1st Annual Golden Gallo Awards

The Oscar noms are out. The Razzie noms are out. And of course the winners of the Golden Gallos.

The Golden Globe Awards are silly. The Academy Awards are serious. Is Woody Allen justified in not wanting to attend either ceremony? Probably. In honor of movie award season I, as part of the Wannabe Film Critic Association, having nothing better to do with my time, have decided to honor a group of films by handing out my own worthless batch of pitifully meaningless awards.

I know what you’re thinking. What makes Mr. Gallo qualified to hand out his own batch of worthless awards? Well, having lived through 4 different presidencies, 2 Gulf Wars, the live O.J. Simpson white Bronco chase, 3 endless Lord of the Rings films, 5 Batman films and the cancellation of the E! Network’s Taradise, I can only say that I am a culturally and socially seasoned young man. The Oscars award the best in film and the Razzies award the worst. The Golden Gallos cover this that and everything in between. Now let’s get to the good stuff.

Here is a list of the winners of the 1st Annual (and by annual I mean if I even feel like doing this again next year) Golden Gallo Awards. May I have the envelope please? Please hold your applause until the end. In no particular order the awards go to…

The “I Did Everything for this Movie” Award: Robert Rodriguez for SIN CITY

Best Performance by a Female Wax Figure: Paris Hilton, HOUSE OF WAX

Best Performance by a Male Wax Figure: Burt Reynolds, THE LONGEST YARD

Most Exciting Domestic Quarrel: MR. & MRS. SMITH

Best Revamping of a Dying Franchise: BATMAN BEGINS

Best Ending to a Seemingly Endless Franchise: REVENGE OF THE SITH

Best Performance by a Scientologist: Tom Cruise, WAR OF THE WORLDS

The “What the Heck Were They Thinking” Award: THE MAN

Most Random Attack from CGI Deer: THE RING 2

Best Missed Opportunity to Use Lionel Richie’s “Hello” – The Thing meets a blind girl in a bar in FANTASTIC FOUR

Best Use of Lionel Richie’s “Hello” – Andy gets comfy in THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN

The Completely Unbiased Best Use of Extras Award: WAR OF THE WORLDS

Best Opening Credit Sequence: CHARLIE & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY

Best Closing Credit Sequence: THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN

Best Music Montage Sequence: WEDDING CRASHERS

Best Comeback from a Previously Horrid Attempt at Filmmaking: West Craven, RED EYE

Best Misuse of a Pop Singer’s Name: Steve Carell shouting “Kelly Clarkson” in THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN

Best Misleading Marketing Campaign: THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE

Scene Stealer Award: Anna Faris, JUST FRIENDS

Film Least Deserving of an Award, Even a Golden Gallo: CRY_WOLF

The Trailer is Better Than the Movie Award: FLIGHTPLAN

Most Surprising Use of the “69” Position in a Mainstream Film: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

Best Gratuitous Use of Bathing Suits: INTO THE BLUE

Best Head Explosion in a Domestic Drama: THE UPSIDE OF ANGER

The B.O. Box Office Award aka The “Who Financed This?” Award: A SOUND OF TUNDER

Worst Movie With a Cast Member of TV’s Lost: THE FOG

Best Movie With a Cast Member of TV’s Lost: CRASH

Most Disturbing Car Crash: STAY

Best Film Most Likely to be Forgotten by the Academy: JARHEAD

Most Disturbing Scene Involving Dirty Syringes: SAW II

Film Most Likely to Cause Suicide in Adults: CHICKEN LITTLE

The “Or How I Learned to Love a Bomb” Guilty Pleasure Award: THE ISLAND

Best Documentary About Penguins: MARCH OF THE PENGUINS

Corniest Line of Dialogue from Memoirs of a Geisha: “I want a life that is mine!”

The Ishtar Big-Budget Stinker Award: STEALTH

Coolest Movie Poster Award: LORD OF WAR

The Grease 2 Unnecessary Sequel Award: SON OF THE MASK

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It Award: GUESS WHO

The Jaws 3D “I Only Wanted To See It Cause it Was in 3-D” Award: THE ADVENTURES OF SHARK BOY & LAVA GIRL

Golden Gallo Lifetime Achievement Award: Dakota Fanning

Award Least Likely to be Given Out for Real and Broadcast Live on TV: GOLDEN GALLO AWARDS

Congratulations to all the winners. Kind of. Their dedication, or for some their lack their of, towards the medium of filmmaking has made this world a better place. It also gives me something to do. See you all at the movies.

Is “Bubble” in Trouble? Steven Soderbergh’s Experiment Gets Everything Right

What is a bubble? It actually has more connotation than one would think. You think of the childhood fun of blowing bubbles and chasing them around the yard. They would come in all sizes. Some would last longer than others. Some seemed to just float through the air for all of eternity. Some would find a rough surface and pop. Others would just land and dance magically in the breezy air. And how has the word bubble come to be used in our every day vernacular. “Oh he lives in a bubble.” A bubble can be an entire world encased with anything anyone could possibly want to be able to live. In director Steven Soderbergh’s daring experiment known as “Bubble” he paints simple, mechanical everyday working life and what happens when something unpredictable comes in to burst the routine.

Everyone seems to be making a lot of hubbub about the distribution strategy put forth for Bubble by Soderbergh and the film’s company. Bubble is being simultaneously released in theaters, on DVD and on pay cable all at the same time. What nerve! How are theater owners supposed to make money if you can rush off and by the DVD? Well first of all the film is being shown in about 20 theaters so they probably won’t make money anyways. This film isn’t a summer blockbuster folks. If anything, this bold experiment is simply there to get the film to be seen. Is going to the theater to see movies on the way out? Hardly. Really, Bubble’s release strategy is simply a gimmick. Remember 3D? Remember Odorama? Remember electrified seats? They simply existed as testament in the, “We’ll do anything to get people to see our movie” category of moviemaking. Now back to what Bubble is all about.

On the surface, Bubble isn’t about very much. The first time actors play workers who are employed at a small town factory assembling toy dolls. We have Martha (Debbie Doebereiner) a middle-aged woman caring for her elderly father. Martha drives her young co-worker Kyle (Dustin James Ashley) to work every morning. The two have an easy, working friendship despite their age difference. Their lives are plain and they share more in common than you’d think. They are in their own little world. Their own bubble if you will. Enter Rose (Misty Dawn Wilkins) who without batting an eyelash seems to disrupt the humdrumness of Martha and Kyle’s lives, in very different ways. The acting by these first time performers is flawless. The film handles everything from dialogue to looks and gestures with simplicity. It fully captures what it is like to be in a routine and just be REAL. The filmmaking is as simple as the story and characters. Soderbergh moves his camera very little as if not to disturb Martha and Kyle’s lives. As if not to burst the bubble. These people’s lives are very fragile, like a bubble, and anything could easily agitate it.

An unspeakable event occurs that disrupts these simple lives and makes you question what these people are all about. Soderbergh handles the material extremely well, whether it’s his symbolic use of filtered lighting (a Soderbergh trademark) or capturing the unpredictability of what life throws at us. And it’s exciting to see a filmmaker not forget his independent roots. Bubble has so much to say and is brilliant in its execution. The viewer is simply fascinated by something so everyday. In any other movie what happens in Bubble would just simply be boring, but here we have an intriguing look at fragile lives in a very fragile world.

Whether you see the film in the theater, on DVD or on TV, just see it. That’s Soderbergh’s point. I hate to burst your bubble, but this film doesn’t signify the death of movie going. It embraces it. GRADE: A

Truman’s Show: Philip Seymour Hoffman Brings “Capote” to Life

Philip Seymour Hoffman is always good. Remember Boogie Nights? Amazing. Remember The Talented Mr. Ripley? Amazing. Remember Twister? Oh yeah he was in that. He was the “suck zone” guy who freaked the heck out of Jami Gertz. Oh what the hell? Amazing. Anyways, Mr. Hoffman gives the performance of his career as quirky author Truman Capote in the subtlety fantastic Capote. He’s always great but here he simply shines. As does the film.

The audience is introduced to a shocking murder in the Midwest, as is Mr. Capote and his friend Harper Lee. (Catherine Keener) She would eventually write the seminal literature classic To Kill a Mockingbird. Two men murder a family in the middle of the night. One of whom Capote becomes very attached to in prison. Capote refuses to see a monster. He wants to see a human being. Capote’s visits to this criminal named Perry, played well by Clifton Collins Jr., have two motives. He wants to know everything about the unspeakable crime that was committed because he wants to believe that a person can be redeemed and he also wants information for a book he is writing. Perry believes that Capote’s help will possibly get him out of jail. Is Capote trying to help release this man and clear his name? Or does he just want juicy info for his nonfiction account of the murders? The two men have a similar relationship to that of Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins (or is it Antony Hopkins, Gwyneth Paltrow?) in The Silence of the Lambs. Foster desperately needs Hopkins in finding another criminal. Here, Capote needs his inmate for another reason; he needs to find his muse.

Capote eventually decides that the story he is writing will become his life and perhaps the best thing he’s ever written. There’s not too much else in terms of plot, but what’s so amazing about the film is the way the material is handled. We never get to see the horrible crimes until just the right moment. And when we do it’s almost unbearably disturbing. The viewer gets to understand Capote in certain ways: his strange voice, his eccentric social behavior. But what is really going on inside his head? Seymour knows and by the film’s end the audience wants to know as well. And before we know it we, along with our hero, are faced with a decision. Are we to believe that Perry can ever be deemed fit to enter society again? Or does he deserve to succumb to the harsh American justice system?

The film never delves into overly dramatic moral issues. This isn’t an anti-capital punishment fable. There’s no preaching of any kind. What we have instead are characters who just are the way they are and it’s up to the viewer to decide for him or herself what is morally right and wrong. We have a beautiful film with beautiful images. The film wants to coexist in a world where evil and good can run into each other at any given moment. And I believe any viewer comes out smarter having seen it. GRADE: A-

Do You Really Want to Hurt Me?: Eli Roth Tortures His Audience More Than He Hoped in “Hostel”

“Hostel” has a couple things going for it: Quentin Tarantino’s name (he gets an executive producer credit & his name above the title) and its R-rating. One thing guaranteed when it comes to horror and the Restricted rating is gore, gore, gore. Unfortunately it takes so long to get there we could have turned on FOX and been completely satisfied by now. I appreciated what director Eli “Cabin Fever” Roth is trying to do: he wants the audience to cringe and squirm and look away. However, he’s having us do that for all the wrong reasons.

The film is definitely a step up from Cabin Fever a film that utterly confused and bored me. Was it being played for laughs or was it serious? It had pointless and stupid written all over it and of course with a follow up being released barely a week into the New Year, I certainly planned for the worse. Hostel could easily be retitled American Die, after all those teen sex comedies, because the film has more T&A than anything past 11 on Cinemax, and the main characters are obnoxious party boys who are looking for… you guess it, T&A. Paxton and Josh are backpacking through Europe and pick up an Icelander named Oli on the way. They go here, they go there chasing female tale like a bunch of ravenous wolves. It’s not so much that these characters are annoying or clichéd its that I picture the entire audience for this film are alive in the main characters. And seeing as though this film made oodles at the box office, I’m slightly disturbed. The main guys land at this strange hostel in Gowhackastan where the hotties are hot and there are no dudes around to cramp their style.

The film makes its biggest mistake by killing off the wrong characters at the wrong time. The more tolerable of the American twosome, Josh, bites it first and he’s the only character even worth being invested in. It’s the annoying jerk, Paxton that gets to escape. But perhaps that’s the film’s point. The characters don’t just simply die. You see, in this filthy place, rich sadists pay to torture others, cut them open, and do whatever they please with them. Perhaps by keeping the more loathsome of the two alive we get to see him suffer a lot more. These characters barked up the wrong tree and boy do they get it. Or do they?

If you haven’t been living under a rock, you’ve probably seen the numerous TV ads toting this film as the most disturbing film you’ll see and that ambulances had to be called at test screenings. I think viewers were dying of boredom. We don’t get a single drop of blood for an hour into the film! This would be fine if we were watching a smart, psychological thriller that doesn’t linger on blood and guts. But this film is being marketed as the most disgustingly vile piece of celluloid to hit the big screen since Showgirls! Maybe I’m just desensitized to graphic violence but there’s nothing to get too worked up about in Hostel. We get typical slashes and gashes but for a genre of film that relies on the fear of the deformation of the human body it’s an awfully long haul to the good stuff. Don’t torture yourself, rent High Tension instead. At least that film didn’t use Quentin Tarantino’s name in vain. GRADE: C

American Woman: “The New World” is an Un-Disneyfied Romantic Epic for the Art House Crowd

Director Terrance Malick certainly has painted his film The New World with all the colors of the wind. But you won’t find a talking animal sidekick anywhere. Who doesn’t think of the animated Disney film when mentioned the name Pocahontas? The story is of Captain John Smith and his settlers exploring the “new world” and finding no gold and plenty of local “savages.” In this beautiful rendition, we get plenty of beautiful shots and symbolic editing, sparse dialogue and poetic narration. That old Disney movie can walk the plank with Captain Hook. Malick, who previously helmed the Oscar-nominated World War II drama The Thin Red Line, has merged art house pathos with majestic epic storytelling to create a moving film about two very different worlds.

The New World is presented in a way that is much different from a typical romantic epic. Instead of getting cheesy dialogue we get whole scenes with hardly a word. I don’t think there’s any dialogue in the film until about 10 minutes in. Malick (who also wrote the film) lets the main characters give poetic commentary while scenes play out with gestures, facial expressions and stylish jump cut editing. All of this stuff wouldn’t seem to make sense if this were Titanic or Troy or any other big epic film. But because we are in the world of the Native Americans it really works. You are transported back through time to a world unseen by Caucasian eyes. In the lead as Capt. Smith is Colin Farrell in a fairly poignant and restrained performance. His eyes say a lot. The Natives are at first fascinated with this strange man, as if he were from another planet, soon he's welcomed into their tribe. There he becomes infatuated with the young Princess Pocahontas. Fifteen year-old Q'Orianka Kilcher brings the character to life. She’s wonderfully naturalistic. Scenes with her and Colin Farrell are splendid. They explore each other in sensual but not sexual ways. Anyone hoping for hardcore White on Native action should continue brousing the Internet.

I was surprised at how much time Malick spends giving us what are, in most films, normally second unit shots. Perhaps nearly 40 percent of the film is composed of shots of birds and trees and flowing rivers. These images come together to represent nature and how these Natives have been able to both respect the land and use it to survive. This is juxtaposed with the White settlers who don't want to pilage (how nice of them), but eventually want take over everything. The camera seems to be placed at a different angle for every shot and so much is said with either the slightest movement, without any words at all. James Horner’s haunting score adds to the images wonderfully.

The acting is superb and the film is just one marvelous production. The film is long without ever seeming so. This is a film that you can see for entertainment and still spend hours dissecting it. I’m anxiously awaiting Malick’s next film 7 years from now. Malick has created a brilliant artistic vision about true life people without ever having to tell us its "based on actual events." GRADE: A-

Monkeys, Cowboys & Terrorists, Oh My: Best Films of the Year

2005 could simply go down as the worst year for the best movies. Was this the year no one went to the movies? With the “box-office slump” taking front-page news throughout the year movie executives, critics and myself wondered what exactly was everyone’s deal? I hardly had to worry about long lines and finding seats. And I believe the only sellout film I’ve seen was this past November when I saw Just Friends (ahh, life’s little mysteries) This year gave us thrills, chills and definitely a lot of spills (Fantastic 4? Chicken Little?). I laughed a lot this year at the movies and my eyes got a little glassy at times. I saw over forty films in the theaters this year, many of which I saw twice or thrice or more (Revenge of the Sith wins with 4 total theatrical viewings). For all the good and bad movies I saw there are plenty that I didn’t see. Since being a professional film critic isn’t exactly the easiest of gigs to get I had to shelve out dollar after dollar after dollar to see these films and I didn’t mind at all. The ones I didn’t see are because I don’t live down the street from an art house. That being said I looked long and hard at the films I did see and did my best to pick what I believed to be the year’s best movies. I loved A LOT of movies this year and my Top Ten could become a Top Twenty with a snap of a finger. So, now I give you without further delay what I believe to be the top films of the year, in a very particular order, from one to ten of course, 2005’s Best Films of the Year:*


1. Munich
This is one of Steven Spielberg’s best films. It is the perfect blend of Spielbergian thrills and heart wrenching drama. It works on so many levels and is completely relevant in any time period with any audience. This revenge tale is told with sophistication and is exciting from start to finish.

2. King Kong
Peter Jackson has certainly been the king of movies lately. His Lord of the Rings trifecta certainly hasn’t slowed him down. This adventurous remake pays tribute to the 1933 original and expands and even improves on it. We have an emotional thrill ride that is definitely worth sitting in the theater for 3 hours to witness it.

3. A History of Violence
David Cronenberg, obsessed with bodily deformation and sexual violence, certainly doesn’t skew far from the track in this thrilling story about a small town man who becomes a big time hero. The moral of the story is you can’t escape your past and you certainly can’t escape Cronenberg’s masterful direction.

4. Match Point
This certainly is a year for seasoned directors. Woody Allen leaves Annie Hall in the dust with this psychological drama set far away in England. Socioeconomic class and sensuous affairs play a part in this intriguing story of lust and love.

5. Brokeback Mountain
Ang Lee turns stereotypes on their heads and kicks ‘em to the curb in this absorbing romance set in Wyoming during a period of nearly twenty years. This romance is between two male ranch hands who end up handling more than sheep while on a summer sheep drive. Because of this love that dare not speak its name we end up with broken hearts and broken families and one of the year’s most emotional rides. Splendid performances from everyone involved push this film towards classic cinema status.

6. Walk the Line
Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon are simply sensational in this moving biopic about the late, great country star Johnny Cash. This film moves you and makes your legs ache from all that foot tapping. A wonderfully timeless story told in a wonderfully timeless way.

7. Crash
Superb ensemble drama dealing with racism in Los Angeles starring people you’d never expect. We get terrific performances from an outstanding cast and an extremely important message about tolerance. People’s true feelings are splashed up on the screen and they come flying back making you realize perhaps we should make this world just a little bit better place to be.

8. War of the Worlds
Spielberg returns to the genre that gave him a household name: horror. This is not a science-fiction film. This is not a fantasy. This is not an adventure. This is a flat-out scary thrill ride that pits human beings against a seemingly unstoppable enemy. This is one of the year’s best popcorn shockers.

9. The 40-Year-Old Virgin
The year’s best comedy stars Steve Carrel as he tries to woe Catherine Keener while his friends try and help him out with his middle-aged sex crisis. Dialogue has never felt fresher or more hysterical. Great performances and a surprisingly moving love story definitely make this a step up from your average romantic comedy.

10. Good Night, & Good Luck.
This is one of the year’s best films made all the more better because of its limited budget. This film feels like it was made in the 1950s: from its stark black & white cinematography to its uniformly excellent cast. George Clooney directs this enthralling film about heroic journalist Edward Murrow’s attempt to take down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

*Be sure to read my full reviews of all of my Top Ten Films of 2005

Deconstructing Woody: Allen is Back in the Game with “Match Point”

Match Point is a winner. Perhaps it’s the change of setting for the director. Perhaps it’s a change of genre for the director. Perhaps it’s because his last few films were garbage. Anyway you look at it Woody Allen is in complete control of this wicked new entry. Allen spins a story of lust, love and some other stuff that I shouldn’t be telling you about unless you’ve seen the movie. So if I were you I’d stop reading and go see the film. I’ll try not to spoil anything for you.

Match Point isn’t a comedy although it has a chuckle here and there. It has what appears to be a straightforward tale told with a lot of juice. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (a British Joaquin Phoenix sporting a similar upper lip scar) is Chris, a tennis pro, who gets a job teaching tennis lessons at a ritzy club. Here he meets Tom (Matthew Goode) whose sister is Chloe played by Emily Mortimer (an older, British Kirsten Dunst). Tom is engaged to Nola (a role I’ve finally enjoyed Scarlett Johansson in). Chris and Nola definitely have the hots for each other. You see how this is all going to play out right? Hardly. This is a typical setup for any ordinary romantic comedy, a great Woody one in fact. This film decides to take a much darker road.

The tennis metaphor is well played in that winning the game has just as much to do with luck as good skill. We also get a reflective two-sided deal as tennis is game played by two people. This is reflected in everything from the characters’ wardrobes such as some sporting white shirts and black pants, while the other wears a black shirt and white pants. We are constantly getting subtle shots of characters facing each other with opposite shading. One shot of Chris and Tom has the corner of the room diving the screen with a shadow on Tom’s face with a light background while Chris’ face is in the light while his background is shadowed. Fine detail. And that tennis net plays an exciting role here as well.

This is the king of film that just gets better and better as it goes along. You get wrapped up in it and can’t wait to see how it plays out. It’s definitely more fun than watching a tennis match (sorry Anna and Andy fans). It’s a little twisty but not in a way that you expect. If you go see an M. Night Shyamalan movie you sit there waiting for the twist. When you see a Woody Allen film you expect nothing but to be entertained and he does that in such a splendid way. He has all his familiar touches from using golden oldies to underscore the drama to the same-fonted opening credits that he’s used since he first started making movies. Allen is an expert in making you believe everything that is going on. The way the characters converse seems real. He makes characters talk over others because that’s how we chatter in the real world. As the film proceeds, Allen seems to be entering new territory by surprisingly paying tribute to Hitchcock. Perhaps that’s why he has set his film in England instead of his native New York. Allen is a film lover himself and no one is more respected in cinema than the Master of Suspense.

Change can be good and change can be bad. In this film’s case change is definitely good. Everything you love about Allen is here and he delivers in spades. But there is something definitely new here as well. I commend Allen for doing something slightly against type and I applaud his artistic work. Here we have a fascinating tale told in an expertly particular way. It’s dramatic, sensuous and most importantly smart. It knows exactly what it’s doing. Allen’s films are definitely an acquired taste, but with a movie like Match Point, why wouldn’t you want to take a bite? GRADE: A

Mulan Rouge: “Memoirs of a Geisha” Not Very Memorable

Movies certainly have taken me to a great many places recently. I’ve been to Munich, in, you guessed it, and I’ve been all over the Middle East in Syriana. I just got back from Japan and boy are my arms tired. Wow that joke never gets old. I must say that my knowledge of Japanese culture is limited to two Kill Bill movies and doing origami while I’m bored at work. Having said that I went into Memoirs of a Geisha knowing very little about Japanese culture. Whether or not I actually learned anything is another story. What was a detailed and fully satisfying book (which is what I’ve heard, since I haven’t read it) has been turned into a Lifetime movie of the week with extremely high production values.

Essentially what we have is a “Cinderella story” as one critic has put it, in that we witness a young girl’s willful struggle to achieve the status of a geisha, which means art. Or something like that. What seems essentially like a beautiful prostitute without the whole selling of one’s body for sexual purposes part, the life of a geisha is apparently something for a young girl to look forward to in life. (Or that’s what the film seems to be portraying) We start off with a young girl who is sold to a family full of Mommie Dearests. Good thing there are no wire hangers to be found. We have the Japanese version of Jennifer Connelly (I have no idea what her character’s name is or the actress) playing the snobby older “sister.” We have the raspy-voiced chain-smoking matriarch. And also a woman who could very easily be friends with Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs (who coincidently has a small role here as an American colonel) because the poor girl gets the hose, a lot. It’s a tad difficult to really follow the story, as I don’t know the politics of geisha-dom. When grown up our hero (take a glance at imdb.com if you want to know her name cause I have no clue) gets a female rivalry right out of Showgirls complete with catfight and corny dialogue. Every time I heard lines like, “I want a life that is mine!” I couldn’t help but chuckle. What about “We do not become geisha to pursuit our own destiny.” I was almost waiting for Yoda to show up.

Many are saying the film misses the dramatic impact and factual details of the novel and replaces them with beautiful photography and fabulous costumes. These people are correct. It does some have great cinematography: a young girl’s face is lit with orange lighting while in the foreground two women are shaded with blue lighting, all in one shot. Japan is a beautiful country and the film reflects that. The set design is also a striking achievement, as the screen is not filled with gratuitous computer generated images. Director Rob Marshall (Chicago) obviously wanted to give the film a certain look, which he achieves but there’s not much else. The performances are fine but the characters are either too flat or not developed enough as Marshall would rather the shot look good instead of giving his actors personalities.

At the end of Geisha we’re left feeling empty and slightly annoyed. We have a film that only scratches the surface of a story that is dying to be told. All we have is interesting shots which are definitely not enough to overcome the emotionally unfulfilled feeling we’re left with after the film is over. I felt slightly cheated because I hardly learned anything more about Japanese culture than what I already knew. And from me that’s saying a lot. GRADE: C-

Broadway Danny Doze: Despite Some Laughs “The Producers” Feels Frustratingly Flat

I think I’m in the minority here, but I didn’t really enjoy the musical Cats. I guess I just didn’t get it: a bunch of ballet dancing felines was supposed to make me emotional? What about Les Miserables? No one was more miserable than me. I had to find other ways of keeping myself entertained for its 3.5 hour running time and that didn’t include singing along. What’s my point? Perhaps I’m not the best judge when it comes to Broadway because the shows everyone seems to love I just think are so-so. The Producers comes to mind. There seemed to be so much hype built up that when I actually saw the show a singing Nazi army and costumes with huge pretzels hardly seemed to do anything for me. I definitely think my point is that if you loved the staged version of The Producers you shouldn’t really keep reading this review. The big screen version of the movie seems to fizzle when it should sizzle. It’s merely an average filmed version of the stage musical and doesn’t really add to the medium in terms of style or substance.

Having that off my chest there was plenty to enjoy about the film and surprisingly it was SNL alum Will Ferrell. Will Ferrell has never really done anything for me. He’s a funny guy sure, but he plays the same guy ad nauseam. Here he plays a whacked out German whose fondness for the Leader of the Third Reich is beyond anything you’ve seen him do before. The role seemed tailor made for him. For those of you who have no clue what this guy has to do with the story here goes: Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane), a Broadway producer and general sleaze, and Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick), an OCD emotionally imprisoned accountant, plan to produce a flop so they can run off with the financial backer’s hard earned investments. The play they decide to produce is written by Franz Liebkind (Ferrell). Uma Thurman shows up as a Swedish actress/secretary Ulla to add additional comic relief but fails to be very funny or to have a consistent Swedish accent.

Lane and Broderick reprise their famous roles from the original musical and unfortunately (or fortunately?) I didn’t get to see the show with them in it. Here director Susan Stroman seems to forget that she has a camera in front of her actors and not a packed house. Overacting is on the menu in this film and it’s the one thing that truly bogs down the entire production. The jokes are funny although there are too few that work but the main stars seem completely wrong. I never found Broderick to be that comical and here everything about his character seems completely forced. His love of his baby blue hanky borders on annoying. Stroman wants to push the actors over the top when she should really be pushing the story over the top. The film is crying out for an R rating, but despite some mild raunchiness this isn’t Mel Brooks’ most potent writing. And lastly Stroman fails to use the film to her advantage. She stages some numbers outside of the Broadway office but there isn’t too much of a vision here. We end up with a carbon copy of the stage musical.

The most positive aspects of the entire production were the musical numbers. They were pretty much reproduced from the musical, but many of them have a let’s get up a dance feel to them. The old lady number and the song “Keep it Gay” are the definite highlights. When it comes to singing in film one has to be weary about that line of reality and the stage. Take the recent film Rent for instance. In my review of that film, I commented on the awkwardness of the realistic setting of the film with the characters breaking out in song. In the world of The Producers you totally buy it.

If you enjoyed the musical of The Producers, like the recent Phantom of the Opera and Rent, you’ll love their cinematic counterparts. I can recommend the film to those who haven’t seen the show because paying 8 bucks is a lot cheaper than paying 75 bucks. However, in general as a film, The Producers fails to advance the medium and is bogged down by over the top performances from its leads. Mel Brooks, there is something missing here. Fans expecting something along the lines of Young Frankenstein or Spaceballs might want to think again. Oy vey. GRADE: C+

War of Two Worlds: Spielberg’s Moral Drama “Munich” is Thrilling

The last time Steven Spielberg made a popcorn adventure and an emotional drama in the same year we got Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List. This year we got the terrific War of the Worlds and now Munich, a suspenseful moral drama that should be getting ready for the Academy Awards. Many people remember the tragedy that occurred during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany. A Palestinian terrorist group known as Black September took several Israeli athletes as hostages, which ended in a bloodbath. What many people don’t know is what happened afterwards. This is that story, told with an obligatory “The following is based on true events” tag that opens the film. This film’s entertaining and artistic success is based very much on Spielberg’s expertise handling of the material. Playwright Tony Kushner (his first screenplay) and Eric Roth has weaved an fascinatingly intricate morality tale. What could have easily been a silly revenge tale is told in a way that is both heartbreakingly realistic and superbly entertaining.

The story is rather easy to follow even if you’re not up on your foreign politics. In a nut shell, the Palestinians and the Israelis are not friends. After the terrorist attack at the Olympics, a small squad of hit men has been ordered, by the Israeli government, to get vengeance on those Palestinians responsible for planning and carrying out the Munich massacre. Now the film obviously takes the side of the Israelis, but should we care about them? Their job is to assassinate the “enemy.” They have been hired to do exactly what the Palestinians did. So is Gandhi correct in saying “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?” We have an interesting situation because you care for each of the Israeli men, which includes leader Avner played richly by Eric Bana. Bana has a tough job because he has to make us care about him even though he’s a hired assassin. Of course that’s not too hard because I certainly cared about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt as married assassins in Mr. & Mrs. Smith. His team includes Steve the getaway guy (Daniel Craig), Carl the clean up guy (Ciaran Hinds), Robert the bomb maker (Mathieu Kassovitz), and Hans the forger (Hanns Zischler).

Having been stripped of his identity and forced to shield this job offer from his pregnant wife, Avner enters this underground world of ethical depravity with both hesitation and honor. Spielberg handles each murder’s set up with care as he doesn’t make it as if Ocean’s Eleven is planning a robbery. Each premeditated murder is arranged in a slightly different way, complete with terrifically shot tension, which end in the same obvious result: the murder of one man is justice for the murder of another. The movie owes slightly to The Godfather in a way, which I liked, in that this tight nit group becomes a family. They sit around the table eating dinner and joking, because after all they’re human too. The film handles the violence and drama in a similar vein to Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List. However Spielberg doesn’t shy away from occasional non-obtrusive comic relief, which was nice. The film is extremely heavy and at times hard to watch, but there’s a reason for it. We live an extremely violent world and that’s obviously reflected onscreen.

Spielberg has made two movies about terrorism in the same year. He’s certainly headed down a much darker path, which is most obviously due to the events of September 11th. I believe this to be a good thing because anyone can realize we live in a world that is much different than that of pre 9/11. The film doesn’t simply shove an important message down your throat. It is a perfect balance of solid popcorn entertainment and intricate human drama. GRADE: A

See Dick. See Jane. Don’t See “Fun with Dick & Jane”

It is December. December is the time when Oscar hopefuls emerge. And stuff like Fun with Dick & Jane hopes to ride the award praise and make a quick buck. If anything, Dick & Jane is simply a missed opportunity. I watched the first five minutes unfold before me and I thought, This is gonna be a great movie. The film had an obvious sense of humor and biting wit. And then those five minutes were over and the film never recovered. Jim Carrey and Tea Leoni try their best (or do they) and are left in a film that should have been a lot better.

One of the film’s co-writers is Judd Apatow who previously directed and co-wrote the brilliantly, hysterical 40-Year-Old Virgin. That film took a redundant Hollywood formula (teenage sexual angst) and turned it into something cleverly witty (middle-aged sexual angst). Here we have a very funny premise, although it’s not exactly original because it was already made as Fun with Dick & Jane back in 1977. In the modern version Carrey and Leoni play Dick and Jane Harper. Dick is highly successful in his job at Globodyne. Jane has a job working at a travel agency. When Dick has an opportunity to get a highly touted promotion, Jane quits her job because of their financial security. Unfortunately the entire corporation goes under within a day and the CEO (Alec Baldwin doing a supremely fine impression of: insert huge corporate monger here) goes flying off in his helicopter. The film obviously wants to say something about economic America. But being funny certainly should have been up there too.

So we’re left with a once financially successful couple with a young son, who is constantly speaking Spanish, who now must do anything to get money. Anything. Everything they own has been repossessed, including the lawn. After unsuccessful attempts at low-paying jobs and other moneymaking schemes (such as Jane’s attempt at medical product testing which leaves her looking like the Elephant Man) they turn to the only logical solution: armed robbery! You see this is where the film should have gotten good. There is plenty of dark material that could have been thrown at us here by the writers, but alas we don’t get very much. We’re left with scenes that have silly and slightly comical undertones, but that’s about it. I honestly did laugh a bunch of times however, none of the scenes pay off and in the end we’re not left with much. For instance, when Dick’s company literally forces him on the air on an MSNBC-like show, catch all that funny stuff that scrolls along the bottom. Where is rest of the film’s sense of humor?

What is probably most frustrating is that I didn’t really enjoy the lead performances. Jim Carrey is a funny guy with plenty of range. However, here he sometimes skews into Ace Ventura mode unnecessarily. Had the film been cast differently perhaps that wouldn’t have been a problem. I was also slightly disappointed with Tea Leoni. I don’t think of her as a very funny actress but I was hoping for the best. She just kind of seems bored throughout the movie. I feel bad for David Duchovny. A lot of times in these types of movies we get blisteringly funny performances from supporting players who steal every scene they’re in. But there aren’t any here! What’s going on!

This movie should have been better. There is obviously talent behind it but it just wasn’t as fun as it should have been. It’s as if someone stole the entire film’s sense of humor. You’ll feel as if you’ve been robbed. GRADE C+

“The Family Stone:” A Christmas Story That Sinks Like a Rock

There are some things to enjoy in The Family Stone but on the other hand there’s plenty you want to forget. Watching the film is kind of like getting together with family. You get together with them hoping that it’ll be good but you end up wishing you’ll never have to do it again. The performers in the film are very enjoyable. What they do isn’t. If you’re looking for a fun Christmas movie to watch to get you in the holiday spirit I’d stick with 24 hours of A Christmas Story on TBS.

We have to give credit where credit is due. Fairly new director Thomas Bezucha has assembled an A-list cast (with the mild exception of where-hell-has-he-been Craig T. Nelson) to play the Stone family. Diane Keaton is a pristine, seasoned actress that continues to amaze even when stuck in stuff like this. And this certainly is Rachel McAdams’ year with great roles in Wedding Crashers and Red Eye. Luke Wilson practically plays himself as the youngest Stone(r). Dermot Mulroney is the eldest son whose girlfriend is Sarah Jessica Parker. There is also Tyrone Giordano in a healthy homosexual relationship with Brian J. White. Pregnant daughter Elizabeth Reaser awaits the arrive of her husband. So the family is all home for Christmas and all their little secrets come rushing out to attempt to make us laugh and make us cry. Whether they succeed either way is up in the air.

The main focus of the story involves Meredith (Parker), coming to visit the family for the first time (think Meet the Parents). Unfortunately instead of meeting with the family for a simple dinner, she opts to stay for the weekend. (Don’t these people ever learn!) Why Everett (Mulroney) would bring his obviously city dwelling girlfriend to stay with his wacky, liberal family is beyond me. And why the family despises her SO quickly is beyond me as well. She literally hasn’t gotten out of the car and Amy (McAdams) is already complaining that she doesn’t like her. What could have easily turned into Meet the Parents doesn’t thankfully, as Parker becomes slightly uncomfortable in the house and opts to call her sister Julie (Claire Danes) to come with her and stay in a motel.

Most of the movie involves ways for Meredith to piss off Sybil (Keaton) even though she’s such a warm, loving mother. She prayed for her sons to be gay but alas only one of them is. I can’t very well see Sybil hating Meredith so much since she obviously is so accepting of her own son’s homosexuality. Of course this conflict is what is supposed to give the movie some flavor, but unfortunately it doesn’t. I loved each of the performers but I didn’t really enjoy their roles. I did enjoy Meredith’s role as a woman striving to be accepted into a family that obviously doesn’t know the meaning of the word acceptance.

When Julie enters the picture of course all hell breaks loose because some are going to fall out of love and some are going to fall in love. Not to mention, the movie enters Stepmom territory when we find out that one of the Stone members is fatally ill. Frankly, anything is better than being stuck with these wackjobs. GRADE : C

Tale as Old as Time: “Brokeback Mountain” Breaks Through to the Mainstream

What are the great romances in film? We have the ever-repeated cinematic representation of tragic love with Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet. There’s never a dry eye in the crowd, or an awake person for that matter, during screenings of Casablanca. And we all gave a damn when Rhett totally dissed Scarlet after 6.5 hours in Gone with the Wind. All of these loves had two things in common: tragic departures and man/woman love. Could modern audiences ever give a hoot when seeing the same exact story poured out on screen with two men falling hopelessly in love? While many independent films have given homosexual love its due, director Ang “Crouching Tiger” Lee’s splendid Brokeback Mountain just may make history.

While filmed with a low budget Focus Feature’s Brokeback feels like anything but an independent film. It has all the elements: we have seemingly uncomplicated camera shots and movements that utilize every bit of creativity as artistically possible, a straightforward story, no flying spaceships, oh and sexual scenes that would make Madonna blush (not to mention most of our Government leaders). We start off with a spectacularly poetic opening. Two young men, in 1963 Wyoming both take jobs herding sheep through Brokeback Mountain for the summer. The two gentlemen bond as men usually do during outdoor gatherings. But something’s different here. What begins as simple brotherly friendship soon turns into passionate love. The men are played radiantly by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. I don’t know what’s better, Australian born Ledger’s sensationally authentic southern accent or his powerful facial expressions that pour out words in lyrical form. Ledger will be dooking it out for an Oscar this year. Lee wrings out uniformly excellent performances out of everyone.

So what we have here is a compromising situation: after their summer o’ love, both men part ways destined to live “normal” heterosexual lives because that’s what the world is telling them. Their hearts speak differently. The film mainly focuses on the life of Ennis (Ledger) and his marriage to Alma (Dawson’s Creek’s Michele Williams in an emotionally wrenching Oscar-worthy performance). After four years, Jack (Gyllenhaal) decides to follow his heart and contacts Ennis. This leads to several “fishing trips” that consist of…not fishing. These trysts take place in the only place that will truly accept them: nature. It’s their natural love and affection for each other that get to the audience so convincingly. You don’t see this couple as two men, you seem them as human beings. Whether conservative groups will see the same thing is another story. But this is a realistic portrayal of how real love can’t be denied.

Brokeback Mountain, vulgarly dubbed “the gay cowboy movie” since its times-are-a-changing production hit headlines, is a movie that can easily appeal to a wide audience if people are willing. There’s just as much heterosexual lovemaking as homosexual lovemaking for those who feel it’s just two men doin’ it the whole time. The film is never sappy although it’s sad. It’s never lapses into stereotypes which is why this is a seminal film for this time period. This is a movie that portrays an onscreen love many people will want to categorize as different but will ultimately realize that it’s just the same. Romeo and Juliet and those other classic love stories are gone with the wind. Brokeback Mountain is a stunning and deserving slice in the historic cinematic timeline. I think the big ape has some competition; the Oscar race is on. GRADE: A

Return of the King: “Kong” Remake Puts the Motion Back in Motion Picture

Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson has made a moving, emotionally resonant epic adventure – all without a Hobbit in sight. It takes somebody who made three 3-hour plus films all at once to get the nerve to take on the king of all movies, King Kong. He has succeeded in a) paying tribute to a classic film without seeming pretentious (take note Gus Van Sant) b) recreating a stunning 1930s New York City c) making the audience buy everything that is so completely outrageous about a story involving a huge gorilla that falls in love with a woman and runs amok in the city only to climb the Empire State Building and have more than his heart-broken. Even at its three hour running time King Kong never seems long-winded, it is fast, fun popcorn entertainment with all the emotional weight of an intimate drama. We’re reminded why they used to call these things moving pictures.

When you sit in your seat and await the start of King Kong get cozy, cause you don’t see ape boy for a while. And that’s definitely not a bad thing. Remember you didn’t see the shark in Jaws until, oh, 45 minutes before the final credits rolled. Jackson along with writing partners Fran Walsh (his wife) and Philippa Boyens have created largely appropriate backstory for our main characters. In the original 1933 version, meager Ann Darrow is caught stealing an apple and catches the eye of film director & adventurer Carl Denham. They talk for a few minutes and before you know it they’re sailing to Skull Island to make the greatest picture anyone has ever seen. Yeah, like that would ever happen. Here though we get completely convincing character motivations and a paying tribute to the passion of making movies.

The leads are now played by Naomi Watts (in a stunning performance) as Ann the struggling actress and Jack Black as Carl (slightly strange casting, but he does the job adequately) the amoral (we’ll learn why soon) film director. We get characters that are wholly developed. We now fully accept that Ann will venture to an uncharted island (or as Carl tells the crew, they’re headed for Singapore). Of course we add in Oscar winner Adrien Brody as Jack Driscoll, who in the original was a hardened seaman, but here he's a seasoned playwright and screenwriter to Carl's film. Jack falls for Ann (and vice versa) but he's not the only one...

So where does the giant gorilla fit into all this? Well he’s our tragic hero! At first seen as a monster, especially by the island’s disturbingly, unhinged natives, we learn that Mr. Kong has feelings too. The natives capture Ann and use her as an offering to the great primate, with Jack, Carl and the ship’s crew in tow (one of which being toughened Billy Elliot). Kong is an especially lovable animal, yet his viciousness towards everybody and his passion towards Ann make for an interesting love triangle. Jackson fully plays out the connection between Ann and Kong which was very much missing from the original. Although the original Kong showed he was truly King of the Jungle, his flings with the constantly scared Ann lacked any emotional depth.

And what an adventure this island offers! We get dinosaur stampedes that would make Jurassic Park’s John Hammond jealous. And an eerily disturbing gigantic bug sequence gives The Temple of Doom a run for its money and who could forget the fleshy man-eating worms that crawl out of the sceen and under your flesh. Let's not overlook that heart-stopping T. Rex fight... times three. After nearly losing his life, Carl decides he wants to skip making a movie and wants to make history by capturing Kong alive and putting him on a Broadway stage complete with tribal dancing and vaguely familiar Max Steiner music. Somebody call PETA! Jackson has crafted an intense, fun and wholly fascinating adventure that ends with a spectacular final showdown atop you know where.

King Kong is a film that has everything and can appeal to the widest possible audience. There's enough fantasy to please the Rings nuts and enough realism to turn on the fantasy dismissers. If you thought Jerry Maguire had everything (sports for girls, romance for guys, wait, strike that, reverse it) wait until you see King Kong. This is an epic that will set new standards of movie making and storytelling and will stand the test of time just like its predecessor did (and I’m not talking about that crappy Jessica Lange, monkey-suit version). And did I mention all this with nary a Hobbit in sight? GRADE: A

Fuel Intentions: Ensemble Drama “Syriana” Never Pumps a Dry Well

I’ll be the first to admit that, at times, I can be as dumb as Paris Hilton is on a good day. At least I have a college degree. (Give me a little credit) I never really enjoyed History class in high school, I used a certain yellow & black companion to get through English and I don’t think I knew what IRS stood for until about a year ago. Having got that out of the way I must say I was both intrigued and wildly confused during the newest political drama to come out of Hollywood since oh, last week. From the makers of Traffic as the trailer so proudly exclaims comes Syriana a movie so tightly made, with such strong performances and so much going on that if you’re intellectual with a strong knowledge of global issues you’ll get it and if you’re well, like me, you’ll nod your head and just go along with it. Never since the first Mission: Impossible have I been so into what’s happening onscreen, yet had no idea what was going on at the same time. That’s inspired movie making.

So what exactly is going on in this knock of corporate power? Much. We have several different storylines ala let’s say Magnolia or Crash. However, the relationships between the characters are more much significant. Syriana, as you probably know, is about the globe’s powerful, and possibly corrupt, (didn’t see that coming did you?) oil industry. The film takes us around the world from the Persian Gulf to DC to Sweden and back again. The film is as multi-layered as its set of characters. We get a glimpse of the oil field workers (including Pakistani youngster played by Mazhar Munirwho) who get laid off because two of the world’s most powerful oil corporations are merging. We get CIA operative George Clooney with one scraggly looking beard, who is investigating who knows what. We get energy analyst Matt Damon, who fits comfortably into his role, (Amanda Peet is his wife in a potent but too small role) who becomes buddy-buddy with a powerful Gulf prince. We also follow attorney Jeffrey Wright, who channels that guy from Good Morning America with ease, as he refines the merger of the aforementioned oil companies. And what would this film be without your Armani-wearing corporate big boys in their clean offices as they shake each other’s hands for a business deal well done (great supporting performance again Chris Cooper).

So what does all this add up to? We get to observe (through a sometimes shaky camera) the inner workings of a massive machine and how all the little components make up the conglomerate whole. I think I’m doing pretty good so far right? Paris, eat your heart out. The film works on the same level as the film Traffic, which deservedly won Steven Soderbergh a best director Oscar several years ago. Syriana’s plot weaves itself in a very similar manner, but with a different subject. They make two very good companion pieces. The captain at the helm this time is (Oscar winner) Traffic screenwriter Steven Gaghan who does a great job of getting the viewer caught up in the corruption onscreen at nearly every minute. The nontraditional music score by Frenchman Alexandre Desplat helps tell the story. I knew when to feel suspense and when I could relax just from his music.

The film has an obvious leftist bend, which seems refreshing and overdone at the same time. However, any film that Republicans are sure to argue about makes it all the more worthwhile. Speaking of which, according to an anonymous message board poster at a popular movie website, “What ever happened to movies that were entertaining? I am a conservative who agrees with the war, but as a normal human being I'd like to watch a movie that is entertaining.” I guess I’m not as dumb as I thought I was. Hey I’m all up for movies that are entertaining, but of course what could be more entertaining than watching a conservative squirm in his seat watching a film like this? Sadism at its best. Paging Michael Moore, get your next film, Sicko, out stat. GRADE: B+

Let’s Get Political: History Repeats Itself in “Good Night, and Good Luck.”

Ah, how far America has come since the 1950s… or has it? Good Night, and Good Luck is a very strong film with a very strong message about a person that dared to be outspoken. Co-writer/actor/director George Clooney has chosen to be unpolitical by making one of the most political films that has come out of Hollywood in a long time. Clooney succeeds on several levels but the most praise that can be given is how the film itself reflects its message: dare to be outspoken and speak your mind without fear of persecution.

Good Night, and Good Luck is shot simply, acted quietly, yet magnificently and defies any expectations of what we’ve come to learn from Hollywood films. We have a historical fiction film that looks like it could be a documentary. A film made in 2005 with nary a spot of color other than black, white or gray. And a storyline that doesn’t journey as much as just sits still. Choosing to take on an era in American history that no one who lived through will forget yet none seems to discuss: the Second Red Scare.

Clooney places us on the television news floor of CBS during the 1950s. We’re introduced to Edward Murrow (played with subtle intensity by David Strathairn) and his fellow team of broadcast journalists during the McCarthy era. Onscreen titles refresh our memories as to what was going on politically in the country. Those that were thought of being a communists or even communist sympathizers were exposed and blacklisted. These “witch trials” all began with Republican (shocker!) Senator Joseph McCarthy when he feared a breakdown in American patriotism. Ok, but enough of the history lesson. Mr. Murrow has the gall (or as dirty liberals like myself would say, the backbone) to attempt to bring down McCarthy on his own TV show. He turns the table on a man that evoked fear in anyone with an even slightly leftist bend. Real footage of McCarthy (Clooney didn’t want to torture an actor into having to play him) with Strathairn is seamless and provocative. Clooney’s choice to shoot simple and with a documentary style gives the film a chilling realness. The film seems to transport us through time. It appears like something we’d see on the History Channel. That’s the best compliment in my opinion.

Clooney’s camera never seems to leave the CBS studio and that is something that is so different yet so affective. Whereas other historical dramas tend to use many unrelated characters to support the bulk of a film, Clooney sticks with his journalists and doesn’t give us too much of a glimpse into the social world outside the studio. This film is entirely about how these broadcast journalists were affected by the McCarthy era. It was the onscreen presence of Murrow that dared to defy his government and simply question the almighty.

If anything this film couldn’t have been made at a more appropriate time with a country so divided and foreign tensions so high. If there’s any film that should be seen by our government as a simple reminder that sometimes history does repeat itself this is it. If there’s any film that won’t be seen by our government it is this. My advice for sitting W down and seeing this: Good night, and good luck. GRADE: B+

Mr. & Mrs. Cash: “Walk The Line” Has a Heartbeat

When you venture out to a concert with friends there’s no greater anticipation than waiting for the performer you’ve traveled all the way to see run onto stage and play the tunes you love so much. The film Walk the Line brings all of that anticipation and then some, and it pays off in buckets. It is everything you want in a biography drama and that’s why it’s so good. These are words straight from a person who loves movies yet knows nothing of the late great Johnny Cash. Before I saw this film if you put a gun to my head and told me to sing a line or name the title to one of Cash’s songs I’d be a dead man. Going into the film knowing very little one comes out knowing a lot. The music is great and the actors are terrific. It’s one rockin’ shindig.

One must mention that after the success of last year’s other music biopic Ray we must look at Walk the Line with a clean slate. Comparisons are inevitable. I was lucky enough to go into this film without having seen Ray (although I felt like I had with everyone talking about it constantly) so I never had that film in the back of my mind. Walk the Line is everything that is standard in a biographical drama. We get a glimpse into the star’s childhood and family life. We learn of the trials and tribulations of a person who just wanted to be someone special. We witness our hero’s conventional fall and his eventual rise. And while at first glimpse the film seems just ordinary, it is anything but.

The performances, not surprisingly, is what keeps everything together. Joaquin Phoenix is simply sensational as Mr. Cash. He is not an actor playing Johnny Cash, becomes him. The real surprise here is Reese Witherspoon, as June Carter, who is always fantastic whether it’s teen fare like Legally Blonde or social satire such as Pleasantville or Election. This film no doubt marks a turning point in the young actress’ career. I’m sure an Oscar nomination is hers as well as for Joaquin. Witherspoon nearly steals every scene she’s in which are numerous because of her honestly raw performance. She doesn’t need to take her clothes or makeup off to be just simply moving. She’s the perfect foil for Joaquin. And wouldn’t you know the T-1000, Robert Patrick, turns up as Johnny’s abrasive father. Everyone is excellent from the members of Cash’s band, to Johnny’s first wife (Ginnifer Goodwin).

The story itself is very straightforward with Cash’s drug dependency taking up most of the second act. It is his affection for June that proves love can conquer all. Oh and did I mention the music? The film opens with a distant drumbeat, perhaps a concert being performed miles away and it subtlety gets louder until our unknown performer is about to make his appearance. But it isn’t until we first flashback several years before our musical wants are met. Director James Mangold whets our music appetites and when he finally delivers, he delivers in spades. If anything, the film seems to end abruptly but you’re willing to forgive it because frankly you can’t really have a six-hour film that completely chronicles a man’s entire life. What’s shown is important and worthy of a filmed story and the script does what it’s supposed to do.

Whether or not you know or are even a fan of Cash’s music there’s no denying the emotional weight that comes with each beat of the drum or pluck of the guitar. The music is the film’s heart and it beats on and on. The film’s rhythm makes you want to stand up and dance. Why bother going to see the mundane Rent when you can have emotional performances in a film that has its own heartbeat, and blood pumping through its veins. GRADE: A-

“Rent” on the Big Screen: I’m Not Buyin’ It

Let’s start out by saying that I love the film version of The Who’s sensational rock opera Tommy. While way back then an entire film sung in a synthesized version of a popular rock n roll album was very new and hip, today it just seems silly. While not from a rock group’s album but rather a smash Broadway musical, Rent as a film isn’t really bad but it isn’t as entertaining as one would hope it would be. How could I enjoy Tommy but not Rent? I’m a fan of the Tommy album and know nearly all the words. Rent is strictly for those who enjoyed the stage version and has little else to offer.

The biggest problem is because the characters are singing to each other most of the time (which I never really found annoying because alas I love Tommy and that is entirely singing mostly off key by the way) we don’t really get to learn much about them except that they have good vocal talents. While it seems that the script is attempting to make each person unique everyone is really the same. The story follows a year (or 525, 600 minutes) in the lives of a group of twenty-somethings in New York’s East Village. The film is supposed to take place on the onslaught of the 1990s but you could have fooled me. There doesn’t seem much of an attempt to make this a period piece, as nothing about the characters’ wardrobes, looks or anything else going on in the background would indicate it is 1989, except for the absence of cell phones.

While the characters themselves are just mildly interesting, their acting counterparts don’t really do them much justice. Most of the original actors from the original Broadway cast return to reprise their roles and with such amazing voices, unfortunately they were meant for the stage. Their facial expressions are more reminiscent of theater than film and it immediately makes me disconnect from them. Stage acting is all about overacting and that doesn’t translate well here. The actors have tremendous range and I was especially surprised by Rosario Dawson. Adam Pascal is also very good and he’d definitely trying. His vocals seemed ripped from The Who’s lips, which is a good thing. The cast does well with what they’re given but by now it’s just like they’re going through the motions. Even the story these characters are given seems to be nothing special. Having not seen the stage version I thought there was going to be a lot more emphasis about the AIDS crisis but alas it seems like more of an unimportant subplot here as is Dawson’s drug habit. AIDS is mentioned in the first 10 minutes of the film and then never seems to be discussed again until about an hour in. The characters sing about making ends meat to pay their rent, clever right, and just go on and on about how their lives are miserable.

For a film that seems to require so much style it’s surprisingly lacking any. Perhaps we should credit director Chris Columbus who is known for his comedies and the first two Harry Potter films. I enjoy his movies but he seems out of place here. I figured since I didn’t know the music too well I would at least be taken in by the beautiful shots usually found in musicals. Alas my eyes were rather bored, although my tapping feet did get quite a good workout. The music is good and inspired and I’m sure is much more fun to listen to on a CD and dance around your room. But when put in context of a filmed story it just doesn’t offer a Rent virgin much of anything. Wasn’t I supposed to feel some kind of emotion at the end? I felt exactly the same as I did in the beginning.

Those who loved the show will surely love the movie. I’m not bashing the film as much it may seem but it’s really no fault of Rent itself, but more of the musical genre itself. I loved the recent filmed version of Phantom of the Opera while many despised it. At least that musical takes place in and around actual operas, so when the characters break out in song it doesn’t seem so unnatural. I understand how non-fans would dislike it. The film Chicago is a great example of a musical that can be enjoyed by everyone. I think I’ll pop the campy Tommy into my DVD player, at least its got Ann-Margret rolling around in baked beans. GRADE: C+

Bosom Buddies: Ryan Reynolds & Amy Smart Are “Just Friends”

The film Just Friends takes place in a magical world (free of hobbits thankfully) in which ugly people become pretty and pretty people become ugly. Of course this is just on the outside. It’s what’s inside that always remains the same. If you’re willing to buy that up and coming uber-stud Ryan Reynolds was at once a big-hearted obese nerd who used to lip synch to songs by All-4-One than you will be pleasantly surprised by this light, fluffy romantic comedy. As directed by Cruel Intentions’ Roger Kumble, Just Friends is a fun trip down suburban memory lane into a time anyone with adolescent orthodontic work will remember dearly.

Rooting for the romantic leads to get together in the end is one of the delights in viewing a film like this because we don’t need to worry about twist endings and who’s gonna bite the dust. We know how everything will end up, but it’s the road that takes us there that’s enjoyable. And a good trip always begins with great company. As a once geeky teenager who grows into what we see in films like Van Wilder and Blade: Trinity, we know Reynolds is anything but a loser. He has always been in love with his best friend from high school, Amy Smart, but a humiliating graduation night makes him leave his small New Jersey hometown to pursue a life of great things. He ends up as a music producer. Now a ladies’ man, he ends up stuck back near his hometown with a hysterically obnoxious Brittany Jessica Aguilera pop star. She’s played by the tremendously appealing Anna Faris of the Scary Movie films. She plays her pop princess better than anyone else ever could hope to and she’s just enough to recommend the film to others. One highlight comes after her plane takes a sudden detour as she screams out for Ashton Kutcher of Punk’d to come out of hiding. If this girl gets the right script with the right director she may just act her way to comic Oscar glory one day.

So back in his suburban birthplace he’s forced (while practically babysitting Faris) to spend some time visiting his mother and younger brother while seeking out the girl of his dreams since he’s in town. The story of course is mildly entertaining but it is the writing and terrific performances that make the grade. Everyone does just what he or she is supposed to. Julie Haggerty from my favorite film Airplane! plays Reynolds’ mother with an innocent glow. She’s like so many suburban mothers out there that even her one-dimensional character is fleshed out because she’s practically like our own mother. So let’s see here. The pop princess likes our main guy Reynolds while he goes all geeky again without the fat suit because he can’t confess his love for hottie Amy Smart who is being love hunted by pretty boy Chris Klein who is in fact pretty ugly on the inside. Phew! It seems like we’re entering Roger Altman territory or something.

No, this isn’t Altman or even Woody Allen at his worst. This is innocent fun that doesn’t get irritating or boring. It has charm and class and wants you to like it. It has characters that want to steal scenes and say witty things and just wants to entertain you. If anything it just wants to be your friend, just friends. GRADE: B

A Rotten Egg: “Chicken Little” is a Turkey

Wow. I bet all of the traditional Disney animators that go laid off must be laughing their butts off. The newest CG animated film Chicken Little is one of the worst movies to be branded with the Disney logo ever. Period. Chicken Little is like eating a sour candy. Your face grimaces. You can feel that acid taste in your mouth and you think that if you keep at it the flavor might just get better but never does. The film is a complete mess from start to finish and just when you think it might actually start to get good it just gets worse. Director Mark Dindal who helmed the amusing Emperor’s New Groove has made a very uneven film.

Where does one begin? Since it’s an animated movie let’s start there. The animation is simply ugly. The characters are so repulsively unattractive that they make those in Corpse Bride look like cartoon supermodels. The film looks muted even with all its pastel colors. Our little hero Chicken Little is the cutest one of the bunch, which is a good thing. He’s surrounded by characters that aren’t just annoying to look at, but have annoying traits and personalities. Little’s friends are all various storybook characters we all know such as The Ugly Duckling (Joan Cusack) and Foxy Loxy (Amy Serdaris) to name a few. The Runt of the Liter (Steve Zahn) is an obnoxious pig with OCD. The characters act so zany that even those with ADD will be irritated. The voiceover work is the film’s greatest asset but that’s no surprise. If you hire A-list actors then you will have A-list voices.

Chicken Little (Zach Braff) is a little troublemaker because one day a piece of blue sky falls on his head, he alerts the town, causes a panic and everyone gets mad at him. And wouldn’t you know his widower dad doesn’t know how to handle the small tyke. This leads to excruciatingly boring scenes in which he feels the need to “prove himself” by joining the school’s baseball team. We get a typically clichéd baseball game just 15 minutes into the movie. How fun! The father-son theme takes up nearly the first half of the film and THEN the film gets going. If I was nine I would have been asleep already.

Finally aliens appear and disappear into the sky and of course leave one of their own behind ala E.T. This sets in motion a plot that should have begun 40 minutes earlier for the alien “invasion” is the most exciting part of the film at which time REM’s “It’s the End of the World As We Know It” blasts on the soundtrack. References to War of the Worlds are taken with a grain of salt. However this seems like more of a copy than an homage. Of course by then it’s too little too late and I’ve already checked my watch about five times.

The film doesn’t overload with pop culture references the way Shark Tale did, but there are plenty of puns that adults will get, which is good right? Wrong! Any attempts at jokes towards anyone over 17 fall miserably flat. The filmmakers have gone so far as to flash the opening scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark at us. The live action film plays in the town’s movie theater as a real boulder comes crashing through their screen. I wish a boulder crashed through my screen so I could end it all.

This is a major downer for Disney. Their recent breakup with Pixar has left their creative team pumping a dry well. This film looked good from its amusing ads and I genuinely was excited to see it. This movie could have been good but I wanted it to end after about four minutes. At least the movie had a rather short running time. Walt himself must be rolling in his grave. Back to the drawing board boys!

Go watch Finding Nemo or Chicken Run ASAP it will help to get the bad taste out of your mouth. GRADE: D