Slither

OK. Nathan Fillion phase now. Not that he's done much, so I don't know how much of a phase this is going to be. Bummer-- while he's not magnetic onscreen like say, Terence Blanchard, he has a unique mix of dramatic and comedic talent that makes him nigh on perfect for many types of film. Like Slither. Oy, that title. I very nearly didn't bother with it based on that tremendously disgusting title. And movie poster. And very lame trailer. I thought-- oh, just a stupid sci-fi horror film along the lines of Tremors or Gremlins. How could that possibly rise above? Well, lemme tell ya. It's a zombie film! And you know how much I love zombie films (28 Days Later..., Shaun of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead). Well, this one's nastier, grosser and fouler. And I mean foul language-- if that kinda stuff bothers you, stop here. But I honestly have never seen foul language used to such effect-- the best lines are the crudest. I'm still giggling over them several days later. It has its sweet moments because of course there's a love interest-- how could the delectable Elizabeth Banks be anything but? I can tell you now that I'll be renting it not because I want to see the film again so soon after seeing it in the theater but because I need to see Fillion in the outtakes. The man is the funniest dramatic actor on the planet right now (Steve Carrell's moving up there though), and those Serenity outtakes are still popped in the DVD player when I need a laugh. He's ranking right up there with "top 10 folks in Hollywood I'd like to have lunch with." The other 9? More later.

year: 2006
length: 95 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439815/combined

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

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

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

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

Sharpe's Rifles

The first of 14 (!) episodes based on the character of Richard Sharpe, as immortalized in Bernard Cornwell's novels of the career trajectory of a British soldier promoted, unexpectedly, to the officer ranks. Cornwell is less well known than C.S. Forester (Horatio Hornblower) and Patrick O'Brian (Master and Commander). In each of the adaptations of these novels, however, the casting directors are hyper-attuned to both the female and male audience. They cast über-macho actors to appeal to the men and make sure, in addition, that they can smolder with the best of them. (In other words, ranking up there with Denzel and Colin. Last names superfluous, of course.) Case in point, Sean Bean. He usually plays a villain (the über-macho aspect), yet has that indefinable talent to make women drool. I first noticed him, as so many others on this continent, in Lord of the Rings: Fellowship as Boromir, the angst-ridden human desperate for the ring and unaware of its malevolence. I thought he was by far the best actor of the first movie (well, maybe that should rightly go to Ian McKellen). And handsome, but no more so than others in the film. Hence my incredulity when I see him as Sharpe -- younger, without beard, thrust in the middle of a ridiculous soap opera, and gluing everything together so adeptly as to make me hang on and watch instead of switching off after the first 10 minutes. Which I should have because now I'm hooked. And hooked on tripe! While the history lesson may be interesting, the episode contains a female love interest (how many female soldiers do you think there were in the Napoleonic wars?!) and plot set-ups to make you laugh out loud (the mutinous soldier left behind with the treasure?!). I giggled so much while watching this that my husband thought I was watching a comedy. Regardless, I will now watch each and every one of this series' episodes. And I am not ashamed to say in large part because of Bean. I think Antonia Quirke of the West End Extra puts it best: "Sean Bean...is super-attractive, thanks to his air of guarded self-consciousness, as though this being-an-actor business were a bit like sitting at the bar with one elbow on the counter, watching the people coming in and out from the corner of one eye."

year: 1993
length: 102 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108108/combined

Saved!

I'm confused as hell by this flick and I don't think I'm supposed to be. It's a comedy, right? Christian high schoolers worrying about your basic teenage problems: friendship, love, sex. Think of any teen comedy and those elements are in this film. But it's also not at all funny in that it touches on how Christians feel about gays, sex before marriage, pregnancy, even cigarette smoke. And while it wraps up those issues with a neat bow at the end, I find it perplexing that this film was marketed so heavily to the Christian audience. Wouldn't a large majority of Christians take offense at 1) all the vague digs at their faith and 2) skipping over most opportunities to really talk about those issues mentioned above? I do think I'm missing the boat. I mean, it is a comedy, and we all should be able to laugh at ourselves. I just felt vaguely uncomfortable throughout the film, like it was trying to be more than it was supposed to be. Or less. Argh! In terms of the acting, Mandy Moore turns out to be a marvel, Jena Malone is, well, Jena Malone (never been a huge fan) and Patrick Fugit is scrumptious. I wish he'd do more, but I'm happy he's sticking with small, script-driven films instead of moving on to big budget stuff, as he could have after he broke out in Almost Famous. Too bad he's just playing the love interest in this film. Too bad we can't figure out what the film was really meant to be.

year: 2004
length: 92 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332375/combined

Sideways

Why did I feel so ambivalent about this movie? Everyone who's anyone seems to have loved it, and it isn't that I didn't recognize its craft, it's that there wasn't much for me to cling to. The story of a schlub who's lost his way in life, only to be badgered by an old school pal to get back in the game until he finally does. Plus there's wine snobbery in it and a really strange wallet-pinching scene that must be there only for laughs. I did very much like Paul Giamatti's acting, even if it started to grate on my nerves (why not lose the annoying quality once you start to put your life together?), and Virginia Madsen especially in the excellently scripted conversation on the porch. I was overly (meaning without rationale) pissed at the Thomas Haden Church character. I know I'm supposed to be, but he's just everything unlikable about guys wrapped up in one guy. A guy friend of mine says that this film is, at its roots, a guy film and the more I mull it over, the more he may be right. Most critics and most of the Academy are men so this might be why it landed a spot on the Best Picture nominees. Whatever. Let's just hope they give the award to something more deserving.

year: 2004
length: 123 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375063/combined

Secretary

If ever there was a film not for everyone, this is it. I would go so far as to say that only the bravest should see it. It's difficult to write that about a film I admire a great deal. But easier because I, frankly, didn't enjoy it much. I can't think of another film that manipulates your emotions to such an extent. For literally three-quarters of the film I was squirming in my seat, alternately horrified by the theme and appalled by the blatant, dare I say, illegality of what was being portrayed. When you think you've figured the film out, it does a reverse face and you don't even notice it you're so relieved not to be watching the previous material. I tip my hat to the writer and director. I can clearly imagine people leaving this film with a big, mushy, dopey grin on their face. If that's the intent of the filmmakers, I am in awe. The plot itself I'm not going to reveal much of, save to say that it's about a lawyer and his new, timid secretary. Oh, and if you don't like James Spader (and I do, but I would never, ever want to have dinner with the guy) you'll enjoy the film even less. However, if you want to see Maggie Gyllenhaal in her hands-down best film role, run right out and rent this. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

year: 2002
length: 104 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274812/combined

Strictly Ballroom

This was my introduction to Baz Luhrmann films. Of which, unfortunately, there are only three, his "Red Curtain" trilogy (Moulin Rouge and Romeo + Juliet being the other two). All three are big, exciting, fun and funny theatrical numbers, but of them all this one is my favorite. I'm sure it's because it's all about ballroom dancing, which is one of the talents I dearly wish I had. There's something so appealing about professionals smoothly gliding across dance floors that makes you want to ooh and aah like at fireworks displays. Maybe that's why they dress up in outfits with big frilly skirts, loud colors and sequins galore, to make them look more like fireworks on the ground. Luhrmann takes this background and puts a love story on top of it similar to Dirty Dancing -- girl doesn't know how to dance, boy teaches her -- but that's the only comparison that can be made. Dirty Dancing is trying to be a Serious Film. This film knows it's a lark, and while not making fun of the ballroom dancers themselves, it pokes fun at the idea of standardizing the industry so that only certain steps are allowed in competition. Which is what the boy (played so ably by ballet dancer Paul Mercurio) is chafing against, rightly and ultimately triumphantly.

year: 1992
length: 94 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105488/combined

Sports Night

A friend of mine lent me all 2 seasons of this series, bless her heart. After a slow start, I'm hooked. (I like one amateur reviewer's descriptions of series like this: "Like a crack addict, I watch, and waste.") This was Aaron Sorkin's first TV series, before he wrote the unmatchable The West Wing. Ostensibly a comedy about a fictional sports show, it's mostly a prime-time soap opera, with just a dash of sports. As opposed to The West Wing -- if you're not interested in politics most of the dialogue will pass you right by. This show stars the delicious Peter Krause (now also deliciously in Six Feet Under) and the almost equally delicious Josh Charles (most notably from Dead Poets Society). Unfortunately, it also stars Joshua Malina, and while I understand why Sorkin needs this character on his shows, this guy can't do anything other than pure geek. He's supposed to also be a sexy guy who the associate producer character is all pent up over. Unbelievable. The guy exudes about as much sex appeal as a dead rabbit, and he isn't the hottest actor either. (And Malina replacing Rob Lowe in The West Wing -- what was Sorkin smoking?) The associate producer, Sabrina Lloyd, is too perky but I don't mind Felicity Huffmann as Dana, mostly because she keeps up her end in the unrequited love battle with Krause's character. So, what makes me want to watch this unabashed soap opera slash comedy series? It's great fun to see Sorkin in his early years, trying out his wings and flying often if not always. That script timing that's so famous in The West Wing is evident here, even if the lines are sometimes far too obvious. Future genius is very clear: my faves are the "Sally" episode at the end of season 1 (I never saw it coming), the choice of music for the you-waited-long-enough-for-this kiss, and the glass of water and eggnog scenes (good enough to induce belly laughs). And I'm only halfway through.

year: 1998-2000
length: 45 30-min. episodes
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165961/combined

Spy Game

Ehh. Y'know, Brad Pitt didn't irritate me as expected and Robert Redford was his noble, enigmatic self but that doesn't mean I liked the film enough to rate it well. Pitt and Redford are spies with the CIA, Pitt deployed in exotic places, Redford a desk jockey about to retire. Pitt's in trouble, Redford feels it his duty to rescue him even though they parted ways a long time ago, and Pitt's tale is told in flashbacks by Redford. Sorta ingenious, but ultimately you're not sure what the tale is telling you -- honor among spies? love is more powerful than hate? more powerful than your life's work? even spies have morals? or remorse? Lots of good blow-up scenes, though. And the choice of Lebanon as one exotic locale is unique, and worth it simply for a view into how people with dangerous careers survive. That alone is probably useful to keep in mind in the post-9/11 world (even if you don't have a dangerous job).

year: 2001
length: 126 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266987/combined

Sense and Sensibility

Back when I knew nothing about film, I saw this film for the first time. I sure did like it, and when Emma Thompson won the Oscar for best adapted screenplay, I smiled and nodded like everyone else. What a joy to watch this again and recognize her genius. Actually, to recognize the entire production's genius. Ang Lee as the director of an 1800s British drama caused more than a few eyebrows to raise, but the man absolutely knows what he is up to. The two scenes I remember the best... One is a shot of Elinor (Thompson) and her mother (Gemma Jones) discussing if Edward (Hugh Grant) loves Elinor or not. She dissembles and Lee pulls the camera back and back, echoing the loneliness she can't put into words. The other is when Marianne (Kate Winslet) receives the Dear John letter from Willoughby (Greg Wise; yeah, I didn't know his work either) and Lee places the camera at her feet shooting upwards, as she reads the letter to Elinor. That shot is traditionally used for suspense, and with that placement the scene becomes doubly so. The acting is uniformly excellent (except perhaps for overly Grant-like acting towards the end, but that's a minor complaint), with Thompson and Winslet simply shining in their sisterly roles. But I gave short shrift to Thompson in the beginning of the review. I read the book after I saw the film the first time and felt like it was rather plodding for Jane Austen, not the page turner that Pride and Prejudice is. Thompson has taken the novel and added comic elements, heart- rending scenes and moments of surprise that enhance the novel, as unbelievable as that may seem. This film is the perfect example of what an excellent script, excellent direction and excellent acting can create. And of how all three of those elements (and probably more that I am unable to recognize) are necessary for the perfect film.

year: 1995
length: 136 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114388/combined

Spider-Man 2

Quick, jot down everything you like about super-hero comics. I'll bet dollars to donuts the writing isn't in your list. That might have been true in The Silver Age, but now the writing counts (as witnessed by yours truly in some of the recent Spiderman story arcs -- yup, you betcha I read comics). And they made an effort for the film, so as not to piss off anyone who wanted a real movie experience as opposed to a brain-dead actioner. I'd say they succeeded as well as they did for the first Spider-man flick. It's actually somewhat of a slower film since large portions are devoted to the tragic romance between Peter and Mary Jane, and to the interaction between Peter and his Aunt May. But, zounds, when the action starts, it's good! The CGI is almost perfect -- although you can still tell it's fake, it's leaps and bounds (pun, so laugh!) above the previous film's CGI animation. Doc Ock is played by Alfred Molina, and I doubt I need to say more as I've rhapsodized about him before. Kirsten Dunst still doesn't make sense to me as Mary Jane. MJ is supposed to be a hot ticket who dresses down to conceal her beauty but fails miserably. Dunst looks more like a plain Jane, in my opinion. Tobey Maguire is just fine as our masked hero, but the award goes to J.K. Simmons who must have read every Spiderman comic ever published in order to channel yellow journalism publisher J. Jonah Jameson without flaws. Naturally, there is every indication by the end of the film that there will be a third, so you'll get to see all these favorite characters (and more!) in the next go round.

year: 2004
length: 127 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316654/combined

Sleepers

I hate giving films about weighty subjects a poor rating. It feels wrong, since in most cases the filmmakers have made an effort to mirror the serious tone of their films in the cinematography, often leading to some stunning effects. Not so here. I love Barry Levinson's ode-to-Baltimore trilogy (Diner, Avalon, Liberty Heights -- well, not so much the last one). They're clever, meaningful, and without a lot of gloss. Still, his visuals have never fully connected with the story. I mean, what's the deal in this film with the repetitious subway train shots and the strange scenes in which characters soft-talk off-screen? The tunnel effects didn't work for me either. (Although, the chase scene in the beginning is pretty good.) The film is shot by the amazing Michael Ballhaus, so it's got to be Levinson's choice. Now, back to the premise. The film is about child abuse, namely abuse by guards at a boy's school (which is more like a prison). That's hefty stuff, and I certainly felt beyond-sad at times, but I expected something a bit more raw overall. This may be a factor of being a film addict -- the more well-done emotionally charged films I see, the more I need to see just those. In terms of the actors, Brad Pitt was awful (what, does he have marbles in his mouth?) and Jason Patric is, as usual, a lump on screen. The kids were uniformly good and Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman stole all their scenes, of course. And while the writing was okay, I'll bet the book is better.

year: 1996
length: 147 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117665/combined

Shrek 2

I'll admit, I did giggle in many places in this film, and I particularly liked the references to Tom Waits and the TV footage of the arrest of Shrek and his conspirators, but I just can't muster up the enthusiasm to heartily recommend the film to anyone, even small children. It's not that the animation is worse, or that the plot isn't as interesting, because there's nothing really wrong there. But I left the theater with two feelings. One: that I already couldn't remember any of the jokes (because they sped by? because there were too many right on top of each other?). Two: that all the things the main characters are able to pull off after they take the "Happily Ever After" potion and change into handsome men and women defeats the moral of the story -- that those things don't really matter. Sure, brand me as overly cynical, but if they're going to portray the land of Far Far Away as a Hollywood-esque land of fancy strip malls then there should be commentary on what's so fake and distasteful about it. And it wasn't there. Maybe clauses in the filmmakers' contracts prevent them from attacking Hollywood in words... Regardless, there are funny bits and Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots steals the show, in my opinion, but it won't do any harm to wait to see it at the second-run theater.

year: 2004
length: 93 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298148/combined

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring

The title of this film tells the plot -- the cycle of the seasons mirrors the cycle of life. Growth, wisdom and renewal are all integral elements. A young boy apprenticed to a monk living in a temple on a lake grows up exploring the far reaches of the lake and its environs, being typically innocent and cruel. His master is wise and otherworldly (for instance, how does he get the boat back to the temple so he can follow the boy around?), and guides the boy through his "spring," "summer" and "fall" seasons, and the subsequent heartbreak and tragedy that befall him. The parables and lessons the teacher provides are wryly amusing -- while the boy as a young man must laboriously carve out a sutra on the floor of the temple, the teacher has used the tip of a cat's tail as a brush to paint the sutra on the floor. This isn't the only time scenes are both funny and gravely serious at the same time. (Although the one very unfunny scene that occurs at the end of "fall" is one I'm still trying to comprehend fully.) Throughout this slow, but never plodding, film you view the temple in all its guises through all the seasons, and never once tire of watching it. It is the focal point of the film, an emblem of the cycle of birth, life and re-birth. While it is unchanging, it hosts the changes that occur, even as those changes become what has happened before. The film is a lovely fable, one that gives you enough time to ponder your own life, how it fits into the world, and what will come after you are gone.

original title: Bom Yeoreum Gaeul Gyeoul Geurigo Bom
year: 2003
length: 103 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374546/combined