Jeff 'The Movie Guy'

The Move to Toxic Hollywood

2008-05-24T11:25:00.000-07:00

Hey all!

I just wanted to apologize for not posting since December. Things have been pretty crazy. Well, for the select group of loyal fans who may read this Blog, I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that I will no longer be posting on JeffTheMovieGuy.com. The site will still sit here and you can enjoy all of my previous posts. The good news is that I've moved! An awesome up and coming movie/entertainment website entitled Toxic Hollywood has recruited me to be their official movie guy! I've been there for a while now, developing an awesome catalogue of articles and garnering more hits and readers than ever. At Toxic Hollywood I do a lot more general movie news and not just reviews, though the reviews are still kicking!

So please, if you're one of the few who enjoyed this Blog and (for some reason) my ramblings about various flicks, I urge you to become a reader of Toxic Hollywood.

It was great to post on here again, and you can now keep up with my postings and reviews at Toxic Hollywood, right here!

- Jeff The Movie Guy ;)

'The Dark Knight' - Today Show featurette

2007-12-02T09:14:00.000-08:00

Al Roker from The Today Show went to the set of 'The Dark Knight' recently and was able to get interviews with Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart and director Christopher Nolan. Thanks to The Today Show we also get the treat of some behind the scenes footage and a few glimpses into the movie. Check out the video below for all the Bat-goodies!

'The Dark Knight' hits theaters July 18th, 2008.

'The Mist' review

2007-11-29T12:09:00.000-08:00

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

On the surface, ‘The Mist’ is another horror film made with standard pieces and mixed together by a formula. This is true of course, but like the mist that smothers the town in the Stephen King adaptation, there is more here than what's on the surface.

‘The Mist’ begins with a powerful hurricane descending on a village in Maine, the signature of a King story. The storm dissipates, leaving a thick mist that eventually engulfs the town. The story centers on a local artist named David Drayton (Thomas Jane) who, along with his son and neighbor (Andre Braugher) travels into town to pick up supplies at the local shop. All is well until a bleeding, panicking man runs into the store screaming that people must not leave, as there is ‘something in the mist’. From here on, the film stays primarily in the shop. As expected, the mist envelopes the store and all methods of communication are cut. Here, we meet the usual crop of locals – the ignorant mechanic Jim (Bill Sadler), the cute shop girl Sally (Alexa Davalos), the heroic shop clerk Ollie (Toby Jones) and above all, Ms. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), a religious extremist and would-be messianic leader.

David and Ms. Carmody inadvertently fall into roles as leaders of opposing bands of survivors. One side is the logical folks who understand the situation: figure out how to survive or escape before whatever is in the mist comes to kill them. The other side is made up of Ms. Carmody and her rapidly growing band of followers who, as she convinces them, are preparing for the end of days. Ms. Carmody is a radical fundamentalist who preys upon the fearful to join her. She doesn’t see murder or human sacrifice as a small price to pay to avoid eternal damnation. Slowly, David’s group becomes outnumbered and eventually has to figure out how to survive the menace inside as well as the one outside. And of course, there are the standard folks who, for one reason or another, find reasons to venture outside into the mist. I don’t need to say what happens, suffice it to say a grown man leaves in one piece and comes back in one substantially smaller piece.

That’s exactly the appeal of ‘The Mist’. It’s not just about what’s outside the shop, but what’s occurring inside. It’s a character study about how a person can be rational and intelligent but people can be dangerous animals. It shows how people divide, take sides and are willing to believe anything when they’re facing death. It is also a cautionary tale about the dangers of playing God and the limits of technology (just because we can, does not mean we should). Its characters think and act more logically than most horror characters. I was glad that when time came to flee the store, most had an actual reason to do so, rather than to further the plot (‘Dawn of The Dead’). It also contains a scene so cathartic it drew applause in the theater and the ending simultaneously shocked me and broke my heart. Many saw the ending as predictable or that there were alternatives to what takes place, but considering the situation, what has gone on before this, and what the characters know by now, it seemed like a completely logical and plausible conclusion.

‘The Mist’ has been adapted and directed by Frank Darabont (‘The Shawshank Redemption’, ‘The Green Mile’) and he is just the man to handle this material. Rather than undertake another 3-hour epic, Darabont uses his skill to adapt a formulaic horror story into a captivating piece of suspense. The film isn’t dependent on elaborate set pieces or special effects but operates on great performances, tone, and dialogue. It is so rare in this day to see a dialogue-driven horror film. It’s a nice balance to the myriad of splatter-fests hitting the multiplexes.

Darabont is a teacher as well as a filmmaker. ‘The Mist’ is a master’s class on how to make an exceptional B-movie.

The Joker Revealed Early!

2007-11-27T08:36:00.000-08:00

Source: Comingsoon.net

The January 2008 cover of Empire magazine has been leaked online. The cover features Heath Ledger in full Joker attire and can be viewed below. Warner Bros. will release 'The Dark Knight' - the sequel to 'Batman Begins' on July 18, 2008.

First Look at Zachary Quinto as Young Spock!

2007-11-13T21:54:00.000-08:00

Souce: JFXOnline

JFXonline has posted a first look at photos of "Heroes" star Zachary Quinto as young Spock on the set of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. The site also has some images of filming on the set in which it looks like a Vulcan council meeting is taking place. You'll also see shots of Abrams with Quinto and more. I have posted a few below, but you can view them all here.

In related news, Abrams has confirmed that "House" star Jennifer Morrison has a role in the movie.

'Star Trek' opens Christmas Day 2008.

'In The Land of Women' review

2007-11-04T12:24:00.000-08:00

Rating: *** out of ****

Jonathan Kasden’s ‘In The Land of Women’ is the companion piece to Zach Braff’s ‘Garden State’. They both center on young post-adolescent males who leave Los Angeles and go back home for similar reasons. The difference here is that the hero doesn’t run into the wide array of wacky characters and situations that the folks in ‘Garden State’ do. And you know what? That’s exactly what this story needs. Not to say it is better or worse. It just has a smaller, more subdued tale to tell. It is short and sweet and though it could have been more detailed in some areas, most of the time we get exactly what we need.

Carter Webb (Adam Brody of ‘The O.C.’) is a 26-year-old soft-core porn writer who has recently been dumped by his girlfriend Sofia (Elena Anaya), a model/actress. It is rumored that after their breakup Sofia begins dating Colin Farrell, which begged the question, ‘How did Carter get this girl?’ He seems rather out of her league. Anyway, Carter’s grandmother (Olympia Dukakis), who lives back east, is not well. Well, she says she’s not well but Carter believes she is either out for attention or going senile. Devastated over his breakup with Sofia and seeking inspiration for a serious writing project, Carter leaves L.A. to stay with his grandma in suburban Detroit. Shortly after arriving, he meets The Hardwicke family who lives across the street. Before long, Carter finds himself involved in the personal goings-on of Lucy (Kristen Stewart), the teenaged daughter of the Hardwicke family and Sarah (Meg Ryan), Lucy’s mother.

Sarah has recently discovered she has breast cancer. The changes this brings about in the Hardwicke family, force Lucy and Sarah to reevaluate their lives and take stock of what really matters to them. Sarah’s husband is having an affair. Both Sarah and Lucy know this. Sarah admits she is no longer in love with him, but that she fears losing her secure world, even though her life may end soon. Lucy admits she resents her mother for her father’s unfaithful nature. Lucy is going through man troubles of her own, on a more high school level. Nevertheless, both women face the same problem: admitting their feelings to themselves and taking the obvious choice that is right in front of them. Carter becomes a confidant to both women, offering solace in small doses, such as a walk or a cigarette on the 50-Yard Line. How Carter deals with his new responsibilities and relationships are what makes the film fun to watch. Though he does develop romantic connections with both Lucy and Sarah, it never veers off into the direction of a seedy love triangle, in which Carter is simultaneously seducing both mother and daughter. Part of me couldn’t help but wonder what another version of the story would play like, in which the alternate story came to fruition. Larry Clark might handle the material well.

But I digress.

Olympia Dukakis steels the show in the role of the grandma. While everyone else is intelligent yet wrought with personal crises, Grandma is often represented as a crackpot, and in a weird twist of irony, is revealed the one character that is in complete control of their destiny.

It is the connections and bonds built between Carter and the women in his life, old and new, that drives ‘In The Land of Women’. As Carter struggles to resolve his own issues, he is drawn into the dilemmas of the Hardwicke women - all of whom, in their way, fall in love with him, and all of whom, in their way, help him find his desired path. In spite of the ending being a bit too convenient and my wish for a stronger resolution between the three characters, this is a small, sweet tale with endearing characters and strong performances, by Dukakis and Ryan especially. Adam Brody is perfect in the role of Carter, the young man trying to find his place in a world that suddenly makes no sense. Some may say this film succeeds over ‘Garden State’, as it has essentially the same story only leaner and it still has the catchy, alt-rock soundtrack - and we all know how important that is in these movies.

Man Pleads Guilty in 'Indiana Jones' Theft

2007-11-02T11:25:00.000-07:00

Source: The Associated Press

A man who schemed to sell stolen computers and photographs used for Steven Spielberg's upcoming ‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’ has pleaded guilty to two felony counts, according to The Associated Press.

Roderick Davis, 37, of Cerritos pleaded guilty Thursday to receiving stolen property and commercial burglary. As part of his plea deal, he will serve two years and four months in state prison.

He would have faced at least four years in prison if convicted of the charges, the District Attorney's Office said.

Davis was arrested Oct. 4 in West Hollywood during a sting operation by detectives who learned that some of the stolen material was being offered for sale to several entertainment gossip Web sites.

They posed as potential buyers for the images and set up a meeting. When Davis arrived, they took him into custody.

'30 Days of Night' review

2007-10-28T17:52:00.000-07:00

Rating: *** out of ****

“Bar the windows. Try to hide. They're coming,” warns the Stranger from behind bars. “They? Who are they?” asks Sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett). ‘They’ are bloodthirsty vampires and they have arrived in the sleepy, secluded town of Barrow, Alaska. Once a year, the town of Barrow comes under 30 days of complete darkness. According to Wikipedia, Barrow is the northernmost settlement on the North American mainland and one of the northernmost towns of more than 2,000 residents in the world. That makes it the perfect feeding ground, as the vampires arrive (of an unknown origin) and plan to use this month of darkness to have a never-ending orgy of feeding. The ghouls use a variety of devious and head-on attacks to pick off the residents of the town one by one. The fate of the town resides in a band of survivors who manage to elude detection, hiding in basements and attics, remaining silent for presumably weeks on end. The band is lead by the local Sheriff Oleson (Hartnett) and his estranged wife, Stella (Melissa George).

Vampires, like zombies, seem to be running their course in horror movies. There can only be so many incarnations of the same villain. Though it is an original premise, these are still your run of the mill vampires running through the usual motions: kill, feed, assimilate, repeat. These are not your French, romantic vampires though. These filthy, vile creatures do not feed, but mutilate and are intriguing on certain levels. Sure, they have the usual superpowers, but these vampires feel tangible, with weaknesses. I believed these were actual living organisms instead of super beings. After all, a swift axe to the chest or face will take care of them. Danny Huston delivers a solid and often chilling performance as Marlow, the head vampire. He brings personality and legitimate suspense to a species that can be quite autonomous.

The film is strongly cast. Its talent elevates the material to grounds higher than necessary. Hartnett and George ably play the couple-in-arms. He comes across as strong without seeming like an action hero, while she is believable as a police officer. She carries herself with confidence and a natural beauty that is not distracting for the character. The de-evolution of the sheriff is compelling; he gets a bit detached with every citizen he must kill due to their changing into the undead. You can tell he has rarely seen violence in his isolated world and yet does what he must. Surely though, the film is stolen by the performances of Huston, and Ben Foster as the Stranger. Foster proves here that after ‘Alpha Dog’ and ‘3:10 To Yuma’ that he is becoming one of the strongest character actors working today.

‘30 Days of Night’ is flawed though. It disappointed me that with all its creativity and talent, it ends up as just another splatter-fest. The ending takes a drive off the deep end and some back-story to accompany Huston’s performance would have made these the most compelling vampires in a while. But alas, they merely appear when conveniently needed, whooshing past the camera in close-up. The film plays out quite quickly even with sporadic subtitles indicating how many days have passed. I never believed that these characters have been fighting or hiding for 30 whole days. In the end, it felt more like ‘The Long Weekend of Night’.

The film was directed by David Slade, who made 2005’s terrifying ‘Hard Candy’. The material isn’t as strong here, yet Slade and his cinematographer Jo Willems bring style and an eye for gore to the film. Though it is not worthy of its predecessor, ‘30 Days of Night’ will be enjoyed by fans of the graphic novel and horror fans in general. For those who wish to be truly terrified as opposed to nauseated, rent ‘Hard Candy’ and try to keep your eyes open.

'Weirdsville' review

2007-10-25T21:14:00.000-07:00

Rating: **1/2 out of ****

Remember the day when disposing of dead hookers was easy? No? Well, the characters in Allan Moyle’s’ new film ‘Weirdsville’ don’t seem to either, as they have quite the difficult time doing so. I suppose we can’t be too hard on them. Before the night’s out, they’ll encounter Satan worshipers, mafia enforcers and medieval midgets (sorry if that’s politically incorrect but the alliteration is priceless).

‘Weirdsville’ stars Scott Speedman as Dex, an introspective stoner who has recently quit the junk. One night he gets a call from his friend Royce (Wes Bentley), the so called ‘idea man’ of his troupe (his ‘ideas’ include ‘Spray-onnaise’, a spray on mayonnaise). It seems that Royce has a dead hooker in his living room and needs Dex’s help disposing of it. It turns out that the dead hooker is their friend Matilda (Taryn Manning). Unfortunately, for Dex and Royce, Matilda has overdosed on the crystal meth that they have stolen from a gangster named Omar. Now they must dispose of this body while trying to get Omar his money by morning. Things get even more out of control when they discover Satanists performing a ritual sacrifice right where they were going to bury the body. That’s how ‘Weirdsville’ unfolds. Its story is a series of dominoes - each toppling in a row, revealing more and more plot, characters and bizarre situations. Part of the fun of a movie like this is how said events unfold and so I will only reveal as much as is necessary to accurately review the film.

The problem with ‘Weirdsville’ is that it is not as clever as the writer Willem Wennekers would like to believe. Though it gets points for originality, I found myself rarely caring what was taking place or what happened to these characters. They merely occupy the space as opposed to taking the audience on a journey with them. I’m not even sure that the journey would be very interesting, since the leaders of it seem to care less than we do. These characters react very blandly to events that should be exciting or horrifying, like multiple dead bodies or running from murderers. That slacker mentality must be ingrained deep in them, as they don’t even attempt to subdue their would-be captors when they have each other and their captors are half their size and only have a knife. The captors for that matter don’t ever seem too concerned with finding Dex and Royce, even though they are eyewitnesses to a murder. It seems more like an inconvenience for them. Everyone in the film seems very apathetic about everything, and not with the same sense of self-indulgent glee that someone like Brett Easton Ellis writes his characters as having.

Dex is introduced as the kind that wants to change his life. He has reoccurring visions that play as warnings he would be wise to heed. Yet he relapses at the drop of hat, doing nothing to stop himself and starting his cycle over. Royce is the kind that enjoys his life of drugs and little else, and that’s fine. However, he and Matilda vow to go clean for no other reason than to go clean. True, in life, being sober is enough. In fiction though, going clean for clean’s sake isn’t. We need a reason to hope these characters get clean and succeed. I’m afraid that reason isn’t given, or maybe it just isn’t enough.

In the end, we haven’t really learned much about these people; little has changed. The hope of change is tacked on, and it feels just that. And of course, the night culminates into the inevitable conclusion we’ve seen a thousand times before – where all the characters, good and bad, conveniently end up in the same place at the same time. Tony Scott has done this same scenario many times over, all of which are far more fun and interesting than this.

‘Weirdsville’ falls in with so many other films like it where the heroes pursue their MacGuffin deep into the night, stringing along a chain of events that will eventually conclude before last call. If this kind of plot sounds familiar, it is. This has been carried out in countless other films of its kind, and with more skill and more fun. The film works, I guess, on its own level. It just seems to try too hard and yet not hard enough at the same time. It contains scenes and stories that are aptly bizarre and yet there is really nothing here that distinguishes itself from every other film it’s trying to be. Like it’s two main characters, the film seems very happy taking the middle of the road and doing just enough to get by.

'I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry' review

2007-10-08T17:44:00.000-07:00

Rating: * out of ****

What a sad, frightened film this is. ‘I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry’ could have been a comedy with a heart, a message and the gross-out humor to match it if only it had the guts to stand up for that message from the get-go. Instead, it operates on constant gay jokes, racism and homophobia. I understand that gay jokes come with the territory. After all, it’s a film about two straight men pretending to be gay. However, the tone of most of these jokes are not parody, they are cheap and obvious. I’m sure it is a well-intentioned film, but nevertheless.

Adam Sandler and Kevin James star as Brooklyn Firefighters, Chuck and Larry. Two years after the death of Larry’s wife, his insurance benefits lapse because he has not claimed a new beneficiary. Being that the date for submitting has passed, Larry (James) fears that his kids will be orphaned if something happens to him in the line of duty. Uh huh.

In order to fix the situation, Larry hatches a scheme to fake a domestic partnership with his best friend Chuck (Sandler). With good reason, people are skeptical that these two are for real and an investigation begins that may ultimately reveal the characters’ fraud. They are assigned a defense lawyer to help with the case played by Jessica Biel. I like Biel, but it pained me to see her phoning it in so badly. Her character is a hapless twit who freaks out after a moment of embrace between her and the Sandler character, and yet earlier in the film she had no qualms about letting him grope her breasts.

Chuck is a womanizer. Every woman he encounters is unattainably attractive and, most of the time, brain-dead and easy. It’s hard to believe so many women would be attracted to him. Not only is he unattractive, Chuck is a pompous, manipulating pig who only seems to objectify women. And in what world is Adam Sandler a calendar model?

Larry is a widower and family man. He has a son who seems to be gay. How do the filmmakers get this across to the audience? By implying, ‘the kid’s weird because he likes to sing and thinks cockroaches are icky.’ It doesn’t help either that Larry seems afraid of his son most of the time or that he endlessly tries to pressure the kid into baseball over dance recitals. By the way, I’m heterosexual and I think cockroaches are icky too.

Chuck and Larry’s perceptions of homosexuals are exaggerated - they have to be or it wouldn’t work very well as a comedy, not that it does anyway. However, their perceptions are based on the shallowest stereotypes. The writers’ seem to think, ‘Since Chuck and Larry are straight men acting gay then both sides must be represented in the basest of ways in order to keep the distinction clear’. The funny thing is that even when Chuck and Larry are straight, it is also based on stereotypes: they’re firefighters who play basketball, the Brooklyn environment provides them with the go-to accent for sounding tough, sports are better than arts, sleeping with endless women is better than just one, etc. The protagonists have to be as masculine as they can be so it will be that much funnier when they act gay. Uh huh.

The main problem with ‘Chuck & Larry’ is that it can’t seem to decide which side of the fence it’s sitting on. It wants to be left wing and support the homosexual communities, yet at every turn there are badly drawn jokes and moments that only fuel the right-wingers’ anti-gay fire. This movie wants to have its cake and eat it too – it wants to get the glory of being a pro-gay movie while at the same time squirming in its seat. You can’t have ninety minutes of gay jokes and then slap on a ham-fisted message in the last twenty minutes and think everything is OK. Even when there seems to be a ray of light with a moment of sincerity or endearment, it is buried under the refuse of clichés and formulas. I pitied Dan Ackroyd when he had to simultaneously be the last minute witness, and deliver a tired filibuster.

Note: Rob Schneider hits new lows here as an Asian minister in Canada. It’s a rip-off of Mickey Rooney’s character Mr. Yunioshi from ‘Breakfast At Tiffany’s’. Was it ironic to anyone else that Chuck and Larry come to a place that is more accepting and yet contains the harshest ignorance in the film?

More 'Incredible Hulk' Set Pics!

2007-10-05T08:17:00.000-07:00

Superhero Hype! has posted a big batch of new photos taken of ‘The Incredible Hulk’ production on the night of October 4^th in Downtown Hamilton, Ontario. Starring Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth and William Hurt, ‘The Incredible Hulk’ opens in theaters June 13^th, 2008.

Computers, Photos Stolen for New 'Indiana Jones'

2007-10-03T12:44:00.000-07:00

Source: Los Angeles Times

Computers and photographs for director Steven Spielberg's upcoming film "Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull" were stolen, and DreamWorks Pictures SKG has asked local law enforcement to investigate, a studio spokeswoman said.

"An investigation is being conducted by law enforcement," said Kristin Stark, a spokeswoman for DreamWorks.

Stark declined to say where and when the theft took place. Officials from the Los Angeles Police Department, the FBI and the Sheriff's Department could not immediately confirm that they were investigating.

Marvin Levy, Spielberg's spokesman, said the director was concerned that the thieves might be trying to sell the materials.

"We want to warn the media that anything that is offered is stolen property," Levy said. "We know it is out there."

He said that he didn't know specifics about the crime but that he believed it had occurred fairly recently.

Stark said the stolen items contained "confidential and proprietary materials" related to the movie, which is considered a potential blockbuster for next summer. There is much anticipation about the film, which will hit the big screen 19 years after the last installment in the series. The movie stars Harrison Ford, Shia LaBeouf and Cate Blanchett.

'Shoot 'Em Up' review

2007-09-29T13:47:00.000-07:00

Rating: *** out of ****

I’ve seen bedroom scenes turn into action sequences. Most Robert Rodriguez flicks do that. I don’t think, however, that I’ve seen an action sequence occur during a bedroom scene, while the lovers continue killing people mid-coitus. That’s just how far over the edge ‘Shoot ‘Em Up’ is willing to go. I do not mean that as a disparaging remark, but as one of affection. I have the utmost respect for action movies that are not afraid to believe that live action and comic books can be the same. It’s the same belief that gave us most John Woo movies, ‘Sin City’, ‘Kill Bill’ and now this.

‘Shoot ‘Em Up’ starts in the middle of an event, as Mr. Smith (Clive Owen) witnesses a pregnant woman about to be gunned down. Against his better judgment, he saves her, which leads to one of the most ironic killings I’ve seen in a while. The woman dies, but Smith saves her baby. It turns out that a US senator named Rutledge is dying and the only cure is the bone marrow of infants. Rutledge is running for president and if he wins, wants to ban guns from the U.S. A major gun manufacturer does not want this, obviously, and so they hire Hertz, a hitman with marital issues, to kill all the babies intended as marrow hosts for the senator. Paul Giamatti plays Hertz with a sinful glee, in a role that feels so cathartic after playing back-to-back losers in ‘American Splendor’ and ‘Sideways’. Smith employs the help of DQ (Monica Bellucci), a hooker with a heart of gold (and a penchant for lactating fetishists). Her job is to take care of the child between gunfights and if Smith dies, to take it somewhere safe.

While I’m normally a strong supporter of back-story, ‘Shoot ‘Em Up’ gives minimal back-story and I believe it helps the story. All we’re given about Hertz is that he used to work for the FBI and now he has problems at home. This adds a great comedic tone to a psychotic killer. We learn almost nothing about DQ, except for a previous tragedy that I’m not sure was necessary for her character. Clive Owen plays Mr. Smith with just the right balance of strength, slickness and decency. He doesn’t kill people that he doesn’t need to. He is a character we know nothing about except he also has a tragedy in his past, he loves carrots and he’s really, really good at shooting. Not knowing where the characters are coming from is half the fun of ‘Shoot ‘Em Up’. We’re thrust into this situation, as Smith and DQ are and so the events unfold for us as they do for them – one bullet at a time.

This movie may have the shortest recorded time between start and the first gunshot. I read online that there are 11 action sequences in the film’s 86 minutes. That's more action per frame than any ‘Die Hard’, ‘Lethal Weapon’ or ‘James Bond’ film. Unfortunately, that’s not always a good thing. While much of the action here is completely original and wild, it becomes redundant. I wanted something else to happen besides shooting, shooting and more shooting. ‘Shoot ‘Em Up’ is thin on plot but thick on action.

I know people will watch this and hate it, thinking it’s completely ludicrous, over the top and unrealistic. Of course it is. That’s the point. Creativity should always outweigh reality in movies. That is the joy of cinema. I still advocate that every movie needs a certain level of realism, and ‘Shoot ‘Em Up’ has it: if Smith shoots someone, they die. That’s all the realism this movie needs.

'Sukiyaki Western Django' review

2007-09-21T10:08:00.000-07:00

Rating: **** out of ****

This year marked my first experience at the Toronto International Film Festival. Granted, I have only lived in Toronto one year, but still, it was a big deal. Unfortunately, since I was busy, I could only attend one movie. I didn’t care which one it was. I managed to luck out, as my first movie would be director Takashi Miike’s first English language film, ‘Sukiyaki Western Django’. I really knew nothing about the film, except it was a Japanese western and that Quentin Tarantino had a role in it. What I ended up seeing was one of the most surreal films since, well, ‘Grindhouse’.

I was constantly reminded of ‘Kill Bill’ while watching ‘Django’. You can sense Tarantino’s influence, if in camaraderie alone. It reeks of that same joy of moviemaking that made ‘Kill Bill’ so wonderful. Moreover, Tarantino’s role isn’t a shameless cameo as many have suspected. He plays ‘Ringo’, a de facto narrator, lending a hand on back-story when needed. He opens the film on a set that literally seems out of a children’s show. At one point his character has aged terribly and bares an uncanny resemblance to the Emperor from the ‘Star Wars’ trilogy.

Two clans - the Red and the White - have been at war for centuries. Even though the war has wiped out both clans save for a few roaming bands, the fighting continues. Meanwhile, there is a rumor spreading of hidden treasure in a small town. Drawn by the rumors, both gangs have set up shop in said town to search. Of course, the war continues while in this town and townsfolk are wise and flee. One day a stranger arrives - a quick draw artist who prefers to shoot first and ask questions later. It is learned that the stranger is so skilled that whichever clan he chooses to side, they will inevitably win the war. In the true anti-hero way, our hero offers his services to whichever clan is prepared to pay him the largest share of the treasure, once found.

Beyond this, there isn’t much point in talking about story. This film’s all storytelling and no story. It is style over substance, yet the style is of such caliber that it becomes the art. Imagine a movie where one character is shooting at another and the opposing character is able to slash the bullets out of mid-air with his sword. Alternatively, another scene in which one character is such a good shot that he can fire bullets in the complete opposite direction of his enemy, and yet every round finds its target. So many amazing visuals occur that you seem to remember the film in moments as opposed to a story as a whole.

I’ve read that ‘Django’ finds Miike in his supposed ‘mainstream’ mode. While I’ll agree this film is more accessible than ‘Ichi The Killer’ or ‘Imprint’, I would not classify it as mainstream. ‘Mainstream’ tends to imply cliché or lack of imagination. While it is homage from beginning to end, there is nothing unoriginal here. Miike, like Tarantino, is a cinephile and knows just what ingredients to take from where and how to mix them. The film is violent, as most Miike films tend to be. However, the tone is a left turn from his normal affairs - ‘Audition’ for example. The violence is ironic, comedic and fashioned with grandeur that is part Frank Miller and part Bruce Lee. Like ‘Kill Bill’ and ‘Natural Born Killers’ before it, ‘Sukiyaki Western Django’ is an exercise in style that transcends genre. It’s an amalgam of Kurosawa, Sergio Leone and the Wachowskis, to name a few. It’s the first film I’ve seen where the actors are speaking phonetic English and still have English subtitles.

After watching ‘Sukiyaki Western Django’, I was reminded of a quote from Roger Ebert on ‘Kill Bill Vol. 1’: “The movie is not about anything at all except the skill and humor of its making. It's kind of brilliant.”

'Superman: Doomsday' review

2007-09-19T11:59:00.000-07:00

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

With every superhero movie there is a delicate balance between the action and the human elements of the story. That is what made movies like ‘Spider-man 2’ and ‘Batman Begins’ so excellent – they could walk that line extremely well and neither aspect suffered. ‘Superman Returns’ could have been so much better. With the exception of the jet-plane rescue, the action was far from stunning and the human plotline felt flat. Some may see ‘Superman: Doomsday’ as the film that ‘Superman Returns’ should have been.

Based on the best selling graphic novel of all time, ‘Superman: Doomsday’ begins with Lex Luther’s mining company digging up an alien vessel buried in the earth. It turns out that it is not a transport, but rather a prison meant for holding Doomsday, an alien soldier deemed unstoppable. When he was created, Doomsday was unable to differentiate between friend and foe. Therefore, he kills everything in his path. When it was discovered that Doomsday was unstoppable, his creators trapped him in this prison (somehow) and sent him hurdling through space. When uncased on earth it is up to Superman to stop him.

The ensuing battle is something so epic; it felt longer than the battle at Helm’s Deep. I mean that in a good way. I found myself enthralled in the battle between the hero and villain. They fight non-stop through the city of Metropolis, underground, through the air, through buildings and even into space. There is even a moment where Superman lifts a tugboat out of the harbor in order to throw it at his enemy. In live action, this would probably come across as laughable, but I was thrilled.

Superman perishes in the battle and the world is devastated. The film manages to examine the effect of Superman's demise in surprising depth. From the emotional loss felt by Lois Lane, to the pain felt by his mother. Ironically, even Lex Luthor mourns the fact that he was not the one to defeat Superman after all this time.

Weeks after his death, Superman returns (no pun intended). The world is shocked by his Christ-like rise from the grave. However, we learn that Lex Luthor has created a Superman clone in order to fool Metropolis and secretly control the city behind the scenes. The real Superman is resurrected though, with the help of his robot assistant at the fortress of solitude. This all builds into a climactic final showdown between the real Superman and the clone. I wondered if the robot character was thrown in as a nod to Kevin Smith’s infamous draft of a Superman movie in which Brainiac has said robot assistant. Smith even has a cameo in the film, which furthered my speculation, but I digress.

‘Superman: Doomsday’ is not all action. With a running time of only 75 minutes, it manages to have a well-plotted, multi-layered story while being surprisingly realistic and adult. The human elements are done very well. Lois and Superman are seen as sexual beings; their attraction feels realer than ever. Each character reacts to Superman’s death differently, with Jimmy becoming a disillusioned, sell-out paparazzi and Perry White turning to booze to ease his pain. The voice work here is well done. Anne Heche plays a convincing Lois with just the right amount of spunk and attitude. The film is also surprisingly violent and may not be appropriate for smaller children.

‘Superman: Doomsday’ could have stood to be longer and a few elements could have been explored more. I would have liked a bit more back-story on Doomsday, perhaps a glimpse of his home world. The dialogue is a bit corny at times, but it fits perfectly in the cartoon realm. In spite of its flaws, it manages to be one of the best films in the franchise. The film is stripped down to its essentials which keeps the pace and excitement going non-stop; and given that it is supposed to be a children’s movie, that’s appropriate. However, I have a feeling adults may enjoy this more than their kids may. Perhaps Bryan Singer should give this DVD a watch before he goes to work on the ‘Superman Returns’ sequel.

'Hulk' has invaded Toronto!

2007-09-17T12:43:00.000-07:00

Now circulating the net are photos taken today from the set of 'The Incredible Hulk'. While I did not take these pictures myself I was only a few blocks from this location today. I was in the neighborhood the other day and got to see the erecting of the Apollo theater sign which was pretty cool.

The following notice has been posted, saying that Yonge Street will be closed from today until Wednesday:

"Please note that Yonge Street will be closed between College Street and Dundas Street from Sunday, September 16 through Wednesday, September 19.

The closure will begin at 7:00 p.m. each night and continue until 7:00 a.m. the next morning.

Sidewalks will also be closed starting at 8:00 p.m. each night until 7:00 a.m. the next day.

The road closure is due to filming."

'The Incredible Hulk' starring Edward Norton and Liv Tyler opens in theaters June 13th/2008.

'Sunshine' review

2007-09-03T17:54:00.000-07:00

Rating: *** out of ****

Danny Boyle’s ‘Sunshine’ borrows from such films as ‘2001’, ‘Solaris’ and ‘Event Horizon’, and while in the hands of another director the film could have been a bastardized mish-mash of sci-fi elements, Boyle handles it with grace and skill creating quite an enjoyable modern sci-fi thriller.

“Our sun is dying,” Capa (Cillian Murphy) tells us in his opening monologue. Capa is a scientist aboard the Icarus II, implying there was an Icarus I. Not a good sign. In the future, our sun is, in fact, dying (a few billion years too early). Earth sends a team of astronauts to reignite the sun by detonating a ‘Stellar Bomb’ on the surface. As they approach the sun, they pick up a distress signal from the Icarus I, the mission that preceded the Icarus II and disappeared, never to be heard from again. The crew of the Icarus II decide to answer the call, thinking that if they do find the ship, they could use their bomb and have a second chance to save the world. It’s aboard the abandoned ship where things go wrong. I will not divulge what happens, but it is rather disappointing considering all the great things that came before it.

I know this sounds like a plot for ‘Armageddon II’, and in fact, there really isn’t much here we haven’t seen before. It’s how Danny Boyle handles the material that makes the film work. He’s able to take standard sci-fi and slasher movie clichés and turn them on their head, or at least make them more enjoyable to sit through. There is a great tension between the crew as lives are weighed. The ways in which they decide who lives and dies in a dire situation are cold and logical. Speaking of the crew, it was nice to see scientists and doctors in a sci-fi movie that I really believed were doctors. The cast isn’t made up of action stars, or people trying to be action stars.

It’s in the third act of ‘Sunshine’ where things go wrong. Boyle and his writer, Alex Garland seem to lose the narrative thread and send the film into the realm of conventional slasher film. The big twist is more confusing than shocking, and I found myself scratching my head. There’s also a self-important ‘best of’ clip show during the closing credits, reminding us of everything we’ve just seen. The third act makes this a good film, instead of a great one.

Still, I'm recommending ‘Sunshine’. Despite the fact that underneath, it's a rudimentary sci-fi action/suspense flick, Danny Boyle is a visionary who can take it beyond that. I found myself fascinated and on the edge of my seat. The first two acts are intelligent, thought provoking and suspenseful. Boyle and his cinematographer Alwin H. Kuchler create a cold, dark vision of space with mesmerizing visuals and a haunting score by John Murphy and Underworld. Aesthetically, this is one of the great pieces of science fiction since ‘Alien’. It’s the story that needed a bit more gravity.

'Halloween' review

2007-08-31T17:54:00.000-07:00

Rating: *1/2 out of ****

‘Halloween’ is the story of young Michael Myers, who, as a boy, murders his family except for his mother and baby sister. He is institutionalized until he breaks out, 15 years later. Michael goes on the hunt for his long lost baby sister. Meanwhile, Dr. Loomis, the psychiatrist who treated Michael while inside, aids the police in the hunt. John Carpenter’s ‘Halloween’ was a dark, violent piece of cinema. Nevertheless, it was crafted with a skill not seen since Hitchcock. Carpenter knew how to imply violence with lighting and tone rather than exploit it. He could play with an audience without manipulating them. He knew exactly what he wanted us to feel and when, and he could masterfully construct the story, plot and pacing so that we felt it. Rob Zombie’s ‘Halloween’ is a more gruesome, mean-spirited version of Carpenter’s original masterpiece. There is little inspiration in Zombie’s world and it tries to operate with a screenplay filled with ill logic, and ends up feeling manipulative and ineffective.

The opening scene in Carpenter’s film still stays in my mind. The whole scene being Michael’s point-of-view added the element of mystery, building the suspense since all we were able to see were the reactions of a murder victim. We didn’t need to be introduced to what’s inside Michael’s head because we were seeing it through his eyes. Cold, vicious, evil is all he was. Killing was as simple to him as breathing. We didn’t need to know much about him except that he is evil, plain and simple. We didn’t need to know what happened at the meetings between Michael and Dr. Loomis or what occurred behind the walls of the asylum. Most importantly, we knew we couldn’t sympathize with Michael because no matter how sympathetic, it's hard to agree or empathize with such slaughter.

Trying to explain the ‘why’ behind evil is extremely difficult. Zombie makes a noble effort to tell us why Michael is this way, but the mark has been missed. It turns out that there is a young tormented child behind the mask, one that has been abused by his family and schoolmates. With this kind of back-story, we don’t see Michael as a soulless killing machine, but more along the lines of Norman Bates, a psychotic momma’s boy. I find there’s a difference between an enemy who is completely evil and a villain that is in direct conflict with the hero. The latter can be given sympathetic qualities that can allow the audience to somewhat identify with their motives. The former cannot because ‘evil’ does not need explanation. Michael is the former, but Zombie tries to paint him as the latter.

Perhaps the most shocking and disappointing revelation to the film is that all of this back-story is perfunctory. Sure, we learn of Myers’ dysfunctional home life and problems at school, but before we even learn this about his character, it is revealed that Myers is a fan of mutilating animals and has been for some time. What does this say about him? To me it says he is a disturbed little boy, prone to violence and very well could become a killer anyway. So why then would Zombie spend a third of the film with these details of his upbringing if they didn’t matter and only detract from the menace of the character? This film takes a half an hour (or more) to tell the same events that the original told in five minutes.

Originally, we didn’t need a moment where Michael transitions from good to evil. That transition could not be defined because presumably he has always been evil. There’s literally no transition into Michael’s madness in the new ‘Halloween’; but with Michael’s past on screen, one is needed. If the audience is expected to understand this killer, we need to see that moment of transformation. His conversion from killing animals to people happens effortlessly and without deliberation. Then suddenly on Halloween, he decides to kill his family, except his baby sister for some reason. The fact that he leaves her alive could have been a great plot device and perhaps Zombie’s only hope of giving a human quality to a killer. It is wasted in the third act, however, when Laurie is trying to escape. If Michael loves her so much why is he trying to kill her? I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a serial killer contradict himself in such a way.

Rob Zombie’s ‘Halloween’ feels like two movies. The first film is the back-story leading up to Michael’s escape. Everything there-after is the second film. The two films never really come together. The first could have been a rich character study into the mind of a serial killer. The second is a montage of sex and violence. Though neither live up to the original, the second half rings truer of Carpenter’s film. In fact, steps are taken to ensure that the fans are reminded. Tyler Bates’ music is a dead-ringer of Carpenter’s original score and adds that feeling of authenticity. Zombie also recreates many shots and sequences, at times literally shot for shot.

In the end though, what does it say about a movie when its best quality is that it skillfully recreates scenes from a better movie?

'Superbad' review

2007-08-28T10:07:00.000-07:00

Rating: **** out of ****

There is a shot in ‘Superbad’ that summarizes the whole movie’s mentality. It’s a stedi-cam shot that features the movie’s three heroes, Seth, Evan and Fogel on a city bus heading to a liquor store in an attempt to buy booze with a fake ID that will never pass. The team sits there among the masses, looking dejected and yet the whole scene is played to ‘Are You Man Enough’ by The Four Tops. It lets us know that being ‘Superbad’ is a state of mind; the folks on the bus can’t see it, but once our heroes get off the bus and back into high school life, they will be superbad because, after all, they have a fake ID.

‘Superbad’ falls in the tradition of movies like ‘Dazed and Confused’ where the whole story is self-contained in one day, culminating on that epic night where the characters’ lives will be changed forever, at least in their minds. This time around, it happens to be the night of the final high school party before the summer. Seth and Evan (Jonah Hill & Michael Cera) have been friends since grade school. They are now planning to go to separate colleges and be apart for the first time in their friendship. Their plans for the final party night includes getting booze for a whole party, having sex (or at least getting to third base) and secretly cherish their last times together – though in that true superbad way, they both know it without saying it. Meanwhile, their nerdy friend Fogel (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is caught up in a wild ride with some police officers (Rogen himself and Bill Hader of ‘SNL’) who commit more felonies than they prevent. A series of interlocking incidents occur and the adventure eventually leads everyone – even the officers – to the same party. Before getting to the party however, the boys go through a series of adventures that lead to car crashes, fistfights and detergent jugs filled with beer.

For a while, the high school of the movies was the most unbelievable place in the world. It was the place where mid-thirties actors played eighteen year olds, everyone was having sex, kids drove Mercedes’ to school, and every kid was wheeling and dealing drugs. ‘Superbad’, on the other hand, is the most realistic high school comedy since the original ‘American Pie’ and one of the most authentic ever made. In fact, Christopher Mintz-Plasse had to be tutored during production because he was actually in high school. ‘Superbad’ captures the youthful dreams of parties and third base that many films either fail at, or blow extremely out of proportion. Sure, some of the film is exaggerated, but that is understood; the characters in ‘Superbad’ though, like in real life, talk big but act small. They claim to be able to get booze and girls before they ever have either. There is a scene in which Seth says he’ll go get booze and fantasizes about an old woman buying it for him and then the two of them being murdered by a security guard.

Even though it does not say ‘based on a true story’ in the opening credits, you can tell that ‘Superbad’ is somewhat of an autobiographical tale, based on the high school careers of Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg, the film’s writers. Everything about ‘Superbad’ feels authentic, from the way the teens speak to the way they interact and their immediate goals; the latter comprised of ways to get girls and alcohol.

The film has an absolutely filthy mouth, with more profanities than a Tarantino flick I’m willing to bet. Nevertheless, its heart is pure. There is a bond between Seth and Evan that comes across so naturally on screen. I believe that these friends have been together since childhood. There is a scene in which Seth and Evan are lying drunk on a floor, and in their inebriation, have a genuine moment of platonic love between friends, summarized in the simple act of a hug and a pat on the back. It comes across as more authentic than hundreds of screen kisses I have seen. The film also ends perfectly, with a quiet resolution that simultaneously offers an understanding between Seth and Evan as to the future of their relationship and gives a message of hope for our heroes.

‘Superbad’ is the latest collaboration between Seth Rogan and Judd Apatow, the dream team behind ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’ and ‘Knocked Up’. Apatow isn’t in the director’s seat this time, rather as producer, but still, this film has his name all over it. It is the funniest film I have seen all summer and I found myself laughing aloud frequently in a packed theater. Entire lines of dialogue were lost to the laughter. After ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’, ‘Knocked Up’ and now ‘Superbad’, I can confidently say that the Rogan/Apatow team is the North American equivalent of Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright.

(NOTE: A positive detail I noticed about the film: none of the character’s we’re supposed to care about does drugs in the film. Aside from a scene with some stoners at a party doing cocaine, there are no drugs in the film, not even marijuana. I thought this was a pleasant surprise as compared to most high school movies, which have kids casually smoking (cigarettes and pot), drinking and having sex. I know that may be the truth, but the whole point of going to the movies is to escape.)

'Black Snake Moan' review

2007-08-16T18:48:00.001-07:00

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

Two distinct sounds define ‘Black Snake Moan’. One is the wail of a guitar. The other is the rattle of a chain. Both objects play indispensable roles in what is a weird, dark, and strangely sexy film. I didn’t know exactly how to feel during much of ‘Black Snake Moan’ and I think many audience members won’t either. That is where the films’ magic lies. It is a twisted character study, not manipulative drivel.

Samuel L. Jackson stars as the aptly named Lazarus, an aged blues musician and vegetable farmer whose wife has recently left him for his brother. One day he finds a young white girl lying on the side of the road in nothing but a torn t-shirt and panties. She has been beaten and abandoned. A god-fearing man with a past of sin, Lazarus does the right thing and takes her into his home to care for her. Her name is Rae (Christina Ricci) and she is a nymphomaniac who goes through sexual cravings as bad as a drug addict going through withdrawal. Lazarus aims to cure her of her wicked ways and so he chains her to the radiator, keeping her there until it is out of her system. I was reminded of Renton locking himself in his room until he is clean in ‘Trainspotting’.

From here, the film gets weirder and more absorbing as the relationship between Lazarus and Rae gets stronger. They begin to change each other. Rae reminds Lazarus of his young days of sin as a wild musician, bringing life and verve back to him. Rae sees Lazarus as a long-needed father figure. They never have sex, per say, but there is a heat between them that culminates at a local bar, as Lazarus gets on stage with his guitar for the first time in what we believe to be decades. This is the most intense of the films’ many musical scenes, and perhaps the sexiest scene of the film.

‘Black Snake Moan’ is writer-director Craig Brewer’s follow-up to the great ‘Hustle and Flow’. Brewer revisits familiar territory in the themes of love (in all its forms), sex and redemption. Both films are about neglected people who find solace in one another. Brewer also uses music as a guide in both of his films. The music is a voice of the characters, to express that which they cannot say. I was impressed that Jackson chose to sing his own songs. His voice is raspy and cracks. He’s no longer able to hit every note. It adds age and soul to Lazarus.

The material of ‘Black Snake Moan’ is incredulous. In the wrong hands this film could have been exaggerated, over-the-top tripe. Brewer comes at the material in a refreshing straightforward manner. He knows the situations and actions of some of the characters are downright ludicrous, and so he doesn’t make excuses for them. He lets his actors embody their roles so that the actions are believable because we believe these characters would do them.

This is an actor’s film; a film built on performances. Both Jackson and Ricci turn in Oscar worthy roles. They go balls to the wall in their roles, opening themselves completely. Jackson owns the character of Lazarus and delivers him as a tired soul, looking to be invigorated. Ricci gives the bravest performance of her career. We get the feeling that Rae has experienced much pain and no real love through her life, except by Robbie (Justin Timberlake) who she feels abandoned by since he left for the Army.

There are also strong performances here from S. Epatha Merkerson as a good spirited pharmacist who shares an attraction with Lazarus. Their scenes together are natural and warm. Justin Timberlake follows up his role in ‘Alpha Dog’ with another strong performance as Robbie, Rae’s Army-bound boyfriend who is discharged because he suffers from crippling panic attacks.

‘Black Snake Moan’ may be hard for some to watch. Then again, some may not want to. Nevertheless, given the chance you’ll see some richly textured characters played superbly by great actors. Worst comes to worst, you can kick back and enjoy some good ol’ fashion blues music.

'Ocean's Thirteen' review

2007-08-12T11:44:00.000-07:00

Rating: *** out of ****

If Danny Ocean were a timeless character in the tradition of James Bond, I bet he would have escaped from Alcatraz, robbed Fort Knox, and infiltrated Area 51. There simply is no feat this character cannot pull off if he has his usual crew of people. Said crew has returned for their greatest challenge yet in ‘Ocean’s Thirteen’, the latest caper flick from Steven Soderbergh, who has become a simultaneous master of gritty, intelligent films, and polished Hollywood moneymakers.

This time around, Danny Ocean and his crew bring the caper back to Vegas to pull off the robbery of a lifetime against Willy Bank (Al Pacino), the biggest boss in Las Vegas. As most villains in these kinds of movies do, Bank gains power through muscle and intimidation. Through a business deal gone wrong, Bank leaves Danny’s old friend Reuben (Elliott Gould) catatonic and near death. In an act of revenge, Danny gathers the crew together yet again to get back at Bank by robbing him of what he treasures most – his collection of diamonds that he wins every year for having the best hotel and casino on the strip. Oh yeah, and they also plan to steal 500 million dollars from him in a window of three and a half minutes. The latter part of this scheme is impressively pulled off and is the most exciting moment in ‘Ocean’s Thirteen’. To pull this off, the ‘Ocean’s’ gang go to such lengths as heading to Mexico to rig the casino’s dice at the source, magnetizing the casino to rig the roulette balls, and using the drill used in the construction of the Chunnel to create a man-made earthquake underneath Las Vegas. Uh-huh.

The crew once again consists of Rusty (Brad Pitt), Linus (Matt Damon), Basher (Don Cheadle) and a slew of celebrities that make the film look like a moving version of People’s ‘Most Beautiful People of The Year’ issue. There are some new additions to the cast this time around, including Pacino, Eddie Izzard and the great Ellen Barkin as Bank’s personal assistant. Not returning is Julia Roberts, which I enjoyed, as I found the ‘Julia Roberts playing Julia Roberts’ shtick from the second film to be one of its major downfalls.

While I was a big fan of ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ and I was extremely disappointed with ‘Ocean’s Twelve’, ‘Ocean’s Thirteen’ falls somewhere in the middle. It’s more fun than the second movie with a plot that makes more sense, but the magic of the first movie is gone. Soderbergh is a great filmmaker, which shows in ‘Traffic’, ‘Out of Sight’ and ‘Sex, Lies and Videotape’ and the ‘Ocean’s’ films are well made. It just feels like every time Soderbergh wants to take a chance with something (‘Bubble’), or has a colossal letdown (‘The Good German’) he has to run back to the ‘Ocean’s’ franchise to make a quick box office smash and get back in the game. It’s almost as if he’s contractually obligated to make one every three years. The only problem is that the first two times, we could sense the actors having fun, while this time you can feel them going through the motions.

The ‘Ocean’s’ films have always contained enough plot to fill two or three movies and ‘Thirteen’ is no exception. It is near impossible to follow every detail of the wheeling-and-dealings that go on in these films and so it’s best to just hang on and enjoy the ride. As usual, there are elements that don’t make much sense. Vincent Cassel has a pointless cameo as François Toulour, his character from ‘Twelve’, and there’s a reprisal by Andy Garcia which serves nothing. Not everything that happens in ‘Thirteen’ is made entirely clear and as usual you’ll leave the theater running the film back through your head to put the pieces together. The plot is far easier to follow than ‘Twelve’ which is a positive mark on the film.

In the end though, no one watches this franchise to ‘get’ everything anyway. We watch them to see attractive celebrities doing cool things while looking, acting and talking slick. In that measure, ‘Ocean’s Thirteen’ does not disappoint. It’s a fun piece of eye-candy that is able to revive some of the classic Vegas feel of the past. With the third film in the series, you get exactly what you’ve come to expect. No more, no less.

That being said, I hope the ‘Ocean’s’ franchise can be put to bed and Soderbergh can get back to making some of those great films again.

'Evan Almighty' review

2007-08-10T15:24:00.000-07:00

Rating: *1/2 out of ****

I’ve always heard about the supposed ‘rules’ of comedy, of which there are many. Rules such as ‘timing is everything’, or ‘always leave them wanting more’. I’m not sure if those are concrete rules, or more guidelines. One rule I know for sure though and that is ‘it must be funny’! Unfortunately, this is a simple rule that ‘Evan Almighty’ cannot follow.

‘Evan Almighty’ is the sequel to the 2003 hit ‘Bruce Almighty’ that starred Jim Carrey and Jennifer Aniston. Neither of them has chosen to come back for the sequel and instead have been replaced by Steve Carell and Lauren Graham. Carell revives his performance from the first ‘Almighty’ film as Evan Baxter; a former news anchor turned US Congressman. Evan moves his family from Buffalo to Washington to begin his new career. One day he has an encounter with God himself (once again played by Morgan Freeman). God tells Evan that he must build an arc before the city is wiped out by a massive flood. From here on, Evan grows a long beard, wears a robe and sets out to build his arc. Of course, everyone in Evan’s life thinks he’s crazy, including his wife (Graham) and his children. That is, until the inevitable miracle happens that shows he is really doing God’s work.

‘Evan Almighty’ could have worked, but it runs into simple yet massive problems along the way. For starters, Evan is a nice person right from the get-go. In ‘Bruce Almighty’, Bruce resented and blamed God for his misfortunes. In the end, he goes from bitter to nice and sees how to correct his own problems with the messages he’s taken from caring for the world as their God. Evan does not resent God and has no real problems (except his family misses home) and so there is nowhere for this character to go. He has no arc to speak of, excuse the pun. God chose Bruce because he wanted Bruce to see the truth and change because of it. But what is Evan’s truth? I found myself constantly wondering why Evan was chosen, and the film’s paper-thin moral explanation wasn’t enough for me. Surely, there could have been people better fitted to build this arc – morally and logistically speaking. You’re telling me there isn’t a single carpenter in the world going through a crisis of faith?

It is a short film with a running time of 95 minutes. However, it features more 80’s-style ‘fixing stuff up’ montages than a John Hughes film festival. As well, the climax with the flood felt more at home in the opening scenes of ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ and was simply not funny as we see the streets of Washington go underwater. In fact, instead of laughing I found myself wondering about all those who drowned in the flood. The last thing a comedy should have you thinking about is dead people, unless it’s a Tim Burton comedy.

Steve Carell is one of the best comedic actors working today and I foresee him having a great career in the tradition of Robin Williams and Jim Carrey. He shines in A-material such as ‘The Office’ or ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’ and even sparks in supporting roles as in ‘Anchorman’. Here, he does his best with what’s given, though it feels as if he’s phoning it in; mugging to the camera all too often with a dance that may entertain five year olds. So much talent is wasted here, from Morgan Freeman’s God, to John Goodman, Wanda Sykes, Harve Presnell and John Michael Higgins (who was hilarious in Christopher Guest’s ‘For Your Consideration’). In fact, the character I laughed at the most was that of Eugene, the office suck-up whom borderlines stalker. He’s played by the wonderful Jonah Hill who is quickly climbing the Hollywood comedy ladder, appearing in such hits as ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’, ‘Accepted’, ‘Knocked Up’, and this summer’s ‘Superbad’.

‘Evan Almighty’ isn’t an ill-intentioned film. I certainly have seen worse movies and worse comedies (‘Evan Almighty’ is an Oscar winner compared to most Rob Schneider films). It simply isn’t funny. You can feel the good intentions all over the place, from the writing, to the performances, to the special effects. It just seems to take steps down the wrong path at every turn. I’ve read that ‘Evan Almighty’ is now the most expensive comedy ever made. It’s ironic that this movie has hit such a landmark record, but will surely be forgotten soon after its opening weekend.

'The Host' review

2007-08-08T17:09:00.000-07:00

Rating: *** out of ****

‘The Host’ has gone on to become the highest grossing film in South Korea’s history and I can understand why. Joon-Ho Bong’s throwback to the classic monster movies of yesteryear (‘Godzilla’, ‘Them’) is part monster flick, part social/political commentary and part dysfunctional family comedy. That could have been a recipe for disaster in the wrong hands, but Bong balances the three so well it creates a modern monster movie that all together impresses on a modern scale and acts well as homage.

The film centers on Park Hee-bong, an elderly man who runs a small snack bar on the banks of the Han River. His oldest son Gang-du is an immature and incompetent man in his 40’s, whose wife left home long ago. Nam-il is his youngest son, is unemployed and generally seems to complain about everything that is going on. Park Hee-bong’s daughter, Nam-joo is an archery medalist and member of the national team. It’s funny how we are never exposed to Nam-joo’s archery skills until the end of the film. I assumed she would have been shooting left and right, becoming an action heroine of sorts.

One day, an unidentified monster suddenly appears from the depths of the Han River and wreaks havoc. Gang-du's daughter Hyun-seo is taken by the monster. It is assumed that the monster has killed her. However, when they find out she is still alive, they launch a mission to find her.

‘The Host’ opens impressively enough. We’re first given a minimalist explanation as to how the monster came to be. Given that it is not essential to the story, the details given are just enough so we don’t have to ask. It’s simple in that traditional way, like Godzilla being created by the atom bomb. After that, we’re treated to the most impressive scene, when the monster makes a daring daylight attack on the Han River. The creature resembles a demonic tadpole with legs, insect eyes, and a mouth harking back to John McTiernan’s ‘Predator’. It is not a creature that feels alien, but rather like something that could come from the deeps of our oceans. Though the visual effects seemed mediocre at times, I was impressed at how Bong had the courage to put his monster in the daylight, not relying on darkness to hide or create shortcuts. Since horror movies have always revolved around night, darkness and shadow, there has always been something scarier about the daylight (the original ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ for example). This opening sequence starts the movie perfectly; hooking us right from the get-go and in some ways is reminiscent of the immortal opening scene from ‘Jaws’.

Though the movie, at times, seems to be a random series of events, the whole is greater than the sum. We’re treated to plenty of political commentary and satire. Bong does not hide his Anti-American sentiment and the film makes concurrent statements about the American medical establishment and the events in New Orleans. Though this aspect of the film is involving, it is vague and confusing when we find out the ‘bad guys’ true intentions. Their motives are never really made clear; we just know they’re doing something wrong and that they’re bad for doing it. Again, maybe that’s all we need to know.

‘The Host’ would have been right at home in the 1950’s, but impressively enough, makes its mark quite well in 2007. These days we don’t see many monster movies that have a political agenda. It’s nice to see. It also features a twist ending that plays against the usual formula. Also nice to see. With ‘The Host’, Joon-Ho Bong packs multiple genres into a monster flick that is simultaneously gross, funny and poignant. It has been rumored that this will be one of the next Asian horror films to have an American adaptation. I’m curious to see if it can carry over or if it becomes just another monster movie.

'TMNT' review

2007-08-03T15:29:00.000-07:00

Rating: ** out of ****

There comes a time when you realize that the things you loved as a kid really weren’t that great. You still enjoy them in the nostalgic sense, but the realization of their overall quality sinks in over time. While the 'Transformers' may be there, I’m not sure if the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are yet. There is still something creative, rich and compelling about a story of four walking, talking turtles and their master who is a giant fighting rat. Unfortunately for those who are still fans of this franchise, ‘TMNT’ doesn’t quite take off the way it should and thusly, may be a nail in the coffin for the series.

‘TMNT’ is the fourth film in the series that follows Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello and Michelangelo as they battle evil in New York City, while feasting on pizza along the way. After defeating their arch-nemesis, The Shredder, the turtles have gone their separate ways. Leonardo has left New York and is on a spiritual quest in Central America to become a better ninja and leader. Michelangelo now works as a children’s entertainer and Donatello as a technician in a call-center. Raphael, meanwhile, has picked up the slack as a lone warrior named ‘The Nightwatcher’ who wears so much metal, it’s a wonder he can even raise his leg to kick bad guys. The would-be villain this time is Max Winters (Patrick Stewart), a billionaire with a secret who hires the Foot Clan to find him thirteen monsters that have been on Earth for thousands of years, yet no one has ever seen them. Leonardo decides to return to New York after a visit from April O'Neil - who has given up the reporting gig to become a Lara Croft of sorts. It’s then up to the turtles, with the help of their old friend Casey Jones, to stop Winters and send the monsters back where they came from. Master Splinter also comes along for the ride, occasionally offering some ancient wisdom. The voice work on him is either a blatant Asian stereotype or has been performed phonetically by the actor (Mako). Either way, every scene Splinter occupies really lets you know you're watching a cartoon.

The first three Ninja Turtle films were live action and showed the mastery of Jim Henson Studios in full effect. Even now, there is something imaginative and believable to those suits with the motorized heads. The fourth film has gone the CG way, with animation that may not be as impressive as most Pixar films, but still shows off a dark, gloomy New York City while allowing the characters to be colorful and animated in nature.

The problem with the fourth installment is that it contains two stories: one that is not developed enough, and another that is such a mess, I couldn’t have cared less about it. The first story centers on Leonardo and Raphael’s sibling rivalry - a recurring theme throughout all four films. Raphael feels abandoned and betrayed by Leo for having left, and Leo thinks Raphael is too hotheaded and stubborn. This conflict culminates in a rain-drenched, rooftop battle between the two that is far more epic than you normally see in a children’s movie. I enjoyed this plotline very much and wanted to see more of it, however it takes a back seat to the ‘monsters’ story, which makes very little sense and may be confusing to children.

‘TMNT’ contains some attractive animation, exciting fight-sequences and interesting voice work, (Kevin Smith appears in a cameo and Laurence Fishburne is the narrator). I also enjoyed how the low-level thugs were more realistic by carrying guns and not using kung-fu to carry out robberies. I’m sure this will be seen by some as a fitting reinvention of the franchise. However, with a story that plays more like a video game than a movie and a plot that may confuse its target audience, it may be a good idea if the turtles stayed in the sewers a little longer before coming out for a fifth film.

'The Simpsons Movie' review

2007-07-29T12:42:00.000-07:00

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

No one, not even Matt Groening himself, could've imagined that ‘The Simpsons’ would become as big as it did. Nor could anyone anticipate how much of a cultural phenomenon it has become. ‘The Simpsons’ may be the only show on the air that is older than its target audience. Going into its nineteenth year on the air, ‘The Simpsons’ have raised a generation. Homer Simpson has become the most iconic cartoon character since Bugs Bunny. With such a legacy, it was inevitable the show would take the leap to the big screen. Those anticipating the movie and those who have an aversion to the idea have come in equal numbers. Many seem to think that after 18 years the movie has nowhere to go but down. But it’s not as if this film was thought up overnight. Does anyone remember the ‘Camp Krusty’ episode? I read that that story was supposed to be the original idea for the movie. That shows how long this movie has been on the creators’ minds.

“Why would anyone pay to see something they can see for free on TV?” Homer asks the audience. It’s a good question. People will pay though. If not, for any other reason, than to satisfy their curiosity as to what exactly has been brewing for 18 years. People often say that a movie made from a TV show will just feel like an extended episode. Of course it will. It is the same characters in their usual universe. Unless the creators take a long drive off the path of the show (i.e. ‘Beavis & Butthead Do America’), how could it not?

In this extended Simpsons episode, we find Springfield has become the most polluted town in the history of the world. This is due to the resident’s habitual dumping in Lake Springfield, topped off by Homer dumping an entire silo of pig waste. President Schwarzenegger, under pressure from the EPA, declares that the city be sealed off from the rest of the US. This leads to dire consequences and it is up to America’s favorite family to save the day.

The plot may sound thin, but it leaves plenty of room for the richly textured jokes and satire that the Simpsons are known for - and that shows like ‘Family Guy’ later bastardized. We see the usual types - shameless plugs for the Fox network (yes, even in a feature film), jabs at politicians, government incompetence, and Homer hurting himself in so many ways it would make the Three Stooges cringe. The show takes advantage of the newfound leeway brought with a film, pushing the envelope while not intentionally trying to offend. Its humor always feels light-hearted. It also features some of the most heart-felt and poignant moments this family has endured. There is a moment between Homer and Marge that is so quiet and affecting that Julie Kavner’s (Marge) voice even resonates differently – we hear Julie breaking down as well as Marge.

The higher budget has allowed a face-lift for the animation. Computer animation is used sparsely and creatively. It never feels distracting; rather enriching the universe the Simpsons occupy. Shots and sequences are possible now that could never work on the show. Supposedly, the movie has set a record for writers on a single script (11). Normally this many writers implies countless rewrites and modifications. Here, it just happens that 11 writers have an equal love for the material. The jokes are fresh and non-stop, from the opening Fox logo to the end of the credits (stay for them, it’s well worth it).

‘The Simpsons’ movie may be compared to the last episode of ‘Seinfeld’, where it has been built-up for so long that there is no way the fans will get what they expect. There will be die-hard fans that are impossible to satisfy. I have been a fan of the show since the beginning, have seen every episode multiple times, and am still an avid watcher. This movie did not disappoint. After 18 years of anticipation, I feel it was well worth the wait. ‘The Simpsons Movie’ is entertaining, funny, heart-warming and flat-out ridiculous. Though the small screen will suffice, I would love to see them back on the big screen. And if Maggie’s first word is any sign, they will be.

The gang's all here! 'The Simpsons Movie' is in theaters now.

'Knocked Up' review

2007-07-27T22:14:00.000-07:00

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

Coming from a small town, my friends and I didn’t have much to do except go to work, come home and party, BBQ and talk about our big plans for the future. It’s fitting then that I could instantly relate to the characters in ‘Knocked Up’. That’s what makes Judd Apatow’s follow-up to ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’ so great – anyone can understand it. It is so instantly relatable on a wide scale that anyone (working professional, slacker seasonalist, stay at home parent) can understand who the characters are and what their motivations are. Moreover, they are likeable people that I wouldn’t mind knowing and hanging out with. Apatow guaranteed this by making them multi-layered people of right here and now. There is no generation gap here. This movie is so current the characters literally talk about going to see ‘Spider-man 3’, and re-watching ‘Munich’.

Seth Rogan stole the show in ‘Virgin’, at times upstaging the great Steve Carell. Here he plays Ben, a slacker who lives with his friends. Ben has a career goal: start a website highlighting all the best nude scenes from movies. Had he done a quick search on Google, he’d find several already in existence. One night at a bar, Ben meets Alison (Katherine Heigl), an up and coming executive at E! who has just been promoted and is out celebrating. After a few too many, they end up back at Alison’s apartment and due to a miscommunication, end up having unprotected sex. Sure enough, a few weeks later Alison is calling Ben to fill him in that she’s (drum roll…) pregnant! Ben’s reaction to the news is priceless. Meanwhile, Alison lives with her sister, Debbie (Leslie Mann) and her husband, Pete (Paul Rudd), who question Ben’s abilities as a father. They’re having problems with their own marriage. Their relationship is a nice juxtaposition to Ben and Alison’s. While one relationship is struggling to begin, the other is almost ending. Paul Rudd once again is brilliant as he plays a man who feels as if life kicked in a little too quickly. In one scene, he summarizes marriage to Ben as an unfunny version of ‘Everybody Loves Raymond’ that lasts forever. Personally, some episodes of ‘Raymond’ can feel that way, but I digress.

From here, the story follows Ben and Alison over the nine months trying to develop a relationship but mostly trying to get to know one another. A lesser film would have had Ben trying to find any and every excuse to skip out on his duties or doing the bare minimum. Not here, as Rogan makes Ben a young man willing to change and mature due to his newfound responsibilities. You can tell that behind the profanity and razor-sharp wit, Apatow is a true romantic. The chemistry between Ben and Alison feels real. They grow to care for one another, never feeling forced or schmaltzy. Like ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’, here is a film that finds the perfect balance between bawdy, gross-out humor and a sweet, relationship comedy. It walks the line well, spilling equally into both territories.

Apatow has a talent for taking complex situations, which take place everyday, and placing them at the forefront of his movies. For example, he covered lifelong sexual/social ineptitude in ‘Virgin’. ‘Knocked Up’ handles the issue of ill-legitimate children. Apatow does not shy away from taboo subject matter; he places it right on display without it feeling gratuitous or exploitative. He’s making the freshest, most honest mainstream comedies today. Take the issue of abortion. It is inevitable that in this story – as in life – the question of abortion would rise. Apatow handles the situation so maturely that both left and right wings will be satisfied.

Running a little long (129 minutes), ‘Knocked Up’ feels like the extended edition of the DVD that made it to theaters. Nevertheless, I could sit and watch these characters time and time again. Should Apatow decide to revisit them, it’ll feel like catching up with old friends – they’ll just be taking their kids to go see ‘Indiana Jones 4’.

'28 Weeks Later' review

2007-07-26T17:01:00.000-07:00

Rating: ** out of ****

(*NOTE* - I am fully aware that in this franchise, the ‘infected’ are not technically zombies. Whatever. For argument’s sake, we will call them zombies, as beyond that technicality they share many zombie traits.)

‘28 Weeks Later’ may be the horror film with the most political commentary since George Romero’s ‘Dawn of The Dead’. Though its messages are obvious and thinly textured to those of a Romero classic, I was glad they were there. We normally are not given those privileges with the average zombie film. The film gets an ‘A’ for effort.

‘28 Weeks Later’ is the sequel to the 2002 modern day classic ‘28 Days Later’. Danny Boyle reinvented the zombie film with his low budget, intimate account of a zombie plague infecting Britain. Perhaps Boyle’s film worked so well because it had a lower budget than most horror films, and so they relied on the excellent script by Alex Garland. It featured complex ideas on wartimes and survivalism, appealing relationships and true jump-out-of-your-seat scares, producing one of the scariest modern horror films. This time around, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo takes the reigns as director with Boyle serving as an executive producer. Fresnadillo and Boyle approach similar material very differently. One with substance and style, the other more style. It made me wonder of what ‘Aliens’ would have been like had it been directed by Tony Scott.

‘28 Weeks Later’ picks up, well, 28 weeks after the Rage virus has spread throughout the city of London. The city has been quarantined, all those infected either starved to death or wiped-out by American military forces. The US army declares that the war against infection has been won, and that the reconstruction of the country can begin. In the first wave of returning refugees, a family is reunited – the father (Robert Carlyle) left his wife to die in the outbreak and is now coming together with his children (Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton), who we assume were evacuated before things became really bad. Why the father and his wife did not evacuate with them is never really made clear. The children must be secret agents though, because they are able to sneak past American forces and travel to their old home in the danger zone. Here they find a survivor who comes back into the safe zone with them. The survivor does not show signs of infection. Later, it is discovered that the survivor is infected, though shows no signs. The theory is presented that their blood may contain natural biological immunities to the plague. One thing leads to another and the virus is once again spreading like wild fire through the safe zone. A race against time ensues between the US government’s alarmist plans to ‘shoot them all and let God sort them out’, and a military nurse (Rose Byrne) who wants to experiment with the immune blood to find a cure.

Where the first film succeeded so well with its small scale, well-developed relationships and choice scares, the sequel kicks it into overdrive with more blood, more jumps, and more action - with cameras so shaky I honestly could not tell what was happening until the moment was over. That being said, that same technique is also useful in selling some of the films freakiest moments. ‘28 Weeks Later’ is a political parabol, exemplifying everything from the war in Iraq to Hurricane Katrina – though it never decides what point it’s trying to make with its analogies. It begins well enough with a man who seems somewhat passive about leaving his wife to die and lying to his children about it. This would have been a great story to develop further. Unfortunately, the film leaves this point behind when the chasing and killing begins. The characters are left underdeveloped and the film has an ending that feels vague, with no hope of a cure - even with the potential of one. It also can’t seem to make up its mind on how smart or strong these zombies really are. Some are killed by being shot once or twice - as they are still human after all. Others seem near invincible. Most of the zombies are pure rage and instinct. Hunting humans and feeding is all they know. Yet one such zombie seems to be smart enough to evade all authorities and traps, popping up whenever the plot needs him to. Some fans of the film suggest that the strain of the disease is evolved and more potent this time around, yet the film puts forth no theories or points to back up such a claim.

Where the first film was compelling and thoughtful with very scary moments, this film is a video game. Every scene and new situation feels like a level of a game, ranging from streets and cemeteries to fields and subways. The infected are merely targets. There is even a scene shown in the first person, and though it is the most suspenseful of the film, I bet some people in the theater were reaching for joysticks that were not there. If only ‘Doom’ could have been this much fun!

‘28 Weeks Later’ cannot hold a flame to its predecessor. I bet many die-hard fans will be calling for Danny Boyle to come back. If you leave your brain at the door while picking up your vomit bag, you can enjoy its aesthetic qualities and political undertones - all the while cringing pleasurably. I’m sure many zombie-lovers will eat it up with a blood-dripping spoon. One has to wonder what the fate of ‘28 Months Later’ will hold. ‘28 Years’? ‘28 Decades’? Who knows?

'F4 - Rise of The Silver Surfer' review

2007-07-25T09:55:00.000-07:00

Rating: *** out of ****

There is a clever scene in Wes Craven’s ‘Scream 2’ that has a classroom of characters sitting, debating sequels and whether many hold up to their successors. It’s a funny little scene with some well thought dialogue. In it, they debunk that ‘Aliens’ is not better than Ridley Scott’s first film, that ‘T2’ is not better than ‘The Terminator’, but they all agree that ‘The Godfather: Part II’ is better than the first. I agree with the first point and disagree with the second two.

Tim Story's ‘Fantastic Four – Rise of The Silver Surfer’ may not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as ‘Aliens’, ‘T2’ or ‘The Godfather’, but it is a sequel that overshadows its predecessor quite significantly. I would have listed the first ‘Fantastic Four’ with my top ten worst films of the year, had I compiled said list that year. The second may not make my ‘best of’ list, but it won’t make the worst either.

‘F4 – ROTSS’ picks up some time after the first film. We see the current adventures of The Fantastic Four, comprised of Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic, who can stretch his body out ‘till next week), Sue Storm (The Invisible Woman, self-explanatory), Johnny Storm (The Human Storm, who can spontaneously combust as well as fly), and Ben Grimm (The Thing, who is literally a walking hunk of granite). In the last film, the team developed super-powers by being exposed to ‘cosmic radiation’, and all they could say is ‘cool!’ This time around, we’re on the eve of Reed and Sue’s wedding, which is on its fifth attempt –superheroes have busy lives and can’t always fit a wedding in to their schedules. Meanwhile, the Earth is experiencing mystifying activities that take shape in the forms of snow in Egypt, massive blackouts and craters large enough to suck in a city. The Human Torch discovers in an impressive chase sequence that the cause of these activities is a figure known as The Silver Surfer. The surfer is paving the way for Galactus, a giant being that comes in the form of a storm and devours planets. Now, the Fantastic Four must team up with the US Government as well as their nemesis Dr. Doom – making an obligatory return from the first film – to capture the surfer and save the Earth.

While the sequel plays with the same cartoonish logic and humor as its predecessor, the fresh elements in this chapter elevate the movie. In this day, where more people care that Paris Hilton goes to jail than what’s happening with the war, the obsession over a superhero’s wedding is played off as a witty satire on our celebrity obsessed culture. I also enjoy the way the Fantastic Four deal with authority and government figures. They aren’t rogue heroes above the law. They collaborate with the military, and thusly the military seeks their help. You’d never see Batman or Spiderman do that. There are also deeper elements within the group of heroes. There is a subplot where Reed and Sue contemplate leaving to lead ‘normal’ lives, leaving Ben and Johnny to contemplate the future of the team. It was curious to me why Sue complained so much about being in the public eye, when she could make herself invisible.

The high point of the film is the title character. The surfer – played by Doug Jones and voiced by Lawrence Fishburne - excels the story. He has an element of mystery and wisdom to him and contains powers that make Reed Richards look like Stretch Armstrong. His action sequences are more exciting than all others are, and when he brings Galactus to Earth, it involves some breathtaking visuals of the planet literally being swallowed in a storm. I would like to have known a bit more about him though. Alas, we’re given just as much as we need to know in order to empathize with him, but without a look at his home world or knowing how he came to work for Galactus’, we really can’t care or hate the character as much as it feels we’re supposed to.

The major hindrance on the picture though is the rehash of Dr. Doom. His lackluster return feels tacked on as a shameless ‘guess-who’s-back’ motive and lowers the bar for the film. He was not required in any fashion and that puts a damper on an otherwise fine climactic battle. The writers would have been well advised to wait and bring him back in the third installment.

Still, ‘Fantastic Four – Rise of The Silver Surfer’ is a pleasant surprise given my disdain for the first installment. After a summer of mostly letdowns, it was nice to sit back, let go and actually feel that inner child in me excited about what was happening on screen. When the surfer skids down the side of a building, shattered glass flying like mists of water, all I could say was, ‘cool!’

The Anti-Spielberg Movement?

2007-07-24T13:55:00.000-07:00

The other day I was reading an article by Rick McGinnis, the Entertainment writer for ‘The Metro’. In his article entitled ‘Studio closed, but not forgotten’, he mentions how TV writer/executive producer Aaron Sorkin has a deal that may see one his scripts directed by Steven Spielberg. McGinnis goes on to say, and I quote, “which is, to be frank, no longer the big deal it used to be.” A few days ago, my friend Bryan and I were talking about George Lucas and the innovations he has brought to the world of film, technically speaking. Bryan claimed that George Lucas has done more for the world of film than Steven Spielberg has, and that Spielberg hasn’t really done that much. I am not here to debate the Lucas matter, though I’m interested in people’s opinions. However, what he said struck a chord with me. In the last few years I’ve been hearing plenty of comments like those of Bryan’s and Mr. McGinnis’; people saying that Spielberg doesn’t hold the weight he used to, or that his hey-days are behind him and that he should sit back and produce for Dreamworks; that he’s only making ‘Indiana Jones 4’ as a ‘back-to-the-well’ move. I say that just because things change, doesn’t mean they haven’t stayed the same.

People’s basis for these Anti-Spielberg statements tends to be two points: economic and artistic. People think that just because a Spielberg film may not have grossed ‘Jurassic Park’ sized numbers, it means it’s not a success. As well if he’s not making ‘Schindler’s List’ every year then he’s making unimportant work. Sure, ‘The Terminal’ may have been a financial let-down, but ‘War of The World’s’ broke box office records, raking in hundreds of millions worldwide. Sure, he may have been phoning it in with ‘Catch Me If You Can’, but don’t forget ‘Munich’ – arguably one of the most poignant political films in decades.

Spielberg is criticized all too often for making movies that are too ‘mainstream’. He is a businessperson as well as a filmmaker, a fact he has never tried to hide. He is a tycoon in the truest sense of the word. He believes in making commercially viable art, yet art all the same. Moreover, in spite of his missteps, he has never had significant or prolonged failure.

If a filmmaker wants to branch out and try some different things, maybe smaller things, does not make those things terrible. Spielberg seems to have a stigma attached to him that everything he does must be ‘Close Encounters’ or ‘Jaws’. ‘A.I.’ may have missed the mark, but many critics commended him for trying something as far away from his normal style as he could, though dealing with familiar subject matter. He took a risk and risks don’t always work. But this is the man who brought us ‘Indiana Jones’, ‘E.T.’, has held the record of ‘highest grossing film of all time’ at least twice, and was the first filmmaker to break $100 million at the box office while simultaneously inventing the summer blockbuster (‘Jaws;). After what he has done, he deserves to take some risks.

I loved ‘The Terminal’. I thought it was a small, sweet film that was poignant in its own way. It brought to mind ‘Forrest Gump’, though on a smaller scale. I also thought ‘War of The Worlds’ had many glaring problems and was not his finest, but it was a huge financial success - which would hopefully silence many critics who say Spielberg can’t pull in a crowd anymore. Then there’s ‘Minority Report’, which I thought was one his best works in a decade, and as Roger Ebert stated, “This film is such a virtuoso high-wire act, daring so much, achieving it with such grace and skill…"Minority Report" reminds us why we go to the movies in the first place.”

The point is that just because he may make some movies that are creatively askew from his normal endeavors, doesn’t make them worse. Moreover, if some of them flop, you know he’ll come back, as he’s done multiple times. Never forget that he is the most financially successful and legendary director of all time (I’m not going to say ‘greatest’ because that is very subjective); therefore he is not going to bow out so easily.

And as for the ‘back-to-the-well’ statement about ‘Indy 4’, just because you may be going back to the well, it doesn’t mean you can’t draw fresh water.

'Transformers' review

2007-07-16T15:20:00.000-07:00

Rating: *1/2 out of ****

Who knew that super advanced robots from outer space would be so shallow? If I traveled across the gulf of space, over god knows how many millions of light-years, I’d have something better to say. Alas, the Transformers have come all this way to spout cheesy one-liners, cornball dialogue and advertisements for EBay. Oh well, at least a lot of stuff blows up real good.

Michael Bay’s ‘Transformers’ is the live-action adaptation of the classic Hasbro toy line, which has earth vehicles transforming into giant fighting robots. That’s about the extent of the film’s storyline too, the rest of it being a non-stop car commercial and showcase of explosions, everything we’ve come to expect from a Michael Bay flick.

What little story we’re given involves an on-going battle between The Autobots and The Decepticons over the All-Spark, the MacGuffin of the story (Google it). It is a device that can create life out of anything mechanical – including Mountain Dew machines, X-Boxes, and any other product that is convenient for product placement. The All-Spark has found its way to Earth and so the Autobots and Decepticons must duke it out here over their prize. A brief back-story is provided about an explorer who stumbled upon Megatron (the leader of the Decepticons) buried in a glacier a couple hundred years ago. The US government has Megatron now, and so the Decepticons must find him and release him as well as find the All-Spark. The information as to the location of the All-Spark has been imbedded into the lenses of the explorer’s eyeglasses (some how), whose modern day descendent, Sam Whitwicky possesses and is trying to sell on EBay. If the Transformers got their info from EBay and the web, then why couldn’t they set up an EBay account and purchase the glasses?

The audience would be better off learning about the Autobots from the internet, as the movie spends very little time establishing any of them. Most of the human characters suffer the same fate. At least there’s a nice ‘worlds apart yet the same underneath it all’ message tacked on in the end to make us feel warm and fuzzy.

Since the Decepticons will surely destroy Sam to get the glasses, The Autobots have sent a guardian to protect him until the rest of them can arrive in a self-referential ‘Armageddon’ inspired sequence. This guardian is Bumblebee, an old Chevy Camaro who seems to be very sensitive about his aesthetic appearance.

After that, ‘Transformers’ becomes a slick commercial with pockets of non-stop explosions. My hat goes off to Industrial Light and Magic for creating some of the most realistic digital creatures ever seen on film. That being said, many of the battles are shot in extreme close-ups, with shaky cameras and choppy editing that you get lost in the mess of it all. Even when you can see what's happening, a lot of the action goes on and on and on ad nauseam.

The script is uninspired and contains dialogue that almost made me laugh aloud - and not in the good way. I enjoy Shia LeBeouff as an actor and he does what he can with the material given, but I did not believe that his character would be considered a nerd or be picked on at school. I also didn’t believe his attraction to Megan Fox’s character. There is no chemistry between them, besides her being extremely physically attractive, but a blind man could see that.

Almost every government or military character is moronic, making decisions that only endanger humans further. Would the US Secretary of Defense (Jon Voight) be left with no military bodyguards while an invasion of Decepticons is going on? If the military held the All-Spark, why decide to hide it in a major populated city where the Decepticons will come to get it, destroying the city and its inhabitants in order to retrieve it? Because the script calls for it as an excuse to get the Transformers into an urban area for the climax and an urban setting is always more exciting than a desolate one. Why sink some vanquished Decepticons to the bottom of the ocean as a cover-up? Did it not occur to the government that studying them would help battle them in the sequel? I guess the military doesn’t think as far ahead as Hollywood does.

Many people I talk to say that I’m reading excessively into this; that it’s based on a toy line, it’s a Michael Bay film, and so I should accept it for what it is and not expect too much from it. I don’t think expecting certain elements of realism or character is expecting too much. If you want to adapt a toy/cartoon into a live action film and make it believable in a live action world, then there are basic rules of realism, physics and common sense that must apply. ‘Transformers’ gets the physics and realism of the robots accurate. They look and feel real; textured with thousands of moving parts, with real gravity and weight to them. It’s everyone and everything else around the robots that are not believable. The filmmakers spent so much time making the Transformers themselves seem real that it’s the characters, story and plot that feel fake.

Perhaps 'Transformers' makes a good statement about the state of modern movies. After all, when every one of the digital characters are more believable than every flesh and blood character, that must be saying something.

'1408' review

2007-07-16T15:18:00.000-07:00

Rating: *** out of ****

“Hotel rooms are a naturally creepy place”, Mike Enslin utters into his tape recorder, practically his only form of outward communication in Mikael Hafstrom’s ‘1408’. John Cusak plays Mike, a horror writer who spends his time traveling across America debunking supposedly haunted hotels, writing about it and raking in the dough from the fan boys. ‘1408’ is the most recent adaptation of a Stephen King thriller, and one of the best to come along in a while.

One day Mike gets an anonymous postcard telling him not to stay in room 1408 of The Dolphin Hotel, New York City. The fact that the numbers in 1408 add up to 13 is sure to be a popular trivia question somewhere in the near future. Mike being the brazen type, immediately hops a plane to New York to stay in the room. “It’s an evil f-ing room”, warns Gerald Olin, the Manager of the hotel played by Samuel L. Jackson in a role that didn’t necessarily require a star such as him. He makes more than due however, dutifully warning Cusak’s character and the audience with the horror stories of the 56 people who have died in room 1408 since the hotel opened. It is true that the imagination is far scarier than anything that can be shown. I found myself more anxious during Jackson’s tales than any other time, visualizing scenes more intense and horrific than anything the film had to offer. That is how ‘1408’ gets its scares. It is purely psychological, and even though its effects run thin over the course of its run-time, it is still relatively effective up until the last frame.

Enslin – almost mocking Olin – refuses to be persuaded and enters 1408. Almost immediately the shocks begin, subtly and then building ever more intensely. The beauty of ‘1408’ is the ingenious use of the hotel room. I was reminded of two other recent hotel thrillers, ‘Vacancy’ and ‘Bug’, in the creative ways to use the same set repeatedly and yet the setups always seem fresh. We’re always in the same room, but at times it feels like separate environments.

One of the most interesting aspects of ‘1408’ is how Cusak remains alone for two thirds of the film and yet has consistent dialogue. It is very easy to have a character speaking to themselves and have it come across as forced, but here it works. The film takes a page from Zemeckis’s ‘Cast Away’, using the tape recorder as Cusak’s ‘Wilson’ – an inanimate device that allows us to know what he is thinking and feeling. As the story progresses and Mike descends further into madness, the tape recorder becomes less involved as the character just thinks aloud. This is believable by now, as much of what he says is reactionary and often has him babbling almost incoherently.

‘1408’ does take some steps off the path. What actually takes place in the room is not as foreboding as the buildup given by the Manager. You can feel the terror dialed down a bit by the PG-13 rating. There is a false ending sequence, which seemed unnecessary and actually takes us out of the film for an awkward moment. Jackson shows up once again in the third act for an obligatory cameo, which, once again breaks some great tension. The largest curiosity I had however was that it seemed the room could not hurt Mike, it just attempts to drive him mad or to hurt himself. There is a point where a ghost appears, swings a weapon at him, and does not connect. There is another moment when a ghost seems to be trying to push him out a window, but is actually just trying to scare him into falling. It seemed to me that Mike would clue in to this fact relatively quickly and then slowly become desensitized to the room’s threats – making it ineffectual. The room felt like a bully, where if you stood up to it and showed you weren’t afraid of it, it would leave you alone.

Nevertheless, ‘1408’ provides some strong thrills and cold chills, coupled with strong performances by Cusak and Jackson. It may not be as great a shocker as some of King’s others (The Shining, The Stand, IT) but it does its job well and with enthusiasm - and in a time of countless by-the-numbers thrillers and timid horror films, that's fine by me.

'Live Free or Die Hard' review

2007-06-29T21:14:00.000-07:00

Rating: **1/2 out of ****

I often find myself asking a very important question when it comes to films in a franchise: Should each film be compared to the others in the series, or should each film be allowed to stand on its own legs? The answer is both. You must look at a film on its own merits, but a sequel or prequel is inevitably going to be compared and contrasted to its predecessors – and so it should. They have a reputation to uphold and a responsibility to its fans. ‘Live Free or Die Hard’ tries so hard to keep its fans happy and to live up to the series and I wish very much that this wasn’t a ‘Die Hard’ film, but another Bruce Willis action flick. Had it been, I would give it a stellar review urging people to go see it. Unfortunately as a film in the franchise, it may be seen as more of a hindrance than anything else. As a 'Die Hard' movie it is not the best nor the most exciting. As an action movie, it is a lot of fun.

Bruce Willis returns to the role that launched his career into superstardom. He’s back as John McClane, the rough-and-tough New York cop who continuously finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. This time, McClane has to stop an organization of terrorist hackers who intend on shutting down the country, creating total chaos. All the while he has to protect a hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long...yes the guy from the Mac ads), who is inadvertently instrumental in the terrorist’s plot. The main villain this time around is Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), an ex-government employee who feels the US government's systems are so fallible he is willing to crash them all to prove his point. Olyphant pails in comparison to the great ‘Die Hard’ villains, most notably Alan Rickman. He never feels menacing or dangerous, more disgruntled and even whiny at times.

We’re dealing with a different McClane in the fourth installment. He looks older; more grizzled and has a melancholy tone. We learn he has alienated his children along side his wife. Willis brings a very real sense that the character has aged, being 52 years old himself. It does a great job in utilizing real actors in lieu of stunt people, as well as containing some amazing action scenes that are actually done practically. While this installment contains far more computer-generated effects than any in the series, it does contain far less than average summer films. In that fact, it echoes the good old days where action movies contained real stunts performed by real people and a sense of danger is implied.

Ironically, the action brings down ‘Live Free or Die Hard’, with each sequence becoming more absurd than the last. Though McClane looks and feels older, his is stronger than ever before. Where he was once a hero for real people, he now seems indestructible. When he was hurt in the past, you felt his pain. To this day, few scenes still are as wince inducing as when he had to walk barefoot across the floor of broken glass. Along the same line, the action in ‘Die Hard’ films has never been long or drawn out. They have always been small pockets of action that start and finish relatively quickly and are necessary to what McClane needed to do. The action evolved from the plot and not the other way around. Here, there are action sequences so long and absurd, I thought Bruce Willis crash-landed into another Michael Bay movie. The first ‘Die Hard’ was an ‘average man’s action movie’. Whenever you found yourself saying, “Why doesn’t he do this?” he would do it and you believed he could do it. Here I found myself asking, "How is that possible?"

I think director Len Wiseman felt compelled to over-compensate with the action due to the fact that 20th Century Fox ordered the film to be PG-13 in order to make it available to the widest possible audience (hence the widest amount of money). The rating difference is very noticeable (the previous three films had hard R ratings). The overall tone is different. This is your little brother’s ‘Die Hard’, not your dad’s. McClane’s foul-mouthed machismo has been dialed down to the point where he cannot even deliver his trademarked catch phrase without some censoring. I was amused at how they used the ‘Jaws’ technique to cover his profanity.

There have been franchises hindered by mediocre sequels and prequels. While I would not say that ‘Die Hard’ falls under the umbrella of some (‘Star Wars’, ‘Terminator’), I have a feeling it will leave some of the die hard ‘Die Hard’ fans wanting a little more of the good ol’ days. If this were just another Bruce Willis action flick, I’d recommend it highly. All they had to do was change the name of the movie and the name of his character and I’d be recommending a solid action film. Unfortunately, 'a rose by any other name' doesn't always apply. Maybe next time they’ll take a hint and toss some broken glass McClane’s way instead of a fighter jet. Yippee-ki-yay…

The pointless political debates over '300'

2007-06-26T17:00:00.000-07:00

Critics and pundits need to stop theorizing, debating and making excuses for the 'political ideologies' or 'historical inaccuracies' in Zack Snyder's '300', because, simply put, there are none. People seem to be forgetting that above all the movie is based on a COMIC BOOK (I'm not trying to start a debate over whether there's a difference between graphic novels and comic books, I'm just simplifying for argument's sake). Sure, it may be based on an historical event, but great liberties were taken with that event when Frank Miller wrote the comic book/graphic novel for '300'. Even more liberties were taken when Zack Snyder adapted it to the movie. So to sit and argue over the historical inaccuracies, or political messages within the film is a moot point. Personally, I loved the movie, but this film is far too over-the-top, out of this world, and just plain silly for any educated mind to sit and seriously theorize or debate over it's political allegories - especially comparisons to the Iraq war. In this day, if a war movie is made about any war from any point in time, there will be folks who can't wait to tear it apart with comparisons and metaphors to the Iraq war. People just need to stop reading so much into it and accept it for what it is, a well made piece of ENTERTAINMENT made out of a very well made and entertaining COMIC BOOK. So if you're looking for political allegory, look somewhere else.

GENE SEYMOUR of Newsday got it right when he wrote this in his review for the film:

"One hears of allegedly serious minds grappling over what the "politics" of "300" are. Bloggers, pundits and others with too much time on their hands have spent the weeks leading to the opening of this revved-up and outlandish retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae arguing over which present-day parallel best fits the ancient combatants.

For the moment, we'll bite: Are the 300 Spartans, led by King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), correlatives for freedom-loving Americans holding the line against Middle East terror as personified here by the massive Persian army? Or are the nation-gobbling Persians, led by King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), analogous to what some believe to be imperialistic Americans?

If "300" carried any intellectual heft (if, in other words, it was scrupulous with historic details), one could see the point of thrashing these provocative notions to their metaphoric nubs. But this movie in no way pretends to be a replication of historical events. It is, instead, a willed hallucination of ancient history goosed with mutant warriors, rhinos outfitted like Sherman tanks and a King Xerxes who's dolled up with enough glittering threads and glossy makeup to make every David Bowie wanna-be from the mid-1970s chew his knuckles in fuming envy.

Put bluntly, the movie's just too darned silly to withstand any ideological theorizing. And "silly" is invoked here, more or less, with affection."

You can read the entire article here: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-etlede5121896mar09,0,2850452.story?coll=ny-moviereview-headlines

I'll stop ranting now. If you haven't seen the movie yet, I highly suggest you do. It is very entertaining.

'Spiderman 3' review

2007-06-26T16:54:00.000-07:00

Rating: * out of ****

WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

'Spider-Man 3' really should have been the second film in the series for two reasons. Number one: it is the darkest of the three and has many of the signs of a dark second chapter (characters killed, relationships/reputations damaged, secrets revealed). It was very reminiscent of 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Batman Returns' in that way. Number two: it would have made 'Spider-Man 2' (already in the top 3 comic book movies of all time in my opinion) even better when it over-shadowed this chapter. It is so unfortunate that it is this movie that signs off such an epic franchise as the 'Spider-Man' series. Almost in the way that 'X3' was a let-down for that franchise.

A quick synopsis as provided by iMDB: "Peter Parker has finally managed to piece together the once-broken parts of his life, maintaining a balance between his relationship with Mary-Jane and his responsibility as Spider-Man. But more challenges arise for our young hero. Peter's old friend Harry Obsourne has set out for revenge against Peter; taking up the mantle of his late father's persona as The New Goblin, and Peter must also capture Uncle Ben's real killer, Flint Marko, who has been transformed into his toughest foe yet, the Sandman. All hope seems lost when suddenly Peter's suit turns jet-black and greatly amplifies his powers. But it also begins to greatly amplify the much darker qualities of Peter's personality that he begins to lose himself to. Peter has to reach deep inside himself to free the compassionate hero he used to be if he is to ever conquer the darkness within and face not only his greatest enemies, but also...himself."

From the beginning of the series, director Sam Raimi has always prided himself on being a lover of the comic, a fan of the material and it's universe. You'd never guess by looking at 'Spider-Man 3'. So much has been changed, altered, or added for eye candy reasons alone that it all ends up feeling like a muddled mess.

For starters, did anyone notice how pointless the ENTIRE Sandman plot-line was? You could have literally cut him out of the movie completely and not lost a single step of the way. He really served no purpose to the story except to provide more special effects moments, a poor attempt at a redemption story (which failed due to the minimalist back-story provided for his character), and a laughable moment that I half-expected to pop up in a new Godzilla movie. One word kept coming to mind every time Sandman was on screen: 'Perfunctory'.

Moving on to the Venom story. First off, they completely changed the origin story of Venom. In the story, John Jameson (J. Jonah Jameson's son) comes back from space and has the 'Venom-goo' attached to his ship. Am I the only one who assumed that that was why they bothered introducing the John Jameson character in the second movie?? But no, there is no reference of him in the third chapter, and they use a convenient and cliched 'it crashed to earth in a meteor' story to explain where it came from. I could forgive that injustice as long as Venom himself lived up. But alas, no great use was made of him either. How could they have such an epic villain as Venom at their disposal and use him for so little. Venom is one of the darkest, meanest and coolest villains, perhaps in the history of comic books. But here, they use him for so little and what he does do just comes off as corny and flat, considering the character. He is only used to set up a large ending sequence (which I will speak more about in a bit), which didn't really succeed in the thrills it was clearly aiming for. Furthermore, his alter-ego (Eddie Brock) was so one-dimensional that I couldn't believe the filmmakers expected us to feel for his plight and sympathize. I honestly felt nothing for him, which in turn made Venom less interesting. You must like the secret-identity in some way in order to like the alter-ego. The reason Spider-Man is such a good character is because he's human and contains human characteristics that average people can relate to and empathize with. I can't be expected to like, or fear, a villain who comes from such a shallow, one-dimensional character in the first place.

A few elements felt very 'thrown-in' as well. The Gwen Stacey character was relatively useless and they completely changed her character from the story. Originally, Gwen was the first true love of Peter Parker and the Green Goblin murdered her. This has always been a pivotal point in Spider-Man’s history. To this day there are still large debates over who is Spider-Man's 'one true love', Gwen or Mary Jane Watson. That would have made for an interesting subplot - introduce her as Peter's first love, then have the Goblin kill her and have Peter mourn her and be torn over who he really loved more. But no, they make her 'some girl' who shows up to make Mary-Jane jealous and to try and fuel the 'Eddie Brock anger' plot-line, but falls flat in doing so. Perhaps had the character been Felicia instead of Gwen it would have worked better.

Another 'tossed in' element is Harry's butler, Bernard, who shows up last minute with some interesting news. I will not divulge this news, suffice it to say it would have been helpful had he told Harry this news maybe 2 YEARS AGO!!

Now back to that aforementioned ending sequence. The best way I can describe it is to say that it felt like something out of one of the bad 'Batman' movies. I'm talking Schumacher's 'Batman' ('Batman Forever' & 'Batman + Robin'). It was so contrived and over-the-top that I found myself laughing out-loud at many moments. It was just one large excuse to showcase special effects, have the villains team up (for some reason?), and to force the obligatory "i forgive you, now lets team up for the greater good" plot.

I am a huge fan of Sam Raimi and will continue to be. However, I have a strong feeling that the reason behind the lackluster 'Spider-Man 3' is the introduction of Sam and his brother Ivan as screenwriters in this chapter. Sam Raimi's writing style is a unique and creative one, but I don't feel his style lends itself to the Spider-Man series. 'Spider-Man' walks a very fine line between being fun *wink-wink* kind of cheesy and full out cheesy. Sam Raimi's material doesn't always walk that line very well and often falls flat out into full cheesy territory.

The movie does have it's up-points. It has some amazing action sequences (such as an out of control crane against a skyscraper) and the special effects are top notch (even though I found they took a step down from the second film to the third). The acting is on par with what you've come to expect from the first two films. It is an entertaining summer action movie that many audiences, especially children, will surely enjoy. Many comic book fans on the other hand...

I wouldn't recommend 'Spider-Man 3' to any fan of the books or the animated series. I would recommend it to people who just want a summer action flick with cool effects. Had they seen either of the first two films, I would give them a stern warning before they entered the theater.

Ironically, Venom is part of the poison that brings down 'Spider-Man 3'.

'Hostel: Part II' review

2007-06-26T16:51:00.000-07:00

Rating: *** out of ****

I've learned that often times a person is either a horror fan, or not. If people don't care much for horror movies, there's little that can be done (or should be done) to try to convince them otherwise. It also goes for the fans of the genre - they love them in spite of many factors (flaws, violence, etc.) and there's little that can be done (or should be done) to convince them otherwise. I like horror movies. To me, horror movies are one of the purest forms of escapism. Often times they're a chance to see things that you would never get to see (or should ever see) in any civilized society. The 'Hostel' flicks have this in spades. Now, if you were not a fan of 'Hostel', you will probably not like the second and I expect you may not even read this review. I know many horror fans who liked the first film and so I hope this review is helpful.

Although I enjoyed Eli Roth's 'Hostel', I found its major weakness was a somewhat one-dimensional story: American guys go to Eastern Europe, go to hostel, are abducted, are killed, one guy escapes, the end. It felt as if Writer/Director Eli Roth was just going through the motions - A leads to B leads to C, etc. This weakness is corrected in part II. The story follows three simultaneous plots, interweaving between them as we go. The first of the three is the same story as the first 'Hostel', substituting the guys for gals, though adding quite the twist at the end. I'm sure there will be some major debates as to whether or not 'Hostel: Part II' is seen as misogynistic or empowering to females. The second story follows two American men who are paying customers of the death business - shelling out thousands of dollars to live out their sickest fantasies. The third story follows the business itself. We get to see how the business works, how victims are selected, how they're paid for, the eBay-like bidding war that ensues for certain victims, etc. This was by far the most interesting sub-plot of the film. There is also a brief fourth story (more of an intro really) where we find out what Paxton (the lone survivor of the first film) has been up to since his Eastern European getaway. Roth is able to juggle these stories without ever letting the film feel convoluted (unlike two other recent summer films that will go unnamed).

Writer/Director Eli Roth ups the anti yet again with 'Hostel: Part II', outdoing himself in the shock, thrills and gore departments. Roth is quickly climbing his way up the Hollywood ladder (his 'Thanksgiving' trailer in 'Grindhouse' was one of the most talked-about parts of the film) and he is becoming a force to be reckoned with - it doesn't hurt that Quentin Tarantino cuts the cheques for his movies either. According to Boxofficemojo.com, Roth is considered one of the most profitable directors working in film today. Both of his first films, 'Cabin Fever' and 'Hostel' earned over five times their production cost at the box office in their opening weekends. Neither film boasted major stars, proving that Roth's name guarantees a built in audience. I have little doubt that 'Hostel: Part II' will follow in this tradition.

While 'Hostel: Part II' is not as riveting, clever or well crafted as some other recent horror films ('The Descent', 'Severance') it is better than the first and is sure not to disappoint many of the fans of the genre who will go see it for what it is: a sick, twisted, demented splatter-fest. However, unlike with other genre films, these are all GOOD qualities that the fans crave!

(Note: 'Hostel' received **1/2 out of **** from Jeff)

'Vacancy' review

2007-06-26T16:50:00.000-07:00

Rating: *** out of ****

Nimród Antal's 'Vacancy' is a minimalist thriller in the tradition of Hitchcock's 'Rear Window', with a few dashes of 'Psycho' thrown in. I want to stop right here and adamantly illustrate that I am NOT saying this film is within the same level of quality as those masterpieces - far from it. However, some elements of the story and the ways in which the directors utilize their small, claustrophobic sets are somewhat similar. Moving on.

'Vacancy' stars A-listers Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale as Amy and David Fox, a couple on the verge of a divorce who are traveling home on their way from Amy's parents' anniversary party. Along the way, we get glimpses of back-story including how they had a son together who died in a tragic accident and that Amy blames herself. David, however, accepts that it was an accident and deals with the pain. While driving, their car breaks down on a dark deserted road (a cliché I am willing to overlook) and they end up crashing overnight at the Pinewood Motel. The motel is inhabited by an overly friendly mechanic and a manager with a slight attitude. It is in the motel that things go terribly awry. David and Amy soon discover that they are about to become the victims in a snuff film, and a game of cat and mouse ensues in which they must escape the motel. This proves more difficult than expected, as the captors control every aspect of the motel and have enough hidden cameras to see their every move.

What helps 'Vacancy' work is how tight the film is. It clocks in at a mere 1 hour and 25 minutes, and while this could prove lacking in some films, the brief run-time is exactly what it needs and uses it well. The movie builds a momentum and keeps it, hardly letting up. Another plus is how violence was not used as a crutch. Often times, filmmakers fall back on violence, substituting it for story or real suspense. Antal could have easily copped-out and fallen back on gore as a crutch but relied on actual thrills, not just a splatter show. It was also good to see villains that were not super-villains. I see so many movies where the killers are 'real' people and yet they continuously get back up, survive and keep going - even after getting shot, stabbed, etc. I liked how the killers were real people and were not invincible. When these people get hurt, they stay down - and with that, Antal was able to sidestep clichés like the 'killer gets back up for one last scare', which he did not do (though he had many an opportunity).

'Vacancy' had its down notes though. The attempt at back-story was weak and Kate Beckinsale seemed useless next to Luke Wilson who pulls off panic quite believably. All Beckinsale seemed to do was cry, scream and whimper. You can really tell that she was hired on for her star power and to attract an audience. Clearly, the film did not need a high paying lead actress like her in the role - kind of a waste of money. If they were going to shell out for an A-lister, they should have written a better character that deserves one.

Still, 'Vacancy' offers some decent thrills and good performances while using very little resources when compared to many of the new, big-budget horror thrillers. I have seen this little movie described as 'Psycho meets Saw'. Sounds about right.

'SiCKO' review

2007-06-26T16:45:00.000-07:00

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

"People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy."
- Bruce Wayne/Batman

I am sure it seems unusual to open a review for a hard-hitting documentary with a quote from Batman, but it is actually quite fitting. It seems that Batman and Michael Moore have two things in common: they are both looked upon by many as exaggerations or caricatures, and they both have a flair for using dramatics and theatricality to make a point.

'SiCKO', the new documentary by Moore, examines the U.S. Health Care System - as well as those from several other countries - and begs the question, "Why has America not adopted a universal health care system if so many other countries have proven that it can work?" The quick answer is because the American Health Care system is a business like any other, and their #1 priority is to make money, and shelling it out to heal people is not considered cost-effective. To build this argument, Moore takes us from the U.S. to Canada, France and even Cuba, comparing medical systems along the way, trying to find out exactly why the U.S. is ranked #37 in the world in terms of health care...just above Slovenia. The most dramatic example is when he takes a boat-load of 9/11 rescue workers - who now suffer the physical and psychological repercussions of their actions - to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba so that they may receive the same universal health care that the U.S. government gives Al-Qaeda terrorists. I will not divulge all information, but I will say it is shocking to see the differences between the health care system of the world’s richest nation and that of a supposed third world nation.

'SiCKO' may not have the wit and spark of 'Bowling For Columbine', which can make it feel a bit lagging at times, but thankfully it also doesn't contain the partisan rhetoric of 'Fahrenheit 9/11', which may make it Moore's most effective documentary to date. He seems to have stepped down off his soapbox a bit, if not entirely. There is a sense of a subdued arrogance here, which is a sign of a maturing filmmaker. What makes the film work so well is that he is not asking people to pick a side, but consider an issue and really examine what it is that’s going on. It is not about Democratic or Republican, but right or wrong. Its down side is that he does not, for one minute, allow an opening for a rebuttal or opposing argument. That may be a moot point, as by now we should all know what to expect from a Moore documentary - it is his film, his opinion and his argument he wants us to consider, not theirs. If you want their side of the story, go watch their movie. He is biased as hell, but he does not try to hide that fact.

Michael Moore has been called everything from a genius to anti-American, pundit to extremist. I will admit that I am not always a fan of his over-the-top, often-questionable methods, but both his topics and methods spark debates and I cannot ever see that being a bad thing. As long as people are talking about these issues rather than not, than I say by any means necessary. If people need dramatic example, than Moore sure brings it.

'X3: The Last Stand' review

2006-06-27T16:54:00.000-07:00

Rating: *** out of ****

Some colleagues of mine and I have been in a bit of a debate: which would be the better comic-book movie of the 2006 summer? ‘X3’ or ‘Superman Returns’? I have always maintained a firm stance with Superman since he is my personal favorite superhero, however, I must admit that I have been a bit worried as to whether X3 would dominate. Now that I have seen X3, I cannot wait for Superman to bring it on.

‘X3: The Last Stand’ picks up where ‘X2: X-Men United’ left off. In the third installment, human beings have developed a ‘cure’ for the mutant gene, which is extracted (ironically enough), from a very powerful mutant boy who can eliminate a mutant’s abilities simply by touching them. “Mutants are on the verge of extinction, it seems, when US business Worthington Industries discovers a cure for mutation. This scientific breakthrough complicates and intensifies the battle - both physical and ideological - between Professor X's (Stewart) integration-friendly X-Men and the human-hating mutants let by Magneto (McKellen),” according to movie website IMDB.com. We are introduced to a slew of new mutant characters that fight in this war, most notably Beast, Juggernaut and Angel (even though he is rather ineffectual to the story). The films other major plotline involves Jean Grey who is now The Phoenix, her alter ego and now she is being taken advantage of by Magneto, as a tool to destroy the humans.

‘X3’ raises some very interesting sociological questions, especially with the current immigration debates in the United States. For that, I praise the film. It also works as a fantastic summer action film. Some of the tremendous scenes include the raising of the Golden Gate Bridge, a fight in the forest between Wolverine and some of Magneto’s mutants, and an awesome final showdown on Alcatraz Island between the X-Men and Magneto’s forces. In terms of an action spectacular, it never lets up – which is good because the action tends to distract from the holes in the film – most of all, the unnecessary elements in it, which were many.

Most distracting is the lack of necessity of the final battle on Alcatraz Island. Leading up to the scene, Magneto raises the Golden Gate Bridge and moves it into position, to allow his forces access to the island so they may find the mutant boy who produces the ‘cure’, and kill him. During the finale, I could not help but wonder, ‘If Magneto has the ability to raise the bridge above the island, why not just drop it, crushing the island, laboratory and the boy in the process? Why go through the motions of a large scale confrontation in which many mutants are lost?’ This fact just made the complete final battle seem pointless, and thus, less interesting.

Perhaps the largest problem with the film is the lack of use of The Phoenix, and the dropping of the Wolverine origin story. The focus of the first two films was Wolverine and the story of his past. That story is non-existent here (most likely because they are saving it for the ‘Wolverine’ spin-off film) and is replaced with The Phoenix story, which is completely changed from the story from the comic books and cartoons. Nevertheless, The Phoenix really does not do anything of merit in the film. We receive all this build up, and in actuality receive nothing. I sat back and thought about it after the film and it seems that if The Phoenix story was removed from the film, you could have the same film. It seems her only purpose was to kill off Professor X, which was also completely pointless to the story. Jean Grey’s death was pointless as well. Why did Wolverine need to stab her when he could have had the boy with the ‘cure’ touch her and cure her of her powers, removing The Phoenix and saving her life?

Though I enjoyed the film more than the first in the series, I believe ‘X3’ pails in comparison to its predecessor, ‘X2’ – which some may hail as one of the greatest of comic book films. Had it not been for all of the third film’s problems, it may have been of the caliber of the second. The major gossip with the film is that Bryan Singer left the franchise to make ‘Superman Returns’, and so ‘Red Dragon’ director Brett Ratner has taken the helm of ‘X3’. I am not sure if Ratner was ready to take the helm of such a major franchise, but I do feel it was a good move for Singer to leave and take over the Superman franchise. Even though the action was great in ‘X3’, the script was rather weak and since Singer has brought along his writing team of Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris (who wrote ‘X2’), I have a good feeling that my aforementioned colleagues will be eating their words about The Man of Steel.

*NOTE: ‘X-Men’ received **1/2 and ‘X2’ received ***1/2 from Jeff The Movie Guy

'V For Vendetta' review

2006-03-19T15:49:00.000-08:00

Rating: *** out of ****

I am glad to see important films are being made again - films that stir up questions, tempers, and tension. Films such as ‘Crash’, ‘Good Night and Good Luck’, ‘Munich’ and ‘Syriana’ are some of the latest crop of political interest films that are opening peoples eyes to current issues – eyes that until recently, may have been blind. In this day of heightened censorship and conservatism, it is great to see that there are still people who will stand up and say things that may make some uncomfortable. ‘V For Vendetta’ is one of these films. Whether you love it or hate it, it will turn heads and flare some tempers.

‘Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked vigilante known only as "V." Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he detonates two London landmarks and takes over the government-controlled airwaves, urging his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about V's mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself - and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plot to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption’, according to the Internet Movie Database.

This is a basic outline of the film, but this is a complicated story, involving a plot so intricate, that this film could have been broken up into a series or trilogy. That is actually one of my major complaints with the film – the filmmakers tried to cram too much into one film, to the point that the plot felt convoluted.

I commend this film for being in this new crop of films to make powerful statements; however, I feel it does make some rather large mistakes in going about its methods. Firstly, it felt very militant in its political approach, and yet confused. I enjoy when a film has strong political ideals, but I still want the film to allow the audience to make up their own minds. I found it was borderline propaganda, in its militant stand to show how this is a representation of both Nazi Germany and the current and escalating situation in the United States and Iraq, but the film doesn’t exactly know which events it is a representation of. It just knows that it wants to make a statement, but it does not seem too sure on which to make. The film was so blatant with its actions that it was almost to the point of audience condescension. While films like ‘Crash’ present difficult situations and allow you to make up your own mind about the events and characters, ‘Vendetta’ drills its ideals into your head with little room for negotiation.

One of the few real debates is whether or not the character of ‘V’ is a terrorist or a freedom fighter. I often felt he was a terrorist, but by the end, the movie seems to make up its mind that he was a freedom fighter, as well as making up the audiences mind for them. I was often torn over this issue. I found myself at times agreeing with his ideals and his cause, but at other times disagreeing and finding him to be a disturbing sociopath. One aspect I disagreed on was his philosophy that 'people should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people'. This makes no sense, because fear from any side only leads to more violence and more fear.

In the end, everyone needs to remember that this is a comic book movie and perhaps should not be scrutinized too harshly, or examined at nauseam. For those who do not seek political refuge in the film, there are still scenes of stylized action and some neat explosions to keep most interested.

Rarely am I in the middle of the road over a film. Walking out of the theater, I could not decide whether to recommend this film to people. I think I shall and let the audience make up their own minds. Although it was at times militant and possibly extremist, any movie that sparks debate like this and pulls me back and forth can't be a bad one. I would rather that then have no reaction at all.

78th Academy Award Winners

2006-03-06T16:06:00.000-08:00

Oscar Winners 2006

Key:
(X) – Who I think SHOULD win

(W) – Whom I think WILL win

WINNER: Who ACTUALLY won

(**JEFF's SCORE: 13 out of 20**)

BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR
(W) Brokeback Mountain
Capote
WINNER: (X) Crash
Good Night, And Good Luck.
Munich

ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTING
WINNER: (W) Ang Lee - Brokeback Mountain
Bennett Miller - Capote
(X) Paul Haggis - Crash
George Clooney - Good Night, And Good Luck.
Steven Spielberg - Munich

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
WINNER: (X) (W) Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
Terrence Howard - Hustle & Flow
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix - Walk the Line
David Strathairn - Good Night, And Good Luck.

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Judi Dench - Mrs. Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman - TransAmerica
Keira Knightley - Pride & Prejudice
Charlize Theron - North Country
WINNER: (X) (W) Reese Witherspoon - Walk the Line

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
WINNER: (W) George Clooney - Syriana
(X) Matt Dillon - Crash
Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal - Brokeback Mountain
William Hurt - A History of Violence

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
(X) Amy Adams - Junebug
Catherine Keener - Capote
Frances McDormand - North Country
WINNER: (W) Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams - Brokeback Mountain

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
WINNER: (W) Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana - Brokeback Mountain
Dan Futterman - Capote
Jeffrey Caine - The Constant Gardener
Josh Olson - A History of Violence
(X) Tony Kushner and Eric Roth - Munich

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
WINNER: (X) (W) Paul Haggis & Bobby Moresco - Crash
George Clooney & Grant Heslov - Good Night, And Good Luck.
Woody Allen - Match Point
Noah Baumbach - The Squid and the Whale
Stephen Gaghan - Syriana

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM OF THE YEAR
Howl's Moving Castle
Tim Burton's Corpse Bride
WINNER: (X) (W) Wallace & Gromit - The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

ACHIEVEMENT IN ART DIRECTION
Good Night, And Good Luck.
Art Direction: Jim Bissell
Set Decoration: Jan Pascale
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Art Direction: Stuart Craig
Set Decoration: Stephenie McMillan
(X) King Kong
Art Direction: Grant Major
Set Decoration: Dan Hennah and Simon Bright
WINNER: (W) Memoirs of a Geisha
Art Direction: John Myhre
Set Decoration: Gretchen Rau
Pride & Prejudice
Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood
Set Decoration: Katie Spencer

ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY
Batman Begins
Wally Pfister
(W) Brokeback Mountain
Rodrigo Prieto
Good Night, And Good Luck.
Robert Elswit
WINNER: (X) Memoirs of a Geisha
Dion Beebe
The New World
Emmanuel Lubezki

ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Gabriella Pescucci
WINNER: (X) Memoirs of a Geisha
Colleen Atwood
Mrs. Henderson Presents
Sandy Powell
(W) Pride & Prejudice
Jacqueline Durran
Walk the Line
Arianne Phillips

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Darwin's Nightmare
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
WINNER: (X) (W) March of the Penguins
Murderball
Street Fight

ACHIEVEMENT IN FILM EDITING
Cinderella Man
Mike Hill and Dan Hanley
The Constant Gardener
Claire Simpson
WINNER: Crash
Hughes Winborne
(X) (W) Munich
Michael Kahn
Walk the Line
Michael McCusker

ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP
WINNER: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Howard Berger and Tami Lane
(W) Cinderella Man
David Leroy Anderson and Lance Anderson
(X) Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith
Dave Elsey and Annette Miles

ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES
(ORIGINAL SCORE)
WINNER: (X) (W) Brokeback Mountain
Gustavo Santaolalla
The Constant Gardener
Alberto Iglesias
Memoirs of a Geisha
John Williams
Munich
John Williams
Pride & Prejudice
Dario Marianelli

ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES
(ORIGINAL SONG)
(X) "In the Deep" - Crash
Music by Kathleen “Bird” York and Michael Becker
Lyric by Kathleen “Bird” York
WINNER: "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" - Hustle & Flow
Music and Lyric by Jordan Houston, Cedric Coleman and Paul Beauregard
(W) "Travelin' Thru" - TransAmerica
Music and Lyric by Dolly Parton

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND MIXING
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Terry Porter, Dean A. Zupancic and Tony Johnson
WINNER: King Kong
Christopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges and Hammond Peek
Memoirs of a Geisha
Kevin O’Connell, Greg P. Russell, Rick Kline and John Pritchett
(X) (W) Walk the Line
Paul Massey, D.M. Hemphill and Peter F. Kurland
War of the Worlds
Andy Nelson, Anna Behlmer and Ronald Judkins

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND EDITING
WINNER: (X) (W) King Kong
Mike Hopkins and Ethan Van der Ryn
Memoirs of a Geisha
Wylie Stateman
War of the Worlds
Richard King

ACHIEVEMENT IN VISUAL EFFECTS
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Dean Wright, Bill Westenhofer, Jim Berney and Scott Farrar
WINNER: (X) (W) King Kong
Joe Letteri, Brian Van’t Hul, Christian Rivers and Richard Taylor
War of the Worlds
Dennis Muren, Pablo Helman, Randy Dutra and Daniel Sudick

Oscar Preamble

2006-03-05T10:16:00.000-08:00

Tonight's the night! Tonight is the night for the 78th annual Academy Awards! The night when a lot of the best movies are given their due credit, and where many great films are sorely overlooked. I have my checklist for who I want to see win, and who I think WILL win. We'll see how accurate my predictions are. Afterwards I'll have the list of the official winners, as well as my predictions so everyone can see how right or how horribly wrong I was. Later I'll post a brief rant on my feelings about the night overall - the winners, the losers, and everything in between. I am also very excited to see how Jon Stewart holds up as host. My hopes are high - let's see if he can pull it off. So anyways, everyone stay tuned tonight and we'll see who goes home with the little golden guy. See you on the red carpet!

Greatest Video Store Ever!

2006-02-18T14:00:00.000-08:00

Written on February 18th/2006

Hey all! I'm in Moncton, New Brunswick for the weekend. Just wanted to let everyone know about this AWESOME video store here in Moncton. It's called Spin It Video and it is the best video store I've ever been to. They seperate their films by director, and they have EVERYTHING. I was there for maybe 20 minutes (because I had other things to do. If I could have I would have stayed all day) and I found a handfull of films that I could not find ANYWHERE else. I'm telling you, if you are a film lover and want to see many classic, underground, cult classic, or just any type of film - check out Spin It Video in Moncton, New Brunswick!

The Demise of 'Arrested Development'

2006-02-12T20:35:00.000-08:00

Written - Sunday, February 12, 2006

How do great television series continue being cancelled and yet shows like ‘Skating With Celebrities’ run for far more seasons than they are worth? Of course, I am referring to the recent cancellation of Fox’s brilliant yet greatly underappreciated series ‘Arrested Development’. What was potentially one of the smartest and funniest shows ever put on TV has now receded into the halls of cancellation, and possibly worse, syndication.

I am being melodramatic. However, one has to wonder how these types of things happen. Some may say that the explanation can be related to the exponential dwindling of the average viewer’s attention span. Others may say that Fox did not have enough faith in the show and because of that, did not focus enough attention and money on its advertising. Personally, I believe it is a combination of both.

Currently, the attention span of the average viewing audience member is shorter than ever before. It is no wonder that typical shows with a focus on lowbrow comedy get high ratings and are signed on season after season. The viewers need these shows because they have a steady supply of tasteless jokes, often occurring at a specific interval so that the audience member’s short attention span can keep up. You can set your watch to it. The days of smart, original and actually very funny comedies are gone. We are waiting for the next ‘Seinfeld’, ‘Cheers’ or ‘Murphy Brown’. ‘Arrested Development’ was that missing link. It had an original taste in comedy, unlike anything we had ever seen before. Often times the jokes were not shoved in the faces of the viewers. We had to think about them and it often took a while until some realized why exactly it was funny. However, once it was figured out, it was hilarious. In addition, many jokes were so subtle that you may not notice them until repeat viewings. As my good friend, 'Animal' (everyone calls him 'Animal', I'm not sure why) says about the show: “Arrested Development has the kind of funny that you can laugh at while you watch, think about it more and laugh more. Then you’ll watch again and get more and laugh more and think about it more and laugh more.”

Another major problem that contributed to the show’s demise is the fact that Fox put maybe a third of the money they put into other shows, into advertising ‘Arrested Development’. Fox had no faith in this series, despite the numerous Emmy’s it attained. Would it not seem logical that if a show garners this much attention from its peers that audiences may thoroughly enjoy the show? Fox should have seen these signs and contributed more money into promoting and supporting the show.

I understand that my raving about this show is strictly a matter of my opinion, and in fact, I have met people who did not like ‘Arrested Development’, and that is fine. However, love it or hate it, you cannot deny how sharp and well written the show was. My point in all this is to illustrate how it is a sad thing that intelligent and genuinely funny shows like this often get the axe, and shows who sink to the lowest common denominator in order to achieve their laughs (‘The War At Home’ being one) get signed for multiple seasons and go on to find success. Maybe it is a statement on what exactly the viewing public enjoys. ‘Arrested Development’ was a brilliantly written and acted comedy series, with an almost ‘Monty Python’ style of dry wit and charm. It never sank to using racial or toilet humor in order to get its laughs, though it very easily could have gone in that direction. The sad fact may be that if it had gone that way, it probably would have had higher ratings and been kept on the air longer. I am glad it did not go down that road. I would rather see it cancelled and enjoy the episodes again on the DVD seasons, then to see it compromise and sell-out. I also loved how, for once, a great series was able to end with a fantastic final episode. After many disappointments such as the final episodes of ‘Seinfeld’ and ‘The X-Files’, this show ended with an episode that was just as good as every other.

‘Arrested Development’ was the best comedy series since ‘Seinfeld’. It was the show that every comedy series should try to be. It is so sad that so many will not be able to see it unless it is on DVD. Oh well, at least we still have ‘Skating With Celebrities’ and ‘The War At Home’ to keep us entertained…

The Ten Best Films of 2005

2006-02-09T19:38:00.000-08:00

Originally printed in the Fredericton newspaper 'The Brunswickan' on Feb. 1st/2006

With the Golden Globes handed out and with the Academy Awards quickly approaching, it is the time for all the critics’ infamous top ten lists. No one can say that 2005 was a bad year for movies. How could they when there were so many good ones, and quite a few great ones? It would have been impossible for me to see EVERY film released in 2005, but out of the ones I DID see – which were many - these are the 10 best.

10.) 'Sin City' (dir. Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, Quentin Tarantino)

Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller and Quentin Tarantino have joined to create one of the most visually thrilling films of all time. For the first time, and properly so, a movie has been made into comic book, instead of trying to turn a comic book into a movie, as is the usual routine. Every scene jumps off the screen with awesome visuals and stark contrasts of black and white and vivid color. The film has been criticized for its scenes of harsh violence, but I applaud its unapologetic fun. Every frame of ‘Sin City’ is stunning – to the point where you could watch it on mute and still enjoy watching it.

9.) 'Hustle & Flow' (dir. Craig Brewer)

Terrance Howard is the new Denzel Washington. After a stellar work year – including roles in ‘Get Rich or Die Tryin’’, ‘Four Brothers’ and ‘Crash’ – Howard gives the performance which will someday define his career in ‘Hustle & Flow’. Howard takes what could have been a standard ‘growing up through oppression in the hood movie’, and turns it into a full on powerhouse drama. This film is not a one-note show by any means. It actually makes us sympathize with Howard’s character – who is a drug dealing pimp. The hookers whom he pimps are not used as artificial plot devices as in most films of this nature, but are actual multi layered, sincere characters who we care about. This could be the best film of its kind since ‘Boyz N The Hood’ (1991).

8.) ‘A History of Violence' (dir. David Cronenberg)

David Cronenberg’s most mainstream film to date and his slyest. This film masquerades itself as an obvious, straight to the point, violent, mainstream film – which is confusing at first considering Cronenberg’s body of work. The truth to this film – much as it in its main character – lies underneath. There are more layers to this film then it presents and it asks some very fascinating questions as to the temperament of human nature and to the necessity of violence. One aspect I found particularly fascinating was how the son in the film (Ashton Holmes) discovers gifts he did not know he had, because they came from the secret life that he did not know his father had. The film continually asks the question ‘which life is real and which is the act’? This could be the most deceivingly ‘simple’ film of the year, but one of the most powerful in actuality.

7.) 'Jarhead' (dir. Sam Mendes)

Sam Mendes has created a contemporary war classic, in the tradition of ‘Full Metal Jacket’ and ‘Platoon’. Mendes and his cinematographer Roger Deakins are often able to make a raw, gritty war film while at the same time allowing almost every shot to be as visually appealing as a painting, such as when the oil wells ignite, the vastness of the desert, and when Jake Gyllenhall’s character ‘Swoff’ comes across an oil-drenched horse in the desert. The beauty of the film is in the way it perfectly exemplifies the futility of the war, and the frustration of the soldiers – who train for so long and yet feel useless, with no outlet for that training. The film does not give in to the urge of being a typical war or action movie. The fact that this film is about the soldiers and their struggles against loneliness, boredom, and the constant feeling of ineffectiveness is what makes it so great.

6.) 'Walk The Line' (dir. James Mangold)

Joaquin Phoenix gives a more impressive performance in ‘Walk The Line’ than Jamie Foxx gave in ‘Ray’ – and that is saying something. Mangold’s ‘Walk The Line’ is the brilliant portrayal of the life of rock/country legend Johnny Cash. Mangold makes the story accessible to the audience by using Cash’s drug dependency problem and his love for June Carter (Reese Witherspoon) as the two initial subplots. One phenomenal aspect of the film is that Phoenix and Witherspoon sang all of their own songs – which initially made many Cash fans – as well as his family – nervous. That is until they heard Phoenix’s voice. He is not merely imitating Johnny Cash is in this role, he is channeling him. Witherspoon steps out of her ‘Legally Blond’ mode to deliver one of the best performances by an actress this year. I would not be surprised if the two of them take home Oscars for this film.

5.) 'King Kong' (dir. Peter Jackson)

Peter Jackson has the most guts of any Hollywood director right now. Not only did he take the chance of being crucified when he decided to take on the L.O.T.R. trilogy, but then he decides to remake one of the greatest films ever made. Yet again, he pulled it off. ‘Kong’ is the biggest adrenaline rush of the year, utilizing some of the most impressive special effects in history. What makes the film so great though, is the human aspect of it. There is real platonic love between Kong and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts). She cares for the ape as much as he cares for her. The scenes in which they interact – especially at the end with her attempts to save him from his persecutors – gives the film a wonderful emotional appeal that saves it from being merely a special effects extravaganza. Jackson has made another great film, and not only stayed true to the original material, but in many ways improved on it.

4.) 'Brokeback Mountain' (dir. Ang Lee)

Featuring one of the most powerful love stories I have ever seen in a film, it is a real shame that ‘Brokeback Mountain’ gets unfairly labeled as ‘the gay cowboy movie’. In fact, the point of the film is not homosexuality – it is love, plain and simple. It is a story of how love can be unpredictable, everlasting, and even dangerous. By the end of the film, I did not even think in terms of gay or straight or men and women. It is the fact that there is a love between these two that supercedes all – whether they want it to or not. The fact that their relationship begins in the 1960’s and lasts over 20 years makes it all the more poignant because they fell in love at a time when living that lifestyle could get them killed. This perfectly exemplifies the power of their relationship – the fact that if they could control their emotions, it would have been smarter not having them at all – but no matter what, they could not deny what was there. When I saw it, a few people walked out of the film. I understand that this subject matter can make some people uncomfortable, but if people see it in its entirety, many may realize what a great film this is.

3.) 'Syriana' (dir. Stephen Gaghan)

The year 2005 was the year for political films that stirred up controversial and thought provoking questions. Films such as ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ are important because they force their audience to think about certain topics that they may not otherwise think about. ‘Syriana’ sheds new light on the war over oil. Its plot is convoluted and often flat out confusing, and yet you cannot look away. You do not follow the plot - the plot engulfs you. The film allows you to look inside the worlds of everyone involved in the oil business – from the corrupt politicians, to a burnt out CIA agent, to the royalty of an oil controlling country, and even into the life of a suicide bomber. The film may even be brave enough to allow the audience to sympathize with the bomber, depending on how the viewer reads that particular story arc. The same team who created Steven Soderbergh’s ‘Traffic’ created ‘Syriana’, and while I would not say that ‘Syriana’ is as exalted as that film, it is still a powerhouse political thriller.

2.) 'Munich' (dir. Steven Spielberg)

The most courageous film of the year, Steven Spielberg’s ‘Munich’ is the legendary director’s most personal and heart-felt film since his 1992 masterpiece ‘Schindler’s List’. The film starts with the murder of the 11 Israeli Olympians in Munich, Germany by Palestinian terrorists in 1972. It then follows the secret death squad put together by Golda Meir and the Israeli government, as they track down and kill those involved in the events at Munich. The film speaks volumes in the way that it does not take a side in the murders or the events thereafter. It is a message to all people of the ways that violence begets violence and that the vengeance put forth by governments only perpetuates the cycle of violence and terrorism.

1.) 'Crash' (dir. Paul Haggis)

Undoubtedly, the most poignant, influential and flat out best film of the year is Paul Haggis’ ‘Crash’. Films like ‘Crash’ come along only on occasion - the kind of film that can actually have an influence on people. The kind of film that stays with you long after the screen has gone black. ‘Crash’ follows the same interconnecting plot structure as ‘Syriana’, but ‘Crash’ never loses its audience – it grabs hold and mesmerizes. It uses the interlocking plot to show how people are connected and that everyone is on the same playing field. Everyone has the ability to sin and be sinned. No matter what sex or nationality you are, everyone will walk out of ‘Crash’ thinking – at least for a moment - about the way in which you treat or think of other people. Films that affect me in the ways ‘Crash’ did, do not come along all the time and for that, it is my pick as the best film of 2005.

Jeff's 78th Academy Award Pics

2006-02-05T12:47:00.000-08:00

Oscar Nominations 2006

Key:
(X) – Who I think SHOULD win

(W) – Whom I think WILL win

*Note* - I have not included the categories 'BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT', 'BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM' and 'BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM' because the films in these categories are difficult to come by and so I have not seen them, therefore I cannot make an accurate decision as to who I think should win.

BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR
(W) Brokeback Mountain
Capote
(X) Crash
Good Night, And Good Luck.
Munich

ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTING
(W) Ang Lee - Brokeback Mountain
Bennett Miller - Capote
(X) Paul Haggis - Crash
George Clooney - Good Night, And Good Luck.
Steven Spielberg - Munich

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
(X) (W) Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
Terrence Howard - Hustle & Flow
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix - Walk the Line
David Strathairn - Good Night, And Good Luck.

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Judi Dench - Mrs. Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman - TransAmerica
Keira Knightley - Pride & Prejudice
Charlize Theron - North Country
(X) (W) Reese Witherspoon - Walk the Line

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
(W) George Clooney - Syriana
(X) Matt Dillon - Crash
Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal - Brokeback Mountain
William Hurt - A History of Violence

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
(X) Amy Adams - Junebug
Catherine Keener - Capote
Frances McDormand - North Country
(W) Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams - Brokeback Mountain

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
(W) Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana - Brokeback Mountain
Dan Futterman - Capote
Jeffrey Caine - The Constant Gardener
Josh Olson - A History of Violence
(X) Tony Kushner and Eric Roth - Munich

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
(X) (W) Paul Haggis & Bobby Moresco - Crash
George Clooney & Grant Heslov - Good Night, And Good Luck.
Woody Allen - Match Point
Noah Baumbach - The Squid and the Whale
Stephen Gaghan - Syriana

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM OF THE YEAR
Howl's Moving Castle
Tim Burton's Corpse Bride
(X) (W) Wallace & Gromit - The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

ACHIEVEMENT IN ART DIRECTION
Good Night, And Good Luck.
Art Direction: Jim Bissell
Set Decoration: Jan Pascale
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Art Direction: Stuart Craig
Set Decoration: Stephenie McMillan
(X) King Kong
Art Direction: Grant Major
Set Decoration: Dan Hennah and Simon Bright
(W) Memoirs of a Geisha
Art Direction: John Myhre
Set Decoration: Gretchen Rau
Pride & Prejudice
Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood
Set Decoration: Katie Spencer

ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY
Batman Begins
Wally Pfister
(W) Brokeback Mountain
Rodrigo Prieto
Good Night, And Good Luck.
Robert Elswit
(X) Memoirs of a Geisha
Dion Beebe
The New World
Emmanuel Lubezki

ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Gabriella Pescucci
(X) Memoirs of a Geisha
Colleen Atwood
Mrs. Henderson Presents
Sandy Powell
(W) Pride & Prejudice
Jacqueline Durran
Walk the Line
Arianne Phillips

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Darwin's Nightmare
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
(X) (W) March of the Penguins
Murderball
Street Fight

ACHIEVEMENT IN FILM EDITING
Cinderella Man
Mike Hill and Dan Hanley
The Constant Gardener
Claire Simpson
Crash
Hughes Winborne
(X) (W) Munich
Michael Kahn
Walk the Line
Michael McCusker

ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Howard Berger and Tami Lane
(W) Cinderella Man
David Leroy Anderson and Lance Anderson
(X) Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith
Dave Elsey and Annette Miles

ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES
(ORIGINAL SCORE)
(X) (W) Brokeback Mountain
Gustavo Santaolalla
The Constant Gardener
Alberto Iglesias
Memoirs of a Geisha
John Williams
Munich
John Williams
Pride & Prejudice
Dario Marianelli

ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES
(ORIGINAL SONG)
(X) "In the Deep" - Crash
Music by Kathleen “Bird” York and Michael Becker
Lyric by Kathleen “Bird” York
"It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" - Hustle & Flow
Music and Lyric by Jordan Houston, Cedric Coleman and Paul Beauregard
(W) "Travelin' Thru" - TransAmerica
Music and Lyric by Dolly Parton

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND MIXING
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Terry Porter, Dean A. Zupancic and Tony Johnson
King Kong
Christopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges and Hammond Peek
Memoirs of a Geisha
Kevin O’Connell, Greg P. Russell, Rick Kline and John Pritchett
(X) (W) Walk the Line
Paul Massey, D.M. Hemphill and Peter F. Kurland
War of the Worlds
Andy Nelson, Anna Behlmer and Ronald Judkins

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND EDITING
(X) (W) King Kong
Mike Hopkins and Ethan Van der Ryn
Memoirs of a Geisha
Wylie Stateman
War of the Worlds
Richard King

ACHIEVEMENT IN VISUAL EFFECTS
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Dean Wright, Bill Westenhofer, Jim Berney and Scott Farrar
(X) (W) King Kong
Joe Letteri, Brian Van’t Hul, Christian Rivers and Richard Taylor
War of the Worlds
Dennis Muren, Pablo Helman, Randy Dutra and Daniel Sudick

'Scarface (1983)' revisit

2006-02-04T13:12:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Feb. 10th/04

Rating: **** out of ****
An update of the 1932 film of the same name, Brian De Palma’s “Scarface” is the story that follows gangster Antonio “Tony” Montana and his close friend Manolo Ray from their trip on the Cuban Refugee Boat Lift to their arrival in Miami. After killing a powerful Cuban figure, Montana and company gain the ability to leave their refugee camps and roam around the U.S. After unsuccessfully trying to make it legitimately in the country, Montana and Ray resort to selling cocaine to dealers around the world. Tony's rise is quick, but as he becomes more powerful, his enemies and his own paranoia begin to plague his empire. Although it is the archetypal ‘rags to riches’ story, there is an obvious theme to the film: as power rises, happiness falls. It is the classic morality tale. We may end up cheering for the bad guy, but in the end, one way or another he must go down.

It is Al Pacino that allows us to cheer for the bad guy; in what is arguably his best on-screen performance. Pacino more than fulfils this role as he conveys the ruthless nature of Montana and likewise the ruthless nature of Miami's Cocaine underworld. Michelle Pfeiffer is almost equally as good as his cocaine-addled ice queen. It is the characters and relationships in Tony’s life that help him survive, allow the story to thrive and eventually lead to Tony’s downfall. If it was not for his pseudo-sexual possessiveness over his sister, Gina (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), he would not have killed his best friend, Manolo (Steven Bauer). If not for his growing megalomania, he would not have killed Alberto (Mark Margolis), leading to a war with the drug lord Sosa (Paul Shenar), foreshadowing Tony’s final hours.

All these elements would be for not, if it was not for the man behind the scenes bringing them together so beautifully, director Brian De Palma. De Palma brings the audience not only into the inner recesses of Montana's world, but also the reality of the world that he has built. For this film, De Palma sacrificed his usual “Hitchcock-ian” style to explore a much more dazzling, edgier style – one that would fit the action of the film, and the heat of the Miami Beach scene. It is this adopted style that brought us such memorable sequences as the infamous chainsaw scene, as well as Tony’s last stand at his manor, which features one of the best gun battles since ‘The Battle of Bloody Porch’ in Sam Peckinpah’s “The Wild Bunch” (1969).

“Scarface” was only the fifth major writing project for Oliver Stone so the screenplay has a raw edge to it; a certain flare that may only come from a combination of experience, guts, inexperience, drugs (Stone became addicted to cocaine while researching and writing the script) and just a bit of luck. This is the same untreated formula that created Apocalypse Now’. With De Palma as director and Stone as screenwriter, is it any wonder that ‘Scarface’ is a force to be reckoned with?

We see elements of the era in every aspect of the film from the clothing to the cars the characters drive – especially in one funny scene where Pacino buys a Porsche to impress Michelle Pfeiffer. Clothing designer Patricia Norris captures the look and the feel of the 1970’s and 1980’s flawlessly. Another defining characteristic of this film is the music. Many key scenes take place in nightclubs and bars in the end of the disco era, and the music blares with that bubblegum pop of disco mixed with the neon and synthesized elements that were the 80’s. The film was released and takes place in the highlight of the 80’s and thanks to composer Giorgio Moroder, we will forever be teleported back there when we watch this film.

De Palma’s remake is a perfect example of when a film can be a financial disappointment, and still manage to be locked as a cultural phenomenon. The film had a production budget of $25 million but it only garnered $44 million - not a huge profit for a film when it was released in 1983. This was probably due to its attempted censoring. The MPAA threatened it with an X rating, though it was finally released with an R. Still, after a re-release and high DVD sales, the ultra violent gangster film has been locked in our social subconscious as a surefire classic. How many times have we heard someone be called a “cock-a-roach” or have them say “Say hello to my little friend?” Even the critics backpedaled with the film. When it came out originally, they savaged it and now it is called a “consummate gangster movie” or “one of the greatest gangster movies ever”. You’ve got to love poetic justice.

'The Passion Of The Christ' review

2006-02-04T12:51:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Feb. 18th/04
Rating: **1/2 out of ****

I hate going into a film with a preconceived notion. I like to see a film and make up my own mind. So, normally I ignore all the talk and go in clean. However, with Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”, it was difficult to avoid the news about the film. It has been the talk of the entire world ever since it hit theaters on February 25, so unfortunately I ran into a few hundred different opinions of it. The opinions I got were pretty much the same: some saying it was amazing, not a film but an ‘experience’, and the violence was enough to make you sick.

I finally had my chance to see ‘The Passion’ and I was not that impressed. I think Mel Gibson would have been better off making a movie of Christ’s life, or even the last week or so. The fact of the film being based solely on the last twelve hours of Christ’s life made it seem dragged on and dull at times. The scene with Christ carrying the cross up the hill lasted almost a half an hour - or maybe it just felt like it - and near the end of the scene I heard someone in the audience mumble to themselves, “just get up the f***ing hill already.” While I would not state it so discourteously, the scene did drag on and could have used a trimming in the editing room. It was if Gibson had enough material to make a one-hour long film and felt he had to drag it out to a reasonable length because it was supposed to be an “epic”. Mel Gibson could have made a three and a half hour long epic and had the “Passion” be the final hour of the film.

The violence of the film was nothing too disturbing as well. I heard so much about how some people had to cover their eyes for two thirds of the film, and even Roger Ebert himself was quoted as saying it was “the most violent film I have ever seen.” Perhaps I am just desensitized from seeing so many horror films, but I do not know what these people are watching but I have seen worse violence than that in films. I will admit it was probably the most realistic violence I have ever seen, but the most disturbing – hardly.

I will commend the film for its historical accuracy – whether or not there are any real occurrences to be considered accurate is another story. However, according to everything that I have heard and learned about the Bible and the events that supposedly took place, this film is very accurate. Accuracies or no accuracies, the film as a whole just did not do it for me.

Many critics are bashing the film saying that Gibson just wanted to shock people and get his kicks by making a film about torture. I am not ignorant enough to believe those comments. I do think Gibson would have been better off taking the route that Martin Scorsese took with “The Last Temptation of Christ” (a better film in my opinion), and make a film about Christ in it’s entirety – or at least more than a film about his death. I understand the message that Gibson was telling with his film – that Jesus died for our sins and that we must realize and appreciate this. His message was received, but I felt that towards the end of the film, the message had been expressed and understood, and now it was being drummed into our heads repeatedly. If one prefers to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what they think it should have done then the film is a renowned success.

I appreciate and understand what Gibson was trying to do and say with this film, and I commend him for succeeding and fulfilling a personal vision. I think it is unfortunate that the film fell short of its potential. As the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

'Any Given Sunday' revisit

2006-02-03T07:50:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Feb. 4th/04
Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

Every year it seems that when I watch the Superbowl I get an urge to watch Oliver Stone’s “Any Given Sunday”, and this year was no exception. While I am not a football fan by any stretch (I only watch the Superbowl for the beer and food with my friends), I personally love the film. As goes with Spike Lee’s “He Got Game”, I think “Any Given Sunday” goes down as one of the most underrated and under-appreciated sports films, and yet it should be up with the best.

When I first heard that Oliver Stone was doing a take on professional football, I did not know what to expect. What I got was an aesthetic thrill, as well as a great social and political commentary on the game of football. Stone presents football to us in a way which we never seen before. Instead of the standard in game shots, we have steady cams running right along with the players, and in some instances, the camera is actually strapped onto player’s bodies, just to get the right effect. For the film, Stone worked with Cinematographer Salvatore Totino and Editor Thomas J. Nordberg of Stone’s other films “U-Turn”, and his upcoming “Alexander”. These men help give Stone that signature look that has become synonymous with his films. The fast cutting, the splicing of different footage or sequences or sounds into a scene to build its intensity. For example, we may hear a rumbling of Buffalo stampeding while the players run in slow motion across the field. My favorite sequence in the film involves Jamie Foxx at Al Pacino’s house to have dinner and there is an old Gladiator film on TV. The two get into an argument, and as the argument escalates, we are cutting more rapidly between shots of the argument and scenes of battles from the Gladiator film. This symbolizes how both men are gladiators of their time and both battle in different ways – and are more similar then one might see at a first glance.

I love the aspect that the story is shown from. It’s not a film about the game of football; it’s about the life of football. We see everything from the game itself, to the relationships off the field between the players and their families, to the politics between owners, managers and coaches, to the insecurities and sometimes-bitter rivalries between players.

For a subject matter that would seem to be out of the realm of Stone’s usual hits, he presented it with a grace and ease as if he’d done it many times before. In many ways, the battles, relationships and hierarchy of professional sports is not worlds away from those of the military – making Stone more suited for this kind of film than one might think – considering his films ‘Platoon’, ‘Born on the Fourth of July’ and ‘Heaven & Earth’.

2003 (76th) Oscar Nominations Thoughts

2006-02-03T07:06:00.000-08:00

Originally Written the week of Jan. 28th/04

I find myself being disappointed all too often when year after year I get up in the morning to hear the Oscar Nominations. Undeserving nominations, deserving people not being nominated, and the obvious politics included - which has the smaller, more independent, and often better films, never being nominated. Politics seems to be the name of the game.

This year seems to be different though. We have the usual crop of the big budget epics getting nominated (i.e. “The Lord of the Rings”, “Master and Commander”), but this year seems to be the year of the underdogs. Besides the Best Picture and Best Director categories - which feature the usual heavyweights the categories are made up of the smaller or unexpected pictures and the more unexpected actors. Aside from Sean Penn, the Best Actor category is made up of Jude Law, Bill Murray, and in a much unexpected nomination Johnny Depp. In fact “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl” might be the most surprising film this year with its 5 nominations. It is a big moment for the more independent crowd this year as well, since Sophia Coppola’s second feature; film “Lost In Translation” garnered four nominations, including Best Director and Best Picture.

“The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King” could prove to be the “Titanic” of 2004 with 11 nominations, the most of any other film this year. There are predictions that the film could go on to be the second highest or even the highest grossing picture of all time. It has already raked in $877,600,000 worldwide – making it the sixth highest grossing film. However, with all the Oscar buzz, and especially if it takes home the Best Picture award, the numbers will surely grow even farther.

I have my predictions, as anyone does. I predict this will be the year for “The Lord Of The Rings” as well as for Peter Jackson. After disappointing ratios of wins to nominations for the first two films, and no Best Director or Best Picture awards being given to the Tolkien masterpiece, I believe they will save the best for last. I can see “Return Of The King” taking the Best Picture this year, as well as Jackson taking home his Best Director award.

There is little doubt that Charlize Theron will not take home the statue for her portrayal of real life serial killer Aileen Wuornos, a Daytona Beach prostitute who became a serial killer in “Monster”. I could also see Tim Robbins taking home the Best Supporting Actor award for “Mystic River”, as well as Renée Zellweger getting hers in the Best Supporting Actress category for “Cold Mountain”. This is her third nomination after all. Maybe third time will be the charm.

The Best Actor category seems to be the hardest to decide. I could see Bill Murray taking it because he seems to be the favorite this year, but this could also be the year for Sean Penn at last after three previous losses. As a personal favorite, I would love to see Johnny Depp sneak in and take it.

Who knows? It actually seems to be a real race this year instead of being able to look at the list of nominees and pick out the winners without a second glance. There are always a few Oscar surprises though. After all, who would have ever expected Eminem to win an Academy Award?!

'Heat' review

2006-02-02T09:02:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Jan. 14th/04
Rating: **** out of ****

Michael Mann’s “Heat” could possibly be one of the greatest police tales ever made. It is an epic tale of crime and obsession between two men on opposite sides of the law. It is also perhaps the greatest meeting of two legends since “The Rumble in the Jungle” with Ali and Foreman in 1974. For the first time ever, Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro share the screen. Though they had both featured in ‘The Godfather Part II’, they could not share the screen because their characters lived in two different periods. However, in this film they actually have their first on screen encounter. It is one of my all time favorite scenes in movie history.

The storyline is simple. Pacino plays Officer Vincent Hanna, a master cop who is hunting a master criminal, Neil McCauley played by DeNiro, and his crew, which features Val Kilmer, Danny Trejo, Tom Sizemore and a very different performance for Jon Voight, but a great one nonetheless. This film is so much more than a vacant cop and robber picture. There are so many layers to this film that one can read. Hanna is a man driven through life only by his work. At the expense of his private life, he becomes obsessed with bringing criminals down, or as his wife states: “You search for the scent of your prey, and then you hunt them down. That's the only thing you're committed to. The rest is the mess you leave as you pass through.”

McCauley on the other hand, lives by the personal mantra of never attaching himself to anything that he “can’t walk out on in 30 seconds flat if he feels the ‘heat’ around the corner”. McCauley makes this statement, ironically enough, as he is falling in love with a woman.

Michael Mann’s screenplay is brilliant. He is able to provide us with at least 15 characters that are equally important, and develop them all without losing his audience for a step in the crowd. He can also take what could have been a simple cops and robbers action movie, and turn it into a story of people and emotions. It is an epic; and at 3 hours in length, it goes by faster than most films because of how engrossed in the characters you become. The pinnacle scene is the aforementioned collision between Pacino and DeNiro. Hannah tales McCauley in a car and then pulls him over, only to invite him out for coffee. These characters find out that they are not as different as they would have believed. In fact, under different circumstances they may have even been friends. The wit and spark in the dialogue during this scene is dead on. Mann writes these characters with such precision that we are able to delve into their minds and expose their flaws. Hanna, while being a top cop, is very neglecting of those he loves. McCauley, while being a sociopath, lives by a very strict set of values and rules.

Mann’s directing is superb. Few directors could direct a film of this scope and magnitude, as well as direct many of the biggest actors in the world in one film. Many would worry about the logistics of a story this complex. That’s a heavy responsibility, but Mann seems to handle it effortlessly, with little difficulty. This film is one of my top ten favorite films of all time.

'Elephant' review

2006-02-01T20:31:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Jan. 7th/04

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

Winner of the Palm D’or at the Cannes Film Festival in 2003, Gus Van Sant’s ‘Elephant’ was met with controversy over its astonishing resemblance of the Columbine shootings. Many people believed that it was too soon for a film so closely resembling the Columbine shootings top is made. Others believe that an event such as that one, someone was going to make a movie about it. Beliefs aside, ‘Elephant’ is a great film, strictly from a critical standpoint.

What I found amusing was that Van Sant covered his bases against such accusations. At no point does he say this film is dedicated to, or made for, those who died in Columbine or any other school shooting for that matter. At the end it has the classic disclaimer: “The events, places and people in this film are fictitious, etc.” This is a clear indicator that the film is in no way a retelling of Columbine. It was just a day at any random high school where two kids decided were pushed over the edge.

Many people will feel that Van Sant has a moral responsibility to explain the motives involved in the killings, and he obviously does not agree. Van Sant has no such responsibility. It’s just his job to tell a story, which he did. He told a story of a day at a school where people ended up dying at the hands of fellow students. The students’ motives were incidental.

My favorite aspect of the film was realistic tone portrayed through the lack of music. The silence makes us feel like we are roaming the halls with these children and when the shooting begins; it gives the violence an eerie realism. There was no glorification of killing in this film, and it did not purposely try to make it too disturbing. It was just systematic killing. They just showed us what happened in that school and that’s that. No beating around the bush, but not trying to scare us either.

Still, I couldn’t help but feel a little unsatisfied with the film, and I don’t know why. At first I didn’t like the sudden cut-off ending, but upon a second viewing I understood it and enjoyed it more. I really enjoy how Van Sant made us feel like we were right in the experience. But still for some reason I felt as if there was something missing from the film, which I will have to ponder.

'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)' review

2006-02-01T16:31:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of November 10th/03

Rating: * out of ****

It is such a shame when a once great piece of work is diminished and destroyed by those who wish to cash in on it a second time. I am referring to those who drool at the chance to make a sequel, or two, or three, or a prequel, or a remake. It has happened a million times. Some recent examples are The Matrix, Star Wars, Batman, Bad Boys, Terminator (I’m referring to T3, not T2 which is amazing!) among many others. The example I’m making here is the new and reprehensible version of the Tobe Hooper classic “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”.

The original “Massacre” was as original as horror films come for the time it was released. In 1974, the audience was exposed to a horrific array of suspense and horror with an unrestrained attitude. By today’s standards, we might not find it as scary, but then again neither many do not find The Exorcist scary anymore. However, if you see it now for the first time or if you are just a fan, you will still see a truly shocking movie that features very little gore and more than a little social commentary about the dark side of the American family. Hooper practically gave birth to the slasher movie with his original design. Over the past 29 years, it has been revamped, remade and recycled so many times that a genuine remake (not a sequel, as many had thought) comes off as a copy of the copies.

That is exactly what director Marcus Nispel did with the remake - produced another copy. We should not be surprised after all considering that he is the protégé of Michael Bay. Moreover, that is just what this film looks like – Michael Bay doing a horror movie. Perhaps Jerry Bruckheimer would not let Bay do a horror movie, so he decided to live vicariously through his protégé. In the classic Michael Bay style, the film sacrifices substance for style. The original had both. It had the style to scare without needing to be too disgusting. Instead, it left our imaginations to assume the terrible.

While not on par with the original, the new version has some of the same excellent shooting style; however that is all it has. It may have the style but it can’t even begin to make up for the substance that original had. For example, in the 1974 version, the house that the kids were lured into was a nice, serine place that was painted white and looked to be a trusting place to ask for help - and there in lies the game. Now in the 2003 version, the set designers made the house into a dark, ominous looking castle that Dracula would feel at home in. The fear effect is lost there. We knew in the original that something bad was going to happen in that house, but the characters trusted it. Anyone who took one look at the house in the new version would have taken off running moments after laying eyes on it.

This is due to the screenwriter, Scott Kosar, who took it upon himself to change many of the great aspects of the original. In the original, the kids were making a pilgrimage to a cemetery to see if their grandfather's grave had been desecrated. Nispel and Kosar have their youngsters traveling to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert, after coming back from a trip to Mexico to buy weed. Now that is a stereotype of young adults if I have ever seen one.

The original “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” is one of the greatest horror films of all time. It is in my personal list of favorites, after ‘The Exorcist’ and ‘The Shining’. It is such a shame that took a classic film that was genuinely scary and turned it into a standard slasher film in the tradition of the ‘Friday The 13^th’ series. If you are reading this and you have not yet seen the new version, don’t. See the original version instead; you will thank me later.

'School of Rock' review

2006-02-01T16:00:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Oct. 20th/03

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

Jack Black could very well be the essential ‘fat man’ comedian. He has all the wit and spark of John Candy, with the physical hilarity of Chris Farley, and he’s by far the closest thing to a resurrection of John Belushi that we’ve seen since the great comedian’s death.

Jack Black has one aspect going for him that places him on the same level as John Belushi – he is also a musician. His band “Tenacious D” has a hit record out and Black’s personal film career is going well. This ability to multi-task film makes Jack Black the definitive choice for the lead roll in “School Of Rock”, the new film by Richard Linklater. Linklater’s previous efforts include “Dazed and Confused”, “The Newton Boys”, “Tape”, and the tremendous “Waking Life”. “School Of Rock” may be the first “kid’s movie” that the adults will enjoy more than the children do.

Black plays Dewey Finn, a failing rock star who, after being kicked out his own rock band, assumes his best friend’s identity and takes a job as fifth grade substitute teacher at a snobby prep school. This is a great situational comedy written by Mike White, who previously has written “Orange County” (also starring Black) and “The Good Girl” – starring Jennifer Aniston. There were plenty of opportunities and elements in this film to make a campy, hokey, cliché. Examples are: the buffoon of a “teacher”, the evil principal of the school, and most importantly the children. That is where the film really surprised me and really shines. The children were not automatons. They were not robots, or made to be background noise – as in such films as “Daddy Day Care”. The children in this film reminded me more of “Kindergarten Cop”, in which the children could hold their own with the likes of Schwarzenegger. They were actually actors. As in that film, the child actors in “School Of Rock” is of such a caliber that they could hold there own with the likes of Jack Black or Joan Cusack – who plays the uptight principal.

Cusack is about as much a villain as a story like this affords itself. She is not a bad person, just a woman so overcome with rules and regulations that this has made her become distant from her friends and even her staff. Black’s character is able to bring the happiness in her out a little bit one afternoon, in a great scene, when he has her out for a drink and she has a few too many.

The women of the film seem to be shown in a very different light as compared to the men. There are really only two main women roles in the film and that is the Cusak role and the role of Patty Di Marco played by Sarah Silverman. Both women are very over-bearing and controlling. The character of Patty Di Marco is very demanding and controlling over her boyfriend Ned (whose identity Jack Black assumes). Ned is very whipped by her even though, ironically enough, she is always bitching at him to stand up for himself.

The men of the film seem to have a problem with maturity. The character of Ned needs to grow up and become his own man. He is always being walked on by everyone including his best friend and his girlfriend. Dewey seems to have the same problem except he needs to grow up, forget about the rock star fantasy, and get a real job.

School of Rock is by far one of the best comedies I’ve seen in the last few years. It is cute and sweet with intelligent humor for all ages and it succeeds in both being an enjoyable family film and in being a straight up funny movie – which many comedies have a hard time doing these days.

'Owning Mahony' review

2006-02-01T15:44:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Oct. 20th/03

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****
Owning Mahowny is one of those classic stories. It is a morality tale. It’s the story of someone who built themselves up to almost a god-like status on something illegal they’ve done and how it all comes crashing down upon them. The character then has to live with the repercussions of what they’ve done to themselves and to the others they’ve hurt. This goes up there with the likes of other such films including Scarface, Blow, and American History X.

The true story is of Brian Molony, a Toronto bank manager who supported his gambling addiction with more than $10 million in fraudulent loans from his employer, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. It is Molony on whom Philip Seymour Hoffman's character Dan Mahowny is based in the film.

I have not read the book nor have I seen real footage of the actual man, so I had to watch the film with the basic attitude that the man was fictional and that this was a fictional story. I sometimes like to do that. That way I will not be hung up on wondering how accurate the film is to the real life story – there is plenty of time to do that later. This was easy to do with the brilliant performances in the film.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s portrayal of Mahowny was nothing short of amazing. The way that he captured the adrenaline of a gambler on the win, and the desperation of a gambler on the loss was superb. I had heard a rumor that Hoffman spent much time at Gambler’s Anonymous meetings to research the role. Whether that’s true or not, I am unsure. Whatever he did to prepare for the role, he did his homework.

The supporting characters were great to see as well. John Hurt was possibly on par with Hoffman, as the casino boss interested in making Mahowny his personal pet. Minnie Driver, however, was mediocre at best in her performance of Belinda, Mahowny’s girlfriend. Again, I don’t know anything about the real woman, but if she’s that boring, I don’t think I could be in a relationship with her. Her character had no depth, and the fact that she was such a pushover made it difficult to like the character. Her one redeeming moment was when she finally stuck up for herself and left Dan in the casino after she had expected them to get married. Driver should have done some more research on her part, because I found her Canadian accent very unauthentic.

The possible Canadian stereotype was one feature of the film that was covered tastefully. They possibility to play up to cheap stereotypes had presented itself, but the filmmakers did a good job. The film was perfect though - such as the bright yellow police cars (kind of conspicuous), the Canadian police eating donuts and drinking coffee all the time, and the over trusting of almost everyone by the Canadian bank managers.

One aspect of the film I enjoyed was the cinematography, specifically the contrasting use of colors. Dan Mahowny has three different aspects to his life, the public life, the private life, and the secret life. He feels almost the same about his public and his private lives. He feels they are boring and dull. He sits in his car and wonders, “what’s the point?” However, his secret life is the world he loves and through it, gets enjoyment. To differentiate between these two aspects, very opposing colors are used. For his public life - his office, or his car - and his private life - apartment with his girlfriend - very drab colors such as grays, whites, and blues are used. His secret world is filled with casinos, lights and adventure. To represent this other end of the spectrum, a relative rainbow is used. We see every color imaginable: reds, yellows and oranges. It is the total opposite of his normal world, which he returns to after every adventure at the casino.

Another appealing trait was the metaphorical use of mirrors. In the story, mirrors present a self-reflection that Dan has on his own life as well as his decisions that affect his life, and the lives of the people in his life – such as Belinda. This is shown in the scene where Dan is looking at his reflection in the men’s room mirror after losing nine million dollars. He stares at himself, reflecting on what he’s done to bury himself deeper and deeper in his addiction. Another great representation of the mirror metaphor is when Belinda is coming down the escalator in the casino, and she passes by the wedding party. In the scene, she was under the impression that she and Dan were coming to Las Vegas to get married, and as she comes down the escalator, she is mirrored on all sides by the walls of the escalator. It affords her the opportunity to reflect on her relationship with Dan as well as the chance to leave and change her life.

The film was done very well by all parties involved. The actors were superb, the direction by Richard Kwietniowski (who previously did “Love and Death on Long Island” among others) was nothing short of brilliant. This is a genuine portrayal of addiction. It does not glorify or make it into a melodrama. It hits all the right notes.

'Kill Bill vol. 1' review

2006-02-01T13:18:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Oct. 6th/03

Rating: **** out of ****

I’m going to cut right to the chase. “Kill Bill Vol. 1” blew my freakin’ mind! I have seen few films of this magnitude. I don’t care how you say it, 2 thumbs up, 4 stars – the film is perfect. I mean, it is perfect in every sense: the script, the acting, the cinematography, the direction, the choreography, the animation – all were flawless.

Let’s break this down one element at a time, shall we? I’ll start with my favorite aspect, the direction. Quentin Tarantino is by far one of the most innovative, explosive, and over-all ballsy directors going right now. Who else would start there movie with a beautiful woman getting her head blown off? And then to top it off, he emblazons the phrase, “The 4^th Film by Quentin Tarantino” across the screen. Few directors would have the moxie, or the ego to do that after only making three previous films and be able to get away with it. However, his films are not just films that you watch. They’re films that you strap in and enjoy the ride! Let’s look at his roster. The films that he’s directed: Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill Volumes 1 and 2. Those are just the films that he’s directed himself. Others that he has been involved in are: True Romance, From Dusk Till Dawn, and Natural Born Killers. All of these films have adrenaline written all over them.

Next, we have the oh-so-brilliantly written script. Aspects of all the classic Japanese action films are present in Tarantino’s work here. We see pieces of Kurosawa’s films, the exaggeration of violence as in many Japanese anime features such as “Akira” or “X” - especially during the 10 minute anime sequence which was fantastic to say the least - and aspects of almost every fighting style in the action scenes from “The Matrix” to those of Bruce Lee. In fact the outfit worn by Uma Thurman is an exact replica of the one that Bruce Lee wore in his last film. Tarantino must absorb these films through his skin through osmosis.

One aspect that was particularly interesting was the vibrant color of the film. It had the potential to be a very dark and violent film, and violent it was! However, for having such dark subject matter, it was as colorful and visually stimulating as a children’s television show. Some of the bloodiest scenes in the film are set against a bright backdrop of yellows and whites. One scene that stands out in my mind in particular is the breathtaking fight scene between The Bride (Thurman) and O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) set in a snowy garden sequence.

The cinematography and fight choreography are eye candy to put it simply. Every angle you can imagine - oblique, high, low, mid-shots, even a cool bird’s eye angle inside Vernita Green’s house - were used to make the every second of the film as visually stimulating as possible. Flashy editing, camerawork incorporating some gorgeous black and white cinematography by ace helmsman Bob Richardson, as well as some Grand Guignol* humor, add to the frantic pacing and at times plain hilarious amount of bloodletting. This all makes for an entertaining if not stomach-churning experience in filmmaking.

The shame is that a masterpiece of filmmaking such as Kill Bill Vol. 1 will go well overlooked by the Academy and many other Awards Panels. Sure, ‘Pulp Fiction’ was nominated for seven Academy Awards, but only took home one for Best Original Screenplay. I think even those on the Academy knew that if Tarantino wasn’t given that one at least, then there would be a massive revolt on the Academy members. I’m talking revolution here.

But something tells me that Kill Bill won’t even be given the honor of that disrespect. It will probably be one of many great films such as Gangs of New York, The Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, The Man Who Wasn’t There, Memento, and Fargo along with many others that are constantly overlooked by the Academy. They either are overlooked completely or maybe are given one award just so they can say they gave the film one for good measure.

But that’s just my pet peeve.

* A theatre in Paris where some pretty twisted stuff happened for the amusement of others

'Spellbound' review

2006-02-01T12:58:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Oct. 6th/03
Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

Spellbound is the story of 8 American children who struggle and fight and manage to make it to the 1999 National Spelling Bee in Washington, D.C. They all come from different American locales, different ethnicities, and very much different families with different values.

All I can say about Spellbound is that it was G-R-E-A-T. Director Jeffrey Blitz takes us into the homes and everyday lives of these children with such comfort that we remember a million different kids that we went to school with when we were younger.

The scenes at the competition were shown excellently with such grace. So much so, that at the competition, even though the parents were putting on fronts for the cameras, the children did not even notice the cameras. I am sure this is because they were under so much stress, as well as having about a hundred other cameras on them. In addition, we could feel the stress as well. I’m kind of embarrassed to say this, but I was actually on the edge of my seat a few times. Jeffrey Blitz actually had the ability to make a Spelling Bee – which I would normally say is boring – actually exciting. We can feel the pressure on these children, as well as the heartbreak for some of them when they lose.

The scenes in the competition were not the most entertaining to see however. The episodes of the various children in their homes and in their natural environments I found particularly captivating. The way we see the pressures on the children to win - some by the parents, sometimes by themselves – it is engaging, and sometimes frustrating. These overbearing parents consistently reminded me of those “pageant parents” who force their children into child beauty pageants. You know these kids are going to need some serious therapy when they’re older. For example, one girl, Angela, her whole reason for entering the pageant was to make her parents proud. Now, what will happen if she loses? How proud will those parents be? The film left us with these kinds of questions, so much so that I was asking them to myself after I left the theater. It wasn’t always directly the parent’s fault. Many of these people come from varying cultural backgrounds; some of which have very strong work ethics, and whether they realize it or not, may be pressuring their children to succeed.

It is not always the parents though. Sometimes it was the child’s own pressure on themselves that caused them to drive for that goal and go to such measures as studying the dictionary for four to five hours a day.

Jeffrey Blitz has the makings of a great documentarian. This film may not have had the razor’s edge of Bowling For Columbine, but it was still great and definitely deserved a nomination for Best Documentary Feature.

One thing bothered me about the film though. Blitz must’ve interviewed many, many children for this film and then selected the 8 specific ones for the picture. Well, the film did its job SO well, that it left me wanting to know about the other children who were left out of the picture.

Johnny Depp the next Marlon Brando?

2006-02-01T07:00:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Sept. 22nd/03

Since when did Johnny Depp become Marlon Brando? I mean, I’ve always been a Depp fan. In my opinion he’s one the best actors of my generation but he’s always been known as one of those actors that you see all the time, but never really stood out or been associated as a superstar, kind of along the lines of Ethan Hawke, rather than Tom Hanks or Al Pacino. However, in the past few years he’s really come into his own.

I’d say it started in 1999 and hasn’t stopped since then. In 1999, he pleased critics and audiences alike as his portrayal of Ichabod Crane in Tim Burton’s “Sleepy Hollow”. This became Depp’s first film to top the 100 million dollar mark at the box office. After that, it was his excellent supporting role in “Chocolat”, followed by his remarkable performance in the late Ted Demme’s film “Blow”. Even though the film was not well received by many, even the coldest critic could not deny how well Depp was in the lead role. After that, he did another good job in the Hughes Brothers’ film “From Hell” playing a detective tracking Jack the Ripper. But this summer seems to be the relative turning point for Depp. After starring in the second highest grossing movie of the summer, “Pirates of the Caribbean”, Depp then brought to life what could have been a disaster with “Once Upon a time in Mexico.” Surely this seems to be Depp’s time, which could very well propel him to superstardom status and maybe even the infamous “20 million dollar club”. I could never see him taking that much money per role though. He seems to be the kind of actor to option for more roles more often rather than more money. You’ll notice that Depp has at least one movie every year, where as a twenty million dollar actor such as Bruce Willis or Tom Hanks has one every three or four.

I think Hollywood needs more actors like Johnny Depp, who option for enforced performances, interesting roles, less money and working on a regular basis, as opposed to slacking off, one-dimensional roles, bags of money, and doing one role every three years.

The shame is that actors of this caliber such as Depp, Morgan Freeman, Ethan Hawke, and Benicio Del Toro, are constantly overlooked by critics, awards academies, and moviegoers alike, because in this twisted day and age, the majority of viewers would rather watch Vin Diesel blow something up than see a real actor perform a real role that would be something deep, and hard-hitting and would give us something to think about and really digest. Audiences need to remember what a good steak tastes like and let go of the Big Mac.

'Matchstick Men' review

2006-02-01T06:43:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Sept. 22nd/03
Rating: **** out of ****

'Matchstick Men' is one of the best pictures I’ve seen this year. This film has all the elements of a masterpiece: an excellent script adapted from an equally great novel, a cast of extraordinary actors including Nicolas Cage and Sam Rockwell, and a brilliant director like Ridley Scott behind the camera. Nicolas Cage has Oscar Nomination printed well on his forehead in this film. His portrayal as a man suffering from obsessive compulsions and neuroticism is done so well it’s almost scary.

The editing by Dody Dorn and the cinematography by John Mathieson I found particularly compelling in this film as well. Whenever Nicolas Cage’s character is having a neurotic attack, we are shown many fast and creative cuts and indecisiveness of the camera as well as varying focuses of the lens; almost as if the camera itself has OCD. It’s brilliant - It left me with a very unsettling and edgy feeling as I was watching; it gives us as close a feeling as possible to what Nicolas Cage’s character is experiencing at that time. The style of the film definitely fits the subject matter with what we are dealing. Ridley Scott develops that relationship with his casts and crews. If you look at his previous works such as “Alien”, “Blade Runner”, to his newer stuff like, “Gladiator”, and “Black Hawk Down”, they all seem to have a certain visual quality to them that Scott seems to keep true to all his films. I think he has an ability to make things appear dark in nature. Like in such films as “Gladiator”, and “Black Hawk Down”, there are scenes which take place in the day-time, but with Scott’s signature filmmaking techniques he is able to apply a certain feeling of darkness to scenes which take place in the daylight.

I must say that the one point of the film I found disappointing was the character of Sam Rockwell. I personally feel that Sam Rockwell is one of the best up and coming actors in the business right now. After his performances in “Confessions of a Dangerous Ming”, and “Welcome to Collinwood”, especially the former, I just knew he was going to be a superstar. Then I heard that he was starring opposite Nicolas Cage in a Ridley Scott film and I was very excited. However, his character is no stretch for the kinds of roles that Rockwell has been doing. He needed to be in a more challenging role, such as Cage’s. Rockwell’s character was just a sidekick or a lackey. If that was supposed to be the point, than he hit it right on the money. Otherwise, I found it less than superb. Perhaps they would’ve been better off going with someone like Johnny Depp, who is red hot right now riding off the success of two huge summer movies: “Pirates Of The Caribbean”, and “Once Upon A Time In Mexico”. It surely would’ve been nice on Mr. Depp’s resume to have a summer hat trick on there. A “Hat Trick” for those who do not follow hockey is scoring three times in one game.

Minor qualms aside, Matchstick Men is still a tour de force and one of the best films of the year. It is great to see someone like Scott, whose big budget action spectaculars have made him legendary, take on a smaller more personal project and still make it equally as appealing.

Special effects making filmmakers lazy?

2006-02-01T05:54:00.000-08:00

Originally written the week of Sept. 15th/2003

Some friends and I went to see the Robert Rodriguez film, “Once Upon A Time In Mexico” this week and had mixed reactions to the film. The film was, as fully expected, a bang-bang shoot-em up western for the new millennium. However, it seemed to me that the plot was way too convoluted for an action film. It’s not that I couldn’t keep up with the story or the plot but it seems to me that the majority of people who are going to see a film such as this one are the general malaise of the population that are known as the “general viewing public”. Not to sound insulting, but it has come from my experiences that the majority of the “general viewing public” has an attention span of less than 5 minutes and cannot keep up with an over-the-top convoluted plot line.

Perhaps it is reasons such as this that many people I talked to didn’t particularly enjoy “The Matrix Reloaded”. I personally did not enjoy that film, but it was not only because of the packed plot, but because the film simply was not very good. The Wachowski Brothers are trying to sound intelligent and profound with their existentialism, when in fact they are just thinking of elaborate action sequences and then basing a story around the action, instead of the other way around. But I digress; I will discuss this later in the entry.

Back to “Once Upon A Time In Mexico”. The film was a very effective action film – overlooking the long-winded plot. The movie is filled with mind blowing, as well as brain splattering action scenes, which stay true to that classic Rodriguez nature of the film that we’ve all come to enjoy. The characters were enjoyable, with many different colorful people to meet. The Johnny Depp character definitely steals the show. This seems to be the summer for Depp, especially after riding on the success of Pirates of the Caribbean, which to me was one the most enjoyable big movies of this summer.

There seemed to be a lot of computer assistance in this film, as compared to Desperado. From Dusk Till Dawn had help from computers, but that was a completely different scenario. That film in particular involved vampires doing many crazy things in many a crazy environment - in other words, things that maybe could not have been done in any other way than to use computer effects. However, even that film used many traditional mechanical effects. It seems to me that perhaps the technical support that Rodriguez received in doing the Spy Kids Trilogy made him realize how much easier filmmaking could be with the added help of computer-generated effects. Rodriguez has openly praised the new digital cameras he used to shoot the film, saying they make the film making process much easier and you can get much more done in a shorter amount of time.

That leads me to the next topic I wish to discuss in this journal article: Has computer generated effects made filmmakers lazy?

There is one scene from “Once Upon A Time In Mexico” that comes to mind when I discuss this, and that is when a certain character gets his knees blown apart by Antonio Banderas’ double-barreled shotgun. Now, in the film they used computer effects to generate the knees blowing out and having the bones snap under the weight of the character. Now, it was a very cool scene, as well as a cool effect, but you could obviously tell that it was computerized effects. Personally, I think it would’ve been cooler to have the actual make-up effects of the knees being blown apart. Sure, it might not have looked so stream-lined and pristine, but it would have given it that classic gore that we love. We all remember the good days of gore and violence, such as the comedic yet disgusting scenes in Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead Trilogy. Surely you remember the scene in Die Hard when Bruce Willis blows the bad guys’ knees out with the machine gun?! That wasn’t computer generated and it still gave off the same gut-wrenching effect that it was aiming for.

Here is where one of the problems with The Matrix Reloaded comes in. This is the kind of movie where computer effects are required. They’re not just for looks, although that is a lot of it; they are actually required in order to pull off some of the stunts the filmmakers want done. What struck me as being weird was that the effects seemed to be worse in the supposed “technologically advanced sequel” than they were in the original. I always thought that over time the special effects would get better. But this is where the laziness factor comes in. When the first Matrix film came out, the effects such as the “bullet time” sequence had never been done, so they had to invent it – which means a lot of time and effort. But after they already know how to do it, then the effort is no longer required so they can slack off a bit and get away with it.

The same problem occurred with the Jurassic Park Trilogy. The first film had groundbreaking, never-before seen special effects, but by the time the sequels came out, the technology was old, the filmmakers became lazy and the difference is noticeable when all three films are watched.

I recently read an article with Frank Marshall who will be producing the fourth Indiana Jones film which will re-unite Harrison Ford with Steven Spielberg. The point of the article was that Frank Marshall made an adamant point that there were to be little to no computer effects in the new Indiana Jones film. This came as an exciting surprise to me. He said that he wants the original fans of the first trilogy to be able to go into the theater and watch the film feeling like they did the first time around.

I think more filmmakers need to be following this example. Good films don’t have to be digital films. If a film has a good script and is attached to good actors to bring the dialogue to life, as well as good producers, cinematographers and a brilliant director, than the work will speak for itself. Look at such great films as Pulp Fiction, Fargo, Psycho, and The Godfather, just to name a few. Where were their special effects and computer generation? If a film has to rely on special effects to make it good, than what does that say about the material?

'Van Helsing' review

2006-01-31T21:54:00.000-08:00

Rating: ** out of ****

Originally written May 7th/2004

When I first heard the story for "Van Helsing", it seemed like a good premise. I am a fan of horror films, and the classic ones especially, so the idea of packing three or four of them into one film seemed a little contrived to me, but I was willing to overlook it as long as it gave us a good kick off to the summer season. Last summer we had a great kick-off to the summer with X2, so why can't lightening strike twice? Sometimes it can, but this time, it did not.

"Van Helsing" takes place during the late 19th century, where famed monster hunter Dr. Gabriel Van Helsing heads to Eastern Europe to battle with Count Dracula, the Wolf Man, and Frankenstein's Monster - as well as Mr. Hyde, to a lesser degree. By his side is the ravishing Anna, a member of a family that has all but been destroyed by the forces of evil. Now, this may sound all well and good, and it is a good story, but unfortunately the film takes what could have been a great monster/action movie and smothers it beneath a pile of computer effects (some of which are excellent, and others are mediocre), poor acting, and just plain old cheesiness at times. I know what you are thinking: "How can a movie about monsters not be a bit cheesy?" Well, I was excepting a bit of cheese, but not an entire box of Kraft Dinner!

The lack of logic in this film is devastating. The whole story centers on this conspiracy by Count Dracula to utilize Frankenstein’s Monster and use him to bring to life an army of in-utero vampire babies. First off, I really do not know why vampires need to make babies - they are vampires! Why can't they just go bite people as they have been doing for the entire time we have heard stories about vampires? In addition, if the vampire babies are born dead, why do they need to be brought to life (like Frankenstein)? Aren't they supposed to be vampires too? Clearly, they are - and vampires are not alive! So if vampires were not alive, why would they need to be brought to life? Damn you, circular logic! Anyway, even looking past that, the very means by which the babies are conceived is unorthodox and never fully explained. The dead vampire offspring hang from a subterranean ceiling wrapped in cocoons, yet we are never given a full and complete explanation as to how they were created. We are just supposed to assume that the Vampires put them there, and how that happened is not important.

Another aspect of the film that bothered me was the real inconsistency in good special effects. Some of the effects - such as those of Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolfman were very good and perhaps almost "Best Visual Effects" good. However, others were downright bad, such as the flying vampire vixens sent by Dracula, and the transformation of Dracula from human form to Vampire form. It is as though the effects gurus seemed to think that some scenes were more important than others were and deserved more time and care.

The film does have its good points. Hugh Jackman gave as good a performance as can be expected, given the material he had to work with. This was not Kate Beckinsale's best performance, but at least we have to look at her in that Corset, which more than made up for cheesy Transylvanian accent. One aspect I enjoyed which was original was the method in which humans turned into Werewolves. In most werewolf films, the humans seem to grow hair and contort their bodies - literally turning into a wolf. In "Van Helsing" though, the human proceed to tear their skin off and reveal the wolf underneath, as if the beast was inside them, desperate to get out, and finally manages to escape its flesh prison.

Watched at face value, I can see how people will enjoy "Van Helsing". It does have enough cool action sequences and special effects to keep you entertained. However, watched for anything more than that will be a let down, in fact the film let me down as an action film as well. I really was not impressed overall.

Steven Sommers who brought us the first “Mummy” film, which I liked, directs “Van Helsing”. He also brought us "The Mummy Returns" which could possibly have been the worst film of 2001. As per usual with a Sommers film, the story line takes a back seat to the special effects and almost non-stop action. I think Sommers should take another crack at an emotional drama or family film. After all, he did direct "The Adventures of Huck Finn" in 1993, which I think is one of the better family films of the last decade or so. It is just unfortunate that a man who seems to have the ability to make good films is falling into that "Michael Bay" category of style and special effects over substance.

'Eurotrip' review

2006-01-31T21:43:00.000-08:00

Originally written May 26th/2004

Rating: **1/2 out of ****

Jeff Schaffer's "Eurotrip" is a raunchy, teen sex romp in the tradition of "American Pie" and "Road Trip". The problem is that those films were better. "Eurotrip" is not a bad movie, at least not in my opinion. The creators just did not play out their idea well enough.

"Eurotrip" begins with the character of Scotty (played by newcomer Scott Thomas) who had just graduated high school and is planning to go to med school. At the graduation ceremony his long-term girlfriend Fiona (Kristin Kreuk of “Smallville” dumps him. That night at the graduate party, we find out that Fiona has been sleeping with every guy in Scott's high school. In fact, the band at the party has a theme song called "Scotty Doesn't Know" - one of the funniest scenes in the film. Anyway, Scott has a German pen pal named Mike. One night in a drunken stupor Scott finds out that Mike wants to meet him and becomes scared, thinking that Mike could be a sexual predator. Scott emails Mike and says to leave him alone. We later learn that Mike is actually Mieke (pronounced "Meeka") and she is a very attractive girl that wants to meet Scott. Therefore, Scott sets off with his friend Cooper (played by Jacob Pitts in the common Stifler-like role) to Europe to find Mieke. While there, they meet up with Jamie and Jenny, fraternal twins who are "the worst twins ever".

It is a funny premise; however, "Eurotrip" has its faults. Its main fault is that it is too disjointed. The characters seem to be jumping from one gag scene to another, without "flowing". Although funny, most of those gags are pointless. Such examples are, a scene where Scotty has a fight with a man doing the robot in front of the Leuvre. Perhaps the most gratuitous and pointless scene is one in which Cooper tricks a topless girl into massaging her own breasts in front of him. This scene is not only pointless, but also insulting to the girl because she not only has her breasts on screen for about 5 minutes, but her character is made out to be stupid. She becomes embarrassed and enraged at Cooper AFTER showing her breasts to Cooper for 5 minutes or more. It is as if someone turned on a light switch in the girls' head making her realize "Hey, I'm naked!"

Eurotrip's characters are likeable and, at times charming and entertaining. Despite this, most of their misfortunes they encounter are their own faults. For example, there is a scene where the group of friends is on a train and they meet a creepy Italian man who proceeds to molest them with little consequence. Everyone I asked about this scene said that the man would have been beaten if it had have been them on the train. There is another scene where Jamie is robbed of everything he owns because he is receiving oral sex from a German girl and is in too much bliss to care. Now, receiving oral sex could distract someone from many things, but enough to not care that they are being robbed. I do not find that believable.

Now, because Jamie was robbed of all their possessions, the group is stuck with no tickets, passports, or money and they desperately have to get to Berlin and they only have a little under $2 in American cash. However, thanks to the incredible exchange rate, the group is able to go on a swanky rich adventure. It never occurs to them that if the exchange rate is so great, they could buy tickets directly to Berlin. Instead, the rich adventure is a segue to another disjointed scene involving a rave and Absinthe which leads to the twins making out with one another.

The writers of "Eurotrip" seem to have been influenced heavily by "Road Trip". Both films have very similar plots and stories and even characters. The problem is that all those things were better in "Road Trip". The writers would have been well advised to give their script the same characters from "Road Trip" and call it "Road Trip 2: Eurotrip!" and it actually would have been better and perhaps more believable because we know that the characters in "Road Trip" have done this sort of thing before.

"Eurotrip" is not a complete waste of time. I know it sounds as if I am trashing it quite a bit, and I am. However, I give it 2 and a half out of 4 stars because as a mindless comedy, it seems to work. Not as well as others have, but it still does. That is the redeeming fact of "Eurotrip"; it does not pretend to be something it is not. It does not pretend to be smart when it is not. It is what it is, and that is a dirty teenage sex romp. It doesn't show us what looks like a dirty teen sex romp on the trailers, with exposure to sex, but then the sex is toned way down in the film, as other films have in the past. This film has an R rating, deserves an R rating and makes no qualms about having an R rating. In fact, it celebrates it.