07-08-31 Superbad (2007)

Seen: AUgust 27th. 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 5

I think I need a break. At this point, it's becoming pretty hard to really enjoy a movie. Superbad for instance, was something I pretty much just tolerated. I sat through it, half my mind paying attention, half of it wandering.

It's got some funny bits, even some very funny bits. Some of the gags work, some don't. It's unapologetically crude, even if Evan isn't. There's not many boundaries it won't cross. All that's just fine, but someone, I just couldn't get in the flow (pun intended).

One of my biggest personal problems with this film is Micheal Cera, whom I just do not find amusing at all. He's a one-trick pony, and since his trick isn't amusing to me, that's no tricks, which means that he drags down everything else he's in. I have the same problem with David Cross.

I guess I expected everyone else to carry the film and Cera to just act as foil. Unfortunately that's not the case. Jonah Hill fares better and Christopher Mintz-Plasse is surprisingly fresh and ends up with by far the funniest bits.

It's madcap of course, required for the genre. But like most of it's brethren, it comes across more as collection of sketches with common characters than a real journey. Not that I was expecting anything different, but it often strays afield and needs to be dragged back to center. The wandering is actually the best part though, and it's a damper when it gets reeled in.

If you enjoy the occasional teen comedy, see for yourself. Maybe it'll make a better impression on you. Or maybe I just need a sense of humor adjustment.

The Good: Unapologetic teen comedy

The Bad: Not as funny as it wants to be

The Ugly: Dirty Dancing

07-08-30 Love Me If You Dare (Jeux d'enfants) (2003)

Seen: August 26th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

The trailer for this film is a masterpiece of marketing. It portrays this film as a mischievous romp, bringing a child's sense of humor into an adult world. The premise is charming, a child's game of dare carried out over decades, bonding two people for life. It's a sweet, romantic pastiche, ready made for curling up with your sweetheart on the sofa with a bowl of microwave popcorn.

Then it all goes black and horribly wrong.

The film has a very twisted soul. Normally I wouldn't mind so much, but it can't be honest with itself, not unlike it's characters. It bounces back and forth between light hearted humor and what verges on the edge of psychological terror.

The characters here love and hate each other with a depth that's astounding. The way they treat each other made me cringe at times. Perhaps this is honest, perhaps the thing we do based on our own fears and doubts are not so far off the hyperbolic curve plotted here. But that doesn't mean that we wish to be entertained by them.

In honesty, I should give this a second look. There are things here I still don't understand, and a second watch might change my mind about certain aspects of the film. It won't make it more warm and fuzzy, it won't excuse the characters actions, but perhaps it'll at least provide some answers.

See this one if you like film that explore the human psyche, but it's best avoided for the romantic interlude unless your partnership is as twisted as these characters'.

The Good: Has heart and humor

The Bad: And a twisted soul

The Ugly: The games we play

07-08-29 All the President's Men (1976)

Seen: August 25th, 2007
Format: Broadcast - HDNMV (HDNet-Movies)
Rating: 7

This is another of those films I should have seen a long time ago. But I'm not that interested in politics in general and political scandals and conspiracies in particular.

Even this one.

I was a kid during Watergate, and really didn't understand what was going on. And later on, I just wasn't that interested. But it did grip the nation for awhile. That there could be corruption in the federal government at such high levels, and that is could be investigated and exposed, especially by reporters, shook the nation's confidence in their leaders.

The film is solid, if a bit dry. But that's to be expected, as Watergate was essentially about accounting and paying people to perform mildly illegal acts in the service of a presidential election. The conspiracy itself is what's interesting here, not the actions of those conspirators. Goldman's screenplay focuses on the actions of the reporters to unearth the plot, which is far more interesting than the plot itself.

In that vein, it does an excellent job. Woodward and Bernstein's tale unoflds fairly slowly. The characters are full enough the we believe them and even care about them a little. This was probalby more true when the film came out, as it followed so closely on the heels of the actual incident.

Hoffman and Redford are good, even very good. Woodward is ernest. Bernstein is a bit of a creep. The one thing that bugged me is Hoffman's smoking. It's obvious that he's not a smoker. The supporting cast is generally solid, Robards in particular.

The technical details are unimpressive. The whole film comes off more made for TV than cinematic. Shots are generally uninteresting, relying on the action and dialogue to carry the scene.

While I know that this was an important film for many reasons, it doesn't impress me terribly. It's good, and solid and engaging, but not revolutionary. Perhaps is just dated. This events are thirty years old, and given what's gone on in the world since then, perhaps not as scandalous as the were at the time.

It'd be interesting to see a modern re-make of this, I'm sure it'd be much punchier and have half the heart

The Good: Dynamic teling of the conspiracy the rocked the US

The Bad: A bit dated

The Ugly: Fearing for your life

07-08-28 Kinky Boots (2005)

Seen: August 24th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 5

This is another film in a nacent genre, which we'll call "Light Heartwarming British Film Based On A Quirky True Story". There seem to pop up every few years. Calendar Girls and Mrs. Henderson Presents are the ones that leap immediately to mind.

Generally they're about someone having to do something against their nature, particularly their British nature, in order to serve some lossely defined "higher good". Hijinks, guffaws and moral allegory follow.

Overall, the film maker's pull it off reasonably well. The only fault I can find is casting Chiwetel Ejiofor in the lead. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the man's work, but I just can't buy his Lola. While the mannerisms are OK, and the costumers have done what they can, I just never quite buy him as a drag queen. Now I don't know any drag queen personally, so my opinion is definitely tainted, but there's something that I can't put my finger on that doesn't ring true.

It's pretty standard fare, actually. Man gets put in hard place. Man listens to someone else, devises a plan, eventually wins over his detractors, discovers his true love and wins the day. Curtain.

There's nothing really unexpected here. There are some charming characters. There are some decent gags and good dramatic moments. There's some heartwarming turnabouts. It's good, but nothing really stand out to make it great. Even the subject matter, the core of the story isn't really that exceptional at this point.

If you like drag queen movies add this one to your list. If you find the juxtaposition of British sensibilities and homo-erotica amusing, take a look. Otherwise, you can probably find something more worth your time.

The Good: Heartwarming story

The Bad: Becoming a genre all it's own

The Ugly: All alone on the catwalk

07-08-27 Perfume:The Story of a Muderer (2006)

Seen: August 21st, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

I saw the trailers for this a long time ago and stuffed it on my list. I eventually got round to it and enjoyed it a great deal. I had no idea who directed it when I watched it, but at the end of the film discovered it was Tom Tykwer, was also had a hand in the writing.

Duh.

I really enjoy Tykwer's work. While he's not for everyone, his sense of style is undeniable. He's a very visual director, creating large landscapes and small vignette's with equal style.

Perfume, is a beautiful film. It's sets and locales are simply stunning. It is grimy, but appropriately so. It is alternately light and dark, shifting with the mood of the film, but always detailed and full. The shot choices are very impressive and their expressiveness carries the story in certain sections of the film. Watch for angles changes, POV changes and pans that show so effectively what's really happening with the characters.

The story itself is subtle. On the surface it's a thriller, but underneath, it's layered with different themes, not unlike the construction of perfume that Baldini describes. It's a discussion of art and it's related passion. It's a discourse on relationships between people and what those relationships are defined by and built on. It's about coveting and possessing, and it's about the complex relationship of love and sex, it's about compulsion. It's about odor.

It also contains one of the largest and yet tasteful orgies I've seen on the screen.

There's moral ambiguity here as well. Our villain isn't really evil, just compelled. Murder isn't his objective, but becomes a requirement to achieve his ends when other methods fail. It eventually becomes merely efficient. His sacrifices result in wondrous things. His genius is hard to deny. Can we really despise him and his methods? Can we really pretend he's a mystery to us?

Acting is top notch. I'm not a huge Dustin Hoffman fan, finding him inconsistent, but here he shines and shines brightly. Winshaw is simply remarkable. Rickman is a favorite, and plays subtly here, to good effect. The supporting cast does well also, slipping into their roles. The crowd scenes are a bit rough in the acting department, but with this many extras, that's to be expected.

My only quibble with the film is the visually dramatic overstatement of the crowd scenes. This is mostly a dramatic choice, but the degree of reaction seems like hyperbole. It is consistent with previous scenes, but seems a bit excessive. That said, it is well realized and excellently choreographed.

Make no mistake, this is a strange and somewhat disturbing film. It asks a lot of questions and really doesn't offer much in the way of explanation. But it's beautiful, haunting and fresh, and there's a lot to be said for that.

The Good: Sense of moral ambiguity

The Bad: Hyperbole

The Ugly: Enfleurage

07-08-26 On the Beach (1959)

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

This is another of those films that I have no recollection exactly how it ended up on my list. I wasn't even quite sure what it was when it arrived. Sometimes this is a god thing, sometimes it's a not-so-good thing.

This time it's the former.

In a nutshell, this is cautionary apocalyptic tale. Made early in the Cold War, it's an unflinching look at a possible result of mutually assured destruction. It's a straightforward, factual telling, but is charged with tension and drama.

It's really a Science Fiction film, as it deals with a potential future. And in this regard, it's one of the better ones.

The film exposes it's premise very gradually. It's much more invested in the characters early in the film, revealing them to us as people. As thing progress and we become aware of their reality, their reactions are much more powerful, because we've experienced them as people.

They're a diverse group. There aren't many stereotypes here, and the few that exist are wiped aside by the scenario.

There's some great concepts and moments in this film, many of them quite unexpected. It asks and answers some very difficult questions. It deals with the humanity of the situation well, if a bit dourly.

My only problem with the film is the continuous use of the song "Waltzing Matilda" throughout the film score in a nauseating number of variations. I don't believe I'll ever be able to hear that song again without experiencing some antipathy.

See this one for a great take on the apocalyptic ramifications of the last World War.

The Good: Unflinching future fiction

The Bad: Waiting for the wind

The Ugly: Waltzing Matilda

07-08-25 PCU (1994)

Seen: August 17th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 3

The only reason this made it onto my list is that Steve Vai did the soundtrack and I'm a fan.

The soundtrack was OK, but not that great.

The premise of this film is actually pretty interesting. The fact that it's thirteen years old and that the premise might still work is a bit prescient and ultimately frightening.

The target of this satire is political correctness. The idea is that political correctness actually segregates us into faction, each bent on pushing awareness of their particular political agenda. The agenda is foisted on those around them by militant passive-aggressive attacks of being offended.

This idea is taken to it's hyperbolic extreme at a small university, where an outcast band of misfits, who belong to no particular clique and therefor have nothing to be particularly offended about, do their best to cause mischief. Into their midst is thrust a potential freshman, to act as out foil and learn about the whole sordid mess.

So, basically, it's an Animal House re-tread, plus a topical issue, minus the comedic and writing talent.

And that's pretty much how it plays out. There are a few decent gags, but it's Animal Houseall over again, but not nearly as funny, and without the nudity, and with a different soundtrack.

The Good: Attacking the PC pandemic

The Bad: Haphazard genre hack

The Ugly: Stoners

07-08-24 Stardust (2007)

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

Finally, something really worth watching.

Stardust is a witty and clever little film. It's a contemporary The Princess Bride. It's got class and charm, wit and a bit of wonder. There's good guys, bad guys, a few stunts and gags, and it's all a bit irreverent to boot.

It's fantastic of course, set in a world of magic, full of charms, curses and spells, but not far from our own. It's a plausible world, consistent in it's own rules. The magic plays a part in the tale, but it's also a realm where bravery, smarts and intiative count.

While the characters may seem to be pulled from the same mold as every other fairy tale you've read or seen foisted on the screen, there's a subtle edge that makes them a bit more human, a bit more real. The boy who first evades the guards and trespasses into the magical land begets a child in his brief absence, which is delivered to him after the appropriate incubation peroid. Hardly Hans Christian Anderson material.

Each of these characters is in some way very original and their flaws are what makes them interesting. They're wholly formed and individual. They make the whole affair sing.

The actors have to be given at least a small share of the credit for this. The cast is full of talent, ranging from Peter O'Toole at the old end to Clare Danes at the new. It's hard to single out performances here, as they're all not only excellent, but integral. While there are small roles here, there are very few throw-aways.

This is a fairy tale, and there is an underlying allegory. But it's a more modern one about being true to yourself and differetiating what's truly valuable from what appears to be. It's delivered without disguise, but is integrated nicely with the story. The film never bogs down to preach.

The style of the film is priceless. The sets and costumes are spectacular and lend the film an authenticiy that's hard to escape. Effects are excellent, enhacing the film, but not overwhelming it. Action is good, but generally with an edge of humor that's completely appropriate given the material.

So I'm off to find the novel and read it. If it's half as good as the film, I'm sure it wont' be the last time.

The Good: Fantastic and Clever

The Bad: Nothing I can think of...

The Ugly: Royal succession

07-08-23 The Invasion

Seen: August 17th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 6

The Invasion is an update of the classic The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And its a good, if not particularly inspired one.

There's a distinct lack of modern techno flash and hyper action. Instead the film relies on the tension and anxiety generated by the scenario to provide the thrills.

The horror aspect of the transformation is downplayed in this version. Gone are the pods, to be replaced with something a bit more genetically focused. This tends to undermine the alien-ness of the transformed a bit, which has the positive effect of making them seem a bit more human and therefore a bit more terrifying.

The resolution is a bit far-fetched, but satisfying enough, given the premise.

Acting is good in general. Kidman and Craig play off each other fairly well, and Jackson Bond is definitely nails the cute kid.

The action, when present, is solid and well done, without flailing over the top. The film moves well, and the pacing is varied enough to keep you engaged without burning out.

While it'll never have the impact the earlier films did, this installment is a solid, if unremarkable retelling

The Good: Updated, but faithful rendition

The Bad: Predictable

The Ugly: Falling asleep

07-08-22 Samurai Rebellion (Jôi-uchi: Hairyô tsuma shimatsu) (1967)

Seen: August 14th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 9

Wow. At this point I just need to put the rest of Kobayashi's films on my list. After seeing this and Harakiri, I'm simply amazed at his work.

I'm a Kurosawa fan, and maybe you are too. Kobayashi's films are different. They're simpler. They dont' rely as much on high drama, but on baser, more fundamental passions. He rarely uses the comic relief common in Kurosawa's films. His fights are short and to the point. He locations and scenery aren't complex, but their stark simplicity is appropriate and doesn't distract from what's really happening in the scene.

So what about the film? Let's just say that it made me talk to the screen. I hate it when people do that in theaters. But this film made me sit up, pay attention and become invested to the point where I had to vocalize my reactions.

The premise is strange and compelling. The way the story evolves surprising. There's real fundamental issues at this heart of this film. They're not simple, and they pull on us a basal level.

If you can stand the samurai genre at all, and don't mind sitting through a real drama, you'll be rewarded by this film.

The Good: Everything

The Bad: I'm at a loss

The Ugly: Being treated like a possesion

07-08-21 Man of the Year (2006)

Seen: August 13,th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 4

When this came out in theaters, it left quickly and I was a bit surprised. It looked interesting and topical and I figured it must have a serious problem if it did wasn't around long. I figured that it was worth a look.

It was.

First off, this is a political film, and I try to keep my personal politics out fo these reviews. That said, you're going to react to this film, as least to some degree, based on your personal politics.

This film was a bit of a rollercoaster for me. I found it intriguing that someone would actually run for President basing their campaign on change. And by this I mean change in the system, not a change of party or policy.

This attitude is refreshing, if perhpas a bit naive. Some may consider it tilting at windmills, but it's one of those things that many of us wish that we could do ourselves. There's an appeal to putting a comic in the Whitehouse. To be succesful, a comic needs to pay attention, to understand what's going on around him. They're probaby someone who gets us, someone who understands where we're coming from. Even if we don't entirely agree with them, at least we know they're paying attention.

This is how it starts out, and it's gogin along swimmingly. Things are a bit sketchy in spots, but we're patient and waiting for the payoff. How will things change, what can be the result of this experiment.

Then the rug comes out.

Basically the film chickens out. Instead of dealing with the hard issues of how this change might actually be brought about, the film pulls a bait and switch and turns into a conspiracy movie. It does try to offer a explanation.

The Jester, it's said, is responsibly for telling the truth, for making fun of the powers, exposing them to both themselves and the world. But The Jester's power lies in the fact that he's allowed to say anything without reprisal. He is also free from responsibility, he make no decisions, so can't be held accountable to anything. I studied Shakespeare, I get it. I'll even say that it makes a ton of sense.

But it's still a cop out as far as this film is concerned. Instead of taking a stand and potentially alienating part of its audience, it soft shoes off to the side and back into the wings, content to just raise questions without attempting to answer them.

This is a real shame. There's great writing and acting here. There's good dialogue and situations. There's smart people saying and doing smart things. They've got things all wound up to make a statement, and then we get a beautiful smarmy ending.

What a waste.

The Good: Premise

The Bad: Bait and Switch

The Ugly: Let's not talk about Politics

07-08-20 10th & Wolf (2006)

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

This is a decent little gangster film. It covers the genre pretty well, touching on several different themes common to the genre. There's family, betrayal, power struggles, corrupt cops and a bit of Pagliacci.

What more could you want?

There's nothing really revolutionary here, you've seen most of it before. But it's earnest and not too badly written.

It takes place in Philly, though Pittsburgh substitutes, and is a bit rougher around the edges than your standard NYC or Chicago gang film. Everyone's a little rough around the edges, some much more so than others. It all feels a little low-rent, in a genuine way. These gangsters aren't living high. They're doing better than most, but hardly on the A-list, excepting Reggio.

It all comes down more or less as you'd expect. Everything that's set up gets wrapped up, and there's a bunch of good natured violence to bring about most of these conclusions.

There's a ton of faces in this film. Val Kilmer has a cameo, Dennis Hopper is here briefly, Brian Dennehy drops in to play his inevitable heavy. Up and comer Giovani Ribisi is central as well. But don't let the high profile cast fool you. This is pretty much B- fare.

Piper Perabo stands out a bit. She's becomes more accomplished each time I see her. Ribisi is good, though a bit manic. Brad Renfro is very good. Marsden is OK and Tommy Lee's performance is mercifully brief.

The film is pretty dark and moody, appropriately so. This is straight ahead story telling, so there's nothing really fancy going on.

If you like gangster films and wonder what the new kids are up to, check this one out. I'm sure it'll be hitting cable sometime soon.

The Good: Decent ganster film with blurred lines

The Bad: Getting shot in the back

The Ugly: Getting stabbed in the head

07-08-19 A Touch of Evil (1958)

Seen: August 11th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 9

I'm not a huge Orson Welles fan. Citizen Kane is a bit of a mystery to me, perhaps I lack perspective. But this little gem is impressive. It's said that Hitchcock took some ideas from this film.

That's a pretty good recommendation.

There's a lot of emphasis placed on the opening shot in this film due to it's length and complexity. Every bit of is deserved. It's simply magnificent, both subtle and audacious at the same time. It very effectively sets the stage for the remainder of the film.

The film is visually one of the most impressive I've seen in a while. Welles use of light, contrast and composition is brilliant. Watch for the use of shadow and shadows as well. He communicates volumes by subtle implications using shadow.

The plot is solid, though not particularly remarkable. What sets it apart is the choice of characters. Evidently there was a fairly dramatic shift in the characters after Welles was chosen to direct as well as act. Heston's character becoming Mexican was perhaps the most dramatic of these. While some complain about him playing the role, he does a remarkable job. It creates a dramatic contrast between him and Welles' character, setting up all kinds of contrasts between Mexico and the US, whites and Hispanics and all sorts of other interesting juxtapositions.

The whole thing bounces between noir, thriller, and whodunit, with some fairly disturbing undertones and scenes thrown in. There's a lot going on here, but most of it is dressing to hold up the core of the story, which is basically a morality play. The "extra stuff" does require some attention, but really doesn't detract from the story's core.

The film moves very well. Things shift locations frequently and the exposition isn't pedantic. If you want to enjoy this film you need to pay attention. But you won't be bored while doing so.

Acting here is very good. Heston is solid, but not exceptional. He tends to over-emote a bit for me. Janet Leigh is excellent. The attitude she brings to Susie is fun and dramatically underscores her ultimate vulnerability. Welles is also excellent, his demeanor and attitude are both subtly and overtly menacing. The supporting cast shines as well, particularly Marlene Dietrich.

A singular nod must also be given to Dennis Weaver, whose Night Manager is one of the more disturbing performances I've seen in a while. I have no idea who most realized this character, most probably it was a collaboration, but he's etched in my memory, and unlikely to fade.

If you can stand noir at all, check this out. It's a cutting edge piece of work.

The Good: Visually stunning

The Bad: Collateral damage

The Ugly: Psycho Night Man

07-08-18 Peaceful Warrior (2006)

Seen: August 7th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 5

Yeah, I read the book. And it was OK. There's nothing there that you can't find in at least a dozen other places, but it does a decent job of breaking it all down and folding it into a parable that's easily digestible by the modern drone.

Not that it's particularly nutritious.

The film suffers a little from compression. Ten months fly by and we really miss a lot of Dan's progression during that time. It all seems a bit miraculous, instead of being the result of simple determination and will. This tends to dilute the whole message a bit.

Casting is a bit of problem here. I like Nolte well enough, but this role doesn't seem to suit him. His performance lacks the good natured humor required, and instead comes off superior and sardonic. While his actions are correct, the attitude that goes along with them seems a bit too self-satisfied. This may be a writing or directorial issue, but regardless, it prevents the film from gelling.

Mechlowicz does a decent job here. I never pictured Millman as quite this shallow when reading the book, but I guess that it's entirely possible. Dan is written a bit all over the place. There's always something dramatic happening in his life. While a full range of emotion is there across the arc of the film, I felt that we were always swinging from one to another. I again wonder what the reason for this was.

Amy Smart is pretty much wasted in this film, which is a shame.

There's really not much else to say here. The story really won't surprise you, even if you've not read the book. There's a few cool, koan-like moments, but for the most part, it all proceeds in pretty much the way you'd expect. If you've seen The Karate Kid, you already know the basic plot. It's a more serious, mature and grounded, and attempts to get some fundamental concepts across, but basically it's nothing unexpected.

Basically, this is a straightforward piece of pop spirituality. It attempts to convey a whole bunch of big ideas by a simple and autobiographical parable. It does the book justice, but comes up a bit empty when compared. If you haven't got the patience to read the book, then I guess this will have to do.

I seem to be in a rut of mediocre films lately, hope it breaks soon.

The Good: Pop spirituality for the masses

The Bad: Lack of humor

The Ugly: Hypocrisy

07-08-17 Slow Burn (2005)

Seen: August 10th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 5

Confession time. I only watched this film because I thing Jolene Blalock is pretty hot. That's it. I managed to miss the theatrical release, but it didn't take long to show up on DVD.

This is not surprising.

The film was actually made back in 2003, not getting it's release until April 2007. It sat on the shelf for almost four years. When all the previews are for straight to DVD release, thing do not bode well.

That's a shame really, because this isn't a bad little film. It's definitely got it's problems, but it's got some redeeming features as well.

The best thing here is the plot. It's one of the most twisted I've seen in several years. It's starts out a little like Rashomon and quickly escalated past "who said what" to "what the hell is going on"? And while it takes you for a ride, it's never completely implausible. Far out? Sure, but still possible.

Characters are a little less well developed though. They tend to be caricatures to a large degree, and even the veteran cast can't quite pull them back.

The cast is a good one. There's great veteran actors and some, at the time, relative newcomers. They generally do the bset with what they've got. LL Cool J in particular gives it a nice shot. He's a bit over-eager at times, but you've gotta give him an E for effort. Blalock is probably the worst of the bunch, but her character is so enigmatic that I don't think she could find anything to really grab on to.

The only other thing of note is that this film is shot way too dark. It's moody enough without struggling to figure out what's happening on screen.

Your call. It's hardly terrible, but no one will remember it in 5 minutes.

Side Note: I've just discovered via IMDB that Jolene Blalock is part of a currently filming sequel to Starship Troopers. I hated that film because of the way it butchered the novel. Sigh.

The Good: Convoluted who did what

The Bad: Too Dark

The Ugly: Not knowing your enemy

07-08-16 The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

Seen: August 10th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 6

I'm a fan of spy thrillers, both novels and film. I'll admit that I haven't read Ludlum's series, but I enjoyed the first two films well enough and had heard that this one was the best of the bunch. So off to the theater I went.

And it was OK.

My problem with this film is that plot and character take a back seat, more like the way back seat in a 70's station wagon, to the action. That's not to say that there isn't plot, there is. But it's really not that interesting or surprising. The bad guy is bad. The good guy is goodish and good at being bad. The good girls are goodish and the bad doctor is bad.

Lines drawn, start the chase music.

Bourne is still his bad self. The action is very good. It's fast paced and tense. It goes over the top occasionally and sometimes goes in directions we don't expect. There's excellent stunt work here, and the visuals are excellent without the obvious sheen of CGI (though I'm sure it's there).

But it's most of the movie. If Bourne isn't driving, running, jumping, shooting or beating the snot out of someone, then he's having a terse conversation to extract some information so he can move on to the next thing he has to drive, jump over, shoot or beat the snot out of. It gets a little repetitive and feels a bit like a video game (and may be by now), instead of an actual film. Granted there are some slower bits where those who're busy try to catch up to him say some mysterious things before sending some new people out to have the snot whacked out of them by Bourne.

Maybe the problem here is that this is the payoff. This film wraps it all up. This is the one where we find out what's really going on. Maybe the lack of patience in the film is because there's been two already and let's get this done.

I dunno.

The acting is good. I like Matt Damon in general, and he's good here. David Strathairn is good, but a bit of a caricature here. Joan Allen is solid, but never really gets to much of a chance to get rolling. Scott Glenn, Julia Stiles, Paddy Considine and Albert Finney are all good, but drastically under-utilized.

At this point I feel like I've got to tell you that this film is actually not bad. You may like it or even love it. I don't feel like I wasted my time. But I guess after everything that's gone before, I wanted something a bit more spy and a bit less action.

The Good: Bad to the Bourne

The Bad: Can I take a breather?

The Ugly: You can never go home

07-08-15 M*A*S*H (1970)

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

It's a shame that I've waited so long to watch this film. While it was remarkable in it's time, it's fallen victim to it's own originality and time.

Altman's vision was remarkable here. He didn't tell a story with this film, he painted a picture.

There's no real plot in this film. It's basically a chronological series of gags designed to introduce us to a camp full of people thrown together by war. It's scenes play almost like sketch comedy. While they share a common setting and characters, they tend to be whole, if a bit simple, in themselves. While they do teach about the characters, there's no real sense of continuity, it all seems jumbled and out of time.

Altman himself had trouble bringing the film together as a whole. The loudspeaker interludes which stitch the scenes together was conceived during editing.

But what the film lack s in cohesiveness, it makes up for in raw power. There's an honesty here that's a bit overwhelming.

This is a picture about war, and it doesn't shrink from it's horrors. Indeed, the horrific surgical scenes offer an bleak explanation for the behavior of most of the camp. The reactions to death from a psychological perspective are well understood, and the gamut of those reactions is reflected in the characters.

There's an air of anti-establishmentarianism in the film, which directly reflects Altman's views. It's both blatant and subtle. The conflicts are fought both openly and internally between the characters and reflected in their situations. The problem is that the improvisational and comedic nature of the film sometimes undermines it's message. The ludicrous nature of the whole football games is a shining example.

Several groundbreaking aspects of the film have become commonplace. The juxtaposition of humor and horror. The improvisational nature of the piece. The chaotic nature of the dialogue, with characters stepping on each other's lines intentionally. All of these are found routinely in film today, but were revolutionary when the film opened.

The fact that the film spawned a much loved television franchise that spanned eleven seasons doesn't help it either. Many people don't realize that there was a film, much less that it came before the series.

But despite all this, it's a film of significance and one worth seeing. It launched Altman's career, and whether you like his work or not, it's an turning point in cinema. It also launched the careers of many actors. The cast list itself is pretty amazing. Try to clear your mind and appreciate it for what it was, not what it may be now.

The Good: Groundbreaking improvisational dark comedy and satire

The Bad: More than a bit dated

The Ugly: Being overshadowed by your television spawn

07-08-14 Little Children (2006)

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

Little Children is a pretty ephemeral. There's really nothing in this film that you haven't seen somewhere else. While there's a few scenarios that aren't common, they're not exactly so original that we're surprised and delighted by them. If "there's nothing new under the sun" is a fallacy, this film isn't the one that you'd drag out to disprove it.

But this isn't exactly your run of the mill drama; it's much more than the sum of it's parts.

The depth of these characters is pretty amazing. It's also a bit surprising. These characters sneak up on you over the course of the film. They start out simple. Some are simply hollow shells of cliche or stereotypes. As the film progresses, they're gradually filled in, fleshed out and eventually become someone that we understand. We may not like them for various reasons, but they're at least human.

This transformation is brought about by a combination of both writing and acting. The dialogue in the film is very good, but its really not what drives the film. More than anything, we're shown these characters. Sure there's some verbal exposition, but it's more how they react than what they say that shows us who they are.

The range of characters is a bit staggering. It's a complex and even sordid melange. Again, it's not so crazy as to be unbelievable, but crazy enough to be real and disturbing.

So what's it about? It about who we are versus what we want to be. Every character here wishes for something else. Some want to be normal. Some want to undo the past. Some want a different future. Some want to be young again. And all of them seem to want what's best for their children, though that's seldom what they're actually striving for.

Performances are striking across the board. The acting here is transcendent in some instances. The film is fairly simply shot, but strikingly composed. Watch for boundaries which divide characters in the film. The music is simply excellent.

The only thing that I really didn't care for about this film is the degree of narcissism that the characters had. While these are generally fully realized people, their self-absorption is so complete that I had a hard time actually caring about these people. While there are exceptions, they're very few.

Also, Madame Bovary is explicitly referenced here, and there seem to be parallels both blatant and subtle. But the film is much more than an homage. It's an exploration far beyond that realm.

The Good: Story and script

The Bad: Overcompensating

The Ugly: Uncontrollable urges

07-08-13 The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Seen: August 2nd, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

If you like The Simpsons, you may really enjoy this film. If you don't watch The Simpsons, you just may enjoy it also, but you may be a little lost.

If you couldn't care less about The Simpsons what are reading this for? Move along....

Basically this film is an hour and a half long Simpsons episode. Depending on how you feel about the television show, and what you expected from the movie, this is either a good or bad thing. Good because you'll get exactly what you'd expect. Bad because you're really not getting anything new.

Your favorite characters are here. They do some new bits, but they're basically the same folks. The structure of the film is similar to any of the episodes. It does differ in that it lasts a lot longer, so the arc is a bit slower. This allows the script to breath a little, to relax a bit, and to cram in as many extra gags as possible. This is generally a good thing.

The gags come fast and furious. This film is simply packed with them. The references are, again, similar to an episode, it's just the density that's so much greater. There are lots of "in" references for fans, as would be expected.

What else to say really? If you like the Simpsons and don't mind forking over the $4->$15 (depending on the market you live in, your age, and the time of day) to see a long episode in the company of a strangers then you'll have a good time.

Even if Homer thinks you're a sucker.

The Good: Just what you'd expect

The Bad: Just what you'd expect

The Ugly: Enforced Isolation

07-08-12 The King (2005)

Seen: July 31st, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

This is a film that I put off watching for quite a while. From the trailers it seemed conflict heavy, filled with anger. And there is some of that, and perhaps it's at the heart of the story, but it's hardly the driving force in the film.

Psychosis is, and it's almost as frightening.

In essence, this is a revenge film. But the offense is both larger and more subtle than those that drive most revenge films. And the chance for atonement here is practically non-existent.

It'd be easy to dismiss Elvis as simply hell-bent on revenge. He's certainly effective enough at it. Another easy interpretation is that he's simply insane. That something has driven him past the point of no return. But I think it's even simpler than that.

Elvis has the innocence of child. And when slighted, and hurt by that slight, he reacts as a child. The problem is that he's not a child and his reaction carries the force of the man he is. He's really searching for the attention of his father. He's looking for the approval that he's never had. And he wants singular attention, and he's willing to do what it takes to get that singular attention.

Davis has his own problems. But at least he owns them, eventually. He's a disciplinarian, a bit Victorian, and closed-minded, but not really a bad man at heart. He hurts those around him in spite of his love for them. And he's about to get a dose of his own medicine.

The major conflicts happen fairly early, and things simmer down to a slow boil. The tension rises slowly and inexorably to an unexpected conclusion. The ending is a brave choice.

The film works, though not exceptionally well. There's a degree of moral ambiguity that is a bit confusing. Elvis' shift from sympathetic character to sociopath leaves us a bit unsettled and confused. While it does raise some interesting questions, it's short on answers, but maybe that's the point.

The cast is good. Bernal does an effective job. I think my problems with Elvis have much more to do with the writing than his performance. Hurt is solid. Again, David is a bit one-dimensional, but Hurt does his level best to bring some depth to the man. Pell James turns in an excellent performance and Paul Dano is surprisingly effective.

This is a good film, but not a great one. See it for it's unexpected storyline and some good performances.

The Good: Performances

The Bad: Lack of motivation

The Ugly: Being your brother's keeper

07-08-11 Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Seen: July 31st, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

I can't do this. I just can't sit here and attempt to expound on the virtues and shortfalls of this film. Snakes on a Plane is a bad film, intentionally so. It's a pop culture phenomenon run amok.

The film actually changed during it's production due to it's exposure and fan reaction, a subject in some weird media feedback loop experiment.

It's an intentionally bad film, with just enough writing to hold the whole thing together. It's not afraid of being cheap at times, most of the time, in fact. It doesn't shy away from the throw away moment. It's not afraid to try and fail, and fail again, just to make sure it got it right.

There's no real redeeming aspects to this film. No great dialogue, no great acting, no great development. But there are gags and one-liners aplenty. And if you came for something else, you made the mistake, not the film.

It's all in good fun, and it actually delivers when you take it as it's meant to be received. This is a film best ingested with beer, chips and an impending sense that something will get broken at the party. It's a piece of raw, simple, mindless entertainment that deserves frequent use rewind to see that again.

Grab your buddies and the beer and settle in for some pointless fun.

The Good: Not afraid of it's badness

The Bad: Start to finish

The Ugly: Are you kidding me?

07-08-10 What's Cooking (2000)

Seen: July 30th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

I tend to enjoy Gurinder Chadha's films. She's got a unique take on the world, and an interesting sense of humor and wonder. She's not afraid of drama, but doesn't let that bog down the fun that life can be.

What's Cooking is several different films. It's four family drama films as tied together. It's an exploration of different cultures, focusing on family dynamics and their similarities and differences. It's also an exploration of breaking your personal boundaries and becoming the person you're meant to be.

That's a lot to pack into 109 minutes.

It's done well though. This film moves. Every scene is relevent and most are very compact. Each pushes at least one story forward, and often more than one. There's no fat in this film, it's all meat.

The cultural juxtapostions are interesting. There's no judgement here, just honest portrayals of families from different backgrounds whose problems, while diverse, are hardly unique. This is a film about family, and particularly about children and who they become as they mature. Each family has children and they're all treated a bit differently and have different roles. But in each case, there's a change in the relationship of the children to their parents. Both children and parents have to grow and mature to deal with those changes.

Not that this is all heavy. There are moments of levity here. It's no giggle-fest, but there's adequate relief from the heavy nature of some of the drama.

The acting is solid. While there's nothing really remarkable, the performances serve the roles well enough. Mercedes Ruehl was the standout here for me.

This is a good film, but really not as profound as we'd like it to be. Even when we learn how close these people really are, it doesn't have the impact we might expect. But perhaps that's the point, that these are stories that could happen to us or anyone we know. Perhaps our families aren't that different.

The Good: Juxtaposition of culture

The Bad: The faults we all share

The Ugly: Not knowing when you're not wanted

07-08-09 Sunshine (2007)

Seen: Augut 2nd, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 8

I rushed to see this film in the theater before it left. It didn't have a long run, and I almost missed it. I managed to catch the last show on the last day in the megaplex. I really glad I made the effort.

I really want to rate this a 9, but can't really justify it. I love Science Fiction, and there are so few decent films made in the genre that any that are decent, tend to make me a a bit soft hearted. Sunshine is much more than decent, and I want to give it full marks, but realistically there are a few flaws.

But first, the good stuff. This adjective I keep coming up with for this film is majestic. Like many successful films in the genre, this film does an excellent job capturing the majesty and rapture of space. There's no fighters zipping around in dogfights here, just a crew on a mission in a large, slow craft, making their way inexorably to the Sun. There's a sort of reverence here that's refreshing and awe-inspiring.

The visuals here are stunning. They're simple and very effective and remind me very much of films like 2001 and Silent Running. The sense of scale is vast and though the ship is huge, it's appropriately dwarfed by its environment and the scale of its mission. The characters too, are only small parts in a much larger whole, and we're constantly reminded of that.

The pace and tone of the film are excellent and seem so appropriate for the mission. Things move and develop slowly. I wasn't in any rush to know everything, but instead was willing to wait for things to unfold in their due course. There's plenty to experience, even though the story itself isn't in a big rush.

The science part of the film seems relatively solid. Evidently the film had a strong consultant, and though some elements seem a bit far fetched, the plausibility required for investing yourself in the film is present. There were a few plot holes that nagged me briefly, but were generally easy to forgive.

Acting was surprisingly good. The film is full of B+/A- actors and they all do very admirable jobs. This genre can be tough on actors because they're called on to do things not only out of their personal experience, but in some cases, outside human experience. Everyone pulls their weight here, and serves the film instead of themselves. I was particularly surprised at Chris Evans' performance, which was solid and so antithetical to his work in the Fantastic Four films.

The film contains an underlying theme of mysticism that seems entirely appropriate given their mission. I appreciated this idea and was intrigued by it. Unfortunately, this is the foundation for what ultimately almost undermines the film. All the majesty and carefully constructed characters comes very close to going out the window when the action finally starts.

I was very afraid that the whole shebang was headed down the path of Event Horizon, one of my most dreaded Science Fiction films. Sunshine does manage to avoid the pitfalls of that film, but does compromise itself pretty dramatically for tension and action that their encounter brings. I felt a bit cheated here. After establishing the enormity of the situation, it seems a bit cheap that something so human could jeopardize the mission so badly.

But in the end, I can forgive this. The majority of the film is so excellent, and its message deep enough that it still won me over.

The Good: Classic, well rendered Science Fiction; Visually superb

The Bad: Starts to drift

The Ugly: Staring into the sun

07-08-08 Talk to Me (2007)

Seen: July 28th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 8

The first thing that I'll admit here is that I went to see this movie because of Don Cheadle. He's one of my favorite actors and I'll usually go to a film just to see his work. As a bonus, the story looked interesting, and the period was appealing.

I got more than I bargained for.

Before I start heaping praise, there's one thing to consider. At it's heart, the story isn't really that interesting. While Petey Green was definitely a force, the whole man chases his dream, overcomes adversity, and especially his detractors, and realizes his destiny is hardly new ground. This is a bio-pic and though Petey was an interesting personality, this film is really more a series of stops than an incredible journey.

Perhaps this is the point. While what Petey did, while different, wasn't that incredible, the impact he had was. In the epilogue, we're told that more people attended Petey's funeral than any other non-elected person in the history of Washington, DC. People loved the man, not because he was perfect or remotely close. They loved him because they trusted him and they trusted him because he acted as if they mattered and he told them his truth. Not an absolute Truth, but the truth according to Petey Green, since that's all he knew.

Despite a story that's a bit weak, the script here is great. It moves exceptionally well. Bio-pics can get easily bogged down during character exposition. This script does an excellent job avoiding that while still showing us what we need to know about the characters. The dialogue is excellent. It's often snappy, quick and funny, again telling us about the characters, and when it does slow down to become serious, it hold our attention.

The acting is superb all the way around. Cheadle slides deftly into his role. As I see more of his film, it becomes more difficult for me to see the role and not the actor, but he really delivers here. Chiwetel Ejiofor is also superb. While I don't think quite has Cheadle's range (yet), he nails to part squarely. Taraji P. Henson is amazing here. Perhaps it's the contrast between this character and those she played in Hustle and Flow and even Smokin' Aces that's so incredible. She's spot on here. Vernell is an important foil to Petey and her performance is strong and never quite goes over the top, though she tries.

The period is rendered exceptionally well. Production, Set and Costume design all come together in a gorgeous rendition of the time. It gives the film a solid foundation, drawing us into the piece by making us believe the action is taking place in the 60's.

See this one. If not for the acting or the design or the script, see it to learn how a man made a difference in a troubled time. Maybe we can all learn something from Petey.

The Good: Acting and Design

The Bad: Alcoholism

The Ugly: Losing your leader

07-08-07 The Host (Gwoemul) (2006)

Seen: July 28th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 8

You may associate Asian monster movies with drive-ins, cheap special effects, and brain dead scripts. Gojira was more than that, it was a commentary on impact of industrialization on the environment, among other things. But many consider it a simple and pointless film about a monster ravaging Tokyo.

Even if you're one of these, see The Host anyway.

For those of you who actually like Asian monster movies, or monster movies of any ilk, this is right up your alley.

The remarkable thing about this film is how little the monster really matters. At it's heart this is a film about family. However you define family, there's a fundamental responsibility in that bond, a loyalty that can transcend reason and personal safety. We sacrifice for our families. We go wanting so that they can thrive.

The family at the heart of this picture is an unusual one. There's a lazy and dim-witted Dad, and a hardworking grandfather with a questionable past. There's a brother with a degree, no job and a drinking problem, and the sister, a competitive archer with concentration issues. At the heart of this family is the hope of the next generation, a slightly spoiled and precocious tween daughter. They're a bit of a mess, but tragedy will bring them together.

The film isn't so much horror as it's thriller. It's an abduction film, really, and the family bonds together to pursue the abductor, who happens to be a huge mutant fish-like creature, created by the indiscretions of an ugly American.

There's thrills and chills here aplenty. There's moments of high tension and heroism. But mostly, there's humor. This is a funny movie. There's a dark and comedic edge to this film. Humor is usually successful because at it's core it's both painful and true. There's a lot of that in this film. It doesn't shirk from uncomfortable moments. It doesn't make excuses for its characters, but it does laugh at them and then forgive them.

The special effects are good here. They're my favorite kind in that the serve the picture instead of comprise it. Story is king here, make no mistake. The score is interesting as well. It's fairly simple and even feels a bit amateur, but again, serves the picture well.

Americans aren't portrayed particularly well in this film. The opening scene references the McFarland incident, an act of environmental irresponsibility performed by a American civilian at an American military base in Korea. Americans, and particularly the CDC and military are portrayed as authoritarian and duplicitous here, but not more so than in some American films.

If you can even stand an occasional monster movie, see this one. I think you'll be surprised at the depth of the characters and the story.

The Good: Strong family story

The Bad: Government ineptitude and conspiracies

The Ugly: Americans

07-08-06 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Seen: July 27th
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

Making films out of books is always a dubious proposition. The problem often lies in the fact that there's generally much more material in the book than can be practically put on the screen in the time which a feature usually runs. One solution to this is to make a series, one which can do the book real justice. But more frequently, the book must be deconstructed, and the elements culled to a set which really represents the story.

This is particularly difficult when the book is exceptionally popular (though unpopular books aren't as frequently made into films). Every element that's left on the floor is one that fans of the book will miss. One that they may personally find significant. This can leave them feeling short changed, disenfranchised.

And when the franchise is Harry Potter, this could be a problem.

Rowling's books have become more and more complex as this series has evolved. She's matured as a writer, and her novels have evolved along with her. The concepts have gotten larger. The sub-plots interesting places to explore all sorts of ideas and the relationships between her characters. Potter's world isn't a simple one anymore.

There's a lot that's missing from this film. Whole sub-plots simply vanish. Plot points are condensed and some characters de-emphasized. But it does work, and work well. It's a testament to the strength of her story that it can be so effectively reduced to its core.

As the story has progressed through the novels, the characters have aged and the story become much more serious. Gone are the cute little juxtapositions between the Muggle and Magic world. In their place are conspiracies and creeping fascism.

This film is a dark one. There is real danger here. As the dark times begin to coalesce, our characters are challenged, forced to grow into young adults. They're given responsibilities beyond their years, and are required to use their own initiative to not only preserve themselves, but contribute to the greater good.

I'm impressed by this shift. This film is hardly just for children. At it's core this film is about life, and the things we must learn to be able to truly value it. There's a depth here that's not quite so completely surfaced before.

There's a great use of effects here. Previous films have wowed us with them, here they're used very appropriately to impose the scene on us. Whether in the grand scale of the Department of Mysteries or the simple horror of the Dementors' attack, the effects serve the scene instead of becoming it. The only possible exception is Fred and George's fireworks display.

The look of the film is dark and dank, befitting it's subject matter. Even Hogwarts is not longer the festive place it has been before. The somber and ominous tones do a great deal to convey the tension of the times.

I particularly enjoyed the use of the newspaper as a literary device. Again, it contributes to the tone, particularly that of the populace. The jab at the media is obvious, but also reflect certain tendencies in the government, which plays nicely into the Ministry's attempt to control it's subjects via propaganda and ultimately quasi-fascist decrees.

If there's anything bad in this film, it's the same lack of completeness which I alluded to earlier. Because it's been compressed, certain aspects still seem a bit thin, a bit fleshless. There are times that we feel short changed because we know some random tidbit is important, but it's not explained or explored at all.

While I could go on, let me just re-iterate that, given the challenge, Order of the Phoenix does very nicely. While not magnificent, it's a solid and compelling work which drives the series forward and in very good style.

The Good: Things get serious

The Bad: Meglomaniacal Administrators

The Ugly: Losing your family

07-08-05 Renaissance (2006)

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

There are certain films that are known for their style rather than their substance. It's a tricky proposition to do something visually new or at least original in film without overshadowing the story itself. While many films do a decent job walking this very thin line, few are exceptional.

Renaissance isn't one of them.

Don't get me wrong, I like this film. In many ways, it's an homage to one of my favorite films, Blade Runner. Like that film, it has a very strong and distinct visual style. Unlike that film, the style itself is so prominent that it makes it difficult at times to follow the storyline.

Renaissance is presented primarily in black and white, and by that I mean black and white. Shades of grey are infrequent, and color almost completely absent. This extreme contrast is an homage to the high contrast style used by Fritz Lang, amongst others. It's also prevalent in many noir films, which tend to be visually dark, using high contrast to accentuate movement and composition.

The style is taken to an extreme in Renaissance, leading to an almost comic book appearance. Robert Rodriguez employed very high contrast techniques while filming Sin City, in an attempt to bring Frank Miller's comic to the screen, but Renaissance goes a step beyond.

The film is completely animated. It used motion capture for a majority of the acting, but the actual characters and their surroundings are are modeled and rendered via what are becoming common computer animation techniques.

Despite all this, the film maintains a degree of organic feel. While certain scenes are blatantly mechanical (I don't think it's possible to mo-cap dancing), many are well done and are natural enough that they don't draw attention to themselves.

Up to this point, it's all been about style. The story itself is passable. It's SF, which is always fine with me. But it's not terribly original. While it does have a few interesting variations, it's basically fundamentally a corporate conspiracy film. Someone learns something they shouldn't, corporation wants to retrieve their intellectual property and silence those who can harm them. It's not new, and has even been set in the future a number of times, Blade Runner itself being a slight twist on this storyline.

There are a few interesting characters (some seemingly inspired by George Alec Effinger's works). They're not completely compelling, but do help flesh the story out. They're not complete caricatures, but can definitely be found in other films in these genres.

See this film for an interesting stylistic take. While the story couldn't support a modern well on it's own, here it's simple enough not to conflict with style. If it were more complex, paying attention to style and substance might be simply overwhelming.

The Good: Style and story

The Bad: Style vs. Story

The Ugly: Selling out humanity

Cathing up....

I've just caught up and posted several reviews. While these were written at least a week ago, I've been very busy and managed to get several days behind in posting. I'll try to be more diligent. Gotta go now and write about five reviews while the films are still relatively fresh in my head....

07-08-04 Barnyard (2006)

Seen: July 26th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 3

Steve Oedekerk is a funny guy. I used to get him confused with Bob Odenkirk, who is another funny guy, but Steve's the guy behind all the "Thumb" movies, which are pretty darn funny. He also wrote films like Bruce Almighty, Patch Adams and Jimmy Neutron:Boy Genius. I liked those films well enough.

Not this time.

Let's get this one out of the way. I bugged me (and I'm far from alone) that the male cows (bulls or steers, actually) in this film had udders. It was so wrong, and distracting, that it colored the rest of the film for me. The reason? Evidently, Steve thought it was funny.

And that's probably the biggest problem with this film, as well as some of Oedekerk's other screenplays. They're about gags.

Steve's very clever. His gags are great. He has a wry sense of humor and mixes topical references, pop culture, slap stick and reversal of fortune into some really funny bits. But ultimately, that's really all they are; bits. It's when he tries to tie it all into a cohesive whole that things begin to fall apart.

The actual story here is a re-tread at best. It's been done and re-done and done some more. It's a solid foundation, but really needs to have something original done with it, if it's to stand any chance of succeeding. Anthropomorphic farm animals, owned by a vegan farmer, just doesn't cut it.

To be fair, this is a kids' film, probably for ones with ADD, so that the rather random assemblage won't concern them too much. There are some funny bits here, a few even very funny. Kids may not care that it kind of wanders from one gag to the next, they may be just find with ninety minutes of gags.

Heck, I like the Marx Brothers and The Three Stooges.

The Good: Wild Mike

The Bad: Non-existent plot

The Ugly: Udders on bulls

07-08-03 Terms of Endearment (1983)

Seen: July 25th, 2007
Format: Broadcast (HDNMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 8

This is another of those films that I probably should have seen a whole lot sooner. It's considered a classic by many, and that's been factored into my rating. I've just looked up James L. Brooks on IMDB because I like to know about my film makers.

He's one of the driving forces behind The Simpsons.

If that doesn't create an interesting juxtaposition, I don't know what does. Obviously Larry McMurtry had more than a little to do with this as well, but I believe that a lot of the success of bringing the tone of these characters to the screen belongs to Brooks. Watching his next film, Broadcast News, another character driven piece, dramatically reinforces this.

Terms of Endearment is all about relationships. It's about how what's going on around us impacts us and the way we relate to others. It's about changing and fighting change. It's about reconciling who we are with who we want to be and who we wish other were. That's a pretty bold and general statement, but it doesn't seem too far off.

All of this happens in an environment that we can all relate to, the family drama. The characters that matter here are rich beyond words. This is due to both the writing and the acting. While the leads' performances are spot on, without the material, there'd be nowhere for them to go.

McLaine's Aurora is particularly complex. McLaine plays her with a depth and conviction that's almost mesmerizing. While she comes off largely as a harpy, there's an underlying fear that marks her character and provides her the challenge to ultimately become human. We may not like Aurora much, but we can, to some degree, sympathize with her and hold out hope for her redemption. I found myself comparing her to Keaton's Daphne Wilder in Because I Said So. Where Keaton fails so dramatically, McLaine succeeds in grand style.

Winger's role is no less impressive. Where her mother is self-centered and domineering, Emma is more relaxed. She's not the free spirit some might accuse her to be. She is deeply loyal to her family, even to Flap. She works hard for them, but for the most part maintains an air of optimism and fun. It's easy to characterize her as vacant, but she chooses this outlook, largely to contrast that of her mother. But she is no less solid, no less thoughtful and no less strong.

Flap and Garrett are characters on the cusp. While integral to the story, they're really only foils for the women. Garrett is a least a little interesting, but ultimately he's there only to act as a catalyst for Aurora's change.

The tone of the film is simple and straight forward. It's pace is solid, never plodding, but moving fairly simply from one moment to the next. There's no need for complexity in the details of the film. The story and acting is what matters here, and what the film will be remembered for.

While I enjoyed this film, I can't really say that it amazed me. I wanted to feel a bit more attached, a bit more invested in these characters. While they're well realized, I didn't find I had that much in common with them. While I was interested, I can't say that deep down, their fates really mattered to me.

But that's my problem.

The Good: An honest story realized with excellent acting

The Bad: Could be a bit more compelling

The Ugly: Acting your age

07-08-02 Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? (2006)

Seen: July 24th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

I was exposed to a lot of art as a kid. My mom was a docent at the art museum and participated in an art outreach program in our public schools. I knew who Pollock was at an early age.

Teri Horton didn't.

Teri Horton bought a large painting at a thrift store for five dollars. Turns out that that painting was rendered in Pollock's rather distinctive style. Horton believes it is a Pollock, and over several years, has accumulated associates who agree and some evidence that's fairly objective and convincing.

The film is about her journey to have the painting authenticated. Moreover, it's about a former truckdriver, with an eighth-grade education engaged in a battle of will with the art world elite experts. It's salt of the earth vs. snobbery, and it plays pretty well.

The film itself feels more journalistic than documentary. It plays a bit like a TV news piece, one you might see on an investigative news show. But I'm willing to fogive that to some degree because of the nature of the tale. Teri's story is very appropriately told in a straight forward, unembellished fashion.

The arc of the film is very interesting. While it retains its objectivity well, it paints a very interesting view of Teri.

In the beginning, we see her only as a scavenger and truck driver. It's hard to imagine that her claims are serious and that she's trying to do more than make a quick buck and perhaps get her fifteen minutes in. Teri doesn't change over the course of the film, but our skepticism does.

We're shown her diligence and research, how she educated herself about art and the art world by reading and seeking out experts, by asking lots of questions and then processing those answers. Teri may have known nothing about the art business when she bought that painting, but she knows a ton now. The fact that this doesn't change her, or her attitude toward the business, is very refreshing.

Our opinion of the painting also changes. Out own skepticism needs revising as we learn the lengths that Teri and her associates have gone to in order to discover, and they hope, validate the painting's as authenticity. What seems improbable, if not impossible, evolves into something plausible, if not more.

This is no ground breaking documentary. As a film, it's a bit rough and unpolished. But this seems to reflect the story it's here to tell, which is a very interesting one indeed.

The Good: Solid and focused documentary; How truckers start a story

The Bad: Art world code of conduct

The Ugly: Clash of classes

07-08-01 The Wicker Man (2006)

Seen: July 24th, 2007
Format: Blue-Ray
Rating: 4

I saw the original The Wicker Man quite a while ago. When this version came out, I cringed a little because the original is such a cult classic and somewhere in me there's a unexpurgated rant about how Hollywood keeps screwing up great films, both vintage and foreign, by remaking them for a "wider market". When it finally became available for rental, I figure I could have yet one more example to prop up my opinion.

I was right.

This first thing that's surprising about this film is that it's done by Neil LaBute. LaBute makes films that are generally about people behaving very inappropriately towards other people. It's can hardly be called a genre, but it is a rather constant theme with him. At first I thought it strange that he's choose this film to remake, but after thinking about it, it makes a whole lot of sense.

Unfortunately, this tendency dramatically changes some of the fundamentals of the film. Others have pointed out that unlike the original, the protagonist in this film is essentially an innocent. Edward is interested only in preserving the live of another, someone he's somehow bonded to, who he views as an innocent in what slowly evolves into a fairly deep plot. While he's brash and a bit self -important, he doesn't really exhibit any self-absorbed sense of authority that we might expect.

The people who he runs up against, however, appear almost evil in their manipulation and contempt of Edward. They treat him more like chattel, something less than human, in their actions toward him.

To provide a sense of justification for this callousness, LaBute has invented a stringent matriarchal society as the locus of the story. This provides him the ability to once again pit the sexes against each other, showcasing and hyperbolizing their differences to the point of conflict. He enhances this juxtaposition by introducing the bee metaphor, which strengthens and supports the matriarchal nature of the society, and proves a secret weakness in Edward.

There's a lot that didn't sit right with this film for me. A major part was moving the action from the UK to the US. The backstory used to justify the pagan nature of the community feels very thin and flimsy when compared to the local nature of those traditions in the original. Everything that follows feels highly displaced because of this. The strange "metaphysical" connection between the girl he chases is a bit strange as well. I can't resolve it's presence with the rest of the conspiracy. It's too convenient a device to set things in motion and is never really resolved. In the end is more of a distraction than anything else.

Cage's performance was highly variable . I like Nick, but his Edward seemed shallow. He bounced between being stricken, authoritative, melancholy and protective, all without much change in demeanor or motivation. It's hard to imagine what actually drives him. The depth of his indignation about what was happening around him never really surfaced. This lack of tension, combined with the depth of the deception perpetrated to bring him to the island, makes him more sympathetic than the protagonist in the original. He lacks the dogmatic conviction that would make the film more morally ambiguous, a strength of the first film.

In many ways the world that LaBute constructs is a bit too cliche to the point of being harsh. While it is consistent in it's theme and treatment, it all felt contrived and convenient, lacking any kind of internal dissension to make it interesting.

LaBute's re-visioning of this film isn't terrible, but it does change the dynamics of the story quite a bit. The addition of some modern elements is interesting, but seem more metaphorical than practical, cheapening them a bit. I prefer the original, but this version is more accessible to the casual viewer, which is the point, I suppose.

The Good: A few interesting takes

The Bad: Melodramatic conspiracies

The Ugly: Knee injuries