From kamhung.soh at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 18:09:35 2009 From: kamhung.soh at gmail.com (Kam-Hung Soh) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:09:37 2009 Subject: Retrospective: Casino Royale (2006) Message-ID: New Zealand-born director Martin Campbell gets a second call (his first was 'Goldeneye' in 1995) to direct a reinvented James Bond, this time with Daniel Craig as Bond. The villain this time is Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a banker for terrorists' funds. When MI6 learn that Le Chiffre is going to the Casino Royale in Montenegro to raise funds, Bond is sent to thwart him at the poker table. Accompanying him is Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who's more intriguing than the usual Bond Girl and provides this film's love interest. Writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis restart Bond's career, though it's not clear why. Early scenes establish that Bond is already a government-appointment assassin, so giving him a double-O license to kill seems superfluous. They also drop the terrorism and tinpot dictator premise, rendering the plot rather twee and removed from our post-9/11 reality. Where the film excels are the high-impact and innovative action scenes, especially the parkour chase through a construction site and the bombing in an airport. Daniel Craig certainly has the right physique to suggest a much more athletic Bond in future films of the series. A so-so outing for a new Bond. 3 out of 5 stars. 14 March 2009 Kam-Hung Soh http://morvahouse.blogspot.com From kamhung.soh at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 18:10:16 2009 From: kamhung.soh at gmail.com (Kam-Hung Soh) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:10:18 2009 Subject: Retrospective: L'Idole / The Idol (2002) Message-ID: Two residents in an apartment block, Mr. Zao (James Hong), an aged Chinese gentleman, and Sarah Silver (Leelee Sobieski), a young aspiring actress, strike up an unlikely daughter-grandfather relationship. Mr. Zao lives alone with the memories of his sister, Mai Mai, who was killed in the Second World War. Sarah is an understudy for the star of a play, Sylvia, and is having liaisons with Sylvia's husband, Philippe (Jalil Lespert), also an actor in the same play. However, Sarah is becoming frustrated with the state of affairs because Philippe refuses to divorce his wife and she is not given any opportunities to perform Sylvia's role. When Sarah starts to meet Mr. Zao, it causes tensions with their two neighbours, Roger Castellac (Jean-Paul Roussillon), a retired conductor, and Caroline (Marie Loboda), a young girl. The premise and the first part of the film are the most intriguing. James Hong, who is often limited to secondary ethnic roles in American productions, finally gets the opportunity to be the leading man. His Mr. Zao, who is initially considering going to a retirement home, visibly comes back to life when he begins his relationship with Sarah. It's not hard to see why: Leelee Sobieski is very appealing as the nymph-like young women who is barely out of her teens and living overseas away from her parents in Australia. Another Australian connection is Samantha Lang, who has directed films in Australia. Unfortunately, in the second part of the film, the relationship between Mr. Zao and Sarch stops progressing, and Hong's hesitant French begins to interrupt the flow of the film. Lang and co-writer Gerard Brach also focus on Sarah's histrionics, which is rather contrived and not interesting. Interesting start, but the story peters out half-way. French language with English subtitles. 2 out of 5 stars. 13 March 2009 Kam-Hung Soh http://morvahouse.blogspot.com From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue Apr 7 18:11:23 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:11:25 2009 Subject: Review: Monsters vs. Aliens (2009) Message-ID: MONSTERS VS. ALIENS A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 "Once again, UFOs have landed in America," the television announcer rather matter-of-factly reports, adding, "the only country UFOs ever seem to land in." Consistently cute, MONSTERS VS. ALIENS is almost never laugh-out-loud funny, but the monsters in the movie are so precious that you'll probably not care. For a kids movie, cute is usually good enough. But let's not try to hide the elephant in the room when it comes to reviewing MONSTERS VS. ALIENS, which is being projected in 3-D in most theaters. The dirty little secret is that 3-D is frequently painful. Watching a 3-D movie is very much like getting new eyeglasses with a vastly changed prescription. Now, the good news is that some people won't experience this discomfort at all, and, for most viewers, the pain will go away after your eyes have adjusted. I was in agony for the first ten to fifteen minutes, but, after that, I was able to enjoy the numerous 3-D special effects without any more headache inducing problems. Since the script is a mixture of homages to old sci-fi movies -- mostly B ones, but several memorable A ones as well -- and various 3-D sight gags, being able to see the movie is crucial. The scripts for many of the best animated movies could be enjoyed with your eyes closed, since the dialog is so terrific. MONSTERS VS. ALIENS is not one of those films. You will, however, undoubtedly fall in love with the story's various characters, including a 50-foot woman called Ginormica (voiced by Reese Witherspoon), a green blob called B.O.B. (voiced Seth Rogen) and a mad scientist insect known as Dr. Cockroach Ph.D. (voiced by Hugh Laurie). In the story, the government, in an Area 51 type of cover-up, has locked up a group of monsters in order to hide their existence from the public. But, when aliens arrive, the government unleashes the monsters in order to attempt to defeat the aliens. There are few surprises in the plot, but the images are consistently adorable. There is a fair amount of political humor, all of which will probably go over the heads of most of the youngsters in the audience but may amuse the adults in the theater. We have a Tricky Dick parody of President Nixon and a mocking of President Bush's color coded terrorist alert system. "Set the terror level to code brown," one of the aides to President Hathaway (voiced Stephen Colbert), "since I need to change my underpants." There is even a subtle ridicule of Speaker Pelosi's coddling of illegal aliens, since the aliens, who are definitely doing something illegal, are seen destroying her home district of San Francisco. In short, MONSTERS VS. ALIENS is a sweet little movie, which is easy to enjoy once your eyes adjust. MONSTERS VS. ALIENS runs 1:34. It is rated PG for "sci-fi action, some crude humor and mild language" and would be acceptable for all ages. My son Jeffrey, age 19, gave it ***. He remarked on how much 3-D technology has improved. He loved all of the characters, most especially the giant moth known as Insectosaurus. He liked the way the film referenced so many other movies that he has seen, and he appreciated the film's lack of the usual potty humor found in most kids' movies. Jeffrey's girlfriend Yasmin, also 19, gave the film *** as well. She thought it was fun, and the monsters were adorable. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, March 27, 2009. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Cinemark 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 Faust668 at msn.com Tue Apr 7 18:12:09 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:12:12 2009 Subject: Review: This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006) Message-ID: THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED (2006) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars and a half I always felt the MPAA was a sham. To this day, it may strike some as odd that the original "Jaws" is rated PG and "2001: A Space Odyssey" is rated G. "Jaws" is actually rather gory in parts with shots of a severed head, Robert Shaw getting eaten alive by the shark, a kid getting eaten by the shark with blood surfacing like a geyser, etc. An R rating would've been more appropriate. "2001" could have yielded a PG (since it was released before the PG-13 rating came into prominence) if for no other reason than the fact that HAL kills four astronauts on board the Jupiter. And there are various other examples that raise questions ever since the advent of this hypocritical and useless system. Director Kirby Dick doesn't answer many questions that have always come to my mind about the ratings board, but he does raise other eye-opening facts about the MPAA that may send shockwaves to your gut. For instance, you can be fined and jailed if you use a facisimile of Mickey Mouse on a birthday cake! Okay, that is an unusual one. There are more strict guidelines with regards to cinema. If you show a female having an orgasm in an extreme close-up, you'll get an NC-17. Clips are shown from "The Cooler" and Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" as evidence of NC-17 rated films. Interestingly, "The Cooler" features actress Maria Bello having the orgasm, who also had a rough sex scene and a tender one in "A History of Violence" where she did climax and that film got an R rating without sexual trims. Hmmm. The mind boggles. Sexuality amongst couples (straight and gay, though gay sex is more often given the dreaded rating) as depicted in full frontal nudity measured against the number of thrusts or humps is what drives these members to rate the films accordingly. Apparently, the new trend is frank sexual talk, as shown in clips from Kevin Smith's "Jersey Girl" and John Waters' highly outrageous and hysterical "A Dirty Shame," and if it is too frank or candid, it gets an R. If the talk is too outrageous (as in Waters film) and smothered with actual penetrations that are tastefully implied, it gets the NC-17. But one can agree that "Pink Flamingos" is more NC-17 territory than "A Dirty Shame" yet both films have the same rating. Director Kirby Dick (who also appears on camera) hires some private investigators to find out the identity of the anonymous MPAA board members. We find out that most MPAA members are indeed parents, and at least two of them are mature men who have kids that are well into their twenties. Why is this relevant? Because since the majority of this small group of MPAA members in Southern California are parents, how can they dictate their rating choices from the perspective of a parent who has children? Most mind-boggling question: why is the MPAA suited to only a handful of people in Southern California, thus representing what they think is best for all of America? What is less problematic in terms of avoiding the NC-17 is violence, thus getting poor Hilary Swank's head blown off in "Boys Don't Cry" is far less unsavory than providing sexual pleasure to Chloe Sevigny ("Brown Bunny," anyone?) So sex, sex, sex in this Janet Jackson/post- NippleGate era is far of a hindrance than bloodbaths in torture porn or Iraq War documentaries. Yes, another stunning admission is that Michael Tucker, the director of an Iraq War documentary called "Gunner Palace," faced censorship by the board over something rather benign in this day and age - foul-mouthed language. Yet the soldiers in the film are real and are really saying such obscenities - so why not a PG rating so the young men and women who are thinking of enlisting can see the film? Truth is, Tucker asked for an appeal and got a PG-13 rating. Some appeals work, and some don't. But there is almost no consistency in the ratings system. A brief clip is shown from "Coming Home" from 1978, which features Jane Fonda having an orgasm in close-up that lasts much longer than Maria Bello's in "The Cooler." Yet "The Cooler" had to trim its orgasmic scene to get the R rating (and avoid showing pubic hair). Maria Bello mentions "Scary Movie" having a scene where Carmen Electra's breast is stabbed with some blood pouring out of it (the film got an R rating). So it seems that violence crossed with sexuality gets a free pass from the prohibitive NC-17 rating. Director Kirby Dick also makes mention of the former head of the MPAA, Jack Valenti, and how his political ties may have shaped the MPAA into what it is today. That is a possibility after 40 years of service, considering that politics governs our corporations which make up most of the U.S. media outlets. Therefore, censorship is the driving principle, using children as the backbone of our country. Please. During the advent of the NC-17 rating in 1990, the late Valenti once told Roger Ebert that he can make no distinction between artistic bestiality and non-artistic, thus the proposed "A" (for adults) rating by Ebert could never work. If there had been a little less focus on the detectives, Kirby Dick's film might have been more complete. There are some shots shown of Todd Solondz's film, "Storytelling," but they are without context. If anyone has seen the film, the scene in question shows a man anally penetrating Selma Blair standing against a wall. The shots of the man, a professor, from behind were cut. So Solondz showed the scene with a red box superimposed over it. What made the MPAA nervous? Possibly because it was a black man having sex with Blair? After all, maybe a black man is only allowed so many thrusts. Some of these controversies could've had more screen time. Also, I would've loved to hear how the ratings have changed over forty years since the days of X-rated films like "A Clockwork Orange" and "Midnight Cowboy." Let's face it, if we are thinking about the children and only the children when it comes to any movie, then I'd hope that they are more likely to see pubic hair, breasts and penises before seeing any horrifying violence in their own lives. At least I hope so. But I suppose I should be more conservative and think that kids should be protected from sexuality. Abstain from sex, not violence. Scary 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 Faust668 at msn.com Tue Apr 7 18:13:09 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:13:12 2009 Subject: Review: Man on Wire (2008) Message-ID: MAN ON WIRE (2008) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Four stars I used to live in New York City and was always petrified of the World Trade Center. I had walked through the lobby once but I never ascended to any of the 110 floors of these former capitalist towers. It had a lot to do with my fear of heights, I imagine, so I approached this documentary, "Man on Wire," with a certain trepidation knowing it is about a man who walked on a wire suspended across the two towers. I had nothing to fear because "Man on Wire" is an exceptionally thrilling and wondrous documentary - a tale told with such vigor and with such breathless beauty, you'll be speechless for days, even months. Philippe Petit is the famous French wire walker who managed to do something that no one has ever attempted, no less surpassed. On a slightly windy, cloudy day on August 7, 1974, Petit and a few people on his crew suspended a wire across the Two Towers so that Petit could walk across. Apparently, this was an early dream that took place in a dentist's office where he saw a magazine article on the future construction of these towering giants. All Petit knew was that he had to walk across them, like floating on air. Petit was already walking on wires suspended across the Notre Dame Cathedral and the Sydney Harbor Bridge and made a name for himself but the WTC is an incomparable and seemingly improbable stunt. James Marsh's "Man on Wire" shows the dedication of its high-wire act and participant Petit, as he breaks down all the nooks and crannies of this stunt. How will they get into the WTC? What sort of disguises will they wear, and how do they acquire proper fake ID's? Most importantly, how in creation will they suspend this wire across these two towers that are diagonally parallel to each other? (A fact I had almost forgotten). The movie is full of black-and-white footage that looks like it was cribbed from a 1970's heist movie - of course, it isn't but director Marsh does a stellar job of blending fake footage with real color footage shot by Petit and his then-girlfriend. As for the heist connection, the movie operates on the level of a high-stakes heist thriller though nothing is actually being stolen. Instead, something is being given - a gift for New Yorkers of someone literally walking in the clouds. "Man on Wire" is not a normal documentary - it almost transcends the form. It is told with such panache that it seems more like a thriller, particularly in its detailing of the ins and outs of this grand wirewalking event. It also conveys the spirited mood and ambition of a young man eager to perform something so awe-inspiring, individualistic and so dangerous, it could only be done once. Some viewers have complained about Petit having a fling with some anonymous, adoring female fan while committed to his former girlfriend. That hardly matters in my mind because he was exalted by someone and took advantage. Philippe Petit was the rock star of the heavens. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Tue Apr 7 18:13:57 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:13:59 2009 Subject: Review: Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) Message-ID: <568a7459-6d1d-4ea6-9de0-0900d42268bd@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL (2008) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Four stars The other day I saw 1934's "It Happened One Night" and was reminded what a great screwball comedy it was and how its situations revolved around its main characters whom I cared about. It was also a great romantic comedy, sharper and edgier than most others of its ilk. I can say the same for "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," a truly sidesplittingly and wickedly funny romantic comedy. Yes, it is nothing new in terms of its genre but it is too saucy, sincere and plainly hilarious to pass up. Jason Segel (who wrote the screenplay) is Peter Bretter, a music composer who currently writes and performs the creepy music themes for a "CSI"-type TV show (William Baldwin appears in it, no doubt mimicking some of David Caruso's gestures). Peter is also romantically involved the show's leading actress, Sarah Marshall (a winning performance by Kristin Bell). Unfortunately, she has called it quits on their relationship - all this after arriving at his apartment and finding him bare naked. Peter is distraught and understandably depressed, unaware of what caused this break-up. He goes on a vacation to Hawaii, which was suggested by Sarah at one time, and finds Sarah there with a new beau (Russell Brand). Things can only get worse until Peter gets friendly with the female hotel desk clerk, Rachel (Mila Kunis), and, well, shall I spell out the rest for you? Most romantic comedies of the past decade seem so cardboard and uni- dimensional that you are better off looking at peeling paint or eroding Chinese drywall. Of the 2000 decade, "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is one of the finest, richest and most emotional of all romantic comedies that I've seen. "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and 2007's "Knocked Up" are two more to add to the list. Part of the charm of "Sarah Marshall" is that as anticipated as every scene is, the movie flirts with you and gives you goosebumps of joy at delivering such an entertaining, lovable cast of colorful characters. There is the aforementioned Jason Segel who gives his schlub of a character a whiff of humanity, humor and heart in such equal doses that it is impossible to find him less than irresistible. Whether he tries singing the lyrics to his "Dracula" opera, or is wooing the quixotic Rachel or crying uncontrollably, Segel always manages to make you care about his plight and his character never comes across as desperate or foolish - you just understand where he is coming from. He wants to be loved and in this current Judd Apatow mood of sensitive males that is pervasive in cinemas since "40 Year-Old Virgin," it works. And what should be far more commonplace outside of Judd Apatow and Jason Segel country are the juicy and fully-dimensional women characters. I truly admire Mila Kunis (formerly of TV's "That 70's Show") for creating one of the loveliest screen presences in any romantic comedy in a long time. Kunis shows Rachel's heart, sensitivity and her pain, especially in one scene where she berates a former boyfriend on the beach. She is funny, sweet, charming and has a bit of an edge - she is the girlfriend who remains true to herself but doesn't appreciate backstabbing or disloyalty. And Kristin Bell ("Veronica Mars") knocked my socks off, showing far more flair and comic timing than in anything else she has appeared in. Her Sarah Marshall character could've easily been an unlikable sourpuss that the audience would hate for all the obvious reasons. However, when she decides to warm up to Peter after having dumped him, one senses that she is forthright and just needs someone to love her. How refreshing to see the woman who seemingly is all wrong for the male lovebird. Also worth mentioning is the hysterically funny Russell Brand, a stand- up British comedian with a Rastafarian hairstyle who is as charming as any bloke we normally see in these movies. In this case, he is a bed- hopping, lustful rock star named Aldous Snow, who not only craves sex but demonstrates how it should be done. His best scenes are the classic dueling sex scene (check out his humiliated reaction) and the dinner scene where he gives a negative review to a crappy horror movie Sarah had made about a killer telephone! Jason Segel and debuting director Nicholas Stoller have crafted a humanistic, emotionally centered romantic comedy with an equal share of belly laughs. Peter, Sarah Marshall, Rachel and Aldous Snow come across as vulnerable types - they want love and to be loved in their own terms. The fact that Peter knew all along the complications of a relationship make his character that much more sympathetic. In an age of anonymous Hollywood movies about bland love, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is one of the few marvelous American comedies in quite some time. You won't soon forget it. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Tue Apr 7 18:14:47 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:14:49 2009 Subject: Review: Ocean's Thirteen (2007) Message-ID: <1cbda9cd-bfff-4688-9a7e-e4786cdebfa7@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> OCEAN'S THIRTEEN (2007) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars So I saw "Ocean's Eleven" once more a while ago, a film I initially disliked but it has grown on me somewhat. If anyone were to ask me whether I prefer the Rat Pack 1960 version or the modern one, I would go with the Rat Pack. I have not seen "Ocean's Twelve" but I am curious because "Ocean's Thirteen" is a delightful if empty form of escapism that has no other angle other than to entertain. With a game case, I let them roll the dice and, surprisingly, they score. Steven Soderbergh's newest sequel centers on good old slickster himself, Ruben Tishkoff (Elliott Gould), who thinks he is buying a brand new casino with all the expected fireworks until his greedy partner, Willie Banks (Al Pacino), buys him out and Ruben ends up in the emergency room from heartache (Willie also names the casino after himself). All you need to shake things up is the reliable Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and his merry band of hucksters, slicksters, con- artists and thieves who have more sleight-of-hand than the old Santa Fe zine I used to write for, Legerdemain. The idea is to undermine Willie's whole operation, steal some precious diamonds, and cut his profits on opening day. Unfortunately, the Ocean's group runs out of money to stage such an operation and they have to resort to dealing with a former nemesis, cooly played with ease and laid-back charm by Andy Garcia. So we get scenes where Matt Damon wears an oversized nose, the late Bernie Mac displaying his latest card game, a Mexican factory where the Vegas chips are made, Brad Pitt pretending to be a scientist who fears an earthquake is on the way, Al Pacino hooting and hollering, George Clooney getting teary-eyed at an Oprah episode, a boring machine that has to simulate an earthquake, and much more. It is all fun and games, with whiplash editing and flashy direction by Steven Soderbergh. The actors all show up and give it a relaxed tone that makes it all the more fun. None of this preposterous nonsense makes a lick of sense but it is spirited and has quicker, sharper dialogue than the original 2001 film. The movie is basically a caper film in-name only, since its pure existence is to entertain the audience and provide George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Al Pacino and Matt Damon as true attractive movie stars with flashy suits and cool demeanors. The movie looks, feels and acts like a cool summer breeze that is unique in its own way. It's glitzy Hollywood entertainment - the kind you don't see anymore - so go and enjoy that breeze. 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 Tue Apr 7 18:15:31 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:15:34 2009 Subject: Review: Knowing (2009) Message-ID: KNOWING (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: KNOWING uses ideas seemingly borrowed from THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES but as a springboard to tell a larger, more engaging, and far grimmer story. A page of digits written by a schoolgirl in 1959 seems to list every major disaster up to the present and even a little way into the future. Nicolas Cage plays an MIT professor who does not believe in determinism, but is forced to accept that a girl in 1959 knew specific data about the next fifty years. And the implications will have worldwide impact. Still, the script balances ideas, action, tension, and even horror. This is a major science fiction film that shows us some spectacular scenes of destruction but still maintains a narrow focus keeping it a personal film. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10 Alex Proyas has directed some impressive films, including THE CROW and especially DARK CITY. That made it seem odd when (even) after a strange beginning KNOWING settled into a retelling of Mark Pellington's 2002 THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. For the first hour this films seems to content to just be a remake of a film that was not that impressive to start with. During that hour he builds a feeling of dread much in the style of Pellington or of M. Night Shyamalan's SIGNS. He takes an hour to build his characters and polish the tone. Then the pace picks up and he packs a lot more into this film. Like QUATERMASS AND THE PIT, it unifies a lot disparate ideas and phenomena in a way that they have not been associated before. I wish I could say that I liked the film as much as QUATERMASS AND THE PIT, which I consider one of the greatest of science fiction films. This is a screenplay that had four different credited writers and each seem to have been contributing ideas until the film is just busting with them. I saw pieces from old "Outer Limits" episodes, from MARS ATTACKS, bits of WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE, DEEP IMPACT, and even CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. This is a film that takes world history and then unifies and reinterprets it. I like that kind of film, but I am just uncomfortable with the way it was unified. Proyas directs a screenplay written by two different pairs of writers. Perhaps that is why the film does not quite feel like it gels. In 1959 a school class leaves a time capsule with children's pictures what they thought the world of 2009 would be like. One student, the one who suggested the time capsule in the first place, chooses instead to leave a page of what appear to be random digits. Flash forward fifty years and the pictures are to be handed out to the current class. Caleb Koestler (played by Chandler Canterbury) is given the sheet of numbers. His father, John Koestler (Nicolas Cage), an astrophysics professor at MIT sees a familiar string on the page, 911012998. That expands to 9/11, 2001, 2998 killed. The paper is full of dates and death tolls of disasters that occurred in the fifty years that the sheet was buried. It even includes a few disasters that have not happened yet. The script is an intelligent one and plays with concepts of free will, determinism, religion, predestination, and the accuracy of scientific prediction. How they get as much thought into a film that has so much action is a bit of a surprise. Still, there are problems with the writing. There are three disasters predicted, but all are in the course of three or four days. And each is within easy driving distance of where the Koestlers live. However this gives Proyas the chance to show us some spectacular disasters, but still keep this a sort of personal film, focusing on just a small number of characters. I like the sheer quantity of ideas in this film, but I am not sure that they all fit so nicely together. I expect with some thought the flaws will seem less important and the audacity of the plot will win out. Even if you think you know where this film is going--and you may be right--that is just one of many places this film will take you. I expect that this film will be among the top ten science fiction films of the decade. I rate it a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10. Possible (but unlikely) spoiler: This film takes place, apparently, in late 2009. That is possible, but the major event of the film would be much more likely to take place in the first half of 2012. Get ready for it. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Tue Apr 7 18:16:26 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:16:28 2009 Subject: Review: The Boy In the Striped Pajamas (2009) Message-ID: THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: With more the feel of a fable than of a genuine piece of history, this film tells the story of Bruno, the loving son of a father who was running an extermination camp for the Nazis. With a child's innocence he does not understand what the camp is and, he makes friends with an interned boy. If the film is a fable, it is a powerful one. Mark Herman directs from his own screenplay based on the novel by John Boyne. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 When the TV miniseries THE HOLOCAUST was made, Michael Moriarty was playing a scene as a concentration camp commandant home for Christmas. He says that the scene made him just break down and cry. How can a father in that position look his family in the eye and celebrate the holiday knowing he is a mass murderer? It is rare that a film looks at the effects of the Holocaust on the perpetrators rather than the victims. THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS is a powerful look at the same sort of family. Father (played by the reliable David Thewlis) has just been promoted to the responsibility of running a death camp. He takes his family from Berlin to the unidentified village where the camp has been located. But though the two characters of Father and Mother (Vera Farmiga) are well defined, the center of the film is eight-year-old Bruno (a remarkable Asa Butterfield, actually eleven years old). At first bored with his new home, he finds ways to sneak out the back garden and go to the fence where he meets and makes friends with Shmuel (Jack Scanlon) who Bruno thinks has a fun life on what he thinks is a farm were people wear pajamas all day. Veteran actor Richard Johnson plays Father's father and is probably the source of Father's character flaws. There are some problems with the narrative. Bruno never realizes what a death camp really is. Of course, few of the audience members are not far, far ahead of Bruno, though perhaps nobody who did not go through the experience can really know. But the film is not about what is happening beyond the fence, but how Bruno's many misimpressions are slowly corrected. Even the suffering Shmuel from whom Bruno learns knows little more than Bruno does. Also, somewhat unrealistically, I think three people very close to Father make very clear that they do not approve of Father's career in spite of the prestige and success it brings him. It is very unlikely to have so many open dissenters in the same family as the camp commander. Multiple characters make quite a point in the film how bad the chimney smoke from the camp smells. But the production of this smoke seems be a rare event, and that really does not make sense. Also why does Shmuel have so much time to sit by the fence? Like LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, this film seems to soften the Holocaust in order to tell a story that probably could not have happened in the real world. It has become a convention of the syntax of cinema to have an accent substitute for speaking in a foreign language. The obvious choice would be to either have the actors speak German, or with a German accent. Instead an English accent was chosen, natural to the English actors of the film. The colors when Bruno first comes to his new home are bright and vibrant. As the film progresses those bright colors seems to drain out of the film. The colors become much more muted. James Horner, at one time disdained by film music aficionados, gives the film a lovely melodic score with a little foreshadowing and also a feeling of innocence at times. Scores of this quality have become infrequent. Texture music scores with little or no melody have become the rule. It is nice to have melody back. The film starts slowly and telling it tale very deliberately. By the end of the film it is moving at a breathless pace. But the film has a feel of insulating the viewer from the hard realities of life in the camps. We are told that Shmuel is hungry, but we see nobody who looks like he has been missing meals. The novel was written for young adults and the film feels like it pulls its punches. The final horrifying revelation is still a long way from the painful realities of those days. I rate THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Tue Apr 7 18:17:16 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:17:18 2009 Subject: Review: Monsters Vs. Aliens (2009) Message-ID: MONSTERS VS. ALIENS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This film has a little something for the kids in the audience and a little something for the adults, but not so much both can enjoy. The film builds a story of cute monsters defending Earth from ugly aliens. A disenchanted young woman finds herself first turned into a monster and then called upon to save the Earth. The story is largely built from pieces taken from old science fiction films as if they were Lego blocks. For me they were more fun where they got them. Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10 I love films and I enjoy when I see a film reference in a film. Also I love science fiction films, particularly from the 1950s. MONSTERS VS. ALIENS has a treasure trove of references to monster movies and alien movies. There were truly an awesome number of in- joke allusions aimed right at me (in 3D yet). They were all on target. It is just the movie that missed me. They started with a standard feminist empowerment theme. On top of this they took a stereotypical Toho plot--aliens are invading and monsters have to band together to save the Earth. And then the filmmakers threw in one action sequence after another. The characters were mostly jokes based on ideas from the 1950s. The filmmakers literally designed their monsters to be jokes. One was basically the creature from the Black Lagoon but his origin was borrowed from THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS. One was a modeled on THE FLY, but his origin was borrowed from SHE DEVIL. Each is good for one laugh but they have no interesting personality. It is perhaps even more important in animation to give characters personalities to engage the audience. Appropriately enough for a new 3D movie the film comes polarized. The simplistic plot is probably too childish to be appreciated by the adults, but the kids would probably like it. At the same time the film's many homages to old science fiction films will be enjoyable to adults who grew up seeing the original movies on TV, but the kids who have not seen the films will be blind to them. Susan Murphy (voiced by Reese Witherspoon) is engaged and soon to marry Derek Dietl (Paul Rudd), the town weatherman. Derek thinks the two of them would make a good team, but he insists on being the coach. On her wedding day she will be handed by fate something old (lack of consideration from her chauvinistic fianc?), something new (about 44 feet of new growth), something borrowed (a set of monsters from the 1950s), and something blue (he's B.O.B. the Blob). Just before the wedding a large meteor with strange energy (think kryptonite) falls directly on her. Not only is she not crushed (and not surprised that she was not crushed), but also she has absorbed the weird energy. So she glows and she grows like the Fifty-Foot Woman. The marriage is off, and instead she finds herself in a huge fortified government bunker where the government keeps its monsters. There is B.O.B the Blob (Seth Rogen), Dr. Cockroach with the head of an insect (Hugh Laurie), the aforementioned lagoon creature (Will Arnett), and a Mothra-like giant caterpillar. Meanwhile on Earth land aliens who were tracking the meteor and want it for their nefarious purposes. The government decides to use its monsters to fight the aliens. This affords the script opportunities for two giant battles between monsters and aliens: one on the Golden Gate Bridge and one inside the alien spaceship. The animation is generally good, but in an odd way DreamWorks animation seems to be better for sympathetic human characters than for others who are less so. Characters like W. R. Monger seem to be stiff in just the way Lord Farquaad was in SHRECK. Susan seems more liquid in her motion. The jokes are good; the animation is fine; the 3-D is awesome. But still the film fails to make a monster or an alien as powerful a character as the little clownfish Marlin from FINDING NEMO. And lacking good characters makes MONSTERS VS. ALIENS no more than just a diverting little film and nothing more. I rate MONSTERS VS. ALIENS a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue Apr 7 18:17:42 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:17:44 2009 Subject: Review: Alien Trespass (2009) Message-ID: ALIEN TRESPASS A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** While it never rises to the level of GALAXY QUEST, my gold standard for funny sci-fi films, ALIEN TRESPASS consistently delights and amuses. As director R.W. Goodwin pointed out at our screening, the makers of the sci-fi films of the 1950s never thought they were making comedies. It's just that the films became funny to viewers after our science evolved, as did our ability to construct more and more convincing special effects. There are certain inherent limitations in what one can do when your monsters are men in rubber suits. As ALIEN TRESPASS begins, a pair of young lovers is necking at "The Point." While they might be named Ashley and Ethan today, their names instead are Penny (Sarah Smyth) and Dick (Andrew Dunbar), classic names from 1957, when the story is set. Actually, the movie is preceded by a mostly real newsreel from November 21, 1957, which nicely sets the timeframe. The love-making in this would-be G-rated movie is as circumspect as any sci-fi, or other most other, film from the 1950s would show it. And before Penny and Dick's kissing gets too hot and heavy, it is interrupted by the landing of a flying saucer. Of course, Officer Vernon (Robert Patrick, the T-1000 in TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY) doesn't believe a thing the teenagers tell him about monsters from outer space. Meanwhile back in the Lewis household, uber-wife Lana (Jody Thompson, "THE 4400") is fixing a meal for her pipe-smoking husband Ted (Eric McCormack, Will from "Will & Grace"). Ultra-suave and looking a bit like Hugh Heffner with the pajamas, Ted soon runs into difficulty as his body gets expropriated by an alien named Urp, a marshal on the flying saucer who is in charge of a pair of nefarious Ghotas. Get the joke, right? He's Marshal Urp. Both Ghotas are played by Jovan Nenadic, who is the man inside the silly suit, which looks like -- well I won't give that away, but I will say that it has one big eye and some creepy looking tentacles. The best movies are those that get the little things right and then go on to make use of those details. The role of the girlfriend from the 1950s is perfectly captured by such details. You'll notice that Penny has a class ring around her neck, which means that she is going steady with Dick. And, being a girl in that era means that her main role in the relationship is to say "no," early and often. This is best observed in the movie's best scene by far. A bunch of amorous teens go to the local movie theater to see THE BLOB, starring Steve McQueen. The canonical scene from that movie is one in which a group of teens are watching a scary movie when the Blob comes oozing after them from the projection booth behind them. As the teens in ALIEN TRESPASS watch this scene from THE BLOB, a Ghota appears behind them. When it places one of its tentacles on the shoulder of a girl in the back row, she keeps it flicking it away, assuming that it's her boyfriend's hand. Her purpose in the relationship is the stopping of hanky-panky in its tracks. She has no idea that she is inadvertently trying to stop a monster. As always, the real question in these stories is how the monster will be killed or at least immobilized. If they can't stop it, the whole town will turn into puddles of ooze, which is what happens to humans who tangle with a Ghota. Will a "biogenic phase disrupter" be enough to put a Ghota down? Stay tuned. Actually, it's too bad that there is no longer a market for serials at the theater. It would be a hoot to see a ten minute episode every week of ALIEN TRESPASS, but, since that's no longer a possibility, you'll have to enjoy this single and self-contained episode. You'll be smiling for weeks afterwards. ALIEN TRESPASS runs a fast 1:30. It is not rated but would probably be rated G and would be acceptable for all ages. The film opens in limited release in the United States on Friday April 3, 2009. The movie was shown in February at the Camera Cinema Club (http://www.cameracinemas.com) of Campbell and San Jose. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From homeryen88 at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 18:18:24 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:18:27 2009 Subject: Review: Fast and Furious (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000904051204r3ce5bd84n2431ee986bfde556@mail.gmail.com> "Fast and Furious" - Familiar Parts, New Model, Less Maneuverability by Homer Yen (c) 2009 When the first film of this series came out in 2001 (which helped to put Vin Diesel and Paul Walker on the map), it was a turbocharged breath of fresh air. The hubris, the bravado, the plethora of muscle cars and well-toned women was a testosterone-filled joy. And, it was so bad that it was quite good in a campy way. I left the theatre, sat in my car, and just revved my engine wanting to be like one of those bad boys who could hurtle down a city street in their NOS-equipped street machines. That was then. Now, with guilty pleasures like Grand Theft Auto and a heightened sense of caution spurned by those darn speed cameras that line our county's streets (I can't even get my car out of 3rd gear), the fantasy just isn't what it used to be. And, while the movie is a fun diversion and gives you everything you'd probably expect, this one never achieves the velocity of the first. No matter. It does, however, get better mileage than the 2nd (goofy) and 3rd (childish) installment. Like the original, rivals Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) and Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker) have to work together to outmaneuver a common enemy. Much of the basics that made the first film a surprise hit are present here. The surviving main characters from that film all reprise their roles, although each one is a little more street smart. Dom is still running from the law but his brazenness has never dimmed. His girlfriend, Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), has obviously developed loyalty and love for him. The opening sequence features an exciting hijacking attempt as these two (and their gang) attempt to steal several gasoline tankers while on dangerous mountain road. I personally would have liked to have seen the filmmakers devote more screen time to their Bonnie-and-Clyde relationship. But I hear that the DVD will offer a featurette on these two and I will just have to look forward to that. In this film, Dominic has a personal beef with an elusive Mexican drug lord. Brian, meanwhile, has since re-entered law enforcement and has been recruited by the FBI because of his street racing skills. His job is to infiltrate the operation headed by that same drug lord. With a common enemy, they sometimes help each other, try to beat up each other, and find ways to annoy each other. It was nice to see them back together. A reunion with Vin Diesel and Paul Walker, after eight years, seems long overdue. In addition, the film also has a welcome feel of grittiness to it. It shuns the glossiness of Miami and the neon-infused prettiness of Tokyo. As raw as these characters act, these guys look much more at home in this installment, wreaking havoc on congested city streets, desolate plains, and anywhere else a 10-second car will take them. I especially liked the sequence that features a high-speed tunnel crawl across the US/Mexican border, although it sort of encroaches upon Speed Racer territory. So, yes, I'm glad that I saw it. But, now my question is this: where can the franchise go from here? There's only so much you can do with these characters and these storylines. And it's clear that Dom doesn't really have an equal on asphalt. These films seem to be running out of fresh parts. Well, you can still enjoy the ride for now. Grade: B S: 1 out of 3 L: 1 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 From mleeper at optonline.net Tue Apr 7 18:18:53 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue Apr 7 18:18:55 2009 Subject: Review: Forever (2009) Message-ID: FOREVER (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Polish filmmaker Heddy Honigmann does a photo-essay of the people who come to Paris's Pere Lachaise Cemetery to visit dead relatives and/or some of the world's greatest artists who are buried there. Much of the film turns into a study of how the dead live on and inspire the living. Sometimes this film is on target and sometimes it is just a little over the top. It is an ambitious effort that does not always work. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 Heddy Honigmann takes an extended look at Life, Death, Art, and Beauty as viewed from and in relation to the Pere Lachaise Cemetery. This burial ground, also known as the East Cemetery, is the largest in the city of Paris. Being the cemetery of Paris, it is the resting place of many of the great artistic people of this city of art. Some of the luminaries whose graves are found in this beautiful, ornate burial ground include Frederic Chopin, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust, Maria Callas, Pierre Abelard and Heloise, Max Ernst, Amedeo Modigliani, and (in a less classical vein) George Melies, Yves Montand, Simone Signoret, and Jim Morrison. The cemetery is now a park for quiet contemplation, and it draws people from all over the city. Honigmann interviews visitors many of whom have some special artist whose resting place they go to. One man initially detested the writing of Marcel Proust but converted by his wife now presents the writing of Proust to others in the form of comic books. Others take inspiration from the tombs of their heroes who are dead. One man interviewed has a love of Amedeo Modigliani, whose elongated images of women seem to have an ethereal light about them. Honigmann finds one after another. In between she shows us nearly endless images of people caring for graves by pouring water on flowers from plastic drinking bottles or dusting tombs. Or she will show one visitor standing in silence for minutes while behind we hear only the sound of traffic. Someone complains that a grave of a loved one is too close to that of Jim Morrison and therefore gets a little too much traffic and noise. Elsewhere we see a memorial to Paris citizens who were "deported" to Nazi death camps. The whole feeling is one of admiration of the exquisite beauty of the cemetery and long interludes of luxuriating in the magnificence. This is great at first, but presently it becomes a little oppressive. We go from delicate statuary to stunning displays of flowers. A little of that goes a long way. Some who come to this same destination each day seem to "live, like a hair- dresser, in the continual contemplation of beauty," as George Bernard Shaw put it describing his vision of Hell. But the visitors do come to sit in the park, to meditate on the loveliness, and to visit their dead loved ones. Some talk to the dead. There are certainly macabre aspects to this film. One Honigmann talked to was a mortician who daily decorates the dead, making them up for their last exposure to their family and friends. He takes his day off among the dead. Elsewhere the camera focuses in on a spider larger than one would expect in the City of Paris. The film really starts and ends with Yoshino Kimura, a pristine young pianist who plays Chopin flawlessly. She visits the tomb of Chopin and finds motivation from him. He seems to live on through her and she seems a perfect model of being dedicated to her art. A little surprisingly, the IMDB lists 41 acting credits for her so music is at best a part-time pursuit. At times the film seems a little pretentious, but FOREVER is a reasonable, not perfect, meditation on art and beauty and the relation of the living artist with the dead who have contributed to his art. I would rate FOREVER a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Thu Apr 16 18:20:00 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Thu Apr 16 18:20:03 2009 Subject: Review: Paris 36 (2009) Message-ID: PARIS 36 A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** Always beautiful but rarely compelling, PARIS 36 (FAUBOURG 36) is the second feature film by director Christophe Barratier. His first picture, THE CHORUS (LES CHORISTES), which was basically a subtitled MR. HOLLAND'S OPUS, was a huge hit in its native France and was nominated for two Academy Awards (Best Foreign Language Film and Best Original Song.) Although his latest movie has a different story line, his approach is very similar, but I found THE CHORUS to be much more appealing. Set in 1936, PARIS 36 follows the fall and rise and fall and rise of a music hall. The film can't really be considered a musical, since, until the end, we only hear songs in small snippets. The narrative is much more concerned with the backstage machinations of the music hall than the music itself. Gerard Jugnot plays Pigoil, the manager of the music hall. One of the story's main subplots concerns the fight between the French communists and fascists, with the communists being shown as the heroes of the average workers and the fascists as mindless idiots. Pigoil, on the other hand, eschews politics, only wanting a chance for a "steady job." Maxence Perrin plays Jojo, Pigoil's accordion playing son. Forced to leave the father he loves, Jojo has to live with his mother, Viviane (Elisabeth Vitali), who left Pigoil for another man. The film is overstuffed with way too many characters and subplots. Tom Stern's cinematography is consistently stunning. It's hard to pick a favorite visual, but the Parisian streets at night in the snow would be a definite contender for the movie's most magical moment. The story's key character turns out to be Douce (Nora Arnezeder), a lovely young lass who auditions to be the music hall's announcer. Since she possesses a voice of bird-like beauty, she is soon promoted from announcer to star and becomes a singing sensation. Way too frantic, the movie plays like a bunch of vaudevillian actors trying to play to the cheap seats by exaggerating every gesture. I love looking at it, but found everything else about the movie, from the overstuffed story to the truncated songs, to be disappointing. I could also have done without the pro-communist nostalgia. PARIS 36 runs too long at 2:00. The film is in French with English subtitles. It is rated PG-13 for "some sexuality and nudity, violence and brief language" and would be acceptable for kids around 10 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, April 10, 2009. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From mleeper at optonline.net Thu Apr 16 18:24:00 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Apr 16 18:24:03 2009 Subject: Review: Repo: The Genetic Opera(2008) Message-ID: REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This is a Grand Guignol science fiction rock opera starring Alexa Vega, Paul Sorvino, and Anthony Head. Rotti Largo, the man who supplies the world with synthetic transplant organs, became the most powerful man in the world during a strange epidemic. As he nears death there is a struggle for who will inherit his empire after he dies. The plot is minimal and for a rock opera, there is too little real melody. Visually the film is a little nauseating but otherwise very inventive. Darren Lynn Bousman, director of three sequels to SAW, helms this film with what I would guess is the same sensitivity. Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10 The time is somewhere around the middle years of the 21st Century. The world has been ravaged by a strange plague that attacks by destroying internal organs. There are not enough natural organs to go around for all the transplants that are needed. But a company named GeneCo has fulfilled the demand. They have perfected artificial organs that function like the real thing. That is the good news. The bad news is that like any medical technology these days, the artificial organs are very expensive. When it is a question of living or dying, many are willing to pay the price and GeneCo offers easy credit. GeneCo has become the wealthiest company in the world. But large numbers of organ recipients are deeply in debt to GeneCo. When they cannot pay GeneCo sends the Repo Man to legally repossess the organs from their living bodies and leave them bleeding and dying. The owner of GeneCo is the ruthless medical industrialist Rotti Largo (played by Paul Sorvino). He has three has three children vying to be the most cold-blooded to prove they are worthy to run the empire. Meanwhile we meet Shilo Wallace (Alexa Vega) is a teenager with blood disease that keeps her at home. She is discovering that her dead mother has a history with Rotto Largo. And Nathan, her father ("Buffy"'s Anthony Head), may also have had other involvements with the most powerful man in the world. This is all told in a world in which the smart set lives ignoring the gruesome violence in their society that they pass every day. By the time the story is over everybody seems to be awash in the spilt blood. The plot does have some interesting concepts behind it somewhere deep in the bloody organs. The color palette is usually very controlled with strong colors suited to the mood of the scene. That also enhances the graphic novel feel of the film. The film uses the gimmick of having all the expository lumps presented as comic book panels. Reader Susan de Guardiola, who recommended the film to me, said that she could not get the music out of her head. The reason she is still humming the music is what is most wrong with the movie. It may be a question of musical taste, but the music is all short repetitive note combinations without more than a rudimentary melody. You can find some of that style in JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, but that also has longer and more engaging melodies such as "I Don't Know How To Love Him". In REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA someone will be saying things in a five-note theme repeated three times, then will get a response to the same five-note theme. Pretty soon you cannot get that five-note theme out of your head. The Top-40 stations work by the same principle of repetitions. But there are no longer engaging melodies. Much of the music is not so much sung as yelled to the sound of a heavy beat. That makes the music all the less appreciated when it overstays its welcome and becomes an earworm. Along for the ride in lesser roles are Sarah Brightman and Paris Hilton. The screenplay is by Darren Smith and Terrance Zdunich based on their own stage play. (Smith has a role as a bandleader and Zdunich plays the film's host and the grave robber.) There are numerous borrowings (or perhaps homages) to other musicals. However, the screenplay is probably more timely today than when it was first produced on the stage with themes of credit problems and corporate malfeasance, both on people's minds right now. It is hard to get excited about songs of ecstasy over getting kidney transplants or people who rip out their own eyes. I rate REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. Film Credits: What others are saying: Susan de Guardiola's extensive blog on the film: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper