"American Wedding" is not a great film...it is not even a good film. But I managed to watch it all the way through and was reasonably entertained, so I'm not going to complain about it. With the setup of the first two lackluster films, the bar was not set very high for the climax. One surprise is the rise of Stiffler, who has grown large enough to dominate the entire film. Though, in order to do so they have had to dumb down his character even more so than in the first two films.

I did not find "American Wedding" hilarious, but it certainly has enough laughs to keep the pace light and fast. If you're looking for a fun movie to rent and you liked the first two, you might try this film on for size. It's reasonably entertaining and requires no brain effort to watch.

"Equus" restored my faith in Sidney Lumet after watching a few of his films that bombed. Lumet transfers the stage play beautifully to the screen, exploring an interesting case of a boy who has blinded six horses. Richard Burton is magnificent and one of the only actors that can carry on long-winded dialogues with conviction. Equally able is the deranged boy (played by Peter Firth) who cross-examines Burton, knocking him off his feet in a similar manner to Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting."

"Equus" explores what it means to be normal. Burton's character realizes that being normal, to a certain degree, is having abnormalities. Peter Firth's character has a worship that is more passionate and alive than most human beings ever feel-certainly more than Burton's character. Burton longs to have the boy's passion and yet realizes that he is trying to free the boy from these feelings as he is doing so. He muses over the meaning of his life and the therapy he gives. If he can never understand "why" a child acts the way it does, is there any point to therapy?

While this movie starts out with a completely absurd and twisted plot, it eventually fades into a very believable plot line. As Burton pulls the information from Firth's head and we witness the boy's instable home life and threatening religious background, the plot becomes normal and we come to understand the boy's situation. The movie becomes clear as the boy's troubles become clear. The effect of this is that we experience the therapy along with Peter Firth. This is masterfully done and Lumet should be applauded.

My only complaint about the movie is that it is a little long-winded. However, the dialogue is top-notch and the acting is incredible. If you're a fan of Richard Burton and his monologue performances driven by a play-adaptation, get this film.

Yes, we've all heard it by now: James Cameron did not direct this film. And we must get over it. I agree that it is not fair to judge the film against Cameron's filmmaking. But we must still rate it as an action film. And in my opinion, "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" fails to meet my standards. The opening to the film is completely uninspired and it borrows much from the first two films, albeit with more humor and a lighter touch. Moreover, I felt that the film really did not go anywhere. There was absolutely no plot in this film. Most action movies lack plot, but they make up for it with terrific action sequences-I did not feel that I was shown any in this film.

While I enjoyed where the movie ended up, it certainly leaves the door open for another disaster film to be made. Arnold hardly gets any screen time and his character certainly receives no development.

"Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" made a lot of money because people had high expectations. Unfortunately, I do not feel that this movie delivered. If you haven't seen these films, you're better off just watching T1 and T2. Hold off on this one.

"Go" is a somewhat interesting comedy that borrows its roots from the likes of Tarantino, though to compare these two directors does a disservice to Quentin. While the plotline is fractured in "Go" and we get to examine a story from several different angles (only to watch them come crashing together in the finale), I was bored by the way the director spliced it. Instead of watching all of these plotlines intertwine throughout the whole film (leaving the audience on the edge of their seat trying to piece things together), this film lets you watch each scene in its entirety before switching to a new view.

I was expecting "Go" to be edgier and unpredictable, like a Tarantino film. However, nothing that twisted happens in the film and it is definitely lighter than either "Pulp Fiction" or "Reservoir Dogs." None of the dialogue really moves in this film, besides the hilarious antics of the sting cop.

While "Go" is original and interesting to watch, I think it could have been made better with a bit more fracturing of the time sequences. All in all, however, it's worth a look-particularly if you like edgier films such as "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs."

I cannot believe I even watched "Dumb and Dumberer." This ranks as one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The only redeeming moment in the entire film is seeing Bob Saget flip out-always good for a laugh. This is not a movie for those who loved the original film. It does not help one understand the original (as one reviewer commented). It is a waste of time.

Olsen and Richardson do a fair job at imitating Carrey and Stern, but they are more annoying, far too dumb, and have no motivation for most of their actions. I agree with the reviewer who comments that they simply play kids who are mentally retarded and cash in at the expense of those who actually are challenged.

I would not recommend this movie to anyone. Period.

"The Seven Year Itch" is a wonderful film that opens up with the typical Manhattan family-or rather several of them being sent off to summer vacations while the husbands stay at home to "play" once their wives are gone. The overlying dialogue, provided by a narrator, gives the film instant appeal and is strikingly different than any other film I've ever seen. The dialogue in this film is very fun and the main character (played by Tom Ewell) has absolutely hilarious fantasies where he imagines himself in all sorts of incredible situations. One of these fantasies, my favorite in fact, involves Rachmaninoff.

Ewell's awkwardness and assuredness that he knows how to woo women is hilarious and strikes a chord in all men's hearts. He definitely plays to an older crowd-his ideas of dating and romance are wonderfully dated. One gripe I have of the film is that they show us the picture that Ewell discovers of his upstairs' guest (played by Monroe). Why do they show us the picture? The picture would have been better if they had left it up to our imagination.

Marilyn Monroe is loveable in this film, though one can get tired of her naïve character. One has to see this film, if only to catch the now famous subway scene involving Monroe and her skirt. The team who worked on the film did a magnificent job. The DVD is excellent and the extra features are definitely worth a look. "The Seven Year Itch" is a very funny comedy that manages to appeal to modern audiences. I highly recommend it.

I honestly did not have high expectations for "S.W.A.T."-I figured any picture based upon the old T.V. series would end up being an explosive film that lacked character and plot. From the opening scenes, however, I must say that I was impressed by Clark Johnson's carefully planned opening sequence. Based upon the N. Hollywood Shootout, the opening is shot in fractured frames, giving the feel of amateur or news station photography. Johnson jumps back and forth between these slow-motion frames and live action, contrasting the difference between being at the scene of the crime and being at home watching the footage on the news. The opening sequence is absolutely thrilling and I really had high hopes after watching it.

Enter Samuel L. Jackson. While his performance is strong (as can be expected), the plot just did not allow any of the actors any breathing room. We have a classic plot line: an old-timer hero of the S.W.A.T. squad (Jackson) assembling an elite group of somewhat problematic team members (including the "bad" female) to improve the image of the force. While they are battling the most dangerous of criminals, they are also dealing with the bureaucracy and politics of the job. Colin Farrell plays the rookie who has as much charisma and skill as the seasoned pro. I quickly became tired of Colin's "hard-to-get" attitude, however. And he gave up being a Navy Seal to become a S.W.A.T. member?

I was encouraged by a somewhat different plot line-trying to transfer a dangerous criminal while warding off other criminals who are trying to collect a reward for preventing them from succeeding. The moment the "revenge" angle gets introduced to the plot, however, "S.W.A.T." falls into a classic plot trap and loses my interest. The last twenty to thirty minutes of the film drag in my opinion. All in all, "S.W.A.T." is not a bad film for what it is-an expensive action film with no heart.

"The Italian Job" is another movie that begins with a lot of promise and dwindles as the clock rolls on-fortunately capped at 90 minutes or so. The opening sequence, as the credits roll, is a memorable scene that caught me completely off guard. I enjoyed the young Michael Caine's acting. His charm and personality definitely help carry the film throughout its length. The quirky setup of the film is quite inventive, including a job that is not planned from the ground up, but rather inherited after the death of its mastermind. The film itself does not focus upon the heist; rather, it chooses to direct its attention to the getaway. This makes up the extended action sequence of the film, starring the little minis. The chase sequence is quite enjoyable to watch and I waited the entire movie to see it. I particularly liked the inventive end to the chase sequence and the comedy that is woven into the driving.

"The Italian Job" does not take itself seriously, and neither do I. The ending, as the documentary implies, is the ultimate cliffhanger. I wasn't sure what to make of it-or whether or not I enjoyed it. I can say that I appreciated its originality and I'm glad the film did not descend into a classic heist ending with everyone patting each other on the back. You'll have to watch it for yourself to decide.

As far as comparing it to the remake, you just simply cannot do it. The films are miles apart and have very little in common. I believe that comparing them would be pointless and unfair. See them both-just don't expect a true remake.

"When Harry Met Sally." What can you say? It's the quintessential romantic comedy. Compared to most of the crap that gets put out these days, however, I really enjoy this film. Billy Crystal's charm and comedy manage to keep the movie light on its feet and prevent it from sinking into the sappy, melodrama that so many of these films fall right into. Meg Ryan, an actress I have come to despise as a no-talent hack that only knows how to play the hard-to-get snob, is young in this film and brighter than most of her roles. And check out the very uncharacteristic, and very famous, restaurant orgasm scene. It's classic.

The film, in a similar manner to "High Fidelity," explores relationships, in part, from the male perspective-an interesting viewpoint that often gets lost in modern day romantic comedies. You have to see this film-if only to save yourself from the disasters of another "Kate and Leopold."

"Gladiator" has many ups and downs. In many ways, I agree with some reviewers who describe the plot as thin and lacking real substance. While the story does follow a mock Shakespearian line, the film is really not that surprising and I was not awed by the acting performances in this film, save Crowe. "Braveheart," a similar film, had a little more to offer as far as a turbulent plot is concerned, but let's face it-it's the same kind of movie. We are not dealing with a movie that is supposed to achieve greatness through its clever dialogue and wit. This film is an entertaining visual splash that I believe succeeds quite splendidly. If you love action films, the wonderfully choreographed combat scenes that star Crowe and his Roman short sword are spectacular.

Joaquin Phoenix just annoyed me in this film-plain and simple. So, in part, you could say that he was doing his job. But he was a bit over-the-top in his bad Shakespearian rendition of Commodus and I just wanted him to get off the screen whenever the camera fell upon him. Instead of creating an interesting villain, Phoenix created another stock "woe's me" character. Crowe's performance, on the other hand, is quite good-particularly for the amount of lines that he has to prove himself. The scenes that show Rome at its height are impressive and I enjoyed the transformed time period of this film.

"Gladiator" is a summer blockbuster that is a fun film, a movie that can be watched over and over again. Despite its surface-deep dialogue and lousy attempt to pull-off a psychologically driven, Shakespearian plot, it manages to lay out one of the more enriching action films of recent years.