Slake

Will someone please save these people from themselves!

2007-02-10T18:51:00.000-06:00

Contrary to many initial impressions, including mine, The Queen isn't yet another Victorian costume drama. The subject matter is British royalty, but of a modern variety, focusing on the reactions of the the monarchy and newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair to the death of erstwhile princess Diana.

Though perhaps even more intriguing to the British, or at least to those with a better understanding of British politics, Queen will be of at least passing interest to most anyone, even Americans who don't have a true understanding of Britain's long-standing concept of royalty. This is due to such a wide chasm in reality between the monarchy and the public, so vast that one can't help being fascinated by people who share the same planet but live in a different world.

For her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II, Helen Mirren is deservedly a virtual lock to take home the Best Actress Oscar this year. After she has been on screen for only a few seconds, one already has a good sense of the queen's character. With an icy phrase, an incisive glance, or a dismissive smirk she evokes a precise persona of entitlement, which serves as a primary point of the entire film. Her foil, Tony Blair, is played with appropriate aplomb by Michael Sheen. As a fresh-faced idealist, Sheen quietly provides an exasperated combination of politician and subject that was desperately needed during that time of strife.

Though up for Best Picture because it's the stiff and pretentious sort of movie to which the Academy always gives a nod (see: The Hours, Elizabeth, etc.), The Queen has no chance to win (nor should it) because almost nothing about it is great in any way. There is very little noteworthy from a technical standpoint, whether it be the cinematography, editing, or music. (How it was nominated for Best Original Score I have no idea.) The psychological aspects of the script are the quite interesting, but outside of the performances of Mirren and Sheen, everything could be replicated fairly easily in a moderately well made television movie. Check out the DVD (April 24th) if you're interested, because this Queen needn't be seen on the big screen.

Bottom Line: Mirren and Sheen are really good. The movie is just okay. 7 of 10.

Super Bowl, Super Bears...or not.

2007-02-05T19:13:00.000-06:00

A few random Super Bowl thoughts...

--Devin Hester returning the opening kickoff was as electrifying a sports moment as I remember in a long time.

--Not a bad game overall. It's a shame that Grossman couldn't make the one big play he needed to in order to win.

--My favorite ad was the Budweiser ad with the crabs worshipping the cooler. Since it played in the fourth quarter, it caught me off guard, but was start-to-finish the best commercial of the day.

--Runners-up: The Blockbuster commercial with the real mouse; Are you sure clicking this thing will get us online? The GM spot with the fired robot was clever, as was the Taco Bell lions ad in which one couldn't trill "carne" correctly. The Budweiser dalmatian one was good too, but a bit too drawn out.

--The NFL promo with all the fans reluctantly wrapping up their season was perfect, nailing the sentiments any real NFL fan experiences after another year of football.

--Worst ad: The Snickers commercial with the kissing mechanics who then proceed to rip off their own chest hair. That was repulsive on several levels.

--Here is USA Today's annual AdMeter, where the test panel actually got it right for once.

--Let's face it, the glory days of Super Bowl commericals are past. Just generating a grin or a chuckle is considered a success now.

--Next year is the Dolphins' year.

Too early for flapjacks?

2007-02-02T13:01:00.000-06:00

Not much substantive here. On this February 2nd, I just wanted to point out that I have a picture of myself with a stuffed groundhog.

And remember, I've only read the first four Harry Potter books. I'll read #5 shortly before the movie comes out, and I may read #6 between the movie and the next week's release of book #7. I think it may be too difficult to remain ignorant of what happens until the sixth and seventh movies are finally made. As I think about it, I'm surprised I've made it this far without having anything spoiled. I'd like to thank all those I've annoyed for abetting and enduring my willing ignorance.

And the winner is...

2007-01-23T10:52:00.000-06:00

The 2006 Oscar nominations were announced today, at the usual ridiculous hour of 5:30 AM Pacific time. Unfortunately the Academy forgot to announce that they were switching hosts, so we're still stuck with Ellen Degenerate for the show on Sunday, February 25th. Here's the complete list of nominations, and here are a few initial reactions...

--I'm fairly shocked (SHOCKED, I say!) that Dreamgirls wasn't nominated for Best Picture. Not that I've seen it, but it seemed to be one of the favorites to win, and not even a chance, even though it had the most nods overall. Wow.

--Even though I haven't seen it yet (stupid Topeka), I'm rooting for Letters from Iwo Jima to win everything it can. I also hope to see The Queen before the ceremony, but probably won't make it to Babel. There always seems to be one Best Picture nominee that I don't see and/or am not interested in.

--Cheers for Alan Arkin and Abigail Breslin getting supporting nominations from Little Miss Sunshine. Just about any member of the movie's family was worthy of such an honor.

--Disappointed that United 93 (editing and directing) and Flags of Our Fathers (sound editing and sound mixing) didn't get more nominations.

--No big noms (film, director, actor) for Children of Men. BOOOOOOOOOOO!

--Pirates 2 got four nominations, all technical of course. It would be worthy of the Visual Effects award, but if it wins any, would it be the worst movie ever to win an Oscar?

--Click was nominated for Best Makeup? Admittedly I haven't seen it, but HUH?

--That's weird. Randy Newman was nominated for Best Song. I think that's nod number thirteen, with one win.

--In case you're wondering (and I'm sure you are), I'll post my Best of 2006 awards the week after the Oscars.

Maybe more later...

Wake me up when there's a fight.

2007-01-18T19:21:00.000-06:00

I don't have much to say about Curse of the Golden Flower, the latest Chinese movie to be widely released (inflicted?) upon American moviegoers. It's directed by Yimou Zhang, the same guy who helmed Hero (good) and House of Flying Daggers (or as I like to call it, House of Flying Melodrama), so I wasn't expecting much from it. I probably could have written my six word review without even seeing it: Pretty colors; cool fights; lame script. Maybe thirty minutes of the nearly two hours are worth seeing. Most of that is a few fights; the rest is mere soap operatic filler. Meh.

I fully admit to not knowing much about Chinese cinema, and I don't have much of a desire to learn more. But I do wonder what the bad movies over there are like considering that the "good ones" like this are what gets imported. Perhaps something gets lost in the translated subtitles, because the lines in most all Chinese movies seem rather cheesy. Perhaps there are vast cultural differences in how China and the USA produce and/or approach movies. Maybe one needs a better understanding of Chinese history to appreciate them. Whatever it may be, the imported films always seem to be pounding on the grand themes they possess, but rarely do they actually deliver. Even Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon wasn't that great; it just rode a well-timed wave of momentum to four Oscars.

Bottom Line: I wasn't expecting much, and that's what I got. 4 of 10.

On a more positive note, I'm juiced that Clint Eastwood's Golden Globe-winning Letters from Iwo Jima comes to town this weekend. BUT THERE'S NO LATE SHOW. Topeka blows.

What a day.

2007-01-13T20:27:00.000-06:00

Occasionally a film comes along that is so good and so well done that one scarcely appreciates it. All aspects are virtually flawless, to the point that the lack of negatives almost detracts from the positives because of the abscence of contrast. Last year, Capote and Downfall fit that bill as good movies that got even better the more you thought about them. 2006's winner in that category is Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men. (Go ahead; someone mention The Prestige.)

Though it has a old-fashioned, almost primal feel, Children of Men occurs in a not unfamiliar future. The year is 2027, almost two decades after two things have swept the planet: infertility and violence. Because of the latter, Britain is now isolating itself to the extreme, forcing all immigrants out of the country or into refugee camps. Amidst this chaos resides Clive Owen in his mundane existence as a typical office worker at the Ministry of Energy. Of course his life soon takes a drastic turn, which leads to the intriguing main thrust of the film.

Cuaron's future is not awash in technology like Minority Report. Nor is it as desolate as Mad Max. The best comparison is probably something in between such as Blade Runner, which portrays a world as more advanced in a technical manner, but one that has harshly regressed emotionally, socially, and politically. Cuaron's work is much more plausible though; one intentionally unexplained leap aside, the movie is much more grounded and less farfetched. As he did with Prisoner of Azkaban, Cuaron establishes the mentality of the film with remarkable efficiency. Scant seconds into the film, one has a solid grasp of his future's funereal nature, due to key opening shots, glances, and words. This deft ability to create mood is part of what makes Children is the most impressively crafted picture of last year.

While the bleak art design contributes heavily to the film's success, the lengthy single-take shots are what make Children unique. M. Night Shyamalan uses one-take scenes better and more consistently than any other director I know, but at least for this movie, Cuaron usurps his throne. The difference is that the camera in most of Night's shots is largely static during quieter, simple scenes; Cuaron does the same, but also moves his lens over miles of turf during complex action sequences, creating relatively eternal shots that literally caused my head to shake and jaw to drop in stunned disbelief. In a lesser movie, the extreme continuity might be a stunt, but the timing and pace of the (apparently) unbroken shots are executed so immaculately that any other possible way of making the movie seems amateurishly subpar.

As the plot veers through its series of chaotic events, Clive Owen's grim determination holds the film together with help of a strong supporting cast. He is the everyman the viewer latches onto as both proceed through parts unknown. Appreciably understated as he often is, Owen allows the intensity of rest of the cast, including Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, and Chiwetel Ejiofore, to shine while he and his character subtly ease through the movie. Owen's steady drive is what propels the film even though his Theo doesn't always possess the necessary motivation. Political overtones aside, if Children has a weakness, that is where it lies: a few points of plot and character are underdeveloped or ignored. Most are MacGuffin-esque enough that they don't truly matter, but the handful of unexplored plot devices do distract a wee bit from an otherwise fantastic film.

Children of Men is the polar opposite of so much depressing, minimalist art house fare. Instead the end result is a superb and brilliantly executed blend of drama and action, with plenty of emotional moral issues mixed in to attract the mind and heart as well. Recommended to anyone who appreciates quality cinema, even if you're not one who often sees independent films of this ilk.

Bottom Line: One of the best movies of 2006. 9 of 10. I'm going there, hesitantly.

(Side note: if you're planning to see the film, but haven't viewed the trailer, then don't watch the trailer.)

The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows.

2006-12-23T15:54:00.000-06:00

Did you ever wonder what happens to cinematic heroes when they grow old? When exactly does Superman hang up his cape? What does Indiana Jones do when there are no more historical artifacts to retrieve? How does Luke Skywalker live out his last days? Those questions may never be answered on screen, but thanks to Rocky Balboa, everyone can know (for better and worse) what happens to the titular superstar boxer during the tail end of his life. (Audio review here.)

This sixth Rocky movie no doubt intentionally avoided the label Rocky 6 after the disastrous last chapter, which never really happened in the mind of any true Rocky fan. Balboa picks up about two decades later, as Rocky is struggling with life after boxing and after Adrian, his now deceased wife. In his attempt to fill the void in his life, he eventually of course he gets the urge to step back into the ring.

The build to that inevitable showdown doesn't make for a very good movie on its own merits. The first hour is often slow and borderline uninteresting, and would have been worse were it not for the various references to previous installments via familiar music cues, returning characters, and flashbacks. If you haven't seen the first four, you might lose interest because you'll be oblivious to many decent minutia. In fact to someone who knew only the mystique of Rocky, this movie could almost serve as a self-parody. Would-be motivational speeches barely carry a pulse; tender relational moments are just awkward; and supposedly sensitive interactions merely induce shrugs.

The final portion of the movie though is by far the best. A few minutes of introduction followed by the mandatory training montage and fight are all that is really necessary for the whole picture, which serves as an epilogue (eulogy?) for the rest of the series. These good parts induce smiles and cheers because they call to mind great scenes from past Rockys and remain faithful to the determined underdog spirit of the original. With a more melancholy score that sets the tone for the rest of the movie, Balboa isn't as emotionally charged as Remember the Titans, or as dramatic as Hoosiers, but it's still decent fun because it puts the finishing touches on the greatest cinematic sports series ever.

Bottom Line: This isn't a great movie by any stretch, but Rocky is still a movie icon, and if you're a fan, you won't regret seeing Rocky Balboa. 6 of 10 for Rocky fans; 5 of 10 or less for anyone else.

I wonder if I will even be able to teach Him anything.

2006-12-09T12:42:00.000-06:00

For a movie like The Nativity Story, two vastly different audiences exist: Christians and non-Christians, or in movie-going terms, those who see it as an historical film and those who see it as another way to be entertained for two hours.

For the Christian audience, Nativity Story is a good though not great film, generally hitting the mark on the two key fronts of historical and narrative accuracy. With a full Hollywood budget behind it, the movie looks and feels wonderful, effectively and impressively recreating an authentic Israel from two millenia ago. Having toured much of the country a mere six months ago, I can vouch that the villages looked like they had been reconstructed straight from the ruins I saw, and I could practically pick out where I was standing in various shots of Jerusalem.

This veracity serves as a foundation for a generally adherent interpretation of the events that led up to Jesus' birth. Making a full-length movie out of a few chapters of Scripture means that most of the dialogue and many of the plot details have been manufactured or drawn from non-canonical resources. While I haven't done exhaustive research by any means, anyone who knows the story well will be able to pick out a few inaccuracies and liberties. Some of the changes, like moving the Magi's visit up a few years, were made for cinematic reasons and admittedly allow for a few quality moments. Some, such as the fact that (I think) Herod didn't know what he knew that soon, are fairly inconsequential. Others, such as the absence of a multitude of heavenly hosts, seem like missed opportunities that could have injected the film with needs like a sense of awe. It's not an entirely precise screen translation, but I found it faithful enough in its facts that the sureness of the spirit makes the errors disappointing rather than overly detracting to a Christian audience.

For non-believers, I'm not convinced that this is a riveting picture. If the spiritual significance of the story is stripped away, the narrative alone probably isn't enough to engross. Anybody who sees this is going to know at least a rough outline of the plot, which deprives the film of most of its dramatic power. Something like United 93 is able to work through such a shortcoming in part because (I feel borderline sacrilegious saying this) the superficial building blocks of the story provide a stronger pull. If you remove the religious aspects from this, there isn't a ton of interest piqued by a man and woman who are awkwardly engaged, then travel across the country, semi-pursued by a king who doesn't have a direct connection; that's an inescapable weakness of the film as it attempts to reach a broad audience.

For all viewers, Nativity Story accomplishes two things that such a movie should. First, it contextualizes and humanizes Mary and Joseph. Joseph in particular has several classic conundrums and facial expressions as he handles inexplicable circumstances like his future wife being pregnant. These accessible emotions are definitely present in the Biblical telling, but are made more evident on screen. Second, it captures the iconography of the events. If these monumental happenings are going to be put on film, memorable moments are mandated, and the movie comes through, even if a few cinematic conveniences are required to create such snapshots as a living creche. (Pssst...wise men...a little to the right so we can see Mary.)

Since the birth of Jesus was probably the second most important event in human history, it seems that a filmic rendering of the story should be as grand as the most important event (Christ's death and resurrection) was two years ago. In that regard, Nativity Story comes up short, because while the movie is impressive, it doesn't have the epic or visceral feel of Passion of the Christ. On the other hand, an understated approach matches the muted nature of the actual occurences, and even though it ebbs the potency of the film, is more appropriate for the material and makes for an easy viewing experience for any Christian who isn't overly anal about historical tweaking.

Bottom Line: High production value and a relatively faithful retelling make this occasionally enlightening movie worth seeing for anyone interested in the story. 7 of 10 for me. Higher for Christians; lower for others.

So...that happened.

2006-12-07T15:22:00.000-06:00

Happy Pearl Harbor Day, your 65th annual reminder that the Japanese seriously screwed up, not just by bombing us, but by not going all-out and finishing the job. Morons.

On a lighter note, I have a good story, and if you finish, you'll be rewarded with another sick Ronaldinho goal.

I was cooking rice this morning, heating it up on the stove in the same manner I've done before. I took the glass pan off the burner and set it on the potholder on the counter, where I began stirring it while I look out the window at my backyard. I then heard a balloon pop, followed by a muffled tinkling. Over the next 1.5 seconds, my eyes quickly scanned the yard before I glanced down to see that THE BOWL FREAKING EXPLODED! I leapt backward in shocking confusion, wooden spoon in hand, two pieces of glass embedded in my shirt. As I glanced around the kitchen absorbing what just happened, the faint memory of my mother saying something about heating and cooling glass shoots through my mind, followed by me wondering if I slept through the science class in which they taught us about this before we held our beakers over open flames. As I stood frozen in astonishment for the next two minutes, all I could think of was the cat getting shot in Boondock Saints, followed by everyone standing in stunned silence before Rocco utters the immortal line: "Is it dead?"

I'm still confused as to why it blew up. I know my mom has put glass dishes in the oven and microwave plenty of times. I've used that pan for the exact same purpose before. It didn't shatter at its hottest moment. I set it on a potholder, not the cold counter, so the temperature change shouldn't have been that dramatic. But maybe it was. Ah well.

On the bright side, the rice I salvaged from the remants of the bowl was still pretty good, and I used my Hydrator to bake a cake in about three minutes. Cake makes all things better.

So does Ronaldinho...

How does he KNOW these things?

2006-12-05T21:21:00.000-06:00

In a cinematic world that is so often disappointing, a flick that knows its target and hits it squarely is always a welcome sight. Enter Casino Royale, the 21st and latest James Bond movie., featuring Daniel Craig in his debut as Agent 007. Because all Bond movies feature essentially the same parts, the differences arise from the quality of those parts and how they fit together, so allow me to examine the pieces...

Audio review, with special guest Jason Lamb, here.

Story: Casino Royale begins near the beginning, as Bond became Bond, earning his license to kill and diving headlong into the espionage world. This automatically adds depth and interest to the plot, because origin stories are almost always interesting (see: Batman Begins), allowing for explanations of various Bond trademarks. That part of the plot is very good. As for the main storyline, it's about par for the course. There are the mandatory jaunts to beautiful locations like Miami and the Bahamas, and the flick pleasingly manages to avoid the high-tech gimmicky nature that plagued the recent movies. The centerpiece of the movie is a high-stakes poker game, and while I liked that, I wonder what non-players thought of those scenes. Being a poker player, I was able to call virtually every card, but that didn't erode much of the enjoyment, because Bond movies aren't reknowned for their unpredictability.

Villain: Meh. Mads Mikkelsen isn't given much to work with as Le Chiffre, a upper-class money launderer who affiliates with terrorists. Sure, he looks creepy, but that's about all we learn about him. The lack of a classic villain has been a major weakness of the recent Bond movies, and this one is no different. Without a memorable story or bad guy, Casino Royale was forced to rely on other avenues for its quality. That was risky considering this is Daniel Craig's first turn as Agent 007. Fortunately...

James Bond: Merely from the trailer, one could see that Craig brought different elements to Bond, and those glimpsed traits erupt into full view as the picture rolls. He doesn't quite have the suavity of Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan, but more than any other Bond portrayer, Craig is physcially imposing. He could kill you. He has an attitude that adds a modern hard edge to the Bond prototype, one that still oozes sexuality despite the dearth of the puns and double entendres that had become too ubiquitous in Bond movies lately. This is an installment more physical than any other, so both of those additions are very important and greatly appreciated.

Bond Girls: The best Bond girls always have a more exotic look than the women that often dominate American cinema. There are two main female roles here; the Italian model-turned-actress Caterina Murino is a classic Bond vixen, exactly what you'd expect of an Italian model-turned-actress. Her role is secondary to that of Eva Green's (Kingdom of Heaven) Treasury agent Vesper Lynd. Her beauty doesn't leap off the screen early, as her character's bookish side dominates, but she later vamps it up with varying results. Sometimes she looks like a teenager girl playing dress-up, but when she tones down the glamour, she fits the mold well, if perhaps a little too understatedly. (Yes, it's a word.)

Gadgetry: The number of gizmos in Casino Royale are toned down significantly from prior versions. While they are missed in a nostalgic sense, they aren't missed within the context of this movie, because of the different action scenes, which segues nicely to...

Action: The action scenes are infused with a physicality that sets this one apart from any of its predecessors. The black-and-white pre-credits sequence is a superb intro that has an indie feel, and the first extended chase will leave you exhausted in your seat. Bond is frequently bloodied and bruised as he He bleeds, and you feel it. That's a good thing.

Many have said that Casino Royale reminds of The Bourne Identity, a comparison that is understandable but slightly misguided. While the gritty look does call Bourne to mind, the overall tone is much more elevated. Bond is not an everyman like Jason Bourne; he wears a tuxedo and dabbles in high-stakes games of poker and espionage in which the fate of the world is on the line. That creates a loftier feel that makes potentially mundane scenes (and the entire movie) better and more enjoyable than they should be.

Bottom Line: It's a Bond movie. And a pretty good one. A convenient 007 of 10.

(And yes, Ben, this will almost certainly win the Catch Me if You Can award this year.)

Finish it...

2006-11-29T21:14:00.000-06:00

Sorry, I'm not reviewing Mortal Kombat. In fact, I'm not doing much reviewing at all. I saw The Fountain this week, and have been struggling to capture my thoughts on it in words. I therefore turned to my favorite film critic James Berardinelli. We frequently agree whole-heartedly on movies, and even though I refuse to read his reviews before I write mine, I'm often freaked out by our similar opinions. Anyway, his review of The Fountain pinpointed many of my ponderings and said them better than I probably would have. So because I'm a pansy and he's smarter than me, I refer to his writing on this one.

Bottom Line: Exceptionally made but narratively shaky, The Fountain is admired more than enjoyed, although I admit that it's growing on me as I sort out the abstract complexities. 7 of 10.

Golazo!

2006-11-27T12:57:00.000-06:00

So this guy's pretty good...

Not bad. Not bad at all.

I brought you flours.

2006-11-23T19:17:00.000-06:00

As the cinematic writing debut of Zach Helm, Stranger Than Fiction may very well have the most creative storyline of the year. Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) is a nondescript IRS agent who awakes one day to hear a woman narrating much of his life. Unbeknownst to him at the time, the voice belongs to a well-known author who routinely kills her main characters in her novels. No big deal, except for the fact that he soon learns of his fate. That of course horrifies him, and he spends the majority of the film coping with that inevitability.

Unfortunately the lofty possibilities raised by such a fantastically original idea are never fully explored. Stranger doesn't take the time to delve into the life-and-death complexities that could arise from a man searching for the why and who behind his future demise. Nor does it address most of the unique moral questions and obligations that would arise. Instead the script settles for cliches like a typically rushed cinematic romance, premises that aren't all that bad, but are more suited to be side stories, not main arcs. These shortcomings glaringly keep Stranger from reaching the Oscar-winning level of something like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or other Charlie Kaufman work. In fact this movie might be best described as Diet Charlie Kaufman, a pop psychological movie, a thinking movie for those who don't really want to think.

As Adam Sandler did for Punch-Drunk Love, Will Ferrell will no doubt receive heaps of praise for his portrayal of IRS agent Harold Crick. Make no mistake, Ferrell is fine, but don't let anyone convince you this is an Oscar-worthy turn. The simple fact that he plays it straight, without getting nearly naked or over-reacting doesn't automatically create a great performance. The reality is that while he has his moments, Ferrell is the straight man in this picture, a tepid character who contrasts well with Maggie Gyllenhaal's anarchist baker Anna, Dustin Hoffman's Yoda of literature professor, and Emma Thompson's work as author Kay Eiffel, which results in the best performance in the film. She lends the part a wackiness that seems genuinely fresh, in odd, unteachable ways like how she touches both sides of a door frame when passing. She acts crazy enough but not so crazy that you sense the acting as she neurotically haggles over how she can kill off her protagonist.

In the end, Stranger Than Fiction is like Anna's cookies. They both taste good at the time, as the movie does have its humorous and entertaining moments, but their long term value is limited due to their lack of nutrition. Nothing here is going to linger, but if you're interested, you won't be sorry you saw it.

Bottom Line: A missed opportunity, but still worth a rental or cheap theater ticket. 6 of 10.

A single shot can end the war.

2006-11-20T01:21:00.000-06:00

Of all the American wartime photographs ever taken, the most famous and meaningful is likely Joe Rosenthal's snapshot of six men raising a flag atop the Pacific island of Iwo Jima. Not only is the picture technically impressive, with its sharp lines and determined exertion frozen in time, it also came to be the face of World War II, as the United States government's public relations machine utilized this image as the engine behind a massive fundraising effort that ultimately helped win the war. Flags of Our Fathers is the story behind that iconic photograph. (Audio review here.)

Flags is not a typical World War II film, in that only about half the movie portrays military conflict, and does so through multiple layers of flashback. In the modern day, James Bradley, who penned the like-titled book, is discovering the past of his father, John "Doc" Bradley, one of the six soldiers who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Doc was then one of three men yanked from combat to spearhead the fundraising campaign. The core of the film is a complex character study of those three soldiers, the wildly different manners in which they handle their newfound fame, and the various truths behind what appears to be a straightforward image.

Though Flags does not reach the heights of his previous work, Eastwood crafts a film that may very well be his most important and pertinent, considering the current post-9/11 state of constant military strife. Like many war movies, this one dwells on the concept of heroism, but does so more thoroughly. Flags not only looks at how the soldiers deal with the heroic life-and-death struggles on the battlefield, but at how they handle being labeled heroes back home. While on tour, the three were hailed as conquering kings, regardless of what each one may or may not have actually done. This is the opposite of Born on the Fourth of July, in which Tom Cruise's character was treated poorly upon his return from Vietnam. But this raucously positive reception was equally as difficult for these three men to handle, which makes for a fascinating examination of how various human psyches accomodate adulation and stumble along the often blurry line between hero and celebrity.

As mentioned, Flags is not quite as pervasively good as Eastwood's recent Mystic River or Million Dollar Baby (keep in mind that those were my second-best and best films of their respective years). This stems partially from a strong younger cast that performs admirably well, but simply has no chance to match the magnetic appeal of older actors like Kevin Bacon and Morgan Freeman. The main trio of Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, and Adam Beach, all perform admirably though, with Beach impressing most through his complex turn as one of the rare Native Americans sprinkled into the military. A deep roster of talented veteran actors like Barry Pepper and Neal McDonough makes the film easy to watch, despite how the flashback techniques employed limit much of the potentially gripping drama. Simultaneously though, because the information is gathered as James Bradley himself gathered it, the emotion slowly builds into a unexpectedly strong climactic twenty minutes. Like a deft boxer, the film jabs at the heart here and there for two hours, before delivering a fierce flurry of heavy emotional blows as the postbellum lives of these three men are revealed, elevating the power of the entire film and striking near the soul of anyone who knows a veteran.

Along with Tom Stern, his recent cinematographer of choice, Eastwood's best choice is the washed out color scheme present on the island. The technique has become fairly common in war movies, but rather than choose the green-laden palette of Saving Private Ryan though, Eastwood and Stern opted for a nearly black-and-white look that sets Flags apart. The resulting contrasts work wonderfully well with the black sands of Iwo Jima and make many of the bloody incidents all the more potent. Outside of the appearance, the occasionally gratuitous battle scenes, which do effectively differentiate this conflict from Normandy, are most noteworthy for the opening minutes before the fighting breaks out. The intercutting between the viewpoints of the Americans and the Japanese creates immense anticipatory and sympathetic tension. In creating perhaps the film's best moments there, Eastwood also foreshadows Letters from Iwo Jima, his companion picture (due out December 20th) that relates the same battle from the Japanese perspective.

Flags of Our Fathers probably won't go down in cinematic history as one of the great war films (unless Letters is phenomenal). But what Eastwood has crafted is more ambitious than many "mere" war movies, and he accomplishes his goal of interestingly examining how three specific lives were altered by the simple act of raising a flag on a Pacific island. If you enjoy war films, you will enjoy Flags. If you usually don't, the history behind the photograph is intriguing enough to engross you, although you may want to peer through your fingers during the battle scenes.

Bottom Line: Eastwood. War movie. Not much chance I wasn't liking this one. 8 of 10.

Everybody's got a water buffalo.

2006-11-16T19:17:00.000-06:00

This is why Al Gore invented the internet. So we can watch a 24-hour live feed of an African watering hole, complete with sound. Click watch this channel on the right side. Or here's the direct link for Windows Media Player. South Africa is eight hours ahead of Central time; dusk and dawn are the busiest times.

Earlier today I saw several impala (impali? impalae? I'm sticking with impala)...

Within the last hour, I saw these...

This is ridiculously engrossing and addicting. If you don't have the patience to wait, here's a message board that features lots of screencaps.

It isn't calm before the storm. Stuff happens.

2006-11-09T18:23:00.000-06:00

A few odds and ends...

--Here's the audio version of my Prestige review. I think it's the best audio one I've done so far.

--No, I haven't seen Borat, and I probably won't, because it's just not my sort of movie. But if I were to do so, I think this column from Slate sums up how I would react.

--Not that I expected less, because I'm a big fan of war movies and Eastwood-directed movies, but Flags of Our Fathers is good. Really good. More later.

--I look forward to eight years from now, when the Democrats have been as unproductive as the Republicans, and there's a Red Tuesday.

Are you watching closely?

2006-11-04T17:21:00.000-06:00

Every great magic trick consists of three acts. The first act is called The Pledge; The magician shows you something ordinary, but of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called The Turn; The magician makes his ordinary some thing do something extraordinary. Now if you're looking for the secret... you won't find it, that's why there's a third act called, The Prestige; this is the part with the twists and turns, where lives hang in the balance, and you see something shocking you've never seen before.

The above quote is from perhaps the year's best trailer, and also appears early in The Prestige, which features one of the year's best casts and crew. The quote parallels the movie quite well, explaining what works, what doesn't, and why.

Directed by home run hitter Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins, Memento), The Prestige stars a couple erstwhile superheroes (Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale) woven into a turn of last century tale about two rival magicians intent on one-upping each other. Simple enough, that's The Pledge.

The Turn, which takes up the majority of the running time, is where Nolan and company work their movie magic. The story is told largely through various flashbacks before going linear in last act. A little work is required to follow the multi-pronged timeline, but if one lets the pieces float for a bit, they will come together over the course of the film. The patience to wait for that confluence shouldn't be a problem, because all involved sell the period piece wholeheartedly. Capes, canes, and top hats often induce boredom, but although the costumes are period, Prestige doesn't have the antiquated feel that many such films possess. Instead it radiates energy, feeling similar to a Broadway play thanks in part to the star wattage of Jackman and Bale, who both slip comfortably from rubber suits to three-piece suits. Their previous and future movie roles actually inject a little humor into the proceedings as one envisions Logan or Bruce Wayne donning such outfits and dealing with the various circumstances. Interestingly, Batman would likely be comfortable in this world, even though Prestige is set a century ago, because cinematographer Wally Pfister crafts a intriguing, borderline-Gothic world calls to mind his dark work in Batman Begins, a movie that appears very different, but also shares themes like mystery and illusion.

As one would expect from a magic-themed movie and as The Prestige implies, there are a number of twists and turns, several of which are unveiled in the third act. Figuring these things out in advance may hamper or at least alter your enjoyment of the film, particularly if you are expecting to be surprised. In one sense a line from the movie is true: when the secret is known, the trick seems ordinary, and that extra layer of quality is stripped away. But such knowledge in no way ruins the showmanship of the trick, or in this case the remarkably high production value of the film.

Still, The Prestige is where The Prestige falls a little short. For many films, the closing act here would work well, and it does work, but from such a potent talent-laced project, more is expected. Despite its remarkable pedigree, the film is never quite as good or fun as it ought to be, not quite delivering on its promise of something shocking you've never seen before. Conversely, I don't know that anything was wrong with the film, but perhaps with my expectations, which were raised by elements within and without the movie itself. I just know that I didn't find the complete absorbment I hoped I might, even though this is one of the better films of the year.

Bottom Line: A well-made film with an original story that entertains to the end. I feel that I should have liked it more. 7 of 10...for now. Another viewing might bump it up a notch.

Are you gonna let him chop me up and feed me to the poor?

2006-10-30T01:21:00.000-06:00

Finally got the written review of The Departed finished. Audio is in the post below if you care. Enjoy...

On the heels of the annual fall movie lull comes the beginning of Oscar season. And you know what that means: lots of pretentious films that aren't very good! Yay! First in line, from Martin Scorsese, the man who brought us the overrated borefest that is The Aviator, is The Departed...or is it? Plow on, fair reader...

Generally speaking, Martin Scorsese's films all have a similar theme: exploring the complex lives of unlikeable people. His latest is The Departed, which follows two Boston police academy graduates who take drastically disparate paths. The movie is tortuous in every sense of the word. Plot twists are prevalent; people are not always who they seem; and deceit is the rule rather than the exception. Therefore Scorsese is the perfect director for this film, which can be neatly compared to a good piece of rope. (Go with me on this one, okay?)

The Departed opens with a handful of story tresses that are related but different. Each arc appears to be going the same direction, although the connection isn't immediately evident. But the big picture soon begins to come into focus as the strands are woven together. The noteworthy editing of Thelma Schoonmaker, who has chopped most of Scorsese's work, contributes mightily to this effect. Early on the movie is nearly disorienting, jumping rapidly from story to story at almost random intervals, as quickly as second by second. This fitfulness soon settles into a comfortable equilibrium, in part because one becomes accustomed to it, and in part because the stories braid themselves tighter and tighter.

As the film finds its rhythm, it occasionally soars on the wings of its stellar cast. In their parallel roles, Leonardo DiCaprio continues to mature with his hard-edged part; Matt Damon plays an interesting spin-off of his altar-boy image, and as a local crime boss, Jack Nicholson is...well...Jack Nicholson. Even though the hard-nosed characters are not particularly likeable in themselves, Scorsese takes the time to provide glimpses into the quieter parts of their lives, not just the adrenaline-pumping moments. Like the characters or not, this makes them more human, more interesting, and more worthy of sympathy. It also produces the movie's best moments, which are not entirely congruous with the rest of the film.

As a Boston-based crime drama, Departed virtually demands comparison to 2003's stellar Mystic River. Clint Eastwood's film holds a few things high above Scorsese's, namely a soul. Like Kevin Bacon's detective, Vera Farmiga's fresh-faced police psychiatrist brings some semblance of a moral center to the project. But as she is sucked into the vortex of chicanery, she slowly blends into her surroundings like Darwin's peppered moths. Another key difference lies in the closing act. River didn't wrap things up cleanly, but satisfyingly left story arcs somewhat resolved while still open. Departed, on the other hand, tries too hard to tie a pretty bow on this occasional present to moviegoers, and that is where Scorsese's project disappoints most.

Regardless of how strong a piece of rope appears at its center, the ends are what define much of its value. Likewise with a film, if the final act isn't finished well, the film loses much of its punch, as Departed does. Rather than tie off the end or perhaps unbraid the storylines, Departed instead sloppily hacks off the end of the stories that pull the viewer along. The final scenes may seem like an acceptable finish upon initial glance, but a closer inspection reveals not a snip and a solder, but a absurdly quick chop-chop, a slovenly deus ex machina that jarringly diverges from the slow build of the previous two-plus hours. It almost feels like one of those wisely discarded alternate endings on a DVD, like something someone jokingly threw out as an lazy way to conclude matters.

With its frequent outbursts of intense violence and words, hard-living characters, and twisty storylines, The Departed is a Scorsese work through and through. At times the director, aided by a loaded cast, provides wildly entertaining moments and scenes. But like a couple of Steven Spielberg's recent movies (War of the Worlds, Munich), the discordant final act prevents this movie from attaining greater heights. Perhaps Departed could have joined the pantheon of mafia-type films (Godfather I/II, Goodfellas), but the late shortcomings prevent it from reaching even the strong second tier (Untouchables, Road to Perdition, etc.).

Bottom Line: A slow but steady start, a strong middle third, and a weak last act make The Departed recommended only to those interested in seeing it for genre- or Oscar-related reasons. 6 of 10.

If you could've, you would've.

2006-10-19T14:31:00.000-05:00

I haven' t quite finished my written review for The Departed yet. But since I'm...uh...departing for Chicagoland today, I figured I'd put up the audio review for anyone who might be interested. Enjoy.

Worst. Goal. Ever.

2006-10-13T02:03:00.000-05:00

This is from Euro 2008 qualifying...

It's what you do to the people you say you love... it's the only thing that counts.

2006-10-07T20:42:00.000-05:00

In general, I'm not a big fan of holding one movie up to another when reviewing it. But sometimes the nature of two films virtually demands those comparisons. Such was the case in part for World Trade Center, and such is the case for this new review for The Last Kiss...

Comparisons between The Last Kiss and Garden State are unavoidable, largely because Zach Braff stars in both movies, but also because both are wandering missives on particular stages of life. None of the characters are the same, but this movie is still a pseudo-sequel to Garden State. While Braff did not direct or write Kiss as he did State, his influence on many parts of the movie is undeniable, from quirky mannerisms to the laid-back soundtrack that he produced. His presence also lends more credence to the movie, because if he did not tote residual quality from State, Kiss would feel like a cheap knock-off of his previous picture. Instead, it just feels cheap.

Garden State addressed that gray time in one's early twenties between school and adulthood, while Last Kiss focuses on the late twenties jump from young professional to marriage. Michael (Braff) and his girlfriend Jenna (Jacinda Barrett) have just learned they are pregnant. That news rolled together with the variables contributed by their semi-dysfunctional circle of friends and family leaves Michael a little uneasy about his planned future, an issue complicated by the sudden arrival of the sexy, care-free co-ed Kim (Rachel Bilson) into his life. Unfortunately though the veneers of State and Kiss are similar, they differ widely beneath the surface, and Kiss takes the worst of every comparison despite good work from a similarly solid cast.

Garden State seemed to genuinely explore a confusing time in life, while Last Kiss seems to have a message: that marriage as something to be dreaded rather than eagerly anticipated. Beyond just providing numerous negative examples, the movie treats such miserable relationships as normal and unavoidable, which is where the movie truly falls short. Much of the skepticism raised is legitimate when approached as means rather than ends. But rather than use those doubts as impetus to burrow into the coal mines of relationships with hopes of finding a diamond, Kiss turns off the lights and dams up the entrance, leaving everything dark and frightening with scarcely a ray of hope. It's enough to discourage anyone from getting hitched or even seriously involved with someone else. And that's bothersome. The negative aspects of marriage are emphasized, and the positives are largely ignored. The portrayal isn't aggressively negative, but seems to rise from a basic misunderstanding, probably from experience, of how marriage can and should work. It's impossible to get past this pessimistic view of an establishment that is in actuality so wonderful.

[/soapbox]

Beyond the moral issues of Kiss, which I suppose are debatable, the movie lacks rationale, even by cinematic standards. Everything on screen doesn't have to be fully logical or sensible, but when characters possess only two disparate dimensions, normal and insane, they end up depressing and wearing out the audience, like the clueless mother in the supermarket who hasn't a chance of calming her screaming child. That inadequacy overshadows any positive elements Kiss might have presented.

Garden State had fantastic highs in its small moments. Last Kiss tries to match that potency in a few situations, but ends up looking like one of its characters, a college kid trying to fit into an adult life. At times the movie's sentiments are okay, but more often than not the accurate observations are drowned out by all the yelling. What's missing is a reasonable understanding of the big picture, which might have elevated the movie to watchable status. As is, Kiss is just not strong enough to reach nearly the same heights.

Bottom Line: The only redeeming values here are the mellow soundtrack (artists like Imogen Heap and Coldplay), which is essentially Braff's latest mix tape, and how the movie can spur thoughts about relationships. But there are better ways to experience both. Obviously not recommended. 4 of 10.

(And for the record, I gave Garden State a 7. Great moments, but an inconsistent film.)

We prepared for everything. Not for this.

2006-09-30T20:57:00.000-05:00

New review for Oliver Stone's World Trade Center. No audio though; somehow it didn't seem appropriate for a sports talk show.

Movies about September 11th, 2001, are not easy to watch, nor are they easy to review. On a lesser scale, they are this generation's equivalent of Tom Brokaw's Greatest Generation watching World War II films. I remember my grandpa discuss Saving Private Ryan, and he was always hesitantly uncomfortable, acknowledging that it was a well done, but he didn't enjoy it much. In a like vein, the fact that its viewers lived through the described day both abets and ails World Trade Center, Oliver Stone's emotional story about two emergency workers trapped in the rubble of the twin towers.

Speaking of Ryan, WTC also faces the same quandry as A Thin Red Line, in that it follows a similarly themed movie that might be the year's best film, United 93. Like Line, WTC differs widely from its chronological predecessor even though the general subject material is the same. Though set at Guadalcanal, Line wasn't really about war, while Ryan was precisely about the horrors of war. United 93 told a story from a primarily objective standpoint, allowing the audience's own genuine emotions to affect their viewing experience. Differently, WTC is about specific experiences on 9/11, looking to share the feelings of a the trapped officers and their left-in-limbo families. Those people certainly have their moments of primal emotion that can only stem from situations of life and death. The most touching ones spring from the family members left on the outside, forced to wait and wonder. For whatever reason, imagining the loss or endangerment of loved ones is more potent than imagining one's own physical danger, and the portrayal of that blistering boredom cuts to the quick of anybody with a heart.

As soul-wrenching as these events are, and despite the fact that they are true, they still feel like movie moments. Strong and good movie moments, yes, but even the best of those cannot match someone's personal feelings from that day, feelings created by actually being there. Make no mistake, the movie is very well made. Although Oliver Stone did direct it, none of his trademarks are present here. There is no kinetic editing (JFK); there are no flashy visuals (Any Given Sunday); there is no agenda of any kind (Platoon). Were his direction not so publicized, one would have no idea of his involvement. He wisely lets the story tell itself, using a straightforward story-telling method that gently weaves together the disparate experiences of the two men and their families.

Perhaps I erred in seeing this on September 11th, after a day spent reliving my own emotions and those of actual people who were there on that day. World Trade Center is a good movie that contains raw human emotion more powerful than most put on screen. But even that drama simply cannot match what we personally experienced when living through that day, regardless of the dire circumstances. That makes the movie less compelling than it should be.

Bottom Line: Better drama than most, but missing an extra dose of passion to push it to the next level. 7 of 10.

Outstanding soldier!

2006-09-21T21:01:00.000-05:00

Hmmm...just realized I never finished this review on the excellent comedy Little Miss Sunshine. Audio here, the short but sweet text follows...

Comedies about families usually come in one of two genres. Often featuring dysfunctional families (are those two words redundant?), they are either broad and goofy (Cheaper by the Dozen) or dark and abstruse (The Royal Tenenbaums). Driving its Volkswagon bus down the middle of these two extremes is Little Miss Sunshine, a comedy both inclusive and exclusive, one that some will get entirely, while others will whiff on to the same degree.

The title stems from a beauty pageant in which seven-year old Olive (Abigail Breslin of Signs) competes. For a good portion of the film, the contest serves as a MacGuffin of sorts, putting an already odd mix of family members on the road in bizarre situations that call Vegas Vacation to mind.

But Sunshine is far more than the slapstick of Vacation. It mixes humor both broad and subtle humor into a strange brew of comedy, poignancy, lessons, and life. Huge and deep issues are addressed, topics like death, dreams, and failure. Yet somehow the movie doesn't feel heavy. You'll walk out with a smile on your face because the movie sensibly touches on these issues, realizing that stuff happens and life continues, that the handling of adversity is often what defines people. And above all, there is family, which you're stuck with, for better and worse.

Sunshine may not grab you right away, which is part of its power. It burns slowly, introducing the family members to the viewing outsiders through observation, then putting the viewers in the bus with them as they enter a foreign world. All this is done without lapsing into melodrama and without losing steam as the movie chugs toward the climactic final scene, continuously building momentum along the way, before promptly getting out on top.

Rather crude at times, Sunshine is not a movie for children, nor is it for anyone who takes life or movies too seriously. But if you excel at finding the askance humor in life and film, then you will relish this offbeat look at a collection of family dynamics perhaps only slightly stranger than most, although definitely more extreme.

Bottom Line: One of the year's best, and likely its best comedy. 8 of 10.

9/11, continued.

2006-09-11T12:16:00.000-05:00

A few more thoughts on this fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which seems to have significantly more gravity than the previous four anniversaries.

Sports Illustrated's cover story this week is about Pat Tillman, an NFL player who left the league in his prime after 9/11 to serve as an Army Ranger. He didn't come back. Gary Smith, one of today's best writers, penned a lengthy story on Tillman, and it's all available online. I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure it's fantastic, and I highly recommend it.

I just watched MSNBC's replay of their live coverage from five years ago, which was chilling and enlightening. It's amazing to see how things played out in real time, how much confusion and shock there was, and simply to see how people reacted to events that were beyond imagination at the time. It also reminded me of my experience that day. I greatly enjoy hearing where people were and what they were doing when they learned of the attacks. I think our stories form a common experience bond that we as humans often long for. So here's my tale...

I woke up at nine o'clock that Tuesday morning, completely ignorant about what happened about an hour earlier, when the first plane struck the World Trade Center, and that one of the towers was collapsing as I stepped out of bed. I took a shower, hopped out, and flipped on my computer, still annoyed that Ed McCaffrey, a key member of several of my fantasy football teams, had broken a leg last night's game. I also turned on Tony Kornheiser's radio show, as I always did in the morning. Half-listening, I heard his upbeat show intro play, before he quickly cut in and began apologizing for the happy nature of the opening. Before I could figure out what was happening, my roommate came tearing down the stairs, "Did you hear what happened?"

We dashed across the hall to the television, where I saw a ton of smoke surrounding the World Trade Center. As I absorbed what the broadcasters were saying about planes hitting the towers, my stomach suddenly wrenched as I realized that only one tower was still standing. I think I managed not to curse as I said, "Where the heck is the other tower?" My initial emotion was pure anger, and I almost excitedly anticipated what the United States was going to do to whoever did this horrible deed. Aaron and I stood transfixed for what I thought was scant moments, and then the other tower collapsed. Watching the re-broadcast this morning, I saw that I had actually been standing there, still towel-clad, for over twenty minutes.

Shortly thereafter, I finally got dressed, grabbed a walkman and headed to breakfast, because it closed at ten. I was alone, but providentially ran into Doug. We sat and ate together, mostly in silence. There wasn't much to say. We heard a special chapel service had been called, and we zombied over to that, where Chaplain Kellough said some things I vaguely recall as being good. I remembered that Stacy had just moved to New York, and we all prayed for a while.

I know I had a C.S. Lewis class later that afternoon, but I don't remember a thing from it. All I remember from that day is the stunned looks on all my roommates' faces as we wandered in and out of our living room to whatever it was we were doing. There were also rumors of threats against the Sears Tower, which made the danger seem even more clear and present.

The next day, Wheaton hosted and I broadcast soccer games against Aurora, a school just a few miles away. In retrospect, I'm shocked that these games were played, particularly considering that games on Friday were cancelled. But at the time, it was the best tonic I and many others could have tasted, the opportunity to escape for just a short time. I read this portion of a brilliant piece by by Frank Deford...

In times of widespread grief, such as now, a sporting event can provide the same kind of group catharsis. A game can serve a certain larger community as a wake does family and friends. We must make the best of what we have, and so if -- if -- some of us choose to find some respite from our pain by going out to a game, we should have the chance. And when we do assemble there, we will be able to see our neighbors, see our countrymen and women, see us together, and with that perhaps best be able to glimpse a happier time and a more glorious America that lies ahead, somewhere.

...and held back tears as the national anthem was sung. We remembered, but soldiered on. As we continue to do today.

9/11

2006-09-10T12:01:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow is the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. Tonight at 7 PM, CBS is re-airing 9/11, a documentary about the events of that day, with a few updates as well. I highly recommend watching it, or taping it to watch when you're in the mood. Here's a mini-review I wrote three years ago after I saw it...

This is an exceptional documentary not just because of the remarkable footage, but also due to the story behind it. Because the Naudets (French documentarian brothers) did not set out to tell the story of 9/11, but rather that of a rookie firefighter, the men's emotions and the viewer's connection with them are more real and powerful than they would be in a standard retrospective.

In a filmmaking sense, 9/11 is textbook. If the events were an actual script, they would be superb, as the characters are established, then thrown a curve to which they must react. This is all the more amazing considering the pain and emotion of the raw footage that the directors had to wade through to piece this story together.

The first portion of the film provides a glimpse of life inside a fire station; specifically, how a rookie assimilates himself into a crew of veterans. That part alone is quite good, and had the documentary been allowed to run its intended course, it probably would have been solid. The brothers appear to realistically portray the process of becoming a NYC firefighter.

Then of course, all hell breaks loose. The chaos following the WTC attacks is vividly seen, as various characters that we have gotten to know are thrust into terrifying situations. Seeing not only the attacks, but also the first-hand reactions is a very moving picture of extreme human emotion.

The aftermath, in which firefighters are discovered to be lost and found, is human drama at its peak. Life and death hang in the balance. Unlike many movies, the viewer not only doesn't know who will live and die, but genuinely cares about them.

The only negative thing I have to say about this is that the Robert DeNiro (whom I like) blurbs were uninformative, unnecessary, and didn't advance the story at all. They were probably added just to attract more television viewers.

Bottom Line: The best documentary I've ever seen. Nonpareil portrayals of raw human emotion and drama. 9.5 out of 10.

And if you're thinking about renting the DVD of United 93, that is also highly recommended. Here's the link to my review of that.

I'm invincible!

2006-09-01T10:42:00.000-05:00

New review for Invincible, which was better than I expected. Audio review here.

If you've seen the trailer for Invincible, then you know the story of Vince Papale, a Philadelphia everyman who earned a spot on his beloved Eagles through an open tryout in 1976. The fact that most of the plot is known is a negative in the sense that it robs the movie of most drama, but doesn't affect enjoyment much, because most sports flicks are straightforward anyway. Instead, the common underdog-turned-hero plot, along with strong lead performances from Mark Wahlberg and Greg Kinnear (as Coach Dick Vermeil) makes for an easy viewing experience.

While Wahlberg is the headliner, Kinnear performs equally well in a parallel role, as Vermeil makes the jump from college football to the pros. He wisely chooses not to do a complete impersonation of Coach Vermeil, but does relate Vermeil's easy-going aura. If you have watched much of Vermeil in the last few years, then you will certainly find a few moments in the movie that make you chuckle and nod, thinking Vermeil would have said or done exactly that. As for Wahlberg, not many Hollywood stars would be believable as football players. Can you really see someone like Tom Cruise 0r Adam Sandler (ok, bad example) playing in the NFL? Didn't think so. But Wahlberg is an exception. He has the physique and attitude of an elite athlete (see: Calvin Klein ads), and in part because of his street background, he has the tough guy image down (see: Four Brothers). But despite his evident charisma, he doesn't rise above his fellow cast members like Cruise sometimes does. Instead he represents the working man quite well and seems just like one of the boys from South Philly.

The energy of those everyday Joes is the gas that drives the movie's engine. Through Papale's circle of friends and family, Invincible captures two types of football passion wonderfully. Papale's bar pals exhibit the hardcore fanaticism that power any team's fanbase, and the generational enthusiasm that is passed down from father to son is also portrayed expertly via Papale and his dad. Both symbolize an ardor that transcends team loyalties, allowing fans of any team (except maybe the Giants) to share in the story. As everyone who has lived through 9/11 knows, sports can provide joyous moments, even in difficult times, and the movie effectively displays football as such an outlet without resorting to melodrama (ahem...Rudy).

In addition to these positive aspects, Invincible has many of the characteristics mandatory in sports movies. There's a wet blanket female, adversity to overcome, and a handful of scenes that induce chills. The crunching football scenes are good too, although most of the action takes place either in practice or isolation shots involving Papale. The quality of football ought to be high though, since this is the first movie since Jerry Maguire that was officially approved by the National Football League. The NFL's okay was vital in lending authenticity to the movie, as the real logos, name, and places create a fun game of who-was-that during the flick. Anyone who watched football in the 1970s will enjoy picking familiar names off jerseys, and recognizing names and venues as they are mentioned and shown.

Sports movies are men's equivalent to chick flicks, pointing out a difference between the sexes. Women want to fall in love; men want to be sports heroes. So even though the plot is fairly routine, Invincible provides solid sports entertainment, particularly in the current build-up to football season, during which Disney was smart to release the film. It surpassed my mediocre expectations, and that's good enough for a recommendation from me.

Bottom Line: As Rocky in cleats, it satisfies a fix, and does so in surprisingly efficient fashion. 6 of 10.

Enough is enough...

2006-08-29T17:11:00.000-05:00

This review took way too long to post, but I was working on something new for this movie review...audio! I'm now doing some movie reviews for my radio station, and I'm posting the audio here for anyone who would rather listen than read. The radio review isn't verbatim, but the general ideas are the same. Plus, last week I named my best three movies of the summer. So if you're inclined, enjoy by clicking here. I recommend you listen to at least the first minute or so to hear the intro that the station put together for me. On with the show...

Snakes on a Plane revives a lost art in Hollywood, the B-movie, a movie that realizes its own shortcomings and cheesiness, and relishes such things, following in the recent tradition of Eight-Legged Freaks and Starship Troopers. Therefore you must have the proper mindset going in. If you expect an action movie like Mission: Impossible III, you will be disappointed. If expect a tense thriller similar to Die Hard 2, you will be disappointed. If you expect an Oscar contender, you're just plain stupid.

The storyline is largely irrelevant. Strike that. It's entirely irrelevant. The bottom line is that hundreds of poisonous serpents end up on an trans-Pacific flight. The build-up to the anticipated action isn't that bad; but at half an hour, it still takes too long before the snakes appear.

Fortunately for all involved, Samuel L. Jackson is an FBI agent on the flight. Not only is he there to save the flight, he's there to endow the movie with a little respect. As one of the few familiar faces, Jackson is perfect for his role, in which he more or less plays himself, or at least his screen persona. But he is perhaps the only actor who could fill such a part, one that requires a sense of seriousness among laughably wacky situations. He brings with him a gravitas that lends credibility to the movie. His mere presence as an actor elevates the flick beyond its late-night cable pedigree to something worthy of being on a big screen.

Part of the reason Snakes fits that pedigree is its lack of subtlety. Like its title, the movie paints in broad strokes, both in plot and character. The people on the flight are little more than caricatures, ranging from a effeminate male flight attendant to a rich chihuahua-toting heiress. That's fine, if not preferred. In a movie where many of the characters are going to soon meet their doom, who cares about any intricacies of spirit? The movie just draws a few necessary outlines before splattering them with blood and snakes.

Much like the avalanche of recent horror movies, the blood and the accompanying screams are the point of the whole shebang. You go to this movie to gleefully cringe at the awful fates and almost equally awful dialogue. You go to scream at the jump scenes, to cheer at motivational speeches, and to recoil in mock shock at just about everything. The difference between Snakes and its horror counterparts is that this movie possesses a sense of humor. The movie is so ludicrously over-the-top that you can almost see and hear the makers winking and chuckling behind the camera. So if you see it, do so with a group of friends and overreact to everything; Snakes on a Plane is a movie best experienced corporately, although it's definitely not for children or anyone who fears slithering reptiles.

Bottom Line: Good times. 7 of 10 for a wildly entertaining experience that meets expectations wonderfully.

The Dime Bag, volume VII.

2006-08-17T21:21:00.000-05:00

Time for another version of The Dime Bag, featuring (not in this order) two sports movies, three superhero movies, a drug movie, two I wish I'd been on drugs while watching, one piece of mindless entertainment, and a stunningly excellent film from Woody Allen.

Goal!--This is a fairly routine sports movie, in which the hero overcomes adversity to reach his dreams, learning something in the process. The unique aspect is that the sport is soccer, which rarely sees the big screen. (No, Kicking and Screaming and Bend it Like Beckham don't count.) FIFA's participation in the making of the movie meant that proper teams and players are used, which is always a plus. If you're a soccer fan, you'll enjoy seeing this on DVD in September, even though you may be picking at the inaccuracies and implausibilities. (7)

A Scanner Darkly--Another story by Philip K. Dick (Blade Runner, Minority Report) brought to life, this time in rotoscoping fashion by director Richard Linklater (Before Sunrise/Sunset). Since it's all about a futuristic, drug-riddled society, this movie would probably be better if I had more contact with drug-riddled people. But it still had a few hilarious moments, and a solid plot that is nearly too dense for its own good, although it's not for a casual movie audience. (7)

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest--The only things longer than the title were the lines to get in and the movie itself. But hey, at least there's another sequel on the way! The whole movie is like a treadmill. It keeps moving and moving, fighting and fighting, without really going anywhere. Cut half an hour or more out, and it's bearably mediocre. As is, the fantastic CGI creatures/people were the only thing that kept my attention (since Kiera Knightley was dressed like a boy far too often) for much of the 150 minutes. The fact that this could be the second-highest grossing movie of all time says all that needs to be said about today's movie audiences. (4)

Glory Road--Another standard sports movie, one that follows the 1966 Texas Western college basketball team. It has the racial implications of Remember the Titans and the basketball of Hoosiers, although this is not nearly as good as either. Very little of anything was original, and I was annoyed by the facts that were changed to emphasize the historical aspect of that team, a sort of retrospective re-writing of history. I'm glad I finally saw it, but won't bother seeing it again. (5)

Match Point--I didn't see this last year because it's a Woody Allen film, and I generally don't care for his work. However this isn't one of his usual not-quite-funny comedies, but rather a romantic drama that looks fabulous. The crisp cinematography and clean lines make it feel almost black-and-white, and the legitimate tension that stretches to the very end strings along the viewer wonderfully. The morals of many involved are quite questionable, but the choices of the characters find produce strong results and fascinating emotions that are portrayed well. Highly recommended for anyone looking for a good adult drama. (8)

Superman--This is the best superhero movie ever. A perfect blend of reverence, humor, pathos, action, and drama. Christopher Reeve is Superman, nailing the physical presence of Superman and the awkwardness of Clark Kent. Margot Kidder is Lois Lane, with the right degree of spunk, capability, and damsel in distress. If you liked Superman Returns, you need to see this to see the characters and story done even better. Of course the effects are a little dated, but they're still impressive for three decades ago. (8)

Superman II--This is the best superhero sequel ever. Please don't lump it in with the awful third and fourth sequels (which I haven't actually seen...I've just been warned). The slightly askance attitude from the original again surfaces in this one, which drifts into the more common superohero-versus-supervillains sort of the genre. It's not as good as the original, but it's better than most of the recent spate of such movies. (7)

Mystery Men--This is a superhero movie of an entirely different ilk. In fact it's a spoof of the genre. Led by Ben Stiller's Mr. Furious, a cadre of quasi-superheroes attempt to do...whatever it is superheroes do. At times the movie's dry, dark sense of humor is hilarious and brilliant, but that sharp edge doesn't pervade the entire running length, which leaves one with the feeling that it wasn't quite as good as it coulda/woulda/shoulda been. Still funny though, if it's your sort of comedy. (6)

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift--This actually wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. It won't be nominated for any important awards of course, but it was surprisingly watchable. Muscle cards, pretty people, and an attractively shot Tokyo background combine with a script that is often predictable or cheesy, but rarely too serious or over-the-top bad, to make a movie that nicely fills the mindless entertainment void better than, say, Pirates. (5)

The Longest Yard (2005)--Almost needless to say, this remake isn't nearly as good as the still entertaining original. Adam Sandler never quite seems like a quarterback, nor does he capture the strong charisma that Burt Reynolds did in 1974. However he is definitely goofier than Reynolds, and that difference is a microcosm for the entire flick. It's just too goofy. The original wasn't overly important or high cinema, but it had a slightly serious undercurrent that produced a better emotional involvement. If it hadn't been a remake, it might have been more enjoyable, but as it is, this one falls flat. (3)

This is my house. I have to defend it.

2006-08-04T20:21:00.000-05:00

Look what I bought today...

A Bedtime Story, by M. Night Shyamalan.

2006-07-23T01:21:00.000-05:00

New review for Lady in the Water...

Fair or not, specific expectations exist for an M. Night Shyamalan film. For reasons both created by him and thrust upon him, one anticipates a well-crafted film,wrought with tension, filled with complex narratives that drive toward a revelatory conclusion. Until Lady in the Water, he had satisfied those expectations with each film. But anyone who casually expects a story like that here will be sorely disappointed with Lady. However those who work to find the proper viewing mindset will be richly rewarded by this narrative about an apartment complex superintendent (an again stellar Paul Giamatti) determining what to do with the narf (a sea nymph, played with aplomb by Bryce Dallas Howard) who emerges from his swimming pool.

The first trailer for Lady in the Water was tagged with A Bedtime Story, by M. Night Shyamalan, a label that caused everyone to raise a skeptical eyebrow. The later advertisements appeared (I avoided watching everything after the first trailer, but did pick up on things despite covering my eyes and plugging my ears) to portray the movie as a more "typical" Shyamalan work, replete with scares and high tension. This is unfortunate, because such ads reinforce already false expectations. As the original preview promised, Lady is a bedtime story, and is best viewed and understood as such. Imagine a father gently telling a fairy tale to an eager son sitting cross-legged on his bed, or to a wide-eyed daughter peeking out from under her covers. Imagine the simple entrancement of a child, not fretting over questions like why and how, but simply absorbing the fable-esque story and its uniquely creative cast of characters. That is the way to experience this film. The film is a little too intense for young children, but one needs to have a child's mindset to best appreciate it.

Some will undoubtedly claim that calling the movie a bedtime story is just an excuse for shallow characters and unexplained reasons behind events and people. But those critics miss the point. The type of story isn't an excuse, but rather it defines the movie. Nobody criticizes Aesop for not explaining why the fox was desperately obsessed with the grapes, because the why and how aren't pertinent. While Lady's story does lack some of the character depth of Shyamalan's other films, it replaces that handful of intricately defined parts with a bushel of characters who are nearly as memorable despite being painted with broad strokes. Every character can be described with a glance and a couple sentences. That's how children's stories are.

Although the movie is a bedtime story (have I made that point yet?), there are lurking subtexts that comment on Shyamalan's place as a writer and his relationship with critics. Depending on one's stance on Shyamalan and his work, he is either poking fun or making grand and extreme statements. These fairly apparent points are definitely open to interpretation and prevent the film from being wholly innocent, but do not remotely weigh the movie down with pretense, allowing the decidedly guileless core of the story to captivate anyone not obsessed with the politics behind the movie.

Creating a reality-based fairy tale world on screen is no easy task, but Shyamalan employs a technical crew that understands his filmmaking style and makes such a challenge seem effortless. Many of the relatively mundane effects (by Industrial Light & Magic of course) are intentionally (?) somewhat hazy, as though seen through the prism of a child's mind. James Newton Howard, who has scored Shyamalan's quartet of films, returns with simple and melodic themes, flowingly accenting various moments without intruding. The methods of cinematographer Christopher Doyle, best known for Asian films like Hero, mesh perfectly with Shyamalan's deliberate approach. Subdued greens and blues dominate the color palette, forming a soft world that matches the storybook tone. Camera angles that vary widely without dizzying match its freshness, and numerous still shots that allow action to wander in and out of frame. All of these factors effectively place the viewer into the apartment complex as the tale meanders along.

For the most part, Lady in the Water lacks the driving mystery of The Sixth Sense or The Village. The film does not possess the absorbing emotion of Unbreakable or Signs. With overlapping themes like belief and destiny, it does share characteristics, but not the ones that stimulate the story. At times the movie feels like a serial, like something added to every evening, made up as the story goes. This makes Lady a bit haphazard as it wanders, but the heavy compelling nature of its predecessors is enjoyably replaced by a lighter sense of wonder that mesmerizes like the story and world of Peter Pan. The reverie of Neverland is not present in these Philadelphia buildings, but the undercurrent of mysticism that runs through the complex is enough to pique the interest of any moviegoer with a heart.

Perhaps I'm blinded by my love for Shyamalan's movies. Maybe I've carried this obsession with the film being a fantastic bedtime story too far. Believe that if you like; there is probably truth to it. But I know this: Shyamalan fashions films unlike any other director, and I enjoyed Lady in the Water as much as anything I've seen this year. With a proper mindset, you can too.

Bottom Line: Go in with an open mind, and this will be a uniquely entertaining cinematic experience. 8 of 10, which might be a tad high, but is necessary to counter all the low ratings doled out by jaded critics.

Maybe if I put a little dish of butter sauce here with a nutcracker, it will run out the other side.

2006-07-15T15:12:00.000-05:00

In continuing my tradition of posting about rare lobsters, here's a anomalous crustacean that was caught in Maine. The red side is actually the unusual part; that's the color they normally look after being cooked. Mmmm. Lobster.

That's the wimpy kind with claws, but still tasty.

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's...

2006-07-12T12:14:00.000-05:00

New review for Superman Returns, but first a preface...

I apologize for the countless comparisons to the first two films, but they are virtually mandated. Superman is the best cinematic adaptation of a comic book yet, and Superman II is a solid sequel. That pedigree combined with the hype inherent in any movie that has spent over a decade in development hell, the overall success of recent movies like Batman Begins and the X-Men movies, the movie's tentpole status, and the intentional references to prior films mean that expectations are ridiculously high and correlations like these are inevitable.

On with the show...

For chronological reasons in- and outside of the movie itself, Superman Returns is a unique sequel. This is not Batman Begins, which ignored all previous incarnations and essentially started anew; nor is it X2, which follows on the heels of the original; nor is it one of the first three Batman sequels, all of which trailed the 1989 version by an undefined but irrelevant period of time. Director Bryan Singer's film occurs five years after Superman II, under the (wistful) pretenses that the third and fourth installments of the series never happened. Additionally the two predecessors that Returns does follow were released over a quarter century ago, so largely (and sadly) unknown to much of today's audience. Therefore the franchise is simultaneously continued and reinvented, a strange dichotomy upon which Returns finds both its strongest and weakest moments.

Often a movie succeeds in telling its story well but falls short in the little areas that can push it several levels higher. The first two Harry Potter movies, for example, tell the books' stories and portray the universe effectively, but lack the character and cinematic touches that Alfonso Cuaron so brilliantly infused into Prisoner of Azkaban. Superman Returns accomplishes the opposite, nailing the little things but sometimes missing the overall target. Writer/director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men) and company clearly understand the Superman mythos established by previous incarnations of the hero. They wisely choose to borrow John Williams' original theme, imitate the original credits, and include plenty lines that refer to the first two films. Some lines are quoted directly (Superman's comment about the safety of flying), while other words reinforce previously established traits (like Lois' inability to spell). This attention to detail leaves fans of those movies with a sweet taste on their cinematic tongues, but one that may be indistinguishable to ignorant viewers.

Brandon Routh's performance as the Man of Steel does likewise. He enthralls with an eerie ability to channel Christopher Reeve's presence, physical and vocal mannerisms, and charming clumsiness. Whether this is a testament to Routh's mimicry skills or to how well Reeve defined the role is debatable, but either way Routh deserves praise for filling the part well, as does Singer for casting an unknown, a fact that may have helped Routh match Superman's alien status. These components supply the high points of the film, as Returns captures the all-important mystique of Superman that was present in I and II.

The same cannot be said of many of the movie's choices, which lack the cohesion of a great film. Kevin Spacey provides a microcosm of the problem. Gene Hackman played Lex Luthor with a perfect concoction of darkness and comedy. Evil tinged his humor and humor tinged his evil. Spacey's Luthor possesses both qualities, but at disparate times, creating a distracting bipolar antagonist out of a single-minded villain. I'm not a big fan of Kate Bosworth's turn either. She embodies the hard-nosed journalist side of Lois Lane well, but her human side appears too intentionally cynical and invulnerable. Admittedly though, Lois should have changed over the missing five years, so perhaps I merely long for Margot Kidder's pitch-perfect work. Bosworth tries hard, but never looks quite right or finds the balance of Lois as investigator and love interest.

This thread of inconsistency snakes through the entire movie, even into the overall storyline, which is fairly standard superhero stuff: Superman...uh..returns to a retro-futuristic Metropolis, where he must confront his past with Lois while dealing with Luthor's nefarious schemes. That much is fine, but an anticipatory undercurrent flows beneath the waves. Singer was successful with the X-Men franchise in part because he told the story and did not over-emphasize the underlying built-in analogies of the mutants. Here he inserts a discordant arc that, as it surfaces, convolutes and stretches a simple story with twisted aspirations to a greater or more complex level of cinema. A noble effort, and one that may be more appreciated in the long run, but for now falls flat.

Despite these flaws, Superman Returns is still an excellent movie experience, a fact that speaks to the nonpareil power of the Superman mythos. The movie's overwhelming Superman-ness saves it much like Superman looks to save humanity. He exhibits relatable characteristics taken from every other recent silver screen star: the outsider nature of the X-Men, the awkward everyman side of Peter Parker, Batman's seeming infallible desire to eliminate crime. Superman is good and uncomplicated. He stands for truth, justice, and the American way; he awkwardly seeks acceptance; he scarcely harms anyone; he grew up on an idyllic farm in Kansas. He is Norman Rockwell's superhero. I daresay that Superman also appeals to an innate desire for a savior, someone to execute ideals that rest in the human core. Singer seems to understand this, doling out the full iconic treatment through classic framing, sweeping camera movement, and the aforementioned cinematic touches. The only misstep is in the overly dramatic tone of this deification, which drifts to the serious side. The original has a twinkle-in-the-eye attitude, one that winks at the silliness of a man in tights, one that is more uplifting in many respects, such as the way it conveys the joy of flying. Returns utilizes slightly too heavy a hand, failing to fully communicate the exhilarating experience, but definitely succeeding in portraying the grandness of Superman. In the superhero universe, I have long been a Batman guy, and I still am, but this movie reiterates what many already know: Superman is the best. End of discussion.

Just as Superman Returns as a whole is a dynamic paradox of past, present, and future, many of its parts are a series of contradictions that do not completely find a proper middle ground. Although very entertaining, the end result does not strike as deep as it could have, leaving the viewer with a pleasant saccharine sensation that masks a lingering bitter aftertaste.

Bottom Line: Superman Returns is magnetically appealing, a welcome adventure back into the world of Superman, one that ought to be seen on the big screen. 7 of 10.

This is bizarre.

2006-07-09T19:15:00.000-05:00

In case you didn't see the lowlight of the World Cup final...

Or click here to see more of the build up.

Wow. What a way to go out for probably the best player of this generation. I can't imagine what was said/done to provoke him so.

I'm glad Italy won, but I hate penalty kicks. There has to be a better way to settle a tournament in which so many countries and people have invested so much. I say they keep playing sudden death overtimes until someone scores. Give each team an extra sub every overtime or two and just keep playing. Don't give me that crap about it being bad for television. The World Cup is once every four years. TV should not be a factor for something this important that occurs once every 1500 days. Besides, who is going to change the channel when the game could end at any moment? PKs are horrible. No one likes them. Why can't FIFA figure this out?

Seeing ancient ruins Is raeli fun.

2006-07-03T10:32:00.000-05:00

More pictures from the recently completed Israel trip. And no, we didn't go to Gaza. As far as you know.

Just so you know that we had a little fun. Mark and I imitate Elijah dominating the prophets of Baal atop Mt. Carmel.

A cobblestone road at Bethsaida, a road that Jesus almost certainly walked on. Wow.

This is a boat ride we took across the freshwater Sea of Galilee, another surreal experience. The sea was calm that day, but one of the crew said the waves reach ten feet high during the winter, and that's when the fish are near the surface, more easily catchable. So being a fisherman here was not the easiest job 2000 years ago.

Dr. Keys is in the middle snapping a photo. He took about 3500 pictures on the two-week trip. By comparison, Mark/Katy, Jasien/Becky, Barb Brosius and I took a little less than 1900 COMBINED.

Shalom!

2006-06-28T10:28:00.000-05:00

Alrighty, picture time from Israel. Let's see how this works. If something is wrong, do tell...

The Wailing Wall and the Dome of the Rock.

So you want to know where the world is going to end? I present Meggido. The craziest thing was the F-16s that zoomed over while we were there. Chills.

This is Mark after he stumbled off a crag. I snapped the picture before I saved him.

Dinner time. More later.

Make 'em laugh!

2006-06-16T08:21:00.000-05:00

Two World Cup thoughts from the Argentina-S&M game that's on right now:
1) Is anyone going to beat Argentina?
2) Color commentator Shep Messing is terrrrrrible.

Last post before Israel; and I hope to post some pictures while I'm there. Prayers are always welcome.

I learned something this week. Apparently the Italian word bravo means one without taste. The television channel Bravo recently released it's 100 Funniest Movies list, and it is nowhere close (read: sophisticated) to AFI's list, which was made a few years back.

Here's my take on the list. I realize that I don't necessarily have the most normal sense of humor, an issue I addressed here, so factor in your own comedy stance, and always remember that I actually liked Ishtar.

If a movie it italicized, that means I haven't seen it in its entirety, although I've seen portions of almost all of these. Don't worry, I won't necessarily let that stop me from editorializing.

100. Anchorman. Might as well get this out of the way now. Dumb or perverse comedies like this one aren't my thing. As this one did, most have their moments, but rarely add up to a quality whole. I always enjoy pulling a few quotes from these types, but don't enjoy the entire movie experience; it's not why I go to the movies. So I always rate these poorly if I see them at all. So I'd say the whole sub-genre is overrated.
99. The Birdcage. This movie is gay.
98. School of Rock. I've heard good things about this, but Jack Black doesn't do much for me, so I haven't seen it. Sorry.
97. Happy Gilmore. The price is wrong, #%*&@! The best part of this movie is that it was imitated in Van Helsing.
96. Four Weddings and a Funeral.
95. Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle. Why isn't this higher? Oh...it's not a list of the worst trailers ever? Never mind.
94. Waiting for Guffman. Seeing this one in college with a group of theater types made it seem better than it actually was. It takes some adjusting to enjoy Christopher Guest's dry humor.
93. The Aristocrats.
92. Father of the Bride. Steve Martin saves this one...barely.
91. Revenge of the Nerds. This '80s comedy is seriously dated.
90. Clueless. I know I saw this. That's about all I remember. Must have been pretty good then.
89. Slapshot. I'm not sure how/why I haven't seen this hockey comedy starring Paul Newman.
88. Team America. One of my life credos: I won't see any movie made by the South Park creators and starring puppets.
87. The Kentucky Fried Movie.
86. Zoolander. This is Ben Stiller's best all-out comedy, and should be ranked ahead of several yet to come. It is partially a "dumb comedy", but it also has a much sharper satirical edge than most, to go with the hilarious moments.
85. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.
84. Silver Streak.
83. Sister Act. I'm ashamed to admit this, but when I first saw this, I sort of liked it. But that was when I was thirteen and had no taste in movies (or much of anything else) yet. From the small pieces I've seen since, it doesn't look horrible, just bad. But there's also the Whoopi factor, which automatically drops it down several notches.
82. Tootsie. This is where the list officially becomes a major joke. The American Film Institute named this the second best comedy ever (Some Like it Hot was #1), and I understand why. This story of cross-dressing male actor could have been way over the top (ahem...Mrs. Doubtfire), but instead worked wonderfully well thanks to a superb cast including Dustin Hoffman and Bill Murray. This is one of the ten best comedies I've seen. As you peruse the rest of the list, keep remembering how low Tootsie is.
81. Half Baked. Something starring Dave Chappelle is ranked ahead of Tootsie. Dustin Hoffman must be rolling over in his grave. What? He's still alive? Oh...never mind.
80. Lost in America. I usually like Albert Brooks' movies, though not to the extent my Uncle Steve does. I haven't seen this one yet.
79. Three Amigos. Surprised to see this one this low. It seems like a standard silly comedy. It had a plethora of hilarious moments.
78. Bananas.
77. Flirting with Disaster.
76. Ghostbusters. This holds up pretty well two decades later, even with some old school special effects. It takes a couple viewings to catch a good chunk of the humor though.
75. Dumb and Dumber. Considering some of the dumb comedies on the list, this should definitely be higher.
74. Trading Places.
73. City Slickers. Billy Crystal is one of my favorite funny men, and the western is very ripe for jokes. Mix 'em together, and you have this solid comedy.
72. Moonstruck. Cher is in this one, which came out almost 20 years ago. And she looks the same. I'm not watching it.
71. Roxanne.
70. The Nutty Professor (Eddie Murphy). It's hard to believe that Eddie Murphy was once the biggest comedy movie star on the planet.
69. The Blues Brothers. The original or the sequel?
68. Broadcast News. This sometimes scathing comedy was definitely funnier since I work in media.
67. Kingpin. Hilarious at times, but ultimately too over-the-top.
66. Dazed and Confused. There are a few acclaimed movies that I just don't get; this is one of them.
65. Office Space. Speaking of not getting things, the first time I saw this, I didn't get it. Then I saw it about 3905 times during my sophomore year of college. At some point, it clicked, and now (especially since I work in an office) I realize that this is one of the best comedies in recent years.
64. This is Spinal Tap. Definitely the best of Christopher Guest's mockumentaries, although Rob Reiner actually directed this one. The mock rock songs are amazingly good, in a horrible sort of way.
63. Manhattan. I don't entirely mesh with Woody Allen's humor. Rarely do I laugh out loud while watching his films, although I do smirk or shake my head for a good portion of them.
62. The Pink Panther.
61. Election.
60. When Harry Met Sally. Best relationship comedy ever, because most of it is true, not over the top. Should be 50 spots higher.
59. Police Academy Series. Seen a few minutes of these. Awful.
58. Private Benjamin.
57. Swingers. A movie by guys, for guys, best seen with a group of guys. You'll cringe; you'll laugh; you'll cry. Well done.
56. Young Frankenstein.
55. Bull Durham. This is almost a chick flick, despite the baseball theme. The makers' understanding of the game's magic is what makes it worth anything, not the comedy.
54. Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Meh.
53. Dr. Strangelove. The standard for satirical black comedies, and further proof that this list is rigged. IF this were #1, I wouldn't argue.
52. Meet the Parents. I like seeing this one here, except...see #25.
51. National Lampoon's Vacation. You see a movie like this, and you wonder why there aren't more good movies parodying family vacations. It seems so effortless, yet very funny.
50. The Princess Bride. How is this not in the top ten? Does anyone not like this brilliant combination of satire and adventure? ANYONE?!? That's right, it's inconceivable.
49. American Pie.
48. American Graffiti. This was a comedy?
47. 9 to 5.
46. The Incredibles. If this is classified as a comedy, where the heck are the two Toy Story movies?
45. Raising Arizona.
44. Sixteen Candles.
43. What About Bob? I first saw this one with a bunch of people who thought it was the greatest thing ever, which caused the foil in me to shrug it off. But I usually like Bill Murray, so maybe it needs another chance.
42. Harold and Maude.
41. Austin Powers. The original was quite sharp, parodying Bond movies in particular, and not descending into crass humor too much. But they couldn't continue that edge, and the others aren't nearly as crisp or funny.
40. Monty Python and the Holy Grail. What?!? Can we sic that killer rabbit on Bravo?
39. Mrs. Doubtfire. Stop and think for a moment! This is one of the 40 best comedies ever? That claim is funnier than the movie.
38. Best In Show. Definitely shouldn't be ahead of Spinal Tap or Guffman.
37. Dodgeball. My goodness. This isn't a list based on how funny movies should have been, is it?
36. Good Morning Vietnam.
35. Beetlejuice.
34. Rushmore.
33. Clerks. The whole Jay and Silent Bob thing...don't get it. Maybe I should have smoked more weed.
32. Groundhog Day. Bill Murray is fantastic in this one, perfectly making the transition from an arrogant prick to...well, a recovering arrogant prick. Move this one up.
31. The Big Lebowski.
30. The 40-Year Old Virgin.
29. Legally Blonde. The fact that this is here is a testament to how good Reese Witherspoon was, because the movie was largely routine.
28. Annie Hall. There were a few scenes in here that make me laugh quite hard, particuarly when Woody is chasing the lobster with a dish of butter.
27. A Fish Called Wanda. Always wanted to see this one. Never have.
26. Wayne's World.
25. Meet the Fockers. Did they think this was the first one? I don't know one person who thought this one was better than the original (#52).
24. Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.
23. Big. This one's sweet, not in a Bill & Ted way, but in a borderline saccharine way. Tom Hanks manages to infuse a soul into about anything, and it's enjoyable to see him do so even with a movie in which you see many things coming.
22. Beverly Hills Cop. This is when Eddie Murphy was actually funny. Through the lenses of hindsight, I think his very good performance is less appreciated because so many comedians, black ones in particular, ripped off his act that it become somewhat cliche.
21. Shampoo.
20. The Jerk. I haven't seen the whole thing, but I don't mind the ranking based solely on Steve Martin's opening line: I was born a poor black child...
19. Wedding Crashers. Still waiting for Vince Vaughn to play someone not based on his Swingers persona.
18. Stripes.
17. M*A*S*H.
16. Old School.
15. Fast Times At Ridgemont High.
14. Napoleon Dynamite. This movie caught lightning in a bottle, as much marketing force as good flick. It was weird; I liked it; I think it will fade over time.
13. Naked Gun Series.
12. The Producers.
11. Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. Are you serious?
10. Arthur.
9. Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. The low point in the history of the Miami Dolphins.
8. Blazing Saddles. This isn't nearly as cutting edge now as it no doubt was then.
7. The Wedding Singer. Was this really any funnier than Waterboy? It just had a little more soul and appealed to women better. Bah.
6. Airplane. I'm fine with this one here.
5. South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut. I'm just impressed they got the title by the censors.
4. There's Something About Mary.
3. Shrek. Liked it at the time; too smug in retrospect. Funnier movies from 2001: Bandits, Ocean's Eleven, Knockaround Guys.
2. Caddyshack. It seems that this was one of the first super-quotable guy movies, especially for those who like sports. It definitely had moments that will rank with any other, but like most of its genre, was hurt a little by it sketch comedy feel. I'd still put it pretty high on my list, but largely out of principle.
1. Animal House. Sort of kills the climax of the list that I haven't seen all of the #1 movie. Moments are definitely funny, but I don't have much of a desire to see the whole thing. Good thing we didn't give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

For the record, my ten funniest from this list are (in alphabetical order): Caddyshack, Dr. Strangelove, Groundhog Day, Monty Python & the Holy Grail, Office Space, Princess Bride, Swingers, This is Spinal Tap, Tootsie, When Harry Met Sally.

The most egregious omissions:

His Girl Friday. A breathtaking clinic on how to write and deliver rapid humorous dialogue. Makes Seinfeld look slow. It's absence is an utter outrage.
Men in Black: From a pure comedy standpoint, I probably laugh as much at this one as any other recent comedy. The chemistry of Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith is superb.
Toy Story x2. Well, if Incredibles is here...
Survivor: Pinata Island. Okay, not really. But among laughably bad movies, this is definitely top ten.

Shalom.

So dark the con of man, take two.

2006-06-14T09:13:00.000-05:00

The World Cup rocks. But that's not what I called about...

This isn't a true review of the film version of Da Vinci Code, although it will get my thoughts out there. I've taken some of my previously posted thoughts about the book and reacted to them after seeing the movie. New thoughts in italics...

--I was irked by the way author Dan Brown revealed things, by saying that the character knew or saw something, but not fully finishing that thought for dozens of chapters. It was slightly different than the usual end-of-chapter cliffhanger stuff, and in such a time-sensitive environment, it felt more like sleight of hand than a standard technique to keep the pages turning (although it did work).

Due to the time constraints of film, this technique was unsurprisingly a non-factor in the film. When it was used, the answer popped up shortly thereafter, before you could get annoyed.

As for how it might translate on film...

--Some books probably shouldn't be made into films, but this one simply screams movie. It's is all about visual symbols, and the powerful imagery should translate supremely well. I'm fairly excited. I just hope it's not aggressively anti-church/Christian.

Somehow the powerful imagery barely translated at all. Very few shots were remotely awe-inspiring, which is typical of a Ron Howard film. Underwhelming would the adjective of choice for both the pictures and the film as a whole.

--Good work on the casting, at least from a conceptual standpoint. Considering the somewhat controversial material, Tom Hanks is a particularly excellent choice, because nobody hates him, although some might afterward. Let's just say someone like Tom Cruise wouldn't have worked here.

The casting saved the film. I thought everyone did a fine job, and looked their parts quite well. They made watchable what seemed at times a rather silly story.

--Nearly the entire book is exposition, and how that exposition is handled on screen will be very interesting. First of all, it will have to be compacted, so the movie isn't nine hours long. Yet a ton of stuff will still need to be explained thoroughly enough to understand the story. I expect a good number of flashbacks, to both recent and ancient times, possibly with voiceovers by the actors. (I realize I could probably find this info if I wanted to, but I don't want to, so don't tell me.) I don't know how long it will be, but three hours wouldn't surprise me in the least.

The use of flashbacks in small segments, usually under narration, was well-done and effective.

The necessary simplification of the story definitely altered its impact though. The movie doesn't overwhelm you with information as the book did, presenting a stripped-down version of the story's gist. This definitely made the tale made it less "believable", and in turn pointed out how far-fetched Brown's massive idea is.

I think the natures of film and book came into play here too. Most things the average person reads are fact; while most things the average person sees on a screen are fiction. This subconscious foundation means that the movie is assumed to be just a story, and it never does enough to break out of that mold, limiting the persuasive power that is more prevalent in print.

--I can definitely see the movie being significantly better for those who have read the book, much like Harry Potter.

I'm curious as to what someone who knew nothing of the book thought, because I know I was using my knowledge of the book to fill in the movie's gaps, and was pulled along more by being curious how elements of the story would be told. I would think that a Da Vinci virgin would care less and understand less. But maybe not knowing the story makes it more compelling by adding to the intrigue. Who knows...

--So who's going with me?

Sorry Dad.

--All in all, it (the book) was good but not great, riding on the coattails of its historical content. If I knew the veracity of the information, it would have been a more comfortable read. On my movie scale, it would probably get a 7.

Having read the book, I'd say the movie experience was worth a six. But since I know I was mentally explaining shortcomings and confusing moments with my acquired knowledge, I drop the movie a notch. Five of ten.

Goal! Goal! Goal! Goal! Goal!

2006-06-08T21:02:00.000-05:00

The rest of my World Cup preview, with predicted order of finish, the must-see game of each group, and a few other comments.

Group B
England
Sweden
Paraguay
Trinidad & Tobago

Must-see game: England v. Sweden. Tuesday, June 20th, 2 PM on ESPN.

In 2002, England and Sweden played to a draw in the Group of Death, both moving on ahead of Argentina and Nigeria. Coaching in his last tournament as England's manager, Sven-Goran Eriksson is Swedish, just one of the wacky matchups created by the quirky world of international soccer.

Paraguay isn't a slouch, but England and Sweden should both get through fairly easily. T&T is just happy to be here; merely scoring a goal will cause riots.

Group C
Argentina
Serbia & Montenegro
Netherlands
Ivory Coast

Must-see game: Argentina v. Netherlands. Wednesday, June 21st, 2PM on ESPN.

In this year's Group of Death, this is the one game I most want to see in the group phase. One could make a decent case that these are two of the five best teams in the world, and they have a little history, as the Dutch knocked Argentina out in the quarters of the 1998 Cup. Plus they were both disappointing in 2002; the Netherlands didn't even make the finals, and Argentina didn't get out of their Group of Death. It's also the last game of the group, so either or both could be playing for their tournament lives. Too bad I probably won't see it.

More political fun: there are actually five countries represented here, because Serbia & Montenegro split last week, but soccer supercedes national boundaries, so here they are. You could make a case for any of these four teams to get through. Ivory Coast is an explosive bunch, and Serbia & Montenegro surrendered the fewest goals in European qualifying. All of which means I don't have a clue here.

Group D
Mexico
Portugal
Iran
Angola

Must-see game: Mexico v. Iran. Sunday, June 11th, 11 AM on ABC.

This game is worth watching from a negative point of view, as Mexico is USA's most hated soccer rival, and Iran is USA's most hated political rival that is at the World Cup. Plus there's the possibility that Iran's President Ahmadejwewektnsahk could get arrested in Germany for denying the Holocaust. That's always a fun sideshow.

None of the African countries except Tunisia have ever made the finals before. Thanks for coming, Angola.

Group E
Italy
United States
Ghana
Czech Republic

Must-see game: United States v. Czech Republic. Monday, June 12th, 11 AM on ESPN2.

The first game is a huge game for the U.S. The Czechs are banged up, and if our boys can steal a win, they'll have an excellent chance to advance. Even a draw would be a morale booster. A loss, particularly a bad one, might crush any hopes of moving on.

Don't think Ghana will be a push-over, as their aggressive style scares some people. Plus an African team, though usually lightly regarded, has made the knockout phase every year since 1990, when this format was introduced. They're the 12-seed of the World Cup. Italian soccer is a mess right now, as the best league there is being rocked by a massive match-fixing scandal, so it will be interesting to see how that turmoil affects the team.

Group F
Brazil
Croatia
Australia
Japan

Must-see game: Croatia v. Australia. Thursday, June 22, 2 PM on ESPN2.

I don't know all the political reasons behind it, but there are several players of Croatian descent on the Socceroos' team. Australia has been dissed a few times by the international soccer community as well, so this should be a chippy contest.

If Brazil doesn't win the group, that will be a shock. I doubt Japan can replicate their feat of reaching the second round at home in 2002, so Croatia-Australia may well be an elimination game.

Group G
France
South Korea
Switzerland
Togo

Must-see game: France v. Switzerland. Tuesday, June 13th, 2 PM on ESPN2.

As defending champions, France didn't score a goal in the 2002 World Cup. There are plenty of questions about this team, but one of them is not Thierry Henry, who is one of the best forwards in the world. To separate yourself from soccer newbies, know that his name is pronounced tee-AIR-ee on-REE. Anyway, the Frenchies will try to re-establish themselves in their opener against a stingy Swiss defense.

South Korea will try to prove their 2002 fourth place run wasn't just a product of playing at home. If Togo salvages a point at all, the country may burn down.

Group H
Ukraine
Tunisia
Spain
Saudi Arabia

Must-see game: Ukraine v. Spain. Wednesday, June 14th, 8 AM on ESPN2.

At least one top seed always fails to advance, and partially because Spain often underachieves in the international play, I think they will be this year's victim, even in a relatively weak group. Ukraine has striker Andriy Shevchenko (the soccer player in that Sportscenter commercial with Scott Van Pelt), who may be the world's best player not named Ronaldinho.

Tunisia will be the African team to advance. Saudi Arabia won't lose 8-0 like they did to Germany in 2002, but they again won't likely get a point.

Second Round
Germany d. Sweden
England d. Paraguay
Argentina d. Portugal
Mexico d. Serbia & Montenegro
Italy d. Croatia
Brazil d. United States
Tunisia d. France
Ukraine d. South Korea

Quarterfinals
Argentina d. Germany
England d. Mexico
Italy d. Tunisia
Brazil d. Ukraine

Semifinals
Argentina d. Italy
Brazil d. England

Third Place (not that anyone cares)
England d. Italy

Championship
Brazil d. Argentina

I don't necessarily like the idea of picking two South American teams in the final. Then again, one has made it there in the last five World Cups, with Brazil doing the honors in the last three. Let's rock and roll.

Here's a test picture of the World Cup poster. I think it's way too happy for a tournament being played in Germany. Anyway, I'm hoping to provide updates, including pictures, while I'm in Israel. So I thought I'd better know how to post images.

Gooooooooooooal!

2006-06-08T00:21:00.000-05:00

I have several things I want to post, but the immediacy of this takes priority...

In case you didn't know, the biggest sporting event in the world starts tomorrow: The World Cup. I know everyone doesn't like soccer, and that's fine. I'm not one of those militant soccer fans who wants to cram the game down everyone's throat. However, this is the World Freaking Cup, the biggest sporting event on the planet. If the peerless passion that pervades every game and nation can't get you at least a little excited, then you have no soul.

With that said, here is the first part of a brief primer on what you need to know:

How it works: There are 32 nations, split into eight pools (labeled A through H) of four. Each of the four teams plays the other one time, tallying 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. The two teams with the most points after the six games advance to the knockout phase, 16 teams bracketed off, NCAA tournament style. Winner moves on, loser goes home.

A look at each group is coming, with teams in my predicted order of finish, and the one game you must see in each group. Group A today to provide time to rearrange your schedule, the rest tomorrow.

Group A
Germany
Poland
Ecuador
Costa Rica

Germany v. Costa Rica, 11 AM CT, Friday. Germany should cruise in both this game and the group. But it's the first game, therefore it's a must-see. I doubt it will equal the thrilling opener from 2002, when Senegal upset defending champion France 1-0, but it also starts five hours later than that game did, which is nice.

I am so completely excited.

Adrenaline. You're gonna feel this.

2006-05-22T08:52:00.000-05:00

Making a good film sequel is a tricky task. The very reasons that demand a sequel are part of its downfall. The original is usually a good movie, or popular at the very least. Expectations are thus built in, and while succeeding at the box office often isn't difficult, creating a quality movie is an entirely different challenge. If a movie exceeds expectations (Batman Begins), then the reviews often rave more than they might have otherwise. Similarly, if a movie fails to deliver (The Matrix Revolutions, Godfather III), opinions will be harsher than the film merits. Occasionally a movie will precisely intersect with the expectations (at least mine), resulting in a satisfying experience that doesn't stir the viewer aggressively one way or the other. Enter Mission: Impossible III.

Following 1996's very good Mission: Impossible and 2000's so-so sequel, M:I-3 takes place not long following, as Tom Cruise's agent Ethan Hunt is trying to settle down in his relationship with Julia (Michelle Monaghan). Of course an international crisis arises, and he is therefore forced to balance his personal life with the immediate demands of his secret superspy life.

That's where first-time movie director J.J. Abrams comes in. As creator of television's Alias and Lost, his specialty is exploring the personal and psychological sides of people placed in extreme situations, an aspect that needed to be injected into this franchise. The original touched on it a little, but was so plot-driven that character was scarcely necessary. M:I-2 tried to add a personal touch, but in a largely ineffective manner more referenced than shown. Blatantly adding a layer of humanity in this third edition proves to be a key choice if for no other reason than to differentiate it from its predecessor.

That is because the M:I-3 itself is fairly straightforward, with a plot complex in a less gimmicky way than M:I-2 but not as labyrinthine as M:I. In fact the lack of uniqueness is the movie's biggest weakness. Little of the movie is poorly done, but the wow factor is also largely absent. With the exception of one good cringe-inducing moment, nothing will induce a significant reaction from the viewer. This can be attributed to the inherent nature of both the franchise and the genre. It's a Mission: Impossible movie, so you know you're getting outrageous stunts, daring covert operations, and plenty of action; and you more or less know who's living and dying. You don't know the precise route the movie is going to take, you know the starting point, the destination, and a few pit stops in between. Like a superhero film, suspension of disbelief is required, but there is no ethereal mythos present in good superhero movies, which limits the emotional power here.

All of that that isn't entirely a bad thing. There's a comfort in seeing familiar characters in a mostly predictable action flick, as long as the movie is decently made, which this is. Abrams does not take noticeable chances, but more importantly he does not make noticeable mistakes. He does not overwhelm the story with his style, something that John Woo struggled with in M:I-2. Abrams' trademark hand-held camera shots, which looked like they might be obtrusive in the trailers, work well with the kinetic energy of the picture. Once M:I-3 kicks things in gear, it doesn't stop, and still wraps things up in timely fashion. Abrams wisely kept the movie compact at just over two hours, in part by opting not to explain key MacGuffins and omitting scenes that would have been redundant, leaving the movie fresh enough to please until the end.

Mission: Impossible III is cinematic fast food. You choose a restaurant like Wendy's because you like something there (mmm...spicy chicken) and you know what you're getting. When finished, you aren't blown away by the quality, but neither are you left wanting for something better. Same thing here. Given the path that this franchise has traveled, you won't walk out raving about M:I-3, but neither will you be disappointed. While that leaves the viewer in a strange emotional limbo, it's also reassuring that decent summer blockbusters can still be produced in an era with far too many big budget disasters like Catwoman.

Bottom Line: Go see it. Have a good time. Enjoy the ride. 7 of 10, which may be a point high just because it's the start of the summer season.

**SPOILER ALERT**

P.S. Who else liked the Lost similarities? Running along with the camera? CPR anyone? When it initially didn't work, I was thinking Jack needed to be there to pound on the chest cavity. Voila. It worked again.

Let's roll.

2006-05-07T20:08:00.000-05:00

New review for United 93, a film I recommend seeing before the onslaught of summer blockbusters...

I also recommend George Will's column about the movie. Good stuff. (link should be fixed now)

Made less than five years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, United 93 is a film that could have failed on a dozen different levels. Perhaps the chronological proximity and the sobriety of the events minimize the artistic license taken, which in turn contributes to the film's realistic power, which is as compelling as any in cinema since Saving Private Ryan.

United 93 tastefully concentrates on the titular flight, which was the day's sole hijacked airplane that failed to reach its destructive destination. Equally enlightening are scenes set in a handful of air traffic control centers, ranging from the regional to the national level, and one military outpost. The cumulative effect, which fascinatingly is not explicitly noted until the closing titles, points out how truly heroic the efforts of those on United 93 were, considering how utterly confused those on the ground were. The film also parenthetically comments on the changes in the mindset and security of America in the last half decade, not preaching but rather just noting in retrospect. Much like the bombing of Pearl Harbor, numerous incidents in the film leave the viewer in head-shaking wonder as to how they occurred. One must realize that for the most part the tragedies were not due to incompetence, but the unfathomable concepts behind the nefarious plots. Remembering how different things like air travel were five years ago will make one realize how much innocence was lost on that fateful day and how drastically the world has evolved in the short time since then.

Although British, Director Paul Greengrass proves to be a near perfect choice to helm United 93, no doubt due to his prior experience with films similar in content (Bloody Sunday) and style (The Bourne Supremacy). Sunday was a bleak docudrama about Irish protesters who were killed by British troops, a likewise resonant theme (at least from the Irish perspective). His jittery hand-held camera method, borderline nauseating in Supremacy, works very well in the more static environment, effectively depicting the confined chaos of the day's events.

The wisest choices made by Greengrass and company are intentional decisions to avoid convention. Virtually no familiar faces or names appear among the cast, and many of the professionals actually play themselves. Even casting character actors with recognizable faces would have degraded the film, as the actors' anonymity contributes heavily to the film's natural and relateble everyman quality. There are few of those overly dramatic shots that can only occur when knowing what happens next. Several shots do linger, but are more poignant than heavy-handed, and would likely be unnoticeable if the viewer didn't know the future.

Being cognizant of the entire story definitely strengthens the emotional impact, uniquely accenting the drama of mundane events rather than plot direction. Leading up the hijacking, all of the flight's events, expressed as normally as possible, serve as an contrasting anticipatory requiem far more heart-wrenching than any such scene bolstered with slow motion or dramatic music. Imagine how differently one would view every little thing knowing it was one's last time to experience such minutia. That is the quiet power of these early scenes.

If there is a misstep, it is simply in trying to cover too much. But such an error could easily have been glaring instead of subtle, and the brisk two-hour running length is refreshingly neither compacted nor strung out. However, bouncing from the intimate setting on the flight to the more impersonal bedlam among controllers produces an occasionally uneven tenor that disrupts the emotional connection. That dissimilitude is also a necessary evil though, as seeing the collage of events is required to contextualize the key individual snapshot.

For those who looking for a gripping and affecting true story that provides rare optimism about the human race, or perhaps for those who are curious to see how our nation has changed so much in so little time, this will likely be one of the best movie experiences of the year. But as well as the United 93 was made, it is not for everyone. Some people simply will not be comfortable watching these events, whether it be the recent nature of the attacks or the genre itself. Those people are not at fault, as once familiar shots and stories are again shockingly potent. This is not a film that everyone should see, although everyone ought to be reminded of the themes present. Some will come away dwelling on the failures that took place, but that's not what the film is about. United 93 cathartically calls attention to what changed that day, how it did so, and the honorable self-sacrificial traits that surfaced in a time of crisis.

Bottom Line: 9 of 10 for what might be the best film of the year. A weighty yet touching social and emotional statement.

Yo, Frodo! Eyes up here!

2006-04-26T21:26:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Ben N. for supplying the impetus for this post.

The MTV Movie Awards aren't good for much. The exceptions are usually a couple of sometimes hilarious spoofs, the even funnier juxtaposition of serious dramas and bizarre comedies (among last year's Best Picture nominees: Ray and Napoleon Dynamite), and the offbeat categories. The 2003 Best Kiss award, for example, honored the upside-down smooch from Spider-man. Seriously, what guy in the target demographic wasn't wowed by that? The Kill Bill films picked up a couple for Best Fight, etc.

So the unique categories are the only ones that I really care about, and I usually use that term quite loosely. Until this year. Let's review the Best Fight nominees...

Stephen Chow vs. Axe Gang - Kung Fu Hustle

I didn't actually see this one, but judging from the trailers and simply the name of the fight, I think I'm okay with it.

Angelina Jolie vs. Brad Pitt - Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Hot people fighting and making out. Fine.

Ewan McGregor vs. Hayden Christensen - Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

Absolutely. Great fight, particularly when intercut with Yoda combating the Emperor. In fact that should probably be mentioned. Then again, Yoda won for his excellent work in Episode II, so maybe they wanted to spread the wealth.

Kong vs. the planes - King Kong

Obviously, they couldn't have overlooked the best fight in...WHAT? PLANES?! STINKING PLANES!? What about...oh, I don't know...THE THREE T-REXES?!? How can far and away the best movie moment of last year be omitted? How can anyone forget about the scene that elicited the most visceral reaction since Saving Private Ryan? It's not like this was in some little import arthouse film. It's KING FREAKING KONG! Has anyone even discussed the planes scene since then? NO! I still have Kong versus the T-Rex as my computer wallpaper four months later, and occasionally get chills just thinking about that scene. Just think about the single line description; what sounds cooler? Kong versus planes, or Kong versus three T-Rexes? Enough said. They could have legitimately not even nominated any others. That's how not close this category is.

This is stultifying. And you wonder why MTV is no longer relevant...

So dark the con of man.

2006-04-22T19:15:00.000-05:00

Since Pastor Jim is about to start a two-week series about The Da Vinci Code, and the movie is coming out on May 19th (barring any more legal issues), I decided to read the book this week. A few comments, first strickly on the book, then on the book-to-movie transition.

--I'm a little puzzled as to why the book is so popular. It's an interesting treasure hunt of a book, filled with powerful symbols, but it doesn't seem to be that accessible to the common person. I'm guessing it took off in the "educated" community because they thought it was a thriller that required knowledge of higher things like art and history. I suppose the whole religion factor appeals to nearly everyone people though.

--Composed largely of exposition, it reads like a combination of thriller and textbook. The tricky part is that you're never quite sure what things treated as fact are true and what are false. I kept looking for footnotes explaining where bits of information came from. I'm sure there are plenty of books and websites that go through the book point-by-point; but while reading, I was occasionally annoyed because I didn't know how much of the theories, places, and history was true. Considering that many of the claims theoretically jolt the foundations of Christianity, that caused me to keep the book somewhat at a distance.

--I was irked by the way author Dan Brown revealed things, by saying that the character knew or saw something, but not fully finishing that thought for dozens of chapters. It was slightly different than the usual end-of-chapter cliffhanger stuff, and in such a time-sensitive environment, it felt more like sleight of hand than a standard technique to keep the pages turning (although it did work).

--All in all, it was good but not great, riding on the coattails of its historical content. If I knew the veracity of the information, it would have been a more comfortable read. On my movie scale, it would probably get a 7. By the way...

--Who the heck thinks up all that?

As for how it might translate on film...

--Some books probably shouldn't be made into films, but this one simply screams movie. It's is all about visual symbols, and the powerful imagery should translate supremely well. I'm fairly excited. I just hope it's not aggressively anti-church/Christian.

--Good work on the casting, at least from a conceptual standpoint. Considering the somewhat controversial material, Tom Hanks is a particularly excellent choice, because nobody hates him, although some might afterward. Let's just say someone like Tom Cruise wouldn't have worked here.

--Nearly the entire book is exposition, and how that exposition is handled on screen will be very interesting. First of all, it will have to be compacted, so the movie isn't nine hours long. Yet a ton of stuff will still need to be explained thoroughly enough to understand the story. I expect a good number of flashbacks, to both recent and ancient times, possibly with voiceovers by the actors. (I realize I could probably find this info if I wanted to, but I don't want to, so don't tell me.) I don't know how long it will be, but three hours wouldn't surprise me in the least.

--I can definitely see the movie being significantly better for those who have read the book, much like Harry Potter.

--So who's going with me?

The Dime Bag, volume VI.

2006-04-16T14:21:00.000-05:00

Once the Oscars are over, I tend to slack off in my movie-viewing for a month or so for a couple of reasons. Primarily, I usually cram in enough movies in the month before to make up for the drought. Secondly, March and April are typically a dumping period for movie distributors, when they release all of their even-worse-than-usual fare that would never make it during the prime summer or holiday seasons. Seriously, look at the movies in theaters right now. You probably haven't heard of half of them, let alone have any interest in seeing any.

All of that really has nothing to do with why it took me so long to put up this slightly expanded edition of The Dime Bag, but it did make for a nice intro. Many of these films were of the independent variety, so if you haven't seen or heard of any, don't feel bad.

3-Iron--This Korean film has very little to do with golf, but moves at a similar pace to that game. A twenty-something male transient spends his nights at the homes of vacationing or otherwise absent citizens, but actually leaves the apartments in better condition, fixing broken appliances, washing clothes, or watering plants "in exchange" for the lodging and food. When he wanders into a house still occupied by a model-turned-battered woman, the film turns into a middling second act. Then in the final portion, the path of the entire film takes a different direction, one more curious and ethereal right to the last shot. The movie effectively draws upon innate voyeuristic tendencies to encourage the pondering of what one might do in a similar situation, and is a pleasant change of pace from most Asian import films. The nearly tacit actors peform well, although more emotion would have given the movie more mass appeal. This is a meandering film that requires a little dedication and thought to get through. (7)

Grizzly Man--O-VER-RA-TED! Clap...clap...clapclapclap. The footage in this documentary about bear-lover Timothy Treadwell is jaw-dropping, but the guy was so crazy and deluded that he never evokes the almost manipulative sympathy that pretentious filmmaker Warner Herzog undoubtedly wanted. It's often very entertaining, but as the insanity becomes more apparent and the novelty wanes, the overall appeal weakens. (6)

Murderball--Speaking of overrated documentaries...this one about wheelchair-bound rugby players never quite decides what it wants to be. Is it an uplifting tale of athletes overcoming odds? Or an exploratory sympathetic look at physically limited people? Or just another sports story about enemies who were once friends? In its attempts to do all of these things well, none are fully examined. Combine that with one completely out-of-place sequence, and the result is an inconsistent doc that is just okay. (6)

Downfall--I think if I had seen this film when I was more prepared for it, Downfall would easily have been in my year-end top five. It's simply a stunning movie, leaving one staring at the screen in disbelief while watching the final frantic days of Hitler and his Third Reich. A more rounded, although still disillusioned Fuhrer is seen, and the German production gives the illusion of actually watching a documentary. This left as lasting an impression as any of last year's work not featuring apes or centaurs. (8)

Kings and Queen--This is in every way a French film, as the story about a man and woman now only connected by their lovechild is eschewed in favor of character development. The center of the film is cloudy in its purpose, and there are far too many scenes that run far too long. That's a shame, because the characters are truly interesting. A tighter and/or more focused plot could have made this a good film. As is, don't bother. (5)

Broken Flowers--This film starring Bill Murray could almost be a sequel to Lost in Translation. With his humorous, quirky, and deliberate style, he owns the whole movie through his usual superb performance as a retired computer millionaire who sets off in search of the sender of an anonymous letter that informs him he has a son. But he has no foil who is nearly as interesting or has nearly as much screen time as Scarlett Johansson's role in Translation, and thus the road picture is never as good as it could be. Recommended mostly for fans of Murray, but not for kids. (7)

Capote--Although I'm not sure why, I didn't expect to like this biopic of author Truman Capote. That made the fact that I came away wholly impressed by every one of its pieces all the more remarkable. Phillip Seymour Hoffman earned the Oscar about two minutes into his performance, and a very solid yet understated surrounding cast accented and supported his superb turn. The manner in which Capote, who was clearly a man of questionable morals, was portrayed was the best aspect of the film. He wasn't painted in too positive light, as in some hagiographic movies about criminals or demented people. But neither did the filmmakers go out of their way to slander his idiosyncratic lifestyle, a task that would have been very easy. Instead there is a perfect medium between the two, one that simply tells the story without prejudice. That's a rare feat in today's cinematic world filled with agendas (agendae?). High marks for one of the best films from 2005. (8)

Walk the Line--As I said in my year-end report, this is Ray with white people, Johnny Cash instead of Ray Charles. Joaquin Phoenix is quite good, and Reese Witherspoon is fine, although not Oscar-worthy in my opinion. Seeing music legends and their music portrayed on screen is more interesting than the story itself, whichruns about half an hour too long and feels even longer because the material is standard biopic stuff. (6)

The Upside of Anger--Witherspoon stole the Oscar from Joan Allen in this movie, even though Allen wasn't even nominated. This adult drama is about a high society woman who must adapt to a different familial role when her husband absconds with his secretary is the definition of an acting tour-de-force, as Allen runs the gauntlet of emotions with a deft and mesmerizing presence rarely seen. One thing holding the movie back is the fact that every single character is wildly screwed up. The other is that a few events seem a little too contrived, as though written solely for the purpose of Allen's reaction (which, incidentally, they were). (6)

Inside Man--Good heist film, thanks to very high production value from cast and crew. The three leads (Denzel, Clive, Jodie) are stellar as usual, bringing gravitas to a genre that lends itself to a lighter nature. Spike Lee's directorial hand is evident, as he adds his own flavor with a few unique shots and African-tinged music. It probably doesn't rank with the best of the genre, but still stands out in the spring cinematic desert. (7)

V for Vendetta--I started a review for this one, but never finished, so here are the rambling pieces...

From the makers of The Matrix trilogy comes V for Vendetta, an adaptation of a graphic novel about one masked man's vindictive efforts to take down a futuristic, fascist government. But who is this man and why is vengance his sole focus? Well,that's why you see the movie.

Because the primary protagonist sports a Guy Fawkes mask for the majority of Vendetta, involvement on a personal level is limited. In place of that emotion is a desire to understand the whole story, to know who this man is and why he driven to vengance. Portman is more of a catalyst/McGuffin. The viewer is involved more due to a desire to understand whole story. That's why it works, because of the deliberate reveal. Had it started at the beginning and then told, it wouldn't have worked. It somewhat reminds of Matrix Reloaded with its combination of lengthy exposition and explosive action. Vendetta should probably be seen on the big screen, for the bold scope of its visuals. (7)

Less than three weeks until the summer movie season kicks off with Mission: Impossible III. I don't think I'll get to see a preview of this one with Tom Cruise. Oh well.

There's more to the game than shooting. There's fundamentals and defense.

2006-03-20T12:10:00.000-06:00

Fallout from another (mostly) great opening weekend of the NCAA tournament.

--On Selection Sunday, when Bradley was revealed as KU's first-round opponent, my immediate reaction was ewwww, that's a ridiculously tough 13-seed, but they don't matchup well with the 'Hawks. I stick with that statement. Losing to the Braves isn't horrible, but the method of doing so was less than impressive. KU just didn't show up. Sure, Bradley shot lights out; but until the final couple minutes, the Jayhawks didn't display the aggressive urgency (on offense or defense) that propelled them to occasional greatness this season. The guards in particular had too many turnovers and didn't get the ball inside enough, just check the free throw discrepancy. The youngsters should learn from this, and if there's a silver lining, it's that all the freshmen and sophomores will be back next year. Still, first-round losses are tough to take for players and fans, particuarly when it happens for the second year in a row after never happening in my lifetime.

--I watched Bill Self for a couple years at Illinois when I was at Wheaton, and think he's a great teacher and coach. When Benedict left for North Carolina, Self was immediately the only man I wanted for the job. So this isn't necessarily a criticism. But I'm not sure he schemes enough against "lesser" opposition, figuring that his team is good enough to win simply by doing what they do well. He's correct in thinking that KU has that much talent, at least against anyone they'll see in the first round, but that sort of thought process doesn't account for bad nights. Adjustments can often make the difference when things just are a little off, as they were on Friday. Maybe mix the zone or a press in earlier, just to throw off Bradley's rhythm. Double-team O'Bryant better or differently. Maybe throw the ball into the post several times in a row to get O'Bryant in foul trouble or get the bigs' confidence going. KU's B game would have beaten Bradley, and even their C- game nearly did. Self has a great tournament track record with Illinois and Tulsa, so I'm not overly concerned, nor should he be remotely concerned about job security. However a few tweaks can make the difference in games like this, and I'm not sure Self did quite enough on Friday.

--The best part about three mid-majors advancing to the Sweet Sixteen is that Billy Packer has a heaping plate of crow sitting in front of him. Numerous times over the weekend, Jim Nantz (who I think was playing along with Packer more than actually believing what he said) went out of his way to compliment the Missouri Valley and George Mason on their accomplishments, while Packer was blaringly quiet. Faaaaaaantastic.

--My shoulder's a little sore from patting myself on the back, but I have thirteen of the Sweet Sixteen correct, including Wichita State and Georgetown. I have lost only one Elite Eight pick and zero Final Four teams. This of course means that I'm completely screwed from here on out, but I'll take the glory while it lasts.

--I'm ready to throw things at the television during almost every commercial break, thanks to the ubiquity of spots by Applebees and Cingular in particular. Speaking of Cingular, notice how the minority is always the smart one in ads like that. I'm just saying...

One Shining Moment, day two.

2006-03-17T11:47:00.000-06:00

High quality first day of action, with four double-digit seeds advancing. I only got 11 of the 16 games right, but more importantly, didn't lose any Sweet Sixteen teams.

Today's real debate is whether or not I should wear my lucky KU shirt during tonight's game against Bradley. Given the shirt's appellation, the answer might seem obvious, but it's not. The shirt is 14-1 on the season, with its only failure being the regular season contest at Texas. However, I didn't wear the shirt during the Big 12 tournament, not wanting to drain it of any potential magic. Then KU won the tournament. Thus the dilemma. Nine hours to decide...

11:30--Verne Lundquist, age 66, is doing the games at Auburn Hills, KU's site, with Bill Raftery. I just hope that Verne dies on the air, so Raftery can use one of his trademark calls: Send it in, Verne!

1:45--THERE IT IS! Fourteen seed Northwestern State's Jermaine Wallace drains a fade-away, guy-in-his-face trey from the corner with half a second left to knock off third-seeded Iowa by one. That's what these first few days are all about: Spencer and NWSU creating their (ahem) one shining moment. On a side note, I'm gunning for the ol' Golden Sombrero on 8-vs.-9 games. Oh-fer so far, with UK-UAB left. I picked the Blazers, so go bet the house on Kentucky.

3:02--The whole 16-seed-hanging-with-a-one-seed story was nice, as Oral Roberts led Memphis with five minutes left in the first half. But the Tigers, now up a dozen at the half, are way too athletic and talented for the upset to happen. Plus I picked them to the Final Four. Someday it will occur, like it almost did to Purdue in 1996, when Western Carolina missed a three for the win at the buzzer. That day will be phenomenal, but that day is not today.

4:32--A fairly tame second session today. Northern Iowa gave Georgetown a run, but couldn't hang with the bigger and stronger Hoyas in the end. The Missouri Valley may lose all three games today, making them one-for-four in the first round. But if pundits (and by pundits I mean morons) like Billy Packer use this as ammunition in their battle against mid-majors, they only further establish their ineptitude. If Bradley loses, none of the losses today would be unexpected, as all three teams were underdogs, with seeds of 10, 11, & 13. The entire league can now do no worse than play exactly to the seeds. So don't go off about how the Valley underperformed in the tournament. Just shut up.

6:26--What the heck? Both the Topeka and the Kansas City CBS affiliates chose to carry the UConn-Albany game instead of Pittsburgh-Kent State, which is not only a better game, but will also produce KU's next opponent should the Jayhawks win. Who in the world is running this station? To compound matters, the Pitt game is blacked out online because the local affiliate is carrying it. NO IT ISN'T! How hard is this to get right? I guess the CBS stupidity isn't limited to the corporate level.

6:47--This is where the local CBS affiliates improperly say I told you so. Pitt is up 20 on Kent State, and UConn is tied with Albany. That doesn't legitimatize their argument though; that would be results-oriented thinking. The decision was made before the games, and based on all the information and probabilities, Pitt-Kent State would be the better and more interesting game to people in their viewing area. Albany won't pull this upset (see earlier comment about Memphis), but if they did, I'm all for it, even though it would knock out my champion. I would readily sacrifice my bracket for the biggest shock of all time.

8:29--Heck of an effort by Albany, but the ol' 34-9 run by UConn to end the game will get you everytime. Even with Albany up twelve with eleven minutes left, you would have been hard-pressed to find someone who truly thought the Great Danes could hang on for the win. Someday... I find it very interesting that Rudy Gay wasn't in the game during the most important five minutes of UConn's season, when they needed to come back from a double digit deficit. This guy is supposed to be the #1 pick in the NBA Draft? I don't think so.

That's it for the night. I'm taking the KU game off. I hope the Jayhawks don't too.

One Shining Moment.

2006-03-16T10:33:00.000-06:00

Today is the first day of the NCAA tournament, and combines with tomorrow as two of the five best sports days of the year. Also in the running are Super Bowl Sunday, AFC/NFC Championship Sunday, and Opening Day/NCAA Championship Game.

By the way, One Shining Moment is one of the greatest three minutes of television ever. Last Sunday, as ESPN was switching to the KU-UT game, CBS ran last year's title game-ending montage. I knew the KU game was going, and yet I sat transfixed by the music and images of last year's tournament, with zero intent of flipping channels until it was over. I don't think anything short of Evangeline Lilly walking into the room would have diverted my attention. THAT is power.

Anyway, I have to sit at a computer all day "working", with a television in front of me, so I figured I'd keep a semi-running diary of sorts on what happens in the tournament. The most recent comment will be on the bottom. Enjoy...

10:40 AM--My Final Four: Texas, Memphis, UConn, Florida. UConn over Memphis for the title. Boring pick of a champion, but they're clearly the most talented team and have a great tournament coach. Of course, they screwed me over by losing in the second round last year.

10:45--Wichita State is the first game out of the gate. Even if I weren't a bit of a Missouri Valley fan, I'd root for them to go nuts in the tournament, just to spite Billy Packer. I didn't realize how little I had missed him until I saw him on the Selection Show, when I slumped my shoulders and let out an audible groan. He's the only downside of March Madness.

11:20--The ball is tipped...WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

12:15 PM--Maybe that last post should have said WOOOOOO, SHOCK! Wichita State 40, Seton Hall 24, halftime. Hey Nantz and Packer, put that in your power conference pipe and smoke it!

12:32--Three games at half, two mid-majors leading, one tied. I don't even care how their wins might destroy my bracket, long live the underdogs!

1:11--My brother just called me, bubbling over with March Madness. He said he might skip class to watch games. Something that of course I highly discourage. It reminded me of a story though. 2001 tournament, junior year at Wheaton, Old Testament Archaeology class. A disappointingly bland class, one in which you could easily skip a day and not feel as though you missed anything (something I learned second-hand...obviously). But the Friday in question, which unfortunately coincided with the second day of The Tournament, was an unskippable quiz day. I figured that was fine; I'd go to class, take the quiz, and split. Then tragedy struck. For whatever reason, Dr. Monson decided to have this quiz at the END of class. That was the longest hour of my life, the school equivalent of Red waiting the night to see what Andy did with that rope. Finally the class ended, and I broke land speed records racing back to my apartment on my bike. As I dashed in, the room was still buzzing about the dramatic victory 12th-seeded Gonzaga just pulled over 5th-seeded Virginia. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! It was the one buzzer beater of the tournament, and I missed it for 55 minutes of excruciating boredom and a five-minute quiz.

1:49--Wichita State and UW-Milwaukee (two mid-majors) have won; Pacific-BC is going to OT. It's faaaaaantastic. There was also a suspicious package found in a vendor cart by a dog in San Diego, delaying the start of those games. With all due respect, relying on what a dog sniffs in a condiment container seems a little sketchy. Everything in a hot dog cart is suspicious. Anyway, Pacific just buried a trey to take the lead over BC. Nothing like the possibility of losing an Elite Eight team in the third game.

2:18--With BC finally showing up in the second overtime, I currently have a perfect bracket, and my brother's Final Four is still intact. Yeah, only three games are done, but I have to brag while I can.

4:25--Still perfect (five for five), but I'd just as soon not be, because if Winthrop had hit a few key shots against Tennessee, we'd have just the fifth 15 seed to win a game. Ah well, UT's win will just make Wichita State's second-round victory all the more impressive. But the thing I'm most impressed with is that Vol Coach Bruce Pearl didn't sweat through his jacket again.

4:58--That was nice while it lasted. Montana knocked off Nevada in the best mascot matchup of the first round, Grizzlies versus Wolfpack. That's the federally mandated 12-over-5 upset. Pretty entertaining first session, and I'm already sick of the main Cingular/Pontiac/Coke commercials. Yep, it's March Madness.

6:47--Barry Tompkins is doing the play-by-play on the game my radio station is currently carrying. The funny thing is that although Tompkins is a veteran sportscaster, I had only previously heard him broadcast poker on FoxSportsNet. When all you've only ever heard a guy describe gamblers and cards, listening to actual basketball play-by-play is quite amusing, like watching Randy Moss or Terrell Owens play basketball. You know they're probably pretty good, but you can't get the ingrained image out of your head.

7:04--If Adam Morrison didn't look like he'd been touring with Phish for the last year, people wouldn't hate him as much. But the public generally hates those that succeed despite defying every concept of "normal". Cut his hair, shave his mustache, and he's not much different than J.J. Redick. Okay, that's not the best example, but Redick is accepted and admired much more now than he was when he first burst onto the NCAA scene. That's another reason Morrison is disliked; this is his first year on the national stage. Plus he's a whiny punk.

7:09--LSU's losing to Iona at half. At least I don't have them beating Duke in the Sweet Sixteen. Gulp.

8:03--Of the four games currently running, three are inside of ten minutes right now, and all three are reasonably close. I'm currently watching one on TV, watching one on the internet, and listening to the third. The fourth is a flick away on a different TV station. I love technology.

8:22--UNC-Wilmington just made two dumb decisions in the final fifteen seconds but somehow still got to overtime with George Washington. First they fouled a three-point shooter when leading by two, then forced an off-balance shot with five seconds still remaining. Looks like the committee got the GW seed just about right. And never mind that moment of LSU panic. Roar.

8:36--Good to see that CBS still doesn't have a clue what to do when two games are close inside the final minute. We just missed the UNC-W shot for the tie in the closing seconds in favor of a Gonzaga possession with thirty seconds left. Just pick one freaking game and stick with it. Stupid CBS (this will almost certainly be a running theme).

8:42--How does Gonzaga keep salvaging these games in which they trail the entire time? I haven't decided if Morrison is just that good or if they're sitting on a soon-to-run-out lucky horseshoe.

9:01--Here are the two television options for the late game here. Texas A&M, a Big 12 team, versus Syracuse, a team everyone around here loves to hate. Or Duke versus Southern, a game that will have less drama than most chick flicks. Guess which one we get? That's right, the latter. Stupid CBS.

9:10--To compound matters, I can't watch the A&M-Cuse game online because the game is blacked out claiming that's my local game, as is the Air Force-Illinois game, AND NEITHER ONE IS ACTUALLY ON! How am I supposed to mock Gerry McNamara now? I'm insane with anger.

And Blogger died...

...with honors.

2006-03-14T10:21:00.000-06:00

Here are my miscellaneous movie awards from 2005, a slightly more askance view of the last year of film. Feel free to add your own ideas. If you missed my Top Ten, the list is in the previous post.

Movie moment of the year: If I could watch only twenty minutes of any film from this year, it would easily be King Kong’s fight scene between Kong and the T-Rexes (T-Rexi?). The sheer physicality and brutality of it all simultaneously evokes painful screaming winces and yells of encouragement throughout. At the end of it, I was crying from exhilaration. One of my favorite movie scenes ever.

Best movie of the year and M. Night Shyamalan award (most underrated movie): Red Eye. The first award is basically for popcorn movies, movies that have no pretense of Oscar, no subtextual point, no greater meaning. Just pure entertainment. That’s what Red Eye is. Short (90 minutes) and to the point. My dad, brother, and I walked out with zero complaints, happily reliving the best parts. That’s what a good movie can do, and that’s what Red Eye does. But the fact that this is also a very well-made film is easily overlooked. The suspense is finely crafted with almost unnoticeable touches like a glance here or a quick cut-away there, and the interlaced humor keeps the tone from becoming too stuffy. Well done Wes Craven.

Unbreakable award (best trailer): With apologies to Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith, which gets you juiced simply because it’s Star Wars, the winner here is the first trailer for Red Eye. Most of it builds like a romantic comedy, then takes a U-turn as the name of director Wes Craven flashes onto the screen. Yet you still don’t know what the heck the movie is really about. Perfect.

Kangaroo Jack award (worst trailer): Son of the Mask. Hey, this looks like a sequel to The Mask! That was a good movie. Oooh, the dog’s back. Is Jim Carrey in this too? WHAT?! Jamie Kennedy?! And what’s with the baby? Oh dear…oh…no…it’s like like Look Who’s Talking except much, much worse. Wow. Who will possibly see that? Incidentally, it made $17 million…only about $60 million under budget.

Ocean’s Eleven award (best cinematic style and look): Sin City. This movie could be paused at random, and the frame in question would more likely than not be worthy of hanging on your wall. It looks that good. The high-def black-and-white digital video is simply sumptuous, and works well with the vicious and largely stoic tone of the film. Too bad the movie didn't have a soul.

Shakespeare in (expletive deleted) Love award (most overrated movie): For its exaggerated aggrandizing of birds, March of the Penguins had this one locked up until I got this month’s Premiere, in which the best reviewed movie of the year was Grizzly Man. Heck, throw in Murderball, which checked in at #15 on the list, and I guess it was overrated documentary year. Anyway, Grizzly Man has stunning nature footage and a tragic story, but the main character is so wacky and narrator Warner Herzog so pretentious that the haphazard movie nearly turns into a self-parody. Interesting, but not even among the year’s ten best.

Showgirls award (worst movie): The Great Raid. No interesting characters. Not much of a story. Implausible military action. Average battle scenes. It all adds up to the weakest war movie in recent years. Not truly the worst of the year, but I don’t see many bad movies, and this one was at the bottom of my heap. And don’t forget about the…

Van Helsing award (for unintentional comedy): The Great Raid featured hands down the unintentionally funniest scene of the year. Right before the titular climax, the elaborate attack plan is drawn haphazardly in the dirt. That in itself is funny, but the scene keeps going…and going. Lines are crossed; paths are erased; and by the end the ground in completely incomprehensible. Then the kicker, as the leader glances around suspiciously before sweeping the map away with his foot. Hilarious. This is exactly how SNL would parody such a scene.

Batman & Robin award (most disappointing sequel): Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire. Last year I wrote Can Azkaban be topped by new director Mike Newell? Nope. This isn’t really fair, because I didn’t dislike the fourth installment. Azkaban is a ridiculously good film. Goblet is just an average movie pushed higher by epic source material and what is already invested in the series.

Snake Eyes award (movie that took a dive in the last act): War of the Worlds. Last year I wrote Spielberg. Cruise. Aliens. Can it possibly miss? The answer is yes. Until the final ten minutes, I was hooked. It wasn’t great, but it was pretty good, and just needed to come to a decent conclusion, something Spielberg struggled with this year (see: Munich). But no, all the right people miraculously survive, and the machines get the flu. For all the build-up, both through action and emotion, the payoff simply must be better than that.

The Terminal award (movie that didn’t live up to its participants’ pedigree): The Interpreter. Directed by Sydney Pollack, Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman star in a thriller involving the United Nations. It sounds like a home run, but ends up as a long single, with a distant air that kept the audience at bay, except for ten very good minutes in the middle.

Coyote Ugly award (best bad movie): Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Watching Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie do nothing for two hours would probably be worth a movie ticket. Seeing them fight physically and verbally is quite enjoyable, despite the mediocrity of everything.

Deep Blue Sea award (wholly enjoyable movie that wasn’t that great): Four Brothers. Realism isn’t exactly a strongpoint, but vengeance certainly is. This is a ghetto-ized version of Boondock Saints, and the collective chemistry and attitude of the four leads are what carry the flick. Round up the boys for this popcorn movie that packs a violent punch.

Yogi Berra award (movie that triggered déjà vu all over again): Let’s see…Talented singer/songwriter overcomes the adversity of his youth to wow the music world with his own unique style. After marrying the girl of his dreams, this star sporting dark glasses struggles with the drug- and female-related temptations of the road, sending his personal life into turmoil while his professional life soars. Hmmm. Ray or Walk the Line? It’s the same thing! (Note: this was written before Jon Stewart made a similar joke at the Oscars.)

Chicago award (best cinematic evidence that women are completely insane): The Upside of Anger. Four daughters and one mother, all of which are high maintenance, none of which are stable. Some of the funniest parts of the movie, which isn’t a comedy, are the confused/frightened looks supplied by a boy marrying into the family. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Overlooked female performance: Joan Allen in The Upside of Anger. Academy Award winner Reese Witherspoon gave a good, but not phenomenal performance, which is what Allen delivered here. There can’t be more than a handful of actresses who could have pulled off this part, in which she plays a suburban mother dealing with FOUR daughters and the departure of her husband. Most every emotion crosses her face, and none of them descend into melodrama, even though the script practically begs for it. The lack of even a nomination from the Academy is my Oscar travesty of the year.

Overlooked male performances: With his charismatic persona on full display, Will Smith made Hitch, a fairly straight-forward romantic comedy, quite watchable. Eric Bana quietly and introspectively carried Munich through its ups and downs. Roles like Smith’s don’t get Oscar nods, but I’m disappointed Bana wasn’t honored for a role far more difficult than he made it appear.

Casablanca award (best classic I saw for the first time last year): The Outlaw Josey Wales (1979). Clint being Clint, oozing rugged charisma and uttering classic lines as an archetypical anti-hero. This also features one of the greatest shots of all time, as Clint stands silhouetted in a doorway, about to wreak havoc. Right now, this is my favorite western. Honorable mention to the impressively vivid Adventures of Robin Hood (1939).

Enough award (worst recent movie seen for the first time this year): Survivor: Piñata Island. This is one of those movies in which a bunch of good-looking young people traipse off to a tropical island for whatever reason. Something of course goes wrong, and they get killed off one at a time. The twist here is that the villain is a giant, bad CGI, demon-possessed piñata. Seriously. The unintentional comedy is off the charts, and the movie is so bad that you can’t take your eyes off it. The kicker is that it aired on AMC of all channels. Next time it’s on, grab some friends and place your bets on who gets whacked next. Priceless entertainment.

Thanks for reading. As usual, I leave you with the movies I’m anticipating most in the upcoming year:

Flags of our Fathers. Date unknown. Clint Eastwood directs this Spielberg-produced story of the men who raised the flag at Iwo Jima during World War II. I look forward to seeing how Eastwood handles action scenes in his own deliberate style.

Cars. June 9^th. A Pixar film about…a family of Puerto Ricans forced to shorten their name when oppressed by...oh wait, that's Cars with one r. Well, then the title is pretty self-explanatory. With the voices of Owen Wilson, Paul Newman, and Bonnie Hunt. Enough said.

Superman Returns. June 30^th. The pieces are in place for this to be huge. A director who gets it (Bryan Singer). A good villain (Kevin Spacey). And an unknown lead who has the look down cold (Brandon Routh).

A Scanner Darkly. July 7^th. Hmmm. This one was on my to-see list last year too. Let’s try again. Based on a Philip K. Dick story, Richard Linklater is directing this twisty rotoscoped film about an undercover narcotic cop (Keanu Reeves). Dude.

Lady in the Water. July 21^st. Advertised as a bedtime story, this looks like a change of pace for M. Night Shyamalan. Frankly I’ll see anything this guy directs.

A few others of note: An adaptation of The Da Vinci Code (May 19^th), The current front-runner for next year's best trailer, X-Men: The Last Stand (May 26^th), Mel Gibson's Apocalypto (August 4^th).

Be there. Aloha.

The best of the best of the best, sir!

2006-03-07T11:47:00.000-06:00

2005: The Year in Film

Now that those other movie awards are done with, it's time for my take on the year 2005 in film. As usual, I saw most decent wide releases and several independent films. There are admittedly a few holes in my viewing slate (most notably Brokeback Mountain and A History of Violence), but chances are if I didn't make the effort to see a film, it wouldn't have made the cut anyway. So I don't present these as gospel, but if you disagree, you're clearly wrong.

Note that the rankings don't necessarily correspond with some of the ratings I gave out upon initial review. That's because to me a year end list is more fluid that merely listing your highest rated films. Movies gain or lose quality as time progresses, and my list reflects that. On with the show…

Warning! Mild Spoilers Ahead!

Top Ten of 2005, in reverse order:

(links to full reviews when available)

Honorable Mention (and best comedy of the year): The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. I have not read Douglas Adams’s quirky space story, and from what I have gathered, that made the movie better. I enjoyed the offbeat humor and the thread of randomness that runs through the flick. A solid cast with good timing makes the oddities of everything work.

10. Serenity. In the vein of the original Star Wars, this sci-fi western possesses an askance view of the genre, never taking itself too seriously. The time-developed natural camaraderie of the characters is rampant, creating a fictional world that feels foreign with often unexplained terms and places (that’s a good thing) but also has an easy familiarity that creates a comfortable viewing experience whether or not you’ve seen Firefly, the short-lived television show on which the movie is based. Good times.

9. Downfall. In the slot usually reserved for a serious drama resides this German film that follows the bunker-dwelling last days of Adolph Hitler and his Third Reich. As Hitler, Bruno Ganz gives as jaw-dropping performance that glues you to the screen with its combination of familiar anger and rarely seen sensitivity. Made by Germans in German, watching is an almost voyeuristic pleasure, as though actually watching recently discovered tapes that document the final days of these infamous Nazis. It's like watching a massive car wreck, chilling and gut-wrenching, but strangely entrancing.

8. Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith. This third/sixth movie is in a situation similar to The Godfather, Part III, in that much of its appeal is derived from the emotional power developed of the previous films in the series. Uniquely though, the audience not only knows where the sequel starts, but also where it ends. There’s the rub: issues that define the movie also weaken it. But the transformation of Darth Vader, arguably the greatest cinematic villain of all time, overshadows the deficiencies, as past and future memories of his character fill in the cracks left by Sith. Seeing the downfall of Anakin is as visceral as anything on screen this year, creating the hands-down highlight of the three recent prequels.

7. Red Eye. More than just the best movie of the year (see below), this is a well-made movie. The romantic comedy gone wrong storyline moves briskly, and stars Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy rivet the viewer even in the confined space of an airplane. Cuts placed pristinely keep the momentum flowing, and the overall tone is never overly serious, even though the content is.

6. Crash. Wow, I’m still stunned this won Best Picture. Not that it was unworthy of such an honor, but simply that it surprised the prohibitive favorite. I suspect the fact that it plays better on a screener DVD than Brokeback Mountain may have had something to do with the upset. While watching Crash, I never felt like it was the best film of 2005; but it was consistently good, due to a fantastic ensemble cast and a well-shot look, and that quality added up by the end of the picture. Reminiscent of Traffic in the way story arcs and characters constantly intersect, Crash replaces the central theme of drugs with race, creating a film that, although too convenient at times, was probably the year’s film that most provoked introspective thought.

5. Capote. Of all the movies on my list, this is the one that surprised me most with its quality. Even living in Kansas, I didn’t know much about Truman Capote, other than the fact that he wrote In Cold Blood, a true crime novel about four murders that occurred in the western part of the state. I now know the rest of the story, thanks to this biopic that impressively paints a complete picture of the man in all his twisted and unusual glory. Philip Seymour Hoffman absolutely deserved his Academy Award, as his performance induces laughter, appreciation, and disappointment, much as Capote himself no doubt did. Thankfully, the point of the movie is not to generate sympathy for a deeply flawed individual, but simply to dramatically tell the story of the events that defined and served as a microcosm of his life. That task it accomplishes in a surprisingly absorbing manner.

4. Batman Begins. Director Christopher Nolan completely rejuvenated the franchise with this all-new movie about the origins of the Dark Knight. Most importantly, the aura and mythos of Batman were portrayed brilliantly. He wasn’t just one of dozens of weirdos in a freak-infested city, as the latter two renditions leaned. Instead, he had reason and rationale behind his actions. Nor did this version possess the same sort of edgy darkness as Tim Burton’s installments, but rather an intense shadowy nature that Christian Bale evoked wonderfully. Begins isn’t perfect, as it tilted toward cliché in the final act, but it is still the best among the recent spate of comic book movies.

3. Good Night, and Good Luck. More than anything else, this recount of Edward R. Murrow’s confrontation with Senator Joseph McCarthy is a rock-solid clean film. No screen time is wasted as the story relentlessly plows forward. It has a classic black-and-white look, buttressed by the simplicity of set design and costumes, and accented beautifully by the pervasive cigarette smoke. The message is strong too, making its point without preaching. In the end, the frankness and lack of personal appeal limits the power of the film, but only slightly.

2. King Kong. With a three-hour running length, this is undeniably the movie event of the year, as director Peter Jackson somehow made a film that rivals The Lord of the Rings in scope. The movie begins slowly, assembling the necessary cast of characters and motives en route to sKull Island, where the titular character resides. The deliberate build is a little frustrating, but ultimately results in a more complete enjoyment of the middle hour, which is pure phenomenal spectacle, particularly the Kong versus T-Rex fight (more on this later). Things calm down somewhat over in the final act, but only by comparison. Tender moments mixed into the chaotic events of the last hour provide King Kong, both character and movie, with unexpected heart, creating a surprisingly touching film that, without a huge established bias on my part, would have topped my list.

Also, see Ben’s comment here.

1. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I fully admit this is a heavily slanted pick. Technically, this wasn’t the best film of the year, although it would still be in my top ten. But this isn’t an objective, emotion-free list. This is my list, and I was affected more strongly by this film than any other of 2005, yes, due in large part to my long list of established connections to the source material. Bringing a beloved world to life was quite an accomplishment in itself, but if the movie had not captured the all-important child-like sense of amazement that runs through the book, the screen version would still have floundered. Instead director Andrew Adamson and company turned out the one movie of 2005 I would watch again if given such a limited choice.

The power of Narnia goes beyond my connections though, because the story is rooted in actively positive themes. Like The Lord of the Rings, Narnia promotes noble traits like humility, self-sacrifice, and courage; virtues that are generally lacking from today’s films. This quality imbues the film with a purity that overcomes its relative shortcomings. Narnia has a soul; it’s a good movie, in a sense more moral than technical. That fact alone by no means ensures greatness; but when combined with a superior story, world, and production design, the result is truly something special.

Thanks for reading. The lesson in all of this, as always, is that I have too much time on my hands.

Miscellaneous awards coming later this week, and Oscar comments below.

It's hard out here for a pimp.

2006-03-05T22:41:00.000-06:00

Top ten movies of 2005 coming tomorrow. A few Academy Awards notes first...

--Jon Stewart did a pretty good job, warming up as the show went along. The audience either didn't quite get some of his humor or just didn't know how to react. He's no Billy Crystal of course, but he's far, far better than Whoopi. Favorite joke: Bjork couldn't make it tonight. She was putting on her dress and got shot by Dick Cheney.

--Best Dressed: Jennifer Aniston and Hilary Swank. Black, simple, classy, and elegant. Well done ladies.

--Nice of the Academy to misspell Will Ferrell's name (as Farrell) on the big marquee.

--What the heck was that attacking Charlize Theron's shoulder?

--Morgan Freeman pulled off the ol' unbuttoned tux shirt with an ascot underneath. What a stud.

--I'm thinking the Academy will be ashamed of giving an Oscar to 36 Mafia about....now.

--Like everyone else, I'm SHOCKED (although pleasantly) that Crash won Best Picture, and that Brokeback Mountain only won two awards. Wow.

They pulled his pants down.

2006-02-06T11:48:00.000-06:00

That title? Suzy Kolber said it on national television. Wow.

A few Super Bowl musings, including favorite commercials...

--John Madden and his 1-5 record in AFC title games made the Hall of Fame. Bob Kuechenberg did not. I'm ticked. Kooch was the model for three Hall of Fame linemen, according to them, and anchored lines for four Super Bowls, including two dominant wins. If he doesn't get in next year, when Bruce Matthews is the only legit new candidate, I'm visiting Canton again. With a Molotov cocktail.

--If anyone saw the SNL skit about Aaron Neville this week, then the national anthem was one of the funniest ever, because the parody was frighteningly similar to real life. Sports Illustrated's Peter King said it was the second best anthem ever, after Whitney Houston's. I'll never again believe any non-football opinion he offers up. (As further proof of this, he said Good Night and Good Luck couldn't hold Walk the Line's jock. I haven't seen the latter, but as good as the former was, that simply isn't possible.) By the way, Faith Hill's anthem before the 1999 Rams-Titans clash was the second best I've heard at a Super Bowl.

--Why is Tom Brady flipping the coin? All those retired Super Bowl MVPs are there, and an active player is flipping the coin? Isn't that like giving Matt Damon a lifetime achievement award with guys like Deniro and Hanks watching and waiting for theirs? Plus Franco Harris was there, and he played for Pittsburgh and Seattle. Brady wasn't even the MVP last year! How hard is this to figure out? I'm glad he got booed.

--I'm offering up my services not just to Herm Edwards and the Chiefs, but to ANY team in NFL, particularly Seattle, as clock management specialist. I'll even take care of deciding when to go for two and when to throw the red flag at no additional charge. How badly did Seattle butcher the end of both halves? Yes, Seattle was on the wrong end of almost every close officials' decision, but they left two or three scores out on the field themselves.

--I didn't know that a twenty-years-from-now Tom Petersen was performing at halftime.

--Why are there advertisements telling us to go vote for Super Bowl MVP...in the third quarter?!? The game wasn't close to being decided, not to mention the fact that no one deserved it at that point.

Favorite Commericals:

--If I'm picking one, I choose the Sprint crime deterrent commercial that aired around the beginning of halftime. Two guys bragging in the locker room about their phones. One claims his has crime deterrent and tells the other guy to try to steal his wallet, then fires his phone at the would-be-thief's head. WHAM! Then he does it again when a grievance is threatened. WHAM! Haven't you always wanted to do that to somebody? My winner for the totally unexpected physical comedy. Good stuff.

--The first Ameriquest "Don't judge too quickly" one, when the doctors kill the fly with the heart paddles while standing next to a sick man, then say "That killed him" as the mom and daughter walk in the room. The balloon slowing floating to the ceiling was a good touch.

--Of the 249 Budweiser commercials, "Magic Fridge" was the best. Not entirely unpredictable, but the Magic Fridge label was great, and the over-the-top nature of guys raiding and worshipping the fridge worked well. Many of the rest were fine (the fans flipping the placards to show beer being poured was clever, and the young horse pulling the cart was cute), but that was my favorite of the bunch.

--A few other noteworthy things. You can't go wrong with Kermit the Frog, even for a Ford commercial. Adding the jackasses at the end of the careerbuilder.com one was a nice twist, as was MacGyver in the Mastercard spot.

Here's the USA Today write-up, and here's the chart. There's also a link to watch any spots you missed. Magic Fridge won; both Ameriquest ads were in the top ten, and my winner wasn't even listed. Maybe it wasn't new, or maybe it didn't air everywhere. Figures.

Good night, and good luck.

2006-02-03T11:13:00.000-06:00

New review for Good Night, and Good Luck, which was nominated for Best Picture on Tuesday...

In the 1950s, CBS newscaster Edward R. Murrow did what virtually no one else dared. At the height of the Cold War, he objected to Senator Joseph McCarthy's raging campaign against Communism. That's about all many people (such as myself) know about the events, and this movie is here to fill in the holes. Good Night, and Good Luck tells the true story of the Murrow-McCarthy confrontation, and the equally interesting behind-the-scenes dilemmas faced by Murrow and fellow news staff.

The passing of time has dulled the accomplishments of Murrow, in large part due to the proliferation of news channels, investigative reporting, and rampant opinions. What Murrow did then could not happen in that way today. Therefore in order to craft a decent film, director George Clooney was faced with the essential task of re-creating the 1950s. In that regard, the film borders on flawless.

With zero exterior shots, the clean black-and-white photography captures the claustrophobic mood of the era better than color pictures would have, similar to the 2000's Clooney-produced, made-for-television Fail Safe. Reactionary glances surrounded by ubiquitous swirling cigarette smoke establish a bygone mindset and time, when cramped newsrooms were the norm, and newscasters who challenged politicians were not. Through these tight quarters the camera chases the actors like their reporters chased stories, infusing energy into what could have easily been a static film.

Good Night, and Good Luck won't floor you with its dramatic power, as something like Million Dollar Baby did. To use a baseball analogy, this isn't the Mickey Mantle of films, leaving a wake of awe behind. This is the Paul Molitor of movies, always solid but rarely spectacular. When the credits roll, one looks back to realize how well done the previous ninety minutes were. There are simply very few missteps.

Clooney also succeeds where Syriana failed, in making an accessible social point that anybody can recognize. While telling its story, Good Night, and Good Luck naturally points out how the media landscape has changed in half a century, making one at least reconsider the media's role in the politics of the government and life. Not a life-altering aim, but a practical one achieved nonetheless.

Like its protagonist, firmly and sharply played in Oscar-worthy fashion by relative unknown David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck wastes little time or effort, succinctly making its point and quickly getting out. It will be understandably underappreciated (and likely won't challenge for the top Academy Awards) due to a lack of overwhelming personal themes and fully developed characters. But in expediently dealing with decisions and consequences of truth, justice, and the American way (sorry), this film establishes a standard of how to effectively and gently make a point while telling an interesting story.

Bottom Line: Short, sweet, and to the point. Well done. A low 8 of 10.

The Dime Bag, volume V.

2006-02-01T11:42:00.000-06:00

This one goes to eleven as well...

Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit--The reason there hadn't been a full-length Wallace & Gromit movie before was that the dry, British humor works much better in small doses. It's not a bad movie by any stretch, but to borrow Bilbo's line, it feels like butter scraped over too much bread. Still worth a rental or a couple hours at the cheap theater if you like the shorts though. (6)

Swingers--A great movie for guys, particularly single guys, about the travails of life and dating. Vince Vaughn establishes the character he is still playing, and it features one of the most awkward scenes ever. One of my favorite comedies. (8)

The Adventures of Robin Hood--The 1938 version holds up surprisingly well almost 70 years later. The technicolor is still brilliant, and the swashbuckling still entertains with its formal yet casual nature. Justifiably a classic. For history's sake...(9)

Tremors--When I first saw this years ago, I didn't get it. But this semi-mock-horror movie is hilarious. It's so serious but over-the-top that you can't help but like it. Kevin Bacon is fantastic in his reactions and larger than life normality, setting the tone for the rest of the cast. Great laughs. (7)

Deep Blue Sea--Speaking of decent B-style movies, here's one about sharks gone bad. A good cast that includes Thomas Jane and Samuel L. Jackson keeps the movie from going over the edge, and there is little preaching or time wasted. Included is one of the ten greatest screen deaths of all time. (7)

Rambo III--The Rambo franchise slowly descended from the first to third movie, but never sunk the lows of franchises like Superman or Rocky. This is the worst of the three, but it's still okay. Lost of explosions and combat, and Stallone being Stallone. But hey, he's fighting Russians, so it can't be that bad, right? (5)

Deliverance--A movie about four guys who canoe through sketchy mountain country doesn't seem prone to great cinematography, but the pictures here are very impressive, accenting the remarkable transformations of the quartet. This is much more than Squeal like a pig, it's a harrowing drama that often has you leaning forward in anticipation. It's worth seeing just for Burt Reynolds in his prime. (8)

Batman Returns--The second in the franchise gets a bad rap. Yes it's the darkest and least viewer-friendly of the series, but it's still a good movie. The darker style is a natural progression from the original, and while the raw drama and emotion of the first isn't always there, the psychologial bifurcation of the three leads is fairly compelling. (7)

Batman Forever--Maybe it's because this was the first Batman movie I ever saw, but Forever is one of my favorite movies. It's not a better film than the 1989 movie, but it is pure entertainment, closer to the campiness of the 1960s TV series than the dark world of Tim Burton's two versions. I really like Val Kilmer as Batman, or more specifically as Bruce Wayne. He plays the billionaire much more comfortably than Keaton or Clooney. And to those people who lump this one in with the fourth installment that never really happened: those people are ridiculously wrong. An extra point for personal reasons. (8)

Batman & Robin--This one isn't as bad as you probably think or remember, but it's not that good either. It took the campy edge of its predecessor and amped it up to an extreme level, like a $100 million version of the 1960s TV show. About a third of the movie (Batgirl) should have been axed, and Batman could have shown up more. George Clooney doesn't a bad job, endowing Bruce Wayne with a tender and joking side, but doesn't seem quite right as Batman. Thank goodness Christopher Nolan rescued the franchise, because another one in this direction might have been legendarily bad. (5)

Where Eagles Dare--A WWII movie in which Richard Burton, Clint Eastwood, and company infiltrate and raid a German aerie. This isn't exclusively a shoot-em-up war flick, but mixes in more of the spy genre quite effectively. Still good 37 years later. (8)

We are supposed to be righteous!

2006-01-25T11:54:00.000-06:00

New review for Munich, yet another film that unfortunately won't take the Oscar from Brokeback Mountain...

Steven Spielberg's Munich is a return to the director's serious nature. Although the spy thriller subject matter is closer to Minority Report than Schindler's List, the tone is far more like Saving Private Ryan than War of the Worlds, an interesting dichotomy that both aids and abets the film.

Munich is inspired by true events that occurred after 1972 Olympics tragedy in the titular city. After several Israeli athletes are taken hostage and murdered by Palestinian terrorists, the Israeli government recruits five men to exact revenge (read: assassinate) upon those who initiated the kidnapping. The movie concentrates on the drama of quintet's actions and transformations as they undertake their collective task, viewing like a taut thriller, but featuring more development among both characters and plot.

Where Munich diverges from typical espionage movies is also where it predominantly excels. The reality of everything distances this film from even good genre flicks like The Bourne Identity, not necessarily in quality but in nature, because the fully realized actions and consequences of Munich create an entirely different, more genuine world. The main characters, acted to a tee, all face moral dilemmas, evolving wonderfully through the quieter in-between scenes and more impressively during the more intense portions. Likewise the pace eschews the typically breakneck, impulsive speed at which most such films flow, opting instead for a deliberate approach that accelerates when necessary, making those moments all the more gripping. But the handful of pin-you-to-your-seat scenes are not enough to carry the entire film.

Steven Spielberg is a remarkable storyteller, a fact reinforced by manner in which he balances the action and character, continually bouncing between assassination attempts and dialogue-heavy development scenes. At times though this unevenness, accented by two discordant scenes, robs the film of a driving sense of urgency, leaving one with the feeling that it coulda/woulda/shoulda been better. One of those scenes, involving revenge, is shocking and discomforting, but at least effectively makes its contrasting point. The other, one of the closing scenes, is flat awkward, an ill fit both chronologically and emotionally. So out-of-place are these two moments that they nearly overshadow two hours of impressive drama.

Of course, this is nearly a three hour film, but would have fared better had it been trimmed down or at least reorganized. The decision to reenact the events of Munich was not a bad one, and it provides some of the movies most lasting images with classic archive footage and the reproduction of known moments from alternate angles. But intercutting these scenes over the course of the film interrupts the flow, particularly since the flashbacks are portrayed through the thoughts of a character who wasn't even there.

Despite the uniqueness, the film never kicks things to the next level. Munich is always interesting, but rarely captivating, thanks to some combination of factors. Maybe the minimal amount of music retards the drama. Maybe the tone of the heavy subject matter isn't conducive to Spielberg's style of story-telling. Perhaps though, more than anything, one can't help but think like the main character, wondering what the point is and where everything is going. Big and difficult questions are asked, which is commendable. These are emotions and choices that are notably similar to those felt and made in today's post-9/11 world, making Munich a still pertinent film that has the chance to be immensely powerful. But the answers provided are either non-existent or too simple, leaving the viewer feeling cold.

Bottom Line: Still good, occasionally brilliant, but ultimately less than it could have been. 7 of 10, recommended only if you're interested.

Oh no! We suck again!

2006-01-17T12:14:00.000-06:00

It's been a good three days for us KU basketball fans. Except for the whole losing-to-KSU-for-the-first-time-in-31-games thing. And oh yes, the blowing-a-9-point-lead-to-the-other-archrivals-in-90-seconds thing. About last night...

You can't blow a nine-point lead in the last minute and a half. You simply can't. You (Brandon Rush) can't while away less than a third of the shot clock before hoisting a shot in the final three minutes. Twice. You (Rush) can't foul a guy from behind on a layup with fifteen seconds left. Never mind he missed the free throw. You can't do that. Despite all these mistakes, KU still had the game in the bag. Make a freaking free throw.

The worst part is that the late collapse overshadows many good things that happened in the second half of the game. Robinson and Chalmers each had his best game of the year, combining for 34 points, 15 assists, and 11 rebounds. The team attacked Missouri's zone well enough to drive them out of it. That's game-to-game and even half-to-half improvement! As opposed to the Kansas State game, when the 'Hawks stood around watching as the Wildcats writhed themselves back to life, KU this time remembered to put their collective foot on Missouri's throat, but merely forgot to stomp.

(On a side note, as much as it pains me, give Missouri and Quin Snyder credit. Snyder didn't flip out or retreat to his hole on the bench as he usually does. His team didn't lauch horrible shots merely for the sake of taking a three. This is probably his least talented team, but it is also his most disciplined squad. Well done. Jerk.)

This KU team is like one of the villains from the old school Batman television show. Just like those nefarious minds, they're wonderfully talented. That is undeniable. When the pressure defense is clicking, they have spurts of brilliance, like the traps Penguin and company set for the Dynamic Duo. But just like the bad guys, they leave the premises while the would-be victim is on the verge of death via an overly elaborate scheme involving boiling water or a giant saw. Rush launched what would have been a dagger of a trey instead of letting an even more lethal twenty seconds tick off the clock, shot similarly early a couple possessions later, then tried to make a nearly impossible pass instead of taking a decent floater in the closing seconds of overtime. Don't go for the sexy yet risky kill. Just get the kill.

Three letters: N-I-T.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

2006-01-07T14:27:00.000-06:00

New review for Syriana...

From Stephen Gaghan, the Oscar-winning writer of 2000's Traffic, comes Syriana, an ambitious film that shrugs off standard categorization. It's a political thriller that unusually emphasizes the politics over the thrills, with a dense plot that requires an almost exhaustive amount of attention, not just to understand, but to know that you understand.

Simply put, the film follows a handful of related stories that merge as the plot progresses. As drugs and U.S.-Mexican relations are to Traffic, the oil industry and the relations between the Middle East and the Western world are to Syriana. The multiple threads eventually converge, not into one single arc, but into a tighter overall story.

For better and worse, this is a different film than most, a fact that triggers a debate between the two sides of my movie brain, the side that wants intelligent and well-spoken cinema (Ivan) and the side that wants to be entertained (Edgar). Here's a peek at their conversation as they sit on my shoulders...

Ivan the Intelligent: What a breath of fresh air! A film that doesn't lessen itself to appeal to the masses.

Edgar the Entertained: If by that you mean it doesn't give the audience any reason to care at all, then I fully agree. At no point was I really into the movie, except when I was trying to comprehend what the heck was happening.

Ivan: What, you can't handle actually needing to listen to the words? A intentionally deliberate movie that you actually have to watch because it doesn't cut every two seconds bores you? Just because it doesn't have an endless visual stream of fights and explosions doesn't make it a bad movie.

Edgar: No, the fact that the entertainment value is almost zero does that. It's about as engrossing as watching a news channel. I'm paying $8-10 to be at least partially entertained, not to learn about one view of global politics.

Ivan: I'm just glad that Gaghan and company actually take advantage of the medium. More people not named Moore should use film to explore social issues, and the filmmakers did so here largely without the use of a soapbox. That's a very commendable feat, thanks to a complex script and characters that are more than stock political figures.

Edgar: I concede that the script is well written and the story is well crafted. But I object to labeling the characters as unique or interesting. Some of them are multi-dimensional, but ultimately THEY'RE ALL THE SAME! Every single one is selfishly looking out for his or her own interests. There are few redemptive qualities to latch onto. And other than the plot line involving Matt Damon and his family, nothing appealed to the emotions, despite the solid acting chops displayed by the loaded cast.

Ivan: Get over the emotional kick. Movies can have different ways of appealing. Syriana aimed for the mind, not the heart, and hit that target squarely as it explored the tricky oil issue that dominates global politics.

Edgar: If I conceded your point, and I don't, attempts at more cerebral cinema can still have a soul. Look at the Gaghan-penned Traffic, which featured drama both emotional and intelligent. That film made several good points about the world of illegal drugs, and featured well-rounded characters that allowed for emotional connections. Syriana tried that tack a couple times; but the efforts were forced, mostly ineffective, and lacked a sense of urgency. Those short-comings deprived it of the soul-striking power of Traffic.

As one can probably deduce from this head-swiveling argument, the entertainment side won the race to the finish line. Syriana is appreciated more than enjoyed, better in retrospect than while viewing. That it was made is as big an accomplishment than the film itself. But if you want a Tim Wakefield knuckleball in a cinematic world of Randy Johnson fastballs, you could do worse than Syriana.

Bottom Line: Unless you want to check all the Oscar contenders off your list, you need not rush out to see this movie in theaters. 5 of 10.

I give you...KONG!

2005-12-17T14:14:00.000-06:00

New review for the new King Kong...

As the follow-up to his epic Lord of the Rings Trilogy, director Peter Jackson chose one of the few stories that might be able to rival Tolkien's work in scope, a King Kong remake bigger and badder than either of its predecessors.

The story mainly mirrors that of the 1933 version, possessing a like spirit and containing several homages to the classic. Fast-talking movie producer Carl Denham (Jack Black) sets sail for the mysterious Skull Island in an effort to film things never before seen. Among those in tow are a motley crew along with his starlet (Naomi Watts) and screenwriter (Adrien Brody), who happen to fall in love during the during the trip. As the standard endangered female, Watts only has a few notes to hit (lonely, fearful, caring), and she drills them. Black and Brody both make for atypical but interesting hero types. Because neither naturally fits that bill, a little adjusting is required, but once you get accustomed to Black playing for show instead of comedy and Brody being less dour than usual, they prove to be very capable of filling their new roles, giving them more humanity than most heroes have.

Until the Venture reaches Skull Island an hour in, the movie drags. Some character forming is required of course, and the build-up isn't terrible, but it's like being a kid on Christmas. When there's one big present sitting in the corner, it doesn't matter how cool all of the preliminary presents are. Wading through those can be wearisome because you just want to get to the payoff, which you know will be spectacular. In this case, the title character is the reason you're at the film, and fidgeting through a third of the story without him is annoying. Once the island is found however, the movie catapults to life.

Does it ever.

Skull Island is literally crawling with all sorts of dangerous creatures, human and otherwise, that the voyagers confront. Although one of these encounters lasts too long, they are still exciting simply in scope. What all of these struggles do better than those in most movies is induce a reaction. Oversized beasts mean oversized action and violence, which demands oohs and aahs from the audience, sucking viewers in as it entertains.

The linchpin of the movie is the ultimate fight hinted at in the trailers, Tyrannosaurus Rex versus King Kong. With its combination of raw aggression and sheer brutality, this may be the greatest battle ever put on screen. That's not an exaggeration. It's the Ali and Frazier of monsters going toe-to-toe. When it was over I was simultaneously cheering, laughing, and crying with exhilaration. I would pay full admission just to see that battle again. Phenomenal.

More than just great action & adventure, King Kong is also a tragedy, due in large part to the stunning CGI title character. The team at Weta Workshop presents a Kong who generates more emotion than many actors. The remarkably rendered details permit him to emote with his eyes, facial expressions, and body language as though he were a human, creating a sympathetic gorilla that isn't all that different from the misunderstood lead in The Phantom of the Opera. The result is that you care more about Kong than you do about any other character, a key factor in carrying the movie's final hour, when Kong is brought to New York City, leading to a final showdown.

A mysterious island, dinosaurs, a giant gorilla, and the definitive damsel in distress. With these elements, King Kong appeals to something primal in all of us. Combine that with the elemental need of both Ann and Kong, which is to be loved, and the result is a well-rounded film that deeply entertains, largely overshadowing several blatant blue screens and a slow first hour.

Like King Kong himself, this movie is pure massive spectacle, not quite great to the extent that Lord of the Rings was great (although parts are), but great entertainment that Carl Denham himself would be proud of. The best parts are the pinnacle of the cinematic mountain and as good a time as you can have at the movies.

Bottom Line: A high 8 bananas of 10. You can't have a much better time at the movies than this.

...Aslan comes in sight.

2005-12-14T11:59:00.000-06:00

If you haven't read my previous post, you might want to. It serves as a preface of sorts to this review of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I don't dwell much on the book-movie discrepancies, although I'm more than willing to discuss them. That might be another post...

The most famous of C.S. Lewis's beloved seven-book Chronicles of Narnia series, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe follows the adventures of the Pevensies, four British siblings, as they stumble into the fantasy world of Narnia, where they find themselves in the center of a conflict between good and evil. A land replete with talking creatures ranging from beavers and wolves to centaurs and fauns, Narnia is reminiscent of Middle Earth, but like the entire story, is based in mythology more classic than epic, with a black-and-white fairy tale feel that is evident on screen.

Greatly aiding that mystical sense is the score of Harry Gregson-Williams. With LWW, the film veteran (Shrek, Kingdom of Heaven) finally has a known theme to place alongside his name. Dominated by strings, his melodies accentuate the tale with a light (but firm when necessary) nature appropriate for such a magical land. Likewise the vivid cinematography of Donald McAlpine (Moulin Rouge) never gets too big (ahem...Troy...ahem). The camera suitably swoops and soars with the action at times, keeping the scenery bright and fresh, wisely eschewing the bold, dark edge (and PG-13 rating) of LOTR and the mechanical nature of the first Harry Potter movies, always returning to the children, the core of the story.

These two technical aspects highlight the greatest triumph of LWW: the overall tone, which was was a pitch-perfect amalgam of fantasy and reality that is aimed at a young audience. Unlike many such movies, LWW is based in the real world (WWII Britain), but spends much of its time in a fictional one. Smoothly transitioning between while still distinguishing the two is more difficult that it might sound. But by focusing on the children (all of whom acquit themselves well) and properly telling the story from their perspective, the story primarily moves along at a brisk pace, and LWW accomplishes that task.

I know this isn't phenomenal cinema like The Lord of the Rings, although the gap is smaller than you might think once you factor in the story's younger target audience. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe features similar and simpler motifs of love and sacrifice, good and evil, life and death. These quintessential themes are wrapped in the magical shell of Narnia, a place that appeals to the wide-eyed child in everyone, not just those who have read the books. Who doesn't want to happen upon an alternate universe and find amazing adventures there? Who doesn't want to encounter talking animals and mythical creatures? The exploits on screen are such that they will appeal to anyone with a pulse and an imagination.

Knowing the story does alter the movie experience. If you have read the book, little of the plot is surprising, which eliminates much of the novelty. However, familiarity alternatively provides a tear-inducing satisfaction, like watching a loved one accomplish something exceptional. Hearing great lines spoken, seeing previously unseen people and places, enjoying small moments that are thoughtfully included, and noticing references to the rest of the series; all of these things indescribably form the happiest movie experience I have ever encountered, a singular blend of relief, joy, exhilaration, and contentedness.

As for the inescapable comparisons to its contemporaries, based purely on its cinematic merits, I place LWW ahead of three Harry Potter movies, and behind Prisoner of Azkaban and The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Because of my intimate ties with the source material, I crafted a more personal connection with this film than the others. Sure it was a bit slow at times; yes, the Pevensies were a little too one-note; maybe the CGI looked a tad awry at times (although I would attribute much of that to the blatant weirdness of seeing talking animals); but I willingly blinded myself to the movie's minor shortcomings, and in return received an unmatched cinematic experience.

Bottom Line: I hope that everyone else can find a fraction of the joy that I did through these books and this movie. 9 of 10.

Aslan is on the move.

2005-12-06T11:58:00.000-06:00

A few thoughts about The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe before the movie comes out this Friday...

More than any other story adapted to film, I have something invested in The Chronicles of Narnia. I hadn't read Lord of the Rings before seeing the films; I enjoy Harry Potter (through four books), but only once or twice not nearly to this extent. So more than any other story adapted to film, I have something invested in The Chronicles of Narnia. My dad read the Chronicles to me when I was very young. I've read the entire series myself at least nine times. I've listened to the tapes so many times that I hear that inflection when I read the books. I was Peter in a kindergarten rendition of Lion. C.S. Lewis's wardrobe is at my college. I took a Lewis class there. I took a Narnia class in high school. The freaking name of my high school is Cair Paravel. So yeah, I have something invested in the books.

(minor spoilers ahead for the ignorant)

Having said that, I hope I'll be able to separate how the movie should have been from how it is. In other words, I hope I can appreciate the movie for what it is, aside from the mistakes made in adapting the story. Because there are and will be differences, liberties ranging from minor (Lucy should be blonde) to major (the battle scenes take up maybe two pages in the book). I hope can watch with a bifurcated personality, one half comparing and one half enjoying.

But I'm worried about a few things...

I'm worried about the inevitable Lord of the Rings comparisons. LWW is NOT LOTR. Lewis's works are more classic than epic. Simpler, aimed more at children, and more of the fantasy genre, in a traditional sense of the word. Some of the trailers seem to be emphasizing the battle scenes, which as I said, aren't a major part of the book. Now these portions can easily be expanded, because in print the major battle is joined in progress, but I'm more concerned about the general public's expectations. If people go in looking for massive confrontations like those in LOTR, they're going to be disappointed, and that's not fair. It reminds me of how The Thin Red Line was poorly received when it was released six months after Saving Private Ryan, even though the former movie was completely different. War was scarcely the point, even though people expected it to be part deux of the ultra-realistic Ryan. LWW is also different from LOTR in that the Pevensies are humans who wander into a fantastic new world, rather than having been born and bred in this alternate universe. The entire perspective is unique, and people need to understand that.

I'm a little worried about the PG rating, especially considering that the marketing concentrates on the battles. I hope those parts don't feel dumbed down for rating purposes. Of course, the MPAA, which doles out ratings, isn't too bright, so that's encouraging.

I'm worried about the beginning of the movie, which portrays scenes from the Battle over Britain, which led to the Pevensies moving out into the country. I don't think this part is needed. Why not just start with the kids trotting up to the house, and throw in a sentence or two of exposition? This will bother me even more if other parts are omitted in lieu of this.

More than anything, I want people to love (or at least understand) what I love. My eyes got a little watery watching the elongated trailer, out of sheer joy in seeing a world I know and love come to life. I hope others get a similar feeling. I hope...

The Dime Bag, volume IV.

2005-12-02T11:21:00.000-06:00

Cleaning out The Dime Bag while waiting for Narnia next Friday...

The Constant Gardener--When Rachel Wiesz is killed (not much of a spoiler, that happens almost immediately), Ralph Fiennes spends the rest of the film trying to determine exactly who his wife was and what she was actually doing. While I understood the romance and Fiennes's motivation to unearth the truth, I never felt an emotional bond that could have elevated the film to greater heights. With high production values but a just-awry story, this was better than I liked it. (7)

Shark Tale--Like Shrek, which is also a Dreamworks production, this animated movie about a fish who masquerades as a shark slayer is filled with too much look-how-clever-we-are humor. Whether it be playing off the voice actor's persona or poking fun at the Hollywood lifestyle, most of the jokes in themselves are funny, but getting beat over the head with them for ninety-plus minutes is almost exhausting. Plus Shark Tale lacks the underrated gentle spirit pervasive in Pixar works, aimed more at adults than kids. (5)

Magnum Force--This sequel to Dirty Harry is very similar to its predecessor. Clint Eastwood is a semi-rogue cop, and takes criminals down his way. Nothing all that great, but it's always fun to watch Clint sneer and be, well, Clint. (6)

The Beguiled--This has to be the strangest movie Eastwood has ever done. He's a wounded Confederate soldier who is taken in by a girls' school. Yeah, nothing good can come from that. Everyone falls in love with everyone, and craziness ensues. Just a weird, weird movie. (5)

The Replacement Killers--At the time (1998), this movie set a record for most bullets fired in an American film. I'm sure The Matrix broke that, and Chow Yun-Fat's U.S. debut here isn't anywhere near that good. He and Mira Sorvino are the odd couple who end up shooting their way out of everything. I'd explain the rest, but it either doesn't matter or doesn't make sense. The plot isn't really the point. Cool gunfights are, and those aren't bad. (5)

Four Brothers--The titular characters return to Detroit to avenge the death of their Solid vengange pic, a ghetto-ized version of Boondock Saints. Great chemistry between the four leads makes the movie fully enjoyable, despite the not-so-real convenience of everything. (6)

Serenity--An excellent movie, in the popcorn sense of the word. This sci-fi flick, in which a motley space crew flees The Alliance, is based on the TV series Firefly and has a campy style reminicent of Star Wars, complete with unexplained technical words and amusing throwaway lines. A variety of likable characters and a good supply of action make this is one of the year's best movies for pure entertainment. (7)

Absolute Power--As a veteran thief, Eastwood witnesses something he shouldn't, and spends the duration figuring out how to explain what happened without jeopardizing himself or his daughter (Laura Linney). Intentional or not, this movie had a handful of chuckle inducing moments, as though made with a twinkle in the eye, that make it a little better than most of its type. (6)

Joe Kidd--For Clint Eastwood, this is a fairly run-of-the-mill western. He does his own thing and shoots a lot of bad guys. Robert Duvall makes an interesting foil, but the movie never approaches most of Clint's other films in the genre. (6)

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith--A re-watching of the DVD reinforced my initial impressions. A movie loaded with raw emotion, excellent fight scenes, and one of the most exhilarating final hours in recent memory. But some of the dialogue was laughably bad, and the effect-laden movie too often felt like a video game. My rating probably shouldn't be as high as it is, but it's Star Wars. (8)

I didn't ask for this to happen.

2005-11-21T12:47:00.000-06:00

New review for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Remember that I have read only the first four Harry Potter books. Take that as you will.

Isn't this inevitable in any cinematic series? Maybe even more so given all of the behind-the-scenes changes between the Harry Potter films? Isn't one of the movies eventually doomed to fall short of its predecessor? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire did.

The story of Goblet takes a different turn, as the once-in-a-generation Tri-Wizard Tournament comes to Hogwarts, whose top students are joined by comrades from two other schools of magic in battling each other and colossal obstacles for the top prize. As the tournament progresses, Harry Potter endures issues with relationships and a mysterious pain emanating from the famous lightning bolt on his forehead. A very promising premise that ultimately shortarms its potential.

The roots of Goblet's shortcomings lie in its predecessor, Alfonso Cuaron's Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban. Had Goblet been released after Chris Columbus's two faithful but uninspired renditions, this movie would have been better. But Cuaron raised the bar for the screen translations with his breath-taking scene-setting and finely crafted shots. He infused the series with life by adding a dose of reality to Columbus's magical world. Newell wisely maintained the grounded portion of Cuaron's tone, but inexplicably drained it of Columbus's child-like wonder, while fading into typical technical filmmaking, feats that constantly leave the audience wanting more of everything.

Goblet is an epic book, a linchpin as the middle tome of seven. After You-Know-Who was absent in Azkaban, his presence returns here, turning the series in an entirely different direction. But despite the enormous themes of life, death, courage, and danger; despite the fact that Goblet contains more action than Azkaban; despite scenes with Quidditch, dragons, and mermaids, nothing in the movie gets the blood pumping. Even a massive confrontation in the final act leaves one feeling short-shrifted, emotionally for those who know the story and informationally for those who have not. The same material produced a pulsing thread of underlying tension throughout the book, and the absence of that drama points to the way the movie was made. While Cuaron adroitly fashioned a soul for his movie and built everything around that hub, Newell and cinematographer Roger Pratt (Chamber of Secrets), who semi-successfully warms up the screen by emphasizing oranges and greens, seem to have ploddingly shot the movie on cruise control. By utilizing far too many close-ups and intercutting tight shots, and eliminating much of the enchanting background, the scope of the movie leans toward claustrophobic rather than expansive.

The music doesn't help either. The fitful work of Patrick Doyle leaves one longing for the occasionally melodramatic John Williams, whose lingering themes are the only memorable part of the orchestrations. The veteran Doyle, who has a few quality scores to his credit (Henry V, Hamlet), seems determined to tell the viewer what to think and how to feel, as though composing from a How-to-write-a-movie-score book. The music intrudes at some key times, then suddenly vanishes at others, screaming PAY ATTENTION THIS IS IMPORTANT in its absence. Like the movie, Doyle's compositions never find a rhythm with the story.

The pacing of that story doesn't aid the rhythm. Even though Goblet as a whole moves quickly, small portions less integral to the core story periodically stagnate the movie. Numerous new supporting characters require valuable time to be introduced; several decent but truncated scenes and characters (Quidditch World Cup, Rita Skeeter, etc.) should have been omitted altogether but were probably crammed in to appease fans; and the broad humor seems forced and out of place. The end result is an choppy episodic olio that deprives the movie of any rapid undertow that might whisk an eager audience into the story.

All of these issues prove that a Harry Potter director should not be merely a guiding hand, but a creative force as well. Fortunately for Newell the source material for Goblet, as in his Donnie Brasco, is so potent that even his workman-like turn doesn't cripple Rowling's towering tale. But his restraining hand lowers the level of exhilaration, the difference between admiring the Grand Canyon from on high and hang-gliding directly between its prodigious walls.

Having said all of that, Goblet is not terrible, and the massive amount of genuine effort is apparent. The majority of credit for the movie's success though stems from the original story, which weaves classic motifs into a richly textured saga. To transform the book into a bad movie would be a truly stunning feat, one not accomplished here. Many of the effects-laden magical scenes are a treat despite being underdone, and familiar characters in new situations are rarely dull. Most of the adult actors are virtually reduced to cameos; but they perform admirably, except Michael Gambon, who is misrepresenting Dumbledore by stressing anger over wisdom. Separating the kids from their roles is difficult, and perhaps actors with more training could more effectively display a range of emotions, but even that is difficult to say, because these actors are their characters. Replacing these cinematic friends at this point would be utterly ludicrous.

Overall, Goblet isn't bad, but neither is it actively good or absorbing. Very little wows or stokes emotional fires, a fact exacerbated by Azkaban's pronounced excellence in such situations. If the first and second movies were simple melodies, and the third blossomed into classic four-part harmony, then Goblet is a barbershop quartet in which at least one part struggles throughout, missing notes and creating a movie that never enraptures as it could, leaving the uninformed viewer partially in the dark, and the informed viewer underwhelmed, longing for a film that fully addresses all the fantastic elements that comprise Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire,

Bottom Line: Goblet tries to soar to great heights, but finds itself chained down by its own shortcomings. This Cup runneth under. 6 of 10.

Pair of threes.

2005-11-01T11:39:00.000-06:00

New review for that fine piece of high cinema, Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

Sometimes you're just in the mood for an escapist movie. Nothing too intelligent; nothing too twisting or unpredictable; just good-looking people living their ridiculously interesting lives. For women, this form of entertainment usually comes in the form of anything starring Julia Roberts or Hilary Duff, for the younger crowd. Guys usually go for almost anything featuring Tom Cruise. Although those names are absent, Mr. & Mrs. Smith combines a bit of both types, fitting the mindless entertainment mold perfectly.

If you saw a trailer for Smith, then you know the gist of the picture. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are married. But the implausibilities don't stop there. Unbeknownst to each other, both are guns-for-hire who assassinate VIPs for unseen higher powers. Eventually of course, the cover-ups must stop, and that's what the movie is about. A simple enough premise that follows a simple enough path, which is fine, because watching Smith is like attending a Kansas City Royals baseball game. You know what you're getting when you buy the ticket. You know you'll have a good time at the game, and you won't be shocked if the product is mediocre to bad, which is precisely where this film ends up.

Even though, or perhaps because the entire story is inevitable, the plot still dragged at times, simply taking too long to set the scenes and then deliver the promised goods of shootouts, both martial and marital. Once there, the action scenes are good not great, and the miscommunicative banter between Pitt and Jolie as they rediscover each other provides the funny moments, which are the highlight of the film. Married or not, anyone can relate to their problems, which are magnified by the absurdity of their situation. Quality relational humor is as funny as anything, and there are some good jabs sprinkled throughout this movie, although still nothing particularly memorable.

Also forgettable is the entire cast outside of Pitt and Jolie. The villains are scarcely given a face; Vince Vaughn is occasionally amusing in an over-the-top way; Adam Brody (The O.C.) is pointless; and frankly no one else matters. Seriously, if all faces except the leads had been no names or even blurred out, the movie would not have suffered, because good versus evil is hardly the point of the flick. The point is see beautiful people fight with words and guns.

Therefore the onus of the movie falls on the magnetism of Pitt and Jolie, which is fortunately palpable. Both are clearly sexy, beautiful people, and their chemistry is undeniable. The sensuality erupts off the screen more than even the explosions because they both possess It, that mysteriously inexplicable combination of looks, swagger, demeanor, sexuality, and accessibility. Whatever It is, they both own It, and thus glue eyes to the screen regardless of what they're doing, whether it be carrying a bazooka or a fork. Doesn't matter. You want to watch. From beginning to end, their allure and physical presences carry the movie. Without it, the product is something like Ballistic: Ecks versus Sever, which had more to work with, but whose leads (Banderas and Liu) lacked the charisma of Pitt and Jolie, resulting in a more interesting story that was less watchable.

Looking for something profound in this movie is like hoping Britney Spears brings down the house with a Verdi aria. It's just not going to happen. If you anticipate such, then you deserve to be disappointed. But like 2 Fast 2 Furious, Mr. & Mrs. Smith can fill two hours with mild entertainment if you have reasonable expectations.

Bottom Line: A decent popcorn movie. Nothing more. 5 of 10.

Jeremy Goodwin...totally screwed.

2005-10-20T11:25:00.000-05:00

For those of you unfamiliar with our familial luck (Carr-ma?), let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up...

My dad has a college friend who has Cardinals season tickets, and this friend has taken us to an League Championship Series game before. He calls last week, asking if we want to go to Game 1 on Wednesday. The timing's not great, and we can't get away easily, so we decide to hold out for Game Six or Seven, or even the World Series. That's assuming the series reaches a Game Six. As the Astros seize a 3-1 series lead (first to four wins) and hold a two-run lead in the ninth inning of Game Five with maybe the best closer in baseball on the mound, I'm disappointed. There will be no Game Six. Until Albert Pujols blasts a home run 721 feet to give the Cardinals the win. There will be a Game Six! Jay (dad's college friend) calls the next day and offers tickets to the game. Dad can't go, but I of course pounce on the opportunity, and find the biggest Ozzie Smith fan in Topeka to go with me. I call that night to work out the details, only to find out that Jay's daughters changed their minds (women...) and now wish to attend. He said too bad. But the wife laid the hammer down. So we got bumped. But hey, if there's a Game Seven, we can probably go to that. Awesome. Game Seven might be the greatest two-word phrase in all of sports. Naturally, in Game Six Houston's Roy Oswalt blows away St. Louis like Wilma is wiping out Mexico. No Game Seven. No being at the last game ever at Busch Stadium. Totally screwed.

Speaking of Wilma, wait there's more...

Back in July, my dad and I purchased tickets (flight and game) to this Sunday's Chiefs-Dolphins game in Miami. While buying them, we joked that the biggest hurricane of the year would probably strike that weekend. Little did we know. In September, the Dolphins announced that they would be celebrating the team's 40th anniversary at halftime of this game, a ceremony that would include the honoring of Dan Marino for his induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Wow, I can't believe they picked our game!

AND the Dolphins were bringing the busts for the team's Hall of Famers down from Canton to kickoff the team's Gallery of Legends, which would open that weekend as well, with all of them in attendance.

Unbelievable! This weekend couldn't get any better!

Over the past couple months of course, hurricanes have been popping up like Starbucks, but things seemed to have settled down. Then Wilma reared her ugly head.

That's okay, she's way down in the Caribbean. No way she reaches Miami.

Weather Channel: Well, Bill, our computer projections have Wilma, which incidentally is the most powerful storm ever, hitting Florida this weekend.

What?! Hey, that's fine. If it does hit Miami, it should be through by Sunday, so even if they push the game later or to Monday, we'll be there.

I wake up today to see that the Dolphins have postponed all Hall of Fame and Ring Presentation ceremonies to November, and that the Gallery of Legends won't open until Wednesday. That blows, but at least we'll still get to see the game. We'll even get our own row on the flight down there, because what kind of lunatics would fly into a hurricane?

Weather Channel: Wilma is slowing down; it looks like Florida may not get bombarded until Sunday.

Grrrr. Well, even if they move it to Saturday, we'll still make the game, and we can even ride out a hurricane. That will be an experience.

Then the sledgehammer. The NFL just announced that the game is moved to Friday!?! That's never been done before in the history of the NFL. EVER. No problems there, aside from the fact that I have to work Friday night, switching flights currently costs us the $1200 difference, and oh yeah, who knows when we could get out!?! There is no reasonable scenario that could be worse. Totally. Screwed.

EDIT: Now the hurricane isn't even going to hit until Monday night. And the hits just keep on comin'.

That, my friends, is the Carr Curse. Cubs? They have nothing on us. What could have been the best sports week of my life is now non-existent.

WILMA!!!!!!!!!!

Bond, James Bond.

2005-10-14T17:05:00.000-05:00

The new James Bond has been announced, and you probably haven't heard of Daniel Craig, although you may recognize him, most notably from Road to Perdition or Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. He replaces Pierce Brosnan, who I aver is the best Bond yet. The big catch...he's blond, and says he won't dye his hair, which might look weird, although I think Connery's hair was lighter in some of the earlier pics. I was in favor of Clive Owen, but he may be too recognized by now. I'd prefer a relative unknown to someone famous, like Hugh Jackman or Ewan McGregor. I think this guy has a decent look though. We'll see...

We crash into each other, just so we can feel something.

2005-10-07T11:21:00.000-05:00

Just for Ben, a Crash review...

From Oscar-nominated screenwriter Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby) comes his directorial debut, the adult drama Crash, a project that is nothing if not ambitious,commenting on many of the powerful and controversial themes that drive America and the world.

Crash tells its complex story in fractured vignettes, as the non-traditional narrative tracks over a dozen main characters through a day in their Los Angeles-based lives, all of which are intertwined one way or another. Most of these parts are played well by recognizable faces, if not names, a wise decision that makes tracking the various participants very easy. These characters are a mix of blue collar workers like cops, locksmiths, and store owners, in addition to upper class people like a district attorney and a television producer. The impressive part of this massive character list is that although harsh and gritty, few if any of the portrayals are full stereotypes. Portions of many might be considered trite, but even those characteristics are addressed within the context of the film.

With fathers, mothers, brothers, daughters, these characters collectively provide something for everyone to latch onto as they create some of the frankest discussion you will ever see on film. In doing so, the words avoid being gratuitously explosive, instead casually fitting into the ongoing events, as though the sometimes shocking statements are just normal conversation. In fact, I don't think it uncommon for many of the words to be spoken or pondered in private daily interaction. However seeing and hearing them emanate from the big screen is an entirely different beast, as the movie elucidates many of the thoughts and words nobody will publicly claim.

Addressing touchy issues is a dangerous venture, but one that ultimately rewards more than restraint would have. Race and racism are the explicit themes that have garnered headlines, but beneath it all lies anger. One character poignantly comments on waking up angry for no apparent reason, and that is the root problem that lingers both within the film and within the viewer. Leaving the issue at racism (etc.) would have made for a decent film in itself, but pushing one step further thematically does likewise with the film, making it that much deeper, like the conversations you can have with a close friend as opposed to a casual acquaintance. Mix in the always potent themes of family, life, and death, and you have a film that at some point strikes to the very core of anyone.

The power of Crash stems from that introspection it triggers, encouraging the viewer to examine his own thoughts, motives, and reactions. This brings Traffic to mind, even though Crash lacks the powerful dramatic story arcs of Steven Soderburgh's work. The narrative here occasionally overwhelms emotionally, but does so inconsistently, perhaps because the constant moving between numerous tales slightly retards the emotion. From the intertwining story arcs to a song playing over the final act resolution to a strange something falling from the sky, the film most reminds of Magnolia, but without any sort of emotional upswing at the end. Crash won't leave you feeling as optimistic, although it will make you think more.

Accentuating the penetrating narrative is the tight cinematography. Gone are most of the usual scene-setting wide shots, smartly and cleverly replaced by cuts that switch locations by using congruent shots, such as tight images of two separate people opening a door. Close-ups of faces and hands permeate the picture, subtly but greatly adding to intimate nature of movie, emphasizing the personal level at which the story best connects. Also enhancing the mood is the soft bluish color palette, similar to the also L.A.-based Collateral. But instead of the slick high definition video dominant in Michael Mann's picture, James Muro's frequently hand-held shots are grittier, reflecting the coarse lives and thoughts of the characters.

Typical cinematic storylines need the questions raised within the film to be answered (ahem...War of the Worlds...ahem). Films like Crash excel precisely because they leave the viewer to ponder the posited questions. Equal parts social commentary and observation, this is one of the more daring films of the last few years, and if you take the chance to see it, properly prepared mentally, you won't be disappointed; but you will be pleasantly surprised on numerous levels.

Bottom Line: I initially gave Crash a 7, and I think that's appropriate for a first screening, which is often uncomfortable. The movie improves though, upon further thought and another viewing. So now, 8 of 10.

My opinion of Notre Dame football just hit the [skids].

2005-10-04T20:21:00.000-05:00

No Army of Gnats this week, but it's only Tuesday. I promise a movie review this week, but first a few short football thoughts...

--The Chiefs looked great...in the first half. Answer me this. KC had 20 carries for 104 yards in the first half. So in the second half, they ran the ball exactly seven times. Good thinking.

--The utter absence of a running game is going to catch up with the Iggles eventually. They only ran the ball seventeen times, even when they should have been running out the clock. There should have been 20 seconds on the clock when KC was trying the onside kick, but Philly was inexplicably throwing the ball with five minutes left. Not to mention letting the already banged up McNabb take a few hard shots. Dumb.

--The Dolphins are in first place! Then again, so are the Bears and Lions. And Washington is undefeated. What is going on?

You fumble the football, and i will break my foot off in your John Brown hind parts and then you will run a mile.

2005-09-27T11:21:00.000-05:00

Thought on football and other stuff from the weekend, plus a funny story at the end...

--The Dolphins are in first place. 'Nuff said.

--I have a strange fascination with the Patriots. They're like that celebrity you're obsessed with, even though you're happily involved in a wonderful relationship. They just look so good that you can't stop staring, although you know they're unattainable.

--Speaking of the Pats, is how many clutch kicks has Adam Vinatieri made? Maybe three of the greatest field goals ever (two Super Bowls and the through-the-snow winner in the Tuck Game). Might he be...gasp...the best kicker ever? Won't he have to be considered for the Hall of Fame? I can't believe I'm saying this about a freaking kicker.

--The Jets quarterback is now Brooks Bollinger. I don't think I'll pick them to win the rest of the year.

--The Iggles (and most all) black jerseys are a cheap marketing gimmick. Their kicker deserved to get hurt.

--Green Bay is 0-3. Remember when they were good? As in last year.

--I hate trying to pick the winners of the Chiefs games while living in Topeka. I get so blinded by my nearness to the situation, that I inevitably second- or third-guess myself, always thinking one level too far. And yes, I'm 0-3 on their games this year.

--I also hate ESPN's weekly segment where Sean Salisbury and John Clayton snipe at each other while pretending to talk about football. It's like two junior high kids on an internet message board calling each other names. I actually change the channel when it comes on. It's just that bad.

--If Commander in Chief, the new ABC show featuring Geena Davis as president, were the only show on television, I still don't think I'd watch. But it did receive an endorsement of Riveting! from Oprah Magazine, so maybe I'll reconsider.

Now the story. Last night I was calling the Hayden-Seaman soccer game at Seaman. A couple minutes before the contest starts, I'm up on the roof of the concession stand, ready to roll with my stat sheet and notes. Suddenly, I'm ambushed by a swarm of biting gnats (not a technical term). I swat a few off my arm, the game begins, and I swipe occasionally as we get underway. The itchiness intensifies as I am unable to continually smash the bugs, and a few minutes in, I look down to see a dozen or more on each arm, not to mention what feels like an equal number on my neck. They're even flying onto my sunglasses. Needless to say this is a little distracting while trying to describe a soccer game, especially when flying solo. There are few long pauses as I constantly flick gnats away. Then the coup de grace. A Seaman parent climbs up with bug spray, and douses my arms, neck and back. Great. But then he sprays the front of my shirt, inadvertantly squirting a dose into my face. Let's just say that OFF doesn't taste good. This incident causes my nose to morph into a spicket, my eyes to turn into Niagra Falls. and the two dozen bites on my arm swell up faster than Kirstie Alley. All this is happening, mind you, while I'm still on the air. I try to persevere for a few minutes, but soon I'm sneezing, coughing, and wiping tears from my eyes at a ridiculous rate, all while laughing at how annoyingly ridiculous this is, and trying to maintain some semblance of a broadcast. I gave it a go, but in the end I succumbed to the Army of Gnats, retreated to the truck to call the rest the game off monitors, and dubbed over the first half of the first half.

In my short broadcast career, I've called games from hills and fan-filled bleachers, had a little kid grab the crowd mike and start saying his ABCs, dealt with completely incompetent school administrators, and survived countless other wacky encounters. But this is the wildest thing that's ever happened to me. Unbelievable.

Only a moron can sit and watch two football games, one after the other.

2005-09-19T23:12:00.000-05:00

Sorry Ben, this isn't a Crash review.

Some sundry football thoughts from the weekend. This may or may not become a regular feature...

--The NFC North blows. Minnesota lost at home to Tampa Bay, then didn't show up against Cincy. Green Bay lost at home to Cleveland. Detroit lost by 32 points to the Bears. The division winner might be 7-9...if they're lucky.

--Not only can Mike Martz not manage a clock, but it's contagious. His last QB, Kurt Warner, mangled the end of the Rams-Cardinals game amazingly. Trent Green called two timeouts on the Chiefs opening drive. Impressive.

--Nice of the NFL to reward New England for its consecutive Super Bowl wins by giving them the toughest opening schedule in the league. Versus Oakland, at Carolina, at Pittsburgh, home to San Diego, at Atlanta, at Denver. Holy degree of difficultly, Batman! Five playoff teams from last year and one of the (allegedly) most improved teams this year. That's why there's parity in the NFL.

--Maybe the Dolphins drafted the wrong Auburn running back. Or maybe their offensive line is still pathetic. Maybe both.

--Television comments: Why the heck did the Topeka market get the Cleveland-Green Bay game, arguably the worst game of the day on paper?! We should have gotten the AFC West game, Chargers-Broncos, or even the Dolphins-Jets. Fortunately the listings were wrong and the KC CBS station did have SD-Den. BUT then with the Chargers-Broncos tied late in the game, 6:00 hit, and our cable blacked out the KC station, because that's when 60 Minutes starts. How hard is it to have your engineer flip a switch?

--That's a shame, because as badly as the Chargers-Broncos game was played, it was very entertaining. Drew Brees turned into Jake Plummer for a while. Jason Elam turned into Olindo Mare, and even though Denver dominated the second half, they could easily have lost the game if Schottenheimer hadn't shifted into playoff mode and forgotten about LaDainian Tomlinson in the second half.

--If I were a gambler...uh...okay...if I gambled on football, I would have bet my house on Philadelphia covering the 13 points against San Francisco. Heck, I would have bet them to cover a 20-point spread. Was there anyone anywhere who put money on the 49ers? Easiest. Bet. Ever.

--I'll take the blame for the Redskins comeback. I accidentally sent out the week's Picks Report before the game ended, factoring in a Cowboys win. Dallas immediately blew a 13-point lead in the last four minutes. My bad.

--The three undefeated teams in the NFC are Tampa Bay, New York, and Washington. The Redskins might be the worst 2-0 team ever. And you wonder why that conference stinks.

I don't know the future.

2005-09-10T11:01:00.000-05:00

Predicting what will happen in an NFL season is pretty much impossible. Like that would stop me from trying...

AFC East
1. New England. Duh. They've won three of four titles for a reason. They're good.
2. New York.** A ton of questions, like Pennington's health. Herm Edwards still can't manage a clock; but the way they pound you and then go deep is very dangerous.
3. Buffalo. They finished last year red-hot, but J.P. Losman isn't the answer yet. He can't fill even Drew Bledsoe's shoes.
4. Miami. Alas, alack. Even with Gus Frerotte, my Dolphins will be better this year, but of course they only own four games last year. It would actually be nice if they got the number one pick (Matt Leinart) next year, but they're not THAT bad.

AFC North
1. Baltimore. With that defense and running game, if they only had a decent quarterback, the Ravens would be Super Bowl contenders.
2. Cincinnati.** There's a ton of good young talent on both sides of the ball, and if Carson Palmer continues to mature, they could win the division.
3. Pittsburgh. Last year was impressive, and while the Steelers are still pretty good, luck and the league will catch up with them and Ben Roethlisberger.
4. Cleveland. Appropriately considering their uniforms, this is the most non-descript team in the league. I scarcely considered drafting any Brown in fantasy football, and I actually had to look up their quarterback. That's a bad sign. (Trent Dilfer, by the way.)

AFC South
1. Indianapolis. The only question is if they can ever beat New England, which they can't unless they get homefield advantage.
2. Jacksonville. They don't quite have enough talent at receiver (or running back when Fred Taylor gets hurt) to beat enough people, despite a stout defense.
3. Tennessee. Everyone seems to be writing off the Titans, but they have good talent. Even when Billy Volek fills in for McNair, they will scare some people.
4. Houston. Still no o-line or second receiver for David Carr. Still no winning record.

AFC West
1. San Diego. Like the Chiefs back in the '90s, Martyball rules the division once again, even though it may not seem to make sense.
2. Kansas City. There are too many X-factors for the Chiefs; something has to go wrong. Maybe a Trent Green injury, or an underachieving defense, or the lack of wide receivers. Something will keep them from fulfilling potential.
3. Oakland. Even if Randy Moss doesn't smoke weed during the season, they don't have enough offense to overcome the deficiencies of a below-average defense. Plus has Norv Turner done anything since left Dallas?
4. Denver. Jake Plummer remains wildly inconsistent and will help keep a decent Denver team down. I can't believe people are picking them to win the division.

NFC East
1. Philadelphia. There is so much controversy surrounding this team, from everything T.O. does to Westbrook's contract issues, that something will derail them once they get to the playoffs.
2. Dallas. Bill Parcells finally has his guys, and the Cowboys will make a playoff push.
3. New York. Eli's comin'. So are the opposing defenses.
4. Washington. Joe Gibbs's second season will be better. Barely.

NFC North
1. Minnesota. No Moss? No problem. The Vikes won't miss a beat thanks to an improved defense.
2. Green Bay. A Packers team almost identical to last year's. They live and die by Brett Favre and The Human Fumble (Ahman Green), who will each lose a game or two for them. This is the year they finally go downhill.
3. Detroit. If Joey Harrington doesn't do something with all that offensive talent this year (and he won't), he's done.
4. Chicago. Rookie Kyle Orton will be decent as the starting quarterback. But I hope he has a good life insurance policy.

NFC South
1. Carolina. If the injury bug of last year is gone, this is the best team in the NFC. Very good defense; reliable quarterback; above average WRs and RBs. That's enough in this weakened conference.
2. Atlanta.** Once again, start up the Michael Vick injury pool.
3. New Orleans. As if Jim Haslett needed help screwing up the Saints, Katrina stepped in.
4. Tampa Bay. Brian Griese is the quarterback, and he didn't cut it in Miami. Bad sign.

NFC West
1. St. Louis. New stud #1 running back (Steven Jackson), same old timeout-wasting Rams, looking like world-beaters for much of the season, completely inept when it really matters.
2. Arizona.** Dennis Green is going to implement his high-powered offense here. With Anquan Boldin, Larry Fitzgerald, and rookie tailback J.J. Arrington, the Cards could have the best offense in the NFC if Kurt Warner can hang onto the ball.
3. Seattle. A good young secondary can contain this division, but Hasselbeck needs receivers that can catch something. The fact that I'm finally not picking them to do well is probably their best omen.
4. San Francisco. Maybe if they get a few more #1 picks, they'll get out of the basement.

Playoffs

Wild Card Round
AFC: Cincinnati over San Diego; Baltimore over New York
NFC: Minnesota over Arizona; St. Louis over Atlanta

Divisional Round
AFC: Indianapolis over Baltimore; New England over Cincinnati
NFC:; Carolina over St. Louis; Minnesota over Philadelphia

Championship Games
AFC: New England over Indianapolis (again)
NFC: Carolina over Minnesota

Super Bowl
New England 30, Carolina 20

So the loss of both coordinators and Teddy Bruschi, along with simple probability, dictates that New England won't repeat. But they have no distractions, and until they lose (to someone besides the Dolphins), I'm sticking with them.

The author of this column is not responsible for any monetary losses incurred by adhering to the above advice.

And the show has reached a new low...

2005-09-07T11:32:00.000-05:00

If you haven't seen or heard about Kanye West's ad-lib during Friday night's live Hurricane Relief Telethon, you need to watch it or at least read about it. You'll probably need to watch it twice, just for Mike Myers' utterly stunned reaction. I only wish that this hadn't been such a serious thing, because Myers or Chris Tucker surely could have slammed West into next week. Tucker, by the way, continued with scripted remarks, so the video isn't missing anything there. Unbelievable.

The Dime Bag, volume III.

2005-09-04T21:21:00.000-05:00

Cleaning out the ol' Dime Bag...most of these I watched or re-watched a while ago, but I'm just now getting around to putting something up. Oh yes, this one goes to eleven.

A Few Good Men--An explosive military courtroom drama with a remarkable mixture of humor and poignancy, abetted by a remarkable cast. That combination is part of what makes the film worth repeat viewings. But this is also a story rife with with ethical dilemmas that linger still. A joy to watch. Just don't get a VHS or fullscreen DVD. You'll get seasick. I know the rating is high, but it struck a chord with me, so allow the indulgence. (10)

50 First Dates--A typical romantic comedy, with the gimmick of short-term amnesia. Occasionally amusing, but the same jokes were used far too many times. Blah. (4)

Batman--This version is almost as good as Batman Begins, but in different ways. It doesn't delve into the mystique of the character as much, but does explore the hero-villain relationship more deeply. But it also felt uneven at times, a weird combination of Tim Burton's quirkiness and mainstream comic book stuff. Still good though. (8)

Hitch--Thanks largely to unflagging charisma of Will Smith, Eva Mendes, and Kevin James, this was very watchable and not too bad until it succumbed to the cliches of miscommunication in the final act. That's about as close to complimenting a romantic comedy as I'll get. (5)

Raiders of the Lost Ark--The best action/adventure film ever. (10)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom--This one really isn't that bad; it's just that it follows an all-time great, with a much darker look and feel. (8)

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade--Many people consider this the best of the three. Those people are wrong. It may entertain better, but watching it shortly after the first one made me realize that it was lacking some of the narrative strength and originality, relying more on established characters and star power. (8)

The Notebook--Yes, I actually watched this, and it wasn't terrible. Something I find most interesting in movies (and life) is a huge emotional decision, which was very present here. The movie is very one-note in that regard, as you know where the movie is going the entire time. It probably plays better on the page than the screen, but passionate (probably melodramatic) music and soft pictures help the cause. I guess I'm a sucker for that powerful note...(6)

Blood Work--If Clint Eastwood weren't in this, it would merely be a TV movie. As it is, he makes it slightly better than that through sheer force of personality and screen presence, in a role that could easily be an older version of many of his prior incarnations. If you like Clint, it's not bad, otherwise don't bother. (6)

American Outlaws--From blinding white teeth to improbable stunts to drastic simplification, this is basically a male and Western version of a soap opera, complete with heists and rescues. I hope the people making it knew how over-the-top much of it was, because this is the definition of a popcorn movie. (6)

Ocean's Eleven (2001)--With Steven Soderburgh's brilliant cinematography, a cast of good-looking actors with excellent timing, and an overriding sense of fun, this is one of the ten most rewatchable films I've ever seen. Even viewing it again for the umpteenth time, I picked up on a couple new glances and throwaway lines. If I ever quote a movie line that you don't recognize, there's about a 30% chance it's from this. (8)

That's what I told them...before I killed them.

2005-08-23T23:26:00.000-05:00

New review for Red-Eye...

Let's face it: this has been a bad summer for cinema, even for popcorn movies. Granted, I've seen fewer flicks this summer as well, but that blame can largely be pinned on the lack of creative concepts and intriguing trailers. Flying in the face of this trend is Red-Eye, a promising horror thriller that isn't typically my genre, but had hands down the best trailer of the year and promised...well, something. (If you haven't seen the original teaser trailer, go do it now. Stop reading! Go!)

Red-Eye starts off comfortably, as a man (Cillian Murphy) and a woman (Rachel McAdams) meet each other while enduring a delayed flight. They banter agreeably during their handful of interactions, like a younger and more interesting version of The Terminal. But even during these pleasantries, ominous undertones lurk, as you know if you've seen the trailer or happened to notice the director (Wes Craven) in the opening credits. These conflicting themes create fascinating dynamics during the first act. As though slowly walking to the edge of a high diving board, each tense step forward is tinged with danger and just-there humor, because the audience gleefully knows something the characters don't.

Once the necessary twist occurs, the movie turns into a psychological battle of wits, a chess match in tight quarters, mildly reminiscent of 2002's Panic Room, or more optimistically, Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder. During this middle act, the story contains several amusing side characters, but concentrates on McAdams and Murphy, as does the effectively tight camera lens. This pressures the actors, who both continue to establish themselves on the movie scene. McAdams (The Notebook) fulfills the role of damsel in distress but also empowers her role, deftly conveying thought with minimal facial movement. Murphy (28 Days Later) lends his part a dose of the creepiness from his turn as Scarecrow in Batman Begins, and stirs in a cup of mellow menace by simply setting his jaw and staring intensely. A poor performance from either would have sunk the film in an instant, but their smooth and confident chemistry allow the audience to suspend disbelief when necessary.

That willingness is important because the story lacks surprise (although not suspense) for the most part. But thanks to a few creative twists on plot devices (soap anyone?) and intelligent pacing, Red-Eye is able to overcome its flaws. clocking in at under ninety minutes, the movie zipped along, beginning with the quick-cutting opening moments. Through virtually every shot, either the camera or the plot is moving, forcing the audience to anticipate rather than reflect, and disallowing too much thought on what might not work, not that much fails to cohere, at least in a movie world. Had the flick been stretched to the cinematic standard of two hours, it could have been a painful experience, but Craven again proves to know his audience and stick with what works.

He also chooses, likely willingly, to garner a PG-13 rating, which is a good thing, as the (relatively) minimal violence prevents the movie from straying off course into too much absurdity. This is obviously a much tamer story than any of Craven's horror movies like Nightmare on Elm Street or Scream, but his ability to craft tension remains, particularly in the timing of a late scene. Simultaneously Craven tosses in dashes of humor by consistently not taking the movie too seriously, something evident to the very last shot. This deft combination of drama and subtle comedy leaves a satisfying taste on the audience's cinematic palette.

Despite its flaws, primarily conventionality, Red-Eye is extremely entertaining, finally providing the summertainment that has been missing for the last two months.

Bottom Line: This is the best movie so far this year. 7 of 10.

They have wings, but cannot fly.

2005-08-18T01:37:00.000-05:00

March of the Penguins is the latest independent film phenomenon, garnering much attention, both critically from renowned reviewers and financially at the box office. But I still wondered how the life cycle of a penguin, a seemingly mundane story, could possibly be as good as hyped.

The simple story traces a year in the life of emperor penguins dwelling near the South Pole. Most people know of penguins but do not know much about them. Thus the intrigue of the movie, learning about unknown creatures. While mildly engaging because of the extreme measures these birds take to reproduce, that alone is not enough to garner interest for ninety minutes, although the quirky physical actions of the penguins do merit attention. Let's face it: penguins are weird, and their odd natural movements are what make the movie worth watching. Little things like a bird stumbling into a snowbank; bumping into a compadre; jumping out of the water; or one wandering off in the wrong direction. Things that make you chuckle, as though you were watching a child curiously toddle around a park. That's the universal appeal; words are hardly necessarily and not always used in these scenes.

The sole human voice is Morgan Freeman, who again inimitably delivers the narration, and his sympathetic grandfatherly tone nearly supercedes the script that too often oozes smarminess, although his natural gravitas may actually be a detriment as well, enhancing the words that over-anthropomorphize the penguins. They are freaking birds, clearly not equal beings, too frequently treated as as peers with similar emotions like love, hope, and pain. In the most blatant example, while speaking of the dramatic emotions that the birds feel when tragedy strikes, the over-the-top narration simultaneously generates an unusual combination of sympathy and eye-rolling. Many critics have praised the movie for its powerful emotion, but are moviegoers so starved for a decent story that simple nature is to be considered extraordinary? I think not. The effort is appreciated, perhaps thought necessary for the big screen, but ultimately too much.

The one element that could have salvaged March of the Penguins was the cinematography, which frankly should have been better. The icy natural beauty of Antarctica begs for spectacular scene-setting shots, something along the lines of Touching the Void or 2002's Insomnia, but nothing special is present here. Maybe that was an intentional decision by the filmmakers to avoid distracting from the basic story, but contrasting the soaring surroundings with the literally down-to-earth penguins would have made the movie all the more fantastic on the expanded widescreen. Instead the filmmakers stick with unexciting shots highlighted only by the handful of close-ups that aren't too tight. Additionally several shots are less than crystal clear, perhaps hazy due to the conditions. But they are mildly distracting regardless, as are a few unusual confusing angles and some blatant cheating in the editing room, in which shots of seals were intercut with penguins to give the impression they were simultaneously sharing the same water. Things like this can be overlooked in bigger pictures, but when a movie is as simple as this one, the sometimes smaller components stand out and divert attention when they are subpar, particularly when they could have elevated the movie to greater heights.

March of the Penguins leaves one wondering why it was transformed to the big screen, because the movie is little more than a well done National Geographic special. Freeman's narration is a pleasant cinematic touch, but nothing else except the unctuous script distinguishes this from things seen before on television, despite the inherently amusing idiosyncrasies of the penguins.

Bottom Line: Like its subject, March of the Penguins has wings, but never flies, resulting in a decent but not spectacular movie, far from a must-see. 6 of 10.

How about "Dear Margaret"?

2005-08-08T11:29:00.000-05:00

New review for The Great Raid. Never heard of it? There's a reason for that...

I love war movies and usually keep tabs on the upcoming films in the genre. Therefore I was shocked last week when I saw a television commercial for The Great Raid, a movie I had heard nothing about. Now I know why.

Inspired by actual events, The Great Raid relates a relatively obscure World War II story in which the 6th Ranger Battalion must rescue 500 American prisoners-of-war from Cabanatuan, a Japanese POW camp in the Philippines. The film traces three converging stories about the POWs, the men sent to liberate them, and the civilian resistance front aiding the process, one member of which is romantically linked to one of the prisoners.

While this plot sounds like an excellent foundation, the script and its interpretation prove to be the movie's complete undoing. War films do not require a full portrayal of everything related to the point of emphasis. Other aspects can be incorporated (as in Saving Private Ryan) through brief asides or short encounters with incidental characters. These cinematic conveniences are conspicuous here in their absence, as director John Dahl (Rounders) and company ambitiously attempt to simultaneously tell all three sides of the story, and succeed in fully telling none of them. Had the movie focused on the rescue, it could have been decent. Instead trite and shrug-inducing storylines haphazardly slow everything down, pushing the decent battle scenes to the final act, by which point they are as inevitable and anticlimactic as possible. It is like stuffing an appropriately long one-hour episode of Band of Brothers with far too much filler that overwhelms the actual point of the story.

Due to this lack of action, numerous head-scratching military activities, and a weak romantic story arc, The Great Raid never feels like any kind of war film, let alone a good one. Soldiers spy on passing enemies from visible locations a few feet away; in a scene that nearly parodies itself, a captain hastily scrawls important battle plans in the dirt; characters' motives are rarely explained. Considering how much time is spent attempting to rachet up the drama, the audience is told as little as possible about all of the involved parties. A good amount of that time is spent relating a semi-love story that suffers from Cold Mountain syndrome. The love interests are never given even cursory screentime together, and with the relationship sketchy anyway, the lack of any established connection causes that half of the movie to flounder as well.

High technical achievement could possibly have salvaged The Great Raid, but the special effects, like the nondescript acting, are nothing more than average. The music of Trevor Rabin (Armageddon) ranges from cartoon-like to a melodrama beyond anything John Williams has ever written. (Not to mention the shameless ripoff of Mozart's aria from The Shawshank Redemption) The sole redeeming factor of the entire movie is the color palette, which is largely backlit. The look does not possess the grit of Saving Private Ryan nor the vibrancy of The Thin Red Line, but lies somewhere in between. A slightly washed-out scheme emphasizes the natural greens and browns of the surroundings while still permitting the occasional bright hues to shine, literally and figuratively. But even that and the blatant flag-waving bookends are not nearly enough to earn the movie a recommendation.

The Great Raid sat in the Miramax vaults for over a year, until the Weinsteins dumped it into theaters before their upcoming split with Disney. With two-thirds of the story wholly unnecessary and the rest filled with stock characters and situations, there is little wonder it might never have been released otherwise. This is one of the worst war movies I've ever seen, and that statement is coming from a guy who likes most any such film.

Bottom Line: I don't even recommend this for fans of the genre. Three of ten.

I feel good!

2005-07-19T09:35:00.000-05:00

I guess I'm hitting my annual end-of-summer movie lull a month early, because I haven't seen anything in theaters for a couple weeks, and have only watched The Notebook (which for a chick flick, wasn't terrible) on DVD. The only thing I'm really anticipating the rest of the summer (unless I'm forgetting something) is Red Eye. Again, if you haven't seen the trailer, go watch it. NOW!

And there's always 2008, when there will apparently be a Smurfs movie. Seriously.

But the real point of this post is to point out one of the most sadly hilarious pieces of video I've ever seen. James Brown, out of jail and high on...something. Wow.

So that's how it's gonna be?

2005-07-04T12:54:00.000-05:00

Spielberg. Cruise. Aliens. How can you go wrong? Well...

With War of the Worlds, director Steven Spielberg has crafted a paradox: a movie with the subject of alien invasion that is more about familial relations. Similarly, the film treats the audience in an oxymoronic fashion: entertaining throughout yet leaving them unsatisfied as it follows the adventures of Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise, in a somewhat disorienting out-of-type role), who is a blue-collar New York City divorcee, and his semi-estranged children as they endure extra-terrestrials, each other, and everyone else.

After the brief requisite introduction of characters, the wonderfully intimate portrayal of the dysfunctional father-child relationship (one of Spielberg's most frequent themes) embarks on a wildly successful roller coaster, both physically and emotionally. This dominant portion of the movie is very good, as Cruise and family encounter a raging mix of frightening aliens and equally scary people, some purposeful (the mobs) and some not (a creepy Tim Robbins), and explore their relationships in the process.

I don't like to reveal much about a movie when I review it, but I feel the need...

MAJOR SPOILERS IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH!!!

(clearing throat for rant)

My biggest issue with War of the Worlds is that too much didn't make sense, and I don't mean that in a scientific way. All of the momentum crashed and burned in the last moments, raising a cacophony of questions and providing few answers. You're telling me that these engineering geniuses bit it because they didn't get their shots? That's it?! I don't care if that's how the book ends; it's completely unsatisfying considering how badly they dominated us. Even the typical exploit-their-weakness ending (Signs, every other alien movie) would have been sufficient. Beyond that, what is the purpose of the red vines/roots? Why were the machines affected by the atmosphere? Where is the backup? Why didn't the aliens take over the planet back when they buried their vehicles? And what are the freaking odds that the boy survived, let alone made it back to his grandparents' miraculously picturesque house while they were (from appearances) having tea?! I know that holes can be poked in most any sci-fi movie, but 1) a movie with this pedigree is going to be held to a higher standard than a fun romp like Independence Day; and 2) all of these irksome questions immediately came to mind because they were not evidently answered, except for the purpose of cinematic convenience, which has its place, but not to this degree.

END SPOILERS!!!

(calming deep breaths)

Featuring a less sweeping, more jittery score from stalwart John Williams, War of the Worlds still manages to intensely entrance for ninety-plus minutes while displaying often violent interactions of humans and aliens, and it is a testament to Spielberg's ability that the movie overcomes the aforementioned obstacles for so long. Whether or not you like his work, you have to admit that there are few better storytellers, and his tools are on full display here. Rarely was I bored while watching, with a slightly muted color palette and plenty of eye-twinkling shots courtesy of Spielberg and his regular cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, like the handful of shots through holes in glass, tracking cameras along cracking pavement, and more. Making a big-idea movie is difficult enough without focusing on the small moments of father and daughter, but Spielberg balances the extremes well, and putting the viewer in the shoes of an everyman is ideally effective in retelling this classic tale. That talent merges well with the again excellent work from the effects team at Industrial Light & Magic, which creates alien beings congruent to and unique from (tripods...nice) previous cinematic incarnations, with a sci-fi realism that impresses throughout.

For most of its running length, War of the Worlds is very good, still not the great science-fiction that Minority Report was, but very good. But even during that time, an inquisitive undercurrent flows, asking Where is this going?. Unfortunately that question is never satisfactorily answered with regards to the aliens or the family, resulting in a bifurcated movie experience. Enjoyable but ultimately disappointing. 6 of 10.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED...

2005-06-28T11:43:00.000-05:00

I realized that the biggest single omission from the AFI's Top 100 Movie Quotes (see previous post) has to be Captain Renault's faux ignorance from Casablanca...

I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find that gambling is going on in here! (as the croupier hands him his winnings)

This line is referenced every time a politician/CEO/athlete/VIP feigns bewilderment over the latest scandal or controversy, even by people who don't know its origin. How is it NOT on the list? I suppose because Casablanca had six already. Doesn't matter.

--You're Peter Jackson. What do you do to follow up The Lord of the Rings? How about remaking the classic King Kong? The trailer is out. Like many, I think it gives away too much, but then again, it is a remake, so most people know the plot anyway. There are a few LOTR-esque scenic shots, and the CGI looks solid. Due out Christmas.

--I watched the 1989 Batman movie this week (Keaton, Nicholson, etc.). In all the (deserved) hubub over Batman Begins, don't forget how good this one was, albeit in a very different way. If you haven't seen it, do.

The stuff dreams are made of.

2005-06-23T12:08:00.000-05:00

Check out the new poster for The Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe. I thought the witch's sledge was pulled by white reindeer, but the polar bears do look pretty spiff. And I'm not quite sure what the kids are climbing in the top right corner. But it's still a slick-looking one sheet.

--I finally read Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire. Good story; I look forward to seeing how they chop it down into a movie.

--The American Film Institute released its list of the Top 100 Movie Quotes of all time. Of the 300 that didn't make the final cut, here are the ones I thought coulda/woulda/shoulda been chosen...

William Wallace, Braveheart: They may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!

John McClane, Die Hard: Yippie-ki-yay, @#$%^&*@#$%^!

Maximus, Gladiator: Father to a murdered son. Husband to a murdered wife. And I will havc my vengance, in this life or the next. (Oh, snap!)

Michael Corleone, The Godfather, part II: I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart.

Michael Corleone, The Godfather, part III: Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride: Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. (How does this not make it?)

Darth Vader, The Empire Strikes Back: I am your father.

Nigel Tufnel, This is Spinal Tap: These go to eleven.

Rita & cameraman, Tootsie: --I'd like to make her look a little more attractive. How far can you pull back? --How do you feel about Cleveland?

Dorothy/Scarecrow/Tin Man, The Wizard of Oz: Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Wizard, The Wizard of Oz: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Complaints: I take off the one from The Pride of the Yankees because it was made famous by Lou Gehrig himself, not the movie. I remove Plastics from The Graduate. I hate that Jerry Maguire got two. Gone with the Wind at #1: blah.

Commendations: Six from Casablanca. Two from Eastwood as Dirty Harry. A Few Good Men. Field of Dreams. Caddyshack...It's in the hole!

Here's lookin' at you, kid.

A guy who dresses up like a bat clearly has issues.

2005-06-21T12:35:00.000-05:00

As the title hints, Batman Begins is not a sequel to the three (the latest previous attempt doesn't count) recent installments featuring the Caped Crusader, but rather a new dawn that unabashedly ignores any established precedents. The end result is as intended, breathing brilliant new life into a series that had unfortunately become a laughingstock.

The script's blueprint invigorates the film. Because of the audience's general familiarity with the title character, Batman Begins is able to concentrate on his origin and motivations rather than the crimefighting itself. Like Superman, the best superhero movie ever, the film spends a significant portion of its running length on the how and why instead of the what. We observe the fears and struggles that Bruce Wayne faces, which simultaneously humanize him and heighten his mythic status.

This course of action is primarily executed over the first ninety minutes, during which a depth beyond the typical perfunctory introduction of motives is established. Batman's fearsome aura, the source of his power in both the fictional world of Gotham and the real world of moviegoers, is detailed, resulting in a humor-tinged movie more fascinating psychological thriller than standard adventure flick, although the action scenes still shine, one Batmobile-charged chase in particular. Eventually of course the inevitable protagonist-antagonist showdown evolves, and then the movie deteriorates slightly, but by that point Batman Begins has reached such heights that neither the slight come-down nor occasional cinematic conveniences and niceties (why the kid?) derail the picture.

Aiding in the climb to excellence is the best supporting cast of any Batman film, filled with respected and recognizable faces who nail roles as they suitably show more restraint than many in the prior versions. Cillian Murphy is extra creepy as the the shady psychologist Dr. Crane; Liam Neeson authoritative as Ducard, Bruce Wayne's mentor; Gary Oldman, even though you half-expect him to go psycho at any moment, evokes an excellent world-weariness as Detective Gordon; Michael Caine adds strength to the butler Alfred; and Morgan Freeman as Batman's pseudo-Q is...well, has Freeman ever been anything less than superb? Other talented actors like Tom Wilkinson (crime boss Carmine Falcone), Ken Watanabe (the enigmatic Ra's Al Ghul), and Rutger Hauer (the business head of Wayne Enterprises) round out the predominantly male cast interestingly loaded with Brits. As the mandatory female love interest, Mrs. Tom Cruise...er...Katie Holmes, is fully adequate and attractive, although her part could have been played by numerous actresses.

All that talent matters little if the man behind the cape and cowl falters. But Christian Bale never wavers in either portion of his role. I'll say it...Bale is better than Keaton, Kilmer, or Clooney, combining the best of the two former actors. As Bruce Wayne, he surpasses Keaton's charming playfulness and Kilmer's suave businessman with a twinkle befitting the younger man. As Batman, Bale possesses a masked intensity that blows away all of them, embodying the tortured soul through menacing facial expressions and a daunting physical presence that none of his predecessors maintained consistently.

Beyond an ominpresent score (from Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard) that is unrelenting but still mostly unobtrusive, a solid script and high production value lay the foundation from which the aforementioned excellent work is built. With the feel of a ridiculously polished (as it should be for $135 million) independent film, the Chicago-based Gotham City is edgier and darker than Batman Forever, but grittier than Tim Burton's noir-ish films. Those were bleak by design, while Batman Begins seems to draw its bleakness from beyond mere physicality, from a hope-starved story that matches its dismal yet chimerical backdrop. Instead of the fact-based world of Spider-man and his New York City, Batman and his Gotham sport a fantasy-laced makeover that better allows for distinctions between good and evil. While moral murkiness fits some films (Mystic River), superhero flicks work best with clear-cut distinctions. By creating a city with a sense of elevated reality, director Christopher Nolan and company imbue Batman Begins with a stronger soul that thrives on the film's dominant theme of fear, compounding the movie's allure.

All aspects collectively tap into the mysterious and powerful Batman mythos better than any other movie in the franchise. We now know not just who and what Batman is, but how and why he exists.

Bottom Line: Thus Batman Begins is the best on-screen incarnation of the Dark Knight yet. A high 8 of 10 for what may be the second best superhero film ever.

Probably some local fisherman...out for a pleasure cruise...

2005-06-20T11:53:00.000-05:00

Batman Begins rocks. I'll say it...the best film of the Batman franchise, starring the best Batman, Christian Bale. A full review later this week.

In the meantime, check out my brother's blog if you haven't already. The fam spent the last week on a Caribbean cruise, and he has the pictures and captions to prove it. Like few other vacations, a cruise can completely remove you from the rest of the world, which was a blissful accomplishment. Maybe I'll figure out how to post pictures on my own blog, but I'm selectively lazy, so maybe not.

The Dime Bag, volume II.

2005-06-07T12:45:00.000-05:00

The Hustler. (1961) Click the title for a full review of this pool movie. Great performances from Paul Newman, Jackie Gleason, and George C. Scott, gorgeous black-and-white cinematography, but subpar at times due to a middling love story. (7)

High Plains Drifter. (1973) Pretty simple really; Clint Eastwood meanders into a typical Western town and cleans house. No mercy; no sympathy; no problem. Definitely the darkest of the Eastwood westerns I've seen recently, and not up there with his best. (7)

Red Dragon. (2002) The most recent movie featuring Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, and his various interactions with government agents and serial killers. It's not as good as The Silence of the Lambs, but still entertains with a more active story-telling nature and good acting work from the leads (Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes). Worth a viewing, but not for the faint of heart. (7)

Star Wars. (1977) Despite (because of?) its occasional cheesiness, this is without a doubt an all-time classic. Action, romance, drama, sarcasm. What more could you ask for? One of the rare films to receive a... (10).

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. (1999) There are a lot of things wrong with this movie, from bad acting (Jake Lloyd as Anakin) to bad ideas (Jar Jar Binks). But it's Star Wars! Perhaps nothing compliments the original three more than to say that the wonderful world they create bolsters a movie that is probably subpar to enjoyable status. (7)

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones. (2002) The more I think about this one, the less story I see. There are a couple small but key developments, but that's about it. But somehow it still entertains. See the last sentence of the above comment. (7)

Spirited Away. (2001) This animated movie is the all-time high grossing film in Japan, and the story is ridiculously imaginative. I think it's probably more enjoyable upon a repeat viewing, because the creativity is so off the wall. Better than I liked it. (7)

Starsky & Hutch. (2004) This remake of the TV show, which stars Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, isn't as abrasively bad as many of Stiller's recent movies, but neither is it good in many if any regards. A few mildly funny moments, thanks to the charisma of the leads, and little more. (4)

National Treasure. (2004) An Indiana Jones wannabe that derives most all of its power from the familiarity and allure of its ubiquitious historical content. But it's never as much fun as it could or should be. (5)

Blade: Trinity. (2004) As the title indicates, this is the third in the series of films following Wesley Snipes' titular vampire hunter. I never saw the first two, but I bet this one is the worst. There are a few slick action sequences, and plenty of unintentional comedy, but that's about it. See it if you need to finish the trilogy. (4)

...next time won't you sing with me.

2005-06-02T19:39:00.000-05:00

The rest of the list...

Network. Because I work in the media, I found humor is this scathing comedy/parody about television news more easily than most will. Good performances and ripping dialogue all around. Hitchcock's North by Northwest would be a worthy choice as well.

The Outlaw Josey Wales. The best western I've ever seen beats out a couple Steven Soderburgh flicks, Ocean's Eleven and Out of Sight. Clint Eastwood's rugged antihero persona oozes off the screen, and is captured in a quintessential picture in a remarkable door-opening.

The Princess Bride. Blending action and comedy into a fairytale parody, this childhood favorite still entertains with its memorable characters, quotes, and sequences.

Quiz Show. It's the only option, but Robert Redford's film about a game show scandal is still quite good, worthy of the Academy nominations it received.

Raiders of the Lost Ark. The actual title of the first Indiana Jones movie, and the best action/adventure movie I've seen. (Rear Window)

Star Wars. The most-loaded letter of them all. Seven Samurai, The Shawshank Redemption, Saving Private Ryan, Superman...all among my top films, but Star Wars outshines them all. The recent prequels further prove the power of the story and the charming tactile quality of the original. As good as movies get.

Toy Story 2. Edging out another Soderburgh work, Traffic, for rewatchability, both Toy Stories are great movies, exceeding the boundaries of animation by using storylines normally restricted to live-action pictures. Excellent voice work and state-of-the-art graphics put Pixar on the map with these stories, and I take the second one, because it's simply more fun.

The Usual Suspects. Comedy in the first half combines with twisting drama in the second to form a indie film favorite. Lots of great performances, and an underappreciated well-done job by director Bryan Singer. The crime story could easily have been too convoluted, but instead it shines. (Unforgiven)

La Vita e Bella (Life is Beautiful). Cheating a little here with the Italian title. Neither Vertigo (too creepy) nor Victory (too cheesy, even for a sports movie) can touch this film, a tear-jerker about Roberto Benigni's love for his child during World War II. The film juxtaposes genres a bit awkwardly, but the raw emotional power supercedes any problems. It's a shame that Benigni's over-the-top Oscar display overshadows a great film.

The Wizard of Oz. This isn't even close. An all-time classic. I watched it a couple times recently, and shamelessly smiled the whole time. Simple yet elegant themes, and a child-like attitude pervade the film, maybe the best kids movie ever.

X-Men. Not a bad movie, but hands down the worst of these 26 winners. Then again, the comic book adaptation was only up against its own sequel and XXX.

Ying Xiong (Hero). Slim pickings here, as it beat out You've Got Mail and Young Guns. I think the politics muddy the film up a little, but the martial arts scenes are stellar.

Zoolander. This Ben Stiller parody of the male modeling world is my only option, but it's better than Stiller's recent movies (all 329 of them), and it's really, really good-looking.

And a bonus number...

12 Angry Men. A clinic in how to write and tell a story. Every moment leads perfectly into the next in this observation of a jury's simple (or not) deliberations. Black and white and gorgeous.

If there's anything I learned from making this list, it's how much I appreciate humor in movies. Not in the typical comedy sense though. Many of these pictures interlace subtle humor with dramatic or adventurous story arcs, which is how I think life should be.

Now I know my (cinematic) ABCs...

2005-05-31T01:30:00.000-05:00

Here's what happens while I'm "working" on a holiday: a list of the best movies I've seen, by letter of the alphabet, with runners-up when appropriate, defined by a combination of high achievement, personal preference, and excellence within the genre. An interesting study (at least to me), facilitated by IMDB.com's vote history function. I hope I didn't overlook anything.

Part One:

Amadeus. Having sung Mozart's Requiem, this movie about his somewhat tragic life struck a chord with me. It is a near perfect biopic, unashamed to show both flaws and successes, powered by the nonpareil music.

Band of Brothers. Sure it was actually television, but this ten-part miniseries is good enough to make this an easy choice. One of the best things ever. (Batman)

Casablanca. This classic romantic drama lives up to its formidable reputation. Just check out how many cliches were formed by the quick-paced and witty dialogue. (Cast Away, Charade)

Die Hard. Because it set the action standard for modern cinema. Bruce Willis is the perfect hero-in-distress, complete with cowboy attitude, memorable quotes, and coolness under pressure. (Dr. Strangelove, The Dirty Dozen)

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Spielberg at his storytelling finest. A little manipulative? Sure, but this story of an alien's interaction with young children does borderline melodrama better than anything else.

A Few Good Men. One of my favorite movies ever. This court martial tale combines humor, drama, sarcasm, and moral dilemmas like few other movies. Powerhouse performances from Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson are complemented by a fantastic supporting cast. (The Fugitive)

The Godfather. Best film ever. Performances, photography, music, themes. Everything is phenomenal. (The Godfather, Part II, The Great Escape)

His Girl Friday. The fastest and sharpest dialogue you may find anywhere. As newspaper reporters and ex-spouses, Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell compose an unrivaled symphony of words. A must-see for those who haven't. (Hamlet [1996], Hoosiers)

The Incredibles. A pretty weak letter in my movie repertoire, with In the Line of Fire and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade the closest competitors. About a typical family that happens to possess superpowers, Pixar's latest and most mature picture is a new step for computer-generated films.

JFK. Tough call here. But JFK is a perfect example of the power of movies. Edited brilliantly, it explores conspiracy theories with a pace and rhythm fully worthy of its Oscar. (Jaws, Jurassic Park)

King Kong (1933). Outside of Kill Bill and maybe Koyaanisqatsi, there wasn't much to choose from here. This 70+ year-old film holds up surprisingly well, and seeing how Peter Jackson's upcoming remake compares will be fascinating.

The Lord of the Rings. The whole trilogy. Not much needs to be said here.

The Matrix. This is a loaded letter (The Magnificient Seven, Memento, Men in Black, Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, Les Miserables [1995 French version]). But this mind-bending action sci-fi film with a brain is one provided one of my this changes everything movie moments. Another modern landscape-altering movie. Overrated and underrated, in that some claim to love it but don't understand its depths.

Part two coming later this week...

YOU WERE THE CHOSEN ONE!

2005-05-25T12:08:00.000-05:00

EDIT: Check out my brother's accomplishment in the link on the sidebar.

New review for Episode III...

(Note: I reveal major details, but if you know what has to happen, there are no surprises.)

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith faces an interesting narrative predicament, because not only does everyone know where it begins (picking up during the Clone Wars, a few years after Episode II ended), they also know where it ends (about two decades before the original Star Wars begins). This both abets and subverts the power of the film, which must be considered the best of the three recent installments. Knowing what must happen eliminates the suspense factor, but adds different emotional layers that more than adequately fill that void.

As is expected from George Lucas and Industrial Light & Magic, the pervasive digital effects are excellent, forging worlds and creatures that delight the imagination. The film looks fantastic, probably too fantastic, absent the physicality and oddness of actual sets and scenery, of which there is little. This causes the actors to work against instead of with the backgrounds, depriving the film of a little reality, and giving it an almost cartoonish feel different than traditional celluloid products.

The actors, particularly youngsters Natalie Portman and Hayden Christenson, have aged a few years since the first two prequels, as have their characters. This newfound maturity combines with the stronger emotion of the script to produce better but still occasionally wooden performances. The work as a whole is hindered by Lucas's again stilted dialogue, lacking the edgy attitude and sharp delivery that highlighted the original trilogy.

Episode III waits until the halfway point to take off, spending the first hour setting the stage for the showdowns that everyone anticipates. Once the true conflict begins, the excitement makes the jump to light speed, climaxing with highly enjoyable intercutting light-saber battles that would be considered too lengthy if they were done with traditional swords. But come on, they're light-sabers. They're just cool.

What differentiates Episode III from the other prequels is the compelling emotion dripping from Anakin Skywalker. After two movies worth of buildup, the payoff finally arrives in the last hour, which is ridiculously engaging. Finally in this picture we see flashes of Anakin's potency, of why he will be (was?) referenced with such awe in the future. We also see the delicious why and how of the mentally torturous process he endures in crossing over to the Dark Side. One would figure that this transition to Darth Vader would be a crowning villainous moment. But while that thought has some truth, the overwhelming emotion is instead sorrow, a surprising yet cinematically pleasing moment that generates sympathy and wistfulness as the pendulum swings drastically from good to evil. This is undoubtedly the emotional zenith of the prequels, and possibly all six movies.

As just indicated, Episode III derives most of its power from the rest of the films. Were the same components part of an unrelated movie, it wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable, nor as highly rated. But because of the engrossing nature of the world and strong characters created in the original trilogy, the entertainment value skyrockets. Simply seeing cinematic friends on screen again is a welcome sight. Joy is found in little things like the actions of Yoda and R2-D2, and in the filling out of one of the greatest movie stories ever.

Bottom Line: It's Star Wars! 8 of 10.

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's...

2005-05-23T13:01:00.000-05:00

...not an Episode III review. I know you're all waiting with bated breath, but life has gotten in the way. Or something. Maybe tomorrow. Definitely by Wednesday.

In the meantime, check out this shot of Brandon Routh, the new Superman. The movie, entitled Superman Returns, is set for release next June 30th. I'm still partial to Batman, but director Bryan Singer has a good track record, so the wait should be worth it.

You've got to know where your towel is.

2005-05-16T12:25:00.000-05:00

New review for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...

Looking for a movie that's completely different from the norm? Looking for something in which you can't anticipate every twist and turn of the plot? Looking for an off-the-wall comedy with little like it anywhere? Then this is the movie for you.

Based on Douglas Adams' well-known book (which I haven't read), The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy takes the science fiction genre, turns it on its head, and throws in a dash of light romance. The audience is placed in the shoes of everyman Brit Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman), whose friend Ford (Mos Def) yanks him into an extraterrestrial world he never knew existed. Along the way, he encounters people ranging from aliens to the president of the galaxy to a manic depressive robot. This cast of characters (an appropriate word indeed) inject humor and adventure into the trip through their antics and actions, which result in an unusual but enjoyable ride for those who can handle a film that is willing to defy modern comedy conventions.

Guide isn't played for comedy, in the sense a typical Adam Sandler or Will Ferrell movie is. Neither is it as droll as Christopher Guest's work (This is Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman, etc.). Somewhere in between is Guide's striking mix of comic timing (What are cows?), odd characters (um...all of them), and non-sensible occurrences (sundry). In a single word, the book and film will no doubt be pigeonholed as random, but that is too narrow a definition. The film is nothing like the non sequitur nature of Napoleon Dynamite, even though many unorthodox portions will seem haphazard initially. Taken in context, however, most everything makes sense by the end if not within minutes. This ability to creatively rationalize seemingly incongruous comments and events is the most remarkable thing about Guide. I went in expecting a fully random movie that didn't necessarily make sense, but I left after watching a film that somehow united what could have been helter-skelter calamities into a cohesive story.

Aiding that process are the very impressive visual and physical effects. They don't wow you Matrix-style or bombard you like the new Star Wars movies. Instead they blend in with the story, not standing out or drawing undue attention. You might not even notice them while watching the film, but then you realize how much simply had to be computer-generated. Additionally, the choice of using costumed actors as the aliens was also a wise decision, and gave a physical reality to the universe, which cinema too often portrays as too otherworldly. Both versions of special effects do their jobs, which is to unobtrusively tell the story, and that is perhaps the highest compliment possible for an effects team.

Without a solid crew of actors (Sam Rockwell & Zooey Deschanel included), the excellent source material could easily have been destroyed in delivery. But they heed advice doled out within the movie, and don't panic. Most of them are veteran thespians, and that ability to remain consistent and steady in an otherwise insane world grounds the film. This makes it more accessible and less ridiculous, a profound feat considering the askance view of life that Guide takes.

That oblique stance, which clearly stems from Adams himself, entrenches itself from the opening sequence, which features singing dolphins (seriously). This first scene warns and prepares you for the rest of the movie, and five minutes in, you'll know whether or not you'll enjoy the movie.

I loved the opener, and greatly enjoyed the entire film, grinning and chuckling throughout, with bursts of laughing-induced tears mixed in. I am not a big fan of cinematic humor as a whole, but Guide is the best pure live-action comedy I can remember since Men in Black.

Bottom Line: Highly recommended for those with a healthy sense of humor. 8 of 10.

He's not a tame lion.

2005-05-12T13:05:00.000-05:00

If you haven't watched the trailer for The Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe, check out the link on the right. Various thoughts...

I have mixed feelings about adapting the books to the big screen. I know these books as well as anything I've ever read. I read the entire series at least once a year from kindergarten through eighth grade; listened to the audio books countless times; have seen the BBC versions multiple times; and seen my brother in a couple of the plays. But those interpretations are different. They weren't as well done or thorough as these films will be.

What concerns me is the loss of imagination. Not that the filmmakers will get it wrong, but that they won't match my mental pictures. (I know there's a quote from Tolkien or someone about this, but I didn't find it.) For example, I was awed by the massive shot zooming up the walls of Cair Paravel, but I simultaneously couldn't help thinking that it was too big. I'm sure there will be many examples of such conflict when the movie comes out.

I was trying to remember another example of a book I knew and loved that was translated to the big screen, but I haven't come up with one yet. Now I know how all the Lord of the Rings fanatics felt when the films were released. Hesitant yet ecstatic.

Also, I and others have noticed that the trailer paints pictures that seem a little less "realistic" than say, LOTR, glossier and more fantastical. Is this intentional? I don't know. I think it could be due to the unfinished nature of the footage. But it would make sense if it were on purpose. Narnia is more of a fantasy world than Middle Earth, and maybe it should have more of an ethereal feel. Either way, I'm excited, but reluctantly so.