Scribe & Green on the BIG screen

Bullitt

2011-04-11T11:11:00.235-04:00

SCRIBE'S "YOU WORK YOUR SIDE OF THE STREET, I'LL WORK MINE" REVIEW:

It may sound strange for someone who is a Steve McQueen fan to say they’d never actually watched Bullitt until this past weekend but I’m saying it and it’s not as weird as what I watched right before it. Think midgets and Jell-O and you still haven’t come close!

Bullitt was McQueen’s iconic foray into cop films and it turned out to be a hugely successful move on his part. In fact, it’s safe to say this film is the reason we have the now all-too familiar young-ish, loner cop on a crusade to do the right thing in defiance of his superiors.

It’s odd that, on the extras DVD, co-star Robert Vaughn stated how he was initially uninterested in the project because the story didn’t make any sense. He jokingly added that it started making more sense the more money he was offered but said it still doesn’t make sense even now.

What doesn’t make sense, exactly? It’s pretty cut and dried and well-executed. The plot basically revolves around DA Walter Chalmers (Vaughn) recruiting Detective Bullitt (McQueen) to protect a witness so he can present him in court the following Monday and take down a vicious mobster (Vic Tayback). Naturally, things go awry as the supposed witness leaves his hotel room door unlocked for an assassination team to come in and kill his police protector and him.

Why would a man unlock the door to his own killers? That’s the driving mystery behind the film as Bullitt defies Chalmers’ attempts to take over his case and goes on a one-cop manhunt to find the killers and connect the dots before Monday morning.

McQueen is cool as ever in his signature role and his understated acting style commands the viewer’s attention even while great actors like Vaughn are emoting all over the place. McQueen was known for demanding a reduction in dialogue because he preferred to react to his fellow actors. What resulted was a study in minimalism in contrast to larger events, something few actors would risk these days.

It’s important to watch Bullitt in the context of the times. You’re not going to see a movie with Die Hard level action sequences here but you will see a moody, atmospheric film that attempts to build a real character whose actions result in dangerous moments. The car chase sequence is still thrilling, especially because it starts out slowly and builds, hitting its greatest moment with the rev of McQueen’s engine.

Most interestingly is the commentary on violence the film makes. A few years later, Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry would have no problem killing whoever he deemed bad and slept like a baby. He was, in many ways, equally psychotic to the bad guys he chased. Bullitt is not and by the film’s end, you can see just how deeply affected he is by what he had to do. Contrary to this moronic review of the film, that is an important and resonating portion of the story.

Not McQueen’s best but certainly a good film.

****1/2 out of *****

GREEN'S "DAY AFTER DAY, LIVING IN A SEWER" REVIEW:

San Francisco detective Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) and his men have been assigned to protect a star witness for the prosecution's case against a mafia like outfit called "The Organization" run by Chicago mobster Pete Ross (Vic Tayback) The prosecution is led by district attorney Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn). Watch a guy for about 40 weekend hours, and get him to the courthouse first thing on Monday morning. Sounds like a simple enough assignment, right?

Uh, no.

The witness' "secret location" in a hotel room is quickly discovered and compromised by "The Organization" and the witness and his police protector are predictably shot up very badly, and almost killed. Now Bullitt must find out who the killers are and stop them before they can finish the job, while Chalmers is up Bullitt's behind about his apparent lack of competence. Further complicating matters, the witness dies as a result of his injuries. But there are further complications...

I thought it was really cool that this film was shot entirely on location on the streets of San Francisco, and in locations within the city, like in a real hospital and at the airport. I also like the fact that McQueen did not use a stunt driver for the iconic car chase sequence, and was able to handle driving at speeds in excess of 110 MPH. Bullitt's car was a highland green 1968 Ford Mustang GT 390 CID Fastback, which I mention only because I saw a similar car in a mall parking lot this weekend - sporting an antique license plate. For the automobile enthusiasts out there, the hit-men's car was a jewel black 1968 Dodge Charger R/T 440 Magnum (didn't see one of these, unfortunately.)

IMDb calls Bisset's performance (as Bullitt's girlfriend Cathy) in this film her breakthrough role, but I disagree. That is, unless you consider the scene where she walks around in nothing but a pajama shirt a breakthrough performance. That scene, I'm sure, was considered very risque back in 1968. If it were filmed today, I'm also sure we would have seen some nudity and gratuitous lovemaking. Sure, Bisset's performance is good for what screen time she has but that is not much at all. As Bullitt's girlfriend, Cathy provides Bullitt with an anchor and grounding in a non-violent reality unlike his own because she's afraid that she's losing him to the darker side of his job.

One thing I like about films like this is what became of some of the supporting cast, who would have notable film careers of their own, like Robert Duvall, or become popular television stars like Vic Tayback (Mel from "Alice") and Norman Fell (Mr. Roper from "Three's Company") and Georg Stanford Brown (TV miniseries "North and South"), whose career was mostly spent as a television actor.

This was veteran director Peter Yates' (who incidentally died in January 2011) fourth feature film and probably his most well known.

This film sets the precedent for our modern, moral cop vs. bad guy films and provides the car chase by which all future movie car chases are compared and occasionally, if rarely, equaled. The ending of the film was a bit of a letdown for me but I won't tell you what part disappointed me so I won't spoil it for you.

I had never watched this film in its entirety before but do believe I had seen part if not all of, the car chase scene when this movie was shown on television, probably in the 1980's. Unfortunately for me, my library did not have the two disc DVD edition, so my access to the special features was limited. I was pleasantly surprised to watch the 'making of' feature included from 1968 and voiced over by McQueen, at a time when not many such documentary shorts were made. Such features that have now become more commonplace than not on DVD releases.

It's too bad that McQueen died at such a young age (50) from cancer. One can only imagine and wonder what other films he might have starred in if he had lived into his seventies or eighties.

If you're new to McQueen's films, as I am, then this is an excellent place to start. Even if you're a fan, or haven't watched it in awhile this film deserves another look.

****½ out of *****

Bullitt (1968, NR, 114 minutes), starring Steve McQueen, Jaqueline Bisset, Robert Vaughn, Norman Fell, Robert Duvall and Georg Stanford Brown. Based on the novel "Mute Witness" by Robert L. Fish (aka Robert L. Pike). Screenplay by Alan R. Trustman and Harry Kleiner. Directed by Peter Yates.

An Unreasonable Man

2010-09-15T20:31:00.003-04:00

SCRIBE'S I SAW THIS SCREENED AT A COLLEGE REVIEW:

Its always been difficult to tell whether or not Ralph Nader is a complex man or exactly what we see on the surface. He’s always been a driven, passionate person whose strength of conviction is second to none. An Unreasonable Man attempts to resolve this conundrum.

Going back to the early days of Nader’s consumer activism, all the way through the heyday of “Nader’s Raiders” and up to the 2000 Presidential election, the film leaves us with answers and some new questions.

The title of the documentary is derived from the following quote: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) Going on this definition, Nader is most certainly unreasonable, often to the extreme frustration of corporate America. His struggles with General Motors and their failed attempts to try and create a sex scandal with a man who may very well be without urges is rather entertaining.

In fact, the majority of the film is compelling and defies its two and a half hour running time. Crammed with interviews and archival footage, this doc literally covers all of its bases when examining its subject. We see Nader’s rise to prominence during the Sixties counter-culture movement and how his works paid off in the Seventies before politics finally caught up with him.

And that is where the film takes a decidedly darker turn. When in the late Seventies Nader’s friends start working for the Carter administration, we see how quickly his efforts were reversed. Carter didn’t live up to his promises but the arrival of Ronald Reagan and his pro-corporate, anti-government approach is nearly the death-knell for Nader. Once the Democrats begin accepting corporate donations on the same level as their Republican counterparts, Nader becomes a liability who is cast to the side.

The portion of the film that deals with Nader’s reinvention as a politician is often painful. He’s clearly out of his depth but he doesn’t seem to know it. His naiveté and perseverance would be inspiring if not for the fact that he sincerely doesn’t understand why he isn’t reaching more people. Even Pat Buchanan admires his ballsiness. Those who blame him for the outcome of the Bush/Gore campaign won’t find a repentant Nader here. What’s interesting is the split the election caused within his own camp.

Ultimately, Nader emerges as an essentially unchanged man, still an activist, still “unreasonable,” and still fascinating.

***** out of *****

GREEN’S “EVERYBODY ELSE’S DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK” REVIEW:

Recently, when I asked Scribe what he wanted to do next for this blog, he said he wanted to do another documentary. I rolled my eyes and asked him to give me a list of suspects. This one seemed to be the most interesting of a list of titles I had never heard of, so that‘s what I chose. Then there was the matter of finding a copy of the DVD, as I have been (and still am) without any library access all summer. Thanks to Amazon Marketplace, I was able to find a new copy for under $7 including shipping charges.

I must admit that I was less than enthusiastic about watching this documentary. Even when I finally watched it, I had to stop a few times to get up and walk around to keep myself alert. Blood running through the veins is a good thing, I told myself.

Vice Principal Wolters: “Corvair?”
Glenn Holland: “Yeah.”
Vice Principal Wolters: “I take it you didn’t read Ralph Nader’s book.”
Glenn Holland: “Well, unless Ralph is willing to buy me a new car, I’m going to have to stick with this one until the wheels fall off.”
Vice Principal Wolters: “Well, you might not have to wait that long. Heh, heh. Have a nice day.”

Mr. Nader, for better or worse, you are now immortalized in American cinema, forevermore. We now can proceed.

The quote above is from the movie Mr. Holland’s Opus is of course referring to chapter one of Nader’s book “Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile” which was published in the year that the film opens, 1965.

Thus begins the legacy of Ralph Nader and his rather sizable impact on consumer safety. Most of what he's done we don’t even realize and take for granted his efforts today as a matter of course.

I was surprised to learn how many organizations Nader helped to start and how many people he had working for him, at one time dubbed “Nader’s Raiders.”

You can hardly call this documentary objective in that the writers/directors are Nader's people. But that’s okay. This documentary is like Nader’s legacy piece. Something for future generations to understand what kind of man Nader was and what kind of passions drove him.

However, Darth Nader’s venture into politics as a third party candidate was an unmitigated disaster, even though the documentary puts a positive spin on it. Try as you might, you can’t solely put the blame of the failure of the Democrats losing the elections in 2000 and 2004 on Nader’s shoulders. But to deny his role in it is like denying that 2+2=4 or that the sky looks blue.

In this two party political system that we have in this country, in order to succeed within it you need to first conform to the rules before you can break them. If Nader had run as a member of either party first and won an election or two, who knows where his political impact would have been? Once you secure the nomination for an office, say that of President, then you can use your ideas and ideals to shape the party’s vision and focus. That a man of Nader's intelligence doesn't get this is baffling and amusing.

Watching this documentary, my respect for the man for his ideals, work, vision and impact has grown. I didn’t even have to watch the extra features on the second DVD to understand it. As well as the main documentary is assembled, I have no worries that the extras on disc 2 are equally as good and informative.

One thing that baffles me about the presentation of the first disc is that it contains deleted scenes. Why delete anything? It's not like these scenes were taking away from any dramatic effect. If you're going to invest two hours watching this documentary you might as well invest another 30 minutes or so. Length is irrelevant in a film like this.

***** out of *****

An Unreasonable Man (2006, NR, 122 minutes), starring Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Phil Donahue, Howard Zinn, James Ridgeway, et. al. Written and directed by Henriette Mantel and Steve Skrovan.

Swing Vote

2010-09-07T15:44:00.011-04:00

SCRIBE'S "IF THIS IS ONE OF THE RICHEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, WHY IS IT SO MANY OF US CAN BARELY AFFORD LIVING HERE?" REVIEW:

I’m sad to say I put off seeing this movie when it saw a theatrical release because I was overwhelmed by politics at the time. My library has several copies and after having stared at them for the better part of a year, I decided to take one home and see if it was any good. It turned out to be better than that.

Swing Vote’s conceit is that the outcome of the presidential election comes down to literally one man, one vote. In this case, the vote belongs to Ernest “Bud” Johnson (Costner) a drunken yet lovable loser good ol’ boy who wouldn’t know a voting booth from a bathroom stall. Bud’s twelve-year old daughter Molly (Madeline Carroll, an incredible young actor) is a brooding, disappointed intellectual whose desire to see her father be more serious about life prompts her to talk him into voting. Sadly, he gets drunk that day, prompting Molly to sneak in and cast his vote just as a senile cleaning lady unplugs the voting machines and freezes the vote before its cast.

What results is a comedy about the political process that actually moves along at a steady clip. Bud is so damn likable that everything he does is fun to watch. The drama in the film is compelling as well, providing a nice counter-balance to a stretch of a premise. The scenes of the two political candidates portrayed by Kelsey Grammar and Dennis Hopper trying to woo him to their side are often hilarious and sometimes touching and depressing.

The best moments occur whenever Bud makes an easily misinterpreted comment to the press and the propaganda machines on both sides attempt to indulge what they think he meant. It’s a perfect showcase for the whoring involved in politics. The Democrats take a pro-life and anti-illegal immigration stance, while the Republicans take a pro-environmental and pro gay marriage stance. Eventually, both candidates realize just how far they’ve fallen to get this guy’s vote and that’s when the drama ensues.

The acting in the film is outstanding. Anyone who doubted Costner’s talent should be reassured by his performance in this one. The only weak link is a too-earnest performance by Paula Patton as a local reporter who breaks the story on Bud’s dubious voting experience, but she’s so pretty you can’t help but be drawn in by her enthusiasm.

This is one of those films with a smart screenplay that knows what to show and what to avoid showing. The somewhat ambiguous ending is necessary and works perfectly.

**** out of *****

GREEN’S “SCARING THE HELL OUT OF AMERICA” REVIEW:

What happens when one man has the power to decide the direction of America with his vote? Small town hick Bud Johnson (Kevin Costner) doesn’t believe his vote will make a difference - until it does, thanks to his eleven year old daughter Molly (Madeline Carroll). See, Bud’s the only one who can break the election day tie between the incumbent Republican President, Andrew Boone (Kelsey Grammer), and his Democratic challenger, Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper). In order to court the voter, both candidates spend ten days in Bud’s small town of Texico, New Mexico, promising everything under the sun if Bud will vote for him. That Bud is the tie breaking vote is supposed to be a well guarded secret but is revealed by a local television reporter, Kate Madison (Paula Patton).

For whatever reason, this film slipped under my radar when it was released in 2008. My guess is that it didn’t get a whole lot of publicity, considering the ups and (mostly) downs of Kevin Costner’s career in the 2000’s. I’m not sure if this was one of Kevin Costner’s better roles and wonder if they could have chosen a different lead actor and still had a charming little movie. Even so, Costner's character is likable and the movie has a top notch supporting cast. What was surprising about this movie is the big screen debut of then eleven year old actress Madeline Carroll, who handles her role deftly and really steals the film from the glitz and accomplishments of the other cast members.

The script won’t wow you but it is good enough to keep you interested. You’d think the premise of the film is silly but after the silliness of the real life elections in 2000 and 2004, you just never can tell. I think the best line in the film is where Bud asks Kate "who is running, again (for President)?"

One thing about American films like this is that we have no problem lambasting our own political process and exposing the silliness that it contains. This film has three things going for it: no romantic scenes between Bud & Kate, though if the film were longer you could see it heading that way and two scenes in the final act, which I shall not reveal that a) we don’t need to see and b) because it makes you wonder…

This politically themed film will never be considered a classic along with the likes of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but what it gives you is two solid hours of fruitful entertainment. The DVD extras include a short, but enjoyable ‘making of’ featurette and some deleted/extra scenes.

This film slipping under the radar as it did was good in a way because it enabled me to buy a brand new copy of the DVD for a dollar. No kidding. Nothing wrong with that boys and girls.

***½ out of *****

Swing Vote (2008, PG-13, 120 minutes), starring Kevin Costner, Madeline Carroll, Paula Patton, Dennis Hopper, Kelsey Grammer, Stanley Tucci, Nathan Lane and George Lopez. Written by Jason Richman and Joshua Michael Stern. Directed by Joshua Michael Stern.

The Time Traveler's Wife

2010-07-31T15:30:00.002-04:00

GREEN'S "NEXT TIME BRING ME SOME CLOTHES" REVIEW:

For most of her childhood, Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams) has known Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) as a friend and a man who comes in and out of her life at the most unexpected times. Now, as an adult, Clare discovers that she loves him and wants to spend her life with him. Against the advice of her friend Gomez (Ron Livingston), Clare and Henry get married. They live as happily as can be, considering Henry's "condition" which sometimes is hard for Clare to deal with emotionally.

I've always been fascinated with stories that have to do with time travel, in some fashion, and the various ways to accomplish it. In this movie, the questions of how and why Henry DeTamble travels through time are never discussed, dissected or analyzed in any great detail and it is not essential to the story, only that he does it and therefore becomes an obstacle to be overcome. Though I do like the idea that if time travel were possible, only living, animate objects would be allowed (as in the Terminator films.)

What this film is really about is how two people who love each other deal with difficulty and stress that any worthwhile relationship entails. In addition to all of the usual married stress, Henry's penchant for random and uncontrolled time travel adds another layer of problems.

Because one element of the story concerns time travel, the non linear format that the story takes works well, primarily because the story is told from both Clare and Henry's viewpoints at different times.

Rachel McAdams is captivating as Clare and gives a sparkling performance. She displays a good on screen chemistry with Eric Bana, who handles his role well. Ron Livingston (of Office Space fame) is excellent as the best friend of Clare and then of Henry too.

I had no problem with the direction of Robert Schwentke, meaning he did a good job of getting out of the way and letting his actors act. Bruce Joel Rubin did an admirable job adapting the novel into the screenplay, which never becomes too cliche or overly sappy.

As McAdams and Rubin point out in the lone DVD extra feature, there were challenges in adapting a 546 page novel into a roughly 107 page screenplay. McAdams stated love for the story and her desire to play the part of Clare comes through in her performance and is one of the reasons why I got my hands on a copy of the novel to read one of these days.

I watched this movie for the first time with my daughter and we both enjoyed it. When the price comes down to under $10, I can see myself eventually adding this movie to my DVD collection.

***½ out of *****

SCRIBE'S WERE WE WATCHING THE SAME MOVIE? REVIEW:

It’s so easy to dismiss The Time Traveler’s Wife as a useless, thinly plotted, emotionally manipulative chick flick...so let’s get to it, shall we?

What we have here is another in a strong of superficially rendered novels daring to utilize scientific speculation as a mere plot device for yet another banal tale of undying love. And if that’s not enough of a yawn-inducing concept, there’s the movie.

Frankly, too much has been made of the theory of pedophilia in this film. While it is true that the character of Henry (Eric Bana) appears to Clare (Rachel McAdams looking sumptuous as usual) when she’s a child to tell her they’ll meet again someday, anyone with the tiniest knowledge of time paradox theory would know he’s there because he has no choice. Much like in the vastly superior Somewhere in Time, what has gone before can only happen based on what happens next.

Henry and Clare fall in love and eventually marry but it’s a tough arrangement, considering he is unstuck in time due to a car accident in his childhood...yes, a crash causes him to...jump around....in time. Hmm, it’s even stupider when I see it in print.

Naturally, Claire is the perfect woman because the novel was written by a woman and she sticks by her unstuck man as he appears and reappears throughout her lifetime, sometimes looking older, sometimes younger.

The acting in the film is its saving grace. Both leads are better than the mediocre material and their chemistry feels genuine. The situations range from dull to interesting to riveting, like life, and that would be fine with a stronger central concept.

Don’t expect much in the way of philosophical speculation in this Harlequin Romance of a movie. Never do we get an answer to the conundrum created by Henry’s contacting Claire as a child nor any plausible theory as to why a car accident...A CAR ACCIDENT...causes him to jump around all Quantum Leap style.

Oh, and of course there’s a touching ending involving a child at the end because the female audience hasn’t been properly manipulated until that takes place. A pile of melodramatic rubbish masquerading as more.

** out of *****

The Time Traveler's Wife (2009, PG-13, 107 minutes), starring Rachel McAdams, Eric Bana, Ron Livingston, Arliss Howard and Steven Tobolowski. Based on the novel by Audrey Niffenegger, screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin and directed by Robert Schwentke.

Battle for Terra

2010-07-01T11:28:00.001-04:00

GREEN'S TOXIC ATMOSPHERE REVIEW:

I had seen previews for this movie on television and in the theater but never went to see it. I really didn't think it would be the kind of film that the scribester would want to review, knowing his previous disdain for kids movies and slightly less disdain for animated films. Much to my surprise he suggested that we review it, probably as a gag reaction to Avatar.

This is a movie that made its way through all of the various independent film festivals starting with Toronto in September 2007 and all throughout 2008 but didn't gain wide release in the US until May, 2009.

My kids and I liked this movie, but we liked Avatar much better. They are essentially the same movie, though Battle for Terra is less than half the length. Of course there are differences in the two stories but it comes down to this in both films: Humans have a problem and want/need something real bad in order to fix it. And they don't care what alien life form is in the way or what they have to destroy to get what they need.

Aside from the obvious live action vs. animation difference, Battle for Terra doesn't give as much in the way of developing the world the aliens live on or the relationship between the human Jim Stanton (voiced by Luke Wilson) and the tadpole like Terrian Mala (voiced by Evan Rachel Wood) like Avatar does between its major characters. Terra also doesn't rely as much on the musical score than Avatar does to set the tone and emotional levels.

The remaining voice cast actors are all good, though none stuck out to me as outstanding.

The animation is stunningly rendered throughout the movie. Watching the animated space battle sequences reminded me of watching the "live action" battle scenes in the Star Wars films.

I didn't have time to watch the bonus features included on the DVD. Perhaps if the price comes down to the $5 range, I'll add this movie to my DVD collection.

***½ out of *****

SCRIBE'S JAMES CAMERON OWES THEM MONEY REVIEW:

Not only did this film share a concept with the bloated, misdirected epic Avatar, but it got the job done in less than half the running time. What sets this movie apart from most of the American animated film coming out nowadays is its adult storyline.

The film centers around the last humans who are desperately searching for a new world to ruin since Earth is no more. Unlike Avatar, the humans in this film are not all mindless idiots obeying a greedy corporation/government. They're people, some of them assholes, some of them, good, all of them afraid for their survival.

Unfortunately, like all folks of Western European descent throughout time, their solution is to take land from an indigenous population regardless of its effect on them. The humans seem to be more advanced than the peace-loving and adorable floating beings currently residing on their intended new home.

The voice talent is superb as are the visuals. These aliens are much more fully realized than Cameron's over-sized, obnoxious smurfs. It's hard to dislike these guys and soon the viewer finds himself conflicted as far as who to root for. The twist during the battle scene at the end and the final solution make this a much more satisfying film than Cameron's preachy sequel setup.

**** out of *****

Battle for Terra (2007, PG, 84 minutes), starring the voice talents of Evan Rachel Wood, Luke Wilson, Brian Cox, James Garner, Chris Evans, Danny Glover, Amanda Peet, David Cross, Justin Long and Dennis Quaid. Written by Aristomenis Tsirbas. Screenplay by Evan Spiliotopoulos. Directed by Aristomenis Tsirbas.

The Final Cut

2010-05-20T14:17:00.002-04:00

Another review written for later release this summer on SNMR transferred here as filler.

GREEN'S PERCEPTION IS NOT ALWAYS REALITY REVIEW:

A cutter is one that assembles a feature length "rememory" of a loved one's life when they die, based on video obtained from their Zoe chip, which is implanted in the brain. These rememories are made with the assistance of a machine called the guillotine.

When it comes to cutters, no one is better than Alan Hakman (Robin Williams). He is asked for specifically by the widow of a top Eye Tech exec and given the assignment of cutting a rememory for him. Eye Tech is the company that makes the Zoe Chip and what makes this assignment so dangerous. If this exec's chip falls into the wrong hands, it could mean disaster... Then, while cutting, Alan learns a few secrets that could reshape the course of his life.

Once again, this is a movie that I had never heard of prior to borrowing it from the library. I had high expectations for the movie based on what I understood of the premise but they weren't quite met, probably because the story was more character driven than I'd expected and less sci-fi.

Robin Williams has become a very good actor and is wonderful in the lead role but then the problems begin. Mira Sorvino is fine as Williams' girlfriend and James Caviezel is good enough as the bad guy, but these two characters seem woefully underwritten. The other supporting cast were fine. I would have also liked to see more development of the story regarding the chip and it's history and why opposition to it was so fierce.

For a first time writer/director, Omar Naim does a relatively good job with his story, despite the elements I see lacking. Even so, his future as a director looks bright.

The DVD extras include an excellent "making of" feature as well as short features on production and special effects that added to my enjoyment of the overall movie experience.

This movie is a worthwhile rental, even better if you can borrow it from the library for nuttin'.

*** out of *****

The Final Cut (2004, PG-13, 95 minutes), starring Robin Williams, Mira Sorvino, James Caviezel, Mimi Kuzyk and Stephanie Romanov. Written and directed by Omar Naim.

Bangkok Dangerous

2010-04-20T22:47:00.004-04:00

It's been a while since we posted something and I apologize that we've been neglecting y'all. Here's a review that was going to be tentatively posted sometime this summer on the SNMR column over on my regular blog. Perhaps Scribe will add something to this review at some point but we'll see.

GREEN’S "THERE'S BIG MONEY IN MISERY" REVIEW:

There are four rules to being a successful paid assassin:

1) Don’t ask questions. There is no such thing as right and wrong.

2) Don’t take interest in people outside of work. There is no such thing as trust.

3) Erase every trace. Come anonymous and leave nothing behind.

4) Know when to get out. Just thinking about it means it’s time. Before you lose your edge, before you become the target.

Joe (Nicholas Cage) knows Bankgok will be his last. Four more targets and he’s done. To facilitate the jobs, Joe hires a Thai runner named Kong (Shahkrit Yamnarm) to help. Reluctant at first, Joe and Kong form a tentative friendship, with Joe mentoring Kong. After a tough scrape, Joe meets Fon (Charlie Yeung) , a beautiful Thai woman who works at a pharmacy. After a few dates, things seem to be going well until a botched mugging causes the relationship to splatter. When the third job nearly goes bad, and the fourth job really does go bad, Joe becomes the target of his former employers, who have taken hostages…

It seems to me that Nicholas Cage always plays dark, brooding, moody characters who battles with the moral implications of their career choice. Guess what? This film is no exception as Cage plays another dark, brooding, moody character who battles with the moral implications of his career choice. I'm never sure what to make of Cage's work. I think I'd have liked this movie better with another actor in the lead. The rest of the cast is excellent, especially Shahkrit Yamnarm.

The movie was filmed on location in Bangkok and in Prague, according to IMDb and that's a good thing, lending a level of authenticity to the story, since it is supposed to take place in Bangkok.

I like the premise of the story but the screenplay, by Jason Richman, is decent at best and won't wow you. It is adapted from a previous short film by the Pang Brothers, who also direct. The best part of the movie is the last 20 minutes or so, a scene which sort of reminded me of a scene in The Matrix. The whole movie also sort of reminds me of a darker version of Grosse Pointe Blank.

Unfortunately, my library only had the single disc edition. I might have felt better about this movie if I'd had an opportunity to see what the extras were all about in the two-disc version.

I really hate it when studios skimp and print both full and wide screen versions of a film on both sides of the DVD to save money. Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine that I'm pretty sure I've mentioned before.

**½ out of *****

Bangkok Dangerous (2008, R, 99 minutes), starring Nicholas Cage, Shahkrit Yamnarm, Charlie Yeung, Panward Hemmanee, Nirattisai Kaljaruek, Dom Hetrakul and Tuck Napascorn. Based on the 1999 film by Oxide Pang Chun and Danny Pang. Screenplay by Jason Richman. Directed by The Pang Brothers.

ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA

2010-03-31T23:00:00.004-04:00

SCRIBE'S TRIBUTE TO SERGIO REVIEW:

Once Upon a Time in America is one of those films that justify the phrase “They was robbed, I tell ya!” How in God’s name this movie didn’t get nominated for just about every Academy Award known to man is not only baffling, it’s downright infuriating!

Spaghetti Western director Sergio Leone has three definite masterpieces in his resume, and this is the third and final of them. (The other two are The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West) The film, based on a novel called “The Hoods,” offers a unique perspective on the American gangster era as it focuses on four young Jewish boys rather than Italians.

Told from the perspective of “Noodles” (Robert De Niro) we get to see three eras in this film, going back to the early Twentieth Century, the 1930’s and culminating in the 1960’s.

Noodles is a tormented soul, a character with a past that is etched into every line on his face by the sixties and we are slowly shown why through a series of emotionally charged flashbacks. Leone wanted to create an epic, magnum opus of a film that rivaled “The Godfather” in its scope and drama. Dare I say he surpassed it in every measurable way?

So why was the movie ignored by Oscar? Simple: While its original version was seen in Europe, where it was hailed as a masterpiece, American film studios in the Eighties still thought we were all too stupid to follow a lengthy, non-linear drama. So they did what they always did back then: The created an “American version.” In this case, that version shaved off over and hour and removed the flashbacks so everything was in sequence. Not only did this destroy the dramatic impact of the film but it made the conclusion predictable and pointless.

Now that the original version has been restored, its greatness has been reaffirmed, albeit too late for any awards. Leone died devastated by what had been done to his film. I try to honor his memory every time I watch it.

***** out of *****

GREEN’S “DON’T KNOW NUTTIN’ ABOUT NOBODY NO MORE” REVIEW:

David Aaronson, (Robert De Niro) or "Noodles" as he’s better known, comes back to the ‘hood of Brooklyn in 1968 as an old man. The very same ‘hood where he made his mark as a Depression Era gangster and where his career began in the days before and during Prohibition. Now he's been tracked down from a life of anonymity to complete one more job. But who hired him? Who knew him from the old days?

Let’s call this film The Godfather Lite because for a gangster flick, there was surprisingly little violence. There was some, to be sure, but not nearly as much as I’d expected.

I wasn’t allowed to watch many R rated movies in 1984 when this movie was released. Thus, I never even knew that it existed until recently when I was taking some quiz about movie directors over on Facebook, and this movie was one of the answers to one of the questions. Naturally, it looked good, so I signed it out of the library. I also included it on a recent list of choices I gave to the scribester to review for this blog, thinking he wouldn’t pick it. Naturally I wondered what I was getting myself into when I discovered that Once Upon a Time in America had a run time 11 minutes shy of four hours long!

It is always interesting to me to watch a movie with familiar actors in their much younger days. Such is the case with this film, with such a great cast of contemporary heavyweights in the acting biz. How can you go wrong with Robert DeNiro, James Woods, Tuesday Weld, Elizabeth McGovern, Joe Pesci, among others and the feature length film debut of Jennifer Connelly, who must have been twelve when this was filmed in 1982 or 1983. I found it a little disturbing how close in resemblance Connelly was to McGovern, who played younger and older versions of the same character.

As a side note, I wonder how many actors, besides De Niro, have portrayed both Italian and Jewish gangsters on film? And done each very well...

This was longtime Italian director Sergio Leone’s final epic masterpiece, for which he was nominated Best Director (but didn’t win) at the 1985 Golden Globe Awards, BAFTA Awards and (not surprisingly) actually won a silver ribbon for his directorial effort from his native Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists.

The hauntingly beautiful music, by Ennio Morricone, adds depth and texture to the story and is almost like an additional character. The script itself must have been a monster to organize a shooting schedule around. There are a few dead spots in the screenplay and probably an equally good story could have been told in about three hours.

I was a little disappointed in the library DVD I borrowed, which froze near the end of disc two, even though I cleaned the disc, and made watching the extras about Sergio Leone impossible.

I’d buy a copy of this film if I could find it for around $10.

****½ out of *****

Once Upon a Time in America (1984, R, 229 minutes), starring Robert De Niro, James Woods, Tuesday Weld, Elizabeth McGovern, Joe Pesci, Burt Young and Treat Williams. Based on the novel by Harry Grey. Screenplay by Leonardo Benvenuti, Piero De Bernardi, Enrico Medioli, Franco Arcalli, Franco Ferrini, Sergio Leone, Stuart Kaminsky and Ernesto Gastaldi (uncredited). Directed by Sergio Leone.

The Lost Boys

2010-03-24T12:40:00.007-04:00

GREEN'S "DEATH... BY STEREO" REVIEW:

Recently divorced Lucy (Dianne Wiest) and her boys Michael (Jason Patric) and Sam (Corey Haim) have just moved from Phoenix to the quaint little town of Santa Clara, California - which just happens to be the murder capital of the world, to live with Lucy's eccentric old father (Barnard Hughes). While getting to know their new hometown, Lucy meets Max (Edward Hermann), owner of the local video store and gets a job there. Michael sees a very attractive woman called Star (Jami Gertz), who introduces him to David (Kiefer Sutherland) and his gang of hoodlums. Sam, a comic book lover, runs into the Frog brothers (Corey Feldman and Jamison Newlander) in a comic book store, where they recommend a few vampire comics as required reading necessary for survival.

Wow, it has been a long time since I last watched this movie, probably at least ten years or more I'd say. I wanted to review it due to the recent death of Corey Haim. I was going to do it on my regular blog but first thought I'd see if the Scribester wanted to review it here knowing his general disdain for vampire films.

I think that this fun movie was one of the two best vampire films made in the 1980's, Fright Night being the other. It's always interesting to see actors back in their younger days, when they were still relatively unknown and trying to make their mark in the biz. Balancing out the youngsters are the grizzled veterans of the cast, such as Edward Hermann and Diane Wiest. Both young and old, excellent performances all around, especially by the far out taxidermist Grandpa (Barnard Hughes) who steals most of his scenes.

The Lost Boys was director Joel Schumacher's fourth feature film, in what has become a rather solid career. I think he does a decent, workmanlike job of keeping the story moving. The screenplay is good overall but I would have liked to see more scenes with the Frog brothers, the film's comic relief duo. Notable that Richard Donner served as Executive Producer for this project.

The Lost Boys has an upbeat, rock and roll music soundtrack which adds to the enjoyment of the movie. To this day, every time I hear People Are Strange by The Doors on the radio, I think of this movie - even though the song was covered by Echo and the Bunnymen for the movie.

I watched the single disc version containing both full and wide screen formats where the only extras were text screens that give some of the behind the scenes info about the development of the story. Now that I've watched the film again I'm interested in possibly buying the two disc edition and seeing what extra goodies have been included.

I wouldn't classify this as a strict blood and guts horror movie, more horror/suspense with a twinge of comedy, if there is such a genre. Anyway, I like this movie. Always have. I think you will too, especially if you haven't seen it in a while.

**** out of *****

SCRIBE'S "YOU BETTER BUY YOURSELF A GARLIC T-SHIRT" REVIEW:

Remember when there were still interesting stories to be told about vampires? How about when teenage angst in a vampire film was something startlingly original?

The Lost Boys could be seen as the first and last of the truly great vampire films that dealt with the themes of hormones and the need to belong. Before Twilight embraced female insecurity in the form of stalker/rape fantasies, this film gave us teens who had formed their own clique in a world that didn't necessarily embrace them.

This is also the film that introduced us to the acting duo of the Two Coreys, a pairing that works really well here but never really did again. The adults in the film, like most Eighties films, are seen through the eyes of the children as odd, quirky characters that come in and out of their lives at inconvenient times. But unlike those other films, it is the adults, both alive and undead, who ultimately determine the fate of what happens in the final moments.

As part of what I consider the unofficial trilogy of groundbreaking Eighties vampire films including Fright Night and Near Dark, this one isn't anywhere near as dark and disturbing but it is a whole lot of fun wrapped around a really scary concept, namely what an undead creature would do to recreate the feeling of family.

A great film that holds up.

**** out of *****

The Lost Boys (1987, R, 96 minutes), staring Jason Patric, Kiefer Sutherland, Jami Gertz, Dianne Wiest, Corey Haim, Corey Feldman, Edward Hermann, Barnard Hughes and Jamison Newlander. Story by Janice Fischer and James Jeremias. Screenplay by Janice Fischer, James Jeremias and Jeffrey Boam. Directed by Joel Schumacher.

Blood Simple

2010-03-17T16:59:00.007-04:00

SCRIBE'S YOU GUYS MADE MILLER'S CROSSING??? REVIEW:

Every so often, I am truly baffled by a film's critical reception and this was one of those times. It is hard to believe that this is the film debut of one of the finest fim making teams in movie history.

Simply put, it's a barely watchable student film project filled with loathsome characters whose only virtue seems to be advancing the skeletal plot along to its limping climax.

Contrary to Green, I didn't find the acting horrible. In fact, M. Emmet Walsh was suitably creepy in his role as the hired killer whose experience is questionable. But the film drags and drags, lacking all the trademark witty and philosophy of later Coen Bros. films like Fargo and The Man Who Wasn't There.

The only reason this film was so awe-inspiring at the time is because the Eighties was a dumping ground for safe, sanitized movies that made people feel good...Reagan era, anyone? Anything that appeared gritty and anti-establishment was embraced with welcome arms back then.

Thank God this film didn't stop the Coen Brothers from being among my favorite film makers but I really, really wish I'd never watched this one.

* out of *****

GREEN'S "I'M GONNA WANT THAT PICTURE BACK" REVIEW:

Marty (Dan Hedaya) doesn’t like that his wife Abby (Frances McDormand) is sleeping with Ray (John Getz) who was working for him at his bar. So what’s a man to do? Hire Loren Visser (M. Emmett Walsh), a sleazy hit man, to kill his wife and her lover. But when blood is involved, nothing is ever simple, especially when the unexpected happens.

This not so subtle film debut from some dudes named Coen really put their names on the Hollywood map, and they’ve built nice little careers on this foundation. The movie is watchable, but I still have some issues with it, even after seeing it twice.

The acting is flat out horrible. The characters' dialogue sounds wooden and hollow. Are we given a reason to care about these people? I couldn't find one.

Are there intelligent people living in Texas or are they all hicks? From this movie you wouldn’t think so, except for Meurice (Samm-Art Williams) and he has only four or five lines of dialogue in the whole movie!! Seriously, if you come across a man who has obviously been shot and has been bleeding all over the place for gawd knows how long, do you try and clean it up and move the body into the back seat of your car so you can have incriminating blood stains all over it? I don‘t think so. No, if you’re smart, you either turn around and walk away, call the police or both. Instead you decide to put your fingerprints all over the room snooping around.

How exactly does Ray know where to find the gun that shot Marty? Why weren’t there any flies or maggots around the dead fish sitting on the table after a few days? If you’ve been shot in the chest, have lost a lot of blood and have been tossed into the back seat of a car like a sack of moldy potatoes, are you really going to have the strength to get out of the car and start crawling away? Are you even going to be alive after all of that? *shakes head*

I have no issues with the premise of the story, which is not new or unique. The screenplay is seriously lacking in character development and drags in several places. The most entertaining sequence of the whole movie is at the very end (last 15 minutes or so) and I won’t spoil it for you.

I did find it interesting to see a young Frances McDormand, the most well known of the cast, who doesn’t look much older than 22 or 23 in this film - but was actually 26 at the time of release, a mere quarter century ago. M. Emmett Walsh (who I agree is very creepy here) and Dan Hedaya have built solid if unspectacular careers. John Getz has spent the majority of his career in bits and pieces of television roles rather than focusing on the big screen, so it’s not surprising that I did not recognize him.

For a first writing and directing effort this film is okay. I'm not a huge fan of the Coen brothers but I do respect their later work. Fortunately, they have gotten much better as film makers with age and experience, which is a good thing.

Finally, the DVD version I watched was labeled as the Director’s Cut and was released in 2008, yet the run time of this version was shorter by three minutes (99 minutes down to 96 minutes) - according to IMDb. What about extras? Well, there weren’t any!! Not a one. Isn’t the intention of a director’s cut to include loads of special features, extended and deleted scenes, cast and crew interviews, etc? This was disappointing to say the least.

** out of *****

Blood Simple (1985, R, 99 minutes), starring Dan Hedaya, John Getz, Frances McDormand, M. Emmett Walsh and Samm-Art Williams. Written and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen.

RELIGULOUS

2010-02-24T21:19:00.005-05:00

SCRIBE'S MORMON MAGICAL UNDERPANTS REVIEW:

Bill Maher takes on religion with the same fervor he normally uses on politics with often hilarious and always thought-provoking results.

True believers will be offended and perhaps even hurt by many of the assertions Maher makes in Religulous, but it’s doubtful he’ll be losing any sleep over it. Maher’s mission, quite simply, is to wake people up from the mindless observances of religion and get them to start embracing rationality before we destroy ourselves.

It’s a lofty aim and one that shouldn’t be funny, but Maher is a brilliant satirist and be brings his incisive wit to full bear when dealing with the hopelessly devout.

Maher does what any good documentarian would do, he hits the road in search of answers. What he finds is a combination of equal parts hilarity and tragedy, the human comedy displayed raw and stupid for all to observe. From the Bible Belt to Israel to Western Europe, Maher’s travels reveal a world populated by people that are seemingly otherwise intelligent providing straight-faced affirmations of the most ludicrous beliefs.

There’s a Jew for Christ who believes the story of Jonah is plausible because the Bible didn’t say it was a whale but a big fish. There’s a New Zealander in the Southern U.S. who believes the only way to reconcile the Bible and science is to show humans and dinosaurs living together at the same time. When Maher remarks that this was only true on The Flintstones, the man finds no humor in it.

And there’s more: A “formerly gay” man who believes he cures gays of their affliction while undressing Maher with his eyes. A former R&B singer who believes Jesus wore fine linens which justifies his expensive suits. A Latino male who believes he is the risen Jesus and there is no longer Sin in the world. And that’s just the Christians! Shall I mention the Jewish man who has devised a way to still sue technology during the Sabbath because God wants people to find loopholes in the Bible? How about the Muslim who believes Mohammed actually came to Israel and sat down with Jesus, Moses and all the prophets for a big power meeting?

Through it all, Maher maintains his non-believer status and even admits when the Jesus at a Bible-themed amusement park throws him off his square for a second.

Religulous has been naively criticized for only presenting fringe types that are easily insulted. Maher jokes in the commentary that those were the only ones who would talk to him, but more importantly he is using these lunatics to show that even moderate acceptance of outdated beliefs is dangerous.

The final monologue is one of the most sobering and effective summations in film history. Glad I saw this one when it came out in theaters. OK, Green you may now freely disagree with me and slam the movie.

***** out of *****

GREEN’S TWO SPANISH GUYS NAMED ‘ANGEL’ REVIEW:

I will wholeheartedly admit that Bill Maher’s documentary Religulous is funny and irreverent. And I must admit, did enjoy watching it, more than I thought I would.

If you take what Maher says during the opening credits at face value, and there’s no reason why you shouldn’t, then you believe him when he says he’s gotta sort this religion thing out for himself. I can respect that. A journey of faith, or more precisely to faith, [The more important question to me is: faith in what (or who?)], is an extremely personal experience. If you belong to no faith at all then I can see where the bewilderment comes from in trying to sort it all out, because it can be confusing (but even no faith is a type of faith, if you really think about it.)

Maher opens with the statement that in his early stand up comedy he’s not ever questioning God but making fun of things within the religions - a gentle poking fun of, if you will.

I also don’t have a problem with that. There are many religious belief systems that truly are screwy - Scientology and Mormonism spring readily to mind. And, it must be said, there are elements of Christianity that at face value are odd, but only because I don’t understand them as well as I should or that I need to get a better grasp of. Elements that non-Christians just can’t understand without a basis in faith. Hard to explain otherwise.

I do get the sense, at the beginning, that Maher is seriously trying to reason out this religion thing, but you can also sense his skepticism for religion as a whole.

Some of the funniest moments in the documentary come when he is talking to Muslims or Jews and he’s trying to be funny but the people to whom he’s telling the jokes just stare blankly back at him because they don’t understand his humor or plainly are not amused.

You might think I’d be offended watching this documentary, but I wasn’t. I certainly don’t agree with some of his statements and conclusions but I can’t fault the guy for using the forum he has to express his opinions.

True, some people of faith may be offended by Maher’s documentary. If that’s the case, then don’t watch any more of it than you already have, or skip it all together. If you can appreciate Maher’s humor then you’ll probably enjoy this movie.

I can tell you confidently that I've taken this DVD off of my wish list at amazon.com. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it but it’s not one I need to watch again or own because I feel very comfortable with my faith and don't have the questions Maher does.

I think you’ll enjoy this DVD, but take it for what it’s worth. One guy’s opinion and that’s all.

***½ out of *****

Religulous (2008, R, 101 minutes), starring Bill Maher. Written by Bill Maher. Directed by Larry Charles.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

2010-02-08T16:44:00.003-05:00

SCRIBE'S WHO ARE DEM CHARACTERS S'POSED TO BE? REVIEW:

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is an interesting failed experiment whose failure is not so much in the film itself as in its attempt to connect with a modern-day audience that probably had no idea who the literary figures that made up its cast list were.

It’s a sad state of affairs to admit that but the average moviegoer isn’t a reader nor are they interested in Dorian Grey or Captain Nemo. However, the filmmakers wisely added lots of spectacle to compensate, no doubt one of many reasons League comic book creator Alan Moore refuses to allow his name on films made from his work.

The film is surprisingly entertaining. Once the “wow” factor dies down from seeing all the well-known (to some) literary figures, the action can commence. This is another one of those steampunk tales where technology similar to what we have now is secretly being developed with existing machinery of the time.

Sean Connery makes a great aging Alan Quatermain in what may well turn out to be his final on-screen appearance. Many fans of the comic series objected to the inclusion of Tom Sawyer as a move that panders to American audiences. Truthfully, it makes little sense in the context of the story, especially when we find out he’s a secret agent, but his presence is effective enough.

The plot is intelligent and the action clips long without any significant lulls. Sadly, the film did not perform to expected box office results, so it joins films like The Shadow as a great start to a series that never happened.

*** out of *****

GREEN'S "INDESTRUCTIBLE...NO, JUST ARMOR PLATED" REVIEW:

Legendary adventurer Allan Quatermain (Sir Sean Connery) has been lured out of retirement to lead a ragtag group of literary "heroes" to save Queen and Country from the forces of evil brewing in Europe, circa 1899. The evil comes from 'The Fantom' a mysterious figure whose goal is Armageddon and world domination. A secret meeting of world leaders is to take place in Venice, Italy, one in which our heroes believe the Fantom will try and disrupt. Problem is they don't know what his ultimate goal is and what it is may surprise you.

Okay, enough synopsis stuff.

This is one of the many DVD's that I found several years ago in the $5 bin and bought solely based on the reputation of Sir Sean himself. Yet it is one that I had never gotten around to watching - but wanted to - which is why I suggested it for the return of Scribe to this here blog, your favorite source for movie reviews!

I'm not big into graphic novels, so obviously missed reading that on which this movie is based, so I can't say how much the movie veers from the source material. Even so I found this movie to be entertaining and interesting, though I think too much time was spent at the beginning of the film about the gathering of the League that could have been better used in detailing more of the bad guy's evil schemes. However, as Scribe points out, that may have been necessary to introduce the literary figures to today's dumbed down audiences.

Stephen Norrington's directorial efforts are few and far between but was chosen to helm this film based on his work on Blade, which I can't find fault with.

Aside from Connery, who turns 80 later this year, and perhaps Peta Wilson who was a year or so removed from a successful five year run on the television show La Femme Nikita, the rest of the cast has no major stars in it but still is a talented group of up and comings. The inclusion of Tom Sawyer probably was to appease American audiences and supposedly passes the torch from the 19^th century's greatest adventurer to the 20^th century's next great adventurer but I'm not sold on it.

I think the costumes and sets were well done, though I must say that Sir Sean looked an awful lot like one Henry Jones, Jr. of another film series in his garb.

The extras on the DVD are excellent and take you through costuming, location, make-up and special effects and are very informative. It's extras like these that help me to feel better about a movie that I'm not quite sure what to make of. (That's where the ½ star comes from.)

***½ out of *****

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003, PG-13, 110 minutes) starring Sean Connery, Naseeruddin Shah, Peta Wilson, Tony Curran, Stuart Townsend, Shane West, Jason Flemyng and Richard Roxburgh. The screenplay was written by James Robinson (based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill) and directed by Stephen Norrington.

Thank You for Smoking

2010-01-21T11:14:00.005-05:00

For the fourth guest review, I asked my friend "Movie Man" if he'd be interested in writing a guest review for BIG SCREEN. As I had with the other guest reviewers, I told him he could pick whatever movie he wanted. I had never heard of the film that he chose, so I was interested to see it for myself.

MOVIE MAN'S "ONE HABIT YOU WON'T WANT TO QUIT" REVIEW:

Before Juno, director Jason Reitman made a film called Thank You For Smoking. This is a satirical comedy about a lobbyist for a tobacco company named Nick Naylor played by Aaron Eckhart. He is a real spin doctor who will say anything to get the general public smoking. He is, however, very good at his job, and is able to talk people into doing anything. However, not everyone falls for his stories that he spins. One of whom is a Vermont Senator, beautifully played by William H. Macy. Nick finds opposition with this senator, who apparently would do anything to keep the public from smoking, including having Nick kidnapped and have tobacco patches placed all over his body. A sequence which has a very funny ironic twist. At the same time, Nick has a 12 year old son, whom he is trying to remain a role model to.

Aaron Eckhart really turns playing a sleazy character into an art form here, as he did in his debut film back in 1997, In the of Company of Men. You would not want any other actor playing this role. Eckhart just does it so well, and yet somehow remains to be a likable character. It’s a brilliant performance that should have earned him an Oscar nomination, especially since he did earn a Golden Globe nomination for this performance.

There are also an all-star cast of supporting characters that are just as good. Some of whom include Macy, as the Senator from Vermont, Robert Duvall, Maria Bello, Katie Holmes, Rob Lowe, and Adam Brody as Rob Lowe’s over-caffeinated assistant in yet another very funny scene.

The film’s script, also written by Reitman, is smart, clever and witty. The kind of writing you don’t always see in comedies. All the comedy comes out of the dialogue and situations. He writes his characters with the same wit and cleverness. It’s so refreshing to see such an intelligent comedy as this is when there is so many dumb movies out there that talk down to the audience. One thing I found shocking was when it came to Oscar time, not only wasn’t this film nominated for a screenplay award, but the academy actually wasted the nomination on the dumb, and pointless, Borat. What a crime that was!

Overall, Thank You For Smoking is a smart, intelligent comedy with smart, intelligent characters. This is definitely a film you do not want to miss.

**** out of *****

GREEN'S "EVERYONE'S GOT A MORTGAGE TO PAY" REVIEW:

It was hard to choose a title for this review. There were so many good lines that I could have used.

There are some movies that you watch with zero expectations going in. I had none as I had never heard of it before. There are also movies that you can tell are going to be really good right from the opening music and credits. I had that vibe with this movie right away.

Turns out that this movie is much better than I anticipated. So much so that I bought it after I watched the library copy I borrowed in order to write this review and have watched it a few times since.

This movie is all about spin and how modern society can twist the facts to make them say whatever you want, even if it's unrealistic. It even spins the fact that you want to root for the "bad guys" and hate the"good guys."

One of the great things about this film is that not once do we see a cigarette lit up. No one smokes in this movie.

Aaron Eckhart is absolutely perfect for the role of tobacco lobbyist Nick Naylor. In fact the whole cast is excellent, right down to The Captain and the ex-Marlboro Man, played by Robert Duvall and Sam Elliott respectively. The script was brilliantly adapted from the Christopher Buckley novel of the same name, which I now want to read.

Jason Reitman is proving to be one of Hollywood's brightest young (under 40) writer/directors. After this film he directed Juno, which was excellent and he has received a lot of praise for his current film, Up in the Air.

This film is irreverent and sharp and delivers a serious message in the funniest possible way. It was shown at the Toronto and Sundance Film Festivals before its wide release in 2006. Unbelievable that the run time is only 91 minutes.

The extras on the DVD are also very well done and will enhance your enjoyment of this movie. The cast and crew interviews are very insightful and they have a lot to say regarding the nature of spin. For example, William H. Macy says that the "notion of spinning the truth is totally relevant. Part of what's happening in this country is 'where's the truth?' And now people are willing to accept no truth or a substitute for truth." Dennis Miller, in his famous tongue in cheek way, adds that "a little BS goes a long way. It makes us feel better."

If you're having trouble deciding what to watch some night, this movie will not disappoint. Even if you've seen it before you will still enjoy it. It's the kind of movie that is so good that it lends itself to multiple viewings.

***** out of *****

Thank You for Smoking (2005, R, 91 minutes), starring Aaron Eckhart, Cameron Bright, Katie Holmes, William H. Macy, JK Simmons, Maria Bello, David Koechner, Rob Lowe, Adam Brody, Robert Duvall and Sam Elliott. Screenplay written by Jason Reitman. Adapted from the novel by Christopher Buckley. Directed by Jason Reitman.

Shaun of the Dead

2010-01-14T20:52:00.010-05:00

For the third guest review, I asked my old friend American Guy if he'd like to choose a film and write a review. He has been a willing contributor to this blog on a few occasions in the past.

AMERICAN GUY'S “THINGS WILL CHANGE, I PROMISE” REVIEW:

Though I still believe that blogging is a dying art form, I was more than happy to pitch in another guest review for this here site. When the great Green one gave me my choice of movies, we toyed around with a few things before deciding on one of my favourites of recent years – “Shaun of the Dead”.

Now I had heard of this film when it first came out in the theatre and thought the premise was great, but as is so often the case didn't actually get to see it. Much like Snakes on a Plane, (which I think was the last guest review I did here), the name alone promised a rollicking good time. Unlike Snakes though, this is a genuinely good movie (as opposed to the 'so bad it's good' variety). I'm a big fan of Simon Pegg, was a fairly recent convert to Dylan Moran (if you've never watched Black Books, see if you can get your hands on it), and I've always had a soft spot for zombie movies (here's a quick zombie joke for you all, overheard at a rally for zombie rights: “What do we want?” “Braaaaaains”, “When do we want it?” “Braaaaaains”).

Some people call this a send up of the zombie genre. I don't think that's quite right. It's a comedy, though not in the traditional sense, and you can tell the filmmakers have a genuine love of zombie flicks. So while it plays on some of the excesses of movies about the undead, it does so in a way that never makes fun of them. One recurring joke is the characters' reluctance to use 'the zed word'. Nor, it should be said, is this a take off on “Dawn of the Dead”. It's just a clever title.

I'll leave the who's who in the zoo to Green. But as a very brief outline, this film is about Shaun: a working class everyman stuck in a dead end job, living with his feckless flatmate, and trying to figure out his relationship with his much too good for him girlfriend. When an outbreak of zombinism occurs, he doesn't immediately notice. Once he does, we spend a fair bit in familiar 'don't let them get you' territory (and yes, despite this being a comedy, there is a bit of gore, including one genuinely gruesome scene). Zombie movies often have a hard time figuring out how to end the story, but I think all told they figured out a reasonable way to approach it.

This film may not be for everyone. The comedy is probably a bit dry for an American audience. If sitcoms and Jim Carrey are your idea of funny, Shaun may not work for you. But if you fancy some wit mixed in with a bit of slapstick against a backdrop of blood stained and armless reanimated corpses, than definitely check it out.

Things to watch for: 1) The opening credits are brilliant in showing how the undead already seem to walk among us. 2) A cute nod to 28 Days Later. 3) In the third act, watch for a musical number that had me on the floor in stitches. You'll know it when you see it.

**** out of *****

GREEN'S "WE'RE GOING TO THE WINCHESTER" REVIEW:

I had only heard of this movie two years ago, when Scribe and I reviewed Hot Fuzz, which also starred Simon Pegg and Nick Frost; which is to say I saw this film listed on Pegg's IMDb page. I believe one of my college friends a few years ago advised me to skip this movie because it was totally stupid. And I did, until AG decided he'd like to review it. I borrowed the DVD from the library, had it for the maximum two weeks, returned it, borrowed it again for another two weeks before I finally decided to watch it and get it over with. You can tell how exited I was to see this and how high my expectations were. I'm just glad I didn't have to pay to watch it.

AG did a great job giving you the basic synopsis of the movie, so I won't rehash it again.

I can appreciate the dry British sense of humor, so that aspect of the film was not a problem for me. I've never been a fan of horror movies (even those horror movies that make fun of horror movies, like this one). I find the whole genre ridiculous and laughable, with a few rare exceptions. Given the genre I was not disappointed (not necessarily a good thing, mind) and I understand the spirit in which this movie was made. It is obvious that the director and Pegg, at least, like or have a reverence for zombie movies. I think Simon Pegg is a brilliant comedic actor and was very credible as a young Scotty in 2009's Star Trek.

IMDb touts Kate Ashfield as "a powerful British actress" which may or may not be accurate, since I've not seen any of the English television shows she's acted in. Sure, she was good here, playing the straight, serious girlfriend Liz to Pegg's slacker boyfriend Shaun. It would be interesting to see her acting skillz in some other role.

It took me a few minutes to pick out the movie in which I had seen Dylan Moran before this, but eventually I got it. See if you can pick him out in Notting Hill.

Director Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg are obviously friends and have worked together on a few other movies and know what the other brings to the table. Wright does a good job directing the film and keeps the story from getting too silly.

If this is the genre of movies you love then this movie is great; there is none better. For the rest of us it's an enjoyable waste of time, if only barely.

** out of *****

Shaun of the Dead (2004, R, 100 minutes), starring Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Kate Ashfield, Lucy Davis, Dylan Moran, Bill Nighy and Nicola Cunningham. Screenplay by Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright. Directed by Edgar Wright.

Catwoman

2010-01-06T10:10:00.002-05:00

For the second guest review, I thought it would be fun to ask someone I "met" on Twitter, rather by accident, last fall. Much to my surprise and delight, he was up for the challenge. He is the author of the excellent historical fiction novel Gladiatrix, which I recommend if, like he, you have an interest in ancient Greek and Roman history. Even if you don't, it's a great read.

As is my custom with these guest reviews, I gave him the choice of what movie we should review. His choice rather caught me by surprise.

LANISTA'S "ONLY AS BAD AS I WANNA BE" REVIEW:

Veering sharply away from comic canon, Pitof’s 2004 movie Catwoman is the story of mild-mannered but put upon graphic artist Patience Phillips (Halle Berry) who – because of a selfless act – is miraculously saved from death by a messenger of the Egyptian cat goddess Bast. On her “awakening” she discovers that she is imbued with mystical powers that transform her from timid designer to the ferociously sexy Catwoman.

Catwoman’s basic plot is very simple. Sure, Patience has wasted her artistic talent working for a giant cosmetic company but that doesn’t stop her from being a nice person – as is proven when she risks life and limb to save a cat that appears to be stuck outside her apartment window. However, it’s Patience that needs rescuing in the end as the cat (typically) wanders off, leaving Patience stuck on the ledge, hundreds of feet from the ground.

Enter heroic cop, Tom Lone (Benjamin Bratt in full-on charm mode) who saves the day and takes a shine to Patience, pursuing the shy artist till she agrees to go on a date with him. A good thing, then, that her personal life is on the up as her professional one takes a downturn. Patience’s corporate asshole boss is not happy with her work and demands that she “redo the work by midnight!”

Which – to her credit – she does. However, on returning to the office, she finds it locked and endeavors to find another way in. She does, but unwittingly stumbles upon a clandestine meeting between her boss (a sneering Lambert Wilson), his ex-supermodel girlfriend (Sharon Stone) and the scientist behind the company’s newest product which has been proven to reverse the skins aging process. As successful as it is, we discover that the balm is both addictive and destructive - if a user manages to “come off” the stuff, their skin cells begin to deteriorate with horrifying results.

Sadly for Patience, she is overheard trying to escape and goons are dispatched to “take care of her,” which they do by flushing her out of waste pipe into the icy depths of the river below. So our heroine is killed at the end of the first act…or is she?

Washed up on shore, Patience’s corpse is surrounded by cats and one (called Midnight) - specifically the one she attempted to save in the movie’s first reel - breathes the spirit of Bast into her, giving her powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men (and women).

Midnight the magic cat sticks around and leads Patience to the mysterious Ophelia Powers who tells her of her new abilities and how “Catwomen” have existed throughout history (which ties in neatly with the movies opening credits.). In this sequence there’s also a nod to movie (if not comic) canon as a photo of one of the Catwomen Ophelia shows Patience is none other than Michelle Pfeiffer’s Selena Kyle in her PVC getup, though it should be noted this is a fleeting glimpse and doesn’t in anyway attempt to tie this move to Batman Retruns.

Whilst Patience comes to terms with her new found powers, we discover that asshole boss is two-timing Sharon Stone (how dare he!). In a fit of pique, Sharon crushes a glass in her hand and we see that her skin is not damaged in the slightest. So – the byproduct of not stopping use of the age-cure is marble-hard skin.

From here, the story is satisfyingly predictable – Catwoman learns to use her powers, Catwoman kicks some ass, Patience tries to reconcile her new self in her relationship to Tom, Catwoman kicks some more ass till she takes down – well – everyone who did her wrong. And naturally there’s girl-fight with marble-hard Sharron Stone – which is heaps of fun to watch, full of snarling, hissing an needless (but fun) comic-style dialogue.

On its release, Catwoman was vilified by fans and critics alike: for me, they’ve rather missed the point. Clearly, Catwoman didn’t set out to be Batman – it’s not a dark movie, no matter how much ravening fan-boys wanted it to be (note to fan-boys – don’t like movies about your favorite characters? Get off your fat asses and start writing movie scripts instead of writing movie script length whining posts on internet forums).

The director, Pitof, has set his stall out by changing his Catwoman from Selena to Patience – this is not Gotham City, Batman isn’t mentioned – it has nothing to do with Burton’s or Nolan’s Bat-verse at all. In other words, it’s set out as a non-canon movie, unrelated to Batman. In the same way that the “Krytpo the Superdog” cartoon doesn’t affect Superman comic-book canon.

Simply – Catwoman is harmless piece of stand-alone popcorn entertainment that doesn’t tax the brain and is for the most part extremely easy on the eye. Halle Berry in a revealing leather outfit was always going to be an easy sell, and the decidedly coniferous Sharon Stone as the aging yet ageless supermodel was an inspired casting choice.

There are some toe-curling moments in the movie – Berry channeling Eartha Kitt was unnecessary and embarrassing, the CGI is pretty dated in places and the third act is something of a let down following some excellent buildup. There has been a lot of criticism leveled at the dialogue – and whilst it is littered with comic-book clichés I find myself wondering why this is somehow a flaw in a light entertainment comic-book flick. But really, these are minor gripes that don’t detract from the overall trashy and fun ride the movie provides.

Catwoman also does some great work on the character’s origin: the whole “cat mysticism” shtick was very interesting and does provide us with a reason why Catwoman behaves the way that she does – it think this would have been built upon more in a follow-up movie (in 2006, Berry said she’d do a sequel if the studio had “learned from the mistakes of the first one”). It’s a shame that this film was so wrongly perceived when it came out – it’s one of the first films I can think of that really suffered at the hands of bitter, life-needing nerds on the Internet, so its more likely we’ll see Catwoman next in Nolan’s threequel than a Berry sequel.

In the final analysis, Catwoman succeeds on just about every level – it’s irreverent, schlocky, trashy, sexy and gobs of fun - and it has a ballsy, girl-power ending which flies in the face of Hollywood convention –for that alone the movie deserves a second chance.

Just don’t watch it expecting it to be Batman Begins.

**** out of *****

GREEN'S "TIME TO ACCESSORIZE" REVIEW:

Patience Phillips (Halle Berry) works for a cosmetics conglomerate in the art department. She is shy and meek and lacking in self confidence. When she overhears something she shouldn't have, she is chased down and ultimately killed. She is brought back to life by the breath of a mysterious cat called Midnight, who had been following her around for days. In addition to her life, she is given both a curse and a blessing: cat-like powers. Now Patience must come to grips with who she is and what she has become just in time to bring down the bad guys. Oh, there's a handsome police officer (Benjamin Bratt) who is falling in love with her....

In order to better enjoy this movie you must put aside your preconceived ideas about what you know of the Catwoman character. Even though it borrows from the Catwomen characters of the past, this is a new incarnation, and each actress has brought her own mojo to the role. Sort of like the reinvention of James Bond with each actor that takes on the role, or with each actor that has played Batman, from Adam West to Michael Keaton to Val Kilmer to George Clooney to Christian Bale. Notable is that this is the first incarnation of Catwoman without a Batman anywhere to be found, at least that I can see. This is not the catwoman but one of many catwomen to have lived throughout history, or so we are told.

Make no mistake, this film is about one thing and one thing only: Halle Berry in that skimpy little leather cat costume. Not that there is anything wrong with that. She certainly does no harm to the sexiness of the character. Sharon Stone is an adequate villain here, though she has played better 'bad guys' in the past. Benjamin Bratt plays to form as the good cop trying to figure it all out. He can't seem to shake this kind of role, which he cemented for himself in his Law and Order television years.

The story formula is pretty common and does nothing to distinguish itself, or as one reviewer on amazon.com wrote: "The movie's script and visual style are as fresh as used kitty litter." Some of the CGI work is more obvious than it should be, which isn't good. I've never heard of French director Pitof and am not familiar with his other work, thus I have nothing to compare this film to.

The good thing about a film like this is that the actors (and crew) must know no awards will be won in the making of the movie and seem to have signed on just for the fun of it. Halle Berry herself said (in one of the excellent special features included on the DVD) that she wanted this role for the simple pleasure of playing the iconic Catwoman character.

Going in I had never seen this film before and probably wouldn't have otherwise, based on the bad reviews it received had and its apparent box office failure ($100 million to make, only $40M in revenue), listed as the 6^th biggest flop of the 2000's.

However, if you take the movie for what it is meant to be; namely a puff piece meant for fun, it's not as bad as you might think.

**½ out of *****

Catwoman (2004, PG-13, 104 minutes) starring Halle Berry, Benjamin Bratt, Sharon Stone, Lambert Wilson, Alex Borstein and Frances Conroy. Based on a character by Bob Kane. Story by Theresa Rebeck, John Brancato and Michael Ferris. Screenplay by John Brancato, Michael Ferris and John Rogers. Directed by Pitof.

Taking December off

2009-12-10T22:43:00.002-05:00

Like I did with my SNMR column over on my regular blog, I've run into a bit of a wall writing movie reviews, so have decided to take the month of December off.

I've still got to put together the three additional guest reviews that I promised and will have those for you when I return in January. Sometime in 2010, I hope, Scribe and I will be back reviewing movies for you on a semi-regular basis.

Until then people.

Little Children

2009-11-10T11:50:00.007-05:00

The first guest review is by my long time blogger friend, Autumn, who readily agreed to step into the fray and write a review. I offered her the choice of movies, but she insisted that I pick one. Instead, I did what Scribe and I do: I gave her a list of five movies to choose from and she picked from those.

AUTUMN'S "A LITTLE ASS IS ALL YOU NEED" REVIEW:

Little Children is one of those human experience movies where the lives of 4 different families of a sleepy little community intertwine. The first family is the Pierce family where the focus is on Sarah, the mother of 3 year old Lucy. The second family is the Adamson family where the focus is on Brad, the father of 3 year old Aaron. Both parents are in unsatisfying marriages and find unlikely companionship with each other while their spouses go to work daily. Though we don’t see the third family of Larry Hedges, we do find out that his wife and children have left him, thus affecting them. The fourth family is that of a registered sex offender, Ronnie McGorvey and his mother May. The plot of the movie thickens as Brad and Sarah’s relationship becomes increasingly involved and an affair ensues, Larry starts a neighborhood watch program because of the registered sex offender who he often harasses, and Brad joins Larry in the watch program and play together on a tag football night league. The climax of the movie comes as Ronnie’s mother May dies as a result of an altercation with Larry, and Brad and Sarah make moves to solidify their relationship, and Ronnie is left to struggle with the choice between "being a good boy" for his deceased mother and his pedophilia tendencies.

I wasn’t familiar with this movie at all until Green suggested it and I chose it solely on the fact that Kate Winslet had the lead role as Sarah Pierce and I've been on a Winslet kick lately. Suffice to say, I wasn’t disappointed. Winslet’s performance as a bored, over educated, unhappily married house wife is spot on. The actors in the rest of the roles Patrick Wilson (as Brad Adamson), Jennifer Connolly (as Brad’s wife), Noah Emmerich (as Larry Hedges), and Jackie Earle Haley (as Ronnie McGorvey) were all top notch. I’d even give special mention to Phyllis Somerville who portrayed May McGorvey, the mother of the registered sex offender who was outstanding. Each of the characters listed here are certainly flawed, but the portrayal of each was so suburb that you could both feel for the character at the same time you wanted to strangle them for their shortcomings.

I think what made the film enjoyable at all for me was the running themes. Stay at home parents with education living the suburban life.... struck a chord with me. Feeling trapped in a life you can't imagine no escape... I think (I hope for my sake) that this relates to everyone at some point in their lives. More importantly, I think the speaks to the human character and how unwilling we are to change even when we are unhappy in our everyday lives and ourselves. It was a thought provoking film to say the least.

The pace of the movie seemed slow at times, but I always felt like I needed to know what was going to happen next (Let's thank the anxiety provoking soundtrack for that one.) I was just waiting for the moment that would tie all these different stories together. There’s also a voice over narration that was at times annoying yet insightful. I wish that he either would have spoke more or not at all. Last, I think the nudity and sex scenes were a bit gratuitous. I know what sex is and I can take cues to make that connection. But that said, sometimes a nice male ass shot isn’t so bad for at least a little entertainment value.

***½ out of *****

GREEN'S "I WAS ONLY TRYING TO COOL OFF" REVIEW:

Since Autumn did such a good job giving you the basics of the story, I won't bother detailing it again, except to say that the story takes place in the fictional town of East Wyndham, MA.

This is one of those movies that I had bought several months ago on DVD when I too was on a Kate Winslet kick. I had just watched one of her recent films during its theatrical run and wanted to see what other films of hers I hadn't seen. However, as happens to me frequently, I bought it and put it aside to watch later, always meaning to get around to it, not that I hadn't wanted to but other stuff always kept getting priority.

I wasn't sure exactly what to expect, because I don't watch a lot of television and missed the trailers before and during its 2006 theatrical run. I was pleasantly surprised that I liked this movie as much as I did. I wasn't surprised that Kate Winslet and Jennifer Connolly's performances were excellent because they consistently deliver such quality work. I had seen Patrick Wilson in another movie but didn't make the connection here until much later, something I'm usually pretty good at. Jackie Earle Haley, who is more than sufficiently creepy as the pedophile, is outstanding and deserving of his Best Supporting Actor nomination.

I was impressed enough with this movie that I went out and bought Tom Perrotta's novel to see what differences there are between the book and the film, not something I often purposefully do. I was also impressed with director Todd Field's handling of this movie and story as it could have easily become too tedious and bogged down. Instead what you have by the end of the film is four fully developed stories, each fascinating in their own way.

I've always said that when the director writes or has a hand in writing the screenplay, you usually end up with a better movie because of the more personal knowledge of the story and how they want to visualize it, especially an emotionally challenging story as this is.

I'm not quite sure if I liked the narrator intruding during parts of the story (provided by the same voice over guy who does the BMW and Dos Equiis ads and other commercials), teetering on the fence between acceptance and annoyance. I do think the narration helps us to feel more detached from the story, sort of like we're peeping in through someone else's window, invading their privacy and seeing things that we shouldn't.

I like rosy happy endings as much as the next bloke but movies don't always have them and I'm glad this one didn't. I do like an ending to have some degree of closure and this film definitely had that. I honestly wasn't expecting to see one of the endings as it played out, providing a bit of shock value the first time I watched. I was pleased at the bit of irony at the end of the movie as I thought it was a nice touch.

I did like the narrator's closing line:

"You couldn't change the past, but the future could be a different story... (dramatic pause for effect) ...and it had to start somewhere."

****½ out of *****

Little Children (2006, R, 130 minutes), starring Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson, Jennifer Connolly, Noah Emmerich, Jackie Earle Haley, Phyllis Somerville, Sadie Goldstein and Ty Simpkins. Based on the novel by Tom Perrotta. Screenplay by Tom Perrotta and Todd Field. Directed by Todd Field. Nominated for three 2007 Academy Awards (Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay).

A Special Announcement:

2009-11-01T22:17:00.001-05:00

During the Scribester's self inflicted absence from contributing to this here blog, I've asked four friends to write guest reviews in his place, three of whom will be first-time guest contributors to this space.

Why, you ask? Mainly to restore the so-called integrity of this blogs two opinion format but also because I really want to post more regularly here and I don't want to (or feel like) doing it by myself. It was nice to know that everyone I asked to contribute agreed to do it and for that, I thank you. You know who you are.

In each case I gave the option of choosing which movie to review to the guest reviewer. However, one person declined and wanted me to choose. Following the procedure that Scribe and I normally use, I gave her a list of five choices and left the final decision up to her.

As always, guest reviews will appear in RED.

Now back to our originally scheduled programming.

Blow

2009-10-28T14:35:00.007-04:00

This is the latest movie scribe chose for us to review. Its been a while since we've posted anything and I felt we needed to post something so here's my part of it. Hopefully my blog partner will own up and post his half soon. Until then, people...

GREEN’S “I CAN’T FEEL MY FACE” REVIEW”

“Blow” is the true story of the rise and fall of George Jung (Johnny Depp) and his friends. If you smoked cocaine in the late 70’s or early 80’s chances are, George Jung had a part in getting it to you. The story starts with George’s humble beginnings in Weymouth, Massachusetts as a kid who idolized his father amid a troubled family life. George’s life irreversibly changes when he moves to southern California and gets himself involved in importing and selling marijuana. He eventually gets arrested for smuggling but skips bail to be with his dying girlfriend Barbara, (Franka Potente). On a visit back home to his family, he is arrested and sentenced to federal prison. There he meets Diego, his cellmate, who gets George involved in the Colombian cocaine cartel once they get out of jail. The story goes on to relate events of George‘s dealings with Pablo Escobar and the relationship he forms with the beautiful Mirtha (Penelope Cruz), who becomes his wife. Together they have a daughter, Kristina (Emma Roberts and James King). Eventually Mirtha files for divorce and puts a strain on his relationship with his daughter. As the movie ends, George is in jail once again and imagines a visit from his daughter who he loves dearly, despite all of his drug related problems.

I had bought this DVD some time ago (from the $5 DVD bin at Wal-Mart) based on the hype I think I remembered during its theatrical run and on the reputation of Johnny Depp, one of the best contemporary actors in the business today. For whatever reason I had never gotten around to watching it until Scribe-o named it on his latest list of movie choices.

Suffice to say I was impressed by Depp in the title role. Arguably, this might be Depp’s career best performance in a career with many outstanding performances. Amazingly, this movie received no Academy Award nominations, not even one. The supporting cast is strong, including Paul (Pee-Wee Herman) Rubens, whom I have never considered more than a marginal talent. Ray Liotta and Australian actress Rachel Griffiths give strong performances as George’s parents. I find it interesting that Penelope Cruz was nominated for a Breakthrough Female Performance (2002 MTV Movie Award) and a Razzie for Worst Actress for the same role in this movie, though she won neither award, (personally I tend to lean toward the Razzie nomination over the Breakthrough Performance Award for Cruz.)

I had never really heard of director Ted Demme, who did a fabulous job directing the film, based on a book by Bruce Porter and screenplay by Nick Cassavetes and David McKenna. Demme, ironically, died about nine months after the release of this drug themed film from what IMDb calls an ’accidental cocaine induced thrombotic heart attack.’ You'd think Demme would have learned that cocaine is baaaad for you after filming this movie. Some folks never learn, I guess. Sad.

The extras on the infinifilm DVD are very well done, including a gripping, English subtitled documentary on the impact of the cocaine trade on the country of Columbia, its people and economy. A must see extra is Demme’s interview of the real life George Jung, from Otisville Correctional Facility in upstate New York, where he is currently serving a 60-year sentence. In this question and answer interview, among other things, we learn that Jung himself was impressed with Depp’s portrayal of himself and of the events depicted in the film. If the real life subject of your movie wholeheartedly endorses it, it has to be good.

**** out of *****

Blow (2001, R, 124 minutes), starring Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Paul Rubens, Jordi Molla, Rachel Griffiths, Ray Liotta, Franka Potente, Cliff Curtis and Miguel Sandoval. The screenplay was written by Nick Cassavetes and David McKenna. Based on the book by Bruce Porter. The film was directed by Ted Demme.

Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (1979-1981)

2009-10-14T21:54:00.003-04:00

While the Scribester is off dealing with whatever issues he has to deal with, I'm left to post whatever I want. I do apologize that its been so long in between posts. It's never my intention to leave you all hanging so long with nothing new to read. I had an urge to watch some of this recently and thought it'd be cool to review here, just because I can. Of course, Sir Scribe-a-lot is always welcome to add his take if he wants to.

GREEN'S OH, WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN REVIEW:

"The year is 1987, and NASA launches the last of America's deep space probes. In a freak mishap, Ranger Three and its pilot, Captain William "Buck" Rogers, are blown out of their trajectory into an orbit which freezes his life support systems, and returns Buck Rogers to Earth, 500 years later."

With that great weekly narration by William Conrad, we were launched into the week's adventure as Buck (Gil Gerard), Wilma (Erin Grey) and friends were off to save Earth from would be conquerors, ultimate destruction and various bad guys. The best villain was Ardala, the Draconian Princess, sexily played by Pamela Hensley, as evidenced by her appearance in six episodes.

The opening narration changed slightly for the abbreviated second season as did the weekly format of the show. This season took on a more hybrid Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek-ish feel as Buck and Wilma were part of the Earth ship Searcher crew, looking for the "lost tribes of Earth" scattered across the galaxy in the aftermath of the Nuclear War which occurred after Buck's Ranger 3 mission took off.

Since I initially posted this review I've thought about the second season's premise. The exploration format actually makes no sense at all when you consider that, according to the story, Buck's 1987 mission was as a deep space probe. Space flight was still in its infancy back then as it still is now, despite advances made. Travel between planets outside the solar system remains impossible, given the host of technological problems, the least of which is knowing where hospitible planets to earth life are located, never mind getting to them. So leaving earth to find lost colonies scatterd from the nuclear war would be a useless gesture.

This show first aired the year I turned 10 and I absolutely loved it. As a young boy the futuristic plots captured my imagination in more ways than one. Back then the campiness of it all didn't even bother me.

Both Buck Rogers and the original Battlestar Galactica television show (another personal fave of mine) were produced by Glen A. Larson, so its not surprising that some of the props and costumes were used in both shows. One of my favorite elements of this show is the look of the Earth Defense Directorate star-fighters. They are so cool looking and I often wished as a youngster that I could own and fly one.

Buck Rogers featured some excellent guest stars including: Roddy McDowall, Jack Palance, Jerry Orbach, Jamie Lee Curtis, Peter Graves, Gary Coleman, Julie Newmar, Frank Gorshin, Marc Lenard, Markie Post, Buster Crabbe, Anne Lockhart and Dennis Haysbert.

Looking back on this series as an adult, I see that the acting was generally bad with paper thin plots and cheesy special effects. In the second season, the acting wasn't any better but the characters and plots became more serious. As a result, the show lost some of its campiness and, frankly, most of its appeal. Now the appeal is purely nostalgic. I've watched all 37 episodes multiple times and love every minute of them.

I used to think that the network cancelled the show midway through the second season due to low ratings but, according to wikipedia.org, the year was marred by a writers strike which shortened the season. NBC then cancelled the series due to "cost concerns." I'd like to think that if the show hadn't been canceled, season three would have blended the first season's campiness with the second season's more serious themes and it might have lasted a few more seasons.

The only complaints I have are centered around the DVD set itself. It contains five discs with programming on both sides of each disc, which I don't like at all. The set also contains zero special features, which as a fan of the show I would love to see. The enclosed booklet has nice episode summaries but as you unfold the pages knowing what episodes are on each disc becomes unnecessarily confusing.

The price for the complete series is very reasonable. I've seen it as low as $14.99 on amazon.com.

For all its flaws, this is an excellent television show that was cancelled way too soon.

**** out of *****

Buck Rogers in the 25^th Century" (1979-1981, 37 episodes total) starring Gil Gerard, Erin Grey, Tim O'Connor, Felix Silla, Mel Blanc (voice), Eric Server (voice), and William Conrad (narrator).

Labyrinth

2009-09-28T15:15:00.012-04:00

Originally, the idea of reviewing "Labyrinth" came a bit more than a year ago, after we reviewed this movie. In that review the scribester randomly lamented about the size of Jennifer Connelly’s breasts then and now... (Aaah, scribe, what would we do without ye?)

GREEN'S "NICE YOUNG GIRL, TERRIBLE BLACK UBLIET" REVIEW:

UTTERLY RELEVANT TRIVIA QUESTION! Do you know what the connection between Labyrinth and Star Trek: The Next Generation television series is? Something to think about as you read. {BTW, the answer is not obvious.}

What do you get when you have George Lucas as co-Executive Producer, Jim Henson as the director, and Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame) as the writer, David Bowie writing songs, singing and acting plus a cadre of Muppets and Jennifer Connelly, a 14 year old future Oscar winning actress starring in your movie? Throw in bit parts for Star Wars alums Frank Oz, Kenny Baker and Warwick Davis and what do you have?

Obviously, the answer is Labyrinth, a truly wonderful movie.

It's hard for me to believe that this film was released 23 years ago. However, it is not hard to believe that this film is still as captivating now as it was then.

It's the coming of age (well, sort of) story of Sarah (Connelly) who is forced to baby-sit her step-brother, Toby. When he won't stop fussing she wishes that the Goblin King (Bowie) would take him away.

Until he does.

Sarah immediately regrets the wish and begs for his release. Suddenly, before she realizes it, The Goblin King himself is standing in her room! He, quite frankly, is having none of her whining. That is until he decides to make a deal with her, one which (he thinks) she cannot possibly win: If she can solve the Labyrinth and reach the Goblin City at the center of the maze and enter the castle in less than 13 hours, she'll get her brother back. But if she can't, he'll become a goblin and be lost forever. On the journey she meets all sorts of wonderful and imaginative characters, some friendly and some not so friendly. Can she remember how to defeat the Goblin King and save her little step-brother in time?

Don't be fooled. This is not just a movie geared for kids. Adults ought to enjoy this movie, too - especially if you're a fan of David Bowie and his music. {BTW, what's up with the Speedo-like costume? Female viewers must loove that.}

Jim Henson's incredible genius as a puppeteer and innovator can not be overstated. He and his crew of muppeteers do a fabulous job of making the non-human characters real and relatable. We can identify with them to some degree, so we care about them.

I hardly need mention, but I will anyway, that one of the great tragedies in the last 20 years for true movie fans happened when Jim Henson died suddenly in May 1990 at the way too young age of 54 from bacterial pneumonia. Can you imagine the great movies that he might have made, had he lived, possibly combining muppet magic with CGI wizardry? Fortunately his legacy lives on with this film and the many other films and television shows that he worked on throughout his career. Coincidentally, Jim Henson would have turned 73 on Sept. 24^th, had he lived.

I watched the 1999 DVD release of this film because it was readily available to me at the time. Included on the disc is an excellent 'making of' featurette, which is primarily narrated by Kermit the Frog, er, Jim Henson. I’ve since purchased the Anniversary Edition of this DVD because its a two disc deal which has many more cool special features on it. Just the kind of extra stuff that I love to watch.

This is an all around excellent movie which, if you haven't watched in a while, is definitely worth revisiting.

***** out of *****

Oh yes, I almost forgot to tell you what the Star Trek: TNG connection is! Did you cheat and find out the answer? Well here it is: The title of 'Director of Choreography and Puppet Movement' for this film was none other than Cynthia McFadden, aka Gates McFadden aka Dr. Beverly Crusher. I didn't believe it either until I saw her for myself in the featurette. Recognized her right away, I did. Want more proof? Here you go.

SCRIBE'S SUCH A PITY REVIEW:

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from my co-reviewer over these past few years, it’s that he loves child-friendly movies and wussy, contrived romantic comedies. So it came as no surprise that he chose “Labyrinth” for us to review on this blog. Actually, he chose it a long time ago but I kept shuffling it off to the side because I wasn’t in the mood to watch this Eighties Jim Henson film.

I finally knuckled down and watched a film I hadn’t seen in at least ten years and found myself enjoying it a lot more now than I had before. To give you an idea of my frame of mind, most of my experience was spent staring at a young Jennifer Connelly and saying, “Man, does she get hot in a few years!” But the movie was entertaining as well.

Unlike the superior and much more artistic “The Dark Crystal,” Henson and company decided to go a more child-friendly route with this one. Featuring two principle human actors, Connelly as the female protagonist and David Bowie as the “Goblin King,” this is a faster paced fairytale with songs and goofy characters.

The plot is rather thin when compared to “Crystal,” but this is a film about mood and imagery and it works very well in that regard. The loss of Jim Henson was a far more serious one than I’d thought. The incredible imagination at work in his films is sorely missed in this era of off the shelf software CGI flicks.

Connelly is a tad awkward in her role at the beginning but she grows into it nicely as things go on. Bowie is a natural as the Goblin King, menacing yet charming at the same time, much like a seductive and charming vampire with a New Wave haircut. The muppet characters are amazingly rendered. The plot is thin, basically revolving around Connelly angrily wishing her baby half-brother would be taken away by goblins and her struggles to get him back by traversing a…LABYRINTH, that’s right. Thanks for following along at home.

The music, provided by Bowie, might sound dated if not for the overall bizarre quality of it. Yes, it’s a tad annoying to sit through the scene with Bowie and the goblin muppets boogieing down but one must expect such cheese when watching such a film. Besides, this isn’t one of your happy-go-lucky Disney adventures. It’s pretty dark and mentions death rather bluntly. Some of the imagery is downright disturbing, especially the “helping hands” and stench pit sequences. The latter actually features something that looks like a multitude of flatulent rectums protruding from a swamp at random intervals! Sid & Marty Kroft couldn’t have done enough bong hits to come up with that one!

None of those things detract from an enjoyable film. If you have small children, which I don’t, some of the darker aspects of the film might bother them, but on the bright side you can always threaten them with banishment to the Goblin king’s realm if they don’t do as you say.

*** out of *****

Labyrinth (1986, PG, 102 minutes) starring David Bowie, Jennifer Connelly, Shari Weiser and Brian Henson (voice). Story development by Dennis Lee and Jim Henson, written by Terry Jones and directed by Jim Henson.

BABEL

2009-09-15T15:57:00.005-04:00

SCRIBE'S NEVER TAKE A GIFT WEAPON FROM A JAPANESE HUNTER REVIEW:

“Babel” is the aptly titled movie starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett involving several characters and as many languages.

Another in a growing sub-genre of dramas featuring disparate characters in different locations whose seemingly unrelated lives will connect in some significant way by the time the movie ends, this one extends into international territory. I’m a sucker for these films. Crash, Traffic, Magnolia, Reservation Road, 21 Grams are all good to great films. This one falls somewhere in the middle.

With a two and a half hour running time, Babel features four basic stories revolving around a single, mindless incident of violence. Everything has a tumble down effect in this film. The man in Morocco who sells a rifle to his friend obtained the weapon from a different character whose life is in a shambles. The sons of the man who buy the rifle indulge in random target shooting to prove the rifle doesn’t fire as far as claimed. The little tykes wind up firing on a tour bus and one of the bullets strikes a passenger.

What results is a rather convoluted mess, but I don’t mean that in a bad way. The “mess” is what the characters experience. This is a film with a rich tapestry of interwoven tragedies. Pitt is the understandably emotional husband whose wife (Blanchett) is shot. This causes him to call his Mexican nanny whose poor judgment in finding a way to keep her employer’s kids with her while attending her nephew’s wedding in Mexico will have terrible consequences. Meanwhile, The Moroccan police scour the countryside in an attempt to locate the perpetrators of the shooting and prove there are no terrorist cells in their nation. Pitt commands the tour bus driver to take them to the nearest village with a doctor (turns out he’s a “very good” vet) and basically holds his fellow tourists hostage. And somehow, in far off Japan, the sad life of a deaf mute teenage girl whose mother committed suicide connects with these people in ways none will ever know.

If you’ve ever read a David Mitchell novel, this is familiar territory. His novels often feature similar themes of human connectivity, although the underlying story tends to be more substantive.

Babel is beautifully acted by all involved. We already know Pitt and Blanchett can act, but the non-AmerEnglish speaking actors are phenomenal. The fact that the Japanese girl didn’t garner an Oscar for her performance is a criminal offense. It’s well known that the Academy favors performances featuring damaged characters and none are more damaged than her.

Director Alejandro González Iñárritu provides a fever dream style of shooting reminiscent of Soderberg, but with jarring intrusions no doubt designed to keep us awake. There are so specific memorable images but this isn’t a film that calls for such things. The whole point is the random, improbable elements of chance and human experience.

A quality, ambitious film.

**** out of *****

GREEN’S “IS THERE A DOCTOR ON THE BUS?” REVIEW:

This film reminded me a lot of “Magnolia” (which we reviewed here.) because there are several separate stories going on all at the same time, except these stories happen on a worldwide, cross-cultural, multi-lingual scale instead of a local one. The four seemingly unrelated stories are unfolding all at once and only near the end do we realize how the one seemingly disconnected story from all the others is really the angle from which all of this mayhem originates and through which all are connected.

A Moroccan man sells an automatic rifle to a nearby farmer (Mustapha Rachidi), who charges his boys with killing jackals in the desert. Instead, one boy fires the gun at a distant tour bus on the road below to demonstrate the weapon’s apparent lack of range. A Japanese deaf-mute teen (Rinko Kikuchi) is trying to find her place in the social structure of her culture while trying to cope with her disability, the death of her mother and the absence of her working father (Koji Yakusho) who had just been to Morocco on a business trip (a fact we don‘t realize until much later in the film). A Mexican housekeeper/nanny (Adriana Barraza) in San Diego is forced to take the two American children she is watching to her son’s wedding across the border in Mexico, because the parents are away on vacation in Morocco. Two American tourists (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) are sitting at an outdoor café in Morocco arguing. Later they are riding on a tour bus through the desert when a stray bullet...

Of course there’s more depth and detail to the story than I’m telling you. You’ll have to watch to find out the rest, but you get the idea.

Babel isn't only about (intentional or unintentional, it doesn't matter) gun violence and its tragic consequences. It's about communication and/or the lack of it. It is also about how much of a global community our world has become, where one seemingly innocuous event can have consequences reaching around the world and across cultures.

The film doesn’t lack in its share of indelible moments, many of which are pretty stark and grim and yet the story doesn’t lose any of its potency or emotional impact. This film’s run time of 143 minutes is much more palatable than that of Magnolia (which was 45 minutes longer...)

Interesting to me is the film’s title: no doubt derived from the multi-cultural, multi-language barrier for the different story lines and is certainly an indirect reference to the Biblical events depicted in Genesis 11:1-9 {go ahead and look it up… you know you want to.}

The seemingly unrelated stories are brilliantly edited together by writers Guillermo Arriaga and Alejandro González Iñárritu, who also directed (they also collaborated on “21 Grams” which was reviewed here.) the film. The film’s headliner stars are Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, who both give remarkable performances, along with the rest of the ensemble cast giving fine performances all around.

Babel was nominated for seven Academy Awards in 2006, including Best Picture, Best Director and two nods for Best Supporting Actress (Barraza and Kikuchi). Surprisingly, Babel only took home one Oscar, for Best Achievement in Music. That’s ironic to me because I hardly noticed the music while I was watching, so involved in the story I was. It didn’t bother me one bit that the two Best Supporting Actress nominees, despite excellent performances, didn’t win. Pitt or Blanchett, the film’s biggest names, could have just as easily been nominated.

I’ll admit that sometimes I end up buying the DVD’s of the movies that we review here. Even though the film is gripping and definitely worthwhile to watch, it is not a film that I would choose to see again anytime soon.

***½ out of *****

Babel (2006, R, 143 minutes) starring Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Mustapha Rachidi, Rinko Kikuchi, Adriana Barraza and Koji Yakusho. The film was written by Guillermo Arriaga and Alejandro González Iñárritu and directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu.

Enchanted

2009-08-25T23:13:00.013-04:00

This was a movie that originally I was going to review for my weekly SNMR column over on my regular blog. But then I thought how fun it would be to get the scribester's take on this syrupy-sweet Disney film because I just know how much he looooooves to watch them. However, I don't think that's going to happen, due to some issues he's dealing with right now that are far more pressing than this column. If at some point he'd like to add his review to this post, I'd love to read it.

GREEN'S "IT'S LIKE YOU ESCAPED FROM A HALLMARK CARD OR SOMETHING" REVIEW:

A young, beautiful maiden, Giselle of Andalasia (Amy Adams), is about to marry Prince Edward (James Marsden) and live happily ever after. On the way to the wedding, Giselle is pushed into a magic well by the insanely jealous and evil Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon) who is disguised as an ugly old hag.

The well turns out to be a portal that leads to a place where happily-ever-afters don't exist! Once Prince Edward learns where Giselle has gone, he enthusiastically goes after her, followed by Pip, the talking squirrel and Nathaniel (Timothy Spall), who is promised a relationship with the queen if he can successfully kill Giselle. Enter Robert (Patrick Dempsey), a New York divorce lawyer and his daughter Morgan (Rachel Covey), who take Giselle in and reluctantly let her stay the night...

When this movie was playing in theaters, I never gave it a thought to take my kids to see it. When it came out on DVD and my kids saw it in the store where I buy many of my movies, they begged me to get it for them. This I refused to do, since I thought the movie was going to be stupid. Months later, when I saw that the price had come down significantly I bought it but didn't unwrap it. At the same time I borrowed it from the library, figuring if I watched it and if it truly was as dumb as I thought, then I would return the copy I bought and get my money back.

What I didn't expect was to like this movie as much as I did. (I must've liked it - I watched it three times in a span of four days.) Sure, it's a syrupy, sappy, saccharine sweet fairy tale of a movie. But that's okay because it doesn't presume to be anything else. What makes this film so good is that they've taken the best elements of the classic animated Disney fairy tales Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Snow White and combined them into a part animation, mostly live action film that I, in spite of myself, couldn't help but smile and laugh at.

Amy Adams, who brings an enthusiasm to her roles that not many actors today can match, is simply brilliant as the wide eyed, eternally optimistic Giselle, the would-be princess who is suddenly thrust into the wilds of New York City by the evil witch. James Marsden is equally good as the incredibly goofy Prince Edward. If this film has a weak link in the cast, it is female eye-candy Patrick Dempsey, who at times is really into his role but other times looks like he's bored and disinterested in his character. Susan Sarandon is good as the voice of the animated witch but when she comes to New York, her costume looks like she's a vamp-tramp hooker or something worse, rather than queen-evil-incarnate. Look for actress Jodi Benson in a bit part as Dempsey's secretary. She provided the voice of Ariel in the 1989 Disney animated classic "The Little Mermaid."

"Enchanted" had three of the five nominated songs at the Academy Awards in 2008, which at the time I thought was silly. How could one movie carry three-fifths of the best movie songs of the year? Though none of them won the Oscar for Best Original Song, they still are really well done and add life and fun to the film.

The special features on the DVD are short but well done, explaining some of the CGI effects used and choreography of the musical numbers.

If you're able to sit through this movie and not laugh or smile at least ten times, then you're inhuman or you're lying. This movie is a feel good winner in every sense of the word.

***** out of *****

Enchanted (2007, PG, 107 minutes), starring Amy Adams, Patrick Dempsey, James Marsden, Timothy Spall, Susan Sarandon, Idina Menzel and Rachel Covey. The screenplay was written by Bill Kelly and directed by Kevin Lima.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

2009-08-07T22:41:00.025-04:00

Apparently Scribe and I are in the midst of a summer lull in posting reviews to the blog, for which I apologize. The following review was not originally scheduled but written as a result of the sudden death of writer/producer/director John Hughes at the young age of 59.

I had a nice review going that was almost complete when blogger ate it. So here goes again. Perhaps scribe-o will throw his review in here too at some point, though I know he's not a fan of John Hughes...

GREEN'S "I'LL BET YOU NEVER SMELLED A REAL SCHOOL BUS BEFORE" REVIEW:

On a beautiful spring/early summer day, uber-slacker Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick) decides to skip a day of high school, bringing along his girlfriend Sloane (Mia Sara) and best friend Cameron Frye (Alan Ruck). They spend a very memorable day touring downtown Chicago, including eating at an extremely upper crusty restaurant, seeing a Cubs game, visiting an art museum and watching Ferris' impromptu singing performance in some parade. Meanwhile Ferris' sister Jeanne (Jennifer Grey) is upset because her brother gets away with everything and never gets caught. School principal Edward Rooney (Jeffrey Jones) knows Ferris is ditching school and goes on a personal vendetta to try and catch him this time.

This film was released in 1986, as I was finishing my junior year of high school and working at the local General Cinema in the mall, at that time a small four screen theater. I have a fondness for many of the movies that were playing at that time because I could see any movie I wanted at any time for nothin'. And I did! Because of that there are scenes in this film that I've seen hundreds of times, like the parade float scene to name one. And let's face it, there were some of us who thought high school was a bit ridiculous at times and would have loved to skip school, even for a day. I would have gotten caught however. Karma, if you believe in that, doesn't run my way too often.

Writer/director John Hughes does an excellent job bringing out the talents of then relatively unknown actors. Overall the casting was excellent, even the bit parts, like Ferris' happily clueless parents, Rooney's ditsy secretary and the snooty restaurant maitre'd. The film has many funny moments and many quotable lines. Plus, all his other accomplishments aside, this is the film that made Ben Stein famous.

You may think that Hughes' films are cheesy and I, for the most part, will agree with you. There definitely is an element of undeniable cheesiness to Hughes' films, but to me that's one of the reasons why they are so much fun. Every film can't be an Oscar-caliber dramatic masterpiece, and Hughes' films don't pretend to be. However, if you say Hughes was a talentless hack, I'll have to disagree. In my mind a hack is someone who copies the work of others, who really has little or nothing of value to add to a genre. What makes Hughes' films memorable, and thus why they helped define the decade of the 1980's, is that no one really made films about high school and that whole experience, up until that point. At least none that I can think of.

I think this film was great and one of Hughes best, among the many memorable movies that he wrote/produced/directed. I hadn't watched this film in a while but enjoyed it tremendously all the same.

****½ out of *****

SCRIBE'S "SO THAT'S HOW IT IS IN THAT FAMILY" REVIEW:

I titled my review that because it's the only funny part of this overrated mess of a film. The opening scene where Ferris gets his buddy Cameron to impersonate his girlfriend's dad is the first and final inspired portion of a film that never seems to know what it wants to be. It's almost as if Hughes tried to throw everything that was successful from his previous efforts into a fantasy about a mysteriously popular kid skipping school for the day. Nobody skipped school better than me at this time so I could relate to the idea of not wanting to go in. But that's about all I could relate to.

Without getting too sociopolitical on your asses, Hughes' films were a study in whitebread suburban Eighties life. I couldn't relate to the characters in his films, nor the experiences they had, nor the incessant whining so often associated with the spoiled characters. In my circles, people who treated their parents like they were idiots still had to pay for it. For me, watching this film was like studying a foreign culture and realizing I didn't like them very much.

For one thing, the impossibility of Bueller's popularity is an enormous stumbling block. Green, like I, remembers the Eighties. What distinguished that decade from the others was that there were so many cliques and so much segregation that it was unlikely that some guy wearing a varsity jacket who doesn't play sports and sounds like a neurotic New York Jew in Chicago would have been popular with every single clique in his high school. Another thing, there really isn't anything cool about Bueller. He's kind of a smarmy nerd. We would have kicked his ass in my high school...well, actually I would've just watched like I always did.

Hughes came near to brilliance with "The Breakfast Club," an admittedly stock character filled two-act play type of film that tapped beautifully into suburban and adolescent angst like no other film before it. The success of that movie seemed to convince him that he needed to start creating whitebread fantasies instead of gritty realism and that's what we have here.

There isn't a single laugh in the film after the first scene and the "story" meanders until the incredibly contrived moment with Cameron's parents' car flying through the garage.

If anything, this was the beginning of Hughes' descent into utter garbage which culminated with the "Home Alone" series.

0 out of *****

Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986, PG-13, 103 minutes), starring Matthew Broderick, Alan Ruck, Mia Sara, Jeffrey Jones and Jennifer Grey. The film was written, produced and directed by John Hughes.

Magnolia

2009-07-21T12:00:00.006-04:00

GREEN‘S TORRENTIAL DOWNPOUR OF FROGS REVIEW:

This has got to be one of the most eclectic and bizarre films I have seen in a long time. I had never seen it prior to a few days ago, in order to write this review. My friend at work also suggested this movie for us to review.

The movie has a run time of just over three hours and about an hour into it, I’m thinking, "What the heck kind of movie is this? What did my friend get me into?"

What you have with Magnolia is a bunch of scenes that all take place in the span of a single, rainy day. The characters are every day people: a police officer, a television game show host, a young brainy kid as a game-show contestant, a former child game-show contestant winner thirty years later living off of his game show fame, a bed ridden dying man, his much younger trophy wife, a visiting male nurse, a cocaine addict and a sexual self help guru. At first these scenes don’t seem to be related, but as the film goes on the connections become more and more evident. What makes these characters so compelling is that every one of them is brilliantly flawed.

The ensemble cast, for the most part, is excellent and includes Tom Cruise, Philip Baker Hall, Philip Seymour Hoffman, John C. O’Reilly, William H. Macy, Jason Robards, and Melora Walters. In my opinion, the weak link in the cast is Julianne Moore, of whom I’ve never been a fan.

Director Paul Thomas Anderson does a skillful job weaving these stories together. However the film teeters on having too many story lines with too many characters, so many that I almost gave up on the movie. My other complaint largely has to do with the run-time of three hours and eight minutes. Easily this movie could have accomplished the same thing in less time. The movie is about 30-45 minutes too long.

Oh yeah, one more thing. What gives with the freaking frogs?

My friend suggested that they needed some catastrophic thing to happen at the end of the movie to tie in to the narrative piece at the beginning and end of the movie. He suggests the raining of frogs was foreshadowed earlier by someone in the game show audience holding up a sign with the Bible reference of Exodus 8:2, which speaks of the plague of frogs God brought upon the Egyptians for Pharaoh’s continued refusal to free the Israelites from the bonds of slavery. However the Biblical plague entailed live frogs coming up out of the Nile River and infesting everything, not dead frogs falling from the sky like extremely large chunks of hail. Nice try but I don’t buy into that explanation.

Unfortunately I had to return the library copy of the DVD, so I didn’t get to watch any of the bonus features on the 2^nd disc.

Loathe as I am to suggest it, this is a film that screams, (gasp) “potentially better with a second viewing!”

***½ out of *****

SCRIBE'S BEST MULI-STORY ARC EVER REVIEW:

It is rare that a film can be both an ensemble piece and move with balletic grace for a running time of nearly three hours, yet “Magnolia” pulls it off.

This was Paul Thomas Anderson’s eagerly awaited follow-up to “Boogie Nights” and it was met with a mixed response. People expecting another descent into glorious sleaze as with the previous film were left cold by the more philosophical and grown-up Magnolia. But those who appreciated brilliant writing and acting were stunned by this film’s grace and deep emotional core.

This is a film for anyone who’s lost a parent or felt disconnected from the things other people seem to take for granted. Featuring a veritable who’s who of acting, the film showcases the various lives of a cop, a motivational speaker for men, a hospice nurse and a trophy wife who has suddenly discovered that she loves her dying husband.

This isn’t an action film; Anderson keeps the narrative moving with brilliant editing. Long before “Traffic” and “Crash” gave us the multi-story arc, Magnolia lets us see inside these peoples’ minds and hearts as they are bared for us in ways that are both revealing and uncomfortable.

Many criticized the film’s bizarre conclusion because they didn’t understand it. Analytical types were left completely baffled by it. Perhaps because it hints at if not divine intervention then certainly divine revelation, some felt the realism of the earlier portion of the film was sacrificed. They are wrong.

This is one of the great underrated masterpieces.

***** out of *****

Looks like we need more MOVIE TRIVIA!

2009-07-11T18:29:00.000-04:00

Unbelievable the support and enthusiasm I had for the last movie trivia post I did back in April. Unbelievably lame, that is.

Come on people! I know those questions were not easy but at least y'all could have given it a shot!

OK. Here's 10 more questions this time (instead of 20) plus a bonus question.

1) What is the name of the secret candy Willy Wonka created that Charlie wouldn't accept from him?

2) What actress appeared in all of the following films: Dick Tracy, A League of Their Own, Body of Evidence and Shanghai Surprise?

3) Name the film whose tag line stated, "You won't believe your eye."

4) Name the rocker who played the Acid Queen in the Who's Tommy

5) Name the film that Matthew McConaughey did not appear in: A Time to Kill, Gangs of New York, Contact, Amistad or Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.

6) Spencer Tracy won the Oscar for Best Actor two years in a row, in 1937 (Captains Courageous) and 1938 (Boys Town). Name the only other actor to do it and the films for which he won.

7) A tagline for this 1984 film exclaimed, "The Heat Is On!" Name the film.

8) Name the actor who appeared in all of the following films: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Return of the Jedi, Leprechaun, and Willow.

9) What was the name of Humphrey Bogart's character in "The Maltese Falcon?"

10) In what film did Robin Williams make his big screen debut?

bonus) Name the actor who has appeared onscreen with Jennifer Aniston, Rachel Weisz, Jennifer Connelly, Reese Witherspoon, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jennifer Garner.

Spirited Away

2009-07-02T23:50:00.005-04:00

SCRIBE'S...UM...I GOT NOTHIN' REVIEW:

One thing I love about this blog is that it often forces me to watch films I’ve wanted to see for years but have never been in the mood to actually watch. “Spirited Away” actually played in an art theater not far from my house but I could never get anyone to go see it with me and, eventually, I forgot about it. It sat on the shelves of my video store and my library but I never took it home until I was challenged to review it.

What a great film. For those unfamiliar with Miyazaki’s work, he is often referred to as the Walt Disney of Japan, although I find that to be a highly insulting comparison. Miyazaki is a true artist, an originator of images and concepts that Disney would have disregarded in favor of profit and exploitation of children, whom he secretly despised.

The film’s plot concerns a young, whiny girl whose parents are forcing her to move to the country. On the way to their new home, they stop briefly at a place that looks like an old, abandoned amusement park. They soon discover piles and piles of apparently fresh prepared food and start eating…and eating…and eating until they are turned into pigs.

From there, the girl finds herself thrown into a whirlwind of other dimensional creatures and customs that make absolutely no sense to her. Just being a human in this place is like bringing a new disease and so she must seek out work for protection while trying to find a way to rescue her parents.

Miyazaki’s animation runs wild and free of the physical constraints he imposed upon himself in “Princess Mononoke.” Here he creates a vivid world entirely different from our own that seems to never stop building into newer and more fascinating images of three-dimensional weirdness. And through it all, the human component is never sacrificed or lost.

When I found out Disney was the U.S. distributor for this film, I blanched. Then I shuddered, vomited violently and passed out for hours. However, their involvement is actually a good thing. The voice actors are phenomenal, no surprise since Disney uses only the best when it comes to that. One of my chief gripes about great anime' films has been the mediocre voice-over work.

Some parts of the film get a little slow, but each time you might think you’re growing bored, some new development occurs that breathes new life into the story. The arrival of the character known as “No-Face” alone is worth the entire movie! If that part doesn’t grab you, there’s also the train ride sequence, which is stunningly rendered.

I’m not sure I’d recommend this one for small children, though. Unlike Japanese kids, American kids are sheltered from everything to the point where the mere sight of blood can cause lifelong trauma. Sure their video games are gory but there’s no personal involvement in what’s going on like there is here.

See this one!

***** out of *****

GREEN’S BEING HUMAN IS LIKE HAVING A DISEASE REVIEW:

The first time I watched “Spirited Away“ was about four or five years ago. It was being shown on Cartoon Network and my daughter wanted to watch it. Previous to this, I had never heard of director Hayao Miyazaki or seen any of his other films. Since then I’ve seen this movie many times. Thanks to my daughter, this and several of Miyazaki’s other films are a part of my DVD collection.

The story is about a ten year old girl named Chihiro, whose parents are forcing her to move to a brand new house in a brand new town with a brand new school. And she’s not very happy about it at all. On the way to the new house, they take a wrong turn and are forced to stop at the end of a clearing in the woods. At the clearing there’s a building with a solitary, tunnel-like doorway.

Out of curiosity and due to the smell of food, Chihiro’s parents wander through the tunnel and across a field and end up at what looks like an abandoned amusement park. Chihiro reluctantly goes with them.

Walking through the empty streets of the park, Chihiro’s parents find mounds of steaming hot food at one of the restaurants and begin to eat and eat and eat and eat. Chihiro refuses to join in and runs away. As the sun goes down, the abandoned theme park comes to life with spirits of all kinds. When Chihiro returns to her parents, she discovers that they have been turned into large, ugly pigs.

Chihiro must now discover why her parents were changed into pigs and try to rescue them. She is befriended by a boy named Haku who tells her to insist on getting a job in the bath house, so she can continue to look for her parents in the spirit world. The bath house is run by an evil witch named Ubaba who controls the creatures who work there by stealing their names so that they forget who they are. Humans are not looked upon fondly in this spirit world. Chihiro is given the new name Sen.

There’s more to the story, but you’ll have to watch to find out more.

Yes, this is an animated movie, but please don’t let this hinder you from watching it. In comparison to the more familiar Disney or Warner Bros. styles of animation which we‘re used to, Japanese animation has the look of moving artwork rather than a cartoon. Miyazaki’s characters have depth and his storytelling ability is excellent. Disney has cultivated an excellent working relationship with Studio Ghibli to bring Miyazaki’s movies to the United States. They’ve done a masterful job with the English language version of this and other Miyazaki films, making them more appealing to American audiences by using well known English speaking voice talent. This is much better than keeping the original Japanese and using English subtitles.

This film is just over two hours long but you wouldn’t know it because the story is engrossing. This movie is not just for kids, adults will enjoy it too. If you haven’t experienced a Miyazaki film, you are missing out. “Spirited Away“ is an excellent choice to start with.

***** out of *****

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2009-06-17T17:26:00.008-04:00

GREEN'S HOW TO BE AN INTELLECTUAL TERRORIST REVIEW:

Ben Stein: "So you have no idea how it started?"
Dr. Richard Dawkins: "No, n-n-o, no, no, nor has anybody."
Stein: "Nor has anyone else."
Dawkins: "No."

Of course, Stein's "it" refers to the origins of life.

Dawkins goes on to say that he thinks God is about as unlikely as fairies, angels, hobgoblins, etc. and that anyone who has a belief in God or religion is irrational.

So Richard, if you nor anyone else supposedly in the know (that would be scientists, in case you were wondering) has any idea how "it" started, then why not Intelligent Design or, dare I say, God?

This is a fundamental question I've been asking for quite a long time but have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. This is the same essential question Ben Stein is trying to have answered in this documentary movie.

Stein talks with scientists in academia who have lost their jobs not for teaching intelligent design but for the mere mention of it as an alternative to Darwinism in papers that they've submitted. Of course, these great academic institutions of higher learning deny this as the reason for the firings, otherwise they'd be facing lawsuits up the wazoo for discrimination. Wow. If Darwinism and evolution are undoubtedly true, what does the scientific institution have to worry about? If evolution is on such rock solid ground, why use strong armed guerrilla tactics to suppress alternate ideas?

This documentary is not, I repeat, NOT about the right to teach Intelligent Design over Darwinism in schools and Universities. Rather, it's about the suppression of ideas and freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment. Restrictions on rights that shouldn't be infringed upon in a supposedly "free" country. This infringement is akin to censorship and reminds us of those wonderful regimes who brought such good things to world history. Regimes such as communist China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Regimes that officially banned religion as state policy.

Stein interviews scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism and the theory of evolution and some of those who are its most ardent supporters, including Dawkins himself.

Stein also delves into the question of how Darwinism leads to atheism, with Richard Dawkins as the star witness. This is not to say that all those who believe in evolution as fact are atheist or will become atheist, but that's the road that Darwinism inevitably leads down.

Stein, being of Jewish heritage, tours some of the WWII concentration camps in Europe. He takes some time for personal reflection about the horrors committed there thanks to Darwinistic thinking and "preservation of the superior race" as popularized by Chucky D from his little book and carried to the extreme by the Nazis. Truly the most somber section of the whole documentary.

One of the things I wondered about while watching is if you were entrenched in your position on the side of evolution and watched this documentary, would you be swayed to consider the alternatives or would you remain steadfast in your beliefs? Do you let your science take you where the evidence leads, no matter what or do you let your world view shape your science? I think I can guess the answers for most of you who will read this.

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" asks excellent questions and raises good points for discussion. It is well thought out and well written. I thoroughly enjoyed watching this documentary and I believe you will too.

***** out of *****

SCRIBE'S HOW SERIOUSLY CAN ONE TAKE A FORMER NIXON SPEECHWRITER & COMEDIAN WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE REVIEW:

As it turns out, Ben Stein, the conservative Nixon speechwriter turned comedian/actor has an ax to grind with academia. As shocking as this, it also turns out he is pissed at those who claim Evolutionary theory is more logically sound than Intelligent Design. And here's the real head turner...he decided to make a movie about it.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is Stein's attempt at getting to the bottom of the firings of certain teaching professionals around the nation who dared mention the mere possibility of Intelligent Design in regards to the origins of humanity. It is actually a noble aim on the surface because the true aim of academic research is supposed to be the ability to ask questions no matter where they may lead.

Stein takes his cameraman all over the globe in search of a reason behind why people are being silenced and losing their jobs. Is there a Darwinian Industrial Complex? I made that term up.

The evidence Stein uncovers would seem to indicate there is one, sadly. Science has become a realm of narrow thinking bureaucrats hell-bent on preserving whatever they hold to be true rather than allowing for alternatives in thought.

Ironically, Stein the so-called "comedian" is rarely funny or amusing in this documentary or anywhere else for that matter. He's about as dry as day-old toast and in no way compelling enough to carry us through his film, a stark contrast to the robust screen presence of Bill Maher in his superior film, Religulous. In fact, Expelled works best when other people are doing the talking... Of course, some would argue that all documentaries should work that way but Michael Moore might kick their asses.

When Stein is interviewing stuffy university department heads blustering on about why these people lost their jobs or talking to scientists who implied an Intelligent Design possibility that doesn't even necessitate the existence of God, that's when the film is at its most compelling. When it tries to tie in fascistic regimes and politics, it fails on all fronts.

Stein's visit to the Concentration Camps is a heavy-handed attempt to make a point he doesn't seem to realize he's making without this side trip. Maybe I should do a documentary some day on the evils of unfettered capitalism by visiting slavery plantations and the Bastille since I am mixed with both heritages. Stein loses momentum during this portion of the film to the point where his big "Roger & Me" moment with Richard Dawkins lacks much of the significant punch it could have packed had we not sat through the high school civics lesson.

By the way, Richard Dawkins is a piss poor spokesperson for not believing in God. Holy shit in a shoebox! Perhaps he is an intelligent man in his own regard, an idiot savant at the least, but he comes across as a yammering halfwit when confronted with the simple questions mentioned in Green's review. In fact, he basically admits the possibly of Intelligent Design by the end, implying an alien life form or intelligence could have been the originator... Bastard stole my belief system.

At the end, Expelled does what any successful documentary should do. It leaves the answers up the audience~

*** out of *****

CLASSIC REVIEW: To Live and Die in LA

2009-06-08T23:23:00.005-04:00

SCRIBE'S DESCENT INTO MORAL AMBIGUITY BY WAY OF THE SEWER REVIEW:

It’s funny to see one of your favorite childhood movies again as an adult many, many years later. A certain measure of nostalgia naturally occurs, but very often you find yourself watching the film from an entirely different perspective. In some cases, unfortunately, the films don’t hold up to the test of time and become a symbol of regret followed by a pointless wish that you could forget you’d watch it as an adult and hold onto your memories instead.

To Live and Die in LA is one of those films.

Featuring for the first time in film history a group of modern-day bad-ass Treasury Agents, this film was the Eighties equivalent of The French Connection with William Petersen in the Popeye Doyle role. Except, this law enforcement official is really no better than the psychotic counterfeiter he’s chasing, played by an intensely evil Willem Dafoe. What makes him so bad, you ask? He’s a slave-owner.

No, seriously. He keeps a former prostitute as his own personal squeeze toy. The woman (Darlanne Fluegel, the official Eighties cop flick wife) basically exists to pleasure him when he needs it and serves as a sounding board when he needs to unload what little feelings he has. He’s also breaking in a new partner and seems bound and determined to turn him into a bitter, hateful bastard as well.

The film is sufficiently violent and gritty but what it’s sorely missing is a personal stake on the part of the viewer. One of my short stories was recently criticized because it didn’t have any likable characters in it and, while I strongly disagree that that’s a necessity, we should at least be interested in what’s happening. I’ve never really considered counterfeiting to be a heinous crime so Dafoe’s character seems a bit over the top. Besides, unless you’re a law and order type, there is no one to root for and nothing to care about.

To Live and Die in LA is an Eighties film featuring a Seventies style anti-hero but somebody forgot to make him even remotely relatable. What results is a series of well-crafted, pre-CGI stunt and action pieces punctuated with reprehensible human beings trying to kill each other for personal beefs that don’t translate well on screen. There is a shocking moment in the film that is still very effective where, without giving too much away, the dynamics change dramatically in an instant. But again there’s no emotional investment.

Still, if you’re looking for a morally bankrupt tale of avarice and human vice, look no further. Eighties Brit Pop group Wang Chung’s musical score serves the film well as it elevates some of the moments from cheesy to transcendental. It is, ironically, the only thing about this film that holds up, which is probably why it’s still one of my favorite soundtracks.

Sometimes memory lane is not the street we remember.

** out of *****

GREEN'S "YOU'RE WORKING FOR ME NOW" REVIEW:

This movie was recommended to me by a couple of my friends at work back in February. Naturally, having never seen it before, I was willing to take a chance.

The story begins when a secret service agent is killed investigating a counterfeit operation who gets too close to the bad guys in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Enter William Chance, played by William Petersen (of CSI fame), a fanatical, live by the seat of your pants secret service agent who seeks revenge for the murder of his partner. Eric Masters, played by Willem Dafoe, is the artist/counterfeiter/bad guy du jour. Chance's new partner is the straight laced John Vukovich, played by John Pankow. Chance vows to take Masters down any way possible, dragging Vukovich along for the ride.

The story has a gritty, live feel to it. Thanks to the benefit of twenty four years and an excellent "making of" featurette included on the DVD, we learn that much of the movie is improvisation and shooting on the fly by director William Friedkin. Many times Friedkin told his actors that they were doing a rehearsal but had the camera rolling and captured many scenes on the very first take.

This is not your typical buddy-buddy cop film or good guy-bad guy film. Both the good guys and bad guys are extremely flawed, driven by greed, hubris and a lust for money and power. There is a fine line separating the good guys from the bad guys which make the characters interesting because you never quite know which way a scene will turn until it's done. The car chase sequence is excellently shot and edited. You can feel the fear of Pankow's character sitting in the back seat of the car being jostled about during the chase.

Petersen is excellent in this role and Dafoe is one of the most fluent actors working today, being able to play both good guys and bad guys with equal ease and believability. The supporting cast is also excellent and features John Turturro, Dean Stockwell, Darlanne Fluegel and Robert Downey, Sr.

The plot twist Scribe mentions above certainly threw me off. I totally was not expecting to see what I saw. Nor was I expecting, but might have predicted had I thought about it, the scene at the end of the movie, from which I drew my title for this review.

Before I read that Wang Chung, that crazy 80's British one hit wonder band, did the soundtrack I hardly would have believed it. Yet they did an admirable job with it.

I found this film to be exciting and edgy and well worth the $10 I spent to buy the DVD.

**** out of *****

Star Trek

2009-06-02T19:00:00.003-04:00

SCRIBE'S SPOCK'S A PIMP IN AN ALTERNATE REALITY REVIEW:

Ok, so I probably gave away the plot in the title of my review but so what? This is one of those films which, if you're any kind of Star Trek fan, you want to know the plot of before you plant your no doubt well-sculpted rump in the theater seat.

In a nustshell, JJ Abrams and his "Fringe" writers found a way to re-imagine Star Trek without affecting the originals' accepted history. For those who don't know the origins of Kirk and Spock, much of this won't come as a surprise but those who do the first few minutes will be shocking.

When a Starfleet vessel encounters a mysterious and incredibly advanced ship emerging from an apparent black hole, its commander demanding to speak with "Ambassador Spock" whom no one on the Starfleet ship had heard of, it's already obvious something is amiss. Basically, events in the future (Star Trek's future, not ours) have caused the creation of an alternate reality wherein our beloved characters are slightly altered due to the events of that fateful meeting.

Bear this in mind: This crew is the original crew in name only. Aside from a new cast of actors, the changes made to their timeline create a new starting point for most of them. This provides Abrams and company ample opportunity to do something new without pissing on previous Trek series and films.

The acting is top notch, the direction is as well. Only tight-asses incapable of accepting difference won't like it. I have already seen it twice and am planning to go back.

***** out of *****

GREEN'S "WHY WON'T YOU TELL ME YOUR FIRST NAME?" REVIEW:

I've never been a die-hard, fanatical Trekkie, as some people are. I can certainly appreciate the Star Trek genre and the impact the iconic show (even with the cheesy special effects) and spin offs have had on American culture in the last 40+ years. However, I must admit that when I learned of JJ Abrams plans to make a new Star Trek movie, I was a little more than a tad skeptical. I wondered if the movie would be any good or that a story could be found worth the telling in the Star Trek milieu, figuring with the television shows and all of the other movies in the series that we'd just about seen it all.

Now I'll bet you didn't realize that JJ Abrams was the producer of one of my favorite television shows "Alias" and also of "Lost" and that the script for Star Trek was written by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, who each wrote ten episodes of Alias.

This edition of Star Trek is a prequel to the original television series and original cast movies (which Scribe and I reviewed in this space last year - see the sidebar to check out those reviews) and tells the story of the origins of James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine), Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) and reveals how Kirk meets Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Checkov (Anton Yelchin), Sulu (John Cho), Bones McCoy (Karl Urban), and Mr. Scott (Simon Pegg) as they work their way through the ranks of Starfleet and how they all come to be serving together on the USS Enterprise.

More than this about the plot I'm not going to say because I don't want to spoil it for you. I did have one major plot question regarding Spock's mother and the planet Vulcan which I hope will be addressed in the sequel prequel.

The story is excellently written, moves at a great pace and is full of action and super special effects. It's obvious that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman hold the Roddenberry's ample legacy in the highest regard. That's a good thing. I'm definitely going to buy this DVD when it comes out in a few months, with all of the special features and the making of documentary stuff that I like. However, this is a movie that must be - needs to be - experienced on the big screen of a movie theater.

As my brother said to me a few days ago - this may be the best of all the Star Trek films. That's a big leap to make... and I just might have to agree with him. In any case this film holds its own with those that have come before.

***** out of *****

To Die For

2009-05-26T12:16:00.011-04:00

GREEN'S STRAIGHT FROM THE PAMELA SMART SCHOOL OF MANIPULATIVE BITCHINESS REVIEW:

A work friend of mine suggested this movie one day when we were talking about - what else - movies. Of course, I had never seen it before a few days ago when I watched it for this review. But I really didn’t need to. See, I knew the basic story already because this film is based on the real life story of Pamela Smart (pictured at her 1991 trial, below left) and it happened right across the border in Derry, New Hampshire, during the time when I was in college. I got the real life version in the news for several weeks (months, with the trial and all?) Believe me, the coverage around these parts was huge.

Of course, for this movie they’ve changed some of the details and the names of the characters involved. In real life Pam Smart was a teacher, in the film Suzanne Stone is an aspiring television personality. Even the city and county in New Hampshire are fictitious.

Nicole Kidman is excellent as the narcissistic, manipulative Suzanne Stone. She won a Best Actress Golden Globe for her performance but strangely was not even nominated for an Academy Award in 1995. Matt Dillon is good as her blindly loving husband, Larry Maretto. Illeana Douglas gives a very emotional performance as Larry‘s sister Janice. The movie also features a young Joaquin Phoenix and Casey Affleck. Director Gus Van Sant for the most part does a good job keeping the story moving, though I thought that the beginning of the movie dragged in a few spots.

I liked the documentary “after the fact” format Van Sant utilizes to tell the story. It makes the movie more interesting instead of using the traditional third party point of view or the first person point of view.

This is an entertaining film that I think you’ll enjoy.

***½ out of *****

SCRIBE'S WHY WERE NINETIES TEENS SO SCREWED UP? REVIEW:

This is one of my favorite movies. I knew it was based on actual events but had no idea Green was involved...wait, I just reread his review...scratch that last part. Sorry, Green.

This was Nicole Kidman's bid for legitimacy in the acting world and she nailed it. As the bitchy, covetous, manipulative and yes, very sexy media member wanna-be Suzannae Stone, she brings a stunning amount of depth to an otherwise vaporous character.

The documentary/talk show format Van Sant uses is a brilliant choice and now typical of the Nineties outlook on intrusive media (see Natural Born Killers & The Chase for examples). Were the film made now there would no doubt be some web cast references and nobody would be all that phased because everybody is Suzanne Stone now.

What was once shocking is now normal. Stone's belief that we're nobody if we're not on TV because nobody's watching is so ingrained in people today that the film seems at times more like a period piece than a timeless cautionary tale.

The acting is great. Matt Dillon plays good-natured dumb-asses better than practically anyone and a young Joaquin Phoenix brings a psychotic innocence to the teen boy who eventually does Stone's bidding that is compelling the way of a car accident. Casey Affleck is also very good although not given as much to do.

I want to read the novel now. This is a great film and deserved the Oscar much more than Fargo, which pains me to write as I am a huge Cohen Brothers fan~

***** out of *****

KISS KISS BANG BANG

2009-05-17T09:00:00.005-04:00

GREEN'S "DID THE DOG JUST EAT MY FINGER?" REVIEW:

Harry Lockhart (Downey, Jr.) is a small time New York thief who ends up at a party in Hollywood after stumbling in on a movie audition and winning a call back. At this same party is his childhood friend Harmony (Monaghan), who is trying to make it as an actress, though he doesn’t realize who she is until later that night when they meet at a club. Harry is offered detective lessons to help with his acting in the movie by Perry (Kilmer), a gay LA Private Eye. When Harmony’s little sister is found dead in a LA hotel room, Harry, Perry and Harmony get caught up in a real life murder mystery/conspiracy that parallels the Johnny Gossamer crime novels that Harmony loved so much as a kid.

I found “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” in the $5 DVD bin at Wal-Mart a few months ago and bought it without ever having seen it because it looked interesting but primarily because of the excellent headlining cast of Robert Downey, Jr. and Val Kilmer. I’ve enjoyed their movies for almost twenty-five years, starting with Downey, Jr. for his bit part in "Weird Science" and Kilmer for the excellent but underrated "Real Genius" (both came out in 1985.) Having Michelle Monaghan in it, to me, was a bonus. She's excellent in this film - a great casting choice here. This is the third movie that she’s been in that I’ve seen, and I thought she was good in one and decent in the other.

Shane Black, whose writing credentials are unquestioned, having written the first two immensely popular Lethal Weapon films (and writing credits on the others), makes his directorial debut with this film, which he also wrote. Black handles himself well in the director’s chair, keeping the story crisp and at a good pace. I’ve often said that it helps when the writer of a story/screenplay is also it’s director, and this movie is no exception. Black has come up with a story that won’t surprise you, because you’ve seen this kind of film before. The story is engaging, the dialogue is sharp and witty and you feel invested in the characters. I find many films with narration to be incredibly annoying and distracting but here, the off-beat, incidental narration by the main character enhances the story.

If I had any problem with this film at all it would be that Val Kilmer is unconvincing as a gay man. Aside from the Gay Perry joke and the interesting place in which he keeps a small pistol, this tidbit really does nothing to add to the story. It is also a bit disappointing for me that Harry and Harmony don’t make it as a couple at the end, since they were childhood friends and there seemed to be an unspoken attraction between them throughout the picture.

Right from the opening credits this is a very enjoyable film. With a run time of 103 minutes, it's well worth your time to rent. If you can add "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" to your DVD collection for short money, like I did, even better.

**** out of *****

SCRIBE'S I WANNA BE A SUAVE GAY PRIVATE EYE REVIEW:

It happens every once in a while. Green and I are in almost total agreement!

I loved this film. The acting was top notch, of course, considering two of our greatest character actors are the stars. Michelle Monaghan was also excellent and quite the feast for the eyes.

Shane Black was always the bad boy screenwriter, having commanded the first million plus dollar deal for a writer with the original Lethal Weapon. His years of perspective have yielded a minor masterpiece.

My only disagreements come from the fact that I found Kilmer very much believable as a tough guy who is also gay and the fact that the film was better served by the fact that Downey and Monaghan don't wind up together at the end; it is the perfect statement on the transitory nature of Hollywood and the relationships that form there. Also, the lack of surprises is intentional because this is supposed to be a living Shane Black/Joel Silver type acton film.

I had trouble writing this review but Green's overview helped me out quite a bit. Sadly, this is the whole review because it would just be redundant if I went on.

**** out of *****

The Girl Next Door

2009-05-03T21:02:00.006-04:00

SCRIBE'S THANK GOD FOR TIMOTHY OLYPHANT REVIEW:

Green wanted me to see this movie so badly he bought it and mailed it to me. Apparently, he thought I’d enjoy it as much as he did because of my love for the adult film industry… OK, not the industry but the product it churns out. Sadly, I didn’t get around to watching it right away or we would’ve already posted our reviews weeks ago.

Being the happy go lucky contrarian I am, I wanted to hate this movie. I wanted to scribe a harsh and negative review and shock Green with my outrage. Instead, I had a mixed response to the film mostly having to do with some odd choices on the part of the screenwriters and the female lead.

“The Girl Next Door” is the tale of a teenage geek in the fine Hollywood tradition. In other words, the only thing that makes him a geek is his acting and dialogue as he looks like a teen model made to appear less than cool. We also know he’s a geek because his far less attractive friends are uber-dorks with libidos the size of SUV’s.

The protagonist has a bright future ahead of him what with the overachieving and the potential scholarship, etc. Then some chick moves in next door and rocks his world. It’s love at first leer for our intrepid geek and, through a set of circumstances a bit too contrived to be believable, he and the neighbor wind up going out in what is the weakest scene in the film. Basically, since he peeped her from his window, she forces him to get nekkid in the street because, as we all know, a shy teen would do that in a minute.

Earlier in the film, the kid joins a posse of rowdier party goers in an effort to experience life before he graduates and causes a cop to crash into a nearby truck. This is never mentioned or referenced again. Slipshod writing like this plagues the film’s first forty awkward and slow-moving minutes. Elisha Cuthbert’s “acting” is dreadful in this portion of the film. Literally all she does is pose for the camera, grin stupidly and try to look sexy. She’s not sexy. Sorry, Green.

Somewhere near the 40-minute mark, something truly miraculous occurs: a real actor shows up! One of my favorites, actually. “Deadwood’s” Timothy Olyphant is (Cuthbert’s) agent/producer/former love interest in a performance that is at turns funny, scary and just plain cool.

The screenwriters must be commended on realizing what a weak first act they had and doing something other teen-related films don’t. The big reveal of (Cuthbert) being a porn star and the subsequent break-up/attempt to reconnect occurs early on and doesn’t work out well for the protagonist. This would have been the end of any other film.

It’s a good thing the writers had more to say because Cuthbert’s unconvincing portrayal of a former porn star becomes really grating after a while. Even in a role like this one, we need a bit more than a pair of doe-like eyes and a nice (fake) rack. The character is meant to be three-dimensional and human but the actor playing her seems to be lacking in those areas.

Once Olyphant arrives, the film picks up considerably. Sub-plots and surprises galore come at the viewer with surprising speed and intelligence. The horrific opening act is buried in good acting (except Cuthbert) and a storyline that is interesting enough to carry it to its predictable but satisfying conclusion.

*** out of *****

The third star is for Olyphant ONLY ‘cause he is da man!!!
Shut up! I do NOT have a man-crush shut up shut up!!!

GREEN'S "THE JUICE IS DEFINITELY WORTH THE SQUEEZE" REVIEW:

When I first saw this movie in the library, I wasn't really interested in checking it out because I thought it would be stupid. Even though I kept seeing it on the shelf I kept passing it over, opting for something else. Finally overcoming my fear of zero expectations, curiosity got the better of me. Obviously.

After I watched it, I was going to review it over on my regular blog when it hit me that a pornish kind of film such as this would be perfect for the scribester's tastes. When I suggested we review this movie to him and after he told me he looked but couldn't get it from his lousy local library, I was decidedly disappointed.

About a month or so ago a store I frequently shop at not only had this movie for the first time I could recall but they had it in the unrated extended version to boot. (They still had copies on the shelf as of last Friday.) I was surprised and pleased; so much so that I bought it and offered to mail it to the scribester, since the price was near to unbeatable. After some hesitation, scribe agreed and gave me his address. Off it went the very next day.

This is not your typical high school teen angst type of film. Okay it is. Sort of. The difference is what this movie has, unlike some other teen films, is a good story behind it that happens to take place in a high school setting. On the one hand you have Matthew (Emile Hirsch), the straight-laced, Georgetown-bound high school class president. On the other hand you have Danielle (Elisha Cuthbert), a teenager who has grown up too fast and wants to reclaim her life by getting away from the very thing that made her grow up too fast. The other major characters are perfect. Matthew's geeky best friends, Eli (Chris Marquette) and Klitz (Paul Dano) and Danielle's porn-film producer Kelly (Timothy Olyphant) who steals every scene with his pimped out, over the top performance. Did I mention that Elisha Cuthbert is drop dead gorgeous in this movie? (Wow, shocker that scribe-o-rama disagrees with me on this.) Kind of makes me want to start watching "24" y'know? And I'm going to do just that, too. Bought the first three seasons already...

There were parts of this movie that were extremely funny and other parts that were funny because they were so rediculously stupid. I had never heard of director Luke Greenfield before, but he does a good job here. The story has a good pace to it and doesn't drag at all.

No need to worry, folks; the unrated version only includes about thirty seconds of extra nudity and sexual footage, without adding anything significant to the running time of the R-rated theatrical cut. Specifically, the unrated version substitutes steamier footage into the film Eli watches while talking to Matt on the phone, removes some digitized bikinis in the strip-club scene and has a more threatening scene between Matt and Kelly. What you don't see is more of star Elisha Cuthbert. She explains, in one of the scenes she gives a commentary for, that she didn't want do any nude scenes.

The unrated DVD version also has a few more special features than the R rated version, which I enjoyed.

Sure the movie, for the most part is predictable. None the less, this is a much better movie than I expected it to be (no expectations going in except for the curiosity factor), which is why I've added it to my very own DVD library.

**** out of *****

A Trivial Matter

2009-04-16T00:30:00.007-04:00

We thought it'd be fun to throw a little trivia your way to see how smart you are about the movies you watch and we review. Or could possibly review, someday.

Here are 20 trivia questions plus a bonus question. Write your answers in a comment for this post. In a week or so, I'll leave the answers in a comment, once I've given everyone who wants to play a chance to play. Depending on the level of participation and the skill at which we judge how much your mind is filled with useless crap - er, movie knowledge, there may be a prize involved. Maybe.

Are you ready?

1) What movie involves poison, cold breath and Dr. Malcom Crowe?

2) What movie used this tag line: "Trust is her weapon, innocence is her opportunity and revenge is her only desire?"

3) In 1999, this actress portrayed a queen. In her acting debut, she was a young girl who befriends a hit man. Who is she?

4) Name the first movie Scribe and Green reviewed on this blog.

5) Name the actress who appeared in all of the following films: Jumanji, Jerry Maguire, The Green Mile and Rain Man.

6) Name the artist who sang the title track for and starred in The Rose.

7) Upon winning an Oscar for Best Actress, who said: "You like me. You really like me?"

8) Who is the actor who was set to portray Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark but backed out, citing loyalty and commitments to his television show?

9) Name the actor to appear in all of the following films: A Few Good Men, The Lost Boys, Young Guns and Mirror.

10) "In space no one can hear you scream" was the tag line for what film?

11) Who was the actress who was romantically linked to Emilio Estevez, Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt?

12) Name the actress who shares a birthday with actor Burt Reynolds, singer Sheryl Crow, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and whose godfather was actor Telly Savalas.

13) What movie involves an Irishman, a lottery ticket and a nude motorcycle rider?

14) One tag line for this film stated: "If Nancy doesn't wake up screaming, she won't wake up at all." Name the film.

15) Name all seven of the dwarfs in Snow White.

16) Which two films did Morgan Freeman not appear in: Unforgiven, Driving Miss Daisy, Batman, Glory or Philadelphia?

17) What was the year of the first Academy Awards?

18) Who sang the title song to the James Bond film Octopussy?

19) Name the actress to appear in all of the following films: House of Wax, The Girl Next Door, The Quiet and Love Actually.

20) This actor starred in three films directed by Frank Capra. In two of those films he starred with actress Jean Arthur. Name the actor and the three films.

BONUS: President Barack Obama is the 44^th President of the United States. Name the 44^th film reviewed by Scribe and Green on this blog.

5/11 UPDATE: The answers have now been posted in the fifth comment, so skip over that one if you still want to guess.

WE OWN THE NIGHT

2009-04-10T16:59:00.002-04:00

SCRIBE'S CAN'T I KEEP THE HOT PUERTO-RICAN GIRLFRIEND? REVIEW:

Hopefully Joaquin Phoenix’s decision to quit acting in pursuit of a hip-hop career will be short-lived. We are truly missing a great actor right now.

“We own the Night” is another in a string of intense and passionate performances by Phoenix. This time he is Bobby, a late 1980’s New York nightclub manager who comes from a family of police officers. But Bobby isn’t crazy about that fact, preferring to live the partying life with his exceptionally hot Puerto-Rican girlfriend, portrayed with surprising depth by Eva Mendes.

If you’re able to suspend disbelief enough to accept that Mark Wahlberg is his brother and Robert Duvall is his father, the rest is utterly realistic. Bobby’s boss, a Soviet (remember this is the 80’s) immigrant has a nephew whose involvement in the Russian mob has caught the attention of his father’s task force.

What follows is an interesting and compelling take on a man whose resistance to his family is challenged at every turn. Once the inevitable raid led by his brother shines a spotlight on his club, Phoenix finds himself embroiled in an investigation that will eventually result in tragedy.

The attention paid to authenticity in this film is nothing short of astounding. According to the DVD extras, the clothing worn in the film is actual vintage attire from the late 1980’s. My initial confusion over why early 80’s music is playing in 1988 is explained in the extras as well since it is assumed that a 30-year old man would be listening to music from his youth: Well, that’s not the Eighties I remember. If you listened to something that was even six months old you were considered a joke but it’s a small inconsistency.

It’s rare that a screenplay truly surprises me, but this one does. This is partially due to the fact that the early portion of the film makes it intentionally difficult to figure out where all this is going. Like life, this is a movie that doesn’t throw all the answers at us the moment we sit down in front of the screen.

A film like this depends heavily on believable character growth, which is where Phoenix comes in. His subtle changes from narcissistic club manager to responsible family member are handled so well one might not even notice it happening at first. Wahlberg is his usual dependable self in an ironic twist on his brooding, tough guy character. Duvall is…well, come on. Would I have the right to try and criticize Pavarotti? Well, yes, but I created him so that’s not really a fair question.

Each spring sees the release of several gritty cop dramas the studios stupidly feel won’t garner any attention from audiences during other parts of the year. This was one of them. See it~

*** out of *****

GREEN’S “HOW COME YOU GOT MATCHES AND A LIGHTER?” REVIEW:

Bert and Joe Grusunsky (Robert Duvall and Mark Wahlberg) are father and son together in the family business - law enforcement in 1980’s Brooklyn. When they get set to raid a popular nightclub filled with drug dealers, they courteously let Bobby Green (Joaquin Phoenix), the club manager know what’s coming, because he’s part of the family, too. But Bobby doesn’t take his family seriously and the advice is blissfully ignored. Life goes on as usual until the nightclub is raided by the police and he becomes a target of both the police and the scum and villainy who do ‘business’ in the club. Once his family starts getting hurt by the masterminds of the crime ring going on in his club, Bobby is faced with and must make the most important choice of his life: Become an informant for the police or help run the crime ring inside the club.

This is a movie that I don’t recall seeing the previews for when it came out in 2007. Surprising, considering there’s such a high powered cast leading this film. Joaquin Phoenix gives his usual intense dramatic performance. Scribe hits the mark when he laments Phoenix‘s decision to retire from acting at such a young age to pursue the music business. There aren‘t many actors as intense and focused as Phoenix is. (aaah, what a long way since “Space Camp.”) Mark Wahlberg is again solid with his performance. There’s not many films he’s been in that I haven’t liked. And well, Robert Duvall is well, Robert Duvall. ‘nuff said. The man hasn’t been in many bad movies or ever given a bad performance, as far as I can recall. Eva Mendes, who I think is a decent actress, didn't wow me as Phoenix’s hot girlfriend.

Over all, James Gray’s script is well written and has a good pace to it. I believe that when you’re also the director, as Gray is here, it helps the story immensely because there is continuity, in that he knows better than anyone what he wants to get out of his actors and how he sees the story going. I like his use of dark lighting and darker colors which help set the mood when Bobby is managing the club and how the lighting changes on par with Bobby as his attitude toward his family changes. The only scene I was really disappointed in was the confrontation between Bobby and Nezhinski in the wheat field scene toward the end of the movie. Sort of anti-climatic.

The special features included on the DVD are excellent and informative.

***½ out of *****

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

2009-04-03T05:41:00.005-04:00

SCRIBE'S "YOU MUST BE ONE OF DEM FELLERS WHAT LIKES OTHER FELLERS" REVIEW:

Every great once in a while, a film comes along with literary merit. In some cases, that film comes from a literary source. Such is the case with (and I’m only gonna type this title once!) “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.”

Based on the novel of the same name, the film follows the final days of the infamous Jesse James as his luck slowly begins to run out. Brad Pitt is James in an intense, disturbing performance. Casey Affleck, a man swiftly becoming one of the better character actors in the industry, is the so-called “coward” Robert Ford.

When we first meet these characters, James comes across as affable and introspective while Ford seems like a deranged, homo-erotic stalker. It’s obvious Ford has idolized James for a long time and their scenes together reek of demented idol worship and thinly concealed attraction.

This is the time of the dissolution of the James gang. Jesse’s older brother Frank (the always cool Sam Shepherd) is tired of the bank robbing life and wants to go straight. The so-called “glory days” behind him, Jesse seems to be in a daze, unable to function in this new environment. But Ford is in love with him, platonically I’m sure (wink-wink) and has no intention of allowing the Great Jesse James, heroes of the Rebel Movement, to fade away.

What follows is a deeply introspective tale of hero worship and mortality. Somewhere along the way, thanks to Pitt’s incredible performance, James goes from likable to frighteningly psychotic. As James disintegrates into paranoia and betrayal, Ford matures. This is, after all, Ford’s tale more than it Is Jesse’s.

Ford is never taken as seriously as he believes he should be, but nobody can deny he has changed when he kills a man. Sam Rockwell also shines as his older brother as the two men realize they are the only ones left Jesse thinks he can trust. The ensuing tension is so thick, the film is often difficult to watch in its final hour.

This is not a short film, nor is it one to be watched while reading the paper or telling lil’ Greggers he’s a good boy. A recurring narrator reminds us we’re watching a novel on film. One must pay attention to this one to understand what’s going on. The performances are understated and intense. Pitt, Affleck and Rockwell are simply amazing in this film. They don’t so much portray these characters as inhabit them for the entire running time of the film.

Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in history.

****½ out of *****

GREEN’S “I’VE SORTA GOT STAGE FRIGHT WITH A STRANGE MAN IN THE COMMODE WITH ME” REVIEW:

In brief, this film tells of the idolization of Jesse James (September 5, 1842 - April 3, 1882) by one young Robert Ford and his desire to join the James Gang and befriend his boyhood hero. Once in the gang, Ford and his older brother Charlie become close to James as the rest of the gang gets killed or arrested. Then one fine spring day, BLAM!! Hence the most exciting part of the movie takes all of four seconds to view.

I wrote this review a few days ago but I’ve delayed posting it until today, which coincidentally happens to be the 127th anniversary of Jesse James death. Trust me, it wasn't originally planned this way (hence the coincidence).

But I have to level with you. Can a movie possibly be any more slow, tedious and boring than this? I have a healthy respect for history but watching paint dry is more fun than watching this snooze-fest. With a run time of two hours and forty minutes, this film is about an hour too long. I had to make myself sit up in a chair to watch this movie to avoid falling asleep. As it is I had to scan back on the DVD several times to rewatch parts I missed. The one chance this movie had to be interesting (but only for a moment, however) was gone with the all too brief blowing out of the candle, “And you thought I was a lady” scene.

Brad Pitt is either hit or miss with me. Most of the time miss, I’m afraid. I just don’t see why this guy is so in demand in Hollywood these days. Certainly there are other actors who could have easily played James and done it just as good, or better. In my opinion, Pitt just doesn't have the look for the role, no matter how scruffy and stubbly he looks. Grudgingly I'll admit that Casey Affleck did a decent job portraying the star-struck kid in the presence of his idol and deservedly was nominated for an Oscar.

Obviously, I thought the script was way too long. I’ve never read the novel on which the screenplay was based and it seems like the writer strives to be as historically accurate as possible, which is always a good thing. The instrumental music soundtrack was hauntingly moody, which seemed perfect for the tone of the film and livened up the tedium just a tad.

I did find it visually interesting that in the scene where James gets his brains blowed out, that we see a shot of him looking into the glass of the picture he was messing with on the wall and that he could see the reflection of Ford with the gun pointed at his head in the background, yet does nothing to stop what he must know is coming.

BTW, what’s up with the use of that annoying voice over narration to tell parts of the story? Couldn’t they have found some way of incorporating those nuggets of expositional information into the rest of the film?

Wasn't it the good old scribester who said not long ago that not every novel should be made into a movie? This is a classic example of that inescapable logic. You’ve got better things to do than sit through this movie, believe me. I know I’ll never need to watch it again, so I’m going to donate my copy of the DVD that I bought for the review to one of my local libraries, unless you can think of a better idea.

*½ out of *****

Untraceable

2009-03-24T19:23:00.009-04:00

GREEN’S “YOU KNOW YOU’D WATCH IT TOO” REVIEW:

Creepy. From the opening scene to the end, that’s what this movie is. Creepy because you know there’s probably some computer hacker geek who hasn’t thought about trying to figure out a way to actually kill people and broadcast it live over the Internet, just like the killer does in this movie. In addition, the sick part is you would probably watch it because you‘d be curious. Heck, I probably would too, for the very same reason, loath as I am to admit it.

I've said it before and it bears repeating: Diane Lane is simply one of the best actresses in the business today. Period. Just as underrated as her real life husband, Josh Brolin ("No Country for Old Men".) In this movie, Lane takes a role that five or ten years ago would have automatically had a male lead, probably the likes of Arnold or maybe Harrison Ford, Denzel Washington or someone comparable, and made it her own. She makes for a very credible FBI agent and brings a toughness to the character, yet the story still allows her to be compassionate as well. Colin (son of Tom) Hanks and Billy Burke are both excellent as the colleague and the cop. Joseph Cross is sufficiently creepy as Owen Reilly. Director Gregory Hoblit does a good job of keeping the story flowing and moving in the right direction.

The script follows the basic action/thriller/serial killer plot and will not wow you. You know - unknown bad guy emerges, kills a few people in horrific but original ways, stumps the authorities for a bit then eventually gets taken down by the local law enforcement agency. Still it is a compelling story because you want to see the gruesome killings and you want to see the killer brought to justice.

The DVD contains some excellent featurettes which are very informative and worthwhile viewing.

It has been quite a while since I have been weirded out by a movie but this one did exactly that. The DVD case proclaims “Untraceable” to be the Internet age’s version of “Silence of the Lambs.” Maybe it’s as good as that film was, maybe it isn’t. What it is is a good, suspenseful movie. I’d say well worth the 101 minutes of your valuable time.

**** out of *****

SCRIBE'S I CAN'T BELIEVE JIMMY OLSEN IS KILLING PEOPLE ONLINE AND SUPERMAN HASN'T STOPPED HIM YET REVIEW:

Let me make two things perfectly clear: I hate movies about serial killers, firmly believing both they and vampire films should be banned for at least ten years, and Diane Lane has made some truly terrible movies in her career.

However, this isn't one of them and, in fact, it's pretty good. As Green so expertly describes the plot, I will provide only a brief overview. Someone is committing murder online and these are killings that can only occur based on the amount of hits the website receives.

The film is a harsh indictment of an unfettered Internet, going a bit too far to make the point. Comparisons to other serial killer films are unfair as they are basically all the same anyway. What distinguishes this one is the hook.

Watching the horrific murders on the screen is reminiscent of the beheadings committed by Al-Queda. They're a tad too elaborate to be believable, but not as bizarre as the killings committed in "The Cell" with Jennifer Lopez.

The acting is fine. Nothing special but competent, with the exception of Smallville's Joseph Cross, a young actor with quite a future. He has a dark, edgy quality on the weekly TV show where he portrays a very different Jimmy Olsen and it serves him well in his role as Owen the tech savvy serial killer with a politically correct reason for why he's killing people.

Sadly, this a film lacking in any significant imagery. Director Gregory Hoblit shoots the film like a movie of the week featuring rock video jump cuts whenever there's something disturbing happening. His lackluster directing hampers an already flawed concept and drags the storyline in a few significant spots. A better director like David Fincher would have served this film better.

Still, "Untraceable" is undeniably watchable. I consider "Silence of the Lambs" to be one of the most overrated pieces of crap ever filmed so this movie couldn't have possibly been worse by comparison.

Compelling, for the most part, it mostly gets a decent review from me because it's a fresh idea in a moldy genre.

*** out of *****

(For the record, I never watched the Nicholas Berg beheading and I would not have watched this either.)

Stop-Loss

2009-03-18T15:30:00.005-04:00

Some time ago, the great bluez suggested that we review this movie. It's taken a while to actually get it done, but here you are hon. We aims to please, we do.

GREEN'S "I’M ALL FILLED UP AND AINT GOIN’ BACK" REVIEW:

Dedicated Army soldier Brandon King (Ryan Phillipe) has just returned from his tour of duty in Iraq to a heroes welcome from his small Texas hometown. He plans to leave the Army for good until he is surprisingly stop-lossed, meaning that he was recalled for another tour of duty shortly after the first tour ended. Problem is that King feels that he has fulfilled his duty and does not want to go back. What follows is the story of inner conflict and his attempt to run away, with help from his best friend’s fiancee’ (Abbie Cornish), first to Washington DC, then to Canada and Mexico.

This was a decent movie but not one that I was excited about watching and one that I don’t need to watch again. See, I just can’t get into this kind of movie. I suppose I’d have a different opinion if I had been in the Army and had served overseas on the front lines, came home expecting to be done and then was told I had to go back. Or if I knew someone who was. But I don’t.

No one in the cast really stood out to me as giving their best performance. I've seen Abbie Cornish now in two movies and I've not been impressed. Ryan Phillipe has been in one really good movie that I can recall since "Cruel Intentions" and this isn't it. The script is nothing that will knock your socks off but is okay.

Sorry, bluez, that’s all I’ve got for you on this one.

** out of *****

SCRIBE'S "I WANT MY F******G SH**" REVIEW:

No lie. About four hours before I watched Stop-Loss, I went to a local Laundromat in an area with its share of rednecks. A guy in a green T-shirt bearing the slogan, "Death from the North” on the back emerged from an SUV with bumper stickers on the back that said: GIVE WAR A CHANCE & BESIDES STOPPING SLAVERY, FACISM and NAZISM, WAR NEVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING.

He also happened to be a Marine. I felt like I was watching his life story when I placed Stop-Loss in my DVD player.

The film follows a young sergeant in the Army (Ryan Philippe) during his tour of duty in Iraq. He and his fellow soldiers are like a close-knit family of course, and disaster looms on the horizon during a routine checkpoint procedure. As vehicles drive toward them, the U.S. soldiers stop the drivers and decide whether or not to let them through. One car comes through with guns blazing, sparking off a violent confrontation that spills over into a local neighborhood.

Beloved fellow soldiers are killed in action or mortally wounded, and it becomes obvious that he made a bad call when he decided to pursue the gunmen. That doesn’t stop the residents of his small Texas town from greeting him as a hero when he goes home to a parade that comes across as so hollow it actually feels like a bad stage play.

It isn’t until the soldiers try to interact with the people in town that we start to see just how damaged they really are. One gets so drunk he starts digging in as if he’s in Iraq even though he’s in his own front yard. He passes out in the hole with a .45 in his hand.

Phillipe’s character is ready to leave the Army and come back home. His buddy who volunteered with him and comes form the same town also seems ready to com home and marry the local ho chick. Unfortunately, when (Phillipe) reports in for his discharge, he is given orders to re-deploy to Iraq. Stunned, he is advised that he has been “stop lossed,” which is another name for a backdoor draft. Furious, he confronts his CO, whose smarmy, unconcerned response throws him into a rage. When the lieutenant colonel informs him that the President’s orders cannot be refused, Phillipe replies with an emphatic, “FUCK the president!”

Not a good idea to make such a statement to your CO and suddenly he finds himself being escorted to the brig. In a moment of spontaneous fight or flight, he disables the guards and makes a run for it.

Stop-Loss was not at all what I was expecting. Yet another movie with a poorly designed DVD cover, this looked like it was going to be a slow-paced melodrama about a guy coming home from war and pissing off his small-town neighbors by becoming an anti-war activist. Instead, Stop-Loss focuses on a man who has done his part and feels forced to go AWOL so he can spread the word about the backdoor draft, with mostly disastrous results.

The acting in this film is top notch. Had I known Phillipe was in the film, I would’ve seen it much earlier. He has always been an underrated actor with an incredible range and an often disturbing intensity. His co-stars are also good and lend authenticity to their performances by not overacting.

The battle scenes and flashbacks are handled extremely well. That fuzzy, news camera style of shooting is quickly becoming a cliché but it’s effective here. The screenplay is surprisingly good and provides plenty of moments for reflection. In fact, it is a crime that those idiots at the Academy didn’t acknowledge this film, because it is actually worthy of some Oscars.

Oh, that’s right. Nobody has a disease in this film. Perhaps if the whole movie had been about the guy who lost his arms and legs it would have won.

****1/2 out of *****

Snakes on a Plane

2009-03-11T15:49:00.004-04:00

AMERICAN GUY’S “DO AS I SAY, AND YOU'LL ENJOY THIS MOVIE" GUEST REVIEW:

I’ve been trying to get Scribe and Green to review this fine film for some time now. So naturally when they finally got around to it, Green took the initiative to turn the tables on me and asked if I’d like to write a guest review myself. His one condition was that I not take the same approach I did with my review of the Wrath of Khan – where I wrote what I thought was a thorough but succinct review. Fair enough.

Having agreed to take on the challenge, the first thing I did was to ask Italian Girl if she’d like to watch it with me. I told her that there would be no confusing this with a good movie. In fact, having seen it before, I told her it was downright bad. Surprisingly, she chose not to watch it with me. I tell you all this because it’s incredibly important to have the right mindset when you watch this movie.

If you sit down and expect good acting, much of a plot or even believable action sequences, you’re setting yourself up for a big let down. But if you go in ready for Ed Wood level badness, you’ll have 105 minutes of sheer enjoyment.

I mean, come on. It’s Snakes. On a Plane. When I first heard about this film, I had the same reaction that I’m sure nearly everybody had. Best. Title. Ever. And when I heard that Samuel L Jackson was the lead… Oh man. I make no bones about believing him to be just about the finest actor that there is. That he’s incredibly hot doesn’t hurt either. Seriously. If I was straight, I’d turn for him.

I won’t give you an overview of the plot. I don’t need to. The title does that. Aside from a brief set up to give you an excuse to get (to paraphrase the catch line of the movie) the m.f. snakes on the m.f. plane, there’s not a lot to tell. The movie is filled with characters that are caricatures – from the lecherous co-pilot, to the camp male flight attendant to the Paris Hilton clone rich girl with little dog. There are even 2 kids flying unaccompanied who you know from the get-go will be just fine, even if everyone else on the plane dies. I will admit to liking the germophobe rapper and his pair of bodyguards who are fawning to his face but snarky whenever he turns away.

Just in case you forget that this is taking place on a plane, they have an extended sequence showing everyone boarding, and even take you through the entire ‘your exits are here, here and here' routine. And then of course, there are the snakes. It’s only a matter of time before they start creating havoc. Somehow, a snake knew to attack avionics (why is it always avionics? I think there’s a contractual clause somewhere that says every airplane disaster movie has to have someone say “We’ve lost avionics!”). Once the snakes learn that humans taste better than electronic equipment, they start attacking people, including such gratuitous bits as a guy being attacked in the toilets in just the manner you’d expect.

And it goes on. As I said – there was never any chance that this film was going to be tagged “Academy Award Winner…”

After I watched this film when it first came out, I figured there’d be no reason for me to see it again. But since I was challenged to do this write up, I had to download a new version. The funny thing is, it actually helped the experience that the copy I watched was a bootleg complete with people laughing and shouting at the screen. It made it even better.

Oh, and two final words: Snake cam!

***½ out of *****

SCRIBE'S "I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHER*****IN' SNAKES ON THIS MOTHER****IN' PLANE" REVIEW:

It’s bad enough to happen upon some guy who’s being tortured while you’re on vacation in Hawaii, but when the torturer turns out to be the top Chinese Triad crime boss of LA, you just bought yourself a big heapin’ bag of trouble. Thank God for the timely, life-saving intervention of Samuel L. Jackson or that bag might have opened to reveal a big box of painful demise.

Still, Jackson’s help comes with a price tag. He’s a Federal Marshall and he badly wants you to testify against the most psychotic and dangerous crime boss since Dutch Schultz. You say ok because you’re a good guy and Jackson’s so damn cool, no real man would wish to appear bitch-boy-like before him. Besides, you’re a surfer and surfers always do the right thing. They’re cool like that.

Sadly, the crime boss has spies everywhere, so it takes him no time to find out which flight you’re talking back to LA to testify. He can’t get to you directly thanks to the two federal marshals protecting you (Jackson and his disposable partner of five years) but he has a plan: a twisted, psychotic, improbable plan that will make for some truly cringing, hysterical storytelling, visuals and acting. He’s going to release a multitude of different varieties of snakes, all pumped with pheromones, and take out the entire plane to protect his worthless ass.

And he would’ve got away with it, too, if it weren’t for that meddling…Jackson….and flight crew.

It sounds dumb, right? Well, it is. Really, really dumb and quite possibly one of the most enjoyable films in a decade. One of the reasons for this is the approach, which is like something out of an Irwin Allen disaster flick with tongue placed so firmly in cheek it adheres to mouth. There are enough likable and disposable characters to make this one a laugh riot in-between screams.

It’s always a good thing when the audience is in on the joke while not walking through the film like giant pieces of ham. Instead, each actor brings just the right amount of funny to their roles and the hilarious dialogue helps them immeasurably.

Reportedly, Jackson signed onto this film script unseen based solely on the title. That just made him even cooler to the cyber-geeks whose bizarre devotion to a movie they hadn’t even seen yet ensured this one’s pop culture relevance. Despite being exactly what one would hope in a movie called “Snakes on a Plane,” it couldn’t possibly live up to the ridiculous hype, so some were disappointed.

Screw em. This movie kicks ass!

***** out of *****

GREEN’S "ALL WE HAVE IS SPORKS!" REVIEW:

Because we were dumb enough to ask for suggestions, I suppose we had this coming. Why can’t people suggest good movies for us to review? Why? Why?

Knowing then, that we were going to have to review this movie at some point, I signed it out of the library and tried watching it a few months ago but had to stop because it was Just. So. Stupid.

Let me tell you that it didn’t get any better this time around. But at least I was able to watch it all the way through. That in itself is a minor miracle.

I won’t go into any plot details either, because there really are none in such a movie as this. Suffice it to say that the characters in this film fit the dead on stereotypes AG describes.

I did have some issues with the movie, not surprisingly. First, the bad guys never saw Sean’s face (Nathan Phillips, the star witness) and he reveals to Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) that he didn’t talk to the media about what he saw, so how do they know what he looks like or where he lives? And if the bad guys didn’t see him, how in the heck does Neville know where he lives? Second, the ultimate solution used for getting rid of the snakes would have likely killed everyone left alive who was on the plane. Lastly, the simple solution to the snake problem is so obvious that if they used it - there would be no movie! Think about it for a sec, ok? Snakes are reptiles. Reptiles are cold blooded. So all you have to do to get them to stop attacking people, is to turn down the temperature in the cabin until they become lethargic. Then you round them up, stick ‘em in a box and BANG! You’re done. End of movie. Have a nice flight. Enjoy your stay in Los Angeles.

Yes, I get it. This is supposed to be a disaster/horror flick where people die in gruesome ways and Sam Jackson saves the day. Still, plausibility is important.

I will say that some of the snake effects were cool and the makeup used to simulate snake bites and the gruesome ways in which the passengers were killed was interesting and well done. The acting in all cases was cheesy and downright bad, even from actors as good as Sam Jackson and Julianna Margulies. The script was hardly original and definitely not a work of art. There are some films that are so bad that they’re good. This isn’t one of them.

This is a movie that I, hopefully, will never have to watch again. I even sold the used copy of this movie that I bought in order to write this review to my nephew for three 20 oz. Mountain Dew Voltage sodas (the blue Dew.) I think I got the better end of that deal.

*½ out of *****

No Country for Old Men

2009-02-22T20:48:00.008-05:00

We thought it appropriate to review last year's Academy Award winner for Best Picture tonight - Oscar Night. Maybe this will become habit forming; reviewing the previous years Best Picture winner on Oscar night. Who knows.

GREEN'S TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN REVIEW:

This movie could alternatively be called “An Ode to Random Senseless Violence” or perhaps “I’m Gonna Git You Sucka, part XVII”

What would you do if you stumbled on a bloody crime scene in the middle of the Texas wasteland, with no one seemingly around for miles? Would you take the two million dollars if you knew nobody was a lookin’?

I probably would have, and so would you.

First thing I would have done was get a duffel bag or something else to carry the cash in. And I certainly would have made a more thorough inspection for homing devices at the earliest opportunity, to make sure I could make a clean get away. Obviously, with that kind of coin just laying around, someone’s going to come looking for it. And they’re bound to be not very nice if they catch you with what clearly doesn’t belong to you.

That air gun thing that Chigurh used was certainly a neat toy, both to kill people with and to get into locked rooms quickly.

In any case, Javier Bardem was truly creepy from the beginning, as Anton Chigurh, and deservedly won Best Supporting Actor. I don’t think this movie was Best Picture or Best Director worthy though. I thought the screenplay was good, but was it deserving of the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar? Questionable call there, I think. Tommy Lee Jones, as usual, was excellent but in a understated way. I was annoyed at the whole hotel/pool sequence. Seemed like something was missing, without knowing exactly what. That is extremely annoying. I, unlike Scribe, did not read McCarthy's novel, so did not know exactly what the missing scene should have been, but obviously it was pivotal to how the film ended. Perhaps they'll include this scene on the three disc special edition, due in April.

Still, there was something compelling about the story that kept me watching. Did I want to see Chigurh get caught or did I want to see him get away? Did he kill Llewelyn's wife or did she get the coin flip right, like the storekeeper near the beginning of the movie apparently did, and walk away?

I don't think this will ever be the instant classic that the DVD case proclaims it to be, but it is a must see movie, at least once.

*** out of *****

SCRIBE'S THE COIN BROUGHT ME HERE REVIEW:

Cormac McCarthy’s writing style is an acquired taste. It is at once immediate, vibrant and pretentious. Eschewing normal structure such as quotation marks and italics, he forces his readers to pay attention by making it less clear who is speaking at any given time. Eventually, if one can pick up on the rhythm, one can follow his work.

When the Cohen Brothers decided to adapt his novel, “No Country for Old Men,” it was obvious the right guys had the job. Joel and Ethan Cohen were huge fans of the novel and looking to do something more along the lines of their more serious efforts such as "Miller’s Crossing" and "Blood Simple."

Starring the severely underrated Josh Brolin and a slightly miscast Tommy Lee Jones, this is a marked departure in tone for the Cohen’s more recent films. The mood is stark and desolate, like the American southwest in which the story takes place, and the characters are subtle to the point of nearly vanishing into the sunset.

Except Anton Chigurh, of course. An actor can only be as brilliant as the source material. That’s why, no matter how hard he worked on the role, Heath Ledger’s Joker was just passable. But a writer of McCarthy’s caliber can create an enduring psychopath whose very existence seems elemental, a product of natural selection. He is not a person so much as he is a force to be avoided.

The Cohen Brothers wisely follow the novel as closely as possible. The direction is evokes 1980 Western America very well and the actors inhabit their roles in ways rarely seen in mainstream Hollywood productions.

If anything causes the film to falter, it is the odd decision the filmmakers make in the third act. I read the novel. Like most who have read the novel before seeing a movie, I was following along pretty closely until I had to go to the bathroom. When I came back the film was winding down. I asked my friend what I’d missed and he told me. Baffled, I wondered how much had been omitted and didn’t find out until recently when I watched it on DVD.

An entire important sequence was removed from the film, causing a rather jarring experience toward the end. I won’t go into great detail for those who haven’t read it or seen it, but once Brolin’s character meets up with the girl at the hotel, there’s a whole minor sub-plot that results before the big climax. With that gone, the film takes a bizarre leap from gripping and riveting to disconcerting.

Still, that one point doesn’t prevent this from being a great movie. It’s rare that we complain about a movie needing more of what made it great.

****½ out of *****

SUPERMAN RETURNS

2009-02-13T11:46:00.011-05:00

SCRIBE'S KEEP THE WIG REVIEW:

Although the title of this film says it all, there is an even better one the producers could have used: “The Real Superman III.”

Fifteen years after the second and only other great Superman film of Christopher Reeves’ run as the Man of Steel, something truly wonderful had happened. The horrible and bitter taste of the uneven third film and abysmal fourth one have been rinsed out with a taste of something we haven’t seen since the original: A comic book movie elevated to fine art.

Exhibiting utmost respect for the original films, former X-Men director Bryan Singer has turned his considerable talents on the super-hero prototype with eye-popping results. It’s almost as if original director Richard Donner, later of Lethal Weapon fame, has been reborn while still alive. And what poetic justice that would be.

Although it’s common nowadays, shooting a film and its sequel back-to-back was practically unheard of in the late Seventies. But producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind were so convinced of the impending success of Superman: The Movie that they had Donner start shooting part II of Mario Puzo’s gigantic script which would become Superman II. For years, the Salkinds denied that Donner had shot more than a few scenes of the sequel before throwing a hissy fit and stalking off the set in disgust. It was then, they claimed, that they sought out British director Richard Lester who directed the horrid Help! For the Beatles to take over the helm and who directed the third one.

But the Salkinds were full of shit. It has been revealed that at least 60% of the film was shot by Donner before they canned him for a cheaper director who would move into a more campy direction. Fortunately for us true fans, Donner’s imprint is so firmly established in Superman II that even the goofy small town scenes and the re-shot Eiffel Tower and Niagara Falls sequences don’t detract from a movie almost equal to its predecessor. How this was achieved with a shitty cover band version of the incredible John Williams score and the absence of a protesting Gene Hackman whose scenes were thankfully shot before Donner’s departure is a testament to the magic of movies.

For those who don’t know, remember or care, Superman gave up his powers in part II to get to “know” Lois Lane in the Biblical sense. Unfortunately, he did this right as three formerly imprisoned criminals from his home-world of Krypton arrived to take over our planet. He had no choice but to beg for his powers back, but at least he got laid first.

Singer’s sequel is the next chapter in Superman’s life following the events of that film. Some time after losing Lois in favor of regaining his powers, scientists claimed they’d discovered the location of Krypton in space. Naturally, old Kal-el needed to go see his roots. Five years later, he returns to a world that had learned to live without him. Or has it?

Building on that premise, Singer beautifully renders stunning imagery and weaves it into an actual storyline involving accessible characters we care about.

Yes, Superman has returned, but so has Lex Luthor, this time portrayed by Kevin Spacey, who somehow resembles Hackman without looking anything like him. Spacey’s Luthor is less fun-loving and more evil than the Lex we met in the original films. Sure Hackman’s version had no trouble killing millions of people for real estate, but he never delighted in it like this one does. This Lex has spent five years in prison thanks to Superman, and his desire for revenge can only be sated by world domination and massive destruction, which will come thanks to technology from Krypton.

Meanwhile, Supes is conflicted on every level. He’s returned to a world that doesn’t seem to miss him, where his love interest has given birth to a child who may or may not have some super qualities, and where Lois finally won that Pulitzer for an article on why the world no longer needs Superman.

Newcomer Brandon Routh turns out to be a brilliant choice for the role of the man in tights. Instead of trying to put his own spin on the role the way Reeve did, he gratefully plays it in a similar fashion, at times sounding so much like his predecessor that it is frightening.

Although the scenes of heroism are incredible, it’s the less action-packed imagery that really makes this a work of art. The scene where Superman literally hovers over the entire world, nearly god-like, and listens to all of us until he zeroes in on someone who is in trouble is breathtaking. So is the scene where he takes Lois flying as in the original film, only this time she has no idea she’s doing it until she’s standing over the city. And lest I forget, the respectful nod to Marlon Brando’s defining portrayal of Superman’s father Jor-El as audio drops are sprinkled throughout the film as a way of linking the three movies together.

Also, instead of hammering the fact that this is a direct sequel to the second movie over our heads, Singer adds little touches of subtlety to the dialogue. For instance, when Luthor’s girlfriend comments that he acts like he’s been to the Fortress of Solitude before, the look on his face tells us he has without a single word. Also, when Lois is forced to write a new Superman article, she says, “I’ve already done Superman!” before realizing what she’s saying.

Routh’s portrayal of Clark Kent is a bit different from Reeve’s. For one thing, the nerdy Clark of the pre-80’s is gone both in comic books and on TV, so now we get a slightly clumsy Clark who looks more socially uncomfortable than like a klutz.

As a fan of Superman in all formats, I have been waiting for a film that could make me feel the way the original did. This one surpassed by fondest wishes in every way imaginable.

****½ OUT OF *****

GREEN’S “YOU‘RE NOT SEEING THE BIG PICTURE, MS. LANE” REVIEW:

After disappearing for five years trying to reconnect with his origins, Superman/Clark Kent (Brandon Routh) comes back to Metropolis, The Daily Planet and Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth). Except this time Lois has a fiancee’, a son and has moved on with her life, winning a Pulitzer Prize in the process. She tries to tell herself that she’s over her infatuation for Superman, but it’s obvious she’s lying to herself. Oh, by the way, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) is out of prison and stirring up trouble again.

When this movie came out in 2006 I stayed away from it purposefully because I’m a traditionalist. I prefer the Christopher Reeve version of Superman from 1979-1982 and I didn’t think that this film could live up to the first two installments. (I only bought it recently because I found the widescreen single disc version in the irresistible $5 DVD bin at Wal-Mart.)

Turns out that’s where I was wrong.

Director Bryan Singer’s vision for this version of Superman takes the story in a new direction while respectably paying homage to its predecessors, Superman I and II (pretending that III an IV do not exist, generally a wise idea.) Superman Returns links itself to the original 1979 film right out of the box, with the same superb original score by John Williams, the cool opening credits and with the use of archival voice tracks of Marlon Brando as Jor-El strategically added at key spots in the film. There are even situations and lines in this film that tie in to the original but they are not obvious if you aren‘t familiar with the earlier movies.

Brandon Routh, who I had never heard of before this, ably fills Superman’s costume and even pays tribute to Christopher Reeve’s Superman/Clark Kent, wearing his hair the same way and emulating his voice and mannerisms, instead of doing it his way. Kevin Spacey pulls off a decent take as Lex Luthor; not quite as good as Gene Hackman was in the role, though. Like the original Superman films, I thought the actress chosen for Lois Lane was the weakest link. I wasn’t thrilled with Margot Kidder, who I thought was too whiney and not nearly attractive enough, and I’m not entirely sold on Kate Bosworth, either. Though she offers way more eye candy than did Kidder. Like it or not, it’s her role now as long as she wants to do it. Frank Langella is strong in the role of Perry White, taking over for Jackie Cooper.

The one part I didn’t like about this movie concerned Lois Lane’s son. I thought it was a questionable add in and really doesn’t seem to fit in with the timeline established in the original films, especially since Superman Returns tries so hard to tie in with the Reeve films in most other respects. Yes, I realize that Superman and Lois had sex in Superman II. However, it seems to me that later, when Lois’ memory of Clark as Superman is erased with the kiss (therefore erasing any memory of being intimate with him or becoming pregnant with his child), and having the no nonsense personality that a star reporter needs, wouldn’t be able to come to grips with a mysterious, out-of-nowhere pregnancy. Plus, we are not told how long it is between the end of Superman II and when the scientists announce that they think they've found Krypton. All we know is that it's five years after that announcement that this film begins.

The end credits do add a nice touch; dedicating the film to Christopher and Dana Reeve. The tragedy here is that Christopher Reeve didn’t live long enough to give his opinion on, or input to, this version of Superman. Certainly they would have asked him. Somehow though, I think Reeve would have heartily approved of the results.

No shame here. Overall this film is a worthy successor in the Superman franchise of films.

**** out of *****

Just for fun, I asked my nephew to add his thoughts on the movie, since this was his first exposure to Superman on film.

RUSTY NAIL'S "I WOULD TRADE 300,000 COCONUTS AND EVERY OUNCE OF YOUR BLOOD FOR A QUART OF GASOLINE" GUEST REVIEW:

Superman (Brandon Routh) has not set foot on Earth once in the past five years. But now he's back! He left to check on his native planet only to find ruins. In the five years of his absence alot has changed. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is married and now has a son. She has written articles for the Daily Planet on why the world doesn't need Superman. But now that he's returned, it appears that the world does need Superman. Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has a plan to create his own continent, that would wipe out the eastern half of the United States. Can Superman save the day once again? Or will Lex Luthor have a continent under his rule? To find out you must watch the fifth installment in a widely acclaimed series.

First off, I've never even heard of Brandon Routh before. However, I think he played the part of Superman fairly well. He certainly looked the part. Its not easy to look cool flying with your arms outstretched like Superman. Not to mention the size of the shoes he had to fill. I have always been a Kevin Spacey fan. I wouldn't say he was the ultimate bad guy or anything in this role, but I was pleased with his performance. Not much to say about Lois Lane except that she could have been slightly more attractive.

Superb special effects. Now, I, having not seen any of the previous Superman films cannot speak for the first four. But I'm pretty sure these are the best in the series. All in all this was a pretty entertaining movie. A little long, but I hardly noticed. Unfortunately my surround sound was down for this film, so I can't really comment on the sound. Will they make a Superman Six?

***½ out of *****

Somewhere in Time

2009-02-05T23:30:00.009-05:00

SCRIBE'S YOU DON'T KNOW ME BUT YOU WILL REVIEW:

Hard to believe, but it’s nearly thirty years since “Somewhere in Time” was released.
So many women love this movie I am often caught off-guard when I meet one who has never heard of it. Still, this not what is so eloquently referred to these days as a “chick flick.”

Featuring a script by master storyteller Richard Matheson who also gave us numerous brilliant Twilight Zone episodes along with the novels upon which I Am Legend, Stir of Echoes and What Dreams May Come were based on, this is as much a novel about people in a universe they wish to control as it is love.

When young playwright Richard Collier (Reeve) premieres his first play in the early 1970’s, a mysterious elderly woman approaches him and hands him a stop watch. “Come back to me,” she says and turns away as tears sting her face. Collier has a moment to wonder at her identity before the congratulations pull him away.

Cut to an older Richard in 1980, now a successful playwright and emotional wreck. His love life is in a shambles and his career isn’t fulfilling. It doesn’t take a shrink to see he has a hole right through his center. After a bad break-up, Richard decides to take a vacation and drives from Chicago to the Grand Hotel on Mackinac (pronounced “Mackinaw”) Island. If you’ve ever been there, you know the island is a huge step backwards in time to somewhere around the turn of the Twentieth century. In real life, no cars are permitted there but the film crew was allowed to place a few in the background and have Reeve drive around.

The film makes it obvious that Collier feels compelled to stay at this hotel and soon we find out why. A photo in a room filled with early Twentieth Century memorabilia (a room that didn’t exist at the hotel until after the film was made and looks exactly like what you see) displays a picture of a young, hot Jane Seymour in 1912 when she was at the grand Hotel as an actress on stage.

Collier’s obsession with this photo is the beginning of what ultimately resulted in his visitation at the premiere 9 years ago but he can’t help himself. Soon he’s researching the actress Elise McKenna and discovering that he may just have met her…in 1912.

"Somewhere in Time" is a film in the tradition of European romances laced with tragic undertones and fatalistic situations. Sadly, it was released during a time when audiences either wanted gritty realism or blockbusters. The subtlety of this film and its performances did not connect with the thrill hungry audiences of 1980. Even some critics weren’t kind. However the rise of cable TV changed all that. Suddenly this little gem was rediscovered and created a whole generation of fans.

"Somewhere in Time" has become something of a phenomenon. The Grand Hotel actually holds an annual formal convention where people come from all over the world to meet the surviving stars of the film. Anywhere you go on the island you can find copies of Matheson’s very different novel and a fan’s sequel to the movie in book form. Some people love the phenomenon; some strive to be different by making sure you know seeing Jane Seymour in bike shorts is no big deal. It has become a cottage industry.

The film itself features wonderful and understated performances by Reeve and Seymour, but Christopher Plummer is the scene-stealer as Elise McKenna’s benefactor who may know more than he lets on. The fact that Mackinac Island hasn’t changed since the 1800’s lends a much-needed authenticity to the film and the characters. The musical score by John Barry is hauntingly beautiful, the perfect companion to a tale that seems to be about true love but hints at tragedy on the horizon.

While female audiences tend to connect to to the love story, there is much more to the film. The time travel theories alone are fascinating enough to sustain the film’s premise.

Be forewarned, however. This is not a cookie cutter happy ending Hollywood production. I don’t advise watching the film if you’re depressed. I’ve made that mistake and was despondent for days. But if you’re in the right frame of mind and looking for something that has several dimensions to it, this film is required viewing. It’s also a film one needs to watch more than once to truly appreciate it. This is coming from someone who absolutely hated it at one time. I was wrong.

**** out of *****

GREEN’S THAT’S NOT IN THE SCRIPT REVIEW:

After the close of his first play, in May 1972, young playwright Richard Collier (Christopher Reeve) is approached by a mysterious old woman who hands him a gold pocket watch and pleads him to “come back to me.” She turns around and walks away, leaving Collier baffled. Flash forward eight years, to 1980...

Scribe does a good job describing the basic story, so I won’t repeat it again.

I had never heard of this movie until about three or four months ago when I noticed on the DVD sale rack at Borders. I know what you’re thinking: 'There was a sale at Borders? Wow!' Anyway, I picked up the DVD to examine it, noticing that Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour were on the cover. I read the back of the case and the description looked interesting, so I bought it. I’ve since watched the movie twice, including last night as a refresher for writing this review.

Superman and Superman II were great movies in which Reeve did a phenomenal job. Come to find out that this is the project Reeve took up in between donning the red cape and blue tights. Such a shame that Reeve’s career and life were cut short due to complications from his riding accident. I’ve been a fan of Jane Seymour’s acting since I saw her in a bit part in the original Battlestar Galactica television series. Christopher Plummer is indeed a scene stealer as W.F. Robinson, the guardian/manager of young actress Elise McKenna. Both Reeve and Seymour give subtly brilliant performances in contrast to Plummer’s character who reminds me of a bull in a china shop. Seymour, dressed in period attire, reminds me of a china doll. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

When the author of the source material also writes the screenplay, the story itself is usually stronger because of it, since the author knows his story better than anyone. Such is the case here. John Barry's musical score is tasteful and adds depth to the film.

I’ve always had a fondness for movies that deal with the concept of time travel. The premise that you can achieve it by self-hypnosis, with out the aid of any contrived "time machine," is a novel concept that has to be played perfectly or it won’t seem plausible. But it works here - brilliantly. Add to the fact that you’ve got a powerful, timeless, yet tragic love story and you’re looking at a very unique combination of genres.

The collector’s edition DVD I watched has an excellent documentary on the making of the film, which includes interviews from cast and crew.

If you haven’t watched this film in a long time, you should. If you’ve never seen this film at all, you should. This is a wonderful movie, which can be had for less than $10.

****½ out of *****

Wag the Dog

2009-01-29T22:22:00.004-05:00

We were going to try and post this review on or around Inauguration Day but that plan went up in smoke due to our recent 50^th review and all of the hullabaloo surrounding it. Neither of us wanted this film to be the big 5-0.

GREEN’S AS LONG AS YOU GET ME BACK FOR THE BEANS REVIEW:

Q: Why does a dog wag it’s tail?
A: Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail were smarter, the tail would Wag the Dog.

Eleven days before the election the President is accused of molesting a Firefly girl in the office behind the Oval Office. Conrad Brean (DeNiro) has been called in to divert the attention of the American people until after the election. He hires Stanley Motss (Hoffman), a Hollywood producer, to flesh out the distraction to make it “real.” From the President getting ill while in China, to a conflict/war with Albania, to a stranded “war hero” left behind enemy lines and his rescue, the lies keep getting deeper. The problem is that the brilliant Motss can never take credit for this production. Ever.

“Wag the Dog” is a film that makes you wonder how much of what you see on the television news is really true. Where is the line between truth and fiction? And more importantly how often is this sacred line crossed?

The cast is excellent, headlined by Dustin Hoffman, Robert DeNiro, Ann Heche and Denis Leary. Woody Harrelson is good as the deranged prisoner and “war hero." The script is decent, and for the most part, director Barry Levinson keeps the story moving along at a crisp pace with a tidy run time of 97 minutes.

This is a decent movie: not utterly fantastic but well worth the rental.

*** out of *****

SCRIBE'S TRIBUTE TO OVER-REACHING FILM PRODUCER'S REVIEW:

“Wag the Dog“ is one of those films too many of the wrong type of people recommend. Surely you know the type or are the type, in which case you don’t know because you’re too full of yourself to pause for self-examination.

I’ve always been a fan of Barry Levinson’s films and DeNiro and Hoffman are two of our greatest actors, but the buzz from the shallow set prevented me from seeing this film. I regret that now. This is an extremely well-acted, written and directed film.

Focusing on the president’s sex scandal, ironically written and filmed before the Clinton/Lewinski thing, Wag is a good example of just how low an administration is willing to stoop in order to ensure its continued survival over the country’s.

Sensing impending disaster for the president, his top aid (DeNiro) hits upon a grande scheme to enlist the aid of a famous Hollywood producer for a little spin doctoring. Hoffman is brilliant as the composite of every self-absorbed, bitter producer desperately seeking recognition for all his hard work.

What really makes this film work is the fact that while it starts off as a talky film, it realizes we need a decent third act to bring it all home. But it's the final moments of the film, when Hoffman's character has a breakdown and refuses to gracefully vanish into anonymity, that the true nature of the government is seen.

**** out of *****

BIG SCREEN GOES BOLLYWOOD!!!

2009-01-22T15:40:00.007-05:00

What the hell else could we do that would be radically different? We've reviewed most genres of films except porn...Wait...We coulda done porn!?

DAMMIT!!!

Ah, well. Post 100 can't be too far in the future, right? In the meantime, Green and I took the advice of...um...some...person...and reviewed a film made in India. For those who are laughing, India produces and exports as many as and sometimes even more films than the United States! And I didn't choose some silly musical for Green's delicate little taste buds to ingest. I chose...well, read the reviews and see for your-damnselves!

SCRIBE'S JUST IMAGINE REVIEW:

I must confess to having had an ulterior motive when I jumped on the idea of reviewing a Bollywood film for our fiftieth post. I’d actually seen the film I recommended we review and loved it.

For those of you now laughing and hurting my feelings, SHUT IT!!! There is an undeserved stigma attached to films made in India, due in no small measure to the spontaneous musical numbers and Hollywood’s conceit that no one except them and possibly Europe and Hong Kong can produce a quality product. Krrish is proof that they are wrong.

This film is a sequel to a very popular Indian film in which an ET-like alien arrived in a small Indian village and imbued an awkward dork with his essence before departing to dimensions unknown. You don’t need to have seen the first film (I didn’t) to understand what’s happening in this bigger, flashier, action-oriented sequel.

Again starring the same guy now playing his own son as a simple-minded country hunk, the sequel picks up many years later as Krrish, now living with his disturbingly hot grandmother, does the Smallville thing and tries to live a normal life. His grandmother is deathly afraid of his secret getting out because of what happened to her son…a rather disturbing fate that isn’t revealed until later in the film.

The earlier portion of the film is sure to alienate some Western viewers because of its light-heartedness and forays into goofiness. There are a few songs as well because, apparently, it’s a requirement. This seems to be a continuation of the tone of the previous installment. But the dark foreshadowing of the opening scene is enough to keep you hooked if you are susceptible to the mythology.

Like Luke Skywalker and George W. Bush before him, Krrish is bored out of his mind doing what he’s told and seeks adventure and excitement. It comes one day in the form of a Hindu hottie who lives in Thailand with her adorable Thai friend Cookie. They are reporters and are part of a tour bus passing through. It’s love at first sight for ol’ Krrish as he runs around showing her he’s much man and saving them from natural disasters. They fall in love, or maybe she falls in like, and Krrish is crushed --did I just write Krrish is crushed? -- when she leaves.

His rite of passage is now twofold. His love and lust for a woman compels him to see the world outside of his small village, and his disturbingly hot granny tells him what happened to his father. Apparently, Krrish senior (not really his name) got more of an intellect boost than his son, whose powers run more toward the super-hero variety.

Suddenly all the goofy dialogue and musical numbers were worth it, because the second and third acts come down with a thunder. Not only is Krrish looking for his new love, he is also about to meet the evil Indian equivalent of Bill Gates whose aspirations of godhood and weird tendency to speak to the camera as if he’s a news anchor make him the perfect villain for a newly emerging hero.

The special effects are good, the acting is surprisingly good and the story is compelling, especially in its second half. This is a film for fantasy fans and people who are fascinated by mythology, but more importantly it is for people with an open mind.

***** out of *****

GREEN’S BEAUTIFUL WOMEN FALLING FROM THE SKY REVIEW:

Once it was suggested to us that we go Bollywood for review #50 and we agreed that was the way to go, it was only a matter of which film to do. I, being totally clueless when it comes to movies from India, gave way to the wisdom of the scribester when he suggested this movie, simply because I didn‘t know any better.

Unlike the subject of our last review, this film actually looked interesting from the get go. Then the relevant question became, where am I going to get me grubby lil' hands on a copy of this here mooo-vie? Much to my surprise, my local library was able to get it for me via inter-library loan.

My heart sank immediately when I read right on the cover that this movie was a sequel to “Koi Mil Gaya,” a movie I'd obviously never seen. I feared that I wouldn’t be able to follow the story fully without seeing the first film first. Then when I saw that "Krrish" had a run time of 175 minutes (five minutes short of three hours, people), I rather colorfully wondered what in the heck I agreed to.

I really don’t want to give away any of the story because you really ought to see this masterpiece for yourself. Lets just say that it's about a boy named Krishna, who inherits special powers from his father… and thus the adventure begins… (Incidentally, AG and I knew a kid in our high school daze named Krishna.)

This film is not perfect. There are some confusing parts in the story. Stuff that probably makes more sense if you’ve seen the first film first, which I have not, yet. Stuff which I hope will be explained in the first film and expounded upon in the next installment.

"Krrish" has mostly everything you could ask for in a movie: A superhero, a subtly evil bad guy, beautiful women, exotic locations, love, romance, excitement, fear, discovery, beautiful music, dancing, singing, superb production values, excellent acting, top notch directing, state of the art “Matrix”-like special effects and a really good, compelling story. The two things this movie lacks are a car chase or three, gratuitous female frontal nudity and love/sex scenes of any kind. Heck, there isn’t even any substantial lip contact!

Unlike Mel Gibson‘s “Apocalypto” and “The Passion of the Christ,“ where subtitles weren’t needed to understand the story, most of us will have to make use of the English subtitles to understand the dialogue, spoken in Hindi with a smattering of English words thrown in. Still that didn’t take away from my enjoyment of this film. You won’t know the actors from anything else they've starred in, actors like Hrithik Roshan (Krrish/Rohit), Priyanka Chopra (Priya), Rekha (Sonia, [the disturbingly hot grandmother.]) and Naseeruddin Shah (Dr. Arya) but you really don't need to.

In short, this really is a great movie, even without seeing the first film first. Dare I say that this film is better by far than some of the crap that comes out of Hollywood, USA these days?

I’ve even begun my search for the first film, “Koi Mil Gaya" (2003) and was excited to learn that a sequel, “Krrish 2,” is tentatively set for release sometime this year.

Look for this movie in the foreign films section of your library and sign it out. I think you'll enjoy "Krrish" as much as we did.

****½ out of *****

THE KITE RUNNER

2009-01-14T17:02:00.009-05:00

GREEN’S COME BACK TO JAMAICA... ER, AFGHANISTAN REVIEW:

I have to admit that I had never heard of this film before Scribe, in his weaselly quest to appease (suck up to) the masses, who have suggested that we, Sir Scribe-a-lot and myself, ought to review more “recent” movies to make this blog more relevant and dare I say, ‘more interesting.’ I’ll further admit that once I got the DVD from the library, I found every excuse not to watch it, preferring to watch anything else instead. Going to the dentist seemed more appealing than watching this movie. Or at least I imagined it so.

The movie sat right near my television for more than a week, looking rather intently at me every time I walked past it- awaiting the day when I had to watch it else pay exorbitant late fees for borrowing it longer than I should.

Evil, evil DVD...

As it turns out, my worst sweat-filled, stress-inducing nightmares were totally unfounded.

What you have here is the very moving and emotionally touching story of Amir and Hassan, two boys - the best of friends - growing up in Kabul, Afghanistan in the 1970‘s, but the movie doesn't begin that way. The young boys are inseparable, until one incident fractures their friendship and the two never speak again. The story then follows Amir, who moves to the United States with his father when the communist Soviet Union invades Afghanistan. Flash forward to 2000. Amir, now a published author living happily in San Francisco with his wife, receives a phone call from an old family friend with information that sets him on a journey which will change his life forever.

A good story like this about friendship and loyalty transcends language barriers, so it didn’t bother me at all when the characters spoke in the Afghan language and English subtitles were used during the flashback sequence. The kite wars scenes are filmed in such a way as to resemble a great car chase, and are (amazingly) riveting. Marc Forster does a wonderful job directing the largely non-English speaking cast. If I hadn’t looked it up on www.imdb.com, I wouldn’t have realized that the scenes taking place in Afghanistan/Pakistan were really filmed in China. The story is based on Khaled Hosseini’s best-selling novel and I believe screenwriter David Benioff did an excellent job adapting from the source material, though I‘ll admit I have not read Hosseini‘s book.

Don’t let any cultural bias prevent you from enjoying this really great movie. It’s a must see, without a doubt.

****½ out of *****

SCRIBE'S PISSING IN THE BEARDS OF THE MULLAHS REVIEW:

“The Kite Runner” is another in a long line of critically praised literary novels adapted into a film. This one concerns two boys growing up in 1970’s Afghanistan and the far-reaching effects of friendship, betrayal and change.

Most of the film is told in extended flashback with a brief epilogue, always a slippery slope in literature but it works rather well on film.

“The Kite Runner” opens with Amir, now embarking on his dream of being a novelist, receiving a phone call from someone telling him he needs to return to Afghanistan right away. This is is in the year 2000, twenty-one years after he and his father fled the country as the Soviets launched their invasion. From here we return to the 1970’s for lots and lots of establishing of Amir’s friendship with Hassan, the son of his father’s most trusted servant.

In Afghanistan, kite runners are kids who literally fly kites in impromptu competitions involving some rather aggressive maneuvers. The trick is to actually “cut” the other person’s kite, thereby winning… something.

The thing that distinguishes Hassan from the other assistants is his seemingly mystical ability to predict where the other kites will fly and where they will land. If this sounds dull to you, don’t worry, somehow it’s fascinating.

As any student of recent history knows, Afghanistan has seen its share of invasions and wars for the souls of its people. The Soviet takeover looms over the heads of the country as (main kid’s) family continues to do what the wealthy do best: Live lives of opulence and act like nothing has changed. In fact, his father is startlingly apolitical and irreligious, making the most poignant statement in the film: “”The mullahs (religious leaders) try to own our souls and the Communists tell us we don’t have any.” He also expresses a desire to piss in the beards of their religious leaders. In short, he’s da man!

Eventually, through a series of misadventures and peeks inside Afghanistan’s culture of the 1970’s that is at once riveting and alienating, something truly tragic occurs. In fact, it’s a scene that’s so disturbing and unexpected that it lingers in the mind long after it’s over. It involves a pack of bullies who corner Hassan and we’ll leave it at that. Amir witnesses what occurs and his opinion of his friend changes instantly.

In what will be his most shameful moment, Amir begins mistreating his former friend because of his own inadequacies. One is torn between disbelief and disgust as he engineers ways to frame the boy in order to get him and his father exiled from their home.

Like all good period pieces about change, Amir and his father are forced to flee their homeland in the face of overwhelming political upheaval. His dad is far too opinionated and far too wealthy to be allowed to live. And so they come to America, where his father opens a small convenience store.

But the story doesn’t end there. Amir grows up to be a writer despite an apparent Afghanistani bias against telling stories for a living, falls in love with an exiled general’s daughter, and faces personal tragedy.

As we are returned to the moment of the phone call, we find out that he must return to Afghanistan one more time too fulfill a promise he made to Hassan. Only one problem there: This is Taliban controlled Afghanistan and he knows next to nothing about his homeland anymore. At one point he is even informed that if he were seen on the streets without a beard, he would be killed.

The third act of the film is every bit a powerful as the first, a true rarity in films these days. Amir's mission is harrowing and difficult, but the final moments of the film descend into one of the subtlest but most disturbing things captured in recent years. Without giving too much away, there’s a connection to the past that, while not unexpected, is still rather jarring and difficult to watch.

"The Kite Runner" may not be a masterpiece in the tradition of "The Killing Fields," but it is a good film with solid performances.

**** out of *****

BIG Screen turns 50!!

2009-01-06T16:22:00.006-05:00

Yes, 50!!

Well, sort of.

We're fast approaching our 50^th movie review on this blog and we want to give y'all a chance to tell us which movie you'd like to see us review. We want to make it a really cool movie, so think hard and leave your vote in the comments section.

Keep in mind that we're cheap and are restricted to the DVD collections at our local libraries and whatever movies we happen to own. So please, nothing too recent.

Voting will be open until we say it's not, so exercise your right and vote.

Do it. Do it NOW!!!

Didja do it? Didja, didja, didja?

Painless wasn't it?? And lots o' fun too, I'll bet.

Scribe adds o so sexily: Damn, I fear the day Green experiments with caffeine in high concentrations!

Anywho, they said it wouldn't last. They said we wouldn't make it. They said we would self-destruct and take the entire blogging world down with us. I don't know who they are and haven't actually seen them aside from dreams, but me 'n Green gon' kick they asses if they ever show up!

I'm not quite as cheap as Senor Jesus-lova up there. MY lie-beary has new movies now. That's how I was able to see The Happening, the film that has garnered more comments for us than any in a long time. You may thank me and me only for that much needed boost. Proof, once again, that my excrement has nothing resembling a foul odor.

But I need your vote just like any other pandering scumbag out there looking to gain the support of the masses. Whatever you vote for the most, we shall abide by it, unless we decide it's too freakin' stupid for words, then we'll disregard and pull something from our well-sculpted asses.

Excelsior!

1/13 update: Apparently voting has closed, as we've decided to to a Bollywood movie for review #50. Which one? Not at liberty to say right now, but fear not, dear readers! All will be made clear in good time.

Oh, yeah. Forgot to mention that even though voting is officially closed for this poll, you can still leave suggestions for future reference any time you like.

THE HAPPENING

2009-01-02T09:21:00.005-05:00

SCRIBE'S THAT TREE'S LOOKIN' AT ME FUNNY REVIEW:

I have this theory based on historical observation that M. Knight Shaymalan will one day be hailed either as an unrecognized storytelling genius or the greatest one-trick pony of our age. Believe it or not, I tend to side with the former.

“The Happening” is another in a string of box office disappointments for this once A-list auteur. Despite it being quite overrated, “The Sixth Sense” was the equivalent of hitting a homerun on one’s first night of playing major league baseball. It’s difficult to follow up with that kind of rapid success, but he did it with “Unbreakable.” Now with six films under his belt, M. Knight has delivered something different from his previous efforts, an R-rated, much more esoteric film.

Audiences hated it in droves. In fact, the only film of his they seemed to hate more was “The Village,” which I consider to be an underrated masterpiece of deception. This time the story focuses on the entire nation as strange deaths and suicides are reported all over the East Coast. Many of these deaths are grisly and disturbing, a new approach for this filmmaker, and a welcome change to his normal implied horror.

Mark Wahlberg heads up a cast including John Leguizamo and a host of little-knowns as they run from place to place, desperately trying to figure out what’s causing people to basically go insane. The acting is fine although it’s drawn much harsh criticism. M. Knight, like George Lucas, is a popular whipping boy for people who like to sound superior to the masses. What no one seems to want to credit him for, however, is his steadfast devotion to his own peculiar storytelling approach.

Unconcerned with creating some cookie-cutter horror film, M. Knight places his characters in a type of danger that seems real. With just the sight of the wind rustling through the trees, he establishes a feeling of dread most directors can only create through buckets of blood and jump cuts.

Without revealing too much of the plot behind the plot, “The Happening” does have an environmental theme, something that also seems to have pissed people off, if the Yahoo! User reviews are any indication. What most don’t seem to get is there’s always been an element of social commentary to his work. This just happens to be the first time it’s made obvious.

I read some user reviews from people complaining that the actual “Happening” is relegated to the old “Well, it’s a mystery we’ll never solve” category. Untrue. Much like the best work of Stephen King, the answer isn’t some simple ghost or monster story, but something intrinsic to the human condition. People are shallow but M. Knight doesn’t seem to care. Good for him.

This film kept me riveted form start to finish.

***½ out of *****

GREEN’S HOW’D THEY KNOW IT WAS SAFE TO GO BACK? REVIEW:

Pennsylvania High school science teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) knows a lot about many things. What he can’t explain is why everyone around him is mysteriously dying and/or killing themselves in the northeastern United States and nowhere else. So what’s the best course of action when a disaster strikes that nobody can understand or explain?

The tried and true horror movie solution is to get out, get away, just get. Doesn’t matter where or how, even if its by car or on foot.

Elliot gets his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel) and they, along with a colleague (John Leguziamo) and his young daughter (Ashlyn Sanchez) do just that. Predictably, when the friend leaves to go back and find his wife, leaving the child behind with the Moores, shortly thereafter he dies. So they keep running, and running and running, figuring that as people are dying around them that their chances of survival are better in the smallest groups possible.

Is it me, or have M. Night Shamalyan’s films steadily gotten worse over time? I mean they must have to some degree when you make your splashy debut with such a cool, hit film like "The Sixth Sense," right? Or is this the worst of the lot? Every movie writer/producer/director comes up with a dud once in their careers, yes? Hopefully this is his.

As one review I read noted, it’s not the performances of the actors at fault here, but the material itself. ‘Uninspired’ is the word that the reviewer used to describe the script and I‘ve got to agree. I think Mark Wahlberg is a fantastic actor, as he’s impressed me with almost everything I’ve seen him in, up until this. Zooey Deschanel is a promising young talent with phenomenal eyes. (Where’d that come from?) But if the source material is bad, more often than not, even great actors can’t save the movie.

This reviewer also pointed out that when you’re the writer, producer and director, there’s no collaboration and there’s no accountability. Thus, what was a promising horror concept quickly flies by the wayside in a mass of... nothingness. Heck, this movie was so boring that I, even I, had no desire to watch whatever 'how they made it' special features that were included on the disc itself. Normally I love watching that extra stuff, too.

In my eyes, clearly, “The Happening” is not happening and there’s not a darn thing I care to do about it. I say skip this one all together, unless you or someone you’re related to worked on this movie, and wait for Shamalayan's next offering, which almost has to be better.

[Shakes head.] Or maybe I just don’t get it.

*½ out of *****

Jingle All the Way

2008-12-24T18:15:00.008-05:00

GREEN’S “I’M GONNA DECK YOUR HALLS, BUB” REVIEW:

Howard Langston (Arnold Schwarzenegger) never keeps his promises to his young son Jamie (Jake Lloyd) and vows to make it up to him by promising to get him whatever he wants for Christmas, no matter what. The problem is that Jamie wants the most popular toy on the market: action figure/doll Turbo Man, which his wife Liz (Rita Wilson) told him to buy weeks ago. Of course he didn’t buy it and totally forgot about it. Now it’s the day before Christmas, and Turbo Man has been sold out for weeks. What is Howard going to do? He's up against time and crazy postman Myron Larabee (Sinbad), who is also trying to get his hands on a Turbo Man doll for his son for Christmas. While Howard is frantically searching for the doll, next door neighbor Ted (Phil Hartman) keeps hitting on Howard’s wife.

This goofy Christmas movie was another attempt for the Governator to mix family oriented fare in with his action movies. And it works reasonably well. The premise of the story is a well known reality by virtually every one of us who does last minute Christmas shopping and by those of us who promise the world to our kids and hope to heck we don’t disappoint them. The film also realistically expresses the greedy materialism that passes for the Christmas spirit these days.

This is not one of Aaaaaaahnold’s best roles but he’s awkward enough with it to make it funny. What makes this film, in my opinion, is the supporting cast. Phil Hartman steals every scene he’s in with his smarmy, sex-starved, perfect-hunk-of-man-meat, next door neighbor. Sinbad is good if not annoying as the equally obsessed postman turned rival toy hunter. Jim Belushi also does a great job with his slimy Mall Santa character. The black market warehouse scene with all of the Santas is perhaps the funniest in the movie. My parents, who watched this movie with me, liked Howard's repeat run-ins with the same police officer, played by Robert Conrad. Kid actor Jake Lloyd, who will go on to co-star in a teensy-weensy Star Wars prequel three years after the release of this movie, is totally replaceable by any semi-cute whiny child actor with a pulse.

The special features were well done and enhanced the movie for me just a bit. I also liked the fact that I have the option to view the theatrical release or the director’s extended version of the film all on the same DVD. Guess which version I chose?

All in all a decently funny movie with a reasonable (read: just long enough not to be tedious) run time of 93 minutes.

**¾ out of *****

SCRIBE'S WHAT WOULD ANAKIN SKYWALKER WANT WITH A TURBO MAN ACTION FIGURE? REVIEW:

When Green placed this on his list of holiday films for us to review, I naturally blanched. And by blanched I mean I threw up in my mouth a little bit, then contended with the runs for the rest of the week while cursing his name and swearing righteous vengeance.

So, I was pleasantly surprised that "Jingle All The Way" was pretty damn amusing. In fact, in some spots it was really funny. This is rarely the case when Chris Columbus (The "Home Alone" monstrosities) is involved in a film. Despite this, Randy Kornfield's screenplay works on a level rarely seen in Christmas films.

While on the surface this is yet another in a long line of saccharine sweet, cookie-cutter holiday films, there is a strong undercurrent of social commentary going on here. Christmas isn't presented as some wonderful holy day where people happen to buy each other gifts. It is shown as a disgusting consumer-based excursion into utter shamelessness. Hordes of wild-eyed parents storm into department stores heedless of the damage they're causing to the place and to others.

In the midst of this madness stumbles Howard Langston (Schwarzenegger with yet another WASPY name) whose busy schedule causes him to miss the important moments in his son's life. But this year he's going to show his son Jamie (Jake Lloyd, proving he did do something before "Phantom Menace") he's dependable by buying him the hottest toy of the moment, a Turbo Man action figure. Except, of course, he is trying to buy it on Christmas Eve: Cue wacky antics!

What makes this film funny it its performances. Schwarzenegger is good at comedy. Sinbad, with whom I have a love/hate relationship, is competent and funny as the crazy mailman (never saw that one comin'). But the real hilarity comes from the late and very missed Phil Hartman as Howard's way-too-available perfect catch divorced dad neighbor who's hot for his wife because she's the only woman he hasn't bagged in the neighborhood. When he relates the moment he knew he wanted her by recommending creamy Italian dressing for a dish she was making, it is one of the funniest deliveries in film history.

As mentioned earlier, this is a Chris Columbus joint, so the unavoidable descent into preposterousness occurs right on cue. The film's third act, the big parade scene, is filled with such ridiculousness that it nearly ruins the funny ridiculousness of the film's second act, such as Howard's trip to an underground department store Santa run black market operation and the fight scene that results.

Somewhere in the Sacred Texts of Hollywood, it is written: "If somebody doesn't learn a lesson at the end, it ain't a Christmas movie." Thus it should come as no surprise that Howard learns how to be a dependable dad and Jamie learns to stop being such a whiny little shit. But the lessons learned here serve the anti-consumerism plot rather handily. This film isn't so much a feel good comedy as a national criticism. This becomes evident when you pay close attention to the dialogue and realize it might not be for young children after all.

Still, as funny as the film is despite its uneven qualities, the DVD extra, "Turbo Man: Behind the Mask" is some of the funniest stuff I've ever seen.

**½ out of *****

***Bonus review***

This guy from IMDB really seemed to like it:

"I almost swallowed my Texas chili bowl I laughed so hard." 23 August 2006

Author: Don Kydick from Upper Ramsbottom

"Arnold at his very best, or should I say the Governor of California. Every Christmas since this masterpiece came out I've awaited it's return. When its on I put on my 'Jingle All The Way' clothes, complete with Cinncinnati bow-tie. I wear these to fully enjoy the experience of viewing 'Jingle'. At a mere 23 years of age I count myself so lucking I discovered it so soon in life. I see it as a mix between the Green Mile and Around the World in 40 Days. The main aspects of the film are comedy gold, a father desparetly trying to save the relationship with his son. Whilst his wife is under threat from a neighbour who'd like to have rumpy pumpy with her. Not since Mowser in Police Academy have I expressed such anger at a film character. I had to take my Ritalin to calm down in the end Ha ha. Anyone who hasn't seen this film should make it a must see. Its the 90s equivalent of the Godfather. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a well deserved 16 thumbs up, Chenoble style. Holla."

Scrooge

2008-12-20T23:55:00.004-05:00

SCRIBE'S I THINK LIFE A PERPETUAL SPREE REVIEW:

This is my favorite version of Dickens' holiday classic. It used to air locally in Michigan annually on channel 7 Sunday mornings until the rise of cable TV reduced its frequency on regular TV.

Normally, musicals are a trip through the dank, murky recesses of Satan's rectum for me, but the songs actually flesh out Dickens rather skeletal novel with some truly enjoyable moments.

Unlike previous Scrooges such as Alistair Cooke, Albert Finney wasn't an old man when he starred as the redemptive old miser. This is a huge benefit to the production, as he gets to play himself as a young man with an amazing display of emotion.

Finney's Scrooge is a modern take on a post-modern character. Instead of cartoonish villainy and anger, he radiates an inner misery and turmoil that has even effected his walk, which is now a loping, stooped-over gait.

With the exception of George C Scott, Finney is perhaps the finest actor to take on the role of old Ebenezer and he excels at it. Every moment is a study in nuance, a performance worthy of noting in acting schools the world over. His enjoyment of the role and of the dialogue is infectious and, for the first and probably last time, he makes us kind of like Scrooge. This production triggers an instinct in the viewer to realize there is more under the surface of this horrible, grouchy old bastard.

The flashback scenes are not so much glimpses at Scrooge's "could have beens" as they are a study in how easily the world can destroy our dreams and leave us shadows of our former selves. This Scrooge isn't some remote bad guy, he is us fully realized and without filters. This makes the moment of his redemption much more believable and cathartic.

The production design is amazing, second only to the Scott version from the late Eighties. The 1970's color process lends an odd yet appropriate dated feeling to the film.

This is Scrooge the way Dickens probably intended it and quite possibly the best X-mas film ever made.

***** out of *****

GREEN'S "THAT'S THE NICEST THING THAT ANYONE'S EVER DONE FOR ME" REVIEW:

Once in a while, Sir Scribe gets it just about right. There's not much I can disagree with on his assessment of this movie, for it is also my favorite film version of Charles Dickens classic novel.

I always assumed that Albert Finney was much older when this film was released, however he was only 34. That is not only a testament to the make-up artists but to the talent of Finney himself. As an added bonus, we get a wonderful turn by Sir Alec Guiness as Jacob Marley. The rest of the cast is also very good, if virtually unknown.

I love the scene at end of Scrooge's visit with the ghost of Christmas past where Scrooge is led to his small office in hell and Marley announces that he'll be the only one in hell to freeze. How fitting it is that the miserly Scrooge's house is plain and drab, without a touch of color, a reflection of the character's personality. Did you notice that once Scrooge discovers the magic and joy of Christmas, his posture straightens immeasurably from the crouched over, decrepit old miser that he was the day before?

That this is a musical doesn't bother me in the slightest. The music is excellent and the songs are tastefully done, enhancing the story that much more.

The moral of the story is simple yet quite profound. No one, not even the worst of us, is beyond redemption. The thing is we have to want to be redeemed. It's not just going to be handed to us without our asking for it.

Because it is such a true statement, the parting words of the ghost of Christmas present to Scrooge resonate with me, even though I don't often fulfill them: "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try and do as much as you can in the time that you have." WOW.

It is true that there are more acclaimed versions of 'A Christmas Carol' than this but none quite captures the essence of the story than with this movie, at least in my opinion. I think that ol' Chuck Dickens himself would indeed be pleased with this version of his story.

The one thing I will differ with Scribe on is this: This may be the finest version of "A Christmas Carol" put to film, but it is not 'quite possibly the greatest Christmas movie ever made.' In my book, that honor will always rest with some little known Frank Capra-James Stewart-Donna Reed-Lionel Barrymore film. Though this movie probably rates a close second, third at worst.

***** out of *****

A Christmas Story

2008-12-16T13:00:00.004-05:00

SCRIBE'S IGNORE THE MOTHER'S 1980'S HAIRSTYLE REVIEW:

“A Christmas Story” is one of those films that have an enormous regional appeal in the Midwest. I never knew that until two guys with a local radio show in the Detroit area, one from New Jersey, the other from Missouri, talked about it. The Jersey guy had never heard of it, much to the shock of every Michigander he met.

The film is a staple in Michigan thanks to its constant airings in the Eighties and early Nineties on local channels like WKBD-50. At one point it would air twice during the holiday season. Later, as cable became the norm, it started airing at midnight and even later/earlier. But cable picked it up and made it popular with a national audience.

The story concerns a young boy during the Golden Age of Radio era whose desire to get an air rifle for Christmas becomes an overriding obsession. What results are some rather charming and amusing moments seen through the eyes of a child.

This is a film that is a series of memorable moments more than a consistent narrative. In many ways, it’s the Midwestern equivalent of a Woody Allen reminiscence like “Radio Days,” where the adult narrator looks back fondly on a bygone era many of us never experienced.

The Midwestern Indiana setting helps establish the nostalgic mood in a movie with an obviously modest budget. Not much changes in the Heartland, making it a simple matter to place some classic cars and vintage clothing smack dab in the middle for the sake of authenticity.

One thing working in this film’s favor is the child performances. Nowadays, child actors seem incapable of capturing the feeling of the old days realistically, and I’m including teens in that category. The last time kids could pull off a vintage movie was in the Eighties, and these kids are great.

The best scene in the film involves an assembly line Santa whose haste to go home results in some truly funny moments. Next runner-up is little Ralphie's beatdown of the school bully, a beautifully rendered moment of violence that would never get past the cutting room floor in today's PC world.

Roger Ebert's review of the film features the following line, "In a poignant way, A Christmas Story records a world that no longer quite exists in America."

I wouldn't place the film in the pantheon of great classics like "It's A Wonderful Life" or the various Christmas Carol remakes, but it is a fun and endearing film that reminds us of a more innocent past when kids were still able to dream.

*** out of *****

GREEN'S "YOU'LL SHOOT YOUR EYE OUT, KID" REVIEW:

Imagine that a movie buff, such as myself, had never heard of-- let alone watched-- a twenty-five year old Christmas movie. Well you can stop imagining it, because it's true. Apparently this movie was never as popular here on the east coast as it was/is in scribe-o's part of the country.

The kid, Ralphie (Peter Billingsley) is obsessed with getting a BB gun rifle for Christmas, despite every adult telling him how dangerous they are, but he wants one anyway. Finally Christmas morning is here and as all of the presents are opened, Ralphie doesn't see the one present he really wants more than any other.

The most memorable scenes are (in order of their appearance in the film, as I recall them) the dream sequence where Ralphie, dressed all spiffy as a cowboy in white, shoots off the bad guys while his family cowers under the kitchen table; Ralphie's friend being triple dog dared to touch a frozen pole with his tongue and when he does gets his tongue stuck to the pole (of course his friends then leave him stuck to the pole, forcing the good ol' fire department to come and unstick the young lad); Ralphie being coerced by his mother into dressing up in the large pink bunny suit he got from his aunt for Christmas; the neighbor's dogs coming into the house, ruining dinner and eating the turkey; and the employees of the Chinese Restaurant trying to sing Christmas Carols to their lone guests on Christmas day.

Notice I said memorable and not funny. This movie is neither cute nor funny. It does nothing to stir any emotional response (who cares?). This movie is not memorable in any way and, in my opinion, can hardly be called a classic Christmas movie.

Generally, stories that rely entirely on flashbacks or narration are poorly conceived and the mark of a novice writer. True to form, the script is poor and the acting- across the board- is stiff and uninviting. The narrator, a voice over of an older Ralphie, is annoying.

I really can't see the appeal of this movie. It absolutely does nothing for me. Call it an east coast anti-bias, if you will.

*½ out of *****

The Next Step

2008-12-01T18:48:00.001-05:00

Like we attempted to do prior to the election with our Presidential themed reviews, we're going to try and do for Christmas.

That means we're going to try and review some Christmas-y themed movies this month, in the spirit of the season. How many we'll do I can't say, as it greatly depends on the selection available to us from our respective library collections.

Merry Christmas, all. Enjoy. ;>)

Jumper

2008-11-18T19:19:00.005-05:00

SCRIBE'S I WISH I COULD TELEPORT SO I COULD MATERIALIZE INSIDE SALMA HAYEK'S UNDERWEAR DRAWER & JUST WAIT...JUST WAIT...REVIEW:

Half of me wanted to hate this movie, while the other wanted to love it. As it turns out, it’s based on one of my favorite novels by Stephen C. Gould.

I read Jumper in the early Nineties while I was still formulating my reading tastes and loved its often unsettling portrayal of an abused teen who suddenly discovers he can teleport to places he’s been before. Eventually, he finds out he can teleport to places he hasn’t been as long as he can focus on an image of it. Talk about your wish list of powers!

Naturally, the protagonist is pursued by a government agent hell-bent on either destroying him or using his powers for national security.

The film is something of a departure from the book in that it fleshes out the concept of Jumpers as a secret group of social outcast and adds a group of fanatical weirdos who pursue them. The first twenty minutes of the novel, the narrated portion, are identical to the book with one glaring exception: The truck stop anal rape scene is missing! The whole point of that scene was to show the protagonist that escape from abuse is not always as easy as it sounds. I really wish they’d kept that scene.

DON’T PSYCHOANALYZE ME!!!

The film is surprisingly enjoyable. Instead of destroying a great concept, it builds upon it. Even Gould acknowledges in the extras that his story was too internal to make a good visual tale without some major changes. He even likes the idea of the fanatics who feel it’s their duty to destroy these “abominations” against God’s will and so do I!

Hayden Christensen shows he is not a wooden actor at all and is in fact in possession of a decent amount of range. Samuel L Jackson is…well, come on, who in their right minds would say anything negative about one of our greatest actors? I loved the Scottish kid who reveals to Christensen that Jumpers have been around for a long time, a departure from the novel.

Doug Liman’s direction is first rate as he keeps the action moving without sacrificing character development and emotion. The screenplay makes excellent use of the source material while developing its own mythology. Oh, and the chick is pretty cute and a good actor as well.

The DVD extras are filled with talk of making this a film trilogy and I would be interested in seeing that.

*** out of *****

GREEN'S "COME WITH ME TO ROME BECAUSE I'VE HAD A SECRET CRUSH ON YOU MY WHOLE LIFE" REVIEW:

The last time we saw Hayden Christiansen and Samuel L. Jackson on screen together, Mace Windu was receiving his first and only impromptu flying lesson from a newly minted Darth Vader. Oh, what a great film Revenge of the Sith was!!!

Wait, we're not talking about that movie now, are we?? What the....!!

Oh, this is supposed to be a review of Jumper, huh?

Right, right. Why didn't you say so sooner?

It has been a long time since I've anticipated watching any movie as much as I had with this one, while not knowing much about it. I had wanted to see it in the theater but never got around to it.

Quite frankly, I would have been disappointed and I'm glad I didn't waste my money.

Why, you ask? Was this not a great and enjoyable film? Sure it was. What there was of it, anyway.

Unlike the scribester, I had never read the novel and only knew about the story from what the movie trailers gave away, which is to say not much. If ever there was unrealized potential in a movie, this was it.

At 88 minutes of run time, this movie was way too short. It could have easily been an hour longer without dragging the story down one bit. The story didn't develop nearly as much as I would have liked and was expecting. It left more questions than it answered and left many questions unanswered.

Here are some of the questions I had:

How exactly does Roland find David after eight years of presumably cold-trail and somehow end up in his apartment out of the blue one night?

I want to know more about the history behind the story. Show me some of the battles, rivalry and hatred between Paladins and Jumpers in the past; how it came to be that way and how that leads us to the story at hand? Seems like being a Jumper is something you are born with, not a skill you can aquire over time.

Exactly how does one become a Paladin? why is it that a female Paladin can give birth to babies who eventually become Jumpers? What is the connection between them? Can female Jumpers give birth to eventual Paladins? Let's see some juicy inner conflict as Mary Rice realizes she'll have to abandon her five year old son or kill him when she realizes what he is.

Why is Griffin such a twat? Shouldn't he be happy there's another Jumper to fight the Paladins along with him instead of being annoyed and offended by David's presence in every scene?

Good questions all.

I'll agree wholeheartedly with scribe-o-rama in that Christiansen displays much more talent and range here than he was able to do with some character that the whole world knew what was going to happen to him eventually with the only question being how exactly does it happen? There's no doubt that Jackson is one of the best actors in showbizznizz today. And let's not forget the great Diane Lane, who in her brief scenes, is able to shine as bright as Christiansen and Jackson do. Yeah, the chick (Rachel Bilson) is cute but would scribe's opinion of her acting ability be different if he realized that this actress starred for four seasons on a show which he probably considers lame and wimpy?

Doug Liman's reputation as an action movie director is never in question with me. He does a great job with the material he has to work with. The screenplay, while short, is excellently written and is tailor made for a sequel because Roland is too much of a bad-a$$ to be left in the mouth of a cave in the desert for too long...

Actually, I think this movie needs at least a prequel/sequel type deal to address the plot holes and questions I mentioned above. A third film could be good, nay- might even be necessary- depending on how the first sequel works. BUT Liman must direct and the five main actors must reprise their roles. Using alternate actors just won't do.

Because my library set this DVD up as a two day rental, I didn't have time to watch the extras. Too bad for me, I guess.

This film could easily have gotten four or four and a half stars and become one of my favorite films. But as it is now I can't say that or rate it any higher.

** out of *****

Bulworth

2008-11-06T11:40:00.005-05:00

GREEN'S CANCEL THE WEEKEND RESEARCH PROJECT REVIEW:

What happens when a white, highly suicidal, uptown United States Senator falls in love with a woman from the 'hood? If you're Senator Jay Bulworth, it means you don't need the ridiculously large insurance policy you just agreed to buy for your daughter, nor do you want the mob man who you've just hired to contract out to kill you to follow through with it.

Thinking your life is about to end, you begin to tell the truth wherever you go. The blunt and honest truth, no matter who it hurts or what people think of you. Worse, you do it singing, rhyming and rapping. Now if you could only find the person who wants to kill you....

Whenever I think of Warren Beatty, which is not often, I do not think of a comedic actor. In fact, he wouldn't even make my top ten list of funniest actors, if I had such a list. So I was quite surprised that this movie, and Beatty himself, was quite funny, though sometimes a bit offensive.

Oliver Platt absolutely steals this movie as the conservative, absolutely hates surprises, life organizer for Senator Bulworth. I thought Don Cheadle also did a fine job with his part in this film. I was disappointed in Halle Berry's part, not because of her performance per-se, but because it seemed to me like her part was too small, her character way too underdeveloped, even though she got 2^nd billing in the credits.

A good movie but not great. You'll get a few laughs out of it.

**¾ out of *****

(Two and three quarters??? We never agreed on quarters!!! Anyway:)

SCRIBE'S HIT DAT NAPPY DUG-OUT REVIEW:

This is one of my favorite movies so I will try to be objective when I tell you it was quite possibly the greatest statement on faux white liberalism and black cultural failure ever put to film. OK, it's probably the only one, but still...

Senator Jay Bulworth was once a Sixties poster boy, shaking hands with the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr. and hanging out with Huey Newton. But that was then. Nowadays he panders to wealthy special interest groups while pretending to be a centrist who cares about minority rights. He hates himself. He should hate himself. He is a sellout and a whore.

As the film opens, we meet Bulworth at the moment of his epiphany. He sobs uncontrollably in his office through the night, surrounded by pictures of his former achievements and a looping videotape of his spin doctoring present day bullshit. It comes as no surprise that this guy wants to die. What does, however, is the total sense of liberation he experiences when he pays a guy to pay a guy to kill him so his daughter can collect the life insurance policy...his wife's a self-indulgent, unfaithful bitch.

What follows is a surreal trek into Bulworth's sleep-deprived unconscious mind as he informs African-American voters the Democratic party doesn't give a rat's ass about them and tells wealthy Jews their Hollywood products are shit. In-between, he meets a hot biracial chick (Halle Berry) and her hood-rat girlfriends, decides he wants to live after all, and raps his way through a debate and TV interview where he spits naught but truth complete with foul language.

If there's anything offensive in Beatty's story, it is the unflinching and factual social commentary. Obviously disgusted with his fellow left-wingers and their tendency to sell their souls to the highest bidder, Beatty has created an enduring and electrifying statement on the affairs of state. The underlying message, that white liberals need to overcome their hypocrisy and blacks need to stop waiting to be saved by someone else, is even more relevant in light of the recent election than it was in the Nineties when the film was first released. (I saw it in a theater, by the way, and the mixed audience loved it)

**** out of ***** (One star subtracted for the lack of nudity on the part of Berry)

A Nightmare on Elm Street

2008-10-31T21:46:00.004-04:00

GREEN'S "I'M YOUR BOYFRIEND NOW, NANCY" REVIEW:

Nancy and her friends aren't sleeping well lately, if at all. That's because they're all being visited in their nightmares by a burnt, creepy guy in a dirty red and green sweater who uses a set of home made finger knives to murder his victims in their dreams.

I've never been one to get caught up in the horror of the horror film genre. Usually these types of movies are so unabashedly stupid that they're comical. Not so for A Nightmare on Elm Street. This movie, the first time I watched it, really freaked me out. Nowadays I can watch it with the same detached-ness that I view all horror movies.

That doesn't lessen the cleverness of this story and I think that's why this film will always be one of the best horror films ever made. Sure there's your standard blood and guts goriness, which comes du jour with these slasher films. Wes Craven's script is brilliantly surreal and his direction fluid because the story is entirely his and he knows exactly in which direction he wants it to go. As an added bonus, there is actually some decent acting in this film. Of course, this movie will also forever be known as the film that launched the career of the sometimes brilliant, always intense, somewhat odd Johnny Depp.

The special features provided with the Infinifilm, 2-disc edition that I watched were excellent and add to my enjoyment of this film.

Unlike some of the horror movie franchises of the last 30 years or so, I've actually enjoyed most of the Elm Street sequels.

***** out of *****

All the President's Men

2008-10-24T08:00:00.007-04:00

SCRIBE'S I NEVER THOUGHT I'D WISH FOR THE DAYS WHEN THIS GUY WAS PRESIDENT REVIEW:

What's left to be said about a classic motion picture and who is arrogant enough to presume they are the ones to say it?

US!!! Two guys who barely remember this time and have no business discussing it, that's who!!!

Besides, I grew up in your typical Nixon-despising household and never knew anyone who felt differently until I was well into my thirties. To me, this was a film about someone everybody hated getting his comeuppance. Apparently not. There really were those who thought he was a good president on a righteous path.

Thank god for the media! (In those days) Washington post reporters Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein wouldn't take no for an answer in their hard-hitting and long-running investigation of the Watergate break-in and wire tappings.

Nowadays neo-cons would probably see tapping the conversations of the competition during their convention as a sound business solution. But not only is it illegal, it is also sending the message that the president condones suppressing the rights of individuals who disagree with him. Aren't you glad that ugliness is behind us? Oh, right.

All the President's Men would be a cautionary tale if anyone had heeded the warning. As it currently stands, it is a well-acted and directed film with two legendary stars portraying real people in a compelling manner. The cast is top-notch for the time, for all time actually, and the story clips along rather nicely.

This is one of those films I like to watch to gain historical perspective. For instance, watching this, would you have ever thought that one day Bernstein would be the real investigative journalist exposing government corruption while Woodward became a moderate, president-blowing media whore? Well, OK, that second part probably so...JUST SEE THE DAMN THING!!!

****1/2 out of *****

GREEN‘S “I NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW” REVIEW:

Bob Woodward. Carl Bernstein. Two intrepid and tenacious young reporters for the Washington Post crack the story of a lifetime that defined the early 1970’s and raised the bar for print reporters’ journalistic integrity while ruining many a political career in the process. Faced with silence, fear, lies, denials and denials of denials from people “in the know,“ Woodward (Robert Redford) and Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) persist until they discover the truth about it’s widespread underlying conspiracy.

Watergate, one of the biggest political scandals and cover-ups in American political history takes center stage in this excellent and gripping true story nicely directed by Alan J. Pakula. Redford and Hoffman are very convincing as the crack reporters who broke this case wide open. The supporting cast is excellent, too. I thought the movie dragged in places with its lengthy 139 minute run time but still found the story and characters compelling.

I'm always amazed at the 1970's hairstyles, or lack thereof. It amuses me to see the mop that passes for hair on Hoffman's head. Did Carl Bernstein really wear his hair that messy?

The most impressionable thing I remember most about Watergate was my mom’s monopolizing the television to watch the lousy Congressional hearings when I, as a selfish young pre-kindergarten lad, just wanted to watch cartoons. Sadly, I must admit that both of my parents admit to voting for Tricky Dick. Twice.

I majored in Communications in college and once harbored dreams of being a reporter some day, so I found this film's look inside a modern (albeit for the 1970’s) newspaper office to be fascinating and most informative.

Overall, I think the script was adapted well from Woodward and Bernstein‘s book, on which the film is based. An excellent film to watch if ever you get the chance.

**** out of *****

The next few reviews will be...

2008-10-08T20:20:00.004-04:00

Yesterday scribe suggested to me a list of presidential or election themed films that we could review until election day. I thought it was an excellent idea since I like to try and be topical when appropriate.

So, we're putting aside Labyrinth, Stop-Loss and a few others for now, to try and review as many films as we can from scribe-o's list. How many films we review and what we review will remain a surprise.

Even we don't know for sure.

What we do know is that they won't be older films, or films made in glorious black and white, since the dearth of comments on the last review is appalling. Shame on you loyal readers, whoever you are!!

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

2008-09-30T23:23:00.006-04:00

GREEN’S BEST FILIBUSTER IN HOLLYWOOD HISTORY REVIEW:

An ever so brief plot summary would be that Mr. Smith, an idealistic compassionate, full of love for the American ideal, small town yokel becomes a US Senator when one of the other senators from his state dies suddenly while in office. The political machine of Washington politics wants to use him as a mindless stooge but get a not so welcome surprise. The cynical Washington press has a field day with the naive Senator and Clarissa Saunders, a jaded Senate staffer, wants nothing more to do with Washington politics or the baptism by stupidity of the young Mr. Smith until they, and she, get more than they bargained for.

Make sense? No? Then watch this movie. I promise you won't be disappointed. After all, it did win one Oscar (Best Writing, Original Story) in 1940 and was nominated for ten others, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor.

James Stewart is, well, James Stewart. 'Nuff said. Jean Arthur is awesome. Sexy. Must have been the heartthrob of her day, gravelly voice and all. Imagine if today's paparazzi and tabloid mags existed back then? Wow. Claude Rains... What can you say about a man who can hold his own acting along side the likes of Stewart in this film and Bogart in "Casablanca"? Pretty impressive company if you ask me.

What, you didn't ask?? Shame on you.

Many of the cast of this film will also have roles in another great Capra piece to be made seven years later. See if you can find them all.

This is another piece of classic American cinema which you should own, if you're into that sort of thing. If you don't feel good as an American after watching this movie, then there's something wrong with you. Yes, you. And you, and you in the back trying to sneak off of this blog without leaving a comment! I see you!!!

***** out of *****

Scribe-o may add his bit to this review. He said he would. We'll see if he actually does...

Flash Gordon

2008-09-22T17:59:00.004-04:00

GREEN'S HOW MUCH CHEESE WOULD YOU LIKE? REVIEW:

Some movies are so campy and stupid with such horrible acting that they are good in spite of the stupidity, campiness and horrible acting. This is clearly one of those films.

I won't ruin the story for you by summarizing the plot, since Scribe will do so nicely below. However I'll just say that if you have never bothered to see this movie before, you really should rectify the situation, just because you can.

At the time this film came out, audiences had witnessed the first two original "Star Wars" movies and the first feature length "Star Trek" film. It was obvious in which direction the science fiction movie genre was going. The makers of this movie chose rather heartily to go against the grain and the result is... idiotic, ridiculous and surprisingly good in spite of itself.

Plus, how can you go wrong with the soundtrack of the film written and performed by Queen? Obviously you can't, in my opinion.

Max Von Sydow (Ming), an actor who you would think too uppity to be in a film like this, embraces his excellent inner-evilness and a pre-007 Timothy Dalton (Prince Barin) lead a cast of virtual unknowns and Hollywood never wases, like Sam J. Jones (Flash Gordon). This is one of the few feature films Melody Anderson (Dale Arden) acted in. Her acting career was spent in bits and pieces of television shows. Ornella Muti provides more eye candy as Princess Aura. Topol (Hans Zarkov) is better known for his singing in "Fiddler on the Roof" and actually plays a believable straight man compared to anyone else in the film. Perpetual voice-over man Brian Blessed (Prince Vultan) steals most every scene he's in.

Frankly, what makes this film work is the B-movie special effects combined with the actors not attempting to be dramatic - playing up to the desired cheesiness level.

While watching, I could vividly picture Charlize Theron in the role of Dale Arden, should someone ever be foolish enough to do a remake of this movie, not because Theron is a bad or campy actress but because I saw a slight resemblance in the two actresses.

I found the special features on the DVD informative and worthwhile to watch.

Wait a minute.... Just our luck!!

Apparently a remake is in the works. I know, just what we need...

Trivia: What is the relation between this film, "Batman", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and the original "Star Wars" film? ANSWER BELOW

**** out of *****

SCRIBE'S LET'S NOT DIGNIFY THIS MOVIE WITH THE WORD "CHEESE" WHEN "CHEESE-WIZ" IS MORE APPROPRIATE REVIEW:

DUM-DUM-DUM-DUM-DUM-DUM-DUM-DUM DUM-DUM-DUM-DUM-DUM-DUM-DUM-DUM FLASH! Aaaahhhh-aaaahhhhh He’s a miracle!!!! FLASH! AAAA-AAAAHHHHHH He saved every one of us!

And with that incredibly corny opening song provided by Queen, a 1930’s comic strip and movie serial was brought screaming and struggling into 1980 by that great purveyor of crap, Dino De Laurentiis. Eventual B movie staple Sam Jones played the title role as a goofy, awkward dork that thinks he’s cool… except, I don’t think the filmmakers realized this when they wrote and filmed the movie!

Flash Gordon has long been one of the better science fiction comic strips and this movie does it little justice. Embracing a cheesy end-of-the-Seventies style, the 1980 Flash is a self-absorbed jock more interested in tapping intrepid reporter Dale Arden than in being a stern, super-serious “savior of the universe.”

Through a comedy of errors involving a dark and stormy night, Flash and Dale wind up in the home of one Professor Zarkov, a seemingly mad scientist who has built a rocket ship in his rec room. Zarkov plans to fly toward a series of odd signals that he feels might be causing all the storms and weird climatic shifts currently happening on Earth. Naturally, he pulls a gun on the duo and forces them to come along for the ride when his assistants cut and run.

This is pure space opera so questioning things like how do these two people who haven’t been tested for negative g’s survive a rocket ship ride and what are the odds of the planet Mongo having a breathable atmosphere considering Zarkov didn’t bring any breathing apparatus are not allowed. This is fun, pure and simple. It’s also really, really, REALLY dumb.

Upon their arrival, the minions of Ming the Merciless led by the really cool General Klytus abduct the traveling trio. Max Von Sydow portrays Ming with a genuine menace and evil that almost seems displaced in this corn muffin of a movie. Our first real clue that this isn’t your classic Gordon film occurs when the Emperor of Mongo decides to imprison the Earth folk and Flash grabs a golden globe-like object. What follows next is something right out of a bad burlesque show as Flash uses the globe-thing as a makeshift football and tackles and runs it in like the jock he is. For a moment, this upstart human looks like he might emerge victorious, but it is not to be, much to the disappointment of the observing aliens who secretly despise Ming and his power rings.

From there our heroes get split up so we can gain a better perspective on the worlds and the people Ming rules with an iron goatee’. Naturally, Flash winds up convincing a far more advanced people to rebel and fight for freedom, leading them to victory in a move equivalent to us overthrowing a dictator with the help of a Neanderthal.

What makes this movie so shockingly watchable is its total and unrepentant descent into utter camp. No effort is made to take the source material seriously or to portray the Flash Gordon universe in a realistic fashion. It’s not witty or highbrow enough to be parody and it’s not well crafted enough to be actual science fiction. The film is a pretty train wreck replete with silly asides and hammy overacting. Sam Jones’ Flash Gordon is a dimwitted buffoon with a goofy hairstyle. The women are hot, hot, HOT! Especially Ming’s daughter. The only believable thing in this entire cartoonish romp is the absolute hell Flash goes through to convince Ming’s subjects to join his crusade. Even though this is another in a long line of Great White Hunter Saves the Day flicks, it doesn’t come easy for him in this version of the tale.

George Lucas originally wanted to make this movie but was unable to acquire the rights, so he made Star Wars instead. The world continues to breathe a sigh of relief, but one wonders how kick ass his version would have been.

*** out of ***** for the sheer stupid fun of it all.

TRIVIA ANSWER: Actor William Hootkins, who played Munson in this film, Lt. Eckhart in "Batman", Major Eaton in "Raiders" and Red Six aka Porkins in "Star Wars". Another "Flash Gordon" - "Raiders" connection: Actor George Harris, who played Prince Thun of Ardentia in this movie and Captain Katanga in "Raiders".

Reservation Road

2008-09-08T20:43:00.009-04:00

SCRIBE'S DEAD KID ON THE ROADSIDE REVIEW:

After this movie had ended, I knew two things for sure: (1) Bluez, who challenged us with this film, loves films dealing with moral ambiguity and the consequences of our actions, and (2) Jennifer Connelly no longer has huge breasts.

Pretty sure you can guess which of those two things disturbs me more, but let's get to the film.

Reservation Road centers around abrupt change in the lives of two families and the a bit too convenient plot contrivances...er, I mean, developments that occur as a result.

Underrated Vincent D'Onofrio for a younger generation Mark Ruffalo is the attorney with an inability to be responsible, whose love for his son and baseball are the only things keeping him going. When his ex-wife, portrayed by a suprisingly sexy Mira Sorvino, calls him for the ten-thousandth time during a Red Sox game, he feels compelled to drive like a Klansman from a Black Panther convention.

Enter Joaquin Phonenix and Connelly, the idealized white American couple of affluence with two perfect kids who are about to lose a large portion of their happiness in the form of Ruffalo's carelessly driving ass.

The kid dies, of course. I gave that much away in my review title. What results is a gripping, powerful and emotional tale of one man (Phoenix) obsessed with making his son's killer pay and another (Ruffalo) torn between turning himself in and giving his son some good memories of his screw-up dad. As time goes by and it looks like there is no chance of his getting caught, Ruffalo's character starts to lean toward letting it all pass. But Phoenix's college professor starts to remember more details about that night...

This is an extremely well-acted film. Even the kids are great, including Dakota's Fanning's lookalike sister, Elle. The only fault with this film lies in the earlier mentioned plot contrivances. What are the odds of Phoenix hiring Ruffalo as his attorney to light a fire under the cops' asses? What are the odds of Sorvino being Phoenix and Connelly's daughter's music instructor? What are the odds of Ruffalo showing up to a family function wearing the one thing that triggers a buried memory in Phoenix?

Still, the drama and the direction keep the viewer unconcerned with the less believable aspects of the story. This is, after all, a story. and it was good enough to cause me to to go to the library and borrow a copy of the novel.

(Really gettin' sick of movies about Easter Coasters, though)

***1/2 out of *****

GREEN’S INCREDIBLY GUILTY CONSCIENCE REVIEW:

This film was actually recommended for us to watch by Esther (and not Bluez this time) who thought of me while watching it because of the prominent role the Boston Red Sox play in the film and knowing that I happen to be a life-long Red Sox fan. [Thirty-three years and counting...]

How do you deal with a hit and run accident if you’re the family of the victim?
How do you deal with a hit and run accident if the victim is your child?
How do you deal with a hit and run accident if you’re the driver of the offending vehicle?

These are the questions that are raised in this film.

On one hand you have the parents, with a father (played by Joaquin Phoenix) who becomes obsessed with finding his son’s killer and the grieving mother (played by Jennifer Connolly) trying to return to normalcy and hold the rest of her family together.

On the other hand, you have the driver of the car (played by Mark Ruffalo), who tries to hide what he did while fighting feelings of incredible guilt.

The cast in this film is excellent, with the lead actors each giving wonderful, intense and dramatic performances, despite some questionable areas in the script.

I can handle that both the victim‘s family and the hit and run driver living in the same town. What I thought was a bit too coincidental was that the driver, Dwight Arno, is an attorney and that the father of the victim, Ethan Lerner, just happens to choose the law firm Arno works at for help and that Arno himself is assigned to the case. It does heighten the drama but is a bit contrived. And I totally forgot about the other two instances that scribe-o mentions above.

The ending of the film is also contrived and goes way overboard. Like we need any more tension and drama in an already emotionally heavy movie. I can understand Lerner’s grief and rage building throughout the story, imagining how I’d feel if one of my kids were killed in this way. I think I can also understand the guilt that Arno is feeling as it builds throughout the story. But the confrontation between the two at the end borders on the ridiculous.

What helps to redeem this film is that Arno was set to turn himself in before the questionable confrontation.

I do like the fact that the author of the novel that the film is based on had an active role in developing and writing the screenplay. I think that that consistency helps fully realize the author’s vision for his story as it is being transformed to the big screen.

The film is flawed but still very good.

*** out of *****

His Girl Friday

2008-08-22T21:07:00.001-04:00

Since we're not ready to post a new joint review in the next few days, I've been trying work up a few reserve reviews for just such a short-handed time as this. Of course, if Sir Scribe-a-lot has seen this film and wants to add his own review at some point, well then so be it.

GREEN'S STOP THE PRESSES REVIEW:

Former Ace newspaper reporter Hildy Johnson (Rosalind Russell) comes back to the office of her ex-editor Walter Burns (Cary Grant) to announce that she's getting married to mild mannered Bruce Baldwin (Ralph Bellamy), much to Walter's surprise, because he's also her ex-husband. But Walter will have none of it as he slyly dangles the carrot of a lifetime under her nose, unwillingly but forcefully making her reassess her priorities and former relationship.

The only other time I'd ever watched this movie was in a film critique/history of film type class in college, more than 20 years ago. At that time I really didn't care for black and white movies, because my exposure to them was really limited only to the beginning and ending sequences in "The Wizard of Oz."

One of the all time classic films in American history, "His Girl Friday" (1940), sets the tone for snappy dialogue and a quick pace that is rarely matched in today's cinema. Other films, such as "Broadcast News" have tried and come close but just fall short.

The script is excellently written by Charles Lederer who adapted it from the highly successful 1931 play "The Front Page," by Ben Hecht. Howard Hawks was simply one of the greatest directors in any era and this film showcases his ability to get the most from his actors. Cary Grant is his usual suave, confident self, and he builds that into his character.

Having only seen Ralph Bellamy in two of his later movies, ("Trading Places" and "Pretty Woman"), I was impressed with his small but crucial role here and should make a note to self to see some of his other work. I'd never seen anything Rosalind Russell was in before but judging by her performance here, she was an actress who could stand up to the big boys and dish out as well as she could take. The supporting cast may not be as well known but are equally as effective in making this movie the classic that it has become.

Interestingly, Russell was not director Hawks first choice for the feisty Hildy Johnson. Hawks preferred Jean Arthur, who turned the part down for whatever reasons. I think Arthur would have done just fine with this role, but Russell does a great job in her own right.

This is a movie that you must see at least once in your lifetime and if the price is right, add it to your movie collection. Classic top notch entertainment.

***** out of *****