Syriana

I know, this is going to make me look like the worst kind of zombie (actually, are there grades of zombies?), but I'm going to have to go along with Mr. G. Kenny again. Who wrote the longest review I can remember him writing, giving his point of view on why this film isn't as good as it seems on the surface. Four tales, interwoven, of people involved in oil in the Middle East. A lawyer (the awesome Jeffrey Wright), a CIA man (George Clooney), a financier/family man (Matt Damon), and a sheikh prince (the inspiring, understated Alexander Siddig). Some of their paths meet, and in the meanwhile, you hear a great deal about oil politics. Because of the quick jumps from storyline to storyline, the film as a whole can be difficult to comprehend. A result of the obvious fact that oil politics are intricate and that this is a "smart" script, meaning clever (sometimes too clever to follow). You won't leave the theater misunderstanding the gist of the screenplay, but you will wonder why it was filmed in the first place (which is Kenny's argument). This is a movie with such a dearth of hope that it leaves you far more depressed about the world we live in, and the America we live in, than before you went to see it. Look, everything about the situation in the Middle East sucks, and the one ray of sunshine in the film has so many powerful people and nations thwarting him that it makes no difference whether his politics are "right" or not. To top it off, at the end of the credits is the URL of a website (http://participate.net/oilchange) where you can learn and act on methods for bringing relief to the Middle East situation. How dare they show us this after leaving us with nothing? How dare they indicate that there is hope when they've just torn down every shred of hope they could muster? Feh. I was willing to give it a decent rating, mostly for performances (and the poster). But what would that serve?

year: 2005
length: 126 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365737/combined

A Love Song for Bobby Long

Show offs. This film was made specifically for showcasing talent. Not that it isn't a sweet tale -- girl, having lost her mother, comes home and finds it is a home after all. Filmed in New Orleans, it has a nostalgic feel completely unintended by the filmmakers. Doesn't do quite enough to exude the stickiness of a summer on the bayou (what, is Scarlett Johansson too cool to sweat?) though. Although it does plenty to make obvious the sticky situation of three people -- Johansson, Gabriel Macht, and John Travolta -- not quite sure they all want to be together in the same house. Each character gets his or her showy (see above) speech, and they all do a splendid job at that. Problem is, the film leaves us at the 10 minute-to-go mark with a hastily tacked-on ending. All is suddenly bright and sunshiny which is bad enough, but worst of all we have a dangling plot line. Now, I'm one who loves unresolved endings, but the attraction between two of the principal characters is touched on here and there and finally ignored. If it's clearly a big enough deal to include in the first place, why not give us a hint as to its resolution? Too touchy a subject? Worse, you could interpret the last scene multiple different ways in this regard. I guess I'll have to read the book to know what happened.

year: 2004
length: 119 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369672/combined

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

The second this film was over, my friend turns to us and says "I could watch that film if it was four hours long." I say in return, "I want four more films just like this, right now." Hands-down, this is the best comedy I've seen this year. (OK, the comedy market wasn't that great this year, but bear with me.) It may be violent (dropping bodies off skyscrapers and NOT making the dumpster makes you wince) and it's slightly plot-heavy (whose daughter is the body in the car and whose daughter is the body in the shower?!), but it's so darn funny that who gives a rat's ass about those slight problems. Shane Black is back on top, this time as director as well as screenwriter (he wrote the undeniably awful Long Kiss Goodnight but opened everyone's eyes with the script for the original Lethal Weapon). What other screenwriter can take a classic caper plot, add in every cliché known to that genre, and at the same time include dialogue that has one character correcting another's parts-of-speech? I simply couldn't wait for the next scene, and it's been a depressingly long time since that has happened. Both main actors are the bee's knees -- Robert Downey Jr. as a petty thief suddenly thrust into the acting business and Val Kilmer as a gay cop (yes, the jokes are over-the-top, as if you couldn't guess) attempting to advise Downey Jr. on his acting role as a cop. Best of all, the lead actress Michelle Monaghan actually gets to show chops instead of being window dressing (well, she runs around in a pervy Santa suit for a bit; ignore if you're a girl). Obviously, I want you to run out and see this. If it's gone from your area, support Mr. Black by buying it on DVD. You will not be sorry.

year: 2005
length: 103 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373469/combined

Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Who doesn't love the heroic Gromit and the affable, dopey, cheese-loving Wallace? Only in this film, Nick Park's first full- length feature starring his original creations, Wallace may not be as much a cheese lover as you once thought... This time they're in the vegetable piracy deterrent business (called "anti- pesto" -- get it? get it?), on the run after a giant rabbit beast called, naturally, the Were Rabbit. Mixed in is Wallace's usual love interest, Lady Tottington (Helena Bonham-Carter), her gun- loving suitor, Victor Quartermaine (Ralph Fiennes), and many silly-looking rabbits. Park does his usual genius with the story and his usual skill in mirroring human traits in his clay characters, although this is the first film of his in which I noticed mars in the clay figures. The figures almost seemed hastily created, but perhaps this is simply a factor of having a longer time to look at them than usual. Also weird is a fair number of sexual innuendos -- nothing too bad, mostly (ahem) titty jokes, but odd for a film that is family friendly fare. Do 10-year-olds get these kinds of jokes? Hmm. Regardless, I was, as usual, enchanted. The story flows fast, there are more silly inventions than in the previous short films, and one of the final scenes between Gromit and another dog should make you laugh yourself silly. In the immortal words of Wallace, "it's a veritable vegetable paradise!"

year: 2005
length: 85 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312004/combined

Serenity

Too many of you won't give two figs about this film. And more's the pity. It's an intelligent, action-filled, extremely well-acted, humorous, soon-to-be-classic from the pen of Joss Whedon (better known for writing Buffy). Worlds apart from the latest Star Wars trilogy (George, take notice). The story behind this film (bear with me here) is that Whedon created a TV series that was sci-fi but not in any way fantastical. The crew of a spaceship are renegades after a multi-planet war that they lost, making them and the rest of the planets part of the (of course it's evil) Alliance. They scrounge their keep from planet to planet by taking on morally questionable jobs. Kinda like playing cowboy on the edge of known space. That was the series, called Firefly (reviewed here), and it was aired on the Sci-Fi Channel to almost no notice at all, in the grand scheme of things. Didn't help that they aired the episodes out of order which confused the general populace. The fervent few, who call themselves Browncoats after the popular name for the renegade soldiers, were devastated at the lost of "their" show. Fortunately, Whedon has come roaring back with this film, named after the spaceship itself. I had the great fortune to see this on opening day with Browncoats in abundance and while I'm not always a fan about doing that, I couldn't have asked for a more exhilirating experience. The audience, seeing as they knew the backstory backwards and forwards, laughed uproariously and gasped in shock at all the right points. I have met a few folks who didn't know the backstory and they all liked it hugely. So! Rent it when it's out on DVD (next month; yeah, disappointing box office take, but what did the studio expect?). And let me know what you thought of it.

year: 2005
length: 119 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/combined

The Squid and the Whale

Remember Jesse Eisenberg from Roger Dodger a few years back? Without him as the foil (fool?) in that flick, it would merely have been overly pretentious film-student fare. He does the same thing in this film, only snarkier. The (nearly true) tale of two literates in the 80s and how their divorce affects their two children needs snarky actors, if only to offset the cringe-inducing writing. It 's one of those films you watch between your fingers at times (which has relevance in the film itself), kinda like you'd watch a really gory horror film. Most cringe-worthy is the undeniably excellent portrayal of the younger kid (Owen Kline) and his shenanigans. Yuck, ugh, ick. And this is not because we see him murdering puppies -- it's all about what's going through his head. All four main actors give us a no-holds-barred look at how divorce affects intellectuals, with all the pop-psychology spouting and well-essayed rationalizations that you'd expect from that type of divorce. It goes without saying that Laura Linney is every filmmaker's dream for spiritually-tortured females. Jeff Daniels throws away his comedic schtick with great abandon. Anna Paquin is eye-popping. Heck, even William Baldwin is perfectly cast. Don't take your kids, don't take your estranged spouse (duh), just take yourself. It'll be a film you'll keep on thinking about long after it's over.

year: 2005
length: 88 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367089/combined

The Interpreter

What a great premise -- interpreter hears of an assassination plot, enlists the help of the feds, but is so shadowy and secretive we're unsure whether she's telling the truth. If only Sydney Pollack would have kept this thriller on a higher intellectual plane, say, more along the lines of Constant Gardener than The Bourne Supremacy. I can see that he was trying to channel Rear Window in terms of its style and class (that's what you should do if you have such high-profile and highly-skilled actors as Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn). What he ended up with was unique views of a unique building and a stilted plot trying gamely to enlighten us on opposing views of international communications -- United Nations diplomacy vs. terrorism. Really, the shots of the UN building in NY are astounding, and not just because most of us have never seen the General Assembly. It's astounding architecturally, and holds its beauty and power after 56 years. Equally surprising is Kidman's facility with the fake African language they concocted for the film. Even the elves in Rivendell didn't sound as convincing as she does. (It's a pity she keeps choosing films that aren't as successful as they should be; she is immensely talented and not given her due.) Penn disappointed me. It looked like he wasn't putting much into it, and that may have been an effect of his role being more supporting than leading. Essentially, a pity all around -- I wouldn't waste my time.

year: 2005
length: 128 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373926/combined

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Some star recently said what a miracle it is that any film is successful -- at any point in its lifecycle something can go so wrong as to make it fail. I feel for Doug Liman in this particular instance because he created something smart and classy, and the lives of his stars almost derailed it. I imagine he was tearing little chunks of his hair out. Hey, Mr. Liman (and others just like him), a film rests on its own merit. Gossip is fleeting, buzz is fleeting, word-of-mouth sticks. That's my lesson for the day -- I'm sure everyone in Hollywood is hanging onto my every word. If you like even a bit of Brad Pitt's or Angelina Jolie's acting or looks, you'll like the film. If you're particularly keen on films about marriage, it's a must-see. Pitt and Jolie play competing contract killers who also happen to be married to each other. They become aware of each other's professions by contracting the same job. Now, there's nothing nice about killing, but this is smart screenwriting. What could be more incongruous than to juxtapose the day-to-day life of a marriage with an immensely dangerous career? Talk about every banal aspect of marriage thrown into sharp relief. Okay, so it's a stylish, lives-of-the-rich-and-famous look at marriage, but it points out the difficulties in all marriages, e.g., mis-communication, irritation, boredom. With a few extremely weighty secrets thrown into the mix. If nothing else, it'll make you happy your marriage doesn't have this particular problem, and that's the secret of successful filmmaking -- creating entertainment that resonates. Lesson over.

year: 2005
length: 120 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356910/combined

Finding Forrester

That critic you hear so much about on this site, Mr. Glenn Kenny, recently wrote a review in which he pissed and moaned about films about writers. Being one himself, he has trouble watching writers portrayed on film, and he asserts that what you see on screen is 99% bad in this regard. I wonder what he thinks of this film. I wonder if he doesn't even consider it a portrayal of writers, seeing as you hear little more than a few phrases of writing in the entire movie or see the characters doing any actual writing (the one time you do see this, the lesson learned is an excellent one, by the way). But what is the film, then? Is it a study of racism? If so, how come you never see the reality of that either? Gus Van Sant is known for understated works, laid-back works, in fact, and very smart screenwriting. The latter exists here, but I'm not sure the former does. It's too clever, too polished, too unreal. The conflicts are predictable, regardless of how well acted they are by Sean Connery and the new, but wise beyond years, Rob Brown (whoo, where'd they find him?). It's entertaining, natch -- you know that the young black word whiz will end up being tutored by the white, experienced writer, and that the secrecy of their relationship will end up being undermined. How? Well, that's what you're watching for. Besides which, the end cameo is worth every penny.

year: 2000
length: 136 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181536/combined

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Choosing more daring directors as the books get darker is one of Warner Bros. smartest moves concerning this series. Y'all know I raved about the last one, and this one is just as good. Better in some respects -- the kids are definitely coming into their own. Daniel Radcliffe emotes beautifully when needed and acts like the teenager he is everyplace else. I wasn't quite as impressed with Emma Watson. She's as acerbic as she was before and I suppose I want her not to be, which is silly, as that's the way she's written. Most impressive is Rupert Grint as Ron. Ron's always been played as somewhat of a dolt, and in this film Grint gives us a more mature, less fearful teenage dolt. Perfect, as far as I'm concerned. Special effects are grand, especially the Quidditch arena (although we get no actual Quidditch, unfortunately). The plot is, well, the book, minus a few story lines (such as Hermione's alliance with the house elves), and needs the full 2.5 hours to be told. Supporting characters are, as usual, marvelous, especially Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter, the incredibly nosy journalist. But all I could think about at the end was how they better hurry the hell up. Film books five and six before Rowling gets seven out! That way we can be all be on the same "page" at the end. Besides which, there are 16-year-olds playing 14-year-olds now. How will it work when a 20- or 21-year-old is trying to play a 17-year-old in the last film? Let's hope they all keep their baby faces.

year: 2005
length: 157 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330373/combined

The Wizard of Oz

Advertising works! See the ad in Premiere, order the DVD the next day, spend the next few days hopping around in anticipation, and race home from work on the appointed day to ooh and aah over the new digital transfer of this beloved 1939 film. I was, as most kids, a huge fan and having to wait to see it once a year on television was downright depressing. Naturally, when it came out on VHS I ran out and got it right away. But the difference between that and the current DVD is like the difference between a Munchkin and Glinda. My husband got completely sick of me saying "that was the true color of the [insert whatever here]?!". It has to be seen to be believed. The DVD extras give you the low-down on how they created the new transfer, plus many mini- documentaries hosted by the charming Angela Lansbury that illumine and enlighten the process of putting this treasure on screen. What a hoot to see Liza Minelli in better days with her brother and sister (Judy Garland had three kids; yeah, I didn't know either). And Jack Haley and Ray Bolger reminiscing on how much they complained during filming about their makeup and the heat. Not to be missed is an extended scene of the first meeting between Dorothy and the Scarecrow that showcases Ray Bolger's dancing. What, was he made out of rubber?! I don't know many who don't love this film, so go buy the DVD and smile, smile, smile.

year: 1939
length: 101 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/combined

The Man in the Moon

People seem to have a special fondness for this film. As if everyone's grown up on a farm and had a crush on the boy next door but lost that boy to their older sister. Uh-huh, sure, that happened to me and everyone else I know. What I mean is, I'm not sure I see the universality of the thoughts and emotions, particularly in terms of the film's ending. Even without the ending's upheaval in our young protagonist's life, there's a lot in this film that doesn't ring true. When her mother trips and nearly loses her baby, besides its obvious contrivance so that the plot can continue on, it's filmed so over-the-top as to be utterly unbelievable. Without Reese Witherspoon's pluck and verve, I would have rolled my eyes and turned it off. Oh, except that Jason London is pretty hot stuff, so maybe that would have kept me watching. Which is another thing to complain about -- the poor kid is evidently supposed to be beefcake and nothing more. It reminds me of Viggo Mortensen's role in A Walk on the Moon, and I suspect that as a feminist I'm supposed to rejoice that these films are about the women and so the men are relegated to supporting hunk roles. But when they ring false, they're ridiculous. Still, watch it for Witherspoon who showcases the talent that made her what she is today. And then finish off with Freeway or Election so you can wash the stale taste of this film out of your mouth.

year: 1991
length: 99 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102388/combined

Dangerous Beauty

Imagine yourself in Venice in the 16th century, a time and place of decadence and power. Imagine yourself as a woman in that time and place, one without family connections to bring yourself power. Imagine what your career choices are. In essence: either scullery maid or courtesan. Now there's an old-fashioned word! Based on this film, I would say a courtesan's a cross between a geisha and a whore. Who would want this kind of life? Someone who wants power and prestige -- as in the real-life Veronica Franco, who rose to fame due to her beauty and grace, and most of all her ability to turn a phrase. She was a poetess and used that skill to capture and keep the men of Venice's attention. This film would be nothing more than a slice of history but for two things: the writing and Catherine McCormack. It's rare to find such a Hollywood screenplay, one in which conversation is juxtaposed with verse and remains entertaining. McCormack herself plays the title role with a dose of humor, which helps bring the real-life character to "real" life. The courtroom ending is a bit overwrought, as the men of Venice she bewitched take her side against the Inquisition. One hopes that part is true, because the original choice between scullery maid and courtesan can be firmly planted on the shoulders of the men of that town. If they wouldn't stick up for her, who would? Certainly not the wives of those men...

year: 1998
length: 111 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118892/combined

Band of Brothers

Ever since I made the mistake of writing about a series before I'd gotten very far into it, i.e., Red Dwarf (for which I now take back everything I said as it is uniquely hysterical, which reminds me that I owe a certain friend a new review...), I've been rather skittish about doing it again. Problem is, I've been dying to write this review since I saw the first episode many moons ago and if I don't get to say something now I just might bust. Now, I've seen my fair share of war films (of all kinds, from Ken Burns' Civil War to Jean-Pierre Jeunet's A Very Long Engagement) and I figured I'd seen pretty much every depiction of the horror of war. And yet I was wrong. This series gives us all that and more because every episode is taken straight from the mouths of the soldiers who lived it. It stands above the rest because you live with these men from the parachute drops over France to VE day and you see everything -- obviously, the horror, but also the cold, the humor, the maneuvers, and above all the camaraderie that comes from having lived through it all together. I've found all the episodes so far riveting but difficult to watch, particularly the day-in-the-life of a medic, and what they found outside Thalem when they liberated Germany. The mostly no- name actors do a splendid job telegraphing all the emotions of soldiers, notably Damian Lewis and Donnie Wahlberg as officers. Not for the faint of heart, but if you want to know more about the men of the Army's 101st Airborne's 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment's Easy Company and why they're heroes, you won't want to miss this.

year: 2001
length: 705 min. (10-part mini-series)
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185906/combined

Good Night, and Good Luck.

History lesson? A lot of films are even when they're not biopics or sweeping epics. This one really is straight from the pages of history, being Edward R. Murrow's "attack" on Senator Joseph McCarthy and his House Unamerican Activities Committee. Attack is in quotes because Murrow does not so much attack as try to reveal the whole truth, at the same time providing editorial comment. Every minute of this film is fascinating as a result -- from George Clooney's schlumpy producer to Ray Wise's unstable, fearful co-anchor to, of course, David Strathairn's layered rendition of Murrow. Strathairn is a marvel, no more so than during the few minutes preceding his first editorial. He clearly becomes more and more nervous as the seconds tick by, chain smoking like a fiend, but focused on the task at hand and obviously far more eager for this type of news show than the insipid programs he usually anchors. Clooney has done two brave things: shot his film in black and white, thereby alienating one half of his potential audience immediately, and had McCarthy play himself, which doesn't necessarily alienate the other half, but creates more difficult situations for the screenwriter (i.e., how to integrate film of McCarthy and still have the story flow). Clooney's decision to include the story of the husband and wife (Robert Downey Jr. and Patricia Clarkson) who kept their marriage secret from their co-workers is far less successful even though it does mirror the secrecy and fear inherent in the creation of the Committee itself. It feels added on to the plot. Still, for those of us who are fascinated and impressed by the actor-turned- director Clint Eastwood, I think the protégé has arrived.

year: 2005
length: 93 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433383/combined

Constantine

John Constantine--not British? Shocking. Still, you pick Keanu Reeves to play the part, it's better that he not even try to use a British accent. "Constant" cigarette action, that's imperative, and the filmmakers obviously recognized that, thank Heavens. Making it the raison d'être of the film, well, that was unexpected. Not that I've read the comic books in a long time. Perhaps there is a sub-plot wherein Constantine is dying of lung cancer from prolonged cigarette use. He's a bit pissed to be leaving Earth so early, seeing as he's intimately acquainted with Hell and has no desire to return any time soon. Mixed in with that is a woman who can see and hear the same evil beings he can and actually wants to go to Hell to save her twin sister. Crazy girl, and he thinks so, too. Seeing as Hell is the main topic of conversation in this flick, expect dark, bleak and fiery. It's also definitely not for the squeamish or kids under the age of, say, 16. For those who do like this kind of stuff (me!), the film is surprisingly tight -- tightly written (almost sparse, so you have to pay attention to all that's said), tightly directed (someone story-boarded like Hell), and, surprise surprise, well acted. Rachel Weisz is the crazy woman, and she's always great, her sincerity always in-your-face. Reeves is fine with hints of what makes him special. But Peter Stormare. Ah! He's Lucifer, played with glee and camp, without losing any hint of the obvious terror of the Devil incarnate. He's got maybe 5 minutes on screen towards the end. Watch it for him.

year: 2005
length: 121 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360486/combined

Hitch

For so many reasons, Will Smith is currently the king of Hollywood. He's the king of comedy, hip-hop, adventure films and now romances. He could aptly be called the most self-confident man alive, and he's done it all under the persona of all-around nice guy and family man. It's very clever. I wish him the longest reign, as I am as rapt in his spell as the rest of the country. (Besides, he should also be crowned the sexiest man alive, knocking Denzel from that top spot.) So, it's charming to finally see him using all of his talents in one film, even one so sweetly dopey as this. Smith stars as the title character, essentially a dating counselor, who helps men get the girls of their dreams and hold onto them. Of course, he falls for someone himself (Eva Mendes), makes an utter mess of it, naturally, and you can guess the ending. Why watch it? Well, why wouldn't you watch the king? His over-abundant charm, his willingness to do anything for comedic effect (witness the food-allergy scene, which I dare you not to laugh out loud at). And his excellently chosen co-stars (among whom Kevin James plays a worthy comedic adversary as the main hapless dater) and the general ambience. Race, age and size issues abound, but are thankfully completely ignored, rare in a comedy rife with opportunities for such jokes. This is, literally, a film for everyone so ignore the silly ending and enjoy.

year: 2005
length: 118 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386588/combined

Madagascar

First, I saw the last one-third of this film on the ferry from Muskegon to Milwaukee. And I thought, without having seen the first bits, that this was one of the dopiest kids films ever. Here's a zoo-based lion, deprived of food for a week in the wild, ready to eat his pals. What kind of moral message are we sending children when it involves actually eating other beings? I know, I know, it's all a metaphor for learning the value of friendship, but I found it a rather distasteful one. Then, I watched the whole film from start to finish at a drive-in in lower Ontario (at which the drive-in, and only the drive-in, got soaked in a monstrous thunderstorm) and actually laughed at the first two- thirds. Because the first parts in the zoo are quite funny, especially the bits with the mafia-like penguins and the erudite chimps. And once they're shipwrecked on the island of Madagascar (don't ask) the lemurs' funky dancing and silly king (voiced uniquely and hysterically by Sacha Baron Cohen) are even funnier. Then the movie devolves into the part I saw on the ferry and I was as disturbed by it as earlier. But if the ending gets people to eat more fish (I'll say no more) and to hire Cohen for more (more! more!) parts, and not only voice parts, then the movie has done its job.

year: 2005
length: 86 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0351283/combined

The Island

Right off the bat -- I didn't choose to see this movie. (Yes, it was foisted on me! I was tied down, strapped in, eyes stretched wide open! Oh, wrong film.) It was part of a double feature at our local (okay, so 30-some miles away isn't really local) drive-in, and my summer urge was to see as many drive-in movies as I could. Sadly, it was not nearly as good as the first feature (Red-Eye) and it was far longer, which goes a long way towards proving the adage that brevity is the soul of wit. (OK, so Red-Eye isn't necessarily witty, but it's compact, doesn't try your patience.) I'm not one of those who slobber over Ewan McGregor (I know, what's wrong with me?) but I fully recognize his acting skills and those of his co-star Scarlett Johansson. So what are they doing in a Michael Bay film? Wouldn't a short conversation with John Cusack or John Malkovich or, heck, Ben Affleck, dissuade them of the ridiculous notion that acting would be required? Bay gives interviews now that run interference against reporters assuming his films are strictly in the blow- things-up vein. What a useless endeavor. If he's not blowing things up, he's showing off his sets, costumes and stunt driving. How can he be proud of a film that exists solely for these reasons? (Why would he care? Everything he makes rakes it in.) The plot itself is a tired rehashing of Blade Runner, The Matrix and Coma. (Remember Coma? So much spookier.) Clones who don't know they're clones are promised retirement on a beautiful island, while instead they're being used as spare parts for the original person (believe me, it matters very little that I gave away the reveal there). The only redeeming features of the movie are the futuristic scenes of Detroit city (where some backgrounds were filmed), the cool flycycles and Steve Buscemi. He's a comic genius, and I have no idea why he has such a fondness for Mr. Bay.

year: 2005
length: 136 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/combined

Double Indemnity

As an old(-ish) fart, I'm allowed to say that they just don't make 'em like this anymore. Not that I was born when this film was made, but I (hopefully) like so many other Americans, yearn for the films in which scripts were written with oodles of sub- text. In which everything, but everything, is hidden under layers of shifting words. The first major repartee between Fred McMurray's hapless insurance rep and the oh-so-evil, but oh-so- alluring (can't quite call her beautiful), Barbara Stanwyck is dazzling in its wordplay, while at the same time inducing giggles at how different the world is now. Which is probably why nobody makes films like this anymore. I mean, having the lead man constantly calling the leading lady "baby" would be, hmm, off- putting nowadays. Still, the best line in the whole movie is "Shut up, baby." so there you have it. The movie conforms to the all the rules of noir -- a plot that holds water but only if you don't look too closely, plenty of intricacies involving other characters and set pieces, a somber, bleak tone, and above all as little light used as possible. The beauty and mystery of the darkest film noir, and this is one of them, creates the tragedy we know we're in store for. Does it matter? Not in the least. Knowing there will be a tragic ending doesn't dissuade us, it pulls us in deeper. Are we entranced by the mirror it holds to our own lives? Maybe. I like to think part of why we watch noir is a sense of relief -- there's no way we're as messed up as those lost souls on screen.

year: 1944
length: 107 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036775/combined

A Night at the Opera

I've watched a couple of Marx Brothers films (the one in the fake country, the one in the country house), but neither have come close to being as funny and brilliant as this one. It's as if all the classic jokes are told for the first time all in the span of an hour and a half. When Groucho is on screen, it's one- liner after one-liner, constantly interrupting all the "serious" actors. And you can barely keep up with him -- you're finished laughing at the first joke while he's through telling the second one! When Chico enters the picture, the brothers engage in extended comedic dialogue -- witness the contract scene, which while not a leg-slapper has wordplay that rivals the Who's on First skit. What I wasn't aware of (or had forgotten from the previous films) was the musical talents of at least two of the Marx Brothers. I knew Harpo played the harp, but that he and Chico also played the piano, and marvelously at that, was a surprise to me. The film is daring in that it pits musical numbers, and not just the individual talents but full-blown ensemble singing and dancing pieces, against the comedy. At first, you're not sure if this juxtaposition works, but when Harpo plays a most haunting, and not-at-all-silly, composition on the harp, it doesn't matter anymore. (And that little number Chico plays on the piano -- gosh, that sounds awfully like the music in the Coconut Grove dance in Singin' in the Rain, hmm?) There's actually a plot to this film, and real romance, but of course also Groucho bidding for the attentions of Margaret Dumont, their ever-present foil. And although basic, the plot works. It effectively gives the film a grounding and provides context for some of the sillier numbers (like, baseball in the orchestra pit!). Until I see a better one, this remains my fave film of theirs.

year: 1935
length: 96 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026778/combined

The Adventures of Robin Hood

I can't believe I never saw this film as a child. It's the sort of film every kid should see -- pompous, arrogant bad guys, purely wholesome good guys, innocent damsels in distress, and lots of jolly peasantry. (In fact, the one time you see the peasants down on their luck they look like you and me on a good day. That's 1930s Hollywood for you.) Errol Flynn plays what he always played -- the lead with a heart of gold, a catchy laugh, and excellent swordsmanship. His ever-present co-star, Olivia de Havilland, is the tops as Maid Marian, although you can't help but wonder how she would have sunk her teeth into a leading role of her own. Marian is barely there -- necessary but not at all the focus of the film. Which is all the swashbuckling antics. As well as the moral judgment of not being a rich bastard 'cause look what it gets you in the end! I'm not sure if the print I saw (fortunately on the big screen) was restored or not -- the colors looked so bright and defined. Nothing pastel here: reds, blues, greens, and not just in the costumes. The sets use the same color palette and it gives the picture a cheery, kid-friendly visual appeal. Moralizing may be an obvious theme of the film -- one kid asked his father after the film why Flynn allowed the bad guy to pick up his sword again when he was clearly beat. Certainly a super opportunity to teach morals, you betcha. Mostly, though, it's just fun to see everyone dressed up in tights and having a ball.

year: 1938
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029843/combined

War of the Worlds

I don't think Steven Spielberg's heart is in it anymore. Each and every one of his films from recent memory has the same exact theme. All together now -- families don't communicate, get ripped apart by external forces, only to discover that what they wanted all along was each other. There are more plots in this world than that one! And it's particularly weird that he seems to be able to take any kind of film, sci-fi or otherwise, and ground it in the relationships among family members. I shouldn't diss this approach so heavily, but like I said, it gets old. For those unfamiliar with H.G. Wells' book, the original text has aliens from Mars attacking Earth and attempting to wipe out all of mankind. And this is the premise of the film, except that the aliens aren't necessarily from Mars and while they come from outer space to do their attacking, there's an important component of their attack hiding out beneath our feet. Creepy, you betcha. And absolutely, utterly and completely implausible. You mean to say that when we drilled for oil, built a tunnel for a subway line or, heck, mined for salt, we never ran across these things?! The ridiculousness of this grabs you from the get-go and never leaves you, giving the film a stoooopid taint that is unfortunate. Because the special effects rock -- those long-legged machines wiping out each and every human are exactly as terrifying as they should be. And the acting, for the most part, is excellent. Tom Cruise plays a deadbeat dad saddled with his two kids as the horror begins, and only mis-steps (mis-acts) a couple of times. There is also an interesting sub-theme running through the picture, that of the difficulty of allowing a child to go fight a war that seems to be a lost cause. Spielberg doesn't take this far, as it isn't the thrust of the film, but I think any comparisons you might draw with the war in Iraq are justified. I hated the voiceovers at the beginning and end (and I adore Morgan Freeman's voice). Totally unnecessary -- does he think we need an explanation for the terrors we're about to see? And the ending sucked eggs. So, I liked it and I dis-liked it. If I were to rent it, I'd fast forward to all the scenes of Cruise emoting and buildings being torn to shreds and ignore the rest of it.

year: 2005
length: 116 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407304/combined

The Machinist

How, in God's name, do you lose that much weight? I mean, Christian Bale looks, quite literally, like an Auschwitz prisoner. I can't imagine the film working without his having lost one-third of his flesh, but if there ever was a film that teenage girls should go see to dissuade them from starving themselves for beauty, fashion, what have you, this is the one. According to one report I read, Bale lost 63 pounds by eating one can of tuna and one apple per day. I could harp on about this at length, and you'll understand why when you watch it. Strangely, while the film creeps you out (and not just from having to look at Bale with his shirt off in that state) and has some peek-through-your-fingers moments, it simultaneously tries to put you into a dreamy, sleepy state of mind. It's quite the unique mix. Bale plays Trevor Reznik, a factory worker who hasn't slept in a year, and seems to be hallucinating the existence of a co-worker. Jennifer Jason Leigh plays the heart-of-gold hooker (but she was cast for how well she gets angry, that's clear). The beauty of this film is that you're certain it will move in only one direction, based on some rather gruesome images sprinkled throughout, but it does a 180 at the end and you are treated to one of the most satisfying endings of the last few years. This comes from the mind of a director working in the same vein as Christopher Nolan and Alejandro González Iñárritu, and yet crafting something truly original. And here I thought all the good plots had been done.

year: 2004
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361862/combined

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Ah, a worthy heir. (Joke! Don't worry, you'll get it when you see the movie.) Johnny Depp steps smartly into Gene Wilder's shoes and pulls off one more portrayal of the distinctly nutty, bizarrely childlike, and decidedly eccentric Willy Wonka. For those of you who loved Wilder's version as a child, it may be difficult to fathom what good a remake can bring (as yet another of the endless stream of remakes), but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. This one may not have the googly-eyed man himself, but it has overabundant color! and surreal sets! and cute little musical numbers! and really funny lines! and trained squirrels! and to top it all off Depp!, who has his feet planted firmly as the cleverest actor of his generation. Here he's channeling Pee-Wee Herman, albeit a Pee-Wee with extra bite and wit. For those who've read the book, this film adds a bit of backstory to Wonka's childhood, but otherwise is completely faithful. Wonka's reminiscences of his childhood are a teeny bit distracting, as they drag you away from the main thrust of the film (that being the removal of every one of the naughty kids who gets to tour Wonka's chocolate factory except Charlie himself, of course). And yet I thought they made the ending all that more sweet and caring. I do hope Tim Burton gets to make The Great Glass Elevator, if only to see who he'd cast at the President of the U.S. (Jack Nicholson again?) and as the Vermicious Knids (Jack Nicholson again?). Probably a good thing I'm not a casting agent, but let's hear it for more from the Burton-Depp team!

year: 2005
length: 115 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367594/combined

Wedding Crashers

You can now label me officially a Vince Vaughn fan. First, he was the only decent thing about Dodgeball, then he does that comic genius thing again, only in a radical 360-degree kind of way. Usually, these kind of films bore me silly -- two dopey guys only interested in sex find the girl(s) of their dreams. Yawn. Been done thousands and thousands and thousands... Ten minutes in I was sure this would be an eye-roller. But once they finish showing us how Vaughn and Owen Wilson have perfected the dastardly art of wedding crashing, and the film gets down to business, it's pretty freakin' funny. (I'll admit, right off the bat, that the first dinner table scene made me laugh so hard I had to make an effort to keep my eyes open. I don't quite know what it was that made it so funny -- it's the oldest joke in the book. Context, I guess.) Naturally, the plot is ridiculous, but all romance movies have ridiculous plots. Assume this before you go or there'll be no viewing pleasure for you. Still, I can't give it more than a 3.0, if only because of the evil boyfriend (but he looks so nice!) and the homosexual brother (but he's a sensitive artist!). Back to my original point... Wilson is terrific (you just want to pinch his cheeks he's so sweet) and Rachel McAdams as the love interest is as engaging as she was in The Notebook (I'd like to see her do something other than romance now; she clearly has the chops for it), but Vaughn simply sparkles. He's kooky, clever, completely twisted, and loving every second of it. Just what you need in a sidekick. Isn't it time he got a headliner, though?

year: 2005
length: 119 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0396269/combined

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

Liam Aiken is a kid to be watched. His mannerisms seem wise for someone twice his age. I'd guess that's the mark of someone who finds acting as natural as tying his shoes and brushing his teeth. It's interesting to note that he was on the short list for the Harry Potter role, but was turned down because he wasn't British. I don't know -- if Renée Zellweger can play a Brit seamlessly, so (conceivably) could Aiken. In some ways, I can see him as better than Daniel Radcliffe (gasp! sacrilege!). But he's by no means the only good thing in the film -- the tale of three orphans being shuttled among "relatives" after their parents die in a fire. Jim Carrey plays Count Olaf, the worst of the relatives, and he is predictably hysterical (his prehistoric scene was a belly-laugh). He also gets to enact multiple characters -- a pie-in-the-sky kind of acting job for him, I'm sure. The sets are gorgeously rendered, perfectly odd and filled with so much minutiae that you'd have to see it multiple times to catch everything. The animation used at the beginning and during the credits is Tim-Burton-esque (think Nightmare Before Christmas), and the music is Danny-Elfman-esque. But it doesn't necessarily play as darkly as a Burton film. Sure, Count Olaf' s house is über-creepy, dank and nasty, and bad things keep happening to the orphans, but at least this film has a (semi-)happy ending. Speaking of the ending, I'm getting tired of films that assume they will be franchises and so have these ultra-wimpy endings (e.g ., Spiderman I, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) that allow them to pick up right where they left off. This will only get worse as studios sink the majority of their budgets into those flicks that can be franchised. Urg. Fight this insidious takeover! Go see small films like Northfork or Shaun of the Dead or Super Size Me. Now THAT is one we really don't need franchised.

year: 2004
length: 108 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0339291/combined

The Fly

Among the list of foods you should NEVER eat while watching this film is cherry pie. I'm not one to get squeamish while watching make-believe (although I may shake my hands or make a face during a particularly grody scene), but David Cronenberg takes the cake. The film only reveals itself as horror halfway through, so there you are enjoying mid-80s costuming and amusing repartee between the leads, Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis, when the full effect of Cronenberg's special effects masters splatters across the screen. Blechy. Although I don't recommend eating while watching, I wouldn't avoid it in the video store because it deserves a viewing. Goldblum delivers, well, himself, and there are soulful moments that mesh nicely with his halting speech patterns and spazzy mannerisms, as bizarre as that may sound. Perhaps Cronenberg chose him because the actor is so obviously himself even under pounds of fake-fly makeup. Davis does good counterpoint, although it's not one of her best films, and the writing is often funny and always clever. But the soul of the picture lies in the recognizably human emotions evident in this fly-man even as he becomes something unrecognizable and disgusting to us. For that alone, it's worth peeking between your fingers and relegating the cherry pie back to the kitchen for the time being.

year: 1986
length: 95 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091064/combined

House Calls

Oh, I do love Walter Matthau. Sadly, I was introduced to him during his Grumpy Old Men stage (in which he's, frankly, marvelous, my favorite line being "Putz.") and then had to return in time and rent The Taking of Pelham One Two Three on the strength of him (and some great reviews). Not having failed me yet, I rented this flick because one of my reviews fans (blush) gave it high marks. So far we're three for three. Matthau can take any dialogue and make it belly-laugh-inducing hilarious. I rarely laugh heartily in films anymore -- a line or scene has to be REALLY good to make me guffaw -- and this film had at least a half dozen such instances. The only decent doctor at a hospital crammed with nitwits, Matthau plays a recent widower who wants to play the field for the first time ever (not that he didn't love his wife, don't get me wrong). He goes out with all these young idiots and of course becomes entangled with a woman closer to his age, the magnificent actress-cum-sparring-partner, Glenda Jackson (she's actually now the Labour MP for Hampstead and Highgate!). Of course, there's abject silliness along the path towards Matthau giving in and admitting his adoration for Jackson, including cross-dressing, singing along with an Enrico-Caruso-alike, and hysterical interactions with Art Carney as the surgical head of the hospital. If you're in the mood for laughing, don't miss this one.

year: 1978
length: 98 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077699/combined

The Coca-Cola Kid

I don't remember now why I even had this movie in my queue. I guess it's interesting for three reasons: 1) to see why Greta Scacchi has no shame 2) to see how far Eric Roberts has fallen and 3) to see why Australians are ever so much cooler than Americans. Roberts is some big-shot Coca-Cola marketing genius, sent to Australia to shake up the Aussies and make them sell, sell, sell! Scacchi is his secretary who has never heard the phrase "playing hard to get," culmintaing in them at long last going to bed together...amidst big fluffy pillow feathers. It's ludicrous. Especially since Roberts has made it abundantly clear that he is not in the least interested throughout the film and then all of a sudden they're smooching on a big red bed. We don't even see the "caving in" scene! That's not just bad plotting, that's extraordinarily bad acting. I guess Roberts was still a possibility as a leading man in Hollywood at this time; after this you'll see why he's remained a B-movie actor. (His sister's astronomically better; must be galling.) The rest of the plot is too silly and poorly directed to mention. Ok, one mention: the cross-dressing party and subsequent singing-in-the-rain scene. What the heck was that?! Talk about ludicrous. Anything good about the movie -- yes, the Coca-Cola song (I see at least one IMDB reviewer thinks exactly the same as me) and the cute little girl playing Scacchi's daughter. Not enough for a recommendation, I'm afraid.

year: 1985
length: 98 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088931/combined

National Treasure

Pfflbt. What's the point of renting a Sean Bean film and seeing only what a big waste of time it was for him? It's not really "his" film but he's the main villain, so that smarmy, sultry swagger should be front and center. I'm guessing he was required to hold back, this being a Disney film. In fact, everyone's holding back including the screenwriter and the star, Nicolas Cage. The plot is intriguing, historically patriotic (which is great for the kids watching), and kinda funny, but it moves too fast and glosses over big chunks of history -- such as telling the history of the Freemasons in about 15 seconds. (Also, why would a Freemason give secret data to a non-Mason? Isn't that grounds for something more horrible than dismissal?) As you can guess, the main gist of the tale is finding THE secret of the Freemasons. It's a treasure hunt complete with clues, clever deductions and skeptics. Certainly fun to watch the solution unfold, with or without a consistent plot, but I wouldn't go out of my way to find it. If anything stands out, it's Diane Kruger (her German accent is adeptly explained within seconds of her appearance). Her natural, empathetic acting is a bonus in this sort of girl-tags-along-and-becomes-girlfriend role. One has to wonder why she was so bland in Troy.

year: 2004
length: 131 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368891/combined

Batman Begins

Here's what I wanted: the first act of this film as an Oscar contender, with the last two acts as a follow-up tentpole. Meaning that the first act -- in which Batman works through the pain of his parents' demise, takes on the guise of that which scares him the most, and decides to become a hero -- is completely different from the other acts. Those make up your run- of-the-mill superhero action flick, complete with wilting female, nifty gadgets and an ending so reminiscent of Spiderman that you wonder if DC and Marvel aren't in cahoots behind the scenes. It's not what I wanted to see. And I freely admit that I had high expectations, which always damns me in the end. There's a lot riding on the team of Christopher Nolan (of Memento fame) and Christian Bale (whom you all know is one of my top three fave actors). Nolan tries admirably -- the screenplay's arc is better than most (although I would have jettisoned all the jokes) -- but his method of filming action sequences made my eyes glaze over. Bale gives us his usual, outside the suit. He can morph among the multiple facets of Bruce Wayne's personality seamlessly, and his facial acting gives me chills. Which is maybe why once he got the suit on I was so taken aback. He changes his voice (as he's famous for) to sound more like a bully, and while that may fit the story it threw me out of the movie each time. The requisite love interest is annoying. Even though Katie Holmes is a fine enough actor, there is nothing outside the first act for her to sink her teeth into (and, please, our last glimpse of her should have been when she discovers who's under the cape). Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow, on the other hand, mesmerizes and that's not simply the effect of those inordinately blue eyes. Since there's more than enough set-up at the end for a sequel, and the Joker will be introduced, I'll be glad to return for another dose. I just hope they take my advice.

year: 2005
length: 141 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/combined

The Butterfly Effect

The entire plot of this film revolves around the holes in the plot, and what we learn about each of them as the plot progresses. But it's the plot twists that'll get ya. Especially the one just as Ashton Kutcher's character begins to understand what's going on and goes to see the one person he should have seen at the beginning. Up until then, the film is interesting -- offbeat, structured to keep you guessing, and sparely written. Then, things start unraveling a bit too quickly and the film loses its shape as a consequence. What plot, you say? Kutcher plays a man who suffered from blackouts as a kid, and finds himself unable to retrieve these memories...until...well, you'll need to see the movie. Should you see the movie? The premise is somewhat unique, so it's a pity Kutcher doesn't hold his end up better. He's okay, but he pales in comparison to his younger co- stars who play him at age 7 and 13. Their range far surpasses his. It's a bit disturbing, and also a bit disturbing to hear such foul language from the mouth of babes. Granted, I watched the Director's Cut (because I couldn't get the theatrical version to load), so perhaps filmgoers experienced a more PG version. I hope so; jaded as I am, I was taken aback. Did I mention the flick is creepy, too? Not exactly horror-creepy (although there are some scary, somewhat bloody parts), but psychological-creepy. If you don't like your head messed with, don't watch this. If you do, watch Silence of the Lambs again.

year: 2004
length: 120 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289879/combined

The General

I've seen a few of Buster Keaton's films, and while a couple of them are favorites (especially The Navigator), most of them have such extraordinarily boring parts that I've fallen asleep watching them on DVD. And there lies the crux of the problem. Silent movies are not meant to be watched on DVD -- they're meant to have the full force of a live orchestra or organ scoring the plot for you. And what a difference this can make if you have the right silent movie and the right accompanist. I was lucky enough to see this film in our restored 1920s downtown movie house accompanied by one of our most renowned silent film organists. I'd heard this was one of Keaton's best films, but I'd heard that about most of his films. How happy I am to have been proved wrong. Based on a true story from the Civil War, a hapless, unlucky-in-love train engineer has his engine stolen from him by the Northerners and races across the Southland trying to get it back. Of course, he's using borrowed engines, as well as other conveyances, to do this and if you know anything about Keaton's magic, you can guess what kinds of stunts you'll see. Except that you'll be wrong; they'll be better than what you guess. I've never seen a stunt like Keaton pulls off to remove two logs from across the tracks as his train is approaching them. It has to be seen to be believed. This film cost a fortune in its day, using multiple trains, often filmed together on the same track and/or being destroyed. In that respect, it's similar to the best special effects created today, except that these are all real, there are no stuntmen, and they're unbelievably dangerous. I have to admire every actor Keaton hired, especially the woman playing his sweetheart, who of course is abducted by the bad guys (read: Northerners) and ends up "helping" Keaton. Along with gasps of disbelief and cheers when a stunt is enacted beautifully, you'll be laughing till your sides aches at Keaton and his screen love's interactions. I want very much to own this film on DVD, but I know the small screen and (usually) bogus accompaniment won't do my memory justice. I'll just have to hope the theater runs it again soon. I'll be there, right in the first row.

year: 1927
length: 116 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017925/combined

The Thin Red Line

Terrence Malick did Days of Heaven 20 years ago. Few, except maybe those in studio land, expected him to return. I gather he was waiting for the right kind of script. (I always have to wonder how independent filmmakers survive between flicks -- they're not getting back-end deals!) In his film choices, I'm certain he's less interested in plot than he is in the opportunity for creating cinematographic marvels. The three I've seen (the other is Badlands) are masterpieces of slowly, movingly filmed landscapes and that alone merits 3 stars, if only because it calms you down after a jumpy day. But a war film seems a strange choice. It's not that I don't get the impact of the juxtaposition of bloody war and the peaceful native countryside replete with swaying grasses and soft summer breezes, but in the final analysis that's veneer. The screenplay itself puts us inside the minds of many different soldiers' viewpoints of the WW2 Battle of Guadalcanal, from the contemplative to the rightly scared spitless to the logical military careerist. Of all of these, Dash Mihok's character made the most sense to me. An everyman off the field of war, but terrified and horrified and well-trained when in battle. Second favorite character for me is the "protagonist" of the film, played by Jim Caviezel, who does thoughtful like nobody else. And hey, there's George Clooney at the very end as a platoon captain...and you wonder why Malick couldn't use Clooney and John Cusack and Woody Harrelson and some of the others more often, instead of all those ultra-boring shots of Ben Chaplin and Miranda Otto (although the climax to those scenes is heart-breaking). You are alternately calmed, bored and thrilled throughout the film, but nearly 3 hours of that can put off the most avid filmgoer. I watched it in stages, and if you like Malick, I would recommend that approach.

year: 1998
length: 170 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120863/combined

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This will be biased. I'm a big fan of Douglas Adams' books and consequently it's difficult to step away from them and see this film objectively. The filmmakers do take liberties, thankfully, so this isn't just the book on screen. Mos Def -- a rap star, mind you -- plays Ford Prefect and he does it pitch-perfectly (probably my favorite casting choice). There's a scene on a planet that was never in the book, with our fearless crew having to manuveur bureaucracy as only the British can film it (Brazil!). There's a kiss at the end so completely out of place it should have all Hitchhiker's Guide fans yelping, although it's not out of place for a producer set on developing a franchise while also creating a film with a definite ending. But the bulk of the film follows the book quite religiously, especially the first fifteen minutes in which Arthur Dent (who else to play him but the everyman from The Office?) escapes the destruction of Earth by hitching a ride on a Vogon spaceship, using Prefect's electronic Thumb. Did I mention that it is sci-fi? (Have you been hiding under a couch for 26 years?) It's so nice to see science- fiction making a comeback -- big-budget with expensive names attached. It used to be that no one in their right mind (i.e., no geeks) would go see a sci-fi flick. Too much silly fantasy with no bearing on real life. I'm not sure if The Lord of the Rings or the Matrix trilogies encouraged a revival, but I'm grateful. And to cap it all off, Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox, even more over the top than the book makes him out to be! Sigh. This fan is satisfied.

year: 2005
length: 110 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/combined

Proof of Life

Way too much has been written about this film -- affair between its stars, difficulty of shooting in the Andes, freak accident killing a stand-in for one of the principal characters. Now I understand why everyone focused on these points. There wasn't much else to write about. It's a noble effort -- Taylor Hackford (of the unbeatable biopic Ray) used a magazine article as inspiration for a tale of the kidnapping of a (supposed) influential U.S. citizen at work building a dam in South America. The article described how insurance companies (so, in this case, the company that insures the corporation building the dam) use negotiators to buy back these citizens. You have the citizen, David Morse, a less well-known actor whom I've always enjoyed (particularly in Lars von Trier's Dancer in the Dark). You have the citizen's wife, Meg Ryan, doing her best not to fall into her standard comedic personality. Unfortunately, it shows. And you have Russell Crowe, without whom the film would have stunk unbearably. Oh, and don't forget David Caruso, who enters the picture normally enough but exits in one of the strangest turns I've ever seen an actor make. It left me wincing. No wonder he's done nothing of note since leaving NYPD Blue. For the plot itself, you know what's going to happen, so the film is simply biding its time getting to "the good bit." And that bit is decent, but not enough for a recommendation. You're better off renting Speed again.

year: 2000
length: 135 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0228750/combined

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

It's over. For me, it's a special thing, to have been alive for all 6 of these movies, regardless of their critical or social acceptance. It's not the same as the Rings trilogy. For that I only had to wait 3 years. For this, I waited 28 years. Episode IV (as it's now called) was a special awakening for me, as Episodes I-III probably are for pre-teens now. I don't know if this is THE film that got me interested in cinema in general, but I remember it as a momentous one. I am under no illusion that the acting in most of the six films is under par, and that the story is a hodge-podge of mythology and run-of-the-mill adventure tales. This doesn't bother me at all. While I couldn't care less about Episodes I and II and will probably never see them again in my life, Episode III was special. If you listen to radio or TV or read newspapers you can't escape the critics saying that this one is darker, more tightly scripted and that it wraps everything up in a neat bow. I concur. And it's just what I wanted. The acting still stinks except, of course, for Ewan McGregor who emulates his parallel co-star in more ways than are obvious from this one role. Most critics, and viewers, are going to say that Hayden Christensen is as bad as he was in the last film. I agree...to a point. It's difficult, to transform from someone we're meant to admire to someone we hate. And it's no fault of Christensen's that the deciding moment is scripted weakly. It is his fault that he doesn't play that scene consistently. But, he remains alluring and enigmatic until the final showdown and that's just not easy. It's silly to describe any of the plot -- you know which pieces are needed and it's a matter of seeing how Lucas puts it together. I was impressed more by digital clarity this time around. I wonder if the brightness of the first two films made this more difficult to notice. In particular, I was thrilled by the first extended battle sequence. Everything's faster and more furious than in the other films -- a good kickoff to the final story. Apparently, Lucas and his kids are in the film but I'll have to rent (or quite possibly buy) it to pinpoint them. This does, however, let me segue into a story -- when I was in the Bay Area last summer, I went to my favorite restaurant, The Fog City Diner, to enjoy a quiet meal at the diner counter. Instead, I watched and listened to the eyebrow-raising antics of two teenagers next to me. After they left, two waiters were laughing over how crazy George Lucas' daughter was. How I would have loved to have known that earlier, if only to lean across the counter and say "So, what do you think of your Dad's films?"

year: 2005
length: 140 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121766/combined

Super Size Me

I knew my decision never to eat fast food again was a good one. I got that notion from the superbly written book "Fast Food Nation" (and yes, it's been over a year and a half, and I've kept my promise). Others can get the same wake-up call from watching this documentary film. Morgan Spurlock's semi-scientifically rigorous experiment to see what eating McDonald's food for a month will do to you, is almost heartbreaking to watch. He doesn't eat the healthy stuff on the menu, he eats far more at a sitting than I ever could even when I'm pigging out (and I can seriously pig out), he gets the Super Size option whenever asked. It's revolting. Interspersed with scenes of him eating and feeling like crap because of it are interviews with lawyers, doctors, corporate watchdogs, political lobbyists, and his girlfriend -- a vegan chef completely horrified by this "study." We are shown statistics on how often people eat fast food and how prevalent obesity in our country is, although I wish he had also mentioned that the main reason people eat this food (besides the fact that it tastes good) is because it is cheap and quick. You're a single mother barely raking in 20K a year and trying to feed 2 kids. What would you do? It costs a great deal to eat healthy food. And while school systems are apparently still serving pop, chips, candy and fries in their lunch rooms, some schools have taken a healthier route, hiring companies that actually cook food on the premises rather than re-heating frozen processed foods. Spurlock has a breezy documentary style that makes watching the film as fun as eating a Big Mac, but when they got to the graphic description of a gastric bypass I had learned my lesson. Again. (Oh, and do not, I repeat, do not miss the bonus feature Smoking Fry.)

year: 2004
length: 100 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/combined

Northfork

On the strength of one of my Netflix Friends (a very cool feature of the service, if you ask me) ratings I rented this film. I knew this was bare-budget independent filmmaking and I knew that the Polish brothers focus on "Americana," in particular ways of viewing America we're not used to. (Their first film was about conjoined twins and their love affair(s) in Idaho.) As a result, I figured this would be spare in terms of dialogue and full of expansive vistas. How right I was. But it edges into your heart as you watch it -- your sympathy and empathy for the characters grows -- and that's a little strange because the film is a little strange. Its structure seems almost non-existent at first, until you realize that you've understood what's been happening for some time. Essentially the tale of a town about to be swallowed up by an impending dam's lake, the characters are all searching for something they feel they need to do before it's too late. The urgency is what keeps the film moving forward, but the pacing (and those vistas!) are what give it its flavor. Besides, I'm more and more impressed with James Woods. First he was great in The Virgin Suicides and now he glues this entire movie together. He has the best lines, specifically during the meet-and-greet outside the dam and in the cafe scene. Nick Nolte is surprisingly excellent as well, although I am more and more convinced that he's just playing himself. Which is kinda scary. My favorite part of the film was the band of misfits who befriend the child. They all have strange names and are lacking something important: Happy has no hands, Cod doesn't speak and Flower has no hair. Why would messengers from heaven have failings? Perhaps the most interesting enigma in the film.

year: 2003
length: 103 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322659/combined

High Art

I have trouble with weak endings. This one gives the impression that the ending to the story was never decided on, that the telling of the story was more important than wrapping up the salient ideas. Which is silly. Sure, I'll take away how the story was told (lazily, smokily, sensually) but I'm not going to remember it later on because there isn't a story arc to hang it on. A photography magazine editor, newly minted, desires a reclusive photographer to be profiled in the magazine. Other desires soon become evident. It was interesting to see Ally Sheedy outside of the context of Breakfast Club, but the mannerisms of the high-schooler of that film and the photographer of this film are surprisingly similar. I suppose this proves that she's a perfect character actor. I rented the film because I was interested in seeing Radha Mitchell in earlier roles, as I was impressed with her take on Mrs. Barrie in Finding Neverland. She does wonderful things with facial expressions to portray her conflicting emotions as an editor needing to prove herself, a bored girlfriend, and the moth drawn to the flame of the older, more experienced photographer. Although the flavor of the film is worth a look, as mentioned the story implodes at the end, leaving the viewer wondering what the film was really about.

year: 1998
length: 101 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139362/combined

Miracle

Usually a Disney film implies sappy, melodramatic, overacted. Consequently , I was pleasantly surprised by this depiction of the U.S. win over the Russian hockey team during the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics. Those who are a certain age will remember the exultancy of that moment. Wrapped up as it was in the politics of the time, beating the Russians in any venue was considered a major victory. The start of the film focuses on the political zeitgeist of the country, and it was interesting to view my childhood through that lens. However, they take pains to include Herb Brooks' point of view on this aspect of his team's win, and that's as it should be. Brooks, as portrayed spectacularly by the under-rated Kurt Russell, was a fascinating character. He's portrayed as driven, so much that you want to hate him for it, but also sentimental. Winnowing the Olympic team was clearly heart-breaking for him. I guess what I liked most about the film (besides Russell's spot-on Minnesota accent) was its build-up. They tell the tale from the hiring of Brooks to the penultimate win over Russia almost unemotionally, with little melodrama. Dramatic tension, now that they have in spades. But it works. The hockey scenes are filmed right out there on the ice (watch the documentary attached) and they're exhilarating. If there's one thing you should walk away from the film with, it's that Jim Craig should have gotten a medal just for himself. Craig slapped away 39 attempts on his goal. If that doesn't seem like a lot, watch the film. They make it seem like a lot.

year: 2004
length: 135 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349825/combined

Saw

Definitely don't watch the attached documentary to this DVD. It gives virtually no insight into the making of the film, and neither does the "unrated" version of the music video. These are beyond lame and do no credit to the filmmakers. That being said, the film itself is professional enough, while clearly being an independent feature (small budget, tight shooting schedule, mostly small name actors). A grisly, and well-thought-out, premise is what makes it interesting. Two men held captive in a bathroom reminiscent of every wartime prison cell you've ever seen portrayed need to perform unthinkable acts to escape. (One has to wonder whether the filmmakers saw the cult Canadian film Cube and mirrored that premise.) The film doesn't stay in one room, but flashes back to prior similar situations, and the police work done as a result of their discovery. Still, shooting the film like a music video (no chance to breathe), gives it a certain youthful cachet that appeals to a smaller segment of the population than the filmmakers may have desired. I was also befuddled that they used two British actors as the main characters but set this in America. Is that a comment? The ending is decent, but the reasons for it are weak, as they are throughout the film. Which is why it doesn't rate higher than it does. A good thriller, but lacking depth.

year: 2004
length: 102 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387564/combined

Sin City

I want to recommend this to everyone but there's no way everyone will enjoy it. It's not the fact that it's based on a comic book -- this isn't superhero stuff and won't turn off those who find that silly. What it is is style on screen. It's like watching printed graphics come to life -- Sin City 3D. Except that it's more like 2.5D because nothing looks real in the film either. It's filmed in black and white with splashes of color where most appropriate (the yellow of one of the villains is particularly spot-on; effectively repulsive). Some of the scenes are exact replicas of pages from the graphic novel, which is a remarkable accomplishment on its own. Now the reason I don't recommend this to everyone is because it's ultra-violent and ultra-sexist. You could call it ultra-noir. Except that the black and white characters you expect from such noir camp reveal themselves as shades of gray (and yes, I'm sure the comparison to how it was filmed is supposed to be noticed). The violence on screen is obviously cartoonish...in parts. I would be hesitant to take any teenager because of the parts that are not evidently sent up. For those over the age of 19, I would be surprised if you didn't see the beauty and craft. My husband, the comic geek and fan of the artistic excellence of the book, wasn't sure he needed to see this kind of violence on film. If it was a pleasant surprise for him, I think it will be doubly so for those who haven't read the book and have no preconceptions. Besides, I love films with good endings and this one has a whopper.

year: 2005
length: 124 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401792/combined

Kung Fu Hustle

I hope that everyone had a chance to see Shaolin Soccer, the first of Stephen Chow's actor-director films to make it to the States. Miramax, as distributor, made a royal hash of its release and it was in my area for just a week and no more. I missed it, as a result, and had to wait another few months for its release on DVD. Well, it was worth it. Chow is far, far funnier than, say, Jackie Chan. His humor is less boisterous, less forced. He's still making a martial arts film, with the ubiquitous and required action, but incorporating unbelievably silly musical numbers (the one in the night club is a howler). Well, the same holds true of Chow's latest hit (the largest grossing film in China in 2004). I felt, though, that he was trying to do the same thing with vastly different material. I'm guessing this film is based on Shanghai's real past -- 30s gangsters and the havoc they wreaked on city residents -- and the violence of that time is translated to the screen. I wanted to laugh at how silly it's portrayed, but I was wincing as I did so. Which could be a desired effect, but I found it off-putting. Chow himself isn't as front and center in this film, and more's the pity. You'll understand when every scene he's in seems better paced and more fluid. I suspect that besides watching every Hong Kong pulp film he could (and the Matrix Trilogy over and over), Chow also is a fan of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, of the recent A Very Long Engagement and Amelie, and his weird, dark and funny flavor of directing. I reserve the right to change my rating once I've seen the film in a decent enough cinema. The screen I saw it on was not lit brightly enough, and I found myself squinting for most of the film. Irritating enough to potentially color my view of it. Or I'll wait until it's out on DVD, in digital grandeur. Plus bloopers. (I hope.)

original title: Gong Fu
year: 2004
length: 95 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373074/combined

City of God

Is this as good as the Godfather trilogy? They're both about love, loyalty and betrayal, but the strong element of (nuclear) family history is missing in this film. In its place you have the history of a city, or at least the divisiveness inherent in any city. The city in question: Rio de Janeiro, considered one of the most beautiful cities in the world (and seeing glimpses of the downtown areas and surrounding mountains, sea and clear blue sky, you can see why). Class struggle exists here, as nearly everywhere, and a large portion of the city is slum (the Cidade de Deus of the title, originally a housing project gone out of control). With the poor struggling to survive, it's not surprising that drug and gun smuggling is rampant. To protect this turf and its citizens, "soldiers" are recruited from the citizenry, effectively replacing governmental authority and clashing constantly with the police. Layered on top of this history is the story of one boy growing up amidst all the chaos, struggling to remain honest and fulfill his ambition of becoming a photographer. What makes this tale one of the greatest ever told is its epic quality told with great restraint, with nary an extraneous scene, but still full and lush and in love with its setting, regardless of the squalor it portrays. Not once was I bored, not once was I tempted to take an intermission, I was just desperate to find out how it ended. And the ending is what gives it the extra .5 stars that raises it to rarified ranks. For some, it may seem inevitable, or too tidy, but I recognized it as the filmmakers' solution to the seemingly hopeless state of affairs. I understand the filmmakers chose actors from those in the favella (slum), and they are hands-down marvelous choices. I have to wonder how difficult it was to shoot even part of this film in the slums and/or how hard it was to line up actors, whether or not they were associated with the insurgency. I recommend the documentary attached to the DVD only half-heartedly. While its images will stick in your head, watching it distills somewhat the impact of the film.

original title: Cidade de Deus
year: 2002
length: 130 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317248/combined

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

I would never recommend this film for everyone. Some will find it boring, others perplexing (to say the least), still others very stupid. Now me, I've never read the book and what I know of Hunter S. Thompson is from Duke, the Doonesbury character (heavily) based on Thompson. So I can't claim to fully understand the differences between the book and the film. But based on some beautiful lines towards the end of the film, clearly taken verbatim from the book, I would venture to say that the film fails in its inability to do justice to Thompson's writing. Others may say it fails because it's an incoherent mess. What is perceived as incoherent, however, is merely one way of describing the sheer wackiness and paranoia of Thompson's and Dr. Gonzo's drug trips. And most of it is downright funny. (Also downright gross, so be warned.) There are those who were unaware of Johnny Depp's comedic talents before Pirates of the Caribbean. (How could anyone forget Ed Wood and Edward Scissorhands?) Depp apparently hung out with the journalist for some time to learn his mannerisms, including his walk and his fashion sense. What you see on screen is a very close approximation of the man himself, disturbingly enough. I would say that the film grew on me after repeat viewings (no, I didn't really watch it repeatedly, just to show some favorite scenes to my husband) and the parts I really liked before were twice as funny the second time. If there could have been a way to make it more prosaic, it would have been brilliant.

year: 1998
length: 118 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120669/combined

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

As Steve Zahn says in That Thing You Do, "[that] was...terrible." (It's not the phrase, actually, it's the way he says it that makes it so funny, 'cause he kinda drags the pause out and...oh, never mind.) This film has one saving grace and that's Vince Vaughn, who plays the most believable straight man, possibly ever. This is completely necessary as nearly every scene contains Ben Stiller as laugh track. Now, I have nothing against Stiller. (Loved Meet the Parents and Keeping the Faith.) But his incarnation as an overly manic gym owner only points out which features you never liked about the actor in the first place. Vaughn plays a competing gym owner whose gym is about to be taken over by Stiller's mega-corporation. The only way to prevent it is to enter into a dodgeball championship. Yeah. Well, I'm still unsure whether dodgeball is a real adult sport or not, but it's treated as such by the filmmakers. Seriously. At least I think it's seriously. Watch the first extra feature and see for yourself. On second thought, skip that one and just watch the alternate ending to the film. Now that's funny.

year: 2004
length: 92 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364725/combined

Wonderfalls

This is the kind of television that should be made. And may I go so far as to say that only this kind of television should be made. Take a Parker Posey doppelgänger, a popular tourist attraction, a gimmick to keep things interesting (oh, and don't forget the lesbian sibling), smush all that together with witty repartees and you have Wonderfalls. I've only watched 1.3 episodes so far, but I started adoring it after the first 15 minutes. Which means that once again, you'll get my diatribe on why the hell networks can't recognize good shows and give them a decent time to be discovered so they're not cancelled without being given a chance. Or (all together now) why is the viewing public such a bunch of dolts? Enough of that, it's so pointless. This sitcom's mostly about how people handle relationships, which when it comes down to it, is probably what all sitcoms are about. Still, is has a quirky misanthropic viewpoint that makes you feel uncomfortable and not alone at the same time. Might not be everyone's cup of tea (might appeal to twenty-somethings most), but I guarantee you'll see something of yourself in each episode.

year: 2004
length: 13 45-min. episodes
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361256/combined

The Incredibles

In some ways, it's boring to review Pixar films. They never fail to charm the pants off me, so they always get the highest marks. This one is somewhat different from the rest, however. I found it just as kid-friendly, but there's a maturity about this film that tones down the slickness we're so familiar with by now. There's more thought given to building the story, so by the time we get to the big explosions at the end we are completely ready for them. When I watched this in a theater full of kids, I got a little worried that during the slower, more character-driven sequences they would lose interest and start chatting. Didn't actually happen, so maybe I was just being super-sensitive. For those of you who've been living on Pluto for the last 6 months, the Incredibles are a family of superheroes living in obscurity, forbidden to use their superpowers to help others after some questionable rescues. Naturally, they mourn their previous life, or at least Bob does (aka Mr. Incredible), and things get put in motion to pull them back to that life. On first viewing, I didn't notice the more subtle stuff because my mouth was hanging open as in all Pixar films. With the DVD in hand, I found references to Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, all the Bond films, and even Tarzan. And since Pixar films EVERYTHING they do, the special features give you an inside look at the Pixar "plant" and the process behind making the movie. Which gives you a chance to appreciate the people behind the story, the lighting, the music, you name it. If there's something missing (and perhaps I haven't found it yet), it's the lack of footage of the voice actors. Where's Holly Hunter saying how totally swell it was to voice Elastigirl? Oh well, I guess they can't be completely perfect. Still, for me the capper was the original drawings of Elastigirl -- that lithe, huge-boobed supergirl style -- that morphed into a normal looking person with a big butt, just like us regular women.

year: 2004
length: 121 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317705/combined

Mary Poppins

Glenn Kenny (of Premiere Magazine) wasn't kidding when he said that this DVD was one of the best anniversary editions he'd ever seen. I've loved my VHS tape to death, and when I read his review I knew I had to buy the disc. The movie itself is still marvelous after all these years -- great for kids and youth, with enough sparkle, wit and artistic style to keep any adult captivated. And the extras! A delightful deleted song, a musical reunion with Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke and Richard Sherman (the co-composer of the music), world premiere parties (heavens, did things look so very different 40 years ago?), and tons more. There is a lot of Walt Disney lauding, but what do you expect? And a bit of repetition, but it's all engaging. Best of all is watching the young Dame Andrews ham it up. Having built her acting career on being prim and proper it's a shock to the system to see how silly she could be. And this is the second time I'd heard that she would ruin many a take by flying off in a fit of giggles. She's also a wonderful commentator, remembering so much and relating it in such a sensible, no-nonsense Mary Poppins style.

year: 1964
length: 140 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058331/combined

Proof

If I were a filmmaker, I would have approached telling this story with trepidation. A blind man whose life's endeavor is taking photographs, who has been surrounded by less than trustworthy people all his life, who has searched in vain for someone he can believe in, while lacking the proof needed to cement that trust. Already you can see the intricacies of telling such a tale simply and clearly. The only way it can be done is to hire actors who can put as much into expressions and movement as they do into the words they say. Jocelyn Moorhouse picked well. Hugo Weaving as the blind photographer, Geneviève Picot (an actress whose talents haven't reached Hollywood yet) as the bitter, scheming housekeeper, and Russell Crowe as the photographer's new friend. Each of these actors has fleshed out a tangible character that fits inside Moorhouse's story with no visible gaps. Each series of scenes took my breath away -- in particular, the drive-in theater and consequent crazed driving sequence, and the arguable climax of the film as Picot invites Crowe to her house for the first time. If there is a fault to the film it is that it's somewhat chilly, but that choice was necessary if only for that scene to work. It's been a long time since I've been moved so much by the ending (in this case, the dénouement) of a film. We get the proof of what we've been hoping is true, but do we, the viewer, see the proof? The essence of the film -- that proof is unattainable -- is gracefully summarized in those last few scenes. I can't recommend this film highly enough.

year: 1991
length: 86 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102721/combined

Red Dwarf

So cheesy! You're laughing as you watch, but inwardly you're groaning. Typical BBC production -- you can hear all the ambient sounds on the stage, and there are virtually no props. (Think Dr. Who.) Small budget, I guess. That they created a two-man stand-up comedy show that ran for more than 8 seasons is a huge feat. What makes it fun to watch? At odd moments, there's brilliance (double-over and giggle madly type brilliance). Or a touching scene that gets you thinking what it would be like to be stranded on a spaceship millions of light years from Earth. Or to have no companions other than a hologram and a mutated cat. Yup. The hologram is uptight and a stickler for the rules, the cat is a James Brown act-alike. And the only remaining human crew member is a total slob, which is where much of the comedic tension comes from. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who's not a hard-core science-fiction fan, however. It's a bit too spare to be enjoyed by all.

year: 1988-1999
length: seasons 1-6 out on DVD
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094535/combined

Dinner Rush

If you haven't read Anthony Bourdain's book Kitchen Confidential and don't think you'll be getting to it anytime soon, try this movie instead. It has all the elements of Bourdain's ultra-hip, ultra-honest take on the behind-the-scenes restaurant world: what it takes to be a line cook, who should own restaurants and who should just work in them, and the vaudeville show that nouvelle cuisine has become. It's not Big Night, but it's certainly taking its cue from that film. Complete with mouth-watering masterpiece. What I'm unsure of is whether it's insufferably smart or right on the money. Upon reflection of a few days I've decided that it's scattered -- too many stories, and only a few of them resolve in the "surprise" ending. Edoardo Ballerini, who plays the chef, usually plays guys called Vincent and Victor, so a chance to play a guy named Udo must have been a career capper. Seriously, the guy looks like an assassin, which is why he's cast as a bad guy most of the time. This must have been a big break for him, I imagine. And you can't make a small-budget Italian-flavor film nowadays without Danny Aiello (actually, when wasn't that true?) so of course he plays the restaurant owner with the shady past. Exception being Big Night, and if you're torn between renting that one or this one, definitely go with that one.

year: 2000
length: 99 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0229340/combined

Touching the Void

The first thing that runs through your mind when seeing a climbing picture is: why? The second thing, and specifically for this film, is why do they climb as a pair? As they stress, you can pull your partner down with the slightest misstep. And if you're climbing in one push, if you make a bad mistake you're bound to die because there's no one at base camp to help you because there is no base camp. So, why tie yourself to another person in the first place? (I'm sure there's a good reason, but the film doesn't let on as to what it is.) A half-hour into the movie, you know how important it was that neither was climbing alone because without Simon, Joe would not have survived. And it's how Joe does survive that makes this climb legendary among mountaineers, and one of the most controversial decisions ever made in the climbing world. Part interview and part re-creation, the film is spellbinding -- similar to Everest in putting the human condition and the human spirit front and center. It is also a testament to the type-A personality, if I do say so. The little voice that keeps Joe moving from tiny goal to tiny goal sounds like a version of my own control freak nature. Erroneous to think that you could ever control your survival in places men were (most likely) never meant to go, but a stunning example of human nature at its indomitable best.

year: 2003
length: 106 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379557/combined