07-05-31 The Hole (2001)

Seen: May 27th, 2007
Format: Broadcast (HDNMV-HDNet Movies)
Rating: 5

This film was an experiment. Experimenting is good, but not all experiments turn out well. That's the price of progress.

While The Hole isn't a stunning success, it's not a complete failure anyway. Learn and move on.

Basically the experiment is mashing up Psychological Thriller with Teen Horror Film It's been tried a few times before, but this time round the whole thing is doused liberally with Roshamon, just to make sure we have no idea what happened.

It all starts out well. It even seems to be interesting and a bit creepy, but then we're thrown for the first loop and it all becomes a bit pedestrian and predictable. Once we're here, it really doesn't surprise us all that much. The trappings are there, but we're as befuddled as the authorities as to what really happend. Worse, as things wear on, we really don't care, we'll believe any resolution as long as it advances the story.

All in, I'd say that the whole thing would have been better off just following the starting premise.

What else to say? I feel badly for Embeth Davidtz here. She's working hard but has little to go on. Thora Birch is good, and plays the changes reasonably well, though ultimately I had some trouble reconciling her character. Daniel Brocklebank does the best job here, playing the varities of his character fairly well. Keira Knightly is at best average in this early role.

All in all, The Hole is OK. There's enough here to keep you interested, but not really anything to take away.

The Good: Creepy premise

The Bad: Rashomon this ain't

The Ugly: Watching your friends die

07-05-30 Apocalypto (2006)

Seen: May 26th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 7

You've gotta give Mel Gibosn credit. He may be a bit crazy. He may not exactly have his finger on the pulse of popular anything. But the man has passion and commitment to that passion.

Imagine trying to sell the idea of this picture to investors.

"It's a story set in ancient Mayan culture, with all the dialogue in Mayan, using many Mayan actors, shot in a rainforest, about a man escpoaing catpture and death and trying to make it back to save his family."

This film cost about $40 million to make. Would you have forked that over? Good thing Mel had his own bank from that little religious picture. But enough about Mel.

This is a gorgeous picture, one of those that makes me happy I'm a gear head and completely HD compatible. There's beutiful scenery. There's beautiful moments. There's lush jungle everywhere. There's colorful critters. There a majestic city finished in lavish style. There are amazing costumes.

The attention to detail in this film is stunning. Not that it's completely accurate, but each and every actor and extra is done up in startling completeness. There's a lot of makeup work here, a lot of prosthetics. It's all so impressive and yet so seamless.

The film was made digitally and is so crisp and clean it's almost painful. There are camera moves aplenty. Some excellent angles and transitions. Having listened to commentary on Braveheart I learned that Gibson is very aware of and adept with the camera. Look for a favorite trick of his where he changes the film speed (fps, not ASA) to give a more dynamic feel to the action.

The acting is great. It's a huge bonus to not recognize any of these people. I have not reason at all not to belive that they actually are the characters they're portraying. I'm no anthropologist, but I have no problems buying into the society that's created here.

The only issue, and it's hardly a big one, is the story. Ultimately, at it's core, this is a very fundamental story that's been done many times. While the setting could lend a completely new take on the old standard, it really doesn't reach that far. The plot stays simple and true to form. The arc isn't really that surprising and ultimately we get pretty much what we expect. It's really the only thing holding it back.

See this one if you haven't. It's a decent yarn that's been lovingly rendered. It'd be a different world if every filmmaker showed this level of passion and dedication to their work.

The Good: Visually stunning in all particulars

The Bad: Slave traders

The Ugly: "Run Through the Jungle" stuck in my head

07-05-29 The Battle of the Bulge (1965)

Seen: May 25th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 6

Some films don't age so well. This is one of them.

There's a lot of things right with this film. The battle scenes are well done. The sheer number of tanks present in the film is very impressive and something that probably couldn't be done today. The massive set of the town of Ambleve is an extrodinary feat and lends great authenticity.

Robert Shaw's performance is excellent. It took me a while to recognize him as I've never seen one of his films frm this era and transforms himself into Hessler exceptionally well. His is by far the best performance of the film.

The film itself is often sweeping and expansive. I'm glad I saw this on on Blu-Ray as it really allows the cinematography to shine. There are some impressive camera moves given the period of the film

The big problem with this film is that Hollywood made it. It's not an accurate representation of the Battle. Characters are mostly fictionalized, some due to political pressures. The battle itself is historically inaccurate. The vehicles used aren't accurate or from the appropriate period. The list goes on.

The story has obviously been written to cater to its stars. Fonda's character, Kiley plays far too pivotal a role in the entire film. Bronson's Wolenski is a Major, but constantly in the thick of battle. Guffy is a caricature at best. His "love story" is so contrived it's painful. These were big stars in the '60s, and these roles were probably more expected. Without that context, the characters and their focues don't really make much sense.

The entire scenario from the Allies' side is a cliche: Non-regular soldier sees exactly what's going on, but his superiors won't listen. Basically this is a Hollywood "Big War Movie". It's big and flashy. There's drama and heroism. And while it's ultimately grand in scale, it compromises one of the most dramatic turning points of the WWII for drama of a more contrived type.

The Good: Lots of tanks

The Bad: Aryan supremacy

The Ugly: Fictionalization

07-05-28 D.E.B.S. (2004)

Seen: May 24th, 2007
Format: Broadcase (HDNMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 6

I saw this in the Dish guide and thought "Why not?". You probably think I was just after nubile coeds running around in short prep school skirts. Hey, it's PG-13. And you're right.

But the punchline is that this was actually a decent film.

It's predictable. It's cliche. None of the characterizations are particurly great. Artistically it's all a bit flat. But it is clever. Very clever at times.

There are a number of sight gags. They're generally obvious, but are often very funny. They're taken for granted by the characters. They're simple, direct and honest and that's what makes them work.

They are pop culture gags that work as well. The character stereotypes are well used and exploited. Devon Aoki is perhaps the weakest of these. Not that she's bad, but her character has been short-changed on originality a bit.

There are interesting character quirks as well. My favorite of these is Mrs. Petrie. Angela Robinson has nailed this character from a writing perspective and Holland Taylor hammers it home.

There's a twisted little mind at work here. One who sees through people to their true motivations. One who knows that inside all of us lies a selfish and sometimes petulant brat. One who believes that their way is not only the best way, but the only way, and can't stand anyone suggesting, much less proving otherwise. We all want things to be predictable. We want surprises, but only nice ones.

This is what sets up the conflict here. When one of our heroines finds out that things aren't what they seemed, the others try to drag her back into line. You can imagine all the reasons. They're not even wrong, they're just short sighted and blindly judgmental.

Overall I was pleasantly surprised by this film. I definitely got more than I expected, especially some serious substance via the subtext.

Aside: I think that Jordana Brewster may be the most beautiful woman alive.

The Good: Suprisingly clever

The Bad: Weak on supporting story

The Ugly: Bait and Switch, for some

07-05-27 Nanny McPhee (2005)

Seen: May 26th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

I love kids' flicks. They're unique in that if done remotely well, they get to break all the rules and get away with it scot free.

This one's done very well.

Basically all the is bad in a non-kid film is good in a kid film. Take caricatures for instance. Usually when I call a role a caricature, that's a bad thing. It means that the writer, director and actor have combined to create something safe. Something a bit hollow. They are supplying a minimal stereotypical version of the character and relying on the audience to fill in the rest. This is bad.

In a kid's film, a caricature is, again, a stereotype that we recognize. But here, the caricature is the starting place, and it's filled in with specific, detailed aspects of the stereotype, the more the better. The caricature is actually brought to life. All the characters move to their extremes, polarizing into well defined factions.

A similar thing happens to the action. Changes are large and dramatic. They may happen over time, but their progression is marked and obvious. There's no sneakery. This is particularly true of changes in people. They are not subtle.

While all this obviousness may seem tedious, it actually frees the film makers to create and have fun. Once the frameworks are established, the only thing left to do is invent outrageous embellishments to accentuate them. The only way to fail is by not having enough fun. Gaffes aren't covered up, they're pointed out and laughed at. Every failure becomes the launching point for a joke of some sort.

Which brings us finally back to Nanny McPhee.

Emma Thompson is a long time favorite. Here, she adapts a series of children's stories for the film. I have no idea how well the film portrays the books, and I don't really care. The result succeeds monstrously. The film is outlandish in all regards. I though to exclude the nanny here, but her outward appearance qualifies her as well.

Running jokes are a staple of juvenile humor and they're in abundance here. They're not particularly funny in themselves, but the continual and varied employment is a nice touch, and draws us into the picture.

For the most part, the acting is spot on. There's a joie de vivre that's undeniable in the performances, which are, with the possible exception of Colin Firth, uniformly over the top. Thompson in particular is stunning because she plays the nanny so straight. There is humor here, but it's slightly twisted, wry and very ephemeral. The very straightness of the character makes this so much more effective when it rarely rears its head.

Firth is the odd man out here. He can't seem to step away from his Britishness enough to really nail this role. He can't quite lose his dignity completely, even when flinging pie.

The costuming is brilliant. The set design and decoration beautiful in it's rampant impracticality and impact. Each set fits it use and conveys so much about people who play the scenes there.

Nothing really surprising happens. We know how it'll all turn out. But the trip is an entertaining one if we can just relax and watch with the eyes of a child.

The Good: Over the top at every turn

The Bad: Bimbo Stepmothers

The Ugly: Is only skin deep

07-05-26 Deliverance (1972)

Seen: May 20th, 2007
Format: Broadcast - HDNMV (HD-Net Movies)
Rating: 8

There's something inherently difficult about watching iconic films. When portions of the film have become deeply embedded in the culture, the film itself tends to lose meaning. The moments themselves transcend the film and the film itself has little hope of ever meeting the expectations those moments give rise to.

But those portions often deliver in spades.

The "Dueling Banjos" scene is one of the most compelling I've seen in recent memory. There's real magic here. The actors' reactions and interplay is incredible. The pace of the scene, the way it starts slowly then builds to a frantic crescendo is completely mesmerizing. And the ending is frightening in its prophecy. This scene encapsulates the entire movie. Everything to come is shown here, and all that is left is for it to play out.

I've never quite understood Ronny Cox, and was surprised at his ability here and in this scene in particular. He nails his part and definitely holds his own. I'd venture to say that he did a better job than Reynolds, who seems type cast and a bit of a carciature.

From this point the film builds nicely. Dickey has filled these scenes with some great and thoroughly honest moments. The building camraderie and minor factioning are well written and played. Even as things build the piece holds together well as a whole.

It's when the wheels come off that things become a bit more thin. I had trouble believing Bobby's rapid recovery after being assaulted. I had trouble as well with Lewis' blase attitude following that assault. It all seemed a little too cool, all things considered.

The chase is good, though the tension could have been a bit higher. It's so tightly focused that we forget the other characters. Having done that, there could be more to hold out attention in the moment.

And it all winds down after that. It devolves into a different form of cat and mouse. This one isn't nearly so compelling as the one on the river. I like the ending. It makes us take stock of what happened and perhaps re-think our perspective on the characters. It really drives home the primary them of the film.

The Good: Xenophobia all the way 'round

The Bad: Pretending you know what you don't

The Ugly: Why can't we all just get along?

07-05-25 Tristan and Isolde (2006)

Seen: May 20th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

This one I like, but I've really no idea why. Maybe it's the participation of the brothers Scott, who generally turn out passable films.

Basically we've got a tragedy of Shakespearean proportion. The fact that the classic triangle is filled completely with good guys is what tips to balance from unfortunate to tragic. There's classic romance as well, not just of the star-crossed lovers variety but of the destined/fated/ bigger than us all variety. Toss in some self sacrifice, and dedication to a higher ideal and you've got Romance with the capital 'R'.

I have no idea whether this is based on fact, historical guesses,myth or sprung whole from the writers imagination. I could look it up, but I'm a little lazy at the moment and in truth, it really doesn't matter. It's a nice scenario, full of tension and hope, and it works quite well, thank you very much. It may be predictable at times. It may fall back on convention and even cliche, but it does so with gusto and without apology.

The acting could be better. Not that anyone's horrid, but with a bigger budget and a slightly better cast, this could really shine. There's just no one that's really great here. Accents are a bit all over the place. There's a lack of passion at times that makes little sense. Rufus Sewell is an actor that I can't put my finger on. He's good here, but I'm never quite sure what's making his character tick.

The period aspects are nicely done. The costumes especially feel right to me. They're rough and applicable. Even the finery is simple and understated. This lends an air of realism that, while not required, does help place the tale firmly.

Photography is fine, editing solid. There's some action, but it's really not that sort of film. Even in the most chaotic of scenes there's no so much going on that you become overwhelmed. These were battles among small groups and that's well portrayed in the scenes an by the editing.

I guess in the end there's some magic that the brothers Scott can weave that brings all the elements together. While there's no one aspect of the film that stands out, it all stands together well as a whole.

And I'm a sucker for Romance. With the capital 'R'.

The Good: Romance of a high order

The Bad: Not watching your back

The Ugly: Looking out for number one

07-05-24 The Devil and Daniel Johnston (2005)

Seen: May 20th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 5

I went to the an alumni function last weekend; a trip to the Art Museum. During that trip a friend reminded me of the von Bismarck quote which is paraphrased "If you appreciate the law or sausage, you should never watch either being made". He suggsted that this might be extended to include the making of art in some cases.

This film seems to agree with him.

There's a fundamental problem with this film for me: I don't think Daniel Johnston is a genius. I know that many people do. I know that they revere him for his music and art and consider him revolutionary and perhaps even a future legend. I just don't agree. Neither of us is right, this is just a matter of opinion. I feel the same way about Kurt Cobain.

If you know about Johnston and appreciate his art, this film may be very compelling to you. The filmmakers care about him, and have gone to great pains to document his life to date. They've taken great care to present it objectively and have culled a large volume of historical media to create the film. It stands as an accurate representation of Johnston's artistic existence.

If anything, the film may be too objective. It's almost clinical in its presentation at times. While this shows a high ethic standard in the project, it also makes it more difficult to connect with the subjects. As a non-fan, this film would never draw me in. As a fan, it may appear sterile and cold, perhaps missing entirely the feelings of the world that drove Daniel in various directions.

Contributing to this is that fact the film is primarily a montage of historic media. There are hours of film shot by Daniel and his friends. Audio diaries that he made as his life progressed. Archival footage from TV and various performances, sketches, paintings and other artwork. Assembling all this history intercut with interviews, imbues the film with a authenic feel that is hard to deny.

But ultimately, this is a film about an artist's continual battle with his own sanity. That he is ill is not in question. This isn't about "friends and family" intervening to quash artisitic sensibilities. This is about a man who has placed himself, friends, family and the general public in physical danger. This struggle, to filter the madness while allowing the creativity to flow through is a very real one in Johnston's case, one he fights daily.

In the end, for me, this becomes a documentation of insanity rather than an artist's life. In the case of Daniel these are the same thing, but lacking the ability or interest to appreciate his work, it falls short for me.

The Good: Frighteningly accurate and complete

The Bad: Excruciating detail

The Ugly: The distinct correlation between genius and mania

07-05-23 Ultimate Avengers 2 (2006)

Seen: May 19th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 5

More of the same. The Ultimate Avengers disc had both films on it, this is the second.

Bascially, we get an straight up sequel, chasing the same bad guy, who's lived to fight another day.

There's some decent character development here. There's some angst, some personal growth, some learned humilty. Every character goes through some transition, which is cool to see in a simple comic book film.

But it can't save the fact that this isn't a particularly inspiring piece.

There are certain stories that are just too long and complex to tell in 80-150 minutes. Efforts to do that will always fail, Dune stands out as a prime example. Comics do as well.

Even the best attempts simplify the stories, creating simple fictions to explain things that have developed over time in the series, often spanning years. The full context simply can't be conveyed in the alloted time.

It's a shame, really. These characters can be some of the richest and most varied in literature, but they'll never really translate to mass media.

But I guess they're not the only ones.

The Good: Wasp is single

The Bad: Losing a member of the team

The Ugly: Segregated Societies

07-05-22 28 Weeks Later (2007)

Seen: May 18th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 8

I once inflicted 28 Days Later on a relatively new girlfriend. I loved it; she didn't. And while she did forgive me, truly, it left an indelible taint that will never quite wash clean. I still hear about it occasionally.

Here we go again.

This is a straight up, no foolin' zombie film. If you don't like horror, gore, thrills, chills and a large helping of squeem, just stay away already. The rest of you, step right this way.

I generally can't stand manic jump cutting. You may have "heard" me rant about how it creates an artificial sense of urgency. How it can be used to artificially drive scenes that are less compelling on their own. This is one case where that editing style really works. There's manic jump cutting all over this film. But here, it's used to convey the fact that there's usually multiple acts of madness all happening at the same time. The jumps between horrific bits represent a character's reaction to these various things, flicking his attention from one place to another in rapid succession to continuously monitor his surroundings in an effort to maximize his chances for survival.

Or something. Anyway, it works in spades here. And it works primarily because we're given long periods of respite. The world doesn't race along in ratchet mode. We generally cruise through our day in lackadaisical fashion. We have conversations, interactions, and go about our daily routine casually. We save the adrenalin for when we need it, and when those rare moments happen, the switch is flipped and we process it all as fast as we can.

All this is a way of saying that this film moves. Even when it's quiet. Even in the moments of relief, of temporary sanctuary, this film is moving on to the next thing. As soon as things slow down, you'd better relax while you can, because the next bit may be just around the corner.

The story is good as far as zombie fare goes, which is to say that it all makes sense and is internally consistent. It's generally consistent with the genre as well, though these zombies don't shamble; at all. The family angle is an interesting one, as is the response to the epidemic. The scenario creates a lot of tension, which is very fitting and serves very well.

Acting is generally good, great is simply not required. Rose Byrne is an interesting choice, and Robert Carlyle does a great job. Contrast this with his performance in Ravenous.

28 Weeks Later is hardly for everyone. I'll not assume who might enjoy it, as a lady in the theater seemed to be indoctrinating her infant child in the genre very early in his(?) film going career. Excepting some gurgling, the child was silent for the majority of the film, evidently as engrossed as I was.

I guess there's no accounting for taste.

The Good: Buckle up and hang on

The Bad: All in the family

The Ugly: Traipsing through the dead in the dark

07-05-21 World Trade Center (2006)

Seen: may 17th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 8

I'm no big fan of Oliver Stone. I find him overly dramatic and ham-handed. I think he's basically a nutjob conspiracy theorist who's real agenda is to re-write history so that everyone can see "how things really went down" by presenting a more lurid and vapid version of real accounts. I think he's much more moved by spectable than substance.

I may need to revise my opinion.

The only real flaw in World Trade Center is Maria Bello's awful contact lenses. Other than this little faux pas, the film is delightfully presented and executed.

I was suprised at the compactness of this story. 9/11 was a big day, full of stories. Stone has chosen a single one of those, albeit a very compelling one, to stand for the heroes who were swept aside in that maelstrom. It would have been easier to showcase half a dozen stories. To have multiple people impacted by the tragedy, switching quickly between them to keep the story frenetically moving forward. To catapult us into the middle of all their pain, to keep us driving toward their own individual conclusions.

Instead, we get a heart-felt rendition of the terror that our heroes endure. We share the agonizing waiting that their families are subject to. We see the tragedy through their eyes and experience it yet again from a fresh perspective. We're shown new heroes, people we didn't know existed. Plain, ordinary people driven to be a part of the good that was done on that day. People worth celebrating not only for who they are and what the represent, but of humanity's potential for compassion.

This film is beautifully shot. There are moments of visual wonder here. The locations each have their own tone and pace. Different things stand out in each of them, but their cohesiveness is very impressive. This is one of those films that make having a full HD setup seem like a wise decision.

I was very impressed by Cage here. He disappears into his part. Generally I have a tough time distinguishing the actor from the part, but here he becomes McLoughlin. He was a bit melodramatic at times, but this somehow didn't seem out of character for McLoughlin who is portrayed a generally retiscent. Micheal Peña does a good job as well. I think he's one to watch over the next few years. Bello and Gyllenhaal are both very good, with the edge going to Gyllenhaal. Having seen Sherrybaby not too long ago, the contrast is startling.

See this one. It's a compelling story of simple human will. It's not fancy, it's not saccahrine, it's not melodramtic and it's not nearly as large as the tragedy in which it plays a part. 9/11 is too large for any of us to fully comprehend, much less process emotionally. World Trade Center provides us with a piece that we can digest and perhaps come to grips with.

The Good: Lack of politics and agenda

The Bad: The world comes tumbling down

The Ugly: True heroes require tragedy to shine

07-05-20 The Remains of the Day (1993)

Seen: May 13th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

I like period films. I like Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson. But there's something here that really strikes me. It's something that's hidden right in front of us. It's always present, but we try to ignore it, try to brush it off. And by us I mean Americans.

Britain is a foreign country.

And by foreign I mean alien in character. The world that these characters inhabit is not an ancient one. The film takes place in the thirties and I have no problem imagining it set in modern times. Yet there is an attitude, a demeanor that I, as an American, cannot truly fathom.

I like to believe that I am a conscientious person. I believe that I have a good work ethic, that I am generally honorable and steadfast. I can hold no candle to Mr. Stevens.

His sense of his place in the world is as solid and immovable as bedrock. His pride in his Service is quiet and internal, though he holds it very dear and judges others in Service against his own ideals. His Service is his foundation, it is his core and everything he believes and does stems from it.

I admire this a great deal.

But ultimately it is this devotion to this ideal that will undo him. We're shown quite plainly that death after a life of Service may be dignified, but is hardly fulfilling. We're shown also the man who steps outside of Service, and what befalls him as well.

Through Stevens, we wonder what would have been if had stepped out of his place, if he had done things less according to the letter and more according to the heart or conscience that he so rarely dusts off and uses. This aspect strikes me as very American, the idea of stepping out of your place and telling the Truth instead of living inside the lie. Britain too has had periods of stark internal rebellion in this fashion.

This dichotomy drives the film. It tries to take no stance, to be objective and generally does well in that regard. I'll say that it fails in some respects, but that would have to be my interpretation. Someone whose values differ might fall on the other side of the line.

The film itself is paced very slowly. The pace is that of the household and Stevens' life. It moves from moment to moment deliberately, like the staff moving room to room in their duties.

Hopkins is at his understated best here. His nuance of performance is excellent. I love Emma Thompson's work and she's wonderful here, repressed, dedicated, fearful and quietly frustrated.

The technical aspects of the film are transparent. While there are some interesting moves and angles they serve the story and are very unobtrusive.

See this film if you appreciate quiet drama and internal struggle. See it if you're thinking of making a change in your own life.

The Good: Performances and Pace

The Bad: A lifetime of denial

The Ugly: Working yourself to Death

I've Been Bad.....

Forgot to post the Review for yesterday, 5/19. Oops. It was written and queued up, but I spaced it. It's been posted for yesterday and today's is on the way. As penance, I've updated the Alphabetic Review list. I sure that neither of you really care, but I'm trying to be straight about this thing....

07-05-19 Citizen X (1995)

Seen: May 13th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 5

Evidently people are the same all the world over, regardless of ideologies. This can be a comforting or terrifying thing, depending on what aspect of humanity you're examining.

This takes on the terrifying.

What we have here is a serial killer drama. It's not a horror. It has less anatomical gore than any episode of CSI. It's not a thriller because we're shown the monster early in the film. It's a drama, because it's really focused on the people involved with the case and the transitions that they go through as the events drag out over several years.

Our villain is shown plainly and clearly. There's no shadowy silhouette, no shots of footsteps in the rain. He's a plain, frumpy guy. Nothing special on the outside, but twisted beyond repair on the inside. He's and everyman, in a country where the everyman is the epitome of the ideology. This is what makes him frightening to the everyone else in the film. If he is the product of The Party, what does that say about everyone else?

This is in stark contrast to our hero. He wants to be exceptional. Not from ego, not from ambition, but because he has passion and a work ethic. He cares about his job, cares about justice, cares about doing a good job. Much like the killer, he is internally driven to his objective.

This dichotomy is placed firmly in a Soviet Union that is finally crumbling under it's own ponderous weight. The conflict is not so much between the hunter and his hunted as it is between the hunter and the rough and even dangerous terrain he must negotiate to do his job, much less be successful.

The film is solid but nothing exceptional. Performances are generally good. Writing and pacing are appropriate. There is not so much action or excitement here. The psychological aspects are nothing new to viewers, though couching them in the context encourages us to recognize and review them.

This is evidently a true story. It's best viewed as historical drama about the Soviet Union set in the microcosm of a very lengthy investigation.

The Good: A look into Soviet Bureaucracy

The Bad: Soviet Bureaucracy

The Ugly: Quiet walks in the forest

07-05-18 Music and Lyrics (2007)

Seen: May 12th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 5

Hugh Grant is a bit of a one trick pony. That's not necessarily a bad thing. He does his trick very well. Drew Barrymore has a bit more range, but generally prefers the same trick. Again, she does it well; with charm and grace even.

So what you'll get here should be pretty obvious. Unanticipated (at least by the characters) Romance, minor setbacks, reconciliations and eventual happy ever after. We toss in some peripheral characters with interesting idiosyncrasies. Some unresolved issues, a little witty banter and a dash of personal growth.

Bingo. Romantic Comedy.

This film does not fail in any way. Perhaps, like so many characters in Romantic Comedies, it's simply afraid to take a risk. Everything here is pretty safe. The characters have little to lose. No greater trauma will befall them should they fail to achieve their dreams. No relationships will be destroyed, no one will die of tragic diseases, no children will be scarred for life by selfish adult decisions.

Ultimately it's only the leads that will be serious impacted. We want them to be happy, but we really don't fear for them in any way.

This makes it all a bit fluffy and uncompelling to me. I'm interested to see what happens next, but if I'm not shown, I'm not really disappointed.

To be clear, this is not an acting problem. It's a writing and story problem. Hughes and Barrymore do well with what they're given, but there's not much there for them to work with. It's light, fluffy, sticky, sweet, and in the end, it all fades away like an 80's Pop song.

The Good: Unremarkable Romantic Comedy

The Bad: Knott's Berry Farm

The Ugly: The lack of music in the music industry

07-05-17 Happily N'Ever After (2007)

Seen: May 12th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 4

There are several problems with this film, but the most unfortunate one is that the premise is on the very brink of being done to death.

If the premise
Makes you grimace
And the jokes are stale and tired
Then the actions
Of its factions
In the plotline will be mired.

Or something.

Basically we've seen this at least three times before in the last five years. I won't deny that this genre is fertile ground. Novels are being written in it, there are collections of politically correct fairy tales that are a scream. But since it's so crowded, a success in the genre requires a new vantage point, a fresh take, something original.

We don't get it here. While there are a few great gags and moments, the whole angle is a something we've seen before. There's nothing new, nothing surprising. There are some cute bits, but that's all they are.

I will say that I did enjoy some of the voice work. I'm a big fan of Patrick Warburton, especially since he brought The Tick to life. Sigourney Weaver does a good job. The rest of the performances are solid, with the exception of Andy Dick, whom I can't stand in any form.

The animation is decent. It all seems a bit jumbled at times. There seems to be several different styles competing in the film. Each character has a distinct style, which is appropriate, but there doesn't seem to be an overall stylistic vision binding the film together. It's as if the different character teams were competing to be the most stylish and clever, instead of working together to deliver a unified vision.

Maybe your kids will like this. It seems designed for short attention spans.

The Good: Voice Talent in general

The Bad: Andy Dick?

The Ugly: Another fairytale retread

07-05-16 Next (2007)

Seen: May 12th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

I think Philip K. Dick was a brilliant author. Psychotic, deranged and unstable perhaps, but brilliant none the less.

Unfortunately, this does not mean that his works make good films. The very nature of his writing often doesn't translate well, if at all, to film. The concepts are often difficult to covey, and even if that's done well, it's difficult to digest them in two weeks, much less two hours.

But they are unique, something that Hollywood stories generally aren't, so Hollywood keeps going back to the well, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. It's picked up pace lately, though the general quality of realization has dropped off as well.

I see 'em all regardless.

This one succeeds. Not wildly, by any means, but solidly. I have no idea how much of the story here is true to Dick's work as this is a "based on", but the premise is interesting and the story fleshed out around it serviceable. The concepts are not to difficult in themselves, and the film doesn't go down a rat hole in the effort to explore them in minute detail. We're left with something not too deep, but not quite superficial and shallow either. It's a nice balance.

There's Romance here, with the capital "R". I'm a sucker for that, so for me it plays nicely. It's not completely effortless, and therefor fated, which I find a nice touch.

There's action aplenty here. The stunts are almost Bay-sian in their magnitude and creativity. Tamahori is an action director and it shows. But the interesting thing here is that due to the fundamental conceit of the film, they take on a new flavor. When the hero knows what is going to happen, it becomes less about what will happen as how it will happen. This measure of implied control creates an interesting tang.

The roles are well played. Cage is born to play weird guys in weird situations, the fit is a no brainer. Biel, always the stunner, is downplayed a bit here. She's not the center of action for a change. She's not the tough girl, but the vulnerable and confused one. She does a decent job, though I found the character a little thin and wanted to know more about her. I've given Julianne Moore a permanent pass a long time ago, I'll watch anything she does. It's kind of strange to see her in a strong woman role in two Science Fiction films in the span of a year. Maybe she's a closet geek.

I was particularly surprised at the film's ending. It was a bit startling, and took me a second to recover from. But with a few seconds reflection, it was ultimately fitting and actually brave of the film makers. I left with a grin.

The Good: Philip K. Dick done justice once again. Oh, and Jessica Biel.

The Bad: The seedy side of Las Vegas.

The Ugly: Multi-national terrorist squad with a stolen Soviet nuclear weapon? Please.

07-05-15 10 Items or Less (2006)

Seen: May 11,2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 9

I've yet to invoke any of Ebert's Laws in this blog, and I need to, so I'll paraphrase one often written: "A film's not what it's about, it's about how it's about what it's about". If this statement baffles you, or you just don't care what it mean or want to try to understand it, you'll hate this film. If you do, you may like it.

I'm going way beyond like here.

This is film is about a famous actor who hasn't made a movie in four years researching the role of a grocery manager for a very small independent film he's considering participating in. Whew. One sentence, accurate description, tells you what the film is about, but almost nothing about the film itself. This is actually a good thing, as it leaves a ton of room for the how bit.

The how is all about human connection. It's about meeting people, being interested in them, helping them, arguing with them, learning from them, sharing with them, but not defining yourself in terms of them. It's a strong statement that connection is worth while and makes us better in a potential multitude of ways.

It does this by remaining ultimately simple and true. There is nothing complicated here. There are no big agendas, no insidious plots. There are fundamental desires and the emotions that go along with them. There are no real good guys and bad guys. There are people doing what they do, being themselves, whether we like that or not. This allows all the things that happen, all the people we meet, to get out of the way and participate in what's really happening.

And that is that two people are learning from each other. The actor, Him, is explicitly and proactively learning. He is doing his craft. He is absorbing and integrating, placing himself squarely in the stead of those he meets. He want to understand, to connect, to become. It's what he does.

Scarlet learns that things don't have to be the way she perceives them. She learns that she has power to change things and that changing herself, while potentially terrifying, is not only possible, but perhaps even good.

While there is Truth here, there is little right and wrong. The film remains remarkably objective. Neither Scarlet or Him is portrayed as superior. They have their own strengths and weaknesses. Him knows and admits his, Scarlet begins to work on hers.

Ultimately this film will be boring to many. There's not enough Drama to be considered engaging by the masses. This is truly a shame, because there is brilliant dialogue and characterization here. The are subtle and beautiful moments that are so commonplace that we probably often overlook them in real life. Silberling has captured a wonderful moment, that should remind us of all the similar moments we've had, and encourage us to perhaps seek them out instead of waiting for them to happen by chance.

I doubt that this film will ever see critical acclaim. It's more an experiment than anything else. But I find it wildly successful and consider it one of the most enjoyable films I've seen this year.

The Good: Acting at its simplest and finest

The Bad: Not generally accessible

The Ugly: Sleeping with the Manager

07-05-14 Cobb (1994)

Seen: May 11th, 2007
Format: Broadcast - HDNMV (HD-Net Movies)
Rating: 7

I wanted to love this film so much. It had great writing, great dialogue and even a few great performances. It tears down some ideas we have about sports heroes, making them human, if not particularly humane. It had it all except the casting.

I don't know who was ultimately responsible for casting Robert Wuhl in this film, but I hope they never cast another films a long as they live.

Wuhl is a schlub. This is not necessarily a bad thing, he's made a pretty good living from it. He was discovered by Dangerfield, who had a very successful career being a schlub. But schlub was not the right call for this character.

I don't know if Al Stump was a schlub, and I don't care. This is film, make the best one you can.

Basically, Wuhl has no prayer playing against Tommy Lee Jones here. Jones' performance is simply stellar. He rides Cobb right up, over the top, and back down the other side to start again. His Cobb is so nasty, so egotistical and narcissistic and yet has a charisma and charm that is undeniable. Everything about the man is a consistent love hate relationship.

Al Stump is supposed to be the foil here. He's supposed to be the one we relate to, the one we discover the real Cobb through. He is us, our eyes, ears, heart and conscience. His journey is the journey of the film, the one we've signed up to take. And he just can't hack it.

I may be ranting a bit here, but this single fact it what drops the film from 8+ to 7- for me. It is distracting and consistently undermines the film.

The rest of it is good as well. The writing is simply superb. The flow of the film, from scene to scene and location to location moves it along briskly. While there are a few anachronisms, the details of the period are well done. They're unobtrusive, but really enhance the feel of the film.

Other roles are well played also. Davidovich, a favorite, is unabashedly trashy here. Lou Meyers shines. Ned Bellamy is completely forgettable because he so completely melts into the role of the man in the background.

If you've ever idolized a celebrity, be they a sports figure, actor or politician, see this film. See it if you love baseball, especially if you revere Cobb. See it to learn a little about yourself.

The Good: Jones pulls out the stops

The Bad: Wuhl? Why?

The Ugly: The demands we place on heroes

07-05-13 Ultimate Avengers (2006)

Seen: May 9th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 5

If you're not into comics, then move along, there's nothing to see here.

If you are, and if you grew up with Marvel's Avengers you'll probably enjoy this retelling.

While not entirely true to form, this film does an admirable job of bringing the Avengers to the screen. The "origin" of Captain America is well told, though the background of other characters is conspicuously absent.

And that's about it. This was a straight to video release, and rightly so. Marvel's movie machine has had success in some areas and not so much in others. The Avengers couldn't really stand a full release, as the story's really not for mass consumption in less than two hours. This more fan-centric release makes sense for that limited market.

See it you're a fanboy or want to indoctrinate your children.

The Good: The real-ish deal

The Bad: A little light on exposition

The Ugly: Aliens?

07-05-12 Catch and Release (2006)

Seen: May 9th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 6

I was kind of excited to see this film. I'm a minor Kevin Smith fan and had read some of his blogs about the shooting. I like Tim Olyphant as well, and have had a crush on Garner since Pearl Harbor. It looked amusing and maybe heart rending, so why not?

It seems to be more about placing mostly interesting characters in a strange situation and seeing what happens. The answer is: lots of things. Perhaps a little too much, even. It's kinda The Big Chill, with a twist.

The problem with this is that some of these things are interesting and some aren't. Some of them are amusing, some are slightly tragic and others are just plain pitiful and boring. With the exception of the budding love story, these are generally handled with equal weight. This may be realistic, in a slice of life kind of way, but it doesn't necessarily make for a good film.

The core idea seems to be the reaction to a friend's death. Been there, done that, no fun fertile ground. But that doesn't seem to be enough. We can't just watch these characters go through their grief, support each other or not. Have arguments, grieve. On top of this there's an added twist which throws the whole thing sideways.

This in itself is not an issue.

The problem comes in that we're supposed to react to the complete situation. The twist forces us to deal with both sides of the problem, or perhaps choose one. This pattern is repeated as we come to know the characters better. It continually requires us to make choices, re-evaluate our position and learn about ourselves.

Again, this isn't a bad thing.

The real problems lies in couching all this self-reflection, growth and pain in a quasi romantic comedy. The comic relief may be welcome at times, but it tends to undermine the serious issues that we're presented with. Again, this is more "real-life", but I get enough of that on a daily basis.

And then there's the kid. He's pivotal, but is the only character that really gets shafted on the development front. He's alternately mischievous and cute. That's it. He's the cornerstone of the conceit, but is written and portrayed as some paper-thin Dennis the Menace caricature.

The end of the film is surprisingly pat as well. There's no real surprise here. That may be the strangest thing, that everything ends up pretty much as we'd expect, given the angst that we and the characters are put through. But again, it reflects real life, as it's an oft proved fact that all Massage Therapists eventually move to Boulder.

I really think that Susannah Grant has tapped into something here. I think that this was a great idea, with great characters, that just wasn't pruned enough. It's not too long, but there's too much going on to justify it all.

The Good: High Drama with a light fluffy comedic filling

The Bad: Child exploitation

The Ugly: Looking for love in all the wrong places

07-05-11 Night at the Museum (2006)

Seen: May 9th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 6

If you've read some of my previous reviews, you may be aware that Ben Stiller bugs me. I think he's a pretty gifted guy. I was a fan of his parents' growing up. He's got good timing and a wicked, twisted sense of humor. But a lot of times he just goes for it and misses big.

This isn't one of those times.

This is a chraming little flick. It serves a great purpose by potentially encouraging kids to learn about history. It's squarely aimed at kids. And that's a shame.

There are few jokes here that are designed for adults by flying under the kid radar in Looney Tunes fashion. They're clever enough, but they're few and far between. Everything here plays to a lowest common denominator of about 12 years old. That's a real shame because it wouldn't have taken much to change the film to one with a slightly broader appeal.

It's not bad however. There are some clever bits. It stays very true to story and true to form. There's very few real surprises here, it all plays out pretty much as you'd expect. The twist on the old guards is a bit of a surprise and a welcome one. There's seems to be a lot of story missing. The premise is one that could be expanded on very easily, and there are a few portions that seem as if they weren't given the chance to shine. I could see this a series for kids and adults.

Van Dyke, Cobbs and Rooney are great here. They're probably my favorite part of the film. Robin Williams was well cast and does an excellent job. He doesn't run away with the film, though I can't say whether the restraint was his or the director's. I have a huge crush on Carla Gugino, so she's always amazing. Stiller does a good job. He's appropriately emotional and vulnerable. I believe that he wants to be a good dad. I have a feeling that he made this film for his kids as much as himself. The rest of the supporting cast is less noticed, as they should be.

The premise is executed nicely. Sets are impressive. The effects, with the exception of the whale, are effective and generally seamless. The film feels contained, with most of it taking place in the museum itself. It becomes the world that really matters, and this seems appropriate.

I enjoyed this film. I'll forget it soon, and I should have seen it with my niece and nephews, and maybe I'll still get the chance.

The Good: Van Dyke plays the villain

The Bad: Aiming for the lowest common denominator

The Ugly: Retirement

07-05-10 Men at Work (1990)

Seen: May 7th, 2007
Format: Broadcast - HDNet Movies (HDNMV)
Rating: 4

Emilio Estevez has written and directed several films. His most recent garnered some fairly serious attention and critical acclaim.

This is not that film.

Men at Work is not a terrible film, but it's nothing to write home about. It seems like practice to me. Its a very conventional genre film in most ways. It's an ecological crime drama comedy. It takes its cues from the cop buddy film and moves it to a pair of less conventional characters.

It relies heavily on comedic elements, most of them contrived and some really not very funny. Kidnapping a bystander, hauling a dead body around, these are staples elsewhere, but in the end, the don't add much to the mix.

There is some rather amusing dialogue and characterization around Estevez and Sheen's characters. They play well off each other, and I'm sure that being brothers helped quite a bit. But it's really not enough to carry the film.

Essentially Estevez was honing his writing craft when he made this film. By sticking to a conventional framework, he could work on certain areas without worrying too much about others. He he seems most concerned about dialouge and scene construction here. On the directorial front, pacing seems to be the focus.

Ultimately there's not much here. It's forumlaic and dated. It really doesn't break any new ground and it's nothing if not predeictable. There's some loose ends that aren't really resolved, but they're not really that important.

But I really can't hate this film. There's a certain sincerity to the way it was made that makes it all a bit forgivable. The characters have a few endearing quirks and there are a few truly humorous moments.

The Good: Brotherly love

The Bad: Nothing new here

The Ugly: Dead body humor

07-05-09 The Last King of Scotland (2006)

Seen: May 7th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

This seems to be the week for stellar singular performances. First Helen Mirren and now Forrest Whitaker. While The Last King of Scotland would be a compelling film in any right, Whitaker's performance is what sends this one over the top.

Like The Queen, The Last King of Scotland takes advantage of us (well, me anyway) by dropping us into a scenario for which we have little frame of reference. This difference this time is that we have a protagonist in the same situation. We experience what Uganda has to offer through his experience. And what an experience it turns out to be.

But this is not his only purpose. This character is completely fictional. Not even composited from real historical figures, he is the invention of the screen writer. His purpose is to provide an objective look at the man who was Idi Amin. With barely time to gain his bearings in a new world, he is thrust into the mounting insanity of the one which Amin constructed around himself. And then tries to hang on as it slowly shakes itself to pieces.

Ultimately this is all a very effective conceit used to explore Idi Amin in all his guises; leader, reformer, general, husband, father, politician, hedonist, they're all here. Whitaker's performance spans all this facets of the character seamlessly. He exudes Amin's casual charm, his narcissism and egotism and above all his child-like naivete with equal ease and conviction. The way he glides from one aspect of Amin's personality to the next without effort is what makes his portrayal so very frightening.

We see here an Amin who is at best unstable. The power he wields transforms his whims into action, often with terrible consequences. His ultimate paranoia and descent to the edge of sanity are horrific to watch, especially as he seems to drag the very country and people he seems to have wished to serve along with him.

Whitaker's performance overshadows other wonderful aspects of the film. The writing that lets this character be exposed is excellent. While it has its own holes and deficiencies, they seem to be the result of the focus on Amin and his transformation.

James McAvoy's performance stands out as well. While not of the range of Whitaker's, he does an excellent job. Kerry Washington delivers in and subtly understated fashion. Her character underscores many of Amin's assets and failures.

The environment is spectacular. Filming in Uganda was critical to the nature of the film. It make it all feel genuine.

I remember Idi Amin. I was a child, but he was constantly in the news, on the world stage. He was larger than life, even from half way around the world. The Last King of Scotland gives us a last and fascinating glimpse at the man who defeated the British Empire.

The Good: Performance, performance, performance

The Bad: Absolute power

The Ugly: Pruning of limbs

07-05-08 Disturbia (2007)

Seen: May 5th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

I have this theory that the Horror and Thriller genres are essentially the same. Every Horror film starts out as a Thriller and transitions to Horror the moment we are shown, without any remaining ambiguity, the Monster. This reveal, when the nature of the things that we guessed and assumed becomes concrete, is the moment when we subconsciously lose hope, when we lose any control we might have had and are plunged into the maelstrom. We may be mis-directed or given false hope after this, but once the event horizon is crossed, there's no going back.

This edge, the transition is where the fun lies. The longer and closer we stand to it, the better the ride. Great films delay this moment, drag it out, throw out red herrings and lead up down dead-ends. Alien is one of my favorites in this way.

Disturbia does a surprisingly good job of approaching this line, and a fairly good one once it gets close.

I was prepared to not like this film. I was pretty sure that I'd seen everything interesting in the trailer. It seemed cut and dried, with a thin premise as an excuse for mayhem. And while it's not the best thing I've seen recently, I had a pretty good time.

It starts out with a bang. It surprised me. And it sets up the characters and what follows very nicely. Most of the characters actually developed. While this isn't really necessary in this type of film, it was a very nice touch. The characters were generally whole and rounded. They weren't perfect, but were at least forgivable. While I won't say this generated some sympathy that made their danger more real, at least we could identify them as something other than "Dead Teen #2".

The story builds fairly slowly. This is again, a little surprising. There's no hurry to get to the payoff. There's some genuine humor here. Not just comic relief, but cool little moments that serve to normalize the scenario. Same with some moments of personal tension. It all builds very nicely up to the moment things finally drop over the edge.

I guess the shame here is that in the end it's all pretty predictable. That's not to say it's bad. It doesn't just stop after the big reveal. But it does seem like a let down given what we've gone through to get there. Even the epilogue is a bit of a letdown. It really doesn't seem appropriate payback everything we've gone through.

In the end, I like this film. It's not going to change your world or even make your summer. But it's fun, and sometimes that's plenty good enough.

P.S. Turns out the director, D.J. Caruso, also directed The Salton Sea, a film I really enjoyed.

The Good: Character development

The Bad: A good day fishing

The Ugly: Basement pickling

07-05-07 The Queen (2006)

Seen: May 4th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 8

I like films that educate me. I prefer learning something new at every chance I get. Film can educate in several different ways. Some of the best films take an area that you know little about and expand it for you, showing you things that you never considered. Not just nuances, but insight into realms of which you weren't just unaware, but of which you would never have thought to enquire.

They expose your ignorance.

I can't understand the British monarchy. Not because I've tried and failed, but because I truly believe that there's a historical and cultural imperative to which I've not been exposed for my entire life. I'm simply not capable. This seems to be the subject matter of The Queen.

While set during the period of the Diana's death and the election of Blair, the film is not really about these events. Instead, it uses them as foils to show the monarchy, the family royal, and their relationship to their subjects. Not individual relationships, though those are covered and interesting, but the relationship between those of royal status, and the body comprising the rest of British civilization.

What amazes me about this film is its unjudging objectivity. There can be little doubt that the Queen and her family made errors in judgement during and following these events. The easy route would have been to expose and chastise them for their mistakes. Instead, the film shows who the Queen is, who her family is. We learn the driving reasons behind the why of these decisions. We learn that they were not made from carelessness and thoughtlessness, that there were not vindictive.

In this exposition, we learn a little about her, and her family. We are shown glimpses of what it means to be Queen, and what it means to be one of her advisers, her Prime Minister, one of her staff, one of her subjects. Being shown this withy objectivity allows us to begin to begin to understand the complexities of all these relationships. It serves as an abject lesson how human it is to assume or judge, and how much more humane to learn, understand and forgive.

The performances here are excellent. Mirren in particular is outstanding. Long a fan of hers, in my opinion this performance cements her place as one of the preeminent actresses of her generation. The way she becomes the Queen is stunning.

Michael Sheen does an excellent job as well. His performance is the keystone on which our education rests. He treads the line between personality and caricature exceptionally well here.

The script itself is very well done. Frear's directorial choices are superb. I've enjoyed his work in the past, but the subtly he shows here shows a whole new dimension.

See this film. Keep an open mind and pay attention, as the real story here lies much deeper than the story being told.

The Good: Mirren's performance

The Bad: Disconnection

The Ugly: The ultimate cost of celebrity

07-05-06 The Last Kiss (2006)

Seen: May 2nd, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 3

I don't get Zach Braff's popularity. I don't watch Scrubs, maybe that's the problem. I saw Garden State, which was interesting, but hardly magnificent. I guess the ladies like him, but I just can't see it. I won't say I dis-like him, but he's not a draw either.

The rest of the leads, however, could fall off the face of the earth for all I care.

It's a shame that the casting of this film ruined it for me before it ever really got started. Michael Weston bugs the crap out of me. I always type cast him in my head as "psycho stupid crying guy". Casey Affleck is at best a hack. Eric Christian Olsen's best turn has to be Beerfest. And why is Jacinda Barret popular? She's not particularly talented or stunning, though I guess a turn in School for Scoundrels will put her on the fast track. And while I like Tom Wilkinson and Blythe Danner well enough, the only performer in this film I'd go out of my way to see is Marley Shelton. She does a decent job, considering with what and whom she's working.

And that's the other thing. There's really nothing of substance here. It's like St. Elmo's Fire for the new millennium. There's a whole bunch of 29 year olds having mid-life crises. They're uniformly self-centered and narcissistic. They each learn the cold hard lesson that the world and the people in it are not designed to make them happy.

Duh.

There's simply nothing revelatory here. While they have separate problems, it's all the same issue, and the views aren't really divergent enough to make any of them interesting. Worse, all the situations are thinly defined. There's not enough detail in any of the relationships to make us believe that the problems have any foundation. Asking us to actually care about them is out of the question. I'm tempted here to write a litany of questions here to illustrate this, but I'm tired and once I started, I couldn't stop.

In addition, none of these characters is really sympathetic either. They're all just broken, most of them in dramatically unattractive ways. Are we supposed to believe that we're all this badly defective, and therefore deserving of tolerance and forgiveness no matter what our transgressions? Are we supposed to believe that it's OK to wallow in our own narcissism and that it doesn't matter what we do or who we hurt and long as we learn some lesson and feel better about our own situation?

Please.

There are few interesting bits in the film. There's a treehouse which a nice touch. The porch sequence is interesting, though I've read it was lifted from a German film. Danner and Ramis' scene is subtly tragic and nicely played.

I get the feeling that whoever wrote this was going through some crisis of discovery about their life. Maybe they looked around and found that people around them had some problems too. The mistake wasn't in writing about it. The mistake was in thinking that anyone, much less everyone else would really care.

The Good: I'm stymied

The Bad: 70s style Narcissism

The Ugly: The casting

07-05-05 From Here to Eternity (1953)

Seen: May 1st, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

Certain pictures are just legendary. This is one of them. I've heard the name for years, seen clips of the beach scene. It won a bunch of awards and was key to several actors' careers. It's considered a classic.

But it's hardly timeless.

Basically, I don't think that I have the context to appreciate this film. Burt Lancaster and Montgomery Clift are hardly household names at this point. Frank Sinatra is well known, but at this time his career was on the wane, and this film rejuvenated it to some degree. The novel on which the film was based was a runaway best seller. It had to be heavily adapted and dramatically toned down for the film. The beach scene was risque, as was the very idea of an explicit affair. WWII was still fairly fresh in Americans' memories, and Pearl Harbor something that most remembered vividly.

All these factors contributed to the popularity and significance of the film at the time. Without them, the film loses much of its relevance, boiling down to four simple stories. These stories intertwine, but are maintain a degree of independence.

First, there is Pruitt trying to find redemption. He's committed what he feels is an unforgivable sin. He's doing penance for that and his additional sin of pride. He's looking for redemption by suffering silently at the hands of others and in the love of a good woman. Clift's performance is one of the best here. He is moody and tortured.

His antithesis is Captain Holmes. Self-centered, egotistical and arrogant, he takes everything he can and makes no effort. Everything is an affront to him. He interacts only to advance his own ends, whether that be bullying Pruitt, marrying his wife, or socializing with his superiors. His story is simple karmic allegory.

The third story is that Maggio, who just wants to live and let live. He's a happy go lucky guy beset by evil outside his own making. His is a tragedy. Sinatra does a nice turn here.

The fourth is the story of the love affair. Lancaster's Warden is a bit of a caricature. He plays a major part in all the stories, but plays all his various roles with little variation. He's so reserved, even in his drunken moments that it's hard to see his real motivations. I doubt even he knows them. Karen Holmes too is a caricature. Trophy wife looking for something more, but terrified of finding it and ultimately weak and dependent.

For me, the only really compelling story is Pruitt's, the rest are just along for the ride. The constant focus changes and the melodramatic tension of impending war are distracting. It makes it all a bit difficult to reconcile. Everything ties up in the end, each ending to its own mood, but none of them are really satisfying.

Perhaps it's a little like life that way.

The Good: Clift's performance

The Bad: Karen's weakness

The Ugly: Abuse of power

07-05-04 School For Scoundrels (2006)

Seen: April 29th, 2007
Format: HD-DVD
Rating: 4

I think I'm going to give up on Todd Phillips. I keep seeing trailers for his films and think, "Wow, that looks interesting and amusing", only to discover that while the trailer is interesting and amusing, it pretty much contains the entire scope of the film. It's not only a neat idea, it's the whole idea.

Ultimately, this makes watching the film pretty much a waste of time, since it's just an extended cut of the trailer.

The premise is promising. It's a new variation on an old idea. It could be made into a really funny film, but it wasn't.

Not there aren't some redeeming things here. Jon Heder and Billy Bob Thornton do passable jobs. There are a few gags that didn't make the trailer. I like Sarah Silverman. There's one spot where I missed the twist, was surprised, and gave an inner golf clap. David Cross, normally not a positive for me, fit his role very well. There's a few truly funny moments that generate a laugh or wry smile.

And that's about it.

The rest of this is just slogging along through the premise. The leads have some minor characterization, the rest are pretty much caricatures. The choice of Jacinda Barret baffles me. I would have made Sarah Silverman's character the love interest, that would have been funny. Some gags run way too long. The plot is largely predictable. The resolution is inevitable.

And I'm really tired of pointless Ben Stiller cameos in comedies.

If you really liked Old School, Road Trip and Starsky & Hutch, then this one's for you, if not, take a pass.

This Just In Department: I've just learned that this is actually a re-make of a British film from 1960. This doesn't help.

The Good: An unpredictable twist

The Bad: All the predictable twists

The Ugly: Take your pick

07-05-03 Final Fantsy VII - Advent Children (2005)

Seen: April 26th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 4

I played Final Fantasy VII a long time ago on what was the only Playstation at the time. I rushed through it though, and really wasn't up to the final battle, which I never completed.

Thus is my geek cred thoroughly flawed.

Basically, this one is for the fan boys. The storyline was lost with a whole bunch of other junk somewhere in my hind brain, but I remembered enough to get the gist. But this wasn't really enough to enjoy it.

I'd imagine that you'd have to have lived this world via hundreds of hours of game time and hundreds more on forums, chat groups and at conventions to really completely follow what's going on here. I didn't. I got bits and pieces, and the basic story, but there was a whole lot of questions that I was left with. The fact that I didn't really care about the answers shows you where I'm at.

The animation is good. It's a little dated, but consistent with the style of the previous film and the cut scenes. The scope is grand and majestic. The visuals rich and vibrant.

The editing is a bit of a nightmare. It watches much more like a video game than a film. This means interesting camera angles and movements, which is great. But it also means frenetic editing, which makes watching many of the fight sequences very difficult. This is a DVD that probably would be better viewed on a small screen. On my large screen there's just too much going on. I actually switched from the Japanese soundtrack to the English one about five minutes into the film (which I rewatched) as I was finding it difficult to both watch the film and read the subtitles. This is a big compromise for me, as I'm a stickler for watching foreign films in their original dialogue.

In the end, see this if you're a serious FF7 fan, someone very interested in computer animation, especially as it pertains to gaming or perhaps interested in alternate mythos, especially of the Gaia form. Maybe you'll like it better.

The Good: Fanboy Panacea

The Bad: Gratuitous character inclusion

The Ugly: Spastic battle sequence jump cuts

07-05-02 Hot Fuzz (2007)

Seen: April 29th, 2007
Format: Theatre
Rating: 9

Some claim this film is a parody. Some say it's a satire. But I can't agree with either. What we have here is a rarer form of genre acknowledgement. This, my friends, is an homage.

Dozens of films had to be watched multiple times in order to make this film. And not merely watched. Those films were analyzed, dissected, culled, reworked, reassembled and ultimately reanimated. Only by doing this were the writers able to so completely represent the genre that is buddy cop. All this focused attention points to only one thing: love.

Or maybe passion or perhaps even obsession. But if we've learned nothing else at all from the hundreds of psychological thrillers, we know that they're all ultimately the same thing any way.

This film can be enjoyed on many different levels. You can watch it as a farce. Or a wry twisted comedy filled with a dozen subtle jokes. Maybe it's a horror film or a thriller to you. Or perhaps a self-discovery film. But for some of us, this is a witty and skillful distillation of all that this good, bad and ugly about the genre. It represents it completely and accurately, with very good humor, but without sarcasm, condescension or disdain.

Watch it any way you want. Maybe you hate this genre. Maybe you love it. It really doesn't matter. Go see it. If you're under 17, con or pay some adult so they'll take responsibility for you and go see it. Tell 'em I said so. Go make these men rich so that they'll keep doing this.

There's really nothing more to say. I'm not going to talk characterization. I'm not going to debate a deeper message. I'm not going to talk about camera angles, lighting or production design, because you've seen them all before. I won't tell you a single thing that could spoil it for you.

I will say that I liked it even better than Shaun of the Dead, which you should also go see.

Unless you're squeamish.

P.S. I'm hoping to upgrade this to a 10 eventually.

The Good: Dedication to Duty

The Bad: Family ties

The Ugly: Taking one on the chin

07-05-01 The Driver (1978)

Seen: April 27th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

Yup, another Driving movie. It's getting to be a habit. This time around it's a mercenary getaway driver.

The fist thing to mention here is the quality of the driving. There are chase sequences here that are spectacularly choreographed. They're fast, visceral and very well shot. They're really the heart of the film. They're not over-the-top from a stunts perspective, just fast chases through traffic, often at night. In addition, there's some stunt driving in a parking garage which is very impressive. And a crash near the end I saw coming a mile off, but was still impressed by.

The story isn't a bad one. It's direct, not complicated. It serves well enough, but is nothing exceptional. The dialogue I found a bit stilted. Bruce Dern plays a tough cop, and his dialogue is particularly trite. Perhaps this has something to do with the way he portrays the character rather than the way the character is written.

Ryan O'Neal does a decent job here, playing a bit against type. His character is exceptionally stoic and very direct. This plays against the driver stereotype and is what sets the character apart. Even in the heat of the chase, he is calm and collected, judging every turn and change in a logical, direct manner. This contrast exists within the film as well as within the genre. It surprised me that O'Neal could pull this off. Even when he lets his guard down around those he trusts, he still maintains an air of detachment.

The film overall is quiet. With the exception of the detective, people tend to act more than speak. This juxtaposition is obvious and appropriate. There's many cases where the action itself propels the story and dialogue would simply be superfluous. An interesting choice is to deprive the characters of names. It's done seamlessly and helps define them in terms of their role, depersonalizing them, and distancing them.

In places it's very well shot. There is some amazing shot composition, camera angles and uses of reflection and shadow. But there are also shots that are bland and staid in their simplicity. It's all a bit bleak and stark, which serves the film very well.

Overall I liked this film. It's not exceptional, but does draw you in. There's not so much action per se, but the driving scenes are truly remarkable. My only problem was The Detective, who really irritated me. I'm not sure if this was due to the acting, directing, writing, or a combination of all three, and may have been intentional.

The Good: The Driving

The Bad: Stilted Dialogue

The Ugly: Mind The Gap