inreeltime

This Year's Oscar Picks - Updated with winners

2007-02-19T12:48:00.000-06:00

It's that time of year again, time to pick the Academy Award Winners. Although we've been rather negligent in our movie reviewing as of late, rest assured we've still been watching the nominees like fiends. Below are our picks for this year's Oscars (note: we've picked who we deemed most deserving of the Oscar and not necessarily who we think the Academy will honor):

Brandon's picks in blue, Sarai's picks in red, purple for agreement.

Performance by an actor in a leading role

Leonardo DiCaprio - BLOOD DIAMOND
Ryan Gosling - HALF NELSON
Peter O'Toole - VENUS
Will Smith - THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS
Forest Whitaker - THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND *WINNER

Performance by an actor in a supporting role

Alan Arkin - LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE *WINNER
Jackie Earle Haley - LITTLE CHILDREN
Djimon Hounsou - BLOOD DIAMOND
Eddie Murphy - DREAMGIRLS
Mark Wahlberg - THE DEPARTED

Performance by an actress in a leading role

Penélope Cruz - VOLVER
Judi Dench - NOTES ON A SCANDAL
Helen Mirren - THE QUEEN *WINNER
Meryl Streep - THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA
Kate Winslet - LITTLE CHILDREN

Performance by an actress in a supporting role

Adriana Barraza - BABEL
Cate Blanchett - NOTES ON A SCANDAL
Abigail Breslin - LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
Jennifer Hudson - DREAMGIRLS *WINNER
Rinko Kikuchi - BABEL

Best animated feature film of the year

CARS
HAPPY FEET *WINNER
MONSTER HOUSE

Achievement in art direction

DREAMGIRLS
THE GOOD SHEPHERD
PAN'S LABYRINTH *WINNER
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST
THE PRESTIGE

Achievement in cinematography

THE BLACK DAHLIA
CHILDREN OF MEN
THE ILLUSIONIST
PAN'S LABYRINTH *WINNER
THE PRESTIGE

Achievement in costume design

CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER
THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA
DREAMGIRLS
MARIE ANTOINETTE *WINNER
THE QUEEN

Achievement in directing

BABEL
THE DEPARTED *WINNER
LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
THE QUEEN
UNITED 93

Best documentary feature

DELIVER US FROM EVIL
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH *WINNER
IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS
JESUS CAMP
MY COUNTRY, MY COUNTRY

Achievement in film editing

BABEL
BLOOD DIAMOND
CHILDREN OF MEN
THE DEPARTED *WINNER
UNITED 93

Best foreign language film of the year

AFTER THE WEDDING
DAYS OF GLORY (INDIGÈNES)
THE LIVES OF OTHERS *WINNER
PAN'S LABYRINTH
WATER

Achievement in makeup

APOCALYPTO
CLICK
PAN'S LABYRINTH *WINNER

Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score)

BABEL *WINNER
THE GOOD GERMAN
NOTES ON A SCANDAL
PAN'S LABYRINTH
THE QUEEN

Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song)

"I Need to Wake Up" - AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH *WINNER
"Listen" - DREAMGIRLS
"Love You I Do" - DREAMGIRLS
"Our Town" - CARS
"Patience" - DREAMGIRLS

Best motion picture of the year

BABEL
THE DEPARTED *WINNER
LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE
THE QUEEN

Here is where the nominees for best live action and animated short films usually go, but they seem to be missing. I would like to say that The Danish poet should win for Best Animated Short (as A Gentleman's Duel cruelly didn't get a nod), and the hilarious West Bank Story should win for Best Live Action.

Achievement in sound editing

APOCALYPTO
BLOOD DIAMOND
FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS
LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA *WINNER
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST

Achievement in sound mixing

APOCALYPTO
BLOOD DIAMOND
DREAMGIRLS *WINNER
FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST

Achievement in visual effects

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST *WINNER
POSEIDON
SUPERMAN RETURNS

Adapted screenplay

BORAT CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN
CHILDREN OF MEN
THE DEPARTED *WINNER
LITTLE CHILDREN
NOTES ON A SCANDAL

Original screenplay

BABEL
LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE *WINNER
PAN'S LABYRINTH
THE QUEEN

Nior Lite

2006-09-22T16:32:00.000-05:00

Hollywoodland- **1/2
The Black Dahlia- **1/2

Noir made a comeback in the 90s, first through its B-movie roots with films like The Last Seduction, and soon through better-quality movies like Seven and L.A. Confidential. While the neo-noir movement is as hit and miss as film noir was in the 40s (anyone remember Mulholland Falls? No? Good.), I find myself drawn to these movies. Once in a while you find a hidden gem among them, like last year’s Brick, but more often then not you get movies like Hollywoodland and The Black Dahlia. Movies that are going through the paces, but miss the point entirely.

These movies actually have quite a bit in common. They both take place in L.A. during the post-war years (although Hollywoodland takes place at least a decade after the “land” was taken off of the infamous Hollywood sign, an event that happens during the climax of the novel of The Black Dahlia), they both are fictionalized investigations into real murders, and both center heavily on old film reels of the dead bodies. Although Hollywoodland actually tells the story of George Reeves (Ben Affleck) side-by-side with the investigation.

And this is the big problem with Hollywoodland- neither story is terribly interesting. George Reeves was a minor star who got typecast as Superman. He wanted desperately to break into film, even starting a relationship with the wife (Diane Lane) of the head of MGM (a sadly underutilized Bob Hoskins), and unceremoniously dumping her when she doesn’t get him roles. This is the best part of the film- Affleck does his best work since Good Will Hunting, and the typical rise-and-fall story is thrown a new twist with a character who never really made it into the Hollywood system. While it never gets us too deep into Reeves, Affleck’s performance (I can’t believe I’m saying this) actually does more for the character than the screenplay ever bothers to.

And then we have the parallel story of Louis Simo (Adrian Brody), a down-and-out detective who gets involved in trying to figure out what really happened to Reeves. Suicide? Murder? An accident? But the story never goes anywhere. Sure, we get the typical scenes- Simo sees the murder site and finds things the cops missed (of course, none of this evidence is ever explained, or even used in any sort of relevatory way), he gets beat up by the bad guys, his cop friend floats him some evidence. But what’s the point if nothing means anything? It’s like the noir structure without any of the window dressing that makes noir enjoyable to watch. Simo is so down-and-out he completely unlikable, and he’s involved in a mystery the film makes no effort to explain. Instead we’re given three different scenarios, all fairly plausible, and the movie ends. It’s like ordering a beer on a hot day, only to find it warm and flat.

Now with The Black Dahlia, I’m admittingly biased. I first read the book after seeing L.A. Confidential and learning it was the third book in a series, The Black Dahlia being first. It has since become one of my favorite books, if not my favorite mystery of all time. It’s dark, psychological, brutal, and is one of the most well-structured books I’ve ever read. Ellroy doles out plot twists, hiding clues so well that each one is more jolting than the last. But when screenwriter Josh Friedman tackled the novel, he decided to just cut it all out.

Now, I’m not opposed to trimming a novel. L.A. Confidential completely disregarded the second half of the book, but still managed to make a movie that kept true to the spirit of the novel while making it filmable. Friedman tries the same trick, axing most of the second half (and some of the best scenes) of The Black Dahlia and attempting to squish all the revelations and twists into the final half hour. This doesn’t work, and just comes off as ridiculous. By the third time Bucky Bleichert (Josh Hartnett) rethinks his solution to the murder, you kinda wish the bad guys would just shoot him so the movie would end.

Even had I not enjoyed the book so much, this would be a lame screenplay. The slang that peppered the novel (and L.A. Confidential) shows up here and there, but it seems out of place, particularly being said by Hartnett, who always sounds as if he’s half-asleep. The screenplay includes references to characters all but cut out, like Koenig and Vogel, and chops down other major characters like Millard and Loew…so why even keep them in the movie? Friedman sometimes seems overly concerned with faithfulness to the novel, and sometimes seems to be making it all up as he goes. It’s a strange, mismatched work that never finds cohesion. This is a shame, since Ellroy’s work is so airtight.

And the performances. Dear God. Josh Hartnett plays the whole thing as if he thought being a noir anti-hero means being sleepy. Gone is the tortured, complex Bucky Bleichert who wants so bad to do the right thing and fails due to his own self-loathing. Now he’s just had a little too much red wine and is vaguely confused. Scarlett Johansson, an actress I used to like a lot, gives the same leaden performance she gave in Match Point. Her ever-present, tight cashmere sweaters lead me to believe they really just wanted to hire her tits and only begrudgingly brought along the rest of her. Not only are these two horribly miscast, but their lack of acting stops the move dead every time they’re on screen. Aaron Eckhart and Hilary Swank fare better. They are also miscast, but they at least act. It may be overacting, but hey, they gotta make up for the two leads. The most haunting performance is from Mia Kirshner as Betty Short, the Dahlia of the title. She is only seen in screen tests and skin flicks watched by the cops, but she gives her role a life no one else in the movie bothers to. Even director Brian DePalma, known for making lurid sex-and-violence epics, seems confused…almost like he’s playing it straight (except for one notable head-crushing scene that reminded me of poor Emilio Estevez in Mission: Impossible).

One thing The Black Dahlia has over Hollywoodland though is that it actually designates a murderer. It may dither around about it for a while, but it eventually gives us a solution. And it seems to move slightly faster than Hollywoodland, which keeps striding forward even though it doesn’t seem to have anywhere to go. It’s a shame to see one of my favorite genres used in this way. It’s a genre all about luridness. The characters are supposed to be flawed and difficult, pulled into their work despite their best attempts to climb out. Instead we get vague half-attempts. Nothing annoys me more than movies that don’t even try. I could even somewhat respect horrible movies for being SO horrible, as they at least elicit some sort of response from me. But these two movies just sit there on the screen, while you just sit there waiting for them to end.

Little Man- *1/2

2006-08-07T09:59:00.000-05:00

Little Man is not a movie you watch. Little Man is a movie you reference in about 7 years in order to make your friends laugh at your random, forgotten references to past culture. There is no one I’ve talked to who even smiles or ask how it was when I told them I saw Little Man. Mostly I get asked if I’m okay. One person said she would no longer be my friend.

Let’s be honest, there are a couple funny moments. David Alan Grier as an obnoxious restaurant musician is funny. Well, for a little bit…the joke wears thin quickly. But the Wayans Bros. aren’t known for their restraint. Every dirty joke that you told in sixth grade is retold here. Of course the midget has a giant penis. Of course he has sex with someone’s wife and the wife thinks it’s the husband. Of course every single male character gets hit in the nuts at least once. Of course someone in the movie has to shit themselves explosively.

Calvin (played by Linden Porco and Gabriel Pimental, and faced by Marlon Wayans) has just gotten out of prison, and has to pull a heist for a mob boss (poor, poor Chazz Palminteri). When the cops descend, he ditches the diamond with a young couple, Darryl (Shawn Wayans) and Vanessa (Kerry Washington). To get the diamond back, Calvin poses as an abandoned child to infiltrate the house, and hilarity ensues. Well, theoretically. What really ensues is a lot of unfunny jokes, and everyone learns some heart-warming lessons. Vanessa learns that maybe a family is more important than her career. Calvin learns a family is important. Darryl learns…well, nothing. He does get hit in the nuts a lot, though.

This movie is really long sit-com episode. The jokes aren’t particularly clever and they’ve all been lifted from other movies (the football scene from Wedding Crashers, the explosive diarrhea from Dumb and Dumber, several jokes from Bad Santa, etc). Darryl is a wide-eyed, dippy character who says everything with the innocence of a bad dad on some CBS family sit-com. Calvin basically mugs for the camera so much he makes Adam Sandler look witty. The serious scenes are even worse, with Darryl talking about fatherhood, and Calvin making really unfunny faces while fighting back tears. And some of the other character’s schticks…my god. Someone needs to tell them that the old white lady talking black is a dead horse that’s only getting deader. The cops hating blacks get a few giggles, but that that horse is on its last legs too. I just wonder if maybe they had taken some time to really create a funny scene, some of this might have worked. But instead we get something that feels like it was hastily thrown together on one drunken night. It’s a shame, I like farts and nutshots, but I’ve never seen anything make them SO unfunny.

I look at this movie the same way I look at those skinny Gap models. They aren’t really attractive, they’re attractive because they have all the accoutrements (very tan, very skinny, very blond, lots of mascara, bra-buoyed boobs) and therefore we’re tricked into thinking must be. Little Man is a movie that will make a lot of people laugh just because they’re being cued to, even without the laugh track. Oh, nutshot, that’s supposed to be funny so I’ll laugh. I like a good low-brow comedy, but I don’t like to be insulted. And I can almost hear the Wayanses pointing at the audience and laughing, “Ha ha ha, sucker, you just gave us your money! HA HA HA!” Thanks, guys.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - ***1/2

2006-08-01T15:42:00.000-05:00

Did you like the first one? Okay, then you’ll like this one. That’s about the best thing I can say. It’s more of the same, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It is also a sequel in every sense of the word- it has more in all the places there should be more, and it is lacking in all the areas sequels normally lack.

The plot picks up in some unspecified time after the first one. Both Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) have been arrested for their part in helping Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) escape in the first movie. A deal is made- Will and Elizabeth will be set free if they can steal a seemingly broken compass from Sparrow. Meanwhile, Sparrow has been cursed by Davy Jones (Bill Nighy). It seems he sold his soul to Jones a long time ago, and now Jones has come to collect. The only way to save him lies with finding Jones’ heart, which is buried in a secret place. But can they avoid the gigantic Kraken hounding their every step? CAN THEY????

To discuss the movie in detail seems a bit silly. So I’m just going to focus on its merits as a sequel. Where the movie is more is in terms of running time and action. There are more big action set pieces, including not one but TWO rolling wooden contraptions, two big kraken battles, various bar fights, sword fights, and lots of evil grimacing from the bad guys. We also get a strange group of antagonists. Jones is a squid-faced monster, and his henchmen all resemble sea creatures (my favorite being the hammerhead shark, hee hee). His crew, including Will’s father Bootstrap Bill (Stellan Skarsgård) are all people who have sold their souls, and are slowly being covered in barnacles. While a lot of this is cool and fun, the bloated 2 and a half hour running time does start to weigh on you by the final twenty minutes. And fair warning- it ends on a cliffhanger. So don’t expect a resolution.

Where it lacks is first and foremost in the performance of Johnny Depp. While I still laughed at his spinning and preening, the performance didn’t feel as fresh. His character also became much more selfish and less likable. I know, he’s a pirate, but he was likably mischeivious in the first one, and this time comes off much more selfish and uncaring. The other characters suffer a bit too, but it’s not like the first one was a character-driven piece. There’s also a bit too much action- all the action scenes go on interminably. This is fun at first, but slowly begins to make you wonder if there is anything else that might happen. Not to mention the cliffhanger ending. I liked the twist, and am looking forward to part 3, but to come so far and be given nothing? These minor quibbles may be eased in the third one, when we get to see how it all comes together, but Dead Man’s Chest is unfortunately just a connecter between the beginning and the climax. It feels like half a movie…which I guess it is.

But these quibbles are minor, especially for a movie all about pirates and jumping and gooey bad guys. I’ll just repeat myself- if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll have fun at this one. Now go enjoy yourself some pirates.

Miami Vice- ***1/2

2006-07-31T08:43:00.000-05:00

My mom watched a lot of "Miami Vice" in the 1980s. I did not, preferring to maybe catch a second or two of guns blazing and then heading off into my own imagination where I saved Amy Woggerman from mean, but ultimately inept bad guys (I mean, honestly, what sort of bad guys allow a ten year-old to defeat them?). Now Michael Mann has resurrected the series as a film, and most people I know (particularly my age and younger) are just shaking their heads. They assume this must be some sort of joke. What’s next, Scarecrow and Mrs King: The Movie?

Luckily, writer-director Michael Mann still has some tricks up his sleeve. I find Mann notoriously hit and miss since his dry, measured style doesn’t always pay off (Ali, for example). Mann begins by throwing out nearly all references to the original and starting from scratch. Our two heroes, Sonny Crockett (Colin Farrell) and Ricardo Tubbs (Jamie Foxx) get a call from an old informant that something bad is going down. It’s an FBI sting operation gone wrong (due to an informant who only exists to jump start the plot), and the FBI decides to use Crockett and Tubbs to break the case. Of course, they get too deep undercover, and Crockett falls for the drug lord’s girlfriend, Isabella (Gong Li), and then in the end everyone has to shoot everyone else.

This is nothing you haven’t seen before, and in fact the movie tends to suffer a bit when dealing with our heroes getting in over their heads. You know they are because that’s how these plots go, but neither they nor the movie ever seems to worry too much about it. The characters are so gritty that they’re almost miserable, and one more set back is just another excuse for them to sigh and push on. Gone are the interesting characterizations of Mann previous film, Collateral. The plot feels almost like a (coincidence?) TV show stretched out to two hours. It seems too flimsy to support the entire running time, and slows quite a bit in the middle, particularly when Crockett is romancing Isabella. But never fear. When the guns finally come out in the last twenty minutes, you’ll forget how much time you spent wondering how long it was going to take for the guns to come out. We even get two particularly cheer-worthy bad guy deaths, both thankfully without snappy one liners.

Luckily, Mann’s style counts for a lot, and manages to make up for deficiencies in plot and character. Every shot looks fastidiously researched and expertly timed. A brief montage of a plane flight becomes almost epic, and night scenes feel like you’re actually standing with them under the streetlight. The movie is shot in HD video, and this only emphasizes the story’s grittiness. The only choice I didn’t like was an over-reliance on sludgy modern rock, which kept pulling me out of the movie and making me wish someone would turn off the top-40 radio.

Despite its plot and character shortcomings, Miami Vice succeeds almost in spite of itself. It manages to rise above the stigma of its TV show past in ways that shows like “Knight Rider” or “Riptide” probably could not. It’s a light action film, entertaining within its own limits and nothing more.

An Inconvenient Truth- ****

2006-07-18T12:10:00.000-05:00

An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary about global warming. It’s based on Al Gore’s global warming slideshow which he’s given hundreds of times in cities all over the world. I realize those are two statements that will make anyone run for cover, but bear with me…

Surprisingly, Al Gore is lively and engaging. He comes off less like a lecturer and more like a regular guy giving you the straight facts about the issue. And his argument works. I’ve heard a couple reviews pointing out flaws in what he’s saying, and a couple people saying the evidence is faulty. These are minor quibbles, as Gore is not trying to preach or use scare tactics (he leaves that to FOX News…and with the scare potential of global warming, I’m surprised more neo-cons don’t jump on the bandwagon). He simply lays his case out and it works. And most of what I’ve heard against it is shallow and nitpicky.

Example- one complaint was how Gore shows the glaciers melting and water submerging Florida in an animated sequence. The complaint was he makes it look like it would happen immediately, and it gives people the wrong impression. The truth, though, is Gore is only trying to show the effect of melting glaciers, not the exact length of time it will take. He never states it’s going to happen tomorrow. Now I’m sure there are points in the argument that could be questioned and looked into deeper, but something like this just comes off to me as silly.

The downside to the film is that several times the presentation is interrupted by little glimpses into Al Gore’s personal life. This could work, but the glimpses are quick, unrelated to the topic, and usually accompanied by cheesy shots of Gore staring thoughtfully out of a window. I don’t know that much about Gore and his life, and I would be interested to see something more, but these parts just come off as extraneous. Luckily, they are few and far between.

Reviewing a documentary is hard because, at its core, it’s all about the subject matter. You can watch a very well-made documentary, but if you don’t care about the subject then what’s the point? This is the downside to An Inconvenient Truth. I personally believe in global warming (and have a hard time understanding how people don’t), so it’s not exactly made for me. The people who scoff global warming won’t bother to see it, and those are the people who should.

The Emmy Awards

2006-07-10T11:28:00.000-05:00

Below are my picks for the emmy winners. Although, I have to comment on how crappy some of these nominations are! For one thing, no Lost? And how in the world Eddie Falco didn't get nominated for her work this season on Sopranos is beyond me, not to mention some of the great but overlooked comedic acting slights. Nevertheless, my picks are highlighted:

Drama Series: Grey's Anatomy, ABC; House, Fox; The Sopranos, HBO; 24, Fox; The West Wing, NBC.

Comedy Series: Arrested Development, Fox; Curb Your Enthusiasm, HBO; The Office, NBC; Scrubs, NBC; Two and a Half Men, CBS.

Miniseries: Bleak House (Masterpiece Theatre), PBS; Elizabeth I, HBO; Into the West, TNT; Sleeper Cell, Showtime.

Made-for-TV Movie: Flight 93, A&E; The Flight that Fought Back, Discovery Channel; The Girl in the Café, HBO; Mrs. Harris, HBO; Yesterday, HBO.

Reality Program: Antiques Roadshow, PBS; The Dog Whisperer, National Geographic Channel; Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, ABC; Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List, Bravo; Penn & Teller: Bullshit, Showtime.

Reality-Competition Program: The Amazing Race, CBS; American Idol, Fox; Dancing with the Stars, ABC; Project Runway, Bravo; Survivor, CBS.

Variety, Music or Comedy Series: The Colbert Report, Comedy Central; The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Comedy Central; Late Night with Conan O'Brien, NBC; Late Show with David Letterman, CBS; Real Time with Bill Maher, HBO.

Variety, Music or Comedy Special: 78th Annual Academy Awards, ABC; Bill Maher: I'm Swiss, HBO; George Carlin: Life Is Worth Losing, HBO; McCartney in St. Petersburg, A&E; The XX Olympic Winter Games: Opening Ceremony, NBC.

Actor, Drama Series: Denis Leary, Rescue Me, FX Network; Peter Krause, Six Feet Under, HBO; Kiefer Sutherland, 24, Fox; Martin Sheen, The West Wing, NBC; Christopher Meloni, Law & Order: SVU.

Actress, Drama Series: Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer, TNT; Geena Davis, Commander in Chief, ABC; Mariska Hargitay, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, NBC; Frances Conroy, Six Feet Under, HBO; Allison Janney, The West Wing, NBC.

Supporting Actor, Drama Series: William Shatner, Boston Legal, ABC; Oliver Platt, Huff, Showtime; Michael Imperioli, The Sopranos, HBO; Gregory Itzin, 24, Fox; Alan Alda, The West Wing, NBC.

Supporting Actress, Drama Series:Candice Bergen, Boston Legal, ABC; Sandra Oh, Grey's Anatomy, ABC; Chandra Wilson, Grey's Anatomy, ABC; Blythe Danner, Huff, Showtime; Jean Smart, 24, Fox.

Actor, Comedy Series: Larry David, Curb Your Enthusiasm, HBO; Kevin James, The King of Queens, CBS; Tony Shalhoub, Monk, USA; Steve Carell, The Office, NBC; Charlie Sheen, Two and a Half Men, CBS.

Actress, Comedy Series: Lisa Kudrow, The Comeback, HBO; Jane Kaczmarek, Malcolm in the Middle, Fox; Julia Louis-Dreyfus, The New Adventures of Old Christine, CBS; Stockard Channing, Out of Practice, CBS; Debra Messing, Will & Grace, NBC.

Supporting Actor, Comedy Series: Will Arnett, Arrested Development, Fox; Jeremy Piven, Entourage, HBO; Bryan Cranston, Malcolm in the Middle, Fox; Jon Cryer, Two and a Half Men, CBS; Sean Hayes, Will & Grace, NBC.

Supporting Actress, Comedy Series: Cheryl Hines, Curb Your Enthusiasm, HBO; Alfre Woodard, Desperate Housewives, ABC; Jaime Pressly, My Name Is Earl, ABC; Elizabeth Perkins, Weeds, Showtime; Megan Mullally, Will & Grace, NBC.

Actor, Miniseries or a Movie: Charles Dance, Bleak House (Masterpiece Theatre), PBS; Donald Sutherland, Human Trafficking, Lifetime; Ben Kingsley, Mrs. Harris, HBO; Jon Voight, Pope John Paul II, CBS; Andre Braugher, Thief, FX Network.

Actress, Miniseries or a Movie: Kathy Bates, Ambulance Girl, Lifetime; Gillian Anderson, Bleak House (Masterpiece Theatre), PBS; Helen Mirren, Elizabeth I, HBO; Judy Davis, A Little Thing Called Murder, Lifetime; Annette Bening, Mrs. Harris, HBO.

Supporting Actor, Miniseries or a Movie: Denis Lawson, Bleak House (Masterpiece Theatre), PBS; Hugh Dancy, Elizabeth I, HBO; Jeremy Irons, Elizabeth I, HBO; Robert Carlyle, Human Trafficking, Lifetime; Clifton Collins Jr., Thief, FX Network.

Supporting Actress, Miniseries or a Movie: Kelly Macdonald, The Girl in the Café, HBO; Shirley Jones, Hidden Places, Hallmark; Ellen Burstyn, Mrs. Harris, HBO; Cloris Leachman, Mrs. Harris, HBO; Alfre Woodard, The Water Is Wide (Hallmark Hall of Fame Presentation), CBS.

Guest Actor in a Comedy Series: Patrick Stewart, Extras, HBO; Ben Stiller, Extras, HBO; Martin Sheen, The West Wing, NBC; Alec Baldwin, Will & Grace, NBC; Leslie Jordan, Will & Grace, NBC.

Guest Actor, Drama Series: Michael J. Fox, Boston Legal, ABC; Christian Clemenson, Boston Legal, ABC; James Woods, ER, NBC; Kyle Chandler, Grey's Anatomy, ABC; Henry Ian Cusick, Lost, ABC.

Guest Actress, Comedy Series: Shirley Knight, Desperate Housewives, ABC; Kate Winslet, Extras, HBO; Cloris Leachman, Malcolm in the Middle, Fox; Laurie Metcalf, Monk, USA; Blythe Danner, Will & Grace, NBC.
Guest Actress, Drama Series: Kate Burton, Grey's Anatomy, ABC; Christina Ricci, Grey's Anatomy, CBS; Swoosie Kurtz, Huff, Showtime; Patricia Clarkson, Six Feet Under, HBO; Joanna Cassidy, Six Feet Under, HBO.

Individual Performance, Variety or Music Program: Barry Manilow, Barry Manilow: Music and Passion, PBS; Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report, Comedy Central; Craig Ferguson, The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, CBS; David Letterman, Late Show with David Letterman, CBS; Hugh Jackman, The 59th Annual Tony Awards, CBS.

Animated Program (One Hour or Less): Camp Lazio, Cartoon Network; Family Guy, Fox; Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Cartoon Network; The Simpsons, Fox; South Park, Comedy Central.

Animated Program (One Hour Or More): Before the Dinosaurs, Discovery; Escape from Cluster Prime, Nickelodeon.

Nonfiction Special: All Aboard! Rosie's Family Cruise, HBO; How William Shatner Changed the World, The History Channel; Inside 9/11, National Geographic; Rome: Engineering An Empire, The History Channel; Stardust: The Bette Davis Story , TCM.

Nonfiction Series: American Masters, PBS; Biography, A&E; Deadliest Catch, Discovery; Inside the Actor's Studio, Bravo; 10 Days That Unexpectedly Changed the World, The History Channel.

The Proposition- ****1/2

2006-06-14T10:39:00.000-05:00

The Proposition- ****1/2

“I will civilize this land!” Bellows Captain Stanley (Ray Winstone) in the beginning of the movie. He has just given the proposition of the title, telling Charlie Burns (Guy Pearce) he has ten days to kill his estranged, psychotic older brother Arthur (Danny Huston), or Stanley is going to hang his younger brother Mike (Richard Wilson). But this simple proposition sets off the entire movie, and we realize that killing one brother to save another is the least of the film’s moral dilemmas.

The Proposition opens with a warning that Aborigines may find certain images disturbing. While the treatment of Aborigines is particularly awful, the images in this film will disturb everyone. It continues the popular theme of recent movies like A History of Violence and Munich, in which violence and revenge do not solve problems, but instead create more. In this case, the revenge is because of an event labeled “The Hopkins Outrage.” We are never specifically told what the Hopkins Outrage was; we just receive hints through photographs and dialogue. It reminded me of 70s movies like Chinatown, where the past events weren’t as important as the psychological damage they caused.

The outrage was caused by the Burns gang, and the local town is clamoring for blood. Captain Stanley, a sober man who is horrified at his own slow decline into brutality, is trying his best to balance the needs of the town, personified by mayor Eden Fletcher (David Wenham), and the needs of his family, personified by his wife Martha (Emily Watson). One of the best scenes in the film is a flogging Stanley tries, and fails, to prevent. Rather than focus on the flogging itself, we get shots of the crowd horrified at their own actions. And rather than spray the audience with gore, as in the shocking yet empty flogging scene in The Passion of the Christ, the message is delivered more powerfully through one subtle shot of a man wringing blood out of the whip

Screenwriter Nick Cave delves deeply into the psychological issues of not only violence and revenge (no surprise to those familiar with his music), but the irony of how they turn civilized humans into animals. Cave and director John Hillcoat manage to relocate the American western to Australia beautifully. Hillcoat never tries to out-direct the screenplay, and instead settles nicely into it. He gives us a vast, oppressive outback that manages to out-barren the American west. The long, sweeping shots seem open, yet claustrophobic, familiar and yet strangely foreign. The best example is Stanley’s house, which clones civilization with a small garden penned in by a make-shift picket fence. But the oppressive, baked landscape crowding at the yard seems impossible to keep out. But the scenery isn’t the only interesting change. The Aborigines effortlessly take the place of the Indians, but the whites are almost more interesting. In an American western, they’re all white; here the criminals are Irish, and the soldiers are all British. This adds another interesting level to the themes of oppression and hatred.

I could list off each actor one by one, but there’s no point. There are no bad performances in this movie. The casting is spot-on, and each actor digs deep into their character. The only exception would seem to be Guy Pearce, but since Charlie’s actions and thoughts are entirely inscrutable, it only makes sense that his character is as well.

This review gave me a very hard time, as did a review for another neo-western I saw earlier this year, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. I never did finish a review for that film, and very nearly gave up on this one. Nothing in this movie is easy, and trying to discuss it in a short space is excruciatingly difficult. There is a very telling point in the middle, though, which brings together not only the evil in that time, but in our own as well. Fletcher chastises Stanley for letting his men kill an aborigine, because of the revenge the aborigines will now take on the whites. Fletcher’s solution? “Next time,” he sneers, “kill them all.”

The Da Vinci Code

2006-06-06T17:42:00.000-05:00

Sarai:***1/2
Let me begin by saying that I started reading the Da Vinci Code, but found the writing style wretchedly inadequate, to put it mildly. Thankfully, the film saved us all from Dan Brown’s imitation of literary “style.” With this movie, Ron Howard’s filmmaking continues to evolve by omitting most of the heavy-handed sentimentality and adding cinematic flair to the story. I especially enjoyed Howard’s stylized flashback sequences. The pace of the film seemed even and unrushed until the end, where it falls apart. Despite some faults, that I think arise from the source material, I really enjoyed the film.

I love Audrey Tautou and was pleased to see her in an English-speaking role that was more substantial than the underwhelming Dirt Pretty Things. She inhabits the character of Sophie fully and displays the subtle nuances that are so often missing in blockbuster style movies. That being said, some things in this film are too utterly unbelievable. For example, Sophie (the French FBI Agent) freezes up every time a gun is pulled on her, only to be saved at the last minute by... a college professor who studies symbols? Give me a break. Sir Ian McKellan, always the consummate performer, delivers another spot-on performance as Teabing. Paul Bettany will undoubtedly be overlooked for his intense and down-right creepy portrayal of Silas, but it was one of the best performances in the film. Jean Reno, who seems to play the “French guy” in every American movie, basically plays a meaner version of his character in French Kiss. While I did enjoy Tom Hanks performance, for the most part, you always got the impression that his character really had no clue what was going on. This would have worked fine if he actually didn’t. But his character continually outsmarts the bad guys, which Hanks’ bumbling portrayal of the professor makes look like dumb luck.

The major problem I had with this movie is that it didn’t know how to end. The obvious dramatic conclusion would be after we learn who the true descendant is. Instead, the film continues to meander for what seemed to be a good 10 to 15 minutes after it should have ended. Beyond that, by having family members of the descendant show up, without explaining how they are related, trivializes the entire drama by diluting the idea that they are the last descendant of the bloodline. The most exciting thing about the movie is watching the plot unfold, which is why I think most people who read the book will be disappointed with the film. However, you have to give the film props for giving us the uncontested stupidest movie line of the summer, “Get me to a library, fast!”

Brandon: **1/2
Unfortunately, I have to disagree. I read the novel and found it to be boring and childish. Dan Brown has no sense of character, style, pacing or even a real sense of how to write. I do agree with Roger Ebert's assertion that Ron Howard is a better director than Dan Brown is a writer, but this still doesn't make the movie good. Ron Howard, who won back my respect after Cinderella Man, is stuck here laboring under a dull and pandering story.

And this is the problem with the book itself- it's a total gimmick. Brown used a little-known conspiracy theory and used it as a trick to propel a rather lame and irritating novel. And the screenplay is by Akiva Goldsman (a screenwriter who specializes in weak screenplays) is way too literal to the book and draws the film out much longer than it needs to be. Brown’s pattern of clue/discovery/police arrival/ridiculous escape becomes very obvious onscreen The film never finds its own rhythm, instead it joylessly plods along from one unexciting (and generally unbelievable) sequence to another.

Only Jean Reno, Ian McKellan (who is basically playing Ian McKellan, but hey, I'm not sick of it yet) and Paul Bettany manage to breathe a little life into their paper-thin characters. Tom Hanks is miscast as Robert Langdon. While he looks the part of a laid-back professor, he never manages to make us believe he is the character. Audrey Tautou is wasted, but manages to bring a little sparkle to a largely thankless role.

If you’re looking for an exciting movie, you’d do better to seek out Mission: Impossible III. If you want a thought provoking movie, I hope you’ve got a decent independent theater and can check out The Proposition or An Inconvenient Truth. If you just want to be bored for a while, well, I recommend The DaVinci Code.

X-Men: The Last Stand ***

2006-06-01T11:57:00.000-05:00

It’s amazing that a film franchise with so much potential was completely obliterated in such a short burst of computer generated special effects. The X-Men movies have been hugely successful because of their mix of humor, character, action, and an all-star cast. In this final X-Men movie, they throw that all out the window and go for huge special effects. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still entertaining to watch but if you liked the first two movies and love the characters like I do, you will be leaving the theatre very disappointed - if not downright sad.

There are two over-arching storylines for this film, the resurgence of Jean Gray as Phoenix and the government development of a mutant cure. Each of these stories could have, and probably should have, been a movie in themselves. Instead, they twist them up and throw a lot of explosions over it and give you a big bloody mess. All of the banter and humorous back and forth between the characters like Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Cyclops (James Marsden) is gone. Instead it’s replaced by melodramatic moments for Storm (Halle Berry) and a juvenile love triangle for Rouge (Anna Paquin). Instead of delving into the already established characters, this film throws a new mutant your way every few minutes and doesn’t develop any of them.

The beginning of the film is promising, with a trip down memory lane to give you some back story on Jean Gray (Famke Janssen). This is pretty much the only part of the movie where you get to see Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen together; their scenes have generally been the soul of the x-men movies. While this film does give Storm a bigger role, it is at the complete expense of Rouge. The addition of Kelsey Grammer as Beast was an excellent casting choice, but we never get to know the character in the film.

**SPOILER ALERT – don’t read on if you haven’t seen it**
While I generally hate spoilers in reviews, I found it hard to even begin to review this film without one. First of all they kill way too many characters off. Cyclops is gone in the first five minutes. Professor X, who in their right mind would kill Professor X? His death was also within the first half of the movie. Then there’s Jean Gray whose story is really interesting in the movie, but they barely scratch the surface on it before they kill her off too. And the prize for the most underutilized mutant definitely goes to Mystique (Rebecca Romijn), who quickly becomes “cured” and is not really heard from again. By taking away the heart of this movie franchise, the characters, they reduced X-Men to nothing more than a summer action movie. It’s disappointing.

Poseidon- ***1/2

2006-05-19T09:00:00.000-05:00

Perhaps I only liked this movie because I expected it to be terrible. Or perhaps I liked it just because I love a good disaster movie. Either way, I liked Poseidon. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s not a good movie. The script is weak, the effects are so-so (as typical of Wolfgang Peterson), the acting ranges from typical to lame, and the plot is sheer nonsense. But, does anyone expect anything more?

Poseidon is a remake of the 1972’s The Poseidon Adventure, where Gene Hackman and Ernest Borgnine argue a lot in an upside-down boat. It plays out like a strange carbon-copy of the original- being a completely different movie but managing to hit all the same plot points. In terms of changes, the script does away with the arguing, making the two main characters a suave gambler (Josh Lucas) and the ex-mayor of New York (Kurt Russell). I liked that instead of Gene Hackman’s priest having an inexplicable knowledge of boats, Josh Lucas was once in the Navy, so he “knows boats.” Because the Navy always travels around in luxury liners, I guess. Where the remake shares plot points with the original, the script updates them to ridiculous 21st Century extremes. For example, the one living crew member still dies by falling down a large shaft. Only, instead of Roddy MacDowell falling into boiling water, we have Freddie Rodriguez falling onto jagged metal…and then being crushed by a falling elevator…and THEN being blown up. Trust me, it’s very funny.

All of this makes for fun, claustrophobic entertainment…as long as you don’t think about anything. Ever. Wolfgang Peterson knows a little something about underwater escapades, since he directed the great German mini-series/film Das Boot, about a U-Boat crew during WWII. While Poseidon more resembles the last hour of Titanic then a sober character study of desperate men, Peterson seems to be in his element. In fact, this is the first Peterson movie I’ve liked since Das Boot came out over twenty years ago. You were due, man.

We all know the plot- huge luxury cruise liner is hit by a giant wave and tipped upside down. A small group of survivors must then adventure up to the bottom of the boat to try and find a way out. While the characters were a much more developed in the original, the new one has its share of fun. Josh Lucas is great, as usual (come on, he even made Stealth watchable), ditto Kurt Russell and Emmy Rossum. Welcome surprises are Richard Dreyfuss playing an older, gay man, and Kevin Dillon playing…well, Kevin Dillon. Andre Braugher is a decent captain, but come on, he’s no match for the original’s deadly serious Leslie Neilson. And the original’s whiny lead singer (who seemed to only know one Carpenter’s song), has been split into two characters- a whiny Latina, and Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas. Fergie also gets to Will Smithishly sing the closing credits song, which has the most Bon Jovi lyrics this side of Poison (I will be your journey, and you will be my boat…yes, for real…).

I probably wasn’t supposed to, but I laughed a lot watching this movie. I believe I even clapped couple times. It comes off as almost of parody of disaster movies, and honestly is over way too soon. At only 90 minutes, I felt like the movie had at least one more good explosion or drowning left in it. If you like watching people run away from water, fire, and falling debris, you’re going to have some fun at Poseidon. If you’re someone who wants a little time, care, thought, etc, in your disaster movies…well, you’d do best to stay far, far away.

United 93- ****

2006-05-18T09:16:00.000-05:00

The best thing I can say about United 93 is that it wasn’t what I expected it to be at all. When I heard about it I could only assume that, like all historical tragedies, it had been turned into a special effects event movie. And while I am generalizing (Bruckheimer hasn’t gotten his hands on the slaughter of the Cathars yet), I found this idea distasteful. I do not agree with the idea that it’s “too soon” to make a movie, especially if it is done well. But I do hate the way we’ve turned 9/11 has been changed from a tragic warning to a buzzword for fear and obedience.

This is why United 93 is a good movie. It takes the propaganda out of the story and shows us exactly what happened that day. There are no frills, no effects, no patriotic one-liners and no talk-whispered monologue about patriotism. It’s a straight story about ordinary people who became heroes as best they could.

Director Paul Greengrass started his career doing documentaries, and he knows that building to a violent and insulting climax is pointless. We know there’s only one way for the movie to end. Instead, Greengrass gives us a sparse, realistic view of the day. He hops back and forth from the passengers and terrorists (both are given equal time) on United 93 to the air traffic controllers on the ground (most of whom play themselves). His jerky camera movements, which were so annoying in The Bourne Supremacy, make perfect sense here. Greengrass does a great job of putting you on the plane, so when it all goes down, you feel there, and that has more impact than any patriotic soliloquy.

The movie does slip a bit when it focuses on the air traffic controllers. The confusion that works so well on the plane comes off as sloppy on the ground. I think this is what Greengrass was going for, but the immediacy is lost. After being bounced through several different air traffic towers, rooms and military instillations, we start to lose focus. This weighs the movie down a little, especially in the second half. But the good part of all of this is that Greengrass never begins laying blame. As the danger becomes more immediate, we see that the mistakes made that day were not due to anyone’s particular incompetence. They were trying, but there were real stakes and protocols to follow. It was real life, and there was no magic Jack Bauer to come and save the day.

United 93 is a sober, respectful view of a horrifying event in our history. It is a movie that will probably not hold up to later generations, or maybe even repeat viewings (but it’s also not a movie you’ll want to watch over and over again), but is definitely not “too soon.” Now is the perfect time for this movie, to remind us of what really happened and what people really gave their lives for. I applaud the filmmakers for not having to add a love story, or CGI effects. Not to mention having the guts to give the terrorists actual personalities and motivations instead of making them faceless, evil enemies. Even if the documentary style holds the film back a little, it was the only way it could have been done. So far, this is the best movie of 2006.

But, of course, I haven’t seen Poseidon yet…

The Family Stone ***

2006-04-06T16:13:00.000-05:00

With all that The Family Stone has going for it, you would have expected a better movie. The film isn’t bad, but it certainly doesn’t live up to its potential. Family patriarchs Diane Keaton and Craig T. Nelson head this exemplary cast who create the loveably dysfunctional Stone family. The film does a good job of creating the sense of a close family and manages to touch on more serious subjects without dwelling on them or becoming emotionally manipulative.

The main problem I had with this film is the initial set-up of the central couple of the story, Meredith (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Everett Stone (Durmot Mulroney). There is nothing likeable about this pairing and they seem to have no joy with each other. You can see trouble and complications coming a mile away. Although, there is much more chemistry and likeability when Ben (Luke Wilson) and Julie (Claire Danes) enter the picture, the initial coupling is thrown away too easily. Despite the trite and overplayed romantic film moments – like a bus pulling away only for the lover to get off and run back – there’s still something genuine and honest in this film. Maybe it’s partially the love mixed with cruelty or the disappointment attached to great expectations, but the Family Stone manages to remain grounded as a quirky American family.

As delightful as it is to see Sarah Jessica Parker step outside of the Carrie Bradshaw shadow, it was Luke Wilson whose performance stood out above the rest. How many actors could manage a character that goes after their brother’s girlfriend without coming off as a creep and even managing to be really adorable while doing it? Not many. Mulroney’s been in a number of romantic comedies and definitely has the chops and charm for them, but he fell flat here and was decidedly smarmy. And then there’s Claire Danes. How in the world did she get top billing on this film? She managed to play herself convincingly. What ever happened to the girl who channeled Beth so amazingly in Little Women? Who knows. Racheal McAdams was good, but underutilized. Overall, this is an entertaining movie, but not anything to write home about.

Joyeux Noël- ****

2006-03-20T08:35:00.000-06:00

France’s pick for the 2005 Best Foreign Film Oscar was Joyeux Noël, a film about the Christmas Truce of 1914. While the actual event took place on a 27-mile stretch of the western front, writer/Director Christian Carion only focuses on one small area of the trenches. This is where the French, the Scots, and the Germans have holed up outside a small farm, and are waiting for the other one to make a movie.

The movie works best when it dips into slight satire, as the opening scenes of school children reciting mantra of killing the enemy at all costs. The single best scene in the film is near the end, when a Christopher Lee-ish bishop gives a speech about how all Scots must kill the Germans in the name of Christ. Carion takes the Joseph Heller tack of making those in command look like evil buffoons, leaving the war to the men who would rather not be in the trenches.

But Carion’s movie isn’t as concerned with the anti-war satire as he is with anti-war sentiment. He even professed to leaving one true scene out, a cat being shot for treason after Germans use it to deliver a message to the French, because it seemed a little too ridiculous. I will admit that his replacement scene in the film struck me as a bit ridiculous, and I was surprised to find the truth was even more inane. It’s a story that could’ve been used to great effect, but Carion is more concerned with are the men in the trenches, who look past the war and find that their enemies aren’t so inhuman after all. This sounds really cheesy, and it even is at times, but the sentiment is handled very well. While I would’ve rather seen a more satiric look at the Christmas Truce, what we get is nothing to be scoffed at.

The film opens at the beginning of the war, and we see the characters we will follow. A German couple, both opera stars, who are split by the war, two Scottish brothers and their parish priest, and a reluctant French Lieutenant who has had no news of his wife or their child. After a disastrous attempt at taking the German trench, the armies have hunkered down and are tensely awaiting the next move. But on Christmas Eve, when a Scottish song is answered by singing from the Germans. Soon they are singing together, leaving the trenches, and fraternizing with the enemy. They return to their trenches at the end of the night, but the next day find themselves reluctant to start killing each other again.

This is an interesting idea I wish Carion would have explored more- the need to keep the enemy faceless. Carion is more concerned with giving a face to each of his main characters, even if he doesn’t give them much else. Giving us two or three main characters from each army renders the movie unable to go too deeply into any one person, but the performances are good enough to overcome this. Even Diane Kruger, who proves that she’s a much better actress in her native tongue (we don’t get any of the flat readings like her character in Troy, but the dialogue isn’t as bad as Troy either). The performances manage to deepen the characters in a way that the script can’t. So even at its most tear-jerky, we buy it.

This makes the movie overcome many of its problems. Okay, so maybe they are the nicest trenches anyone has ever seen. Maybe the film does ignore the fact that the French were more reluctant to participate in the truce (since it was their country being ravaged and occupied). Maybe it is a little silly that a beautiful woman is not only able to get to a trench, but is then only looked at with polite awe instead of malicious intent. There are scores of complaints to be made about the film, but in the end it all works. Thanks to some great performances and an earnestly heartwarming script (as opposed to the usual American beating-over-the-head-with-the-CRY-NOW-hammer), Joyeux Noël manages to rise above its faults. It may not be the most realistic movie, but it’s a great introduction to a rather quiet, interesting episode of a very brutal time.

Transamerica ***1/2

2006-03-11T00:55:00.000-06:00

Transamerica is a film with an interesting, if not fully realized story with an amazing performance by Felicity Huffman. Don’t get me wrong, Reese Witherspoon is great and all, but when you see Transamerica all you’ll be thinking is how Felicity Huffman was robbed of the Oscar. Robbed. The film is an amazing character study, a family drama, and a coming of age story, all at once.

The film begins by introducing us to Huffman’s Bree, a male transsexual preparing for his sex change surgery. Bree is an odd mix of the church lady and your local Mary Kay agent, and somehow Huffman manages to make this all normal while still giving you glimpses Bree’s struggles with her own insecurities. You’re immediately drawn into this character’s life.

Before Bree can go through with her surgery she finds out that she may have fathered a son and her therapist refuses to sing the psychological evaluation for the surgery until she meets him. Bree’s supposed son, Toby (Kevin Zegers), is a stereotypical troubled youth with all of the baggage and issues typical of a character from Boogie Nights. One of the more interesting dynamics of the relationship between Bree and Toby is that Bree never passes judgment on Toby, but merely tries to help him. And although Bree starts this journey with her own interests influencing her benevolence, that quickly changes as this quirky duo begin to bond.

On the road from New York back to LA they run into some trouble and end up having to ask Bree’s parents for help. This sets up some interesting climactic and humorous moments as they struggle to find acceptance in this dysfunctional family. In the end, none of the characters become who they thought they would at the beginning of the journey.

Some of the plot points in the story were overly contrived and you could see them a mile away. Especially troubling were some of the more stereotypical aspects of Toby – the stripper with a heart of gold archetype. Although, Kevin Zegers still managed to make Toby a convincing character, you’re still don’t really like him that much. The reason this movie works at all is because Huffman mesmerizes you. Watching the film, you forget that this is actually a beautiful woman and not a man struggling to pass as a woman. She also managed to bypass all the stereotypes and give you a glimpse into the mind of this complex person trying to escape from them self – in order to find them self.

Oscars - Our Picks - Actual Winners

2006-03-01T10:02:00.000-06:00

Some big surprises Oscar night, the winners are bolded

Here are the Oscar picks. Brandon's are higlighted in blue, my picks are highlighted in red, purple where we agree.

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
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 ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
George Clooney - SYRIANA
Matt Dillon - CRASH
Paul Giamatti - CINDERELLA MAN
Jake Gyllenhaal - BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
William Hurt - A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Judi Dench - MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS
Felicity Huffman - TRANSAMERICA
Keira Knightley - PRIDE & PREJUDICE
Charlize Theron - NORTH COUNTRY
Reese Witherspoon - WALK THE LINE

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Amy Adams - JUNEBUG
Catherine Keener - CAPOTE
Frances McDormand - NORTH COUNTRY
Rachel Weisz - THE CONSTANT GARDENER
Michelle Williams - BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM OF THE YEAR
HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE
TIM BURTON'S CORPSE BRIDE
WALLACE & GROMIT IN THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT

ACHIEVEMENT IN ART DIRECTION
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE
KING KONG
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
PRIDE & PREJUDICE

ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY
BATMAN BEGINS
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
THE NEW WORLD

ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN
CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS
PRIDE & PREJUDICE
WALK THE LINE

ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTING
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
CAPOTE
CRASH
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
MUNICH

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
DARWIN'S NIGHTMARE
ENRON: THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM
MARCH OF THE PENGUINS
MURDERBALL
STREET FIGHT

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT
THE DEATH OF KEVIN CARTER: CASUALTY OF THE BANG BANG CLUB
GOD SLEEPS IN RWANDA
THE MUSHROOM CLUB
A NOTE OF TRIUMPH: THE GOLDEN AGE OF NORMAN CORWIN

ACHIEVEMENT IN FILM EDITING
CINDERELLA MAN
THE CONSTANT GARDENER
CRASH
MUNICH
WALK THE LINE

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM OF THE YEAR
DON'T TELL
JOYEUX NOÃ¨L
PARADISE NOW
SOPHIE SCHOLL - THE FINAL DAYS
TSOTSI

ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
CINDERELLA MAN
STAR WARS: EPISODE III REVENGE OF THE SITH

ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES
(ORIGINAL SCORE)
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
THE CONSTANT GARDENER
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
MUNICH
PRIDE & PREJUDICE

ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES
(ORIGINAL SONG)
"In the Deep" - CRASH
"It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" - HUSTLE & FLOW
"Travelin' Thru" - TRANSAMERICA

BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
CAPOTE
CRASH
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
MUNICH

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND EDITING
KING KONG
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
WAR OF THE WORLDS

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND MIXING
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
KING KONG
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
WALK THE LINE
WAR OF THE WORLDS

ACHIEVEMENT IN VISUAL EFFECTS
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
KING KONG
WAR OF THE WORLDS

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
CAPOTE
THE CONSTANT GARDENER
A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
MUNICH

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
CRASH
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
MATCH POINT
THE SQUID AND THE WHALE
SYRIANA

Why We Fight ****

2006-02-26T14:42:00.000-06:00

Why We Fight is an expertly made documentary that manages to ask all the right questions and avoid becoming an editorialized war rant. Unlike Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, this is not a narrated documentary with an objective to show one particular viewpoint. This documentary manages to stay impartial while taking the audience on an enlightening journey through the history of the “military industrial complex.”

Filmmaker Eugene Jarecki doesn’t spell everything out for you but rather lets you come to your own conclusions. This is documentary filmmaking at its best. The subject is thoroughly researched and fairly presented. The film doesn’t pander and isn’t emotionally manipulative, but instead asks questions and leaves you to ponder their implications. Using a good mix of archival footage, news clips and interviews, Jarecki manages to weave the events of the past and present seamlessly.

The most interesting part of this film is when Jarecki breaks down the ties that bind. He shows you how the arms contractors leverage their economic power by farming out their components to all part of the US. When congress or the defense department begins talks of any project shuttering, the defense industry has positioned themselves so this would create economic hardships on many areas – affecting reelection prospects of many congress members. Jarecki also takes care not to paint this as a Republican problem or a Democratic problem, but rather a problem with the American political system in general. The film closes with a good summation of the issues posed when one of the experts states succinctly that the battle at hand is between capitalism and democracy and “when capitalism is winning, democracy is losing.”

Whether you’re a red or a blue, I highly recommend this documentary.

Mrs. Henderson Presents ***

2006-01-25T10:32:00.000-06:00

Mrs. Henderson Presents is a frolicking romp that highlights the history of London’s first nude review. Dame Judy Dench (Mrs. Henderson) plays an outspoken bored socialite whose late husband leaves her an absurd amount of money and nothing to do, so she buys a theatre. She hires Bob Hoskins (Vivian Van Damm) to run the theatre and power struggles, flirtation and bickering like an old married couple ensue.

This film is not nearly as bawdy as one might surmise; most of the nudity is actually quite tasteful. Although, there is some surprising full frontal male nudity that is actually pretty funny. Christopher Guest is fabulous as a stuffy old Lord who Henderson wraps around her little finger in the most amusing way. World War II breaks out in the middle of the film, but it manages to continue its initial comedic pace without getting mired in much sentimentality. There are some heavier moments in the second half of the film, but they are never dwelled upon enough to drag down the film, nor are they skimmed over so lightly they feel pointless.

For all the song and dance and bare skin, the best thing about this movie is still the chemistry and banter between Hoskins and Dench. But even as good as they are I don’t see why this is getting award nominations. This is a fun film, not too light and not too heavy.

Our Golden Globe Picks - and the Globe goes to...

2006-01-17T13:18:00.000-06:00

We're still busily watching movies before we come up with our year in review, but we have decided on our picks for the Golden Globe Winners. To view all of the nominees, visit the Golden Globe site. Winner are Highlighted in Green

BEST MOTION PICTURE – DRAMA
Sarai's Pick: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Brandon's Pick GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MOTION PICTURE – DRAMA
We Both Pick: GWYNETH PALTROW - PROOF
FELICITY HUFFMAN Transamerica

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MOTION PICTURE - DRAMA
Brandon's Pick: PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN - CAPOTE
Sarai's Pick:HEATH LEDGER - BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

BEST MOTION PICTURE - MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Brandon's Pick: THE SQUID AND THE WHALE
Sarai's Pick WALK THE LINE

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MOTION PICTURE - MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Brandon's Pick: JUDI DENCH - MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS
Sarai's Pick:REESE WITHERSPOON - WALK THE LINE

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MOTION PICTURE -MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Brandon's Pick: JEFF DANIELS - THE SQUID AND THE WHALE
Sarai's Pick: JOAQUIN PHOENIX - WALK THE LINE

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM (most of these have yet to come out in the US, so it's still a bit of an educated guess)

JOYEUX NOEL (MERRY CHRISTMAS) (FRANCE)
Brandon's Pick: KUNG FU HUSTLE (CHINA)
Sarai's Pick: TSOTSI (SOUTH AFRICA)
PARADISE NOW (PALESTINE)

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A MOTION PICTURE
Sarai's Pick: FRANCES McDORMAND - NORTH COUNTRY
Brandon's Pick: MICHELLE WILLIAMS - BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
RACHEL WEISZ – The Constant Gardener

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A MOTION PICTURE
Sarai's Pick: MATT DILLON - CRASH
Brandon's Pick: PAUL GIAMATTI - CINDERELLA MAN
GEORGE CLOONEY – Syriana

BEST DIRECTOR - MOTION PICTURE
We Both Pick: GEORGE CLOONEY - GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
ANG LEE – Brokeback Mountain

BEST SCREENPLAY - MOTION PICTURE
We Both Pick: GEORGE CLOONEY & GRANT HESLOV - GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
LARRY McMURTRY & DIANA OSSANA – Brokeback Mountain

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE - MOTION PICTURE
Brandon's Pick: ALEXANDRE DESPLAT - SYRIANA
Sarai's Pick: JOHN WILLIAMS - MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA

BEST ORIGINAL SONG - MOTION PICTURE

Brandon's Pick: “A LOVE THAT WILL NEVER GROW OLD” — BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Music by: Gustavo Santaolalla, Lyrics by: Bernie Taupin

Sarai's Pick:“TRAVELIN’ THRU” — TRANSAMERICA
Music & Lyrics by: Dolly Parton

Brandon wanted to point out that he doesn't watch a lot of tv (although he schedules monday nights around 24) so his picks are a bit of an educated guess

BEST TELEVISION SERIES - DRAMA
Sarai's Pick: GREY’S ANATOMY (ABC)
Brandon's Pick: LOST (ABC)

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A TELEVISION SERIES - DRAMA
Brandon's Pick: GLENN CLOSE - THE SHIELD
Sarai's Pick: GEENA DAVIS - COMMANDER IN CHIEF

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A TELEVISION SERIES - DRAMA
Sarai's Pick: PATRICK DEMPSEY - GREY’S ANATOMY
Brandon's Pick: HUGH LAURIE - HOUSE

BEST TELEVISION SERIES - MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Brandon's Pick: DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES (ABC)
Sarai's Pick: MY NAME IS EARL (NBC)

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A TELEVISION SERIES - MUSICAL OR COMEDY
We Both Pick: FELICITY HUFFMAN - DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES
MARY-LOUISE PARKER – Weeds (neither of us get showtime, so who knew?)

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A TELEVISION SERIES - MUSICAL OR COMEDY
Brandon's Pick: STEVE CARELL - THE OFFICE
Sarai's Pick: JASON LEE - MY NAME IS EARL

BEST MINI-SERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION
We Both Pick: EMPIRE FALLS (HBO)

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A MINI-SERIES OR A MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION
Brandon's Pick: KELLY MacDONALD - THE GIRL IN THE CAFÉ
Sarai's Pick: CYNTHIA NIXON - WARM SPRINGS
S. EPATHA MERKERSON – Lackawanna Blues

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A MINI-SERIES OR A MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION
Sarai's Pick: ED HARRIS - EMPIRE FALLS
Brandon's Pick: BILL NIGHY - THE GIRL IN THE CAFÉ
JONATHAN RHYS MEYERS – Elvis

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A SERIES, MINI-SERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION
Sarai's Pick: SANDRA OH - GREY’S ANATOMY
Brandon's Pick: JOANNE WOODWARD - EMPIRE FALLS

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A SERIES, MINI-SERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION

We Both Pick: PAUL NEWMAN - EMPIRE FALLS

Walk the Line ****1/2

2006-01-13T14:34:00.000-06:00

Walk the line is a great movie, I loved it. It’s thoroughly entertaining and managed to interweave a few of the more important stories from Johnny Cash’s life, those of redemption and love. There seems to be a lot of comparison to Ray circulating out there, which is unfortunate as I think Ray’s not even in the same ballpark. If you must compare this to another music biopic, please think more along the lines of the Coal Miner’s Daughter. But what sets this movie apart from other biopics is the powerful love story.

Joaquin Phoenix always manages to truly become whomever he plays and does another incredible job here, even mastering Cash’s hunched shouldered walk and learning to play guitar and sing. And yes, the boy can sing. Phoenix endowed Cash with a wounded soul and vulnerability. Reese Witherspoon sparkles on screen as June Carter Cash and is a delight in both her on stage performances and off-stage struggles. Their on-stage performances together were truly exciting to watch. Unlike most movie romances where one of the characters is generally a little off and they seem to have no problems other than romance, their love story has two strong-willed and complex people coming together in a way that doesn’t separate them from the realities and problems of their lives – making it much more real and more touching. I especially enjoyed the scenes with June’s family towards the end.

The beginning of the move is a bit mired in sentimentality and the oft portrayed troubled background of performers, with the archetypal distant and angry father and early tragedy. I didn’t really care for the scenes showing him trying to write songs, I suppose they had a point in being there but they weren’t really necessary – we know he wrote songs. The film doesn’t really pick up steam until Cash moves to Nashville. I sort of wish they’d just started the movie there. You don’t really see how he meets his first wife anyway, so it doesn’t seem too necessary to show his childhood as it’s all retold later through dialogue.

That being said, this film still has what most films this year have been missing – heart and soul, and lots of it.

The Squid and the Whale - ****

2006-01-06T15:14:00.000-06:00

The Squid and the Whale is a subtle and realistic account of a family's struggles through a divorce in the mid-80s. The story is told through the perspectives of the divorcing couple's two boys, one in the throws of teenage angst and the other at the beginning of puberty and self exploration. The film takes you from the eldest son's hero worship of his father to the realization that both of his parents are just as flawed as he is. Eventually he faces this reality and his fears, which is perfectly symbolized in the end of the film by the squid and the whale. Which I'll admit, before seeing the film I thought it was just as stupid a title for a movie as you probably do, but after seeing it - it's actually quite perfect.

Jeff Daniels excels as the narcissistic professor whose greatest achievements are all behind him. Laura Linney delivers another absolutely flawless performance, I'm starting to think she is Hollywood's most overlooked actress. William Baldwin shows up as a funny, but believable tennis pro. Anna Paquin continues to underutilize her talents by showing up in another small role as a sexual explicit lit student and lust object, with just enough screen time to make us wish she was getting leads instead of just making X-men movies. Both the eldest son (Jesse Eisenberg) and the young son (Owen Kline) are perfectly cast and manage both sincerity and nuance.

Overall, the thing that sets this movie apart is it's simplicity and honesty. Nothing in the film seems contrived or even untrue. It's written and directed by Noah Baumbach who based the story on his childhood experiences, and while I'm sure some of it is fictitious or at least exaggerated, the film itself feels like you are watching someone's real life unfold. It's well acted, well told and thoroughly enjoyable.

King Kong- ***1/2

2006-01-05T16:37:00.000-06:00

To get ready for Peter Jackson’s King Kong I rented both of the earlier versions. I found I was pleasantly surprised at how good the original is, and more sickened by how stupid the 70s version is. Jackson’s remake falls somewhere in between. He does manage to capture much of the spectacle of the original, but he’s also mired in the tedium of the 70s remake.

The movie begins with a quick overview of New York in the 30s (flashes of Cinderella Man) before introducing us to Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a vaudeville actress who finds herself out of work. She loves the plays of Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), who is actually writing a movie for Carl Denham (Jack Black), an adventurous filmmaker who is down on his luck. Denham helps Darrow out of a jam and talks her into starring in his new film, and away they sail to Skull Island. This section of the movie is, for the most part, unnecessary. It feels as if Jackson, bloated from his Lord of the Rings success, has forgotten how to pace a movie. He tries to build suspense, but it comes off mostly flat. Despite a couple clever nods to the original, the whole first hour feels crowded, yet uncompelling.

The action finally begins when they arrive at the island. Only, this time, the natives are vicious, cold-blooded killers for some reason. They of course kidnap Ann to be sacrificed to Kong, a giant gorilla they worship. There are two incredible sequences on the island, one as the rescue team tries to outrun a herd of dinosaurs, and another when Kong fights not just one, but three tyrannosauruses. These are great action scenes, and I can’t figure out why the rest of the movie isn’t more like them.

The longer the movie goes on, the more it solidifies itself. It actually becomes quite tragic by the end, as Kong faces down a fleet of biplanes. Kong is more than a fish-out-of-water monster, he’s given real emotions and actions. Jackson manages to humanize Kong in a way he just can’t manage to humanize his characters. Particularly the character of Denham. Instead of being the rugged, reckless adventurer from the original, he’s now more of a sniveling, greedy little man. Black fits the part perfectly, but you never like him. The best performance though, not counting Andy Serkis as Kong, is from Naomi Watts. Her character has a depth that no one else in the movie does, and she fills it out completely.

The movie itself, despite being overlong and extremely self-indulgent, is still not a bad movie. It is exciting, fun, and except for a couple moments, visually stunning. But I feel like Jackson is becoming less and less interested in pacing his movies (the tedious new director’s cut of The Frighteners is a testament to this). King Kong manages to survive this, and I’m hoping that Jackson relearns how to edit before his movies become unwatchable.

--reviewed by Brandon

The Producers- **1/2

2006-01-05T16:28:00.000-06:00

I really wanted to like this. But, unfortunately, I've seen the original and I know how good it is. Or maybe it's because for the second time this year, I've seen someone attempt (and fail) to fill Gene Wilder's shoes. Or maybe my distaste for the way Broadway has just been remaking movies into uninspired musicals had something to do with it. Either way, as much as I tried to like The Producers, I just couldn't.

This time out, Nathan Lane (doing a rather credible Zero Mostel) is Broadway producer Max Bialystock, and Matthew Broderick (doing his lines almost exactly like Gene Wilder) is accountant Leo Bloom. They come up with a scheme to put on the worst play ever made, "Springtime for Hitler," and run off with the backer's money. Of course, complications ensue.

And that's what made the original so funny. The scenes zip by quickly, barely leaving you with a second before launching into another ridiculous character or situation. This time each scene has to have a song, which drags the joke out until it becomes tedious. The songs are uninspired, and mostly boring. There isn't a single one I'd want to listen to again outside of the movie (I didn't particularly want to hear them in the movie, really). The one saving grace is the scene where they recruit flamboyant director Roger De Bris (Gary Beach) and his assistant Carmen Ghia (Roger Bart). This is a hilarious scene, and truthfully updates the original. Much of the rest of the movie just plays as a bad photocopy.

The other annoying thing is what they add. Ulla (Uma Thurman) is no longer the pointless secretary, but now a full-fledged romantic interest for Bloom. De Bris now plays Hitler onstage, and LSD is cut out completely (not to mention his hilarious song). A scene of Bloom at his accounting firm is clever, but like the rest of the songs goes on too long and slows down the film's momentum. And the end The end goes on probably 20 minutes longer than it needs to.

But to completely compare it to the original isn't entirely fair. The movie is not without laughs of its own. Will Ferrell is funny as Franz, even if his scenes are hampered by animatronic pigeons. As I mentioned above, the film comes to life whenever De Bris and Ghia are onscreen. But these bursts are few and far between.

I haven't seen the stage version, and really don't have any plans to. Maybe what they're trying for in the movie plays better on stage, but as a film it doesn't work. It has very little zing, and feels like it's floundering around for its over two hour running time. Instead of winning the audience over, The Producers becomes just one more remakes in a sea of remakes. Maybe they should just start re-releasing the originals?

--reviewed by Brandon

Casanova- ***1/2

2006-01-05T16:14:00.000-06:00

Casanova is basically a Shakespearean play with modern language. There are women dressed like men, people pretending to be people they're not, a clown, and of course every one gets together in the end and love conquers all. But Lasse Hallstrom is a little confused on how to direct the movie. He directs it like a period drama, with lush colors and beautiful shots of Venice. But the film needs a defter comedic touch. It's a farce that sometimes forgets it's a farce, and the long shots of scenery, while nice to look at, sometimes weighs the film down.

IÂve never seen any of the films Hallstrom directed in his native Sweden, but his American movies tend to be predictable and filled with a sweet, gooey center. He has perfected the dramady formula, and with the exception of What's Eating Gilbert Grape, takes the easiest way out every time. If the audience should laugh, someone trips. If the audience should cry, then someone should die or the couple should have a fight. But Casanova is a departure from this formula, which is good and bad at the same time.

Heath Ledger plays the legendary lover, pursued by the Inquisition for his many acts of indecency. He also owes several debts, and is being threatened with expulsion from Venice unless he gets married. He chooses a pretty young virgin named Victoria (Natalie Dormer), which angers Giovanni Bruni (Charlie Cox), a young man in love with Victoria. His sister, Francesca (Sienna Miller) soon becomes the object of CasanovaÂ's affection, due to her strong will. But she is engaged, against her will, to Lord Paprizzio (Oliver Platt), a lard merchant from Genoa. Oh, and the inquisition has sent Instigator Pucci (Jeremy Irons) to put an end to Casanova once and for all. AndÂcue the wacky hyjinks!

The performances are good, particularly Jeremy Irons, who manages to be extremely menacing and rather foolish at the same time. Oliver Platt is also funny as the befuddled lard merchant, and Natalie Dormer is hilarious as the freakishly horny Victoria. Sadly, the two leads are rather bland, but it seems to be more fault of the script than the acting. It would've been nice to see a little more wit inserted into the dialogue. Miller is just the typical ahead-of-her-time, strong-willed woman, and Ledger the typical charming rogue who becomes bumbling when around the woman. Boy, I'd like to see a movie that pits a man and a woman against each other without the man having to be a bumbling doof...

Hallstrom has never been very good at creating deep characters, but luckily Casanova doesnÂ't require them. ItÂ's a movie about events, and while many of the events do include couples almost not getting together, we don't need to believe it. The movie is shallow and frothy, so the characters can be frothy and it doesn't detract. Hallstrom does a good job of toning down his melodramatic tendancies, so the movie doesn't sag in the last third. But as much as the movie's been done before, it's still entertaining. The flaws are easily overlooked, and if you give into it, you won't stop to think about how silly it really is. And while it misses the mark on the farce aspect, it's still funny enough to be worth the time. It may be fluff, but it's entertaining fluff, and it has to be better than most other romatic comedies floating around out there.

--reviewed by Brandon

Brokeback Mountain *****

2005-12-18T11:37:00.000-06:00

Brokeback Mountain is a poignant and emotional journey that examines a lifetime of denial and repression. Ennis (Heath Ledger), the strong silent type, meets wild Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) when they take a summer sheep herding job on Brokeback Mountain. On a night fueled by whiskey, they find a new way to "pass the time" and soon find themselves in love with each other. But this is a love that cannot be, so we see the two characters marry and have children and try and forget all about Brokeback Mountain, but they can not.

Heath Ledger delivers a spot on performance of a tough farmer/cowboy that would give the Marlboro man a run for his money. The physical mannerisms he changed for this role are so slight, but so effective, with his deep voiced mumbled words and tough as nails expression - he nearly reminded me of my grandfather. But what really makes this performance stand out is that he managed to give this character such vulnerability and such a tortured soul that you really really feel for him the whole way through the movie. I still have a few more contenders to see, but my bets are on Ledger for this year's Oscar.

Maybe it's just coincidental that this film is set in Wyoming where Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in a hate crime, but the film is a poignant reminder of why there is a gay rights movement. The constant fear Jack and Ennis have that they will be taken out and murdered in some horrific way for being who they are, really drives home the realities of the time. As I saw this opening night with about every gay man and fag hag in the Chicago area (of course, being a theatre chic myself I felt right at home), it's pretty obvious that this film is already an important one for the gay community.

The beginning of the film seems a bit slow with nothing but beautiful cinematography and plenty of shots of the actors smoking on horses, but as the movie progresses you realize it's really not slow it's just set at a different pace of life. I wouldn't call this film a love story. I would say it's a film about heartbreak. The inability of Ennis to be who he truly is wears on him and through the years hollows him out until there is but a ghost of a man left. I guess Ennis sums it up best when he says "If you can't fix it, you gotta stand it." I can't stop thinking about this film. It's certainly one of the best films of the year, so believe the buzz it's generating - it's all true.

Syriana ***

2005-12-15T17:58:00.000-06:00

Syriana is a well written, decently acted movie that ultimately fails to engage the audience. It is a stylish film that delves into the underbelly of corporate greed, the oil industry, corruption, and terrorism but it somehow manages to leave you unsullied. I think the fatal flaw of this film is that it is too ambitious, trying to show you the story from every possible angle, that you are never fully submerged in any character's story. Where the film did an excellent job was showing the transition of Pakistani oil worker Wasim (Mazhar Munir) from unemployment to a radical Islamic terrorist.

There are a lot of contrivances in this film that just bog it down without adding any real depth. There's a scene where CIA agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney)has lunch with his son and discuss his college choices and another where Bryan (Matt Damon) and his wife play with their kids over breakfast, ostensibly just so you can get that they're just "normal" people. Bennet Holiday (Jeffrey Wright) is saddled with an alcoholic father, that he's constantly having to go pick up after, that adds nothing to the story. Add to that the unrealistic tragedy that Matt Damon's family endures. There are just too many meaningless subplots in this movie that don't advance the story or make you feel for the characters.

The story itself is interesting enough, international intrigue, assassinations, corruption, but you don't find yourself rooting for anyone. It's taken me a few days and I still can't figure out if I really liked it or didn't. I started wondering if it isn't my own cynicism that kept me from being more shocked or outraged at what occurs in this film, but I realized I had equal knowledge of some of the things occurring in the Constant Gardener and found myself moved by that film. All in all, it's not a bad film but it's not a great film either.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ****

2005-11-30T23:17:00.000-06:00

I'll admit that I'm a huge fanatic of the books, but some of the Harry Potter films have left something to be desired. I suppose the first two films were enjoyable for me because I had read the books and it was an immersion back into a world you had left behind. It wasn't until the third film that I was actually able to appreciate the films as separate entities from the books with a new view into the Potter world. This fourth film manages to stand on it's own, but seems more like a summer action movie than a film based on a Harry Potter book. To start with, the source material for the fourth film is massive and it's almost all integral to the plot (unlike the fifth book where Harry just whines continuously). As if that wasn't enough of an obstacle, this film goes much darker and much deeper into the magical underbelly, while exploring the innocence of young love and puberty at the same time. So it's almost impossible to imagine doing this film without skimping over some things or cutting others out, but I think it was a little too much too quickly.

Most of the awkward puberty and love bits get chucked out of this film in favor of big special effects shots, which - I must say - were incredible. The Quidditch World Cup stadium alone blew Lucas' re-invisioned Star Wars films to, well, a galaxy far far away. The visuals in this film were spectacular. When Harry was fighting the dragon I really thought he was going to bite it, which I don't ever recall thinking when I read it. Also, the Death Eaters and He Who Must Not Be Named were much scarier than I had ever imagined them to be. That being said, I think some of the relationship bits that will be important in the next films between Harry, Hermione and Ron get left out. Besides the Harry, Ron, Hermione "trinity" being important for the next films, it really gives the soul to the Harry Potter films and books.

Daniel Radcliffe gets better every movie and Rupert Grint is his usual lovable goof. But as far as star power is concerned, it's pretty apparent that Emma Watson far outshines her male co-stars and has a much greater depth to her character than Grint or Radcliff have yet to achieve. I hated that Watson seemed to get the love story angle between her character and Ron, while Grint didn't seem to let that come across at all. Leaving the all too familiar romantic comedy problem, when one character seems much more sympathetic and likeable and no one wants them to get together with the boor that's ignoring them anyway. The new characters in this film are all interesting enough, but the reptilian Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and the return of Moaning Myrtle (Shirley Henderson)stand out in the crowded field of supporting actors. All in all, it's not the best Potter film yet, I think that honor remains with the CuarÃ³n helmed third film, but it's the most action-packed, visually stunning Potter film yet. I wouldn't recommend it for kids under 8 and if you haven't read the books yet you may miss out on quite a few things that they don't take time to explain. And if you haven't read the books yet, what are you waiting for anyway?

Proof ****1/2

2005-11-28T13:24:00.000-06:00

Gwyneth Paltrow manages to deliver a totally fleshed out character worthy of an Oscar in this witty drama based on the Pulitzer prize-winning play. The sibling rivalry between Paltrow and Hope Davis is fully realized and incredibly realistic. The great thing about this film is that it manages to find the humor in the dramatic moments and never sinks into a schmaltzy drama or love story, without playing for laughs. Jake Gyllenhaal and Anthony Hopkins in supporting roles, manage to anchor the film in reality without overshadowing the main character or detracting from the heart of the film, which is more of an internal struggle with Paltrow's character coming to terms with her fears, her genius, and her trust issues.

I absolutely love that they did a movie set in Chicago that they *gasp* actually shot in Chicago! Go figure! Also, it was pointed out to me that they actually took the time to show the actual way to get somewhere when the characters are going somewhere instead of say, When Harry Met Sally when they are traveling in the opposite direction while supposedly leaving Chicago for New York. A little attention to the details, got to love it. That being said, it surprised me greatly that the sound mixing in the beginning of the movie was so abominable. The entire first 2 or 3 scenes the sound of the rain and the characters voices kept switching levels and it was terribly distracting. At first I thought it must have been the theatre I was seeing it in, but as it magically fixed itself without the help of anyone at the theatre I realized it must have been the film itself. For a film that gets everything else so right I don't understand why they'd leave such a glaring mistake.

The ending of the film also leaves something to be desired. Although I must admit I never finished reading the play and don't know how it ended, I just found it very anti-climatic without any sense of closure. In the genre of tortured slightly crazy mathematical genius movies, this blows a Beautiful Mind out of the water. Which makes me very sad that so few people seem to be watching this movie, I think it's already out of theatres. With this release being one of the last of the Weinstein brothers productions under the Miramax banner, I would fully expect to see this released on DVD before the Oscars and a huge marketing push. So don't count it out, put it on your must see DVD list - it delivers.

Jarhead ****

2005-11-12T20:26:00.000-06:00

Jarhead is sort of like a total immersion into the life of a Marine. After watching the film I was left wondering what it was actually about...and strangely enough, I think that is the point of the film. It questions what it was all for through one marine's disillusioned journey. Jake Gyllenhaal gives another strong performance and I'd be surprised if his name isn't on the short list come Oscar time. There were also very strong performances from Oscar winner Jaime Foxx, and often overlooked but always inspired Peter Sarsgaard. If you're not much for lewd language or vulgarity, you probably won't appreciate this film - it is after all about men, about soldiers.

Having grown up in a military family on a variety of bases around the world (although never actually serving myself), I found the film to be very authentic. Saarsgard plays sort of the anti-hero, the man with the seedy past gone straight, while Gyllenhaal is more of the tortured youth who loses his innocence. This movie is full of waiting and waiting and waiting some more. This isn't your typical "war" movie with tons of action scenes. This is a film that examines the personal side of being a soldier, it examines the people who wear the uniform.

What I found most surprising about this film is the sardonic humor in it, it's really quite funny. From a shot of Gyllenhaal scrubbing the floors at boot camp and a voice over saying "I think I made a mistake," to him telling his drill sergeant he was there because he "got lost on the way to college," it's just a smartly written film--based on a great book. Few films actually manage to pull off the comedy and heavy dramatic moments without either becoming schmaltzy or not fully investing in it. Jarhead manages to pull off both as these soldiers are broken down by fear, waiting, betrayal and frustration. There are so many great scenes in this movie. Peter Sarsgaard delivers a very complex performance and hopefully his name will be mentioned up there with Gyllenhaal's come award time.

Sarah Silverman: Jesus is Magic ***

2005-11-11T23:41:00.000-06:00

Be forewarned, this movie is not for those who are easily offended. For those of us who aren't, it's hysterical. No one is really safe from satire as Silverman makes fun of everything from ethnic to religious stereotypes. A lot of the moments in this stand-up routine elicit that sort of "I can't believe she really said that" shocked laughter, in much the same way Southpark: Bigger, Longer and Uncut did.

There are some slightly weird dream/music video sequences that generally don't fit, but I have a feeling they're in there for those who plan on smoking before-hand. The songs typically aren't as funny as the stand-up, except for maybe singing "you're all gonna die" to the old folks home and the encore. Silverman manages to make you laugh at some very unlikely material, like her grandmothers passing, a rape joke, 9/11 and the holocaust. I have a feeling that this movie might just grow on you the more you see it. I'd put it right up there with Margaret Cho's I'm the One that I want. Whereas, where Cho manages to meld her personal life into a hilarious routine, Silverman skirts the edges by remaining entrenched in stereotypes and "shock" humor.

Free Zone *

2005-10-18T10:44:00.000-05:00

This movie begins with about 10 minutes of a single shot – a close-up of Natalie Portman crying.The camera doesn’t move and nothing happens for 10 minutes except Natalie Portman cries. I have no idea what the purpose of this was and we never really find out why she was crying, and the movie only goes downhill from here.The only thing you really gain from this movie is Natalie Portman=Good Crier.

There are a number of strange film techniques the director (Amos Gitai)uses to create such an abysmal affect on the audience. Throughout the film she overlaps three scenes on top of one another with different degrees of transparency, so it’s like watching a kaleidoscope. I might have even cut her a little slack on this, but they actually use the same shot of driving through Jordan twice throughout the movie. The plot line seems to be almost something of a joke set-up – an American, an Israeli and a Palestinian go on a road trip…. This could have been a good set-up for something meaningful, but instead it ends up with two ladies (the Palestinian and the Israeli) bickering over money until the American finally runs away. There is no resolution in the film, but when the American runs away you feel happy because at least it’s over. The actresses all give fine performances, there’s just nothing in this script worth seeing.

North Country *****

2005-10-09T23:50:00.000-05:00

And the Oscar race has begun. North Country is by far the best film I have seen this year. Charlize Theron delivers another monster performance that will surely net her another best actress nomination, if not another Oscar. Woody Harrelson also gives a surprisingly inspired performance, not that we didn't know he could - but where has he been lately? Really a stellar cast all around with Sean Bean, Frances McDormand, Richard Jenkins, and Sissy Spacek delivering not performances, but real people. The movie makes us a part of an important and powerful story in the hands of the very capable director Niki Caro (who directed Whale Rider, which I can't possibly rave about enough).

The film is based on the true story of the first successful sexual harassment class action lawsuit in the US. It is the case that set the legal precedent for sexual harassment protections women all across America now have. But the film merely uses this story as an outline, the many relationships make the film so poignant. It reminds us that this is not just an important court case, but peoples lives. The film reminded me a lot of the Accused with Jodi Foster. Although North Country deals with very violent elements, they are never thrust upon you like in Monster. It's not so much graphic as emotional, it resonates with you because of the pain you see in the peoples eyes - you don't actually have to see the acts themselves to understand. While there is violence, it's just done in a way that is more jarring emotionally than shocking.

Through all of the hardships and the violence, in a way I suppose this film is still a coming of age type discovery. Not of the shocking hardships of reality, but a discovery of the inner resolve and courage that Josie (Charlize Theron) and all the characters in the film who stood up and spoke out had all along. Josie also faces many of her demons and in a way heals not only her relationship with her parents, but learns to accept herself. There are many points in the film where you nearly want to cheer and most of those lines are delivered by Woody Harrelson, and probably are a little schmaltzy but the delivery transcended the material. Each character in the film is fully fleshed out and has their own story, that you may only get a few glimpses of but it just feels as if nothing is thrown away in this movie, everything packs a punch. It's really just well done. Don't miss this one.

Lord of War- ***1/2

2005-10-03T08:24:00.000-05:00

I’ve never cared much for Andrew Niccol. His earlier films Gattaca and The Truman Show (which suffered from the same problems even though he didn't direct it) and were interesting ideas, but I could never care too much about them. They were too cold and aloof when they should've been involving the audience. Lord of War shows a strong improvement over these earlier films, and whiel it still falters here and there, it's interesting to see a director coming into his own.

Nicolas Cage plays Yuri Orlov, the oldest son of Ukrainian immigrants. After witnessing a mob hit gone wrong, he begins to fall in love with guns. He starts small time, dealing Uzis to local hoods, and slowly works his way up the food chain until he’s selling stolen Russian surplus to dictators like Andre Baptiste. This comes at a price, though. Not only is Agent Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke) trying to close in on Yuri, but his relationships in his life, particularly with his brother Vitaly (Jared Leto) and wife (Bridget Moynahan).

The only real misstep the movie makes is the wife, Ava. The movie doesn’t seem as interested in developing their relationship (which is surprising, because the relationship with his family members is understated, yet surprisingly compelling), so when the marriage begins to break down, you find yourself just wishing they’d get back to the guns. I was reminded of 2001’s Blow, which had the same problem. It’s just an unnecessary distraction. Bridget Moynahan comes off like an Ashley Judd, filling the space well, but giving nothing to the film. I wonder if, like Blow, the entire relationship would’ve benefited from the casting of a better actress.

On the other hand, the rest of the plot is served well by Niccol’s style. Yuri’s character is entirely defined by his guns, and watching him only develop as far as his business keeps his character unlikable, yet compelling. The story is also not as gimmicky as Niccol’s earlier work, and the few gimmicks he uses work, such as the entire story is told by Yuri as he stands on a pile of bullets, watching a small town burn. The only cheesy one is in the opening credits, as we follow a computer-animated bullet’s journey from the factory to the head of an African boy.

Nicolas Cage is pretty much Nicolas Cage, but his toned-down, almost empty, performance works. He’s sometimes more of a salesman than an actor, and this serves the movie well. Equally as good is Jared Leto, who gets better with each passing movie, and the relationship between the two brothers is completely involving. Their relationship may be written as uninvolvingly as the relationship between Yuri and Ava, but Cage and Leto have a chemistry that brings it all together. Even Yuri’s parents, who are barely onscreen, contribute a decent dose of humanity with their few appearances. Ethan Hawke is pretty much Ethan Hawke, but his cocky smarm works for Agent Valentine, who is just as unlikable in his obsession as Yuri. Ian Holm gives a great supporting performance as a rival arms dealer, and Eamonn Walker is outstanding as the African dictator Andre Baptiste. Both performances exude a menace that lays over the film, and reminds us what we’re really dealing with.

Niccol does well to not let the film devolve into an Ocean’s 11-style likable-thief movie. Keeping Yuri in the middle and surrounding him with the opposite sides of the moral spectrum makes the movie work, and makes the audience have to seriously consider what they’re watching. Even with the wife subplot, Niccol has a control of his film that he lacked in the past and he’s almost made the story fit his style entirely. I used to dislike him, but after Lord of War, I’m very interested to see what he does next.

Everything is Illuminated ****

2005-09-29T22:08:00.000-05:00

I loved this movie. The trailers and marketing for this film hardly do it justice. The basic premise is simple, a young American Jew, Jonathan Safran Foer (played by Elijah Wood), travels to the Ukraine to discover the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. But above everything else, this film is a journey.

The film starts off light-heartedly with a great deal of comedy, mainly driven by the outstanding performance of Eugene Hutz as Alex. Elijah Wood's character is a strange little obsessive compulsive guy who we are shown "collects" things. There is a great deal of humor from the initial culture clash of these two character's worlds colliding, but that drops sharply in the middle of the film and the movie suddenly takes on a much more serious tone after the grandfather (Boris Leskin) has a particularly violent outburst. It is after this point that the film begins to take on it's gravitas.

The issue of anti-semitism is dealt with throughout the film, as this mismatched crew searches for a town that was obliterated during World War II. As so many movies, the real journey is not so much the physical one, but that of the characters finding themselves. It is in this journey that secrets and regrets are revealed and in the end, everything is illuminated.

This marks the directorial debut of actor Liev Schreiber, and while I thought it was great, I'm still left wondering how much better it could have been in more experienced hands. There seemed to be a somewhat plodding pace in the beginning and a lot of shots that really weren't relevant in showing us either the place or the story. That being said, it is still a very impressive first film. I thought Elijah Wood was great, if not too wooden. At times it was almost as if he held back in an effort not to look like that other character he played, the hairy footed hobbity one. The grandfather turned in a solid performance as well, but the real standout was Eugene Hurtz who managed to have both humor and grace in even the most dramatic moments.

The Brothers Grimm- ***

2005-09-28T17:12:00.000-05:00

So how excited was I for the release of a new Terry Gilliam film? Gilliam has been conspicuously absent from the screen since 1998's rather disappointing Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (with the exception of 2002's gut-wrenching Lost in La Mancha). The Brothers Grimm looked like it had all the elements…so what went so wrong?

This is a film that feels like it had so much edited out that we’re seeing a bare minimum of what the film should be, but at the same time, the plot itself doesn’t seem to require the two hours it already takes. The first half of the film, where we meet Wilhelm (Matt Damon) and Jacob (Heath Ledger) Grimm, moves at a lightning pace that does not fit Gilliam’s style. The quick cuts and jumpy edits never fully give us a chance to see what’s happening, and since Gilliam is all about his visuals, this hurts the film severely.

The Grimm brothers travel around Germany, taking advantage of villagers by pretending to rid them of the supernatural beings. They are discovered to be frauds by the invading French general Delatomb (Jonathan Pryce), who offers to let them live if they help him calm a dissenting village where children have been disappearing. Delatomb believes it is from another group of fraudulent exorcists. The Brothers Grimm, along with their guard Cavaldi (Peter Stormare) are thus sent to track down the shysters and find the missing children, in exchange for their freedom and their lives.

This is where the film finally starts to slow itself down. There is an interesting mix of several different fairy tales that combine to form the plot, but the farther we watch, the more we realize…that’s it? That’s the whole thing? Whiel the mixing of the fairy tales is sometimes clever, it is also sometimes extremely forced, as in the appearance of the gingerbread man from the sludge in a well. This is a great scene visually, but seems out of place. Even more out of place is a scene is a kitten being kicked into rotating blades. This could’ve been an interesting, darkly comic scene, but instead it seems to happen for no reason at all. In fact, most of the comedy, and the darker scenes don’t seem to fit in this world, as they do in his better movies.

Another detriment to the film is the lack of any sort of development at all. The beginning show young Jacob being taken in by someone selling magic beans, but we never really get a sense of how this affects the brothers, except for Wilhelm yelling, “MAGIC BEANS!!!” every once in a while. We’re given everything we need to be given, but nothing else. And the love story is so underdeveloped that the phrase “tacked-on” can’t even do it justice.

The only real stand out performance is Heath Ledger, since he’s the only character with any sort of depth to him. Matt Damon has little to do but bully his brother. Both Pryce and Stormare give the most scenery-chewing of performances, which could work in a Gilliam film (think Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys), but they are so outrageous they overshadow the lower-key main characters. Stormare, who is usually known for being oddly low-key, is ridiculously crazed, especially in the earlier scenes, where the quick cuts make him into sort of a whirling dervish you can’t quite wrap your mind around.

This being said, the movie still has its good points. The special effects are hit-and-miss, but the fight with the trees is like something out of old 80s Gilliam. Once the movie calms down in the second half, and things start to happen, the plot does get more involving. But it reminds me a lot of Gilliam’s The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which was also choppy and strangely uninvolving.

So, I’m left with one horrifying thought: has Gilliam lost his touch? The only thing that still gives me hope is Tideland, which comes out later this year, and seems to be Gilliam returning to the weird, psychological dealings of his best work. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

The Constant Gardener ****

2005-09-18T12:37:00.000-05:00

The beginning of the movie is rather disjointed, but you are drawn into the love story element of the two main characters immediately. Rachel Weisz as Tessa and Ralph Fiennes as Justine are the heart of this movie. They transcend the material and manage to give you full and complex characters with a truly loving relationship (which you rarely see in a Hollywood movie these days)that you actually care about.

Director Fernando Meirelles (City of God), transports you to Africa with such a cinematic flair you feel as if you have indeed left the theatre for the heart of Africa. The screenplay, based on a novel by John le Carré, is practically ripped from the headlines - just this year they found AIDS drug makers were "fixing" tests of their drugs in Africa - with big drug companies conspiring with governments in secret deals to make millions by fixing tb tests in Africa by disposing of the people who died from the side effects. The movie didn't hold back on any of the atrocities that are a reality in Africa, including a gripping account of the horrors occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Where this movie falters is in the screenplay adaptation itself. The loving relationship between the two main characters is cast aside a third of the way through the movie and leaves you distant from both characters for the sake of intrigue. I don't think this served the movie well, as they are the foundation of the film. Also, they never really delve into the reasons behind Justine's gardening (which they throw into the movie in odd places) or why Tessa felt she had to protect him from the work she was doing. You don't get enough of his character's story line to really understand this.

Overall, the visuals, the characters and the intrigue and conspiracy of this movie make it both thrilling and disturbing - in a money is indeed the root of all evil way. Some of the stories and images will haunt you, as any good movie on a real subject should.

The 40 Year-Old Virgin- ****

2005-08-22T14:00:00.000-05:00

God bless Steve Carrell.

In the past year he’s given us three great characters- Brick in Anchorman, Michael Scott in the American remake of "The Office," and now Andy Stitzer, the 40 year-old virgin. He specializes in playing stupid, yet hilariously smart, characters, and I’m hoping more people will follow his lead. Then maybe we will not have to be force fed any more lame, sophomoric comedies like Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo.

This is a sex comedy (of sorts), so we know what we're getting into. Andy is a sweet loser who loves to collect toys and play video games. When it comes out that he’s a virgin, his fellow coworkers David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco) and Cal (Seth Rogan) decide to make it their mission to get him laid. Cue wacky hyjinks. Andy also meets Trish (Catherine Keener), who he really likes but is afraid to make a move on, especially considering the advice he’s getting from his pals.

Oh, and his pals… I have officially decided that Paul Rudd is a comedic genius. After Wet Hot American Summer, Anchorman, and now this, I believe there’s nothing he can’t do. Malco and Rogan round out the foursome, and at first I was a little dismayed because I didn’t recognize them. But like in Anchorman, they create a foursome that works perfectly together and on their own. There’s never a weak link, and each character is developed enough that you even start wanting to see them succeed. There are many great cameos, too, which I won’t spoil because half the fun is seeing them pop up when they do.

I was also happy to see that the obligatory “sad part” was short, quick, and never really stopped being funny. Unlike this summer's other big comedy, Wedding Crashers, which spent its last third mired in dramatic nonsense, the script by Steve Carrell and director Judd Apatow keeps the energy and humor level, and only dwells in drama long enough to get us to another funny scene. The script also gives us four very distinct people who never break character, even in the silliest parts of the movie. Andy himself is never made an object of ridicule. Like last year’s Napoleon Dynamite, he’s a lovable loser, and that makes you root for him all the more. The movie also makes good use of its R rating, never having to delve into gross out territory for a laugh (like American Pie and all of its shoddy sequels/rip-offs), but putting what raunchiness it has to good use.

That’s not to say the movie is entirely perfect, it’s a bit overlong, and I would like to see a comedy that can sustain itself without going to the obligatory sad part, but I got over these quibbles very quickly. It makes me unbelievably happy to see that comedies are moving away from the one-funny-scene-movies that have gained popularity since the end of the 90s, and turning into very funny, consistent movies. Yes, this is a comedy, and a silly one at that, but it shows that if you take some time with your script and your characters, the result is funnier, more involving, and definitely worth the admission price.

Or, if that’s too hard, I guess you could go see Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo. But really…does anyone really WANT to do that?

Fantastic 4- *

2005-08-16T14:11:00.000-05:00

Now, I expected this to be bad. I really did, but I thought bad in a fun way. Boy, was I wrong. Fantastic 4, rather than follow in the footsteps of recent, well done superhero movies like Batman Begins and X Men, decides it’s better off following in the footsteps of crap like Daredevil and Elektra. So, fair warning.

The plot is relatively simple. Two scientists, Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) and Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) have cut a deal with a former enemy, the rather obviously named Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon). Although, I know of a guy with the last name Kilbride, and someone still married him… Anyway, Von Doom will fund their research into cosmic storms if he gets a large share of the profits. Also joining them for the trip into a cosmic storm is Reed’s former flame, Sue Storm (Jesica Alba), and her 100% idiot brother, Johnny (Chris Evans), who is probably the most annoying character since Jar Jar Binks. Of course things go wrong, and they are all affected by the storm, gaining superpowers. Reed becomes stretchy like Gumby. Sue can become invisible and throw up plasma shields. Johnny gets the ability to light himself on fire. Ben Grimm turns into a hulking mass of rock called The Thing. Von Doom, of course, becomes evil, and turns into metal. The rest of the movie deals with Von Doom’s attempts to kill the other four, while the other four try to find a way to reverse the powers. With the exception of Johnny, who is into extreme sports and loves ever second of it.

So, all said, I am having a hard time coming up with anything worthwhile about this movie at all. The undercurrent of romance between Reed and Sue is pointless (only topped by the moronic romance between The Thing and a blind woman). Just because you try to include character development doesn’t mean it works. You pretty much want to kill Johnny the second he shows up on screen, and he only gets worse from there. The other characters are like pale imitations of better movies, running through the watered down superhero clichés until at the end they become a team and everything’s okay. The acting, with the exception of Michael Chiklis (and he barely has anything to do), is sub-par all-around. Well, I have to give Chris Evans something, because even though I hated his character with all my heart, he was the only other character I gave a damn about, even if it was utter hatred. His character never seems concerned about suddenly being able to create fire (in fact, all the characters seem to get used to their strange powers very quickly), and he spends the movie mostly just being obnoxious. His worst scene is when they stop the movie to have an extreme sports montage. Although, I give them credit more putting the product placement in one scene and just panning down a wall of ads.

This reminds me more of a clichéd exploitation movie than anything else. We have our mandatory scenes of Jessica Alba stripping down for no reason at all (of course only to PG-13 rated underwear). We have the new, strange trait of having the big action scene in the middle, and ending with an anticlimactic, stupid battle. And the big action scene? Again, another highway scene with cars flying about. Don’t get me wrong, I do love highway action scenes and cars flying about. But just because it worked in The Matrix Reloaded and Bad Boys II doesn’t mean it works all the time. And why does all of NY suddenly love the Fantastic 4 (shades of the incredibly stupid end of Spider-Man), when the Fantastic 4 is the REASON there was a huge pile-up of cars on the bridge to begin with?

I guess I could go on all day complaining about this movie, but I can sum it up pretty easy: it sucks. It just plain sucks. There’s not enough action for an action movie, not enough drama for a drama movie, and what they try to pass off as both is just miserable. This is the kind of movie studios normally release in February, and has no business occupying the same theaters as the much superior Batman Begins. Avoid at all costs.

The Island- **1/2

2005-08-16T14:05:00.000-05:00

The Island is this year’s I, Robot, only much, much lazier. It’s a movie with an interesting idea, but two very conflicting ways of dealing with it. Rather than suck it up, pick one, and make the movie, they took the lazy way and tried to do both, with extremely mixed results. This is confused movie, with no center, and it tries to cover this up with blustery action and pretty costars. Sadly, it doesn’t work.

The Island starts out in a facility for the survivors of a world “contamination.” It is a calm, sterile world, where the people are given mundane jobs and are allowed almost no contact with the opposite sex. Their only hope is to win the lottery, which sends one lucky inhabitant to The Island, the last uncontaminated place on Earth. One particular inhabitant, Lincoln Six Echo (Ewen MacGregor) begins to question his world, and soon discovers the secret: they are actually clones of rich people, created so the rich people can use them to harvest organs when needed. Of course, this movie is directed by Michael Bay, and this plot doesn’t lend itself to explosions, so something must be done. Lincoln Six Echo escapes with Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson) in tow, and suddenly there are several guns and explosions. I’m assuming this is supposed to be a plot twist, but like most movies that come out now, the plot twists are given away in the previews, so I find myself wondering why they bother even pretending.

I used to like Michael Bay movies, simple things like The Rock, full of manly pomp and bluster and fights and guns. But it’s movies like this where he tries to do too much where he fails (Pearl Harbor anyone?). The large action scenes, specifically in the middle (which seems to be a very strange turn moves are taking now- putting the huge action scenes in the middle and ending with a lame climax), seem completely out of place. Do they need to fall from a skyscraper on a giant letter R? No, especially since the writers didn’t bother to write a creative or even vaguely believable way out of it. Do they need to have the highway chase? No, especially when it’s nearly the same exact scene as in Bay’s earlier Bad Boys II. Even the addition of the flying motorcycles doesn’t seem to raise the bar. All it does is make me wonder why everyone is still driving cars if there are flying motorcycles available.

So the sci-fi bits are just dull, and the action bits are unexciting, so what are we left with? Well, there’s the merciless product placement (the worst offence being Scarlett Johansson standing on the street watching the Calvin Klein ads from a few years back that feature Scarlett Johansson. It’s the most obnoxious bit of smug winking-to-the-audience since Julia Roberts in Ocean’s Twelve). There’s Ewen MacGregor’s spotty American accent. There’s Scarlett Johansson’s rather odd-looking lips, which seems to have gotten larger and strangely flatter since Lost in Translation. On the upside, there’s Djimon Hounsou, who’s always fun to watch. But Sean Bean is again predictably cast as the predictable bad guy with the predictable bad guy name of Merrick. Will someone please give Sean Bean a decent role for God’s sake?

I know this is a pretty scathing review for two and a half stars, but I do have to admit I can’t even really hate it for being bad, because it very well could’ve been Armageddon. But I do hate it for being mediocre. I hate it for having the pretense of being something interesting, but being so unwilling to do anything at all interesting at all. I hate it because it wasn’t a movie, but a 127 minute advertisement for Clavin Klein, Aquafina, Chrysler, Michelob, MSN, Adidas, Puma and any others I may have forgot. I hate it mostly because they didn’t try. This is the laziest movie I’ve seen in a while, and I saw Fantastic 4. I think the fact it’s flopping at the box office should prove that. Maybe the producers, instead of setting up website devoted to passing all the blame to the actors, should actually watch their crappy movie and learn from their mistakes. But somehow, I doubt that.

Broken Flowers S- 1/2 B- **1/2

2005-08-12T22:58:00.000-05:00

Sarai:
This movie starts with an interesting premise, what happens when a former "ladies man" discovers through an unsigned letter that he has a son from a relationship 20 years ago? What follows is not so much about the discovery of the son, but more about the discovery of the man himself (Don Johnston), deftly played by an always funny Bill Murray.

The Journey this film takes us on is full of memorable, sometimes outlandish, characters that ultimately gives Don a better look at his own life. Murray's straight faced, understated humor is a perfect match for the film and works well. The story, however, is ultimately unsatisfying and in the end you're not as impressed by the journey because you actually wanted a decent ending to the movie. Sorry, you don't get one in this movie, you get a fade to black then credits.

The pacing of the film is rather slow and there are entire scenes that seem to have little to no point at all. For example, in one scene we are left staring at Bill Murray's back as he watches traffic for about 2 minutes. I found myself wondering if the director was doing these types of scenes to give people a chance to reflect on the characters or if we were supposed to be gleaning some insight from Murray's ass?
It's an interesting premise with some good acting, but overall it's an oddly put together journey that leaves you wondering why you spent your cash on this. Wait for video

Brandon:
The entire time I was watching this movie, I had a very rude old lady next to me commenting on how much she hated it. Apparently it escaped her that maybe some people DID enjoy the movie. But that’s the danger of something like this. Everyone was so enamored with Lost in Translation that they just assume Bill Murray’s next movie is going to be Lost in Translation. I think that’s funny, because truly great actors and directors will not do the same thing every time out, and that’s something American audiences have a hard time with.

Broken Flowers follows Don Johnston (Bill Murray) as he is attempting, rather half-heartedly, to track down an anonymous woman who may be the mother of a son, who may or may not exist. After being dumped by the latest in a long line of girlfriends, Johnston receives a mysterious, unsigned letter. His mystery-obsessed next door neighbor, Winston (a hilarious Jeffrey Wright), takes the case on and sends the reluctant Johnston across the country, trying to track down the women who fall into the general time period the son could have been born.

I don’t really love or hate the director Jim Jarmusch. I’ve seen a couple of his movies, and I’ve generally liked them, but this is easily the best I’ve seen. While the story still moves at a Jarmusch pace, it is never boring. The movie is constantly giving us new characters which we only see for a woefully short time, and new situations, which we keep hoping will clue us in a bit more. There is a mystery in the plot, but it’s not the mystery of the movie. It’s almost as if there are two movies going on, the one you think you’re watching, and the one that slowly bubbles up to the surface as the movie unfolds. This is one of the best written, most carefully thought-out movies I’ve seen in a long time (although, the movie I saw immediately before, The Island, was one of the laziest movies I’ve ever seen and maybe my brain was just excited to be used again).

And of course, there’s Bill Murray, who is proving himself to be one of the best actors out there. He may look like he’s repeating himself, but Don Johnston has none of the humor that Lost in Translation’s Bob Harris had, none of the ability to joke about the world around him. Johnston can barely even speak to anyone. The best and most touching scene is the one where he visits the grave of an ex. It’s quiet, with almost no dialogue, but Murray carries the scene so well you don’t even notice. It’s a great scene that shows as much about the character as it does about Murray’s ability.

I could go on a bit about the past girlfriends, but we can suffice it to say that each own is different and distinct in and of themselves. The actresses all do perfect jobs, and the differing reactions to seeing Johnston again is great. I particularly liked Sharon Stone and Frances Conroy. The two women they portrayed were as different as possible, but the conclusion reached by both was interesting. And they helped to delve into one of the unexplained mysteries of the film- why do Johnston’s relationships fall apart so easily? And why do women go for him in the first place? We see glimpses of the answer in the graveyard scene, and in a scene where Johnston buys flowers and half-heartedly flirts with the young cashier.

Many people will be upset with the ending, and the movie in general, but this is Jarmusch and answers will not come easily. Having seen and pondered on the movie, I feel like there is nothing in it that is out of place. There are still pieces I haven’t put together in my head, but part of the fun is dwelling on these moments, trying to figure out exactly what Jarmusch is saying and why it’s there. True, this isn’t a movie for everyone, with its slow pacing and sometimes painfully realistic situations (the awkwardness of a dinner with an ex and her husband is so piercing I found myself squirming in my seat). But those who can fall into its rhythm will find themselves very well rewarded.

Me and You and Everyone We Know- ** -B 1/2-S

2005-07-20T11:18:00.000-05:00

Brandon:
In the opening of the movie, we are watching a married couple split up. The father, Richard (John Hawkes) is confused. He doesn't seem to understand what's happening, or why. "Let's have a ceremony!" He suggests. His wife is annoyed, probably even more so when his last minute ceremony goes awry.

This sets the stage for the entire movie. The movie focuses mostly on Richard and performance artist Christine (writer/director Miranda July), who are hesitantly trying to begin a relationship that neither one understands. But there are several characters, all interconnected in some way, who are facing the same problems- reconciling what they think of love with what it truly is.

This is the best plot outline I can really give, without giving away the magic of the movie. There are several plots which flow through the film, involving characters as young as six, demonstrating the hopes and fears of love and sex. Much of it is very funny (particularly one scene in the middle, which has even become a tagline for the movie- "))<>(( Forever"), some of it is sad, and much of it makes the characters question what they're getting themselves into.

I have seen critics saying things like it's this years Sideways, but I think it has more in common with 2003's Lost in Translation.

Sarai:**1/2
I tend to disagree with Brandon on this one. I thought most of the characters were little more than caricatures with no real depth. The shy, afraid to take a chance "video artist" (If you can call what she does art, I think it looked more like what a junior high kid in the eighties might do with a camcorder) meets a slightly bent but doting father and they dance around courtship. boring. I had a real problem with some of the adult dialogue in this film, like Richard proclaiming that he wants to be swept off of his feet and his children to have super powers and he's ready for great things to happen.
The children are really the more interesting part of this film. Without giving anything away, they are the comedy and the life force behind this film. If only the adult characters in this film had been better written, it had the potential to be a really good film.

Be Cool- **1/2

2005-07-07T08:19:00.000-05:00

I knew walking into Be Cool that I really shouldn't expect much. You know when the press focuses on "Travolta and Thurman dancing AGAIN!!!!" instead of the actual movie, you're in trouble. And what I got was, like last year’s Ocean’s Twelve, a movie trying so hard to be cool that it was just annoying.

It’s a few years after Get Shorty, and Chili Palmer (John Travolta) is tired with the movie business. He soon finds himself in cahoots with the friend’s wife Edie (Uma Thurman) to produce Linda Moon (Christina Milian), a talented singer trying to make it big. Unfortunately, Linda under contract to Raji (Vince Vaughn) and Nick Carr (Harvey Keitel), who aren't about to let go of a good thing. Palmer also has to contend with the aforementioned Russian mob, and gangsta rap group The WMDs led by the silly Dabu (Andre Benjamin), and managed by Sin LaSalle (Cedric the Entertainer), who blame Palmer for his friend dying without paying them their royalties. So you'd think there would be enough plot to sustain the two-hour movie, right?

Wrong. With so much going on, nothing seems to really be happening. You can feel director F. Gary Gray trying very hard to be as cool as Sonnenfeld was in Get Shorty, but missing the mark entirely. The movie derails itself by stopping every fifteen minutes or so to become a music video for Christina Milian. The worst is a long scene of her singing "Crazy" onstage with Aerosmith. Because, I guess, we all needed to hear that song one more time... There is also a short pause about halfway through the movie to not only showcase the Black Eyed Peas, but to have Travolta and Thurman dance together. Great. The dance is not only trying to pointlessly piggy-back on Pulp Fiction, but goes on way too long. And really, would Chili Palmer be going to Black Eyed Peas concerts?

I blame most of the movie's problems on the screenplay by Peter Steinfeld, which is more concerned with making stupid Hollywood in-jokes than putting together a credible movie. The first line of the movie is Travolta moaning, "I hate sequels." Ha ha ha. The movie borrows so much from Get Shorty. Sure, some similarities are inevitable, but this comes off as just lazy. Again, the bad guy has the reluctant bodyguard. Again, the one thing everyone is trying to get their hands on is squirreled away in a place under police surveillance etc…

There are bright points to the movie though. The Rock, as the gay, wanna-be actor/bodyguard Eliot, is hilarious. He creates the most interesting and funny character in the movie...he even manages to make the eyebrow joke work. Sadly, Vince Vaughn starts out funny, but by the end the tiresome “White-guy-acting-black” just becomes grating. Andre Benjamin is hilarious as the gangsta without a clue. His best scene is toward the end, while drinking tea, prompting one of the best lines, "Dabu! Tea is NOT GANGSTA!"

I can't really recommend this movie. It may vaguely entertain fans of Get Shorty (or The Rock), but I would recommend just putting in Get Shorty and remembering how cool crime capers SHOULD be.

Heights ****

2005-07-05T16:00:00.000-05:00

The movie opens with Glenn Close teaching an acting class on Shakespeare which immediately made me jealous of all the extras who got to sit there and get acting lessons from Glenn Close! But that's beside the point, her character, Diana, is a one-woman powerhouse of presence and charisma, but it's almost all facade. The story follows the intertwined (sometimes unexpectedly so) lives of five New Yorkers through one 24-hour period. Based on the play by Amy Fox, who also wrote the screenplay, Heights never panders or overplays it's hand, but instead gives us a view into the real lives of these complex characters.

Isabel, played with great depth by Elizabeth Banks, is Diana's daughter and a photographer trying to make a name for herself in her profession while planning her wedding to Jonathan (James Marsden). Jonathan is a corporate lawyer with a past full of secrets that begin unraveling at the very beginning of the film. While some of his deceits come off almost clichéd - man struggles with sexual orientation - the ending is really an unexpected twist. The fourth character we meet is Alec (Jesse Bradford) who seems to be in the film for little more than a few laughs and his puppy dog eyes. He plays an aspiring actor auditioning for Diana's latest play who happens to live in the same building as Isabel and Jonathan. There's also Peter whose sole role in the movie is to interview ex-lovers of a famous photographer, in the process pulling the thread that will begin the unraveling of Jonathan. Also thrown into the mix is a side-plot of Diana's hidden, but very palpable, heartache over her open marriage that is never fully explored.

Overall I really liked this movie for its honesty and emotional depth. With all of the plot layers at work in this film, it's still simply about people trying to find or hide from who they really are. There are so many opposites at work; with Isabel trying valiantly to become what she thinks will make her happy while missing the very things that will. Diana constantly labors to keep up appearances while being truly miserable and afraid to change her situation and even more afraid that her daughter will make the same mistakes. The internal struggles of both female characters and the dynamics of this mother-daughter relationship are truly what make this film so mesmerizing to watch. Some of the technical aspects like the split-screen editing and shooting scenes in order to evoke a "voyeuristic" viewpoint simply didn't work, but the acting stands on it's own.

William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice- ***

2005-07-05T11:19:00.001-05:00

There are several problems with adapting Shakespeare to the screen. The big one is the language, and the fact that many actors just simply cannot say it without slipping into a strange melodramatic chanting. Second is the fact that everyone wants to put their personal stamp on it; changing the time, changing the setting, changing the focus. Sometimes this works, such as in Ian McKellen's Richard III. But The Merchant of Venice misses the mark.

The Merchant of Venice is a very problematic play, written as a comedy from the very anti-Semitic viewpoint of the 1590s. It definitely makes Shylock the bad guy, and revels in his defeat at the end. Rather than hide from it, this movie takes a more serious viewpoint, trying to make Shylock a sympathetic character, a man driven to his barbaric demands by the ill treatment of those around him. This does work, but only to a point. And when it cross cuts to the romantic subplot, it doesn't work at all.

The movie begins by showing Antonio (Jeremy Irons) spitting on a local Jew, Shylock (Al Pacino), who makes a living giving out of loans for interest. Antonio is a wealthy merchant, but all of his funds are tied up in shipping efforts. Bassanio is a young playboy who wants to set himself up as wealthy and travel to win the hand of Portia (Lynn Collins), and he asks Antonio to lend him some cash. Antonio agrees, and has to reluctantly go to Shylock for a loan of his own. Shylock agrees, but demands a grisly bond if the loan is not paid back by a certain date- a pound of Antonio's flesh. The romantic/comedic subplot involves Portia, who wants to marry, but is held by her father's wish that she must put each suitor in front of three boxes of gold, silver and lead. Whoever picks the correct box will be her husband, and Bassanio is determined to win.

The Merchant of Venice cuts back and forth between the comedic plot and the serious plot, and attempts to solve the problem by making everything serious. This does work for the Shylock, especially during the "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" speech. This is a movie that reminds you just how good Al Pacino really can be. While you don't agree with Shylock's revenge, you find yourself understanding where it comes from. The problem comes with lines like "Oh my daughter! Oh my ducats!" He was written to be a greedy, contemptuous man, placing his daughter on the same level as his money, and lines like this undercut the sympathy the film is trying to build.

The other problem is slowing down the Portia subplot. Particularly the coda of the movie, which is supposed to be played for laughs. I personally dislike the last act of the play, and I like it even less in this movie, which tries to give weight to a stupid practical joke, and winds up just making the last 15-20 minutes of the movie laborous.

While these changes do affect the movie, there are still some wonderful things about it. The cinematography is excellent, painting a dark, craggy view of Venice and contrasting it with the opulent beauty of Portia's island mansion. The performances are almost all excellent as well. Pacino, Irons and Fiennes all have a good sense of the dialogue, and manage to speak it as if they were conversing in everyday language. Collins, as Portia, is the only weak link, and I can't decide if this is because of his performance or because of the way the movie was done. I never thought she was bad, but I never found myself as interested when she appeared on screen.

This movie has been praised for its revisionist take on a difficult play, and I can see and appreciate what they were trying to do. It is the kind of thing where you want to applaud the effort, even though the finished product only works half the time. Shakespeare fans will appreciate this, but all others might want to be wary.

War of the Worlds - ***

2005-07-01T10:29:00.000-05:00

Speilberg has proven he can deliver a movie. He invented the big summer movie with Jaws, and has further proven himself with the Indiana Jones films and more serious efforts like Schindler’s list. But I don’t know what’s going on lately, since he’s snuggled up to Tom Cruise. Hot on the heels of the underwhelming Minority Report (the previous Speilberg/Cruise friendship movie), we now have the underwhelming War of the Worlds.

I haven't read the book, and it's been years since I saw the original movie, but from what I can tell the bare minimum was taken from the earlier versions. Which is fine, really, you could probably make a hundred different stories revolving around a group of people trying to outrun giant walking tripods. This one focuses on Tom Cruise, who plays Ray Ferrier, a divorced, blue collar father of two. His wife Mary Ann (Miranda Otto) is leaving the kids with him for the weekend. The oldest is teenage Robbie (Justin Chatwin), who is of course sullen and withdrawn, because every teenager has to be in movies any more. The younger is Rachel (Dakota Fanning), who is surprisingly good at playing the person stuck between the warring father and son. The weekend starts out bad, and then gets worse when a lightning storm not only knocks out every piece of electrical equipment in the area (except, of course, for the guy who has to be there filming the aliens awakening with his camcorder), but also awakens a giant alien tripod mere blocks from the Ferrier household. The Ferriers make a death-defying escape, and plan a mission to head to Boston to find Mary Ann. Because, I guess, mom can fight tripods…

The bulk of the movie are the few days spent trying to stay alive as they travel from New York to Boston, having the regimented close encounters along the way. This is where Spielberg reminds what he still has the ability to do. The action scenes are suspenseful and horrifying. And while every laser blast manages to evaporate everyone BUT Tom Cruise, I found myself only thinking of that later after the movie was over. The tripods, while looking slightly ungainly, are frightening, and every time I heard the fog-horn blast they made as they appeared in the horizon, I found myself squirming in my seat.

But, for every time a tripod appears on the horizon, there has to be a quiet family scene, and here is where the movie stumbles. Tom Cruise is at best when he doesn't have to be too terribly emotional, and while he is a good choice for playing the angry, blue collar Ray, he seems a bit lost in the smaller scenes. Robbie is your typical impulsive teenager. He could honestly be written out of the movie and you'd lose basically nothing. The real stand out is Dakota Fanning, who I think I dislike only because she was in Uptown Girls. While she basically has to stand around and look scared, she is the only one who manages to inject a true sense of fear and horror into the movie. The only other character who seems to share any amount of screen time with the Ferrier family is a miscast Tim Robbins as an ambulance driver-turned-survivalist.

It is really at the point when Tim Robbins shows up that the movie begins to falter. Rather than continue with huge action sequences, the movie gives us TWO scenes of things in the basement that the characters must hide from. Both of these scenes are uninspired remakes of scenes from Minority Report and Jurassic Park (in fact, one shot is directly lifted from the Raptor/kitchen chase). And, is it just me, or do the aliens look almost exactly like the aliens from Independence Day? I will give Speilberg credit for a confrontation scene between Cruise and Robbins I didn’t see coming. But then, we're led into the extremely anti-climactic climax, and of course the schmaltzy end, which I won't give away, but you'll see coming fairly easily.

So this is what eventually lost me: the movie’s inability to be consistent. For every great scene, there has to be something that happens to slow everything down to a crawl. Which in the long run, isn’t SO bad. It’s just isn’t so great. So if you want to see giant action scenes, and are able to ignore the silly in-between stuff, and the totally lame conclusion, you could do worse. Much worse.

Reviews by Title

2005-06-25T11:12:00.000-05:00

Be Cool

Brokeback Mountain

Broken Flowers

The Brothers Grimm

Casanova

The Constant Gardener

The Da Vinci Code

Everything is Illuminated

The Family Stone

The 40 Year-old Virgin

Fantastic Four

Free Zone

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Heights

The Island

Jarhead

Joyeux Noel

King Kong

Lord of War

Me and You and Everyone We Know

Mrs. Henderson Presents

North Country

Poseidon

The Producers

Proof

The Proposition
Sarah Silverman: Jesus is Magic

The Squid and the Whale

Syriana

Transamerica

United 93

Walk the Line

War of the Worlds

Why We Fight

William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice

X-Men: The Last Stand

Four Star Movies

2005-06-18T17:30:00.000-05:00

Movies at least one of us has given 4 stars - very good but not quite perfect:

Broken Flowers

The Constant Gardener

Everything is Illuminated

The 40 Year-old Virgin

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Heights

Jarhead

Joyeux Noel

Me and You and Everyone We Know

The Squid and the Whale

United 93

Why We Fight

Five Star Movies

2005-06-18T17:29:00.000-05:00

Movies at least one of us has given 5 stars - we loved them, they were flawless, or close enough:

Brokeback Mountain

North Country

Proof

The Proposition

Walk the Line