Synopsis

In an alternate reality, the America of 1985 is radically different from what we remember. Super-heroes are real, and they've been ostracized. Richard Nixon is still President. And the world stands on the brink of nuclear war unless the super-heroes it has rejected can (or will) save the day.

Pros:

• Visually stunning.


• Jackie Earl Haley.

Cons:

• It's a mess.


• Conveys nearly nothing of what's so great about the comic book.


• Pervasive blue penis.

Generally:

3 on a scale of one to five. Neither terrible nor great.

Extended Review:

The massive hype surrounding the Watchmen movie has been, for many of us, the biggest thing since last year’s Presidential election. So many questions, considerations and fears. How faithful will Zack Snyder’s adaptation be? Is it even possible to make a movie of such a ponderous comic series? What about all the nudity and cursing? What about the SQUID? Oh, for the love of God, what about the SQUID!!

Alan Moore, writer and co-creator of the Watchmen comic book series, never misses a chance to take himself oh so seriously. Moore has disavowed the movie adaptation of Watchmen, and there’s certainly a contingent of Moore loyalists who’ll either skip the movie, or else they'll see it and trash it simply because of Moore’s strongly stated belief that the movie shouldn't exist. So sayeth Alan, so sayeth all of us... that will be a popular sentiment among many.

Not that I’m unsympathetic to the idea that Watchmen simply doesn’t make sense as a movie adaptation. I said I didn’t think it was a good idea back in October of '06. Part of what makes Watchmen special is that it’s a comic book about comic books and about comic book readers. Remove these characters and this story from it’s original medium and you lose a lot of the subtext.

Now that I’ve seen the film, I think I was pretty much correct. Watchmen the movie offers stunning visuals, one very good performance (more on that later) and a tight, complete story. It even has a better climax than the original story (sorry, squid-lovers). What it lacks is the sense of immersion and immediacy that made the book so special. The movie showed me a world with real-life super heroes. The book took me into that world. If Watchmen the book was quality escapism... the kind that really takes you somewhere ... then Watchmen the movie is just a postcard from Zack Snyder: "Having an AWESOME time! Wish you were here!"

And don’t get me wrong, I’m no Mooreophile. I've read and heard a lot of what Alan Moore has had to say and I think the guy is an asshole. And an overrated asshole at that. Watchmen is the only thing he’s turned out that I think is actually any good. Some people are still upset that League of Extrordinary Gentlemen, based on a Moore title, was a crap movie. Well, guess what? It was a crap comic, too. Garbage in, garbage out.

Zack Snyder’s movie is not crap. It isn’t a bad film. But there are issues. It isn't Snyder's fault that, at this point, it's nearly impossible for anyone to see the film without preconceived notions. And Snyder really has tried to turn out something worthwhile. But the fact remains that this story just doesn't work outside of it's original medium. It's not an action-filled story, but Snyder has really upped the action for the screen. Other bells and whistles (the CGI, the new and improved climax) are nice, but they don't make up for what the story loses in translation. I almost feel disqualified to review the film simply because I've read the book. And I'd also be inclined to disregard any review from a movie-goer who hadn't read the book. This is a real greased-pig of a film. It's hard to get hold of it.

If you do go see it, you'll probably leave the theater with mixed emotions. You’re certainly going to enjoy some really artful visuals. And you’ll enjoy a wonderful performance by Jackie Earle Haley as Rorchach, the most interesting character in the book and in the movie. Haley's performance is the one and only thing that I think completely brings an element of the book to the screen. He leaves the other actors in the dust with the work he does here. But, then again, he did get the plumb part.

What you won’t get if you go see this film is any sense of what makes the comic book series so special to fans.

So, should you go see it? Sure, I guess. It’s at least as good as 51 percent of the other stuff in the multiplexes right now. Just don’t go in expecting The Dark Knight, because this ain't that kind of comic book movie.

And don’t go in expecting to see the film and then understand why so many people love the book. If you want to get a sense of that, the only way to do it is to read Watchmen. The book itself is something I can recommend without any reservations at all. It really is very, very good.

Frank Zappa once said that talking about music is like dancing about architecture. He was right. You just can’t convey any sense of what music is in a conversation. With Watchmen, Zach Snyder is dancing about architecture. The final product is interesting, mostly enjoyable, odd, occasionally frustrating, sometimes nonsensical, too long and nowhere near long enough. It’s a mess, but to be fair, it’s an often glorious mess.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Watchmen

Synopsis

Ben (Robert De Niro) is one of the thirty most powerful movie producers in Hollywood ... but he's rapidly falling off that list. His latest film infuriates test audiences and his next picture may be shut down if the star (Bruce Willis) refuses to shave his beard. Ben's personal life is in a shambles, too, as he struggles to reconcile with his ex-wife and relate to his teenage daughter.

Pros:

• Some good performances, including De Niro and especially Michael Wincott.


• A couple of mild laughs.

Cons:

• It's not very funny.


• It's occasionally outright boring.


• The movie never seems to quite find it's focus.

Generally:

2 on a scale of one to five. Wasted potential.

Extended Review:

There's an air of pretension about movie makers who make movies about the process of making movies. The end result sometimes seems contrived and disingenuous. Especially when the movie aims to mock Hollywood for it's hypocrisy, it's phoniness, and it's laser-beam focus on the bottom line. It's as though the people involved in the movie are saying "We're part of this industry, but we're somehow above it."

I think it's the same elitist attitude that allows Hollywood liberals to mock their own country.

Still, a good satire is a good satire, and who knows the movie industry better than movie industry insiders? So we see these movies so we can feel like we're "in on the joke." Especially movie geeks like me, who spend an inordinate amount of our free time obsessing about movies anyway.

Barry Levinson's What Just Happened is one more case of a big-named director and some huge stars biting the hands that feed them, and I'd imagine that everyone involved thinks they've turned out something subtle, smart and funny. But they haven't. What Just Happened never seems insightful, in fact it never even seems to want to offer insight. Worse still, it's just not very funny. A satire that's neither funny nor penetrating isn't much of a satire at all.

Not that What Just Happened is a terrible film. It has it's charms. Robert De Niro has a real affinity for dry comedy (see Levinson's Wag The Dog) and it's nice to see him get to play something other than a cop, a grizzled cop, a psycho or a psycho cop. I'd like to see him get more roles like this. Most of what does work in this movie hinges on his sympathetic, relatable performance. Other talented character actors (Stanley Tucci, John Turturro, Catherine Keener) have less to do with smaller parts and sometimes seem to be playing it a bit too low key. Comedy doesn't have to be broad or physical, but it should at least be apparent.

The highlight of the movie is Michael Wincott as a moody, drug-addled director; sort of a cross between Keith Richards and Jim Jarmusch. Wincott seems to be the only performer in the whole movie who's having any fun, and he really makes his character pop with a physical, high-tension performance. In fact, Wincott steals all of his scenes and ends up the film's MVP. This isn't the first time I've noticed that Wincott's work was the best in a film (The Crow, Dead Man, Before Night Falls), and it's a shame that he always ends up in second-tier roles. Michael Wincott is a talented actor with skills in comedy, drama, even action. It's long-past time somebody gave him a starring vehicle.

Other characters in the movie are broad parodies of real people. Bruce Willis plays himself via Christian Bale, trashing sets and threatening co-workers and pouting and preening. Sean Penn, as an artsy-fartsy Hollywood darling named Sean Penn, is just right for his role. But neither of them bring much more to the film than a certain brief novelty, and that novelty wears off long before the movie is over.

And the the best parts of the movie are the parts that seem incidental and unrelated to the plot. Satiric jabs at the trappings of modern life provide the movie's best moments. The Wincott character says about the mood stabilizers prescribed to him that they're so powerful you could "watch your own mother get gang raped in broad daylight and still appreciate the weather." De Niro and his ex-wife attend former couple's counseling with the absurd goal of becoming so happy with their divorce that they never want to get back together. After a one-night stand, a self-conscious De Niro uses Just For Men hair dye ... and he uses it everywhere.

Given the tremendous talent behind it, What Just Happened could have been a much better movie than it actually is. It's a shame that Levinson and company seem to have been more interested in turning out 104 minutes of precious navel-gazing and dialed the satire back to 0.5 instead of turning it up to eleven.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

Bill Maher is an atheist/agnostic. This film chronicles his travels and interviews with a number of people who adhere to various religions, and the film aims to present the subject matter humorously.

Pros:

• Maher behaves better than I thought he would for at least half of the movie.


• Several big laughs.

Cons:

• Maher behaves every bit as badly as I thought he would for half of the movie.


• The subject matter is dumbed down to get those big laughs.


• Some gratuitous nudity and language.

Generally:

3 on a scale of one to five. Keep it in context and it's not bad.

Extended Review:

Bill Maher's Religulous is a better movie than I thought it would be, which is to say that I was able to watch it without getting viscerally angry... and that I don't dislike Maher any more after watching it than I did before.

It isn't a great movie, either ... but it's actually pretty good if you take it for what it is. This isn't serious theology, nor is it a real documentary. It's a documentary only in the Michael Moore sense. The movie consists of scenes wherein Maher travels from place to place interviewing mostly earnest, simple people, and setting them up so he can make them look silly with clever editing, subtitles and (occasionally) quick rejoinders.

The danger of a movie like this is that other simple people (or young people) will see it and take it for more than it is. Maher doesn't really prove anything here beyond the strength of his own convictions. But he does so with enough humor and style to make his perspective easy to adopt. I don't think Maher would disagree with me that it's incumbent on each of us to reach our own conclusions about life, the universe and everything. It's unfortunate that he doesn't do enough to encourage his viewers to do the kind of intense thinking and soul-searching that he has apparently done himself.

For the most part, Maher spends the majority of the movie tilting at straw men. Most of the people he goes after in the movie are easy targets, and many of them really deserve his attacks. People who twist religion so that it justifies a political agenda, or so that it defends hatred, or so that it can be used to dupe people out of money. Those kinds of people are clearly vile. Beyond that, those people do a terrible disservice to the many, many kind, honest, decent religious people in the world. Maher spends his time interviewing the wackos who make up a very small minority of the world's faithful. He talks to people like Fred Phelps followers, the proprietors of the Creationism Museum, and a Jewish "Rabbi" who denies the Holocaust and aligns himself with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Clearly none of these people are fair representatives of their various faiths.

But this is, of course, a movie. And a comedy at that. So Maher had to talk to people who could generate laughs. Maher didn't talk to normal, sane religious people for his film because they'd have been boring. So that's the context, and a viewer would do well to keep that in mind. This isn't really a movie about religion. It's a movie about weirdos. This is like interviewing Michael Jackson and implying that he's a fair representation of all musicians.

Still, I have to give Maher credit for a couple of things: For one, he really went after Islam with the same zeal he had for Christianity and Judiasm. I didn't think he'd have the balls for that. And there were a few scenes wherein he seemed to go out of his way to return the kindness and courtesy he has received. One exchange in particular, involving congregants at the Truck Driver's Church (of all things), seemed mutually warm and friendly.

I enjoyed Religulous to some degree, and given my own doubts about God and religion I found myself mostly sympathetic to Maher's point of view. I was sometimes aggravated by his arrogance and his over-simplification, but I went into the film expecting Maher to get on my nerves and he didn't disappoint.

Maher hardly comes off as the smartest or most reasonable person in his own film. No, the most reasonable and interesting person in Religulous is Father George Coyne, the former Vatican Observatory director who lost his job because of his strong defense of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Coyne points out (rightly, I think) that religious fundamentalism of all kinds is "a plague." It doesn't matter if you're a Muslim fundamentalist, a Christian fundamentalist, whatever. Once you get so devoted to a doctrine that you stop using the Brain God gave you, you might end up doing more harm than good. Fundamentalism is the real cancer that Maher is railing against. He makes that point with a heavy hand in the closing scenes. And that's fine. But it's a shame that he's painting all religious people with one brush. Or, if you'll allow me to mix metaphors, Bill Maher is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

Polly and Seth are a yuppie couple who are on a camping trip. Before long they're kidnapped by Dennis and Lacey, a couple of criminals on the lam. Tensions between the two couples are just starting to rise when they end up trapped in a gas station, trying to survive an attack by a horrific, unknown parasite that eats people and uses them like puppets.

Pros:

• It's not stupid.


• Fun, taught, short and to-the-point. A decent little b-movie.

Cons:

• Buckets o' gore. If gore bothers you, rent something else.

Generally:

3 or maybe 3.5 on a five scale, with that scale curved to allow for the genre. This movie is good fun for horror fans.

Extended Review:


Splinter is a smart little horror movie. By that I mean that it's smart enough not to try to be smart. Too many horror movies try to justify their scares and gore with attempts at metaphor, deeper messages, subtle commentary on politics and society, etc. That's almost always a bad idea. A movie shouldn't get out of it's own depth. Splinter is a B-movie and seems damn proud to be one. It's scares and gross-outs are what they are, and as such, they work just fine. This movie is a quick, satisfying little jolt of adrenalin that pulled me in and delivered the goods. Genre fans will love it.

At the same time, Splinter is all about story, and the story is pretty good. It's not gratuitous or pointless, and it's not insultingly juvenile. Yeah, this movie does what it does within the classic b-movie template ... but it does it quite well.

And, I have to give Splinter credit for some originality. The source of the horror is a parasitic, alien force that attacks people, kills them, takes over their bodies, etc. Think The Thing and Invasion Of The Body Snatchers and any basic zombie movie. What makes the parasitic monster in Splinter a little different is that the invaders in those other movies required a complete human body to use as a host. Not so in Splinter. The parasite in this movie only needs some of the body of a host. In other words, if you manage to severe the arm of an attacking infected body, you'll end up with two attackers: The body and the arm will keep coming at you. This results in a clever mix of scares, black humor and some really nerve-wracking creepiness.


The characters in Splinter are template standards. You've got your science geek who's more fascinated by the monster than scared of it. You've got your surprisingly resourceful babe (Jill Wagner from the ultra-goofy gauntlet TV game show Wipeout! ... and she's actually pretty good here). And you've got your rough-n-ready bad-guy who really wants to change his evil ways. Etc, etc. Splinter isn't trying to reinvent the wheel with regard to horror movie characters. And it doesn't need to. Putting tried-and-true genre standards up against a creepy new variation on a classic monster is justification enough for this tight, 80 minute thrill ride.

If you like horror films and want something you can enjoy without too much thought, Splinter is a safe pick. It's neither dumb nor pretentious, just a straight forward little monster movie, and entirely enjoyable on those terms.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

Michael Berg is a professionally successful but personally unhappy lawyer in modern Germany. When he was 15 years old, he had a brief affair with a 36 year old woman (Hanna Schmitz) who'd liked to hear him read aloud. Later in life, Michael found out that the Hanna had once been a Nazi SS camp guard. The long-term effects of their affair and the secrets that they share are the focus of the film.

Pros:

• Kate Winslet is outstanding.


• The pacing, story, direction and performances are all top-knotch.

Cons:

• I can't think of any. I thought this film was a complete success.

Generally:

5 on a 1 to 5 scale. One of the very best movies I've seen in a long time.

Extended Review:

Very few films try to say something serious about human beings and the things that bind us to one and other. Most of the ones that do try end up failing. I suppose it's hard to sustain genuine emotional intensity in a film without stumbling into melodrama or unintentional parody.

The Reader is one of those rare films that tries to convey something meaningful and manages to actually do so without collapsing under the weight of it's own ideas. This movie walks a very fine line. Any film dedicated to this subject matter could have become unintentionally silly, falsely sentimental, self-important or just plain insulting. The Reader never stumbles. This is a fine, strong film and I recommend it enthusiastically to mature viewers who're in the mood for something demanding.

Kate Winslet has been nominated for a number of awards for her work here, and she deserves to win them. Winslet has turned in good performances in movies as divergent as Heavenly Creatures and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, but she's never been as strong as she is here. It's really a demanding role; she has to play a statutory rapist and former concentration camp guard and make it possible for an audience to feel some empathy for her character. It's remarkable that Winslet pulled it off. Finding humanity in a character like that and actually making that humanity palpable isn't the kind of thing I typically buy into. The very idea seems too uncomfortably close to a kind of moral relativism for me. It is to Kate Winslet's tremendous credit that I found her performance compelling, believable, and, yes, human.

A few thoughts on that subject; the idea of feeling empathy for a Nazi: There are people who feel understandable outrage about the idea of a film with a sympathetic central character who is a former SS guard. But I never got the impression that The Reader intended to send a message as simple and repugnant as "Nazi's are people, too." The movie never asks the viewer to shed tears for Hanna Schmitz. Instead, this movie seems to want the audience to consider important questions. Is it possible, for instance, to do something genuinely awful without even really thinking about your actions? How often do any of us stop to really examine our own moral imperatives? Most provocatively, the movie poses this question: If you possess information that might generate sympathy for someone who is clearly guilty of horrible crimes, are you morally bound to reveal that information?

I like that this movie neither attempts to offer simple answers to those questions, nor seems to posit that the questions are unanswerable.

The Reader seems to want it's audience to genuinely consider those issues, and I think it's possible that some worthwhile conversation and debate might be generated in the process. Even so, none of that is what really impresses me about this film. What impresses me about this movie is how smart and honest it is about the negative things that can play roles in the forming of our lifetime bonds. Things like forgiveness or the unwillingness to offer forgiveness. Things like desperation and anger. Things like the commitments we might make more out of shame than love.

And yet the movie finds it's way to a genuinely positive ending. The Reader is a movie about secrets, shame and guilt. But it never glamorizes those things. Instead, the movie ends with a message about the importance of avoiding a life shrouded in secret. So, yes, the end of this movie is positive, but it isn't false or sentimental. Maybe love doesn't conquer all, The Reader seems to say ... but love is the only thing that enables any of us to ever conquer anything.

Trailer

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

A documentary about Mark Borchardt. Borchardt is a struggling movie maker who's trying to bring his magnum opus, Northwestern, to the screen. As production shuts down on that movie once more, Mark decides to shoot a straight-to-video short horror film ... with the hopes of raising the money to begin working on Northwestern again.

Pros:

• This is that rare movie that captures a bit of what's good about life.


• So funny, so sad, too. So much real emotion, here! And not a bit contrived.


• Joy. Pure joy on digital video disc.

Cons:

• A lot of cussin'. If that bothers you, this film will bother you.


• It's not escapism. It's a movie that makes me happy, but not without consequences along the way. This movie does effect you. Everyone I know who's seen it tells me the same thing.

Generally:

5 on a 5 scale. 10 on a 10 scale. However you want to qualify it. This is a great, great movie.

Extended Review:

Life is fall-down funny, life is also down-to-the-bone sad, and sometimes all at once. Life is deadly serious, and never more suited for mockery than when it's at it's most serious. Life is good. Life is bad. Life is, above all else, utterly absurd. And I've never seen a movie that captures all of that better than American Movie.

I can't write about this movie ... I can't even talk about it with strangers ... without becoming giddy with joy. If this review reads like a twelve year old describing a really gnarly episode of Heroes, it's because this movie reduces me to that kind of scatterbrained enthusiasm. I probably actually do the movie the disservice of over-hyping it, but I can't help it. I love, LOVE, LOVE this movie.

I'm surprised I haven't reviewed it here before. A quick look shows I never even reviewed American Movie at the old film geeks site. (I did mention it once, briefly, as one of my top ten favorites.)Wow. How could I have skipped it? American Movie is my favorite documentary of all time (and I really enjoy good documentaries), and it is one of my favorite films of any kind, ever. I just can't say enough good about it.

This can be a hard movie to track down. I rented it eight or nine years ago at our local video rental place and fell in love with it with one viewing. Some time five or six years ago I ordered the DVD from Amazon and it's probably one of the best entertainment investments I've ever made. I've probably watched this film eight times, maybe more.

How do I describe a film like this? It reminds me of This Is Spinal Tap and Waiting For Guffman, but it's total nonfiction. American Movie is about Mark Borchardt, a fellow so wonderful that he'd have to have been invented if he weren't real. Borchardt is a struggling film-maker, and the degree to which he has the chops is up for debate. What he does have, however, is boundless enthusiasm, absolute disregard for even rudimentary responsibility, and an intense focus on his dreams that's matched only by his penchant for undermining himself. He's a goofball and a fireball. Mark Borchardt is both completely driven and utterly driven to distraction. He can be a real jerk, and he can show the patience of Job. Mark Borchardt is the best and the worst in all of us. I love the guy. (I didn't say I always like him, though. I don't always like me, either.)

Along the way, as Mark tries to make his movie(s), we meet all the wonderful people in his life. Mark's friends and family are made up of characters as unforgettable as he is. There's his ex-junkie buddy Mike, probably the most earnest, unaffected guy you'll ever see in a movie. Mike's just awesome. Then there's Mark's elderly uncle Bill, the most unconventionally endearing person in the whole film. (I defy you to not care about this man. Really care.) Mark's mom, with her thick accent ... and his dad, a veteran who's frequently bewildered by his son ... make big impressions as well. And the actors who are trying to make Mark's movie with him are a blast.

I won't try to describe individual scenes or give away conflicts, twists and turns. I always try to avoid spoilers, but even ruining a second of this film for anyone is a spoiler. Every scene is something to cherish.

This movie cheers me up when I'm depressed. And not in a temporal way, but in a real way. It makes me glad I'm alive. Sometimes I don't even have to watch it, I just have to think about it. That's real. This movie makes me want to hug people. Do you have any idea how rare that is? This movie makes me want to do volunteer work at a nursing home. Really WANT to. This movie makes me want to call my mom.

This isn't a feel good movie. It's not some three minute happy-buzz that fades by the time you get your car unlocked in the parking lot. This movie is more than that. This is a movie that makes me feel that life is good.... and makes me want to interact with other people accordingly.

Just go get it. Go rent it, go buy it, or download it, do whatever you have to do to see it. Just see it, man. Just see it. American Movie, at the risk of using a cliche, really transcends cinema. It's a film you will never forget.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews

Synopsis

A dirt poor "slumdog" in Mumbai, India competes on his country's version of the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire TV game show. His chances of winning the jackpot are slim. His real goal is to attract the attention and win the heart of the girl he's loved since childhood. Those chances are slim, too. But sometimes "destiny" has plans of it's own.

Pros:

• Good performances from the cast of mostly unknown actors.


• Good direction from Danny Boyle. His typically showy style. Nothing wrong with that.

Cons:

• The movie never really got my attention.

Generally:

3 on a five scale. It's OK.

Extended Review:

Danny Boyle has a history of turning out very good movies that I just haven't enjoyed much. His cautionary tale, Trainspotting is visually bold, aggressive, even brilliant in some ways. But it didn't do anything for me. Boyle's take on the horror/zombie genre, 28 Days Later, didn't even phase me in the theater. I didn't appreciate 28... at all, in fact, until a reluctant second viewing on DVD. And Boyle's version of a family film, Millions, is smart, funny, winning and warm ... and yet, for whatever reason, it nearly bored me to sleep.

It's as though Danny Boyle and I don't speak the same language. He makes fine films, I realize that. I appreciate his movies in a sterile, emotionless way. For whatever reason, the real heart and soul of his films is seemingly always lost on me.

Take, for instance, his latest: Slumdog Millionare. I realize that I should have enjoyed it very much. All the elements were there: The acting was good, the story and characters were engaging and appealing, the direction was suburb. And yet, once it was over, I essentially duplicated the experience of walking out of the theater after 28 Days Later, Trainspotting and Millions. The people around me were very happy. They'd just seen a movie they'd loved. I was happy for them ... but I was bored and utterly indifferent.

Slumdog... has been marketed as a feel-good movie, and I think that's somewhat disingenuous. I'm not saying that just because the movie failed to make me feel good. I'm saying that because there is a surprising amount of violent and disturbing content in the movie. There is gun violence, a scene involving torture with a car battery, another scene involving the torture of a child, and a fair amount of knives, blood and death. None of that detracts from the story's essential love-conquers-all message. After all, love has to have some nasty things to conquer, right? But I didn't expect so much of the nastiness to be on screen, and it's the kind of thing that might ruin the movie for some people. This isn't a feel-good movie along the lines of Love, Actually. This movie is grittier than that, and it earns it's R-rating several times over.

The performances are good all around. Especially Dev Patel as the main character, the "slumdog" the movie is named for. He's sufficiently convincing as a simple, wide-eyed boy who still carries a torch for the girl he's loved since childhood. In fact, his performance is the main reason that the movie works when it does work. A lot of the story is totally implausible. Serendipity comes into play time and time again, and Patel's good-natured acceptance of the things that happen to him and around him is key to the selling of this tale.

Without getting all spoilery, I will say that the things you expect to happen going into the movie all happen in a more-or-less believable way. Will the poor boy from the wrong side of the tracks get the girl and win the money? What do you think? Boyle isn't trying to retell Rocky here, and the concept of winning just by doing your best never enters the picture. That may be part of the reason I was essentially disappointed in the film. I was hoping for some surprises. Other than the unexpected violence, there weren't any surprises to be found.

So, like I said, Slumdog Millionare is a perfectly good movie. To my knowledge, Danny Boyle hasn't really made any bad movies. And as I said earlier, he hasn't really made any movies that have really won me over, either. Slumdog continues that tradition. A lot of people have seen it and loved it. Once again, I'm happy for them.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

In 1977, disgraced former President Richard Nixon sat for a series of interviewers with British TV personality David Frost. This movie tells a story about the events that lead up to those interviews and the impact that the interviews had on the lives of everyone involved.

Pros:

• Good performances from a talented cast.


• A story about people, not so much about politics.

Cons:

• Lots of talk, little action. If you aren't already interested in these people and these events, I suppose you might get bored.


• One or two of the dramatized events seem very unlikely.

Generally:

3.5 on a five scale. A good show.

Extended Review:


Having been born in 1968, I have two clear childhood memories of important events on television. One of them was Hank Aaron's record-breaking home run in the spring of 1974. The other was Richard Nixon's historic resignation of the office of the President in August of that same year.

I suppose Aaron's achievement would have played a role in shaping my life if I'd been a particularly athletic child. But I wasn't. Instead, I had an interest in things like history, drama and politics. Nixon's resignation had plenty of all three, so it's probably not surprising that the broadcast effected me very much. Throughout my childhood, and to this very day, I've always been fascinated by Nixon and Watergate. I wrote enumerable papers on the man and the scandal in high school and college, and I've watched more movies, read more books, and video-taped more TV specials related to the topic than I can remember.

Because I've studied Watergate closely over the years, I've learned that one has to approach movies like Frost/Nixon with very specific expectations. Frost/Nixon is ostensibly about the series of interviews that Nixon gave interviewer David Frost in 1977. But movies about history are usually inaccurate by degrees, and Frost/Nixon really presents a version of Richard Nixon, a version of David Frost, and a version of their famous exchanges. To really be fair to the movie, it's best to set aside what one might know (or might think one knows) about the real men and the real events and try to simply watch the film as though it were an entirely fictional work.

Of course, that's impossible. But you gotta try. You have to try to remember that this is just a story, with a beginning, middle and end ... and that the movie hopes to establish it's own morals, it's own conclusions, and it's own deeper meanings.

With that in mind, I have to say that I really enjoyed Frost/Nixon. Removed from it's historical context, this is a story about two skilled spin doctors, each trying to use their televised exchanges as a means toward his own end. Both of them are politicians of a sort, and each of them hopes to leave the experience having secured a political goal. The older of the two men wants a chance to reframe his public persona. The younger wants to establish a reputation as a smart journalist and effective interviewer. Each of them attempts to manipulate their shared situation and each also tries to manipulate the other. Essentially, Frost and Nixon are presented here as opponents, playing a kind of game of chess with words. A game that only one of them can really win.

As Nixon, Frank Langella is really very good. In fact, he presents the best screen-version of Nixon that I've seen. It's certainly better than Anthony Hopkins's manic turn in Oliver Stone's '95 film. And I think that Nixon supporters would probably feel that the movie treats Nixon fairly. The Richard Nixon in this film is clearly very smart, somewhat paranoid, and, by 1977, utterly exhausted. He hopes at the beginning of the movie to somehow restore his reputation and find a way back into the political life again. At a critical point in the movie, Nixon realizes that the life he's been tolerating since he left the White House, the life of a famous but unimportant curiosity, is really the only life he's going to have from then on. It's a moving and important moment in the film, and Langella is especially impressive in that scene.

Michael Sheen, who plays David Frost here, is very good, too. The David Frost in this movie is personally invested in this series of interviews in every way possible. He's put himself in a make-or-break situation and the pressure to deliver is enormous. Sheen is especially good in early interview segments when Frost realizes that he's utterly outmatched by the old, skilled politician. As the story comes to a head, Sheen's Frost manages to convey mingled panic and focus in a very convincing way. I found myself feeling as involved in this story from his point of view as I was from the perspective of the former President.


How historically accurate is the movie? Well, it doesn't matter. There are real lines from the real interviews interjected into the movie's recreations, but I actually found that to be a trivial distraction. I was more interested in the way the two men were at odds with each other, each trying to steer the conversation, control the pace, tone and subject matter, all the while seeming congenial. The performances were very good when it came to that, and that's really what the movie was about. Since that's what the movie was really about, looking for discrepancies in the story's recreation of the public record would be splitting hairs. As I said earlier, this movie presents a version of the Frost/Nixon interviews. And it presents it's own version very well.

There are moments along the way that might be twisted by viewers, I suppose, into some sort of half-assed metaphorical commentary on the George W. Bush Presidency, the war in Iraq, and the most recent political scandals. Some people are always going to look for that kind of meaning "between the lines." But I think it's a ridiculous stretch to find anything like that in Frost/Nixon. This movie isn't about modern events, it isn't even really about events from the 70's. This is a character study, and a good one. And that's all it is.

Speaking of the 1970's, to me Frank Langella will always be Dracula. To a number of people, Richard Nixon will always be Darth Vader. And to a lot of people, David Frost might always be remembered as the David who slew Goliath in the interviews reenacted here. But, really, that's dumbing this movie down to something less than it is. Frost/Nixon is a movie about manipulation, language, and the power of strong personalities. It is it's own unique story, regardless of the historic events that it proposes to dramatize. And purely concerning story and acting, Frost/Nixon is a success on it's own terms.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

Oskar, a twelve-year-old Swedish boy, is bullied, neglected and miserable. His new neighbor, Eli, appears to be a twelve year old girl. But Eli feeds on human blood, and as she and Oskar grow closer, the boy discovers elements of his personality that he didn't know were there.

Pros:

• Genuinely freaky. It isn't often that a horror movie makes me stir uneasily in my seat.


• Outstanding performances from the two young actors in the lead roles.

Cons:

• A couple of smallish plot holes.


• A few slow passages that drag a bit.

Generally:

4 on a five scale. A smart, unsettling, extra creepy horror film. I point to movies like this when I defend the horror genre. If you like 'em smart and scary, this is a must-see.

Extended Review:

Put this one on the short list with The Exorcism of Emily Rose, The Descent, The Devil's Backbone and Signs. Wow. Let The Right One In really is that good, that scary, that smart and that inventive. This one's a keeper. This is Carrie for the modern age.

This decade has seen scads of horror films churned out by the big studios. There have been franchise gore fests and Hollywood lame-downs of decent Japanese horror films and there have been more stupid, pointless remakes than I can count ... but there have been very, very precious few genuinely good horror films.

It's no surprise, I guess, that you have to look to an independent Swedish production for the scariest and best horror film of the past year.

Let The Right One In really is what the recent Twilight proposes to be. It's a movie that examines the turbulence of adolescence through the eyes of a vampire, and finds much to be afraid of. Yes, this is a horror film, but it is not mindless escapism. I thought about things like Columbine and teen suicide while watching this film, and I was very impressed with the movie's artful approach to very real subject matter. Let The Right One In treats desperation and loneliness very seriously and the movie is very insightful with regard to those topics. I think it's a safe bet that Twilight's version of Sweet Valley Vampire High didn't get anywhere near these heights.

As the two principle youngsters in the film, Kare Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson are both outstanding. Especially Leandersson, who's performance as the vampire Eli often genuinely scared the hell out of me. Let The Right One In doesn't rely on make-up or special effects for it's scares. The terror all hinges on Leandersson's performance. I had no doubt that her character could and would kill without remorse, and this kid made me actually shudder a number of times.

As Oskar, the abused and lonely boy, Hedebrant is very good, too. In fact, it's probably fair to say that he's exceptional, since his was probably the more difficult role. For the movie to work, a viewer has to care what happens to Oskar. And this is a character with very real, very upsetting problems from the get-go. Even before he develops a relationship with a vampire, it's clear that this kid is headed for an unpleasant future. He's bullied brutally at school and doesn't have any resources to help him productively deal with that treatment. Instead, he clips newspaper stories about murders and he tortures pretend victims with his pocket knife. Oskar just oozes with detachment and suppressed rage throughout the film.

Eli's vampirism is introduced almost immediately in the film, and it's presented with a great deal of gore and blood. She isn't a sterile, Hollywood vampire who leaves two small fang-holes in her victims' necks. Eli rips out jugular veins, spewing great fountains of blood when she feeds. The violence in the film may be upsetting to many, but I found it to be an organic and necessary element of this particular story. It was the physical manifestation of what was going on in the lives of the characters. Vampirism in this movie's world isn't gothic or romantic. Like much else here, it's about violence and survival.

Director Tomas Alfredson made some interesting choices, too, that I thought fit the movie very well. His visual pallet in this film is dominated by white (block walls, tiled floors, endless snow outside) and bursts of red (a bright red sweater, a solid-red toy Indian warrior, and, of course, blood). The motif conjures up a pervasive coldess and the potential for sudden violence that establish the context of even the quiet scenes. And as with all of the better vampire tales, the blood exchange is an obvious sexual metaphor; this time a commentary on the tumult and upheaval that comes with puberty. Very few modern horror movies even bother with subtext. Alfredson was very smart, I think, to treat Let The Right One In as a straight story wherein one of the major characters happened to be a vampire.

Most people don't see horror movies because they're looking for a genuinely upsetting experience. People see horror movies to laugh, to get off on gore-porn, to see just how far the studios take the carnage this time. So people who like those movies probably won't find much to please them in this film. But if you're up for a smart and crafty treatise on the very real pains and fears of adolescence, then Let The Right One In is for you. Early in this review I listed a few very good horror films and said that this movie is in their league. But this movie didn't remind me of those films. It reminded me of movies like Kids and Alpha Dog and Undertow, and of books like William Golding's Lord Of The Flies. Like those works, Let The Right One In is really a story about adolescents in terrible danger. The closing credits found me with my thoughts racing, more than a little unsettled. If that doesn't sound like your kind of thing, maybe you enjoy Twilight instead.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

Walter Kowalski is elderly, bitter, widowed and alone. His new neighbors, immigrants from Southeast Asia, seem like the last people he's likely to befriend. But a series of sudden, violent events leads to Walt reluctantly taking the neighbor's teenage son under his wing. As the old man and the young man get to know each other, a genuine friendship develops. Meanwhile, members of a local ethnic street gang have nefarious plans for the both of them.

Pros:

• A great performance from Eastwood.


• A tight story that never drags.


• This is a movie that's genuinely concerned with the important things in life ... things like family, courage and friendship.


• The movie addresses racism in a surprisingly honest way.

Cons:

• A couple of fairly weak performances in major roles.

Generally:

Three and a half or maybe four on a five scale. Eastwood's own resume gives this movie a lot to live up to, but on general terms it's a fine film.

Extended Review:

Clint Eastwood has implied that Gran Torino will be his final effort as an actor. If so, there are certainly worse ways that he could have ended his on-screen career. Gran Torino is a compact and efficient little story that hinges on a classic Eastwood performance and a lean script from screenwriter Nick Schenk. It won't be remembered as Eastwood's best movie, neither as an actor nor as a director, but this is a film he can be proud of.

Clint Eastwood will turn 79 this May. His character in Gran Torino (Walt Kowalski) turns 80 during the course of the movie, and for the first time on screen, Eastwood really looks his age. Walt wears his pants up around his mid-torso, lights cigarettes with a Zippo, and spends a lot of time reading on his front porch. Walt Kowalski is a grouchy old fart, and Eastwood plays it real, warts and all.

The best thing about the character is that he's not just a harmless movie-version of a grouchy old fart. For most of the movie's two hours, Walt is a very unpleasant man. So much so, in fact, that this character might alienate himself from the audience as thoroughly as he seems to have alienated himself from his family and neighbors. Walt is a racist and a sexist who constantly uses racial slurs, mocks the religious faith of his loved ones, and is generally cruel to everyone except his dog.

In fact, Kowalski's constant racist epithets might really offend the most sensitive moviegoers. Personally, I thought that the characters racism was one of the many things that made Eastwood's performance so genuine. Look, it's this simple: many (maybe most) of the old men I know are racist to one degree or another. Old white men, old black men, old men of every color and creed are pretty often cantankerous in every way possible. To have made Walter Kowalski politically correct would have been disingenuous. The old bastard just doesn't care what he says or in who's presence he says it. I know old men like that and I totally believed this character.

Best of all, this is a movie that proposes that there are things that are actually worse than racism. Imagine that! We live in a society that embraces nutty concepts like "hate crimes," the idea that some murders might be worse than others, depending on the motives involved. (Aren't all murders crimes of hate?) Gran Torino is, in at least one way, a very bold movie. It suggests that, with some people, racism might be a hundred miles wide ... but only an inch deep. No wonder the same Motion Picture Academy that piled Oscars on Crash a few years ago didn't quite know what to think of this film. Walter Kowalski is an unabashed racist, but he's not beyond redemption. That's not exactly the clean, neat, acceptable way to present a racist character, even if it is honest.


As a matter of fact, the politically incorrect dialogue in the movie is used to tremendous effect in one scene in particular: This movie is essentially the story of Walter begrudgingly becoming friends with a young Asian man in his neighborhood. Early in the film, before he develops affection for the young man, Walter constantly peppers him with racial slurs out of genuine disrespect. But as he develops regard for the young man he wants to make it clear to him that he likes him. Lacking the ability to simply say "Hey, I like ya, kid," Walt instead takes him to his local barber shop so that he can hear the way that he and the Italian barber trade ethnic jabs as a way of horsing around. Walt even attempts to instruct his young Asian friend on the proper way to "talk like a fella." The scene works for two reasons... one, it makes it clear that at this point in the story Walt's slurs toward his young Asian friend are the old man's dysfunctional way of expressing affection. It's really all he knows. And, two, that scene ends with the young man delivering the funniest punchline I've heard in any movie in a long time.

Like my all time favorite film, Eastwood's masterful Unforgiven, Gran Torino revisits the themes that have defined the actor/director's best work. Forgiveness and redemption and sacrifice are the keynotes, here. This movie's dramatic apex is sort of an alternate version of the climactic scene in Unforgiven, with selflessness substituted for revenge to tremendous effect. It isn't necessarily a realistic way for the story to end, but viewed through the prism of Eastwood's career, it's meaningful and quite moving.

Gran Torino doesn't quite reach Unforgiven's artistic heights, but it certainly doesn't fail, either. Eastwood fans will find a lot to enjoy in Gran Torino, as will fans of good movies in general.

The trailer for Gran Torino

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

Randy The Ram is a washed up professional wrestler who's twenty years past his prime. After suffering a major medical setback, Randy is forced to consider his place in the world, the relationships that he's lost along the way, and his possibilities for a future.

Pros:

• Micky Rourke is really outstanding.


• So is Marisa Tomei.

Cons:

• The film is honestly painful to watch.


• A lot of people aren't going to like the ending.

Generally:

At least four on a five scale. A remarkable movie if you can handle all the open wounds, both literal and figurative.

Extended Review:

Writer and director Darren Aronofsky usually makes movies on a huge scale. He's good at it. His 2000 release Requiem for a Dream is surely one of the best films of the past ten years. With his latest movie, The Wrestler, Aronofsky has dialed back the high-concept and flashy visuals and produced a small, quiet character study. As it turns out, he's good at that, too.

Micky Rourke, as Randy "The Ram" Robinson (the wrestler the movie is named for) will probably win all kinds of awards for his work here. He really ought to, anyway. This is the kind of movie that requires it's star to carry a world on his back. Rourke is suburb here. I don't suppose I've ever seen him turn in a performance anywhere near this good before. Randy is a guy suffocating in regret, loneliness and physical pain. It's a credit to Rourke as an actor that his performance never became tedious or overwrought in the movie's 115 minutes.

The Wrestler also features Marisa Tomei as a stripper named Cassidy who infatuates Randy. A number of Tomei's scenes feature the actress nude or nearly nude. Tomei's been doing a lot of nudity in her recent movies, possibly because she's proud that she still has the body of a twenty year old even though she'll turn forty-five at the end of this year. Still, Tomei's physical form (as lovely as it is) isn't the best thing she brings to this movie. Her performance is the equal of Rourke's, and may garner supporting actress awards for her as well. In fact, Tomei is so good here that I'd expect her to win top awards for females in lead roles if she only had more screen time.

The connection between Rourke's wrestler and Tomei's stripper is obvious, but never made overt or acknowledged in any way. Both of them have chosen paths wherein they sell themselves, physically, to paying audiences. One traffics in sex; the other, violence. Both of them need the attention and the money, and neither of them seem to have many other options. But unlike Randy, Tomei's character dreams of another life. She has a family in the form of her son ... unlike Randy, who has driven away his adult daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) with years of negligence and broken promises. To Cassidy, stripping is just a means to an end. To Randy, wrestling is everything. Ultimately, one of them just can't stand to be in the other one's audience.

It's painful to watch the two characters interact as one hopes to begin a new life and the other waits for his life to end. There's a rawness about their scenes together that's really exceptional in it's honesty. It's funny that we live in a world full of "reality TV" that is nothing like reality, and here's a scripted movie featuring an actor and an actress who speak volumes of truth about desperation and sadness.

I can't recommend The Wrestler to every movie fan, but I think you'll enjoy it if you're the kind of viewer who enjoys films like, for instance, No Country For Old Men. The Wrestler is subtle, unconventional, and extremely understated. That's ironic, considering that professional wrestling itself is the bombastic polar opposite of this film. I expect that a large number of wrestling fans will see this movie and leave the theater unhappy.

At times, The Wrestler reminded me of Ray, Raging Bull, Saturday Night Fever, even Citizen Kane in some ways. Those are all fine films about men who are addicted to fame and pain. Men who punish themselves in spite of the glory they seek. Each of those films features remarkable lead performances. Each of them was directed beautifully. If I have a complaint with each of those five films, it's that they are all painfully direct. This is the kind of movie that might force anyone to contemplate whatever is hollow inside of them.

The Wrestler rubs shoulders with greats in terms of it's impact, it's integrity, and the power of it's story. This is one of the finest movies I've seen in the past twelve months.

Trailer for The Wrestler:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies, You Tube

Synopsis

Benjamin Button is born with the physiology of a man in his late 80's. As he ages, his body grows in reverse, so that by the time he's really in his late '80's, he has the body of a baby. This is the story of his adventures, his loves and his loses, his tragedies and triumphs.

Pros:

• The special effects and make-up look great on a big screen.


• Brad Pitt is very good in the title role.


• in spite of it's odd conceit, this is a perfectly standard, sentimental, holiday-time feel-good movie.

Cons:

• Meandering story.


• Too little humor or surprises to sustain the movie's two hours and forty-five minutes. I had plenty of time to get bored.

Generally:

2.5 or 3 on a five scale. Eeeh.

Extended Review:

Ah, man. What can you say about a movie like The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button? You know going into it that you're supposed to like it. And you know, two-thirds of the way through, that if you find yourself bored and unimpressed, people are going to condemn you as an incorrigible grouch. Generally I was bored with ...Benjamin Button, I felt like I'd seen it all before. There's nothing new here, and that's especially disappointing, considering that director David Fincher usually has something original to offer, even in his lesser films.

And, just for the record, I went into Benjamin Button totally prepared to enjoy it. My expectations were appropriately low. I'd set my phazers on stun with visual effects, and I was ready to allow myself to be pulled into the Hallmark Card sentimentality that I expected from the film. If you go into these kinds of big, showy movies, you can enjoy them. I'd remembered the lesson of Forrest Gump, a movie I'd hated because I'd expected too much out of it. I was prepared for a Titanic style experience. (I actually saw Titanic in the theater several times and I'd really enjoyed it because I'd turned off my quality filter and just enjoyed looking at the big, pretty boat and all the pretty people drowning in the cold, cold water.)

I'm not sure what went wrong along the way, but I have to fault the movie more than myself. I was enjoying the special effects, the way the movie presented a Brad Pitt who really did look both 85 years old and four feet tall. And for a while I enjoyed the cookie-cutter characters, too. Most of them were based on tried-and-true movie character templates ... but admirable templates, like the loving adoptive mother, the dancer with a heart of gold, and the friendly, mysterious foreigner who opens up the world for the young protagonist. And lets not forget the young protagonist himself. I gotta give it to Brad Pitt; there must be a special challenge in wearing tons of prosthetic devices and makeup and acting believably as a ten year old boy in an octogenarian's body. Generally speaking, Pitt pulled it off.

But after the first hour or 75 minutes or so the movie began to meander and never really got back on course. I got bored and found myself with time to draw parallels between Benjamin Button and all the movies like it that have come before. For instance, Forrest Gump had a commissioned officer in the military who later became his captain on a private commercial boat. Working backwards, appropriately, Benjamin Button had a captain on a private commercial boat who later became his commissioned naval superior.

Forrest Gump lost a beloved, secondary friend in war. So did Benjamin. Forrest kept drifting in and out of the life of his one true love. So did Benjamin. Oh, and for Titanic fans, there's even the death of close friends after a tragedy in icy ocean waters.

Once the movie began to bore me I never got interested again. The last hour of this movie dragged on and on and on like few movies I've seen before. I'd honestly have walked out if it weren't for the fact that my wife was enjoying the movie and did want to see how it ended. She did a better job than I did of suspending the critical eye of a serious movie fan. It was my loss.

When all was said and done I was thrilled to see the closing credits. Several people in the theater were wiping tears from their faces. They'd really enjoyed the movie. I was jealous of them. I was sure then, and I'm sure now, that if I'd managed to stay in the right frame of mind I'd have somehow enjoyed this movie. It was not a life-changer, this wasn't Ikiru or Schindler's List ... and it hadn't meant to be. This was the cinematic equivalent of a get-well card and a box of candy. It's what I think of as a "housewife movie," like Big Fish or The Notebook. There's nothing wrong with that. If you're in the right mood. I guess I just wasn't.

On our way into the theater, I had found myself standing in line behind an older fellow who was talking to a friend of his whom he'd met up with by chance at the theater. One friend asked the other what movie he was here to see, and the other had responded "Oh, uh ... it's The Lifestyle Of Benjamin Franklin." I had a quiet little laugh at the old guy's expense. But in the end, the laugh was on me. A movie about the supposedly outrageous habits of Ben Franklin would have surely been more entertaining than this one was. Shorter, too.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

The late Domino Harvey lead a life that might make Buckaroo Bonzai look like Walter Mitty. She was a fashion model, a bounty hunter, a drug addict and a television star. This is her story, told in a hyperactive, violent style with lots of flash, blood, color and volume.

Pros:

• Christopher Walken.


• Tom Waits music in the soundtrack.


• The DVD only cost me two bucks.

Cons:

• For all it's bang and sizzle, it's boring.


• The story makes no sense.


• The characters aren't interesting.


• Hardees has a decent burger I could have bought with that two bucks.

Generally:

One star, maybe one and a half on a five scale. A well made piece of crap.

Extended Review:

Director Tony Scott has turned out quite a few films that I've really enjoyed. Some of them (Man On Fire, Days of Thunder) are slightly guilty pleasures. Others (Enemy of the State, True Romance, Crimson Tide) are as good as action movies get.

Last Black Friday, Wal-Mart had a number of DVDs on sale for two bucks, and one of them was Tony Scott's Domino. I figured it was just bound to be worth two bucks. The Tony Scott brand-name alone was worth two bucks, right? Plus, the movie featured Mickey Rourke, and was one of the movies he's made since his mostly praiseworthy comeback. Christopher Walken was in there, too. He's always entertaining. I figured it was a no-brainer. I mean, geez, you can't even rent a movie for two bucks these days.

Well, I've just finished watching Domino and, yeah, I guess it was worth my two bucks ... but not a dime more than that. I don't see me ever watching it again, it's just gonna gather dust on our DVD shelf from now on. This isn't the worst movie Tony Scott has ever turned out (that would be Top Gun), but there is very little to recommend it. I'd kinda like to be able to take it back and retrieve my two bucks.

Domino is loosely based on the true story of Domino Harvey, who was a bounty hunter and may have also been a fashion model. She certainly had the looks to be, as does Keira Knightley, who portrays her in this film to the best of her limited acting abilities. If I'm honest, though, even an actress with the talents of Emma Thompson would have had a difficult time creating a memorable performance in this loud, bombastic mess of a film. Tony Scott gambled this movie's potential on a heap of jumbled edits, odd camera angles, bizarre narration, nonsensical subtitles and unhinged imagery that makes Fight Club look like Gosford Park.

Sometimes a big, kinetic, messy movie can be entertaining in it's own right. See Oliver Stone's demented morality tale U-Turn for a mostly successful example. And sometimes a director can emphasize style over substance and still manage to convey something meaningful about the human condition. For instance, I think that Danny Boyle's Trainspotting succeeds as a cautionary tale because that movie's hallucinogenic blur is an organic element of the story.

Now and then (very rarely, but occasionally), a movie can get by just on the strength of it's visuals. The Matrix, for example, and Tarsem Singh's The Cell both entertained me, and neither had much more to offer than their distinctly rich visual pallets.

And then there's Domino, a movie with nothing to offer but style and nothing new to offer even in those terms. Tony Scott is just rehashing his own body of work here, and borrowing from Quentin Tarantino, Oliver Stone, and others.

Domino features one of the most incoherent stories I've ever seen in a movie. It may be full of plot-holes, too. I don't know, though, because I found the story impossible to follow. None of the characters were interesting or appealing enough to make me want to follow the story. And the movie's satirical subtext, about the emptiness of so-called "reality TV" and our culture's fascination with the cult of celebrity, is a little bit tired.

But I have to admit that Rourke and Walken both got about as much as anyone could have out of their cheesy characters. And seeing Tom Waits turn up late in the film in a small, unbilled role put a smile on my face. (That's a surprise I suppose I've just ruined for you. Sorry 'bout that.) And I have to admit that I enjoyed the soundtrack, including a number of Waits songs. They gave me something fun to at least listen to while the movie as a whole was failing to entertain me.

The worst movie I've seen in years and years was Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. Domino was nowhere near that bad. Then again, a 200 degree vodka enema wouldn't have been as bad as watching Zombie's awful movie.

Still, it doesn't speak well for Domino that the best thing I can say about it is that it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen. the cardinal sin for loud, flashy, violent, bloody, offensive movies is if they're also boring. This movie commits that sin. I think it's safe to say that everyone involved in this film will do better work than they turned in here.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

A pothead and his pot dealer get caught up in a murder, along with the dealer's dealer. But this is a comedy, so nobody is particularly good at what they're doing. Not the perpetually stoned pothead and his dealer, not the maladroit trafficker who wants them all dead, not the two bumbling hitmen who are working out their own jealousy issues, and not the competing Asian drug cartel which starts a drug-war just as all of this goes down. Understand? I didn't, either.

Pros:

• Seth Rogan is still likable and funny as his usual stoned, dirty Winnie-The-Pooh character.


• James Franko and Danny McBride are fairly funny, too, as half-assed pot pushers.

Cons:

• A lot of violence that doesn't fit with the rest of the movie.


• More "roll your eyes" moments than I can remember.


• A few long, dry passages without any laughs.


• Some cameos were distractions. I should not miss key dialogue because I'm thinking "Is that Ed Begley, Jr? I think that's Ed Begley, Jr. Hey, I think that's the first time I ever heard him drop the f-bomb." Etc.


• They even brought in Kevin Corrigan, a legit dramatic actor who's played criminal types in American Gangster and The Departed and even True Romance. I scratched my head for an hour trying to figure out where I'd seen him before. When I finally figured it out I felt tricked. I'd have recognized him a mile away in a crime drama. But in an Apatow movie? Geesh.

Generally:

1.5 on a five scale. And it wouldn't score that high if I just didn't flat out like Seth Rogan.

Extended Review:

Pineapple Express is the latest, and the least, in the string of commercially successful comedies from Judd Apatow's cinematic cabal. Like the superior comedies that preceded it, this movie has been brought to the screen by a pack of producer/writer/actor types, including Apatow, Seth Rogan, Danny McBride, Evan Goldberg ... and this time directed by David Gordon Green (of all people), the indie darling behind All The Real Girls and Undertow.

There are a number of possible reasons to explain why Pineapple Express falls short. Maybe it was that the director's "artistic" sensibilities conflicted with the slapstick anything-for-a-laugh approach that Apatow's productions employ.

Maybe it was that Apatow and crew were a little giddy about their first chance to make a movie with guns, squibs, explosions and fake blood. They sure throw the violence around everywhere in this film without ever really establishing a "motif" for the violent content. Movies like Kill Bill take the violence to a ridiculous extreme to establish that the story takes place in it's own world, not the real world. Other films, such as Blackhawk Down, use violence to establish a gritty realism. Then there are movies like Shoot 'Em Up, where stylized, bloody violence is played entirely for laughs, like a mock Looney Tunes cartoon.

Pineapple Express seems to want the violence to do all of that, and then some. So there's no real context for it. One character is shot something like seven times over the course of the film and brushes it off. His bullet wounds become a running gag ("Am I really stoned or have I just lost that much blood?") Other characters are shot in the head with bloody, violent, sudden realism. There's a huge fight between three men who trash a house (ala The Three Stooges) and try in vain to hurt each other. That bit is funny, but the bigger fight toward the end, involving the destruction of a barn, is just a bloody mess.

I don't mind violence in a movie if it makes sense. If it establishes and adheres to it's own context. If it doesn't, violent content can become a distraction. Too much of it can ruin a movie. Maybe it was all the gunfire and blood that ultimately drove the Pineapple Express off the rails.

Other elements of the film were, I admit, pretty good. If you enjoy Seth Rogan's modern slacker stoned-Albert-Brooks routine, you'll probably enjoy his performance here. I happen to like the guy and I did enjoy watching him schlub his way through this series of misadventures. His characer had, as he always does in these films, his big "come to Jesus" moment when he realized that he needed to change his life. But it seemed tacked on here rather than part of the larger theme.

And that's another complaint with Pineapple Express: The absolute absence of a larger theme. Knocked Up, Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The 40 Year Old Virgin, are all vulgar comedies built on timeless coming-of-age templates. The characters have actual arcs, the stories have clear beginnings, middles and ends, and when the film is over we feel like we've had a ... well, an experience ... by watching the movie.

Not so with Pineapple Express. This time we've just watch Rogen bumble his way through a great deal of violence. There are laughs along the way. A gag involving a car chase with the driver's foot through the window was a hoot. James Franco and Danny McBride both get a couple of big laughs with their understated delivery of a couple of classic one-liners. Best of all, Pineapple Express contains the funniest non sequitur Jude Law reference that I've ever heard. That one joke is almost enough to justify the mess you have to wade through to get to it.

But not quite.

I can't recommend Pineapple Express to fans of the Rogan-Goldberg-Apataw comedy formula. That formula itself is probably still a great receipe for guffaws and wet-snort laughter and, gosh darn it, a good lesson learned along the way.

This time, though, they messed with the formula, added violence and lots of blood and references to talk radio and villians played by the oddly out of place Gary Cole and Rosie Perez. This ain't a good mix.

I don't know, maybe throwing Jonah Hill in there somewhere would have brought balance to the force. I doubt it, though. They'd have probably cast him as another gun-crazy thug.

Hopefully they'll get back to the good stuff with the next film, the Apatow directed Funny People. I can't wait to find out. After all, it's gonna take more than one rotten pineapple to totally stop the Apatow/Rogan comedy express.

Trailer (Explicit language)

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

A child-killer stalks a German city in the early 30's. As families panic and the police prove incapable of catching the maniac, the city's criminal underworld enacts a plan of it's own.

Pros:

• A classic. The movie's impact on eighty years of cinema is on display in every frame.


• The actors are all outstanding; each seems to honestly be the character he or she portrays.


• Tremendous insight into the "human condition."

Cons:

• A black and white, German subtitled film with long passages of absolute silence is not an easy sell in 2008.

Generally:

5 on a five scale. A must-see for students of film, serious and casual alike.

Extended Review:

Some classic films are easier to admire than enjoy. The 1933 King Kong, for example, is a movie that I appreciate on a clinical level ... even if the movie never really draws me in. Citizen Kane is another one: I watch it and I marvel at the genius of Orson Welles, but I never feel personally involved in the story.

Then there are classic pictures that effect me emotionally. Boris Karloff stumbles painfully through Frankenstein and my heart goes out to a monster who never asked to be born. And I get so emotionally involved in Atticus Finch's closing arguments during the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird that I'm absolutely convinced that no jury could convict.

Fritz Lang's 1931 classic M works on me in both ways. For the first half of the movie I find myself admiring shots and sequences that might be hard to film even with today's technology. Sometimes I'm distracted from the story by a sense of wonder: "How on earth did they do that with a camera in 1931?"

By the powerful final act of M, however, my investment in the movie is entirely emotional. Until the final act, Peter Lorre, as the story's heinous child-murderer, is basically an evil, one-dimensional cartoon. Then, seemingly at odds with the rest of the movie, Lorre delivers a surprisingly moving monologue about his inability to suppress his urge to kill. Cowering at the feet of the city's assembled criminals and gangsters, Lorre begs for the mercy of a crowd intent on killing him. It makes for demanding viewing.

M is a German movie made during the rise of the Nazi party, so it's probably not surprising that the movie is concerned with themes of power and corruption. The comfort of the crowd is a major theme; the ability one might have to do things as part of a mob that one would never do alone. Paranoia and the power of false accusations are major elements here, too.

During the last hour, when Lorre is literally marked to ensure that he can be identified publicly, it's almost impossible not to see the apparent message in Lang's dramatic symbolism.

What's surprising about M is that the guilt of Lorre's character is never a matter of question. He's guilty, we see that clearly, and the audience hopes along with the city he torments that he'll be captured. Lang never intended to make a statement about an innocent man falling prey to a city's fear.

It seems to me that Lang's greater theme was simply about the power of an angry mob. Not only it's power to fall upon a victim ... but it's power to rob each individual involved of his or her own humanity. Mob mentality can deprive any or all of us of our souls. It can turn a just cause into an excuse for barbarism. Lang seems to be saying that there's the potential for horrible violence in each of us, given the security of a gathering crowd. Given the opportunity, any one of us might find something inside himself that he didn't know was there. Even if it's only the willingness to go along with the group.

No wonder that the movie was banned in Nazi Germany.

M is sometimes difficult to watch, but it's rewards are many fold. In terms of cinematography, history, and moral clarity, M is truly one of the great films.

Sort of a trailer, a montage from M:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

A college student returns to his hometown to attend to his ill father. One day he makes a grisly discovery in an abandoned lot and soon finds himself neck deep in the town's hidden underworld of violence, drugs, perversion and corruption.

Pros:

• It's a trendsetter. You may have never seen Blue Velvet, but you've probably seen movies made by people who love this film.


• Dennis Hopper is one of the best when it comes to playing psychos. This movie might be his personal apex in that regard.


• If you like weird you'll find plenty to like here.

Cons:

• If you don't like weird this movie will annoy and/or upset you.


• The closing scenes are weak and feel contrived. I think director David Lynch may have been forced into an ending that just doesn't fit the film.


• You might feel the need to take a hot shower and scrub yourself with Ajax after watching Blue Velvet.

Generally:

3.5 on a five scale. David Lynch fans often call this his masterpiece. If oddball cinema is your thing, this one is a must-see ... genre fans will, I'm sure, rate this movie far higher than I do.

Extended Review:

I first saw Blue Velvet twenty years ago and I saw it again tonight. I liked it both times, but for different reasons. The first time I saw it I was just amazed by the balls-to-the-wall weirdness of the story and characters. This time I found myself entertained on kind of an academic level. I got a big kick out of the way director David Lynch and his cast seem to gleefully break all the rules of "good cinema."

There's symbolism in the movie, but it's overt and ham-fisted. Symbolic imagery is usually done with some subtlety. Symbols work best on a subconscious level. But in Blue Velvet, Lynch wanted everything in your face. So he cue's the audience that Blue Velvet is set in an idyllic little town with close-ups of flower-beds, white picket fences, and smiling fire-men, waving from the back of parade-ready fire-trucks.

Under the surface of Small Town USA there's an unseen criminal element that's just teeming with destruction and evil. Lynch lets us in on that early on in the film with yet another obvious symbol as his camera takes the viewers literally underground to see worms and bugs engaged in a chaotic death match.

Disjointed shots of a candle being blown out, relative to absolutely nothing in the story, sporadically signal the audience that some dark stuff is about to go down.

Kyle McLachlan's performance is, I think, deliberately wooden. He isn't playing a character here so much as satirizing an archetype. His character is Jeffery (not Jeff) who's so button-down and straight laced that he comes across like a mannequin, only not as hyperactive. As his reliable, respectable girl, Laura Dern is only missing the poodle skirt and bobby socks.

Kyle and Laura find themselves drawn into their town's dark side when they set out, Nancy Drew style, to solve a really neato mystery. But the underground in this town isn't an Eddie Haskel kind of scene. These bad guys are rapists, murderers, corrupt cops, perverts and drug pushers. Blue Velvet's bad guys aren't just bad ... they're evil.

As the damsel in distress ... a damsel who seems to relish her particular form of distress ... Isabella Rossellini is occasionally heartbreaking and often horrifying. If there's any subtlety in the movie, it's to be found in Rossellini's eyes. One important, late scene concerns Rossellini interacting with a child. She hugs the boy maternally, but her eyes briefly widen with a kind of numb horror ... and then the look is gone. Rossellini makes her character haunted and haunting, even in an ending that's far too upbeat for a movie filled with so much doom.

And then there's Dennis Hopper as a villain, Frank, with the strangest fetishes, addictions, habits, hobbies and motives of any movie bad guy in the last 50 years of cinema. This character is the psychotic leader of a psychotic gang, but maybe psychotic isn't the word. Maybe "psychotic" would be a step toward sanity for Frank. This guy physically attacks, verbally bludgeons, torments, tortures and kills. But that's not enough for Lynch. He wants to make sure that you know without a doubt that the Hopper character is waaaayyyy worse than anyone else in the movie. So Hopper's character is the only one in the entire movie that swears, and he slips the f-word into just about every one of his utterances. And then to put the icing on the cake, Frank seems to be playing it all for laughs. This is the creepiest of all of Hopper's creepy performances.

If this were another movie from another time, Blue Velvet's "evil under the rug of small town America" theme might play like a political statement. But there's just nothing political here. Lynch isn't interested in grand statements. In spite of all the bluster and bombast ... or maybe because of it ... Blue Velvet is really a movie about the quietest feelings, the ones we keep to ourselves. Paranoia. Dread. Grief. Loneliness.

Blue Velvet works as both a satire of and a tribute to a small town lifestyle that probably only ever existed in the movies and TV shows of the fifties and sixties. And it works, too, as a suspense film and a horror movie. It works in the same way that the best comic books work ... with a sort of earnest superficiality that's both compelling and cartoonish. The movie is obvious, outlandish and outrageous. It's also deeply sincere and sometimes very moving. You'll probably either hate it by the end of the first half hour or love it by the time the credits roll.

My personal favorite David Lynch film is The Straight Story, a low-key anomaly among his usually bizarre films. Some of his work has left me shaking my head, sometimes in confusion, sometimes with contempt. Blue Velvet is a weird film, to be sure. But when it comes to getting his weird on, Lynch never did it better than he did here.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

This satirical look at big-studio Hollywood tells the story of the disastrous production of a Vietnam war movie. In an attempt to get the actors to work together, the director inadvertently draws the attention of a Southeast Asian drug ring. The actors and crew must then go to war for real to save their lives.

Pros:

• Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance is great fun.


• There are a hand full of laughs at Hollywood's expense along the way.

Cons:

• Director Ben Stiller can't decide if this is a parody of big-budget action movies ... or if it is just another big-budget action movie.


• Jack Black is as tedious here as he's been in everything he's done since High Fidelity.


• Ultimately, this movie just reminded me of how disappointed I was in Chris Guest's For Your Consideration.

Generally:

Two, maybe two-and-a-half on a five scale. There are three or four decent jokes, and Downey is awesome, but that's not enough to save the picture from it's director.

Extended Review:

I had reasonably high hopes for Tropic Thunder. I am, after all, smack-dab in the middle of the movie's target audience. Movies about the movie industry itself (From The Player to Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back) are usually aimed at devoted movie geeks, like me. If you write about movies at your blog ... or if you visit Ain't It Cool news daily for movie news ... or, if you no longer visit Aint It Cool because now you read a newer, hipper, more underground film site, then Dreamworks made Tropic Thunder for you.

And the whole time I was watching Tropic Tunder I was thinking about For Your Consideration, Chris Guest's awful attempt to essentially cover the same ground. Christopher Guest and his reliable cast of improvisational actors do this kind of satire better than anyone else. But their take on their own industry was an unwatchable mess. So I shouldn't have been surprised that the relatively insubstantial Ben Stiller can't really walk this line, either.

There's an unfortunate quality of restraint about these movies. Maybe the film industry itself is just too close to the heart for Hollywood types to really skewer it. Maybe it's like making fun of your own mother; you might kid and joke with your mom from time to time, but in the end you're going to pull your punches. Of course you are, it's your mom.

So instead of really going for the throat, Stiller has handed in a by-the-numbers light action movie with a few decent "insider" jokes.

Tropic Thunder has come under fire for scenes that may or may not be insulting to mentally handicapped people. My take on the controversy was that the protesters had missed the point. Based on the previews, the movie seemed to lampoon the vacuous Hollywood types who really do exploit the mentally handicapped with heavy-handed movies like I Am Sam and The Other Sister. How is it not insulting when Sean Penn plays a mentally handicapped person and gets an Oscar nomination because he just seemed so retarded? I thought that Tropic Thunder probably aimed to mock that kind of Hollywood hubris.

Now that I've seen the movie I'm fairly surprised to realize that the only minority this movie really does make fun of is Asians. The Asian characters here are straight out of a 1940's Merrie Melodies cartoon. I have to wonder why Asian Americans haven't been protesting the film. Maybe it's because the majority of Asian Americans realize that a mediocre Ben Stiller movie isn't worth protesting.

Still, Tropic Thunder isn't a total washout. There are a few good jokes along the way. Best of all, Robert Downey Jr.'s performance as a "high art" white Australian actor who has "pigmentation surgery" in order to play a black American is absolutely dead-on. This character is one of those "method actors" who refused to come out of character until it was time to record the DVD commentary track. What Downey is doing here is really remarkable. He's satirizing high-concept, "total immersion" acting ... but he's handing in a high concept, "total immersion" performance himself. His character is so full of BS that it's practically seeping out his ears. He thinks he's somehow channeling his "inner blackness," and he can't figure out why the one real black person on the set can't stand him. This is the kind of straight-faced, irony-free performance that makes for good satire. It's very funny, because Downey really is a great actor, but also because the material written for Downey is the best material in the script. Stiller and his co-writers were on target with this character, and Downey plays it right down the middle with remarkable comic success. It's a shame that it's really the only element of the film that works.

There's also a performance by Tom Cruise as a creepy, manic studio head. Ultimately, though, that performance is just a reminder that in real life, Tom Cruise really is kinda creepy and manic. Stiller's performance is very Stilleresque, which is another way of saying that it's totally forgettable. And Matthew McConaughey as an actor's agent is stuck with the role that Owen Wilson was probably supposed to play. Apparently McConaughey and Wilson are interchangeably bland.

And then there's Jack Black. Why does this overrated pantload keep getting staring roles?

Tropic Thunder is a frustrating movie, especially if you're the kind of movie geek that would want to see it in the first place. There was potential here for a very funny, smart, topical film. It just doesn't seem like anyone here really wanted to make that film. Instead, we're left with an uneven action comedy. Been there, done that, lost interest a long time ago.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

Wesley Gibson is an unhappy cubical worker who hates basically every element of his life. One day he's kidnapped by a beautiful, dangerous woman who tells him that he is the son of one of the world's greatest assassins, and that he possesses his father's amazing killing abilities. Wesley learns about his father and the fraternity of assassins he worked for while fending off attacks from a rogue agent.

Pros:

• Great looking special effects.


• Plenty of gallows humor (if you're into that sort of thing).


• Bloody fun escapism for adults ... and adults only.

Cons:

• Ultra violence ... a "con" for many people.


• The movie feels fifteen minutes too long. Or thereabouts.

Generally:

I guess I'll say three on a five scale. This is an extremely violent movie, but not irredeemably so, and not without it's charms.


Extended Review:

It's been a good summer for comic book fans. Batman, the Hulk and Iron Man were all brought to the screen in big blockbuster movies, and there wasn't a dud in the bunch. Wanted is an adaptation of a limited run comic book series by Mark Millar and J.G. Jones. The movie apparently takes more liberties with the source material than the other movies I mentioned, but maintains the title's "adults only" core. It's probably the weakest comic book based movie of the summer, but it's still a decent movie of a kind. Just don't assume that the "R" rating is a fluke. Wanted is a "hard R" film. This is stylized comic-book fun for grown-ups only.

If you want to make a movie like Wanted, I can give you a "can't miss" recipe:

Ingredients:

• A generous helping of the gleeful, gory violence of 300


• A handful of the remorseless anti-hero character types from Sin City


• A dollop of the cinematography, "bullet time" effects and impossible physics of The Matrix


• The dangerous, underground "secret society" themes from Fight Club ... and while you're at it, get a pinch of that film's oedipus complex motif, too. And borow Fight Club's anti-materialism themes. In fact, the more Fight Club you throw in, the better.

Throw those ingredients together and season with two or three big-name Hollywood stars (Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie, a few other faces you might recognize). The recipe feeds a theater full of people, as long as they have strong stomachs and don't mind a little acid reflux.

There's nothing terribly original here. But if you're in the right mood, it's amusing fluff. Just go in expecting to be entertained entirely (and only) by the movie's special effects and slick black humor. There's not much here in the way of story, subtext, or ideas. There's no real character development, just the same tired old Walter Mitty act that the big studios have recycled for years. The plot is fairly predictable and the ending is a cliche. Oh, it's one of the better cliches, one of my favorites, but a cliche nonetheless.

Instead of originality or ideas, Wanted offers up a stream of words and images that seem designed to offend. But the movie is just barely smart enough for me to call it satire instead of garbage. Over the course of Wanted's running time you'll see people slaughtered by the dozens. That might have offended me, actually, if the movie had seemed to take itself seriously at all. But it doesn't. The is the cinematic equivalent of a bunch of kids with toy guns running around yelling "Bang! Bang! You're dead!" Silly, sure. Pointless? You bet. Fun? Yep.

What else does Wanted offer? Well, there are car chases that make Transporter 2 look plausible. There are exploding rats, specially designed to please the PETA crowd. Oh, and you get to hear Morgan Freeman drop the MF bomb. His character in Wanted ain't about to drive Miss Daisy anywhere.

Now that Wanted is playing in second-run theaters it's probably a reasonable bargain. You could do worse than to spend a couple of bucks on this movie. Or you might want to just wait and rent it on DVD in a couple of months. The film got me to laugh a a few times and a few of the special effects really did look damn cool. This ain't Schindler's List ... this ain't even The Dark Knight. But it doesn't aim to be. Wanted is designed to be a cool looking, outrageous mess with nothing serious to say at all. And it is.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

The true story of novelist and poet Reinaldo Arenas who came of age in his native Cuba as Castro's dictatorship took control of the island. A homosexual, Arenas is persecuted by Castro's Communist regime and eventually finds his way to America.

Pros:

• Javier Bardem is excellent (mostly) in the main role.


• The movie doesn't flinch with it's honest portrayal of Castro's government.

Cons:

• The story is hard to follow and sometimes seems disjointed.


• Cameos from Sean Penn and Johnny Depp provide absolutely nothing other than distractions from the film itself.


• The movie is too long, and yet it spends too little time with the most fascinating elements of it's story.

Generally:

Two and a half, maybe three, on a five scale. The potential for a five-star movie is here ... but it seems to have slipped between the cracks.

Extended Review:

Julian Schnabel's 2000 film Before Night Falls is a frustrating movie. The film is sometimes brilliant but it's often condescending. It's too long in cinematic terms, and yet it feels short on story. The whole is less than the sum of it's scenes and performances. I can't imagine any audience or any film fan who'll see it without registering at least a few major complaints ... and yet there are elements here that are profound and beautiful enough to touch the heart of the most jaded moviegoer.

Javier Bardem turned in my favorite performance in my favorite movie from 2007, No Country For Old Men, and I've been intent on seeing his earlier work ever since. If for no other reason than to get an idea of Bardem's range, No Country... fans might want to check out Before Night Falls. As Reinaldo Arenas, the deeply troubled but talented focus of this movie, Bardem is the polar opposite of No Country's brutal assassin. Here, Bardem plays a gay poet, and at times his performance is way over the top. He stops shy of RuPaul-type shenanigans ... but he gets close enough to justify the mention of RuPaul's name in this review.

Then again, that seems to be the kind of performance the movie wants from him. At least in the first half. For the first hour or so, Before Night Falls is an extremely flamboyant movie. I can't help but wonder, when I see movies like this, what gay people must think of what's on the screen. Some of the performances here drift into what must be crude stereotype. At times, it seems that Before Night Falls wants to send the message that homosexual men are defined by their homosexuality ... and that they're all flirtatious, promiscuous, and overt. Let me be clear; for the first hour, Before Night Falls makes Brokeback Mountain seem like The Searchers.

But at about the half-way point the movie changes direction radically and becomes a story about a man who's made a political prisoner in a country ruled by a brutal communist dictator. I'm a political conservative, so it was at this point that I became more comfortable with the movie. As you'd expect. But it was also at this point that the main character became far more interesting.

In the second half of the movie, Arenas is falsely accused of molesting a pair of teenagers and spends some time on the run, trying to evade capture by Castro's thugs. When he finally is captured and thrown in jail he finds, much to his surprise, that his talent as a writer is cherished by his fellow prisoners. Arenas writes letters home for his cell mates, crafting minor masterpieces that they'd never be able to write on their own. And he spends some time doing his own writing and daydreaming; escaping the prison's walls and into worlds constructed within his mind. Some of these sequences are the movie's strongest, and I wish that the film had allowed us more time with Arenas during his incarceration. It was then that the character was most sympathetic, most likable, and most interesting.

Eventually Arenas is released with relative ease, and I found myself scratching my head over the circumstances of his new found freedom. And this wasn't the only time the movie confused me. There were sequences that seemed to intermingle Arenas's fanciful poetry with his biography, and I was fine with that. I can recognize poetic license when I see it on the screen, and I enjoy it when it's done well. Some of those scenes were done very well and I did enjoy them.

But I didn't enjoy the way the movie would sometimes pick up and/or lose seemingly major characters without explanation. Sometimes a character would have worked his or her way into major elements of the story ... and I'd still not be sure who he or she was supposed to be. And I was especially perplexed by Schnabel's decision to cast Johnny Depp and Sean Penn in roles that amounted to nothing more than glorified cameos. The presence of these two Caucasians, putting on bad fake Spanish accents and chewing on the scenery, totally brought me "out of the movie," so to speak. Depp was especially distracting; he played not one but two minor roles here, and one of them was in a scene that should have been a major showcase for Bardem. Honestly, I couldn't have been more distracted and puzzled if Bugs Bunny had been put on the screen.

SPOILERS FOLLOW: The movie drags on, too, with an oddly violent ending that seemed tacked on as an afterthought. I found that especially irritating, given that shortly before that strange coda there had been a beautiful monologue by Bardem about the joy and wonder of writing. That passage, that dialogue, seemed very final. Closing credits should have appeared with Bardem's last words in that passage. Instead the movie lumbers into a long sequence that suggests that the very ill Arenas's death was at the hands of a friend. That isn't true, the real Arenas died of suicide by overdose. In his suicide letter, Arenas went out of his way to make sure that no other person was blamed for his death. Knowing that makes the end of Before Night Falls seem very strange.

I can sorta recommend Before Night Falls, but with a number of qualifiers: It's strictly for fans of Javier Bardem, that's one qualifier. For another, I'd suggest it as a good movie for film students who want a film to pick apart, discuss, dissect and debate. I won't recommend it, though, for anyone simply looking for two enjoyable hours of cinema. Before Night Falls is a mixed bag ... a few diamonds and a big helping of junk.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

The actors and film-makers involved in the production of a small B-movie have their lives turned upside down when their production begins to generate an Oscar buzz.

Pros:

• Nothing. Just nothing.


• Really, nothing at all.


• The movie has a cast of improvisational actors I've grown to love, but seeing good actors turn out a terrible film is not really a pro, is it? So, really, I got nothing.

Cons:

• This movie is supposed to be a comedy, but it IS NOT funny.


• No, it's not funny ... but it IS tedious, smug, ugly, slow, uninspired and downright mean.


• I actually think my life is a little worse for having seen this film.

Generally:

Zero stars. I considered giving it half a star because Ricky Gervais has one line that made me laugh, but that brief chortle just served to magnify how awful the rest of this movie is.

Extended Review:

Is there anything worse than hating a movie you hoped to really enjoy?

Last night Wendy and I watched Christopher Guest's most recent film, For Your Consideration. Wendy and I are both big fans of Guest and his movies. We both loved Best In Show and enjoyed Waiting for Guffman very much. Neither of us swooned over A Mighty Wind, but it wasn't a bad movie. So we thought we had every reason to expect For Your Consideration to be fair-to-excellent.

Guest has quite a track-record, and he's done a lot to deserve my admiration. He is one of the writers and actors behind This Is Spinal Tap, which I've called the second funniest movie of all time, right behind Blazing Saddles. And his outings as a director (the films listed above) have been mostly impressive. Guest works with a faithful cabal of improv specialists, and doesn't really script his movies. Instead he comes up with a story outline and allows his actors to improvise their lines and actions. This has resulted in some very funny films ... and, now, it's resulted in one terrible one.

...Consideration is a movie about a group of Hollywood has-beens and also-rans who begin to believe the hype surrounding their latest production. The word among industry insiders is that the movie and several of the actors are being considered for Academy Award nominations. As the hype grows, we see the characters morph into really desperate, superficial, delusional people. I guess Guest and his crew thought this was all good fun, but it was just depressing. As the actors become more and more obsessed with the idea of finally getting that long-denied recognition, they become phonier and harder to like. What's worse, they start out unfunny and become even more so. And that's the kiss of death for a comedy.

The gags are flat, predictable, tired and annoying ... and this movie hammers them into the ground mercilessly. Unfunny joke after unfunny joke reminds us that the characters in this movie are past their prime ... and that they don't understand the internet ... that their dreams have largely been frustrated ... and that they can't even interact in any meaningful way with each other. Then the "Oscar buzz" gets their attention and we see them get Botox injections ... and go on MTV style television programs ... and appear on talk shows wearing dresses cut low enough to make Mariah Carey blush.

Then, of course, their Oscar dreams are dashed. The Oscar nods go to other actors, and we get to see the principle characters cry ... and do local infomercials ... and put on terrible "performance art" in the aftermath of their perceived failure.

Look, dark stuff CAN make for funny films. I've seen and loved a number of really dark comedies (Fight Club, anyone?) But please don't get the wrong idea about ...Consideration. This is not a dark comedy. It's just a bad one.

It's as though Christopher Guest hated the characters in his own movie and wanted to make them suffer.

Which is fine. It's his movie, he can do what he wants. But I wish he'd warned me. See, I thought that we were renting a movie that would make us laugh.

What else? While I'm venting, I might as well get it all out. So here goes:

Why does Christopher Guest give Fred Willard open license to do any damn fool thing he wants to do in his movies? Fred Willard isn't really that funny. He's never been very funny. More often than not he's grating. Tedious. As annoying as a paper cut on a hemorrhoid. For Your Consideration is a little less than an hour and a half long ... but by the time it was over I felt like I'd spent about a week with Fred Willard. And I wanted to PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE.

And Eugene Levy isn't funny, either. In fact, the only actor I'd say is more annoying than Eugene Levy and Fred Willard is that moron David Allen Grier. But you know going into a Chris Guest movie that you're going to have to put up with Willard and Levy, and until now it's always been worth it. Not this time, though. No, no, no, no, boy, no, not at all. Watching this movie was like taking a long car ride sandwiched between Eugene Levy and Fred Willard ... and then an hour and a half into the trip they stop the car and let you out and you don't know where the hell you are or why you ever got in that damn car in the first place. And it's raining.

Even the people I generally enjoy most in Christopher Guest's movies were middlin' to bad in this film. I've been a Parker Posey fan for years now, but she was just blah here. Jane Lynch has been the best thing in a number of comedies, but in this movie all she does is a Mary Hart impression ... and you don't need Jane Lynch for that. You just need a mannequin. John Michael Higgins can usually make me laugh just by moving his eyebrows, but all he did in ...Consideration was wear a red wig and keep talking about his "Choctaw ancestors." And he was never ONCE funny. And Guest himself, the actor behind such memorably hillarious roles as Nigel Tufnel and Corky St. Clair, just phones in a half-ass Mel Brooks impression in this movie. It's just awful. Painful. Really, it's all painful to watch.

Even Jennifer Coolidge, for Pete's sake, never made me laugh in this movie.

Wendy and I had felt bad about putting off a Chris Guest movie for so long. This one had been on the shelves at our local video store for nearly two years before we finally picked it up tonight.

I wish we'd just left it there. We'd have been better off with anything else. A Vin Diesel movie, even. Anything other than this godawful waste of film and time. Chris Guest is officially in the same boat as M. Night Shyamalan, as far as I'm concerned. We trusted him, we sang his praises, we came to love him ... and he hath betrayed us. For Your Consideration is a miserable movie.

Trailer:

(PS - If you're curious, Wendy hated it, too.)

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

Batman is caught between the Joker, a villain who wants to bring anarchy to Gotham, and Harvey Dent, an ambitious DA who's sense of justice is matched by his sense of self-worth.

Pros:

• The story, acting and directing are all first rate.


• Fun, exciting special effects.


• Fans of the comic book (especially when the title is handled by Frank Miller) might see this as the first true Batman movie.

Cons:

• It's long, nearly two and a half hours.


• The violence and gore are arguably better suited for R-rated material.


• A couple of plot-holes distracted me a bit.

Generally:

Oh, easily a five on a five scale. It delivers more bang for your buck than any other 2008 summer movie (I'd imagine).

Extended Review:

Scott Nehring is one of the few who didn't enjoy The Dark Knight, and his analysis of the film (warning: spoilers) forced me to examine my own reaction to the latest installment of the Batman saga.

So, OK, here's the truth: I'm a fanboy. I'm a Batman nut who went into the theater prepared to have a great time. That much is true. Consider that qualifier before you take anything I have to say about the movie to heart.

In my defense, though, I don't think that the mere presence of the cape-and-cowl is enough to make me enjoy a movie. I despised Joel Schumacher's two campy, day-glo Batman farces from the '90's. They were too much like the kitschy mid '60's TV show. The Batman in the comics I've enjoyed is not a doofus. I like my Batman like I like my coffee: Dark. Bitter. A bit crazy. (It's tricky to brew crazy coffee, by the way.)

The Dark Knight features the kind of Batman I enjoy. Played by Christian Bale, Chris Nolan's version of Batman is the ultimate Republican: By day he's a jet-setting millionaire; a king-maker and power-broker with more money than God and AT&T combined. By night he's a crime fighter who lives by his own strict scruples (no moral relativity here, thank you) and is willing to go to war regardless of the repercussions if he thinks it's the right thing to do. He's even willing to assume the role of the bad guy in the eyes of the public as long as he's convinced that his actions really do promote the common good. Chris Nolan's Batman is basically Dick Cheney, forty years younger, in a black ninja suit. How cool is that?

Nolan's previous Batman film, Batman Begins, was the first Batman movie to really focus on the main character himself instead of the movie's villains. Having given the caped crusader his long-overdue day in the sun, Nolan must have felt comfortable focusing more on Batman's rivals in the new film. And the Joker (Heath Ledger) and Two-Face (Aaron Eckhart) of The Dark Knight are both just what they should be. Both of these villains are compelling and endlessly fascinating because both actors play their roles with totally straight faces. There's no winking at the camera (see Jack Nicholson's Joker from 1987's Batman) and there's no manic scenery-chewing (as in Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face in 1995's Batman Forever).

Bale and Eckhart are both good in their roles, but the late Heath Ledger steals this movie from both of them. His version of the Clown Prince Of Crime puts the emphasis on crime rather than on clown, and the performance is creepy, fun, and totally original. One of my few complaints with the movie is that I'd sit and look forward to the Joker's next scene whenever he wasn't on screen. And to think, I initially opposed the casting of Ledger in the role. Just goes to show you that I don't know nothin'. I enjoyed every element of Ledger's performance ... even his Crispin-Glover-channeling vocal work.

The most surprising thing about The Dark Knight, though, is that it works not only as a comic-book movie but also as a crime drama. The Joker, as portrayed by Ledger, is as enigmatic and as scary as any real-life terrorist I've ever seen portrayed in a film. Harvey "Two-Face" Dent pursues the Joker and the Gotham mafia with an obsessive determination that reminded me of Popeye Doyle and Eliot Ness. And Christian Bale's Batman is as focused and as volatile as Travis Bickle ... though maybe a bit better mannered. So, yes, this is a comic book movie, but on another level it's just a crime drama with a twist: all three of the principle characters happen to be completely insane.

The Dark Knight delivers everything a fan of Batman Begins could have hoped for. There's lots of great action and plenty of intensity, there's a story that never (in my opinion) became predictable or directionless, and there's some great acting in fascinating roles. If Nolan and company turn out a third Batman movie this good, it'll be a first in the history of trilogies.

Trailer

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

This is the story of the relationship between a drug addicted inner-city teacher and one of his students. Ryan Gosling plays Dan Dunne, a history teacher and cocaine addict who's downward spiral is rapidly reaching bottom. Shareeka Epps is Drey, his exceptional but troubled thirteen year old student.

Pros:

• Shareeka Epps gives the best debut performance I've seen in twelve or fifteen years.


• Ryan Gosling and Anthony Mackie (as a drug dealer) turn in equally remarkable performances.


• One of the most honest, unflinching scripts about drug abuse and loneliness that I've ever seen filmed.

Cons:

• A jerky, hand-held camera style that got on my nerves throughout.


• The movie's intensity might be too much for many viewers. This movie will haunt you.

Generally:

Four on a five scale. Only the haphazard cinematography kept me from being totally absorbed by this movie.


When's the last time you saw a movie that made you want to run out into the street, grab people passing by, and tell them "Come with me, you've GOT to see this movie"? I've just finished watching such a movie, Half Nelson, a film that boasts some of the most enthralling acting I think I've ever seen. And if superb acting weren't enough, this movie's story never makes one false move. It's believable and absorbing all the way through, with an honest and powerful ending that makes no compromises.

This is the kind of movie that I hope to see every time I watch a drama.

The subject-matter in Half-Nelson is, I admit, a bit off-putting. Wendy had to beg, borrow and threaten to get me to sit down and watch a movie about a crack-addicted teacher and a troubled student. It sounded like a total downer of a movie. And in some ways, it is. This isn't a "feel-good" film by any stretch. It's demanding, but rewarding. It's often unpleasant, but it's thoroughly genuine. And the characters, far from cliches, are richly embodied. I found myself feeling involved with the lives of these characters, caring about their decisions and their futures, and emotionally invested in the story.

As Drey, the thirteen year old girl, Shareeka Epps absolutely steals this movie. Her performance crackles with pent-up energy and desperation. With a brother in jail, an absentee father who simply doesn't care about his kids, and a mother who has to work double shifts to support her family, Drey is in dire need of a role model, a father figure. There are two men in her life who are the likely candidates for that role.

One is her history teacher, Mr. Dunne. During the course of the movie, there is evidence to indicate that at one point, Mr. Dunne was an inspiring and important teacher for a number of students. But when the story begins, Dan Dunne is at the end of his rope. A long-time addiction to cocaine has given way to a burgeoning new crack habit, and Dunne can barely keep it together. His dedication to his students, especially those (like Drey) who he coaches in basketball, is apparent. But Dunne has lost the ability to steer his life. As the teacher, Ryan Gosling is really outstanding. This is one of those performances wherein the character's behavior just gets worse and worse. Nonetheless, the acting is such that, as a viewer, I remained concerned and captivated.

Drey's other potential father figure is Frank, a shady guy who has apparently played a role in the arrest and incarceration of Drey's brother. Frank shows an interest in Drey and her family early in the film, but it's obvious that he's not the guardian angel that he'd have the girl believe he is. Frank is a drug dealer, and he's always on the look-out for new blood to keep his product on the street. Drey's brother Mike was loyal and effective for Frank. Maybe Drey will be, too. Anthony Mackie plays Frank with such conviction and complexity that he manages to make the character human, even somewhat likable. His performance, like those by Gosling and Epps, is something to behold.

Still, this movie belongs to Shareeka Epps. Every little nuance she brings to her performance is powerful and very, very real. It's in the way she speaks volumes with her eyes and her posture. The way she hold back smiles, as though she's learned to mistrust happiness. The way she packs two or three word lines with intensity and emotion. Her work in this movie is flat-out astounding.

Half Nelson hinges on these three strong performances, but the story itself is top-notch, too. The movie never ceased to surprise me with it's honesty. In one scene we meet Dan Dunne's family, people who appear to be model versions of upper-middle-class white liberals. They wear their politics on their sleeves, but like Dan himself, they're both more and less than they seem. There are a number of ugly flaws beneath their glossy progressive interior, including emotional disconnection, alcoholism ... even racism. When the family characters were first introduced, I became uneasy. I thought the movie was going to become preachy, showing us examples of the successful, informed liberals that Dan might have been, were it not for drugs. Not so. Dan's family, for all their pontifications and pronouncements, are clearly the same damaged stock that turned out this damaged history teacher.

I don't want to say too much about the story, the plot progressions, and the powerful ending. I will say, though, that the movie ends with small signs of hope. But it's an honest hope, not a miracle 180 degree turn-around. That's important in terms of the movie's truth and realism. This movie is too candid for a sugar-coated conclusion. And I'm glad for that. A character like Drey, as portrayed by the remarkable Shareeka Epps, deserves both hope and honesty. Half-Nelson delivers both ... for Drey and for the audience alike.

The trailer for Half Nelson:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies, You Tube

Synopsis

Michael Clayton is a lawyer who specializes in loop holes. His firm calls him in when a client needs to get out of trouble in any way possible. In this movie we meet him at a cross-roads, as he's begun to ask himself some difficult questions about his life. Then a colleague suffers an emotional collapse that jeopardizes a big-money corporate law suit, and Clayton finds himself playing an important role in a series of startling events that he can't control.

Pros:

• Great direction and a stellar script.


• All the performances are strong.


• A believable, powerful conclusion.

Cons:

• You have GOT to pay attention to this film. That's not really a "con" at all, but some viewers might find the movie frustrating.


• One or two scenes were a bit too conventional for an otherwise original film.

Generally:

4 on a 5 scale. Much, much better than I had expected.

Extended Review:

I simply had no intentions of seeing Michael Clayton. A number of things sent up red flags for me about the movie. All the big-time Hollywood critics loved it, and it's often a bad sign when they fawn over a movie using keywords such as "corporate America," "crisis of conscience" and "George Clooney."

I've been inoculated to seeing flimsy movies that are really little more than thinly veiled left-wing sermons. You see, In the past I've let liberal film critics lead me astray on more than one occasion. I've sat through holier-than-thou, high minded leftist crap such as The Contender and The Dead Poet's Society and Brokeback Mountain. The critics praised 'em, I watched 'em, and then I felt robbed of money and time. Those aren't movies, they're left-wing screeds with sloppy, pseudo-narratives thrown in to justify their existence.*

So I've learned the signs and memorized the red-flag words, and it was a safe bet that Michael Clayton was just this year's Syriana. That is to say, a piece of hollow propaganda with no redeeming qualities.

But then a film-reviewer who's opinion I've come to value praised the film, and I gave it a second thought. Tonight, after having actually watched Michael Clayton, I find myself ready to admit that it's a fine, smart, worthwhile piece of cinema. It's a movie ... an honest-to-goodness movie ... heck, it's even one of the better ones from last year ... and it's well worth your time.

There is much to recommend Michael Clayton. The screenplay and direction (both by Tony Gilroy) are tight as a drum. There's hardly a wasted scene, there isn't one dead-end development, there's not a single superfluous line of dialogue. As a matter of fact, if you (like me) have gotten lazy because of movies that hand every story progression to you on a silver platter, consider yourself warned: This movie demands that you pay attention. Be sure and hit the pause button if you dash to the kitchen for a Coke.

Thankfully, Gilroy's actors rise to the challenges of his script. George Clooney, in the title role, gives one of his typical Clooney-esque performances. But this is a role that calls for a Clooney-esque performance. Clayton is a guy who has gone about as far as good looks and charm can take him, and is now just beginning to realize that somewhere along the way he forgot to do anything substantial with his life. One scene in particular, involving a conversation between Clayton and his young son about Clayton's layabout brother, might be the best single scene in Clooney's career.

Tilda Swinton and Sydney Pollack are good, too. But Tom Wilkinson nearly steals the entire movie from all of them as Arthur Edens, a bi-polar corporate lawyer who experiences a moment of clarity so sharp and painful that it causes him a nervous breakdown. Tom Wilkinson has been very good in everything he's done this decade ... from In The Bedroom to Batman Begins to The Exorcism Of Emily Rose. With Michael Clayton he's really solidified my opinion of him as one of the best actors working today.

There are a couple of predictable moments. I saw a certain "bet you're surprised to see me alive" scene coming a mile away, and a couple of scenes involving two hired guns seemed a little implausible to me. But even those elements are slight complaints compared to how much Michael Clayton does well. I brushed the mild flaws off and the movie made them up to me readily.

Over the last few years there has been a flood of liberal movies. I've learned to sniff 'em out, and I stayed away from films like Lions For Lambs and and Rendition and Good Night And Good Luck and on and on and on. Those movies tanked at the box office and I felt validated. But I blew the call with Michael Clayton. This isn't a screed, this is a tight, smart, thoughtful film. If you appreciate that kind of thing, you'll enjoy this movie.

Trailer:

---

* - I'm not opposed to movies with liberal messages on principle. I can name a number of liberal films that I've loved, including Dr. Strangelove, Dead Man Walking, Norma Rae, Apocalypse Now, and Dances With Wolves. But when a movie has an insultingly bad plot and clearly exists just to advance a political position, I always feel ripped off. I'd feel the same way about preachy conservative films ... if there were such a thing.

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies, Politics

Synopsis

Random, frequently vulgar sketch comedy that satirizes the news, the media, and American culture.

Pros:

• Much of the same smart irreverence that makes The Onion the funniest site on the internet.


• Several big, BIG laughs.

Cons:

• A number of sketches fall flat.

Generally:

Two and a half or maybe three stars on a five scale. Fans of the website will enjoy much of it.

Extended Review:

As I recently mentioned in a comment to Rhodester, I can't imagine going back to life without the internet if only for two reasons: my addictions to the IMDb and The Onion. The IMDb, of course, is the Internet Movie Database, a film-lovers invaluable resource. The Onion, a news-parody website, is consistently the funniest, best written humor site on the internet.

In 2003, the good folks behind The Onion website made The Onion Movie, a sketch comedy film in the meandering, crude tradition of films like The Kentucky Fried Movie or the mid-80's cult hit, Amazon Women On The Moon. Like those movies, The Onion Movie is extremely adult fare, with most of the sketches involving crude language and/or visual gags. And, like those two older films, The Onion Movie doesn't have quite enough good material to stay consistent for it's entire running time. It's a little better than either of those films, though, because the parts that are funny are howling, knee-slapping, tears-streaming funny. Credit the writers who make the website such a consistent joy.

The film sat on a shelf from 2003 until earlier this year (when it was released on DVD), apparently because it's distributors had no idea what to do with it. The movie is said to have offended a number of test audiences, and I'm not surprised by that. Much of the humor here is intended to fly in the face of political correctness. Gags involving minorities, women, terrorism, religion and even the handicapped are here by the ton.

Like 2006's Borat, another crass and random comedy that I loved, The Onion Movie holds nothing sacred. Anything and everything is plucked for parody, especially those people and institutions that take themselves very seriously. The Onion Movie doesn't deliver as much yuck-for-the-buck as Borat, but when this movie made me laugh, it made me laugh really, really hard.

Some of the sketches are dead-on. One of my favorites involve an armed gunman who goes into a bank to steal a job. Then there's a young pseudo-urban white guy who wants to come off black, until he's actually mistaken for a black man. I laughed at a parody of Stephen Seagal films (staring Seagal himself). Best of all, a running segment during which film critics dissect the movie itself while it's in progress really takes the vinegar out of movie critics. Even amateur ones like me.

Other sketches don't really work. A Britney Spears send-up is soooo ten minutes ago. A sketch about home computers just seems as outdated as the older PCs it mocks. A running gag wherein the Onion's TV news anchor does battle with his parent company, ala Network, is just a reminder that the classic Network is a MUCH smarter, MUCH funnier film. And, to be honest, even that funny Steven Seagal sketch is revisited a few too many times.

The movie's big ending, an attempt to tie all the disparate elements together into something that makes sense, doesn't work very well either. But the film's brief running time (about 80 minutes) didn't give me time to really get bored, and the brilliant sketches are spaced fairly evenly, insuring a big laugh every ten minutes or so. If you're a fan of the brilliant Onion website, this one is worth a rental. It's not as good as the Onion website at it's best, but it's probably better than whatever sitcom you might otherwise watch tonight.

Trailer:

Labels: Media, Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

A bad storm brings a super-spooky mist across the lake. The residents of Anytown, USA end up trapped in a grocery store as unspeakable, huge monsters come out of the mist, looking for people to eat.

Pros:

• Thomas Jane and Andre Braugher are both decent in roles that don't ask much of them.


• Cool mutant spider thing.

Cons:

• Corny, cliched characters.


• Predictable plot developments.


• Bad ending.

Generally:

two on a five scale. Just watch Shawshank again.

Extended Review:

The Mist is the kind of loose, undemanding b-movie that allows your mind plenty of time to wander while you're watching it. My mind wandered, and I ended up asking myself questions like, for instance, why is it that when a guy catches on fire in a movie, he'll always run around, flailing his arms, setting other things on fire as he goes? Doesn't anybody stop, drop and roll like they taught us in school?

And why is it that when nefarious government scientists open a portal to another world, it's always a far worse world than ours? Why can't our world be the worse one for a change? Why can't the other world be a lovely, blissful Eden full of beautiful creatures that come into our world and teach us how to cure cancer, play piano and make the perfect grilled cheese sandwich?

I even had time to wonder about the physics that allow an insect to walk on a glass window. How would that process be effected if the insect were twenty-five pounds or so? Would the sheet of glass have to be extraordinarily thick for it to work?

I read the short Stephen King novel that The Mist is based on some twenty years ago, and I remember enjoying it. I remember thinking that it was like a comic book without graphic art. It wasn't "literature," it was bubblegum for the brain, and pretty good bubblegum at that. The movie isn't nearly as good as the source material, and that's a shame since it comes with a pretty good pedigree.

This film stars Thomas Jane and Andre Braugher, actors who've done work I've enjoyed in the past. Then there's Marcia Gay Harden, who's been nominated for two Oscars and won one of them. Frank Darabont scripted and directed The Mist, and he's done great work bringing Stephen King to the screen in the past. The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile are both wonderful films and each of them rises above the sum of it's parts. Unfortunately, this time out, the movie gets bogged down by it's own lesser elements.

Sometimes b-grade sci-fi can transcend the genre and end up fun and thoughtful. This isn't one of those instances. The Mist is stocked full of standard b-movie devices; characters that are clichés, predictable plot elements and special effects that don't quite deliver the chills they aim for. The actors all perform as well as the script will allow and the direction is fine, it's just that this movie never quite got going and ended up taking two hours to not go much of anywhere.

A bit more about those cliched characters: I was really surprised to realize that Marcia Gay Harden was in this movie. Doesn't she usually do headier stuff, movies designed to provoke critics into using words like "lyrical" and "atmospheric?" Yeah, she does. So how'd she end up in a sci-fi b-movie? Well, turns out that her character is one of those cartoon Christians. The kind that Hollywood loves to shove down our throat as examples of what they think all Christians are. As though everyone who doesn't embrace abortion on demand is a Westboro Baptist congregant. By the time the movie was over I'd become convinced that Harden took the part so she could get paid to show her contempt for religion in general.

You know, now that I think about it, King might have some kind of fixation on religious women. Carrie's mom was a self-righteous nutball, too. So was the mother of Johnny Smith in The Dead Zone. Maybe King had one hell of a mean Sunday School teacher when he was a kid.

The worst thing about The Mist, though, is it's ending. King's original story had a real humdinger of an ending, sorta like the end of The Birds, but to the tenth power, scale-wise. This version of the story, however, continues past the point where King ended his version. Now we're handed an ending that's supposed to be ironic and powerful but simply comes off like a vulgar joke. I call BS on that.

No, The Mist isn't a terrible film, and Jane and Braugher were both fine in their roles. Some of the special effects were OK, although most fell flat, and I did have a couple of genuine jumps during scarier scenes. But ultimately this mist evaporated, leaving nothing behind but a disappointing residue.

Trailer:

Labels: Entertainment, Movie Reviews, Movies

Again, like last night, I logged on with the intentions of writing a movie review ... and, again, it ain't gonna happen.

Tonight we watched Volver, and I enjoyed it. It was quite unlike anything I've seen before. Penelope Cruz did some great work in the main role, and she was beautiful, besides. Click here and check out her visage on the movie's official poster and packaging ... like a young Sophia Loren, only prettier. She really was outstanding in the film.

But my enjoyment of this Spanish-language film was hampered, even ruined at times, by some odd subtitles. Did I write odd? Downright friggin' weird is probably a better way to describe it. And the fact that the story itself is pretty weird only heightened my confusion.

For instance, at one point, Penelope Cruz's character sings a song that is apparently called Volver. The lyrics to which oughta give the viewer an idea of the significance of the movie's title. But for some reason, the words of the song weren't included in the subtitles. It was a nice song, it sounded pretty, it clearly included the word "Volver," and I'd have liked to know what it was all about. So I was distracted and a little frustrated by that.

So rather than write the movie review I'd wanted to write, I've been fruitlessly looking around the net for a translation of the lyrics, although I can't be sure what the song is called in Spanish. A guy ought not have to do this kind of thing after the fact in order to better feel that he enjoyed a movie.

I've put the disc in the PC to show you some of what I'm talking about ...At another point in the movie, Penelope's character (who is running a restaurant) complements her barmaid on her drink-mixing skills:

To which the barmaid responds:

I, uh... well, OK. I think I know what you mean, and I might even agree, but ... uh ... what?

I don't think that's technically incorrect translating ... but it sure is a bit odd.

It's not as odd, of course, as the infamous Chinese bootleg subtitles for Star Wars:

But it was a bit off-putting, nonetheless.

Anyway, once I got past the subtitle issue and just tried to enjoy the movie, I did enjoy it. Now, it is an odd movie. It's very strange. The story involves attempted rape and murder and someone who may or may not be a ghost. And it's one of those movies that features a number of heroic and/or sympathetic female characters and a pack of lecherous, disgusting male characters. And I think I mentioned the subtitle issue.

But, in spite of all that, the movie is more good than bad. Cinematically, it's really very good. All the critics I had heard were right about two things: Penelope Cruz turns in an outstanding performance, and the movie's visual pallet is beautiful.

And Penelope makes for some dang nice eye-candy, besides.

So see Volver if you're in the mood for something a bit odd with no likable male characters and some weird subtitles. If I were gonna write a full-on review, I'd probably give it three out of four stars.

Trailer for Volver:

Labels: Humor, Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

In a nutshell, this is The Blair Witch Godzilla: A giant monster attacks New York. The audience point-of-view is through the lense of a hand-held video camera as a group of survivors try to escape, all the while video-taping the events.

Pros:

• Short, sweet, pure fun.


• The movie doesn't try to justify it's thrills with high-minded sermons or science lessons. This is a good old fashioned b-movie.


• Great special effects and a pay-off that pays off.

Cons:

• A few images momentarily ruined my fun because they were so reminiscent of 9/11.


• This movie should have gotten an R-rating. Blood, intensity and swear-words abound.

Generally:

3.5 on a five scale. Good fun for grown-up action/horror movie fans.

Extended Review:

The first I heard about Cloverfield came in the form of an untitled, mysterious preview that played before last summer's Transformers. Frankly, I wasn't moved at all. It looked like one more big-budget action film, although one with the Blair Witch conceit of pseudo-documentary. That is to say, it proposed to be an artifact; a piece of video shot by the survivors of some sort of an attack on New York.

My immediate gut reaction was that the movie was probably in bad taste. Images of New York under attack seemed a little exploitive with 9/11 still a fairly fresh memory … and, besides, how many more big-budget end-of-the-world dog-and-pony-shows did Hollywood expect me to buy into?

Even the movie's eventual poster, featuring a beheaded Statute of Liberty, seemed just a little crass to me. It took Cube pointing out that the Statue of Liberty has provided an iconic centerpiece for years and years of science fiction for me to put it in the right context.

Finally, the movie's January release date came around and I was shocked to find out that most people seemed to agree that Cloverfield was actually pretty good. Both professional critcs and real people were generally happy with the film, so Wendy and I decided to give it a shot.

We saw it this evening, and I really wouldn't mind seeing it again. Cloverfield is a blessedly short, utterly light, totally enjoyable little action/horror movie. It's fun. Total fun. It has cringes, a few laughs, and some really good special effects. And it doesn't propose to be anything more than exactly what it is. This is a b-movie that knows it's limits and performs above expectations within them.

There are no proposed lessons here about science-gone-awry. There are no sermons about the environment or animal rights or nuclear testing. There is nothing here except a big city, a big monster, and a lot of running and yelling. While watching it, you might find yourself struggling to suppress the urge to yell "Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"

Even the movie's Blair Witch device … the hand-held perspective … didn't grow tiresome. Mostly because the cast was likable and the script was tight. Ever notice that the three actors in The Blair Witch Project never went on to do anything? That's because everybody (even those of us who liked the film) friggin' hated them by the time Blair Witch was over. That's not an issue here. The cast is full of young, pretty people who seem smart enough to realize that none of them is the real star here. No hamming it up, no scenery chewing … just a lot of running and screaming. "Wheeeeeee!!"

Now, I have to admit, a few early shots did remind me uncomfortably of 9/11 news coverage. Smoke and ash and free-floating sheets of paper on New York streets are a very "real" image to me after that awful day. Nonetheless, once the monster (this movie's real star) begins to reveal itself, Cloverfield turns into total escapism. A few glimpses of Godzilla circa 2008 and I was comfortably in Hollywood La-La Land.

I'm reluctant to tell you too much about the monster itself. It really is best to go into this movie cold. The less you know the more you'll be swept away. But if you're the kind of person who just has to peek, you can peek to three different varying degrees below:

• Click here to see my own "artistic interpretation" of what the Cloverfield Monster looks like.


• Click here to see a more legit, fairly accurate artistic rendering of the Cloverfield Monster.


• And click here to read about the literary archetype that the Monster represents … and if you're familiar with this particular thing, I'm sure you'll agree that it was about time someone tried to represent it on the silver screen.

My complaints with Cloverfield are few, but I do see this movie as yet another example of MPAA incompetence. Cloverfield is rated PG-13, but there is enough blood and gore, intensity and harsh language to easily justify an R rating. We take our kids to PG-13 rated movies fairly frequently. I'm glad we didn't take them to this one. This movie was a lot of fun, but in my opinion it's for adults only.

And the pay-off? Forget about it. Cloverfield features the best new vision of menace since Ridley Scott's original alien, combined with Godzilla's size, King Kong's power and Hillary's breath. This thing is hideous. I loved it.

Trailer:

Labels: Entertainment, Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

In Rob Zombie's remake of John Carpenter's 1978 horror classic, serial killer Michael Myers escapes from confinement to bring murder and terror to his hometown.

Pros:

• Uh… let me think…


• …Ummm… there has to be something positive...


• This remake really makes you appreciate the original film. That's all I got.

Cons:

• This movie isn't scary.


• Slow. Boring. Predictable. Completely goofy. An utter and complete waste of time. This movie is crap.

Generally:

0 on a five scale. As lame and pointless a remake as I've ever seen.

Extended Review:

If Rob Zombie is the master of modern horror, then horror is dead. I haven't seen Zombie's first movie, House Of A Thousand Cliches, but I thought his second film, The Devil's Rejects, was tedious, tiresome, and utterly uninspired. Now, with his remake of John Carpenter's classic Halloween, Zombie seems hell-bent on making it extremely hard for his fans to justify his career as a director. I've seen some bad remakes, and I've seen a great many stupid, insulting horror films … but it's rare that I see a bad remake that's this stupid and insulting. Rob Zombie's Halloween absolutely sucks.

There isn't much to say beyond that. I guess I could give some specifics; cite specific reasons that this film is so bad. How about some of the following:

• John Carpenter knew how to make his boogeyman scary. The Michael Myers of the original film was an enigma. We knew next to nothing about him, only that he was brutal and murderous and seemingly unstoppable. Zombie, however, apparently thought that the thing to do was give us a ton of Michael Myers back-story. It takes Zombie 45 minutes to establish the same back-story that Carpenter established in fewer than ten minutes. In the process, Zombie manages to make Michael Myers so mundane that he got on my nerves rather than scared me.



• In Rob Zombie's world, there is apparently a large butcher's knife within reach at least every ten feet. I've never seen this much cutlery on the Home Shopping Network.



• Everyone in the movie … everyone … uses the f-word. Kids. Parents. Old people. Doctors. Cops. I don't remember any nuns in the movie, but if there had been any, I'm sure Zombie would have had them interjecting the f-word into the prayers of the Rosary. I'm no linguistic prude, but come on! There are people who don't drop the f-bomb every seven words!



• As an apparent homage, Zombie retains in his film a number of elements of the original. The trademark Michael Myers mask, the theme music, a number of leitmotifs. These "homages" only served as constant reminders that the original film was much better.



• Zombie seems intent on casting his wife in every film he does, in a major role, no matter how inappropriate. In Halloween, Sheri Moon Zombie plays the killer's mother … and just to remind us how hot Zombie thinks his wife is, his version of the killer's mother is a stripper. And, yes, the movie includes the prerequisite workin'-the-pole dance scene. Nothing ruins a movie like these kinds of superfluous "Oh, come ON!" moments.

I watched Zombie's Halloween remake purely out of curiosity, even though most of the movie critics in the world tried to warn me that it was a waste of time. I swear, I will never waste another second of my life on another Rob Zombie project. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The first Halloween was a genuinely scary thrillride. This one is a boring, childish, consistently bad pile of garbage. Zombie should be forced to watch this film over and over again until he says "Oh, I get it. This is really lame." And then promises to never make another movie again.

Don't make the mistake I made. Don't waste 109 minutes of of your life on Rob Zombie's Halloween.

Don't even waste time on the trailer:

Labels: Entertainment, Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

In East Germany in the 1980’s, a communist government surveillance expert studies a playwright who’s suspected of subversive, anti-socialist intentions. The government spy gets caught up in the playwright’s life in a surprising way that changes both his own motives and his own life, and ultimately has a tremendous effect on the lives of the playwright and those in his inner circle. (German; subtitled)

Pros:

• Solid direction, engrossing story.


• Strong performances.


• Smart, thoughtful. This film is something special.

Cons:

• A moment of violence toward the end of the film that seemed jarring and out of place.

Generally:

4 and a half out of five stars. Great film.

Extended Review:

In 1974, between installments of the Godfather series, Francis Ford Coppola released a relatively subdued, small film called The Conversation. Featuring one of Gene Hackman’s finest performances in the lead roll, The Conversation is my favorite of Coppola’s films, mostly for the same reasons that make it seem an anomaly among his work. The Conversation is character driven and hinges on the quiet power of Hackman’s acting. Given the nature of most of Coppola’s other films, this small movie seems almost out of place.

It was impossible for me to watch The Lives Of Others without thinking about The Conversation. Both films are stories about surveillance experts who get drawn into the lives of the people they’re spying on; drawn in to the point of becoming participants in the events they’re supposed to simply observe. Both movies work primarily because of strong performances by their lead actors. But The Lives Of Others is an even less conventional film than The Conversation. It more honestly considers the ambiguities and the gray areas between right and wrong than Coppola’s film. I still prefer The Conversation to The Lives Of Others if only because the older movie is punchier, more “economical.” But, if I’m completely honest, I’d have to say that I believe that The Lives Of Others is more resonant, and probably has more to say about the conflicts within the human soul than The Conversation does. More than most other films do, for that matter.

Much has been written by a number of self-congratulatory critics who’ve jumped at the chance to draw parallels between 1980’s East Germany, as depicted in The Lives Of Others, and Patriot-Act-era America. Don’t believe the hype. Any thread that might exist between modern American politics and this story is tenuous at best, and any reasonable viewer would surely note the differences between communist oppression and American liberty. In a DVD extra interview, writer/director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck makes it clear that his story isn’t intended as metaphor for the modern world. It’s instead a commentary on the inhumane policies of Soviet style communism and the way that a genuine love for mankind might have changed men like Lenin for the better. Ultimately, though, politics are a secondary element in The Lives Of Others. At it’s heart, this is simply a story about loneliness and desperation, and about the human need to trust and be trusted. Von Donnersmarck isn’t as concerned here about political matters as he is about matters of the heart. To the extent that communism is a factor here, it simply serves as the source of ubiquitous dread that haunts the characters.

As Wiesler, the government man, Ulrich Mühe gives a performance that reminded me quite a bit of a young Kevin Spacey. I mean that as a serious compliment. I’m talking here about the Kevin Spacey of movies like Glengarry Glen Ross, not the guy who makes films like K-Pax. I’m talking about Kevin Spacey in his prime. Mühe reaches that level of acting in The Lives Of Others, and his performance carries the film. The role calls for subtle character development, and Mühe never plays his whole hand. I sometimes found myself surprised by the character's actions, but I never found them implausible. Over the course of this movie we see a man change dramatically, but in baby steps, and often against his own conscious will. Another actor might have overplayed the part. Ulrich Mühe is right on key, and utterly convincing. That's remarkable when you consider that, as a man tasked with simply listening, he has relatively little dialogue in the film.

Best of all, after the crucial conflict of the story has been resolved, the movie continues with a post-script that’s as poignant and important as anything that’s come before. Some movies don’t seem to know when to end. This movie featured a final act that really could have been edited out to make the film tighter, but it wasn’t excised, and I’m glad. The final act of this movie changed everything before in meaningful, profound ways. I expected The Lives Of Others to end twenty minutes before it actually did, but once the closing credits rolled I was glad to have stayed with these characters a little longer and to have had the chance to learn more about their lives in post-communist Germany.

My one complaint with the film involves the death of one if the main characters. The movie’s principle conflict is resolved in a shocking way, and I don’t want to tell you too much. I will say, though, that there was a moment of violence that really drew me out of the movie. It seemed out of character and a bit too much like a soap opera for this thoughtful and reserved film. It broke the spell for me for a minute, and left me feeling a little frustrated with the director. I sat there thinking ”Oh, come on, (Character X) wouldn’t have died that way. OD’d on drugs, maybe, but not that way…”

After we watched the movie, my wife made a strong argument to me in defense of that one scene. Her take on it made sense, and her perspective made that scene seem more “organic” to me. Still, while actually watching the film, that one scene distracted me enough to bug me. It marred my initial enjoyment of what I’d have otherwise considered a pretty darn perfect film.

Ultimately, though, The Lives Of Others really is a smart, evocative movie full of insight and reflection on how we effect each other, sometimes without even realizing it. The movie stayed with me for a few days after I saw it, and I’ve thought about it since then. It’s even given me reason to stop and think before I spoke a couple of times in the last few days. Like Schindler’s List and Ikiru, this is a movie that I’m sure I’ll always be glad to have seen.

Trailer:

---

Post Script - I was saddened to learn just now when I read Nehring's review that Ulrich Mühe died of cancer this past July. His passing makes his performance all the more poignant. I hope his work in The Lives Of Others finds a wide, appreciative audience.

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

Jason Bourne is a super-spy who's lost his memory. Over the course of two previous films, Bourne has struggled to recover memories of time spent as a black ops agent for the US government, meanwhile eluding government agents and others who believe that his very existence is a threat. In this third and final installment of the Bourne series, Jason Bourne returns from Europe and Asia to the United States, his memories more or less in tact, to find those who've hunted them and exact his revenge.

Pros:

• An outstanding conclusion to a highly entertaining movie series.


• Great performances from Matt Damon, Joan Allen, the whole cast.


• The fastest, most exciting movie in the trilogy.

Cons:

• If you haven't seen the two previous movies, especially the second one, you're going to be totally lost with this film.

Generally:

4 out of five stars. The Bourne series has been rock solid escapist entertainment, and the conclusion doesn't disappoint.

Extended Review:

Neither Wendy nor I had any interest in The Bourne Identity when it was released in 2002. See one big, dumb action movie and you've seen them all, right? Except that all the critics and friends of ours assured us that The Bourne Identity wasn't just one more big, dumb action movie. Finally, one night with nothing better to do, we caught the movie on cable and we absolutely loved it. We've been kicking ourselves for skipping it's theatrical run ever since.

While the Bourne story is highly convoluted and utterly implausible, it's far from dumb … and as action movies go, The Bourne Identity is a total success. The plot is taught and keeps you guessing, the acting is fine, and the action sequences keep you on the edge of your seat. This really is the kind of movie that makes for memorable summers. We should have seen it on the big screen.

When the sequel, The Bourne Supremacy, was released in 2004, Wendy and got our butts firmly planted in theater seats to take it in. We had high hopes, and they weren't disappointed. The Bourne Supremacy was even better than the first installment. I had some issues with director Paul Greengrass's decision to film the movie mostly with handheld cameras, but I had to acknowledge that he achieved his goal of turning out a movie with an immediate, documentary-like feel. Once I got used to the jerky look and breakneck edits, I thoroughly enjoyed the second film in the series.

Now, with The Bourne Ultimatum finishing the trilogy, I can say with a lot of satisfaction that the Bourne movies are all solid, smart, fun action films that kept me thinking, kept me guessing and entertained me through and through. Each of the three films is better than the previous, and each film builds on the other, changing what you've seen before for the better.

Now, don't see these movies hoping for realism. This isn't political commentary disguised as action, this is action front and center. The story is comic-book in nature, with a hero who's part Batman, part MacGyver, and part Sam Fisher. The plot, involving his lost memories and his constant pursuit by former allies and longtime foes, is really nothing more than a skeleton to hang action scenes on. That said, Matt Damon still manages to turn in some damn good acting in this series. And, you know, I have to admit, Damon really is a good actor. Between his work in this series and films like The Talented Mr. Ripley and Saving Private Ryan, he's turned out a body of work he can be proud of. The fact that the Bourne movies are action movies is no detraction from his work here. Damon is a good actor, and these films provide ample evidence of his skill.

Now, while I was thrilled with The Bourne Ultimatum in terms of a series finale, I should caution new viewers that you really do have to see the first films, at least the second one, to understand this one. A lot of movie series episodes take pains to make sure that each film can be enjoyed as a complete work. This isn't one of them. The Bourne Ultimatum plays less like a complete film and more like the second half of a long feature. Nonetheless, if you've seen The Bourne Supremacy, you'll be thrilled with the way the series wraps up and resolves it's story. The action sequences are bigger and more exciting, the story remains complex and involving without becoming silly, and the principle characters develop in interesting and compelling ways.

The third movie also features a number of twists that totally change the meaning of key scenes in the second film in important and entertaining ways. I'd suggest re-watching the second film before you go see the third one. Or, better yet, if you've never seen the second film, rent it and then go see the final installment in the theater. I'm sure that you, like me, will enjoy the way that the second movie's final scene is totally changed by the new events of the third. Like Bourne himself, these films always have new surprises just under the surface.

The Borne Ultimatum is as good as the two previous movies in the series, and that's really saying a whole lot. If more action movies were this solid, Wendy and I probably wouldn't have a negative predisposition toward "big, dumb action movies."

Trailer

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

Three brief reviews for the films Love Actually, Pink Floyd Live At Pompeii: The Director's Cut, and This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

• Love Actually
  
  
  
  Synopsis
  
  The lives of several couples intersect during a Christmas season in England. How each couple is effected by and reacts to love (romantic, familial, friendship, all kinds of love, actually) is the focus of the film.
  
  Pros:
  
  
  • Bill Nighy's performance is funny.
  
  
  • Stars, stars, big stars everywhere.
  
  
  Cons:
  
  
  • Bad writing.
  
  
  • Lackluster performances.
  
  
  • Nothing new, fresh or original.
  
  
  Generally:
  
  Maybe two out of five stars. Blah.
  
  Extended Review:
  
  A better name for this movie would be Long Actually. It's two hours and fifteen minutes long but somehow requires seventeen hours of your time to watch. But what it lacks in brevity it makes up for in incoherence.
  
  Love Actually is overstuffed with too many characters, none of whom have much to say or do, and none of whom ever really come to matter. There are a few laughs along the way, but the characters are all totally two dimensional, and if they're likable at all it's because they're all played by actors we've all come to love. The movie goes nowhere and ends bady, as the story lines are either left unresolved or else they're resolved in contrived and unbelievable ways. And, the ending sequence, utilizing the Beach Boys classic "God Only Knows," is just a reminder of how much more effectively that song is used in the closing scenes of Boogie Nights. Love Actually is bloated and hollow at the same time ... but other than that, it's just hunky dory. Pretty people, pretty scenes, all wrapper, no present.

  
  Trailer
  
  




---



• Pink Floyd Live In Pompeii: The Director's Cut
  
  
  
  Synopsis
  
  Concert footage, intercut with interviews and behind the scenes (kinda) scenes present the legendary rock band Pink Floyd in their mid-70's prime.
  
  Pros:
  
  
  • Great, great music.
  
  
  • Seeing the members of the Floyd young again is enough to put a smile on any rock fan's face.
  
  
  • Did I mention the music?
  
  
  Cons:
  
  
  • Needless new special effects.
  
  
  • A few faked scenes.
  
  
  Generally:
  
  Five stars for the music, two and a half stars for the movie in terms of cinema, and one star for the underwhelming sound mix. Better listening than viewing, but even the listening leaves much to be desired due to the mix.
  
  Extended Review:
  
  Pink Floyd's been on my mind lately, and it was high time I finally saw this film after having had the soundtrack for a while. This new (2002) cut of the 1973 concert film has much to recommend it, but it also has a number of flaws. The worst thing, which I consider unforgivable, is that the DVD doesn't feature 5.1 sound. The reason to watch any Pink Floyd performance is for the music, and hearing it in 5.1 would have really been outstanding.
  
  Still, the stereo track remains wonderful, even if most of the songs feature so many overdubs that it's almost fraudulent to call it a "live" recording. It's frustrating, though, to sit through a number of new special effects sequences, added for the 2002 recut, that contribute nothing of substance to the film. And it's frustrating to learn that the movie's sequences that feature the band working on the recording of Dark Side Of The Moon are disingenuous. The movie appears to present the band in the studio, giving birth to their classic album. Those scenes are, in fact, staged "reenactments" of the recording of the album. Dark Side... had actually been completed before those scenes were filmed. Still, for all it's pompous special effects and phoniness, Live At Pompeii features some music that remains wonderful after all these years.
  

  
  A bit of Pink Floyd, Live At Pompeii:
  
  




---



• This Film Is Not Yet Rated
  
  
  
  Synopsis
  
  A documentary that examines the real nature of the Motion Picture Association of America. Does it really offer a service to movie goers ... or does it serve another end entirely?
  
  Pros:
  
  
  • Interviews with film makers about their experiences with the MPAA are compelling and informative.
  
  
  • There's genuine humor and warmth in the film.
  
  
  Cons:
  
  
  • The movie flounders when it loses focus on the MPAA's flaws and pursues it's own agenda.
  
  
  • Some scenes feel contrived in that "Michael Moore" kind of way.
  
  
  Generally:
  
  Three out of five stars. For adults only, this movie will give parents (and others) a lot to think about in spite of it's occasional meandering.
  
  Extended Review:
  
  A documentary that vacillates between brilliant expose and frustrating propaganda, This Film Is Not Yet Rated must have really bugged the MPAA. You know that the MPAA is the organization that assigns ratings to films (such as G, PG, R and NC-17) ... but you might not realize that the ratings system itself is really nothing more than a marketing tool used by the big studios and the theater chains to make sure that they maintain control of the American cinema.
  
  Here's a snapshot of the MPAA's transparent agenda: Darren Aronofsky's brilliant Requiem for a Dream is an artful, spell-binding film with a strong message in opposition to drug abuse. Yet the MPAA originally slapped Requiem... with an NC-17 for it's frank portrayal of the dark descent of addiction. Meanwhile, Scary Movie is as stupid and pointless a film as has ever been made. For starters, it's a parody of Scream, which is a parody of horror films. A parody of a parody? No, that's called a rip-off. But I digress. Scary Movie, a movie with absolutely nothing meaningful to say, features male frontal nudity, gratuitous vulgarity, and perversely violent scenes involving a beheading, a woman's breast implant being cut out by a killer, and a man getting a penis shoved through his head. No, really. And yet the MPAA chose to give Scary Movie an R rating.
  
  Anyone who's seen very many films in America has certainly had the opportunity to ponder the apparent randomness of the MPAA's system. This Film Is Not Yet Rated argues convincingly that the MPAA's real mission is to ensure that big studio films get the R ratings that guarantee their mass release, while independent films get slapped with an NC-17 death sentence (theaters won't show them). Where This Film... fails is in it's own thin political agenda. This Film... seems to build the bulk of it's case against the MPAA on the supposition that the major studios are biased against homosexuals and that they go out of their way to suppress movies with gay themes and characters. That's laughable, and you know that if you've seen Brokeback Mountain or Kinsey or Capote or Philadelphia or any number of big studio films with sympathetic gay characters.
  
  No, the MPAA is not biased against gays. It's biased against art. Artful, intelligent films don't make as much money as big, loud, dumb "movies" staring Jessica Alba or Vin Diesel. The MPAA helps the studios and the theater chains make sure that the cash cows play for weeks in every multiplex, and people who make and/or enjoy thoughtful films are the big losers in the arrangement. When This Film... focuses on that truth of the MPAA, it's an engrossing and entertaining film. The sequences in which the movie's director, Kirby Dick, fights the MPAA over the rating of the very movie you're watching are the best scenes of all.
  

  Trailer:
  
  

  
  
  

Labels: Entertainment, Movie Reviews, Movies

Synopsis

This film is based on a real and notorious string of brutal murders, committed in the late 1960's and early 1970's in the San Francisco, California area. The serial killer, who called himself the Zodiac, was never caught. This movie focuses on the investigation of the murders and how the case affected the lives of those who sought to bring the killer to justice.

Pros:

• Great pacing and direction by David Fincher.


• Outstanding acting by a fine ensemble cast.


• An engrossing story that never gets boring.

Cons:

• I'm at a loss to find complaints. The crimes themselves were never definitively solved, so there's that … but that aspect of the real life story is actually a strength in the context of this film.

Generally:

4.5 on a five scale. Stellar. If you can handle the frustrating truth of the story, you'll love this film.

Extended Review:

Although David Fincher's outstanding Zodiac is named for a serial killer, those who see it looking for gore will be disappointed. The film isn't at all concerned with the violence of the Zodiac's murders, and is only marginally concerned with the killer himself. Instead, this is a movie about those who make solving crime their business and their obsession. This is a story about cops and newspaper reporters, handwriting experts, lawyers, etc. Zodiac is primarily interested in those people and their families, and how obsession can be just as devastating as a bullet, just as suspenseful as a darkened hallway. It's damn near impossible to take your eyes off of this movie. I enjoyed every scene, every frame, every line of dialogue.

David Fincher has been a favorite director of mine for a while now. His films Se7en and Fight Club have been some of the smartest and most stylish eye-candy of the past ten years. Even his relative flops, like the underrated Panic Room, have been artistic successes. So when I find out that Fincher is working on something new, I think I'm usually justified in getting excited. I was excited to see Zodiac, but the movie is honestly far better than I'd had reason to hope it would be. It might be fair, in fact, to call this Fincher's best film yet. With Zodiac, Fincher is focusing for the first time entirely on story and character. There are none of Fight Club's gimmicks, none of Se7en's goth atmospherics. If Zodiac succeeds or fails, it's entirely on the strength the story and the cast. I'm happy to say that, in my opinion, Zodiac is quite a success.

You could almost call it two successes, in fact, since Zodiac can almost be called two movies. At more than two and a half hours, Zodiac has plenty of time to contain two distinct acts, and it does. The first act, focused on the investigation as the murders are taking place, is taught and engrossing. The second act, focused on an ongoing investigation of the case four years later, is even tighter, more suspenseful, and just as engrossing as the first half of the film. It's rare that I can say this about a long movie, but at no point during Zodiac did I find myself checking the time or wondering how much was left of the film. In fact, when it ended, I wanted to know more, see more, spend more time with the characters. How's that for artistic success?

Fincher's movie sticks very closely to Robert Graysmith's book about the case and the investigation, and Graysmith is played in the film by Jake Gyllenhaal who renders his character with the best work I've seen from that actor. Gyllenhaal's performance, however, is matched by his peers in the film. There's not a bum performance in the bunch. Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards are great as the two cops who find their lives hanging on the hopes of catching the killer. Robert Downey Jr. gives yet another of his always outstanding performances as a reporter who gets drawn into the case and eventually targeted by the killer. And a cabal of reliable character actors (Donal Logue, Chloe Sevigney, Dermot Mulroney, Elias Koteas and others) are strong in performances that fall short of the others only with regard to screen time. It's said that Fincher often makes his actors reshoot any given scene sometimes seventy times or more. If so, they should thank him for his demands. Fincher has quite simply captured some of their best work in this film.

What's amazing about Zodiac, however, is that the film never slows down or becomes predictable, even when we're sure we know how it is bound to end. Graysmith is sure in his book that he knows who the killer was, and the movie gives him the benefit of the doubt, following the source material to it's conclusions. Along the way we see Graysmith lose his job on the editorial staff at the San Francisco Chronicle and drag his family into his investigation with him, alienating his wife and bewildering his children. The audience follows Graysmith as he crafts his own amateur investigation into the murders, getting far too close for comfort to finding the answers he seeks. Through Fincher's lens we tag along with Gyllenhall's character to prison interviews, dusty police record rooms, and at least one believably scary, dark basement. These sequences provide the movie's tensest frights, and they happen years after the Zodiac killings have stopped.

At one point, Gyllenhall's beleaguered Graysmith tells his frustrated wife that he'd be able to finish his book and put the case behind him if only he could decide who the killer is, look him in the eye and know he's guilty. I won't tell you if he gets that chance or not. I'll say, though, that in a way it's relevant and in another way it isn't. Finding the killer becomes the principle obsession of Graysmith's life … but keeping cold cases alive is a matter of constant second-guessing, lost sleep and endless obsession. There'll always be another angle to consider, another possible suspect, another bit of evidence that changes everything when considered in the right light. For the Robert Graysmiths of the world, the catch will never be as satisfying as the chase. Like the Zodiac himself, his pursuer can never quit playing the game. It surely wouldn't make for much of a life … but it has made for one remarkably good film.

Trailer:

---

PS - If you saw it in the theater and loved it, don't go buy Zodiac just yet. There's a director's cut DVD, jammed with extras, scheduled for early next year. Wendy and I look forward to buying that cut of the film. The current Zodiac DVD is strictly for renting.

Labels: Entertainment, Movie Reviews, Movies

Plot Synopsis

A race of sentient robots called Decepticons comes to earth in search of a cosmic cube thingy. If they find the cube, they'll use it's power to enslave mankind. Another race of sentient robots called Autobots, cousins to the Decepticons, comes to earth to attempt to stop the Decepticons. Both races of robots have the ability to camouflage themselves as vehicles and other mechanical devices. When disguised as vehicles, the robots take on the vehicles' abilities and functions. A war between the Decepticons and Autobots breaks out on earth and the fate of mankind hangs in the balance.

Pros:

• Thrilling special effects and action sequences.


• Likable, fun anthropomorphic robot characters.


• Genuine humor and warmth.

Cons:

• The first hour is somewhat sluggish.


• A few unnecessary sexual jokes.

Generally:

3.5 on a five scale. Lots of fun for parents and older kids.

Extended Review:

After watching Transformers, on the way out of the theater with a big grin on my face, I realized just how long it had been since a big summer action film really delivered the goods.

Last year, Bryan Singer brought us a Superman that only Dr. Phil could have actually enjoyed. Singer's Superman Returns was long, sterile, actionless and lame. I went into the theater contemplating the rumors I've heard that Bryan Singer is gay. After Superman Returns I had to wonder if maybe the whole world was gay.

The previous year George Lucas capped of the Star Wars franchise with a meandering, unwatchable mess of a film that managed to trash both the Star Wars legacy and the intelligence of any audience unfortunate enough to sit through it. Revenge of the Sith? More like Revenge of the … well, let's just say that sith has all the right letters, just in the wrong order.

A few recent summer films (Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins) have succeeded by playing down the bombast and focusing on character; but when was the last time a movie really delivered as a huge, fun, over-the-top summer blockbuster? Until last night I'd have had to go back possibly as far as Jurassic Park to name a summer movie that got it right.

I should disclose that I have never seen the cartoon that Transformers is based on, so fanboy nitpicking will be beyond me in this instance. However I did get the feeling while watching this film that the old cartoon must have really been good. I'd have probably loved it, I bet, if it had been around when I was growing up in the late '70's.

Transformers the live-action movie is a big, loud, silly blast of fresh air. If the only reason to recommend it were the movie's outstanding action-packed last hour, I'd recommend it enthusiastically. But there's more here than special effects and thrills.

For one thing, the Autobots are actually fun and endearing characters. I was surprised to find myself liking them quite a bit. How does a Transformers newbie like me describe them? How about like this:

Then there were the Decepticons, giant-sized hybrids of the Terminator and Godzilla. These bad guys were vicious and hateful. I was as emotionally invested in seeing them get what was coming to them as I was in seeing the Autobots triumph.

Now, Transformers isn't a perfect film. Nor is it a life-changer. It's a movie about giant robots that turn into cars; not high-brow art. Put simply, this is a kids' movie, but the kind that brings out the kid in anyone who can remember being a kid. I stayed on the edge of my seat for at least the second half of the movie, and I found myself laughing out loud and rooting for the characters, too.

Rooting for the robots, that is. The human characters were one-dimensional. Poor Shia LaBouf, as the teenage human hero, was saddled with a role that was little more than one one-liner after another … but LaBouf played the role with such earnest enthusiasm that I ended up liking him, too. Other characters played by noteworthy actors are really just there as filler. I'm a big John Turturro fan, for instance, but the best thing about his character is his underwear. (See the film, you'll know what I mean.)

No, this movie is all about the robots, and those characters are full of charm, fun and humor. Yes, humor. There is a lot of genuine humor in this movie. One improbable scene, wherein the teenage hero tries to hide the giant Autobots from his parents, was a riot. Another scene that made me laugh out loud involved a robot … uh, lubricating a human nemesis. And there were some heartstring pulling moments, too. My wife actually teared up during a scene wherein one Autobot was captured and tied down by government agents, bringing to mind King Kong's capture on Skull Island.

All in all, our family left the theater happier than we've been since we saw 2005's Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit. Transformers gave us our money's worth and then some. I wish I could say that about more films.

---

Oh, by the way, about half an hour into the film, a guy in the theater stood up and shouted "This sucks!" and stormed out, presumably to spend the night at home playing bitterly with his action figures. I'll admit that the movie does start slow, but it's not that bad. If you find yourself feeling that it's dragging, just wait it out.

Trailer:

Labels: Entertainment, Movie Reviews, Movies

Nothing here today, but I did put up a couple of reviews at film geeks, one for Bringing Out The Dead and one for Auto Focus.

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

This is my review of Network, as originally posted at film geeks:

---

On paper, Network should be unwatchable. On paper, this Sidney Lumet-directed, Paddy Chayefsky-penned classic from '76 should be a convoluted, pompous mess of a movie. All of the things that ruin lesser films are present, here: Characters deliver long monologues in the pretense of conversation. The plot goes from stark realism to outrageous fantasy by the middle of the second act. Many of the principle characters themselves are so extreme as to seem cartoonish. It shouldn't work. On paper, Network should be the kind of film that people don't even finish watching.

The reason Network not only succeeds but actually triumphs is that the film is the product of a director, writer and actors all working at the peak of their considerable talents. Thirty years after it's release, Network not only endures, it actually grows in relevance, power and importance. There hasn't been a better film than Network in the past fifty years, and only a handful of movies are it's equal.

The two disc, 2006 special edition of Network is a treasure, and every second of footage on both discs is worth the watching. In a day when the very idea of special editions is devalued by two-disc sets dedicated to films like the Texas Chainsaw remake and Oliver Stone's already bloated Alexander, this set is peerless. You can't send nineteen bucks in a better way than in the purchase of this edition.

Like the best satire, Network presents itself with a straight face and wide eyes. The film never winks at the viewer. In fact, Chayefsky insisted that he hadn't written the script intending satire, but rather as a straight reflection of what he saw in the present and future of America's TV news media. Given thirty years to reflect, Chayefsky seems as much a prophet as a playwrite.

The film tells the story of major network news anchor Howard Beale (Peter Finch), who's informed by his boss and old friend Max Schumacher (William Holden) that the network is going to fire their anchor due to poor ratings. Beale takes the news badly, and announces on the air that he plans to commit suicide on an upcoming live broadcast. The network's PR people scramble to undo any damage that Beale's rant may have done to the news department's credibility … but then, something strange happens. Network head honcho Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall) learns that Beale's suicidal rant has actually boosted the network's ratings. Suddenly, for the first time in ages, the network's news department is drawing a viable market share.

Because of the ratings, credibility takes a back seat to marketability. The news department is placed under the direction of the entertainment department, and the clearly insane Beale is allowed to keep his job and stay on the air. Beale's ranting and raving continue, and continue to draw more and more viewers… and the network begins to build their news department around Beale's insanity.

Implausible? No. Don't dispense with the notion that a major TV network would allow a clearly demented figure to head a major news broadcast in the name of ratings. Consider Dan Rather. Consider Bill O'Reilly.

Watching Network today is almost eerie. As Beale's program gets increasingly weirder, incorporating stained glass windows and psychics, your instincts might be to balk. No network news program would become something so perverse, right? Well, think about it. Beale's deranged program only lacks one thing that today's modern TV network news broadcasts have retained: attempted subtlety. Just like in Network, today's TV network news programs have replaced objective reporting with an odd form of info-tainment that incorporates circus clowns and soothsayers of doom. Today's news anchors are every bit the circus ringleader that Beale is, marketing outrage to a culture that can't get enough of it. Just like Beale's audience, America's primetime news viewers love to get mad, even if they're not sure why their mad, or exactly who the targets of their anger should be. We're not interested in the details. Minutiae is boring. Outrage isn't.


Peter Finch won a well deserved posthumous Oscar for his portrayal of Beale, and his performance is matched by everyone in this steller cast. Holden, the displaced news director, is weary and authentic as a man drawn slowly into a madness that he no longer wants to fight. Duvall, cast against type, is a convincing and hateful villain. Best of all is Faye Dunaway as Diana Christensen, the network's entertainment director. Dunaway is devastating and beautiful, here; perfectly conveying the youngest member of the cast as a product of the first television generation, the first age of people to be turned back into the machine that created them. Christensen is unable to think about anything other than ratings and marketing, even coldly studying her own psychological problems as though they were the elements of a failing sitcom. Dunaway's performance in Network is unforgettable.

Other elements of the film perfectly parody TV's coverage of '70's touchstones such as the Patty Hearst kidnapping and self-styled revolutionary Angela Davis. If you're old enough to remember those people and events, the movie's sly observations will strike home. If not, then the way TV deals with (and creates) news in the film will resonate on it's own.


In Network's best known sequence, Howard Beale encourages his audience to go to their windows and shout to the world that they're "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." The streets in towns and cities across the nation reverberate with the shouts of Beale's sheep, doing his bidding as commanded. But what, exactly, is everyone mad at? Beale's muddled attempt at an explanation for his rage only confounds the situation. Only Diana Christensen recognizes the situation for what it really is: simply one more sign of a ratings triumph. Beale's followers have bought his outrage and they're eating out of the palm of his hand. Thirty years later, Chayefsky dire vision of the American news media... and, more importantly, it's audience... has been realized. In 2006, TV news depends on an audience willing to believe anything the info-tainment department wants to sell us, as long as it's outrageous. Thirty years later, we're still dumb as hell, and we'll take all of it we can buy.

Watch one of Howard Beale's vulgar, nutty and
absolutely honest rants about television...
and how his audience just doesn't get it:

Labels: Media, Movie Reviews, Movies

This is my review of The Descent, as originally posted at film geeks.

---

Statistics show that the movie industry cranks out a new horror film every 40.7 seconds. They throw 'em together like Big Macs and serve 'em up to an unthinking, uncaring audience. In our death-obsessed culture, horror films are the artistic equivalent of fast food. All filler, no substance… cheap, processed, unexceptional and bad for you.

And then there are films like The Descent.

Seeing The Descent is like enjoying a gourmet meal at a restaurant that usually serves junk food. This is the kind of film that reminds me why I will not settle for substandard horror movies. This one is good. Very good. It's a keeper, and I can't wait for repeated viewings on DVD.

Now, notice that I said that The Descent is good. I didn't say that it was pleasant. I didn't say that it was nice. It's not. This is that rarest of rarities; a horror film that's actually scary. In fact, The Descent is downright upsetting at times.

And, like the best horror movies, The Descent is a roller coaster. It works best when you don't see the curves coming. That's why I'm going out of my way not to give anything away in this review. I encourage horror fans to go out of their way to learn as little as possible about this movie before you see it. Don't go on line and watch the preview; the preview gives far too much away. Don't read detailed reviews or opinions on the internet. I'm not even including my usual IMDb link in this review because even the basic page there simply gives away too much. See this movie with all of it's scares left intact. They are worth savoring.

All you need to know about the plot is this bare-bones outline: Five adventure-seeking female friends from the UK go to visit an American friend for a caving expedition. Shortly after they enter the cave, a rock slide traps them inside. Fear and confusion lead to panic and paranoia, and maybe to delusions. Soon, the women are as motivated by long held, unspoken grudges (both major and trivial) as they are by the drive to survive. And, just as it seems that things couldn't get any worse, things literally go all to hell.

So what can I tell you about The Descent that might make you want to see it without giving away too much of the plot? I can tell you that The Descent is

• The best flat-out scare-fest of a movie I've seen since Signs in 2002.


• The most unsettling movie I've seen since Se7en in 1995.


• The best written, directed and acted horror film I've seen since 1991's The Silence Of The Lambs.


• As smart and observant about human nature as last year's brilliant, dread-tinged The Exorcism of Emily Rose.


• The scariest movie I've ever seen in a theater.

I've carefully thought about all of those superlative statements before posting them in this review, and each of them is honest and accurate. I've seen scarier films than The Descent, (such as The Exorcist and Alien) but that's a short list and I never saw any of those films in the theater. I was too young when they were released. Comparing this film to The Exorcism of Emily Rose (my favorite film from last year) is also valid because this movie really is smart and razor-sharp, just like E of ER. It's that good. I'm going to have to rethink my list of my favorite horror films. The Descent belongs on it somewhere.

My recommendation does come with two caveats, though.

For one thing, this is a very gory film. If strong, bloody violence isn't your thing, you might not want to see The Descent. Having said that, let me also say that I've made it clear how I feel about gore porn, and this is not a gore-porn film. This is a movie with a real story, believable and interesting characters, and not one second of gratuity. There is a great deal of gore, but all of it is natural and organic to the story. Had this story been told without gore, it wouldn't have worked.

Beyond that, I have a very specific complaint with the film regarding four exact instances of dialogue. These four instances of dialogue were so bad, so silly, that I'm withholding a star from what I'd otherwise consider a flawless film.

I'm not going to mention three of those instances here in this review because to do so would be to give away intricacies of the plot. I will mention one of them, though: I, for one, would like to call a moratorium on the use of the word "Shyte" in films featuring characters from the UK. Can't movie makers come up with some other contrivance to convey to us that a given character is trendy, hip Euro-trash? The "Shyte" pronunciation of the word "sh*t" has been done to death. It's clichéd, it's a cheap gimmick, and I'm tired of it. So I'm officially putting moviemakers everywhere on notice: cut the shyte.

Now, if you've seen the film and you want to know what my other three complaints were, you can click the link at the end of this paragraph. Let me restate, though, that I can't voice those complaints without giving away significant elements of the plot… so DO NOT CLICK THIS LINK UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM.

No, The Descent is not flawless. However, it is a genre masterpiece, and it's as good as (or better than) any horror movie that's been released in the past fifteen years. If scare-fests are your thing, go see The Descent. Buy your ticket, get your popcorn, and brace yourself for one hell of a white-knuckle drop.

Trailer:

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

I've still got the film-reviewing bug for now. I've posted reviews of Murderball and Wolf Creek at film geeks if you're interested.

---

By the way, happy 132 Birthday to a brilliant Catholic apologist who played such an important role in my own discernment that I felt obligated to name a dog after him.

---

And by the way, go read this outstanding piece from the Roanoke newspaper. I am, honestly, shocked that a newspaper that leans as far to the left as the Roanoke Times would publish it. It's by Major John S. Phillips, who is currently stationed in Iraq. This is a man with firsthand information and insight that you aren't going to get from network news and the New York Times.

Much of what Major Phillips has written here fascinated me. For instance, the mainstream media would have Americans believe that Iraqi insurgents are an underground army that just can't be stopped. From the perspective of Iraqi police and the burgeoning Iraqi military, the insurgents are something more akin to common street gangs, like the ones here in our own big cities. Major Phillips also does a great job (and it can't be done often enough) of shattering the illusion that Iraq was a peaceful place before the war.

War isn't pretty. War isn't glamorous, and it shouldn't be treated like something it isn't. Nonetheless, the Iraqi people really stand to emerge from this war much better off than they were before. If you're not convinced that at least that's possible, please go read what Major Phillips has to say.

Labels: Media, Movie Reviews, Movies

I've got three movie review up at film geeks, if you care. And, all three of them are pretty good flicks:

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (four out of five stars)

The Missing (three and a half out of five stars)

The Exorcism Of Emily Rose (A five star movie!)

Ya know, considering that the past year saw the release of King Kong, Batman Begins, Wallace and Gromit, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, and Sin City, I really gotta say that 2005 was an outstanding year for movies.

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies

I've posted a review of War of the Worlds over at film geeks, along with Wendy's review. I'm mentioning it here because I link back to a burried post here, wherein I have a few ideas about the politics of the film. If you're interested, check it out.

Or, if you've already seen the movie and don't mind reading spoilers, and if you give a crap about my take on the political elements of the movie, you can read that part of my review, which I've stuck on a back shelf here at the blog.

Labels: Movie Reviews, Movies