Bryan's Movie Reviews

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

2005-11-19T00:01:00.000-07:00

Movies based on books have a lot to live up to. When it comes to translating a well-loved series to the screen, it compounds the issue. Many fans want the films to be 6 hour events with every detail included, every line of dialogue included and Hermione's dress to be the right color just like it was on page 183. Needless to say, several people just aren't going to be pleased no matter what. I've become a loyal fan of the books (a "Potterhead" as a friend likes to say) and I was very pleased with this movie. It isn't everything it could've been, but it was very good. It might've benefitted from an extra hour, but the same is true for most page-to-screen adaptations.

Victor Krum and the titular Goblet of Fire.

The 4th installment in the series brings the prestigous Triwizard Tournament to Hogwart's. This tournament is a large scale, highly dangerous event with participants from Hogwart's as well as 2 other wizarding schools. These events overshadow some dark happenings in the wizarding world, this film is the darkest one yet which I like. The film is pretty loyal to the book, moreso than Prisoner of Azkaban was anyways, and while there are some characters and points left out (nary a house elf in sight) the good stuff is pretty much in tact. The pacing is a little fast for me though, it sometimes has the feeling of rushing from major plot point to major plot point. The appearance of the Dark Mark didn't have the impact it did in book, nor did the presence of Rita Skeeter. Again, I suppose it's the price one pays for adapting from a book.

Emma Watson, Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe in Goblet of Fire.

There is quite a lot of action, as well some humor that actually worked this time (they included the wonderful ferret scene.) The failed attempts at humor really brought the 3rd film down for me. There is some teenage drama, but that's to be expected; the characters are 14-15 years old. The acting is mostly solid. I thought Emma Watson was overacting a bit, but I'm guessing she was directed that way. Newcomer Brendan Gleeson does a fine job as Mad-Eye Moody, the school's 4th Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher in as many years. Ralph Fiennes plays an excellent Voldemort and I look forward to seeing him get more screen time in upcoming installments. And Alan Rickman simply is Professor Snape. My only real complaint is with Michael Gambon as Professor Dumbledore. Richard Harris had presence, he brought authority, sensitivity, humor and class to the role. Gambon's Dumbledore is too intense and not warm enough. I'm afraid that the character's relationship with Harry which is so prominent in the books will suffer because of this. It already has.

All told, I really enjoyed Goblet of Fire. I think most reasonable fans of the books will appreciate it as well. The series is moving in a more adult direction, the young actors are continuing to grow into their characters. I'm really looking forward to Order of the Phoenix, my favorite book in the series. The books will always be better than the films, but don't let that keep you from Goblet of Fire.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire earns 3.5 Mad-Eye Moodys out of 4

Crash

2005-10-22T00:01:00.000-06:00

On the surface, Crash is a movie about racism. Everyone in the film says, does, or thinks something racially motivated at some point during the movie. It is also about how racism, violence and hatred are so prevalent in our lives that they can become second nature. At one point on of the characters reflects "I wake up everyday feeling angry and I have no idea why."

An important scene in Crash.

This is the movie that Magnolia should have been. The events of Crash take place over a 24 hour period in the melting pot that is LA. Several characters lives and stories play out here and they intertwine frequently. It's a sometimes violent film, but it's more about the terrible things we say and think about each other and how isolated we can become. There are no clear cut heroes in this film; evil is not so easily defined. This is one of the film's best achievments. It'll have you hating characters one minute then wondering about them the next. It isn't very often I get to see a movie where my heroes and villains aren't neatly packaged and labelled for me. I enjoyed it.

Among the characters are a white cop (Matt Dillon) who pulls a couple over not so much because they're 'having a little adult fun' while driving but because the driver is black and his light skinned wife is mistaken for white. The cop then proceeds to humiliate and violate the couple in front of his shocked partner (Ryan Phillippe.) There is the black TV sitcom director who is told that one of his actors doesn't sound 'black enough.' Problem is, the director himself doesn't 'sound black' either. There's the rich, white housewife who insists to her husband that they have their locks changed again in the morning when she sees that the man changing their locks is a young hispanic man with tattoos and a shaved head. "Could you please ask them not to send a gang member next time?" she says. Whether or not he is a gang member isn't the relevant question. There's the pair of young black men who complain about how they're looked at and treated but eventually their behavior perpetuates that discrimination. He complains that the black waitress gave them bad service because she knows black people don't tip for shit. "Oh yeah? What kind of tip did you leave?" to which his friend replies "...I'm not tipping for that kind of service."

It's nice to see Sandra Bullock in a dramatic role. She plays her part well.

Every character in the story is both guilty of racism and a victim of it. Kudos to Paul Haggis for making a powerful film about racism that is neither preachy nor sappy. Crash is a powerful, effective piece of entertainment which will make most viewers think about themselves and the world around them. I wholly reccomend this movie.

Crash earns 4 wombats out of 4.

Game Review: Indigo Prophecy

2005-10-18T20:20:00.000-06:00

Platform: Playstation 2, XBox, PC

From the early eighties to mid nineties, some of the best video games were adventure games. As video games became more and more mainstream entertainment featuring increasingly shiny graphics, adventure games have become a dying breed. Games such as Maniac Mansion, Grim Fandango, Myst and Shadowgate have been replaced by Halo, World of Warcraft and Madden football. Every now and again a fine adventure game rears its head and sells barely well enough to keep the struggling genre viable. The last such game was The Longest Journey. Indigo Prophecy is another such game.

Indigo Prophecy has a beautiful, melancholy atmosphere.

Indigo Prophecy has generally recieved positive reviews and has sold decently enough, though it is not on par with the other adventure games I mentioned. This is a sad fact, as it had the potential to be the best of the bunch. After the first couple of hours I was absolutely enamoured with this game, but the game's niggling little drawbacks kept picking at me until the game's end. The bad points certainly did add up, though the game has its good points, originality being chief among them.

First the good: The game opens on a brutal murder in the dirty bathroom in a small diner as the snow pours down outside the windows. You control the murderer who awakens as if from a trance to find a bloody knife in his hands and a dead body at his feet. Some 20 yards away, a cop sits at the counter nursing his coffee. You must find a way to get out of the diner without giving yourself away, and you must do so before anyone else enters the bathroom. After quicky cleaning things up as best I could, I calmly left the bathroom, left the payment for the bill on the table, walked out the door then took off like a bat out of hell down the street. My job was to avoid capture while trying to find out why this happened.

If you commit a murder, the first thing you should do is try to stuff the body down the toilet.

The game then puts you in control of the 2 investigators who come to check out the crime scene and look for clues. It's neat to see what you missed and what you gave away (my silly ass moved the body, washed my hands, mopped the blood up then left the bloody murder weapon on the floor for the cops to find.) The game has several options for interacting with your environments, as well as several dialogue options which are times and cannot be initiated more than once. There are many instances where a botched puzzle or boneheaded conversation simply alters the story rather than making the player redo it by trial and error. This is a wonderful game mechanic and it gives the feeling of being a part of a real, interactive world rather than a static one. The idea of playing both the criminal and his pursuers is likewise very well done and it creates sympathy for both sides. The game has some interesting minigames as well as some intriguing decisions to be made that give the game replay value. For example, you see a child fall into an icy river. No one else sees this, but you see two cops (including the one from the diner) approaching. Do you save the child and risk capture or do you save your hide and leave the child for dead?

Now for the bad: The game is a fine interactive experience, and if they'd left it as strictly a dialogue/moral decisions/ solve puzzles adventure game, it would've been great. Instead, the game is full of on screen prompts which you have to mimic to advance through several areas of the game, almost constantly in fact. It is basically the equivalent of Dance Dance Revolution performed with 2 analog sticks. The other common one requires you to button mash the L1 and R1 buttons alternately. This sort of thing is simply irritating to have in an adventure game, it seemed like th game designers decided to arbitrarily throw in some fast paced button pushing to keep us from getting bored. Some areas it fits in context with the onscreen action (tapping the analog sticks to dodge things being thrown at you for example) but other times these onscreen prompts come up during dialogue or flashbacks. I was staring at the symbols on the screen and tapping my analog rather than being able to concentrate on the story and setting. This is unforgivable in a game that is all about immersion and story.

Cop and killer meet face to face for the first time.

Some of the minigames also seem forced. A basketball game? A boxing match? Two fucking STEALTH missions??? When I buy an adventure game, that's exactly what I want. Madden owners don't have side-scrolling action combat levels thrown in. Gran Turismo owners don't have to shoot terrorists during the course of the game. Give me what I paid for. Variety is good. Mixing genres isn't. Also, the story that starts out with so much promise eventually deteriorates into standard sci-fi crap, and the closer it gets to the end, the more the train goes off the track.

Indigo Prophecy is a unique, imaginitive, flawed game. This game makes me excited that there is still the possibility for art and imagination in the increasingly stagnant video game market. If Quantic Dream can build on this game and eliminate the negative points, they will give gamers something to be excited about. For the time being, however, Indigo Prophecy is a beautiful game with a lot of squandered potential.

Note: Indigo Prophecy is a fairly short game that could be finished in a weekend. I absolutely reccomend it as a rental.

Indigo Prophecy earns 2.5 wombats out of 4

The Assassination of Richard Nixon

2005-10-03T08:05:00.000-06:00

Was Nixon assassinated? Nope. This movie tells us the true story of a man who tried. The main character, played by Sean Penn, is Sam Bicke. Sam Bicke is a furniture salesman. He is a moral, honest man who despises liars and dishonesty. Yes, he is in the wrong profession. At one point in the movie, he goes off on a tangent about how his boss was asking his salesmen to LIE by telling the customers that cutting 15% off the sales price was the absolute rock bottom price when in fact the markup was 30%. Scandal!!

Sam attempting to communicate with his wife Marie (played by Naomi Watts)

I was reminded over and over of the movie Falling Down. These two titles are very similar as are their main characters. The Assassination of Nixon is really about the American Dream which is, after all, a sales pitch. We see the events of Bicke's life unfold before him: He is a marginally talented salesman who is desperately trying to start his own business and to reunite with his estranged wife and children. It's obvious to the viewer that both attempts will fail, largely due to Bicke's bitterness in life. The more his life comes apart, the more resentful he becomes towards The System, the one that promised him the happy marriage, successful job, white picket fence and 2.4 kids. He gets caught in the trap of feeling that the world owes you a living, and the it's not doing its job of delivering. It doesn't help that the business he works in (or the boss he works for) is a microcosm of that false promise.

Where does Nixon fit into all of this? The story takes place in 1973, and it's interspersed with various television of Nixon's public addresses. Bicke's boss summed it up best: "You know who the world's best salesman is? Richard Nixon. In '68 he swore he'd end the war and we voted him in. What does he do? He sends more troops into Vietnam. In '72 what did he say? 'Re-elect me and I'll end the war.' And we made him president again. He made a promise, failed to deliver, promised us the same thing again and we believed him both times." In Bicke's mind, Nixon stands for dishonesty and the decline of morality and values in American life.

Assassination is not a fun or easy film to watch. Some viewers will be bored by it, as the film is heavy on character development and light on action and humor. It is the story of a man's descent into madness, bitterness and isolation. Some scenes are painful to watch such as when he gets his last big letdown in the film, we do not get a reaction of rage or fury, but the meek reaction of a man who has been defeated and cannot muster the will to lash out. Sean Penn is, as usual, outstanding. Don Cheadle and Jack Thompson turn in strong performances as well. If this sounds like your kind of movie, you'll probably enjoy it. If not, maybe not.

The Assassination of Richard Nixon recieves 3 wombats out of 4.

Constantine

2005-09-25T08:31:00.000-06:00

The tagline for the film is "Hell wants him. Heaven won't take him. Earth needs him." That about sums it up. Constantine is based on the comic book series Hellblazer about a man who has been literally to hell and back. Keanu Reeves was cast in this role because he was Neo in the Matrix. His character here, John Constantine, is very similar but more hardened and less unsure.

HELLO. I AM JOHN CONSTANTINE. I AM TOUGH AND GRITTY. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, PLEASE NOTE MY CIGARETTE, LIQUOR BOTTLE AND HAGGARD EXPRESSION.

Constantine is about a man who sends demons back to hell when they overstep their boundaries here. You see, while god and the devil can't directly interfere with matters on earth, the planet is full of half-breeds (Half man/demon or half man/half angel) and if these people start unleashing their demons and killing people, John Constantine finds them and kicks their asses.

Constantine isn't a bad movie. It isn't a good movie either. It is a sci-fi action films about angels and demons, heaven and hell; it comes with exactly everything you'd expect. Some one-liners and special effects, the character who is a skeptic and finds out The Truth, a few surprises and plot twists and roll credits. Keanu Reeves is adequate in this role; Rachel Weisz is a notch above him as the skeptic cop.

Chances are, if you want to see Constantine you will probably like it. Like I said, it isn't really bad it's just not original and surprising in any way. If watching Keanu Reeves battling demons and speaking platitudes about heaven and hell sounds like your thing, by all means go rent Contantine. If not, maybe not.

Contantine earns 2.5 wombats out of 4

Game Review: God of War

2005-09-22T22:46:00.000-06:00

God of War
System: Playstation 2
Publisher: Sony
Released: 2005
Players: 1

For you impatient ones out there, here is a two word review for God of War:

Fucking Awesome.

For everyone else, here's a review:

Though gaming has seen its fair share of iconic characters, few have been real badasses. Mario, Sonic and Link have always had humorous, fun sides to them. Dante from the Devil May Cry series was, until recently, the coolest, most ass-kickingest video game character I'd ever played as. Kratos, the main character in God of War is the nastiest, cruelest, most intimidating game character I've ever seen. Dante had a tongue in cheek sort of sense of style and coolness to his act. Kratos fucks shit up with no pretenses. There's no swagger, no smirk, no taunting. Just blood, blood and more blood.

One of the scenes that makes God of War a classic: An epic battle with a hydra aboard a ship.

God of War is rated 'M' and with good reason. This game is on par with a very R rated film, definitely not for kids. It's truly a game for adults, much more so than Grand Theft Auto (cursing, lockerroom jokes and handguns don't make you a grownup.) GoW is definitely not for the squeamish, as you'll see blood spraying everywhere during cutscenes and gameplay. The game's excellent story puts the violence into context though. This is a game of battle and greek gods. Kratos is a spartan warrior who sold his soul to Ares, the God of War, in exchange for victory on the field of battle. As is typical in greek mythology, the price was higher than Kratos was willing to pay. This is a tale of a mortal's vengeance against a god. In his travels, Kratos will also meet up with Zeus, Posiedon, Athena and others.

Beat him to death with your bare hands? Tear him in half? Ram your sword through his chest? Decisions, decisions....

You begin the game with little knowledge of Kratos, only that he is a heartless, bloodthirsty, vicious bastard. The game slowly feeds you Kratos' story through cutscenes. The story is powerful, the battle is exhilirating and the puzzles are well distributed. Kratos really feels like a one man army, and it's easy to get in character during the game. Walking into a room full of enemies and what should be overwhelming odds, I was simply determined and confident that I'd tear every last one of them apart. The combat is fast and intense, and before long you'll be stringing together combos and tearing your foes apart with Kratos' Blades of Chaos - these were his 'gift' from Ares: twin blades at the end of chains which are soldered onto his flesh. Kratos can literally tear his foes in two.

The game starts out on a ship which is being attacked by a massive hydra. This first stage sets the tone for the game very well. Along the way you'll visit Athens, Hades and eventually the Temple of Pandora to retrieve Pandora's box. The temple was built by an architect who slaved for the gods and everntually went insane. Pandora's Box is the stuff of legend, and its retrieval is a suitably monumental task in the game. The game definitely has its share of memorable moments. The first time I laid eyes on Ares was one of those 'holy shit' moments for me. "I have to kill HIM?!?" Pandora's temple is chock full of traps, puzzles and general unpleasantness. One such area has Kratos running down a hallway while huge flaming boulders are rolling at him. My fiance' was cheering and gasping as I dodged the flaming rocks. It was like watching Indiana Jones or something.

Kratos handling crowd control.

The overall presentation of the game is splendid: from graphics to music to narration the game really has an epic feel to it. God of War is simply an incredible experience all around. A few of the jumping puzzles had me cursing a bit, but none of them were impossible. Some just took 10 or 15 tries. God of War is one of the finest action/adventure games ever made. Or a better way to put would be "Oh my fucking god, this game is awesome!"

4 big Kratos heads out of 4

Magnolia

2005-09-20T22:46:00.000-06:00

HOLY FUCKING HELL.

I heard stories of how great this movie was. It sounded like my kind of movie - deep and meaningful, artfully done. It was directed by Paul Thomas Anderson who directed Punch Drunk Love. Mr X loves that guy.

Mistake #1: Expectations were high.

I haven't seen it until now because anytime I see it for sale, it's always more than $20. I bargain shop for my movies, and $20 is way too much to spend on a movie I've never seen. So when I found it on sale in the used section at Gamestop, I danced a jig and snagged it.

Mistake #2: Putting the disc in the DVD player.

Magnolia opens with some interesting little snippets about amazing coincidences throughout history, talking about how these things can't really be just coincidences. For example, it talks about a triple hanging in a small town named Greenberry Hill. The three contestants, guilty of murder, had the last names Green, Berry and Hill. Wacky shit. On to the movie. The movie consists of the stories of nine people whose lives are all in some way intertwined. There were two characters in the film I didn't hate. For me, this movie was little more than a long exercise in misery. The characters have terrible things happening to them. They ruin the lives of others. The fact that they were all intertwined didn't really impress me. There were no neat little revelations where I looked at the screen, nodded and said "Oh! That's the guy from the game show! It all makes sense now!"

The acting was great (especially Tom Cruise) but good god, the fucker is 3 hours long. I kept wondering where it was all going. Around the 2 hour mark, I started wishing death upon the characters. I started thinking "Ok. I hate these fucking people. Do I really care what happens to them?" As it turns out, it wasn't going anywhere. Hooray.

SPOILER:

So anyways, something big did happen near the end of the movie. But it didn't mean anything. It fucking rained frogs. Fucking frogs. Yes, I realize this is a phenomenon that really happens. That doesn't make it a solid way to tie a story together. Spontaneous combustion happens too. Raining frogs is quite nuts, and in most movies I'd be ok with it. I wanted some sort of resolution here though.

END SPOILER

This movie is supposed to be about forgiveness, not there was much forgiveness in the movie. Maybe it's supposed to be about fucking ugly and terrible life can be. Maybe it's true, but I don't need to watch 3 hours of it to remind me. So, this is me working on forgiveness for pt Anderson for making this movie, and forgiveness for the people who said it was the second coming. It was unique, which is good. But it was also shit, which is bad.

Christopher Guest is Nuts in a Can

2005-09-09T19:43:00.000-06:00

He is.

Christopher Guest is a funny, funny man. The movies he is known best for are his "mockumentries." He had a hand in writing and directing some of the funniest movies I've ever seen. Most of these films have the same actors in common: Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Bob Balaban, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Parker Posey and Fred Willard among others.

Shearer, Guest and McKean kick some ass as the band Spinal Tap.

First came This is Spinal Tap, a mock documentry about a second-rate hair band in the late seventies/early eighties. The film follows them on their American tour which is plagued by cancelled shows, bickering and in-fighting as well as a controversy about the album cover which winds up being released as an all black album with nothing at all printed on it. One of my favorite quotes from the movie in which band member Nigel contemplates the album cover: "It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black." This is a hilarious movie which invites the viewer to laugh with Spinal Tap and laugh at them as well.

Next up was Waiting for Guffman, a send up of a small town theatre production. Guest plays Corky St Clair, a highly gay man from New York who has the job of organizing and coordinating a production with a cast of misfits and comically untalented actors. There's a scene where Corky is alone in his apartment practicing a dance that was so funny I almost peed.

Did I mention that Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy are funny?

Best in Show is my favorite of the bunch. This film centers on the annual Mayfair dog show and an assortment of fucked up characters who are bringing their dogs for the competition. There's the gay couple, the other gay couple, the rambling hillbilly, the high-strung yuppie couple, the awkward man with two left feet and wife with the whorish past.

20 years later Shearer, Guest and McKean appear as The Folksmen.

The most recent movie is A Mighty Wind, the mock documentry about a folk reunion concert. This one's got a little more heart and less funny than the others but is a great movie just the same. Most, if not all, of these films are improvised by the cast. The songs written for the Spinal Tap and A Mighty Wind are very well written and performed, and these actors are quite simply damn talented people. Many of the laughs are of the subtle, tongue-in-cheek variety. This sort of comedy isn't for everyone, but these movies are fine, nuts entertainment for reasonable prices. I just learned that Guest and Co have another one in the works for 2006 called For your Consideration about actors filming a movie that learn that their performances are generating award-season buzz. Should be a goddamn hoot.

Being John Malkovich

2005-08-06T00:01:00.000-06:00

I've become a fan of Charlie Kaufman's movies. He wrote Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, all of which are movies I love. I'm not sure why I waited so long to see Being John Malkovich, but I finally picked up the movie last night.

You broke my heart, John Cusack.

Craig (Cusack) plays an unemployed puppeteer who is married to Lotte (Diaz.) She's bland, inoffensive and uninteresting. She loves animals and they have a crappy apartment where chimps climb on the counters and parrots fly about shrieking, flapping and squawking. One day, Craig decides to get a filing job on the 7 1/2 floor of the nelson bungle building I think it was. While the rest of the building is normal, that floor is hidden and has low ceilings and strange employees. Anyways, at his new job Craig meets Maxine whom he instantly thinks is hot/falls in love with. Their conversations go something like this:

"I love you Maxine."
"You're pathetic. Go kill yourself."
"Gee, that's great. Will you have dinner with me?"
"God I'm so fucking hot. I hate you Craig."

The attraction is obvious. Anyways, one day Craig finds a little door in his office that leads into the brain of John Malkovich. When you enter it, you see through his eyes and feel what he feels for 15 minutes then you are dumped on the side of the road by the Jersey Turnpike. In a large nutshell: Craig wants to fuck Maxine. Lotte becomes Malkovich and decides she wants a sex change and is in love with Maxine. Maxine is a bitch who wants to make money off the whole thing and hates everyone who isn't her. Oh yeah, and she loves Lotte but only when Lotte is inside Malkovich.

After about half an hour, that sneaking little voice in my brain was whispering "Isn't there something - anything - else you could be doing right now?" Turn this shit off. Everybody wants to fuck everybody else and they all want or need to be in Malkovich's brain while they do it. This is a Couch movie. One hour in, Craig finds out that his wife and the object of his desire are screwing. Lotte comes home to find Craig with a gun. He throws her on the floor and starts screaming and the chimp is screaming too. This, for me, was The Point of No Return. The movie had sucked badly enough for long enough that there was no saving it. So I did the smart thing and shut the movie off. Let me finish the story for you on my own:

Bitch.

Craig shoots Lotte in the face. She's pathetic, stupid, and irritating and I hate her. He then goes to Taco Bell and orders a Nachos Bellgrande and a Mt Dew. He falls in love with the cashier when she is rude to him. Rather telling her he loves her, he accidently shoots her in the face instead. Craig is really sad and confused and horny but he decides not to shoot himself in the face yet. He goes to visit Maxine who he finds fucking some transvestite pig thing because hey, that's how she is. Craig shoots the transvestite pig thing in the face. He then says "Gosh, I love you Maxine" to which she replies "I'm a dirty bitch, Craig. Please fucking kill me." And he loves her so much he shoots her in the leg and throws her out the window to make her stop screaming (that's the plot twist.) He then shoots his own balls off because he doesn't deserve them. Rather than dying or shooting himself in the face, he goes through the little door and into Malkovich's brain. He finds Malkovich on a pirate ship. He and his crew are laying siege to Maine, pillaging and destroying as they go. Malkovich then sticks a drill in his brain thus killing himself and Craig as well freeing me from this fucking train wreck of a movie.

Being John Malkovich earns 1 star because I like Cusack and Malkovich.
With my Special Edition Alternate ending, it earns two stars.

Four Star Movies: Sling Blade

2005-06-20T09:50:00.000-06:00

Billybob Thorton - Writer/Director/Karl Childers
Dwight Yoakam - Doyle Hargraves
John Ritter - Vaughan Cunningham
J.T. Walsh - Charles Bushman
Lucas Black - Frank Wheatley
Natalie Canerday - Linda Wheatley
Robert Duvall - Frank Childers
James Hampton - Dr. Jerry Woolridge


Karl and Frank deep in conversation.

Karl Childers, the main character in the movie Sling Blade, can be described in a number of ways. He is a kind man. He is odd, both in appearance and in conversation: his eyes are squinty and usually aimed at the ground, his voice is gruff and seems to come from deep within the pit of his stomach. His jaw sticks out, he looks more like a charicature than a person we'd expect to see out in the world. Karl is mentally handicapped. Karl is a murderer. He is, at heart, a simple man who sees things in a very basic way that the rest of us forget to.

The opening scenes of the film showed me one of the most unforgettable monologues I've ever heard in cinema. Karl is sitting in a dimly lit room in the state mental hospital (the nervous hospital as he calls it) recounting the murders that landed him there 25 years ago. He wrings his hands and speaks plainly, though not without pain, about the crimes he committed as a young boy. The story is not centered on past events, though. Shortly after the movie opens, we find out that this is the day of Karl's release. The story follows Karl back into the world, a world which he has no ties to and no knowledge of day-to-day etiquette that we all take for granted. In one scene, a visitor finds Karl standing on someone's porch. "Hi Karl. How long have you been waiting out here?" he asks. "Quite a spell" is Karl's reply. "Well, have you knocked on the door?" Karl pauses for a moment and replies "No, sir."


Vaughn and Karl having lunch together. Karl sure does love french-fried 'taters.

Karl eventually befriends a young boy named Frank who is being raised by a single mother and an abusive boyfriend named Doyle (played amazingly well by country singer Dwight Yoakam.) Karl finds himself with difficult decisions to face in trying to cope and find his place in the situation he has landed in. The movie's feel is always slightly tense, even during happy moments lending a sense of uneasy peace that could be shattered any moment. There is, because of Karl's mental state and his past, a constant threat of violence in the movie. The film manages to take place in a small southern town without being full of cliche', which is a refreshing thing to see.

The cast, from Thorton on down, is simply outstanding. The late John Ritter plays Vaughan Cunningham, the gay man who manages the store where Frank's mother works. He is kind, though slightly awkward and has trouble fitting into a small southern town as a gay man. JT Walsh's role as a patient who loves to tell Karl his disturbing tales is another perfect casting choice. This was Billybob Thorton's big breakthrough role, and one only has to watch the film to see why. He brings Karl's happiness, sadness and sensitivity through with stark honesty and simplicity. Thorton wrote, directed and starred here and proved to me that he has a true talent for each of these duties.


This is Billybob Thorton's movie in every way.

Sling Blade is one of those movies that everyone should see. It is deep, wonderful, emotional, beautiful, terrible and sad all at once. This is truly a modern classic.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

2005-05-19T20:42:00.000-06:00

George Lucas - Writer/Director
Ewan McGregor - Obi-Wan Kenobi
Hayden Christensen - Anakin Skywalker
Natalie Portman - Padme'
Ian McDairmid - Chancellor Palpatine
Samuel L Jackson - Mace Windu
Frank Oz - Yoda (voice)
Anthony Daniels - C3PO
Jimmy Smits - Senator Bail Organa
Christopher Lee - Count Dooku


Anakin Skywalker has a lot to contemplate in Episode III.

I am a Star Wars fan - not the kind that collects figurines and brings a light saber to opening night - but a fan nonetheless. I enjoyed the original movies as well as the 2 prequels and I'm happy to report I was not disappointed by Revenge of the Sith. Episode III, like the other new Star Wars films, had a lot riding on it. It's (supposedly) the last Star Wars film we'll ever see and it has the job of bridging the new movies to the original ones. It's also the only Star Wars film to have a PG-13 rating. It's more adult in nature and there are a couple of scenes that are definitely not for children. Given the subject matter - Anakin's fall to the dark side, the eradication of the Jedi Order - the more mature rating is justified and I'm glad they didn't try to family the movie down.

Some of the things I didn't like about the prequels are still there. Natalie Portman still can't act, and much of the dialogue seems stiff and uninspired. On the good side, Jar Jar Binks does not speak once in the movie. I also liked Hayden Christensen's portrayal of Anakin Skywalker much better this time around. He managed to inspire sympathy from me as well as an understanding of his plight. The plot really drives home the reasoning for all the speeches we've heard about the dangers of fear, attachment, anger and love. Darth Vader is one of the best (worst?) movie villains ever, and this film delivers a proper setup for the ruthlessness that is to come in episodes IV-VI.


Dammit it's fucking impossible to find any downloadable screens from this movie. Here's a shitty one of Ewan McGregor who is really good as Obi-Wan Kenobi.

The acting has its strong moments and its weak moments. Some of the stiffness in the dialogue stems from the fact that most of the movie is computer generated with the actors standing in front of a blue screen that is to be filled in later. Hard to be inspired by that. I have enjoyed Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan in the prequels and he is solid here as well. Some of the strongest dialogue takes place between Anakin and Chancellor Palpatine. Watching the Chancellor twist and manipulate young Anakin is entertaining and masterfully done. The sound and music score are, as always with Star Wars films, top notch. The film provides a lot of eye candy with flashy light saber battles, and huge battles being fought in a variety of fantastic locales. The bottom line is, this is Star Wars. If you expect you'll like it, you probably will. If you didn't enjoy the first two prequels, this one probably won't do it for you either. Regardless, I'd think twice before taking any young kids to see it. For me it was a fine movie and a proper sendoff for the series.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith earns 3.5 Yodas out of 4.

Punch Drunk Love

2005-04-26T07:50:00.000-06:00

Paul Thomas Anderson - Writer/Director
Adam Sandler - Barry Egan
Emily Watson - Lena Leonard
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Dean Trumbell
Luis Guzman - Lance


Barry is confronted with a mini piano. I love drama.

Punch Drunk Love was billed as a romantic comedy starring Adam Sandler. I'm sure most fans of either were disappointed. This is not your standard Sandler movie, full of farts, boobie jokes and 3 Stooges humor. Not there's necessarily andything wrong with that (I loved Happy Gilmore.) It's also not your typical romantic comedy by-the-book dreck we're accustomed to. It's strange. And it's good.

Barry Egan (Sandler) is a lonely, odd man who has 7 sisters who run his life. These sisters are pushy, rude, and abusive both verbally and emotionally. Barry - not surprisingly - is very timid and also very awkward in dealing with members of the opposite sex. A person can only take so much shit and, like many timid people, there is a mountain of anger beneath Barry's calm exterior. Like in his other films, Sander does go into fits of rage and has violent outbursts. The difference is here his character is given three dimensions and we see what causes him to act this way. He isn't punching the wall and screaming because it makes the audience laugh, he's doing it because he feels helpless, frustrated and doesn't really know how to interact with people.


I actually liked Emily Watson in this movie. And DJ Justice tells it like it is.

This story is about how this odd, damaged man finds love. There are several mysteries along the way. Why is Barry hoarding pudding? Is he really going to get those frequent flyer miles? And why? - he doesn't travel. Why did someone drive up, drop a mini piano in the street and drive away? Why indeed. Underneath all of the strange shit, there is an underlying sweetness in the story. It's liberating to see a prisoner break out of his confines. It's inspiring to see two people who love each other despite quirks, shortcomings and oddities. There isn't much I can say about the plot that I haven't already said. It involves a plunger salesman, pudding, phone sex, extortion, fraud and romance. It's odd, but it's romance. And guess what? Adam Sandler can really act! Who knew? Having ranted and raved about how much I like it, I must say Punch Drunk Love isn't for everyone. It's different. Viewers are presented with a movie that moves in unexpected ways, that requires some thought and inspection. It revolves around a weirdo. You've been warned. Enjoy.

Punch Drunk Love earns 3.5 wombats out of 4

Metallica: Some Kind of Monster

2005-04-20T19:22:00.000-06:00

Joe Berlinger - Director
Bruce Sinofsky - Director
James Hetfield - Himself
Lars Ulrich - Himself
Kirk Hammett - Himself
Bob Rock - Himself


Hetfield and Ulrich hard at work.

Metallica has been around for nearly as long as I've been alive. That's a long damn time for a group of people to work together creatively plus endure the gruelling tour schedule Metallica always takes on. There's always been a bit of dysfunction within the band, both on an individual level and as a group. They've lived the stereotypical rock star lives, with the sex, the drugs, the whole nine yards. Now they've got wives and children at home. These things change people.

The band members seem to have finally taken care of their personal problems for the most part. This documentary covers goes inside the studio for the recording of their most recent album, St Anger. Metallica has pretty much retained the same lineup over the years. Very early on, they kicked Dave Mustaine (now of Megadeth) out of the band, stating that he was basically a mean drunk. Kirk Hammett took his place as lead guitarist and has remained. Cliff Burton died in a bus accident in 1984 and was replaced by Jason Newsted, who was the bassist until they began work on St Anger. The details about why Newsted quit come out in this film. The band went into the studio with no bassist (producer Bob Rock played bass in the studio.)

Metallica has always belonged to vocalist James Hetfield and drummer Lars Ulrich. They wrote the sangs, and what they said was how it was going to be. They drank, they shouted at each other, they sulked, but in the end they made great music. For the recording of St Anger, they brought a therapist into the studio to meet with the band and help work out their communication issues. James and Lars have the look of an old married couple who are thinking of calling it quits. Hetfield in particular undergoes a dramatic change during the film and seems like a different man by the end of it. This documentary is a very real, honest look at Metallica as people, as well as an interesting look at group dynamics.

Some Kind of Monster is worth your while to watch, even if you aren't a fan of Metallica's music. It's a fascinating insight into the creative process and inner workings of one of the longest lived, most successful bands of all time. After watching this film, I wondered how St Anger ever made it onto store shelves. They struggle with trying to stay true to themselves while making music that their fans will enjoy. It's a fine line to tow, and clearly having 20+ years experience under your belt doesn't make it any easier.

Some Kind of Monster earns 3.5 wombats out of 4

The Forgotten

2005-03-20T06:55:00.000-07:00

Josh Ruben - Director
Gerald Di Pego - Writer
Jullianne Moore - Telly Paretta
Anthony Edwards - Jim Paretta
Gary Sinise - Dr Jack Munce
Alfre Woodard - Anne Pope
Linus Roche - That one creepy guy
Dominic West - Ash Correll


Moore's performance stands out in an otherwise average movie.

This will be a short review. It isn't because I'm lazy (I am) or because I didn't like the movie (I didn't.) It's because I don't know how to review this movie without spoiling things for the reader. The premise is an intriguing one. It's been 14 months since Telly Paretta's son Sam died in a plane crash. She's been visiting a therapist to help her cope, but things with her seem a little off. Eventually her photos of Sam start disappearing as does other evidence of him, and that's when her therapist breaks it to her: Sam never existed. He tells her that she's basically crazy, that she miscarried and never had a son. Her husband agrees with him. So does everyone else in her life. She thinks this is horseshit and is determined to find out The Truth about What Really Happened. Maybe she's crazy, maybe she isn't.

And that is about all I can tell you and still leave the movie watchable, such as it is. The pacing is slow and deliberate, putting off answering it's questions for as long as possible. Here and there it will answer a question and at the same time pose two new ones. The setup was quite good, but after about an hour I began tallying my questions that would need answering and it became clear that there were very few possible solutions. Eventually I could see where it was going and was disappointed when it got there. Like White Noise, I'd have been happier if I'd watched it for an hour, turned it off and imagined my own completion to the story.

The acting is very good. Julliane Moore carries herself with grace and beauty. Overall, my only real complaint is the storyline; I think the acting, directing and everything was quite good. There are some plot inconsistencies that have long been common in Hollywood (ie trained cops falling all over themselves while our heroine miraculously escapes.) This movie had a lot of potential, and though there were things about it I liked, I cannot reccommend it.

The Forgotten recieves 2 wombats out of 4.

The Village

2005-03-09T09:09:00.000-07:00

M Night Shyamalan - Director
Bryce Dallas Howard - Ivy Walker
Joaquin Phoenix - Lucius Hunt
Adrien Brody - Noah Percy
William Hurt - Edward Walker
Sigourney Weaver - Alice Hunt
Brendan Gleeson - August Nicholson
Judy Greer - Kitty Walker


Sorry, Joaquin. I don't know why you did this movie either.

The first M Night Shyamalan film I ever saw was The Sixth Sense, which was a classic. Then it was Unbreakable which was good, but a little disappointing. Then Signs, which was watchable, but a little more disappointing. After watching The Village last night, I'm afraid the next M Night Shyamalan movie I buy will simply cause my DVD player to burst into flames. Please stop making movies, sir.

The premise is simple enough: a small, secluded village in the woods is terrified of a menace lurking beyond it's borders. There's been an agreement that the villagers don't go into the woods, and the humanoid wolverine/pig things in red robes don't enter the village. Seriously. But recently the Demonic Pigmen have been entering the village, and it is scary. Shyamalan plays with color here, as he does in all of his movies. Unfortunately, a good movie must have more than creepy atmosphere. It must have things like a semi-intelligent plot, dialogue which doesn't make me want to throw up my donut, and believable acting. The Village has none of these features. The talents of Phoenix, Weaver and Hurt are wasted here.

The first thing that bothered me was the dialogue. You see, when I watch a film I think about the dialogue: 'Is this how people would actually talk?' I ask. Here is an example of how a short conversation might go in this film:

"If this act will bring sadness I will not do this thing, for you are my Blessed One."
"My love would never be taken, my Blessed One"

What? As it turns out there is no reason for these people to be talking like this. It's distracting. I'm about to get into some SPOILERS here, so if you ever plan on watching this shitty train wreck of a movie, you should go no further, lest the Demonic Pigmen flay the skin from your flesh!

Ok, I have a few really big problems with this film.

- Here's the biggest one: after seeing The Big Surprise at the end, I had to ask 'why the fuck didn't these people just move into an Amish community?' or some similar place. Why??? Seriously, have the film open on these people who are sick of modern city life and have them throw on bonnets, move to an Amish community and get behind a plow. Roll credits.

- Sending the blind girl into town is just plain fucking stupid. At the end while the town leader was giving his passionate speech about responsibility and compassion, I was thinking 'If you're so fucking compassionate, why didn't you sneak out and go yourself or, I dunno, find someone who can SEE?' There's a man dying, waiting for medicine for fuck's sake. "Gee, hang in there, Johnny. We've got someone gone to get medicine for you. We're sending JoJo the one legged leper into town with a note pinned to his shirt and a backpack full of money, peanut butter sandwiches and comic books. I'm sure he'll be back any second!" And the sppech about how "Love will guide her" is also ridiculous. Sure it sounds nice and touching, but it does not make sense.

- Having Noah (played laughably by Adrien Brody) in the situation he was in and die the way he did is insulting. Pretty big coincidence, don't you think? Pretty fucking stupid, don't you think?

- I didn't know Ivy Walker was supposed to be blind until she stuck her cane out and waved her hands around. Don't stare at the people you're speaking to, blind girl.

All in all, it was all atmosphere and no substance.The Village is the worst film I've seen in a long, long time. Where's the ipecac?

The Village recieves no wombats and one big pile of shit.

Finding Neverland

2005-01-28T14:35:00.000-07:00

Marc Foster - Director
Johnny Depp - Sir James Matthew Barrie
Kate Winslet - Sylvia Llewelyn Davies
Julie Christie - Mrs. Emma du Maurier
Radha Mitchell - Mary Ansell Barrie
Dustin Hoffman - Charles Frohman
Freddie Highmore - Peter Llewelyn Davies
Nick Roud - George Llewelyn Davies



Captain Barrie is about to make one of his crew walk the plank in Finding Neverland.

Johnny Depp, as I've said before, has made a career out of portraying odd characters and roles most actors would be unable to pull off. Finding Neverland marks a departure for Depp, playing the nice, normal (comparitively speaking) character of Sir James Matthew Barrie - the author of Peter Pan. This film (which is based on true events) is about Barrie and the people and events that inspired his writing of Peter Pan.

At the onset of the film we learn that Barrie is a playwright who's latest project is a flop. We also soon learn that his marriage is floundering. He and his wife seem to live in different worlds and have little common ground. One day while sitting in the park he meets the Davies family who would become his muse for his career masterpiece, Peter Pan. He plays with the children as if he were one of them, teaching them to harness their imaginations and play without abandon or embarrasment. The widow Davies (Winslet) enjoys his company and the happiness he helps provide for her children. 3 of the 4 children adore him and his free spirited, fun loving ways. Peter, however, will have none of it. Some of film's best dialogue takes place between Barrie and Peter. It's amazing that the other children take to his imaginitive, playful ways as well as they do; few things can make a child grow up faster than losing a parent.

Barrie represents an important force in the lives of the Davies children. Their controlling grandmother (and Barrie's wife) lives in a world where being proper is more important than being happy, where holding one's teacup the Wrong Way would be an embarrasment, where missing a day of church would be cause for vicious gossip. Young boys are not allowed to thrive in such an environment. There is a scene where one of the boys, George, finally tells off his grandmother. It should be satisfying to watch but it isn't because you can see him slipping away into that adult world as so many of us have done in the past.

As the story plays out, Barrie finishes his new play, based on his experiences with the Davies family. The proprietor of the theatre where it is to show is understandably concerned about the play's prospects. "James, we have doctors and lawyers and people dressed in their finest attire coming to watch theatre. You're giving them pirates and indians and fairies!" In a stroke of genius, Barrie reserves several seats in the theatre for children, whose laughter helps ease the crowd and allow them to remember what it was like to be children themselves.

Finding Neverland is another masterful performance by Depp, who has become one of this generation's finest actors. The film is well acted, well written and touching. It touches on the subject of living in the adult world but remembering to visit the world of imagination. This is easily the best movie I've seen in a while, and one that I reccomend to anyone.

Finding Neverland earns 4 wombats out of 4.

The Life Aquatic

2005-01-18T07:55:00.000-07:00

Wes Anderson - Writer/Director
Bill Murray - Steve Zissou
Owen Wilson - Ned Plimpton
Cate Blanchett - Jane Winslett-Richardson
Angelica Huston - Eleanor Zissou
Willem Defoe - Klaus Daimler
Jeff Goldblum - Alistair Hennessey
Michael Gambon - Oseary Drakoulias



Murray and Wilson eye each other up in The Life Aquatic

I didn't hate this movie, it just fell far short of my expectations for both Anderson and Murray. Perhaps I judge it more harshly because of these peoples' involvement. In The Royal Tenenbaums, Anderson made both a great comedy and a decent drama. The Life Aquatic aimed for both of these and went right down the middle, missing both targets. But anyways I don't feel like a normal review so here's a couple of little lists I made.

Good Things:
- Bill Murray
- Wes Anderson
- Pirates
- A scene where Bill Murray singlehandedly fights off invading pirate crew like he were in a John Woo film.
- Old, run down ship crewed by weirdos and misfits
- Jeff Goldblum gets shot
- The trailer was pretty funny
- Willem Defoe turns in a quality, funny performance.
- Each member of the sea exploration crew gets a red hat, a speedo and a gun. Pretty cool.
- Clever design for the boat. For cinematography purposes, the boat was basically cut in half so the camera could pan or the whole thing and see into each room like looking at an ant farm. Very cool.
- The various crews, props and sets are fun in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way.
- Bill Murray's character is kind of an asshole.

Bad Things:
- Owen Wilson using a southern accent. Never again please.
- Jeff Goldblum
- Goldblum is shot but refuses to die.
- Scenes that were not shown in the trailer were not very good.
- Not terribly entertaining.
- Many of the film's quirks seem telegraphed, some of the dialogue struck me as "Look at me! I'm being quirky and weird and funny!" Anderson's other films I've seen really were quirky and funny but also had dramatic moments mixed in. Not here. Drama was too heavy handed, humor not humorous enough.
- No Steve Buscemi
- The characters were not endearing in any way to me. Except maybe for Klaus.
- Bill Murray's character is kind of an asshole.

Given the talented director and cast, it should've been a whole lot better.
The Life Aquatic earns 2 wombats out of 4.

White Noise

2005-01-13T08:23:00.000-07:00

Geoffrey Sax - Director
Niall Johnson - Screenwriter
Michael Keaton - Jonathan Rivers
Chandra West - Anna Rivers
Deborah Kara Unger - Sara Tate
Ian McNeice - Raymond Price

Careful, Keaton! You're about to be the victim of poor storytelling!

In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina. This term is often used to describe a scene in a movie where something happens not because it makes sense, but because the story needs it to happen. These scenes may be exciting for some viewers who don't bother to question things, but they're generally seen as a thinly disguised escape route for a scriptwriter who has written him or herself into a hole. In simpler terms, using a deus ex machina is cheating.

White Noise could've been a good film. I wanted to like it. I like Michael Keaton and it's been a while since I last saw him in a movie. He was quite good here, I can't really fault the acting in any way. Keaton's character is the portal through which we watch this film. He plays a sympathetic character who is as lost as the audience is. When bad things happen to him, we feel bad. When strange occurences begin happening he is confused but hopeful along with the audience. We are hitched to his wagon, along for the ride. He probably thought the last 20 minutes of the movie sucked too.

The movie opens on The Rivers' blissful marriage. Jonathan and Anna are completely happy, they then recieve news that make them even happier - a sure sign that something very bad will happen soon. Sure enough Mrs Rivers is dead within the first 15 minutes. A short time onto Jonathan's grieving period, a man approaches him and informs him that Anna has been communicating with him through Electronic Voice Phenomena or EVP. This is the term used for a means of the dead to contact the living through electronic devices such as cassette tapes, VCR tapes, radios, etc. They communicate through very faint images on VHS tapes, or faint voices buried in static on tapes. Working with this subject gives the filmmakers some leeway. After all, there are no steadfast rules for how the dead behave. Unfortunately, the film makers still have the job of making sure they explain things to the audience.

Anyhoo, Rivers hears evidence of his wife communicating via EVP and becomes obsessed with the phenomena, neglecting his job and child in the process. The film shows us the process of recording and interpreting EVP messages, and it is pretty entertaining for awhile. Rivers begins receiving messages and acting on them in the way he thinks is best. Eventually I began getting a little antsy and wishing the story would go somewhere more meaningful to the central character. After all, the movie brings up several questions early on and, no matter how interesting the onscreen action is, I eventually want to see those questions answered. This is where the Suck Factor begins to accelerate to terminal velocity for White Noise. I will not spoil the last 20 minutes of the film; that was the screenwriter's job. The movie had potential and intrigued me for a while. It just should've gone somewhere better with it rather than insulting the viewers.

White Noise earns 1 1/2 wombats

O Brother, Where art Thou?

2005-01-10T01:53:00.000-07:00

Joel Coen - Writer/Director
Ethan Coen - Writer/Director

George Clooney - Ulysses Everett McGill
John Turturo - Pete
Tim Blake Nelson - Delmar O'Donnell
John Goodman - Dan Teague
Holly Hunter - Penny
Daniel von Bargen - Sherriff Cooley/The Devil
Michael Badallucco - George "Babyface" Nelson
Stephen Root - Radio Station Man
Charles Durning - Pappy O'Daniel
Chris Thomas King - Tommy Johnson

Turturro, Nelson and Clooney shine in O Brother

The Coen brothers make quality movies. I've liked everything I've seen so far from them, (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, The Man Who wasn't There) and this film did not disappoint. (I've been told that Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty were duds; I haven't seen them.) Their films have a certain whimsy and tongue in cheek humor about them which make them a joy to watch.
O Brother Where art Thou is based (loosely) upon Homer's "The Odyssey." I've never read it, but the film contains sirens, a cyclops and a blind prophet, all of which I'm sure reference the source material. The three main characters have their roles established within the first 5 minutes of the film; Everett is the brains, Pete is the hothead and Delmar is the dimwit. Each actor plays his character quite well. Clooney impressed me in particular. Everett's words are the medium he uses to weave intricate tapestries of bullshit. He is charismatic and outspoken without being obnoxious.

The movie opens on Everett, Pete and Delmar. Having just escaped from a chain gang (they seem to have been the only white men there) they must make their way to a buried treasure while overcoming obstackles and avoiding The Law (and the Devil.) The other catch is that the treasure is buried in a valley that is due to flooded in 4 days time. On their way they meet a bizarre array of enemies and allies. The Coen brothers always manage to incorporate outlandish characters into their stories. They have an ear for dialogue and an appreciation of odd, slightly off-kilter humor. They do go off on a lot of tangents, most of which are entertaining, some of which don't work for me.



Everett and Pete do battle with the wicked sirens.

The film takes place in post-depression era 1930s which is beautifully portrayed here. The soundtrack* is an item of note. The film is chock full of music that helps to set the tone and feel of the era. Almost every scene has a track from the album somewhere in it, but it never seems obtrusive. Indeed, the O Brother Where art Thou soundtrack is probably the best film compilation I've ever heard. Indeed, O Brother Where art Thou is smart, fun entertainment. Go watch it.

O Brother, Where art Thou earns 3 and 1/2 Wombats out of 4.

*Best Album of the Year: 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards

Adaptation.

2004-12-28T07:03:00.000-07:00

Spike Jonze - Director
Susan Orlean - Author
Charlie Kaufman - Screenwriter

Nicolas Cage - Charlie Kaufman/Donald Kaufman
Meryl Streep - Susan Orlean
Chris Cooper * - John LaRoche
Cara Seymour - Amelia Kavan
Brian Cox - Robert McKee
Tilda Swinton - Valerie Thomas
Ron Livingston - Marty Bowen
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Caroline Cunningham
* Academy Award Winner - Best Supporting Actor for Adaptation

Nicolas Cage is terrific as twins Charlie and Donald Kaufman

Adaptation gives us two entertaining tales to follow: the story and the storyteller each get equal attention in this wonderful, unique film. If this sounds strange, that's because it is. Adaptation is the story of Charlie Kaufman, who has been charged with adapting The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean into a movie. He very much wants to stay true to his source material and not make a typical hollywood movie. He doesn't want car chases or sex scenes or people overcoming obstacles to learn a profound lesson in the end because that isn't how life is. "Can't a movie just be about flowers and how amazing they are?" he asks his agent. "....Are they?"is the response. Kaufman looks thoughtful for a moment. "I don't know. I think so."

Charlie is finding his source material difficult to translate into film format. His twin brother Donald takes up screenwriting as hobby and, much to Charlie's horror, finds success in writing a formulaic murder mystery chock full of hollywood cliche. Donald (who may or may not exist) is Charlie's polar opposite; He's outgoing, simple, happy, he has fun writing and he can meet and mingle with women effortlessly. Donald has the mentality of a puppy dog towards his brother Charlie, who is frustrated by the ease with which Donald lives his life. Life is anything but easy for Charlie. Writing is an exercise in torture as it is for many people. Living, for Charlie Kaufman, is also much the same. His persistent self criticism (I'm sweating. Stop sweating! Oh god, she just looked at my hairline. You brought her here and now you're just sitting there. Say something funny, you idiot!) makes it impossible for him to meet and talk to women. One almost has to wonder what he's afraid of. Any criticism or rejection could hardly be worse than the self inflicted emotion stress he lives with.

John Laroche searches for the elusive ghost orchid

The other half of the story deals with Kaufman's screenplay, The Orchid Thief. It tells of John Laroche, who has liberated the rare ghost orchid from the Takahatchee State Preserve in Florida. Laroche is a fascinating character. He is a greasy, dishevelled man who is missing his top front teeth. He is an intelligent, crude man with a confidence that borders on arrogance. Orchids, Orlean learns, are not his first obsession. He has had similar serious hobbies that he has embraced and then discarded, like a bee going from flower to flower. Susan Orlean wrote a book about Laroche and his obsession with the rare flower. Orlean, a dispassionate, esteemed New York author is fascinated by the fervor with which Laroche lives his life.

Charlie becomes increasingly neurotic as his deadline for the screenplay draws near. He comes to believe that the only thing he's an expert on, the only thing he's qualified to write about is his own fear and self-loathing. Eventually he writes himself into his own screenplay. Still not satisfied, he (in an act of desperation) asks his brother Donald to take a look at it for him and to help him finish it. The story takes a rather abrupt and fascinating turn before the end.

This photo of Charlie and Susan Orlean sums up Charlie's relationship with most women.

The first films I saw Nicolas Cage in were Con Air and The Rock. I originally thought of Cage as an action guy and disregarded him as such. After seeing him in Adaptation and Matchstick Men I have gained a newfound respect for the man's work. He is remarkable in the dual role of Charlie and Donald Kaufman. Chris Cooper (nearly unrecognizable here) is equally brilliant in the role of Laroche, the charismatic, toothless redneck. Meryl Streep was also nominated for an Oscar for her performance as Susan Orlean, a woman who writes about life and passion but seems afraid to live. Adaptation is brilliant and original. I wholly reccomend this film to anyone who wants to experience something brilliant and unique. Everyone except for Jimbob should see it.

Adaptation earns 4 wombats out of 4

Napoleon Dynamite

2004-12-21T21:29:00.000-07:00

Jared Hess - Writer/Director
Jerusha Hess - Writer
Jon Heder - Napoleon Dynamite
Jon Gries - Uncle Rico
Aaron Ruell - Kip Dynamite
Efren Ramirez - Pedro Sanchez
Diedrich Bader - Rex
Tina Majorino - Deb
Haylie Duff - Summer Wheatley

Kip (aspiring Cage Fighter) practices his technique against his brother Napoleon.



Every once in a while, a special movie comes along that changes our lives. It makes us question our values, makes us feel alive and for a couple of hours in the dark theatre, the world outside is lost to us. Sometimes a film shows us characters so sorry and pathetic that we gaze up to the heavens and say a thank you for our own genetic makeup. Napoleon Dynamite does the latter.



Napoleon and his brother Kip live with their grandmother in Preston, Idaho. The film never alludes to the wherabouts of their parents, not that it really matters for the story. Things are shaken up when grandma has to go to the hospital and Uncle Rico has to stay at the house to watch them for a few days. Who's gonna feed Tina?? During this time a new student named Pedro joins Napoleon at school. Pedro decides to run for student president, but he'll need Napoleon to unleash his secret weapon to defeat the oh-so popular Summer Wheatley! Will Pedro win? Will uncle Rico drive Napoleon crazy? Who is Kip's chat room girlfriend? And what is Napoleon's secret weapon??? A thick plot, indeed.



Napoleon Dynamite is unlike anything I have ever seen. About 20 minutes into the movie, I began to realize that the film had no real plot whatsoever and that it wasn't going to. I didn't mind so much. Usually in films where the characters are rock stupid, the audience is provided with the Straight Guy, the normal one to whom the audience relates. You'll find no such thing here. The small town of Preston, Idaho where the story takes place might as well be on another plane of existence. Everything in the movie looks like it was bought at a thrift shop. The movie is completely, one hundred percent populated with characters that most people would refer to as "losers." There's not really any conflict, no drama, no jokes, no action. Just losers. For those of you who know him, I would compare the title character Napoleon Dynamite to a young man named Eric Cheeseburger. Eric does have more energy and enthusiasm though.



Napoleon Dynamite and Eric Cheeseburger: Two peas in a pod.



Everyone, at some point, has gone to school with someone like Napoleon Dynamite. He sketches magical animals and warriors. He tells obvious bullshit stories ("There's a buttload of gangs at this school. A few of them wanted me to join 'cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.") For his current events report, he talks about scientists placing explosives in Loch Ness and local wizards casting a protective spell to defend our friend below the sea. Uncle Rico reminds me of Al Bundy, only not funny or entertaining. Al Bundy once scored four touchdowns in a single football game in high school. Of course, he's a shoe salesman now but that doesn't matter.



What it boils down to is that the film entertained me. I get a kick out of watching Napoleon and listening to him talk. Many people will not. This film is a one trick pony, and the credits rolled just as it was wearing out its welcome. This movie will not appeal to the masses I think, and I'd only reccomend it to a select audience.



Napoleon Dynamite scores 3 Cheeseburgers out of 4

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2004-12-16T22:44:00.000-07:00

Michael Gondry - Director
Charlie Kaufman - Screenwriter
Jim Carrey - Joel Barish
Kate Winslet - Clementine Kruczynski
Elijah Wood - Patrick
Mark Ruffalo - Stan
Kirsten Dunst - Mary
Tom Wilkinson - Dr Howard Mierzwiak

Joel and Clementine share an important moment in Joel's psyche

Charlie Kaufman definitely has a distinctive style all his own. Like Tim Burton's work, you can look at a film and say "That's definitely Charlie Kaufman." He has brought us a couple of gems in "Adaptation." and "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind." His films are, for lack of a better word, quirky. They toy with reality, making the viewer question in which fragmented reality, or in whose mind, is the action on screen taking place?

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a love story of sorts. Or rather, it is a story about love. It seems that there is a medical process in which one can remove all traces of a person from their memory. This process, combined with a little housecleaning of sentimental objects, effectively removes the person from the subject's life entirely. Early in the film we find that Joel's girlfriend Clementine has had him erased from her life. Depressed, angry, and confused Joel decides to have the process done and remove Clementine from his mind. When he asks the doctor about risks of brain damage, Dr Mierzwiak tells him "Well, technically the process is brain damage."

Joel takes some pills and goes to sleep after which the surgeons (a couple of irresponsible kids played by Wood and Ruffalo) arrive, hook a computer up to Joel's brain and begin sifting through his memories. Most of the film takes place in Joel's subconscious as he relives memories about Clementine and slowly realizes that he wants to keep those memories. Some of those memories may be painful, but they help make up who he is. He begins trying to hide away memories of his former love as the team is working to delete those experiences from his brain.

It became clear to me at some point that Joel and Clementine were better off without each other. They are polar opposites, with Joel being the quiet, embarrassed, nice guy (reminiscient of Charlie in Adaptation.) and Clementine as the outspoken, hair-dying, party girl who finds herself simultaneously attracted to and repelled by Joel's sweetness. They have some lovely, beautiful memories but they also have some nasty, terrible fights and misunderstandings. That's why they love is blind I guess. But love can overcome some pretty awful happenings, and whether Joel and Clementine belong together isn't for me to say.

Jim Carrey has proven himself, to me, to be a top-flight actor. He was terrific in Man on the Moon and The Truman Show, and his performance here is as good as any in his career. We'll see if this nets him an Oscar nomination as it should. The performances are good here, particularly from Wilkinson and Winslet. The only thing really wrong with the film is that it's billed as a comedy. I'd like someone to point out the funny parts to me, because I didn't see any. I'd classify this film as a drama, sometimes heartwarming, sometimes very sad and always very odd. It is also brilliant and very much worth spending a couple of hours and a few dollars on.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind earns 3 wombats out of 4

Taking Lives

2004-12-13T10:14:00.000-07:00

DJ Caruso - Director
Angelina Jolie - Illeana Scott
Ethan Hawke - Costa
Keifer Sutherland - Hart
Olivier Martinez - Paquette
Jena Rowlands - Mrs Asher

Ethan Hawke and Angelina Jolie in Taking Lives

Taking Lives revolves around a serial killer who steals the identity of his victims. He's taking lives - get it? The story plays out in very typical hollywood crime/serial killer drama fashion. There is a killer on the loose and the local police call in an FBI expert profiler (Jolie) to crack the case. Agent Scott is quiet, withdrawn, eccentric and brings a haunted past with her. Olivier Martinez plays Paquette, the cop on the force who is distrustful of the new cop and is offended by her presence. Ethan Hawke plays the one witness who can help bring it all together. Keifer Sutherland lurks in the shadows, looking sinister and making us think "There he is! That's the bad guy!" The film has the standard plot twists we've come to expect in these movies; one of them I expected, the second I did not...the second also struck me as somewhat unbelievable.

Taking Lives is not a bad film. It isn't a good film either, it is simply there. It did not disappoint me nor did it exceed my expectations. It is, in every way, a standard good cop vs bad guy kind of movie. Early in the film, we are introduced to Illeana Case, the FBI Agent whose job it is to skulk about the crime scenes, acting oddly and spewing out deductions like a slightly more attractive version of Sherlock Holmes - without the cocaine addiction, that is. Unfortunately she is not given a Dr Watson to work with. It might've made her more interesting. A couple of nights after the crime in question another murder occurs, this time with a witness (Hawke). This man is obviously shaken by what he has seen and concerned about his own safety, and perhaps it is this vulnerability that makes Illeana attracted to him.

Everyone plays their roles adequately. Ethan Hawke's performance stands out as a cut above the others, at least for the first hour or so of the movie. Jolie pretty much goes through the motions, as does the rest of the cast. The plot works so long as you don't inspect it too deeply. Viewers who want to be satisfied will be satisfied. Viewers who want to find fault with it will be able to do so. A flashback scene in particular irked me. It showed us that the one scene a little while back didn't happen exactly the way you saw it at the time. It's an example of things happening a certain way because the story needs them to, because if they're honest with the audience we'll start to see through the plot too soon. He didn't get out of the COCK-A-DOODY CAR!!! (remember Kathy Bates in Misery?)

As I've said, Taking Lives isn't really a bad film on its own merits. It's just that it's been done, and done better, many times before. Even hardcore fans of crime dramas will probably only be irritated by the shortcomings and the standard formula found here. The only people I could really reccomend this movie to are those have seen very few movies in this genre. And they should wait for it to come on HBO.

Taking Lives earns 1.5 wombats out of 4

Mean Girls

2004-12-02T17:23:00.000-07:00

Mark Waters - Director
Rosalind Wiseman - Author

Tina Fey - Screenplay writer/ Ms Norbury
Lindsay Lohan - Cady Heron
Rachel McAdams - Regina George
Lacey Chabert - Gretchen Weiners
Amanda Seyfried - Karen Smith
Lizzy Caplan - Janis Ian
Daniel Franzese - Damian
Jonathan Bennett - Aaron Samuels
Tim Meadows - Mr Duvall



The self proclaimed rulers of their High School: The Plastics.

Mean Girls is a movie that most people will be able to relate to in some way. Most everyone who's attended high school has had to deal with cliques. High school cliques and how women in particular treat each other cruelly make up the meat of the story here. Generally when two guys don't like each other, they punch each other in the face. When women don't like each other, they will gossip, lie, and and act subversively to destroy the image of their enemy. Mean Girls takes place in this environment. I was reminded of a truism uttered by Ralphie in the movie A Christmas Story: "In school, you were either a bully, a little toadie or one of nameless rabble of victims." That is the often the case in reality, and it is certainly the case with Mean Girls.

The movie opens with Cady's first day of school. Cady is sixteen years old and has been home schooled until this point. Oh yeah, and she's also lived in Africa until now since her parents are zoologists. Cady is a fish out of water, both regarding school and american culture. Cady is quickly befriended by a couple of outcasts named Janis and Damian. They point out the cliques within the school, and the hierarchy which is led by The Plastics: the prettiest, most popular girls in school, led by Regina George whom Janis claims to be the embodiment of all that is evil in the world.

Regina, of course, notices Cady and brings her into her world of trends, makeup and snobbery. This is a thinly masked attempt at bringing Cady under her control; after all, the pretty new girl from out of town poses a threat to the status quo. Janis, who has a personal beef with Regina, convinces Cady to sort of work undercover within the Plastics as kind of a joke which eventually turns into a plan to ruin Regina's life. In The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne said " No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true." This is The Moral of The Story.

Mean Girls rises above the average teen comedy movie. The screenplay, written by SNL regular Tina Fey, is genuinely funny without being degrading. The cast gives a fine performance, particularly Lohan who brings an earnestness and charisma to the screen. I generally dread watching "teen movies," so I was pleasantly surprised to get to see one that didn't require me to check my brain at the door. Mean Girls is a fine and dandy way to kill a couple of hours.

Mean Girls earns 3 wombats out of 4

Man on the Moon

2004-11-29T11:18:00.000-07:00

Milos Forman - Director
Jim Carrey - Andy Kaufman
Paul Giamatti - Bob Zmuda
Danny DeVito - George Shapiro
Courtney Love - Lynne Margulies
Jerry Lawler - Himself

Jim Carrey is magnificent as Andy Kaufman in Man on the Moon

Man on the Moon tells the story of late comedian Andy Kaufman. Kaufman was one of the most eccentric, misunderstood entertainers of his time. He enjoyed singing and playing large scale practical jokes (he once hired 40 actors to runthrough the Chicago Zoo in a group screaming that there was a lion on the loose.) The people he worked for wanted him to simply tell jokes and make the audience laugh. When ABC offered him a spot on the sitcom "Taxi," he was more offended than honored. Andy seemed disgusted and offended by conventional entertainment.

Andy Kaufman achieved much of his fame on the show Taxi, playing the wacky character Latka. Eventually his standup audiences only wanted to see him as Latka, which offended and wounded Kaufman. He felt like a sellout, getting cheap laughs by acting out scripts which he didn't write. He would make public appearances as phony, foulmouthed lounge singer Tony Clifton more to entertain himself than his audience. He did his best to offend his audiences because he and his friend/writer Bob Zmuda found it funny. The only problem is that he would never let the audience in on the joke. Eventually Kaufman became a victim of his own game, hated by audiences and distrusted by almost everyone he knew.

Jim Carrey is perfect in this role. He can do the funny parts as I knew he could; he's Jim Carrey - he's great at being silly, making funny faces and making people laugh. It's the way he exposes the vulnerable, kind man within Kaufman that makes this a career performance for Carrey. Kaufman is able to laugh at himself and at the rest of the world. He treats every project he undertakes as a sort of psychology experiment to see how his audience will react to whatever he's trying to put past them. Rather than giving people what they expect, he gives them something different. Unfortunately, most people hate that. And once people were on to what sort of humor he was doing, they expected Kaufman to shock them everytime. There are few things tougher than trying to shock someone who is expecting it.

This film is terrific all the way around. It's everything a movie should be. It's funny, it's touching, and it's entertaining. That Carrey didn't recieve an Academy Award nomination for this role is obscene. The acting performances are great all throughout the cast, and the film's ending is one of the most touching I've ever seen. Sadly, Andy Kaufman is one of those people that was only really appreciated after his death.

Man on the Moon earns 4 wombats out of 4

Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban

2004-11-24T16:23:00.000-07:00

JK Rowling - Author
Alphonso Cauron - Director
Daniel Radcliffe - Harry Potter
Rupert Grint - Ron Weasley
Emma Watson - Hermione Granger
Micheal Gambon - Albus Dumbledore
Maggie Smith - Minerva McGonagall
Alan Rickman - Severus Snape
Gary Oldman - Sirius Black
David Thewlis - Professor Lupin
Tom Felton - Draco Malfoy
Emma Thompson - Sybil Trelawney
Robbie Coltrane - Rubeus Hagrid

A confrontation at the Shrieking Shack in Prisoner of Azkaban

Prisoner of Azkaban, the third film in the 7 movie Harry Potter series, finds itself under the guidance of a new director who has a couple of unavoidable problems on his hands: Death and puberty. Richard Harris, who played Albus Dumbledore in the first two films, passed on this past year. Whenever someone is asked to play a role that another actor has already played, it is difficult and unfair for the both the replacement and the audience (Jodie Foster being replaced by Julianne Moore in Hannibal comes to mind.) Surely everyone who watched Azkaban was taken out of the film experience at least for a moment, long enough to think "Wait...that's not Dumbledore." While Michael Gambon is an adequate replacement, Richard Harris brought both grace and power to the role; Harris' Dumbledore was as he should be: kind and gentle, but also able to command the attention of an entire room without raising his voice. Regardless, Gambon does a fine job and, to his credit, he plays the character in his own way rather than trying to mimic Harris.

The other problem lies in the aging of the 3 main characters. The actors who play Harry, Ron and Hermione are 15, 16 and 14. Between the last film and this one, the characters have suddenly sprouted and sound markedly older. This, like seeing a new Dumbledore, simply takes time to adjust to. These problems were unavoidable and the film is still enjoyable despite these and other drawbacks. For me, reading the book first lessened my enjoyment of the film. As is the case with many conversions from book to film, much is left out. For example, the origins of the Marauder's Map is absent as is the appearance of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Included also, are some things that were not in the book. The children in the Great Hall singing "Something Wicked this way Comes" was a nice touch. The other additions, such as the annoying Jamaican shrunken head on the Knight Bus, and appearance of budding romantic feelings between Ron and Hermione are wholly unnecessary and ridiculous. Also gone is the mysticism of Hogwart's. In past films the school seemed full of mystery and secrets. In Prisoner of Azkaban, the students are in muggle clothes much of the time and Hogwart's feels more like a standard private school than a school for witchcraft and wizardry.

Harry repels a swarm of dementors with a Patronus spell.

If this has made it sound like I disliked the film, that isn't the case. Becoming a fan of the books has made me much more critical of the films. I did enjoy this film overall. The scenes with the boggart and the scene where Harry encounters Snape in the middle of the night were especially well done, as were the dementors themselves. The acting was also very good. Newcomers to the series Gary Oldman and David Thewlis are especially good as Sirius Black and Professor Lupin. Alan Rickman, as he has in the previous movies, embodies Severus Snape exquisitely. I only wish Oldman and Rickman had more screentime. This is a fine film and any Potter fan will enjoy it. Here's hoping that Snape, Black and McGonagall get more screentime next year when Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire comes out.

Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban earns 3 Snapes out of 4.

Cold Mountain

2004-11-19T08:57:00.000-07:00

Anthony Minghella - Director/Screenplay Writer
Charles Frazier - Book writer
Jude Law - W.P. Inman
Nicole Kidman - Ada Monroe
Renee Zellweger - Ruby Thewes
Eileen Atkins - Matty
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Reverend Veasey
Brendan Gleason - Stobrod Thewes
Natalie Portman - Sara
Giovanni Ribisi - Junior
Donald Sutherland - Reverend Monroe
Ray Winstone - Teague
Jena Malone - Ferry Girl

Jude Law and Nicole Kidman in Cold Mountain

Cold Mountain, on the surface, appears to be a love story. In actuality it is a story of perserverance and how people endure trying times. The civil war makes an effective backdrop for this story. This is the story of two people who fall in love (or at least are about to do so) as the civil war begins and Inman (played by Jude Law) must go off to fight. The two characters face the trials and adversity that comes with war - for both those who fight it and those who must stay at home.

For Miss Ada Monroe, she is charged with maintaining her farmland after her father passes on. She is, as she notes, hardly adequate for this task. Little of her education up to this point is helpful when the fields need plowing and the wood needs chopping. She also has to deal with the local law/lynch mob leader, Teague. He rules the area mercilessly and feels that Monroe's farm should've been his. Monroe eventually ends up with a helping hand in the form of Ruby Thewes, a hardy local girl who demands only food and shelter in exchange for her work on the farm. Her character is the polar opposite of Monroe - Thewes is rugged, blunt and treats everything in her life with a no nonsense attitude. When Monroe warns Thewes of a particularly viscous rooster who has a habit of biting her, Thewes walks up to it, snaps its neck and suggests they stick it in a pot and cook it. I'll admit I had doubts when I saw Renee Zellweger cast in this role, but she pulls it off flawlessly. She is unrefined, funny, and resilient but still manages to reveal a sensitive, vulnerable being just beneath the surface.

Law's path is likewise difficult. After being wounded fighting for a cause he doesn't really believe in, he decides that he's had enough and attempts to return to Cold Mountain and his dreams of Ada Monroe. Of course, things aren't that easy - Inman has to travel by foot without being found by either Union or Confederate soldiers - to the Confederates, he was a deserter and would be punished, or at very least returned to his place in battle. In his travels he meets both friend and foe, and a very entertaining companion in Reverend Veasey. Indeed, supporting actors Hoffman and Zellweger steal the scenes in which they appear. It's not so much that Monroe and Inman are in love as they are in love with the idea of loving each other. When people face terrible struggles, they tell themselves whatever they must just to get through each day. Before Inman leave for battle, the two barely know each other, having only exchanged a few sentences between them. One of the major complaints that people have had about this film is the fact that it's two main characters have very few scenes together; I think this is a good thing, as I saw little chemistry between Kidman and Law.

Renee Zellweger won an Academy Award for her performance in this film

I enjoyed the characters and the acting more than the story. Though, I must say, as much I enjoy Nicole Kidman she appears out of place in this film. She is beautiful and stylish, a supermodel dropped onto a farm in 1850. This film is worth watching just to see Zellweger portraying Ruby Thewes. She has blossomed into a complete actress and I look forward to seeing what sort of roles she will be offered from now on. Cold Mountain is an average story elevated to a very good movie by its cast and director.

3 Wombats out of 4

Donnie Darko

2004-11-17T20:07:00.000-07:00

Richard Kelly - Writer/Director
Jake Gyllenhaal - Donnie Darko
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Elizabeth Darko
Drew Barrymore - Karen Pomeroy
Noah Wyle - Kenneth Monitoff
Jena Malone - Gretchen Ross
Holmes Osborne - Eddie Darko
Mary McDonnell - Rose Darko
James Duval - Frank
Patrick Swayze - Jim Cunningham
Beth Grant - Kitty Farmer
Katherine Ross - Lilian Thurman



Jake Gyllenhaal, Jena Malone and er.....Frank.....in Donnie Darko.

"What if you could go back, take all those hours of pain and sadness and replace them with something better?" This question, posed by Gretchen Ross, is the central point behind this film experience. Donnie Darko is a deep, powerful, thought provoking film that winds the viewer up in a labrynthine plot that, in the end, shows us what happens but leaves many of the details of why it happens open for debate. If done imporperly this sort of ending will leave the audience feeling frustrated and short changed. Kelly, however, gets it just right. This movie left me sitting for half an hour afterwards, staring at the blank screen, mumbling to myself while trying to tie all of the facts together. Each conclusion only seemed to come with some serious thought and the addition of one or two of my own ideas. In this way Richard Kelly's movie belongs not just to he and his cast, but to the fans as well. Doing a bit of searching on the internet revealed an entire subculture of fans for this film, all discussing and delivering theories and philosophies behind this film on their message boards.

The movie takes place in 1988, depicting the era in such a way that it is believable without being over the top and mocking the culture of the time as many films do. The references to the time period are effective but not obvious. Donnie Darko, played very convincingly by Jake Gyllenhaal, is a teenage boy who carries some emotional baggage (ever met a teenager who doesn't?) and seems angry and withdrawn. And this is before things get weird onscreen. One night Donnie is awakened by a voice that draws him up and out of bed and eventually leads him to a golf course far from his home. When his sleepwalk leads him to his destination, he meets Frank - a man in a very disturbing bunny suit. Frank woke him from his slumber to bring him here and inform him not only that the world will end but also when: 28 days from now . Thus begins a countdown to the end of the world - 28:06:42:12. Donnie returns the next morning to find that a jet engine has fallen on his home and through his room - Frank has saved his life. Donnie continues to see Frank ("daylight hallucinations" as his doctor informs his parents) who encourages Donnie to commit acts of vandalism.

As the countdown nears its conclusion the story twists and twists becoming continually darker - and so does Donnie. I will not give away its conclusion, which I found very powerful and moving. Let it suffice to say that it answers several questions and raises several more. Donnie Darko is a terrific movie whose cast simply did a magnificent job. This film is the one of the best, most original movies I've had the pleasure of seeing. Kudos to Richard Kelly for leaving the story open and giving his audience credit for being intelligent enough to participate; I'm sure some viewers were upset by this, as people are very much used to the whole story being wrapped up and handed to them with a bow on top by the end. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's nice to have a film that breaks away from the old tried and true storytelling formula. Donnie Darko is a work of art.

4 wombats out of 4

Rushmore

2004-11-17T20:05:00.000-07:00

Wes Anderson - Writer/Director
Owen Wilson - Director
Jason Schwartzman - Max Fischer

Bill Murray - Herman Blume
Olivia Williams - Rosemary Cross
Seymour Cassel - Bert Fischer
Brian Cox - Dr. Nelson Guggenheim
Mason Gamble - Dirk Calloway
Luke Wilson - Dr. Peter Flynn

Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray in Rushmore .

Rushmore is a complex film. If you like your heroes and villains simple and clear cut, look elsewhere. The main character is, at times, a downright wicked little bastard. But he certainly is charasmatic, though when all was said and done I ended up disliking him more than anything, which is ok. I enjoy it when a film steps outside the norm and gives a a protagonist I don't necessarily care for. This is an unusual, if flawed, movie.

Max Fischer is a 15 year old student at the prestigious Rushmore Academy. He writes and directs school plays that are huge, extravagent, must-see events. He is in charge of, among others, The Fencing Team, The French Club, The Debate Team, and The Calligraphy Club - the list goes on and on. He is also one of the worst students at the school and is failing most of his classes. His ambitions are huge, and he seems capable of succeeding at anything he goes for until he falls in love with second grade teacher Mrs Cross. This is where Max's frailties begin to show through.

Max is a boy who does not know himself. The major contributors to his problems are the facts that his mother died when he was 7 and his father is a barber, and thus he is in a different economic class from his classmates. He is used to getting the things he puts his mind to, and when Mrs Cross refuses a relationship with him, he continously struggles after something he obviously cannot have. That's the first part of Max's problem. The second is that his friend, millionare Herman Blume has fallen for Max's crush. This leads to a childish competition to win her affections which often turns downright cruel and nasty. Are we supposed to laugh when Max informs Herman's wife that he is cheating on her? Or when he cuts the brake line in Herman's car, LOL. Max takes turns doing and saying terrible things to the people closest to him. That these people all stick with him through the end of the film is a miracle in and of itself.

That said, the acting performances in this film are superb. Murray won several awards for his portrayal of Herman Blume who is rich, unhappily married and thoroughly depressed. Schwartzman is fine in his big screen debut as the brilliant, charismatic, selfish Fischer. Olivia Williams reveals the beauty and naivete of Mrs Cross, a woman who is forgiving - perhaps to a fault. Wes Anderson films seem to have a distinct tone and feel, such as The Royal Tenenbaums had. Rushmore is no exception. It is beautiful, quirky and has a terrific soundtrack which helps set the mood very well.

I freely admit that I did not 'get' this film. I enjoyed it on some level. Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson have a talent for making movies. The fims took a couple of turns that I was unprepared for, and I was left at the end scratching my head and feeling a bit unfulfilled. Perhaps my brain was simply on the wrong frequency to recieve this film. I wanted to like this film. Anyone reading this can feel free to give me their take on it, I'd appreciate another point of view...

2.5 wombats out of 4

The People vs Larry Flynt

2004-11-17T19:18:00.000-07:00

Milos Forman - Director
Woody Harrelson - Larry Flynt
Courtney Love - Althea Leasure
Edward Norton - Alan Isaacman
Brett Harrelson - Jimmy Flynt
Donna Hanover - Ruth Carter Stapleton
Crispin Glover - Arlo
James Cromwell - Charles Keating

Woody Harrelson sporting the latest in courtroom fashion in The People vs Larry Flynt

The People vs Larry Flynt is, at its core, a movie about two things: It is a love story between Larry Flynt and Althea Leasure, and it is a film about the First Amendment. Larry Flynt is the producer of Hustler magazine, which for those of you don't know...well, you all know what Hustler magazine is. Flynt is played superbly by Woody Harrelson as a man who knows what he wants in life and won't let anything stand in his way.

Hustler magazine began as a 'newsletter' advertising Larry's strip club. The newsletter was several pages long, featuring nude photos of the girls who danced there. Larry, dissatisfied with Playboy which he felt was too highbrow for regular people who just wanted something to jerk off to, decided to publish Hustler as a full blown magazine. The first issue tanked, and it appeared as though Hustler magazine would go broke before it had the chance to publish a second one. Larry, however, would get a phone call from someone claiming that he had nude photos of Jackie Onassis Kennedy. A month later, Jackie O and Hustler magazine were all over the news and Larry Flynt was a millionare.

His newfound fame quickly landed Larry in a courtroom, his first of many visits. Some of the lawsuits against him had some merit. others did not. His lawyer, Alan Isaacman, summed it up in that first courtroom visit when he said "I'm not asking you to like what Larry Flynt does. I don't like what Larry Flynt does. What I do like is that I live in a country where I have that choice, where I can choose to pick up Hustler magazine if I wish or throw it in the garbage if that's where I think it belongs." The bottom line is that the first amendment has to protect unpopular speech, otherwise it is useless. Flynt at one point is showing a slide show which consist of alternating photographs of war attrocities and pornography and questioning how people could possibly find a bare breast more offensive than a dead, mutilated body. The man makes a good point. I don't think Larry Flynt was a patriot; I think he fought for free speech out of self-interest and a desire to screw with the system. Larry Flynt was just a regular guy who wanted to make some money by catering to the basest human desires. He went from running moonshine as a child to owning a stripclub to publishing a porno magazine. Larry's much celebrated courtroom battles and business ventures are just part of the story.

The relationships are what keep the movie from being just a courtroom drama. Larry has a love/hate relationship with his lawyer Alan Isaacman (played by Edward Norton.) Once Flynt gets inside a courtroom, he can't help but be vulgar and disrespectful, showing the judges and lawyers that he finds them just as repulsive as they find him. The "FUCK THIS COURT" T-shirt shown in the above picture was an especially nice touch. At one point Alan tells Larry that he is no longer going be his lawyer and that he's had enough, to which Flynt responds "C'mon! I'm your dream client! I'm the most fun, I'm rich, and I'm always in trouble!"

The other key relatioship in the film is between Flynt and his wife, Althea. Althea (played incredibly well by Courtney Love) is a bisexual stripper in Larry's club and a drug addict. Even though Larry and Althea are definitely not monogamous, you can see that they truly do love each other, most importantly through the darker years after Larry is shot and paralyzed after one of his court hearings. Larry is a decent, if crude, man. He reminds me of Couch only without the ability to keep his mouth shut when he should. This is a fine movie and definitely worth watching at least once. It may make some people squirm, but these are likely the people that need this movie's message the most.

3.5 wombats out of 4.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

2004-11-16T09:13:00.000-07:00

Chuck Barris - Author
Charlie Kaufman - Screenwriter
George Clooney - Director//Jim Byrd
Sam Rockwell - Chuck Barris
Drew Barrymore - Penny
Julia Roberts - Patricia Watson

George Clooney and Sam Rockwell in Confessions.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind tells the story of Chuck Barris. This movie is based on the autobiography of his life, which he wrote in 1981. For those of you who don't know, Chuck Barris was the creator and host of game shows such as The Newlywed Game, The Dating Game, and The Gong Show, among others. He also killed 33 people while acting as a secret agent for the CIA, or so he claims in his autobiography. The validity of this claim is definitely in question. Then again, how does one go about proving someone was or was not an undercover government agent? Good luck. After watching the film, I hope it was fabricated.

I began watching this movie expecting an oddball, wacky, tongue-in-cheek story. What I got was the story of a very depressed, lonely, paranoid man who never managed to find happiness. The film opens with Barris, naked and dishevelled, holed up in a New York hotel room. The year is 1981 and he is writing a biography of his empty life. The film then takes us back in time to tell his story.

His story begins with Barris as a young boy, perhaps ten years old. It quickly fast forwards through his teens and early twenties. These years were spent unsuccesfully trying to get laid, attempting to "find the right combination of lies" to get women to sleep with him. Chuck Barris has never had love. He does not seek it. He does not want it. He is a lonely man looking for temporary fixes to fill the void he feels. He is trying to get into television, presumably to get money and thus sex. He is eventually approached by Jim Byrd (played by Clooney) who informs him that his personality fits a certain profile and offers him a job with a secret government agency. Shortly after undertaking his first mission, the network buys one of his shows, The Dating Game, and his televsion career takes off. But, as Byrd tells him, you don't just join the CIA and then quit. So it is worked out that the winners on his game shows will win trips, chaperoned by Barris, to locations where Barris has secret missions to carry out. Part of me reacts to this with "What? C'mon! He's the host of The Gong Show! He's not out killing people, give me a break..."

But as unlikely as it sounds, it could be true. And Sam Rockwell plays the role so well that it's believable. He exposes the emotional black hole that Barris lives in, filled with self-loathing. He is a killer. His game shows, while succesful, are slammed by the media and accused of lowering the entertainment standards. The only person who seems to be close to him is Penny. Their relationship begins as purely physical, and Barris is terrified of it becoming anything more. When she begins casually telling him about a dream she had, he interrupts with "C'mon, I didn't wanna do this whole 'dating' thing. I don't wanna have to pretend I give a shit when you're talking to me." She has the unpleasant experience of falling in love with a man who hates himself.

George Clooney's directorial debut is impressive. His job is made easier by the talent that surrounds him, but make no mistake, Clooney has a future as a director if he wishes it so. Rockwell and Barrymore play off of each other very well, and Julia Roberts obviously relishes her role in this film, a far cry from the roles she usually plays. I enjoyed this movie and I reccomend it. None of the things I've said here are meant as a slight against Chuck Barris; This is how the character in the film came across to me. Whether or not he lived filled with sadness and dread I cannot say. I have not read the book that this movie was based upon. I may do that. If anyone reading this knows more of his story than I do, please feel free to comment. This movie is not fun like I thought it would be. It is, however, a better movie than I expected.

3 wombats out of 4.

Shadow of the Vampire

2004-11-16T09:11:00.000-07:00

E. Elias Merhige - Director
John Malkovich - Friedrich Wilhelm 'F.W.' Murnau
Willem Defoe - Max Schreck
Cary Elwes - Fritz Arno 'Fritzy' Wagner
Udo Kier - Albin Grau
Catherine McCormack - Greta Schroeder
Eddie Izzard - Gustav von Wangenheim

John Malkovich and Willem Defoe in Shadow of the Vampire.

In 1922, German film director Friedrick Wilhelm Murnau sought to make a film based on Bram Stoker's Dracula. Stoker's widow Florence denied him the rights to use the book as source material, so Murnau simply changed the names and locations and used it anyway. What resulted was one of most terrifying films of the silent movie era, and one of the most frightening adaptations of the classic vampire tale. Shadow of the Vampire is a dramatization of the filming of Nosferatu, one that asks the question "What if Max Schreck was really a vampire?"

Early in the film, we see director Murnau (Malkovich) shooting some of the first scenes for his movie. He explains that they will soon be moving the shoot to Czechoslovakia to film the scenes with Schreck (Defoe) who will be playing Count Orlock in his movie. No one on the set has ever heard of Max Schreck, and when they question Murnau about him they are told only that he is a very passionate actor who absorbs himself into the role he is playing. Thus, they will only see him in character, in full costume and only at night.

Nosferatu was made in the silent movie era, so characters had to display their emotions visually. The first time we see Schreck in the movie is one of the most frightening and effective scenes. The filming for the scene starts with Gustav (who has yet to see the man he will be acting with) apprehensively approaching Count Orlock's castle at night. He looks truly afraid as the doors slowly open and Orlock emerges from the shadows. What we see is not the modern day image of a vampire that we've become accustomed to. Orlock is not slender, debonair and well-dressed. He is awkward, slightly hunched with yellowing skin and eerily long fingers and fingernails. His two front teeth are longer than the others and come together at a point. This is appropriate, since the word nosferatu is derived from the Greek "nosophoros" or "plague carrier."

The crew are all quite afraid of Schreck, who always remains in character. His speech is very dark and cryptic; he becomes excited at the sight of blood. Murnau must continually remind him of his role and his commitment to the film, often speaking to Schreck as though he were speaking to an unruly child who has forgotten his manners. Murnau is devoted to making the perfect vampire movie almost to the point of madness. He is willing to put himself and his crew at risk to achieve his dreams.

I enjoyed this movie, though the overall feel of the movie was such that I felt dirty at the end of it. It is definitely a strange film peopled with strange characters. It is not scary in the standard horror film sense of the word. Do not approach this film with the mindset of going to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Jeepers Creepers or other such standard movies within the genre. The pacing is a little bit slow, but Shadow of the Vampire is entertaining. I reccomend it if a horror movie about a horror movie sounds like it's for you.

3 Vampire Bats out of 4.

Ed Wood

2004-11-16T09:10:00.000-07:00

Tim Burton - Director
Johnny Depp - Ed Wood
Martin Landau - Bela Lugosi
Bill Murray - Bunny Breckinridge
Sarah Jessica Parker - Dolores Fuller
George "The Animal" Steele - Tor Johnson
Patricia Arquette - Kathy O' Hara

Johnny Depp is all optimism and energy in Ed Wood

Johnny Depp has made a career out of taking risks as an actor. He takes odd, offbeat roles that most actors wouldn't touch and he shines. Ed Wood is another example of this. For those of you who don't know, this movie is based on the true story of film director Ed Wood who has gained a cult following after being voted the worst director of all time in 1980. Apart from being an awful film director, he was also a cross dresser. Honestly, can you picture anyone BUT Johnny Depp in this role?

Ed Wood loves making movies. He goes about it with a sort of eager, blissful ignorance which Depp pulls off beautifully. Tim Burton directs his film with just the right amount of tongue in cheek humor without going overboard and making a movie about mocking Wood. Depp plays a character who goes about his art with genuine joy, determined to see the best in everyone's criticism of his films, which are truly awful. Wood sees the best in every film and, indeed, every scene he shoots. In one of the movie's more memorable moments, one of his actors walks into a wall, shaking the entire set. When Wood exclaims "Great! We got it!" after the take, one of his co-workers replies "What!? Don't you wanna.....shoot that one again, sir?" "Well...I think that's the sort of thing Lobo would have to deal with on a day to day basis. It's realistic. Let's keep it." is Wood's response. When one of his actors dies during production, he brings in a lookalike and simply keeps the new actor's face partially hidden for the remainder of the filming. When someone tells him that his movie is the worst thing they've ever seen, he smiles and replies "Well......the next one'll be better!" One can't help but smile at his eternal optimism.

While the entire cast does a great job, the other truly outstanding performance in this movie was turned in by Martin Landau who plays the washed up, drug addicted actor Bela Lugosi. Lugosi, out of work and sporting a drug addiction, agrees to work with Wood who has long idolized him. Usually when Lugosi's name is mentioned in the film it is followed by "Bela Lugosi?? I thought he was dead." Landau plays Lugosi perfectly, occasionally making us chuckle, occasionally garnering sympathy for the drug addicted old vampire who earned his fame playing Dracula many, many years ago. The Academy gave Landau a much deserved Best Supporting Actor award for his efforts.

Bill Murray is wonderful in another one of those little roles that he just runs with. And I loved seeing George "The Animal" Steele again (I remember watching him in the WWF when I was a kid.) The entire cast is terrific. The movie closes on the premier of Plan 9 from Outer Space, Wood's most succesful film. The film was originally titled "Grave Robbers from Outer Space" until the church that was funding it decided that the term "grave robbers" was offensive and asked that it be changed. The scene where they are baptized to please the people from the church is another moment that had me laughing. This movie was occasionally touching, often laugh-out-loud funny, and just all around entertaining. Go watch it.

3.5 wombats out of 4.

Face/Off

2004-11-16T09:04:00.000-07:00

Face/Off

John Woo - Director
Nicolas Cage - Castor Troy
John Travolta - Sean Archer
Joan Allen - Eve Archer
Alessandro Nivola - Pollux Troy

Face/Off is an action film, make no mistake. Action films usually aren't My Kind of Thing, but I believe that a good movie is a good movie is a good movie regardless of genre. Face/Off, however, is not a good movie. There are some qualities (or lack thereof) that come with an action film, and I can accept these things to a point. This movie just went a little too far off the deep end for my tastes.

The story revolves around Good Guy Sean Archer (Travolta) and Bad Guy Castor Troy (Cage) who is so ridiculously evil that it actually borders on being comedic. The character kills with absolutely no regard for anything whatsoever. Seriously, the citizens of Vice City get better treatment from Tommy Vercetti. Anyways, the movie opens on the typical 'Bad Guy does something terrible' scene, followed by the Good Guy catching the Bad Guy scene. This is where things get weird. You see, Castor's got a bomb planted somewhere in the city (the bad guy always has a bomb, doesn't he?) and only Castor and his brother know where it is. The CIA's team of mad scientists informs Archer that they can actually remove his face and replace it with Castor's face (Castor is in a coma.) It's simple, he's to become Castor, go to prison and find out where The Bomb is from Castor's brother Pollux. Of course, this is Top Secret so only 2 other people in the movie can know about it. And, of course, Castor is being kept in a hospital room all by himself with no guards and no supervision. And, of course, he wakes up and sees what happens, then makes a phone call to the Other Bad Guys who promptly arrive at the hospital with the doctor and the two people who are In On It. One quick medical procedure later and Castor is wearing Archer's face, ho ho. And he brutally kills the only 2 people who know what is really going on. Uh-oh!

I have, thusfar, given away nothing that cannot be surmised from the trailer. Here is something that isn't mentioned in the trailer: this movie takes place in an alternate universe. In this reality, everything explodes, sparks are frequently flying everywhere, there is glass everywhere that exists only to shatter (preferably in slow motion,) unless of course it is super glass which will stand up to gunfire because the story needs it to. Archer and Castor are impossibly accurate with their guns, unless they are shooting at each other of course. Now, many movies have been made in this reality. And I was entertained in spite of myself. However, everytime I began trying to forgive the movie its sins, it would commit another. The ending is the biggest sin of all. It's as if the director is saying "I've been a real jerk for the last hour and a half and I'm sorry. Ok everybody, here's a lollipop! YAY!!!"

Cage and Travolta have both been better, though it looked like they had fun making this film. I mean, Cage gets to play Travolta trying to be Cage and vice versa. How could that not be fun? Nicolas Cage is sometimes very good, sometimes over the top though I think he was directed that way. John Travolta has always been hit-and-miss with me, and this was a miss. I've never liked Travolta in villainous roles and this is no exception. Overall, despite the potential intrigue of having the two characters swap faces, Face\Off is just an action movie. If you like action flicks, add another wombat to the score.

Face/Off: 1.5 wombats out of four.

About this blog

2004-11-16T08:42:00.000-07:00

This blog will be used simply for movie discussions. Perhaps people will read it, perhaps not. I am doing this simply to become comfortable with writing again. I love movies. I love watching them and I love discussing them. I have no formal training for writing, nor do I have any experience or credentials which qualify me to write about movies; Nothing makes my (or any film critic's) opinion any more valid than anyone else's. Having said that, I hope that anyone who does read this will feel free to discuss these films with me and with each other. All of my reviews will be linked to the relevant films and actors at www.imdb.com which is a great site for tracking which actors have been in which films. It also lists uncredited appearances and television appearances as well. Check it out.