From Faust668 at msn.com Tue May 12 13:25:40 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue May 12 13:25:42 2009 Subject: Review: The Incredible Hulk (2008) Message-ID: <8afbe280-7e5f-47f9-a0e9-4232c3676792@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com> THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: One star and a half Why on earth did Edward Norton make a boring Hulk movie? Why do moviegoers hate Ang Lee's "Hulk" so much? Why even bother with essentially reimagining or remaking, or whatever you want to call it these days, the 2003 box-office bust that was "Hulk"? These questions plagued me while watching "The Incredible Hulk," which is a mediocre and completely flat, superficial superhero movie that tries to do too much and accomplishes too little. Edward Norton initially makes a convincingly scrawny Bruce Banner, living in Brazil and working at a soda factory. He has maintained communication with a genetic scientist who may know how to cure Bruce's Green Giant anger problem. Unfortunately, a drop of Bruce's blood that accidentally falls into an open soda bottle is all that is needed to raise awareness from the government and the sour, unemotional General Ross (William Hurt). The military arrives armed and ready to shoot Bruce Banner, though there is a new foe, a Marine named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), who is interested in acquiring a sample of that genetic Hulk pool. Most plaguing question: if General Ross only wants to capture the Hulk and use him as a weapon, how is killing Bruce Banner going make that possible? The answer may be that the General will use Blonsky as his new guinea pig, though the script never quite makes that clear. Nevertheless, Betty Ross (the pallid Liv Tyler) is waiting in the wings for Bruce to show up, despite being lovey-dovey with a new beau. How can anyone compete with the Green Giant? Oh, well, he has one deficiency - he can't get too excited and have sex. The origin plot of the Incredible Hulk since its inception in the late 60's never made a lot of sense - what is the point of using a genetically-engineered Hulk as a secret weapon when his animal instincts cause him to destroy everything in his path? Does that not defeat the purpose, General Ross? Yes, I am asking you, Mr. Ross. Of course, that would not matter if the film was entertaining and thrilling. Face it: the sight of an enormous Hulk wrecking havoc is always fun to watch. And the scenes where Hulk destroys a few vehicles on a college campus is exciting and nifty...and just as dispiriting. The lack of spirit can be attributed to director Louis Letterier ("Transporter") and star Edward Norton who seem to go through the motions. Numerous action-filled moments of Hulk throwing a car or a tank in the air or causing the ground beneath him to break become monotonous. So does Edward Norton, who never quite infuses Bruce Banner or the Hulk with any personality or any depth to his anger issues. Norton never becomes convincingly angry either, and how can Edward Norton of "American History X" never come across as convincingly angry? It just seems like a disservice to have a weakling still come across as a tall green-skinned weakling with muscles - there is no real sense of transformation or urgency. The theme seems to be this: Hulk loves to smash. A big mistake is the casting of Tim Roth, who comes across as evil, mean and most certainly angry, though it is such a one-dimensional character that it is hard to care whether he lives or dies - he is just a mean prick from the beginning. Perhaps Tim Roth should've played Bruce Banner - he might have come closer to tapping into that inner rage that is the Hulk in all of us. Eric Bana came close but the late Bill Bixby fully accomplished that goal. This is where a good screenplay is needed, folks. The cast of characters are limp and underwritten. William Hurt delivers no zeal or emotion as the angry General Ross. Compare Hurt's take to Sam Elliott's in the 2003 Hulk and you see a world of difference. Ditto for Liv Tyler who is uncharismatic and lifeless that I can't believe this is the same actress from "Lord of the Rings" or even "Heavy." And she scores a -15 on any chemistry with Norton. Check out Jennifer Connelly from, once again, the 2003 Hulk for a more well- rounded character. This "Hulk" film is a dull disaster with an unconvincing love story, non-threatening villains, lots of amped-up explosions, and a lead character who hardly seems to be the same person that becomes the Hulk. For a fully developed and humanistic take on a raging Hulk and a complex Bruce Banner who wishes for the beast to be expunged, check out the TV series or the 2003 Hulk. This droning Hulk of a movie is for the birds. 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 May 12 13:26:44 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue May 12 13:26:47 2009 Subject: Review: Under Our Skin (2009) Message-ID: UNDER OUR SKIN (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Writer and director Andy Abrahams Wilson looks at the spread of and effects of Lyme Disease in the United States. He examines the controversy of whether chronic Lyme Disease actually exists and looks at the financial and political interests aligned in not recognizing the disease. We meet some of the sufferers and the doctors who risk their careers to treat the disease. The film is certainly not unbiased, but allows those who do not believe in the disease to give their reasons. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 As recounted in UNDER OUR SKIN, Lyme Disease is a bacterial infection that can result from the bite of a deer tick. Ticks are a reservoir for a spiral-shaped bacteria called Borrelia. In its early stages it can cause rashes, joint problems, and symptoms like influenza. In most cases antibiotics can cure the disease in a matter of weeks. But cases of the disease have spread across the continental United States, with some cases in all states with the exception of Hawaii. Making matters worse, there may be a much longer-term chronic Lyme Disease. Whether chronic Lyme exists or not and what are its symptoms is the subject of intense disagreement. That controversy is the topic of director/writer/producer Andy Abrahams Wilson's documentary UNDER OUR SKIN. The case for the existence of chronic Lyme Disease seems a strong one, based on this documentary, but this review will not take sides. In many (alleged?) cases chronic Lyme Disease is painful and debilitating. Frequently it is associated with fever, extreme joint pain, muscle pain, headaches, and stiff neck. Complicating the matter is the fact that diagnostic tests have very poor accuracy--around 50%. The infection rate is growing and widespread. But the medical community claims that there is not enough evidence. The film examines this controversy and many of its aspects. Wilson makes a case that the insurance industry is fighting the recognition of chronic Lyme for what are claimed to be medical reasons but which are also very strong financial reasons. If chronic Lyme is accepted as a serious disease, insurance companies will be obliged to carry the financial burden of treatments. The insurance companies are interlocked with the medical community that has a hard time finding evidence of the disease and is denying what evidence is available. Symptoms claimed to be arising from chronic Lyme are being attributed to other causes including psychosomatic problems. It is hard to deny that the people who believe they are victims of this disease are suffering, and the cause appears to be chronic Lyme. The film tells us the story of six victims of the disease. Doctors are treating patients do seem to be getting positive results. However, these doctors also face losing their license to practice and also face very large lawsuits. One such doctor is Dr. Charles Ray Jones, who has treated 10,000 children for Lyme Disease. He was charged by the Connecticut State Medical Board with unprofessional conduct. A legal defense fund funded in large part by his patients was established to pay his legal fees. Some issues probably should have at least been mentioned. If Lyme Disease is distributed across the country, it must be fairly common in Canada also. If Canadian doctors accept the chronic form exists, that would be a powerful endorsement for the filmmakers' point of view. If they themselves doubt that the chronic form exists, they do so for medical rather than monetary reasons. Dr. Jones's treatments appear to be effective, but to what extent does that prove his diagnosis? One cure can work for many different causes. This is a good science documentary about a problem that does not get much press. It even manages to have a hopeful ending rooted in recent discoveries about Lyme Disease. This film raises disturbing questions--not just those related to the disease itself but also broader questions of the conflicts of interest across the insurance and medical community. These issues need to be understood and possibly remedied. I rate UNDER OUR SKIN 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 May 12 13:27:20 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue May 12 13:27:21 2009 Subject: Retrospective: A Grin Without a Cat (1977,1993,2009) Message-ID: A GRIN WITHOUT A CAT (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Chris Marker's epic four-hour history of the New Left from 1967 to its fall in 1977 has rarely been seen in the United States until now. Cut to three hours, it may still feel ponderous and obscure to some. As mostly a hodge-podge of roughly edited footage, it recreates the feel of the period, but in the end its obscurity undercuts its power. Tracking the leftist movement from the exuberance of the late 1960s to dissolution of the movement in the late 1970s this is a huge project that feels like it veered off course. It probably works much better in France than in front of an international audience. Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10 One type of film that the French do better than anyone else is the epic-length documentary. Marcel Ophuls's THE SORROW AND THE PITY and Claude Lanzmann's SHOAH have been shown in the United States to deserved acclaim. In my opinion the only epic documentary from the United States that stands with these films is Ken Burns's THE CIVIL WAR. One major French documentary that has never gotten much of a release here was Chris Marker's A GRIN WITHOUT A CAT. To be honest I had not even heard of this film until a few weeks before its scheduled DVD release in the United States in May 2009, though it had a low-key release in 2002. The film was originally 240 minutes in 1977 and was cut to 177 minutes for a European rerelease in 1993. Why the film has been so rarely seen in this country is not hard to guess. The name Chris Marker may sound familiar, by the way. He wrote and directed a 28-minute film "La Jetee." Terry Gilliam remade the film, enlarging on the ideas, for his TWELVE MONKEYS. Here is a test to see for yourself if this documentary is for you. Suppose you were to see a film clip of a young Jacques Delors. Would you know who that was? Would you recognize him? Would you know that he was later to become a major figure in the French Parti Socialiste? Would you enjoy hearing him or someone like him discuss dialectic in French accompanied by frequently difficult to read subtitles? No doubt there are some who will answer with "no" and some who can answer with "yes". I freely admit I am in the "no" camp. Perhaps greater numbers of French would be in the "yes" group. Still, Marcel Ophuls and Claude Lanzmann made their documentaries accessible with little presumed preparation. Chris Marker did not. Marker will have someone lecturing in French and intercut a picture of what looks like a raccoon. It appears a complete non sequitur. Meanwhile the person talking usually is not given any identification and his speech is not very clearly translated into English. At times even the subtitles are hard to read. Marker begins with the Odessa Steps scene of Serge Eisenstein's BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN, intercutting it with nearly identical scenes taken from then current news footage. Marker's study of the New Left starts in 1967 with protests of the Vietnam War. Then early on there is a disturbing sequence of an American flyer taking great pleasure from the sport of dropping napalm on Viet Cong on the ground and watching them scatter. "We saw people running every which way ... I really like to do that." Intercut we see footage of people burned by napalm and get a better feel of why they do run every which way. So far the narrative is fairly clear, but it does not remain that way. Soon it will be littered with long speeches with obscure references. Someone will just start talking about the Grenelle Report without any explanation of what it is or what its importance is. Presumably it is more meaningful in France. Marker will give us footage of Fidel Castro making a speech about policy. It will not be clear how it fits in. But Castro's style is to speak with long pauses between sentences to collect his thoughts. Marker needed to do something to edit out the pauses, but instead the viewer sits and waits. There is a lot of footage of crowds protesting. The camera will pick someone out of the crowd and focus on him. Is he someone important or just supposed to represent a typical member of the crowd? We never know. Again, this might be a very different film in France. The film is divided in two parts. The first part titled "Fragile Hands" chronicles the Vietnam War and the protests it generated in the United States and also in Europe. The title is a reference to a quote that the workers will takes the revolution from the "fragile hands" of the students. As I remember that period, most of the workers wanted to part of the protest or the protesters. Norman Lear was more accurate when he personified the typical worker as Archie Bunker. The second part, entitled "Severed Hands", is more downbeat and starts with the schisms in the left brought about by the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. It covers the leftist movement in France, Japan, Venezuela, Cuba, the United States, China, Chile, West Germany, Northern Ireland, Mexico, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, and South Africa. It ends with Chile and the bringing down of reformer Salvador Allende. While the footage cobbled together gives a feel for the excitement and disappointment of the times, the editing seems rough and the sound is often muddy. This feels almost like a rough cut rather than a film that has been re-edited more than once, but the crudeness is probably intentional to give the film tone. Still this film seems more like a pile of scenes than an edifying history. Some of the electronic music used sounds like something from a Dario Argento film. To get full value from A GRIN WITHOUT A CAT, it would be necessary to watch it taking notes on what is not familiar. Then one would have to research those topics--Wikipedia is probably fine. Then watch the film a second time. And no doubt there will be more to look up. That is not saying that it is a bad documentary, by any means, but it is made for a different audience than the film will likely find in the United States. This is a long documentary that recreates feel of exciting times but does not explain those times as clearly as an Ophuls film would. I rate A GRIN WITHOUT A CAT a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. The title of the film is obviously a reference to the Cheshire Cat in Lewis Carroll's ALICE'S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND, but the meaning remains unclear. The French title of the film, LE FOND DE L'AIR EST ROUGE, means "the bottom of the air is red." If anything, that makes less sense. The DVD is being released on DVD on May 14 from Icarus Films. It comes with a 16-page booklet which includes essays by Chris Marker and film critic Phil Hall. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Tue May 12 13:28:05 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue May 12 13:28:08 2009 Subject: Review: Star Trek (2009) Message-ID: STAR TREK (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: The new film STAR TREK (the title is just the two words) is J. J. Abrams's restart of the "Star Trek" series. While nobody is going to give it any awards for great new ideas, it does tell a good action-filled adventure story and makes a prequel and origin to the original TV series that is almost consistent. The viewer does see and hear the 1966 characters in their younger incarnations-- no small feat for the filmmakers. One almost wants to go back and watch the original series to see what happens next. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 Film series generally work by formulae that please the public. But eventually a formula becomes too predictable and the series audience slowly slips away. Sometimes the storytellers decide to just make the series more extreme. This strategy reeks of desperation and is called "jumping the shark." But by rethinking the characters and situations and perhaps putting in a little more intelligent writing, a series can be revived. Batman and James Bond films have each gone through relatively recent rethinking. Now that the "Star Trek" TV and movies have died out, the producers have decided that the series needs a re-fit for the new generation just as the Starship Enterprise itself periodically did. To captain the new "Star Trek" we have J. J. Abrams, the creator of TV's "Lost" and "Alias", who was chosen for the director's seat. He has given us the best of the "Star Trek" films and brought the old series to a new generation. The idea of Abrams's film is to do an origin story. That gives new details about the characters to old fans and old details to new fans. The series started in 1966 with some characters on the bridge and running what was to be the most famous spaceship in future history, the Starship Enterprise. Now Abrams with the help of writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman tells the story of how those characters got to be on that starship. Nearly everybody seems to have come from the same class at Starfleet Academy. That class was entertained the friction between two of its members, both misfit rebels (how original!), both bright, but otherwise very different. One was the undisciplined James T. Kirk (played by Chris Pine) and the other was a priggish half-human-half-alien named Spock (Zachary Quinto). For the film they have brought on board the newly-launched Enterprise pretty much the whole gang including Chekov (Anton Yelchin) who did not appear in the first season. The film also has its own nasty, a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana). Those Romulans not only took the name of their planet from Ancient Rome (on Earth), they seem to have taken their personal names from Roman history. The story has two main requirements. It has to tell a good story, at which it is fairly successful. It also has to be consistent with the existing "Star Trek" mythology. (George Lucas had similar constraints with STAR WARS: EPISODE III--REVENGE OF THE SITH.) I would guess that at some point in the writing the script was doing both successfully. But for various reasons the jigsaw puzzle piece that was crafted did not quite fit. So the script copped out and said that this is not the world we knew from TV. This is an alternate history created by circumstances of the story and things may not work out the same way. That does add a little dramatic tension, suggesting that characters who lived in the TV universe might die in this one. There are some revisions to Kirk's background. In this world he did not get to meet his father. Nor, mercifully, did he get a commendation for cheating in the Kobayashi Maru academy test as STAR TREK II suggested. There are other differences in the two worlds. The characters seem a little better fleshed out in this film than in previous "Star Trek" films. And the acting is good both to the characters and to provide continuity. One can almost hear the original characters' voices in the new mouths. Kirk even looks and sounds a little like the original, and so does Spock and McCoy (Karl Urban). One the other hand Uhura (Zoe Saldana) did not sound a lot like Nichelle Nichols. The one bad apple is Simon Pegg as Scotty. He really overdoes the Scottish accent as if he is playing less to "Star Trek" fans and more to Simon Pegg fans. The film has the usual dubious pseudo-science invented for the story. In this universe there is some as yet undiscovered type of matter dubbed "red matter." Red matter must have something to do with trans-dimensional physics. It is light and portable, but if released it gets mass from somewhere unexplained and generates a black hole. This is used as the villains' weapon. They drill deeply into planets and create black holes inside with rather nasty consequences. It was unclear to me why a black hole simply dropped on the surface of a planet would be any less dangerous than one in the planet's interior. And dropping on the surface of the planet would have made for a lot less work. Another problem is that while the series was never very consistent on the shape of Spock's pointed ears, at least they never made that obvious. In this film we see Spock at two different ages and the ears look entirely different. Quinto's nose seemed built up a little also to match Leonard Nimoy's nose better. (Quinto should be grateful that Karl Malden wasn't the original Spock.) A new fan of the series--and there are more that I would have expected--can enjoy STAR TREK, but a veteran "Trek" devotee will get a lot more out of it. Now that I have seen Abram's STAR TREK, I almost feel like I want to go back and watch "Star Trek" the original series. I rate the new movie a +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 homeryen88 at gmail.com Tue May 12 13:31:56 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Tue May 12 13:31:58 2009 Subject: Review: Watchmen (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000905102117u6f16e9dai5a7bbea37085966b@mail.gmail.com> "Watchmen" - Makes a Welcome Difference by Homer Yen (c) 2009 It's a gloriously envisioned alternate 1985. Familiar but alien. The atmosphere is gritty. The city suffers from a lack of conscience. Ominous-looking dirigibles grace the cloudy skies. The world seems on the brink of destruction. Outlandishly costumed superheroes are part of the fabric of everyday society. And on one particular night, a comedian is murdered. The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is no ordinary citizen. He was once part of a band of crime fighters called the "Watchmen". His death causes a vigilante name Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) to look into whether there is something sinister afoot. His quest reunites him with a handful of former colleagues, all superheroes themselves, though none are quite as dynamic and bullheaded as Rorschach himself. It sounds pretty simple, but the Watchmen provide an epic storyline that The Fantastic 4 could never hope to achieve. The Watchmen provide salacious thrills that the X-Men dare not offer. And, the Watchmen dwell in a fantastical existence that Hellboy would find enviable. The Watchmen have culled their own distinct niche. There's a lot going on here. Maybe too much. Lifting the pages of the graphic comic book up onto the big screen required ambitious cutting edge special effects. Most excellent was that of the glowing, blue-hued Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup). His special-effects suit was studded with 2500 blue lights. Therefore his glow follows his movements more closely than an on-set light could, and illuminates his surroundings in a more convincing manner than a computer effect would. There's an Oscar in special effects wizardry awaiting these guys. While he is a sight to behold (with his perfectly sculpted body and his unable-to-ignore genitalia), his character is so blas?. He can stop a war. He can pleasure a woman doubly so. But he doesn't have a purpose. Omnipotence can get quite boring. The evolution of the story and the characters required countless flashbacks. In fact, I think that some flashbacks required flashbacks. No matter. You'll certainly enjoy the opening 15-minute montage that propels you through a dystopian alternate version of history. This scene would be worthy of its own exhibit at one of the Smithsonian museums. As for the movie as a whole? Well, I think that Dr. Manhattan, with his infinite wisdom, stated it best when he mused that it would be a thermodynamic miracle to turn air into gold. Admirably, "Watchmen" treads where other superhero films have failed to go and frequently surprises us with its tactics. There is an ample amount of violence and I supposed that if I were someone with superhero powers and was bored at night, I'd go out and raise a little Hell. I was surprised to learn that the actor who played Rorschach also played the monstrously baseball-talented Kelly in the Bad News Bears (1976). I was surprised at how clever the villain actually was. But perhaps with all of the ground that this story wants to cover, it would've been better if it had been broken up into three films. Given how wonderfully graphic the movie could actually be and perhaps should have been, I would want to see the Director's Cut. Grade: B S: 2 out of 3 L: 3 out of 3 V: 3 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Tue May 12 13:32:23 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Tue May 12 13:32:25 2009 Subject: Review: Duplicity (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000905102116w629b2d4cgc94d9efc367239ee@mail.gmail.com> "Duplicity" - The Electricity is Static by Homer Yen (c) 2009 "Duplicity" is probably too clever for its own good. What should comprise the film's focus-of-fun isn't necessarily the switchback course the story takes. It isn't the smoldering tension between our two A-listers (Clive Owen and Julia Roberts). What should be the film's focus-of-fun is the intense hatred that two rival pharmaceutical company CEOs have for one another (played by Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti). The opening of the film features those two running in the rain from opposite sides of a tarmac with brimstone in their eyes. It's the kind of scene that, in a way, made the WWE so entertaining. Unfortunately, this is the only time that we see the two interact together. And, oddly, for a movie about corporate spies and multi-million dollar secrets and a New York City setting, this first scene is the only scene that showcases any violence, if you can even call 50-year old men shoving to be a form of violence. To ensure their dominance in their industry, the CEOs let the Corporate Intelligence departments of their respective companies engage in a battle of wits. One company (headed by Wilkerson with Roberts on his side) needs to protect their secret. The other (headed by Giamatti with Owens on his side) wants to steal it. Now, this is probably a logical delegation of duties. But, the focus of the war-of-wits seems misplaced. The fun is watching Batman go against the Joker. It's not watching Robin go against the Joker's assistant. The fun is watching Jay Leno and Dave Letterman assert themselves. It's not watching Kevin Eubanks square off against Paul Schaffer. Yet, thanks to the star wattage of Roberts and Owen, these two good-looking 40-somethings are always endearing when they are on the screen together. Their characters were once operatives (she of the CIA and he of Mi6). Now, they work as competing spies, as mentioned above. I'm sure that it was refreshing for America's Sweetheart to have a little fun in the world of corporate espionage. The closest we've seen Roberts to this kind of role is when she starred alongside George Clooney in "Ocean's 11" (btw, that was a far more engaging film about duplicity). And, I'm sure that it was a relief for Clive Owen (after roles in "The International" and "Shoot-em Up") to be able to take a break from stressful thrillers to take on a romantic lead. In flashbacks, we see that they both shared intimate times together. But given their line of work, they can't really trust each other. And, they basically know how each other thinks. This hampers the romantic aspect of the film from blossoming. Since they are really perfect for each other, there's no romantic risk or that flash of OMG-I-love-you discovery. And, most frustrating, it minimizes Roberts's (with those lively eyes and sincere smile) ability to joyously burst forth with her sunny radiance. You could certainly do worse than watching these two lovebirds go at it in their personal and professional lives. And, I was awed at the amount of resources that go into corporate spying (rigged photocopying machines, mapping out parking lot utilization patterns, etc...). In this film, duplicity takes front seat to innovation. Maybe this kind of film would've worked better in the power-hungry/money-everywhere environment of the 90s. Today, with corporate responsibility tantamount to US economic viability, the film feels a little out of touch. Grade: C+ S: 2 out of 3 L: 1 out of 3 V: 0 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Tue May 12 13:33:08 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Tue May 12 13:33:10 2009 Subject: Review: Fast and Furious (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000905102113n2a0b264by18774987c1fb98de@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 homeryen88 at gmail.com Tue May 12 13:34:01 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Tue May 12 13:34:03 2009 Subject: Review: Taken (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000905102112i64d84d5ft7f377da66eda4e63@mail.gmail.com> Liam Neeson is "Taken" It to the Limit by Homer Yen (c) 2009 The period between the time the Oscar nominations are revealed and when the Oscars are telecast is when studios begin to dump their excess inventory. It is a month marked by films of varying quality and varying absurdity. And, I suppose that "Taken" qualifies as that on both counts. It's sometimes (more often than not) good and sometimes bad. Meanwhile, it's pretty absurd and yet fairly watchable. You never know what you'll get sometimes with these January releases. Yet, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed watching Liam Neeson as the overprotective dad. You know, the casual movie-goer probably can't even think of 3 films that he's starred in. And, to be honest, if you've seen this film, you'll forget about the title and the star come spring time. But, I give him credit for raising the "daddy bar" and empowering men with his must-get-it-done attitude. Neeson plays the now-retired-but-itching-for-something-to-do Bryan Mills. I liked that the Bryan Mills character isn't depicted as a devolving drunkard or a loser. He merely has chosen a less strenuous lifestyle so that he can be with the daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace) that he cherishes but hardly ever sees. His previous life as a CIA agent resulted in divorce from his wife (played by Famke Janssen). His friends are also from the CIA, and their collective experiences and memories must make for some interesting dinner conversations as they rehash their missions and killings and such. At most, Bryan may moonlight as a for-hire bodyguard, but his focus is rebuilding his relationship with his now-17-year old daughter. And that could be tough considering the fact that his wife has remarried a nice-enough but really, really, really rich guy (Xander Berkeley). His chance to become her hero arises when Kim foolishly follows her dim-bulbed best friend to Paris. They promptly become kidnapped and are now for-sale-items in the black market of woman-traffickers. That gives dear old Dad about 96 hours to find her before she becomes the newest possession of some Arabian Sheikh. The absurdity level ramps up like the noise level at a Rihanna concert. Now, even if you haven't seen the film yet, these observations won't really spoil your experience, so don't worry. But, I did wonder how he could pose as a French Inspector and yet can't speak French. I did wonder how his America-based friends were able to so efficiently help Bryan determine where he should start looking. Bryan, for those critical 96 hours, is basically the luckiest man you'll ever see on screen. To his credit, he is trained in weaponry, fast pursuit, hand-to-hand combat, and being a no-nonsense Dad. And, I do give him props for his creative use of an Albanian translator and a prostitute. He's Jason Bourne, but older and with a teenage daughter. I like that the film is very efficient. It runs at just over 90 minutes. Action sequences are brisk. In fact, I think that this one features the shortest car chase scene ever. It's a good-looking production. And who knew that Neeson could be so engaging? On the flip side, Famke Janssen needs to find something edgier than this thankless role; there could've been more gratuitous action; and Kim should've been grounded for life. All's well that ends well, I guess. Grade: B S: 2 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 3 out of 3 From provine at rowan.edu Tue May 12 13:41:42 2009 From: provine at rowan.edu (Darren Provine) Date: Tue May 12 13:41:44 2009 Subject: Review: STAR TREK (2009) Message-ID: The situation with the "Star Trek" franchise has been shaky; the last feature wasn't a success, and the most recent TV incarnation fizzled out. So, following the "reboot" of the Batman movies, the James Bond movies, and "Battlestar Galactica" on television, the powers that be decided to give "Star Trek" the same treatment. One reason this works is that as the technology becomes increasingly powerful, it's harder and harder to write a good story in which the characters are in danger. The best "Star Trek" movie so far was the second "Wrath of Khan", in which both the Enterprise and Khan's ship suffer battle damage early on. Both ships are crippled, which puts more stress on the people than they would otherwise have. Moving farther forward in time with the "Star Trek" we know would raise the technology levels so much that there might not be anything for the people to do at all. Going back lets the moviemakers use ships that are less powerful, and thus tell stories that are more interesting. This is easily the best "Star Trek" movie in quite some time, if not quite as good as "Wrath of Khan". But it does have some problems. When we meet the main hero, he's a 20ish blond-haired boy-not-yet-a-man whose father died in space years earlier. He lives in a farming area, and at one point gets into a fight at the local bar, which is populated by weird aliens. He's saved from a serious pounding by an older, wiser, grey-haired man who inspires him to leave the farm and go on to greater things, and he ends up fighting an evil man with a gigantic spacecraft that can destroy a planet. No, I'm thinking of "Star Wars". You know the bad guy is evil because he has weird patterns of tattoos on his face. No, that's Darth Maul. Later, the hero gets stuck in an icy wasteland where he's attacked by a huge animal -- no, that's Luke Skywalker on Hoth. There's a complex time-travel story, where an enemy from the future goes into the past to interfere with Federation history and destroy it before it rises to power, and -- and now I'm thinking of "Star Trek: First Contact". The motivation for the bad guy doesn't make much sense, since he's in a position to fix what he's angry about. Why not just fix it? It's not as if he's got any of the usual science-fiction worries about changing his own timeline, so there's no apparent obstacle to just changing what's got him upset, instead of destroying stuff several steps removed from what went wrong. None of the destruction he's doing is going to make his own life better, which he could easily do if he wanted to. Yes, in the moment of crisis people do illogical things. But he's had 25 years to think about it, and over a 25-year span he never calms down enough to think out his situation, and nobody on board his ship points out the obvious solution to his troubles? How did such an unthinking doofus ever get command of a huge spaceship? On the subject of unbelievable commanding officers, partway through the movie Kirk is a cadet at Starfleet Academy, and he's facing a hearing on academic dishonesty. 72 hours later, he's been promoted to Captain and given command of a starship. Yes, he saved the day (the first of many times), but no actual fleet is run that way. No midshipman, no matter how brilliant he is or how heroic his actions, is ever going to go from "still at the Naval Academy in Annapolis" to "commanding officer of the USS Ronald Reagan" in only 72 hours. Given that a starship has something like 10,000 times the destructive power of an aircraft carrier, it seems to me that it should be that much harder to get command of one. The academic dishonesty charge itself is a disappointment. In "Wrath of Khan", we find out about a test at Starfleet Academy called the "Kobayashi Maru", which is a simulation that cannot be won. Then we find out that Kirk is the only one who ever passed it, which he did by reprogramming it. Nothing they show us can be as interesting as what we imagine for that, so revisiting it in detail is clearly a mistake. Some side reference about Kirk having to take it, and him smirking and saying "Well, I have some ideas..." would have been enough of a nod to the other movie. And if they were determined to do it, they should have done it better than they did -- Kirk just programs in a simple bug to make it trivially easy to beat, and then spends the simulation munching an apple and acting as if he knows he's going to win. The tone of this was all wrong; it played out like a silly prank. They should have had him program in a 1% chance of victory, or something, so there'd still be a challenge. Maybe he doesn't believe in the no-win situation, but surely he does believe in the not-much-chance-of-winning situation. Two other things go wrong with revisiting the Kobayashi Maru, both a result of a poor decision to have Spock be the one who programmed it. This makes the Star Trek world smaller; instead of being populated with lots of characters who have lots of different ideas who we have to imagine because we never see them, it turns out that it was just somebody we already knew. Even worse, in "Wrath of Khan", Spock says that he never faced the Kobayashi Maru, and asks Kirk for an opinion about his solution to the no-win situation. That exchange is much less interesting if Spock's the one who programmed the simulation in the first place. Even with everything that's wrong with it, it's still far better and more entertaining than the last two Star Trek movies, as well as the first, the fifth, and the seventh. Yes, it's derivative, has a nonsensical time-travel plot, includes completely implausible elements, and undermines some of what was interesting about other Star Trek movies. And those are all noteworthy negatives. But it's never boring; it holds your interest from start to finish, and one reason we go to movies is to be entertained. "Star Trek" falls in the category I call "good dumb fun". The acting is good and the characterizations are well done; you really do feel as though these are the characters we've known all along. The dialogue is free of the leaden writing that did in the "Star Wars" prequels. The funny parts are really funny and the action is exciting. The special effects, as should be expected, are flawless. It's a fun bit of popcorn excitement. There's some disappointment in that it could have been better, but if you're looking for some light entertainment and rock-em sock-em action, this movie delivers. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue May 12 13:42:35 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue May 12 13:42:36 2009 Subject: Review: Every Little Step (2009) Message-ID: EVERY LITTLE STEP A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** 1/2 EVERY LITTLE STEP, by directors Adam Del Deo and James D. Stern, is a documentary that follows people auditioning for a musical about people auditioning for a musical. So does the mere description of this documentary about people auditioning to get parts of the Broadway revival of "A Chorus Line" have your heading spinning? Well, don't worry. EVERY LITTLE STEP won't leave your head spinning for long, since it's a thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining film that will captivate your head and your heart, especially the latter. The film works marvelously well on two separate levels. In addition to the obvious part of following the dancers through their trials and tribulations, their joys and their heartbreaks, the movie is riveting in the background material it provides about how "A Chorus Line" was first conceived and developed. Think of EVERY LITTLE STEP as "So You Think You Can Dance?" as The History Channel might produce it. And, speaking of "So You Think You Can Dance?", Tyce DiOrio from that dance competition show -- where he was first a contestant and is now a choreographer -- is one of the dancers who is seen auditioning in EVERY LITTLE STEP. "A Chorus Line" was originally conceived in 1974 by choreographer Michael Bennett when he got a group of dancers together to talk about their lives and dreams. He made a long series of audio tapes of these discussions, and, from these tapes, he came up with the musical about auditioning for a musical. As we watch an old reel-to-reel tape player spin, we get to hear selections from the original tapes. The editor, thankfully, knows just how much of this to use, since watching a tape whirl can be deadly dull if overdone, which it never is in EVERY LITTLE STEP. While the background story about the original concept of "A Chorus Line" is consistently fascinating, as is the old, poor quality film footage of the original production, it isn't the best part of EVERY LITTLE STEP. What really makes the film come alive are the auditions, as we observe three thousand dancers answer an open call for a 2006 Broadway revival of the famous musical. If you've ever tried out for a part or interviewed for any job you wanted really, really bad, then EVERY LITTLE STEP will speak to you directly. As the number of people competing for each role gets reduced, you'll soon feel like every dancer has become your best friend, and you'll be rooting for them all to get the part, even though, logically, you know that many will still have to be cut. By the "final, final call back," you'll be on pins and needles worrying about who among your newfound friends will have to go. But, as sorry as you'll be when people aren't picked, you be overjoyed with those who are. Don't be surprised if you, too, shed a tear or two along with the dancers when they are picked for the role of a lifetime. It's that kind of film. It really gets to you, in a good way. EVERY LITTLE STEP runs 1:36. It is rated PG-13 for "some strong language including sexual references" and would be acceptable for kids around 9 and up. The film opens in limited release in the United States on Friday, May 8, 2009. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue May 12 13:43:15 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue May 12 13:43:18 2009 Subject: Review: Star Trek (2009) Message-ID: STAR TREK A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** 1/2 Director J.J. Abrams (the co-creator of "Lost") has finally released his much anticipated take on the classic "Star Trek" series, which consists of an almost uncountable number of television episodes as well as numerous movies. Before reviewing STAR TREK, I think it behooves me first to admit where I fall in the fan spectrum. I've probably seen most of the movies, as well as many of the original "Star Trek" episodes, but, the original series, which I watched decades ago, made such little impression on me that I've long since forgotten it. My son Jeffrey, in contrast, is a huge fan who says that he has seen all of the episodes, which he tells me number over seven hundred. Living in a household with such a rabid fan has probably influenced me to be predisposed to like the latest STAR TREK film, which I did, albeit not quite as much as Jeffrey, whose one word review of the film was, "Epic!" I certainly agree with my big-fan son that the new STAR TREK film, which is a prequel to the other films, is extremely well cast. Although I thought the movie tried too hard to please non-Trekkies by emphasizing the big action sequences too much, especially in the first half, the film was consistently entertaining and the story involving. I found myself easily drawn into the adventure as Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto, Sylar on "Heroes"), Sulu (John Cho), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Dr. Leonard 'Bones' McCoy (Karl Urban), Scotty (Simon Pegg) and other crew members of the Starship Enterprise fought Nero (Eric Bana), their excellent new villain. Don't be surprised if you feel just like me when you leave the theater. I was ready and eager to see my newfound friends in their next space adventure. And, probably the best thing that Abrams accomplished with this film was to breathe new life into the STAR TREK franchise, which some had feared was on its last legs. The movie is being billed as not "your father's STAR TREK." Well, it certainly was this father's STAR TREK. I found it consistently intriguing, as we meet the young and rebellious James T. Kirk as he enters the Academy. Almost kicked out forever for cheating after he does the impossible by solving Spock's unsolvable problem, Jim eventually makes captain, as people come to realize that he is a risk taker who is smart enough to even outsmart Spock, without the need for cheating. The movie is best in its moments of character drama and logical reasoning and is least interesting when it only wants to blow something up. Certainly the special effects, as when a planet is transformed into an instant black hole, are spectacular. But, I found I was most drawn into the narrative when the special effects were absent entirely and the characters simply tried to outwit each other. The film is intentionally funny too. In fact, if I had one change to make, I would have included even more of the humor since it is effective. STAR TREK runs 2:07. It is rated PG-13 for "sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content" and would be acceptable for kids around 7 and up. My son Jeffrey, age 20, went gaga over it, giving it a full ****. His funniest comment was that all of the fighting in it sometimes made him think that the movie was like STAR WARS crossed with "The O.C." He said that he had a blast and was on the edge of his seat the entire time. He remarked that he had not enjoyed a movie this much in a long time. His only reservation was that he wasn't sure how this story fits into the STAR TREK canon. However, he said that he was absolutely enthralled by it. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, May 8, 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 jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com Tue May 12 13:44:23 2009 From: jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com (jjmoya1955@yahoo.com) Date: Tue May 12 13:44:26 2009 Subject: Review:Look (2007) Message-ID: <500538b0-4259-4c6d-af9f-69b8cd46c95e@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> Look (2007) The Review: There is not much to like in Adam Rifkin's Look, told through the gimmicky perspective of security, bank, cop, nanny and other kinds of hidden cameras. It is not quite Big Brother but neither is it little sister, just a queasy tale of randomly intersecting bad lives thinking they are getting away with it all. Rifkin slices out the 98 percent caught on tape doing nothing wrong, content to present the 2 percent-- a Lolita searching for prey, the couplings of a randy store manager, a gay tryst, the convenience store slackers, a child stalker, the murderers and serial criminals--as the truth. He leaves God on the cutting room floor. The movie's only grace notes are the tender revelations of a nanny cam. The good conscious is lost in the muffle of end reel sound and the fast forward button. Everything is evidence for the guilty and the half guilty--the tape the detective throws the tape across the table when he catches the lie. Its justice takes everybody down. After 45 minutes, I was resenting Rifkin gluing me to the voyeur's chairs. The revelations were small and cramp. There was no big point or sustaining point of view, no commentary on the lack of privacy in a nation crazy for reality television--just the camera and the idiots in front of it. The grainy, black and white, muted color, edge bending, occasionally sharp and clear high definition camerawork, all caught in high fidelity sound that never covered the lie, erects a wall that keeps out the compassion and the insight. Look is drama bled down to dull observation. When the truth comes, some get theirs and some do not. Whether it comes in a crash, a divorce or prison cell, it does not matter. I stopped caring a long time ago. Somewhere in the footage of captured everyday lives, there is a great drama or documentary waiting to be cut and captioned. Look gets the idea but never quite gets the truth. Capture the good and the bad, fine tune the point of view, give it compassion and hate, despair and hope all caught in the man lens that pretends to be God and there might be great art hidden in the grainy soft focus and battered soundtrack of our humanity. Look needs a little more of the real truth for me to be enraptured. Capture that and capture me with the magic of the lens. The Credits: Written and directed by Adam Rifkin; director of photography, Ron Forsythe; edited by Martin Apelbaum; music by B T; produced by Brad Wyman and Barry Schuler; released by Vitagraph Films. At Angelika Film Center, Mercer and Houston Streets, Greenwich Village. Running time: 1 hour 42 minutes. WITH: Hayes MacArthur (Tony Gilbert), Giuseppe Andrews (Willie), Spencer Redford (Sherri Van Haften), Rhys Coiro (Ace), Heather Hogan (Holly), Jennifer Fontaine (Louise), Ben Weber (Marty), Paul Shackman (Ben), Chris Williams (George Higgins) and Jamie McShane (Barry Krebbs). Copyright 2009 by Jonathan Moya From mleeper at optonline.net Tue May 12 13:45:02 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue May 12 13:45:05 2009 Subject: Review: History Channel Presents: The Prehistoric Collection (2009) Message-ID: HISTORY CHANNEL: PREHISTORIC COLLECTION (a DVD review by Mark R. Leeper) I generally like the science documentaries I see on the History Channel. Without sacrificing science content they try to provide material visually and even flamboyantly so that it appeals to younger viewers as much as to adult science fans. While some older viewers might find the style patronizing, if it gets young people interested in science, it is all to the good. I like their science programming even though that station is not the first place one would expect to find science programming. Sure, much of their programming has nothing to do with history, per se, but their programming is usually entertaining and informative nonetheless. Their series "Universe" is one of the better sources for astronomical and cosmological education. I recently got an advance copy of their "The History Channel Prehistoric Collection", a selection of documentaries that have played or will play on their cable channel. The set contains eight DVDs with 12 hour-long episodes of "Prehistoric Fight Club", seven hour-long episodes of the series "Prehistoric Mega-Disasters", then two more documentaries: "Clash of the Cave Men" and "Journey to 10,000 BC". The package will get its general release on May 26, 2009. "Jurassic Fight Club": One of the best remembered "Twilight Zone" episodes is the adaptation of Jerome Bixby's "It's a Good Life." Billy Mumy plays a boy about ten years old who has God-like powers but absolutely no sense of responsibility. Among his powers is to will the television to show any kind of programming his young mind wants. What does he choose to create? He makes movies of dinosaurs fighting. But I can understand that. It may not be the most elevated form of entertainment, but something about it appeals to the kid in me. I liked watching dinosaurs battle going all the way back to the 1956 documentary THE ANIMAL WORLD which featured animimation by special effects giants Willis O'Brien and Ray Harryhausen. I think a lot people probably feel the same way, openly or not. Seeing prehistoric behemoths fight stokes my imagination, and always has. That taste is part of the appeal of their series "Jurassic Fight Club". When I got the package I had not yet seen any episodes of this series, mostly finding the sensationalist title to be a bit off- putting. The title may be a little garish, but the programs themselves proved to have the same virtues that good museums try for. They are entertaining and at the same time educational about dinosaurs and paleontology. The title, I should point out, is not entirely accurate. First the series obviously deals with animals from the entire Mesozoic (the Dinosaur Age) and beyond, not just the middle Jurassic age. Most of the animals shown are not from the Jurassic at all. The concept of the program is simple enough. Some dinosaur fossil finds show clues that the animals died fighting each other and met violent deaths. The series confines itself to just those sites. Real scientists do a paleontological "forensic analysis." (These fights took place millions of years before there was any law but the Law of the Jungle, and they still call them "crime scenes." Talk about cold cases!) The battle, from the evidence found, is recreated in such detail that most of the program the viewer is seeing recreated scenes of the battle. Each episode is meticulously put together giving a scientific analysis of the fossils. By the way, each episode starts with a tongue-in-cheek warning that what follows is graphic and that viewer discretion is advised. Sure, the scenes are graphic, but I doubt anyone is too concerned about seeing CGI violence. Some of the themes may give parents a moment's hesitation. They include raptor gang attacks, cannibalism, huge predators, and more. But the kids probably love it. The series is well designed to be a lot of fun to watch, but under this sugar coating is hiding a lot of information. The viewer probably finds it too entertaining to mind. Also some of the information is new since the film JURASSIC PARK was made. (In that film the boy saves himself from being seen by the Tyrannosaurus Rex by standing very still. We now know the T-Rex probably had better eyesight than we do and it would quickly have seen the boy, and would likely have quickly converted him into fast-food.) There currently have" been twelve episodes made in the series "Jurassic Fight Club and this pack comes with all twelve, plus some additional lecture footage from paleontologist George Blasing who also provides explanatory pieces within each episode. Included are battles with eighteen-million-year-old mega-sharks called Megalodon and the giant flat-faced bear called Arctodus. This series constitutes four of the eight disks in this set. "Prehistoric Mega-Disasters": Okay, so what is bigger and more powerful than a dinosaur? Well, a storm is a lot bigger and packs a lot more power. And in Earth's history our planet has probably been very badly pummeled by both meteors and meteorology. A modern hurricane can wield pretty impressive power. But, a hurricane is probably not a mega- disaster. A "hypercane" is. It is a hurricane up to twenty miles high. It is big enough that a few of them could destroy the entire ozone layer. Then you got real problems. Hypercanes are one more disaster that could have killed off the dinosaurs. The film THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW was not a great piece of science writing, but it did convince the thrill-hungry viewing public that there might be something exciting about a really powerful storm. "Prehistoric Mega-Disasters" follows somewhat the same formula as "Jurassic Fight Club". It has really impressive visuals matched to really impressive scientific explanations. The scary thing is a good meteor hit could set off a chain of hypercanes. This is all explained with what is as far as I can judge good scientific accuracy and some genuine oh-look-at-that sorts of visuals. A hypercane is just the first of seven mega-disasters covered, each of which gets its own episode of the Mega-Disasters series. Actually one episode is designated a "bonus" episode. It is not clear what that means since it is just one more episode. There are two disks of the Mega-disaster series. That leaves two more documentaries, each a little over ninety minutes in length. "Clash of the Cave Men": This film actually goes into some speculative fiction. It goes back to a time, about 30,000 years ago, when there were two different competing human races in Europe. They were, of course, the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons. We are the descendents of Cro-Magnons and if "Clash of the Cave Men" is to be believed, that outcome was never in much doubt. We Cro-Magnons rule! Unfortunately with all the advantages that the Cro-Magnons had it does not seem like a fair fight, and this is a fairly downbeat documentary. The poor Neanderthals seem to lose at every turn. And they are ugly. There is less room here for spectacle. "Journey to 10,000 BC": This documentary was clearly made to coincide with Roland Emmerich's film 10,000 BC. That film was reputedly made with little interest in scientific accuracy. (I have not seen it, but the trailer confirms that opinion nicely.) In fact, compared to 10,000 BC's juxtaposing mammoths and pyramids even APOCALYPTO does not look so bad. This film, like "Clash of the Cave Men", uses CGI for animals, but it uses it much less sparingly than the first six disks. We see Ice Age man dealing with mammoths and saber-toothed tigers. The narrative does have dramatization, but it is done in a lower-key style than dinosaur and storm programs. It is less true with the last two entries, but in the earlier documentaries there is a tendency to foreshadow where the explanation is going, just before where a commercial break would come for the television broadcast. After the break there is a recap of what they were saying before the break. This gives the documentary makers an opportunity to recycle a lot of their expensive CGI footage. It also means less they have to film. But overall, the package is one that should really stoke your sense of wonder whether you are six years old or sixty. The special effects are imaginative and for the first two series are probably of theatrical quality. This is a collection of documentaries that glory in spectacle. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue May 12 13:47:14 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue May 12 13:47:16 2009 Subject: Review: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009) Message-ID: <8rSdnZm5lZ7kymbUnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 In GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST, Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey) is forced to see ghosts. This reimagining of A CHRISTMAS CAROL is mainly set in a beautifully snowy season that looks for all intents and purposes like Christmas, but the film is being released in May, which feels weirdly incongruous. The Christmas connection continues, however, since the film's two writers, Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, were last responsible for FOUR CHRISTMASES, a mildly entertaining film that was savaged by most critics. As I did with FOUR CHRISTMASES, I found GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST kind of cute. Working in its favor, this film, directed by FREAKY FRIDAY's Mark Waters, never takes itself too seriously and is filled with deliciously cheesy lines. The best of these comes when Connor discusses the lost art of "spooning" with Vonda Volkom (Anne Archer), the mother of the bride at his brother's wedding. "Spooning is nice," he tells her with a wicked little twinkle in his eye, "but not as nice as forking." We originally meet Connor, a popular magazine cover photographer, in one of the most unpromising openings of the year. Be ready to groan loudly through most of the film's first scenes, as Connor plays an obnoxious, completely unbelievable and utterly clueless playboy. In the movie's worst moment, we are asked to buy that he would breakup with three girls in a simultaneous videoconference. "I had an amazing time with each of you," he tells them with a big smile. "I wish you all the best." What a great guy. Luckily, the film gets much better when Connor reluctantly heads to the wedding of his kid brother Paul (Breckin Meyer). After trying to talk his brother out of acquiring the ball and chain that Connor views marriage as being, Connor starts verbally sparring with Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner), his first flame from way back when they were only seven. Connor gets his comeuppance during his visits from three ghosts -- representing his girlfriends past, present and future. As they show him his life, he is whisked around in the bed of his deceased Uncle Wayne (Michael Douglas). This uncle, who raised Connor after his parents died, taught him everything he knew about girls and how to treat them. Coming back as another ghost in Connor's life, Uncle Wayne explains his presence by noting, "Players never die. They just try their luck at a different table." Described by "friends" as being "like the Tin Man -- he was born without a heart," Connor eventually realizes that his life of fast, meaningless relationships has hurt almost everyone he has dated, which appears to include close to half of the planet. Continuing to take a light approach to the material, the movie's best moments, surprisingly turn out to be in the obligatory last act, as it turns bittersweet and downright sappy, yet strangely affecting and sweet as well. GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST runs 1:40. It is rated PG-13 for "sexual content throughout, some language and a drug reference" and would be acceptable for kids around 8 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday May 1, 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 May 12 13:53:18 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue May 12 13:53:20 2009 Subject: Review: My Name is Bruce (2007) Message-ID: <788db368-d629-4932-9768-d6f66a7d678c@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com> MY NAME IS BRUCE (2007) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Two and a half stars It is very possible that my brain has the capacity to enjoy silly nonsense like "My Name is Bruce" without giving it a second thought. It's technically not a good movie but it is fun and, perhaps, could've been much improved upon. Let me put it this way - if anyone else had been cast in the lead role other than cult B-movie icon Bruce Campbell (and who in the name of Evil Dead could that be), I might have liked it a lot less. Bruce Campbell plays an egotistical, drunk dullard version of the real Bruce Campbell (or so we hope). He makes brain-dead, grade Z sci-fi garbage movies, he pays alimony (the real Bruce had been married twice) and he lives in a trailer in the middle of the woods (doubtful the real Bruce lives in one). His mailbox (not the Internet kind) is always stuffed with movie scripts, his dog only gets hard liquor in his bowl, and his agent (Ted Raimi) would rather work with anyone else but Bruce Campbell. Lo and behold, something Ash-like this way comes. It turns that a small Oregon mining town called Gold Lick (a real town) is cursed with an ancient Chinese monster known as Guan-di. This monster has glowing eyes and wields a kick-ass sword which he uses to decapitate most of the town's denizens. It seems to stop dead in its tracks when it sees a Chinese proverb or the translation of the words "bean curd" on some Chinese fast-food. A major fan of Bruce Campbell's (who lives in Gold Lick) finds Bruce's address (how did he manage that?), kidnaps the big-chinned star who is then forced to fight this monster. Naturally, Bruce thinks his agent is pushing him to do this "Evil Dead" reenactment. The only reason I enjoyed "My Name is Bruce" is because of Bruce Campbell. Most film fans, or Campbell fans, are aware of his larger- than-life, cartoonish persona who seems to immerse himself in any project with the greatest ease. What is interesting is how Campbell (who directs the film) makes himself into a conceited drunk who would rather make something else other than the fictitious "Cave Alien 2" (and parts 3 or 4). The movie is not meant to be an accurate portrayal of Bruce Campbell, or an accurate assessment of his fans and the lengths they will go to remind him of his famous Ash character. Any fan will get a kick of seeing the references to his past work, including Campbell's own admission that if he can work in Bulgaria, he can fight a monster (his directorial debut "Man with the Screaming Brain" was filmed in Bulgaria). And you might spot Ellen Sandweiss as Bruce's ex-wife - she was in the first "Evil Dead." It is a fun, cheerful little B-movie this "My Name is Bruce" - it is not meant to be anything else. Campbell clearly had fun making it and you might get a nice nostalgia kick out of it. The townspeople welcome the alleged hero by misspelling his name and greeting him with his own table at a greasy spoon restaurant! It is that type of movie, and it left me with a silly grin on my face. Those who are not fans of Bruce Campbell or "Evil Dead" are advised to stay away from the big-chinned star. 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 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 May 12 13:53:53 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue May 12 13:53:55 2009 Subject: Retrospective: Blood Freak (1972) Message-ID: BLOOD FREAK (1972) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: One star Talk about the ridiculous and the sublime! That might be "Plan 9 From Outer Space," which stands as the most sublime and ridiculous cult film of all time (though "Glen and Glenda" is the better movie). And then there are the psychotronic movies of the truly absurd variety, which are so stupefying and insanely botched visions that they merit some degree of analysis and context. I see what might have been with 1972's "Blood Freak," but it is such a messy piece of garbage that it is hard to get a handle on it. A motorcyclist picks up a woman with car trouble. She is Angel (Heather Hughes), a strictly religious, Bible-thumping woman who invites the motorcycle stranger known as Herschell (Steven Hawkes) to a party where drugs make an appearance in the form of cocaine and weed. Herschell says no to drugs and advances from women at the party. Angel's flirtatious, sexed-up sister, Anne (Dana Cullivan) is at the party and she gets the standard preaching from Angel about the dangers of drugs and sex. Herschell seems inclined to believe in Angel, or so we think. Before long, he starts boinking Anne after she gets him to smoke weed at her pool which he is either cleaning with some pole or it is one big phallic joke! He should've calmed Angel's moods, who wears an extremely short skirt! Who knew female Bible thumpers were so sexy! "Blood Freak" degenerates even further when Herschell gets a job at a turkey farm and engages in an experiment by two scientists. In exchange for essentially being a human guinea pig, he gets to smoke all the weed he wishes. So what is the experiment? Eat a whole turkey. Wow. And then Herschell gets violent convulsions and literally becomes half-human and half-turkey. Talk about too many drugs - moderation, my brother, moderation. I like summing up movies like this by illustrating the content of specific scenes. We have the titular man with a turkey head; various shots of turkeys in close-up; women being hung upside down with blood pouring out of their necks thanks to Mr. Turkey Man who has an unhealthy blood lust and kills his victims - some of them are junkies (of course, turkeys are killed the same way); a foot amputated by a table saw; Mr. Turkey Man having sex with Anne in complete darkness (and I do mean complete darkness - only the soundtrack tells us that some boinking is occuring); lots of drug usage; a rape attempt; an actual live turkey that has its head chopped off; and a Narrator (the director himself) chain-smoking and telling us of the moral choices that Herschell makes. "Blood Freak" is a freak show that is so poorly made, it actually achieves a special charm for my Truly Moronic and Unintentionally Funny Bad Movie List. I was not bored by this movie but I will not likely see it again. I can only handle so many anti-drug, anti-smoking messages wrapped around a turkey's head. 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 May 12 13:54:36 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue May 12 13:54:38 2009 Subject: Review: National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007) Message-ID: <3aa1eb22-adcb-4ab7-939d-9c161ed0b483@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com> NATIONAL TREASURE: BOOK OF SECRETS (2007) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: One star and a half I love pulp adventure, especially the escapist variety, both literary and cinematic. Alan Quatermain, Indiana Jones, and well, even Conan the Barbarian come to mind. I especially love the sight of intrepid heroes in caves carrying torches, looking for buried treasure. The original "National Treasure" fulfilled my appetite for such movies. "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" starts off with a fascinating backstory that is paced like a rip-roaring engine and then, it sputters and dies, pulling the rug from under us to reveal nothing. Nicolas Cage (who was far more animated in the first "National Treasure") is back as Dr. Ben Gates, a treasure hunter who is an expert on history and deciphering codes. A stranger makes an admission, in a scene that looks vaguely "Da Vinci Code-like", that Gates' own great grandfather had a hand in Lincoln's assassination. Ben Gates and his father, Patrick Henry Gates (Jon Voight), are astounded and disturbed by this admission. So Gates and company, including returnees Abigail (Diane Kruger) and the computer savvy sidekick, Riley (Justin Bartha), are on a mission based on a fading 19th century letter that takes them to France's Statue of Liberty, Buckingham Palace and, finally, Mt. Rushmore where a fabled city of gold exists. For some reason or another, the Lincoln assassination may or may not have a connection to this impenetrable city of Gold, and one of the clues is hidden in the Statue of Liberty and in a secret book belonging to the President of the U.S.! This "National Treasure" movie initially had me glued from the beginning, and I was curious to see where the details and deciphering of codes would take me. The problem is that the whole film is a convoluted, contrived mess of a movie that grows more and more preposterous as it proceeds. I am willing to forsake logic and disbelief if the story or the characters are at least mildly intriguing, but this is nothing more than an extended chase scene that leads nowhere. The connection between Lincoln's death and the city of gold is so tenuous, it merely feels like it is tacked on for the hell of it. After a while, I began to stop caring and the finale inside this city of Gold, more of an elaborate chamber that can quickly fill with water, is only a faint, tedious echo of what would work infinitely better in an Indiana Jones movie. Nicolas Cage tries hard and he has a couple of funny moments where he overacts (I like the homage to "Roman Holiday"), but he looks mostly indifferent throughout this film. Diane Kruger as Abigail, the girlfriend, is reduced to an anonymous blonde whose central preoccupation is tagging along with Gates because he is allegedly the hero - unfortunately, there is still no chemistry between them. Jon Voight and Helen Mirren both look perplexed and confused, lending zilch to nothing roles as Ben Gates' parents. Ed Harris always manages to bring integrity to his roles but I can't quite figure out his character's purpose. Harvey Keitel slips in and out of this movie like a snake. Only Justin Bartha gives a lively enough performance. I love his first few scenes where his Ferrari is taken by the IRS and how he tries to sell his conspiracy book to no avail. If he had been the lead, this would've been a more fun ride (and I do ordinarily like Nicolas Cage). "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" is empty popcorn filmmaking designed to entertain us yet it fails to since it has nothing up its sleeve and no real story. It is by-the-numbers filmmaking of the worst kind - it is bereft of imagination and has no sense of wonder or excitement. 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 May 12 13:55:14 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue May 12 13:55:16 2009 Subject: Review: Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (2008) Message-ID: HAROLD AND KUMAR ESCAPE FROM GUANTANAMO BAY (2008) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Two stars The first "Harold and Kumar" movie was admittedly a guilty pleasure but it was also unexpectedly funny and had two likable characters - a sort of latter-day Cheech and Chong with an even stronger stoner mentality. This new "Harold and Kumar" movie is not as charming and hardly as funny, emphasizing gross gags of the most puerile kind over any sort of intimacy the first film had. I know, I know, you might be shaking your head and saying, "Intimacy?" Yes, well, the first movie was a roller-coaster ride full of belly laughs along the way yet it also asked us to care about Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) and their misadventures. In "Escape From Guantanamo Bay," the Mary Jane duo are mistaken for terrorists in an airplane headed to Amsterdam, thanks to an advanced glass bong that Kumar brought along and tries to smoke in the bathroom! So we get a few scenes in Guantanamo Bay where they are interrogated and forced to submit to oral sex with the burly prison guards (some of this elicits more of a wince than a chuckle). Eventually, within the first twenty minutes, Harold and Kumar manage to escape good old torturous Gitmo and head for Texas where Kumar's ex-girlfriend is marrying a right- wing yuppie, who believes in snorting Xanax (okay, that is funny.) Not so humorous is a KKK rally headed by Christopher Meloni as the wizard, and a decidedly unfunny homage to "The Goonies" with a one-eyed bastard child that lives in the basement of a deer hunter's house. And, I might add, that a deer-killing scene made me cringe - it would've been funnier if the hunter missed and the bullet hit a tree that collapsed and nearly crushed the doe's nuts. Well, maybe not but that is the kind of humor I expected. Seeing blood splatter on Harold's face is very, very cringe-inducing. That is the central problem with this Harold and Kumar entry - it made me cringe more often than laugh. There are bodily fluids, flatulence sounds galore, male and female frontal nudity from the waist down, lots of bong hits (though not as many as I expected), sexual escapades of all sorts, an unwatchable brothel sequence with Neil Patrick Harris as Neil Patrick Harris and Beverly D'Angelo as the madam, and on and on. To be fair, I enjoyed the racial stereotyping scenes - they were all smart and clever, particularly the airport sequence which is as hysterical as anything else in the entire movie. I also liked Kumar's past reminiscences of his ex-girlfriend, Vanessa (Daneel Harris), who introduced Kumar to drugs in the first place! Had the film focused more on that relationship and less on the unevenly paced trip to Texas (including a literal bumping in with George W. Bush), the movie might have been a real winner. "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay" is not a total washout and it is not a bad stoner comedy. It does have its heart in the right place occasionally with respect to the lead characters - they are too likable to dismiss. But the movie scores more misses than bong hits to the belly. Let's say that the right herbal ingredients were not used this time. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Wed May 13 18:36:04 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Wed May 13 18:36:07 2009 Subject: Review: My Name is Bruce (2007) Message-ID: <1680a7ae-bb01-4a30-bdd2-d3cc9fb8584e@r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> MY NAME IS BRUCE (2007) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars It is very possible that my brain has the capacity to enjoy silly nonsense like "My Name is Bruce" without giving it a second thought. It's technically not a good movie but it is fun and, perhaps, could've been much improved upon. Let me put it this way - if anyone else had been cast in the lead role other than cult B-movie icon Bruce Campbell (and who in the name of Evil Dead could that be), I might have liked it a lot less. Bruce Campbell plays an egotistical, drunk dullard version of the real Bruce Campbell (or so we hope). He makes brain-dead, grade Z sci-fi garbage movies, he pays alimony (the real Bruce had been married twice) and he lives in a trailer in the middle of the woods (doubtful the real Bruce lives in one). His mailbox (not the Internet kind) is always stuffed with movie scripts, his dog only gets hard liquor in his bowl, and his agent (Ted Raimi) would rather work with anyone else but Bruce Campbell. Lo and behold, something Ash-like this way comes. It turns that a small Oregon mining town called Gold Lick (not a real town but in fact Mr. Campbell's own property) is cursed with an ancient Chinese monster known as Guan-di. This monster has glowing eyes and wields a kick-ass sword which he uses to decapitate most of the town's denizens. It seems to stop dead in its tracks when it sees a Chinese proverb or the translation of the words "bean curd" on some Chinese fast-food. A major fan of Bruce Campbell's (who lives in Gold Lick) finds Bruce's address (how did he manage that?), kidnaps the big- chinned star who is then forced to fight this monster. Naturally, Bruce thinks his agent is pushing him to do this "Evil Dead" reenactment. The only reason I enjoyed "My Name is Bruce" is because of Bruce Campbell. Most film fans, or Campbell fans, are aware of his larger- than-life, cartoonish persona who seems to immerse himself in any project with the greatest ease. What is interesting is how Campbell (who directs the film) makes himself into a conceited drunk who would rather make something else other than the fictitious "Cave Alien 2" (and parts 3 or 4). The movie is not meant to be an accurate portrayal of Bruce Campbell, or an accurate assessment of his fans and the lengths they will go to remind him of his famous Ash character. Any fan will get a kick of seeing the references to his past work, including Campbell's own admission that if he can work in Bulgaria, he can fight a monster (his directorial debut "Man with the Screaming Brain" was filmed in Bulgaria). And you might spot Ellen Sandweiss as Bruce's ex-wife - she was in the first "Evil Dead." It is a fun, cheerful little B-movie this "My Name is Bruce" - it is not meant to be anything else. Campbell clearly had fun making it and you might get a nice nostalgia kick out of it. The townspeople welcome the alleged hero by misspelling his name and greeting him with his own table at a greasy spoon restaurant! It is that type of movie, and it left me with a silly grin on my face. Those who are not fans of Bruce Campbell or "Evil Dead" are advised to stay away from the big-chinned star. 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 May 14 14:18:05 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu May 14 14:18:08 2009 Subject: Review: Star Trek (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000905140638w701210b6oa5ba1ebb6e8473f8@mail.gmail.com> Star Trek: -- Still Manages to Go Where No One Has Gone Before by Homer Yen (c) 2009 Living long and prospering, this franchise has. And with a burst of youth, a plethora of action, and a welcome sense of nostalgia, "Star Trek" continues to boldly go forth (or back, depending on how you look at it). This is a fun, stand-alone, space opera for even those who have never seen a Star Trek episode before. Just as "Batman Begins" and "X-Men Origins" explored the beginnings of those very iconic characters, this film goes back in time to explore when Kirk and Spock first meet at Star Fleet Academy and are subsequently thrust into a crisis situation. Now, I have to get something off of my chest. The one aggravating flaw of the film is the time travel plotline, which seems to be a staple of many a-Star Trek film. Without giving away a spoiler and as gingerly said as possible, an alien menace blames the Federation for causing a cataclysmic event, and the alien menace goes back in time to eradicate the Federation. However, as this cataclysmic event was caused by natural phenomena, their anger was totally misplaced, making much of the us-versus-them story pointless. But, tinkering with the timeline does allow the scriptwriters one very important out. It allows them to re-tool the storyline in an alternate reality without drawing the ire of Star Trek purists. Now that the alien menace has changed history and future, it's ok that Kirk is merely the 1st officer while Spock is the Captain; it's ok that the youthful Spock has a love interest; it's ok for Spock to release his emotions; it's ok for the younger Spock to meet his older self (played by Leonard Nimoy). Going back, we get the answers to some questions: How is it that Tiberius came to be James Kirk's (played by Chris Pine) middle name? How did he gleefully beat the Kobayashi Maru test? How did he develop his relationship with the logical Mr. Spock (played by Zachary Quinto)? Now, here's the fanboy in me speaking: I was a big fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation. And I really enjoyed the episodes "Parallels" (where Lt. Worf hops from one parallel universe to another) and "Yesterday's Enterprise" (where a temporal rift causes a prior-generation Enterprise to appear, thus throwing the crew into a bleak, alternate reality). Having enjoyed these two episodes made my viewing experience much more entertaining. While not as gripping as "First Contact" and not as much fun as "The Wrath of Khan," this new entry certainly ranks as one of the best of the franchise. You know how they say that one dog year is like seven human years. I think for Star Trek fans like myself, it kind of works the same way. It may have been seven years since the last Star Trek motion picture (a middling Star Trek: Nemesis); but it feels like it's been 49 years since we've had a chance to hear those familiar words like "energize" and "maximum warp" and "live long and prosper". The dilithium crystals are fully charged for this franchise reboot and especially for the opening sequence as said alien menace threatens the Federation. If any opening sequence wanted to declare a film to be a summer blockbuster, then this one is it. It may be early May, but welcome to the summer! Grade: B+ S: 1 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Fri May 15 17:20:11 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Fri May 15 17:20:13 2009 Subject: Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000905150648u32ad36b5ydf6da4f441892d9b@mail.gmail.com> X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Slices and Dices His Way Forward by Homer Yen (c) 2009 I think what made the X-Men films fun to watch was the fact that all of these uniquely powered mutants came together to create a dynamic team environment. Thanks to Dr. Xavier, who could keep them in check, teamwork would make the dream work. Truthfully, I never much appreciated Logan's solo act as he would brazenly charge into battle without much reflection on his actions. I understand that this is part of his appeal. However, it's hard to care about someone who doesn't really care about himself. Yet, as I think about the options for possible "X-Men Origins" movies, Wolverine would probably have the best chance of breaking out with a film of his own. The final product is more entertaining-than-not, but wavers in its ability to deliver solidly. It gets off to a great start, visually, as we are introduced to Logan (Hugh Jackman) and his brother, Victor (Liev Schreiber). Logan runs as fast as a wolf; but Liev can also pounce like - well, uhh - a sabertoothed tiger. Both share amazing regenerative powers and long life. When the film opens, we are in 1845. We are treated to a creative montage of previous wars with Logan and Victor fighting side-by-side as soldiers and surviving through all of them against all odds. Their unique powers come to the attention of a shadowy government entity, who recruits them to do heinous things. Now, it's about 165 years later with Logan looking like Hugh Jackman (and acting like a morality-stricken boy scout) and Victor looking like Liev Schreiber (and acting like the warmongering bad-boy that he is). Now it devolves quickly into a highly stylized video game. The creation of a Mutant Mercenary Group, especially with some swordsman that could deflect incoming bullets, makes the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles look classy. As tough as it is to watch this part, it does set into motion the theme of the film, which is the rift that develops between the two brothers and a subsequent hasty decision by Logan that would ultimately transform him into Wolverine. The problem here is that in its effort to sustain a story that focuses on just one person, they never really unleash the film's soul until midway into the film. And now with time running out, it's too hard to catch up on what hasn't been said and to make up for all of the wasted special effects. Yet, the film is actually pretty good once the need for revenge overtakes Logan's generally passive side. There is a higher level of grit present here than in the other X-Men films. For me, the urge to see it was one more of curiosity than a real desire to see an "X-Men" film. I had seen all of the others of this franchise (and I think that this is better than I, but less entertaining than II and III). I have wondered how he got those indestructible ginsu-for-claws and why he was unable to remember his past. Thanks for sharing. But you know what? I think that I just miss Dr. Xavier and Magneto who had bigger and better ideals to squabble about. Grade: B- S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Fri May 15 17:21:05 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri May 15 17:21:06 2009 Subject: Review: Rudo y Cursi (2009) Message-ID: RUDO Y CURSI A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 "The poorest of places are where you'll find the diamond in the rough," the narrator tells us in RUDO Y CURSI. The film reunites Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN's two stars, Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal, who play brothers Beto and Tato. While there's nothing wrong with their latest collaboration, it never reaches the level of the consistently entertaining Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN. RUDO Y CURSI is best in its opening section, which is set in a poor but happy village in Mexico near a banana plantation. The evocative sets, as well as the sound of birds and domestic animals, perfectly capture the feeling of life there. But we soon leave village life and head for the hustle and bustle of noisy Mexico City, where the sounds we hear are of belching automobiles rather than melodious animals. Some of the people there prove to act like animals too, but I'm getting ahead of myself. One day a sports agent in a flashy, red Corvette convertible has a flat tire outside of the little hamlet where Beto and Tato live. This rags-to-riches (and maybe back again) story gets into gear when the agent watches Beto, as a goalie, and Tato, as a kicker, in a local soccer game. This very gregarious and likable agent starts spinning a tale of riches to be made in the world of pro soccer for the two brothers. (The film's title comes from the brothers' nicknames of Rudo for Beto and Cursi for Tato.) Before the brothers know it, they are whisked off to Mexico City to join different teams. As long as their playing improves, the wealth that they've never before known keeps coming their way. But, this being Mexico, everyone demands their cut of the action. From the agent to the coach, everyone has their hand out, so, while the riches keep coming to the brothers, the money appears to be flowing out even faster than it's coming in. Since they play for different teams, you can probably guess where and under what circumstances the ending will occur. Once the plot is set up, everything is fairly predictable after that. This isn't as much of a problem as is the story's inability to be particularly successful as either a comedy or a tragedy. We like the brothers. We feel kind of sorry for them. But, on the whole, the movie just doesn't produce very strong reactions one way or the other. While it's never a bad movie, it is never a memorable one either. It's one of those comedies that produces no laughs, at least not from me. I loved Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN, but I found RUDO Y CURSI merely okay. Finally, although I am not a soccer fan, I should point out that, if you go just to see the soccer, you'll be really disappointed, since there is remarkably little soccer shown in the movie. The camera is frequently more interested in the reaction from the stands than what is happening on the field. RUDO Y CURSI runs 1:41. The film is in Spanish with English subtitles. It is rated R for "pervasive language, sexual content and brief drug use" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on May 15, 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 steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Fri May 15 17:22:29 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri May 15 17:22:31 2009 Subject: Review: Adoration (2009) Message-ID: ADORATION A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** Writer and director Atom Egoyan is a cinematic master at creating incredibly sad and affecting tone poems to life's morose moments. He has never created anything as brilliant as his forever memorable THE SWEET HEREAFTER, a mesmerizing examination of the tragic results of a bus crash on the inhabitants of a small town. Egoyan's latest story is a minimalist tale told beautifully but sure to put some to sleep with its deliberately dreamy pacing and hauntingly beautiful violin music, played by the lead character's mother. Simple on a surface level but complex in its full meaning and import, the plot concerns a translation assignment given by Sabine (Arsinee Khanjian). Sabine, who teaches both high school French and drama, reads her French class the story of a thwarted bombing attempt. This newspaper article in French from many years ago concerns a pregnant woman who was conned by her fianc? into attempting to bring a bomb aboard an Israeli airline. The class's assignment is to translate the story into English, as she reads it to the class. The big surprise comes when Simon (Devon Bostick), one of the teacher's students, says in shock and horror that the story is actually about his parents. In a movie in which nothing is quite what it seems -- or is it? -- the boy's intentions aren't at all obvious. The teacher invites Simon to tell his story to the class. As he weaves his fantastical tale of woe, he appears to be presenting fiction as fact, but maybe he isn't. Maybe his story is true. Or maybe he is embellishing truth into fiction masquerading as fact. One's head starts to spin imagining the possibilities. At any rate, his story goes viral on the Internet with people in several multi-person video chat rooms arguing about what his father did. As the student and the teacher lose control of the events, it appears that she could be fired. Actually, the details of the story become increasingly irrelevant. ADORATION is best savored by suspending all disbelief and just immersing oneself into its great sense of mood. It is a movie more to be experienced than analyzed. ADORATION runs 1:52. It is rated R for "sexuality and some language" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on May 15, 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 mleeper at optonline.net Thu May 21 15:56:57 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu May 21 15:56:59 2009 Subject: Review: Yoo-hoo, Mrs. Goldberg (2009) Message-ID: YOO-HOO, MRS. GOLDBERG (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Aviva Kempner directs a 90-minute documentary about what was once one of America's most beloved radio and television programs, which was written by and starring one of America's then most beloved women, Gertrude Berg. Though her character Molly Goldberg is mostly forgotten today she and her fictional family have an important place in the history of American culture. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 YOO-HOO, MRS. GOLDBERG is Aviva Kempner's story of the radio and television program "The Goldbergs". It is also the story of the powerhouse woman behind that program, Gertrude Berg. This is a very well produced documentary easily of the quality of PBS documentary programs like "American Masters" and "The American Experience". The story is told using original photographs and films of the period, excerpts from the program, and interview comments by people like Susan Stamberg (of NPR), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (associate justice of the United States Supreme Court), and Norman Lear. Also included are excerpts from a 1950s interview of Gertrude Berg by Edward R. Morrow. The first popular situation comedy on the radio was also the first popular situation comedy on television. The program was originally titled "The Rise of the Goldbergs", and later shortened to just "The Goldbergs". The program was a sort of "Mother Knows Best" with the mother being the smart, wise, and big-hearted Molly Goldberg. It was written by and starred Gertrude Berg--born Tilly Edelstein--and became a sort of comedy/drama soap opera, at first 15 minutes a day and later expanded to a half hour. The stories were about the family of Molly Goldberg, a woman who was very much like Gertrude Berg herself. It had a real feel for everyday life and was spiced with aside comments on the action from Berg to the listener who was treated much like a member of the family. The radio program premiered November 20, 1929, on the CBS Blue Network. It ran on the radio, including a network change, until 1950. But starting in 1949 the show also ran on television until 1956. While the program was about a Jewish immigrant family it had an appeal across all ethnic backgrounds. Its story of characters trying to get along on what little they had during the Great Depression. Its portrayal of an immigrant family resonated with the public. One interviewee says that she was Greek, but she saw much of her own family in the fictional Goldbergs. The Goldberg family could get along in hard times and come out OK, even with very little to live on. This is a message that is as relevant today as it was in Depression days. Polls at the time said that the Gertrude Berg was second only to Eleanor Roosevelt as the most respected women in America. Central to the story throughout the radio days and well into the television days were the tenement setting which allow the character Molly Goldberg to talk with her neighbors by just putting her head out the window and calling "Yoo-hoo." Later in the fifties the setting was moved to suburbia but retained much of the same feel. In the late 1930s the film confronted the problems of ethnic bigotry. Many viewers learned about Kristallnacht and what was happening in Nazi Germany but also what was happening in the United States. One program had the family's Passover Seder ceremony interrupted by a rock thrown through the window. The character Molly Goldberg always remained calm and brought her own wisdom to the incident and any situation she found herself in. Gertrude Berg (who wrote every episode) let her own personality shine through. Eventually, however, politics did intrude, not in front of the camera but behind. The part of Molly's husband Jake was played in the late 1940s and early 1950s by Philip Loeb. Loeb was accused of being a Communist and his name appeared in Red Channels. Sponsor General Foods demanded that he be dropped from the show for being too controversial. Goldberg absolutely refused, but lost when Loeb resigned. Soon after CBS dropped the television show. In the schedule hole it left open CBS put a new situation comedy, "I Love Lucy". Eight months later the Goldbergs were back on television. NBC picked up the show with Berg, though not with Loeb. Gertrude Berg herself probably could not have made a better documentary of her life and her creations than YOO-HOO, MRS. GOLDBERG. Through decades on the radio, multiple TV series, and two plays Berg's Molly Goldberg gave America comfort and wisdom. Yet for most of this film's audience most of what it tells will be a complete revelation. I rate YOO-HOO, MRS. GOLDBERG a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Film Credits: Wikipedia on "The Goldbergs": Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Fri May 22 12:48:46 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri May 22 12:48:49 2009 Subject: Review: Terminator Salvation (2009) Message-ID: <_PudnQ34HoJyUojXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink.com> TERMINATOR SALVATION A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** So how is TERMINATOR SALVATION, the latest installment in the long-running Terminator franchise, you ask? Loud! Although there is supposed to be a video game of the same name released in conjunction with the movie, there is little reason to buy it after you've seen the film, since you'll feel the entire time like you were trapped in a video game as you slog through the movie. Directed by ex-music video director McG, TERMINATOR SALVATION gets the special effects and stunts right while completely missing the involving story that has made this series so popular. I'm huge fan of the previous three films, as well as the recent television series ("Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles"), but this latest in the Terminator saga is the first one I didn't enjoy and could not recommend. Well, let me make one exception to that comment. If you are in the sweet spot of what appears to be film's targeted demographics, boys around twelve years old whose favorite pastime is watching things blow up, you'll bring get a big kick out of the film. But, if you're old enough to have a fully matured brain, you'll likely leave the theater quite disappointed. If you haven't seen any of the previous Terminator films or shows, the script for TERMINATOR SALVATION will leave you completely confused. Sure, you'll understand that humans are fighting machines, but, other than that surface level of comprehension, the rest of the plot will probably baffle you. And, if you're like me and are really into the series, you'll still be puzzled through most of the movie. The only way to attempt to view it is to just turn your mind off and admire the gadgetry of the production. Christian Bale, THE DARK KNIGHT's Batman, plays the signature role of John Connor. Although he probably did exactly what he was asked, his performance, like that of the rest of the cast, is never compelling. When, about half way into film, he shows us humanity's new secret weapon against the Terminators, don't be surprised if you've already lost interest in the story and couldn't care less about his new toy. The film's non-stop action is set in a bleak, grey world of the future. Sometimes, albeit not nearly often enough, we get to enjoy a little humor in this depressing landscape. Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin, who plays Chekov in the new STAR TREK, an infinitely better movie) provides the best line in a movie which doesn't have many. Kyle says to Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), when offering Marcus a meal, "It's two-day-old coyote. Better than three-day-old coyote." I found only a few memorable moments. My favorite was a variation on the 1984 Apple Super Bowl commercial, which launched the Mac and showed a runner breaking a huge video screen with an image of Big Brother on it. Savor what you can of TERMINATOR SALVATION, since it's going to be a long two hours. TERMINATOR SALVATION runs 1:55. It is rated PG-13 for "intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language" and would be acceptable for kids around 12 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Thursday. May 21, 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 steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Fri May 22 12:50:01 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri May 22 12:50:03 2009 Subject: Review: The Last Lullaby (2009) Message-ID: THE LAST LULLABY A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** 1/2 "You decided you wanted her dead," Price (Tom Sizemore), an aging hit man, tells his new client, "that means she's already dead. She just doesn't know it yet." And a few days later, when Sarah (Sasha Alexander) hasn't been murdered yet, Price has to reassure his restless client that hiring him means the act is certain -- repeating a variation on his personal corporate motto -- "She's already dead, just hasn't had the obit yet." THE LAST LULLABY is brilliantly directed by Jeffrey Goodman, who was at our screening for a Q&A afterwards. He said that when he first spoke to Sizemore about the role, Sizemore said "I am Price." Whether that is right or not, his very believable acting in THE LAST LULLABY argues that the actor's assessment is correct. In fact, Goodman said that if someone told him that in real life Sizemore had killed someone, he'd sure believe it. In a consistently captivating performance, Sizemore plays a taciturn contract killer who thinks he has retired from the job. A beefy, middle-age guy, Price hasn't forgotten any of his skills and likes nothing better than dealing with the young bucks who try to get in his way. But it isn't only Sizemore whose acting is performed with dead-on accuracy. The entire cast works at what appears to be the top of their form. As the movie opens, we observe Price as he stumbles onto a job. Realizing that a kidnapping is in progress of a woman named Jules (Sprague Grayden from "Jericho"), he decides to help her out -- but not quite in the way you might imagine. He saves her from her second-rate kidnappers, who would probably kill her and take the ransom too. Price decides to kidnap her himself and kill her current crop of incompetent kidnappers. The director shows a real gift for figuring out how to stage dramatic and effective gun fights, of which there are several in the film, without letting the movie dissolve into a typical action thriller. More a drama than a thriller, the movie's best part is its carefully constructed sound design. The director told us that his picture was a revolt against movies today, which, while trying to reflect our society, just keep getting louder and faster. He slows the scenes down and minimizes the use of music and most background noise, so that the characters take the forefront. Calling his style "naturalistic," the director clearly wanted us to pay more attention to the nuances of the characters. It really works. There are some good twists and turns in the plot and an excellent story as well, but it is the human emotions and motivations that will stay with you long after you leave the theater. If more movies were as well designed and realized as THE LAST LULLABY, going to the theater would be dramatically more satisfying. New filmmakers should look at it as a paradigm on how movies should be made. THE LAST LULLABY runs 1:33. It is rated R for "violence and language" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film is playing in limited release now in the United States. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at one of the Camera Cinemas from June 12 to 18, 2009. The movie was shown recently at the Camera Cinema Club (http://www.cameracinemas.com) of Campbell and San Jose and was shown as part of San Jose's Cinequest Film Festival (www.Cinequest.org), which ran February 25-March 8, 2009. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From homeryen88 at gmail.com Thu May 28 17:43:31 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu May 28 17:43:34 2009 Subject: Review: Angels & Demons (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000905251946p3f04dc40p367312a3255176c@mail.gmail.com> Angels & Demons - Beautiful Film within Unsatisfying Narrative by Homer Yen (c) 2009 What's the fundamental difference between an employee and an owner? I believe that an employee considers their activities to be tasks - things that are done based on someone else's grand plan. Meanwhile an owner sets in motion a vision that they have. They want to bring that grand plan to realization no matter what the cost. When you are all-in, no sacrifice is too big. Today, in my world, if given a choice, it's better to be an owner than an employee. In 2006's "The DaVinci Code," Dr. Langdon (Tom Hanks) becomes involved in a mystery after a crime is committed. But, in that film, he comes across like an owner - filled with passion as he pursues his personal vision to uncover a sacred secret/truth. Now, in the follow-up to that film, the setup is similar here as he become involved in a mystery after a crime is committed. But, from the get-go, that spirit of ownership never gets established for two reasons. First, he's relegated to the status of an employee, for in this film, he follows someone else's grand plan. Second, given his feelings of church and God (established in the first film and early on here), there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason for him to accept the case. When he does, it's more like a sharp detective accepting challenging work just to keep him busy. "Angels & Demons" is really just a well-dressed but formulaic thriller. The plot structure is familiar if you've seen "Speed" or "DieHard 3". You know, if you don't get to a certain locale by a certain time, something sinister will happen. There is a secret society called the Illuminati that has possibly re-emerged to exact vengeance on the church. There is a massive explosive device that has been planted somewhere within the Vatican which has the firepower to level the city as well as centuries of history along with it. There are enigmatic clues that have been left behind to help the authorities stave off this cataclysmic event. Despite his previous run-in with the church (in the first film), Dr. Langdon's unique expertise in Roman history makes him well-suited to find the trail of breadcrumbs left through time. Throughout, there is a definite sense of urgency as Dr. Langdon whisks through various parts of Rome. And Tom Hanks appears more professorial (and has better hair) than in his previous outing. What did make this film interesting was the peek into the inner workings of the papacy. I certainly learned some interesting (and probably arcane) vocabulary such as: preferati - the likeliest candidates to be the next Pope; and: camerlengo - the one who presides over the conclave when appointing the next Pope; and: conclave - the place in which the cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church meet in private for the election of a pope. I think my IQ might have increased a few points. One need not have seen that first film to follow "Angels & Demons". It is a stand alone film much like the "Indiana Jones" films or "National Treasure" films. But having seen it would allow you to understand my employee vs. owner analogy. In fact, I think that you would actually enjoy this film more if you had not seen the first film. And because I did, here's what keeps tugging at me. This is a follow-up to one of the most controversial stories of all time (now, in the world of publishing, Angels & Demons was published first, but moviegoers will see this after "The DaVinci Code")! "The DaVinci Code" might have been labeled blasphemous. But at least those ideas made that film compelling and engrossing. This one is ok to watch, had high production values, and has more texture than films of similar ilk. But it lacked the sense of wonder and discovery of the first film. I heard that even the film review in the Vatican newspaper deemed the film as harmless entertainment. Really then...how good could this be? Grade: C+ S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From mleeper at optonline.net Thu May 28 17:46:21 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu May 28 17:46:25 2009 Subject: Review: Unmistaken Child (2008) Message-ID: UNMISTAKEN CHILD (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: : With a minimum of explanation or narration writer/director Nati Baratz follows the process of the search for and verification of the very young reincarnation of a recently deceased Buddhist Lama. The process began in 2001 and took four years from toddler to teacher. The film takes us to see the method of choosing a candidate and the process of verifying that the "right" child has been chosen. Along the way the documentary silently invites either belief or skepticism. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 Israeli filmmaker Nati Baratz takes us to Nepal to document as it happens the intriguing true story of the search for the reincarnation of a great Buddhist teacher. UNMISTAKEN CHILD looks at the faith of Nepalese Buddhists and their process for choosing a successor to a beloved lama, recently deceased. The chosen child must be less than eighteen months old and yet show signs of being the reincarnation of the lama. Master Lama Konchog died in 2001. To those who believed in the lama death is not the end of their relationship with him. It is only an interruption. There is no doubt in their minds that Konchog's spirit has chosen the body of a very young boy, twelve to eighteen months old, has filled him with his soul, and is continuing his great work in the body of the boy. They have, they believe, only to find the young reincarnation and restore him to his position of honor. But how can they find the boy who does not himself know his great cosmic purpose? A monk is chosen by the Dalai Lama to go on this seemingly impossible quest. Chosen is Tenpin Zopa, a self-effacing and withdrawn student of Konchog. Tenzin is given the guidance of his dreams and some astrological readings to help him narrow his search for the boy. In Nepal the modern world sits side-by-side with a life-style and tradition centuries old. Tenzin wears the ubiquitous Buddhist red and gold robes when he is not wearing a T-shirt bearing the mystical inscription "Nike". Tenzin lives in a modest monk's room with a small cabinet that opens to reveal a small television set. His quest will be made on foot or by mule, except for the parts where he is taxied by helicopter. And of course on his mission he is accompanied by a documentary film crew of undisclosed size. Photography by Yaron Orbach shows us the aloof beauty of the rocky and misty mountains of Nepal. We also see the hard realities of Nepalese mountain village life. The pacing of the film is frequently slow and requires some small part of the patience show by the people of the mountain villages. As most of Baratz's audience is probably not Buddhist, the film suggests the viewer see the proceedings in two ways, as a believer might and as an unbeliever might. This makes it really two films. The believing half will see miraculous verification in the film that indeed the boy chosen is correct and the process has worked. To the non-believing half the ways of Buddhism will seem quaint. He may question the taking of so young a child from his family and village and told that he must become a monk. I rate UNMISTAKEN CHILD a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. There are questions that really went unanswered during the narrative. How does the family of the chosen boy really feel about having their child taken from home at such a young age to become a lama? Perhaps a related question: How does having a film crew present affect Tenzin, how does it affect the chosen child, and how does it affect the boy's family? If the family objected, would they have felt they could have protested in front of the camera? This film has been playing at film festivals including the Toronto International Film Festival and will have a limited release in the United States beginning June 4, 2009. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper