Zombieland (2009)

Since the very first trailer, I've been more than a bit skeptical of Zombieland. To me, it just looked like an American version of what had already been done perfectly in jolly 'ol England (Shaun of the Dead). So it wasn't near the top of my list of movies to rush out and see, but I did want to see it, as I found aspects of the trailer enjoyable. Finally watching it, I'd say it's much better than I suspected. While it's not in Shaun of the Dead's league, and it lacks Shaun's brilliant commentary (read: PARODY) on zombie movie conventions, there is still a lot to enjoy here.

PROS: The characters. When the movie first started, I thought it was going to be a groaner. But once the characters started to grow on me, the movie started to grow on me, so I think the characters are probably the movie's biggest attribute. The fact that this movie can be this entertaining in the midst of the overplayed zombie genre says a lot for the quality of the characters, because we've seen the story a billion times before. The characters bring in the laughs.

Jesse Eisenberg, who a lot of people think is cribbing Michael Cera, but in reality he was doing Michael Cera before Michael Cera was even on the radar, is quite good. I like him in pretty much everything I see him in, even if he is playing a variation of the same character over and over again. This is definitely his most comedic outing yet, and he gets the job done.

There are some very good one liners. Woody Harrelson is quite good at playing a savage Twinkie loving redneck who spouts off quotable dialogue.

It contains one of the best cameos in recent memory. Where The Hangover's Mike Tyson cameo seemed a TAD on the forced side, the cameo in Zombieland is the exact opposite, and worth watching the movie for alone.

Also, cool soundtrack.

CONS: Bathroom and redneck humor that I don't really care for.

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD: The zombies themselves. While they pose a threat, I don't think they're entirely memorable. There is the clown zombie I guess, but none of them really stick out. That they're running zombies may have something to do with it, as the lumbering ones tend to be more fun (or, funny).

The main girl didn't do much for me, although I guess in the end I did care about the relationship she forms with Eisenberg.

OVERALL: I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. It's not Shaun of the Dead, but it's not really trying to be either. It's its own thing, and it works. The characters are strong and for the most part likable, and I wanted to see them come out on top. What it lacks in memorable/fun zombies it makes up for in the human characters. A fun horror comedy, much better than that other horror comedy that everyone is splooging over (Drag Me to Hell).

RATING: 3/5

RATING:

The House of the Devil (2009)

I'm a big fan of classic 1980s horror, particularly low budget slashers. So when I heard that The House of the Devil was a nice throwback to 80s horror, I just had to check this bad boy out. The marketing for the DVD release even had a retro VHS release to go along with it. I mean how cool is that? Unfortunately, all the good reviews and strong buzz didn't amount to much in the end.

PROS: I like the retro look. It's a very grainy movie, and the filmmakers did a good job of recreating the 1980s. At the start it feels like an early 80s flick. The credit sequence in particular is strong, although the "Moving in Stereo" rip off was distracting. But still, a very good credit sequence, one of my favorites of the year, in fact.

It initially kept me interested, with Tom Noonan as a creepy old man. I liked his performance and I liked the look of his character. I really believed, for a couple of minutes, that this movie was going to go somewhere.

The newscasters were great. This chick could have spent the movie watching the TV and I think the movie would have been more entertaining.

Also, I know it's done to death because it's public domain, but any time a filmmaker decides to throw a clip of Night of the Living Dead on TV, it's A-OK in my book.

I also enjoyed a very messy scene in a car. And I'll just leave it at that.

CONS: I think the script was 10 pages long. While I was interested in where it was going, the movie does a GREAT JOB of not going ANYWHERE. Since we're dealing with a retro theme here, the best way I can describe it is like this:

remember that long scene in the original Friday the 13th, where Alice is making tea and the camera follows everything she does? Now multiply that by three, and you have the entire excitement level of the middle portion of this movie. Some people call it building suspense. I call it "hey, let's just follow you around while you inspect the house! It'll take up a half hour of the running time!" Sad to say, a great concept is turned very, very boring.

Also, when the point of the movie comes around, it seems tacked on and is ultimately uninteresting.

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD: The music. I liked it at times, and other times I felt like the composer should have spent more time coming up with his own stuff instead of aping There Will Be Blood's score so much.

OVERALL: I like throwback movies. I think we've reached a point in cinema where earlier eras can be recreated and appreciated, not just for the sake of nostalgia but for aesthetic purposes. And while I can see this working as a double feature with Black Dynamite or as some sort of unofficial Grindhouse movie, it still could have been a lot better. It's not scary, it's not suspenseful, and it's pretty damn boring for the most part. Which is sad because there is some good talent involved and I really wanted to like it.

RATING: 2/5

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

In 1975-76, Steven Spielberg was the biggest name in Hollywood. And I'm sure the big question looming on his mind was "What the hell do I follow JAWS with?" Jaws was the most financially successful movie of all time the year it came out. It remains the template for the summer blockbuster. So what the hell does one follow it up with? Spielberg went into his vault of ideas, and he dusted off an idea about alien contact that was originally called Watch the Skies but would eventually be known as Close Encounters of the Third Kind. And it scored him his second smash hit, as well as his second Oscar nomination for Best Director (the movie, oddly enough, was not nominated Best Picture despite a total of 9 nominations altogether).

That this was a smash hit in 1977 says once again that 1970s audiences had it so much better in terms of blockbuster movies. In 1977 audiences had a choice of seeing Close Encounters or Star Wars. It's rare to get that kind of quality in modern blockbusters. Nowadays it seems to be more about what can be sequel'd to death and how many poop jokes can be squeezed into two hours rather than a methodically paced movie about a man's obsession with a UFO encounter.

PROS: My favorite thing about Close Encounters is the overall tone and feel of the movie. There is just something about it that makes it difficult to take my eyes off the screen whenever I come across it. I think it has to do with the magic of the subject matter and the time period, as well as the likable performance from Richard Dreyfuss.

I read a quote from Spielberg saying that he would never have made Close Encounters like this today. He made it before he had children, and if he were making it now, as a father, he would never have had Dreyfuss abandon his family to satisfy his obsession. This is why I'm incredibly grateful that Spielberg made this movie in 1977, as I would hate to think of this movie ending with Dreyfuss walking up the ramp to the alien spaceship, and then saying "No I can't! I can't leave my wife and kids!" I think the fact that his character does end up abandoning all that is important to him really drives home just how obsessive he is. I don't know if that was Spielberg's intention, but that is how it plays to me. And I like that, it's gutsy.

There is lots of memorable stuff in this movie, including Richard Dreyfuss playing with various objects trying to sculpt Devil's Tower, as well as the memorable five notes of music that play during the final scene.

I like how the movie, during the last act, becomes almost wordless. There is very little dialogue, it's all told by visuals and music and what is on screen. I was reminded of 2001 in that sense. Spielberg lets the movie do the talking, which is nice for a change.

Also, great poster.

CONS: n/a

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD: n/a

OVERALL: A near perfect follow up film to JAWS. While it may not have the repeat viewing factor JAWS has, it's still a movie worth revisiting every once in a while. It's always nice to go back and see how Spielberg used to do things prior to E.T. There is, as odd as it may be to write, more of an edge to his pre-E.T. movies. And while I enjoy several of his movies from E.T. and beyond, I think the JAWS/Close Encounters/Raiders era is my favorite.

RATING: 4/5

This is It (2009)

Having in some ways grown up with Michael Jackson's life and music, I was somewhat affected by his passing. I wasn't in tears or anything like that, I just felt a sense of loss, as celebrity deaths don't get much bigger than Michael Jackson. He was the lead singer of the Jackson 5, he was on top of the world in the 80s, and his epic downfall in the 90s made for a fascinating figure in entertainment, maybe one of the most fascinating of all time. What's amazing is that no matter how many jokes are made at this guy's expense, no matter what accusations are thrown at him, for a large number of people, when they see Michael Jackson perform they recognize that they're looking at a unique, talented performer, one whose stage presence is entirely different from the bizarre public persona everyone made fun of.

This Is It gives an exclusive look into the rehearsals of what was to be his final concert. And I'm sure even the folks who were criticizing its release as exploitation deep down inside were curious to see what all the fuss was about.

PROS: Obviously, seeing Michael Jackson perform a number of classic songs one last time. But the biggest insight I got out of the movie, after spending a good chunk of a month last year going through a lot of humorously weird Jackson interviews and footage, was just how mature he was behind the scenes. This was never intended to be released, so it's interesting to get a look at Jackson giving stage directions and telling his crew of dancers and musicians and guitar players what to do. This is quite honestly the most normal I've ever seen Jackson act. There is a level of genius at work here when he's doing what he does best, and it's never really been seen before. He takes it very seriously and it makes him seem like not such a joke.

The best segment is Billie Jean, which is, in my humble opinion, the definitive and best Michael Jackson song.

CONS: The Thriller portion is a big let down, with cheesy "amusement park style" zombie footage. It's nothing compared to the original video. The Earth song performance also reeks of cheese, where a giant bulldozer was supposed to engulf the stage at the end. Oh my.

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD: I have a feeling there were some confrontations or heated arguments that may have been cut out. This movie makes Michael look like a loving perfectionist, and I have a feeling there is some fascinating footage of this guy getting profoundly frustrated that was left on the cutting room floor, although some of the frustration shows through on at least one occasion.

OVERALL: This is meant to be a celebration of Jackson's musical talents, and for that it succeeds. There is no need to delve into his personal life and legal troubles, this is about Michael Jackson the entertainer and the lavish concert he was going to unleash on the world prior to his death. It's most interesting as a look into a side of Jackson that the public rarely got to see. If anything it humanizes him in ways that most other documentaries on him weren't able to do. It seems like the only time he wasn't putting on a show was when he was about to put on a show.

RATING: 3/5

Pretty Poison (1968)

After Psycho, it was extremely difficult for Anthony Perkins to get good roles. I think it's safe to say that it typecast him for the rest of his career. But that doesn't mean there weren't any performance highlights from some of his post Psycho inspired work, and eight years after the Hitchcock classic he starred in a little movie called Pretty Poison. And while it has problems and I wouldn't call it a classic, there are still things to enjoy about it, and Anthony Perkins is the big reason for it.

PROS: Anthony Perkins. He's basically playing Norman Bates as a little bit older. It's a rare Perkins performance in that he's captured, looks and voice-wise, right between old Anthony Perkins and young Anthony Perkins. He still has much of his youthful Norman Bates appearance, aside from a few wrinkles here and there, and he sounds very much the same. So at times I felt like I was watching an unofficial sequel to Psycho. His character is intriguing and he keeps the interest level high. I also like how his background is kept somewhat mysterious. There are hints that the movie is going to completely explain his character but then it kind of shies away from it. I liked that. A strong performance.

Tuesday Weld is the other highlight. Her character plays a lot like Candy Clarke's character in American Graffiti, except for the fact that she has homicidal tendencies. I read that she felt that this was one of her worst performances at the time of its release. Well if this is one of her worst I need to see some of her other movies because I think she does a very good job in this.

I liked the story. If you like the subplot in True Lies of Bill Paxton bullshitting Jamie Lee Curtis into thinking he's a secret spy, you're going to find this movie interesting, because it's essentially an entire movie of that plot line.

The chemistry between the two leads is good and there are actually quite a few laughs. I'd even call it a black comedy.

The script was strong enough to win an award from the New York Film Critics Circle back in good 'ole 1968.

CONS: The directing is pretty terrible. It has no style or substance. I think it's pretty safe to see why director Noel Black was regulated to TV not long after this. Too many pans and cheesy zoom close ups.

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD: The set up is great, but it doesn't really go anywhere. And when we get a conclusion, the director handles it so cheesily that it doesn't really come across as satisfying.

OVERALL: Anthony Perkins and Tuesday Weld do a good job of keeping this watchable. The premise starts out strong, but it kind of loses itself toward the end. The directing is poor and it could have benefited from a more keen eye. It's not the greatest 1968 has to offer but it's far from the worst.

RATING: 2.5/5

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Since I first watched Full Metal Jacket, I've always been in the "first half is way better than the second half" camp. Every time I have watched the movie previously, I dramatically lose interest right after Pyle blows his brains out. It's like the two characters that were driving the movie are killed off, and there is still a whole other movie left to sit through. A whole other movie that doesn't even have much of a plot or driving force.

But something odd happened when watching it this time, after not having seen it in many years. I've grown to like movies that are unconventional. I mean I've always been a fan of unconventional structures, but right now, at this moment in time, I REALLY like them. I like movies that don't follow the normal three act structure. I like movies that don't seem to have a linear plot (I'm the exact opposite with books, it would seem). I like movies that focus on one thing in the first half and something else in the second. I like the two for the price of one feeling that Full Metal Jacket gives off, and now that I understand what Kubrick may have been going for in the structure, it makes me appreciate it even more. The first half is filmed in a very strategic, methodical, and organized style, much like boot camp training itself. The second half plays like an all bets are off style, much like war itself. It's pretty brilliant when you pay attention to the whole thing. And there is enough of a goal in the last sequence to make me feel as though the movie comes full circle.

PROS: Obviously, whenever one watches a Stanley Kubrick movie, if you like Stanley Kubrick the biggest pro is the directing. This is no different. It plays like a Kubrick movie, but like all Kubrick movies the topic is different enough that it feels fresh. The fact that it is 30 some years after the last time he touched a "modern" war movie helps make it feel like he hasn't really covered this territory before. Plus he spends so much time on the boot camp training that I really got a feel for what he was going for in terms of the Pyle character.

R. Lee Ermey and Vincent D'Onofrio are the stand outs in the first part of the movie. D'Onofrio plays his part like a fat kid who is in way over his head. And you can't help but feel bad for him. It's mesmerizing watching his descent into madness, after being pushed to the edge by both his drill instructor and his fellow soldiers (but mostly his drill instructor).

When Matthew Modine and Arliss Howard take over the leads in the second part, it may seem like a let down at first, but they carry the movie well. We don't get to know the ins and outs of their characters, but that tends to be the case with any Kubrick movie (minus A Clockwork Orange). He's always been focused on the feel and movement of the movie, not necessarily the characters. But that doesn't mean he doesn't demand perfection from his actors, and case in point, they all do a fine job here.

One thing about the movie that I never really remembered noticing before is Kubrick's use of music. I guess it should be a no brainer that he uses music well, I mean it's Stanley Kubrick for chrissake, but I guess I just never really paid attention. Like I said, the first half was always so good that I had a hard time keeping interest in the second, but when I really paid attention to the second half I got into it and I noticed a lot of cool things I'd never noticed before. And the music was a big part of that.

The action is fierce and suspenseful, the last sequence being particularly memorable. I like how Kubrick made a Vietnam movie but it's not a jungle Vietnam movie. It's like an urban jungle Vietnam movie. It helps to keep that going against conventions feeling that all Kubrick movies tend to have.

Oh yeah, and it's really funny.

CONS: n/a

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD: The narration is sparse and barely used. And when it is, it doesn't really add much except for a couple of good lines here and there. I think it could be scrapped altogether and the movie wouldn't lose a step. I read that there was a lot more narration and most of it was cut, so I'm guessing Kubrick wouldn't have been opposed to cutting the whole thing and he just couldn't figure out a way to make the remaining scenes work without it. Not a huge problem by any means, it just didn't do much for me.

OVERALL: This movie has skyrocketed in my view. I've always enjoyed it, but whenever people mentioned it as one of the great war movies I usually kind of scoffed and said "if only the second half could live up to the first." But now I see it as one of those movies that monkeys with convention and comes out all the better for it. The fact that a good chunk of the people who see this movie walk away feeling like it's unbalanced may be exactly what Kubrick was striving for all along.

RATING: 4/5

The Hurt Locker (2009)

Director Kathryn Bigelow is no stranger to action movies, in fact you can say it might even be her specialty. Throughout the years she has directed such fare as Near Dark, Blue Steele, Point Break, and Strange Days. But critical acclaim has always managed to allude her. Not until The Hurt Locker has she even been mentioned in the same breath as "Academy Award," but it looks as though she is a shoe in for a best director nomination. She's going to lose it to James Cameron, but it looks like she may join the very short list of females who managed to make it to the Oscar nominee list for Best Director.

PROS: Actor Jeremy Renner brings the movie to a whole other level. It's his lead performance that drives the movie, and it's riveting stuff. It's a memorable portrayal and a memorable character. When he first arrived on screen I had no idea he would be as good as he ends up being. He's damn good.

The direction by Kathryn Bigelow is top of the line action. It's from years of honing her skills on less prestigious fare, but everything really comes together here. The bomb dismantling sequences are all suspenseful, and they had me on the edge of my seat. And the non-bomb war sequences are great too. There are also some great shots.

The supporting cast is very strong, and there are a couple of really high profile cameos. Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes show up, as does David Morse in a show stealing scene ("You're a wild man, you know that?"). It's like those characters are having their own big budget movie and this smaller movie just happened to cross paths with them. It works exceptionally.

The photography is grainy, with a classic 16mm look to it. It helps give it an old documentary feel at times but it doesn't come across like it's trying to be overly retro. It's entirely modern. I also liked the unofficial reference to 2001 with the giant bomb suit. When it first shows up it's cautious and menacing, a striking and humorous contrast to when Jeremy Renner's character first puts it on.

I also liked how the guys are put off by Renner at first (even contemplating KILLING him at one point), but then they kind of grow to accept him and it's eventually revealed that he doesn't just care about himself, although that's a big part of his personality.

CONS: n/a

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD: n/a

OVERALL: While it has no traditional plot, it works best as a character study. It's a believable portrayal of a man who lives his life as an adrenaline junkie, and at times he doesn't seem to be all there. When it comes time to settle down, does he have it in him to push the cart at the super market and shop for cereal, or is he always going to need to get that "fix" that the bomb unit gives him? This is grade A stuff here.

RATING: 4/5

Bullitt (1968)

There is an acting legend who is almost forgotten in this day and age. People still know who Paul Newman is. People still know who Burt Reynolds is. But when people think back to the biggest movies stars to ever walk the planet, one man seems to get lost in the shuffle (probably due to his death in 1980), and that man is Steve McQueen. And the movie that personifies him for a lot of people is Bullitt.

PROS: Bullitt is a highly influential and trendsetting police movie. Along with In the Heat of the Night, it went for realism in police work instead of "movie" style police work that was popular in its day. Instead of grazing past what police do for a living, it dives in head first. The audience watches as Bullitt digs through a recovered suitcase and checks off the items one by one. Everything about the movie strives for realism, and it holds up very well even today. There is nothing that really dates the movie in a bad way.

Steve McQueen is obviously the main attraction. He carries the movie on his shoulders. He has a casual, laid back attitude that was the opposite of a lot of other hero cops in movies in the 60s. He is the epitome of screen cool.

If Steve McQueen is the main attraction, then the epic car chase through the streets of San Francisco is the secondary attraction. The choice to forgo chase music means the soundtrack is filled with car sounds during the chase, and it's invigorating. What makes it even more impressive is that McQueen did a lot of his own stunt driving work. I'd say this is my second favorite car chase sequence that I have seen (the first is, shoot me if you must, from Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof). The sight of the cars flying up and down the hills of urban San Francisco is often imitated but never duplicated.

I also like that it's so graphically violent. It seems like the director was reveling in the new rating system and a lot of the shootings are extremely bloody, even for today. I also like that the blood isn't pink colored, as a lot of older movies tend to have that problem.

And while the director decided not to score some of the movie's bigger action scenes, there is still a very memorable score and a hypnotic opening credit sequence.

CONS: The slow pace. While it's generally easy to sit through on first viewing, repeat viewings kind of feel like I'm tapping my toes waiting for the car chase, and then after the car chase I kind of lose interest in what is going on.

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD: I don't care about Bullitt's love life, and it kind of drags the movie down whenever it shows up.

OVERALL: Bullitt is a fondly remembered police drama that has an out of this world 60s car chase that is still hard to top even today. It makes up for its flaws in pace with a charismatic performance from superstar McQueen and its devotion to police procedure realism.

RATING: 3/5

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

I first saw A Clockwork Orange when I was in 7th grade. Once you get to a certain age, you just naturally start to hear things about this movie. How it's forbidden, how it's one of the most violent movies of all time, how it's been banned and edited for years and years. The first time I remember seeing it mentioned was in an issue of Entertainment Weekly. I believe it was an article on the NC-17 rating, and it showed the history of the X-rating through the years, and on a timeline A Clockwork Orange was listed with a picture of Malcolm McDowell undressed at the prison check in. I thought "huh," and moved on.

The next time I came across it was again in Entertainment Weekly, this time on their back page, chronicling the movie and showing a picture of Alex and his pals getting ready to perform a rape. I specifically remember being taken aback by the image (it featured Alex and his phallic face mask) and it kind of freaked me out a little. Then it came time to finally see the movie, but for the life of me I can't remember when that was. I do remember watching it at several birthday parties, and on one occasion it had to be kind of snuck in under the radar because of its reputation ("NOT IN MY HOUSE!"). Ah, those were glorious times. I was a super fan at a young age: I had the VHS of the movie, I had the screenplay, I had the soundtrack, I had the poster, I had the book. I was A Clockwork Orange freak.

PROS: Where to start? The whole movie is a big, giant pro. But I guess if I have to start somewhere, it's at the director himself, Stanley Kubrick. This is a brilliantly made movie, and needless to say, highly influential. The movie is just filled with unforgettable shot after unforgettable shot. From the opening in the milk bar, to the beating of the tramp, to the Durango 95, to the rape, to the record store, to Alex's capture, to everything in the middle and all the way to the last shot, this is, if nothing else, filled with some of the most exquisite and memorable imagery ever (get used to the word 'memorable,' it's coming up a lot). You see A Clockwork Orange once and you don't forget it. It's that simple.

If there is one travesty in the history of the Academy Awards, it's that Malcolm McDowell was not nominated for his portrayal of Alex in A Clockwork Orange. From the look, to the voice, to the narration, to the physical toll numerous sequences took on his body, it amazes me that he didn't make the cut. If it were up to me, I'd have given him an Oscar for the eye pinning sequences alone. This is truly one of the most memorable characters to ever grace the screen, and the true start of the anti-hero movement in the 70s. Malcolm McDowell is nothing short of absolute brilliance here.

The first thing that grabs you into the movie, though, is the music. The movie opens on colorful titles with that pulsating electronic score, and from the opening shot it's more than apparent that the music and the images together are what strikes a chord of utter brilliance. Say what you want about the content of the overall movie, but you can't deny the lasting power of the marriage of music and imagery. 2001 was only the start of Kubrick's ability to use classical music in an unforgettable way, and he takes it even further here, in addition to taking "Singing in the Rain" away from Gene Kelly and making it just as memorable (and disturbing, and hilarious) here as it is in Singing in the Rain.

CONS: It's so good that people may get the wrong idea. Kubrick himself had the movie taken out of theaters in England up until his death for fear of what the film might inspire. When shown to the wrong eyes, this movie could be deadly. It doesn't have that infamous reputation for nothing.

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD: So the futuristic society looks a lot like the 70s, big f'n deal. Think of it like this, this is what the future would have looked like if technology didn't advance much beyond 1979.

OVERALL: Classic movie. Classic performance. Classic everything.

RATING: 5/5

Stand and Deliver (1988)

I remember watching this movie late one night on HBO, on a school night, back in the late 90s or very early 2000s. I knew I had to go to sleep and be up for school the next day, but I couldn't sleep and I came across this movie on TV and it had me hooked. It's really nothing more than the inspirational teacher movie, the same one we've seen a billion times before, but Edward James Olmos and the students are somewhat hard to take your eyes off of, and the movie constantly keeps you in a state of wanting to see what happens next.

PROS: Edward James Olmos in the lead role. He comes off as a real teacher, as he should because the movie is inspired by a real story and a real guy. He has all the right moves and I'd probably consider it the role he'll best be remembered for. He earned an Oscar nomination, and as cliche as inspiration teacher performances may be nowadays, it still strikes me as well deserved.

Lou Diamond Phillips has never been better. He has charisma oozing out of his ears, and he has several funny lines. He seems like the lovable misfit that the teacher wants to punish, but he's so damn likable that the teacher can't allow himself to bring the hammer down. His character also has a dangerous edge to him, so it's interesting watching him go from lowly street tough to wanting to do something better with his life. Also, gotta love the high baggy pants and hair net.

The movie has that comfy, 80s vibe to it. As soon as it starts, it has that 80s look and feel, and you know you're watching an 80s movie the whole time. One thing it has over a lot of other 80s flicks is that it rarely comes across as cheesy. Overly sentimental at times maybe, and yeah there is some cheesiness to it, but overall it manages to keep the cheese factor low and the good movie 80s vibe high, which was damn near impossible in that decade.

The story overall, is captivating. It's the cinematic equivalent of a page turner.

CONS: Olmos constantly tucking his hands down the front of his pants, Al Bundy style.

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD: The subplots seem somewhat needless. On one hand we need to know some of the kids a bit more, but on the other hand I don't really care about the love lives of a couple of them. The movie is at its strongest in the classroom, and that is where most of it takes place, so these subplots don't take away from the movie too much.

OVERALL: Stand and Deliver is a strong entry in the inspirational teacher genre. It has good main players, it has a solid story, and I really felt like I would want to be in this guy's class and maybe even work the extra mile for him. If I had this teacher in high school, maybe I would have made something of myself, who knows?

RATING: 3.5/5