From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Wed Sep 9 02:39:27 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:39:31 2009 Subject: Review: Julie & Julia (2009) Message-ID: JULIE & JULIA A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** JULIE & JULIA is a delicious concoction of two delectable stories, but the surprise is that Amy Adams sweetly understated performance goes down much easier than Meryl Streep's showy shtick, which too often becomes almost indigestibly larger than life. Set in both early 1950s France and in 2002 Queens, the movie cuts between the two environments, one of large, beautiful buildings and one of a cramped, noisy apartment. Based on two true stories and adapted from two different books, the innovative script and the careful editing strikes just the right balance as it slowly shifts between time periods and locales. When we meet the gregarious Julia Child (Streep), she is married to Paul Child, a diplomat played by Stanley Tucci. Described as a woman who was a 40-year-old virgin who couldn't boil an egg, Julia is searching for something to apply her boundless energy to. Since she has only one real passion, "eating," she eventually decides that a career as a chef or a cooking teacher might be something she would enjoy. In no time, she rises from the nearly ignored only woman in her cooking class to a woman who is a speed demon at everything she does. A typically funny sequence has her producing a mountain of chopped onions large enough to bury a couple of basketballs. Meanwhile in the parallel story set in 2002, Julie Powell (Adams) has a thankless job as a much abused telephone counselor to the families of 9/11 victims who want to know what the holdup is on their restitution. Seeking an outlet for her energies, she tells her husband Eric (Chris Messina), who works for a magazine, that she plans on working her way through Julia Child's famous tome, "The Art of French Cooking." More specifically, Julie plans on spending the next 365 nights cooking, in order, every one of the 541 recipes in Julia's cookbook. Julie, who worships Julia as something of a god, plans on blogging to the world about her experiences, making her endeavor something like a reality television series, sans television. Director Nora Ephron manages to make Julie's writing to her blog interesting, which is tricky in a visual medium like the movies. Too often lots of typing become tedious to watch, but not in JULIE & JULIA. I think the secret is Amy Adams's compelling voice-over, which goes down as smooth as honey. Although it's extremely funny in sections, what won me over in JULIE & JULIA was Adams's endlessly charming performance. JULIE & JULIA runs 2:03. It is rated PG-13 for "brief strong language and some sensuality" and would be acceptable for kids around 9 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, August 7, 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 Wed Sep 9 02:40:08 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:40:11 2009 Subject: Review: Le silence de Lorna (2008) Message-ID: <5I2dnf7e2sfXUj_XnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@earthlink.com> LORNA'S SILENCE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 Lorna (Arta Dobroshi) faces a problem that few wives complain about. Her husband Claudy (Jeremie Renier) refuses to beat her, even when she begs him to do it. Lorna's pleading to her husband for violent action turns out to be an act of kindness to him. In LORNA'S SILENCE (LE SILENCE DE LORNA), by brothers Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne (THE CHILD), this request for spousal abuse makes sense, since the story is about a marriage scam. A criminal named Fabio (Fabrizio Rongione) hired Lorna, an Albanian, to marry Claudy, a Belgian, so that she could become a legal citizen of Belgium. This was done so that Fabio could obtain a bride for a wealthy Russian who wants to become Belgian. Of course, before Lorna can marry the Russian, she must first get out of her marriage to Claudy. A heroin junkie who keeps trying to kick his habit, Claudy married Lorna in the first place as a way to make money since Fabio paid him. Out of compassion, Lorna would like a quick divorce, hence the fake spousal abuse claim, rather than Fabio's preferred way for her marriage to end. He had chosen Claudy because he was a junkie and therefore likely to O.D. soon. Once you understand the outline of the story, there is remarkably little to keep your attention, except for the outstanding acting by Dobroshi in the lead role. She is completely believable. A subplot concerns a snack shop that Lorna and her boyfriend Sokol (Alban Ukaj) want to purchase with the money she plans on making from the marriage scam. But it, like the rest of the narrative, is padded with way too many scenes of little consequence. Slow and plodding, the movie still manages to keep you interested in where it is headed. The ending, however, is completely unresolved and borderline bizarre. LORNA'S SILENCE runs 1:45. The film is in French and Albanian with English subtitles. It is rated R for "brief sexuality/nudity, and language" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, August 7, 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 Wed Sep 9 02:41:17 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:41:19 2009 Subject: Review: Adam (2009) Message-ID: ADAM A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): **** Easily one of the best pictures of the year, ADAM works on many levels. It's quite funny. It's a sweet romance. But, most of all, it is a mesmerizing and bittersweet story about an unusual relationship. Full of naturally poignant moments, the film, while it is never manipulative, will frequently have you close to tears, sometimes even tears of joy. The production works marvelously well for many reasons, so it's almost unfair to single out just a few, but I will anyway. Hugh Dancy (ELLA ENCHANTED), in a brilliant and gripping performance as Adam Raki, a man with Asperger's Syndrome, is the central reason the film is so special. But, without co-star Rose Byrne ("Damages"), as Hugh's upstairs neighbor Beth Buchwald, Dancy's work might dissolve into little more than a curiosity piece. It is the unusual relationship of a guy who's different -- very different -- with a woman who isn't that makes the story so special. Although Asperger's Syndrome is a complicated condition, you can think of it as a form of autism mixed with social anxiety and the inability to carry on normal conversations. Adam, who works as an electronics engineer at a toy company, is brilliant and possesses a photographic memory. In a social setting, he tends to blabber on non-stop with a plethora of obscure facts about a subject. He has no sense of when to stop or what the other person might be thinking. Although he understands concepts such as jokes, he is almost completely incapable of attempting them or recognizing jokes that others make. In short, Adam is far from anyone's definition of a likely boyfriend. Still, somehow his neighbor Beth sees a diamond in the rough in him. An only child from a family with money, Beth works as a kindergarten teacher during the day, while she works as a would-be children's book author by night. A typical moving moment in the film occurs the first time the two of them plan on going out together. When Beth arrives at Adam's apartment at about the time planned, we watch him suffering. As Beth rings the bell on one side of his door, Adam, dressed up and apparently ready to go, stands in frozen agony on the other side. In perhaps his first date ever, he cannot get up the courage to open the door, even though he really wants to go out with her. An excellent subplot, which never feels tacked on, concerns Beth's parents, played excellently in small parts by Peter Gallagher ("The O.C.") and Amy Irving. Her father demonstrates the drawbacks of a man viewed as a "catch," and her mother comes up with some surprising wisdom. The best bit comes when Beth's mother muses that being loved is important, but loving is what is really crucial. Adam, as it turns out, is almost constitutionally incapable of love in the traditional sense. The trials and tribulations of the relationship that Adam and Beth form provide nearly infinite possibilities, especially ways for events to go tragically wrong. The beauty of what these two lovebirds accomplish is that they manage mainly to make their seemingly impossible love affair work, at least most of the time. The script is firmly grounded in reality. At several key points in the story, the twists take on sad but completely believable turns. Ultimately, ADAM works as a great love story. I especially liked its ending, but, if you can't take any ambiguity, this part of the story could leave you a bit frustrated. As I left the theater, the world seemed like it had somehow become a better place. What is certain is that I adored the two leads and did not want to let them go. ADAM runs just 1:39, but I wish it had been longer. It is rated PG-13 for "thematic material, sexual content and language" and would be acceptable for kids around 10 and up. The film opens in limited release in the United States on Friday, August 7, 2009. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Cinemark theaters and the Camera Cinemas starting on Friday, August 21, 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 mleeper at optonline.net Wed Sep 9 02:41:59 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:42:01 2009 Subject: Review: Ponyo (2009) Message-ID: PONYO (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: A magical "goldfish" turns herself human to learn about the real humans. A five-year-old adopts her, and the two find they love each other. But dark forces from the sea bring a natural disaster in vengeance for her misbehavior and the boy and the girl-fish have to go find the boy's mother. This film is really aimed at young children. Hayao Miyazaki is off his game with this film that has weaker art and animation than his usual films and a script that needed another draft or two. Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10 Hayao Miyazaki is one of the most respected makers of animated films in the world. His Studio Ghibli has given us classic films like MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO, PRINCESS MONONOKE, and SPIRITED AWAY. (A treasured memory was sitting across the aisle from him at the North American premiere of SPIRITED AWAY.) Sadly, I think his PONYO is several steps backward for him. That is not entirely his fault. The animation of PONYO is flat and dull, but part of that is that he does not obviously use computer animation and he is competing with animators like Pixar. I can accept that he does not have the detail that Pixar has in their images, but PONYO animation looks primitive compared to previous Miyazaki films such as SPIRITED AWAY. Near the opening of the film is a flood of jellyfish filling the screen. It seems intended to convey an awe of the wonder and beauty of sea life. But as a hand drawing it loses the edge of realism that would have made it look believable. It ends up falling short of the desired effect. MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO also had simple animation, but that film is now sixteen years old and standards have changed. Ponyo (voiced by Noah Cyrus) is a goldfish living in the ocean. But she has a driving curiosity about the humans who rule the land. To see land people, and without the permission of her human-shaped sea-magician father (Liam Neeson), she goes to take a look at what life is like on land. This gets her trapped in a small jar and a human has to smash the jar to get her out, luckily unharmed. The human is the five-year-old Sosuke (Frankie Jonas). It is love at first sight between her and the boy. Later the magical Ponyo takes a form of a human. The love of a boy for his fish/girl becomes like the love he would have for another person. The two have different backgrounds but build a firm relationship on both liking ham. Trouble comes when Sosuke's mother Lisa is angry that Sosuke's father is taking too many overtime shifts fishing for the company he works for. And she has good reason to worry. Ponyo's father is arranging a tsunami in punishment for this daughter's disobedience. I doubt that anybody at Disney, the company that released PONYO in the United States, would tell someone of Miyazaki's stature that he should have changed his storyline, but there is much in PONYO that probably would have been unacceptable in an American-written script. Some touches just seem strange. This is in large part a romance between two five-year-olds, though they act a good deal more mature. At one point Sosuke just wanders away from his school, which is probably against the rules and quite dangerous, but either nobody notices or the results seem to be left as a loose end. Later Lisa is driving up a wet, twisty, and dangerous road and takes her attention off the road to lick an ice cream cone. Eventually she goes off in a disaster and leaves the two children untended. She seems like a terrible mother. There are portions of this film that make no sense. Non-magical people under water seem to have the power to breathe, talk, and walk. (This may have been intended to be inside a bubble, but that is never made clear. There is a lot of unexplained magic going on. Even if they were in a bubble they do not seem to be very ruffled by their situation.) Way too much of PONYO seems ill-considered and rushed. I know this film is getting really good critical response, but it really is a pale shadow of the best films Miyazaki has made. I rate PONYO a disappointing low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. Note: In a time-honored tradition of Disney films the assumption is made that squid swim with their tentacles ahead of them. It is thought real squid are capable of some movement like that, but they swim almost exclusively in the other direction with the tentacles trailing. Also goldfish do not spit and they live only in fresh water. Ponyo's magical origins might explain the inaccuracies, but somebody should have noticed that Ponyo was like no other goldfish. The Japanese version may have made Ponyo another kind of fish. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Wed Sep 9 02:42:27 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:42:29 2009 Subject: Review: The Way We Get By (2009) Message-ID: THE WAY WE GET BY A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** "Our boys got a raw deal when they came back from Vietnam," an aging World War II veteran says in THE WAY WE GET BY, a poignant and lovingly constructed documentary by Aron Gaudet. The documentary, which works successfully on several levels, follows a group of "troop greeters" who do their volunteer work at the Bangor, Maine airport. This airport, being the eastern most one in the country, has the largest number of arrivals and departures of troops fighting the Iraq War. The film can be appreciated on at least three levels. First, and most obvious, it follows troop greeters and shows the dedication of these octogenarians and nonagenarians who go out in the middle of freezing cold Maine nights to say hello or goodbye to the American troops who bravely fight for us. Eschewing politics, the film rarely touches on whether the Iraq War was a good idea or not. Instead, it takes it as a given that our soldiers are there, so the question is how best should we honor them. And, even though it doesn't wear its politics on its sleeve, it is quite a patriotic picture. The film works on a second level, of course, in showing how much the soldiers appreciate the dedication and sincerity of the troop greeters and how they feel about their mission in the Armed Services of our country. The greeters are there to do more that shake hands and express their appreciation. They are also there to offer support, however they can, from free cell phone usage to being someone the soldiers can talk to. The boundless goodwill and honest generosity of the greeters is palpable. The final and ultimately the deepest level of the movie is its examination of the lives of the aging veterans of World War II and of the almost forgotten Korean War. Some of them are coping okay logistically and emotionally. But the one who provokes the strongest outpouring of sympathy from the audience is a guy who lives in squalor. Literally bankrupting himself feeding his very large brood of cats, his lack of financial sense is matched by his inability to cope with the upkeep of his house. Easily the saddest scene in the documentary for me was watching him walk on the floor of his house which was covered in hundreds of empty cat food cans. But mainly the movie is an upbeat one with stirring and frankly quite patriotic images of old soldiers holding up signs such as "Welcome Home Heroes!" to greet the young warriors returning home from the battlefield. Although the greeters realize that their time on this earth is coming to a close, they approach their mortality with a positive attitude and a good dose of humor. "Everybody's got to die sometime," one vet says with an infectiously happy grin. "Nobody got out of this world alive yet." THE WAY WE GET BY runs 1:24. The film is not yet rated but would probably be rated G and would be acceptable for all ages. The film has played at several film festivals, winning many awards. The release date for the movie has not yet been determined. It was shown recently at the Camera Cinema Club (http://www.cameracinemas.com) of Campbell and San Jose. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Sep 9 02:45:37 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:45:40 2009 Subject: Review: Inglourious Basterds (2009) Message-ID: INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Christoph Waltz shines and the patented Tarantino dialog does not in Quentin Tarantino's WWII action war fantasy/comedy/drama INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. Brad Pitt's character organizes a team of nasty, homicidal Jews to strike terror in the Nazis occupying France. The story is very original, if nearly totally impossible, but it is like nothing you have seen before. Sadly, the film starts to drag with excess dialog, too often gratuitous and annoying, and it goes on for 153 minutes. Rating: high +0 (-4 to +4) or 5/10 Quentin Tarantino is like the Andy Warhol of film (even more than Andy Warhol was when he was involved in film). Warhol would borrow the label from Campbell's Soup and turn it into Pop Art. Tarantino's style is to find the gaps in his own film and borrow from other films--maybe pieces of many different styles of film-- and to piece them together to make his film. He slams this bunch of ill-fitting elements together into a revenge fantasy about the war with little respect for the events or the hair fashions of the time. He works hard to create the proper look in the background, but the people look wrong in the foreground. The primary story features Lt. Aldo Raine (the name sounds like an allusion to the actor Aldo Ray; Raine is played by Brad Pitt struggling hard to look tough by jutting out his lower jaw). Lt. Raine has put together a team of the toughest, dirtiest, meanest, ugliest Jews he can find in the Army to go into occupied France and beat the hell out of the Nazis, spreading terror by scalping their prisoners. If we can have blaxploitation films, Tarantino is trying to make, at least in part, a jewploitation film. Tarantino pits his nasty Jews against the upper echelons of the Third Reich in general, but specifically against S.S. Col. Hans Landa (played by Christoph Waltz). If nothing else works in the film, and there certainly is plenty that does not work, Waltz makes up for a lot. Waltz is a tremendously hypnotic and evil Nazi. He plays wonderful extended cat-and-mouse games with the people who fall into his clutches. His manner is almost winning up until the moment he goes in for the kill. Raine and Landa each spread terror in occupied Paris during the war, each against very different sorts of people. Caught in the middle is Shosanna (Melanie Laurent), who is secretly a Jew whose family was murdered by Landa. Eventually all the threads will knit together into the story of one night with the world premiere of a German propaganda film being shown in the Paris movie theater owned by Shosanna. There is much that Tarantino gets right, but he is also going wrong by abusing his own trademark. Tarantino's films have always sported off-the-wall dialog that usually is almost as captivating as the action of the film. This has worked well for him up until his last film, DEATH PROOF. In that film, dialog had lost its charming spark and instead just felt like irrelevant padding. In INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS the plot seems to just slow to a stop when the characters go off into long tracts of dialog, usually subtitled from German or French into English. It stretches the film to a tiresome 153 minutes in a film with not enough plot to fill a 90-minute film. At one point the whole film grinds to a halt as characters play a silly children's guessing game--in subtitled French yet. One would think that a film like this would be aimed at an older audience who see films about World War II and about the Holocaust, but Tarantino is really writing for a younger generation who have fewer expectations about what a film on those subjects would be like. The score is a patchwork of music from other films that may carry very wrong connotations for those who have seen more film. He opens the film playing "The Green Leaves of Summer", which is a likable piece of music. I am not sure it fits even this film. But for audience members old enough it conjures up images of John Wayne's story of THE ALAMO. It feels all wrong here. Tarantino's World War II film has borrowings from 1970s blaxploitation films, style from Spaghetti Westerns, music from Ennio Morricone scores and films like CAT PEOPLE (1982), plots of other WWII thrillers ... and the list goes on. Perhaps part of the point is that the film intentionally forces in its strange style choices, or perhaps Tarantino is saying he does not care. The publicity for this film makes it look like it is mostly a film like THE DIRTY DOZEN. Brad Pitt and his team of killer-soldiers is ne thread of the film, but by no means most of the film. It is a piece of the film, but there is just as much about Shosanna working against the Germans in Paris. The Brad Pitt segments are a major thread, but no more than that. Comedies about the Holocaust usually feel out of kilter and INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is no exception. But then this is not entirely a comedy. It is more a concoction of mismatched film styles. Some of it is good; much of it is preposterous. In trying to meld comedy and tragedy it entertains fitfully and requires more patience than most Tarantino films do. I rate it a high 0 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. I did like the reference to Italian horror director Antonio Margheriti. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Wed Sep 9 02:47:08 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:47:10 2009 Subject: Review: District 9 (2009) Message-ID: DISTRICT 9 A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** DISTRICT 9 is one of the most unusual sci-fi films in some time. It's a B-movie that, except for its extensive special effects, looks like a very low budget production. With hideous, gross monsters (the aliens) that are about as realistic as the campy ones in EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS, DISTRICT 9 is no spoof and, based on our packed audience, produces little laughter -- intentional or otherwise. Set in the unlikely location of Johannesburg, South Africa, DISTRICT 9 eschews the most popular location for alien landings. As we know, having seen many such movies, aliens almost always point their spaceships toward large U.S. cities. Sometimes, of course, they have landed in Europe or Japan, but rarely have they ventured to Africa. Even more unusual and intriguing is the alien "invasion," which starts off as something of a huge dud. After a massive mother ship parks in a stationary position above Johannesburg, earthlings board it only to find a bunch of malnourished and frightened aliens who cower when being greeted. The script by Terri Tatchell and the film's director Neill Blomkamp sets most of the movie twenty years later, when the aliens, who turn out to breed like the proverbial rabbits, are now almost two million strong and living in a large concentration camp called District 9 near Johannesburg. Using the pejorative of "prawns," humans treat the large creatures, which do indeed look like seven-foot high prawns, like second class citizens. As human rights advocates demonstrate outside, the "MNU Alien Affairs Office" starts rounding up the aliens with plans to move them to another (and less hospitable) camp a couple of hundred kilometers away. The movie is filled with never subtle messages about tolerance, so it is easy to see parallels between it and apartheid, as well as forced Native American resettlements. But these aliens are not very lovable, so it's easy to think poorly about them. Their favorite delicacy is cat food, which they get from Nigerian gangsters who hang around District 9, trading cat food for alien weapons. The prawns are scavengers who roam the garbage heaps, eating whatever food they can find. The movie can be quite repulsive, so I was not surprised when my wife walked out in disgust, saying she couldn't take any more of it. Sharlto Copley, one of the film's cast of unknowns, plays Wikus Van De Merwe, the story's central character. A silly and gregarious wimp, he gets the assignment to lead the resettlement efforts, as the prawns are moved with being many slaughtered in the process. Told frequently in mockumentary style, the movie held my attention from start to finish, even though the first half was way too slow. The story picked up in the second half, as did the action. Director Blomkamp proved to be especially gifted at staging fast-action gunfights. Although DISTRICT 9's story is quite unique, its look is lifted straight from 28 DAYS LATER. I was fascinated by it throughout, and I am looking forward to its sequel which, based on the ending, will undoubtedly be called DISTRICT 10. DISTRICT 9 runs 1:42. It is rated R for "bloody violence and pervasive language" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, August 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 homeryen88 at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 02:47:45 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:47:48 2009 Subject: Review: District 9 (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000908141924hc2a8ab5n1bfb594a0b14f3bd@mail.gmail.com> "District 9" -- The Outer Limits of a Buddy-Buddy Movie by Homer Yen (c) 2009 Summer's best surprise may have just come out this weekend at the theatres. It's the under-marketed, little-hyped film called "District 9". It has a no-name cast, a gritty parable of Apartheid, and is unexpectedly transfixing. The film is depicted as a kind of documentary - something you might see on the History Channel. As the film opens, dozens of people are recounting the District 9 campaign and pondering over the mystery surrounding the fate of that campaign's leader, Wikus van der Merwe. The backstory tells of an alien ship that, 20 years ago, somehow winds up a few miles above Johannesburg, South Africa. On it are over a million alien beings that resemble "prawns". Marooned on our planet and in need of assistance, a humanitarian initiative created District 9, where the aliens could live. Consider this place something of a slum-meets-refugee-camp. In those two decades, tensions between the alien race and the humans have risen. Living conditions at District 9 are squalid at best. These unwanted immigrants are ugly. I wouldn't have been surprised if the prawns somehow developed a taste for human flesh. With fear in the human population rising, a risky campaign has been initiated to move all 1 million-plus aliens to a new settlement farther away from civilization. This monumental administrative task falls on the shoulders of a meek and clueless bureaucrat Wikus van der Merwe. Not understanding at all the dangers that he faces, he takes a platoon of security personnel into District 9 and begins going door-to-door to get the aliens to sign consent forms regarding their eventual move. Only one alien seems to have an IQ that's actually higher than a prawn, and his name is Christopher Johnson (really, it is!). It may sound goofy. But the story plays out as any good space opera summer film does, yet it doesn't obliterate itself with too much special effects. Yes, all of the "prawns" are convincingly rendered CGI effects, but there is a sense of humanity that begins to grip you once the film reveals a cruel twist of fate and an unlikely alliance that's needed to complete an against-all-odds mission. Meanwhile, the underlying gravitas of the story, which speaks about tyranny and persecution, keeps the film feeling fresh. I'm not sure how the film manages to hold it together. In this District, we have Nigerian gangsters, short-sighted bureaucrats, weapons of semi-mass destruction, a bent-for-revenge soldier, a mutant, and cat food that all play important parts. These all share the same space and, amazingly, at no point do you even question the disconnectedness of these elements. I think that this would really be an excellent video game for the Xbox 360. The film becomes more intriguing and more thrilling as the story moves along. While the political questions are never answered, it's a good film with a strong message. And, I'm hoping that there will be a "District 10". Grade: B+ S: 1 out of 3 L: 3 out of 3 V: 3 out of 3 From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Sep 9 02:48:11 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:48:13 2009 Subject: Review: District 9 (2009) Message-ID: DISTRICT 9 (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Peter Jackson produced this film directed by Neill Blomkamp. When a spaceship brings a large load of alien refugees to South Africa, racism becomes three-sided. A government functionary charged with relocating the refugee camp finds himself more personally involved in the conflict than he expected. Blomkamp's and Terri Tatchell's script asks us to dissect racism and understand what exactly the rules are. While the film is asking difficult questions, it is a first rank piece of science fiction. When it starts to answer those questions in the easiest and most predictable ways the film becomes just another loud summer action film. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 Query: Some large number of alien refugees shows up on Earth emaciated and needy. Does society have an obligation to care for the aliens? Does society have an obligation to release them freely into the world? Is there still an obligation if they have customs that we consider anti-social? Is it worse to kill and eat aliens than to kill and eat earth animals? Is our first responsibility to creatures from Earth or to creatures with intelligence? DISTRICT 9 is an ugly, violent, painful, and intelligent film. It delves into racism (or is it species-ism?) in ways that could never be examined without science fiction. For as long as the film is asking questions the film is intelligent. Sadly, the film runs out of intelligent questions about at the halfway point and reverts to being ugly, violent, painful, and sentimental. That makes for a long second half. A large alien mother-ship arrives on Earth and parks itself in the sky over Johannesburg, South Africa. Eventually humans come knocking and discover that Earth's first contact with aliens is with a ship full of immigrants who need help. The good-hearted human race is happy to rescue them and put them into a dirty and brutal detention camp outside Johannesburg. There the visitors get into the predictable sorts of poverty and crime. The story really starts as a documentary of the aliens' resettlement to a new camp further isolated from Earth people. Wikus Van Der Merwe (played by Sharlto Copley) is in charge of moving the now nearly two million aliens (given the insulting name "prawns") to a more remote camp. At the same time he is rationalizing the action of Multi-National United for the cameras of a documentary crew. Not surprisingly things start to go wrong. With whites, blacks, and prawns there is a triangle of racism underlying the film. In addition there is a dehumanized government pulling the strings and conflicting with more humane players. Wikus has to decide which side has his loyalty. Sadly, by this point in the film his decision is predictable. Blomkamp does what he can to make the film seem stark and real. He subdues the color, which makes the film look a lot like CHILDREN OF MEN. He uses a shaky hand-held camera to follow the action. Often the action regresses into chaos that the camera with sharp, loud bangs. There is some of the feel of an unsubtle Peter Watkins pseudo-documentary. Even after the plot starts to twist, there is a semi-documentary style that follows the action with inserts of people commenting on the action as if it took place in the past. The story follows what is in retrospect a very familiar arc. Though DISTRICT 9 is bleak nearly all the way through, Blomkamp and Tatchell manage some touches of black humor. The favorite alien food is human cat food in a can labeled "Puddy." Well there is no accounting for alien taste. There are little allusions to other films like THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD and INDEPENDENCE DAY. The entire situation is reminiscent of ALIEN NATION or perhaps the "Outer Limits" episode "The Zanti Misfits". The first half of the film is first-rate intelligent science fiction. By the midpoint, however, the film goes to autopilot and delivers a rather standard action film that is kind-hearted but uninteresting. The combination of maudlin and violent is not a good one. My recommendation: skip the second half, but watch the first half twice. I rate DISTRICT 9 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 jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 9 02:48:42 2009 From: jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com (Jonathan Moya) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:48:45 2009 Subject: Review: District 9 (2009) Message-ID: <31ba946f-4f61-47fb-a670-45694ad68aed@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> District 9 (2009) A Movie Review By Jonathan Moya 4 Out of 5 Stars or A- The Plot: (from Allmovie.com) Director Neill Blomkamp teams with producer Peter Jackson for this tale of extraterrestrial refugees stuck in contemporary South Africa. It's been 28 years since the aliens made first contact, but there was never any attack from the skies, nor any profound technological revelation capable of advancing our society. Instead, the aliens were treated as refugees. They were the last of their kind, and in order to accommodate them, the government of South Africa set up a makeshift home in District 9 as politicians and world leaders debated how to handle the situation. As the humans begin to grow wary of the unwelcome intruders, a private company called Multi-National United (MNU) is assigned the task of controlling the aliens. But MNU is less interested in the aliens' welfare than attempting to understand how their weaponry works. Should they manage to make that breakthrough, they will receive tremendous profits to fund their research. Unfortunately, the highly advanced weaponry requires alien DNA in order to be activated. When MNU field operative Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is exposed to biotechnology that causes his DNA to mutate, the tensions between the aliens and the humans intensifies. Wikus is the key to unlocking the alien's technology, and he quickly becomes the most wanted man on the planet. Ostracized and isolated, Wikus retreats to District 9 in a desperate bid to shake his dogged pursuers. The Review: District 9 has cool aliens. They are a cross between a cockroach and a lobster, with whirling green gyros for lungs. They have a high "ick" factor, although the main alien Chris looks like a Transformer. His son is so ugly he is cute. Their spacecraft stalled out above the sky of Johannesburg South Africa twenty years ago and has remained very ufo-ed there to the annoyance of the human population. Out of fuel and literally starving, they were shuttled down to a makeshift refugee camp, then a shantytown, and for the vast peeved off humanity in what would be hopefully the final solution to the alien problem, now to a concentration camp 200 kilometers away from the nearest human population. The "Prawns" as they are derisively called live on the edge of violence since they lack the basic life necessities. Their only value to humans is their advanced weaponry coded to their DNA. Oh, did I mention that the Prawns are the good guys? Leading the Prawn relocation is Wikus Van der Merwe (Silto Copley giving the most out of nowhere acting debut in fifteen years), a mid level screw up at MNU (Multi National United), a weapons and security firm. Wikus has his cushy position because he married the boss's daughter. Accidentally sprayed with a black slime cum starship fuel developed by the alien Chris Johnson (body movement and voice of Jason Cope, CGI exoskeleton by Peter Jackson's Weta Digital), Wikus starts metamorphosing into a Prawn. Wikus never goes full Kafka, just his left hand, which can fire Prawn weaponry. He is now a multibillion- dollar asset to MNU- if he can be sliced, diced, synthesized and assembly lined. The technology to change him back exists solely on the Prawn mother ship and Chris is the only way to get to it. Peter Jackson originally hired Neil Bomkamp to direct the much- anticipated Halo movie. Blomkamp had directed three shorts for the popular video game. When that production went into turn around, Jackson suggested that Blomkamp make a different feature. Blomkamp expanded and fleshed out his earlier short "Alive in Joburg" to feature length while keeping the short's mock documentary style and upping the apartheid quotient. District 9 echoes District 6, the mixed race neighborhood of 60,000, forcibly relocated when adjudicated as whites only in 1966. In a further eerie echo, the Prawns speech (all of which is subtitled) has the clicks common to the Bantu language. The double flip-flops in District 9 give its satire a human edge. Both Blacks and Whites exploit and repress the Prawns. Lacking a consumerist mindset, the Prawns only exist to the White elite for their capitalist potential- the multi-billion dollar reward for those who can unlock, harness and replicate Prawn technology. Never mind that the breakdown of that technology is what stranded the Prawns in Johannesburg in the first place. Their relocation is the next logical step before genocide. The Blacks use the Prawns for their juju, believing that devouring a Prawn transfers their power and knowledge. They take advantage of the Prawn addiction to cat food to create a semi-slave underclass. Wickus' metamorphosis is the flip-flop that gives District 9 its kick and compassion. Wickus and Chris relationship evolves through needs, to self-preservation and mutual admiration. It is a buddy flick caught in action tropes and mated with the identity forged through combat of a war movie. The Defiant Ones meets Enemy Mine with a little E.T. thrown in for resonance. Chris and his son only want to go home. District 9 like any great science fiction feature creates its own screwy synthesis and worldview. The Star Trek reboot was fun, cuddly and familiar. District 9, however, takes us boldly to places a summer movie has never gone before. For that, it gets an A-. The Credits: (From AllMovie.com) Neill Blomkamp - Director / Screenwriter Carolynne Cunningham - Producer Peter Jackson - Producer Terri Tatchell - Screenwriter Trent Opaloch - Cinematographer Michelle Belcher - Musical Direction/ Supervision Clinton Shorter - Composer (Music Score) Julian Clarke - Editor Philip Ivey - Production Designer Mike Berg - Art Director Emelia Weavind - Art Director Philippa Boyens - Co-producer Bill Block - Executive Producer Elliot Ferwerda - Executive Producer Paul Hanson - Executive Producer Ken Kamins - Executive Producer Dianna Cilliers - Costume Designer Denton Douglas - Casting The Embassy Visual Effects - Visual Effects Grant Hulley - Stunts Coordinator Image Engine - Visual Effects Weta Digital - Visual Effects Weta Workshop Ltd. - Creature Effects Zoic Studios - Visual Effects With Sharlto Copley - Wikus Van de Merwe David James - Koobus Venter Vanessa Haywood - Tania Van de Merwe Mandla Gaduka - Fundiswa Mhlanga Kenneth Nkosi - Thomas Eugene Khumbanyiwa - Obesandjo Louis Minnaar - Piet Smit William Allen Young - Dirk Michaels Nathalie Boltt - Sarah Livingstone - Sociologist Sylvaine Strike - Dr. Katrina McKenzie Elizabeth Mkandawie - Interviewee John Sumner - Les Feldman - MIL Engineer Greg Melvill-Smith - Interviewer Nick Blake - Francois Moraneu - CIV Engineer Team Jed Brophy - James Hope - Police Officer Marian Hooman - Sandra Van de Merwe Vittorio Leonardi - Michael Blomstein - MNU Alien Civil Affairs Johan van Schoor - Nicolas Van de Merwe Stella Steenkamp - Phyllis Sinderson - MNU Alien Relations Mampho Brescia - Reporter Tim Gordon - Clive Henderson - Entomologist Morne Erasmus - MNU Medic Anthony Bishop - Paramedic David Clatworthy - Doctor Mike Huff - Doctor Anthony Fridjhon - MNU Executive Jason Cope - Grey Bradnam/UKNR Chief Correspondent / Christopher Johnson [Voice] Hlengiwe Madlala - Sangoma Siyabonga Radebe - Obesandjo's Lieutenant Melt Sieberhagen - Anton Grobler Andre Odendaal - Mike Van Kerland Jonathan Taylor - MNU Doctor John Ellis - MNU Medical Scientest Louise Saint Claire - MNU Medical Scientist Alan Glauber - MNU Operating Room Doctor Nicolas Herbstein - MNU Biolab Technician Norman Anstey - MNU Lead Medical Technician Nick Boraine - Craig Weldon Robert Hobbs - Ross Pienaar Sibulele Gcilitshana - U G?nters Woman Mahendra Raghunath - SABC Anchor Person Phillip Mathebula - Meat Stall Seller Copyright 2009 by Jonathan Moya Home Archives From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Sep 9 02:49:18 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:49:20 2009 Subject: Review: Broke: the New American Dream (2009) Message-ID: BROKE: THE NEW AMERICAN DREAM (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Though Michael Covel's documentary starts out looking like a study of the current financial meltdown, it is about much less and about much more. It is really a sort of scrapbook of opinions about how people make investments and how they end up making bad decisions. The film covers lotteries, poker betting, Jim Cramer, the housing collapse, baseball, Japanese fish markets, and especially herd instinct in investing. It frequently is just not clear what it is all about. In the final analysis BROKE: THE NEW AMERICAN DREAM just suggests that when people invest they should not follow the crowd but study and think what they are doing. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 Who is Michael Covel? He is a writer of books about the stock market. And he is one of the founders of TurtleTrader.com, a site that follows stock market trends, reporting how stocks are changing and what people are saying about them. I went into this film assuming that it would be a whimsical history of the financial collapse of 2008. That is part of it, but it becomes clear that director and co-writer Covel is going to stray from that topic and will be looking at financial decisions of all kinds. He strays to Tokyo's Tsukiji, the largest fish market in the world and uses it to help define just what trading is. Then he will jump to Jim Cramer, the screaming prophet of stock trading on CNBC. Then he will talk about how lotteries hurt the poorest segments of society, many of whom see lotteries as their version of financial investing. US states and other countries know that lotteries are really virtually just a repressive tax on the poor, but they have grown addicted to getting income from this sort of voluntary tax. There is little in life as ephemeral as financial information and scenes in this film could have done well to have a date on them to tell as of when the film is taking this point of view. Some of the information already seems a little dated and I am sure that more of it will be dated a year from now. Some of the information is intentionally outdated. One moment Covel is telling us why mutual funds are a bad idea and the next he will be showing us a 1950s high school educational film with the likes of Regis Toomey or Lyle Talbot giving pre-digested, over-simplified explanations of how to manage money. Covel flashes from the 1950s to the present and back. Not all of his older footage is about finances; he even throws in an old piece telling school children that the a-bomb blast can come at any time and to be ready for it. (Side note: I think that 1950s nuclear preparedness, duck-and-cover footage is seen more today than it was at the time it was made.) Frustratingly, Covel will show one person talking saying one thing and comments on it run in subtitles at the same time so that each distracts from the other. Sometimes he will run a message like "27% of recent mortgages put no money down." The precision of 27% is undercut by the fact we do not know when he is saying it, and we do not have any idea how recent is "recent." Would he consider 1995 recent? Is this practice still going on? We have no idea. Similarly we learn "29% of new U.S. homeowners owe more on mortgages than houses are worth." Is this people who newly own homes or people who own just-built homes? Much of Covel's point is that most investment advice should not be trusted, even his advice. If one comes away from BROKE: THE NEW AMERICAN DREAM confused and unenlightened about what it is all about, that probably is a step to enlightenment. In the end, this documentary is informative, but by its own definition is not very useful. There is too much financial advice out there to assimilate it all. Getting financial information from television and/or the Internet is like drinking from a fire hose. And advice is usually wrong. This documentary does not do a whole lot to give the viewer any more of an organized viewpoint. Covel, in a signature outfit of a t-shirt and shorts, is more pleasant to listen to than Jim Cramer, but is no more organized. Rather than giving an orderly point of view he gives flashes of other people talking about finances to give a sort of montage of what the current economic situation is. Covel's best advice is just not to trust advice. You have to sweat the details. In the end, Covel's message can be taken from Sergeant Esterhaus's weekly message on "Hill Street Blues". Esterhaus always gave this advice to the police going out into the new day, and Covel has just exactly the same message for investors: "Hey, let's be careful out there." I rate BROKE: THE NEW AMERICAN DREAM a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. Film Credits: Michael Covel's website for economic trend-tracking: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Sep 9 02:50:03 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:50:04 2009 Subject: Review: Cold Souls (2009) Message-ID: COLD SOULS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: COLD SOULS is a bizarre fantasy that gives us a world where souls can be removed and transplanted like kidneys. What seems at first like a blessing causes some unforeseen and fantastic problems. The first half of COLD SOULS is inventive, but the film really loses steam in the second half. Too many technical problems went unsolved in bringing this story to the screen. Sophie Barthes writes and directs. Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10 Warning: This review has minor spoilers Actor Paul Giamatti (played by actor Paul Giamatti) is getting a mid-life crisis. Shortcomings in his acting are really preying on his mind. It looks like he will be fired from performing in his upcoming production of Chekov's "Uncle Vanya". He is no longer relating to his wife (Emily Watson). Dark moments in his past plague him. Then he hears about Dr. Flintstein (David Strathairn), a doctor who can remove his soul or even can transplant other people's souls into patients. First reports are that people who have had their souls removed feel very good and function better. A special option even allows patients to have their souls removed and put in cold storage to be reattached later. There is some intrigue in a Robert Sheckley sort of style when Giamatti's soul is stolen from him. But it is not fully exploited. COLD SOULS even has an interesting theme in black market stolen souls, not unlike the one that exists with organs. This actually could have been a satiric crime thriller, but Barthes's script keeps the thriller elements to a minimum. Instead the story is more about Giamatti's introspection. He goes looking for his soul, but somehow without much energy. The problem is that cinema is just exactly the wrong medium for this particular story. When Giamatti sits and meditates with his own soul, when he meditates with no soul, and when he meditates with another person's soul, he looks just about the same. In a story we could look into his mind and see how the soul change is affecting him. But in a film we are stopped dead at his face and can go no deeper. The story does not really grind to a halt, because there is just not that much grinding needed. The story has already slowed on its own. We know different things may be going on in Giamatti's head, but the camera does not pick them up. Giamatti may be a good actor, but projecting different souls is apparently beyond his acting ability. And when someone else has Giamatti's soul there is nothing remotely in her behavior that suggests anything of Giamatti. The soul might as well be a piece of jewelry for as much as it affects its wearer. This seemed like it could have been a fantasy a lot like THE ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND. Certainly the setup with the peculiar doctor and his strange medical equipment telling Giamatti all about the process seems much the same. But ETERNAL SUNSHINE's operation removed memories, something that the viewer knows about. We have some idea what it would be like if some memories were taken away. But there is no common agreement on what a soul is, what is its function, and what would it be like if it were taken away. And Giamatti's performance does nothing to suggest an answer to the question. Nobody has much experience with what it would be like to no longer have a soul. We learn from Giamatti's performance that without it he goes from puzzlement to depression. This is not the stuff of good cinema. There is just too much that is too interesting about this situation, but which gets side-stepped in the script of COLD SOULS. Fantasy films like BEING JOHN MALKOVICH and THE ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND start with a bizarre premise and then really expand on the concepts and think about the implications. This film just starts with the bizarre premise and expects that impetus and Giamatti's acting to carry the film. Neither helps this film much. I rate COLD SOULS low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From homeryen88 at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 02:50:56 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:50:58 2009 Subject: Review: G.I. Joe (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000908201839g38a26dcek7d522d1884058a78@mail.gmail.com> "G.I. Joe" - General Hawk, Meet General Mayhem by Homer Yen (c) 2009 Don't get me wrong. I'm not venting my frustrations at the brave men and women who defend our liberties with their lives. In the real world and even in this movieworld, the things that our soldiers do are downright brave. Duty first. Self second. However, the things they do here go beyond brave. It enters the realm of the selfish, the stupid, and the unbelievable. One of the good guys - we'll call them Joes because they call themselves that too - gets into a prototype plane that he's only heard rumors about but is able to fly it with the same amount of ease that we ride a bike. He (ok...code name RipCord played by Marlan Wayans) starts from the Polar Ice Caps of the North Pole and, at Mach 6, chases after a warhead travelling at Mach 5 that's headed straight for Moscow. Once he catches up with it, he then reverses course, flies at Mach 6, and catches up to another missile headed for DC going at Mach 5 that had a hell of a head start. Of course, he has to make a life-threatening sacrifice, and there is dead air for 10 seconds as all of the other Joes wonder about the fate of this pilot. Even the original cartoon, from which this film takes its cues from, wasn't this corny. I didn't even mention that controlling the plane requires audio commands spoken in Celtic. Haha! All fun and good, I suppose. After all, this is based on a Saturday morning cartoon and a line of plastic action figures. Actually, one of the Joes speaks Celtic. Named Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), she also is especially formidable when donning the Cloak of Semi-Invisibleness to fight adversaries. And then there is the Ninja named Snake Eyes (Ray Park) who doesn't speak, and therefore makes for a very boring character. The bad guys also have a Ninja too who snickers and sneers all the time, and therefore has much more character to him then our emotionless Joe-ninja. And there are other characters, but they become lost amidst the explosions and the car chases and the endless CGI effects. As I continue to run through my thoughts about the film, I'm starting to conclude that this isn't really worth running through my head. It seemed like a 13-year old put the story together. The CGI effects dominate the movie. That was probably done by someone older than 13. And, as resurrected cartoons go, I liked the sub-polar fortress that housed all of the bad guys and the sub-to-sub battle that ensues. "G.I. Joe" really belongs in a world of its own. Putting the action in the real world, like in Paris, doesn't really work. The movie is just too hectic for its own good. A few backstories try to humanize some of the characters. But it's edited at breakneck speed and it really seemed like 5 22-minute distinct cartoon episodes strung back-to-back. 1) Meet the New Joes; 2) Meet the Existing Joes; 3) Paris under Attack; 4) The Duke and The Baroness & Good Ninja vs. Evil Ninja; 5) The Rise of Cobra. I will say this though. Despite my negative review, I am happy that the film did come out. This has really been a summer that takes people like me back in time. If you were age 13 in the year 1979, you'd know how I feel. It was a time when you understood that as a kid, you could watch TV all Saturday long but not have to shoulder any responsibilities. And, perhaps your two favorite cartoons of the era were G.I Joe and the Transformers. It hasn't been a good summer for film. But it has been a welcome throwback for people who were age 13 in 1979. Grade: C S: 1 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 9 02:52:56 2009 From: jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com (Jonathan Moya) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:52:58 2009 Subject: Review: Funny People (2009) Message-ID: Funny People (2009) A Movie Review By Jonathan Moya 2.5 Out of 5 Stars or C+ The Plot: (from Allmovie.com) Judd Apatow casts his former real-life roommate Adam Sandler as George Simmons, a comic superstar who learns in the movie's opening scene that he suffers from a rare blood disorder that will likely kill him within a year. This news gives him the impulse to go back out and work on his standup, something he hasn't done in years thanks to the massive success of his movie career. At a club, he meets struggling standup Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), takes a shine to him, and hires the young man both to write jokes and to be his personal assistant. Ira, who's been sleeping on a friend's pull-out couch and working a day job at a deli, enjoys the glimpse into the superstar lifestyle, but soon the prot?g? discovers how selfish and egocentric his mentor really is. The Review: Critics have been calling Judd Apatow's latest comedy Funny People his most mature work. Whenever I hear the words "mature" and "comedy" in the same sentence, I just dread the filmic result. Critics (this one included) spend most of their lives in the dark, watching movies and eating popcorn and writing about their obsession. The good ones don't have a social life and haven't had one since High School. So mature to them is a character that is lonely, obsessed and lives his life metaphorically in the dark. It is easy for them to fall into the trap Apatow has set. Adam Sandler's George Simmons is a clich? dressed in seeming autobiography. The world sees the comic as lonely, someone who lives for and can only connect with an audience, someone who can't live or see beyond the next joke and laugh-- Lenny (about Lenny Bruce), Jo Jo Dancer, Your Life is Calling (Richard Pryor) and Punchline with Tom Hanks all played the pagliacci facade with a straight face. Sandler's Simmons is likewise straight man to his painful miserable existence. Simmons traded edgy standup for the movie stardom of infantile comedies. Redo is George's head grafted onto a baby's body. The Mer-man has him neutered with a fishy appendage. The lonely George treads his palatial estate playing video games and trying to get that standup edge back with ghost written punch lines at second-rate comedy clubs. Apatow even throws in a disease/cure of the week to give George, essentially a walking orifice, a bit of sympathy via regretful self- correction. Simmons chases Laura (played by Apatow life mate Leslie Mann), the woman who got away, now married with two children (the two Apatow kids Iris and Maude). The Punchline: George Simmons wants change without really wanting to change himself. In a Hollywood comedy, that equals failure-- romantic and bromantic. Even his only friend, and chief gag writer, Ira (Seth Rogen) ditches him when the sarcasm gets too honest. "You're my best friend, and I don't even like you," George tells Ira. Funny People is off kilter and out of rhythm probably by design. It is after all a movie about comics finding their timing and their stride in life. Apatow, like any good writer, is just trying to make it seem real-- make it adhere structurally and thematically. But the bromance loses itself in the romance. Ira is really the only one who knows, loves and has the patience to put up with George. The friendship and the movie finds its proper rhythm and place only at the end. Perhaps Apatow should have listened more to his own friendly instincts, maybe been less loyal and generous to his long time friend Sandler, and made Funny People Ira's story. It might have worked. Funny People gets a C+. The Credits: (From AllMovie.com) Judd Apatow - Director / Producer / Screenwriter Barry Mendel - Producer Clayton Townsend - Producer Janusz Kaminski - Cinematographer Michael Andrews - Composer (Music Score) Jonathan Karp - Musical Direction/Supervision Jason Schwartzman - Composer (Music Score) Craig Alpert - Editor Brent White - Editor Jefferson Sage - Production Designer James F. Truesdale - Art Director Andrew Jay Cohen - Co-producer Brendan O'Brien - Co-producer Jack Giarraputo - Executive Producer Evan Goldberg - Executive Producer Seth Rogen - Executive Producer Betsy Heimann - Costume Designer Nancy Steiner - Costume Designer With Adam Sandler - George Simmons Seth Rogen - Ira Wright Leslie Mann - Laura Eric Bana - Clarke Jonah Hill - Leo Koenig Jason Schwartzman - Mark Taylor Jackson Aubrey Plaza - Daisy Danby RZA - Chuck Iris Apatow - Ingrid Maude Apatow - Mabel Torsten Voges - Dr. Lars Allan Wasserman - Dr. Stevens Aziz Ansari - Randy Copyright 2009 by Jonathan Moya Home Archives From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Sep 9 02:54:15 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:54:17 2009 Subject: Review: I Sell the Dead (2009) Message-ID: I SELL THE DEAD (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: In the 19th Century in the British Isles a grave-robber tells his story in the last hours before he is guillotined. Superficially this film looks like a reprise of the sort of horror film made in Britain in the 1960s by Hammer and their imitators. As such it is a lot of fun, but rather than a single good story, it is broken into short episodic pieces. Glenn McQuaid writes and directs (and edits!). Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 One of the staple elements of the Gothic horror films of the 1960s was the professional grave robber (or "resurrectionist" or "body snatcher"). The most notorious grave robbers were William Burke and William Hare who plied their trade in Edinburgh in 1827-28. They turned to murder when the supply from the local graveyards could not meet the demand from the local medical school. Burke and Hare inspired Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Body Snatcher" and Dylan Thomas's "The Doctor and the Devils", both adapted into films. But the 19th century setting for horror stories almost seems to be a thing of the past. That made I SELL THE DEAD with its body snatchers particularly nostalgic and welcome. The score under the opening credits is gleefully macabre with the right touch of dark humor. An opening reminiscent of CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN follows it with one body snatcher, Arthur Blake (played by Dominic Monaghan) ready to be taken to a guillotine to pay for grievous crimes committed in partnership with Willie Grimes (Larry Fessenden). Also as in CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN he is confessing his sordid story to a priest. However, unlike how a Hammer film would do the film, it is not one coherent story but three or four short stories almost unconnected. The stories end with the film frame fading into a nearly identical panel of comic book art, more or less as was done in the CREEPSHOW films. Little Arthur Blake agrees reluctantly to do work for Willie Grimes. He does not know what the work is but is not very shocked when he finds out it is stealing the bodies of the dead. A job is a job to young Arthur Blake. But the thing is that Blake has a talent for this line of work, stealing a body from right under the weeping eyes of the deceased's relatives. Blake and Grimes begin a partnership that continues for years. The real heroes of I SELL THE DEAD are art director Beck Underwood and set decorator Devin Febbroriello who take a leaf from Hammer Films' book and make what is probably a tiny budget look like a much fancier one. A little in the look is made to seem like a lot more. For surprisingly long this film seems to be doing everything right, pitting the boys against a gamut of supernatural horrors. In the second half, however, the film jumps the shark by putting a decidedly late-20th century visual joke in as the punch line of a story. That one joke seriously damages the atmosphere and it does not get better when the story takes a turn for "Pirates of the Caribbean" territory. Larry Fessenden who plays Grimes as well as co-producing the film should have a better feel for the mood. Fessenden has a deft hand for disturbing horror as he proved in writing and directing WENDIGO and THE LAST WINTER, two very effective horror films. Dominic Monaghan is probably best known as Brandybuck in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. But stealing the show from him at every opportunity in the confession scenes is Ron Perlman making the most of a role that could have otherwise gone unnoticed, that of Father Duffy, the priest hearing the confession. To drag attention to himself Perlman really chews the scenery in a role that really requires him to do little more than sagely nodding. In the end, I SELL THE DEAD is just a collection of comic book stories with continuing characters rather than the horror opus it could have been. Rather than a serious attempt to resurrect the Gothic horror of the 1960s it is more just a reverential nod or even a send-up. It is not a bad film, but it is one that failed to meet its potential or fulfill its promise. But to rate it for what it is, a fun film, rather than the horror film it could have been, I rate it a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Wed Sep 9 02:55:09 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:55:13 2009 Subject: Review: The Time Traveler's Wife (2009) Message-ID: THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE is the sort of movie that makes you wish you had read the book but skipped its cinematic adaptation. While the time traveling concept is consistently intriguing, the movie itself more often fizzles than sizzles. The script by Bruce Joel Rubin (THE LAST MIMZY), based on Audrey Niffenegger's novel, has many lovely, touching scenes, but somehow director Robert Schwentke (FLIGHT PLAN) never seems to be able to stitch the movie's many poignant moments into a consistent and satisfying whole. As Clare Abshire, the film's female love interest, Rachel McAdams gives a performance reminiscent of the one she did in THE NOTEBOOK, another weepie like THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE. Since the story flashes back and forth in time, other actresses play Clare when she is younger than 18. Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana), the story's central character, even if the title suggests otherwise, is a thief, but it's not his fault really. He is a time traveler unable to control much of anything. At random moments in his life, he is transported back and forth in time, sometimes meeting himself at another age in the process. His life is a series of "cant's." He can't decide when or where to time travel to. He can't change the future. And, what proves to be his biggest problem, is that he can't take his clothes with him. This means that he arrives naked in some semi-random place and time. Much of movie has us watching him breaking into places in order to steal clothes. This, of course, can be dangerous. If a naked man was breaking into your place of business, wouldn't you want to get your gun out? Although much more of a romantic tragedy than a romantic comedy, the film has many quite funny and cute moments. At his wedding, for example, Henry keeps finding himself disintegrating and being transported back and forth in time like a toy on a spring. Whether he'll be able to complete his vows is uncertain, since he keeps being AWOL. By far the best scene in the picture is driven by Clare, who cheats on her husband. But, this one-night stand is no mere fling. She purposely sets out to cheat on her husband with a distinct purpose in mind. And with whom does she cheat? Why her husband, making this the rare movie in which a cheating wife cheats on her husband with her husband. If this concept makes your head spin, it is just one of many quasi-illogical moments. THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE, however, works best when one doesn't think too hard. THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE runs 1:47. It is rated PG-13 for "thematic elements, brief disturbing images, nudity and sexuality" and would be acceptable for kids around 10 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, August 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 mleeper at optonline.net Wed Sep 9 02:55:49 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:55:51 2009 Subject: Review: Fissure (2009) Message-ID: FISSURE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Paul Grunning was a good cop broken by a professional case that brought him personal tragedy. While trying to put is life back together he is sent to an odd house only to find reality breaking down on him. Anything outside his sight may not be there when he looks again from another angle. First-time director Russ Pond directs a script by first-time writer Nicholas Turner and creates a nice low-budget crime thriller with some nice science fiction turns. It is the kind of idea that would have made for a very good "Twilight Zone" episode, but fleshed out. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 There is a lot more happening in FISSURE than meets the eye. Detective Paul Grunning (played by James MacDonald) has recently had a personal tragedy in his life. Right now it looks 50-50 whether he will make it back to being a good cop or be a basket case. He is sent on a simple job, a small domestic disturbance. When he gets to the house there is a dead man on the floor and this turns out to be a bigger case than he expected. But at least it is a kind of case he knows and should know what to do. His biggest problem: he has fallen into a world where reality seems unstable. Details of reality keep changing. A room may look one way and if he walks away and returns, the room is different. It is like his life has what would be called in film "continuity errors." In additions voices are heard from other rooms of the house where people cannot possibly be. And there is someone else in the house that Grunning and the viewer gets only flashes of. Is the cause the drugs he is taking to pacify him or is it something deeper? After all, the dead man is Professor Roger Ulster (Jim Blumetti), a man who seems to be experimenting with quantum physics. Or is this all a plot just to keep Grunning from finding the real truth of what went on? Whatever is going on, Grunning is crumbling under the pressures of the investigation that defies logic. One odd touch is the casting of Vietnamese-American Todd Haberkorn as the Ulster's son. He does not look like either of his parents, a touch that could easily have been explained by a line of dialog saying he was adopted, but the line never comes. Jane Willingham plays Emma Ulster whose memory of her husband's death seems to be suppressed one moment and returns the next. FISSURE was released to DVD on August 11, 2009, and is also being released as a web series. I think it is fine as just a feature film. Costing a reported one million dollars to make, it does not have the CGI and big stars of some of the summer competition, but Nicholas Turner's script is a good one and one that will keep the viewer guessing. Video production values are high and the film looks quite good on a minimal budget. It all supports my belief that the cheapest way to make a really good film is to have really good writing. This film will bring back memories of films like MEMENTO, 21 GRAMS, and some time machine stories, but it is really very different. Nonetheless, that puts the film in very good company. If a film can do that, it is probably very good. This one is worth seeing. After seeing the film with a friend, be prepared for a discussion of what was really going on and if it all hangs together. (I think that it doesn't, but I will put that in a spoiler section follow the review.) I rate FISSURE a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Film Credits: Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler In some ways the story could not work this way, at least not without some explanation. Nobody seems to notice that Grunning had accurately predicted things that had not happened yet. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Sep 9 02:58:23 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Sep 9 02:58:26 2009 Subject: Review: In the Loop (2009) Message-ID: IN THE LOOP (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This film is sort of "The West Wing (East)" meets "The West Wing" as Oscar Wilde might have imagined the meeting. A petty British Minister makes an ill-considered statement in public triggering a comedy of manners in the upper echelons of governments on both sides of the Atlantic. The plot of this film is impenetrable but the dialog is hilarious and comes a staccato pace. This is a comedy of political backbiting, in-fighting, and out-fighting. It is loosely a spinoff of the BBC comedy program "The Thick of It". Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10 Loose lips sink political careers and start wars. At this writing the United States has recently seen a political storm over an ambiguous statement that Sonia Sotomayor made several years ago. Frequently an innocent-sounding statement can have serious political repercussions. At the same time as this controversy raged by coincidence the BBC Films was preparing a feature film to be released about a firestorm of political wrangling following British Minister Simon Foster (played by Tom Hollander, familiar from PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN) making a similar gaff. Foster is being interviewed in the media and says that in the current situation "war is unforeseeable." This is a flashpoint of a giant trans-Atlantic incident in both the United States and British governments just at a time when the United States may actually be sliding into a war, possibly in the Middle East. I will not even try to recount most of the plot. It is too complex to relate, but the plot is not really the point of the film. What is the point is the dialog. This is a common British style of drama. The plot does not have to be going anywhere if the dialog is entertaining, and in this film it is riotous. IN THE LOOP is like and episode of "The West Wing", but with much cleverer dialog. This is what the dialog would be if everyone in government talked in metaphors and had the personality of a viper. Following Minister Foster's inexplicably disastrous pronouncement, the Prime Minister's director of communications, Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) flies into action to do damage control. The rings of crisis and political manipulation move onward and outward peppered with betrayals and verbal put-downs. IN THE LOOP is the brainchild of writer/director Armando Iannucci who also writes or has written numerous BBC series, notably "The Thick of It", which has rapid-fire verbal exchanges of much the same style. The dialog is even slyer but at the same time more believable than that of DR. STRANGELOVE. Notable in the cast is James Gandolfini as an American general who opposes the war. He may be a dove, but his personal attitudes are tinged with Tony Soprano's special breed of menace. The film has five different writers each contributing gags seemingly assembled in a style going back to Sid Caesar. The writers have honed their talents writing for the BBC comedy series "The Thick of It". They have sprinkled the storyline with tidbits that actually happened in the Bush Administration, but one just hopes that most of this is fiction. Feeding the feeling of impending doom is that on both sides of the Atlantic the staff that are handling crisis and defining policy look barely old enough to have completed college. This may have been an economical move on the part of the filmmakers in that one does not expect a twenty- two-year-old character to be played by a highly paid veteran actor. What we see is two very confused countries' governments. The British over-extend their metaphors and Americans over-extend their psychoses, and neither has anybody whom you want to trust not to betray you. Like DR. STRANGELOVE I would call it a film of sobering fun. I rate IN THE LOOP a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10. Reportedly story of the Office of Future Plans is true. Dick Chaney set up a committee to plan possible war in Iran and/or Syria. So many people wanted to be on the committee that it was abolished and reformed with a smaller membership. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 9 03:02:31 2009 From: jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com (Jonathan Moya) Date: Wed Sep 9 03:02:33 2009 Subject: Review: Julie and Julia (2009) Message-ID: <9f57962b-aad2-47e9-a0ba-115ad1442052@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> Julie and Julia (2009) A Movie Review By Jonathan Moya 3.5 Out of 5 Stars or B+ The Plot: (from IMDB.com) Julia Child (Meryl Streep) and Julie Powell (Amy Adams) are featured in writer-director Nora Ephron's adaptation of two bestselling memoirs: Powell's Julie & Julia and My Life in France, by Julia Child with Alex Prud'homme. Based on two true stories, Julie & Julia intertwines the lives of two women who, though separated by time and space, are both at loose ends...until they discover that with the right combination of passion, fearlessness and butter, anything is possible. The Review: It is a shame that Julie Powell got a movie of her life made before Julia Child. Powell's blog, the Julie/Julia project, about the adventures and misadventures of her trying to cook all 524 recipes in Child's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" within a year is the inspiration for Julie and Julia. (Poor Child, she doesn't even get top billing.) Even though the two never met in life, Child knew of Powell's blog but expressed bored disinterest for it. She thought it was gimmicky and opportunistic, but then Child never wrote endorsements for someone else's cookbooks and rebutted all attempts by others to make money off the Julia Child label. She unsuccessfully fought Santa Barbara, California rose lovers who wanted to name a bloom in her honor. The Julia Child Rose blossoms to a simmering butter-gold. Julie and Julia only cover twelve years of Child's life (1948-1961), from her first taste of le cuisine France to the publication of "Mastering the Art of French Cooking." In Julie and Julia, Powell (played by the incandescent Amy Adams) is crestfallen by her muse's disinterest. But then, the simplest cooking faux pas has her whining on the floor, coated in a fine layer of flour and rolled in the offal of her latest botched assignment. Adams plays Powell with her usual gentle and earnest method style. Her candy-coated charm tries to frost over Powell's self-indulgence and mal content. She percolates through all the romantic comedy layers- the breakups and make-ups- towards empowerment, the ideal marriage and the joie de vivre that Nora Ephron (who writes and directs here) sees as Julia Child's natural essence and lesson to the world. Meryl Streep does the real cooking in Julie and Julia. She effortlessly masters Child's heart and soul. Her Julia is the perfect souffl?- light and airy with just the right amount of sugar and lift- an embodiment that goes beyond the command of the Child accent and physical style, beyond homage, to revealing real character. Streep handles the painful echoes of Child's ironically childless life with poignancy that avoids the maudlin with one exception. The last scene has her and her mate Paul (Stanley Tucci) beaming at and holding that beautiful little book of theirs with a little too much motherly and paternal affection. Stanley Tucci as Paul gives a delightful performance. Paul and Julia, Meryl and Tucci find perfect support in each other. Their onscreen marriage all comes together with perfect technique and the right ingredients- a rare and great example of wedded bliss. Nora Ephron's direction and screenplay bring the parallel stories into a respectful balance that never tries to strain the gentle points that float between them. The two childless couples find their own perfect space. Julia and Paul live the classic perfect romance. Julie and Eric (Chris Messina applying enough patience, charm and husbandly concern to make it gel) live their modern marriage within the conventions of romantic comedy, suffering a little bit of the Blands as a result. The two stories never create a perfect whole, just a satisfying appetizer and entr?e. Sometimes that is as good as life gets. Julie and Julia gets a B+. The Credits: (From AllMovie.com) Nora Ephron - Director / Screenwriter / Producer Laurence Mark - Producer Amy Robinson - Producer Eric Steel - Producer Julia Child - Book Author Julie Powell - Book Author Alex Prud'homme - Book Author Stephen Goldblatt - Cinematographer Alexandre Desplat - Composer (Music Score) Richard Marks - Editor Mark Ricker - Production Designer Benjamin John Barraud - Art Director Dianne Dreyer - Co-producer J.J. Sacha - Associate Producer Donald J. Lee, Jr. - Executive Producer / Unit Production Manager Scott Rudin - Executive Producer Dana Stevens - Executive Producer Susan Bode- Tyson - Set Decorator Ann Roth - Costume Designer Kathleen Driscoll- Mohler - Casting Francine Maisler - Casting Peter Bucossi - Stunts Coordinator Erica Kay - Production Supervisor With Meryl Streep - Julia Child Amy Adams - Julie Powell Stanley Tucci - Paul Child Chris Messina - Eric Powell Linda Emond - Simone Beck Helen Carey - Louise Bertholle Mary Lynn Rajskub - Sarah Jane Lynch - Dorothy McWilliams Joan Juliet Buck - Madame Brassart Crystsal Noelle - Ernestine George Bartenieff - Chef Max Bugnard Vanessa Ferlito - Cassie Casey Wilson - Regina Jillian Bach - Annabelle Andrew Garman - John O'Brien Michael Brian Dunn - Ivan Cousins Remak Ramsay - John McWilliams Diane Kagan - Phila McWilliams Pamela Holden Stewart - Instructor at Le Cordon Bleu Jeff Brooks - Minister Frances Sternhagen - Irma Rombauer Brooks Ashmanskas - Mr. Misher Eric Sheffer Stevens - Tim Brian Avers - Garth Kacie Sheik - Annette Megan Byrne - Woman at the Party Deborah Rush - Avis De Voto Helen Coxe - Dorothy De Santillana Amanda Hesser - Herself Maryann Urbano - Dinner Guest Simon Jutras - Dinner Guest Felicity Jones - Dinner Guest Meg Kettell - Simca's Concierge Stephen Bogardus - Scott McLeod Byron Jennings - Houghton Mifflin Executive Kelly Au Coin - Houghton Mifflin Executive Richard Bekins - Houghton Mifflin Executive Luc Palun - The Chestnut Vendor Remy Roubakha - Oyster Man Marceline Hugot - Madame Bernheim Erin Dilly - Judith Jones Robert Emmet Lunney - Bill Koshland Tom Galantich - American Ambassador Allyn Burrows - Waiter in Paris Caf? Julia Prud'homme - Bridge Teacher Dimitri Radochevitch - Fish Monger Emmanuel Suarez - Baker Christelle Cornil - Baker's Wife Francoise Lebrun - Baker's Mother Teddy Bergman - Cobb Salad Waiter Jean- Pierre Becker - Fruit Store Owner Mark Wilkins - Butcher Jamie Hall - Cheese Guy Francesco David - Butcher Dianne Dreyer - American Housewife Mary Kay Place - Julie's Mother [Voice] Copyright 2009 by Jonathan Moya Home Archives From tskirvin at killfile.org Wed Sep 9 03:06:04 2009 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Wed Sep 9 03:06:06 2009 Subject: Review: Extract (2009) Message-ID: Mike Judge has a talent for finding a premise and running with it. Sometimes that premise turns out to be brilliant - positing a future where stupidity reigns supreme, or examining the mind of that creepy office guy in the background. More often, the premise is fairly dull - two idiots sitting around a television commenting on music videos, or just observing the regular office politics of a small technology firm. What's interesting about his work is that the quality of the premise does not predict the quality of the finished product. Once the running starts, Judge is not willing to nudge the story off of its path in order to find additional humor. It's an interesting method; when it it works well, but when it doesn't work, the result can be boring and arduous. _Extract_, sadly, turned out to be in the latter category. Perhaps the problem is the premise itself. There are three main points: 1. Joel runs a successful but quirky small factory business with a number of idiot employees. 2. Cindy is a hot con artist looking for a big score. 3. Dean, Joel's best friend, thinks that drugs are the solution to all problems. There are plenty of sub-points; but those are the main three. But what's interesting is that they really are *separate* points. Compare this to the single sentence fragments that I used to describe Judge's earlier work. There just plain isn't a "high concept" here, upon which the rest of the points could be hung; everything was truly separate. And that made the movie just too complicated - not in a "too difficult to follow" way, but in leaving too little time to just *observe*. Sure, some of the details shine through. The racist squabbling between the factory workers; the factory manager that doesn't know his employees' names; the low-quality bar that Joel and Dean hang out in regularly; Cindy's simplistic con; the broad strokes of dealing with the neighbor; the attempted worker strike. These moments felt like Mike Judge. The rest felt like Judge was struggling to keep up with his story. And those moments just didn't seem real to me - the coincidences, the considered (rather than casual) cruelty, the straight-up idiocy. I didn't wait through the whole credits; I almost left before they wrapped up a couple of the story lines. That tells me what I needed to know. At least the viral Beavis and Butthead video promoting the movie was satisfying... * 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 tskirvin at killfile.org Wed Sep 9 03:07:16 2009 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Wed Sep 9 03:07:18 2009 Subject: Review: The Hurt Locker (2008) Message-ID: It took me quite a while to actually make it to _The Hurt Locker_. I first saw something about it on The Daily Show a few months ago, and shortly thereafter actually saw a trailer for it. It looked depressing, violent, and extremely compelling - and perhaps more of a "concept" movie than a "plot" one. And for whatever reason, it seemed like a movie I wanted to see *with* somebody - perhaps not in a "date movie" kind of way, but at least with a friend. But all this led to not seeing it at all - not everyone thinks of this kind of thing as good "social fare". And so when I saw that it was still showing at one of the local art theatres, I braved it alone. And I was happy that I did so. _The Hurt Locker_ is about a bomb squad unit in Iraq in 2004 - back when the insurgency was at its strongest. The squad is led by Sgt James, a hotshot explosives expert who would always rather disable the bombs by hand, rather than using the bomb robot or just plain blowing up the explosives from a distance. His squad mates think that he has a death wish; and the movie is, in part, about the question of whether they're right. The movie is, of course, stressful to watch. The scenes from the trailers - the road-side explosives, the tied-together bombs, the car stuffed with explosives - all of these occur in the first 45 minutes or so. While those scenes were hard to watch, it turns out that the later scenes were harder - the suicide bomber, the children, and the sniper battle in the desert. Those scenes seemed more open-ended, and therefore harder to watch. At least with the bombs, you know when they're disarmed. But that wasn't actually the interesting part. The truly fascinating part was observing the Iraqis - their interactions with the Americans, their fascination and contempt for the occupiers, the children's choice of language (the saddest part of the movie for me was the kids having learned English from Gangsta Rap music videos), and their varied relationships with the insurgency. I don't know how accurate it all was, but it *seemed* real, in a way that I hadn't seen very much of lately. For all of these good parts, the movie was still somewhat shallow. It's really a character piece, but besides "addicted to combat", the character turns out to be fairly shallow. I don't know what could have improved matters, but I didn't really come around to understanding the character all that well over time. All I can say is that I disliked him slightly less at the end of the movie than at the beginning. Still, it was worthwhile. And I would have liked to talk to somebody about it as I came out. *** 1/4 - Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org) -- http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage < <*> http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies Skirv's Movie Reviews From homeryen88 at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 17:34:21 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Wed Sep 9 17:34:23 2009 Subject: Review: Funny People (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000909091400q6081dffdg1270f98a80b97ad0@mail.gmail.com> Funny "People" by Homer Yen (c) 2009 Funny isn't the only word here. It's also sad and poignant and even brave. This is a different kind of Adam Sandler movie. In it he plays a famous comedian who is diagnosed with a terminal illness. But his ability to make us laugh never ceases. Here's one of his jokes, edited of course because George Simmons (Adam Sandler) uses the same level of vulgarity as the late, funny George Carlin. When people are in their 20s, everything is @#*$ this and @#*$ that. It doesn't matter what it is. In their 30s, they are a little more aware. And, now it's @#*$ the government; @#*$ the economy; etc... When we hit our 40s, it's "I'm hu-u-u-ngry", said in a sheepish voice. It seems that humans become more thoughtful as they grow older (perhaps youth is truly wasted on the young). So too is Adam Sandler in this film. His usual biting ways are replaced by undertones of tenderness. With his brilliant life about to be cut short, he extends a generous hand to an up-an-coming comic (played by Seth Rogen). He looks to reconcile with the "one that got away" many years ago. George imagines that going after the one that got away is how remorseful ex's and serial killers feel. Adam Sandler has discarded somewhat his flair for rudeness, but he is still very agile with some choice comic zingers. Writer Judd Apatow is wise enough to understand that in reality, the world of the rising comic is also unforgiving and cutthroat. This point is accentuated through the character of Ida Wright (a slimmed-down Seth Rogen). He's hungry and ambitious and jealous of some of the success enjoyed by others. But his material is pretty funny and witty. George sees him one night performing at the Improv. He's impressed and hires Ida to help him write jokes. They begin to develop a deep friendship for one another. It's not a bro-mance. It's a little more simple...just two guys trying to look out for each other because individually, they can't orchestrate the momentum that each one needs. Yet, I thought it could've been funnier although I don't have a working diagram as to how that could've happened. We're roaming the world of up-and-coming stand-up comics here. And I think that it would've kept my interest for a longer duration if the story stayed focused on the behind-the-scenes work of these comics and/or the inspiration for these jokes and/or the crazy relationships that these people-of-the-business must have. My interest began to wane when the movie began to settle on the story between George and his old flame (Leslie Mann). I liked the film enough to recommend it. I appreciate the Punch-Drunk Love side of Adam Sandler more so than the Happy Gilmore side. Seth Rogen is also very appealing and capable in this role. And there are some good yuk-yuks thrown in. Especially droll was when they both ganged up on a doctor with a heavy European accent. "Funny People" is a film that offers laughs and a heart. Grade: B S: 2 out of 3 L: 3 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 From tskirvin at killfile.org Thu Sep 10 02:01:36 2009 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Thu Sep 10 02:01:38 2009 Subject: Review: 9 (2009) Message-ID: Aah, hologram movies! On the one hand, they are pretty and shiny and high-tech; on the other, they are shallow and do not hold up to the slightest scrutiny. Sometimes, they work out well - _The Nightmare Before Christmas_ comes to mind, as does _The Dark Crystal_ - and other times you end up with a pile of beautiful but meaningless much, such as _Corpse Bride_, or _The Phantom Menace_. But even if their track record is poor, movies like these are fun to go to - either to report back as to the glory, or to warn away those that are likewise sucked in by the Pretty Colors. Of course, "pretty" is a relative thing when it comes to a movie like _9_ (not to be confused with _Nine_, coming out later this year for maximum confusion). The animation style of this movie is gritty and realistic, and the sets displayed are post-apocalyptic. Dirt and debris is everywhere, and there is a decidedly steampunk vibe to all of the proceedings. Even the characters are simply stitched together. But for me, just seeing the dust hanging in the air through the animation added a lot to the spectacle for me, as the grime and destruction reminded me of the kinds of video games that I play for fun. And speaking of video games - yeah, it felt like one. That's not altogether a bad thing, though. The action scenes are well done, in a very Final Fantasy-esque manner; all the characters seem to take logical and consistent actions in every battle, and the environment is used to great effect. The creatures were varied, spectacular, and somehow logical. Nothing was really *wasted*, in exactly the way that no good video game background is just ignored. All in all, I could see this making a nice game... if you could get over losing your characters on a regular basis. That really was a fair bit of death! Past the spectacle, though, there's not a whole lot to say about the movie. The characters are more developed than just their names (1 through 9), but only barely. The background story is bleak and impressively depressing (and perhaps even thought-out!), but has few connections to the actual storyline. The villain was clear enough and acted in a generally logical manner, but its reason for being was not at all obvious. The eventual resolution came mostly out of nowhere. And while the ending was clear, the *reason* for the ending wasn't very logical - or even connected to the rest of the movie! Still, on balance I'm happy I saw the movie. I wonder if I'll enjoy it more down the line, when the plot becomes merely a memory and a piece of the overall animation. For now, I can't really say that it's any better than a middling movie. ** 1/2 - Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org) -- http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage < <*> http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies Skirv's Movie Reviews From kamhung.soh at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 02:09:06 2009 From: kamhung.soh at gmail.com (Kam-Hung Soh) Date: Thu Sep 10 02:09:15 2009 Subject: Retrospective: Identity (2003) Message-ID: Identity (2003) A film review by Kam-Hung Soh Copyright 2009 Kam-Hung Soh On a stormy night, on the eve of a convicted killer's execution, the killer's defence team tries to persuade a judge that the killer is insane and should be committed to an asylum instead of being executed. The case for the defence rests on the judge examining the killer, so he is being transported from prison to the court house. At the same time, ten travellers find that the highway is flooded, so they shelter from the rain in a motel. Among the travellers are Ed (John Cusack), an ex- cop driving a limousine, Paris (Amanda Peet), a call-girl and Rhodes (Ray Liotta), a police officer transporting a prisoner named Robert (Jake Busey). While they wait for the storm to abate, they find themselves being picked off, one by one, by a savage killer. The start of the film is intriguing, with each person having a secret and a reason to distrust the others. However, after the first murder, things start to go downhill as the film veers between a slasher flick and an episode from 'The Twlight Zone'. Director James Mangold, who goes on to better things, doesn't handle the material well, relying too heavily on clich?d tricks to scare or horrify the audience. Even so, it could have been a passable popcorn flick ... ... Except that writer Michael Cooney adds one twist which invalidates the entire set up. We expect thrillers to use plot twists to keep you interested and a good twist (some so good that no one else could use it) would delightfully rearrange your perception of earlier scenes. In this film, the twist just made me feel cheated and after that point, I simply didn't care about what happens. 1 out of 5 stars. http://vibogafi.blogspot.com/2009/09/review-identity-2003.html -- Kam-Hung Soh http://vibogafi.blogspot.com From kamhung.soh at gmail.com Sun Sep 13 13:15:04 2009 From: kamhung.soh at gmail.com (Kam-Hung Soh) Date: Sun Sep 13 13:15:08 2009 Subject: Retrospective: Blue Collar (1978) Message-ID: Blue Collar (1978) A review by Kam-Hung Soh 2009 Zeke (Richard Pryor), Jerry (Harvey Keitel) and Smokey (Yaphet Kotto) are three friends who work in the assembly floor of a Detroit car company. The work is hard, and Zeke, the youngest of the three, is frustrated with the unwillingness of the auto workers union to help their members, while his older friends are more equanimous. When Zeke runs into money problems, he convinces his friends to help him burgle the local union office, an act which starts a chain of violent events. This film has a surprising and effective performance by comic Richard Pryor, sans moustache, in the dramatic role as the voluble and vocal Zeke, who uses colourful language to get his point across. His co-stars don't have such flashy roles: Yaphett Kotto's Smokey is a quiet ex-con while Harvey Keitel's Jerry is an established family man. The beginning of the film is interesting because it sets the scene to explore some of the social issues of the working class in America, a topic that seems to be completely ignored by mainstream American films. However, once writer-director Paul Shrader and co-writer Leonard Schrader introduce an FBI investigation into union corruption, the premise is effectively forgotten and the film turns into an OK low-key thriller. 3 out of 5 stars. -- Kam-Hung Soh http://vibogafi.blogspot.com From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Sun Sep 13 13:23:50 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Sun Sep 13 13:23:54 2009 Subject: Review: Whiteout (2009) Message-ID: <7JmdncxZDPP0QDfXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> WHITEOUT A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 WHITEOUT, a tolerably entertaining film starring the weather, begins in 1957 when a Russian plane crashes in Antarctica, after a gunfight on board causes the pilot to be killed. Cutting to the present day, WHITEOUT transports us to the U.S. research station at the South Pole, where soon the last plane will be leaving before the upcoming winter storms make travel impossible until the spring. The thin plot of the fictional story concerns the first murder ever to occur in Antarctica, but, before U.S. Marshall Carrie Stetko is told about the body, she has a more important task to perform. Played by the gorgeous Kate Beckinsale, Stetko is sent to the shower by director Dominic Sena. Why? Well, because it serves a purpose, albeit not in service of the narrative. Beckinsale's steamy solo shower scene serves notice on the audience that the picture is ready to make up for its highly predicable plot with whatever eye candy it takes to entertain us. This is the last time we'll get any sexual titillation, but the movie does provide some absolutely spectacular images of whiteout conditions, which are in equal measures, fascinating and frightening. Throughput the film, however, I figured it was rated PG-13 -- at most. Afterwards I was surprised to see it was rated R, which made me wonder why Beckinsale's brief nudity was so chaste. But I digress. Stetko is told about a dead geologist found without the proper clothing in the middle of nowhere, which is certainly a mystery, but will Stetko be able to wrap up her investigation before the last plane leaves? When a mysterious stranger, who claims to be a U.N. investigator named Pryce (Gabriel Macht), shows up soon after Stetko has a near deadly encounter with an axe-swinging murderer whose face is covered by a mask, she becomes instantly suspicious of Pryce. To make sure we get the point that we are suppose to suspect Pryce, Stetko and her pilot remark about how they don't trust Pryce. All of this, of course, means Pryce is undoubtedly the most reliable guy around, causing us to look elsewhere for bad guys. And, since there are few choices, the mystery is fairly easily solved. But this doesn't make any difference, since the film never takes itself too seriously. Watching the weather blow and howl proves to be completely mesmerizing. And there are some terrific action sequences in the film. Sure, it's not much of a movie, but I kind of enjoyed it. WHITEOUT runs 1:36. It is rated R for "violence, grisly images, brief strong language and some nudity" and would be acceptable, I think, for kids around 10 and up. The images shown are less graphic than most "CSI" episodes on TV. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 11, 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 kamhung.soh at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 02:02:54 2009 From: kamhung.soh at gmail.com (Kam-Hung Soh) Date: Tue Sep 15 02:02:58 2009 Subject: Retrospective: La tourneuse de pages / The Page Turner (2006) Message-ID: La tourneuse de pages / The Page Turner (2006) Review by Kam-Hung Soh 2009 One summer, a young work experience student, M?lanie (D?borah Fran?ois), becomes a live-in baby sitter for Tristan, son of wealthy lawyer Jean (Pascal Greggory). Jean's wife, Ariane (Catherine Frot), a pianist for a small ensemble, takes a liking to M?lanie. When Ariane discovers that M?lanie has music training, she employs M?lanie to be her page turner during her performances. What the family doesn't know is that the innocent-looking M?lanie has revenge on her mind. This drama from writer-director Denis Dercourt and co-writer Jacques Sotty is about revenge as a dish best served cold. For a while, it is somewhat fascinating to watch M?lanie exploiting Ariane's and Tristan's weaknesses to wreak her revenge on an event that happened many years ago. However, the premise is very far-fetched, and without any elaboration on M?lanie's character, it is hard to accept that anyone, let alone a teenager, could conceive or execute such an elaborate and complete plan. French with English subtitles. 2 out of 5 stars. http://vibogafi.blogspot.com/2009/09/review-la-tourneuse-de-pages- page.html -- Kam-Hung Soh http://vibogafi.blogspot.com From homeryen88 at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 16:51:32 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Sun Sep 20 16:51:34 2009 Subject: Review: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000909192044y248d1e86ub5c444fb514e6a9b@mail.gmail.com> "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" is Partly Sunny Fare by Homer Yen (c) 2009 Based on the best selling children's book of the same name, "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" is one of those types of projects that can provide you with a pleasant diversion from the other live-action films. Partially, it's a feel-good film about partnership. There's a tiny bit of meet-cute romance in it. The novelty of the 3D presentation may translate into an added visual delight. And, it has that harmless energy that you might find on various cartoons on the Nickelodeon Channel. "Cloudy" is about as make-believe as you can get. There's a device that translates the thoughts of monkeys. There are "live" chickens that look ready to be put in the roaster that act as sentry guards. Boats are constructed from the different ingredients of a deli sandwich. And, on this little island in the ocean where the film takes place, it also rains cheeseburgers. Now, these are a few things that you certainly don't see in your run-of-the-mill film. These creations are the result of an enormously intellectual wannabee inventor named Flint (voiced by Saturday Night Live cast member Bill Hader). He's the nerdy nerd that can't get a date, was never challenged to a snowball fight when he was a little kid, is always fighting for the approval of his dad, and spends most of his day in his lab. There, he works furiously to visualize and to wire and to weld and to construct. And one day...voila! He creates an amazing machine that reformulates moisture into any food that the programmer wants. This premise allows for wondrous things to occur. Rainbows seem to be really made of Skittles. Winter storms bring not snow but scoops of fancifully flavored ice-cream. A castle made of Jell-O allows our timid hero an opportunity to impress a girl that he likes. It's the kind of stuff that tugs at the little kid inside all of us. Trouble begins to cook when the self-serving Mayor (voiced by Bruce Campbell) wants to use this invention for his own political purposes. He manipulates young Flint into overworking his machine to the point where they begin to lose control. Now, instead of it being an instrument that could perhaps solve world hunger, it becomes an instrument of destruction. The against-all-odds rescue that ensues, the budding heroics of our meek inventor, and his realization of his manhood happens satisfactorily although everything unfolds with a sense of familiarity. But I am grateful for the 3D experience, which gives the film an added level of visual texture. Meanwhile, the quality is high enough so that watching it for 90 minutes doesn't leave you with a slight headache afterwards as other 3D films have come to do. There is no eyestrain, for the film's running time is only 90 minutes and there aren't any "coming-at-you" moments. The visual experience with those special glasses on seemed as natural as watching your own television in your living room. But, I did notice two nice things. Because of the 3D effects, you could virtually sit anywhere in the theatre, and the film would never seem too far away from you. Also, if you took off your glasses, the raw picture looks only slightly disjointed. I'm pretty amazed at how far 3D technology has come, and I'm looking forward to the next "big" 3D film, "A Christmas Carol" in December. Grade: B- S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Sun Sep 20 16:56:42 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Sun Sep 20 16:56:45 2009 Subject: Review: The Informant! (2009) Message-ID: THE INFORMANT! A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 Easily the two most interesting aspects of THE INFORMANT! are that this extremely bizarre movie is based on a true story and that the movie takes a sharp turn about mid-way through, completely changing the thrust of the narrative. Told with off-puttingly zany music, director Steven Soderbergh's THE INFORMANT! has the strange tone of the Coen Brothers' BURN AFTER READING. Since THE INFORMANT!'s characters play almost like a cross between circus clowns and Keystone Cops, one wonders just how closely the script follows reality. But, whether it's mainly fact or mainly fiction, the film is always intriguing, even though it's too slow and too long. Matt Damon plays the story's central figure, Mark Whitacre, a whistleblower who causes the agribusiness giant ADM to pay massive fines and to have many of its key executives imprisoned. At first, Whitacre appears to be the center of the story, but, eventually, we come to realize, that he is the story. The film isn't about ADM's malfeasance as much as it is about the increasingly eccentric Whitacre. Whitacre is a motormouth who talks to us constantly in voice-over. Although his monologues are frequently about ADM's price fixing and his part in it, he also drones on to us about splotchy skin, where in the world to buy the best ties, ways to sneak purchases through customs, and many other esoteric topics. An orphan from a rich family, Whitacre has risen to the level of Vice President at ADM and has an annual salary in excess of a third of a million dollars. One of many proofs of how out of touch with reality he is comes when he keeps asking the FBI if they think he'll still be okay in the company after he rats out all of his co-workers and bosses. He sincerely thinks that he'll be promoted to CEO after the scandal breaks. For most of the movie, I stared at the screen with my mouth open in a you've-got-to-be-kidding look. But, sometimes Whitacre's weird antics did get some laughs from me. Even if you never laugh at THE INFORMANT!, you will at least be provided with much sage advice from Whitacre. Typical of these words of wisdom comes when he tells us that a good way to save time is to floss while showering. Time is money, so by listening to him, I guess, you might learn enough to pay for the price of admission. THE INFORMANT! runs 1:48. It is rated R for "language" and, in my opinion, would be acceptable for kids around 9 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, September 18, 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 kamhung.soh at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 17:03:20 2009 From: kamhung.soh at gmail.com (Kam-Hung Soh) Date: Sun Sep 20 17:03:22 2009 Subject: Retrospective: Cave of the Yellow Dog (2006) Message-ID: Cave of the Yellow Dog (2006) Review by Kam-Hung Soh 2009 This film follows Urjindorjyn Batchuluun and his family, who are nomadic herders in the Mongolian steppe (or grassland). Their life revolves around tending their herd of goats, sheep and cattle, and seems little different, aside from a wind generator and an ancient motorcycle, from that of their ancestors. One night, two sheep are killed by wolves, and the next day, their eldest daughter, Nansal, while collecting dung to smoke meat, finds a pup in a cave. When she brings the pup home, her father refuses to keep it because it may have run with wolves and could attract a pack to his herd. 'Cave of the Yellow Dog' works best as an observational documentary, such as when it follows the mother on her farm chores, Nansal minding the sheep on her pony or when the family move to a better pasture by disassembling their yurt and loading all their possessions on carts. The film suggests that this rural way of life may not be around for much longer; the family may have to give up herding to settle in a town and send their children to school, and when Urjindorjyn meets some hunters, he finds that they can't find anyone to take over their role. In contrast, the story of Nansal and the dog seem awkward, and the climax a bit forced. Mongolian with English subtitles. 3 out of 5 stars. http://vibogafi.blogspot.com/2009/09/review-cave-of-yellow-dog-2006.html -- Kam-Hung Soh http://vibogafi.blogspot.com From themoviereport at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 19:51:47 2009 From: themoviereport at gmail.com (Michael Dequina) Date: Thu Sep 24 19:51:50 2009 Subject: Review: More Than a Game (2008) Message-ID: <4ab12351.1358560a.7b86.5719@mx.google.com> _More_Than_a_Game_ (PG) *** 1/2 (out of ****) The title _More_Than_a_Game_ is more than a little cliche, and the most basic summary of this documentary's premise does little to refute that initial impression: the story of five inner city youths who forge something beyond friendship while pursuing their high school hoop dreams. But the journey of the "Fab Five" who made up the core of the St. Vincent-St. Mary basketball team in Akron, Ohio earlier in the decade is not exactly your average sports saga, filled with extraordinary characters and equally extraordinary circumstances that Hollywood could craft no better in any feature script. Any filmmaker blessed with such serendipitous narrative riches would be content to simply recount the not-so-tall tale, but director Kristopher Belman takes it an added step: bringing the larger-than-life back down to a universally relatable scale. Figures hardly come more larger-than-life than LeBron James, the Fighting Irish alum who (as the world over has come to know) first caught national sports media attention during his high school stint and has since become one of most celebrated and recognizable stars in all of sports, let alone in basketball. With the knowledge of James's ultimate NBA fairy tale fate, the temptation would be to focus the film solely on his rise, but his story is duly treated as but one of the threads borne out of what was originally the "Fab Four"--James, "Little" Dru Joyce III, Willie McGee, and Sian Cotton, whom we see in some rare home video honing their individual skills and team chemistry from way back when they were pre-teens. Playing in the Amateur Athletic Union, the quartet lived up to the "Shooting Stars" team name, building on their local Ohio successes to shock observers in a national tournament down in Florida; however, the four's first taste of national success will turn out to be just shy of complete victory. And, like most lives, that bittersweet experience reflects the greater journeys followed in _More_Than_a_Game_. Given the presence of James, one expects this to be a film full of triumphs, but what make those resonate even more strongly in the end are the relatable setbacks, obstacles, and shake-ups that occur along the way. In fact, falling into that last category are two people who will come to complete the "fab" family and help lift the entire unit to new heights, Romeo Travis and "Little Dru"'s father, Dru Joyce II. But long before those heights, each initially enters the basketball picture under less than ideal circumstances: Travis in sophomore year at St. Vincent-St. Mary's, where his surly demeanor quickly clashes with the core quartet, who had just led the school to a championship the previous season; Joyce II in junior year, who takes over the head coaching position from a decorated predecessor despite minimal experience. How the four manage to evolve into a "Fab Five" and, above all else, a family of six headed by Coach Dru proves not so much a result of their hard work on the hardwood than of the growth they each must undergo as people. The film's structure reinforces that latter point. Instead of going the standard route of going through each person's background at the top, Belman gives the individual histories at appropriate, organic moments within the overall narrative. While this approach does mean that some events early in the film unfold without a complete familiarity with or understanding of all of the players, spreading the stories out pays off in a couple of respects. Instead of blurring into a muddle, it allows each person to have their time to shine and their respective stories breathe and remain clear to the viewer. But even more effectively, the backstories are used beyond mere exposition to illuminate certain key events that affect the group as a whole--further underscoring the greater idea of how various circumstances seemingly centered on one person can cause repercussions for the collective. Chief among these developments, of course, is the hysteria and hype that arises around James after he is featured on the cover of _Sports_Illustrated_, suddenly catapulting midwestern high school hoops into a nationally televised arena. The film admirably does not downplay any of the well-documented dramas and tensions that then sprung forth from James's literally overnight fame, but instead of wallowing in sensational celebrity scandal, Belman keeps these developments in their proper perspective in regards to the bigger picture: how they affected the entire group and what they all aimed to accomplish. That is an example of how and why _More_Than_a_Game_ works--showing the grounded, real-life terms and consequences of an increasingly surreal chain of events. Only a select few people can completely relate to being blessed with natural athletic ability and talent at such a young age; even fewer still would relate to being suddenly thrust into the media spotlight and scrutiny. But underneath that gloss and glamour is the classic tale of boys growing into men, of people learning the importance of the greater group glory over the individual shine, with the distinctly drawn personalities of each of the five offering a fairly diverse set of entry points for the viewer to understand and relate. Ironically enough, in balancing his attention between everyone on the team, Belman offers deeper, uncommonly intimate insight into the film's marquee name; one is a witness what is perhaps James's most critical, formative period through the eyes of those who not only knew him best, but had a huge hand in shaping the superstar "King James" so familiar to sports fans today. But if lifting-oneself-from-a-hard-knock-childhood-through-big-dreams is fairly commonplace film fodder, _More_Than_a_Game_'s trump card comes in an arc that is not as commonly told and even more empowering: the story of Coach Joyce, as the film is just as much about him coming into his own. If James's story confirms the prevailing contemporary notion that one's opportunity for success comes--and then passes--only while one is young, that of the elder Dru rather poignantly counters that, proving that one does not have to settle for comfort and complacency, for one's true calling and self-actualization may not arrive until later in life. That statement may make _More_Than _a_Game_ sound pretentious, but such weightier ideas are delivered in a very accessible and entertaining package. The Fab Five make an affable and appealing, funny and fun group, and Belman accordingly has fun, fighting the trap of talking head-and-news-clip documentary monotony and keeping the film visually dynamic. Beyond some snazzy (but not overdone) graphic work that gives the documentary staples of old photos and newspaper headlines some motion and flair, Belman also manages to lend some variety to the basketball footage, with each pivotal game edited and presented in their own subtly distinct way; for instance, some visual repetitiveness is avoided by simply not shooting scoreboards in the same way. Belman even has a little fun with the standard closing "where are they now" text cards without resorting to overwrought editorializing or labored stabs at profundity. While it certainly helps to be familiar with the game of basketball and a fan of the sport to enjoy _More_Than_a_Game_, it is far from necessary. Basketball is what brought the Fab Five and Coach Dru together and was and remains a shared passion, but the game is almost incidental to the larger idea: not only that those from not exactly the most privileged of backgrounds can indeed dream and succeed, but that one doesn't necessarily do it by oneself. Not looking out for number one but instead always looking out for each other is what made Coach Joyce and the Fab Five what they were as a team, who they have become as people today--and why their story and this film are so richly moving and inspirational. (c)2009 Michael Dequina Michael Dequina mrbrown@iname.com The Movie Report/Mr. Brown's Movie Site: www.themoviereport.com www.quickstopentertainment.com | www.cinemareview.com | www.aalbc.com www.johnsingletonfilms.com | on ICQ: #25289934 | on AOL/Y! IM: mrbrown23 Michael Dequina A-Frame Studios twotrey@gmail.com | michael@aframestudios.com | mrbrown@themoviereport.com The Movie Report/Mr. Brown's Movie Site: www.themoviereport.com www.quickstopentertainment.com | www.cinemareview.com | AIM/Y!IM: mrbrown23