It’s not great beer. I know that. But out of all the beers I’ve ever tried, this is the best combination of cheap and tasty I’ve ever had. Refreshing, completely inoffensive, and less than ten bucks for six cans? Sometimes, that’s all I’m looking for in a beer.

Oliver Stone is known for making overblown movies, and W. is certainly over-the-top. But that doesn’t make it a bad movie. It can get heavy-handed at times, but the movie is well-put-together, and there are some really great performances. Josh Brolin plays someone very familiar but makes it fresh, Jeffrey Wright is heartbreakingly good at times as Colin Powell, and Richard Dreyfuss’s Dick Cheney is deliciously devious. I found the biggest weakness of W. to be that it just peters out: you get the man’s life – or Stone’s version of it – from University until almost the end of his first term, and then…nothing. I think W. would have made a really good movie if it had been made two years from now, but as it stands, it’s only pretty good.

I’ll lay it out straight: I wouldn’t have seen Adventureland if I didn’t have a free ticket. Nothing about the previews or posters I’d seen had made me want to see it; it looked like “Superbad in an amusement park”. But I was completely disarmed. It was surprisingly thoughtful and sweet, and a lot smarter than I thought it would be. There are definitely moments of lowbrow humour, but this is a fairly good coming-of-age movie that is better and far more realistic than the ad campaign would indicate. Which is a shame really: the people who go see it might be drawing the wrong conclusions, while people like me who didn’t want to see it would be missing out. So go see Adventureland: you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Originally I wrote this movie off because I really didn’t like the book very much, but I’d heard so many good things about it, I just had to give it a shot. About halfway through, though, I remembered that I didn’t like it mostly because of the narration, not the story itself, which I thought was rather interesting. So seeing the movie was one of the rare times that I thought the film was better than the book. The romance is sweet and sentimental, with a few interesting twists and turns, and that’s the most important part: you don’t just have to get invested in the characters, you have to buy the romance. And Michael Cera and Kat Dennings, aided by the script and the direction, pull it off. The story unfolds in a fun little ride, and the supporting performances – particularly from the “boys in the van” – were surprisingly good. I liked it, despite my better judgment, and despite the fact that I’m slightly too old for it.

Burn After Reading isn’t a terrible movie, but it’s probably my second least-favourite Coen Brothers work (after Intolerable Cruelty). It’s silly and blackly funny, but other than an exercise in character work, I didn’t think it was that worthwhile. In fact, most of the humour comes from the characters, almost all of whom have an overinflated view of their own importance. It’s that motivation that drives the plot and leads to some of the more interesting – and bizarre – plot twists. But by the end, I was feeling like the C.I.A. agent during the briefing: sure, it’s weird, but why was it important? Maybe the movie wasn’t terribly important, but it was kind of interesting. So it’s worth watching once, but that’s about it.

I watched this in preparation for the remake that’s coming out this summer; I saw the poster and my interest was piqued, so I thought I should see the original first. And I’m glad I did. I don’t know if it’s safe to call this an “overlooked” movie, but I’d never heard of it before the remake, and I’m one of the most movie-savvy people I know. It’s a hell of a watch: sarcastically funny, tense and thrilling, and really smart. And there are great turns from the likes of Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, and even Jerry Stiller! A diamond in the rough, worth seeking out if you like suspense movies.

I honestly don’t have much to say about Twin Dragons: it’s a below-average Jackie Chan movie, which was disappointing because I typically love Jackie Chan. But the story was ridiculous, and not in a good way: people did things that made no sense, apparently just so that the movie would go on a little longer. It was beyond silly at times, but luckily there were great fight scenes – particularly at the end – that made it almost all okay in the end. Worth seeing if you’re a Jackie Chan fan, but be prepared for some awful moments. (And I watched the original cut – apparently the American version is even worse!)

I love John Ford, but I don’t expect a whole lot from his non-Western fare. And when I picked up The Long Voyage Home at the rental store, I was really skeptical. John Ford directing a movie about sailors? With a script adapted from four plays? And featuring John Wayne as a Swede? I took it out, but wasn’t giving it much hope. And then I watched it.

And it is great. First of all: the cinematography is AMAZING. The deep-focus shots and interplay of shadows and light are spectacular and really allow the actors to use the space on the boat set, which is really good too. The story is rambling but cohesive, and it explores emotions in a more realistic way than, say, How Green Was My Valley. And the ensemble cast? Brilliant. There are tons of great character actors from the 30s and 40s that all get their time to shine, and yes, John Wayne is really as Ole Olsen, as unbelievable ast that may sound. I’m not saying it’s as good as The Searchers or Stagecoach, but The Long Voyage Home is definitely at the top of John Ford’s filmography.

I’m a latecomer to Jim Jarmusch; the first of his movies that I saw was Dead Man, only about a couple of years ago. I liked that one a LOT, so I’ve been randomly picking through his filmography ever since. All the others I’ve seen have been pretty good, but this is the first one I’ve seen that might rival Dead Man for “Favourite Jarmusch Film”. Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai is an independent action film that is part jidaigeki movie, part gangster movie, set to a hip-hop soundtrack. And everything combines perfectly.

Forest Whitaker plays Ghost Dog, a hitman who follows the code of the ancient samurai, and the movie shows what happens when that code conflicts with that of the modern Mafia. Whitaker is AMAZING, he’s usually a good actor but in this movie he’s stellar. And the story is interesting, but what’s MORE interesting is the way it’s told: in the hands of another director it could have been a whiz-bang splatterfest, but this movie is slowly paced and thoughtful, making it much more like an old-school samurai movie. Love it, love it, love it.

Seriously, this was over 220 minutes and it barely wet my appetite. Then again I could probably listen to Martin Scorsese talk about movies for weeks on end, so this DVD collection is kind of tailor-made for me. But it’s crammed with so much information about the art and craft of filmmaking, both in American, and in general, that it’s worth watching even if you’re not a fan of Scorsese’s work. His focus is a little biased towards directors than actors, writers, editors, or what have you, but then again so is the entire industry, and it’s interesting to see him focus on the big names in the early industry as well as the less-well-known people that had a more subtle and forgotten influence on movies as well. I loved it, but then again: it’s a documentary series about movies. It’s a film nerd’s dream.