From dr-pepperite at hotmail.com Wed Nov 5 09:11:09 2008 From: dr-pepperite at hotmail.com (tom elce) Date: Wed Nov 5 09:11:12 2008 Subject: Review: The Midnight Meat Train (2008) Message-ID: <469722a4-a30d-4ab4-b531-ff800e1efc2d@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com> The Midnight Meat Train (2008) 4 out of 5 stars Reviewed by Tom Elce Directed by Ryuhei Kitamura Cast: Bradley Cooper, Vinnie Jones, Leslie Bibb, Roger Bart, Brooke Shields, Tony Curran, Barbara Eve Harris, Peter Jacobson, Stephanie Mace, Ted Raimi, Nora, Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson, Dan Callahan, Don Smith, Earl Carroll Rated: R (MPAA), 18 (BBFC) "Please, step away from the meat" In a mediocre year for horror movies, "The Midnight Meat Train" reveals itself to be a welcome break from the teen-targeted garbage we have now come to expect from the major Hollywood studios. Gritty, violent, and funny unapologetic for how low-rent itself is, the film is 100 minutes of celluloid from which the palpable dread of the affair constantly drips. An inventive little horror film on the order of the esteemed Clive Barker (he behind the memorable if slightly overhyped "Hellraiser"), the film is refreshing in almost everything that goes into it, so capably made that it makes little difference that its ending goes into territory that is wacky to say the least. Its quality is a feat for a film whose title sounds like that of a porno film. Leon Kauffman (Bradley Cooper) is a New York photographer trying to catch the perfect picture with his camera so that he might gain the approval of an esteemed contact (Brooke Shields) of his friend Jurgis (Roger Bart). One his late night travels he rescues a model from a group of threatening gang members by pointing out a nearby CCTV camera pointed in their direction. When the woman's face turns up in the newspaper the next day, Leon takes the photographs he took of the night to the police and continues visiting the train station where she disappeared. There he notices Mahogany (Vinnie Jones), a silent man in a suit who carries a briefcase with him, and whose own travels appear to coincide with a bizarre number of disappearances. "Midnight Meat Train" is not perfect, leaving a few loose ends hanging by the conclusion and arguably playing up too much on the gore. What makes up for these faults, however, is the atmosphere director Ryuhei Kitamura brings to proceedings. As Leon begins to follow Mahogany throughout the day, we urge him to get the hell out of there, anticipating what is to come from a silent man who seems the perfect choice for a sociopathic serial killer. Naturally, Leon doesn't back off, his surveying of the suspected murderer rapidly becoming an obsession that threatens his relationship with girlfriend Maya (Leslie Bibb) when it seems, to her and everyone else, that Leon is going crazy. He's not, and the results are what horror fans watching would have hoped for. Several sequences on the train where Mahogany carries out his murders are both creative, frightening and intensely bloody. Using a series of weapons to dispatch of his victims, Mahogany registers no emotion when taking human lives, this most notable part of him lending to one of "The Midnight Meat Train's" most effective sequence. Having decided to finally follow Mahogany onto a train, Leon lets himself in for a terrifying ordeal that just might confirm his suspicions. Similarly excellent, however, is a scene between Maya and Jurgis set in Mahogany's apartment. Written by Jeff Buhler and based on Clive Barker's story, "The Midnight Meat Train" is a complete 100-minute horror film that easily puts to shame the abysmal likes of the recently released "Saw V." With fine performances all-round from Bradley Cooper, Vinnie Jones, Leslie Bibb and Roger Bart, it is a film both magnificently developed and capably acted, a flawed but nonetheless expert little horror movie that, for all the wackiness of its denouement, also comes to a whopper of an ending. Non-fans of the horror genre most certainly might not like it, but if blood, guts and suspense are all your thing, horror fans could do much much worse. From dr-pepperite at hotmail.com Wed Nov 5 09:11:48 2008 From: dr-pepperite at hotmail.com (tom elce) Date: Wed Nov 5 09:11:49 2008 Subject: Review: 88 Minutes (2007) Message-ID: 88 Minutes (2007) 2 out of 5 stars Reviewed by Tom Elce Directed by Jon Avnet Cast: Al Pacino, Neal McDonough, Alicia Witt, Leelee Sobieski, Amy Brenneman, William Forsythe, Deborah Kara Unger, Benjamin McKenzie, Leah Cairns Rated: R (MPAA), 15 (BBFC) As it meanders towards a conclusion of such inanity it deserved to be relegated to the barren wasteland of straight-to-DVD releases (rather than simply being consecutively pushed back from release), Jon Avnet's 88 Minutes imagines 24 in an even more limited time frame, where sense and narrative flow are, like the Al Pacino's victim to a faceless tormentor giving him only eighty-eight minutes to live, simply lost. By the time the non-too-shocking twist conclusion, which seems to spring direct out of a bad James Patterson novel (as in anything post- Cat and Mouse), its fate as already been pretty much sealed. Here's an ill-inspired, gimmicky little thriller short on intelligence and even shorter on the would-be requisite thrills of the genre, its screenplay amounting only to a joyless slog through cliches and convention where the featured criminal outside of the present-time race for life Pacino's Dr. Jack Gramm now faces is Neal McDonough's (he of the borderline-iconic I Know Who Killed Me catastrophe) high- camp portrayal of convicted psychopath (or is he?) Jon Forster. His playing part in such a waste of celluloid doesn't come as a surprise, though its disappointing to see someone like Al Pacino relegated to this level of inept filmmaking. As Gramm races literally against time, his agony feels like a prolonged one to us, not least because the film's running time stretches a good distance beyond eighty-eight minutes. It partly makes up for its grand inanity via a few technically proficient sequences, all of which are nonetheless overshadowed by the film's worst. Or its worst traits in general, as the connection of the number 88 to the death of his sister feels like a gimmick regardless of director Avnet's intention. Again, why is Al Pacino wasting his time here? Well... Pacino's performance itself isn't anywhere close to his best, simply a disinterested stroll through material he probably had only monetary interest in to begin with. Joining him on the film's iffy cast list are a string of once-promising thespians, like Leelee Sobieski and Alicia Witt, playing stock roles designed only to arouse suspicion. With its few pleasures (so indistinct as they are that they've all pretty much faded from my memory), "88 Minutes" seemed like it might have made a middle-of-the-road if worthless TV production, though its conclusion, borrowing heavily from the pantomime's "he's behind you" formula, proves to be that proverbial nail in the coffin. From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Nov 5 09:13:52 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Nov 5 09:13:55 2008 Subject: Review: Appaloosa (2008) Message-ID: APPALOOSA (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Two hired mercenaries are made deputies in a small New Mexico town to round up a rancher who murdered a deputy. A fine cast produces a surprisingly low-key outing. It sports a plot like a Western from 45 years ago, but pacing familiar from LONESOME DOVE. APPALOOSA is an unexceptional Western but one with a good eye for detail. It was produced by, directed by, and stars Ed Harris, who also sings a little. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 As the film begins Everett Hitch (played by Viggo Mortensen) philosophizes in voice-over that the foreseeable never really happens and the unforeseeable is what your life becomes. That is apparently what happens to him and his partner Virgil Cole (Ed Harris), two lawmen and hired killers, when they are engaged by the town of Appaloosa, New Mexico to bring in a local rancher who murdered a deputy. The rancher is Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons) who, with a small army of ranch hands, is a law unto himself. The two are good killers and do not expect it to be a big job. Ah, but the unforeseen is what their life becomes as they begin a long battle of wits against Bragg. Meanwhile, Cole falls in love for the first time with Allison French (Renee Zellweger), a widow lady who comes to town and immediately is attracted to Cole. The plot of the two lawmen trying to capture and bring to trial a powerful rancher is the sort you might find in a Western that would have been made in the 1960s. This plot has a little more depth in that Virgil Cole is sort of a dubious hero. First he insists on becoming the town dictator, with his own set of laws to make easier his task of bringing law and order. He is a killer with a badge. And the badge is the only thing that makes him better than Bragg, who is also undeniably a killer. If any character is sympathetic it is not Cole but Hitch who is in the partnership a definite second among equals. While the plotting is 1960s, the low-key style and pacing are post-LONESOME DOVE. This gives us more time to get to know the characters, and the film covers a long time both on the watches of the audience and in the lives of the characters. There is no brash Western score of the sort that Elmer Bernstein would have given APPALOOSA. Instead we hear only three or fewer instruments at any one time. The photography is often dark figures on a bright background to give the feel of the hot New Mexico climate. This would all be bleak if it were not for some light dialog, especially between Hitch and Cole. With one running gag Cole has a propensity for using impressive words that are just on the tip of his mind but no nearer. He is anxious to use big three- dollar words in an era when three dollars would have bought a lot more than it does today. The film is based on the novel by Robert B. Parker (who generally writes about detectives Spenser and Jesse Stone). In addition to the other hats Harris wears in this production (and it usually is a broad-brimmed black hat on screen) Harris also sings a song over the end credits and proves to have nearly as good a singing voice as that other actor-director Clint Eastwood. The film has some good actors in smaller roles like Timothy Spall and Lance Henriksen. I am just not sure that Zellweger really feels like a woman of the period. Mortensen and Harris play well together like two men who fit each other like comfortable old shoes. Hitch might like Cole's woman, but he usually knows not to push the issue. Hitch is the better educated, but Cole is reading Emerson to try to catch up. Hitch knows that he has just book learning, but Cole knows the job of handling ruffians and gunfighters. Their byplay and the little details of life in the 1880s are arguably more important to the film than the inevitable big gunfight. Most attempts to bring back the Western try to imitate the big brash westerns. This one is more like the minor B westerns of the 60's. I rate APPALOOSA a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. For those who stick through the credits, the film's dedication is to Ed "Big Red" Pennybacker. He had a small role as the train conductor but also was a popular newsman on KQUE in the Albuquerque area. He died in July. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From modemac at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 09:18:45 2008 From: modemac at gmail.com (Eric Walker) Date: Wed Nov 5 09:18:46 2008 Subject: Retrospective: The Mindscape of Alan Moore (2003) Message-ID: <14718d7c-3be9-43da-8453-38dfe3e1cdb5@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com> Alan Moore sits in front of the camera, talks about mysticism, magic, and information overload, and predicts the end of the world in the year 2015. I could mention Alan Moore's remarkable contributions to the field, art, and popularity of comic books (and so-called "graphic novels"), but why bother - anyone who wants to sit down and watch a documentary called "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" already knows who Alan Moore is. You know about "Watchmen", "Swamp Thing", "V for Vendetta", "From Hell", "Lost Girls", "Top 10," "The Killing Joke," "Miracleman," and maybe even "Abelard Snazz" and "The Ballad of Halo Jones." For many rabid comic book fans, Alan Moore is a God. He can do any damn thing he wants in comics, and the fans who are convinced of this are the ones who will be sitting down to watch "The Mindscape of Alan Moore". And many of those fans will be sorely disappointed. If you hope to hear him going on at length about Rorschach, John Constantine, Smax, Supreme, or Tom Strong, stop reading now because he doesn't mention them at all. On the other hand, if you know about the Alan Moore who enjoys delving into philosophical explorations of art, mysticism, magic, his concept of "the Ideaverse," and those esoteric concepts he revealed with The Birth Caul and "Promethea", then you'll be fascinated and entertained; and you'll come away doing something that hardcore scientific skeptics are horrified at: you'll be thinking magically. Some of the audience watching this won't be drooling fanboys with "Watchmen" T-shirts and "V for Vendetta" masks. These are the ones who'll enjoy "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" for what it is: Moore preaching to his audience, rambling about any subject that comes to his mind. He doesn't interact with anyone, not even the film's director, DeZ Vylenz (the "Z" is capitalized, suggesting a filmmaker with ambitions of being the next "McG" or "The Wachowski Brothers"); Moore simply sits in front of the camera, against a background of images chosen to support the subject he's talking about at the moment, with a soundtrack of minimalist electronic music and sounds; and he talks about subjects near and dear to him. He's a character himself, as anyone who's seen him before knows: wild, unkempt hair and beard, a long, thin face with staring eyes, and a deep, droll, monotone voice in a thick Cockney accent. American listeners will have trouble understanding his words at first, until they become used to him after a few minutes. Despite the (deliberately) ominous and mysterious look he gives when staring at the camera, Moore's attitude is actually quite friendly: while he's lecturing to the audience, we don't get the impression that he's talking down to us or treating us with disdain. He's talking about something that interests him, and he wants us to be interested in what he has to say. Once we get used to his style of speaking, we find that, in the same manner as his comic books, he speaks in a very literate, rather poetic style that is still very easy to understand and digest. And that's especially pleasing, considering that the subject Moore tackles here is very intellectual and philosophical. Moore covers each subject in vignettes lasting about five minutes or so, before moving on to the next stage of his piece. After giving a brief synopsis of his employment history before he began writing comic books, Moore delves into the philosophy he developed, and here he gives us a treatise on his belief in "magic" and how it relates to art and creativity. To Moore, making magic has less to do with standing at an altar or bonfire chanting old incantations, than it does with being creative. The point he puts across here is that "magic" - at least the kind that he practices - covers the inexplicable, mystical force that governs our lives, makes us conscious, allows us to experience the physical world, and makes us creative. To him, making magic has a lot to do with writing and creating art: even to the point where an artist is the closest thing the modern era has to what used to be called a "shaman" in the past. In Moore's mind, you're making magic when you're creating something personal, something that you are putting your very soul into creating. His bias is obvious, since he's a talented writer and that's where he pours most of his creative energies; by extending this philosophy, one could say that a computer programmer's magic is in the programs he writes, and a car mechanic is making magic when he takes an old antique wreck and brings it back to working life. (Isn't that what the Church of the SubGenius calls "Slack?") Moore ties a number of his major works into this thesis, by bringing up the now-legendary "sex issue" of "Swamp Thing" (#34, for those of you who want to rush out and buy it), and saying how it was his first foray into eroticism in comics. This led to the creation of "Lost Girls", his epic work of pornography that he states is a solution to the "problem" of erotica: that the only form of literature (or so he says) that deals with sex in a frank manner is a dirty, disrespected, under-the-counter literature that literate folks refuse to treat in a serious manner...and that doesn't aspire to literary heights, either. (Presumably he considers "Lolita" to be an obvious exception to the rule; though it's doubtful there will ever be a graphically illustrated comic book adaptation of "Lolita.") He also talks about "Brought to Light," the conspiracy-laden history of the CIA that he worked on in the 1980s (and here he makes a point about conspiracy theorists that I can certainly agree with: "Conspiracy theorists love their conspiracies because they are comforted by the idea that a vast conspiracy controls everything. The truth is far more sinister - the truth is that *no one* is in charge and the world is rudderless"), and also touches on "Watchmen" and "From Hell". These works are interspersed with his theories of magic, all leading up to his underlying idea that ideas themselves, information, and consciousness exist in a realm of existence outside the laws of science - a place that he calls "The Ideaverse." For justification of his theory, Moore looks to quantum physics, noting how this advanced field of science also postulates that the entire physical universe is nothing more than the by-product of information. Or, as Moore quotes from religion, "...in the Beginning there was the Word." He notes the way that ideas, seemingly non- existent for the course of history until they come into existence, appear to occur in multiple instances at roughly the same time, and the way that the use of language is essentially "magic" - even to the point where it's immersed in our culture, as a "grimoire" (book) is simply another spelling of "grammar;" and the idea of "casting a spell" is little more than "spelling" a word. In an amusing (though depressing) anecdote, he notes that the most active "magicians" working today are TV commercial writers and producers - they're not making their magic to help people, but rather to seduce them and make them buy material things. Considering how closely this discussion of magic, information, and the "Ideaverse" ties in with the Immateria of Moore's "Promethea" comic book series (which he had just begun, along with the other ABC titles, at the time this documentary was recorded), it's surprising that he doesn't give a single mention of that series here. However, if you want an idea of what Moore's conception of the end of the world is like, read the final issues of "Promethea". According to Moore, the rate of information produced and gathered by mankind is accelerating at an exponential rate, and he theorizes (without offering any specifics) that it is likely to come to a head around the year 2015. At that time, he says, our society's oversaturation of information will reach the point where the "fluid" state of human intellect will boil over and turn into "steam." This matches the Apocalypse that Moore gives us at the end of ""Promethea"" - the world doesn't end with a bang, but with a whisper, as a new kind of information, imagination, knowledge, and "magic" is introduced to place civilization onto an entirely new level of existence. While it's certainly unlikely that this transformation will take place on a literal, physical level (and Moore certainly doesn't suggest this), it is rather suggested that some apotheosis will come when human knowledge and information reaches the saturation point. "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" concludes with this statement by Moore, and he seems pessimistic as he states this - or maybe it's just the image he presents, with his shaggy mane of hair and truly British voice. I can see "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" being screened at pagan gatherings and festivals like Starwood and Winterstar, because the audience there will appreciate it far more than comic book or science fiction conventions. But don't worry, comic book fans - this is a two- disc set, and the entire second disc contains interviews with artists who've worked with Moore, including Melinda Gebbie ("Lost Girls"), David Lloyd ("V for Vendetta"), Dave Gibbons ("Watchmen"), and Jose Villarrubia ("Promethea"). There's a lot there for you to enjoy, and even something to appreciate. But this documentary is so arcane and focused to appeal to a narrow audience, I doubt you'll ever get a chance to see this unless you're willing to go out and spend $25 on the two-disc DVD set. If you're a hardcore Alan Moore fan and are already familiar with his delvings into magic, then you'll find this to be worth every penny. If you're looking forward to the "Watchmen" movie just because you want to see Rorschach kicking ass, then you'll simply fall asleep, spin your head in delirium, or just turn it off. Then again, there were complaints about "Promethea" as well, from both fans and publishers, suggesting that it was pushing Moore's "religious" ideas rather than giving slam-bang superhero battles. Moore's reply was: "...there are 1000 comic books on the shelves that don't contain a philosophy lecture and one that does. Isn't there room for that one?" ("Alan Moore Interviewed by Eddie Campbell," Egomania #2, December 2002: pp1-32). This documentary made me feel as though I know one of my favorite authors on a more personal level, and I like that. Whether or not you believe in magic, that's a good enough reason to watch this. -- The High Weirdness Project http://www.modemac.com From dr-pepperite at hotmail.com Wed Nov 5 09:19:52 2008 From: dr-pepperite at hotmail.com (tom elce) Date: Wed Nov 5 09:19:54 2008 Subject: Review: Saw V (2008) Message-ID: <94a25e6c-582f-4317-bee8-1afee221fad4@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Saw V (2008) 1.5 out of 5 stars Reviewed by Tom Elce Directed by David Hackl Cast: Costas Mandylor, Tobin Bell, Scott Patterson, Betsy Russell, Julie Benz, Meagan Good, Mark Rolston, Carlo Rota, Greg Bryk, Laura Gordon, Shawnee Smith, Angus Macfadyen, Mike Realba, Lyriq Bent, Athena Karkanis, Justin Louis, Donnie Wahlberg, Danny Glover, Bahar Soomekh, Tim Burd, Niamh Wilson, Tony Nappo, Mike Butters Rated: R (MPAA), 18 (BBFC) A series that stood virtually complete with the third entry, the "Saw" saga put the proverbial nail in its own coffin with the rank "Saw IV". And in a more creatively-minded movie world, that would have been that for Lionsgate's reliable cash cow. Yet this specific production company isn't interested in artistic integrity nor an abundance of logic, and while all human instincts pointed towards allowing this series to truly die, their executives weren't about to miss out on dollars aplenty. Thus, "Saw V" is born. Clunky, mediocre and never ever scary, this latest installment sees David Hackl - second unit director of the last two entries - take seat in the directors chair, with the jarringly untalented Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton once again taking up screenwriting duties. Their focus primarily on relaying what made Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) - revealed to be Jigsaw's (Tobin Bell) accomplice in the conclusion of the last film - come over to the dark side, this uninteresting, plodding story broken up ocassionaly by their version of "Saw II", in which Julie Benz's wig gives a more memorable display than the actress herself. "Saw V" is certainly horrific, but not in the way intended. Atrociously acted, hyperactively shot and edited, inanely written and completely lifeless when compared to the first three entries at the least. Whereas the original movie kept the plot moving forward in a way that surprised and energized the viewer, this latest is but an insufferable slog through territory covered previously with a whole lot more fire. There is no joy and no intrigue in watching the pieces connecting Detective Hoffman to Jigsaw's gruelling games, as the movie meanders along at the same sluggish pace, affording us a lead villain of no apparent interest and a central performance by Costas Mandylor that couldn't look more bored and defeated were the actor to really try for it. Worse still, something at least partway similar was glimpsed in "Saw III" regards Amanda Young (Shawnee Smith), so the journey the director/screenwriter partnership takes us on feels like repetition regardless. And then there's the ending; Having equipped the film with the tagline "you won't believe how it ends" the marketing people are at least aware of the sole driving force of the series. Alas, the conclusion to "Saw V" is so empty, worthless and unsurprising that it actually stands to make the film worse (whereas the endings to the previous films, even the poor "Saw IV", at least went out with a shot in the arm). There is no payoff to be had in the closing three minutes, as it simply amounts to another brutal flytrap only this time scored to the recognisable theme music of the series as opposed to the thud-like sound effects experienced previously. The ending, simply put, isn't anymore an event than the soul-defeating eighty minutes that proceed it. When Tobin Bell's John Kramer got his throat slit by Jeff (Angus Macfadyen) in the ingenious closing moments of "Saw III", he died and took the series with him. Unfortunately, Lionsgate - quickly becoming the most creatively bankrupt studio around - didn't (or wouldn't) get the message. The result of which is that the puzzle the original villain has now successfully put together is so spectacularly elaborate that it no longer borders on ludicrous, but has plunged off the edge of the logic-driven world. With no surprises and no pay-off, "Saw V" doesn't even live up to the basic expectations set by its brethren, credible solely for a gloomy aesthetic and a couple of sadistic torture implements that still fail to compare to what we've seen in the previous films. The Saw series was always headed in an insipid and uninspired direction as soon as Lionsgate okayed "Saw IV". With "Saw V", it moves ever closer to the bottom of the barrel. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Sun Nov 9 23:12:39 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Sun Nov 9 23:12:42 2008 Subject: Review: I've Loved You So Long (2008) Message-ID: I'VE LOVED YOU SO LONG A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** "The worst prison is the death of one's child. You never get over it," Juliette tells her long estranged sister Lea. Juliette is played, in a performance certain to be nominated for an Academy Award, by Kristin Scott Thomas (THE ENGLISH PATIENT). I'VE LOVED YOU SO LONG (IL Y A LONGTEMPS QUE JE T'AIME) is certainly a good film, but its merits seem relatively inconsequential next to the knockout performance by its lead, Scott Thomas. As a lonely, morose woman who committed a horrific crime many years ago, Scott Thomas's Juliette is a mesmerizing woman whose ever-present sadness and depression are both genuine and touching. Although the film's awful theme is the death of a child, the movie steers clear of tear-jerker territory. Don't get me wrong, you might end up shedding many a tear, but your emotional state will not come from some forced and overwrought narrative. The real beauty of Scott Thomas's acting is the way she uses minimal expressions to convey so much. While her character does let her anger get the better of her on a few occasions, generally Juliette is a walking bottle of corked up emotions. The feelings she has bottled up inside of her -- guilt, bitterness, or whatever -- are something she never, ever talks about. She is so mad at herself and at life that she is incapable of sharing. The script by Philippe Claudel, who also directs, is masterful in telling us only the minimal facts that we need at the moment. While we, as viewers, never feel lost, we also are never ahead of the story as it unfolds. All we know for certain is that Juliette, even though she tells Lea's kids that she has been away on a long trip, has just been released from prison after serving fifteen years for some crime. As time advances, we learn a bit more about Juliette and her troubles. Most of this comes from looking deep into Scott Thomas's eyes, which are like deep pools of nothingness, as if her troubles have robbed her of everything that makes life worth living. Even if the French equivalent of her parole officer is the kindest and most compassionate man you're likely to meet in such a capacity, nothing helps Juliette out of her deep funk. Almost midway through the movie, we finally get a hint of a smile from Juliette, as she allows herself to briefly relax some at a party. Lea, her younger sister, who has not spoken to Juliette in fifteen years, tries to console her but doesn't really know how. A superb character study, I'VE LOVED YOU SO LONG ends by eventually revealing to us the answer to its one small mystery. What we learn is about what we've guessed, but that isn't important. It's not the movie or the story per se that packs the emotional wallop. It's the amazing performance by Scott Thomas that you'll remember for quite some time. Hopefully, the members of the Academy will remember it too when casting their ballots. I'VE LOVED YOU SO LONG runs 1:55. The film is in French with English subtitles. It is rated PG-13 for "thematic material and smoking" and would be acceptable for kids old enough to read subtitles. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, November 7, 2008. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at 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 Sun Nov 9 23:15:54 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Sun Nov 9 23:15:57 2008 Subject: Review: Synecdoche, New York (2008) Message-ID: SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** "Is everything okay?" one character asks another character late in SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK, one of the worst film titles of the year. The answer he gets is the trite and semi-nonsensical response that "Everything is everything." This labyrinth of a film is constructed recursively with characters playing other characters ad infinitum, ad nauseam. The identity of the characters becomes a baffling mystery by the time these lines are spoken. The film's final explanation of its meaning and probably its description of life in general is that "Everyone is everyone." You might want to write than down. A relentlessly morose movie, it is written by Charlie Kaufman (ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND), who makes his inauspicious directorial debut. The movie is about a theatrical director named Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who is busy constructing a play as big as life itself. Some of the characters in his play play Caden and some play characters who play characters playing Caden. In this play within the movie -- whose proposed but rejected title is "Unknown, unkissed and lost" -- Claire Keen (Michelle Williams), one of Caden's mistresses in real-life, plays Hazel (Samantha Morton), another one of his mistresses. Later, another actress plays the actress who plays Claire playing Hazel. I know what you're thinking ("Zzzzzzz"), and you'd be right. Starting off with a hazy but somewhat discernable dividing line between the real world and fantasy world, the movie quickly dissolves into one in which nothing -- apparently -- is supposed to be taken as real. But that is only a guess. The movie is an enigma not particularly worth solving. At first this ode to the hypochondriac Caden, who suffers greatly from a wide host of non-existent illnesses, is actually kind of fascinating and sometimes funny. But by the time the first act is over, the movie has abandoned its mild moments of mirth in favor of a didactically sober tone, like an angst-filled Woody Allen comedy with the jokes taken out. Seen in small doses, the first part of the movie isn't bad. It's definitely worth a laugh or two, even if the characters are so bizarrely and unrealistically drawn that it's downright impossible to care much about any of them. There are lines here and there which are such mind-numbing gibberish that they are kind of fun rolling around in your brain. Perhaps the best of these thought twisters is, "Knowing that you don't know is the first and most essential step in knowing." With dialog full of tautologies masquerading as deeply insightful messages, the movie does have its fleeting pleasures. It isn't worth the price of admission or worth the time to watch it all, but, when it comes on TV, it's worth seeing a few minutes for free. In this case, less is more. Or more precisely, more is just more of the same. SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK runs 2:04. It is rated R for "language and some sexual content/nudity" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, November 7, 2008. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at 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 Sun Nov 9 23:24:57 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Sun Nov 9 23:24:59 2008 Subject: Review: Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000811082006g2bdd4abdk76c0f9b73ad7e058@mail.gmail.com> "Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa" - They Still Like to Move It Move It by Homer Yen (c) 2008 Let me make a few observations. The last film that I actually had time to see and then subsequently review was "Tropic Thunder" back in August. My general willingness to see a movie has diminished these last few months due to a busy work schedule (remember, I commit to quality reviews but am not a quota-driven, paid reviewer) and a sour mood brought on by the struggling economy. But I can always rely on the goofiness of Ben Stiller (who stars in that summer film as well as this one) to bring about a smile. So, if there was a time to emerge from movie hibernation, this is the film with which to do it. Animated films continue to raise the bar in terms of the technology and the final look. And, this one not only looks better and brighter than the original, it feels better too. Yes, there are the undercurrents of strained friendships and personal problems that develop but eventually work themselves out. But surprisingly touching was the brief romantic sub-plot with Melman the Giraffe who suffers from hypochondria and Gloria the Hippo who is looking for a mate. Assuming that their romance continues, in Madagascar 3, we would probably be introduced to a Giraffapotamus. "Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa" is cheerier and more high-energy than the original. You can't help but admire the Penguin foursome whom attacks big tasks with militaristic determination and efficiency. In fact, the best scenes of the film include them, whether they're trying to avoid a crash landing or are executing a plan to start a salvage mission. These guys are like the truffled mashed potatoes that go along side a prime rib dish. Even if the prime rib isn't that good, thank goodness for those truffled mashed potatoes! And speaking of high-energy, of note is Julien the Lemur King (voiced by Sacha Baron Cohen), who is a package of self-delusional absurdity. And, he has the best line that pretty much sums up the off-the-wall viewing experience: "Now hurry before the people come to their senses!" To that last point, however, high-energy doesn't necessarily make it better because while there is a lot of vigor to the performances, there seems to be a lot of places where the dots don't connect. Without pointing to any specific scenes (because this sense is pervasive throughout the film), I'm sure that the writers knew that this film could at some point begin to unravel. Sharks and a volcano? Penguins in Africa? Lions and Granny squaring off in a pugilistic showdown? So, they included a wink-and-a-nod scene with a shark. I refer you to Wikipedia.com where you can search the phrase "jumping the shark". True, this animated feature barely holds itself together. Yet, whether you enjoyed the first "Madagascar" or are just yearning to find something out there to put a little humor in your day, this will put a smile on your face. Grade: B- S: 1 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 From zoeb at bytenoise.co.uk Sun Nov 9 23:28:30 2008 From: zoeb at bytenoise.co.uk (Zoe Blade) Date: Sun Nov 9 23:28:32 2008 Subject: Retrospective: Timecode (2000) Message-ID: Film: Timecode Year: 2000 Rating: 2/5 Summary: An interesting novelty, but not an interesting story. Timecode is impressive in many ways, but that doesn't matter because the people who made it failed to remember one of the most basic rules of filmmaking: don't tell a simple story in an interesting way; tell an interesting story in a simple way. It's filmed in just four shots, much like Alfred Hitchcock's Rope appears to be filmed in just one, only you see all four shots simultaneously, constantly watching the point of view of four separate characters. It's impressive that four shots as long as an entire film each were performed without mistakes, without even getting a cameraman in shot when they intersect. At the end of the day, however, I don't watch films to be impressed by the crew who made them. I watch films to be entertained, and in that context, this is nothing more than a mere novelty. If you're an aspiring director or actor, then maybe this film will interest you - especially as it's self referencing, set in the office of the film company who made it - but I see it as further proof that the screenplay writer is more important than the director when it comes to making a good film. Unless you're really into Hollywood itself, you'd be best off avoiding this one. From Faust668 at msn.com Wed Nov 19 16:43:42 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Wed Nov 19 16:43:45 2008 Subject: Retrospective: Bongwater (1997) Message-ID: <8d427dee-f489-4f42-bb7b-bf3c68074173@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com> BONGWATER (1997) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Two stars You could call "Bongwater" a precursor to the "Tenacious D" movie considering the level of pot smoked and the few trippy montages in it, and the fact that Jack Black and his partner, Kyle Gass, appear in this movie. Other than that, despite some level of inspired new form of trippiness, "Bongwater" fails to rise as any sort of comedy-drama. Luke Wilson, one of my favorite modern unsung actors, is a Portland, Oregon pot dealer who spends his time smoking his bong, sleeping, hanging out with friends, smoking some more and taking calls for selling the proverbial weed. In his life enters Alicia Witt, who becomes entranced by Wilson's paintings and introduces him to an art dealer (Brittany Murphy) who wants nothing more than giddy sex. Then we shift to Witt leaving Wilson for the Big Apple, just after inadvertently burning down Wilson's house, and her encounters with a paranoid sociopath (Jamie Kennedy), some guy who lives underground (Scott Caan), and the ugly world of cocaine parties! Somehow, this middle section with Alicia Witt doesn't gel with Wilson's lonely life in Portland, Oregon, amongst his gay friends. It seems the film is more about Witt's search for her identity than Wilson's, though Wilson's character is the one I was drawn to. We also get a nearly unwatchable sequence with Jack Black as a jolly pot farmer and some trippy points-of-view shots, not to mention Patricia Wettig as Wilson's dead mother. Although Black brings a jolt of energy to the proceedings, this section is bogged down by nothingness, an empty void no less, and Brittany Murphy's grating smile (sorry, it does get on my nerves). Maybe the movie's own inertness is its point but an inert state of being was handled with far more savviness in Jim Jarmusch's "Stranger Than Paradise." The movie finds its spirit in those early Portland scenes, especially a tender moment where Wilson plays footsie with Witt. Witt is also a believer in UFO's and other paranormal activities, though the movie short-shrifts through all the delectable dialogue in the beginning for a bigger message, but what is the message? "Bongwater" never quite finds the identities of its characters and thus prove to be unengaging. Turns out Wilson doesn't care about his burned down house or much of anything else except for the darling Alicia Witt who treats him horribly from the start. All we are left with is a marijuana haze, a UFO, a gay party where Andy Dick gets to strut his stuff, and nothing more. 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 faustus_08520@yahoo.com or at Faust668@msn.com From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Wed Nov 19 16:45:58 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Nov 19 16:46:00 2008 Subject: Review: Quantum of Solace (2008) Message-ID: QUANTUM OF SOLACE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): * 1/2 QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which has possibly the worst title of a major motion picture this year, is the latest in the long running and extremely successful Bond series, of which I am a big fan. Sure, the franchise has had its ups and downs, but QUANTUM OF SOLACE has the dubious honor of being the first Bond film that manages to be downright boring. Previous Bond movie disappointments, such as ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, had enough good parts and characters to keep our interest. But there isn't anything worth seeing in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, save the traditional Bond theme music, which is relegated to the closing credits. Don't even get me started on the disastrous opening credits, which features the blandest and worst Bond song ever. Elevator music makers would reject it as too pathetic. The problems with QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which are many, can't be blamed on Daniel Craig's second rendition of James Bond. In CASINO ROYALE, Craig proved that he was a terrific choice to be the latest actor to play the super suave 007. Indeed CASINO ROYALE was so good that I ranked it as the fourth best film of 2006. While QUANTUM OF SOLACE probably isn't quite bad enough to make my worst of the year list, it would undoubtedly top any list I might make of this year's most disappointing movies. Although I went into the theater fully expecting to love QUANTUM OF SOLACE, or at the bare minimum, to at least like it and be entertained by it, I should not have been so naive. I should have remembered my own trailer rule. As I have said in many other reviews, the trailer for a movie can be a dead giveaway. If the trailer is good, it reassures you of very little. The movie itself may or may not be worth seeing. It's actually pretty easy to make an exciting trailer by using the best bits from any movie. But, if the trailer is bad, as QUANTUM OF SOLACE's trailer certainly is, one can be reasonably sure that the movie will stink. After seeing this film, I am surer than ever of my trailer rule. So what is wrong with QUANTUM OF SOLACE? A lot. I'd start with the director, Marc Forster (THE KITE RUNNER and STRANGER THAN FICTION). He appears clueless as to what he is trying to attempt. As the movie starts, it doesn't even appear to a Bond movie at all. In a dizzying series of blurry shots, cut to a spastic microsecond metronome, we watch an action hero who wants badly to be the next Jason Bourne. Although I hated seeing Bond transformed into a cliched knockoff of an action hero from another series, this turned out not to be the worst part of the production. Eventually, the film slows down enough to let the actors speak. It was at this point that the film really began to sag. Normally, Bond movies feature wonderfully outlandish villains with great diabolical schemes to destroy the world. This time, however, the movie's villain is as bland and his aspirations are as pedestrian as his last name, Greene (Mathieu Amalric). Trying for pseudo relevance, something Bond films normally and wisely eschew, the villain this time just wants to secure controlling interest in the oil field of Bolivia. Ho hum. Besides being saddled with an insipid villain, Bond is also paired with a lifeless Bond girl. Not all of the women in Bond films have been good, but, at least they have all been fairly alluring. Olga Kurylenko's Camille brings nothing to the movie. She isn't particularly tough, smart or sexy. She is just there -- the token female opposite Bond. The list of problems is almost endless. The cinematography, something that is fairly easy to get right, ranges from washed out interior colors to dull travelogue sequences of beautiful landscapes rendered in such a slapdash manner as to make the gorgeous appear merely okay. And, then there is the film's sound. Usually Bond movies are models of clarity, as the actors are careful in their enunciations, thus demonstrating their pride in the script's dialog. QUANTUM OF SOLACE, however, is rife with mumbled dialog spoken too low. Still, the elocution of the actors could be somewhat of a blessing in disguise because you miss much of the miserable dialog. In the best and the worst of the Bond films, you can usually count on lots of funny moments, full of witty lines. But QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a fun-free film with at best a few mildly risible incidents. I snickered a few times. Never loudly. Director Forster has simply sucked the life out of a great series. This film ends with the reminder that James Bond will return. Never, have I looked forward less to the next film in the series. Trying to end this review on a positive note, I guess I can say that surely the next movie has to be better. QUANTUM OF SOLACE runs 1:46. It is rated PG-13 for "intense sequences of violence and action, and some sexual content" and would be acceptable for kids around 10 and up. My son Jeffrey, age 19, and a huge Bond fan like his dad, gave the film just one *. He had a long series of complaints about the movie, which is probably best summarized when he said that it was just so dull and had a horrible storyline. He likes the way that the plot for Bond films are usually really out there, but he hated the way this one tried too hard to be relevant to today, and he hated all of the America bashing in the movie. He said the film contained every chase scene possible, while the time between the chases was all dead space. He ranks this Bond film as the worst one ever, and he has seen them all. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, November 14, 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 Nov 19 16:51:19 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Nov 19 16:51:21 2008 Subject: Review: Quantum of Solace (2008) Message-ID: QUANTUM OF SOLACE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Picking up just after where CASINO ROYALE left off, James Bond is involved in trying to find the people behind the death of his beloved Vesper. This is a decent spy thriller on an adult level. The tone is downbeat, but it is still one of the best in the series. Marc Forster's action scenes could be more coherent, but he is better with the dramatic material. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 The reinvention of James Bond films continues with QUANTUM OF SOLACE. The old James Bond had incredible luck and nearly always did the right thing. This Bond bungles his way into situations and is as likely to foul up someone else's plan as he is to fix it. The tension between M and Bond always seemed a little disingenuous since Bond was clearly MI6's super-weapon. The new Bond as of the last two films is more of a loose cannon and is dangerous to both sides. This makes for a much more believable story. Bond super- villains used to have nonsensical goals like starting World War III or otherwise wiping out humanity. Dominic Greene (played by Mathieu Amalric of THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY) has a rather nasty plot in the current film, but it is not very different from plots that have been hatched in the real world. The new Bond no longer has the incredible luck at gambling the old one did, that kind of luck would have severely damaged the story of CASINO ROYALE, but he does have some unaccountable skills like the old one did. In the new film Bond seems to know how to pilot a 1950s vintage cargo plane. But the new Bond is no longer the guy every schoolboy wanted to be. The old Bond, when he loses the love of his life, drowned the man responsible in a mud bath. The new Bond drinks, and mourns, and strikes out only sometimes at the people responsible. Most of the glamour is gone. So are the gadget-weapons (with the exception of one in CASINO ROYALE). And the insistence that his drinks be shaken and not stirred is a relic of the past. Just about everything that made the series childish have been done away with. Rather than the romantic setting of previous films like Istanbul, this Bond is not afraid to spend much of the film in a Bolivian slum. The film's colors are subdued and faded to give the film a downbeat feel. The new film starts uncharacteristically without the usual gun- barrel and blood logo. Never fear, fans, the trademark logo has been relocated to the end of the film. Instead the film starts with three long and mindless chases as well as the worst Bond title sequence in recent memory over the worst title sequence song. With those out of the way to placate the wrong kind of Bond fans the film settles down to a reasonable pace and a more acceptable--even complex--story. Vesper it seems had gotten involved with a highly secret yet ubiquitous international criminal organization, a sort of a latter-day S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Daniel Craig as very probably the best of the Bonds rushes in to find the new organization and get revenge. He is not quite equipped with all of the facts. Bond follows the trail to Haiti. There his masquerade as someone else brings him into contact with Camille (Olga Kurylenko) who is on her own mission of vengeance. Greene, a member of this secret organization--it is called Quantum--is working a deal with a Bolivian general involving politics, power, and a stretch of worthless desert. (By the way, calling the organization Quantum is an insult to the viewer. The title would have made perfect sense if the word "quantum" was never used in the film. It was like putting the mine in ENEMY MINE rather than explain the title.) Director Marc Forster has had a very mixed bag of films to his credit. He directed MONSTER'S BALL, FINDING NEVERLAND, STRANGER THAN FICTION, and THE KITE RUNNER. That is a very mismatched set of films. While this film has one of the worst title songs of the whole Bond series, it also has some of the best music. Sadly it was not music written for the film, but rather for Giacomo Puccini's opera TOSCA. One of the film's few funny moments had the leaders of Quantum hashing out their plans electronically at a performance of TOSCA. This bit of extreme boorishness, talking over the transcendent music, had to be a new low point for Bond villains. The film takes some swipes at the United States (as they did in previous films like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE) and for the first time in my memory took a little swipe at Israel (claiming one of the villains is ex-Mossad). Also the evil Dominic Greene masquerades as an ecology advocate spouting cliches. QUANTUM OF SOLACE has one of the more complex and satisfying of the Bond film plots. The character of Bond has more depth than he does in some of the more pulpy entries in the series. It is one of the rare Bond films that can be appreciated on an adult level. I rate it a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Film Credits: This is my ranking best to worst of the Eon Bond films (subjective and subject to change). 1. CASINO ROYALE (2006) 2. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE 3. QUANTUM OF SOLACE 4. THUNDERBALL 5. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE 6. DR. NO 7. LICENSE TO KILL 8. GOLDFINGER 9. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH 10. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY 11. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE 12. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS 13. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME 14. OCTOPUSSY 15. TOMORROW NEVER DIES 16. GOLDENEYE 17. DIE ANOTHER DAY 18. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER 19. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN 20. A VIEW TO A KILL 21. MOONRAKER 22. LIVE AND LET DIE [-mrl] From homeryen88 at gmail.com Wed Nov 19 16:52:41 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Wed Nov 19 16:52:44 2008 Subject: Review: Quantum of Solace (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000811180004w754b918frdd05e259dd44e98a@mail.gmail.com> "Quantum" Provides Only Marginal Solace by Homer Yen (c) 2008 Ok, I like James Bond. I really like James Bond. Just hearing the words evokes a certain picture in your mind. And it's more than just a vision of the rugged Daniel Craig. It's a picture of being in command yet having insouciance. It's a picture of being suave and yet being a rogue. I can't really describe it with words. But, if you're following me along so far, then you know what I mean. So far so good. But, something went awry with "Quantum of Solace". As an action film, it's fine. But as a James Bond film, I just want to ask: where did James Bond go? What's the best way to sum up this movie? The movie's DNA seems to be a mixture of "Charlie Wilson's War" (but bereft of anything lighthearted) and anything that featured Jason Bourne. There are essentially two forgettable villains. One looks to stage a coup and usurp the Presidency in Bolivia. The other is looking to establish control of the water utilities of that country. There is some banter about dictatorships and oil interests and other geopolitical musings. Completely uninteresting to me. The real meat of the film is supposed to stem from a desire for revenge. "Quantum of Solace" picks up from the previous film with Bond looking to avenge the death of his lover. The Bond Girl, in this installment, is Camille (Olga Kurylenko) who also harbors a wish to avenge the death of her father. You know, I can't even really say that she can be labeled The Bond Girl, because it never appears that this Bond has any interest in her as a meaningful pursuit or as a disposable pleasure. For both Bond and Camille to reach their intended targets, they both have to go through Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), who is a ruthless businessman but is one of the wimpiest villains of the Bond franchise. In a recent article, Bond Alum Roger Moore expressed his concern that James Bond films were becoming too violent. I think that the James Bond character evolves as the pop culture mindset of today's moviegoer evolves. Just look at how "The Dark Knight" completely transformed the Batman image. But, that film adjusted correctly to the changing times. I don't think that Bond is supposed to change. Sean Connery started out with 80% charm and 20% menace. Today, Daniel Craig, the fine actor that he is, is 20% charm and 80% menace. Yes, this film does honor the first generation Bond. One scene is very reminiscent of Goldfinger. And a new global network of villains is emerging in the vein of SPECTRE. But a lot of what makes James Bond fun has been discarded, at least for this film. How about the tongue-in-cheek lines? Remember when Pierce Brosnan miraculously saved himself from going over a cliff by latching on to a bell? His response: "Heh, saved by the bell!" Classic! How about the crazy Bond Girl names like Pussy Galore or Jenny Flex. Here, the girl's name is just Camille, which sounds like a type of tea. Where's the fun in that? And, where's Q and the gadgets? This is like watching X-Men without Wolverine and Dr. Xavier. Nonetheless, if you have a penchant for action, there is plenty of that here. Bond outmaneuvers pursuers in his Aston Martin, outmaneuvers pursuers in a speedboat, and even outmaneuvers pursuers in a clunky plane. And while he is very good at commandeering vehicles, I missed the simpler times when he could charm a woman into bed with him or just order an often-overlooked brand of wine to compliment the chateaubriand. This newer and grittier Bond is a workhorse. But all work and no play makes James a dull boy. Grade: C+ S: 1 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Wed Nov 26 16:22:20 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Nov 26 16:22:23 2008 Subject: Review: Four Christmases (2008) Message-ID: FOUR CHRISTMASES A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 FOUR CHRISTMASES is one of the first films for the coming Christmas season. It's a comedy that uses Christmas more as a staging device than as a subject. Although there are holiday decorations everywhere, the mood isn't particularly festive and none of the feelings of the season come through even in a dark and ironic way. It just happens to be Christmas, so we have an opportunity to visit four dysfunctional families in a single day. The film is not a memorable Christmas present for viewers. But it's no lump of coal either. It's passable entertainment with just enough good laughs to make it worthwhile. What it does have is a sterling cast. While the two leads, Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon, as longtime lovers Brad and Kate, demonstrate good chemistry together and consistently hit their comedic marks, the same cannot be said of the supporting cast. The supporting cast is certainly talented, as Robert Duvall and Sissy Spacek play Brad's divorced parents while Jon Voight and Mary Steenburgen plays Kate's divorced parents. Still, this star power is largely wasted with none of the actors, save the two leads, breathing much life into their roles. And the writers give all of the good lines to the leads, especially to Vaughn, whose mile-a-minute delivery of some very funny stuff is the best part of the picture. When we first meet Vaughn and Witherspoon, they are a couple of bickering strangers at a bar. As the two of them, under assumed names, trade pickup lines and insults, Vaughn gets the upper hand in their series of exchanges when he tells Witherspoon, "If I wanted an asexual pen pal, you'd be on the top of my list." Soon after their staged fight, we see Brad and Kate back at home in their luxury apartment atop one of the San Francisco hills. They aren't married but are extremely happy together, as they take large and awkward pains in continually reminding each other. When the Christmas season rolls around, Brad and Kate always head off to a third world country to help the impoverished. Well, that's the rationale they give their parents as the reason they won't be coming home for Christmas. Brad and Kate, however, are way too hedonistic to spend their precious time on good causes or with bad families. The stories they give their families are always lies. (Several characters point out that the word "families" contains the word "lies.") Brad and Kate make a point of spending their holidays in different luxurious and exotic venues. Their only problem is the fear that their vacations may end up being repetitive. After fog grounds all the planes and Brad and Kate's families accidentally see them on TV stuck at the airport, Brad and Kate are forced against their will to endure all four families in one single, awful day. Of course, they survive it all and learn a thing or two about themselves in the process. The comedy can be fairly slapstick at times, but it works in fits and spurts. What falls miserably flat is the whole last act, as the story tries to switch to heart-warming drama. This whole last part feels forced and tacked on. But it falls to Vaughn's Brad to make it worth the price of admission, as he delivers various hilarious thoughts on life. Among other things, Brad tells us that his childhood was like "The Shawshank Redemption" and that the beauty of having children is that "they're like little walking tax shelters." Still, I expected more of FOUR CHRISTMASES since it was directed by Seth Gordon, whose THE KING OF KONG: A FISTFUL OF QUARTERS was last year's best documentary. Steve Wiebe, the star of THE KING OF KONG, has an unmemorable cameo in FOUR CHRISTMASES. FOUR CHRISTMASES runs a fast 1:22. It is rated PG-13 for "some sexual humor and language" and would be acceptable for kids around 8 and up. My son Jeffrey, age 19, giving it ** 1/2, said that it was sort of fun. He said that there were no amazing laughs but there were some good ones. He didn't have strong feelings about the film other than that the last act was weak and that he enjoyed seeing Steve Wiebe again. Jeffrey's girlfriend Yasmin, also 19, gave it *** and would have given it more, she said, if the last part have been better. She found the film much like MEET THE PARENTS, a movie that she loves. She liked how crazy Brad and Kate's families were. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Wednesday, November 26, 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.