Tuesday Movie Night

The Last Picture Show

2006-05-02T22:18:00.000-04:00

Patricia and I are both graduating from the University of Georgia, and we are both leaving to go to graduate school. She is moving to the Chicago area, and I am moving to the Los Angeles area. Therefore, Tuesday Movie Night, the outing and the blog, is coming to an end. It's been fun! We appreciate you reading our rants and raves. I have created a new blog that will feature some movie discussion as well as much more as I move across the country and begin the next phase of my life. Please visit California Here I Come. Thanks for reading!

Brandon and Patricia

American Dreamz, he said 2.0

2006-04-27T17:19:00.000-04:00

"American Dreamz" (that's dreams with a "z") is a largely disappointing movie that fails to really be about much at all. The tagline says "Imagine a country in which more people vote for a pop idol than their next president." Isn't that our country? I had good expectations for this movie considering the writers, cast, and premise. The idea of satirizing current political events using a parody of the dreadful "American Idol" seems appealing, but the movie sadly manages to do nothing with it.

Good satire must be smart satire. Generally, one must be somewhat smart to get and enjoy satire. This movie is not very smart, and it is not very good. The political figures are simplistic spoofs of the current administration which are nowhere near as good as what one can see for free on "Saturday Night Live." The movie shows a lot of "crazy" situations, but it never manages to say anything about what it satirizes. It never makes the situations meaningful. This combined with the really shoddy looking production values (as Jason elaborated well on in his review) made the movie look and feel like a mediocre SNL sketch that just doesn't know when to end (as they so often do).

The cast is good. Hugh Grant seems not to be trying, but the others put forth good effort. I was happy to see Shohreh Aghdashloo (who is becoming one of my favorite actresses) and the underappreciated Judy Greer as I did not realize either of them were in the movie.

"American Dreamz" does have its moments. I really liked the montage featuring the various contestants and the spoofs of different music genres (Mama, please don't drink me to sleep tonight). I especially liked the Hasidic contestant (played by Buffy baddie Adam Busch). The first half of the movie was quite boring, but this sequence had me rolling. The movie does pick up in the second half, but it is still largely unmoving. This movie is definitely worth a rental, but that's about it.

What did you think?

Thank You For Smoking, he said 5.0

2006-04-22T22:28:00.000-04:00

"Thank You For Smoking" is the best comedy I have seen in several years. It is the feature length directorial debut of Jason Reitman, son of Ivan (who directed one of my favorite movies ever, "Ghostbusters"). The film is about a hotshot lobbyist (Aaron Eckhart) for the tobacco industry. While the film appears to be a simply a satire about big tobacco (and it is, although that is not the point of the movie), it is really about a man who is great at his job realizing that he's not so great at everything (such as being a parent).

Reitman has a very controlled style that belies his inexperience. Like "Batman Begins," the movie features an impressive cast with the exception of Katie Holmes. (Actually, Holmes isn't terrible. She's not exactly good either. It's just that any actor who is constantly paraded around in the media just makes me not be able to get behind their work. I just see them as famewhores, not actors. That being said, like "Batman Begins," Holmes seems to benefit from being surrounded by great actors. However, it also accentuates her lack of real talent. For this Katie Holmes rant, I feel I should apologize to Josh, who loves her).

This movie is hilarious. I waited a bit too long to write this review. The movie is no longer fresh in my mind, and I am having trouble remembering things I wanted to discuss. But that is really for the better, because comedy is always best experienced fresh. Talking about comedy is pointless unless both people have heard the joke. So, go see this movie.

What did you think?

Lucky Number Slevin, he said 3.0

2006-04-12T15:31:00.000-04:00

"Lucky Number Slevin" is the latest entry into the crime caper subgenre which is one that I enjoy quote a bit. This movie is a fun movie to watch, but it is never able to become a really good movie. It's not that it doesn't try. It's that it tries too hard. The movie is far too self-aware. And not in the good way like "Kill Bill" was. It's self-aware in an annoying, pretentious way. It thinks it's smarter than the audience. Rather than let us simply be Keyser Soze-d, the movie tells from the start that it is going to Keyser Soze us. This spoils the fun of it!

Not that we don't expect a twist in a movie like this. In the past decade or so, the twist ending has become a bit hackneyed especially in this kind of movie. This, along with the foreknowledge that a "Kansas City Shuffle" is taking place, caused me to be unable to become fully immersed in this movie. Whereas I would normally sit back and enjoy being taken for a ride, I spent this movie preoccupied with trying to figure out who was the Keyser Soze.

The movie also overindulges in "interesting" shots and angles. Some work (like the really cool shot of Hartnett and Willis walking towards the camera after the "job") and some are just bad (like the chess scene). Overall, I did like the look of the movie. The sets are highly stylized (as Patricia said "The wallpaper in this movie is a bit too much") and reflect the outlandish situations the movie portrays.

The best thing about this movie is the performances. A A-list cast raises a mediocre movie to a pretty decent one. Morgan Freeman and Ben Kingsley are both funny as opposing crime lords The Boss and The Rabbi (Why do they call him the Rabbi?). Bruce Willis is good as usual in a surprisingly small role. Josh Hartnett is an actor that sometimes surprises me when he's not doing crap. His role here as Slevin is one of those surprises. The biggest surprise for me was Lucy Liu as Lindsey. She has been a few hits, more misses actress to me. I loved her as O-ren Ishii, and she was good in the X-Files episode "Hell Money." Other than that, most of her stuff has been pretty unwatchable. Here, however, I loved her. I quickly developed a bit of a crush on her character.

The other thing I liked about this movie was the dialogue. It is very rapid-fire and highly humorous. The actors manage to pull off some things that could have easily come across as awkward or cheesy (such as the James Bond conversation). They all deliver it in a way that makes me smile.

Good movies of this sort (like "The Usual Suspects" for example) always benefit from repeated viewings. Repeats help me understand all of the twists and the cons, and I see how it all holds up plot and story wise. This movie will probably not hold up on repeated viewings. It is definitely worth watching once though. However, it does get a bit convoluted at times, and I fear that repeat viewings would further expose potential plot holes. Best to sit through it once. Try not to think too much about it and just enjoy the ride.

What did you think?

Slither, she said 1.0

2006-04-11T15:52:00.000-04:00

ok, I don't like scary movies and I most certainly did not like this one. I did like Shawn of the Dead but this was not at all sufficient sequel for these directors/ writers. The graphic were dreadful - though I suspect that they were supposed to be that way...I did not find any humor in the lack of CGI quality.

I do grant that the non-monster scenes were well acted and fairly well written. While my dear counterpart did laugh often I found nothing funny even in the non-monster bits.

The end of the movie seemingly digressed into un-dead people meandering purposefully toward that chick (whatever her name is). Ummm, that seems a bit familiar. Oh, yes, that movie "Shawn of the Dead". There was really nothing new about this movie except for the way the un-dead became un-dead.

I hate being scared!

Slither, he said 4.0

2006-04-05T19:21:00.000-04:00

"Slither" joins the ranks of "Shaun of the Dead" and "Gremlins" as being one of the few horror-comedies to successfully deliver both laughs and creeps. Air Supply's "You're Every Woman in the World" has never been as funny or creepy as it is in this movie. It's not unusual to laugh out loud during supposedly scary movies, but unlike many of them, "Slither" is in on the joke.

Director James Gunn knows better than to try to take this stuff seriously at all. The special effects never even try to look realistic. But he knows how to make a very fun movie. Nathan Fillion (our beloved Captain Mal) stars as small-town sheriff Bill Pardy who must lead a small group of citizens against the rest of the town who has been taken over by aliens and turned into zombies.

The movie also seems to make fun of the amount of gratuitous sex in most horror movies by making all of the alien attack scenes look bizarrely like sex scenes. And the aliens themselves look rather like parts of the human anatomy that would earn a NC-17 rating.

The cast are all capable at mocking the acting found in oldschool B-movie creature features. Fillion is great as usual. I highly recommend this movie for people who enjoy fun horror movies an but are fed up with all of the recent crap coming out lately that just takes itself way too seriously, thus failing to be fun or scery (see my review of "Stay Alive"). It's great fun, and the credits include a hilarious song .

What did you think?

GUY'S NIGHT OUT: Stay Alive, he said 0.0

2006-04-02T16:24:00.001-04:00

This movie does earn slight kudos simply for not being a remake of a horror movie. However, the idea behind it (a video game where if you die in the game you die in real life) is ripped off from the "First Person Shooter" episode of The X-Files.

The movie is filled with the ominous sound of a RumblePak and chilling image of Anna from "The OC's" ribs (seriously, girl needs to eat a sandwich). It opens with Jess from "Gilmore Girls" meeting his end at the hands of a yet-to-be-released video game called "Stay Alive." Then his friend, Ben from "life as we know it," gets hold of it and plays it with his friends who include Anna from "The OC," Malcolm from "Malcolm in the Middle," Brooke from "One Tree Hill," and Chris from "24: Day 2." We see most of them die in typical "Dead Teenager Movie" (term borrowed from Roger Ebert) fashion and a few stay alive of course because we wouldn't want the title to be a lie now would we (and we need victims for the obligatory sequel)?

This movie was quite bad. I was more entertained watching other people in the theater actually be scared of it. A more appropriate title would have been "I Know What Teen TV Actors Did Last Summer." Or "Stay Awake" which was the challenge for me.

What did you think?

GUY'S NIGHT OUT: 16 Blocks, he said 5.0

2006-03-30T21:22:00.000-05:00

Richard Donner is among my favorite directors for two reasons. He directed "Superman: The Movie," one of my all-time favorite movies that I think is often vastly underappreciated by current audiences. He also directed "The Goonies," another personal favorite that has more to do with my own nostalgia than the movie itself (although it is right fun). Other than those, Donner has had some highs (Scrooged), some lows (Timeline), and some decent, entertaining movies (Conspiracy Theory). I went into "16 Blocks" expecting a diverting action thriller akin to "Conspiracy Theory." What I saw was so much more.

I love when you go into a movie expecting one thing and end up seeing something much better. Like I said, I was predicting that this movie would be something like Donner's previous "Conspiracy Theory" with perhaps a little buddy comedy like his "Lethal Weapon" series thrown in as well. I am glad to report that it is not like either of those. "16 Blocks" is a gripping character study disguised as an action thriller.

The movie starts with washed-up Detective Jack Mosely (Bruce Willis) just coming off an overnight shift. He is tired and intoxicated and on his way home when his lieutenant orders him to escort Eddie, a prisoner (Mos Def) the titular 16 blocks to the court where he is due to testify in 118 minutes. Jack reluctantly agrees but he makes a pitstop at a liquor store on the way. When he emerges from the store, he sees Eddie being held at gunpoint. Jack shoots the gunman. Turns out Eddie is set to testify against some dirty cops. If this happens, it will implicate the entire precinct. Therefore, these cops are not going to allow Eddie to make it to court. Jack wearily chooses to do the right thing and protect Eddie. This plunges them into a real-time cat and mouse chase to get to the courthouse ontime and alive. The 16 blocks they must traverse are crawling with dirty cops led by Jack's former partner, Frank (David Morse).

Jack is burned out and washed up. He is never sober. We learn that he was once a pretty good cop but now he is reduced to babysitting asignments and no one in the department respects him. He has destroyed all of the relationships in his life and he just wishes "life was a little bit shorter." As he and Eddie are pursued by Frank, we gradually learn more about their past partnership. What happened that caused them to no longer be friends? Why is Frank now a hotshot and Jack an embarassment? Is Eddie really being honest with Jack? Did what he claims to have witnessed really happen? Is today really his birthday? If Jack can't do anything right, why is he so concerned about trying to do the right and good thing with Eddie? And can people really change? These are all questions that were racing through my mind as I was completely engrossed in this movie.

Like "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada," this movie is a sort of redemption story. Jack has not always done the right thing, but he is attempting to make amends through on this morning. In his final confrontation with Frank, we are given a great illustration of the "cosmic battle" between truth and lie. Jack is repentant for the wrongs he has done in the past and is now defending the truth. He is standing opposite of Frank who is deperately trying to hold onto the lies he has conceived and get Jack to play along. Jack wants truth, and Frank says "F--- the truth!" It is a chilling scene that reminds us of the confrontation that surrounds ut at all times.

Donner directs the movie with a very capable but unassuming manner. His TV roots really show at times, and that is a good thing since he knows when to slow down for a revealing conversation, a luxury more often seen in TV than in movies of this type. Donner turns 76 this month and his direction shows the wisdom that comes with age. He doesn't do anything new, but what he does is top notch. The acting by all three leading men is top notch. Mos Def manages to create a character that is at once funny, annoying, and mysterious. Morse makes a great villain without being over the top about it. Willis, one of my favorite actors, is fantastic as Jack. Willis has a way of making what could easily be, and often are, hackneyed characters compelling. In his review of this movie, Roger Ebert does a good job of capturing in words one of the things I really enjoy about Bruce Willis:

The bedrock of the plot is the dogged determination of the Bruce Willis character. Jack may be middle-aged, he may be tired, he may be balding, he may be a drunk, but if he's played by Bruce Willis you don't want to bet against him. He gets that look in his eye that says: It's going to be a pain in the ass for me to do this, but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't. I always I believe that more easily than the look that merely says: I will prevail because this is an action picture and I play the hero.

What did you think?

GUY'S NIGHT OUT: The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, he said 5.0

2006-03-30T00:17:00.000-05:00

"The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada" is actor Tommy Lee Jones' theatrical directorial debut and the first great movie of the year. It is a movie that completely envelopes you in its world, a world that is mundane and fascinating at the same time. Jones finds beauty in what many would describe as boring. Both in the lives of the citizens of a small Texas border town and the landscapes that surround them.

The story shows that every human life is of value. It is a captivating story of both the beauty and absurdity of life and a moving portrait of redemption. The movie begins when two men discover a coyote digging up a body in the desert. This body was that of Mexican cowboy Melquiades Estrada (Julio Cedillo). The first half of the movie shows intercutting stories of how Melquiades came to Texsas and was hired by Pete (Jones), how their friendship formed, new Border Patrol agent Mike Norton (Barry Pepper) and his young wife Lou Ann (January Jones) moving to town, how Melquiades was killed by Mike, the non-investigation into his death by Sheriff Belmont (Dwight Yoakam), local waitress Rachel's affairs with both Belmont and Pete, how Melquiades was seeing Lou Ann, Pete's investigation into Melquiades' death, and the first two burials. This part of the story immerses the audience into the slow and simple pace of life on the border. We meet the townfolks and see how they fill their lives with work and recreational "trouble."

Once Pete discovers that Mike is responsible for the death of Melquiades, the movie really kicks into gear. Pete kidnaps Mike and the two set off for Mexico on horseback (pursued by the Border Patrol) to fulfill a promise to bury Mel (the third titular burial) in his hometown of Jiminez. But this is not a story of vengeance, rather, it is a story of redemption. The story is almost completely linear from here on out and the small town setting is replaced by beautiful countryside. There are lots of long lingering shots of the landscapes that underscore the nature of this journey. It is a journey of redemption as Mike must literally walk in Mel's shoes.

When so many movies are filled with death left and right, it is refreshing to see a movie that focuses on the effects of one man's death, a seemingly "unimportant" man, on the lives of those around him. The movie is a demonstration of the importance of every man's life. It also shows the absurdity of life and death (the movie is filled with black humor such as when Pete pumps antifreeze into the mouth of his friend's corpse in order to preserve it for the remainder of the journey). It shows the importance of relationships (see the haunting request of the old man who had no one). It shows a moving journey of redemption. And it teaches one to value the good things in life (a soap opera plays a touching role in Mike's journey). It is filled with interesting characters who are connected in unexpected, but not coincidental, ways.

Judging by box office receipts, very few people have seen (or are even aware of) this movie, which is why I have spent more time than usual describing the plot. I strongly encourage everyone who has the chance to to see this movie.

What did you think?

Failure to Launch, he said 0.0

2006-03-29T23:24:00.000-05:00

There are two essential components of a good romantic comedy: romance and comedy. This aptly titled movie fails at both. In order for one to "buy" a romance story, one must feel connected to the characters involved in the relationship. One needs to be able to relate to or empathize with them. One has to care about whether or not they get together in the end. "Failure to Launch" (which felt like the longest movie I've ever watched) gives us two contemptible leads and then expects us to enjoy watching a "romance" unfold that even the characters realize they are faking it.

Tripp (Matthew McConaughey) is a manboy that deserves to be slapped around and told to "grow up and be a man" and Paula (Sarah Jessica Parker) is being paid to be in the relationship as part of some bizarre "job" the movie has made up for her. Let's see taking money to spend time with men, be their "arm candy," and have sex with them. I call that a prostitute, but the movie calls it a recipe for laughs. But something went horribly wrong in the kitchen. The only thing that was remotely funny was the character of Kit (Zooey Deschanel). Her drunken and violent moodswings brought on by a mocking bird outside her window were slightly amusing but nowhere near funny enough to justify this movie's existence.

McConaughey and Parker do not have an iota of chemistry. A burning question I had while watching this movie is "Should we even consider McConaughey an actor anymore?" Yeah, he was pretty decent in "Dazed and Confused" and "Frailty," but he doesn't even seem to be trying anymore. Parker is an actress who annoys me and I have never found her attractive for some reason I can't quite figure out (though I think my mom nailed it saying she is "horsey"). Kathy Bates is one of my favorite actresses and it was heartbreaking to see her phoning it in here. I felt like everyone in the cast was fully aware of how crappy this movie was going to be so they just decided to see how much worse they could make it. And I saw way too much of Terry Bradshaw. I will never be able to look at "NFL Sunday" the same way again.

I was told that as a Child and Family Development major I would enjoy this movie's take on the recent social trend of renesting and "adultescence." I am interested in these topics (and in avoiding these trends in my own life), and I was interested in seeing what this movie had to say about them. The answer is nothing. The movie is like that annoying guy in class who always has to say something but doesn't really have anything to add to the discussion because he doesn't really know what he's talking about. You know the guy? Right? Patricia? The movie pats itself on the back for being "socially aware," but all it manages to say is "there is a problem." It says nothing about the problem or life for that matter. A more sophisticated romantic comedy, such as "As Good As It Gets," would have given us something to ponder about. This...nada.

Now, don't think that I hated this movie just because it's a "chick flick" and I'm a dude. I generally don't like labeling a movie as a "guy" or "girl" movie anyway, and I do like good romantic comedies. My favorites include the aforementioned "As Good As It Gets," "When Harry Met Sally...," "Chasing Amy," and the lighter "Return to Me" (with both Fox Mulder and Archie Bunker!). It's just that this movie is not a good romantic comedy. In fact, it's pretty terrible, and most of them over the last several years have been the same way.

(Note: I am about to generalize about the opposite sex. Ladies, I know that many of you have good taste in movies so please don't hate me. I'm generalizing to make a point.)
This movie opened number one at the box office two weeks ago and has remained in the top five. Why do women keep supporting dreck like this? The more money people spend going to see crap, the more crap gets made. I wish that women would rally around good "chick flicks" and shun junk like this.

Many of my female aquaintances justify their liking movies like this by saying that they don't care about the story they'll just see anything with (Insert Male Star) because he's hot, they want a movie that makes them "feel good," ,and they don't want to "have to think about it." Funny, I've heard people describe pornography the same way.

What did you think about this movie?

Failure to Launch, she said 1.5

2006-03-29T16:23:00.000-05:00

Yes, I admit it, Failure to Launch, was my pick this week. As a female, anything with the Hottie McHotterson Matthew McConaughey is worth 5.50. This classic tale of girl dating guy for money (this has also been seen as ‘on a dare’), then boy falls for girl, girl denies that she is falling for boy, boy finds out that girl is a liar, boy’s heart is broken, boy breaks up with girl in dramatic scene, But he still loves girl, girl realized she can’t live without him, friends rally behind two and get them together in the end….I have seen this movie a thousand times and every time I say, “how ridiculous.” Yet, I keep comin’ back for more!

I felt there were far to ‘bits’ with animals that were painfully symbolic….I mean, not only were the graphics bad but it was shove-it-down-your-throat obvious when symbolism is not even necessary in a romantic comedy. This part I want to throw pop corn at the screen. The desperation was palpable.

Zooey Deschanel and the other side kick were really the only enjoyable part of the movie. What I did like about the movie was its ability to make social alcoholism funny. I would love to hear a kid say, “Mommy, I want a bud light, just kit.” I here by proclaim Champagne Thursdays in the Thompson/Roberson/Rodgers household. Brandon you are more than welcome to join. She did cause me to have a laugh-out-loud/ snort-out-loud moment.

If it is raining outside on Saturday afternoon and there is nothing on tv and your netflix has not arrived and this movie comes on I say half watch it while reading and article in US weekly.

GUY'S DAY OUT: Raiders of the Lost Ark, he said 5.0

2006-03-25T21:54:00.000-05:00

Our fair city played host to Robert Osborne's Classic Film Festival this weekend. There was a very good selection of movies being shown on the big screen. I really wish I could have gone to all of them or at least more of them. I only got to go to the free Saturday matinee. However, it gave me the chance to finally see one of my all-time favorite movies on the big screen. The afternoon was a complete old school theatre-going experience complete with balconies, ushers, a packed theatre completely engaged (no conversations or cell phones here), laughter and applause, and even a cartoon (the classic "What's Opera, Doc?"). There was also an introduction by Robert Osborne himself and a post-film Q&A session with casting director Mike Fenton. It really felt like I was seeing the movie again for the first time. What can I say about "Raiders of the Lost Ark" that has not already been said? Nothing. The movie is a classic that has been seen by almost everybody and their grandma. It's considered a national treasure (it was added to the National Film Registry in 1999). It has spawned two sequels (with an oft-discussed third on the horizon), a television series, at least four book series, a comic book, several video games, a Disney World attraction, numerous homages, and much, much more. Therefore, I will not attempt to write a review of this movie. There's no possible way I could even try to be objective about it anyway. This movie is more than partly responsible for at least two of the five majors I have attempted in college (anthropology and religion. And I 'm certain it influenced me being a film major too). So instead, I present a list of things I love about "Raiders of the Lost Ark," in no particular order.

John Williams' score. Giant spiders. The Nazi monkey. John Rhys-Davies as Sallah. "Didn't any of you guys ever go to Sunday School?" The 1930s fashions. The whip. That big ol' boulder. Marion's ability to outdrink any man. Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood. "It belongs in a museum." Indy trying to squeeze into a too small Nazi uniform. The burned image on Toht's hand. Snakes (why'd it have to be snakes?). The truck chase. Indy shooting the swordsman. "They're digging in the wrong place!" The silhouette of Indiana entering Marion's bar. Melting Nazis. The red lines moving across the map. Dr. Jones' adoring co-ed students. And that one dude who gives him the apple. "Top...men." Denholm Elliot as Brody. That enormous Nazi who gets chopped up by the propeller. Indy's Arab disguise. Marion decking Indy. "Where doesn't it hurt?" Katanga's crew cheering Indy on as he stows away on the Nazi submarine. How the Paramount logo turns into the mountain in the opening scene. The hat! Sallah mispronouncing Belloq's name. To avoid the wrath of God, close your eyes. The Ark of the Covenant. The leather jacket. Indy with a bazooka. The jokes. "Good God!"..."Yes, that's what the Hebrews thought." The natives. Indy's spelling capabilities. Those creepy clouds while they are digging for the Ark. Toht's coat hanger. Indy turning over all the baskets. "It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage." Sallah's singing. Hey, it's Alfred Molina. Indy's home. Booby traps. Bad dates. Pirates. Assassins. Mercenaries. The hints at the past relationship between Indy and Marion. "Professor of archeology, expert on the occult, and how does one say it? Obtainer of rare antiquities." The special effects. George Lucas. Steven Spielberg. Harrison Ford as Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones, Jr. And of the coolest closing scenes ever.

These are just a few of the many things I love about "Raiders of the Lost Ark!" Do you love this movie too? What are your favorite aspects of the movie? I want to know. Just please never refer to it as "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark!" That is NOT the name of the movie regardless of what was printed on the cover of the video and DVD release. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

As you can probably tell, I had a lot of fun geeking out over one of my favorite movies ever this afternoon.

V for Vendetta, she said 4.5

2006-03-23T14:15:00.000-05:00

V for Vendetta speaks to a wide audience. With dynamite deployment, a dedicated detective, delicate and determined dame, and a delightful don in disguise the film’s dailies are decidedly delightful, dutiful and delectable. There is a nod to the amazing opening soliloquy of V. There are so many things to talk about with this movie the acting, the editing, the special effects and the highly political overarching theme.

Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving play Evey and V respectively. Weaving has a way with words; I venture to say that very few actors could deliver such a complete performance without the use facial expressions. With a slight tilt of the head or raise of the shoulder Weaving was able to translate a verity of V’s emotions through the big screen. Portman’s performance was middle of the road. I have seen her perform better and worse. Evey will not be nearly as memorable as V.

I did feel that the movie was a bit long. If there is one thing I would change about the movie, I would cut about 15-20 minutes and simultaneously add more fluidity throughout the film. There were three major parts: Evey before V, Evey with V, and Evey in Jail/ a big explosion…..maybe the movie was not that blocky but something similar.

The feel of the movie didn’t need ‘Matrix’ special effect so the directors left them out. The lack of special effects gave the movie a more believable tone, contributing to the director’s intent of the actually possibilities of these happenings. The one special effect that I really enjoyed was V’s knife trail (I don’t know the technical term but I thought that it was awesome).

If you didn’t catch it, this movie had a political message attached to it…who says the media has a liberal biased? Not me. If you didn’t catch the political stance of the movie….ummm, were you sleeping? I will not use this movie to go on a political rant; however, I will say that the movie gives the viewer something to think about. No matter the slant of the movie, I enjoy a film that gives you something to take home and chew on. You diffidently get you money’s worth when the movie stays with you longer than two hours.

I really enjoyed this film and highly recommend V for Vendetta. I didn't give it a full 5.0 because of the editing.

Remember, you can’t kill and idea!

V for Vendetta, he said 3.0

2006-03-21T22:25:00.000-05:00

Although writer Alan Moore had his name completely removed from the film adaptation of his comic book "V for Vendetta," his fingerprints are all over it. For full disclosure I must confess that although I am a huge comic fan, I am only a relatively recent Moore fan. I have read his DC Universe stories (LOVED "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and "Killing Joke" is THE best Joker story ever) and "Watchmen" (which is arguably his masterpiece). Still the movie "V for Vendetta" contains many of the same trademarks of Moore's other comic writings. Notably, the story takes a traditional comic book style setup, a masked vigilante motivated by the horrors of his past, and twists them to show the underlying philosophies and potential for darkness. Other stylistic elements common to Moore's work include recurring background man-on-the-street characters (the people watching TV), signs and graffiti with important messages, dialogue from one scene flowing into the next, dense dialogue, and not a wasted frame that doesn't add layers to the story.

"V for Vendetta," the comic, is on my to-read stack and now I am even more eager to read it because even though the movie seemed very much like an Alan Moore story, it also seemed very much like a Wachowski Brothers story. The creators of "The Matrix" are responsible for writing and producing this movie and, like their previous trilogy, this movie contains lots of stylized and cool looking fight sequences, dystopian futuristic design, and lots of talkin' 'bout ideas and philosophies.

This last element is not a bad thing. In fact, it's probably my favorite thing about the movie. I am interested in reading the comic to see what ideas are in Moore's original story and what was added by the Wachowskis. Watching the movie, one can very easily take it as a commentary on current events. In fact, much of the media is portraying it that way. However, the comic was first published in the early 80s so I feel that many people need to heed J.R.R. Tolkien's advice about not confusing applicability with allegory. If Moore was writing in response to anything, it was much more likely that he was writing against the administration of Margaret Thatcher. (After writing this, I am told by others who have read the comic that quite a bit has been changed. Moore's story is apparently about absolute opposites of complete facism against complete anarchy. The Wachowskis have changed much of the story to be an anti-conservative, anti-Bush "fable"). Comics 101's Scott Tipton provides a nice rundown of the comic for those interested.

Which brings me to another caution one must consider when looking at the film. Moore and his story are British, not American. One will gain much out of this movie if he has a basic understanding of British history, particularly the topic of Guy Fawkes, his failed revolution, and the "holiday" that bears his name. The movie opens with Fawkes and a poem about him, the main action takes place on Guy Fawkes Day, and V's mask is Fawkes' face.

Before I attempt to tackle some of the "message" of the movie, allow me to comment on some of the more concrete elements of the movie. The overall look of the movie is one I really dig. It has a futuristic look without being over the top about it (there are no flying cars). I was reminded of the feel of many 80s sci-fi movies which I felt was appropriate considering that is the decade that the comic was released in. The color schemes reflect the oppression found in the movie. The movie is bit too long and perhaps too talky. It started to really drag in the middle, but it does pick up at the end. A bit more editing would not have been a bad thing.

Hugo Weaving does an excellent job of creating a lead character whose face we never see. Throughout the entire movie, Weaving is behind an unmoving mask. He effectively uses his voice and body language to create the character of V. His alliterative introduction is fantastic! Natalie Portman, or Padme as I am fond of calling her, is good as Evey. I am somewhat sick of this movie being promoted simply as "the movie Natalie Portman shaved her head for," but you can see it happen here folks! I like her better with hair. The rest of the cast is solid too.

V is an intriguing character. Though he is portrayed as a kind of superhero, he is actually a terrorist. I found myself amused by him and at times, almost wanting to like him, but then he would commit another act and I would be aghast at his actions (particularly what he does to Evey). I could not really relate to Evey either for many of the same reasons. The only character I was really able to connect with was Finch (Stephen Rea), the investigator looking into V, but I felt that he was not given enough screen time to really be the anchor that he is. He begins to question his government and the lies it hides behind, but he still tries to do the right thing (at least until the end).

Now, on to the "meat" of the movie. I hesitate to do this because there is a lot to ponder in this movie, and I definitely would like to watch it again (or several more times) to gain a better understanding of all of it (like "The Matrix"). However, I do know that much of the philosophy of this movie didn't sit right with me because it is not true. The movie is filled with moral relativism. It raises questions (or at least attempts to) about the nature of terrorism and freedom. What makes the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? The movie seems to say that it's just a matter of perspective. This bothers me. Using this philosophy, one could say there is no difference between the American revolutionaries who instigated the Boston Tea Party and the 9/11 plane hijackers. I cannot equate the two. Doing so would mean that all morals are equal and that there is no right and wrong. This is false. There is right. And there is wrong. There is truth. And there are lies. The movie jumbles them all up and at least somewhat, leaves it up to the viewer to decide what is correct.

If the ambiguity that the movie (or at least much of the media surrounding its release) claims to have were actually there, I might admire it more. I like a story that raises questions for the audience to think about but doesn't tell the audience what they should think. I feel that this movie attempted to do this or wanted to give the air of doing this, but I couldn't help but be bashed over the head with the typical "Conservatives are bad. Liberals are good" rhetoric. And it is not thinly veiled at all.

One idea I can agree with the movie on is the importance of words and their meanings. V and others make reference to how the meaning of words changed as freedom was eroded. This reflects the importance of language. I read this last summer and now I cannot find the author of this quote (I believe it was Francis Schaeffer. I was reading a lot of Schaeffer at the time and this sounds like him but it may not be), but it says:

If you can control how people talk, you can control how they think and what they believe.

Take a look at Noah Webster's original 1828 dictionary and compare the definitions to a contemporary one. Then compare the underlying philosophies of then and now and you will get the idea that this person and this movie are making. We need to be willing to guard our definitions as closely as our freedoms.

This movie challenges many of our ideas and definitions about the nature of terrorism. I think that challenging ideas can be a good thing, but we must use careful discernment in how we process this. We still must think for ourselves and not allow a movie, book, etc. to tell us what to think and believe.

In reading other people's opinions about this movie today, I have noticed many unwarranted superlatives being used in both directions. Some claim this to be among the worst movies ever. Many claim it to be among the best. One message board post I read claimed "I hope this movie changes the world." I couldn't help but laugh. Despite claims of being revolutionary, this movie in the end is simply another manufactured Hollywood movie. Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman relays this thought better than I can so I will close with that:

Coming out of V for Vendetta, a friend of mine called it ''radical'' and ''subversive.'' He was awestruck with disbelief that a film with a harlequin terrorist as its hero could actually be released by a major American studio. I was awestruck at his naïveté in a world where fight-the-power anarchy is now marketed as a fashionable identity statement — by the corporations that helped raise a generation on bands like Rage Against the Machine, by the armchair-leftist bloggers who flog the same righteousness day after day. V for Vendetta has a playful-demon vitality, but it's designed to let political adolescents of every age congratulate themselves. It's rage against the machine by the machine.
Entertainment Weekly, 3/15/06

And to those interested in reading some of Moore's work, "Watchmen" is better. Here's praying they never turn it into a movie.

This movie has given me alot to think about and I'm sure it has done the same for you. I want to hear it. What did you think about "V for Vendetta?"

Transamerica, he said 4.0

2006-03-20T21:35:00.000-05:00

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to our many hypothetical fans for my/our sporadic posting as of late. As Patricia noted, we have both been very busy these last few months and Tuesday Movie Night has become highly erratic and rarely on Tuesdays. So, my busy schedule combined with the fact that I have not really cared about most of the movies we have seen lately (thus making me not eager to write about them) is my excuse for my lack of posts recently. Since Patricia ignored "Eight Below," I am going to as well. I will say that I enjoyed it and was entertained by it, but I have pretty much completely forgotten about now. While not bad, it's not really worth a trip to the theater (or even a rental really), but it will be a nice Saturday-night-with-nowhere-to-go-let's-see-what's-on-Disney-Channel movie (I would give it a 2.0 or 3.0, depending on my mood). All that being said, let's move on to the movie in discussion today, "Transamerica."

Dolly Parton's Oscar nominated (and robbed) song "Travelin' Thru" made me want to see this movie. I had heard all of the buzz about Felicity Huffman's performance, etc., but I was left largely unmoved by any of it. Then, I heard Dolly's song (thanks to the free download on iTunes!). Not to overpraise the song (it's good, but hardly among Dolly's best), but I love Dolly Parton and her song helped me get a better grasp of what the movie was about.

What the movie is about is dealing with all of the effects one's family and upbringing have on his or her life and how one chooses to cope with that as an adult in his quest for meaning and happiness in life. This idea is manifested in the movie in the form of Bree (Felicity Huffman), a transsexual on the verge of a sex change operation. A week before the scheduled surgery, Bree gets a phone call from a teenage son (Kevin Zegers) she never knew she had. Bree's therapist forces her to deal with this issue so Bree sets off for New York to bail her son out of jail. A cross-country road trip follows that explores Bree's past and Toby's past as we follow their budding relationship. The trip involves inevitable pitstops at the childhood homes of both Bree and Toby in which we learn much about why these characters are the way they are now. As someone who studies families, I found lots to analyze in these scenes.

The movie does a good job of defining the characters, making them seem like real people, and making me care about them. A teenage hustler and his transsexual father sound like outrageous characters meant for a cheap comedy. Although the movie is somewhat of a "dramedy," (and there are quite a few laughs) the characters are moved far beyond caricatures or types and made into complex individuals.

This is a very enjoyable movie that combines a fun, comedic roadtrip with an intense character study. While the roadtrip to discover oneself it nothing new, the movie presents it with a fresh voice that is supported by very solid acting from all involved. The soundtrack is filled with folksy, twangy music that really captures the spirit of backroads America and of course, Dolly closes the film with the aptly titled "Travelin' Thru." Thanks Dolly for motivating me to see this movie.

I hereby publicly resolve to be better about posting reviews from here out. Patricia's habits seem to have rubbed off on me. Tomorrow night, we are seeing "V For Vendetta," a movie I am actually very interested in. And I still have to see "16 Blocks" (by one of my fave directors, Richard Donner). So maybe now we finally coming out of the late winter dry/early spring dry spell we movie fans must suffer through each year.

One more thing:
CONGRATULATIONS PATRICIA ON BEING ACCEPTED TO GRADUATE SCHOOL AT PERDUE!!!

What did you think? Has a song ever made you decide to see the movie before?

Transamerica, she said 3.0

2006-03-13T14:31:00.000-05:00

So, I took a vacation. I traveled to the mid-west and thankfully made it back. Brandon and I, because of out hectic schedule, temporarily moved Tuesday Movie Night to Sunday Movie Matinee. My number one choice for this week was vetoed so I was forced to pick another. Transamerica is the humorous and tragic story of a transsexual traveling across the country with ‘her’ recently discovered hustler son. Felicity Huffman performed a she-man with remarkable easy and Kevin Zegers played a white trash17 year old boy named Toby longing to make it big in LA as a Porn Actor…

The 80’s inspired costume design accented the trashy and awkward overtone of the movie. Bree’s oversized bows juxtaposed the unwashed wizard t-shit Toby wore through the majority of the movie. The pace of the movie staled out in the endless trek Bree and Toby took from New York to L.A. The actors, from the grandmother, to the therapist, to Bree, sold their characters with such truth that throughout most of the movie I found my self cringing with both embarrassment for the character and personal shock. The entire situation was extremely uncomfortable and that penetrated through the screen. The directors were seemingly on a shock and awe campaign with nudity. As I have said before, I have no problem with nudity in a film as long as it blends seamlessly with the movie. The majority of the frontal nudity popped-up (teeheehee) out of no where and was quite a shocker.

Overall Transamerica was good. The characters were real which was refreshing. The middle was boring…but, a travel movie is hard to pull off because of the required time in a movie car with two or three people.

If she picked the winners...

2006-03-03T08:28:00.000-05:00

Best Supporting Actor: George Clooney, Syriana
not only was the movie intellectually stimulating but Clooney did a great job - however, over all in this category I am not that impressed

Best Supporting Actress: Rachel Wiesz, The constant Gardener
I personally think that this category is stacked. i would be satisfied if any of these ladies were given the award with the exception of Michelle
Best Actor: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
I personally think he is one of the best actors of our time and whether he wins or not he is by far the best actor in this category.

Best Actress: Kira Knightly, Pride and Prejudice
She is a dream to watch on the big screen. This was a great performance for a classic story.

Best Picture: Crash
by far one of the most riveting movies this year. I hope it wind...if not, I may cry

Even if the academy doesn't agree with me, we all know that I am right!

Who would you pick?

If he picked the winners...

2006-02-27T19:49:00.000-05:00

The Academy Awards are coming this weekend, and for the most part, I think the nominated pictures this year are largely ho-hum. Add that to host Jon Stewart who annoys me to no end and it is the culmination of an awards season I just don't really care about. All that aside, here are my picks for some top categories. Now these are not who I think is going to win (that belongs to the nominee with the most connections and best advertising campaign!). Rather, these are who would win if I were the sole voter.

Best Supporting Actor: Matt Dillon, Crash
The only nominated performer from an all-around award worthy cast.
Best Supporting Actress: Amy Adams, Junebug
This is the only category that I really am invest in this year. If Amy Adams does not win, I will be emotionally devastated (at least for a little while, after that I'll just rant about anytime I discuss the Oscars with anyone).
Best Actor: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Hoffman doesn't "become" Capote before our eyes. From the moment we see him, he is Capote.
Best Actress: Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
A lovely performance from a lovely lady.
Best Picture: Crash
A challenging movie that challenges and haunts.

Here's hoping the Academy actually agrees with me!

Who would you pick?

Capote, he said 4.0

2006-02-27T19:41:00.000-05:00

"Capote" is a good film, but not a great one. I enjoyed the movie, but I am kind of surprised that it was nominated for Best Picture (not that I really put a lot of stock into the Academy). The movie just didn't pack any kind of "oomph" be it visually, emotionally, thoughtfully, etc. But it was not bad.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman, however, is great. I completely understand his nomination and would not mind seeing him win Best Actor. Chris Cooper and more round out a very competent cast.

The stark visual look of the movie appropriately mirrors the nature of the crime Capote is researching and his character.

I don't have much to say about this movie. I'm pretty late in seeing it so there is already more than enough written about it elsewhere. Sorry, I'm just not that into writing more right now.

What did you think?

Nanny McPhee, she said 4.0

2006-02-20T15:13:00.000-05:00

I know, I know. The two fans we have are very upset that we have been so slack in posting. But here is a brief opinion about this movie and I promise I will get much better.

Emma Thompson plays a magical nanny that claims, “When you need me and don’t want me – I will be there. However, when you want me and don’t need me – that is when I will leave”….or something like that. The movie pulled on the heart stings more than I had anticipated. Also unexpected, the storyline and characters were well more developed and original. The mischievous children feared an evil step-mother and therefore scared everyone off, except Nanny McPhee. With a stop of her gnarled cane she could right wrongs, influence time,
While there was emotion there were many funny moment too. There was a bit with cake at the end and some humor about knocking on the door (you will have to see it, and written explanation doesn’t do it justice). The most impressive aspect of the movie was the clarity and combination of colors. The audacious and creative art direction works for the film because the book bound fairytale images are able to come to life on the big screen. Each character and set has a distinctive color scheme that popped off the screen.
span>

Nanny McPhee, he said 4.0

2006-02-16T18:43:00.000-05:00

This may be a traditionally dry time in theaters, but there are some really solid family movies coming out this year. This movie, like "Hoodwinked," came as a complete surprise to me. A charming fairy tale, this movie star and was written by Emma Thompson.

Thompson, Colin Firth, Imelda Staunton, and Angela Lansbury all play extremely fun characters as do the other actors. I really liked the set design which was similar to that seen in "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfirtunate Events" with its Burtonish feel. The movie is very sweet and very funny with lots of heart.

What did you think?

GUY'S NIGHT OUT: Firewall, he said 3.0

2006-02-12T18:19:00.000-05:00

Harrison Ford is one of my favorite actors ever. Since childhood, I have loved Ford. Unfortunately, he has made few good movies since the turn of the century. This doesn't really break that trend, but this was a fun outing to the theater with my dad.

"Firewall" breaks no new ground. Don't think about it too much or you will ruin it. The cast makes the material better than it is. Ford, Paul Bettany, Virginia Madsen, and another favorite of mine, Robert Patrick are all solid as usual. To my surprise Mary Lyn Rajskub was in the movie. To those who don't know, she plays Chloe O'Brien on TV's "24" and is a TV crush of mine. Jimmy Bennett who is becoming one of my favorite child actors plays much the same character he played in "Hostage" last year. Don't you wish you could have been a cartoon character, on a TV show, and in movies with Bruce Willis and Harrison Ford by the time you were ten?

Again, there is nothing special about this movie, but it is enjoyable as escapist action fare.

What did you think?

Hoodwinked, he said 4.0

2006-02-09T22:20:00.000-05:00

I've gotten really behind on writing these things lately so I am going to do a few rapid fire reviews to get caught up. "Hoodwinked" was a very fun movie. It was made with a much smaller budget than most animated movies, and this shows as the computer animation looks very rough compared to the likes of Pixar. Still, I liked the character designs for the Wolf, the frog, the squirrel, and the bunny (Never trust a bunny).

The humor was very good. I appreciated that the movie was funny for both kids and adults but never resulted to innuendo, toilet humor, or profanity such as other so-called family movies of late (i.e. Shrek). Also, unlike many recent animated movies, there were songs! And they were funny. The film features a fun and unusual soundtrack.

The voice cast was also good.

This movie was a pleasant surprise. I didn't really expect much out of it, but it delivered.
What did you think?

The Producers, she said 4.0

2006-02-06T19:48:00.000-05:00

The Producers Could NOT have been better with the exception of a private like stage performance; the brilliant casting, cleverly written screenplay, and the innovative direction of the musical numbers combine to make the producers unstoppable. Why I have not seen this on the stage I have no clue. – Though there is a part of me that fears the impact would diminish without the stellar performances of Nathan Lane and Matthew Brodrick.
I really dislike the seating in the dollar theater and I wish to not return for a while. However, I will concede that The Produces was worth the trip.

The Producers, he said 5.0

2006-02-02T12:28:00.000-05:00

So, we were back and then left again, but I think we are back to regularly scheduled movies now. Of course, this time of year that is not always something to look forward to. Fortunately, there are still a few end of the year releases for me to get around to during this cinematic famine. Case in point, "The Producers." This is the movie based on the musical based on the movie by Mel Brooks. Despite mediocre reviews by most critics, I must say that I have not laughed this much and this hard at any movie in quite awhile.

Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane reprise their roles from the original stage run. Sadly, I never got to see it on stage, but I finally got to see what all the fuss was about. These two have amazing comedic chemistry together. Uma Thurman, quite possibly my favorite modern film actress, joins the two as Ulla. She is hilarious in the role and beautiful as always. Will Ferrell somewhat redeems himself from a string of bad movies as the crazed Nazi playwright. Gary Beach steals every scene he is in as stage director Roger DeBris. The film is also littered with cameos by other comedic actors such as Jon Lovitz and Michael McKean. The acting is solid though there were times when I could tell that Lane's and Broderick's performances would come off much stronger on stage. On film, at times it's overacting, but this is a comedy musical, a genre where that is rarely a problem. They do a great job, but they fail to outdo the performers from the original movie. Johnny Depp may have bested Gene Wilder in 2005, but Matthew Broderick falls short despite being good in his own right.

The movie is just as funny as the original film, and for me, the added songs just added to the fun. The comedy is crude without being raunchy and is deliciously un-PC. The song "Keep It Gay" pulls out nearly every gay stereotype and provides possibly the funniest scene in the movie. Just wait until you see DeBris' production crew. Like in the original movie, the stage show "Springtime With Hitler" is deliciously crazy. I was rolling during this scene. I may be the only one, but I would love to see "Springtime for Hitler" turned into a full-length musical on its own. That would be so absurd!

This movie is the most laugh out loud funny movie made last year that I have seen. I am disappointed that it did not do as well as it deserved. Although I was forced to see it in a dollar theater, this movie is far more than a 3. If all the heavy drama of Oscar contenders and all of the crap released in the past few weeks have gotten you down, do yourself a favor and seek out a theater that is still showing this overlooked gem.

What did you think? Would you see an entire musical of "Springtime for Hitler?"

GUY'S NIGHT OUT: End of the Spear, he said 3.0

2006-01-22T19:52:00.000-05:00

I saw this movie last Saturday. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't really great. I waited too long to write this review because now I can't even remember much about it. Like what I liked and disliked. I would suggest this as a possible rental or dollar theater visit.

What did you think?

Last Holiday, he said 3.0

2006-01-21T10:45:00.000-05:00

I really like Queen Latifah. I think she is very talented and beautiful and to me, she is one of the few actresses working today who actually has the gravitas of what I consider to be a true "movie star" (whatever that means). Sadly, she has really not been blessed with the best roles to work with. Other than her fabulous turn as Mama in "Chicago," most of her roles (and the movies) have been pretty forgettable. However, Queen Latifah tends to do a good job of making the most of what she is given. In this remakes of the 1950s movie of the same name, she takes over the role of Sir Alec Guinness and produces my favorite Latifah character since Mama.

That said, the movie itself could have been a lot better. I liked its message and I found a lot of it very funny. I appreciated that it did not have to result to lewd and gross gags for cheap laughs. It's a comedy of manners and false assumptions which reminds me very much of classic comedies. Although the movie does not resort to crass humor, it does make full use of cheesy humor. One scene in particular involving snowboarding felt more like something from the Disney Channel.

I really loved Latifah's character of Georgia Byrd. The chef was funny. I liked seeing Georgia learn balance in her life. My favorite scene involves a passionate prayer from Georgia at church about her illness that the rest of the congregation turns into a rousing musical number.

"Last Holiday" is fun but simple movie with a life affirming message. Although the movie begins during the Christmas season, I think the studio was wise to hold off the release until January. Following all of the "heavy" releases at the end of the year, this movie made for a nice escapist trip to the cinema.

Note: Congrats, Patricia. You beat me. After such a long hiatus, I simply forgot about writing this.

What did you think?

all this will be invisible until you click on the title

Last Holiday, she said 2.0

2006-01-20T17:50:00.000-05:00

Guess who's back - back again. Yes ladies and gents, happy New Year and all the other holidays that were recently celebrated. I originally made a New Year's resolution to post on time but clearly that one has already be a miss so we will pretend nothing was said- I digress.

So, I will say that “Last Holiday” was a good mediocre film. Queen Latifah plays a square woman that set high goals and dreams and rather than acting on her wishes, she stores them in a book of ‘possibilities’. Misdiagnosed with a rare brain tumor, she is given three weeks to survive. Like any other red blooded American, she cashes in her savings and sets out to convert all of her possibilities into realities (cheers from the crowd). She buys a plane ticket to Europe – I think France – and proceeds to live it up at the grand European hotel the PUPP (pronounced 'poop'). She meets fabulous people, eats fabulous food and has the time of her life. Shockingly, (I use that word laden with sarcasm) she discovers she is not sick, marries the man of her dreams and consequently learns a valuable lesson of living your life to the fullest - or something like that. If only real life were that cliché!

Despite the rubber stamped plot line the movie was not bad. Gerard Depardieu, the impassionate French chef, added the perfect amount of cheese. Honestly, I had a hard time not staring at his nose - but he made me laugh nonetheless. I gave this film such a low rating because I really do not think you should waste your money in the theater...Netflix it. “Last Holiday” is the perfect rainy day/stay inside/ want to laugh but not think type of movie. Queue it today!

NOTE: I beat Brandon

Counting Down His Top 10 Favorite Movies of 2005

2006-01-11T17:30:00.000-05:00

1. Revenge of the Sith
What a fitting finale to the Star Wars saga! Those of you who know me know that I am slightly obsessed with Star Wars. I love it all even the flawed, but in my opinion, worthy prequels. After six years of me feeling the need to be a prequel apologist, Lucas finally showed everyone that he still has it in him to deliver a great fun (and dark) movie. "Revenge of the Sith" made me better appreciate the earlier prequels and see the original trilogy in a new light. For the first time ever, I am able to really view the saga as the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker (in fact, he's become one of my favorite characters). "Revenge of the Sith" perfectly bridged the gap between new and old, but it was also a great movie on its own. The tragedy builds throughout the movie, and Ian McDiarmid owns! We finally get to see Yoda take on the Sith, Alderaan, the Jedi purge, and Anakin versus Obi-Wan! And it was awesome!

2. Serenity
An enormously fun and sadly underwatched movie that resurrected Joss Whedon's "Firefly" 'verse. This movie is top-grade popcorn fun in the same vein as the Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies. If you have not seen this movie, you must get your hands on the newly released DVD. This a movie that few people I know have seen, but everyone I know that has seen it loved it! Hopefully this is not the last we have seen of the crew of Serenity.

3. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
Watching this faithful adaptation of C.S. Lewis' classic brings the same warmth and excitement as reading the book. Remarkable special effects and wonderful acting (notably Georgie Henley, William Moseley, and Tilda Swinton) create inspiring and frightening characters and spectacles. Upon my first viewing of this movie, I was just a little bit disappointed. I still loved it, but it just wasn't quite as good as I expected. However, after having now seen it several more times, the movie seems to get better with each viewing. This is a future family classic. It's already inspired a classic SNL sketch Hmm, I wonder how many more times I can use the word "classic" in this paragraph?

4. Batman Begins
This movie came as close to being like an actual Batman comic story than any that came before it. By being faithful to the story (for the most part) and respecting the source material (no camp), Christopher Nolan brought to the silver screen the same joy I get from reading each month's issue of "Batman." A truly all-star cast, a strong score, and amazing action sequences (you really feel those punches) add to the coolness of this movie. The movie is not the typical comic book action movie, but, like the great "Superman: The Movie," it really gets into what makes the character who he is. The results delve deeply into the psychology of Bruce Wayne and the nature of heroism. 'Twas not Bane that broke the Batman, it was Joel Schumacher. Nolan creates a brilliant resurrection of the Batman movie franchise. Here's praying this year's "Superman Returns" (Superman is my all-time favorite superhero) is just as good.

5. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Growing up many of my friends were huge fans of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." I didn't quite understand why. Yes, it was an enjoyable movie, but I didn't think it was the classic that they made it out to be. Now, I was a fan of Roald Dahl. Although I still have not read "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," I knew that the old movie did not feel like a Dahl story. Thankfully Tim Burton rescued it. Burton, like Dahl, is a master of creating wonderful, twisted fantasies. In "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," he does it again. His unique style permeates the entire movie. I have a hard time putting into words all that I like about any Burton movie (so much of it depends on "the look" of it), but watching this movie brings back childhood joys of seeing "Batman" and "Edward Scissorhands." If "Finding Neverland" wasn't enough to convince you that Freddie Highmore is one of the best child actors ever, his performance here is further evidence of his talent. Johnny Depp gives a brilliant preformance as Willy Wonka. He creates a delightfully maniacal character that one is both apprehensive of and sympathetic for. While Gene Wilder was the best thing about the previous adaptation of this story, Depp far surpasses him. Yeah, I said it Depp's Wonka is better than Wilder's.

Now we are into the top five. These movies are all really close. These five have all become some of my most favorite movies already. The ranking of these was extremely difficult and very likely to constantly change depending on my mood.

6. Crash
Like "Hotel Rwanda" the year before, this was a movie that really haunted me. It made me look at my own life and attitudes and re-examine how I live. The movie feautres an amazing cast and all of them bring their A-game (even performers I don't really care for, like Sandra Bullock, do well here). It is really an ensemble piece that features interloping stories that force us to deal with the issue of racism. I liked how no character was portrayed as simply a villain or simply a victim. All of them were both victims and perpetrators of racism in some way. This was a challenging and haunting movie that I think teaches us a great deal without being preachy.

7. Cinderella Man
Ron Howard starred in one of my favorite movies (American Graffiti) and old TV shows (The Andy Griffith Show), but I think that perhaps he was born to be not an actor but a director. While many of his previous films have been hit-or-miss for me, this one played like a classic. I was hesitant to see this. Russell Crowe and Renee Zellweger are both actors I do not usually care for, but I went along with a group of friends to see this and was mesmerized. I loved Jim Braddock and his story. I loved seeing such a strong marriage and family portrayed on the screen. For some hard to explain reason, this movie reminded me of Frank Capra.

8. Walk The Line
This Johnny Cash biopic is made great by three amazing preformances from Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon, and Robert Patrick. I liked all three of these actors before, but this movie moved them all up a notch in my book. I had some problems with the way the movie portrayed aspects of Cash's life and and elements were lifted straight out of "Rock Star Biographies 101," but the acting (even among the supporting cast) and the power of this man's story make the movie great.

9. Pride & Prejudice
Another surprise for me. Keira Knightley proves that she is more than just a pretty face with a winning performance as Miss Elizabeth Bennett in this beautifully filmed adapatation of the Jane Austen classic. Effectively condensed for the screen, the movie does a great job of capturing the spirit of Austen's wit.

10. Hostage
A surprisingly good movie that strikes a nice balance between old-school Bruce Willis action movies and his more recent somber Shyamalan thrillers featuring a downright creepy performance from "Freaks and Geeks" alum Ben Foster.

As we begin a new year, let us look back at the movies we saw last year. Overall, 2005 was not the "Year of Great Movies" that I thought it was going to be this time last year. Most of the movies were rather mediocre. Picking out my ten favorite was actually easier this year because these were about the only movies I was passionate about at all. However, despite many disappointments, these ten were really good and many of them are already among my favorites ever. These may have been the only ten movies I liked this year, but I really enjoyed them. Check back daily to see what makes the top spot.

GUY'S NIGHT OUT: Cheaper by the Dozen 2, he said 4.0

2006-01-09T17:42:00.000-05:00

I cannot justify why I liked this movie and its predecessor as much as I do. As I watched it, I knew it was not really a good movie, but I liked it anyway. It suffers from some of the worst things about sequels (it reminded me of "Beethoven 2" in many ways). It also is plagued by the cloying schmaltz that was present in the first movie. But still, I liked it.

I really like many of the actors such as Bonnie Hunt, Tom Welling, Steve Martin, Eugene Levy, Piper Perabo, and yes, even Hilary Duff (a guilty pleasure I know). Carmen Electra, as Levy's trophy wife, provided many of the funniest moments (Kudos!...It's my word). I find all of the characters likeable, and I enjoyed the family rivalry between the Bakers and the Murtaughs.

And yes, even though parts are somewhat maudlin, they always make me go "aww." Bottom line: If you liked the first one, you'll probably like this one. If not, there is nothing here that will change your mind.

What did you think?

GUY'S NIGHT OUT: Fun With Dick and Jane, he said 2.0

2005-12-30T00:38:00.000-05:00

The remake of "Fun With Dick and Jane" stretched the truth with its title. In the movie, Dick and Jane are there, but where's the fun? This will be a quick review because I have very little to say about this movie. I expected so much more coming from the director of one of my favorite comedies of the last few years, the criminally underrated "Galaxy Quest."

The movie had an interesting concept dealing with how Enron-esque corparate scandals affect the company's employees, but the execution of said concept was anything but interesting. It is inexplicably set in the year 2000 (apparently for the sole purpose of one Enron joke at the end of the movie). If you actually pay attention to the timeline of the movie, it makes even less sense.

There are a few laughs provided solely through the talents of stars Tea Leoni (or as I call her Mrs. Mulder) and Jim Carrey (his appearance on Conan last week was far better than this entire movie), but hardly enough to justify making this movie. It takes a wild turn in the last act that really felt like a different movie. The funniest part is the credits which begin by thanking all of the executives of Enron, WorldCom, et al.

That's about it. I could begin a rant about the craptacular theater I first tried to watch this movie in before demanding my money back and driving to another town to see this, but I will not. The joy of trying to see all of the Christmas releases in small town theatres!

What did you think of this movie? Do you have any terrible theater stories?

GUY'S NIGHT OUT: The Family Stone, he said 3.0

2005-12-18T01:38:00.000-05:00

"The Family Stone" is nothing like the movie that is being advertised. It's far better than that. From the advertisements, my expectations were for a decent cast in a mediocre comedy that would provide a sparse handful of laughs and be nearly gone from my memory by New Year's Eve (like last Christmas' "Meet the Fockers"). "The Family Stone" is much more than that, but it was still far from memorable for me. The strong cast, which includes two celebrity crushes of mine (Rachel McAdams and Claire Danes), makes their hackneyed characters come to life in a way that weaker actors could not have pulled off.

Kudos to the casting director for pulling together a pretty impressive cast including Danes, McAdams, Craig T. Nelson, Diane Keaton, Luke Wilson, Dermot Mulroney, and Sarah Jessica Parker. All of the characters are such cliches (the hippie crunchy, beautifully disheveled, snarky sister; the uptight business woman, the list goes on), but these actors really bring them to life and made me care about the characters (at least most of them). I really wanted to see more of the older sister and her storyline concerning her possibly rocky marriage.

The plot suffers from several gaps in logic, but the dynamics of the family were intriguing. As someone who studies families, I loved seeing all of the different relationships in the family. This was an interesting family system, and I enjoyed analyzing all of its issues. This brings me back to my opening point. This movie is not really the comedy it is being advertised as. Yes, there are funny moments (but probably none as funny as the somewhat provocative teaser poster), but the drama (and there is much more than I expected) is far more compelling.

Michael Giacchino provides music for the movie. It was good and fit the story, but it was far from memorable. His snub from the Academy last year for his "The Incredibles" score was a travesty, but it won't be made up for with a nomination for this. This was more like his work on TV's "Alias" and "Lost."

This movie makes for an enjoyable diversion from the busyness of the Christmas season. It has a nice blend of the fun and the serious and is held together by an impressive cast. Take a break from shopping or cooking and catch a matinee. Seeing this family will help you better appreciate your own during the inevitable forthcoming family get togethers.

What did you think of this movie?

King Kong, she said 5.0

2005-12-14T23:23:00.000-05:00

Peter Jackson has a way with direction, CGI and landscape design. King Kong was a beautiful movie. Considering the movie should have been cut by 30-45 minutes, my attention was easily held.

I generally am a huge propionate for acting being as real and in the moment as possible – likewise, the screenplay should flow as easily or as awkwardly as actual life would dictate. Kin Kong was presented in 30’s style acting (like the original movie). I was thoroughly surprised how immersed I was in the movie.

Adrien Brody and Jack Black were phenomenal on the big screen. There really is something about Brody that I cannot put my finger on. While I am not physically attracted to him, he is captivating. Black did a great job of toning down his comedic brilliance and finding his inner dramatic actor. Naomi Watts not only epitomizes the beauty that killed the beast but her interaction with the CGI giant gorilla was highly impressive.

What are you doing? – go see the freaking movie!

King Kong, he said 3.0

2005-12-14T23:22:00.000-05:00

Note: The more I have pondered this movie, the more disappointed I become. I have once again changed my score.

So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.

Like "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," I am leaving at a 3 simply because the nature of the film demands that it be seen on the big screen (see the info about our rating system) when in fact both movies are probably more deserving of a 2. Now, don't get me wrong, this movie was not terrible; it simply was nowhere near as good as Jackson and company are capable of. So much potential was squandered by self-indulgence. This review does a great job of summing up many of my thoughts on this movie. I still do not understand so much of the praise it is receiving.

I love "King Kong." Not Peter Jackson's new movie, but the original 1933 movie by Merian Cooper. I first saw it when it aired one Saturday when I was ten on our local PBS station. Since then, I had only been able to see it a few times on Turner Classics. Until the new movie came along. As good as Jackson's remake is, the best thing about it is that it caused Warner Brothers to finally release the original on DVD. The DVD is amazing, and so is Jackson's movie.

The movie looks amazing. Kong himself is a spectacle to behold. There is really nothing more to say about him except wow! The sets of both Skull Island and Depression Era New York City are fantastic. The creatures, the sunsets, the costumes, and all of the other visual elements are breathtaking.

Naomi Watts gives an awesome performance. In my opinion, this is the role that will make her a star (I know she has already headlined "The Ring" and a few other movies, but nothing that I really enjoyed or remembered). She does Fay Wray's legacy proud. She is gorgeous and has a great scream, but Watts also turns Ann Darrow into a more compelling character than simply the damsel in distress. Her Darrow is a struggling vaudeville performer who dreams of starring in a real play. Watts also deserves kudos for being able to perform so well with a character (Kong) who wasn't on set with her. In many of her scenes, she is the only thing that is "real." She sells it well, and at least part of what makes Kong so believable is how Watts interacts with him.

Unlike the 1976 "King Kong" remake, Jackson sticks close to the original story. Therefore, the film has all the great scenes that have become legendary. Kong verses the T-Rex (times three here). The creepy natives (and they are so creepy. The scariest thing in the movie to me). Ann "sacrificed" to Kong. Kong shaking the men of a fallen tree. The marquee bearing "King Kong: The 8th Wonder of the World." Kong verses a squad of biplanes atop the Empire State Building. And that classic closing line.

The movie is far from perfect however. It suffers terribly from its length. The original is 100 minutes. Jackson takes over three hours to tell the same story. He uses the "Jaws" approach in delaying the unveiling of the titular star, but he delays it far too long. The movie opens with a great montage of Hoovervilles and vaudeville set to Al Jolson singing "On Top of the World," but then it drags terribly for the next hour or so before the crew ever reaches Skull Island. Jackson's previous movies , "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, were each over three hours long, but I was never looking at my watch. This time, I was getting a little bored. I felt like Jackson was being a little self-indulgent. There is a lot that could have been shortened or cut from every act of this movie that would have resulted in a much tighter, enjoyable story. What was the point of the whole Jimmy storyline?

Other than Watts and Kong, none of the performances are all that special. Jack Black attempts to play Carl Denham as an Orson Welles type. He's okay. Adrien Brody was decent as Jack Driscoll (who is now the screenwriter), but any actor could have played that role just as good. Don't get me wrong, these performances are not bad and really do not really take away from the movie much, but there is a reason why Watts is the castmember everyone is talking about.

I also felt that the movie would have benefited from a stronger score. What's there is not bad, but it is far from memorable. James Newton Howard replaced Howard Shore at the eleventh hour so I wonder if that had anything to do with the slightly weak score. It's good, but like most of Howard's work, it doesn't really stick in my head the way a John Williams or Danny Elfman score does. I can't even hum it now.

Overall, this is a very good movie but not quite as great as it easily could have been. I highly recommend it. The ending was breath taking. It brought tears to my eyes. Be sure to see it on the big screen. It won't be the same watching it on a television screen. So go see it at the cinema, and on your way home, pick up the DVD of the original if you have not already.

P.S. Upon reading this, I realize I am pretty negative about much of this film. I really did like it, but I think I had my expectations too high. I wrote this immediately upon coming home from the theater, and I think I was just venting some initial disappointments. I plan to see it again and try to judge it anew. While I criticized a lot, the only thing that I felt really was extremely wrong was that there needed to be much more judicious editing.

What did you think of this movie?

Just Friends, she said 3.5

2005-12-13T23:20:00.000-05:00

Ryan Reynolds is quickly becoming one of my favorite comedic actors. "Just Friends" is a tale of a dorky fat teenager that is tragically trapped in the ‘just friends zone’ – hence the title of the film. Chris Brander (Reynolds) morphs into a Hottie McHoterson in Los Angeles after he leaves his hometown. As a young and wealthy music producer, Reynolds meets and dates a hilariously loquacious teenage pop diva. If you see the movie just for her rendition of a blond pop star, you will get you money’s worth.

Points of the movie posed too dramatic for a lighthearted comedy. These scenes were not horrible but they did slow the pace of the movie down. The movie is not worth you running to the movie right now. However, if the situation presents it self, you will have few good laughs.

Just Friends, he said 3.0

2005-12-13T20:23:00.000-05:00

I really like Ryan Reynolds. Maybe I have a bit of a man crush on him (using that phrase in the strictly heterosexual sense). I will confess to having watched more than one episode of "Two Guys and a Girl (and sometimes a Pizza Place)" just because he was in it (well, him and Nathan Fillion). I think he has a lot of potential to be a new Chevy Chase (back when Chevy was still funny). He's been the highlight of several rather mediocre movies, but I keep waiting for him to get that one breakout role that will raise him to the A-list where he deserves to be. Sadly, "Just Friends" is not that movie, but it is an enjoyable enough movie that made for a nice study break. It is about a guy who is stuck in the dreaded friend zone, a place I know all too well.

This is not a clever or subtle comedy by any means, but it is not a completely over-the-top or gross-out comedy either. The plot is highly contrived, but the actors are able to make it fun. Reynolds is solid. The poster and much of the other promotional materials for this movie show Reynolds, as Chris Brander, dressed in a fat suit. Fortunately, these opening high school scenes are brief. Anna Faris, who was the best thing about the "Scary Movie" series, is hilarious. Her character provided the most laughs. Chris Marquette plays Chris' horny teenage brother (much the same character he played in "The Girl Next Door"). He too is good in this role (but not as great as he was on TV's "Joan of Arcadia"). Chris Klein and Amy Smart round out the cast with decent performances.

In addition to Faris' deranged pop star, the funniest part to me involved Chris playing hockey with a group of kids. Also, the violent interaction between Chris and his brother reminded me why I have always wanted a brother (you can't beat up sisters). There is scene involving Christmas lights that reminded me of my favorite holiday movie, "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation." By the way, although this movie is set at Christmas, it's not exactly what I would call a Christmas movie. The story would have been much the same no matter what season it was set in.

Overall, this movie is not really great, but I didn't care. I laughed a lot, and I found it highly enjoyable. It's not classic or groundbreaking in any way, but amidst all the more serious and pretentious fare at the theaters this time of year, "Just Friends" is a fun, if not memorable, trip to the movies.

Addendum: We saw this movie again last night as part of our regular Tuesday night outing. I still feel pretty much the same about it. Enjoyable, but nothing special in the least. Reynolds, Faris, and Marquette make it fun. Now back to studying for finals and wasting time on Facebook.

What did you think?

GAL’S NIGHT OUT: Good Night, and Good Luck, she said 2.8

2005-12-12T19:58:00.000-05:00

This film had the potential to echo the political undertones of the current state of the nation. Unfortunately director, George Clooney, fumbled the ball. The audience was left in anticipation for the proverbial political twisting of the knife that never came. Throughout the movie we follow CBS news anchor, Ed Murrow, played by David Straithairn and his associates were played by George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr. and many others. Murrow is the first anchor to openly question the action of Senator John McCarthy. The movie articulated the fears of the network to report on such issues and the Murrow and his staff’s desperation to get the story told.
Clooney at times was too ostentatious with the direction. There was little consistency with the direction from scene to scene. Let me clarify. I am not saying that the same fixed camera angle and camera moves indicate a good movie. On the contrary, I think variation is good as long as the director’s choice matched the tone of the scene. Clooney would use a handheld camera for one boardroom scene and then for the next scene in the boardroom use on a wide shot and then for the next intimate scene only use close ups. I understand that he wanted to add variation to a static studio environment. However, a director should rely on the actors to carry the drama and maintain the audiences’ attention. Rather that highlighting the action and the storyline, the direction distracted from the story. As stand alone scene the direction was phenomenal. There comes a time when there is too much effort put into the direction.

I was happy to see Robert Downey, Jr. in the movie. He truly is one of the best actors of our time. If he could just stay off the drugs people could actually see that. Too, his storyline with his wife seemed rather inconsequential. Why was the audience supposed to care about their secret love affair? Their relationship seemingly had no effect on the networks ability to put on the show. I did enjoy seeing him on the big screen again.

The whole movie lacked cohesion. I am willing to admit that perhaps I lack the intelligence to catch all the nuances of the film and that is why I did not enjoy the movie as much as I would have liked. However, I am going to say ‘nay’ to those who agree with that statment. Instead, I blame Clooney for the poor direction. There was never a moment when I questioned the believability of the actors. Everyone gave very strong and noteworthy performances. Clooney just got a little over zealous with the camera. I do think that this film is worth seeing because of the acting. However, if you want clarification of the happenings during the McCarthy Era – go read a book.

NOTE: in this post I made a sports reference AND did not quote Dane Cook.

GUY'S NIGHT OUT: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, he said 5.0

2005-12-09T16:14:00.000-05:00

Watching "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" made me feel like a kid again. I am a big fan of C.S. Lewis, and I love the Narnia stories. I was super excited about seeing this story brought to life on screen but also justifiably apprehensive. Would the talking animals look good? Would the child actors be good? Would they do the Stone Table scene the way it's meant to be done? Would everything "look right?" Would they capture that sense of "joy" that one gets from the books? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding yes!

First off, the animals. I was a little worried about this. CGI characters have come a long way in the past few years (just look at the progression from Jar Jar to Gollum to Yoda), but one thing that still seems to trouble animators the most is hair. So how would they be able to pull off animating a bunch of mammals? Well, they do it. The Beavers look so cool. When Mr. Beaver hands Lucy her handkerchief, I was amazed how real it all looked. The animals do not always seem completely realistic, but it is a fantasy. They move in realistic ways, and the interactions between them and the live actors is mostly seamless. During the wolf chase, the footage changes between CGI wolves and real wolves, and I could not tell the difference. And Aslan is awe-inspiring, as he should be.

The acting is great. All four of the kids do a great job. They are nearly all newcomers (in fact, Anna Popplewell, who plays Susan, is the only one with real experience and she is the weakest link). William Moseley did an awesome job portraying my favorite character, Peter. He managed to capture the responsibility that drives Peter despite his reluctance. The real breakout star is Georgie Henley as Lucy. She is amazing. As the youngest Pevensie, she is the first to discover Narnia, and Henley totally sells it with wide-eyed wonder. I also really enjoyed James McAvoy as Mr. Tumnus, the faun. Tilda Swinton does a great job at creating the chilling White Witch. Jim Broadbent has basically a cameo as Professor Kirke. Liam Neeson as the voice of Aslan was a bit distracting at first. Not quite as commanding as I expected, but once I got past my expectations, I realized it worked.

Yes, the Stone Table scene is here and it is heartbreaking. In fact, pretty much everything that is in the book is here. Walden Media is building a good name for themselves at making very faithful adaptation of children's books into good movies (I'm looking at you "Harry Potter" series). One of the few deviations from the book really adds to the story. In the book, Lewis simply begins by saying that "this story is about something that happened to [the children] when they were sent away from London during the war because of the air-raids." Director Andrew Adamson opens by showing the air-raids. We see the children and their mother hiding in the cellar. We see her send them away to the country. This opening had me tearing up. It really does a good job of quickly capturing the personality of each child and the relationships between them. A nice addition to the story.

This movie made me feel like a kid again, just like reading the books do. Adamson and company do a fantastic job creating the fantasy world of Narnia. Watching the movie, I really felt like I was seeing the book come alive. It is a great story that elicits joy, which Lewis defined as an intense longing. When this movie ended, I desperately longed to return to Narnia. I hope that there will be more movies to enjoy in the future, particularly "Prince Caspian," probably my favorite of the books.

Warning: Don't leave as soon as the credits start to roll.

What did you think of this movie? Are you a fan of the book? What children's book would you like to see Walden Media adapt to film?

Pride & Prejudice, she said 5.0

2005-12-08T16:18:00.000-05:00

First I would like to say that....I am on time (take a moment to applaud me - thanks). Back to the movie in review: So, I am not the most well read individual - I admit it, I have never read "Pride and Prejudice." However, after watching this movie, I know what my holiday reading will be. As the movie ended and the light came up, a smile of satisfaction stretched across my face. I wanted to spin like Buddy the Elf. Yeah, I said it - please, that's how happy I was. Now, why you may ask did I love this movie so much?

One, the story stands alone as an impressive piece of work. A classic romance story with a twist always pleases. The hilariously eager sisters and the status driven mother added just the right amount of humor to the movie. Now you may think, "Really, a romance? That sounds far too heavy." But, I say nay! The movie is quite light with wonderfully meaningful undertones.

Two, who doesn't love a good period piece? The costumes were perfect and expansive landscape shots were magnificent. One could get lost in the aesthetic beauty of the movie.

Three, Keira Knightley is a fantastic actress and delightfully charming on the big screen. Plus, as my male friends would say, "She is effing hot".

Take someone to see this movie tonight.

Pride & Prejudice, he said 5.0

2005-12-06T20:38:00.000-05:00

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." That is the opening line of Jane Austen's classic novel "Pride and Prejudice." It is my favorite line of the book. It is not included in the new film adaptation starring Keira Knightley as Miss Elizabeth Bennet, but I love it so much I had to include it here. While that line is not included, the film does maintain Austen's charming wit.

I read "Pride and Prejudice" in high school. I remember I liked it because it was funny. I could remember the general flow of the story and the outcome, but I had forgotten a lot of the steps along the way so throughout the movie, I was constantly trying to remember what happens next. I really liked the streamlining of the story for the film. It flows quite nicely and never felt slow or boring to me (which I remember the book doing at times).

Knightley (who I really like) was very good as Miss Elizabeth. Matthew MacFayden was also great as Mr. Darcy (though I know several girls who would say he could never live up to Colin Firth in the BBC/A&E miniseries from the 90s). Throughout the movie, MacFayden seemed vaguely familiar to me. Upon checking IMDb, I realized he was in the TV show "Spooks/MI-5." I watched some of that when it was shown on A&E. I keep meaning to NetFlix the entire series because it was rather good. Back to the movie though, the entire cast gives good performances. The standout supporting actor to me was Simon Woods as Mr. Bingley.

Director Joe Wright makes great use of the beautiful English countryside. He also uses some interesting symbolism with birds. I read somewhere that this is his directorial debut, but IMDb lists a few other things. This is at least his major directorial debut, and I look forward to more good movies from him in the future.

In the end though, the movie is great because the source material is. Elizabeth Bennet is one of my literary crushes. I would love to have a girl as awesome as Miss Elizabeth or be a man as cool as Mr. Darcy. I really love those characters. The movie is a very funny comedy of manners that proves Austen's timelessness. This movie makes me want to revisit the book and perhaps even read more of her work.

What did you think? About this movie? About the book? Who are some of your literary crushes? What do you think are some of the best film adaptations of classic literature?

Rent, she said 3.3

2005-12-02T00:08:00.000-05:00

When the musical RENT first hit the stage in the fabulous New York City I was amazed by the brilliant musical composition and the tight harmonies. The characters were quirky and endearing. The new Rock Opera was one of a kind and I could not get enough of the yummy musical goodness. So, you can imagine my excitement when I heard that this wonderful film was going to be adapted into a movie on the big screen. I was a little disappointed by the movie.

The opening sequence “Rent” was did not achieve the passion that the lyrics and the music demands. And what was up with all the burning paper. Sense when does throwing burning paper off you back balcony in concert with your neighbors mean that you are tired of your life. Seriously, it was cheesy and was not a great way to start the movie. However, all the other musical numbers I was, for then most part, impressed with the director’s adaptive changes.

The acting was a little disappointing too. While I am happy that they used the original Broadway performers, I wish they would have had paid for acting lessons. Overall, I did enjoy the movie. However, I can’t say that I would pay to see it again.

Peace out

Rent, he said 2.0

2005-11-30T18:12:00.000-05:00

Chris Columbus is a hack. That may sound harsh, but seriously, when "Adventures in Babysitting" is the highlight of your filmography, maybe you missed your calling. "Rent" is his movie adaptation of the much-hailed stage musical. I have never seen "Rent" on stage, but from the movie, I fail to see what all the fuss is about. It is an overly preachy celebration of hedonism that is filled with cheesy characters trapped in a story one expects to see on NBC Daytime singing awkward lyrics. The music (not the lyrics) and some (not all) good performances are really the only saving grace.

The cast of the movie is mostly made up of the original cast of the stage show with added newcomers Rosario Dawson (Mimi) and Tracie Thoms (Joanne; also of TV's late great "Wonderfalls"). Thoms, for me, was the strongest of the cast and her character was also the only one I believed. She feels like a real person with real problems (albeit one who expresses those problems in song). The others just seemed like singers not actual characters.

A nitpicky aside: Who's bright idea was it to set this in 1989? I'm not sure if that's when the stage version is set, but the movie's opening narration clearly says that it's Christmas 1989. Okay, then why does one of the lyrics refer to "Thelma & Louise" which didn't open until 1991?

Now, I apologize for this shortened review, but the end of the semester is nigh, and I am swamped with papers to write and finals to study for. Rather than go into detail on my other problems with the movie, I will leave you with this excerpt that does a good job of expressing many of my complaints:

The characters are defiantly anti-bourgeois and anti-authority. Consider simply the opening scene: They feel free to live in buildings they neither own nor have leases to and are resentful of being expected to pay rent. Getting a job is considered "selling out." As voiced in the main musical number, "La Vie Bohme," "To loving tension, no pension/To more than one dimension/... Hating convention, hating pretension/Not to mention, of course/Hating dear old Mom and Dad/To riding your bike/Midday past the three-piece suits/To fruits, to no absolutes."

This worldview taints some otherwise noble sentiments and actions in this story. It's heartbreaking to see the members of the HIV support group rely on nothing more than vague feel-goodism to get through the day. Beyond that, they seem to have no hope-or even awareness that there is hope. Similarly, advice to forgive past wrongs and to seize the day, otherwise admirable counsel, is rooted in nothing more than mere sentiment.

There's no doubt that Larson (who died unexpectedly shortly before Rent premiered Off Broadway in 1996) was a skilled writer, and the music of Rent is particularly good. The lyrics, on the other hand, are often questionable, and Larson sneaks a degenerate worldview past undiscerning viewers by means of that great songwriting.

As actor Jesse L. Martin explained, "I think there's something in the music for Rent that allows people to open up in a way that they wouldn't if they were just talking. If I just told you that [my character, Tom Collins] has AIDS and that I'm probably going to die and this is my girlfriend, who is a drag queen, it just wouldn't be the same. But because weÂre singing about it, what I'm saying seems a bit easier to take." Idina Menzel, who plays Maureen, added, "Music has a weird way of sneaking up on people and making them feel something they wouldn't necessarily feel if they were being preached at."

Indeed. Whether moviegoers are aware of it or not, they're being preached at. And this sermon contains a romanticized glorification of a lifestyle-be it homosexuality or what should now be called neo-bohemianism-that despite the movie's upbeat conclusion ends ultimately in hopelessness.

-Written by Tom Neven, Plugged In, 2005

Also, I agree almost completely with Roger Ebert's review of this movie.

I had always wanted to see "Rent." Since I knew it would be quite a while before I ever had a chance of seeing the show, I was looking forward to the movie. The movie is not good. It falls prey to many of the hackneyed characteristics of Columbus' other works. However, I was disappointed by the story as a whole. I kind of hated it. I didn't like the characters or the songs. At least the movie helped me realize that I never really need to waste time or money on seeing the show. I'm sorry "Rent" fans (e.g. Patricia), but "Rent" is no "Once More, With Feeling."

What did you think about this movie? Are you a fan of the musical? The movie? What is your favorite musical?

GUY'S NIGHT OUT: Walk the Line, he said 5.0

2005-11-20T22:04:00.000-05:00

Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon each give one of their best performances to date as Johnny Cash and June Carter. The performances from these actors and others such as Robert Patrick (as Cash's father) are what make this movie stand out. The story is moving and well-told, but it follows the by now clichéd rag-to-riches-to-drugs-to-rehab-to-renewed-fame "Behind the Music" pattern. Of course, it wouldn't be a cliché of rock star biopics if it were not true. Now, I am not an adept when it comes to the life of Cash so I am unsure how accurate the events depicted in the movie are. Certainly there were some dramatic licenses taken. It would be impossible to depict the complex life of such an icon as Johnny Cash entirely true to form. Likewise, I do not think any actor is capable of truly capturing just what made Cash Cash, but I cannot imagine anyone coming as close as Joaquin Phoenix.

The movie is framed by Cash’s legendary comeback concert at Folsom Prison. The pounding of the band and the prisoners creates a sense of excitement as the movie opens on a rowdy group of prisoners awaiting Cash to take the stage, and despite a lengthy (nearly the entire film) flashback between this opening and the actual performance, that excitement does not wane.

I cannot say anything about Phoenix’s and Witherspoon’s performances that has not already been said except they are more then worthy of all the praise they have been getting. Ginnifer Goodwin is solid as Cash's first wife, Vivian. Robert Patrick (better known to us X-Philes as Agent Doggett) also gives one of his strongest performances as Johnny’s father, Ray. Patrick also played Elvis Presley’s father, Vernon, in last spring’s CBS mini-series “Elvis.” Speaking of Elvis, he’s in this movie too. When Cash first signs with Sam Phillip’s Sun Records, he goes on tour with other future legends such as Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis. Can you imagine seeing all of them in concert together like depicted in the film? I cannot fathom a better night of musical performances. Other musical icons make appearances in the film such as Waylon Jennings, Roy Orbison, and Maybelle Carter. The music of Cash and his contemporaries drives the film and it is performed amazingly well by the actors with no dubbing or “help” of any kind.

I was glad that the movie did not attempt to tell Cash’s entire life story in two and a half hours. Rather, it focuses on his rise to fame, struggles with drugs, and infatuation and pursuit of June. The movie makes us feel the pain that Johnny feels at the loss of his brother, the rejection of his father, the destruction of his own marriage, and his decent into drugs, but it also provides us with the elation that Johnny feels when he performs and the love he has for June. The movie ends much sooner in his life than I expected. In fact, I was so engrossed in it, that I did not realize so much time had passed. I had no idea we were near the end of the movie until the screen went black. I would have liked to have seen the film at least acknowledge Johnny’s rediscovery of his faith after he got cleaned up. He lived out the rest of his life as an awesome testimony to the power of Christ, but there is no hint of that in the movie.

I was very unsure if I even wanted to see this movie. I just was not sure if it would be good or not. The trailers did not really catch my attention, and all of the hype surrounding the performances was near the point of overload for me. However, the simple black and white poster intrigued me, and I am a fan of Phoenix so I decided to see it. I am so glad I did as this movie was one of the biggest surprises of the year for me.

What did you think?

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, she said 4.8

2005-11-19T23:03:00.000-05:00

I saw this movie two times before I was able to properly understand the glory of this movie. There are two basis for forming an opinion of this movie. First, one can measure this movie against the book or, two, allow the movie to act as it's own entity. I choose to do the latter. A movie can never stack up when compared to the original book, ones imagination is far more powerful than anything depicted on the big screen.

All I really have to say is that the movie was great. The Interactional triangle between Ron, Hermione and Harry is much more realistic than in the previous movies. I would have liked to have seen more of the adult characters more but there is only so much that can be fit into one movie.

I cannot wait to see it again, and again, and again.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, he said 3.0

2005-11-19T16:39:00.000-05:00

I have been racking my brain on how to best summarize my thoughts on "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," the lastest movie in the intended seven part series based on J.K. Rowling's blockbuster books. After much deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that Harry Potter movies are the new James Bond movies. Decent, mildly exciting movies that offer a fun night at the cinema but are hardly memorable (I am excluding the Connery 007 films from this comparison). Both series have definitely become part of the pop culture lexicon, but neither really offer any stand-out films and have not made the larger cultural impact of more significant film and/or book series such as "Star Wars" or "The Lord of the Rings." "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" is an enjoyable, though fault-filled movie, but I can barely imagine watching it again and will have probably forgotten it completely within the next decade.

Now, I have read all six of Rowling's Potter novels. I consider myself a fan, albeit a mild one. "Goblet of Fire" is possibly my favorite book of the series. Overall, the film adaptation was decent, but compared to the book, I have some major grievances. So this review is going to be slightly different than my typical reviews. First, I am going to attempt to judge the movie from a neutral standpoint as best I can. Then, I am going to discuss my problems with the transition from page to screen and some looming problems that I predict for the rest of the film series.

"Goblet of Fire," like its immediate predecessor "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," is alleviated of the slavish devotion to the books that plagued Chris Columbus' adaptations of the first two stories. Mike Newell, the first British director for the series, and screenwriter Steven Kloves faced a daunting task of focusing the narrative of the massive novel. Their results are mixed. The story is stripped to the bare essentials, but at times, I felt there was too much missing. I feel that if I had not read the book, I would have been lost, particularly the attitudes of some of the characters (like why was Ron being such a tool?). Some parts of the story are condensed so much, I wondered why Newell even bothered to include them (for example, the Quidditch World Cup and Rita Skeeter). Some of the film's elements that have been extensively hyped in all of the promotional press (notably, Cho Chang and again, the World Cup) are barely in the movie at all.

My favorite scene of the movie was the one that takes place in Dumbledore's pensieve. The element of the Potter story that I most enjoy is the larger story about Voldemort and the war against him. I love piecing together all of the clues about what happened when he rose to power and killed Harry's parents and the resulting witchhunts (pun somewhat unavoidable) in rounding up the Death Eaters and all the politics surrounding that. The pensieve scene is really our only glimpse of that in this movie, and I thought it was remarkably well done. Bravo! I also really liked the juxtaposition between the cheering crowd and the distraught Harry once he returns from the graveyard at the end. A very tense scene that I found very well done.

I think one of the greatest strengths of all four Potter movies is the costumes and sets, though the series is significantly weakened by a lack of consistency in the appearances of these. In the previous entries, I loved how the sets and costumes conveyed a sense of both the magical and the realistic. However, I feel that this movie goes overboard in making everything seem m-a-g-i-c-a-l. The opening scene and the climactic confrontation between good and evil are supposed to be set in a Muggle house and a Muggle graveyard, yet these sets are huge grandiose constructions that look nothing like what one would expect to find in rural England.

The lack of realism in the sets combines with other elements to infuse the movie with a cartooniness that I despise. Rowling's books create a world that feels real, like our own, but with magic. The magic is a normal part of these characters' lives, and it is treated rather matter-of-factly, as it should be. In the movie, that sense of otherworldly realism is absent. Nearly everytime something magical happens, the music builds, the characters tend to stop and gawk, and there are gaudy special effects that look like they were pulled out of the video game tie-in (this film series is constantly plagued by terrible, though slowly improving, CGI). The movie also treats all of the characters like cartoons, particularly the adults. These are the people who have fought a war. When I see them in the film doing over-the-top completely out of place physical comedy, I cannot picture them fighting a cockroach, much less an evil wizard. Why did Filch have to run into the Great Hall like that? Why does Barty Crouch look like Mr. Magoo? And there are enough awkward explanations of how things work or are going to play out to make Burt Ward cry "Holy exposition!" These things are completely unnecessary. Please.

The acting still leaves a lot to be desired. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) continues to improve with each movie. He's still stiff, but his talent is maturing with the character. Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron, who is in serious need of a haircut. Dude looks like a girl, an ugly girl!) are still guilty of ACT-ing. I often cringed when they were speaking. Maggie Smith (as my favorite Potter character, Professor Minerva McGonagall) continues to be the best thing about the movie. When she delivers such strange lines as "We never use transfiguration as a punishment," she makes it seem so commonplace, that one gets that she really believes in what she is doing. Alan Rickman (Snape) is amazing as he is in all his movies. The other adults are okay. Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort) may be guilty of some slight overacting, but I cannot be sure as I was too distracted by the horrible design used for his character. I also miss John Williams' score.

These characters live in a world filled with magic. When Rowling writes, I can sense that she believes in this world. I do not think that the filmmakers believe in the material they are presenting. If they cannot get behind it, then how can they expect us to?

Now, on to my complaints about the movie as an adaptation of the book. Before I rip into it, I must applaud the decision to remove the subplot about Hermione liberating house elves. It was stupid in the book, and I am thankful that I did not have to suffer through it on screen.

I read this book around the time of the release of the first movie. As soon as I read the opening chapter, I said "That is going to be an awesome opening scene!" Alas, it was not. Now, normally I would not complain too much about something not looking exactly as I had pictured it, but I had such a cool scene in my head and this did not live up to it at all. Aside from my previous complaint about the set design of the Riddle house, this scene was just not creepy enough. I also felt that the title should not have been seen until after Frank was killed. I had pictured the movie opening with no music or title on this really creepy looking, but normal, old house. Frank wanders in and discovers Voldemort, Wormtail (who in my head looked way cooler than the stupid one in the movie), and company. Then Frank is killed. The screen goes black. We hear the familiar tune and see the title of the film and then Harry awakes. See what I mean? Mine is way cooler than their's.

My biggest complaint, however, is the final act. This is such a crucial moment for this story and the rest of the series. When Harry grabs the Tri-Wizard Cup and is teleported to the graveyard, the setting was not the only thing that changed. This also marked the moment when J.K. Rowling stopped writing for children and started writing for everyone. The return of Voldemort sets the stage for the war to come that will consume the remaining books.

I felt that this scene in the movie was a colossal missed opportunity. Voldemort looked ridiculous. Voldemort needs to be scary and powerful. Think of Emperor Palpatine, Saruman, or even the Wicked Witch of the West. All of these villains commanded the screen. You knew why their followers did not question them. They had power. When Voldemort and the Death Eaters finally show up in this movie, I was thinking "Why would anyone follow him?" If I were a Death Eater, I would be much more likely to do what Lucius Malfoy told me than Voldedork. He did not demand fear or respect. He looked silly not scary, like a bald Michael Jackson.

If the audience cannot be scared by Voldemort, then I fear that the remaining movies are going to fall flat. The war against Voldemort is what the next two books (and surely the yet-to-be-released seventh book) are all about. The success of the remaining movies will be dependent on how well Voldemort is executed, and if this ending is any indication, then I do not see the movies improving in the future.

What did you think about the new Harry Potter movie? Fun? Overrated? Awesome? Scary? Disappointing? Boring? Or just plain bad?

Zathura, she said 1.9

2005-11-17T21:40:00.000-05:00

"No, no, no, no - please, make it stop!" I chanted in my head the entire first half of the movie. If I am not mistaken, hasn't this movie been made before? Oh, yeah - it was called Jumanji. Zathura can be divide into two parts. The first half was horrifically disappointing. The two boys Danny (played by Johan Bobo) and Walter (played by Josh Hucherson) played a duet for the first half of the movie. There were minor cameos from the father and older, self absorbed sister (I will talk about this more later). The chemistry between the two children was stale at best and the mechanical dialogue retarded the movie's progression. Granted, two adult actors would have a hard time selling this movie, but that is not a justification.

The youngest child miraculously discovers an old game and the creepily cliche basement. The two start the game and all of the sudden - NO! - there are in space. Each turns jettisons the duo further and further into space. On each turn the player gets a card that warns of the tragict danger to come (similar to the mystic orb in the middle of the Jumanji playing board.) During the first turn, the boys are threatened with a meteor shower and wake their sleeping sister. With the introduction of a new character, I was almost revised out of my boredom induced comatose. The sister was a dreadful character but she played the bitchy adolescent well. Then,to my dismay, the next spin of the wheel evoked chronically frozen sleep on the new, and much needed, character (the sister). NOTE: please excuse the following tangential moment. I am so sick and tired of the media and the population sexualizing our young people. In all honesty, I would not mind a 15 year on the big screen wearing short boxer shorts, and a tight small top (by the way that is was the older sister was wearing throughout most of the movie)if the representation was a reflection of what teenage girls really wear. The majority of the teenagers I know and interact with do not wear such revealing clothing. Too, the writers made the female teen and arrogant, self absorbed, lazy snit of person. No wonder there is such a wide age gap in this country. Adults have no reason to assume that teens in reality are not the same as teens in the media when their only definition of adolescent behavior is what they see in the media . Back to the movie....

Finally, the last half of the movie starts to pick up so steam. The game produces an astronaut and the older sister awakens out of her frosty slumber. There were some great suspenseful moments. However, the lizard aliens that attacked the group were ridiculously cheesy. If you liked the movie Jumanji (which I did) then you will hate this movie because it is just a cheaper, watered down version.

Zathura, he said 4.0

2005-11-17T16:54:00.000-05:00

A movie earns instant cool points with me just for including certain elements. Among them are swordfights, superheroes, dinosaurs, scenes where the characters dance or sing to old pop songs, lasers, dragons, and jetpacks. So, I am not embarassed to admit that the main reason I wanted to see this movie is the shot from the trailer of an astronaut (Dax Shepard) blasting into the house wearing a retro-looking jetpack. Now a movie does get a free pass from me just for featuring an item from my cool factor list. It has to maintain its cool by being a good movie. "Zathura" keeps its cool.

"Zathura" is directed by Jon Favreau, who also directed "Elf" and starred in "Swingers." Favreau uses an intriguing blend of old-school movie magic and high tech digital effects to give a unique charm to the movie. It looks awesome but just "fake" enough that it could all be written off as simply a product of Danny's (Jonah Bobo) and Walter's (Josh Hutcherson) imaginations. The movie is based on a picture book by Chris Van Allsburg and is an unofficial sequel to "Jumangi" (though it is a vastly superior film with infinitely better special effects). Like its predecessor, "Zathura" is about two children playing a mysterious board game that comes to life and leads them on a thrilling adventure. The game itself looks ridiculously cool, and I really wish it had been a real game in my childhood (heck, I would play it now).

The child actors are surprisingly decent. Dax Shepard is great as an astronaut stranded in the game for fifteen years. There is a twist near the end of the movie concerning his origin that is my biggest complaint about the movie. I did not find it necessary at all. It was slightly confusing and really did not fit into the story very well. Tim Robbins makes a brief cameo as the father of the children. The movie even contains a heartfelt lesson about sibling rivalry.

I am a firm believer that all good children's stories need to be, at least a little, scary. Whether it is wicked stepmothers, flying monkeys, crazed chocolateers, Sith lords, disfigured Baby Ruth lovers, or He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named; children's stories are filled with fright. There is a certain satisfaction that comes to a child when he can watch the movie or read the book and make it through the end to see that the scary is not that scary after all. Whether the hero defeats it or one learns that the object of terror is really not to be feared, children can learn to overcome their fears along with their heroes. And as we who enjoy horror movies know, being scared is fun. "Zathura" is a great family film that contains just the right amount of scary in the form of meteors, basements, Zorgons (lizardlike aliens who eat kids), and sisters. As the children play the game, the film plays out more like a series of exciting vignettes. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time and could not stop grinning. It all made me feel like a big kid.

What do you think about this movie? What scared you most in the stories you read or the movies you watched as a kid? What elements are on your "cool" list for a movie?

Shopgirl, she said 4.2

2005-11-09T19:25:00.000-05:00

She did it again. Claire Danes never disappoints - wait, no that is right. I cannot think of a movie when I was not floored by her performance (so maybe Romeo and Juliet was a little disappointing but I will let that one slide). Steve Martin and Jason Schwatzman also were striking in this film. Martin with his calm and confident disposition was juxtaposed against Schwartzman's apathetic yet manic character. Danes character, Mirabelle, was trapped between these two leading men in a search for her own destiny. Shopgirl is the most comforting movie I have seen this fall. Let me explain.

During the movie, the characters' emotional responses felt more realistic than many romantic dramas. In a typical romantic drama, there is an exaggerated separation between the emotional highs and lows. In everyday life, people do not experience the cinematic drama that movies often depict. Because we are the ones interpreting the event, our emotional response is not heightened to the cinematic level. Reality does not have the extreme ups and downs that are often felt in a movie. Watching this continued state of perceived calm is very comforting.

Martin's character, Ray Porter, is also very comforting (even the name is soothing for visually and auditorally). Ray never committed to Mirabelle and even cheated on her at one point. Despite these classic relational shortcomings, as an audience member, I felt safe with him. Was it because he was an older man and had the father figure cliche on his side? Was it the past pain that beamed from his eyes? perhaps it was the combination of both. Maribelle, too, felt safe with him despite lack of commitment.

At the start of the film, Mirabelle, is listening to Dr. Joy Brown on the radio and Dr. Joy vents that, "Every woman needs to be touched. Physiologically, touch from even a stranger produces a response. depending on how long a woman is held depends on how much of these endorphins her body releases". When someone (male or female) is held a blanket of safety surrounds them. That sense of safe is what catalyzes the body's response to release the endorphins. This movie provides a temporary blanket of safety. Everything will turn out fine in the end - maybe not the way you expect it to happen - and more importantly you will live through the process of crossing the finish line.

The movie is not unnecessarily emotionally draining yet still provided a great message for me. The movie's message is different for everyone that sees the movie. So, gracefully walk to see this movie (I would say run but you should be in a calm sate of mind when you go see it).

Shopgirl, he said 4.0

2005-11-09T13:36:00.000-05:00

"Shopgirl" is adapted by Steve Martin from his own novella. The film is seemingly about Mirabelle Butterfield (Claire Danes) and the loneliness and disillusionment that comes with transcontinental transplantation. She is a twentysomething girl who has left her family in Vermont for the lights of Los Angeles. However, her dreams of becoming a successful artist are delayed by such things as student loans and mental illnesses. Mirabelle is lonely. When first we see her, she is standing alone behind the glove counter at Saks. She appears poised and professional,
much like she wishes to be, but behind the counter, we see her slouching and removing her shoes when no one is looking. Mirabelle goes home each night to a lonely little apartment. Even her cat ignores her. But the film is not really about Mirabelle.
Rather, it is about the two men who fall for her. Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) and Ray Porter (Martin) are vastly different men. I use the term men loosely because neither of them really know how to step up and really be the kind of man a woman, like Mirabelle, needs. Jeremy is a man-boy. He is about the same age as Mirabelle, and he too is an aspiring artist, sort of. His apartment and clothes show that Jeremy has not fully left adolescence behind him. Jeremy meets Mirabelle at the laundy mat. Ray Porter is a wealthy fiftysomething divorcee. Ray meets Mirabelle at Saks because, as a logician, he is the type of person who can afford to shop at Saks.

Through Mirabelle, the film highlights the differences between these two men. Jeremy really cares for Mirabelle, but he has no idea how to be a "gentleman." When picking her up for a date, he honks the horn, and even then she must wait for him to clean the trash out his car before she can get in. He only takes her to the movies once she agrees to buy her own ticket. He has no clue how to treat her like a lady, and he is still shy and awkward around her like a schoolboy with a crush. This is highlighted in the hilarious phone call scene. Ray Porter, on the other hand, knows all the right moves. Whereas Jeremy first asks Mirabelle out by mooching change off her for the dryer, Ray Porter buys her a pair of elegant gloves from Saks. He walks her to the door and waits for her to go in. Ray is always a "gentleman," but he does not care for Mirabelle. He is only interested in having sex with her.

Through a series of self help audiobooks and a long bustrip, Jeremy learns how to treat a woman. Ray, however, never learns how to truly love a woman, and he realizes this. He tells Mirabelle that he likes to buy her things because that is easy for him, but he does little else for her. I often felt like Ray was using the power of his age and money to take advantage of Mirabelle. Martin plays Porter so that he comes off ambiguously creepy. The change in Jeremy and the lack of change in Ray are highlighted in two scenes. Near the end of Ray's relationship with Mirabelle, the two are seen in bed together. Ray has reached over and placed his arm on her. Once Jeremy has undergone his character change and is reunited with Mirabelle, the two are scene sleeping together with Jeremy completely holding Mirabelle next to him. Now this may seem insignificant, but earlier in the film, Mirabelle is listening to radio psychologist Dr. Joy Browne talk about the different ways a man can hold a woman postcoitally. She lists at least four different ways and ranks them. Ray's way does not rank high. The way Jeremy holds Mirabelle is described by Dr. Browne as the way that will make a woman feel most loved and "fully like a woman."

For me, the highlight of this film was the dichotomy between the two men. I liked the character of Jeremy the most and really enjoyed seeing him change. The film contained a haunting score and a fitting soundtrack. Claire Danes is adorably captivating. Jason Schwartzman and Steve Martin are both capable of being hilarious even in more dramatic roles. But you already knew that about them all (if you didn't, see TV's "My So-Called Life," "Rushmore," and "Parenthood" respectively). The film is a fascinating mixture of realism and stylism. It seems to have a lot to say about love and relationships, but it never hits you over the head with it. Rather, it leaves it up to you to decide.

What do you think?

The Legend of Zorro, she said 3.9

2005-11-03T17:13:00.000-05:00

Sword fighting, Latin love, a man in disguise, thick accents - The Legend of Zoro has it all! Catherine Zeta-Jones and Antonio (how do you say, ah ,yes) Banderas are both aesthetically and emotionally scintillating on the screen. Their chemistry on the big screen is quite infectious. This could be for many reasons: one, Antonio Banderas had an ability to wrap any leading lady in his Latin yummy goodness; two, any time a director throws a action strategically around a love story one can't help but live vicariously through the lead characters; and three, please, who doesn't want an big screen love affair - no? well, loosen up some.

I am quite the fan of funny one-liners (not to say that I don't love the deep sorrowful monologues also but different moods call for different movies). The lines were perfectly placed, delivered and written. Delivering a perfect one-line is quite hard, however, Banderas makes it look easy. Jones was sexy and graceful on the screen, as always. I have not seen her play such a cheeky character in a long time and I really enjoyed her mixture of sass, whit and strength.

This one may have scored higher but the green screen effects at the end were horrifically disappointing. Why would you spend money on the film only to clearly reduce the budget at the end? The ending is the last impression and audience gets . If a producer is going to skimp on money, do it in the middle of the movie. When that happens the beginning can make up for the tight pocket's shortcoming.

if you are in the mood for a good movie and not looking for something to change you life go see Cathrine Zeta Jones and Antonio (how do you say, ah ,yes) Banderas in The Legend of Zoro. Please note, I have not seen the original movie.

The Legend of Zorro, he said 3.0

2005-11-02T17:16:00.000-05:00

I am a big fan of what I like to call adventure movies. You know the kind with fun characters thrown into exciting situations who perform thrilling feats of derring-do with lots of action (but not an "action" movie filled with guns and explosions and gratuitous swearing)? My favorites of the adventure genre include the Indiana Jones trilogy, "The Adventures of Robin Hood," "The Goonies," and more recently "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl."

The 1998 predecessor to this film, "The Mask of Zorro," was a fine example of a great adventure movie. This film is not. all this will be invisible until you click on the title Whereas the swordfights in "Mask" were thrilling, here they are hackneyed. The humor sprinkled throughout the first film was charming, but in the sequel, it is overused and childish. Replace the intriguing backstory and chilling villain of the first film with a confusing and out-of-nowhere conspiracy and bad guys who combine elements of the worst Bond and Looney Tunes nemeses. In addition, substitute Sir Anthony Hopkins with an annoying kid and change the the engaging lead characters into caricatures and one has "The Legend of Zorro."

I am surprised that the same director (Martin Campbell) helmed both films they are so disparate in quality. Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta-Jones once again shine as Zorro (or Don Alejandro de la Vega) and Elena. Both appear to be a having a lot of fun despite the writers ruining their characters. The ending contained some horrible CGI and shoddy green screen work. Also, much of what happened throughout the film, but particularly near the end, seemed to happen for no other reason than the script said so. At least the exciting Spanish score (which will always take me back to my high school marching band's half-time show from sophomore year. Yes, I was a band geek) remained.

What do you think?

Thumbsucker, she said 3.4

2005-10-28T14:58:00.000-04:00

This dramatic comedy follows the life of an adolescent boy, Justin Cobb, searching for an identity and the self confidence to defend that identity. Like its main character, the movie searches for a theme. Perhaps the director intended for the audience to feel the confused insecurity of adolescence; The heart pounding anxiety the occurs when your world is falling away from you and you desperately long to grasp on to something, just one thing, that is stable. There were so many earnest themes splashed throughout the movie I felt as if I were back in high school and amidst the whirlwind of life pick out what was important and what could fall by the waist-side. Is that good? It was different and putting the lack of structure in this light makes the movie sound very well thought out.

I am still not confident of the movie's intended message. Really, I came out of the movie waiting to get an Adderall prescription. Recently I have had a lot of work to do yet lacked the time. Cobb learns the miraculous effects of the tiny pill as he works his way to the state finals of the debate team. His change from spacey teenager to focused winner campaigns for the wonder that is Adderall. As the wonderful Dane Cook would say, "why not me? I want that." (yes, i just quoted a stand up comidian). There were other themes that seemed equally important at the time but they did not seem to stick with me once left the theater. It makes me wonder if there were any pharmacy companies funding this film....something to think about.

if you are in the mood to think a bit check this film out. But, if you brain is on the fritz - go get some Adderall and then go watch the movie.

Thumbsucker, he said 3.0

2005-10-28T13:32:00.000-04:00

"Thumbsucker" is a more than capable film. I enjoyed watching it, but little has remained with me other than the desire to be prescribed Ritalin like Justin (Lou Taylor Pucci). If it can really do all that it did for him, then get me some of that.

"Thumbsucker" is inhabited by a group of characters played by a more than competent cast who all make their characters feel like real people. Tilda Swinton, as Audrey, especially shines (I cannot wait to see her as the Ice Queen in the upcoming Narnia film). The fact that the characters seem so much like real people, I think, is the reason that I did not particularly enjoy them as characters. all this will be invisible until you click on the title The characters are not dynamic. Though with Justin at least, he is not static. I think one could call his character "circular." He changes with the help of drugs, but then reverts back to his old ways. The film seems to be saying that change brought about by medication is not real change. What that says about mental illness is, I think, wrong.

The film is an engaging journey filled with bizarre dream-like sequences set to the music of the somewhat creepy Polyphonic Spree. There are many funny moments and a good bit of what Perry (Keanu Reeves) might call "hippie psychobabble." This ultimately brought the film down for me. It tries so hard to be ambiguous about its meanings and messages that it come across as unsure of itself. Also, while the characters all felt like real people, none of them are people that I would really enjoy spending time with.

What do you think?

Elizabethtown, she said 3.6

2005-10-20T23:46:00.000-04:00

Orlando Bloom has once again managed to be cast in yet another movie with an amazing cast. The beauty that is Bloom has, for the first time, kept his head above water in the proverbial pool of talent. Susan Sarandon played Bloom's cracked up mother but, as she said, could play his lover in the next film with him. I love that she does not limit her self because of her age. Not only does she go for the nontraditional roles but she gracefully pulls it off.

The movie took me on a journey across country, introduced me to a long lost family and saw the sparks of love (or lust some may say). My problem with the movie came was those three example. I saw all of this, the movie did not pull me into its world. I didn't feel the joy of discovering new adventure, the awkwardness of distant quirky family members, or the wave of heat that comes with new love. There was a nice moment when Bloom and Dunst had a nice moment during a late night phone call. The dialogue was well delivered and the scenes were well cut together too. The scene was a moment that made me long to be apart of what they were experiencing. However, the movie was e123 minutes line.

Sadly, that was one of the few moments I long to be apart of. Good movies have those experiential moments sprinkled throughout (as if trying to use them sparingly). However, a great movie is just one experiential moment. One moment for the audience to escape into the world the artists have created.....Ok, so that may be too much of a soap box, but it is true. This movie wasn't bad, it just didn't inspire me. Recently, i have been disappointed rather disappointed with movie's ability to sweep me off my feet and carry me away to cinema-land. Some would speculate that I need to find a man, but please, we all know that isn't true!!

Closing thought: Finding Orlando Bloom hot IS reason enough to go see this movie.

Elizabethtown, he said 3.0

2005-10-18T21:53:00.000-04:00

There is a scene in "Elizabethtown" in which Drew (Orlando Bloom) and Claire (Kirsten Dunst) spend the entire night on the phone. This scene awoke in me the feelings of excitement and apprehension and fun that come with these types of calls. The ones you are initially terrified to make, but once you do, you never want them to end. Where the things you talk about range from the most trivial to the most profound and would make little sense to anyone but the two of you. Crowe captures the elation of those kinds of calls perfectly.

I wish that the entire movie could have reached the heights of that segment. It does not, but the film is never really bad either. Awkward is probably the best word for the way many scenes played out.all this will be invisible until you click on the title "Cheesy" is the word I would use for one scene toward the end [when Drew visits the hotel where Dr. King was killed set to the tune of U2's Pride (In the Name of Love)].

I think that the biggest surprise in the movie is that Orlando Bloom does not completely stink. In fact, I'd say he's rather good in many scenes (particularly in the road trip montage). However, like his other leading parts, he just seems to be trying way too hard. During the scene in which Drew first sees his father's body, you can look into Bloom's eyes and clearly see him concentrating very hard on his "acting." Again, awkward.

Bloom is however surrounded by a very solid supporting cast which compensates for his weaknesses. Kirsten Dunst radiate energy as Claire. She's cute and attractive and fun in the same way that Kate Hudson was in "Almost Famous" and Natalie Portman in "Garden State." Susan Sarandon, Judy Greer, Loudon Wainwright, Alec Baldwin, and Jessica Biel are all good in their limited roles. The film also features the always spectacular soundtrack that one has come to expect from a Crowe film (though certain scenes here made me feel as if he was relying too much on the songs).

There are things that I would have liked to see done differently in this movie. I would have liked to have seen a more competent actor in the lead. Storywise, I felt there needed to be more focus on Drew's emotional journey. I could have pretty much done without the entire shoe plot. I also would have liked to see more of Sarandon and Greer as Drew's widowed mother and single mom sister. I think that the romance storyline and the road trip could have been more intwined so that we could see more sweeping scenes of the majestic American landscapes.

"Elizabethtown" does not always reach the highs that Cameron Crowe has attained with "Almost Famous" or "Say Anything," but it never reaches to the lows he fell to with "Vanilla Sky" or "Jerry Maguire." The film is like the roadtrip Claire plans for Drew. It meanders. It takes its time. It allows you to appreciate the scenery. It plays some good songs. It illicits a range of emotions. Enjoy the journey. I could not stop smiling the whole way through.

Waiting..., he said 0.0

2005-10-12T17:25:00.000-04:00

"Demented, depraved, and senseless." These are the words used by Monty (Ryan Reynolds) to describe the wacky antics of his restaraunt crew. Wacky they may be, but funny they are most definitely not. I can't really comment on the plot, story, etc. of this film, because the film (in the loosest sense of that word) is far too concerned with playing the "male genitalia-showing game" to worry about such meaningless devices as those. Yes, you read that sentence correctly. Yes, the running gag of this movie involves male staff members flashing one another.

In addition to that, there is recurring joke (and I hesitate to call it that because the word "joke" implies that it is funny) about pedophilia. This nearly culminates in statutory rape (Monty decides against it, but he still wants the girl to tell everyone they did it. Isn't he a great guy? Ha!). Women are degraded and objectified. Children do drugs. The handicapped are maligned. Other people degraded by this film include (but are probably not limited to) children with Down's Syndrome, foreigners, homosexuals, and rural people.

You know how people laugh in disbelief when they are shocked or uncomfortable? The few laughs this comedy (and I use that word loosely) manages to elicit are those kind. I never expected this movie to be good, but considering the cast, I was shocked by how bad it was. Ryan Reynolds, Justin Long, Anna Faris, and Luiz Guzman have all done fairly decent work before (and someone keeps telling me that that Dane Cook guy is supposedly funny too). However, none of them manage to make this movie work in the least. I am most disappointed in John Francis Daley. Daley played my favorite character in my favorite TV show ever (Freaks and Geeks). He was amazing. And now he is in this. Stupid NBC!

Daley's character does, however, sum up many of my reactions to this movie in an angry tirade at the end. I can't find the quote anywhere, but he basically tells all of the other characters that they are the sickest people ever. Word!

If you want to see a hilarious movie about smart aleck twentysomethings surviving a day of working their dead end jobs while trying to make sense of their lives, DO NOT see this movie. Instead, rent Kevin Smth's vastly superior "Clerks."

Waiting..., she said 1.9

2005-10-12T09:06:00.000-04:00

Yes, the ellipsis is apart of the movie's title, which may possibly be the only creative aspect of this movie - but really, is an ellipses all that creative? I admit that I saw the movie because I am slowly falling in love with the wonder that is Dane Cook. Perhaps if he were given more lines or even well written lines the movie would have been more enjoyable.

There are a lot of "could have's" for this movie. For example, Dane Cook could have been the token one liner guy, however, he was allowed only four times to say a funny one-liner, not nearly enough time to establish a character or a pattern of humor.

Too, the movie could have had a great moral undertone. I am quite the scholar of the quarter-life crisis and both the individual and social effects of this new phenomenon. SO, naturally I took an interest in the main characters struggle between doing what makes him happy, what his mother wants, and living up to societal expectations. Coming back to the could have part, this minimal character development was dramatically over shadowed by the movie’s attempt at crass humor.

This leads me to my last could have. The movie could have had a crass sense of humor that made you buckle over in laugh while suppressing the urge to vomit. I must admit, there is a small part in me (ok maybe a big one) that likes sick, crass humor - I lived with Trey for two years. This movie made a poor attempt. The jokes were poorly worded and misplaced.

The movie had the potential to be another American Pie meets Clerks (I am sure that was a sales pitch used by the writers). Despite the pitiful efforts, Waiting... fell short by leaps and bounds. My only physical reaction is to roll my eyes, turn on my heel and walk away - whatev sums it up!

Serenity, she said 4.1

2005-10-10T21:51:00.000-04:00

Some people I know would give this a higher rating and fuss over the fact that I didn't give this movie a 5. However, I am not as emotionally invested in the characters or the movie as some people I know.

Sometimes you are just in the mood for a classic. You already know the character types, you already know the plot, and usually you know the plot twists and where they will occur. A movie like Serenity gives you a sense of stability - you know you will like it because you have seen it before. The reason you go? You go to see a new version of what directors, producers and actors have know works for years. You go to see the new wrapping of an old and well thought out gift. Serenity is a movie where you will laugh, sit on the edge of your seat in suspense, pump you fist while river demolishes an army of villains, and squirt a tear when a beloved character bites the dust. A guy can cheer during the action scene and his counterpart female can stereotypically cry on his shoulder during the more emotional moments.

Go see it if you live action movie set in space.

Serenity, he said 5.0

2005-10-10T21:45:00.000-04:00

You Can’t Take The Sky From Me
Contains Spoilers

There is a seemingly simple scene near the very end of Serenity that perfectly captures the layered essence of the film (and all things Whedon for that matter). The scene in question takes place between Mal Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), the captain of the title boat who is an intriguing mixture of Jimmy Stewart’s western characters, Captain James T. Kirk, and Han Solo; and his first mate, Zoe (Ginna Torres). These two characters have a long history together (fans of the show Firefly on which the film is based will know this, but newbies will still enjoy the film), and they have just experienced a taxing battle. Battle may be the wrong word. It’s more of a near suicidal effort to do the right thing. There has been damage. There have been casualties. Mal asks Zoe if the ship will fly. She says it will be bumpy and they’ll have to weather the storm, but they’ll make it through, like they always do. Now, there is a storm, and the ride will be bumpy; but Zoe and Mal are talking about so much more with this little exchange.

This kind of writing is part of what makes Joss Whedon a genius. Whedon has an astonishing (pun intended, Whedon currently writes Marvel’s “Astonishing X-Men,” THE best X-men run since Claremont and Byrne’s definitive run 25 years ago) ability to come up with ideas that sound ridiculous and make them supercool. A Valley Girl who fights vampires? Yeah. A vampire with a soul? That too. Toys that come to life? Yep, Whedon wrote Toy Story. A Western set in space? Welcome aboard Serenity. He takes these bizarre concepts and creates intricate new worlds for them to exist in and populates them with fun, interesting ensembles that feel like real people with real feelings and real problems existing in fantastic realities. Whedon also seems to have an uncanny ability at discovering amazing new talent or hidden talent (see Sarah Michelle Gellar, Alyson Hannigan, David Boreanaz, Nathan Fillion, et al). Don’t let the fact that there are no “stars” in Serenity keep you from seeing it. Though their names might not be recognizable, the cast of the film is beyond capable. Fillion was born to play Mal. He perfectly captures Mal’s loss of faith due to his war experience (forgive me that, as a Browncoat, I cannot fully separate the character arcs in the film from the ones in the overall story of series and film), his staunch loyalty to his crew, and his passion for his boat. Torres, Adam Baldwin, Alan Tudyk, Summer Glau, Jewel Staite, Morena Baccarin, Ron Glass, and Sean Maher all round out the lively crew. Chiwetel Ejiofor is introduced as the chilling and mysterious villain known simply as The Operative. David Krumholtz portrays the amusing new character Mr. Universe (who has his own version of the Buffybot).

I love this film. I admit it is very hard for me to be objective about it. Even before seeing it, I was very emotionally attached to it. I am a Browncoat who has followed this story since it was on Fox, to DVD, and through the long journey to the big screen. The climactic battle of the film is symbolic to me of this ‘verse. As the beautiful ship Serenity is defaced to pass as a Reaver ship, I am reminded of how Fox buried the show on Friday nights and aired the episodes out of order (what genius decided to air the pilot last? Please.). When she crashes, I feel the sadness of the cancellation. But just as the ship is rebuilt and flies again in the end, Joss and the fans didn’t give up, and due to their efforts, the story has returned as an amazing space opera adventure. However, like there are losses in the film, some things will never be the same again no matter how many more movies might one day be made. Firefly, in a fair world, could still be on the air now in what would have been the fourth season. I think the movie is great, but I know that Whedon is unparalleled in his ability to play out a story in just the right way over the course of a TV season. Serenity is awesome, but that story as a season of Firefly? I can only imagine how much more awesome it might have been. In the end though, I am thrilled that I can go into a dark theater and go on another adventure with my “big damn heroes.” Fox may have cancelled our show, but they can never kill our passion. As the show's theme song says, “you can’t take the sky from me.”

A History of Violence, he said 1.0

2005-10-09T21:08:00.000-04:00

David Cronenberg is “starting to damage my calm.” These were my thoughts as I sat through “A History of Violence” last night. Needless to say, “Serenity” was still flying around in my head. This however was a movie I had also been looking forward to, and I really expected to like it. Once the film began, I thought I did like it. As the film went on, I still wanted to like it. But by the time the film took an abrupt turn with a change in character and setting, I knew I could never like it.

Cronenberg lures us in with the familiarity of the setting and the characters. Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) and his family are “just folks” who live in Smalltown, USA (in this case, rural Indiana). He owns a diner, his wife Edie (Maria Bello) is a lawyer, and his son Jack (Ashton Holmes) is the increasingly stereotypical wisecracking semi (or maybe all the way) geeky, Converse wearing, unpopular teenage “guy” (think Seth Cohen, but more real). He uses these all-American people in their all-American town to make us feel safe and comfortable. I liked these people. They reminded me of myself and people I know. I wanted to know more about these people.

But then Cronenberg yanks the table cloth out from under the vase. Now, I think his intentions were to show that “the flowers are still standing” (from the closing scene of the family dinner), but to me, everything came crashing down. In Cronenberg’s own words, he is “a complete Darwinian” and he wanted to make a movie that shows “innate violence of Darwinian evolution.” I think the fact that I realize that Darwinism doesn’t work is why this film, ultimately, does not work for me. Some may wonder whether Jack’s change in character is a result of poor modeling by his father. I think this would have been a much more interesting message to portray, but Cronenberg says no, he is simply following his “natural” inclination to be violent, like his father.

Now, I’m not saying that humans are not violent. We are all totally depraved, and I think this film does a good job of showing that no matter how hard we might try, we can’t change this on our own. Of course, this is not the message the director wants us to get out of it. He says that violence allows the “fittest” to survive (whether it be in the mob or the high school locker room). I know that only Christ can allow us to truly leave this state of total depravity. Of course, I didn’t expect the film to show this message (how refreshing it could be to see a movie show that though), but I am disappointed and at least somewhat surprised that the movie shows no signs of hope. Cronenberg leaves us with a family that survives by being violent. According to him, violence is the answer. I’m sorry, but I cheered for Jack when he outwitted the tool and cringed when he kicked the crap out of him.

The movie is not poorly made. The cinematography was beautiful, wonderfully capturing the majestic, vast emptiness of middle America. The score was very effective, although unmemorable. The acting by the leads is well done (and kudos to young Holmes who I was especially captivated by). However, I felt Ed Harris and especially William Hurt was guilty of overacting and turning their villains into cartoonish caricatures. Once the film turns into a somewhat generic gangster movie, everything seems to come to a grinding halt and the last half hour seems to drag on forever. And while I know that violence was inevitable and necessary for this story, I felt that Cronenberg was at times pushing the envelope just for the sake of it. I know what he intended to show through the opening sex scene, but couldn’t he have conveyed the same message by just showing us the couple spending time on their “date” together rather than showing us rather hardcore pornography? And the other sex scene stepped over the line into marital rape. And I felt that some of the violence was simply gratuitous. I really wish I had not seen all of the things this movie showed me. I should have been more discerning. These images are in my head now, and I cannot escape them. They are disturbing and troublesome. So is the movie as a whole. Its message is bothersome, and I the fact that there are people in this world, like Cronenberg, who truly believe that this is how the world works breaks my heart and boggles my mind.

A History of Violence, she said 3.2

2005-10-09T18:58:00.000-04:00

I really wanted to like this movie. I think that is why I took it so hard when it wasn't what I expected. Upon thinking about it last night and this morning, I think the two scenes I could have done without (rather, could have been tones down) were the two sex scenes. I do understand the point of them and how contrasting they were the relevance to the movie and explicated the character change. However, I went to go see a movie not a pornography.

My professor once told me that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So.I think Tom/Joey's behavior was inevitable once his past found him. No matter how hard you try you cannot run your past the only way to really deal with it is confront it. In the end he did. While it was by murdering the mobsters. It was then that Joey could disappear forever leaving Tom to live with his family. One can also look at human nature and the basis of violence. No matter what we do we have a primal erg to kill. I don't so much by that one but it is arguable

Now I am interested to hear what you think of the son's change. At the start of the movie he was so witty and kind. He was so hurt by his father's character shift emotionally and physically at the end of the movie that the spark of life seemed to be drained out of him. Yet, he still felt the need to save his father - was that the start of his history of violence or was it him just being loyal to his father. Clearly, if he has been hurt by his father. If you can't trust you family then it skews you object relation of trusting others that may come into your life.

Technically there were some great camera angles and I really like the long shot in the beginning. It was a bit long winded. The director produce a high level of anxiety without quick cuts and loud music. What made you anxious was the fear in the mother's face contrasted with the calm in Tom's. For me, it was a new feeling of anxiety - I liked it. I think I would have like the film a lot more if there were not so many lulls. As a write this I am starting to like the movie more and wanting to see it again. I think it was the late night and the slow pace that lowered the emotional level for me. Perhaps it is not a good idea to see a double feature because no matter the time of day I don't really like it as much

Rating System

2003-10-13T22:14:00.000-04:00

"The star rating system is relative, not absolute. When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two. In the same way, if American Beauty gets four stars, then [The United States of] Leland clocks in at about two." -Roger Ebert, the same applies to our rating system

5- Why are you still sitting there? Go see it now!
4- Worthy of a matinee.
3- See it in the dollar theatre.
2- Wait to NetFlix it.
1- Don’t waste your time.
0- I wanted to gouge my eyes out.

About Us

2003-10-13T22:13:00.000-04:00

Brandon and Patricia are two friends who are completely unqualified to be film critics. Neither of them has any formal training or experience, but they both really like movies and have seen a lot of them. Brandon was briefly a film studies major and barely passed an Introduction to Cinema class, and he once read a book by Roger Ebert. Patricia did drama in high school, and she has extensive experience using NetFlix. Despite these shortcomings, all of the reviews are enjoyable and quite insightful.

Other than this, Brandon and Patricia are college students who attend a movie every Tuesday night (since that is student discount night). A complicated system of rules exist to determine who gets to determine what movie is seen each week, but these rules are disclosed only on a “need to know” basis.

Tuesday Movie Night, the outing, was established in Fall 2003. Tuesday Movie Night, the blog, was established in Fall 2005.

We hope you enjoy the reviews. Leave comments to let us know what you think.

2003-10-02T22:34:00.000-04:00