Hot Fuzz ** 1/2

I loved Shaun of the Dead. I was expecting this movie to be just as good, only while lampooning the buddy-cop genre instead of the zombie genre. I didn't enjoy it as much, but it was still good.

The premise is that the main character (the Shaun of the Dead guy) is a supercop in London. He lives and breathes police work. He has the police manual memorized cover-to-cover. He is so good, in fact, that he is making all the other cops look bad, so they transfer him to a sleepy hamlet. There, he uncovers nefarious goings-on, and hilarity ensues.

It's a great setup, and it works pretty well, but it didn't seem like it was firing on all cylinders. The script was good, but not quite as sharp as Shaun. My favorite bits are the interactions between the supercop and the small-town cop he's paired with who idolizes him. In one scene, the small-town cop asks him, "Why did you become a policeman?" Supercop corrects him, saying, "The correct term is 'officer.' There are female officers as well as male." So then the small-town cop asks, "Why did you become a policeman officer?" It's endearing little bits like that that I enjoyed the most.

I recommend seeing it, but don't expect Shaun of the Dead II. Expect a light, entertaining movie and you should be satisfied. Or netflix it--it would be a perfect rental.

The Queen ****

I went into The Queen with few expectations; I knew it was about the current British royal family, but I knew nothing else about the plot. I also knew that it should be a quality film because it stars the accomplished Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth II. But then again, I watched her play the first Queen Elizabeth in HBO's miniseries Elizabeth and was bored, bored, bored. So would Mirren's turn as QE2 rate any better than QE1 did?

Without question, yes.

The film, far from being a sweeping epic about this royal family, covers a mere week in their lives and that of a fresh-faced, smiling new prime minister. There's nothing really special about this particular week ... well, besides the fact that this is the week following Princess Diana's death in a Paris car wreck. The Queen focuses on both the royal family and the new face of British politics, one Tony Blair, as Blair faces his first crisis in office and the Windsors struggle to reconcile their reactions with that of the British public.

This is of course a fictionalized account, so who knows how accurate the private scenes are. However, it proves to be an interesting study of the royals and Blair. Mirren is superb as the monarch who firmly believes in the British stiff upper lip. Michael Sheen's Blair is physically boyish and goofy, but he's quite entertaining as the new PM and interacts well with Mirren. Between their physical similarities to their real-life counterparts and their top-notch performances, you have no problem believing these two are the real deal. Others in the cast are less convincing physically, especially Alex Jennings as Prince Charles. But this rarely becomes a distraction. And the filmmakers made the right choice in not casting anyone for Princess Di; instead, she appears as herself via news footage from the time.

What impressed me most about this film was how most of the characters became three-dimensional and human, even the stoic queen. James Cromwell's Prince Philip is the main exception; he never really rises above being a pompous asshole. Even the Queen Mother comes off as more human than him, and she's used mainly for comic relief. But the film uses the characters and their interplay effectively to draw you into the story. You respect what Blair is trying to accomplish, you admire his wife's willingness to tweak the queen behind her back, and you feel for Queen Elizabeth II as she struggles to relearn the public's relationship with the monarchy. You even feel for Prince Charles as he slowly breaks from his mother's iron grip even as his motivations appear at least partly opportunistic.

The screenplay and direction are truly deserving of their Oscar nominations. There is one sledgehammery moment of symbolism in the film involving a stag that pushes the cheese factor a little too much, but fortunately, that's the only one that's overdone. Otherwise, The Queen is a quiet but entertaining and effective film that humanizes most of the royal family and, while fictional, helps us understand and even sympathize with the leaders of Great Britain.

Pan's Labyrinth *** 1/2

Guillermo del Toro's foreign-language film Pan's Labyrinth is one of the best-reviewed films in recent memory, and I fully expected it to live up to its billing. This dark and moody film, set in Spain during World War II, follows young Ofelia and her pregnant mother as they join her new stepfather at his military outpost in the forest. Franco's fascists have just won the Spanish civil war, and her stepfather is trying to mop up the remaining insurgency. With the horrors of war around her, a cruel and sadistic stepfather, and a mother struggling with a difficult pregnancy, young Ofelia escapes often into the fantasy worlds of the books she treasures.

The film moves seamlessly between the real world and Ofelia's imaginary one. And some of the creatures that inhabit the latter are truly unique, from the ambiguously helpful Pan figure (referred to instead as a fauna in the original Spanish, apparently) to the effectively horrifying Pale Man. The Pale Man's demented story is told very briefly and completely visually in one of the film's most effective sequences.

Ironically, this top-notch sequence leads directly into one of my biggest complaints about the film, a turn of the plot that is completely out of character for Ofelia. What she does seems to serve no purpose other than adding conflict that would not have been there otherwise. It feels forced rather than organic to the plot. And back in the real world, the housekeeper has her own forced moment that makes no sense logically. In both cases, these nonsensical turns of events seemed almost like lazy writing.

The acting is well-done all around; even the mostly one-dimensional stepfather gets to show the barest amount of humanity once or twice, even if we don't feel the least bit sorry for him when he does. And the direction and cinematographer are very effective as well. However, this visually stunning mix of fantasy and reality ultimately falls a little short. It's still a very good atmospheric film, but the script needed one more rewrite for the two or three plot holes that bothered me. Don't go in expecting the greatest film of the season; go in expecting an entertaining and well-made film.

Night at the Museum: **

Going into this movie, I'd heard that it was funnier than "Meet the Parents," which seems to a popular standard for "funny" these days. I think one reviewer even said that it's Ben Stiller's best movie yet. Um yeah. I think that reviewer was smoking crack.

The premise behind "Night at the Museum" is that after dark, all the museum's sculptures, wax figures, etc. come to life. Ben Stiller is hired as the night watchman, who has the unconventional task of keeping everything IN (rather than out). The first night that he discovers that everything is alive is kinda funny. There's a crazy monkey (and you know, monkeys are always funny). Owen Wilson also does a decent job as a Wild West figure that comes to life. (and Wilson and Stiller always seem to find a good groove together)

Most of the supporting actors were rather annoying. There were the night security guards that Stiller replaced (Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney), who were all solidly un-funny. Robin Williams plays Teddy Roosevelt, who happens to be in love with the Sacagawea figure. YAWN. And there was also a lame sub-plot of Stiller trying to impress his son with his new job.

Gosh, with all this said, I'm not sure why I'm giving the movie 2 stars. But I guess it's a good flick for kids. Or if you just want something pretty lighthearted, and you don't go into it expecting much, I think the movie will deliver.

Just don't expect "Meet the Parents" kinda funny. Because that it is most definitely NOT.

Borat *** 3/4

Also reviewed by: Andrew

Sasha Baron Cohen's film Borat (full title, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan) had the benefit -- and misfortune -- of being the film with the biggest buzz in recent months. Commercials showed some of the funniest bits over and over again. Word of mouth pegged this as one of the funniest films ever. So could any movie live up to the hype?

Unfortunately, not quite. Had I gone in expecting merely a funny film based around one of Cohen's characters (and my favorite) from Da Ali G Show, I would have loved this movie. Instead, I went in expecting a non-stop laugh riot that would rank among the best comedies ever. And so, while I did laugh a lot, I didn't laugh quite as much as I thought I would and I came away a little disappointed. I was hoping for a 5-star film; instead, I'm rating this just a hair under 4 stars.

Nevertheless, this is still a hilarious film. The bit where Borat takes lessons from a comedy coach is funny; it just got overplayed in commercials. And some of the humor is uncomfortable, as real people reveal some startlingly disturbing racism and sexism. And there's one extended sequence that will have you laughing and squirming in disgust all at the same time. And damn if Pamela Anderson isn't actually convincing in her role.

As Borat, the hapless Kazakh (Kazakhstani?) journalist, Cohen commits fully to the character, whether showing off the traditional "Running of the Jew" festival in his hometown or bringing a bag of shit to the dinner table. And Borat allows Cohen to show his range as an actor, as Borat has almost nothing in common with his other Ali G characters or even the snooty French racecar driver he played in Talledega Nights.

You're able to laugh at most of Cohen's victims in this movie, the real people who didn't know he was just an actor. And the few exceptions turn out okay; you feel sorry for the owners of the antiques shop where Borat breaks hundreds of dollars of merchandise -- they really did nothing to deserve such treatment besides selling kitschy stuff -- but you get the feeling they were compensated for the lost goods offscreen (and articles about the film back that up). Likewise, you're afraid of how the anti-Semitic Borat will treat the kindly old Jewish couple in whose bed & breakfast he stays, but they aren't treated badly at all. However, I'd like to know how Cohen and crew got out of the rodeo alive after butchering the national anthem.

Borat is good for a lot of laughs. Just be prepared to be uncomfortable at times (and for about 10 minutes straight at one point). The film does expose a side of America, especially the South, that isn't particularly palatable. But you'll be struck by how patient most people try to be with Borat. And there are still enough hilarious bits -- comfortable and not -- to make this film worth seeing. Just don't raise your expectations to stratospheric heights beforehand.

Stranger Than Fiction ***

In Stranger Than Fiction, Will Ferrell plays a strait-laced IRS auditor who hears a voice in his head that is apparently narrating his life as he goes. Unfortunately, the narrator predicts his untimely demise. Meanwhile, he falls in love with a woman who is his polar opposite--an anarchistic, tattooed baker played by Maggie Gyllenhall.

With its surreal plot, comic actor in a serious lead role, and opposites-attract love story, this movie reminded me a lot of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Indeed, one reviewer calls this movie "a Charlie Kaufman movie for people who are too stupid to understand Charlie Kaufman movies." I wouldn't go that far, but it does have a Kaufman-lite feel. Which isn't a bad thing. This movie is more original than most, and it's got a brain and a heart. It is both funny and poignant, and there are some good performances, especially by Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson. Will Ferrell does a credible job with his serious scenes, and is understated but funny with his humorous bits.

The movie could be better--they could've taken the pathos deeper, and the premise and relationship could be more convincing. Still, it's a funny, sweet film.

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for blah blah blah ***

Also reviewed by: Dipu

I've seen Da Ali G Show, and I've heard bits and pieces about the movie (mostly about the people who are filing lawsuits against its makers). So, I thought I had the movie figured out. It still managed to surprise me, make me writhe uncomfortably in my seat, and laugh my head off.

In reviews of this movie, the term "fearless" comes up a lot. And it's true. As he poses as a Kazach journalist touring the US, Sascha Baron Cohen fearlessly, relentlessly presses people way past the point of social politeness. I couldn't possibly stand to do what he does, which is half the fun of watching him do it. The way Americans respond to him reveals two things: Lots of people in the US are really polite, and lots of people in the US are still racist, sexist, and homophobic. Not a surprise, but it's good to expose the truth using humor.

The following quote from a review in the Minneapolis Star Tribune sums it up nicely: "Conceptually brilliant and fearlessly executed, it rewrites the rules of screen comedy, presenting something never before seen on film: a gene-splice of Andy Kaufman's high-wire character humor and caught-on-the-street pranks from Punk'd."

Casino Royale ****

Die Another Day, the last Pierce Brosnan Bond movie, is on cable right now. While channel-surfing, I came across it and heard the following dialogue:

Halle Berry (from off-camera): "Don't pull it out, James. I'm not done with it yet."

You probably thought she was talking about his weiner, right? Wrong; she's talking about a diamond in her belly button. Huh. Huh.

This type of cheese periodically bogs down the James Bond franchise, like the later Roger Moore movies. In comparison, Casino Royale is completely dairy-free. Think of it as Royale Without Cheese.

The story begins at the beginning of Bond's career, as he gets his 00 designation. This Bond is not a cartoonish superhero. He's human and capable of making mistakes and misjudging people. He's also the toughest Bond since Sean Connery. And the buffest--several women in the theater gasped in the scene when he steps out of the ocean in his bathing suit.

How are the action scenes? They're incredible. There is an insane chase scene near the beginning of the movie where Bond chases a bomb-maker up and down the girders of a high-rise building under construction. The actor who plays the bomb-maker is incredibly athletic and acrobatic; it's like watching Jackie Chan at his most death-defying. (Trivia from imdb.com: "The style of free-running/movement Mollaka the Bomb-Maker uses in the Madagascar Chase near the beginning of the film is called Parkour. Sebastien Foucan, who plays Mollaka, is also one of the creators of Parkour.") That vertigo-inducing action sequence was the highlight of the movie for me, but the action and suspense really never let up.

As I sat there watching scene after scene of sharp dialogue, believable movie physics, deepening intrigue, and actual character development, I thought, "Man what's not to like? This is one of the best Bond movies ever."

I've had 48 hours to think about it, and I still think it's one of the best Bond movies ever. And the cool thing is that they started over from the very beginning. So, if we're lucky, we may be treated to tasty, dairy-free Bond movies for years to come.

Superman Returns: The IMAX 3D Experience ***

Also reviewed by: Andrew

Superman Returns hit theaters this summer, but a slightly different version went to IMAX theaters with 20 additional minutes in 3D. I'll review the 3D aspect before getting to the film itself.

While the 3D sections were cool, thankfully, the entire movie was not 3D. Probably would have ended up with a headache after 2-plus hours of that. The effect seemed least effective during the most frenetic scenes; there's so much going on that the effect is either lost or more confusing.

The film would prompt you with a glasses icon at the bottom of the screen when it was time to put the 3D glasses on, while another icon would appear at the end of the 3D scenes. This proved to be fairly seamless and less disruptive than you'd think. The 3D itself worked pretty well, though I wonder if it's even better for someone who doesn't wear glasses already. And you still sometimes get a sense that what you're seeing is a scene set in layers at different depths rather than simply being real life. So, 3D technology is certainly coming along nicely, but it's not quite good enough to use in a full-length action film yet.

As for the film itself, while in some respects it surpassed my fairly low expectations, it was still somewhat disappointing. To be fair, I went in disagreeing with the direction of the movie. I thought that they should simply start over and "reboot" the franchise, as was done with great success with Batman Begins last year, rather than doing a "5 years later" pseudo-sequel to Superman II (they at least had the sense to ignore Supermans III and IV).

The best parts of the film are the special effects and the surprising directions they take the characters in. While I'm still not sold on the way-too-computery web-swinging effects in the Spider-Man movies, I was impressed with the flying sequences in Superman Returns. Those actually looked believable. And the extended sequence with Superman attempting to rescue a jet is a crowd-pleaser. Meanwhile, the plot takes Superman's character in directions I didn't expect in the Superman universe, places I don't think even the comics have tackled yet.

However, the plot is also the biggest problem with this movie. "Origin films" have a built-in problem where they can get bogged down with all the exposition and backstory (see Spider-Man), but they can be done well despite these inherent problems (see again Batman Begins, or more recently, Casino Royale). So the filmmakers may have wanted to avoid those problems by not rebooting the franchise. However, they chose an even more convoluted way around it. Instead, they've set up a film where not only do they have to explain why Superman left Earth for 5 years and why he's returned, but they also have to spend half the film getting him reacquainted with everyone. And what about Lex Luthor? Okay, now they have to come up with a convoluted explanation for why he isn't in prison.

And speaking of Luthor, talk about a waste of a villain and actor. Sure, props to Kevin Spacey for actually shaving his head instead of spending most of the time with hair, as Gene Hackman did. But the poor guy isn't given anything interesting or believable to do. What is Luthor's grand scheme this time? It's no spoiler to tell you that he wants to use Kryptonian technology to ... build himself a island that floods the existing continents and makes his land valuable to those who survive. HUH?!? This is the best plan this alleged criminal genius could come up with? And what's with the movie Luthor's obsession with land anyway?? (In the first Superman movie, Luthor's plan was to use the San Andreas fault to break off California, thus giving him valuable beachfront property in Nevada or wherever).

As Luthor's gal, Parker Posey has a couple of snappy exchanges with him, but mostly her role is to show the regret that Luthor never does. Kate Bosworth does a decent job as Lois Lane, especially when standing up to the long-absent Superman, but she doesn't seem quite as ballsy as Lois should. And Brandon Routh is pretty good as Superman and Clark Kent, channeling some of Christopher Reeves' film mannerisms for his performance.

Kudos to director Bryan Singer (the guy behind the first two X-Men movies) for deliberately avoiding (and even acknowledging that he's avoiding) the overly cheesy ending. On the other hand, the climactic scene before the end is both ridiculous and overly symbolic. Plus, the way they've ended this film, it seems they've written themselves into a corner for the inevitable sequels. Or at the very least, they've made things difficult for the future screenwriters.

Overall, Superman Returns is a decent spectacle, but it falls far short with an overly convoluted plot burdened with the setup of Superman's absence and return, a weak villain and threat, and some interesting but questionable decisions by the filmmakers.

The Science of Sleep

I saw this movie more than a few weeks ago, over a month now maybe? And I cannot. Get it out. Of my head. The whole thing has stuck with me as if it were a dream. I think Gondry intends to do that and he totally succeeds. It's visually breathtaking and beautiful.

Gael García Bernal plays Stéphane. This kid is so freaking talented (not to mention easy on the eyes and incredibly sensual). Charlotte Gainsbourg plays Stéphanie. I haven't seen her in anything since she played Jane Eyre to William Hurt's Edward Rochester. She's excellent for this movie. There is a realness about her that totally works next to Bernal. Honestly, I don't know that I would have cast Bernal in this role for fear that he would be far too distractingly dreamy (so to speak). But it appears all that is testament to why I am word-smithing technical manuals and Michel Gondry is creating art on film. The casting could not be better.

This movie is not so unlike Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which I also loved) in that both are clearly (to my mind at least) little more than avenues for Gondry to explore the unreal.

The Science of Sleep is a bit more plausible in that it is specifically based in a dream world. Not much need for suspension of reality when the audience only needs to buy into one regular dude's dream world. We've all had crazy dreams. Suspension of reality was completely prerequisite to enjoying Eternal Sunshine. And even then, some people just couldn't do it.

The plot is simple. It's an easy love story and a view into one guy's kind of deranged take on reality. But it's really complex too. The characters are very real and the way they deal with their own realities is inspiring to me. I can't quit thinking about it. I will see it again for sure...

Superman Returns in 3D (*** 1/2)

I wasn't expecting a whole lot from this movie, maybe a few half-decent action scenes. It was actually a lot more entertaining than I was expecting. Not because of story depth or character development--it's just that the action was a lot better than I was expecting, and more of it. The SFX are good, the sets are good, the movie just looks good. And the 20 minutes of 3-D are especially cool to look at. There were also some humorous lines, usually uttered by Parker Posey.

I would probably give the 2-D version of this movie 3 stars, but the overall 3-D IMAX experience bumps it up to 3.5 in my eyes.

You've only got two more days to see it, so move fast if you're curious.

The Departed ***

The pedigree of this film alone is impressive, between its all-star cast and director Martin Scorsese. And everyone I saw this film with loved it. So I'm not sure exactly why I was a bit underwhelmed. Maybe I was expecting too much. But while I thought it was a decent film, I wasn't blown away by it.

The film follows the lives of a handful of Bostonians involved on both sides of the law, and the efforts of the police force's undercover unit to infiltrate the local mob. The script has a lot of great lines, lots of good snappy retorts and putdowns. The plot itself is somewhat complicated but not overly so. However, I did find it a little hard to get into the story. The acting was pretty good for the most part, though some of the Boston accents did seem to fade in and out (most notably, and surprisingly, on Martin Sheen, who's played both JFK and RFK).

I can't really put my finger on why I didn't get sucked into the film more and thus rate it higher. Maybe my attention was spread too thin amongst all the characters and I didn't really latch on to any one in particular. Whatever the reason, I thought it was only a decent film, but that seems to be a minority opinion. I guess I was expecting something a lot better, and instead of a great film, this turned out to be "only" a good one. Still worth a look if you get a chance.

Jet Li's Fearless ***

Billed as Jet Li's final kung-fu epic, Jet Li's Fearless purports to tell the story of Huo Yuanjia, a Chinese martial artist master in the late 1800s/early 1900s who helped inspire Chinese national pride in the face of Western colonialism. This film is really two movies. The first half is the kind of kung-fu movie you'd expect, replete with physics-defying moves and battles. But the second half is more of a period piece; there is very little martial arts action, save for the final climactic scene, and those fights are firmly grounded in reality.

The film is shot well and has some great set pieces. The plot is pretty standard -- hero's head gets too big, hero loses everything, hero goes off to find his way, humbled hero returns to set things right. Much of this plot is what dominates the martial-arts-free second half of the movie. In fact, it reminded me a lot of The Last Samurai (the Tom Cruise vehicle from a couple of years ago), where the hero ends up in a misty mountain village, find love, learns a new path, and goes off to fight the Western powers.

Still, Fearless is an entertaining film in its own right and is worth watching. I would have given this 3 1/2 stars, but I penalized it the 1/2 star for two reasons. First, the final scene is surprisingly overly cheesy. And second, they end the film with text giving the historical update of what happened after Yuanjia's death. In other words, this was based on a true story. But when my curiosity lead me to Google Yuanjia after I saw the film, I found out that very little in this "true" film was true. I know films will over-dramaticize elements in biopics, but I thought this was ridiculous. For one thing, Yuanjia's great-grandsons for some reason dispute the film's assertion that his only child was killed in her youth. The slaughter of his family in the film is a very important plot point ... and completely made up. So too are the circumstances of his death as portrayed in the film. And who knows what else. I don't object to them making up facts out of nowhere for a film, but if you're gonna do that, don't put historical facts up at the end of your film and pretend your film is accurate too.

But if you can get past my nitpicks and just enjoy the film as a completely fictional kung-fu period piece, you'll enjoy Jet Li's Fearless.

something's gotta give: *** 1/2

OK, I know this is an OLD movie, but I just saw it yesterday... and wow, it's pretty darn good! Part of this might be because I had pretty low expectations. Not only did I not see it in the theatre, or rent the movie on DVD, I actually DVRed it off of TNT. Yes, TNT. AND I didn't watch it for over a week!

Anyway, the performances were pretty darn refreshing. I mean, Jack Nicholson playing an aging, uber-successful man who only dates women under 30? Not exactly a stretch. But amazingly enough, he still had a pretty fresh take on it. The plot also helped in this regard by having some cool little twists.

And hello, Diane Keaton rocked the house! She was so convincing at playing a divorced woman in her 50s, who thinks she has life all figured out. She's like the ultimate example of the competent, modern woman who doesn't need a man in her life. (not to get personal here, but this totally describes my own mother... so perhaps, that's another reason I liked the flick!) Of course, she ends up falling in love with Jack's character... like you couldn't have seen that coming. But even cooler is that they have Keanu Reeves also "courting" her. The plot capitalizes on the possibilities of older women being with a younger guy, ala Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher.

There are some parts that seem over the top... Jack's character meets Diane because he's dating her daughter. And we're supposed to believe that this gigolo hasn't slept with the daughter yet?!?! Um, right. The house in the Hamptons is a bit of a stretch. And the end of the story gets kinda fanciful. (Oh, and I think they should've cast the Keanu part differently, because he never seems passionate enough. He's always the monotone Matrix guy to me)

However, I still highly recommend it. Especially if you're the child of divorced parents, who's ever wondered how to get your Mom a man. (um, is that just me and my sis?!) Other than that, it's nice to think about how age relates to love. Definitely worth all the Oscar talk it got. And worth an afternoon on TNT.

Talladega Nights ***

Another long overdue review in my attempt to catch up on what I've postponed.

I had high hopes for Talladega Nights: The Legend of Ricky Bobby. This promised to be Will Ferrell at his finest, along the likes of Old School or Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. And when I left this film, I actually felt it was a little better than Anchorman overall. Talladega's main strength over Anchorman is that it is a much smoother film. The plot flows well and logically and is not as disjointed as Anchorman. However, now that a few weeks have passed, I'd have to say that the movie falls just a bit short of Ferrell's earlier work. Perhaps repeated viewings on cable will change my mind, but that's where it stands now.

As I said, one of the strengths of the film is that it's smooth and not disjointed. And it is a funny film with some good lines and scenes. But ultimately it's a light snack that doesn't really fill you up. It's worth seeing for a few laughs. Will Ferrell is funny as always. But in the end, it's no classic, cult or otherwise. I was hoping to leave the theater with my sides hurting from laughing too much. But I never even got a good strong belly laugh out of it. It's just a decent comedy that's worth a matinee price or a couple hours of your time when it's on cable.

Little Miss Sunshine **** (yes, a new review!)

also reviewed by: Babs

An overdue review, as Babs was on the ball and did hers almost 2 months ago!

If you have a chance to catch this when it comes out on video, do so with all due haste. I was afraid this film might succumb to the temptation that "art" films face and end up being a pretentious indie comedy that tries too hard. Fortunately, Little Miss Sunshine avoids that pitfall with ease.

The basic plot is that a dysfunctional extended family has to take a road trip to take the youngest member of the family to the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant for young girls. And wackiness of course ensues.

The cast all play their parts perfectly without going overboard with their quirks. Abigail Breslin, who plays the daughter, avoids being the overly cutesy child actor. Steve Carell's character was sold in the trailers as kind of a nutjob, but in the film he's really just someone who had a breakdown, and thus is not an outrageous, scene-chewing character. Which is a good thing. Greg Kinnear and Toni Collette are great in their roles as the harried parents with their own problems. Alan Arkin gives a nice performance as the caring but drugged-out grandfather. And Paul Dano plays the typical sullen teen, but again, as with most everything else in this film, he avoids going overboard.

The dialogue and family interplay is hilarious; I haven't laughed that much during a film in a long time, especially during one brilliant scene where Carell keeps making sarcastic responses to Kinnear, his brother-in-law. The situational humor can be absurb, yet it doesn't feel forced. And when the film could have gone off the deep end with sweetness, it doesn't. Plus, they throw in a great indictment of child beauty pageants to boot.

Good script, good characters, great dialogue and acting. This is a fun quirky film that will make you laugh.

Little Miss Sunshine: ****

also reviewed by: Dipu

What a quirky, wonderful little film! Sometimes I go into these independent movies with lower expectations... knowing that they have smaller budgets, target slightly less mainstream audiences, and whatnot. But wow, I hope a ton of people overlook this bias, and go to check out this one.

First of all, the cast is awesome. You've got people with real star quality: Greg Kinnear, Toni Collette, Alan Arkin and Steve Carell. And each one puts in an excellent performance.

The plot is pretty straightforward... a family driving their VW van across country to get their 7-year-old daughter to the "Little Miss Sunshine" beauty pageant. But the lighthearted trip has some great laughs.

Best of all, the movie has a couple great messages, without being heavyhanded about them. Like the importance of family, and being yourself. (and the importance of eating ice cream :)

I would totally see this again. It's fresh and different. Four stars for sure.

Miami Vice * 1/2

I've enjoyed some of director Michael Mann's other films such as Ali, Collateral, and The Insider. So even though I never watched the Miami Vice TV series, I figured what the hell. Worst case, this'll be a decent action flick, right?

Far from it.

I don't know what the characters in the series were like, but they were indistinguishable in this film "reimagining" of the series. Colin Farrell plays the hardcore bad-ass white cop. Jamie Foxx is the hardcore bad-ass black cop. Their team also has a hardcore bad-ass black female cop, a hardcore bad-ass Hispanic female cop, and some generic white guy. There's little to no chemistry among any members of this undercover team. Why do these characters care about each other? No clue; we're just supposed to accept that they do.

Okay, how about an interesting plot? We're supposed to be drawn into their search to root out who betrayed some federal agents to a drug cartel, but the story was just boring. Real undercover work may be boring most of the time, but that doesn't mean I want to see a movie about it either.

Well, there's gotta be good action, right? One lopsided gun battle in the beginning, a huge gun battle that goes on forever at the end, and very little in between. Instead we get a tedious love story between Farrell's Sonny Crocket and the Cuban-Chinese wife of the drug lord they want to take down. Farrell's consistent, at least ... he has no more chemistry with her than he does with the other actors. But I'll give credit to Jamie Foxx, who had one intentionally funny moment during a love scene; the film could have used more touches like that instead of focusing on how tough these characters were all the damn time.

What was surprising about this film was how amazingly dull it was. There was nothing to draw me into the movie or the characters. It didn't even pass as a decent cliched buddy-cop movie. I don't even see why they bothered calling this Miami Vice. It was really just a generic and boring undercover cop movie that happened to be set in Miami (although half of the film ends up taking place outside Florida). This could've been called Undercovers instead. But no matter what the name, this still remains a disappointingly boring film.

long overdue

Now that I have TV and the internets back in working order after my move to Seattle, I'm ready to dive back into pop culture trivia. Although being unemployed is never as much fun in the summer (when all you have is daytime TV and reruns to keep you busy), I'm surviving. Here is a quick rundown of the latest cultural offerings to which I've exposed my atrophying (sp?) brain cells.

Project Runway Season 3: Thank God for ProjRun. There is nothing new on TV and I would die without at least a little decent reality TV. The best? One good designer has been kicked off for cheating. He was an ass though so no tears here. The bad? The most recent challenges have been lame lame lame. I don't want to see fashion designers make dresses out of plastic cups and baling wire. Derelicte anyone?

The Devil Wears Prada: I liked this movie more than I thought I would. I really liked the book. I knew that it was brain candy though so I was curious to see how they could give the story some depth. Meryl Streep is perfect as that horrible awful boss with no conscience. Ann Hathaway wasn't half bad either.

PotC: DMC: This was silly. Very very silly. Will I see the third one? Yes. Will I wait in line ahead of time for tickets? Of course not. As Dipu said in his review, it helps to watch the first movie before going into the second one. Since I hadn't seen the first one since it came out three years ago, I was a little lost. Plus, I really didn't care that much about the characters...or the plot... or the neverending sword fights.

For next week: I plan to see Little Miss Sunshine. This looks good and it has Steve Carell and Greg Kinnear. I'm already in love.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ***

also reviewed by: Babs

The first Pirates of the Caribbean film was so unexpectedly fun, it would be nearly impossible to top. And so not surprisingly, I didn't enjoy this sequel as much as the first one. But Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest -- the middle film of what's become a trilogy -- is still an enjoyable popcorn flick.

First, the complaints. The film requires you to remember too many details from the first film. Sure, I had a great time watching the first one, but I didn't see it over and over and memorize it. I didn't remember the specifics about Capt. Sparrow's magic compass. And some characters are reintroduced halfway into the movie in unrecognizable states, and we're supposed to remember what they did in the first film right away. The movie is also too damn long. I thought it was building to the climax about 10 times before it actually did end, though I suppose that was partly due to the fact that I was expecting and looking for the cliffhanger ending. And some of the special effects were less than spectacular, particularly one scene where Johnny Depp is face-to-face with the monstrous kraken. Unless this was a deliberate homage to the films of yore -- it looked like something out of the 1950s, where it was obvious that an actor was standing in front of a big grainy projection of a monster. And were there ever tribes of south Pacific-looking cannibals in the Caribbean?

But the biggest mistake the filmmakers made was in the structure of the plot. The three principle characters, Depp's Capt. Sparrow, Orlando Bloom's Will Turner, and Keira Knightly's Elizabeth Swann, spend nearly half the movie apart, following three separate plot lines. Which doesn't even include a few separate subplots following minor characters on top of that. This diluted some of the fun because they had to keep switching around among the simultaneous storylines. That interrupted the flow too often.

However, by the final third of the film (which I'd thought at first would be the final few minutes but ended up being an hour), everyone is brought back onto the same stage, and things start flowing much more smoothly. The fun returns in this final act, with comedic yet impressive set pieces as all hell breaks loose. And the rest of the special effects are impressive, particularly the animation on Davy Jones' squiddy face. His expressions are top-notch.

Depp gives another great performance at the Keith Richards-inspired Capt. Sparrow. Bloom's character still isn't terribly memorable, but that was true in the first one as well. Knightly is only given a couple of chances to break or play on the damsel-in-distress stereotype (seems like she did that more in the first film), but she does what she can with it.

Sequels are often major letdowns and in some cases completely ruin the first film (see: The Matrix Reloaded. Actually ... don't see it). Thankfully, Dead Man's Chest does not fall into that pit. It may not be as fun of an, um, amusement park ride as the first one, but it's still one of the better popcorn flicks out there. The last act alone is worth it. Hopefully the final film next year doesn't undo these first two.

Grizzly Man

What a frikkin nutbar. I say nutbar because this guy was the complete fruit/nut combo. The movie was entertaining but damn if that guy wasn't irritating. It was kind of like the Blair Witch Project except the guy knew what was going to get him and he still wasn't scared. Some of the scenes with the foxes were really touching. His footage was fantastic. Still, the guy was freaking nutty. I couldn't even appreciate that he was trying to save the bears because he was so weird about it. I kind of got a Jurassic Park vibe about the film. The lesson? Humans should not mess with nature. Otherwise, nature will give humans the ass-kicking they deserve.

Dodgeball

Last week, I watched the movie Dodgeball starring Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, and the smug guy from the apple vs. PC commercials. It was much better than expected. For some reason, I expected it to be a full Farrely brothers-style gross out, but it was actually cute. The only appalling thing was watching Ben Stiller prance around in tight pants the whole time. Even if you're not a big fan of Ben or Vaughn, watch it just to see the apple dude get his ass kicked. I have no problem with the actor, but those commercials bug the crap outta me.

The Da Vinci Code

I just finished reading The Da Vinci Code. I totally understand why everyone gets into this book. I have some complaints, but for the most part, it is brain candy at its best. I only wish that I could imagine someone handsome in the lead. "Mullet Hanks" just doesn't do it for me.

Reading this book was a bit of an ego boost for me. It read like a screenplay and even I could write that. No, I don't have the historical knowledge of the quest for the grail and whatever but hey, how hard can it be? The writing was nothing special but the plot definitely held my attention. I will probably see the movie but I'm not in a big hurry. If you need some fun summer reading, you will devour this book in days.

Decent Rental: The Family Stone ***

Tonight, we pulled out the latest Netflix delivery (still using it--thanks, Tom!) and watched The Family Stone. I must say, while it wasn't a block-buster/change-your-life sort of movie, I kind of dug it.

Sarah Jessica Parker is in her element in this role, as the uptight/neurotic. You know, I really wonder about she and her hubby, Matthew Broderick, because he seems so believable in the same kind of role. And two Type-As does not a happy home make!

Anyway, if you've ever had that first holiday with future in-laws or the family of a significant other, you will appreciate the dysfunction and tension in every scene of this movie. Diane Keaton is brilliant as always, and completely NOT the type of mother you'd expect her to be. The rest of the cast does a good job as well--including Luke Wilson as the slacker brother and Rachel McAdams as the angry sister. Clare Danes looks really beautiful in this movie too...she's really changed from her "My So Called Life" days.

All in all, I think its a good rental. It has humor, in that stressed-out holiday with a dysfunctional family kind of way. And, I have one and have many of those kind of holidays, so I can totally relate. And it has its sweet moments along the way as well. Check it out sometime...I give it just about 3 stars. A decent rental...

Donnie...something

Last night, Danny and I watched Donnie Brasco and yes, I guess I'm still in my Johnny Depp phase. The movie was interesting, but I kept getting distracted by the constant dun dun DUN of the music. It's a mafia movie. Of course it's dramatic! I don't need Psycho style violins to know that Donnie and his friends should not go into the basement.

In two sentences or less, Johnny Depp is Donnie, an undercover FBI agent who works his way into the NYC mafia. As the story goes on, he takes on the persona of his mafia alias and must choose between his life in the mafia and his duties as an agent. Al Pacino is the low-level gangster whom he befriends. I recommend it if you're in the mood for a good mafia movie, but it is not in any way spectacular.

After watching the film, I tried to remember who told me that it was a good movie (so I could kick them in the ass). Just kidding. I then remembered that someone had told me years ago about Donnie Brasco, but I thought they said Donnie Darko. Danny and I watched Donnie Darko two years ago and I hated it. I've since learned that I have absolutely no taste in films and that Donnie Darko is a masterpiece. I do remember it being funny and very creepy, but not a masterpiece.

Anyway, both of the Donnie movies are good, entertaining, but not spectacular. Watch DB for some good old-fashioned Al Pacino fuggetaboutit. Watch DD for creepy cool pointless entertainment.

The Proposition ***

also reviewed by: Dipu

What I liked about this movie was it's brutal honesty about it's subject matter. And I do mean brutal. This is a portrayal of naked ugliness. Make no mistake.

I won't go into a plot summary, as Dipu has done that with his previous review. Instead, I'll expand on the first paragraph. Unlike American Westerns which hide the full filthiness of what life must have been like in arid places in the past, this piece shows you the unbathed stringy hair, the facial hair that had to have grown due to lack of shaving opportunities, the sweat, the blood, the caked on dust, the flies, even the brutal heat. Nobody looks clean or coiffed like Shane or John Wayne, or Ricky Nelson, not to mention the women. They have scars, bad teeth, twisted bodies and stained clothes. Good.

And the naked racism and base cruelty that marked the era, not only in Australia, but also in the American West, is unvarnished. Deadwood has done this for the American audience to an extent, but this movie is important to show these evils were/are international in scope.

Interestingly, only two folks in this movie have not yet abandoned their humanity and are trying desperately to hang on to it. One is Pierce's character, Charlie Burns who is faced with the problem of only being able to save his younger brother by betraying his older brother (the proposition). The other is Captain Stanley, who is the equivalent of the Sheriff or Marshall in an American Western. He tries to remain human while the townfolk and authorities demand that he give into their bloodlust and barbarity.

That really is the struggle in this movie. How can they remain human among all this barbarity?

The beginning and the end are paced well, while the middle moves painfully slowly. But the performances are very good and the ugliness compelling because some characters try to rise above it. Not easy to watch, but worth the watching.

Inconvenient Truth ****

While everyone else on the planet was packing in to see the Pirate movie that can't possibly be as fun as the first precisely because it's not the first, Virginia and I saw David Guggenheim's Inconvenient Truth. The theater was full, which was encouraging. And even better, the film was worth it. It is an excellent piece of entertainment even as it is an excellent summary of all the climatology info out there. Al Gore has cogently pieced together the various data points that point to a serious ecological problem.

The global warming naysayers, non of whom are the climatologists who've gathered the data and made the predictions in scientific peer review publications, are trying desperately to call this movie "propaganda" though no climatologist has come forward to question gores data of even his assessment of implications. Gore even addresses the "skeptics" arguments and uses charts and graphs to obliterate them. He also points out that none of these critics are in the field of climatology, none of them have submitted their arguments to peer-review or tried to publish and that most have ties to coal and petroleum companies who want to confuse the issue so the government will delay action.

The AP did a survey of climatologists and found some have quibbles about a few details like whether Mt. Kilaminjaro's glacier is receding due to global warming or not and how severe the 50 year effects of global warming will be. Surprisingly, as many think Gore may be understating the effects as those who think he may be overstating. But all thought he did an excellent job of putting the pieces together so that people can understand the overall implications. Those in the know, gave the movie high marks.

And the implications are pretty scary. More severe weather. Rising oceans. Unpredictable changes in ocean currents and air flows that could radically alter long-standing weather patterns.

More importantly, he put the lie to the idea that taking action will hurt the economy. He pointed out all the money to be made in remediation and alternatives. Plus he pointed out that taking action now, using ideas that are feasible today, we could scale back CO2 emissions to 1970 levels in 5 years. What are those ideas? Carbon sequestering, higher fuel efficiency in cars and appliances, alternative fuels and renewables. All that's needed is political will. That's where you come in. See the film. Get educated and vote for like minded folks.

The Proposition (*** 1/2)

also reviewed by: Tom

Contrary to what you might think from the title, this film is set in the Australian Outback in the late 1800s. It's basically an Aussie Western. Guy Pearce plays Charlie Burns, a man wanted for his part in the brutal slaughter of a family that shocks the community. He and his younger brother are captured, but their even more notorious eldest brother remains at large, out of reach. Captain Stanley, the officer who captures the younger brothers, offers Charlie the titular proposition -- he can save his younger brother's life if he kills his older brother within 9 days.

The rest of the film follows Charlie's quest to find his brother while Capt. Stanley deals with people's dissatisfaction with him and the revenge-driven mob mentality among the rural townsfolk. Will Charlie kill his brother or join him? Will Capt. Stanley succumb to pressure and stand aside?

The cinematography portrays Australia in a harsh light, literally. Desolate, dry, isolated stretches of land as far as the eye can see. Dusty buildings and people. This is not a film that the Australian Tourism Board would approve of. It's a savage and inhospitable world that's shown in this film, and that goes for the land as well as the people ... both the white Australians and the Aboriginals. No one comes out smelling like roses in this film.

Pearce and Ray Winstone, who plays Capt. Stanley (and looks and sounds like Russell Crowe probably would if he put on 15 years and 30 pounds), turn in good performances as weary men torn between competing pressures and ideals. In fact, most of the acting is solid, from Emily Watson as Stanley's wife to John Hurt in a small role as a bounty hunter.

The biggest problem in the film is that the middle third of it drags too much and gets a little bogged down. It picks up again as the plot moves toward the climax, but the middle could've used some trimming.

Still, it's a good film and definitely worth seeing, especially for something that's a little different from your usual fare. It's an interesting view of a period I know very little about, Australia's colonial days. And the characters are interesting. But it's an unflattering look at people as well as the land, so don't be expecting any sort of feel-good vibes from this film. But if you're looking for a good but dark film, get yourself some caffeine, time it to kick in about halfway through the film, and go see The Proposition.

Nacho Libre (***)

also reviewed by: Tom

I was hoping this Jack Black vehicle would be a gut-buster, and it wasn't. But it's still a funny movie. Black's fake Mexican accent is amusing, the plot is silly but only goes over the top a few times, and the potentially corny angle with the orphans learning life lessons doesn't overschmaltz it. There are a couple of knee-slappers in the film, just not as many as I'd hoped for. Just go in knowing that it's a silly movie, and you'll enjoy it.

Failure to Launch (*)

Ugh. This movie was LAME. Basically, Matthew McConaughey is a 35-year-old player, who gets out of relationships by introducing the girl to his parents. That is, the parents he lives at home with. Sarah Jessica Parker is hired by the parents (Kathy Bates and Terry Bradshaw) to date their son, and inspire him to move out of the house. But, she ends up falling in love with him for real... while he finds out about her "job"... and the hijinks ensue.

OK, so the plot isn't what usually draws you into one of these chick flicks. But hey, you know McConaughey has the chops for this sorta stuff. Exhibit A: How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, and Exhibit B: The Wedding Planner. And when it comes to Ms Parker, who doesn't think of her as Carrie Bradshaw from Sex in the City?

But dude, these two fine young(-ish) actors had ZERO chemistry. I don't remember laughing at all. And a word to the wise: the parental warning about partial nudity? Well, it's just a shot of Terry Bradshaw's butt. (blech) There's a subplot with the supporting characters that's also pretty pointless too.

To state the obvious, Failure to Launch was a pretty big failure. Too bad.

Harold Lloyd Movies coming up at the Paramount!

Harold Lloyd is often in the shadow of Chaplin and Keaton, but his movies are just as awesome. His best and most amazing, Safety Last is being shown at the Paramount next week. This is the one where he hangs off the clock of a large building. I urge you to check it out. It's funny. It's clever and the stunts are chilling. I guarantee you'll love this thing. Check out the blurb here. It plays July 11 and 12 with the Freshman.

Nacho Libre

also reviewed by: Dipu

Despite the fact I'm tired of hot nuns in the movies (in all my days of Catholic school, I never even heard of a hot nun. One was young and not ugly, but that was it), I enjoyed this silly, forgettable movie. Jack Black is Nacho, a monk/Mexican wrestler who fights to help orphans. Black must have seen Princess Bride many times because he practically channels Mandy Patankin's Inigo Montoya. And there are too many fart jokes, but who cares. Written by the writer of School of Rock and Chuck and Buck and directed by the man who brought us Napoleon Dynamite, this thing has no aspirations of anything but quirky entertainment. The themes have wading pool depth and they are constantly winked at anyway. It trots up to the edge of plot cliches from loser makes good movies and then takes a left turn, so isn't too formulaic. The guy next to me said it was the funniest movie he had ever seen. If that's true, it's sad, and his friends should take him out more. But still, it is sweet, silly and pretty funny. 3 and a half nachos.

An Inconvenient Truth *** 1/2

I was a little reluctant to see this movie because I thought a) it might be a downer, and b) it might be more of a lecture than a movie. I'm so glad I did see it. It's not a downer, it's not boring, and it is extremely eye-opening.

For example, you might be under the impression that the scientific community is split on the subject of global warming. Actually, that's not true. In recent years, out of 960 peer-reviewed scientific articles about global warming, guess how many articles disputed global warming? Maybe one hundred? That'd only be about 10 percent. Fifty, maybe? Twenty-five?

Try zero. Out of 960 scientific articles, NONE disputed that global warming is occurring.

However, in the popular press, over half the articles about global warming imply that it might not really be happening.

No wonder people are confused.

Another common myth is, "Well sure it's a little hotter. But temperature changes are cyclical. It's natural!"

That's not true either. By studying the polar ice caps, scientists can determine the amount of CO2 that was in the atmosphere--and hence how hot the Earth was--from 650,000 years ago to the present. Over this time, the earth has gone through about 10 ice ages and 10 warm periods. However, humans have pumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere that in a few years there will be twice as much CO2 as there has ever been in the last 650,000 years. Which means, our kids are going to experience the hottest climate the Earth has seen in half a million years. Don't forget the SPF 50, little Johnny!

There is also stunning evidence that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica are breaking apart and melting at a tremendous rate. Entire glaciers several miles across are disappearing in 30 days. If this continues at the current pace, the level of the ocean will go up 40 feet. Half of Florida, Calcutta, Shanghai, and Manhattan (including the World Trade Center memorial) will be underwater. Hundreds of millions of people will become refugees.

Keep in mind: This isn't the mad ramblings of a tree-hugger. Scientists universally agree that this is happening right now.

Oh, wait--I said the movie wasn't depressing, didn't I? Well, it's true. The movie does end on a positive note: This is reversible. If we take action now, we can actually reduce greenhouse gases to the levels they were in 1970. The website for the movie, http://www.climatecrisis.org/, lists some tips.

The movie is interesting, it's infomative, and it actually makes you feel good and empowered to learn what's really going on. I highly recommend it.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when is salary depends on his not understanding it."

--Upton Sinclair

Latest rented flicks

The Italian Job - BOR-ring! Even an all-star cast couldn't save this snoozer.

Ocean's 12 - Less boring than The Italian Job, but not worth the effort.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - one of my all-time favorites. "We can't stop here. This is bat country!"

Waiting - not half bad. I would definitely watch it if it played on Comedy Central on a slow Sunday afternoon. Plus it has that annoying Apple guy from the Apple vs. PC commercials, and he's far less annoying here.

Coming up: Blow (another favorite), and Donnie Brasco (new). Perhaps I'm getting in some classic Johnny Depp before the new Pirates movie comes out.

Over the Hedge (* 1/2)

Also reviewed by: sarah

I'm starting to have diminishing expectations for computer-animated films not made by Pixar. I didn't expect this would be a great film, but I was still disappointed. I think I laughed once, maybe chuckled a couple of times. But I just didn't get into the plot or the characters. I wondered if maybe I was just in a bad mood when I saw Over the Hedge, but Anita saw it too and didn't laugh any more than I did. Plus, when I went home after the movie, I watched a mini-marathon of NBC's The Office that my DVR had recorded ... and laughed my ass off. So it clearly wasn't my mood lowering my impression of the movie. It was the movie itself.

One problem I always have with celebrity-driven animation is that it can take you out of the film. (I'm concerned this might be the case with Pixar's Cars as well). You're too aware of who the actors are. Yes, hearing William Shatner out-Shatner himself as an overly dramatic possum is kinda funny. But the funniest character in the film is the out-of-control squirrel voiced by Steve Carell. ... and yet at no time during the film was I aware that it was him. Carell played a character instead of playing himself. The characters voiced by Bruce Willis, Garry Shandling, Wanda Sykes ... you knew they were being played by famous people. Carell's squirrel, on the other hand, was a talking squirrel, not Steve Carell.

The story is nothing groundbreaking and has some ho-hum lessons about mankind encroaching on nature, how suburbs and SUVs are bad, and Type A personalities are a nuisance. Yawn. Many of the jokes fell flat to me. And the characters just weren't all that interesting.

On one of those behind-the-scenes shows used to hype a movie, one of the creators of the film bragged about how this has the most realistic animal fur ever depicted on screen. Maybe if they'd put as much effort into writing a decent script as they did on animating raccoon fur, they would've made something worth watching.

Sin City

I've officiallly taken over Home Dipu Reviews! WHahahahahah.....ha.

I know I'm not the only bored person out there. C'mon, get with the program people!

Last night, we watched Sin City. It was gruesome, twisted, hilarious, and fantastic. I don't know if I'll watch it again though. It reminded me a lot of anime, especially the dialogue. Although the movie flowed well, the story was very disjointed. I think Tarantino guest-directed parts of it. Anyway, I thought it was very very cool and I recommend it if you're in the mood for something completely different. It is based on a comic book and I think the director did an excellent job of keeping the comic book "feel" of the movie. I also really liked how they made beautiful actors look so scary, so cartoonish. Benicio del Toro, Clive Owen...they're hot but they will scare the crap out of you in this movie. Oh, and the characters who were supposed to look trashy REALLY looked trashy (I'm looking at you Brittany Murphy).

This isn't a feel-good movie but it is different. After the schlockfest of The Notebook, this movie was a pleasant surprise.

Get ready! Get set! Cry!

Over the weekend, Danny and I watched two chick flicks: Pride and Prejudice and The Notebook. I expected to like Pride and Prejudice and guess what? I did! I can't compare it to the BBC version because I haven't seen that one in many years and all I remember of it is Colin Firth (swoon!).

The latest Elizabeth Bennet (Kiera Knightly) and Mr. Darcy (Matthew McFayden) do a very good job of conveying pre-Victorian "awkward." However by the end of the movie, you really want the characters to get together.

As for The Notebook (groan), I really can't say anything good about this other than the story (or most of the story) is wholly believable. I knew this film was going to be a tearjerker, but it's hard to cry for the characters if you just don't care about them. The music was a little over the top too. If there was any doubt in your mind that a dramatic moment was happening, guess what? You could barely hear the dialogue over the crescendoing soundtrack. The story wasn't bad, but you could see everything coming from a million miles away. In other words, by the end of the movie, I just didn't care anymore.

We caught the second half of "Old School" on TBS too: so dumb, yet so quotable.

Mitch: A professor lived here for like thirty years and died.
Beanie: That's awesome.

.....................

Garry: Ok, ladies the secret to a good BJ is focus. I don't care if we're talking about your husband of ten years or some hot sailor you met at TGI Fridays.

DVD update

We've been Netflixing like crazy lately. Here are some short reviews of the latest movies we've seen.

Bend It Like Beckham - This movie is painfully cute but not too sweet. I really liked it and might even buy it. Plus, guys get Kiera Knightly (pre-Pirates) and the ladies get Jonathan Rhys-Meyers.

Underworld: Evolution - I'm glad we rented this instead of seeing it in the theater. The first Underworld wasn't half bad, but this one is just stupid.

Serenity - Excellent movie based on a TV show. It is less Star Trek and more Star Wars, minus the Ewoks.

Coming up: the new Pride and Prejudice, The Notebook, and Sin City

Thank You For Smoking (***)

The main problem with Thank You For Smoking is something that isn't really the film's fault -- it almost too true to be funny. It wasn't quite the gutbuster I was hoping for. The plot follows the ultimate spinmeister, a lobbyist for the tobacco industry prior to when major court cases went against them. It is a funny film ... but it's also scary when you realize there may be little to no exaggeration here as to what really happens in amongst the "Merchants of Death" (what the tobacco lobbyist and his friends in the liquor and firearms industries call themselves). And the final scene is one that'll make most people say, "Ha ha ha -- heeeey, wait..."

Nevertheless, this is an enjoyable film, definitely worth seeing. Aaron Eckhart is a perfectly charming yet smary lobbyist. And I like when a film makes it hard for me to root for the protagonist; I mean, how can we relish those who have wronged him to getting their comeuppance when he deserves an equal amount or more of the same?

The supporting cast make the most of their roles, whether they are Merchants of Death like Maria Bello or David Koechner (whose name may not be familiar, but you'll recognize him if you've seen Anchorman or Steve Carell's version of The Office) or Rob Lowe's strangely Asian-obsessed Hollywood agent.

Thank You For Smoking is funny but hits a little too close to home. But you can't blame the film for that...

The Sentinal (** 1/2)

This is a long-overdue review (see Babs' here), so I'll make this brief. I've never watched 24, but I imagine it's kinda like this ... except a lot more thrilling than The Sentinal actually is. The script is decent and the acting is fine, but for a thriller, it wasn't very suspenseful. We know all along that Michael Douglas is innocent; making that a little more of a question could have been better. Same goes for the traitor within the Secret Service; it wasn't a shock when it was finally revealed. Douglas never seemed in any major jeopardy for some reason. Even the image of the president's helicopter shot out of the sky didn't have the same visceral or emotional impact that the bombing of a bus in New York City did in last year's The Interpreter. This wasn't a bad film, but all along, it just felt like it could have been much, much better.

Not plagiarism, cause I am giving citation

As much as I would like to come up with original reviews for movies I've seen lately, I can't help but find others who say it much better.

So here's an excellent quote from my friend The Fireweaver about X-Men III:

that afternoon, we went to check out the 3rd X-men movie, which was disappointing as compared to its predecessors. pretty, but chock-full of ideas that went nowhere, and encumbered by a pair of storylines that had literally nothing to do with each other. the end effect was that one story would have to push pause for 15 minutes while we went off to hang out with the other, all while lots of stuff blows up and lots of mutants do different tricks for no reason in particular.

The lack of capitalization is hers. Kind of her style, I guess.
But that about summed it up for me. I liked the movie, but it left me feeling less than satisfied. Go enjoy it for the effects, and the mutant eye-candy, but don't let your expectations get too high.

Save that for the movie about Wolverine...

Elizabeth I (HBO)

Yawn.

This is a beautifully shot miniseries that HBO has put together, don't get me wrong. But it's just soooo sloooow. Even for a period piece. About all this motivated me to do is look up how historically accurate the plot is. I just never got into the plot or characters. Other than feeling a little sorry for Elizabeth after her failed attempt to arrange a marriage with a French prince. With Helen Mirren and Jeremy Irons in the cast, I expected quality. And like I said, it's well assembled technically. It's just boring.

At first I was gonna invite people over to watch it because hey, it's an HBO film, and they always do great stuff. I've enjoyed their previous productions such as Warm Springs (about FDR's attempted rehabilitation from polio) and Oscar-nominated Maria Full of Grace. But I'm glad I decided to check it out myself first. I'd hate to have bored others for nearly 4 hours.

Summer Film Series Started Yesterday!

With the 1933 King Kong. I keep missing this on the big screen. Oh well.

As usual, lots of classics. This weekend is Casablanca and the Maltese Falcon. Next week is Hitchcock Week. Unfortunately, fewer forgotten gems are on the bill than last year. See the schedule. Last year they did a bunch of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. None this year. We do get some Marx brothers and a few interesting films from the 20s, but mostrly, it's the pack 'em in favorites this year. Still, I count way more films I want to see than the 7 FlixTix I have left over from last year.

If you think you might see at least 10 of them or 5, if you're a couple, consider buying FlixTix. You get 10 passes for $45, and $5 of that goes to Paramount preservation and is tax deductible. Normal prices are $6 for matinees (before 6 p.m.) and $7, So it's like getting 2 to 4 tickets for free, depending on when you go. And, they last a full year from purchase so you don't get stuck. I'll check in occasionally with my recommendations.

A bit of fluff

On Friday, Danny and I went and saw Over the Hedge. It was pretty good. If you're looking for a good hour and a half of entertainment, check it out. Initially, I had wanted to see it after discovering that William Shatner was to play the overdramatic opossum. I mean William Shatner as a rodent? How could that NOT be funny? His character was great, but Hammy, the hyperactive squirrel with ADD, stole the show.

Even if you don't have kids, you'll get a kick out of it. Plus, you might need a little fluff before going back to the theater to see that OTHER blockbuster about globetrotting hotties seeking answers to the unexplained. You know, X-Men III: The Last Stand.

Truman Capote--One Freaky Dude!

At long last, I finally got to see Capote. I have been intrigued by this movie since it came out. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is just an amazing actor and makes unpredictable movie role choices, and this flick go so much awards buzz that I had to check it out.

I'm left feeling sort of confused. Perhaps I should have done my research on Truman Capote before I saw the movie? This is quite possibly the most bizarre person that has ever had a movie made about them. What was up with this guy?

First, the whole was he gay was he not gay thing comes up. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And, while we're at it, what was up with the dude's voice? And, why did he travel around with Harper Lee as he did?

Second, I did not GET his obsession with these killers. At some moments, he seemed so taken and sympathetic to them, and at others it was obvious he was a self-centered jerk looking out only for his book release and its success. And, in turn, Perry was obviously using him too.

There is a documentary on the DVD I have that tells about his life. I will have to go back and watch it now. But, if you know about Capote or have a big opinion one way or the other on this movie, comment away. I'm still not sure WHAT to think of it. I think I may have to go see stupid MI3 now just to O.D. on the mainstream so I can get back to normal movie viewing mode!

The Devil and Daniel Johnston (***)

Being accidentally on the right mailing lists, I get invited to free movies, especially lately and especially for those that the marketeers figure need word of mouth (WOF) buzz. The latest of these is The Devil and Daniel Johnston, an overlong but engaging Chronicle of the mentally ill songwriter/artist Daniel Johnston, who at one time was an local.

His bizarre but friendly stem-eyed frog still graces the wall of the former Sound Exchange (now a Baja Fresh) at 21st and Guadalupe. That frog also graced the cover of his 1983 tape "Hi How Are You," which got him proclaimed a genius by Louis Black of the Chronicle and many other people who are hipper than you. Kurt Cobain wore a DJ T-shirt with that tape cover on it and it caused a sensation. He was a perfect genius for the hipper-than-you crowd. Hardly anyone knows about him and some mainstream people actually hate him, so obviously he is a genius. Lots of people say he's a genius in the film (of course, one also says Jad Fair is too), and no one disputes that moniker, so he must be a genius, right?

Well, I'll leave that to you, folks, since this movie is going to inspire a huge presence of his music all over the internet (Go ahead, google him. He's everywhere!), and you can decide for yourself. What is undeniable is that he is a very disturbed and mentally unstable guy. He's bashed a manager in the head with a lead pipe, scared a little old lady out her second story window, attacked his brother at Christmas, wandered NYC on a mission from god, commandeered his father's airplane, tossed the keys out the window and put it in a spin that dad barely managed to recover from. (The plane crashed and both survived.) In between, DJ has produced an amazing amount of music and drawings, some of which look like art therapy for mental patients. (They now go for such huge prices that it is counterfeited.)

The movie equates him with other crazed geniuses like Byron and Van Gogh, not to mention Brian Wilson. The problem is, the assertion smacks of pronouncement or decree. No dissenting position is mentioned in the film, though there are plenty who hold it. The film would have been better served with these view points included and the question of DJ's genius left open. Plus, it's about 20 minutes too long. (Repetition of points might be useful in Teletubby videos and propaganda, but it is death in docs.) I would have given it another star if those two things were not true. Still I found it a fascinating look at a guy who really has influenced and inspired tons of musicians from Cobain to Beck. Frankly it is inspiring if for no other reasons than Daniel's example of not asking permission to create and perform--he just does it whether you want him to or not, and his elderly parents example of parental love--they've refused to abandon Daniel and take care of him to this day.

Scary Movie 4 (** stars)

I've always been a huge fan of the ZAZ (Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker) projects like Airplane!, Top Secret!, Police Squad!, and the Naked Gun movies, many of which featured Leslie Nielsen. Their separate projects since then have been hit and miss, though, and none of Nielsen's spoof movies seem to have worked since the last Naked Gun. So, despite the fact that Scary Movie 4 was made by 2/3 of ZAZ and has Nielsen as the bumbling president, I didn't go in with very high hopes. Sadly, my expectations were met.

When a movie like this works, I leave the theater with my sides hurting. Watching this, I got a good chuckle a few times. The opening Saw parody featuring Shaq and Dr. Phil would've been a lot funnier if they hadn't already shown most of the jokes in the commercials. It already felt old during the movie. When Cindy Campbell (Anna Faris) is allegedly speaking in Japanese by stringing together Japanese-sounding product names, that was funny ... when I first saw that concept used in Abraham's Hot Shots! 15 years ago with an American Indian tribe. Likewise for one scene where the heroines attempt to waylay some passers-by to steal their outfits. I saw that same joke years ago on The Simpsons, or Family Guy, or somewhere else. Maybe more than once. However, one quick joke about Detroit was pretty funny even though you saw it coming a mile away. But a quick note to the producers: Leslie Nielsen forgetting his mic is still on when he goes to take a leak for 5 minutes in the first Naked Gun movie? Hilarious. Carmen Electra as a blind woman who mistakes a pew in the packed church for her toilet and proceeds with 2 minutes of explosively noisy, wet diahrrea? Not even remotely close to funny.

Scary Movie 4 is a hodge-podge of pasted-together jokes and spoofs, and it feels that way: "Okay, now we're doing War of the Worlds for 10 minutes. Now we're switching to The Grudge. Now we're back to War of the Worlds." It might work if it were funnier, but the gems are rare. Even those gems are more like zirconium. It doesn't remind you of the glory days of the ZAZ team; it makes you long for those days instead. It's not a bad movie, but it's no side-splitter.

The Sentinel, ***

I think if you're a fan of 24, you'll definitely like The Sentinel. I mean, hello, it stars Jack Bauer! (Kiefer Sutherland for the rest of you) In fact, the flick is very 24-esque, revolving around a plot to kill the President.

Overall, I thought this was a great escapist film... while Anita & Dipu thought the story was rather predictable. I guess I forgave some of the weaker plot points? Nevertheless, the performances were solid. Michael Douglas was great as the aging Secret Service man, who also happens to be having an affair with the First Lady, Kim Bassinger. (which I thought was kinda cool... with all the JFK, Clinton type of stuff... it was refreshing to see a woman being a player) Sutherland and little pint-sized hottie Eva Longoria are the FBI team, heading up the investigation of the Presidential murder plot.

Anyway, there are some twists and turns in the plot... and at one point, I thought I was watching Michael Douglas playing Harrison Ford in the Fugitive. But all in all, I liked the movie and highly recommend it for a Sunday afternoon matinee.

United 93 Reviewed! (****)

Well, Virg and I did get in to the Universal screening of United 93 last night and I hate to tell you this but it was very good. So effective was Paul Greengrass's documentary film approach to the retelling that I felt like I was reliving it, re-experiencing it. Virginia tore off a nail in anxiety and I nibbled mine to the nubs. When the credits rolled, the audience was in a stunned silence. You may not "like" or "enjoy" the film, but you will be affected in a way only great film making can affect. I think I can guarantee that.

Told more or less in real time. It's shot as if a documentary film crew happened to be in the hijackers motel room, then the airport, then the airplane. Additional crews happened to be at national air traffic control headquarters, and the Boston, New York and Cleveland air traffic control centers. One more crew was at NORAD. So in a sense, you are a fly on the wall as those terrible events unfold and these people struggle to deal with it.

That approach automatically de-hollywoodizes the film and keeps it real. The lack of recognizable faces helps as well so that all you are left with is people, more or less like you, faced with awful events, little information, and quick decisions to make. In keeping with this low key approach, Greengrass went for small emotional moments, especially with the phone calls to loved ones, instead of big ones. Even the now famous "let's roll" line, put in the context of the confusion on the airplane is less a heroic, John Wayne-ism and more a plea to "let's get on with it, already."

A particularly affecting moment is a prayer montage right before the climax that intercuts Christian and Muslim prayers from both hijackers and passengers as they seek comfort or courage or whatever it is you seek at a moment like that. It binds the killers and the killed together in their humanity and reiterates the point that earnest, god-fearing people who love their families can do awful, terrible things in their blind self-righteousness. Their acts may be monstrous, but they are human beings, not monsters. That's the cautionary tale.

By the way, Greengrass did the Bourne Supremacy and Bloody Sunday. He's a brit.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (* 1/2 stars)

I know this movie came out more than a year ago, but I saw it recently on cable and wanted to review it nevertheless.

In a word, this movie is pointless. It's all style and no substance. I understand that they were trying to create a retro-futuristic world of the 1920s and '30s. But it just doesn't work. The movie just throws us into this contrived scenario and expects us to accept this pulp fiction world at face value. We don't even get an explanation of who Sky Captain and his organization are; we're simply given that they exist and that the entire country, if not the world, depends on them regularly.

All over the globe, we find huge military and scientific organizations that have planet-destroying rockets and enormous floating fortresses. Sure, the technology looks like it might have had it been invented in the 1930s, but again, we're just supposed to accept these things existed when we known damn well they didn't. And the film's physics are awful. Sky Captain takes his plane on a nose dive into the ocean, and the impact doesn't shear his wings off? Yes, the plane is capable of underwater "flight," but that still doesn't explain how wings at 90-degree angles don't rip right off when they hit the water at full speed. At least fold them back a few degrees and try to make me believe it's possible! The movie simply doesn't earn our suspension of disbelief.

The green screen acting is horrendous at times as well. Maybe it looked better in a theater, but when Gwyneth Paltrow is avoiding being crushed by giant robot feet, she isn't the least bit convincing. And I never cared about any of the characters. We're expected to glom onto the cliched caricatures from the first reel simply because they're recognizable stereotypes: the dashing hero with commitment problems, the plucky intrepid girl reporter, the wacky inventor sidekick. Yawn.

The plot isn't even worth mentioning. What a waste of two plus hours. The Indiana Jones trilogy successfully captured the spirit of the early B movies. Sky Captain barely squeaks by with a D.

A Worthy Best Picture?

I just finally watched Crash. I have to say, I really REALLY loved it. But, I remember a lot of people saying they didn't like it back when it came out. And, I don't get it. I loved how they wove the characters together (I always love these kind of movies, I'm a big Pulp Fiction fan too) and kept the same theme throughout even when you didn't realize it until later.

So, I'm posting this because some of you may have been the ones who told me they hated it. If you didn't like it, comment back and give me your reasons. I'm very curious.

The only thing I can think of is that there was an overall very PC theme throughout the movie about tolerance and against bigotry. But, I honestly loved that about it too.

I loved the ending--the part with the ashes best. I don't want to give it all away if I'm the not only person on the planet who has not seen it yet (which I probably am). The whole--things aren't always as you might assume message it gave. Awesome. So, what did y'all think?

Room (Stars? What would be the point?)

Virg and I saw this thing last Friday and I still don't know what to make of it. Room, was made by Austin filmmaker Kyle Henry with Austin actors Cyndi Williams (I was her neglectful husband in my first Austin play, The Showoff, back in 1990) and Ken Bradley (whom I've directed). It was also a 2005 selection at both Sundance and Cannes, so I had to see it. It was supposed to play a week at the Alamo DH South and it's already at 2 weeks. Don't know if it'll go into a 3rd. After all, all the actors who were in it and all their friends and family have probably had a chance to see it. (And judging from the reactions we overheard, they won't be contributing to positive word of mouth.)

Cyndi plays a woman with a lousy job, a sullen teenager, a cute girl, a working class husband and migranes that produce vision of a room, like a big open area of a warehouse or unfinished office floor. She's miserable, she's getting screwed out of what little she makes, her kids are self-absorbed, and her headaches are getting worse, leading to a one-car wreck. She decides to steal from the safe at work and then head to George Bush Intercontinental and hop on a plane to try and find this damned room. She chooses to go to New York, apparently because a flight is leaving for there soon, and proceeds to look for this room.

Okay fine. There'll be a payoff at the end, right? Some reason for this woman abandoning her family and searching for a phantom room in a randomly chosen city? Some reason for watching her do it? Nope. It ends with her on a rooftop in Brooklyn after her latest wild goose chase and dissolves into one last migrane vision of the room. A fancy one, yes, but without any real new information. The movies only about 70 minutes long, but that's okay because it feels a lot longer. Characters are introduced and then abandoned, never to be seen again. In fact nothing introduced in the film seems to really be necessary. She does meet an old school mate in Manhattan, whose changed her name and become a actress and lives in a loft and is still miserable. All I can figured is it's about the pointless of trying to find meaning outside of ourselves. Pointlessness of searching for answers by going to a new place. The pointlessness of trying to find relief from existential angst and ennui.

Plus, I didn't like seeing it at the Alamo DH South cuz they called last call 20 minutes into the film and we felt rushed.

I can't say I liked it. I prefer narrative. I always have. Can't you deal with the same themes within a narrative? I think you can. It's almost as if this film is trying NOT to give you anything to relate to or identify with. Everything is alienating. Her life, he quest, the white noise of society around her.

I went to IMDB and predictably found 3 reviews that thought it was brilliant (9 or 10 stars) and the the rest that didn't like it (1-4 stars). Average was 3.8 stars. (Of the 53 votes there, 10 were "1" and 11 were "10." The other 32 votes were scattered in between.)

United 93

At first, I thought the topic of this movie was totally lame... I mean, how sensational could you be, doing a 9/11 movie about the one flight that didn't reach its intended destination?

Then, I saw some news coverage of the movie, where the media, of course, gave fair & equal time to relatives of the victims who were both pro-flick and anti-flick. And I thought, "OK, I guess it could be a decent enough biopic, maybe of TNT quality."

Well, I just saw the commercial for United 93, and OMG, it gave me goosebumps. Like, it's kinda eerie. We all lived through that day (unless you're like 4 1/2. duh.) and we all had our own experiences of it. And it's electrifying to see something like that brought to life. Not saying that I plan to go see the flick, but wow, the trailer is pretty dang good.

Inside Man, * * * 1/2

I had high hopes for Spike Lee's Inside Man. After all, it stars Denzel Washington and Jodie Foster, who generally seem to pick pretty good projects. I was expecting a taut heist thriller. And for the most part, it didn't disappoint.

The first three quarters of the film are tight. The plot and characters keep you interested. Even slight flaws -- such as the blatantly obvious nature of what Christopher Plummer's dark secret is -- don't really detract from the film. It's fun to watch the bank robbers' complex plan unfold. Denzel is his usual cool and collected but passionate self on screen. Jodie Foster is effectively standoffish. And Clive Owen is in control of the situation without being annoying about it. I imagine that in a David Mamet film, all of these characters would've been smug and irritating.

Spike Lee's direction is crisp and effective. The script has some good dialogue and just enough humor to break the drama without derailing it. But while I was able to get over the badly kept secret for Plummer's character, I couldn't understand why he hadn't long ago burned the damning evidence in his possession. And it took the police an annoyingly long time to figure out one trick the bank robbers used, especially since it was painstakingly obvious to the audience long before the "reveal." But except for these minor complaints, the film is well-executed overall, and the leads and supporting cast alike play their roles nicely.

Unfortunately, the film falls apart somewhat after the climax, when the bank hostage situation is over. It takes far too long after that for the plot to resolve itself, and the finale becomes unnecessarily convoluted; up until this point, you are mostly able to suspend your disbelief for the sake of the movie, but these final scenes are just too much for you to do that anymore. In wrapping up the loose ends, the film sucks out some of your enjoyment from the earlier reels. Rather than coming off as clever, the ending simply disappoints.

Inside Man is a good film that could have been great with a better ending. Still, it's worth a look at matinee prices.

Napolean Dynamite

We saw Napolean Dynamite last night. It was *hilarious* and may easily be one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. It made me laugh out loud several times.

At one point, JM and I sat together in front of the screen with our teeth clenched and our hands to our foreheads, waiting for what would come next. Not since the answering machine scene in Swingers have I been so empathetically engaged by a character. You must watch this very funny movie. I think I might watch it again before we send it back to Netflixx.

V for Vendetta

(Caution: a little bit of spoiler info below.)

I saw V for Vendetta last night. And I was shocked.

Not because the movie itself was shocking. But because it could be released in 2006, in today's political climate. I'm surprised the Bush administration didn't call for a boycott, or ban it outright. Granted, it takes place in the future in Britain, but it is clearly an attack on the current state of US politics. It's about an increasingly tyrannical government that tries to cow its citizens into behaving through constantly televised fear: terrorist attacks, horrible viruses, avian flu, and so on. (Sound familiar?)

There's also a right-wing chubby blowhard TV commentator who praises the administration and ruthlessly mocks liberals and dissidents. Oh, and he's addicted to prescription drugs. (Sound familiar?)

The hero in V for Vendetta idolizes Guy Fawkes, who attempted to assassinate King James I of England and the members of both houses of the Parliament by blowing up Westminster Palace. He says things like, "The people shouldn't be afraid of the government; the government should be afraid of the people. "

So here we have a pro-terrorism movie--a movie that promotes the overthrow of a government that is a thinly disguised version of the Bush administration.

How long before Cheney takes the Wachowski brothers quail hunting?

New movies: Ice Age vs. Basic Instinct

This weekend, two sequels will open, Ice Age 2: The Meltdown and Basic Instinct 2. Or, as David Spade put it tonight on The Showbiz Show (right before The Daily Show), "The peppy squirrel vs. the tired beaver."