From Faust668 at msn.com Tue Dec 2 11:54:57 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Dec 2 11:55:00 2008 Subject: Retrospective: National Lampoon Goes to the Movies (1982) Message-ID: NATIONAL LAMPOON GOES TO THE MOVIES (1982) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Zero Stars Comedy is subjective. Some people find Mel Brooks hysterical, others not so much. But I cannot imagine a single soul finding anything of comedic value in "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" which is the worst comedy I've ever seen. Let me make that painstakingly clear once more: it is the WORST COMEDY I'VE EVER SEEN. EVER. In the history of the comedy genre, nothing is WORSE than this movie. NOT ONE! Let me make things even clearer. When a studio bankrolls a movie project, usually there is hope that money will be made, even if the film is garbage. However, I do honestly believe, having read several behind-the-scenes books on filmmaking, that everyone involved does it give their best shot and hopes for the best. I do not believe this was the case with "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies, not at all. I don't believe that directors Henry Jaglom (who has made good films) and Bob Giraldi had any intention of making anything worthwile. I will go so far as to say that if anyone ever directly asked Jaglom or Giraldi of their intentions with this film, they would concur that, yes, they intended to make a worthless pile of horse manure, with extra steam rising from it to stink up any theatre showing it within a five mile radius. But let's give a brief rundown of everything that goes wrong from the start. The opening segment entitled "Personal Growth" (and presumably a parody of "Kramer vs. Kramer") has Peter Riegert as a corporate lawyer who throws his wife out of the house (thanklessly played by Candy Clark). The reason? It is time for her to grow, although they are reasonably happily married. The movie sets off on the wrong foot of cinematic ineptitude when Riegert packs up a suitcase for his wife, with everything she presumably owns, including her Tampax. Everything just barely fits in the suitcase. How is that funny? Riegert doesn't fret over not being able to close the suitcase or drop it with everything flying out of the suitcase like a bomb went off - he succeeds admirably. What if the suitcase was the size of a room and everything she owned just barely fit in there (like her wardrobe?) Or what if he thought so little of her that he packed a wallet-size suitcase that just barely fit her toothbrush? This segment plays it straight with no jokes at all, none. An apartment full of plants is not funny. A child left behind on a fire engine is not funny. A woman kidnapping a boy in a New York City bus is not funny. The movie assumes it is funny without a single punchline or joke. The best it can do is to show big breasts and that, my friends, is not automatically funny. There are more laughs when Dustin Hoffman was trying to make French Toast in "Kramer vs. Kramer" than in this segment. The next parodic segment is even worse. I'll only mention the second segment because I could not make it through the third. It is called "Success Wanters" (presumably a parody of Harold Robbins and TV's "Dallas") and it has a stripteaser (Ann Dusenberry) who is raped by businessmen who yell something along the lines of "Butter Bang!" Yes, Virginia, she is raped with sticks of butter! Sorry Miss Virginia! And to make matters worse, she takes over the margarine business (!) by giving head to the head of the margarine corporation (Robert Culp). Eventually this all leads to tasteless one-liners involving incest, heavy bracelets that can cause turbulence in a plane (Don't ask) and margarine sticks that are dropped on the floor of the margarine plant and put back on the conveyor belt for consumption. Yeah, funny. "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" is more than just a painfully unfunny comedy - it made me sick and sad for the human race that such garbage ever got recorded on celluloid. It gave me pain to watch it, and left me in such despair that I could not suffer through another segment of this shite (even the knowledge that Richard Widmark appears in the third segment makes me sadder). There are only three other films that I've ever stopped watching because of such pain - this National Lampoon film can safely be added to the list. This is not a recommendation. Footnote: The other three films I could not sit through were "Caligula," "P.K. and the Kid" and "The Stupids." For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From homeryen88 at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 11:56:02 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Tue Dec 2 11:56:06 2008 Subject: Review: Australia (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000811301608he33b12m50ef1c941f6d222e@mail.gmail.com> "Australia" - As Vast as the Outback by Homer Yen (c) 2008 For those of you that do watch the film, the consensus will be mixed. And I'll certainly offer my thoughts in just a few moments. But one thing that we can all agree upon is that "Australia" is certainly one of the best looking films that you'll see this year. It has high production values. It features breathtaking beauty. It has some great special effects. And, Hugh Jackman is a cowboy's cowboy while Nicole Kidman triumphantly exonerates herself from last year's "Golden Compass" debacle. Let's start with our two stars. The Sexiest Man Alive (Jackman, as noted in a recent poll) plays a cattle herder named Drover. And he gets a few select scenes to show how sexy and romantic and manly he is. Drover's whole life revolves around the cattle drive. He makes good money when doing it, and he's very good at what he does. He enjoys the freedom that comes with freelancing. He relishes the open sky. He's as free and as unbridled as the wild horses that roam the countryside. Opposite him is the English aristocrat Lady Ashley (Kidman). She comes to Australia to oversee a family-owned cattle station that has fallen into disarray. She is clearly out of her element, looking little like a sturdy business head and more like a competitor in a steeplechase. The enormous difference across class lines, coupled with the scope of the film, is the DNA of any great old-fashioned melodrama. Add in the prismatic skyline, the expansive beauty of the open territory, imminent war, and the feel of 'what-an-amazing-period-that-must-have-been', and it's hard to go wrong. And, for the first half, it's nearly flawless as the Aristocrat and the Cowboy join forces. The military is willing to purchase her livestock. The profits can in turn be reinvested back into her business so that they may once again prosper. They need to avoid a competing cattle baron that wants to ruin Lady Ashley. Yes, this is prime stuff. The film is punctuated by a desperate attempt to herd 1500 head of cattle across hundreds of miles of the country's most unforgiving land. On their journey, they contend with unexplained spiritual forces, evil-doing henchman, and even the death of loved ones. On such a long and dangerous trek, both cattle and human life will be lost. There is definitely a sense of triumph at the conclusion of this first act. And we can credit Lady Ashley for that as she grows up to meet the demands of the situation. In the second act, with war at Australia's footsteps, different challenges present themselves. There is the fate of a half-white/half-Aborigines boy. There is the test of love and devotion. There is the ongoing feud between Lady Ashley and the cattle barons. Yet, whereas it was Lady Ashley that had to grow up in Act 1, it is Drover that must grow up to meet the demands of his situation in Act 2. Call me biased, but I liked Drover better as the hard-driving, punishment-dealing, free-spirited cattle herder much better than the wartime romantic. His persona dulls. His wild-horse character becomes tame. I'll just leave it at that. The film's epic scope is as vast as the Australian Outback. But, it eventually becomes as long as her shoreline. Like the stock market, there'll be euphoria and there'll be disappointment. As a romance epic set against the backdrop of war, it's not quite as engrossing as "Atonement". Yet, because it is such a beautifully made film and the chemistry between the two leading actors certainly come through, I can honestly say: "what-an-amazing-period-that-must-have-been!" Grade: B S: 1 out of 3 L: 2 out of 3 V: 2.5 out of 3 From Faust668 at msn.com Tue Dec 2 11:57:29 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Dec 2 11:57:31 2008 Subject: Retrospective: Which Way is Up? (1977) Message-ID: <7c2f3edc-1eb8-4cf3-98c9-82f52cf16157@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> WHICH WAY IS UP? (1977) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: One star and a half I love Richard Pryor when he plays slightly against type, as in "Blue Collar" or even "Joe Dancer." The problem may be that he can act and play it straight but needs the right material and, frankly, a remake of Lina Wertmuller's "The Seduction of Mimi" is not the best choice. "Which Way is Up?" stars Pryor as Leroy Jones, an incompetent California orange-picker who inadvertently stands up for the little guy - a labor union (Unions were often the subject of films in the 1970's like "F.I.S.T" and "Norma Rae"). Pretty soon he is forced out of town, away from his family, unemployed, until he finds work as a painter. He's also smitten with Vanetta (Lonette McKee), who asks him to not make love with anyone except her. Before you know it, Leroy has climbed up the corporate ladder as a foreman. He also has to juggle two lives, one with the woman from the city, and one with his wife from his hometown. Before long, the movie's plot gets frenzied when his wife has a baby with the local Reverend, and has a baby as well. Oh, and there's the matter of Sister Sarah, corporate guys in limos waving their shiny, sparkling rings, and Pryor's old pal and co-writer for his stand-up act, Paul Mooney. I admire the intentions in "Which Way is Up?" and I do admire Pryor's acting, especially playing three different roles (his role as Rufus Jones, Leroy's father, is hilarious even if it smacks of minstrel stereotyping). The fault lies with the fact that not much of this film is funny - director Michael Schultz uneasily blends comedy with drama punched up with some form of social injustice. But is it ultimately a film about corrupt unions, infidelity, religious hypocrisy, or a showcase for Pryor's comic talents? Hard to say since it doesn't fully accomplish any of its goals due to strained humor and often lackluster direction. I suppose the key to it is that when Leroy used to be a hero for the little guy, he has sold out to "the Man." Still, the film kept me somewhat involved since I only wanted to see how this mess would end. "Which Way is Up?" is not a spectacularly bad film but it is uneven, uncertain and only contains one or two good chuckles. Forget up or down, which way is it to the nearest exit? 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 page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Tue Dec 2 11:58:51 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Dec 2 11:58:55 2008 Subject: Review: Juno (2007) Message-ID: <45ed0c47-4955-49aa-9187-119bb7bbc2f5@y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> JUNO (2007) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Four stars You know you've seen a great film when, after you have finished watching it, you are not sure of what you have just seen. I used to feel that way often but not as much anymore with today's current cinema. "Juno" is something of a masterstroke that will take me days to really think about what I've seen. Usually this requires another viewing to be sure I am not shortchanging the experience or that I am overrating it, but I don't think that is the case here. "Juno" is a brilliant comic and dramatic marvel of a movie, a genuine feel-good movie that is completely unsentimental and yet so heartwarming, so truthful and so winsome that it is one of the few irresistible movies I've seen in the 2000 decade. Ellen Page plays the most arresting, smartest, disarming, ironic teenager I've seen since Thora Birch in "Ghost World." She is Juno, a 16-year-old high-school girl who speaks in ironic tones and uses language that even the Droogs would have trouble understanding. In the opening scene, she gets a pregnancy test and finds out she is pregnant (the plus sign looked like a division sign). She had sex as an experiment with her best friend, Paulie (Michael Cera), who approaches life with a nonchalant slight ironic tilt of the head - these two deserve each other. Juno considers abortion but hates how the clinic treats her. Then she finds an ad in the Pennysavers with the headline, "Desperately Seeking Spawn," thanks to her other best friend, Leah (Olivia Thirby). Juno has an epiphany and feels she has to give birth and give the child to good parents. They are Mark (Jason Bateman), a commercial jingle writer/Sonic Youth enthusiast with bigger musical aspirations, and Vanessa (Jennifer Garner), who senses her purpose in life is to be a mother. All Juno has to do is give birth, despite complications with school, and tell her parents, Mac (J.K. Simmons) and stepmom Bren (Allison Janney) who would rather hear she was expelled from school than being pregnant. As written by debuting writer Diablo Cody, "Juno" juggles all kinds of characters in refreshingly simple yet complicated ways. Most refreshing is the lead character, Juno, a smart aleck but not fully, though she is self-aware and doesn't seem to worry about much of anything - she (and Ellen Page) are too wise and mature for their years. Juno can see through people yet is nonjudgmental (especially towards a classmate who holds up an anti-abortion sign in front of the abortion clinic). She can be as witty and sassy as her stepmother, who holds her own with a disapproving assistant during a sonar scan. Juno doesn't hate anyone or necessarily love or hate herself - she is a selfless teenager with her own moral compass (that is even more refreshing than you might think in today's climate) and she doesn't expect everyone to adhere to it. Juno is one of the most unpredictable and articulate characters in modern movies. Other formidably drawn characters are Mark, the uncertain parent-to-be who would rather rock with a band than with a baby. He also develops an unspoken affection for Juno (they bond over their love for horror movies), as if she was the kind of girl he had been looking for all his life. There is his wife, Vanessa, who is simply looking to love and nurture a baby, more so than Mark, though one gets the feeling they are not meant for each other. And last but certainly not least is Paulie, the kid who is not quite a nerd but not quite a troublemaker - he is the silent partner who loves Juno probably more than he suspects. As played by Michael Cera (whom I admired in TV's cult classic series, "Arrested Development"), he seems smarter than his years, also able to see past people's superficial nature. Again, I am not sure I can fully encapsulate the high I felt after watching "Juno." This is an odd, spectacularly funny and very charming film about grown-ups who express their feelings by intuition, or at least when they feel it is right. Sometimes a nod or a smile says more than actual dialogue and writer Cody and director Jason Reitman (who is on his own high after having a smashing debut with "Thank You For Smoking") have fully realized their material. You'll notice that I said this film is about grown-ups, despite being mostly about teenagers. Juno is all grown-up before she grows up. Now that's maturity. 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 page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From homeryen88 at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 12:00:21 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Tue Dec 2 12:00:24 2008 Subject: Review: Transporter 3 (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000811280816n4a9a3f5dy1443e2845b28959c@mail.gmail.com> "Transporter 3" - Mindless Fun by Homer Yen (c) 2008 Jason Statham. Chase scenes. Choreographed martial arts sequences. A girl who is as functional and as pretty as a hood ornament. Listen guys, this really isn't the kind of film where you think about whether you want to invest the entry fee. Either you are or you aren't. If you are, it's because of five basic reasons. 1) Jason Statham; 2) chase scenes (lots of them and all very cool); 3) martial arts sequences; 4) a pretty girl; and 5) you've tolerated the first two film of the series, which I would also categorize as mindless fun, so why not come back for thirds? The main reason not to bother is because if you are craving for action, there's another action film starring another equally sexy Brit in the same theatre. And while I like the hyper-tuned Audi that is featured in "Transporter 3", it doesn't have quite the same flair as the Aston Martin. So for all of you who have seen "Transporter 3" or are planning to see it, I can say, however, that this one is actually the best of the three in several ways. The plot, while opaque at first, is more interesting that the first two. Frank (Statham) is more reluctant this time around, and has his back against the wall more often than not thanks to a plot device that keeps him near his car. This gives him ample opportunities to drive really, really fast. The look of the film is very handsome, featuring some of the nicest scenery that rivals the places seen in 007 films. And Statham sports a toned body, excellent abs, and a reluctant hero/tough-guy demeanor that perfectly fits this kind of film. The hallmarks of these films are the various chase sequences. And there are some memorable stunts (or CGI-created sequences). One involves an extended chase that begins on a narrow two-lane highway, continues with an unbelievable maneuver to pass by two 18-wheelers, and ends on a mountainside dirt road. Another one that has to make you grin is where Frank commandeers a bicycle to pursue the bad guys. On the flip side, the decision to give Frank a little more character development by showcasing him as a gourmand (in addition to driver/fighter) seemed just bizarre. Meanwhile, there is absolutely no chemistry between him and his female companion, and when the obligatory kiss comes, it qualifies as The Most Unlikely Screen Couple in cinematic history. Regarding the girl (Natalya Rudakova), you've never seen anyone so equally cute and vapid at the same time. However, all of these films have featured soft sex kittens rather than strong female leads, so she keeps the status quo. The movie will hold your attention. Jason Statham is a good action hero, although I fear that all of his films will involve a car. He's an excellent bodyguard and certainly someone that will cause you to think twice before engaging him in melee. The villains are also charismatic and menacing. It's always funny to see the top villain punish his subordinates who fail. And Audi scores a coup for its nice looking car. "Transporter 3" isn't a great film. But it is a guilty pleasure. Grade: C+ S: 1 out of 3 L: 2 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From Faust668 at msn.com Tue Dec 2 12:02:45 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Dec 2 12:02:47 2008 Subject: Review: No Country For Old Men (2007) Message-ID: <47a994bc-b013-439b-a844-bd79047b870c@y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Four Stars As if the Coens didn't surprise me enough with their every directorial endeavor, "No Country for Old Men" is a massively engrossing western noir tale that is so steeped in mystery, violence and sublime storytelling that I cannot lavish enough praise. Yes, it is violent and may contain some offputing elements that have turned off some audiences (the killing of a dog, the far-out though not so ambiguous finish) but it is quite simply the best damn Coens flick ever made, far surpassing "Fargo" and "The Man Who Wasn't There," already my absolute favorites from this dynamic duo. The movie begins with Tommy Lee Jones's narration over desolate shots of the Texas desert, explaining how today's criminals (including the mention of a teenage killer) have no sense of consequences in committing murders - they do it just to do it, not even for the thrill of it. He can't grasp these criminals and their thought processes. All this is made to seem melancholic, especially since they are the words of a local sheriff who has seen it all and may just be sick of it all too. A silent killer is on the loose, known as Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), who kills his victims with an air gun! He has the longer bowl haircut of Moe from the Three Stooges, wears black denim clothing, and has a plastered, Joker-like grin after he strangles a police officer that is chilling in its resplendence, almost a sense of orgasmic pleasure. Other times, he operates like the Terminator, killing with pin-point accuracy and nary an emotion. Interestingly, he sometimes offers his victims the choice of fate by flipping a quarter. Never is this made more dramatic and thrilling than in the memorable scene where Chigurh plays with fate with a gas station owner. It is so chilling and so scarily constructed, especially in terms of crisp dialogue, that it will leave you breathless. Every scene in "No Country for Old Men" operates on this level. We also have Josh Brolin as Llewelyn Moss, a cowboy who loves to hunt antelope. He comes across a massacre that involved shady drug deals and lots of corpses. Moss observes and comes back to the scene of the crime at night, steals the briefcase of cash and finds himself on the run from Chigurh (whom we learn is a hitman). Tommy Lee Jones is Ed Tom Bell, the sheriff, who is more surprised by the method by which Chigurh kills his victims than anything else. Based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy, I wish not to say much more about "No Country for Old Men" except that it is an extraordinarily powerful, suspenseful and deeply moralistic film, and is played almost as a silent film with little to no music at all. This enhances each and every scene in the film, with moments of silence broken by gunfire or ambient sounds. Nothing is executed more beautifully by the Coens than Moss's struggle to get his bag of cash from out of a vent, or Chigurh nursing his wounds and stitching himself back together, or watching Sheriff Bell observing the evil that men do against the desert backdrop while trying to find clues to crimes that leave him nonplussed, or even Moss aiming his rifle at a herd in what looks like moments from a John Ford mixed with Sam Peckinpah western. The morality of the film is determined by the risks that Moss and Chigurh make in their hourly decisions as they are always on the move. Neither men actually meet, except for a brief shootout, and they are always just barely crossing each other on the road. It is a film of pure dread and silence met with violence entering the lives of those who least expect it, and those who expect nothing less. That dichotomy, not to mention some richly memorable supporting characters, gives the film weight and texture. The Coens have made some great films and some not so wonderful - "No Country for Old Men" is their ultimate masterpiece. 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 page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Tue Dec 2 12:03:24 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Dec 2 12:03:27 2008 Subject: Retrospective: The World's Greatest Sinner (1962) Message-ID: <8d59e6d1-0648-4b9d-a839-5291319b956f@j11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> THE WORLD'S GREATEST SINNER (1962) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars and a half I don't think I have seen or will see anything remotely like "The World's Greatest Sinner" again in my lifetime. This is one zonked-out, hyperactive, jumbled though very effective film that is hard to forget, and should be harder to resist. I don't know how else to describe it except if Elvis Presley had ever done a movie where he played a cult leader, it might look like this. The late Timothy Carey ("The Killing," "Paths of Glory") plays Clarence, an insurance agent who is sick of his job, gets fired and doesn't seem to care. He has a family to support but he gets a vision of being something more - a messiah for the masses where he can speak the truth, though what that truth is escapes me (something about how life is hell and how to become a superhuman being). He recruits anyone who is willing to join, regardless of race, creed or color, and goes so far as to call himself God! Sacrilege! Clarence goes even further by seducing an elderly woman to finance his group! All the great leaders must have some facial hair, so he adopts a fake goatee (and eventually grows his own). He sings rock' roll tunes (all written by the late Frank Zappa before he became famous) wearing a silver, glittery suit while he gyrates like Elvis and James Brown and screams, "Please, please, please!" He alienates his family when his developing cult group begin wearing arm bands with the letter "G" on them (uh, oh). And eventually, Clarence makes a deal with the Devil himself to break into politics and run for President of the United States. Things can only get worse in this Faustian tale. I have heard of "The World's Greatest Sinner" for years - some have declared it awful and overly theatrical, while others see it as some sort of work of inspired genius. I agree with the latter. Timothy Carey's strange performance of histrionic body language, hypnotic drawl, and occasional trademark of closing his eyes while speaking and listening echoes an erratic energy that is tantalizing to witness (all I can say is that he is the precursor to Nicolas Cage). He is the star of this movie, and is about as berserk on screen as any actor can humanly be. "World's Greatest Sinner" is haphazardly edited and directed by Timothy himself, but that is acceptable since the bizarre nature of the material go hand in hand with the filmmaking. If nothing else, this movie serves as an indictment of cultish leaders (we have seen our fair share since 1962 which is when this was filmed) and the corruption of the human soul where one thinks they can test God's will (that is the actual Almighty and not the main character). Love it or hate it, "World's Greatest Sinner" is unforgettable, riveting underground cinema. 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 page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Wed Dec 3 13:11:48 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Wed Dec 3 13:11:50 2008 Subject: Retrospective: Which Way is Up? (1977) Message-ID: <478a1a56-7e42-4143-924e-e0d365d13dbe@v4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> WHICH WAY IS UP? (1977) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: One star and a half I love Richard Pryor when he plays slightly against type, as in "Blue Collar" or even "Joe Dancer." The problem may be that he can act and play it straight but needs the right material and, frankly, a remake of Lina Wertmuller's "The Seduction of Mimi" is not the best choice. "Which Way is Up?" stars Pryor as Leroy Jones, an incompetent California orange-picker who inadvertently stands up for the little guy - a labor union (Unions were often the subject of films in the 1970's like "F.I.S.T" and "Norma Rae"). Pretty soon he is forced out of town, away from his family, unemployed, until he finds work as a contract painter. He's also smitten with Vanetta (Lonette McKee), who asks him to not make love with anyone except her. Before you know it, Leroy has climbed up the corporate ladder as a foreman. He also has to juggle two lives, one with Vanetta from the city (whom he does marry), and one with his wife from his hometown (Margaret Avery). Before long, the movie's plot gets frenzied when his wife has a baby with the local Reverend, and Vanetta has a baby as well whom he raises (the movie makes clear that years have passed since he raises the child, and the story completely ignores his hometown wife). Oh, and there's the matter of Sister Sarah, corporate guys in limos waving their shiny, sparkling rings, and Pryor's old pal and co-writer for his stand-ups, Paul Mooney, in a very brief role. I admire the intentions in "Which Way is Up?" and I do admire Pryor's acting, especially playing three different roles (his role as Rufus Jones, Leroy's father, is hilarious even if it smacks of minstrel stereotyping). The fault lies with the fact that not much of this film is funny - director Michael Schultz uneasily blends comedy with drama punched up with some form of social injustice. But is it ultimately a film about corrupt unions, infidelity, religious hypocrisy, or a showcase for Pryor's comic talents? Hard to say since it doesn't fully accomplish any of its goals due to strained humor and often lackluster direction. I suppose the key to it is that when Leroy used to be a hero for the little guy, he has sold out to "the Man." Still, the film kept me somewhat involved since I only wanted to see how this mess would end. "Which Way is Up?" is not a spectacularly bad film but it is uneven, uncertain and only contains one or two good chuckles. Forget up or down, which way is it to the nearest exit? 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 page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Dec 3 13:12:30 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Dec 3 13:12:32 2008 Subject: Review: Happy-Go-Lucky (2008) Message-ID: HAPPY-GO-LUCKY (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: The title describes Poppy, a London grade school teacher whose irrepressibly positive attitude is stronger than cast iron. That is it. There is very little plot to HAPPY-GO-LUCKY. We just watch Poppy live her life and watch her keeping her sunny side up against high odds. With lesser acting or direction Poppy could have ended up seeming like a candidate for Sesame Street or perhaps professional care. But Poppy has more depth than that, and she easily gets the viewer on her side. Director Mike Leigh counterbalances his last film, VERA DRAKE, with one that is lighter and more pleasant. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 There is not a lot happening in Mike Leigh's HAPPY-GO-LUCKY. Or perhaps there is more than meets the eye. We follow around Poppy (played by Sally Hawkins), who has an absolutely unalterably positive attitude and a perpetual smile on her face. We keep waiting for something really nasty to happen to Poppy to wipe that smile off her face. After all, this is a film by Mike Leigh, who made the tragic VERA DRAKE. Poppy bounces off of three different difficult people. First there is the class bully in the third or fourth grade class that Poppy teaches. Second there is Poppy's flamenco teacher (played by Karina Fernandez) for whom the soul of the flamenco dance is rage and selfishness. The first step of flamenco is to stamp your feet while thinking, "MY SPACE! (Stamp. Stamp.) MY SPACE!" Darkest of all the dark people in Poppy's life is Steve (played by comedian Eddie Marsan), Poppy's new driving instructor. At age thirty Poppy is learning to drive. Steve is rage in human form as he browbeats his students and shouts commands. He has named the three rear-view mirrors after fallen angels and shouts the names of the angels when he wants Poppy to check the mirrors. Poppy takes all this in her superhuman stride. The film is not so much a story as a study of Poppy as she goes through her life and interacts with difficult people, rarely losing her smile or her radiance. On the other hand Poppy's life includes her flat-mate Zoe (Alexis Zegerman), a bright spot in Poppy's relationships. When they get together each seems to be like catnip for the other. These may be some of the only sequences that go awry under Leigh's direction. Poppy and Zoe find each other a lot funnier than we find either of them. They seem to go into drugged-line paroxysms of laughter. Mike Leigh seems to have had a great time writing about this woman who uses her sunny attitude as armor against life and more surprisingly finds that it works for her. Sally Hawkins could be a lot like the British equivalent of Anne Hathaway. It takes a certain amount of charm to keep a character like Poppy from grating on the audience and Hawkins has a light enough touch. Steve Marsan is nothing but grating, but that is the idea. In his own way he is as good at what he does as Hawkins is at doing the opposite. Underneath it all is the question of just how much ones attitude shapes ones circumstances. More than once Poppy takes risks that the rest of us would not. In a more noir film Poppy's behavior might seem to be foolish. But on balance she seems to come through okay. I rate HAPPY-GO-LUCKY a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. The accents make some of the dialog difficult to follow for some of us Yanks. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From Faust668 at msn.com Thu Dec 11 19:09:24 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Thu Dec 11 19:09:27 2008 Subject: Review: Shine a Light (2008) Message-ID: <95a3e9bc-e470-41dc-9b22-385306f28bbe@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> SHINE A LIGHT (2008) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Four stars "Shine a Light" is a smashing entertainment - an electrifying concert film that will rev you up and make your eyeballs pop out of your head. The fact that it is the Rolling Stones performing should be enough to keep you elated but the fact that Martin Scorsese directs it is more than just praise - it was inevitable these two forces of rock and roll would come together. The film was shot over two nights at the Beacon Theatre in New York City in late October 2006, as a benefit for the Clinton Foundation (Bill and Hillary Clinton can be seen briefly). Reportedly, the theatre was so small for a filmed concert that certain seats from the front had to be cut out so the cameras could fit (someone who attended the concert told me this was the case and a matter of inconvenience for the patrons). Nevertheless, what was filmed is truly spectacular. The Stones come on stage with an unabashed fury and resonance that I didn't see before in any prior Stones film. The 63-year-old singer Mick Jagger struts and dances and runs across the stage and through a catwalk-of-sorts that is a sight to see - a man in his sixties doing such voluminous body language is actually inspiring. Keith Richards picks that guitar and plays it like a demon, as does Ron Wood who both admit they play badly when they are not playing together. And it is wonderful to see straight-faced Charlie Watts playing the drums and even winking slightly to the camera. These performances are awe- inspiring and proof that this band is unstoppable and as spry as ever. They have also maintained their humor, especially craggy-faced Keith who quips to the audience: "It's good to see you all. It is good to see anyone!" Just as demonic and ferocious in his fast-talking, humorous ways is Martin Scorsese. Seen briefly in the opening backstage scenes, trying to figure out what the playlist selections will be so he knows where to position the cameras (or knowing something as important as when Keith Richards will start riffing on his guitar in any opening number), Scorsese seems nervous yet cocksure - this is the Stones and he has used their music in his films. He has many cameras (sixteen of them) that will swoop up and down and come from the sides as furiously as the Stones will be on stage. "Shine a Light" is not a medidation on a band like Scorsese's "The Last Waltz" was on The Band. In fact, whereas "Last Waltz" was melancholic and had the occasional energy of a depleted band performing one last hurrah, "Shine a Light" is quixotic and a huge rush of caffeinated energy, with dazzling, dizzying camera shots from overhead and at low-angles, all cut together seamlessly. Not one inch of the stage is uncovered, not one performer is left out, not one close-up is omitted - this film is highly energized in its filmmaking, and it is actually up to the Stones to catch up with the cameras. Occasionally, the film cuts to old documentary footage of the band, especially to some prophetic words from Mick Jagger as to whether they will be performing in their sixties. "Shine a Light's" chief concerns are with the glorious Stones, and showing them perform with gusto and verve. I would not say this film is better than the chilling "Gimme Shelter" or that it is as awesome in its staging as in "At the Max" (if you have never seen it, do check it out). And yet, because of the show-stopping tunes and the showstopping band giving it 110% in ways never quite captured before on film, and using the intimate Beacon theatre as its stage, "Shine a Light" may well be the definitive, modern Rolling Stones concert film. For 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 page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From mleeper at optonline.net Thu Dec 11 19:10:12 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Dec 11 19:10:14 2008 Subject: Review: Slumdog Millionaire (2008) Message-ID: SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: An 18-year-old street boy tells the story of his life to a police commissioner. He has been arrested on suspicion of cheating for answering too many questions on a television quiz show. Each episode in his life explains how he knew one of the questions he was asked on the show. Together the chapters form a mosaic of the life of a Muslim street child on the streets of Mumbai, India. Much of the story seems distorted for melodramatic effect. The concept of the film makes it seem light, but the first reel is very violent and perhaps harrowing. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is a look at life in modern day India from the bottom up. The main character is Jamal Malik, who at an early age was a "slumdog." Slumdogs seem to be parentless children living wild in the streets who frequently die early or grow into gangsters. Jamal has a chance at something a little better. He is on the Hindi version of the popular quiz program "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" In fact, he has gone higher in the program than anyone else ever has. And the police want to know how can a slumdog without an education do so well without cheating? But Jamal claims he really knew all the answers. Each question he answered he knew from some chapter in his life. He tells the police this story of his life by telling them the incidents from which he knew the answers to the questions. We flash back and forth from the recent past on the quiz show where he is browbeaten and manipulated by the show host to the more distant pass when Jamal's integrity and character are formed by the beatings he gets in school and the predators he has to fight off and escape from. The chapters Jamal describes add up to a very disturbing view of lives of crime, violence, and religious strife. We see an operation that turns healthy children into maimed beggars. We see some of the Bombay Riots of 1992 and 1993. There is slavery. Eventually the film turns into more of a crime film. The crime portion of the film reaches his climax at the same time that Jamal is one step away from the highest prize on the quiz show. Even when we get to the quiz show, where we would be expecting more civilized behavior, Jamal still has to defend his life against a system that is rotten throughout. Eclectic director Danny Boyle has given us such diverse films as TRAINSPOTTING, 28 DAYS LATER, MILLIONS, and SUNSHINE (2007). To make this film in India he can leverage from the lower costs and use the resources of the largest film industry in the world, the Bombay (a.k.a. Mumbai) film industry. He even incorporated a Bollywood-like dance production number. Most of the actors are Indian and will not be familiar to American audiences. One exception might be the Police Inspector played by Irfan Khan. Khan has been in several major films seen internationally of late. His keystone performance as far as the international audience is concerned was as Ashoke the husband in Mira Nair's very fine film THE NAMESAKE. Since then he has also been seen in A MIGHTY HEART and THE DARJEELING LIMITED. The premise of the film is extremely contrived. Jamal does not have broad knowledge. He just happens to learn the answers to each question, each in a different chapter of his life and each in the same order the questions were asked on the quiz show. The odds against this happening must be colossal. The fact that his personal story and the story of his stint on the quiz show both reach their climax at the same time is also seems a bit artificial. This is a minor point of the film, but it really stands out for me. Not only does the Mumbai police kidnap the main character, but he is (semi-graphically) tortured. And he is arrested and tortured only on a suspicion of cheating on a quiz show, and the charge is based on an accusation of just one person who has no official standing. It is bad enough if the police routinely torture suspects, but if they do this on only one person's biased accusation then something is rotten in the state of Maharashtra. It may cause even more controversy because, though the film was shot in India, it is a British/American co-production directed by Danny Boyle. So SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is made by outsiders but it is based on a novel by an Indian, Vikas Swarup. It is hard to tell if the brutality of the system is entirely real, but the story is engaging. I rate SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From dnb at dca.net Thu Dec 11 19:35:52 2008 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Thu Dec 11 19:35:55 2008 Subject: Review: Rachel Getting Married (2008) Message-ID: <200812072045.mB7KjMR26989@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> RACHEL GETTING MARRIED A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2008 David N. Butterworth ***1/2 (out of ****) Anne Hathaway has never really done much for me. Probably the first time I remember seeing her was in "The Princess Diaries" (although she'd been in 13 episodes of "Get Real" on TV before that, playing a character named Meghan Green). I didn't exactly notice her in "'Diaries," since that film was such a rags-to-riches dog, and the very doggishness of the entire production tended to distract one from whatever Hathaway might have contributed to the piece, good or bad. She was in "The Devil Wears Prada," of course, but again so obviously upstaged by Meryl Streep (channeling Glenn Close's Cruella De Vil) that, as a result, she kind of slunk into the background also. I *did* notice her breasts in "Brokeback Mountain" and remembered being woefully disappointed by that. I mean, I understand that Ang Lee's a cool director an' all but even so... As far as I remember that scene in the pick-up truck didn't necessitate toplessness. A brassiere would've just as easily sufficed. Now Ms. Hathaway is starring, front and center, in Jonathan Demme's new feature "Rachel Getting Married" and she's hard *not* to notice. And I mean that in a good way--a *very* good way. Hathaway sports a dyed black crop as Kym, nine months free of abusing substances and released from rehab in time for her sister Rachel's upcoming nuptials. Unconditional love and acceptance here we come--not! Chain-smoking her sorry way through life, Kym feels the disapproval and embarrassment of her family at every turn, and attempts to make amends (the 12-step way) via a poorly received Maid of Honor speech. But, as she points out, being Mother Theresa wouldn't exactly satisfy her clan. As events unfold we learn the whys and the wherefores of Kym's hospitalization, her parents divorce (her somewhat distant mother is played by Debra Winger in a scarily real performance), her sister's disappointment. "Scarily real," in fact, describes "Rachel Getting Married" to a tee. Director Demme shoots most everything with a dispassionate hand-held camera that evokes the fine Danish drama "The Celebration," which centered around a family reunion not unlike this one, captured the tense, dramatic events via a natural filmmaking style, and featured an actor, Ulrich Thomsen, who looks not unlike Bill Irwin here (Irwin plays the patriarch and his is a fine performance too, as is Rosemarie DeWitt's as the eponymous Rachel). This cinĂ(c)ma vĂ(c)ritĂ(c) approach of Demme's is so convincing it's often hard to remember we're watching a fictionalized drama (the recent "Margot at the Wedding" tackled similar dysfunctional family themes with less successful results). The wedding dinner scene, during which many a toast is proffered, is a striking example of how this talented director applies his chosen technique. Demme also has a knack for drawing out fine performances (see: "The Silence of the Lambs") and Hathaway is the best she's been. Self-absorbed and narcissistic, Kym is not intrinsically likable but Hathaway ditches her own lightweight image by bringing out her character's emotional core. Credit should also go to Jenny Lumet (daughter of veteran director Sydney Lumet), whose finely realized screenplay neither skirts nor overplays the issues. Rachel gets married, but it's Anne who gets the cred. -- David N. Butterworth, Film Editor www.offoffoff.com/film | dnb@dca.net From dnb at dca.net Thu Dec 11 19:40:30 2008 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Thu Dec 11 19:40:33 2008 Subject: Review: Changeling (2008) Message-ID: <200812072049.mB7KnxR28796@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> CHANGELING A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2008 David N. Butterworth **1/2 (out of ****) The last time Angelina Jolie did a stint in the loony bin she wound up winning an OscarÂ(r) for her pains (Best Supporting Actress for "Girl, Interrupted") and I daresay that realization wasn't far from her mind when she opted to star in Clint Eastwood's latest film Changeling, a period drama about a single mom who's unceremoniously institutionalized by the L.A.P.D. when her 9-year-old son goes missing, shows up five months later, and is denounced by Christine Collins (Jolie) as not being her son. This happens after Collins takes "Walter" home, for a "trial period," while the flashbulbs burst and the Police Department, who supposedly found the boy in Dekalb, Ill., spat and polished up their tarnished reputation. The story (by J. Michael Straczynski) is an earnest one, leading to one of the most despicable crimes in the annals of American history (serial killer Gordon Stewart Northcott figures in the latter going) but the film is an odd mix of genres that never quite settles into the one we want to watch. Jolie is suitably distraught and outraged in equal amounts and her experience in "'Interrupted" has stood her in good stead to play the bughouse scenes with conviction. But the film is undone by a surprising laziness on Clint's part, who telegraphs too much too often and constantly gussies Jolie up no matter what her situation (those famous lips are never anything but bright cherry red and you wonder why her character feels the need to look mahvelous so much of the time). Although inspired by true events (the Wineville Chicken Murders), the central conceit in the film--that a doppelganger could dupe an individual's teachers, doctors, and peers--make "Changeling" a pretty preposterous pill to swallow (one administered forcefully, at the hands of brutal, one-dimensional prison guards). -- David N. Butterworth, Film Editor www.offoffoff.com/film | dnb@dca.net From dnb at dca.net Thu Dec 11 19:41:01 2008 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Thu Dec 11 19:41:03 2008 Subject: Review: Slumdog Millionaire (2008) Message-ID: <200812072055.mB7KteR31404@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2008 David N. Butterworth ***1/2 (out of ****) Genre hopping has always been Danny Boyle's trademark but with "Slumdog Millionaire" he's pushed the envelope further than ever before, taking (essentially) a love story, wrapping it up in television game show, and delivering it via a kaleidoscopic travelogue of India's colorful city of contrasts, Mumbai. That all of this works, flawlessly, beautifully, is a testament to the director who appears to have learned a few things about shooting in a foreign country ("The Beach," shot in Thailand, was a disaster from a production standpoint), especially in terms of trimming back his crew to a mere dozen and relying on the plentiful local talent to handle the logistics (his India-based casting director, Loveleen Tandan, was so essential to the finished product that Boyle unselfishly gave her a co-director credit). "Slumdog'" tells the looks-like-it-could-be-true story (but isn't) of Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), a kid from the slums of Mombai, who becomes the highest-grossing winner on the Hindi version of "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?" Flashbacks serve to inform us just how, exactly, he knew the answers to the questions asked of him (the local police arrest him mid-show, accusing him of cheating), from his early childhood experiences to the present day (three actors play Malik, his brother Salim, and Latika, the love of his life, throughout the film). Initially not interested in a story about the popular TV show Boyle read a dozen or so pages when he saw the name on the script (Simon Beaufoy, screenwriter of "The Full Monty") and was hooked. "Slumdog Millionaire," however, is in a different class altogether. Kinetic editing, driving music, creative use of subtitles (for the Hindi segments), wonderful performances, and a fresh, dynamic sense of time and place make it a delight from start to (happy Bollywood) finish. It's an instant classic! -- David N. Butterworth, Film Editor www.offoffoff.com/film | dnb@dca.net From dnb at dca.net Thu Dec 11 19:41:27 2008 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Thu Dec 11 19:41:30 2008 Subject: Review: Quantum of Solace (2008) Message-ID: <200812072102.mB7L2rR01763@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> QUANTUM OF SOLACE A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2008 David N. Butterworth *** (out of ****) Hectic. That, in a word, is the new Bond film--number 22 if you-re counting--from its opening sequence onwards with barely a break for a vodka martini (or a Vesper) thereafter. And even if you've never read the books you get the sense watching "Quantum of Solace" (that title, by the way, is a mouthful and mostly meaningless) that this is probably how Ian Fleming imagined his James Bond: ruthless, efficient, hard as nails--a veritable bullet on the hit parade. In his second go-round as the suave, globetrotting MI6 operative Daniel Craig leaps from balconies, speeding cars, and prostrate women with the alacrity of a Namibian springbok. He's easy on the eyes (his are a brilliant ice-y blue) and loose-y goose-y with the trigger finger. There's less cheekiness to his Bond. And speaking of growing into a role Dame Judi continues to arrive as M, acerbic and no-nonsense-y. She's so good, in fact, that you can't imagine her wanting to play another role (although she's done more than 75 to date). Director Marc Forster ("The Kite Runner") choreographs the whole thing as if his tenure with the franchise depended on it (although not since 1989's "License to Kill" has the same director helmed back-to-back Bonds). Ukranian supermodel Olga Kurylenko plays "Bond Girl" Camille, Roman Polanski lookalike Mathieu Amalric is the baddie, and Giancarlo Giannini returns as Mathis. Gone are Q and Moneypenny but David Arnold's serviceable music evokes the classic Bond scores of old. A novel twist in "Quantum'" is how it picks up where the last one left off--Bond is bent on avenging the love of his life, Vesper Lind, even though M clearly tells him not to make it into a personal vendetta 007. "'Solace" isn't as assured as "Casino Royale" but it's an exciting--and noisy--diversion nonetheless. -- David N. Butterworth, Film Editor www.offoffoff.com/film | dnb@dca.net From dnb at dca.net Thu Dec 11 19:43:44 2008 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Thu Dec 11 19:43:45 2008 Subject: Review: Happy-Go-Lucky (2008) Message-ID: <200812072111.mB7LBQR04730@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> HAPPY-GO-LUCKY A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2008 David N. Butterworth ** (out of ****) Poppy (nĂ(c)e Pauline) is a colorful, optimistic, North London schoolteacher who sees the good in everything and everyone. She's bright, spirited, and full of life--a British "AmĂ(c)lie" but without the underlying subtitles (although those certainly wouldn't have hurt her cause herein). She's also rather annoying, too good to be true. She's *too* happy-go-lucky, *too* full of life (maybe even herself). And to some she's likely more than just rather annoying (the words hellish, freakish, obnoxious, and grating all come tumbling to mind). But I liked her, mostly. I enjoyed her consistency, her inability to say nothing, to let sleeping dogs lie when a pithy retort has already formed itself in her brain and is heading, Mach 1-style, for her lips. Poppy is exhausting in that regard; no quip is left unturned, no sarky comment left unsaid, no rebuttal laid to rest. Maybe it's a defense mechanism on Poppy's part. Maybe, maybe not. But it's there. Always. And you can count on it. Poppy, the character, is a creation of Mike Leigh (who wrote her) and Sally Hawkins (who plays her). "Happy-Go-Lucky," Leigh's latest, is a bit of a departure for the director, who's best known for his working-class dramas--"High Hopes," "Life is Sweet," "Secrets & Lies," etc. Sally Hawkins is new to me, although having said that I do remember seeing her in the Woody Allen film "Cassandra's Dream," in which she played a thinly disguised version of Scarlet Johansson (Hawkins was also in Leigh's "Vera Drake" and "All or Nothing," apparently). There's not much plot to the film--Poppy *is* the plot--but it's when Poppy takes driving lessons with Scott (Eddie Marsan) that "Happy-Go-Lucky" really comes alive. The mantra-spouting Scott is the complete opposite of Poppy, uptight and rigid, and their scenes together have a real, uncompromising bite. -- David N. Butterworth, Film Editor www.offoffoff.com/film | dnb@dca.net From dnb at dca.net Thu Dec 11 19:44:06 2008 From: dnb at dca.net (dnb@dca.net) Date: Thu Dec 11 19:44:07 2008 Subject: Review: Australia (2008) Message-ID: <200812072218.mB7MIqR28512@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> AUSTRALIA A film review by David N. Butterworth Copyright 2008 David N. Butterworth **1/2 (out of ****) Baz Lurhmann's "Australia" is a cornball compote of old-fashioned romance, sweeping outdoors-y saga, and WWII drama of epic proportions--think "The Thorn Birds" down under, or "Ryan's Daughter" set in the Australian outback. What makes it so enjoyable is that it doesn't pretend to be anything but. It's far from perfect (unlike, say, Lurhmann's earlier films "Moulin Rouge!" and "Romeo+Juliet") but that's also part of the film's considerable appeal (not to mention length; it clocks in at a little under three hours but you wouldn't know it unless you're not having any fun at all, in which case you've probably already left). That darling of Aussie exports Nicole Kidman receives top billabong-ing as Lady Sarah Ashley, a right proper lady who moves to the Northern Territories when her husband loses the farm (so to speak). In the months following Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, Lady Ashley vows to drive her two thousand head of cattle to sell to the armed forces in Darwin, putting a crimp on rancher King Carney's (Brian Brown) monopoly on Australian beef. With few hired hands to make the trip across the treacherous terrain, Lady Ashley reluctantly recruits the handsome and often shirtless Drover ("X-Men"'s Hugh Jackman) and together with Lady Ashley's adopted "creamy" (half-cast Aborigine, played by the strikingly good-looking Brandon Walters) the loyal band of cowhands heads north. The corn is as high as a kangaroo's eye, mostly in the form of Lady Ashley's primness coupled with the down-and-dirty drudgery of life on the open trail (Kidman's wonderful, of course, and Jackman is spot on as the weary cattle hand; likewise, 12-year-old Walters is captivating as Nullah) and the only real questions in "Australia" are when will Sarah and Drover start snogging and when will the (boo! hiss!) villainous Carney get his comeuppance. -- David N. Butterworth, Film Editor www.offoffoff.com/film | dnb@dca.net From kilroy at elvis.rowan.edu Thu Dec 11 19:44:51 2008 From: kilroy at elvis.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) Date: Thu Dec 11 19:44:54 2008 Subject: Review: Cycle of Fear: There Is No End (2008) Message-ID: Capsule summary: don't bother. Sometimes, when I see a movie, I notice simple things which could be fixed to make the movie make more sense. On occasion, I've thought to myself "This could have been much better if they'd made a few tweaks." In the case of "Cycle of Fear", that wouldn't have been enough. This movie has nothing about it to recommend; it's not bad enough to be funny -- it's just a waste. It fails utterly as a horror movie: there's nothing here to make anyone afraid, except possibly the idea that someone thought this movie was worth putting on DVDs. Some of what's on screen is clearly because of a really low budget. The mental institution looks like it's in a house. The "Doctor" in charge of psychiatry at the institution barely looks old enough to go to college, let alone have completed graduate studies and be the senior physician anywhere. But the old "Twilight Zone" had a really low budget, and made great stories because there were characters we cared about and plots that made sense. This movie has neither. The characters are cardboard and do things that make no sense. The plot is ridiculous. In the movie, some people are upset about tortured souls being converted into a zombie army because they can't get to Heaven, or something, and they need a magic key to get a special book to open some sort of door or something, so they go to see a priest. But wouldn't a priest just shrive the deceased, give them Absolution, and send their souls to Eternity? That *is* his job. Per the teachings of his religion, he doesn't need any magic keys or any of that other rot. It appears that the makers of this movie know nothing about Christian teaching on the afterlife. The ending is confused. Did they achieve their goal? Did they fail? Did they do what they set out to do and it didn't work? I have no idea. I also don't care. I can't imagine anyone else caring. I don't usually give numeric scores to movies, but for "Cycle of Fear: There Is No End" I'll make an exception: zero. Out of 100. From mleeper at optonline.net Thu Dec 11 19:45:52 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Dec 11 19:45:54 2008 Subject: Review: Synecdoche, New York (2008) Message-ID: SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Generally clever screenwriter Charlie Kaufman directs for the first time. That should make for a fascinating film, but somehow it does not. A community director wins a grant and stages a play of his own life including the staging of the play in an infinite regression. This makes the film interesting in concept but disappointing in execution. And surreal touches added throughout that just do not add up to anything but a film more challenging than rewarding. A good cast cannot make this exercise engaging. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) or 4/10 I have to be honest. As much as I have liked and admired BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, THE ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, and even parts--not all--of ADAPTATION I do not think Charlie Kaufman's new film does much for me. Kaufman is on his way to being a real name brand in film writing. But I have to say that whatever Kaufman was trying to say with SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK, the message was just not intercepted. The first puzzle of this film is its title. There is no Synecdoche, New York. Perhaps the title is a corruption of Schenectady, where part of the action takes place. But nothing is ever explained. A "synecdoche" is a figure of speech, as I discuss at the end of this review. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Caden Cotard, a director of local community theater. Through casting necessity or artistic design he has a young man playing Willie Loman. The production has dubious success. Meanwhile his wife (played by Catherine Keener), a successful artist, is taking their daughter to visit Germany. But secretly she is planning to dump Caden and just not to come back. Meanwhile Caden wins a MacArthur "Genius" Grant and stages a play of his own life. He rents a big open space warehouse in New York City and inside makes his own replica of New York City. There he stages the story of his life including the staging of the play itself. So real people are mixing actors playing themselves or actors playing the people around them. Then when real people interact with actors in the play new actors must be added to the play to dramatize those interactions. The confusion increases exponentially as players play players in the play. The production drags on and on for years without ever opening to an audience. Yes, there is surrealism going on, but Kafka, wherever he is, has nothing to worry about. The complexity increases more like the Marx Brothers' stateroom scene, but not nearly so amusingly. And if all this is not strange enough Kaufman throws in a burning house that like the Burning Bush in the Bible burns but is not consumed. One of the characters lives in the house oblivious to the unusual nature of the building. There is also some strange sh-t going on with strange sh-t. And at least once there is something creepy with his peepee. Delightful. If there is such a thing as organized surrealism, this is not it. There is no obvious connection between the plays being staged and the tutti-frutti human waste. They are just there. Kaufman has assembled a very good cast with Samantha Morton, Michelle Williams, Emily Watson, Dianne Wiest, Tom Noonan, Hope Davis, and Jennifer Jason Leigh. But in so surreal and obscure a story the actors cannot have been inspired since it is not clear even what their performances meant. It is difficult to contribute to a film that does not know what it is doing. Something clever could come out of the symmetries of the situation, but it never really does. When the film finally ended one woman from he audience came over to me and asked if I understood it. I said no and that while I like to come into a film not knowing what it is about, I hate leaving a film that same way. Somebody must be getting something from this film because it is getting some very positive (and a few very negative) reviews. But SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK seems like a long drawn out shaggy dog story with no punch line. It is more an interesting idea for a film than an interesting film. I rate it a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale or 4/10. (When I asked for my wife's hand in marriage I really wanted to get the whole woman. A "synecdoche" is a figure of speech in which the part is used to represent the whole. I suppose I could read into the film that the play being produced somehow represents the whole life. It seems to me what we are seeing is less like a synecdoche than like those magazine covers that show someone holding that very magazine whose cover shows someone holding that magazine, etc. There is also probably such a thing as a false-synecdoche where the part is not actually part of the whole. I would explain that in detail but now I have to get my tail out of here.) Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From Faust668 at msn.com Thu Dec 18 16:05:43 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Thu Dec 18 16:05:46 2008 Subject: Retrospective: Smokey and the Bandit 3 (1983) Message-ID: SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT 3 (1983) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Zero stars In the last few months, I have watched Jackie Gleason at his very best as the irascible busdriver Ralph on TV's classic series "The Honeymooners." Every time I watch, I never tire of seeing Ralph's wild antics, bizarre schemes, fighting with Norton or enduring fat jokes and being one-upped by his wife Alice. But in the 1980's, with the exception of "Nothing in Common" with Tom Hanks, Jackie Gleason was badly used and showed little of his blazing, larger-than-life charisma that made him such a star in his prime. 1983 might have been the unkindest year for Gleason starring in two rotten sequels. One was the lifeless "The Sting II." The other was the far more execrable "Smokey and the Bandit 3," a truly moronic and wasteful use of celluloid. You know it is bad when Burt Reynolds doesn't even agree to star in it, except for a useless cameo at the end (I don't mean to ruin it for anyone). According to Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide, the initial preview screenings for this movie showed Jackie Gleason as Sheriff Buford T. Justice and as the Bandit, hence the original title of the film was "Smokey is the Bandit." Then they changed it completely with Jerry Reed as the Bandit since the audiences were initially confused. True or not, it deserves further investigation into what might have been. I wish not to spend more time on "Smokey and the Bandit 3" except to say that Jerry Reed is indeed the Bandit, overplaying it without the smooth charm of Burt Reynolds. All the gags fall flat on their face and there is not one chuckle to be had from any of this - Burt and Sally Field are sorely missed. Jackie Gleason has a nifty scene at the beginning where he is dressed as a general in front of an American flag (just like in the opening moments of "Patton") and talks about his past adventures trying to capture the elusive Bandit. The audience is barely awake listening to this man. Nuff' said. 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 page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at: Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From mleeper at optonline.net Thu Dec 18 16:07:23 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Dec 18 16:07:25 2008 Subject: Review: Adam Resurrected (2008) Message-ID: ADAM RESURRECTED (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This is a bizarre surreal fantasy involving a man with psychic powers, a German Holocaust death camp, and people who are degraded to live and act like dogs. How does all that fit together? I vote for "not very well." Jeff Goldblum's performance is magnetic, but he has problems with the accent. Paul Schrader directs Noah Stollman's adaptation of Yoram Kaniuk's novel. Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 4/10 ADAM RESURRECTED is a macabre fantasy that verges into surrealism and uses the Holocaust without being enlightening about what the experience was really like. It seems almost redundant to claim how unpleasant a particular film about the Holocaust is. But ADAM RESURRECTED seems to be unpleasant for no good purpose. The film is not enlightening about history, nor does it give us much insight into the unlikely title character. Here the Holocaust is just a literary device to explain how Adam had been degraded at one time in his life and to show the man that the experience made of him. And since he seems to have at times magical powers like telepathy or to bleed from chosen parts of his body voluntarily he is just to alien to give much of a feeling of realism. In a sense the film just takes the Holocaust in vain. We see the story in a series of flashbacks. The dapper Adam Stein (Jeff Goldblum) is taken in handcuffs to a sort of Israeli mental asylum for Holocaust survivors. He seems out of place as being perfectly normal. But as soon as he arrives he goes right to a bottle of liquor that the attendants had hidden. There is no explanation as to how he knew it was there. We find out he has had a history of faking ailments here in ways that fooled even x-ray machines. In flashbacks we see that in the late 1920s and early 1930s Adam Stein was the toast of Berlin. As a circus and stage entertainer he could perform mystical feats that really defy explanation. In one incident becomes a test of wills with an audience member named Klein (Willem Dafoe). Goldblum wins that test, but loses in the long run. When the Nazis round up Jews, Stein ends up in a death camp ruled by now-Commandant Klein. Klein recognizes Stein and rather than killing him straight out, he makes Stein a house pet. Stein will live as long as he walks on all fours and imitates a dog. These memories come back to Stein--if they ever left--because at the asylum in Stein's present day the staff keep a boy who was raised as a dog. Jeff Goldblum's performance is mesmerizing in almost all regards. In only one aspect is it bad and that is his inability to maintain a German accent. One sentence will have a thick accent and the next will sound downright American. He does appear to be doing Stein's stage magic for real and without camera tricks. Derek Jacobi plays the doctor who is given Stein's case at the asylum. But he is as ineffectual in the role as his character is in the story. Willem Dafoe plays the Commandant with a dash too little command. It may be just that Goldblum steals the attention playing another character with an excess of personality. The film is based on Yoram Kaniuk's novel. In a novel the author has time to lull the reader into a mood to accept what is going on. In a film it may not work as well. Director Paul Schrader has made his share of hypnotic films, notably CAT PEOPLE, but the task of getting the audience to accept all this may have been beyond his powers. This is a really off-the-wall nihilistic fantasy that may please a small segment of the audience and perhaps even become a cult film. But I suspect it will not even be marketed to the general run of filmgoer. I rate ADAM RESURRECTED a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 4/10. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Thu Dec 18 16:08:39 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Thu Dec 18 16:08:41 2008 Subject: Review: The Last Enemy (2008) Message-ID: THE LAST ENEMY A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** 1/2 The British really know how to do political thrillers right. This is seen especially in their television offerings in mini-series such as THE LAST ENEMY, made by the BBC and shown on Masterpiece Contemporary here. A blend of the television series MI5 with the shades of the novel 1984, THE LAST ENEMY contemplates a post-9/11 world in which the government is using advanced technology to keep careful track of citizenry. Think of it as a society in which an electronic issued id becomes the front-line in the government's assault on political freedoms and privacy -- a world in which everything you are doing or have ever done is in recorded in a massive data base. This totalitarian future is set in what appears exactly like today with the exception of the biometric cards that almost everyone carries. Storm-trooper like police have card readers to insure they know exactly who you are, and sensors automatically read your card as you move around just like radio tagged packages do in stores today. Of course, all of this electronic surveillance might be relatively benign if the political establishment could be trusted not to abuse its use. Fat chance. This new society, which uses their high-tech gadgetry to thwart terrorists in their midst, is the main subject of THE LAST ENEMY. Of course, this would not make much of a drama if we didn't also have some big on-going scandal that the government was using its new powers to try to cover up. When we meet Stephen Ezard (Benedict Cumberbatch, THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL), he is a nerd who has reluctantly left the remoteness of the Chinese countryside to return to his native England, where the aforementioned draconian changes are in effect. A mathematician who likes to be left completely alone while he works on hard theoretical problems, he is forced to come back to his homeland in order to attend the funeral of Michael (Max Beesley), the brother he never liked and barely knows now. As events swirl around Stephen rapidly, he becomes almost disoriented. He meets and falls in love with his dead brother's wife, Yasim Anwar (Anamaria Marinca). Yasim is a doctor who is treating a woman dying from a mysterious illness. Frightened that the police will come and take them all away, Yasim lives a life of non-stop fear. Barbara Turney (Geraldine James, THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN) and Patrick Nye (David Harewood, THE VICE) are a pair of government higher-ups involved in some big cover-up conspiracy. They keep close tabs on Stephen and Yasim. Meanwhile Russell (Robert Carlyle, THE FULL MONTY), a rogue agent whose allegiance and intentions aren't at all clear, runs around in the proverbial shadows shooting and being shot at. He's a good guy, a bad guy or, most likely, both, who is uncontrollable and unpredictable. The cover-up part of the narrative, while good, works mainly as an essential glue to keep the story together. The fascist state story is the best part. The superb acting, the good pacing and the sharp writing make this five episode mini-series fly by, leaving you wanting even more. THE LAST ENEMY runs 285 minutes. It is not rated but might be PG-13 for violence and sexual situations and would be acceptable for kids around 10 and up. The miniseries will be available as a boxed DVD set from WGBH Boston Video on January 13, 2009. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From mleeper at optonline.net Thu Dec 18 16:11:02 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Dec 18 16:11:04 2008 Subject: Review: Horror in the Wind (2008) Message-ID: HORROR IN THE WIND (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This could have been a much more intelligent film. A chemical intended to be sprayed all over the United States to suppress sexual urges instead reverses everyone's sexual orientation. Somebody could have used this idea to make an interesting film, but instead we get a claustrophobic and unfunny piece of fluff. Rating: +0 (-4 to +4) or 4/10 The year is 2017 and the reactionary government of the United States--headed by President Robertson and Vice-President Dobson-- wants to suppress all sex. Two biologists, Rick Holbrook and Ed Picante (played by newcomers Perren Hedderson and Morse Bicknell), have found a way to inhibit fruit-fly procreation and so save crops. The President wants a modified version that will be an abstinence drug for humans. When it is sprayed over the nation it works, but not the way it was planned. The chemical does not inhibit sex at all but simply reverses everybody's sexual orientation. Gays turn straight, and straights turn gay. Only white Christians will be given the antidote. In addition, as a wholly different premise in the script, new scriptures are found in the Middle East that are somehow provably the authentic Bible. And in the new Bible homosexuality is approved of and heterosexuality is considered bad. Either one of these premises could be the basis for an entire and fascinating film. But Max Mitchell just seems to think that the joke of gay couples talking like they are straight and vice versa is funny enough to be repeated over and over. Holbrook and Picante fall in love and their partners fall in love and go in for naked yoga. In addition, there are other running jokes inserted that never connect up with the characters of the main story line. A news announcer on the right-wing Fax Network and a really off-the-wall Evangelistic minister comment on the proceedings or just show how ridiculous they are. Actually, everybody whose point of view was different from that of the film was presented as an over-the-edge wacko. Mitchell does not realize that making the opposition all wackos makes them less believable and undercuts his own arguments. Notice how much more effective a film like TWELVE ANGRY MEN is because some of the opposition (opposing for most of the film) seem to be reasonable and well-intentioned, if wrong-headed. The film is pulling in two directions. If Mitchell wants the film to be a serious statement about how society treats gays, he needed to present it differently. If he wanted the film to be a wild farce, he needed a more imaginative sense of humor. It would be too optimistic to expect that an inexperienced filmmaker like Max Mitchell could turn out a very good film on a minimal budget, though there are many examples of inexpensive first-films that were good. Mitchell seems to be endlessly amused by two males talking about their sex. They may talk about one putting his tongue in the other's ear. Or he may show the President of the United States has toenails painted black. This sort of thing might be amusing the first time it appears. But by the second time it is much less so. To repeat such jokes half a dozen times more is just wasting the viewers' time. The film becomes simply an unfunny ribald skit. Mitchell could easily go on to do much better things, but this film is not the most auspicious calling card. If I were to give him advice it would be to think about reusing this premise in a serious film. What would happen if everybody's orientation were switched? What benefits would there be? What problems would it cause? Once he has thought that out, he still could make it a comedy if he wanted, but it would be a much more intelligent comedy. A thoughtful or really witty treatment of the idea of mass reversals of sexual orientation would have been a good film and one worth considering. This film is just a piece of fluff and a burlesque that sidesteps having any substance. HORROR IN THE WIND is a film with a good idea for a thought experiment but never given its chance to develop. I rate it a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale or 4/10. The publicity coming with the film proudly states that this film was "Banned in New Mexico." That sounds like it was some governmental organization saying the film could not be shown in New Mexico. In fact, it appears that a theater chain decided the content was too political and chose not to book the film. This is hardly the same thing as banning a film. But the film sounds more alluring if it actually has been banned. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From Faust668 at msn.com Thu Dec 18 16:11:49 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Thu Dec 18 16:11:50 2008 Subject: Review: The Dark Knight (2008) Message-ID: THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Four stars "Batman Begins" was the best Batman film ever made, with a clear emphasis on who Batman and was and the dual identity of its nocturnal hero and his wealthy playboy counterpart. "The Dark Knight" has different concerns and strengths and it is probably as good as "Batman Begins" if it were not for a little less emphasis on Batman/Bruce Wayne than I would have liked. Christian Bale is once again the Batman and Bruce Wayne, this time sensing that his days as a crime-fighting hero are possibly numbered. In the truly effective opening sequence, we see a bank robbery with its robbers wearing ugly clown masks and betraying each other by killing each other (their escape, hosted by the Joker, is nifty). Batman finds that his old foe, Scarecrow, and others are trying to do Batman's work, to no avail. A gray-haired crime lord (Eric Roberts) seems to have the entire city of Gotham on his payroll, but he faces a new threat - a malevolent, ugly freak with a white plastered face and a bloody smile, the Joker (played by the late Heath Ledger). This Joker is not a Jack Nicholson or a Cesar Romero impersonation - he is a tongue-flipping sociopath who thrives on chaos and destruction. He is not really witty and he's unclean, unsafe and a sheer monster who freely kills a gangster by impaling his head with a pencil. This man is so freakish, so nasty, so inhuman that you'd swear it was someone else under the makeup and not the handsome, stoic Heath Ledger. Yet Ledger lends a shred of wit to it. I love the moment when he confronts the city's gangsters and says, "Here is my card," as he flings a Joker card at them. What can Batman and ambitious D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and the sensitive police commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) do to fight this anarchic personality? Not much. The corruption of Gotham City and the investigation on Batman's secret identity (also part of the Joker's ploy in exchange for ending his random killings) is given the kind of treatment you might expect in a Sidney Lumet picture or even "The Departed." You also get the feeling that Batman is not much use anymore, and that Bruce Wayne knows it since the public at large see him as a vigilante. Even Alfred sees that the world is changing with his prophetic words, "Some men just want to see the world burn." My major quibble is that writer-director Christopher Nolan has given us the same conflicted Batman that we saw in "Begins" yet our batty hero is overpowered by the Joker (a similar fault lied with Tim Burton's original "Batman"). Heath Ledger gives us such a tremendously eerie and transformatively scary Joker that you can't help but feel that he has defeated Batman from the moment he first appears on screen. Batman, to an extent, is mostly on the sidelines as a crime- fighting hero who becomes more antiheroic by the end of the film. Though that is Nolan's point since the character is a noirish creation where good and evil don't quite exist, it serves as a detriment, a slight detriment but a detriment nonetheless. And the fact that Bruce Wayne's relationship to Rachel Dawes, the assistant D.A. (Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes), is given such short-shrift that unless you've seen "Batman Begins," you'll have no idea why they even speak to each other. The focus is on the righteous Harvey Dent, who becomes Two-Face, the kind of freak that Batman and the Joker have become. This shift on character is fascinating but he is eclipsed by the Joker. In fact, let me reiterate, everyone in this movie is eclipsed by the Joker. Every scene with Ledger imbues a darkness that is unmistakably noirish and heavier than perhaps the filmmakers even intended. I still wanted more scenes between Bruce Wayne and his dutiful servant, Alfred (the always magnetic Michael Caine), and the weapons and gadgets expert, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman). Holy Criticisms, do I have anything positive to say besides Heath Ledger's performance? Of course, if you have read the opening paragraph, I clearly state that "The Dark Knight" is as good as "Batman Begins" but not superior (though this is a superior superhero movie). In terms of the scale of action and the choreography and some death-defying stunts, "The Dark Knight" is exquisitely and electrifyingly made. It is a thrill ride with a moral compass that is strikingly complex on the level of an epic tragedy. I still like the growling Batman and that awesome Batbike that travels at supersonic speeds (the Batmobile is still a marvel to watch). There are good performances and superb writing (quite a bit of a dialogue for a movie of this type) and many memorable lines of dialogue, especially by the "Why So Serious" Joker. I just miss seeing a development of Batman/ Bruce Wayne's character - he left a lasting impression at the end of the first movie and I still like to know more about the brooding Batman. In this movie, the Joker takes center stage and gives you nightmares. Essentially, this is "The Dark Joker." A great movie, just not the one I was expecting. 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 page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_008520/index.html Email me at: Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Thu Dec 18 16:12:58 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Thu Dec 18 16:13:00 2008 Subject: Review: Nothing Like the Holidays (2008) Message-ID: NOTHING LIKE THE HOLIDAYS A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** Like a snowball going downhill, gaining size and momentum as it travels, the neighbors in a very Puerto Rican area of Chicago join in for a massive singing of Christmas carols. Going from door to door, the crowd and the joy of the singing increases exponentially. And, the most surprising part of this Christmas movie is that this mass singing of "O Come All Ye Faithful" is not the least bit ironic. Most Christmas movies use the season's happy tunes as merely a sardonic commentary on the awfulness of life. The only thing ironic about NOTHING LIKE THE HOLIDAYS is the title, since the story is exactly like holidays, or at least the way you'd hope they'd be. When the film opens, Jesse Rodriguez (Freddy Rodriguez), a soldier coming home from the war in Iraq, has arrived at the airport. Greeting him are his life-long buddies, Johnny (Luis Guzman) and Ozzy (Jay Hernandez). They are there to whisk him home to a big holiday meal, which his mother is busy preparing. Along the way, they stop for a quick game of baseball, just like they did when they were young. Right away, the charms of this heart-warming -- even if completely predictable -- film become obvious. Shot under a bright winter sun, the thick snows glistens and sparkles. In fact, the whole movie is so attractively shot by cinematographer Scott Kevan that watching the images alone becomes a major treat. The best present, however, that NOTHING LIKE THE HOLIDAYS gives to viewers are the characters. Universally likable, their foibles are easily dismissed or suspected of not even being true. At the dinner table, Anna (Elizabeth Pena), the mother of the Rodriguez family, announces that she plans on divorcing her husband Edy. It seems that he has been taking many mysterious phone calls lately, and she thinks he must be cheating on her. That he doesn't deny it, in most stories, would confirm his guilt, but, in this one, it only reinforces in the viewer's mind the obvious conclusion that Edy has bigger problems that a discovered affair. Other members of the family include Jesse's sister Roxanna (Vanessa Ferlito) and his brother Mauricio (John Leguizamo). Mauricio's wife Sarah (Debra Messing) is a high powered executive about to run a hedge fund. With her creamy white skin, her bright red hair and her Jewish background, she is the only polar opposite character in the narrative. But, as we learn, she fits in fine after all, and is happy to be a member of the Rodriguez family. Sure, the family "bickers" a lot, but, except for the mother-father dispute, all of the arguing is merely playful. In short, they are just the sort of family that you'd love to have ask you over to visit for the holidays. One of the few problems with the story is that everyone gets along so well and is so close that, initially, it isn't at all clear who are family and who are friends. This is a problem one wishes the entire world had. Although NOTHING LIKE THE HOLIDAYS has its share of poignant moments, it isn't some sappy melodrama. It's a sweet and endearing comedy. My favorite parts come when the mother attempts, quite seriously but completely ineffectually, to discipline her grown children. No matter how vigorously she demands that they must "get in the house" or "go to your room," her orders are universally ignored. So it is when your kids grow up. They probably never followed your commands very well when they were younger, and, now that they are older, your power over them has disappeared entirely. All that is left is love, and the hope they you raised them well enough so that they can now make their own way in the world. NOTHING LIKE THE HOLIDAYS runs 1:39. It is rated PG-13 for "thematic elements including some sexual dialogue, and brief drug references" and would be acceptable for kids around 8 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, December 12, 2008. 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 reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Dec 24 19:08:57 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Dec 24 19:08:59 2008 Subject: Review: Let the Right One In (2008) Message-ID: LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: With marked similarities to CARRIE, this is a Swedish vampire film. Oskar, the most bullied boy in school, makes friends with a girl who appears to be his own age, but is somehow different. The somehow is that she is a vampire, living a life as isolated in her way as Oskar is in his. The two form a bond against a background of vampire-related killings. In spite of the fantasy motif this is a serious film about serious problems. Tomas Alfredson directs John Ajvide Lindqvist's adaptation of his own novel. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 Every school has one. He is the one kid who is the easiest mark and the one who is always the target of cruelty. The most bullied kid is school is twelve-year-old Oskar (played by Kure Hedebrant) who is reaching a confused puberty facing his parents' broken marriage and his living without friends in an atmosphere as cold as the Swedish winter around him. One day playing with a knife, taking his frustration out on a tree, he runs into a girl just his age. Eli (Lina Leandersson) is new to his apartment block. Though she says she cannot be friends with Oskar, she is clearly interested in him. And she is strange. She seems unable to eat candy or come out in the light of day. Soon there are reports of murders in the area. One person sees an adult committing the murders, another sees it as a young girl. Eventually Eli tells her secret to Oskar. She is a vampire. Yes, she is twelve years old like Oskar, but she has been twelve for a very long time. Together they form a sensual and intellectual relationship and Eli tries to get Oscar to fight back against his tormentors. But this may not be the best plan. The combination of young bullies, families that do not work, revenge fantasies, and supernatural powers may bring to mind Stephen King's CARRIE, though the pacing and style are all-Swedish. The viewer may want to put on a sweater before even watching this film. The cold of the setting and the insular people who talk in isolated sentences creates a real chill in this film. Oskar is the mortal, but he looks almost like he is a vampire himself with his unnaturally white skin, his light blond hair, and his bright red lips. Eli is dark-haired with wide, hypnotic eyes. Together they form a friendship that they both desperately need. The dialog is spoken in a Bergmanesque style, frequently given with two or three beats between sentences. That makes reading the subtitles easier, but it also separates the viewer from the characters and leaves an unsettling feeling. The silences in the film speak as much as the words. For non-Swedish speakers it may be difficult to tell the adult characters apart. Frequently the viewer is left with a feeling that he does not quite follow what the film is saying. Alfredson said in an interview that he intentionally left some of the film unexplained. There certainly are unanswered questions. The final scene does not seem to fit logically with what came before it and is left unexplained. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is not a piece of throwaway fluff. It is a dark film of pain, most not of a supernatural origin. It is illuminated by the presence of presence of a vampire, but it is a deep and unsettling film. I rate LET THE RIGHT ONE IN a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From themoviereport at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 19:09:51 2008 From: themoviereport at gmail.com (Michael Dequina) Date: Wed Dec 24 19:09:54 2008 Subject: Review: Seven Pounds (2008) Message-ID: <494e2b9c.16048e0a.4e2b.ffffc638@mx.google.com> _Seven_Pounds_ (PG-13) *** (out of ****) Will Smith's reunion with his _The_Pursuit_of_Happyness_ director Gabriele Muccino, _Seven_Pounds_, is a remarkably demanding film--but not so much for the reasons one would expect. The fractured narrative structure is nothing compared to what it simply, sincerely asks of its audience: to completely surrender to unabashed, heartfelt emotion. It's a bold demand to run so defiantly counter to audiences' cynical reflexes, but the filmmakers and especially the actors so gracefully go about the task that giving in to the sentimental spell should be done so without shame or guilt. Helping defuse the threat of an overly saccharine journey is the nonlinear storytelling strategy adopted by writer Grant Nieporte. Much like the willfully abstract marketing campaign, the film unfolds like a puzzle as it follows the unusual mission of tax collector Ben Thomas (Smith), who insinuates himself into the lives of a cross-section strangers. The mystery of his motivation may be the primary selling point, but the true concern of the film emerges once Ben settles his focus on Emily Posa (Rosario Dawson), a young woman suffering from a heart ailment. Smith and Dawson (paired to much greater effect here than in _Men_in_Black_II_) share an effortless, beguiling rapport, and as Ben and Emily's relationship gradually evolves from tentative friendship to something that may approach love, so does the heretofore enigmatic film patiently develop a most straightforward, relatable, and touching emotional core. As such, that it is quite possible to solve the central mysteries some time before the final revelations proves to rather beside the point. (Actually, that it can be deduced is a testament to how fair the script plays; a second view reveals all the pieces to be plainly laid out, with no false moves or tricks solely in the name of shock.) The film reveals itself to be not so much about the question of what exactly drives Ben (or, for that matter, whatever surprise value it may or may not hold for the viewer) than its potential effects, in particular those on the burgeoning feelings between him and Emily. Nieporte and Muccino's shuffling of the timeline to obscure the truth may be a manipulative device, but it is an effective one; regardless of if one has it all figured out, the secrecy and uncertainty sustains an ominous spectre over the developing romance, very much parallel to how one of the film's repeated music cues is beautifully melodic until it hits an off-pitch note that serves as a harsh, disorienting reminder of reality. And the proceedings, however innately melodramatic they may be, indeed bear the ring of reality because of the lead pair. Smith initially, deceptively seems awkward and ill at ease as Ben runs the gamut of temperaments with no apparent mooring, but the whole of his accomplishment becomes especially clear in retrospect; his nuanced depiction of Ben's conflicted, often contradictory actions and feelings again prove the range behind the megastar aura. But one cannot help but undervalue his work when opposite Dawson's revelatory performance. The film is unthinkable without her radiant, subtly poignant Emily: vulnerable yet not weak; brave yet not immune to fear; both confounded and exhilarated by the possibilities presented by sudden, ever-increasing, ever-inexplicable attention, her work not only reinforces but embodies what the film has to say about what is ultimately its real central mystery: that of direction, connection, love, and life. That _Seven_Pounds_ dares to go there makes it easy to dismiss as schmaltz, and that the sentiment is conveyed with such committed sincerity makes it feel almost foreign--and, indeed, the film's gentle touch makes it more akin to a work from Europe or Asia than contemporary, irony-programmed Hollywood. For many, giving in may be just too much to ask, but those willing to let the film, its characters, and messages wash over them will find something at once heartbreaking, inspiring, and altogether beautiful. (c)2008 Michael Dequina Michael Dequina mrbrown@iname.com The Movie Report/Mr. Brown's Movie Site: www.themoviereport.com www.quickstopentertainment.com | www.cinemareview.com | www.aalbc.com www.johnsingletonfilms.com | on ICQ: #25289934 | on AOL/Y! IM: mrbrown23 From themoviereport at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 19:11:47 2008 From: themoviereport at gmail.com (Michael Dequina) Date: Wed Dec 24 19:11:49 2008 Subject: Review: The Human Contract (2008) Message-ID: <494e2b9e.16048e0a.4e2b.ffffc63f@mx.google.com> _The_Human_Contract_ (R) *** (out of ****) A successful executive on the verge of even greater professional heights meets a woman of mystery, upending their own lives and causing ripple effects in others'. It's not a set-up that has not been done before (in fact, it was pretty much done to death in the erotic thriller heyday of the early-to-mid-1990s), but in her debut as screenwriter and director, Jada Pinkett Smith has far more on her mind than prurient surface thrills, making a complex, difficult, intriguing film that digs deeper than outward appearances. The latter extends to the casting, and Pinkett Smith's choice of the relatively unknown Jason Clarke as the lead, Julian Wright, proves to be especially canny. Without any existing star baggage, Clarke is not only a relatable Everyman entry point for the viewer, but he also well serves Pinkett Smith's larger concerns. Not only is he adept at conveying the personal demons and simmering impulses behind Julian's cool exterior, his rather anonymous appearance drives home what is ultimately the pervading issue that inspires the film's title. Julian is the very pre-packaged, non-individual picture of what most people would want out of life--good looking, well-off, securely employed, upwardly mobile, and still fairly young--or is it what he truly wants, or what society has trained him and people in general to equate with happiness? Julian comes to question that after meeting the mysterious Michael Reed (Paz Vega). Their initial encounter is simply fleeting small talk, but when he comes across her again by sheer chance, he feels compelled to pursue her--and, in what is an early example of how Pinkett Smith continually subverts conventional genre expectations, seemingly straight-arrow Julian quickly shows himself to be the more volatile half of the two. Michael and Julian nonetheless do fall into a relationship, one that has increasingly dramatic repercussions both in their own lives and in those of the people close to them. As suggested by that latter point, _The_Human_Contract_ does follow a traditional erotic thriller trajectory, but that's just the accessible genre framework upon which Pinkett Smith hangs deeper, more pertinent issues. Both Michael and Julian have been scarred, literally and figuratively, from their youths, and it is clear they are opposite sides of the same coin: she the model of carefree moral abandon, and he the picture of cool control. But what exactly that means is the real question: who is happy, who is healthy, who is truly at peace, who is doing the "right" thing--and what exactly is "right" anyway, and by whose standards? Pinkett Smith wisely doesn't attempt to know the answers, but through not only Julian's relationship with Michael but also his and her relations with others, she calls into thought-provoking question the idea of the various "contracts" one has in life--not only with other people but with societal norms and expectations, and how the pursuit of such "order" and hence conformity can not only be stifling, but potentially destructive. That sounds highfalutin and pretentious, but Pinkett Smith packages such themes in an accessible and absorbing manner, most notably through her actors. Clarke deftly handles the tensions brewing within his character, and he makes his flaws and frustration real and painfully relatable. He shares sizzling chemistry with the always-striking Vega, who has finally found an English language film that really allows her enchanting mix of beauty, sensuality, vulnerability, and dramatic depth. The supporting cast--including Idris Elba, Ted Danson, Steven Brand, Joanna Cassidy, and Pinkett Smith herself--may not have quite as much to work with as the leads, but as is often the case in films helmed by actors, Pinkett Smith coaxes effective work. But her careful attention to all cinematic aspects further underscore and support her larger ideas, such the striking contrasts between Julian and Michael's worlds in Carlos Barbosa's production design, handsomely captured by Darren Genet's cinematography. Pinkett Smith does fall into some first-time writer-director traps, such as making certain things a bit too on-the-nose (for example, there are some troubling secrets literally kept under lock and key--and in a darkroom, no less), but all too rarely does one come across a film as both polished, thoughtful, and go-for-broke ambitious from even the most veteran of filmmakers. (c)2008 Michael Dequina Michael Dequina mrbrown@iname.com The Movie Report/Mr. Brown's Movie Site: www.themoviereport.com www.quickstopentertainment.com | www.cinemareview.com | www.aalbc.com www.johnsingletonfilms.com | on ICQ: #25289934 | on AOL/Y! IM: mrbrown23 From themoviereport at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 19:12:20 2008 From: themoviereport at gmail.com (Michael Dequina) Date: Wed Dec 24 19:12:23 2008 Subject: Review: Nothing Like the Holidays (2008) Message-ID: <494e2ba0.16048e0a.4e2b.ffffc640@mx.google.com> _Nothing_Like_the_Holidays_ (PG-13) *** (out of ****) As suggested by the rather generic-sounding title, _Nothing_Like_the_Holidays_ does go where many holiday-centered family dramedies have gone before: bickering-yet-loving relations reunite at the old homestead for an eventful holiday season where various dramas arise and are then healed by the bonds of family. As derided as the genre often is (sometimes deservedly so), the better examples of these films transcend the built-in formula by offering a rare opportunity to see a large, varied assortment of gifted actors play off of each other--and the spirited, superb ensemble assembled by director Alfredo DeVilla is definitely what lends the familiar proceedings pep and personality. As the Rodriguez clan (and various friends and neighbors) of Chicago's Humboldt Park area, Alfred Molina, Elizabeth Pe?a, John Leguizamo, Freddy Rodriguez, Vanessa Ferlito, Luis Guzman, Jay Hernandez, Melonie Diaz, and Debra Messing not only handle both the barbed comic cross-talk and the more earnest emotional moments with ease, more importantly they all share such a believable familial, tough love warmth with each other, making each shared laugh or heated argument ring all the more true. The work of the cast alone would have been enough to distinguish the film, but DeVilla and writers Alison Swan and Rick Najara aim a bit higher while hitting the expected beats. Tropes such as the returning war veteran (Rodriguez) reuniting with the love (Diaz) he left behind and the spectre of illness belie their potential for shamelessly melodramatic manipulation by being handled in a realistic and understated manner, further bolstered by the honesty of the performances. One cannot exactly call this film groundbreaking, but as comfort food holiday programmers go, it hits the spot, and anyone of any ethnicity is sure to find something that hits all too close to home in this story. (c)2008 Michael Dequina Michael Dequina mrbrown@iname.com The Movie Report/Mr. Brown's Movie Site: www.themoviereport.com www.quickstopentertainment.com | www.cinemareview.com | www.aalbc.com www.johnsingletonfilms.com | on ICQ: #25289934 | on AOL/Y! IM: mrbrown23 From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Dec 24 19:13:34 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Dec 24 19:13:35 2008 Subject: Review: If I were Dictator (2008) Message-ID: IF I WERE DICTATOR (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This is a fluff film, a wish-fulfillment fantasy without much structure, and that is of often-questionable humor. Justin Routt writes, directs, and stars in a film that amounts to little more than a laundry list of pet peeves. Humor is a matter taste and this humor mostly is not to my taste. The story really amounts to just being an exercise in groovy fascism. One ordinary guy gets the chance to be the ruler of the world and fine-tunes it to eliminate his lowbrow pet complaints. Rating: high -1 (-4 to +4) or 3/10 IF I WERE DICTATOR is reminiscent of the old H. G. Wells classic THE MAN WHO COULD WORK MIRACLES. However, it is not nearly so polished. The soon-to-be-dictator (played by Justin Routt) is unemployed and living life in the slow lane. He is leading a pointless existence thinking about everything he does not like about the world. Then he realizes he can take what he has around the house and invent a device that makes him the ruler of the world. Suddenly he is dressing like Benito Mussolini--whom he somewhat resembles anyway--and making rules for the world to follow. (One would think the most powerful man in the world would have a slightly nicer board room.) At this point the film could almost be a newspaper essay. An imaginative set of peeves could have made at least an amusing film. Unfortunately, the dictator's complaints are on the level that he does not like lawyers or dentists. He will say something like it is illegal to put chewing gum on the underside of a table. Then we see someone doing it and the police coming along and arresting her. A large proportion of the complaints have something to do with toilets or flatulence and the dramatization makes full use of rude noises. That brings me to the invention that gives the dictator power over the world. This was another opportunity for Routt to have come up with an imaginative invention that would give political power. Barring a good answer to the question of what is the invention, at least it could have been left a mystery. Routt does leave it a mystery at least temporarily. Eventually we do find out what the powerful invention is, and it makes no logical sense. I would say that Routt could not sustain the humor for the length of the film, but at least for me he really has only one or two gags that do not seem tired. Other people may like more. The film could have benefited being shorter, but it is extended long enough to really outstay its welcome. It would be one thing if Routt was making good use of this time, but it is padded showing fascinating sequences like the will-be-dictator making eggs or trimming his nose hair or cleaning a toilet. I do not have to pay to see these things in a theater. Routt needs to constantly ask if the reader is better off for having seen each scene he includes. Best touch: The cutest character of this film is the pre-dictator's pet pig. This is Justin Routt's first film, but unless he gets just the right audience he will not go far making films like this. I rate IF I WERE DICTATOR a high -1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 3/10. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Wed Dec 24 19:16:18 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Dec 24 19:16:20 2008 Subject: Review: Valkyrie (2008) Message-ID: VALKYRIE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** Always interesting -- but it should be absolutely mesmerizing -- VALKYRIE does provide solid entertainment value. In the days and weeks after you see it, you'll likely to be thinking frequently about the true story it reveals, but you'll probably forget most of the movie itself. Director Bryan Singer, whose last film was the disappointing SUPERMAN RETURNS, strives for and achieves the authenticity of something that the History Channel would be proud of. Never, while watching it, will you be shaking your head in disbelief. I can't personally verify the events as portrayed, but the movie is very convincing and probably quite historically accurate. I know I've read that it is, which is certainly something to be admired in a film world in which too often filmmakers play fast and loose with the truth. When we meet German Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, he is about to get part of his limbs blown off in the North African campaign in World War II. Playing the famous colonel who almost assassinated Hitler, Tom Cruise delivers a workmanlike performance. All of the actors give reserved but believable performances, but none of them speak with German accents, which I found somewhat off-putting. With a missing eye, a missing hand and missing two fingers off of the one hand he has left, Colonel von Stauffenberg is viewed as a hero of the Third Reich, but he is a man disgusted by the mass murder of civilians and the many other atrocities of Hitler's barbarous regime. When asked to join a group of conspirators who plan on killing Hitler and taking over the country, he is eager to help. Colonel von Stauffenberg's new position within the "Reserve Army" makes him a perfect candidate, since the conspirators have an elaborate plan to make use of something called "Operation Valkyrie." This is a plan for the Reserve Army to seize control in the case of a coup. The conspirators plan to stage a coup but use Valkyrie's preset orders to have the Reserve Army round up the SS by claiming that it is the SS who have staged the coup. Early on, someone remarks that most military operations fail, which, as we know now, this one did too. In a large and talented supporting cast, none is better than Bill Nighy as General Friedrich Olbricht, the man who halts the plan in progress until he double-checks that everything is going okay. Of course, when time is crucial, one can be too cautious. The story is full of twists and turns, which will surprise all but the most knowledgeable history buff. The battle sequences, of which there are only a few, are quite impressive, especially in the sound design, which will strain even the best subwoofers. Perhaps the most touching scene in the movie occurs soon after Colonel von Stauffenberg returns to his homeland from the North African front. Praying in a church with others, we watch him as the camera pulls back to reveal that the church's roof is non-existent, having been blown off in a previous raid by Allied bombers. Realistic to the end, the movie ends as unhappily as you would imagine. The closing credits tell us that the main assassination attempt shown in the film was in fact the last of fifteen known attempts to kill Hitler. VALKYRIE runs 2:00. It is rated PG-13 for "violence and brief strong language" and would be acceptable for kids around 8 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Christmas Day, 2008. 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 reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Dec 24 19:34:04 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Dec 24 19:34:06 2008 Subject: Review: Che (2008) Message-ID: CHE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Two more of Che Guevara's diaries are adapted into film. Steven Soderbergh makes two long films that can be seen as one very long film covering Che's Cuban and Bolivian guerilla campaigns. Benicio del Toro looks the part, but Soderbergh does little to flesh out his other characters. Just following what is happening is hard work. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 CHE is not really one film but two. When I saw it, it was in two parts, one about the Cuban insurrection and one about the Bolivian one. Each part had opening titles and closing credits. I do not know if that is how it will be released, or if it will be stitched together to make a single film. It could even make a trilogy if one included Walter Salles's film, THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES. All three are based on the accounts of Ernesto "Che" Guevara. "Part One" is a dramatization of his REMINISCENCES OF THE CUBAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR and "Part Two" of his BOLIVIAN DIARY. Then again "Part One" and "Part Two" are really not so different. They are accounts of Che in Cuba or Bolivia fighting in (or slogging through) the forest or going into little towns to win converts and to try to get food and weapons. The two accounts are somewhat disjointed dramatizations of what it is like to be a guerilla. The difference in the campaigns was probably that Batista's Cuban army was not well trained and organized. The Bolivians seem more organized from the start and had training and support from the United States. They are much more effective against the insurgency. Intercut with the Cuban insurgency is a sort of flash-forward to Guevara's 1964 trip to New York City to address the United Nations, done in a sort of documentary style and in grainy black and white. We see just a bit of disdain as he deals with Manhattan liberals, apparently feeling they only talk the talk while he walks the walk--and incidentally, shouldn't he be getting back to the revolution, any revolution? He is at home in the forest, not at a cocktail party. One problem both parts have is that the films avoid expository lumps to explain what is going on, but at some cost the comprehensibility. United States audiences may have trouble telling characters (and occasionally armies) apart. Keeping up with the subtitles may be an additional problem, particularly since there is not enough contrast with the background to make them readable. Shooting it English-for-Spanish would be an artificial touch but would have made the film more clear. Each part starts by showing a map of the territory where that part takes place and one at a time showing the important locations. This is one step more abstract than remembering people's names at parties. Looking in on the guerilla war for about 130 minutes each part may be taxing. Seeing both films together may actually be something of a project. In addition, director Stephen Soderbergh does little to characterize the fighters or make clear what the strategies are. Here there is an almost documentary style that is a little harder to follow. We get to see a little of Che's discipline and his philosophy of fighting, but nobody beside Che is given much dimension. Most of the actors besides Benicio del Toro will probably be unfamiliar to United States audiences. "Part Two" has small fleeting roles for Matt Damon and Lou Diamond Philips. Joaquim de Almeida may be familiar from CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER and DESPERADO. The score by Alberto Iglesias is effective, but used sparingly and is rarely used in battle scenes. Soderbergh is going for a natural documentary feel for the fighting and does not use the music to orchestrate emotion. By seeing the two revolutionary actions only through the eyes of Che and then in a somewhat confused manner, the viewer will not get a good understanding of the politics and will only get a feel of a little of the experience. Certainly the extremes of the Castro Regime are played down with one quick reference that there were executions when Castro took power. This is not an objective view of the conflict but only Che Guevara's view of himself. I rate CHE +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. Film Credits: "Part One": "Part Two": Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Dec 24 19:35:46 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Dec 24 19:35:48 2008 Subject: Review: The Wrestler (2008) Message-ID: THE WRESTLER (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Boxer/actor Mickey Rourke makes an acting comeback as a professional wrestler trying to retire and come back to his personal life. Like his character, Rourke has been scarred by his years of fighting but can still make a pretty good grab for the viewer's empathy. Darren Aronofsky tells a solid character-driven drama with simplicity and impact. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10 Barry Levinson's 1982 film DINER was one of those films that had an all-star cast, only nobody knew it yet. The film was a start for such familiar faces as Kevin Bacon, Steve Gutenberg, Ellen Barkin, Daniel Stern, and Paul Reiser. All these became familiar faces. One other new face was Mickey Rourke, but that face no longer even exists. Rourke balanced careers as an actor and a prize-winning boxer. Sadly, that boyish Irish face was rearranged too many times in the ring. Today it looks more like a battlefield. Rourke's face is now only occasionally recognizable as that of the same person. But he is still acting. In his new film THE WRESTLER, directed by Darren Aronofsky, he looks more like some foe of Conan the Barbarian. He wears his blond hair beyond shoulder length and has a face that looks like it has been used to slam doors. He plays a professional wrestler who knows he has to get out of the business that he has allowed to be his only life for far too long. Here for the first time Aronofsky gives us his first work that can be considered such a personal story. Randy "the Ram" Robinson is a household name to wrestling fans. Twenty years ago he was at the top of his game. Under the credits we see wrestling magazines singing his praises. That twenty-year- old acclaim is what he lives on these days. He trades off of that fame in the wrestling circuit making barely enough money to pay his rent in a trailer park. The fights he fights are scripted morality plays with winners, losers, injuries, and moves all planned in advance. People remember that years ago he fought and won in a classic fight against another wrestler called The Ayatollah. Randy knows he has just enough name left that in the game he will get just the money to survive. His one shot at real money he will get if he agrees to a promoted rematch with The Ayatollah. He is going to cash that final chip in when he has a heart attack. He keeps secret the knowledge that he can never fight again. So it is time to retire. But does he have a life to retire to? His best friend is Pam, a stripper at a club where Randy goes. Marisa Tomei, who unfailingly gives a good performance film after film, plays Pam. Here she has just the right balance of street vulgarity and delicacy. Randy wants Pam's help to try to win back Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood) the daughter he always ignored when his fighting career came first. All this could have been cliche but Rourke and Tomei give us a very tender relationship. His effort to bond with his daughter is equally poignant. Aronofsky's REQUIEM FOR A DREAM was about drug addiction. This film is about a man addicted to the cheers of the fans. Randy's best moments have all been in front of screaming crowds and he is facing giving that up. Aronofsky's only false move is the very final shot, which verges over onto melodrama. Mickey Rourke has what it takes to grab an audience. But how many roles are there going to come his way for his particular character type? Like his character he may have just one more shot. I rate THE WRESTLER a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10 My question is this: Popular actor Mark Margolis (who may be remembered as Alberto, the Latin assassin in SCARFACE) is fourth billed as the character Lenny. He is a favorite of Aronofsky, and I expected to see him. Was his part cut? I completely missed seeing him in the film. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Wed Dec 24 19:38:09 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Dec 24 19:38:11 2008 Subject: Review: Yes Man (2008) Message-ID: YES MAN A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 Although the trailers and the plot description may lead you to guess that YES MAN is actually LIAR LIAR 2, it isn't. It's based on a completely different conceit, which is set up differently as well. In LIAR LIAR, no matter how hard he tried, Jim Carrey's character was incapable of telling a lie. In contrast, Carrey's Carl Allen in YES MAN can say no. It's just that he has made a covenant with his new guru to say nothing but yes to life's many possibilities, no matter how undesirable they may seem. When the movie opens, however, Carl is the original "no" man. He turns down all offers to hang out with his few friends, and, at work in his dead end job as a "junior loan officer," he spends his life stamping "Declined" on loan applications. Of course, refusing offers sometimes makes sense, as we see him rejecting one internet spam scam after another. Carl's life is changed forever for the better one day, when an obnoxious friend of his insists that he go to a motivational seminar led by Terrence Bundley (Terence Stamp). Terrence preaches the gospel of "Yes! is the new no." When the cynical Carl laughs off the whole idea and refuses to take his "Yes!" medicine, Terrence literally runs off the stage to confront Carl. Violating Carl's personal space, Terrence gets him to reluctantly agree to his "Yes!" prescription. Terrence warns him sternly that bad things will happen if he doesn't stick to the program. Stamp is wonderfully over-the-top as a scam artist and cult leader. In contrast, Carrey starts off this comedy appearing so tired that, when he starts hamming it up, as he usually does, the reaction is to find him equal measures funny and sad. It's not good when you find yourself feeling sorry for a comedian. But Carrey's shtick and his material too often feel like retreads in YES MAN. What saves the movie, other than the occasional good laugh, is the charming work done by Carrey's co-star Zooey Deschanel. Her Allison is a free spirit who teaches a jogging photography group -- hello blurry pictures -- in the early morning and sings in a bizarro band at night. The movie would have been even better if they had let Deschanel's lovable weirdness out more often. Usually her characters are even more quirky. But the chemistry between the two leads is good and the little romance between them is believable. Director Peyton Reed, who gave us the absolutely gorgeous DOWN WITH LOVE, which was bursting with rich colors, demands little from his cinematographer (Robert D. Yeoman) this time. The movie has a dingy look, which reminds us too often of how tired the narrative is as well. I doubt if YES MAN is worth the price of admission, but, if you do see it, there are enough laughs to make it enjoyable. YES MAN runs 1:45. It is rated PG-13 for "crude sexual humor, language and brief nudity" and would be acceptable for kids around 8 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, December 19, 2008. 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 reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Wed Dec 24 19:38:44 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Dec 24 19:38:46 2008 Subject: Review: Seven Pounds (2008) Message-ID: SEVEN POUNDS A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): * SEVEN POUNDS is directed by Gabriele Muccino, whose last project was directing the pilot for "Viva Laughlin," which some television critics called perhaps the worst TV show ever made. SEVEN POUNDS isn't that bad, which is not to say that it's good. Starring Will Smith, who last teamed up with Muccino in THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS, this film could have been called THE PURSUIT OF UNHAPPYNESS, since everyone in it is so morose. But, never fear, this is a tear-jerker of the first order. No matter how miserable everyone is, especially lead character Ben Thomas (Smith), there will be salvation at the end for some and tears for everyone. In short, prepare to gag. The slow and sappy movie, which makes its two hour running time feel like four, begins with Ben telling us in voice-over with great sorrow that, "In seven days, God created the world, and, in seven seconds, I shattered mine." The confusing and convoluted story involves a malevolent or munificent IRS agent (Ben Thomas). Ben is a creepy figure who stalks his victims, but they shouldn't worry, since he has good intentions and plans on ultimately making their day with a surprise gift. Filled with a god-complex, Ben likes to wax poetically but glumly about his powers. He tells one sick patient about her doctor that it is "within my power to dramatically change that man's circumstances." If this sounds like a threat for the IRS to confiscate all of the doctor's possessions for back taxes, it isn't. Ben's plans are weirder, not that you'll care. Once you've finally peeled back the last layer of this enigma of a plot, you'll be sorry you wasted so much trying to figure it all out, since it is completely unbelievable. But, even if you buy every twist and turn of the story, the movie is so off-putting and distant that you'll still never care. This is perhaps the least compelling film of the year. Filmed in shadows and set at such a sluggish pace that it would irritate a snail, the movie offers absolutely nothing for the viewers. Its single convincing message, which it hammers into our heads in every frame, is that Ben is sad, sad, sad. If you've too much Christmas cheer and need a good cry, maybe SEVEN POUNDS is just the picture for you. On the other hand, you may find that you have a different reaction, something that attacks your stomach and not your eyes. SEVEN POUNDS runs 1:58. It is rated PG-13 for "thematic material, some disturbing content and a scene of sensuality" and would be acceptable for kids around 10 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, December 19, 2008. 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 reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From homeryen88 at gmail.com Mon Dec 29 17:47:12 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Mon Dec 29 17:47:16 2008 Subject: Review: Seven Pounds (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000812252105n710dc3d4t3d590eb05dde3849@mail.gmail.com> "Seven Pounds" - A Bit Too Heavy by Homer Yen (c) 2008 In an early scene, Ben Thomas (Will Smith) says in an angelic voice, "I have the power to make a dramatic difference in a person's life." No, he doesn't possess supernatural powers nor does he hold sway with people at high levels to purvey special favors nor is he incredibly wealthy. He's just a well-meaning guy who has a gift (several, actually) to give, much like Forrest Gump who could bring something special to the people around him. And, that's a great message to send during the Christmas season. Because, we all have the power to help others and to make another person's life better. You may have seen a film that he did two Christmases ago entitled "The Pursuit of Happyness". That theme dealt with redemption, which also runs throughout "Seven Pounds." However, while that film had an easy-to-follow arc, this film's arc is oblique and the main character's motivation isn't so transparent for 80% of the film. A series of flashbacks give us a glimpse into his life several years back. He seemed happier as if every gift that he had ever wanted had been bestowed upon him. But, some thing has happened, which we aren't immediately privy to. Now, he's terribly sad. He has asked his best friend (Barry Pepper) to carry out a strange favor. So strange is it that his best friend doesn't even know if he can bring himself to carrying out that request. For the first three-quarters of the film, the audience has more and more questions than the film is willing to reveal. Is Ben a messiah? Is he a liar? What's his purpose here? What the heck does the title of the film mean? All we can discern is that Ben has formulated some kind of plan and that he is intent on carrying out. We pick up bits and pieces as there are all sorts of people that Ben interacts with. There's a blind musician. There's a small boy going through chemotherapy. There's a kindly social worker. What links them and Ben together? If you're patient enough, you will find out. Most of the screen time is focused on his budding romance with Emily (Rosario Dawson), who is also suffering some kind of medical ailment. There is a compassionate love story that emerges here. Neither at first seems to have a reason to really live. Yet, when together, their love for each other is the reason that they both want to carry on. Their relationship is tender and both bring to their roles a nice range of acting skills and good chemistry to make this one of the nicest on-screen romances this year. Yet, by now, I'm sure that you can detect my lack of enthusiasm. Will Smith has had an impressive run, scoring 8 consecutive $100 million hits. Despite his nice performance in this film, that record may stop here. It's not that this is a bad film. In fact, sometimes a film is more interesting when a person's motives are kept secret until the very end, which is the case here. But when there isn't anything to latch onto, it's like being in a raft out at sea and just letting the currents take you where they may. Some kind of hint beyond the quick-cut flashbacks would've been nice. You've heard the saying: the mind can only absorb what the butt can endure. Perhaps "Five Pounds" instead of seven would've been better. Grade: B- S: 1 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From mleeper at optonline.net Mon Dec 29 17:51:17 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Mon Dec 29 17:51:18 2008 Subject: Review: The Curious Cae of Benjamin Button (2008) Message-ID: THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: More than just a film, David Fincher's THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is a genuine accomplishment. It stylistically shows a span of history, carefully orchestrating an evolution of style and mood that tracks the passing years. This is an intelligent fantasy with a beautifully sustained and intricate attention to tone. Almost certainly this haunting fantasy will be my best film of 2008. This is a loose adaptation and a translation forward in time of the story by F. Scott Fitzgerald from his TALES OF THE JAZZ AGE. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10 The digital special effects revolution that is now in its fourth decade has reached a higher point of maturity when the question is no longer "What can I put in my movie?" and it is now "How do effects help me to tell this story." That is what the effects do in THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON. They are so seamlessly effective in conveying the story that the director, here David Fincher, can just tell the story he wants to tell. In this case the story is vaguely reminiscent of FORREST GUMP with several parallels. That is not surprising since Eric Roth wrote both screenplays. Benjamin Button (played by Brad Pitt among others in what may come to be the role Pitt is remembered for) was born in 1919 an old man and lives his life getting younger. Along the way we see a wide swath of American history. Like in FORREST GUMP we see his tortured relationship with a woman from whom his condition separates him. This is Daisy, played beautifully (when an adult) by Cate Blanchett. In this case his relationship starts out grandfatherly and the two get closer to the same age until they pass each other into a relationship reminiscent of the end of FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON. At 159 minutes, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is very deliberately paced to lull the viewer into the period feel and to allow him to ease into the fantasy story. Yet there is always more than enough on the screen to involve the viewer. Fincher creates the feel of the period directly and by insetting small stories done in the style of cinema of the time. All sorts of technical aspects are done very nicely including makeup that ages (or un-ages) the characters. One finds oneself impressed with Cate Blanchett's dancing, but later wondering if it might be the result of digital wizardry. The one place where the attention to detail lets us down is in insufficient resemblance between actors playing the same character at different ages. The tale is told in flashback, read from a letter once written to a woman now dying in a New Orleans hospital. The letter tells the story of the life of the title character. His mother died giving him birth and his father (Jason Flemyng), in grief and abhorrence for the monstrous looking baby, rejects him and leaves him on the step of an underfunded nursing home. From birth the child looks more like an old man, which is just what he turns out to be physically. He is adopted by the black care-giver Queenie (lovingly played by Taraji P. Henson) and raised as an old man in the home. Eric Roth's screenplay sticks to purely fictional characters, but he does meet someone who is based on the real-life Ota Benga, the pygmy who was put in a zoo. This film is a technical triumph, but not one whose touches call attention away from the plot line. It is a beautiful mood piece. I rate it +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 9/10. Side note: I do not think we saw all seven lightning strikes. I think it was 2-2-1-1. Did I miss one? Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Mon Dec 29 17:54:23 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Mon Dec 29 17:54:24 2008 Subject: Review: Valkyrie (2008) Message-ID: VALKYRIE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: VALKYRIE is the story of Claus von Stauffenberg and his attempt in World War II to save Germany by murdering Adolf Hitler during a meeting at the Wolf's Lair. How good can one expect to be a film about Stauffenberg starring Tom Cruise and directed by Bryan Singer who is best known for writing and directing superhero films. Well, actually quite good. This is a nice tense political thriller that sticks fairly closely to history. Cruise is not a bad match for Stauffenberg. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10 Spoiler warning: Those who forget history may find spoilers herein. Those who never knew it may likewise. I think that most people who know much about the history of World War II knew that Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg was a hero. And there are even memorials to him and his fellow conspirators in today's Germany. They are, in fact, the only World War II veterans to whom there are memorials in Germany. But his story has not been one that filmmakers have wanted to put into film. He was at once treacherous and noble. He tried to murder his leader Adolf Hitler. Treachery in a humane cause can be a noble thing. And any American ten-year-old I hope would be able to tell you that Stauffenberg must have failed because a bombing at Wolf's Lair is not how Hitler died. So obviously the story of Stauffenberg is a story of failure. And the outcome has to be a real downer, the producers must have realized. The producers had a job to do to make this film a popular one. Even more surprising is the casting of Tom Cruise. Cruise's pretty-boy looks and action hero roles have done a lot for him, but now they are working against him. But Stauffenberg himself did have boyish good looks and Cruise's interpretation of Stauffenberg is not inaccurate. The story should be familiar from history. Claus von Stauffenberg determines that Adolf Hitler is leading Germany to destruction. The film (and history) are a little unclear on Stauffenberg's exact motives. Hitler really was destroying Germany, and Germany was going to suffer for his terrible leadership. Mentioned also is Stauffenberg's indignation at the inhumane offenses being perpetrated by Germany. One set of motives is practical and selfish, the other motivation is on a higher level. In any case, Stauffenberg determines that action must be taken to remove Hitler from power. This was in a society where disloyalty was a capital crime. Early on the film Stauffenberg seems a little too open about his opinions, but loses some of his over-confidence when his heroics get him badly maimed and nearly killed in a battle in Tunisia. Returning to Germany he continues his campaign to remove Hitler, though a little more discreetly than he did in the field. He finds others willing to join the plot against Hitler. In fact, one apparent expedient of the script is that he finds like-minded people just a little too easily. He seems all too ready to put his life into other people's hands. This is obviously a very dangerous practice and Stauffenberg had to survive many times putting his safety and fate into the hands of strangers. It seems from the dramatization that to varying degrees just about anybody he takes into his confidence is willing to some degree or other to cooperate, even if it is just willingness to omit reporting treasonous conversations. In Hitler's Germany that could not have been easy to do. But the plan progresses to the assassination attempt and its tense aftermath. Scriptwriters Christopher McQuarrie and Nathan Alexander have done a surprisingly good job. Too frequently, films called "political thrillers" turn out to be mostly gunfights and car chases. Yes, there is one battle scene and one short gunfight, but for the most part the tension comes from the dialog and the plot. Words are traded, but rarely bullets. The style is much like my personal favorite political thriller, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY. Both films are driven by good dialog and each deals with a military hero attempting to take the reins of government in a coup d'etat. But of course the attempt here is seen from just the opposite point of view. This film is shot with subdued lighting and filters. Frequently the camera is placed just chest-high on the actors to make them seem a little larger than life. In spite of the English- speaking actors, it seems to have the feel of the period. It is rather ironic that the producers are making a story of a man who failed and in a good cause brought about disaster on his co- conspirators because though he was merely a bomber and not a suicide bomber. Had he remained to make sure the bomb killed Hitler, history would have been quite different. Had he been willing to die in the effort, he might actually have been a success. This is a high-tension thriller that that survives the fact that much of the audience knows how everything turns out. I rate VALKYRIE high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10. Side-note: It is fascinating to speculate how the world might have been different had the plot had succeeded. Had Germany sued for peace in July or August, 1944, the Soviets would have had much less of a foothold in Eastern Europe. That part of Europe would have much more like Western Europe. Germany would have escaped a great deal of the destruction that came in the remainder of the war. Rebuilding Germany would not have been as necessary. The country would not have the modern atmosphere that it does today and might be a good deal less forward-looking. After August the Pacific War would have gone a lot faster, having the full wartime resources of the United States. This would have brought American troops to the shores of Japan before the nuclear weapon was ready. The only other alternative would probably have been the invasion of Japan. The Japanese were ferocious fighters on the small islands of the Pacific they would have been really terrifying defenders of their homeland, trained to die rather than lost honor by surrendering. The cost in lives might easily have been over a million with each side taking very large hits. The Allies had greater access to resources so Japan probably would have eventually lost, but it is unclear what would have been left of their country when they did. This would have left lasting hatred on both sides. The resulting future of nuclear weapons is very unclear. Word would have eventually gotten out that it had been a success. It might have been used on Japan eventually anyway. And it probably would have leaked to the Soviet Union in much the way that it did. This is all just speculation but Germany, Japan, and the United States might all have been considerably worse off in the remainder of the 20th Century. [I thank alternate history expert Evelyn Leeper for some of the ideas in this paragraph.] Film Credits: What others say: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From homeryen88 at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 00:09:52 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Tue Dec 30 00:09:54 2008 Subject: Review: Yes Man (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000812252227x18494b52ve630e3f436b51a89@mail.gmail.com> Say "Yes" to Jim Carrey by Homer Yen (c) 2008 Jim Carrey's popularity likely peaked in the 90s when he gave us such unbridled farces such as "Liar Liar" and "The Mask" and "Ace Ventura". In a sense, you could say that this comedy plays to Carrey's strengths as the likeable goof. But, in that same sense, you could say that "Yes Man" doesn't feel very modern. His output feels dated and quaint. Even the film's most hilarious sequence relies on a 90s song by Third Eye Blind. It's funny but familiar. Yet, if you've liked any of those three films from the 90s and if that wacky poster with Jim Carrey frolicking through the meadow with that wide-eyed grin makes you smile, you will like this film because this is what Jim Carrey is all about. Here, Carrey plays a man named Carl who has got to be the most negative person you'd ever meet. And, I was wondering why people would even pay attention to him when all he does is dodge phone calls, brush people off, and take delight in rejecting others/invitations/opportunities. However, we do learn that he doesn't live in an environment that is conducive to positivity. His wife left him some three years ago. He's a loan officer at a bank where no doubt the credit crisis forces him to decline every application that he sees. And his boss, desperate to be liked, is some relic from the 70s who is a cross between Monty Python and the Geico Insurance gecko. As positive as I am, I'd probably readily turn down the boss's invitations to attend his "300"-themed and "Harry Potter"-themed parties. In one of the better sequences, Carl is convinced to attend a meeting that is led by a self-help expert, known as the Guru of Yes. Played by Terence Stamp, who wonderfully plays this role for all that it is worth, this meeting is a hilarious send-up of anything related to The Landmark Forum, a convention for any multi-level marketing company, and those who have been exposed to the zen-like Law of Attraction from the popular DVD "The Secret". When you say "yes", you open yourself to a world of opportunities and possibilities. Carl makes a promise to himself that he will say "yes" to whatever opportunity/request comes his way. There's a certain naivety that comes with this commitment, but Carl is only asked to do simple things where the word "yes" doesn't get him in too much trouble. And soon, he is giving a homeless man a ride and money; he is approving business loans for oddball ideas; he is learning how to play the guitar; he is learning how to speak Korean. Yes-Yes-Yes. His generosity and spontaneity catches the eye of a free-spirited girl (Zooey Deschanel) who enjoys his open-arms approach to life. By the way, Zooey is a ray of sunshine whose cuteness gives the film a needed jolt of modernism. Other than one longer-than-necessary music sequence, the film is efficient in delivering its laughs. And Jim Carrey gets as much mileage as he can, especially when he has a chance to do what he does best and let loose. But it never reaches the comedic heights that you would hope for. And, Carrey has mellowed out somewhat. Yet, you can't fault a guy for being genuinely goofy. And what Jim Carrey may lack in dramatic skill or good looks in this film, he certainly makes up with an incessant desire to entertain. Would I recommend this film? *pause* Yes. Grade: B- S: 1 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3