2006 / Adam McKay > There are a lot of jokes in Talladega Nights—in fact, almost as many as there are product endorsements—but thankfully, the success ratio is high enough that it’s hard to stop laughing for much of the film. Moreover, the surrounding cast in John C. Reilly, Gary Cole, Sacha Baron Cohen and a surprisingly stunning Lesbie Bibb gives the film a balance usually found tipped in other Ferrell films. It’s tongue-and-cheek, silly, self-deprecating, but thankfully knows exactly what it is (as witnessed by the outtakes during the end credits). And it’s probably the best Hollywood film this summer so far.

2006 / Nick Guthe > The initial premise is intriguing: Rebellious teenage girl starts moonlighting as an escort girl only to find herself in a hotel room with her step-father. Unfortunately, the film peaks 10 minutes into the story, and while the opening credits were some of the snazziest I’ve seen in a while, Mini’s First Time descends into a predictable and cliche’d storyline,wasting a solid performance from Alec Baldwin and a very effective one from Carrie-Anne Moss. Also, Nikki Reed, who plays the lead and co-wrote the teen drama Thirteen, is someone to keep on the radar (and hope she keeps herself off The O.C.’s).

2006 / Richard Linklater > It’s pretty simple: Without the witty back-and-forth prose/dialogue that Philip K. Dick originally wrote in his short story, A Scanner Darkly would be half the film it is. This banter, often engaged by the characters of Woody Harrelson and Robert Downey, is what keeps much of the film from being a snoozefest. Keanu Reeves is innocuous as usual, which takes away from the level of impact a character like his could have had. The rotoscoping works exactly as intended, and should truly be noted for its creative flexibility as well as its budget-cutting capabilities. As for the basic plot and climatic sequence, it’s all a bit too cliche for this day and age. The final feel of the film is a nice, contemplative one, but that comes only after one hasn’t dozed off somewhere in between.

2006 / Kevin Smith > While not a big Kevin Smith fan, I do respect him for essentially making films for himself, which is a rather beautiful thing. And it just so happens that Clerks 2 feels intensely personal, which for once is an outright positive than a notable negative. Bringing closure to the Askewniverse, Smith presents us with a ridiculous combination of obscenity, hilarity and heart-warming moments that, for better or worse, keep us entertained throughout the film. Of special note was Rosario Dawson: Her character seemed to be the natural embodiment of her own self, and that shone through the screen without reservations.

2006 / Stuart Gordon > David Mamet’s first script since Spartan feels forced and archaic, not surprising as its foundation was penned ten years before the wittiness seen in Glengarry Glen Ross. Dealing with a middle-aged man’s downward spiral into the night, William H. Macy gives a striking performance, especially in the short scene with Julia Stiles. The film itself, however, begins to falter soon afterwards as irrational plotting sequences lead to an anticlimatic and inevitable ending. It tries to be deep with its dialogue, but even at barely 75 minutes, tends to drag on without much material substance. Necessary for Mamet fans, but only passable for most.

2006 / David Slade > There is little doubt in my mind that Hard Candy is an exercise in sensationlism. It reeks of judgment, and lures the viewer into a world where minds have been made up about what is right and what is wrong. That is the bad part; fortunately, Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson put on such an incredible show that it’s hard to turn away from the ridiculousness that follows. The character study of the two is stupefying, changing at the velocity of a ping pong ball. Aside from them, the cinematography is simple and beautiful sans a few unnecessary editing techniques that often feel gimmicky rather than functional. In the end, however, there is a disturbing emptiness due to the absence of any proper social/moral commentary.

2006 / Wayne Kramer > This film is absolutely ridiculous—and that’s exactly why it works. Every style point you can think of in an action flick, whether from Guy Ritchie, Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher or Tony Scott, it’s all here. In fact, throw Paul Haggis into the mix, because the manipulation that goes into the plot is just short of the “genius” behind Crash. Thankfully (or I’m giving it too much credit), the film knows what it is and abuses it it. It doesn’t try to be more than that.

Kramer should essentially be credited for two things: First, utilizing eye candy in a functional manner, as many of the sequences actually had some rhyme and reason. And second, creating a movie for guys. In some ways, this DVD ought to complement Wedding Crashers in every frat house in the country.

2006 / Paul Greengrass > By definition, United 93’s subject matter defies objectivity. It’s hard to like it or dislike it, mostly because of social courtesy standards and the simple fact that the so-called truth will always be skewed by the filmmaker.

This paradox withstanding, the film does an excellent job in re-enacting the events that occurred on September 11. However, my primary complaint lies in the characterization of the terrorists aboard the plane: While it’s essential to hear both sides of every story, I often felt that I empathized more with the terrorists because the time devoted to them paled in comparison to the passengers. One could argue this makes sense as post-9/11 media coverage has also been skewed towards the terrorists: We know where they’re from, how they grew up and what they ate for breakfast everyday. But as for the passengers, they are inevitably grouped together as a collective with a singular face, and it’s hard to feel a deeper emotional connection to them in such a superficial situation.

Another minor gripe is that the flight control terminology that is scattered throughout the film also diminishes the tension level because the audience will often waste precious time thinking, “Wait, what did they mean by that?” Sure, it’s necessary to challenge your audience, but I believe there is an argument against that in this scenario.

Overall, though, United 93 is as appropriate a film as I could have envisioned about the incident. It’s not an easy topic, and I do commend Greengrass for a brave and understandably flawed product that succeeds in its goal.

2006 / Bryan Singer > My disappointment in Superman Returns has considerably little to do with expectations, and everything to do with the fundamentals. I’m amazed that Singer has constructed a giant caricature of a superhero film, filled with big explosions, a villain with ridiculous plans and a storyline that tries to pull a cover over our heads. Dare I say, that even Ratner did a better job with X-Men: The Land Stand because at least he made that fun.

The film has lots of big action sequences, many of which are technically fantastic, but in reality felt laborious to the viewer. Moreover, many of the plotlines—particularly that of Lex Luthor—simply don’t make much sense. Luthor’s plans are inane, but even that is topped by the uninspired climax. Why on earth would you build up that film only to conclude it so simply? Thankfully, Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey were entertaining enough to keep me interested. Brandon Routh’s Clark Kent was well done, but his Superman was fairly harmless and bland (which, sadly, may have been a structural issue).

With great hesitation, I do look forward to Superman Reborn, as it has a much darker, grittier and considerably more interesting storyline. Also, the so-called twist in this film should also be further exploited in the sequel, which alone should make for some entertaining cinema.