Home Dipu Reviews

W. ***

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:35:00 +0000

When I first heard that Oliver Stone was going to make W., I thought that there was no way I'd ever see it. After the paranoid conspiracy theories in JFK, I gave up on Stone's films. Then I saw him on Real Time with Bill Maher, and Stone actually seemed ... reasonable. And good reviews started coming out. So while I missed my chance to see the premiere at the Austin Film Festival, I decided I'd give the film a shot.

In case you haven't heard or guessed, W. is about the life of George W. Bush, portraying snippets of his formative years, his aimless adulthood, his rise through politics, and the start of the Iraq war. The script focuses on the dynamic between George W. and his father, George H. W. Bush, and uses that dicey relationship to drive W.'s motivations. The film cuts back and forth in time, jumping between 2003, his frat days, and the decades in between.

Without question, the best thing about the film is Josh Brolin as W. I can't believe this is the same guy who was in No Country for Old Men. His portrayal is no comedic caricature; he lives and breathes the role. He is W. There is no question. It's a truly amazing and seamless performance.

Elizabeth Banks (who seems to be in every movie out right now) does a decent job as Laura Bush. James Cromwell doesn't try to inhabit the role of the senior Bush the way Brolin does for junior. However, given that subconsciously I may have been expecting too much of a Dana Carvey version of Bush 41, it may be for the best that Cromwell played it perfectly straight, with few mannerisms or emotions beyond his lifelong disappointment with Bush 43.

Most of the rest of the supporting cast, including Richard Dreyfuss as a manipulating and adamantly focused Dick Cheney, do passable jobs themselves. It's also funny to see Daily Show veteran Rob Corddry in a small role as press secretary Ari Fleischer, with the satirist now playing one of the targets of his past barbs without a trace of farce. The weak point by far is Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. She. Is. Horrible. Her movements are jerky almost to the point of being a puppet, and her voice sounds like it was dubbed in afterwards by an untalented impressionist. She plays Rice as a caricature, and badly at that. If Brolin's performance weren't so strong, she could easily have brought the entire movie down.

Besides Newton, the biggest flaw in the film is that it hardly brings anything new to the table. The film makes a big deal about the clashes between Bush 41 and 43 and how they motivate everything George W. tries to do, especially as president, but none of that is new information. Plenty of people have proffered that theory already. The idea that George W. is a decent guy who got in way over his head is also nothing new. Nor is the notion that people like Cheney drove W.'s agenda from their own hard-right worldview. One of the few scenes that actually seems to fill in the blanks well is when W.'s preacher helps him to be reborn in Christ; it's actually quite a sincere moment. And the contrast between Colin Powell and Cheney in the Bush 41 administration versus the Bush 43 administration is actually interesting as well.

The longest scene in the film is a cabinet meeting debate over whether to invade Iraq. And it goes on forever. Stone could have made his point in half the time. I started to get bored. (I also found it to be somewhat depressing that this might have been how we got into this mess, but that's a political opinion that should not reflect on my review of the film). And the famous pretzel choking incident, which gets its own scene in the film, seems completely extraneous. It adds little or nothing to the film and seems to have no purpose other than to show us something we've all read about already. Even as someone who never voted for the real President W. and who doesn't think highly of him, I thought including that scene was pointless.

The film assumes the audience has a fair amount of familiarity with the events in the movie already. If you don't remember everyone who's been in Bush 43's cabinet, you might find yourself trying to remember who's who. It took me half the film to realize that the "George" that W. kept referring to was George Tenet, because it took that long for them to put the letters "CIA" with him. So at times, you may find yourself scrambling to figure out who or what they just referred to in passing, which is a little distracting.

Unless you believe that George W. Bush is the greatest president who ever lived, W. comes across as a fairly sympathetic portrayal of our 43rd president. Surprisingly so. And the film does seem to exonerate him of anything except being driven by his father's disdain and preference for Jeb Bush. Cheney and others are to blame for his failed policies in this film, not him. He just has daddy issues.

Overall, W. is entertaining, but in the end, it's fairly light fare. Very little meat is added to the story outline we've all heard about George W. Bush already over the years. Still, it's worth seeing for Josh Brolin's amazing performance. If you're coming from a hard-right or even a hard-left political viewpoint, you probably won't enjoy this film, as it would either go too far or not nearly far enough for your tastes. But if you're open to a portrayal of George W. Bush that's neither flattering nor a hatchet job, leave your politics at the concession stand and go see W.

Max Payne (*)

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:27:00 +0000

Before I go to see a popcorn movie, I often lower my expectations first. I don't expect every film to be Citizen Kane, especially in the action genre. I'll put up with mind-bending leaps of logic and galactically gaping plot holes as long as it's all in good fun and works within the context of that movie. I just want to be entertained for a couple of hours.

An hour into Max Payne, the new film starring Mark Wahlberg based on the computer game series, I found myself surfing on my phone to figure out how much time was left, debating whether I'd be better off walking out right then and there.

Having never played the computer game, I have no idea how closely the character of Max Payne in the film is like the character in the game. But if the game is anything like the film, it must be one boring game. Wahlberg's Max is just a standard brooding cop haunted by the tragic unsolved murder of his family. Yawn. I guess we're supposed to assume he was a loving father and husband beforehand, but we barely get any sense of what he was like before tragedy struck. Instead we get a brooding one-dimensional detective who never shows any emotion other than the occasional bout of anger.

Mila Kunis of That '70s Show tries her best to act tough as Mona Sax, but it really only works in her first scene. The sight of her toting around a big gun everywhere like it was a purse is almost laughable. The one interesting thing about her character is that the filmmakers don't take the standard route of making her a love interest. However, the lack of that cliche actually hurts the film; Max's ties to Mona are tenuous at best, so it's difficult to become emotionally invested in anything other than their twin desires for revenge -- and even then it's hard to care, because it's revenge for the deaths of characters we barely knew and care little about.

Even as an action film, this falls far short. There's actually very little action until more than an hour into the movie. And even then it's fairly boring. A few moments of extreme slow motion are supposed to be the hallmark of the film, I suppose, but it just smacks of trying too hard. The slo-mo doesn't add any wow factor; it just makes the film longer for no good reason. And the big climax barely moves the action seismograph. I may have decided to see the film through to the end, but I don't feel like I'd have missed out if I'd left.

I never cared about any of the characters. Will Max Payne find out who really killed his family? Who cares. I'm not even sure they ever explained the connection between Mona's murdered sister and the killer of Max's family. Maybe they did explain it better and I missed it when I was surfing on my phone, but that's still the filmmakers' fault for losing my interest like that. And don't get me started on the winged avenging angel aspect of the film; that purpose of that was never explained to my satisfaction.

You almost feel sorry for supporting actors like Beau Bridges and Chris O'Donnell, the latter of whom must be really hurting for work given that he took such a tiny and ultimately meaningless role.

I give this film one star and not zero only because I've seen far worse films that make you want to tear your eyes out (Once Upon a Time in Mexico and Dead Heat, just to name two). Max Payne isn't that bad. It's just boring, pointless, and thoroughly uninteresting. The only vaguely original aspect, an action hero without a new love interest, only succeeds in increasing the boredom.

I really hate to rag on the film because the screenwriter is a graduate of UT who was at the Austin Film Festival a couple weeks ago and spoke at one of the seminars I attended. This is his first screenwriting credit too, so I want to be supportive and someday get my chance to be paid millions to write a poorly-reviewed film. And to be fair, my viewing experience was tainted by the fact that the theater seemed to have ... bugs. Three times I killed a gnat or spider or something landing on my arm. This isn't a crappy theater either, so I don't know what the deal was there. So I'll just blame it all on the director for making a film in which I felt no connection with the characters, plot, or action, a film that I almost walked out of. Max Payne should have been released in the summer, because at least then I could've enjoyed the air conditioning.

The Dark Knight (*****)

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:51:00 +0000

Wow.

I couldn’t move for the last 45 minutes of this movie. Maybe it was an hour. I’m not even sure.

When director Christopher Nolan restarted the Batman movie franchise 7 years after Joel Schumacher killed it with 1998’s gawdawful Batman & Robin, he did it in grand style by making the definitive Batman movie. Batman Begins was the first Batman movie that really nailed the essence of the character. It wasn’t just the best Batman film, it was a really, really good film. How could they top that?

That was the problem going into The Dark Knight. Hype, Heath Ledger’s death, and then the opening weekend box office blowout all fed into a perfect storm of unworldly expectations that nothing could possibly match. And in fact, it took me about 20 or 30 minutes before I really felt sucked into the movie. In setting up all the various plot elements for the film, plus giving us a brief cameo of a villain from the last movie, it takes a little while for the movie to get going.

Once the movie grabbed me, though, the intensity slowly throttled up until I was frozen in my seat, afraid to move in case I missed something. It’s a long film, and once I was tempted to look at my watch, but that feeling was quickly taken care of.

Christian Bale returns as Batman/Bruce Wayne. As in the first movie, he nails all three aspects of the character, the public Bruce Wayne, the true Bruce Wayne, and Batman. He again carries himself well in each role. As before, the main problem is that his growling Batman voice doesn’t always work. Sometimes it’s fine, but sometimes it’s so gutteral that it’s hard to understand.

Maggie Gyllenhall replaces Katie Holmes as love interest/DA Rachel Dawes. She commands a lot more respect in this role than Holmes did. The rest of the supporting cast returns from Batman Begins, including Michael Caine as Alfred, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, and Gary Oldman (who seems to have a new career as a good guy) as Lt. and future Commissioner Gordon. I won’t say whether he finally reaches that post in this movie, but let’s just say that the commissioner from the last one is still in this one. Commissioner Gordon was all but ignored in the movies prior to Batman Begins; this time around, he is involved even more as Batman’s ally on the ground. All of the supporting cast do a superb job in their roles.

The two biggest newcomers to the cast are Aaron Eckhart as District Attorney Harvey Dent and the late Heath Ledger as the Joker. All the talk has been about Ledger’s performance. Eckhart has the easier task, as he is only following Billy Dee Williams’ nearly absent performance as Dent in the 1989 Batman (yes, I said Billy Dee Williams), as well as Tommy Lee Jones’ inexplicably one-dimensional turn as the character in Batman Forever. I guess it’s good that they didn’t cast someone whose first name ends with a “y” and whose middle name rhymes with “pee” this time.

Ledger, on the other hand, had to follow Jack Nicholson’s portrayal, which--while wildly praised at the time--is best described as “Jack Nicholson playing the Joker.” Nevertheless, Nicholson’s version left a lasting impression on the movie world. Ledger’s Joker, however, will never be described as “Heath Ledger playing the Joker.” The hype is true here; he is totally subsumed into this role. I would have had no idea that it’s Ledger underneath the scarred, crusty visage (which they never bother to explain; there isn't even a hint that his background involves falling into a vat of industrial chemicals; if anything, I’d guess that it doesn’t). His voice is perfectly maniacal. He is sleazy, twisted, conniving, ruthless, and yet somehow strangely logical amidst all the madness. I wanted to hear more of his insane laughter. Does his performance deserve a posthumous Oscar? I’m not sure. But he inhabits the role so seamlessly, I felt sad while watching the film knowing that even if Joker survives this movie (I won’t say if he does or not), he can’t be in another film. Not without recasting, anyway. And now I can’t imagine anyone else in this role. Jack who?

Eckhart does the crusading white knight district attorney role well. His turn to the darker side is a bit less nuanced, as he ends up growling a lot the way Bale does as Batman. There is one scene that tries to show Dent has a darker side to begin with, but it seems like they should have set that up a little bit more.

Despite that, the direction and script are top-notch again. And the film is packed wall-to-wall, which is what leads to the slow start as they set up 10 different story angles. I was pleased that the fight scenes were less jerky than in Batman Begins (which at times mimicked a Bourne movie style) and were, for the most part, easier to follow than they were in the last movie. Not that I didn’t sometimes lose track anyway, especially during a sonar-laden fight scene; a second viewing is definitely in order.

The plot managed to throw in a few curves I didn’t see coming, which I always enjoy when they don’t feel like cheats. These worked well. However, the story has so many layers and threads that, while I was able to keep up with most of it, I could see it a second time just to catch up with everything. It's a very dense plot. And the script even manages to get in a dig about the morality of unfettered wiretapping in the name of security.

The Batmobile chase in the lower streets of Gotham City is too reminiscent of the chase scene from Batman Begins, mostly because it’s in the same setting. But when the chase resumes aboveground and Batman flips a semi cab-first, all that is forgotten.

The Dark Knight definitely lives up to its name, as this film takes a decidedly darker and more vicious turn. And Batman Begins was no Heidi. This is not a movie for kids. It’s not explicitly gross, but the implied violence is cringing at times. Not that the film is completely humorless; Alfred and especially Lucius Fox have some great lines, and you can't help but laugh at some of Ledger's antics as the Joker. So the film does provide some moments of comic relief that don't feel shoehorned in; they actually make sense in the plot with the characters.

As I said before, the final hour (and this movie is 2 1/2 hours long) is intense. Certainly the most intense movie I’ve seen in years, maybe ever. Every muscle paralyzed as I watched the action build to what was presumably the climax. Without spoiling anything, this ticking time bomb scenario surprisingly revolves more around human nature--whether people in mob situations have the capacity for good or evil--than a simple "hero fights the villain to save the day" scenario. And while the resolution could have gone over to the cheesy side, it seems like they stepped back from the edge of the line and made it palatable (for an example that did not show such restraint, see the New York mob pelting the Green Goblin in defense of Spider-Man in the first movie of that series). But that wasn’t the end anyway. In fact, the most intense, chair-gripping scene is the one that follows and involves no bomb about to explode, no citywide disaster scenario, but is instead a hostage drama involving very few people.

Summer blockbusters are often described as roller coaster rides. The Dark Knight is no mere thrill ride. After some warmup laps at regular speeds, this film becomes a tightly packed NASCAR race at 500 mph. You’ll be exhausted after this movie, but in a good way. All I could say afterwards was, “Wow.” It’s not a perfect film, but few are. And it’s not for the faint-hearted. Don’t expect a simple popcorn flick, and don’t expect your typical feel-good ending either. The world that they leave in place at the end hints at an entirely different set of conflicts that promise to take the movie franchise in a whole new direction. But unlike the twist at the end of Superman Returns, the state of things in Gotham City makes a lot of sense and feels like a universe of possibilities rather than a dead end.

At the end of Batman Begins, the biggest question was: How can they possibly top this? The Dark Knight was the answer to that. Now, repeating that feat seems even more impossible. How can they possibly top THIS?

I can’t wait to see the answer.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly *****

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:33:00 +0000

How do you tell the story of a successful magazine editor who suffers a stroke that leaves his mind intact but his body totally useless except for one eye without it becoming:

A. a bad disease of the week movie
B. a bore
C. Sentimental and schmaltzy
D. depressing
E. all of the above?

Well, you might look at Julian Schnabel's Diving Bell and the Butterfly for clues, because this film is not only none of the above, it is the opposite of A, B, C, and D.

Surely, he had an amazing starting place. This is a true story, adapted from the memoir of the protagonist, who wrote it using an incredibly long series of blinks from his one good eye. The title comes from his likening of his body to a diving suit (for some reason called a diving bell in English), and of his mind to a butterfly.

How do you tell a story from the point of view of a severely disabled man? Well, for a large portion of the beginning of the moview, Schnabel uses just that, a point of view shot, where the camera stands in for the man's one good eye as he tries to make sense of what has happened to him after he awakens from a week-long coma after the stroke.

Sound awful? It's fascinating, actually. By introducing the man this way, Schnabel forces us to identify with this guy. The POV shot makes us him. We even get to hear his inner monolog as he answers doctor's questions without realizing that they are not coming out as words. Just like him, we are the only ones who hear them. And just like that, we can understand him and his situation quickly and at a level that couldn't be attained any other way.

Eventually, we get flashbacks of his life in the form of memories as they slowly come back to him, interspersed with scenes of his therapy and visits from various significant friends and family. By the time Schnabel uses traditional shots of the man as a subject in the frame, we already know so much about him that there is little emotional space left for trite responses. It is the difference in feeling between being a close friend of a victim and reading about the same victim in a newspaper (or blog, nowadays). And that makes all the difference in the world.

In this way, Schnabel avoids all the pitfalls of such a story a delivers instead, a moving and rich experience. I came out of the theater keyed up, as though I had been recharged in there. It is easily the best movie I have seen this year. Highly, highly recommeded.

Hot Fuzz ** 1/2

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Sat, 05 May 2007 04:31:00 +0000

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.

Kona Grill

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:07:00 +0000

Probably not the best idea to review while buzzed, but let's see how this goes.

The new upscale shopping complex near my house, The Domain, includes the chain Asian fusion restaurant Kona Grill. For a chain restaurant, the atmosphere and decor are actually pretty decent. Sure, the "stone" tables on the patio are faux stone, but the chairs are nice and solid and likely where they focused their patio furniture budget.

If you're a beer drinker looking for a good happy hour spot, you're out of luck. Only Bud Light was on special. But the margarita selection is quite good and potent. It's $3.75 for regular, raspberry, or strawberry 'ritas, frozen or on the rocks, and women get an additional $1 discount. The half-price appetizers are well worth it as well. We split pot stickers and chicken satay. The pot stickers are not exactly what you'd get at a Chinese restaurant, but they're quite tasty. Flavorful crumbled chicken and vegetables with a nice sauce and just a touch of crispiness. The satay was good as well, though it's not really satay in the Indonesian or Thai sense. They use a teriyaki sauce to complement the chicken kabobs. Our waiter recommended substituting rice for the default cabbage slaw that came with the satay; that was definitely the right decision.

Happy hour itself ends at 7 pm, which would be hard for some people to make from work, but it starts up again at 9 pm (their "reverse happy hour"). Happy hour specials include half-price pizzas and sushi rolls; we didn't get to try either of those this time, but they sounded promising. And the 'ritas did their thing for a decent price. For splitting three appetizers and having three drinks, all at happy hour prices, I rang up an $18 tab including tax and tip. Not cheap like 219 West, but not too shabby.

So, if you can make it by 6:30 pm (or after 9 pm), Kona Grill is definitely a good happy hour spot, and a welcome addition to north Austin. It's only been open for 2 weeks, but from the looks of it, the nice covered patio already gets packed by 6 pm. Still, it's worth a look if you want to try out a new spot on the north side of town.

Le Mystère Picasso

landoftamara@hotmail.com (Tamara) — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:01:00 +0000

After much anticipation, I finally received The Mystery of Picasso from Netflixx and it was all I hoped for. This very simple film was made by Henri Georges Clouzot in 1956. Simply, it is Pablo Picasso engaged in the creative process. He paints on special transparent canvases so that what he is creating is seen by the audience on the other side. It is mesmerizing. Rent it!

The Queen ****

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:47:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:52:00 +0000

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: **

noreply@blogger.com (babs) — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:07:00 +0000

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.

The Year Without a Santa Claus (2006): Running commentary

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:05:00 +0000

So, NBC has remade the old animated Christmas special, The Year Without a Santa Claus, into a 2-hour live-action movie. Not sure this is a good idea, given that it was among the worst of the old Christmas specials. If you see that show again as an adult, you realize that the only good things about it were the Heat Miser and Snow Miser songs; the rest is crap. Rudolph and other Christmas specials still hold up much better than this one. So why remake this? And how are they gonna stretch an hourlong show into 2 hours?

So here goes my running commentary about the remake. Admittedly, I'm going in with a very skeptical attitude. On to the show:

8:04 pm: Oh boy. It's set in 2006. Santa's operation is all modern, high-tech, and commercialized. Looks like we're in for sledgehammer message movie about how much better the simpler, pre-video game world was. I can see the theme now, we've lost the true meaning of Christmas amid the modern commercialization of the holiday. Well, duh. Anyone not aware of that already? And look, already there's a cameo with one of those Queer Eye guys.

8:05 pm: Look, how clever. They worked in a brief clip of the original animated show.

8:09 pm: Pierced Goth leather chick elf? Sheesh.

8:15 pm: Dr. Laura has a cameo?!? Does she even still have a TV show, as they're claiming here?

8:21 pm: Chris Kattan's obnoxious and cliched PR/marketing-minded elf (Sparky) is proving, well, obnoxious.

8:25 pm: Well, at least they've kept the original Heat Miser and Snow Miser songs. Harvey Fierstein is Heat Miser; kinda hard to listen to his gravely voice sing. And he did Fiddler on the Roof on Broadway? Michael McKean as the Cold Miser has a better singing voice, at least. Also, in a nod to diversity, one of the two elves from the animated series is now black (Eddie Griffin). The other is played by the brother on My Name Is Earl.

8:28 pm: The Heat Miser's babes aren't bad. The bikini tops are a little surprising given that, I assume, this is aimed at a family audience. But I'm not complaining.

8:35 pm: Of course, when it comes to street clothes, Eddie Griffin's elf has to wear his baseball cap backwards and sport a stylish track suit, while the white elf dresses like a clueless white guy.

8:43 pm: They've referenced South Park. "Look how hip with the culture we filmmakers are!"

8:45 pm: Okay, so the Greek goddess Artemis is disguised as an overweight lesbian gym coach!?

8:48 pm: The amount of time between commercial breaks is plummeting.

8:52 pm: Both elves are playing Dance Dance Revolution in an arcade. At least they're not saying the white elf can't dance; both seem perfectly capable.

8:54 pm: Referencing Dr. Laura again?!

8:55 pm: Lots of bare midriffs among the Snow and Heat Misers' babes. Navels galore. Nice!

8:57 pm: Carol Kane as Mother Nature. Seems to work. They're even referencing the old commercials where it wasn't nice to lie to Mother Nature.

9:01 pm: Nice jiggly cheerleader Heat Miser babes.

9:12 pm: They just got Vixen out from animal control. Have to say, that sequence was actually okay. I'm not feeling so cynical about this remake anymore.

9:25 pm: I just realized, in the original show, Mrs. Claus is the one who went to South Town to look for the wayward elves. Yet here, Santa himself has gone after them. I guess they figured John Goodman (Santa) was the bigger star, and not Delta Burke (Mrs. Claus). No pun intended.

9:30 pm: This show is working a lot better now that they're focusing on the story and no longer trying to prove their hipness with modern pop culture references. And Chris Kattan's character hasn't shown up in a long time, another plus.

9:36 pm: Huh, I think the communication screen the Miser brothers are using looks the same as in the original animated show.

9:37 pm: Oh great, back to Chris Kattan's soulless capitalistic corporate takeover subplot.

9:41 pm: "Sparky was my slave name! I'm Extreme Santa now!" Yes, those were Chris Kattan's lines.

9:42 pm: Geez, again with Dr. Laura?? If they used Dr. Phil, that would still be annoying, but at least it'd be more relevant!

9:50 pm: Uh oh, I think someone's about to learn a lesson...

9:51 pm: ...and the lesson, unsurprisingly, is commercial development, bad; appreciate what you have, good. Didn't Charlie Brown already teach us something similar 40 years ago?

9:58 pm: Looks like someone used the Paint Daub filter in Photoshop to do the The End shot (as well as the opening credits).

Well, that ended better than it started. A little cheesy, but that's to be expected in a show like this. The cheese factor could have been far worse, so that was a relief. The whole modern corporation angle felt forced and cliched, though, like Sparky's attempt to remake Santa as a thin Tony Hawkesque figure. They were smart to limit the musical numbers to the classic Miser songs only. And yet the Miser scenes were a little flat, though the babes were a nice addition (and, I must add, not at all flat).

In conclusion, I think this broadcast proved two things:

1) Don't try to shoehorn in a bunch of pop culture references to help fill out your running time.

2) I need a date.

Borat *** 3/4

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 05:26:00 +0000

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 ***

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 06:54:00 +0000

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 ***

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 04:40:00 +0000

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 ****

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 03:55:00 +0000

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 ***

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:52:00 +0000

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

landoftamara@hotmail.com (Tamara) — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:24:00 +0000

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)

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 05:09:00 +0000

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.

Restaurant Review: Tin Star

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:10:00 +0000

The Tin Star restaurant has been under construction on McNeil and 183 (across the street from the Water Tank) for what seems like a year and a half. Lately, they look like they're ready to open. Periodically we'll drive by at night, see the lights on, and slow down to look inside. Nope, the chairs are always still up on the tables.

But tonight, we drove by, and voila! People were sitting in the chairs and eating. We whipped in to the parking lot eager to try a new place. When we got up to the door, we saw a sign that read, "By invitation only. Open to the public on Wednesday, November 8."

Oh well, we thought, and started to walk back to the car. Suddenly a woman burst out of the restaurant and invited us in. She said that tonight was a sneak preview for some of their business partners, but that we were invited in as well.

Great, we thought. We'll be the first people in the 'hood to try this place. Well, we soon found out that wasn't the coolest part. The kicker? All the food tonight was free. Niiice.

The place reminded me of Pei Wei. It was sort of upscale fast food. You order and pay up front, get your beverage, then sit down and they bring you out your food. Tech nerd detail: They give you a little plastic T-shaped device that you swipe into a black box at your table. The box tells the kitchen where you're sitting, so they know exactly where to bring your food. Also, the black box has a white button that you can press anytime to summon a waitperson.

We had chips and queso for an appetizer. I ordered the veggie tacos and Liz ordered the black bean quesadillas. Doesn't sound that exciting, right? Actually, the veggie tacos were kind of fancy. They were filled with marinated mushrooms, broccoli and some other veggies, and topped with strands of grated sweet potato. Very tasty. The black bean quesadillas were even better. And the salsa was delicious.

Those two dishes were pretty much the only veggie options, so you omnivores will have lots of chicken and beef Mexican dishes to choose from.

And just when we thought we were done, they asked us if we wanted a piece of chocolate eruption cake. I said, Hyeah. We had the choice of chocolate or raspberry sauce, on top or on the side. We had the razz, and it was really good.

So, if you want some quick, tasty Tex-Mex, check out the Tin Star.

The Departed ***

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 05:52:00 +0000

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 ***

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:49:00 +0000

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.

The Office (3rd season, NBC, Thursdays)

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:19:00 +0000

Also reviewed by: Babs

Yes, I've reviewed NBC's The Office before. Back on the old Forum, I think. But it's a new season, so ... new review!

Last season, especially in the episodes leading to the season finale, was brilliant. The show really hit its stride. The actors, the characters' interplay, the situations and dialogue all gelled. Even tiny plot lines resonated. And all the characters grew a little more three-dimensional. And then, of course, the season ended with the revelation of the Jim's long-simmering feelings for Pam. That season was a keeper.

Problem is, where do you go from there? Before the season premiere, I was concerned about the future of the show. Have they pushed the unrequited love story out into the open too quickly? Would this result in the downfall of the show, the way Dave and Maddie hooking up lead to Moonlighting's slow and painful death? How can they top last season? And then on top of that, the show won the Emmy for best comedy. Talk about pressure...

Finally, the season premiere came. And, surprise surprise, I was disappointed. We learned Pam's engagement was off, but that Jim had already transferred to another office. Not a terribly surprising plot development (though too reminiscient of the aforementioned Moonlighting direction). And right away, you could tell that the show was just a little off. Without the subconscious flirting between Pam and Jim, the spark just wasn't there. And we don't just lose the Pam and Jim interaction, we lose the constant battling between Jim and Dwight. Cutting the legs out from beneath both of those relationships for too long won't be a good thing.

Also, Michael Scott, Steve Carell's character, had been slowly growing more sympathetic last season, even if he could still be a clueless asshole. Yet in the season premiere, he seemed to be slipping back into being annoying only. Even his banter with Dwight wasn't hitting the mark. And because the show now has to switch between "the" office and the office that Jim transferred to, the flow gets interrupted more often. Seemed to be too jarring of a transition.

The second episode was better, and since then, I think the show has started to find its footing again. In the past couple of episodes, I've had more of the side-splitting laughs that I could always count on last season. I've gotten used to the show being set in two offices now, so that's no longer taking me out of the storyline. With Pam and Jim still separated (unless they moved Jim back this week; I haven't watched the episode yet), the show is still missing a little spark, though. Still, the laughter has returned, and I'm hopeful that the writers and producers are leading the show in the right direction.

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

noreply@blogger.com (babs) — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:47:00 +0000

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 ***

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:53:00 +0000

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!)

noreply@blogger.com (Dipu) — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:56:00 +0000

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.