Must See Movie

"Thank You for Smoking"

Find a way to see this movie.

That's an order

V for "Crap"

Movie Review

V for Vendetta

I thought after attending the stinkfest “Date Movie” and the painful “Ultraviolet” in consecutive weeks I would finally enjoy a movie in V for Vendetta. How cruel the gods of entertainment truly are. If I were to watch this film again, I would sneak a sleeping pill about a half an hour beforehand, enjoy the first explosion in the opening scene, sleep through the middle then have someone wake me up for the final explosion. Explosion, nap, explosion; maybe then I wouldn’t have objected so much to having put forth money to see this film. That wasn’t a spoiler either, as we know from the trailers what the ending of the film shall be.

Natalie Portman plays Evey Hammond, a Londoner who works for the state sanctioned television network. It’s a London with obvious Orwellian rules regarding behavior, and Evey is caught after curfew by some non-uniformed enforcement officers who are preparing to rape her. V, played by Hugo Weaving, intervenes and incapacitates the men before they can harm Evey. He’s wearing the mask of Guy Fawkes, an anti-Protestant terrorist from seventeenth century who tried to kill off the protestant government of England by blowing up the Parliamentary building in London.

Soon enough, Evey Hammond is knee deep with V and is forced into hiding after helping V take over a television network. I guess there’s some plot in the movie, since we need to understand how we get from the beginning explosion to the ending explosion. Fascists are involved, evil pharmaceutical corporations are involved, hypocritical priests and I think they even kill off a Rush Limbaugh type character in the mix. The message the film sends about the evils of conservatism (of which I personally am one) is heavy throughout the film. It’s an unfair caricature for sure.

The obvious political message of the movie could be forgiven if it were simply a better film. Natalie Portman’s performance is unbearable. It’s hard to believe you’re in London when the main protagonist can’t maintain a British accent. Portman feels almost lifeless in her role. I guess that can be understood when you realize the other protagonist is a guy trying to act through a mask. Hugo Weaving does his best, however it only takes a while to be completed frustrated by the mask. Not only do we never see any facial expression, Weaving’s voice is muffled and difficult to listen to behind the mask. Eventually it’s simply easier to give up trying to pay attention to the dialogue.

Not that the dialogue is bad. There are some wonderful soliloquies and exchanges in the film. Some. V is put forth as an extremely witty and verbose former actor who delivers theatric performances as he’s starting the revolution. Those exchanges disappear about 20 minutes into the film.

There are some action sequences to the movie. V carries around long daggers with which he fights. The expectation of these sequences is very high considering the magnificent history the Wachowski brothers have had in special effects and cinematography with their Matrix trilogy. However, all the action sequences (excepting the explosions at the beginning and ending of the film) come off flat and uninteresting. The special effects are lackluster. Huge disappointment.

V for Vendetta is an over hyped movie with occasional brilliance in dialogue combined with lazy special effects, tired action sequences, fatigued performances, plot holes, slow pace and a weak script. Take a pass and save yourself the time and money.

Walk the Line, then walk away from the theatre

Walk the Line

Great idea with great performances poorly executed

Hollywood has been making biopic (biographical) films since the beginning of films. At first, the biographies were overly positive. “The Pride of the Yankees”, “The Charles Lindberg Story,” even the post WWII movie “The Desert Fox” focused more on the positive aspects of Erwin Rommel, a German Field Marshal. Eventually the genre changed to try to provide a deeper understanding of the person. “Lawrence of Arabia” is the classic example; in that movie the viewer was exposed not to just what T.E. Lawrence did, but who he was.

Eventually these biopic films became much more honest, incorporating both the positive and the negative aspects of individuals. This is fine; I don’t want propaganda in biopic films. It’s fascinating to see the darker side of important figures. It makes them much more real, and yet makes their accomplishments all the more spectacular. The movie “Ray” epitomizes this balance.

“Ray” was one of the best movies of the decade. The story of Ray Charles put to the silver screen. Audiences got a healthy dose of music, an incredible performance by Jamie Foxx, and a fair picture of the life of Ray Charles, including the low points and the high points.

“Walk the Line” should be the same thing as “Ray.” It’s a biography of a musical figure who had low points in his life. But in execution, “Walk the Line” comes no where near the quality of “Ray.” Even in the genre of biographies this movie fails to live up to any standard. Even if it were decided that Walk the Line should not be compared to “Ray,” it’s still my conclusion that this film isn’t worth the price of any admission.

Joaquin Phoenix does a good job portraying the enigmatic singer Johnny Cash; Reese Witherspoon shows her abilities playing the part of June Carter. The movie looks good, each scene has good direction. But this movie lacks any kind of spirit. It has an almost flat reception. In fact, a major part of the story, the romance between June Carter and Johnny Cash, is absent. There is no chemistry. It’s not a love story at all. Carter and Cash appear only as close friends.

The film focuses on ten years of Cash’s life. Ten dark years where Cash was ruled by an addiction to amphetamines and other drugs. Ten years of strife with his first wife. Ten years of adultery. The movie hardly does justice to the life of Johnny Cash, it focuses more on the faults of Johnny Cash. The goal of this movie was to destroy the memory of Johnny Cash. It did not present a balanced view of the man’s life. It did not tell us of his origins. There are few epiphanies. The characters don’t grow as people. Cash is not presented as a deep character. He’s more or less portrayed as an antagonist.

The man who was Johnny Cash is not present in this film. The film does not portray his recovery from drugs. In an act of pure “Christo-phobia” the movie fails to show Johnny Cash answering an alter-call. The movie was designed to destroy the man. Cash’s humanly faults become the movie, and the movie exaggerates those faults. After watching “Ray” I had a better understanding, respect and empathy for Ray Charles. This movie leaves me no such feelings for Johnny Cash. It fails as a biography, and it fails as a film. It belongs to the “Made for TV” movie genre, not the silver screen. Save your Cash and go elsewhere.

Four Brothers worth the late August go

I didn’t expect a lot from this movie, it was one of those that someone else dragged me to. Upon leaving the movie I reflected on that fact, and thanked the person for getting me to see the movie. Four Brothers may not have Oscar potential, and it won’t be a blockbuster, but it’s one of the better films I’ve seen this year, and the subjects brought to face by the movie are eternal. Morality, family, vengeance and justice are all themes that this movie forces us to confront.

The movie opens in Detroit at a local convenience store. An old woman is murdered when the store is robbed. At the funeral there is a reunion of the woman’s four adopted children.

The adopted children are a collection of misfits and criminals. Bobby Mercer played by Mark Wahlberg is the oldest. These men are all tough, hardened men. However, they have a large soft spot for their adopted mother and each other. They are religious, they pray before meals. They are good brothers, and it shows that family love is not about blood. They are of different races, but race is no matter to them. It’s an important message.

However, they are still violent people, and they decide to seek out vengeance for their mother’s death. This is the first moral theme, vengeance. They want to make whoever killed their mother pay for the crime, and they go outside the law to do it. It’s vigilantism. Our protagonists, while we in the audience know them to be good people, force us to dissent in their ways. But the question lingers, was their vigilantism right?

The characters are moral, they are throwbacks to the cowboy era of America, and their John Wayne attitudes are juxtaposed with the cruel modernity of Detroit. In America we love justice more than we love the law, and for the most part we know that law doesn’t exist for its own sake. This movie takes us across the gray and forces to question how far we’ll take our beliefs in justice.

This movie is violent but has good messages about race. It has good messages about family. It’s also a wonderful story and every performance is done well. It’s worth the cost of admission. John Singleton directed this film.

Open Thread!

Anything movie related...

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Johnny Depp normally turns me away from movies. However, Depp’s performance in “Pirates of the Caribbean” was enough to give me reason to cut the guy some slack. This movie almost takes up all that slack. But upon reflection, it wasn’t Depp’s performance that kept me from enjoying this film; it was the slow moving pace of the film itself.

I can tell you that this is a fair remake of the classic. I can tell you second hand that this is a fair version of the original stories by Roald Dahl. Unfortunately, I can’t suggest that you see this film, at least not in theatres.

Among it’s many problems is how nothing interesting happens in the film. There are some interesting special effects, and there are some interesting twists and spin-offs from the original film. But the only thing I got from this film was fatigue. I remember at one point wanting to walk out of the theatre due to boredom.

However, I must admit that I was in the minority on this film. When the film was over, it received applause in that Midwestern theatre. I suggest waiting to rent or own. This movie’s above average special effects will work well on a small screen as they do on a large one.

Painful summer...

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy,

Charlie and the Chocalate Factory,

Fantastic Four,

All crap not worth seeing at the movie theatres.

War of the Worlds

In a lot of ways I believe that today is the true golden age of science fiction films. Not only are great new works like “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” available, but Hollywood is revisiting old classics like this one.

This film, “War of the Worlds” is a remake of the 1953 story of the same name, based on the H.G. Wells book of the same name. Despite all that repetition, this film delivers what the previous incarnation couldn’t, but the changes in story make a number of oddball plot holes that need to be ignored if one is to enjoy this film.

I don’t want to get too far into the plethora of problems with the updates version of story, as it might act as a spoiler to the film. However, the big question that persists in my mind was “when did they bury the tripods?” In the film, the aliens are transported to their killing platforms, called “tripods” by lightning. However, that just begs the question, when were they put there? Why weren’t they detected when the subways were built, how did they know they would need shields, and how did they know where the major cities would be?

If you can get past this major point, you’ll enjoy this film. Spielberg puts forth a classic work of science fiction in a way the filmmakers of 1953 could only dream. The death ray, the aliens, the carnage, all are incredible. This is a great looking film, and the special effects are on par with any movie out there.

One of the more notable points in the movie is when the main character, Ray Ferrier, is walking with a large group of refugees when they stop at a railroad crossing that is signaling that a train is coming. Then the train crosses the screen, it’s on fire, the whole car. This glimpse of devastation (we get plenty) is rather poignant, and it ended up being rather humorous. It was a very powerful scene; it showed the total desperation in the faces of those that were taking on the mental pressure of knowing that they were being exterminated.

Another element that was enjoyable in this film was the shift from the floating craft of the 1953 film to the “tripods” that matched the described craft from the book. The movie shifts between the retro look that matches the book, to the modern aspects of war fighting. This it accomplishes quite well, like I said, it’s a good looking film.

As for the acting, there’s nothing really all that spectacular. Tom Cruise is what he always is. Dakota Fanning plays the young daughter of Mr. Cruise’s character, and does so well. There are some noteworthy performances by bit players in the film, one of whom is Camillia Sanes, who plays a TV producer that encounters the Ferrier family and fortuitously describes all the “need to know” details that would have required a narrator. Of course, the beginning and ending of the film were narrated by Morgan Freeman anyway.

This movie is not perfect, it’s not great, it’s not grand, it’s just an okay production of an aged sci-fi yarn. The special effects are spectacular, the plot holes are many, the desperation feels real, and the aliens are stolen from “Independence Day”. Have your popcorn in hand, and let you rational mind wander for awhile.

Batman Begins

Do not be afraid, fear no darkness, and unleash all expectations. This film is as good as the all the hype, and more.

I was fortunate enough to have seen the film before I read any of the standard assortments of critical reviews out in the press. I had heard hearsay that Roger Ebert had said that this movie accomplished exactly what comics to movies should accomplish. Nothing more, just the standard rumblings you’d expect from the standard summer blockbuster.

This film is not a regular summer blockbuster. It saves the Batman movie genre single handedly from the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tommy Lee Jones and other terrible performances from the past five films based on Batman Comics. This film is also the greatest achiever in the category of “Comic Book based film.” This film beats Spiderman II and X2: X-Men United.

This is one of those movies that accomplishes all that it could. It is an achievement from every element, writing, directing, acting, special effects, and production. It will be difficult to describe fully.

This film is directed by Christopher Nolan, who also directed the underground favorite “Memento.” Nolan holds viewers in this comic book world effortlessly. The movie is 2 hours and 21 minutes in length, but the viewer doesn’t notice this at all. Even in films that are really good, like the LOTR trilogy, you still feel some dissonance as you realize you’ve been watching for a considerable length of time. Not in this film. There is only great disappointment that the movie has to end. Nolan accomplishes much in this film, but most of all he brings the viewers into a different world, and keeps them their without complaint.

There are some great acting performances in this film as well. Christian Bale plays the lead role as the young and troubled Bruce Wayne; he flees to another country before returning to Gotham to try to pick up whatever was left of his life. Liam Neeson plays Ducard, the man who takes the young Wayne under his wing into a secret Ninja society before he and Wayne part ways and Ducard become an antagonist. Neeson plays a character caught between good and evil: someone who has noble goals but dangerous means. He’s sympathetic, which makes him the perfect villain in this role.

Oscar winner Michael Caine plays Alfred, the beloved butler of the Wayne family. Caine’s performance overshadows all others, including the abilities of Morgan Freeman, who plays another Bruce Wayne confidant. The only dim bulb in this cast was Katie Holmes, who does well, but her role is limited as the love interest and damsel in distress.

What makes this story so great is it escapes what I call the “superhero problem.” All movies that deal with how a superhero becomes a superhero are boring. Superman is just an alien. Spiderman gets bit by a radioactive spider. The Fantastic Four are hit with extreme radiation. The X-Men are just mutants, the next step in evolution. None of this is interesting alone. Even the non-super power superheroes have boring background stories. The Punisher is just a guy whose loved ones were gunned down. While this is the setup for Batman (the murder of Bruce Wayne’s parents as a child) it isn’t the full story.

Bruce Wayne becomes Batman in the event described in this film. The persona evolves. First Wayne tries to understand the man who murdered his parents by becoming a criminal himself, running away to the Orient for seven years. There he ends up in prison, but is released and studies to become a Ninja at a mountain school under Liam Neeson’s character. The two have a falling out, and Wayne returns home. His concern for Gotham and Katie Holme’s character (a local district attorney) leads him down the path of vigilante-hood.

However, Wayne never fully embraces the idea, the persona “Batman” until he forced to deal with a super villain, in this movie Scarecrow. As the movie escalates, we see Wayne evolve. Despite my description, the plot is very fast paced and interesting.

Sure, there are some weak points. Christopher Nolan felt the need to intersperse small tidbits of humor at inopportune times. Some of the plot is wholly unbelievable, but we forgive these transgressions because even a diamond has imperfections, and this film is still a diamond in a sea of cruddy summer blockbusters. Enough reading already, go see this film!

Not my standard bargain bin fare

Cinderella Man

Russell Crowe, Renee Zellweger

2005

Boxing movies tend to be tougher to work than other sports movies. Boxing matches tend to be long and drawn out, there’s a lot of back and forth, and it’s a lot of intensity all the time. The average viewer will eventually lose interest in watching two actors fake pummel each other. There is also the issue of scoring. In many sports, scoring makes sense. Points are assigned to explainable acts; a run in baseball, a point in hockey, even judged sports like figure skating can be understood. But in boxing, points are given for hits, knock downs, and penalties, and even I have a difficult time scoring a match even when I know what to look for.

Add to all that the fact that many boxing matches are decided not by knockouts but by scoring, it makes pulling off a boxing movie tough. And if the movie is a true story, where you lack the Hollywood ability to knock a guy out to avoid the issues I mentioned, entertainment is nearly impossible. These facts simply broaden the accomplishment that is “Cinderella Man.”

This movie is an adaptation of the life of James Braddock, a depression era boxer who went from a washed up fighter who had to go on public assistance to world champion. The story takes place during the depression of the 1930’s. We get to see the effects of the depression straight up, in a very accurate way.

This movie also accomplishes something else that is very hard to do, and that is to keep the interest of an audience that already knows the plot. Stories about comefrombehindunderdogsthatwinbig are not new at all. From the outset, we know that Braddock will win, yet win he does there is still exaltation left for this 75 year old story.

Ron Howard does a superb job directing this movie, and gets great performances out of everyone in the cast. Zellweger is very strong as the wife of Jimmy Braddock, but her performance has been hyped a little too much. Russell Crowe is surprisingly good. There are plenty of other great performances, including my favorite performance in the entire film, Chuck Shamata playing Father Rorick, the Braddock family priest and former sparring partner of Braddock’s. The scenes involving Shamata, who is an award winning actor in Canada, never fail to provide some comedic relief during some of the most intense fighting scenes in the movie. This helps the viewer not overdose of brute violence.

Not that this film doesn’t have brute violence. The boxing scenes in this movie are believable and impressive. The film does spend a lot of time on these scenes though, which should be expected. The cinematography is excellent, and this film looks good.

Definitely see this film, it is not just for boxing enthusiasts.

The Longest Yard

Thanks to my numerous contacts in the media (okay, I admit, I snuck in), I was able to see a pre-screening of Adam Sandler's latest film "The Longest Yard." The movie is a remake of the 1974 Burt Reynold's classic of the same name. Adam Sandler plays Paul Crewe, a former NFL MVP quarterback that was accused of shaving points from a game. He is washed out of the NFL, and we catch up with him five years later at a party being hosted by his girlfriend. Crewe gets drunk, steals his girlfriend's car, and later goes on a high speed chase with police that results in his arrest.

Enter James Cromwell as Warden Hazen. Hazen is a warden of a Texas prison that sports a semi-professional football team that could use the help of the NFL inmate. Hazen pulls some favors and finds himself with the star prisoner, and through the standard means forces Crewe to help out his team. Crewe suggests a practice game against a lesser opponent to sharpen the skills of the players and to get their confidence up. Warden Hazen then tells Crewe to put together a team of prisoners to take on the guards. During this Crewe befriends Caretaker, played by Chris Rock.

This movie is a fast moving popcorn film that is enjoyable for its faith to the original film, and the new twists and upgrades this film makes. Sandler plays his character well, he even looks like he beefed up for the part, Chris Rock is foul mouthed as usual, but the audience begins to empathize with his character. The audience will enjoy the numerous cameos that include Chris Berman for ESPN, Bill Goldberg and Stone Cold Steve Austin of wrestling lore, and the indefatigable Burt Reynolds, who plays an aged inmate who in a former life won the Heisman trophy.

It is important to note that Reynolds truly does embarass the rest of the cast with his acting ability. In a lot of ways I can't believe that I'm actually saying that, but it's true. In the first part of the film, we get used to the onscreen presence of Sandler, Rock et al. But once Reynolds walks into the film, we realize just how poor all the other actors are, despite their above par performances. If you can still suspend your disbelief with Reynolds on screen, then you will enjoy this movie.

There were some downpoints to the film. James Cromwell is just not believable. There are plenty of sophomoric antics that Sandler has yet to mature from, and there is plenty of tasteless humor about prison sodomy that detracts greatly from the film. Fortunately, the film moves too quickly to dwell on such things. This movie is not art, and it is not the drama that the first incarnation was, but it's a lot more fun.

A movie of some note and intrigue

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith

2005

It will be very difficult to do this movie justice. In this final episode in the George Lucas’ Star Wars prequels, Lucas puts together and completes the story in a slam dunk manner. I must admit, I was very surprised by how good this film turned out to be. In many ways, at least in my mind, this film redeems Lucas for his failings as a director, and his failings in the director’s cuts of his original trilogy.

In this film, the seduction and fall of Anakin Skywalker is played out, and he descends to become the Darth Vader we will know (and do know) in Star Wars episodes IV-VI. We also see how Emperor Palpatine comes to power, how the Republic is dismantled, how the Jedi are massacred, and how the clone war comes to an end. Quite frankly, it was almost too much, even for a 140 minute movie.

It is probably for this reason that the movie glosses over the deaths of the Jedi Order, which was actually anti-climatic. This oversight, as well as some other negative aspects in the film are worth noting right away. The biggest weakness in the film is the casting of Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker. His performance is only tolerable when he isn’t speaking. This is coupled with a less than stellar performance by Natalie Portman, who portrays Padme, the mother of Luke Skywalker and Leia, makes for some mind numbing scenes of dialogue between the two.

Fortunately this movie had a number of strong performances, including Ewan McGregor’s portrayal of Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ian McDiarmid as Emperor Palpatine. There are other notable performances too, including Samuel L. Jackson’s "Mace Windu," which is underutilized, and a surprisingly strong cast of extras and bit players.

Acting was clearly the weakness of "Revenge of the Sith." Despite that, it still makes par, and is overshadowed in my mind to how strong everything else in the movie is done. The biggest success of this film has to be the computer animation. The movie moves seamlessly from blue screen to computer animation to live action. One would be hard-pressed to show a more successful use of special effects. Only the Lord of the Rings trilogy rivals in the special effects arena.

This film also has a strong showing in action sequences. The final climatic battles are some of the best martial arts sequences one is ever going to find. One sequence is between Darth Vader and Obi-Wan Kenobi, the other is between Yoda and Emperor Palpatine. Both are a credit to George Lucas. As far as I can remember, and I’ve seen a lot of films, there has never been as good a sword fighting sequence as the one in this movie between Vader and Kenobi. I was personally in awe as I was watching.

There is a lot I’m not mentioning, but look for the character development of R2D2, who has a number of great action sequences. Note how Lucas actually completes the story for us, covering up potential problems in the timeline. I can’t say enough, see this film.

Star Wars Ewok Adventures

Caravan of Courage

Just because I like to be thorough, I tracked down a DVD copy of two movies that George Lucas did for TV based on the little furry creatures Solo and crew meet on their last mission in "Return of the Jedi" I also know that the word "Ewok" never appears or is spoken in any of the Star Wars films. How do we know that these furballs are "Ewoks"? Because Lucas made lots of money selling crap to kids. In fact, Lucas' actions are perfectly spoofed in the Mel Gibson film "Spaceballs." I suggest you find a copy of that movie, rather than try to sleep your way through "Caravan of Courage"

First and foremost, this movie is a kids movie. Not because it was necessarily meant to be viewed by children, it just seems to have been written, directed, and produced by children. The basic plot outline is that a shuttlecraft crashes on Endor, it's a family, and the parents are kidnapped by a giant. the kids are left to fend for themselves, luckily the little s get found by Ewoks. The Ewoks are little furball creatures that have written language, magical powers, gliders, and Target bought candles.

In fact, there's a lot of props in this movie that leave a person wondering, does George Lucas hate me?

First off, there is a series of Earthling domisticated animals, including rabbits, horses, ferrets, llamas, and Tinkerbell. Luckily, Tinkerbell comes in handy when its time to kill off the giant, who looks exactly like Dick Nixon.

I will spare the reader the details, but this movie takes forever. It's over an hour and a half long, and contains a lot of filler. There is one scene that is representative of the idiocy of the entire film, and that is towards the climax of the film. The Ewoks and the older brother are invading the Giant's stronghold, and they fight off some giant spiders. They then use the spiderweb to cross a cavern, then they cut the spiderweb! This comes back to haunt them, as they need to cross that very cavern later.

Warning, spoiler ahead:

This movie has a "happy" ending. Tricky Dick is given the dignity of being thrown into the cavern by an overstuffed teddy bear, the parents are saved, and an Ewok dies. Personally, I was cheering for Nixon to eat everyone.

This film has a few brightpots, despite the numerous plot holes, the discontinuity, and annoying characters, the special effects are fair, and the picture quality is good. I give it a up, if only to see a very ed off monsterized Richard Nixon.

Star Wars Preview

Anyone who knows me would probably guess that I have any number of personality quirks that keep me outside of the category of "normal" but just outside of any DSM-IV diagnosis. Sometimes I think the APA needs to adjust their manual.

In preparation for the Thursday release of "Revenge of the Sith" the third installment of George Lucas' Star Wars prequel, I have been watching and reading every little bit of Star Wars I can find. I watched all three of the original episodes, both the original theatric release (on Laserdisc) and the 1997 special edition. I have not yet watched the recently released DVD set with more updates, but I cursed Lucas' name in a pre-emptive strike to make sure. I also saw the first two episodes of the prequels. I even tracked down copies of "The Ewok Adventure" and "Battle for Endor" both made for TV films. Heck, I even tracked down a couple of guys who had seen and were selling bootleg copies of the infamous "Christmas Special" that Lucas probably wishes never happened. I have had conversations centered around Star Wars with my other geek friends.

I visited fan websites and saw fan films and read fan fiction (...shudder...). And all I could think about was...

How did Tiger Woods miss the cut?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing episode three, if only not to cry like that pansy Spielberg. I was unable to get any press passes for this film (The Minnesota Daily just isn't a heavy hitter, and this blog needs more readers) so I'll be paying like the pathetic chap I am. I might even spend the night before in line somewhere, just to experience what life feels like to be a DSM-IV diagnosis. I'm also a little scared, this movie has gained a lot of acclaim. The NYT said it was better than the original series.

Would my grown-up longing for a return to the wide-eyed enthusiasm of my own movie going boyhood - and my undiminished hunger for entertainment with sweep and power as well as noise and dazzle - be satisfied by "Revenge of the Sith"? The answer is yeth. This is by far the best film in the more recent trilogy, and also the best of the four episodes Mr. Lucas has directed. That's right (and my inner 11-year-old shudders as I type this): it's better than "Star Wars." "Revenge of the Sith," which had its premiere here yesterday at the Cannes International Film Festival, ranks with "The Empire Strikes Back" (directed by Irvin Kershner in 1980) as the richest and most challenging movie in the cycle. It comes closer than any of the other episodes to realizing Mr. Lucas's frequently reiterated dream of bringing the combination of vigorous spectacle and mythic resonance he found in the films of Akira Kurosawa into American commercial cinema.

This is bad news, as my hatred for George Lucas grows much like the mighty oak, except a lot faster and a lot bigger. He should never be forgiven for what he did to his first remake of his films. Lucas is also taking a shot at G.W. Bush in his last film (so says that NYT reviewer) Here are some must reads before anyone sees this movie: There is a case to be made for the empire (and a good one at that) Lucas should be drawn and quartered? Maybe not

On further review...

Just watched the first episode of Star Wars for the first time since I was hugely disappointed with it on its opening weekend.

This time I enjoyed it. Maybe it was the lack of expectation, but it wasn't nearly as bad as I remember.

Some weekend movies?

I just watched two movies this week, "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy" and "The Big Lebowski"

I recomend neither of them. Anchorman is a collection of childish antics, and Lebowski ended up being a waste of time in that it was not funny, nor even a good time waster.

Pick up Sideways or Ghostbusters instead.

Kingdom of Heaven

This is an historical drama played out during the times just before the third crusades, the film opens in 1186. Orlando Bloom plays a French peasant and blacksmith named Balian, who flees from his home village and joins his estranged father for the Holy Land. On the way, Balian becomes a knight, decreed by his dying father, and inherits the land and responsibilities of his father in the lands surrounding Jerusalem.

This film is based on historical accounts of the times just before King Richard I went on his crusade to recapture the Holy Lands for Christianity. In fact, the historical Balian (Balian the Younger) did in fact negotiate peace between Richard and Saladin, ending the third crusade. However, most of this film is fiction. It is good fiction, and the film shows accurately the brutality of the crusades.

I would recommend this film to most people, it is very violent, and so that should be kept in mind. The acting is above average, Orlando Bloom is tolerable, and there are excellent performances by Jeremy Irons and Eva Green that more than make up for Bloom’s overpowering self worship.

The cinematography of this film is quite an achievement. It feels much like actual war footage, at times it becomes a little too melodramatic.

My one solitary criticism of this film is that it moves a little slowly. It feels and moves almost like a documentary, except it’s not supposed to. It meanders much like how life in the 12th century actually moved. I can respect the film a lot for that, however, it should move quicker. All things considered, this is a great work, and highly enjoyable.


On the Net:

IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/

Official Website:
http://www.kingdomofheavenmovie.com/

More about the movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Heaven_%28movie%29

The real Balian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balian_of_Ibelin

Bargain Bin Movie Review

Project: Kill (1976)

Location: Walmart

Price: $1 (that's right, a dollar)

I have to admit it, I like Leslie Nielson. His performances over a broad range of parodies and spoofs has been excellent. Everything from the Naked Gun movies to the unheralded 2001 a Space Travesty is in my movie watching rotation. I feel bad, he's approaching the age of 80 now, and his movie making days are coming to a slow halt.

I also have to admit that I knew Nielson had a serious acting career before he found fame as a comedy actor. You might remember one of his serious roles as the captain of the ship in "The Poseidon Adventure" and played Commander John Adams in my favorite 50's sci-fi flick "The Forbidden Planet." If you ever get the chance, see "Day of the Animals." Let's just say there's a scene with Nielson and a bear, funny as hell, it wasn't supposed to be.

However, very rarely is it that I find myself looking at a serious film that is starring Leslie Nielson. Project: Kill was just such a movie, and this movie flops, despite an excellent effort by Nielson. In fact, Nielson's serious acting ability bounces well off of the collection of terrible performances that surround him.

He plays this chemically enhanced secret agent that rebels against his organization and goes into hiding. Of course, the "agency" sends his apprentice, played pathetically by Gary Lockwood, to hunt him down. Unfortunately, this film never gets going. It's carried by Nielson the entire time, but even he couldn't save this work.

Seriously, I was paying close attention, I don't think anything important happened. Here are my notes while watching this film:

-Character introduction, Nielson's escape, tolerable.

-20 min nothing important has happened yet...

-35 min still waiting...

-42 min romantic introduction, superfluous

-45 min nothing important

-60 min some people died, not interesting

-72 min Kinda hungry

-80 min Lockwood unbearable

-annoying soundtrack

Yeah, that's right, nothing important happened at all. This film could have been shortened to an half hour episode on television. The character development they tried failed, the storyline was both confusing and ridiculous, and the martial arts scenes were mechanical and slow, even by the standards of the time. This film is completely unmemorable.

However, it's redeeming quality is that it costs a dollar, and you can use this movie to force someone to dump you.

Bargain Bin Movie Review

Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet

(1965)

Location: Best Buy

Price: $ (included two other films, "Warning from Space" and "Assignment: Outer Space")

How many hands in how many pots by how many cooks on how many stoves in how many countries does it take to ruin a movie? I think the answer is not very much, as the classic Manos: Hands of Fate showed us. However, the makers of this film, and there were many, decided to test going the other direction. This movie has had more hands on it than Paris Hilton.

Portions of this movie were originally known as "Planeta Burg" (Russian for "Planet of Storms") and had a cast of several almost not so bad Russian actors. This footage, captured with state of the art communist photo machines, is almost not grainy. In fact, on the Beer Scale of Footage Quality, this ranks "Killian's Irish Red" meaning the footage is slightly more clear than looking through a pint of Guinness.

But that's not even the best part, the best part was the footage that was spliced in when the film came to America. There are crystal clear shots of Basil Rathbone and Faith Domergue added. You can see Faith Domergue in "This Island Earth" that was so successfully riffed as the feature of "Mystery Science Theatre: 3000 The Movie."

Also, there are some scenes spliced in with American quality special effects (America was even ahead of the USSR in Z-film movie quality). From this mish mash of cinematography, the producers decided to find complete idiots to do the voice dubs of the Russian actors. At least I hope these people are idiots, they may just in fact be people with profound mental retardation, in which case their efforts are laudable.

A funny note here, the dubbing of the film was pretty bad, but what makes it hilarious is the fact that the Rathbone and Faith Domergue lines are not dubbed at all.

So, the Russian Director, the U.S. director Curtis Harrington, and the fall guy Roger Corman all added their individual specialties to this work of a thousand authors, and the result? Mud.

Wait, that's an insult to made, at least mud is consistent.

Oh yeah, I didn't even mention silly things like plots and performances and neat stuff about this film...

Maybe because there were none.

Bargain Bin Movie Review

Warning from Space

AKA The Cosmic Man Appears in Tokyo.

(1956)

Location: Best Buy

Price: $5.99 (included two other films, "Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet" and "Assignment: Outer Space")

This beauty had my name written all over it. First we had the terrible costumes of space aliens that were shaped like starfish. Starfish that had a giant flourescent eye smack dab in the middle of their bodies, and they had no arms or usable appendages, so they were psychic. Second, there were the state of the art special effects, like the gold spray painted cardboard that made up the space aliens' fleet. Third, there was the completely unbelievable plot. Let's see, a planet from another galaxy that is sort of like a star in the sense that it is really hot, is coming straight at Tokyo. An alien race (those starfish cyclops things) is trying to warn the world, but everyone just freaks out whenever they see these guys (Doesn't anyone own an aquirium?) so that the starfish people have to morph into really almost semi-attractive Japanese s to get old nutty scientists to notice them. On top of all that, the film was dubbed into english.

The best part about this film is that it was a serious effort. The acting is that of deep drama and intensity. The special effects are used a tremendous amount (strangely enough, the effects even get better as the movie goes on). The viewer even begins to share concern with the characters as their acting careers end tragically.

But alas, this movie is terrible. During one scene (the "Panic Scene") people are seen fleeing Tokyo for no reason whatsoever. There are images of people jumping off moving trains, the police chief of Tokyo decides to have the city evacuated. It's an illogical order as the Earth is being threatened by A PLANET, moving away from Tokyo is not going to help much. In fact, after the one eyed aliens make contact with the Japenese scientists, the viewer spends the rest of the film completely confused. The aliens come and go as they please, only appearing when really, really necessary. But, thankfully (spoiler ahead) everything turns out fine, except for the millions of people killed by heat stroke and panic.

I highly recomend that you go out right now to Best Buy and get this movie. Mainly because, though I've never met you, I probably don't like you.