From homeryen88 at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 21:07:14 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Mon Sep 1 21:07:17 2008 Subject: Review: Wall-E (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192031s16bd8778wbc686243c9ad2e64@mail.gmail.com> "Wall-E" -- A Nice Space Odyssey by Homer Yen (c) 2008 PIXAR studios has consistently churned out one feel-good hit after another. And "Wall-E" won't disappoint. It is an incredible piece of animated art. The soundtrack evokes a romantic era which buoys the love story within. And, the story mixes in elements from "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Star Trek," and "Short Circuit". Now, it's not perfect, for the story is a tad too dark for those under 10, and it's a tad weak in its ability to hold the parental-attention-span. In fact, last year's "Ratatouille" was superior. Yet, this film is miles ahead of "Cars." It's 700 years in the future, and the state of humanity looks bleak. Due to rising levels of pollution and trash and toxicity, humans have left the planet. More on the fate of them later. It appears that all that's left on Mother Earth is a little droid known as a Waste Allocation Load Lifter, Earth class. More affectionately known as WALL-E, he's a trash compactor who spends his days collecting garbage, squashing it into cubes, and then depositing them on empty swaths of land in such a way so as to be able to assemble them into something of a rubbish pyramid. There's a lot of tender-loving-care that has been put into the creation of our little hero. WALL-E is equipped with a laser beam to cut through obstacles, mechanical parts that are easily replaceable (if he can find them), wipers for eyelids, and even hydraulics to crush the garbage into cubes. His home reminds me of the attic of an eccentric uncle who stores all of the odd collectibles that he found over the years but never threw away. He and his home are incredibly detailed. The first 30 minutes, some will notice, is quite boring. And, it's true that not much happens. It is an opportunity for the film to showcase its attention to detail, great visuals, and feats of animation. In fact, I would probably say that you wouldn't be missing much if you strolled into the film 25 minutes late if it were not for the extremely clever mini-film at the beginning. More on "WALL-E" later because I have to give props to the opening mini-film. Entitled "Presto", it is about a disagreement between a magician and his bunny. The presentation evokes the shenanigans of Bugs Bunny and the frantic spurts of Spongebob Squarepants. In a 7-minute span, the cartoon short makes you laugh, makes you feel joyful, and makes you feel appreciative of the power of animation. Like all of the other PIXAR mini-shorts that precede the main attraction, there is no dialogue. It appeals to all cultures. And, of all the Pixar mini-shorts, this one is the best that I've seen. Now, back to the main attraction. One day, WALL-E sees a strange spaceship land. It deploys a robotic scout. We learn that her name is Eva, she carries a powerful gun, she can fly faster than the speed of sound, but she has come to Earth for a very important and specific mission. Now the story moves from the barren planet to a far-away spaceship where the human race has been displaced. At this point, the film picks it up two notches. Before that happens, "WALL-E" feels more like a visit to the planetarium rather than a movie. The latter half blossoms into a grand buddy-adventure film, which is what you would hope for and expect. What actually happens to WALL-E and Eva and the Human race, I'll leave to you to discover. But as the film moves towards its suspenseful conclusion, there are probably three things going through your head. 1) I can't wait for PIXAR's next project. 2) An imagination without boundaries creates a story without limitations. 3) Go for the hand, WALL-E, go!!! Grade: B+ S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 21:08:32 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Mon Sep 1 21:08:35 2008 Subject: Review: "Hulk" (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192037wc5b5232p9f38194f5e910a21@mail.gmail.com> "Hulk" - Incredible at First by Homer Yen (c) 2008 Most people who saw the first Hulk film back in 2003, directed by Ang Lee, found it unnecessarily cerebral. That Hulk was a re-imagined, introspective Hulk. And while the film was ambitious, it felt too ambiguous. This one, thankfully, is more of what modern-day audiences seem to like. We have the conflicted main character with a Dr. Jeckyll/Mr. Hyde complex. There are lives that become shattered. Trouble follows our hero. He is caught between the ideals of self-preservation and self-sacrifice. What's a man to do? Part of why I really enjoyed the film is because I remembered watching the original television show, and this presentation is an ode to that original series. Nostalgia sets in when you see Lou Ferrigno, who was the original Hulk, in a small part; when there is an image of the late Bill Bixby (who played the original protagonist on the tv series); and when a musical passage features the familiar-to-you-if-you've-seen-it TV theme. The film, at first, starts off terrifically as our tragic hero struggles under the weight of his affliction. Not familiar with Hulk lore or the television show? Wikipedia explains it this way: Dr. Robert Bruce Banner (played here by Ed Norton), genius/scientist, is accidentally exposed to a blast of gamma rays. This causes his cells to alter. And, when he gets angry, he transforms into a creature of limitless physical strength, which grows stronger when he is experiencing feelings of rage or pain. As it is told here, Banner's condition was onset by some secretive military program in search of a super-soldier. Realizing his incredible predicament, he flees and tries to find a cure. General Ross (William Hurt), the egotistical General of the project, wants to find Dr. Banner, capture him, and perhaps dissect him so that they can learn how to mimic the transformation process. The opening 40 minutes is a great mixture of suspense, romance and poetry. It's a bonus to have serious actors like Ed Norton take on the lead role of Dr. Bruce Banner and Liv Tyler take on the role of his old girlfriend. They aren't the typical pairing you'd find in a blockbuster-in-the-making film. Yet, these two turn in great performances. Norton perfectly embodies the man-with-a-hidden-power ("Primal Fear", "The Illusionist", "Fight Club"). And Liv Tyler brings undeniable grace and beauty to her role. However, my exuberance only lasted for about the first 40 minutes of the film. The first act was more human, more engaging. Then, the CGI took over, and all the goodwill and the good feelings that the film had developed begins to erode. The film is primarily a series of chase sequences as the military pursues Banner from a Brazilian shantytown to its final confrontation point in NYC. As the film moves closer to its conclusion, there are more and more special effects. And, while there is a certain Marvel Universe storyline that must be upheld, I got bored by the time special-effects Hulk engaged in the climactic battle with special-effects uber-human Abomination (Tim Roth). Although the strength of the first third of the film provided enough momentum to merit a positive review, the experience as a whole felt uneven. It's too bad that a film can start off so well, but then just sort of putters across the finish line. Act I Grade: B+; Act II Grade: B; Act III Grade: C Overrall Grade: B- S: 0 out of 3 L: 1 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 21:10:42 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Mon Sep 1 21:10:45 2008 Subject: Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192041j38a69b32w4cd0d4242c1205f@mail.gmail.com> "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" - The Sword and the Pen Aren't Mighty by Homer Yen (c) 2008 In 2005, audiences were first introduced to the world of Narnia and its most famous inhabitant, Aslan the Lion. That was entitled "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." The land was in jeopardy and under a brutal curse, but Narnia was saved by the Pevensie siblings, unlikely young heroes who were brave beyond their years. They were Edmund (Skandar Kaynes), Lucy (Georgie Henley), Peter (William Mosely), and young Susan (Anna Poppawell). The Pevensie children return to Narnia one year after their first adventure. The brothers, however, do not come across as strong this time around. Edmund has become somewhat of a crybaby. Peter doesn't have any real purpose here. The sisters, though, are a different matter. Lucy has matured into a noble warrior. And, Susan develops a resolute quality as she holds true to her beliefs despite the consternation of others. Soon after re-entering the kingdom, they learn that 1,000 years has passed, and all is not well as the evil Lord Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) wants to ascend to the throne. The four children make allies and work together to help restore the kingdom to its rightful heir, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes). But their plan is not without problems. They experience a tough defeat, patience begins to grow thin, and they begin to rely on something that may or may not be there. While most films like this rests upon a leader's personal growth, the success of this story arc as well as the success of their mission seems to depend too much on Aslan's miracle appearance. Author C.S. Lewis of the Narnia saga has often been criticized for making his stories less of a fable and more of a spiritual re-telling. That spiritual aspect is not as obvious here as it was in the 2005 film. Yet, that inclusion gave the first film a bit of a message and an edge. Without it, the film doesn't feel as committed to its true underpinnings. My innate loyalty to the franchise stems from my days as a 5th grader, growing up familiar with the seven books of the Narnia series. But as a big-film production, the second installment seemed somewhat pointless and not nearly as fun as the 2005 kickoff film. There are several reasons. Bad-guy Miraz is nowhere near as enchanting as the villainess, The White Witch, from the first novel. And, with that thrusting beard, he looks like the undesirable understudy of King Leonidas from "300". Also, I think I'm growing tired of films that culminate into a final scene where a battlefield of good and evil forces are set to collide. You know the kind. CGI special effects create thousands upon thousands of soldiers that stand in threatening formation. Giant war machines, like catapults, are pushed into position. A clever tactic is employed to temporarily stunt the momentum of one of the forces. When it comes to having an awesome-battle-in-scope-and-enormity, "The Lord of the Rings" films set the standard by which all others will be measured. It's like American Idol hopeful Syesha Mercado pluckily singing "I Will Always Love You" on Dolly Parton night. But, it just can't compare to the powerful rendition etched in pop music by Whitney Houston. C.S. Lewis's work has a similar feel as colleague J.R.R. Tolkien who penned the Lord of the Rings. Yes, the world is lushly filled with magical and mystical creatures like fauns, centaurs, minotaurs and other talking creatures. But this one has more of a circus-like feel. And it feels heavily like a cross between "LOTR" (which was more compelling) and "Shrek 2" (which was more kid-friendly). Missing are the stirring speeches. Missing is the inspiring dramatic arc. Missing is the element of originality. As a fantasy adventure, it only somewhat captivated my attention and my imagination. Grade: C+ S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 21:11:27 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Mon Sep 1 21:11:29 2008 Subject: Review: The Happening (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192034o72c9a8den96003d1cac14a3d3@mail.gmail.com> Something "Happening" But Not Sure What by Homer Yen (c) 2008 Weird things are happening in "The Happening". That's expected since the film was penned by the same person who brought us the clever "The Sixth Sense". M. Night Shyamalan has always presented films that harbor strange and unexpected ideas that make you scratch your chin and go "hmmm." This one is no different. "The Happening" is a thriller about a family on the run from a natural crisis that presents a large-scale threat to humanity. There is a chilling build-up for the first 20 minutes of the film as some kind of unexplained phenomenon begins to envelop the greater Eastern Seaboard. People begin to lose their senses, and they start to do things that ultimately lead to their deaths. There are unsettling-but-brilliant examples such as what happens to construction workers working atop a high-rise. There are more gruesome examples such as an incident at the city zoo. If you have a morbid fascination regarding different ways people wind up killing themselves, then you'll find the presentation to be chock-full-of-ideas. But, this is not the kind of creepy-cool storytelling along the lines of Shyamalan's breakout film, "The Sixth Sense". It's more along the lines of "War of the Worlds" in which some kind of unknown enemy wreaks havoc upon an unsuspecting and unprepared society. With regards to Shyamalan's oeuvre of work, this is the first to have an "R" rating. And that's too bad because much of the violence didn't seem necessary because the onset of this catastrophe is unsettling unto itself. The portent of really-bad-things-about-to-happen is represented by the sudden rustling of the leaves and a strange wind that mysteriously emerges. Kudos go to the great cinematography, which ably captures the ominous feel of the wind's weight upon the foliage. Is this some kind of terrorist attack? Is it a side effect of global warming? Is it some weird act of nature? It's almost like asking an auto mechanic what makes that disturbing clunking sound when you drive. The mechanic may or may not know. But the point is that when you hear that funny sound when you drive, the car is very dangerous to others. The story centers on a couple (Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel) and a child (Ashlyn Sanchez) that they need to take care of. The odd thing about the film is that while these three barely manage to stay together, the movie's texture does not. The film suffers from multiple personality disorder. There didn't seem to be a theme that cohesively held it together. In one scene, a separate group of people succumb to this phenomenon. In another scene, they encounter shotgun-wielding lunatics. In another, the three come upon a traumatized old woman. It's one movie title with three separate and distinct acts. Though I wasn't impressed with how the film was strung together, I did like Mark Wahlberg's insouciance and his every-man appeal. I liked the director's ability to turn simple things like a model home or a meadow or even a pastoral town into settings that are sinister. And, the premise behind what caused this catastrophe and the message in the film gives me pause. I'm always interested in how Shyamalan thinks. Sure, I would've enjoyed it more if it did away with the self-inflicted carnage and kept it to a PG-13 rating. But, after all, it's the thought that counts. Grade: C+ S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 3 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 21:12:39 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Mon Sep 1 21:12:42 2008 Subject: Review: Ironman (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192043r31612dedmd042fe62290aaeff@mail.gmail.com> "Ironman" - Fortified If Not Completely Filling by Homer Yen (c) 2008 Sometimes, it's the movie that makes the man (or woman). Last summer's "Transformers" catapulted Megan Fox into the Sexiest Woman Alive as surveyed by FHM magazine. But here, delightfully, it's Robert Downey Jr. that makes the movie. What a great casting decision! Even if your knowledge of pop culture is derived from glancing at magazines placed at the grocery checkout lane, you've probably heard of how this once-Hollywood heartthrob became tabloid fodder. Up-and-coming in the 80s, he feasted on his growing popularity and then descended into a world marred by addiction, hard-partying, and poor judgment. It's the perfect lifetime training for him as he inhabits the role of Tony Stark, supercilious-billionaire-industrialist-cum-superhero. This is the first time that audiences have been introduced to "Ironman" on the big screen. Ironman is not so much a superhero as he is a super-weapon that fits snuggly on a man with lofty purpose. However, Tony Stark was not always a man of high morals. But he has always been a person of astronomical intelligence, which he has leveraged into an insanely profitable, technologically advanced weapons company. Stark is so wealthy that he pretty much has his way with anything and anyone. Of those closest to him, one is his unwavering assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). The character's name sounds like a Jamaican dinner dish, eh? Her job is pretty thankless, divided between keeping his image up while dismissing his one-night stands. On the one hand, there isn't much for Potts to do although she becomes a possible-yet-impossible romantic interest. On the other hand, there's something welcoming and wholesome about having Gwyneth Paltrow in the picture. The other close friend is Pentagon honcho Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard). While he tries to remain resolute and responsible, he finds himself uncharacteristically relaxed when Stark flies with him on his corporate jet that apparently doubles as a Gentleman's Club. The film chronicles the origin of Ironman. And as "Superhero Origin" films go, this one is better than most other "Superhero Origin" films. "Ironman" is leagues ahead of the likes of the inaugural Superman, X-Men, and Fantastic Four. Give credit to the writers for developing Stark as a three-dimensional character that goes from a man of perversity to a man of principle. And, there certainly isn't any deficiency in the acting department here. Among all of the principal players, the cast probably shares among them at least several Oscar nominations from previous cinematic work. And as for the quality of the production, it has ample special effects and all the wild gadgets and gizmos that you would expect from a summer blockbuster about a superhero. What it suffers from, however, is uneven pacing. The best scenes take place early on as Stark goes to the hot zones of Afghanistan to promote his newly designed weapons, getting to see first-hand at what his products can do. These scenes are more human and thus more compelling. As the film moves into its last act, it becomes a duel of testosterone and titanium. Overall, sometimes it's a cool experience. Sometimes it's dramatic. Sometimes it's funny. Sometimes the film seems to drag. As Vince Lombardi said: "Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing." Grade: B S: 1 out of 3 L: 1 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From Faust668 at msn.com Mon Sep 1 21:20:44 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Mon Sep 1 21:20:46 2008 Subject: Review: Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny (2006) Message-ID: TENACIOUS D IN THE PICK OF DESTINY (2006) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars and a half Getting stoned might make "Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny" more enjoyable for some, but it is not essential. Just like "Fear and Loathing" was essentially a movie on drugs and about drugs, "Tenacious D" is a movie high on pot (though not exclusively about pot). I mean, it is baked and edged with stoner ruminations on rock music and rock band, yet it will leave you with a merry, high-pitched glaze over your eyes, reeling from some of the numerous, pardon the pun, pot-belly laughs. Jack Black and Kyle Gass are guitarists on the rise, or so they think, who find each other accidentally. Black's goal as a kid was to rock the earth with his ear-shattering music and, as foretold by his bedroom wall poster of Dio, JB ventures to Hollywood (not a very bright kid since he ventures to different cities named Hollywood before arriving in L.A.) It is there, on presumably Venice Beach, that he meets long-haired Kyle Gass, who is rocking hard on the streets, playing his favorite tunes from his own alleged band, and a real dude (he turns out to be bald, can barely make the rent, and is not actually famous nor is he in a band). Black still senses a connection between himself and Kyle, so they move in together and the name of their band is formed from their prospective tattoos on their bottoms! Hence, Tenacious D is born! "Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny" is not the kind of movie where I should spill too many details. There are various rock music in-jokes here; a few homages to movies like "Mission: Impossible"; LSD or mushroom-influenced dreamlike trances; a rockin' Devil (Dave Grohl), who looks like Tim Curry from "Legend," who can rock and beat those drums better than anyone on earth; an embarrassing moment for Kyle where he has to perform solo for teenagers; a legendary guitar pick carved from Satan's tooth, no less; Amy Poehler as a rude truck stop waitress who has one of the cleverest lines in the movie; Meat Loaf as a stern, religious father; and a Sasquatch cavorting in the woods with Jack Black! All I can say is that if you can stick with the hysteria and an animalistic Jack Black and you love rock music, "Tenacious D" is the movie for you. If you find Mr. Black and rock music, especially the band's own satirical music, acquired tastes and you need a plot to move things forward, then this movie is not part of your destiny. 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 Thu Sep 4 10:02:08 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu Sep 4 10:02:12 2008 Subject: Review: X-Files 2 - I Want to Believe (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192015m603a623bs109bdc22869d40e2@mail.gmail.com> "X-Files 2" - Believe It, This Is a Good Film by Homer Yen (c) 2008 It's been six years since the popular television show went off the air. And, it's been 10 years since their inaugural feature film when X-Files popularity was riding high. So, do we need this feature-length installment? Not really. However, I'm glad that they made it. It's like asking: "does Pecan Pie actually need some whipped cream on top?" No, but I'm glad that it's there. Happily, Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) haven't missed a beat, and they easily slip on their roles like a comfortable pair of fuzzy slippers. He still has that boyish charm and killer curiosity. Meanwhile, she is gracefully edging towards Julianne Moore territory. Mulder is now out of the FBI and keeping a low profile. Yet, he still possesses a wicked intelligence, keen observational skills, and a belief in things that others would find unbelievable. Most of all, he is still troubled by the government's lack of transparency (hey, aren't we all?). Meanwhile, Scully has moved on from being a brilliant forensics expert to a brilliant surgeon. It's this counterbalance that makes them well-suited for each other. And, it is this dichotomy that keeps them romantically apart. Their feelings and opinions for one another are challenged when this pair becomes embroiled in a deep mystery. Mulder wants to believe that the truth is out there. Scully wants to get away from the darkness that inevitably comes when Mulder wants to believe. An FBI agent has gone missing. The case is at first handled by two seasoned agents (Amanda Peete and Xzibit). And in a virtuoso opening scene, a large search party forms a huge line as they walk in cadence, prodding the snowy field beneath them. The trail is quickly growing cold. And the only leads come from a disturbed priest, Father Joe (Billy Connolly). He may be psychic, which intrigues Mulder. He is also a convicted pedophile, which infuriates Scully. "X-Files 2", with its more-intelligent-than-you-might-expect screenplay, is part medical drama and part police thriller. This installment foregoes its mythology of government cover-ups and deadly viruses and aliens. Here, the film is like one of those finer, one-off, standout episodes. Yet, those who have never seen the television show need not worry. You do not have to be the least bit familiar with its lore to follow along and enjoy the evolving storyline. Well, "follow along" might actually be the wrong choice of words. Nothing is normal in this world. Like peeling an onion, the film slowly introduces new clues and crimes. The plot becomes much more sinister than a simple missing person's case. One of the things that I admired was the refreshingly organic feel of the film. It focuses on the human drama and limits the special effects. The story is purposefully paced. And, with real lives at stake, the suspense level goes up. In addition, the film's cinematography excellently captures the bleak and uninviting atmosphere that our agents work in. The landscape is desolate and what they're up against is eerie. "I Want to Believe" is everything that we would expect from a really good X-Files episode. But it is also a confident and well-constructed standalone film. The tone is somewhat chilling, the story is taut, and the way in which it develops is intriguing. Mulder and Scully continue to fight the good fight. Grade: B+ S: 1 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 10:04:23 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu Sep 4 10:04:25 2008 Subject: Review: The Dark Knight (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192019w3eaeb37eubf0a18759ea5d765@mail.gmail.com> "Knight" in Shining Armor by Homer Yen (c) 2008 There are superhero movies. And then there are super hero movies. "The Dark Knight" has that rare combination of high quality filmmaking that will garner Oscar nods while also being an action-packed film that delivers pure summer movie escapism. Following the success of 2005s "Batman Begins", this impressively lives up to all of the hype that has preceded it. It is not only a film that transcends the comic-book-to-big-screen genre, but it is also a simply magnificent Hollywood production. The buzz around Heath Ledger's performance as the demented Joker is completely justified. Jack Nicholson's performance as the Joker in 1989s "Batman" movie was gleefully campy. Here, Ledger is unrecognizable and ruthless. I've read that to prepare for his role, he lived alone in a hotel for a month as he formulated the character's psychology, posture, and voice. The result is an incredible performance of a psychopath who doesn't care about himself at all or others. I think about why bullies take candy from a baby, which causes them to cry. It's not that the bully wants the candy. It's that the bully likes to make the baby cry. There's no reason for it. And, there's no reason for the things that the Joker does. That kind of personality, highlighted by his "disappearing-pencil-trick", makes him a supremely menacing foe. The Joker, an outcast like Batman himself, orchestrates a reign of terror on the city of Gotham. This villain is truly Batman's (played by Christian Bale) equal. Both seem to have infinite resources. Both seem to understand how to master their environment. Joker only has one goal in mind, and that is to create enough rifts among the "good" people of Gotham so that their moral infrastructure will collapse. High level law enforcement officials all become targets of the Joker. Per this subplot, we are also introduced to Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), a young and ambitious District Attorney who provides hope to the Gothamites. Like Batman, he is also committed to justice. The Joker, through chaos and destruction, wants to break down the restraints that keep Dent and Batman on the right side of the law. If it weren't for the multiple pursuits and the explosions and the epic feel, the film would be an equally interesting psychological drama. But the film is turbo-charged with first-rate action. It's great to see Batman use his cape as a parasail, to see his Batmobile convert into a Batcycle, to see him give villains a deserving beatdown, and to be the hero that Gotham deserves and needs. And yet, the special effects do not overwhelm the underlying story. The subplot regarding Harvey Dent is nicely fleshed out. The decision to just introduce Joker as a ready-made villain is a good idea. The film's intensity and wit is established from the very first scene. It involves a bank robbery where surprises lurk for the gunmen every three minutes. And throughout the film, there are scenes that develop in totally unexpected ways when you first watch them, but then you reflect upon the ingenuity of the setup once you leave the theatre. And here's one of those unexpected gems. While Batman lives on to fight another day, in many ways it is the Joker that ultimately wins. The Joker is a villain that every film needs, but not every film deserves. This is a great film. This film needs the Joker. The summer audience deserves "The Dark Knight". Grade: A S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 2.5 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 10:04:53 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu Sep 4 10:04:55 2008 Subject: Review: Stepbrothers (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192021q19770b75kf9cfc59791919e90@mail.gmail.com> "StepBrothers" - Stupid is What Stupid Does by Homer Yen (c) 2008 Watching "Stepbrothers" doesn't so much inspire me to review the film itself as it does to warn people that 40-year olds who act like 14-year olds for the mere sake of acting like a 14-year old doesn't make for a funny film. I'll give Will Ferrell credit for his relentless desire to make people laugh. And, I'll give credit to John C. Reilly for having such a varied resume of film roles. They've been in better quality films. And I like them both. But the premise of "Stepbrothers" creates a lose-lose situation. When these two middle-aged men act like morons, it's stupid. And, when these two middle-aged men act like middle-aged men, they're not funny. So, either the film is stupid or not funny. Anyway, Ferrell plays Brennan, who is the son of divorced-mom Nancy (Mary Steenburgen). Meanwhile, Reilly plays Dale, who is the son of widower Robert (Richard Jenkins). Props do go to the venerable Steenburgen/Jenkins who both act and look genuinely appreciative to be in a Hollywood film. And, they do all that they can do considering the fact that their kids are the biggest losers in the world. While the two parents find love and harmony in their new relationship, Brennan and Dale, initially, do not get along whatsoever. So, in the first act, the two are never shy about voicing their hatred for one another and find ways to annoy one another. These acts vary along the spectrum of meanness and cruelty. But on a 10-point scale in terms of how funny these pranks are, I'd give it a 3. Why am I so unmoved? Well, it seems that the film is relying on heaving cursing to produce the laughs. The premise of men acting like pre-adolescents can only carry the film for about 25 minutes, which leaves 55 to go. And there's barely any evidence of inventiveness in the film. The second act shows some signs of life as Brennan and Dale put aside their differences so that they can both combat Brennan's smarmy brother, Derrick (Adam Scott). It's kind of sad that even though Derrick is so easy-to-hate and one-dimensional, he's actually the best thing about the movie. Derrick's family sing-a-long that he orchestrates is not so much bizarre as it is cringe-inducing. And he looks like one of those people that you'd see on a midnight infomercial hawking his real estate secrets where you can become a millionaire with no money down. I found the experience of watching the film discomforting. I'm not sure if civilized 40-year olds really talk like that. As for their judgment, here's an odd one. It's doubtful that even a 40-year old with the mind of a-14 year old would try to bury someone alive. Meanwhile, it's doubtful that an equally idiotic 40-year old with the mind of a 14-year old would sit there and let himself be buried. If you want to see a nice story of redemption using the same Final Act DNA of what was used here, I would like to refer you to these two YouTube vignettes, which highlights an ugly duckling (yes, even less attractive than John C. Reilly and Will Ferrell) that turns into a swan. 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YviskL060Xw&feature=related 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDB9zwlXrB8 You can watch those videos for 15 minutes. Or you can watch "Stepbrothers" for 93 long minutes. Grade: C- S: 2 out of 3 L: 3 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 10:07:42 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu Sep 4 10:07:44 2008 Subject: Review: Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192028o260a2012s650aff206b68c0f4@mail.gmail.com> "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" -- It's Clobbering Time Sure, I know. That phrase ("it's clobbering time) is credited to The Thing of the Fantastic Four. But, that guy is a pipsqueak compared to Hellboy. In fact, in many ways, most of the superhero or comic book films this year are girlie compared to the punch-first-ask-questions-later style of Hellboy. Hellboy has a really big task on his hands this time around. As the film opens up, we are told of an ancient war between the human world and the fantastical world. It resulted in much bloodshed and hatred among the two factions. But, in the end a truce was forged. The humans developed their cities while the creatures (goblins, trolls, and everything else you'd expect from a "Harry Potter" or "Chronicles of Narnia" or "Lord of the Rings" film) retreated into the forest. This truce did not sit well with Prince Nuada (Luke Gross). After many eons of planning and waiting, he now launches his offensive against the Humans by trying to awaken the Golden Army, a terrible force of destruction. It's actually not a bad bit of lore. But, what makes "Hellboy 2" unexpectedly fresh is the visual presentation of the film. When I reviewed the original in 2004, I wrote: "Hellboy" (Ron Perlman) and his aquatic and psychic companion, Abe Sapien (Doug Jones), are inspired efforts in make-up and imagination." However, that has been ratcheted up two notches as Director Guillermo del Toro infuses into this project the same visionary imagination that he brought to his previous masterpiece, "Pan's Labyrinth." New York City, where the film takes place, is pretty much a world unto itself. Yet, if you walk through a portal below the Brooklyn Bridge, you enter an entirely different world altogether. Words really don't do the visual experience any justice. I can only say that the imaginative forces at work created an end product that is even more wondrous than the Star Wars universe. In most summer action films, the audience is really just waiting for the next action sequence to begin. In this film, we eagerly await what new fey beast would appear. Whether it was the Tooth Fairy or the Angel of Death or the Forest Elemental, I had this kind of childlike awe. Yet, for all the artistry that it does accomplish, there is something that feels askew. I almost think, though, that Hellboy and company really didn't deserve this level of beauty. I had the same odd feeling about "Wall-E". On the one hand, that film featured a dark and dystopian future of barren despair. Meanwhile, it also featured a cruise ship filled with people on an endless vacation. The two didn't quite mesh together. That's the same odd feeling that I got here. Hellboy obviously gets his training from the Bruce Willis School for Tough Guys. So, there's a certain rough-and-tumble atmosphere that's established here. But the mystical creatures seemed somewhat out of place. They are better suited if either: a) they were used in a not-so-pugilistic-kind-of-film or b) if any of the characters were on a path of new discovery where these creatures could amplify their breakthroughs. But Hellboy doesn't like to learn and prefers using brute force. Meanwhile, Abe Sapien is psychic so he knows everything anyway. Yet, I really liked what I saw, and "Hellboy 2" could be the sleeper hit of the summer. It's hard-nosed, brass-knuckle fun. And thanks to the colors and the creativity, it is a bizarrely beautiful film as well. The result is a summer movie that's more consistent and great-to-look-at than other big films of similar ilk, like "Ironman" or "Hulk" or "Hancock". Grade: B+ S: 0 out of 3 L: 1 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 10:08:02 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu Sep 4 10:08:04 2008 Subject: Review: The Forbidden Kingdom (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192046u5da91cd0j22639d1ef75112ac@mail.gmail.com> "The Forbidden Kingdom" - Monkey Business by Homer Yen (c) 2008 "The Forbidden Kingdom" is a fun film that everyone can enjoy. But it's a project that should have been made 10 years ago. It has that kind of sweeping epic arc in which an entire civilization is in danger. It has a few breathtaking sequences where legions of troops go to battle. And martial-arts-film-legends Jackie Chan and Jet Li finally-finally unite. So, what's wrong? Well, it's perhaps too little too late. I think that Jet Li described it best. Last year, I read an article in an entertainment magazine in which he was interviewed. Li was urging audiences to keep expectations low for his eagerly anticipated fight scenes with Jackie Chan in the film. "When Jackie Chan and I first wanted to work together 15 years ago, our passion was at its peak. ... Our desire to succeed was very strong," the 45-year-old Li told The Associated Press. "Now we joke that when we watch the `The Forbidden Kingdom' our combined age is 100." (Chan is 54.) Truthfully, there is only one fight scene between the two, and it's pretty fun to watch. Jackie Chan brings to the project his familiar style of slapstick humor alongside high-energy martial arts. Jet Li brings his natural prowess for combat and precision. Happily, they still look to be close to the top of their game. But, as with this and pretty much all the other fight scenes, it's just highly stylized violence without any real drama. Entertaining? Yes! Moving and absorbing? No! The story initially centers on the dorky Jason (Michael Angarano) who is in possession of a mystical staff that the evil forces want to get their hands on. Our fish-out-of-water-white-boy-who-must-be-the-only-person-in-China-who-doesn't-know-Kung-Fu eventually meets and befriends a drunk kung fu master (Chan), a silent monk (Li), and a beautiful Chinese warrior-girl (YiFei Liu) who just sort of randomly appears and joins their group. Give Chan and Li oodles of credit because even though they are both baby boomers, they can still put a good whooping on anybody half their age. But admittedly, they do not seem as intense as they once were, and neither can quite carry the mantle of the Messiahs-going-into-enemy-territory to destroy the dark forces of evil. This film is based on the Chinese epic story 'Journey to the West', one of the four great classic novels of Chinese Literature. For this undertaking, there should be romance, drama, sacrifice, majesty, and an abounding sense of poetry. But all the filmmakers could muster here was a kung-fu family comedy. The story seems lazy, borrowing elements from the "Karate Kid", "Lord of the Rings", and "Mortal Kombat." It's not nearly as epic in feel as Jet Li's "Hero". It is, however, more intense that Jackie Chan's "Around the World in 80 Days". I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not. Nonetheless, as a ChineseAmerican, I have to support my brethren! I mean, who doesn't want to see Jackie Chan and Jet Li in the same movie? For some, it has been a long time coming. "The Forbidden Kingdom" does offer up a few very funny scenes, it never seemed dull, and it makes for a decent evening out. If the American Idol judges were casting their opinions, Randy would say "Dawg, it was ok! Hey, just keeping it real." Paula would say, "keep being who you are because that's what the audience wants." Simon would say, "I completely disagree with you, Paula." Grade: B- S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 10:08:24 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu Sep 4 10:08:25 2008 Subject: Review: Horton Hears a Who (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192048i931f69ah2366ae84defd0c52@mail.gmail.com> "Horton Hears a Who" - Rhythm and Music by Homer Yen (c) 2008 At the movie theatres, hey, what's all that hullaballoo? It's bigger than 3,000,000 clovers and even a size-24 shoe. It's Dr. Suess's tale with a touch of class that is so true. The film is called "Horton..." It's "Horton Hears a Who". An allegory of isolationism is at its beautiful core. At least that's what it was about when written in 1954. Now brought to vivid life with great CGI and musical score, Dr. Suess's tale is beguiling and imaginative and more. Steve Carell voices the Who Mayor, who is a bit of a twit. Life's calm in Whoville and the citizens never worry one bit. But when the Mayor says Whoville is in trouble, no one believes him one whit. Although they mock him, he stands his ground as he sees fit. Jim Carrey voices Horton, who hears the Mayor's cries. Wow, Whoville is the size of a speck to his enormous surprise. But no one else can here the Whos. Is he just making up lies? Now naysayers want Horton to give up his belief and apologize. Horton and the Who Mayor's friendship is unmistakably firm. Yes Horton is eccentric and the Who Mayor has a bad perm. And while the citizens of Whoville are only the size of a germ, Their hopes for survival rest with the heroics of a pachyderm. Horton, in the face of pressure, proudly stands tall. Yes, his singular belief may lead to an unjustified downfall. But our hero knows that there's really nothing to think about at all. A person's a person no matter how small! The look and feel of the film takes us back to a time when things were much simpler and innocent. The effect is sublime. There's frivolity and gaiety and music and rhyme. And it is set against the backdrop of an adventure of a lifetime. There's action and suspense as Horton finds a way to traverse dangerous bridges and snowy mountains to save the day. But it is a celebration of the imagination that shines its brightest ray. It features a rainbow of colors, contraptions galore, and even anime. Lyrically gift-wrapped passages help to guide the show here and there, there and here, onwards and upwards, to and fro. It's fun to watch, easy to digest, and never did it feel slow. My enthusiasm for this film is high and my face is all aglow. For Dr. Seuss fans, this project is a dream-come-true. It awakens your creative spirit completely through and through. At the movie theatres, hey, what's all that hullaballoo? The film is called "Horton..." It's "Horton Hears a Who". Grade: A S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 10:16:22 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu Sep 4 10:16:25 2008 Subject: Review: The Bank Job (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192050j547b3a4eg11de7c8f9b770fb8@mail.gmail.com> "The Bank Job" - Moderate Interest by Homer Yen (c) 2008 The experience of watching the heist-flick "The Bank Job" is like the experience you feel when going on a slow roller coaster. A lot should be happening, but the thrills are tempered. The energy that's inherent in this film never really manages to manifest itself. The story is based on the true events of a daring bank robbery that took place back in 1971. The target was the vault of a Lloyds of London Bank, and the infiltrators made off with loot worth (in today's dollars) 5 million pounds. Nobody was ever arrested and none of the money was recovered. For three days after the event, newspapers vigorously reported on the story with more gusto than Brittany Spears's nervous breakdowns. However, on the 4th day, all coverage in all the newspapers ceased. Why was there a clamp down on the media outlets? Was there a conspiracy afoot? The film attempts to offer its own explanation by using an informer's revelation on that unsolved crime. And, there are lots of juicy elements here that do make for a fun film. It stars Jason Statham as an endearing dad who always seems to have a hand in a bit of skullduggery. He thinks that he may have found an opportunity to start anew when a former love interest (Saffron Burrows) re-enters his life and tells him that the security system of a local bank has been temporarily turned off. He assembles his crew to pull off the improbable caper. And, we are reminded of similar films like "Ocean's 11". The vault that they enter and the safe deposit boxes that they raid attract the attention and the ire of more than just the inept police force. Now in the mix are spies that work for the MI:6, a local crime lord, corrupt cops, and even a black extremist. With all of that, you'd hope that the film was more kinetic. Oddly, what transpires on screen doesn't seem nearly as interesting as what it took to make the film happen. Reading a recent article on a British online newsite (www.guardian.co.uk), I learned that "the story will incriminate high-ranking police officers, the secret service, politicians and a prominent member of the royal family." After the robbery, a government gagging order, or D Notice, was imposed to prevent further coverage. There was actually a chance to catch the robbers as a ham radio operator intercepted transmissions between the lookout and the leader who was about to penetrate the vault. When the radio operator called the local police to report the crime, they dismissed him as a prankster and just advised him to tape record the conversation. The conversation, which was transcribed and broadcast on national radio at the time, furnished authentic dialogue for the screenplay. However wasteful all of the cool film elements are, the film is still a serviceable yarn. Jason Statham, who seems just right for these roles, gets to act more and fight less. The dialogue is colorful, the level of pulp violence is fun, and there is that lingering aura of suspense as you hope that these robbers get away with it. It's just a shame that the story wasn't more memorably told. Grade: B- S: 1 out of 3 L: 3 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 10:19:12 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu Sep 4 10:19:14 2008 Subject: Review: Tropic Thunder (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000808192009t25c5a2easc49daa23c0f332e6@mail.gmail.com> "Tropic Thunder" - Bullets, Banter, and Belly Laughs by Homer Yen (c) 2008 Ben Stiller's films have always given me an opportunity to use different adjectives to describe them. There is the one that is vaguely amusing ("Zoolander"), fluffy ("A Night at the Museum"), corny ("Dodgeball"), and vile ("The Heartbreak Kid"). And now with "Tropic Thunder", I can use the one that I've always wanted to use: hilarious. After his many years in the film business, Ben Stiller has learned from his shortcomings, and he has crafted a surprisingly insightful comedy that ends the summer on a hilarious note. This is one of those films where the film trailer does that actual movie no justice whatsoever. It certainly isn't about a military operation in the middle of the Southeast Asia jungle, although it kind of is. It certainly isn't supposed to be suspenseful, although it manages to be. Its material is guaranteed to offend someone, yet everyone laughs. It's really an audacious piece of commentary that slaps the Hollywood establishment in its face. Ben Stiller plays Tugg Speedman, a fading action star too vapid for words. Jack Black plays Jeff Portnoy, a flatulent and loose-cannon comic actor. Robert Downey Jr. plays 5-time Oscar winner Kirk Lazarus, who will do anything to throw himself into a role. These three are introduced to the audience through a series of fake movie trailers. Downey's movie trailer is undeniably funny, cringe-worthy, and blasphemous at the same time. These first 10 minutes should filter out any people that shouldn't belong there. These three moviestars have been tapped to star in a mega-production called "Tropic Thunder", which tells of a suicide mission during the Vietnam War to rescue a commander named Four Leaf Tayback (Nick Nolte). This project becomes a nightmare for the ungifted, rookie director (Steve Coogen). The actors need to be ridiculously pampered, and the actors' egos get in the way at every opportunity. The director decides to fly them inland, hoping to scare the actors into an authentic performance. However, ignorance and luck come together as they unknowingly encroach upon a drug lord's territory. The actors can't really decide at first if this is all part of the director's plan or if they're in serious trouble. And, then something unexpected happens. Their oversized egos create lots of laughs as they debate the reality of their predicament. And, the film is suspenseful because it can ramp up the violence and the thrills when in "R-rated" territory. The laughs come from the most subversive of places, including the unexpected demise of one of the characters, someone playing with a severed head, and Tobey McGuire thinking sinful thoughts. Yet, "Tropic Thunder" isn't so much a comedy as it is a jab at the Hollywood establishment. I give Ben Stiller credit for his audacity in hinting that Hollywood is full of two-faced, me-first, unrelenting power brokers. And, that point is riotously illustrated with the character, Les Grossman (played brilliantly by an unrecognizable Tom Cruise) who is sort of the anti-Jerry Maguire studio exec. The point of that character is that when a project makes lots of money, all will be forgiven. And with "Tropic Thunder", Ben Stiller will either fade away like Sinead O'Connor or will find himself as one of the Top 25 Most Powerful Hollywood Celebrities. I say, he'll be one of the Top 25. "Tropic Thunder" is ridiculously fun. Grade: A- S: 2 out of 3 L: 4 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From Faust668 at msn.com Fri Sep 5 15:34:54 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Fri Sep 5 15:34:57 2008 Subject: Review: Lucky Number Slevin (2006) Message-ID: <7403f7ab-177c-4c9e-9a6b-9a20935b1151@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN (2006) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: One star Just when you thought neo-noir Tarantino knock-offs were on the way out, they come back in. And just when you thought that referencing old movies in dialogue that sounds suspiciously Tarantinian was on the way out, it comes right back in. Of course, "Lucky Number Slevin" doesn't suffer for those reasons alone - it is also stultifyingly dull. The occasionally boring, pallid Josh Hartnett plays Slevin, an unlucky guy who gets punched in the face by a mugger and seems to forget that a dress code in the New York City streets doesn't entail wearing only a towel around your waist. Slevin is visiting his friend Nick in New York, except Nick is not home so Slevin lets himself in. Nick's inquisitive neighbor (Lucy Liu) is wondering what is behind Slevin's towel! Oh, yeah, and she loves James Bond movies and can quote them (Tarantino coming in to the mix again). Slevin's lack of luck becomes clearer when he is mistaken for Nick by some hoods. It turns out that Nick owes $96,000 dollars to two rival crime lords, the Boss (Morgan Freeman) and the Rabbi (Ben Kingsley). In the only nice twist in the movie, the crime lords live across the street from each other's penthouses! Slevin's dilemma is worsened when the Boss says he can forget the gambling debt owed if he does a job for him - kill the Rabbi's son! The Rabbi asks for a different favor. But then why the hell is a world-class hitman (Bruce Willis) needed? Maybe because the assassin will kill Slevin whom everyone thinks is Nick. The mind boggles and wiggles and, quite frankly, it is hard to care because you've seen it all before, except not with such a lack of humanity. "Lucky Number Slevin" is movie that closes its hands at the end and when you open them to decipher its meaning, it comes up empty. Or maybe it release two flipping birds at the audience. I've seen movies like "Lucky Number Slevin" and two come to mind that are far superior in every respect and are fresher and introspective - "The Usual Suspects" and "The Limey." "Usual Suspects" had an ending that just barely negated the entire movie you watched - it was pure trickery and sleight-of-hand but it was entertaining and memorably acted. "The Limey" is full of flashbacks and flashforwards and had a powerful ending that enriched the neo-noir, thriller mechanics of its story (and it had Terence Stamp to boot). "Lucky Number Slevin" has...nothing. It is a movie dependent on style and numerous shoot- outs and pop-culture discussions on Hitchcock, "The Shmoo" and James Bond than anything else. Once the plot becomes apparent, the ending (which is technically foreseeable) is not a cheat. But director Paul McGuigan seems to think he is more clever than he really is. All the flashbacks and flashforwards do not indicate anything that you don't already know - it is superfluous decoration. And Hartnett's Slevin is so insufferably inert that it is hard to care about his dilemma, or lack thereof. And when the Rabbi discusses the mistaken identity plot of "North By Northwest," I became very angry, knowing that the filmmakers were trying to link this overproduced mess to a Hitchcock classic. Hartnett is not someone I would wish for more leading parts in, though he comes alive in the latter sections of the film. Morgan Freeman and Ben Kingsley have seen better days. Lucy Liu is always a sweet presence on screen but she is nothing more than an annoyance after a while. As for Bruce Willis, he is a consummate actor on screen but this is a part that is far below his acting capability. Reliable Robert Forster appears out of nowhere and basically explains the plot (which needs no explaining) in the same way he explained Norman Bates's psychosis in the "Psycho" remake. Talk about references! So forget the bland coolness of "Lucky Number Slevin" completely - it is a monotonous and repetitive waste of time. Have yourself a grand time at the movies by watching "North By Northwest" or "The Limey" or "The Usual Suspects." You won't mistake them for "Lucky Number Slevin." 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 Fri Sep 5 15:36:23 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Fri Sep 5 15:36:25 2008 Subject: Retrospective: Mister Buddwing (1966) Message-ID: MISTER BUDDWING (1966) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars and a half If there is one kind of story I love, it is the tale of the wandering amnesiac. Though hardly the best example of it, "Mister Buddwing" is a solid tale of anxiety and helplessness, at least for 3/4 of the way through. James Garner, in a rare and dramatic performance, is walking around Central Park in New York, unaware of who he is or where he comes from. The first shot of the film shows his point of view, which is deliberate skewed as he tries to focus on the New York City skyline and eventually looks at his hands. He carries a ring with an inscription that reads "From GV." He also has a phone number and calls it, not knowing who will answer. Someone named Gloria (Angela Lansbury) has the number, and Mr. Anonymous arrives at her residence. She doesn't know him and he certainly doesn't recognize her, so you could say the plot thickens. He gives himself the name Sam Buddwing, due to a Budweiser truck and an airplane he spots. Nothing of his past or any memories are triggered until he sees a woman (Katharine Ross) sitting on a bench. Could she be the elusive Grace, his wife? "Mister Buddwing" develops efficiently with an effortless, driving rhythm - you want to see where Mister Buddwing is going and where he will end up. The city of New York has been used in many films but, here, it has the nightmarish, black-and-white power of noir pictures like "The Naked City" or even one set in London, the fantastic "Night and the City." The city seems mysterious and in certain shots overlooking a bridge or on city streets, even desolate and frightening. Director Delbert Mann ("Marty") and cinematographer Ellsworth Fredericks really capture the intensity and emotional emptiness of a city that could care less if you are amnesiac. A handful of hand-held camera shots (a cliche in this day and age) and the documentary feel of city life, especially when Buddwing has a headache and seems to ready to fall on the pavement, are wonderfully captured. There are exquisitely handled scenes in cafes and hotels that are done with remarkable restraint, again imploring us to find out little clues about Buddwing. Unfortunately, by the time we find out what is really going on with Buddwing and discover his true identity, we feel cheated. I wouldn't dream of giving it away but it is less than revealing and somehow negates the buildup that we have invested in for almost an hour and a half. It is not a bad finish but it is an anticlimactic one. As I have mentioned, "Mister Buddwing" belongs in the tradition of my favorite kind of stories - a man searching for his identity. What is great about such a story, especially one involving an amnesiac, is that the filmmakers can exploit this idea and pursue it in any manner they wish. We learn he may be a music composer and we do know his wife is named Grace, or do we. Those kind of unclear questions and search for identity could've gone in any direction, and by the time we get to a backroom alley of poker with Jean Simmons as a true floozie, we begin to wonder what strange, hypnotic walk we are gazing upon. The movie is terrific and Garner is in fine form, as is Katharine Ross, Suzanne Pleshette and Jean Simmons. But such a strange, fun ride to the dark side could've benefitted from a truly climactic finish instead of the one we are saddled with. See it but try to forget the ending. 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 sburridge at hotmail.com Sat Sep 6 17:07:54 2008 From: sburridge at hotmail.com (Shane Burridge) Date: Sat Sep 6 17:07:57 2008 Subject: Review: Speed Racer (2008) In-Reply-To: <20080821115913.9A33071F74@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca> References: <20080821115913.9A33071F74@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca> Message-ID: Speed Racer (2008) 135m After the phenomenal success of their MATRIX films, the Wachowski brothers kept audiences wondering about their next project with much anticipation, and surprised everyone when it turned out to be an adaptation of the 1960s Japanese cartoon SPEED RACER. It seemed a safe enough risk - the Wachowskis had built up a solid fanbase, and as one of Japan's first anime exports SPEED had been playing abroad for forty years - but the movie ran out of gas at the box office when audiences proved far less interested in seeing it than other 2008 blockbusters, which stuck to their genres much more straightforwardly. With SPEED RACER the Wachowskis blur the definition of "children's film" as much as the original cartoon challenged Western perceptions of "children's television". The cartoon series alarmed me as a kid - it was not only the first time I'd seen cartoon characters sweat (in frantic flying bullets of perspiration), but also *die*. It defied all logic that a cartoon character could be killed since it wasn't alive in the first place, but in this show there was always the frightening possibility that we would see somebody permanently wipe themselves out in a car crash (the movie is a little more generous, cocooning racers in protective gel as soon as their cars disintegrate around them). To maintain the atmosphere of a family film, nobody dies in the movie and there are many child-friendly capers courtesy of youngster Spritle (does anyone else think the kid playing him looks like a junior Al 'Grandpa Munster' Lewis?). As befitting his animated origins, Spritle is a strictly two-dimensional, a caricature of a kid rather than a real child, obsessed with candy, TV, and getting into mischief with his pet chimp. To take stock for a moment: The Wachowskis....and a pet chimp? No wonder viewers' heads were spinning as fast as the wheels on SPEED's Mach 5. As a counterbalance, the adult characters seem unaware that they're living in a cartoon and are preoccupied with issues of loyalty, justice, and loss, reflecting the weird level of intensity of the TV series. SPEED is filled with virtuoso racing visuals that move faster and more furiously than anything else previously handled by conventional CGI, even though, as anything is possible in CGI, it can hardly be bound by convention. Flying in the face of cinema's FX quest to make CGI as realistic as possible, the Wachowskis applied their technological innovations to showcase deliberately fake-looking images which looked like toy cars driving through a video game. SPEED is splashed with more colors than it seems possible for the human retina to absorb. It's a high-octane celebration of all that is cartoony - as a boy, Speed creates simple flick animation with his notebook and pencil; he surrounds himself with a world of crudely drawn cel-animation; his younger cousin Spritle jumps into his favorite superhero anime; and the racers roar past a wall of Muybridge's pioneering animated images of galloping horses (remodelled as zebras to make the effect even more stroboscopic). That the cars travel along tracks right out of a Hot Wheels catalogue tips us off early on that the Wachowskis are not only fleshing out the imaginary universe we inhabited while playing with toys as children, but also creating a whole alternate reality - or, in light of their previous MATRIX milieu, an alternate alternate reality. In SPEED, the same laws of physics are defied as their earlier SF work, although this time cars are performing the acrobatics and not lots of cool guys in black coats and sunglasses. The sequences where racecars dodge, dive, and flip themselves into the air as if picked up by giant hands of children makes for a big-screen ride as wild as the rollercoaster that thrilled 1950s audiences in THIS IS CINERAMA. Fifty years later, and in another century, SPEED RACER might well be subtitled THIS IS CGI. sburridge@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Free Windows Live software. Chat, search, share pics and more http://get.live.com/ From sburridge at hotmail.com Sat Sep 6 17:10:05 2008 From: sburridge at hotmail.com (Shane Burridge) Date: Sat Sep 6 17:10:07 2008 Subject: Retrospective: International Guerrillas (1990) Message-ID: International Guerrillas (1990) The only way you'll see this all-singing, all-action, all-rabid Pakistani absurdity is through grey market video, which is just as well because the idea of sitting through it for nearly three hours in a cinema is unthinkable. When UK author Salman Rushdie published his novel 'The Satanic Verses' in 1988, the Ayatollah of Iran took offense at its depiction of Mohammed and issued an open bounty on Rushdie's head, forcing the author into seclusion. After a failed assassination attempt by a lone extremist the following year, enterprising Pakistani film producers figured they could give the public what they wanted, and make a bit of cash on the side, by fictionalizing an account of Rushdie's pursuit, capture and execution. It seemed, as in the case of much Pakistani cinema, or 'Lollywood' movies, that INTERNATIONAL GUERRILLAS was unlikely to ever be seen by western audiences, but the inclusion of Rushdie as a character gave it a leg-up into the bootleg market, and to the embarrassment of Pakistan's film culture, found an audience of schlock aficionados. You'd have to be a diehard aficionado to tackle GUERRILLAS in one sitting: it takes nearly an hour before the opening credits appear to announce the central characters as the guerrillas of the title. By this time they've already had practice beating up a few bad guys (though everybody would be easier to tell apart if they didn't all have the same mustache) and ready to do battle armed only with their list of Salman Rushdie insults, three Batman disguises, and a direct line to Mohammed for divine intervention; to wit, a flying Koran that fires lightning bolts. The next hour and a half is a shambles of various chases and shootouts until the inevitable showdown with Rushdie on his private island fortress. This finale contains a Pythonesque singalong which, even with half of the cast chained to crosses, doesn't seem any less absurd than the five previous musical numbers performed by sexily-gyrating young girls (I'm sure The Prophet would have approved) who insistently sing about how attractive they are. It should be conceded that the two heroines in the film are easy on the eye but with names like 'Dolly' and 'Shagutta', they sound like they would have been better off in a Pakistani Austin Powers movie. As in India's 'masala' films, GUERRILLAS pulls out all the stops to create a mixture of adventure, romance, comedy, espionage, musical interludes, and Rushdie being blown up. The end result looks like it was edited on steroids - EVERY character gets a reaction shot or a smash zoom whenever anything happens, and you'll lose count of how many times the director includes a close-up of someone's feet landing on the ground. You'll laugh at how awful the film is at first, but find it difficult to keep it up before halfway through. Stick with it though - by the final act, the film has gone so far over the top that it is parodying itself, and among the histrionic emoting you'll get such choice lines as "We'll mutilate your evil face so bad that even Satan won't recognize you!". 20th-century architecture may have argued that less is more, but GUERRILLAS decisively demonstrates that more is less. Characters deliver jingoistic diatribes at every opportunity and the frustratingly dramatic background music never stops. Rushdie himself is portrayed as a James Bond supervillain whose glasses are always poised on the bridge of his nose to better facilitate evil leering, all of which must have been much to the bemusement of the real Rushdie, who in any other film would been disturbed to see himself assassinated in effigy. Instead, he found GUERRILLAS so far removed from reality that he couldn't see any harm in allowing it to be screened in the UK. It would be unfair to assume all Pakistani films are as bad as this one, but if this is the sort of thing that's expected to garner big box-office receipts in their cinemas then it doesn't provide an incentive to seek out others. sburridge@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Get inspired - dream, research, plan and book your next holiday online with MSN NZ Travel http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Ftravel%2Emsn%2Eco%2Enz&_t=771497011&_r=MSN_NZ_travel_hmtagline&_m=EXT From sburridge at hotmail.com Sat Sep 6 17:11:15 2008 From: sburridge at hotmail.com (Shane Burridge) Date: Sat Sep 6 17:11:18 2008 Subject: Retrospective: Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983) In-Reply-To: <20080821115913.9A33071F74@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca> References: <20080821115913.9A33071F74@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca> Message-ID: Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983) 100m A failure or a success, depending on how you look at it: upon my first viewing, I opted for the former, upon the second I became more charitable. The problem, as apparent within its opening moments, is the marriage of the word WICKED with WALT DISNEY, which is not too promising a combination. First indications of SOMETHING WICKED were hopeful, with Ray Bradbury writing the screenplay adaptation of his own novel, and Jack Clayton brought on board to direct (with Bradbury's approval). A few years earlier Disney might have gotten away with it, but when the early 80s saw a revitalization of horror movies, and special effects were now the expected hook for big-budget films, WICKED didn't hold up. In the first place, its particular tone of horror was not in the same excesses of its contemporaries, and secondly, many of the animation effects sequences looked stale, added afterwards by nervous execs who could see the likes of Spielberg out-Disneying the studio at its own game. Bradbury has never been the easiest writer to adapt to the screen - he wrote few novels in favor of short stories, and his lyrical style is better suited to the printed word than the filmed image (as uneven films like FAHRENHEIT 451 and THE ILLUSTRATED MAN demonstrate). WICKED draws upon two aspects prevalent throughout Bradbury's work: nostalgia and dread. In the case of the first, the small-town atmosphere is lovingly brought to life in the film's opening scenes and there's certainly no fault to be found with its widescreen visuals. Dread, however, is trickier to pull off, especially for audiences expecting their horror to be more of the seat-jumping variety. Since the Disney logo robs the film of any threat that would crank up the tension for horror fans, WICKED needs to be viewed as a different kind of film. In some ways, its almost a subversion of Disney norms - there's a visiting carnival, two young boys given the run of the town (Shawn Carson and Vidal Peterson, and a homey setting populated with slightly dotty inhabitants on first-name terms - and by all accounts it's the type of place we'd expect to see Toby Tyler or Pollyanna ambling around the corner. Plucky though these and other previous Disney tykes may be, they would be over their heads in the town that Bradbury gives them - the villains are not the usual jewel thieves, smugglers or bank robbers, but supernatural figures that prey on human misery by building up hopes and then shattering them, leaving their victims as lifeless husks. Jonathan Pryce cuts a fine figure as Mr Dark, the owner of the visiting carnival, resisting the urge to play the role too theatrically (even though, as a carnival operator, he has the licence to huckster things up). In the film's best scene, he confronts Jason Robards, the ageing father of one of the boys, and rips pages out of a book as if they were potentially regained years being torn from his life. It's a welcome confrontation as it's one of the few times we see adult characters (i.e. experienced actors) playing against each other. Carson and Peterson hold their own by doing everything they're supposed to, reacting every way they should, and delivering Bradbury's dialogue without making it seem forced (it's probably second nature to Carson as he had already been spooked by a dark carnival in Tobe Hooper's horror flick THE FUNHOUSE). Still, perhaps they're a little too innocent, inheriting the Disney tradition, or curse, of all juveniles, and consequently incapable of recognizing real evil. They observe the grotesquery of the carnival with incomprehension, its backwards-spinning carousel with wonder, and in one scene, the bare midriffs of belly dancers with something a little more than boyish curiosity. Perhaps feeling that kids couldn't really be afraid of intangible horrors, the studio added a sequence where the boys are "attacked" by troops of spiders. Not surprisingly, it's the worst scene in the film. However, if Bradbury's novel had been made by any studio other than Disney, there undoubtedly would have been many such conventional 'fright' scenes. As it turns out, the rigors of the studio may have provided the film with the right amount of subtlety to make it more faithful to Bradbury, if not to horror fans of the 80s. sburridge@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Find singles in your area with Match. http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fmatch%2Enz%2Emsn%2Ecom%2Fchannel%2Findex%2Easpx%3Ftrackingid%3D1043416&_r=WL_EMAL_TAG&_m=EXT From Faust668 at msn.com Thu Sep 11 14:40:20 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Thu Sep 11 14:40:23 2008 Subject: Review: The Darjeeling Limited (2007) Message-ID: THE DARJEELING LIMITED (2007) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Two stars I don't know how this could happen but I suppose every director has their bad days. It is a shame to report that "The Darjeeling Limited," though exquisitely made, is a mildly repetitious, uneven pseudo- spiritual journey that never quite finds its footing. It is a major, endless chore to sit through. Three brothers, Francis, Jack, Peter (Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman and Adrien Brody), are traveling on the Darjeeling Limited, a train headed to India. There, they hope to find spiritual enlightenment and some peace of mind. Let's hope so since Francis had been in a bad accident and is covered with bandages, and Peter has found out that his wife is pregnant. Things go awry from the start. No smoking is allowed on this train, so they keep their windows open. Peter has the bright idea to buy a deadly, poisonous snake and bring it on board the train, only to lose the snake! Rita (Amara Karan), one of the stewardesses, has a brief romp in the hay with Jack, who is going through a bad relationship of his own. Most of the time, we hear them squabbling and bickering but only in that Wes Anderson offbeat manner where every word is uttered with a low-keyed whisper. It is a terrific technique and one of the reasons why I enjoy Wes Anderson's films. Unfortunately, when the three brothers arrive in India, the movie sinks fast and becomes something of a bore. The Darjeeling Limited footage is so funny and so deadpan that it feels like vintage Anderson. But this trip to India involves a small tragedy and there is a linkage to the funeral of the brothers' father that is awkward and offputting. The brothers eventually meet their mother (Anjelica Huston, always a delight to watch) but, by then, this movie becomes soporific and monotonous. The brothers sit by the fire, do some spiritual dancing for extremely long stretches of film time and essentially bicker and argue, only the offbeat nature is suddenly gone. There is nothing tangible to hang onto and the characters, who were lively and animated at first, become insufferable and unendurable. And director Anderson's constant whip-pans, Francis endless questioning of why each of his brothers are using the phone, the importance of an expensive belt that keeps switching from one set of pants to the other and other ad infinitum gags almost made me gag and give up on the movie. I have loved all of Wes Anderson's films, and I felt the approach between black comedy and tragedy was sublimely handled in "The Royal Tenenbaums," his best film. "Darjeeling Limited" opts for something similar in its structure but it fails to match the upbeat first half of the movie. I suspect that Wes Anderson is tone deaf on this one. 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 Thu Sep 11 14:43:00 2008 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Thu Sep 11 14:43:02 2008 Subject: Retrospective: Soylent Green (1973) Message-ID: SOYLENT GREEN (1973) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars When I first saw "Soylent Green" over twenty years ago, I always remembered the green haze in the city of the future and the Soylent Green food as something other than edible. Twenty years later with SNL and Simpsons mocking the cult film, I see a decent, memorable film here that is unintentionally amusing and, strangely, somehow hypnotic. Set in the year 2022, it is New York City as a futuristic, overpopulated dystopia - a nightmarish vision that is mostly seen in daylight. The sun beams hard on this city, though a green smog fills it (sort of like China). People have a hard time finding apartments so they all sleep in apartment staircases or fill up the local church by sleeping on bunk beds and on the pews. Every Tuesday is Soylent Green day where a green wafer-thin food substance is served free to the people on the streets. Why this peculiar food item? Because the masses want it and it is all that is available to them. Jugs of water are filled on the street for the people. Essentially, the mass population of poor people are treated like dirt, left to mostly squander and survive on their own. A stocky Charlton Heston plays Detective Thorn who lives like the poor, though he shares an apartment with his wise friend and police researcher, Sol (played by the late Edward G. Robinson). Thorn investigates the murder of William Simonson (Joseph Cotten), the head of Soylent Enterprises. Initially the murder is thought to be committed by a burglar but Thorn knows better - he thinks the man was assassinated. Thorn also knows how to screw up a crime scene since he washes his face with soap and steals some liquor, meat and vegetables - of course, the benefits of real food and real tap water for anyone in this dystopia who isn't rich is like winning the lottery (strawberry jars, for example, are $150 each). There is also Shirl (Leigh Taylor-Young), a prostitute referred to as "furniture" (ouch!) who lived with Simonson - every time she speaks, it is in whispering tones. But this murder leads to some sort of conspiracy involving Soylent Green corporation and how they produce their synthetic foods. The final twist may not come as a shocker but it will leave a knot in your stomach. Director Richard Fleischer does well with staging riot scenes and crowd scenes in general. The sense of overpopulation in New York is also well-presented - you get a real sense of clutter, ubiquitous litter and the empty streets at night surrounded by towering skyscrapers. And though the green smog is clearly shot with a green filter, it almost makes you feel queasy. Not so well-handled is the casting of Charlton Heston. I always saw Heston as a man who insisted on macho authority as if he willed it from his steel chin, those Moses eyes and his large, invincible chest. He not only seemed like Moses in most every role he ever played - he was Moses. Someone as iconically authoritative as Heston makes the sci- fi trappings of "Soylent Green" seem miniscule and unimportant. Perhaps that is the point but Heston always seems too larger-than- life. That is why he fit so well in "The Omega Man" - he spent most of the movie isolated from existence and encountering albino, flesh- eating mutants! That was more apropos for the titanic, muscular giant that Heston was. Heston is still watchable but the mood and the purposeful snail-pace of "Soylent Green" accentuates the hypnotic quality of it. Edward G. Robinson makes us listen to his every word, especially in his last, touching scene that is sure to make you well up a little. Hardly a perfect film, "Soylent Green" is consistently despairing in its bleak future - suggesting that our ecological resources will cease to exist. Definitely food for thought. 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 Sep 11 14:44:46 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Sep 11 14:44:48 2008 Subject: Review: Traitor (2008) Message-ID: TRAITOR (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: TRAITOR starts with the complexity and credibility of a John LeCarre spy story and transforms itself into an action thriller of the Frederick Forsyth mold. A man of Sudanese and American origins is recruited into a terrorist organization in Yemen. He works his way toward a large terrorist strike as two FBI agents struggle to track him down, confounded as much by their own organization as by the secrecy of their enemy. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 Samir Horn as a boy saw his father killed in a booby-trapped car. As a man Samir (played by Don Cheadle) still does not know if Islamists killed the father if it was United States agents. Now as a man he has entered the same game. He sells weapons to terrorist organizations in Yemen. In the course of selling Semtex explosives to one group he meets Omar (Said Taghmaoui), a terrorist lieutenant. Omar at first distrusts Samir but becomes impressed by Samir's sincerity and his devotion to Islam. Soon Samir and Omar are partners in planning Islamist terror operations. Meanwhile the FBI and another organization--unnamed but very likely the CIA-- cooperate and compete to get information about the Islamist group and the operation they are planning. FBI Agents Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce) and Max Archer (Neal McDonough) are in Yemen, well beyond their jurisdiction, to attack terrorist cells. They temporarily capture Samir and Omar. Meanwhile Carter (Jeff Daniels) from another intelligence organization tries to ace them at their own game. Samir and Omar work to put together a sort of super strike that will rival September 11 and strike even harder into the American Heartland. Jeffrey Nachmanoff, who co-wrote the screenplay for THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, here directs as well as having co-written the screenplay with the many-faceted Steve Martin. The story is written with a strong feeling for the fog of war. The United States anti- terrorism organizations collaborate as a team, but only to the minimum degree that the government tolerates or just a little bit less. The terrorist cells they are investigating are little better and nobody on either side has any idea who they can trust. Both sides are riddled with incompetence and outright betrayal. Loyalties are divided and tested. Like a Bond or Bourne film the story hops over much of the world with settings in Yemen, Sudan, France, The US, and Canada. One peculiarity is that while much of the Islamists' dialog is their own language, they seem to use more English than one would expect. This relieves the audience of the burden of the subtitles, but it does not seem realistic. Samir's character is very much at the heart of this story. Cheadle's performance forms the core of this film. Basically a good man, he is pulled into the vortex of the world of terrorism. He combines intellect and a sort of weariness. Clearly there is a lot going on under the surface of this man, and as the film progresses we get an understanding that there is even more than we realized. This is a man being torn by divided loyalties. It is hard to see him as a bad guy. The two FBI agents tracking Samir are a little more clichd as a slightly mismatched team. Max Archer is a big man, thoughtless and a little tactless. Roy Clayton is an intellectual and a Southerner (with a reasonably convincing accent from British/Australian Guy Pierce). Much of the fascination of TRAITOR is the view of how the terrorists work and how FBI and CIA fail to cooperate. We also get a better feel for American vulnerability in this conflict. Occasionally things are a little more sugarcoated than one would want, but for most of the story the feel is realistic, up to but not including the climax. I rate TRAITOR a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0988047/ Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Thu Sep 11 14:45:19 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Sep 11 14:45:21 2008 Subject: Retrospective: The Beat Generation (1959) Message-ID: THE BEAT GENERATION (1959) (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This is obviously a decent script mangled by a very bad production. There are two distinctly different styles apparent in the writing. One style is a tense police thriller about a serial rapist. The other is a Cloud-Cuckoo Land cartoon of beatniks. What is good almost certainly comes from talented writer Richard Matheson, but the film is more a study of bad filmmaking than the decent thriller it might have been. Rating: -1 (-4 to +4) or 3/10 Suppose one was to take a painting by a grand master and paint onto it a mustache, glasses, cross-eyes, etc. The net effect would be ludicrous. Stroke by stroke the observer would know which paint strokes were from the master and which by the vandal. And in the end you would be sorry that you could not just see the painting as it was at first. That is the impression one gets from THE BEAT GENERATION. This is a film supposedly co-authored by Richard Matheson and Lewis Meltzer. Richard Matheson is a good writer of suspense stories, though he is better known for his science fiction, horror, and fantasy. He was a frequent contributor to the original "Twilight Zone". He wrote many of the scripts for Roger Corman's "Edgar Allan Poe" series. His novel I AM LEGEND has been adapted three times to the screen. He wrote the scripts for television's THE NIGHT STALKER and THE NIGHT STRANGLER. He wrote the novel that was adapted into SOMEWHERE IN TIME. The list of his film accomplishments goes on and on. And at base there is a good crime thriller in THE BEAT GENERATION. But repeatedly getting in the way is a plot super-imposed with the agenda of cartoonish making fun of beatniks and occasionally adding a religious message. From moment to moment there is never any question which author's work we are seeing because the writing is either improving the effect of the thriller or sabotaging it. Almost certainly Matheson sold the script and then was helpless to protect it as it was defaced and ruined by his co-author Meltzer and the filmmakers. Just a few years later Matheson was more ready to insist he could have his name taken off of film credits if he did not like the film, and THE BEAT GENERATION may have been the film that convinced him to do that. Stan Hess (played by Ray Danton) leads a double life. He is the lead poet whose jive verse is the coolest thing to the cadre of local beatniks. (Example of his poetry: "The sky blooms radiation gumdrops.") But he leads a double life. He is also an extremely devious serial rapist. The police know the rapist as the "Aspirin Kid." He preys on women he knows to be alone, pretends to know a husband or friend and to be returning money to him to get into a home. He then feigns a headache and asks for water to have with his aspirins. When the woman returns he jumps her, beats, and rapes her. Before he leaves he plants signs that he was sharing a drink or a meal with the victim so the police think the victim knew and is shielding her attacker. Investigating is police detective Dave Cullorah (Steve Cochran). Cullorah unknowingly runs into Hess and Hess is able to get Dave's address. When Cullorah's wife is assaulted and then discovers she is pregnant, the game becomes personal between Hess and Cullorah. The story continues at two levels. The police story is one of some real dramatic tension, especially when combined with what then would have been the controversial issue of whether to abort. Then there are the coffee house scenes that have no reality at all and area sort of burlesque. In one sequence they cut back and forth between the two realities as in a back room of the coffee house the rapist is attacking Georgia (Mamie van Doran) while in the next room there is a ridiculous caricature of beatnik dancing. One can gage the feel of the film by some of the casting. Jackie Coogan and Sid Melton play cops who work with Cullorah. They might almost be okay. Bombshell Mamie van Doran is one of Hess's intended victims who seems less than bothered by her peril. Professional wrestler and occasional film comic relief actor Max "Slapsie Maxie" Rosenbloom is completely miscast as the wrestling beatnik. He seems to be here merely to have a dubious celebrity. (A wrestling beatnik?) Jim Mitchum is along as someone who supposed resembles Ray Danton's character. Jim Mitchum does not look much like Ray Danton, but he does strongly bear a resemblance to his father Robert. Louis Armstrong also performs throughout at the coffeehouse and is actually given two or three lines of ineffectual dialog. William Schallert plays an inspirational priest who provides spiritual inspiration for Francee Cullorah. How the usually prestigious MGM ever released this strange travesty is something of a mystery. Full of hokey dialog and absolutely no feel of authenticity for the "beat" movement, THE BEAT GENERATION gets a -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 Mon Sep 15 19:51:50 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Mon Sep 15 19:51:53 2008 Subject: Review: The Women (2008) Message-ID: THE WOMEN A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): * 1/2 Just shoot me. THE WOMEN, a remake of a 1939 film, is set in a completely man-free Manhattan. Filled with the shallowest women you're likely to meet, the movie is a chick flick in the worst sense of that phrase. Sure, it's got a great cast, but this guy spent most of the movie eagerly waiting for the closing credits to start rolling so that he could beat a hasty exit. In a story in which men are heard of but quite literally never seen, the movie starts with Sylvia Fowler (Annette Bening) prowling the aisles of her favorite luxury retailer, Saks. As she cuddles her little dog close to her bosom, she talks to one of her girlfriends on her cell phone. The topic of conversation concerns catty remarks that Sylvia is making about other women's wardrobes. But the fireworks really start when Sylvia gets her nails done. Tanya (Debi Mazar), Sylvia's new manicurist, is a chatterbox and a non-stop gossip machine. Tanya tells Sylvia that a sales clerk friend of hers, Crystal Allen (Eva Mendes), is having a big affair with a rich and married hedge fund manager. Of course, the cheating guy is married to one of Sylvia's best friends, Mary Haines (Meg Ryan). This means that Sylvia will have to tell all of Mary's friends about the affair so that Sylvia can get their advice on whether she should inform Mary or not. About the only thing that all of Sylvia's friends agree on is that the "spritzer girl" who is seeing Mary's husband is absolutely despicable. But Mary confesses that she has cheated too. Once, when she was kid, she scooted her playing piece up a few squares in Monopoly. Wow. Jada Pinkett Smith plays Alex Fisher, the plot's token lesbian. Currently dating a supermodel, Alex lives a life in the fast lane of sleek sports cars and swank nightclubs. Other actresses play other female stereotypes. Although the script takes great pains to suggest that most of the women in the film have important careers, their actions suggest that most of them are really card-carrying members of the idle rich. The scene with Sylvia getting her nails on one hand done while texting to her friends with the other perfectly epitomizes the women's vapid lives. Although there are women everywhere in the story, there doesn't seem to be a brain among them. A clue to the story's unsuccessful approach might be in a snippet of dialog between Mary and her mother, Catherine Frazier (Candice Bergen). When Catherine supplies unwanted advice to her daughter, Mary tells her, "What do you think this is -- some kind of 1930's movie?" Intended, one supposes, to be a bit of ironic, self-deprecating humor, it comes across instead as an accidental apology to the audience for the film's unrealistic and unbelievable characters. I certainly didn't buy or care for any of them. "Have you looked around lately?" Catherine, while enduring a very painful treatment to attempt to restore her youthful looks, asks her daughter. "There are no sixty-year-old women. I'm the only one left." Gag! THE WOMEN runs 1:54. It is rated PG-13 for "sex-related material, language, some drug use and brief smoking" and would be acceptable for kids around 12 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 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 steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Mon Sep 15 19:53:36 2008 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Mon Sep 15 19:53:38 2008 Subject: Review: Burn After Reading (2008) Message-ID: BURN AFTER READING A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** BURN AFTER READING bursts with wonderfully wacky intrigue. Although its trailers might make it seem too silly, the Coen Brothers, Ethan and Joel, manage to get pitch perfect performances from their large and very talented cast. It may not be FARGO funny, but it is really cute. The secret to the success of this comedy is that it never takes itself too seriously. There are no political speeches or messages, but all of the actors approach the comedy as if it were high drama, which makes the jokes especially effective. The story is a bit of a tempest in a teapot, but most of the characters believe that they are involved in a very high level game of espionage. The film's dramatic music, which is heavy on the low bass and uses drums extensively, punctuates the story line with a goofy gusto, adding more pseudo-seriousness. The story starts with the demotion of Osborne "Ozzie" Cox (John Malkovich). A bow-tied CIA analyst in a three-piece suit, he can't believe he is taken off of the Balkans desk because of his alleged (and actual) drinking problem, so he quits and starts writing his memoir. Katie (Tilda Swinton), Ozzie's ice princess of a wife, is currently having an affair with Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), a U. S. Marshall who frequently jokes that he has never discharged his firearm in his two decades of service. Since Katie is an obnoxious, take-no-prisoners lover, Harry has been shopping around lately on the internet for her replacement. Also trolling the internet dating services is Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), a fitness trainer at the local Hardbodies Fitness Center. A woman obsessed with having four separate and expensive plastic surgeries that she can't afford, she explains to her boss, Ted Treffon (Richard Jenkins), that her big rear "swings like a shopping cart with a bent wheel." Flaws and all, she finds that her body is attractive to Harry, who likes nothing better than sleeping around. So what, you ask, does all of this have to do with espionage? Well, one day at the gym, one trainer finds a CD with names and numbers of what appear to be CIA agents. When Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt), Linda's coworker, gets hold of it, he hatches a scheme for them to get a reward from its owner, who appears to be Ozzie. This might work except that Ozzie is dangerous maniac who no longer works for the agency and Chad is a complete doofus. A card-carrying member of Morons R Us, Chad is the worst possible person to try to shake down a dangerous and deranged guy like Ozzie. When an awkwardly dressed Chad first meets Ozzie, Chad warns him that "appearances can be deceptive." Pitt, in a bit of unusual casting, is hilarious in his part. The very entertaining film is a sheer delight. And, it's smart enough not to overstay its welcome, running a brisk ninety-one minutes and no more. It's not a great comedy, but it sure is a thoroughly satisfying one. BURN AFTER READING runs 1:31. It is rated R for "pervasive language, some sexual content and violence" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 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 Sat Sep 20 19:15:54 2008 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Sat Sep 20 19:15:56 2008 Subject: Retrospective: THE HANDS OF ORLAC (1924) Message-ID: THE HANDS OF ORLAC (1924) (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: One of the nearly forgotten films of the German (actually in this case Austrian) Expressionist period is the Conrad Veidt version of THE HANDS OF ORLAC. This is a seminal horror melodrama about a pianist whose hands are destroyed in a train crash and are replaced by hands taken from an executed murderer. The hands come to have a life of their own. This film was remade as the until-recently also rare MAD LOVE with Colin Clive as Orlac and with one of Peter Lorre's juiciest roles. This original version runs a little slowly by modern standards, but it has one of the great performances by the under-appreciated Conrad Veidt. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 Some of the very best horror films of all time came from Germany between World War I and World War II. The German Expressionist movement gave us films like THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, NOSFERATU, THE GOLEM, WAXWORKS, METROPOLIS, and M. The films of German Expressionist movement are characterized by distorted atmospheric scenery was used to reflect the twists in the minds of the characters in the story. The style was applied to other social dramas like the so-called "Street Films," but some of the great classic horror films were the mainstay of the movement. The influence of German Expressionism can be felt in the Universal horror films of the 1930s, many of which were made by German Expressionist filmmakers who fled the politics of Europe. One of the classics of Expressionism that has not until recently been available in a watchable form is THE HANDS OF ORLAC starring Conrad Veidt. Most of us know Veidt mostly as playing villains, especially Nazis like Major Strasser in CASABLANCA. Veidt was actually a great horror actor. He was Germany's equivalent of Lon Chaney, Sr. He was not Jewish, but his wife was, so they fled the Nazis and came to the United States. But Veidt never had the career in the United States that he deserved. One of his best films after coming to the US was THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, in which his face is carved into a permanent grin. He had to convey emotions with his eyes, while the view of his whole face denied them. But getting back to THE HANDS OF ORLAC, this one of his great horror roles from his period of making films in Europe. This was the first film to use the idea that body parts might take on a life of their own, an idea used several times since. The film was remade as MAD LOVE with Peter Lorre. The story was again remade in 1960 under the titles THE HANDS OR ORLAC and THE HANDS OF A STRANGLER. But its influence can be felt in many films like THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS. Veidt plays a concert pianist who is in a train collision. He loses his hands, but while is unconscious a notorious murderer is guillotined and Orlac's doctors transplant the hands from the corpse onto Orlac's wrists. Orlac awakes with the hands of a killer at the end of his arms. What is more, the hands seem to have a life of their own. Orlac is fixated on these hands. The Conrad Veidt version goes a little slowly as Orlac's obsession with the hands consumes the man. There are long sequences of Veidt just staring in horror at the hands on his wrist. The films picks up a little as he becomes fascinated with a strange knife, supposedly that of the killer who provided his hands. But the knife is now the murder weapon in new crimes where the fingerprints left behind are those of the guillotined killer. Veidt plays the role so that the hands seem to be the biggest thing in the frame. They seem to dominate his entire body and the hands distort the entire posture of the body. The hands seem twisted almost to suggest tarantulas. THE HANDS OF ORLAC was based on the book LES MAINS D'ORLAC by Maurice Renard. Robert Wiene four years earlier directed THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (1920), really the first film of the German Expressionist Movement. That film was written Carl Mayer among others and its star was Conrad Veidt. THE HANDS OF ORLAC reunites the director, actor, and writer of that film. The story is bizarre enough for modern audiences, but the pacing is a little slow. While it is Expressionist, it uses very different visual approaches than did THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI. In the earlier film much of the psychological distortion is in the geometry of the sets. Doors were strange irregular geometric figures. Buildings leaned. There were no right angles in any of the sets. In THE HANDS OF ORLAC the buildings would fit into the real world, but they are overpoweringly big at times. Orlac's father lives in an imposing castle with high doorway arches. Hospital scenes also seem to be in rooms of infinite dimension. Much of the mood comes from atmospheric lighting. The Criterion Collection contains an interesting account of how there are two different negatives. One made for domestic release and one for international. Some scenes were shot at the same time of the same performance but at a slightly different angle because the negatives came from two different cameras set side-by-side for the filming; other times they used two different takes. In some cases they were edited differently so some scenes are actually quite different in the domestic and international versions. In any case, this is one of the great pivotal films of early history of the horror film and it has been too hard to find for too long. I rate it a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10, though comparing it to modern horror films is very much an apples-to oranges sort of comparison. Film credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper From kilroy at elvis.rowan.edu Wed Sep 24 01:04:42 2008 From: kilroy at elvis.rowan.edu (Darren Provine) Date: Wed Sep 24 01:04:44 2008 Subject: Review: Hell's Gate (2007) Message-ID: The old "Twilight Zone" series has always been notable to me for two things in particular: giving a real sense of the characters in brief introductions, and often telling a good story with only 3 or 4 speaking parts. I've seen movies which have two hours, and yet I don't feel I know the characters very well. I've seen movies with a dozen major roles and yet only half a story. So I was very pleased to see "Hell's Gate", which had only four significant speaking roles, and which starts out as one guy's troubles pushing him into doing something bad -- only to turn into a puzzle. Something is obviously not right. But what? And how do they protect themselves from whatever their employer is hiding, without knowing what it is? The kidnappers have obviously never committed this sort of crime before, which makes sense. But it would also appear that they've not really thought it out very carefully, or ever seen a crime movie once in their entire lives, which makes less sense. One of the two main criminals seems like a stereotype from a dozen other movies, but the other looks believably like someone who's out of his element. He's not particularly tough, he just did a bad thing and went to jail for it. He survived prison, but doesn't seem to want to be the guy his life as an ex-con calls for. He goes along reluctantly; this is not who he wants to be. He wants to be a nice guy, but he can't. They could have filled that in a bit more, but I saw it just fine the way it was. The guy who hired them -- and whose name is never revealed -- also seems a bit out of his element. He knows he's smart, because he tells himself that every day, and he tells lies about how tough he is to impress the others, but his planning for the crime is superficial, and his botches betray to his employees that at least some of what he's told them isn't true. Their realisation that they've been lied to, and ours, is what makes the puzzle. The ending wraps up the details -- though I think Mr Nobody gives up his information too easily, it does finish off the events in this story without telling us what's going to happen next. Though there is one unaddressed point I'll mention in the spoiler section. The movie is a little slow getting started, and it hops around in time too much for no obvious purpose. But those are quibbles; this was an interesting story with some interesting characters. At the end, I was thinking that it reminded me of a stage play -- which, as it turns out, it originally was. The movie is not rated. Were it rated, it would almost certainly be "R", for language and violence. [ spoilers ] One of the characters has left his fingerprints all over a crime scene, having been in and out for more than a week, and yet leaves without so much as taking anything with him or wiping anything down. Isn't he going to be connected to the crime in relatively short order? Shouldn't he be worried about that? From kilroy at elvis.rowan.edu Wed Sep 24 01:07:40 2008 From: kilroy at elvis.rowan.edu (Darren Provine) Date: Wed Sep 24 01:07:43 2008 Subject: Review: Five Moments of Infidelity (2006) Message-ID: In the movie "Flirting with Disaster", Tina Kalb (played by Tea Leoni) says that "Every marriage is vulnerable, otherwise being married wouldn't mean anything, would it?" "Five Moments of Infidelity" is a movie which looks at some of the ways in which relationships can be vulnerable to infidelity, and exactly what constitutes "cheating". As the title suggests, the movie looks at five couples, along with their children and friends, and tries to give us a sense of all five. But in a span of 90 minutes, it's hard to give a good picture of so many couples. I wasn't able to make any sense at all of why one of the pairs ever got together in the first place -- they had no scenes together outside their apartment, and only one in which they seemed even to be getting along at all. Another problem is that the elements of plotting which connect the five couples and their friends together seem a bit contrived. It's necessary to have the stories overlap, or the movie would be a set of disconnected narratives. But there should be some more straightforward way of having all the characters run into each other. For the most part, I believed the characters were actual people doing what they did and feeling what they expressed. Some of it seemed a bit stupid, but people do stupid things, and people set themselves up for disappointment, which they suffer when it happens. A movie where everyone only does the right things wouldn't be believable. It might have been a better movie if it had been "Three Moments of Infidelity", and dropped out the family with the teenage daughter and the gay couple. The story of the family with the daughter seemed sort of pasted on, and the improper behaviour seems is beyond anyone's line that shouldn't be crossed. The gay couple's point of contention seemed over the top. (More below the spoiler line.) The remaining couples, it seems to me, had more potential, and would have been more interesting if only we'd gotten to see more of what was going on in their relationships. Show us how the two who fight got together; show us what went wrong with the lawyer and her husband; let us see why the secretary's expectations are so far off. Fill in those stories, and let the others go by the wayside. Also, those three could be connected a little more simply, without requiring the story to make great leaps of plot in a single bound. That any attempt was made at all to look at how different couples might have different ideas of "infidelity" is at least notable. What's most interesting here is the idea that "everybody has a line they don't want crossed" -- the people in the stories have different ideas of what partners in a couple should and should not do. What's important to the people in these relationships is not the external rules that any particular social subgroup cares about, it's about what lines they've worked out for themselves. That idea deserved a better movie with richer characters. Overall, my reservations about this movie come down to "more breadth than depth" -- it's giving brief sketches instead of detailed studies. If you want detail, you'll need to look elsewhere. But if you like broad sketches, this movie may be one you'd enjoy. The DVD extras include improvisation of the back stories; how did they meet? What annoyances make the fighting couple fight all the time? They apparently did this so that actors had more fully formed ideas of who their characters were. This is exactly what I'd have liked to see more of in the actual movie, so the audience would have a more fully formed idea of who these people were. In the DVD extras, the writer/director of the movie says she based the film on actual people she knew, and so perhaps she didn't see any need to fill in details. Maybe we just hang out with different people. The movie is not rated. Were it rated, it would almost certainly be "R", for sex, nudity, adult themes. [ spoilers ] I said that the gay couple's problem was over the top. They apparently have an open relationship, with some simple rules about "only one time with any partner, and then they're gone". But one sleeps with the other one's boss. Surely that's not someone who is going to be gone the next day, right? He has to have known the boss was on the "No" list, but we're never given any satisfactory reason why he went ahead. Also, the scene where the secretary discovers that the boyfriend has brought home another woman seems off. Firstly, we find out that she's known her boyfriend for a month, and they've apparently been physically intimate for most of it. But she never says that they've got any sort of exclusive relationship, and it's not clear why she expects any such thing. His choice of artwork (a woman in her underwear, seen from behind) is notable in that there's no face visible. That's apparently not part of a woman that's important to him. And secondly, she says he told her to use the spare key any time, and even told her where it was. If he was planning to bring home other women, as it seems he was, that's not the sort of thing he'd tell his girlfriend. That he doesn't remember it later may excuse why he brought the new girl to his apartment -- but it seems like the sort of thing he'd try to avoid saying. "Use the spare key anytime" doesn't strike me as an empty phrase along the lines of "We'll have lunch." The least plausible part of the movie, in my view, is that Billy's girlfriend breaks up with him, shortly afterwards he has sex with the girlfriend's boss, and then shortly after that he runs into the ex-girlfriend of his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. In a city of nearly 4 million people, that's a bit of a stretch -- even for a movie. From homeryen88 at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 01:19:54 2008 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Wed Sep 24 01:19:57 2008 Subject: Review: Burn after Reading (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000809232135u31f295bcmc0cfa5cb05866d76@mail.gmail.com> "Burn after Reading" - Much Ado about Nothing by Homer Yen (c) 2008 Like the myriad of characters that populate the film, this movie is likewise all over the place. Yes, it has got its funny moments. But it feels cynical throughout. And, at the same time while there seems to be a kinetic pace to the film, the story goes nowhere. "Burn after Reading", despite individual breakout performances, can't manage to keep things together. Here's a movie that starts off with promise. It is a comedy surrounding people who just deserve to be punished for their stupidity. Most of the characters, with their shallow goals and selfish actions and complete utter disregard for common sense, seem zany beyond belief. But the promise goes unrealized. Except for perhaps 1 character (the manager of a fitness center), none of them seem like real people. Some people have affairs. Some people commit crimes. Some people have errors in judgment. But, none of the extra-marital hookups seem to possess any chemistry or spark. None of the crimes are carried out with any style or suspense. And as for the errors in judgment, let's just say that the resulting tone of the film is itself a miscalculation. With an all-star cast (including George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinson, John Malkovich), each A-list Hollywood actor does get their moment to shine. The best surprise, though, is given by Pitt's character who is a dimwitted fitness coach who stumbles upon a CD-Rom that contains what appears to be top secret US government material. He is so sophomoric that I'm surprised he even knows how to open the file in the first place. But his ineptitude is proven quite easily when one of his even-shallower co-workers coaxes him to engage in a thinly planned extortion scheme. I could see where people might find this funny. Dumb situations can always lead to laughter. But two things kept getting in the way of an enjoyable time. First, the entire tone of the film is constantly disdainful. The film is loaded with characters that always make the dumbest of choices. Door A is blue, and it will lead you to safety. Door B is red, and it will lead you to death. Oddly, they all pick the red door, Door B every darn time! The unbelievable thing is that no one ever learns from their failures. And their sad and absurd state-of-mind begins to suck in other innocent people who really deserve better. The other problem is that the various characters don't necessarily mesh within the framework of the story. It's like when your grandma knitted you a sweater, but the interwoven yarn came loose here and there. The texture of the sweater is frayed. And so too is the body of this film. Even if you can overlook these two points, you won't be able to get out of the way of the silly ending. The final scene happens so abruptly that you won't leave your chair when the final credits roll because you actually demand more from the film. Well, tough luck. "Burn after Reading" overpromises but under-delivers. Grade: C S: 2 out of 3 L: 3 out of 3 V: 3 out of 3