During my personal dark ages of movies, otherwise known as the mid 2000s, there were a host of films that demanded viewing that I casually disregarded. Some of those I have come to regret. Others I have not seen at all. One that I made a point to see though was Shaun of the Dead. There was something about the film that stood out to me as important enough to see in theaters even though I ended up seeing it alone in a showing of about six people.

It was billed as the zom-rom-com (or zombie romantic comedy) but only two of those adjectives really fit. With numerous hints and winks to other zombie films and properties in general, Shaun of the Dead is a movie that is crafted so well and foreshadowed so effectively, I almost guarantee that you can watch it many times over and find something new to grin or chuckle about. Our lovable slacker Shaun (Simon Pegg) is an everyman with no ambitions, no drive, and no desire for anything other than playing video games with his pal Ed (Nick Frost). All it takes is the pending end of the world to snap Shaun out of his ways and spring into action as the reluctant action hero who rarely has a plan or even skills to carry out what plans he does have.

Even if you are not a fan of zombie movies or of British comedy (if both, exit now please), there is plenty to sink your teeth into with this film. As a horror fan, there are more than enough references to other zombie films (especially the Romero variety) to make you pleased as punch. As a comedy fan, the film is stock full of other references and even a humorous foreshadowing of future events that become more apparent the more you watch it. The script by Pegg and director Edgar Wright (of Scott Pilgrim fame) is equal parts zany, and horror-y, and funny all combined into one satisfying package.

Unlike other zombie films that precede it, SotD is rarely lacking on the acting front with top-notch performances from everyone involved. There is gore and carnage and all the other sorts of things you would expect from a zombie movie. There is even a Romero-esque social commentary on everyday people going about their affairs and how they relate to the cinematic zombies portrayed here. But at the very least, this is a horror/comedy which does everything right for anyone who might be watching. If you don’t like this movie, you are probably already dead.

John Carpenter may not be churning out classics like Halloween any longer, but his arguably most famous film seems to have been the perfect storm of dedication, foolishness, ambition and talent that elude most films. Made on a tiny $300k budget (or about $1 million today), Halloween would go on to become one of the most financially successful independent pictures ever, not to mention the impact it made on filmmakers and movie-goers even thirty years later.

I trust you don’t need a plot summary of this film. If you do, I implore you to seek out your nearest big-box retailer, electronics seller, or yard sale to pick up at least one of the 318 versions that have been commercially released. I suspect that if you retold the synopsis to someone who hadn’t seen it before (heathens!), they would think it sounds lame and predictable. That just shows how much impact Carpenter, co-writer Debra Hill, and the dozens of inexperienced crew members’ legacy still lives on today. For me as a young, stupid kid, I did not particularly care for this film, preferring the more over-the-top antics of its direct sequel or even other, somewhat lesser films like A Nightmare on Elm Street. If released today, I suspect it would not go over well with the masses. Then again, people are much more stupid today.

If you wanted to be nit-picky, you could point to the film’s low budget techniques, its questionable continuity errors, or some of the now silly-sounding dialogue. But even with those minor quibbles in place, Halloween is undoubtedly a tremendously effective horror film and even a quiet look at the kind of monster that can spring from a mute six-year-old. Hill and Carpenter craft Myers so wonderfully because the Shape is left (for this film at least) emotionless and vague, not dissimilar to the doctored Shatner mask that populates stores around this time of year. Myers is deadly and determined and because he and his motivations are shrouded in mystery, the old campfire story of the Boogeyman jumps out and envelops you in an uneasy fashion. As Ebert said in his review, this is not a movie you watch; this is a movie that you experience and live in.

Through Carpenter’s exquisite eye at crafting a scene that goes from typical to terrifying in the blink of an eye, or Donald Pleasence‘s delivery of exactly what Michael Myers embodies, to Jamie Lee Curtis‘ desperate pleas and screams that populate the final few minutes of the film, Halloween aims high and delivers much more than most films attempt. The slow and deliberate pacing or the relatively restrained violence and gore may be a turnoff to some horror fans, but we call those people idiots for good reason.

The excellence of Halloween has been written about time and time again so I am not saying anything new or groundbreaking here. But I thought it fitting to kick off this year’s Monster Scum with a bang as I attempt to tackle the most highly regarded horror films. So, sit tight and check back often as we try to class the place up a bit.

First off, I have never read the graphic novel, so I swear to God, if you negate my review if this film wasn’t faithful to the source material, I will sick Kane Hodder on you.

Scott Pilgrim is 100% pure entertainment. Every fucking thing about it. From the comic booky words that fly on the screen, to the insanely clever script that is basically a group of well constructed lines stacked in order of hilarity that assemble a story. Visually, aurally, intellectually and otherwisely this film is extremely pleasing.  It’s almost guerilla like in its blatant disregard for seamless scene transitions. Which, by the way, is awesome. Pretty much every scene or line is completely unexpected and hilarious. There literally is a laugh about every 1.5 seconds.

I have accused Michael Cera of being repetitive in his characters.  This is the first film in which even though he still employs some of the same traits, I did notice that he does actually distinguish his character from all others.

Also, Kieran Culkin extremely hilarious as his roommate. But, then again, so is every person in this film.

I suppose I should mention the plot. In a nutshell, Scott Pilgrim is in love with Ramona Flowers. She is resistant to his “charms,” but eventually succumbs due to his persistence. However, they both discover that if they are to be together, Scott has to defeat Ramona’s 7 ex boyfriends. What ensues is a film that will delight video game, music, comic book and just anything fans.

I am really serious when I say that there is something to like every single second of this film. Whether it is a funny line, a bright color, a word flying across the screen, I have never seen a film that has stimulated so many different parts of my brain for the entirety of its running time.

I realize that this is a short review, but when you have nothing but positive things to say about a film, brevity is the result. I am probably the last person on Earth to see this, but I’m glad I did.

I don’t have air conditioning in my car. This makes commuting rather uncomfortable especially last week as a blistering heat wave across the country produced temperatures in the 100s. See the images on the top and side of this post? Click one and help Puck have AC. Anyways, on insanely hot days, I almost always think of Die Hard with a Vengeance as it is a movie that almost makes you sweat from the heat atop the New York City streets. Let’s disregard that a lot of the film was made in South Carolina. But I’m rambling now, so let’s get on with the review.

When I reviewed Die Hard some time ago, it had been a while since seeing it. Thus, I was captivated at the sheer brilliance of it all, not just for a “mindless” action film, but because it is a damn solid story that pretty much built all the action movie tropes still in use today. It’s second sequel though, DHWAV for short, gives Hollywood a damn fine template for creating a action sequel that is not downright insulting to the viewer (cough… Speed 2).

In his review of this film, Roger Ebert lamented that while movies of previous years were satisfied with one or two major action scenes, “now there are movies that are essentially nothing but sensational stunt sequences.” While a smidgeon of action may have met the audience’s expectations a few decades ago, everything is bigger, badder, and louder in our constant struggle to outdo our predecessors. That is where movies like Salt come in with a huge disparity between dialogue and action to the detriment of the former. DHWAV isn’t as reflective or character driven as the original blockbuster that spawned it but it sure makes up for that it balls-to-the-wall action that is the pinnacle of “edge-of-your-seat” cinema.

Writer Jonathan Hensleigh reportedly developed the story as a standalone film and only later was it tweaked to fit in with the Die Hard franchise. Compare that to Die Hard 2, which sucks because it is a shameless retread of the original. Right off the bat, that fixes a number of problems with the second. In this one, John McClane (Bruce Willis) is obviously back, but he is now in New York again, separated again and just shy of being kicked off the police force. When after the second did McClane and Holly start feuding again? Why is he on suspension now (surely, his loose cannon persona would have come forward by now)? How many hours a day does McClane watch Captain Kangaroo? These pressing questions are not even address here, but they aren’t even asked. Perhaps as a way of divorcing the film from the lackluster previous entry, you really need to know nothing going into this film other than there was a first movie called Die Hard.

Sure, there is the fact that Simon (Jeremy Irons) is the brother of the first film’s villain that may be nice to know. But it’s hardly required since the revenge angle is quickly dropped by the antagonist himself. Instead, Simon is the best/worst example of a mercenary: he is perturbed that McClane took his brother skydiving without a parachute but he really just wants the billions of dollars in gold located at the NY Fed branch. Simon has intricate and sometimes scary objectives for McClane, but only to get him out of the way, nothing more. And Hensleigh’s script works so well because the scenes of McClane and Zeus (Samuel L. Jackson) bickering back and forth while solving the riddles are mostly extraneous but they add much more to the story than most films of this genre do.

Yes, it can be said that Jackson plays the same loud-mouthed character in every film and this one is no exception. But Zeus is such a fun character with his insights, his yelling, and his racist-radar (racar?) that make him an endearing character with a real arc as he goes from angry bystander, to angry unwilling participant, to angry hero. Reginald VelJohnson‘s presence is not missed. And Willis seems to have been phoning in the same performance for a number of years but here he proves that McClane is an action hero along the lines of … well, McClane is his own breed of smart-ass, tough-as-nails NYPD cop. Sometime between the original and this film, McClane has become supercop who can manage to be everywhere when he needs to, get out of impossible situations unscathed, and always save the day. It is a departure from the relatively humble McClane from the first but, oh well. I’m sure Die Hard 2 was the cause of that.

Regardless of the almost non-existent factual basis for the story, the action, or the horrific “German” spoken in the movie, returning director John McTiernan is able to pack in so much that there really is no time to process any of the quips. Once the beginning credits end, the movie starts with a bang and does not let up until the end, save for the scenes between McClane and Zeus early on which add a needed sense of levity. It’s a shame that McTiernan has not done much recently (likely due to some … legal issues) since his resume is much less checkered that other renowned directors. The man knows how to make an action film click and has a method which make even the expected (since I have seen this movie far more than I care to admit) still worrisome as it is ongoing.

With such a strong story and action sequences, Die Hard with a Vengeance could likely have been over three hours without growing tiresome. The ending is a bit of a letdown since it seems so pedestrian and separate from the rest of the film. That ending though is allegedly a tacked-on studio demand but even it’s presence does not diminish the greatness of this movie. The first Die Hard is a classic in its own right and easily in the top 3 action movies ever made. DHWAV is damn close to matching its excellence, even in its own way.

I may have said it before, but let me reiterate: 1994 was a huge year in movies for a young Puck. Today’s random movie was one of the apexes of my love for movies. I saw Speed in theaters only once but I more than made up for it when it was released on VHS (ahh, nostalgia). Within a week, I was quoting the movie verbatim to all of my discerning middle school friends. They thought I was a loon. Perhaps they were right. But then again, Speed kicks ass. So, I claim victory even if none of them will know it.

Almost immediately, Speed kicks off with a rather enthralling opening that is actually relevant with rest of the movie! A mad bomber has rigged a downtown L.A. elevator with a bomb that spells doom for the dozen or so passengers on board. With some quick thinking by S.W.A.T. members Jack (Keanu Reeves) and Harry (Jeff Daniels), the bomber’s plans are thwarted and the passengers saved with the bomber allegedly blowing himself up once the jig is up.

Sometime later, Mr. Bomber notifies Jack that he has planted a bomb on a bus. That bus cannot drop below 50 MPH or else it will explode. This proves quite difficult in L.A. traffic with random baby carriages, school children, and inept cops trying their damnedest to make that bus blow up. It is a simple concept, to which there have been many copycats (anyone else remember the insanely ludicrous Chill Factor with Cuba and Skeet?), but Speed excels where many other films have failed.

In a perfect world, Speed would be regarded as a tentpole of the action genre like Die Hard is. It certainly helps that director Jan de Bont was director of photography on said action tentpole film as well as many other highly regarded pictures. Throughout the run time, the kinetic feel is quite engrossing with the constant threat of harm and the cat and mouse game between the cops and the bomber (Dennis Hopper). Hell, I’ve seen this more times than I care to admit and even some of the sequences such as Jack’s entrance to the bus or the freeway jump are crafted so nicely as to defy you to be ambivalent during them.

Keanu has caught a lot of flack over the years with his emotionless, wooden acting but this is likely the role he was born to play (Neo notwithstanding). In fact, I can only think of Keanu belting out timeless lines like “shoot the hostage” or “yeah, but I’m taller” with the absurdly subdued emotions that his character calls for. Sandra Bullock as the makeshift bus driver Annie is frantic, yet sweet and funny as the perfect candidate for what a leading Hollywood actress should be (well, before Speed 2 that is).

The best part of the acting front though is hands-down Dennis Hopper. Howard Payne, the bomber, is frustrated and demented and Hopper nails that persona with all the over-the-top acting he can muster. In any other movie, his performance would be laughable. But the biggest strength of Speed is that it is played serious even though the story is quite implausible. That makes Payne merely another colorful character in this implausible universe.

And unlike many big action movies, Speed is, for the most part, grounded in some semblance of reality. The threat is bizarre, but conceivable and other than the aforementioned bus jump, there is little else in the film that makes you stop and think, “wait, that didn’t make ANY damn sense.” Compare it to a “Cobra-stole-the-warhead” alarm or random action heroes outrunning huge explosions (take your pick for which movie) and Speed is one the same footing as Die Hard with an average Joe stuck in an guy stuck in an unparalleled situation.

Since action movies typically have a “check your brain at the door” mentality about them, those that don’t adhere to that only stand out more prominently. As such, with such a great combination of story, cast, and crew, Speed is far better than it has any right to be.

The danger about making a prequel to an established series is the basic fact that we know how everything will end. This almost negates any power of surprise the film might otherwise have. But, it is neat in a prequel to see how the stage is set and everything goes down and if the known end point for the characters and the story can be reached in a logical manner. X-Men: First Class pulls this off in spades.

Much like every other comic book series, I have no concept of the X-Men backstory, the character’s origins, or whatnot other than what I’ve seen in the movies. And I’ve only ever seen the first two X-Men films. I am okay with this because not only do I hear Part 3 and Wolverine are garbage, this movie apparently does not regard them as canon.

In recollection to the first film of the series, First Class begins with a young boy ripped from his parents and yoked into a Nazi concentration camp. A man stands behind a window and watches as this young boy almost rips a metal gate off its hinges and realizes through a dastardly act that his powers are begat by extreme anger. The boy, Erik Lehnsherr would grow up to be Magneto. The man, Sebastian Shaw, becomes our depised villain.

Later in life, Erik (Michael Fassbender) tracks down and almost dies trying to kill Shaw (Kevin Bacon) before Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) intercedes. Charles has been tasked by the CIA and his handler Moira (Rose Byrne) to apprehend Shaw who is doing his best to start World War III. Shaw is a mutant, as are his cohorts, who would like nothing better than to see the extinction of normal human beings under his watch. Charles and Erik join forces along with a barrage of other mutants including Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Beast, and Banshee to stop Shaw and save the world.

Remember how you felt after watching The Dark Knight and thinking that it was one of the greatest movies ever? I know I’m not the only one. Well, First Class is not quite at that level of greatness but surely not for a lack of trying. Most recently known for the uneven Kick-Ass, director Matthew Vaughn is working off a much stronger script which effectively weaves the backstory elements and the current group dynamics with the threat du jour from Shaw. This all takes place with the 1960s tension between the United States and Russia. Did you know that mutants both encouraged and ended the Cuban Missile Crisis? I didn’t see that addressed in Thirteen Days.

Not only are there impressive action sequences and taut pacing, but there is even a generous helping of characterization for some of the bigger members of the story. McAvoy and Fassbender are excellent, not only at recreating sympathetic characters that we already know, but making them different enough also. Neither attempts to outright copy their predecessors but they do take subtle character traits and expand upon them. I quite enjoyed Lawrence as Mystique as well. Again, not considering any bastardizations of the character’s original tale, Mystique was one of the more interesting characters as she befriended Charles at an early age and was very loyal and accommodating to him. However, given the end result, we know Mystique will change sides and the build up to that was solid and did not seem forced at all. Bacon was enjoyable as the villain and not in the hammy sense that being the main established actor would normally bring.

As this seems to be the summer of insipid, 3D superhero movies, First Class is surprisingly restrained in that respect. There are no random objects jutting toward the camera, no tremendously off-putting special effects, and the Bay-style hyper-editing has taken a movie off. Even with the retro outfits the X-Men are saddled with, this seems like more of a superhero movie from a lost era of filmmaking, one not seen since the original film that is. Even though Rose Byrne was a very superfluous character to my chagrin, there really is nothing I can harp on this movie for. Good characters plus excellent story plus superb directing usually equals a Chris Nolan movie. In this case, it equals the best superhero movie this year.

***I DID NOT SEE THIS FILM IN 3D.***

Given its competition, Kung Fu Panda 2 is probably the last movie on most people’s list to go and see right now. I sincerely hope not, as Kung Fu Panda 2 is very enjoyable, even better than its predecessor and will entertain adults and children alike.

In the first Kung Fu Panda, we met Po (Jack Black), a panda with a goose (James Hong) for a father and devoted fan of the Furious Five, a group of Kung Fu masters.  He defeated Tai Lung and attained the title of Dragon Warrior. In the sequel, China faces a new villain, a peacock named Shen (Gary Oldman). Shen has vowed to destroy Kung Fu and has developed a deadly weapon to help him accomplish this goal. While fighting a pack of wolves stealing metal for the weapon, Po notices a symbol and suddenly has a flashback of his mother. This prompts him to ask his father Mr. Ping where he came from, as clearly he could not have been born of  geese. He learns that this is true, but the story he is told does not reveal much more than him being found as a baby panda in a crate in the back of Mr. Ping’s restaurant. Mr. Ping took him in a raised him as his own. Still having many unanswered questions, Po is often distracted in his battles with Shen and his minions. This irritates Tirgess (Angelina Jolie) as she fears this is compromising their mission.

Panda 2 is one of those sequels that somehow vastly improves from the first film. The jokes are funnier, the story is darker and more complex, Jack Black is less Jack Blackier. There is a lot more fighting and action. It just really takes the awesomeness of the first film makes it exponentially better.

As an adult, this film is very satisfying. It is visually quite stunning. The jokes aimed for adults are quite witty. What grown ups will most appreciate is the much darker and deeper story line. It’s just as interesting than any live action film’s plot and ties together very nicely.

Even more impressive is at the same time, every kid in the theater was just as engrossed in the film as I was. It successfully captures the interest of both kids and adult at the same time, rather than alternating captivating one and alienating the other scene after scene.

Even though you kind of know what will ultimately happen in the end and even if it hadn’t ended on a cliffhanger, the film makes you want to see more of this story. The first film did a nice job of introducing us to these characters, and the sequel delves deep in to the character development of Po. In the first film, we know very little about him, other than his fanaticism for the Furious Five and his hilarious ineptitude.  This chapter starts telling us who he is and where he came from while simultaneously furthering his relationship with the Five on personal levels. I am very interested to see this progress.

I had a feeling I would enjoy this movie, but my expectations were exceeded. Thoroughly enjoyable and there isn’t anything not to like.

Since Piranha 3DD entered pre-production, almost every new announcement makes me more excited about it. We know from PBF’s review of the first that Piranha is not a watershed moment in cinema history, although I can’t say I’ve seen a 3D penis get eaten in any other movie.

Yesterday, it was announced that the resident batshit crazy man Gary Busey was joining the cast of the next chapter in the Piranha saga. He joins an already rounded cast including Danielle Panabaker (The Crazies), David Koechner (Anchorman), and Clu Gulager (it’s fucking Clu Gulager!). Let’s hope this is more a Feast reunion as opposed to a Feast 2 reunion with director John Gulager and writers Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton.

The one thing I am disappointed of is the release date: November 23, 2011. The piranha are back only this time at a water park. I am sure there will still be buckets of blood and gore and ample nudity but why release this at Thanksgiving? I understand the need not to rush things but this is a late summer type of movie through and through. Oh well. If they can squeeze in a Elizabeth Shue cameo, all will be forgiven.

When I first saw Scream in theaters with my dad almost fifteen years ago, I did not care for it. I can’t really say why but the first viewing did nothing for me; I didn’t hate it but I was mostly just ambivalent towards it. Later that year, Digger had a copy on VHS which I watched again and fell in love. Here was a horror movie that was not afraid to pull punches, was not bogged down in some ridiculous backstory (see the Halloween entry from the prior year), and had a sharp wit to it. Since then, Scream has been in constant rotation of the movies I randomly watch.

Mainstream horror in the mid-90s was not in a very good state. I’m sure there were plenty of indie or straight-to-video releases of whatever installment the Hellraiser or Puppet Master series were on but all of the big franchises were either completely finished or creatively drained. Scream came along to fill the void in a way that is still astonishing that it hadn’t been done before (at least not to the same degree of success). Featuring the script which started a bidding war in Hollywood by a new-comer and directed by a veteran (of mixed success) to the genre, Scream very well could have been quickly swept under the rug and died before registering with movie goers of all kinds. According to Box Office Mojo that almost was the case before positive word of mouth actually increased the box office take in its second week, a rare feat for any movie, let alone a horror film.

It is commendable that writer Kevin Williamson is able to create such a rich story on the backs of horror movie staples that predate the film by decades. Helped tremendously by the legendary Wes Craven as director, Scream elevates itself as something more than “just a slasher film.” On the surface, Scream is just another slasher film and the glut of teenage-based horror movies in its wake probably did the film no favors. But Scream stands out with just one mention of its trump card: The Rules. Effectively deconstructing every previous slasher movie, horror nerd Randy lays out the key to survival in these movies in just three simple declarations. No sex, no drugs or alcohol, and no announcing your imminent return. Of course no one pays any attention but no one ever does in these movies.

Considering that this was the first movie (that I ever saw anyway) that featured horror movie characters who are, for the most part, completely aware that they are horror movie characters, it was a big success considering that it made over $100 million. A movie series like Friday the 13th almost depends on the interchangeable killer fodder that appear on screen. The virginal final girl Sidney has some family trauma which keeps her distant from her kind of creepy boyfriend. Her father is absent. Her friends are mostly self-absorbed. In a typical slasher, that is basically the extent of any character development. Even if I don’t always care for the underlying story, Williamson has always been able to create characters that are fully fleshed out and even sympathetic to a point.

Another big part of Scream’s success was the way it is able to handle the awkward pairing of horror and comedy. It helps that the backbone of the film is satirical which lends itself to poking fun at not only other movies but also itself. Even some of the non-horror elements are written and delivered so perfectly such as the requisite bitch Gale Weathers berating her cameraman or the subtle sarcastic remarks muttered off-screen about the absurdity of the events. The actors too are easily able to handle the Sorkin-lite verbiage about youth, life, and horror movies (most of the time at least).

Neve Campbell as Sidney starts off rather meek and reserved but transforms into a full-fledged heroine with seemingly minimal effort, even though she had the most bumpiest of the performances. Everyone else played wonderfully but especially the typecast-shedding Courteney Cox, the goofy gumshoe David Arquette, and the nerdy everyman Jamie Kennedy. Of course, these are the characters who not only lived the longest but had the most support from fans. Also of note is the score from Marco Beltrami who is not as regarded as say John Williams but can manage effective music to fit every scene with perfection (except those random parts of Halloween H20).

Just as I mentioned in an early episode, Scream is a comfort movie for me. Everything fits together so well and the characters are so genuine that you can’t help but be sad when the film draws to a close.

Glengarry Glen Ross is quite brilliant. David Mamet (screenwriter, the film is adapted from his play) loves dialogue, and if an actor cannot handle it, it’s very easy to tell. There is no issue of that in this film. Everyone in this film execute his words perfectly.

Basically, the film is the story of four real estate salesmen who work for Premiere Properties (played by Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Alarn Arkin and Ed Harris). The owners of the company ask Blake (Alec Baldwin) to come in and “motivate” the salesmen. He explains that the top seller for the month will win a new Cadillac, the second place salesman will win steak knives and everyone else will be fired. He gives a quite HR inappropriate, vulgar, insulting and yet entertaining speech which scares and pisses everyone off  except Roma, (played by Pacino) who is not required to attend the meeting, as he is top salesman. Blake shows the salesmen the Glengarry leads, which are “gold.” Levine (Lemmon), whose character is the inspiration for the Simpsons character Gil Gunderson, begs Williamson, the office manager (Kevin Spacey) to give him one of those leads, as the salesman are of the opinion that the current leads are weak and they cannot close them. The film depicts 2 days in the life of this office; the night of the meeting and the following day in which it is discovered that the office has been broken in to and the leads have been stolen. What results is an awesome character study, and highly satisfying film.

David Mamet has a very firm grasphold of the way people actually talk. This is prominent in pretty much all of his films and plays. That being said, and as I mentioned before, if an actor cannot deliver this dialogue very well, they will stand out like a sore thumb in a Mamet piece. Once again, this is not a problem in Glengarry Glen Ross. Every single actor, not matter what the size of  the role, deliver Mamet’s lines with excellence, and firm believability. Alan Arkin is especially great. He seems to have the same masterful understanding of the English language as Mamet does, and his performance seems like it was rudimentary to him.

What’s most impressive about this film, is that Mamet can take the same talent that makes his plays so engaging (strong dialogue) and apply it in to a film. A lot of film goers prefer some kind of “eye candy,” whether it is an explosion, or Vin Diesel. Mamet films will almost never deliver that.

The casual movie goer does not understand the “mechanics” of film. They do not isolate line delivery, blocking, or the tightness of an ensemble cast. They just see flashiness. If you are one of those people, you will hate this film. It is a showcase of superb acting, directing and writing. Yet, it does not insist upon itself. It just exists, waiting for appreciation, which it very much deserves. It’s highly quotable, and simply watching this (or reading Mamet in general) makes a writer suddenly want to write something fantastic. Awesome picture.