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

Port of Shadows

PORT OF SHADOWS (1938) - Jan. 23, 2005
Jean Gabin is excellent in this film directed by Marcel Carne and written by Jacques Prevert (the same team that did the masterpiece, Children of Paradise). It's not quite as good as that movie, but then again not much is. Though essentially plotless, it remains entertaining because it's so well made. ***1/2

The Incredibles

THE INCREDIBLES (2004) - Jan. 18, 2005 (Third Viewing)
What can I say about this movie that I haven't already said? I love it. It's a masterpiece. Everything about it is perfect. I've seen it three times now and I am not even remotely close to being sick of it; it just gets better every time I watch it. I'd watch it again right now! ****

This Man Must Die

THIS MAN MUST DIE (1969) - Jan. 16, 2005
A well-made film by Claude Chabrol. About a man whose son is killed by a speeding car, and who vows revenge. While it's not quite the thriller the title and description would suggest, the film was still good. It sort of pales in comparison to Chabrol's The Butcher, but I guess that's not really a fair comparison as they are quite different. ***

Paparazzi

PAPARAZZI (2004) - Jan. 15, 2005
A stupid movie. As a thriller it fails horribly -- there are very few thrills to be found here. The "characters" are all ultra-underdeveloped, and the four paparazzi who stalk Cole Hauser are essentially cartoons. I haven't seen such outright evil characters since Donald Sutherland killed a cat by headbutting it in 1900. Tom Sizemore, in particular, is ridiculously over-the-top as the leader of the gang, making some of his other performances seem subtle in comparison. Though the movie is essentially terrible, it moves along at a reasonably fast pace and is never really boring. But the movie is so incredibly cheesy, I find it hard to believe that anyone involved actually believed they were making a good movie. I suspect that it may one day become something of a cult classic, under the "it's so bad it's good" category. **

Sideways

SIDEWAYS (2004) - Jan. 15, 2005
Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor do it again. While perhaps a smidgeon on the long side, this was still a very good movie. Payne seems to have an uncanny knack for picking excellent actors and coaxing the best possible performances out of them; Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church (Lowell!) and Virginia Madsen are all quite excellent. Paul Giamatti, in particular, gives an impressive performance as a struggling writer who is in the middle of reevaluating his life. The dialogue was really good (obviously) and the movie was really well directed (also obviously). ***1/2

Hard Eight

HARD EIGHT (1996) - Jan. 14, 2005 (Ninth Viewing? Tenth?)
Philip Baker Hall gives what is probably one of the best performances of all time in this masterpiece by PT Anderson. The fact that this isn't even Anderson's best film shows what an amazing director he is. John C. Reilly and Gywneth Paltrow are also quite excellent. Really, what's to say about this movie? It's superbly written, directed and acted, and creates some very memorable characters. This is Anderson's first film, and it established him as one of the best directors working today. ****

La Strada

LA STRADA (1954) - Jan. 12, 2005
A slow-paced film about a girl from a small village who is recruited by a performer to be his assistant. Anthony Quinn is good as the grizzled performer whose act is limited to one rather unimpressive trick. And Giulietta Masina is really good as the girl who doesn't talk much -- in fact her character reminded me quite a bit of the Samantha Morton character from Sweet and Lowdown, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Woody Allen was inspired by this movie when he created that character. However while the movie was certainly well-acted and well-made, the interminably slow pace makes it impossible to ever really get into. **

Frenzy

FRENZY (1972) - Jan. 11, 2005
This is one of Hitchcock's last films, and it features a familiar Hitchcock plot: a man is falsely accused of a crime and has to prove his innocence. However unlike Hitchcock's other movies this one is quite graphic. It's a little bizarre to be watching an R rated Hitchcock movie but this one certainly earns its rating -- it has quite a bit of nudity and a surprisingly brutal rape scene (probably the most disturbing one I've seen since Irreversible). Certainly a far cry from the mostly implied violence of Hitchcock's other films. There's also a fair amount of humour in the film, some of which works (the inspector's disgust at his wife's cooking) and some of which does not (the killer fumbling around in the potato truck). While this wasn't exactly one of Hitchcock's best films, it was certainly well-directed and overall an effective thriller. ***

The Incredibles

THE INCREDIBLES (2004) - Jan. 10, 2005 (Second Viewing)
I love this movie. I love it! I love everything about it. I love the animation, and how good everything looks. I love the acting, and the emotions all of the characters convey, the subtle facial gestures and everything else. I love how well developed all the characters are -- most dramas don't have characters this good, let alone action movies. I love all the performances -- Craig T. Nelson and Holly Hunter couldn't possibly be better in their roles. I love how funny the movie is, how exciting it is, how touching it is. I love the direction, and the writing. I love the score. I love every second of this movie. It's easily Pixar's best movie and probably one of the best movies I've ever seen. ****

The Spongebob Squarepants Movie

THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE (2004) - Jan. 7, 2005
Though not quite as good as the best episodes of the TV show, this film is still quite enjoyable. About Spongebob Squarepants, the ever-likeable and child-like sponge, who embarks on a journey to save his boss and, without realizing it, the whole town. The animation and design of the film is quite colourful, and the whole movie is just fun to watch. It never reaches the level of something like the Incredibles, nor is it really meant to. As a fun adventure which can be enjoyed by both kids and adults, it succeeds quite admirably. ***

To Catch a Thief

TO CATCH A THIEF (1955) - Jan. 5, 2005
Cary Grant is his usual charming self in this movie about a retired jewel thief who needs to clear his name when he's falsely accused of a string of robberies. It is, unfortunately, not a heist movie -- I guess a heist movie by Alfred Hitchcock would be too good to be true. And while it's entertaining throughout, it's definitely a lesser Hitchcock movie -- there's just nothing all that special about it (unlike pretty much every other Hitchcock movie I've seen so far). ***

His Girl Friday

HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940) - Jan. 4, 2005
They don't make 'em like this anymore. And it's a shame, too. Featuring the type of snappy dialogue lamentably only found in movies of this era, His Girl Friday is extremely entertaining from start to finish. This type of dialogue could seem contrived under lesser actors, but Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell are both excellent, and certainly make it work. The movie is exceptionally talky (it's based on a play, and it shows) but it's never boring for a second. ***1/2

The Machinist

THE MACHINIST (2004) - Jan. 3, 2005
A bizarre movie about a man who seems to be losing his mind. Christian Bale, who clearly put a lot of work into playing this role, was pretty much the best thing about the movie. Between Bale's performance, and the unique look of the film, the movie manages to remain entertaining for a while. However, as the film progresses it becomes increasingly quirky and bizarre, which essentially ruins everything it had going for it. What could have been an excellent character study is undermined by the strange and obtuse second half. **

The Best and Worst movies of 2004 (so far...)

THE BEST:
1. The Incredibles
2. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
3. Shaun of the Dead
4. Spider-Man 2
5. Hero
6. Tokyo Godfathers
7. Kill Bill: Volume II
8. I, Robot
9. Cellular
10.The Clearing

Runners up: I Heart Huckabees, Troy, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Hellboy, The Passion of the Christ, The Triplets of Belleville, The Butterfly Effect

THE WORST:
1. Resident Evil: Apocalypse
2. Catwoman
3. King Arthur
4. Van Helsing
5. The Punisher
6. Birth
7. The Chronicles of Riddick
8. Alien vs. Predator
9. Exorcist: the Beginning
10. Envy

Runners up: Blade: Trinity, Dawn of the Dead, Ladder 49, The Terminal, Miracle

Ocean's Twelve

OCEAN'S TWELVE (2004) - Dec. 30, 2004
A disappointing sequel. It certainly wasn't a bad movie -- it was almost always entertaining, it was really well directed, and it was well acted. But there was nothing here even remotely as interesting as the elaborate heist from the first film. This movie is all about heists but can barely even be classified as a heist movie. They spend a good amount of time near the beginning of the film planning out a particular heist, but then when they're about to do it, it cuts to a different scene. What the..? Later we get to see the heist in a disappointingly quick flashback, but what's the deal? Why cut away right at the most interesting part? That's just a slap in the face. There are also times where the movie seems a bit on the long side (particularly during a long, superfluous sequence involving Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis). Oh well. Despite being mostly disappointing, the movie was still pretty good, and funny at times (mostly because of Matt Damon, who is a definite stand-out). ***

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU (2004) - Dec. 22, 2004
After House of Flying Daggers let me down so hard, I was starting to get worried: would two of my favourite directors let me down in the same day? Fortunately, Wes delivered the goods in a big way -- this is an instant classic and is definitely right up there with Wes' masterpiece, Rushmore. Wes continues to prove that he is one of the most visually inventive directors out there, and seems to have some kind of sixth sense that allows him to perfectly match music to his visuals. But of course, that would be meaningless if the characters and plot were no good. This is certainly not the case. Bill Murray gives what may be his best performance yet as an oceanographer who realizes that his best days are behind him. Owen Wilson sheds his usual wise-cracking persona and actually attempts to create a real character. And Willem Dafoe is hilarious as a German member of Steve Zissou's crew who sees Steve as a father. I'll have to watch it a few more times before I decide whether or not it's better than Rushmore. ****

House of Flying Daggers

HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS (2004) - Dec. 22, 2004
After the amazing Hero, Zhang Yimou missteps horribly with this disappointing kung-fu movie. Like Hero, it is in the same genre with the awful and overrated Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. However, Hero managed to transcend the genre with its breathtaking visuals, exciting action, well-developed characters and Rashomon-esque storyline. House of Flying Daggers, on the other hand, wallows in the genre, recalling all the worst elements of Crouching Tiger: the stilted romance, the over-long running time, the protracted scenes, and the unexciting action sequences. That's not to say it was a bad movie, per se. It was well directed, obviously (I don't think Zhang Yimou is capable of making a movie that doesn't look good). And for the most part I wasn't bored (though almost every scene over-stayed its welcome by at least a few minutes). But I just expect so much more from Zhang Yimou, especially after how mind-blowingly good Hero was. **1/2

I, Robot

I, ROBOT (2004) - Dec. 15, 2004 (Second Viewing)
I really like this movie. Alex Proyas certainly knows what he's doing as this movie features the coolest looking future since Blade Runner. There's a good amount of action, but it never overwhelms the plot. Plus the action is actually coherent and not way over-edited like almost every action movie these days. Proof that an action scene doesn't need a billion cuts to be exciting (I'm looking at you, Paul Greengrass). The characters and performances were all really good -- Will Smith in particular is surprisingly good as a detective who doesn't trust robots. And the special effects were quite impressive and almost entirely seamless. Proof that CG doesn't necessarily have to look fake (now I'm looking at you, George Lucas). As far as the sci-fi/action genre goes this is right up there with Total Recall. ****

Blade: Trinity

BLADE: TRINITY (2004) - Dec. 8, 2004
Mediocre. That's all I can really say about this movie. The action scenes were passable, I suppose. And the performances were all fine (with the exception of Parker Posey, who was way over-the-top as an evil vampire). Ryan Reynolds was a stand-out as a wisecracking vampire hunter, and in fact was probably the best thing about the movie. But aside from Reynolds, there was nothing exciting or even interesting about this movie. It was just going through the motions, and I was bored. **

Hold that Ghost

HOLD THAT GHOST (1941) - Dec. 7, 2004
Abbott and Costello star as a couple of guys who manage to inherit an old hotel from a gangster. They stay the night there with a group of people and find that it may or may not be haunted. Wackiness, of course, ensues. I would have preferred more interaction between Abbott and Costello (most of the humour comes from Costello's wacky reactions to various things), but it was still pretty good. **1/2

Cries and Whispers

CRIES AND WHISPERS (1972) - Dec. 5, 2004 (Second Viewing)
Another unpleasant, ultra slow-paced Ingmar Bergman movie. About a woman who is dying, and the effect this has on her two sisters and her servant. Features a very heavy-handed use of colour ("Say, red's a powerful colour. Let's make everything red!"). Has Ingmar Bergman ever made a movie with characters who aren't miserable and suicidal? *1/2

The Incredibles

THE INCREDIBLES (2004) - Dec. 5, 2004
Well, I'm sorry, but I have to say it: that was incredible! Oh man, that ruled HARD. I haven't seen a movie that good in quite a while. About a couple of super-heroes who are forced into retirement, and subsequently settle down and have a family. I liked the Watchmen-esque idea that all super-heroes become outlawed; it seems like the most plausible outcome if super-heroes were a reality. I also really like the main character and his inability to adapt to civilian life -- after living the life of a super-hero, being a low-level drone in an insurance company just can't seem to cut it. Craig T. Nelson and Holly Hunter were both perfect as the two main characters, and Jason Lee was equally good as the villain (though I have to wonder if the role was originally meant for Jack Black...). I also really liked the whole Fantastic Four inspired family dynamic they had, and how they really clicked as a family while being super-heroes. Speaking of which, I hope the director of the Fantastic Four movie was watching, because I think they pretty much got the stretchy powers perfect in this movie. I always thought those powers would look kind of creepy in motion but Brad Bird certainly makes it work. The movie struck an absolutely perfect blend of action and character stuff, and a good amount of humour too. This was easily right up there with the Toy Story movies, and as far as super-hero movies go, I think it might even be better than Spider-Man 2. ****

Persona

PERSONA (1966) - Dec. 4, 2004
A bizarre film by Ingmar Bergman. While the plot - dealing with the relationship between two women - is pretty standard Bergman, the way it plays out is certainly different. Particularly odd is the beginning, which features a lot of strange images and sounds, and almost seems like a parody of an arty foreign movie. This weirdness reoccurs at around the mid-point of the movie, and I guess it's supposed to represent the breakdown of the relationship between the two women because it happens right as things go sour. I don't know. And then it happens again at the end and I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. This is certainly Bergman's most visually-driven movie, at least that I've seen. And while it was definitely well-made I couldn't really get into it. There was the typical Bergman slow pace, which didn't help, and then towards the end I was really starting to get confused. Where the two women actually supposed to be one woman? I don't know. **

Birth

BIRTH (2004) - Dec. 2, 2004 (S)
This was probably the most well-made bad movie I've ever seen. And oh boy, was it bad. The direction (by Jonathan Glazer, whose Sexy Beast was a million times better than this) was quite good, and the performances were also quite good. I liked the score, too. But the screenplay was absolutely, jaw-droppingly ludicrous. I mean, just... Jeez. About a woman who meets a young boy who claims to be the reincarnation of her dead husband. She, of course, is skeptical at first, but quickly comes to believe him. Why? Because she is insane? Because the script requires her to? I don't know. He certainly doesn't make a convincing case. She tells a friend that he is falling in love with him. Why? What about this little boy is appealing? She can't be sexually attracted to him, unless she is a pedophile (which, as the movie progresses, seems more and more to be the case). She can't have any kind of emotional connection, as the kid does nothing but glower and act mysterious throughout the entire film. Unless her husband was the most dour man alive, I'm not buying it. And then towards the end it's revealed that nope, the kid just stole some old love letters, he was faking it. But why? As a wacky prank? What? Nicole Kidman then goes crawling back to her fiancee, who, stunningly, takes her back despite the fact that she is clearly a psychopath. Oh man. I cannot possibly fathom what Jonathan Glazer was thinking when he decided to make this movie. I can only assume that he was forced at gunpoint. And I have to say, I am offended by the comparisons to Kubrick. Sure, Glazer's style in this film does resemble Kubrick's (he even directly steals a shot or two for good measure) -- but on the same note a robot could watch all of Kubrick's films, and then make a movie that effectively emulates his style. But that doesn't mean it would be good. *1/2

It's a Wonderful Life

IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946) - Nov. 27, 2004 (Second Viewing)
A classic. Jimmy Stewart gives a brilliant performance and is perfect as George Bailey, a man who famously comes to find out what life would be like if he had never been born. Of course, the movie is about far more than just that; we see George Bailey go from an idealistic young man to a husband and father with the burden of responsibility heavy on his shoulders. And did I mention how good Jimmy Stewart was? He was absolutely perfect in what has to be one of the best performances of all time. Despite being over two hours the movie doesn't feel long for a second, and was excellently directed by Frank Capra. And then of course there is that ending -- I submit that anyone who doesn't get at least a little bit choked up must be some kind of robot. ****

Steamboat Bill, Jr.

STEAMBOAT BILL, JR. (1928) - Nov. 25, 2004
An entertaining Buster Keaton film, featuring the famous shot where a house falls on him. Unlike certain silent comedians (Charlie Chaplin) Buster Keaton's films are almost always funny and entertaining, and this one is no exception. The music on the DVD I watched - by a band Ebert supposedly called "the best in the world at accompanying silent films" - was a bit obtrusive at times. Also, the use of weather forecasts between a couple of scenes reminded me of Magnolia, so it's possible there was a bit of an influence there. ***

Blazing Saddles

BLAZING SADDLES (1974) - Nov. 24, 2004
A funny parody of Westerns by Mel Brooks. While definitely not quite the classic that Young Frankenstein is (the movie itself is not as good and some of the jokes fall flat), it was still pretty good. Gene Wilder was really good (of course), as was Harvey Korman as an evil land developer. ***

Winter Light

WINTER LIGHT (1963) - Nov. 15, 2004
An extremely slow-paced film by Ingmar Bergman about a preacher who questions his faith. Though the performances were all quite good, the movie was just too slow to ever really get into. It was mercifully short at 81 minutes, but even then it still felt too long. I think half an hour probably would have been a better running-time; there were certainly good things about it, but the glacial pace just made it impossible to care. **

The Motorcycle Diaries

THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES (2004) - Nov. 13, 2004
The Motorcycle diaries starts off well enough. About a couple of friends who decide to go on a road trip on a dilapidated old motorcycle -- one of whom happens to be Ernesto "Che" Guevara. The two main performances are really good and we certainly come to like Che and his buddy. However, at around the one-hour mark the film becomes increasingly heavy-handed, intent on showing us how Che became Che. The two run into one downtrodden worker after another, and after a while it's like, enough already. Jeez, we get it. The film does everything short of showing us Che flipping through the Communist Manifesto and nodding approvingly. The film ran over two hours and by the end I was quite happy for it to be over. Which is too bad because the first half was really good. **1/2

The Birds

THE BIRDS (1963) - Nov. 12, 2004
A suspensful film about a small town that finds itself attacked by birds. The fact that it is excellently directed is certainly no surprise, and the scenes where the birds attack were especially well-done. I really liked the scene where Tippi Hedren enters the child's room and is attacked. I also liked the scene where the birds gather on the playground. Hitchcock's mastery of editing to create suspense is in full-force here; I think that the scenes where the birds attack are just as good as Psycho's shower scene. I also liked how the film took its time setting up the characters and building suspense. While this wasn't one of Hitchcock's best films, even his lesser films are better than ninety percent of the stuff out there. ***

Saw

SAW (2004) - Nov. 6, 2004
A sort of cross between Seven and Cube. Though not really as good as either of those films, it was still pretty good. Danny Glover was good as a grizzled cop obsessed with catching the killer, Jigsaw. Cary Elwes was a little over-the-top as one of Jigsaw's victims, and in fact the occasional hamminess of his performance illicited some inappropriate laughter from the audience I saw it with. Though the film was perhaps not quite as good as I thought it would be (I would have preferred more of the stuff with the two guys in the room and less flashbacks), it was certainly entertaining all the way through and pretty suspenseful at times. ***

In the Navy

IN THE NAVY (1941) - Nov. 4, 2004
Another Abbott and Costello movie bogged down by many, many songs and a useless subplot (involving a singer who shuns the spotlight by joining the navy, and a photographer anxious to get his picture). Why can't Abbott and Costello movies just be about Abbott and Costello? Oh well, it was pretty much entertaining the whole time, and the stuff with Abbott and Costello was really good (I particularly liked the scene where Costello struggles to get into a hammock). **1/2

Ray

RAY (2004) - Nov. 2, 2004
Jamie Foxx is electrifying in this overlong movie about Ray Charles' life. Foxx proves once and for all that he is indeed an excellent actor, but the movie occasionally feels like an endurance test. The film is at least an hour too long; it starts to feel really repetitive towards the end, like we're seeing the same scenes over and over again. There were a lot of songs, but they were all actually really good, and welcome relief from the movie itself which was really starting to wear on me towards the end. **1/2

The Silence

THE SILENCE (1963) - Nov. 1, 2004
The title of this film is certainly appropriate, as in the entire 96 minute run-time of the movie, I think there might be five minutes of dialogue. About a young boy, his mother and her sister, and a brief stop they make in a foreign country when one of the sisters falls ill. The movie essentially consists of long, wordless sequences in which the characters wander around. Finally towards the end of the movie the two sisters get into a fight (they apparently hate each other), but it is essentially meaningless since we don't really know either of them. Ingmar Bergman's direction is pretty much the sole highlight of the film -- at the very least it's usually interesting to look at. **

Dawn of the Dead

DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004) - Oct. 30, 2004
A mediocre zombie film. Though it gets off to a pretty good start, as soon as they get to the mall it's pretty much all downhill from there. The main problem was that none of the characters were very well developed at all, which was somewhat perplexing considering the lengthy and pointless downtime between the zombie scenes. And the zombie scenes themselves weren't very good, despite being quite violent. They were just sort of bland, like the director spent such a long time making sure it was sufficiently gory, he forgot that gore is not necessarily exciting in and of itself. It probably didn't help that I just kept thinking to myself "man, Shaun of the Dead was SO much better than this." But it was, it really was. This movie just took itself too seriously, and seemed to be under the impression that these zombies were scary, which they were not. Which could have been forgiven had there been a single decent character. But there were none to be found here, unfortunately. **

Steamboy

STEAMBOY (2004) - Oct. 28, 2004
What a let-down! Not that this was a bad movie per se, but considering this is Katsuhiro Otomo's first film since his masterpiece, Akira, I was expecting so much better. The plot is too convoluted to sum up in one sentence, but it was something about a crazy alternate nineteenth century where steam technology is much, much more advanced. The main problem is that at just over two hours, it was way too long, and it certainly felt that way, especially towards the end. It was also quite heavy-handed in its message that technology should be used for good, not destruction (though I guess that's not too surprising considering the film came from Japan). That's not to say that there was nothing good about the movie. The whole look of the film was quite amazing, and the animation was really good (the blend of traditional animation and CGI was pretty seamless). It's just too bad that the movie itself was so mediocre. **1/2

Grand Canyon

GRAND CANYON (1991) - Oct. 27, 2004
A really good movie about a bunch of characters in LA. Obviously not as good as the ultimate "lots of characters" movie - Magnolia - but then not much is. All the performances were excellent, but Danny Glover was the real stand-out as a kind-hearted tow-truck driver. It's too bad he's essentially typecast as Roger Murtaugh because he's a really good actor. The movie was well over two hours but it didn't feel long at all, probably because there were so many characters and they were all really good. In fact if anything the movie could have been longer; I wanted to spend more time with these characters. ***1/2

Mean Creek

MEAN CREEK (2004) - Oct. 26, 2004 (S)
Good performances all around in this film about a group of kids who decide to play a prank on a bully, and how it goes horribly wrong. I particularly liked the scene right after the kids realize that the bully is dead. They all just sort of sit in silence for a while, which seems like the way people would react in that sort of situation, rather than the panicked chatter you'd usually find in a movie like this. Also, the guy from Eurotrip was surprisingly good in what was essentially the opposite of the role he played in that movie. ***

I ♥ Huckabees

I ♥ HUCKABEES (2004) - Oct. 24, 2004
David O. Russell's first film since Three Kings, and while it's certainly not as good as that film, it was still quite enjoyable. About a couple of existential detectives, and the impact they have on the lives of a few people. There is a lot of philosophy in the film, but unlike something like Waking Life it never feels forced or shoehorned into the movie. All of the performances were really good -- six years after Rushmore, Jason Schwartzman finally gives another really good performance. The movie was, of course, really well written and directed, and was very entertaining throughout. It was a unique film, and it worked, partially because all the characters were so good. ***1/2

The Grudge

THE GRUDGE (2004) - Oct. 22, 2004
A creepy film about a haunted house that curses anyone who goes inside it. While it doesn't really have much of a plot - it's more just one scary sequence after another - it works because the scary sequences are so effective. While not quite as horiffyingly creepy as the Ring, it was still quite scary and easily the scariest movie I've seen since that one. In fact, it was probably the second scariest movie I've ever seen (right behind the Ring), but then again I haven't seen all that many scary movies. ***

A Man Apart

A MAN APART (2003) - Oct. 19, 2004
A stupid but moderately entertaining movie. About a cop whose wife is killed, and his attempt to avenge her by infiltrating the local drug scene. Timothy Olyphant is probably the highlight as a sleazy drug dealer. The action scenes were decent, but the movie was just, I don't know... Routine (right down to the scene where Vin Diesel has to give up his gun and badge -- though I suppose the captain wasn't really angry, so that's good I guess). But it was never boring, and it was competently directed, so it certainly could have been worse. **1/2

It Came From Outer Space

IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE (1953) - Oct. 19, 2004
A cheesy but entertaining science fiction film. It was originally shown in 3D, which is apparent from all the stuff flying towards the camera. About a man who investigates a local fallen meteor, only to find that it is not a meteor, but a spaceship. When he tries to warn the town about the ship and the aliens within, they simply shrug him off as the "crazy astronomer" (the ship was buried under rocks as soon as he saw it). Though the performances, special effects and design of the aliens are all quite hokey, the film is still not without its merits. ***

Through a Glass Darkly

THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY (1961) - Oct. 18, 2004
A well-made film by Ingmar Bergman about a father, his son, his daughter and her husband, and their interactions over the course of a couple of days. It was really well acted, directed and written, and it was never boring, but it just didn't make much of an impact for whatever reason. **1/2

Elephant

ELEPHANT (2003) - Oct. 15, 2004
A hauntingly brilliant film. It is after watching a movie like this that I feel stupid for giving a silly movie like Cellular, or even Shaun of the Dead, four stars. This is a four star movie. Brilliantly directed by Gus Van Sant, the movie is about a day in the life of a high school. It does not have much of a plot, nor does it need one. With his flowing camera, which is almost always in motion, Van Sant establishes an almost dream-like tone. The camera lingers on seemingly inconsequential moments: a boy taking pictures, a football game being played, a roll of film being developed. These moments are perfect in establishing a certain mood and tone. The film does not give us the sort of characters we would expect -- Van Sant's choice to use non-actors seems iffy at first, but as the movie progresses it becomes more and more clear how perfect these kids are in the roles. Sure, the performances are not without their flaws, but it almost doesn't matter; they all seem like real people, not characters in a movie. At the end, when the violence erupts, it is devastating. These last moments of the film are so powerful because of the mood so effectively established earlier on. The dream-like tone has been pierced by sudden, shocking violence. The film almost reminds me of 2001 in its pace and tone. This is the type of movie that stays with you long after it is done. A truly, truly excellent film, the type of which I so rarely see. ****

Citizen Ruth

CITIZEN RUTH (1996) - Oct. 13, 2004
Laura Dern is excellent in this dramedy by Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor. While probably not quite up there with Election and About Schmidt, it was still really good. The film is about abortion, which is a subject which could easily create a bad movie (ie. too preachy). Payne and Taylor wisely avoid this problem, and in fact you would be hard-pressed to figure out what they personally think of this issue, as they satirize both sides equally. The film is, unsurprisingly, really well written and directed, and in the centre of it all there's Laura Dern's excellent performance. I don't know why she doesn't act more. ***1/2

Buck Privates

BUCK PRIVATES (1941) - Oct. 12, 2004
Abbott and Costello star as a couple of guys who, while running from the police, accidentally join the army. All the stuff with Abbott and Costello was really good, but the movie was bogged down with useless subplots and many, many songs. All I really wanted to see was Abbott and Costello getting into wacky hijinks (which they did, and that's where the movie shines). **1/2

Forbidden Planet

FORBIDDEN PLANET (1956) - Oct. 12, 2004
Though extremely dated (there's no mistaking it for anything but a movie from the '50s), this is still a really good science fiction movie. About a group of men (led by a very young Leslie Nielsen) who travel to a distant, Earth-like planet and find the sole survivor of a twenty year old expedition (along with his daughter and robot). Aside from being dated, the movie contains some interesting ideas, and some of the special effects hold up surprisingly well. ***

The Three Musketeers

THE THREE MUSKETEERS (2004) - Oct. 8, 2004
Mickey, Donald and Goofy star in this entertaining film which finds the three as aspiring Musketeers in France. Hijinks ensue as they set off on an adventure to save the princess. At just about one hour long the film breezes by, and it has the same timeless charm found in the best of the original Disney shorts. The animation, though not quite up to the level of the theatrical cartoons, is still quite good. And the characterization of Mickey, Donald and Goofy is spot-on. A fun movie. ***

Maria Full of Grace

MARIA FULL OF GRACE (2004) - Oct. 6, 2004
A gritty movie about a Columbian girl who becomes a drug mule. Remains entertaining throughout, thanks in part to a strong performance by Catalina Sandino Moreno, who plays the girl. Joshua Marston shoots the movie in a straightforward, documentary-like style, which suits the material. ***

Shaun of the Dead

SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004) - Oct. 3, 2004
Wow! This was a really good zombie movie and a really good comedy, and the dramatic moments were really good too. I haven't seen all that many zombie movies, but this was easily the best one I've ever seen. The characters were all surprisingly well-developed, and the film was actually really funny. What was nice was that all the laughs came from the characters; it never seemed like it was trying to poke fun at the genre (in a "oh how clever we are" sort of way, like Ginger Snaps). Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright are clearly big fans of the zombie genre, which makes the film work equally well as a comedy and as a zombie movie (one never overwhelms the other). And the fact that the characters and the performances are so good means that you are rooting for these characters so much more than the typical zombie-fodder in this type of film. ****

Ladder 49

LADDER 49 (2004) - Oct. 1, 2004
A cheesy, stupid movie. About a group of firefighters and the many fires they fight. Joaquin Phoenix was excellent as the main firefighter, and in fact his performance was probably the sole highlight of the film. He convincingly portrayed the transition from wide-eyed rookie to grizzled veteran, and without his performance the movie probably would have been a total wash. The main problem is that there weren't any decent characters -- I never forgot that they were all just characters in a movie, not one seemed like a real person. And then there were the firefighting scenes, which, I don't know -- either firefighting just isn't exciting, or the director sucked. Towards the end I was starting to dread the next fire. And there were a lot of them. Basically, there weren't any good characters, and the firefighting scenes were dull, so... Aside from actual firefighters, I'm not really sure who this movie is supposed to appeal to. Plus, the ending seemed incredibly harsh, especially for a cheesy movie like this. **

It Happened One Night

IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934) - Sept. 29, 2004
Clark Gable is excellent in this romantic comedy, an early entry in the "lots of stuff happening in a short amount of time" genre. Claudette Colbert was also really good as the spoiled daughter of a millionaire who runs away from her father. Wackiness ensues as she and Clark Gable try to get to New York, and of course fall in love in the process (after much bickering). My biggest complaint would be that the part at the end where there's a misunderstanding and it seems like they might not get together was ridiculously long (around 25 minutes). The movie remained entertaining, but this section was definitely longer than it needed to be. The movie was also actually surprisingly funny -- I particularly liked the part where Clark Gable gave Colbert an extended lesson on hitchhiking. ***

Good Bye Lenin!

GOOD BYE LENIN! (2003) - Sept. 28, 2004 (S)
A really good dramedy about a son who goes to extreme lengths to prevent his mother from finding out that the Berlin wall has fallen (she was in a coma when it happened). Though it is essentially plotless, it's always entertaining because of how well-developed the characters are. Though the film certainly has funny moments, it is mostly a drama. I particularly liked the look on the father's face when he realized that he was looking at his son for the first time in years. The fact that the characters are so well-developed makes it seem believable even when the son goes to almost ludicrous lengths to keep up the charade. I also like how, at the end, the mother finds out the truth but never tells her son -- she's happy that he's gone through so much to protect her, and he's happy that he's managed to keep his mother sheltered. ***1/2

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW (2004) - Sept. 23, 2004
While perhaps not quite the classic I had hoped it would be, this was still a really entertaining movie. It took me a while to get used to the murky look of the film (everything was in really soft focus, for whatever reason). Aside from that, the movie's visuals were really impressive, especially considering it was pretty much all made in a computer. They were definitely going for an Indiana Jones type of vibe with the character of the Sky Captain, but it didn't quite work. Not that he wasn't a good character -- Jude Law was really good, as usual -- but he was no Indiana Jones. So I was somewhat let down, but my expectations were probably a bit too high. ***

Eurotrip

EUROTRIP (2004) - Sept. 22, 2004
A surprisingly entertaining and funny teen comedy about a group of friends who head to Europe to find a girl. Wackiness ensues. Though it takes place over an undisclosed amount of time, it pretty much falls into the "lots of stuff happening in a short amount of time" genre (and yet further proof that you can't go wrong with this genre, not that I needed it). ***

Metropolis

METROPOLIS (1927) - Sept. 21, 2004 (Second Viewing)
An excellent film about a future society in which the poor live underground, maintaining the machinery of the city, while the rich live in skyscrapers. The special effects are quite good, especially considering when it was made, and the film actually manages to portray a reasonably plausible vision of a future society (no cheesy silver jumpsuits or anything like that). Easily the best silent movie I've ever seen -- but aside from that, it is just a really good movie, not just good for a silent movie. ***1/2

Cellular

CELLULAR (2004) - Sept 14, 2004
A crackerjack thriller. About a woman who is kidnapped, but is able to use her mostly broken phone to connect to a guy on a cell phone. Kim Basinger and Chris Evans were both excellent in the main roles, and Jason Statham was appropriately sinister as the main bad guy. The movie didn't waste any time getting started, and pretty much had me on the edge of my seat the whole time. There was also a surprising amount of comedy in the film, which was nice. For sheer entertainment value, this was probably one of the best movies I've seen in a while, and was easily the best thriller I've seen since Panic Room. My only complaint is that the stupid trailer gave away way too much. Other than that, pure gold. ****

Resident Evil: Apocalypse

RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE (2004) - Sept. 10, 2004
An awful, awful movie. Where the original was surprisingly decent, and probably the best videogame movie so far (not that that takes much), this was just terrible. It fails on every conceivable level. The direction was horrible -- the movie was constantly unappealing to look at (nothing in this movie even came close to living up to the potential of that cool final shot of the first movie), and the action (of which there was plenty) was stupid and incoherent. Plus the action was way way too over-the-top. And Raccoon City looks suspiciously like Toronto -- the C.N. Tower even made an appearance. Plus there was the very prominent appearance of Toronto's City Hall. The quality of the acting ranged from terrible to barely adequate, with most performances falling into the former category. And the dialogue - what little there was - sucked (in fact, with the poor dialogue and acting, much of the movie actually reminded me of the cutscenes from the Resident Evil games, though I somehow doubt that was the intent). That's actually what this movie seemed like: it was like being forced to sit through a poorly-done one and a half hour cutscene for a Resident Evil game, and then not even being able to play the game. 1/2*

Shattered Glass

SHATTERED GLASS (2003) - Sept. 8, 2004
Hayden Christensen and Peter Sarsgaard are both excellent in this film about a journalist who fabricates his stories to make them more exciting. It was well-directed and really entertaining throughout (the 95 minute running-time probably helped). A brisk pace, good writing and direction, and strong performances all around... Not really much more you can ask for. ***1/2

Hero

HERO (2002) - Sept. 3, 2004
After a few good, but underwhelming movies, it seemed like Zhang Yimou's best days were behind him. Clearly, this is not the case. While Hero may not be quite as good as movies like Raise the Red Lantern and To Live (though certainly close -- I think repeat viewings are needed), it was still amazing and almost certainly the best movie I've seen so far this year. Visually -- with the dazzling use of colour and the intricately framed shots -- it was probably one of the best looking movies I've ever seen, and Zhang proves yet again that he's right up there with Kubrick in that arena. The fight sequences were all really well-done and really exciting, and the Rashomon-esque story was also quite excellent. Zhang, you've done it again! ****

Exorcist: The Beginning

EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING (2004) - August 24, 2004 (S)
I'd like to see the original version of this movie. Stellan Skarsgard was good, but the movie... I don't know. It started off well enough. In fact, for the first half-hour or so, I was thinking "hey, this isn't so bad!" But then it just seemed to run out of steam and it pretty much went nowhere. It probably didn't help that it wasn't scary, creepy, or even shocking (I don't think there was a single legitimate, non-"oh, it was just the radio!" shock in the whole movie). Plus the character of the main woman was pretty much useless, and only really existed to get possessed at the end. And Stellan regaining his faith seemed a little too easy. I mean, come on, he only decides to stop being grizzled and to become a priest again after he personally sees the devil posses someone? I think I would become a priest after that. **

Alien vs. Predator

ALIEN VS. PREDATOR (2004) - August 18, 2004
A stupid movie. For a movie called "Alien vs. Predator" the aliens and the predators didn't fight nearly as much as you'd think they would (which is too bad, because the scenes where they do fight are probably the highlight of the movie). Plus the movie spends way too long setting everything up. Which wouldn't have been a problem, except for the fact that there wasn't a single decent character in the whole movie. I felt like Milhouse during that episode of Itchy and Scratchy with Poochie in it. "When are they going to get to the fireworks factory??" The action scenes were all incoherent and the violence was ultra toned down, which made all the stuff with the humans being hunted pretty pointless. Plus that crazy alliance between the predator and the human was just bizarre (there's just something wrong about a shot where a predator and a human run side by side away from an explosion). *1/2

Old Yeller

OLD YELLER (1957) - August 15, 2004
A sometimes hokey, but entertaining movie about a boy and his dog. There certainly wasn't anything subtle about it, from the performances to the dialogue to the super-over-the-top score, but it worked for the most part. And then of course there was the ending, which ranks right up there with the death of Hooch in terms of harsh dog deaths in movies. ***

The Bourne Supremacy

THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (2004) - August 6, 2004
An inferior sequel. It was essentially entertaining, though certainly overlong at around two hours. The main problem was Paul Greengrass' ultra-shaky direction. Almost the entire film was shot handheld, which got annoying after a while. And the action scenes were atrocious. They were like a parody of the standard quick-cut / shaky-cam action scene. It was almost impossible to tell what was going on, particularly during the last car chase, as there was seemingly a cut every millisecond. It was so bad I actually had to look away from the screen a couple of times because it was getting so unpleasant and disorienting to watch. Fortunately there wasn't that much action. **1/2

Garden State

GARDEN STATE (2004) - August 4, 2004
A well-made movie by Zach Braff. Excellent performances all around. The direction was good -- it started off a little bit too over-the-top, but after a while it settled down. It seems like Zach's real strength lies in his writing, as the movie was really well written. The characters were all really good, and there was actually a surprising amount of humour in the film. ***

Harold and Kumar go to White Castle

HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE (2004) - August 3, 2004
An entertaining comedy about a couple of guys who, after getting stoned, decide to get some burgers from White Castle. Hijinks ensue. A few of the jokes fell flat, but for the most part it was reasonably funny, though not exactly laugh-out-loud hilarious (with the exception of one really funny part which was probably the hardest I've laughed in quite some time). The bizarre cameo by Neil Patrick Harris, playing himself, was also a highlight. Plus the movie was a prime example of the "lots of stuff happening in a short amount of time" genre, and yet further proof that you can't go wrong with a movie like that. ***