From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Sun Sep 4 16:00:03 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Sun Sep 4 16:00:06 2005 Subject: Review: The Constant Gardener (2005) Message-ID: THE CONSTANT GARDENER A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** As he did in his wildly overrated CITY OF GOD (CIDADE DE DEUS), OSCAR nominee Fernando Meirelles once again creates a film that is a triumph of style over storytelling. This film version of John Le Carré's THE CONSTANT GARDENER fashions a simplistic world in which the United Nations is the source of all good while big businesses and governments are the source of all evil. (Before you go protesting the evil as shown in the film, you might want to check the reality of the situation, which is massive aid from both the United States and the British government into Africa in order to aggressively attack the AIDS epidemic there and big pharmaceutical firms providing their AIDS drugs below cost.) Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) is a wimpy British government administrator who falls head over heels in love with Tessa (Rachel Weisz) in their first encounter. He is delivering a dull lecture, which she upsets with a long diatribe against the war in Iraq and in favor of the U.N. She is an outspoken liberal activist who never backs down in the face of danger. Although Weisz delivers yet another in a long series of strong performances, Fiennes is almost laughably bad. The character he creates has few believable moments. The story, which lumbers along, cutting back and forth, never really tells us what positions Justin or Tessa hold or exactly what they really do for a living. Suffice it to say that he works for the big bad British government, who, in collusion with the drug companies, are killing Africans as they use the Africans as human genuine pigs. She, on the other hand, is trying to expose this exploitation and murder. None of this is believable for a minute. But, even if it were, the movie never really cares about the story, as it is too busy trying to score style points with some spectacular cinematography and dramatic images. The movie, which is about a half hour longer that it needs to be, does make one suspect that there is a decent movie that could be made from this John Le Carré novel, but this version by Meirelles isn't it. If you want to see more effective adaptations of John Le Carré novels, John Boorman's THE TAILOR OF PANAMA from 2001 is the most recent. Although many will probably point you to THE LOOKING GLASS WAR and THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, both from the 1960s, as perhaps the best examples of Le Carré adaptations, for my money none is better than "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" and "Smiley's People," two television miniseries from the late 1970s and early 1980s. THE CONSTANT GARDENER runs way too long at 2:09. It is rated R for "language, some violent images and sexual content/nudity" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Wednesday, August 31, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From Triniman at shaw.ca Sun Sep 4 16:03:50 2005 From: Triniman at shaw.ca (Triniman) Date: Sun Sep 4 16:03:53 2005 Subject: Review: The Best of Youth, Part 1 Message-ID: The Best of Youth, Part 1 Triniman The Best of Youth, Part 1 (2005) From Triniman's Blog http://trinimansblog.blogspot.com/ 5 /5 Winner of the Jury prize at the Cannes film festival and recipient of glowing reviews everywhere, I decided to take in this Italian family saga over much more flashy fare like Transporter 2, The Cave, A Sound of Thunder, The Dukes of Hazzard, etc. Was I happy with my choice? Absolutely. The Best of Youth, Part 1, is a three hour epic, based on the lives of Matteo and Nicola Carati, two brothers who we first meet in 1966. Matteo works in an aylum and becomes smitten with a beautiful young patient, Giorgia. He shows his medical student brother photos that he took of her and they discover scars, most likely from excessive eletro-shock therapy. Concerned for her well being, they sneak her out and go on a road trip to find her father. This alone could make for an interesting film, but in the scope of his epic, it's only a small part. Matteo and Nicola were supposed to meet up with some friends to travel to Norway. After freeing Giorgia from the asylum, they become side tracked and go their separate ways...Nicola the free sprit, to Norway, Matteo, the brooding introspect, back to Rome. When we first see Matteo, he looks like David Cassidy from the Partridge Family, except with shorter hair. In most of the scenes, he seems to be dark and mysterious, with a wicked temper. It's as if something is constantly eating away at him and he's unable to find peace. He's attracted to the military and the becomes a Riot Policeman, because he loves rules and order. Even as a policeman, his constantly simmering anger gets him in hot water. Nicola, in contrast, is more easy going, and leans more to the left. His life isn't care-free, though. He becomes married to an activist university student, who seems to dislike being a mother and is clearly preoccupied, behind her husband's back, with intense leftist politics and activities... We see big events that shape the history of Italy from the 60s onwards and how our two main characters are involved, affected and react differently. After the brothers went their separate ways, we see the floods of Flroence from the 60's, students rioting and fighting police, the terrorist group the Red Brigade, etc. This is only Part 1. Part 2 shows at Cinemateque later in September. Director Marco Tullio Giordana has scored a home run. Had this been a US film, this would easily be talked about as Oscar material. You are constantly watching to see what will happen next and unlike most mainstream Hollywood fare, you get a sense that you are watching a story unfold and want to see where it is going. Most Hollywood films can be figured out within the first hour, if not eariier. There are no stars who I recognize, but if anything, that's one less distraction. The acting is first rate. The audience appeared to be mostly older folks, possibly of Italian heritage. They laughed a lot at the unique Italian mannerisms and dialogue but this film definitely has a universal appeal. They also applauded at the end. This is a very watchable film and I look forward to seeing Part 2, and then buying the whole thing on DVD someday. Easily in my top ten films of the year. From Triniman at shaw.ca Sun Sep 4 16:04:41 2005 From: Triniman at shaw.ca (Triniman) Date: Sun Sep 4 16:04:44 2005 Subject: Review: The Constant Gardener (2005) Message-ID: The Constant Gardener Triniman The Constant Gardener (2005) From Triniman's Blog http://trinimansblog.blogspot.com/ 3.5/5 The theatre was packed tonight, a Wednesday night, for what looked like a film that promised relief from the stream of duds and shallow movies as of late. Ralf Fiennes plays Brit diplomat Justin Quayle, on location in Kenya. His wife, 24 year-old Tessa (34 year-old Rachel Weisz) , tags along with handsome Dr. Arnold Bluhm as he visits the villages, dishing out medical aid. Tessa is a committed social activist, critical of conglomerates who hand out free medicine, etc., and pieces together her observations with the Dr. to come up with a conspiracy theory that she submits to a respected higher up in the British High Commission. Of course, big trouble later ensues. Shot in flash backs, the film is about Justin's one-man investigation of his wife's murder and the greedy players in the busines and political world who promise to profit enormously from the shady pharmaceutical industry's practices. Some of camera work was disorienteering, as it is shot with a shaky hand-held camera. Some of the footage seems pointless. What's the point of having the scene with the bandits raiding the remote village? It's a bit disturbing to see the fleeing villagers being chased, shot or captured, while the huts burn to the ground. With a couple of scenes, you really get a sense of how little life is regarded over there as compared to the first world. The main problem with this film is that it felt so unfocused. It's too long and drawn out. It's not a clear, succinct thriller. The sound in some of the room scenes is full of echoes. If you thought this was going to be anything like The English Patient, which also starred Ralf Fiennes, you will be surprised. The romance is played up but this is not a romance film. Fiennes, who is usually reserved in his roles, is surprisingly smiley with some boyish charm. Overall, the acting was quite solid. It's based on a book by celebrated spy novelist John le Carr? and directed by Fernando Meirelles, who was nominated for an Oscar for City of God. One of the best scenes is saved for last when Tessa'a lawyer steps up to give a eulogy at the church. The Constant Gardener falls short of being one of the year's best films. It's not as good as The Hotel Rwanda but it strives to be above most of the cookie cutter releases and it somewhat succeeds on that count. From ap291 at FreeNet.Carleton.CA Fri Sep 9 15:10:12 2005 From: ap291 at FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Bourne) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:10:15 2005 Subject: Review: The Syrian Bride (2004) Message-ID: The Syrian Bride (2004) Review by Stephen Bourne, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Review: Wow. I had a gut feeling that this subtitled 2004 Israeli offering from acclaimed writer/director Eran Riklis ('Vegvul Natan' (1999)) was going to be good, but I was still left gob smacked by the resulting efforts from this incredible main cast of supporting actors. Yes, 'Ha-Kala Ha-Surit' (its original Hebrew title) is primarily about twenty-five year-old Arab Druze bride Mona Salman (Clara Khoury) leaving the Majdal Shams village house of her stoic, politically contentious father Hammed (Khoury's real father, Makram Khoury; 'The Body' (2001)) in the Golan Heights - the volcanic sliver of peacefully disputed territory between Israel and Syria - to marry popular Syrian television star Tallel (Derar Sliman), who waits for her at the military guarded border to meet her for the first time. However, it's the supporting cast powerfully headed by Hiyam Abbass ('Satin Rouge' (2002)) as Mona's emotionally simmering older sister Amal and Eyad Sheety as their torturously estranged eldest brother Hattem that truly make this astounding ninety-seven minute drama such an immensely worthwhile screening. Their individual peripheral moments crackle with unspoken intensity from the first moment you realize these characters' stories until this picture's wonderfully fulfilling last scene fades into the closing credits. Awesome. The brief strands of comedy relief throughout are delightfully charming as well. Riklis' and co-writer Suha Arraf's carefully crafted screenplay thankfully seems to realize that a paying audience is intelligent enough to pick up on the larger strifes of this region that have left an indelible imprint clearly seen in every small inflection and gesture from this splintered family. You don't need a history lesson to feel what's happening is believable. You see it in their faces. You sense their frustration, as though you were there. Mona finally smiles, and your heart drops. Quite frankly, I can't say enough good things about this masterful French/German/Israeli co-production without giving too much of it away. Absolutely check out 'The Syrian Bride' as an absolutely enjoyable foreign feature populated with astounding talent that's well worth the price of admission. (c) Stephen Bourne -- http://www.geocities.com/iamstephenbourne/moviequips.html From dnb at dca.net Fri Sep 9 15:10:15 2005 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:10:17 2005 Subject: Review: The Brothers Grimm (2005) Message-ID: <200508301341.j7UDfqW24459@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> THE BROTHERS GRIMM A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2005 David N. Butterworth ** (out of ****) It's hard to believe that seven years have passed since former "Monty Python" animator-turned-feature director Terry Gilliam last made a movie, his 1998 adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" (with Johnny Depp). Actually, seven years have passed since Gilliam last *completed* a movie, one that subsequently landed a distributor and found its way into theaters. If it *feels* like he's made one in the interim that's because of Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe's fascinating 2002 film "Lost in La Mancha," a dead-on documentary that deliciously details Gilliam's passionate--but ultimately failed--attempt to make "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" (also with Johnny Depp), a disastrous project from start to un-finish in which everything that could go wrong did. Time has not been kind to Gilliam. Watching his latest (completed) picture "The Brothers Grimm," a grim, grimy, and altogether pointless exercise when you come right down to it, you're not exactly convinced he's lost it as a filmmaker but you can't help but feel there's something missing here. A *lot* missing, in fact. Heart, for one thing. And humor, which it valiantly attempts on occasion yet invariably misses. And chemistry, of which there's none. As for elegance or magical enchantment... well, there's none of those either. No, "The Brothers Grimm" is a gloomy affair, a mostly unfunny attempt to dramatize the lives of the great sibling storytellers, Wilhelm and Jacob, or at least stage the spooky circumstances that inspired them to spin such classic fairytales as "Little Red Riding Hood," "Hansel and Gretel," and "Cinderella" among others. Positioned as con men in 19th Century Germany, Will and Jake effect complicated charades to earn their keep as witch hunters and demon slayers, much like what Scooby-Doo's creepy janitor did with all those holograms, wires, and wind machines. Matt Damon and Heath Ledger play the Grimms with a period costumed uneasiness (Heath, in his serious specs, notebook in hand, fares better than Matt but not much). Jonathan Pryce is embarrassingly French--and therefore Pryce-less?--as Gallic Governor Delatombe and Monica Belluci ("The Passion of the Christ") acts playfully disinterested as the Mirror Queen. In fact, the only person who seems to be having any fun at all is Peter Stormare ("Constantine"'s Satan) who relishes his role of Cavaldi, an irrepressible Italian combatant employed as Delatombe's manic henchman. "'Grimm"'s tone is scattershot at best with its special effects likewise all over the map. Given the film's budget, some $80 million, one would have expected more than what's on display here (the wolfman is particularly bad). But murky marks the spot, from murky peasant villages (ala "Jabberwocky" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail") to even murkier dialogue to (mostly) murkier intents. All told, in the case of Gilliam's seven-year itch it would appear to have taken his extraordinary talent to have turned this "Brothers'" grim. -- David N. Butterworth dnb@dca.net Got beef? Visit "La Movie Boeuf" online at http://members.dca.net/dnb From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Fri Sep 9 15:10:17 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:10:19 2005 Subject: Review: Transporter 2 (2005) Message-ID: <07NRe.6288$z2.5749@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> TRANSPORTER 2 A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** I'd forgotten how much fun James Bond can be. Sure, Jason Statham, in a repeat performance as the driver in TRANSPORTER 2, isn't actually playing Bond, but he might as well be. And his performance is so exhilarating and fresh that the Broccoli Family, owner of the Bond moniker, should take a serious look at both Statham and this film if they want to breathe some much needed life into an increasingly shopworn franchise. Watching Statham work is almost exhausting, since he literally throws so much of himself into his acting. Frequently Statham seems to be channeling Jackie Chan playing James Bond as a Spider-man type of comic book superhero. The best part of the script by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen (who also wrote THE FIFTH ELEMENT) and the directing by Louis Leterrier (UNLEASHED) is how over-the-top it is. Bond pictures used to be good at this, but TRANSPORTER 2 puts them to shame. It is relentlessly ridiculous and happy to poke fun at its own inanities. It is absolutely hilarious as well. Our audience burst into frequent applause, accompanied by loud laughter, at some of the extremely implausible feats of the hero. One of the few films that breaks the second film rule, it is the sequel that is actually better than the original. Pushing the limits and playing up its own intrinsic camp factor are keys to the reason that this movie is even more of a crowd-pleaser than the original. When we meet Frank Martin (Jason Statham) this time, he is on a temporary assignment, driving Jack Billings (Hunter Clary), a little boy with wealthy parents, played by Amber Valletta and Matthew Modine, to and from grade school. The film, crafted with a production design heavy on sleek adult toys, is dressed to kill. Frank's female protagonist is Lola (Katie Nauta), a bra-and-panties-only girl who likes sleek guns and her red heels as ridiculously high as possible. Her boyfriend and boss, Gianni (Alessandro Gassman), is a classic slime ball, right down to his "Miami Vice" suits and his crooked teeth. A very complicated plot involving a killer serum, that sounds like it was lifted from some unpublished Ian Fleming novel, has the boy being kidnapped and Frank out to save him from Gianni and Lola and their thugs, who have money and electronic gadgets to burn. A really fun film, it is not the type that requires or warrants deep analysis. What you're likely to be doing on the way home with your friends is arguing about what the most preposterous action stunt in the movie -- mine involves a bomb removal technique -- and laughing again as you remember them. It's the type of discussion which has no right answers and reminds us of what going to the movies is frequently all about. This is high powered, escapist entertainment. And few films deliver the goods better than this wonderfully and deliciously outlandish TRANSPORTER 2. TRANSPORTER 2 runs a blisteringly fast 1:31. It is rated PG-13 for "intense sequences of violent action, sexual content, partial nudity and brief language" and would be acceptable for kids around 10 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 2, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From ap291 at FreeNet.Carleton.CA Fri Sep 9 15:10:19 2005 From: ap291 at FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Bourne) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:10:22 2005 Subject: Review: Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005) Message-ID: Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005) Review by Stephen Bourne, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Summary: Ever-hopeful performance artist Christine Jesperson (debuting Miranda July) sits in her fuchsia bedroom, staring intently at the plain and pale pink shoes standing on the edge of her lonely bed. There is something there. Inspiration floating over them. She can see it. She can tune in. Feel it. Christine smiles at the wonderful contrast that the black marker letters she draws makes against the soft vinyl toes of her newly bought shoes. Richard Swersey (John Hawkes) was right. He's a good man and a good shoe salesman. They don't rub against her ankles like other shoes have. They caress her feet. Warmly. Gently. He has such gentle eyes. Sad, but kind. Her video camera quietly purrs with contentment in her hands, capturing the shoes as they magically transform into art on the floor below. Into puppets. Symbolizing something more. Reflecting Jesperson's first contact with Swersey. The shoe on her left foot wears three letters, YOU, and the shoe on her right foot wears two: ME. ME slowly slides towards YOU, and YOU turns away. ME tries again, affectionately touching YOU, hoping for the same in return. YOU slightly flinches and shyly accepts ME, and then suddenly turns away from ME again. Why did he tell her to get out of his car? Why did he ruin the magic? They had just spent their entire lives together, in love, married, with kids, aging together and then dying, while walking side by side along that short block from the shopping mall to the street corner. It felt good. It had felt right, seeing her smile given back to her as a gift by his. Them sharing that moment. That playful connection. "This could be like the after-life," Christine had said to Richard, hopping into his passing car a few minutes afterwards. He'd gone cold. Cruel reality. The moment had passed. This pair were supposed to be together, but YOU had turned away from ME. The camera stops. And, the shoes go back to just being ruined and pale pink shoes from a box. Review: This indie gem emerged from the 2005 film festival circuit with a Sundance Special Jury Prize win for originality of vision, as well as four awards from Cannes. Writer/director/co-star Miranda July's first big screen effort and debuting role as emotionally erratic performance artist Christine Jesperson obsessively stuck in unsure love with fragile dreamer and shoe department clerk Richard Swersey (John 'Hawkes' Perkins; 'The Perfect Storm' (2000), 'Identity' (2003)) is definitely an artful and measurably eccentric cinematic experiment throughout. There's a richness of vulnerability that saturates virtually every scene, briefly punctuated by wonderfully insightful dialogue that masterfully draws in a paying audience. Just the sidewalk scene - where, having just met, Christine and Richard walk a playfully imaginative time line as a couple together - is well worth the price of admission. The juxtaposition of this man who's desperately trying to control his fractured feelings and this woman who lives to express hers with abandon from the fringes of normalcy is absolutely brilliant. 'Me and You and Everyone We Know' doesn't end there, though. It's really five small intertwining stories with this awkward romance leading the way. Love or its substitute in the wake of trauma seems to be the central theme in most of them, with the outstanding efforts from Miles Thompson ('Thirteen Conversations About One Thing' (2001)) and Brandon Ratcliff ('Breathe' (2003)) easily shining through as young brothers Peter and Robby Swersey, each stumbling upon fairly distorted reflections of adult intimacy while their parents' month-old separation settles down. Yes, the cringe meter slides into the red zone a couple of times during eleven year-old Radcliffe's surreal chat room skits, and I'm pretty certain that I could have lived a lot longer before sitting through sixteen year-old actors Natasha Slayton (television's 'Brother's Keeper' (1998-1999)) and Najarra Townsend ('Menace' (2001)) simulating vaguely off-screen fellatio for cinematographer Chuy Chávez camera, playing sexually curious under-aged schoolmates Heather and Rebecca inspired by a perverted neighbour. Full marks also go to Carlie Westerman ('A Cinderella Story' (2004)) as kitchenware hoarding Sylvie dreaming of becoming a June Cleaver-like grown-up, unlike her own single mother. Mesmerizing. It's still an Art House film that requires a little patience, but over-all, this is brilliantly realized R-rated offering is a surprisingly unique and entertaining treasure with fresh performances from this ensemble cast that will likely stay with you long after the closing credits. Definitely check out 'Me and You and Everyone We Know' as a delightfully quirky and beautifully artistic snapshot well worth seeing on the big screen. (c) Stephen Bourne -- http://www.geocities.com/iamstephenbourne/moviequips.html From ap291 at FreeNet.Carleton.CA Fri Sep 9 15:10:20 2005 From: ap291 at FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Bourne) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:10:23 2005 Subject: Review: No Entry (2005) Message-ID: No Entry (2005) Review by Stephen Bourne, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Summary: For the past seven years, Sunrise Publications newspaper editor Kishen (Anil Kapoor) has been tormented by the pathological jealous streak of his otherwise adoring wife Kaajal (Lara Dutta). The slightest hint of possible infidelity sends her into fits of accusatory tears, even though Kishen has always been a faithful and generous husband to her. He doesn't understand it, but his gregarious, womanizing friend Prem (Salman Khan) does. "Women are the source of all mens grief," he tells Kishen, explaining that these emotionally fragile creatures expect their husbands to cheat on them. So, like Prem does, husbands should go ahead and cheat on their wives anyway. Enjoy the pleasure, if they're guaranteed the pain. And then, use their intelligence to smooth things over with smart lies. Kishen is hesitant. Even his star photographer Sunny (Fardeen Khan) agrees. However, when their plan to expose Prem's blatant philandering backfires on them, both Kishen and Sunny quickly find themselves neck deep in girl trouble after gorgeous dance club singer Bobby (Bipasha Basu) is hired to seduce the unwitting editor. Sunny might have escaped being dragged into it, if his own antics at Suicide Point hadn't convinced young Sanjana (Celina Jaitley) that he needed saving, forcing him to take up residence in Kishen's guest house. That's when things go terribly wrong for Sunny, abetting Kishen's first lie to Kaajal that Bobby is his new wife - despite falling in love with Sanjana - and ending up in the local Best Couples Competition with this sexy other woman. Prem is in hysterics that his devilish trick is working out so well. That is, until they all end up in a Mauritius resort hotel during Sunny's and Sanjana's honeymoon, and the boys' devious web of lies unravels, threatening to destroy their marriages. Review: There are quite a few times when this subtitled Hindi comedy from writer/director Anees Bazmee ('Pyaar To Hona Hi Tha' (1998), 'Deewangee' (2002)) feels like a Bollywood homage to the far more manic Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis farces of forty years ago. There's a lot of goofing around in front of the camera here, but it works. For the most part, Anil Kapoor ('Pukar' (2000), 'Bewafaa' (2005)) and Fardeen Khan ('Prem Aggan' (1998), 'Dev' (2004)) are absolutely hilarious together as beleaguered newspaper editor Kishan and his lovably oafish staff photographer Sunny, both suffering head aches at the hands of their girl crazy friend Prem (Salman Khan; 'Kuch Kuch Hota Hai' (1998), 'Baghban' (2003)) when club singer Bobby (former Ford Super model Contest and, uh, the Tulips Miss Super Vivacious competitor, Bipasha Basu; 'Ajnabee' (2001)) is hired to seduce Kishan in order to teach him a lesson. Sure, this hundred and fifty-eight minute romp is purely contrived Summertime camp, heavily relying on mistaken identity and convoluted word play to kick start most of its funnier moments throughout. Admittedly, the musical interludes are barely endurable as little more than amateurish bimbette wiggle dance numbers that actually sabotage the momentum of this sporadically raucous Masala. However, with all of its glaring flaws, 'No Entry' still manages to be an enjoyable confection over-all. Keep an eye open for Lara Dutta ('Andaaz' (2003), 'Kaal' (2005)) giving an amazing co-starring performance as Kishan's excessively jealous wife Kaajal, and watch out for former 2001 Miss Universe contestant and Afghanistan-born rising star Celina Jiya Jaitley ('Khel' (2003), 'Silsiilay' (2005)) in her hugely captivating comedic role as good hearted yet feisty Sanjana. There's not a whole lot to this slightly over long and wildly undemanding feature, and you'll likely feel as though you've seen much of it before, but 'No Entry' is a fun piece of mature-oriented nonsense that definitely works as a worthwhile bubble gum rental full of harmlessly contagious goofiness. (c) Stephen Bourne -- http://www.geocities.com/iamstephenbourne/moviequips.html From ap291 at FreeNet.Carleton.CA Fri Sep 9 15:10:29 2005 From: ap291 at FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephen Bourne) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:10:32 2005 Subject: Review: The Rising: Ballad of Mangal Pandey (2005) Message-ID: The Rising: Ballad of Mangal Pandey (2005) Review by Stephen Bourne, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Summary: Sharp shards of orange and red flickered across the gnarled brow of Mangal Pandey (Aamir Khan), as flames roared through the small ghost town that had pulsed with life less than an hour earlier. The open square where this ravaged farming village's men and women had begged the British East India Company's military to not seize their poppy fields was now littered with the bleeding and bullet riddled corpses of Pandey's countrymen. He, along with his fellow Sepoys from the 34th Bengal Native Infantry regiment's Barrackpore-based 5th Company, had been ordered to open fire. They had done their job. This village died that day. What ever vestiges of pride and loyalty he'd clung to until that moment rolled around in the back of his throat like thorns. Mangal had trusted the British. When the local civilians had jeered him for selling his soul to England's brutal hundred-year occupation of India, he had stood tall and had continued to fight in good conscience on the battlefields. With valour. A warrior. When he'd seen the ancient customs of the Hindus and Muslims outlawed by these pale Christian bureaucrats of the Raj, Pandey believed it was for the betterment of everyone. The Company from London had made India prosperous and strong. All enemies of this nation had fallen under its might. Those who still suffered in impoverished slums were corrupt and had yet to see the light of 19th Century Western Civilization that he and his troop maintained for these people. Those people he had killed today. His people. He had trusted his friend and superior officer, Captain William Gordon (Toby Stephens), when rumours of the cartridges for their new rifles being greased with the fat of the sacred cow and that of the forbidden pig had sent outraged insubordination through the regiment. Gordon promised it wasn't true. He believed him. Obediently, Pandey had stepped forward, alone. He had torn open the cartridge with his teeth, and had loaded the gunpowder and iron ball into the barrel in front of every man on the parade grounds. He had risked his caste. He had risked eternal damnation. He'd believed the lies. His nostrils stung from the bitter smoke of the burning grass huts that had mixed with the pungent stench of that slaughtered village. The senseless horror still haunted him. What a fool he had been to relish the leash of his masters. It must stop now. The attack must begin. Now. Review: Wow. I'd hoped that this ambitious Period epic from director Ketan Mehta would have more closely kept to the factual details surrounding India's first War of Independence - also known as the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 - but, as a seriously dramatic Bollywood film, 'The Rising' easily finds its place as an incredibly impressive offering alongside such successfully embellished cinematic histrionics as 'Rob Roy' and 'The Patriot'. Aamir Khan ('Raja Hindustani' (1996), 'Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India' (2001)) is absolutely superb throughout, giving a paying audience hugely powerful scenes of insightful torment and unwavering courage in his starring role as inspiring real life revolutionary Mangal Pandey. Pandey was a rifleman with the 5th Company of the 34th Bengal Native Infantry regiment, one of two hundred-thousand indigenous soldiers commanded by the British East India Company that pretty well autonomously ruled India as a nation from 1757 until Queen Victoria annexed its holdings approximately a hundred years later. The Sepoy Mutiny, led by Pandey after long standing religious and economic tensions against his British overlords erupted when The Company's military introduced the Pattern 1853 Lee-Enfield rifle that used gunpowder cartridges greased with cow and pig fat - a sacrilege to the Hindu and Muslim soldiers if tasted - didn't last long and ended in tragedy, but is considered an important flash point. Also making Prince Charles' media photo session on the set of this subtitled flick all the more ironic, to me anyways. Farrukh Dhondy's screenplay tends to gloss over details and introduce unlikely sub plots, particularly regarding Mangal's relationship with his Scots-born commanding officer Captain William Gordon (wonderfully portrayed by Brit actor Toby Stephens; 'Sunset Heights' (1997), 'Die Another Day' (2002)), but these anachronisms work wonderfully at fleshing out this freedom fighter's struggles and infusing the legend with an enormous amount of captivating story telling. Yes, its hundred and fifty-minute runtime does feel like it could have benefited from a bigger budget, but Mehta clearly makes miracles happen with help from his art director Nitin Desai and cinematographer Himman Dhamija. Do any research beforehand, though, and you'll end up tilting your head sideways in confusion a few times, but, see this one as a costumed contemporary telling set against the backdrop of true bygone heroics and you'll leave afterwards feeling inspired and entertained. Even the Masala song and dance numbers fit in, affording you additional insight into the tumult of emotions that most of these characters wrestle with. My favourite is Rani Mukherjee's (in a reoccurring guest cameo as strong willed slave prostitute Heera) deliciously acerbic politicized tune, which includes the line, "Your love for me is like a honey-dipped dagger." Awesome. Kudos also go to Stephens for his astounding acting and convincing bilingual efforts throughout. Absolutely do yourself a huge favour and check out 'The Rising: Ballad of Mangal Pandey' for its great story and thoroughly amazing performances from this ensemble cast led by powerhouse Aamir Khan. (c) Stephen Bourne -- http://www.geocities.com/iamstephenbourne/moviequips.html From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Fri Sep 9 15:15:07 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:15:10 2005 Subject: Review: The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) Message-ID: THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE is probably a cinematic first since it is both a horror movie and a courtroom drama, all based on a famous true story. Okay, the degree of the truth is in the eye of the beholder, but real-life Emily Rose's grave is a shrine to those who believe that a demonic possession did occur and resulted in the death of this college age young woman. Rose is played athletically by newcomer Jennifer Carpenter, who manages to contort her body into extremely strange shapes when she is possessed. This jury of one almost came in with a hung jury for the movie itself. I'm not a horror movie fan, and, although THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE did provide all of the standard scary movie tricks of frightening images and sudden loud noises, I was never scared and never even jumped once. Still, as a representative of the genre, it was okay, albeit not especially surprising. What won my vote were the extensive trial sequences, as Ethan Thomas, a said-to-be religious prosecutor, tries Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson), a priest who conducted the exorcism on Emily. She was said to have been possessed by a full half dozen demons simultaneously. Campbell Scott gives one of his weaker performances as the prosecutor, but that is more that made up for by a splendid piece of acting by Oscar nominee Laura Linney (KINSEY and YOU CAN COUNT ON ME) who plays Erin Bruner, the agnostic and ambitious lawyer who is hired by the Archdiocese to defend the priest. The Archdiocese wants her to convince Father Moore to accept the very generous settlement offer of 12 months in jail with the expectation that he would get off in just 6 months for good behavior. Father Moore firmly and unequivocally declines the offer since he wants more than anything to "tell Emily's story." In this film, which sometimes feels like a pilot for "Law & Order: Exorcism Unit," the movie continually suffers from predictability. When one witness shows up out of the blue to testify, the entire audience knows what comes next. And, when Erin finds out that the demons, who are starting to come after her too, punch in every night at 3 a.m. sharp, you know exactly what she will now do with her bedside digital alarm clock she has been so fond of staring at nightly. The movie does have a nice small, ending twist. My non-director's cut of the film would eliminate almost all of the explicitly scary stuff. I'd make it strictly a courtroom drama and would try to frighten people by talking about the horrors rather than showing them. But the teenagers and the young adults who buy most of the tickets for movies like this would stay away in droves from my version. It's probably a good thing that I don't run a studio. THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE runs 1:54. It is rated PG-13 for "thematic material, including intense/frightening sequences and disturbing images" and would be acceptable for teenagers who can handle scary movies. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 9, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From balaji_cheenu at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 15:15:16 2005 From: balaji_cheenu at yahoo.com (Balaji Srinivasan) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:15:18 2005 Subject: Review: Undertow (2004) Message-ID: <1126081973.748351.110330@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Review: Undertow (2004) Starring Jamie Bell, Dermot Mulroney, Josh Lucas. Directed by David Gordon Green. ***1/2 (out of 4) Undertow is one of those rare kind of movies that would probably look better on film than as a book. It is set in the rustic South, starting off with a sickening scene. Chris Munn (Jamie Bell) throws a rock at the window of his girlfriend's house. The girl's father comes out screaming, with a gun and Chris tries to escape. In the chase that follows, Chris lands on a nail and the nail pierces his leg. He continues to run away with the nail still stuc. A revolting scene for sure. The injury is substantial and the camera leaves nothing to imagination. The scene sets the stage for the rest of the film to follow. Chris and his brother Tim live with their father, John Munn (Dermot Mulroney) in isolation. John is a widower (the film fortunately doesn't run off into a flashback) and because of that, has moved away from his community and lives away from others. Director David Gordon Green paints a picture of pig sty in the backyard, houses in the middle of nowhere, old cars, hands-on work, dirt roads, sweat and grime. Chris works most of the time and looks to be resentful . Tim is suffering from a disease that makes him lose his appetite and eats mud and insects instead. Dermot mulroney comes across as the father who seems to have a problem in being affectionate to the kids, a violent personal history lurking in the background. The characters are well set and just when I thought the story is going to dig deeper into their psyches and relationships, comes in Deel (Josh Lucas), John's brother out on parole. He seems to be affable enough towards his nephews, but soon enough, things take a violent turn. Soon, the boys are on their own, fleeing from the man trying to hunt them down and kill them. The film then morphs into a road movie, but the characters that the kids encounter are far from mainstream. A childless black couple in the trenches of Georgia, a supervisor on a ship, a trash talking tow-man and two homeless girls who help the boys - all add to the exotic landscape that Green portrays through the movie. The film loses its momentum in these scenes, but the lurking danger and the subsequent build up to the climax keep the film alive. The film owes much of its success to Josh Lucas and Jamie Bell. Bell, the affable kid in Billy Elliot, has transformed into a good actor, playing this young adolescent with much ease. Josh Lucas has done his share of films set in the south, but this is his performance of a lifetime. He is deadly and sinister, but is not a single dimensional killer. I guess Lucas has based much of his performance on the classic role that Robert Mitchum played in "The Night of the Hunter", which is a blueprint to most of the films in the Southern Gothic genre. I think Lucas seems to fit in his character more if only because Dermot Mulroney doesn't cut it as a rustic southerner. Mulroney looks the suave gentleman even with a stubble and unkempt hair. David Gordon Green is a director who needs to be watched in the future. I didn't quite care for his "George Washington" or "All the real girls", but Undertow shows what he can do in the genre. Undertow has the spirit of "The Night of the Hunter" and what Sam Raimi showed in "The Gift". - Balaji Srinivasan. http://www.dhool.com/blog/ From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Fri Sep 9 15:20:10 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:20:11 2005 Subject: Review: Pretty Persuasion (2005) Message-ID: PRETTY PERSUASION A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** PRETTY PERSUASION, which wants badly to be this generation's HEATHERS, has plenty of promise. It's got some deliciously wicked lines, a few genuinely funny moments and a lot of targets who could benefit from a little satire. But don't get too excited since most of the movie is as flat as a pancake. The shame is that it suffers from two problems, both of which could have been fixed. Skander Halim's script is in bad need of a rewrite. Although the dialog isn't bad and is sometimes downright hilarious, albeit only briefly so, the writing fails to anchor the characters in reality. If they had had been believable, we could have found them easier to laugh at. The worst example of this occurs when Kimberly Joyce (Evan Rachel Wood from THIRTEEN) goes into an infinite loop at the dinner table. In a scene adapted from AMERICAN BEAUTY, Kimberly wants to talk about nothing but her step-mother, played lamely by Jaime King, having sex with the family dog. Meanwhile at the other end of the table, Mr. Joyce (James Woods) ignores both wife and daughter as he engages in a long and nonsensical diatribe against the Jews in his office. One never believes that any of the characters believe anything they say. The second problem with the production is the tone set by director Marcos Siega (UNDERCLASSMAN), who somehow seems to get his actors to drone on like robots. The performances are so unreal and lifeless that I kept expecting to see mechanical parts start dangling out of the people's heads. The plot surrounds what becomes known as the Roxbury Sex Trial, after 15-year-old Kimberly, along with Brittany Wells (Elisabeth Harnois) and Randa (Adi Schnall), her two girlfriends at an exclusive Beverly Hills private school, accuse their teacher of sexual harassment. OFFICE SPACE's Ron Livingston plays Mr. Anderson, the accused teacher. Brittany is a very standard character, but Randa is unusual in way that will intentionally get under most viewers' skins. Kimberly tosses out racial insults a mile a minute, and many of them are thrown Randa's way. With her head always covered, the mild, meek and subservient Randa is a Muslim who is treated with less respect than a dog by her "friend" Kimberly. The movie is far from a waste. One of the better moments occurs when Brittany tries to reassure Randa by telling her, "I know all about the immigrant experience and how hard it can be. I'm Canadian." A funny and creepily erotic moment happens when Mr. Anderson insists that his wife, played by Selma Blair, try on a short, gray skirt -- her birthday gift from him. When she realizes that it's just like the ones his pupils wear to school, she goes to get long white sox from her drawer so that she'll appear even more like a school girl. Mr. Anderson's face is a contorted combination of guilt, shock and erotic desire. The incident will probably provoke strong reactions from every audience member, but most of the movie, no matter how scandalous the words and the subjects, produces little reaction at all. PRETTY PERSUASION runs too long at 1:44. It is not rated but should be R for language and sexual situations and would be acceptable for most teenagers. The movie is undoubtedly being released unrated, lest the MPAA slap an NC-17 for off-screen underage sex. The film is playing in nationwide release now in the United States. In the Silicon Valley, it is showing at the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Fri Sep 9 15:20:12 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:20:14 2005 Subject: Review: The Man (2005) Message-ID: THE MAN A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): * 1/2 Gosh, aren't fart jokes funny? Especially a lot of them. THE MAN is recycled humor from plots you've seen a hundred times before. Maybe on late night cable, when the price is right, THE MAN might have some limited appeal, but, as a theatrical movie, it is a waste of time and money. For me it was a laughless comedy, although some members of my audience would disagree. One thing it does have is a decent cast, or a least two good actors to be more precise. Director Les Mayfield, as he did in BLUE STREAK, pairs a couple of actors of different types and races and lets them bicker the day away. This time, Samuel L. Jackson plays ATM Special Agent Derrick Vann, a street smart cop out to bag some bad guys who killed his partner. As Vann's reluctant "partner," BEST IN SHOW's Eugene Levy plays Andy Fidler, a motor mouth who is a dental equipment salesman in town to give a talk at a dental convention. Through a hard to believe case of mistaken identity, a group of illegal gun runners think that Andy is "The Man" in the sense of the guy to deal with about a big gun purchase, but not "The Man" in sense of being an undercover cop. Don't ask. Soon Andy becomes known as "The Turk" and has police from various forces after him and his partner Vann. They, of course, aren't really partners at all and spend most of the movie engaging in slapstick and arguments. They do this for 83 minutes that feel sometimes like an eternity. Typical of what goes for humor in the movie occurs in an incident when Vann wants his snitch to give up key information. In order to obtain the information, Vann pins the guy against a chain link fence with a Cadillac and then repeatedly -- and I do mean repeatedly -- hits him over the head with a phonebook. I expected Vann at any moment to start with a Marx Brothers routine and use two fingers to start poking the other guy's eyes. The incident ends with the snitch receiving the ultimate punishment -- the breaking of his gold tooth. Cue the groans. THE MAN runs 1:23. It is rated PG-13 for "language, rude dialogue and some violence" and would be acceptable for kids around 9 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 9, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From bill at fromthebalcony.com Fri Sep 9 15:20:13 2005 From: bill at fromthebalcony.com (Bill Clark) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:20:16 2005 Subject: Review: The Man (2005) Message-ID: <1126233907.284793.268400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> THE MAN (2005) by Bill Clark http://www.fromthebalcony.com bill@fromthebalcony.com RATING (Ripe or Rotten): ROTTEN URL: http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews/2005/05_man.htm QUOTE: "When the bathroom humor is the best part of your film, it's time to go back to the drawing board." The Man is a smorgasbord of bits taken from infinitely better films, numbering far too many to name here. The only thing keeping its head above water is the presence of two fine actors in Samuel L. Jackson and Eugene Levy. How depressing it is to see them in something this painfully conventional and, from what I can tell, largely improvised. When the bathroom humor is the best part of your film, it's time to go back to the drawing board. There are three credited screenwriters. Enough said. Derrick Vann (Jackson) is a tough-talkin' street cop whose methods for obtaining information would be gladly endorsed by Paul Kersey in Death Wish. His partner has just been killed by a bunch of gunrunners, and in an operation to catch the crooks that goes horribly wrong, Vann ends up being paired with dental supply salesman Andy Fidler (Levy). They must work together to catch these gunrunners who, when you get right down to it, anyone's grandma should be able to catch because they are so stupid. Fiddler is quite the talker and perfectionist, proudly touting that he's never met someone who, in the end, didn't become his friend. Vann has no interest, and neither do the rest of us. Pulling out all the stops from virtually every buddy-cop movie ever made, screenwriters Jim Piddock, Margaret Oberman, and Stephen Carpenter have crafted a screenplay consisting mostly of uncomfortable racial dialogue (albeit not near as much as I was expecting), bathroom humor, and what has to be the most instances of the phrase "your ass" (or other variations, such as "yo ass") ever put on film. This is done, of course, to carefully maintain the film's PG-13 rating so that, you know, seventh graders can see it and brag at school that they finally saw a Samuel L. Jackson movie. Credit must be given to Jackson and Levy for at least pretending to care. I think director Les Mayfield (he of American Outlaws and Encino Man fame) at least realized that the script was shredded wheat and just let Jackson and Levy have at it. A few chuckles ensue, but that gut buster that you keep waiting for never happens. Hope with me, folks, that Jackson and Levy don't head down the Ben Kingsley "I'll do anything for a paycheck" road. So who is this movie for? I'd say the most easily of entertained or for those who are so bored that playing Battleship against yourself sounds good. The Man is a patchwork job laced with a few recognizable names in the hopes that you'll shell out nine or ten hard-earned bucks to see it. If there is any mercy to be found, it comes in the form of the eighty-three minute runtime. Tread carefully. web: http://www.fromthebalcony.com email: bill@fromthebalcony.com Copyright 2005 FromTheBalcony From bill at fromthebalcony.com Fri Sep 9 15:20:18 2005 From: bill at fromthebalcony.com (Bill Clark) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:20:20 2005 Subject: Review: The Exorcism Of Emily Rose (2005) Message-ID: <1126234076.286694.291780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE (2005) by Bill Clark http://www.fromthebalcony.com bill@fromthebalcony.com RATING (Ripe or Rotten): RIPE URL: http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews/2005/05_exorcismofemilyrosebc.htm QUOTE: "Many will dismiss it as hokum dressed up by Hollywood, but isn't the debating the most fun aspect with films like this?" Touted as such by its director, Scott Derrickson, The Exorcism of Emily Rose may in fact be the first courtroom horror film. The TV spots and trailers would not lead you to believe that, however, as all we see is a horrified Emily Rose contorting her body and experiencing visions of ordinary people melting into demons. Put away those pretenses that the film is a balls-to-the-wall exercise in demonic terror. It is a courtroom picture with demonic flashbacks, but a solid one at that. Derrickson's experiment pays off in terms of intrigue and intensity. As is the case with many films that are "based on a true story," we have some name changing going on here. The Exorcism of Emily Rose is actually based upon the story of Anneliese Michel, a Bavarian girl born in 1952. She led a happy childhood in a religious family, but at the age of sixteen she began to experience what her parents believed to be demon attacks. Her body would contort, she would shake violently, and even reported seeing demons in her everyday life. She was diagnosed with Grand Mal epilepsy and given prescription drugs. Nothing helped, however, and the family soon called upon Pastor Ernst Alt, who truly believed Anneliese was in grave danger because of the demons, to perform an exorcism on Anneliese. After an unsuccessful attempt, Father Arnold Renz was assigned by Bishop Josef Stangl to try with the assistance of Alt. Anneliese would eventually have two exorcisms performed per week and actually become even more violent. She refused to eat, exclaiming that the demons would not let her. On July 30, 1976, Anneliese collapsed and passed on. Both priests and Anneliese's parents were charged with negligent homicide. The Exorcism of Emily Rose tackles both sides of this debate in the courtroom with flashbacks to Emily's (Carpenter) descent into madness in place to really keep your attention. Erin Brunner (Linney) is a hotshot attorney on her way up the ladder after winning a high profile murder case. She is approached about representing Father Moore (Wilkinson), the priest present during Emily Rose's final moments during her final exorcism. The debate: Was Emily epileptic, psychotic and simply in need of good medication? Or was she inhabited by demonic spirits who eventually tortured her soul enough to kill her? Derrickson and fellow screenwriter Paul Harris Boardman take a straightforward, almost Unsolved Mysteries-style approach to the material. The bulk of the film takes place in the courtroom as we hear various experts testify to what they believe happened to Emily. In bone-chilling flashbacks we get a glimpse of things from Emily's point of view and there is a harrowing exorcism sequence that serves as the climax of the film. This is thoroughly unsettling material whether you believe in demons or not. The performances are all very good. Laura Linney exudes confidence as Brunner, but she may be experiencing some paranormal activity herself. Tom Wilkinson, one of the finest actors working today, turns in a tight, focused performance as Father Moore. His role is pivotal to the film's success because if he were to misstep in portraying the central character in such a dividing film, we could be looking at a mess of a final product. Jennifer Carpenter is appropriately petrified virtually every minute she is onscreen. From the very first time we see her onscreen we can tell something is not quite right. Do we have a new scream queen in the making? With a story that one can't help but think about and more than a few discomforting sequences, The Exorcism of Emily Rose is an easy recommendation if you're in the mood for a few spooks and something to talk about around the water cooler the next day at work. Many will dismiss it as hokum dressed up by Hollywood, but isn't the debating the most fun aspect with films like this? web: http://www.fromthebalcony.com email: bill@fromthebalcony.com Copyright 2005 FromTheBalcony From sammeriam at comcast.net Fri Sep 9 15:25:09 2005 From: sammeriam at comcast.net (samseescinema) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:25:11 2005 Subject: Review: Edmond (2005) Message-ID: <1126244127.255424.270410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Edmond reviewed by Sam Osborn of www.samseescinema.com rating: 3.5 out of 4 Edmond is a hardboiled, sharp-edged, loud-mouthed catharsis. Pure, unabashed emotion spilled onto the screen. It's daring, provocative, and beautifully offensive. It's as if screenwriter David Mamet vomited the words onto the pages, expulsing them from his heart and guts in a gushing release. Many wonder why Mamet himself, being a highly respected rated-R filmmaker, didn't direct his own work. Edmond's director, Stuart Gordon, stated that it was because the film would probably strike too close to home for him. Mamet wrote the screenplay immediately after breaking up with his wife in New York City. The actions seen in Edmond are clearly the manifestations of the rush of emotions he felt at that time in his life. But as all skilled writers do, he expands the personal experience into a universal experience. The extreme feelings he releases are felt by every member of the audience open-minded enough to see past their vulgarity. Many people deal with the same controversial thoughts as Edmond does (racism, bigotry, homophobia, chauvinism), but are too timid to voice them. Like Chuck Palaniuk's Fight Club, Edmond explores a kind of masculine catharsis. And like Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver, his repression eventually leads to explosive violence. The film begins with Edmond Burke's (William H. Macy) split with his wife. Getting up from bed he announces he's leaving. Not just for the night, but for good. At first not taking the news seriously, Edmond's wife plays along as if it was a joke. But Edmond insists that, yes, he's really leaving her for good. Exploding, his wife bounces around the room in a shocked rage, announcing that, no, he's not leaving her, but she's leaving him. And he's not welcome to come home. Of course, that's fine with Edmond because, in his words, he's been bored with his wife for a few years now. He then begins his night on the streets of New York City, first meeting with a man at a bar (Joe Mantegna), who essentially has the lifestyle Edmond's looking to lead: something with girls, power, and money, and he supposes that's all. And so upon leaving the bar, Edmond sets out to settle the first part of his new life: girls. Prowling the night clubs, strip joints, and "masseuse" parlors, Edmond takes a businessman's approach to it, negotiating each financial commitment to the women. >From there, it'd be unfair to reveal Edmond's moves. It's too little to call it a downward spiral, a description that reminds me of something you'd see on the Lifetime Channel. No, Edmond's night leads to much larger happenings; some problematic and some eye-opening. But with each step he takes, there's a twinkle of imagination going off in the back of our minds saying, "do you think the film will actually make him do that?" And unlike other films that, no, wouldn't take their character that far into oblivion, Stuart Gordon seems to have no problem doing so. Each step is exponentially farther than the last, leading somewhere that we initially don't expect, but later realize to be entirely right and satisfying. Along with the screenplay and directing, some incredibly daring acting work is featured in Edmond. William H. Macy, as we've come to expect, steals the show. Instead of relying solely on his sad-dog face he's so irritatingly known for, Macy takes this performance through a dizzying range of emotions. Julia Stiles makes an appearance in one of the finest and most shocking performances in the film. Also, Joe Mantegna as the man in the bar does well as the pivotal spark to Edmond's catharsis. Every actor actually deserves mention for daring to work on this highly controversial film. That also goes for the producers. Stuart Gordon said before the screening that "one of the biggest laughs in the film is when the credit for all the production companies comes up." The list is so long it really does evoke laughter. -Sam Osborn of www.samseescinema.com From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Sep 9 15:25:11 2005 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark Leeper) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:25:13 2005 Subject: Review: Walking on the Sky (2004) Message-ID: <43142806.1060002@optonline.net> WALKING ON THE SKY (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: When one of their number commits suicide, the remaining six of a group of close-knit friends get together in their dead comrade's New York apartment to talk things out and to try to understand why their friend killed himself. In the next few hours they will learn about each other and their lives. Meanwhile their relationships will change. This is really a film not about plot but about connections between people and about characters. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 Yesterday there were seven close friends who thought they knew each other fairly well. Today there are only six. Josh Salinger (Michael Knowles, in flashbacks) committed suicide, jumping off the roof of his apartment building. Now the other six have come together to try to make sense of what has happened. Their one clue is the discovery of Josh's diary. Even Sara (Susan Misner) had not known about the diary. Until recently she had been engaged to Josh. She was still trying to put the pieces together of why Josh broke the engagement. Now has killed himself and she realizes she really never knew him at all. Liz (Nicole Fonarow) at one point deeply loved Jim (Chris Henry Coffey). The two have become successful yuppies, but over time Liz has lost her spontaneity. Now she needs to be in control. She is frequently rude and unpleasant to Jim and sometimes to others while he recedes into being a non-entity. She is of late considering dissolving their relationship. Joann (Kristen Marie Holly) has empathy as the strongest fiber of her personality. She is a veterinarian for a non-profit animal shelter and gets too involved with the animals she is treating. Nick (Randal Batinkoff) is a child-man who wants to be a professional ballplayer. He is brash and unpolished and is gambling his life on a dream he probably cannot make to work. Centrally there is Dylan (Carl T. Evans who also wrote, produced, and directed WALKING ON THE SKY). Life is just not working for Dylan. He is unsettled on what to do with his life. His relationships with women do not last. He has poor relations with his family and fragile relationships even with his friends. He bears the emotional scars of a life of self-hatred. This is a talk film. It is a film of the same breed as RETURN OF THE SECAUCUS 7 and THE BIG CHILL. Evans defines his characters fairly well in each one's first scene or two, then spends the rest of the film really giving us much more of the character to support our first conclusions. Some of the revelations are a bit par for the course. There are infidelities. There are Freudian slips. There are some deep hidden secrets. Some of the action seems like filler. In one scene out of the apartment the group does Karaoke. I am not sure that we get much from the males doing Karaoke together. We do see when the women get up that Liz is just as stiff and formal at the microphone as she is otherwise until she finds that it is out of place. The scene however does give the film the combination of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. The score is a little jarring early in the film and a little sweet at the end. Michael Tremante does the honors. This is Evans's first outing as writer or director, but he has acted before, usually in daytime drama. WALKING ON THE SKY is not so much a mystery as a study of relationships among people who are more different than they realize. I rate WALKING ON THE SKY a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2005 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Sep 9 15:25:17 2005 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark Leeper) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:25:19 2005 Subject: Review: Red Eye (2005/I) Message-ID: <43121A05.1000407@optonline.net> RED EYE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Wes Craven's RED EYE delivers a good tense 85 minutes. The film mostly works and the thriller plot is reasonably believable. The problem is that this film has nothing particularly new and original to make it stand out from the thrillers like, for example, Larry Cohen writes. The film needs a little more flair to stand out as a memorable experience. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 As a thriller RED EYE is a lot like the mailman. On one hand it really delivers the goods. But on the other someone delivers the goods nearly every day of the week. This is a nice taut little thriller. Director Wes Craven keeps it brief enough so that the non-stop suspense does not let up. The whole story takes place in no more than seven or eight hours. The film is not like a James Bond film with one action sequence illogically following after another and robbing from the effect of the next sequence. The plan of RED EYE's baddies is not some complex chess gambit that you have to put together in the lobby after the film. This is a good compelling thriller. That is the upside. The downside is that we get a lot of nice taut suspense films. RED EYE is a nice thriller, but no better or worse than, for example, CELLULAR. Maybe it was a little better than PHONE BOOTH. Rachel McAdams plays Lisa Reisert, a young attractive hotel clerk (or perhaps the manager of clerks), who has taken the day off to fly to Texas to attend the funeral of her grandmother. Of course in the age of the cell phone she cannot really take the day entirely off. Her nervous replacement is in frequent touch with her for help and advice. Reisert is also on the phone to her retired father (played by Brian Cox in a lamentably small role). Now Reisert is taking the red-eye flight back to Miami. Seeing customers verbally abuse the airline clerks touches a nerve with her. Stepping in to defend them she finds an ally in the attractive guy behind her in line. This turns out to be Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy of BATMAN BEGINS). The two make friends and happen to sit next to each other on the plane. Reisert soon discovers that their meeting and their sitting together is no coincidence and the two are soon engaged in a life-and-death struggle involving an assassination attempt. This film taps into the real-world discomfort of flying known only to well to us coach fliers. Films like AIRPORT and THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY frequently show planes as roomy and comfortable. Our characters have trouble getting seats in the first place. Then when they have the seats the narrow aisles, the cramped seats, and the high unreachable luggage racks help to make the tension seems even more painful. The characters are isolated in the sky with very little freedom to move around. Carl Ellsworth's screenplay takes (nearly) full advantage of the annoyances of flying. The screenplay loses a few points because of cliches like the little girl flying alone who is treated by the staff like a princess. The main characters seem to find it too easy to steal objects from other passengers in a crowded plane. One more problem is that the final chapter turns too much into a standard damsel in distress from a stalker plot. In a film that is not sufficiently original, the final reel is the most cliched. I like my thrillers with a little more verve than this one has. Wes Craven is no Alfred Hitchcock. On the other hand I think this film works considerably better than many of the films he makes in his home genre, namely horror. The film does succeed in maintaining tension. I rate RED EYE a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. (Are there really red-eye flights between two states so close? Maybe it was West Texas. I don't think we are told.) Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2005 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Sep 9 15:30:09 2005 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:30:13 2005 Subject: Review: Eternal (2004) Message-ID: ETERNAL (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: The notorious Countess Erzsebet Bathory has returned and is repeating her crimes in modern day Montreal. ETERNAL is a sexy and stylish horror thriller from Canada that unfortunately seems to be re-treading all-too-familiar territory. It gets points for its lavish production design, but very little for originality or real horror. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 Most people who would see a film like ETERNAL probably already know something about who the historic Countess Erzsebet Bathory was. The 16th and 17th Century Hungarian noblewoman (to use the term loosely) really existed and had the delusion that she could keep her youth by bathing in the blood of young women. In this pursuit it is claimed she murdered and estimated 650 young women before she was recognized as a serious criminal and was imprisoned. The countess was portrayed in several European horror films, particularly during the 1970s. Ingrid Pitt played the title role in the best-known film version of her story, COUNTESS DRACULA, made by Hammer Films. What may be a reincarnation or the still-living spirit of Bathory stalks Montreal Island in this new thriller written and directed by Wilhelm Liebenberg and Federico Sanchez. Elizabeth Kane (played by Caroline N?ron) possesses a very ornate mansion in Montreal and uses computer chat rooms to attract lesbian lovers and invite them to her lair. There she makes love to them, graciously thanking them for their beauty, before slashing their throats. As the film opens, she is enjoying an assignation with a woman who signs her chat-room name, "Wildcat". Kane understands Wildcat instantly and sees immediately through Wildcat's little white lies about not being married and not having had lesbian encounters before. But Kane misses one important detail before harvesting Wildcat. She was not only married, she was married to a homicide detective. Ray Pope (Conrad Pla) is as kinky as his wife was, choosing the wife of a partner for some S&M. When his wife, the former Wildcat, is found dead he has a vendetta and quickly collects enough information to suspect Kane. From there the plot is a fairly familiar game of cat and mouse with Pope happily breaking the law and risking dismissal to get his revenge on Kane while Kane kills as many of the women in Pope's life that she can manage. N?ron's exotic lesbian vampire is reminiscent of DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, though her assistant and victim-procurer Irina (Victoria Sanchez) is much less powerful than Sandor was in the earlier film. The art direction by Massimo Antonello Geleng and Valma Pfaff is probably the best feature of the film. It adds mood to the earlier parts of the film, though it really comes into its own in the scenes later in the film set in Venice. Some of these scenes look like they might have been inspired by EYES WIDE SHUT. It does more for the film than some of the direction which has its share of cliches like dark and stormy nights, false jumps, an angry Rottweiler, and over-use of camera filters to bathe scenes in yellow or blue. One can pretty much pick out who will be Kane's next victim without too many surprises. Caroline N?ron is satisfyingly attractive, but just does not have the exotic style that the film would call for. It is never clear what her connection to the Transylvanian countess was, but she seems entirely too Canadian. Conrad Pla does very little for me as her chief nemesis. He looks like Billy Zane but with a constant three-day growth of stubble from the top of his head to the bottom of his chin. I suppose that is what a postmodern hero looks like, but I still can lament that that is the case. ETERNAL is polished, sexy, and entertaining, and the art direction is its best aspect. But it is not a film that will stick with the viewer. It is too similar to films like JACK'S BACK (about Jack the Ripper returning) and several others. I rate it a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2005 Mark R. Leeper -- Mark R. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/markleeper/ Or try your search engine on "Mark Leeper" From twotrey at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 15:30:10 2005 From: twotrey at gmail.com (Michael Dequina) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:30:14 2005 Subject: Retrospective: Train Ride (2000) Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050906234113.02f76c78@pop.gmail.com> _Train_Ride_ (R) *** 1/2 (out of ****) Rel Dowdell's _Train_Ride_ can easily be pigeonholed into a number of easily and simply defined categories. College film. Issue film. Low-budget film. Black film. Independent film. Direct-to-DVD release. While all of these descriptions do apply, to attach any of them--or their frankly less-than-promising sum--to the film is to too tidily and dismissively label a tough, intelligent, and riveting drama. Personifying all three of those qualities and then some is Wood Harris, whose performance here (which pre-dates his more recent and well-known work in the likes of _The_Wire_ and _Remember_the_Titans_) begs the question as to why Hollywood hasn't (yet) made him a superstar. As Will, the university senior who tricks his buddies Ellis (Russell Hornsby) and Ron (Thomas Braxton Jr.) to join him on a videotaped "train ride" of date-rape-drugged freshman Katrina (MC Lyte), Harris indeed nails all the requirements of creating a menacing and truly despicable villain, but what makes his performance all the more creepily effective are the attractive qualities he lends the role. His Will is charismatic, affable, sharp as a tack--and hence an all more believable and diabolical seducer and manipulator. No scene better sums up all the symbiotic charm and smarm that is Will than an astonishing single-take monologue where he positions himself as the victim to one of Katrina's concerned friends; his behavior is remarkably repellent, yet it's undeniably captivating to witness such a mind at work. That scene is also reflective of the film's deceptive surface simplicity and Dowdell's sly filmmaking smarts. Based on the basic plot summary, _Train_Ride_ can be pegged--and fairly accurately at that--as a message film of sorts, addressing the issue of college guys gone far too wild. But the film never comes off as preachy or sermonizing as Dowdell embeds his social and moral commentary in a story that works alone as an engrossing dramatic piece. The issue of the rape looms large, but it's not the be-all end-all of the film; its greater function is as a catalyst for more compelling, character-based dramas where every single move and decision organically set off events that rapidly, messily, and all too realistically spiral out of control. As whispers of a scandalous videotape grow into a campus-wide roar, tensions build not only within the circle of the three guys but also between Katrina and the two friends (Nicole Prescott and Anika Hawkins) who initially joined her for the fateful get-together at Will's apartment. Neither of these conflicts, however, are as dramatic as those within Katrina herself. As her memories of that night gradually resurface, the truth of the night ironically becomes even less clear for her--was she a victim, or did she invite this upon herself? As doubts devolve into despondence, her heartbreaking trajectory is made all the more so by how believably it develops in Dowdell's script. But good writing would remain just that it if there weren't capable actors giving it life, and it speaks of the abilities of Dowdell's ensemble that they all make formidable impressions alongside the commanding Harris. The casting of hip-hop star Lyte as the naive and fragile Katrina is a definite stretch, but the risk pays off; knowledge of her tougher real-life image just intensifies the impact of her character's arc. Like Harris, Hornsby has gone on to snag more high-profile work, and his strong debut performance here shows why; on the other hand, Braxton's impressive turn as the increasingly harried Ron makes one wonder what this promising (and heretofore largely unseen) young talent has been up to since. Each of the principal actors makes their own unique mark, but there is a unity in their fearlessness--mirroring the largely uncompromising nature of Dowdell's vision. The finale, while satisfying for many viewers, rings somewhat false in offering an overly tidy coda to a story that rather bravely reveled in the *un*tidiness of bad deeds and their tangled web of consequences, but the bum note is easily drowned out by all the top-notch work and food for thought that lingers long after it's concluded. The sole extra on Sony Music/RuffNation Films' DVD release is a feature-length commentary with Dowdell, executive producer Louis Brody, and associate producer Craig Carpenter, but then no other supplements are needed given the comprehensive discussion they have during the film's tight 90-minute run time. Only on a couple of occasions do the three fall silent and start watching the film, and even when that common commentary malady does occur, it quickly passes. They also generally eschew the bad habit of simply describing what is taking place onscreen, instead discussing various production logistics as well as the meanings and intents behind certain choices. In a rare showing of humility on a director's yak track, Dowdell doesn't dominate, often throwing out questions to his cohorts to keep them involved and active throughout. The commentary's glaring misstep, however, is through no real fault of any of the three: nowhere on the disc, menus, or packaging are Dowdell's fellow participants identified, nor are they given any introduction at the head of the track. However, such a practical oversight is easily forgiven when there's an unusual amount of intelligent substance--in both the film and the audio discussion--to compensate. Specifications: 1.85:1 letterbox; English 5.1 Surround; English Dolby Surround. (Sony Music/RuffNation Films) (c)2005 Michael Dequina Michael Dequina twotrey@juno.com | mrbrown@iname.com | mrbrown@themoviereport.com The Movie Report/Mr. Brown's Movie Site: www.themoviereport.com www.moviepoopshoot.com | www.cinemareview.com | www.aalbc.com www.johnsingletonfilms.com | on ICQ: #25289934 | on AOL IM: mrbrown23 From sburridge at hotmail.com Fri Sep 9 15:35:09 2005 From: sburridge at hotmail.com (Shane Burridge) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:35:11 2005 Subject: Retrospective: Titicut Follies (1967) Message-ID: Titicut Follies (1967) 84m Using a style that became popularly known in the 60s as fly-on-the-wall, film-maker Frederick Wiseman captured some remarkably frank footage inside the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Bridgewater. Wiseman, a documentarian who prefers to take on institutions rather than individuals, makes us forget his presence behind the camera even though he is squarely in the middle of the action, but in FOLLIES his invisibility is mostly due to the spellbinding footage he confronts us with. It's a given to expect any film set inside a mental institution to be a critique, and it's human nature to sympathize with the controlled rather than the controllers, but in FOLLIES we're taken so far beyond our personal experience of human beings that we're left bewildered. The inmates range from articulate to physically malformed and exhibit such a wide range of behaviour and mannerisms that I'm sure actors study this film in preparation for any roles as psychiatric patients. Among the most memorable are a guy who gabbles like an auctioneer, a political theorist whose polemic eventually loses the plot, and a fast-talker who believes that being institutionalized is damaging him mentally and physically. It's this last patient that provides the film with one of many unforgettable scenes, in which his argument -- that 18 months of medication is impairing his faculties -- makes sense but fails to convince an assessment board because of his agitated delivery. Watching the therapists bloodlessly pick over and analyze his remarks afterwards will make you feel uneasy, like many other scenes in this film. The capper, sure to make you squirm, is a later sequence in which a starving inmate is force-fed (this is also the only time where Wiseman includes a couple of noticeable flash-forward edits). Wiseman's film is famous for being banned (note the dry tone of his disclaimer after the final credit) and you can bet it wasn't the inmates who kicked up the fuss. If FOLLIES had presented the prison wardens as neutral fuctionaries, our attitude towards the prisoners may have been murkier -- after all, this is an institution for the criminally insane -- however Wiseman dishes out the rope aplenty and the wardens promptly string themselves up with it. There's a psychiatrist who appears to have graduated from the Mel Brooks school of Funny German Doctors, and a supervisor who turns into the Institution's answer to Ed Sullivan whenever the camera is pointed in his direction, but the most obnoxious is a guard who can't stop hectoring one prisoner by patronizingly repeating his first name. In fact the behavior of everyone within the Institution's four walls is so eccentric right across the board that I can't tell if the film's opening musical number is being performed by guards, prisoners, or both. It certainly sets audiences up with a loopy overture, anyway. Decades later, FOLLIES still fascinates -- the spectacle of human life gone awry will make you angry, amused, puzzled and pondering. Unusually, Wiseman puts a high price tag on his documentaries to get them circulated in institutions rather than being owned by individuals. Check out your local library, university, or film society. sburridge@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html From innominatetwice at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 15:35:11 2005 From: innominatetwice at gmail.com (innominatetwice) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:35:14 2005 Subject: Review: The Constant Gardener (2005) Message-ID: <1125963467.783988.280620@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Constant Gardener" is a love story. Justin Quayle, played by Ralph Fiennes, is a diplomat, in the employ of the British Foreign Service. He is also a gardener. He is not a gardener in the sense that he applies his skills for other people for pay. He enjoys gardening as a way of escaping from the world. Gardening, growing flowers, and caring for plants is his avocation. Gardening requires patience and determination. It is a labor that demands his greatest attention, patience, and love. Near the beginning of the movie "The Constant Gardener" Justin meets Tessa. Tessa, played by Rachel Weisz, is a beautiful Woman full of courage and conviction. Where Justin is something of an introvert, Tessa is an extrovert. Justin and Tessa are ideological opposites. Justin is a certified member of the Establishment. Tessa is a rebel who challenges Establishment authority. In their first scene together, she challenges him as a representative of his diplomatic agency. Nonetheless, they become lovers and eventually marry. Still they remain estranged. Justin seems to have difficulty communicating. Later, he intercepts an email, intended for his wife that suggests that she may be having an affair. She is not, nor does she ever violate his trust in her, but he does not know this until the resolution of the movie. The movie itself is divided into two halves. In the first half Tessa is murdered, by persons unknown. This part of the movie presents us with the relationship between Justin and Tessa. The second half of the movie begins with Justin seeking the truth about his wife's death. In the course of his search he encounters corporate conspiracies and other forms of intrigue. Although he receives warnings to stop his investigation, he continues. It is in this respect that we understand that he is "The Constant Gardener". Always turning over earth. Always persevering. Just like a gardener. Eventually, Justin uncovers the nature of the conspiracy that killed his wife. And as he does, he also realizes that his discoveries, as they are observed by others, will mean his own death. The ending of this movie is a thing of beauty. Justin, estranged from his wife and seeking the cause of her death, finally understands her. This movie is a great love story, intertwined with modern themes of corporate and international intrigue. I recommend it highly. From imgiphted at bellsouth.net Fri Sep 9 15:35:17 2005 From: imgiphted at bellsouth.net (Matt Noller) Date: Fri Sep 9 15:35:20 2005 Subject: Review: Pretty Persuasion (2005) Message-ID: Pretty Persuasion Rating: **** (out of ****) A review by Matt Noller (http://uhmovies.tripod.com) The most biting critique of American values this side of Dogville, Pretty Persuasion is a dark, vicious satire about the destructive power of high school's pettiness and sexual hypocrisy. A film this daring, hilarious and powerful, this full of ideas and emotions, is one to be cherished and celebrated. It's best movie I've seen so far this year, and exactly the sort of thing our increasingly tame movie industry needs. Much has been said about the film's humor, which is unapologetically politically incorrect and offensive. It establishes this early on, with Kimberly (Evan Rachel Wood), a mature and frighteningly intelligent 15-year-old high school student, telling Randa (Adi Schnall), an Arab immigrant, how glad she is to be white, a statement that she follows with an exhaustive list of races in order of preference - "If I couldn't be white, I'd like to be Asian, because a lot of guys like them because they think they're demure and subservient. But I don't think that's really the truth, because I met this one Asian girl, and she was a real bitch." Some have accused the film of being shocking just for the hell of it, but every off-color joke in Pretty Persuasion is backed by screenwriter Skander Halim's righteous anger. This is an exceptionally personal, emotionally charged film, and to suggest otherwise is hopelessly misguided. More simply, however, if you're not easily offended, the movie is just funny as all hell, filled with memorable one-liners and snappy dialogue After losing the lead in The Diary of Anne Frank for making an anti-Semitic remark, Kimberly, along with Randa and friend Brittany (Elisabeth Harnois), sues her drama teacher (Ron Livingston) for sexual harassment, hoping to kick-start her acting career through the case's inevitable media coverage. Jane Krakowski plays Emily Kline, a lesbian reporter who falls for Kimberly's manipulations and pushes for her case. The film attacks the media for its cynical exploitation of serious issues, showing how Emily uses Kimberly just as much as Kimberly uses her, leading to easy readings of the film as a satire of the mass media's obsession with controversy. And it is that, but it is also so much more, and to view it only on those simplistic terms is just asking to be disappointed. Halim also turns both barrels on America's sexual double-standard, in which boys are celebrated but girls are punished for their carnal appetite. But where the film's power comes from is its real subtext, which suggests that a girl as mature and intelligent as Kimberly has no chance of survival in the bitter, vindictive world of high school. Key to the film's success is Halim and director Marcos Siega's insistence on showing us where Kimberly is coming from. Her father (James Woods, a riot) is a hateful bigot, married to Kathy, a vapid sexpot clearly unfit to be any sort of mother figure (Kimberly's constant quips about Kathy's relationship with the family dog provide many of the film's most hilarious lines), and her real mother is completely distant, unaware of her daughter's age or even the correct spelling of her name. Every boy in her life has mistreated and used her; one boyfriend, after having a perverted request graciously fulfilled, breaks up with her and spreads vicious rumors, damaging rumors. Finally, the drama teacher really is a bastard with a thing for schoolgirls; and although he never outright abuses any of the girls, an invasive "exercise" that he forces Brittany to go through comes close. Also important is Wood's tour-de-force performance, easily the finest of the year - possibly of the past several - cementing her as not only the bravest actress of her generation but also quite simply the best. Fiery and eloquent, she sells her comedic lines with brilliant timing and delivery ("Why must you criticize everything in my Big Bag of Fun?") and grounds even her character's most outrageous statements in emotional realism. As Pretty Persuasion spirals toward its dark conclusion, Wood shows her character's descent in all its pathetic, wrenching sadness. To many critics, the serious last act seems like a shocking change of pace and tone. But as a logical extension of the film's subtext, these events take on new meaning, and Pretty Persuasion becomes crushingly, devastatingly powerful. As Kimberly watches herself on television, her nihilistic and destructive plan completed, tears welling up in her eyes, we see how she has been slowly corrupted and driven insane by her world. Pretty Persuasion is a biting, hilarious tragedy, and it is impossible to forget. (c) 2005 Matt Noller, not that anyone would ever want to steal this From filmgeek65 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 9 20:35:06 2005 From: filmgeek65 at hotmail.com (Rick Ferguson) Date: Fri Sep 9 20:35:08 2005 Subject: Review: The Constant Gardener (2005) Message-ID: <1126295199.116441.161520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Remember the good old days, when all the movie villains were Nazis? Of course, the original movie villains were Indians- John Wayne used to slaughter them by the dozen back in the day, until Arthur Penn's LITTLE BIG MAN debuted in 1970 and suggested that maybe the Indians didn't exactly deserve it. STAR WARS popularized the idea of the faceless villain- Darth Vader, the Emperor and the stormtroopers were all hidden behind helmets and hoods, the better to denude them of race, and the Empire required no more motivation to blow up the rebels other than that they were, well, evil. Lucas and Spielberg brought the Nazis back to the fore with the Indiana Jones series. James Cameron's TRUE LIES made Islamic terrorists the villains, and they served nicely until 9-11, when it became uncouth to offend our moderate Muslim brothers and we replaced Islamic terrorists with Euro-terrorists played by Alan Rickman or Sean Bean. Of course, that move threw a lot of Arabic actors out of work, because the only roles available to them in Hollywood were as Islamic terrorists, which nicely demonstrates the Law of Unintended Consequences. Today, the only acceptable villains in politically correct Hollywood are white men- specifically, white Western capitalists. Movies such as SILKWOOD, THE INSIDER, ERIN BROCHOVICH and even the RESIDENT EVIL movies all postulate that the world's ills are perpetrated by white male-led capitalist cabals who lie, cheat and murder with impunity in pursuit of the almighty Dollar. They're protected by greedy, corrupt politicians and supported by murderous thugs. Only plucky heroines, intrepid reporters and falsely accused widows can bring these wicked corporations to their knees. Viewed in this light, THE CONSTANT GARDENER is the most conventional of thrillers. It appears liberal and politically correct to its core. The villain in this case is the pharmaceutical industry, and the plot of the 2001 John Le Carr? novel is a nearly wholesale rip-off of the 1993 Harrison Ford film THE FUGITIVE: a man whose wife is brutally murdered discovers that her death was just a minor side effect of a vast and sinister conspiracy led by Big Pharm. The wrongly-accused-man angle is jettisoned, but otherwise the plots of the two movies are kissing cousins. Ralph Fiennes is Justin Quayle, a career British diplomat based in Kenya whose spitfire of an activist wife Tessa dies in an apparent car wreck after visiting a remote village with her partner in crime, Kenyan doctor Arnold Bluhm (Hubert Kound?). Quayle is the bookish, cloistered type, and prefers to spend his free time tending to his copious garden while his wife is out saving Kenyan villages single-handedly and stirring up shit with the British consulate about the nefarious activities of a British pharmaceutical company in country to help with AIDS tests for the villagers. Quayle, of course, begins to suspect that Tessa's death was no accident. As he pieces together scraps of information from Tessa's laptop, her friends and her secret stash of Important Clues, it dawns on him that he is indeed trapped in a conventional politically-correct Hollywood thriller, and that he's become a target himself. Stop me if you've heard this before. And boy, does this film wear its liberal heart on its sleeve. In flashbacks, we see the Meet Cute, in which Tessa attends a lecture by Quayle and loudly denounces the Iraq war in front of a roomful of nonplussed students. Politics being the ultimate aphrodisiac, the two soon end up entwined in a tangle of limbs. Before you can say Halliburton, they're married and off to Africa as Quayle takes up his new post. The film then quickly establishes its predictable ground rules: the African villagers are exotic, doe-eyed innocents; the white politicians are universally corrupt; endless supplies of thugs exist to perform corporate dirty work; the United Nations is a benevolent institution performing important work. The film is supposed to screw you up into righteous moral outrage, and it often works. But you can't help feeling the cold hot-dog flavored breath of Michael Moore on the nape of your neck as events proceed to their inevitable conclusion. What elevates THE CONSTANT GARDENER above this ground floor of mundane conventionality is the detail work. With 2002's CITY OF GOD, Brazilian director Fernando Meirelles established himself as the heir to Steven Soderbergh. That film was an astonishing display of virtuosity (though due respect must be paid to co-director K?tia Lund), and most of the visual inventiveness and relentless forward momentum in CITY survives in GARDENER. Returning cinematographer C?sar Charlone, meanwhile, casts the film in tones that alternate between naturalism and impressionism. In messing with the timeline and working in flashbacks, Meirelles and Caine aren't exactly breaking new ground- but the fractured timeline is critical to the film, as its revelations are driven not by the plot, but rather by the emotions of its grieving protagonist. Let me say that again: this is a character-driven film. If you accept it at face value, then you're missing the point. Yes, the plot is straight out of Corporate Conspiracies 101. But its message is not really that big corporations do bad things- you only have to think of the words "Merck" and "Vioxx" to know what pharmaceutical companies are capable of. It's actually the story of a man who loses faith in himself, who comes to believe that his wife no longer loves him because he's no longer worthy of her love. That's a story many of us can relate to, whether or not we're being chased by corporate goons across the Kenyan desert. This crisis of faith propels the story, and its resolution provides the necessary moment of catharsis. The conspiracy plot itself is a red herring. But in these dark days, even film criticism has become politicized. The current political climate forces us to choose sides, and we all line up against one another. But here's the news: both the liberals who would use this film to indict every Western corporation as a murderous combine run by imperialist dogs, and the conservatives who would use it to indict Hollywood en masse as a passel of pumpkin-headed Streisand clones, are completely full of shit and don't know what the hell they're talking about. It's time to reclaim the middle ground in this country. THE CONSTANT GARDENER is where I'm planting my flag. *** Visit Mr. Fabulous at http://www.filmreviewblog.com From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Mon Sep 12 16:30:14 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Mon Sep 12 16:30:16 2005 Subject: Review: The Cave (2005) Message-ID: <3osUe.8331$Wd7.1886@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> THE CAVE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** THE CAVE, one of the last popcorn movies of the summer, is essentially ALIENS UNDERGROUND sans Sigourney Weaver. A fun film, it turns out to be smarter than you'd expect. The best part of the picture is that it takes place in a couple of locales -- spelunking in a cave and diving underwater -- that we don't normally go when we are at the movies, unless it's a nature documentary. Sure there are counterexamples, but the terrain is still basically fresh and doesn't feel like every other science fiction thriller that you've seen recently. The story starts thirty years ago when some treasure hunters are in Romania exploring a cave which has long been hidden by a now abandoned church. They do not return above ground. Something bad is happening deep down below, and we don't know exactly what it is. We cut to the present time when the cave has been rediscovered. Jack (Cole Hauser) leads the world's most capable and daring team of cave explorers and divers. Other members of his crew include his brother Tyler (Eddie Cibrian), the cautious Buchanan (Morris Chestnut), the hotshot Briggs (Rick Ravanello) and the girl Charlie (Piper Perabo). All total about a dozen people swim a distance of three miles where they end up trapped one mile underground, so they have to find a new way out. They also find that they are somewhere in -- but certainly not at the top of -- a food chain of a newly discovered ecosystem of underground killers. The beauty of the script by Michael Steinberg and Tegan West is that they have the good sense to very slowly introduce us to their monster world. We don't get our first glimpse of the hideous creatures until well into movie, and, even then, they come slowly at first, with the lowest members of the food chain appearing first. The worst part of the script is the dialog, which isn't pretty. Toasting the "virgin cave" and a warning to "respect the cave" are typical of its inanities. Although it's about 10 minutes too long, the story keeps us engaged and fascinated with the battle of the humans vs. the unnamed creatures. Only the very last scene disappoints because it shows that the sequel has been designed in such a way that it will lose all the best parts of the original. THE CAVE runs 1:37. It is rated PG-13 for "intense creature violence" and would be acceptable for kids around 12 and up. My son Jeffrey, age 16, gave it ****. He loved the way it took you to such visually interesting places, and he liked the concept, especially the wide variety of the creatures. His girlfriend Yasmin, also 16, gave it *** 1/2. She liked the really cool setup and the way it made you wonder about caves. Their friend Stacy, also 16, gave it *** 1/2. Although she obsessed about telling us how much she absolutely hated the setup for the sequel, she liked everything else about the movie, especially the creatures and the way the movie made you jump. The film is playing in nationwide release now in the United States. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From mmontcha at OregonVOS.net Mon Sep 12 16:35:12 2005 From: mmontcha at OregonVOS.net (Matthew Montchalin) Date: Mon Sep 12 16:35:14 2005 Subject: Review: 2046 (2004) Message-ID: Bullet trains of the present must someday evolve into timewarping supertrains of the future, speeding past towering skyscrapers at night, all with the awful, awful rumbling and shaking that that sort of supersonic speed ought to entail. Unfortunately, there's simply no mocked up city with trains passing cameras on dollies moving half as fast. None of that sort of thing, it looked instead like some mattes 30 feet away, and a few humdrum trains going along, accompanied by a loud soundtrack in the background. Anything fancier must have exceeded the budgetary constraints imposed on the director, Wong Kar Wai, who was content to use a stationary camera with an occasional shot of an elevated supertrain or two, but the shots are few and far between, and they seem more incidental to the story than pivotal. In fact, most of the movie is shot up close and indoors, not even in a mall to speak of. 2046 is a "human relationship" type movie, and that would have suited me just fine if the casting director had only chosen a wider assortment of actors (in terms of shapes and dimensions) than were employed. I had a very hard time telling the actors apart. If you get past the couple outdoor shots - they were probably intended to represent the fantastic vision of the main character, a science fiction writer - you will find nearly all the rest of the movie shot indoors. Now, for the most part, wherever the camera pointed, you'll find lots of hues of yellow on red, behind tinted backgrounds of orange and brown, with precious few colors outside that part of the spectrum, a far cry from a beautiful movie, if you ask me. Heck, an animated movie like "Sky Blue" or "Metropolis 2" (the remake, not the original) is far more beautiful than this one is. Before you walk into the theater, make sure you don't accidentally confuse 2046 for the Winterbottom film "Code 46" (the one where governments have to stop people from hybridizing themselves with clones from prior generations). This one is called 2046 because that is the year just before Communist China swallows up Hong Kong, after 50 years of preparing for the occasion. Coincidentally, 2046 is the number of a room in a hotel where the main hero, a science fiction writer, is spending his life in the 1960s and 1970s (I could be off by a few years here and there) writing about the future as he sees it. Maybe that's why there are a couple shots of elevated supertrains in the distant future. It's pretty hard telling when the movie is dealing with the future as opposed to the present. I cannot be as generous as another reviewer has been in calling this movie an object of art, or a piece of luscious, intoxicating beauty. I guess it's because most of the movie seemed to come off as a muddled mess of faded colors just off yellow. Color editing software in postproduction might have helped, I don't know. Perhaps the director told the cameraman to put a yellow filter on the lens, who knows. In any case, it just wasn't that beautiful to me. And although I fell asleep in the middle of this movie, it could not have been for more than ten or fifteen minutes, and that short a period of time is not enough to make me hold back on stating my opinions. The budget may have been in the millions, and the women may have been decked out in long, flowing evening dresses, and the men may have been in two piece business suits with starched collars and ties - everything as thoroughly westernized as it gets - it takes more than dressing the actors up with a wardrobe from a frilly, flowery, Federico Fellini film to make up for the terribly slow pace, lack of plot, and action. Good movies have something called 'overlapping' - where the actors deliver their lines simultaneously. In this movie, they took their time, politely waiting for the other actor to finish (and then some), before coming up with the next line of dialog. It certainly didn't seem natural to me. If I didn't say it before, maybe I'll say it now- I was expecting a whizbang science fiction movie, and that's not what it turned out to be. It's a "human relationship" movie where girls naturally dig "sharp dressed men" - it's all unexplainable, I guess - but in this case, it's a woman falling in love with a diminutive, weasely, pencil-necked, chainsmoking Japanese science fiction writer - our hero - who is, himself, bent on having his way with the daughter of a hotelier. Picture an oriental version of "Paris Hilton" falling for an oriental version of "Woody Allen" (with a little moustache perched above his upper lip), and he's constantly sucking on his cigarette and puffing smoke like the little train that could. (Who the heck gave this movie a green light, anyway?) Some reviewers have likened this movie to an oriental version of an earlier Burt Reynolds movie "The Man Who Loved Women" but sinc I haven't seen that one, I guess I'll have to say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. In a world as big as this one, there's a lot of plots to go around. At least they didn't cast a 400 pound sumo wrestler in the role of the Japanese science fiction writer bent on seducing the daughter of the hotel. There are lots of romantic escapades (or beddings) of various actresses, nothing too graphic that I can remember, but then again I did fall asleep for about 15 minutes in the middle. I guess the main hero to this movie - the guy who is supposed to be an accomplished science fiction writer - is so good with words that women fall in love with him from the quality of his writing, and not from the quality of his appearance. Notwithstanding the suit and tie, and the cigarette glued to his lips. As for a music soundtrack, don't expect to hear sitar music, rock music, or anything close to being reminiscent of the Far East. There are lots of polyphonic violins upon violins, and choruses of violins and pianos, like the whole world is in love with pseudo-symphonic chamber music. Maybe a drumbeat or two could have really helped out on this movie. In fact, the Far East has become so thoroughly modernized that you get to hear that Bing Crosby (?) "Chestnuts Roasting" song several times before the movie is done. Equally to my surprise, the concept of birthdays (and Christmas) has metamorphosized into a cost/benefit dollar-counting accounting activity, and the main character has (to his credit?) discovered that it is commercially feasible to make a living off of throwing birthday parties to himself, just be sure to invite famous luminaries who have presumably heard about him, and they will lavish him with gifts so all he has to do is cash them in after the parties are over, but that is just of the little subplots to this movie. As I said before, this is a "human relationship" type movie. But there is also the part of the movie that represents the writer's visions coming true, and that includes androids that really know what falling in love is like, and that means exclusive devotion, I think. And that says quite a bit when the androids look just like real people. This part of the movie is the main reason I would see it one more time, if only because I lost track of what part of the movie was in the 1960s, what part of the movie was in the year 2046, and what part of the movie was in Room 2046. Yes, the movie was shot that non-linearly. Script or Dialog D Direction C Photography B+ Sets & Locations C+ Music & Sound C+ Plot B Car Chases F Shooting/Explosions F From sbr at cinephobia.com Mon Sep 12 16:35:13 2005 From: sbr at cinephobia.com (sbr) Date: Mon Sep 12 16:35:16 2005 Subject: Review: Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005) Message-ID: Wallace & Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit There are all sorts of things that can cue you in to the fact that you're about to see a wonderful film, but here's a new one: fingerprints. When Aardman made Chicken Run, they accepted that a few compromises were needed in order to make the task of animating a feature-length film possible. One of them was that they moved to a much stiffer style of puppet for most of their main characters: the chickens in that film had almost tubular heads, with expressive eyes, brows and beaks, but otherwise a generally pretty solid and unflinching head shape. If you watch one of the original Wallace and Gromit shorts before seeing Chicken Run, you'll see the difference: in the earlier films the characters have a malleable plasticiney quality to them that gives them a much wider range of expression than the chickens of Aardman's first full-length feature. As I settled in for the long-awaited Wallace and Gromit movie, I fully expected that some kind of similar compromise might be needed, and was prepared to accept a little bit of "tweaking" of the original character designs. Yet as the duo appeared on-screen and went through their by-now cosily familiar routines - the inclining bed, the breakfast, the superhero-like descent into their basement - I was delighted to see that I could make out the fingerprints of animators on their heads. It was an enormously reassuring thing to see. Wallace and Gromit were back on the big-screen in all their plasticine glory: they haven't been redesigned, touched-up, Americanised or otherwise bastardised. It's a little shocking to check and realise it's been more than ten years since the last proper Wallace and Gromit film, 1995's A Close Shave. As you would expect, however, little has changed in their curiously timeless world (the only sense that time passes for these characters comes in the opening sequence, in which we get still-photo glimpses of their life together, including a fleeting but strangely touching glimpse of Gromit as a puppy). Curse of the Were-Rabbit finds them with a new business venture: Anti-Pesto, a pest-control company, which specialises in humanely relocating rabbits that would otherwise devastate neighbourhood gardens. When a rogue beast starts eating oversize vegetables just days before the local fair, Wallace and Gromit are called on to solve the problem. Their rival is Lord Victor Quatermaine (voiced by Ralph Fiennes), who is also competing with Wallace for the affections of the aristocratic Lady Tottington (voiced by Helena Bonham Carter). The structure of the plot has vague overtones of A Close Shave, complete with the pair's employment by a potential love-interest for Wallace, a hungry animal as a house-guest, and an evil dog. Yet familiarity is key to the appeal of these characters, and the film never becomes a re-hash. Instead, it enlarges and populates the world in which Wallace and Gromit live. The shorts progressed steadily in complexity and ambition, and while Curse of the Were-Rabbit isn't better than its predecessors, there is the pleasant feeling that you are seeing Nick Park and his collaborators finally realise the scope to which they'd previously aspired. The previous Wallace and Gromit films were always economical with supporting characters, but the expanded resources of a Dreamworks-backed feature film means we finally get to meet the community of which the pair are a part (with a big town meeting, no less). Quartermaine is the series' first human villain, and he's an object-lesson in how to use celebrity voice-artists. Ralph Fiennes might seem to be typecast as a villainous Lord, but not when you hear the performance: this isn't Fiennes doing Ralph Fiennes, but Fiennes doing a wonderful comic performance that is reinforced by comic animation. It's a marked contrast with, for example, the uninspired way a great comedian like John Cleese was used in Shrek 2. The main attraction, of course, is the central duo themselves. I know there are some who resist the charms of Wallace and Gromit, finding their self-conscious Englishness unbearably twee. Yet I've never been able to share this kind of disdain, finding the sheer lack of pretension and good-natured humour of these characters impossible to resist. (It's much the same reason The Castle was able to get away with the folksiness of its Australians). I've read interviews with Nick Park, the pair's creator, where he frets that they overdid the Americanisation in Chicken Run: given the fine job they did of judiciously introducing some American references into that film without sacrificing its essential Britishness, you would think he might have cut himself some slack. Yet you see the benefits of his vigilance in Curse of the Were-Rabbit, in which the milieu is kept strictly British and none of the eccentricities or local traits of the characters have been sacrificed. Peter Sallis' voicework as Wallace has lost none of its gusto, and the animation of Gromit is immensely expressive. I should have known Park would never let Gromit's design be tinkered with: Gromit's whole character seemingly exists in his marvellously expressive plasticine eyebrows. There's a really beautiful dignity in this long-suffering dog. The script is sharp and funny, working simultaneously for kids and adults: the audience I saw it with included plenty of both, and all were lapping it up. As with The Wrong Trousers and A Close Shave, it builds satisfyingly to a big comic chase that doesn't feel shoehorned into the film. Like the Pixar films, the Aardman features have an assuredness to their story-telling that makes what they do look absurdly easy, and you wonder why it's so hard for a studio like Disney to consistently produce satisfying features. Of course, it isn't easy, and the Aardman crew - again, like Pixar - deserve credit for their obvious commitment to getting a story right before moving it on to full production. Park's direction (shared with Steve Box this time, rather than Chicken Run co-director Peter Lord) is equally assured. I've always thought that the painstaking nature of the animation process makes for good directors, and Park's work is particularly notable for the fun he has with slightly over-the-top horror movie staging and camera angles. And as I alluded to at the start of this review, the stop-motion animation has a pleasantly low-tech feel to it. Despite a few minor computer-generated tweaks, this is essentially all old-style stop-motion animation, and there's something comforting about the craftsmanship that is so evident on-screen in this type of film. Nick Park is an inspirational figure at a time when studio animation is undergoing such upheaval: along with figures like John Lasseter and Brad Bird, he is a reminder that great animated films can still be done for big Hollywood studios. My hunch is that this will be the last Wallace and Gromit film: if it is, I'm glad the characters went out on a high. Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit is just a pure, uncomplicated good time. (C) 2005 Stephen Rowley sbr@cinephobia.com Movie reviews, essays and more at http://www.cinephobia.com/ From homer_yen at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 16:35:20 2005 From: homer_yen at yahoo.com (Homer Yen) Date: Mon Sep 12 16:35:22 2005 Subject: Review: The Transporter 2 (2005) Message-ID: <20050911020550.53534.qmail@web52102.mail.yahoo.com> "The Transporter 2??Just Can't Get There by Homer Yen (c) 2005 Just for the record, I like the actor Jason Statham. He's tough. He's menacing. He's the perfect mold for gangster pulp. But here, reprising his role as Frank, the ultimate driver/fighter/soldier, he's clearly in the wrong vehicle. The film is basically a sort of brown tank. It doesn't have too much by way of color. And it just plows and plods its way over everything and anything to get to its conclusion. Check out his nifty Audi A-8. It is apparently armor-plated, fitted with bulletproof glass, and can corkscrew through the air so that it can land softly on its hypertuned suspension. Admittedly, I kind of lost interest when (and this is a long scene to explain) Frank, standing by his driver-side door, notices through the reflection of the water over which the car is parked that there is a bomb planted to the bottom of his beloved car. Now, most people would quickly put some distance between themselves and the car and run as far away as possible. Not Frank. He races it over a mound of boxes and spirals the car through the air. Just as it makes one-half a rotation with the bottom side up, the bomb is captured by a large crane hook that dwindles 15 feet in the air. The bomb explodes, the Audi lands safely, and our driver can now concentrate on other matters. Yeah, right. And that sets the tone of this hokey film, which is decidedly more choppy than chop socky. I was reminded of a similar-yet-realistic scene in the 007 film, "The Man with the Golden Gun?where our favorite spy did the same thing in an AMC Hornet. The only difference was that that stunt was real (calculated and designed by honors graduate math students). Here, the effect looks completely fake. Where's James Bond when we need him? The film centers on an assassination plot. The storyline is actually of secondary focus. Much of the film is spent on producing improbable car chases and staging martial arts sequences where our driver/fighter/soldier seems to always be simultaneously battling multiple foes. Too much action brings the movie to a standstill. The film unwisely avoids having any interesting dialogue and discards any thought of character development. There are opportunities squandered left and right. One of the key characters is a cute little boy. But the film somehow avoids any cute-kid-in-danger drama. And there is a fetishistic, teddy-wearing, henchwoman who seems to look forward to beating her opponent silly. But when she and the driver arrive at their inevitable showdown, it appears that even a 40-yr old virgin could knock her senseless. The best character, a super-hospitable, visiting French detective gets as much action as a dinner guest eating cr?me brulee. What a letdown. And that basically sums up the feelings that I have for "The Transporter 2? It tries to make up for its own shortcomings with its glossy look. The sports cars are exotic. Miami makes a good backdrop in this world of absurd bad guys. The action is relentless and the pummeling seems to never end. This formula just doesn't work. Statham needs a partner to help provide a little balance. There's a scene in which he uses all sorts of props in a parking garage to defeat a dozen foes. Immediately, we wish that Jackie Chan was part of the project. At least, there would have been a few laughs generated. Here, for a film as absurd as this is, it just takes itself too seriously. Drivers wanted. Transport me to another theatre. Grade: C- S: 1 out of 3 L: 1 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Fri Sep 16 17:45:11 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Sep 16 17:45:15 2005 Subject: Review: Just Like Heaven (2005) Message-ID: JUST LIKE HEAVEN A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** Wanting to be the next GHOST -- and succeeding handsomely -- JUST LIKE HEAVEN is sweetly funny and delightfully romantic. The script, by Peter Tolan (ANALYZE THIS) and Leslie Dixon (FREAKY FRIDAY), creates two completely believable characters, even if one of them is a spirit and the other one is the only one who can see her. The almost always adorable Reese Witherspoon (LEGALLY BLONDE) plays Elizabeth Martinson, a woman run over by a truck within the first five minutes of the movie. Mark Ruffalo (13 GOING ON 30) plays David Abbott, a depressed guy who has recently experienced a loss. He comes to rent Elizabeth's old apartment and gets the ghostly Elizabeth thrown in for no extra charge. The unusual story kicks into gear when Elizabeth shows up to complain about David's slobbish habits and tries to get him to leave her apartment. Since she comes and goes without having to open doors, he turns to a guy named Darryl who works at a local bookstore which specializes in parapsychology. Jon Heder, the star of one of my least favorite movies, NAPOLEON DYNAMITE, is remarkably funny and effective as the bizarre Darryl, whose vocabulary consists mainly of the word, "righteous." The script has more depth, interest and surprises that you'd expect, even if it is ultimately predictable. The best part concerns Elizabeth's amnesia. Mark and Elizabeth go in search of who she was. She has no idea that she was a workaholic intern with zero social life before the truck cut her life short. Along the way, they get humorous clues which initially lead them to suspect, incorrectly, that she was a philandering slut. This very entertaining film goes down easy, not demanding a lot from the viewers. Part of the ending, however, may make some liberals uneasy, but to discuss that would needlessly give away key twists, which I fear other reviewers will be giving away. My wife and I, who were celebrating our 36th wedding anniversary when we saw the film, were both very pleased by everything about it from the acting to the script. We cared about these two characters and were glad to see them falling in love. JUST IN HEAVEN is a romantic comedy that's a good date movie for all ages, and it's quite funny too. JUST LIKE HEAVEN runs a fast 1:39. It is rated PG-13 for "some sexual content" and would be acceptable for kids around 7 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 16, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Fri Sep 16 17:45:13 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Sep 16 17:45:17 2005 Subject: Retrospective: A Certain Justice (1998) Message-ID: A CERTAIN JUSTICE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** The British really know how to do mysteries. Although American television tries, the Brits own the formula to the secret sauce. Although my favorite detectives are probably PRIME SUSPECT's Jane Tennison and INSPECTOR MORSE's Morse, played superbly by Helen Mirren and John Thaw, almost as good is Commander Adam Dalgliesh in the DALGLIESH series. In the lead role, Roy Marsden plays the pensive detective created in P.D. James's novels. A CERTAIN JUSTICE, one of the classic DAGLIESH stories, is being released now on DVD. This three part mystery is unusual in that Dagliesh doesn't show up until the end of the first episode. And, when he does, he sets an especially low-key tone, letting the events swirl around him, with the mystery almost solving itself. Still, there is no disappointment, as the acting is excellent and the twists come often, leaving who did which murders unclear until well into the latter part of the last episode. The plot concern an ambitious, take-no-prisoners lawyer -- excuse me, I mean barrister. If you don't speak "English," and I don't mean that bastardized version of the language spoken here in the colonies, you may have trouble keeping up with some of the accents and the lingo. "Taking silk" and "head of chambers," for example, aren't terms which will mean much to Americans, although their meaning within the context of the story is relatively easy to discern. There is plenty of bickering, back-stabbing and double-dealing in the law offices where Octavia Aldridge (Flora Montgomery) hopes one day soon to be head of chambers. The story begins when she is a little girl who dreams of taking silk. Her dreams turn rapidly into a nightmare in the first episode. Among the many difficulties with which she has to cope is that of her slime ball of a client who woos her daughter. Although he is clearly guilty of murder, Octavia manages to convince a jury otherwise. He repays the favor by dating her daughter, who doesn't have much sense when it comes to men. Although the story sometimes veers into soap opera territory, the mystery holds your attention until the end. A CERTAIN JUSTICE runs 2:33. It is not rated but would be PG-13 for violence and would be acceptable for kids around 12 and up. The DVD, which has no special features, was recently released in the United States. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Fri Sep 16 17:45:15 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Sep 16 17:45:19 2005 Subject: Review: Lord of War (2005) Message-ID: LORD OF WAR A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** A long and didactic history lesson, the repetitive LORD OF WAR is like a Michael Moore message movie. This is all such a shame since the film, written and directed by GATTACA's Andrew Niccol, has many genuinely funny moments. The story starts with a long and involved tracking shot of a bullet from birth to death -- the bullet's birth and death, as well as the victim's death. But like a preacher who won't shut up, delivering slight variations of the same sermon, again and again, the movie wears you out by the second act. And the script, which never creates a single believable character, is more interested in moralizing than entertaining. Basically a one-person picture, it stars Nicolas Cage as Yuri Orlov, a Jewish arms merchant who really isn't Jewish at all. Yuri is clearly a composite character representing every gunrunner who ever existed. No matter how many impossible situations Yuri gets himself into, he always talks his way out without any of his clients killing him. Ethan Hawke, in a thankless and underwritten role, is completely wasted as the Interpol Agent always two-steps behind Yuri and never really catching up. Bridget Moynahan is onboard as Yuri's trophy wife. Better, but still not a complete character, Jared Leto plays Yuri's crazy brother who is always being checked into rehab for drug addition. Just about every other line of LORD OF WAR is delivered in voice-over as Yuri flits from war to war, providing us little homilies along the way. Typical of these is the admonition that every twelfth person on the planet is armed and it is the job of the gun dealer to provide weapons to the other eleven. He claims that he sells arms to every army but the Salvation Army. The movie ends by concluding that every major government is a big arms dealer just like Yuri and, by implication, just as evil. I'd rather go to church for my sermons. LORD OF WAR runs way too long at 2:02. It is rated R for "strong violence, drug use, language and sexuality" and would be acceptable for older teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 16, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From sammeriam at comcast.net Fri Sep 16 18:00:12 2005 From: sammeriam at comcast.net (samseescinema) Date: Fri Sep 16 18:00:15 2005 Subject: Review: Lord of War (2005) Message-ID: <1126851555.905479.237590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Lord of War reviewed by Sam Osborn -www.samseescinema.com rating: 4 out of 4 Director: Andrew Niccol Cast: Nicolas Cage, Bridget Moynahan, Jared Leto, Ethan Hawke, Ian Holm Screenplay: Andrew Niccol MPAA Classification: R (strong violence, drug use, language and sexuality) Lord of War is my favorite sort of film. It's a biopic whose lead character is a figure whose life is an unlikely candidate for film adaptation. Its narration, similar to Fight Club's, is slow, methodic, and darkly entertaining. Its screenplay pushes buttons meticulously, to project a tone that takes the side of a neutral onlooker telling the facts as they are, however cold and disturbing they can be. And the facts do get disturbing. What starts out as a calmly told dark comedy of a small arms runner eventually evolves into a true-to-facts political eye-opener that'll make even the most patriotic squirm. I actually received my pre-screening pass from a connection I have with Amnesty International. My initial thought was, "Oh no." Oftentimes, films endorsed by admittedly left-side political organizations are shown to "teach a lesson." Lessons are fine, as long as the story comes first, which they usually don't in Amnesty-endorsed films. But alas, my faith in Amnesty's choice of cinema has been rekindled; Lord of War is a masterpiece (of sorts). Actually, throughout most of the film I'd thought some higher-up at Amnesty had blown a casket. Because, at first, Lord of War seems to favor its arms runner. But as the film continues, we begin to see that the film isn't looking to take a stance on the morals of an arms runner and doesn't favor nor condemn his work. Director/writer Andrew Niccol only strives to show Yuri Orlov as a human at work. The message of the film is mostly left to the viewer to find, although the ending sort of guides our opinion. The film opens with Yuri Orlov day dreaming over his dream girl, Ava Fontaine (Bridget Moynahan), the girl from his town, Little Odessa, that went on to become an international supermodel. Snapping back to reality, Yuri begins his running narration, giving us a tour of his city and his life before gun-running. His family, immigrants from Ukraine, own a small restaurant, with Yuri's brother, Vitaly (Jared Leto), working as the chef. Unsatisfied with his life, Yuri realizes that the only money in his town is with the gangs. And with so many bullets being expelled by these gangs, maybe Yuri can find his way into the supply business that's so highly demanded in Little Odessa. And so begins Yuri Orlov's legacy. His rise sort of reminded me of Tony Montana's from Scarface, rising through Miami as a cocaine dealer. That's no spoiler, by the way, because Orlov doesn't necessarily meet the same fate Montana did (or maybe he does...). We continue to follow Yuri through his first gun sale on to his supply of entire civil wars in the nation of Liberia (ironically, a country named after freedom). On his tail throughout is Detective Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke) with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, an overzealous agent, as Yuri likes to call him. Yuri was able to buy out almost every other agent who managed to get close to him, but bribes never fit Valentine's bill, making him a constant thorn in Yuri's behind. Nicholas Cage gives Yuri a humdrum, matter-of-fact manner that works for the moral dilemmas his character has to face. Andrew Niccol does well in making a stereotypically evil figure into a human character, able to make us laugh and relate to him in unusual ways. Yuri does the job simply because he's good at it. If he weren't there, someone else would be. The wars he supplies aren't his business. All that's his business are firearms. Do we believe this? Do we agree with him? These are sensitive questions that you'll probably ask yourself when watching Lord of War. Don't get me wrong though, Lord of War is a film with much more in store for its audience than moral dilemma. The film is also an enthralling dark comedy. There's adventure and drama weaved along with it, but comedy is what really drives this film. However, there's nothing broad about Lord of War's humor. It's the sort of humor that made Fight Club so great. It's dark, wry humor that doesn't necessarily make you bust a gut laughing, but builds into something between chuckling and grimacing. As we'd expect from any story about gun-runners, Lord of War takes us to the most desolate areas of the world. Niccol gives us an outsider's view of these worlds, a perspective similar to Yuri's. Niccol doesn't ignore the poverty outside of Yuri's story, but smartly places it in the background for us to brood upon. And as the film's moral stance shifts as the film rolls along, the background begins to take its effect. This method works in that we're aware of the world behind Yuri, but don't let our emotions surrounding it surface until the end, where a pivotal scene sparks some very disturbing emotions. I'm finding myself liking Lord or War more and more as the days pass on after the screening. Even after its dark comedy and drama wear off, I'm left with some interesting questions to mull over. It's a film that makes us question our political stance, whatever side it may lie on. But Lord of War, again, doesn't take a side. It simply tells its story about the infamous gun-runner Yuri Orlov, and does so with genuine audacity. -www.samseescinema.com From sammeriam at comcast.net Fri Sep 16 18:00:14 2005 From: sammeriam at comcast.net (samseescinema) Date: Fri Sep 16 18:00:17 2005 Subject: Review: Everything is Illuminated (2005) Message-ID: <1126851742.167011.18480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Everything is Illuminated reviewed by Sam Osborn -www.samseescinema.com rating: 2 out of 4 Director: Liev Schreibner Cast: Elijah Wood, Eugene Huntz, Boris Leskin Screenplay: Live Schreibner (based on the book by Jonathan Safran Foer) MPAA Classification: PG-13 (disturbing images/violence, sexual content and language) Everything is Illuminated will be a sharp disappointment for many of the avid fans that devoured Jonathan Safran Foer's literary debut of the same title. Although it's a passable film, director Live Schreibner's first in fact, it only deals with the travelogue aspect of the novel, which, as many will know, is only half of the story. Having only read the first couple chapters of the book, but being a fan of Foer's second novel, I only have an idea of the author's style: wandering, contemporary prose. Schreibner's film adaptation feels very little like wandering, contemporary prose. It retains some of the imaginative, foreign humor of the book, but feels oddly disjointed and uneven. The first half runs like a whacky, travel comedy, but the second half treads through well-trodden ground with uninspired drama. I attribute most of the film's problems to its potentially catatonic lead character, but there's the unshakeable feeling that there's more of the story waiting to be told behind the financial constraints of a $7 million (I believe) project. The film centers around Jonathan Foer's (Elijah Wood) search for the woman in his grandfather's 60 year old photograph. Known by the narrator, Alex (Eugene Hutz), as The Collector, Jonathan obsesses over the collection of family items, the latest and most mysterious being the photograph. Convinced of the woman's importance, he travels to Ukraine to find her. Finding assistance in an old tour guide family run by Alex's supposedly blind grandfather (Boris Leskin), Jonathan sets off on his quirky, awkward journey. In any film, it's most important to give the audience an emotional interest in the plot. Action films can achieve this by sparking adrenaline, and comedies can do so with laughter. With Everything is Illuminated, it is imperative for us to connect with Jonathan in order to have sympathy for his journey. Except, this connection is impossible when he has very little to do with the actual film. Having very few lines and almost no facial expressions or body language, I felt nothing for Jonathan. He seemed as emotionally capable as a statue. And without any sympathy for the character, I felt no sympathy for the journey. In this case, the supporting characters and sub-plots must be captivating enough to fill the film's gaping void. This, however, is not the case. Although sometimes laugh-out-loud hilarious, when the film slows down to focus on the main storyline, my interest slows down with it, grinding nearly to a complete halt. This, with credit to Elijah Wood, is no fault of the actor's. Wood does as well as he can with the catatonic role, with his pale face and moony eyes. But the screenplay offers him very, very little to work with. He's as expressive as his cannibal character from Sin City. That being said, most of the first half of the film is entertaining enough with its comedy. For instance, Alex's grandfather has a...debatable case of blindness. He wears the sunglasses and owns what he calls a "seeing eye bitch" (a dog), but agrees to drive Jonathan and Alex around the nation in his beat-up car. Also, Alex has his own brand of English that we pick up throughout the film. Repose means sleep, premium means good, and in distress is mad, among others. Eugene Hutz, being a non-actor originally hired for his band's music (Gogol Bordello) does a surprisingly wonderful job with his role as Alex. Liev Schreibner had been doing an extensive talent search to find an Ukranian actor right for the role and stumbled upon Eugene at a meeting. Eugene took a look at the screenplay and said in his very Ukranian accent, "yoo knoe, I aym thaat gie." And after taking a look at him, Schreibner said, "Yes, Eugene. Yes you are." Everything is Illuminated, even with all my complaints about the film's neglect of Foer's style aside, still doesn't work as a stand-alone film. Its uneven pacing and muted lead character plague its playfully foreign mentality. There are some unique laughs to be had, but they aren't enough to warrant a recommendation. -www.samseescinema.com From sammeriam at comcast.net Fri Sep 16 18:00:16 2005 From: sammeriam at comcast.net (samseescinema) Date: Fri Sep 16 18:00:19 2005 Subject: Review: Bee Season (2005) Message-ID: <1126851652.811482.55590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Bee Season reviewed by Sam Osborn -www.samseescinema.com rating: 3.5 out of 4 Director: Scott McGehee, David Siegel Screenplay: Naomi Foner (based on the novel by Myla Goldberg) Cast: Richard Gere, Juliette Binoche, Flora Cross, Max Minghella, Kate Bosworth MPAA Classification: PG-13 (thematic elements, a scene of sensuality and brief strong language) At first glance, Bee Season seems to be just another clich?d family melodrama waltzing its way into your multiplex. But please, please, please give this film a chance. Based on Myla Goldberg's critically acclaimed bestseller, this film adaptation by directing team Scott McGehee and David Siegel strikes all the right notes. There's a veneer of family melodrama, but beneath it there's a deeply affecting story about each family member's sense of spirituality. I realize that the word "spirituality" alludes to images of What the Bleep do we Know?! and other pseudo-philosophic pieces you've suffered through, but Bee Season has little to do with those. For one, there's no hardboiled message tagged onto Bee Season. Actually, if anyone were to walk away from the film with a lesson, it would be that there is no right answer. It's up to you to figure one out for yourself. Second, there's more to Bee Season than "spirituality". There's a smart and well acted family drama to go along with it. Bee Season opens with little Eliza Naumann's (Flora Cross) class spelling bee. Passing through the class competition and continuing onto the school bee, she surprises both herself and her brother, Aaron (Max Minghella), by taking first prize and moving on to districts. Eliza's father, Saul (Richard Gere), a Judaism Scholar and college professor, was caught unawares by the good news, and was delighted to pass it on to their scientist mother, Miriam (Juliette Binoche) who was also unaware of her daughter's natural talent for words. Even more surprising, Eliza goes on to win the Districts competition and continues on to Regionals. Saul, whose interest had mostly laid in Max's affinity for classical music, slowly begins turning towards Eliza's talents. Just as a sidenote: don't worry, there isn't any jealousy interplay between Aaron and Eliza over their father's attention. Bee Season's too smart for that. Anyway, with more free time on his hands without his father's music, Aaron finds himself with an intriguing, free-spirited girl named Chali (Kate Bosworth), whose involvement with the Hari Krishna following interests Aaron. Whether it's the girl or the religion, Aaron begins to explore different religions of the world, wondering if his father's choice of Judaism is best for him. Aaron's story is the most obvious of sub-plots concerning individualist thinking in terms of theocracy. However, his story isn't ham-handed or blatantly melodramatic. What Aaron deals with is an absorbing coming-of-age story that many people his age can relate to. There's a wonderful scene where Aaron passes by a Catholic Church service and decides to give it a try. Directors McGehee and Siegel almost work as entire characters in of themselves in these pivotal scenes. Their subtle stylistic approach allows the depth of the writing to reveal itself. Max Minghella (director Anthony Minghella's son) does well with his role, playing a young man with a ton of moral fiber, but struggling with his own sense of self. Saul's interest in Eliza's spelling brings him to digging up his studies for his university thesis paper on the power of words and their connection with the Torah and God. He begins helping Eliza study for regionals, teaching her word exercises that deal more with the spirit of the word than the spelling of it. He soon realizes that Eliza may have more talent than he originally thought. She spells words she hasn't ever heard before, mystically closing her eyes in concentration and slowly sounding off the letters. She says that when she closes her eyes, she "can hear the word's voice." McGehee and Siege's style also shows off here, with a visual representation of the voices of the words. For instance, the word "dandelion", when concentrated upon, causes roots and stems to shoot out from Eliza's hair and shoulders, forming the letters as they haphazardly grow, alerting Eliza to their spelling. After one particularly tiring night of spell practicing, Eliza's mother comes into the room and awards her daughter with her childhood treasure, the kaleidoscope. But instead of provoking a sweet reminiscence of her earlier days, the kaleidoscope evokes painful memories of her parents' deaths. Miriam's story is probably the most affective, working almost as a mystery. Juliette Binoche impresses in the role, playing a deeply divided and wounded woman whose scars are just beginning to re-open. Family drama is, in my opinion, the most difficult genre to write. Writers can overshoot their boundaries with shock factor, while other writers tragically understate the family with clich?s. It seems that Myla Goldberg's got it right with Bee Season. What I really loved about the story is that it never criminalized a character. The characters may get mad at each other and fight, but the audience is already so deeply involved in every family member's story that we come to realize the side each member is fighting for and can empathize. At the center of the film, however, is Eliza. Acting as the catalyst for all this change, her affinity for spelling works as the spark to start the fire. Flora Cross is amazing in her role in the same natural way Alex Ethel was in Millions. Their performances seem to come so easily. Come to think of it, much of Bee Season is similar to Millions. The superb acting, the spiritual story, and the director's style. But I think Bee Season is the superior film overall. It's m?lange of family tales works as an ensemble story that weaves in and around the centerpiece of Eliza's spelling bee achievements. But I think that its beauty is nearly impossible to display through previews, trailers, posters, critiques, and advertisements. The only way you can understand is to see the film. That's the best recommendation I can give. -www.samseescinema.com From sammeriam at comcast.net Fri Sep 16 18:00:18 2005 From: sammeriam at comcast.net (samseescinema) Date: Fri Sep 16 18:00:21 2005 Subject: Review: Capote (2005) Message-ID: <1126851696.548889.7040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Capote Reviewed by Sam Osborn -www.samseescinema.com Rating: 3.5 out of 4 Director: Bennett Miller Cast: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, Chris Cooper Screenplay: Dan Futterman MPAA Classification: R (some violent images and brief strong language) It seems that once a year we're treated to a performance so staggeringly magnificent that it seems as if the actor's a shoe-in for the Academy's Best Actor prize. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is just that actor for 2005. His portrayal of Truman Capote was best described by Telluride Film Festival's Galaxy Theater host as a "resurrection". Like Jamie Foxx's Ray, Charlize Theron's Monster, and Nicole Kidman's Virginia Wolfe, Hoffman's Capote is simply devastating. He stated at Telluride that after first accepting the role and watching a recording of Truman Capote he frankly thought he was in over his head. But throughout pre-production he gathered and compiled all of Capote's mannerisms and began practicing them, slowly and truly becoming Truman Capote. And from the first line of Hoffman's dialogue, with his squinched high voice, and self-absorbed tone we know he's succeeded. The actual film is nearly eclipsed by Hoffman's performance. But Director Bennett Miller and an impressive supporting cast manage to keep up with Hoffman's breakneck achievement. Shot in monochromatic, nearly black and white starkness, the film inherits a raw power that builds to its stunning climactic sequence. And although the film drags some in the middle, it finishes strong and leaves us with much to discuss. It's provocative, stark, and powerful. Capote opens with the discovery of a family of four murdered in the small town of Hokum, Kansas in 1953 (don't quote me on the date, please). Coming off his second novel, Truman Capote (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) is searching for his next project. Intrigued by the murders, he takes the investigation, agreeing on authoring an article for The New Yorker. Meeting with the town's Sheriff, Alvin Dewey (Chris Cooper), he's met with opposition in the town for his peculiar manner. But his companion on the investigation, Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), offsets his homosexuality with terse, homegrown professionalism. Months later the two killers, Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Richard Hickcock (Mark Pellegrino) are apprehended by Sheriff Dewey and soon sentenced to death. Finding himself increasingly drawn to the story by the sentence, Truman begins personally interviewing the murderers, particularly Perry Smith, at their maximum security prison. Avoiding discussion of the murders themselves, Capote learns more about their lives outside of crime, finding a humanity never put into print before and causing him to extend his article for The New Yorker into the full-length novel, In Cold Blood. It would be the first True Crime novel ever written. His extensive interviews with Smith lead to a strange relationship open to many terms of controversial interpretation. He feels compelled to assist the men and lead the world's opinion away from demonizing headlines. Capote even goes to lengths to find them a decent lawyer for their Supreme Court appeal. The screenplay deals with this controversy between Capote and Smith with beautiful ambiguity. Screenwriter Dan Futterman leaves it to Capote's character to interpret their relationship for the audience, instead of the story doing so in a ham-handed way. And with Hoffman's performance so obsessively complete, the result is magnificent. We oddly understand Capote's pain and his unique love for Perry Smith. He obviously sees the monster inside, but realizes the human entirely. Some even speculated around the festival that Capote fell in love with Smith. It's incredibly profound. But at the same time, Futterman's screenplay relies too much on Capote's obsession with Smith. Audience's in the 50's were terrified by Capote's humanistic realization of the murderer, but now, that sort of True Crime journalism is accepted, and even expected, from murder investigations. This reliance causes the film to linger too long on Capote's build-up interviews before the shocking, twisting confession he needs to finish the novel. Also, audiences have recently grown tired of the biopic, probably because of the last year's heaping pile of them. This mutes the typical drama that occurs in all dramatic biopics, with the character's slow deterioration. Despite these flaws, Capote is still an arresting portrait of a murder. And to go along with this portrait is the complete resurrection of Truman Capote in Phillip Seymour Hoffman. The film works to succeed beyond a simple biopic. It also hits on the difficult topic of true crime, delving into the imagination and conscience of a man that killed in cold blood. -www.samseescinema.com From sammeriam at comcast.net Fri Sep 16 18:00:21 2005 From: sammeriam at comcast.net (samseescinema) Date: Fri Sep 16 18:00:23 2005 Subject: Review: The Constant Gardener (2005) Message-ID: <1126851605.754607.5840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> The Constant Gardener reviewed by Sam Osborn -www.samseescinema.com rating: 4 out of 4 Director: Fernando Meirelles Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz, Danny Huston, Daniele Harford, Hubert Kounde Screenplay: Jeffrey Caine (John Le Carre) MPAA Classification: R (language, some violent images and sexual content/nudity) While I was at the Telluride Film Festival, I spoke with Focus Feature's Director of National Publicity, Harlan Gulko about Fernando Meirelles' new film, which I hadn't seen at the time, The Constant Gardener. All Gulko could say about the project was, "Fernando Meirelles is a rock star." After thinking about that response, I suppose that's really the only way to describe such a director: a rock star. Meirelles' last film, City of God (Cidade de Deus), was the project that launched him into the American film scene, earning him a nomination for Best Director at the Academy Awards. The film was so affective and heartbreaking that it caused the President of Brazil to begin an effort to better the living status of Rio de Janeiro's suburbs. But as "message" oriented the film was, there was more story than moral. I think the same can be said of his latest outing, The Constant Gardener. The film exploits the evils of pharmaceutical corporations to great effect, but allows the core of the story to focus on a man's growing love for his wife after her murder. The film is based on acclaimed spy thriller novelist John le Carre's book of the same title. Having never read any of le Carre's writing, all I can say in terms of its adaptation is that it's gotta be a pretty damn good book to live up to what Meirelles has done with it. I can scarcely imagine a version without Meirelles' lush, mesmerizing visual style. It opens with a shot of a mangled jeep smoking in flames, ruined in the middle of the North African Desert. In a town in Nairobi, Sandy Woodrow (Danny Huston) enters Justine Quayle's (Ralph Fiennes) office at the British High Commission and informs him that the corpse of his wife, Tessa (Rachel Weisz) was just found mutilated in the desert, with her guide Arnold Bluhm (Hubert Kounde) missing from the scene. To tell you any more would give away secrets. Suffice to say that Justin begins to look further into the investigation and realizes there may be more to it than what the British High Commission tells him. Up against other conspiracy thrillers like The Interpreter, The Constant Gardener's holes don't really go too deep. The solution to the mystery is essentially revealed very early in the film, with the specifics being fleshed out later. The real story, and what the film primarily focuses upon, is Tessa. The identity of her killer is figured out easily, but what she was doing as she was killed is where the real conspiracy lies. Meirelles, as is common with non-western filmmakers, ends the film abruptly. This will simply leave some audiences choking in the dust of the credits (as it did to me), but give yourself some time to think it out and the complexity of Tessa's story will hopefully come together. But Tessa's story goes beyond her involvement with the pharmaceuticals, and most affectively lies in her love for Justin. In the opening act, their relationship seems mismatched; Justin being the quiet, diplomatic type that would rather push papers and policy than do grunt work on the streets, and Tessa being exactly the opposite: an Amnesty International activist spending most of her time on the streets of Nairobi with the citizens plagued by TB. But when Tessa dies, Justin seems to take on both roles. He learns what she was fighting for and falls further and further in love with her, making the story more and more tragic. The screenplay works this story arc with flashbacks to Justin and Tessa's relationship through the years, causing our emotions to parallel Justin's because of the non-linear storytelling Early on, Mike Newell (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) was considered for the film's director. Honestly, I don't believe The Constant Gardener would be half of what it is without Fernando Meirelles. His sense of visual style is so incredibly honed that with every shot he achieves the scene's tone before a single word is spoken. His cinematographer, Cesar Charlone's, handheld work elevates scenes into a visceral, hyper-realistic version of reality. There are also some interesting motifs with colors that continue throughout the film. Different locales can be identified simply by their color palettes. Some will probably call Meirelles' style overbearing and distracting. But, in my opinion, his version of The Constant Gardener is elegant. For a storyline that focuses on exploits in poverty-stricken North Africa, Fernando's style is almost imperative for telling John le Carre's story with complete justice. -www.samseescinema.com From sammeriam at comcast.net Fri Sep 16 18:00:29 2005 From: sammeriam at comcast.net (samseescinema) Date: Fri Sep 16 18:00:30 2005 Subject: Review: Brokeback Mountain (2005) Message-ID: <1126851786.309827.197750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Brokeback Mountain Reviewed by Sam Osborn -www.samseescinema.com Rating: 4 out of 4 Director: Ang Lee Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger, Anne Hathaway, Michelle Williams Screenplay: Larry McMurtry, Diana Ossana (based on the short story by Anne Proulx) By now, Ang Lee has treaded through nearly every genre with amazing, staggering success. From The Ice Storm, to Sense & Sensibility, Hulk, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and now Brokeback Mountain, Lee has clearly proven himself to be one of the most intriguing and genre-bending filmmakers of his generation. He twists each genre with the film he enters into it, and now with Brokeback Mountain, he aims to wring the western genre with a beautiful and honest love story. It'll be met with controversy, especially in today's political climate where homophobia reigns along with stiff, intolerant religious values even in the highest of political positions. But it's a story that doesn't aim to preach a message of acceptance and tolerance. Its only objective is to tell its story, as any great film aims to do, and do so with as much honesty and affection as possible. Opening in 1963 in Wyoming, Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) meet when taking work sheepherding on Brokeback Mountain. Protecting the sheep from coyotes and the harsh consequences of the land, one is required to camp out with the sheep while the other keeps camp back in the hills. This first act of the film works like any Western we've come to expect from a Larry McMurtry script (Lonesome Dove, Terms of Endearment novel). There's the unspoken camaraderie of the western rancher, where masculine intimacy is communicated through loyalty and reliance. McMurtry doesn't plague this act with dialogue, but lets the actors and the music and the landscape pull the weight. Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto (21 Grams, Alexander, Original Sin) photographs the land with exquisite beauty, making the area into a kind of lonely, quiet and somber Eden with which both the characters and the audience can revere later in the film, where the characters' live are riddled with dilemma As the weather turns colder, with snow coming and going with the time of the day, Ennis and Jack find themselves becoming closer friends, speaking of their histories in different areas of the western United States. One night, while passing around the Jack Daniels, Ennis passes out at camp before getting out to the sheep. Inviting him into the warm tent for the night, Jack lends Ennis his blanket. In a flurry of brutal, guilty and violent passion, the two find themselves making love. Unsure of their situation, the two part at the end of their Summer work and go on to lead their lives under the identity of heterosexuals. The rest of the film chronicles each of their lives, with both of them meeting for "fishing trips" at Brokeback Mountain each month and reliving their memorable Summer. Ang Lee's film, although focusing on homosexuals, doesn't fit into the "gay film" genre that peaked during the 70s. It's too honest and affectionate to be thrown into that exploitation genre. The story isn't trying to prove anything about gays. It's brilliantly directed and written to force audiences to look past the characters' orientation and realize their love as it is. Jack and Ennis' orientation is supposed to divide their lives with the other characters, but isn't supposed to divide the audience from them. Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal each do spectacular work with Brokeback Mountain. It was incredibly daring, for both of them, to even accept the film at all. With the help of McMurtry and Ossana's screenplay, the actors inherit that unique cowboy mentality so rarely translated to film these days. We follow Jack and Ennis through another twenty years, and with each development, we realize how complete each character is. Both the writers and the actors inhabit these characters. Because if the characters can't be believable, neither can their love story. Brokeback Mountain reminded most of an ancient, heartbreaking folk song. The kind cowboys and ranchers told while picking at the guitar around the campfire. It's something quiet, somber, and thoughtful. -www.samseescinema.com From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Fri Sep 16 18:05:08 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Sep 16 18:05:10 2005 Subject: Review: Thumbsucker (2005) Message-ID: THUMBSUCKER A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 THUMBSUCKER is an unusual and off-beat coming-of-age story about a seventeen year old named Justin Cobb (Lou Taylor Pucci), who suffers from an uncontrollable malady much like bed wetting. Although the title makes clear what his affliction is, the story is more about the quirky characters in his life and his use of drugs, legal and illegal. With the notable exception of Keanu Reeves as an orthodontist (!), the characters are all slightly bizarre but believable. Dr. Lyman (Reeves) describes himself as "lost in a cloud of hippie psychobabble." Reeves's character never makes any sense and should have been expunged from the script. Justin is a quiet loner without a love life but with a big crush on Rebecca (Kelli Garner), another girl in his debate class. Vince Vaughn plays their permissive teacher who so badly wants to be liked that he reluctantly buys his students booze while at an out-of-town debate. Justin isn't the only one with hang-ups. His dad (Vincent D'Onofrio) insists that Justin call his parents by their first name since hearing the words "mom" and "dad" makes his dad feel too old. Justin's mother (Tilda Swinton) lives in her own little fantasyland in which she tries to win a date with TV star Matt Schraam (Benjamin Bratt). In real-life, the addicted Matt boasts, "I never met a drug I didn't like." The heart of the story concerns the effects that drugs have on Justin. After being diagnosed as ADHD, he is prescribed drugs which turn him from a non-participant at school into a very verbal brainiac. (Actually, since unmedicated he is not the least hyperactive, the correct diagnosis would have been ADD not ADHD.) The story lets the viewers down by suggesting that Justin's success is somehow tainted because he is taking his prescribed medication. With great fanfare he abandons his medication, but, in no time, he is smoking crack. What we are supposed to make of this is unclear. That legal medications lead to illegal drug use? The movie does an especially good job at establishing credible relationships. But, when the ending credits start rolling, the purpose in the picture isn't clear. What was it trying to tell us? THUMBSUCKER runs 1:36. It is rated R for "drug/alcohol use and sexuality involving teens, language and a disturbing image" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 23, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Sun Sep 18 20:05:12 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Sun Sep 18 20:05:15 2005 Subject: Review: Cry_Wolf (2005) Message-ID: CRY_WOLF A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): * 1/2 CRY_WOLF is a formula slasher film that revels in its clichés. The best that you can probably say about it is that it isn't as bad as you expected. What saves it from oblivion is a nice set of mainly predictable ending twists and a single slightly interesting performance by Lindy Booth as a fetching redhead named Dodger. (Her mother is a "Dickens scholar," hence the unusual first name.) Most of these dying teenager movies just count down to the last one alive, TEN LITTLE INDIANS style. What is different about CRY_WOLF is that it isn't clear for some time how much, if any, of what is happening is all one big hoax. The movie wastes no time in getting to the killing. In a community centered around a rich kids' preppy high school, a "townie" is chased through the dense woods and killed in the dead of night. This first incident happens even before the opening credits roll. The school is one in which the boys wear ties and blazers and the girls wear uniforms with short, sexy skirts. Owen Matthews (Julian Morris), the new kid on campus, is introduced into a rich kids' scary club by Dodger, his new love interest. The kids sneak out at night and meet with flashlights in the chapel. There they play a deadly game of spin the bottle in which they kill whoever the bottle points at. Sorry, I made that last part up. Actually they play a silly lying game that is incredibly dull and stupid. Luckily, the next day, the new kid suggests that they attempt something really daring like forwarding an email about a serial killer of students, which they will try to convince the rest of the campus is genuine. You can easily see where the story is headed. The script does have the sense to be in no hurry and to send the audience down lots of blind alleys. Many a "killer" turns out to just be some goofy student with a ski mask and a big rubber knife who is involved in some practical joke. Some of this is so ridiculous that it's almost fun. Almost. Along the way, the kids say things such as, "Dude, you know how gay that sounds?" Someone signing himself "Wolf" keeps instant messaging Owen with threats and philosophical statements like "When does a lie become a truth?" Hang in there viewers. If you haven't already walked out in the beginning, you'll want to stay until the end to find out all of the twists and reasoning behind them. I guessed most but not all of them. Solving the puzzle of the story is the only reason to keep watching it. CRY_WOLF runs 1:30. It is rated PG-13 for "violence, terror, disturbing images, language, sexuality and a brief drug reference" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film is playing in nationwide release now in the United States. In the Silicon Valley, it is showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From maestrowork at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 20:40:10 2005 From: maestrowork at gmail.com (Maestro) Date: Sun Sep 18 20:40:13 2005 Subject: Review: The Brothers Grimm (2005) Message-ID: <1126562659.344627.267570@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> The Brothers Grimm by Ray Wong (http://reelreviews.blogspot.com) Stars: Matt Damon, Heath Ledger, Lena Headey, Peter Stormare, Jonathan Pryce, Monica Bellucci Director: Terry Gilliam Writer: Ehren Kruger Distributor: Dimension Films MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence, frightening sequences, alcohol and themes Running time: 118 minutes Script - 2 Performance - 5 Direction - 4 Cinematography - 6 Music/Sound- 5 Editing - 6 Production - 6 Total Score - 4.8 out of 10 I had really high hopes for BROTHERS GRIMM, and thought that the summer season could really go out with a bang with this one. Who doesn't love the Grimm Brothers' fairytales? Who doesn't want to know how they come up with all those wicked tales? Alas!... Wilhelm (Damon) and Jacob (Ledger) Grimm are two brothers. Will is the realist, but Jake is the dreamer. Jake's wild imagination costs their young sister her life, and Will can never trust him again. Years later, Will and Jake becomes con men, scamming villages across the German landscape as exorcists and witch hunters. And they're quite famous for their exorcism. Of course, they don't believe in any of the ridiculous folklores (well, Will doesn't, and Jake doesn't want to). When young girls begin to disappear in the French-occupied village of Marbaden, Will and Jake are summoned to help find the culprit and bring the children back. They reluctantly accept the challenge, thinking they can scam their way out of it. They coerce beautiful Angelika (Headey) to be their guide to the enchanted forest. But General Delatombe (Pryce) and his minion Cavaldi (Stormare) are on to them. They find a strange tower and tombs deep in the forest, and strange things start to happen and Delatombe's men get killed, sometimes gruesomely. Delatombe's suspicions turn to the brothers Grimm and Angelika. But Will and Jake know something evil lurks atop the tower. Damon (OCEAN's TWELVE) is sorely miscast here. He's a good actor, but he does well mostly in modern drama or action flicks, not period farce. And he overacts. Ledger (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN) fares better as Jake, since he looks good in period costumes (A KNIGHT'S TALE, FOUR FEATHERS). And he doesn't overacts as much. Headley (THE CAVE) is wasted here. At first, we're delighted to see a seemingly strong woman character in a mostly-male cast. But how disappointing that Angelika turns out to be yet another damsel in distress. Not to mention Headley looks more like a supermodel than a hunter. Stormare (BIRTH) overacts, as does Pryce (DE-LOVELY). In fact, the whole cast overacts. It is as if Gilliam told them, "Act as crazily as you can." And they did. To say the plot is convoluted is an understatement. Writer Kruger (SKELETON KEY) tries to cleverly include our favorite fairytales (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Little Red Riding Hood, etc.) in the supposedly "real" story of brothers Grimm. Unfortunately, don't expect the charm of, say, SHREK or ELLA ENCHANTED. In fact, "grim" is the word - how appropriate. And that's okay, if that's what Kruger and director Gilliam (FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS) are aiming for. I should have known better, given Gilliam's past endeavors and Kruger's previous works, that this film is not going to warm and cuddly. Still, it doesn't stop me from being disappointed. Why? Because this film is unpleasant. I've loved the Grimm's fairytales and I know a lot of them are far from the cute Disney versions. Still, gruesome as the original stories of Cinderella and Snow White are, they still possess certain charm and intrigue. We care about the characters. In this film, however, I can't identify with any of the characters. Will is too cynical; Jack is a loon and a wimp; Angelika is spoiled; Cavaldi is an idiot; and Delatombe is a snot. We're supposed to root for the brothers Grimm, but they're so unlikable I find myself looking for distraction. Alas! The film is dark and gloomy and chaotic and extravagantly gaudy. It is unpleasant, big, loud, and a mess. Nothing makes sense. It reminds me of SLEEPY HOLLOW and VAN HELSING. Mostly, it reminds of the latter, another unpleasant, big and loud mess. Utterly unpleasant. It's one Grimm's tale I'm going to avoid in the future - even if Disney wants to salvage it. From maestrowork at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 20:40:12 2005 From: maestrowork at gmail.com (Maestro) Date: Sun Sep 18 20:40:15 2005 Subject: Review: Must Love Dogs (2005) Message-ID: <1126562758.775178.283810@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Must Love Dogs by Ray Wong (http://reelreviews.blogspot.com) Stars: Diane Lane, John Cusack, Elizabeth Perkins, Christopher Plummer, Dermot Mulroney, Stockard Channing, Ali Hillis, Brad William Henke Director: Gary David Goldberg Writers: Gary David Goldberg (based on novel by Claire Cook) Distributor: Warner Bros. MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sexual content and some language Running time: 98 minutes Script - 4 Performance - 7 Direction - 6 Cinematography - 7 Music/Sound- 7 Editing - 6 Production - 7 Total Score - 6.2 out of 10 Meet Sarah (Lane), DWF, attractive, self-deprecating, self-aware, neurotic, pre-school teacher, in a romantic slump. Her entire family, including married sisters Carol (Perkins) and Christine (Hillis), is determined to play matchmakers. When Sarah is resistant to the idea of dating again, Carol goes ahead and puts up an online dating profile for her. "Must Love Dogs" is only a gimmick, for Sarah doesn't even own a dog. The dating game proves to be more hassle than it's worth for Sarah, but she goes along with it. Meet Jake (Cusack), DWM, attractive, self-deprecating, self-aware, neurotic, rowboat builder, in a romantic slump. His friend Charlie urges him to go out and date, and have lots of sex. But Jake wants to fall madly, passionately in love, much like the leads in his most favorite movie, Dr. Zhivago. So when Charlie shows him a profile of a woman named Sarah, Jake decides to take a chance. He doesn't have a dog either. Their first meeting is a semi-disaster, but Sarah and Jake can't help but feel attracted to each other. Meanwhile, Sarah is smitten with Bill (Mulroney), the dashing single father of one of her students. As her courtship with Jakes goes on and off, Sarah is seduced into having a fling with Bill, only to find out her heart really belongs to Jake... Lane again plays a distressed, neurotic, unfulfilled woman looking for love at all the wrong places, and spends her life hiding from life itself. She's basically playing the same character in UNDER THE TUSCAN SUN, but she does it so well. Even when she's a mess, she's charming and effervescent, exuding a natural, beautiful aura that we've come to love since her career rejuvenated with A PERFECT STORM. Cusack (RUNAWAY JURY) also plays the same love-sick puppy-dog sensitive guy. What kind of men would watch DR. ZHIVAGO over and over again? But Cusack is very good at that, and his expressive eyes are disarming. Surprisingly, Lane and Cusack have great chemistry together. I admit I was skeptical at first - I always thought Lane was simply gorgeous and Cusack had always been just a cad. But their onscreen relationship proves me wrong - I do believe they belong together. Perkins (FIERCE PEOPLE) was once a leading lady, but now she is comfortable playing the meddling sister roles, and she excels in it. Plummer (ALEXANDER) has a relatively small but pivotal role as the patriarch who, after losing the love of his life, is now playing the field. His chemistry with Lane is affecting. Channing (LE DIVORCE) plays Plummer's ditzy, husband-hungry white trash girlfriend with a fun spirit. Her character, however, is too much of a caricature. Mulroney (THE WEDDING DATE) plays the guy who is "too good to be true" very well, if predictable. Predictable. That's the thing - MUST LOVE DOGS is predictable. Right from the start, the structure and format tell us exactly what we need to know: Sarah and Jake are going to get together; Jake is going to break Sarah's heart; and it's going to be a long, drawn-out date. There are some very genuine, touching moments, and some chuckles, but over all, it's a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy cut from a familiar mold. Writer-director Goldberg, mostly known for his works in TV, can't seem to rise above novelist Cook's clich?d story, down the cute gay best friends. As director, Goldberg also structures the film like he would a cute TV movie. Everything is quaint and cute and well rehearsed. The pretty little town, the beautiful landscapes... I didn't even know at first it was set in Los Angeles (SPOILER: how hard is it to find condoms in Los Angeles?) The fact is, the story and the direction are too on the nose. You know what is going to happen and it does. The situations seem forced. Granted, it's a comedy and sometimes comedies do follow certain conventions and structures. Still, I expect more. I like romantic comedies, but if filmmakers keep making us feel like "if you see one, you see them all," then romantic comedies might die a slow but imminent death. And that would be a dog. From maestrowork at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 20:40:14 2005 From: maestrowork at gmail.com (Maestro) Date: Sun Sep 18 20:40:17 2005 Subject: Review: War of the Worlds (2005) Message-ID: <1126562820.763907.203270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> War of the Worlds (c) 2005 Ray Wong (http://reelreviews.blogspot.com) Stars: Tom Cruise, Justin Chatwin, Dakota Fanning, Tim Robbins, Miranda Otto, David Alan Basche Director: Steven Spielberg Writers: Josh Friedman, David Koepp (based on novel by H.G. Wells) Distributor: Paramount/DreamWorks MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sci-fi violence and language Running time: 116 minutes Script - 8 Performance - 7 Direction - 9 Cinematography - 10 Music/Sound- 9 Editing - 9 Production - 10 Total Score - 8.5 out of 10 When Orson Welles did the radio broadcast of H.G. Wells's WAR OF THE WORLDS in 1938, it scared the bejesus out of everyone. Today, the discerning audience is more skeptical and sophisticated, but Steven Spielberg's new cinematic version would most likely scare up a hell of a box office take. New Yorker Ray Ferrier (Cruise) is an irresponsible father of teenager Robbie (Chatwin) and pre-teen Rachel (Fanning). Divorced from his wife Mary Ann (Otto), Ray has partial custody of the kids but he chooses only to see once every several weeks. Ray promises to take care of them when Mary Ann and her new husband Tim (Basche) leave to visit the in-laws in Boston. Instead, he's still the same slacker bum of a father. Then something happens. A strange electro-magnetic storm hits the city, sending multiple bolts of lightning to the ground and disabling all electrical equipments. Soon, giant mechanical tripods emerge from the ground and begin to destroy the city, nuking people running for their lives. Ray snatches his kids and begins their own escape for survival. As the world fend for itself against the mass destruction of these alien intruders, Ray must learn to grow up as a father and defend his children. "This is no war; it's an extermination" pretty much sums up the stakes. Cruise (COLLATERAL) plays a reluctant hero (well, sort of) with good intention. He's a solid and intense actor, although his range of emotions and expressions are rather limited here. But it doesn't matter. Fanning (HIDE AND SEEK) plays a girl who screams, kicks, yells and gets scared to good effect. She has almost as much screen time as Cruise. But it doesn't matter. Chatwin (TAKING LIVES) plays Ray's detached and defiant son with nice determination and steely eyes. But it doesn't matter. Robbins (CODE 46) plays the neurotic survivor Ogilvy with great creepiness - we don't know if we should root for the guy or the aliens who want to kill him. But it doesn't matter. Otto (LORD OF THE RINGS) and Basche (CARRY ME HOME) and just about 3000 other actors are merely extras. But it doesn't matter. What does matter is the visuals and the storytelling director Spielberg imposes on us. Spielberg truly is a master storyteller. From the first frame on, the film is breathtaking. There is enough tension in almost every scene to suspend ten Brooklyn Bridges. The imageries are simply stunning, haunting, and oftentimes frightening. From the first appearance of the tripods to the mass destruction of the cities and the decimation of people, there are too many of these incredible moments to list. They knock the wind out of us. In a way, the film is so taut and captivating that we would hardly notice the logical flaws or plot holes or the coincidences. I mean, if I really want to pick it apart, I could: from minor things such as video cameras and military vehicles and ferries that continue to work while everything else electrical (including cars) has been disabled, to the Hollywood-sappy ending that is a notch too optimistic and silly. There are many questions unanswered: Where do the aliens come from? What do they want? How do they get here? Why did they wait a million years and not before there were humans? Why didn't they do more research before arriving on our planet? Why do they kill people but harvest them at the same time? Perhaps it's the filmmakers' intention to leave these questions hanging in our heads. In the end, the answers are probably not that important. Spielberg knows what really is important. His vision and the script by veteran screenwriter Koepp (SPIDER-MAN) touch on many grand themes, albeit sometimes superficially. From the existential question of our survival and the reversal of roles (we may think twice the next time we kill a nest of ants or slaughter a cow) to the ideas of individual heroism and total social collapse during crises. How na?ve we all are and how scared we can be. Obviously, Spielberg evokes intense emotions with imageries that resemble 9/11 and its aftermath, but he shows restraint for not over-manipulating us. It doesn't matter. This film is so enthralling and mesmerizing that one can simply appreciate it for what it is: great, mind-blowing entertainment with a hopeful ending that leaves us breathless. And isn't that what this world of wars needs? From maestrowork at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 20:40:18 2005 From: maestrowork at gmail.com (Maestro) Date: Sun Sep 18 20:40:21 2005 Subject: Review: Red Eye (2005) Message-ID: <1126562704.614389.277480@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Red-Eye by Ray Wong Stars: Rachel McAdams, Cillian Murphy, Brian Cox, Jayma Mays, Brittany Oaks, Jack Scalia Director: Wes Craven Writers: Carl Ellsworth, Dan Foos Distributor: DreamWorks MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence, language, alcohol and themes Running time: 85 minutes Script - 8 Performance - 8 Direction - 8 Cinematography - 7 Music/Sound- 6 Editing - 7 Production - 7 Total Score - 7.5 out of 10 With RED-EYE, Horror master Wes Craven (CURSED, the SCREAM series) branches out and delivers us a terrific, thrilling ride that hinges every bit on fear. Lisa Reisert (McAdams) is a hotel executive returning to her Miami home after attending her grandmother's funeral in Texas. Due to bad weather, the red-eye flight is delayed. Lisa has a nice encounter with an attractive traveler, Jackson (Murphy). Smitten but also guarded, she's actually a little thrilled to later find Jackson seated next to her on the plane. What a coincidence. Or so it seems. Soon she finds out what Jackson does for a living, and he's "all about her." Caught in a plot to assassinate the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security (Scalia) and his family, Lisa is forced to do her part or else Jackson would have her father (Cox) killed. Time is ticking, and Lisa would either have to put up or do something... Granted, the premise of this thriller is a little far-fetched. It seems like the villains are taking a lot of time and unnecessary risks. Why threaten the father? Isn't it easier to threaten Lisa's life directly? And why kidnap her on a plane with all those people surrounding them? Talk about inefficient. And please, all she has to do is scream "BOMB!" on the plane - but then, there would be no story. Once we get past the flaws and leave our logic at the door, RED-EYE is a top-notch thriller. I would have preferred to leave out the "prologue" and follow Lisa immediately to create more suspense at the beginning. But after the initial "hook," the film moves along like a rollercoaster. Writers Ellsworth and Foos, both first-time screenwriters, have created a masterful, suspenseful and taut script that has many twists and turns that keep the audience at the edge of their seats. What is remarkable is that much of the suspense and tension are focused on the two leads, with nothing more than background noises and a overhead lamp. The thriller doesn't depend on big explosions and extended car chases - what a whiff of fresh air. Also, as silly as the premise is, the theme hinges on "family" - from Jackson's threat to kill Lisa's father, to how Lisa changes her mind after she learns that the Secretary's family is with him. I think that's a nice touch. McAdams (WEDDING CRASHER) has emerged as one of the new "IT" girls after her break-out performances in MEAN GIRLS and THE NOTEBOOK. But she is more than just a pretty face. McAdams is vulnerable, girl-next-door, yet captivating. She really makes us believe in Lisa's character and her dilemmas. And her conviction as well - she's willing to do what is right at the risk of her life and her father's. Murphy (BATMAN BEGINS) is perfectly cast as the charming, creepily handsome conspirator. His steel-cold blue eyes are mesmerizing. I hope he doesn't get typecast, though; but he's just so good in playing these roles. The supporting cast is mostly adequate, with Cox (BOURNE SUPREMACY) as Lisa's oblivious father. Cox usually plays slimy villains, so it's a nice change of pace to see him as a loving father whose life's at her daughter's hands. Mays (TV's SIX FEET UNDER, THE COMEBACK) also adds comic relief as Lisa's hapless assistant. She's fun to watch. Director Craven has done a great job transitioning from horror to thriller. His deft execution and keen eye for details and pace have served him well. Here, he delivers a taut suspense that, even at its quiet moments, doesn't allow the audience to breathe and relax. He doesn't allow time for us to anticipate the next move either. From the opening credits to the realistic mayhem at the airport (I can surely relate) to the final scenes, Craven has held us hostage. And he's given us a worthy heroine. All in merely 85 minutes. That's some talent. In fact, I'd say RED-EYE is one of the best thrillers of this summer (but yes, please leave your logic at home). From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Sep 21 06:45:10 2005 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark Leeper) Date: Wed Sep 21 06:45:15 2005 Subject: Review: Everything is Illuminated (2005) Message-ID: <4330BF1B.1010702@optonline.net> EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This is a film that starts slowly, moves into comedy, and then serious drama. An American Jew travels to Ukraine to find information about members of his family. Forgotten secrets of past are unearthed. This is a film with a wide range of emotions. It is a film with some laughter and some very affecting moments. It may be a flawed film, but parts are really excellent. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10 Liev Schreiber is a talented and intelligent actor. Here he turns to writing and directing a film based on the popular novel EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED by Jonathan Safran Foer. By an odd coincidence, the main character of this film is also named Jonathan Safran Foer. Foer (played by Elijah Wood) is a man who is surrounded by a force field that seems to deaden all emotion. He observes the world dispassionately from behind a pair of Coke- bottle-lens glasses. His every experience is remembered by taking a souvenir, placing it in a plastic Ziploc bag and putting it on a complex wall that represents for him his life. There every aspect of his life can be studied like a bug under a magnifying glass. One thing seems to defy his analysis. It is a photograph of his family from the Old Country. Perhaps to understand this one specimen he will have to go to Ukraine and investigate the town where his grandfather lived. It is in Ukraine that he meets the Heritage Odessa Tours Company, basically a one family business that specializes in driving rich Jews to Jewish heritage sites. Though they do not think much of Jews, they are happy to make a nice comfortable living off of them. The Dad will be unable to drive Foer around. Instead he sends his blind father as a driver and his twenty-ish son Alex Perchov (Eugene Hutz) as a guide. How can the grandfather be blind and still see well enough to drive? It seems like one more strange and silly facet of Ukraine society. By the end of the film it will, in fact, be an important question. Can one truly believe what one knows to be false? What is the effect of convincing oneself to live a lie? Also along for the ride is their nasty, growling dog Sammy Davis, Jr. Jr. To make her official the dog wears a shirt that explains that she is the "Officious Seeing Eye Bitch." Clearly the delicate nuances of the English language are something of a mystery in Ukraine. But then Ukraine is also a mystery to Foer. Much of the film is a road trip trying to find the long lost town of Trachimbrod. During the trip Foer tries to understand Alex and his society, Alex tries to figure out Foer. The two will have to learn about each other and each will understand the history of the region better. Both are very much in the dark, but by the end of their travels everything is illuminated. The film is shot with subdued color to subdue the mood of the piece. The score is in large part klezmer that provides a perfect backdrop for the almost surreal and quietly madcap journey into the heartland of Ukraine and also into the past. Though the film gets off to a slow start the characters and the humor really draws the audience in. People in my group were repeating lines from the film and laughing at them for days after, so we must have really liked it. By the end of the film festival we were singing "Start Wearing Purple" and "Officious Seeing Eye Bitch" had become the mascot of festival. Rumor has it that the novel the film is based on is much more complex and fulfilling than the film. That is what novels are. As films go, EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED tells a pretty good story all by itself. I rate EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 9/10. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2005 Mark R. Leeper From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Fri Sep 23 21:10:11 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:10:13 2005 Subject: Review: Flightplan (2005) Message-ID: FLIGHTPLAN A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 Even if it is an energetic mix of RUN LOLA RUN and RED EYE, FLIGHTPLAN is likely to leave viewers scratching their heads, thinking that the movie could and should have been so much better. The problem with the production has nothing to do with the acting of the lead. Jodie Foster, repeating her tough but vulnerable mom role from PANIC ROOM, a much better movie, does an amazing job again. The frustrations with the film revolve around its basic premise. Foster's Kyle Pratt is a grieving widow who may be delusional, or so we are told, when she claims to have lost her daughter during a long flight over the Atlantic. The script, by Peter A. Dowling and Billy Ray, spends the entire first half of the story trying without any luck whatsoever to convince us that Pratt's daughter may have never been on the plane in the first place. Even if director Robert Schwentke (TATTOO) hadn't felt the need to have various key people provide knowing looks bordering on winks to each other, the script never puts any real doubt in our mind about the girl's existence. FLIGHTPLAN never attains liftoff since its basic premise is never made credible, even for a minute. The only open question as the last act begins is the explanation that film will provide for what is going on. As much as we admire Foster's sterling acting, it can never quite make up for the lack of a credible story. When the inevitable big twist came, it wasn't the one guessed, but I wasn't impressed. Frankly I didn't care much, since there are only two believable characters, Pratt and an airline pilot played with convincing passion and toughness by Sean Bean. Particularly bad is Peter Sarsgaard, who was so sharp in SHATTERED GLASS, but who was last seen slumming it in THE SKELETON KEY. Here he appears sleepy most of the time. The movie is much sleeker and more expensive looking than RED EYE. But the latter film was a lot more fun and believable too. It also didn't take itself quite so seriously. FLIGHTPLAN is worth seeing only for diehard Foster fans. FLIGHTPLAN runs 1:35. It is rated PG-13 for "violence and some intense plot material" and would be acceptable for kids around 11 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 23, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From dnb at dca.net Fri Sep 23 21:15:13 2005 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:15:15 2005 Subject: Review: The Constant Gardener (2005) Message-ID: <200509211954.j8LJs1s22346@viper.oldcity.dca.net> THE CONSTANT GARDENER A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2005 David N. Butterworth *** (out of ****) While an adaptation of a 2001 John Le Carré novel might not seem the obvious next project from the Oscar(r)-nominated director of "City of God," Fernando Meirelles manages to make what might have been a straightforward political thriller his own. Meirelles's technique--his bravura camerawork and crisscross editing--aren't as flashy or necessarily noticeable as they were in his stunning 2002 Brazilian film debut but they're there nonetheless, heightening the tension between the combatants, imbuing the film with a realistic world vision, especially in the crowded marketplaces, and bringing--romantically as well as tragically--the relationship between Tessa (Rachel Weisz) and Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) to the fore. It's a technique that sets "The Constant Gardener" apart from your typical Jason Bourne spy fare. Set in a remote area of Northern Kenya the film backtracks from activist Tessa's suspicious (and easily foretold) death to the events leading up to the incident in which her husband, an unassuming English diplomat and, yes, constant gardener, begins to suspect a major cover- up on the part of the British High Commission. Could they be linked to a global pharmaceutical company that treats "disposable" AIDS patients with experimental drugs? Tessa tries to find out, fatally. The flashback structure works exceedingly well--knowing Tessa's fate early on does not spoil the outcome as one might expect since it's the getting there that proves fruitful--and Weisz and Fiennes both bring a secular credibility to their roles, she with her pregnant prosthesis and brash appeal, he with his emaciated forlornness. And while the crimes against humanity are never really quantified, in Meirelles's world at least, quality would appear to be a constant. -- David N. Butterworth dnb@dca.net Got beef? Visit "La Movie Boeuf" online at http://members.dca.net/dnb From dnb at dca.net Fri Sep 23 21:15:15 2005 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:15:18 2005 Subject: Review: Junebug (2005) Message-ID: <200509212003.j8LK3As01051@viper.oldcity.dca.net> JUNEBUG A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2005 David N. Butterworth **1/2 (out of ****) In "Junebug," a well-groomed and recently married Chicago art dealer (Embeth Davidtz) and her handsomely horny husband (Alessandro Nivola) travel to the outer fringes of North Carolina to court a reclusive, outsider artist ("outsider" in this case referring to his propensity for painting penises, Civil War-style). The trip also serves as an opportunity for Madeleine to meet and greet her peculiarly southern in-laws for the very first time. Like Thanksgiving in late spring, a time when June beetles begin their destructive consumption of leaves, roots, and grasses, "Junebug" is a look at how family members from differing walks of life often wind up consuming each other by virtue of some ingrained cultural ignorance or lack of societal awareness. It's a class struggle played out in small, with language and gestures rarely taken at face value and motivations more often misconstrued than not. That, and the family homestead's wafer-thin walls tend to leave little to the imagination. There's plenty of genuine humor at work, humor of an affectionate (vs. scathing) nature, and screenwriter Angus MacLachlan bottles it all up as playfully as can be. But first-time director Phil Morrison, whose lazily amiable filmmaking style recalls indie fave Jim Jarmusch ("Broken Flowers), spends as much time observing the architecture as he does his characters, doting lovingly on the vertical lines of a wood-paneled wall, for instance, or cutting back and forth between awkwardly composed shots at a potluck supper. What keeps Morrison's film afloat, though, is a bright and effervescent performance by Amy Adams, who's much the angelic upstart as Ashley, the preternaturally pregnant sister- in-law who literally lights up the screen with her utter warmth and sincerity. -- David N. Butterworth dnb@dca.net Got beef? Visit "La Movie Boeuf" online at http://members.dca.net/dnb From dnb at dca.net Fri Sep 23 21:15:17 2005 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:15:20 2005 Subject: Review: The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part 1: The Moab Story (2003) Message-ID: <200509212016.j8LKGKs15647@viper.oldcity.dca.net> THE TULSE LUPER SUITCASES, PART 1: THE MOAB STORY A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2005 David N. Butterworth ***1/2 (out of ****) "When the English write about natural history it's always a cover for something else, isn't that so?" observes Erik van Hoyten (Jack Wouterse), the overbearing Stationmaster of Antwerp to an incarcerated Tulse Luper (JJ Field), under "bath arrest" in Episode 3 of Peter Greenaway's maddeningly brilliant--and typically excessive--"The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part 1: The Moab Story." "Illicit sexual matters, mainly," van Hoyten continues, "but also a little shop keeping, a little politics, gambling debts, and the general state of the bank account, the nation of shopkeepers." Van Hoyten is talking about Luper, specifically, at a time in his illustrious career when once a writer for a Belgian newspaper among other things, but the stationmaster's words apply equally pertinently to writer/director Greenaway himself, whose painstakingly thought- provoking films are crammed to the sprocket holes with all manner of natural histories: geology, for one thing (rocks and minerals and mountains), ornithology (typically), numerology (often, although not necessarily natural, historically), entomology (bugs) sometimes, and etymology (words) most times. Plus illicit sexual matters of the flesh, of course--men and (here) Caroline Dhavernas (TV's "Wonderfalls") alike shed their tops, bottoms, and varying inhibitions in a Greenaway flick--and a little political proselytizing for better measure round out the equation. Greenaway is at his most self-referential in "'The Moab Story," acknowledging not only previously established characters--the titular Tulse ("The Falls"), Van Hoyten ("A Zed & Two Noughts"), and Cissie Colpitts ("Drowning By Numbers"), for example--but also his own films, including 1975's "Water Wrackets," "Vertical Features Remake" (1978), and "The Belly of an Architect" from 1987. It all has the sense of a grandiose knowing wink, as the painter-turned-director sublimely manipulates his multi multimedia with a style that borders on the obscene. Part 1 of the "Tulse Luper Suitcases" (there are two more continuations, "'Vaux to the Sea" and "'From Sark to the Finish") is comprised of three discrete episodes that lavishly luxuriate over Luper's life, from short pants schoolboy caught in the red-brick horrors of WWI to his great salt lake explorations in Moab, Utah (indelicate shades of Matthew Barney's "Cremaster 2" say you?) to his journalistic tendencies in Europe during the rise of A. Hitler. The "plot" (for want of a better word; Greenaway has been quoted as saying "If you want to tell stories, be a writer, not a filmmaker") documents Luper's experiences and unwieldy collection of 'cased artifacts--perfume, pencils, love letters, frogs, holes, etc.--told via an overwhelming visual cacophony of wipes, fades, overlays, scrolling text, superimposition, mattes, voiceover narration, widescreen, color saturation, theatricality, cut-ins, -outs, and -aways, and repetition ad nauseum. An intellectual auteur, some might call Greenaway the cinematic equivalent of Henry James's Daisy Miller, i.e., someone who does as s/he pleases but seldom pleases anyone except her/himself. His films are without a doubt a *very* acquired taste--always baffling, rarely boring (although I do confess to having nodded off during my second viewing of "Prospero's Books"), controversial, opaque, and never less than uniquely individual. To paraphrase a perceptive observation from 2002, "Nobody in the world, living or dead, makes films quite like Peter Greenaway. And nobody else would want to." "The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part 1: The Moab Story" takes audacious delight in being no exception and that's what makes it one "'Suitcase" definitely worth unpacking. -- David N. Butterworth dnb@dca.net Got beef? Visit "La Movie Boeuf" online at http://members.dca.net/dnb From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Fri Sep 23 21:15:19 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:15:22 2005 Subject: Review: Everything is Illuminated (2005) Message-ID: EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** In his writing and directing debut, actor Liev Schreiber (the candidate in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE) clearly knows exactly what he wants to accomplish in EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED. The problem is that many viewers may well be like me. No matter how loud and often the whimsical folk music is played, I never got in the mood. Instead, I quickly got whimsied out by this movie that tries way too hard for off-beat cuteness, until it switches gears entirely in the last act, turning into a tender Holocaust drama. Elijah Wood, THE LORD OF THE RINGS' Frodo, plays the central character of Jonathan, a boy going back to the Ukraine in order to search for his Jewish roots. His big glasses with thick lens make his eyes appear the size of silver dollars. Couple that with his little boy lost demeanor, and the taciturn Jonathan appears like more like a refugee from a comic strip that a flesh-and-blood American. As Alex, Jonathan's translator and guide, Eugene Hutz appears to be channeling John Travolta in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. Of course, Alex butchers the English language, while asking politically incorrect questions of his client. "Are you carnal very often?" Alex asks Jonathan, as well, as, "How much does a Negro, homosexual accountant make (in America)?" Alex's Grandfather, played by Boris Leskin, is their blind driver. He isn't actually blind, but he wants others to think he is. Accompanying the three of them on their journey is the grandfather's clumsy dog. This "seeing eye bitch" with razor sharp teeth is named Sammy Davis, Jr., Jr. Don't ask. Another thing not really worthy asking about, although the story is centered on it, is Jonathan's hobby. He collects everything about people and deposits the items in Ziploc bags. From false teeth to underwear, he saves it all and staples it to his wall. As this slow story crept along, I began to wonder if he had any NoDoz in one of those little bags. EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED runs 1:46. The film is in Ukrainian and Russian with English subtitles and in English. It is rated PG-13 for "disturbing images/violence, sexual content and language" and would be acceptable for kids around 11 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on September 30, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From dnb at dca.net Fri Sep 23 21:15:21 2005 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:15:24 2005 Subject: Review: An Unfinished Life (2005) Message-ID: <200509212000.j8LK01s29639@viper.oldcity.dca.net> AN UNFINISHED LIFE A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2005 David N. Butterworth **1/2 (out of ****) There's something awfully familiar about the new Robert Redford/Morgan Freeman/Jennifer Lopez drama, "An Unfinished Life." Maybe it's because Freeman, taking an apparent break from narrating movies about penguins, plays second banana to Redford's irascible Wyoming landlubber Einar Gilkyson much as he played second banana to Clint Eastwood's irascible boxing trainer Frankie Dunn in "Million Dollar Baby." The roles, as written, are virtually identical. Or maybe it's because the film's poster art, four slightly askew quadrants each depicting a character from the film, is also near identical to that of "The Shipping News," director Lasse Hallström's previous effort. (Hallström directed "An Unfinished Life" too, but did you also know he directed "ABBA: The Movie" way back in 1977? That came as a bit of a shock to me...) Or maybe it's simply because of Hallström's involvement period, taking an apparent break from adapting novels (the back-to-back translations of the afore-mentioned "'News," "Chocolat," and "The Cider House Rules") and instead fronting an original screenplay penned by the Spraggs (Mark and Virginia Korus). It's hard to tell. But this "'Life" feels a lot like something we've seen before, either over an entire film or carefully chosen snippets from several. It's got a bear in it for one thing, so it's hard not to think of "'Rules" scribe John Irving, whose novels tend to feature them ("Setting Free the Bears" and "The Hotel New Hampshire"'s State o' Main and Susie the Bear to name a few). And it's got the older/wiser/smarter tagalong street kid (granddaughter Griff, nicely played by Becca Gardner), who's a lot savvier than Mom and teaches the irascible grumps a thing or two about life, whether they be unfinished or not. Plus there's the young woman running from her abusive boyfriend/past angle (J-Lo's Jean) and the ubiquitous Matthew McConaughey stand-in Josh Lukas ("Stealth," "Undertow," "Secondhand Lions") as the town sheriff, who takes a shine to Jean after she moves West and in with her estranged father-in-law (Redford) when she can take her boyfriend's wrath no longer. (You got it; said mean boyfriend shows up later.) How Jean weathers Einar's unwelcome storm is the meat of the picture, with forgiveness slowly dissolving from pipedream to possibility. Far from breeding contempt--"An Unfinished Life" is worth watching for the congregated talent alone--Hallström's film isn't the rejuvenating experience it might have been. You cannot fault the performances though, with Freeman's character, scarred both internally and out, doing the sarcastic sidekick thing while Redford's Einar (what kind of a name is Einar anyway?) still broods over the accidental death of his son at the hands, at least he believes, of his daughter-in-law ("We were both tired. We flipped a coin to see who would drive and I lost"). For accidents figure prominently in "'Life": how we're all guilty of making them and how it takes time and patience and compassion to move beyond them. Boorish as well as bookish, "An Unfinished Life" is pleasant and sobering but it's too recognizable to be truly affecting. -- David N. Butterworth dnb@dca.net Got beef? Visit "La Movie Boeuf" online at http://members.dca.net/dnb From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Fri Sep 23 21:15:24 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:15:26 2005 Subject: Review: Capote (2005) Message-ID: CAPOTE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): **** Sometimes there is a performance so astonishing that you are certain that you've seen the best work of the year even if the year isn't anywhere nearly over with. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Truman Capote, creates a character that is larger than life. Writer Capote was a fascinating iconoclast, but one suspects the real Capote was never as interesting as Hoffman's rendition of him. The acting is at such an intensely captivating level that it literally takes your breath away. It is an astonishing piece of work absolutely certain to be remembered at Oscar time CAPOTE is set during the five years that Capote spent researching and writing his most famous and last finished book, "In Cold Blood," about the true life story of the senseless killing of a Kansas farm family of four. Clifton Collins, Jr. and Mark Pellegrino play the killers, Perry Smith and Richard Hickock. Capote, and his chief researcher Nelle Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), who was the author of "To Kill a Mockingbird," put a spell on the local sheriff by weaving stories of the filming of Capote's "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and his hobnobbing with the rich and famous actors on the set in Rome. The sheriff is delicately underplayed by Chris Cooper in another of his remarkable performances. Using his charm on the sheriff and a bribe later to the prison warden, Capote gains amazing and probably unprecedented access whenever he wanted and for last long as he wanted to the killers and to the evidence in the case. The film's creepy power comes from the bond that Capote, shown as an effete, cosmopolitan narcissist, forms with the murderers. His forms a palpably weird attachment with them, yet, when he gets all of the information he needs, he readily abandons them. Scary movies hold little power over me, but this true life depiction of evil left me cold and shaking. The cold and bleak images of Adam Kimmel's gorgeous cinematography probably added to my discomfort. Although my body was shaken and uncomfortable, my mind knew that this was the best film I've seen (so far, at least) this year. Director Bennett Miller, whose only other movie was THE CRUISE, the 1998 documentary about wacky New York City tour guide Tim "Speed" Levitch, shows skills that one would never guess from his previous picture. Working with a top notch cast, he gets incredible pieces of acting out of every one of them. Everything about the movie is near perfection, but let me end by noting the impressive and understated work of Kasia Walicka-Maimone's wardrobe design and Francie Paull's make-up. Pay careful attention to both of these usually missed parts of the production and see if you aren't impressed as well. CAPOTE is the best movie of the year -- okay, at this point, I have to qualify that comment by saying it is the best so far this year, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if CAPOTE ends up actually being the best film of the year. CAPOTE runs an engrossing 1:54. It is rated R for "some violent images and brief strong language" and would be acceptable for older teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, October 7, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From homer_yen at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 21:15:29 2005 From: homer_yen at yahoo.com (Homer Yen) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:15:32 2005 Subject: Review: Lord of War (2005) Message-ID: <20050922044826.30870.qmail@web52105.mail.yahoo.com> Lord of War - Fights for Attention, but Can Not Get Much by Homer Yen (c) 2005 In the beginning few minutes of the film, we meet a stern-looking Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage) who stands among a thin layer of spent bullet casings on the ground. He looks straight into the camera with an almost patriarchal manner as if he believes that he is about to impart the most important message ever. He notes that 1 in 12 people in the world have possession of some kind of gun or semi-automatic or various other small arms. His quandary, which he approaches with the focus of a CEO of a multinational firm, is to find a way to arm the other 11. The Lord of War is a film that mixes hints of comedy with splashes of bleakness. There are varying degrees of oddness yet truthfulness to the main character, Yuri. He is an immigrant in America, the land of opportunity. And, he soon discovers that there is money to be made in the arms trade. No, not selling just one or two guns to the neighborhood thug. He is talking about being an international arms dealer. He is going to arm entire nations as long as they are willing to pay. He cynically notes that, however, he does not arm Osama Bin Laden. As Yuri explains it, that guy always bounces his checks. Life certainly is not easy. But through the years, he travels to the world's flashpoints. War is big business. And it is again odd yet truthful when Yuri is derailed when peace talks have started in a particularly promising market. It can be especially pesky when you are paid in pure cocaine rather than the preferred American Dollar. And it is not easy to arm an army in a short amount of time, produce bogus paperwork, outwit Interpol, and bribe officials. But, the rewards are outstanding, and his lifestyle and his creativity allow him to, among other things, live in luxury at a superbly furnished apartment with the girl of his dreams. What the film lacks is character and characters. The peripheral characters do not energize the content of the film. There is a trophy wife (Bridget Moynahan), but perhaps it is just so that there is something beautiful in the film to look at. There is a relationship of respect between him and a by-the-book Interpol agent (Ethan Hawke). It creates some drama because Yuri needs to stay ahead of them. And, there is another big-dog in the arms arena (Ian Holm), but he becomes something of an afterthought as the film moves on. The film has a muted message, only brought to light briefly when it is explored through the eyes of Yuri's brother (Jared Leto), who begs Yuri to see his profession more than just an exchange of goods. But Yuri sees it only has business and breezily justifies it. There is an outstanding beginning montage that allows the audience member to visualize the life of a bullet. It moves from the assembly line to the crate to the gun and then finally into its victim. The lesson is that the final product is death. And yet, oddly and truthfully, Yuri can argue that his products kill fewer people than tobacco and alcohol. This film should have hypnotized us. It has the potential. But the film does not really take any huge risks. It points the gun, but doesn not fire it. Maybe there was not any ammunition in it to begin with. Grade: C+ S: 1 out of 3 L: 3 out of 3 V: 3 out of 3 __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From faustus_08520 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 21:20:12 2005 From: faustus_08520 at yahoo.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:20:17 2005 Subject: Review: Before Sunset (2004) Message-ID: <20050922195317.42150.qmail@web31109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> BEFORE SUNSET (2004) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars and a half Who would have guessed that it would take the reunion of director Richard Linklater and actors Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy to make a truly blissful, bittersweet romantic comedy? Well, I am happy to report that "Before Sunset" is a lovely, melancholy and disarmingly sweet surprise - a fascinating sequel to "Before Sunrise" that left me swooning and on a happy high note of bliss. I normally don't say such things but I respect a solid romantic film when I see one. Ethan Hawke is back as Jesse, an unhappily married author who is promoting his newest book in Paris. The story of his novel dictates the brief romantic fling he had with nine years earlier Celine (Julie Delpy) in Vienna, which is the basic story of "Before Sunrise." Lo and behold, at a bookshop where he's promoting his book, a beaming Celine turns up. Jesse is distracted yet smitten all over again. They talk as they parade one end of Paris to another, discussing a wide variety of topics such as marriage, politics, age, looks, books and, inevitably, their own blissful fling. They were supposed to have met back in Vienna a mere six months after meeting each other, and only Jesse made it for this encounter. Wait a minute, so this is all just mere conversation? No sex, drugs, rock and roll? No plot? I would say yes to all three questions, but are we forgetting that this is a sequel to a movie that was just about two people talking? Think of it this way: About ten years ago, I found myself wandering the streets of King's Point, NY after getting out of class from Queens College, thinking foolishly that I'd find a way to get to my Port Washington home on foot. No such luck. The point is that I wish someone had been walking with me for those three long hours, preferably of the opposite sex. If you understand that notion, "Before Sunset" will work miracles for you. It has been nine years since I saw "Before Sunrise." I respected the film and found it was entrancing in its own conceit of just following two people who met on a train to Venice. The sequel has them all grown up and in their thirties, and I'd be remiss if I didn't feel like I had seen the original just the other day. It is like seeing two friends and playing catch-up - are they the same? Do they have the same interests? Are they are as romantic as they were in their twenties? It is not fair to say much more. "Before Sunset" is all dialogue but never boring (Hawke and Delpy co-wrote the screenplay). This is not simply a travelogue of Paris either as director Richard Linklater uses the Steadicam to follow our two wanna-be lovers from one street and canal to another. Scenes in a coffee bar are accomplished with traditional close-ups and they work because they are used appropriately. It also helps that Ethan Hawke's Jesse and Julie Delpy's Celine are such engaging, three-dimensional characters - you want to follow them forever. The film's ending has an implied sense of regret as their lives took on different routes. One wonders if they wish they could rejuvenate their love or if they accept their standing in life. The fact that they question it and discuss it makes this one of the more romantic and bittersweet films of our times. If you're sick of prefab romantic claptrap with J. Lo and company, observe "Before Sunset." For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this review at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html From faustus_08520 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 21:20:14 2005 From: faustus_08520 at yahoo.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:20:18 2005 Subject: Review: HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE (2004) Message-ID: <20050922203514.93039.qmail@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE (2004) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars A title like "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle" seems unheard of. I was expecting another in the long line of unfunny pot comedies like "How High" and "Orange County." I was tickled by the funny bone on this movie - "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle" is a tasty treat. I wouldn't say that I felt I had to see it but even though it is nothing special, it is funnier than most movies of its ilk. The bashful Harold (John Cho) is a hard-working Wall Street analyst who is always getting an extra workload from his boss. Kumar (Kal Penn) intentionally botches every medical school interview because he just wants to get high and eat White Castle burgers. What are two guys to do on a Friday night? Well, they have to run to White Castle, but they can't find one in New Brunswick, NJ (there actually is one there). Panic enters their periphery when they inadvertently watch people get beat up in Newark, NJ (talk about a wrong turn!) As they drive searching for White Castle, they encounter a few bullies who thrash convenience stores, an out-of-control raccoon, students at Princeton who are either flatulent (as in battleship flatulence) or sell dear Mary Jane, fast cheetahs, irate police officers, a freakish tow truck driver, nymphets, strangers urinating in bushes, and actor Neil Patrick Harris - that's right, our own Doogie Howser. Let's not forget there is also a discussion on Katie Holmes's breasts. "Harold and Kumar" depends on one's tolerance for watching two guys with nothing to do except the desire to eat burgers. Though there are some gross gags and one too many homosexual jokes, Cho's Harold and Penn's Kumar are likable enough and have their own personal problems to iron out. Harold has to work the nerve to ask a pretty neighbor out, and Kumar has to grow up and show his father he can be responsible and become a hell of a good physician. For those who can get past its lulls and very slight overlength (despite an 88 minute running time, some trimming would have made it special), "Harold and Kumar" is good enough to make one wish it were tastier. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this review at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html From filmgeek65 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 23 21:20:16 2005 From: filmgeek65 at hotmail.com (Rick Ferguson) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:20:22 2005 Subject: Review: Junebug (2005) Message-ID: <1127506803.424771.265320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Ten years ago, I went to my grandmother's funeral in Southwestern Ohio. My father was the youngest of nine children, which means that both he and I have cousins old enough to be our parents, and that I'm part of an extended family of which I have met maybe 10 percent. During the final service at the gravesite, I remember looking around at the motley collection of mouth-breathers, rednecks, slack-jaws and hill-williams that made up my family. Being of Scots-Irish descent, I thought to myself, "You know, if we were back in the old country centuries ago, these people would be my clan." The thought gave me the shivers. It's not that I looked down on them, or thought myself superior to them. I accepted long ago that I come from a long line of hillbilly farmers. It's just that, seeing them all gathered together to bid farewell to our matriarch, they all looked so alien. Their lives were utterly removed from anything I had experienced in my relatively comfortable middle-class upbringing. We had nothing in common but our last names and some strands of DNA. But they were, nonetheless, my family- and if one of them needed a kidney, or a place to stay or help with bail money, then I'd be there. A true family member is someone who, when you come knocking on the door, has to take you in. Such is the premise of JUNEBUG, director Phil Morrison's excellent elegy on class and familial divides. JUNEBUG is often a strange film; it veers jerkily between comedy and drama, and sometimes it's just a bubble off plum. But it's also the most piercing exploration of family dynamics since Mike Leigh's SECRETS AND LIES, and that means it'll end up on a lot of top-ten lists- including mine. Embeth Davitz stars as Madeleine, an urbane Chicago art dealer who specializes in bringing folk artists to the blue-state elites who make up her clientele. At an auction, she meets George (Alessandro Nivola), a smooth-talking Southerner with smoldering good looks who promptly sweeps her off her feet and into bed, where they screw like spider monkeys until they pause just long enough to get married a week later. A few months go by. Madeleine discovers a North Carolina folk artist by the name of David Wark (Frank Hoyt Taylor), whose paintings rather resemble the work of the Reverend Howard Finster (painter of the album cover for Talking Head's "Little Creatures"), except that Wark's paintings depict Civil War battlefields full of such charming details as Robert E. Lee's gigantic engorged penis spraying bullets into Union soldiers. As fate would have it, George's family is from the same part of North Carolina. So the newlyweds decide to kill two birds, as it were, by taking a road trip to meet and sign Wark to a representation deal while stopping by the homestead to introduce Madeleine to George's family. What could go wrong? At this point, the film could have simply degenerated into MEET THE PARENTS-style parody and farce. But JUNEBUG has other aims in mind. Rather than introducing George's family as a passel of dimwitted yokels, the film reveals an unremarkable working-class Southern family with a typically dysfunctional household dynamic. George's mother Peg (Celia Weston) is a world-class passive-aggressive ballbuster who long ago forgot the meaning of judge not. His father Eugene (Scott Wilson) is an amiable sort who may be in the early stages of Alzheimer's and spends most of the movie looking for his Phillips-head screwdriver. His brooding younger brother Johnny (Benjamin McKenzie) says nothing, resents everything and everyone, and spends his free time underneath his pickup truck. The warm center of the family unit is Johnny's pregnant wife Ashley (Amy Adams), a sunny dynamo who talks non-stop because no one else in the house has anything to stay. As the film progresses, layers of truth unfold. Madeleine tries her best to engage the family, but it becomes clear that they resent her beauty and sophistication- except for Ashley, who worships Madeleine from the moment she lays eyes on her. We also see that Madeleine and George really know nothing about each other; indeed, they spend most of their time apart, meeting only at night to screw like spider monkeys on the air mattress. We see that George feels strong ties to his family even as they embarrass him. The family seethes with conflict, all of it unspoken and unresolved- just like your family, and mine. JUNEBUG was written by playwright Angus MacLachlan- a rather remarkable feat when you consider how un-playlike this picture is. The film is all observation and subtext; at no point does anyone give a speech, and there are no overt arguments or dramatic clashes- except for one climactic scene in a hospital room, where a character reveals depths of spirit and purpose that are humbling in their heroism. Unlike most Hollywood product, in which you could replace the actors with fichus trees and no one would notice, the actors here are critical to the film's success, as line shadings and body language convey what pages of dialogue couldn't. If the film has an MVP, it's Amy Adams, who won a deserved special jury prize at Sundance for her performance as Ashley, the emotional center of the film. Hers is an astounding piece of work. Morrison's camera, meanwhile, functions in turn as observer, sociologist, psychologist and voyeur, and at times we're viewing moments in these characters' lives so personal that we have the urge to turn away in shame. The insights we gain into this family are often subtle, and not every question is answered. That means the film won't appeal to surface-dwellers. But if you love movies, you'll love JUNEBUG. By turns whimsical and piercing, direct and obtuse, the film reminds us that, as much as Hollywood has devolved into a town full of pimps whoring out garish spectacle to teenagers who every year become harder to get off, great films will continue to be made as long as an audience exists to appreciate them. The film also reminds us that, no matter how far you run away, you can never escape family. Your mother may be crazy, your father may be a drunken lout, your brother may secretly wish you had never been born and your cousin may be in jail, but they're a part of you, and you of them. Give what you can to them, take from them whatever they offer, and love them as much as you're able. It took me a long time, but I've embraced my redneck heritage. Perhaps somewhere in heaven, there's a gleaming doublewide waiting for me with a hound dog out front and a refrigerator full of beer inside. There are worse ways to spend eternity. *** Visit Mr. Fabulous at http://www.filmreviewblog.com From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Sep 23 21:20:19 2005 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark Leeper) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:20:24 2005 Subject: Review: The Constant Gardener (2005) Message-ID: <43317211.2040200@optonline.net> THE CONSTANT GARDENER (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: A minor diplomat investigates the murder of his wife and gets an education on what is really happening in modern Africa. THE CONSTANT GARDENER packs a real wallop in its study of the interconnections of global business, international medicine, and government. A film that has solid and relevant content, a good romance, and is still a good story is very rare. This is one of the best of this year. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10 John Le Carre is probably best known for his Cold War thrillers. At least he once was. With the Cold War over there was some question if he could still have subject matter for riveting thrillers. THE CONSTANT GARDENER is, in fact, a very good story set in the modern world. The film that director Fernando Meirelles (who previously directed CITY OF GOD) has made from the novel is exciting and educational. He tells his story set against a backdrop of not only his usual international politics but also global business and international medicine. The three have interests interwoven together and the story takes us to such diverse locations as London, Kenya, Italy, and Sudan. Justin Quayle (played Ralph Fiennes) has just lost his wife Tessa (Rachel Weisz). Quayle is a minor British diplomat and she is a political activist. They met when she heckled one of his speeches and they fell in love in spite of representing opposite ends of the political spectrum. When she died she was off with a black activist, Arnold (Hubert Kounde) on some political mission Quayle did not know about. She was murdered, perhaps by Arnold. Evidence shows that she and Arnold may even have been clandestine lovers. Justin just wants to understand what happened and who was it who killed his wife. Had she been using him and his political position? The more answers he finds, the bigger the remaining questions get. The mystery includes drug cartels and their experiments to test new drugs. What Quayle finds is both realistic and chilling. The story has action, but it also is intelligent from first to last. One always feels that Le Carre knows the political and economic situation and the film is every bit as informative as a Tom Clancy story. The writing of the script is crisp and keen and suspenseful. Characters are complex and frequently take a while to understand as they are developed. In fact much of the thrust of the plot is just to understand the real motivations of some of the characters. In a world as shady as the cold war, characters are not what they seem. THE CONSTANT GARDENER also offers some beautiful photography of Africa by Cesar Charlone. The score by Alberto Iglesias includes some nice native song. It may be the best story of political intrigue we have seen on the screen in quite a while. I rate it a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 9/10. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2005 Mark R. Leeper From faustus_08520 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 21:20:21 2005 From: faustus_08520 at yahoo.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:20:25 2005 Subject: Review: SUPER SIZE ME (2004) Message-ID: <20050922200141.70539.qmail@web31115.mail.mud.yahoo.com> SUPER SIZE ME (2004) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars It is obvious that feeding yourself nothing but McDonald's hamburgers for one month would make one sick - it would me make quite sick. Try consuming such meals three times a day and watch how it affects your diet. Documentarian Morgan Spurlock attempts just that and his results are unsurprising and entertaining. So Morgan Spurlock checks himself with doctors and fitness trainers to be sure he is in fine health before embarking on a junk food diet. It turns out his health is fine, his blood pressure is normal and he can now disavow his vegan ways. So the first day, Spurlock eats a Super Size meal for breakfast, and let us say that the results are not surprising - he starts to vomit outside his car window. Super Size french fries, Super Size soda drink, Super Size cheeseburger and much more follow, leading to a gain in weight, headaches, more vomiting, lack of sex drive, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, lethargy, etc. Along the way, we learn about the high calorie content in these processed foods, salt content, saturated fats and that these nutritional contents are hidden in almost every McDonald's restaurant. We also learn that ordering a smaller size of fries or burger value meals is still more food than should be consumed for the same size (unless you order a one-dollar cheeseburger). So here's the outstanding shocker of Spurlock's fast food diet - he consumes as much as 5,000 calories a day! As the doctors and nutritionists tell him, you keep punishing your body as such and you'll die. So the corporations do not reveal the calorie, sodium and saturated fat amount of a typical McDonald's menu, unlike other restaurants - they obscure those details. What is the reason? To be sure there is a fat population out there? Well, does one believe that a person on an Atkins diet will frequent McDonald's? And for those who love their junk food, do you think they only go to McDonald's? What about Kentucky Fried Chicken, Burger King, Wendy's and a host of others? And does one forget that there are Gourmet McDonald's stores out there that serve fresh Bucks County Coffee? I enjoyed "Super Size Me" overall but I felt it was wanting. The suggestion is that eating three meals a day of McDonald's is unhealthy - it may be but how many people do you know that do such a thing? Spurlock proves it is a disaster waiting to happen. Curiously, he grows addicted to the food to the point that he becomes immune to the initial indigestion - like any addiction. It is certainly a step down from his vegetarian ways. What is the point Spurlock is trying to make with "Super Size Me"? I believe he is saying that people should eat responsibly, educate themselves and become health-conscious and learn the meaning of the following term: moderation. Spurlock could've done likewise. Check out more reviews at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this review: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Sep 23 21:20:30 2005 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark Leeper) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:20:31 2005 Subject: Review: Tim Burton's Corpse Bride (2005) Message-ID: <4331F970.6090409@optonline.net> TIM BURTON'S CORPSE BRIDE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This is another joyously morbid fairy tale from Tim Burton. A nebbish makes a fatal mistake and accidentally weds a zombie. These mixed marriages--one living and one dead--never really last. But while this one does our hapless hero gets to meet the underworld society of the dead. The mock morbidity is a lot of fun, and it all comes to a heartwarming ending. The animation is not cutting edge, but it is very good. There are a host of familiar voices as a great cast of actors speaks the roles. The film is enchantingly unwholesome. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 TIM BURTON'S CORPSE BRIDE is a new Tim Burton animated film in the mold of FRANKENWEENIE and THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. Once again some of the most lovable people are the ones that traditionally give us nightmares. Like Charles Addams and Edward Gorey before him, Burton knows how to poke a loving jab at things we are supposed to find horrifying. In actual fact, they probably have not been horrifying since Victorian times. Victor Van Dort (voiced by Johnny Depp, perhaps named Victor for Victor Frankenstein) is in love with patrician Victoria Everglot (Emily Watson). Both sets of parents are very anxious to see the marriage take place. The Van Dorts want to climb the social ladder. Normally people like the Everglots would not want to be seen hobnobbing with people like the Van Dorts. But the Van Dorts have money and the snobbish Finnis Everglot (Albert Finney) wants to tap their resources and is even willing to marry his daughter off to them. Willing, that is, if only Victor can get his marriage vows correct. The stern Pastor Galswells (Christopher Lee) is losing all patience with Victor and his bad memory. He sends Victor away to practice what he is to say during the marriage ceremony. Victor now can get the words right, but now he is saying them in the wrong place. He is saying them just over the place where a poor and maltreated young woman had died and was buried. Before Victor realizes what he has done he has said his marriage vows to a corpse (Helena Bonham Carter). And this is all she needs to return to life, or at least walking death. The dead woman is delighted to find someone would marry her, considering her delicate condition of being dead. Victor is now married and it is time to meet the non- surviving members of his wife's family and others from the land of the dead. And of course there is a loveable dog only slightly less loveable for being only a dog skeleton. Tim Burton likes to deal with the same people from one film to the next so the actors doing the voices are people like Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter who are veterans of previous Burton films. Danny Elfman (who else) nicely provides the music. The songs are pleasant, but it is too early to tell if the music will be as memorable as that of THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. In at least one way this film does not live up to that predecessor. In that film it seemed that there was often interesting creative action in every part of the screen. There were throwaway gags and gimmicks happening all over the background. This film perhaps does not have all the creativity that that film had. There is less going on in each frame. Possibly it is less distracting to have less peripheral action, but it is also a little disappointing. Many of the gags seem less original and more retreads from cartoons from the 1930s and 1940s. But the story has its heart in the right place. This is a tale of love and death, though ultimately much more about love. Parents may want to avoid bringing children much less than eight or ten, but anybody else should have a great time. The biggest fault is that the pleasure lasts only 78 minutes. I would rate TIM BURTON'S CORPSE BRIDE a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2005 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Sep 23 21:25:17 2005 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark Leeper) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:25:20 2005 Subject: Review: A Sound of Thunder (2005) Message-ID: <4331735D.5010203@optonline.net> A SOUND OF THUNDER (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Based on a famous story by Ray Bradbury, this film will be a real disappointment for its lack of logic and even the misunderstanding of the original story. As an action film without the logic it is only fair. Peter Hyams is good at making sci-fi, but is not very good with science fiction. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) or 4/10 A science fiction film about a new and original idea can be quite good. But when a film is based on a very popular or classic science fiction story, watch out. It is very hard to adapt a classic story without disappointing the fans who made the story popular. A typical example (okay, my best) is the film NIGHTFALL based on the classic Isaac Asimov story. The film is terrible. THE COLD EQUATIONS and DUNE are other good examples of films simply not meeting the expectations of the fans. The story of A SOUND OF THUINDER, as any science fiction fan worth his salt will already know, involves a future when time travel has become commercial but is heavily regulated. Why is it regulated? Any change to the past affects the future in ways that cannot be predicted. Hunters are allowed to go into the past to shoot dinosaurs as big game, but they can kill only dinosaurs that are fated to die in the next few seconds anyway. A special pathway keeps the time travelers off the ground so not even a plant is damaged. In the story, of course, the precautions prove insufficient and the future is subtly altered. A team of three writers, not counting Ray Bradbury, has written a full-length film on this premise and Peter Hyams has directed that script. Though the logic of the original story is a long way from being airtight, the film's logic is far more specious. Different hunting parties come to the same dinosaur and the same interval of time, yet do not seem to run into each other. Using the same set and the same dinosaur makes great budgetary logic but little logic logic. Apparently they are coming back to different layers of the past, but then later in the film a character goes back in time and meets members from another group. So the concept is inconsistent. In the film an altered past does not simply alter the future. The changes hit the future in tidal waves that come hours apart and each brings major changes to the future. Further the waves affect things at higher and higher "levels" and humans are at the top level. So humans will not be eliminated until the sixth wave. Until then they will see the world change from the first five waves of temporal change. This balderdash makes no sense at all and seems a very anthropocentric view of the universe. This turns a story that may have had a problem or two into a feature- length absurdity. Politically correct plot lines pad the short story into a longer length--and in this film the original story is only the jumping off point for the plot of the scientists trying to correct the waves of temporal errors. Part of the padding is to create a nefarious villain--white, male, old, and greedy--and the unrewarded genius who gave him his power--female, sexy, and young. One of the team sacrifices his life. Want to guess what race he is? For a science fiction script there is a distinct lack of imagination and much of the film simply covers tired material. Visually some of the future is nice to look at. Sid Mead who is best known for his futurist contributions to BLADERUNNER has a nice visualization of the future. Cars really look different. However some of his scenery just looks like rear-projection rather than really a location the characters inhabit. When the dinosaur walks the ground really shakes. It is not at all clear a dinosaur even this size could shake the ground so much. An alternate history creature created for the film is an unlikely cross between animals of two different orders. Ben Kingsley does a nice turn as an evil industrialist in an industry that has not been invented yet. But Edward Burns is not the stuff of heroes. The short story that this film is based on can be recommended, but spending ten dollars to see this adaptation cannot. A SOUND OF THUNDER rates 0 on the -4 to +4 scale or 4/10. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2005 Mark R. Leeper From bill at fromthebalcony.com Mon Sep 26 10:19:40 2005 From: bill at fromthebalcony.com (Bill Clark) Date: Mon Sep 26 10:19:42 2005 Subject: Review: Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D (2005) Message-ID: <1127698909.897757.103230@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION: WALKING ON THE MOON 3D (2005) by Bill Clark http://www.fromthebalcony.com bill@fromthebalcony.com RATING (Ripe or Rotten): B (RIPE) URL: http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews/2005/05_magnificentdesolation.htm QUOTE: "Simply take in the sparse, but beautiful, terrain of an entity that's in the sky every night; and one that so many of us only dream of setting foot on." There are still those among us who believe that our journeys to the moon are nothing more than staged illusions. I suppose there is good reason for that, but I've never bought into it. There are skeptics everywhere about everything, but space travel and the concept of extraterrestrial life seem to attract larger hordes of skeptics. It is the true unknown. Magnificent Desolation: Walking On The Moon 3D touches upon this idea, but, like me, the film has a much bigger imagination than most skeptics can handle. Magnificent Desolation uses beautiful reenactments to put us right in the thick of the action. A theoretical space emergency is even depicted with detail and care. Some may have issues with this, but the film is about the wonder and satisfaction of exploring our galaxy. Only twelve people have ever set foot on the moon, and since it would cost untold millions to send a shuttle full of gear to the moon for filming, I guess we'll just have to go with this - if you know what I mean. We wear the silly 3D goggles, but it's worth it in this case. 3D has come a long way since I last experienced it, but it is still gimmicky and not perfect. But, getting dust sprayed in my face by a lunar vehicle in Magnificent Desolation was much more convincing than last experience, when I was dubiously sent over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Surprisingly enough, Magnificent Desolation is aimed primarily at the youngsters. Significant time is devoted to the dreams of young boys and girls to be astronauts (who didn't want to be an astronaut when they were in elementary school?) and one girl's dreams are even enacted in the film's closing minutes. The history of our journeys to the moon is delivered in an easily digestible manner, but I have a strong feeling that the target audience will be too awestruck by the 3D to care. For parents, fond memories of the historic moments depicted will be plentiful. The film is narrated by Tom Hanks, whose love for space has never been a secret. He, along with a laundry list of A-list stars, brings a nice rush of excitement to the project, with each voicing a different astronaut or individual. I have always maintained that piling on recognizable voices for films like this one can be distracting, and Magnificent Desolation is no exception. People will inevitably be playing the "whose voice is it?" game in a shrill whisper. Quibbles aside, Magnificent Desolation delivers the eye candy we all expect from IMAX and has something for everyone. 3D still has room for improvement (haven't we been saying that for decades?) but the clarity here is among the most impeccable I've ever experienced. Space lovers will dig it, skeptics will scoff it, and the rest will simply take in the sparse, but beautiful, terrain of an entity that's in the sky every night; and one that so many of us only dream of setting foot on. web: http://www.fromthebalcony.com email: bill@fromthebalcony.com Copyright 2005 FromTheBalcony From bill at fromthebalcony.com Mon Sep 26 10:19:43 2005 From: bill at fromthebalcony.com (Bill Clark) Date: Mon Sep 26 10:19:45 2005 Subject: Review: A History Of Violence (2005) Message-ID: <1127698481.162889.24830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005) by Bill Clark http://www.fromthebalcony.com bill@fromthebalcony.com RATING (Ripe or Rotten): C- (ROTTEN) URL: http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews/2005/05_ahistoryofviolencebc.htm QUOTE: "A fine example of how a moody script and an overzealous director can bring a film down." A heavy-handed drama with a dash of standard superhero fare, A History Of Violence is a mishmash of ideas and emotions that never gets the response it desires. Director David Cronenberg's penchant for excessiveness interferes with an otherwise constructive character study that winds up as a black comedy. This analysis of the effect that violence can have on a tight-knit community and family certainly should have been more engaging, and it was probably one rewrite away. Tom Stall (Mortensen) is a mild-mannered, well-liked citizen of Millbrook, Indiana. He owns and operates a local diner in the small town and his wife, Edie (Bello), is a well-respected attorney. They have two children, Jack (Holmes) and Sarah (Hayes) and live in a nice home - the quintessential American working family. Jack is frequently teased at school, which plays out as a subplot to the violence that will soon permeate the entire family. One night a pair of small-time thieves enter the diner at closing time and subsequently hold the place up, threatening the life of one of Tom's employees. Tom takes quick action and ends up gunning down both in cold blood to the shock of his co-workers, and the community. He is hailed as a national hero and all present agree that Tom acted in self-defense. Tom doesn't respond well to his newfound fame, avoiding reporters and cameras as if he has something to hide. It appears as though he does when Carl Fogarty (Harris) rolls into town in his black Cadillac that looks suitably out of place. He enters the diner and immediately starts calling Tom "Joey" and accusing him of trying to rip his eye out with barbed wire. According to Carl, Tom is an ex-mob henchman with an expertise for efficient killing, and there is some unfinished business in Philadelphia. Tom denies that he is "Joey" and politely asks Carl to leave, but this is only the beginning of a string of events that exposes Tom's true demeanor and identity. A History of Violence has a fantastic first act that only sets up the disappointments to come. Instead of continuing to explore the violence/family perspective, screenwriter Josh Olson, working from the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke, takes the third act and deteriorates it to a black comedy with a body count. The result is that of unevenness and an identity problem. Director David Cronenberg's penchant for excessiveness doesn't help in this case, either. Cronenberg is one of the most creative and daring directors in Hollywood, but his adoration for gore and explicit sex seems strikingly out-of-place in an otherwise quiet character study. This is all meant for shock value, of course, but it struck me as gratuitous. This is a movie full of constructive ideas and commentary, but it becomes entangled in Cronenberg's own in-your-face attitude. It's really a shame, because the performances are all top-notch. Viggo Mortensen shows tremendous depth is this complicated role. He makes the necessary transformations effortlessly and believably, which is central to the film's credibility. Maria Bello deserves major credit for taking on such a daring role, even if the screenplay forces her character to over dramatize for much of the second half of the film. Bello is a wonderful presence and it's very refreshing to see an actress of her caliber take on such an audacious part. Quality supporting work is delivered by Ed Harris as the vengeful Fogarty and William Hurt as mobster Richie Cusack. Hurt takes his role and swings for the fences, and the results are quite entertaining. A History of Violence is not so much a bad film, but rather one that collapses under the weight of its own convictions. Sensibility is thrown aside in favor of shock value and heavy-handedness, both taken to extreme lengths. The performances are excellent, but A History of Violence is a fine example of how a moody script and an overzealous director can bring a film down. web: http://www.fromthebalcony.com email: bill@fromthebalcony.com Copyright 2005 FromTheBalcony From bill at fromthebalcony.com Mon Sep 26 10:19:44 2005 From: bill at fromthebalcony.com (Bill Clark) Date: Mon Sep 26 10:19:47 2005 Subject: Review: Just Like Heaven (2005) Message-ID: <1127698615.043588.131940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> JUST LIKE HEAVEN (2005) by Bill Clark http://www.fromthebalcony.com bill@fromthebalcony.com RATING (Ripe or Rotten): B (RIPE) URL: http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews/2005/05_justlikeheaven.htm QUOTE: "Quirky and offbeat, Just Like Heaven delivers what you'd expect it to." Just Like Heaven is lighter than the cotton candy at the summer State Fair and is riddled with sitcom-style antics, but it's that sheer goofiness and willingness to go for broke that makes it a surprisingly delectable romantic comedy. In a summer full of surprises for the genre, Just Like Heaven will be a surefire hit with the female crowd and one of those movies that guys will be all macho about, but will probably admit to liking it in private. Reese Witherspoon stars as Elizabeth Masterson, a busy-body who is trying to work her way up in the medical field. She's so busy that she has no time in life for a significant other, and she's constantly reminded of that by nosy co-workers. After taking another step up the ladder, tragedy strikes in the form of a car accident. David Abbott (Ruffalo) is a loner looking for an apartment in San Francisco. After being shown a few urban atrocities, David finds himself renting the exact same apartment that Elizabeth resided in. David is still mourning the loss of his wife from a few years back and spends much of his time drinking beer and watching sports. He doesn't want to socialize or meet anyone new, but that's about to change real quickly. One night after downing a few too many, David has a run-in with Elizabeth in the apartment. Elizabeth insists that this is her place and orders him to leave. Clearly spooked, David summons the help of Jack Houriskey (Logue), a therapist, and Darryl (Heder), a psychic bookworm. Is David seeing Elizabeth's ghost? Is she really dead? Will love prosper? Just Like Heaven contains some nice surprises and a lovable zaniness, particularly in its unlikely conclusion. Romantic comedies over the past few years have played it so safe and have never really been willing to let loose, but Just Like Heaven's denouement is so off-the-hook that one can't help but sit with a smile. The cast is solid, particularly Ruffalo, who has a knack for dry humor and timing. I have been impressed with his performances over the past few years and this film could be his big breakout as a leading man. Reese Witherspoon does what she's paid to do, and that's to stand around looking cute all the time. She's clearly having a blast playing a ghost for much of the film, but it's not really all that memorable. Ruffalo and the supporting players get the best dialogue. The supporting work by Donal Logue and Jon Heder is satisfactory, with Heder actually getting some laughs out of me after the disaster that is Napoleon Dynamite. Just Like Heaven mixes the ingredients nicely, and the film should please both the dating crowd and the Witherspoon faithful. Quirky and offbeat, Just Like Heaven delivers what you'd expect it to. web: http://www.fromthebalcony.com email: bill@fromthebalcony.com Copyright 2005 FromTheBalcony From bill at fromthebalcony.com Mon Sep 26 10:19:46 2005 From: bill at fromthebalcony.com (Bill Clark) Date: Mon Sep 26 10:19:50 2005 Subject: Review: Corpse Bride (2005) Message-ID: <1127698771.249301.137160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> CORPSE BRIDE (2005) by Bill Clark http://www.fromthebalcony.com bill@fromthebalcony.com RATING (Ripe or Rotten): A- (RIPE) URL: http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews/2005/05_corpsebride.htm QUOTE: "[Tim] Burton and co-director Mike Johnson have crafted one of the most visually unique films ever made." With an imagination large enough for a dozen grade schoolers hopped up on Ho-Ho's and Mountain Dew, Tim Burton is the go-to guy if you're in the mood for bizarre stories. Whether they are his own stories (Edward Scissorhands) or his take on other work (Charlie And The Chocolate Factory), Burton consistently delivers eye candy with originality. Corpse Bride, his first animated film since writing and producing 1993's The Nightmare Before Christmas, continues Burton's adventures into the strange and morbid. Using stop-motion animation techniques with Canon SLR cameras and edited with robust Final Cut Pro, Burton and co-director Mike Johnson have crafted one of the most visually unique films ever made. The dark blues, the blacks, the contrast, the misshapen characters; this is all vintage Burton and this is his most ambitious project in years. Victor Van Dort (voiced by Johnny Depp) is a typical young man nervous about marriage. He has good reason, as he is part of an arranged marriage between the Van Dort and Everglot families. Victoria Everglot (voiced by Emily Watson) is also nervous about the proposition, but it is Victor who keeps fumbling his vows during the rehearsal. After being told that the wedding cannot take place without him mastering the lines, Victor heads out to the nearby forest/cemetery to practice. By happenstance, Victor places the ring on a deceased boney finger, only to have the Corpse Bride (voiced by Helena Bonham Carter) come alive! The Corpse Bride believes that Victor's actions were intentional, and Victor soon finds himself "down" where the dead live. The dead mostly drink, sing, and stab each other with swords (they don't have skin, afterall, and they can't feel a thing). Torn between his Corpse Bride and Victoria, Victor must make trips to and from the living and the dead in order to solve his predicament. Burton and his cohorts seamlessly mesh musical and narrative elements to create fabulous environments. The music is scored by Burton regular Danny Elfman and his music is among the most recognizable in Hollywood. The tone is set from the get-go, and in the very brief 78 minute runtime there is nary a dull moment. There will inevitably be "style over substance" debates and that is not uncalled for. This is not one of the more compelling Burton films from a story standpoint, but the fact remains that this is still a perfect, brooding vehicle for his talents. Plus, the film is geared more towards kids, and for parents this could be an extra treat since there is a lot of imagination on display here. While maintaining a PG rating, there are plenty of visuals that may disturb young children. Longtime readers may know that I frequently have issues with animated films that tout a laundry list of A-list stars who are contributing their voices. More often than not, moviegoers spend the whole time trying to place voices and it really serves as more of a distraction than anything. Not so here, as Johnny Depp is easily the biggest name on display. He contributes a weary, nervous voice for Victor that would probably be unrecognizable of we didn't know it was Depp. That's not to take anything away from Emily Watson, Helena Bonham Carter, Tracy Ullman, and the other talented individuals involved with the production. No one "steals the show," per se, but the voice talent is of very high quality. Corpse Bride is Burton's second film of this year alone, and it wouldn't surprise me if it earned an Oscar nod in the Animation category. Projects this anomalous deserve such recognition and I think that young and old alike will have their imaginations exercised. web: http://www.fromthebalcony.com email: bill@fromthebalcony.com Copyright 2005 FromTheBalcony From bill at fromthebalcony.com Mon Sep 26 10:19:48 2005 From: bill at fromthebalcony.com (Bill Clark) Date: Mon Sep 26 10:19:52 2005 Subject: Review: Flightplan (2005) Message-ID: <1127699037.080858.160230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> FLIGHTPLAN (2005) by Bill Clark http://www.fromthebalcony.com bill@fromthebalcony.com RATING (Ripe or Rotten): B+ (Ripe) URL: http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews/2005/05_flightplan.htm QUOTE: "Flightplan is a crackler of a suspense film and a solid entry into the early autumn season." It seems as though we are all extra curious as to whom we share an airplane with these days. I only fly about twice a year, but post 9/11 the tension can be felt upon the first step onto the aircraft. We look each other over as we walk down the aisles, looking for anyone who could be remotely suspicious and have evil intentions. Perhaps this is all ironic considering that airport security is as thorough as ever (at least in theory), but Hollywood has done a very good job of exploiting our everyday fears this summer. Flightplan is a crackler of a suspense film and a solid entry into the early autumn season. It's another take on Hitchcock's 1938 film, The Lady Vanishes, but it is still a near-flawless setup with a satisfying conclusion, albeit far-fetched. There are strong performances across the board and a rising tension that carries throughout the entire movie. Kyle Pratt (Foster) is a propulsion engineer and recent widow. Her husband has just fallen to his death, and Kyle and her daughter, Julia (Marlene Lawston), are on a lengthy Berlin-to-New York flight to get home and bury him. Kyle and Julia are the first onboard, and it doesn't take long for either to fall asleep. A few hours pass and Kyle awakens. She is surprised to see Julia not sitting next to her and starts to calmly walk the plane in search of her. No one has seen her or even remembers her being onboard at all, for that matter. Kyle's paranoia heightens, and she soon seeks the help of Captain Rich (Bean), a man who clearly believes she is delusional and for good reason; Julia's name is not on the flight manifest. Gene Carson (Sarsgaard) is the undercover Air Marshal onboard, and he is assigned the task of keeping Kyle calm until the crew has had adequate time to search the plane, as required by procedure for such circumstances. Proceeding with further plot synopsis is unnecessary as spoilers would inevitably surface. The film's trailer covers over 3/4 of the film, but I am glad to report that the film does not resort to a tired cookie-cutter resolution. Surprises are in store, even if they do widen the plot holes. Just go with it the same way you did with Red Eye and you'll be just fine. Director Robert Schwentke demonstrates a mandatory understanding of the material and genre. He establishes the oversized jet with a silky smooth roaming camera and maintains slickness throughout. He can make us gasp and also guess with the turn of a camera, as it should be in the suspense genre. He is definitely a director to watch. Jodie Foster, essentially dormant since 2002's Panic Room, seems to eat up these strong woman roles. She is completely believable as Kyle and accomplishes the most complex angle of her character (obtaining our sympathy) with ease. Peter Sarsgaard, hot off the success of 2004's Garden State, flips the John Malkovich switch and always maintains a sense of suspicion. Solid supporting work is turned in by Sean Bean and Erika Christensen. Flightplan joins the club and performs a fresh take on seemingly tired material. The whole film is a rollercoaster of tension, and it's refreshing to have films like this back at the multiplex. There are no cheap scares or false tactics, just a whodunit with a dash of claustrophobia. Just don't let anyone spoil it for you. web: http://www.fromthebalcony.com email: bill@fromthebalcony.com Copyright 2005 FromTheBalcony From dnb at dca.net Wed Sep 28 10:20:17 2005 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Wed Sep 28 10:20:19 2005 Subject: Review: Flightplan (2005) Message-ID: <200509261920.j8QJKtW22071@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> FLIGHTPLAN A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2005 David N. Butterworth **1/2 (out of ****) So who, would you say, is the toughest action figure in the movies nowadays? Ah-nuld "I'll be back" Schwarzenegger? Well, what's he done lately (other than govern California)? OK, what about Tom Cruise? Nah- -he could barely tough out his marriage to Nicole. Maybe "The Punisher"'s Tom Jane then? Er, isn't Jane a girl's name? Nope. All of these guesses are wrong. The correct answer is... Jodie Foster! After 2002's "Panic Room," in which her character strove to keep herself and her daughter safe from a trio of burglars who had infiltrated their New York brownstone, Ms. Foster returns with another impassioned, charismatic performance as Kyle Pratt, a recently widowed mother who strives to locate her missing six-year-old aboard a transatlantic flight from Berlin to New York. Ms. Pratt tackles a multitude of obstacles in "Flightplan"--the recent death of her husband (did he fall from a rooftop or was he pushed?), an emotionally fragile young daughter, innumerable flight delays and cancellations (not to mention that infamous yet now rapidly dwindling airline food). Plus obnoxious kids in the row ahead and a sarky air marshal seated behind, obstructionist flight attendants, insensitive co-passengers, and possibly even Mid-East coach class terrorists once it is revealed that her daughter is missing. (Jet- propulsion engineer Mom falls asleep and when she awakens three hours later Julia (Marlene Lawston) is nowhere to be found. Kyle immediately demands the crew search the plane from top to bottom but not one person aboard remembers seeing Julia embark, and the passenger manifold clearly indicates that the seat next to Kyle's was empty.) As the film progresses, Kyle's mental health is called into question. Was her daughter ever on the plane to begin with or is there, as she believes, some desperate conspiracy afoot? "Flightplan" is a well-made thriller that's kept airborne by Foster's resilient performance in the lead. She brings a mature toughness to the role that puts Mssrs. Schwarzenegger, Cruise, and Jane to shame. Sure her wide, impenetrable eyes overflow from time to time but she never once gives up, never cracks, believing 100% that her daughter has been kidnapped (or worse) and that she'll do everything in her power--and then some--to find her. Foster is *the* reason to see "Flightplan"; she lends the film both a consummate strength and vulnerability. Compared to the recent "Red Eye," however, Robert Schwentke's film isn't quite as effective (and certainly not the "Die Hard" at 37,000 feet it might have been). That's partly because there's (understandably) little if any humor sprinkled throughout the film, and audiences need that, especially when subjected to such an intense, claustrophobic experience as this. But it's also partly because of the film's unconvincing (as played) villain. "Die Hard" had an excellent bad guy in Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber. And "Red Eye"'s Cillian Murphy was the ultimate in-flight creep. "Flightplan" performs less well in this department... but that's all I'm willing to say on the matter. Nevertheless if you enjoy powerful performances I'd still recommend the film since we don't see nearly enough women ignoring the "fasten seatbelts" sign and pounding on the door of the flight deck demanding to see the captain these days. -- David N. Butterworth dnb@dca.net Got beef? Visit "La Movie Boeuf" online at http://members.dca.net/dnb From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Wed Sep 28 10:20:25 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Sep 28 10:20:27 2005 Subject: Review: The Greatest Game Ever Played (2005) Message-ID: THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** 1/2 THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED is an old-fashioned, heartfelt film, exquisitely constructed by director Bill Paxton (FRAILTY). Ostensibly about a famous golf game, this heart-warming, true story is about so much more as well, from the rigidity of the class structure in the early twentieth century to the importance of following your dreams. In the wrong hands, the film could have been mawkish and trite, but Paxton gives it a powerful and simple honesty that, with just a few exceptions, never becomes preachy. Cast almost exclusively with complete unknowns, the movie proves how superb a film can be without a single star in its heavens. The acting is all excellent, but it is a director's movie, with Paxton deserving most of the credit for its stunning success. The story follows two golfers who rise from working class backgrounds to go on to glory. Stephen Dillane (THE HOURS), the best known actor in the movie, plays Harry Vardon, a British golfing legend who wrote books, including "The Stylist," about how to play the game. Although he has won more British Open Championships that anyone ever, the British society types who run the clubs will not admit him because he doesn't come from any of the right families. When Harry is at the top of his game -- or perhaps just past it -- he ends up facing an American kid named Francis Ouimet in the 1913 U.S. Open. Shia LaBeouf plays Francis with a palpable dedication. Well, Francis starts off dedicated until he gives up entirely in his teens. This is no surprise since his father (Elias Koteas) has an unabiding faith in the rigidity of the class structure. Always despondent and sullen, he wants his son to quit and stop wasting his time since they'll never let his boy be accepted as part of a gentleman's game. The father does everything he can to stand in his son's way. When, at the age of twenty, Francis does decide to try again, it is at nothing less than the aforementioned U.S. Open. The result is a long tournament that will have you riveted to your seat even if you care nothing about golf. Adding to the pleasure is a pipsqueak named Eddie Lowery (Josh Flitter), who accidentally becomes Francis's caddy for the entire match. Eddie faces a daily challenge, since he has to outwit the truant officer. Just a fifth grader, Eddie is extra short and pudgy but full of useful and sometimes humorous advice. Adding to the film's enjoyment are special effects that give us some balls-eye view of the course. The ending game is accurately termed "one David against two Goliaths," since it isn't just Harry that Francis is up against. The movie includes a love story too, as if all of the other parts weren't already more than enough. Whatever you do, don't leave until you find out in the ending credits what happened to the participants, especially Eddie. THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED runs 1:55 but feels shorter. It is rated PG for "some brief mild language" and would be acceptable for all ages. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 30, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Thu Sep 29 16:35:22 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Thu Sep 29 16:35:24 2005 Subject: Review: Serenity (2005) Message-ID: SERENITY A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): * 1/2 Suffering through, I mean watching SERENITY is like starting at the 84th episode of a convoluted and silly sci-fi soap opera. Sure, fans of Joss Whedon's cancelled TV show "Firefly," upon which this movie is based, are certain to love it. Our packed audience of rabid fans burst into thunderous applause when the words "Feature Presentation" came on the screen. Various characters from the series got similar but smaller accolades. As a non-fan, it made me appreciate the wisdom of TV executives who aborted the show. The story is set five hundred years in the future, when earthlings have moved to another solar system. The new system is controlled by a fascist government called the Alliance. The whole story is about as clear as mud, so please forgive me if I get some of this wrong. Piloting a Millennium Falcon-like bucket of bolts, Capt. Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), along with his rag-tag crew, fight against the government, while trying to stay out of the way of the "Reavers." The latter group are some very aggressive human mutants who roam the system killing everyone who gets in their way. New viewers to the series will undoubtedly do a mental tilt when they see the weapons of the future. Although space travel happens at what must be close to light speed, the guns are pump-action shotguns and Western six-shooters. Among the many explanations needed but never provided is what caused all technology except for guns to advance. Of yes, and the fashion statement of the moment is garb that Jessie James would have been at home in. Go figure. Or don't. It's not worth trying to make sense out of it all. Like THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY, this movie's charm is rarely obvious to those not already a card-carrying member of the fan club. Its clunky recycled dialog, which produced big laughs from my fellow viewers, includes, "She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true," and that old-faithful, "We're not alone!" "We'll get through this," Simon (Sean Maher) says to his sister, a psychic named River (Summer Glau). As River answered Simon, I felt like she was speaking directly to me when she said, "It's going to get much, much worse," which the movie certainly did. While SERENITY actually runs a minute shy of two full hours, it felt more like four. SERENITY runs 1:59. It is rated PG-13 for "sequences of intense violence and action, and some sexual references" and would be acceptable for kids around 11 and up. My son Jeffrey, age 16, gave it ****. He liked the way the film was fast paced, had good character building and had a unique ship design. His friend Dustin, also 16, gave it *** 1/2, saying that he liked the comic relief and the characters. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 30, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From mleeper at optonline.net Thu Sep 29 16:35:25 2005 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark Leeper) Date: Thu Sep 29 16:35:28 2005 Subject: Review: CAPOTE (2005) Message-ID: <433B115C.3020304@optonline.net> CAPOTE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This is a film portrait of Truman Capote that in its own way is both admiring and damning. Capote investigates the murders that he was to chronicle in his docu-novel IN COLD BLOOD. To make the story better he also manipulates events and people. He is incisive, ironically charismatic, and treacherous. Philip Seymour Hoffman has his best role to date--perhaps the best he can ever hope to get. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 On November 15, 1959, a successful Holcomb, Kansas, farmer, Herb Clutter, his wife Bonnie, his daughter Nancy (age sixteen), and his son Kenyon (age fifteen), were bound and gagged, robbed, and murdered. New York writer Truman Capote saw the news story and became fascinated with the murder. He traveled to Holcomb to investigate and report on the murder himself. The result was a non-fiction novel serialized in the New Yorker magazine in 1965, published as a novel in 1966, and made into a film in 1967. CAPOTE is the story of how Truman Capote imposed himself into the investigation and got both law officials and the accused to cooperate with his inquiry. Dan Futterman's screenplay based on a biography by Gerald Clarke is a powerful indictment of the man. Capote was one of the last people one would expect to be charismatic. His voice was an odd combination of Southern accent and swishy lisp. His manner was elitist and intellectual. He dressed flamboyantly. Hoffman does an amazing impression of the real Capote. While his mannerisms might be off-putting to the people of a rural Kansas town, he exudes a certain grace and allure that gets people who normally would be on their guard to open up to him. He seems harmless and sincere, so much so the viewer is shocked to see that when he himself lowers his guard he is vicious and callous to the people he has charmed and even to his close friends. Of his friends his closest confidant is Nelle Harper Lee (played by Catherine Keener) who is working on her own book at the same time, a book whose title keeps changing but will have something to do with a mockingbird. Any conversation with Capote, no matter how informal it seemed, could be on the record. Capote measured his own recall at 94 percent. Truman Capote uses these characteristics to get his story written, a goal that becomes an obsession. When the town sheriff (Chris Cooper) wants little to do with the New York City writer Capote manages to wangle a dinner invitation from his wife by parlaying his modest fame as a writer to win her over. He similarly charms the two suspects of the crime and convinces the weaker of the two, Perry Smith (played by Clifton Collins, Jr.), that he is their only friend. He lies and confuses people and manipulates timing of events for his convenience. Director Bennett Miller's only previous film is the documentary THE CRUISE. Here he make a powerful film that does not replace the film IN COLD BLOOD, but should been seen with it. It is hard to imagine Phillip Seymour Hoffman ever getting a better role or ever making a role so much his own. His Capote is reminiscent of Salieri's attitude toward Mozart in AMADEUS. He seems to have far too much talent squandered on too unworthy a person. Capote has the ability to write the book this murder account could make, but he is undeserving of the honor of the accomplishment. Particularly for people who have seen IN COLD BLOOD (or read the book), this film is a compelling look at what else was going on so close to the action. I think that this film will do good things for Philip Seymour Hoffman's career. I rate CAPOTE a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2005 Mark R. Leeper From Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com Thu Sep 29 18:45:07 2005 From: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Thu Sep 29 18:45:09 2005 Subject: Review: The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio (2005) Message-ID: THE PRIZE WINNER OF DEFIANCE, OHIO A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2005 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** THE PRIZE WINNER OF DEFIANCE, OHIO is a true story that rarely rings true. As syrupy and repetitive as those TV jingles whose creation the movie is about, the film features Julianne Moore as an always chirpy automaton named Evelyn Ryan and Woody Harrelson as Kelly, her drunken loser of a husband. No matter how despicable Kelly's actions, Evelyn keeps smiling like one of the Stepford Wives, acting as if she is completely incapable of noticing his ridiculous behavior. There is such little chemistry -- positive or negative -- between Moore and Harrelson that they might as well have been acting on separate sets against a blue screen with their performances spliced together in post-processing. For comedy to work, there has to be a certain genuineness in the characters, but writer and director Jane Anderson, working from Terry Ryan's book, is never able to make her characters come alive. Anderson, who is best known for her script of HOW TO MAKE AN AMERICAN QUILT, can never decide if she wants THE PRIZE WINNER OF DEFIANCE, OHIO to be a comedy or a drama. There are a few laughs in it, but the drama only works in the way it makes you think about how challenging the real life of Evelyn Ryan must have been. In other words, it makes you want to read the book and skip the movie. The setup for the plot is intriguing and, indeed, it was actually one of the fall films I have been most curious about and looking forward to. Evelyn was a mother of 10 kids -- does anyone, other than blended families, have more than 5 kids anymore? -- who coped with her family's precarious financial situation by entering contests. Most of her prizes were a few dollars or a small kitchen appliance, won for a poem or a jingle. But, every now and then, she'd win a bigger prize. With her husband spending the family's milk money on booze, she needed every bit of help she could get. Her household got 12 large bottles from the milkman every time he came by so you'd think her husband would appreciate her, but he didn't. More than once they lost or came close to losing their home. It's interesting to note, however, that Evelyn refuses to do other work in order to make money, and none of the kids are shown helping out by obtaining gainful employment. The script is full of creaky moments. Moore has to say things like, "You have brightened my day considerably." A real trooper, she gives the role way more than it deserves. The child actors, although they are many, are completely interchangeable and bland. In the only possible exception to that rule, Ellary Porterfield, as the older daughter Tuff, does have a spark, although just a spark, of life about her. A good idea and a true story isn't enough. The writer and director must create real characters that will draw us into the narrative. Anderson was unable to do this. Hopefully, Ryan's book is better. THE PRIZE WINNER OF DEFIANCE, OHIO runs 1:39. It is rated PG-13 for "thematic elements, some disturbing images and language" and would be acceptable for kids around 11 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 30, 2005. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email? Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. From bill at fromthebalcony.com Fri Sep 30 08:45:10 2005 From: bill at fromthebalcony.com (Bill Clark) Date: Fri Sep 30 08:45:11 2005 Subject: Review: The Greatest Game Ever Played (2005) Message-ID: <1128051051.079060.163120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED (2005) by Bill Clark http://www.fromthebalcony.com bill@fromthebalcony.com RATING (Fresh or Rotten): A- (FRESH) URL: http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews/2005/05_greatestgameeverplayed.htm QUOTE: "Leave it to director Bill Paxton to up the ante and deliver a wholly enjoyable study of perhaps the greatest golf upset of all time." The Greatest Game Ever had all the reasons in the world to be yet another tired "underdog wins it all" sports clich? films. The Disney sports formula, after all, is tried and true - and predictable. But leave it to director Bill Paxton to up the ante and deliver a wholly enjoyable study of perhaps the greatest golf upset of all time. In the wrong hands, this could have been a downright preachy groaner. Francis Ouimet (LeBeouf) comes from a working class family, the exact kind of upbringing that does not allow you to set foot on a golf course in 1913. Since his childhood he has been avidly fascinated with golf, and his idol is the great English champ, Harry Vardon (Dillane). Francis practices puts in the middle of the night, hoping that someday he will be a champion. Francis' father, Arthur (Koteas), wants him to quit his dream because of the class struggles involved with this "gentleman's game." As a caddy at the golf course across the street from his home, Francis is approached to compete as an amateur, much to his father's malaise. Francis agrees to his father's wishes that if he loses, he must quit golf altogether. Francis misses the cut, and soon thereafter takes up work at a retail establishment. At age twenty, Francis is once again approached to compete, but this time it is against the best in the world in the U.S. Open. With class struggles and the friction between the U.S. and Europe at the forefront of a politically charged event, Francis makes a run for the ages and cements his name in golf lore. Director Bill Paxton brings a great sense of authenticity to the material and knows just the right chords to strike - and when to strike them. He approaches the 1913 U.S. Open from several vantage points, and the result is above-average character development for a story arc that is, at its core, tired and overdone. Paxton showed amazing skill in the underappreciated 2001 film, Frailty, and here he does the same in a completely different genre. Some may have issues with the deliberately slow pace in the film's first act and questionable use of CGI (was the ladybug on the ball really necessary?), but overall this is a solid effort and one that propels the film past its counterparts of the past few years. I have been impressed with Shia LeBeouf ever since 2003's The Battle Of Shaker Heights, and he continues to impress here. LeBeouf brings just the right amount of youthful excitement to the role of Francis, but is also wise beyond his years in the way he presents himself. This is his most complex role to date, and he nails it. Standout supporting work is delivered by Stephen Dillane as Vardon, a well-loved but troubled man who is haunted by his past. Dillane gives the character several wonderful layers and as a result we get a refreshing break from the one-note "bad guy" that usually riddles Disney sports films. Josh Flitter will be the favorite among the youngsters as Eddie, the wisecracking fifth grade caddy that Francis enlists. His role is well-written, and he may be the only character in the film unshaken by the whole class system. Elias Koteas is virtually unrecognizable as Francis' father, but he gets one of the most emotional scenes in the film and sells it with no dialogue. The Greatest Game Ever Played is a wonderful ode to a true underdog. It's easy to write off films like this these days, but I urge doubters to give it a chance as it truly is a well-told and well-directed film. Francis Ouimet is a name that hardly anyone will know going into the film, but I hope that afterwards just as many people will have the same respect for what he did as I do now. web: http://www.fromthebalcony.com email: bill@fromthebalcony.com Copyright 2005 FromTheBalcony From bill at fromthebalcony.com Fri Sep 30 08:45:17 2005 From: bill at fromthebalcony.com (Bill Clark) Date: Fri Sep 30 08:45:20 2005 Subject: Review: Oliver Twist (2005) Message-ID: <1128050918.936282.106550@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> OLIVER TWIST (2005) by Bill Clark http://www.fromthebalcony.com bill@fromthebalcony.com RATING (Ripe or Rotten): A (FRESH) URL: http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews/2005/05_olivertwist.htm QUOTE: "Polanski and company have proven that, once again, great stories never go out of style." There is no question that many will be wondering why Roman Polanski, of all directors, has decided to do another telling of the classic Charles Dickens story, Oliver Twist. Polanski is, after all, one of our most creative directors and one who is rightfully associated with very high quality productions. I would tell those people to keep wondering, but at the same time acknowledge that this may be the best telling of Oliver Twist ever put on film. By now I think many are familiar with the story of our orphan, Oliver (Clark). The story picks up with him arriving at the workhouse on his ninth birthday. He is stuck doing superfluous labor and is soon ordered to leave after asking for more food during dinner. He winds up living with an undertaker and, after spending a sleepless night in the casket room, decides to hoof it to London. There he meets Dodger (Eden), a resourceful pickpocket who works for Fagin (Kingsley). Soon Oliver is running in their circles, as criminal as they may be, and making more enemies, including Bill Sykes (Foreman), an abusive wretch with an evil dog. At one point Oliver is taken in by Mr. Brownlow (Hardwicke), a caring old man who truly believes that Oliver is not a thief. Oliver also earns sympathy from Nancy (Rowe), a girl who is much too close to the temperamental Sykes. Director Roman Polanski takes a very straightforward approach to the material, but that is not to be criticized. The musical elements of past versions have been removed in favor of a straight-up narrative. Polanski's directorial prowess shines most in the look he has given the film, which ranges from moodily dark to blindingly light. Polanski possesses such undeniable talent for establishing setting and mood, and this version of Twist is plenty dark. The art direction by Jindrich Koc? and the cinematography by Pawel Edelman are both Oscar-worthy in their creativity and authenticity. Ben Kingsley, as volatile as his role choices may be, turns in a wonderful performance as Fagin, the decrepit old man whom you would imagine smells really bad. Polanski and screenwriter Ronald Harwood seem especially concerned with humanizing Fagin. Kingsley's performance gives it the necessary depth, and towards the end of the film we actually begin to feel sorry for him. He lets his little pickpockets drink and smoke all around his hole of a living quarter, but no one should be that shocked by it as the same thing happens today, only under parental supervision it seems. Newcomer Barney Clark also turns in a sterling performance as the title character. He portrays Oliver with a wide range of emotions and determination. There is a tremendous scene in which Oliver must confront Fagin towards the end of the film, and Clark's facial ticks and emotional attachments shine through brilliantly. Also look for excellent supporting efforts from Jamie Foreman as Sykes, Leanne Rowe as Nancy, and Edward Hardwicke as Mr. Brownlow. Polanski's vision of Oliver Twist is a faithful adaptation of the Dickens classic and deserves to be seen, even if you are all too familiar with this story. This is a dark, moody affair that may catch some parents off guard with its bad attitudes and heavy-drinking kids, so think twice before bringing the infants and toddlers expecting a musical good time. Polanski and company have proven that, once again, great stories never go out of style. web: http://www.fromthebalcony.com email: bill@fromthebalcony.com Copyright 2005 FromTheBalcony From bill at fromthebalcony.com Fri Sep 30 08:50:11 2005 From: bill at fromthebalcony.com (Bill Clark) Date: Fri Sep 30 08:50:12 2005 Subject: Review: Into The Blue (2005) Message-ID: <1128051195.281169.133960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> INTO THE BLUE (2005) by Bill Clark http://www.fromthebalcony.com bill@fromthebalcony.com RATING (Fresh or Rotten): F (ROTTEN) URL: http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews/2005/05_intotheblue.htm QUOTE: "Watch as millions of dollars are hurled at us in the form of bad special effects and an impenetrable labyrinth of a story that I cannot imagine a single soul caring about." Into The Blue is that rare breed of bad movie where you can't laugh at it (at least much), you can't feel sorry for it, but all you can really do is stare, bug-eyed, at the screen and watch as millions of dollars are hurled at us in the form of bad special effects and a virtually impenetrable labyrinth of a story that I cannot imagine a single soul caring about. The film's trailers and posters make it abundantly clear that the film is really only about PG-13 T&A, but it can't even get that right. Speaking of getting things right, I'll do my best with a plot synopsis. As the film opens, an airplane full of obviously unsavory characters crashes somewhere in the ocean. Drugs and/or money are onboard. We meet up with Jared (Walker) onshore. He's a "29-year-old dive-bum" and has just been fired from his job as a scuba instructor. His ex-friend (I think), Bates (Brolin), tells him of treasure buried deep below the surface that he is after. Jared's girlfriend, Sam (Alba), also appears to be going nowhere in life, but at least they're happy. In for vacation are friends Bryce (Caan) and Amanda (Scott), both of which are also very stupid. We are supposed to believe that Bryce is a lawyer, but I highly doubt that this guy could pass a third grade spelling test, and on top of that he is really annoying. Amanda is the token dumb blonde who will do anything for a few bucks. Together, the four go diving and discover the downed plane, which is loaded with cocaine that the foursome wants to cash in. They also discover remnants of a vessel called "The Zephyr," which we are told is also worth a pile of money. Soon the group finds itself in hot water with a group of drug dealers who also want a stake in The Zephyr. It hardly matters. Everything about this film is discombobulated and remarkably inept. Let's start with director John Stockwell, who showed real promise with 2001's Crazy/Beautiful. His camera lingers and positions itself in full dirty old man mode as it is his main responsibility to make these already beautiful people look even better. Here's the problem: what shows onscreen feels like a voyeur's video. There are long shots of various asses and plumber's cracks (in the case of the guys), but all of this feels strangely dirty. It is so deliberate that it is unforgivable. On top of that, when the film goes completely berserk in its last twenty minutes, Stockwell's direction is nothing but a blur of random violence and people diving in and out of the "blue" water that we keep hearing so much about. Nothing makes sense, but no one cares anyway. Matt Johnson's laughable screenplay doesn't help matters at all. With enough ideas for three movies, Johnson carelessly throws in every last brain fart he can think of. We don't even have a clue what the film is really about until at least the forty-five minute mark. Never a good sign. His dialogue is forced and completely unfunny, especially since he is counting on Scott Caan's character of Bryce to be the comedic backbone. The performances are flat-out awful across the board. I have maintained for several years now that a scarecrow with stubble could easily replace Paul Walker in any given film, and that carries over here. He ranges from dead serious to laughably over-the-top - and never succeeding in either form. Jessica Alba will inevitably draw a large crowd of teenage boys, and perhaps that is her job. Her acting is ludicrous, and not even in a campy way, which would have been more than appropriate. Scott Caan continues to annoy and display faulty comedic timing on all fronts. Ashley Scott gives it a go, but also falls flat. Perhaps the biggest blown opportunity falls on Josh Brolin, who should have been hamming it up with all his might. Instead he makes for a horribly weak villain without any screen presence whatsoever. Into The Blue is a horrible miscalculation, and it can't even excel at providing a response to the animal instincts we all have. I didn't think anyone would want to challenge Alone In The Dark for worst film of the year, but Stockwell and his minions have given it a good effort. Avoid at all costs. web: http://www.fromthebalcony.com email: bill@fromthebalcony.com Copyright 2005 FromTheBalcony From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Sep 30 09:20:45 2005 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark Leeper) Date: Fri Sep 30 09:20:48 2005 Subject: Review: Lord of War (2005) Message-ID: <43387051.2070105@optonline.net> LORD OF WAR (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This is a comedy/drama that is first funny and then chilling--all the laughs are in the first half. Or perhaps it is both as the same time. Nicolas Cage plays a Ukrainian-American who gets into international arms dealing and finds he is very good at it. Once you are trapped into being interested in the characters you may find you are learning more about the business than you really wanted to know and a lot that you hope is untrue. Sadly, there seems to be a uniform real ring of truth to this discouraging story. Andrew Niccol usually writes very good scripts. He also directs. Rating: low +3 (-4 to +4) or 8/10 Under the opening credits we see a biography of the short life of a rifle shell. We follow it as it is made, as it is sold, as it moves to Russia, as it goes out in the field, and as it kills someone. Then we go from looking at the life of a bullet to the life of the man who sells it. Nicolas Cage plays Ukrainian-born Yuri Orlov, who grew up in the Little Odessa section of New York. Early on he discovered that he could get his hands on an Uzi machine gun and resell it surprisingly fast and easily. He suddenly finds this is a business in which he can make large profits for products that are always in demand. He is on the way for his life's career as an arms dealer. The first part of the film follows him on the route to success. Those heady days are reminiscent of Al Pacino's rise to power in Brian De Palma's SCARFACE. We see his skill. We also see the amazing banality of the business including the arms fairs where attractive models with AK-47s wear skimpy camouflage outfits and pose standing on fighter plane wings. There armored tanks are sold on a "buy six and get one free" basis. But it is not always so easy, and Orlov is smart and thinks on his feet in an emergency. And he has emergencies as he is tracked by Interpol agent Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke). Orlov gets the trophy wife of his dreams (Bridget Moynahan), but the world of easy money and drugs is too much for his brother (Jared Leto) to handle. Yuri Orlov is a seductively amoral animal. There is the white area of legal arms sales and the black area of illegal arms sales, but Orlov likes best to play around in the gray area between. He likes to stretch the law, but is very cautious about breaking it. He can defend his business as one that is really highly moral, in spite of appearances. His rationalizations would make Harry Lime's jaw drop in envy. Orlov is troubled by his business, but he argues well for it. Guns kill fewer people than cigarettes or cars and they come with a safety catch, he says. Most people run away from gunfire. He runs to it. Gunfire is scary for a moment, but greed is forever. And war lords and dictators always pay their arms bills on time. Orlov knows more than a few war lords and dictators on a first name basis. The president of Liberia (Andre Baptiste) he calls "Andy." LORD OF WAR takes us all over the world and has some astonishing sequences. The film is an education in itself as to how the arms business operates. It raises a lot of questions and does not settle for pre-digested answers. New Zealander Andrew Niccol wrote THE TRUMAN SHOW, a brilliant script. He wanted to direct it, but reportedly when he could not he instead got a deal to write and direct a second film, GATTACA. GATTACA is frequently named as the best science fiction film of the 1990s. S1M0NE was decent but his least popular film. He provided the story for THE TERMINAL and now he has written a script very relevant to the current world and perhaps for that reason his best script to date. Maybe Niccol's real victory here is to get us to understand the arms business. He has us see it from the point of view of one of its successful practitioners without ever condoning the business itself. Just when we start respecting Orlov's intentions we are reminded of where his reasoning leads. This is a sophisticated film that will come back to you the next time you read a newspaper. And perhaps it will stick with you a lot longer than that. I rate LORD OF WAR a low +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2005 Mark R. Leeper From homer_yen at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 09:20:47 2005 From: homer_yen at yahoo.com (Homer Yen) Date: Fri Sep 30 09:20:52 2005 Subject: Review: Just Like Heaven (2005) Message-ID: <20050927024320.95976.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "Just Like Heaven" Tolerable Afterlife by Homer Yen (c) 2005 I'm not sure how we get sold into the premise of this frothy film. In "Just Like Heaven," a couple of kindred spirits meet in a not-so-conventional way. One is the workaholic Elizabeth (Reese Witherspoon). The other is cute-guy David (Mark Ruffalo). It's a lightweight romantic comedy the relies on the sunny appeal of its lead actors rather than on its storyline. After all, you've seen one romantic comedy, you've just about seen them all, right? Fortunately, you can't go wrong with the likes of Witherspoon, who beams with sunshine and verve. She has become this generation's Meg Ryan. As a busy doctor, her sister asks her if she ever has time to meet men. Elizabeth fires back that she meets men all the time. Her sister interjects by clarifying that she means men who aren't bleeding! Before she does get to meet the man of her dreams, she has a almost-life-ending accident. Mark Ruffalo is well-cast has a counterweight to Witherspoon's chirpiness. He's disarmingly charming despite the fact that his character, David, seems to in the midst of a heartbreak. Here's a guy that needs to find a spark. And even with the void that he carries around, he has this understated sweetness that suits him for this kind of silly piece of confection. And yet, he does get to do a bit of physical comedy so that he can mix things up a bit. Call me a silly romantic, but I actually liked the film up to a point. I found many parts of the film appealing. I liked the offbeat occult bookstore employee (Jon Heder) whose spaced out demeanor was nerdy but welcome. I liked how David and Elizabeth start off as uneasy combatants but eventually warm up to each other. I liked how David and Elizabeth had a sense of otherworldly connection. A few scenes would crescendo into tear-inducing elation. It works hard to pluck the heartstrings. And "Just Like Heaven" satisfies the basic requirements of this kind of film. When you have the right pieces and you have a lovable couple, you kind of just accept things as they are presented. Despite the droll tone, the feeling of the film seems a bit off. Perhaps it's the interjection of the right-to-die argument. Perhaps it's the shift from gooey romance into a harried damsel in distress. Perhaps unfairly, I am reminded of the ultimate afterlife tearjerker film "Ghost". That film was about romance through and through in the here and in the hereafter. This one is fear and then love and then black comedy and then political statement and then a sudden lurch towards a happy ending. At one point, the film literally needed to defibrillate itself. Thank goodness for the sweet chemistry between this complimentary couple. Otherwise, this is a film that could flatline any second. Grade: C+ S: 1 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From maestrowork at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 09:20:49 2005 From: maestrowork at gmail.com (Maestro) Date: Fri Sep 30 09:20:54 2005 Subject: Review: Just Like Heaven (2005) Message-ID: <1127930271.630668.22580@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Just Like Heaven (c) 2005 Ray Wong (http://reelreviews.blogspot.com) Stars: Reese Witherspoon, Mark Ruffalo, Donal Logue, Dina Waters, Ben Shenkman, John Heder, Ivana Milicevic, Rosalind Chao Director: Mark Waters Writers: Peter Tolan, Leslie Dixon (based on Marc Levy's novel If Only It Were True) Distributor: DreamWorks SKG MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some sexual content, partial nudity Running time: 95 minutes Script - 7 Performance - 7 Direction - 8 Cinematography - 7 Music/Sound- 7 Editing - 7 Production - 7 Total Score - 7.1 out of 10 After a string of stinkers in the romantic comedy department this year, Hollywood seems to be out of ideas. At first glance, JUST LIKE HEAVEN is just like yet another paranormal romance (CHANCES ARE, CITY OF ANGELS). Surprisingly, it delivers something a little fresh and a whole lot of fun. Elizabeth Masterson (Witherspoon) is an ambitious San Francisco doctor with no personal life or friends. "Workaholic" won't even do her justice. Her nosy sister Abby (Waters) tries very hard to set her up with every eligible bachelor in town. On her way to a blind date, Elizabeth loses control of her car and comes to a head-on collision with a truck... David Abbott (Ruffalo) is a withdrawn loner who is looking for a nice apartment with a good couch. Eventually, he moves into Elizabeth's quaint apartment, which is being sublet on a month-to-month basis. At first, everything seems fine, until David starts to encounter Elizabeth's spirit. First she wants David to move out of "her" apartment, then she wants him to help her figure out who she was and what has happened to her. Then inevitably, they fall for each other, even though any romance between them seems impossible. But as they always say: love finds a way. Witherspoon (VANITY FAIR) assumes the Meg Ryan-esque role with spunk. Her portrayal of Elizabeth is somewhat two-dimensional in the beginning - we never really get a sense of why a cute, young thing like her would be such a loner. However, as we warm up to her as a spirit, her character eventually comes to life (Ironic, isn't it? Or is that intentional?) We get to see bits and pieces of Elizabeth behind that ambitious, control-freak exterior. She does a good job not making Elizabeth irritating. Ruffalo (COLLATERAL), in his full-on romantic lead role since 13 GOING ON 30, is fetching and charming in a slacker sort of way. He has a very funny scene, reminiscent of ALL OF ME, and a touching scene in which he recounts a heartbreaking tragedy. The film works because Witherspoon and Ruffalo have great chemistry together. It helps, too, when the supporting cast is up to task. Logue (AMERICAN SPLENDOR) has a lot of fun as David's gruff, womanizing psychiatrist friend. Waters (HAUNTED MANSION) plays ditzy well as Elizabeth's loopy sister, and Heder (NAPOLEON DYNAMITE) is perfect (and typecast) as the dorky guy who can communicate with spirits. Granted, JUST LIKE HEAVEN is nothing groundbreaking. In many ways, it's a standard romantic comedy with an interesting paranormal twist. The characters are often two-dimensional and some of the things they do just make me want to roll my eyes and sigh. Certain things simply defy logic. But! It's a romantic fantasy, so I'm willing to give it some leeway. The script, by Tolan (GUESS WHO) and Dixon (FREAKY FRIDAY) and based on Mark Levy's novel, is brisk in pace and rich in humor. The ghostly encounters are really funny, thanks to sharp dialogue and clever delivery from the leads. The twist in the middle is unexpected and well-executed (and thanks to smart marketing and writing, nothing is revealed in advance). Director Waters (MEAN GIRLS) excels in this type of lighthearted fluff. His storytelling is straightforward with not a frame wasted. Structurally, the film is clockwork, with every element in its right place. It's light and it does the job - putting a smile on our faces. As long as we're not looking for deeper meaning in life (there are some blatant Hollywood-style messages, of course), for those of us hopeless romantics, this could be a romantic comedy made in heaven. From maestrowork at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 09:20:51 2005 From: maestrowork at gmail.com (Maestro) Date: Fri Sep 30 09:20:57 2005 Subject: Review: The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) Message-ID: <1127930350.794165.50490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> The Exorcism of Emily Rose (c) 2005 Ray Wong (http://reelreviews.blogspot.com) Stars: Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, Campbell Scott, Jennifer Carpenter, Colm Feore, Joshua Close Director: Scott Derrickson Writers: Paul Harris Boardman, Scott Derrickson (based on a true story) Distributor: Screen Gems MPAA Rating: PG-13 for thematic material including frightening sequences, disturbing images Running time: 114 minutes Script - 8 Performance - 8 Direction - 7 Cinematography - 8 Music/Sound- 7 Editing - 8 Production - 7 Total Score - 7.6 out of 10 Billed as horror/thriller, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE is really a courtroom drama at its core. It's a case of faith, and whether or not you believe in angels and demons, this film asks a lot of good questions: "What exactly do we believe?" Fresh off from winning a murder case, Erin Bruner (Linney) is an ambitious lawyer, a rising star in her firm, hungry for opportunities and eager to become partner. Her publicity leads her to the case of Emily Rose. The Diocese wants her to defend Father Moore (Wilkinson), a parishioner accused of homicidal negligence, responsible for the death of 19-year-old Emily Rose (Carpenter). Father Moore is not afraid to go to jail and he will not accept a plea bargain. He just wants the world to hear Emily's story. Erin, on the other hand, is determined to win, but she has doubts. An agnostic herself, she is skeptical at best about demons and exorcism, and the medical case against Father Moore is very strong. Prosecutor Ethan Thomas (Scott) is himself a God-loving man, and he's determined to prove Moore's guilt. As the trial proceeds, Erin feels a grave presence surrounding her, and heaviness in her conscience. Father Moore warns her of dark forces that are set to attack her. She decides to forge ahead and, despite the Diocese's objection and the risk of losing her job, allow Father Moore to testify and tell Emily's horrific story. Linney (KINSEY) is in top form. She's beautiful, smart, and genuine. She looks and acts the part and her range of emotions is very impressive. Her characterization is one reason why the film works so well, because we have a worthy heroine to root for. Wilkinson (BATMAN BEGINS) is equally impressive as Father Moore. His quiet resolution, concerns, and vulnerability give the character such depth and weight. Scott (DUMA) is good and effective as Thomas; however, the script and his characterization don't allow us to know more about him. His character is somewhat two-dimensional. Carpenter (WHITE CHICKS) is fascinating and haunting as Emily Rose. Her angelic innocence is a stark contrast to her traumatized, tortured, possessed self. Her scenes are riveting. The rest of the cast does a fine job as well, even though their roles are minor and somewhat two-dimensional as well. Writer-director Derrickson (HELLRAISER) has crafted a unique genre of horror/thriller with this film. A courtroom drama at the core, EMILY ROSE has its horrific, intense moments. It also has an overpowering religious theme. While the film doesn't endorse one view or another, it does leave you thinking about faith. As Erin said: "Are there angels and demons? I don't know. But there's the possibility." In a way, Derrickson has grown up from his deep horror root and given us something more adult and thought-provoking. The script is generally tight and the dialogue smooth. Based on a true story, the plot has certain authenticity to it, even though the subject matter is improbable. Thus lies the central dilemma - what do we believe? Science and facts, or the supernatural and faith? The story unfolds both in real-time and flashback, and the structure is very effective. Special effects are kept to the minimal, serving the story appropriately without overpowering the film. It would have been nice to see more interaction between Bruner and Thomas, to get a fuller point of view from both sides. As it is, the film is clearly sympathetic of Father Moore's side of the story. That gives the film a slight bias, perhaps even spiritual and religious in nature. That might not bode well with those who do not subscribe to the Christian faith, or any faith at all. However, as a movie, EMILY ROSE is a fine production, with strong storytelling, themes and central characters. It has drama, horror and thrills, all done with great balance. Derrickson has stated that this may be the first courtroom horror film ever. Whether it's true or not, it doesn't matter. What matters is, this is one of the best horror-dramas of the year. If this movie does well in the box office (I suspect that it would), it may take an act of exorcism to prevent filmmakers from making more in the near future. From maestrowork at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 09:20:55 2005 From: maestrowork at gmail.com (Maestro) Date: Fri Sep 30 09:20:58 2005 Subject: Review: Flightplan (2005) Message-ID: <1127929810.545202.325960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Flightplan (c) 2005 Ray Wong (http://reelreviews.blogspot.com) Stars: Jodie Foster, Peter Sarsgaard, Sean Bean, Kate Beahan, Michael Irby, Assaf Cohen, Erika Christensen, Marlene Lawston Director: Robert Schwentke Writers: Peter A. Dowling, Billy Ray Distributor: Bruena Vista MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence and intense situations Running Time: 93 minutes Script - 7 Performance - 7 Direction - 7 Cinematography - 7 Music/Sound- 6 Editing - 8 Production - 8 Total - 7.1 out of 10 * WARNING: The following review includes a spoiler or two * What if 450 people are trapped in a transatlantic flight with nowhere to go and a little girl is missing? What if it stars Jodie Foster in her action-hero mode? You get a Hitchcockian film called PANIC ROOM AT 37,000 FEET -- oops, sorry. It's actually called FLIGHTPLAN. Kyle (Foster) is a bereaved wife whose husband recently fell to his death in Berlin. Distraught and grieve-stricken, Kyle arranges to have her husband's casket transported back to New York for a family burial, and she's taking her 6-year-old daughter Julia (Lawston) with her. Ever the protective mother, Kyle tells Julia that everything would be okay and the flight is safe because she helps design part of the jumbo jet on which they'd flight across the Atlantic. See, she knows everything about this airplane! Exhausted and having taking some sleeping pills, Kyle awakes three hours into the flight to find Julia missing. She alerts the flight crew and captain about her missing daughter. Eventually the captain and his crew suspect that Kyle is deranged and has made up the story about Julia. No one on the plane has seen the little girl, and according the flight manifest, there is no record of the girl ever existed. Worse, the captain tells Kyle the bad news: the mortuary in Berlin confirms that Julia was killed with her father a week earlier. The only person who seems remotely sympathetic is air marshal Carson (Sarsgaard). Confused and anxious, Kyle starts to question her own sanity as well, until a definitive clue tells her that Julia is real and still on the plane, and someone is playing a very dangerous game... Foster (A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT) reprises her mother-in-peril role as she did in PANIC ROOM. She is an extraordinary actress, conveying both vulnerability and strength at the same time. At times she looks so beaten it's heartbreaking, but when her triumph comes, we can't help but cheer her on. However, after PANIC ROOM, and now this, we're ready to see Foster in something different, perhaps a little gentler. Sarsgaard (SKELETON KEY) is solid as Carson. However, his portrayal of the characters -- the squint of an eye, a scrunch of the nose -- somehow betrays the suspense of the story, as we start to suspect something is not quite up-and-up with this guy. He's too eager to help. The rest of the cast have very minor roles, considering the cast of hundreds in this film. Bean (THE ISLAND) plays against type and is effective as the responsible and stern captain. Beahan (MATRIX REVOLUTIONS) is rather creepy as flight attendant Stephanie. Irby (ONCE UPON A WEDDING), Cohen (WEST BANK STORY) and Kristensen (SISTERS) serve their respective roles as would-be suspects. FLIGHTPLAN opens with a confusing flashback that sets the tone of the rest of the film. The opening sequences tell you almost nothing, and information only starts to trickle in as the story unfolds in real time. The script by first-time writer Dowling and Ray (SUSPECT ZERO) is taut with suspense and unanswered questions almost till the end. Clearly they pay homage to Hitchcock in style and storytelling techniques. Perhaps I'm a little too smart for a thriller like this, for I correctly guessed the bad guys midway through the film. But the bad guys' motives and schemes remain a mystery to me, and I like that. We keep asking the question: Why? At times, the plot seems convoluted, though. A lot of things, if you really stop and think about them, don't make much sense. For example, how could there be only one air marshal on an international flight with 450 passengers, who sits in coach (and no where near the cockpit in case of a hijacking)? Why didn't anyone see the little girl, including the ticket or gate agents? The plot is a little too clever, too perfect as if the bad guys have thought of every detail, every minor wrinkle, and every move Kyle may take. Quite impossible. As long as we can suspend our disbelief, FLIGHTPLAN is a very entertaining, nail-biting thriller. Director Schwentke (TATOO) has crafted a tight, suspenseful, well-paced story, leaving us not too many opportunities to ask silly questions like the ones I asked above. He has a deft skill and the editing is tight as well, leaving us breathless in many sequences. The ending is somewhat cheesy, I think, even for a big Hollywood movie. But I suppose it's necessary for a crowd pleaser. With a strong female lead and a tight plot with a soft heart (who can't identify with a mother losing her husband and her child?), everything will work out at the box office as planned.