The Wire

I resisted, strongly. Pals of mine told me this was a superb show, not to be missed. Eventually, I put it on the list. First episode, hmm. Second episode, huh? Third through sixth episodes, what the...? It wasn't until much later in the season that I eventually recognized what the creators of this show were doing. While it may be obvious that the story is about both the drug dealers and law enforcement agents of Baltimore, it's not at all obvious where that story is going for a long while. I am surprised the show ever got a following when it requires a commitment from the viewer to wait for it to unfold over several episodes (it reminds me of The Sopranos in that respect). It goes without saying that the acting is supreme, especially the drug addict trying to go straight (Andre Royo) and the clever drug boss with ESP (Wood Harris). The show does its best to capture every bit of the grittiness of a big-city project and its inhabitants, and that remains my only issue with it. I am not steeped in street language, so it was frustrating to try and understand the street code at first-- good thing I have rewind capabilities. HBO never makes it easy for you (the only HBO series I can recall that was fluff was Sex and the City), and as long as you realize this, you'll be rewarded. No spoilers-- experience it for yourself. Besides, it has the best theme song ever. I double-dog dare you to disagree.

year: 2002-?
length: seasons 1-3 on DVD, season 4 aired, season 5 picked up
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0306414/combined

Casino Royale

All those other Bond movies? They're like spoofs of the spy genre, with a plastic, perfect hero at the center. This movie? A human Bond. Still egocentric, to be sure, but someone you can empathize with. And in large part because of it, one-quarter of the way through I knew it was going to be the best spy thriller I'd ever seen. For all of you who have judged that a blond Bond will have Ian Fleming rolling in his grave, I strongly urge you to reconsider. Not only is Daniel Craig as good a Bond as Sean Connery (yes, you read that right), his colleagues almost give him a run for his money: Caterina Murino can fill a dress like no one else, plus she has to temerity to be a good actress; Eva Green is a match in every way to Bond's sarcasm, wit and ego; Mads Mikkelsen is a villain who does not overplay every scene (thank the gods); and Judi Dench is the icing on the cake. Above all that, the writing deserves an Oscar. I'm completely serious. You thought the era of double entendres went out when the film code came in? Each and every spark-infused conversation between Craig and Green places this film up there with the best of the Cary Grant and Clark Gable dramatic oeuvre. You want more? An opening stunt guaranteed to elicit gasps from the most jaded film viewers. Cinematography that goes the distance-- even in the stunt scenes where most directors are content to assume the audience will only be watching the action. And an opening title sequence that finally lays to rest the ultra-non-feminist opening titles of the past. If you've read the book, I will warn you that the torture scene is re-enacted. This might give some folks pause (and with good reason, although you see nothing). If you're willing to close your eyes for that part, the rest is-- well, it's obvious it's worth it, no? The only downside is that with such a successful re-imagining of the franchise, I fear the Broccoli family has an Atlantean task ahead of them for Bond #22.

year: 2006
length: 144 min.
rating; 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/combined

The Inside Man

Bollywood music to start off with? That woke me up. Still, there is no Bollywood type in the film. There's a Sikh (who gives the best straight line) but he doesn't seem the type interested in Indian pop. Now this is Spike Lee, and he gets better and better as time goes on in waking us out of our racial stereotypes. And molding them as well. I would consider Lee our best commentator on racial problems-- what they are, how they change, what in heck we can do personally. What's unfortunate is that he can't take a film like this-- one with a bank robber heist scenario that I've never seen done before-- and not make one of the best films ever out of it. It's as if it's so ingrained in him to "lesson" us, even if subtly, that he can't build a film that has a complete thread from beginning to end. Take for instance the Jodie Foster character, supposedly a very powerful woman with very powerful friends. It's not that her character isn't needed, in fact it very much is, but he doesn't weave her tale in with the rest of the tales. It doesn't help that she is super-duper annoying in this role. That insipid smiling/laughing act she does fits like a poorly designed glove, although she shows her rare talent when she finally does get serious towards the end. I've been disappointed in her last few roles (yeah, even the surprise cameo in The Very Long Engagement). I wish she'd do something like The Accused again (that oughta take you back). And maybe she should stay off the heels, too. I thought I took the cake as least graceful in anything above an inch.

year: 2006
length: 129 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454848/combined

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

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