All Movie Replicas Visitor Resource Centre: Licensed movie memorabilia, movie posters, film cells, movie prop replicas, home theater decor, movie reviews & more...
Hitman 11" x 17" Masterprint Poster - Style A. This is a reprint and not an original movie poster. Reproduction, printed on glossy heavy card stock paper.
The critics are loving “Milk“, suggesting that it is the best movie of the year.
Milk is a message movie, but more importantly, it’s an openly proud and entirely self-possessed message movie that wears its progressive rhetoric on its rainbow sleeve.
The distinction is crucial, because when you get right down to the nitty-gritty nub of what director Gus Van Sant has been able to achieve with Milk, it goes beyond teaching a particularly loathsome chapter of American history.
Van Sant, the openly gay film director, has created a universally accessible movie about the birth of the gay movement that is not framed by shame.
Back when this movie was set, in the mid-1970s, shame was an inherent part of the entire gay experience and Van Sant quickly sketches the emotional mood in the opening credit sequence.
Small, plain white titles appear over archival footage of police raids on gay bars. Slowing down the black and white footage to a surreal, dreamy pace, Van Sant sends us through the glass darkly as we watch all sorts of men being loaded into paddy wagons with their hands hiding their faces from public scrutiny.
It’s mind-altering imagery because it’s obvious these men are not criminals, yet truncheon-swinging police are corralling them into custody. Their only crime is hanging out with other men, and being who they are, but back then — and in many places to this day — homosexuality was seen as a legitimate reason to deprive a human being of his or her civil rights.
It’s a prickly issue, and it sits at the very heart of Milk because recognizing gay men and women as social equals without stigma was Harvey Milk’s life mission.
Click on the link below to read the entire indepth review:
Bolt gets 8 out of 10 stars for being smart and insightful.
Thanks to a string of commercial disappointments (or at most, underwhelming successes), Disney Animation has been in dire need of a revamp for several years. Notwithstanding the fact that computer-animated movies as a whole have dominated the family-film market for a decade or more, the looming presence of their cash-cow Pixar has overshadowed virtually every project during that time – which is no doubt one of the major reasons Pixar CEO and major-domo John Lasseter was appointed the chief creative officer for WDA a few years back.
Because of the labyrinthine production schedule of animated films, the official first effort under Lasseter’s auspices hasn’t arrived until now and perhaps unsurprisingly it bears many of the hallmarks of Pixar’s classics. Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t quite live up to their overall quality, which is why Bolt is a good but not great film which should earn Walt Disney Animation a deserved hit even if it won’t quite return them to the heights of their own creative and commercial heyday.
John Travolta plays Bolt, the canine star of a hit TV series about a girl named Penny (Miley Cyrus) who escapes capture by the evil Dr. Calico (Malcolm McDowell) with the help of her superpowered dog. When a mix-up results in Bolt being shipped to the rough-and-tumble streets of New York, he begins to make a valiant trek back across the country to Hollywood for a reunion with Penny. Because he has been deluded into believing that everything in the show is real, Bolt targets an alley cat named Mittens (Susie Essman) as a minion of Dr. Calico and enlists her to help him get home. In the meantime, the duo picks up a TV-obsessed hamster named Rhino (Mark Walton) along the way who helps inspire Bolt to feats of greatness after he begins to realize that he is just an average dog.
Click on the link below to read the entire article:
Check out this Twilight, video interview with IGN’s Todd Gilchrist and Eric Morrow
Twilight is an action-packed, modern-day love story between a teenage girl and a vampire. Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) has always been a little bit different, never caring about fitting in with the trendy girls at her Phoenix high school. When her mother re-marries and sends Bella to live with her father in the rainy little town of Forks, Washington, she doesn’t expect much of anything to change. Then she meets the mysterious and dazzlingly beautiful Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), a boy unlike any she’s ever met. Edward is a vampire, but he doesn’t have fangs and his family is unique in that they choose not to drink human blood. Intelligent and witty, Edward sees straight into Bella’s soul. Soon, they are swept up in a passionate, thrilling and unorthodox romance. To Edward, Bella is what he has waited 90 years for -– a soul mate. But the closer they get, the more Edward must struggle to resist the primal pull of her scent, which could send him into an uncontrollable frenzy. But what will Edward & Bella do when a clan of new vampires -– James (Cam Gigandet), Laurent (Edi Gathegi) and Victoria (Rachelle Lefevre) -– come to town and threaten to disrupt their way of life?
Just jump right in and read the the review for the upcoming, Twilight.
According to my girlfriend – who has become obsessed with the series after reading all of the books in record time – Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight is all about adolescent feelings and romantic longing with a little bit of vampirism thrown in to make the proceedings more fanciful. Given the glut of male wish-fulfillment that typically occupies the silver screen, there’s certainly nothing wrong with any of those elements. Interestingly, however, Catherine Hardwicke’s adaptation of the acclaimed first novel actually works best when it’s indulging those thoughts and feelings most, producing an adaptation that’s introspective and romantic enough to satisfy the franchise’s diehard fans even if its clumsy execution is likely to distract those not already fully devoted to its combination of vampire mythology and teenage female melancholy.
Kristen Stewart (Into the Wild) plays Bella Swan, an introverted 17-year old who relocates to Forks, Washington after her mom Renee (Sarah Clarke) leaves their Phoenix home to be with her new husband. Moving in with her dad Charlie (Billy Burke), Bella slowly adjusts to a new school and a new life, developing a tight-knit group of friends despite her inescapable self-consciousness and physical awkwardness. But when she meets Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), she becomes fascinated by his elusive presence in the lunchroom, and eventually, next to her in class. As the two of them begin a tenuous courtship, Bella discovers the reason for his mysterious, withdrawn disposition: Edward and the rest of his family are vampires, although they feed only on animals for sustenance. Their openness with one another soon blossoms into a passionate romance, but a vampire named James (Cam Gigandet) sets his sights on Bella, culminating in a battle that forces the couple to confront not only the immediate danger, but the ultimate meaning of their love for one another.
Superficially, the prospect of watching a movie that focuses on how awkward teenage girls feel sounds like some sort of Saw-style psychological trap – one to make me appreciate how good my life is or at least appreciate that the majority of movies these days seem to focus mostly on blowing stuff up. But Hardwicke, whose directorial debut Thirteen (and to a lesser extent its follow-up, Lords of Dogtown) suggests she believes most teenagers are vile, sex-addicted drug addicts, crafts a believable and incredibly sympathetic portrait of teen angst which – bloodsucking melodrama aside – should resonate with viewers of all ages, much less genders. That Bella’s constant stream of doubt, insecurities and second guesses always feels palpable and authentic is not merely a testament to Stewart’s masterfully subtle performance but the source material and the script’s ability to truly deconstruct that impassioned, unfocused but undeniable mindset.
Click on the link below to read the entire review:
Slumdog Millionaire may be one of the best film’s of the year.
MINOR SPOILERS FOLLOW. Slumdog Millionaire follows Jamal Malik, a teenage orphan from the ghettos of Mumbai who is one question away from winning 20 million rupees on the Indian version of the trivia game show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?. As a “slumdog,” though, there are those who believe that Jamal must have cheated to have come so far on the show, namely the police.
As Jamal is relentlessly grilled by a no-nonsense police inspector and his brutal, porcine subordinate, the young man relates how he knew the answer to each question. Proving that life experiences count for as much if not more than learned knowledge, Jamal recounts how he and his older brother lost their mother when they were children to an anti-Muslim mob. Left to fend for themselves on the streets of Mumbai, Jamal and Salim turn to hustling and petty crimes to survive. Along the way they meet another young orphan, the fetching Latika, whom Jamal falls in love with and will spend the next several years chasing.
Jamal and Salim encounter a benefactor who turns out to be a ruthless criminal and they soon make a desperate escape from his clutches. Latika, however, is not as lucky and, as he matures, Jamal makes it his mission in life to locate and save her. His brother Salim, meanwhile, grows more brutal with age, eventually becoming an outright gangster while Jamal gets a legitimate job as a tea boy at a call center. It is while working there that Jamal lands a spot on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
It becomes clear As Jamal relates his story to the inspector that the youth has no real interest in the fortune that he stands to win. So what’s driving him? As Jamal gets closer and closer to the jackpot, he becomes an overnight celebrity and a beacon of hope for the millions of viewers who live the same hardscrabble life he has thus far led.
Click on the link below to read the entire review:
High School Musical 3: Senior Year is worth seeing.
It’s not every day that critics see a dark, unredeeming portrait of police corruption and a sunny, spectacular musical within the span of a few hours. But that happened recently to this reviewer thanks to back-to-back screenings of Pride and Glory and High School Musical 3: Senior Year. Interestingly, of the two films I preferred HSM3 even without having seen its made-for-TV predecessors, although it’s unclear if I was so demoralized by Pride and Glory that I would have latched onto any expression of hope or humanity, or if I actually found it genuinely entertaining. But in either case, the third installment in Disney’s cash-cow musical series is a colorful and enthusiastic – if not especially intelligent – film that makes a successful transition to the big screen thanks to some terrific production numbers and the irresistible charisma of its ensemble cast.
Zac Efron (Hairspray) plays Troy Bolton, a star player on East High School’s basketball team who gets recruited to star in a musical, the theme of which is Senior Year. Troy’s college plans are secure thanks to a basketball scholarship at a local university, but his girlfriend Gabriella (Vanessa Hudgens) is headed for Stanford, leaving their relationship in limbo. In the meantime, Sharpay Evans (Ashley Tisdale) conspires to take over Gabriella’s role in the production so she can win a scholarship to Julliard, and enlists her twin brother Ryan (Lucas Grabeel) to court writer-composer Kelsi (Oleysa Rulin) and win her support. As his friends weigh in with their opinions and his parents conspire to help him make a decision, Troy must ultimately decide what is most important to him – his basketball career, his burgeoning passion for musical theater, or his love for his girlfriend Gabriella – as Senior Year, and his senior year, comes to a triumphant close.
One of my colleagues recently defended the overly critical or even dismissive point of view that many reviewers will take with pre-fab entertainment like High School Musical 3, saying there’s no reason that any movie can’t be good no matter how low the bar is set for it to be considered a success. He’s right – any generic or clichéd story can still be well done – but there is also an argument that can be mounted, especially for films like this one, that traditional (i.e. adult) critics are not its designated audience. As such, the same standards that would be applied to, say, There Will Be Blood, cannot be applied to it. Additionally, a movie like this isn’t meant to be good for the reasons that we would usually consider when watching other films. So when it does execute moments poorly, it’s tough to be quite as critical – unless, of course, one was expecting to dislike it in the first place. (In which case, why see the film at all?)
Click on the link below to read the entire article:
Angelina Jolie turns in an Oscar winning performance in Changeling.
Please be advised that this review contains some SPOILERS. Directed by Clint Eastwood from a screenplay by Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski, Changeling recounts the Prohibition era true story of Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie), a single mom whose son Walter vanishes while she is at work. A fruitless search continues for months until one day Christine receives the news she’s been praying for: her son’s been found alive and is coming home.
But when Christine arrives at the train station — besieged by cops and reporters — to be reunited with her son, she finds that this boy is not Walter. She repeatedly says as much to Captain J.J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan), but the media savvy cop doesn’t want to hear it. The scandal-plagued LAPD — the subject of many a radio tirade by the activist Reverend Briegleb (John Malkovich) — wants this high-profile case closed. They intimidate Christine into initially agreeing to accept that this boy is her son whose appearance has been radically altered by his ordeal.
The usually meek Christine starts to fight back against the cops, a virtually unheard of reaction especially by a woman of that time. The LAPD, though, have a way of dealing with those who make them look bad or threaten them in any way. For women, this is to brand them as mentally unsound and toss them into the hospital psychopath ward. This is what happens to Christine, adding one nightmare to another. Thanks to the intervention of Reverend Briegleb, though, she is able to fight back against the system that failed to find her son and punished her for taking matters in her own hands. But another twist in the disappearance of Walter Collins is soon uncovered.
Burn After Reading is a must see. Nuff said, read the review.
All critics have their “rules,” their preferences and pet peeves. Sometimes they’re a matter of personal taste – one genre over another – and sometimes they’re a result of seeing the same approach taken too many times with the same material. But despite cinema’s inherent ability to instruct its audience upon the finer points of finding love, recognizing shortcomings, and overcoming adversity, I really, really hate it when characters learn lessons. All of which is why, at least according to my own, subjective standards, the Coen brothers’ Burn After Reading may be the greatest movie ever made.
Frances McDormand (Almost Famous) plays Linda Litzke, a personal trainer who decides to blackmail former CIA operative Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) after her colleague Chad (Brad Pitt) finds a disc that contains Cox’s memoirs. Cox, however, refuses to cooperate, and soon Linda is forced to juggle her get-rich-quick scheme, her responsibilities at the gym, and a burgeoning relationship with Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) – a married man who is also carrying on an affair with Cox’s wife Katie (Tilda Swinton). Meanwhile, Cox’s former colleague (David Rasche) and superior (J.K. Simmons) at the CIA discover that Linda went to the Russians with Cox’s memoirs and monitor the situation as it continues to develop.
As suggested above, there are going to be a lot of folks disappointed by Burn After Reading if only because it follows the artistic triumph of No Country for Old Men and is by any standard a completely unimportant story bereft of dramatic substance. But longtime Coen brothers fans will observe that this material perfectly fits within the general themes of their other films, most of which make fun of stupid people by telling, yes, a completely unimportant story. From Raising Arizona to The Hudsucker Proxy to Fargo to The Big Lebowski to O Brother, Where Art Thou, the Coens regularly assemble their stories to satirize if not outright ridicule the best laid plans of men with the brains of mice. And this film is no different. While there are a few sympathetic and even intelligent characters within Burn After Reading’s ensemble, they are given enough human shortcomings (arrogance, insensitivity, obliviousness) to make them worthy of the Coens’ derision, if not also the audience’s.
Additionally, Malkovich gives a great performance as Cox, the analyst whose self-aggrandizing but by all accounts mediocre memoirs set into motion the film’s comically catastrophic turn of events, and J.K. Simmons contributes a terrific cameo as a CIA superior who supervises the events with appropriately dry disbelief. But as always, Ethan and Joel are the ones pulling the strings, and they’re the ones who most effectively create this tapestry of complicated situations and yet manage to make it all seem simultaneously significant and superfluous. Ironically, of course, there are far more movies made in Hollywood that are really about nothing, but pretend to be about something – which is also when their supposed lessons mean the absolute least. But with Burn After Reading, the Coens have successfully made a movie that both pretends to be and is in fact about nothing at all.
Click on the link below to read the entire review:
On the surface a teen stoner comedy with action sequences, you could easily roll your eyes at Pineapple Express. It’s a movie about two average guys and their love/hate relationship with marijuana. It has guns, bumbling mismatched sidekicks and slapstick. But under the surface sheen of generic conventions is a film that, like almost every Judd Apatow production before it, manages to subvert the stoner-comedy roots with a clever nod to Miami Vice-style ridiculous action and a level of self-consciousness that makes it incredibly entertaining, if a little more forgettable for the action slant.
Much of Pineapple Express’ success can be attributed to the cast of Apatow-regulars who punch out the jokes with delivery most comedians spend their lives trying to perfect. At the fore, Seth Rogen (Knocked Up, Superbad) plays Dale Denton, a Process Server (essentially, a guy who delivers court summons to people who sometimes don’t want to be found) with a teenage girlfriend and a taste for hashish. Playing opposite is James Franco (Spider-Man, Freaks and Geeks), who nails his portrayal of ineffectual but charmingly innocent weed-dealer, Saul Silver.
Denton witnesses a murder while sucking down a joint of Pineapple Express – the rarest pot in the country – and only supplied to one man: Saul. After ditching the dooby, Dale realises the pot is so rare that it’s completely traceable back to them, and the duo begin their run from a drug baron (the always talented Gary Cole), a crooked cop (Rosie Perez) and two scene-stealing hitmen (Kevin Corrigan and Craig Robinson). Danny McBride also crops up as a fair-weather friend who spends most of the film getting shot to pieces and reflecting on the meaning of friendship and the Buddhist belief system.
We have the UK review for The Dark Knight. Read on:
With The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan has rewritten the rules for making a big budget summer event movie.
Since the days of The Godfather in the early ’70s, Hollywood’s film studios have been, almost without exception, scared stiff of peppering their populist cash-cows with grandiose, weighty and thought-provoking themes, preferring instead to programme lightweight, action-packed fare for the summer and prestige, serious projects for awards season.
Yet The Dark Knight sees these sensibilities outrageously and stunningly collide; the film is an unbelievably intense, kinetic head-rush of a movie yet, simultaneously, a two-and-a-half hour meditation on the breakdown of society, the morality of vigilantism and a multi-layered rumination on good and evil.
We pick up a year after the events of Begins, with Batman, together with allies Lieutenant Gordon and crusading District Attorney Harvey Dent, apparently winning the battle against crime. The presence of Batman on Gotham’s streets has law-breakers on the run, with criminals afraid to go about their dark misdeeds with the famous Bat-Signal lighting the night sky. Things are seemingly on the up - that is until a mysterious, scar-faced psychopathic criminal mastermind called ‘The Joker’ appears, intent on unleashing chaos throughout Gotham City.
It was inevitable that thousands of column inches would be devoted to the man who plays him - with writers first pondering how Heath Ledger’s untimely death would affect the movie’s marketing and box office, and then pushing his performance for an Oscar win (he’s currently odds-on to posthumously receive a statuette) - something his simply electric turn would doubtless deserve.
We knew his portrayal would be something special from the trailers, but the full, magnetic force of Ledger’s turn as the charismatic, amoral sadist can only be truly appreciated in its full, furious glory. Every moment the actor’s on screen, it’s impossible to take your eyes off his panda-eyed post-punk anarchist. Whenever you think he’s going to slip into a comedy pastiche, Ledger shows us a glimpse of the true darkness and nihilism lurking within his character. It’s a tour-de-force and its power overshadows the raft of similarly fine performances in the film.
Indeed, despite Ledger’s showy brilliance, we think director Christopher Nolan is the real star of The Dark Knight. The canny helmer draws superlative turns from his multi-garlanded cast. Bale, Caine, Freeman, Eckhart and Oldman make for a powerhouse ensemble, imbuing their roles with an emotional depth - and the odd flash of humour - that fits marvellously with the opaque morality and bleak tone of the movie.
Click on the link below to read the second page of this indepth review
