The Sobering Conclusion

A Whole New World

2007-04-05T14:27:00.000-07:00

This site has been moved. You will be automatically redirected to the new site in a few seconds or you can click on www.soberingconclusion.com if that fails for some reason.

Maybe it's not quite over ...

2007-03-31T12:25:00.000-07:00

A full restoration of the site has not been ruled out due to many things happening behind the scenes.

As such, I am writing up reviews for the films I caught during the site's hiatus and will be posting them periodically and leaving them in the sidelinks on the left (take note that things are being added in chronological order so some new stuff may pop up in the middle of the list as I get those reviews done).

Nothing is definite yet but I'm covering my bases. For anyone who drifts onto this site, I hope you enjoy the reviews (though some may feel abbreviated due to having to write them from memory) and stay tuned for updates.

Shooter

2007-03-29T09:50:00.000-07:00

Director: Antoine Fuqua Rating: 3
Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Michael Peña, Danny Glover, Kate Mara, Elias Koteas

Bang bang!

What’s one part “Bourne Supremacy”, one part “Training Day”, splashed with a dash of super hot Kate Mara?

Obviously, the title at the top gave this away so there will be no prizes awarded for knowing that the answer is “Shooter”.

Don’t get too excited though, I feel I’m exaggerating a bit because it’s like the film is a Frankenstein of those elements, only not put together in an optimal fashion.

The story of an ex-Marine scout sniper framed for an assassination and his quest for revenge, “Shooter” hits all of its targets but can’t seem to score any bulls eyes.

The production value is okay, though I’ve seen just about every stunt or effect done before and done better. Sure everything explodes and there’s even some cool dismemberment but I often felt like I was watching a TNT Original.

The story unfolds fairly predictably and I would have left it there except that the ending feels out of place and anticlimactic.

Based on a novel, which is part of a series about the main character, it was almost like they got to the end of filming and the script supervisor reminded Fuqua that there was still another scene.

As for the acting, it’s … how should I put it? Well, the acting is clichéd.

Wahlberg looked like he was learning his lines as they filmed, Peña’s character felt like an adopted brother, Mara’s accent almost distracted me from how much I want her phone number and Glover had more meat on his plate at dinner than in the script.

The characters are cardboard cutouts, with very little development that makes any sense.

And how in the hell is the audience is supposed to believe that Marky Mark and Mara hook up, considering that she is the widow of his former Marine sniper squad mate / best friend?

I suppose it might have made sense over the course of a novel but within the constraints of the film, there just was not enough to justify such a complicated dynamic.

Still, the film isn’t all hyperbole and overdone plot elements. I enjoyed the beginning of the film, as Wahlberg’s character laid out the likely scenario an attempt on a political figure might be drawn up.

Once the double-cross takes place, there even a fairly well done escape scene.

However, as all of the pieces fall into place and the film begins to just go through the motions, my eyes started to glaze over and only the gunfights and Mara kept me slightly entertained.

A 3 out of 5, if you really need a shoot ‘em up, go ahead and check out “Shooter”. You won’t be surprised or overly excited but it’ll help kill a few hours otherwise spent listening to your wife telling you to take out the trash and be nicer to her mother.

Miss Potter

2007-03-29T08:37:00.000-07:00

Director: Chris Noonan Rating: 4
Cast: Renée Zellweger, Ewan McGregor, Emily Watson

Most of you who know me or read a good enough portion of my reviews know that I’m not a big fan of Renée Zellweger (what’s with the pretentious “é” in her name?)

Aside from a fun role in “Empire Records” and her character in “Jerry Maguire”, I just about always want her to spit out the lemon in her mouth, get in a car with Nicole Kidman and run into a light pole.

However, she has shown an aptitude for playing British women in the first “Bridge Jones” film (let’s not discuss the sequel) and in “Miss Potter”, she has to fill the illustrious shoes of the title character, Beatrix Potter.

A beloved figure, she’s the best selling children’s book author of all time according to the film and no other research of my own whatsoever.

I’m only cursorily familiar with the work, having graduated to Calvin & Hobbes fairly early in my development. Still, I find her art quite adorable and perfect for the age group being targeted.

Her books are classic fare, much like “Where the Wild Things Are” and “The Ugly Duckling”.

Making a movie about her life didn’t excite me all too much but having a friend who is enamored with her work, I decided to check “Miss Potter” out for myself.

In doing so, I am reminded of the cliché, “Never judge a book by its cover”. And if not for my friend, I would have passed on this as another sour-faced dud from Zellweger.

Potter’s life as a privileged English girl struggling to find her own footing and meet life on her own terms is just interesting enough to make the film work.

The film is truly heartwarming and so sweet at times, it made my cheeks hurt. For the first half of the film, I was worried that it would all just be sugar and spice and everything nice.
However, as with all biopics, there is the inevitable obstacle placed in the person’s life. It isn’t quite the story of perseverance as depicted in something like “God Grew Tired Of Us” or “Mrs. Henderson Presents” but it provides that humanizing element that all of us can relate to.

The acting is all done fairly well and the English countryside has rarely looked more lovely, with director Chris Noonan carefully choosing some gorgeous landscapes to frame the picture within.

“Miss Potter” won’t blow you away with fascinating revelations into her life and it doesn’t break any new filmmaking ground.

Still, it’s undeniably sweet and just a nice little movie to enjoy on a sunny day. While not something I might proclaim as necessary, you can do far worse and probably earn some brownie points with your ladyfriend if she’s into these kind of films.

A 4 out of 5, “Miss Potter” will keep a smile on your face and might just bring you back to those more innocent years when the only watch you needed was the streetlight flickering on and telling you it was time to go home.

The Last Mimzy

2007-03-29T08:35:00.000-07:00

Director: Bob Shaye Rating: 3
Cast: Chris O'Neil, Rhiannon Leigh Wryn, Joely Richardson, Timothy Hutton, Rainn Wilson, Kathryn Hahn, Michael Clarke Duncan

I often wonder why Hollywood doesn’t seem to make movies like they used to.

When I was a kid, there were a plethora of movies that sparked wonder and ignited my imagination; from “Flight of the Navigator” to “The Neverending Story” to “The Goonies” to even films like “D.A.R.Y.L.” and “Cloak & Dagger”.

Those films all transported me to another world, where the only limitation was how far my mind would take me … hold on, I’ve gotta vomit after actually writing that trite sentence.

Okay, that’s better.

Part of the problem might be that I’m no longer a kid (physically) and have become a jaded, cynical adult (physically).

Maybe films like “Spy Kids” and “The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl” do the same thing for kids today.

I think that’s just plain sad but I’m not hip like all those young kids boppin’ around to their Dan Fogelberg records and eating their Hot Pockets.

However, there’s finally a film that harkens back to my youth in the grand tradition of fantastic adventures where kids save the world from their bumbling parents: “The Last Mimzy”.

In this tale, two ordinary kids discover “toys” on the beach that grant them extraordinary powers and knowledge. While they just revel in the fun and wonder, the audience learns that those objects were sent back from the future in an attempt to save humanity.

Obviously, to make this film work, the kids have to do a good job. And they do … mostly.

The older brother is played fairly straight and well by Chris O’Neil. Still, his character’s role is essentially to stay out of the way of his little sister, played by Rhiannon Leigh Wryn.

Wryn is the precocious nougat center of the film and her attachment to the stuffed bunny (which we learn is Mimzy) is nothing short of adorable.

However, here’s where I find the first fault with the film. Her character gains the ability to levitate some of the objects they find on the beach and she is so happy to show her babysitter, as one might expect of such a young girl.

That she can do this isn’t the point, it’s the glee with which she does it that creeps me out. In this, and just about every other scene, she uses her abilities with such a wide grin on her face that all I can think of are children in cornfields and babies born on June 6, 2006.

Sure, I’m a cynic and I’m probably overplaying it in my own head, but she just felt demonic to me. I was always left wondering if she’s spin her head around and start projectile vomiting all over the place.

Satan’s little helper aside, the other problem I have with the film is that there isn’t really any explanation of the events.

You get a vague sense of things and the reasons behind them but no real revelation.

But wait, don’t give up on the film just yet. There are also some very cool aspects to “The Last Mimzy”.

First, there’s a connection made to “Alice Through The Looking Glass” that is very cool for the adult set who get this reference.

Then there’s the sense of nostalgia that the film evokes.

Like those great fantasy films of the 80’s, the kids are the ones with the power and courage to save the day. The parents are cautious and scared about what’s going on and the government tries to stop them too.

It’s like being transported back to my childhood to enjoy a summer afternoon again.

Though in bringing up the governmental interference in the film, I bring about my last downside to the film.

Because of their actions, the kids have garnered the attention of Homeland Security, who think there might be a terrorist plot unfolding.

I like a bit of realism as much as the next guy but this is a kid’s film. I see no reason to try and make Homeland Security look like a bunch of dopes and overzealous thieves of our civil liberties.

This political jab was unnecessary and took away from the overall fun and wonder that the film was trying to convey.

It’s made even more unnecessary as the film concludes and the head of Homeland Security in the area doesn’t bother to do anything about what happens.

He spends all this time, energy and manpower tracking down the kids, only to shrug his shoulders and let everyone go home for a good night’s rest once everything’s been resolved.

I sort of liked this homage to basically ending movies and TV shows with a still frame of everyone laughing, no matter how serious the events – but it really felt more like the screenwriters were stuck and just needed a way to get Homeland Security off-screen so they could finish the movie focused on the family.

Even with all of that negative criticism, I did like the movie. You do need to suspend your disbelief like you did as a child and just go along for the ride but if you can do that, there’s a lot of fun to be had here.

“The Last Mimzy” gets a 3 out of 5 from me. I thought about going higher because of the throwback nature of the film but the elements I criticized kept it at the passing grade.

Now I just have find that copy of “Flight of the Navigator” and drink for each different color Sarah Jessica Parker is sporting in her hair. Good times.

First Snow

2007-03-28T20:52:00.000-07:00

Director: Mark Fergus Rating: 3
Cast: Guy Pearce, J.K. Simmons, Piper Perabo, William Fichtner, Shea Whigham, Rick Gonzalez

I’ve always been tempted to have my fortune told. I don’t hold any stock in the “gifts” fortunetellers claim to have but I thought it would be hilarious to see if they said some bullshit about my life and I could say “Nice try with those generalizations but you’re an idiot and a charlatan, my life is nothing like you just said.”

However, if someone were to hit the nail on the head, I think that might freak me out a little and I’m not sure I really want to know my future.

In “First Snow”, Guy Pearce plays a salesman who by coincidence (or fate), happens upon a fortuneteller who gives him the impression that life isn’t going to be a state he can call home for very long.

Leaving the particulars for you to find out, writer/director Mark Fergus did a wonderful job of peeling the layers of the film back in such a way as to build suspense throughout, not just in particular scenes.

The feeling that something is going to happen, that palpable tense air, gets rolling in the first ten minutes and doesn’t really let go.

That’s helped by the excellent acting performances, most notably Pearce and Simmons.

Guy Pearce seems to always deliver, no matter the genre of film. From “L.A. Confidential” to “Memento” to even “Priscilla: Queen of the Desert”, he has such a powerful presence on screen that the audience almost can’t help but be sucked in.

Most people might recognize Simmons from his role of a psychologist on “Law & Order” or as J. Jonah Jameson in the “Spider-Man” films but don’t let his over-the-top performance in the latter fool you. He plays this character just right, shrouding his wisdom and kindness with a shadowy veneer.

However, while those two actors hit their mark, there were others that felt a little out of place. I liked Fichtner in the film, and his presence brings some amusing levity, but he was the only character to bring that to the table. I think the tone of the film could have been even more gloomy and menacing without that little bit of light.

Perabo and Gonzalez, at times made it look like they were rehearsing the scene, rather than performing a finished product. I’ve never accused either of them of being worthy of many accolades but I like both actors and the energy they normally bring to a project.

Here, it just felt like they didn’t quite mesh with the other characters. I think it was just a case of miscasting, trying too hard to match their particular talents to characters that don’t suit them.

The casting department did get it right though by casting Shea Whigham. While his performance doesn’t take up much screen time, he makes up for that in spades. His character truly had me wondering what he would do next and had me forgetting he was just an actor in a scene.

Between this and his turn in “All The Real Girls”, I am quickly beginning to move him up on my personal acting ladder and look forward to seeing his role in the independent film “Wristcutters: A Love Story” which got a lot of rave reviews at Sundance last year and hopefully will be released to DVD sooner than later..

Back to “First Snow”, the film had a wonderful look to it, using the New Mexico setting as its backdrop. Having driven through that state more times that I’d like to count, I enjoyed recognizing that they shot a lot of driving scenes at one particular Interstate junction in Albuquerque.

Still, putting all of the elements together, I was left feeling like the film needed another push to get it over the hill and that the climax was a little too anticlimactic and predictable.

But if you like this sort of suspense/thriller genre, I think “First Snow” is worth a watch. I’m going to give it the passing grade of a 3 out of 5. A good film, just not all that innovative or necessary.

The Lookout

2007-03-27T08:39:00.000-07:00

Director: Scott Frank Rating 4
Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Matthew Goode, Jeff Daniels, Isla Fisher

Much like the protagonist in “The Lookout”, I had trouble sequencing my approach to this review. I actually wrote the last two paragraphs first.

Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, I’ve moved them to the appropriate locations and now I can begin the review where I should … at the beginning.

“The Lookout” is about a young man (Gordon-Levitt) who has lost the ability to keep short-term memory in the right order, readily confusing the middle of a story for the end and the end for the beginning.

I know many of you may be saying “Memento, what?” and that’s a valid first assumption.

But don’t let that deter you. This film isn’t just some knock off.

Let’s start at the acting. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has quickly risen to the top of young actors working today.

With a gut-wrenching and powerful performance in “Mysterious Skin” and other excellent performances in “Brick” and “Manic”, he has shown that he can cast aside the goody-two shoes image he gained with “Third Rock from the Sun” and “10 Things I Hate About You”.

In “The Lookout”, he again exudes a marvelous capacity to be forceful while still showing extreme vulnerability and kindness.

However, rarely does one person a film make and thankfully the other actors are equally up to the task.

Of course, there’s the brilliant Jeff Daniels; who has shown versatility throughout his career with such films as “Dumb and Dumber”, “Imaginary Heroes” and “Pleasantville”. Playing a blind mentor figure to Gordon-Levitt, he again hits his mark.

To no lesser degree, Matthew Goode does a great job of being the villain. I would almost give him the utmost of compliments and call his performance “Oldmandian”, in reference to Gary Oldman, but that’s a bit much. What I mean is that I completely didn’t recognize him in this film.

I know Matthew Goode from “Match Point” and “Chasing Liberty”. He plays kind, nice men in those films and to top it all off, he’s British. There is no trace of English heritage in this role and kudos to Goode for disappearing into his slimy character so well.

I also want to acknowledge Isla Fisher for her role in the film. While not a large role, she uses her time onscreen beautifully (in more ways than one) and is probably the closest thing to the “heart” of the film. Her performance is sweet in just the right way to work within the context of the story and all I can say is that Sacha Baron Cohen is one lucky man.

Acting aside, the story is compelling and, while not too difficult to figure out, a great ride and journey for the audience. The film managers to combine drama with thriller in such a seamless way as to elevate itself above so many others of its ilk.

The setting in rural Kansas is an evocative landscape, its stark and barren nature mirroring the damaged mind of Gordon-Levitt’s character beautifully.

Writer/Director Scott Frank, in his directorial debut, shows that he is every bit as good a director as a writer (having adapted two Elmore Leonard novels for the screen - “Out of Sight” and “Get Shorty”).

I think some directors may have been tempted to keep adding to the film, to explain things for the audience and to see just how many twists and turns they could weave.

Frank correctly keeps the explanations to a minimum, trusting the audience to put two and two together and maximizing the twists and turns' effectiveness without being too clever.

All of that adds up to a 4 out of 5. The acting is superb and the story moves with efficiency and intelligence.

Although “The Lookout” may seem to be a quasi-clone of “Memento”, don’t let the loose premise connection fool you; this is a film worth your time and money. The visceral event that is “300” aside, this is the best film of the year so far.

The Host

2007-03-24T23:59:00.000-07:00

Director: Joon-ho Bong Rating: 3
Cast: Kang-ho Song, Hie-bong Byeon, Hae-il Park, Du-na Bae, Ah-sung Ko

Remember the urban legend about flushing baby alligators down the toilet and how they grew up in the sewers and would eat anyone who ended up down there?

There have been movies made about that premise and I’m sorry that of all the cliché formulas Hollywood has embraced and continued on with, this isn’t one of them.

However, Koreans have a slightly new take on the matter.

Writer/director Joon-ho Bong, looking out onto the Han River in Korea, imagined that dumping toxic chemicals into the river would result in some sort of monstrous mutation.

That result took shape in “The Host”. A funny-scary movie in the vein of “Shaun of the Dead”, the premise begins with formaldehyde being dumped down the drain.

Years later, a grotesque creature emerges from the sewer system to attack the people on the surface.

I don’t want to get into the particulars of the plot but through the events of the first attack, one family decides to take it upon themselves to hunt down the creature.

All of the actors do a nice job of being believable but at the same time funny, treading a fine line as the film could devolve into complete schlock if not handled right.

The humor in the film is fun and adds an element that takes this film from being just another monster movie and elevates it to another level.

The real star of the film, however, is the monster. This thing is badass, to put it mildly. Boasting a prehensile tail, grasping claws and a formidable set of choppers, this is clearly one creature you don’t want showing up at your bar mitzvah.

As they surely didn’t have fifty million dollars to make the film, there are a few special effects shots (mostly towards the end) that look a bit unfinished. Still, what ended up making the cut 98% of the time was simply awesome.

The creature has a wonderful, tangible quality that is so often lacking in some of these effects-laden films.

That being said, I think the director may have been better served trimming some of the fat. At a running time just a heartbeat away from two hours, I thought “The Host” dragged on in parts and although I’m prematurely aging, I shouldn’t be tempted to drift off at a 9:45 Saturday night show.

Also, I’m sad to say that Universal Studios has picked up the rights to remake this (like every other Asian horror film) and we can only await the watered down version starring whatever “it” teen star sensation is around.

That the film will be reshaped and re-released for American audiences is only made funnier by the underlying sentiment in the film that the United States is negligent and somewhat stupid.

It’s because of Americans in the film that the chemicals get dumped and the family is left to fend for themselves. There are times when I would be angry about that message but I can see both of those things happening within the context of the film and the real world (we are number one at a lot of things and dumping toxic waste is certainly on that list).

Dispensing with the slower scenes and eventual crappy remake, “The Host” brought an innovative and fresh take to the monster movie genre and is far more worth your dollars than most of the other fare out right now.

Until then, if you can find “The Host” nearby, give it a shot. I’m giving it a 3 out of 5. I was tempted to nudge it up a notch but I thought the running time as far too long and there was another aspect I wanted that wasn’t there (run your cursor over the next paragraph if you want to know this SPOILER).

There’s only one monster. Why wouldn’t the toxic chemicals make more than one? Even if it was a different kind of creature, that would only make it cooler.

Blades of Glory

2007-03-22T20:57:00.000-07:00

Directors: Josh Gordon & Will Speck Rating: 3
Cast: Will Ferrell, Jon Heder, Will Arnett, Amy Poehler, Jenna Fischer, Craig T. Nelson, William Fichtner, Romany Malco

Hoping to catch the wallets of America and tickle their funny bones is “Blades of Glory”.

A story (oddly enough whose creation is credited to Busy Philipps), about two disgraced male figure skaters who team up to compete in pairs competition and put aside their rivalry, begs the question: “What would Brian Boitano do?”

Well, it shouldn’t be hard to get an answer because he has a cameo in the film. As do other well-known and decorated skaters Sasha Cohen, Peggy Fleming, Dorothy Hamill and Nancy Kerrigan.

In any case, my answer is that he would skate! That line sounded much better in my head and works better if you lisp.

Anywho … I went into the film expecting a funny, little movie where Ferrell can continue to elicit laughter from even the dumbest of ideas.

I got what I expected.

The film is almost comically short, with a runtime of 93 minutes, which includes the end credits. This works greatly in its favor as trying too hard to develop the characters and delve into their issues would only drag the movie down.

Speaking of characters, it’s no big secret I’m not much of a “Napoleon Dynamite” fan so including Heder wasn’t at the top of my wish lists. For a guy who has said he doesn’t want to keep playing the same character over and over again, he’s done a remarkable job of shutting up and taking the money.

Not that I blame him and I will capitulate that in “Blades of Glory”, I didn’t once think of the liger-loving dimwit America fell in love with a few years ago. There, I paid him a compliment and now I can move on.

Look out! Luke Wilson alert!

Yes, the less interesting Wilson brother (is there such a thing?) has found a way into the film, and for many of you who share my feelings on the subject, take solace that he’s only in it for one scene.

Lukewarm Wilson aside, I will say that I had fun watching “Blades of Glory” and it was worth getting my ass off the couch from the NCAA March Madness (especially because I already lost in my office pool).

A great distraction from his little cameo is the wonderful Jenna Fischer. She gave this movie some semblance of heart and has a great sense of comedic background timing.
Okay, I just made that term up. You got me.

But what I mean is that she facilitates the comedy without upstaging other people on screen (like Ferrell who draws your attention like a moth to a flame). It may just be using a lot of what she’s learned from playing Pam on the American version of “The Office”, but I will say she also looks fantastic in lingerie.

Now, if you looked at the cast list, one can’t help but notice that Craig T. Nelson is their coach. He’s even credited simply as “coach”. As that’s the role that people instantaneously recognize him for, I just would have loved to be in the casting meeting.

“So, we need to find someone to play their coach.”
“Wouldn’t it be funny if we got ‘Coach’ … you know, Craig T. Nelson?”
“Hey! That would be funny. Let’s give him a call.”
“Mr. Nelson?”
“Yes?”
“How would you like to play the coach in a –”
“I’ll do it!”
“Do you want to know what the project is?”
“No, no. Don’t bother me with details, son. You need a coach, I’m your guy!”

This completely fabricated discussion brought to you by C.A.R.C.A.S.S. - the Committee to Always Remember Coach And Shun “the Skulls”.

Back to “Blades of Glory”, it won’t surprise you and it won’t create loads of memorable catch phrases such as those in “Ghostbusters”, “Caddyshack”, or even “Anchorman” to make the analogies more relevant.

However, if you’re a Ferrell Fan (no, not like the cat you idiot, it’s spelled differently) you could do much worse for the price of a matinee show.

Lace up your skates and get out on the ice. I’m giving “Blades of Glory” a 3 out of 5. They aren’t inventing the wheel here but I’ll give this one another watch when it hits DVD shelves.

TMNT

2007-03-17T12:50:00.000-07:00

Director: Kevin Munroe Rating: 2
Featuring the Voices of: Chris Evans, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Patrick Stewart, Ziyi Zhang, Kevin Smith, Laurence Fishburne

When someone mentions the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I have fond memories of rubber turtle suits, Corey Feldman’s voice and a couple of really fun video games.

Then there are the catch phrases; “Cowabunga, dude!”, “Shell shocked” and “Go Ninja, Go Ninja, Go” all rattle around in my little brain.

As a child, what made the turtles so great was that they were like little kids, only they were trained to be ninjas by a wise, old rat. What’s not to like about that?

That vivacious nature is still present in the newly released and fully CG, “TMNT”, however I think reaching my third decade of existence is really beginning to show.

I attended a weekend matinee screening and knew that there would be plenty of kids attending, since this latest adventure is rated PG (Am I the only one that wants a hard R turtles film?).

I held out hope though that, like I was as a child, these kids would go all-out to show their turtle pride. As it was St. Patrick’s Day, just wearing green wasn’t going to cut it with me.

And there were a few kids who fit the bill. Two dressed up in full homemade turtle outfits, complete with shells and masks. They were easily the highlight of the crowd.

Another kid gave it about 75% commitment, wearing a more drab and muddled composition of brown and green, also using a strip of cloth for the mask rather than a full turtle mask.

All fine and good but what the hell was up with the rest of the kids? Sad, I tell you. Just sad.

Equally as sad was a local radio station that co-sponsored the screening. I don’t listen to them anyway but upon entering the theater they were playing “Ice Ice Baby” by Vanilla Ice.

I was nostalgically pleased and hoped that they would realize that if you’re gonna play that song at a “TMNT” screening, you had better play “Ninja Rap” shortly thereafter. Or at least something from the first movie’s soundtrack like Technotronic's “Pump Up The Jam”.

But no, they continued with more early 90’s fare like “Rumpshaker” and everything else that was on heavy rotation on MTV during the years they aired “The Grind” and “Club MTV”.

By this point I was just hoping the film couldn’t disappoint me any less than the pre-show activities.

Finally, the lights dim and after a “Harry Potter” trailer, the feature gets underway.

The story begins with a flashback to events in the past, which will set up the crisis in the present that the turtles will have to face. All standard stuff.

The filmmakers even went to the trouble of getting Laurence Fishburne to narrate the opening story. His voice has a great tone to it but neither I, nor my friends, could help but guffaw at the idea of Morpheus telling us this story while the film blithely introduced the turtles onscreen like some sort of Real World opening.

Literally, you see each turtle going about their daily routine and a graphic slides onto the screen to let all of us know which turtle is named what.

So far, I wasn’t impressed. (I was even less impressed as Fishburne’s voice is only heard for the opening minute and a half. Why get him at all if you’re don’t really need a narrator and, more importantly, what do you pay an actor for that amount of work?)

Then April O’Neal comes onscreen and my biggest complaints of the film rise their neatly coiffed heads.

First, April is voiced by Sarah Michelle Geller. I watched quite enough WB and UPN to laugh just about every time Buffy O’Neal said or did anything. And this isn’t the worst part.

In order to make the plot setup a bit better, April isn’t a reporter – she’s a rare artifacts procurer, sort of like Indiana Jones but we aren’t forced to watch her deal with bags of sand and pressure plates.

That she isn’t a reporter is bad enough, seeing as that’s a core trait of the character and one that didn’t need to be meddled with, but to make matters worse, in “TMNT” April O’Neal has ninja skills!!!

WTF!!!

Just because you get the voice of a vampire slayer doesn’t mean you imbue her animated character with the ability to fight the Foot Clan!!!

Huh, just writing these last few paragraphs have downgraded the film another point from what I originally was going to give the film. Way to go, Mrs. Prinze, Jr. (though I blame writer/director Kevin Munroe much, much more).

Ok, so getting away from O’Neal and targeting Casey Jones, I have another pet peeve here. I was always a big fan of the hockey mask wearing vigilante with a penchant for high sticking his foes. However, much like Pierce Brosnan’s turn as Bond, Casey is emasculated in the film.

He’s more of a buffoon and comic relief character than the bad ass Elias Koteas portrayed him as in the live action films.

The rest of the characters are done well enough although you might as well have made this film about a trio of turtles because Donatello gets about as much screen time as the guy credited as “Man with Coffee Cup”.

As my favorite turtle, this especially saddened me and I will have to re-watch the live action stuff to fulfill my craving for purple turtle. (That’s about the most disturbing sentence I’ve ever typed out or even thought).

Onto the film itself, it’s a pretty standard kids thing. With its PG rating, don’t expect any beheadings or for Leonardo’s katanas to actually strike something with the sharp side of the blade.

Also, don’t be surprised by the story failing to make complete sense. Without going into the plot too much, at one point the bad guys are gathering up thirteen monsters to open up a dimensional gate.

They have collected ten of them and some of the villains think it may be wise to double cross the boss and not collect the last monster, instead substituting a turtle.

So we get introduced to this little monster that seems like a copyright infringement on Stitch. He’s easily the most entertaining character in the film, provided some much need amusement and gets away during his scuffle with one of the turtles.

Fast forward to the dénouement and all of sudden Stitch 2 is in a cage and it’s another monster we’ve never seen that’s the last uncollected one of the bunch.

What happened you ask? So do I. But c’est la vie, that’s cartoon continuity for you (and I was able to figure out what they did to make it work but it’s unclear initially and obvious the filmmakers didn’t care to be so linear).

All of those knocks aside, I could see kids enjoying the film and clamoring for their parents to buy them all the toys and the DVD once it’s released so they can watch it over and over again. Kids are dumb.

And as a kids film, “TMNT” holds up well enough and will keep them glued to their seats.

However, unlike most animated fare in the marketplace today, there isn’t anything for adults to enjoy.

There aren’t any snide comments, meant to pass innocently over the heads of younger viewers - and by flipping the bird to many of the core elements of the previous films and the source comics, fans of those previous works who now work for a living won’t find much to like here.

I’m delivering a 2 out of 5 to “TMNT”. It fell short of the mark, as I suspected it might once I learned they were going to CG the entire affair (who doesn’t like martial artists in bulky turtle outfits?). This one isn’t even worth owning to add to the live action films as part of a set.

Unless you’ve got a child somewhere between 7 and 12 years old, find something better to do and save yourself the money and aggravation. The only thing that will get shell shocked is your wallet if you head out to this over hyped calamity.

Wild Hogs

2007-03-12T21:12:00.001-07:00

Director: Walt Becker Rating: 1
Cast: Tim Allen, John Travolta, Martin Lawrence, William H. Macy, Ray Liotta, Marisa Tomei

Since no one in their right mind would willingly see it with me, I took it upon myself to brave the new “comedy” sweeping the nation, “Wild Hogs”.

This clunker of a film boasted a well-known cast, all of whom probably took some pay cuts to get the film made. I suppose they thought the experience of working together (or maybe a piece of the back end) would make up for lost dollars upfront.

I haven’t seen such stupidity since finding out that the TEP party got busted. “No, man! No!”

Obscure personal reference aside, “Wild Hogs” sucks.

I suppose the aim of the film was to present four friends, all sputtering past middle age and in dire need of some bonding and reminiscing of the good ‘ol days. This was supposed to please the palettes of the audience and rake in the big bucks.

Well, somehow not surprisingly, the American public has spoken and this film will turn the “responsible” studio a profit (Why God why!). But keep in mind, this is the same American public that voted Sanjaya into the Top 12 on American Idol.

Lame reference? Oh, shut up.

All of the jokes in the film are tired and predictable, the character development is non-existent and one really has to wonder how in the hell these four people became friends in the first place.

They let it slip that Allen and Travolta went to college together but how those two then picked up a computer programming nerd and a black plumber … well, that’s probably far more interesting than the hijinks that were to ensue on their road trip.

Along the way, the gang comes across a wide variety of characters whose cameos far outshine any of their “performances”.

I’d like to give special mention to Stephen Tobolowsky as the small town sheriff who got his certification online and firearms training playing Doom. He and his deputies (Jason and Randy Sklar) tried earnestly to shift the attention away from the funnyless foursome.

Props go out to John C. McGinley as the gay cop who just wants to join in the fun. (Though he doesn’t necessarily live up to the greatness that is William Fichtner in “What’s the Worst that Could Happen?” i.e. “Pull Daddy like a chariot.”)

It’s still funny though and I had hoped to see him come back at the end (pun intended). However, the filmmakers don’t fail to disappoint once again and after two short scenes, we are McGinley-free.

And a heartfelt thank you is to be extended to Kyle Gass for covering The Pussycat Dolls and some other great songs as the kickass carnival singer.

Sadly, I read in an interview he also covered “Milkshake” and “My Pony” but those didn’t make the film … unless my mind was partially shut down which is an automatic defense mechanism I’ve began to master over the last few years.

There is another significant cameo but it’s perhaps the saddest thing of all in the film. I’d say this is a spoiler but let’s be honest, none of you are going to see this steaming turd are you?

Really? That’s just sad … Oh, you were kidding. Whew! Almost gave me a scare there … hey, that rhymes! My quasi-stream of consciousness is wittier than the whole movie! Woo hoo!

Where was I? Oh yeah, pathetic cameo. So for the deus ex machina of an ending, Peter Fonda comes riding into town to keep Liotta’s biker gang from actually killing the middle-aged biker wannabes.

Can’t the Screen Actors Guild just put together a collection plate and keep Fonda from degrading his image by being in just about any and every piece of smelly celluloid that has a motorcycle in it?

I mean, come on! I already had to sit through “Ghost Rider” and now “Wild Hogs”?!? WTF!!!

Speaking of foul language, this film is “Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, and some violence.”

Okay, I understand the limited violence and the crude content. I suppose the sexual content refers to some gay jokes and McGinley’s character wanting to get it on with the guys. (The MPAA is alarmingly homophobic so this comes as no surprise to me).

However, nowhere in that description of the rating is “language” mentioned. There are a few “bitches”, at least 3 or 4 “shits” and about 10 “assholes” spread out amongst the film.

Why do I get the feeling that if this wasn’t a Disney film (Touchstone and Buena Vista are Disney’s babies), the MPAA ratings panel would have slapped this film with an R?

For more fun at watching the hypocrisy that is the ratings system, make sure to check out “This Film Is Not Rated”. At least I’ve been able to plug one good film in this review.

Anywho, I’m beginning to digress and this film isn’t worth the effort. Surprisingly though, I’m not going to bestow the lowliest of ratings in this instance and will instead award “Wild Hogs” a 1 out of 5.

There were some legitimately funny moments, mostly due to cameos, and I think I like Marisa Tomei better when her shirts are only half-buttoned. That Academy Award really is helping her career blossom, huh folks?

Bottom line: Unless you decide that this film is worth creating a drinking game about, feel free to move along and enter the next theater. I doubt it’ll be any worse and you’ll respect yourself more in the morning.

God Grew Tired Of Us

2007-03-11T12:41:00.000-07:00

Directors: Christopher Dillon Quinn, Tommy Walker Rating: 5
Featuring: John Dau, Daniel Abul Pach, Panther Blor, Nicole Kidman (narrator)

Showing in limited release around the U.S. right now is the documentary “God Grew Tired Of Us”.

It is the story of The Lost Boys, tens of thousands of boys who fled Sudan as its civil war raged on and the Sudanese north vowed to kill or sterilize all non-Muslim males.

As told in the documentary, these boys, often ranging in age from 5 to 13 years old, walked for over a thousand miles to escape persecution. It is a gut-wrenching tale and one we all wish didn’t have to be told in this day and age.

After finally settling in Kenya, some of the boys are eventually granted resettlement to the United States. The film follows some of them over the course of upwards of three years, from leaving the refugee camp to arriving in the States to gaining self-sufficiency and more.

The central focus is placed on John Dau, Daniel Abul Pach and Panther Blor. Each of them and their fellow refugees are shown the differences in life between that of a cattle herder and a factory worker, between life in a third world and first world country, and between that of an African and an American.

The directors expertly wove their stories together, also presenting the horrific ordeal all of the boys went through just to survive.

To narrate their plight, Nicole Kidman (a former goodwill U.N. ambassador) ably tells their tale. While I’m not a big fan of her as an actress, she does a wonderful job here being informative without being obtrusive or intonating too much.

That is part of what makes this documentary so special. While this could easily have become something saccharine and ended up looking like a Sally Struthers commercial, the film simply presents the reality of things.

This documentary just puts up the images and words of the people involved and lets the audience understand the cruelty of the situation. We aren’t led in a direction, we’re present to react to it.

That is what documentaries should do, and so often of late, they fail in that regard (“An Inconvenient Truth” anyone? Wow, I’m almost feeling bad hitting that film as hard as I have but it’s the best example right now.)

“God Grew Tired Of Us” isn’t just a great documentary, it’s an absolutely necessary one. I implore everyone who reads this to get to the independent theater that’s showing it. I don’t care if you have to drive an hour away. Make it a trip and see some friends while you’re there … and take them with you.

This is a tale of the human spirit and how much people can endure. So many of us are lucky to live in a situation where a flat tire ruins your entire day.

That pales in comparison to watching your parents murdered and having to take care of dozens of little children because you’re the tallest or have reached the ripe old age of 11.

I know that’s trite and we all understand this but sometimes it’s good to be reminded. So get out there and find this film. If you really can’t find it, add it to your Netflix queue right now.

I’m giving “God Grew Tired Of Us” a 5 out of 5 and it’s going to take one hell of an effort to dethrone this from Best Documentary of The Year.

Though some of you may know ...

2007-03-09T03:42:00.000-08:00

A possible resurrection of The Sobering Conclusion is in the preliminary works. As such, I'm trying to cath up on the backlog of reviews I didn't make and also trying to post the new films I watch as well.

I just caught 300 and you can decide to read the review before or after but I think all of you will like it (though I'm sure you were already planning to catch it).

Anywho, just wanted to pass on that tidbit. Details will follow as things become definite. A decent amount of legwork has to be done before anything is certain.

300

2007-03-09T03:20:00.000-08:00

Director: Zack Snyder Rating: 5
Cast: Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, Dominic West, Rodrigo Santoro, Vincent Regan, David Wenham

Leaping from the pages of Frank Miller’s graphic novel, “300” is the legendary tale of 300 Spartan warriors who came out to play against a Persian army said to number in the hundreds of thousands or more.

Director Zack Snyder assembled an excellent team to bring the images and text of Miller’s work to the screen. From visual effects to make-up to costumes, everything in “300” is top notch.

The use of blue screen to help create the epic framework and backgrounds for the film really pay off. It’s almost as if you were reading the graphic novel and it came to life inside your head. The stylistic landscapes and characters immerse the audience in a world that is both brutal and beautiful all at the same time.

As the trailer indicates, the clash of armies is not for the faint of heart and promised to be massive in scope. The film lives up to that promise.

The fight scenes, of which the majority of the film is comprised, show off all the hard work the actors put into training and the viciousness of sword & shield combat.

If you don’t want to see dismemberment and more stab wounds than a serial killer nicknamed “Happy McStabby”, you might want to skip “300”.

There’s almost more blood (both physical and computer generated) than you can shake a stick at. However, I’m more concerned with why you’re shaking a stick at blood … sicko.

Although the Spartans were known for their valor and fighting prowess, it was their tactical skills in using a narrow avenue for battle that tipped the scales toward their favor.

Otherwise, this could have been the shortest movie since “Bambi meets Godzilla”.

To that end, the Spartans took their cues from their warrior king, played by Gerard Butler. I so dearly entered the film hoping I could leave and entitle the review “The Phantom of the Spartans” but that clunker of a musical aside, Butler’s performance is right on and just what this film needed.

He is brutal and fair, bloodthirsty and compassionate, all at the same time. Though that’s not to say he did it all himself.

“300” makes sure to create the adage that behind every brave Spartan warrior is a brave wife and family. To that end, enter the Queen of Sparta, played by Lena Headey.

The film uses the politics of Sparta and her struggle to send more troops to aid the King as a counterbalance to all of the fighting being done by the titular 300.

I commend the film for making these scenes interesting and necessary enough to round out the story that I wasn’t bored by them. In fact, they proved welcome buffers to the constant battles.

“300” is probably the best mainstream film to have come out so far this year and I doubt any of the summer blockbusters will be able to convey such a complete story.

I have a strong suspicion that all of the big budget movies coming to a multiplex near you over the next few months will be a load of flash and noise attempting to mask thinly veiled premises and poor conclusions. (Yeah, I’m looking at you “Transformers”.)

The art direction, sound design and brutal battles are enough to make this film a must see in theaters if you can stomach it. Add to that a well-rounded story, good acting performances and one of my favorite lines from a film ("No Retreat, No Surrender"), you’ve got something that much more worthy of praise.

In fact, I’m giving “300” a perfect 5 out of 5. I was trying my best not to hand out the ultimate rating but I can’t think of anything they did poorly or wrong. Maybe the political storyline could have been a bit more robust but then it would have created a pacing problem and dragged the movie down.

No, for what this film is supposed to be, the filmmakers did everything right and you owe it to yourself to see this on the big screen with nice digital surround sound. Even your crisp, new plasma TV can’t truly deliver the grand scale of this film and you’re only cheating yourself if you try.

March 2007

2007-03-01T03:29:00.000-08:00

Although the reviews have stopped for now ...

2007-02-25T11:48:00.000-08:00

I did manage to muster enough time and energy to put together the Best of 2006, my Oscar picks and the 2006 Anonymous Awards. Head over to http://sobercyearratings.blogspot.com/ to check that out.

Also, if anyone out there is interested in writing reviews for the site, I'd be willing to discuss it. If I didn't do everything on my own, it's possible I'd bring the site back. But like they say, "I'm only one man".

And I'm lazy ... so, so lazy.

Music and Lyrics

2007-02-20T09:08:00.000-08:00

Director: Marc Lawrence Rating: 3
Cast: Hugh Grant, Drew Barrymore, Brad Garrett, Kristen Johnston, Haley Bennett

“How to make a romantic comedy: The ‘Music and Lyrics’ Story” by Hungry Hank

First, cast beloved actors who have a charisma and likeability that will win audiences over no matter how sappy their dialogue may be. Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore; Check.

Second, the main characters should be flawed and searching for something to complete their life. Barrymore plays a failed writer who was betrayed by a former beau and feels insecure about showing herself to the world creatively. Grant is a former 80’s pop star who now plays carnivals and high school reunions (and even that is beginning to dry up). Check.

Third, there should be some best friend/sibling types for each main character that provide a zany foil to their puppy dog sad faces. Garrett is Grant’s agent and probably couldn’t get another client with a hundred dollar bill sticking out of his pocket. Johnston is Barrymore’s sister who runs a weight loss clinic and was a huge fan of Grant’s band in the 80’s. Check.

Fourth, the main characters will fall in love, face an obstacle to their relationship and break up, only to be reminded of their love and get back together in the end. Grant and Barrymore begin writing a song for a hot young pop star (Bennett) and fall in love. He calls her out on some insecurities and they part ways. He realizes he loves her and wins her back. Check.

There’s no way I spoiled anything. You can see all of this coming a mile away. Romantic comedies are such a formulaic art form at this point that only the strength of the actors, and/or occasionally a witty script, can elevate it to something worthwhile.

As most of my loyal readers know by now, I’m a sappy idiot. Sure, I tend to love dark, depressing independent fare but I can be swept off my feet by a heartfelt romantic comedy like a little schoolgirl just as easily.

While I haven’t always been a big fan of Grant’s (arrests notwithstanding), he has completely changed my mind in the last five years with great performances in “About A Boy”, “Love Actually” and here in “Music and Lyrics”.

The movie opens with a music video of his band, “Pop” and it is pure 80s gloriousness. All of the cheesy dance moves, the interwoven overly-melodramatic story and the hilarious hair is present and accounted for.

Basically, “Pop” is Wham set to celluloid and Grant plays the other guy (yes, I do know it’s Andrew Ridgeley). As a fan of 80’s music, using it as a back story for Grant’s character made it all the more fun and easy to laugh along with.

Barrymore’s character is less easy to reconcile - as the neurotic, insecure victim personality. However, I have always found her to be so endearing and loveable that I was eventually swayed by her feminine wiles. She’s no Anne Hathaway but she makes it work.

I’d also like to applaud both actors for doing all of their own vocals for the songs. I wasn’t sure as the movie went along if some vocals had been dubbed Milli Vanilli style but in checking out the song credits, it’s all Grant and Barrymore.

The writers of the songs should also be commended for coming up with catchy pop tunes that were fun, irreverent and touching. If the songs hadn’t worked, this whole movie would’ve gone down like Chloë Sevigny in “The Brown Bunny”.

I’m sure many people reading this (if they are still reading) aren’t going to see this film. I doubt my demographic skews heavily towards the sappy side of cinema but so far this year, “Music and Lyrics” is the best of its genre to come out.

I’m giving it a 3 out of 5 on the merits of the film, I thought Barrymore’s character could have been done better with a script rewrite and it has an odd sense of pacing because of the way the elements and obstacles to their relationship are laid out.

Still, I’m gonna snap this up on DVD once it hits shelves and probably watch it every few weeks or so in rotation with “Love Actually”, “Serendipity” and “Say Anything”. If you want a film that’s got some good 80’s cheese and need a film to see with your wife/girlfriend, there’s a lot worse you can do (“Because I Said So” springs to mind).

Because I Said So

2007-02-20T07:48:00.000-08:00

Director: Michael Lehmann Rating: 0
Cast: Mandy Moore, Diane Keaton, Gabriel Macht, Tom Everett Scott, Lauren Graham, Piper Perabo

How in the hell does the director of “Heathers” go on to do “Hudson Hawk”, “My Giant” and now “Because I Said So”?

Wow … I mean … Wow.

Before I get on to defecating all over this film, let me just clear my throat … mmmm, Mandy Moore … mmmm.

Okay, onto the tirade.

“Because I Said So” is one of the worst films I’ve seen in the last year and probably should have gone straight to DVD.

The basic premise is that somehow, Mandy Moore hasn’t found a guy to settle down with (call me!) and her overbearing mother (Keaton) sets her up on a date with what she thinks is the perfect guy (Scott).

At the same time, another guy (Macht) has gotten wind of Keaton’s scheme and decides to step in and date the lovely lass.

This creates the proverbial dilemma of choosing between one’s heart and Mom’s favorite. Though to be realistic, replace the word “proverbial” with “stupid”.

Of course, at some point the cat is let out of the bag and Moore finds out her Mom is behind her romantic escapades and all gosh darn heck breaks loose … not that it mattered because by then I was sort of hoping for a power outage.

The writing in this piece of garbage is atrocious, the setups are annoying and Keaton’s character is so frustrating you would think it more plausible that the daughters form a pact to kill and bury her rather than put up with all of the crap she pulls.

Hell, even the best scene in the film, where the daughters are stripped down to their bra and panties (mmmm) is ruined by Keaton’s presence and likewise appearance (ewww).

I really wanted to like this film because I’m developing a decent sized crush on Moore (sadly I just realized that’s a pun on one of her songs but please don’t mock me right now, I’m very fragile).

However, there really isn’t any liking to be done in the film. The chemistry between Scott and Moore is poor and while the Moore-Macht storyline is kinda cute, it in no way makes up for the rest of the filth.

I could probably go on and on, dissecting each scene and revomiting each time I think of it but I’d rather just move on. No one reading this is going to see it and if you were planning to, just go online and grab the screen captures of Mandy.

They’re the only things going in this one. I thought long and hard about it but I’m going to deliver the dreaded bag of hammers on “Because I Said So”. A 0 out of 5, this is the kind of film that reminds me that Hollywood would be better off either giving me the money for the production or burning it along with the script.

I desperately wanted to give it a 1 for Mandy’s presence alone but I just couldn’t do it. (Though she can still call me whenever she wants.)

February 2007

2007-02-01T08:14:00.000-08:00

Music and Lyrics

Because I Said So

Smokin' Aces

2007-01-31T14:33:00.000-08:00

Director: Joe Carnahan Rating: 2
Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Jeremy Piven, Ray Liotta, Andy Garcia, Alicia Keys, Common, Ben Affleck, Jason Bateman

Imagine yourself at a heavy metal concert. Only you’re seated inside a glass box so no one can touch you. It’s just you and the lights and the music and the noise.

That’s kind of what watching “Smokin’ Aces” is like.

A loud cacophony of gunfire and cursing, the film’s “plot” is that Buddy “Aces” Israel (Piven) is going to snitch on the mob so a bounty is placed on his head.

That brings out every hit squad in the Western Hemisphere and it's up to federal agents (Reynolds and Liotta) to keep him safe.

I’m cool with frenetic action and I love more gunfire than you’ll find at a Waco church assembly. John Woo’s “The Killer” and “Hard Boiled” are some of my favorite action movies, where Chow Yun-Fat gets to cap hundreds of bad guys in glorious slo-mo while doves fly around in glee.

Still, with “Smokin’ Aces” it all seemed to be action for the sake of action and I felt the plot was almost an afterthought. The film wasn’t saying anything more than “I shot you. Isn’t that cool?”

And sure, that is cool. It’s just that the film felt like it was made simply to be slick, not to be good.

Now I will spoil one thing that makes the film kind of kick more ass than I’m giving it credit for: Afflack gets whacked!

However, we aren’t given the proper amount of slo-mo and time to truly appreciate the moment. Kind of like how Paul Walker gets killed in “Flags of Our Fathers“ but we don’t get to take a breath and thank the Lord for what just happened.

Also, the ending dares to pull off some of the hokiest stuff in recent memory. Obviously I can’t give away the ending but it almost felt like a Scooby Doo episode. Very neat and packaged.

And that’s about it. There’s really not too much else to say about the film.

Obviously, you shouldn’t expect Shakespeare, though there is a Macbeth feel to it all, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

If all you want is a lot of noise and some fun characters trying to assassinate poor Mr. Piven, then “Smokin’ Aces” is for you.

If you looked at the trailer and said, “Whoa, that looks too dumb even for me”, then you’re probably right.

I’m giving “Smokin’ Aces” a 2 out of 5. I had hoped it would be a tighter script though I enjoyed the bloodbath aspect of it. The ball’s really in your court on this one. I’m almost still too woozy in the head to make heads or tails of what I just saw.

The Lives of Others

2007-01-28T11:49:00.000-08:00

Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck Rating: 3
Cast: Sebastian Koch, Ulrich Mühe, Ulrich Tukur, Martina Gedeck

With a name like von Donnersmarck, you know it’s German!

Well, the 2007 Academy Awards decided that “The Lives of Others” was the best foreign language film of the year, beating out the more widely seen “Pan’s Labyrinth”.

Sadly, I don’t think I got to too many foreign language films this year so whether they made the right decision is a little unclear to me. (I saw this film in January but thought I’d mention the award since I’m writing this after the Oscars were announced.)

However, I can’t say they were wrong to nominate it.

“The Lives of Others” is set in 1980s socialist East Berlin. The secret police are out in force and the freethinking “radicals” are under constant scrutiny and persecution.

The story of the film centers on a playwright (Koch) who wants to expose the unjust system by sending information to West Berlin for publication.

As part of a targeted group of people, there is a secret service agent assigned to monitor his actions and discussions (Mühe).

Mühe discovers along the way that the system he is protecting may be harmful to its citizens and begins to allow Koch to disseminate his information, helping to cover his tracks.

All the while, Koch’s wife (played by the wonderful Martina Gedeck) is caught in a struggle of her own. A political minister has decided that in order for her to be allowed to perform on stage, she has to perform for him.

As could be expected, the stories collide towards the end to provide a more all-encompassing storyline.

I’ve probably said too much already but if you couldn’t figure this stuff out as quickly as I could, well that’s just sad.

Overall, “The Lives of Others” delivers good acting performances, a tense environment and if you are a fan of this genre, you’re going to like the film.

My biggest complaint with the film is the length. At a running time just over 2 ½ hours, I thought there were a good 30 minutes to cut out near the beginning.

I get that the socialist regime made things tough in East Berlin at the time and a few opening scenes would have been enough.

However, Von Donnersmarck decided to extend the beginning in such elaborate fashion that I almost forgot the point of the film as it came close to becoming more a portrait of Koch and Gedeck’s life than a thriller about escaping the clutches of the secret police.

Also, once the story of Koch vs. the secret police is over, the film fast forwards to a time after the Berlin wall fell to present the full scope of the events and I understand why it’s there but it fell a little forced.

This is one of those instances where I might rather have the film fade to black and throw up some text to explain what the fall of Socialism meant to Germany.

Aside from that, “The Lives of Others” is a well-rounded film and I’ll give it a 3 out of 5. I’ve seen plenty of better foreign cinema but there’s a lot worse out there too.

Children of Men

2007-01-21T16:51:00.000-08:00

Director: Alfonso Cuarón Rating: 5
Cast: Clive Owen, Claire-Hope Ashitey, Julianne Moore, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Caine

Based on the P.D. James novel of the same name, “Children of Men” is a dystopian view of the future, specifically in England, as the world has devolved into madness and for some unknown reason, humans aren’t able to procreate anymore.

This set of circumstances creates a harrowing look into what drives people and the depths to which we as a race are capable of.

In the film, one woman (Ashitey) has mysteriously become pregnant and in order to assure her safety, and to hopefully allow for scientists to figure out how it happened, a small rebel faction group (led by Moore’s character) has devised a plan of escape from England to a supposed group of scientists baring the title of The Human Project.

Of course, everything doesn’t go quite to plan and the majority of the film is a tense ride as the audience is brought along with the characters, trying desperately to find safety and solace.

That’s a mouthful. Okay, plot aside, let’s get to the meat of the matter.

Everything in the film is done top notch. From production value to score to costumes to acting to directing to editing to writing, everything is superb.

What makes “Children of Men” so fantastic is how natural the film feels. Events unfold as if you were there. There isn’t a buildup of the score or a camera panning in a direction to highlight what you should be focusing on.

Things just happen. You’re either paying attention or you’re not. Just like life.

And things aren't explained six times just to make sure the audience gets it. If you aren’t able to keep up, you’ll get left behind. While some people may want their films sugar coated for them, this is definitely for the crowd that actually did well in high school. Bring your thinking caps, it’s a good thing.

Also, Cuarón did a wonderful job of having the camera be right alongside the actors, allowing the audience to feel like they were right there with them. He also used a number of camera shots done in one take, creating an even eerier sense that what you were watching was happening right then and there.

Masterful direction notwithstanding, it is the actors who make us believe. Everyone in the cast, from top to bottom, gives convincing performances devoid of any artifice. Leaving the film, I was relieved to find that I still lived in a somewhat free state.

To that end, the big brother mentality that dominates the futuristic England is gorgeously framed within the context of the film. Places and objects felt just odd enough to be futuristic but not so strange as to seem unbelievable. The mindset of the people is one of blind obedience to the system that has sprung up in the midst of all the world chaos.

Getting away from the literal elements on screen, what makes “Children of Men” stand out so much is that it creates discussion.

The “1984”-esque world that is presented is one we all hope doesn’t come to pass but as more and more civil liberties are removed in the name of safety, how far are we from that time really?

Also, the diabolical nature of people as they try to eek out a living for themselves is on display in the film and it isn’t a pretty picture.

And perhaps most relevant is that in the film, there is worldwide chaos stemming from extremist violence. As America and her allies continue to wage war on “terror”, this film hits very close to home and depicts an end result no one wants to see happen in real life.

“Children of Men” is provocative, intelligent and gripping. I don’t think there was a better film in 2006, having weighed all of its elements together. Any one who considers themselves a film buff should run, not walk, to the nearest theater and see this film.

If you can’t, hop on that Information Superroadway thing and order it up. This is a film you simply shouldn’t miss.

Letters from Iwo Jima

2007-01-18T15:42:00.000-08:00

Director: Clint Eastwood Rating: 4
Cast: Ken Watanabe, Kazunari Ninomiya, Tsuyoshi Ihara

Shifting the focus from “Flags of Our Fathers”, with “Letters from Iwo Jima” Eastwood has chosen to view the battle of Iwo Jima from the perspective of the Japanese who defended the island so vigorously from invading American forces.

While I’m sure there have been films that looked at the opposing side of a war, I can’t readily think of one American film made to show the viewpoint of our former enemies.

My curiosity for such a film was high from the time it was announced and while I was disappointed with “Flags of Our Fathers”, I had hope that Eastwood would pull it together with this film.

Thank you Mr. Eastwood for keeping hope alive.

He used essentially the same crew for both films, helping the battle scenes match up well. You got the sense this was the same battle, just told from opposite sides of the front line.

And while I knocked “Flags” for its focus and acting, it did have wonderful production value, which held true for “Letters”.

Adding to the quality production were good actors, most notably Watanabe. Sure, it feels like a cop out to single out the one guy whose name has been heard east of Japan but there’s a reason his talent hasn’t been confined just to Japan.

Watanabe plays the stoic hero figure so well (a la “The Last Samurai”) and it is definitely evident in this film.

As the commander of Japanese forces on Iwo Jima, he struggled to find the resources to put up a fight against overwhelming odds. He also treated his soldiers with respect and did what he could to keep their spirits up.

I do concede though that it may be a point of contention on how well he treated his soldiers, or perhaps simply done just for the sake of dramatic purposes.

Still, his character shines in the film like a bright beacon and is surely one of the better acting performances of 2006.

Just as impressive is Kazunari Ninomiya as one of the soldiers destined to die on Iwo Jima. His performance was riveting and was one of many that gave me an odd pause during the film.

Seeing this film from the Japanese perspective, it’s hard to see the battle as so black and white.

Sure, I realize that American troops have killed a lot of people during many wars throughout our brief history.

But reconciling the effects of war when you stay firmly on one side of the issue is easy. As one begins to empathize, the whole affair gets muddled and confused.

A real feeling of sorrow passes and fear sets in as you watch these brave Japanese soldiers defend the island. It’s only compounded because like so many of our own soldiers, they are only there because the country demands it.

Many of them were just bakers and farmers who were enlisted to fight. They had no say in the matter and could only make the best of a bad situation.

“Letters from Iwo Jima” gets its name from the storytelling technique, using letters between the soldiers and home to reveal their characters and backgrounds.

Eastwood used the technique deftly and it allowed to further humanize the soldiers as they prepared for the American assault.

I have heard people say that the film was too slow and maybe too long but I think that stems from wanting to see a different kind of film.

This isn’t a war film, where you follow a group of soldiers into battle and view the carnage for an hour and half.

“Letters from Iwo Jima” is a portrayal of the men behind the guns. There are battle scenes and plenty of death to go around but you shouldn’t go to this film for action.

You should be seeing the film for its portrayal of the human spirit and the drive within people that keeps them going through such horrific times.

Easily one of the best films of 2006, “Letters from Iwo Jima” gets a strong 4 out of 5 and redeems my faith in Eastwood’s remarkable track record as a director.

The Painted Veil

2007-01-14T13:42:00.000-08:00

Director: John Curran Rating: 3
Cast: Naomi Watts, Edward Norton, Liev Schreiber, Toby Jones, Diana Rigg

Floating through independent cinemas has been the W. Somerset Maugham novel turned film “The Painted Veil”.

A story of found love set amid the cholera epidemic in China, the film resonated strongly with critics but failed to attract much notice otherwise.

This is surprising to me because it has all the makings of a film that would resonate with the typical romantic period piece crowd, generally an audience of people over 40 years of age, if I’m going to blatantly profile.

However, people haven’t seemed to flock to this one and that’s a shame. While it’s not the best in its genre of grand, sweeping, romantic epics, it is very good.

And how could it not be, when the two leads are Naomi Watts and Edward Norton, two of the very best actors working today?

Each of them do a superb job, him with his stiff upper lip and unrequited love and her as a trapped prisoner of a wife who eventually finds that her husband isn’t such a hard man to love.

Actually, I applaud Ms. Watts for once again turning in a brilliant performance, full of nuance and toeing the line gracefully between spite and pleasant resignation.

Her character knows the situation she is in and tries to make the best of things, all the while portraying a brave face, no matter how scared she is inside.

Norton is also excellent, though he isn’t really given much to work with in the script. The emotional struggle is much heavier and apparent in Watts’ character.

The film sees the couple travel from England to China and then to rural China, as Norton pursues his cause to fight the cholera epidemic in the 1920s.

The landscape is lush and beautiful, providing almost another character for the film.

The supporting roles are done well, most notably by Jones and Rigg, who help to provide the audience with a better understanding of life in rural China during that time, as seen by the Europeans who were trying to colonize the area.

Where the film falls short for me is in how incomplete the story feels. I can piece together the holes for myself, and I never felt lost or confused, but seeing as this was based on a novel, there was apparently a lot left out.

It was like hearing only one end of a phone conversation. Sure, I can figure out what the people are talking about but I don’t really get a firm grasp on the full picture and I feel like I’m missing details.

It’s one of those common problems that arises when adapting a book for the screen and it probably doesn’t help that I’m not much of a period film fan to begin with.

Again, the acting is superb and the setting is beautiful. I just don’t know who I’d recommend this to that was under 35 or 40 years old. I just found it hard to connect to the story.

So I’m going to award “The Painted Veil” a 3 out of 5. It’s a well done film and has its merits but somehow the feeling of importance or accomplishment one feels when they leave a theater having watched one of these genre films isn’t there.

For my money, if I’m going to do a period romantic epic, it’s almost “Dr. Zhivago” or bust. Probably not a fair standard but no one ever said I was fair.

January 2007

2007-01-06T11:50:00.000-08:00

Smokin' Aces

The Lives of Others

Letters from Iwo Jima

Children of Men

The Painted Veil

Sorted By Rating

2007-01-05T08:49:00.000-08:00

5 - Flute of the finest champagne/fine sparkling wine

300
Akeelah and the Bee
Capote
Children of Men
God Grew Tired Of Us
Half Nelson
A History of Violence
Junebug
The Last King of Scotland
Little Miss Sunshine
Somersault
Tsotsi
United 93*

* denotes that while it deserves a 5 from a filmmaking aspect, I think it's too early for a film like this. In ten years or so, it will be the standard by which to judge other 9/11 films but it's too soon for me.

4 - Pull of Chuckpucker

The 40 Year Old Virgin
Beerfest
Before the Fall
Breakfast on Pluto
Brick
Brokeback Mountain
Broken Flowers
Casanova
Catch a Fire
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Da Vinci Code
Dave Chappelle's Block Party
Deliver Us From Evil
District B13
For Your Consideration
Friends with Money
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
The Illusionist
King Kong (2005)
Kinky Boots
The Last Kiss
Letters from Iwo Jima
Little Fish
The Lookout
Memoirs of a Geisha
Miami Vice
Miss Potter
Munich
Murderball
Mysterious Skin
Night Watch (Nochnoi Dozor)
The Prestige
The Protector
The Queen
Snakes on a Plane
Stranger Than Fiction
Superman Returns
Thank You for Smoking
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
An Unfinished Life
Walk The Line
Who Killed the Electric Car?
Why We Fight
Wordplay
World Trade Center

3 - 6 pack of Old Style

The Aristocrats
Babel
Bad News Bears (2005)
Blades of Glory
Borat
Charlie & The Chocolate Factory
Clerks II
The Constant Gardener
Crash (2005)
The Departed
The Devil Wears Prada
Down in the Valley
Failure to Launch
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift
Fearless (Huo Yuan Jia)
Final Destination 3
First Snow
Flags of Our Fathers
Flightplan
Good Night and Good Luck
A Good Year
Grizzly Man
Happy Endings
Heights
Hellbent
Hoodwinked
The Host
An Inconvenient Truth
Infamous
The Island
Jackass Number Two
Jarhead
Jesus Camp
Just Friends
Just Like Heaven
Keeping Mum
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Kontroll
The Last Mimzy
L'Enfant
The Lives of Others
March of the Penguins
Match Point
Me, You And Everyone We Know
Mission: Impossible III
Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Mrs. Henderson Presents
Music and Lyrics
Must Love Dogs
Over the Hedge
The Painted Veil
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Poseidon
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
The Proposition
Red Eye
Serenity
Shooter
Sketches of Frank Gehry
Sky High
Step Up
Syriana
Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny
Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story
Underworld: Evolution
V for Vendetta
War Of The Worlds (2005)
Wedding Crashers
X-Men: The Last Stand
Zoom

2 - Keg of Foster's

Aeon Flux
American Dreamz
The Brothers Grimm
Don't Come Knocking
Driving Lessons
Duck Season (Temporada de Patos)
Fantastic Four (2005)
Fast Food Nation
Ice Age: The Meltdown
Inside Man
The Lake House
Madagascar
Nacho Libre
The OH in Ohio
A Prairie Home Companion
The Quiet
Renaissance
Rent
The Science of Sleep
Shopgirl
Shut Up & Sing
Smokin' Aces
The Squid and the Whale
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith
Stick It
Talladega Nights
TMNT
Trust the Man
Waiting

1 - Case of Olympia (properly aged/conditioned)

Bloodrayne
C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America
The Longest Yard (2005)
The Marine
The Peaceful Warrior
The Ringer
Scoop
Stealth
Transporter 2
Wild Hogs

Zero, Zip, Nada - Bag of Hammers (hit yourself with one, move on to next hammer, repeat until unconscious or dead)

Because I Said So
The Break-Up
Date Movie
The Dukes Of Hazzard
Marie Antoinette
The Matador

What The F#@!? - Words can't describe the substances you would need to really enjoy this film on any other level than sheer absurdity and senseless masochism ... being me helps.

Ultraviolet

Complete Alphabetical List of Movie Reviews

2007-01-05T08:43:00.000-08:00

#'s

The 40 Year Old Virgin
300

A

Aeon Flux
Akeelah and the Bee
American Dreamz
The Aristocrats

B

Babel
Bad News Bears (2005)
Because I Said So
Beerfest
Before the Fall
Blades of Glory
Bloodrayne
Borat
The Break-Up
Breakfast on Pluto
Brick
Brokeback Mountain
Broken Flowers
The Brothers Grimm

C

Capote
Casanova
Catch a Fire
Charlie & The Chocolate Factory
Children of Men
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Clerks II
C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America
The Constant Gardener
Crash (2005)

D

The Da Vinci Code
Date Movie
Dave Chappelle's Block Party
Deliver Us From Evil
The Departed
The Devil Wears Prada
District B13
Don't Come Knocking
Down in the Valley
Driving Lessons
Duck Season (Temporada de Patos)
The Dukes Of Hazzard

E

F

Failure to Launch
Fantastic Four (2005)
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift
Fast Food Nation
Fearless (Huo Yuan Jia)
Final Destination 3
First Snow
Flags of Our Fathers
Flightplan
For Your Consideration
Friends with Money

G

God Grew Tired Of Us
Good Night and Good Luck
A Good Year
Grizzly Man

H

Half Nelson
Happy Endings
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Heights
Hellbent
A History of Violence
Hoodwinked
The Host

I

Ice Age: The Meltdown
The Illusionist
An Inconvenient Truth
Infamous
Inside Man
The Island

J

Jackass Number Two
Jarhead
Jesus Camp
Junebug
Just Friends
Just Like Heaven

K

Keeping Mum
King Kong (2005)
Kinky Boots
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Kontroll

L

The Lake House
The Last King of Scotland
The Last Kiss
The Last Mimzy
L'Enfant
Letters from Iwo Jima
Little Fish
Little Miss Sunshine
The Lives of Others
The Longest Yard (2005)
The Lookout

M

Madagascar
Marie Antoinette
The Marine
March of the Penguins
The Matador
Match Point
Me, You And Everyone We Know
Memoirs of a Geisha
Miami Vice
Miss Potter
Mission: Impossible III
Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Mrs. Henderson Presents
Munich
Murderball
Music and Lyrics
Must Love Dogs
Mysterious Skin

N

Nacho Libre
Night Watch (Nochnoi Dozor)

O

The OH in Ohio
Over the Hedge

P

The Painted Veil
The Peaceful Warrior
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Poseidon
A Prairie Home Companion
The Prestige
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
The Proposition
The Protector

Q

The Queen
The Quiet

R

Renaissance
Red Eye
Rent
The Ringer

S

The Science of Sleep
Scoop
Serenity
Shooter
Shopgirl
Shut Up & Sing
Sketches of Frank Gehry
Sky High
Smokin' Aces
Snakes on a Plane
Somersault
The Squid and the Whale
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith
Stealth
Step Up
Stick It
Stranger Than Fiction
Superman Returns
Syriana

T

Talladega Nights
Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny
Thank You for Smoking
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
TMNT
Transporter 2
Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story
Trust the Man
Tsotsi

U

Ultraviolet
Underworld: Evolution
An Unfinished Life
United 93

V

V for Vendetta

W

Waiting
Walk The Line
War Of The Worlds (2005)
Wedding Crashers
Who Killed the Electric Car?
Why We Fight
Wild Hogs
Wordplay
World Trade Center

X

X-Men: The Last Stand

Y

Z

Zoom

Alphabetical Listing of Movie Reviews (2007)

2007-01-02T17:38:00.000-08:00

#'s

300

A

B

Because I Said So
Blades of Glory

C

Children of Men

D

E

F

First Snow

G

God Grew Tired Of Us

H

The Host

I

J

K

L

The Last Mimzy
Letters from Iwo Jima
The Lives of Others
The Lookout

M

Miss Potter
Music and Lyrics

N

O

P

The Painted Veil

Q

R

S

Shooter
Smokin' Aces

T

TMNT

U

V

W

Wild Hogs

X

Y

Z

Sorted by Rating (2007)

2007-01-02T17:35:00.000-08:00

5 - Flute of the finest champagne/fine sparkling wine

300
Children of Men
God Grew Tired Of Us

4 - Pull of Chuckpucker

Letters from Iwo Jima
The Lookout
Miss Potter

3 - 6 pack of Old Style

Blades of Glory
First Snow
The Host
The Last Mimzy
The Lives of Others
Music and Lyrics
The Painted Veil
Shooter

2 - Keg of Foster's

Smokin' Aces
TMNT

1 - Case of Olympia (properly aged/conditioned)

Wild Hogs

Zero, Zip, Nada - Bag of Hammers (hit yourself with one, move on to next hammer, repeat until unconscious or dead)

Because I Said So

2006

2006-12-31T17:35:00.000-08:00

Dave Chappelle's Block Party

2006-12-20T06:47:00.000-08:00

Director: Michel Gondry Rating: 4
Featuring: Dave Chappelle, The Roots, Mos Def, Kanye West, Erykah Badu

If a stand-up comedian turned actor came up to you on the street and said, "Want to take a bus ride to a hip-hop concert in New York?", what would you do, hot shot? What would you do?

The answer for many people in rural Ohio is: Get on the bus.

“Dave Chappelle’s Block Party” is one-half Americana, one-half concert. The audience gets a brief look at many of the party attendees as they are asked to go and as they reflect on their expectations and excitement for the journey.

Much to his credit, Chappelle didn’t just ask young, college-age kids to attend a hip-hop show in Brooklyn. He invited many of the local, rural people of the small town in Ohio he calls home.

That means that on the bus to Brooklyn, you had black kids in their low 20s, a white shop owner in her 60s, two parole officers in their 40s (one white, one black), and a host of others.

Chappelle wanted to not only give some people a chance to see a great concert, he wanted to bring people who weren’t traditionally known as the hip-hop demographic.

That’s a major reason that the film transcends simple music documentary into something a little more significant and interesting.

And in Brooklyn, Chappelle met some of the local residents on the block where the concert was going to be held. That included an eccentric couple that were redesigning their house into something only kids could dream up and a look at a local youth center and its connections to the community.

Still, in the end , what it boils down to is that Comedian Dave Chappelle thought it would fun to put together an old school block party in Brooklyn and wanted to put together a lineup of his favorite artists.

To take care of the filming aspect of the project, he turned to French director Michel Gondry. Gondry is known for his visual style and is probably best known in America for “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”.

Chappelle chose Gondry because of his unique eye and respect amongst the film world. This was perhaps the best decision Chappelle made.

Gondry was able to weave the multiple narratives into something that organically unfolded. He had cameras sweeping not only the stage but the crowd and backstage as well.

Footage was taken of the rehearsals that proved to be wonderful ways to introduce the audience to the performances onstage.

The entire project was only able to become one cohesive vision thanks to Gondry and his team.

Of course, the components that make up the final product are just as important and it begins with Chappelle’s wonderful comic talents. He can make a simple dialogue between two people a full-blown comic sketch.

His enthusiasm, not only for the music but the people, is the heart of the film.

The performances are then the secondary or even tertiary aspect and the lineup was impressive. Acts included Mos Def, Kanye West, Jill Scott, Big Daddy Kane, John Legend, Erykah Badu, The Roots and as the culmination of the event, a reunion of The Fugees.

All of the artists give energetic and crowd pleasing performances. It’s almost as if the concert is a celebration of the camaraderie that Chappelle was able to inspire amongst all of the people in the film, from concertgoers to music acts to the filmmakers themselves.

One shouldn’t view “Block Party” thinking they’re going to get an hour and a half of Dave Chappelle onstage making weed jokes. He is the facilitator for a film that tries to say much more and, thanks in large part to Gondry, the message is delivered.

While I think you would enjoy the film far more if you are a hip-hop fan, I’d say that as long as you are musically open, you will find something to like in this film.

I’m giving “Dave Chappelle’s Block Party” a 4 out of 5. I personally would have liked more comedy from Chappelle and might have liked a tighter edit on the whole project but that’s not what the filmmakers were trying to do.

For its genre, it’s better than most so I’m giving it the edge in its rating. If you’re looking for a good time and want a little music thrown in on top, check out this film.

For Your Consideration

2006-12-06T06:38:00.000-08:00

Director: Christopher Guest Rating: 4
Featuring: Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Harry Shearer, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Fred Willard

Independent film fans rejoice! Christopher Guest and company are back with another free-scripted film, “For Your Consideration”.

This time around, the group portrays the cast and crew of a small, independent film. During production, someone tosses the word “Oscar” into the mix and the hijinks ensue.

Guest and his main collaborators have become well known for their mockumentaries during the last 20 years, most notably with “This is Spinal Tap”, “Waiting for Guffman” and “Best in Show”.

With “For Your Consideration”, they broke the cycle to some degree. It’s much more of a traditional film than a mockumentary.

While some longtime fans may be disappointed, I think it’s good for a change. Doing the same thing over and over again, while it has been funny, it boxes the group in creatively and this marked a way to escape that for this and future projects.

The film itself hasn’t seemed to engender the same kind of fervor the others did but I think people are just confused about this not being a mockumentary.

I thought the cast was as funny as ever and O’Hara especially gives one of her best performances. Her character was over the top like so many of the cast but the underlying insecurities and vanities of the actress she portrayed came out wonderfully.

Each principle actor has their own storyline that Guest and crew follow and weave together to present the whole picture. For a film buff like myself, this was great fun and while some of the other films presented zanier characters, there was plenty of craziness to go around on the project.

That’s due in large part to the slew of cameos, including Larry Miller, Jane Lynch, Richard Kind, Rick Gonzalez, Claire Forlani, Sandra Oh, Rachael Harris, Jennifer Coolidge, Ed Begley Jr. and Ricky Gervais.

The ending result is a great collaboration of artists creating the look and feel of an independent film production.

I’m giving “For Your Consideration” a 4 out of 5. It had a nice mix of behind-the-scenes humor and all-out insanity.

The film kept a constant smile on my face and stands up to the quality of Guest’s other films. Any fan of his films probably already saw this film but if you haven’t, be sure to check it out.

A Good Year

2006-12-02T17:30:00.000-08:00

Straying far from his traditional genre of shoot-em-ups and hyperactive editing syle, Ridley Scott is the captain of the ship “A Good Year”.

In the film, Russell Crowe plays a stockbroker who has become so enamored with money he’s forgotten to have a life. His character inherits a French estate from a beloved Uncle (Albert Finney) he had fallen out of touch with as he began his ascent to materialism.

While there, he falls in love with a beautiful waitress (Marion Cotillard), discovers a possible relative (Abbie Cornish) and reminisces about his childhood (his younger self played by Freddie Highmore) spending time with his Uncle there.

Adding it all up, “A Good Year” feels very much like a book brought to life.

Of course, that’s because it is, (the novel being written by Peter Mayle) and usually, that’s a bad thing.

If you can tell the film was based on a book or a play, it’s normally because of the pacing or weird jumps through time to advance the plot.

You might not quite put your finger on it but you can tell that the story is developing in an odd fashion.

In “A Good Year”, everything felt very well thought out and methodical (in a good way). The credit goes to Scott who realized that there are certain beats a film like this has to hit and they are all here.

Crowe starts as the stereotypical, greedy businessman who thinks he has everything because he can buy just about anything. As he reconnects with his past and finds another path for his future, he realizes what’s important and has to decide whether to continue towards filling his house with expensive things or filling his life with important people.

There’s a warm, feel good aura all over this film. It unfolds like a good book (though I have yet to read it due to a nasty literature allergy). Frankly, I’m not sure what else to say but that this is a nice, comfort film for people who enjoy the message of enjoying life, not being consumed by it.

All of the acting is well done, Scott does a nice job of balancing the past and present narratives and the scenery is gorgeous. It reminds me that I need to travel a lot more that I do.

Yes, it’s formulaic and there isn’t much new territory to be explored here. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. Sometimes you just want to sit and enjoy being whisked away for a few hours.

If you like a more traditional romantic film set in beautiful locations, “A Good Year” is a good thing to pick up. I’m giving it a 3 out of 5. Now someone call my travel agent.

December 2006

2006-12-01T17:31:00.000-08:00

For Your Consideration

Dave Chappelle's Block Party

A Good Year

Alphabetical Listing of Movie Reviews (2006)

2006-11-30T07:49:00.000-08:00

#'s

A

Akeelah and the Bee
American Dreamz

B

Babel
Beerfest
Before the Fall
Bloodrayne
Borat
The Break-Up
Brick

C

Catch a Fire
Clerks II
C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America

D

The Da Vinci Code
Date Movie
Dave Chappelle's Block Party
Deliver Us From Evil
The Departed
The Devil Wears Prada
District B13
Don't Come Knocking
Down in the Valley
Driving Lessons
Duck Season (Temporada de Patos)

E

F

Failure to Launch
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift
Fast Food Nation
Fearless (Huo Yuan Jia)
Final Destination 3
Flags of Our Fathers
For Your Consideration
Friends with Money

G

A Good Year

H

Half Nelson

I

Ice Age: The Meltdown
The Illusionist
An Inconvenient Truth
Infamous
Inside Man

J

Jackass Number Two
Jesus Camp

K

Keeping Mum
Kinky Boots

L

The Lake House
The Last King of Scotland
The Last Kiss
L'Enfant
Little Miss Sunshine

M

Marie Antoinette
The Marine
Miami Vice
Mission: Impossible III

N

Nacho Libre
Night Watch (Nochnoi Dozor)

O

The OH in Ohio
Over the Hedge

P

The Peaceful Warrior
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Poseidon
A Prairie Home Companion
The Prestige
The Proposition
The Protector

Q

The Queen
The Quiet

R

Renaissance
The Ringer

S

The Science of Sleep
Scoop
Shut Up & Sing
Sketches of Frank Gehry
Snakes on a Plane
Somersault
Step Up
Stick It
Stranger Than Fiction
Superman Returns

T

Talladega Nights
Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny
Thank You for Smoking
Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story
Trust the Man

U

Ultraviolet
Underworld: Evolution
United 93

V

V for Vendetta

W

Who Killed the Electric Car?
Why We Fight
Wordplay
World Trade Center

X

X-Men: The Last Stand

Y

Z

Zoom

Sorted By Rating (2006)

2006-11-30T07:48:00.000-08:00

5 - Flute of the finest champagne/fine sparkling wine

Akeelah and the Bee
Half Nelson
The Last King of Scotland
Little Miss Sunshine
Somersault
United 93*

* denotes that while it deserves a 5 from a filmmaking aspect, I think it's too early for a film like this. In ten years or so, it will be the standard by which to judge other 9/11 films but it's too soon for me.

4 - Pull of Chuckpucker

Beerfest
Before the Fall
Brick
Catch a Fire
The Da Vinci Code
Dave Chappelle's Block Party
Deliver Us From Evil
District B13
For Your Consideration
Friends with Money
The Illusionist
Kinky Boots
The Last Kiss
Miami Vice
Night Watch (Nochnoi Dozor)
The Prestige
The Protector
The Queen
Snakes on a Plane
Stranger Than Fiction
Superman Returns
Thank You for Smoking
Who Killed the Electric Car?
Why We Fight
Wordplay
World Trade Center

3 - 6 pack of Old Style

Babel
Borat
Clerks II
The Departed
The Devil Wears Prada
Down in the Valley
Failure to Launch
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift
Fearless (Huo Yuan Jia)
Final Destination 3
Flags of Our Fathers
A Good Year
An Inconvenient Truth
Infamous
Jackass Number Two
Jesus Camp
Keeping Mum
L'Enfant
Mission: Impossible III
Over the Hedge
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Poseidon
The Proposition
Sketches of Frank Gehry
Step Up
Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny
Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story
Underworld: Evolution
V for Vendetta
X-Men: The Last Stand
Zoom

2 - Keg of Foster's

American Dreamz
Don't Come Knocking
Driving Lessons
Duck Season (Temporada de Patos)
Fast Food Nation
Ice Age: The Meltdown
Inside Man
The Lake House
Nacho Libre
The OH in Ohio
A Prairie Home Companion
The Quiet
Renaissance
The Science of Sleep
Shut Up & Sing
Stick It
Talladega Nights
Trust the Man

1 - Case of Olympia (properly aged/conditioned)

Bloodrayne
C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America
The Marine
The Peaceful Warrior
The Ringer
Scoop

Zero, Zip, Nada - Bag of Hammers (hit yourself with one, move on to next hammer, repeat until unconscious or dead)

The Break-Up
Date Movie
Marie Antoinette

What The F#@!? - Words can't describe the substances you would need to really enjoy this film on any other level than sheer absurdity and senseless masochism ... being me helps.

Ultraviolet

Borat

2006-11-29T12:19:00.000-08:00

Wowwowweewah! Sacha Baron Cohen is back with another of his zany characters, this time in the guise of Borat. A TV star in his native Kazakhstan, in his feature film debut, Borat attempts to discover the cultural identity of America.

Anyone familiar with Borat from his appearances on the Ali G show (another of Cohen’s alter egos) knows that what makes the character great is the lack of any politically correct bones in his body.

Borat calls them as he sees them, generally to the amusement of the audience and shame of his victims.

To describe the plot of the film is kind of like trying to catch a greased pig. There is a very thin thread that explains Borat’s desire to travel from New York to L.A. which I’ll leave unexplained for the seven people who didn’t see the film.

Along the way, Borat meets a wide cross section of America, both real and scripted. The scripted material can be funny at times (or gross if you’re not a fan of discovering the true nature of the term “teabag”).

However, what makes the film work are the interactions with real people who have no idea they’re about to be embarrassed on movie screens worldwide.

From drunk, misogynistic college students to some well-mannered southern upper crust, people somehow buy Borat’s shtick.

He takes advantage of their trust, exposing their attitudes and actions for all of us to laugh at.

Whether or not you should see this film centers on the type of humor you’re willing to stomach.

At times, the film can politely described as crass, combining disgusting physical humor with horrible stereotypes you wouldn’t laugh at if you weren’t masked in the anonymity of a dark theater or amongst the closest of friends.

Some of the humor falls into the uncomfortable category, as unsuspecting people are duped into acting the fool.

Then there is the smart, socio-political commentary that weaves itself throughout.

“Borat” is a mixed bag, a potpourri of amusement if you will.

Overall I had a decent time and I found myself laughing often enough … though I wouldn’t laugh at many of the same jokes if I were being recorded.

(Of course, I am writing about it, so between this and some photos taken in college, count my political career out.)

If you’re a fan of Cohen’s, you’ll find a lot to like in this film. If you prefer more standard comedy, feel free to avoid this. I don’t know how America embraced this film as much as it did, since we’re the butt of the joke primarily, but there are plenty of worse films.

I’m giving “Borat” a 3 out of 5. It’s worth a rental but you may not want to rush out and own this one.

All Good Things ...

2006-11-24T12:24:00.000-08:00

Well, I think I'm going to hang up this idea. I saw "Borat" (3 out of 5), "A Good Year" (3 out of 5) and "Shut Up & Sing" (2 out of 5) a few days ago and can't seem to gather the energy to write up a full review.

As such, I think it best to call it quits. It was a fun experiment and I suppose if it were something I could do for a living, that would be a whole other thing entirely.

I want to thank everyone who visited the site. It was your interest that kept this site going until now. Sadly, I just don't have the energy or drive to continue writing reviews.

I'll still be watching as many films as time allows, I just won't use this forum to tell people about them anymore.

Thanks again and as they say on Ebert & Roeper, "The balcony is closed."

Shut Up & Sing

2006-11-19T01:25:00.000-08:00

Strumming its way through theaters has been the Dixie Chicks’ documentary “Shut Up & Sing”.

The title references the sentiment generated from a statement the lead singer, Natalie Maines, made at a 2003 concert in London. At a time when W’s popularity wasn’t flushed down the drain, she “dared” say that “she was ashamed the President of the United Stated is from Texas”.

The crowd there cheered and seemed to agree whole-heartedly but things were much different stateside.

The conservative country fan base turned on the Chicks faster than they could buy up NASCAR infield trailer hookups.

The group received a de-facto blacklisting on country radio due to listener threats of boycotts, former “fans” held rallies to burn their CDs and some people went as far as to issue death threats.

All of the controversy forced the Dixie Chicks into relative obscurity, or at least as invisible as the biggest selling female group of all time could become.

Through those times, the group stuck together and ended up going to producer Rick Rubin (much more known for his rock and rap collaborations) to craft their first album after the storm.

The result was a top selling and, eventually, Grammy award-winning album, spearheaded by their response to the controversy in the song “Not Ready To Make Nice.”

I should let it be known that I am an admitted fan of the Dixie Chicks and was even quasi-dragged to one of their concerts six or seven years ago.

This helped me enjoy the documentary, however therein lies my first complaint. I don’t think anyone but a fan of the group would find the film compelling or even worth watching.

“Shut Up & Sing” is almost a disjointed mess, flittering between the ramifications of Maines’ political views, the group’s issues making a new album, their home lives and the public’s double about-face (we love them, we hate them, we love them again).

Without an appreciation for their music, I doubt I would have wanted to stay for the whole film.

Yes, I know that music documentaries are held to a different standard but I think in order to truly standout from a film perspective, one’s ability to enjoy it shouldn’t be beholden to their love of the subject’s work.

Call me crazy. (Please don’t, I have a fragile ego.)

So in the end, I have to award “Shut Up & Sing” a 2 out of 5. I enjoyed it but if you don’t have any interest in the Dixie Chicks, you won’t find anything to grab onto with this film.

Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny

2006-11-18T01:59:00.000-08:00

This is the greatest and best review in the world. Tribute.

Finally gracing the silver screen in a full-length feature (a cameo in “Bio-Dome” not withstanding), Jack Black and Kyle Gass are larger that life and louder than your neighbor’s kids with “Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny”.

Largely composed of themes and material from their album and their short-lived stint on HBO, the film follows the formation of the greatest band and their quest for the legendary pick of destiny, said to hold the key to fame and musical greatness.

If you are at all familiar with the band, you will not only know the kind of humor you’re in for but you’ll probably already know some of the jokes.

That’s one of my biggest problems with the film. I’d seen maybe a quarter of the film already by being the nerdy fan I am.

I’m all for paying homage to your roots and having a wink or a nod here and there but having full-on rehashes of previous work just reminds me of the opening scene to “Strange Brew” where the audience realizes the film is just the stuff on their album and a call for refunds and near riot ensues.

Good times, eh?

Also on the negative side, I was hoping for much more kick-ass, wacky humor. In stretching the story to feature length, much of the film felt forced and I was left waiting for the expositional stuff to subside into the trademark craziness far too often.

Still, I am a huge fan of the D. Short of breaking up the band for real, I doubt this film could have truly disappointed me.

The acting is expectedly over the top and cheesy, the story is nonsensical and ridiculous and the music is crass and vulgar.

Plus, there are hilarious cameos by the likes of Ronnie James Dio, Tim Robbins, David Grohl, Colin Hanks, Amy Adams, David Koechner, David Krumholtz, John C. Reilly and Meat Loaf. Heck even Ben Stiller got in the film, thanks to a little known contractual thing he has with any and every Hollywood comedy that’s made within the continental United States.

In other words, it rocked my “fucking socks off!”

Okay, maybe that’s going too far but still, I was entertained and will definitely add the DVD to my collection.

If you are not familiar with the band, go ahead and hit yourself with something heavy and unwieldy. The rest of you probably already saw the film but if you were a lazy Susan, get to it lame-o!

There isn’t anything truly remarkable about “Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny” from a film perspective so I’ll award it a 3 out of 5. It ranks higher in my heart but it can’t count or type (yet).

Fast Food Nation

2006-11-17T18:49:00.000-08:00

I’d like a triple bacon cheeseburger, large seasoned curly fries, medium chocolate shake and a hot apple pie.

Oops, wrong venue. This is where I feed my incessant hunger to set the record straight about films. They put the drive-thru … over here.

My bad.

Well, back to feeding my ego.

Out in limited release is Richard Linklater’s latest message film, “Fast Food Nation”.

I say message film because in between making films to pay the rent, he is determined to explore issues that most people towards the right end of the political spectrum would deem namby-pamby or bring to mind the phrase, “Get a haircut, you hippie”.

I’m a fan of much of Linkater’s work, even though I tend not to want too much politicizing within a fictional film. I prefer to keep such socio-political issues in a documentary, where editorializing and over dramatization can hopefully be kept to a minimum.

I always think that the if your point is to get a message across, you should just do that. Don’t bother trying to be so clever.

In regards to the film itself, “Fast Food Nation” is about the practices and policies of the fast food industry. It follows three stories: that of the big fast food chain, the store employees and the meat packing plant.

The fictional “Mickey’s” fast food chain has discovered a high fecal-coliform count in their meat. As so succinctly put by the head of the company, there’s “shit in the meat”.

So he sends Greg Kinnear to the meat packing plant to see how that could happen and if it’s a larger problem than they know about.

At the same time, Ashley Johnson is a sales clerk at a local Mickey’s who is beginning to go hippie and wants to do something about the oppressive and inhumane captivity and slaughter of cows for all the meat.

Meanwhile, Wilmer Valderrama and Catalina Sandino Moreno are illegal immigrants who have crossed into the United States to find better jobs. They end up working at the meat packing plant under harsh and illegal conditions.

As you can probably ascertain, Linklater isn’t a fan of how fast food chains bring people their food. Behind the film is Eric Schlosser who wrote the book “Fast Food Nation” that the film is sort-of based on.

I say sort of because why not just make a documentary about fast food companies and their practices? I’m probably going a little overboard about this but sometimes I get on my high horse and this one is a Clydesdale.

The reason Linklater decided to craft a fictional story based on the material within the book is probably exposure. Documentaries rarely reach a broad audience.

In putting this film together, he was able to tap on a host of Hollywood actors, all of whom probably wish they lived in a blue state: Luis Guzmán, Bobby Cannavale, Patricia Arquette, Paul Dano, Kris Kristofferson, Bruce Willis, Ethan Hawke, Avril Lavigne and Aaron Himelstein

In doing so, Linklater further made this film push the boundaries of my tolerance.

I love cameos. They can be fun. However, as this isn’t a comedy and the point of the film should probably be educating people about the harsh reality behind a happy meal, throwing celebrities at me only serves to distract or infuriate.

Don’t get me wrong, the actors mostly do a good enough job. It’s just that I find it difficult to stick with the problems the film is trying to convey when I’m constantly having to laugh at the idea of Ethan Hawke giving advice to a young girl as she prepares to leave high school.

Also, who the hell thought Avril Lavigne was a good idea? Just because her name is recognizable doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to cast her in the film.

Anyway, another issue I have with the film is that none of the three stories really get a proper conclusion. Hell, make sure you don’t leave the theater once the credits roll because after half a minute, the “conclusion” to Kinnear’s storyline pops up.

Dumb.

If you’re going to end a film, fade to black and let the credits roll, there’s no freakin’ reason to have any part of the storyline be after that point.

I reiterate: Dumb.

Along the way, while the film tries to weave the storylines together (I’m getting even more tired with this screenwriting angle), more than just the issue of fast food company practices are brought up.

The plight of illegal immigrants gets a share of the spotlight. This angle was the most interesting and I think Linklater would have been better suited making a film about this than bothering to attempt and dissuade me from super sizing my lunch.

To that end, near the conclusion of the film, there is a pretty gruesome scene involving the slaughtering of cows at the meat packing plant.

If you are at all squeamish, or have just eaten a nice, juicy steak, you may not want to check this film out.

I, of course, went right out and bought two cheeseburgers at the local drive-thru. Just like “Super Size Me” only served to make me want some chicken mcnuggets, the kind of preaching that “Fast Food Nation” serves up just infuriates me.

It’s that psychological element inside of me that doesn’t like to do what I’m told, especially if it’s health related. (A big shout out to my boys in Meat Market!)

Well, as you can probably tell, I’m not going to give “Fast Food Nation” a very good rating.

In fact, it’s getting a 2 out of 5. I would have preferred a documentary over this quasi star-studded calamity of a movie mash up. However, I’m sure there are plenty of people (mostly hippies) who will find this to be just what they’ve been waiting for.

Decide for yourself. Me? I’m thinking a #3 with extra bacon is in order right about now.

Stranger Than Fiction

2006-11-16T21:42:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I wonder if while I’m writing these reviews, there isn’t some screenwriter, director or actor feeling a hot burning sensation in their crotch as I deliver some much needed scathing criticism.

Sadly, I doubt it as no legal action or boxing challenges have been asked of me (Yeah, I’m talkin’ to you Uwe Boll!).

Cinematically, writer Zach Helm and director Marc Forster have brought that kind of tale to screen, attempting to blur the line between fiction and reality, in “Stranger Than Fiction”.

In the film, Emma Thompson plays an author whose latest book involves a seemingly nothing of a man, an IRS agent played by Will Ferrell, “lord of the cowbell”.

As the tale unfolds, Queen Latifah is sent to help Thompson with writer’s block and Ferrell begins to develop an actual life with the help of Maggie Gyllenhaal, Tony Hale and Dustin Hoffman, who all fulfill a certain psychological component of Ferrell’s life.

If you wanted to think deeply about the film, you can draw a lot of parallels to psychology. In a nutshell, the film is about an author (God) trying to develop a character (man) whose life is devoid of interactivity until he finds love (Gyllenhaal), friendship (Hale) and a mentor figure (Hoffman).

Or you can sit back and enjoy the interplay between everyone since at its core, “Stranger Than Fiction” is a heartwarming and often humorous film.

Ferrell is getting good reviews for his performance and justifiably so. I don’t think he will reach the dramatic quality that a fellow comedian, Jim Carrey, has been able to reach but it could have been far worse.

Working in his favor is that the film is about a repressed number cruncher coming out of his shell. That plays to Ferrell’s wonderful ability to be awkward while still being touching and funny.

If the character had been written without such an offbeat sense, then Ferrell might have fallen on his face.

The other actors in the film are all pretty good. I was especially happy that Hoffman and Latifah didn’t chew up the scenery like a couple of hungry mountain goats.

Most of the other elements in the film are done well and as the story unfolds, I found myself more and more engrossed into the strange reality / dreamworld-esque creation that Forster and Helm delivered to the screen.

I compared Ferrell to Carrey earlier and I think if “The Truman Show” had a baby out of wedlock, the result would be “Stranger Than Fiction”.

There are numerous points of comparison and I don’t mean it as complete disrespect or that I think the film is a total rip-off. Both serve their own purposes and are highly entertaining.

Still, if there was one thing I felt a little disappointed about, it was that I felt like I had seen this movie before. The details were changed but the underlying message wasn’t far removed.

By no means though am I saying you shouldn’t see this film. It may just yet factor into my top ten of the year.

I’m giving “Stranger Than Fiction” a 4 out of 5. Emotionally, this strikes a wonderful chord and there was enough balance between comedy and tragedy to make it really work.

Now all you have to wonder is if you’re seeing the film because you want to or if it’s because I told you to.

If it’s the latter, please send one million dollars to my numbered Swiss bank account by the end of the month. I’ve got some stuff I want to buy.

Marie Antoinette

2006-11-07T21:45:00.000-08:00

Let them eat shit!

While not quite the quip attributed to Marie Antoinette, it’s what I attribute to the lump of celluloid entitled “Marie Antoinette”.

Written and directed by Sofia Coppola, the movie attempts to show the life of Antoinette from her betrothal to Louis XVI to their departure from Versailles as the French revolution swept the land.

I have liked Coppola’s last two films, “Lost in Translation” and “The Virgin Suicides”. However, there is nothing to like about “Marie Antoinette” aside from the notion that this review will keep all of you from ever having to watch it.

Where should I begin tearing this movie a new one?

Let’s start with the actors.

Kirsten Dunst was tapped to play the teenager turned Queen. How in the hell does this girl keep getting acting jobs that don’t require a pole and a chest full of glitter?

Look, we all saw “Interview with the Vampire” and were fooled into thinking this precocious little child had something different to bring to the table.

Since then, she has had some passable roles where she played some variation of a ditzy cheerleader whore (“Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, “Bring It On”, “Small Soldiers” to name a few).

Just about everything else has been a film trying to be good in spite of her. She makes me guffaw at any hint that she’s trying to emote and outside of playing a spoiled, vampy socialite, I don’t know if there’s any role I’d believe her in.

I think I was laughing at her “acting” about 68% of the time she was onscreen in “Marie Antoinette” and cringing the remaining 32%.

There’s this especially awful scene where Antoinette is distraught that she hasn’t conceived a child yet and she breaks down in tears … well, at least you think that’s what should happen but neither I, nor my friend, could tell if she was crying or laughing.

It’s like trying to debate whether the chicken came before the egg … who the hell knows?

“Acting” opposite Dunst was Jason Schwartzman as Louis XIV. When is his shtick going to end? Hasn't his 15 minutes run out yet?

Sure, he delivered one hell of a funny line in “Rushmore” (O.R. they?) but every role he gets is some incarnation of a slacker with a heart of gold and a quirky sensibility (“Shopgirl”, “Spun”, “Slackers”).

There’s nothing new to his take on the King of France either. Apparently, the French monarch who helped finance the American Revolution was a timid, foppish drummer in an Emo band (Phantom Planet if you didn’t know).

The worst part about these two is not only their complete lack of acting ability but the “script” Coppola comes up with doesn’t ask them to do anything anyway.

In fact, the movie has no plot! Zero! Zip! Nada!

It’s barely a “slice of life” type of picture. Early on, the issue is that they haven’t conceived a child. Maybe it’s because of the subtext that Louis XVI might be gay. Do they follow up on that?

Of course not.

Instead, after an hour of hilariously stupid boredom, they have a child … and then another … and then another.

At one point in the film, in order to fast-forward the time span, Coppola uses a series of paintings to show how their family changes with the birth and/or death of their children.

I can’t make that kind of crap up! She didn’t even bother using a voiceover. It’s a freaking painting parade!

Surrounding this farce is a supporting cast that ranges from good (Steve Coogan) to passable (Rip Torn, Shirley Henderson) to downright dumb (Molly Shannon, Asia Argento).

Go ahead and read that again. Coppola cast Molly “I smell my armpits because I’m a superstar” Shannon and Asia “I’m an Italian sexpot turned crappy filmmaker” Argento as characters in a drama centered on 18th century France.

Of course, I suppose that doesn’t matter because unless the actor is actually French, they don’t need to have an accent or speak French. That’s right, everyone in the movie speaks as they would if you met them at a Denny’s at three in the morning.

A friend who suffered through this monstrosity with me mentioned that this movie definitely got “lost in the translation” and apparently that’s because no one connected to the production could find a vocal coach to train the actors.

Even Kevin Costner tried a ridiculously bad English accent at the beginning of “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves”. It didn’t work and he dropped it after the first 15 minutes but at least he tried!

Moving on to other horrific aspects of the movie, we get to the music. Coppola decided to use contemporary crap-cover-pop in a period film. That might have worked if the music wasn’t so God-awful or if she stuck to using only contemporary music.

There are numerous scenes involving Opera or Classical music that work much better in tone and setting and only serve to undermine the use of more modern fare.

Getting back to the story problems, like I mentioned before there is no plot. Just trying to figure out if the movie is coming to an end before the sun rises is harder than anything else I’ve done in the last few years. They list this at just under two hours but I felt like I’d been there all night.

The audience is forced (at what feels like gun point) to watch as Antoinette adjusts to the French traditions at Versailles, then as she attempts to conceive a child, then as she attempts to find true passion with another man, then as she stands by her King as the mobs of angry French people descend upon their home.

Did I mention that absolutely NONE of those events involved character development or a justified buildup within the script to make any of it worth a damn?

I can see why this was booed at Cannes and I second the motion.

Booo!

BOOOOOO!

This is offensive to the French people (how in the hell did they convince the people at Versailles to let them film on the grounds), it’s offensive to audiences who have to pay for this kind of abuse, and it’s offensive to me because I could use the millions of dollars wasted on this garbage to buy a home and stock it with a ridiculously large plasma HDTV set with digital surround sound and a slurpee machine.

I think you know what kind of rating is coming for “Marie Antoinette”. I really should invest in better quality hammers because the number of times I should have bludgeoned myself and my friend (because I’m a compassionate person) would probably break the normal run-of-the-mill Craftsman tool.

I’m awarding Coppola and crew a 0 out of 5. There is nothing to enjoy here and only a lobotomy might provide slightly less intelligent thoughts to pass before your eyes.

Avoid this movie as you would Pauly Shore if he was begging you for money to feed his weasel … wow, that idea is even creeping me out.

Babel

2006-11-05T13:52:00.000-08:00

As awards season kicks into gear, a lot of buzz has been generated about the latest film by Alejandro González Iñárritu, “Babel”.

Boasting a quality cast (Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Gael García Bernal)
and Academy Award nominated screenwriter (Guillermo Arriaga), many reviews are hailing this as one of the year’s best films and proclaiming Pitt an Oscar contender.

Adding to the expectations are that Iñárritu brought his Oscar nominated composer (Gustavo Santaolalla) and cinematographer (Rodrigo Prieto) along. I feel another nomination (at least in my Anonymous Awards) coming for Santaolalla. The music is haunting and fully reflective of each scene.

Sadly, as much as I was looking forward to this film, “Babel” fell short of my expectations and missed out in perhaps the most significant way.

I had expected Iñárritu to craft a film about the problems that are caused in the world via our differences in language and culture. The tagline of the film is that “if you want to be understood … listen”.

However, the end result is a film much more involved in playing a six degrees game than stirring more significant social commentary.

“Babel” has three stories simultaneously unfolding. The first involves Pitt and Blanchett on vacation together. She is shot and he tries to get medical attention for her in a remote village in Morocco. We also follow the shooter and their own environment as the shooting becomes an international incident with terrorist implications.

The second story involves the children of Pitt and Blanchett, played wonderfully by Elle Fanning and Nathan Gamble. (Dakota's sister is cut from the same acting cloth … what did their parents feed them?!?) Their nanny (Adriana Barraza) and her nephew (Bernal) take them into Mexico from San Diego for her son’s wedding. Problems arise as they attempt to cross back in America.

The third story is set in Japan, where an emotionally troubled deaf-mute girl (Rinko Kikuchi) tries desperately to connect to a world she can’t fully be a part of. There is a thin connection made by the others to make this a part of the whole picture but let me quickly dismiss that troubled notion and get to the point.

This last story is riveting. I was hooked and my biggest wish for this film would have been an entire film about this girl, her father and her friends.

From not only an acting and emotional standpoint but from a sociologically interesting view, this is what “Babel” should have been about.

Kikuchi’s character constantly must deal with people who find her strange or pity her, all the while she is only looking for something real to hold onto.

While the other stories were interesting in their own right, I’m probably most down on the film for not seeing that this portion of the film was the heart.

Instead, Iñárritu (who has made some great films in recent years with “Amores Perros” and “21 Grams”) went with the bankable decision of highlighting Pitt.

Follow me on this one. Arriaga wrote both of those other films and also last year’s “The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada”. His style appears to be creating multiple stories and then playing with the linearity of those stories.

I’m okay with that now and then … but every freakin’ time! And with “Babel”, it’s like he did it just to spite me. Thankfully, there’s only one thing done out of linear order but it’s that one scene that infuriates me.

Near the beginning of the film, the audience hears one side of a phone conversation and you can clearly make out what is said on both ends. Then towards the end of the film we get the other side, that of Pitt breaking down on the phone.

Why do we need this? We don’t.

But if Pitt wants an Oscar nomination, he won’t get it without a nice close-up and tears.

I know I’m being harsh but that’s how I see it. I’m a big fan of Pitt as an actor (and Jolie’s baby-daddy). He doesn’t need to do anything to impress me at this point, “12 Monkeys” and “Fight Club” showed me how talented he is.

Back to “Babel”, I know I’m hitting it pretty hard and I probably shouldn’t. It is a good film … if that film is about how people are connected worldwide by actions that may seem inconsequential.

It’s a small world. I get it. (Please don’t sue me Disney)

However, with a title like “Babel”, a tagline about being understood, and using multiple stories all littered with various languages – the movie should be about language and understanding one another, not a cinematic homage to Kevin Bacon.

I’m giving “Babel” a 3 out of 5. You’ve heard my many recommendations for making this a better film. If it had picked up on some of that, the rating would be much higher.

The actors are all top notch, the film had high production value and the Japan storyline was amazing. I just can’t ignore how little reason there was for the other two, or if those are the focus, just go ahead and tell that story straight up. Don’t rely on cute screenplay tricks to make something seem more important that it really is.

The Prestige

2006-11-03T23:46:00.000-08:00

Are you reading closely?

Abracadabra.

“The Prestige” pits Batman versus Wolverine in a massive comic book phenomenon not seen since “The Death of Superman”.

What? That’s not what this is about? Oops, my bad.

Geek fantasies aside, but still using my trademark metaphors, “The Prestige” is the Roscoe’s House of Chicken and Waffles of film. Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale are two tastes you don’t intuitively put together but it actually works.

Mmmm …. chicken and waffles …. Mmmm.

The film reunites Bale with “Batman Begins” co-star Michael Caine and director Christopher Nolan. Nolan is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors, having also done the excellent “Memento”.

He’s smart to work with good actors, use excellent scored music (this time by David Julyan who also did the score for “Memento”), take a good script and create an atmosphere that is suited to those elements.

In “The Prestige”, Bale and Jackman play rival magicians. Their feud is vindictive and brutal, all stemming from their time working together as they rose to prominence in the field with the help of Caine as a show promoter.

Bale has long been a favorite of mine and he continues to bring his A-game to just about everything he does.

There’s a devious and shrewd aura about him in the film that is counter played quite nicely by Jackman’s more theatrical and showy repertoire.

Initially, I thought Jackman might be the weak link to the film but Nolan once again proves that unlikely casting choices can pay off.

Obviously, the appeal of the film is that there is a mystery to be unraveled, and like the secret of a magic trick, I won’t do much discussion to that end. You know enough about the film from my brief setup and probably too much from seeing the trailer anyway.

On the plus side, whereas I’m usually pretty good at figuring out an ending, I thought I had “The Prestige” figured out about halfway through and then Nolan and company went another direction and it took me another 30 minutes or so to get the right ending figured out.

That being said, while the details shouldn’t be divulged, be prepared for a well though out and executed story with good acting, music and production.

The supporting cast of Piper Perabo, Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, David Bowie and Andy Serkis are all key elements and do an excellent job. There’s also a nice small role for real magician / actor Ricky Jay. He apparently helped Bale and Jackman with their sleight of hand techniques as well.

The long and the short of it is that if you want a great ride of a film, “The Prestige” is just the ticket. In the battle of 2006 magician movies, this beats "The Illusionist" hands down in entertainment value.

I’m giving it a 4 out of 5 and I can’t wait to see it again to watch it from start to end knowing what I do now.

It’s not quite in the league of something like “The Usual Suspects” but I was nearly as entertained.

Flags of Our Fathers

2006-11-02T21:49:00.000-08:00

One of my most anticipated films this year, “Flags of Our Fathers”, is the story behind the men who hoisted the American flag on Iwo Jima during WWII in one of the most famous pictures in U.S. history.

I was excited not so much for another WWII film but because it was coming from director Clint Eastwood.

His track record is phenomenal, going back to his Western heyday with films like “High Plains Drifter”, his resurrection of the Western in “Unforgiven” and more recently with gritty films like “Mystic River” and “Million Dollar Baby”.

This project was something that he had wanted to do for some time but when the rights to the book became available, a certain Steven Spielberg got them first.

Over time, due to schedules and discussions about the project, Spielberg decided to be a producer on the film and Eastwood was finally able to direct.

A refreshing change in the war movie formula is that “Flags of Our Fathers” focuses on the use of the photo, and those in it, to spur on a war bond drive to finance the war campaign.

Sure, probably thanks to Spielberg in large part, the battle scenes themselves are brutal and reminiscent of the first 30 minutes of “Saving Private Ryan”. Expect dismemberment and disemboweling to be on the menu when you slip into the theater on this one.

However, this isn’t simply a tale of what happened on Iwo Jima.

To that end, Eastwood’s casting was concerned not so much with getting believable soldiers but with getting actors who could pull off a wide spectrum of emotions as they dealt with being hailed as heroes stateside in posh hotels while their fellow comrades were still fighting a war and sleeping in bunks if they were lucky.

Casting is where the movie began to go wrong. Sure, they did great at getting some of the military-only roles. The film boasts Barry Pepper, Neal McDonough and Robert Patrick – all of whom are perfect for their roles. “Billy Elliot” star, Jamie Bell, is also a pivotal character that was cast well.

But how in the hell did they cast Paul Walker? Does his agent have some embarrassing photos of Eastwood in a motel with the Orangutan from “Every Which Way But Loose”?

Thankfully, Walker’s role is small and he does die (HOORAY!). Sadly, his death is quick and the audience doesn’t get the proper time to celebrate. Still, a dead Paul Walker is better than the alternative.

Now when casting the main three actors who would be the core of the film, Eastwood and company went with Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford and Adam Beach.

I can understand Beach and even Phillippe, whose sour face and demeanor worked for this role well enough.

However, Bradford irritated me enough to almost ruin the film. While I see how his smug and glib routine is an essential part of the character, it was completely two-dimensional.

At no time was he a believable soldier and he’s never shown the ability to convincingly portray emotions outside of a high school mentality (hence my nickname for him of “Bring it Swimfan”).

Aside from that, there were two other crucial elements that I though were mishandled – a shift in the film’s focus three quarters of the way through and a painfully long death march of an ending.

Like so many films, “Flags of Our Fathers” is told largely in flashbacks. All fine and dandy, I can deal with that. Yet, at about the two-hour mark (of two and a half hours), the story essentially shifts from the recollection of the main characters to one of their sons as he tries to gather information for a book about his father’s ordeals in the war, both abroad and at home.

I realize that the movie is based on that book but it’s a completely useless element that only detracts from the rest of the story.

And then there’s the ending. You think the film is coming to an end and then, in what feels like 30 minutes later, the credits roll. The film goes on and on, following the lives of the central characters once their part in the war effort is over.

I could have done with losing the last reel of the film entirely and getting home sooner to make sure my fantasy football lineup was set.

All that being said, it’s not that “Flags of Our Fathers” is a bad film overall. It’s just so much less than it could have been.

However, I still hold out hope that “Letters from Iwo Jima”, the Japanese side to the conflict, will be nothing short of amazing and will renew my faith in Eastwood’s great talents.

I’m giving “Flags of Our Fathers” a 3 out of 5. Wait for DVD or at least make sure to catch “The Last King of Scotland”, “Catch a Fire”, “The Queen” and even “The Prestige” before you make it inside a theater for this one.

Catch a Fire

2006-11-02T19:25:00.000-08:00

There are often actors who enter the national consciousness via a debut performance in a good film and then they simply fizzle out picking poorer and poorer films or shifting their focus entirely.

Off the top of my head, take Erika Christensen in “Traffic”, Diego Luna in “Y Tu Mama Tambien” or Keisha Castle-Hughes in “Whale Rider”.

They’re all good films and each provided a quality performance.

But now Christensen is co-starring in the soon to be cancelled TV drama “Six Degrees”, Luna last starring role was in 2004’s forgettable “Criminal” and Castle-Hughes is now the ripe age of 16 and expecting her first child.

I had relegated Derek Luke to the same fate not long after his promising debut in “Antwone Fisher”. After that, all I really recall him doing is “Biker Boyz”. Now there’s an Oscar contender (though actually I love the movie for being so damn awful).

However, Luke has gone and done a project with loads of ambition and might just pull through yet.

“Catch a Fire” is set in South Africa in the early 1980s. At that time, the Apartheid system was still en vogue and three million whites controlled 25 million blacks through a system of oppression and racism.

In the film, Luke plays a young foreman at a power plant. Unlike many of his peers, he is not quite so interested in being a revolutionary / freedom fighter / terrorist (terms depend on point of view and the winner).

He has a beautiful wife and daughters and a good job. All he wants to do is enjoy what he can, given his circumstances and the political climate.

However, an attack on the power plant by the African National Congress prompts the South African anti-terrorist unit (headed by Tim Robbins) to look for the perpetrators.

They wrongfully accuse and interrogate Luke, using brutal tactics which I doubt are supported by the Geneva convention and are eerie to watch in this hyper-vigilant time we are all living in.

As a result, Luke sees that he can no longer sit idly by on the sideline and is becomes committed to helping the cause to free South Africa and end Apartheid.

The film is powerful and thought provoking, made all the more so because it is based on a true story and Luke is portraying a real person, who was involved with the making of the motion picture.

Having done a similarly themed film in “Rabbit Proof Fence”, director Phillip Noyce took the reins on this project. While “Fence” is an absolute must see, “Catch a Fire” is not quite that spectacular but it’s very, very good and what I would term a “really should see”.

Noyce used his talents to capture the environment perfectly; from location to the accents and use of local language, you really feel like you are in South Africa in 1980. That most of the actors aside from the leads are native South Africans can’t hurt either.

Luke’s performance is gripping and reminiscent or maybe even better than that of Denzel Washington as Steven Biko in “Cry Freedom”. Also a film about Apartheid-era South Africa, it’s probably a coincidence that Luke tackles this subject after working on-screen with Denzel in “Antwone Fisher”. Still, I find it poetic.

On his end, Robbins is up to the task of matching Luke’s intensity and while I go up and down on my opinion of his work, “Catch a Fire” is clearly one of his better performances.

Overall, the film is near perfect, only losing its focus and power at the end as I thought it meandered a bit and could have been tighter. As such, it is just barely missed out on a 5 out of 5 … but not by much.

I’m giving “Catch a Fire” a strong 4 out of 5. I could easily see acting nominations coming from this one, if the awards system was about merit.

More likely, look for this in the 2006 Anonymous Awards and in the meantime, go out and see this film. Anyone who liked politically charged films will find a lot to like in this one and fans of quality cinema will like it regardless of its political and social commentary.

November 2006

2006-11-01T08:59:00.000-08:00

Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny

Borat

Shut Up & Sing

Fast Food Nation

Stranger Than Fiction

Driving Lessons

2006-10-28T16:24:00.000-07:00

Have you ever been a 17-year-old boy? Did your mom drive you crazy? Did you subconsciously take revenge on her by working for a retired actress and running off to Scotland to have your first sexual experience with a nice girl named Bryony (pronounced “Briney”)?

If you answered yes to the last one, seek therapeutic help and sue the makers of “Driving Lessons” for using your life without permission.

Now, I’m all for feel-good films. They’re a welcome distraction to the weekly work grind and a cinematic landscape littered with heavy dramas this time of year.

However, I prefer when I’m watching a film about a boy becoming a man that the actor be capable of more than two emotions and facial expressions.

Case in point, Rupert Grint. You all know him better as Ron Weasley from the Harry Potter films and I think it’s generally understood that he’s not the male British equivalent of Dakota Fanning.

I knew that going in but I was hoping for more of a spark from him in this role, seeing as he didn’t have to contend with evil wizards in modern day Great Britain. Sadly, all of his “magic” seems reserved for wooing Hermione … not that I blame him.

Still, the other lead in the film is an accomplished actress and does her best to take up the slack. Julie Walters is the lifeblood of “Driving Lessons”. Her eccentricity and energy are unmatched by anyone else in the picture.

An odd side note is that she plays the mother of Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter films, making this non-romantic “Harold and Maude” a bit bizarre. (How bizarre!)

Along for the ride in supporting roles are Michelle Duncan as the Scottish lass who transforms young Mr. Grint into a man, Tamsin Egerton as his original schoolboy crush and Laura Linney as his overbearing mother.

Linney is one of my favorite actresses and she easily pulls off the uptight, emotionally damaged character. She even gets to try on a British accent in the film, which went so-so but I enjoyed the effort nonetheless.

Still, on the whole, I was a little disappointed by “Driving Lessons”. There have been so many other movies to touch upon these types of subjects and odd friendships that did it better.

Much of the story was haphazard and there’s a scene near the end that’s just plain ridiculous and horribly edited. I’ll sum it up like this: the cross-dressing freeloader that Linney’s character takes into their home uses their car to run into her after a school play performance.

Don’t bother too much trying to figure out that scene. I’m not worrying about it and I saw the entire film.

I’m giving “Driving Lessons” a 2 out of 5. There was a good heart underneath it all but a lot of work left to be done to get this film to pass its DMV road course and get into the fast lane of the cinematic highway.
Yes, I realize my metaphors are dumb.

Deliver Us From Evil

2006-10-28T13:54:00.000-07:00

Thanks in large part to documentaries like “Bowling for Columbine” and “March of The Penguins”, studios are pushing the medium out to the public like never before.

Usually, you only find out about a documentary like “Deliver Us From Evil” because it is up for some award and then you have to track down a copy of it from some specialty video store.

Now, documentaries are getting their due and I think it’s a great way not only to present wonderful stories and get the mass market actually thinking every now and then, it also provides another revenue stream to help independent theaters stay open, now that many “independent” films are being released in mainstream movies theaters thanks to their critical and box office success of late.

Shifting the focus squarely on this particular documentary, “Deliver Us From Evil” shines the spotlight on clergy sexual abuse and the cover up / blind eye being presented by the Catholic Church in regards to the issue.

The core of the documentary revolves around Father Oliver O'Grady, an Irish priest who moved to America in the mid-‘70s, and a number of the victims he abused over the past 30 years.

Honestly, I don’t know what to feel about giving an admitted child abuser a forum to talk about the heinous acts he committed.

On the one hand, being able to see this “person” and listen to his accounts is eye opening. The documentary would not have been as jarring without his side of things and director Amy Berg did a nice job of fully rounding out his story as completely as possible up to the time of filming.

On the other hand, just the idea that he gets any attention or recognition, albeit negative, is still nauseating.

From a more courageous standpoint, being able to get the story straight from the victims and their families is chilling and unnerving.

Their accounts are gut wrenching, especially that of one of the fathers. To see him break down in tears one minute and fire up in anger the next brings forth some of the most captivating and compelling moments I’ve ever seen on film.

Because at the end of the day, what makes all of this so hard to watch, and yet necessary, is that it is all real.

The abuse is real. The pain is real. These people will never be the same.

And apparently, the Catholic Church doesn’t seem to care.

As most loyal readers know, I’m a cynic and not much in the way of religion, especially the organized variety.

This kind of crap being pulled by clergy and their superiors only serves to fuel my cynicism and contempt.

Back to the domain of filmdom, “Deliver Us From Evil” is not perfect, nor is it fun. The subject matter is brutal and the implications far reaching.

However, this is truly a great documentary in that is presents an issue more people should take to heart and really question. (Not enough documentaries seem to be presenting an issue that still has yet to be resolved, more often than not they are history lessons).

What makes “Deliver Us From Evil” so current is the backlog of legal cases being brought forth against clergy and the Catholic Church as a whole. According to the documentary, over 100,000 sexual abuse claims against clergy members have been made in the United States alone. In the Los Angeles Diocese alone, there are 556 priests being accused of abuse.

I hope that bringing this issue to light so passionately will help to at least curb the problem in the future. Sadly, I have little hope the Catholic Church will make any real changes unless their revenue stream is threatened.

I’m giving “Deliver Us From Evil” a 4 out of 5. I had some issues with Berg’s presentation of audio clips during visual shots that weren’t necessarily related but if you think you can handle this subject, this is definitely something to see.

The Departed

2006-10-17T21:39:00.000-07:00

Continuing the trend of remaking foreign films and blindly casting Leonardo DiCraprio, legendary director / possible android (at least since “Casino”) Martin Scorsese delivers to movie theaters nationwide “The Departed”.

A remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film “Infernal Affairs”, the basic idea is that there is an undercover cop inside an organized crime boss’ inner circle as well as a mole inside the police department.

People get shot, F-bombs get dropped (226 according to IMDb) and fans of the Boston accent can rejoice!

Flippant remarks aside, this is probably Scorsese’s best film since “Good Fellas”. However, that isn’t hard and this isn’t “Good Fellas”.

Most of the success in this film is owed to its source material and the actors. I think releasing this in October rather than December shows just how little faith there was that this would be an award season contender.

That being said, I will get this out of the way and capitulate that Dicraprio did a pretty good job in this one. His Boston accent swerves like my Aunt in rush hour traffic (she’s Asian) but I would say this is the best I’ve seen him act since “The Basketball Diaries” … of course, I’ve pretty much hated everything he did since then but who’s counting?

“Titanic Jack Dawson” aside, like most Scorsese films the cast is littered with the crème de la crème of Hollywood. Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen and Alec Baldwin all share the stage here.

Damon’s performance is typically strong, Martin Sheen was a nice touch and Markie Mark does a nice job as well.

Actually, casting Damon and Wahlberg was not just a good idea but a great idea and probably saved the film. Since it is set in Boston, it’s a good idea to pick people who can actually do the accent!

Nicholson played a mix of the Joker and his character in “The Witches of Eastwick”. He was good but nothing I haven’t seen before. Still, better than some of the latest dreck he’s been attached to (i.e. “About Schmidt”).

A nice supporting role goes to Ray Winstone who most people might not recognize but he’s great at playing “heavies” and this was no exception. It’s a shame he didn’t get a little more screen time but when you’re up against a cast like this, you take what you can get.

Though if I had to pick a favorite, I’d have to go with Alec Baldwin. He had all the great lines and got to ham it up, all within the confines of the situation. He basically steals every scene he’s in.

The film unfolds about how you would expect. There really aren't any twists that you don’t see coming but Damon and cast are able to keep one’s interest fairly well.

There is a fair deal of violence in the film, loads of people get shot in the head and there's a really nice attempt at human flight. I think there must have been a blue light special on headshot blood packs the week the effects department went shopping.

On the negative side, I had read that Scorsese finished this film about a week before it opened and I have to say that it shows.

There’s some really rough editing choices and some of the sound and music cues aren’t quite synched up right.

More annoying, this is yet another film to suffer from M.E.S. (multiple ending syndrome).

I think there were somewhere between four and six different points wherein the film could have stopped but didn’t. I’m fairly happy with the ending that was eventually presented but I could have used those fifteen extra minutes back for another hit of the snooze button tomorrow morning.

And make no mistake, this is a full two and a half hours long. It goes quickly enough but don’t leave a cake in the oven on the way to the theater.

So summing it all up, “The Departed” is a good movie and gets a 3 out of 5 from me. This isn’t something you have to see but if you’ve been looking for a gangster flick, this is about as good as it has been lately.

Of course, you could always just rent “Infernal Affairs” and stop indulging Hollywood’s lack of creativity. Your choice.

The Marine

2006-10-17T18:47:00.000-07:00

There was a time when wrestling stars dominated the cultural landscape. Hulk Hogan, Jesse Ventura, André the Giant, etc, etc. Of more recent notoriety, The Rock made us all smell what he was cooking and even Triple H had some small roles in feature films.

Now, one of the latest sensations to run amok in the WWE has come to claim his share of the feature film pie.

John Cena has been a champion in the sports entertainment field and is hoping that “The Marine” will propel him to super stardom.

I hope he didn’t invest any of his own money in this one because “The Marine” sucks long and it sucks hard!

Finally, a crappy, crappy film for me to enjoy.

I almost don’t know where to begin with this one. I was typing notes into my cell phone so I wouldn’t forget some of the ingenious dialogue and probably missed half the film.

Well ... I wouldn’t say I missed it.

Let’s start at the beginning shall we?

So, a whole ton of ads and trailers waft across the screen while I finish off my blue raspberry Icee and the feature film is about to start.

I notice as the 20th Century Fox logo comes on screen that I’m not hearing the familiar rousing orchestration that usually accompanies the searchlights as they scan the sky above the logo.

Oh well, the sound reader will switch over once the logo has run through … or will it!?!

The opening credits start rolling and there still isn’t any sound. I don’t worry too much as I’m sure the projectionist will quickly realize something is wrong.

But they don’t and the opening scene depicting Cena’s military prowess rescuing hostages begins in silence.

Hand to hand combat, automatic weapons fire and huge explosions all go by with the same sound in my head when women ask if I’d ever like to get married.

At this point, it’s been about five minutes and I’m beginning to hope they never fix the sound because I have a suspicious feeling the words I make up in my head are far, far better than the ones written in the script.

Another five minutes go by and a manager enters the theater to say that they may not be able to fix the sound. I’m jazzed, thinking this could be the movie experience of the year … and then just after she handed out some free passes, the sound comes back on.

DAMMIT!

And so begins phase two of “The Marine”. Normally, I wouldn’t give stuff away but this movie deserves some deconstruction and you do NOT want to pay money for this one.

So, the basic plot is that for some reason or another (and who really cares), Cena is kicked out of the Marines and has to try and assimilate into civilian society. He takes up a job as a security guard and on the first day, throws a jerk out the lobby window.

He gets fired, and so naturally his loving wife suggests a road trip. Oh, subtle plot movements.

As all this is going down, enter Robert Patrick as a diamond thief with a capable but trigger happy crew. He’s driving with his cronies to meet up with a guy to fence the diamonds.

As fate would have it, Cena and his wife stop for gas at the same station Patrick is at. What are the odds!

A highway patrol officer makes the convenient mistake of stopping for snacks and strikes up an innocent conversation with Patrick. One of his gun-toting crew gets antsy and kills the cop, beginning the crazy series of events that is this film.

During the shoot out at the gas station, Cena’s wife is taken hostage and he gets into the cop car to pursue. He is so persistent that at one point, a goon yells out, “This guy’s like the Terminator!”, to which Patrick looks to the audience via the rear view mirror with a smirk.

This is the first of many, many, many farcical elements to the film.

As the trigger happiest of the bunch, Anthony Ray Parker is also the most racially paranoid. When at first presented with the option of a mini van as a getaway vehicle because it is inconspicuous, he utters “I am a black man … and that is a mini van!”

That’s only the tip of the ice berg with Parker, whose film history is quite interesting considering he’s played SEVEN different characters on both the “Xena” and “Hercules” television series (simply hilarious).

There’s a running gag with him about how uncomfortable he is about rock candy. Yes, you read that right. There’s a character in this film who hates rock candy and has no problem telling people about this little peccadillo.

So, after that line drops a few times, we finally get the payoff (I’ll quote where I can).

You see, when he was a child, he went to camp. One of the counselors was “Johnny Whiplash … a cool honkey.” He would start off sweet and befriend the kids. Then he offered them rock candy. Then he offered “something I should have never accepted”.

Yes, the filmmakers went to child molestation humor just for the fun of it.

Anywho, by now Cena is getting close to catching up to the bad guys who have taken to trekking through a swamp to elude law enforcement now that their car is wrecked.

As he begins to close the gap, two redneck drug dealers surprise and capture him. They tie him to a chair thinking he’s a cop and try to beat him into a confession. Within about twenty seconds, Cena has escaped his bonds, beaten up the two local yokels and continued on his quest to save his wife.

Let that last plot sequence sink in. For NO GOOD REASON, Cena gets captured by two unrelated characters simply to add another fight scene and delay the confrontation with the diamond thieves.

Well, he finally catches up, there’s a ridiculously easy plot twist that happens, he kills a bunch of bad people (including Patrick eventually) and saves his wife from drowning inside the cab of a semi where she had been handcuffed.

All the while, we are treated to really bad fight scenes, where the camera shifts and moves like a seizing diabetic on pixie stix, horrible stock alligator footage, a phenomenally bad script and so much mugging of the camera that I’m pretty sure charges were filed.

“The Marine” is one of those experiences best enjoyed in an empty theater with just a few of your closest friends and so much alcohol you had a hernia getting it out of the trunk of your car.

I’m giving the film a 1 out of 5 because there’s a lot to make fun of here and the filmmakers realized they might as well go goofy with Patrick and his crew because there was no way in hell people would take this film seriously.

Also, as a fun little side note, keep in mind everything I mentioned about this film and read the plot outline that IMDb lists: “A Marine returns from battle to find that his wife is ensnared in a kidnapping plot.”

Something seem off to you? Not even the great IMDb has bothered to see this film. Will you?

The Science of Sleep

2006-10-14T23:58:00.000-07:00

For a movie about a guy who confuses his dreams with reality, I can’t believe how much I wanted to be woken up and told I could go home while I was watching “The Science of Sleep”.

I went into this film with decently high expectations. With Michel Gondry as the director, and I loved “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, I was hoping that the inventive and interesting visual techniques he used would propel this film from good to great.

Instead, those visuals were just about the only thing that I liked in the entire film.

While I respect Gael García Bernal as an actor in most roles, I found his character here to be quite unlikable. Sure, he had the boyish charm of a kid who mixed up his dreams with real life … but that’s all he had.

He was a child not only by still being a dreamer but in his emotional maturity. Maybe someone else might find that cute but I just wanted to punch him in the face most of the time as he tried to pursue his next-door neighbor, Charlotte Gainsbourg.

She had similar dreamer qualities but didn’t confuse fantasy for reality. Nor did she think whining and pouting was an acceptable course of action for an adult trying to have a relationship with another adult.

Her performance was good, as were those of her best friend and Bernal’s co-workers. Really, the only actor I was displeased with was Bernal and since he is the main character, that doesn’t leave a lot of room for mistakes.

The story had an interesting concept and Gondry pulled off the dream sequences nicely. However, a rewrite of the main character and probably a casting change would have made this movie at least bearable for me.

The audience I was with found a lot of humor in the film, perhaps I was just tired and didn’t get it. Still, I can only review with my own opinion and I’m giving “The Science of Sleep” a 2 out of 5.

I’d rather take a proper nap than sit through this one again. You might want to make sure you’ve already seen the better films currently out in theaters before plunking down your moolah on this one.

Keeping Mum

2006-10-14T21:31:00.000-07:00

Not to be confused with another film about a British mother, “Keeping Mum” is a delightful film about a family trying to reconnect.

There is a lot of cheeky British humor involved in this little romp. Without giving too much away, let me just say that murder can be funny.

Also, the patriarch of the family is Rowan Atkinson, playing a Reverend in a small town. I think you know you’re not normally in for serious dramatic work when Mr. Bean plays a Vicar.

Kristin Scott Thomas plays his wife, who has become unhappy with her marriage and is leaning towards running away with her golf instructor, Patrick Swayze.

That’s right, Patrick Swayze!

His cheesy charm is glorious to watch as he has been away from the spotlight for too long.

The children of the family are done well enough, though more notably by the older sister, the very attractive and slightly too young for California penal law (I think) Tamsin Egerton.

Should I mention now that Britain doesn’t have the same laws about needing to be 18 for consensual sex or issues about being topless in a film?

Anywho, the film’s main plot push comes with the arrival of a new housekeeper, venerable actress Maggie Smith. While hired just to clean and cook, she also tries to bring the family dynamic back into its appropriate balance.

Smith plays this with elegance and wit, seeming to be having so much fun with her role that the audience can’t help but be caught up in it.

Now, that’s not to say “Keeping Mum” is perfect.

This film is predictable. This film doesn’t break any new ground. This film probably won’t win any awards.

But I liked it and had a very pleasant time sitting in that dark room with a bunch of noisy strangers.

This is a film sure to provide some comfort and enjoyment on a rainy day or if you just need a break from the rest of what’s out there.

I’m giving “Keeping Mum” a 3 out of 5. Maybe not a must see but you can do a lot worse.

Infamous

2006-10-14T19:08:00.000-07:00

Did you see 2005’s “Capote”? If so, you may be wondering why you should see “Infamous”.

This film also tells the story of Truman Capote and his struggle to write the celebrated novel, “In Cold Blood”.

For those unfamiliar with the book or last year’s film version of the events, the story revolved around eccentric author Truman Capote as he attempts to learn all that he can about the killing of a Kansas family in their home in the late 1950s.

Capote, a well-known gossip and socialite, goes so far as to get into the cells with the killers to ascertain their side of the story (and in the process develops a complex relationship with them).

He wasn’t interested so much in the facts of the crime but in providing a look at what such a heinous act does to a close-knit community such as that of Holcombe, Kansas.

In lieu of Philip Seymour Hoffman (who won the Academy Award for his portrayal of Capote), filmmakers went with Toby Jones to slip his toes into Truman’s loafers.

Not knowing much about the real Capote, I can only say that both actors provided excellent and believable performances. Still, I prefer Hoffman’s take on the whole ordeal. That is probably biased due to my admiration for him as an actor but that’s how it goes.

To portray one of the killers, Perry Smith, filmmakers eventually went with the newest 007, Daniel Craig. I say eventually because originally the role was going to go to Mark Wahlberg and then to Mark Ruffalo.

This is definitely an example of getting it right in the end. Craig has a lot of acting talent and it shows here, in a role that demands not only an intimidating presence but a lonely soul. I can only hope that he doesn’t get pigeon holed as the famous super spy.

While those are good performances (and there are other others), there are also some not so good ones. Originally Samantha Morton was cast as author Nelle Harper Lee. That probably would have been amazing.

What we actually got was Sandra Bullock. I like her in romantic comedies and speeding public transport films but this was out of her league. All I could think throughout her scenes was that I like her with longer hair.

There is also a small cameo by Gwyneth Paltrow in the beginning as singer Peggy Lee. In the middle of singing the opening song, she breaks down because the lyrics seem to mirror some personal pain inside of her. While I suppose those lyrics could be inferred to apply to Capote’s own journey, I thought the performance just served to have the audience wondering why in the hell Paltrow was the one they chose and why they used the scene at all.

In any case, “Infamous” slants its view more into the vivacious nature of Truman that “Capote” did. For that, I can at least be glad the whole film wasn’t just a rehash of something that was already made.

Still, unless you are a fanatic Truman Capote fan or are overcome with curiosity about what they did differently in this film, you don’t need to see this one.

I’m giving “Infamous” a 3 out of 5. On its own, it’s a good film. Having seen “Capote”, I don’t really need it.

The Queen

2006-10-14T16:34:00.000-07:00

Landing stateside is one of the year’s surefire Academy Awards’ nominees for best actress.

“The Queen” attempts to portray the happening inside the British Royal Family during the week that followed the death of Princess Diana.

The conflict in the film stems from the resistance Her Majesty put up to publicly speaking about Diana’s death, seeing as she had divorced from Prince Charles nearly a year prior to that point and was no longer officially a member of the Royal Family.

Being an American, I can’t really relate to what a monarchy is supposed to represent or instill in me personally. I had heard or read that the appropriate parallel Americans could make would be the outrage and bewilderment that we would have felt if President Bush had not addressed the nation about 9/11.

That’s how important the monarchy is to the British people.

To portray such a weight topic, accomplished director Stephen Frears took the reins and tapped Helen Mirren to don the crown. And they couldn’t have made a better choice except, perhaps, Queen Elizabeth II herself.

There is plenty of buzz surrounding Mirren’s performance and it is all deserved. The actions of the Royal Family seem so cold and alien and yet it is Mirren’s stoic and exceptional portrayal that makes it believable.

Not to be outdone is Michael Sheen, who fills the shoes of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. His part in the whole affair was to protect the monarchy from themselves.

The British people were upset with the Queen for her perceived lack of compassion and Blair was afraid the monarchy’s reputation could be irrevocably harmed.

To try and preserve its viability, he had to balance his desire to modernize the British Empire (which was the platform that won the election for him) with his belief in the tradition and sovereignty that the Queen represented.

Sheen’s performance is every bit as good, if not better, that Mirren’s. While I’m fully expecting at least an Oscar nomination for Mirren, I’d also like to see one for Sheen, even if it is in the supporting category.

The rest of the cast is well chosen, most notably James Cromwell as Prince Phillip (husband to QEII) and Alex Jennings as Prince Charles. And Frears and his crew did well on the other aspects of the film. From music to pacing to sense of realism, it all worked.

Frears used a lot of news footage to enhance and reinforce the gravity of the film. While this could have backfired, creating a jumbled sense of continuity, I thought it worked well.

Perhaps the biggest knock I could deliver to the film is that every now and then I felt like I was watching a melodrama rather than a attempt to depict such an important time for the British people.

Still, I’m giving “The Queen” a 4 out of 5. It is a great film and as long as you’re not looking for a sweeping romance, nuclear explosion, or Tony Jaa martial arts extravaganza, you’ll find your money well spent here.

Jesus Camp

2006-10-14T13:20:00.000-07:00

Spreading its message throughout the nation is the documentary “Jesus Camp”.

The film takes a look at the fundamentalist Evangelical Church’s methods and efforts to enlist children as “warriors” for Christ.

Obviously, there is plenty of room here for controversy. Depending on your own beliefs, there will be a completely different mindset that you bring into the theater.

What I found interesting is that the filmmakers (co-directors Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady) presented the documentary without too many winks of the eye.

That is, instead of openly mocking the (in my opinion) fanatical and borderline abusive manner in which the Evangelical Church teaches their children about the world, Ewing and Grady were mostly able to just put their story up on the screen and let the audience decide.

Sure, their opinion can be gleaned from the editing choices. Still, it’s not as blatant a condemnation as I was expecting.

If you are a “born-again” fundamentalist Christian, 90% of the documentary espouses your beliefs.

If you are a little less “old school” with your Christian faith, this is probably an example of the followers you worry are giving Christianity a bad reputation, especially in what is often deemed a liberal media.

Or if you are a non-believer, like myself, there this is one very scary (and sometimes humorous) look into over 30 million Americans.

The documentary centers on an Evangelical kids summer camp held each year in Devils Lake, North Dakota. The pastors truly believe that they can help change the world for the better if they prepare the children from an early age to fight, and if need be, die for Jesus Christ.

I’m not putting a spin on this, they say this in the film. The featured pastor, Becky Fischer, justifies this by pointing out that the Muslim world does the same thing. She sees children in “Israel, Pakistan and Palestine being trained to use AK-47s and wear bomb belts” (not exact-phrasing but the actual words and context is intact).

In her mind, and that of the Evangelical Church (the President of their association has weekly meetings with President GW Bush), in order to preserve the morality of America and to ensure their faith is the one that wins out, they must rise up and fight for it..

Now, the film doesn’t show that any of the children are being openly trained for war. While I wouldn’t put it past some of these parents to go militia with their home schooled kids (according to the film, 75% of home schooled kids are Evangelical Christians), it is more that they want to make sure their children believe these teachings as fervently as they do.

The children are so devoted through this tactic of indoctrination that they openly weep during sermons and have little hesitance to join in with the adults and speak in tongues when they feel the Holy Spirit come into them. They don’t need to be coached, they will come right up to the camera and say, “At five, I got saved … because I just wanted more of life.”

As shown in the documentary, the children are encouraged to go up to people and try to bring Jesus into their lives. They do so politely and non-confrontationally (how confrontation can a 10 year old be?) but still, I was unnerved to watch these children get caught up in the whole affair like I was watching a David Koresh-led seminar.

As you can tell, I found most of the film to be creepy, to say the least, and I felt sorry for these kids who have no chance to form their own opinions until they leave their homes/schools.

I’m cool with parents wanting to install morals into their children and I think most religions have the correct core morals at their base. It’s when parents drive it all into their kids like nails into their skulls that I get uneasy.

Then to see the church ceremonies, I feel very much like a mob mentality is taking over and no matter what the message, as humans we tend to go with the crowd. It’s instinct. Do five-year-old children have any chance of seeing through that kind of presentation?

Now, the filmmakers do make it clear that they are also concerned about this movement. Not necessarily because of the beliefs but because the number of followers and their commitment to action has led to their being a legitimate political force in America today.

As I said before, the President of the Evangelical Church Association meets with the current President once a week. I doubt all they do is thank God for their morning scones.

The political issue at hand while they were filming was the appointment of Judge Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. He was outspoken about his religious beliefs and that he was pro-life. As a core issue to Evangelical Christians, they made sure to let it be known they wanted this man in his post.

And they got their wish.

Now, I could personally have done without this look into the political ramifications of the fundamentalist Christians. I was more interested in seeing how these kids are treated and trained. Still, the documentary held my attention and I thought this was at the very least, thought provoking.

I’m giving “Jesus Camp” a 3 out of 5. It’s an interesting film but unless you are either a staunch liberal or zealous Christian, there are other films you probably want to catch right now.

The Last King of Scotland

2006-10-09T18:53:00.000-07:00

Based on Idi Amin’s time as Uganda’s dictator (as related by his personal physician), “The Last King of Scotland” is an attempt to portray not only the madness that led to Amin killing 300,000 of his own countrymen, but the charm and good he attempted to do as well.

According to interviews with star Forest Whitaker and director Kevin Macdonald, the Ugandan people have made peace with Amin’s regime. Yes, there was brutality but there was also a sense that Amin was responsible for putting Uganda on the world map and standing up to the British Empire. For that, they are grateful.

“The Last King of Scotland” is not for the faint of heart. Making a film about a dictator who maimed and killed hundreds of thousands of people can’t be made without a few drops of blood. Yet, that is also what makes the film so powerful.

The visceral nature of Uganda in the 1970s is on display. The story is compelling because it is based on real events. That may not be your cup of tea but the film makes sure not to be so myopic.

The film is centrally focused on Nicholas Garrigan – the personal physician of Amin, played gorgeously by James McAvoy. His portrayal of the Scottish doctor turned trusted advisor reminds me of Ewan McGregor in “Trainspotting”. You just know this actor will go places.

Perhaps more importantly, without his strong performance, Whitaker’s presence would not have been so moving.

And remember how I called for Philip Seymour Hoffman to receive an Academy Award for his performance in last year’s “Capote”? Well, mark your ballot sheets now. Expect Whitaker to be taking home his own golden statue this February 25.

His performance as Amin is flawless. He seemingly mastered the accent and the ability to convey the dictator’s legendary paranoia. Throughout the film, Whitaker’s Amin goes from paranoid to elated in the blink of an eye and all with such believability that you can’t help but get lost in the character.

The rest of the cast does a nice job as well, including Kerry Washington and Gillian Anderson. Using the real locations and local extras add an incalculable amount to the look and feel of the film.

The cinematography is well handled, providing a grittier, muted look that suits the time period. The political motivations of the British lurking at the surface are handled well and don’t distract from the compelling relationship between Amin and Garrigan.

Really, there’s not much to knock in this film, aside perhaps from some slowness near the end. I again implore people to find this film and see it for themselves. It isn’t often enough that the movie industry releases films of such dignity and quality.

“The Last King of Scotland” is a phenomenal film and should not be missed. I’m giving it a 5 out of 5. It is near perfect and I hope to see this up for major award consideration.

Renaissance

2006-10-08T23:36:00.000-07:00

Running around in limited release is the visually stunning quasi-animated film, “Renaissance”. But have no fear, this is not another film where computer generated animals do crazy things and make lewd remarks.

The primary focus of the film is on finding a kidnapped scientist and unraveling a mystery involving her work for a large corporation in 2046 Paris.

No, “Renaissance” is definitely for the adult crowd, more of a sci-fi film noir. Think “Sin City” meets “Minority Report”. Not a good thought? Well, it’s the best I can do.

To separate the film from all the others, director Christian Volckman employed an intriguing visual style.

The film is, almost exclusively, black and white motion capture animation.

This allows for really great use of shadows and perspective. There was a fluidity and sense of life that doesn’t come through sometimes with much more delineated work in traditional hand drawn animation.

In the beginning, it takes some getting used to, almost like getting your sea legs on a boat. The movements are just so slightly off that it takes your brain a bit longer to process the scene.

Then there is the black and white aspect, which creates a much more muddled sense of the scene and what is going on. This is usually used in a positive manner but every now and then I found the action jumbled and hard to make out.

Aside from the visual technique employed, the story is pretty straightforward. If you’ve seen any sci-fi mysteries, you’ll figure this one out pretty quick. The way the story develops was almost like a cross between an animated “Batman” episode mixed slightly with a 40’s noir crime thriller.

While that may be interesting, I though the story and character development were lacking and weak to say the least. Perhaps most distressing is that the big underlying issue that is to be unraveled is just … well, stupid.

I can see how the issues the film brings up could be interesting and significant but the manner in which it is used and dealt with creates an overall sense that nothing earth shattering is going on – which is not what the filmmakers seem to be going for.

On the positive side, the voice acting was done fairly well. This is a French film that was released here with an English dubbed soundtrack and included the talents of Daniel Craig, Romola Garai, Jonathan Pryce and Ian Holm.

It might be interesting to see again using the French language track and reading the subtitles. Maybe the gravity of the story was lost in the dubbing, which happens often in foreign animation.

Well, unless you’re only out to see the film because of its visual style, I can’t necessarily recommend it. I’m giving “Renaissance” a 2 out of 5. I wanted to like it more but my personal distaste of noir and its shallow story kept me from becoming too enthralled.

Kudos to the visual art department but most everyone else involved shouldn’t be checking their mailboxes this winter for Christmas cards from me.

Jackass Number Two

2006-10-04T23:53:00.000-07:00

If there’s one thing I absolutely love, it’s people hurting themselves for my amusement and few things do that better than the Jackass crew.

With the profitability of their first film, it was a no-brainer that a second one would come our way. Hence, “Jackass Number Two”.

I additionally appreciate that they didn’t fail to capitalize on making a fecal joke in the title.

Anywho, I think listing the people in “Jackass Number Two” will take longer than reviewing the film. All the regulars are back: Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera, Steve-O, Chris Pontius, Preston Lacy, Ryan Dunn, Ehren McGhehey and Wee Man.

Jeff Tremaine continues to helm the ship of fools as director/instigator and some familiar faces make a return in cameo spots as well as a few new ones - Jay Chandrasekhar, Tony Hawk, Mat Hoffman, Spike Jonze, Mike Judge, John Waters, Luke Wilson and Rip Taylor.

Okay, having fun reading lists of names? Well, let’s just get to it then, eh?

I enjoyed this installment of the idiotic and childish antics I’ve come to know and love.

However, the tone of their pranks went a little bit more into the mean spirited realm this time around. Either I’m really changing as I get older, becoming one of those people who “just don’t get it”, or the majority of the new material in this film centered on causing distress to not only the unsuspecting public in some of the gags, but to each other.

I found my jaw a bit sore after the film from laughing so much but that’s because the physical punishment these guys endured is practically insane. I’m continually shocked not one of them has died during some of these sequences.

There’s not much point in fully illustrating the types of stunts/gags they do this time around. Many of the gags are variations on stuff seen on their MTV show or in the first film. You either like this brand of entertainment of you don’t. To no one’s surprise, there isn’t anything here that will convert someone to the other side.

Perhaps the most shocking thing in regards to the whole affair is that this film garnered two thumbs up from the Ebert & Roeper program. I’m not sure Ebert actually was one of the thumbs as he is still recovering (my best wishes go out to him) but the idea that Roeper gave a nod of approval is kinda scary.

In any case, I’m going to go along and give “Jackass Number Two” a 3 out of 5. Fans of the show will find enjoyment here and all others should stay far away. The first film was much better but I’m a sucker for watching grown men kick each other in the scrotal region. It’s just plain funny.

The Last Kiss

2006-10-03T23:02:00.000-07:00

I’m not necessarily a fan of remaking foreign films. I understand that different cultures have different points of view and that it’s possible to create a subtly different story by changing the locale and language. Also, sometimes other countries don’t get the chance to appreciate a beautiful film because of the difficulties in mass marketing and distribution.

Still, I think a truly great film will get around to the right people, given the film is truly great. Take “Amelie” for example. There’s no need for an American remake. The word of mouth spread and subsequently, the distributor ponied up the cash to bring the film to a wider audience.

The language argument is bullshit too. If people don’t want to read subtitles, that’s too bad for them. I don’t think going for the lowest common denominator is the right way to go in just about anything.

Still, that doesn’t mean there can’t be an exception to the rule. I’m of course referencing my latest cinematic experience, “The Last Kiss”.

Based on writer/director Gabriele Muccino’s 2001 film “L’Ultimo bacio”, the American remake shifts locals from Italy to Wisconsin and attempts to translate the chaotic entanglements of a group of childhood friends, all exiting their twenties and headed into the dreaded third decade of their lives.

I wasn’t necessarily a big fan of the original film. At the time of its release stateside in August of 2002, I was the ripe old age of 25. While I could empathize with the characters, the story didn’t resonate with me quite like the latest version.

Now on the verge of entering into my thirties, the events, emotions and static-chaos that surrounds the core group of childhood buddies is all too familiar. Watching “The Last Kiss” is almost like putting up a funhouse mirror to my life. The details aren’t exact but the basic shape is definitely recognizable.

Getting into specifics, director Tony Goldwyn is able to channel the reworked script (by Paul Haggis of “Million Dollar Baby” and “Crash” fame) into a tangled web of love, betrayal, frustration and hope. The film is an ensemble piece, with one story being central to the others. This drags the film out somewhat but trying to cram so much into one feature must be daunting so I’ll let it slide (and it was like that in the Italian original anyway).

To depict the menagerie of characters, Goldwyn assembled a mixed cast of veteran, currently hip, and up & coming actors. Trying to condense their characters’ descriptions would take a few pages so I’ll just list off the main cast: Zach Braff, Jacinda Barrett, Casey Affleck, Rachel Bilson, Michael Weston, Eric Christian Olsen, Blythe Danner and Tom Wilkinson.

Each does a nice job but the standouts are Barrett and Bilson. Each portray Braff’s love interests; one a pregnant girlfriend and the other a newfound jezebel. And each do so masterfully. Their beauty is an obvious lure but it is their portrayal of their characters that is so convincing and moving that raises their performances from the stock variety to something much more realistic.

I think anyone who’s been in love can relate and as you fall further down the rabbit hole, you become more and more confused about right and wrong. Just like life, there aren’t many absolutes. Not every question has just one right answer, if it has any at all.

It is this situation that is at the heart of the film and allows the other stories to reverberate like beats from a drum. You can’t have any one story without the others and it is this interconnectedness that elevates the film from average to something more pervasive.

That’s not to say the film is perfect. While there is a nice cameo by Marley Shelton, there is also a dreadful one by Egon himself, Harold Ramis. I guess he’s a close friend of Goldwyn’s or something because I don’t get why he was cast at all.

While his cameo is small, it’s significant and would have been better served by an actor with more range. I love “Ghostbusters” more than the next guy but I’m not the first person to ask about nominating Ramis for any acting awards. He should stick to writing and directing, where I will give him plenty of deserved credit.

Cameos aside, I also thought the film felt a little static. I realize the number of weaving storylines involved make the production of the film much more complicated but I was hoping for some more visual style from Goldwyn. I don’t remember any iconic shots that could have better framed the multiple montages used during some very excellent soundtrack pieces.

Speaking of which, much like his last major film, “Garden State”, I think I heard/read somewhere that Braff had his hand in putting the soundtrack together and it definitely shows. As a big fan of that film and its music, I was suitably pleased with the choices for “The Last Kiss”. There’s something even more connective involved when you already own half the soundtrack.

This only deepened the hold the film had on me from the opening bars of Snow Patrol’s “Chocolate” to Imogen Heap’s “Hide and Seek” to “Reason Why” by Rachel Yamagata. Music and score are vital elements of a film and if there is one thing I give Braff full credit for, it is using music he finds enjoyable.

Rather than just signing whatever band is hot at the moment, he goes with stuff that makes a connection to him. It just so happens that a lot of other people can relate to the same tunes and it makes for a much broader level of entertainment and understanding.

Back to the merits of the film, if you saw the original “L’Ultimo bacio”, I think there is a lot in “The Last Kiss” to compare and contrast. I'm looking forward to rewatching the original to see if my opinion will rise now that I have a more understanding perspective to use.

Additionally, I am willing to admit that my initial reservations about remaking the film were wrong. That isn’t to say I’m not skeptical of the other ones coming to the megaplexes soon.

This month's “The Departed” is a remake of the Hong Kong film “Infernal Affairs” and there are remakes of two of my favorite foreign films, “Mostly Martha” and “Open Hearts” in the works as well. (The latter by Braff himself ironically enough.)

I guess doing sequels has become somewhat passé and now we’re headed into remaking films in the American language of “we don’t speak anything else and we’re not willing to read while the TV is on”.

All that aside and refocusing this review, I’m giving “The Last Kiss” a 4 out of 5. The acting is generally strong and some of the confrontational moments truly reflect how people are in real life. This is easily in my personal top five of the year but I don’t think it will end up in the top ten best films of the year.

Like “Garden State”, it’s not perfect but it resonates with me near perfectly for where I am right now. If you’re at that stage in your life where all your friends are getting married and having kids and the idea of growing up and becoming an adult isn’t just a fantasy but an all too frustrating reality, “The Last Kiss” will touch a part of your life.

If all you want is escapism, this probably isn’t the film you want but if you’re looking to take stock of where you are, this might be just the ticket.

October 2006

2006-10-02T01:02:00.000-07:00

The Last King of Scotland

Renaissance

Jackass Number Two

The Last Kiss

The Protector

2006-09-14T23:26:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wanted to see a gang of extreme sports hoodlums attack a martial arts master? Have you ever wanted to see a fight scene where the protagonist breaks the arms and legs of nearly 50 enemies? Have you ever wanted to see a man throw a baby elephant?

As I will assume your answer is yes to all three, then look no further than “The Protector”.

The film stars Tony Jaa and if you saw “Ong Bak”, then you know what kind of amazing muay thai elements are in store.

Much like “Ong Bak” (and apparently the same in the upcoming “Sword”), director Prachya Pinkaew and Jaa have teamed up to create a very simple story but one that allows for a lot of creativity in how to use Jaa’s phenomenal fighting style and acrobatic ability.

Here’s the basic plot to any Jaa-Pinkaew collaboration: Someone steals something and Tony Jaa will get it back, by any means necessary.

In “The Protector”, Jaa is a member of a sacred order charged with raising and protecting elephants destined to become symbols of royal power. Someone who didn’t see “Ong Bak” decides to steal his elephant and will learn to regret it.

The story begins in Thailand but quickly shifts to Sydney, Australia. Everyone who knows me understands my affinity for the land down under and I was happy to see that while a lot of stock footage was used, there were many scenes actually filmed in Sydney.

This film also boasts the feat that it is the first time an elephant has walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I can only imagine the looks that received on the day of shooting.

Back to the film, one of the most interesting/amazing aspects is a fight scene that lasts nearly 4 ½ minutes that is shot in one take! Jaa ascends through a building, fighting thug after thug and there isn’t a cut until he reaches the top. That speaks volumes as to the quality of the fight choreography, stunt work and Jaa’s own stamina and ability.

As aforementioned, there is also a scene that more than borders on ridiculous involving a throng of henchmen attacking Jaa, only to be delivered so many broken bones, one of my friends was shouting “Invest in casts!”

I couldn’t agree more. Nor could I agree more on another comment he made, that Tony Jaa was “radioactive pissed”. Mark my words, there is no better way to describe Jaa’s disposition as the film progresses.

He loves his elephant and the bad guys should have just given it back but nooooo … they had to try and defeat Jaa. Bad idea.

The fight scenes are unsurprisingly amazing and I nearly lost my voice exclaiming awe and wonder at the action on screen. Thankfully for me (but not for film revenue), my friends and I were the only ones in the theater so we were able to let loose our chorus of cheers and hurrahs.

And make no mistake, the fights are so amazing and over the top that I gave out an actual standing ovation.

Now, that isn’t to say this film is for everyone. Obviously, it’s heavy on martial arts action and people who don’t like protracted fight scenes will find a lot not to like here.

There are tons of plot holes, numerous bad edits and an overall looseness that will drive anyone looking for a complete story batshit crazy.

Additionally, it was disheartening to find out that the super small cameo by Jackie Chan was in fact a double who just looked amazingly like Chan.

I do want to mention though that I liked that Petchtai Wongkamlao was also cast in a fairly major role, as he was central to “Ong Bak”. So it’s nice to see that this core group of actors/filmmaker are sticking together to keep creating fun and interesting work.

In regards to the fights in “The Protector”, former wrestler/rugby player/strongman and native Australian Nathan Jones is featured prominently and when he is matched up to Jaa, it’s just fun to see the size disparity. Almost a Bruce Lee vs. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar kind of setup. Though it was less about style for Jones and much more about pure brute strength.

I also want to make special mention of Lateef Crowder who uses the capoeira fighting style to remarkable effect. I was probably most disappointed in this non-resolution, where Crowder does not come back near the end to effect a second fight. His moves were eye-popping.

In the end, as stated before, just watching the trailer will serve to either whet or lose your appetite for this one.

Looking at Pinkaew and Jaa’s first collaboration, “Ong Bak” had a fairly complete story and wrapped up most of its loose ends, all along giving top notch action. However, there are loads of unresolved issues in “The Protector”. If you can’t let go of reality and just strap in, feel the G’s and go along with an insane asskicking ride, this film is not for you.

If I were judging this based on its film merit, it would warrant a 2 or 3 but I had way too much fun watching Jaa knee and elbow his way through Sydney as he looked to reclaim his elephant family.

As such, I’m giving “The Protector” a 4 out of 5. Yes, there are many issues with the film from a story and filmmaking perspective. But if you just want a film with crazy, prolonged fight scenes, there is nothing better this year than this latest Tony Jaa extravaganza. The film is exactly what it represents and I'm okay with not getting a "Godfather" like story to go along with all the amazing action.

Half Nelson

2006-09-08T16:43:00.000-07:00

Last time I checked the calendar, it was September. So why in the hell is “Half Nelson” being released now?

Usually, the Oscar contenders are brought out in December, to keep the movies fresh in the voters’ minds.

Oh, I’m sorry. Did I skip ahead?

“Half Nelson” is a small, independent film about a teacher and one of his students. The generic Hollywood film would have a troubled youth who gets turned around by a heroic mentor figure.

This is anything but a generic Hollywood film.

The teacher is flawed, still nursing a drug habit and barely keeping himself afloat. The student has no positive male role models in her life and is trying to decide how to live her life, bearing so much of the responsibility of raising herself. Together, maybe they have a chance of finding something real to hold onto.

That’s a gross oversimplification but you get the gist.

To play such a complicated role, the filmmakers chose one of the very most talented actors in his generation, Ryan Gosling.

Yes, he’s that guy from “The Notebook” but don’t let that dissuade you if you happen to have a Y chromosome.

Gosling is capable of handling intense and complex material, unlike so many of the actors in his age range (yeah, I’m talking to you Freddie Prinze Jr.).

In “Half Nelson”, his character struggles to be a positive force in the lives of his students while coping with drug addiction and depression. While not entirely similar, Gosling’s performance in “The United States of Leland” seems almost like a direct precursor to this role.

If you haven’t seen that film either, go add it to your queue. Moreover, if Gosling does not get some award attention for this role, I will … not be surprised because usually great performances in small films get overlooked (i.e. last year’s Mysterious Skin).

Damn the man!

To match up to Gosling’s exceptional performance, re-enter Shareeka Epps.

I say ‘re-enter’ because this is actually a revisit to the role, as “Half Nelson” is the long version of the short film “Gowanus, Brooklyn”. However, while Epps is not inventing a truly new character, her performance is still noteworthy.

Child actors often fail to match up to their adult peers but Epps was utterly convincing.

Therein lies perhaps the greatest compliment I can pay to the film. Often, I would forget that I was watching a movie and it felt like I was watching a documentary or reality show.

I became so wrapped up in these people’s situations that the only escape came when I applied their on-screen psychoses to my own.

Dips into the murky depths of my own mind aside, Epps and Gosling created completely endearing yet broken people – people that needed something else in their lives to anchor themselves down before they floated away.

These are easily two of the best performances of the year so far.

Part of the credit should also go to director Ryan Fleck. He shot the film in 16mm, adding a grainy and intimate look and feel. That may have been a budgetary decision but it was the right one.

Credit should also go to Anthony Mackie who provides a strong supporting performance and Anna Boden, who co-wrote the film (and short film) with Fleck. Their script was very smart and they understood that the film didn’t need huge, lengthy monologues.

The devil is in the details as they say, and in film, the subtext given by the actors in looks and mannerisms are so much more expressive sometimes that what the written word can provide.

I could go on and on, extolling praise upon “Half Nelson”. Instead, I will just sum it up and let you get out to whatever theater near you is playing the film.

To no surprise after all the raving I just did, I’m giving “Half Nelson” a 5 out of 5.

This year is shaping up to be a wonderful year for films, with other perfect scores already being given out to Akeelah and the Bee, Little Miss Sunshine, and Somersault. All four are sure to be in the running for the top ten of the year and should not be missed.

Trust the Man

2006-09-07T19:05:00.000-07:00

Playing in limited release right now is the romantic dramedy, “Trust the Man”.

The film stars David Duchovny, Julianne Moore, Billy Crudup and Maggie Gyllenhaal as a pair of couples each having their own crises of faith.

Each couple have their ups and downs and, in retrospect, the entire film plays out like a full season recap of a television show which isn’t entirely a good thing.

The film follows their lives over the course of many months, constantly jumping ahead from one setback to another. However, few of the separate issues get a full treatment.

There is a main thread running underneath everything that is easy to follow but instead of giving us the casual brush stroke, I would have preferred writer/director Bart Freundlich have concentrated on one or two specific things rather than aimlessly wandering around.

That negative aside, the performances are very good and there are many humorous moments. The actors just seemed to be having a great time and that translated onto the screen.

Oh, I almost forgot about the ending. It’s weird.

There’s some good reviewing, huh?

Okay fine, I’ll explain.

I was sitting in the theater, enjoying the film, when we reach the last 10 minutes or so and the genre shifts from dramedy to farce.

Nothing set up prior to the end really prepares the audience, not just to the actions of the main characters, but the looseness with which the surrounding characters and environments accept what is going on.

It was as if Freundlich was filming the movie, got a call that he had to wrap it up because of budget constraints, and hastily threw together an ending at the location they were shooting.

So while I enjoyed the film overall, I really wish there had been someone on set to say to the director, “Hey, uh, boss. How about we do something a bit more, um, realistic.”

Oh well. Not every film can be a winner. I’m giving “Trust the Man” a 2 out of 5. A few script revisions and the film could have been much more serviceable. Still, fans of the main cast will find something to like here, all else should probably stay away.

The Quiet

2006-09-04T19:17:00.000-07:00

I’ve been waiting for a month or so for some film to come out that just plain sucks. I’ve been writing so-so to great reviews one after the other lately and I was hoping “The Quiet” would be just what I’ve been looking for.

Dammit, it’s better than the trailer made it out to be and better than I thought its clichéd premise could deliver on. But don’t rush right out to see it quite yet.

If you’ve seen the trailer, then I think you were like me – thinking, “Well, it looks like crap but Elisha Cuthbert is wearing a cheerleader’s outfit, so there’s at least something worthwhile.”

I’m not even going to lie, that’s the reason I saw this film in the first place. While even her fairly decent performance in “The Girl Next Door” did add a little more acting credibility to her in my mind, it’s how she looks in a tight clothing that I like the most. And it still is.

However, maybe because the director was a woman (Jamie Babbit), one of my biggest problems with the film is that the only nudity comes from Falco. I’ve read somewhere that Cuthbert doesn’t want to do nudity and all I can say is that’s a shame.

I don’t know what Camilla Belle’s personal proclivities are but I also encourage her to follow in the footsteps of Anne Hathaway. She’s done nudity in a few films and her career is fine and dandy. (Don’t worry loyal readers, I will make sure to continue my obsession and ask, “Anne, give me a call!”)

Back to the film overall, “The Quiet” revolves around the Deer family. Cuthbert plays the daughter, a popular cheerleader; Belle the deaf-mute taken in by the Deer family; Martin Donovan is the domineering father with a bit too much love for his daughter and Edie Falco is the pill-popping mom too out of it to see what’s happening in her own home.

Normally, I wouldn’t give so much away but the trailer puts it all out there really and it isn’t long into the film before you see what’s going on and what will probably happen.

And while this summer has been chockers (Good Aussie slang, mate … fair dinkum!) with predictable films, I am again able to be okay with it. What I liked about “The Quiet” was the chemistry between Cuthbert and Belle, the creepy Donovan and the somber mood created by the director and the music (loads of Beethoven).

I’ll get to my problems with the film in a second but first I’ll applaud the director’s methodical unraveling of the family. While none of the “twists” are hard to see coming, they appear at a nice pace and aren’t too over handed.

The performances by the two lead girls are done pretty well and Donovan is fantastic as the creepy Dad. He just exudes slime. Falco is a bit miscast here and it’s her character that gets the shortest end of the stick in character development, so I can’t say it’s all her fault.

The two primary supporting characters are played by Shawn Ashmore and Katy Mixon. Ashmore plays the school heartthrob and gave a surprisingly honest look at what guys would be like if they were talking to a deaf girl.

Mixon plays another popular cheerleader whose middle name should be a combination of the words “bitch” and “slut” (Blut? Slitch?). Mixon really had fun with the role and she nearly steals all of her scenes.

Acting aside, the aforementioned Beethoven really adds to the atmosphere of the film. It’s almost another character and if the music had just been a bunch of emo trendy noise, then maybe I would have had the bomb I had initially been hoping for.

Still, there are numerous problems with “The Quiet”. First, a lot of really interesting psychological issues are brought up. None of them are really examined though. To use a hastily thought up analogy, the threads that could have weaved a wooly sweater serve only to get caught in the zipper of my backpack.

Okay, so I didn’t do well on that section of the SAT.

Anywho, aside from not really exploring the issues, the film also wraps itself up so quickly and loosely, it’s like me wrapping presents with one square of a paper grocery bag and some scotch tape.

Badly worded analogy? Sure. Do I wrap presents that badly? You betcha.

The film has a runtime nearing two hours and I would say that the ending is done in the last 5 and a half minutes. I thought about waiting until after the credits to see if there was more to the ending but I had to make sure to get to the store to buy some soda.

Even with all of those negative aspects, I again admit that I was pleasantly surprised by “The Quiet”. While I would have been happier to have another dog of a film to beat with my keyboard, it was nice to watch a moody film full of dysfunctional and broken characters.

There is a lot of room for improvement with this film but if you are a fan of independent dramas that center on dysfunctional families, I think there’s something to like here.

I’m giving “The Quiet” a 2 out of 5. I know that’s under the passing grade but I really can’t forgive how carelessly Babbit wraps everything up and doesn’t focus on the more intense and thought provoking psychological aspects involved in the story. Still, I credit her with setting a nice tone and exceeding my wildest expectations for what appeared to be little more than a “don’t touch me there, daddy” after school special. But it’s only a little more that.

Beerfest

2006-09-01T23:59:00.000-07:00

Due to the Man making me work to earn a roof over my head, I didn’t get to comedy troupe Broken Lizard’s “Beerfest” until just now.

And all I can say is, “Damn the Man”.

I’m a huge “Super Troopers” fan and even found enough enjoyment in “Club Dread” to purchase it as well. (The scene where they’re playing life-sized, live-action Pac Man is simply awesome).

So when I heard the Broken Lizard Guys (Jay Chandrasekhar, Kevin Heffernan, Steve Lemme, Paul Soter and Erik Stolhanske) were back with a movie about an international beer drinking competition, I was locked, cocked and ready.

Chandrasekhar returns to his directing duties for the group and there is a very similar style to the film that fans of their other movies will recognize. You can tell they had a limited budget as some of the CGI shots involving the mass beer chugging can look a bit comical, but since this is a comedy, I almost prefer that it look cheesy sometimes.

To spice up the cast, some very interesting supporting actors got involved. First, there’s Donald Sutherland. Sure, he’ll do just about any movie that has catering but he’s great nonetheless.

Cloris Leachman has a nice little role as the grandmother of the two main characters, Mo'Nique brought a physicality and nastiness that added a nice spark and “Lost” fans will appreciate the cameo by M.C. Gainey (whom you may recognize better with a fake beard on).

While those actors added nice elements, the key supporting cast were the members of the German drinking team. They all do a really great job of bringing German stereotypes to hilarious levels but I would like to single out two of them, Will Forte and Eric Christian Olsen.

Forte has some great throwaway lines that you could miss if you’re laughing too much and Olsen made me laugh just by being on screen. He would just be in the back of a scene, looking or responding to the action in the foreground, and I would naturally focus on him and laugh.

And until I looked him up on IMDb, I couldn’t place where I recognized him from. He’s the guy who plays the young Lloyd in “Dumb and Dumberer”, i.e. the young Jim Carrey. Keep an eye on Mr. Olsen, he was about the only good part of that prequel and he’s hilarious in “Beerfest”. He may not reach Carrey’s fame and fortune but he’ll keep me coming back for more laughs.

Perhaps even better is that the patriarch of the German team is Jürgen Prochnow. He never fails to entertain me. I’m thinking of naming an award after him for all the gloriousness he brings to the screen (see “Wing Commander” and “Judge Dredd” as examples A and B).

Anywho, back to the beer competition … umm, I mean film. The great thing about seeing this at the late show on a Friday night is that the college kids are out and they’ve got beer. Throughout the film, I would hear bottles being knocked over on the floor and rolling down the sloped auditorium floor. And before that, there was a symphony of cans being opened as the credits began.

Now that’s the way to see “Beerfest”! (Don’t vomit in the auditorium, that’s just rude).

Although they post a disclaimer at the beginning of the film not to drink like the characters in the film, I think we all know this film will be the newest drinking game at campuses nationwide as soon as the DVD hits stores.

That isn’t to say I didn’t enter the theater without some trepidation. I was worried that the film would be much more like “Club Dread” than “Super Troopers” and only have a few funny scenes scattered in amongst too many expositional ones.

Thankfully, “Beerfest” is silly and goofy from about the 5-minute mark until the closing credits. Don’t bring any sense of rationality to this one, just sit back, crack a cold one and let the ride take you away.

I was laughing constantly and nearly had to fight off my friend who was reacting as if we were watching a six-year-old break dance at the Apollo Theater.

I’m giving “Beerfest” a 4 out of 5 and it would be the funniest film of the year so far, if “Little Miss Sunshine” hadn’t been released yet.

As this is The Sobering Conclusion, the ratings usually correspond to how many drinks you would need to enjoy the film. This is one of those cases where you could enjoy it completely sober, or kick it up and bring a case of your favorite frosty adult beverage and enjoy it on an entirely different level.

You decide.

September 2006

2006-09-01T06:32:00.000-07:00

Step Up

2006-08-29T22:12:00.000-07:00

So, I’m at the movie theater, and I’m a little parched, so I hit up the concession stand and order a blue raspberry Icee. The concessionaire hands it over to me and says I better start drinking it now because it’s going to keep expanding.

Sure enough, I see the sugary, blue liquid begin to expand and threaten to spill out over the lid. I take a big sip and check the levels. Here it comes again. Another big sip. Oh God, it’s still going. Another sip.

Ow. Here’s the brain freeze. And there’s still more Icee rushing towards the lip of the cup and so another sip. This continues as I walk to the theater and only after sitting down and stomping my foot down in brain freeze agony once I’ve reached my seat does the foamy, blue goodness decide to stop screwing with me.

Why did I spend so long explaining a potentially messy situation? Probably to distract both you and my freeze-addled brain from writing that I actually liked “Step Up”.

I’ll pause while my street cred goes down another notch. Let’s see … carry the one … that puts my score at negative 42. I’ll never be as cool as those kids in the Hot Topic store. Darn it all to heck!

Anywho, I’m sure if you’ve already been mocking me for just seeing this film in the first place, you’re wondering how in the hell I, of all people, can come to the defense of what seems to be such an obvious clunker.

Well, it helps that “Step Up” makes no pretense at being anything other than a hip hop dance movie about a seemingly perfect girl who falls for a guy from the wrong side of the tracks and together they conquer all their problems.

This formula has been done before and it will be done again. The trick is doing it with enough conviction and honesty to make it look real.

You see, where some films fail is setting up a premise but bringing in the wrong elements. “Step Up” is not the kind of film where you cast b-list actors who danced once in high school. You cast dancers who happen to want to act. You cast musicians who act on the side, rather than actors who just decided to drop an album on their fans.

To that end, enter Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan. Tatum got his big break on the Ricky Martin video, “She Bangs” and Dewan was a dancer for the likes of P. Diddy and Janet Jackson.

Their performances in scenes not dominated by a music beat are fine but they really “pop” on screen once the music is cued. It’s more important that they dance well, which is key since the film is about people dancing.

To round out their worlds, there are a number of supporting characters, all who fall into the same category of “professional” turned actor.

Damaine Radcliff plays the basketball savvy best friend of Tatum and his previous credit is as a basketball player in this year’s “Glory Road”.

Mario and Josh Henderson play musically inclined students at the school and in real life are musicians first, actors second.

Alyson Stoner plays the foster sister of Tatum and her most meaty scene involves her dancing with her big brother. Good thing she’s the little girl who broke out in Missy Elliot’s “Work It” music video.

Rachel Griffiths, of “Six Feet Under” fame, plays the director of the school and is perhaps the only person in the film that’s an actor first … I didn’t go deep into her bio to see if she once was the principle at an arts academy though.

Then there’s Heavy D. Yes, Heavy D. You thought he was dead, didn’t you? No? Well, I did. And apparently he’s not! The saddest thing about casting Heavy D is that he doesn’t rap once! For shame, “Step Up” … for shame!

And the predilection for casting job-related professionals for film productions doesn’t stop at the cast.

Anne Fletcher is the director. She’s also the choreographer and all of her previous film credits are for choreography. This is her directorial debut and considering that, I give her credit for turning out a fairly complete story.

Now, my favorite example of sticking to what you know is the screenwriter, Duane Adler. Shortly after exiting the theater, I mentioned to my friend that this was basically “Save the Last Dance” updated just a little bit. Sometimes, I just scare myself.

When looking at Adler’s past work, he is the screenwriter for … “Save the Last Dance”!

Hell, the only other thing he wrote besides these two projects involves salsa dancing. Talk about riding a genre. Man, I am befuddled thinking about this guy sitting in front of a computer screen wondering, “What should I write about?”

While I applaud him for somehow making a living writing films (I guess) … maybe he should take a shot and write a film about a FBI witness that a criminal tries to kill by placing venomous snakes on his plane.

Oh wait. Never mind.

You know what I mean.

Getting back to “Step Up”, the film is as formulaic as it is cheesy. If you saw the preview, you know what it’s about and if you’ve seen “Save the Last Dance” you can rest assured you’ve seen 92% of this film.

It’s a little disappointing that considering the film is about a classically trained dancer incorporating hip hop sensibility, the end dance sequence loses almost everything but the hip hop. I’m a bit surprised at that, though since I am anything but classically trained, I’ll let that one slide.

Also, the film would have benefited from a little more script revision. In the typical fashion of a character rising up, having a setback, and then making amends, “Step Up” not only doesn’t miss a beat, it adds one of its own.

After Tatum’s character begins to get into the groove of things, he quits because he gets jealous. Then later, after redeeming himself, he quits because he feels unappreciated. I would have appreciated cutting about ten minutes of the runtime by not watching Tatum make the same mistake twice. C’est la vie.

Still, I liked “Step Up”. It had a positive message and the actors didn’t have to pretend to dance and sing. That’s their forte and the script didn’t really require that they actually act all that much.

The music is good, as it should be for a film so musically dependant, and for a film by a first time director, there were a few scenes shot with a wiser eye than most first timers seem to have.

I’m giving “Step Up” a 3 out of 5. If you liked “Save the Last Dance”, you’ll like this film. The dancing is better, since Julia Stiles is a much better actress than dancer, and it’s got Heavy D! Who could ask for anything more? (And yes, I realize by writing that sentence, I may read a few interesting posts soon.)

Fearless (Huo Yuan Jia)

2006-08-27T23:40:00.000-07:00

Coming to American cinemas in late September will be “Fearless”.

While the generic storyline and martial arts prowess should be of no surprise, probably the most unexpected is that this film is being billed as Jet Li’s final martial arts film.

He has stated in interviews that he wants to concentrate on more dramatic roles instead. However, Jet Li fans should not get too disheartened. He only said this is the last martial arts film he will do (and there’s no guarantee that will hold).

He still has the action film “Rogue” coming soon and I doubt this will be the last time we see him kick somebody across a room.

Now back to this film in particular, “Fearless” is about a martial arts champion who is the son of another great martial artist and learns the hard way what life is about and what role his deadly skills play in that life.

The story is as formulaic as they come. Jet Li rises to power, does something bad, secludes himself, discovers the kind of man he should be, returns to regain his honor, yada, yada, yada.

The film seemed to be adequately directed by Ronny Yu, who has a list of Chinese films to his credit, though his Hollywood fare has been less than stellar including “Freddy vs. Jason” and “Bride of Chucky”. Still, this is not a Hollywood film and Yu seems to be much better equipped at dealing with this genre than the slasher flicks.

I was disappointed to find out that there was a role played by Michelle Yeoh that ended up on the cutting room floor. However, the film is on the slow side and any cuts to streamline the pacing were probably for the best.

The deliberate movement of the film would not have been so bad if the version I saw had adequate subtitles. Hopefully, this will be fixed when it reaches a mass audience in a month or so but the subtitles I read were dreadful.

The grammar was off constantly, sometimes the sentences didn’t seem to make any sense, there were typos, and most annoying, every once in a while, a subtitle would blink on screen for about a quarter of a second and then never return.

It like read this paragap. You meaning understand but difficult emotion to convey.

Still, with all of that against it, I enjoyed the film. The action wasn't anything too spectacular, considering previous films that have pushed the boundaries further, but they were well done.

The music was beautifully composed by Shigeru Umebayashi and the scenery was beautiful, though I could have done with a lot less CGI for the wide shots of Shanghai and other areas.

The film relies more on its dramatic core than its martial arts, but there is enough fighting to keep action fans entertained. I’m giving “Fearless” a 3 out of 5 and hope that Jet Li takes back what he said because he still has what it takes to be a martial arts film star.

The OH in Ohio

2006-08-27T15:40:00.000-07:00

Wandering around art house cinemas right now is “The OH in Ohio”. I say wandering around because that’s how the film moves.

Director Billy Kent had a vaguely interesting story, cast independent cinema film darlings, and still managed to produce an aimless film that is only saved by the performances of its actors.

Did I get ahead of myself? Sorry about that. Let me start back at the beginning.

“The OH in Ohio” is a film about a married couple who are having problems in the bedroom and their inability to work it out together leads to them discovering what it is they should be doing in their bland, cookie cutter lives.

To portray the central couple, the filmmakers could not have chosen a more suitable pairing than Parker Posey and Paul Rudd. Both actors have loads of indie film credibility and did what they could with the script they had.

To bolster their efforts, a personal favorite of mine, Keith David gives a scene stealing performance as a fellow faculty member at the school where Rudd teaches. Even Danny DeVito gives a pretty good performance, considering he wasn’t able to rely on his twin brother for support in this film (they’re not identical twins!).

Now, while I suppose Liza Minnelli’s cameo was adequate, she just plain bugs me. Thankfully, her role lasts for about 5 minutes.

Moving on to a more important role, that of the young girl whom Rudd sleeps with to cope with the problems in his marriage, the casting department could have done a lot better than Mischa Barton. I don’t watch “The O.C.” and I will admit that she has moments where she can be pleasing to the eye … although it would help if she weighed more than 58 pounds.

However, her low tone of voice is kinda creepy and her portrayal of a teenage girl who is a pot smoking, sexually liberated, high achieving teacher’s pet is far from convincing. Most of her lines felt like the ones you hear in the first read through, not the finished product.

In any case, that doesn’t really matter much because the film is so disjointed that it’s hard to keep any sense of rhythm. And for a film practically centering itself on Posey’s character’s inability to achieve an orgasm, lack of rhythm is just plain comical.

There are good performances in the film but they are overshadowed for the most part by poor direction and a loose script.

Oh, and did I mention Heather Graham has an uncredited cameo? Why can't she just stick to playing mutes or mannequins? ... Hmmm ... Maybe she could be the lead in "Mannequin 3: Don't Stop, Get It Get It!" ... (I'm really not right in the head).

Only the hardcore independent film junkies should park their butts in the movie theater for this one. “The OH in Ohio” gets a 2 out of 5. I’ve seen far worse films this year but considering my love for Posey and Rudd, giving out this score almost hurts the most.

Little Miss Sunshine

2006-08-27T12:38:00.000-07:00

Where, oh where, do I start reviewing a film like “Little Miss Sunshine”?

This is one of those small independent films that took years to make, as the filmmakers had to scrounge for every penny they could find just to complete production. And audiences should be thanking their lucky stars that money was found.

There was a considerable amount of buzz around this film following its tremendous success at Sundance. To my knowledge, the bidding war to obtain the distribution rights ended up crowing “Little Miss Sunshine” as the film with the highest purchase price from the Sundance Film Festival ever to date at $10.5 million dollars.

Why would this little film garner so much attention?

First, there is a wonderful script by Michael Arndt. Then there is the great coordination by directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, who assembled all of the right pieces when making this film.

And perhaps most responsible are the tremendous performances by well-known actors who took a chance and made this film without knowing where it would end up.

The story centers on a dysfunctional family who undertake an interstate road trip together. There is much more to it but I don’t want to ruin a thing.

Feel free to get up from your chair and go see this movie. You can always come back and read this later.

… What? Still here? Okay, fine. On with the review.

The family is portrayed by Abigail Breslin, Greg Kinnear, Paul Dano, Alan Arkin, Toni Collette and Steve Carell. Excellent actors all around and all of them give amazing performances. Singling one out is nearly impossible. Arkin was probably given the best lines to say but each actor is given so much to work with and do on screen that it’s hard to say that any one person stole the film.

Adding to that acting talent are some excellent supporting and bit roles by Bryan Cranston, Beth Grant, Wallace Langham, Matt Winston and Mary Lynn Rajskub. Super attentive film fans may recognize these folks from their respective film and TV careers.

While the family is the center of the story, these other actors as well as everyone else involved, helped create the unified front that carries “Little Miss Sunshine” past the rest of the pack.

I could sit here and write paragraph after paragraph about each of the scenes, how they were hilarious, poignant, heartbreaking and joyous all at the same time. But that would be a disservice to anyone who hasn’t seen the film.

“Little Miss Sunshine” is going to easily factor into my top films of the year and I was almost too busy heaping praise on the film once the credits rolled to motion to my friend that this film was getting a 5 out of 5.

I’m happy that the film is not exclusively on the art house circuit because if there is one film being shown on a movie screen right now that I would recommend, it is “Little Miss Sunshine”.

If you don’t like this film, do the world a favor and swallow a bullet. It’s just too damn funny, too damn heartwarming and too damn good.

The Illusionist

2006-08-26T23:37:00.000-07:00

Abracadabra! Alakazam! Presto Chango!

Am I an idiot? Sure. But when else can I really use those words in a review and be somewhat near the point?

My inanity aside, projecting its way onto screens nationwide has been writer/director Neil Burger’s “The Illusionist”.

Based on a short story by Steven Millhauser, the film centers on an Illusionist (no, really?) who is in love with the betrothed of the heir to the Austrian throne. Predictably, Princey don’t want no competition, you dig?

Sorry, my mind drifted into jive-speak. (Note to self, don’t write reviews while watching “Airplane”).

Okay, now to portray the Illusionist, Burger enlisted one of the best actors around right now, Edward Norton. His intensity is amazing and considering his character spends a good deal of his time on screen conjuring things like he’s hailing a cab, you need an actor who can captivate an audience, a la Mr. Norton.

His performance is predictably great and it is his interplay with the Chief Inspector (fellow Oscar nominee Paul Giamatti) that provides the most notable exchanges.

Speaking of Giamatti, I was a little worried his theatricality would bring his character over the top. I am a fan of his work but usually he plays characters that have a lot more mannerisms and affectations. The role of the Chief Inspector is a fairly straightforward one and he proved me wrong and was suitably restrained for the most part and did an excellent job.

Moving past Giamatti and Norton, we come to the two actors who could have unraveled everything in the film - Jessica Biel and Rufus Sewell.

Sewell has provided good performances in films like “Dark City” but he’s also been in such critically acclaimed bonanzas as “Extreme Ops”. While his performance as a power hungry Prince is cliché, his performance seemed sincere and I thought he was a good choice.

Then there is the lovely Ms. Biel. I am a avid supporter of her appearance in swimsuits and less but I would not be the first person to sign a petition stating she is one of the up and coming talents of her generation.

Is there some “Seventh Heaven” bias? Sure. But aside from a nice performance in the indie drama “The Rules of Attraction”, I tend to associate her more with crapfests like “Summer Catch” and “Stealth”.

However, I am going to give her a positive review in this case. While her character really didn’t have too much to do, she did have to hold an accent and to not look completely lost against an actor as good as Norton. Maybe it has something to do with her finally working with more talented people but I thought she did an admirable job.

Still, don’t start etching her name on that golden statue quite yet.

As for the film overall, Burger’s extrapolation of an entire feature length film from a short story went about as well as it could have I suppose. When you get right down to it, there really isn’t a lot of ground for the film to cover.

It’s very predictable and most savvy moviegoers will spot the ending about halfway through the film.

That doesn’t make it any less enjoyable. The “magic” that Norton performs is presented nicely. The setting was beautiful, although they didn’t shoot in Vienna but instead used mostly Prague and the surrounding areas. And the score is beautifully done by Philip Glass.

I might have liked for the film to move with a little more enthusiasm but considering I had been at work since eight in the morning, caught a little cat nap, watched another movie and then this one at half past nine in the evening, I think some of my problems with the pacing may have been due to other factors.

I’m going to hand out a 4 out of 5 to “The Illusionist”. While some reviews have been clamoring for some award attention, I think this film falls short of that. It’s still an enjoyable movie to take in and better than most of the schlock that Hollywood usually feasts on us at the end of the summer.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

2006-08-26T21:13:00.000-07:00

Zipping its way through theaters lately has been another environmentally conscious documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car?”.

Hot on the heels of “An Inconvenient Truth”, this film takes a look at the birth and apparent death of the electric car. And it does it well.

I’m not going to explain everything that goes on and all the participants. Needless to say, the film tries to find out why electric cars sped their way into the California marketplace, only to be recalled before they could become more widely available to the public.

To represent the side of electric car advocates, the filmmakers enlisted Martin Sheen to narrate the film. They interviewed and used footage of well-known celebrity supporters like Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson, lesser-known actors such as Peter Horton and Alexandra Paul, auto industry personnel and electric car drivers.

There are also interviews with a small amount of people who disagree that there was some grand conspiracy on the part of big oil or the automotive industry.

One side note, with all the brouhaha surrounding Mad Max, it was interesting to hear and feel the negativity rise from the audience as he was on-screen. It should also be noted I was watching the film in the so-called epicenter of the Jewish community in San Diego. But what could that have done to exacerbate it?

Anywho, I’m not going to get into the issues surrounding the demise of the electric car in California. It’s basic common sense that America needs to become less dependant on oil and emit fewer harmful emissions into an already polluted atmosphere.

For anyone who’s been to Southern California, seeing the cloud of smog that hangs over the region should be enough to convince anyone not being paid by certain key industries that zero emission vehicles are needed.

Now, as for the quality of the presentation, I give high marks to director Chris Paine. He edited and crafted the different sides to the issue into a very easy to follow and well-planned film.

Unlike “An Inconvenient Truth”, which was like watching Pinocchio give a slide show of his family vacation, “Electric Car” had a narrative and built upon itself to present its case.

Sure, it was a little hokey to present each side (big oil, automakers, consumers, etc.) as suspects and to deliver a verdict on each one but it’s an effective tool to present the issue. It helped keep the film from feeling too stagnant.

I do have some faults with it though, as it is a documentary. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a documentary that didn’t have some bias in it. Try as they might, filmmakers are trying to present the story as they see it … and that’s not wrong, it’s just human nature.

It’s clear the filmmakers have a certain perspective and solution. This comes up most notably when talking about the possibility of Hydrogen fueled vehicles.

I don’t know anything about them but this film essentially marginalizes their future and writes them off as a pipe dream. Maybe, maybe not. But I haven’t seen any hard evidence and none was really presented on screen.

So certain elements of the film could have been better handled if there was more scientific data behind the premises. In essence, the film is more like a collection of testimonials and appeals to our own fundamental intelligence than a collection of hard data.

And that’s okay. If too many numbers had been thrown at the audience, the film could have gotten bogged down in math and science, which as test scores indicate, America ain’t none too good at these days. (Me write good though).

However, that aside, I thoroughly enjoyed the documentary and it inspired more motivation within myself to be better to the environment that Al Gore’s slideshow (which I still recommend as well).

I’m giving “Who Killed the Electric Car?” a 4 out of 5. It’s the best documentary I’ve seen so far this year and I highly recommend everyone go out and see it.

Maybe it will inspire you to convince your buddy who just got a corner office not to buy the 19-passenger Canyonero and instead opt for a more sensible and fuel efficient alternative.

Clerks II

2006-08-23T21:40:00.000-07:00

One more dip into the well. During his college speaking tour, director Kevin Smith said he would not do a sequel to his breakout film, “Clerks”. Now I can call him a liar (but with affection).

When word of “Clerks II” hit the Information Superhighway, I was annoyed to say the least. In the pantheon of Smith films, “Clerks” ranked somewhere in the middle for me and earns more respect for championing independent films than its comedic content.

If my good friends at IMDb are correct, there was one main reason Smith continued to stick to his comfort zone. He made a bet with his heterosexual life-partner, Jason Mewes, that if he could clean up his drug habit, there would be another chance for Jay and Silent Bob to hit the silver screen.

I applaud this commitment to his friend and while I’m still kinda perturbed at a sequel within his New Jersey film series, I can understand it. And if there is one thing I will never begrudge Smith, it is his loyalty to the people who helped him achieve his success.

Saying that, fans of Kevin Smith are, no doubt, far from surprised by the appearance of many familiar faces in “Clerks II”. Aside from the lead roles of Dante (Brian O'Halloran) and Randall (Jeff Anderson), small cameos from Jason Lee, Ben Affleck, Ethan Suplee, Scott Mosier and Walter Flanagan are littered throughout the film. There is also a nice cameo by Wanda Sykes, who makes her Kevin Smith film debut.

Also to no surprise, Smith’s wife and daughter (Jennifer Schwalbach and Harley Quinn Smith) have roles in the film. The creepy part is that he had his own wife play the role of Dante’s fiancée.

It’s just gotta be weird to direct your wife in a make out scene with a good friend of yours. I wonder if that image stays with him when they're having “alone time”.

Moving on, there are some newcomers to the Smith acting family. Rosario Dawson plays the rival love interest of Dante in the film and the plot centers on which path in life he will pick – the fiancée who can offer financial stability or the woman who could be his soul mate. Dawson's performance is well done and by casting a good actress, Smith further exposes the faults of his other actors.

Seeing as acting performances are rarely the strong suit of a Kevin Smith film, I can forgive this. I’m there for Jay dancing up a storm, Randall throwing out cynical derogatives about The Lord of the Rings franchise and crude, potty humor.

I still would have liked for Smith to cut down on the touchy-feely scenes in the film, which really bring the whole production to a halt. Part of the problem is that I don’t care. I’m not in the theater seeing “Clerks II” to connect emotionally to the characters. I just want jokes about weed and science fiction.

Still, whenever I was reaching my breaking point with those scenes, Smith manages to come up with some non sequitur to help assuage my irritable nature.

Not to say O’Halloran and Anderson don’t give decent performances (all things considered). However, I doubt anyone will really come out and say, “Now those two are fantastic actors”. And that’s okay.

Though there is an actor that steals this film, and for once, it’s not Jason Mewes. Trevor Fehrman plays the teenage ‘other employee’ and his gawky, pathetic existence is hilarious. Just finding out about “Pillowpants” is enough to get goofy idiots like myself into a near state of urination.

Fehrman consistently stood out as the comedic lighting rod. When the DVD comes out, I hope there’s a section just to jump to all of his scenes. Smith had better keep him in his future films because he found comic gold.

As for the quality of direction in the film, Smith was about even par on this one. There is a complete story within the movie but he could have cut down on the slower emotional scenes to help the pacing.

Also, there is one scene where Randall and Dante are confronting each other where Smith borrows from Michael Bay and spins the camera around them, which is okay once. But he keeps doing it over and over again and I was about to get a little motion sickness.

Still, overall I was entertained by “Clerks II”. I don’t think it will surpass “Mallrats” for its comedic quality but I don’t even mind that I actually paid for this film due to some issues getting passes at the theater I had to see it at, thanks to the late timing in watching it.

I’m giving “Clerks II” a 3 out of 5. The slow points are REALLY slow but the jokes in it are solid and had a big nerd like myself chuckling for most of the film.

If you’re a big Kevin Smith fan, they you probably already saw this. If you were on the fence, feel free to wait for it to reach the top of your NetFlix queue. And if you don’t like his films (and who liked “Jersey Girl” anyway), then missing “Clerks II” won’t cause you to lose much sleep, now will it?

Zoom

2006-08-22T21:42:00.000-07:00

It looks like the trend of kid superhero movies is here to stay for a while, at least while comic book movie franchises dominate the summer blockbuster scene.

Taking off after last summer’s moderately successful “Sky High”, and now in theaters, is “Zoom”.

If you've seen any superhero film, you know the basic idea. The world needs protecting, a team of superheroes is formed, after some time they are either killed or disbanded, then a new evil arises and a new superhero team is needed, cue happy ending.

The formula is kept well intact in “Zoom” and that’s just fine with me. The film is marketed at the under-18 crowd and even for those of us physiologically older but mentally in the right demographic, it is a fun, silly romp.

The “star” of the film is Tim Allen, who thankfully is doing more of a retread on his roles in “Big Trouble” and “Galaxy Quest” rather than “The Shaggy Dog” or “A Santa Claus”. There is a likeability factor with him from his time on the small screen that allows for such an easy transition for him into the family/kids genres.

Playing his love interest is Courteney Cox, who either can’t find a real adult film role (her indie turn in “November” notwithstanding) or is just content to count her “Friends” money all the way to the bank. Not to say I blame her for that.

To add the cheese factor, the filmmakers brought in Chevy Chase and Rip Torn. Torn is yet again a fun caricature for audiences and Chase is actually pretty good in this one. Of course, compared to anything he’s done in the last 15 years, that doesn’t say much. And even more disconcerting is his appearance; it looked like he was having an allergic reaction to a bee sting the entire film.

The best little cameo came from Thomas F. Wilson, who we all know best from “Back to the Future” as Biff, perhaps the most iconic bully on the silver screen short of maybe William Zabka in “The Karate Kid”. (Put him in a body bag, Johnny!)

Now as for the actual core group of kid superheroes, the casting department did a pretty good job on this one. The leader/rebel without a cause is played well enough by Michael Cassidy and the goofy kid with the fairly dumb power of being able to expand parts of his body like a balloon is played with earnestness by Spencer Breslin.

But it’s the girls who steal the show. First, there is the adorable and fun Ryan Newman, who plays a 6-year-old girl with super-strength and a fetish for costume changes. The costume department definitely had fun finding all sorts of little get-ups for her.

Saving the best for last, there is the telekinetic/empath Kate Mara. Probably best known for playing one of Heath Ledger’s daughters in last year’s “Brokeback Mountain”, look for her to try and grab a share of the limelight in the coming years. She’s a good actress and very, very hot. That’s a winning combo in my book.

There are some negatives to the film. At only 83 minutes, you would think the film would feel shorter than it did. Some of the touchy-feely moments felt forced and the music they set them to was atrocious … I literally cringed at how embarrassing it must be for actors sometimes.

Still, at least they threw in a montage of the kids being trained and we all learned in “Team America” that “we’re gonna need a montage”.

Wrapping things up, “Zoom” stacks up as a standard kids film and the type that any discerning adult knows instinctively if they will enjoy it or not. I’m a sucker for these type of films and like a bit of cheese mixed in with cuteness every once in a while, sort of like a palette cleanser for all the Hollywood blockbusters and independent dramas I check out most of the time.

So, no surprises here, I’m giving “Zoom” a 3 out of 5. It does what it’s supposed to do and nothing more, but that’s okay with me. If you liked “Sky High”, you’ll probably like this. It’s not as well made but has just as much fun at heart.

Talladega Nights

2006-08-17T19:49:00.000-07:00

Racing its way to #1 at the box office the last few weeks has been “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby”.

And why not? The film stars comedy’s current champion, Will Ferrell. He’s supported by the always-great John C. Reilly and there are great supporting performances by Gary Cole, Michael Clarke Duncan and Sacha Baron Cohen (some know him better as Ali G).

Hell, while I’m at it, let’s mention the two beautiful and talented women who light up the screen and keep it from being a complete sausage fest, Leslie Bibb and Amy Adams.

All of that, really loud cars, perhaps more product placement than “Wayne’s World” and I still almost fell asleep two or three times.

The sad thing is, with all of that talent, the film really isn’t all that funny.

All of the jokes are in the trailer. And all the other jokes are retreads of the jokes you saw in the trailer.

Maybe I should have taken a bigger look at the title of the film, “The Ballad of Ricky Bobby”. Instead of going for all out wackiness, director Adam McKay tried too hard to make a complete film.

Sure, there’s a place for heart and story in films. Even in comedies. Look at “The 40-Year Old Virgin” for an example of how to do it right.

Even more sad is that McKay directed the hilarious “Anchorman”. His teaming with Ferrell there worked like magic.

Inside the world of NASCAR, all of that magic was gone.

I’m not even going to bother trying to find the faults in the film. I just want to move on now.

I’m giving “Talladega Nights” a 2 out of 5. I found some funny moments and the actors give strong performances but the film moves like it’s stuck in 1st gear and just like Ricky Bobby, “I wanna go fast.”

Whatever you do, take a right at this clunker and head for something else. I’m pretty sure you can get a six-pack of your favored beverage and still have a few ones left over for the Gentleman’s Club with the $10 you’re saving by missing this film.

Snakes on a Plane

2006-08-17T03:02:00.000-07:00

The biggest Internet sensation since “The Blair Witch Project”, “Snakes on a Plane” has lifted off. Please stow your sense of disbelief in the overhead compartment and keep your cheese factor locked in the upright position.

We’ve all seen the trailers. We’ve all heard the hype. And I’m glad to say it’s all pretty much true.

I’m not going to bother getting into the specifics about the filmmaking process on this one. Let’s just start with Samuel L. Jackson.

He’s a badass motherfucker.

Okay, on to Julianna Margulies. She plays the smart, capable stewardess on her last flight (omen?). Basically, once the snakes get loose (sorry if I gave away anything) she turns into Nurse Hathaway from “ER” – which worked just fine.

There are also some fun supporting roles provided by fun supporting actors such as David Koechner, Bobby Cannavale, Todd Louiso and Kenan Thompson.

Enough about them, what about the snakes?

The snakes look good, they move well and they kill a lot. I even have to give a crazy amount of credit to the filmmakers for breaking some of the traditional Hollywood scenarios and allowing certain things to die.

I’m sure those of you who know me have heard my rant about more children and animals needing to die in films. (Not in real life, that would be wrong … oh, what do I care?)

I don’t want to spoil it but I was marginally surprised (and very elated) about this aspect.

The film unfolds as you would expect. People board a plane. Snakes get loose. People die. Snakes die. Will the plane crash or land safely? Will there be anyone left alive? Yada yada yada.

You’re not seeing this film for the story anyway, so what does that matter?

The dialogue is about what you would expect in this type of cheesy, wanna-B-movie. And there are a couple of trademark monologues by Shaft, which warm the cockles of my heart.

I was hoping for more really obvious and stupid lines but if you pay attention to what the passengers are saying in the background, some good fun is to be had. I especially liked when the lights go out onboard the plane and you hear a passenger say “Snakes!”

There's even some scenes that feature "snake-cam", a greenish tinted view kind of reminiscent of "Predator". I only wished they would have kept it up for the duration of the film. Snake-cam starts strong but starts to fade in regularity as the film progresses.

Even with all that fun, I do have some other complaints about the film. I wanted even more death. I wanted more nudity. I wanted more Samuel L. Jackson yelling as he talks. I wanted the crappy music video they play as the credits roll to die a fiery death and be replaced by either a gag reel or the footage from the set before they added in digital shots of the snakes biting people (though many snakes are real which is a huge plus).

Still, I had a lot of fun and this is the type of film you should see with a packed audience … especially one in an “urban” neighborhood. If you aren’t yelling at the screen and applauding snakebites, you’re not really getting into the spirit of the film.

I realize that reading this review shouldn’t change anyone’s opinion on the film. This is a textbook example of a critic-proof film. You either already want to see it, or have absolutely no interest.

I can say that it lives up to the hype fairly well and stays just below that mediocre line in B-movie town. Which is a good thing as far as this film genre is concerned.

It was a great decision to go back and re-shoot some scenes to get the R rating. A PG-13 version would have been far less entertaining. I can only hope that when the DVD comes out, there will be a Sam Jackson Creature Feature Pack offered as well that include “Snakes on a Plane”, “Jurassic Park” and “Deep Blue Sea”. Now there’s a film trilogy I can get behind!

I’m giving “Snakes on a Plane” a 4 out of 5. It’s a very average film but considering all the hype and the beats a film like this is supposed to hit (and it generally does), they did about all they could do.

Buckle up, the snakes are loose and the cheesy, summer fun has finally arrived.

Miami Vice

2006-08-10T22:19:00.000-07:00

Perhaps you have been awaiting my review on “Miami Vice”. All the critics seem to be throwing the film in the trash faster than Chevy Chase’s talk show was cancelled. So here comes a patented Hungry Hank Rant, right?

Sorry, folks. I’m going to go 180 degrees, not only from the critics and probably your own expectations, but my own.

When I first heard that Michael Mann was making the iconic 80s show into a feature film, I was skeptical to put it mildly. Casting Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx into the sock-less shoes of Crockett and Tubbs led me further into disbelief the film could pull it off.

Then I saw the trailer. And I still thought it wouldn’t work.

Then I heard the reviews and how much tinkering Mann was doing to re-cut the film because of the reviews and screening audience reactions.

And then I knew the film would blow more goats than Al Qaeda.

All of that and I’m going to spend a few paragraphs here extolling the virtues of “Miami Vice” and make the case that it’s one of the better films in its genre.

The first thing one must do is toss aside any attachment to the television show. This film has NOTHING to do with it. I’m as annoyed as everyone else. There’s zero point in calling the film “Miami Vice”. Rather, Mann should have realized how off-topic things had become and re-titled it “Two Badass Undercover Cops Get It Done”.

Shedding the expectation in the name, one can just sit and enjoy the film for what it is.

Mann was experimenting with this film, trying out some new visual styles and techniques and while the film is long (134 minutes or so), I think making any major cuts would have reduced the epic scope Mann was trying to accomplish.

I liked that the film doesn’t sit the audience down like a child and explain everything that is happening. The film starts in the middle of an undercover operation and just sprawls out from there in an organic fashion.

I wasn’t able to catch all of the dialogue but having an IQ somewhere above 80, I figured things out just fine. Moreover, I’m of the opinion that it’s okay to assume your audience is smart enough to follow along.

Why studios and filmmakers have to hammer plot points and character quirks into audiences is just one of many points I’d like to fix if I had my way in Tinseltown.

Back to “Miami Vice”, Mann used a lot of grand, sweeping camera shots that were some of the most beautiful I’ve seen this year. When he wasn’t showing off nature’s splendor, Mann mainly relied on handheld camera-work to present the action and a lot of the film was shot with a grainier look. This resulted in almost the entire film feeling like we were using surveillance footage to watch Crockett and Tubbs crack skulls.

This might be disorientating for some but I really liked being more involved with the film by way of the camera work. At its running time and because the film is not necessarily dialogue heavy, this technique helped to keep me engaged in the action.

Speaking of action, I will admit that there isn’t a scene in “Miami Vice” that quite lives up to the downtown shootout in “Heat”. However, Mann isn’t pulling many punches with the action and some of the beginning scenes are brutal enough to make even me sit up and pay attention.

How many films actually utilize high-caliber weapons to literally blow someone’s body apart? Sure there's "The Jackal" and "Robocop" but that's not enough, I say!

The final big battle is a fairly generic stand off but has the trademark amazing gunfire sound effects that were used in the aforementioned “Heat” sequence. This is going to be another DVD that people will use to show off their surround sound.

To spice up the film and shift gears, Mann used what seemed to be an inordinate amount of sex scenes. None of them are necessarily graphic (pervert), but were more sensual in nature. At first, I was a bit put off by them. In thinking more about it after the film, I see that he was using them to create a balance between life and death.

Most of the film revolves around bad people doing bad things. The physical connections Crockett and Tubbs make throughout the film with their respective partners serve to ground them, remind them that the world isn’t all blood and bullets.

Okay, a little deep there. Still, that’s the kind of thinking I’m left with after seeing this film.

I am a big fan of Mann’s work and this is no exception. There are many parallels between this film and some of his other work, most notably “Heat” and “Collateral”. Those are fair associations. However, while “Heat” is a more complete and epic story, I think “Miami Vice” out styles both it and “Collateral”.

I really can’t say enough about Mann’s visual touches in “Miami Vice”. They elevated the film from being just another shoot ‘em up.

Farrell and Foxx were convincing as undercover cops and carried themselves with the poise and style one would expect.

I enjoyed the soundtrack and score to the film, which is no surprise given Mann’s track record in that regard. Most surprising is that the Jay-Z/Linkin Park song that dominated the trailer and opens the film isn’t on the soundtrack, nor are the multiple Chris Cornell songs that play mostly during some of the love scenes. If those were on the disc, I might have picked it up.

Oh well, more money left in my wallet. And for the record, Jan Hammer was approached to update the classic theme but he declined. Another omen that could go either way.

So, the long and short of it is that if you can’t separate the television show from the film, you’re not going to like “Miami Vice”. If you didn’t like “Heat” or at least appreciate the non-Tom Cruise aspects of “Collateral”, then you won’t like “Miami Vice”.

However, if you can put down the preconceptions involved in yet another TV to Film transition and like gritty action-dramas, “Miami Vice” is for you. This is one of the better Hollywood films to come out this summer and I’ll be picking up the DVD when it comes out probably by the end of the year.

“Miami Vice” gets a 4 out of 5 from me. I know I’ll probably continue to be in the minority about how good I think this film is and that’s okay. If I went with the flow all the time, I’d wonder what was wrong with me.

The Devil Wears Prada

2006-08-08T19:17:00.000-07:00

As proven time and time again, I am much more similar to a girl than a boy. Sure, anatomically, I meet male standards (insert joke here). But as far as music and my ability to like traditionally female films go, I’m a girl.

So I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I have been eagerly anticipating “The Devil Wears Prada”. Thankfully, I can regain some of my masculinity by saying that 87% of the reasons I wanted to see this film is because it stars Anne Hathaway (seriously, call me).

Okay, so as one may have surmised from the trailers, (or should I say film clip), that marketed the film, “The Devil Wears Prada” is about a good, down-to-earth girl (Hathaway), becoming the assistant to the evil maven of fashion, played by Meryl Streep.

The film co-stars the always-great Stanley Tucci, as well as Emily Blunt as Emily the other assistant (How’d they come up with the name?) and Adrian Grenier of “Entourage” fame as the boyfriend who loves the old, frumpy girl – not the new, Vogue girl.

There really are no surprises in the film. The plot follows the standard points and all of the beats are there.

Hathaway tries to stay true to her roots but is eventually caught up in the fashion world and becomes the very thing she hates. Then something happens that forces her to choose which world she will live in, the old or the new.

Along the way, the ice queen of a boss gains a level of respect for her new assistant and the displaced other assistant is relegated to scut duty. And of course, the boyfriend can only be with the girl he fell in love with, not the new girl whose sense of priorities mystify him.

Oh, what was that? You don’t want to know what happens? Wake up and smell the well tread path of this film. If you don’t know what’s going to happen, you probably have seen a grand total of 6 films, which probably include “The Wizard of Oz” and “The Lion King”.

But here’s the weird thing … I really liked this film.

Sure I knew where it was going but the central characters (Grenier aside because I find him a bit on the dull side) are fantastic and engaging.

Hathaway, of course, is endearing and charming and far from a sore sight … I’m thinking of getting her face tattooed on the inside of my eyelids so I can see her when I close my eyes. Is that weird?

Yes it is.

Back to her performance, this is they type of role that Hathaway has done so well in past films like “The Princess Diaries” and “Ella Enchanted”. She plays the fish out of water part better than anyone in her generation. And even without an unhealthy sized crush, you can’t help but root for her characters.

I generally don’t like Streep but in this role she is essentially Cruella De Vil in Manolo Blahnik high heels. Her frosty demeanor and can’t be bothered attitude are a joy to watch on screen. She embodied everything the layperson thinks a fashion mogul would be like.

Emily Blunt does a wonderful job of being the assistant who wouldn’t look twice at Hathaway’s character in real life and can’t understand why she was hired in the first place.

And then there is Stanley Tucci. His character work is simply amazing. He always brings something fresh and fun to his roles. His take on his character is as iconic as Hector Elizondo’s role as the concierge in “Pretty Woman”.

Aside from the actors, there isn’t much to this film. The script is witty enough but the actors are the ones who play around with the words and bring them to life in this film. The direction is neat and smooth enough but nothing jumps out as a stylistic touch, which is odd in a film all about fashion.

This is more of a film for people who like to root for the underdog, don’t mind knowing exactly how it will end before the film starts, and enjoy watching actors spar with each other onscreen in a subtle manner.

If you think you would like this film, you probably will. If the idea of the film caused some sort of gag reaction, then don’t see it.

I’m giving “The Devil Wears Prada” a 3 out of 5. Not overly sentimental or gooey, I stayed entertained throughout.

Now again, I can’t reiterate this strongly enough: Anne, give me a call.

World Trade Center

2006-08-07T22:30:00.000-07:00

The second major feature film to deal with the events of 9/11, Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” focuses on two Port Authority Police officers trapped underneath the wreckage of one of the collapsed towers.

It is a story of survival and the triumph of the human spirit. It focuses not on the horrible actions of the hijackers but the courage and compassion of the people involved in trying to evacuate the buildings and find survivors.

The events are based on accounts of people who were there at Ground Zero and family members who struggled to keep their composure as they waited for news of their loved ones.

To portray these brave men and women, Stone took an opposite approach to Paul Greengrass’ “United 93” and cast known actors.

It was a gamble I wasn’t sure would work but I have to admit that the actors did a remarkable job.

First you have Nicolas Cage portraying a Sergeant in the Port Authority Police and Michael Peña as one of the officers who followed him into the towers attempting to help evacuate the building. Then there are their wives, played by Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal respectively.

The story is a split perspective, looking at Cage and Peña inside the tower, and at Bello and Gyllenhaal with their families hoping to hear that their husbands are alive.

If anyone watches “The Unit” on TV, this is very much the kind of separate storytelling that is involved. I personally was not enamored with it. I would have preferred to focus much more squarely on the events inside the tower but I see what Stone is trying to do.

The only problem with using such established actors is that there are times, even in the middle of experiencing the towers collapse (frightening is putting it mildly), that you stop and say, “Hey, that’s Nic Cage!”

I have tremendous respect for him as an actor, his turn as an alcoholic bent on drinking himself to death in “Leaving Las Vegas” is nothing short of stunning. But I still have that mental block, where I see a celebrity and my mind wanders from time to time.

In this American culture where we don’t have Royalty, we have Celebrity, separating even great actors becomes a true test of our ability to suspend our disbelief.

Using basically unknown actors, Greengrass allowed the audience to believe the actors. I was never caught up wondering how bad “Ghost Rider” will be.

And while Greengrass examined not only the events onboard the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania in “United 93” but at the same time unfolded the full events of that day, Stone’s approach was much more myopic.

If it weren’t for all of the stunning digital shots recreating that fateful day and the borrowed news footage, “World Trade Center” could have been about any two people trapped in a collapsed structure. There are news reports scattered in involving the other plane crashes but merely as a formality, nothing is really explored in that respect.

But I think that’s okay. It seems that Stone was less interested in rehashing 9/11 and more interested in highlighting the good that was brought out by such evil.

I’m sure by now you are thinking: “Get on with it. Should I see this film or what?”

My answer is an unmitigated “Yes”.

I went into this screening wondering if I would leave the theater feeling as angry, helpless and hurt as when I saw “United 93”. That was definitely not the case.

Whereas “United 93” put a face on the people (and I use the term loosely) responsible for the tragic events five years ago, “World Trade Center” focuses squarely on our immediate reaction and response to a disaster.

That isn’t to say I don’t have issues with Stone’s choices in this film.

Maria Bello wore blue contacts, which I suppose is factually accurate for the woman she portrays. However, they are SO big and SO blue that I spent most of the film thinking her eyes were going to pop out of her head or she would turn into some kind of space alien.

There is a hallucination scene in which one character sees Jesus bringing him a water bottle. This absolutely removed me from the events onscreen and served only as a distraction.

Stone also attempts to show how emergency services and military personnel came to Ground Zero to help in the rescue and recovery efforts. That’s all fine and dandy but it felt forced. At over 2 hours long, the opportunity to streamline the film could have been made here, especially when there is no character development involved.

All of these negatives aside, “World Trade Center” is an attempt to capture the capabilities of Americans to unite and help one another. Using the events of 9/11 as a backdrop makes us sit up at attention.

Having the accounts of people who were there gives this film some more credibility that certain aspects of “United 93” where only speculation and conjecture can fill in key gaps.

While I still think Greengrass’ film is a better made one, and still the one I will point to as the definitive Hollywood feature film about 9/11, “World Trade Center” is better equipped to be part of a healing process.

And if you think you might benefit from a little retrospection coupled with highlighting the human spirit’s ability to be great, this film is for you.

I’m giving “World Trade Center” a 4 out of 5. The issues I touched on kept this from being a perfect film, and I fully realize that being a film about 9/11, there are emotions felt that have nothing to do with the film. So no perfect score here. But it’s well worth your ten bucks and a couple hours of your free time.

The saddest part is that the film makes you wish you could have done more on that day. We all thought about what we could do in the aftermath of such a colossal tragedy. Maybe if we just try putting some of that compassion into our everyday lives, the world could be a little bit better no matter where we live or what day it is.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest

2006-08-01T13:11:00.000-07:00

First, I want to thank the Big Guy who runs this site for letting me be a guest reviewer. (No problem, thanks for helping me out while I've been otherwise detained.)

As the film began I commented to one of my associates that I would rather have seen a live woman's chest. Upon further review, having seen a lot of questionable looking women(?) over the weekend, I think “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” was okay too.

In figuring out if this is the film for you, the real question you have to ask yourself is "Do I like foppish, yet ratty, looking pirate captains?"

If the pirate captain in question is Johnny Depp and you are an American, then the answer is "Well, I like it better than sticking my dick in a pie. A whole lot better!"

In any case, this film pretty much picks up where the original left off. Keira Knightley is hot. Johnny Depp and Orlando (what a name for a Disney Movie) Bloom are gallivanting about in the newest items from the International Male catalog.

So no matter how you swing, there are (at least) two reasons to see this film.

I don't know a lot about acting, so I can't really comment on it.

(Without seeing the film, I want to give props to Bill Nighy who plays Davy Jones in the film. The scenes I’ve seen online make him look amazing and I am always pleased with his performances. I’m willing to bet he rocks in this film. Now on with the review …)

I like Johnny Depp's character, and think he personifies what an actor is supposed to be, since until now he never played the same character twice, and always brings something new to each project he undertakes. I have no doubt a lot of what makes Jack Sparrow interesting was the work of Depp.

Orlando Bloom is pretty much the same English-accent eye-candy he is in any movie. Next.

Keira Knightly … Well, she is easy on the eyes, although some people thought she was easier in the first one, I really have no complaints. If she wants to eat crackers in bed I wouldn't care.

The story was impressive, and actually did a nice job of taking a number of elements from the first film and transitioning them into a much broader story, so much so that I am looking forward to the third installment of the series.

Using the imbedded rating system here I would give the movie 3 shots of rum or whatever the equivalent a 3 out of 5 is. Nothing about the film wowed me, it was standard summer blockbuster fare. In fact, I liked the Kraken from “Clash of the Titans” better.

Friggin’ Perseus.

-- This review brought to you by PowerSurgeon.

August 2006

2006-08-01T06:41:00.000-07:00

Step Up

Fearless (Huo Yuan Jia)

The OH in Ohio

Little Miss Sunshine

The Illusionist

Who Killed the Electric Car?

The Devil Wears Prada

World Trade Center

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Somersault

2006-07-30T13:55:00.000-07:00

One thing I can’t stand as a movie fan is how great films take so long to get overseas. So many foreign films are standouts, besting the general Hollywood fare that is pounded into our psyche by the marketing machine.

Another such victim of this syndrome is the 2004 Australian film, “Somersault”. This had a limited American release earlier this year but didn’t come within a few hundred miles of me so I just caught it on DVD.

And I am so glad I did.

Those savvy to my cinema predilections know what kind of film gets my attention. “Somersault” could hardly do more to satisfy my interests.

The film centers on a young girl, Heidi, who is emotionally and sexually confused. Having no relationship with her real father, she uses sex like a surgeon’s scalpel, to cut out the bad feelings inside of her, if only for a fleeting moment.

Thrown out of her house for messing around with her mom’s boyfriend, she runs to a wintry mountain town looking to create her own identity and place for herself in the world.

Along the way, she continues to discern the difference between sex and intimacy. She begins to learn how to create a friendship with someone without needing to act out. In short, she begins to discover herself.

The visuals of the film are gorgeous and like a moving postcard. Director Cate Shortland has a wonderful eye for creating shots and her affinity for photography and other films is evident throughout.

The handheld style of camera-work is nicely used to give the audience the sense that they are right there with Heidi.

Speaking of which, Abbie Cornish’s portrayal of Heidi is fantastic. Heidi is bold but naïve, sure of herself but confused. All the things a person is as a teenager.

Sam Worthington plays the love interest in the little town Heidi escapes to. He is just as screwed up as she is but together they sort of cancel out each other’s peccadilloes.

There is almost a sense of a relationship not unlike that in one of my favorite films, “Leaving Las Vegas” between the drunk and the prostitute. That kind of dichotomy exists between these two and it's wonderful to see it play out.

All of the supporting roles are excellent, most notably Lynette Curran as the hotel owner who helps Heidi get a place to stay and is like a surrogate mother to her. Hollie Andrew does a nice job of being a co-worker of Heidi’s and perhaps the first real friend Heidi has ever had.

Adding to the great acting and visuals is a fantastic score. All of the music in the film is done by Decoder Ring. I had never heard of them before but have since picked up the soundtrack to “Somersault” and one of their subsequent albums. Good, moody stuff.

So all of the elements are in place for “Somersault”. There’s nothing else to say without giving away the actual plot points and that ruins the fun of being on the journey with Heidi. As a nice sidenote, I vaguely remember finding out a few years ago that the name Heidi basically represents naivety in Australia. Hence one of my favorite bands from down under, Killing Heidi.

Aussie trivie aside, I’m giving “Somersault” a 5 out of 5. It’s my favorite film that I’ve seen this year and will most definitely factor into this year’s top ten.

If you like independent films about discovering your identity, figuring out your place in the scheme of things, get a copy of this film and try not to drink too much afterwards, it only leaves you with a headache the next morning. The hangover from this film might last a little longer anyway.

Scoop

2006-07-24T08:50:00.000-07:00

Following up with another London-set film starring Scarlett Johansson, Woody Allen decided to try and mix it up this time in “Scoop” and make a murder mystery comedy thingy.

I gave him some credit for his last effort, “Match Point” and he obviously doesn’t want any more from me because “Scoop” is terrible.

I’m not going to waste time with this one. First, there is WAY too much Woody in this film. His neurotic babbling has never worked for me. It still doesn’t.

Second, Scarlett seems to be doing an impersonation of a paperweight. I don’t know why the character is so flat and drab, the script is the first thing I’d blame, but this character is so dull, I was barely turned on by the lovely Ms. Johansson.

Ian McShane, fresh off all of his street cred for his turn in the HBO series, “Deadwood” manages to come off as over the top and more crazy than spooky. The comely Romola Garai is a breath of fresh air in the film but not nearly enough to keep me engaged. And Hugh Jackman continues his stiff upper lip / high society thing and I’m not interested.

The script is inane. The plot is so simple a 6th grader could have written it. The acting is less than inspired. The audience should ask for their money back.

I’m giving “Scoop” a 1 out of 5. If Woody hadn’t placed himself all over this film, then it might have eked out a 2 but I personally just don’t get what’s so funny about this rambling mess of a man. Maybe it’s a New York thing.