From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Thu Nov 5 13:59:09 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Thu Nov 5 13:59:12 2009 Subject: Review: The Damned United (2009) Message-ID: THE DAMNED UNITED A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** 1/2 THE DAMNED UNITED beautifully demonstrates that, if you pair a truly gifted screenwriter with terrific actors, cinematic magic is possible, perhaps even likely. Michael Sheen, who first came to the attention of most U.S. viewers in his mesmerizing performance as Tony Blair in THE QUEEN, is the star of THE DAMNED UNITED. Playing legendary soccer coach Brian Clough, a man with enormous ambition and a nearly infinite sense of self-importance, Sheen appears to get every nuance of his character's peculiarities just right. In addition to a support casting filled with some of Britain's very best actors, Sheen is joined by screenwriter Peter Morgan, whose script for FROST/NIXON was quite correctly nominated for an Academy Award. Both FROST/NIXON and THE DAMNED UNITED take subjects which appear to have a very limited appeal and turn them into riveting stories that have audiences glued to their seats. One would suspect that it would be impossible to make a series of television interviews of an ex-president compelling cinematic material. Similarly, it might seem nearly impossible to make an unknown coach of a relatively unpopular sport interesting to American viewers. Morgan, however, makes both subjects both fascinating and funny in FROST/NIXON and THE DAMNED UNITED. Although he succeeds as a humorist, it is as a dramatist that Morgan really makes his mark. Morgan turns Clough into a man of Shakespearean proportions, filled with foibles. The film, directed deftly by Tom Hooper, cuts seamlessly between 1973, when Clough has just taken the job of a lifetime as the manager of Leeds United, and 1969, when he is seen managing Derby County, a second division team at the bottom of the rankings. In a television interview, Clough offers up his usually cocky self-assessment, telling the interviewer, "I wouldn't say I was the best manager in the country, but I'm in the top one." Although Clough owes much of his success to his assistant Peter Taylor (Timothy Spall), who has a gift when it comes to finding and recruiting players, and to the Derby Chairman of the Board Sam Longson (Jim Broadbent), who allows Clough to almost bankrupt the club buying questionable players, Clough is perfectly willing to throw everyone under the bus to satisfy his need to win at all cost. His supreme ambition and his willingness to cut corners is ironic, since his chief complaint against lifelong rival, Don Revie (Colm Meaney), is that his team, Leeds United, are brawlers who cheat their way to the top. Rather than act like he has died and gone to heaven, Clough treats his offer of taking over from Revie like it was his God-given right to assume the position as the manager of Leeds United. Seeing Clough treat his new players with disdain, the story becomes one in which you know that Clough is destined to get his comeuppance. The only questions are how soon it will come and how hard he will fall. This, in turn, generates another question about whether he will even be capable of recovery. Using archival footage of the real Clough, Revie and Taylor, the epilogue answers this question sufficiently and succinctly. Academy members will probably consider this movie too small and the subject too obscure to warrant Oscar considerations, but, in my book, there are many award-worthy parts to it, most notably the script and the acting, especially by Sheen. THE DAMNED UNITED runs 1:37. It is rated R for "language" and would be acceptable for kids around 10 and up. The film is playing in nationwide release now in the United States. In the Silicon Valley, it is showing at 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 homeryen88 at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 14:01:10 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu Nov 5 14:01:13 2009 Subject: Review: This Is It (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000911042239g79e24137yaedfb5af1799bc76@mail.gmail.com> "This Is It" - I Just Can't Stop Loving You... We all know the tragic story behind Michael Jackson's death. And, we all know about the massive concert that he was preparing for but never happened. After watching "This Is It", it's sad knowing that the world will never receive the gift that the King of Pop was preparing to unwrap. What you'll find inside this film is a peek into the preparation of his mega-production. This isn't merely a concert. It's an exclamation point on MJ's career. While the documentary showcases all of his more popular work, for me, the most interesting parts occurred in the first 20 minutes. We see highlights of the dance auditions. As one of the organizers put it, if you want to be part of this show, you have to be "mean, gorgeous, and hot." When I watch these reality TV talent shows like "Dancing with the Stars", "American Idol", and "America's Got Talent," I always enjoy the preparation and audition process the most as it felt the most human. Here, you can see the enormous amount of interest in being a part of his posse. As one hopeful dancer from Australia put it, he found out about the auditions just two days before and got on the very next flight to get there on time. The film is focused on MJ, perhaps, doing his final rehearsals in the Staples Center before they all head out to final-final rehearsals in England, where his 50-show extravaganza would take place. On stage, under the lights, swathed in music, MJ is in his element. When MJ went onto the witness stand to defend himself in front of millions, he was a pale shadow of himself. He looked diminutive and lost. Here, he is now preparing to perform for an audience of millions, and he is in command and larger-than-life. In "This Is It", we see the "Wanna Be Starting Something" Michael Jackson. We do not see the "Smooth Criminal" Michael Jackson. This man is a workhorse. He experiences a bit of trouble striking the higher notes. And, now it's just one pirouette instead of two or three. He emotes a childlike exuberance. He displays patience like a kindergarten teacher. Even the director speaks to him in a way that we would speak to an 8-year old. And, the song that pleaded for us to be more eco-conscious seemed to go against what we know of him in terms of beat and message. But he still has those can't-take-my-eyes-off-of-him moves that still seem to defy gravity. Watching a few minutes of Jackson in action, I feel like I'm ready to hit the clubs. If there are any negative effects from his age (he would've turned 50 during his run of concerts) or from the child molestation charges that have dogged him all of these years, you certainly don't see it during his practice routines. This is an energized man bent on delivering a performance to solidify his legendary status. It's somewhat incredible to watch the adoration that is poured upon him. As film experiences go, I can say that it's a different sensation to watch someone hard at work who has achieved a level of fame that is unfathomable. Consider "This Is It" not so much a movie or documentary. Rather, it's a final thank you for those who have supported him. It's a final look for those who are curious about him. It's a final chance to see what might have been. Mama say mama sa ma ma pu sa! Grade: B+ S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 0 out of 3 From tskirvin at killfile.org Tue Nov 10 02:22:08 2009 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Tue Nov 10 02:22:10 2009 Subject: Review: Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) Message-ID: I like Michael Moore movies. I suppose that many would consider this a shameful admission; and if I tried, I'm sure I could justify it by talking about how it's a joy to look at pure propaganda. But truth be told, I like Michael Moore. TV Nation was a great show, back in the day; The Awful Truth was pretty funny too. His early movies were amusing, and his stunts were fairly clever and confrontational in a way that I generally respected. And as time went on, his skills as a propagandist have grown - which as done a fairly effective job of counteracting the problems that his increased notoriety has caused. As such, I did have some expectations going into _Capitalism: A Love Story_. And I was disappointed. Part of the problem with _Capitalism_ was clearly that the topic was very broad. The format of Moore's movies is best-suited for a narrow topic, the smaller the better; but this movie is about an entire economic system, rather than the collapse of a factory town or a more narrow political area like gun control or health care. There's never a chance to examine the various sides of the issue in any kind of serious way; there is never a chance to fill in the caricatures, or even the basic theories. The movie simply lacked focus, and Worse were the stunts - or, perhaps, a lack of them. Moore's cameras sat in on some home foreclosures, which failed to shine any sympathy on anybody involved while also bringing into question why nobody was willing to intervene. Moore attempted to perform some citizen's arrests at Goldman Sachs and other banks; this simply seemed half-hearted. And everything else hardly seemed connected. There were some smiles at the silliness here and there, but even that was hurt by the oddly out-of-place cursing. All in all, it just seemed... badly put together. Somewhere in between was the quality of the arguments. Moore didn't really attack capitalism in this movie; he attacked the bailout, and he attacked corruption, but he didn't attack the whole system. If he'd left it at that, that'd be okay - it worked okay in _Bowling for Columbine_, for instance - but but in this case, he took what little he had and called for even more change than he ever had before. Frankly, he overplayed his hand, and even what value the movie had as propaganda was damaged as a result. It's a shame; there were some interesting details in there, such as the discussion of Dead Peasant insurance policies and (most prominently) a look back at Flint, MI, where it all began. But while the beginning of this story was the best we're likely to get from Moore, this is likely the worst. * 3/4 - Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org) -- http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage < <*> http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies Skirv's Movie Reviews From Faust668 at msn.com Thu Nov 19 18:44:50 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Thu Nov 19 18:44:52 2009 Subject: Review: Day of the Dead (2008) Message-ID: <46ca3a72-9978-49c2-8eca-6841d7fc8677@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> DAY OF THE DEAD (2008) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars Before anyone questions my positive rating of the remake of a George Romero zombie spectacle, let me clarify my view on zombies. I love Romero's early "Dead" series, including "Night of the Living Dead," the granddaddy of all zombie films and the scariest. I also enjoyed Zac Snyder's fast-paced and quite scary remake of "Dawn of the Dead," which means that, yes, I do find zombies running after your brains quite scary and nightmarish. The slow, snail pace that early zombies carried on, meaning walking and not running, is still frightening. Having said all that, this alleged remake of Romero's "Day of the Dead" is a better film all around, tighter and scarier and filled with a doomsday scenario that will seem dated to some but is no less relevant. Sacrilege, I know, but I was never a big fan of Romero's "Day of the Dead." The movie begins with a mysterious flu-like virus (not the H1N1 type, I am afraid) that causes the military to quarantine the town where it has started. Yeah, it is a flu alright, the kind that kills you and then turns you into a zombie with truly ravaged, bubbly skin! Mena Sevauri may as well be called Meana Sevauri as a soldier who runs over her zombiefied mother without caring in the slightest! Ving Rhames appears briefly, sadly, as a soldier, I think, who becomes zombiefied (and does not do a reprise of the character he played in "Dawn of the Dead," probably because he was killed in the end credits). That leaves us with the host of "America's Got Talent," Nick Cannon, as a tough soldier who is eager to kill all the zombies as if they were playing a video game! Eventually, this all leads to a military base and a silo that echoes Romero's original. And I forgot to mention the unlikable radio host who is holed up in his control room, smoking his life away and babbling about how the government covers up such quarantines. "Day of the Dead" has less than memorable characters overall, though I like Cannon and Sevauri who are appealing enough on screen that they won't make you gag. There is also the vegetarian soldier that becomes a zombie and Sevauri tries to protect him because he is a "good" zombie. Ick! But this movie doesn't get mired with the talkiness of Romero's film that featured characters I cared far less about than in this film. There are occasional pauses before the zombies get revved up and start attacking. It is a rollicking, sweat-inducing, intensely gory ride of a movie, much like its remake counterpart, "Dawn of the Dead." On that level, check it out. It won't resonate like Romero's films but this film can stand on its own for modern apocalyptic fervor. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Thu Nov 19 18:45:47 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Thu Nov 19 18:45:50 2009 Subject: Review: Live Free or Die Hard (2007) Message-ID: <64c9bd5c-54b8-43f2-ab1e-83ee51967b37@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD (2007) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars "Live Free or Die Hard" is a hackneyed, preposterous and thoroughly entertaining techno thriller. It is a fun ride but it does not carry some of the hallmarks of the first two films in the "Die Hard" franchise, and it has a "been there, done that" quality but what sequel doesn't? Suffice to say, if you enjoyed the earlier films, you'll find enough to enjoy here. Bruce Willis is a bald, older John McClane, ordered to bring in a computer hacker, Matt (Justin Long), to the feds because some nut who formerly worked for the government, Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), wants to bring "America to its knees." Before long, there are elongated shootouts, glass breakage, various car chases, de rigueur explosions and some truly improbable stunts (my favorite is using a car as a weapon against a helicopter!) In other words, this is a high- octane techno thriller in every sense of the word. The exceptions to the usual pyrotechnics on display here is that this is the first "Die Hard" sequel set in a post-9/11 world. But there are no Arabs nor anyone vaguely resembling Al-Qaida or the Taliban as the villains here. No, we just get an old-fashioned angry and unemployed white government worker. The rule of thumb in movies post-9/11 is that the terrorists are either savvy computer geniuses or cold-blooded British types or both, so as to not offend anyone. This is interesting because some may recall that Willis dismissed doing a fourth "Die Hard" flick shortly after 9/11. In recent years, his best work has been as a weary, downtrodden cop in the underrated "16 Blocks," which coincidentally has a similar plot involving taking a prisoner to a courthouse rather than the feds. But anything vaguely terroristic has been left out of Willis's action milieu for quite some time. In this "Die Hard" sequel, a few keystrokes are all that is needed to bring America to its knees by controlling traffic lights, air traffic, breaking in to the Pentagon and military computer systems, and perpetrating a simulation of the Capitol in ruins just to get everyone rattled! These cyber terrorists are so sophisticated that they apparently have cameras everywhere recording everything Mr. McClane and company are doing. "Live Free or Die Hard" is highly implausible featuring more implausibly elaborate action sequences than ever before, including a fighter jet tearing down an entire freeway while McClane slides up and down ramps. Still, a chillingly suspenseful scene where McClane is hanging on to a SUV inside an elevator shaft while fighting Mai (Maggie Cheung), a martial-artist, is one for the action history books. This new "Die Hard" gets the job done and is far more entertaining than the third limp entry, "Die Hard With a Vengeance." However, the emotional, humanistic core of John McClane that we have seen before, the troubled, vulnerable married man, is virtually gone. Mostly McClane fights with his estranged daughter, Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and that is hardly on the same wavelength as Willis's rapport with Bonnie Bedelia from the first film. I even miss scenes like McClane taking a bottle full of aspirin after a full night of getting soused in the third film, or the key relationship between McClane and the cop communicating by walkie-talkie in the original. And yet, I like the rapport between Willis and Justin Long, the latter who hates 20th century music like CCR (how dare he!). It drives the film and serves as an anchor for the wall-to-wall action. So here it is: Willis is in fine form and has a few canny one-liners, Long is occasionally funny in a nervous, chatty kind of way, Maggie Cheung should've been the real villain of the film (not the somewhat anemic Olyphant), and it is a real pleasure to see Kevin Smith as a geeky, Star Wars-loving computer hacker with his own command center. A fun time at the movies overall yet it lacks some of the action hero's vulnerability that gave added spark to the earlier films. Or maybe McClane's bitterness is his vulnerability. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Thu Nov 19 18:46:43 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Thu Nov 19 18:46:46 2009 Subject: Retrospective: Escape from L.A. (1996) Message-ID: ESCAPE FROM L.A. (1996) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Two stars I don't see how John Carpenter could've screwed up a sequel to his own cult classic "Escape From New York." Laconic Snake Plissken is back, this time searching for the President's First Daughter who has stolen a black box in the guarded and secular L.A. area. Peter Fonda plays a surfer, Bruce Campbell is the eerie Surgeon General of Beverly Hills, reliable Steve Buscemi is known as Maps-to-the-Stars Eddie, and even Pam Grier plays a transsexual with a deeply manly voice! All the elements are in place but this movie is more of a redux of "Escape >From New York" than a legitimate sequel of some variety. For one, Kurt Russell's Snake Plissken is so laconic and overdoes the Clint Eastwood impression to such an extent that he becomes a vile cartoonish variation of the original Snake. There is no room for character development so it is more of the same with no inner dimensions at work for the character. I had little sympathy for this grueling joke of an antihero so I cared less if he lived or died. The plot hinges on Snake doing the bidding of the government, in this case, the President of the U.S. for life (a bored Cliff Robertson) and his tough henchman (Stacy Keach). They once again inject Snake with a timed explosive charge, so he has a limited amount of time to find the First Daughter and retrieve the black box that contains codes to global satellites. This is the same set-up as in the original, only in the original it was to rescue the President of the U.S. (played at that time by Donald Pleasance). Somehow, this turgid, endless sequel is more colorful than bleak and contains action scenes that lead nowhere, including Snake using a surfboard on tsunami-like waves. There are some pluses. I like Snake's inspired stand-off with some villainous minions that seems like a cruel joke on Westerns. I also like the depiction of a Los Angeles that is separated from the rest of the U.S. The choice of offering potential L.A. citizens death by electrocution or a life of misery among society's undesirables where you can't eat red meat is fascinating satire, almost on the level of Milton. And the ending, to be fair, is a little more bleak than the original. Also worth a mention is the short-shrift appearance of Valeria Golino, which almost brought my hopes up that this movie would rock with pizazz and sensation. But the movie seems limp and uninspired overall, afraid to pursue the subtext of a city that wants to cleanse its citizens when, in fact, the city looks like it is under martial law (decrying authority and the elimination of rational thought are very much themes of Carpenter's ouevre). And with little insight into its characters including Snake Plissken, we are left with a movie that jettisons humans for automatons. I recommend escaping to a different movie. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Thu Nov 19 18:47:33 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Thu Nov 19 18:47:35 2009 Subject: Retrospective: 20 Million Miles to Earth (1957) Message-ID: <361f8377-4048-4445-a046-d4448fc64328@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH (1957) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars and a half I've been a fan of Ray Harryhausen since I was a kid, especially the sights of stop-motion animation in everything from "Jason and the Argonauts" and its dueling skeletons, to the rampaging dinosaur in "Valley of the Gwangi" to all those mythological creatures come to life in "Clash of the Titans." So I approached and received the same wild-eyed pop enthusiasm from "20 Million Miles to Earth" as I had from Harryhausen's previous work. It is a terrific ride of a movie The opening scenes of this movie have an EC comics feel. A Sicilian kid named Pepe (Bart Braverman, "Match Game" fans rejoice) helps his father rescue a couple of astronauts inside a crash-landed spaceship, which had just made a trip to Venus and was on its return voyage back to Earth. While on shore and nursing them back to health, Pepe finds a cylinder that he decides to open and touches some jelly-like substance in it. It turns out to be an alien creature's fetus (known as the Ymir, the film's original title) that proportionally grows in size and strength. Need I say more? The last surviving member of the Venus trip is Col. Robert Calder, who is seemingly stoically played by William Hopper. I say seemingly because the screenplay does occasionally allow him to be animated and humorous. One particular example is when Calder tries to woo a scientist's daughter (Joan Taylor) with thoughts of a nice dinner and wine. How sweet! But who has time for lovemaking when Calder and the U.S. and Sicilian goverments have to trap this destructive creature. Sulfur might help! Dogs and elephants might not! "20 Million Miles to Earth" could've been the cheesiest and silliest monster movie ever. However, it has a charm and an innocence that resonates with its peculiar aspect of adding a monster to the most romantic environment in the Meditteranean Sea. That and peppering the movie with the scene-stealing tyke Bart Braverman, who only wants a few hundred lira and a cowboy hat from Texas for his discovery, adds some excitement for kids who probably wish they would've found a cylinder like the one he finds (but a warning label should've been attached to it). The monster is believable enough and causes enough destruction to almost ape King Kong's own methods (he even battles an elephant in a scene that could have yielded laughs but its primitiveness makes it more thrilling). So with astounding direction by the late Nathan H. Juran (an accomplished fantasy and science-fiction director known for "Attack of the 50 ft. Woman") and bravura touches of humanity and humor in equal doses by William Hopper and Bart Braverman, "20 Million Miles to Earth" is pretty damn exciting and thrilling enough for anyone who is a fan of monster movies and Ray Harryhausen. 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 winklebeck at hotmail.com Thu Nov 19 18:48:18 2009 From: winklebeck at hotmail.com (Tim Voon) Date: Thu Nov 19 18:48:21 2009 Subject: Review: The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009) Message-ID: Film Review - The Twilight Saga: New Moon 2009 By Tim Voon 3 out of 5 stars NEW MOON is the second book in the Stephanie Meyer best selling series THE TWILIGHT SAGA. It is also the lull point of this saga as much as THE TWO TOWERS was a lull point for THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY. This is not to say that it is of any less consequence than the other parts of the Saga, in fact all good stories have lull points, it allows relationships to be explored, characters to develop and gives a moment of the reader/watcher to reflect on what has gone past and what is yet to come. One of the greatest criticisms I have heard so far for this movie is where is Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson)? He is perhaps in the first and last twenty minutes of the film with some fleeting ghost images of him somewhere in the middle. This is also true of the novel - he only appears in the first few chapters and the last few chapters. NEW MOON is not so much about the romance of Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward as seen in TWILIGHT; but more so about the harsh realities Bella faces without Edward. With every great relationship there must come a testing point, to see how well this relationship holds up to the pressures of life and tribulation. For Bella and Edward it is this. She is mortal and he is well ... a vampire. At Bella's birthday party with the Cullen Family of vampires, a simple paper cut sends Jasper into a mad feeding frenzy and Bella almost becomes the meal. Edward has to make a very difficult choice - to stay and love Bella at the risk of her mortality, or to leave and let her lead a life of safety and normality. Edward chooses to leave. I believe that this is an important and poignant part of the movie and the story, but much duress to many a Robert Pattinson (Edward) fan. His absence actually speaks louder than words can describe or the screams heard from Bella in her nightly nightmares. He was such a presence in the first movie and book, the colossus that Bella could rely to save her and then suddenly, he is gone, his voice silent until the end of the movie. Kristen Stewart puts in a wonderful performance as the tortured Bella, whose reason for living is ripped from her and her reasons for dying made clear. Her depression is so deep that only a best friend can help bring her through this darkness and back into light. And that friend is Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner). Remember Bella's childhood friend, the small Indian boy from the nearby reservation in TWILIGHT. Well, he has buffed up into a six pack, road stallion with testosterone over brewing. I guess the comfort for most of the female viewers is, if you cannot feast your eyes on the perfect, statuesque, classical beauty of Robert Pattinson, why not have a field day gawking at the muscle hardened, boyishly handsome, hunk that is Taylor Lautner. Thus, this brings us to one of the most argued points in the TWILIGHT SAGA. Are you an Edward fan or are you a Jake fan? Edward is the epitome of male beauty and perfection. He is every woman's fantasy. He is as cool and aloof as the moon's beam shimmering on water. Jake is human reality, he is earth bound, warm like sunlight, ordinary (except for those biceps). Author, Stephanie Meyer has cleverly provided Bella with this dilemma and it is definitely a draw point for her fans. Do you side with the best friend Jake or the boyfriend Edward? I side with the best friend and reality, and am thus in the minority. NEW MOON is the story of Bella and Jake's friendship which is vital in the coming two films ECLIPSE and BREAKING DAWN. There is also a misnomer that Jake and his Indian friends are werewolves. They are in fact shape shifters who inherited this power from their ancestors as a defence mechanism against the vampires. If you are interested in the science behind this, I believe humans carry 23 pairs of chromosomes, shape shifters carry 24 and vampires have 25 pairs. Don't quote me on this but it is written somewhere in one of her novels. I digress. Overall, I did enjoy the quiet of NEW MOON. It is the morning coffee after the night of champagne that was TWILIGHT. It has a harsher tone and reality about it. The cool blue and green tones of the first movie give way to darker colours like orange and browns. It has been handled well by Diretor Chris Weitz, who has captured the essence of the novel. Fortunately, I missed the bedlam that was the midnight screening release of this movie and attended a session the following day, at a more sane hour. The cinema was filled 90 percent by women, as to be expected and I will probably be seeing this movie again with friends this coming weekend. Website - filmnet.com Email - winklebeck @hotmail.com From winklebeck at hotmail.com Thu Nov 19 18:48:49 2009 From: winklebeck at hotmail.com (Tim Voon) Date: Thu Nov 19 18:48:52 2009 Subject: Review: 2012 (2009) Message-ID: <47eb1ed8-361e-47e5-901a-a21fb50c942a@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Film Review - 2012 made 2009 By Tim Voon 3 out of 5 stars Think of every disaster movie you have ever seen put it all together in a cauldron and add the whiz bang magical ingredient of the latest special effects and you have the big bang of a movie 2012. Remember the eruptive forces of VOLCANO 2007 and DANTE's PEAK 2007, well they peter at a weak 3-4 on the Richter Scale whilst this movie explodes at the high end 9's, screaming "look at me, I am the biggest, baddest disaster movie ever." I have to say that the obliteration of Yellow Stone National Park by a volcano is the most impressive explosion I have seen to date. Then there was DEEP IMPACT 1998, remember that enormous wave of water about to engulf New York City, well this is outdone by Tsunamis' towering over the Himalayan mountains of Tibet, is if not excessive at least memorable. I can list other comparisons - the destruction of cities by aliens in WAR OF THE WORLDS 2005 or the ground breaking INDEPENDANCE DAY 1996, seems small compared to how this movie with great length (almost 3hrs) and detail, shows us how to rip every stone, brick, block, house, car, sky scraper, White House, Casino, Cathedral, Statue of Christ, major city with memorable land mark you can think of apart, with great relish and pomp. As for the reasons for all this destruction? Well it is based on an old Mayan Prophecy that every 650,000 years when all the planets align with the Sun, death to all life as we know it on Earth will occur. Remember the dinosaurs, well they were the last inhabitants to be made extinct and now it is our turn in the year 2012. Personally, I prefer the meteorite theory of ARMAGEDDON 1998 or the dying core theory of THE CORE 2003 or the solar flare theory of SUNSHINE 2007 and KNOWING 2009 or even the fluffy global warming theory of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW 2004. However, to say that some neutrinos being admitted by the Sun is causing the earth's core to melt and thus the tectonic plates to become unstable and shift, is like asking me to believe that the earth is flat and we all live on the back of a tortoise that floats through space and time. Besides this weak plot line, there is an awful lot of unnecessary clutter of relationships thrown into this movie, which really slows it down. For example between the American President (Danny Glover) and his daughter (the lovely Thandie Newton) is probably surmised to a phone call along the lines of "can you forgive me" moments before the Washington Memorial comes crashing through the Oval Office. Or the annoying relationship between Amanda Peet and John Cusack, which is reminiscent to WAR OF THE WORLDS - divorced parents with two children who are thrown into a contrived disaster where the kids hate their dad, until he becomes the hero that saves them all. Or a rehash of the ending of the POSEIDON 2006 where John Cusack's sacrifice is almost identical to that of Kurt Russell's dilemma of whether to drown or save the day. You will find clich? after clich? flooding this movie as quickly as the rising waters and sinking earth decimate the human population of planet Earth. I viewed this movie at V Max Village Cinemas where the screen is twice the size of an average screen and the sound reverberates through your body and believe me there is A LOT of sound. If you are noise sensitive or are worried about having your hearing damaged, avoid this movie. Overall, the special effects and visual stupendousness of this movie places it high on the 4/5 scale but the cheesy storyline and repetitive clich?s places it low on the 2/5 in my books. Overall, I would say that I was entertained but not entirely satisfied by this movie. Website - filmnet.com Email - winklebeck @hotmail.com From winklebeck at hotmail.com Thu Nov 19 18:49:29 2009 From: winklebeck at hotmail.com (Tim Voon) Date: Thu Nov 19 18:49:31 2009 Subject: Retrospective: Twilight (2008) Message-ID: <71a1bf0d-d128-4497-8df4-58f418ec7ef9@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com> Film Review - Twilight 2008 By Tim Voon 3 out of 5 stars With the upcoming release of NEW MOON 2008, I thought I had better do my overdue review of TWILIGHT, Part one of the TWILIGHT SAGA. I first can across this movie in December 2008, during my travels abroad. I had finished a rather eventful day at Universal Studios, Florida; got soaked on the 'Pop Eye' water ride where I stupidly didn't read the sign 'this is a water ride, please put on a rain coat'. I was soaked to the bone by the end of the day, without a change of clothing. So my physical condition on viewing TWILIGHT at Universal was - dressed in damp clothes, unhappy partner (who was also soaked); uncomfortable, cold and tired. The only thing I had heard about this movie, before it was released was that it was based on a very popular novel by Stephanie Meyer. It has a big female following and was doing very well at the box office because of repeat views from a strong contingent of female fans. What I did notice upon entering the cinema was a lot of single women, sitting by themselves with pop corn scattered throughout who all stayed for the closing credits. I have to admit, despite my poor, uncomfortable, damp physical condition I did enjoy the movie. Maybe, my sense were heightened by the fact the movie is set on one of the wettest places on earth, Forks USA where it is supposedly cloudy and rains most of the year. In particular, I remembered the wonderful colour tones of the movie, the blue, grey, greens of the background which gives the movies its distinct cool tones; an ideal setting for a romantic vampire novel. It's a movie which hones in on the sense of alienation a lot of people feel in this day and age. The sense ordinariness, being a forgotten number in the masses, being unnoticed in a crowd. Thus, women will identify with our heroine 'Bella' (Kristen Stewart). She is an ordinary girl, who comes to a small town and becomes the romantic interest of a vampire Edward (Robert Pattinson). It's a dangerous sort of love, where she can just as easily become the meal, if he cannot control his urges. It is this tantalising sense of being on the edge of love and danger which gives this movie and the novel its general appeal. Edward the vampire is portrayed as the perfect epitome of the male form - sensual, passionate, handsome, physically beautiful; someone who doesn't exist in reality. But it is this sense that someone as powerful and perfect as Edward could miraculously fall in love with someone as ordinary as 'Bella' which has gained Stephanie Meyer and this movie its legion of fans. The original musical score by Carter Burwell is wonderfully haunting, and much easier to listen to then the heavy metal sound track. Director Catherine Hardwicke is an ideal choice for directing this movie. If this movie was given to another director, it may have been handled too heavily, with a loss of the softer touches and moments needed to make this appealing to the female fans of the novel. On my return to Australia, I finished reading TWILIGHT in one night sitting. This was followed by NEW MOON the following night and ECLIPSE and BREAKING DAWN in the following two evenings. I think I only had 2-3 hrs sleep a night during this period and still had to go to work the following day. It was worth it. Stephanie Meyer is a very good author, her novels are easy to read and she draws you into caring for the wonderful characters she has created. Since then, I have probably seen the movie a few more times. Once on a plane flight to Japan in June this year and a few times on dvd with my friends and family. I would say the reaction is mixed. My cousin likes the novels and movie, his wife HATES it. A close friend LOVES the book and movie; her husband doesn't. I really enjoyed the novels and liked the movie, but my partner shows a kind of indifference, labelling it 'just another teen vampire flick.' Also there are mixed reactions to the main stars as well. Most women adore Robert Pattinson (Edward). However, you will come across a few who really don't like him. On a train ride between Osaka and Kyoto Japan, I overheard a conversation between two girls regarding Robert. One said, "I love Robert Pattinson, he is so gorgeous." The other replied, "You mean Robert Woodensen." I gathered she was referring to the fact the he couldn't act or just showed a limited amount of expressions in the movie TWILIGHT. I felt like adding but didn't, "well what do you expect from someone who is trying to portray a 200 year old vampire, who is bored to death of immortality and believes he is one of the eternal damned." As for Kristen Stewart, her hair extensions look great in the movie and she looks much better on screen than in real life. I wish someone would write to her publicist and inform her to lighten up on her heavy makeup and gothic sense of dress for her magazine interviews. Overall, I am a bigger fan of the book that I am off the movie. Probably, because the book captures a better sense of the characters and story. However, I am pleased with the movie, that with the restrictions of this medium, it does do justice to the novel and capture the quintessential sense of TWILIGHT. I will be looking forward to NEW MOON 2009. Happy viewing. Website - filmnet.com Email - winklebeck @hotmail.com From Tristan_White at rocketmail.com Thu Nov 19 18:51:14 2009 From: Tristan_White at rocketmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Trist=E1n_White?=) Date: Thu Nov 19 18:51:15 2009 Subject: Review: We Live In Public (2009) Message-ID: <5b8c49e4-d640-4a5e-9317-b62c90f6488c@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> WE LIVE IN PUBLIC Directed by: Ondi Timoner Review by: Trist?n Harvey E. White Rating: (0 to *****): ***** (five stars) I was privileged to attend last week a special screening in London of this incredible documentary, followed by a thorough Q&A session with the "star" of the film, Josh Harris, "the greatest Internet pioneer you've never heard of". WE LIVE IN PUBLIC won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance earlier this year, (its director Ondi Timoner is the first person in the history of Sundance to win this prize twice, the first time being with DiG!, her documentary about the Dandy Warhols and The Brian Jonestown Massacre). It is a truly fabulous piece of work, although clearly not all of the filming has been carried out by her but has been compiled from other sources, such as the webcams within Harris's house. But that should not be seen as a criticism of Ondi's work: this took ten years to make and, according to the movie's official press release, was culled from 5,000 hours of footage. No mean feat! So, who is Josh Harris? He was one of the innovators of the Internet, but his ideas were way more advanced than with what the technology then could cope. His live audio and video webcasting websites, particularly Pseudo.com (founded 1993), were far too advanced a concept considering the limits of pre-broadband connections (online TV on 300 baud modems? No thank you!) - he always seemed ahead of the game. However, as the technology - as he knew it would - caught up, he eventually made a fortune, but then subsequently lost it when the dotcom bubble burst. In that way, there are some similarities with a similar documentary, STARTUP.COM, which followed the rise and fall of Kaleil Isaza Tuzman and Tom Herman's govWorks.com website, a documentary which I liked just as much as WE LIVE IN PUBLIC. Josh also foretold the Big Brother TV concept of everyone wanting to be 24/7 on camera and feeling like a celebrity all of the time (rather than the 15 minutes that his hero Andy Warhol referred to), by creating a world called Quiet, underneath the streets of New York, where 100 or so people lived side by side, able to watch one another interact, have sex or occasionally fight on live TV. Following the closure of Quiet by the New York police, he decided to live with his new girlfriend Tanya in his house, followed 24/7 by webcams. Eventually, his ended up having something akin to a mental breakdown, no money in the bank, no assets apart from his apple farm, and eventually moved as far away from technology as possible: teaching basketball to children in Ethiopia, a country where, as Josh revealed in his Q&A after the film, he had lived as a child. WE LIVE IN PUBLIC is a fascinating documentary because Josh Harris is a fascinating individual and, oddly, extremely likeable in spite of us seeing some no-holds-barred footage of Josh at his worse - whether as his clown alter ego (Luvvy), whether it's his cold video message saying goodbye to his dying mother; treating his former prot?g?s from Quiet with contempt; or refusing to acknowledge that Tanya was ever his girlfriend but rather that he had auditioned her for the role - something that Tanya and Josh's own family vehemently deny. Incidentally, regarding the latter, the viewer is likely to believe Tanya's side of the story (although how much of that is thanks to Ondi's clever editing remains to be seen; in the Q&A following the film, Josh stressed again that Tanya was always a pseudo girlfriend). I believe that the fact that we can get to like this occasionally obnoxious character so much is testament to Ondi's skill at making a great (and indeed, very amusing) documentary. In the end, you really really feel sorry for this great entrepreneur. Josh Harris was clearly an innovator, before his time. Not that we should get too carried away with such epithets. Jennifer Ringley started documenting her life on JenniCam in 1996 (and charging for it in 1998) long before both Quiet and Josh's own home-based webcam experience started. The original Dutch version of Big Brother was a contemporary of Quiet's although no one (except perhaps Josh) would have envisaged that Endemol's concept would have gone global and be sold around the world., so clearly Josh did grasp the zeitgeist here (in fact, the Dutch Big Brother ended on 30 December 1999, two days before Quiet was busted by the police). But even this isn't entirely original: Dutch TV show NUMMER 28 put strangers together in a house and monitored them in 1991. But what Quiet reminded me most of was Jean-Michel Barjol's avant-garde happening from 1972, WHAT A FLASH!, in which about 100 strangers were kept locked in a warehouse and told they could improvise as though they were on a spaceship and have just a few days left to live (look out for a pre-LAST TANGO appearance of Maria Schnieider). The resulting orgies and fights were very reminiscent of the stuff we see in WE LIVE IN PUBLIC, but more to the point it shows that even a great innovator such as Josh Harris is not completely original. Where he was ahead of the game was in his vision of how the Internet would soon be playing catch-up with his ideas. Following the screening, in the Q&A, someone asked him about what is going be the next big thing. Josh told us that he is now back in the US, in Los Angeles to be exact, creating an Internet TV network called "The Wired City" which will define Web 4.0, in which thousands of people will basically be turning their own homes into TV studios, making their intimate lives public directly from their TV. Following that, Josh succeeded in losing me, and probably losing many of the audience members, as he spoke enthusiastically about what will happen after Web 4.0 and "borg interfaces". I wish him luck. And I don't doubt him for a moment. One must wonder whether we have seen an early contender for "Best documentary" at the Oscars on 7 March 2010. I dearly hope so, having been overlooked by the Academy for DiG!, but I am doubtful. This is a very strong category this year, with powerfully mediatic contenders such as ANVIL! THE STORY OF ANVIL; CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY, not to mention THE BEACHES OF AGNES, BURMA VJ and my top tip, Kirby Dick's OUTRAGE, all vying for one of those five nominated places. Whether Ondi Timoner's delightful documentary manages the make it there remains to be seen. Reviewer: Trist?n White *********************************************************************** 90 minutes. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498329/ WE LIVE IN PUBLIC went on general release in the UK on 13 November 2009 and will be shown at 14 screens throughout the UK from 17 November 2009, including four in London. The movie has already had a limited release in Los Angeles and New York, and is coming to Minneapolis, Cleveland, Washington DC and Portland within the next few weeks. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Thu Nov 19 18:52:51 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Thu Nov 19 18:52:54 2009 Subject: Review: 2012 (2009) Message-ID: 2012 A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** Easily the best bad movie in years, 2012 is hilariously over the top. Although its incredibly bloated 160 minute running time is filled with long, dead sections, the movie sparkles and awes in its truly incredible special effects shots filled with all manner of disasters. Rarely has the end of the world looked this spectacular and been this much fun. If mankind is to go out in a blaze of glory, 2012 points the way. Of course, not everyone will die; otherwise, the movie would be such a downer that a major studio could never be able to sell enough tickets to recoup the production's cost, which, in the case of 2012, must have been enormous. 2012's director Roland Emmerich has a lot of experience with big budget extravaganzas, such as his best film ever, INDEPENDENCE DAY. His movies work best when they don't take themselves too seriously. THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW was a disastrous disaster movie, because it acted liked it believed all of its pseudo-scientific messages. 2012, on the other hand, always has its tongue planted firmly in its cheek. And, lest there be any question about how serious the story is to be taken, Emmerich lets Woody Harrelson ham it up for all he's worth as a bizarre mountain man named Charlie Frost, who is a complete lunatic and a prophet of sorts. The science, such as it is, behind the narrative concerns record solar eruptions. With the sun bombarding the earth with neutrinos on steroids, the earth's core starts melting, which causes some major global warming. The continents shift dramatically. Earthquakes, tidal waves and volcanoes appear everywhere. The most ridiculous part of the plot is that, while it's obvious to the audience that the end is near, Earth's inhabitants don't quite get it. Meanwhile, the world's governments manage to create a gigantic plan to deal with the coming Armageddon -- and keep it all a secret for 3 years after the story starts in 2009. In his worse performance to date, Danny Glover (LETHAL WEAPON) plays the president. Acting clueless and incompetent, Glover's President Thomas Wilson doesn't act like the leader of the free world, so it's not clear why any of the foreign leaders follow his advice. Much better is Oliver Platt as Carl Anheuser, a presidential aide ready to make the tough choices to save mankind. Sure, he's a bit cutthroat, but he has a clear vision of what needs to be done and is willing sacrifice people if need be. The star of the movie is John Cusack, who plays an obscure author named Jackson Curtis. Curtis makes his living as a limo driver for a Russian billionaire. The world starts to rapidly fall apart when Curtis, a single dad with an attractive ex (Amanda Peet as Kate), takes his two kids (played by Liam James and Morgan Lily) camping in Yellowstone. This national park turns out to be ground zero of some secret government activities. Soon Curtis is back home in L.A. driving his limo over and around sink holes that swallow cars, then houses and soon entire skyscrapers. It's great fun that feels very much like a high end ride at an amusement park. The movie is full of wonderfully cheesy lines. Just after Kate, talking about relationships, remarks to her husband in the grocery store, "Honey, I feel like there is something pulling us apart," a humongous crack in the earth opens right between the two of them. And, please don't get me started on the saccharine last act, filled with cheap emotions and one illogical action after another. But, hey, pass the popcorn. Death and destruction have rarely been this much fun. 2012 runs way, way too long at 2:40. It is rated PG-13 for "intense disaster sequences and some language" and would be acceptable for kids around 9 and up. My son Jeffrey, age 20, gave it ***, saying that there were so many things wrong with the movie but he liked it anyway. He thought it was over the top, stupid and a complete blast. Jeffrey's friend, R.T., also 20, agreed completely. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, November 13, 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 Thu Nov 19 18:53:20 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Thu Nov 19 18:53:22 2009 Subject: Review: Pirate Radio (2009) Message-ID: PIRATE RADIO A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** "If God was a DJ, he'd be on this boat," declares one of the DJs aboard a boat called Radio Rock. Permanently stationed off the coast of Britain in 1966, the very dilapidated, old fishing boat provides the homeland their daily (and nightly) dose of rock 'n roll. Thanks to tight control by the government, the few stations on the air are not permitted to broadcast the filthy rock 'n roll. The stations have to stick strictly to the approved fare of classical music, educational programs and news. Needless to say, almost all of the teenagers and many of the adults have their radios permanently tuned to Radio Rock. PIRATE RADIO, written and directed by Richard Curtis, who in 2004 gave us the marvelous Christmas gift of LOVE ACTUALLY, is consistently and delightfully entertaining. If the movie has a downside, it's that its great music from the 1960s sometimes outshines the narrative. All of the characters are wonderfully quirky but never too far over the top. The number one DJ on board is The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman), but his position is challenged when Gavin (Rhys Ifans), a legendary DJ dressed in a purple velvet coat and with a feathered, long brimmed hat, makes his dramatic arrival. Speaking to his avid listeners only in sexy whispers, Gavin is every girl's dream guy. Meanwhile back in London, Sir Alistair Dormandy (Kenneth Branagh), a beady-eyed guy with a Hitler mustache, fumes. A government official who wants to shut off the boat's transmission but is having trouble figuring how to do it, he screams at underlings. "The whole point of being the government," he lectures them, "is that, if you don't like something, you can pass a law to make it illegal!" Although Quentin (Bill Nighy), who appears to occupy the position of station manager, worries about being shut down, the rest of crew is too busy partying like there is no tomorrow, especially during the monthly visits by the colorfully dressed girls who come to service the crew. A DJ nicknamed Smooth Bob (Ralph Brown) is perhaps the most unusual guy in a strange lot. Since he does the 3am to 6am timeslot, it isn't until he has been on the ship for seven months that any of the other DJs ever see him. His signature phrase is the single word of "cool," always spoken in hushed whispers. The film's dialog varies between cute and wacky. Typical of the latter comes when a pudgy DJ, who, for some reason, is a real chick magnet, proclaims, "I need to pull the pin on my love grenade." Never hilarious but consistently funny, the film never rises to the level of LOVE ACTUALLY, which is a very high standard in my book. In a film that seems designed to be relatively surprise free, it has a remarkably surprising last act. PIRATE RADIO runs 2:00. It is rated R for "language, and some sexual content including brief nudity" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, November 13, 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 homeryen88 at gmail.com Thu Nov 19 18:53:47 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Thu Nov 19 18:53:49 2009 Subject: Review: A Christmas Carol (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000911121108j42cf1abn770fc5a49a149ab6@mail.gmail.com> A Christmas Carol - Generous on Effects but Stingy on Feeling by Homer Yen (c) 2009 Tis the season, and here's the gift that keeps on giving. Bill Murray "Scrooged" us on the big screen back in the late 80s. Patrick Stewart did his one-man show on Broadway in the 90s. And countless TV shows integrated the Charles Dickens classic into their plots during Christmastime episodes throughout the years. You would only be one of a handful of people if you didn't know the tale of Ebenezer Scrooge. Now, the Christmas classic is a 3D production. It's certainly an exhilarating visual experience. Director Robert Zemckis is in firm control of this technology, after he used it successfully in "The Polar Express" and "Beowulf". Yet, with that last film about the fabled Geat warrior, peoples' expressions couldn't be adequately captured. I remarked that the characters of "Beowulf" all looked sleepy or drunk. That's certainly not the case here. This world is richly detailed, from the fabric of the clothing they wear to the bushiness of the eyebrows to the wrinkles in the skin to the authentic atmosphere of Victorian England. As it is "animated", it allows the Director to do things that you can't normally do (or is too expensive to do) in live-action. This includes, for example, the doorknob-cam angle; the swooping aerials that give us a grand look at this time and place; and the morphing effects. At many points, it has the stunning kind of beauty that evokes the most beautiful holiday greeting cards. The texture and the flow of the story, however, had all the appeal of chimney soot. This is a much dour Ebenezer Scrooge, and he's quite the blackened curmudgeon. He walks and carries with him a chill as bitter as the north winds. Scrooge lives out this loveless existence, consumed by greed and selfishness. There's an exaggerated meanness about him that mutes the power of the character and eventual catharsis. For a Christmas film, it's certainly more intense than you would initially imagine. Given the 3D glasses, I suppose it would be going against the grain if they didn't have at least a few coming-at-ya and a few Boo! moments. There is a spirit of a dead acquaintance, which embodies the creepy zombie-type, with clinking chains and all. The Ghost of Christmas Past resembles a flame who talks with the kind of pitch that reminds you of any Scooby Doo villain. The Ghost of Christmas Present is more of a hearty-looking Viking who excels at self-amusement. The Ghost of Christmas Yet-to-Come is a shadowy menace that no one would want in their dreams. Yet, admittedly, this sequence offered the most thrills. Jim Carrey shows considerable range as he takes on multiple roles in this film. And, I think that he has found a new lease on Hollywood life in animated tales such as this and in "Horton Hears a Who". Here, his voice works overtime as he does eight different characters, including all three Ghosts that challenge Ebenezer to rethink his life. Ultimately, I felt that the film lacked a certain level of continuity as it jumped back and forth between the visits by the three Ghosts. The lesson of humility and love and giving gets blurred and it oddly doesn't provide the punch of satisfaction that you expect from a holiday tale. Regarding my feelings for this film, I'm as conflicted as Scrooge is during his visit with the Ghost of Xmas Present. Yet, it's like going to Radio City Music Hall to see the Christmas Spectacular. No matter how many times you've seen it, it never gets old. Grade: B- S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Sun Nov 22 23:04:42 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Sun Nov 22 23:04:45 2009 Subject: Review: The Blind Side (2009) Message-ID: THE BLIND SIDE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** THE BLIND SIDE is a wonderfully old-fashioned and decidedly inspirational sports film that will call to mind many other movies, especially ones like RUDY, in which an unlikely player makes it. But THE BLIND SIDE does have at least one completely unique aspect. It's about a kid who overcomes a very low IQ and a childhood spent in a long series of foster homes and eventually makes it into the National Football League. The only potential problem for THE BLIND SIDE is that, were it not a true story, which it is, viewers would likely simply write it off as being completely unbelievable. Bookended with footage and still shots of the real Michael Oher, a guy with an IQ of 80 and an initial high school GPA of 0.6, and the real Leigh Anne Touhy, a Southern woman with a big heart and an unstoppable persistence who adopted the teenage Michael, the movie makes sure that we remember it's a true story. Director John Lee Hancock (THE ROOKIE) lays on the schmaltz at times, and the movie is longer than it needs, but it is consistently genuine and touching. While not nearly as good as classic sports movies like HOOSIERS, THE BLIND SIDE never loses control of your mind or your heart. You'll be with it, cheering the whole time. One surprise is that, except for the introduction, the movie eschews any time on the football field until a full hour has passed. When we first meeting Michael, who is now a professional right tackle, he is a homeless kid nicknamed Big Mike who doesn't speak and who may or may not be completely illiterate. His size and hence his potential for being an athlete get him a scholarship to a Christian high school in Memphis, Tennessee, but whether he'll ever get on a team is problematic. First, he has to get his grades up considerably to be eligible. This appears to be an insurmountable hurdle for him. He eventually makes it past this, even if just barely. But even when he does start to play, his coach complains in disgust that Big Mike "looks like Tarzan but plays like Jane." This initial assessment is dead-on, since Big Mike is, by his nature, a classic gentle giant who doesn't want to hurt anyone, even a little. Michael, played with a beautifully understated performance by Quinton Aaron, is taken in by Leigh Anne and her family and eventually adopted. In one of many acts of unselfish grace, Leigh Anne works hard to give Michael more than just a bed, something he usually goes without; she gives him a real home. In probably her best performance ever, Sandra Bullock is downright brilliant as Leigh Anne. As in CRASH, Bullock proves again that she is much better at drama than comedy. She nails her character in a performance that's hard to forget. The world would be a much better place if more people were like Bullock's Leigh Anne. The film is also quite funny, with Leigh Anne's young son S.J. (Jae Head, "Friday Night Lights) providing much of the humor. By the time the film ends, you'll have bonded completely with the characters, and you'll have shared some good laughs with them too. THE BLIND SIDE runs a little long at 2:08. It is rated PG-13 for "one scene involving brief violence, drug and sexual references" and would be acceptable for kids around 9 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, November 14, 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 winklebeck at hotmail.com Sun Nov 22 23:12:27 2009 From: winklebeck at hotmail.com (Tim Voon) Date: Sun Nov 22 23:12:29 2009 Subject: Review: Mao's Last Danger (2009) Message-ID: Film Review - Mao's Last Dancer 2009 By Tim Voon 4 out of 5 stars If anyone is guessing as to the peculiarity of this title, it refers to a period in China's turbulent history, during the time of the Cultural Revolution when anything and everything remotely associated with the West was burned, ridiculed and its protagonists imprisoned or demeaned. This, of course, included ballet. How did something as harmless as ballet get dragged into this tangled mesh of communistic politics? Essentially, Madam Mao vehemently promoted that anything remotely artistic had to encompass the glory of the Communistic party. Therefore, dancing, singing and plays all had to come under the approval of the Communist Party. Art suffered under this regime, but the spirit of the dancers could never be fully suppressed. The star of this true biopic is Li Cunxin (played by actor/dancer Chi Cao) who is one of the last generation of ballet dancers trained specifically for this dancing ideal (the ballets were primarily about resistance fighters who overcame the Capitalist forces of China; with dancers dressed in army uniforms and carrying guns). From an impoverished background, he is selected by Communist talent officers to attend the Academy of Arts. Only the best and most flexible students won this privilege and it was considered a privilege to win selection. In this rigid system of training where teachers are mercilessly strict and discipline is essential to perfecting art, Li learns his craft of dancing. Here he is inspired by secret recordings of Russian dancers and also by a teacher who believes in the beauty of ballet, and not in the propaganda that controlled it. There is an epic feel to this movie as director Bruce Beresford takes the movie watcher through the life and trials of this remarkable individual, Li Cunxin. The movie seamlessly moves from the poverty stricken villages of China to the Academy Halls of Bei Jing and finally to the Art Stadiums of Houston Texas. As fortune would have it, the Art Director of the Houston Ballet, Ben Stevenson was allowed to visit China during the early 80's. It is here that he notices the hidden passion of the dancer that is Li Cunxin. I would have to agree that some of the most memorable and enjoyable moments of this movie ARE the dance scenes. WOW is all I can say, and this is coming from someone who isn't a big fan of the art. The spins the jumps the turns are amazing. Dancer Chi Cao is amazing as Li, unfortunately I have never seen Li dance in real life, but I hear he was dynamite. This brings us to the crux of this movie. When Ben Stevenson invites Li to come to performs in Texas, LI not only falls in love with the country, but also with an American girl. This leads to one of the most tense and suspenseful moments when Li is held captive in the Chinese Embassy, until some high levelled US politicians come to his aid - name the senior Bushes of the U.S of A (Barbs was a patron of the Texas ballet). His eventual release and asylum status however comes at an immense and painful cost. Never to be allowed back to the motherland China and prevented from seeing his parents and family again. The movie has wonderful cinematography, especially some of the scenes from China really depict how special and beautiful this remarkable country truly is. Joan Chen plays Li's mother in this movie and is wonderfully, deglamorised for her impoverished role. I had to look twice before recognising her. Bruce Greenwood flightily portrays Ben Stevenson the artistic director of the Houston ballet, whom I assume was gay although this is not directly implied. Kyle McLachalan's role as Li's lawyer is small, although pivotal to his escape to freedom in the US. As to all those viewers who are wandering what happened to Li after his adventures in the United States. Well he moved to my hometown Melbourne, Australia and is working as a local stockbroker. The first time I heard about Li was a few years ago when I read an article in the paper of an interesting local individual who worked as a broker during the day and performed ballet by night. Since then, Li has written a bestselling biopic novel and now produced a movie. Almost the other the day, I heard from a friend he was sighted walking down the street. This movie is a good view for anyone interested in how a remarkable individual survives great tribulation to become the best person that they can be. This is the story of Li Cunxin. Website - filmnet.com Email - winklebeck @hotmail.com From winklebeck at hotmail.com Sun Nov 22 23:14:00 2009 From: winklebeck at hotmail.com (Tim Voon) Date: Sun Nov 22 23:14:02 2009 Subject: Review: The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus (2009) Message-ID: <9c960e93-d68d-4418-974e-c1777a100973@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com> Film Review - The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus 2009 By Tim Voon 3.5 out of 5 stars If anyone is familiar with director Terri Gilliam's work, you will be expecting a visual feast and a very difficult to follow story line. The cult classic 'Brazil 1985' will jump to mind - visually stunning, emotionally stirring but ummm, but as to the storyline, what storyline? That movie still baffles me to this day, when someone asks me about 'Brazil' I will say 'Oh yeah, that's a great visual movie,' but become stumped as to explain what actually happened. I am pleased to say that 'Dr Parnassus' is easier to follow. Terri Gilliam has not lost his touch with presenting us with a Dali'esque couture of moving imagery which will stun your senses. However, he has showed better restraint in not letting these images overwhelm the movie so that the viewer is lost in a pool of floating symbolism. This does not mean that it is an easy movie to follow, but it did leave me as the viewer with a better sense of completion - a conclusion to the story. Some of the most memorable and enjoyable moments of the movie is of course exploring the imagination of Terri Gilliam (Dr Parnassus). We are rewarded with images of enchanting meadows, floating nymphs, mysterious forests with ladders that reach the clouds. Faraway monasteries set on unreachable snow covered mountain cliffs are just a few images that come to mind. This is in stark contrast to the grim reality of present day London where the travelling stage troupe of Dr Parnassus, is still horse drawn around town. It sets up stage at small carnivals, back alleys and abandoned building sites wherever it can draw an audience. As for the plot, in a jist, Dr Parnassus made a pact with the Devil who granted him immortality. He found he was cheated when eternal life as an old man was not all it was made out to be. In exchange for a moment of true love and mortality, he promises the Devil that any living child born would belong to it when the child turned 16. Thus the dilemma of Parnassus, he has a beautiful daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) who is about to come of age. So what is 'The Imaginarium of Dr Paranssus', well, he is able to transport you into an alternate universe where your soul will either find salvation or damnation. As many of you may be aware this is Heath Ledgers final film, during which he passed way before its completion. The ending of this movie is particularly heartfelt when on the closing curtain (literally), it states 'performed by Heath Ledger and his friends'. Good friends in deed. Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrel step in as the alternate version of Heath when he is inside the Imaginarium/fantasy world. I hear that they gave of their time and their pay was used to set up a fund for Heath's daughter Matilda. From observation, it appeared that Heath completed most of the London scenes, but not the ones inside the Imaginarium. Director Terri Gilliam has seamlessly and believably made it plausible that these actors could in fact fill in where Heath could not. In fact, Johnny, Jude and Colin do to some degree look like different versions of Heath in the movie. Overall, I was quite pleased with Terri Gilliam's work. There are moments where 'Monty Python' rears its unmistakable head i.e. a sudden song and dance scene with London 'Coppers' dressed in skirts, screamed 'Life of Brian'. I just winched. I was particular delighted and surprised to see Christopher Plummer in the role of Dr Parnassus. This is by far one of his best acting roles to date. I think many people will watch this movie uncertain of what to expect and some may even leave bewildered. But this is 'The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus' a journey into the mind of uncertainty, where life and death, Heaven and Hell are the predominant themes. Be prepared to accept or reject the different possibilities of your existence, now and here after. Website - filmnet.com Email - winklebeck @hotmail.com From homeryen88 at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 11:14:49 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Sun Nov 29 11:14:53 2009 Subject: Review: Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000911262217i1734ed20k79b88fe19828eb33@mail.gmail.com> "Mr. Fox" Has Its Cunning Moments by Homer Yen (c) 2009 Based on the children's book by Roald Dahl (who also wrote other children's books that were turned into films, including: "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," "Matilda," and "James and the Giant Peach"), the tale of "Fantastic Mr. Fox" begins with: "Boggis and Bunce and Bean. One short, one fat, one lean. These horrible crooks, so different in looks, were nonetheless equally mean." Now, Mr. Fox (voiced by the ever-foxy George Clooney) isn't quite the law-abiding citizen either. And his sense of cunning trumps common sense most of the time. In an early scene, he and Mrs. Fox (voiced by Merryl Streep) get caught in a trap in their attempt to steal chickens. If they survive, Mrs. Fox makes Mr. Fox promise that he would give up that lifestyle forever. But just as it is impossible to stay ahead of inflation by putting your money in a savings account, it's impossible for Mr. Fox to stay domesticated forever. Boggis, Bunce, and Bean each have a farm full of poultry, meats, and cider. And when Mr. Fox has his sights set on their goodies, his thefts are clever and fun to watch. Drama begins to kick in as he has trouble maintaining loyalty to his wife and as he has trouble being a good dad to his son. Meanwhile, his exploits have enraged Bogis, Bunce and Bean. They band together to destroy Mr. Fox. Their efforts to bulldoze, to dig up, and to detonate have dire consequences for the Fox family and plenty of other woodland animals. But Mr. Fox puts together an Ocean 11's type of plan to outwit and outlast them. While "Fantastic Mr. Fox" can't be compared to the stellar output from the Pixar and Dreamworks studios, you can't deny its lovability and its nostalgic feel. I'm pleased that it was able to give me a fresh perspective on film-watching in general. For one, this is a film that provides the main character with lots to be thankful for. And thus, this is a nice film to see during Thanksgiving. Meanwhile, the film is also visually refreshing. The art design is certainly part of the film's appeal. It is like watching a book on-screen. Color palettes are consistently refreshing. And, the film also uses the hardly-ever-used process of stop-motion photography. So I appreciate the old-school look and the effort that went into this because the look of the film gives the feeling that a lot of effort went into this kind of project. I learned that the film was shot at a frame rate of 12 frames per second, rather than the more fluid 24, so that viewers would notice the medium of stop-motion itself. The final effect is that it provides a visual experience that's as quirky as the Wallace & Gromit videos but not as stingy as those Rankin-Bass holiday productions (you remember them don't you? They include Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, etc...). Not everything works in "Fantastic Mr. Fox". The film doesn't seem tame enough for the little ones. The pace seems a little too frenetic. And there's a kind of smarminess to it that didn't sit right with me. But most of it does. It's certainly engaging enough for the entire family. Grade: B S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 From winklebeck at hotmail.com Sun Nov 29 11:16:19 2009 From: winklebeck at hotmail.com (Tim Voon) Date: Sun Nov 29 11:16:22 2009 Subject: Review: Cheri (2009) Message-ID: Film Review - Cheri 2009 By Tim Voon 3 out of 5 stars I always feel that Michelle Pfeiffer is at her best when seen in a period piece. Her delicate, porcelain features just seems to compliment the silk and satin cushions, antique china and silver ware. Two films which show her at her best are period dramas - DANGEROUS LIASONS and the beautiful Scorsese classic, THE AGE OF INNOCENCE. I have to say she looks amazing for her age and it is with great grace and beauty she returns to a period drama. CHERI is set in 19th Century France in the world of high class courtesans and upper class excess. During this period of time, the world was filled with wealthy and powerful men made rich by the industrial revolution. In this world of excess, there is a class of professional courtesans who seek out the wealthy, marry them if possible and if not obtain as much riches before the relationship ends. Lea de Lonval (Michelle Pfeiffer) is one of these courtesans. She is the most beautiful of them all, but not necessary the most successful. This prize belongs to her rival Madam Peloux (Kathy Bates). How this is possible, Kathy is no Michelle in the looks or figure department? It is explained that the now retired, older Madam Peloux was a great beauty in her heyday. It is her son Cheri (Rupert Friend) that this movie is named after. The movie starts slowly, but it is when the characters of Michelle Pfeiffer and Rupert Friend start up a relationship that things get interesting. Yes, this is a movie about romance and love making between a younger man and an older woman. For some of you this may be considered erotically arousing, but I was more fascinated by the complexities of the relationship. What starts of us an explosion of sensual desires, settles into a kind of friendship seen in couples after years of marriage - best friends as one would say. These are after all the relationships that last. However, because of the constrictions of society and expectations of others, Cheri succumbs to pressure and marries a younger woman. Michelle Pfeiffer is wonderful as the ageing courtesan, who begins to realise that her beauty is fading and that she cannot compete with a younger, more beautiful woman. Her performance has a tone of sadness about it, maybe a reflection also of her position in the industry as an ageing actress. Rupert Friend looks very much like another Orlando Bloom, puts in a petulant, feisty performance as the spoilt Cheri, who realises that his greatest mistake in life was not marrying the woman he loved. Kathy Bates is always a delight on screen, she bounces about like an over opinionated courtesan who has nothing better to do in her retirement than nose into everybody else's business. CHERI is a beautiful period study about the key choices we make in life. What would our lives be like if we found that one special person who most suited us, but because of the differences of age and circumstance, remain forever apart? Website - www.filmnet.com Email - winklebeck @hotmail.com From mleeper at optonline.net Sun Nov 29 11:17:17 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Sun Nov 29 11:17:20 2009 Subject: Review: Outrage (2009) Message-ID: OUTRAGE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Kirby Dick who wrote and directed THIS FILM IS NOT RATED, an angry examination of the American film ratings board, brings us an expos of Congressmen who repeatedly vote against gay rights but who are secretly gay themselves. Dick looks at the damage they have done to the lesbian and gay community and gives the evidence that they themselves are gay. While the film is full of some very cogent arguments, there are major flaws in his case. Dick is missing a vital link: the fact that someone who is privately gay should necessarily determine how that person votes on legislation. And by not making that case the film frequently comes off as a piece of malicious vengeance against politicians who do not vote the way he would like. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) or 5/10 Kirby Dick makes angry documentaries. He made TWIST OF FAITH about the hypocrisy in the Roman Catholic Church over the sexual abuse scandal. He made THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED about the American MPAA system for rating films and the inaccuracy of their ratings. The current film OUTRAGE is about Congressmen who, under a "family values" stance, vote repeatedly against gay civil rights, yet who are purportedly gay themselves. This documentary gives the names of right-wing lawmakers who are gay yet repeatedly oppose pro-gay legislation. Dick methodically presents police recordings, interviews, and shows documentary data that his targets really are gay. I will not repeat names of people he is "outing" here, and that limits what I can say about this film. But it is not my place to "out" them in my writing. People who do speak cogently that I will list include James McGreevy and Barney Frank, both publicly gay. The problem with this film is that there is a gap in its logic. And that gap is very hard to fill, but is central. Kirby Dick had not really made a case that closeted gay politicians who vote against pro-gay (or anti-anti-gay) legislation are guilty of wrongdoing. He has shown they are not voting their sexual preference, but not that they are not voting their conscience. The gap is that Dick does not show that anti-gay legislation is materially wrong. I may feel that it is wrong--and I generally do--but if he overtly says that it is wrong it very much changes the focus of the film. The burden of proof is on Dick, and OUTRAGE becomes a film taking a side on legislation. That may seem like a small gap, but it is central. The film makes the assumption that gay politicians have a responsibility to be in favor of pro-gay legislation, regardless of their opinion of it. Saying that gay legislators have a responsibility to vote some particular way just because they happen to be gay is really an unintentional attack on gays. It is saying they should be voting their sexual preference rather than voting on the merits of the issue. And it is telling the American people that they feel that gay politicians, openly or not, have a responsibility to be biased. It is looking at gay politicians who keep their sexual preference private and criticizing them for not being biased in the way that the way the filmmakers say they should be. And at the same time it is spitefully "outing" gay politicians who are not joining the cause of gay civil rights. Perhaps not surprisingly this work has the same weaknesses of Kirby Dick's THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED. Both films are giant ad hominem arguments. His assumption is that people who vote in ways he does not like, in congress or in the MPAA, have unproven ulterior motives. He does make a case for why he believes that, but he does not show that these people are voting in bad faith. OUTRAGE documents Kirby Dick's own rage at the men he outs. There is no attempt to make it balanced. And his film, while engaging is the weaker for that fault. I rate OUTRAGE a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From winklebeck at hotmail.com Sun Nov 29 11:18:54 2009 From: winklebeck at hotmail.com (Tim Voon) Date: Sun Nov 29 11:18:56 2009 Subject: Review: Observe and Report (2009) Message-ID: <5007812c-5657-406c-9c34-eaacb5abae32@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com> Film Review - Observe and Report 2009 By Tim Voon 2 out of 5 stars If I had to pick a movie about shopping mall security to watch it would not be OBSERVE AND REPORT 2009. Starring two likeable comic actors Seth Rogen and Anna Faris who I thought was hilarious in THE HOUSE BUNNY, I was particularly disappointed with the final outcome. Like PAUL BLART: MALL COP 2009, the other popular mall security movie of 2009 - the main plot lines are almost identical to each other. Both are about disillusioned security officers, who live at home with their mother, are in love with wrong girl whilst the right one floats under their noses and are vindicated by the end of the movie because of their personal convictions. Yawn. Seth Rogen is mall cop, Ronnie Barnhardt in this movie. His character would best be described as a delusional, bordering on psychotic with a streak of borderline personality disorder. He has an obsession to join the real police force and to find the streaker that is terrorising the patrons of the local shopping mall. Do I like Seth Rogen as a comic actor YES, do I like his character in this movie - NO! My final thoughts at the end of the movie was - "God I hope he doesn't come work at my local mall." On the other hand, I took more kindly to Kevin James portrayal of PAUL BLART. Although Paul was deluded, he at least had a heart and overcame his mistakes to become a better person at the end of the movie. Whilst Ronnie Bernhardt just ended up beating up police officers and streakers alike to prove he was right and everybody else was wrong. So was this movie funny? It had me smiling on a few occasions i.e. crazy streaker running through mall. But did I truly laugh out loud with pure enjoyment, I would have to say, no I didn't. Maybe it was because I found the characters very annoying and too angry for my liking. Seth's character Ronnie Bernhardt just bitches about life in this movie and Anna's character Brandi is just bitchy. If I had to absolutely choose between PAUL BLART or OBSERVE AND REPORT to watch, I would probably go with Paul. The cute, cuddly cop, with the softy heart on top of his scooter mobile is far nicer and funnier to watch than the nasty Ronnier Bernhardt. Sorry Seth, I just didn't like your character in this movie. winklebeck@hotmail.com www.filmnet.com