07-03-31 Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj (2006)

Seen: March 27th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 4

I like Ryan Reynolds. He's pretty funny. I like Kal Penn. He's funny too and actually has some acting talent. Van Wilder was mildly amusing. This one ain't.

The problem here is that The Rise of Taj is a re-tread. So was Van Wilder, but at least they knew it and made an effort to go over the top on occasion to keep it interesting. What we've got here is a class-struggle allegory mashed up with a cross-class romance mashed up with a dedicated teacher with challenging students scenario, all set in a university T&A flick.

As you can imagine, it's a mess.

The talent here is generally OK. There's some truly bad performances, and a few that are horrific, but I'm thinking that many of these may be due to directorial choices, as opposed actual lack of talent. There are some decent actors here, both character and supporting. That said, the talent here is absolutely C to D list with the exception of Penn.

The fundamental problem here is the script. It tried to be too many things.

It skirts several controversial areas without having the temerity to actually cross the line. It's like a 3rd grader who keeps putting his toe over a boundary he's not supposed to cross, but won't actually rebel and step over, cross his arms and stare you down. There's a consistent air of apologetic politically correct awareness. This lack of commitment ultimately rings hollow and sabotages the entire affair.

This same lack of commitment also undermines the all the "soft" stories in the piece as well. They degenerate into pure sap when portrayed by characters that won't go all out in other areas.

This was a whim. I was in the mood for some mindless crude humor. What I got was some allegorical moral mish-mash that collapses under its own sincerity.

The ultimate moral? Beware sequels of low-brow films.

The Good: Dirty Cockney Girl

The Bad: Harry Potter lookalike

The Ugly: Bludgeoning a nubile coed

07-03-30 An American Haunting (2005)

Seen: March 27th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 3

There are horror movies and then there are horrid movies. This is one of the later.

I'm trying to find something nice to say about this. I guess that there are a few "Made you jump!" moments, and they're pretty good ones at that. There's some polished possession effects that are cribbed from The Exorcist, but done with modern technology. Sissy Spacek and Donald Sutherland do their parts a great deal of justice.

The rest is awful. Where to begin?

First, this is supposed to be a period piece. That's all well and good, but nothing of the period really stands out and contributes to the story. People wander around in period garb and prattle on in stilted older English with bad accents. Kids write on slates. Basically the whole thing is a modern possession film with period trappings.

The fact that this is based on a true story is pointless. The story it's based on seems to be an account published long after the actual haunting and possibly sensationalized. The story itself is basic possession fare. You wont' see anything you haven't seen before. You will see a lot that you have seen before, much of it repeated several times to make sure you didn't miss anything.

The story which "wraps" the period story is also pointless. It exists merely as a failed attempt to try to infuse the period tale with some modern relevance. Its tepid and trite, and doesn't service to period piece at all. I wouldn't be surprised if is was shot and added late in post-production to try to lengthen the film and connect with audiences.

The acting, with the exceptions of Spacek and Sutherland, is uniformly grim. S and S are professionals and deliver solid performances. They do a decent job with the little they're provided. Others don't fare as well. The hideous accents and melodramatic performances grow tiresome. There is blustering and emoting aplenty. The fact that the dialogue is less than inspiring doesn't help this much.

There is actually some decent camera work and design here. The Color transitioning to Black and White fade with sweeping camera moves is stolen from Fallen, a much better film. Still, it's fairly effective here. The lighting and night lighting in particular is good. The fairly drab color scheme fits the film well. The world is not overly neat and picturesque, opting instead for a more homespun and authentic look.

The worst part about all this is that there's little to even make fun of. It's just a pointless re-tread. Unless you're collecting possession films or want to know what to avoid in your burgeoning film career, I'd look elsewhere.

The Good: Spacek and Sutherland

The Bad: Accents

The Ugly: Modern day allegory plays dress-up

07-03-29 Look Both Ways (2005)

Seen: March 25th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

Look Both Ways is another of those multiple story line films, where the characters are related by a few degrees of separation and each present and represent a different aspect of a common theme. Unlike many multiple story line films I've seen recently, Look Both Ways actually works, and works well.

Its success lies in its simplicity. The stories are simple. The characters are simple. The situations are simple. There is a fundamental truth here. The world doesn't need to be a complex and hyper-dramatic to hold our attention, to make an impact, to make us care.

We've all seen an astonishing sunset. We've all stared in wonder at the night sky. But conveying that feeling to someone else is difficult. It must rely on some shared context, and even when we are lucky enough to adequately express our intent, having it truly connect with our audience is difficult and rare.

The theme here is living and dying. Not their mysteries themselves, but how we approach them, are affected by them, and are ultimately defined by them. It's an ancient conceit, but one that springs new for each generation. It is as fundamental as our very lives.

There are no judgements here. No easy or glib solutions. No railing against the dying of the light. We are presented with several situations and simply observe them as they unfold.

When viewing Look Both Ways, I doubt that any two people will see the same film. Everyone will bring their own experiences to bear, and react based on them. Each character will be different for them, and the events bring slightly different expectations and resolutions. The brilliance of this film is genericism and universality. It is something to everyone, but not necessarily the same something.

There are interesting creative and technical aspects to the film. They initially draw the viewer in, but fade after a time, both in their frequency and import, as we begin to identify with the characters. In the end, they're really not necessary, as the quality and sheer sincerity of the film are more than adequate to carry it.

This film is no masterwork. It is not revolutionary. I may not remember it in a year. But it engaged and immersed me in a world which I cared about. It made me think and made me feel, and for me, that's the hallmark of a successful film.

The Good: Simple tales of living and dying

The Bad: Taking death for granted

The Ugly: The expectation of catastrophe

07-03-28 Nine Lives (2005)

Seen: March 24th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 4

It's pretty rare that I start out by talking about the Executive Producer of a film, but that's what caught my eye when the credits rolled.

This film is written and directed by Rodrigo Garciá, and Executive Produced by Alejandro González Iñárritu. I didn't know anything at all about Garcia, but this had the distinct feel of an Iñárritu film. It was composed of many stories, all of a similar basic theme, most linked together by the coincidence of sharing some characters. Sounds a bit like Babel to me. I thought perhaps that Garciá was a protege.

After a small bit of research, it turns out that Garciá is an accomplished writer and director in his own right, and older as well. In fact, I believe that Nine Live is an extension of Garciá's earlier projects, Ten Tiny Love Stories and Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her. He seems to have some unfinished business here.

So What? So basically the same problems I had with Babel exist here, but are magnified.

The theme again is women and their issues. I'm a guy, so I won't even contemplate speaking for women, but I wonder whether another guy is the right person to write a series of nine short dramatic pieces about women's issues. Especially since this is his third go-round. I'm not saying he got it wrong. How could I possibly know if he got it right?

Again there is a problem with relevant connectivity. The individual stories share a few characters, but this is far too little to tie them together as a cohesive whole. Each of the stories has a hanging ending. The transitions are stark and sudden, effectively separating them instead of uniting them.

This is, in my opinion, not a film at all, but a collection of one scene plays, shot on film and cobbled together. As I watched Nine Lives, I actually imagined it staged as small plays, and I think that amazing things could be done with it in that medium. Garciá films each section as a single take, furthering this play-like atmosphere by subjecting his actors to the sustained performances more common to plays than film.

The talent here is top-notch. Almost every time a new character appeared, it was portrayed by someone I recognized and respected. I'm quite certain that each actor prepared diligently for their parts. I'm sure they knew the character inside and out, perhaps even inventing backstories. Unfortunately this is lost to us, the audience.

The pieces are so short that no character development occurs. We must react to each character in a single, constrained context, or perhaps two, it they span stories and have a significant part in each. The characters have no time to grow and breathe, no time to unfold. We're presented with them in full maturity.

We spent most of our time cataloging reactions and trying to piece the story together from the limited information we're given. We don't know who is good, who is bad, or really who did what to whom to produce the reactions we see. We spend so much of our limited time trying to decipher the action that we have no time left to understand or empathize with any of the characters. We're left feeling out of the loop, left on the outside looking in, which again this reinforces the play-like aspect of the piece.

While I feel that there's excellent material here, I feel that Nine Lives doesn't deliver as a film. The ideas and characters could be compelling if we only had the chance to get to know them. For now, they're only strangers on the other side of the window.

The Good: Excellent performances by veterans

The Bad: The illusion of relevant connection

The Ugly: Secrets revealed in social situations

07-03-27 Reign Over Me (2007)

Seen: March 24th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 8

The buzz around this film seems to be focused on whether or not Adam Sandler can do justice to a dramatic role and potentially follow in the footsteps of the likes of Robin Williams and Jim Carey. For those with short attention spans, the answer is "yes".

For those of you still with me, Adam Sandler's performance is only a small piece of this excellent pastiche.

Credit goes first to Mike Binder, not for his small performance, but for the excellence of his script and his execution of it. The subject matter dealt with here is sensitive. It would be easy to stray into territories both maudlin and cliche. It would be simple to make Charlie an everyman, a metaphor for every person affected by the tragedies of 9/11. Doing so would make him resonate with everyone. It would allow us to have him stand for us all. It would be a cop out.

Instead, Binder makes Charlie very specific. He give his a specific job, a specific family life, and specific idiosyncrasies. He gives him defects of character. In short, Binder makes Charlie real, and in doing so allows us to identify with him as an entity, instead of as a metaphor. This is ultimately much more compelling.

The real metaphor in the film is Alan. He is all the things that Charlie is not, but suffers from the same problems. Since he has no excuse, no outward signs of the smaller traumas that plague him, he is not immediately perceived as defective. The journey he takes toward his own healing parallels Charlie's almost exactly. In the end, this makes for a much stronger statement.

Great performances abound here. I absolutely love Don Cheadle's work. The fact that he's not won an Oscar is proof of the shallow and political nature of the Academy. He should have his own category by now. His Alan is brilliant, subtle and compelling. Liv Tyler is cast against type and makes makes another brilliant and subtle turn. You may not be familiar with Saffron Burrows, one of Mike Figgis's frequent castings. She plays, let's say, "damaged" characters like no one I've ever seen. Donna is a complex character and one hard to make sympathetic. Burrows manages to make her sincere and real. Jada Pinkett-Smith is understated and effective.

The film is well shot. The locations and sets are carefully chosen and artfully reflect their characters. There is a general warmth to the look of the film which is comforting and embracing. There are some very cold locations, and these stand out in their intentional starkness.

I like this film very much. There is power here. There is compassion. There is a hard look at ourselves and how we deal with our individual traumas and how we assign responsibility for them.

The Good: Sensitive without being maudlin

The Bad: Communication difficulties abound

The Ugly: The hypocrisy of "helping" someone else to salve your own wounds

07-03-26 Battle Royale (Batoru rowaiaru) (2000)

Seen: July, 2006
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

You're not going to like this film as much as I did. This is a bad film, and I really like bad films.

Good bad films all have an outrageous premise. Death Race 2000 is perhaps the classic example. Battle Royale's premise is that rebellious, bordering on criminal, teenagers can be used for sport, and in the process thin their own ranks. By a government mandate, a 9th grade class, chosen by lottery, is abducted and brought to an island where they are forced into a three day deathmatch. Only one can remain living at the end of three days, or they all perish by ... nah, you'll have to see it to believe it.

This film could have only come from Japan. The resultant mayhem is simply awesome. To say more would spoil at least something for you.

I read an article that suggested that Battle Royale is a twisted take on Lord of the Flies and this is an apt comparison. Battel Royale accelerates the classic tension of power and conflict by making survival not only a game, but actually requiring aggression and violence for anyone hoping to assure their own survival.

There is social commentary a plenty here. It is painted in broad strokes, similar to Death Race 2000 and A Clockwork Orange. It's hardly the focus of the film, but you'd have to be blind to miss the satire. The whole film is basically violent hyperbole. Even the game master, played with brilliant stoicism by "Beat" Takeshi Kitano is a hyper-extended stereotype.

My understanding is that Kinji Fukasaku, who died in 2003 at the age of 72, made several controversial films. I'll be adding what I can find to my "To Watch" list.

This film is not for the squeamish, the self-righteous or the politically correct. It's basically a twisted and sadistic piece of exploitation media that uses violence for entertainment and some incidental social commentary. At the same time, it transcends the basic body count film by its originality and tone. It's got spunk.

If you're OK with all that, or can be for a few hours, call your friends and start popping that microwave corn.

The Good: Channeled Teen Angst as entertainment

The Bad: A not-so-level playing field

The Ugly: The truly animal side of human nature.

07-03-25 Tideland (2005)

Seen: March 23rd, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

I'm a fan of Terry Gilliam's. Most of his films I find amazing, The Brothers Grimm being an exception. They're not simple, and each seems to become less accessible. Tideland continues this procession.

I have no idea what this film is actually about. Even with Gilliam's introduction, I'm at a loss to find a cogent thread. I've finally given up, and decided that it's not really about anything. It's merely a story, and not a very pretty story, as presented from a child's point of view.

Horrific things happen here. Like some Prussian fairy tale, terrible and even gruesome things happen to an innocent girl. I have no clue where the allegory is, but she does seem to learn a lesson or two, some we'd consider positive, and some maybe not so much so. It's a strange journey that she travels, both before and during the film, and the end makes us wonder if it will become any better, whatever that means.

One thing that stands out here is the sheer talent of Jodelle Ferland, who could have been no more than 11 when she played this part. They way that she inhabits the character of Jeliza-Rose is stunning. Watching Jeliza-Rose as she goes about her life, you wonder, "how could this little girl do these things?" Then you remember that there's an actress actually playing the little girl who does these strange things in such a natural fashion. From her first scene, I was transfixed.

Brendan Fletcher turns in a masterful, classically Gilliam role as well. Its said that Gilliam cast him based based on an audition tape alone. Janet McTeer is excellent also.

Production design is as you might expect for a Gilliam film, though a bit more plain and understated than usual. The film isn't as visually dark as some of his other films. There are dark scenes, but they're interspersed with bright outdoor scenes. The juxtapositions are usually dramatic, though dark doesn't always mean danger or light, safety.

I should probably watch this film a few more times. I like it. You may not. Like most of Gilliam's films, its a little dark and a little more twisted. It's not sadistic, but it's absolutely creepy. If you've enjoyed Gilliam's more abstruse films in the past, it's definitely worth your time. If you like endings which neatly tie up loose ends, or are one of those people who tug at their companion in the theater and whisper "Why did he do that ?!?", then this is absolutely not your jar of lemonade.

The Good: Jodelle Ferland is transcendent

The Bad: Mystique as the anti-conscience

The Ugly: Loved Ones for all eternity

07-03-24 A Good Year (2006)

Seen: March 15th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

I'm a big fan of Ridley Scott. I'll admit he's done some films that aren't that great, and that the quality of his work may have deteriorated a little over the last few decades. But I'll still watch anything he makes, and generally be rewarded by my loyalty.

Scott seems to vary his films. We've got large productions like Gladiator, Blade Runner and Black Hawn Down on one side and films like Matchstick Men and Thelma & Louise on the other. Scott seems to take the opportunity with these "smaller" films to explore humanity with a smaller lens, to focus on character and the forces of change in small scopes instead of the change the world variety.

A Good Year falls firmly in this latter camp.

It's easy to dismiss this film as simple romantic comedy. It's easy to enjoy it only on its surface. The characters are broad and reasonably interesting, their arcs not too complex. There is romance, conflict begot of personal mores, and the eventually satisfying, if not predictable conclusion. It's not a complicated story.

But there may be a little bit more...

It's also a tale of a man re-discovering his childhood. Of re-discovering the goodness of things he's left behind. In his mind, he's matured beyond the things his uncle values. He's grown up and views his uncle as an idiosyncratic sybarite. He leaves all those childhood moments behind, works and excels in a high-pressure world where money is merely used to keep score.

Provence is his childhood. On returning here Max is re-immersed in that world he so took for granted. As a child he was spoiled, provided opportunities that he is, even now, unaware of the magnitude. He has taken for granted simple things during his childhood, dismissing them as inconsequential in his adulthood. The film is about his re-discovery of these things and a new found appreciation for them, and his eventual re-prioritization of his life based on them.

A Good Year is perhaps autobiographical. We know that Scott owns property in Provence, and that he suggested the story which lead to the book, which he re-made into the film he saw when he suggested it in the first place. It's not a difficult stretch to imagine that Max's journey parallels on some ways Scott's own. Perhaps it's this personal aspect of the film which makes it less appealing to some.

And very appealing to those who identify with it.

The Good: Albert Finney and Freddie Highmore; excellence at both ends of the spectrum.

The Bad: A pat tale of redemption.

The Ugly: Lavender's multiple uses.

07-03-23 One Night With The King (2006)

Seen: March 16th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 2

Biblical movies are tough. They're period films by definition. They tell stories cherished by millions over millennia. They're subject to a certain amount of interpretation. They're dramatic by nature.

There's so much that can go wrong. And most of it does.

Wow, where to start?

First, the good thing.

Tiffany Dupont is very good. She's pretty, talented and manages to bring an impressive humility and sincerity to her character even while delivering bombastic and stilted dialogue. She's true to her character, and we believe it.

Everyone else is abominable. There are great actors here. Actors of immense talent. They are badly used, badly directed, badly costumed. There are terrible actors here. They also are badly used,badly directed and badly costumed.

The acting is, for the most part, stilted and overblown. The dialogue is generally over-dramatic. The veteran actors obviously struggle to maintain some air of credibility while delivering their lines. Tiny Lister suffers perhaps the least, as he's used to delivering ridiculous dialogue. His casting here is a complete mystery to me.

The producers seem to try to make up for all this by splurging on sets and costumes. Hegai's accoutrements border on the silly. The shaved and oiled Xerces is strange at the least. The sets, both real and especially virtual, border on the insane side of grandeur. They seem more fitting for a science fiction film than a biblical one.

The symbolism is blunt and ham-handed. We are shown a two second cut of vultures overhead after someone leaves, and immediately cut to a boat in the dead of night. What is that all about? Haman's sigil contains a badly disguised swastika, an ancient symbol that will only be associated with anti-semitism in the 20th century.

I'm simply stunned at the execution of this story, and execution is the right word here. I can't believe how badly the producers fail to produce an even passable film given the compelling nature of the subject. They believe that the story and eye candy will carry the film, and they're just wrong.

The Good: Tiffany Dupont actually sells her part.

The Bad: Bad cheese of Biblical proportions.

The Ugly: Tiny Lister as a eunuch with a significant speaking part.

07-03-22 The Holiday (2006)

Seen: March 18th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

I love Eli Wallach. He's the best thing about this film.

And that's a shame, because I like the rest of the cast in this film too. It's not their fault the film doesn't really deliver.

The premise of the film is very promising; Go someplace you know nothing about to escape your problems. We all do this. It's human nature. The only complaint we have is that we can't do it often enough or go far enough away. Lost doesn't count.

But The Holiday tries to be too much. It's a holiday film. It's a romantic films times two, or three, or four, depending how you count. It's a personal growth and discovery film. It's respect the elderly, they have a lot to offer film. And it's all packed into about 140 minutes.

The characters are interesting, but have little back story and remain under developed. We know more about Arthur than we do about Miles. Iris is so simple, even in her personal transformation. Jasper is a caricature. Graham is interesting only through the quirk of being a devoted single Dad. Amanda is perhaps the most interesting of the lot, despite her multiple neuroses. Diaz overplays a bit, but that seems to work.

It amazes me how badly Jack Black is underused here. I don't expect to see him go off at every moment, but this restraint here is claustrophobic. Perhaps he can't be too interesting to make Maggie and Iris's actions plausible. He's just so plain that it frustrates me.

All the same, it's a sweet little film. It plucks all the right heart strings at the right time, and it's difficult not to respond to, especially when kids are involved. Some parts a corny, which can be overlooked. It's sincere if a bit structured. It's not any masterpiece, but it meets its aspirations.

Relax, take your critic's hat off. See it with a loved one. Be willing to trade a few hours of your life for a few good lines and warm, if manufactured feelings.

The Good: Fundamental warm and fuzzies.

The Bad: Jack Black lost in translation.

The Ugly: Trite Santa Ana metaphor.

FAQ

Why do you moderate your comments?
Simple, really, I'm trying to keep this all profanity free and family friendly. I'm not above using profanity (wow, that was severe understatement), but I've made a conscious decision not to while writing this blog. I'll moderate comments to keep things clean and on point. Simple "you suck" flames will be rejected, but I'll approve comments that disagree with what I've posted, even if not particularaly well written.

What does the label "Recycled" mean?
A post labeled "Recycled" will be a review I wrote somewhere else and have reposted here. There aren't many of these.

What does the label "Recommended" mean?
A post labeled "Recommended" will be a review that I highly recommend you see. These will be generally be rated 8 or higher, though I will sometimes recommend a film that I didn't like for personal reasons. I may not recommend some films that I rate 8 or higher because I feel that they have very selective appeal and/or may be controversial. Brazil comes to mind.

What does the label "Throwback" mean?
A post labeled "Throwback" will be a review that I wrote from memory. I probably saw the film more than 3 or 4 months ago, and may have seen it several times. These reviews will tend to be more "feel" oriented.

07-03-21 Flyboys (2006)

Seen: March 21, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 5

When I was in grade school, I had a paperback which told the story of the Escadrille Lafayette. I don't remember its name, but I read it so many times it fell apart.

Flyboys won't suffer that fate.

This is not a bad movie, it's just not a particularly good movie. Perhaps the romantic visions I have from my childhood are too grand for competition. Perhaps they Hollywoodized it too much.

The story is an old one: Boys of disparate backgrounds band together in a time of war to become a fighting unit as men, and find their own personal honor, which entails sacrifices including the ultimate. Flyboys does a decent job serving this story.

It's a longer film than normal, perhaps because it doesn't rush the story, but allows it to develop. The characters are a bit stereotypical, but serve their roles. The enemy remains almost faceless, which depersonalizes the violence to an "acceptable" level. The Germans, with few exceptions, are just bad guys. In contrast, the allies, despite their personal idiosyncrasies, are all "good guys". Even the obligatory heroine is revealed to be "not a prostitute" but the ward of her nieces and nephews, which fits out little moral allegory to a T.

The romance was completely unnecessary. While it may be accurate, it distracts from why we're really here. Given the downer nature of its reality, even the Producers may have been served by eliminating and downplaying it. All that said, Jennifer Decker did an admirable job, and I'll look for her in the future.

James Franco does a good job, and Jean Reno is excellent as always. The rest of the cast is unremarkable, though whether that's a function of their skill, the dialogue or the direction is unclear to me, and I'm not interested enough to try to figure it out.

Visually, the film is a bit too crisp. I'd have preferred something a little grainier, a little darker. The dogfights are depicted well, helping the uninitiated viewer comprehend some of the complexities without degenerating into frantic cuts. There seems to be a bit of cheating in how easily some of the German planes were downed. There is also a startling lack of information concerning the aircraft in the film. There's almost no mention of the manufacturers or models, much less what their advantages and disadvantages were. The word "tactics" is thrown about, but actual exposition limited to something like "the best place to shoot your enemy is from behind".

The rest of the film is a bit too clean. The only locations I really believed were the bar, which seemed to have the right character, and Lucienne's house. Even the trenches felt artificial, which is a shame.

In the end Flyboys is a bit of Hollywood pap. Clean, sanitized, pretty, but ultimately unrewarding and of little substance. Which is a shame considering the men it attempts to honor.

The Good: Dogfight scenes well choreographed and presented.

The Bad: Germans pilots given little respect.

The Ugly: Racial tension alleviated by stock means.

07-03-20 The Prestige (2006)

Seen: March 17th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

I'd been waiting a while to see this one. I've got a friend who I sometimes rent films with, and it can be a challenge to find something we both haven't seen. It was great to find this on the shelf.

I really like Chris Nolan's films. He and his brother are a great writing team, and his vision as a director is also excellent. Everything he does will be compared to Memento. This may make his career difficult, but it's also a testament to the brilliance of that film.

While I enjoyed Batman Begins, I'm thrilled that he's returned to this arena. The film is twisty, filled with people fully living all their personalities. These clash to very nice effect.

The theme at the heart of the film is secrets. They form the very soul of the magicians who are both protagonist and antogonist in the film. We're shown many secrets. This draws us in and makes us feel privaledged, makes us feel a bit smug, perhaps. We are warm, safe, in the know. And Nolan then gently begins to unravel the world he's created, gradually leaving us unbalanced. The pace then accelerates, leaving us grasping for something that we still know to be true. It's a delightful feeling, but like rollercoaters, not for everyone.

While there are implausible elements to the film, their impact on the actual is fairly minimal. Nolan generally plays very fairly with his audience. The clues are there, the allegory subtle and infectious. Like Memento, I want to see this again, so that I can appreciate the nuances that I may have missed the first time.

I have few complaints about the film. First, there is an air of romaticism about the film. This is partly due to its depiction of the period. It's too clean, too perfect, even in scences that depict lower class venues. I wanted it have that Dead Man authentic squalor where appropriate. Memento was true in this way, so I wonder if this polished look was due to pressure from the studio/producers.

Second, I would love to know more about Cutter, Sarah and Olivia. I could have stood a slightly longer film, but perhaps not the movie-going public.

But this is not about them. It is about two men locked in a mortal combat of intelligence, will, and persistence.

And it gets a little dirty.

The Good: Chris Nolan returns to his roots

The Bad: A stale air of Romanticism.

The Ugly: Competition and Obsession get way out of hand.

07-03-19 Breach (2007)

Seen: March 17th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

There's something compelling about "real" films. The appeal may be the same one that makes reality television so popular, but God, I hope not.

The very fact that it's so real may make Breach less interesting to mainstream audiences. There is very little gunplay, and that to make a dramatic point. There are no real car chases. There are heroics, but they are subtle and deep seated, voiced through strength of character instead of raw brawn.

This is what makes Breach appealing. The work the agents do is not glamorous. It is filled with boredom. It is filled with constant tension. It is filled with unrequited vigilance. The duality required of the work pulls all of the characters to pieces. Most very slowly and in subtle ways.

In this respect O'Neill is fortunate. His own degeneration happens over a fairly short span, and we are given hope he will recover. I don't think any other agent in the film ever will.

I'm still trying to process the statement that the film makes about religion and particularly, faith. I think it's important, and perhaps intentionally ambiguous. There's no evangelism here, or denigration either. Perhaps it's just left to each individual, as it should be.

The film is a bit plain, as it should be. There is nothing fancy about this world. The both provides an appropriate background for the story, as well as focuses the attention on the characters, which is where it belongs.

Performances are generally good. Ryan Philleppe is, at long last, starting to grow on me. Chris Cooper is perfectly cast. Though I know his work, he disappears into his character deftly. Laura Linney is solid and understated. Caroline Dhavernas is a nice surprise. I loved her in Wonderfalls and she did well in Hollywoodland. Seems her career is on the rise.

There are patriotic heroes in Breach. They may not be the ones you expect to see and are in fact, invisible to most of us. But it's good to see them recognized. It's good to given a little hope that someone has our collective back in this time.

The Good: Persistence in the face of adversity

The Bad: Some relationships could have been explored better.

The Ugly: A raging personality dichotomy.

07-03-18 Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)

Seen: February ?, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 8

Having seen Eastwood's Flags of out Fathers, I was looking forward to his companion piece. So when my date flaked out, I took the time to take it in. Time better spent in the long run.

A segment of Letters from Iwo Jima does parallel Flags of our Fathers, but it is not an pure retelling from a different perspective. The moments where the two films do overlap are suprising. They're very naturally placed in the narrative, not merely pieced in. To a viewer who'd not seen Flags I'd imagine them to be transparent, but for the rest, they invoke a sense which combines deja vu and sychronicity. The impact is is palpable as these moments send all the context from the previous film rushing back to fill in the second perspective while watching the first. It a powerful device.

Despite these moments, the only thing that they really have in common is the battle for Iwo Jima. While this seems like hyperbolic understatement, neither movie is predominantely about the battle itself. Letters is about many things; courage, deceit, honor and compassion chief among them.

Americans tend to see only the American view of Iwo Jima, that they prevailed against an opposing force which was large, dug-in, well-equipped and grudgingly, a formidable foe. We see the victory as a sacrifice. The propaganda explored in Flags of our Fathers heightens and deepens that view.

Letters shows us that our view, while fairly accurate, isn't the entire picture. It shows us the dynamics of the various factions of the Japanese armed services, which played a significant role in the way the battle played out. It shows us the personalities of the leaders, their motivations and actions. It shows us Japan's campaign as a whole, and how compromises were made in the defense on Iwo Jima in order to further the campaign as a whole. And like any good film concerning war, it shows us the men. It shows us who they were, these men who were our foes. The men who wrote the letters from which the film takes its name.

The performances are excellent. Ken Watanabe is amazing. Tsuyoshi Ihara does an excellent job and the rest of the cast is surprisingly talented and consistent.

The look of the film is bleak. It's grey and subtle. The camerawork is fairly simple and to the point. It serves the story well, but never call attention to itself.

See this film. See it to gain a different perspective while maintaining your own. See to remind yourself that when we fight, whether it be on a battlefield, on the street, in a courtroom, or even in our own homes, we fight other people. And they have their own stories, their own joys and their own hardships.

The Good: Acting and an objective presentation of the Japanese view of Iwo Jima.

The Bad: Ego and politics rarely serve anyone well.

The Ugly: Grenades are not toys.

07-03-17 Wild Hogs (2007)

Seen: March 16th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 6

Man, I can't believe I actually like this film, a little.

It's formulaic, it's predictable, it's sanitized for your protection, and it's just plain cheesy.

But somehow, it doesn't just lay there.

The premise is straight out of the Hollywood recycler. Guys go off to find their lost youth, or at least their joie de vivre, in whatever form that exists for each of them. They wind up learning about themselves, growing as human beings, besting the bad guys, and even saving the world a little. And a lot of stupid stuff happens along the way.

Dreck, straight up dreck. But somehow, these guys make it seem sincere. However implausible, their characters never veer from their individual, ingrained stereotypes. While I can't say that they actually bring these types to life, they at least give them a chance.

There are some good gags, a few great gags, and some tired gags. Most of them you can see coming from a mile away, but they still somehow deliver. Some gags have been labeled homophobic. You'll should judge that for yourself.

There's some good supporting talent here. Marisa Tomei does a decent job. Some other character actors you'll recognize amble through. Peter Fonda pops up in an appropriate, though fairly trivial role.

Ray Liotta stands out in this film. He plays his role so straight that its almost frightening. While the rest of the cast is working on their comedic timing, Liotta is immersed in his Method, channeling some really nasty biker guy. Even the rest of his crew plays more for laughs. But not Ray. He plays it straight, and the juxtaposition is one of the things that saves the film.

I don't want to give this a 6. But to be honest, I left the theater grinning, so I can't score it less.

The Good: Ray Liotta takes this seriously.

The Bad: I've seen this all before. Several times.

The Ugly: Dudley's tattoo.

07-03-16 Sherrybaby (2006)

Seen: March 14th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

I have a crush on Maggie Gyllenhaal. Since Donnie Darko. This makes me as unique as a Jetta driver.

Sherrybaby is a part of what seems to be a newish genre. The single (or virtually single) mom with serious problems trying to battle her demons and make her way in the world. This is a hard genre to drop in casual in conversation, and a harder genre in which to make an outstanding film.

The problem with this genre is that it is a growing one, filled with very sincere writers and film makers. This is a good thing. The bad thing is that there are too many stories. They are all important, especially to the people that have lived them. But there are so many and that they are difficult to differentiate.

For the first act of Sherrybaby I watched with my genre lens. I was continually comparing her to Vera Farmiga in Down to the Bone which I'd seen fairly recently. (Yes, I have crush on Vera as well). I was prepared for the same film, similar difficulties, similar trials and tribulations. But somewhere in the third act Sherrybaby took a small and subtle turn.

There was no single point of divergence. I could easily name three or four things which were part of the transition, but none of them were individually responsible. Whatever the case, the film turn a very real and very sincere turn, which I won't reveal here. As much as I want to tell you, it would only serve my own ego and not really tell you anything you couldn't discover for yourself. This turn made me like this film. Not love it, not revel in it, but respect the individual story that the film tried so sincerely to convey.

While Maggie Gyllenhaal is in the adolescence of a great career, and does admirably here, particular note should be made of Danny Trejo's role. He's an actor you know, but may not recognize by name. His against type turn here is simple, subtle, beautiful, and true. Kudos to him for turning a corner as an actor. Giancarlo Esposito is another favorite who turns in very solid performance; no more or less than the character requires.

If any of this appeals to you, see it. The rating may not so high as I strive for honesty, but there are great performances and moments here.

The Good: Solid and poignant drama with good performances.

The Bad: Perhaps lost in a sea of similar films.

The Ugly: We only hurt the ones we love.

07-03-15 Harakiri (Seppuku) (1962)

Seen: March 12th, 2007
Format: DVD (Criterion)
Rating: 10

I was talking with a friend on the 12th about my ratings and how uncommon 10 ratings are. I won't rate a film a 10 simply because I love it. It has to also be generally recognized as a classic or revolutionary in its genre or time.

Harakiri is a 10.

I'm a huge fan of Shakespeare. I mention this because Harakiri, especially as delivered here, has the feel of Shakespeare for me. The film unfolds like a play. It slowly builds up expectations, leading you cheerfully down an obvious path, only to ambush your emotions and expectations. Its truth is startling and brutal. We feel our own shame and disgrace for having self-righteously aligned ourselves with the antagonist. We long for our own release, our own redemption.

Harikiri is rife with metaphor. It is rife with irony. It is, in the end, a tragedy, and one so currently common, that I wonder if it isn't, in some ways, more relevant in our time than in 1962, or in 1630. It's a complete canvas. A holistic blend of greatness along all axes; writing, directing, acting and cinematography.

I can't continue this without simply raving.

If you love high drama, Shakespeare, Japanese film or even the simple Samurai film, see this one soon. It may not be what you expect, but it won't leave you untouched.

The Good: Beautiful in many ways. Simple, but so complex.

The Bad: May be a too intense for some.

The Ugly: Hypocrisy in the face of honor.

07-03-14 Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny (2006)

Seen: March 11th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 5

Jack Black can sing. Seriously. I was surprised when I first noticed it in High Fidelity. I own the first Tenacious D album (yes I still call them albums) and have forced it on other people.

But I'm ashamed to report I found Pick of Destiny flat, not sharp (last pun).

It all started out well enough, and I got in the groove quickly. Troy Gentile deserves an Oscar nod for his work in this film. It was so spot on that I laughed out loud. Meat Loaf was awesome. A Ronnie James Dio cameo!

And it all goes slowly down hill from there.

PoD doesn't fail completely, but it stumbles by trying to be too clever. The story's framework is solid, but there are too many distracting bits tacked on.

The idea of aligning the film with the mystical elements of Metal is genius, but continually bashing us over the head with references instead of letting us discover them ourselves gets annoying. I've got the feeling that this was done in post-production in order to make the film appeal to a wider audience. In short, they dumbed it down.

The film also tries to actually soft sell some kind of message half way through. This is so anti-Metal and out of character that it derails the film. I've got a hunch that there were "creative differences" somewhere. I've also got a hunch that Stiller had something to do with it. He's got a unique ability to take a great idea and taint it with his own little spin, which I generally find annoying at best. The cameos by Stiller and Robbins were by far my least favorite parts of the film.

Basically I felt that the whole film was a great idea gone awry. Had it been kept simpler, it would have been more effective. I mean, what self-respecting sorority bimbo flashes with her bra still on?

If you like JB and/or Tenacious D or are an old school metal fan, then by all means, check it out.

The Good: Tenacious D!

The Bad: Ben Stiller's obligatory cameo

The Ugly: Dave Grohl as Satan

07-03-13 Babel (2006)

Seen: March 11th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 7

This one had been sitting on the coffee table for a while. I'd put it off because I knew it'd be a challenge. I was right.

Babel has garnered a lot of attention. I've enjoyed Iñárritu's work, though I feel he's getting more abstruse with each of his films. Babel follows this trend.

I don't exactly know when the interlocking story became so popular in film, but it's certainly an increasing trend. My favorite use of it is probably Pulp Fiction. Iñárritu likes to use it, and does so to good effect. Its effective use generally requires not only common elements, but a common thread or theme which is important, if not central, to all the stories. In Babel, that thread is failure of communication.

Most of the unfortunate circumstances that occur in the film can be attributed to a lack of communication between one or more characters. Its fascinating to see the range of these failures. There are failures in translation, failures to listen, failures to talk, failures to be explicit and failures at even attempting to communicate in the first place.

The stories themselves are not so compelling to me. They're interesting, but seem largely staged just to highlight the potential scope of communication breakdown. This is not to say that they are implausible or thin. Personally I just don't find them that engaging. Perhaps this is part of Iñárritu's plan; to make the stories simple and human to make them more accessible and applicable to our own lives.

The overall cohesiveness of these stories felt a bit hollow. With the exceptions of photographs and telephone calls, the characters never cross stories. I wonder if any of the actors in different stories ever met. Again, this may be part of the plan, an indication of just how tenuous these connections are.

There are some stunning visual moments in this film. It's simply but very well shot. The acting is generally superb. The characters are whole and real. I rarely make note of soundtracks, as I feel that they should be felt and not heard, but I loved the music of Babel. It was compelling and accentuated the film in a beautifully balanced fashion. (Turns out it won an Oscar. Seems I'm not the only one who thought so.)

This is one I'll have to see again to fully appreciate. It's a bit of a challenge, but is probably worth your time.

The Good: Great characterizations and acting.

The Bad: Not as cohesive as it could be.

The Ugly: Do you listen or wait to talk?

07-03-12 The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen) (2006)

Seen: March 10.2007
Format: Theater (actually this theater)
Rating: 8

I don't watch the Oscars. I used to, but over the last few years I'm just not very interested. I saw Pan's Labyrinth a few weeks back (note to self: write Pan's Labyrinth review) and was surprised when I read that it hadn't won Best Foreign Language Film. This film did. So when the alumni film group decided to see The Lives of Others, I was along for the ride.

As I walked back to my car, it occurred to me that this film is a re-make of an allegorical fairy tale. I don't know which one because my fairy tale knowledge is woefully thin. We've got a brutish Troll, a noble Duke, a beautiful Princess, a thick-headed Smith, and our Hero, a meek but shrewd Tailor who rises above, saves the day and pays the price. If this isn't a fairy tale, someone needs to write it.

The Lives of Others is about two things.

First it is about voyeurism. Wiesler has no life. We're shown this very clearly. His work substitutes for his own life. Unlike Udo, his obvious opposite, he doesn't gain sexual gratification from his observations, but instead covets the human interaction which is present only via the intimacy of his profession. He can't reach out in conventional ways, but reach out he does, subtly merging his life with those of his subjects.

Second it is about compassion. At dinner after the movie, someone asked what motivated Wiesler. The consensus was compassion. That the question was asked is a testament to the film. The possibility that some other overlooked or hidden motive may have driven his actions and may have actually "made more sense" underscores the depth of his character's change.

I enjoyed this film a great deal. It unfolds slowly, which is at first was disconcerting (given the two films I saw the day before) but which I came to relish. It is almost entirely relevant, devoid of superfluous moments and details. The main characters evolve in surprising ways. There are moments of tragedy, courage, betrayal and honor. We must recognize them when we see them, as they are presented objectively. Those of the "show me, don't tell me" school will approve.

The journey the film takes is a complete one. All ends are tied, some more tightly than others. And while there is no happy ending, there is, perhaps, a just and fitting one.

The Good: Compassion in a cruel scenario.

The Bad: Oppression we can hardly begin to understand.

The Ugly: Substituting voyeurism for life.

07-03-11 Ghost Rider (2007)

Seen: March 9th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

While it's not too uncommon for me to see two films in a theater in a single day, seeing two comic book films is unheard of. I saw 300 this afternoon, and Ghost Rider this evening. I've said before that I don't go to the movies on Friday nights, but this was the exception, as it was my nephew's birthday, and I just can't say no to the kid.

I didn't love this film, but I liked it a lot more than I thought I would. I left feeling good, instead of bored, and maybe this is why.

Unlike 300, Ghost Rider takes much more than its stylistic cues from its comics heritage. Its characters are broadly defined. Each has their place and function. They each have arcs. They are revealed through the story, which is a fairly simple. It's a story or good vs. evil, of love and sacrifice, of redemption and defiance. Its story which, of itself, we may forget in days or hours, but whose timeless themes reverberate in our collective psyche.

Yeah, that's a bit over-the-top for a flick about a guy whose head catches fire, but it's not so far from the truth. And its why kids have loved comic for more than half a century.

Ghost Rider succeeds where 300 fails because all of its characters have fundamental flaws. Their individual stories center around rising above despite those flaws and the potential of their redemption (or destruction) based on their struggle. 300 has none of this. In 300 every character is perfect. Whether perfect in their good, their evil, their nobility or their hubris, no character 300 will grow or change in the course of the film. Everybody changes in Ghost Rider.

Ghost Rider has many flaws. The most glaring of which may be the thin underlying premise of the film. Johnny's deal with the devil, the legend of the rider, his conflicted feeling for Roxanne, these are all Ghost Rider legend and are the meat of the story. The contract and the rise of Legion are merely props to give the legend a place to play out.

The cast is good. I have a love/hate relationship with Peter Fonda. His portrayal wasn't great, which added to my personal irony. I think Nick Cage is solid. He's a little cheesy here, a little hick, a little weird but he doesn't try to make Johnny more heroic than he is. The tendency to be melodramatic he gives his character seems appropriate, given Blaze's background. I'll watch any film with Sam Elliot in it. I like Eva Mendes, but she's underutilized here. Donal Logue is another favorite.

The look of the the film is good . It's appropriately stylized, and the comic humor of spinning license plates and shattered windows translates to the screen. I seem to be immune to effects as of late, so I'll just say that for the most part, they served their function.

Stan Lee and Avi Arad have made a serious run at the industry lately, recycling Marvel's labors of the 70s into modern entertainment. I'm biased because I loved those comics as a kid. Seeing them come to life, even in compressed and compromised forms, still holds a lot of magic for me.

The Good: The chopper from hell, and its conflicted rider.

The Bad: Roxanne relegated to stereotypical eye candy.

The Ugly: Thin underlying plot.

07-03-10 300 (2007)

Seen: March 9, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 5

You know you're in trouble when your mind starts to wander in an actionfest like 300.

I collected comics in the 80s and thought Frank Miller was basically the second coming of Stan Lee, only with a broader moral compass and twisted mind. Frank's a very visual story teller, and the screen a great place to tell his tales. Sin City was brilliant; 300 isn't.

Don't get me wrong, this is a beautiful piece of work. Visually, its one of the most stunning pieces to come along in a few years, which is saying something, given the rate at which visual boundaries in film have been pushed over the last decade. The audio is on par too. The score is fitting and the sound design excellent.

And you know when I praise the technical details first, there's a problem somewhere else.

I haven't read Miller's 300, so I don't know how accurately his characters are adapted here. The way they come across on the screen is so passionless and flat that it makes me want to ... do something else, considering the way my mind wandered off in the third act.

The characters here are caricatures. Maybe this is appropriate. Maybe Spartans are so one dimensional that they really are this dis-interesting. The dialog ranges from flat to somewhere between stilted and pompous. There are many impassioned speeches, where the characters say pretty much exactly what you expect them to say. I guess in the long run I wanted at least one character to not be a stereotype. I wanted to feel that one of them was flawed in some way which could permit them to change. No, Ephialtes doesn't count. His external deformity represents his nature. His flaw is classic, his humiliation and defection predictable.

It irritated me that Gerard Butler couldn't make a forceful speech without spitting everywhere. I wondered whether that was his choice or the director's. I've appreciated Lena Headey's work in the past. It was nice to see her here, even though her talent went to waste voicing such a stereotypical character.

As I sat in the theater, I though that the entire movie looked like a giant video game with amazing production values. Another reviewer made the same observation. The difference between us is that he thinks that's a good thing. But I've played games with more interesting and better scripts, and in the theater I could only participant passively. Or course, if you want to play 300, you'll get your chance, it's coming soon.

Which I guess makes the film a really expensive commercial.

The Good: Dynamic visual style. Great Audio.

The Bad: Could someone please be unpredictable?

The Ugly: Bring on the freaks!

07-03-09 Keeping Mum (2005)

Seen: March 8th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

There's something surreal about seeing Patrick Swayze and Rowan Atkinson sharing a quiet scene.

Keeping Mum is a basically a twisted Mary Poppins tale gone awry. Yes, both. Twisted and gone awry. It's a classic little British comedy where an aging housekeeper come to live with a vicar and his family. Exposition happens quickly and we're soon fielding pregnant moments with the full realization of what will go wrong. Sure enough, it does, and the chuckles are as much ones of self-satisfaction and conspiracy as actual humor.

The story is simple. The characters aren't complex either. Their arcs are shallow, but far from trivial. The whole matter ambles along until it's finished with a small, but thoroughly appropriate, twist at the end. It's a bit like warm milk before bed; it leaves with a contented feeling settling somewhere in your abdomen and a simple smile on your face of which you're not consciously aware. I've just realized I have one now.

The cast is mostly brilliant. Dame Maggie Smith is a personal favorite, and she's well cast against type here. Her timing is impeccable and delivery straightforward and sincere, which is why this dark comedy works. Rowan Atkinson is uncharacteristically restrained. While he does have one major Bean-ish moment, for the most part he also is sincere, if a bit ... middle-aged. Kirsten Scott Thomas is well cast also. Her quiet exasperation, guilt and despair is again, thoroughly British and appropriate. Patrick Swayze is the sore thumb here, as he should be. His character, an American golf professional, is as incongruous as he amongst the cast, causing two wrongs to make a right, despite all the religious implications.

A little dark, a little twisted, but basically harmless fun to rest your mind and smile.

The Good: Classic British dark humor with some great casting.

The Bad: Stereotypical American bad guy and some flimsy premises.

The Ugly: Blue-Green algae.

07-03-08 Hollywoodland (2006)

Seen: March 6th, 2007
Format: HD-DVD
Rating: 5

To answer your first question; yes, Affleck was good, even very good.

But this film isn't about Affleck, though it might be about George Reeves, whom Affleck portrays. But I'm not sure.

It also seems to be about a fictional amalgam of several people named Louis Simo and his (their?) family life. It also seems to be about Reeves's relationship with Toni Mannix and Leonore Lemmon. It also seems to be about Reeves's mother. And his agent. And MGM.

And therein lies the problem.

I'll take a stab and say the filmmakers wanted to make a biopic about Reeves, but to make it really interesting, they decided to take a look at his actual death and impose some sort of Rashomon-esque filter to it. And by doing so, and employing the Simo amalgam as their arbiter, they got to investigate not only Reeves's life, but those of his friends and lovers, and the relationship of the fictitious investigator with his fictitious family as well. This, of course, broadens the scope of the potential picture to several people and subsequently to feature-length.

I couldn't understand why I didn't like this film until now.

While the filmmakers claim (and I believe them) that everything involving Reeves was as accurately researched as possible, there is too much that they just can't know. And it is into this region which they postulate and invent potential scenarios. Since these scenarios are wound artfully into the film itself, they are difficult to differentiate (at least at first) from the facts which have been so carefully researched.

All this smacks of the sensationalist journalism that has progressively become the norm over the past decade or more. We are presented with facts, more facts and a myriad of yet more facts, and when the suggestive suppositions insinuate themselves, we're so immersed that we hardly notice.

And on top of this, we're supposed to take some common thread from all this confusion and believe a man has a revelation which is strong enough to dramatically change him for the better.

If the technical perspective of films intrigues you, there's a lot here to appreciate. It didn't go unnoticed, but it wasn't nearly enough to sway me.

See this film. It is strong in many dimensions, George Reeves's story among them. But be prepared to appreciate it for its parts, not the whole.

The Good: Ben Affleck returns to form. Diane Lane is always worth my time.

The Bad: Allegorical tale disguised as a biopic - or vice versa?

The Ugly: An excuse to dress up and play 50s.

07-03-07 Wordplay (2006)

Seen: January (27th?), 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 9

Documentaries are tough. Their makers are a special breed and generally motivated by some singular passion. Therein lies the problem, as the passion required to make a documentary, which is not a small undertaking, generally impedes its objectivity. The hallmark of accomplished documentarian is the ability to harness his passion, maintain his objectivity and present his material as fairly as possible. When he fails (or fails to try) the result is often strident info-ganda which polarizes his audience into sycophants and detractors.

The documentary's job is to inform and perhaps to teach. Unfortunately, to accomplish this, the documentary is also required to engage, often by entertaining but sometimes by shock, anger, outrage or intrigue. It must engage to teach, and the way that it chooses to engage is critical.

Wordplay engages us with joy. And triumph, and tragedy, and comedy. Wordplay is perhaps the best documentary I've seen.

Wordplay show us the world of crossword puzzles. And it is a world. We meet the solvers, and they are monumentally diverse. We meet the constructors, obsessed with their own way, at once orthogonal and symbiotic to the solver. We meet the editors, who bring them together. And we see their dance in all its beauty. The subjects are too interesting to ever have been written. They are real because they're real. Their triumphs and tragedy, while perhaps not of world changing import, move us because they might have been ours.

Wordplay succeeds simply because the filmmaker's want to share this world with you. They truly care about their subjects. The weave the smaller stories into a greater tapestry that remains continually engaging, continually true, but still maintains a well-defined arc which pulls the film along to its conclusion. A truly masterful job of direction, filming and editing.

The Good: A view into the word of crossword aficionados. Great DVD extras.

The Bad: A bit quirky. Perhaps uninteresting to some.

The Ugly: None. I can't think of a thing. And I've tried.

07-03-06 Army of Darkness (1992)

Seen: Numerous Times
Format: VHS, DVD
Rating: 9

An Anecdote:
When I finally bought the DVD version of Army of Darkness, I had no real reason to hang on to my VHS copy. I had a friend who worked with his wife at home making jewelry. Their kids were home schooled and they all spent a lot of time watching movies, mostly as background noise. His wife loved horror films and had tons. I figured that Army of Darkness belonged to them. I was right. It became their 3-year-old's favorite film

Army of Darkness is probably the most widely quoted film in the world after Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Its dialogue was used extensively in the Duke Nukem video game.

After making and remaking Evil Dead with his brother, Sam Raimi finally got the opportunity and budget to do it "right", which being an Evil Dead film, means twisted and strange.

Army of Darkness is a camp epic heroic time-travel demon possession horror film. Which is mouthful and mostly accurate. Bruce Campbell made his small mark with the Evil Dead films and is in full form here, returning as the one-liner spewing, shotgun and chainsaw wielding Ash. No Hero before or since comprises the full-bore braggadocio, idiocy and romantic catastrophe which Ash embodies. He's truly the hero for the new Millennium, at least given the role models young women are presented with today.

Army of Darkness is high camp. If you want your films to always make sense, if you grimace and carp about plot holes and continuity, if you abhor inconsistent characterization and dialogue, go see another film. If not, you may have found nirvana, as Army of Darkness is a disjoint collection of over-extended pratfalls, sight gags, one-liners and twisted movie references, all held together by the thin plot of an undead army wiping out a mortal enclave. Film references are mixed and mashed with abandon. One sequence contains elements from Star Wars, Indiana Jones and every Kung Fu flick you've ever seen.

If you can lower your brow and appreciate camp, this is one for the ages.

The Good: Bruce Campbell romps through a thin plot spewing one-liners and making hash of the horror genre.

The Bad: Effects were a bit sketchy even at the time the film was made. Perhaps this is intentional.

The Ugly: Ash's alter ego making out with Sheila (Embeth Davidtz). So right, but so wrong.

07-03-05 Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

Seen: March 3, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 9

The thing about surrealism is that it requires that you surrender to its conceit, whatever that may be, to reap the rewards that it offers. Only while existing in the proffered alternate reality can you maintain the perspective required to fully reap the benefits of what is offered to you.

If you can't suspend your disbelief, see a different film.

I'm a sucker for emotional drama, I'll admit that freely. I love romantic comedy. I love tragedy. And I love all things in between if they give me the benefit of the doubt by admitting that I may have a shred of intelligence along with my emotion and simply present me with something on which to emote.

I love this film. Period.

I'm ashamed to say that I meant, so determinedly, to see it in the theater. I didn't, and I consider that a personal failure.

So, why?

Jeez; where to begin?

It's simple, really. This is the film which finally shows me, as opposed to telling me, all the things which hundreds of previous films have tried to convey:

1. Make an effort to actually live your life.
2. Love will find a way.
3. Self sacrifice takes many forms.
4. It doesn't have to be perfect to be perfect.

You'll notice (hopefully) by now, that I don't do synopses of films. I hate spoilers and I guess that I'm naive (and narcissistic) enough to believe that you'll read some of my reviews and align yourself with or against me on whatever axes you choose. Here's some more.

Will Ferrell has to be mentioned first, though I admit I've re-arranged this. His perfectly straight performance, absolutely true to the script, is the only reason this film works. There are many performances that are critical to this film, but his is the pivotal one. He carries it perfectly. I hope that his range is as versatile as this film suggests, that he didn't do well here just because of the underlying absurdity of the conceit. I think Maggie Gyllenhaal is amazing and have since I first noticed her in Donnie Darko. Not everything she does is gold, but she's the one to put your To Win money on. Emma Thompson I love as well. She, as well, relegates herself to the conceit, though we can't know how utterly completely until the final moments. We must wonder just how hard all the previous novels have been, and how much harder are they all now? Queen Latifah is one of my favorite actresses, and I know crap-all about her music. Dustin Hoffman? Given. And the list goes on.

Art Direction is superb and dramatically fades from the overstated to the understated appropriately.

I have to mention the ending. Just when I think that the cop-out is complete, that the whole beautifully surreal and inaccessible tableau, which corporate Hollywood can't possibly sell, has been twisted into wretched, crippled conformity; it all comes clear. Kudos to the writers. Kudos for an ending with some shred of hope that isn't miraculous, but merely human.

I'm in a wash of emotion, which you may or may not feel when you see this film. Regardless, I'd encourage you to not only watch this film, but commit to it and have your own reaction; positive, negative, anger, boredom, confusion, elation, whatever happens for you. I doubt you'll feel nothing, and isn't that what it's all about?

The Good: Brilliant Writing and Performances.

The Bad: Perhaps simplistic and "too accessible" compared to some other existential pictures.

The Ugly: Some transitional roughness as the film progresses from exposition to actual story.

07-03-04 Heaven's Prisoners (1996)

Seen: March 4, 2007 (and some time about 7 years ago...)
Format: Broadcast - HD - NHDMV (HDNet - Movies) (Previously on VHS)
Rating: 7

My rating is, without a doubt, a bit skewed. Years ago, someone turned me on to James Lee Burke and in particular, his series of novels about Dave Robicheaux, a recovering alcoholic, ex New Orleans policeman. I'm a fan of these novels, of which Heaven's Prisoners is the second. When I found out that it had been adapted for the screen, I had to check it out. After finally getting Dish (and thus joining the New Millenium) I stumbled across it again.

Unfortunately, like many adaptations, it loses something in translation. The film isn't bad by any stretch, but I wonder if I'd have liked it as much if I weren't already familiar with the charaters.

Casting was interesting. My only problem here was casting Baldwin. I like him, but my mind's eye had already cast someone a bit tougher, a bit more "heavy", a bit less polished. And also someone who could carry the bayou accent a bit more consistently and convincingly. He doesn't quite deliver the complexities of Dave, though this may be an adaptation problem as much as anything.

I thought Kelly Lynch was also a bit out of place, though her role isn't nearly as prominant as it is in the book. The rest were fine fits, and Teri Hatcher actually shines a bit in her role. There are a few caricatures, but they're brief and unimportant, as they should be.

Overall the film is a decent noir, though the locale may not be as familiar as some, which I find refreshing. The motivating factors are broad and simple, though a little undefined. The good and bad are sharply drawn, with a few Red Herrings to keep it all interesting. It's a little harsh at times, and a bit sweet at times too. Our hero has something to actually fight for in this film, not simply fight against.

Shot in New Orleans, the film has an authentic feel. Locations choices are very interesting and reflect the diverse flavors of the locale. The night time scenes are beautiful. The tones in general muted and subtle.

So pick up the novel and learn about Dave, then keep an open mind and settle in for a simple noir.

The Good: Locations and the overall look of the film. A solid story foundation.

The Bad: Really doesn't do the book full justice, but when does that ever happen?

The Ugly: Too much packed into too little time.

07-03-03 Zodiac (2007)

Seen: March 2, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 6

I hadn't been to the theater in a while, so I took off a bit early on a Friday to catch a film.

I decided on Zodiac primarily because I've enjoyed Fincher's films in the past, the cast looked great and the material intriguing. I pretty much got what I paid for at the matinee price.

This film is a casting director's dream. I mean, when's the last time you saw Candy Clark? There's talent aplenty here, and the performances are generally spot on. Downey in particular is excellent. Ruffalo disappears into his character. Chloe Sevigny is a good, though a bit under-utilized and Gyllenhaal does a fine job. And those are only a few; Philip Baker Hall, Brian Cox, Dermot Mulroney, the list goes on.

Fincher is a stylish director and this outing is no different. The set design and dressing is simply amazing. Having grown up in the very late 60s and 70s, the details of the set dressing struck deep chords and transported me back to that time. The camera moves, shot choices, lighting; it all was technically excellent. Beyond that, it wasn't obtrusive and moved the story. The editing was smooth and solid and rarely got frenetic.

At this point, I may seem to be providing faint praise; and here comes the criticism.

For me, as well crafted as it is, Zodiac fails in a few areas. The film is long, and justifiably so, as it spans 20+ years. But the characters' transitions are no where near as smooth as the details embedded in the sets they inhabit.

Gyllenhaal's Graysmith seems a bit disjoint. His transition from interested party to obsessed investigator lacks continuity. The disintegration of his marriage seems sudden and bit unfounded. Scenes intended to show the mounting tension seem to be gratuitous afterthoughts. I have a hard time believing his transition and really feeling the depth of his obsession, especially given the decades he maintains it. I believe that this is more a failure of the script than the performance.

In contrast, the transition of Ruffalo's Toschi is more consistent, subtle and ultimately believable.

My second issue with the film is its distinct lack of menace. I keep wanting to compare this film to Spike Lee's "Summer of Sam". I wanted Zodiac to portray that underlying sense of fear that permeated Lee's film. If anything, the Zodiac killer was more visible and more flagrant than the Son of Sam, but Zodiac doesn't maintain that underlying sense of fear and anticipation. This may be partly due to the facts of the case. The Zodiac case lingered over twenty years, with large stretches of time where he had no visibility. The case dragged on with little or no real progress for years at a time. Revelations were few, small and far between. These factors combine to turn what begins as a Thriller into a long and grinding Mystery. While the characters' personal evolutions help temper some of this malaise, ultimately the whole affair grinds to an expected, but ungratifying conclusion.

I actually did enjoy this film, but ultimately for the accuracy of its craft, not its ability to engage and enthrall me for 158 minutes.

The Good: All-Star cast. Some amazing performances. Visually appealing.

The Bad: Lacks any real sense of menace.

The Ugly: The murder scenes are personal, chaotic and brutal.

Format and Ratings

A word on Format and Ratings.

The title of a Review post will have the following format for a title:

07-03-02 United 93 (2006)

This is the date, (07-03-02 is March 2nd, 2007) ; the film title (United 93) and the year the film was released (2006) .

The top of the review will state when I saw the film, on what format, and the rating.

The when may be specific or general. I fully intend to review films I saw a while ago, there's no way I'll be able to watch and do a decent review of a new one daily.

Format will generally be one of the following: Theater, DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, VHS (it happens) or Broadcast (including SD or HD and the Channel).

My ratings are from 1 to 10 and going to tend to be skewed to the high end of the scale. I really like film in general and can usually find something worthwhile in most films. To rate something I usually start in the middle (5). If something is worth my time, if I believe that seeing it was better than not seeing it, it'll score at least a 5. Anything lower than 5, and I consider it a waste of my (not necessarily your) time. Since I don't tend to watch stuff I know I'll dislike, ratings less than a 5 aren't common, but do occur.

Here's a general scale:
1 - A complete waste of money and time; mine and the producers.
2 - Bad. Perhaps painfully so.
3 - Bordering on Bad. May have an interesting premise, but doesn't deliver at all.
4 - Uninteresting. Flat.
5 - Worth watching. OK.
6 - Good. Interesting. Maybe not engaging.
7 - I enjoyed it. Engaging. May recommend it.
8 - I really enjoyed it and will recommend it.
9 - I absolutely loved it, or recognize it as an undisputed classic.
10 - Phenomenal. Not only is it a classic or groundbreaking film, but I it love it as well.

It should be noted that even when a film is treading in the 1-3 range, I almost always watch the entire thing. Also, some films may be intentionally bad or revered for their badness(Plan 9, anyone?). I rate films based both on my personal enjoyment and their merits as a film. I can definitely rate bad films above a 5, but you'll rarely see them go above 7, Army of Darkness being a distinct exception.

07-03-02 United 93 (2006)

Seen: March 1, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

I'd been putting off seeing this for a while. I'd heard it was good, even great, but little doubts pulled at the back of my mind.

"I already know what happens."

"It'll be heavy. I'm not in the mood for heavy drama."

"I'll bet it over plays the whole tragedy angle."

Watching it was like going to the Dentist. You put it off, knowing that it'll be good for you, but not wanting to deal with it. You worry, you procrastinate, you postpone. And when you finally go, it's not nearly as bad as you'd imagined, and you feel so much better for having done it. Finally watching United 93 was just like that, only without the actual physical discomfort.

The film did an excellent job of portraying events that we are intimately familiar with in a interesting, informative and dramatically effective way. The performances in this film are generally understated, and I mean that in a very good way. For the most part, the characters in this film are normal people, going about their normal day. The performances reflect that. The mundane nature of the actions of the characters are familiar and comfortable; and this draws very effectively into their reality. Many of the air traffic controllers (and some other roles) were played by non-actors, but by actual air traffic controllers. There was only one performance that bothered me, coming across as a bit over inflated, stilted and melodramatic. See if you can spot it when you watch it.

The one aspect of the film that I really dreaded was the potential for a “play” feel. I feared that the film would be predominantly set in the plane itself, and that the action would revolve entirely around the passengers, crew and terrorists on that flight. This concerned me because I didn’t feel that a feature-length film could be made solely of that content. I didn’t believe that a film this long could remain compelling in that limited scope.

The film makers don’t make this error. There are several coincident story lines spanning several air traffic control centers, what I assume is the FAA’s headquarters, and a military command center. While the film focuses on 93, it unfolds the entire morning of 9/11 from a unique viewpoint, and in a very visceral fashion.

See this one. It’s worth your time.

The Good: A taut, well written and directed film that presents the events of 9/11 in an interesting and informative fashion.

The Bad: Documentary feel tends to keep the audience at a distance. Seems a shame for a memorial film.

TheUgly: Not a pretty film. Shot with handheld cameras, it maintains a flat, documentary style, desipte the camera's integrated POV in many cases.


Full Disclosure: I have a dentist appointment next week.