Stars & Stripes Forever: “Flags of Our Fathers” is More Than the Flag-Waving Film You’d Think It Would Be

“Flags of Our Fathers” just very well may find itself on the ballot for Best Picture this spring at the Academy Awards. Of course that would just seem like Clint Eastwood overload after Clint’s previous two Oscar-grabbing efforts “Million Dollar Baby” and “Mystic River.” One can’t help but wonder what the heck Clint is putting in his gin & tonic to help him make such fantastically successful films. While it’s easy to dismiss his latest directorial effort as just another World War II drama trying to impersonate Steven Spielberg’s genre defining “Saving Private Ryan,” Eastwood’s film is much more than just elaborately staged battle scenes with emotionally charged performances. It has an interesting story to tell, based on actual events no less, about the Battle of Iwo Jima and the effect that one particular flag raising had on entire nation sick and tired of war.

It’s obvious from the time we live in that war films no longer have the flag-waving “proud to be an American” feel they way they did back in the 40s and 50s. War films are constant truthful reminders that war is an evil that no human being should have to suffer; yet thousands have, do and will throughout the years. The story of Flags of Our Fathers revolves around the infamous photo of several American soldiers raising an American flag upon the top of a mountain during the Battle of Iwo Jima in the South Pacific. This image forever changed the view of the war. Americans were tired of war but the government insisted that they press on and continue to fight. The image represents the American can-do attitude and it instantly became a staple of America’s hope to come out on top during this tragic period in time.

Eastwood’s film certainly does justice to this extremely interesting story of war being sold as if it were popcorn at a movie theater. War can very well be a product and the waning American people’s interest in supporting the fighting turned around as soon as the government turned those men who raised that flag into a symbol of helping support the war, “buy war bonds!” The cast Eastwood has assembled is simply wonderful. Ryan Philippe is as strong here as he was in “Crash.” The same goes for the other assorted young men including Jesse Bradford, Barry Pepper, Jamie Bell, Joseph Cross and the relatively unknown Adam Beach who turns in a great performance as Ira Hayes, an Native American who is constantly the target of disgusting racial discrimination.

What is so interesting about the film is the way its two stories are intertwined. We get lots of footage of the actual Iwo Jima battle that many will agree seems to be in direct comparison with the opening scene of “Saving Private Ryan.” But give Eastwood credit, these scenes are very well done (the DP is John Stern) and certainly stand well on their own. A simple flag mounting on the island and its photo is enough to change history. We get to see the soldiers as they reenter society as heroes. The photo is in every newspaper and monuments are erected. These men aren’t just turned into heroes of Iwo Jima they are turned into an image of how America is the best and we can overcome anything.

What a perfect time for a film like this to come along with our current state of affairs overseas. It’s so simple to turn one image into something completely different. Writers William Broyles Jr. and Paul Haggis (Crash’s Oscar-winning screenwriter) craft an interesting story about war, hope and heroism that will certainly make people think about the parallels of present day. In a time where so many are being killed everyday, maybe a movie can help many of us change our minds for the better. GRADE: B+

Cut it Out: Hopefully “Saw III” is the End to this Blood-Soaked Thrillogy

There are some things that Saw III is and some things it is not. Saw III is gross and bloody. What it is not is suspenseful, scary or “Return of the Jedi.” While I’m not exactly a Star Wars aficionado I do know the ending of a trilogy when I see one. But what I don’t get is why the end of Saw III which kind of wraps things up nicely, leaves the door open for Saw IV: A New Beginning. Have the Saw movies, low-budgeted, bloody and wildly popular, turned into the Friday the 13th films of the 21st century? Are we bound to have 10 more installments in which helpless victims are strapped into heavy duty, expertly designed devices ready to gouge, rip and shred up the people foolish enough to be trapped in one? If there’s one thing I’m thankful for the Saw films is reinventing the hard R rated horror film with plenty of blood and guts to make The Passion of the Christ look like a fairy tale. What I don’t like is the style in which these films are made, let’s credit director Darren Lynn Bousman for copying James Wan’s style from the first “Saw.”

I get a headache every time the camera whips around the room in circles, the focus going in and out, and hard rock music blaring on the soundtrack, with an edit every 10th of a second. It’s mind-numbing and headache-inducing. If there’s one thing we can expect in a Saw film is lots of blood and guts. So just linger on it already! You’ve ripped open someone who had metal hooks attached to every one of their body parts so why must you shake the camera so much that we can’t even see what’s going on? If you’re trying to avoid actually showing us the gore maybe you shouldn’t of hired a make-up guy and just pulled a Blair Witch and imply the violent dread. What’s the point of showing a person’s ribcage being torn open if you’re just going to cut away? Ok I may sound like a freak here, but the camerawork of Saw III (and all of them) is the most annoying thing about them. It’s supposed to be stylistic, but it’s not.

While I didn’t love the second Saw installment, I must say the plot of it was more interesting than Saw III. Here we have our villain Jigsaw, a cancer stricken patient on his deathbed (ooo scary!) and his apprentice Amanda, who was a victim in the first film. It turns out she was in on the torturous events of the second film, and there’s something that we’ll learn about her and Jigsaw that is mildly interesting (No, Jigsaw is not her father). They have kidnapped a surgical doctor and placed a device around her neck that will make her head blow up if Jigsaw’s life-support machine flat lines. And let me just say this guy’s about 20 minutes away from death. He has to be kept alive so that he can witness the game that is being played on a man who has lost his young son to a hit and run driver. This man is all about vengeance so it’s Jigsaw’s job to torture him until he realizes that he should give up trying to find the man responsible for his son’s death. Jigsaw isn’t just a sadistic cancer patient, he makes people realize the value of life. That’s something you don’t see in a Jason flick. We don’t get to learn anything about this guy, which is why I liked the second film better, because we get to see the people work together to escape the torture house, and see the evil that is waiting inside every human being.

There are some pretty decent death scenes in the film but the camera moves so fast or scenes are so under lit that it’s kind of hard to tell what’s really going on. We get a woman who freezes to death, a man stuck in a huge bin with pig guts nearly drowning him, and let’s not forget the guy in the twist-o-matic, in which his arms and legs get twisted so that his bones break and protrude from his flesh. Okay if this all sounds gross, maybe you shouldn’t see the movie, but it’s surprisingly not as gross as the second installment. And it’s most definitely never scary. The parts I did like were going back to the beginning (the first film) and seeing things we know now that we didn’t know then. There are some interesting surprises that fans of the series will look forward to seeing.

All in all, Saw III fits the other films well. If you like sadistic horror, this is your ticket. Unfortunately the film isn’t scary or that well made. It’s obvious that the filmmakers are amping up the visuals to make up for the lack of budget, good acting, plot, yada yada. But do we really care about any of that? I don’t think artistic merit is on the menu when you buy a ticket to film called Saw III. GRADE: C

American Psychos: Bening is a Cut Above the Rest of the Crazies in “Running with Scissors”

If we can’t laugh at life’s quirky events while growing up, what can we laugh at? Unfortunately in the film adaptation of Augusten Burrough’s memoir “Running with Scissors,” there’s not much that’s funny. What read as funny on the page doesn’t necessarily translate well to the big screen. The eccentricities of Augusten’s childhood and teen years read very well in a book that acts like a bunch of wild vignettes about his mentally unstable mother and moving in with her even more mentally unstable psychiatrist and his odd family. Burroughs makes life’s little tragedies and peculiarities into extremely hysterical and emotionally truthful episodes, but as a film director Ryan Murphy (creator of TV’s Nip/Tuck) has turned this story into a awkwardly toned, dramatically inconsistent film that doesn’t always work.

The cast is top-notch and they do very well with the translation that Murphy has written. Annette Bening gives a tremendous performance as Deirdre, Augusten’s wildly unstable mother. All she wants to be is a famous poet. She feels she was destined to be a renowned auteur. Her son Augusten (Joseph Cross) feels he was also destined to be great: as a beautician and perhaps the head of a major line of beauty products: perhaps the next Vidal Sassoon. Augusten’s alcoholic father played by a restrained Alec Baldwin soon leaves the Burroughs’ home after he and Deirdre decide to call it quits. So it’s just Deirdre and Augusten until she begins seeing Dr. Finch, played by an unrestrained Brian Cox. We soon get to know Finch and his wildly eccentric family (and that’s an understatement). These people would have driven the Brady Bunch out of the neighborhood. The eldest daughter Hope (Gwenyth Paltrow) is a Bible dipper (don’t ask) and works at Daddy’s office. I wanted to see more of Hope (she’s has a large part in the book). The younger daughter Natalie (Evan Rachael Wood) enjoys hooking people up to her dad’s old electric shock therapy machine. Then there’s my favorite of the Finch crew, the matriarch
Agnes enjoys watching corny old horror films and munching on dog chow. I was waiting for Nomi from “Showgirls” to join her. This clan lives in a dilapidated old Victorian house. They certainly give the Addams Family a run for their money.

While the book focuses a lot on Augusten’s adjustment to moving in with and then becoming a part of the Finch family, the film focuses more on Deirdre’s psychological issues. This in turn let’s Bening steal the film away from her talented co-stars without them even knowing it. While mental unstableness isn’t really a laughing matter, Burrough’s crisp writing had a strong sense of satire that was funny yet emotionally powerful. While reading you’re always either laughing or feeling sorry for the beyond strange circumstances this young teen found himself in. He had no boundaries as a child, no rules. And neither does the film really. The film isn’t as emotionally grounded as it could be. And since the dramatic intensity is pushed up it unfortunately undercuts the comedy aspect. There are parts that are funny and will make you laugh, but other parts that should be funny rarely are. And some scenes either weren’t funny or emotionally satisfying. Some parts just kind of hung there as if Murphy couldn’t decide what was funny or dramatic.

Any success of the film rides on Annette Bening’s powerful performance. Not as satirically funny as she was in “American Beauty” or Joan Allen was in “The Upside of Anger” and not as hopelessly pitiful as Ellen Burstyn in “Requiem for a Dream.” Her character seems harsh and unpleased at first, because she is, but you do eventually feel sorry for her once you realize what a whack job her shrink is. While Bening’s acting raises the film to another level, I almost wished her character didn’t take up so much screen time. Life at the Finch’s house for Augusten was more interesting to me, when it was treated as comedy. I wanted to know more of the oddities of the Finch home, and more about what it felt like to grow up in that crazy house, which fortunately I know since I’ve read the book.

This is a wildly inconsistent adaptation of Burrough’s novel, but the actors do a good job and the film is mildly engaging. It’s obviously difficult to squeeze in everything from the book, but turning up the dramatics just seemed unnecessary. The book is funny so the film should have been too. While the film is a decent time capsule of the 1970s (I dug the soundtrack) I can’t help but feeling an emotionally empty film that could have been a lot more grounded and focused. While the film works on some levels, it’s certainly a step down from Burrough’s wonderful novel. GRADE: B-

Do You Believe in Magic: “The Prestige” Offers Enough Twists and Turns to Keep the Viewer Engaged

I enjoy watching a magician perform feats of magic just as much as the next guy. As a little kid I always wanted to know how they did it. How did he guess that person card? How did that coin end up in that lady’s purse? How did David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear without the use of CGI? But there’s one thing I know I would never want to see: a performer drowned alive right before my eyes. And what about sawing a lady in half? I remember being terrified that severed body parts would spurt out from the stage. So not only is magic exciting it can also be kind of freaky and disturbing. Director Christopher Nolan takes the excitement and apprehension of magic and concocts an intriguing tale of two rival magicians well played by Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman. While the film isn’t perfect there are worst things to do with your time.

The film is set during the brink of the turn of the 20th century in England. Jackman and Bale along with assorted others, including Jackman’s wife (Piper Perabo) are part of a magic stage show. Without giving too much away, a terrible tragedy occurs. This incident rather abruptly leads to a chain of events, which sparks a heated, and at times extremely vicious, rivalry between the two leads. What was once for the betterment of the forefront of magic has become a whirlwind of “anything you can do, I can do better.” A 19th century version of "Yo Mamma" if you will. Bale and Jackman are good at playing nice, friendly men or mean, evil men. And here they mainly channel evil and so it’s hard to really side with either character. We slightly understand the motivation behind each one, but it’s a lot more complicated than he’s the good guy and he’s the bad guy.

It’s practically impossible to describe the film without revealing important plot points and twists. What can be said, without regards to the story, are its artistic merits. The film is virtual tour de force of costume and set design. The art direction is simply spot on, not that I’m an expert in this particular time period, but I image this is exactly how it would look. The camera work is equally dark, gloomy and beautiful. Nolan is an extremely gifted filmmaker who is always bringing a strong sense of dread, mystery and darkness to his films (Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins). The acting is also very good. While no performer out acts another, nor gives the most impressive performance of the year, what we are given are people that we believe to have existed during the film’s time period. It was actually refreshing to hear what I think is Bale’s native accent. The supporting cast which includes Michael Caine, David Bowie and Scarlett Johansson doubling as a love interest and magic trick spy. Rebecca Hall plays Bale’s wife and their relationship is consummated so quickly I hardly bought that they were in love.

The plot, which I can’t really describe beyond the fact that to call this a period thriller makes good sense to me, is twisty without really being confusing. We get fragments of the past and present but the time line isn’t as screwy as Memento. After all what good is a story that is too twisty to actually follow? It’s pretty interesting where the film leads. It brings up some moral issues dealing with the theme of fantasy vs. reality and illusion vs. science. This helps raise the film beyond the level of simple entertainment.

For all the fancy sets, camerawork and costumes, what we really have is a story of two men not willing to let each other get in the way of their magic acts. The film’s title refers to what is called the third part of a magician’s act: the prestige, but it also more importantly refers to the status both men are willing to achieve at ANY cost. Of course there’s a whole lot more to it, but why should I give away the secrets and spoil the magic? GRADE: B+

Desperate Housewife: Kate Winslet and Her Adult Cast Amaze as “Little Children”

Everyone remembers being a child. Life was so carefree and simple. You basically got to do whatever you wanted. Go to the playground to have fun with other kids. Sleeping time so you could get reenergized. But let’s not forget the bullying because let’s face it: children are children. And in Todd Field’s new film “Little Children” we learn that even adults can be children. Kate Winslet is Sarah, a young housewife with a young daughter. Sarah brings her daughter to the park every weekday to play with the other kids, even though she can’t stand the other annoying moms. And while the children are gleefully cavorting about, their mothers are acting even more childish than their offspring. We’re then introduced to the lone, attractive stay-at-home dad whom these desperate housewives refer to as the Prom King. He is really Brad (Patrick Wilson) who’s married to Kathy (Jennifer). They have a young son. And we get the feeling right away that perhaps Sarah and Brad will be doing some playing of their own.

Director Todd Field is an actor’s director. This is because he is an actor (Unfortunately, I really only know him as one of the storm chasers in “Twister”). His only other feature film is the Academy Award nominated “In the Bedroom,” where he displayed a brilliant knack for getting extremely good performances from his stars (Three of whom were Oscar nominated). He manages to again wring remarkable performances from everyone in “Little Children.” Winslet is simply suburb as a young suburban mother. There’s no hint whatsoever that she really has a British accent. Wilson also amazes. With every film he does he improves. He’s a far cry from the stageyness he displayed a few years back in the film version of “The Phantom of the Opera.” But of course that’s because he’s a Broadway veteran. And Connelly makes the best of her smaller role as Brad’s too busy wife, who just might be starting to suspect something.

A wry suburban satire, which was previously a novel written by “Election” scribe Tom Perrotta, (who also co-wrote the screenplay with Field) children focuses on Sarah and Brad and how they quickly and humorously form a public friendship because they both have young children. This quickly turns into a very private sexual relationship that they both really want but aren’t altogether prepared for. Sarah’s husband is a distant and rather cold man, who is a fan of Internet porn. Brad’s wife Kathy is an extremely busy documentary filmmaker. It’s a longing for something different and perhaps something better that brings these two people together. The film, which has the structure, look, and aura of a deep, tragic melodrama, is actually punctuated with extremely funny and well-placed humor. The humor isn’t as obvious or as present as in let’s say “American Beauty” but it fits the film extremely well. The voice over narration, which seemed odd at first, actually suits the movie (its read as if this were a child's bedtime story) and adds to the character’s underlying motivations.

Put into the mix a subplot about Ronnie, a local sexual predator being released back into society played by the original Bad News Bears’ Jackie Earle Haley. It’s just simply amazing how the film approaches everything about this man who is treated as a full fledged human being (by the filmmaker, not the film’s characters) and fully realized character and how all the adults in the film treat him. It’s as if they are all bullies on the playground. A scene in which Ronnie shows up at the public pool is extremely funny and downright heartrending all at once. Then we have Brad’s ex-cop friend Larry (Noah Emmerich) who is the worst of all. He constantly appears on the man’s front lawn at odd hours of night with a bullhorn shouting to the neighbors about the pervert who should be locked up. It’s interesting how this storyline and Sarah and Brad’s all come to an end. Especially since the film is constantly building and building. And an ending that could have had a million possibilities makes the most sense.

This film is engaging, well made and extremely deep. It’s a film that can be analyzed to death yet extremely entertaining. Field brings an audacity to the film that just simply makes it sparkle. He never lets the humor break the emotional tension. And he never let’s the mature subject matter get in the way of the humor. The film has so much to say about how sometimes adults just never grow up and are sometimes less mature then their own kids. This is a film that turns the mundane suburban life into thoroughly enjoyable and worthwhile experience. GRADE: A

Mr. Williams Goes to Washington: “Man of the Year” Doesn’t Get My Vote

There’s one fact that I know is true: Robin Williams is funny. There’s also a fact that some may disagree with me on: Robin Williams in “Man of the Year” is not funny. How is that possible? Because the film doesn’t know whether it wants to be a comedy when it grows up or a thriller. That sounds just crazy, you may ask. All the advertisements I’ve seen make Man of the Year seem hilarious. Ah hah, seem is the key word. Perhaps the film should have been called “The Illusionist.” Because if you’re in the mood for a hysterical political satire you’re barking up the wrong voting booth. It’s deceptively not the film you’d think it is. If you want to see a funny movie in which Robin Williams becomes president, this isn’t it.

“Mrs. Doubtfire” is my 3rd favorite movie of all time. If you think I’m crazy, I won’t even tell you what number 2 is, but I digress. Robin Williams is a hilarious and genius comic. He has a gift to carry an entire film on the weight of his shoulders without ever outshining his costars. In Man of the Year he just seems like everyone else. He’s Robin Williams playing a less funny version of Robin Williams as a late night political talk show host. (Think Jon Stewart or Bill Mahr) Life imitates art in this film and many people are fed up with the current government (although in this film the current prez is a Democrat). An audience member suggests Williams should run for president and low and behold he does without any real motivation or explanation. Williams is surrounded by a staff who is supposed to be funny including Christopher Walken and Lewis Black.

The film doesn’t really begin as a comedy and then switch genres. We understand right during the opening credits that there’s some kind of conspiracy/cover-up that is going to happen. This mostly involves Laura Linney who mostly looks like she took this role to get a paycheck. I mean she’s good cause she’s Laura Linney and that’s about all. One of her scene’s seems right out of a “Halloween” film, which normally I would love, except it seems odd in a comedy starring Robin Williams. I’ll try not to give anything away but Linney knows something she really shouldn’t and well I don’t really want to ruin anything for you, but a scene in which she goes bonkers attempting to buy a cappuccino is simultaneously odd and funny, yet the audience is completely confused as to what the tone really is.

Writer/director Barry Levinson doesn’t seem to know whether he wanted to write a comedy or a drama. The film feels like it should be a comedy, according to the ads, but it’s really more of a conspiracy thriller with unfunny Robin Williams quips thrown in. All of this I could really care less about if the film was overall just plain fun and entertaining. The dramatic parts make the comedy less funny and the comedy makes the dramatic parts less thrilling. There is a great scene at a presidential debate between Williams the current president and the Republican candidate that I enjoyed. If only the rest of the film could be up to this scene’s standards. It’s funny and poignant and he takes sharp jabs at the current way things are run that are extremely relevant in real life. A stop by Weekend Update at SNL Studios with Tina Fey and Amy Pohler was a much-welcomed breath of comedic air.

If anything “Man of the Year” is just a disappointment and a slight misfire. It’s a movie I can’t really recommend because most people who thing they are going to see a funny Robin Williams movie are going to be in for a surprise. Those interested in a political comedy would best having a double feature of “Mrs. Doubtfire” and “All the President’s Men.” Call me Deep Throat if you want, but “Man of the Year” is a big fat liar. GRADE: C

The Rating Game: “This Film is Not Yet Rated” Shows How Some Films Will Never Be Coming to a Theater Near You

Kirby Dick’s intriguing documentary “This Film is Not Yet Rated” manages to take an interesting subject and make it really interesting. The film comes so close to perfection that one gets disappointed when certain aspects continue to bog down the entire thing. I’ll be the first to agree that the Motion Picture Association of America’s film rating board is slightly bonkers. Their “guidelines” for how films receive parental guidelines are basically outrageous. And I’m not even a parent! Let’s give a little lowdown. We have G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17. Most are probably familiar with let’s say the R rating. That’s the rating that restricts youngsters from seeing a movie unless they have a parent or look over 17 years of age. Anyone can get into a G, PG or PG-13 movie. And no one under 17 can get into an NC-17 rated film. This doesn’t really seem to be a problem right?

“This Film…” takes a few stands against the MPAA’s ratings board. Of course it’s important to understand why some filmmakers are so outraged. A film that receives an NC-17 is basically a financial disaster waiting to happen. No posters, TV spots, or other forms of ads are really allowed in most areas let alone the fact that most theaters won’t show films with this rating. But why? It’s probably because the NC-17 used to be the X rating and we all know what that means: porn porn porn! But not really. Yes material in these films are considered more graphic and risqué, but equating a film that’s rated NC-17 with pornography is just wrong. This film insists the way movies are rated is unjust. Also, the major studios control the MPAA which basically means when they want a softer rating they’re more likely to get it. Hence independently financed films have a harder time getting an R rating.

Dick does a great job of giving us lots of useful information that is clear, precise, to the point and beyond fascinating. And “This Film…” is a movie lover’s dream. There are oodles of film clips that are interesting to see in context to how they were rated by the film board. We get to see the “uncut” versions of some scenes. Like what had to be cut in order to go from an NC-17 rating to the more financially friendly R. And not only do we get clips from movies but we get insights from the filmmakers themselves. Interviews range from king of the bizarre John Waters to Mary Harron the director of “American Psycho.” We get Matt Stone of South Park fame and “Clerks” director Kevin Smith. Their comments are insightful and really interesting when they discuss how an NC-17 rating can really offend a person and the grief that it can cause a filmmaker with a particular artistic vision. I also enjoyed watching Dick’s journey to get have his own film rated (slapped not surprisingly with an NC-17) and unsuccessfully appealed.

Everything about the film is fascinating. And then there are the sequences in which the filmmaker hires a private detective to find out who exactly the people on this film ratings board are. The MPAA keeps these people who view films, discuss them and then give them a rating based on objectionable content are kept private so that outsiders don’t influence them. (Gimme a break, they don’t want their names publicly announced so that they aren’t beaten to death by angry mobs of filmmakers). It’s a fact that although ratings are “made by parents for parents” it seems odd that some of the raters have kids in their 20s or have no children at all. Scenes in which Dick and the detective sit outside the MPAA headquarters (and go through their trash) are kind of silly and while it’s funny to see them practically stalk the raters and flash their real identities on the screen as if they were all secret superheroes, it tragically grinds the film almost to a halt. The private detective’s job is not nearly as interesting as the film clips, interviews and history of motion picture censorship provided throughout the rest of the film. I wouldn’t say this aspect was unnecessary; it just seemed awkwardly fit with everything else.

The bottom line is that the film ratings system is imperfect. That’s not really a bad thing and not too surprising. There is no perfect way to let parents in on what objectionable content a film has. But when the film board says that it’s not promoting censorship and then slaps a film with an NC-17, which in turn means it basically can’t be shown anywhere, that just doesn’t make sense. NC-17 films should be able to be shown everywhere. The stigma that these films are pornographic is ridiculous. What this rating means is that kids shouldn’t be seeing it, and that’s all. That shouldn’t be punishing adults who want to see these films. If adults want to pay to see trash like “Showgirls,” it’s their right. I don’t want to live in a society in which films like “Showgirls” can’t be accessible to everyone over the age of 17. Anyone even remotely interested in how the film industry works with find everything in “This Film is Not Yet Rated” absorbing. GRADE: A-

Boston Illegal: Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed” is a Fascinating Masterwork of Writing, Acting, and Directing

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not one of Hollywood legend Martin Scorsese’s biggest fans. I saw his remake of Cape Fear a while ago. It’s decent. I rented Taxi Driver from the library years ago. It was all right. I sat through all 2.75 hours of The Aviator two years ago. It was okay. I probably responded most to The Aviator. It had extremely great things going for it: a good cast, a wonderful look, just an overall great production. I couldn’t help but think there was just something missing. And so I have yet to see any of his other films, for I have felt none of the ones I’ve viewed were anything too special. And now comes The Departed. A turning point for both the director and I. Perhaps I’ll give his other films a shot, perhaps the filmmaker will get an Oscar. But more importantly this is a film in which all of his others from now on will be judged.

Scorsese starts in a new location, Boston, MA. It is the land of overly pronounced As, the Red Sox, and Irish crime lords. One of the latter being Jack Nicholson in one of his best performances (and you know that’s saying a lot) as Frank Costello. Here is a less campy Joker from Batman; a tough talking’ racial slur speakin’ tough guy with many an evil expression to spare for the film’s quickly paced 2 1/2 hour run time. To put it simply just give the man his fourth Oscar already and call it a night (In fact just give everyone an Oscar). But there’s plenty more astounding actors from where that came from. We get Leonardo DiCaprio, finally completely convincing, as an undercover cop infiltrating Costello’s crime ring. On the other side Matt Damon is part of Costello’s gang who has trained to become a cop and he might as well be called Evil Will Hunting. These characters set up what could have easily become a tired retread of other lesser-made crime thrillers. The cast elevates the material extremely well. Also great here are Martin Sheen and Mark Wahlberg who are the only ones who know of DiCaprio’s mission. Alec Baldwin also shows some great acting chops. Vera Farmiga is just about the the only female in the cast and she's terrific as a link between DiCaprio and Damon.

While the film isn’t as visually scrumptious as The Aviator there is plenty of terrific technical aspects worthy of note. The film maintains a frenetic energy without the use of overly shaky cameras or quick fire editing. The imagery is extremely strong. Scorsese, not known for his restrained use of graphic violence, uses the brutally potent images to shock and let you know not everyone in this world is a saint. I also enjoyed the use of music. While Howard Score provides a score, most scenes are filled with rock-pop Irish jigs and most notably The Rolling Stone’s “Gimme Shelter.” Not only is the music pleasing to the ear, but so is the dialogue. While disgusting racial and homophobic comments, including other pervasively colorful language, fill the character’s mouths, it’s hard to argue that screenwriter William Monahan hasn’t created pure poetry with each spoken line. And boy do I love those Bawston accents!

“The Departed” is a wholly enjoyable movie that has to be seen to be believed. Every cinematic element is spot on. The story is exciting and works like a thriller, but it’s so much more. It’s a superbly entertaining piece of art. This is a great example of a film, a collection of sounds and images that are put together expertly to create a thoroughly pleasing experience. This is filmmaking at its best. GRADE: A

Red State Horrors: “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning” is Delightfully Depraved

If you have no intention of seeing this gloriously disgusting and repugnantly sadistic exercise in masochistic horrors stop reading right now. There’s nothing I’m going to say to help convince the slightest non-horror fan to see the latest Leatherface flick to hit the multiplex. If you’re interested in how a person could find such disgustingly graphic violence and cruel images a form of entertainment keep reading. “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning” is in no way a terrific motion picture. It doesn’t deserve to be mentioned anywhere along the lines of classic cinema. Heck it hardly deserves to be mentioned with trash cinema. But to horror film fans who delight in seeing the make-believe world of bodies being ripped open from end to end, it’s a splendid piece of putrefied celluloid that is dank, dark, depressing and wholly enjoyable to anyone who gets a thrill by seeing blood being spilled and splattered.

There’s nothing I can really say to anyone to even convince them this is a “good” movie. Even the word “entertaining” is pushing it, because I’m sure many think a person would have to be Jeffrey Dahmer to enjoy such movies. The odd thing is there are many “normal” folks out there who are nice, decent and wholly moral human beings who enjoy watching movies that scare them, sicken them or make them feel like they’ve been punched in the gut. Yeah I’m sure normal’s the word.

So yes, I am one of those people. I enjoy a good kill on screen and it doesn’t have to be particularly scary. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be particularly gory. But it has to be one or the other. While some delight in seeing wizards conjure magic, and lovers bathing in the warm summer sun, and spaceships battling it out in a galaxy far, far away, I’m one of those people who would rather see a teenager get a chainsaw to the gut. Speaking of chainsaws, “The Beginning” actually lives up to its red state influenced title. This is a chainsaw massacre if there ever was one.

Director Jonathan Liebesman begins screenwriter Sheldon Turner’s story of “The Beginning” with the birth, quite literally, of our favorite chainsaw-wielding maniac. Leatherface fans get to see him at work in the slaughterhouse and make his first human skin mask. We get to see how his uncle’s legs were removed and how his deranged surrogate father (an always menacing R. Lee Ermey) became the dying town’s “sheriff.” These cannibals are deranged beyond belief (I guess you’d have to be if you were a cannibal). And into the story comes two attractive couples (the two guys are about to be sent off to Vietnam) who likely won’t have their good looks for long. A traffic accident sets up the rest of the film’s ‘story” and then we get scene after scene of escape, capture and kill. And let’s not forget the car that won’t start and characters asking each other if they’re ok when they been bear-trapped and skinned alive. And why won’t lead Jordana Brewster just get the hell out of there when she has the chance. Did I mention the gruesome scenes of sadism???

I am not recommending this movie for anyone except those who enjoy watching gory thrillers. This movie is sick and repulsive and I was amazed at how it achieved an R rating (Although I’m not actually too shocked). I jumped, I winced, I vocalized, “yeah that’s gross” and I found myself enjoying the entire ride (Even more than the 2003 remake). Do yourself a favor, grab a barfbag, watch this brutal flick and go out for an extra rare steak dinner afterwards. Wow, I never realized how repulsive I am. GRADE: B

The Unwatchables: “The Black Dahlia” Fails to Conjure Any Excitement

If you ever thought that Brian De Palma’s films Mission: Impossible and The Black Dahlia would have nothing in common you’re wrong: they are both utterly confusing. Yet, Mission: Impossible achieved something that The Black Dahlia never even comes close to: being a gripping, thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat. How could the stylish De Palma turn the true story of the most notoriously infamous unsolved murder in California (based on the book by James Ellroy) into a dreadfully uninteresting bore of a film? While I still believe Mission: Impossible to be one of the most entertainingly confusing films of all time (even after repeated viewings and endless explanations from friends) The Black Dahlia is just a bewildering mess. One of the biggest mysteries is how the film could have turned out to be such a dog.

Should we star with the cast? I refuse to ever believe that Josh Hartnett could or ever would be any kind of detective/cop/investigator. End of story. Aaron Eckhart who was smashing earlier this year in the subversive Thank You For Smoking, just simply looks embarrassed here. Two-time Oscar winner Hillary Swank reverts back to her days of doing 90210 and The Next Karate Kid with a humiliating performance as an accented femme fatale. And Scarlet Johansson gains no acting skills whatsoever here as Eckhart’s blonde wife. The film tries to act like its taking place in the 1940s but unfortunately none of these actors are capable of being associated with the time period (the only ones who succeed are the costumers and set designers). What is supposed to be the acting style of long ago just turns into plain old bad acting. Annoying.

And the story is so convoluted and overly complicated that it borders on tedium. I was interested in this film because of the fascinating story of the murder of the Black Dahlia. I figured this would be an exciting, suspenseful thriller with a noir style. I was wrong. The murder case that gives the film it’s title seems to be just a simple subplot as Hartnett and Eckhart seem to be more interested in busting drug dealers and other lowlifes. So many characters are introduced I had to keep asking myself “Who’s that, pay attention, stay focused!” Understanding movies shouldn’t be this hard. I enjoy complicated movies, but instead of being intelligently made, the film is just an unsuccessful mishmash of characterizations with some smooching and gore thrown in for good measure.

The Black Dahlia is a wholly unsatisfying time at the cinema. A story that should have been captivating from the first frame is monotonous, forgettable and at points laughable. The film isn't without its technical merrits. Check out that crane shot when the murder victim is finally introducted, but by that point I was ready to go home. De Palma is a gifted director (see Dressed to Kill or Body Double if you actually want a thrill, heck I’d even take the overrated Carrie any day of the week over this) who just simply stumbles here. It’s obvious that he had a good sense of the kind of film he wanted to make, but I guess all the stars weren’t aligned. GRADE: D+

School Daze: Ryan Gosling Mesmerizes in “Half Nelson”

“Half Nelson” is simply and foremost a tour de force of acting. This is a rare movie in which aspiring performers can actually study the film and learn more in 2 hours than in any acting class. The film highlights a surprising performance from Ryan Gosling of The Notebook fame, as an inner city middle school teacher who leads a double life as basketball coach and drug addict. Shareeka Epps plays a young student who has perhaps a stronger affect on Gosling than anything he sticks up his nose. This is a film about a relationship between teacher and student, rescuer and rescuee. The filmmakers, including first time directors Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden achieve a greatness that is immeasurable. They completely draw you in to this world.

Finally a film about drug use that isn’t simply just style over substance. Yes there are the quick cuts and the jerky camera movements, but that just goes with the territory. There is a lot more going on here that camera tricks. The filmmakers take a serious approach to the subject matter and advocate realism over fantasy. A film that comes quickly to mind is “Looking for Mr. Goodbar,” in which a young Diane Keaton portrayed a teacher who spent her nights bar hoping and doing drugs and the film ends in a disgusting, manipulative way that caused the entire film to fail. Here, while I wont spoil how it ends, we’re presented with a scenario that seems all too real and finds a natural way for things to flow and an ending that fits the story extremely well.

As Mr. Dunne, gosling is simple sensational. Perhaps he should start writing his Oscar acceptance speech. No, no yes it’s too early to pick the winner, but he brings something so great to his performance that it just seems like he’s not doing anything special at all. He’s just there and we’re amazed by what he does. As the young Drey, Epps is also an astonishment. What we usually have in teacher/student relationship movies (think Good Will Hunting or Finding Forrester) is that the teacher takes his student under his wing and guides him. This film brilliant flips that tired formula around. Perhaps the teacher is in need of guidance. To say anything else would spoil this terrific and moving film.

As clichéd as it sounds, Half Nelson is a tour de force of radiant dramatic filmmaking. It’s a film, I hope as small as it is, will be able to make a large impression. Whether it wins any awards or not, it deserves to be seen by anyone who even has a slight interest in watching poignant films. GRADE: A-

Bite Club: “Snakes on a Plane” Unabashedly Flies Bad Movies to New Heights

If you recall my review of “Little Miss Sunshine” from last week, you’ll remember that I mentioned, “There simply isn’t a more entertaining time at the movies. All with your brain in full functioning mode.” Well if you’re desiring a movie just as entertaining, but without the need of a brain “Snakes on the Plane” delivers the corny goods. This is the 70s-esque disaster epic Irwin Allen would of come back from the grave to make. May he rest in peace in that swarm-filled upsidedown towering inferno in the sky. “Snakes on a Plane,” the film that became an internet phenomenon nearly a year before it’s theatrical release, is a combination of so bad it’s good movie and cheesey entertainment thriller. This is a movie that almost seems like more of a tribute to the mock-filled spoof “Airplane!” than to the wonderfully horrible diaster flicks that inspired it. This is a film filled with lines of dialouge destined to become classic and moments guaranteed to make you glad you paid for your admission. Turn you’re brain off and enjoy the fun.

Do I really need to explain the plot to you? The title obviously says it all. It’s about snakes on a plane. (A mob boss releases the snakes midflight to kill a witness, you’d think a gun shot would do the trick, but alas there’s be no movie!) And the picture nearly isn’t as disasterious a motion picture as you’d think it would be. Yes it’s corny, cliched and over the top. But at the same time there’s an almost underlying homage to everything we love about going to the movies. The movie KNOWS that we go to the movies to have an experience. Its sole purpose is to entertain, to take you into a world where you completely believe that a terror filled airpline ride filled with venoumous, slithering reptiles could actually happen. “Snakes on a Plane” is pure mindless entertainment and we’re all the better for it. But it accomplishes something no other film in history has. It has become a midnight cult film before anyone had ever even seen it.

I was lucky enough to catch a latenight showing of the trashy cult favorite “Showgirls.” I was amazed at the response the audience had: reciting lines of dialouge, shouting out at the screen, and appluading and laughing at all the precise moments. I found nearly the same reaction during opening night of “Snakes on a Plane.” It’s as if everyone had already seen it and remembered every horrible line of dialouge that ranged from “OK let’s go get these people their air” and the now infamous Samuel L. Jackson quip “I’ve had it with these mother%#$&*!@ snakes on this mother%#$&*!@ plane!” “Snakes on a Plane” isn’t just a movie, it’s an experience. And the audience isn’t the only one who knows it. The cast does a great job at acknowledging that they’re in a movie called “Snakes on a Plane.” We get to have just as much fun as they do. And no one has more fun than ER vet Julianna Margulies wielding an axe.

However, beneath the cult following and the “audience participation” which started way back with “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” there is still a fun, kind of shocking and at times grotesque movie (there are plenty of actual jump scares and disgusting make-up jobs) that is just a barrel of fun. Yes there are parts that are too easy to make fun of and there are so many things we’ve seen countless times before, but it all works completely in its favor. A question remains as to whether the film would be as popular had it not been for its title. Perhaps, but the film would still be the same whether it was called “Snakes on a Plane” or the boring “Pacific Flight 121.”

When a film has the courage to both acknowledge it’s cheesiness and offer you seconds as well, that is a true motion picture experience. This is a film that you not only watch but you live it. Perhaps nothing like this will occur again and my guess is there won’t be a “More Snakes on a Plane” but if there is, I’ll be the first in line, with a rubber snake around my neck. GRADE: A-

“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