nichole Richie’s dietician! (Yes, that’s the limit on my bad jokes. I hope.)

* Though overall she would get a solid B+ from me, Ellen DeGeneres was the most MIA host I’ve ever (not) seen at the Oscars. Odd considering how hard she kept saying it was. Show up more - it’s probably even harder then!

* Where was her brother (and former Daily Show commentator) Vance? I miss that guy. (Along with Brian Unger, Beth Littleford, Craig Kilborn and all of the other “former Daily Show” employees whose careers apparently end when they leave the show.

* Pan’s Labyrinth was robbed. Granted, I have not yet seen The Lives of Others, but I’m pretty sure I’m right on this one.

* Good for Marty. Though 2006 will probably go down as a weak year for films (in general – see previous posts about this topic), The Departed deserved to win amidst the competition it was up against. Though I’m still not sure why Mark Wahlberg was nominated. Bizarre. I guess that’s Hollywood.

And then...

This film is rated...X?

I don't like my film rating system.

In theory, I like the idea of an "out of 100" scale much more than any "star" or even letter grade system. Why? It's familiar - we all went to school and are all wildly familiar with the structure. I'm also a bit of a "numbers guy," so it just makes the most sense to me. Besides, everyone uses the star or letter method, so I wanted to do something a little different.

The big problem, however, is that it's not very practical. Or maybe it's that it's practically boring. Either way, it's bad. Let me explain.

I love to go to the movies. A lot. My wife and I go (on average) at least 5 times a month, assuming there are enough halfway decent films to see. We're diverse - we'll see The Last King of Scotland or The Queen one night, and Arthur and the Invisibles or even Epic Movie the next (okay, so that one was a mistake...). On the whole, however, they are all "well produced", "Hollywood" films (or high profile foreign films like Volver).

The point is, they're not crap (usually). They are not student films or Michael Bay movies. There's a good chance that before entering the theater, the film will already place above a 60 score, if not higher. Put together good production values, decent acting, good music, mediocre writing and a halfway competent director and you're already halfway towards a "good", ** film.

That's where the math gets screwed up. If virtually every movie scores a 60 or above, what's the point of the first 59 points? Sure, I'll give an angry 7 to Epic Movie or even a deserved 43 to Eragon, but those are few and far between, and probably not realistic anyway.

I realize I'm putting way too much thought into this. But isn't that the point? I guess I just want to let you know that a) I'm aware of this problem and b) I'm trying to think of a better, simpler, more meaningful scale (I'm leaning towards the "phrase" method, where a great movie would be rated something like "Caddyshack" where a terrible movie would be rated "Vegas Vacation," to use Chevy Chase as a model. In fact, that idea might have legs...).

By the way, if you have any ideas, feel free to share. Muchas gracias.

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Breach

In the Hall of Fame set aside for character actors, Chris Cooper etched himself out his own wing a long time ago, with great performances in everything from Adaptation to American Beauty to A Time to Kill. Likewise, in the Hall of Fame for grumpy looking pusses, Cooper is a first-ballot entrant. Cooper's talents (and sourpuss) are on full display in Breach, the latest in a long line of D.C.-based espionage thrillers. In this "based on a true story" film about the "greatest security breach in U.S. history," Cooper plays Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent who sold secrets to the Russians (and others) for much of his 25-year career.

Cooper shines - all the more difficult in a film where he's allowed few emotions. He plays Hanssen as a bitter office worker (and proud patriot) who has sold his secrets (and his soul) all for the greater good of Uncle Sam's security policies. Having seen firsthand the fallacies of the internal security workings of the FBI, Hanssen sets out to prove the many ways that the bureau and country would benefit had they listened to him more.

The man who plays a large part in his takedown is Eric O'Neill, played solidly by Ryan Phillippe, who is proving to be a much better actor than I would have anticipated a decade ago (Cruel Intentions and I Know What You Did Last Summer come to mind...), and who has shown great judgement in picking his projects (recent releases include Flags of Our Fathers and Crash). Rounding out the superior cast is Laura Linney, Dennis Haysbert, Kathleen Quinlan, Bruce Davison and Gary Cole.

Redemption for bad early career choices (or bad work, I suppose) is also in the cards for director Billy Ray. Ray's early resume includes writing credits for the doomed Bruce Willis soft-core film Color of Night and that other lava flick Volcano. However, 2003 brought on his directorial debut, Shattered Glass, another story of lying liars and the people who bring them down. Glass was another true story, based on the fabrication journalist Stephen Glass, a writer for The New Republic. Though you'd never think it, the story of a failed writer and the editor who exposed him was one of the best and most interesting films of 2003, featuring a career-best performance by Anakin Skywalker himself, Hayden Christiansen (as Glass).

Though Breach inevitably suffers from it's "spy movie" familiarity, Ray brings the same intensity to the table, all the while eschewing the standard "thriller" cliches and crutches (there's nary a gun to be seen). Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the marketing - if you didn't know better, you'd think the film was made up of chase scenes, following, wiretapping, etc. Don't let it fool you.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Darn tootin'"

And then...

Fill-in-the-blank-sploitation?

For the life of me, I can't figure out who is being exploited these days. Long gone are the days of blaxploitation or sexploitation films, and though there may be elements of those in the new films Black Snake Moan and Grindhouse, those labels just can't possibly apply to this new breed.

Robert Rodriguez, co-director (in a manner of speaking) of Grindhouse has been heading down these tracks for some time now. From Dusk Till Dawn and Sin City shared some elements of those films of old, and he and Quentin Tarantino have decided to go all the way with Grindhouse. The plot summary listed on IMDb.com is as follows:

"An homage to exploitation B-movie thrillers that combines two feature-length segments into one double-bill designed to replicate the grind house theatergoing experience of the 70s and 80s. In "Death Proof," a psycho named Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) stalks and kills beautiful women with his car. In "Planet Terror," a small-town sheriffs' department has to deal with an outbreak of murderous, infected people called "sickos." A gun-legged woman named Cherry (Rose McGowan) and her martial arts-wielding partner (Freddy Rodriguez) take on the zombie army. The two films will be fused together by fake movie trailers."

Meanwhile, Craig Brewer, director of the Memphis-based pimp saga Hustle & Flow, has Black Snake Moan coming out soon. Moan is described as such:

"A God-fearing bluesman (Samuel L. Jackson) takes to a wild young woman (Christina Ricci) who, as a victim of childhood sexual abuse, looks everywhere for love, never quite finding it."

I can't say that I'm on board with either. In fact, they sound like trainwrecks whose only redeeming qualities may be how laughably bad they are. With Grindhouse, I can at least understand (kind of) what Tarantino and Rodriguez are shooting for (the post-modern exploitation film, complete with self-aware "badness"). Moan, however, appears to take itself quite seriously, which doesn't bode well for it. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that, despite Terrence Howard's strong performance, I found Hustle & Flow to be wildly overhyped, cliched, predictable, you name it. The in-your-face, over-the-top Memphis accent employed by Howard didn't help matters. Know what I'm saying, main?)

The larger issue at hand here is what I find to be wasted talent. Tarantino, Rodriguez and Brewer are all very talented filmmakers - why are they making B-movies, much less on purpose? Remember, the exploitation films of the past were typically made out of necessity and/or carved out for an audience that was underserved. Somehow, I get the feeling that that's not the case here. It is possible, after all, to make pulp films that have a point and resonate with their audiences - Tarantino and Rodriguez have done this many times, as writer, director, or both. Why not (even attempt to) do that again?

And then...

I was wrong and America was right (apparently)

Despite my best anti-Nic Cage marketing efforts, Ghost Rider was the number one film in America this weekend, destroying all comers, en route to a $44.5 MILLION DOLLAR OPENING WEEK haul.

What am I missing here, people? Nicolas Cage? Ghost Rider?!? Are you that desperate to see a movie?

Look, I understand that February is the morgue of all movie months, but this is ridiculous. Breach, which I'm guessing is probably the best movie released this week, came in at number six, with less than $11 million.

I'm just wondering - did no one else see the warning signs from the Ghost Rider trailer?

1. The presence of Peter Fonda selling his soul in a role that looks to be him playing the devil, ironically buying the soul of Cage's character.
2. God love him, but Sam Elliott playing himself yet again.
   
3. Nic Cage, age 43, dressing up as a dirtbike stunt rider at some point in the film.
4. Nic Cage, period.
   
5. Mark Steven Johnson, writer-director of Daredevil, and writer of Elektra, and Jack Frost.
6. The awful special effects.
7. The punny bad jokes.

I can't go on - I give up. Enjoy Wild Hogs, you bastards.

Link

And then...

One from the Video Vault: X:Men - The Last Stand

What's more surprising - that the third X:Men movie is (arguably) the strongest, or that said movie was directed by Rush Hour helmer and otherwise hack Brett Ratner?

I'm going to go with the latter, and your welcome, Brett, for the backhanded compliment.

All jokes aside, I was truly shocked when I saw X:Men: The Last Stand in the theater. While the first in the series is very good, and the second not far behind, it was hard to expect much from the third, especially considering the aforementioned Ratner attached to direct. Maybe it was lowered expectations, but I walked out of the theater believing that this third installment was superior to the first two. Shocking, indeed.

Out on DVD for some time now and sitting amongst the Fletch Film Library for a few months, it was time to watch it again. I'm glad to say that it didn't disappoint on this repeat viewing, though I'm a bit unsure of its ranking in regards to the first installment (it's close regardless).

The story line follows the path laid out by the first two films (humans are afraid of mutants, everyone is unsure of where to go from there). The twist here is that a mutant (a teenaged boy) turns out to be the golden egg that the normal folk have been looking for all along. His mutation? He "cures" all mutants who come into close proximity with him. Naturally, an anti-mutant activist brings science into the mix and, long story short, proceeds to produce a flu shot-type cure for all mutants. Chaos ensues.

Unfortunately, the story line also becomes muddied by the Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix tangent. Though Jean may be a larger character in the comics (and though most comics or comic-based films would benefit from having more females in the picture), the picture suffers as a result. Sure, it's nice to have a love interest for the de-facto star of the trilogy, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) - but not at the expense of the overall story. The character has almost nothing to do with the rest of the movie and would have been better without her (as would some other characters involved...).

84 out of 100

(By the way, in case I don't review the first two anytime soon - which is likely - I would probably give the first film an 83 and the second a 78. Though never a GREAT series, the X:Men films didn't disappoint many fans, either, and that's worth something.)

And then...

Fletch's Video Miniview: SherryBaby

Do you have (or are you) a black sheep in your immediate or extended family? If so, has this person had problems with drugs and/or alcohol? If so, does this person have any children?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then SherryBaby will seem awfully familiar to you (and/or them). The plot is pretty straightforward: Sherry (Maggie Gyllenhaal) has just been released from prison. We catch up with her as she's on her way to a halfway house. She's in good spirits and is attempting to reboot her life. Sherry has a young daughter who's being raised by her brother and his wife (and raised well), but she wants nothing more to get back on her feet and get her daughter in her life. It won't be easy.

Along with the normal problems that any parolee may face, Sherry has a few other things on her plate. She's a recovering drug addict, and she's got some bad history within her family. Getting a job isn't easy, either, and the depths she goes to in order to do the work she wants (with children) are hard to watch.

Though SherryBaby could have easily become a Lifetime Movie of the Week, it rises above that status, mostly due to Gyllenhaal's performance. It's cliched, but she gives a raw, bare naked performance, shedding any inhibitions for herself and her character along the way (read into that what you will). She also likes to wear yellow tank tops.

Also featured in the film is Danny Trejo (From Dusk Till Dawn, Desperado, Con Air), and it's nice to see him not playing a gangster of some sort for once. Though he does play a recovering addict as well, he shows a softer side I've not seen from him before. I'd like to see more serious roles from him in the future.

Though not great, the SherryBaby is worth a look on video, for no other reason than for Gyllenhaal's performance. There aren't many surprises to this modest film, but if your expectations are low, you'll come away pleasantly surprised.

74 out of 100

And then...

Give me the envelope already!

The Academy Awards are in 10 days. Here are my Shoulds and Wills for the major categories:

Best Motion Picture of the Year
* Babel
* The Departed
* Letters from Iwo Jima
* Little Miss Sunshine
* The Queen

Should: The Departed
Will: The Departed

Achievement in Directing
* Clint Eastwood for Letters from Iwo Jima
* Stephen Frears for The Queen
* Alejandro González Iñárritu for Babel
* Paul Greengrass for United 93
* Martin Scorsese for The Departed

Should: Clint Eastwood
Will: Martin Scorcese

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
* Leonardo DiCaprio for Blood Diamond
* Ryan Gosling for Half Nelson
* Peter O'Toole for Venus
* Will Smith for The Pursuit of Happyness
* Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland

Should: Forest Whitaker
Will: Forest Whitaker

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
* Penélope Cruz for Volver
* Judi Dench for Notes on a Scandal
* Helen Mirren for The Queen
* Meryl Streep for The Devil Wears Prada
* Kate Winslet for Little Children

Should: Helen Mirren
Will: Helen Mirren

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
* Alan Arkin for Little Miss Sunshine
* Jackie Earle Haley for Little Children
* Djimon Hounsou for Blood Diamond
* Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls
* Mark Wahlberg for The Departed

Should: Jackie Earle Haley
Will: Eddie Murphy

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
* Adriana Barraza for Babel
* Cate Blanchett for Notes on a Scandal
* Abigail Breslin for Little Miss Sunshine
* Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls
* Rinko Kikuchi for Babel

Should: Rinko Kikuchi
Will: Jennifer Hudson

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
* Cars
* Happy Feet
* Monster House

Should: Cars
Will: Cars

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
* After the Wedding - Denmark (Susanne Bier)
* Days of Glory (Indigènes) - Algeria (Rachid Bouchareb)
* The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen) - Germany (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck)
* Pan's Labyrinth - Mexico (Guillermo Del Toro)
* Water - Canada (Deepa Mehta)

Should: Pan's Labyrinth
Will: Pan's Labyrinth

Adapted Screenplay
* Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
* Children of Men
* The Departed
* Little Children
* Notes on a Scandal

Should: Children of Men
Will: The Departed

Original Screenplay
* Babel
* Letters from Iwo Jima
* Little Miss Sunshine
* Pan's Labyrinth
* The Queen

Should: Little Miss Sunshine
Will: Babel

And then...

Build 'em up...Tear 'em down.

It wasn't that long ago that the world was in love with John Travolta and Nicolas Cage. Just 13 years ago, we collectively decided to let Travolta back into our hearts and homes with his portrayal of Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction. And it was a good decision - he was deserving of our praise and of his so-called "second chance" or "comeback" or whatever you want to call it. The next movie he made after Pulp, the terrific Elmore Leonard adaptation Get Shorty (White Man's Burden was his first film released after Pulp Fiction, but if I recall correctly, if was made before Pulp really hit it big) was somewhat of a perfect storm as well. Director Barry Sonnenfeld was at the top of his game (just before Men in Black), as was costar Rene Russo, and it even featured a then-mostly-unknown actor named James Gandolfini.

Unfortunately, it's been pretty much all downhill since then. Travolta should be an actor's primary cast study for "What not to do when you hit it big if you want to maintain a career and a legacy." Instead, he opted to take the money and run, and boy, has he! By my count, Travolta made 16 films prior to Pulp Fiction, over a span of approximately 18 years. Contrast that with this list of major films released since 1995 (with many thanks to www.imdb.com):

1995
White Man's Burden
Get Shorty

1996
Broken Arrow
Phenomenon
Michael

1997
She's So Lovely
Face/Off
Mad City

1998
Primary Colors
A Civil Action
The Thin Red Line

1999
The General's Daughter

2000
Battlefield: Earth
Lucky Numbers

2001
Swordfish
Domestic Disturbance

2002
Austin Powers in Goldmember

2003
Basic

2004
The Punisher
A Love Song for Bobby Long
Ladder 49

2005
Be Cool

I think I'll stop there, as that takes us from the first Leonard adaptation to it's sequel. That's 22 in 11 calendar years. I challenge anyone to find another actor who has starred in even 20 films in 11 years. The only film I see listed that he didn't have a major (if not the outright lead) role in is Austin Powers. No wonder the man owns planes. I would too.

It looks as though Hollywood had had enough of Vinnie Barbarino by 1999, as he had released no less than 11 films in the three years prior, some of which weren't half bad. But enough is enough.

As you may or may not have noticed, one of Travolta's 1997 films was Face/Off. Yes, that's right - it's the 10 year anniversary of the John Woo film that may have signaled the end for Mr. Cage and Mr. Travolta. What could, should, or might have been a big hit for both of them turned out to be a bit of a joke, no thanks to a ridiculous story and the arrogants direction of Woo.

But that's besides the point, which is that Face/Off was just another in the long line of paychecks for our two heroes. Remember the challenge I issued just three short paragraphs ago? Look no further than Michael Bay's muse, Nicolas Cage.

Though it's hard to pick a definite peak in his career (a la Pulp Fiction for Travolta), it's safe to say that Cage went from sometime quirky independent/commercial leading man to full-time commercial star (and money earner) around the time of his Oscar win for 1995's Leaving Las Vegas. After that point, gone was the guy we knew from Moonstruck and Wild at Heart. What was born was a MARQUEE STAR who occasionally dabbled in serious films. Here we go again:

1996
The Rock

1997
Con Air
Face/Off

1998
City of Angels
Snake Eyes

1999
8MM
Bringing Out the Dead

2000
Gone in Sixty Seconds
The Family Man

2001
Captain Correlli's Mandolin

2002
Windtalkers
Sonny
Adaptation

2003
Matchstick Men

2004
National Treasure

2005
Lord of War
The Weather Man

2006
Ant Bully
World Trade Center
The Wicker Man

2007
Ghost Rider
Next
Time to Kill
Grindhouse
National Treasure: The Book of Secrets

I'll stop with 2007, though it's worth noting that Cage has no less than five (5!) films either announced or in pre-production slated for 2008. Staggering. And by the way, I just listed 25 films from 12 calendar years, though he did not star in Sonny (just directed it) and none of his 2007 films have been released yet. However, with a strong 2007 and 2008, Cage is on pace to best even the mighty Travolta in terms of cowwing the cash.

In the end, I'm not sure how much I fault these guys, as much as I might enjoy picking on them. They are both talented actors, or at least, they were at one point. And who am I to argue with their philosophy of "The more the merrier" in regards to their respective filmographies - after all, when not faced with the prospect of earning millions of dollars per film, it's easy to say that I (or anyone else) would be more cautious or judgemental with our choices. the sad fact is that you never know when your star will flame out - it just seems obvious to me that saying yes to everything that comes your way (or at the least, seeming to do so) is a surefire way to make your star fade that much quicker.

Perhaps they should have compared notes during the time spent making Face/Off, rather than actually making it.

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Smokin' Aces

Alright, let's get this out of the way quickly. Yes, Smokin' Aces is very Tarantino-ish. Specifically, it almost feels as the plot was derived from the final third of True Romance, complete with an "I need a medic" line that felt like an homage to Tarantino and/or Romance director Tony Scott (I'll forgive you for not remembering that specific line/scene from Romance - you'll just have to trust me, though.) Likewise, characters seem ripped from Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown as well.

However, I'm not here to rip Aces director Joe Carnahan as being a Tarantino wannabe. Anything but. While pieces of Aces do in fact feel familiar/lifted from the above-mentioned films (as well as a few others), the film stands on its own as a terrific piece of pop culture.

The plot is nothing too extravagant: The white whale of snitches (Jeremy Piven as Buddy "Aces" Israel) has a million dollar price tag on his head (with a time limit), and the nastiest, toughest and best hitmen are onto his scent. Everything will culminate on the pentehouse floor of a Lake Tahoe hotel/casino, with the FBI and a group of bounty hunters in on the chase, too. Throw in some double crosses, colorful characters (inbred skinhead trio, black (possibly) lesbian hitwomen, eurotrash assistants, gaggles of prostitutes, etc), plot twists and some magic (literally) and you have a winning combination.

The eclectic cast certainly doesn't hurt the film's prospects. Ryan Reynolds and Ray Liotta (the star of Carnahan's previous feature, Narc) are FBI agents assigned to track down and protect Israel. Alicia Keys plays one of the aforementioned hitwomen, Jason Bateman a sleazy lawyer, Ben Affleck, Peter Berg and Martin Henderson are the bounty-hunting trio, and so on and so forth. Add in Common, Andy Garcia, and about 50 "That Guys" (plus one hilarious cameo from a well-known TV star playing a security chief) and your head will be spinning. There's even a confirmed Booger sighting (so nice to see Curtis Armstrong back again in high profile mainstream films - I feel an odd sense of pride for him when seeing him - it couldn't have been easy to live down that role/reputation when looking for jobs.).

Above all else, this is a fun picture (and looks like it was a fun one to make). It skips the gravitas of your standard fare mobster movies and just decides to go right for your jugular. Mission accomplished.

85 out of 100

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Pan's Labyrinth

Well, it's only been like three weeks since I saw Pan's Labyrinth, but I can't procrastinate any longer.

It's strange - "Pan" was/is one of my most anticipated movies of the last 6 months, and it was very good, but I just don't have that much to say about it. I know that's not an eye-grabbing, marketing-department-approved way to start a movie review, but it's the truth.

Perhaps I read too many previews/reviews/press about films, but I can't think of anything to say about "Pan" that hasn't already been said. Sure, I could go the conspirator route and argue the reality/fantasy aspect of it all, but that's seems almost besides the point.

In the end, it is a fairy tale in the truest sense. It's dark as hell, whimsical, dangerous, gory, fantastic, hopeful, and finds happiness in a world of doom.

Well acted, beautifully filmed, and with excellent special effects/costumes, Guillermo Del Toro delivers one of the, if not the, best films of 2006/2007. It's ridiculous that it wasn't nominated for Best Picture, but we should have (and did) expected that from the Academy.

93 out of 100

And then...