I have two movie reviews.
The first is Saw II. I think that it compares well to the first. A lot of shit has been given to the first installment saying that the acting was bad and that the killer was not developed enough. I would have to say that the killer was as developed as he needed to be in the first movie and that the acting was not great, but it served it's purpose. The second movie was done just as well, probably even a little better. The killer was developed a little more, probably as much as he could have been without destroying the character. The chritisism has been made that the movie was just a way to kill off as many people as it could in it's two hour time frame. I agree it was. It is a horror flick and that is what those movies typically do. I think Saw II, like the first one, was a creative way at looking at the genre. I have to say that Mike Clark of USA Today has to be my least favorite of all the reviewers mostly because he gave this movie an incredibly low rating and gave Starship troopers a perfect score.
The second of the two movies was Elizabethtown. It is a Cameron Crowe movie and that is about all anyone has to say about it. The soundtrack is good, like most of his movies. The plot follows a man that has some sort of problem and it is resolved by meeting and getting to know a girl. Finally it has a lot of funny moments do to the idiosyncratic behavior of it's characters. Overall I liked it and would suggest it to people that liked his other movies. (Say Anything, Almost Famous, Jerry Mcguire, Fast Times at Ridgemont High)
If you have seen either one, let me know what you thought.