More Super Heroes: Iron Man

Today's moviemaking magic makes it a snap to bring Tony Stark and Iron Man to the big screen. Nice teaser poster, but 2008 is a long ways away.

The Rewind Reel

The past couple of weeks have been all about seeing films again. It's a mood that strikes me once in a while. This is when a film library of 1,000+ titles comes in handy.

No big reviews here, just the title, a rating and a few lines.

Die Hard - 3.5/4 stars - Holds up

John McClane is timeless, as are the explosions, but it's Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber that makes Die Hard memorable. It's still one of the iconic action/suspense films ever made.

GlenGarry GlenRoss - 3.5/4 stars - Holds up

Nothing flashy here, unless you would classify "acting your socks off" as flashy. A powerful cast tears through the David Mamet signature screenplay with gusto. Outside of his mafia films, this is Pacino's best work. The rest of the cast, including Kevin Spacey, Ed Harris, Jack Lemmon and the scene-stealing Alec Baldwin keep pace with Al.

Full Metal Jacket - 3/4 stars - Mostly holds up

I've been less enamored of FMJ than many other people, but I think that's simply a testament to the quality of films about war and the men whose lives are changed because of it. FMJ remains a very strong film, but alongside others (such as The Thin Red Line, All Quiet on the Western Front, Patton, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, and even the Band of Brothers miniseries) it's one very good film among many. In the Kubrick pantheon, it's a clear follower to many others.

The Princess Bride - 3.5/4 stars - Holds up

I'll cop to being a fan. There are just so many quotes and scenes in TPB that it's a favorite. It's not the best film, admittedly. The acting isn't outstanding, and the film's momentum keeps getting killed by the fast-forward device of storytelling. However, TPB is FUN, and good fantasy yarns are very hard to come by. Mandy Patinkin's Inigo Montoya is worth half a star all by himself.

Sky High - 3/4 stars - Holds up

The most recent "rewatchee" of this crop, it's amusing that this lightly-regarded Disney film is better constructed than the massively-hyped X3 and Superman Returns. The story is simple and familiar, but the treatment applied is energetic and reasonable. The ensemble cast gives a spirited performance and it's easy to lose yourself in the fast pace of the film. Sky High is a criminally overlooked film in the superhero genre.

Tetsuya Nomura's Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (1/4 stars)

Two words: fans only.

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children is not so much a feature film as it is an extended series of FMV cutscenes that would be more at home tacked onto the end of the eponymous popular videogame.

The main reason for this is the story. Someone who hasn't played the FF7 game would have no hope of understanding what the hell is going on. Heck, I finished FF7 back in the day, and I had trouble picking up the story without the help of the subtitles and some real hard thinking.

Essentially, you have FF7's main character, Cloud Strife, meeting some elements of the game's main source of evil (the alien Jenova) which eventually turn into the game's iconic villan, Sepiroth.

Yeah, it's all a big excuse for one more (anticlimactic) battle between a videogame's hero and villan. Spice up with a few head-scratching cameos of other characters, add in a lot of impressive CGI flash, and that's Advent Children.

Bottom Line: Unless you're a FF7 fan, you can pass. Even if you are, don't expect any deep storylines here. It's just eye candy.

Not so Super: Bryan Singer's Superman Returns (2.5/4 stars)

I first need to state that Superman is a bitch of a character to write for. Depending on which incarnation of Supes is under discussion, his powers range from demigod-like to limitless. He has three known weaknesses - kryptonite (well-known), magic (less known) and aliens just as, if not more, powerful than himself (the three Kryptonianas from Supes II count I guess).

I haven't really followed Supes in the funnies over time, but I do know that his highlights revolve around the above three challenges (including his "death") and the loss of the less-than-super people he loves (hi Lois and Lana).

So, knowing that the overexposed and completely non-super Lex Luthor was going to be the main villain in Bryan Singer's much-awaited effort, I kept my expectations down.

Good thing I did. Otherwise, I might have experienced a bigger letdown.

The New Super 'R'

Routh does a credible job as Supes, his digitally-reduced 'package' notwithstanding. Not a lot of lines. His Clark is sufficiently dorky. He has enough presence to command the screen and create sparks with his Lois, Kate Bosworth. Kate also turns in a decent if unspectacular job in her limited role.

Spacey attempts to tear up some scenery as Luthor, but the tone of the film seems to have derailed his performance a bit. I enjoyed some Spacey moments, but in the inevitable comparison with Hackman, Kevin falls just short. The film itself was just a bit campy, and his performance was a bit campier than the film's tone. The mix didn't feel right. And honestly, his lines were pretty much unmemorable.



Not-so-super story

Superman Returns is, at its heart, a love story. Kal's love for Lois is the only human thing about him, and it's the only way you can connect with Supes. While it's not much of a hook considering the larger-than-life scope of the film, this aspect of the story was solid. One of the best scenes was Supes taking Lois on a walk... errr... fly... to apologize for disappearing on her.

Much of the story was slow and rather unexciting. The Luthor conflict was a throwaway. C'mon, stealing Kryptonian crystals to raise a new (really ugly) continent and expecting people to PAY to live there? Singer's a pretty good director, but that story arc is just awful. It makes no sense. A lot of little things don't either, like no one noticing that Supes and Clark return from five-year absences at the same time. Lois left her cell phone in the car, and took her kid into a situation of unknown peril? Luthor not going apeshit over Kitty for dumping the crystals, despite being quite happy at the prospect of killing billions of people?

Does not compute. This is the greatest failing of Superman Returns.

You always have the effects

yes. Luckily, you can toss a few disasters in Superman's way and get some decent cinematic flash out of the digital effects folks. The shuttle scene was fun. The quake, not so much. The Superman flying effects were nice (hear the cape crackle) but it's no more impressive than watching Your Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman swing through New York City. We already expect the effects to be the best that 2006 has to offer, so no extra points are gained.

Bottom Line: It could have been so much more, but Superman Returns risks very little in terms of story and it drops the ball in many aspects of it. The effects are good but not great, the characters are competent but not compelling, and the film overall is decent but in no way essential.

Bear on a Motherfracking Bus!

Jeremy Slater did it.

The Trouble with Firefly

I know why Joss Whedon's Firefly didn't take off.

Whedon's got the rep of writing good TV stuff. He's known for dialogue and character building. He did that darn well with Buffy, which I saw three seasons of. His weakness? Story arcs. Buffy was new and novel enough to struggle through the times when Whedon's lack of an overarching plot covering a season or more threatened to sink it. (It might have even lost a bunch of viewers through the shaky fourth and fifth seasons.)

Firefly's got stuff going for it. The characters are meaty and tangible. Mal Reynolds is a great character, the spiritual successor to the original, non-neutered Han Solo. Jaybe Cobb is another great character, fatally flawed but still serviceable. The other characters are less textured but are still much more than cardboard.

The episodic stories are also decent. The Firefly crew gets into a situation, then they get out of it.

The problem is what keeps the viewers coming back? There is only one overarching story hook - what happened to River Tam. The problem is River doesn't get enough screen time. Halfway through the 14 episodes, she's got less screen time than Shepherd Book, who is the other sotry hook (the venerable "man with a secret past").

Compare this to Battlestar Galactice, which tends to have three or four overarching storylines going at the same time. It's always good to have loose ends all the time, so that people tune in to see them advanced or resolved. Hook them into the characters (good) or into the world (even better). BSG is all about the Cylon war and the search for Earth. But it's also about Adama struggling with his son and his command, and Roslin strugling with politics, and Tigh struggling with alcoholism, and Starbuck+Apollo struggling with themselves. Major plot hooks are dropped in, including the Caprica survivors and the Pegasus. And of course, there are the flesh Cylons.

Firefly has nothing going for it. The universe is Alliance controlled, but no one is actively chasing after Mal and his crew. They're nobodies. The people after Simon and River are afterthoughts, and appear as an episodic hook and not steadily as a theme. They crew is constantly broke, but that's hardly a come-on to tune in. "See how the Firefly crew earn money to keep flying!" Yeah, that'll reel 'em in.

So, no surprise that it got cancelled. No surprise that Serenity, which didn't help the fatal flaw at all but rather tied up the major story arc in a minor way, didn't make huge waves. In the end, the writing wasn't strong enough, and Whedon was unable to invest enough story into the series to keep it flying.

John Lasseter's Cars (3.5/4 stars)

Yes, it was good. Very, very good. Part of this reaction may be due to the cinematic sewage that I have been subjected to lately. However, my faith in John Lasseter and his team at Pixar continues to be affirmed. They can tell a good story, the can write good characters, and Lasseter can compose a film with the best of them.

Pixar's strength has always been its ability to merge a good story with strong characters and keep the whole thing rolling along. Cars is no exception. The story may not be all that original, but it feels fresh when placed in the context of the animated world.

Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson, who dials his performance up or down really well) is a brash rookie racecar, the LeBron James of his racing era (sorry, I'm not well-versed in NASCAR). He's on his way to the biggest race of his life when a mishap lands him in a forgotten town off the interstate.

The story then shift modes into the push-pull of "he wants to go but he wants to stay". This segment of the film is its heart, and Lasseter's team paints the town of Radiator Springs and its quirky inhabitants deftly. The three main characters are the redneck towtruck Tow Mater (Dan Whitney), the diffident oldtimer Doc Hudson (Paul Newman), and the misplaced lawyer Porsche Sally (Bonnie Hunt). All three voice actors turn in excellent performances, especially Newman, who is a NASCAR racing team owner.

It's easy to get lost in the sights and sounds and inhabitants of Radiator Springs. There are the in-jokes of course, but the little town does feel alive. One memorable sequence involves bringing the town back to its heyday when interstate traffic flowed through it. The nighttime scene with the buildings alight in animated neon is one of the prettiest things I've ever seen in an animated film.

The animation in Cars is breathtaking. Bonnie and Lightning go on a drive, and one s hard-pressed to tell the difference between real scenery on celluloid and rendered pixels.

While all of the characters in Cars are, well, cars, they exude a lot more human character than many of the characters in recent films I've seen. This includes most of the casts of The Da Vinci Code, X3 and MI3, and ALL of the cast of The Omen remake. When Owen Wilson can act circles around you and he isn't even on screen, you know you just sucked.

Bottom Line: So far, the best film of 2006. You HAVE to see it on the big screen. And yes, the double-disc DVD is going to be a must as well.

Summer Batting Average: 0-for-4

It's been an awful theater run forme this summer. The four films that we saw at the cinema all come in for me below 2 stars on my 4-star scale. MI3, Da Vinci Code, X3, and the god-awful Omen remake sucked time and cash with very little entertainment returned.

There are very few guarantees left in moviedom, but I still believe that Pixar cannot go wrong. I'm banking on Cars to take the bitter edge from my cinematic taste buds.

John Moore's The Omen (2006) (0.5/4 stars)

This is a remake?

I did not watch the original. I understand there wasn't much changed, other than to bring the film into a contemporary setting (you now see a Motorola RAZR, an Apple notebook and digital photography).

That aside, this film was AWFUL.

The story is tremendously dated. The storytelling is extremely bad - the screenwriter and director make no effort to tighten the story and eliminate a huge swath of exposition mid-film. The characters are paper-thin. The two people who are supposed to be sympathetic, Liev Schreiber's Robert Thorn and Julia Stiles as his wife Catherine, come across as granite caricatures. They're cartoon characters. The boy who plays Damien, rookie child actor Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick, does nothing for me. He failed to convey any sort of malice, menace or heat. Dakota Fanning was scarier in Uptown Girls.

Director John Moore falls back to the old reliable "Boo!" movie tricks to try to get a scare out of the audience. He fails. People were laughing during the film. If he was going for the over-the-top camp, it isn't obvious, and he sadly falls very, very short.

Bottom Line: I want my money and time back! Awful film. Avoid at all costs.

Tony Scott's Man on Fire (2.5/4 stars)

This was the film that I saw part of on the way into the US, and part of on the way out.

Dakota Fanning and Denzel Washington turn in decent performances in the Tony Scott suspense/thriller.

Denzel plays ex-military man Creasy, who takes on a bodyguard job in Mexico to escape his haunted past. (Chris Walken plays the friend who gets him the job. There's always room for Chris Walken.) He becomes the guardian angel of Peta (Dakota) who is the daughter of a wealthy family's scion (singer Marc Anthony) and his American wife. Yes, it's cool watching Dakky speak Spanish.

Peta of course gets kidnapped, and Creasy is on the case.

This was a well-paced film. Tony Scott lets the story build, and takes time to paint full pictures of Peta and Creasy and the Mexican environment around them. Man on Fire has that now-popular "dirty look" but thankfully with little of the shaky handheld camera crap that I hate so much.

Denzel and Dakky are competent, as always. The cast around them doesn't get enough time to develop, with perhaps the exception of Radha Mitchell (who plays Peta's mom).

Bottom Line: Not bad. Worth putting on your Netflix queue, or catching when it hits the HBO rotation.

David Dobkin's Wedding Crashers (1.5/4 stars)

This Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn comedy vehicle is built on an intersting premise - two guys who should be well past their "irresponsible years" subscribe to the strange and unique hobby of crashing wedding. It's like their version of Never-never Land. Each year during "wedding season" they go out and attend the weddings (and especially the wedding parties) of people they don't know, with the express end of sleeping with women who they meet at these parties. This covers the first half-hour of the film, and viewers are kept chuckling with ludicrous backstories that the boys present, as well as several shots of topless women.

The film goes downhill after that.

John (Owen) meets Claire (an unusually radiant Rachel McAdams) at one wedding, decides that she's the girl he will sleep with, then inexplicably falls for her in one swift stroke of the screenwriter's pen. Jeremy (Vince) is aghast, and is suddenly reduced to the slapstick punchline of Three Stooges-class physical comedy for the rest of the movie. What began as a rollicking buddy heist film flops into a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy that isn't all that romantic.

To make things worse, Wedding Crashers clocks in at a bloated two hours. If the screenwriter and editor had any feel for pacing, they could have had a much better movie with some judicious rewriting and editing. There's too much of the family (although I will never begrudge Christopher Walken screentime) and Jeremy's very strange relationship with Claire's baby sister could easily have been trimmed down. Finally, Dobkin doesn't get any heat from the pairing of Wilson and McAdams, which is a shame as Rach has never looked this fetching in any film I've previously seen her in.

Bottom Line: Fun first 30 minutes, but feel free to skip the rest of the film unless you just feel like watching Rachel.

Coraline comes to the Silver Screen

Coraline is a young adult (children's?) novella by Neil Gaiman. It's being made into an animated film by Harry Selick (James and the Giant Peach, The Nightmare Before Christmas).

Teaser poster from Neil Gaiman's journal...

Brett Ratner's X-Men: The Last Stand (2/4 stars)

As I mentioned in a previous post my hopes for X-Men: The Last Stand weren't high. My caution was pretty much justified.

The previous X-Men films worked on the level of a comic book film because director Bryan Singer kept things moving at a fast clip. He didn't dwell too much on the details of the weak story, and even less on the paper-thin characters. This resulted in a pair of fast-moving, mindless effects-fests that one could appreciate in a summer action film state of mind.

This time around, Singer and two of his screenplay-writing cohorts are off to film Superman Returns, leaving Ratner and his Elektra and xXx-credited screenwriters to cope.

An aside: if you know anything about the source material, you just have to leave it at the theater door. This admonition is stronger now than with the two previous films. The Last Stand takes three well-known X-Men storylines from the past and mashes them into an unrecognizable mess.

Ratner wastes a stupendous amount of time attempting to establish a storyline which if better served with less of a set-up. In order to present a semblance of plot depth, he sacrifices all momentum for the first 60 minutes of the film's running time. The story threads that he attempts to weave into the story of The Phoenix are particularly troublesome, given that we end up with a half-baked explanation of Jean Grey's personality issues despite the arduous buildup.

Another weakness is the decision of the creative team to ditch many of the key characters from the two previous films. Some are written out early, and others don't even make an appearance. Where the hell did Nightcrawler disappear to after a substantial amount of screen time in X2? The power play by Catwoman herself, Halle Berry, for a more prominent role backfires on the whole project. Her Ororo Munro is completely passionless, and she gets upstaged continuously by Hugh Jackman's marginally more charismatic Logan. Storm is a powerful, charismatic and passionate character second only to Scott Summers on Charles Xavier's leadership team.
In Berry's hands, she shows less emotion than the unpolished Ellen Page in the role of Shadowcat.

While they ditch many X2 characters, they add a few that are entirely unnecessary. Warren "Angel" Worthington III is featured prominently on posters, even more so than Kelsey Grammer's amazing Hank McCoy. Angel doesn't do anything important in X3.

Overall, only Grammer and, surprise surprise, Ian McKellen turn in performances worthy of note. Everyone else ranges from forgettable to pathetic to simply annoying. (Oh, fine, I was entertained for a couple of minutes by Juggernaut chasing Kitty.)

Finally, one might call the last two scenes of the film (one before the credits, and one after) to be a cop-out. I'd call it leaving the door open for more X-Men films if The Last Stand is profitable. After the poor effort of the preceding 140 or so minutes, this kind of thing can't make it much worse. It's cheesy, but so was a lot of this film. Whatever happens, I hope they don't invite Ratner or the screenwriters back for any potential X-Men 4: What Comes After the "Last" Stand?

Bottom Line: This is easily the weakest of the X-Men films, and is one of the weaker heroes-in-tights films in recent memory. The special effects remain a key attraction, but overall the film fails as a comic-book film and an action film due to glaring missteps and questionable decisions by the creative team. The Last Stand isn't bad for a rainy evening Netflix rental, but there's no reason to go out of your way to see it in a theater.

2006 Key Art Awards - Movie Posters Category!

Posterwire has an entry on the 2006 Key Art Awards here. The Key Art Awards recognize excellence in movie marketing.

If you read this weblog you can tell I have a soft spot for movie posters. I've always enjoyed how one graphic attempts to represent a motion picture. Some of the posters are fantastic. Unsurprisingly, Sin City has a lot of nominations, but that's probably more due to the graphic novel roots of the project rather than anything the graphic artists did. More interesting are the posters for projects that are stand-alone films and not derived from other properties.

Posterwire likes this one:



This Saw II teaser poster was banned. Apparently two severed fingers is too much for a society that shows routine killings on the boob tube.

Anyway, I still like this one:

My Contribution to Viral Marketing: Snakes on a Plane!

The funny folks over at Michael and Evo's Wingin' It have been pimping the Sam Jackson film Snakes on a Plane forever. The concept is so simple that the title is perfect for it. Put snakes on a plane with Sam Jackson. That's it.

There's more background info here on screenwriter Josh Friedman's weblog. Bottom line is that this is a film that has all the potential of being special. Maybe not in the common sense, but "special." Yeah, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't have to, it's snakes on a motherfucking plane!!! Yeah!!!



Notice the similarity to the X3 and Supes Returns poster layouts. Man, are they lazy or what?

Snakes on a plane man!!!

Super X Poster Fun

Compare this one with the X3 one in the previous post.

Someone's been lazy with their poster designs.



It's even more amusing since this is the film that Bryan Singer ditched X3 to do, taking a couple of the guys who co-wrote the X2 screenplay with him. (Who are we kidding, X2 was all Singer so there isn't going to be a lot in common between X2 and X3 in terms of vision and composition.)

It's Another Third Installment, This Time a "Last Stand"

Slick Wolvie-oriented poster aside, am I the only one who's apprehensive about it despite having seen the trailer? So it's going to be Xavier vs. Magneto, one of the staples of early X-Men storylines. Whoopee. They're packing more muties into the film than ever before, including Angel, The Beast, Jugs and the appearance of Dark Phoenix. Whoopee. Despite the gaudy visuals, I have huge reservations about the screenplay which is being written by a guy who's got Mr. & Mrs. Smith and xXx: State of the Union as his major credits. His co-writer? He wrote Elektra and X2. (X2 wasn't bad because Bryan Singer helmed it.)

Director Brett Ratner's main credits are the cop comedy Rush Hour (and its sequel), plus the tepid After the Sunset.

Can the novelty of seeing and hearing Kelsey Grammer as Hank McCoy sustain interest in this potential train wreck? I'm probably going to find out in the theater. Fingers, crossed.

PS: If this makes money, no way is this going to be a "Last Stand" even if the Wolverine solo film materializes.

JJ Abrams's Mission: Impossible III (2/4 stars)

Sequelitis is a long-running affliction of the movie industry. Third installments are usually one installment too many. MI3 is no different.

The main draw for MI3 for me was Oscar (tm) Award Winner Philip Seymour Hoffman (never thought I'd get to write that) as the film's antagonist. He gets far too little screen time though, and Tom Cruise Crazy hogs the screen. That's bad, because PSH can disappear into the skin of his characters, in this case creating one of the coldest and most effective screen villains I've come across. Tom Cruise Crazy is still Tom Cruise Crazy, even if he's supposed to be Federal Agent Ethan Hunt. There just isn't enough PSH to wipe the memory of Mr. Katie Holmes jumping on Oprah's couch.

JJ Abrams is a curious choice. Best known for his small screen successes with LOST, Alias and Felicity (ok, maybe not Felicity), he reverts to some really annoying TV habits. One of them that I loathe is the shaky handheld camera schtick. What, are you scrimping on the SteadiCam rentals JJ? This isn't a hyper-realistic war film, it's Mission: Impossible.

Abrams also wrote the screenplay for MI3, and it looks like he's been taking notes from another boob tube hit that he isn't affiliated with, Federal Agent Jack Bauer's 24. MI3 moves along somewhat like a higher-tech double-length episode of 24 with more explosions but with less tension. Several plot points are truly implausible, and at least two of them had me wanting to shout "bullshit" at the screen. Worst of all, you know that because this is a film featuring Tom Cruise Crazy nothing bad could happen to him. That makes the film completely impotent, unlike 24 where you know that no one outside of Federal Agent Jack Bauer safe.

The rest of the cast is forgettable. Abrams favorite Kerri Russel makes an appearance as a tougher-than-Felicity Federal Agent, Ving Rhames is the sterotypical big black guy on the MI team, Morpheus himself plays one of the weaker-than-24 plot points, and Jonathan Rhys Myers works for a paycheck in a role light years easier than Elvis. Meiqi Li (Maggie Q to you) and random blonde Michelle Monaghan are the strong female cast members. Overall, no one creates much of a blip on the radar.

Bottom Line: Yeah, yeah, I'm critiquing a summer action film. It's got explosions and guns and Philip Seymour Hoffman, so I can tolerate it. However, you could do much better if you want a good action movie. Die Hard's throne is safer than ever.

Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code (1.5/4 stars)

Yes, I read the book. I wasn't overly impressed.

I saw the film. I was even less impressed.

Book adaptations are always a tricky thing. For every Lord of the Rings (great), you have a Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone (pretty bad). The Da Vinci Code (TDVC) film adaptation is on the latter end of the spectrum.

It was a given that the information dump needed to make the book's plot work in the film would be fiendishly hard to pull off. True to form, you're got characters explaining stuff all throughout the film. Tom Hanks doesn't pull it off well, and comes off as a tremendous bore. Ian McKellen does a better job, letting himself go and hamming it up, but it still grates after a couple of minutes. It's so bad, the film's supposed scary-bad dude (Paul Bettany's Silas the Albino Monk) has to ask a nun to explain something to him before he makes mayhem. That's just lame.

Brown's plot peters out about halfway through the novel. It absolutely drags throughout the film. The visuals of the film aren't enough to replace the exposition of the book, simply because Howard has to make the audience look at stuff just so. You get tired of hearing the lectures on pseudo-history.

In an effort to soften the blow of the film on religious types, the screenplay turn Hanks's Langdon into a half-skeptic, which isn't part of the original character. It's really strange when he gets into a dialogue with McKellen's Teabing and takes up an obvious pro-religion tack, which is then clumsily explained away by adding a really weak story about falling into a well, which explains the strange claustrophobia that the movie Langdon exhibits. (The book Langdon has no such affliction.)

McKellen is amusing for a while. Beyond that there is nary a memorable performance. Paul Bettany fails to look menacing, ending up as a caricature. Hanks is almost wooden and so unexpressive that I wish he's yell "Wilson!!!" just to prove he's got emotions. My dear Audrey Tautou is completely wasted in TDVC. Her Sophie Neveu is almost as cold as Langdon. Needless to say, the pairing has no chemistry, and the kiss they shared in the book is excised in the film. Alfred Molina exhibits a fraction of the menace that he exuded as Doctor Octopus. What a wasteland.

Now, Ron Howard knows how to direct a camera. The are many gorgeous shots in the film. However, even he couldn't fix the plot and pacing of TDVC, and I think the effort to keep the film interesting deep-sixed any chance he had of making the characters work. Akiva Goldsman must share some of the blame, as his screenplay left a LOT to be desired. There are many cases where he needed to depart from the book, but he didn't. Okay, maybe it was the studio's call, but it's his name in the credits.

Bottom Line: I didn't have high expectations. The Da Vinci Code still fell flat on its face. With nothing to save it from its plodding plotline and uninteresting characters, I cannot recommend to anyone.

Back in Front of the Silver Screen

When we last left our interpid scribe, he had just gotten off a long flight from Manila to Minneapolis-St. Paul and was waiting for his connection flight to new Jersey. That was ten weeks ago. His last words were along the lines of "I'll catch the back end of Man on Fire on the way home and finish up that review."

Well, Denzel will have to wait a bit. I did complete Man of Fire on the way home,a nd it's been so long that I can't remember the rest of the inflight viewing inbound to Manila, much less what I watched on the flight to and back from Hong Kong. Hopefully, it will all come back to me.

Since then, I've completed the miniseries and both television seasons of the new Battlestar Galactica, and the first season of 24 (finally). We're also trying to catch up on LOST, but it's... so... sloooowwww...

Oh, sorry.

We got to see the beginning of Summer Blockbuster Season - Mission: Impossible III and The Da Vinci Code. Those two will be up next, with the rest trailing.

It's good to be back in the saddle.

Inflight viewing - MLA to MSP

Flying business class trans-Atlantic on Northwest gives you a nice 10" personal screen. The film selection isn't too hot though.

AEON FLUX (1.5/4 stars)

Take a 30 minute 80s cartoon plot and draw it out into a 1.5 hour feature film. Totally waste an Academy Award-winning actress on a simplistic plot and put her in bunches of unimaginative action scenes. You get Aeon Flux.

It's probably interesting for the fans of the old cartoon to see what they did with it, but ultimately I think they'll be disappointed. There was no improvement over the cartoon in any aspect. Lots of CGI wasted on meaningless storuy elements and paper-thin characters. You could have replaced Charlize Theron with Jessica Simpson and not lost much onscreen.

Bottom Line: Eh. The practically-unknown Equilibrium is lots better than this. Pass.

HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE (2/4 stars)

Look, if you saw the first three there's little to lose by seeing the fourth installment of JK Rowling's retirement fund on the big screen. If you DIDN'T see the first three, you'll be completely lost. Heck, if you didn't read the book you'd still probably be scratching your head at anything not Tri-wizard tourney related.

Cuaron yields the reins of the series to yet another direcotr. The pace is relatively breakneck, with little time for character exposition. The three romances among the lead characters are glossed over, and important characters like Sirius Black, Fleur DeLacour and the Weasleys are given no development. Yes, there's no way you can do the whole book. I'm just saying that Goblet doesn't do as good a job of condensing the book to its essentials as AzKaban. But yeah, it's probably a much tougher one to screenwrite.

Bottom Line: No reason for a fan to pass. No reason for a non-fan to see it.

MAN ON FIRE (incomplete)

I started the Denzel film but didn't finish. Will catch the rest on the backswing. Later.

George Lucas's Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (3.5/4)

Yes, I like The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.



I've seen Revenge of the Sith three times, so now I feel up to writing about it. It's good, as far as Star Wars films go. I have never seen the need to compare the six films directly. Each serves a purpose. The Phantom Menace was a beginning, and it was the return of the franchise to the screen. There was just no way it was going to fulfill the expectations of an audience that had grown up with the originals and were now adults looking for the same feeling.

Attack of the Clones was, primarily, a love story. No, Lucas cannot write dialogue. He never could. It was just forgivable in the past because (a) we were young and (b) he had Harrison Ford delivering the lines in a way that made the camp good. Hayden Christiansen can't act. Neither could Mark Hamill, but that didn't stop a generation from idolizing Luke Skywalker. So, given that, was it ever reasonable to expect the kind of audience that Star Wars attracts to appreciate a (poorly written) love story?

So. Revenge of the Sith. The Big Moment where one of the most recognizable villains in the history of cinema is created. Honestly, that particular segment of the film didn't really carry it, even if it was, well, ok. What carried the film was the inevitable roller coaster that Anakin was on. It actually helped that we knew he was going to eventually turn and in the future murder millions of beings on Alderaan. It helped that we knew that his love for Padme was flawed. Darth Vader wasn't created out of Anakin Skywalker. Old Ben Kenobi was wrong. Anakin was always Darth Vader - he just traded in his Jedi's robes for the black suit and helmet. He probably would have even if he hadn't been torched in lava.

Bottom Line: Toss your expectations aside. Enjoy the ride.

Genndy Tartakovsky's Star Wars: Clone Wars (3.5/4)

(Yes, I said I was working on more Oscar nominees. Volume Two of Clone Wars arrived. Priorities, you know?)



While I've never been a huge fan of The Powerpuff Girls or Dexter's Lab, I found Justice Friends amusing. And I enjoy Samurai Jack on the rare occasion that it's running on the Cartoon Network when I surf on by.

Genndy Tartakovsky has had a hand in all of th above animated series. However, Samurai Jack seems to be the reason that Lucas picked him to do the first ever animated work based on the Star Wars franchise. It was easy for me to see with my mind's eye. Replace Jack with a bald black man, turn his white gi brown, and substitute his katana with a lightsaber. Replace his placid samurai demeanor with some attitude and voila, Samuel L. Windu. Or wrinkle him up, shrink him and turn him green and you have Yoda.

Clone Wars was originally run on the Cartoon Network in 3-minute slices. I recall seeing the tail end of one segment, which featured Mace Windu kicking droid ass then taking a break for a frosty drink before returning to action. I went "what the hell" and wondered what I had just seen. Then I forgot about it. Until I saw the Clone Wars Volume One DVD. That sent me to Google where I found that there was a second volume appearing late 2005. I held off watching Volume One until I had the whole thing. Of course, it sorta sucked that Revenge of the Sith came and went BEFORE Volume Two appeared, but what the hell. When my kids are old enough they'll get to see all of it in sequence.



Clone Wars picks up exactly where Attack of the Clones left off. The Jedi have just rescued Anakin and Padme from Geonosis, and the Clone Wars have begun with a massive battle between the clones of the Republic and the droids of the Trade Federation. The story arc of the first volume, spanning just over an hour, is mostly non-stop animated mayhem. The story tracks the rocky relationship of Obi-Wan and Anakin as a duo and separately. There's a lot of asskicking by Mace Windu and various other Jedi, and a new dark Jedi for Anakin to face.

This all flows into volume two where General Grievous is fleshed out and turns into a legit bad guy. A lot of Obi-Wan and Anakin here, and Clone Wars nicely develops the relationship that really doesn't get all that much time through Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. A huge part of the second volume is dedicated to a trial involving Anakin, which could easily have been a half-hour Samurai Jack episode. The end of volume two links up directly with Revenge of the Sith, showing the invasion of Coruscant and how Palpatine is "kidnapped" by the Grievous.

Bottom Line: All in all, Clone Wars is CANON (which is rare outside of the films) and is required viewing for all Star Wars fans. Since it's very nicely done, paced at high speed and features a lot of Jedi asskicking, it's practically a lock to entertain anyone who has ever enjoyed a Star Wars film. Prequel or otherwise.

Academy Award Prediction: Best Picture and Best Director of 2005

BEST PICTURE
BEST DIRECTOR

(For the first time that I can remember, all five films nominated for Best Picture also have their directors nominated.)

*Summary*

Brokeback Mountain (3/4 stars): Fairly ordinary romance film with competent performances from Jake Gyllehaal and the surprising Heath Ledger. Strong directing effort from Ang Lee. Overhyped because the protagonists are two cowboys.

Crash (3.5/4 stars): Interesting kinetic ensemble film. Spectacular direction from Paul Haggis, but not a memorable film overall due to lack of focus and Crash's nature as a "statement film" on racism.

Munich (4/4 stars): Stupendous performance by Eric Bana and magnificent direction by Spielberg.

Good Night. And, Good Luck. (3/4 stars): Well-made docu-cinema with an excellent performance from David Straithairn and surprisingly effective direction from George Clooney.

Capote (3/4 stars): A role-of-a-lifetime performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman. The film itself is not a huge magnitude better than average. Pacing problems from director Bennett Miller.

Bottom Line: This is an acceptable field, but it's not a strong one. I can only identify Munich and Good Night. And, Good Luck as two films that would contend for a nomination in any year of recent memory. The other three barely qualify as being the best film of any year.

Who will win?
Sadly, the Brokeback Bandwagon is overflowing with people who've never seen a gay romance film. Brokeback Mountain wins an undeserved Academy Award for Best Picture. This bandwagon will also likely tow Ang Lee to the plum directing prize.

Who should win?
Munich stands head and shoulders above all the other films in this field. This also means that the Academy pariah Steven Spielberg should take home the statuette. Not going to happen either way.

Bennett Miller's Capote (3/4 stars)

I like to tag the small group of actors that I consider Philip Seymour Hoffman to be a part of as "specially talented and criminally underused." I don't think the likes of William H. Macy, Ed Norton, Don Cheadle and John C. Reilly are underrated. Many people who enjoy movies won't recognize their names, but when you mention a character they've played in a memorable film, they'll say "oh yeah that guy he was great!!!'

These actors will rarely get a chance to lead a film because they don't have the "look" that Hollywood prizes so much. You know, the Cruise, Pitt, and even Keanu "look" (the last one being criminal, but whatever). They also don't have the Pacino/DeNiro/Hopkins-class screen presence that can make up for any lack of smashing good looks.

I think the two poster boys for success for these guys is Kevin Spacey, who was in this class himself until the breakout in The Usual Suspects. Now, Hoffman attempts to join him with a breakout of his own.

I'm considering Phil a mortal lock for the Academy Award. I've seen four of the five performances (excepting Terence Howard - I have no interest in his film) and Hoffman stands head and shoulders above the competition. Perhaps I'm biased, having seen many of his brilliant roles, big and small, go unnoticed. It's about time he got some glory. His Truman Capote is everything the man was reputed to be. Hoffman made me want to smack Truman around until I could understand what he was saying half the time.

What I find inexplicable is how Capote snuck into the nominee list for Best Picture. Sure, Hoffman put the production on his back and carried it into the spotlight, but it's not a remarkable effort for director Bennett Miller. He frames the story of how In Cold Blood was written competently, keeping the spotlight firmly focused on Capote and his inner demons that spawned during the writing of the landmark novel. However, his pacing could have been more even. There are times during the film that things move too deliberately. And I'm not giving him ANY credit for Phil's peformance. Sorry Bennett. Keener is ok as Harper Lee, Truman's partner in literary history (some say Capote actually wrote Lee's landmark To Kill a Mockingbird). However, there is no romance as Capote was gay.

Bottom Line: You have to see this for Hoffman's performance. However, have some patience due to the uneven pacing.

Next: A few more films with Oscar nominations. I hope to get through Walk the Line, Syriana, The Constant Gardener, Proof, Pride and Prejudice. Memoirs of a Geisha and *maybe* The New World before the Academy comes calling.

Dave McKean's Mirrormask (2/4 stars)

(Capote is coming up. Just a break because this was viewed, unscheduled, in place of game night.)



Neil Gaiman is my favorite fantasy author. His fantasy tends towards the dark and fantastic, or towards the real world with something just off. I've read most of his works; people are most familiar with his Sandman graphic novels or with his recent bestselling book American Gods. Neil also dabbles in screenwriting.

Dave McKean, the graphic artist, is a longtime collaorator of Neil. His work is... strange. He works in multiple media to create works that are just as off in terms of visual impact, as Neil's works tend to be off in terms of ideas and concepts. They complement each other very well in the published medium.

So. When word reached their fans that they were working on a film project, there was quite a bit of excitement. The budget wasn't big, and the film wasn't meant to be a Hollywood summer blockbuster, but even small art house runs were greatly anticipated by fans. They collaborated on the screenplay, and Dave took the director's chair.

The greatest success of Mirrormask is the near-perfect translation of Dave McKean's visual style to film. Everything from the dark reds, oranges, yellows and browns he tends to use, to the strangeness, to the twisted analogs of real-world things. The transition is spectacular, if a bit disturbing. If you like looking at these kinds of interesting imagery, you'll have a lot to see.

Unfortunately, what Dave doesn't quite get done is a proper application of film elements to the storytelling. Mirrormask is essentially a buddy road trip. The main character, Helena, is trapped in a fantasy world of her own making and needs to quest to rights a wrong and escape back to her world. Her sidekick is Valentine. Think C3PO with less poise and intellect.

The story is pretty simple. Since it's Gaiman, there are a few twists, but nothing you can't wrap your head around. The problem is in the actors and the pacing. Stephanie Leonidas is a reasonably-experienced 20-year old actress, but McKean gets very little from her emotion-wise. She's unable to project, and the result is an audience that is less-than-invested in her as a character. This is an even bigger problem because Helena's main trait that sets her off from the denizens of the fantasy world is her expressive face. Everyone else wears a mask. She might as well be wearing one too for the most part.

The story's pacing also leaves much to be desired. I know that Dave's visuals are a huge part of the film, but editing Mirromask into a properly-paced film must take precedence. It didn't, and you have a story that's unable to hold the interest of viewers as the characters skitter back and forth. The pretty pictures can only take you so far.

My favorite scene in a film that otherwise tested my patience was a very strange use of the Carpenter's standard "Close to You". If you see the film, I'll bet you'll find that bit at least noteworthy if not entertaining.

Bottom Line: I'm sure that Mirrormask has an audience, and will develop a cult following just because it looks so damned cool. However, I wouldn't watch it all the way through more than once without liberal use of fast forward. If you're a fan of Gaiman and/or McKean though, it's required viewing.

George Clooney's Good Night, and Good Luck (3.5/4 stars)

The first George Clooney-directed film I got to see was the underscreened "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind". George did a decent job on that film, and the influence of his budd Steven Soderbergh showed in the film's style. In his current effort, Good Night, and Good Luck, George takes off on a completely different tangent. While some elements of the film still retain the gritty Soderberghian style, he elects to use a docudrama slant. He even goes to the extent of filming in black and white.

It's a great call, and it works extremely well.

In this telling of the events surrounding television journalist Ed Murrow's media battle with US Senator Joe McCarthy in the dark days of the Communist witchhunt, Clooney's choice of using stock footage of the real McCarthy rather than casting an actor is a gutsy call. Writing the screenplay around these snippets of historical footage, David Straithairn's Murrow is given the real thing to play against. It enhances the realism of the film and sucks you into the struggle.

Speaking of Straithairn, the role is essayed as a hardboiled, steadfast freedom-loving American. It's not a HUGE role, as the screenplay sticks completely to the story of the McCarthy conflict and does not touch at all on Murrow. This deprives the viewer from being able to invest in Ed as a person since we are not presented much beyond the straightlaced, stonefaced television journalist. Even when a close friend and associate dies, we are not given a window into how Murrow copes with the loss, or even the pressures of his job. He comes across as larger than life. This is the main weakness of the film.

Good Night, and Good Luck comes in with a running time of less than two hours. It can be argued that they might have invested some time in showing us more about Murrow. Ultimately, Cloney decided that the film is about the conflict, and is not about the character. Too bad, because putting in 20 minutes more of character backstory for Murrow would have, to my mind, made the film better.

Bottom Line: Overall, Good Night, and Good Luck is an excellent film and well worth the time. This is my dark horse for the 2005 Best Film Academy Award.

Paul Haggis's Crash (3/4 stars)

Crash opens with a complicated concept - people in LA avoid each other reflexively so you've gotta crash into someone else to touch them - but in reality the message is simple. The world has become a place where it's easy to find something to be afraid of - other people who are different. The media has turned everyone into the stereotype of their race and culture and even appearance.

People have to remember that each person is a unique individual capable of good things as well as bad. Sadly, that's easily forgotten when you're afraid.

The ensemble cast might be described as "powerhouse" with a prodigious number of recognizable names and faces - Sandy Bullock, Brendan Fraser, Matt Dillon, Thandie Newton, Loretta Devine, Ryan Philippe and Don Cheadle who also produced. There are so many characters that while the ability of director Paul Haggis to weave an effective tapestry of intersecting stories is impressive, the audience isn't able to latch on to anyone. In the film's 100 minutes, I saw snapshots of the lives of many people, but I didn't get to know any of them. Thus, I really didn't care much when bad stuff happened to them.

Crash attempts to sell an idea instead of tell a story. Haggis succeeds at driving home how media characterization of ethnicities has changed society. (Sorry, I'm not using the "r" word because it's loaded with so much baggage that it doesn't convey the correct idea anymore.) But he doesn't succeed in crafting a film that involves the audience. We're spectators to a wonderful show, not participants in a story who emotionally invest in a character. For the kind of film that Crash attempts to be, it falls a bit short of greatness.

So. While it's certainly worth your 100 minutes, Crash isn't in my book a contender for the best film of 2005. The Oscar still rests on the mantle of Munich.

Bottom Line: Very good, see it.

Steven Spielberg's Munich (4/4 stars)

Eric Bana was robbed.

And Mr. Spielberg? You're forgiven for War of the Worlds.

I'm yet to see two of the other three nominees (Crash up next), and I will before the awards are handed out, but dammit Munich is the best film of 2005.

This is how you take a moral drama and fold it into a kinetic action film. You watch the characters and you know how they're doing it and maybe WHY they're doing it, but you're not quite sure if THEY know what they're doing and why they're doing it.

Steven also controls his natural urge to grab an idea and hit his audience over the head with it until they cry. I was concerned when the epilogue began to drag a bit, but the final scene ended with the proper amount of uncertainty for the tone of the film. You don't know what happens. You know what YOU want to happen, and you know what is LIKELY to happen, God forbid, but Steven doesn't tell us what exactly happens.

Eric Bana should have gotten a nom for lead actor. Strong, rock steady performance of a man whose moral compass gets caught in a magnetic storm. He's got a port, but will the storm overwhelm the port? Is he in control? Was he ever in control?

The debate over Steven's treatment of terrorism and the "dialogue" of violent acts between the Israelis and Palestinians was not just handled well, it wasn't handled at all, which is important. Steve's a Jew, so we all know where Steve stands. It's irrelevant for Munich. This is just a story, and I did not detect anything in the way of an overt message. When you become as your opponent, you cede the moral high ground, and wrong and right all swirl into one really large pool of blood.

Bottom Line: Best Film of 2005. Do NOT miss it.

Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain (3/4 stars)

What's the big deal over Brokeback Mountain?

It's competently directed by Ang Lee. But it's Ang Lee, so we expect that.

It's got some competent performances. Heath Ledger sheds the last vestiges of the cringeworthy A Knight's Tale and shows that he belongs on the big screen. Jake Gyllenhaal proves that he can also act. He's still not as good as his sister Maggie, but he's improved a lot since Donnie Darko. Michelle Williams doesn't do enough here despite the charged minutes she gets in front of the camera. Anne Hathaway somehow blundered into this film, again by showing us her breasts.

Why is there so much hype?

Look, this is a drama/romance with longing as the central theme. They can't be together, and the feelings that Ennis and Jack have for each other prove to be their undoing in the end. I can name at least four films with a similar theme that, in my mind, are significantly better: The Remains of the Day, In the Mood for Love and its sequel 2046, and The Bridges of Madison Country. You want to give Brokeback the Oscar? No way. And I LIKE Ang Lee's work.

The problem here is that people are uncomfortable with the film. They can't ignore it because it's got a high-profile director and cast, and it's got two big outfits backing it (Focus and Paramount), so they overcompensate. Brokeback Mountain is a WELL-CRAFTED tragic love story, but the best film of the year it's not. By a LONG shot.

Bottom Line: See it, but keep your expectations low. It's not THAT great.

Ronny Yu's Huo Yuan Jia (aka Fearless) (2.5/4 stars)

I saw this film after some of the other that follow, but I'm going for a series of Academy Awards nominees so I'll put this one up first. You're going to have to wait a bit for my take on Brokeback Mountain. :)



This is reputedly going to be Jet Li's final film.

Strange that he decided to go with a project headed by a guy who directed the hits "Bride of Chucky" and "Freddy vs. Jason".

Regardless, this is as always Li's film. It's not as pretty as Ying Xiong, or Hero to English-speaking audiences. It's also not as well-directed. However, the energy that Li puts into his scenes show little decline from his landmark Once Upon a Time in China series. Wushu is a martial art that's fun to watch, and combined with the wire-fu tricks that have now become standard even in Hollywood, Huo Yuan Jia is entertaining for the length of its running time.

Scuttlebutt has it that the original director's cut was 2.5 hours, and they whittled it down to 100 minutes for non-Chinese audiences who apparently can't tolerate that much "kung fu" in one sitting. It's laughable if true, considering that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon clocked in just over 2 hours.

Bottom Line: It's Jet Li, and it's wushu in what's billed as his final outing. Catch it just for old times' sake.

Inflight Viewing: Bad News Bears (1.5/4 stars) and The Perfect Man (0.5/4 stars)

So I was stuck on Thai Air because it had the only sensible flights to Bangkok from Manila. No, we didn't get personal screens (Sing Air has me spoiled) but I still ended up watching the inflight offering both ways. Not what I would have picked given a decent selection, but there was no selection.

I like Billy Bob, and he's fun in his drunken bastard mode. Unfortunately, he already did the definitive drunk bastard in Bad Santa, so Billy Morris Bob Buttermaker is less mean and cranky than Billy Santa Bob Claus. But he's still fun no matter what.

This is a formula "kids' team makes bad coach better, better coach makes team winner" movie, played out on a little league baseball diamond. They elect for the moral victory as the ending for this one. Director Rich Linklater toes the line between trying to make something of this and mailing it in, but in the end decides to just mail it in. He gets nothing from the kids, except maybe for first-timer spitfire Sammi Kane Kraft as the team's girl pitcher (probably because she really IS a pitcher). I guess working with Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke all the time spoils you.

Bottom Line: Watch it to see drunken bastard Billy Bob, but if you've seen Bad Santa, then you're not missing anything.



Gaaak a Hilary Duff film. At least it's got a semblace of a rom-com, so I hoped that the film isn't all about the Duff.

Sadly, it was all about the Duff.

In this trainwreck, Duff attempts to steer her relationship-impaired mom (Heather Locklear, looking not a day over 40) away from guys she considers less-than-perfect. She does this by creating a "Perfect Man" out of thin air, using the opinions of hunky-but-apparently-engaged Chris "Mr. Big" Noth.

It's not funny, it's not romantic, and it's simply not entertaining.

Bottom Line: Pass. Please.

Michael Winterbottom's 9 Songs (1.5/4 stars)

I really hesitated before deciding to view this film, mostly because I was sure I was going to hate it. For one, the music that Mike Winterbottom's controversial 9 Songs is built around isn't my cup of tea. However, since it's controversial, I gave it a whirl.

For one, 9 Songs is short. About half of the film is footage of live band performances. The other half has the lead characters Matt and Lisa having sex in various situations.

Look, I get what Winterbottom was aiming for. There's almost no dialogue in the film. The emotions of the characters are drawn from the music and the sex. Their relationship is built on the same thing. It's as if he's challenging the viewers to figure out how this worked at all, and how it went wrong when it did go wrong.

Sadly due to the sex scenes no one really cares about the message. Ramp model Margot Stilley makes her feature film debut by baring everything to Winterbottom's digital camera. Male lead Kieran O'Brien does the same thing, including providing what's known as a "money shot" in porn.

Oh, that's where it all is. Is this porn?

Nah.

Porn is created explicitly to sexually excite. That wasn't the purpose here. Winterbottom was attempting to tell his story with two activities that are part of the real lives of people like Matt and Lisa. They're out there. This is them. But since so many people don't think Margot Stilley should have shown her vagina in a feature film, that's all overlooked and what people remember is oh god he stuck his cock in her pussy in full view of the camera what a scandal.

Bottom Line: I still didn't *like* the film, but that doesn't mean it's pornography or that it's worthless. If you're of the same age as the characters and like that kind of music (cmon we all like sex) then it's likely that 9 Songs will connect with you.

Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds (1.5/4 stars)

Steven Spielberg. Tom Cruise. Dakota Fanning.

Star Power.

Okay, so Tom's one filament short of a lightbulb, but that doesn't mean you don't expect big things from those three names.

Look. Spielberg's the man. Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Amistad and Minority Report give him the leeway to make the gigantic crapola that was AI. He spun his wheels for a while with the relatively quiet and competent efforts in The Terminal and Catch Me If You Can (at least as quiet as films headlined by Hanks and DiCaprio can be).

Dakota's a kid, so I'll assume she listens to her handlers so she can be absolved.

War of the Worlds is a huge letdown. Not just because we were expecting a huge fight between US and THEM. Not just because we wanted to see MEN spank the MARTIANS. It was because we were looking for a sci-fi spectacular, and what we got was a half-baked family drama from a guy that really shouldn't be doing a family drama. (Jerry Maguire was clearly a fluke, or it was all Cameron Crowe.) My reaction at the end was: What. The. Fuck. You climax is James Earl Jones telling you we won.

Unacceptable.

Bottom Line: You'd better have a big one next time out Mr. Spielberg, because this one didn't cut it. If you miss it, you didn't miss much.

David Mackenzie's Young Adam (2.5/4 stars)

Young Adam is a very strange film. It's a slow burn, reverse-but-not-really film where we follow a guy who might be mixed up in a murder but we don't really know why or how. And there's lots of sex.

Ewan Macgregor is sort of like Johnny Depp Lite. He does the mainstream stuff that we all love and know and enjoy - Star Wars, Moulin Rouge, Down with Love, The Island (ok that's pushing it) - but he also does these strange indie-type films where we gets to brood and act silly and show us his willy. In this one, it's a one-man road trip with lots of fucking and slow unraveling of the strands surrounding the aforementioned mysterious murder.

Some may find the going slow and tedious. I've sat through Solyaris, and I love 2001. Young Adam is pretty good for what it wants to be.

Bottom Line: Recommended for patient viewers with an eye (and ear) for detail, and who don't mind seeing other peoples' privates.

Barbara Kopple's Havoc (0.5/4 stars)

When your first "grown up" film is released direct to video, you probably made a terrible mistake in picking a vehicle to launch your "new" career.

Anne Hathaway was a Disney Princess, about a step down from Queen Hilary Duff. The Princess Diaries was a decent "hit" for the Mouse House (I use the term hit loosely here), enough to warrant a sequel. Her other "name" film, Ella Enchanted, could easily have been a Disney project (it wasn't, but was distributed by Disney house Buena Vista in some parts of the world).

Anyway, Princess Anne decided that she had enough of the saccharine roles, so she picked a big girl's role. Unfortunately for her, Havoc is a turd of a project. Anne's role is sort of a mirror image of herself, a young woman looking to grow up too fast. Along with her sidekick, Played by random blonde Bijou Philips, they embark on a quest to find fulfilment in dangerous places, situations and company.

Yes, not very inspiring or interesting. To top it all off, Princess Anne bares her bosom in the name of art. Wonder how Havoc became a hot item on the net? Yep. The formerly-royal boobs of Anne Hathaway.



Anne, girl, I know that both Alyssa Milano and Drew Barrymore survived errors of judgment like this early in their careers, but it's not a formula for success. Get some sense, put on some clothes, find a new makeup artist, and you just might make it in Hollywood without having to show us what your panties are hiding.

Bottom Line: Find the internet clip of Anne's "star turn". Otherwise, give it a wide berth.

Michael Bay's The Island (2/4 stars)

Yes, it's Michael Bay, and I'm giving his film 2 stars. The Island has been universally panned, especially in sci fi circles, as a joke. Everyone points at Bay's track record, which includes the just-as-universally panned Armageddon. Hey, Armageddon is ok in my book (I'd give it 2 to 2.5 stars) and The Island isn't awful.

Well, ok, the dialogue is awful, but you're not expecting Tarantino from Mike Bay.

Ewan is ok, but Ewan is a pretty decent actor. The attraction here (as it is in any of her recent films) is Scarlett. No, she doesn't get much character to work with, but at least she gets to run around for a change. Too many dramas make Scarlett a dull girl to watch.



Bottom Line: It's not Aliens. It's not Die Hard. But it's decent mindless fun, and it's got Scarlett.

Even More Heroes: Hellboy (3/4 stars) and Sky High (3/4 stars)

This installment, we look at a couple of contrasting supers films.



Hellboy is an interesting superhero tale, just as its lead character isn't your usual guy in tights. I've no experience with the comic the film is based on, but I've heard good things. Director Guillermo del Toro comes up with something halfway between Spider-Man and Batman - it's not full on with the camp, but neither does it pass on the human elements.

Ron Perlman is a personal favorite when a role calls for a lot of prosthetics. I grew up on the small screen live action Beauty and the Beast, where Ron defined the role for me. He brings Hellboy to life, and gives him that streak of humanity that makes his resistance to his nature as the Son of Satan credible. Most of the other characters form the backdrop against which Hellboy is painted. Many are interesting, but none are as full-formed as you might like.

The story has decent pacing, slowing down for character sets then speeding up for the action. Speaking of the action, the CGI is competent, and the dark, gritty setting fits the overall feel of the movie.

Bottom Line: Thumbs up, an entertaining romp well worth seeing.



Our other film of the day, Sky High, is the other side of the coin that Hellboy graces. This is a full-on fun film, a superhero take on the regular teens-in-school growing up and proving themselves template. The writers (there are three of them credited, indicating a degree of rewrite) got the tone right. Have fun, but there are real world parallels here. It's almost like The Incredibles in live action. Sort of.

The issues? The need to live up to famous parents, the need to fit in at school, cliques, identity, dealing with judgment on your potential... I'm sure there's more. The ensemble cast does a good job, but credit director Mike Mitchell and whoever his editor was with keeping the whole thing moving at a good clip.

The kids with the lead roles are pretty good, but Bruce Campbell steals the show with his take as Sky High's answer to Hogwarts' Sorting Hat. His power of talking really loud fits Bruce, and he's damned funny as always.

Bottom Line: If you want 100 minutes of entertainment, you could do far worse than Sky High.

Into the Blue (0.5/4 stars)

Director John Stockwell has a plum job. His last directing credit was for another babes-in-bikinis flick, Blue Crush. Considering both films are pretty awful, a huge step down from the bad-but watchable Crazy/Beautiful, he must be doing these films for the girls.

And yes, I only watched this movie for Jessica. Yes, it was horrible. Yes, it was better when Jessica was on screen. Ashley Scott wasn't bad either, but the half star rating is entirely for this:



Bottom Line: Only for Jessica fans. Leave your brain at the door.