The Wizard of Oz

29-years after the first adaptation of L. Frank Baum's classic novel, Victor Fleming's version came along with the colorful (literally) Oz that will forever touch anybody who watches the film. One of the greatest soundtracks of all-time. Supposedly, Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon", one of rock's greatest albums of all-time, will synchronize with the film. Judge for yourself — the experience (plus an excuse to watch "The Wizard of Oz" again and listen to "The Dark Side of the Moon" again) is worth it even if it fails. Buddy Ebsen had to back out as the Tin Woodman due to an allergy from the makeup. Followed by "Journey Back to Oz" and "Return to Oz".

The Terminator

In an age when computers began to be relied on more and more, not a scarier film could come along. Arnold Schwarzenegger plays the title role, a cyborg sent back through time to kill the mother (Hamilton) of a then-unborn resistance leader that would defeat the invading Terminator-race in the future. Michael Biehn plays an unlikely but well-done hero, with Henriksen, Boen and Winfeld as the unexpected comedic relief that lacked in the sequels. The story suffers from a paradox you could drive a big rig through; the special-effects weren't that far ahead of its time; and the soundtrack may have suited the mood for 1984, but it ended up dating poorly. Schwarzenegger fits the role perfectly. Originally, Henriksen was supposed to play the Terminator. The series continues with the far more impressive "Terminator 2: Judgment Day".

Harry and the Hendersons

An unlikely creature touches the hearts of a family in this underrated beauty. John Lithgow, Melinda Dillon and the rest of the cast all fit their characters perfectly. A wonderful chemistry of happy moments, sad moments and funny moments. The conclusion is both heartbreaking and heartwarming — not your typical family-film ending, but too perfect to be rewritten. The beautiful scenery of Washington State and the costume design are also to be admired. Joe Cocker's "Love Lives On" is the perfect song for this film's end credits. Followed by an inferior television series of the same name.

The Godfather: Part III

Don Michael Corleone (Pacino) seems to have mellowed down in his later years, and he wishes to keep it that way. But just when things start going the way Michael wants, he's pulled back into the life of a mobster. The brilliantly eerie similarities between an old Michael and Brando's elderly Don Vito is what makes this film a must-see. Many fans were disappointed at its tameness and the incestuous subplot. The film does an excellent job of earning its keep by not mimicking the previous two films and moving the story forward as opposed to a full circle. The bias casting of Sophia Coppola is the film's only downfall.

The Godfather: Part II

Isn't it difficult enough to make a film as good as "The Godfather"? For Coppola and Puzo, perhaps not. All the surviving characters from the first installment return in this bravura masterpiece, each of them seems to be growing tragically colder as they age. In the first, the plot exercised the relationship of a mobster father (Brando) and his son (Pacino) following in his footsteps; this time, prequel sections of the film exercise the similarities and difference between the two men in seemingly two different worlds. Robert De Niro made his career off of his Oscar-winning role as young Vito Corleone. First sequel to win an Oscar.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Terry Gilliam takes us on another fun ride, this time into the imaginations of both colorful and dark characters. Dr. Parnassus (Plummer) leads a traveling theatre troupe and has also made a deal with the devil (Tom Waits). Heath Ledger passed away during production, but filming continued with some clever rewrites, having Depp, Farrell and Law sharing the remainder of Ledger's unfinished scenes. The costume design is spectacular, as expected from a Gilliam film. Special effects are great, but not excellent. Gilliam seems to be becoming a bit self-indulgent in his later years – a stretched out story, with a short climax and the film, honestly, is a bit too ambiguous and deep for what it is.

Loren Cass

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Just because one comes out from a movie like this saying, "I could do this", doesn't mean it's a bad thing. In fact, for all we know, this film could have been much more difficult to make than it appears. After all, it took almost eight years to complete. But the simplicity behind it -- pretty much no character or story arc, and wordless at times -- is what makes this a good film.

If you go into the theater knowing there isn't much to the story other than people wallowing around during the time of the 1997 St. Petersburg Riots, you'll appreciate the movie for what it is. If you're expecting "Apocalypse Now" or "Lord of the Rings", you'll find this film boring and dull. It's not that you don't get it, it's just not your cup of tea. But don't criticize a film because it wasn't what you expected.

The film's soundtrack is wonderful. It either fits the mood of the film, or goes completely against the mood which makes things feel disoriented which is what we expect most of the characters to be like every moment of their lives. The amateurish and authenticity in the acting is also worth a looks -- it's very plausible that when we see these characters throwing punches at each other, they're actually fighting; and that if we see characters drunk, they probably had too much to drink. You don't see films like this frequently and it's nice to have another filmmaker like Chris Fuller added to a short list of such underrated and fearless directors like Larry Clark and Harmony Korine.

Fuller is also impressive because of some of the strings he has pulled to get this film distributed. While your average person may not know Din Thomas, Jacob Reynolds, Keith Morris, Blag Dahlia, the band Leftover Crack and Robert "Bob" Hawk; all of the above are notable people who have participated in the production of this film. You also have to wonder, not only how such a young filmmaker could get such a budget and amount of notable cast/crew, but if Fuller actually had a permit to film on the Sunshine Sky Bridge, the St. Petersburg Pier and the house of the late writer/poet/painter Jack Kerouac. Whether Fuller had connections or pulled some strings, it's impressive.

The only thing that should be criticized is the footage of R. Budd Dwyer's public suicide. While one can argue that its inclusion helps the audience feel uneasy and hopeless, it's actually nothing more than a copout. If Fuller wanted to further express such a mood, he should have done it through characters, soundtrack and/or story like he was doing the first hour and the final fifteen minutes of the film. It's also exploitive. Dwyer's inclusion is completely unnecessary, as it has nothing to do with anything. Just because a character jumps off the Sunshine Sky Bridge doesn't mean there's any comparison to R. Budd Dwyer shooting himself at a press-conference. The only comparison is that they're both suicides, and that is very weak storytelling.

One can understand that somebody who wants their film to be known relies on word-of-mouth, and the best way to accomplish this is shock value. But to add footage of R. Budd Dwyer just shows that Fuller is being a little too desperate. Because of this (and until Fuller comes to his senses and removes the Dwyer suicide), "Loren Cass" can never reach must-see value because the majority of its viewers are just going to watch for the few short (but haunting) moments of Dwyer committing suicide.

Batman Begins

Nolan couldn't have been a better choice to take the director's seat, and while Bale has a strong resemblance to West, their Batmans are completely different. After eight years of silence, the Batman reemerges with a most appropriate reboot which explains the whole history of how Bruce Wayne became Batman. Nolan makes both Burton and Schumacher look like Ed Wood — most impressive of all is that, while technology has improved tremendously since 1997's flop "Batman & Robin", "Begins" chooses to take little advantage of it. A-list actors are casted as supporting characters, with Michael Cane as Alfred, and a calm Gary Oldman (that's a first!) as Gordon; among others like Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes and Morgan Freeman. Tom Wilkinson, Rutger Hauer, Ken Watanabe and Colin McFarlane are also so wonderful in their minor roles. Cillian Murphy modestly appears as The Scarecrow, which one can say is a bit underused as a well-known villain, but it actually makes it all the more realistic. Perhaps the older series should have considered using major stars as supporting characters, not villains. This film proves that superheroism isn't impossible — you just have to be a billionaire. Nolan's uncle, John Nolan, plays Fredericks.

Batman Forever

The third film in the Batman film series has Joel Schumacher, Val Kilmer and Tommy Lee Jones replacing Tim Burton, Michael Keaton and Billy Dee Williams. Robin (O'Donnell) is introduced, which either greatly pleased or greatly disappointed fans. "Forever" gets the silver medal of the series, being significantly better than "Returns". Unlike "Returns", "Forever" seems to know it's place. Schumacher was able to capture a mood different than the previous two, strikingly similar to both the Adam West show and "Batman: The Animated Series". "Forever" was also able to better-develop more characters in a shorter story than "Returns".

Thirteen

While the acting was terrific and the story was very intriguing, there was so much more that could've been done with this film. As the movie unraveled, I began to realize that this is a no more than a typical story about a rebellious teenage girl. Wonderful character development, but it led nowhere. Perhaps one can argue that this movie can be made as a lesson, but it feels more like a pity-this-young-curios-girl story. When will teenagers begin to take advise from adults and realize that they are no more special than the people from the previous generation? The teenagers in this film didn't, and the outcome was unintentionally too satisfying.

Batman

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In a world where Batman was most popularly known as "Adam West in a costume", Tim Burton came along and made possibly the greatest Batman movie for it's time. Anybody who compares this to Christopher Nolan's 2005 masterpiece "Batman Begins" just doesn't appreciate what Batman really is… a superhero whose genre changes from series to series. He's always been a comic book hero since his first appearance in May 1939. But starting in 1968, Batman had a cultural impact with a campy television series that was generally well-liked, running two years with pretty consistent reception from both critics and audiences. And for twenty-one years, that's how the world viewed Batman -- Adam West assisted by Robin in whacky adventures, ranging from a surf-contest with The Joker to jellied-water in Gotham City's pipeline.

Starting in 1980, Warner Brothers went through several different scripts for the ultimate Batman movie. It took them nine years to create the perfect Batman movie, but they did it. The darkest Batman story to date. And now, thanks to this film alone, the world knows Batman as something else… a superhero who is virtually timeless. This is also the first time a lot of people saw Batman without Robin.

Tim Burton created a Gotham as ugly as possible, and a Batman who is willing to kill. And what better Bruce Wayne/Batman than Michael Keaton. The epitome of an underdog. Not handsome, but not ugly; not tall, but not short; not strong, but not weak. One could easily assume that a Bruce Wayne who looks like Val Kilmer, George Clooney or Christian Bale could easily be the man under the batsuit. What kind of secret identity is that? But with Michael Keaton, you can never be sure. Not only was Keaton's appearance fantastic, but the actual portrayal was splendid. "You wanna get nuts! Come on, let's get nuts!"

Sure, with Heath Ledger playing The Joker in the "Begins" sequel "The Dark Knight (2008), people will say that Jack Nicholson is THE Joker. But it's actually The Joker who made this film questionable. Who ever said that The Joker is supposed to have a back-story or kill Bruce's parents? Not to mention how convenient it is that a man dropped in a bath of chemicals survives with bleach-white skin, green-hair, and a permanent grin.

The film also suffers casting. Why not have characters who are critical to the franchise such as butler Alfred Pennyworth or Commissioner Jim Gordon be played by more well-known actors? Michael Cane and Gary Oldman are wonderful examples of this, from Nolan's series.

Because the Batman franchise has gone from campy-comedy all the way to intensely-dark, it's so easy to criticize any kind of portrayal of the Caped Crusader. So, judge for yourself, but keep an open-mind.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

In an era where fantasy books can be satisfyingly transferred into film, it was to be expected that the C.S. Lewis's classic "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" would be brought to life too. And it was. But without justice.

"The Lord of the Rings" trilogy and the "Harry Potter" heptalogy were as successful as possible. "Narnia", on the other hand, didn't seemed to put forth as much effort as the others. The technology used in the film didn't create the same magic as the other fantasy-stories did. As the film progressed, it became abundantly clear that "Narnia" was nothing more than a competition to "Lord" and "Harry" (with an obviously smaller budget).

Many people impressed with the film can argue that it was entertaining and enjoyable. This is all fine and dandy. However, it is mere fact that the film's creators didn't go about the project with the love and passion for the story like those of "Lord" and "Harry". The campy special effects, the underdeveloped characters, and the fact that the "Narnia" film-series is going to be abridged by four book leads to the conclusion that this is done for nothing more than profit.

For those who are bored and looking for something to do, you may enjoy this lazy excuse for a film. But for those who want to be impressed as they were with "Lord" and/or "Harry", wish to see a wonderful classic brought to life on screen, or just like seeing special-effects, you will be greatly disappointed.