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