From tskirvin at killfile.org Sat Jan 2 02:50:03 2010 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Sat Jan 2 02:50:06 2010 Subject: Review: Avatar (2009) Message-ID: Aah, big-budget action/sci-fi movies! Is there anything better? One way or the other, you get to enjoy an over-the-top action-fest with lots of eye candy and miscellaneous silliness; and sometimes, you even end up with something worth seeing and thinking about later. Sure, they're also generally reviewer-proof, but isn't that part of the fun? And the most fun comes when you get to see the movie on opening night, with as big and motivated of a crowd as you can find. There's just something about getting home at 3am after a sci-fi blockbuster... Of course, that's not quite how I saw _Avatar_. The good son and brother that I am, I decided to hold off and see the movie with my father and brother after Christmas. I tried to avoid the reviews, I insisted that we find an IMAX 3D theatre to see it in, and I planned ahead enough to order tickets the night before. But in the back of my mind, I thought about how I'd missed out on the proper "experience" of the movie, and how I'd converted it to just (just?) a family bonding moment. I was a little bit disappointed, but in a "I have done my duty" kind of way. Family comes first, especially good family. Shockingly, in this case the experience was just as good a week after the movie's release. Two things made the difference. First of all, the movie was *packed*. Ordering those tickets ahead turned out to have been vital; and getting to the theatre a half hour ahead of time was just barely enough time to get our popcorn before the movie began, and even then we had to sit in the second row (a *horrible* idea in an IMAX theatre). And second, the movie really was big and shiny enough to make up for the week's delay. The movie took a decade to make; what's an extra seven days at that point? The special effects were, of course, the star of the show. Were they as good as all that? Well, yes. Yes they were. The 3D was top-notch, adding to the scenes in every case and never seeming gimmicky. The motion-capture characters finally looked *good*, after years of adequate-at-best experiences with movies like _Beowulf_ or _The Polar Express_. The models were detailed, interesting to look at, and thematic. And the effects as a whole seemed both flashy and *necessary*, a combination that I haven't seen often in the last few years. (But... revolutionary? I don't know about that. There wasn't anything particularly *new* there; there was just years and years of *refinement*, the sense that the technology could be used by the filmmaker for the good of the movie. The question is not whether the effects have changed the world; it's whether they show a world where such effects can be used to advance a story, instead of replacing the story. I suppose that could be a revolution.) The story was better than I had been led to believe. Yes, the story was shallow; presumably the detail were available in the visuals or the back-story, but somehow even that didn't feel like the point. Yes, the main character's story arc resembled _Dances With Wolves_ - but I rather enjoyed that movie, to be honest, and my personal opinion is that the overall structure more resembled _Dune_ than anything else (and what more worthy story is there to copy, I ask you?). And yes, the other humans were *beyond* shallow, having a first-degree motivation at best (and sometimes not even that). Still, this wasn't *garbage*, which is what I had come in expecting. So I was content. The acting was, oddly, pretty good. Some parts of it were over-the-top, but mostly those came from the humans; the parts played by the CGI Na'vi were, for the most part, pretty darned good. The decision to have the eponymous Avatars look like their actors really did work for me, even it was a bit odd to see a Na'vi Jane Goodall (Sigourney Weaver). And the science and technology portrayed in the movie - well, yay! I got a little bit of computer interface design, which always perks me up; I got a lot of organic interface technology, which was fascinating and oddly plausible-sounding; I got mecha; I got a fairly interesting ecosystem, including a Protoss-esque alien race; and I got a few interesting anthropological ideas tossed in that took advantage of the above. As an added bonus, I even got a Stanford sweatshirt. And so, I came out satisfied. I'll be a bit disappointed if this wins any Oscars outside of technical categories, but that's okay. That's not to say that I came out *content*. I wish that the dangers of the planet Pandora had been *shown* to us, rather than just told. I wish that an explanation had been offered for what made "unobtanium" so important besides sheer economic value. I wish that there had been some nuance as to the corporation's motivations, rather than just "profit GOOD!". I wish that the final battle had offered some useful tactics and/or strategies, rather than just consisting of "let's put all of our forces in a general area and have them fight it out". I wish that the time frame had seemed less... arbitrary. And, most of all, I wish that somebody had looked at the movie as a whole, and realized that all of these points could have been provided with less than five minutes of additional footage, total. The mistake was made to cut the movie too much, and that irked me pretty seriously. So, all of that said (with as few spoilers as I could offer): it's flawed, but it's worth seeing, fun, and a whole lot better than it could have been. I do recommend seeing it, and I recommend seeing it in 3D on the best screen you can see it on. I don't recommend going in expecting the next _Star Wars_ or _Titanic_; you're not going to get either, and you probably don't care. *** - 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 Tue Jan 5 18:48:10 2010 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Tue Jan 5 18:48:13 2010 Subject: Review: Up in the Air (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000912301935m5a26707fta7e30c310dba297e@mail.gmail.com> Thumbs Up "In the Air" by Homer Yen (c) 2009 Ahhh...the little things. It's like the hand-written card that a friend sends you over the holiday season instead of some mass email with those annoying musical attachments. It's like the nicely wrapped piece of mint-chocolate you find in your hotel bed when the maid service turns down your bed at night. It's the plate of fruit that your spouse gives to you when you are working on the computer doing a last-minute project long after the wee ones have gone to bed. This same sense of fuzzy warmness is how you might feel after watching "Up in the Air", which is one of the nicest character-driven films to come along in a while. No explosions or wild CGI effects here. In fact, it's not even a film about noble-hearted people. But it's certainly a break from all of that wild action showing next door. Yet it's equally memorable thanks to some edgy performances contained within a setting that feels up-to-the-minute. They say that timing is everything. And, when writer Jason Reitman first penned this story back in 2002, about a corporate-downsizer who travels the country to dole out the excruciating news that a position has been eliminated, the economy was booming. Like good cheddar cheese that hadn't quite aged enough, releasing the film today makes it feel more topical. I especially liked how the film used real people who were recently fired to just open up and vent their disbelief and frustrations. The story focuses on Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) who lives his life out of a suitcase. He loves everything about the airports that casual flyers hate. He doesn't have anything/anyone at home waiting for him. He even does seminars on getting rid of the metaphorical excess luggage that people pack with them and carry around. Mind you, he's a great conversationalist. He knows that there is a humane way to fire people. But for so long he's been flying here and there that we wonder if he'll ever become more grounded. The screenplay thankfully doesn't pander to some kind of schmaltzy catharsis. It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. However, two strong-willed women in his life do help to provide him with a little direction. One is the fresh-out-of-college-ready-to-conquer-the-world Natalie (Anna Kendrick). Her irony is that she believes in developing strong relationships but can't face people when things begin to go south. It certainly makes sense that she tries to develop a program where people get fired over Skype-like videoconferencing. She thrusts forward and hopes for the best without wanting to really look back. The other woman is Alex (Vera Farmiga) who becomes his love interest. Well, I don't think Ryan knows what love is. But they both enjoy their first-class trysts without any of the strings attached. If Ryan were looking to fly the friendly skies with someone, Alex would certainly be a dandy co-pilot. "Up in the Air" is a very observant film. It goes beyond the stand-up comic material peppered throughout the film. There is an especially funny bit about which line will most likely move the fastest through the area with the random screenings and the metal detectors. As an Asian myself, I have my routine boiled down to a few cha-cha steps to take off my shoes; a few hip thrusts to remove my belt; and a few flips of the wrist to get the tray in order. But it also shows the human side to this weird downsizing business. And it also has its tender moments as Ryan tries to figure out why his backpack is always so empty. Hey...I just got a hand-written holiday card from my best friend. Nice. Grade: B+ S: 2 out of 3 L: 3 out of 3 V: 0 out of 3 From mleeper at optonline.net Tue Jan 5 18:51:00 2010 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue Jan 5 18:51:01 2010 Subject: Review: Between the Folds (2009) Message-ID: BETWEEN THE FOLDS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This 56-minute documentary written and directed by Vanessa Gould looks at origami, the art of paper-folding that has gone from a simple art of creating figures of animals out of paper to an explosion of styles and practical applications. The film looks at some of the major figures in creating origami and the vast array of applications in the real world of engineering, biology, and mathematics. The film sweeps viewers from intricately beautiful works of folded paper art to the submicroscopic origami of proteins, and it is well worth the trip. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10 The documentary BETWEEN THE FOLDS, written and directed by Vanessa Gould, is being shown on PBS's Independent Lens series in December and January. A personal note: I am a hobby origamist. I started folding toys out of paper by age six. Like many origamists I began with paper airplanes. Since then I got into many forms of origami, mostly still folding toys and mathematical ornaments. Over the years I have probably invented more than a hundred figures. But I have always gone from squares and/or rectangles and folded animals, spaceships, or perhaps abstract pieces. While I was folding simple figures this the field completely changed under me and seeing a film like BETWEEN THE FOLDS tells me much of what has been going on of which I had been ignorant. This is an art form, but it is an art form that is restricted by mathematical rules. In the TED Talk cited below Robert Lang gives the four mathematical laws that restrict the structures that can be made using origami. Artists love self-imposed constraints and BETWEEN THE FOLDS shows the vast panoply of creations that can be made under those restrictions. We see examples of people who start with wet paper to get more realistic contours when creating animals. Michael LaFosse makes his own paper and folds figures using the paper, sometimes wet. By making his own paper he can control the texture. But he basically is folding like I am, creating figures as realistic as possible. If there is a difference there is the complexity of his creations. Over the years figures have gone from seven or ten folds to dozens and then hundreds. Pangolins, for example, can be given realistic surfaces by tessellations of scales on their backs each individually folded. The film continues on to show origami subjects following the styles of modern art, getting less realistic to find a greater truth in their subject. More abstract forms are found. Some are more complex, but Paul Jackson has made a study of abstract shapes that one can get with a single crease and just some flexing. All of this is art, but so far it has little practical application. The simplest use is to use origami to teach geometry as a geometry instruction tool as Miri Golan does in Israel. (I have done this myself.) Origami turns geometric principles into a game. Tom Hull applies it to more advanced subjects such as number theory and higher algebra. Still it is being as just an illustration. Martin and Erik Demaine, father and son professors at MIT, work on general theoretic questions like what shapes can be formed by folding paper and then making one straight cut. But their work has a practical side. They, Robert Lang, and others contribute to medicine, biology, natural sciences, and space. Lenses for space telescopes can be folded into packages small enough to send into space only to be opened up when they reach orbit. Science now applies origami to a broad range of applications from compacting car airbags so they too can be stored in a relatively small space, to DNA structure. Erik Demaine has made advances in folding the molecular structure of proteins to create drugs to use against toxic viruses. As one folder makes the point, everything seems to fold. Geological pressure makes the surface of the planet fold. DNA folds and unfolds. Even when we speak the vibration of our voice folds the air. The science of what can happen when things fold is turning out to be a fundamental study of how our world works. Sadly at 56 minutes this film cannot cover to satisfying depth the origami-related art, technology, science, mathematics, and even philosophy. But what it does cover is well worth seeing. This is a film that is intelligent, intriguing, and beautiful. I rate it a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10. Film Credits: A T.E.D. Talks with Robert Lang discussing practical applications of origami and new software approaches to solving origami problems is available at . Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From tskirvin at killfile.org Wed Jan 6 01:34:50 2010 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Wed Jan 6 01:34:52 2010 Subject: Review: Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) Message-ID: When I was growing up, my father loved to read to me and my brother. At first, this was mostly stuff like the Dr Seuss family of books, good stuff that read well and lent itself to memorization. But as we grew up, we got into more "sophisticated" fare. His absolute favorite was Roald Dahl, whose books (_The Witches_, _The BFG_, and especially _The Twits_) were twisted and humorous - what other authors do you know that write about a woman hiding her glass eye in her husband's beer? - but most of all, they're fun to read out loud. And as we grew older, and no longer quite so easy to read to, he's found other kids to read to - nieces and nephews, family friends, etc. But still, one of the things that comes to mind when I think of my Dad is the joy he got - still gets - from those dark, twisted, *smart* children's stories. But I really wasn't expecting to be reminded so clearly of those old days when I walked into a second-run theatre on Sunday night and watched _Fantastic Mr. Fox_. Part of it was the animation. I had seen the animation style in the trailers, and while I had been impressed, I didn't quite recognize at the time how close of a fit it was to Dahl's work. The stop-motion puppetry was different, immersive, effective, and ever so slightly *off* in a positive way. It was both jerky and graceful, and interestingly understated. The characters were visually distinctive, both in stills and in their motions. Together, it brought across Dahl's writing style in a visual manner, something that I don't think any previous adaptation has managed nearly so well. Another part of it was Wes Anderson's direction and writing. I certainly had seen his minimalist dialogue, quirky writing, and episodic formats as conducive to a children's story - something like _The Royal Tenenbaums_ would play spectacularly for children, IMO - but I hadn't really thought of how it would work out with animation. But Dahl's work clearly matched his style in a way that I had little reason to suspect going in. The adaptation felt like a book, and the narration gave it that feeling of a bedtime story. But mostly, it was that story, and more accurately the *characters* in the story. The characters were either unremittingly evil and dark (the humans, a few animals), or noble and dark (the rest of the animals). Every character was flawed, and they wore their flaws on their sleeves. Their mistakes were made knowingly, telegraphed for the viewers in a way that didn't seem fake or unfair. And while the good guys may come out on top in the end - more-or-less - it's not without some losses that seem both real and relevant. Together, it felt like a bedtime story that was worth listening to long after I should be done with listening to bedtime stories. And I spent the whole movie grinning. I didn't see this movie in 2009, but it may still be my movie of the year. Or at least I think that's how it works. Certainly, I look forward to seeing it with my father when it's out on DVD. And if, for some reason, he ever works on _The Twits_ or _The BFG_, I suspect I'll have to fly out to see it with my Dad on opening day. **** (Also - we have a second-run movie theatre in the Bay now? Yay, Bluelight!) - 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 Jan 6 02:12:26 2010 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Wed Jan 6 02:12:29 2010 Subject: Review: Sherlock Holmes (2009) Message-ID: The trailer for _Sherlock Holmes_ was one of the worst short pieces of video that I had ever seen. Its fundamental flaw was playing up the Victorian/Modern juxtaposition - fistfights! firearms! explosions! tasers! - without allowing enough context to actually make that interesting. Instead, the viewer got the (strong) impression that they were just throwing a bunch of stuff at the screen, and looking to see what stuck with the audience. The only hope I had for the movie was that most of those scenes would be left out by the director because... well, I'm not sure. It's not like I'm the target audience... Anyway, none of it was left out. But in context, it worked out a whole lot better than the trailers had led me to believe. It still wasn't *good*, but it was worth watching, and certainly it was fun. And that's a start. That said, what I really want to talk about is the Sherlock Holmes elements. Many of the objections that I had to the trailer were, fundamentally, problems with the idea of mixing certain concepts into the character of Holmes. Since when is physical violence a strong element of the Master Detective's repertoire? Well, the answer is "since Guy Ritchie took over". It worked in the context of his direction style, it worked in the context of the actors chosen (who did a fine job), and it worked in the context of a need to still overshadow Watson in a newly action-y pairing. The violence became part of the point, and that turned out to be okay, if not great. On the other hand, where did this fit into the mythos? Without getting into spoilers, this seemed to occur both early in Holmes' career (based on characters met), and after the stories (based on Watson's moving out and on with his life). While they were certainly going for a new mythos - something that they could make a franchise out of - it was still a bit confusing for this casual acquaintance of the original stories. I would have preferred one or the other. And the story... was kindof Holmes-y. There were the right number of "supernatural" elements. The deductive work was pretty reasonable. The mysteries weren't, for the most part, *cheats*, which is a good sign. And while the story may have been a little bit more momentous than perhaps necessary, it was still something that could mostly have fit in. Mostly. Anyway. I feel like I'm rambling, because that's how I felt coming out of the movie. I didn't feel ripped-off; that's good enough sometimes. ** 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 mleeper at optonline.net Thu Jan 7 12:47:44 2010 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Thu Jan 7 12:47:46 2010 Subject: Review: Up in the Air (2009) Message-ID: UP IN THE AIR (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: George Clooney who has had a fairly successful 2009 killing chickens and staring goats to death rounds out the year as another suave character who flies around the country passing the bad news toe fire peopld by their bosses. Jason Reitman co-writes and directs with a style as smooth and assured as Clooney's. Eventually the film is about good choices and bad about independence and commitment. Costars Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick hold their own playing opposite Clooney. Rating: low +3 (-4 to +4) or 8/10 Oddly enough, the film that UP IN THE AIR reminds me of is THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. In MAGNIFICENT SEVEN you have seven gunfighters who go from town to town solving serious problems for other people. They deal in lead and worry little about their victims. The people of the village all look up to the gunfighters, particularly the children do. But the peasants are the real winners because they have roots and family. The gunfighters are just drifters. Roots, we see, are of more importance than the glamorous image. In the end that is what the film is about as much as the gun fighting. UP IN THE AIR pulls the same little bait and switch on the viewer. It looks like it is about professional corporate down-sizers. It is really as much about people in glamorous jobs who trade personal connections and any semblance of a normal life for a glitzy profession. The profession is "corporate downsizer". What is that? They say that everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. Business managers all over the country want to pay less in salaries by letting people go. That has been true for decades and it got much worse with the economic downturn. But management does not want to face their employees to fire them. Employees sometimes become violent, sometimes break down and cry, and sometimes make threats. And giving people bad news is simply a downer. Some employers have outsourced the undesirable task of firing employees to experts. Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), one such corporate axe- man makes a terrific living because he performs a service that business managers all over the country want. He is a professional firer. He breaks the bad news to employees he has not seen before and never will see again. Then he returns to his very fancy hotel room and sleeps like a baby. He has a nominal home to go back to, but prefers to be constantly on the road or flying up in the air. In one year he has racked up 350,000 airline miles. With his charm he has found and attracted Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga of NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH here in a star-making role). She is an attractive corporate traveler with whom he has uncomplicated wild sex whenever he can arrange it. It is a good life. There is just one problem. His expensive job may be eliminated. Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) just out of school has joined the same company. She intends to make firing even more impersonal by doing it over an Internet wire, thus saving huge travel and hotel expenses. This film is about this unlikely trio and their different philosophies of putting down roots. Ryan is so sure that his prestigious life style is perfect that he gives courses on how not to be tied down. Natalie is not so sure. Alex for her own reasons is very careful to stay out of the discussion. Jason Reitman directs from a screenplay he co-wrote. Previously he directed THANK YOU FOR SMOKING about a lead lawyer for the tobacco industry who similarly had sacrificed his personal life for a highly remunerative job. Here he compares the firing style of the younger Natalie to the old pro Ryan. Natalie has more natural compassion for people she knows than Ryan does, but is more ruthless with total strangers. Ryan takes pride in softening the blows he brings to total strangers, even making the firing look momentarily like a positive step. He takes pride in his professionalism. But he has little more compassion for his family than he has for complete strangers. One stylistic touch that is becoming a bit of a clich? is the montage of reaction shots. We have montages of five or six reactions of people being fired from the point of view of Ryan. We get two or three of these montages. Each employee fired takes the news in a slightly different way. Most are played by unknowns, but one is a short scene with the great J. K. Simmons, who played the father in Reitman's directly previous film JUNO. It is odd that a film on such a painful subject in this economy can still entertain. Perhaps the economy even helps it. I rate UP IN THE AIR a low +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10. Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt1193138/ What others are saying: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/up_in_the_air_2009/ Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2010 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Mon Jan 11 16:27:29 2010 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Mon Jan 11 16:27:32 2010 Subject: Review: Pontypool (2008) Message-ID: PONTYPOOL (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This is a fresh new take on a somewhat tired sub-genre of horror. At radio station CLSY in a small rural Ontario town the shock jock with the morning radio program has to cover the strange and deadly transformation of his town. This is a very low budget horror film made for cable, but it has some nice and clever ideas. This is a particularly Canadian horror film. It could have been set in the US, but there are political reasons that it works so much better in Canada. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 Spoiler warning: I will try to reveal few of the twists, but the whole premise of the film is a twist. It was not very long ago that the United States and Britain monopolized the horror film in the world market. There was a sprinkling of films from France, Spain, and Italy, but they were not the better films available. Certainly the United States's neighbors Canada and Mexico were making films that were at best second-rate. Of course Canada had David Cronenberg and Mexico somewhat later had Guillermo del Toro. But this year Mexico's SLEEP DEALER and Canada's PONTYPOOL rank as high as any United States science fiction films I have seen. (I wait anxiously for MOON to become available.) PONTYPOOL plays with an idea new to the science fiction field. It is telling more than I should to say that this is a film that will inaccurately be called a "zombie" movie. There are no undead zombies, however this film has parallels to zombie films. Something is loose in Pontypool, Ontario, and the concept of it is an interesting philosophical idea. It is a cold Valentine's Day morning in the rural Canadian town of Pontypool. We are inside a radio station where the voice broadcasting is that of bad-boy host Grant Mazzy (nicely played by Stephen McHattie). Mazzy has gotten himself thrown out of larger markets because of his penchant for rubbing people the wrong way. His producer, Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle) has her hands full controlling the shock jock beneath the cowboy hat and beard. Technician Lauren-Ann Drummond (Georgina Reilly), recently returned from serving in Afghanistan, tries to stay out of Mazzy's and Briar's wrangling with each other. Mazzy thinks that getting his listeners angry is the best way to boost his ratings. And Sydney has to pull the leash on him ever few moments. The stories this morning include a missing cat and Mazzy wants to talk about the strange woman who inexplicably attacked his car on the way in to work. These stories may or may not be connected to what the unseen Ken Loney (Rick Roberts) is observing from his vantage point in the Sunshine Chopper. He reports a mob of people has inexplicably "exploded" into the streets and is attacking a doctor's office. This is the sort of thing that just does not happen in a placid countryside town like Pontypool. Soon the radio station will be right in the middle of the action. The pacing of the film starts slowly. Little things start going wrong. It is becoming clear that something strange and deadly has happened in town. But it is a while before there is any real kind of action. We hear what is happening in town, but never see it first-hand or ever leave the radio station building. (That gives the film a claustrophobic feel and at the same time must have really held the budget down.) The film could almost be a radio play. In fact, it was done as a radio drama played on BBC World Theatre, where I heard it. Toward the end the film version becomes considerably more visual, but both versions are surprisingly good. Setting this film away from the action, at least initially, and having the news come in from offstage gives this film some of the feel of the Orson Welles "Invasion from Mars/War of the Worlds" broadcast. It forces the viewer/listener to create the images of what is happening. The film is worth a watch. It is currently playing on the Independent Film Channel and at film festivals, but will go to DVD January 26, 2010. I rate PONTYPOOL a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. One problem I had: Grant Mazzy reads on a sort of horrific obituary to people who had been victims of this outbreak, but there is no way he could have had the information he is reading. The end of the film also seems to be incomprehensible and bizarre for the sake of bizarre. Pontypool. Pontypool. Pont... Pont... Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2010 Mark R. Leeper From Faust668 at msn.com Mon Jan 11 16:32:16 2010 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Mon Jan 11 16:32:20 2010 Subject: Review: Rambo (2008) Message-ID: <5319ba53-f57f-4b34-b6d7-a2fb880a4da6@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> RAMBO (2008) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Two stars I confess that I am no fan of the "Rambo" series. I liked "First Blood" enough to wish later entries followed its suit of a loner Vietnam vet forced into action who realized that America in the Pacific Northwest was as violent as anything in Vietnam. "Rambo: First Blood Part II" and the unforgivably awful and monotonous "Rambo III" created a superhuman Rambo who was all about blood and guts and mowing down dozens of anonymous and villainous cretins without remorse or consequence (As Rex Reed succinctly put it, Rambo became "Superman with helicopters.") Rambo was considered the ideal, Reagan-era, flag- waving hero - the ultra-macho superman of very few words. The new "Rambo" (originally titled "John Rambo") is the same old song and, though it is riddled with flaws, it is far superior to the last two sequels. That is still faint praise. Brawny-as-ever Sylvester Stallone is back as the Man of Far Less Words Than Usual, Johnny Rambo, who is living in exile in Thailand catching snakes! A group of church missionaries want to bring food, water, prayer and medical attention to the Karen ethnic tribe in Burma (now known as Myanmar). The Karen people are facing a genocidal apocalypse thanks to the murderous Burmese regime who have them under their control. The Burmese soldiers rape, pillage, implode and explode these villagers one by one. The missionaries need a guide, a man who knows how to steer a riverboat, and that is none other than Rambo himself. These missionaries know they are treading into dangerous territory but they have no idea what their musclebound guide had been up to in the old days. Remember that in "Part II," Rambo's mission was to photograph any MIA's. Yeah, right! Now in this movie, Rambo has that thousand eye stare and a toughness that screams "machine gun in cold dead hands." But no, the missionaries must think he is some sort of liberal Mr. Softy. Rambo agrees reluctantly to help the missionaries and he must know they might get killed but he leaves them, and then comes back with a few mercenaries who are ready to kill. There is almost some one- upmanship from the mercenaries that is abandoned for the old-school level of gratuitous violence of the earlier pictures. Rambo shows his skills with bows and arrows, slices up abdomens and limbs and other body parts, and uses a machine gun on a turret while roaring in the trademark Stallone roar (he is also handy with explosives). The last half-hour of this film is chock full of graphic violence that includes everything from disembowelment to decapitation to exploding limbs but since the Burmese military are just one-dimensional savages, it is hard to work up much more than righteous applause in seeing them get their eventual just deserts. That is one thing strangely missing from this "Rambo" sequel: a new villain. Here, the villain seems to be the entire Burmese military and that is not satisfying enough for any action movie fans. Stallone is an able writer and director in his own right but he reduces his iconic war hero to nothing more than a one-man war machine. Yes, I know, the earlier films portrayed the same kind of character but I was expecting more since it was Stallone at the reins and not George P. Cosmatos. Stallone got more mileage out of Rocky in "Rocky Balboa" than he does out of Rambo. If nothing else, Sly knows how to frame the action with dizzying results (using the kind of frantic cutting, jittery camera and purposeful dust prints of post-"Saving Private Ryan" action pics). And to be fair, the movie doesn't feature endless explosions like most of "Rambo III." But this movie's politics are given short-shrift and we see the violence poured on us from both the good guys and the bad in such grisly detail that it proves to be nothing more than exploitation of a real-life crisis. It is not technically entertaining, just nauseating. All in all, I felt a measure of nostalgia for what is arguably an amped and revved up 80's action picture but I got more of a kick with depth from 65- year-old Harrison Ford in the last "Indiana Jones" than I did from a 63-year-old brawny, taciturn hero who loves to slice and dice. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Mon Jan 11 16:38:39 2010 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Mon Jan 11 16:38:42 2010 Subject: Retrospective: Freaky Farley (2007) Message-ID: <41fc1120-1323-437e-a057-03777ac23f9d@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> FREAKY FARLEY (2007) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars For a freakishly funny, savvy and thoroughly enjoyable parody of 70's and 80's horror flicks, you can't do better than Freaky Farley. Though hardly perfect or perfectly realized, it is still a nice little surprise for those who are hungry for something other than Scream or Saw. Freaky Farley (Matt Farley) is from a small New England town where he is something of a legend (he is one of three legends). No, he is not a witch or a medicine man living in the woods - he is a town freak who spies on women with binoculars and wears the same black-and-white striped shirt since childhood. Farley lives with his stern, domineering father (Kevin McGee), a self-help radio host, who gives his son comprehensive tests in the morning! One assumes that if he gets a failing grade on a test, Farley has to dig a hole in the backyard, four feet deep and four foot wide (Catholic School was never that strict). That punishment isn't just for poor test scores (including scoring an 86 percent - boy is his father tough!) but it also includes anything Farley does wrong. His father wants Farley to go out and get a job with a local telephone company that results in one of the funniest scenes involving a female employer - I wouldn't spoil it for you. Essentially, his father wants him to become a man, and wear a different shirt! Just when you think that things can't get loonier, Farley falls for Scarlett (Sharon Scalzo), an adventurous girl who is as interested in spying and in the local townsfolk as Farley is (she spots him spying and becomes intrigued). They form a bond, which causes great concern from Farley's father and a next-door neighbor, Katie (Katie Reidy), who somehow knows exactly every move Farley makes and acts like a 2- year-old in the process. Added to that is some mysterious cabin from the Morgantown Woods and monsters (!) that the town is trying to keep secret - a secret that Farley and Scarlett are desperate to unveil. And for connoisseurs of offbeat characters for the sake of being offbeat, we have a scared ninja, a hobo who speaks of the danger in the woods, and a seductive local witch. Granted, "Freaky Farley" is not to be taken seriously nor is it resolutely non-horror either. Take it as something that makes fun of horror without having its tongue in its cheek. For example, there are instances where writer-director Charles Roxburgh and co-writer Matt Farley (member of the band Moes Haven) aim for a fleeting character study. Farley always wears the same shirt, as perhaps a rebellious stance against his father (Farley keeps a few of the same shirts in his closet). Also interesting is how Farley is not afraid of anything or afraid of leaving the house - he is not an insular freak like the albino in "Powder" nor does he do anything freakish or sociopathic (spying is something any male might do, but maybe when you are pushing 30, you are pushing it). When he meets Scarlett, he falls for her but still keeps his hands in his pockets. He likes her sense of spirit and adventure - this doesn't develop into a sexual relationship (he gets nervous and looks away when she goes skinny dipping yet he loves watching women undress through their bedroom windows). And the movie develops a sweetness and innocence that doesn't stray far from Mark Twain territory crossed with a little Nancy Drew, which is unusual for a movie of this type. As for the Twain reference, their relationship mirrors the Becky and Tom Sawyer relationship. "Freaky Farley" falls under some of the traps of independent productions. It isn't smoothly acted or directed but then again, neither were the inspirations for the filmmakers ("Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2" is not one of the proudest moments in film horror). But the flaws, which are expected in lower-budgeted productions, are outweighed by the pluses. For once, we have an indie horror flick that is shot on 16 mm film, as opposed to mini-DV. This lends the film a certain beauty that it wouldn't otherwise have. Secondly, the locations feel alive and haunting, especially the Morgantown woods. Thirdly, the script is haywire but always fun and surprising - you can't anticipate where the story is headed. I would also add that Matt Farley as Farley has devious, arched eyebrows that reminded me a little of Anthony Perkins. He keeps the story flowing from the absurd to the prototypically strange. And part of the mystery and the zany tonal shifts is that we do not know how freaky Farley really is. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Mon Jan 11 16:39:08 2010 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Mon Jan 11 16:39:09 2010 Subject: Retrospective: Finishing Heaven (2008) Message-ID: <57d020c7-5584-4164-9b2e-ed2d893a2bfa@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> FINISHING HEAVEN (2008) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Four stars Mark Mann's "Finishing Heaven" is a sad, mournful film of a life that could've been, or could it? Robert Feinberg is a former filmmaker who shot one film yet never finished editing it. I knew a guy once who was working on a short film, a comedy, for Public Access and had been editing it for three years and still wasn't remotely finished. One may also be reminded of Orson Welles who through the 50's right up until his death in 1985 had several unfinished films. He famously said that he didn't like to finish anything. This is one of the few documentaries I can think of that truly illuminates the task of completing something artistic, without knowing when it can be or should be finished. "Heaven" is the name of the film and Feinberg, under the former tutelage of Martin Scorsese (his former NYU teacher), worked on a film that can't be easily classified in the late 60's. Andy Warhol and a slew of others come to mind describing the film "Heaven," an underground, experimental, free-form picture made with style and flash and dubious content (we see brief glimpses of visual tropes of the era, like midgets and bubble baths with red-haired divas singing). Eventually, things go wrong as days and days are followed by inconsistent ideas and mixed emotions (Scorsese eventually abandoned the project altogether). Feinberg pretty much abandoned his film as well, in addition to his former girlfriend and leading lady, Ruby Lynn Reyner. Now in present day New York City, Feinberg argues with Reymer about completing the film, and she wishes for co-writer, costume designer and casting credits. Their arguing of who gets credit for what, not to mention Feinberg's affair with another woman that killed their relationships, informs most of "Finishing Heaven." If you can put up with these two neurotic people, then you can endure the sadness chipping away at Feinberg. "Finishing Heaven" is not just another documentary about an independent filmmaker trying to make it - it is about a fiftysomething ex-filmmaker, now a cruise ship greeter (is that an actual job?) and a father, trying to resolve his early life in some context by finishing and editing his first and only film. The fact is that if Feinberg ever finishes it (and I doubt it), he may not resolve much of anything. He was an impassioned film school student, perhaps fueled with more anxiety and passion for film than even Scorsese, but he never quite set his sights on completing anything - I gather he just loved shooting reels and reels of film. One gets the impression that his high level of anxiety coupled with early drug addictions self- destructed his artistic side, thus lacking the confidence to complete his film. I don't know what to take away from Mann's "Finishing Heaven" except that it is sad yet hopeful, and tinged with a lot of regret but not necessarily remorse. It is less about finishing a film than it is about the realization of what Feinberg once had and how he can complete and close his past demons. Judging from recent festivals and comments made by Feinberg, he remains a filmmaker paralyzed by his silver screen opus. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Mon Jan 11 16:42:37 2010 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Mon Jan 11 16:42:41 2010 Subject: Retrospective: The Funhouse (1981) Message-ID: THE FUNHOUSE (1981) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Two stars Out of all of the early 80's slasher flicks, "The Funhouse" is slightly above most of them but there's not much more to say. Coming from Tobe Hooper who scared the bejesus out of me with his frighteningly intense and nightmarish "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," I expected a whole lot more. After all the Hoop made the sensational TV movie "Salem's Lot" and directed most of "Poltergeist." Elizabeth Berridge (who some of you might know as Constance Mozart in "Amadeus") is Amy, the virgin who goes on a date with a hot guy! The guy is Buzz (Cooper Hucklebee) and they are on a double date with Amy's friend, Liz (Largo Woodruff), and her very nerdy boyfriend, Richie (Miles Chapin). They are off to the funhouse, a traveling carnival in town that has been plagued with trouble in other locations. Amy doesn't want to go since she would rather see a movie but Buzz convinces her. Once they are at the funhouse and see attractions like a two-headed cow and various goblins and skeletons and other spooky contraptions, the double daters decide to stay overnight. Big mistake when you consider the occupants of this funhouse including a foul-mouthed fortune teller (hilarious wickedness from Sylvia Miles), a possibly deformed male wearing a Frankenstein get-up, and the demented master of ceremonies (Kevin Conway, a sort of poor man's Oliver Reed). A murder ensues witnessed by the pot-smoking, sex-starved teens that leads to an inescapable dilemma. I would almost recommend "The Funhouse" had it been more devilishly fun and made better use of its ominous sets. There are good set-ups, especially involving Amy's brother, Joey (Shawn Carson), who sneaks out of the house and checks out the funhouse. Why? Maybe because he fears for his sister's safety or because he has an affection for Karloff's Frankenstein monster (which he keeps a poster of in his house) or due to the strange Frankenstein-costumed carnival worker he sees. Hmmm. There are a few scenes where Joey gingerly tries to avoid getting seen after the carnival is closed but nothing comes of them. When one of the workers calls his parents and they pick him up, you kind of wished this whole subplot was eliminated altogether. Little hints of something more foreboding are sprinkled throughout the misguided screenplay. The scene where the carnival worker wipes Joey's face while his parents look on is far more tense and scary than anything else in the movie. I also like Berridge's scene in the car with Buzz before they go to the funhouse where Buzz merely tries to manipulate her and she sees through it, though she retains her naivete (she also finds his jokes unfunny). It is such a good damn scene, so perfectly written and acted, that it deserves better than what follows. And whatever hope there is, and it is suggested, of seeing the glint of sadness in Kevin Conway's character is immediately eradicated by the usual shocks and "who goes there?" cliches. I am not totally dismissive of Tobe Hooper's "The Funhouse" and I do see that he might have been trying for a more character-oriented slasher film, dependent more on mood and atmosphere than bloody mayhem. Unfortunately, there are one too many missed opportunities, not to mention a silly looking monster, homages to "Halloween" and "Psycho" and not much else. Elizabeth Berridge and the film's sense of atmosphere almost make up for it, but this carnival could've had more fright value. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Tristan_White at rocketmail.com Mon Jan 11 17:13:19 2010 From: Tristan_White at rocketmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Trist=E1n_White?=) Date: Mon Jan 11 17:13:23 2010 Subject: Review: Max Manus (2008) Message-ID: <3a2d7827-4afa-46c8-9a4e-8be76075a834@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> MAX MANUS (2008) Directed by: Joachim R?nning and Espen Sandberg Review by: Trist?n Harvey E. White Rating: (0 to *****): **** (four stars out of five) Well, I admit, I'd never heard of the real life Norwegian hero before last night. This is probably something to be ashamed about - it certainly seems that was after seeing last night's outstanding movie, which is surely bound for nomination for a best "foreign picture" Oscar. And if it does not, there is no justice in the system. I don't normally go for war films, but the war itself does not feature heavily in this excellent film (the most expensive Norwegian film ever, I hear). In fact, it probably has more in common with a James Bond movie than your typical trenches warfare movie, but with a much more believable premise. Which is hardly surprising, given that MAX MANUS is based on a true story, which is follows fairly accurately throughout. So, what's it all about? Well, Max is an ordinary bloke who volunteered in Finland in the winter of 1939/1940 to try to keep Stalin out of Finland. When he returned to Norway, however, the German Nazis invaded their country. Max and other freethinkers decided to set up a counterpropaganda newssheet to encourage the anti-Nazi resistance fighters in Norway, but was soon captured by the Gestapo, from whom he escaped by famously jumping through a window. He then trained in England and Scotland as a saboteur, and was then parachuted back into Norway where he succeeded, with a small band of men, in destroying various SS ships and was almost certainly instrumental in stopping the Nazis from deploying more troops to the Western Front. Max Manus and his men therefore played an important if not decisive role in speeding up the fall of Germany. The film also delves inside Max's character, his battle with alcoholism and his relationship with both his mates as well as with Tikken, the married liaison officer at the British consulate in Stockholm. Aksel Hennie is excellent as Max, who brings the character very much alive from start to finish. A national hero in Norway, and proud to be so, he received not only the two highest military medals in his country, but also the Distinguished Service Order and the Military Cross and Bar from Great Britain. One criticism I would have of this film is the third act, which does tend to drag on a bit too long but, for the first and second act, this is edge-of-your-seat stuff. With excellent production values throughout, I would be very surprised indeed if this film did not make the shortlist at this year's Oscars, in their "foreign picture" category. I doubt it would beat THE WHITE RIBBON or A PROPHET, but it would sure give them a run for their money. Reviewer: Trist?n White *********************************************************************** 118 minutes. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029235/ MAX MANUS is currently being shown at the International Film Festival in Palm Springs (January 2010). It is currently on release in Denmark, and will be released in Germany in February 2010. It has already available on DVD in the UK. From tskirvin at killfile.org Wed Jan 13 00:39:02 2010 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Wed Jan 13 00:39:05 2010 Subject: Review: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009) Message-ID: (Going in, I should note that I really, really don't want to offer spoilers on this movie. What made the movie fun for me was a) the art and b) the lack of fore-knowledge of the plot and characters. While I can wax ecstatic about the former with relative safety, the latter requires more discipline than usual. As such, I don't intend to refer to anything even close to the plot itself. I might touch on the characters, or perhaps some themes.) For all of the positive ways that I can describe my nuclear family, "artistic" is not one of them. On my father's side, all of that family artistic skill ended up with my Uncle Bil. I grew up with his art on my home's walls, from portraits to sketches to photo-realistic still-life (a few of which I got to take with me to my current home). Most influential were the video games - he worked for Sierra On-Line for much of its glory days, and did background art for the King's Quest and Leisure Suit Larry series, amongst others. But once that phase was over, he went back to his painting. His style has changed over the years, sometimes more traditional and sometimes more trippy, but it's always been recognizably his, and I've always been fond and proud of it. My Uncle Bil also reminds me of Terry Gilliam. Certainly, part of this is the physical resemblance. My Uncle's hair and beard are a bit more red, but past that... well, when I watched the last Monty Python special, the similarities were striking. This coincidence encouraged me to contrast their visual styles, and somehow, I began to see some similarities. The artistic subjects, the broad light-vs-dark motifs, the massive enjoyment of the female form - they matched up, at least a bit. Perhaps none of this would get past an art student's critical eye, but it's enough for me. And besides, I've been enjoying Gilliam's art since I was a kid too. But _The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus_ did something I didn't expect. Through its story of a man whose art has been left behind by the world, it encouraged me to look past the art and into the artist. This was essentially a meta-auto-biography, and not a fully flattering one. Without getting into specifics, the movie told the story of the difficulty Gilliam had in getting his film made (well, closer to _The Man Who Killed Don Quixote_ than _Parnassus_, really). Part of this was that the world has moved on from his style (I miss you, Monty Python!). But more worrisome was how the world kept on throwing up obstacles to hide the art away, most prominently through the death of Heath Ledger. But his perseverance eventually got the work out there, wars and all, and into an unforgiving, unappreciative world. And yet, it was beautiful nonetheless. The characters were, perhaps, sketches. The designs may have less satisfying in CGI than they would have been in his signature paper cut-out style of yore. The ending may have been ambiguous. And, overall, the compromises that had to be made to get the movie out in the first place may have been more apparent then I really wanted them to be. But nevertheless, this was a strong movie, made by a talented man that, while he may have slowed down over the decades, is as singular and artistic as ever. And just as I respect that in my Uncle, I respect that in Gilliam. *** - 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 Fri Jan 15 13:37:34 2010 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Fri Jan 15 13:37:38 2010 Subject: Review: Sherlock Holmes (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9001001112103h49c1a19hde073cdb48f07309@mail.gmail.com> "Sherlock Holmes" - More Arty but Less a Sure Lock by Homer Yen (c) 2009 Ok, now from these descriptions, guess which famous person I'm talking about. Clue #1: Expert Pugilist. Nope, not Manny Pacquiao. Clue #2: Pensive Thinker. Nope, not Gandhi. Clue #3: Cavalier Law Enforcer. Nope, not James Bond. Clue #4: Genius. Nope, not Isaac Newton. Did you guess Sherlock Holmes? Me neither! In this wild rendering of the super-sleuth, he's all four of those rolled into one and put into the good-looking body of Robert Downey Jr. In the opening sequence, he is joined by his indispensible partner, Dr. Watson (who is put into the good-looking body of Jude Law) as they deliberately interrupt a black magic ceremony in progress. For a pipe-smoking detective and his sidekick medicine man, these two sure know how to dispense the beatdowns. When Hollywood, in 1999, remade "Wild Wild West" with Will Smith and Kevin Kline, those two seemed totally ill-suited to play the iconic characters of James West and Artemus Gordon who brought secret-service cool to mid-to-late 1960s TV. Hindsight is 20/20, but RDJr and JL would've made a great pairing for that film. The amount of brute and wit that they possess seems more appropriate for an era of cowboys and Indians. I'm not sure if Sherlock Holmes belongs in a highly stylized action-adventure. I'm sure Sir Authur Conan Doyle is having his reservations. Be that as it may, let's get back to the film. Holmes has a new mystery on his hands. A criminal has seemingly risen from the dead. And a new game is afoot. Solving the case is by no means easy. But, the way in which he goes about it is too neat. Holmes's power of deductive reasoning is super-human. And, it's almost as if every piece not only fit perfectly, but for him, there was a paint-by-numbers palette to help him along the way. However, while he displays strong logos and ethos, his pathos is severely lacking, which allows the film to explore his human side. But here, despite his feelings for an old flame and his casual appreciation for Dr. Watson, the film doesn't allow RDJr to give any kind of nuanced performance that won over audiences the way that he did in "Tropic Thunder". If you had never seen or heard of Sherlock Holmes, then this wouldn't be a good introductory lesson. And, if you had never seen an RDJr film before, you'd be better acquainting yourself through any of his other films. What makes this film ok is that the movie knows that there is a fan base built in and they get enough not to complain. I've read a few of the novels. I like RDJr (and Jude Law). So, it was ok for me. I thought that the procedural had its interesting moments, which reminded me of CSI. I was grateful when the clues were revealed to show how all of the dots were connected. And I suppose that I'll see the sequel if there is one. Still, I can't get past the updated version. It'd be equally strange watching Bruce Lee shooting guns. Call me old-fashioned, but Bruce Lee just isn't the same in a bang-bang shoot-em-up. Grade: B- S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Jan 15 13:42:56 2010 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Fri Jan 15 13:42:59 2010 Subject: Misc: My Top Ten Films of 2009 Message-ID: My Top Ten Films of 2009 (film comment by Mark R. Leeper) Up until the last sixty days of the year or so, 2009 had been a somewhat weak year for film. People asked me what I could recommend and I could not give a strong recommendation for any film. Again the film industry was saving its best for the end of the year in the hopes the better films would be too recent to be forgotten. I suspect the most remembered film of the year will be THE HURT LOCKER, and a good film it is too, but it seems to me to be suspenseful action with not enough character. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS gloried in the absurdity of its story, but the story was more exercises in style. I cannot wholeheartedly recommend either. But in the last two months I saw a few films that I really can recommend. I am a little surprised that three of the ten films are animated. Animation is becoming a very large part of the film industry. 1. PRECIOUS The real title of this film is the unwieldy PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL BY SAPPHIRE. When I first saw a bit of the film I decided I definitely wanted to see it but expected few other people would. That shows how little I know. It is showing up on several top ten lists. I felt for the characters just seeing a clip of the film. This is definitely a feel-bad/feel-good film in the tradition of Charles Dickens. The girl named Precious has a lot more wrong with her life than being saddled with a silly name. She is an obese black teenager who is tormented by her fellow students, by her mother, and even by strangers on the street. Precious's mother is a human monster. Toward the end of the film you get to understand the mother a little more so you see why she does what she does, but she is never likable. That is a hard balance to hit. Precious, who is years older than others in her grade, is sent out of school to a special learning center. There a teacher is able to show her that she has some value. That makes the film sound a little trite, but it is very human. Very fine performances by both Gabourey Sidibe in the title role and Mo'Nique as her mother. Rating: +3 2. FANTASTIC MR. FOX Wes Anderson brings us a thoroughly delightful animated film. With wit, grace, and charm we get the story of a fox trying to evade three nasty farmers who are trying to kill him. But the animal characters are written very human and at the same time very funny, and they are made real by an all-star cast of familiar voices. Add a bunch of clever movie references and we get a lot of film for the price of a ticket. Wes Anderson humor generally does not work for me. Nor do Roald Dahl fantasies. But together they work magic. This film is obviously stop-motion without the perfection of CGI and even that works well for the film. Rating: +3 (Up-rated from my review rating of low +3) 3. UP IN THE AIR George Clooney who has had a fairly successful 2009--killing chickens and staring goats to death--rounds out the year as another suave character who flies around the country passing the bad news to people fired by their bosses. Jason Reitman co-writes and directs with a style as smooth and assured as Clooney's. Eventually the film is about good choices and bad, about independence and commitment. Costars Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick hold their own playing opposite Clooney. This is just a very polished production. The acting is first rate but even the photography is just about perfect. Rating: low +3 4. SLEEP DEALER This could easily be the best Mexican science fiction film ever made. It is a very believable look at what the future may be like all over the world. It takes place somewhere around twenty years in the future when people can connect directly to computers through jacks in their arms. But this is anything but a polished future. We meet Memo who lives in a village where the people have been fenced off from their water supply and are made to purchase their water. The Draconian laws are enforced by high technology and warplanes. To earn money Memo becomes a laborer for a corporation in the US. Robots do the actual work, but Mexican laborers who never leave their country control them. Labor can be exported without the inconvenience of actually bringing the laborers bodies to the US. Memo hooks up with a woman who sells her dreams electronically. In the end the case may be a little overstated, but it still is a powerful view of a believable future. Rating: low +3 5. THE MESSENGER The Iraq War film that seems to be getting the best critical response is HURT LOCKER. I found this quiet drama more affecting and the characters more real and believable. Sgt. Will Montgomery (played by Ben Foster), wounded in Iraq, is sent stateside for the last three months his enlistment. He draws one of the most unpleasant jobs. He has to go to the families of soldiers killed in the war and inform them of their loss. He is taken under the wing of a captain who has never been in combat, but specializes in breaking bad news. Capt. Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) shows Montgomery the ropes with rules like never allowing himself to care about the bereaved. But the job is slowly killing Stone and Montgomery starts to care too much for one of the widows he informed. Rating: low +3 6. UP Certainly UP is one of Pixar's best films to date. The reason is not that it has some of their best animation, though that arguably is true. FANTASTIC MR. FOX uses much older technology, but is at least on a par. Pixar's story values may be improving even faster than their animation. UP is a story with genuine pathos on themes of loss and of unfulfilled dreams. All this mixes with an adventure story that builds to an action climax. Kids will love this film, but some of the notes of UP will definitely resonate with adults. The bittersweet prolog really works to make this film unique. Unfortunately, most of the story virtues are in the first half of the film. The film heads toward a rather prosaic action finale. Those are just OK, but the prolog is one of Pixar's best sequences and is genuinely moving. Rating: high +2 7. THE STONING OF SORAYA M This is a harrowing true story set in Iran. An Iranian woman becomes "inconvenient" for her husband. He wants to trade her for a younger wife and so frames her for adultery. He connives to have her found guilty and sentenced to death, and then knowing she is innocent participates in her execution. We see the stoning in horrific detail. The story is simple and compelling and the title leaves no doubt where the story is going. THE KITE RUNNER also involves a stoning, but knowing of a stoning is not as terrible as being shown one. In a few unnecessary places this film has a little irrelevant dramatic action, but the core story is very strong. This is a powerful film for those willing to see its extreme violence. Rating: high +2 8. SITA SINGS THE BLUES Nina Paley interweaves her own story of her relationship with her lover (husband?) with a parallel story from the Indian epic poem, the Ramayana. Paley emphasizes the relationship of Rama and his wife Sita. Each layer of the story seems to have its own animation style and the narration, apparently done by shadow puppets, is apparently informal and very funny. Sita sings out her sadness in the voice of 1920s blues singer Annette Hanshaw. The film is charming on many levels. It may be running on PBS stations, but it can be downloaded for free. You will not see it at the Academy Awards because the commercial use of Hanshaw's music is apparently copyright infringement. But it is well worth downloading and watching. Rating: high +2 9. RED CLIFF John Woo tells the story of the famous Battle of Red Cliff in this fictionalized version. In China in A.D. 208 General Cao Cao gets permission from the Emperor to lead a ruthless campaign against the armies of two warlords. The warlords band together to fight back. John Woo fills the action-filled war story with plenty of spectacle, much of it generated digitally. This is a 150-minute Western release edited down from 300-minute Chinese release. It reputedly has most of the action but not so much of the back-story. The action never goes as over-the-top as it does in Woo's Hong Kong films, but it certainly is never dull. Rating: high +2 10. THE BURNING PLAIN This is as much a puzzle as it is a story. As with his 21 GRAMS, writer-director Guillermo Arriaga shuffles his story lines so the film jumps around in time. THE BURNING PLAIN challenges the viewer to piece together a story involving three generations of women and an apparent murder. Kim Bassinger and Charleze Theron play mother and daughter caught up in heavy emotions. It is not clear the shuffling really improves the film, but allows Arriaga to give the film real impact having the key scene at the very end. Rating: high +2 That's it. I did have one more high +2 film. I am of a minority who was quite impressed with the science fiction film KNOWING. It is not easy to shock me and this film did have one moment of genuine shock. And after QUATERMASS AND THE PIT I really like films that give scientific explanations for non-scientific belief systems. This film gives interesting rational explanations to both scientific and religious phenomena. And it really kept me wondering where the film was going. And once it got there it had the courage of its convictions. It is a very unusual film. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2010 Mark R. Leeper From tskirvin at killfile.org Tue Jan 19 02:16:17 2010 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Tue Jan 19 02:16:20 2010 Subject: Review: The Book of Eli (2010) Message-ID: January is the supposed to be the Time Of Bad Movies, when the studios release the movies that, for whatever reasons, they didn't want to release during "real" movie seasons. I look forward to this; it's nice to go into movies with low expectations, especially after a season of "good" movies (and more especially after an unusually long run of movies that I actually liked; how can I have not hated any movies since _Capitalism: A Love Story_? Even _Ninja Assassin_ wasn't that bad!). And so I have to admit that I was disappointed. _The Book of Eli_ was well north of watch-able, and my gripes were primarily meta-contextual. (One prominent exception: within the first few minutes a cat had been killed. Yes, this was done in order to provide context into the state of the world and show a general moral murkiness, and it was in no way glorified; but still, this is one of those lines that I don't like to see crossed, and I've stayed away from movies and stopped watching television shows for this offense in the past. So, if you're like me, you may want to skip this movie on general principle.) _The Book of Eli_ shows an especially bleak post-apocalyptic world. Civilization has collapsed, and humanity has been reduced to squabbling over the few remaining resources; water, especially, is somewhere between rare and non-existent. There are virtually no population centers left, and those that do remain are both ruled by warlords and supplied by incredibly scarce and remote water supplies. Even the ammunition has been used up, for the most part. And in this world there is a lone traveller, journeying west with a pack full of scavenged gear and trading supplies. (Mind, most of this is *told* to us rather than *shown*. In fact, most of that which is shown doesn't match up very well with those spoken descriptions; but this is a standard problem with post-apocalyptic worlds. Still, those details that *are* shown to us tend to be nicely under-stated and meaningful: the interesting scavenged modern technologies, the concern over cannibalism, the different attitudes towards the apocalypse between the young and old. I didn't sweat it too much during the movie.) Visually, the movie resembles _Fallout 3_. (This is a compliment; I've been a huge fan of the game series, and the visuals from the last game really were spectacular). As the lone traveller follows the ancient interstates, he comes across ruined bridges and spies on scavengers below. When he looks over the top of a hill, he comes across homes standing alone in a desolate valley. The ruined city looks to be about the same size as any _Fallout 3_ establishment, with the main interior building looking amazingly like the converted brothel that was the seat of slaver "government" in Paradise Falls. And so forth. It was striking, and it was appropriate. The acting was probably better than it had to be, if perhaps a bit stereotype-heavy. Denzel Washington was The Good Guy, Gary Oldman was The Ambitious Bad Guy, and Mila Kunis was The Naive Girl; but they all offered fairly nuanced performances, to the best of their abilities. The characters themselves were slightly less interesting, but really, that's to be expected in this kind of movie. And the script... well, it was really pretty good, at least until the very ending (which is probably best not over-contemplated). Things flowed in a very character-driven way, with plot points not often coming out of left field. Questions, once asked, were generally answered. The effort spent at building up the atmosphere really did pay off with something worth thinking about. And the action scenes (which were well done) fit into the story every time, which is no mean feat nowadays... I was pleasantly surprised. I suspect that I'm not alone on that. ** 3/4. Probably would have been *** except for the whole cat thing. (Oh, and those meta-contextual gripes? Well, this is the first time in a while that I've gone to a Friday early-evening show, and it was also the first time in a while that I had any gripes with my fellow patrons. Please don't tell me how fine Denzel is, ladies; and kid with the cell phone, stop texting during the climax! What is it with those kinds of showings that brings out the horrible manners?) - Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org) -- http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage < <*> http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies Skirv's Movie Reviews From Faust668 at msn.com Wed Jan 20 14:15:22 2010 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Wed Jan 20 14:15:25 2010 Subject: Retrospective: Darktown Strutters (1975) Message-ID: DARKTOWN STRUTTERS (1975) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars Blaxploitation pictures were crude, humorous, abrupt and violent. "Darktown Strutters" may not be the best parody of such pictures but it does capture the zing, the crudeness and the abruptness so well that it gets a pass as one rollickingly good time at the movies. Describing this movie may give away some genuine surprises but I'll do my best not to spoil anything. Trina Sparks (whom some may recognize as Thumper from "Diamonds are Forever") is Syreena, the leader of a black Queen motorcycle gang, and she is looking for her mother, Cinderella! Her kung-fu practicing brother has no idea where she is. The pimps don't know either, but maybe a certain Col. Sanders- lookalike chicken tycoon (Norman Bartold) might have some idea. This leads to an underground cave with prisoners, including the Dramatics band performing one of their own show-stopping tunes no less! Added to this farcical hodgepodge of blaxploitation pictures cliches, perhaps a dig at specifically Pam Grier's own films, are racist Keystone Cops that drive police cars with oversized flashing sirens; walls that come toppling down in houses and apartments; a black-face minstrel show in the tycoon's mansion that may leave some offended (oh, well, such scenes were commonplace at one time); drag queens; three kids who harass an ice-cream man by finishing each other's sentences; lots of giant-sized ribs; hilariously speeded-up and anarchic bike chases and car chases that are probably as exciting as the real thing; and a finale involving cloning and a contraption that makes babies that may just leave you in stitches. "Darktown Strutters" (also known as "Get Down and Boogie") is not for all tastes but its histrionic level of cartoonish tomfoolery coupled with some digs at the genre and, undoubtedly, white L.A. cops left me in good spirits. Almost fifteen years later, we got the similar "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka," aimed at parodying the same genre. I'd say a double-bill would be fitting. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Wed Jan 20 14:16:52 2010 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Wed Jan 20 14:16:54 2010 Subject: Misc: Best of 2009 and of Decade Message-ID: THE BEST TV SERIES OF THE DECADE THE BEST FILMS OF THE DECADE AND OF 2009 Copyright 2010 Steve Rhodes During this past decade the best television series have far surpassed the best films. Especially in the best continuing drama series, the characters and the stories are more involving than even the best movies. In addition, with the advent of high definition TVs and DVDs, an increasing number of viewers can experience significantly better viewing and sound at home than they can in the theaters, where the colors are frequently dull, the images fully or partially out-of-focus and the sound sometimes iffy. (Also, at home, the shows can be watched at anytime commercial-free and paused, rewound and fast-forwarded at will, thanks to the prevalence of digital video recorders and DVD players.) Because of this and because of the ending of a decade, my "best" lists this year will be of the best TV series of the decade, the best movies of the decade and the best movies of the year. When a critic says something is "best," all that is being voiced is an opinion. Criticism isn't rocket science. And it's subjective, not objective. If you have a different opinion, fine. The main purpose in putting out these annual lists is to suggest films or TV shows you might want to consider. My only strong admonition is that, as you would not try a movie by starting in the middle, don't do that either for TV shows. Get the DVDs from your local library or from your favorite video rental service and start from the beginning if you want to try a TV series. Here's to a great new decade of viewing, Steve Steve Rhodes Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com Web: InternetReviews.com BEST TV SERIES OF THE DECADE 1. 24 2. The Sopranos 3. Lost 4. The Wire 5. Dexter 6. So You Think You Can Dance 7. House 8. The Shield 9. Damages 10. Battlestar Galactica Honorable Mention (unordered) Brotherhood Desperate Housewives ER (it was last decade's number 1 series) FlashForward Friday Night Lights Heroes Jericho Mad Men Sleeper Cell BEST FILMS OF THE DECADE 1. WALL-E [2008] (G) 2. Chicago [2002] (PG-13) 3. United 93 [2006] (R) 4. 49 Up [2006] (NR/PG) 5. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King [2003] (PG-13) 6. Gloomy Sunday [2000] (R) 7. Memento [2001] (R) 8. Almost Famous [2000] (R) 9. Juno [2007] (PG-13) 10. Once [2007] (R) BEST FILMS OF 2009 1. (500) Days of Summer (R) 2. Up (PG) 3. Adam (R) 4. The Damned United (R) 5. Star Trek (PG-13) 6. Witch Hunt (NR/PG-13) 7. Every Little Step (PG-13) 8. The Last Lullaby (R) 9. Adoration (R) 10. 2012 (PG-13) - first "so bad it was good" film to ever make my best list From Faust668 at msn.com Wed Jan 20 14:31:17 2010 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Wed Jan 20 14:31:20 2010 Subject: Review: Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009) Message-ID: <012b1e2c-872f-401b-a63f-17b064db762b@t12g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> UNDERWORLD: RISE OF THE LYCANS (2009) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Two stars I tried to stay awake during most of "Underworld: Rise of the Lycans," and inevitably I grew tired by the movie's monochromatic look and its cheesy special-effects. This is the kind of woeful horror movie that thinks moonlit action scenes can be exciting as long as there are quick cuts so you don't notice how bad the special effects are. Though the third film in the series is not as boring as the first two, it is easy to dismiss and forget. "Rise of the Lycans" is the prequel of the series, focusing on the long-gestating war between the Lycans (the werewolves) and the Death Dealers, an elite group of vampires who use them as slaves. The Lycans find a leader in their group, Lucian (Michael Sheen), who gathers his werewolf compadres to stand up and fight against the Death Dealers. This may be because the lead Death Dealer, Viktor (Bill Nighy), wants his daughter, Sonja (Rhona Mitra), to dance the political game with the other vampire higher-ups in the council instead of fighting the Lycans. Sonja is also, unbeknownst to Viktor, in love with Lucian. Lucian can't have her because he is a Lycan so we technically have a "West Side Story" revamp minus the musical numbers (though a musical might be a good idea) and loaded with racism against Lycans. "Rise of the Lycans" starts off well enough, and I thought maybe the series was finally realizing its intended goal since devising an origin for these creatures carries a certain original horrific spin. Bill Nighy has always been the exception in these movies, and I loved how he tries to convince his Sonja to stay with the council. I also like Michael Sheen's Lucian (previously seen in the first two films) as the Jesus Christ of the Lycans, who suffers horrendous whippings yet still has the strength to have sex. But all goes south when the movie leaves its premise dangling and there is nothing to latch it on to. Special-effects take over and the werewolf transformations are added ad nauseam (think how "The Howling" managed such scenes in the past with the less is more tactic). Blood and gore fills the screen with one too many werewolf and vampire decapitations and impalings, and the movie's key setup of its characters is completely abandoned. It is a humorless, horror-less and colorless movie with no real sense of purpose. It should've stayed underground. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From mleeper at optonline.net Wed Jan 20 15:37:59 2010 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Wed Jan 20 15:38:02 2010 Subject: Review: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnasis (2009) Message-ID: THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Terry Gilliam's new film is a lot like his previous imaginative films, only perhaps more so. A small tacky traveling show in a caravan hides real magic. It has a gateway to a subjective land created by the visitor's own imagination. The show's owner is also genuinely immortal do to a pact he has made with Satan himself. The actual story is muddled, but the imagination of the visual imagery is very good. And Gilliam deserves admiration for having brought this film to fruition in spite of nearly impossible circumstances. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 Terry Gilliam's first feature film was TIME BANDITS. He had a boy in his bedroom when suddenly a knight on horseback breaks though the bedroom wall and flies into the room. It is amazing. Gilliam's style is to astonish with the unexpected happening very suddenly. That has become his trademark. He did not have a strong coherent story for that film, but he did have the sudden surprises. That has become his trademark and it really seems to be the really point of his films. To much too great an extent his films are very similar. They do not tell their story well but they do have great big stunning visual surprises. That does not quite compensate for a story that is not entirely coherent. THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS is pretty much what we expect from Gilliam. His visuals outdo Gilliam's previous work, but are along similar lines. The story has something to do with a series of bets between the title character (Christopher Plummer) and the Devil (Tom Waits). Somehow the good doctor is saving souls by trapping their owners in what appears to be a dimension of imagination on the other side of a gateway which appears to be sheets of mirrored plastic. One can be pleased when the good guys are winning, but that is not as good as understanding the game. (Of course, don't take my word. I still don't follow Quidditch.) The film begins one night with a weird and shabby little wagon- bound show appearing in an ugly neighborhood of London all too near the raucous pubs. The show appears to be obviously a cheap fake only a little better than the sidewalk buskers. Ah, but looks are deceiving. This is a real magic show in the tradition of Charles Finney's THE CIRCUS OF DR. LAO, Ray Bradbury's SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES, and Tom Reamy's BLIND VOICES. The mirror on the stage really is a gateway to a mysterious world or set of worlds where what one sees is based on one's own imagination. Later, while the show is traveling the performers see a mysterious figure dancing on the River Thames. It turns out to be the reflection of a man hanging from a bridge. (It makes no sense that the reflection would look like that, but there you have it.) The hanging man, rescued in a nick of time, is Tony (Heath Ledger). He travels with the show and starts suggesting innovative ways to modernize their image and make the show more profitable. But Doctor Parnassus resists, We never really get a feel for what the show the traveling company puts on is really all about. It is supposed to have some magic, but the real magic is behind a gateway that the audience is supposed to stay away from. We never see much magic in the show beyond a little juggling. So what is the audience supposed to see? The audience is told about the magic of the mirror, but that makes for a show duller than having an impresario tell an audience how a giant ape was captured. Just telling an audience stories makes for very dull showmanship. I suppose that no review of this film would be complete without mentioning that it was a marvel that it was made at all. Heath Ledger had done all the real-world scenes but none of the fantasy- world scenes when he died of a drug overdose. Terry Gilliam had the clever idea that everybody's appearance would change once they entered the magic world. So Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell completed the rest of Ledger's scenes. Curiously enough, most people find that the idea works. Terry Gilliam makes the magical world in this film very magical indeed. And the part that takes place in the un-magical, mundane world is very mundane and un-magical indeed. I rate this film 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 2010 Mark R. Leeper From tskirvin at killfile.org Wed Jan 27 02:35:58 2010 From: tskirvin at killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Date: Wed Jan 27 02:36:00 2010 Subject: Review: Precious: Based on the Novel \"Push\" by Sapphire (2009) Message-ID: It's hard to convince yourself to go to movies that you know are going to be depressing. It's just too easy to convince yourself that this is going to be a *traumatic* experience, rather than just a sad one; and even when it's possible that there's art in that trauma, and that the scars of previous movies were worth it, well, it's still not easy to convince yourself that it's worth the trouble. That's what kept me out of _Precious_ during its main theatrical run; but somehow, I overcame my worry and made it for the second, pre-Oscars run. And guess what? It was depressing! But it wasn't quite as depressing as I was expecting, and for that I am grateful. _Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire_ (too long a title if ever I heard one, but I suppose it's not the film-maker's fault) is the story of an penniless, uneducated, obese, and most importantly habitually-abused African-American teenager living in New York City in the 1980s. Precious (her chosen name) is pregnant with her second child (both fathered by her father), living with her abusive mother, and failing out of high school. Her life is, as we are shown consistently and convincingly, hell. And it would all seem a bit over-the-top-depressing if it wasn't clearly based on a true story. Of course, this is just where the movie starts; her life just gets worse from there. There were several moments during the film where the entire audience (rightfully) gasped in horror; and things are just worse in contemplation. Her nicely realized fantasy life just adds a counterpoint that accentuates the negative. And even as her story arc completes and the absolute worst is left behind, her situation is still horrible. So how did I manage to come out of the movie without a need to cheer myself up through violent video games or a good flamewar? Well, it turns out that, at its heart, the movie is also the story of The System Working, at least a little bit. And while it may not have been uplifting as a whole, it was still satisfying to see Alternative Education programs serving those most in need, and social workers doing their jobs even after years of manipulation. Basically, after a movie of seeing things go wrong, the ending showed a ray of light pointed off to the side. And that helped. But having gotten past that potential pit of depression, was the movie any good? Well, yes. The movie was well-crafted and, most clearly, well-acted. The girl that played Precious did a spectacular job; Mariah Carey did a better job than I ever expected her to; even Lenny Kravitz held up his role. Of course Mo'Nique, playing the despicable mother, was a standout. The film portrayed its time period and location tastefully and clearly. I still don't want to see the movie again. But it was worth seeing it the once, and if it really is nominated for some Oscars, it'll probably deserve it more than half of its competition. *** - Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org) -- http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage < <*> http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies Skirv's Movie Reviews