This Gun for Hire

THIS GUN FOR HIRE (1942) - Dec. 26, 2005
An entertaining film noir about a hitman who is double crossed by his latest client and who sets out to get revenge. Alan Ladd is quite good as the stone-faced hitman, a mean, cold-blooded killer, who has a soft spot for cats and little else. The movie is fast-paced, and at 80 minutes is over well before it has a chance to over-stay its welcome. ***

March of the Penguins

MARCH OF THE PENGUINS (2005) - Dec. 26, 2005
A good, if a bit overrated documentary about penguins and the insane amount of trouble they have to go through to procreate. Director Luc Jacquet keeps things interesting visually, but after a while the movie starts to feel a bit repetitive (I guess the penguins can be blamed for that, as they basically just go back and forth from the breeding grounds to the ocean). Even at a short 85 minutes the film feels long, though it was definitely never all-out boring. It's definitely interesting just watching all the different things the penguins have to do to protect their children, and Morgan Freeman's soothing voice proves to be the perfect accompaniment to the visuals. And certainly, the scene where the mother penguin tries to nudge awake her frozen-to-death child was one of the more heartbreaking things I've seen in a while. ***

The Ringer

THE RINGER (2005) - Dec. 23, 2005
A cheesy but mostly entertaining film about a guy who decides to fix the Special Olympics. Johnny Knoxville is good in the main role, and Brian Cox steals pretty much every scene he's in as Knoxville's sleazy uncle. The film was cheesy and predictable, and not exactly laugh-out-loud hilarious (though certainly, hearing Cox referring to Michael Clarke Duncan as "that enormous 'tard from the Green Mile" was pretty good) but it was essentially enjoyable all the way through. **1/2

Die Hard

DIE HARD (1988) - Dec. 21, 2005 (Umpteenth Viewing)
A classic. As far as action movies go, it's really hard to get much better than this. Bruce Willis is pretty much perfect as John McClane, a New York cop who finds himself going up against a building full of hardened terrorists. Alan Rickman is equally good as Hans Gruber, who is certainly one of the all-time great movie bad guys. Really, what is there to say about this movie? It's violent, funny, exciting; it's pretty much the perfect action movie, and a sad reminder of how impotent nearly all contemporary action films are. ****

Capote

CAPOTE (2005) - Dec. 21, 2005
Philip Seymour Hoffman gives an unsurprisingly excellent performance in this film about Truman Capote and the writing his non-fiction novel, In Cold Blood. Aside from Hoffman the movie is good but not great; the exceptionally slow pace makes it hard to ever get really into it. It was certainly never boring though, and it was well made. But even if it had sucked, it would have been worthwhile if only for Philip Seymour Hoffman. ***

Jingle all the Way

JINGLE ALL THE WAY (1996) - Dec. 18, 2005 (Third Viewing? Fourth?)
An underrated Christmas gem. I'm really not sure why this film gets such a bad rap. Sure, it's really silly, especially towards the end (okay, I'll admit the last little bit with the parade is pretty stupid), but it's just so enjoyable end entertaining. And then of course there's Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is pretty much perfect as the harried father trying to get a toy at the last minute, and whose performance is a big part of why the film is as enjoyable as it is. He definitely has a knack for comedy, and if he ever gets out of politics and back into acting, hopefully he'll do a few more comedies, since he is getting a bit old for action movies. ***

King Kong

KING KONG (2005) - Dec. 12, 2005
This was a good movie that could have been a great one; it's three hours long and it feels it, with almost every section of the film feeling overlong to some degree. There were a lot of really good parts -- stuff that was as thrilling as anything I've seen: the dinosaur stampede, King Kong versus the T. Rexes, the bugs attacking, Kong rampaging in New York, etc. The performances were really good, particularly Kyle Chandler, who stole pretty much every scene he was in. And then there was Kong himself, certainly a high achievement in special effects, as he always looked completely convincing. He was also remarkably expressive, and it's weird to say it, but he gave an Oscar-worthy performance. I've never thought all that much of motion-capture, but if this is what it's capable of I guess it's not all bad. The depth of the emotions Kong is able to convey is certainly the absolute antithesis of the stiff, creepily zombie-like facial animation of something like the Polar Express. It's too bad, because at about an hour shorter, this could have been one of the best films of the year. ***

Serenity

SERENITY (2005) - Dec. 10, 2005 (Second Viewing)
As I suspected, this movie works a *lot* better having seen all of the episodes of the show. It doesn't matter that the film doesn't really develop any of the characters, as they've all been fully fleshed out on the show. As well, there's a lot of things which seem insignificant but actually aren't, if you've seen the series. The performances are all really good, and the whole film just seemed a lot more exciting and fast-paced this time around. I still think it would have been just as good without killing off all those characters (Wash's death seemed particularly pointless) but aside from that it was really good. ***1/2

Are we there yet?

ARE WE THERE YET? (2005) - Dec. 4, 2005
About a guy who, trying to impress his girlfriend, volunteers to take her two kids from Seattle to Vancouver. He hates kids and they hate him (they think he's trying to replace their dad) so wackiness naturally ensues. Though the humour tends to lean towards the kiddie side, and the movie is really silly at times, it's essentially entertaining all the way through. It helps that Ice Cube gives a good performance as the befuddled boyfriend, plus I don't think I could ever totally hate a movie in the "lots of stuff happening in a short amount of time" genre, no matter how cheesy it is. **1/2

Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit

WALLACE & GROMIT IN THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT (2005) - Dec. 2, 2005
About Wallace and Gromit, and their quest to rid their small town of a giant were-rabbit, this was a delight from start to finish. The film is colourful and really well animated, and ensures that it's always entertaining to look at. But then, it's entertaining on pretty much every level, and at a short 80 minutes, the whole thing breezes by. Watching the movie, it's easy enough to see why Wallace and Gromit have become such popular characters over the years. Plus, it's hard to go wrong with a movie that features so many puns. ***1/2

Aeon Flux

AEON FLUX (2005) - Dec. 1, 2005
Well, that wasn't very good. It was just mediocre on pretty much every level. The characters were all underdeveloped, the action was dull, it was quite possibly the most visually boring version of the future I've ever seen (it was all drab white concrete buildings and flowers), and the whole thing just wasn't interesting. There was one sequence towards the end that I liked, and the movie did seem to improve a little bit as it reached its conclusion, but at that point it was too little, too late. *1/2

Escape from New York

ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK (1981) - Nov. 30, 2005 (Second Viewing)
Kurt Russell is pretty much the ultimate badass as Snake Plissken, a man who's called in to rescue the president when Air Force One crashes in New York (which has been turned into a gigantic prison). Dark and gritty, it doesn't really feel as dated as most older movies that take place in the future. It's really fast paced, and features some memorable supporting performances from people like Lee Van Cleef and Ernest Borgnine. John Carpenter needs to direct more. ***1/2

Grizzly Man

GRIZZLY MAN (2005) - Nov. 28, 2005
An entertaining documentary about Timothy Treadwell, a man who would make yearly trips into the Alaskan wilderness to live with the bears, until one finally killed him. He thought he was protecting them somehow, though it isn't entirely clear how he thought he was doing this. It's sort of sad to watch him, so enthusiastic about the bears, and yet clearly somewhat insane. ***

Tarantula

TARANTULA (1955) - Nov. 17, 2005
A cheesy but entertaining film about a giant tarantula that terrorizes a small desert town. Not much else to say about this, really. It's pretty much exactly what you'd expect: no more, no less. **1/2

Saw II

SAW II (2005) - Nov. 12, 2005
An entertaining sequel. About a bunch of characters thrown into a house by Jigsaw, one of whom is a grizzled detective's son. Donnie Wahlberg is good as the grizzled detective, but Tobin Bell is the real standout as the sinister Jigsaw. ***

Titanic

TITANIC (1997) - Nov. 8, 2005 (Third Viewing)
I know, sometime after Titanic made about a zillion dollars and was embraced by teenage girls worldwide, it suddenly became that you weren't allowed to like it. Well, you know, there's a reason that this movie made a zillion dollars: it's really good. Both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are really good as the ill-fated lovers, as are all of the other performers. Billy Zane essentially steals every scene he's in as Kate Winslet's smarmy fiancee. The movie is well over three hours but doesn't really feel it. And then there's the whole sinking sequence, which is as exciting to watch as anything James Cameron has done. There is the spectacle of the giant ship slowly sinking, and yet it never eclipses or makes us forget about the characters. The special effects hold up really well; there are only a few shots here and there where it is obvious that computers were used. And I don't think there's any other movie - not even It's a Wonderful Life - that chokes me up the way this one does. ****

Zathura

ZATHURA (2005) - Nov. 5, 2005
An enjoyable film about a couple of bickering brothers who find themselves on a cosmic adventure when they start to play an old board game called Zathura. The movie is pretty much entertaining all the way through, and seems to have that universal appeal that'll make it enjoyable for both kids and adults. It did start to drag a bit towards the end, but aside from that it was quite good. ***

Jarhead

JARHEAD (2005) - Nov. 2, 2005
After Road to Perdition, there was really nowhere to go but down for Sam Mendes. While Jarhead was really well acted and well directed, it lacked the kind of emotional resonance that marks the difference between a good film from a great one. It was essentially a series of vignettes revolving around a group of snipers during the gulf war. Some of these were better than others, and I found myself losing interest at times in the midsection of the movie (it probably didn't help that the movie was constantly making me think of Three Kings, a much better film). While there were certain sequences in the film that were really really good, there was also a distinct feeling of unevenness. ***

Water's Edge

WATER'S EDGE (2003) - Oct. 29, 2005
A basically entertaining but somewhat mediocre thriller about a couple who move to a small town and quickly find themselves in trouble. There wasn't anything particularly bad about it, though it did get a bit cheesy and predictable towards the end. Nathan Fillion was good playing a very un-Mal-like character, but aside from that this was a pretty forgettable movie. **1/2

Land of the Dead

LAND OF THE DEAD (2005) - Oct. 21, 2005
An enjoyable zombie film about a group of survivors in a world that seems to be almost entirely overrun with zombies. The film is essentially just one sequence of zombie mayhem after another, but it's well-done and enjoyable throughout. ***

High Tension

HIGH TENSION (2003) - Oct. 21, 2005
This was an above-average slasher movie, and I was really enjoying it -- right up until the last ten minutes or so. Then there was a twist ending that was so ridiculous and so ludicrous that it actually made me want to reconsider my opinion of the movie. The ending initially seems to make no sense at all, and only gets worse the more you think about it. Worst twist since Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes. It left a really bad taste in my mouth and sullied an otherwise effective slasher film. ***

Doom

DOOM (2005) - Oct. 19, 2005
Now this was just a bad movie. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. Even by videogame movie standards this was bad, and that's saying something. It was just boring, and unpleasant and bland. There weren't any even remotely decent characters. I don't think there was a single line of dialogue in the entire movie that felt real, and wasn't expository to some degree. It was terrible. The entire movie was dark, probably to hide the mediocre special effects and shoddy sets, all of which looked fake. It was barely gory at all. Even the much lauded first-person sequence was pretty crappy, basically amounting to something akin to a badly done fun-house ride at a carnival. I hate this movie because it gives videogames a bad name, even though I've rarely (if ever) played any games this bad, and this inept. 1/2*

Elizabethtown

ELIZABETHTOWN (2005) - Oct. 19, 2005
That was odd. It was odd because it was well made and well acted (even Orlando Bloom was pretty good) and yet... I didn't like it. I'm not sure why. It seemed like I should have liked it. The direction was good, it seemed to be well written, and I liked all of the characters. But I didn't enjoy it for some reason. I was bored. And I don't know why. It just seemed lifeless somehow; like it was lacking something that I just can't quite put my finger on. Certainly, it had its moments. It started out pretty well. And the funeral scene towards the end was pretty good, and actually had me forgetting how bored I was during the rest of the movie. But after that it seemed like the movie should have ended, and it didn't (it went on for another long fifteen minutes or so). It's weird, because I'm finding myself thinking about the movie quite a bit with fond memories, despite the fact that I was quite bored while watching it. I feel like I should watch it again, if only to figure out what exactly I don't like about it. **

Enter the Dragon

ENTER THE DRAGON (1973) - Oct. 15, 2005
Well, that wasn't very good. The "plot" involved three guys going to an island to take down some bad guy holding a fighting competition of some sort. I don't know. This being a kung-fu movie, things like plot and characters and... being good... (and this movie had none of these things) aren't really necessary if the action is good. But for the first hour and a half or so there was almost no action -- there were LONG sequences in which absolutely nothing happens, and then when some action finally comes to break up the monotony it only lasts a minute or two (and it's not even that great). Finally right at the end there's actually some good action with Bruce Lee taking on dozens of the bad guy's henchmen, but really, it's too late by then. And then there's the really long confrontation with the bad guy that takes place in a room full of mirrors that just comes off as an inferior rip-off of the same scene from the Lady from Shanghai. I really don't understand why this movie is regarded as a classic; it pretty much sucks. *1/2

Kung Fu Hustle

KUNG FU HUSTLE (2004) - Oct. 6, 2005
An odd movie about a small village who find themselves at odds with a local gang. Or something. I don't know, there wasn't much by way of plot in this movie; it was mostly just a series of over-the-top fight scenes. I mostly enjoyed the fight scenes -- they were entertaining in a really cartoony kind of way, though they did get a bit silly towards the end. ***

A History of Violence

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005) - Oct. 1, 2005
Viggo Mortensen gives an excellent performance in this film about a man from a small town who gets some unwanted attention when he kills a couple of robbers in self defense. It was really well made and well acted (Mortensen gives what is probably the best performance of his career). Plus it was surprisingly violent (though I guess not too surprising considering it was directed by David Cronenberg). ***1/2

Gerry

GERRY (2002) - Sept. 30, 2005
About a couple of friends who go hiking in the desert and get lost, this film has absolutely no plot and barely any dialogue. And yet it's oddly compelling. The whole thing is basically just Matt Damon and Casey Affleck walking in the desert. But it's really well directed and strangely hypnotic. While it doesn't have the emotional resonance of something like Elephant, it's still quite entertaining throughout despite how slow-paced it is. ***

Serenity

SERENITY (2005) - Sept. 28, 2005
While this was definitely entertaining all the way through, it wasn't quite as good as I was hoping it would be. It probably didn't help that I've only seen one episode of the show, and the movie seems like it would work best if you're already familiar with the characters and their universe. The main problem is that the film never really slows down to allow us to get to know the characters (since they were already developed on the show, presumably); it just moves from plot point to plot point. There was also a richness to the pilot episode that this movie felt like it was lacking -- you really got a sense of the universe itself in that episode, but the movie seemed to be straight to business. I still enjoyed it, but I think perhaps I'll be able to appreciate it more when I watch all the episodes of the show. ***

Hostel

HOSTEL (2005) - Sept. 17, 2005
A surprisingly effective horror film about three friends whose trip to Europe takes a serious turn for the worse. Though there's at least 45 minutes before the bad stuff starts going down, the film is extremely entertaining throughout. And when stuff does start happening to the characters, its all the more effective because we know them so well. The film is really intense in some sequences, and quite gory. In fact, the last chunk of the film, with the main character attempting to escape, pretty much had me on the edge of my seat the whole time. As far as slasher movies go, this is essentially as good as it gets. ****

River Queen

RIVER QUEEN (2005) - Sept. 17, 2005
For a while, I was essentially entertained by this film. The performances were all really good (Samantha Morton was excellent in the main role, and Kiefer Sutherland - with a heavy Irish accent - was also really good in a smaller role), and the direction was bland but passable. But then there comes a point where it seems like the movie should end, and yet it keeps going for another twenty minutes. And then there was ANOTHER part where I thought, okay, now it MUST be over -- and it went on for another ten minutes! It was brutal. **

S.P.L.

S.P.L. (2005) - Sept. 17, 2005
Oh the humanity. This was a terrible, terrible film. It was a poorly-made, overwrought piece of garbage. There wasn't one decent character in the whole movie, nor was there even a single line of dialogue that seemed real. The whole thing was melodramatic and cheesy and so badly done. The performances were all over-the-top, the plot (involving a group of corrupt cops trying to take down a mob boss) was one big cliche, and the action scenes, for the most part, sucked. The director, up until the final action sequence, seemed to be taking a page from the Michael Bay school of direction, with lots of quick cuts during the action scenes. Plus, the whole movie had a glossy, Michael Bay type of look to it. But then there was the last fight sequence, in which the main character takes on Sammo Hung's main henchman, and then Sammo himself. This almost seemed like it was from another movie -- it was really good. I don't get that. If they were capable of making action this good, why'd they save it for the end? It the whole movie had been punctuated with action scenes of that caliber, it probably would have been decent (it certainly would have been a lot easier to overlook how terrible the actual movie was). *

Sympathy for Lady Vengeance

SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE (2005) - Sept. 17, 2005
There are a lot of things that I really liked about this movie. It was really well directed -- the film was almost always interesting just on a visual level. The score was really good and complemented the visuals quite well. And there were a lot of sequences that were really well done. But then there was a lot of stuff that seemed superfluous, and the film got increasingly muddled as it went on (becoming downright confusing at times). The plot just seemed to be unnecessarily complicated. Plus the film really started to drag towards the end. It's too bad because this could have been a really good movie. **1/2

Winter Passing

WINTER PASSING (2005) - Sept. 17, 2005
While this movie was very well acted and reasonably well made, it was just so incredibly slow. I was able to go with it for a while, but towards the end the deliberate pace just got to me. It probably didn't help that none of the characters were all that interesting (with the possible exception of Corbit, played by Will Ferrell). **

The Myth

THE MYTH (2005) - Sept. 16, 2005
Well, this certainly wasn't Jackie Chan's finest effort. It started out well enough, but it started to really drag towards the end, and the final sequence, which took place in some kind of floating, zero-gravity mausoleum seemed to go on forever. The film was divided into stuff taking place in the past, with a romance between a general and a princess of some sort, and stuff in the present, with an archeologist and his scientist buddy (both starring Jackie Chan). One of the film's big problems was that for the most part, the stuff in the past wasn't all that interesting. The romance between Jackie Chan and the princess essentially didn't work at all, as they had zero chemistry together and in fact rarely even spoke to each other (despite the fact that a big chunk of the film was dedicated to their so-called romance). The stuff that took place in the present was considerably better, as Chan got to play more to his strengths (humour and elaborate martial arts sequences). The action (what little there was) was right up there with Jackie Chan's best stuff, with the highlight easily being a fight taking place in a rat glue factory. If this movie had been way shorter it may have been pretty good, but as it stands I was getting bored towards the end. **

Caché

CACHÉ (2005) - Sept. 14, 2005
A really bizarre film by Michael Haneke. About a couple who begin receiving tapes of footage filmed outside their home. Much of what makes this film so unique is Haneke's direction, which emphasizes unusually long shots. This, and the mystery of the tapes and who's behind it keep the film compelling, despite the movie's ultra-leisurely pace. ***

Trust the Man

TRUST THE MAN (2005) - Sept. 14, 2005
This started out really well. For the first half or so, I was enjoying it quite a bit; it was basically a better than average romantic comedy. The performances were all really good (David Duchovny and Billy Crudup were really good -- Crudup in particular was surprisingly good in a much lighter role than he usually plays, proving he is as adept at comedy as he is at drama). The dialogue was good, and there were also some genuinely funny parts. BUT... the movie was at least twenty minutes too long. As much as I was enjoying it at the beginning, it was completely plotless and in the latter half I was really just getting sick of it. It seriously overstayed its welcome. Which is too bad, because there's quite a good movie in here somewhere, it just needs some serious trimming. **1/2

The Proposition

THE PROPOSITION (2005) - Sept. 14, 2005
Though it took a while for me to fully get into it, this movie did eventually win me over. I liked the direction; the film contained some impressive scenes of the Australian outback. It also helped that Ray Winstone gave a really excellent performance, in fact probably his best that I've seen (it was a lot more subtle than his usual performances, relying a lot on facial gestures and such). I also liked the interaction between Ray Winstone's and Emily Watson's characters. The movie established a tone and a mood that really just drew me in, and there were some really powerful moments. ***1/2

Revolver

REVOLVER (2005) - Sept. 12, 2005
Well, I've been thinking about this movie all afternoon and I can safely say that I am baffled by it (but not necessarily in a bad way). Though it started out as what seemed like a straight-forward gangster movie, it just got stranger and more confusing and by the end I was scratching my head and wondering what it all meant. It was certainly well directed (though not as flashy as some of Ritchie's previous films) and well acted (Jason Statham and Ray Liotta are at their best, particularly Statham). But it was just strange, though thankfully not in a Miike or Lynch "strange for the sake of strange" type of way. Ritchie described it as "a chess game within a chess game within a chess game," which seems apt. I get the feeling that the movie will become a lot more clear and get a lot better on repeat viewings, but unfortunately I'm going to have to wait a while until I find that out. Certainly, kudos goes to Guy Ritchie for trying something different; I have a feeling that those expecting another Snatch or Lock Stock are going to be sorely disappointed. Who knows, I may watch this again and find that it is just as confusing and obtuse on repeat viewings, but I have a feeling that this is not the case. This has the potential to be a four star movie, I think, but right now I'm giving it a three. But then, since I wrote this a few hours ago, I've been thinking about the movie pretty much nonstop, so I'm going to have to bump this up to a three-and-a-half. ***1/2

The Exorcism of Emily Rose

THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE (2005) - Sept. 9, 2005
A creepy film about a priest who attempts to perform an exorcism, fails, and is forced to go on trial. Tom Wilkinson was really good (as usual) as the priest, as was Laura Linney as his lawyer. Most of the film is the trial itself, with the exorcism and such being seen in flashbacks. The movie is somewhat slow paced; the first creepy moment doesn't come until at least twenty minutes into it. But the pace worked, and I found that the courtroom stuff was just as effective as some of the scarier moments. But (and perhaps it helps that I scare very easily) this was still a really scary movie. It wasn't so much scary in a flat-out Ring sort of way, it was more eerie and unnerving. It helps that the movie avoids over-the-top supernatural stuff like the 360 head-turning and projectile vomiting of the Exorcist. The movie was really well directed, and some of the scenes were really suspenseful. In fact, when the credits rolled I noticed that my back and neck felt unusually tight; I must have been tensing up for extended periods without even realizing. ***1/2

The Transporter

THE TRANSPORTER 2 (2005) - Sept. 3, 2005
A somewhat disappointing sequel. It's especially disappointing given how good Unleashed was, Louis Leterrier's previous film. There were a couple of good action sequences, but the action was pretty mediocre for the most part. It didn't help that the whole film felt like a TBS version of an R-rated movie (it's really clear that this was originally supposed to be much more violent). It also didn't help that the movie was filled with action movie cliches (the generic European villain, the big quiet guy who does a lot of damage to the main character until he gets the upper hand, the fight on a plane in which the pilot is shot in the crossfire, and so on). It wasn't all bad, though. Jason Statham was quite good, and the film was essentially entertaining throughout. It was just mediocre. **1/2

Four Brothers

FOUR BROTHERS (2005) - Aug. 27, 2005
Essentially Deathwish but with four people instead of one, this was about four brothers whose mother is killed, and who decide to get revenge on those responsible. The performances were all quite good, particularly Terrence Howard as a cop who helps the brothers out, and Chiwetel Ejiofor as a sinister mobster. The film was entertaining all the way through, and was definitely John Singleton's best film in a while (which isn't hard considering his last few movies were 2 Fast 2 Furious, Baby Boy and Shaft). ***

Sahara

SAHARA (2005) - Aug. 26, 2005
It's never a good sign when a film's opening credits list four different writers. It actually started out decently enough, sort of a third-rate Indiana Jones. But after a while, and especially in the last 45 minutes or so, it started to become a little monotonous with one bland action sequence after another, with almost no downtime between them towards the end. The performances were all fine (with the exception of Penelope Cruz, who is terrible in better movies and who was certainly terrible here), I liked the chemistry between Steve Zahn and Matthew McConaughey, and I was able to go with the film's sort of silly vibe for a while, but all the action just killed it for me. **

Appleseed

APPLESEED (2004) - Aug. 24, 2005
Though the animation style takes a while to get used to, I did get used to it, and this was a good film. The movie was computer animated, but the characters all had a cel-shaded, traditionally animated type of look to them. This worked for the most part, though the performances tended to be a bit stiff at times. This style of animation seemed to work best for action, as the action sequences were really well done and very impressive, visually. The film was entertaining throughout, and not nearly as convoluted as anime based on manga tends to be. ***

Red Eye

RED EYE (2005) - Aug. 23, 2005
About a woman who is forced to indirectly kill a high ranking politician, this was a pretty good thriller which was elevated by a scenery chewing and immensely entertaining performance by Cillian Murphy, who is quickly proving to be one of the best young actors out there. The film is at its most effective for the first hour or so; the last twenty minutes are a little silly, as Murphy's character essentially turns into Daniel Stern from Home Alone (for someone who seemed so cool and collected on the plane, it suddenly becomes apparent that he isn't all that good at his job). ***

The 40 Year Old Virgin

THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN (2005) - Aug. 23, 2005
Steve Carell is really good in this film which, as the title implies, is about a 40 year old who's still a virgin. Carell is really funny, but at the same time manages to create a character we really come to like and care about. Equally good are Carell's three buddies, including the always excellent Paul Rudd, and Carell's love interest, played by Catherine Keener. The film was almost two hours long, but unlike Wedding Crashers it didn't feel long at all. Even the obligatory fake breakup wasn't too bad here, and didn't feel nearly as forced and pointless as it almost always does. ***1/2

Spellbound

SPELLBOUND (2002) - Aug. 21, 2005
A well made documentary about eight kids who compete in the 1999 spelling bee. Around half of the film is spent letting us get to know the children and their families, so by the time the competition starts it is pretty tense, as we know all the kids so well. ***

Broken Flowers

BROKEN FLOWERS (2005) - Aug. 19, 2005
Bill Murray is excellent (though he is essentially playing a variation on his last few performances) in this film about a man who discovers that he may have a son, and sets out to find the identity of the mother. Aside from Murray, all of the performances were really good, and the film was really well written and directed. ***1/2

Dial M for Murder

DIAL M FOR MURDER (1954) - Aug. 14, 2005
Though not quite up there with Hitchcock's finest films, this is still a really good movie. About a husband who plots to kill his wife, the film remains extremely entertaining and quite riveting at times, even though it takes place almost entirely in one apartment. The film never felt stagey despite essentially being a play, probably because of the quality of the performances, the writing and the direction (in fact I didn't even notice how play-like it was until it was almost over). ***1/2

Wedding Crashers

WEDDING CRASHERS (2005) - Aug. 14, 2005
A criminally overlong romantic comedy about a couple of guys who crash weddings to meet girls. The problem with this film was that it almost felt like two different movies at times; there was the wacky stuff (the whole beginning sequence, and pretty much everything with Vince Vaughn) and then there was the played out, and really tired romantic comedy stuff with Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams (Wilson and McAdams were both good, particularly McAdams, but all their stuff was just so routine). But it was still pretty much entertaining for a while, but then there was the requisite fake breakup, and sweet Jesus! It went on for what felt like an hour. The fake breakup should last no longer than five minutes, max, and this one had to have been at least half an hour. They even threw in a second fake breakup with Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, where it looks like they won't be friends anymore. This section of the film was boring and pointless. But then there was Vince Vaughn, who gave one of his best and funniest performances in years, and was easily the highlight of the film. There should have been more Vince Vaughn and less of the tired romantic comedy stuff. **

The Skeleton Key

THE SKELETON KEY (2005) - Aug. 13, 2005 (S)
A decent thriller about a woman who gets a job caring for a stroke victim and his wife, and who finds herself increasingly embroiled in the world of voodoo (or hoodoo). Peter Sarsgaard (with a southern accent!) was good in a small part. The film was basically entertaining all the way through, though it did get a bit ridiculous with all the voodoo stuff towards the end. But then there was the ending, which featured one of the best twists since the Sixth Sense, which I didn't see coming at all. **1/2

Bringing up Baby

BRINGING UP BABY (1938) - Aug. 12, 2005
A really entertaining and surprisingly funny film that essentially falls into the "lots of stuff happening in a short amount of time" genre (so it's no surprise that it's good). Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn were both excellent, the dialogue was really good, and the film was really fast-paced and wacky. ***1/2

The Thin Man

THE THIN MAN (1934) - Aug. 6, 2005
William Powell and Myrna Loy are both really good as Nick and Nora Charles in this, the first of the Thin Man movies. In it, they attempt to solve a crime while exchanging banter and drinking a lot. The mystery itself tended to be a bit confusing, as there were so many characters I was having a hard time keeping track of them all. But the real highlights were the performances, as Powell and Loy had really good chemistry together, and the dialogue, which was really good. ***

Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story

STEWIE GRIFFIN: THE UNTOLD STORY (2005) - Aug. 1, 2005
Since it wasn't even 16:9, this basically felt like three episodes of the show stuck together (probably because it was) but it was still really entertaining and quite funny. It was just basically like a long, good episode of Family Guy. There were a lot of really funny parts, with the highlights probably being the Thundercats part, and the extended Ferris Bueller parody (I'm still chuckling about that one now). They should make more of these. ***

After Hours

AFTER HOURS (1985) - July 31, 2005
An entertaining and really well directed film about a guy who goes out one night and finds himself stuck in one misadventure after another, all while trying to get back home. Another winner in the "lots of stuff happening in a short amount of time" genre. The stuff that happens to the main character gets increasingly bizarre as the film progresses, but it works as the whole film has a sort of stylized, off-kilter vibe to it. Griffin Dunne is good in the main role, and Martin Scorsese's direction ensures that the film is always interesting to look at. ***

Sky High

SKY HIGH (2005) - July 27, 2005
An enjoyable film about the son of the two greatest superheroes in the world, who begins attending a high school for heroes called "Sky High." Suffers from a weak second half in which the main character learns that hanging out with the "cool" kids is not all it's cracked up to be (which happens in the most played-out, predictable way possible. As well, the identity of the super villain should come as a surprise only to the most slow-witted children in the audience). Aside from that, the film is entertaining throughout (though it does begin to wear out its welcome a bit in the latter half) and features good performances by all the leads, and some really enjoyable performances from people like Kurt Russell, Bruce Campbell and Dave Foley. Though it can't really compare to something like Spider-Man or the Incredibles, it is for the most part a fun way to spend an hour and a half. ***

The Devil's Rejects

THE DEVIL'S REJECTS (2005) - July 23, 2005
A flawed but effective horror film. About a family of psychopaths who go on the run when their house is raided by the cops. Rob Zombie's directing style, which consisted almost entirely of close-ups, took a while to get used to (but I did eventually get used to it). There were some sequences in the film which were really well done, and quite gripping. But the film also felt a bit long at times, and some scenes seemed a bit superfluous (the scene where the cops bring in the over-the-top film critic stood out as being especially unnecessary; the whole Marx brothers connection went nowhere and seemed to be there solely so Zombie could prove that he's seen stuff other than '70s horror films). But the movie was pretty much entertaining all the way through, and the good moments definitely outweighed the bad. ***

Crash

CRASH (2004) - July 16, 2005
A well made movie about a bunch of people in LA dealing with racism. It tended to be a little heavy handed at times, but that's a pretty minor complaint as the movie was really well acted and directed. At under two hours it was surprisingly short for a movie of its type, and was quite entertaining throughout. It was maybe even a bit too short, as there were so many characters the movie didn't really have time to develop all of them properly. But that's another minor complaint. ***1/2

Time after Time

TIME AFTER TIME (1979) - July 15, 2005
You just can't go wrong with a movie about time travel, and this is certainly no exception. About H.G. Wells, who actually manages to invent a time machine, only to have it stolen by Jack the Ripper. Wells then follows him into the future to attempt to catch him. The inevitable fish-out-of-water jokes ensue; Wells also meets a bank clerk played by Mary Steenburgen and falls in love. The film was well directed and entertaining throughout. My only real complaint is that it lags slightly in the middle, but aside from that this was a really good movie. ***1/2

The Island

THE ISLAND (2005) - July 13, 2005
Hmmm... This actually started out fairly well. The first forty-five minutes or so, with the clones living out their day-to-day lives inside the artificial community, and Ewan McGregor's character slowly realizing something is wrong, was entertaining and reasonably interesting. And even for a while after that it remained entertaining. But then, as if to make up for the relative lack of action in the first hour, Michael Bay cranks the action into super-mega-overdrive, thrusting the audience into one boring and incredibly long action sequence after another. The movie, at almost two and a half hours, was oppressively overlong. The problem essentially being that none of the action was particularly interesting or exciting. The worst offender was an insanely long car chase that seemed to be going for the record for most cars flipped over on the highway. It was pretty much the exact same car chase from Bad Boys 2, and just as bad. It was just so incredibly over-the-top, it was mind-numbing. Michael Bay seems to be operating under the assumption that seeing cars get destroyed is inherently exciting. It isn't; there needs to be something more, something other than an endless parade of chaos and explosions. This movie should have been around 90 minutes; everything from the last hour and a half could have easily been edited into half an hour (most of the action could be cut down quite a bit, and the car chase could be excised altogether, as it did nothing to move the plot forward and was only there so Bay could blow stuff up real good). It's too bad because the idea for the film is pretty good and I did enjoy the first hour or so. *1/2

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (2005) - July 11, 2005
I have to admit, my opinion on this movie is not without bias; I'm not sure what I'd think of it if it weren't for the classic 1971 film. But that film exists, and this one just cements my opinion that remakes are a waste of talent and time (yes, I know, this supposedly isn't a remake, it's an adaptation of the book -- but certain things look so similar to the original film, particularly the chocolate field and river, that it's impossible to deny that the original film has influenced this one). My main problem with this film is the character of Willy Wonka, as portrayed by Johnny Depp. He's unpleasant. He isn't likeable. And this is where my bias comes in, but he just can't compare to Gene Wilder's Wonka. There is a sense of wonder and awe that Wilder had that is particularly lacking in Depp's Wonka, and in the whole film in general. The problem there being that the whole movie is so stylized, and funky looking, by the time we get to Wonka's chocolate factory there is a certain ho-humness about it. It looks basically like a slightly sleeker version of the 1971 factory, and I guess I was expecting something slightly more fantastic given the overall visual sensibility of the film. But going back to the character of Wonka, with Gene Wilder there was still that mean streak, that feeling of spoiled kids getting their due, but there was also a sense of humanity in his character. You get the sense that he is still like a kid in a candy store; he has a certain awe and reverence for his own creation. Depp, on the other hand, seems to be disgusted by everything and everyone around him, and has a blasé attitude towards the whole factory. BUT despite all that (and that sure is a lot of criticism) I didn't hate this film. Being a Tim Burton film it was expectedly well directed, and entertaining on a purely visual level. And it was basically entertaining, if a little long. Plus the kid playing Charlie was good, as was his whole family. First Planet of the Apes and now this. Tim Burton should stick to his own material. **1/2

Fantastic Four

FANTASTIC FOUR (2005) - July 9, 2005
This movie wasn't really bad per se, it was just extremely mediocre. It was sort of entertaining (though too long), but the underdeveloped characters and juvenile humour ensure it'll never hold much appeal to anyone other than eight-year-olds. As for the performances, Chris Evans and Michael Chicklis were the only two who really did a good job. Jessica Alba was wooden and unconvincing as Susan Storm, and Ioan Gruffudd, while basically fine, didn't really have the necessary charisma to be a good Reed Richards. And Julian McMahon wasn't nearly sinister enough as Doctor Doom. He was pretty evil, I guess, but not really in a cool super villain kind of way, more in a crazy weirdo kind of way. I mean, here's a movie where it would be okay for the villain to give the requisite "here's why I want to take over the world" speech, and he doesn't even do it. And why couldn't they give the Thing his brow?? How hard would that have been? I don't get it. As far as recent superhero movies go, this isn't nearly as terrible as Catwoman, but it isn't even in the same league as stuff like Spider-Man, Batman and the Incredibles. **

Dangerous Crossing

DANGEROUS CROSSING (1953) - July 8, 2005
About a woman who goes on a cruise with her husband, who promptly goes missing. She soon finds that there is no trace of him, and that nobody even remembers seeing him. The film was well directed, and essentially entertaining. The main problem was that the main character wasn't all that likeable; she spends the bulk of the film in a panicked frenzy ("oh you must believe me! You must!"). It probably doesn't help that the actress playing her wasn't all that great. Still, the mystery of the missing husband was reasonably compelling, and at a short 75 minutes the film never really overstays its welcome (though it was on the verge of doing so a few times). **1/2

Spartan

SPARTAN (2004) - July 7, 2005
A well made thriller about a Marine who tries to rescue the president's daughter. Features a lot of twists, and a lot of the sort of strange dialogue Mamet is known for. It's also interesting in that there is almost no exposition; Mamet never really explains anything to the audience, it all just basically unfolds. That could have been bad, but it worked. Val Kilmer was really good in the main role, as was pretty much everyone else in the movie. ***

Dark Water

DARK WATER (2005) - July 6, 2005
Another mediocre movie. The problem with this movie was that it just wasn't interesting. It was plotless, and was essentially all about Jennifer Connelly and her struggles as a newly single mother. The problem there being that she isn't all that interesting of a character. She was essentially a crazier version of the struggling single mother from the Ring. But at least in the Ring there was the whole mystery of the tape to keep us occupied; here we have nothing but the mother's plight. And yet at the same time the movie did seem to be going for a tense, Ring-like atmosphere (the film, with its stark, gray shots of the city, seemed to be inspired in more ways than one by the Ring). Long sequences which are supposed to be scary such as one set in the basement of the building, and several in which the mysterious upstairs apartment is investigated, attempt (and fail) to create a creepy vibe. In the end, this movie fails as a character study, and fails as a horror movie, essentially rendering it pointless. There were, however, some good supporting performances by John C. Reilly, Tim Roth and Pete Postlethwaite. I just wish one of them had been the focus of the movie. *1/2

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

MR. & MRS. SMITH (2005) - July 6, 2005
What happened to you, Doug Liman? This was a mediocre action movie. For the first hour or so, there wasn't too much action. This would have been good, except for the fact that the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie characters aren't really developed at all; the movie hammers home the fact that they no longer connect with each other by having them spend the entire first hour or so making pointless small talk. They start to become a little more interesting in the second half, but there really isn't much time for anything but action at that point. Which was essentially the biggest problem with the movie -- as soon as the Smiths discovered each other's true identities, the action began and pretty much didn't end until the credits rolled. And that's fine I guess, but it got to be a bit much after a while. I mean, the action was generally well done (no shaky-cam/quick-cuts, which I liked) but it was overwhelming. It's like going to a buffet and being forced to continue eating long after you're full. Some of the action scenes were actually pretty good, as was some of the stuff with the Smiths discovering just how much they've lied to each other, but at that point I was well past the point of caring. **

Street Smart

STREET SMART (1987) - July 4, 2005
Christopher Reeve stars in this film about a reporter who gets mixed up with a pimp when he fakes a story. Even though he has less screentime, the real star of the film is Morgan Freeman as a sinister pimp who is likable one moment, and vicious the next. His performance is electrifying and magnetic, and every time he's not on screen I was basically just waiting for him to return. It's certainly no surprise he was nominated for an Oscar. It's too bad he seems to only play nice guys these days, because he was really good here (not that he isn't always good, but this was certainly one of his better performances). ***

Wimbledon

WIMBLEDON (2004) - July 3, 2005
An entertaining romantic comedy about a washed-out tennis player who begins to regain his stride after he falls in love. The movie offers little by way of surprises (it features the requisite fake breakup, and triumphant victory for the protagonist) but it still remains quite enjoyable throughout, thanks mainly to charismatic performances from both of the leads. Paul Bettany in particular was quite good, and Jon Favreau and Sam Neill were both good in smaller parts. ***

War of the Worlds

WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005) - July 1, 2005
I didn't realize Steven Spielberg was even capable of making a movie this good anymore. This is easily his best film since Jurassic Park, and his first movie since then that doesn't feel oppressively overlong (it is perhaps a tad on the long side, but in this case that's a minor complaint). The scenes where the aliens attack, particularly the first one, are really well done and quite riveting. The characters aren't all that great, but they serve their purpose of moving the movie along from one big set-piece to the next. Steven Spielberg proves here that when he wants to be, he is still the master of big-screen spectacle. If only the stuff in between the action had been better, this could have been an instant classic. ***1/2

Open Water

OPEN WATER (2003) - June 29, 2005
A surprisingly suspenseful movie about a couple who go scuba-diving and get left behind by their boat. The film essentially consists of the two divers floating in the water and talking (or bickering) and yet it manages to be really entertaining and suspenseful throughout, particularly towards the end. Particularly effective was the scene that took place at night, with only periodic illumination from bolts of lightning. The film was done on a shoe-string budget and it looks it (it looks like it was filmed with a camcorder, and the two leads - though certainly not bad - weren't all that great, either). Despite that it is well made and remains very engaging throughout, which makes it easy to overlook its shortcomings. ***1/2

Live from Baghdad

LIVE FROM BAGHDAD (2002) - June 28, 2005
Michael Keaton gives a really good performance (no surprise there) in this film about CNN's struggle in Iraq in the weeks leading up to the Gulf War. The movie was entertaining and well made, and of course it's always nice to see Michael Keaton in a lead role. I don't get why he isn't a bigger star. ***

Duel

DUEL (1971) - June 27, 2005
Considering that this is Steven Spielberg's first film, and a TV movie at that, it's certainly above average. However it comes as no surprise to find out that this was based on a short story, as the premise is pretty thin and the movie feels overlong even at ninety minutes. It was certainly well-made, though. The truck becomes a really sinister presence even without ever seeing the driver. But the movie is just too one-note to ever really get into. It probably doesn't help that Dennis Weaver isn't all that great in the main role, and his occasional panicked narration is more annoying than anything else. **1/2

Cyber Seduction: His Secret Life

CYBER SEDUCTION: HIS SECRET LIFE (2004) - June 20, 2005
A ridiculously bad TV movie about a teenager whose perfect life is destroyed when he becomes addicted to internet pornography. Is it really necessary to say anything else? This movie's only redeeming feature is that it occasionally strays into the "so bad it's good" category, as it is laughably bad. The movie is so outrageously over-the-top it borders on parody, and if there is any justice in the world everyone who was involved in this stink-bomb will never be allowed to work again. I missed the first ten minutes, so I can't really give it a rating, but if I were to rate it I'd give it half a star. NO RATING

Batman Begins

BATMAN BEGINS (2005) - June 17, 2005 (Second Viewing)
This didn't hold up quite as well on a second viewing as I had hoped it would. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it; I did. But I definitely felt the length this time, and was even a bit bored in parts. It probably didn't help that I was pretty tired. I don't know. The movie just seemed a bit more unremarkable this time around. I definitely really liked Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow, though. He stole every scene he was in. And I hope Christopher Nolan improves his action-directing skills next time around. ***

Batman Begins

BATMAN BEGINS (2005) - June 13, 2005
A worthy Batman film. Christian Bale proves to be almost perfect as Bruce Wayne / Batman. In fact, all the actors are really good; I also really liked Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow. Though it quickly becomes apparent that Christopher Nolan is not the best director of action (the old shaky-cam / quick cut standby -- I am so sick of this. It's just lazy filmmaking. Can't figure out how to direct that action scene? Just shake the camera a lot and show lots of close-ups and the audience will just assume something exciting is happening. What a crock.), the film still manages to be quite good. It probably helps that the action level is surprisingly low (it's probably around an hour into the movie before Bruce Wayne first dons the Batsuit). There were a few minor things I didn't like -- the Batsuit, for instance. It looks too bulky and cumbersome; I don't really know if I buy that he could run around and fight crime in that thing. I think that something closer to what it looks like in the comics could look really good if done right (that internet Batman short film was on the right track). I didn't really like the Batmobile either. But those are really minor complaints. The movie was really long, and while it did feel like a long movie it never felt overlong (so much stuff happens it almost feels as though you could split it up into two movies). As far as superhero movies go this was right up there with Spider-man 2. ***1/2

The Sugarland Express

THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS (1974) - June 12, 2005
A well made but somewhat slow-paced early film by Steven Spielberg. About a young couple who kidnap a cop and set out across the country to get their child. At 110 minutes, the movie feels a bit on the long side, exacerbated by the fact that it is essentially plotless. In fact this feels more like a later Spielberg effort than something out of his prime, as it is overlong and a little pointless (which is surprising given that this is his first theatrical film). **1/2

Timeline

TIMELINE (2003) - June 10, 2005
Uggh. Yet another film in a long line of lousy Crichton adaptations, and quite possibly the worst yet (which is no small feat, considering that other Crichton adaptations include Sphere and Congo). I just don't get it. All they have to do is adapt the story without changing it too much. Why is that so difficult? Why do they have to make it so... well, stupid. For one thing, the screenplay was absolutely terrible, and featured some of the worst dialogue I've heard in a while. And then there were the performances, which were at about the same level as a straight-to-video movie (which, I suppose, went well with the dialogue). Paul Walker and Francis O'Connor were both particularly bad. Paul Walker is normally a lousy but passable actor -- not here. He has absolutely no charisma and stumbles through his lines like he's reading them for the first time. O'Connor is equally bad. Gerard Butler is the only person here able to give something resembling a decent performance, but even he isn't all that great (though that's probably the script's fault -- there's only so much an actor can do when the material is this bad). Then the movie ends with a long battle scene that seems to go on forever, and boy was I bored. If Michael Crichton were dead he'd be rolling around in his grave. But I guess instead he's swimming around in his money bin. *1/2

Howl's Moving Castle

HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE (2004) - June 6, 2005
A typically creative and engaging film from Hayao Miyazaki, who is without a doubt one of the best animation directors around. About a young girl who is cursed with the body of an old woman, and her adventures with a magician. The film is set in some kind of odd fantasy world, and is almost always compelling just on a visual level. It is, however, slightly overlong, and it lags a bit towards the end. But aside from that it was quite good. Even the dubbing was well done, though I still would have preferred to watch the original version with subtitles. ***

The Longest Yard

THE LONGEST YARD (2005) - June 4, 2005
Adam Sandler stars in this film about a disgraced former NFL player who gets another chance to play football when he finds himself in prison. This is definitely one of Adam Sandler's worst films. For one thing it is completely plotless -- the whole film consists of the preparation for the game, and then the game itself (which goes on far longer than it should, but then that can be said of the whole movie, which is way overlong). It would have been nice if there were at least a couple of good characters; Sandler's character is way underdeveloped, and the rest of the people are essentially not developed at all (which is surprising given how long the movie is). It would have also been nice if the movie had been funny, but aside from a couple of chuckles there aren't many laughs to be found here. Plus something happens right before the big game which seems unnecessarily harsh for a cheesy movie like this. But if there's one thing I can say about this movie, it's always nice to see Sully from Commando on the big screen. **

The Aristocrats

THE ARISTOCRATS (2005) - May 31, 2005
A stupid, boring, trainwreck of a movie. It is very rare that I'm this bored during a movie, but it was excruciating, especially towards the end. The movie consists entirely of comedians telling and talking about one, very very unfunny joke. The joke isn't funny and most of the comedians admit it -- it's essentially just a juvenile sort of game of trying to be more disgusting than the last guy. And it's fine, I guess; if someone told it to me at a party or something I'd smile and perhaps even chuckle. But after the thirtieth or fortieth time it became incredibly repetitive, and such an ordeal to sit through. Plus we have to hear about the history of the stupid joke, and the many many MANY nuances of telling it - I DON'T CARE. This isn't interesting. Shut up, all of you. This may be useful to aspiring comedians on a technical level, but aside from that I don't see how it's supposed to be entertainment. It doesn't help that the film's rapid-fire editing style rarely allows a single person to talk for more than five seconds or so. It feels like the editor had ADD, and was constantly getting bored with his own footage (though I can't say I blame him). Towards the end it got quite oppressive, like listening to the same bad song on loop for ninety minutes. This was a terrible movie and I hated almost every second of it. ZERO STARS

The Final Cut

THE FINAL CUT (2004) - May 30, 2005
Robin Williams gives one of his better performances in this interesting sci-fi film set in the not-too-distant future. A technology called Zoe records a person's entire life, which is then edited together like a movie by a "cutter." Williams plays a cutter whose life essentially revolves around his job. This was a good film and it deserved some kind of theatrical release, though I could certainly see that it would be hard to market. There were some interesting observations about the nature of our memories. I also liked Omar Naim's direction; it sort of reminded me of Kubrick, though obviously Naim is nowhere nearly as good as the K-man. This is the type of movie that you continue to think about well after the credits have rolled, and one of the better movies I've seen in a while. ***1/2

Flight of the Phoenix

FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX (2004) - May 29, 2005
An enjoyable film about a group of people who try to rebuild their plane after crashing in the middle of the desert. My main problem with this movie was that there was not a single surprise the entire time -- not because the movie was predictable (though it essentially was), but because the trailer literally gives the entire movie away, right to the final minute. At this point I'm used to trailers giving away a lot more than I'd like, but this was just ridiculous. Aside from that the movie was fine. There was nothing really special about it, but it was well-made and entertaining throughout. ***

Silver Streak

SILVER STREAK (1976) - May 22, 2005
Gene Wilder is really good in this film about a man on a train who witnesses a murder and then gets caught up in the events that follow. Richard Pryor is also quite good, though he doesn't pop up for about an hour. The film is funny at times and really enjoyable throughout. ***

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005) - May 21, 2005 (Second Viewing)
This movie is just as good on a second viewing as it is on the first. Maybe better, even. It's good in so many ways I can't even begin to list them all. I only wish the first two prequel films were this good. It certainly makes me want to watch the originals again. Too bad I can't watch them on DVD. ****

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005) - May 20, 2005
Awesome. Super awesome. Super mega awesome. This is easily the best of the prequel trilogy and certainly right up there with the originals. The opening space battle - beginning with an impressively long shot - was really exciting and certainly the best one from this trilogy (though it still can't touch the one from ANH or, the best one of all, the one from ROTJ). General Grievous made for a good villain, though I'd like to know what his deal was (he seemed to be some sort of part man / part machine, but they didn't go into that at all). Then of course there was Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine, who gave what had to be one of the best bad guy performances of all time. He was just so sinister, and the scenes where he's manipulating Anakin are among the best in the movie. Ewan McGregor was equally good as Obi-Wan, and seemed to be channeling the spirit of Alec Guiness. And Hayden Christensen was really good as Anakin, whose descent to the dark side was treated really well. Everything about this movie was really good. It was certainly the darkest of the Star Wars films, from the execution of all the Jedi to Anakin's horrible disfigurement and transformation into Darth Vader. I particularly liked the way it bridged this trilogy to the Original Trilogy, with all the little references and what not. The final scene of the movie, in which baby Luke is given to his parents on Tatooine, was so good it brought a tear to my eye (I'll also admit that I got a little choked up during the scene in which the twins were born; there was just something special about actually seeing Luke and Leia being born). I'm really looking forward to seeing this again. ****

Madagascar

MADAGASCAR (2005) - May 18, 2005
A somewhat mediocre cartoon about a group of zoo animals who must adapt when they suddenly find themselves in the wild. It was essentially entertaining, and all the performances were fine, but... it just wasn't that great. It didn't help that it ran out of steam pretty much as soon as they got to the wild. A group of crazy penguins, also from the zoo, stole every scene they were in and were easily the highlight of the whole thing. They should have been the stars of the movie. **1/2

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones

STAR WARS: EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES (2002) - May 17, 2005 (Fifth Viewing)
While this is definitely superior to Episode I, it is flawed in many ways and certainly nowhere nearly as good as the Original Trilogy. George Lucas' over-reliance on CGI can definitely be felt more here than in the previous movie. While some of the special effects are extremely impressive, much of the film looks artificial; this is particularly true of the CGI "sets," most of which don't look even a little bit authentic. As well, the relationship between Anakin and Padme - which is central to the film - is a bit weak. They barely have any chemistry together, and it's quite baffling as to why Padme would even be in love with Anakin -- he spends most of the movie brooding and/or whining. I do think, however, that Hayden Christensen gives a good performance. Yes, he's whiney, and maybe even a little bit annoying -- but that's the character. He's a whiney brat. He's just a teenager who does not have the emotional ability to deal with his enormous powers, which is ultimately why he succumbs to the Dark Side. I like the way that Palpatine essentially produces a war in order to assume power, and the way he encourages Anakin, sensing and exploiting his emotional weakness. Obviously that'll be explored more in the next movie. Two more days! ***1/2

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace

STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999) - May 16, 2005 (Sixth or Seventh Viewing)
I like this movie, though I can definitely see what people don't like about it. For one thing, most of the film seems sort of useless, like it has no real impact on the series as a whole. What was the point (in the grand scheme of things) of Jar Jar? The Gungans? The Pod Race? The final battle? Darth Maul? Naboo? The Midichlorians? None of these things have much of an impact, if any, of the other five movies (though I have yet to see Episode III). Really, the only things of importance in this movie are the fact that Anakin was a nice little kid, and some of the political maneuvering that Palpatine does in the senate. This is stuff that could have been accomplished in about fifteen minutes, rather than a 130 minute movie. So certainly, there is a sense of wasted time, like why does this movie even need to exist? But then it is enjoyable. The pod race, as useless as it is, is well done and quite exciting. The lightsaber fight at the end with Darth Maul was also really good. This is definitely the weakest of the Star Wars films, and the least Star Warsy (compared to the Original Trilogy), but it's still really entertaining. And as far as big summer action movies go, this is pretty much as good as it gets. ***1/2

Time of the Wolf

TIME OF THE WOLF (2003) - May 15, 2005
A slow-paced (putting it mildly) film about a bunch of characters in some kind of post-apocalyptic society. Michael Haneke makes the interesting (but not necessarily entertaining) choice to leave the viewer completely in the dark about pretty much everything -- the characters are not developed in the least, and their situation is pretty much a complete mystery. And there's no plot whatsoever. Essentially, the movie begins, some stuff of little to no significance happens, and then it ends. By the end of the movie we barely know the characters any better than when it started. The film was well made, I suppose, and it's never entirely boring. And it is sort of interesting to just be thrust into this world and watch as these characters (who we never get to know, really) interact with nothing particularly important happening. But it's not really very entertaining. And sort of pointless, too. **1/2

Unleashed

UNLEASHED (2005) - May 14, 2005
A surprisingly enjoyable action movie starring Jet Li as a man who was essentially brought up as a dog, trained only to fight and to kill. This is probably the best Jet Li movie that I've seen; it wisely avoids the over-the-top wirework that has plagued pretty much all of Li's American movies. The action was actually really good, easily the best I've seen since Ong-Bak. Though this movie isn't nearly as cram-packed with action as Ong-Bak was, the stuff between the action was actually quite good, so it doesn't really matter. Bob Hoskins chews the scenery and gives a really entertaining performance as Li's "uncle" Bart. Morgan Freeman is good (as always) as a kindly father-figure who helps Li to rediscover his humanity. And Li himself was actually quite good, creating a character that we actually come to care about. ***1/2

Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!

WIN A DATE WITH TAD HAMILTON! (2004) - May 13, 2005
I don't get this movie. It pretty much spends the whole time developing Josh Duhamel and Kate Bosworth's relationship, with Topher Grace essentially leering at her from the background. And yet she ends up with him, for some bizarre reason. That's sort of like having a movie with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and then having them break up at the end. It doesn't work. It doesn't help that Topher Grace's character is barely likeable (particularly compared to Josh Duhamel); Grace seems even more sarcastic than usual here, if that's even possible. Other than that the movie was essentially enjoyable, I suppose, but... what's up with that ending? **1/2

Kicking & Screaming

KICKING & SCREAMING (2005) - May 11, 2005
Not that I was expecting much out of this movie, but it was still surprisingly bad. You'd think it wouldn't be possible to mess up a movie about a rag-tag group of kids in a sports team; all you really have to do is stick to the formula and you'll end up with a cheesy but enjoyable film. This movie's first (and fatal) mistake is that it takes all the emphasis off the kids, and puts it on the coach -- Will Ferrell, who is essentially playing Homer Simpson (good intentioned but ultimately an obnoxious jerk whose emotions swing wildly). The problem with Ferrell in this movie is that he is way over-the-top, and yet at the same time he seems to be restraining himself, not giving the full-out Will Ferrell persona we've come to know from SNL. That would be fine if he were trying to create an actual character, but that is far from the case. It's clear that the director (Jesse Dylan, who also directed How High and is a complete hack) simply rolled the cameras and let Ferrell go wild, so... why the restraint? What's the deal? The whole thing got pretty boring, and felt like it was at least two hours despite being only ninety minutes. Robert Duvall was fine, but he is clearly too good for a stupid movie like this. *1/2

Kingdom of Heaven

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (2005) - May 8, 2005
A visually arresting film by Ridley Scott about a blacksmith who eventually becomes the leader of a group of Christians in Jerusalem during the Crusades. Orlando Bloom is better than usual in the main role, and doesn't come off here nearly as feminine as he usually does. The film is refreshingly complex in its portrayal of the two sides, showing the Muslims as essentially being the Christians' equals, rather than simply two-dimensional villains (as in something like King Arthur). The movie does lag a bit around the middle, but for the most part is quite entertaining. The special effects are really impressive, particularly during the battle scenes and in the recreation of Jerusalem at the time. There wasn't a single moment where I thought that something looked clearly artificial, despite the fact that computers were clearly used to portray the gigantic armies. The whole movie was really visually impressive, but I guess that's not much of a surprise considering it was directed by Ridley Scott. ***1/2

Jersey Girl

JERSEY GIRL (2004) - May 5, 2005
A stupid, cheesy, predictable but entertaining movie by Kevin Smith. This is easily Smith's worst film; it seems as though he has intentionally dumbed himself down so he could have a hit at the box office. Fortunately this wasn't the case, so hopefully he'll get back to what he does best. There are glimmers of what makes Smith great here - little bits of dialogue that remind you for a few seconds that this is the same man who wrote Clerks - but they are few and far between. For the most part this is a stupid little movie that could have been written and directed by anybody. And it works, I suppose -- this is a movie that aims very very low, but certainly accomplishes what it sets out to do. Note to Kevin Smith: stop pandering. Just make a movie where people talk. Leave the Garry Marshall movies to Garry Marshall. **1/2

House of Wax

HOUSE OF WAX (2005) - May 4, 2005
I absolutely hated this movie. It was atrociously bad. I honestly cannot think of a single thing that was good about it. It was badly made, it was unpleasant, it was boring, it was slow-paced (it takes about an hour for the first person to get killed). The "characters" were all just cliches -- the party girl, the black guy (who says stuff like "awww yeah!" and calls people "dog"), the wacky guy, the main slasher-movie girl (the one who runs up the stairs when she should be running out of the house), the bad-ass with a heart of gold. The whole movie was essentially a rip-off of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, which was also terrible. And it was all so stupid. And so unpleasant! So very unpleasant. Who is supposed to enjoy this movie? What's enjoyable about it? Someone needs to explain that to me. ZERO STARS

The Assassination of Richard Nixon

THE ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD NIXON (2004) - May 2, 2005
Sean Penn is excellent in this film as Sam Bicke (a name whose similarity to Travis Bickle is clearly intentional, as this movie owes a great deal to Taxi Driver). The film is plotless, focusing entirely on Sean Penn's character and his descent from mildly crazy guy to really crazy guy, and it works, mostly because Penn's performance is so good. ***

Sullivan's Travels

SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS (1941) - May 1, 2005
A well directed, well written and extremely entertaining film about a director who pretends to be a hobo to make his next movie more authentic. Joel McCrea and Veronica Lake were both really good delivering the kind of snappy dialogue you don't see in movies anymore. The movie was more than just snappy dialogue though, as the characters became people we really care about. The movie was a sort of comedy/drama, though mostly a comedy. At ninety minutes long there wasn't a wasted moment in the film, and the whole thing just flew by. ****

Downfall

DOWNFALL (2004) - May 1, 2005
A powerful film about the last few weeks in Hitler's bunker at the end of World War II. It's nice to see Hitler portrayed not as a two-dimensional monster, but as a regular person; brutal in his policies and prone to bursts of rage, but also at times kind to those around him. It helps that Bruno Ganz's performance is quite excellent. The movie isn't only about Hitler however, but about several characters in and around the bunker at the end of the war (sort of a Nazi Magnolia). The movie is really well directed, though at around two and a half hours it feels a tad long, but that's a fairly minor complaint. ***1/2

The Philadelphia Story

THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (1940) - April 30, 2005
Given that this movie featured both Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant, and is regarded as a classic of the genre, it was perhaps a bit of a disappointment. However it was still quite enjoyable and obviously very well acted. The dialogue was a bit stagey at times but aside from that no major complaints. ***

XXX: State of the Union

XXX: STATE OF THE UNION (2005) - April 25, 2005
While the first XXX was pretty mediocre, it was a masterpiece compared to this movie. The movie is never exciting, it's flat-out boring and even worse, confusing at times. I guess there was so much action there wasn't even time to explain what was going on half of the time. Why did XXX have to work outside of the system at the beginning of the film? Why did he do half the stuff he did? The movie doesn't slow down to answer questions like these, instead thrusting Ice Cube into one boring action sequence after another. And not a single one was good. They were all so bland; it was like the film was directed by an emotionless, artless robot whose only knowledge was of other action movies. The film features all the requisite action movie cliches: XXX jumping onto a flying helicopter, XXX walking away from an explosion in slow motion, XXX spouting one-liners. And yet it was all so boring, so dull, so routine. By the end of the movie I was bored out of my mind and fully ready to walk out. At least it was short, though it felt very very long. *

Sin City

SIN CITY (2005) - April 23, 2005
I'll give this movie one thing, it looked good. You wouldn't think a direct panel-to-screen adaptation of a comic book would work, but it does. The use of colour to accentuate certain things in an otherwise black and white movie is another odd choice that definitely worked. So kudos to Robert Rodriguez for making a movie that was almost always visually exciting. But as for the movie itself, well I was definitely enjoying it at first. The story with Mickey Rourke was really good (though perhaps a tad long), but by the middle of the one with Clive Owen I was starting to get restless. After that one I thought it was going to be over, but then there was a whole other story with Bruce Willis. It was pretty good, I guess, but I was definitely ready for the movie to be over at that point. It didn't help that the over the top hard-boiled narration was really starting to wear on me after a while. Don't get me wrong, I like hard-boiled prose as much as the next guy, but after a while it's like shut up for a second. Jeez. Clearly Robert Rodriguez has never heard the old adage "show, don't tell." Oh well. The performances were all really good, it looked good, obviously, and I guess I was never all-out bored. But this was a bit of a disappointment. **1/2

Fever Pitch

FEVER PITCH (2005) - April 20, 2005
Though I wish he had stayed on SNL a little bit longer, Jimmy Fallon definitely proves here that he has what it takes to make it as a leading man in Hollywood (which was probably in doubt after Taxi, which I fortunately did not see). Drew Barrymore was also good, but this being her 679th romantic comedy, that's not much of a surprise. As far as romantic comedies go this was pretty standard stuff, but it was well done and enjoyable throughout, if a bit on the long side. ***

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU (2004) - Mar. 29, 2005 (Second Viewing)
A masterpiece. Definitely up there with Wes Anderson's best films. Like all of his films, it's really rich and improves on repeat viewings. I definitely liked it even more this time. It's certainly one of the best looking movies I've ever seen. Visually, from the intricate set designs to Wes Anderson's dazzling direction, it's definitely something to behold. I don't think there's a single shot in this movie that isn't impressive to look at. I could watch this movie on mute and still be entertained the whole time. So basically, even if it had nothing else going for it, it would be worth it for the visuals alone. Fortunately, it has a lot else going for it. The script is just as sharp as we have come to expect from Anderson. The characters are all really well developed and become people we really care about. The film is at times funny, touching and exciting. The performances are all really good, particularly Bill Murray and Owen Wilson. But most of all the film is just a joy to watch from start to finish; you certainly get the sense when you're watching it that you're watching something special, and something that will be remembered for years to come. ****

Layer Cake

LAYER CAKE (2004) - Mar. 28, 2005
Directed by Matthew Vaughn, a long-time producer of Guy Ritchie movies, this movie essentially plays out like a far less flashy version of one of Ritchie's films. Daniel Craig is really good in the main role, and in fact his performance is one the main reasons the film is as effective as it is. And Colm Meaney is good (as always) in a smaller part. The plot gets a little convoluted at times, which is exacerbated somewhat by the heavy British accents. But it was definitely entertaining throughout, if not quite the instant classic some are making it out to be. ***

Interview with the Vampire

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (1994) - Mar. 20, 2005
This movie features some really good performances, particularly by Tom Cruise, and is essentially entertaining. But it is slow, and it drags a bit, particularly around the middle. It doesn't help that it's essentially plotless, and after a while it's like, okay, I get it -- being a vampire isn't all it's cracked up to be. So I got a bit sick of it after a while, but I was never entirely bored, and it was well made and well acted. ***

Edward Scissorhands

EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1990) - Mar. 19, 2005 (Second Viewing)
Though he probably has no more than ten lines or so, Johnny Depp is excellent in the title role in this film by Tim Burton. Burton is in peak form here; this is one of his best films (after Ed Wood and Pee Wee's Big Adventure). ***1/2

The Ring Two

THE RING TWO (2005) - Mar. 18, 2005
While I'm glad this movie wasn't even remotely as scary as the first one (which messed me up for months), it would have been nice if it had been just a little bit scary. Or if it had been good. Unfortunately, this movie is neither scary or good, and is pretty much inferior to the original in every possible way. The opening sequence pretty much sets the stage for what's to come, as it's strikingly similar to the opening sequence of the first film, only not good. Where the opening of the first one was super-suspensful, and pretty electrifying, this one was just cheesy. In fact, that's a pretty good way to describe the whole movie: cheesy. It didn't help that it was really slow-paced, and dragged in parts. The first movie was slow too, but it used that pace to set up an atmosphere of constant dread. This one was just boring. A bizarre cameo from Gary Cole was probably the highlight of the film, but aside from that this was pretty much a wash. **

Kundun

KUNDUN (1997) - Mar. 7, 2005
Though essentially well-directed by Martin Scorsese, this film was extremely slow paced, and at times downright boring. The main problem was that there weren't really any characters. There were lots of people in the film, but we don't really get to know any of them. Even the Dalai Lama himself is never developed beyond the superficial. If you put a gun to my head I honestly would not be able to name a single character from the film. So it's sort of tough to ever really care about anything that happens when we never get to know a single person. The film looked good, I suppose, but good visuals can only go so far. It also doesn't help that there's a point where it seems like the movie should end, but then it keeps going for what feels like another half an hour. It was quite interminable. **

Three... Extremes

THREE... EXTREMES (2004) - Mar. 6, 2005 (S)
Featuring three short films, one by Takashi Miike, one by Fruit Chan, and one by Chan-wook Park, this was a surprisingly bad movie. Miike's film was first, and was about a woman who killed her sister by mistake and still lives with the grief years later. It was well-directed, I suppose, but aside from that it was slow and bizarre and ultimately pointless. So that's forty minutes of my life I'll never get back, and I figure it can't go anywhere but up at this point. Astoundingly, the next film, by Chan, managed to be even worse. I don't know who thought this was a good idea for a movie, no matter how short: a woman attempts to regain her youth by eating dumplings made out of baby fetuses. Baby fetuses! It's just as ludicrous as it sounds, if not more so. Fortunately, the final film, by Old Boy's Chan-wook Park, was actually good. It wasn't great or anything, but compared to the first two crap-fests it looked like Citizen Kane. It helped that it had a premise that's pretty hard to mess up: a man is told that if he doesn't kill a child, his piano-playing wife's fingers will be chopped off -- one finger every five minutes. So that was pretty good, but it still wasn't worth having to sit through those first two stinkers. (** for the first one, *1/2 for the second, and *** for the third). **

Robots

ROBOTS (2005) - Mar. 6, 2005
This movie started off really well, but then sort of lost its way as it went on. The beginning sequence, with Rodney Copperbottom growing up and first going to the big city, was really good. Stanley Tucci is excellent as Rodney's dad. And for a while, the film remains very entertaining, mostly because of how good it all looks. Visually, this is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. Kudos to whoever designed this movie; the whole city and all the robots were almost always fascinating to look at. But the movie itself just sort of runs out of steam after a while. Robin Williams was fine, but he wasn't really playing a character -- he was just Robin Williams being wacky, which got tiresome after a while. The movie definitely can't even come close to anything Pixar has done, or even to the previous movie by these same directors, Ice Age. It doesn't help that it feels like it's going more for the kiddies than the type of universal appeal of Pixar (complete with fart and Britney Spears jokes). But the whole thing looks so good you can almost just overlook its flaws and be entertained purely on the visuals alone. ***

The Incredibles

THE INCREDIBLES (2004) - Mar. 3, 2005 (Fifth Viewing)
Though I was afraid this movie might lose a lot on the small screen, it's just as awesome on TV as it was in the theatres. It's obviously a big screen movie, and that's where it should ideally be seen (though that's pretty much true for all movies), the Incredibles is sweet no matter where you see it. ****

Constantine

CONSTANTINE (2005) - Feb. 26, 2005
Though I haven't read any issues of Hellblazer, the comic on which this movie is based, I think it's a safe bet that it's better than this movie (especially since it was created by Alan Moore). The movie started off okay; it was well directed, and Keanu Reeves was quite good as the very grizzled John Constantine. But after a while I found myself losing interest, and I was getting pretty bored by the time the film slowly lumbered to its conclusion. It was overlong by at least half an hour, which didn't help, plus the plot got really convoluted towards the end. Peter Stormare injected some life into the movie as Satan, but his part was, unfortunately, quite tiny. **

Garage Days

GARAGE DAYS (2002) - Feb. 25, 2005
About a band's struggles to make it big, this film features some over-the-top direction by Alex Proyas (but in a good way -- the direction never really gets in the way of the movie). There are a few chuckle-worthy moments, and it was entertaining all the way through. ***

Where Have all the People Gone?

WHERE HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE GONE? (1974) - Feb 24, 2005
About a mysterious explosion that kills most of the earth's population, and a family that managed to survive. Though it was obviously made on an ultra-low budget, it was still somewhat effective in its depiction of a post-apocalyptic world. It reminded me a bit of the comic series "the Walking Dead" (but without the zombies). Some parts were more effective than others, and it was a bit slow in parts, but it was generally pretty good for a low budget TV movie. **1/2

The Cooler

THE COOLER (2003) - Feb. 23, 2005
William H. Macy plays a "cooler," whose job is to bring people bad luck in a casino. His luck starts to turn when he falls in love with a waitress. Macy and Maria Bello are good as the couple, but Alec Baldwin is the real star of the show as a old-school casino boss being pushed out by a younger, Steve Wynn type. He steals every scene he's in, so you're sort of just waiting for him to pop up again in all the scenes where he's absent. The stuff with Macy and Bello was fine, but the stuff with Baldwin was so good it was hard for anything else to compare. ***

The Fugitive

THE FUGITIVE (1993) - Feb. 22, 2005 (Third Viewing)
A superlative thriller. Harrison Ford is really good as the man on the run, trying to prove his innocence. Tommy Lee Jones is equally good as his dogged pursuer. The movie is well directed and extremely entertaining throughout, despite being over two hours. ***1/2

P.S.

P.S. (2004) - Feb. 21 (2005)
Topher Grace and Laura Linney are both excellent in this film about a woman in her late thirties who begins a relationship with a student. Topher Grace in particular was really good, and effectively proves that he is a far better actor than his work on That '70s Show would lead you to believe (not that he's bad in that). The movie was written and directed by Dylan Kidd, whose Roger Dodger was far better than this, but oh well. At least he's finally discovered how to use a tripod. ***

Fear in the Night

FEAR IN THE NIGHT (1947) - Feb. 20, 2005
DeForest Kelly stars as a man who has a dream that he murders someone, and then wakes up to find clues that he actually did it. Essentially plays out like a long episode of the Twilight Zone. The movie was clearly made on a very low budget, but remains entertaining throughout (the 72 minute running time probably helps). Worthwhile, if only to see a very young Bones in his first movie role. ***

Red

RED (1994) - Feb. 20, 2005
This film, about a woman who strikes up a friendship with a retired judge who eavesdrops on his neighbours' phone calls, is probably the best of the "three colours" trilogy. However, it shares the same flaws as the other two (the main character is never really fully developed). This is essentially a minor quibble, as the film is well made and certainly entertaining from start to finish. The problem (and the problem I had with the other two) is that I was expecting a masterpiece along the lines of the Decalogue. These three films were all good, definitely, but not great. They all seem like the type of movie that would improve on repeat viewings, so perhaps when I revist them in a few years I'll find that I like them better. ***

White

WHITE (1994) - Feb. 19, 2005
While this slightly better than the first film in the trilogy, Blue, it's still not quite the masterpiece it's made out to be. About a man who starts a new life when his wife leaves him, it suffers from the same problem as the first film -- the protagonist is somewhat mysterious, and his motivations are never fully explored. Like with Blue, since we never really come to know this guy, it's hard to really care what happens to him. It's very well made and entertaining throughout, but I just can't help but be disappointed. ***

Blue

BLUE (1993) - Feb. 18, 2005
About a woman who loses her husband and son in a car crash, this film is seemingly pointless and somewhat disappointing. I'm willing to give Kieslowski the benefit of the doubt, since the Decalogue was so excellent, and I don't know, maybe I just didn't get it. Perhaps if I ever watch it again I'll understand what the movie was trying to say, but as it stands now the whole thing seems sort of pointless to me. Juliette Binoche was reasonably good as the woman dealing with her grief, but her character seems to react to the loss by going into shock and holding her emotions inside, which is well and good, but it makes it sort of hard to ever come to care about her or even really know her, since she rarely speaks. And since the movie is entirely plotless and completely about her character, it makes it kind of hard to ever really get into it. I don't know; it seems like the type of movie that might improve on repeat viewings, but right now I think it went over my head. **1/2

Priest

PRIEST (1994) - Feb. 14, 2005
About a gay Catholic priest who questions his faith, this film is an exceptionally heavy-handed critique of the Catholic church. I suppose for those who find this subject interesting, this may serve as an insightful look at the church, but those who couldn't care less about this stuff (ie: me) are out of luck. But even for those who fall into the former category, the film is far too preachy (no pun intended) to ever be really effective. The performances are good, particularly Tom Wilkinson as another priest, but that's about it. **

Umberto D.

UMBERTO D. (1952) - Feb. 13, 2005
Essentially plotless, this film follows an old, retired man, Umberto D, as he struggles to support himself and his only real companion, his dog. The performances, particularly Carlo Battisi in the title role, are really good, and Vittorio De Sica's direction is quite excellent. Being an Italian neorealist film, it is, of course, quite slow, but it's so well made that you barely notice. ***1/2

Ong-Bak

ONG-BAK (2003) - Feb. 12, 2005
Tony Jaa proves without a doubt that he's going to be the next big martial arts star in this movie about a man who goes into the big city after a statue's head is stolen from his small town. The action sequences - including a chase through a busy city, and the whole end part where Jaa takes on a couple dozen guys - are... well, I think the only word for it is "awesome." There were just so many parts where the only possible reaction is, "oh man, that was AWESOME." The action certainly ranks right up there with the best stuff Jackie Chan has done. As for the movie itself, it wasn't all that great, but I was never bored, which is pretty much all you ask for in a movie like this. But really, when the action is this good, who cares about the rest of the movie? It's like complaining that the dialogue sucks in a porno film. It's quite astounding that this is Tony Jaa's first movie; I can't wait to see where he goes from here (especially now that he is becoming - deservedly so - a big star). ***

The Aviator

THE AVIATOR (2004) - Feb. 8, 2005
Well, that was a bit of a disappointment. It certainly wasn't bad -- it was really well made, and well acted. It was a good movie. But it wasn't great. I never really connected with it like I did with Gangs of New York, or Casino, or Goodfellas, or Raging Bull. It was almost always interesting on a visual level; I particularly liked the sort of technicolor look of the early part of the film. The story, on the other hand... The beginning part, with Hughes struggling to get Hell's Angels made, was probably the most interesting. But then the rest of the film deals with Hughes' various aeronautical endevours, which got a bit old after a while. The movie was almost three hours long, and while it was never boring, it probably would have benefited from a bit of trimming. Another problem is, though it seems like Howard Hughes should be a fascinating subject for a movie, what with all his eccentricities and such, this just doesn't seem to be the case. I blame John Logan. Though he wrote the excellent Gladiator, and the very good The Last Samurai, pretty much everything else he's done has been a big dud (with the worst offender being Bats -- one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen). Though with Gladiator and Samurai, he was credited with two other writers, but with The Aviator and Bats, he has sole credit. I have to wonder how much of the former two films he actually wrote... ***

Keep 'Em Flying

KEEP 'EM FLYING (1941) - Feb. 7, 2005
Why does every Abbott and Costello movie have to have musical numbers and a romantic subplot? All I want is to see the duo get into wacky hijinks. Which they do, playing a couple of guys who follow their friend into the air force. Fortunately, the romantic subplot is barely given any screen-time, but there were at least four songs and the movie comes screeching to a halt during every one of them. **1/2

Casino

CASINO (1995) - Feb. 5, 2005 (Fourth Viewing? Fifth?)
I don't care what anyone says, this movie is right up there with Goodfellas. Perhaps not quite as good, but definitely right up there. Martin Scorsese's direction is brilliant and about as good as anything he's ever done. Robert DeNiro gives one of his last great performances as an oddsmaker who attempts to run a casino. The movie is extremely long but it moves by at such a quick pace you don't feel it at all. ****

One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest

ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975) - Feb. 4, 2005 (Second Viewing)
Jack Nicholson gives an amazing performance in this slow-paced but very well-made movie about a mental institution. The film is essentially entertaining though it feels a bit on the long side at times. ***

Hitch

HITCH (2005) - Feb. 3, 2005
This film is essentially entertaining, up to a certain point -- the part (which happens in every romantic comedy ever made) where there's a misunderstanding and it looks like the couple is going to break up for good. Except this movie stretches that part out to a ridiculous length; really, if you have to put this part in a movie (which clearly you do) there is no reason it should be any longer than five minutes. There is absolutely no question that the couple will get back together, so anything longer than that and you really begin to test the audience's patience. It's just so pointless. Well, other than that the performances were good -- Will Smith is expectedly charming as Hitch, and Kevin James is quite funny as one of his clients. The movie is never really laugh-out-loud funny but there are a few chuckle-worthy moments. If they had just trimmed about half an hour (mostly from the aforementioned "fake breakup" part) this could have been a better-than-average romantic comedy. **1/2

In Good Company

IN GOOD COMPANY (2004) - Feb. 1, 2005
Dennis Quaid is excellent (no surprise there) in this movie about a man who finds himself demoted, with his new boss young enough to be his son. Topher Grace, as the boss, proves that he's a really good actor, creating a character distinct from Eric Foreman. The movie is well directed and well written, and quite entertaining. ***1/2

The Fisher King

THE FISHER KING (1991) - Jan. 31, 2005
Just when I had forgotten how good of a director Terry Gilliam is, this movie comes along. Jeff Bridges and Robin Williams are both quite excellent in this film about a radio DJ whose life is changed forever when something he says on air leads to tragedy. The movie is really well directed; Gilliam's style is in full-force here, but he also knows exactly when to tone it down and let the performances speak for themselves. The movie is well over two hours but doesn't feel long at all (in fact I was a bit shocked when I looked at my watch after it was done and saw how long it was). Easily among Gilliam's best. ***1/2

The Polar Express

THE POLAR EXPRESS (2004) - Jan. 27, 2005
On one hand, much about this movie is very impressive, visually. I saw this in 3D, on an Imax screen, and it was quite an experience. But I was never really able to get into the movie, because all of the characters were so poorly done. I haven't seen animation this bad since Rocket Robin Hood. All the characters had a creepy, corpse-like expression on their face throughout the entire movie. There were times when I literally got chills because the characters looked human, and yet so eerily wrong. The lack of expression on all of their faces was quite amazing, especially since Zemeckis and Hanks keep touting this technology as the next big thing for animation -- it certainly is not, at least not at this stage. Even Fred Flintstone was more expressive than these characters (and certainly more appealing to look at). And I have to wonder: if the whole goal with this type of character animation was simply to emulate human beings as closely as possible, why even use animation? What's the point, other than to arouse morbid curiousity? Anyway, aside from that the film was basically entertaining, though overlong by at least twenty minutes. But I definitely think Zemeckis should leave animation to real animators, and go back to live action where he clearly belongs. **1/2

The Incredibles

THE INCREDIBLES (2004) - Jan. 25, 2005 (Fourth Viewing)
Presenting, an Incredibles Haiku:

Brad Bird: genius
The Incredibles: awesome
Animated bliss

****

Jesus of Montreal

JESUS OF MONTREAL (1989) - Jan. 24, 2005
Though the film starts out well enough, with a group of actors working to put together a somewhat radical passion play, it quickly loses steam. At around the mid-way point, the actors perform their play, which seems to be performed almost in its entirety in the film. The movie never quite regains its footing after that, and towards the end goes way way over-the-top with the religious symbolism (absolutely no subtlety here -- by the time the protagonist is in a hospital bed at the end of the film in Christ pose, it's like, enough! We get it). At a running time of two hours, the film is at least forty minutes too long and it feels it. **1/2