“Little Miss Sunshine” Puts the Fun in Dysfunctional Family

“Little Miss Sunshine” achieves an amazing feat. It recycles just about everything you’ve ever seen in various other movies and turns everything inside out to make a completely fresh, smart and most importantly entertaining dysfunctional family comedy-drama. We’ve got the fighting parents, the misunderstood teen, the overachieving youngest daughter, the weirdo uncle, and the crotchety old fogy. Add in a road trip in which everything that could go wrong does and you’ve got the latest indie to break out of Sundance, “Little Miss Sunshine.” It’s a wildly entertaining and well-made romp about life that has funny, interesting characters and enough dramatic wit to please those who enjoyed the wine allegories in the overrated “Sideways.” Think “National Lampoon’s Vacation” meets “American Beauty” filtered through “Happiness” and “Welcome to the Dollhouse.” This is perhaps the wittiest, funniest, most dramatic film to come out in awhile. It if were December we’d be talking Oscar buzz.

This is a movie I want to recommend to everyone who even remotely loves movies. Like I said before it has parts that we’ve come to see before in other movies. But for some reason here they just make perfect sense and seem like we’ve seen them for the first time. Greg Kinnear and Toni colliete both portray Richard and Sheryl. Richard is having some problems at work and it’s looking like his providing for the family is looking glum. Sheryl is the typical matriarch: tired of being the matriarch. They have a teenage son Dwayne (Paul Dano) who is at that awkward “I’m in silent protest mode” stage. Richard’s father credited as Grandpa is Alan Arkin a sex-perv granddad we all wish we had. Frank (Steve Carell) is Sheryl’s manic-depressive brother. She has just picked him up from the institute in which he was committed after a failed suicide attempt. Are they dysfunctional yet? And last we have little 7-year-old Olive (Abigail Breslin) who just wants to be crowned Little Miss Sunshine.

Due to a technicality (something to due with diet pills) young Abigail who was runner-up in the regional Little Miss Sunshine pageant now gets to compete in the finals out in California. Cue the family getting into their Volkswagen van to start the road trips to end all road trips. Many things come out of this voyage. Yes it’s a voyage for little Abigail to compete in her beauty pageant, but this is an independent movie remember, so there’s more than one literal voyage. This is a voyage to the heart of this family, if there is one; I believe there is which is obvious in one of the last scenes in which the family gets together and…oh why spoil what really happens? There are plenty of oblivious mishaps along the way, but they are extremely humorous and extremely emotional.

This is a family on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Hmm interesting I wonder if their car will breakdown as well? Writer Michael Arndt has an exceptional idea of what has been done before and twisting things around so they feel fresh. Note how the family’s van’s stick shift needs to be replaced. It’s a VW so obviously the part will take forever to get. The family must push their van every time they want it to get going. Each time this happens it seems funnier that the last time we saw them do it. Arndt has this amazing ability to write scenes that are alternatively hysterical and dramatic within lines of dialogue (lines too good to ruin here). One very emotional scene, in which something rather sad occurs (don’t worry I won’t tell you what happens), before you know it, your tears of sadness suddenly become tears of laughter. Co-directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris add greatly to the already terrific screenplay. They make the most out of their frame. They are fantastic add emotional and comical weight to each scene.

Everything in “Little Miss Sunshine” is top-notch. The actors are great and the filmmakers are great. The lines are funny and have emotional credibility. Moments will make you cry and moments will make you laugh. There simply isn’t a more entertaining time at the movies. All with your brain in full functioning mode. Now that’s amazing. GRADE: A

We Can Be Heroes: Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” is a Worthy Cinematic Memorial

Oliver Stone’s new movie is respectful of everyone involved in the terrible events of 9/11. His film reflects a mournful time in America’s history, but instead of relying on shocking, disturbing images (however there’s still plenty to be disturbed by in the film) in recounting that day, he instead shows a strong sense of hope, camaraderie and heroism that was also present that day. Yes that day was filled with evil but there was plenty of hope and light at the end of the tunnel. The film takes an apolitical and uncontroversial look at the events of that day from the point of view of two real life Port Authority police officers who went into the World Trade Center that day and got caught in the rubble of the destroyed buildings. This is their story.

Stone is no stranger to controversy (see Platoon, JFK or Natural Born Killers etc) yet this time it’s not really him who is controversial; it’s the subject matter. Anyone who has the guts to make a Hollywood fiction film about September 11 is stepping into automatic controversial mode. Many questions arise. Is it too soon? Do we need a movie about 9/11? Is it disrespectful to turn a tragedy into entertainment? Why should I want to relive that day? The last question raises an interesting point. We tell each other and ourselves that we should never forget what happened. A film is the best way to show that there’s no way to ever forget the lives that were lost and the destruction that occurred. Stone’s film is, while not revelatory or as viscerally emotional as the last 9/11 film “United 93,” a very well made Hollywood story about two men who wanted to help in a crisis. It has, for a filmmaker who many consider extremely liberal, a very pro-American message about courage and survival.

One thing you’ll notice in Stone’ film, as opposed to “United 93” is the use of stars in some of the lead roles. Nicolas Cage does a commendable job of portraying Police Officer John McLoughlin. Also very good is Michael Pena, who was fantastic in last year’s Oscar-winning “Crash” as Officer Will Jimeno. I was mostly impressed with the emotional turn by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who I feel is always fine, but nothing too special. Here she brings a strong emotional weight to her role as Will’s pregnant wife. I thought she certainly stood up Maria Bello, who gave a more understated but still affective performance as John’s wife. These women probably had the hardest job to do, because they had to act like grieve stricken women without going into overboard Lifetime movie mode (a line which the film almost seemed ready to cross). However, there is one truly effective scene in which Bello conforts a total stranger, waiting to hear news about her missing son.

This is the type of film that could have easily been made into a made-for-TV movie (which I’m sure would attract a larger audience at home. It amazes me that people forget when they watch a movie on TV, even though they’re not paying for it, the networks are still working for a profit, but I digress). Stone’s film is actually filled with a surprising amount of stark colors. The scenes in which the officers’ families impatiently await news of their condition are very striking shot by DP Seamus McGarvey. These are highly contrasted to the scenes of Cage and Pena down in the dark, crumbled bowels of the building. There are also plenty of obligatory flashbacks that you typically find in conventional movies, but these scenes do affectively give more insight into these people. They are just ordinary people. And the more you realize how ordinary they are the more you realize how many ordinary people gave their lives on what should have been just any other day.

Stone succeeds in making a poignant, well-made 9/11 movie without the controversial baggage his films usually carry. In a way this works for him because he makes a more effective and respectful film in that manner. I’m sure we’ll have to wait awhile longer before anyone delves into conspiracy theory mode involving 9/11. Until that day comes, if you’re willing, Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” is a moving, well-made conventionally structured film that not only mourns those who lost their lives, but honors those who were able to survive. You’ll leave the theater with a subtle feeling of hope that in these dark post-9/11 days perhaps humanity can truly prevail. GRADE: B+

Wheely Good: A Winning Cast Keeps “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby” in the Race

I was no fan of Will Ferrell’s last attempt at sarcastic satire. That would be the skewering of 1970s TV journalism in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. I wanted to like it but I just didn’t. I guess I just didn’t get it. While others kept quoting it and laughing hysterically, I just found myself simply uninterested in it. (I did however enjoy the punting of the dog off the bridge). Now here we are two years later with the similarly titled Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. Too bad the Academy doesn’t hand out Oscars for film titles, because whoever thought of The Ballad of Ricky Bobby simply just understands what this movie is about. While Anchorman attempted to satirize TV journalism, Talladega Nights brings us the wonderful red state world of NASCAR. And while no means a moving piece of American Cinema, it had enough laughs to keep me entertained due to its inspired cast who constantly gives it their all.

Like the recent summer hit Cars, Talladega Nights revolves around a winning racer in the NASCAR set who learns to slow down. Except while Cars was a colorful animated adventure, Nights is a quirky adult comedy. It not only spoofs the utterly American sport of NASCAR but it pays tribute to it as well. This is a movie where you can be a fan or a non-fan and still enjoy the film. Ferrell is Ricky Bobby the best NASCAR driver ever. He has a beautiful wife and two vulgar sons (not surprisingly named Walker and Texas Ranger) and is very much enjoying his life in both the spotlight and fastlane. That is until tragedy strikes. A car wreck (probably the funniest and most drawn out in recent memory) makes our Southern hero scared to get in the driver’s seat again.

Ferrell is pretty much perfect for the main role and while he’s very funny (although I’m not his biggest fan) I must give credit to the entire cast who takes this silly material and raises it up a level. John C. Reilly is wild in a comedic turn as Ricky’s best friend and fellow racer. Jane Lynch (Steve Carrell’s boss in The 40 Year Old Virgin) shows up as Ricky’s mother who gives birth to little Ricky in the hilarious opening scene. Gary Cole is Ricky’s beer drinking, drug-dealing father who supposedly was also once a racer. His scenes as he coaches Ricky to drive again are some of the film’s best. Sacha Baron Cohen who many may know as “Ali G.” shows up as Ricky’s French (of course he’s French, France is the enemy remember!) racecar rival. His obviously bogus accent adds to the fun; he runs with the role. And of course my favorite supporting star the indelible Molly Shannon as the team's owner's wife. She’s a hopeless drunk and her brief scenes add up to a lot more than if it were anyone else in the role. The only one who disappoints is Amy Adams. She was hysterically brilliant in last year’s “Junebug.” Here she just plays the love interest of Ferrell late in the movie. She has one mildly amusing scene in a bar but otherwise she was hardly given anything to do. What a shame.

Talladega Nights proves to be a winning comedy. It doesn’t achieve the brilliance of The 40 Year Old Virgin but it has a large amount of laughs. Even when you’re not laughing it’s still entertaining. Director Adam McKay (who co-scripted with Ferrell) has a good eye for comedic moments. You’d be doing yourself a favor to check out this fast paced comedy. GRADE: B

Monster’s Ball: Be Prepared to Scream Your Lungs Out in “The Descent”

In the tradition of other low budget horror flicks 28 Days Later, The Blair Witch Project and Open Water, Britain’s “The Descent” is a relentless film made simply and utterly to scare the ever loving hell out of you. It works because a) it’s a good movie even without the fright factor and b) it’s one of the best splatter movies of recent memory. Ah, I must declare that I do love the R rating. Just the notion that I had to have my ID checked before entering the theater gave me the satisfaction that I would be in for something either a) extremely frightening or b) exquisitely gory. Boy was I surprised that there was a third option: c) all of the above. All of that with a simple story about monsters in a cave. And they could have called it that: Monsters in a Cave. What does Snakes on a Plane think it is anyways?

The Descent was made by no one you know of and doesn’t star anyone you’ve ever heard of. Please don’t let that scare you off (the film does that all by itself). It actually makes it that much better because to have unknowns instead of seeing stars you know you’ll say “Hey that’s Drew Barrymore. I know she won’t get killed because she’s Drew Barrymore.” (Of course that didn’t really work out for her in “Scream,” but I digress.) Instead you have no idea who is going to bite the dust (or should I say get bitten) in this rollicking good time. The story involves six British women who are thrill seekers. They all take a vacation in the Appalachian Trail in North Carolina. They go inside the mountain and explore the underground terrain. They are simply sensational rock climbers, although one admits, in the film’s funniest line, that she’s “not bloody Tomb Raider.” Then of course all hell breaks loose.

The film immediately makes you feel claustrophobic, due to director Neil Marshall’s expert sense of place. He uses his frame to create suspense. We don’t know what’s just out of the camera’s lens and it frightens us. And he is certainly hell-bent on scaring the crap out of his audience. From the beginning of the film, which includes a wonderfully impressive surprise scare, he let’s us know that he’s not a man to be trusted. And when you can’t trust a horror director, you know you’ve stumbled onto a terrific thriller. Just when you think you’re prepared for the horror, it becomes even more horrific than you could of imagined. He plays with the sense of fear that he started from the beginning and doesn’t let you go until the film ends.

So what’s so scary in these caves anyways? For your benefit I will not say. There’s something (or perhaps some things) living down there that hasn’t been seen before. They are scary and like Steven Spielberg did in “Jaws,” Marshall only hints at them creating unbearable terror. You simply become terrified for these women, who all do amazing jobs at being non-clichéd, strong women who we fear for every time there’s a moment of terror.

If you’re in the mood for a simple, stylish scary ride, The Descent is your ticket. It has people you care about, in an almost unbearably frightening situation. The tension builds and builds and the events that unfold are unlike anything you’ve ever seen. Perhaps the ads are correct, this just may be the scariest thing American audiences have seen since “Alien” was released over twenty-five years ago. GRADE: A-

Junk Food: With “Clerks II” Kevin Smith Fans Rejoice and Others Proceed with Caution

I wanted to like Clerks II. I really, really wanted to like it. I’m not much of a fan of Kevin Smith’s films. Dogma seemed over my head and was a drag to sit through. Mallrats was simply just uninteresting. And I never had any real desire to see any of the other ones. Not even the first Clerks, which was an extremely low-budget indie that broke director Smith into the mainstream and brought sexually vulgar dialogue into the limelight. From what I can tell from watching Clerks II is that it takes place many years later. The original convenient store Dante (an uninspired Brian O'Halloran) and Randal (a more inspired Jeff Anderson) worked at has burned down and so they’ve gotten new jobs working at a fast food place called Mooby’s. This is the second to last place anyone would actually want to eat (the first place winner goes to Shenanigans from the disgusting movie “Waiting…”). The film takes place over one particular day.

I’m more disappointed in myself for not liking Clerks II than I am in the actual movie. The characters do things that would be funny if your friends were doing them, but because they’re people we don’t really know it’s just kind of so-so. The problem with Kevin Smith’s humor is that you feel like you’re not in on the joke. He makes his movies with his friends and it seems as if they’re all doing things they themselves think is funny, but to an outsider just seems bizarre. And there's something to the way his jokes are delievered that just seem rather off. (Besides, I enjoy Woody Allen movies, if that's any indication of how I felt about this movie)

Smith's characters are always on the in when it comes to pop culture. This has great potential to be funny for today's “nostalgia generation.” I enjoy characters who discuss popular culture. Take for instance the scene in which the guys discuss which trilogy is better: Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. As Randal does his interpretation of the three “Rings” films, the audience roared with laughter as if it were their best friend performing the gag. I just kind of smiled. I liked it. I appreciated it but I didn’t fall down laughing.

O’Halloran, who plays Dante, seems to be acting as if he were on stage, which would be fine had this been a stage play. His body language, they way he speaks and moves his hands around. He seems to be over gesturing as if he’s performing to those who can’t really see him in the back row. Of course this is a movie about thirty something dudes that work in a fast-food place with four letter words being thrown up every millisecond so I can forgive the film for it’s lack of Oscar-caliber acting. The movie is silly and juvenile, like its characters, and it’s jokes always revolve around sexual dialogue and bathroom gags which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But look at The 40 Year Old Virgin for more inspired humor and better acting.

There is however plenty of things to like. Not only am I fond of characters who make fun of each other for liking or disliking certain movies, but those who know they’re actually in a movie. The best characters in the film (and I’m sure many would agree) are Kevin Smith regulars Jay (Jason Mewes) and his mute sidekick Silent Bob (Smith). They know they’re in a movie and we know that they know that they’re in a movie. They’re certainly the funniest and most interesting characters in the film. Jay’s tribute to Silence of the Lambs is worth the price of admission alone. I was also very pleased with Rosario Dawson’s performance as Becky. She seems like a fun person and a likable manager, laid back when it’s time to slack (which is often) yet tough and rigid when its time to mean business (like apologizing for her employee’s unintentional racist remarks towards customers) “Come back again soon!” she cries out apologetically! Like Wanda Sykes would ever step a foot inside that place again.

Kevin Smith fans will be very pleased, but it’s unlikely this new adventure will make any converts. I know what Smith is trying to accomplish and I found the film amusing. I can appreciate it without actually being crazy about it. GRADE: C+

Love & Death: Woody Allen Serves Up “Scoop” and Gets Everything Right

Woody Allen certainly is on a roll. Last year’s Match Point was a tremendously entertaining drama about murder and lust. And now we have this year’s Scoop, which in a way is about the same things, except done with Allen’s trademark comic flair. First of all, if you’re a true Woody Allen fan you’re going to enjoy Scoop. You may not love it, it may not be your favorite, but if Allen’s comedic taste is the same as yours, you’re bound to have a good time. What of non-Allen fans? There are other aspects to enjoy, such as actors Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman. Allen seems to have gone back to some of his older films put some parts in a blender and poof he got Scoop. Those who are sick of Allen’s nervous ramblings, one-liners, and jokes about being Jewish are likely to be tired of this mishmash of Woody-isms. I, however, loved it.

We start off with the death of a journalist in England. Joe (Ian McShane) is now a spirit on a ship being steered to the underworld by none other than Death himself. He learns from one of the other dead passengers that she was poisoned by a British aristocrat who she believes to be a serial killer presently making his way through England. Enter Woody Allen as Sid Waterman, a stage magician and his lucky audience participant Sondra Pranksy (Johansson). Sondra is an American journalism student and while being “dematerialized” during Sid’s act, Joe “materializes” and gives her the biggest scoop of the decade: Peter Lyman (Hackman) the son of a rich businessman is the Tarot Card serial killer. This leads to Sondra and Sid reluctantly teaming up to get proof that Peter is the killer.

This leads to funny situation after funny situation along with Allen’s trademark shtick, which nearly 30 years after Annie Hall seems just as funny. Like Sid would say, Allen is a credit to his race and I mean that out of all due respect. Sid poses as Sondra’s father, which adds tremendous comedy, as he’s supposed to also be a rich business man into gold, silver and digging for oil. He’s also pretty good at entertaining fellow debutants at rich parties held by Peter with his card tricks and one-liners. Of course Peter becomes infatuated with Sondra. There are plenty of suspenseful snooping around scenes as Sondra and Sid look for clues. Many scenes here are reminiscent of Manhattan Murder Mystery (one of my favorites) or The Curse of the Jade Scorpion. And again it’s obvious with the story and the situations that Allen is obsessed with death as ever. He uses existentialistic situations (the appearance of James as a ghost, and the Grim Reaper) to contrast the love story between Peter and Sondra.

Allen delivers a terrific, lightweight comedy yet again. The actors do a great job of portraying realistic people (although it seems bizarre at first that Sondra and Sid would really team up and spend so much time together seeing as they hardly know one another) who do realistic things, in a rather unrealistic situation. Allen has great timing and a sensational ear for humorous dialogue (he tells Sondra that he’d like to take her out for a fancy birthday dinner and asks her if she’s a fan of the McNugget) and although some would say he’s just recycling his older material, I say does it really matter? If you enjoy Woody Allen there’s little to complain about here. GRADE: A-

Corruption Junction: “Miami Vice’s” Function is to Put the Audience to Sleep

I’m inclined to call Michael Mann’s Miami Vice a thriller, but that would imply that the film actually thrills. It doesn’t. How could the executive producer of the hit show that defined a generation suck all the fun out of a tale about corruption, cops and cocaine (I needed a word that began with C; I’m not sure if the drugs were actually cocaine but I digress). This new Miami Vice (and by new I mean it’s nothing like the TV show, which isn’t really a bad thing) is all flash, style and suave, but what it has in flair it lacks in anything remotely resembling excitement. I’m stupefied as to how the director of Collateral, a film so equally balanced in style, story and fun could have made a film that is fun to look at, but not fun to watch.

Academy Award winner Jamie Foxx and Colin Farrell (maybe someday Colin) play a pair of tough and rugged Miami cops. They certainly mean business. They hang out in seedy nightclubs, get caught up in booze and babes and spend some time putting the bad guys behind bars. If you want to know what the story is in this film you’re asking the wrong person. I felt like it’s easier to understand a foreign film without subtitles than to comprehend anything going on in this movie. Foxx and Farrell go undercover as drug dealers to nab some Columbian drug load (never heard of that before) and in the meantime Farrell falls in love and Foxx’s fox gets in trouble. Everything the characters say and do are simply incomprehensible and in turn made the film nearly head scratching. Although everyone in the film is extremely good at being confusing. I believed these guys were tough cops (Farrell more so than Foxx). Everyone gets lost in his or her role as much I got lost trying to figure out what was going on.

This is a Michael Mann film remember and what the film lacks in comprehension it makes up in visual flair. The film was shot on digital video like Mann’s far superior Collateral. Except I felt this time the picture was much more dark and grainy which really added to the grittiness to the whole procedure. Mann isn’t afraid to get really close to his actors and he let’s the focus go in and out. I felt like I was watching a slickly produced episode of Cops. Mann also doesn't turn away from the brutal violence and sensuality that was hardly present in the show (Of course I'm no Miami Vice expert seeing as though I was 5 when the show originally aired).

I have to give credit to Mann for delivering a film in the summer months that doesn’t rely on special effects nor actual film itself. The movie is dark, nary a pastel jacket in sight. However with all its visual finesse it fails to be a story worth investing any time in. The trailer is amazing, cool and well edited with that perfectly matched Linkin Park song (which thankfully appears in the film) You’d be better off watching the movie’s trailer for a much better example of style and story mixed extremely well. I have to admit the trailer is never boring, unlike it's film. GRADE: C-

Three Dimensions are Better than One; “Monster House” is a Frightfully Good Time

My biggest concern going in to see Monster House was whether the 3D glasses would fit over my regular glasses. I didn’t seem to care that I felt like a cornball having fallen for the gimmicky cinema-going process of having images on the screen leap out at you. I was rest assured by the goofy trio of twenty something males who seemed like should have been going to see The Hills Have Eyes, not a PG-rated cartoon. I have to admit that this was my first venture into the cinematic 3D world. Of course I’ve been on the typical theme park rides and attractions that feature 3D. The Muppet show at MGM in Florida, the pirate adventure at Busch Gardens in Williamsburg. I’ve even had the pleasure of seeing a segment of The Birds in 3D back at Universal Studios Orlando, and they had the gall to tear it down. For shame! Of course REAL movies that featured 3D mostly came out when I was a wee boy. Jaws 3? Friday the 13th Part 3? Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare? All done cheesily, in the let’s-throw-stuff-at-the-camera style of 3D gimmickry. Now we have Monster House whose 3D process seems to help serve the story instead of just throwing crap in our face to wow us.

The film’s story is pretty simple. It’s based on that old, creepy house that every kid growing up had in his or her neighborhood. It’s the property in which if a ball or Frisbee ever went over the fence, it was bye bye toy. The mean old man or lady who owns the house was scary and whacked out. But what if the house itself was just as evil as the person living inside it? Young DJ and Chowder, young boys on the brink of adolescence (according to DJ’s dad anyways) are convinced the house across the street is real and it keeps eating things that go wondering into the yard. There’s a mystery behind the cranky (and by cranky I mean if I was 5 years old, I’d be having nightmares for weeks) old man who lives in the house and why the house is “alive.” The movie can actually be pretty intense for a PG rated movie and is certainly scarier than anything in The Amityville Horror. Think of this as a horror movie for preteens. Of course there is plenty to enjoy as adults.

The animation is just as gorgeous and luscious without the 3D process, but it’s definitely more fun in 3D (The film is only being shown in 3D in certain theaters, this isn’t an exclusively 3D film). And I have to give kudos to first time feature director Gil Kenan for not just throwing objects at the screen. The characters are funny and charming, the situation is spookily fun and the dialogue is fresh and witty. The character of DJ’s babysitter (voiced by Maggie Gyllenhal) is definitely one of the standouts. She runs with the character. Her interactions with her young charges are very entertaining.

If you’re an adult but a kid at heart, you’re most likely going to enjoy Monster House. It’s an entertaining romp and the beautiful 3D animation serves the story extremely well. Watching an entire feature length film in 3D wasn’t as hard on the eyes at it could have been. And with its amusing freshness you might even find your brain being stimulated as well. GRADE: B+

Breaking Up is Hard to Do: “My Super Ex-Girlfriend” is Entertaining Fluff

I was sort of hoping to see Anna Faris fly through the sky, a trail of dust in her swift wake. I was patient and I got what I wished for. Hopefully that didn’t ruin any surprise for you involving My Super Ex-Girlfriend, but on a slightly positive note, it’s a movie that gets better (even if it gets caught up in loopy plot contrivances) as it goes along. This is a movie that can’t really be taken too seriously and if you do, you’re bound to have just a mediocre time. However, if you’re willing to make sense of all the nonsense perhaps you’ll find yourself having a fairly super time. In the vein of director Ivan Reitman’s film Ghostbusters, this is a fantastical, high-concept comedy. As a send-up of either superhero films or romantic comedies it doesn’t really deliver anything too insightful but it’s a fun and playful film that tends to hit as many marks as it misses.

Like the recent You, Me & Dupree, (along with starring a Wilson brother, this time Luke) My Super Ex-Girlfriend is a formula film that relies on the contrived “ideas” and characterizations brought upon by its script. Characters act the way the script wants them to act, not because these are real people with true motivations. Point being, Matt is an ordinary guy (and by ordinary I mean he isn’t really well written) who has trouble finding the right woman. His unhelpful, womanizing friend is Vaughn, gamely played by Rainn Wilson. I know him from Six Feet Under, but you may know from TV’s The Office. Matt approaches a woman on the subway train nearly by random. There doesn’t seem to be anything special about her, except that she’s chosen by the script. She basically blows him off, until some jerk snatches her purse and Matt heroically chases the guy. Since this woman, with the appropriately alliterated name Jenny Johnson, (Uma Thurman) just so happens to be the city’s only active female superhero, she’s accepts a date on behalf of Matt’s attempt to do something good for her.

It isn’t long before Matt comes to find out there’s something peculiar about his new flame. Yes she’s controlling, jealous and manipulative as women tend to be in these films, but she also has superpowers and Matt just can’t deal. So he breaks up with her. Big mistake on his part because Jenny becomes extremely P.O.ed and uses nearly every superpower in her body to cause him misery. Jenny is introduced as a fun woman: funny, charming with a knack of selflessness that I enjoyed. Of course as soon as the relationship turns ugly so does she and we’re forced to choose sides. Do we empathize with Matt or Jenny? Frankly I’d have to empathize with Jenny otherwise she’d kick my ass. They also introduce Professor Badlam (Eddie Izzard) as the super arch nemesis. This is where the film runs into some trouble. At times you don’t know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and I don’t really think the screenwriter knows either but I digress. Just go with it.

It’s hard to believe that these two are really in love and it seems just crazy that Jenny would get so ticked off. She’s insecure yes, but that’s really just her alter ego. As G-Girl (a superhero name that I’m guessing was given to her so that they could squeeze in a G-Spot joke) she’s powerful and pushover for anyone. It seems silly she’d go out of her way to throw live sharks at Matt, hurl his car into orbit around the Earth and boil his goldfish alive with her heat vision. But of course for the film, as a comedy, it just seems to make sense. Which is why to get any fun out of this you must sit back relax and like I said before, just go with it.

There’s genuine attempt to give a backstory, but let’s face it; this isn’t Spiderman or Batman. This is simply a gimmicky twist on the whole romantic comedy. It’s a romantic comedy on steroids if you will, with none of the wit or psychological insight into relationships or dating, but in the end does it even really matter? There’s plenty to enjoy here and the film sort of has a wink wink, nudge nudge quality that I liked. Take for instance the scene in which Jenny refuses to stop a missile heading for the city because she doesn’t want to leave Matt alone with another woman. I laughed a lot. The supporting cast is decent if not altogether fully utilized. Wanda Sykes, as Matt’s boss, is here for a couple of scenes but thank God for Anna Faris. As much as I enjoyed Thurman, I would of loved to see Faris as the Super Ex-Girlfriend and if you’d like to too, just keep watching. It’s a movie that gets better as it goes along. In the battle of the Wilson brothers comedies My Super Ex-Girlfriend certainly flies circles around that loser Dupree. GRADE: B-

Movie to Drown By: “Lady in the Water” is a Waterlogged Mess

I have never had such an insulting and tedious time at the movies. In fact I was so insulted by the once great M. Night Shyamalan (who egoistically and unnecessarily gives himself a large role) that I was tempted to give a review that simply said “this movie sucks” but I’m too above that. This film should come with a disclaimer for anyone having suicidal tendencies. Had there been a pool nearby I might have jumped in without coming up for air.

Lady in the Water is a grave miscalculation. Nearly every character is annoying. Oscar-nominee Paul Giamatti has an annoying stuttering problem that seemed insulting to stutterers all over the world. Bryce Dallas Howard gave E.T. a run for his money in the skinny and pale “from another world” department. The character might have been better played by a puppet. The rest of the characters are residents of an apartment building. We get a group of stoners, some Hispanic sisters, a man and son who enjoy puzzles, and the new guy who’s a stubbornly pompous film critic who is supposedly a slap in the face to all those that hated The Village. As if to add insult to injury Shyamalan gives us some of the most fake looking CGI monsters I’ve ever seen. The animated wolves in The Day After Tomorrow were scarier. I can’t believe the man who gave us the brilliant The Sixth Sense made this piece of whimsical garbage.

So why does this film suck so much? This is supposed to be a fairy tale/bedtime story taking place in the “real world.” This is the most unrealistic real world I’ve seen. Paul Giamatti as the building’s superintendent slips in the pool and magically wakes up later in his bed. Was it a dream? No! He was saved by a sea nymph (Howard) who lives in a world just beyond the swimming pool. He doesn’t seem to think that a sea nymph living in his pool is a strange thing. And then there’s the insulting Asian mother/daughter team. The mother is a wise, old lady who knows of the bedtime story that is boringly unfolding before us. This woman knows everything, and rambles on and on in unfunny scenes about what the purpose of the sea nymph is and why she shows herself to the people who live on land. And then there’s something about grass monsters, and mirrors, and looking into their eyes, and guardians, and an interpreter (I needed one to understand what the heck was the point of all this) and a CGI eagle. Oh and then there’s the stupid tree monkey things. Is any of this making any sense? Where’s Robert Langdon when you need him?

Had this story been present in a Harry Potter film, I'd be slightly willing to believe it. This film's story is unbelievable and hardly interesting in the slightest. No wonder Shyamalan told this story to his kids at bedtime. I'm sure they were out like a light. I have to quote Roger Ebert when I say, “I hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie.” (That comes from his scathing review of Rob Reiner’s “North”) Luckily, Mr. Thumbs is in the hospital recovering from surgery and he won’t be able to review this stinker. In fact, I wish I could have avoided it myself.

Who would have thought that M. Night “Surprise Ending” Shyamalan has given us his biggest twist yet: one of the worst films in recent memory. I’m looking forward to Snakes on a Plane more each and every day.

NOTE: I actually enjoyed James Newton Howard’s score for the film. Nice job. If anything, I’d much rather stare at a blank wall and listen to the soundtrack then have anything else to do with this retched motion picture. GRADE: F

Domestic Disturbance: “You, Me & Dupree” is a Very Unwelcome Guest

“You, Me and Dupree” is a bad movie. A very bad movie. And it’s not even one of those, so-bad-it’s-good movies. But I have to give it a little credit because there is something of deep value here: how to not write a screenplay. Everything the script does is insulting to not only the audience but to the characters as well. And I must give credit to Matt Dillon, Owen Wilson and Kate Hudson who are all appealing performers, but are trapped in a story and script that goes no where and refuses to let the audience be, in the very slightest, entertained.

Dillon and Hudson are newlyweds. Wilson is the best man. Wilson is one of those Van Wilder types who never grew out of his college phase frat boy-like behavior (hanging out in bars, getting drunk, hooking up with chicks, ya know the drill). I must say that Wilson’s character, although mildly annoying, isn’t very cocky just goofy and childish (yet the script apparently thinks he’s talented because halfway through the film he's apparently into poetry, reading Mensa books and a master chef). Before we know it Wilson, not surprisingly, has no job and no place to live. So it’s off to live with the newlyweds. Here is where I can give fine examples of how a script can maneuver the characters just because it can, not because it should.

At first, Hudson is not very happy that Wilson, as Dupree, has to stay with them. They’ve just moved into their new house and she’s happy to start living as a real married couple. Dillon insists that Dupree will only be around for a couple days while he gets back on his feet. Days stretch into weeks. Dupree does idiotic/annoying things while being the ultimate house pest. They wake up the first morning to Dupree’s naked rear end starting them in the face. Dillon insists he’ll buy Dupree some PJs. Oh and there’s the scene where Dupree nearly burns down the house during a buttery sexual tryst. Is that supposed to be a nod to Last Tango in Paris? Of course enough is enough and Dupree is kicked out (Not before getting hit by a car on his bike, which garnered a humbling, if predictable, guffaw). Then one cold and rainy night Hudson and Dillon come across Dupree sitting on a bench. He still has nowhere to go and, in a shocking role reversal, Hudson decides to let him come back to live at the house. And now Dillon doesn’t want him there. Is there any reason for Hudson's sudden change of heart? Of course not. Why do the characters act this way? The script says they can, so they do.

Then there are the strange inconsistencies. Michael Douglas plays Hudson’s roguish father who insists that his daughter not take her husband’s name. He feels that there’s a certain strength in a man’s surname and since he only has one daughter, his family’s legacy will be broken if her name is changed. He insists that perhaps Dillon hyphenate his last name to include both surnames. Yet, a few scenes later Douglas also insists that Dillon get a vasectomy because Douglas got one and it was the best thing that he’s done. It’s a safe in and out procedure, yet it means they won’t be able to have children. And with no children, how is Douglas’ name supposed to be passed on? You got me. And even still shockingly Dillon asks Dupree to fill in for him at Career Day at the elementary school where Hudson works. Would he really ask Dupree to speak at Career Day? Dupree. Career Day. The two don’t really go together (and the scene unfortunately doesn't even have a funny payoff).

You, Me and Dupree isn’t really even “passable” entertainment. You know the movies I’m talking about. Something like “Deuce Bigalow”, where every critic hates it. It’s a bad movie, and yet you can find something to enjoy or laugh about, no matter how cruel or poorly written it is. “Dupree” is just weak with hardly anything good worth mentioning about it.

Alas there were two visual jokes that I found amusing. In a rather strange subplot that goes nowhere, Dupree dates a nymphomaniac librarian (who we never see) and she has a funny bumper sticker on her car. It reads, “Do the Dewey.” You know, as in the Dewey Decimal System. I dunno it made me laugh. And one of Dupree’s shirts that he wears for the film’s last third reads “Say Hello to My Little Friend” and there’s a picture of a little garden gnome on it. I dunno it made me laugh. Nice job in the prop and wardrobe department. I wish I could say the same for everyone else. GRADE: D+

Fart School Confidential: “Strangers With Candy” an Appropriately Inappropriate Big Screen Adaptation

If you’ve never watched the slightly cult hit Comedy Central show that lasted for about three short seasons you’re certainly in for a surprise with Strangers with Candy. Apparently, the film is a prequel to the series about a 43 year-old woman who after spending some time in prison for drugs, prostitution (you name it) is finally paroled and promises to turn her odd life around for her dying father. What a bizarre character, in an even more bizarre world. It’s a world where teachers have a bar in the faculty lounge, male teachers fall in love, science class is taught from the Bible, and a 43 year-old former junkie who looks like a she spent too much time getting her make-up applied by a blind person at Wal-Mart, can go back to high school to make things right in her life. Where a man in a coma can be in several locations, including a science fair, unconsciously cheering on his ex-hooker daughter. Louis Armstrong sang it best: “what a wonderful world.”

If any of this sounds like a fun time to you, then you’ll most likely enjoy Strangers with Candy. It stars Amy Sedaris in the lead role as Jerri Blank. Like I said earlier, this is based on the cable TV show. The film, I read, is supposed to be sort of prequel to the TV series, as it shows why and how Jerri gets out of prison and is determined to turn her life into something slightly meaningful. Of course she’s still rude and crude, stopping occasionally to feel up her best girl friend, ogle the class hunk and stab her brother with a fork. The thin plot (this IS of course a TV sitcom stretched to feature film length) revolves around Jerri’s attempt to make a good name for herself by winning the science fair at school. Here she befriends some teens Megawatti and Maria. The latter being a beautiful red head, who upon first sight Jerri asks whether her drapes match the carpet.

Jerri Blank is one amazingly twisted character, a whacked out woman who those on SNL only wish they could have dreamt up. Sedaris seems to be channeling bits of Cheri Oteri, Molly Shannon and Amy Pohler and she does it darn well. The plot is predictably weak, as is the case with most films like this, but what it lacks in plot it makes up for with huge laughs. The mere sight of nude butch prison gals bullying our hero in the shower made my stomach hurt from laughter. Like the equally strange (yet a million times dirtier) Napoleon Dynamite, just the mere sight of our main character creates chuckles. The dialogue is funny and extremely raunchy with dirty words you wouldn’t want your parents hear you say nor would want to hear them say. The film goes so far with out going overboard. Jerri’s altercations with her younger brother (who is captain of the JV squatting team, whatever that is) are inspired.

And of course there are the other whacked out supporting players who help light up the screen. We get cameos from people like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Allison Janney, Sarah Jessica Parker, Kristen Johnston, Ian Holm, and in a larger role Matthew Broderick who all really have no business being in a gross-out movie like this, but are all the better for it. Their roles are all short but sweet. And lest we forget the Strangers with Candy alums including Stephen Colbert as Mr. Noblet, who instructs from the Holy Bible and makes his students turn to the back of the room when he’s feeling emotionally stressed and Paul Dinello (who also directed) as his secret art teacher lover Geoffrey. And of course Greg Hollimon, who recites his lines as if he were auditioning for a play in high school, as Principle Blackman. You, guessed it, he’s a black man. It’s that kind of movie.

If you’re in the mood for a wacky movie, with bizarre characters, funny moments and extremely tastefully distasteful humor, Strangers with Candy is your ticket. I must stay that it was certainly an enjoyable if not terribly rewarding movie experience. Kudos to Sedaris, she just may be the mother of vulgarity. GRADE: B

I’m a Slave For You…Meryl Streep is Superbly Sadistic as the Boss From Hell in “The Devil Wears Prada”

Everyone has someone they don’t like. And most of those people have had a boss they didn’t like. Just an annoying, pushy and selfish boss who never thinks of your needs, only their own. Of course perhaps this is only people who work in the entertainment industry. And if the situation in the film The Devil Wears Prada, directed by David Frankel, is any indication, it’s that every magazine editor-in-chief is an evil bitch. Having said that, seasoned actress Meryl Streep has never been better than she is here as: an evil bitch. She’s the kind of devilish woman that you love to hate because she’s a fully realized character. And you simply get so much pleasure in watching others squirm around in her presence. What a sadist if there ever was one. The one we get to see squirm the most is Anne Hathaway as Andy who takes a job as an assistant to Miranda Priestly (Streep). She’s the editor-in-chief of the fictitious splashy fashion magazine Runway (think Vogue). Oh what a sadistically entertaining time to be had here!

Streep is marvelous in her role as the epitome of pure evil and yet we love her even though she’s such a demanding and self-centered woman. As her new assistant we like Andy simply because we like seeing her sweat around Miranda’s extremely high demands. When one of her orders is to have Andy get a copy of J.K. Rowling’s latest Harry Potter manuscript for her kids, the film could have easily been titled Mission: Impossible IV. So it’s demand after demand after demand. Andy walks Miranda’s dog, picks up her dry cleaning, gets famous designers on the phone at the touch of button, gets piping hot lattes, takes notes and certainly a lot of lip; yet we only want to see her succeed in this ridiculously anxiety-ridden atmosphere.

So why doesn’t Andy just quit this job, which we learn right from the beginning, that she doesn’t really want in the first place. (It’s also a job, we learn, a million other girls would kill for) Well Andy is recently graduated and unbelievably living in Manhattan with her boyfriend Nate (Entourage’s Adrian Grenier). She wants to be a journalist when she grows up and a year as Miranda’s assistant would open many doors for a successful future. She figures any torture now would be well worth it for the dream job of her choice.

So frumpy Andy takes the job in which she must share with Miranda’s OTHER assistant Emily (a splendid Emily Blunt, who I’ve never heard of). Andy is the “2nd” assistant, while Emily is Miranda’s right hand gal. Although wouldn’t you know Andy begins dressing in designer digs and becomes the best assistant ever. This journey is truly fun and enjoyable to witness. Andy’s quips with Emily are fantastic as are her altercations with Miranda’s ludicrous requests. Every demand ends with a rude brush-off and a simple “that’s all.” And during all of this the witty script (penned by Aline Brosh McKenna) is simultaneously ripping the fashion industry a new one. I know next to nothing about fashion or modeling, but when jokes are made about Emily’s “diet” of eating nothing for a week, it’s devilishly satisfying.

If there’s anything wrong here it’s the introduction of Christian Thomas (Simon Baker), a book editor who Andy meets and helps her out with one of Miranda’s impossible missions. They obviously have some kind of spark (or at least the screenplay thinks so) and since Andy’s job strain has also been straining her relationship with Nate (and her friends), you can guess where’s this is going. It doesn’t play out too typically, and it doesn’t ruin the film by any means, but it was an unwanted, clichéd obstacle.

The Devil Wears Prada is sadism at it’s best. Streep is simply smashing here. She appropriately steals every scene with her brutish attitude. Every look and nuance is perfect. She delivers her lines with such bravado; it should be studied in acting classes around the world. Andy’s journey is entertaining; her altercations with her co-workers are satisfyingly enjoyable. Although the new romance’s introduction was slightly tiresome it didn’t really sink the film. The Devil Wears Prada is a delightfully wicked time, now that’s all. GRADE: B+

Holdin’ Out For a Hero: “Superman Returns” to the Big Screen Triumphantly

I promise not to make spandex jokes or puns revolving around “It’s a bird” or “It’s a plane.” Of course that didn’t stop the makers of the newest Superman film. Set up as more of a sequel than a remake, Superman Returns’ story is supposed to take place 5 years after 1980’s Superman II. However, Metropolis residents are strikingly un-80s and there’s nary a flock of seagulls in sight. Writers Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris and director Bryan Singer have wisely chosen to forgo the rest of the Superman episodes, much like Halloween H20 decided to pick up after Halloween II. (Why the strange reference? Well like Lois’ new flame Richard White, I too enjoy horror films)

So how does a Superman film hold up in this world where Spiderman rules the box office records, X-Men can stand in for homosexuals, and Batman’s psychological journey began just last summer? Pretty darn well if you ask me. Even though some could argue he’s the best and most iconic superhero, Superman himself isn’t exactly all that interesting, but he sure makes one heck of a fun movie.

The first X-Men film really got me into the whole superhero craze that has been going on for the past 6 years. Although it really started for me with Batman way back in 1989. But let’s face it, that movie was more about the villain (a campy, yet classic Jack Nicholson as Joker) than about the hero. Then you’ve got Spiderman. What a fun, thrilling and exciting movie! And that sequel! It was better than the first! I wanted to BE Spiderman and I was 19 at the time. But I’m getting off of the main topic here: Superman. This new film is exciting and fun, and although slightly slow to start, is more and more engaging as it chugs merrily along. The one awkward part is that once Superman and his alter ego, the bumbling, nerdy Clark Kent are introduced that’s pretty much it to his character. He has some backstory about falling in love with Lois Lane who’s now romantically involved with fellow reporter and pilot Richard White (James Marsden).

So who is this new Man of Steel? That would be newcomer Brandon Routh, who just may make blue tights the latest fashion trend. He has a strong sense of mystique and wonder that is perfect for the role. His fresh face purposely makes us believe his is Superman. Otherwise we’d be like oh look it’s Paul Walker (one of the former supposed candidates) as Superman! Kate Bosworth who I found charming in Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! is also just as charming here as Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Lois Lane. She’s accompanied by her 5-year-old son. And wouldn’t you know that Superman had been gone for 5 years as well. Oh what gossipy possibilities! Kevin Spacey plays the role of arch nemesis Lex Luthor. His performance like that of Nicholson as Joker is campy and over the top. Although it’s difficult to see his true reason for despising Superman even though he put him away in prison for a long time. Parker Posey is a standout (as usual) as Luther’s fellow alliterate-named companion Kitty Kowalski who’s constantly clutching her cute little dog. Luckily another familiar character shows up: John William’s iconic Superman theme.

The film as a whole is epic in scale, has good effects, is charming, entertaining and appropriately silly yet serious. However, one can feel that for some reason an extra push would have seemed beneficial overall. Everyone does a great job with what they’re supposed to do, but you can’t help but feel that there’s just something missing. The supposed backstory seems missing since this is supposedly a sequel. Yet this seems more like a "reimagining" more than anything. Singer seems to be missing part of the social and psychological depth he brought to the X-Men films. There really isn’t as much depth involving what it’s really like to go from Superman to Clark Kent about fifty times a day. If you want conflicted heroes watch Spiderman. If you want social commentary with your CGI thrills see X-Men. If you want superhero costumes with nipples watch Batman & Robin. Superman Returns, however, remains an appealing, entertaining blockbuster that just may really make you think that a man can fly. GRADE: A-

What Do You Call a Libre That Isn’t Yours? “Nacho Libre”

If my headline joke makes sense to you then you might enjoy the latest film from the makers of Napoleon Dynamite. Nacho Libre stars Jack Black as a half Mexican, half Scandinavian monk (he’s white like a ghost, but talks like Cheech & Chong) who works at an orphanage and spends his evening in wrestling matches so his poor kids can have decent meals. If this sounds odd, that’s because it is, in a Napoleon Dynamite sort of way. However, those who were overjoyed by the beloved characters of Napoleon, Kip, Pedro, Uncle Rico and Deb are less likely to be thrilled by Nacho, his sidekick Esqueleto (Héctor Jiménez) and the holier than thou Sister Encarnación (Ana de la Reguera). While the movie is definitely in the tackily bizarre sense that make Dynamite such a weird success, director Jared Hess can’t get too much oomph from his actors this time around. However, overall this is a mild successor to that liger lovin’ Napoleon.

It seems as though I’ve summed up an entire review of the film in one paragraph, and I think that’s true. Having said that, there’s really not much to Nacho Libre. The idea is original and altogether way out there, which I most definitely appreciate. However, there seem to be far too many lulls in the story. As Nacho, Jack Black’s shtick can’t last the entire run of the movie and the character of Esqueleto is no substitute for Pedro. My favorite character is perhaps Sister Encarnación who seems to slip into her role very nicely. Her Penelope Cruz accent is spot on and she’s a loving and caring nun who cares just as much for our hero Nacho. But do we as an audience care about him? He’s such a nice guy that of course we do. We enjoy that he “sins” by disguising himself as a masked wrestler so that he can win money to feed the orphans.

Laughs are certainly present throughout the film. Why is it that I burst out laughing both in the opening of this film and at the start of Napoleon Dynamite as well? Here we get a shot of a nun laying back in a rocking chair. Silly? Not really. Random? Of course. There’s something about her position (and it’s not even sexual) that elicits a smirk. And is there anyone who didn’t crack up when you first see actor John Heder dressed as the Dynamite character? There he is in all his jeans-tucked-in-boots-while-holding-a-Trapper-Keeper glory. Silly silly stuff. Credit director Jared Hess and writer/wife Jerusha Hess. (School of Rock writer Mike White helped out too) They have a knack of taking strange people in a strange place and making strange situations.

Nacho Libre is an original piece of fluff. It has some fun wrestling scenes for those who enjoy the sport. There are ridiculous characters and their silly obsessions (tots have been replaced here with corn-on-the-cob-on-a-stick) for those who found Napoleon and his gang irresistible. Since they’re always eating corn, it could easily be turned into a drinking game. If you’re one that enjoyed Hess’ other movie, you’re likely to enjoy this follow up. For those who found Napoleon Dynamite not your cup of tea, perhaps it’d be best to stay away from Nacho Libre. GRADE: C+

Broadcast Muse: Robert Altman’s Cast Sings From the Heart and Funnybone in “A Prairie Home Companion”

Director Robert Altman manages to make a talky movie about a folk radio show extremely interesting. Perhaps he should win an Oscar just for that feat. As usual, Altman brings together a winning cast of popular actors in his latest cinematic tryst, A Prairie Home Companion. We get actors in top form such as Kevin Kline, Meryl Streep, Lily Tomlin, Lindsay Lohan, Woody Harrelson, John C. Reilly, Virginia Madsen, Tommy Lee Jones and Saturday Night Live’s Maya Rudolph. The stage is set for a local radio show’s last night on the air. It’s amazing that the show has stayed on for as long as it has. All the performers are talented, but who would really stay home on a Saturday night and listen to them? This film makes them all extremely engaging and even has a few mystical tricks up its sleeve.

For those not in the know when it comes to Robert Altman flicks, he’s what you need to know. His films tend to be artsy, you have to think, he uses camera movement and editing carefully, and his films are comprised of many, many characters most of whom hold different conversations at once. In that case it’s your job to figure out whom you should be listening to. If you’re willing to not be just “entertained” (although Altman loves to do that) and perhaps think a little, you might enjoy “Companion.” He’s always seemed to me like a non neurotic Woody Allen.

To top it off, not only is this an Altman movie, but also it’s about folk singers, who perform on a weekly live radio show. So not only does one have to deal with all the Altmanesque techniques going on, but also we have to listen to country music as well. If you haven’t stopped reading, I advise you might actually enjoy the movie, if not flat out love it. All the performers are outstanding. I really enjoy Streep and Tomlin and paired together as singing sisters Yolanda and Rhonda respectively, they are definitely the standouts here. Lohan plays Streep’s suicide obsessed daughter Lola. Kevin Kline visits his classic slightly screwball, dimwit character he played so well in A Fish Called Wanda (except without the sleaze and the whole criminal thing). We get two humorous singing cowboys in Dusty and Lefty (Harrelson and Reilly). Virginia Madsen plays a mysterious woman in white. Her character seems wildly off at first, until you realize her purpose. It was actually pretty interesting and seemed to artistically raise the level of the film as a whole.

Garrison Keillor plays a version of himself in the film and he also wrote the screenplay. It is through him that all the characters are connected, as he’s the spokesman of the show. He has crafted a witty (Streep and Tomlin’s dialogue with their Minnesota accents is to die for) script in which all the actors contribute 100 percent. Altman’s direction is nearly flawless, with wonderful tracking shots and fluid camera movements. While some may say this film isn’t necessarily up to par with his most beloved films (you’ve got your MASH, Nashville, and Gosford Park) this is probably one of his most enjoyable. It’s simple, light and warmhearted.

While the film doesn’t actually skewer the folk industry the way The Player skewered the film industry, anyone wanting an enjoyable worthwhile cinematic experience would be doing himself or herself a favor by checking out A Prairie Home Companion. It’s music to the ears. GRADE: B+

Disney & Pixar’s “Cars,” It’s a Gas!

The worst thing about Disney and Pixar’s latest collaboration is its title! I think it would win runner up to August’s already cult thriller “Snakes on a Plane” for Most Obvious Title of the Year. I mean come on! Oh what did you go see? Cars. Oh wow, what’s that about? Cars. Ohhh…wow… It's more exciting than you'd think. I guess “Cars That Talk” would just have been lamer. If you can get past the evident title, this wonderful animated adventure is the one of the BEST films ever to be branded with the Pixar seal of approval. (Finding Nemo is still my personal fave) Forgive me for saying I enjoyed this film much more than The Incredibles. The writing is witty, the animation is simply astonishing, the characters are warm and fuzzy, and the story is simply fun. You can’t get a better comedic family adventure so far this year. Ok ok, enough praise, why is this flick so amazingly good?

Since it’s a cartoon, let’s discuss the visual feast that is Cars. This is the best-looking CG animated film to date. It just has to be. The colors and vibrancy of Finding Nemo is certainly remarkable as well but the realistic, yet cartoon-like animation used here is just stunning. Remember when I said I wanted to reach out and squeeze that turtle’s head in Over the Hedge? I wanted to do the same thing here. The surfaces and textures in Cars were just sensational. The mirror-like reflections on the vehicles were marvelous. There aren’t enough adjectives in the world to give the film’s look justice. The visuals are balanced with an appropriately vibrant soundtrack with Randy Newman’s whimsical score and singers Sheryl Crow, John Mayer, James Taylor and more lending their talented voices with memorable songs.

The film stars the voice of Owen Wilson as a cocky and famous rookie racecar Lightning McQueen. This brash racecar lives his life in the fast lane, literally. He has just come in a three-way tie with two other just as cocky racecars (Michael Keaton and real-life racer Richard Petty). And in one week’s time the three will duke it out to see who will win the Piston Cup. (NASCAR fans take note) These opening scenes are filled with zooms and quick zips that are sure to give the FOX network's camermen a run for their money. Those not into the whole NASCAR thing will be glad to note that the film takes a long pit stop away from the racing scene. On his trek to California where the race is going to be held, complications arise and McQueen is accidentally left behind in a desert town called Radiator Springs in the middle of nowhere. Here he gets into some trouble and has to do some community service (perhaps a slight PSA to the preteen juvey crowd?) This little down-on-its-luck Pleasantville is home to a gaggle of animated automobiles ranging from cutesy Porsche Sally (Bonnie Hunt) to a hillbilly hick truck named Mater way too well voiced by none other than hillbilly hick Larry the Cable Guy.

I love that all the characters in Cars had their moments to shine. They were all charming, funny and loveable. It was as if there were ten Dorys from Finding Nemo in this movie. What I also enjoyed about these fun-loving supporting cars is that they take on the personality of the people who typically drive them. It’s no surprise that the VW van (voiced appropriately by George Carlin) is a tye-dye colored hippie or that Cheech Marin voices a bouncy Impala low-rider and Sarge is a commanding Army Jeep voiced by Paul Dooley. Tony Shalhoub voices a Ferrari obsessed Fiat who owns the local tire shop. And guess who shows up as the classic Hudson Hornet Doc Hudson: none other than classic Paul Newman, blue eyes and all. These characters are fully realized by both the actors and actresses giving their voices and the animators who superbly succeed in personifying these mechanical vehicles into fully realized lifelike characters. The cars' windshields become expressive eyes, their grills being wacky lips and mouths, teeth, tongues and all.

The story is entertaining and while it takes a slight sentimental turn towards the end as these films tend to do, it didn’t bother me. It is telling an enjoyable, funny story (written by LOTS of Pixar writers) with engaging characters. And it’s surprisingly moving when McQueen learns to slow down and take a look at the big picture. And who knew two cars falling for each other could be so poignant? There’s stuff for kids and adults and I’d be lying if I said the film, as a whole didn’t move me. I’ll certainly never look at cars the same way again. I never knew cars could have such spectacularly realized personalities.

You’d be doing yourself a favor by getting in the nearest vehicle and getting to the theater to see Cars. It's worth the high gas prices. Forgive the studio for it’s plain name because this vibrant adventure is exciting and hardly in need of a tune-up. GRADE: A

Shock Treatment: Al Gore Proves We Need To Heal the World in “An Inconvenient Truth”

Perhaps it was a good thing that Al Gore lost the 2000 election to George W. Bush. Don’t look at me like I’m nuts or anything, but after you see the terrific documentary An Inconvenient Truth it seems that Gore’s loss is actually his win. He had dedicated a good portion of his life to showing as many people a slideshow about an issue that affects everyone: global warming.

This thought-provoking and moving film, part lecture by Al Gore (it sounds more thrilling than it is) and part insight into what makes a man who cares about the environment tick, “Truth” refuses to be a one sided argument about the inevitable future of our planet. If it actually were just an argument, he would win by a landside, unlike his unfortunate loss in 2000. Gore refuses to use his political status to convince us our future is going to be filled with doom and gloom and if we don’t elect him our leader, we’re all gonna die. He has moved past the fact that he’ll probably never be our president. He cares more about showing what could happen if we all continue to live our lives the way we do.

Those ready to write off the film as some liberal, environmental nonsense is in for a surprise. Gore refuses to take a manipulative stand that many see in filmmaker Michael Moore. Moore’s films, while expertly made, continue to divide people in terms of the controversial issues he presents. However, we never get to see what makes Moore tick. Why does he feel the way he does? He refuses to let people who think he’s nuts in on his point of view. In Gore’s film (which was directed by Davis Guggenheim) he preaches to everyone. For instance, he calls this important, needed environmental change more of a moral issue rather than just a political issue. Hmmm, a moral issue? That seems like something a conservative would say. And if one conservative could see this problem as a moral one, that would be one step in the right direction. Many who believe global warming doesn’t exist or that “we get what we paid for” or we can solve the problem when we get there, will undoubtedly be slightly convinced that we have to AT LEAST begin to all agree that we’re not headed in a very good direction.

There are two stories here: that of Mr. Gore merrily giving his infamous global warming slideshow to a packed audience and interspersed insights into the politician’s life. We see Gore as a normal guy, experiencing human tragedy (the near death of his son and his sister dying of lung cancer). We get the idea that he’s simply a man who cares. We can see that he’s a passionate man who enjoys life. So why would we want to continue to live the way we do (I’ll get to that in a minute) and see our planet just waste away beneath our feet? Gore’s slideshow is filled with scientific fact that would be hard to argue against. His graphs and charts and timelines are frightening.

So what exactly is causing global warming in the first place? Two words: carbon dioxide. Everyone breathes out CO2. But within the past century it’s the emissions of CO2 from our cars and other heavy machineries that are polluting our atmosphere. This over abundance of CO2 acts like an insulator, causing the global temperature to rise. This causes icecaps to melt, letting fresh, cold water into the oceans, which in turn causes ocean currents to change, which can cause more violent weather patterns or even an ice age! (maybe The Day After Tomorrow wasn’t far off) Gore’s facts are meant to inform rather than cause a panic, although his facts are pretty scary. His images make you wonder whether there’s something you can do personally to at least halt such catastrophic events from taking place.

There’s so much more to this film, that a review can’t do it justice. Gore presents a straightforward, entertaining look at our planet’s past, present and future. Man has come such a long way and it seems so silly that we’d spend our future just killing our home. We’re obviously on a dangerous track and we need to look at things in a different way. We don’t need to give up everything we have and throw out our cars and walk everywhere, but it’s just the little things, that we can do everyday that will add up to a huge whole. An Inconvenient Truth is a convenient way to showcase a moral and global issue in an entertaining film staring a guy nobody ever thought could actually be entertaining. GRADE: A

The Devil Wears OshKosh B’Gosh: “The Omen” Remake Neither a Disaster Nor a Revelation

I went into the remake of The Omen with one thought in mind: don’t screw up the beheading scene. In the original 1976 religious shocker, a supporting character meets an extremely unfortunate end with a lone plane of glass. It is one of the best decapitations in all of cinema. There’s a lot at stake in a remake, but remaking The Omen certainly takes the cake. The original film is certainly not an outstanding piece of cinema; parts seem just as hokey when played today, but it is in the top of its class for its genre.

Many people know its story, yet many don’t. A couple (Mr. Thorn is an American ambassador in England and Mrs. Thorn is a housewife) gives birth to a child, but the child dies. Mr. Thorn, without telling his wife, decides to substitute another newborn and raise it as their own. Everything’s fine right? The only problem is that the child is the son of the Devil! D’oh! If it sounds ridiculous that’s because it is. The new film doesn’t necessarily improve on the original (in some aspects it does slightly) and is really no worse than the original. I give most credit to original screenwriter David Seltzer who revisits his own screenplay and adds some modern twists. New director John Moore manages a modicum of suspenseful creepiness and at least one jump scare that nearly caused me to wet myself.

Let’s discuss what was good about this new vision. First of all, in this day and age everything is CGI, CGI, CGI. Did this film use CGI? Yes. Did it gorge itself in supposedly scary CGI creations such as ghosts, spirits and monsters? No. Thank God for that one. See the new Amityville Horror or The Fog if you want to overdose on unscary CGI effects. Thankfully whatever scary apparitions do appear, they come in dreams, where that stuff is ok. Remember I said I almost wet myself? Kudos for that one. Any film that startles me that much I have to commend greatly. I liked how the film was extremely similar to the original, but it was never in a copycat sort of way. I felt it was more a homage to the first film rather than flat out copyright infringement. In the original film, one scene has a goldfish bowl topple over a balcony. We get a long shot as it takes its time falling to the ground. In that one shot we sense how far that fall really is, and what could happen if a person were to tumble over the side. (hint hint) We get a similar image here with a flower vase and I enjoyed it. The beheading I mentioned earlier is also a standout if not completely better than the original. I hate to always compare to the original, but this film’s beheading is certainly a gross and enjoyable decapitation. Aren’t they always?

Probably the best aspect of the new film is Mia Farrow’s triumphant return to horror as the seemingly nice nanny Mrs. Baylock. In the original film the nanny is sweet, but obviously has other motives. Like protecting the spawn of Satan! Here Farrow is way too nice and only a glimpse of evil makes her all the more disturbing. Here it’s as if she’s resurrected her Rosemary’s Baby character for a sequel. If this film were REALLY good, this could be an Oscar worthy performance. A scary scene later involving her and Mrs. Thorn is disturbing and Farrow really sells it.

So what’s so bad about this new Omen? First of all the leads didn’t really do it for me. Julia Stiles, as Mrs. Thorn, seems way too young to be the mother and wife to an ambassador. Her acting isn’t really terrible, but it’s not very good. Liev Schreiber is better, but not altogether convincing as well. This is a pivotal role. We have to seem him grieve for his dead child, get it together, and pretend like this new baby is his own. He has to go through many stages of grief and horrible situations and I’m not so sure he was completely successful in emoting everything. Also, in the third act of the film, as he and his photographer friend go looking for Damien’s origins, it gets rather silly and better left to something like The Da Vinci Code. The original was like that as well, so the apple obviously didn’t fall far from the tree. Also, as the young son Damien, Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick isn’t all that creepy. He seems to be TRYING to act creepy, the boy from the original film was much more subtle. Also, Jerry Goldsmith’s similarly creepy and beautiful Oscar-winning score has been replaced by more mundane music by Marco Beltrami.

Lastly, at the film’s start a priest gives a slideshow presenting real life tragedies as omens of evil. To quote that guy from the movie Clue, “The Armageddon is at hand!” We get glimpses of the Twin Towers burning, hurricanes, the tsunami etc. What could seem like exploitation is actually handled well. These images don’t really seem out of place. I commend the filmmakers for using these images freely as artistic expression to show that there is a lot of tragedy in the world and that lately we’ve all been overdosing on horrific events. This was an interesting addition to say the least, which set up a foreboding atmosphere that worked well for the film as a whole.

The Omen is an entertaining and creepy movie that does justice to the original. It really doesn’t seem like a cash grab (they released it on 6/6/06 if that’s any indication) and anyone who sees it, whether a fan of the original or not, is bound to enjoy something about it. GRADE: B

Fight Club: If Watching a Bickering Couple is Your Idea of a Good Time, Then See “The Break-Up”

The Break-Up is a relationship movie without the relationship. Brooke (a likable Jennifer Aniston) and Gary (an unlikable Vince Vaughn) were supposedly an in-love couple according to the opening credit sequence. We see a montage of their happiness. And then the film begins and they’re on the verge of breaking up. Instead of wittily skewering modern relationships, that have been done in more successful films such as Annie Hall or When Harry Met Sally…, director Peyton Reed shows this annoyingly mismatched couple duking it out the whole time. However, it never gets dark or twisted like War of the Roses for instance. The only things the film was missing were a boxing ring and the title Million Dollar Baby.

Astonishingly, Aniston’s portrayal of Brooke is charming, natural and enjoyable. She must be the good guy. However, Vaughn’s portrayal of Gary is uncharming, natural (I believe there are pricks out there just like him) and unenjoyable. He must be the bad guy. With a movie with a plot about a couple’s split, we’re going to have to root for one of them. It’s sad to think there are men out there that actually sit there playing video games while their girlfriend just wants a little help cleaning up. Gary isn’t just an immature 30 year old; he’s an immature 10 year old. His character is so vicious, dimwitted and foolish that Brooke seems just as dimwitted for wanting their relationship to continue. Of course she wants him to change, and he’s unaware that he even needs to change.

The film is mostly made up of bickering fight scenes, most of which end on an extremely sour note, especially for a film that’s supposed to be a comedy, and interspersed scenes with supporting characters giving advice. There’s a subplot about Brooke’s brother’s questioned sexuality that ends with him kicking the crap out of Gary. The only delight in this is seeing how happy Brooke is to see Gary suffer at the hands of such a supposed sissy. Gary’s family isn’t all that normal either. One brother is a sex fiend who seems more related to Stifler from American Pie than to Gary. And Gary’s older brother played by Vincent D’Onofrio is tender yet needless. The three brothers own a sightseeing business in Chicago. The most amusing scenes involve the female driver who makes funny faces as she peels away in her double-decker bus.

Brooke’s friends include her strange, effeminate co-worker played by Justin Long whose character is borderline offensively cliché, but he seems to be having an enjoyable time. Brooke’s high maintenance, whacked out boss played by a stiff yet loose Judy Davis is probably the best character in the film. Perhaps a sequel would feature her instead of Brooke and Gary. Brooke confides in her friends played by A Christmas Story’s Peter Billingsley (who also co-produced) and Joey Lauren Adams. Unfortunately the usually reliable Jason Bateman isn’t given much to do here as a supportive friend and their realtor. They all bowl together and play Pictionary. We get to see what Brooke and Gary’s lives used to be like. But we don’t really care enough about them to even want them to get back together. Which is why the ending is actually pretty satisfying.

The Break-Up has some enjoyable moments and a laugh here and there. But Vince Vaughn’s character is just so unpleasant that I couldn’t wait for Aniston to either get the hell out of there or shoot him in the head. Had the film been a little darker perhaps that would have been an option. I enjoyed a nod to I’m-mad-as-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore singer Alanis Morissette. Brooke appropriately blasts You Oughta Know as she throws Gary’s clothes all over the place. Overall, the film isn’t very smart, has nothing really new to say and is very run of the mill. I was sort of waiting for Ann-Margaret (who makes an appearance as Aniston’s mother) to liven things up and roll around in baked beans, but alas it didn’t happen. GRADE: C-

Shouldn’t They Be Called X-People? “X-Men: The Last Stand:” Sufficient but Far From X-cellent

The third go round of the popular X-Men films is simply a fun, entertaining film. The movie plays out like a chapter in a TV series that feels it needs to have strange things happen (read: kill) to its main characters just to get high ratings. I can see fans of these films either loving it, or hating it. Nonetheless I was surprised with what transpired in X-Men: The Last Stand, and while it is fine summer entertainment it seems to set up good ideas for a great movie and doesn’t really pull its weight in creating the possible(?) ending to a popular comic book cinematic trilogy. Perhaps director Brett Ratner, taking the reigns from Bryan Singer who opted to direct Superman Returns instead, just wasn’t the right guy after all to have the mutants tell their third story.

The X-Men films have always dealt with sociopolitical themes with the conflict of humans vs. mutants, with the mutants very much standing in for modern suppressed people such as homosexuals and other societal minorities. The big idea in this third go-round is in the not so distant future scientists have come up with a “cure” for the mutant x-gene that “plagues” much of society. There are the mutants that would do anything to be cured and others that oppose the need to be cured of what many think of as an illness and threat to society. This idea of a cure is a wonderful plot idea for an X-Men film (perhaps a 4th installment will involve the mutants' right to marriage?) but I don’t think it all plays out too well. The first two X-Men films, while based on comic books, always took themselves seriously for the most part. You always felt an emotional connection to the characters, whether it being Rogue not being able to touch the ones she loves to Iceman having to confess to his family that he’s a mutant. I can’t help but feel that this third film has decided to take more of a Fantastic Four route and watered things down a bit. We get some cheesy dialogue and some campy acting. This can work in many films of this type, but I feel the X-Men movies have been too good for this kind of approach. The slight silliness seems to undercut the powerful, emotional idea that mutants might be cured and be able to live a “normal” lifestyle.

All of the main cast returns including Halle Berry as Storm, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, Patrick Stewart as Professor Xavier, Ian McKellen as Magneto, Anna Paquin as Rogue, James Marsden as Cyclops, Shawn Ashmore as Iceman, and Rebecca Romijn as Mystique. And of course there is plenty more where that came from. Kelsey Grammer is introduced as Beast a furry blue mutant who serves in The Department of Mutant Affairs. At the end of the second film, Famke Jensen’s character Jean Grey was supposedly killed, however all the fans knew she was going to come back. And she does. And boy does she EVER. Probably one of the most interesting parts of the film, besides the whole mutant cure, was Jean Grey. Watching a character go from being good for two films and then turning evil is probably one of the most fascinating aspects a film like this can have. What is really surprising is what actually happens to some of the characters we’ve come to like so much in these films. Like I said fans will either rejoice or run away. And of course the standout is always the magnificent Ian McKellen who always adds the correct amount of flavor to a film. His evil, human-hating Magneto is a wonderful portrayal of a man sick and tired of what society wants him to be. And he can crush cars the like the best of them.

As exciting as some parts were, I couldn’t help feeling disappointed during the film. The introduction of a new character was handled awkwardly. The part of Angel (Six Feet Under’s Ben Foster) was basically a cameo. As the son of the man who invented the cure for the x-gene he serves as a plot device rather than a character. The poor guy gets about three lines, and I was left thinking what’s the point? Perhaps they should have canned him and used the money he got paid to improve anything else on the film. If this character was hardly going to be given a part, why was an entire flashback featuring him even used? I was also left underwhelmed by the film’s look. There was nothing really visually exciting, the action seemed rather run of the mill and the effects were just sort of adequate. Come on, this is supposed to be X-Men 3! We’re supposed to be blown away! I can’t help but feel the filmmakers thought this was going direct to video or something. It just didn’t have too much punch. And a certain character’s “exit” is unexplained, unsatisfying and altogether irritating.

The Last Stand is entertaining and has some interesting ideas, but unlike the previous two films, I couldn’t help feeling that things here were just by the numbers. This film failed to reach the emotional depth the other films. This is a summer action movie that supposedly wants to deal with important social issues but decides to dumb itself down for the sake of being a summer action movie. While I’m not exactly a raging fan of the X-Men films to begin with, perhaps I’m not the best judge. For light summer adventure, you could do a lot worse than the third X-Men film. GRADE: B-

Into the Woods: Satirically Ripe “Over the Hedge” Confirms We’re Living in a Fast Food Nation

How appropriate that half the audience was chomping on fresh, hot popcorn smothered in fake buttery goodness, while watching “Over the Hedge?” From the makers of Shrek and Madagascar, we now have Over the Hedge a wonderful animated film with laughs, beautiful computer generated imagery and witty social commentary to boot. The animators and writers get everything right about a small group of woodland creatures who wake up one spring to find that a huge hedge has cut them off from the rest of the forest. Of course, on the other side is a housing development where the homes and families seemed to have been xeroxed. We get a cute movie that’s not cutesy and a satirical take on suburban community without forgetting this is a warm family adventure.

First of all the animation here is beautiful. Not since Finding Nemo have I been so impressed with the colors and shapes of an animated film. With so many CGI animated films being released it’s easy to forget which ones really stand out. The animal characters are lifelike but still very much cartoony, if that’s even a real word. The textures are simply smashing. The leader of the group a humble turtle, much like Marlin in Finding Nemo, named Verne (Gary Shandling) just looks so squishy I wanted to reach out and squeeze his adorable, green head. The fur on the critters is also extremely realistic. Every animated movie is just more amazing than the next, but it seems terrifying to think there wouldn’t be the need for live action films anymore. What a scary, dark future that would be!

So what’s the film all about anyways? Verne is the unofficial leader of a small band of kind woodland creatures including as a porcupine family, a father and daughter opossum family, a wacked out squirrel, and a wisecracking skunk. After waking up from hibernation, they realize there’s no food left and human beings have been moving in on their turf. The one saving grace is the loner, know-how raccoon named RJ (Bruce Willis) who owes a large debt to a big brown bear. RJ has a week to gather months and months worth of food or else he becomes lunch. RJ introduces the gang to everything human from nacho chips to watching television. The suburban society on the other side of the hedge is an extreme reflection of how many people live their lives. Of course it's not that far off. A nice house with all the perks, gas guzzling SUVs, Girl Scouts selling cookies door to door and junk food junk food junk food!

The characters are so funny (and terrifically voiced by such comic gems as Eugene Levy, Catherine O’Hara, Steve Carell, and Wanda Sykes) because they’re not a very far exaggeration from their real life counterparts. For instance, the opossum plays dead when threatened, this is milked for all it’s worth and it’s hysterical. The film isn’t without its influences. There seems to be strong aura of the early Pixar hits Toy Story and A Bug’s Life. There are some pop culture references ala the Shrek films without ever coming close to going overboard like those films do. (Fake product placement is used effectively, those are supposed to be Pringles right?) And Allison Janney voices an evil suburban, possibly desperate, housewife with a Cruella DeVil streak and Thomas Haden Church gives voice to a slightly sadistic pest control guy.

What these animals do and go through is really true to life. It’s like an Amish village unaware of the perks of suburban life, the creatures are awed by the humans' technology and ways of life but ultimately realize all that stuff means nothing without the ones you love. This movie is gorgeous, fresh, and just plain fun. Now grab some junk food, and see it already! GRADE: A-

O Draconian Devils! O Lame Critics! What Were They Thinking Ripping “The Da Vinci Code” to Shreds? PS: It's Good

Was it Robert Langdon in the Louvre with the Revolver? That is the initial question at the start of “The Da Vinci Code,” the film based on the hugely popular best-selling novel by Dan Brown. The Da Vinci Code (I actually read it, so it must be good) is a great story with good writing but it’s definitely not To Kill a Mockingbird. So is it so surprising that the film version isn’t exactly Citizen Kane? Let me give it to you straight: the movie is very good and it’s probably the best filmed version that could have been made from the source material. The book itself wasn’t exactly screaming to be made into a film, so there you go. I have to say that I’m surprised and slightly ashamed of some of the critics’ thoughts on the film. I broke my cardinal rule of movie going and actually read nearly every critic’s review before seeing the film. The opinions ranged from the good (NY Post), the bad (Entertainment Weekly) and the ugly (Rolling Stone). Perhaps it’s the most hyped film of the millennium, but let’s break bread with director Ron Howard and writer Akiva Goldsman and see what they gave us.


So what did Opie get right? Well the movie follows the plot of the book very closely, but there are plenty of tweaks here and there. The beginning of the film goes by very fast and if I hadn’t read the novel I might have been slightly lost. It’s as if they want to get past the murder scene and get on with everything else. If you don’t know the story here it is. Jacques Sauniere the curator of the Louvre in Paris is murdered by an albino Monk named Silas played by a campy, disturbing Paul Bettany who spends his free time getting naked and whipping himself as if he were Jesus (I thought this was a family friendly Catholic film, oh wait I’m wrong, Catholics hate it). Silas is a part of a conservative religious group Opus Dei who want certain people to shut up about “a secret so powerful that if revealed it would devastate the very foundations of mankind.” And it’s not that Brittany Spears is pregnant again. But we’re on the right track…

Enter Harvard professor and expert symbolist Robert Langdon (a subdued Tom Hanks) who is brought to the scene to help answer some questions. You see while bleeding to death, Mr. Sauniere got naked and covered himself with symbols, laid out a bunch of clues and posed himself like Da Vinci’s Vertuvian Man (the sketch of the naked guy in the circle). Officer Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) really wants to charge Langdon with the crime to make things easier on the French police. Enter Sophie Neveu (Amelie’s Audrey Tautou) a French cryptologist who quickly befriends Langdon because she knows Fache is going to make him the scapegoat. Oh and by the way Sauniere is her grandfather.

This leads to the scavenger hunt to end all scavenger hunts. We get car chases, chases on foot and a stop at Da Vinci’s greatest masterpiece, The Mona Lisa. It is the mystery of why Sauniere was killed, why he arranged himself in such an odd way before dying and what artist Leonardo Da Vinci has to do with any of it that made the book such a fascinating page-turner. Each chapter was a cliffhanger and the film wants to be the same thing. Most critics attacked the film’s drawn out exposition between characters. This is the kind of stuff that makes for in-depth reading but on film can seem tedious or boring. However, it never really seemed tedious or boring to me. Howard uses what’s supposed to look like stock footage during the characters’ history lessons that help show the audience what actually went on. This story required a lot of exposition and history lessons about Christianity and symbols and all that other junk reserved for college lectures.

Let’s face it; this is why perhaps adapting the book for the big screen just wasn’t the greatest idea in the history of great ideas. Howard alters parts of the book so they make better sense on film. Good job! He actually CUTS OUT a lot of exposition from the book and even adds a little bit more to the characters. The ending has been changed just a little and surprisingly makes a whole lot more sense. And kudos to Ian McKellen for another top-notch performance as Langdon’s hobbling professor friend Leigh Teabing. And great job Hans Zimmer for another haunting score that's put to good use.

I wont say anything else about the plot even though I’ve left out QUITE a lot. (I wouldn't want to give you too much exposition, God forbid) The movie and novel, which is FICTION, so don’t get your knickers in a twist when you realize what the story is trying to propose, (silly conservatives!) will be a lot more fun if you don’t know its secrets. If the film does anything wrong it brings out the book's ultimate flaws. The characters are paper thin, and the book is really just a few characters going here, trying to figure out a puzzle or math problem, and then moving on to a new location.

Even though I knew the story going into it, the movie is a fun, exciting way to spend two and a half hours. Shame on the critics who shrugged off the film like it was the latest installment of The Fast and the Furious. This is a smart thriller that doesn’t rely on explosions or Arnold Schwarzenegger to create suspenseful excitement. God forbid we, as moviegoers have to think during the summer months. For the first time, I’m ashamed to call myself a film critic.

NOTE: At the film’s premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, supposedly the audience burst out in laughter during one of the film’s big revelations. I do know where in the film the viewers most likely laughed and no one in the theater laughed when I saw it. However, even if you do laugh, what do you expect from the guy who wrote the dialogue for Batman & Robin? Case closed. GRADE: B+