So it's hard for me to write about a Tintin movie with complete objectivity. In fact I considered skipping the movie altogether, so afraid am I of watching anything that wouldn't live up to expectation, the only thing convincing me otherwise being the Spielberg name.

It took me awhile after watching to write this too, because I needed to figure exactly what my expectations were. What for example, would make a movie 'worthy'? What did I like about Tintin to begin with? After a while I think I got it. But first, some things I noticed, in bullet points:

Tintin would never get angry at Haddock that way - At some point in the movie, Tintin chided Haddock for drinking again and losing the important scrolls. It's not that he wouldn't do that, it's the way he did it, via a sarcastic side remark, that I found off character. In all the books, I can only remember one significant time when Tintin lost his cool at Haddock, and he did so in a big way, via shouting and screaming at him in 'Explorers On The Moon'. I know its small details, but its important enough for me to notice at least.

Tintin would never boast - Maybe it's a common character trait amongst male fictional heroes in the past, but I couldn't help noticing how Tintin was fantastic with guns and with his fists. I remember wondering why bad guys would even try to beat up on him when I was a kid, considering his Manny Pacquiao - ish fighting skills that see him through encounters with goons twice bigger than him.

At any rate, he's amazing with a pistol too, and would shoot in that odd arms - crossed technique where he rests the gun on the crook of his elbow for aim (which in my opinion guaranteed blindness or at least deafness on his left ear for at least a day). So anyway, he shoots down a plane via one shot on a floating boat. That's par for the course as far as the books are concerned, and hell yeah if anyone can do it, Tintin can. What bothers me is he says something like 'I only need one (bullet)' before he does so. I find that unbelievable, because if I know Tintin, Tintin would never boast.

Tintin does not pursue a story - At some point after they found the jewels at Marlinspike Hall, Haddock (or Tintin, I'm not sure) says something about Tintin finally getting his story. I can't recall any time in the books where Tintin would actually say something like that. His being a journalist always felt like an excuse for pursuing adventure, and he gave the impression he pursued adventure first, wrote later (if ever). I thought that was odd as well.

Incidentally Marlinspike Hall seemed much smaller in the movie. In the books it was far grander, maybe it'll look that way in the next movie.

Technically Superb - The last thing I notice, frankly, in any movie is the quality of the film per se. I really can't care less whether its in 640, 1080p, HD, 3D or whatever, as long as its clear and gets the story across. But I'd like to credit the movie technically anyway because it was just so damn good. Herge drew Europe in a way that sticks in my mind forever, in bold, plain but brilliant color and detail. If someone says Paris, Tibet, South America or anywhere Tintin has been, I think of Herge's books, and this movie delivered. It was wonderful for the movie to at least get that right, but frankly if they could've done it with less tech involved I'd have been just as happy. The last reason you should be watching a movie is for the special effects. It's like liking a gift because you like the gift wrapper, and not what's inside.

Tintin is tough, brilliant, honest, low - key and simple. This is the reason why I immediately notice things like boasting and sarcasm. Americans, or at least American movies, do not understand low - key and simple. They consider boasting as an act of courage, and want their heroes bombastic and larger than life. Tintin is very European in that he pursues adventure for the joy of it (which is why I found the mentions of him doing what he does for journalism odd).

And finally:

There's one aspect of Tintin sadly lacking in the movie, and this is his complete and absolute loyalty to his friends. If you are Tintin's friend, he would fight for you, go to the ends of the Earth for you, defend you, help you, always be patient with you (he has to be with friends like Haddock, the Thompsons and Prof. Calculus) and never get angry at you (unless you really deserve it, and if he did he would be direct, and not sarcastic).

He would be the only level headed person in a group of people losing their cool. There is nothing complex about him, he is simple, clear and single minded in everything he does.

I realize now these are what I expect to see in a Tintin movie, as this is what I most remember about him. After all the amazing scenery, spectacle and adventure, the one thing you will notice about him is the utter lack of a complex. The lack of a personal history or even a romantic interest helps because it keeps everything simple, but it also puts more focus on his one personal trait - loyalty to what is important (his friends, his dog) and complete love of adventure.

Until I see this translated into a movie, I would never find a Tintin movie worthwhile, no matter how intense the special effects.

7 out of 10.

Drupal's Mollom, the service which checks for spam, is acting up. I've had one report of people having difficulty making comments while Jen at MomEx had some problems trying to post a new blog entry. I know this is a really minor thing to be talking about whilst there are more pressing issues, one supposes, at hand, but it's just the first thing that got in my head as I wrote this new paragraph. I think it's because I switched my eyes for a sec and saw Jen online on Google Chat, which may have helped me come to that thought.

When I write on this blog, I write mostly the first thing that comes to my head. I like doing that, it's therapeutic to say the least.

Ok so now with the 'pressing issues' part.

Today is a happy day as I had managed to cross out a big chunk of my never ending to-do list. This part involves when we get in touch with bloggers we are trying to invite to a network we are setting up for KE. In the proper order, we created the list (checked it twice - couldn't resist saying that), sent an invite, waited for them to say yes, I sent some code, and am now waiting for word they have installed the code. The code allows me to determine things such as hits and pageviews.

It's a big chunk of work crossed out because now I can focus on finding more members, improving the system, and most importantly, talking with the other end of the network, the clients. And they are waiting. Boy, are they ever so.

I'm excited to see this through. In fact it seems sometimes this is mostly what's been taking up my time and thoughts. That's understandable, to a point, but I gotta step back a bit and just breathe a little, the better to keep objectivity. Otherwise I'll OC this away. I have the tendency to do that.

Today I watched I love you Beth Cooper to try and get my mind off things, and also to buy stuff at the mall. I left approximately around 3/4ths of the way because I just couldn't take it anymore. Not that it was that horrible of a movie, except I realized a 3rd of the way through that it made me miss those 80's teen movies I liked so much, like Ferris Beuller, Fast Times or anyone of the John Cusack ones. The movie failed to make sense several times, and eventually it wasn't doing it for me. I caught myself thinking of other things, which I realized made the movie pointless, since the whole idea was to stop thinking per se and just lose myself in the movie. At that point I got up with my groceries (cranberry juice, blueberry jam, a bottle of cherries and a plastic jug - things that help my gout), and went home.

And now to shift to another topic again. Hold on to your hats, as this come from left field.

Mio is a 5 year old kid dealing with a type of leukemia that can still be cured. I learned about him via Frances Sales' post on her blog re her efforts to raise funds for the boy (whom she had yet to meet, I believe), which then led me to Mio's mom's blog.

Reading this blog, believe me, is heartbreaking. With every word you can feel her anguish over the situation, and it really touches you where it hurts. It then occurred to me, how important it is to have writers archiving situations around us, such as her mom bringing attention to their situation and thus, finding a way to alleviate it.

To put in a different perspective, let's say there's a group of people suffering through, say, a war. Put a writer in there to tell the story of what's going on, and you bring to light issues that need to be addressed. Without one to tell the story though, it's quite likely that group's story will never be heard. Even if they live through the ordeal, no one will ever really be able to appreciate what they've gone through. Not until, at least, another writer comes along to document it for them.

Mio's mom is an excellent writer in this regard. She brings to light her and her son's plight, and with every painful word it brings people to action. How many, therefore, are not served as well by not having someone around to document their ordeals? Mio is a lucky kid for having such a loving and particularly talented mother. Whatever may happen from this, I'm sure some good will come out of her efforts. If you wanna help, she's listed down ways here.

and now the 'keep reading'..

.. followed by my review, which goes like this:

It sucks.

Well, some of it anyway. Elizabeth Banks is her usual gorgeous self, but Seth Rogen is given waaaaay too much lines. He's talking up a mile a minute it seems at every scene. In fact, he's probably talking 90% of this movie, and it gets ingratiating after a while.

There's a funny cameo by a very gay Justin Long, and the black guy has his moments, but most of the fun attempts fall flat. It actually became a strain for me to watch it after a 3rd of the way, and I stopped midstream and went to work. Now that NEVER happens to me, so this is a big deal.

Anyway, this post really is an excuse to talk about the excellent soundtrack and post videos about them, so here's a second one from Jesus and Mary Chain.

Oh and as if the fact that I never stop movies midstream (no matter how bad it is) isn't a big deal enough, another sign this movie didn't rock my boat is the fact it has both Katie Morgan and Traci Lords in it, and I still didn't like it.

Great songs though. Really beautiful stuff. Downloading them as I speak.

I came about it when I checked out Rotten Tomatoes for some reason or other, and happened onto a Bill Murray movies compilation, which of course I checked out and, having realized I had watched most of them, focused on those I hadn't.

This is the part I describe Broken Flowers but it's not gonna be easy. It's the story of an aging Don Juan, Murray's character cheekily named Don Johnston, who lives a fairly empty life after having done well for himself and gone through several, obviously failed, relationships.

Johnston never shows any frustration, regret or for that matter, joy in the way things have turned out for him though. Rather, he lives everyday pretty much the same, falling asleep in front of his fancy TV and stereo in his upper middle class home alone.

His one saving grace could be his best (and only) friend and neighbor Winston (Jeffrey Wright), who is his exact opposite. With 5 kids and 3 jobs to support them, he is a jolly person full of life. He is instrumental in the plot, where upon Johnston's receipt of an anonmyous, mysterious pink letter from a former flame claiming she has a son by him, Winston forms an elaborate plan to find out who she is which involves visiting each one of his exes scattered throughout the States, as if from out of the blue, pink flowers in hand.

It's a testament to Murray as to how he manages to play the aging lothario, a person so untouched and unaffected by anything he convinces the audience that sure, he'd go and do it even if he complains he'd rather not all the way. It's not like he has better things to do, but he doesn't want to anyway, although when he finally does he does so with just as much disinterested effort, inspite of the fact that you know doing such a thing - traveling all over the States and showing up at ex girlfriends' houses after 20 years - must take a lot of work.

This is one of the reasons it's hard to write about Broken Flowers. Murray's character doesn't make sense in the traditional movie - making style, but is identifiable regardless. I'd venture to say that Don Johnston, if not the movie as well, is interpretable differently depending on who and what the viewer's opinion can be at any given point. It never hands you explanations as to why this is so and that is that. It carries out the story leaving you with question marks in your head, but inspite that you are satisfied that what is unravelling before is no doubt, real.

The only way to interpret this movie is by asking yourself what it means to you. And so for me, Broken Flowers struck me as not a movie, but as a reflection of life itself. Many times I'd realize some scenes were striking not because of some cinematic brilliance, but because I recognized it as a feeling or emotion I may have gone through, understood or pondered at at some point.

It may be an awkward silence amongst people around a table, or the feeling of vastness or loneliness whilst staring at a traffic light at a busy intersection. It can be the radiating heat you feel from a person you find difficult to be with, or the hilarity of a couple of girls yakking away at a bus. Obviously it's not entirely all fun and laughter, but its a terrifically fulfilling feeling to feel that emotion nonetheless. Broken Flowers is a very real, emotionally strong movie, with its long quiet pauses and Murray's terrific, understated acting.

I'm starting to learn more about the terrific Jim Jarusch, it's director. This is a special kind of movie that demands the highest levels of work from its actors, and so while the star studded cast might be distracting because of the big names, I'm glad actors such as Julie Delpy, Sharon Stone, Jessica Lange and the great Tilda Swinton signed up because only they can pull something like this off.

Off the top of my head (I'm sure I'm missing out on more), I count Adaptation, Once, The Darjeeling Limited, another Murray starrer Lost in Translation and The Royal Tenenbaums as terrific slow paced, understated movies.

The first time I encountered this theme was with those Kurosawa classics I love so much, specifically in this case 'The Tunnel', one of the scenes in 'Dreams' which starts out slow but pretty much bursts in an emotional coming - to - terms in the end, much like those other films.

Movies like these make me feel very lucky to have found them and Broken Flowers makes me doubly so.

Thus, I still remember happily the few magical musicals I chanced upon at a young age, such as Oklahoma, South Pacific, the King and I and other Rogers and Hammerstein classics. Then there's Oliver Twist (which had me saying 'Please Sir, may I have some more?' over and over again), Annie and My Fair Lady. Until today, when I type on a keyboard to test it, I usually write 'The Rain In Spain stays mainly in the plain', rather than the standard 'The quick red fox...'.

But (I'm almost apologetic to admit due to their near boilerplate commonness) the ones I particularly remember best are The Sound Of Music, whose 2 songs 'I Have Confidence' and 'Climb Ev'ry Mountain' I used to sing to myself (if I could remember the lyrics) whenever I took on a job interview; the less common Fiddler on the Roof, whom I admired for its ability to present a political view whilst providing pure musical enjoyment, and finally, Grease, for taking you to a certain place and time, in this case the late 50's America, with its terrific songs, performances and costumes that added a hundred more colors to the standard boy meets girl.

And due to the fact it had almost the same location and time of Grease, I approached Hairspray, justifiably or not, with that as my barometer. I love Grease, I loved John Travolta's oozing, greasy masculinity and Olivia Newton John's openness and virginal innocence, I loved the song 'Greased Lightnin'' and hated it when they cut that song out from the TV version of the movie, and I have been waiting for a long long time to watch something of anywhere near the calibre of those three. It was therefore with great anticipation that I waited on the promises made by Hairspray.

And my conclusion?

After Hairspray, I'm more convinced now than ever that those movies were truly, wonderfully great in every sense of the word. Not only are they great, they are also unique, and sadly, rare. Rare because if Hairspray were to be this decade's best attempt at a musical, then we're to be sadly disappointed forever.

Not that it's terrible. By no means will I say it is. I think Nikki Blonsky is one of those rare finds that just happen to fit the role to a T. She is the right fit for the role and can sing and dance a storm. There is also Elijah Kelly, as 'Seaweed', bringing a terrific performance in what should've been a mere supplementary role, and Amanda Bynes, who is beautiful and talented enough to get her own lead roles.

But sadly, that's it. I know John Travolta was supposed to have been terrific, but I couldn't shake the idea off my head that that was John Travolta in a fat lady suit, so that performance went to shot. Christopher Walken was stretched more and therefore far more entertaining in Fatboy Slim's 'Weapon of Choice', and Michelle Pfeiffer is and will always be delicious, but her performance singing 'Making Whoopee' in The Fabulous Baker Boys remains the gold standard in singing seduction performances, and her work here falls way short of that.

The thing I missed most of all was the absolute drop dead pound you to the ground singing up a tornado performances de rigeur in any great musical. Julie Andrews's 'Climb Every Mountain' can make you want to migrate to Austria, while Olivia Newton-John's 'Hopelessly Devoted To You' can make you want to marry John Travolta right then and there. Heck, even Jodi Benson incredibe singing in "Little Mermaid" makes you want to be 'Part of your world'. I'm near convinced that this, rather than a lack of good songs or production numbers, was the glaringly missing factor from Hairspray. Other than that you will catch yourself tapping your feet to the upbeat songs and singing along with the quirky and danceable tunes.

But sadly, you'll not commiserate too well with the Civil Rights theme, nor hate enough the bad girl played by Brittany Snow either. Both her and Queen Latifah's performances were way too weak, thin and simply too unaffected for you to care what's going on with them. Of course, if they were able to sing and dance up a storm like they should, this is a musical mind you, and therefore the proper venue for such, then that situation may have changed. Sadly, they did not, so you're left with just tapping your feet to the tunes.

So Cabaret it ain't, albeit its still a rocking good time. Watch Hairspray if you want to see what the modern day's idea of a musical is, after which, if you really want a good time, go and get Cats to understand what the word musical should really be about.

Second, you can talk about the food, and the fact that this is probably the best food movie I've ever watched in a long long time, and how the scene where the lead bad person Anton Ego (Peter O'Toole) is brought back to his youth after he eats some of Remy's Ratatouille (which apparently is a peasant dish. I wouldn't know since I wouldn't even know where to find some), is somewhat similar to how I feel whenever I have some Sinigang sa Miso - a simple sour fish broth which is probably equally humble yet I'd elect to have as my very last dish on Earth if I were to be a prisoner on death row.

Third is, as I've mentioned above, Disney - Pixar's absolutely superb movie making magic, and the fact that they have in the last few years produced some of the most fantastic movies in the likes of Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Toy Story and A Bug's Life - all understated, fully animated features that to me, represent hope for great movie making in the classic style. Here is a movie company that understands the use of full animation as a tool rather than an end in itself, a Hollywood movie company apparently staffed by artists who know that just making something colorful and loud and hiring big stars to voice them does not necessarily a great movie make - no matter how much money it ends up making anyway.

And those are just some of the things I think about when thinking about Ratatouille. All interesting for sure, but unfortunately, a sign that I do not really know what to make of it.

What this movie says to me at the end of it all is a jumbled mess. It was obvious at the start it was going to be about Remy's proving himself to his father and eventually finding himself, and although that found some closure at the end there was also the story about Linguini (the human character Remy 'controls'), Linguini's romance with fellow chef Colette, and even something about Chef Gusteau's restaurant and staff finding a way to survive and remain loyal to it's owner's vision inspite of Chef Skinner's cheapening of its products.

Pardon the analogy, but in the end the movie felt like it just had too many chefs. That somehow, along the way in telling the original story, the movie went astray in trying to develop its other subplots, namely Linguini's life and career, the other characters whose stories the movie felt it needed to discuss as well, plus the glorious food as well as the food, spirit and soul of beautiful Paris.

Which is a pity, because I suspect that if the movie's story does not hold the viewer's interest very long, they are going to realize they are watching a rat - and thus when that happens, Pixar's biggest gamble with this movie is lost.

Because no matter how you measure it, rats are disgusting creatures, and the animation of a whole colony moving in collaboration in a kitchen of all places - hands washed or not - makes me cringe. Rats and food just don't mix, and no amount of images of beautiful Paris can quite repair that.

I would rate Ratatouille a far 4 or 5 stars to The Incredible's, Toy Story's, and the rest's 10 stars. Peter O'Toole's Anton Ego is a chillingly effective villain to Linguini, and he promptly steals the show whenever his character appears on screen. Janeane Garofalo's Chef Collette is interesting and lovable, but unfortunately Lou Romano's Linguini is limp and rather spiritless, which I think is because his character was just not written well. It's unclear what his story is, where he wants to go and what happened to him in the end which makes him unfortunately ineffective, and all those Mr. Bean like performances when he's being controlled by Remy don't really help much.

Then there are all the supplementary characters, like Remy's Dad, his brother, the other chefs, Chef Gusteau, etc. etc. etc. Overall there are just too many of them, all bringing stories along with them that had to be presented in a plausible and effective manner in 1.5 hours.

Still, this movie has style, grace and an admirable, if lofty goal of telling a story amidst great food and Paris - two themes that I wish we had more movies made out of. Disgusting rats aside, I'm sure it would've done better if it didn't have that many chefs I suspect it did.

At any rate, the drama here is the actual getting there and 'delivering the payload', which we hear very often throughout the film. Cillian Murphy, the guy I suspect who's gonna play the Joker in the next Batman series, plays a Physicist who has to decide if they should check out whatever happened to the first attempt 8 years before them, a similar ship named Icarus (theirs is Icarus II), whom they happen to discover mysteriously floating around in space - completely functional - along the way. These being the practical scientists that they are, they decide that two chances at exploding a bomb into the sun are better than one, and proceed to variate their mission into fetching it. But of course it turns out, as it often does, the mystery ship isn't as innocent as they think, and it proceeds thereon to make their path that much harder as they go along their way.

Now I'll be honest with you when I say I don't think I did a very good job at hiding the spoiler in the paragraph before this. In fact, I may as well have given up the story altogether, even if I didn't say exactly what they found in that other ship. Surely you will not need a College degree to discern the fact that something dastardly is lurking in there, hence providing the 'Thriller' part in the 'Adventure, Sci Fi, Thriller' description of this film.

And so with that, and rather unfortunately, 'predictable' can be used to describe this. Predictable like how when we were kids we would make bets as to which characters would die in a Friday the 13th movie, just after the first act when everyone gets introduced. Old habits die hard, and I think I got 2 out of 5 wrong, but the fact that some films make you feel like you're just sitting there waiting for them to get slaughtered can get you pretty angsty in your seat, and might make you want to check your cellphone for text messages or talk to your companion far more often than you should.

Fortunately however, this movie keeps you glued, obviously not at the fantastic plot, but at the visual imagery, and distinct style it carries throughout. I'm not really sure why, but sci - fi thrillers such as the venerable Alien, Aliens, and uhmm, Alien Resurrection, need to maintain a unique 'look and feel', perhaps owing to the fact that since they're all set in space and in the future, the set designers pretty much are allowed to go all out with their imagination.

And the set, props, production design, are what makes this movie stand out. It is, in fact, rather spectacular. Every little tiny detail is a well thought out artist's rendition jumping out at you. Artists whom, I'm sure, had experience on comic books and other arenas as well. Computer rooms look like hi - tech renditions of computer rooms. Command centers look like command centers, an 'Earth room', where the crew goes to from time to time to experience a 3d virtual 'Earth' should they occasionally need it for therapeutic reasons, looks exactly how we would imagine it to be.

In conclusion, Sunshine is a movie that'll make your $3,000.00 flat screen TV and audio setup worth the money. You're gonna feel that every pixel is getting to you in complete 1080 High definition. But as a compelling story? It scores only a few points. Murphy is a terrific actor, the idea of a 'last stand we won't go away quietly' human race crying out for it's survival gets to you ocassionally, and the cast, notably Michelle Yeoh, Chris Evans and Hiroyuki Sanada, are worth remembering.

For a really rolicking scary time in space, I'll still go for the 1997 Event Horizon, of which this movie shares a great deal with in terms of plot. The jaw dropping visual imagery will guarantee this a place beside such classics as 1989's The Abyss, 1998's Sphere, and even two anime personal favorites, the 1998 Akira and the 1995 Ghost in the Shell.

Otherwise however, it's thin story and somewhat laughable bad guy weigh it down.

Let me explain why I think that's what did this movie in. See, movies, or all story telling for hat matter, has to have a main plot. The chief character struggling to maintain his relationship. Or having to face a formidable enemy. Or needing to keep his job and sanity together whilst hurdle on top of hurdle are forced his way.

In retrospect, that's what Spiderman I and II were pretty good at. Classic, simple and effective story - telling. A simple, ordinary guy with not a care in the world is thrown into a situation where he needs to deal - and in the process, develop maturity and strength of character in a hurry. THAT is what the drama is about Spiderman (as opposed to out - for - revenge Batman or born - to - be - a - hero Superman). EVERYTHING ELSE, as I've said so many times before in other reviews, is secondary to the chief protagonist's struggles. The subplots, the pretty girl, the effects (MOST ESPECIALLY the effects), and all others are all secondary to the main story.

But the problem is, which plot was the main one? To be honest, until now, many days after I caught the first showing not only can I not discern which is the main story, but neither can I recall the details as well, obviously because there was far too much it wants you to remember.

Why? We, the audience, can only take so much. It's like being in a room where everyone is talking at the same time. All of the stories may, or may not, be compelling, but we still need to deal with it all piecemeal.

And so knowing thus, I entered into the movie at 12:30PM, I noted the time on my watch, 1:34PM, and wondered where the symbiote was actually gonna show up. Sure it had manifested itself many times before, but it had yet to make an impact. The mere fact that I actually take pains to check the time, to my mind is indicative of a failure of the plot(s) somewhere, and the whole thing lumbered through until the final ending.

Which is sad, really. I mean, I like thousands around the world grew up with Spiderman. I loved the guy and his light - hearted 'I don't take this all too seriously' approach to crimefighting. Here was a super hero who didn't have to prove himself, who didn't have a chip on his shoulder, who hadn't a care in the world other than his Dear Aunt May and Mary Jane, but was just as powerful and just as strong as all the rest. Those more than anything were the reasons behind Spidey's success, and which triumphantly carried it through Spidey I and II.

Spiderman, both the comics and the movies are, to me, the equivalent of a commercial taking the humorous route rather than the serious or sexy route in delivering it's message. Ok I know that's a stretch here, but let me explain (I can hear the groans from here). See, let's pretend you wanna make a public service commercial about something important, like say, the environment. Of all the methods available, I always prefer the humorous. Why? Because the topic is serious enough, and will always be taken seriously anyway. Taking the sexy route (using a half naked girl for example) is too easy and hard - sell, while taking the serious route makes it doubly serious and near unpalatable. The funny route, therefore, is best. Maybe crack a joke, show something cute, whatever. Borat and hundreds of comedians will understand. Being funny gets people's attention and delivers your message effectively, without having to shove it down their throats.

Spiderman was like that. Peter Parker was like that. Cracking jokes while battling criminals. Fast one liners. Quick repartees. All the while dealing - and winning - against the bad guys and driving home the obvious - that crime does not pay, and that if you try anyway, Spiderman will get you.

Of all the plots in this confusing version III, I think the one that probably should've been the main was the Sandman plot. The Sandman (William Baker) had always been an interesting story, having the same qualities of most of Spiderman's other enemies of being torn between good and evil due to the circumstances they were in, as opposed to just plain old I wanna get rich baddies, a trait shared by Doc Oc and the Green Goblin, which contributed to their success.

In fact, Parker's decision to forgive him at the end is the only time I actually started paying attention to the movie again. Finally, a story! - or so I thought, until afterwards when he had to tend to the other stories, about the symbiote and the Goblin, and of course his relationship with Mary Jane - and maybe whatever else plot that was going on, I lost count.

So yes I'm quite disappointed with this one. It almost feels as if too many people with too many ideas had decided to get involved in it, the result becoming a mess of compromises to give each one their way. Although I don't think this will end the Spiderman saga (unlike Daredevil or the Catwoman which are effectively dead), Spidey like Batman will continue to live on and I will always watch and anticipate each one. Except that this one will have a virtual asterisk or marker beside it's name, marking it to be the least enjoyable one.

So when I watched Wild Hogs, and saw him looking like he's actually having some fun, I realized I was having fun too. Not because it's got a terrific plot or that it's amazingly funny or that it changes the world of comedy or any of that. Rather, the movie shows a guy that I can't figure out having fun. In the process, I am watching a movie of his where I don't have to figure him out, so I just end up having fun. Does that make sense?

At any rate, this movie isn't just him of course, although I wouldn't be surprised if he's the 'biggest' star aka gets the biggest paycheck. There's also Martin Lawrence acting like Martin Lawrence and unfortunately becoming the 'token black dude' (when are they ever going to show a buddy movie with two or more black guys?), there's Tim Allen being Tim Allen (and somewhat the weakest presence of the four, eventually disappearing into the background), and there's the best actor of the four in my idol William H. Macy, whose performance, for the life of me, in Fargo, or even something as silly as Mystery Men, for that matter, I still cannot get over.

All in all four personalities with enough stories around them to easily fill up 100 minutes of joking around, with a great deal of help from a screaming, somewhat shrill Ray Liotta, and an amazing, beautiful temptress to end all beautiful temptresses, Marisa Tomei, who seems to enjoy being in the background in spite of the fact I'm sure her star is big enough to pull her own weight as a lead character in almost any role.

And joking around is what we get here, and lots of it. From bird - flying into your face jokes, to bad bike - riding jokes, barroom jokes, former hot stuff now old balding guy jokes, urban weekend warrior jokes, henpecked husband jokes, and all sorts of fun and happiness, which is terrific since this is what the movie advertises you will get, what you are looking for when you get in the theatre, and exactly why you came to see it in the first place. No big deep story, no sad attempts at a menacing bad guy like Face Off, no deep insightful looks into one's soul, no big question marks at the end that get in the way of all the fun.

Well, except maybe for two things. I'm a Linux geek, so looking at Macy's character's tattoo, you have to wonder - if you're really a geek, there'd be a pengiun there rather than an apple.

And finally, Marisa Tomei. Wait, let me change my statement. There is a big mystery here, and that is Marisa Tomei. Why we are not seeing more of this amazing beauty escapes me. She is old school and new school put all together. She is hotness personified. She is.. and until we can see more of her, the added attraction to this already fun movie.

To me, the bad guy is always the juiciest part in every film. If I were an actor wishing to prove my mettle, the surest path to this, granted I'd have the talent of course, is to avoid the hero part, which by being so automatically limits one to stereotype. Rather, one should go for the villain part, where you are allowed far more freedom and depth as you portray, explain, and define why this person has become such as he goes about his bad guy ways.

Whilst you may argue that this can be done for the hero as well, the villain, as we all know in real life villains, frequently does not come from cookie cutters like heroes do. There are many and varied ways to screw up a person and make him rotten. All colorful, usually deeply tragic, all providing excellent fodder for a qualified actor to chew on.

And here, Lopez has his breakfast, lunch and dinner, all on us. From the moment the camera first pans his lens on him as he impatiently checks his watch, annoyed at the lateness of Ofelia and Carmen (Ivana Baquero and Ariadna Gil respectively), you immediately despise him, and are assured by his very presence from then on, that the lead characters are in for a world of hurt.

All the characters are made to look over their shoulders because of him, the audience shrieks in anticipation at any possibility the protagonists get caught, and as a result, the rebels in the film may as well be wearing shining armors, as they alone promise respite from his enduring, suffocating grasp.

At this point, I realize I have been going on just about the villain, and reviewing this movie will be wanting if I neglect to discuss the other parts of this thought provoking film.

But then, what can I say about them? Ofelia's three tasks to reclaim her throne whilst engrossing is essentially a subplot, albeit vast and grand, to the main topic of escaping and / or defeating Capitan Vidal. The effects are tremendous, and can teach a thing or two to Disney and all those Hollywood films that tend to focus on effects for the sake of effects as opposed to effective ingredients to story - telling and none more than that.

Pan is an amazing character straight out of a dream, but for most of the movie I am wondering if it is a bad or a good dream. Were Pan's tasks a means to an end for evil or for good? At the end, we are of course, relieved to see that it was all for the positive, but never in the whole process did we have a clue that all of those things Ofelia were doing were either righteous, or she was being misled.

This leads to confusion, which essentially makes you want to go back to the more 'real' parts of the movie, the Spanish Army against the rebels in the mountains. I caught myself almost saying 'ok this is all very nice, but it doesn't make sense, and it's almost 1am (we caught the last showing at the theatres), so let's get back to what happens in real life.'

This is disappointing, because there is real magic in those underworld scenes. The set, set design, costumes and imagery are top notch, and there is no doubt about their winning Oscars for Art Direction, Cinematography and Make Up. The monster Ofelia needs to deal with on her second act is a thing straight from hell, the worst imagery you can imagine complete with images on the wall of it eating babies (as if souvenir images from a vacation). It's all straight out of a dream, as if the designer woke up from a nightmare and painted what he remembers directly to canvass.

But in the end, images of Lopez' Capitan Vidal leave the longest imprint. From where he tricks Mercedes (Maribel Verdu, which I remember from 'Y Tu Mama Tambien') into admitting she has an extra key to their storage room, to how he shouts into the forest at his hiding enemies, bristling with pride and boast and daring them to a fight, and the lost look on his face when he realizes that his son will never know of his deeds nor even his name, he acts out the quintessential villain - the man it is so easy to hate and fear, a man whose twisted beliefs are so ingrained in him he has turned into a monster worse than that of Ophelia's, and hence you catch yourself pining for his, and his Fascist beliefs - demise.

Pan's Labyrinth is amazing, magical, eerie and violent. Somewhat convoluted at the end but if you think about it, so are dreams, and this movie is an excellent rendition of one.

That's pretty much it. A boring, staid and predictable life.

Which can also be said for for how this movie could have turned out. First of all all those first scenes where she starts talking to her drawings could have been interpreted as her going cuckoo. I'm not sure if the director meant that, but there it is. I thought, at the start of the movie, that we were going to deal with a woman who was slightly nuts, and I was worried I'd have to sit through an hour and a half of that.

I'm glad it didn't.

Then, there is the all too typical story of a woman in the 1800s having to deal with society's strict and decidedly silly norms of the time, and her 'spirit rising through it', as covered quite expansively in Little Women, Pride and Prejudice, and any number of period British films with British actors in petticoats and long tail coats. Of course I've read them. Of course I found them alright. But no, of course not, i didn't wanna go through one again. And the fact that Renee Zellweger, an American whom, one might think at the start, might be biting off more than she could chew as she eschews yet another role as a single British woman, is playing the title role, makes the prospect of having to go through another thoroughly unpalatable.

Again, I'm glad it didn't as well.

Rather, what we have here is Zellweger and Ewan McGregor, serving up something terrific. Ms. Potter is a story of a woman struggling in the 1800s and all that, but so much more. It is a story about an author and illustrator trying to get her art acknowledged and published, it is a story about a great weak in the knees, page - turning romance novel worthy love, and finally, an impressive person who rises from tragedy and dashed hopes as she maintains her sanity via her art, consequently using it for the better of both herself and, as it turns out, her community.

Oh how easy it would've been for the story to have fallen by the wayside. The subplot of her mother's grandiose plans of marrying her daughter into a title is the stuff of Mexican tele novelas guaranteeing instant distribution to HBO within a week of release. But only a subplot it all turned out to be thank God, and by the last quarter of the movie her parents were thankfully packed away to the nether parts of the film where secondary characters live, never to be heard from again.

The romance between her and McGregor's character is true goose bumps material, and I can't remember any particular film in recent memory where the romantic lead actor and actresses have ever hit it off so well. McGregor and Zellweger showed sparks in the delightful "Down With Love", but who would've thought they could bring so much much more. This time full - on fireworks explode at their presence, which I'm actually glad to see given how Obi-Wan has disappointed me so much since Trainspotting, but that's another story.

With courage I think, this movie focuses on what is really important about Ms. Potter - her lifelong love and pursuit of her art, the publication and raging success of which confirms not only her talent, but acknowledges her person and the beliefs she holds dear. The message the story delivers is clear as day. Because you pursue what you really believe in with no compromise, success awaits you at the end. How wonderful it would be if all such stories could end in success, and movies like this actually stops you from being jaded for a second - making you think that maybe it could be you making all those drawings, telling all those stories, pursuing all those dreams.

I won't be surprised to see Zellweger nominated or actually receiving something special for her role in this one. So easily it could've gone wrong, but subtly - and successfully - she managed to get it right. I am inspired by Ms. Beatrix Potter and her headstrong ways. From this movie I learned that such a person like her existed. I was entertained, I got goose bumps at the right parts and I laughed and felt depressed when I was supposed to as well. All in all I came out the movie knowing I had a good time plus with a slight feeling that maybe, possibly, I maybe the smarter for it too.

I like Ms. Potter and, as a consequence, I like this movie very much.

Herewith then, is a reminder of that statement and the acting out of it's meaning, served up by Stephen Rears, Michael Sheen as Tony Blair and Dame Helen Mirren as the Queen, in a performance that garnered her an Oscar Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role for 2007. An amazing feat and one of many reasons to view this film, and inasmuch as her understated work is a true sight to behold for me, just another reason to view it still.

To explain, let me say that the reasons to watch are quite many. Princess Diana fans will love the recounting of the events towards and the week after her death, which this movie spends 2/3rds of its time on. Fans of the Royals and Anglophiles, of which there are many, will love the pomp and protocol always necessary in any story telling where there is the Queen involved, the hurried rush and lowering of heads of the masses in her presence, and everyone will get an interesting glance at how the dynamics of the Prime Minister's office and Buckingham Palace work as well.

Then there is the human story - about a tragic death and the mourning of hundreds of thousands, including myself at the time, whom upon learning of her death felt an appreciable, albeit somewhat confusing sadness, given I was still a kid with hardly any idea of her impact in life and situated at the opposite end of the globe as it were. There's the documented response and activity by all persons involved, including that of estranged husband Prince Charles, whose resulting one - dimensional bad guy role during all this has damaged him in the eyes of many, and even the silent Prince Philip, the Queen's husband, and Queen Elizabeth, her mother, whom this movie I think has not entirely been kind towards.

The principal storyline I wanted to focus on however, is that of the behaviour of leaders, their principles and values that form their decision making during trying times, such as that the Queen earlier exhibited before her change of heart. While initially quite shocking, this movie brings forward the reason behind the Royal's presumed distance and heartlessness over such a world - affecting affair as Diana's death.

For inasmuch as the world thought of them as insensitive brutes, 'The Establishment', as the Brits refer to them in mockery, preferred to mourn in quiet dignity and - the idea quite shocking to any entity in a public eye - in private. The mere idea of which is thoroughly beyond the grasp of anyone in these modern times. Our modern society will have none of this 'quiet, private affairs dealt within the family' business. What we want is a show. We want the Royal Family in complete attendance in full pomp and pageantry with horses and grand carraiges and the view of the Buckingham Palace in full splendor at the background. The concept of a family grieving in private within the walls of its own abode is alien to us. Especially monarchs.

Mirren handled the representation of the Queen in a manner, I think, that is only capably done by the British who are masters of the art of subtlety. Her performance during the scene where she was stuck at a river, and the sudden appearance of the stag, whose analogy to Diana is simple, compelling and again, subtle, is amazing and truly the stuff worth of Best Actress performances.

Again, a terrific performance but one, I believe, seconded only by the story of people - and of their leader the Queen - growing up with old - school values forged in steel and having to deal with what the modern world requires. I honestly approached this movie wrong, thinking it would serve merely as proof to condemn them as I thought - and as the press represents them to be - cold hearted, unimpassioned misplaced beings still living in a world far gone without place in the here and now.

But in the end, the movie shows the Queen as a pillar of dignity, poise, courage and self - discipline, traits that, at the end of the day, we sorely need more of rather than the garish pomp and ridiculous idiocy our press - savvy insufferable fools for leaders readily provide us with.

You can imagine that this is a true inspirational, dramatic sobfest, and it is. It leaves no doubt that Chris Gardner, who made his money via the stock market, is a man made of true stern stuff. His determination and single - minded purpose is incredible, regardless of how he is interpreted by Will Smith. And I say that because Will Smith is a truly impressive character just as well, but I'll get to that a little later on.

See, to me, for every story telling of the life of a living person, especially of an impressive character such as Gardner's, you've got to assume at least either a little - to heapfuls of servings of editing. Editing in terms of some parts he doesn't want to say get cut out, and some parts he wants to highlight get, well, highlighted. It's but natural. I'd do that, if someone were to write a movie about me.

Which is not to say that I don't think Gardner is a truly impressive man. The mere mention of where he came from to where he ended up already establishes this isn't your ordinary Joe. But to me, assuming he is the kind of man I think he is (and the movie supports this), and that he wouldn't let such a project exist without his hand in describing his story, I assume, (and I'm probably correct), he went through the details of this movie with a fine tooth comb, and the result is this - an impressive story still, but one told through his eyes and his mouth.

Take for example, the kid - glove treatment the movie takes on Chris's former workmates and bosses at Dean Witter Reynolds, the first broker firm he joined. For the first time ever, here is a movie with a black main protagonist with rich white superiors who isn't being discriminated in any way, nor is he railing, going on about it or even joking about it (this is Will Smith by the way) as well. This is a first in modern American cinematic history, in my opinion. To be honest, I actually found it rather refreshing. Oh stop it if you think I've any opinion about that matter whatsoever. As an outsider looking in at America via it's movies, television and music, I've more or less an idea what's going on there, or at least what those three mediums allow me to see. But in this case, his bosses were absolute angels. Not, mind you, that I don't believe such gracious people exist. I have had experiences with benevolent superiors in my life as well. But in this movie, they are honest, good people who gave him a chance because he deserved it. A black man. A chance, in a mostly white firm in the 80s. There are lots of directors who can make whole movies out of just that.

So is it completely factual? Hell how would I - or anyone - know, and to what degree? So you'll have to disregard that issue - which isn't something I or anyone can do about anyway. And as such, the only thing you're left to judge is the story, and the actor's performances. Just push it all aside, and watch it.

And after doing so, I am left with the impression that it is a great story of an impressive man, and he is played by a terrific actor and his son. And what an actor and son. Of course I couldn't help thinking at some point, damn that's the Fresh Prince, and his cute looks - like - Jada son. But only for a brief moment, after which Smith just takes you on a journey, takes you to the aforementioned Oakland subway bathroom, the cheap motel and the decrepit apartment before that. The toughness of the neighborhoods. The weakness of his first wife. The worry that his kid might not be getting a proper education at his cheap day care. The absolute hard facts of having only a few dollars in your pocket, and nowhere to stay for the night, and a small mouth to feed other than your own.

There is no doubt to my mind that Smith is the reason for this movie's success. That's right, the Fresh Prince, holding his own. He can make us laugh and dance and now cry. And I left the theatre thinking just that. So if I was a producers of the movie - I'd be happy with the fact this is a compelling story played by a fine fine actor. I'd be happy with that.

Yet as I left the theatre, why was I not raving about it as all those other men and women? For sure, it kept me quite enraptured throughout. It is a visual feast like no other I've seen in a very long time. I can only think, maybe, of The Curse of the Golden Flower or any of it's other Asian cousins such as The House of The Flying Daggers to compare to the grand imagery of thousands upon thousands of warriors in battle, but even these pale in comparison to how grand this one turned out.

Images of Spartans, properly and as near identical to the original comic book series (I am assured), make this movie a guaranteed classic. An astounding visual array of fantastic special effects, award - winning CGI and a tremendous effort throughout.

Not to mention the brilliant casting of Gerald Butler as the tough, virtuous King Leonidas, who singlehandedly imo, brings to this movie an aspect the effects cannot. And that is acting out an interesting, well - formed character in the King - made a wholly believable person entirely due to him.

Even better is Rodrigo Santoro as the threatening, overwhelming Xerxes, whose "I am kind." monologue somewhere in the 3rd act is a thunderstorm of a performance. Almost like a dance, near trance like he convinces Ephialtes, the disillusioned, disfigured Spartan to change sides, leading Leonidas and crew to their death. So compelling is that scene I wished I could rewind it at the movie theatre to see it over again.

So what's wrong with it? Well I'll tell you, but you might probably not like it, and I'll be the first to admit its borderline nitpicking.

See, I don't think Leonidas is all that smart, and therefore found him wanting as a leader. In fact, I found all of the muscle brained Spartans - all 300 of them, the ab - fest hulking, hunking, lot of them - rather daft in their decisions, and therefore lacking the one aspect I felt all great warriors possess - the concept of intelligence in battle, of a preference for using your head first before your brawn, which ultimately wins them every fight.

Why do I ask them of these? Because they are supposedly Spartans - at one time, the best soldiers on Earth. Born and bred from their first breath to become world - class warriors of the very highest level. Men whom would find a way to beat and kill you, if you'd be unlucky enough to find yourself in battle with them.

It is with this premise therefore, that I found myself asking: "Why did he spurn Ephialtes so badly, when anyone can see he knew of paths around the mountains, and as such represented an asset to the enemy if he turns?" Many times in the film, he speaks of the 'Free' Greek, of men living out their lives in freedom. "Why then do they continue in such barbaric acts as choosing only perfect babies to live, and of sending out 7 year olds to fend for themselves?". And finally, most especially: "Why in heck did Leonidas challenge Xerxes if there was even the remotest of chances that he'd not be able to bring his whole army against him?"

That whole brouhaha in the first scene where he skewers the black guy because he 'insulted his wife?' was thoroughly unbecoming of a soldier and a leader, in my opinion - something that someone as brash and arrogant as our President Gloria is more likely to do. And completely unnecessary in the light of the fact that by that mere act, it plunges your country into a war.

Of course I don't really expect an answer to these questions. I'm not that stupid guy in every group discussing movies who insists on maintaining consistency (or at least I try not to be). I'm more than willing to just shove it, and enjoy it for the visual feast that it is.

And yet, I can't help feeling these details were the ones keeping the movie from becoming great. Take for example, the Bible of all man movies - the Godfather, in which Michael Corleone feigned weakness while his assassins annihilate the heads of the five families (ok ok I know it's a strech. Bear with me).

In one great cinematic sequence, Michael stands as Godfather to Michael Rizzi's baptism, as one by one his enemies fall, effectively making him a Godfather in more ways than one. That is a scene for the ages - of a man, a head of a family and a leader, rising to much more than what he is. A cunning, intelligent man who thinks before he leaps. Who can fight muscle for muscle should he choose, but instead uses his brain, and consequently, rises to the top.

And so as Leonidas and his 300 pound gorillas beat their chests, raise their spears, flex their muscles and scream their love for Sparta, I was sitting there thinking, "They shouldn't even have to be there. They should be with a stronger, bigger army, ready to fight, because Leonidas knew that when he challenges Xerxes, he'd be ready. His 300 elite soldiers would be ready. His ARMY would be ready. And all that drama, sacrifice and death would be unnecessary. The son of the Captain who looks like Keanu Reeves? He'd be alive. The one or two Sparta who die at the first battle? Alive. King Leonidas himself? With that fancy, exciting spear throw in slow motion that fell just inches off Xerxes face? ALIVE. All because all he had to do was make sure his army would be ready, before he foolishly killed those Persian messengers. All he had to do was think".

And so therefore, 300 is a great, fantastic visual feast. Butler and Santoro? Tops. Fantastic performances all around. But a legend? As I'm sure it aspires to be, inasmuch as it speaks of true legends themselves? Nah. It's a cool movie to watch, but it stops short.

Imagine my surprise then, when instead of the rather comical, space age type story I was expecting, I instead got a very intense, very serious story about a secret agent whom, while passionate about his work, was conflicted between it and the mutual attraction developing between him and British Treasury official Vesper Lynd. Deciding to pursue a quiet life with Lynd, a twist evolves when Lynd admits she is a double agent and commits suicide in order to spare him, leaving a note assuring him of her love. Bond is hurt and humiliated, but reveals later still his genuine feelings for her.

I was astonished at the difference, nay, contrariness of the movie and that precious book. Needless to say, I was also hooked. From sunup to sundown I couldn't get enough of the suave, sophisticated but deeply hurting James Bond, whom with singleness of purpose pursued his enemies, while at the same time maintaining the cosmopolitan manner of a man of leisure. A nonchalant demeanor, wrapped in tailored suits and elegant fittings, belying the burning anger of a man who so wanted a quiet but complete life, with the woman he loved, but was robbed of this by monsters.

The difference, needless to say, from the movies is shocking, but that's not to say I didn't enjoy the James Bond of Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan. Albeit different as night is to day, they were still entertaining.

And now comes this, Daniel Craig's Casino Royale.

Of course I approached this with trepidation. Didn't they promise things would be different with Dalton and Brosnan? Isn't that the same said for every James Bond movie? That all the gratuituous product placements, women as playthings, cliche upon vomit inducing cliche be finally put to an end? Could they pull it off? Would they even dare to, considering those movies made so much money anyway? I had already consigned to forever knowing who the real James Bond is, and that we may never see him on the celluloid screen.

Suffice to say, it does. After I watched it the first time, it took a while to sink in. So long actually, that it didn't dawn on me immediately. However, after a day or two, I realized it's true.

Casino Royale has managed to finally bring to life the James Bond I knew and idolized in my youth. The delay in realizing this took awhile, primarily because of the years that have passed, the lowered expectations from the other films, and many little nuances. First of all, James Bond is a Bentley man. Specifically, a blown (supercharged) Bentley, specially constructed for him. At the Casino, he and the protagonists played Baccarat (something like Lucky 9), instead of Texas Holdem Poker. And finally, Bond was tortured using some form of electricity, while in the movie a less sophisticated, but more obviously painful manner was used.

While poker seems out of place in the beautiful and suave Bahamas Casino, I suppose this is a concession due to its popularity. Bond also drives an Aston Martin DB9 (I am very serious about Bond's cars so I pay attention to even this), but this is alright, inspite of the fact he merely succeeds in turning it over. I much enjoyed watching the dramatic scene where US Agent Felix Leiter bails him out of his initial loss to Le Chiffre by advancing him money "courtesy of Langley", but in the movie (I think), Leiter gives him the money at the table, and not via the dramatic moments in the movie. The torture scene in this one was far more affecting. In fact, it was so good, I pity Pierce Brosnan's own torture scene in Die Another Day which is comparably hilarious.

The most anticipated scenes to me, remain the ones wherein Craig displays the raw anger and hurt Ian Fleming's Bond feels, which drives him to his almost self destructive pursuit of SMERSH. Here, Craig delivers, but just. In scenes like these, Timothy Dalton would probably be best, delivering the cold "The bitch is dead." line as only he can. That is where I think there is irony.

Brosnan, Dalton (and maybe) Moore are all capable actors, but all of them had the rotten luck of bad timing. Their Bonds were insincere adaptations of the real Bond I knew and loved. It would have been great to see Dalton display that pain, or Brosnan realize how good he looked in a suit in that delicious moment in his hotel room where Lynd left one for him to wear.

Casino Royale is a triumphant return to the real James Bond. I celebrate its arrival for that, and even more so at the fact that all the previous silliness has come to an end.

Pic of Bentley from James Bond's Cars

This is what I think of American Dreamz, and when you've watched it, you'll hopefully agree that it's the type that's best appreciated the way it is.

It's been awhile since we've gotten a good satire, and Dreamz delivers like a Fedex truck. It makes fun of everything and everyone - politics, popular talent shows, people behind those talent shows, terrorists, celebrities, basically everyone who's ever though a little too highly of themselves. This movie just brings it on.

Plot

The plot is simple. American Dreamz is a wildly popular talent show hosted by Martin Tweed (Hugh Grant), (do I need to indicate what show it criticizes?), and the movie follows the stories of its latest discoveries Sally Kendoo (Mandy Moore) and Omar Obeidi (Sam Golzari).

Dennis Quaid plays a U.S. President secretly recovering from a nervous breakdown, and is made to be guest judge in the finals by his Chief Of Staff William Dafoe for PR purposes.

Broadway lover Omar was originally trained as a terrorist, and is contacted by his superiors to assassinate the President. Meanwhile, Sally and Martin are discovering a liking for one another, and all sorts of plots and subplots revolve around these main stories.

Performances

The highlight performances are easy to make. I've always loved Hugh Grant in an anti-hero role, starting when I first saw him as the insufferably conceited boss in the Bridget Jones series. As the bumbling handsome lead character such as that in Four Weddings and A Funeral, Notting Hill and Love Actually he is funny and endearing, but as a bad guy he truly shines, and he brings this charisma to Dreamz.

Then there is Mandy Moore, and I cannot think of anyone who can fit the role she plays better than her. On a personal note, I had the chance to meet her years ago when she visited Manila on a tour, and promptly botched it when I failed to pick up the phone when my editor was calling to ask me to come along for the interview, knowing I was a fan. I will regret this incident for the rest of my movie watching and music listening life, which I'd started to get over until I watched her again in this movie. She really is a pop star with a difference - she looks great, can sing, act, is easily the most talented amongst her age group and deserves her fame the most.

And as the surprise act, there's Tony Yalda, Omar's very gay, very outlandish and very untalented cousin, born and bred in the US to a wealthy family. While he's in most scenes from halfway in the movie onwards, he strutted his stuff in those where he played the desperate but talent-challenged Dreamz aspirant. There is not a moment you won't be laughing everytime he is on the screen, and I started to miss these performances later on when he was relegated to Omar's manager.

Pulling It Off

I've always felt that if you brand a movie as a farce or satire instead of just a comedy, it's easy to go downhill from there. The subject matter can get far too serious - blind ambition, an out of touch President, an American public that cares more about a TV show than the elections.

It's safe to say however, that American Dreamz pulls it off quite nicely. I enjoyed this movie from start to finish, and I love the idea that it didn't have to be a big production to do so.

It isn't perfect, as there are scenes, such as the decision to cut out the Chief Of Staff for the President's wife, that didn't make sense to me. Also, the whole unrequited love subplot between Chris Klein and Mandy's character never took off. Klein never managed to show what his character was all about, whether he was good, bad or just confused (turned out he was confused), and it all pretty much fails. But overall, it's a fun 107 minute romp of laughter and enjoyment. And if you think about it, that's what a satire should do before anything - make people laugh, and hopefully they'll get the message after.

Technorati Tags: mandy moore, tony yalda, hugh grant, american dreamz, four weddings and a funeral, notting hill, bridget jones, paul weitz, dennis quaid, william dafoe, jennifer coolidge, sam golzari, marcia gay harden, chris klein, seth meyers, john cho, judy greer, bernard white, noureen dewulf, shohreh aghdashloo

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

The boats, the music, the fashion, all of which Miami Vice had a great impact on in the 80s. Any of which could have been the basis for a movie, considering that many movie remakes these days are willing to work with anything no matter how shallow. It could've even gone the Starsky and Hutch comedic route, and it'd still probably be a hit. Besides, you already had Jamie Foxx there, playing Det. Rico Tubbs, which used to be played by Philip Michael Thomas, whose Hollywood star went kaput after the TV series. Foxx would've had us rolling on the floor laughing our guts out with material like that.

Instead, Michael Mann wrote the single most stylish, exciting movie I've yet to see this year, and the only one I wouldn't mind seeing over again.

The plot is complicated, so I'm sure this will turn a lot of people off, especially those who just want the standard escapism flicks like these usually provide. Basically both detectives Tubbs and Crocket, played by much - too - Irish Colin Farrel, along with their team are given carte blanche authority to find a mole within the ranks of the FBI + a host of other anti narcotics government agencies compromised by it.

While getting involved with the extreme baddies, Crocket gets involved with the wrongest girl you can possibly get involved with, the beautiful and talented Gong Li. Gong's commanding presence lends credence to the high-powered businesswoman she plays, and frequently overshadows Farrel, who's just too Irish to play the overtly outlandish and very American Southerner personified by Don Johnson.

At any rate, Mann doesn't sweat the plot and details, preferring to use large brushstrokes compared to the minute details he puts into the characters. That's always the case when you do so, I think, as concentration on details would have lost much of the strength his characters try to portray. Hence, I'm confused as to how the plot ironed out, ending in a big gunfight in the end which may not have been their goal. I wonder if they really did manage to find the mole they were looking for, and it seems to me the whole operation took place and was over in two weeks.

The details however, for lack of a better word, are perfect.

Of course, there's still a Ferrari, this time an F430, which honestly, Ferrari would've been crazy if they'd not provided, especially considering the now legendary story as to how they volunteered the famous white Testarossa, a proper Ferrari, for the TV series to replace the hybrid Johnson was originally using. There're still fast boats and guns, and noticably, Foxx's Tubbs still prefers shotguns, just like Thomas did, except his was sawed-off. I would've liked it if Tubbs still drove around in his pimp-mobile, but I'm sure Mann would've found that distracting and unnecessary.

The real meat however, came with the personal lives the detectives lead while undercover. Tubbs relationship with one of the detectives played by Naomie Harris is put through great strain in the worst possible way, and Foxx pulls off an unforgettable and incredibly understated performance of grief, hate, frustration and blind anger, all the while hardly saying a word. It's him that I remember most in the scene as he is saving Harris.

Incidentally, it's in this scene, where one of the most important lines come through:

"This is what's going to happen. This is what's going to happen. I will put a round precisely through your medulla oblongata, which is located at the base of your brain, straight through a point mid-distance between your upper lip and the bottom of your nose and you will be dead from the neck down. Your finger won’t even twitch. Do you believe that?"

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is true Hollywood movie action white knuckle macho chesthair teeth gritting clenched fist muscle flexing stuff. Action at its extreme, mouthed by tough as nails Det. Gina Calabrese (Elizabeth Rodriguez) in dramatic albeit understated fashion, desperately eager to save her fallen comrade. She hardly says a word in this movie, but certainly makes an impact. I bet we'd be hearing that line several times over in the next few months.

Detective Sonny Crocket's personal struggle to do his job whilst having fallen for the wrong girl, an oft-repeated situation back on TV, would've been the great focal point in this movie if it weren't so miscast. Farell tries his best though, acting very angry by lowering his line of sight, with furrowed brow and frowning mightily while driving a BMW in the last scenes, but that's about it.

Without that however, what we have is another Michael Mann classic, capturing that prolonged feeling of vastness and scale as we watch fast boats travelling across the ocean from Havana to Miami, or an overhead shot of a Bentley being driven by a desperate man on the highway, just like Al Pacino catching Robert De Niro as he views him from a helicopter in Heat.

For some reason, the movie reminds me of the feeling of comic books I read when I was a kid, with quick, fast paced action, heightened by the communication between the leads even without saying a word, belying their trust in each other, which in turn defines their dedication to what they were doing. All done with great flair and style, the movie preferring low-res, unfocused, almost grainy shots (but in high definition nonetheless) and in the process conveying much more than it would if clear.

A confusing plot and miscast main character notwithstanding, Miami Vice is my favorite movie of the year so far.

Technorati Tags: sonny crocket, rico tubbs, jamie foxx, ferrari testarossa, ferrari f340, espadrilles, smith & wesson 45, miami vice, colin farell, cadillac coupe de ville, philip michael thomas, michael mann, elizabeth rodriguez, naomi harris, gina calabrese, li gong,

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

• First Robin Williams film I've seen after quite a while.
• Starring pop singer 'JoJo' Levesque who's fast becoming a star and who did fairly well with her role, so fans would definitely want to see her in this one.
• Basically a story about the chief character's (Williams) attempt to try and get his dysfunctional family to spend time together via a cross country trip in an RV (recreation vehicle), while at the same time trying not to miss an important presentation to merge an upstart soda company with his bigger company, run by tyrant boss Will Arnett, all the while not telling his family about it.
• I've not seen Adam Sandler's Click yet, but I presume the story is more or less the same.
• It isn't particularly clear why he doesn't want to tell his family that he is trying to do both things at the same time, albeit this is the main detail in the plot that puts him in all the funny situations. Williams is constantly battling time, gadget misfirings, traffic, and his family's wailings to try and do both.
• Unfortunately, that one detail is what sinks it for me. Why doesn't he tell his family? There's some explanation in the end when they eventually find out, where he explains that he didn't want them to think badly of him as they were instead supposed to go on a more expensive Hawaii trip, cut short by his boss' instructions. But that just doesn't cut it for me. His character seems intelligent and well-intentioned, so it doesn't make sense why a guy like him would go the deceitful route. And besides, they don't think highly of him already, so what's to lose? Also, he didn't really have a choice about it, the orders coming from his boss. Hence, my questions unanswered, I just lost interest.
• There's a lot of subplots, the highlight of which is his family's relationship with the weird Gornickes, the father played by eternal second banana Jeff Daniels. I don't know why Jeff Daniels hasn't gotten leads yet, preferring always to be 'the other guy with Jim Carrey in "Dumb and Dumber".
• The movie ends too abruptly, though, for the plots and subplots to fully thresh out. Movies like these that do that always make me feel like they were supposed to end differently, but were cut quite abruptly due to some concession of time, budget, or whatever. At any rate, it does, and so goodbye plot which was actually going somewhere at some point.
• The only saving grace left would be the gags, and that we have plenty. Williams must be a zillion years old by now, but he's still funny, and still brings a ton of energy.
• Watch the movie for the Robin Williams gags, and that's it. Too bad, since it seemed to be on its way to a nice ending, where the family would really bond. They do, but it was too sudden to be believable. It held promise at the start, and the Gornicke subplot had the makings of something memorable, but it just ended suddenly for some reason. To conclude then: Not a total waste of time, but definitely forgettable.

Technorati Tags: RV, runaway vacation, robin williams. jeff daniels, JoJo, JoJo levesque, jim carrey, dumb and dumber, will arnett

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

The thing is, it's one of those movies which you'd probably feel you shouldn't have liked. I've always been big on movies with good stories, and Napoleon Dynamite is the opposite. It's a hodgepodge of almost unrelated skits and situations, like those Tito, Vic and Joey movies of yore, where the chief character(s) just bounce around from scene to scene and something funny happens.

The saving grace is Napoleon himself, played by Jon Heder, who exudes dorkability to the extreme. He's not a geek. He's not a misunderstood nice guy. He's a complete dweeb at the ultimate level, the kind of guy you couldn't get far away enough from in school. So who cared about the disjointed skits? Napoleon Dynamite is such an insufferable dork you're replaying his scenes, buying his t-shirts and voting for Pedro months after the movie (incidentally you'd have to have watched it to understand what that meant).

And now here's Jack Black on Nacho Libre, playing a lonely friar in charge of a rundown orphanage, harboring dreams of becoming a Luchador. Now, there are very few people nearly as funny as Jack Black. He can walk down the street, eat popcorn, or just sit and stare at you, and you'd be laughing as tears stream from your eyes. He's even been criticized as the wrong choice for his role in King Kong, which is probably right, because you're almost expecting him to do something silly everytime.

He is every bit as colorful a character as Heder's Napoleon to pull off a similar hodgepodge kind of movie

However, although you can't give Black fault as he gives it as good a try as he can, I think this one falls short of becoming the classic Napoleon Dynamite has become. Dynamite is a comedy for sure, but is almost an off-off-offshoot branch of one. It's a movie about nothing, featuring an unlovable, dumbass-like main character, with no solid goal as it meanders pointlessly along. You do not feel especially fond of the guy, so you don't care when bad things happen to him. He's not doing anything special, nor are the other characters as well.

Nacho Libre however, went back to original comedy roots, where the main character is a good guy with a good goal - to win money for his orphans. He's even got a love interest in Penelope Cruz lookalike Ana de la Reguera, and a second banana in Héctor Jiménez.

Something in that disparity makes Libre an ordinary comedy, whereas Dynamite is cult-classic stuff. It may have to do with the fact that the former is a new genre, similar to Jim Jarmusch type of stuff. Or maybe it's like when a man trips on a banana peel by accident, it's funny, but when you see lights, a camera and a script, it isn't. With Dynamite, the comedy hits you hard because you do not expect it. With Libre, Jack Black is supposed to be funny, so you wait for the punchlines.

Having said all that (and yeah that was a lot), Nacho Libre is still, without comparison to anything, very funny. Jack Black's rendition of 'Encarnacion' will have you in stitches, and Hector Jimenez and him running around in tights is ridiculous to look at. You'll have a good time, because it's funny. Just not as funny.

Technorati Tags: nacho libre, jack black, hector jimenez, jim jarmusch, jon heder, napoleon dynamite, encarnacion, ana de la reguera, penelope cruz, comedy, lucha libre, luchadores, jared hess

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

But then, what can I say? At the end of the movie, we were recalling scenes from it, laughing, smiling, and feeling good, which incidentally, is reason to smile even more, since that is exactly what the movie was supposed to do - make us feel good.

I Wanna Be Happy is a story of three generations of a typical Filipino family, trying to adjust to the earth-shaking news that their eldest members, played wonderfully by The Great Eddie Garcia and Gloria Romero, have decided to call it quits, months away from a 50 year anniversary. Throughout, the three siblings Jun, Rory and Tish, played by Joey Marquez, Cherry Pie Picache and Diana Zubiri, deal with personal issues of their own.

The ones with the most to deal with is Cherry Pie, who has a philandering husband in George (Christian Vasquez). As such, Cherry Pie delivers a terrific performance, second in impact only to Eddie Garcia, whose "Manoy" acting style is timeless and invariably hilarious.

I want to call Eddie Garcia "The Great" because really, that is what he is. He commands the screen and is easily, along with Gloria Romero, the most comfortable in it. There is no moment you aren't at least giggling at the things he says, and he plays the strict Lolo and father to the hilt, intimidating Diana Zubiri's boyfriend Ken (Alfred Vargas) in one scene, describing how he might grow wings from their maid's inability to cook anything other than chicken in another, threatening to kill Cherry Pie's husband when she runs away from home, etc. He is a delight to watch, and is easily my favorite.

Cherry Pie as the martyr, long-suffering wife, has the second most important story. She is so believable that I could not keep from comparing her from friends who are suffering the same all-too familiar fate. She displays range with the most ease and makes the most out of her role.

And then believe it or not, there is Joey Marquez. That's right, Chong can actually act, or at least pull off a believable character in his Jun, the dentist, widower, father of two and eldest of the three siblings, whose conservative character's world is completely taken aback at his parent's split.

Unfortunately, his role does not extend anymore than that which is a pity, as I would have wanted his character's story to develop considering his performance. I was expecting that he meet someone, or at least come to terms with the fact that his parents lives are their own, and as children he can only come to terms with it and no more. I felt his character Jun needs this the most to achieve some closure in this issue, as he is obviously the most bothered by it, and watching that happen would have been fun.

Concessions

And speaking of closure, this is the area which brings about my gripes. The ending in my opinion, is a concession towards the Pinoy audience's love, nay, insistence on a happy ending. However seamless and believable the story started and evolved, the exact opposite holds true for how it ends. The ending in fact, was so quick, it hits you unexpectedly, almost as if the Director was embarrassed as to how he had to make it turn out that way (or at least that's what I'd like to believe).

Another area where I thought a concession was made is the lifestyle of the characters, which gave no clue as to what professions they were in to be able to live comfortably with their large houses, condominiums and many servants. I read somewhere that Pinoys don't like movies set in slums, apparently to avoid having to be reminded of the daily grind. I would have liked this movie played out in a lower middle class setting, which would have added a deeper sense of reality, or at least helped me quit trying to figure out what they do to live so well.

Conclude

But these are by no means reason to stay away. In fact, please, I urge you, go watch "I Wanna Be Happy", should you feel inclined towards an easy going 1.5 hours of fun. And to any sponsors out there, rest assured your product placements, of which this movie had many, were not wasted, and I urge you to agree should a similar movie ask again.

This may not necessarily save the local movie industry. I don't think any one movie can promise that. But it at least will, for a moment, make you happy.

Technorati Tags: jose javier reyes, i wanna be happy, eddie garcia, diana zubiri, cherry pie picache, joey marquez, gloria romero, christian vazquez

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

After several minutes into the movie, Orlando Bloom blurted out, as Ms. Knightley relates, the words "hey, this isn't so bad!", or something to that effect.

Above story I remember well for three things, primarily the poignancy of great and famous movie stars such as they seeking and finding solace in one another's company heading into the release of a film they found reason to doubt. Secondly, suddenly realizing it wasn't so bad after all, and finally, her honesty in admitting as much, somewhat I imagine, an indication of her youth (she would have been 18 at the time), or just plain good old honesty, with no intention to delude anyone into believing she, or any of them it appears, were any at all confident.

It is sad therefore, that after watching the second of apparently two additional installments of the film no doubt inspired by the success of the first, I am fairly sure that Ms. Knightley will have no tales similar to the above to tell, her honesty and forthcoming character notwithstanding.

Simply because, unlike the first, this movie will likely not elicit the same reaction from Orlando Bloom. Unlike the first, which was surprising, and therefore, entertaining, this second is boring, and ergo, dissapointing.

Why That Is So

Pirates II, strangely enough, reminds me of Colin Farrel's horrible Alexander, from 2004.

The actors exert great effort and noise. The crew, no doubt, were up their neck in work making props and effects both amazing to look at and quite the way our imagination would have us believe it should, such as ghost ships and war-elephants and giant sea monsters and fancy-dressed warriors.

There are fight scenes. Shouting scenes. Quarrels within the group. Love scenes. More shouting scenes. Scenes of great and wondrous sights. In other words, the movie is begging for your attention.

And then right in the middle of this, as we were sitting there straining to take it all in, I asked my companion if she had any more popcorn. She said sorry, there are only a few pieces, most of them burnt. I ate them anyway, saying this is good popcorn. She agreed, and says she only knows of only one place else in Manila where they have real butter on their popcorn. She told me where and smiled, pleased at herself. You both agree to try it next time you watch a movie, and then both of you turn heads forward to watch the movie again.

Which is not to say Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest does not have its moments. Johnny Depp tries his darndest best to give us a good show, and I suppose he pulls it off occasionally.

After a week or so, I'm fairly sure I know what I'll remember. I'll remember having a good dinner, I'll remember the long trip home. I'll remember feeling relieved that Jill got home ok, and that sometime through it, we had to go through a long, noisy movie. The highlight of all those memories however, is that sometime during watching it, I learned of a new place where they sell real buttered popcorn.

Technorati Tags: keira knightley, johnny depp, orlando bloom, captain jack sparrow, capt. jack sparrow, Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

In fact, I propose we put that right beside the PG13 rating. For example: The Fast And The Furious: TOKYO DRIFT. PG 13. Do Not Take It Seriously.

Yes that would work. Either that or, 'If you're looking for a good story, or an in depth look at the human soul, then look elsewhere', but I guess the first one would do just as well, and besides it's shorter.

The premise speaks for itself. Miscreant white boy (with a Texan drawl to boot) who drives too fast gets kicked out to his Dad in Tokyo, the worst actor they can find this side of the Pacific. You know the rest. He meets up with some bad elements, challenges chief bad guy to a race (even if he doesn't have a car. Beat that.), and gets his butt kicked at first. He is then taught by a master, and triumphantly returns said butt-kicking to initial butt kicker.

He also gets the bad guy's very hot girlfriend, who like most eye-candy, actually has a heart of gold, and always hooks up with the fastest guy. I mean, what if white boy didn't show up? She'd still be with bad guy, right? Where have I seen this before? Mr. Miyagi, is that you?

Having said that, why would I still recommend it?

Firstly, it is unashamedly a promotion of Need for Speed, the video game. Truth is, the game will probably make more money than the movie, turning the tables and making the movie a promoter of the game and not the other way around.

As such, it has a lot of what the game has, which is fantastic cars, pretty girls, buffed guys with bad attitudes, and hot techno tunes in the background. There is no story explaining why those guys turned bad. There's no story involving how those cars turned out the way they did. The pretty girls always wear clothes that would get them arrested, or picked up. And the techno music with nonsensical lyrics like this:

I wonder if you know
How they live in Tokyo
If you see me then you mean it
Then you know you have to go
Fast and furious (Tick, Tick, Tick)
Fast and furious (Tick, Tick, Tick)

This can only mean one thing: This is going to be a cult classic. And a 'Tokyo Drift' search on Youtube already confirms 570 results and growing.

Therefore, watch this movie, to pander to the shallow side of you. The one that doesn't want to be left out when your friends start talking about how terrific that Mustang or Z-car looked in this movie, or how the character was too old, or about Lil' Bow Wow's latest movie (now known as just 'Bow Wow') or how hot and banging the theme song is, regardless of the fact that it doesn't make any sense.

Watch this to get some level of pop culture, of which there are no better initiators than the Japanese, who come up with such things as Drifting, which is a race won not by who gets to the finish line first, but by how well you lock your rear wheels when making a turn, or songs with lyrics like above.

Watch it to say goodbye to the good old days, when car races were won by the fastest car, and not by the flashiest one. There used to be a time when drifting was a bad thing, as it wasted tires and just made a lot of noise and smoke. If this were basketball, it's like winning because you're wearing flashier shoes and celebrated better after a point, as opposed to scoring more than the opponent.

Watch it for the 'surprise, special guest star' ending, featuring an impromptu appearance with the lamest excuse for a guest appearance I've ever heard, hard-wedged into the final scene, almost as if the directors and scriptwriters are saying 'hey we've fooled the audience this far, so why not?'

Watch it if you've got P130.00 and time to spare, if you've got nothing else better to do, and you like looking at nice flashy things going fast. Just remember to park your common sense along with the cars in the parking lot.

Technorati Tags: Justin Lin, Lucas Black, Brandon Brendel, Zachery Ty Bryan, Daniel Booko, fast and furious, , tokyo drift, David V. Thomas, Amber Stevens, Chris Astoyan, , fast and furious III

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

Approaching this movie, I understood fully America's hesitation to show such a sensitive period in their recent history. It is not only considered as a turning point in shaping world foreign policy, but as a story of how quickly the lives of many of their countrymen were so easily snuffed out by the wayward opinions and goals of a misinformed few.

So easily was this achieved, as this movie will so dramatically display.

The 'protagonists' as it were, are the US FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), NORAD (North American Air Defense), any of several air traffic control centers involved and finally, the flightcrew and passengers of United Airlines Flight 93.

Much of the 1.5 hour movie deals with the first three, as the FAA struggled mightily to get a handle of what was going on, constantly barraged by information (and misinformation) about hijacked planes, its flights, direction and the occasional plane reported to be hijacked, but was not. Information re these were coursed via traffic control centers across the US, many of which were utterly confused again from planes not responsive to their requests for information, and deciding whether to consider them hijacked or otherwise.

Then there was NORAD, whom the FAA thought was unresponsive too, except that they were on the situation even before the first plane struck the WTC, but had their own problems trying to get permission from higher ups (such as the President) and even finding fighter planes to intercept, most of which were unavailable, unarmed, or in one frustrating moment, going the wrong way.

All of this going on as we observe scenes of United 93 going about its business, dealing with a delay in take off and the usual airport traffic, flight attendants gossiping and making small talk, and passengers just being your normal everyday passengers.

It is the very casualness that puts you at the edge of your seat, your hands gripping the armrests as you await what you know is about to come.

Suspenseful, Frustrating

Suspenseful and Frustrating are the words I will use to describe United 93. It is one of the most terrifyingly nerve-wracking, in fact, movies I have ever seen. In many cases, I felt like begging for some form of comedy relief, de rigeur for your commercial action movie. At some point, you would want Steven Seagal or Wesley Snipes to jump out and karate - chop the bad guys, but you know that's not going to happen, and you know all this is real.

That is the part that gets you breathing so shallow as United 93 nears its traumatic and tremendously unsettling end.

From the moment after the FAA and NORAD situations, it is understood however, that many of the events in the actual flight are dramatizations, assumed likely from whatever transcripts made of phone calls by distressed passengers to their families, air traffic controllers, the FAA and NORAD, even 911 and the plane's flight data recorders.

However, this does not relieve you of any of its gravity. Those phone calls by the passengers to their families, explaining the situation, being told of WTC and reporting their impending doom, are real, and no manner of theatrical license can damper the sincerity and utter hopelessness these convey. These scenes are the last with which I've felt so terribly, helplessly lost for the characters. I knew of these tapes and I knew these would be acted out, but I desperately felt for them no less.

Tale that must be told.

There is no doubt in my mind that United 93 is a tale that must be told, not only for the Americans to remember but for the world to look and ponder at.

I will not venture nor pretend to preach what good may come of it, nor do I know how exactly it will. But a tragedy the likes of United 93 cannot have transpired without some moral lesson brought across.

It is assumed that the terrorists were on its way to Washington DC in a bid to crash into the White House. The fact it crashed way before it got there seems to be the primary reason why United 93 is remembered, as they are regarded as heroes.

It is a heroism however that obviously these passengers were unaware and likely unwilling to be a party of. Like many heroes, they just wanted to survive, and quite frankly possibly had little concept of the repercussions further to this goal.

The movie graciously avoids the trap of making them out as such, heroes as regardless they turned out to be, and for this I commend them. It is after all that's said and done, an event that involved ordinary people. Not ideologies or religions or politics or countries or borders or leaders or foreign policies. But ordinary people along their ordinary way, so quickly removed from this earth by terrible circumstances.

United 93 is an important movie, and whether or not the Americans are ready for it, the world deserves to learn and decide what to make of this immense tragedy.

Technorati Tags: United 93, 911, September 11, United Airlines

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

For me, Antonio Banderas 'suit movie' is 'Take The Lead', where he gets to wear nice talian threads in this movie adaptation of the true experiences of Ballroom great Pierre Dulaine, as he takes his love for dancing from the studios to the streets, via a 'Dancing Classroom' outreach program which had since been implemented in almost 7,500 elementary schools in New York.

The key word of course being 'adaptation', the most obvious sign of which, is that the students in the film are in high school, while the outreach program dealt with elementary school kids. To me, this meant that once the producers bought the license for the story, and the rights to do whatever they wished with it, pretty much every need to remain true to the story goes out the window.

So while Banderas and high school crew go through the ups and downs of their relationships with each other, dealing with such things as drugs, prostitution and such, Mr. Dulaine's most difficult experiences may well have just been the need to occasionally keep his elementary kids' from putting bubblegum into each other's hair, or chasing around each other on a big wooden dancefloor. The variations of what may had truly transpired and what the studio writers produced are unlimited, and this bothered me somewhat.

Having said that, all is of course not lost, as the writers can still come up with a good movie. At this, however, they failed.

Take the lead is yet another implementation of the tried and true mentor - teaching - kids - gone - astray formula, started imo by the excellent 1988 "Stand And Deliver", featuring Edward James Olmos" and a very young Lou Diamond Philips (and an Andy Garcia small role as well).

Not only it is an 'implementation' of that theme, it is occasionally a copy, complete with that scene where Olmos' Volkswagen Beetle was carnapped by the kids, leading him to feel angry and miserable for a while, except that it was later returned and 'improved' by them Mexican style, replete with accessories and embellishments afterwards, as a sign of their respect and love for their teacher. It is done again in this movie, this time involving Banderas' bicycle (I assume because it'd mean his kids had less money to spend).

At this point in writing this, I realize that, really there's nothing wrong with all that. If they can come up with a great movie while exercising artistic license, then why not?

But the problem lies in that, in pursuing an interesting story via 'improving' it, the purpose gets lost along the way.

The problem with me is that I am too realistic. I believe that in real life those things do not really happen. Inasmuch as it'd be so cool to have inner city kids pimp their teacher's rides out of love for him, or that a big drama scene between the extremely annoying unbelieving teacher and our hero results in a PTA meeting where he gets to explain the value of ballroom with much flair to one and all, or that a dancing match at the end of the movie allows the kids to mix their hiphop beats alongside classic music and it all ends up as one happy party, it's very hard for me to swallow any of it as real, or at least realistic.

Which is sad, because there is a part of this movie that is very real, and that the one that started it - the main reason why the movie producers approached Mr. Dulaine to begin with - the story where he built character, instilled hope and taught respect to poor inner city kids via his outreach program, and achieved immeasurably positive results.

Ultimately, the important thing in the telling of a story is it's main parts, which then achieve the desired results - which is to inspire others. The manner with which this movie had been mangled for mass appeal have unfortunately not only removed this goal, but may have marginalized it as well.

Ergo, at the end of the day, what we merely have is a Banderas 'suit movie'. Fortunately, he looks very good in it.

Technorati Tags: antonio banderas, edward james olmos, take the lead, pierre dulaine, ballroom dancing

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

There are a lot of bad reviews for the 1982 Firefox, one of Clint Eastwood's "failures" as a Director, but for me, obviously since I'm writing about it here, I've a far different view.

See, spy-thrillers are my thing. Either in books or movies, the Cold War imho, inspite of it's many tragedies, managed to produce one positive, and that is the spy-thriller. And so while it was still in fashion, I couldn't get enough of it. From Frederick Forsyth to Ken Follett to Graham Greene, Robert Ludlum, John Le Carre and Tom Clancy, I lapped it all up. Guilty pleasure, I'm sure. But regardless, if it has espionage, spies, quiet deaths in the night and many crossings of borders, usually European or the occasional Chinese one, I want to read about it, and mostly I did.

So here comes Firefox, and with it Clint Eastwood, the prototype American hero, forever squinting as if looking into the sunset while his horse gallops into it, hand quick to reach into poncho for his six-shooter, to shoot lead into anyone unlucky enough to get in the way. The perfect opposite, it seems, of the European hero-spy, either played by underacting types as the French Inspector who hunted the Jackal in "Day Of The Jackal" (couldn't find his name), or the nerdy but sharp academic John Ryan of Tom Clancy fame.

Strangely enough, that works for the film. Playing Major Gant, a retired American fighter pilot dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder, he is tasked to steal away a secret super-modern Russian jetfighter called "Firefox". He is obviously ill-fitting for the job. Almost like trying to get Top Gun in espionage mode, he is too tall, too brusque, too American hero for the job. At one point, he naively questions the rebels motives, his allies who smuggle him into the Russian base, asking why they are so willing to give up their lives for such a cause. He is answered of course, saying it merely indicates how much they hate the government (or something like that. Unfortunately, it's not in IMDB's comments from the movie).

At any rate it makes for great understated stuff, albeit I'm sure quite boring to most Eastwood fans. Here there are no flashy cars and jewelry as handsome hero and femme fatale heroine make their daring escape out of cold Russia. Rather there are the Russian rebels hatred and fear and hope, matched opposite the derring-do of the quintessential American cowboy. At one point, he is asked desperately by one of the rebels, who is sure to give up his life to get Eastwood on that plane:

Upenskoy: Gant, can you fly that plane? Really fly it?
Maj. Gant: Yeah, I can fly it. I'm the best there is.

But the really interesting conversations happen amongst the Russians. Starting about 75% into the film is when the action really starts, as the plane is in the air and away from the Russians, they are left to ponder on the unbelievable - that their precious Firefox has actually been stolen, and set to work getting it back or destroying it.

At this point we are introduced to the smarmy First Secretary (Stefan Schnabel), an old school Russian politician forever harping on the West's inferiority and their own superiority, and the more practical and calculating General Vladimorov (Klaus Löwitsch), who with his sharp mind and realistic appreciation of Eastwood's piloting abilities, can and should be able to catch or at least shoot him down, if it weren't for the sanctimonious patronising of the First Chairman.

At some point it becomes clear to the General that they had been lent to a decoy, whereas the stolen Firefox was well on its way to freedom, due to the bungling of the Chairman. As he explains this, he is cut off, and finally loses his temper at his superior:

First Secretary: Calm yourself, Vladimirov...
General Vladimirov: Calm...calm myself? How can I be calm in your stupidity, STUPIDITY! Losing that aircraft to the Americans... Do you know who this man Gant is? He can land on an ice floe and take off again!

Over the years (and there have been many years since I've first watched it), I'd always remember that dialogue, wondering when and how I'd apply it one day. Maybe when I recently coached the basketball league in our village:

One of my players: Calm yourself, Coach...
Me: Calm...calm myself? How can I be calm in your stupidity, STUPIDITY! Losing that possession to the other team... Do you know we have no time left? And that we need nothing short of a miracle to win?!?

Or maybe one day, to one of my clients:

My boss: Calm yourself, Gary...
Me: Calm...calm myself? How can I be calm in your stupidity, STUPIDITY! Don't you know that receiving unknown email attachments is bad?! As if I have nothing better to do but reformat and reinstall your computer everytime you get another virus from one of your equally ignorant friends!!!

That well delivered conversation may well be the reason why Firefox had stuck to the back of my mind all these years, and the fact that Cinemax has constantly had it in it's lineup for as far as I can remember means not only that there are people who request for it, but that likely, I'll be turning on the TV on a lazy afternoon one day, and find it there again, assuring that this will become the spy-thriller classic it really is.

Technorati Tags: clint eastwood, Klaus Löwitsch, Stefan Schnabel, firefox movie

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

So what would a Hollywood Investor in movies do? Why, look for a Hollywood company that can spit one out as quickly and as efficiently as possible, of course. And who better to do that than Pixar, the current animated film spit-outer of choice, with many a hit (and occasional miss), notched on it's much talented crew's belt.

So, if we think like a financial advisor instead of a 'artiste', and consider Cars as a financial investment, would we have a winner? Definitely, much definitely so.

This very American film appeals to everyone because of it's very international theme - a love of Cars, and all manner and type of them are here to represent very Hollywood stereotypes: There's Owen Wilson, as self-possessed but with a heart-of-gold lead character Lightning McQueen, no doubt aptly named because, really, I can't think of a name that says 'fast' more than 'McQueen'. It's hard not to mistake Owen Wilson's voice, who has a unique way of talking, and who adds flair to saying things like "No, no, no, no, no!" by putting his own twist in it, going "Nu, nu, nu, nu, nu!"

There's a great legend in Paul Newman, playing equally legendary, but ruff, gruff and disillusioned former racer Doc Hudson, and finally the small town lovely Sally Carrera, played by Bonnie Hunt, whom I've always liked, but is forever ingrained in my mind as support for people like Renee Zellweger (in Jerry Maguire) or Marisa Tomei (in Only You). At any rate she gets top babe billing here, albeit voicing a 2000+ model Porsche 911, but that's ok.

Lightning is on his way to California for an important tie-breaker race between him, Chick Hicks (voiced by one of my fave actors of all time Michael Keaton), and American race legend Richard Petty, playing 'The King', but gets lost along the way and ends up in Radiator Springs, the "cutest little town in Carburetor County", a town whose heyday was well in the 60's, where as part of the famed Route 66, it was a nice friendly stopover on the way to the West Coast. Unfortunately, the Interstate changed all that. It's now nearly empty, and populated by the sparse, but hopeful and colorful rest of the cast.

Lightning is caught by the town's one and only police car for speeding, and made to repair the road he wrecked. No one knows him as well, so he has to finish it within a week then get to his race, achieving his dream of winning his first ever Piston Cup. Of course as Hollywood stories go, it's not that simple at all. Nu, nu, nu, nu, nu! As he gets to know the people (err, cars?) of Radiator Springs, he appreciates it's beauty and history, makes a best friend, meets his mentor and falls in love.

So far, so good. Mr. Hollywood Investor's got his cast, an always-works formula story, and more importantly, Pixar to come up with great visuals like absolutely stunning graphics of mountains, deep plains and valleys. And let's not forget the cutesy stuff! Nu, nu, nu, nu, nu! Like lady cars making long lines to the bathroom while male cars just go right in. Luigi, the Ferrari fanatic tire-seller, trying to sell snow tires in the desert. A constantly arguing traveling couple with the wife asking they ask for directions and the man insisting he knows where they're going. Just like real life, you'd say. People laugh and giggle and love these things, and Pixar delivers. Pixar always delivers.

Although this time, not all the way.

The whole thing comes off smooth as silk, and the surprise ending is gutsy, and delivers lessons that adults would love their kids to learn. But... something about it just doesn't cut it. The movie is too formulaic, far too 'safe', for the viewer to feel any real drama. At no point for example, did I feel that Lightning and Sally's relationship was threatened, simply because (and I'm sure kids would've felt this way too), that he could return to her after the race. And he did, so a wrench is thrown into the biggest conflict-drama point right there.

A greater deal could've been made about Lightning and Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), or even Doc and Lightning, but since they were subplots, they kind of ironed out by themselves.

Pixar's cutesy abilities are terrific, and in fact I still remember Guido, the tire-changing thing (he looks like a cross between a small forklift and a car), changing Lightning's tires in record time, making the audience almost clap in glee. And everyone is going to love Tipping Tractors, the main attraction in quiet Radiator Springs as introduced by Mater the towtruck, which is too silly to explain so I'd rather let you watch instead. However, the cutesy stuff only works if the main story is holding up it's end. If it doesn't, it's all just that - cutesy stuff.

Pixar might as well change it's slogan to : "If it's from Pixar, it must be good!". They can make even weak stories work with their fancy graphics and immense CGI talent. But a weak story only goes far, and Cars in the end sputters by the wayside.

Technorati Tags: cars, lightning mcqueen, doc hudson, owen wilson, paul newman, bonnie hunt, richard petty, porsche 911

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

All of which, brought me to thinking about the main reason why there are date movies to begin with. Will a movie, say Failure to Launch, get you anywhere with your date?

And so, let's tackle that issue, bullet point style:

1. First of which is, a message to all the girl readers here. You will never meet a guy like Mathew Mcconaughey. Guys like him don't exist.

   And I'm not talking about the mid-30s guy who still lives with his parents and dates a lot. There are tons of those. I'm talking about the smooth talking, smooth walking, smooth climbing, smooth eating, smooth driving, smooth selling a boat-ing, smooth talking to chicks-ing, smooth cooking a meal-ing characters evident not just in this movie, but in Sahara, How to lose a guy in ten days, The Wedding Planner", and any and all kinds of movies wherein he is required to act like a smooth anything.

   Mcconaughey doesn't pull it off. It might be premature to say he cannot. Maybe he can. But so far, zilch.

   Consider, for example, other hunky types out there who do this for a living. Guys like Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan, George Clooney (ok sorry can't think of anyone younger. But they were still charmers when they were young though). Other than looks, these guys knew how to work it. Class, charm, a debonaire style about them that makes you feel like everything will turn out ok no matter what kind of mess they get into. No matter how bad their character's situation gets. No matter how stupid the plot assumes you are to swallow such nonsense as a consultant who makes men feel loved so as to empower them to move out of their parent's house (and what about after, eh??). Mathew Mcconaughey just does not have these skills.

2. And since we're on the subject of that plot, this is the part where I'm supposed to discuss that, but I think I'd rather not, because it just isn't worth it. I have seen Sarah Jessica Parker do better, and it pains me, physically pains me, to see her have to deal with this crap.

   But ok, in the idea that a movie review has to broach on plot at some point, she plays a consultant who specializes in helping parents find ways to get their overstaying, old children to move out, which up to that point is plausible. It all goes awry with her methods though, as she does by pretending to be interested in them, in theory increasing their confidence and making them want to go, which is just ridiculous, considering that at some point, they will have to have realized that they were duped, and hence create the exact opposite effect.

   It's silly to even discuss it, so much so that I'm wary I may have actually botched up the explanation, but I really don't care.

3. And what of the rest of the movie? Sadly, the main plot being unable to hold it's end of the movie is akin somewhat to a building with a weak foundation. Anything else built on top of the flawed premise is bound to crumble, and crumble it did like sand at high tide. There were attempts at a subplot with the (at first) interesting Zooey Deschanel, and the used to death friends of the hero trying to fix him up sort of scene, but again, it's just a pain to even try to explain.

   The sad thing is, boy they sure tried, with a mockingbird scene for Deschanel that went nowhere, and some sort of 'you are not in tune with the universe which is why animals bite you' kind of nonsense that I'm sure, the actors themselves cringe at having to speak.

So again, will Failure To Launch get you game??

Seems to me, from the smiles, that the guy we saw (probably 16-18 years old), had it going good at that point. They were smiling at one another, the girl seemed happy, and there was excitement in the air. I sure hope he had the rest of the evening planned, like maybe a good restaurant, or a nice walk around Eastwood (that's where we were), or maybe he's a good conversationalist.

He had better be, and he better not talk about this movie, cause if he wants the date to work out, he better stick to talking about how pretty she is or how nice she looked that night. Otherwise, he'd just remember he just blew his P240.00 on a movie which failed to launch.

Technorati Tags: matthew mcconaughey, sarah jessica parker, failure to launch, zooey deschanel, dating, dates, date movies

powered by performancing firefox

Not content with this, he turns another one on top of its head again in Poseidon. I figure that, as long as there are such things as "rogue waves" (without reference to an X-men character), we're probably gonna see him flip an oil rig, or how about a whole island next? Wouldn't that be a great idea for Lost fans?

At any rate, I'm gonna give away a bit of my age here, and admit I have vague memories of the first, 1972 Poseidon, not when it came out, as I'd have been preoccupied with ABC blocks at the time, but during long, boring summer days of pre-cable TV in the 80's or 90's, when they'd show the first Poseidon over and over again on RPN 9 (I remember the channel well enough).

Known as The Poseidon Adventure, I very much remember two things: a. The commanding presence of Ernest Borgnine, who just because I remember, is indicative of the kind of special actor that he is, and b., the overall prevailing feeling of despair and sadness pervasive throughout the movie.

The plot is fairly simple: One of those amazing floating hotels that we save up for and fantasize about taking a vacation on sometime in our lives, turns over due to previously mentioned "rogue wave". Captain reassures remaining passengers inside Ballroom that ship is safe even upside down. Unlikely hero decides that isn't so, and attempts to save his hide via daredevil mission to get to bottom of ship (and then what? I used to wonder..).

Bunch of varied Captain doubters join up. They deal with issue after issue, determined to go up the floor to the next, then the next, and so on, very much like a video game (which means this most likely will have one). Ballroom Captain believers (and Captain) perish in violent underwater death, including a favorite singer (more on her later), ship takes in water floor by floor, and our hero and unlikely gang is chased by water as they find every way to go up and out.

In those long summer months being a brain-dead bored kid watching TV, The Poseidon Adventure represented, well, adventure. The Captain and remaining passengers laugh, mock and threaten our hero and his gang, (whoever he was), and you sort of cheer him on as they find out that everyone died eventually for not following him. There is constant infighting regarding strategy within the group, and most important of all, there was the undoubtable feeling of dread and utter likelihood of a death inside cramped, cold and claustrophobe inducing quarters, while sneaking inside a vent or running along gangways, tons of water gurgling, lapping at your feet waiting for you to slip and fall.

Flashforward to 2006, with hopefully more brain activity this time, Poseidon had NONE of these. We are treated to breathtaking CGI from the very start of the film, most of the middle, and more studio and computer wonderment throughout. There were a few attempts at making characters that we should care about, but that exercise is eventually wasted on the fact that they're reduced to a bunch of running / swimming - for their - dear - lives survivors later.

Many of them just die. Imagine a religious, claustrophobic stowaway girl with issues about her brother? Sounds interesting. Oops, too late, she's dead. A drunk with issues against the Mayor (Kurt Russell), who was about to say something that would reveal a little more about the guy? Whoops, he's in the drink. So what was the point?

The 1972 Poseidon built on a fear within all humans - the fear of drowning and cramped areas. This was prevalent in the 1989 The Abyss, a favorite drowning undersea adventure movie of mine, when Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (hope I spelled that right), were trapped in a tiny undersea craft leaking in freezing water, and Mastrantonio (she really should get a shorter name), decides the best thing to do was for Ed Harris character, the stronger swimmer, to swim to the base pulling her while she intentionally freezes her body and hopefully get revived later. The feeling of absolute despair was strong and you gripped the theater seats in anticipation.

But this year's Poseidon? You might possibly grip the seats, but only to level you as you stand up and leave. If there was anyone who would've understood this, I thought it'd be Mr. Petersen, if Das Boot was any indication. But no, you get the feeling he rushed this one, deciding on the obvious and unfortunate strategy of leveling the audience with CGI instead of a good story of survival, which the movie was supposed to be about. You never get the feeling they were in any real danger. Everything was well lighted, and the sight of dead bodies floating about was almost comical. In real life, it'd probably be pitch black with very little light, to enhance that 'trapped in a sinking coffin' idea.

I recommend this movie for a quick reprieve from the afternoon heat, or when you've nothing better to do in between meetings or a date. Otherwise, you've no reason to go out of your way to watch it, nor have I to write about it any longer than this point.

Postscript: The movie was bad enough, but they had to kill Fergie. The bastards! Now we'd never know what she was going to do with all that junk. All that junk inside that trunk.

Technorati Tags: posiedon, the poseidon adventure, ernest borgnine, kurt russell, mary elizabeth mastrantonio, the abyss, ed harris, disaster movies, das boot, wolfgang petersen, the perfect storm

powered by performancing firefox

[ratings]

Ok, clarification. I have learned to appreciate other genres, hence need to disperse my attention on a more general plane. Yes, that sounds right. At least better than saying I'm old.

Buuut anyway. Oh yeah, the movie.

First thing you'll notice from the first 30 minutes onwards is the apparent haste in which this movie is disposing off its stars. I suppose I should be careful lest the reader hadn't watched it yet (Cyclopse and Xavier are DEEEAAADDD!), but the movie's goal it seems is to start anew two, maybe three years from now, with a whole new cast and (better?) contracts to maintain them.

Storm (Halle Berry) and Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) are, of course, still very much around. As with Rogue, although at a dramatically diminished role, which is a pity since she's my favorite character in the X-men Evolution cartoons, the only ones I've watched.

Plot is thin, which is expected of X-Men flicks. See, films like X-Men don't and shouldn't take a lot of brain activity, and so little effort is exerted in that effort. You got your good guys and your bad guys, and you spend pretty much most of the time wondering how the movie character live up to the one you're familiar with in the cartoon or comics. Put in your cuteness factor ("Hey the gardener's Stan Lee!!"), a little romantic subplot between the gorgeous angsty hunk and ravaging emotionally mixed-up beauty, and voila.

Oh well ok, there is a plot. And from memory (I'm trying real hard to remember here..), it's to do with a mutant with the power to remove other mutant's powers and from whom a 'cure' is derived. Both factions of X-men have their own way to deal with the issue, one of course, the evil and therefore wrong way, which is to dispose of threat in heavy-handed fashion, and the other the noble and correct way, which is.. I'm not really sure actually. Either I wasn't paying attention (and rightfully so), or the heroes just didn't have time to develop a plan and had to deal with the bad guys. Whichever.

The highlight of the movie was a big battle scene set at Alcatraz, where Gandalf Magneto displays the X-Men trick of all tricks, which is to lift the Golden Gate bridge off of its base and float it in the air to the island. Amm-tastically-mamazing. With powers like that, you'd think Jean Grey's (Famke Janssen) could do more than get water and stones to fly around the air. Which is probably the same as I'd say for the big dramatic scene which also took place here, featuring Wolverine's heroic stand ("I'm the only one who can deal with her!", or something like that), his equally heroic march ("Urrrgghh! Unnnggghh! AAArrrgghh!"), and final act of sacrifice.

I felt so moved that I caught myself thinking "I should be feeling moved!", and probably should have, if it weren't for feeling confused at its end than anything.

The way I see it, the X-Men movies are a carnival. A whomping, stomping, loud and colorful carnival where you can laugh, cry, roar and scream all night, and then again the next day. The key to the X-men are its varied characters, all with interesting plots and a thousand different directions. That's why there are so many types and version of it. That's why any of them had been so successful over the years. That's why it'll live on for 50 or 100 more years.

The problem is, we don't have all night and next day. We've only three hours, and even then barely enough after the thin plot and the comparisons between movie and cartoon/comic character, to feel empathy towards them. And empathy is what this movie lacks. At the moment Wolverine stabs the woman he loves, you are supposed to feel your heart collapse with dispair. Unfortunately, the story didn't evolve well enough to allow that. Instead, we are reflecting on Rogue's decision to become human. Or Magneto's regret at seeing his good friend die. Or wondering whatever happened to Cyclopse (and why they didn't even ask where he is), and a hundred other things.

It's just too much trying to happen with too little time. At least in X-Men 2, they concentrated on Wolverine's story (unfortunately killing off the delicious looking Kelly Hu), so there was some focus. Unfortunately, Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming) is also gone in this one, which sucks because he was a very interesting character. Incidentally, another and constant distraction for me, as I catch myself wondering why they couldn't come to terms.

Postcript: When Magneto mentioned that in a battle, the pawns go first (to die), and that apparently, there are Class 3 and Class 5 type mutants, depending on how strong they are, I kept thinking of The Mystery Men, definitely Class 1 types and how they must have been in that first wave. It'd have been great to see (or not see), The Invisible Boy, (who's only invisible when nobody's around), the Shoveller (William H. Macy, my fave actor), and especially, Ben Stiller as Mr. Furious, whose power it is to get "really, really" angry.

[tag]x-men, halle berry, hugh jackman, cyclopse, xavier, storm, wolverine, ian mckellan, magneto[/tag]

[ratings]

Or maybe it's because it's a movie with animated talking animals, and I didn't take it seriously.

Or maybe after watching some of the more excellent versions of similarly themed movies, I had such high expectations.

Whatever.

I suppose the fact that I couldn't figure out whether I liked it means - I don't neither.

So let's analyze that for a second.

The Hedge, a long wall-shaped bush to us garden ignorants, represents for Verne the turtle, played by Garry Shandling along with a cast of Steve Carell, Wanda Sykes, William Shatner(!), Eugene Levy and others, a major change in their lives. They play animals of course, most of which aren't native to us tropic folk so I don't recognize most of them. It's also based on a comic strip, which again, isn't available in these parts or at least I've not seen one yet.

During a long (must have been very long) hibernation, humans built a suburbs area around their natural forest habitat, forcing them to change their living habits.

At this point you may think this is a movie about learning to adapt to one's new conditions as I did, but you'd be wrong. More on this later.

Surprisingly, it's a movie about family. RJ, the wily squirrel (I think), is a loner, and falls into disfavor with Vincent (Nick Nolte), a mean bear, when he manages to destroy the food Vincent collected for his winter sleep. Vincent gives him a week to replace it, and under the threat of death (somewhat PG dont you think?), RJ manipulates Verne and crew to help him by convincing them he's teaching them to adapt into the new world they're in.

Verne, ever the conservative, resists RJ's attempts, and later on confuses this with his need to maintain leadership and compares himself with the forwardthinking RJ. This forms the conflict in the story, along with RJ's surprise at how the group had come to rely on and admire him, factors which eventually lead him onto the right path.

These are the movie's highlights, and the endearing parts as well. RJ converts from just another thieving, smart alecky rascal into a family member, it's leader and one responsible for the family at that. Verne's assuring him that if he had asked for help to begin with, they would have, and he didn't have to trick them, is a revelation - a completely alien concept to a certified loner. This, along with the fact that the 'family' is actually a hodgepodge of different animals bonded together by choice are the parts I remember most.

So where does the problem start? The movie, as we do, loves to take potshots at our wasteful ways, but offers no solution to it either. Verne and company need to adapt to their new situation - terrible as it may seem - and even if it's worlds apart from the foraging that their used to, they still need to get with the program to survive.

That whole scene smacks of the 'cuteness factor', as it gives the movie a chance to show humans buying, consuming, praying to, getting rid of, delivering, ordering, storing, everything - food. We've always known how ridiculous it's become, and this merely puts a spotlight to it.

But going back to foraging through the forest, inspite of the movie's romanticizing it, is out of the question. It's obvious (at least to me) that the gang has to learn to steal from humans and rummage through trashcans if they want to survive. They've no choice. So in effect, the need for cuteness caused a situation which the movie had to resolve, but couldn't and didn't.

If you aren't as needly about details as I am, watch Over The Hedge just because it's a quick 83 minutes of fun. Check out Hammie - the not so bright but very fast critter (told you I wasn't familiar with them), and how RJ gets him to do his will. Check out RJ himself, and his survival / manipulative skills that allow him to get through life without need of others. Check out Verne and company, and the interesting (but wrong) coming out of Wanda Syke's Skunk and the Persian Cat. Why not look for Avril Lavigne in there somewhere as well? She plays Heather, a Possum, who along with Ozzie played by William Shatner, play a very minor father-daughter subplot that pretty much falls by the wayside.

But if you've come to expect perfection in the stories and sub-stories of other animated movies as Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, then this one just barely makes it over the hedge.

[tag]over the hedge, bruce willis, william shatner, avril lavigne, nick nolte, Garry Shandling, Steve Carell, Wanda Sykes, [/tag]

[ratings]