Match Game: “Thank You For Smoking” Cast Lights Up the Screen

If we can’t laugh at people who die from smoking cigarettes who can we laugh at? Just about the entire civilized world knows that smoking cigarettes isn’t the healthiest way to live. Neither is eating fatty foods. Or staring at the TV for ten hours a day. And how about binge drinking every weekend? Most of us are smart enough to know the dangers we put upon our bodies but is it really anything to laugh about? Of course! That is the feeling you get from watching the morally charged film Thank You for Smoking. The film’s hero is a lobbyist who speaks on behalf of cigarettes. He wants everyone to smoke. Even you. For everyone that doesn’t smoke he is out one customer and for every smoker that dies, he’s out one more.

A film that deals with such a hot health topic is sure to set off alarms for some people. How can a film’s main character endorse such an addictive, unhealthy habit? As Nick Naylor, played with warm zest by Aaron Eckhart, a spokesman for cigarettes, he sees such items as just a product. He wants to sell them and he wants to make money. His real goal however isn’t really just to sell these tobacco products, but to convince others that they aren’t as dangerous as they seem. So what we have here is a battle of wits. He doesn’t have to prove that his side of this health issue is right; he just has to prove the other side is wrong. This is a lesson that he teaches his young son, who ends up winning his school’s debating championship. I guess live with a lobbyist and reap all the benefits.

Nick much match wits with his main adversary Senator Finistirre (an always wonderful William H. Macy) who is hot on a campaign to attach a skull & cross bones logo on every cigarette package as a warning that these tobacco products are just as poisonous as anything found underneath your kitchen sink. Of course Mr. Naylor isn’t too worried because his wildly cool confidence can win over just about anyone. On a talk show with Joan London that opens the film, Nick wins the heart of the audience by proving he wants a sick boy dying of cancer to live, if only so he can keep on smoking. Nick also spends once a week with the “Merchants of Death” his friends (David Koechner & Maria Bello) who speak on behalf of guns and alcohol. Their conversations are witty, sly and downright funny. Here we are at the end of March and we’re already skewering America’s health crisis. I guess 2005 couldn’t hold all of those political charged films.

As written and directed by filmmaker Ivan Reitman’s son Jason, the film has a biting sense of humor and knows exactly what it wants to do. But as the film’s only real quibble I felt its bite wasn’t as big as its bark. While the satire thankfully doesn’t go over the edge, it really doesn’t reach it either. Scenes like the one that opens the film and with the Merchants of Death are strong, but when Nick comes up with an idea to implant cigarettes into the hands of sexy Hollywood stars in the movies it never goes as far as I would have liked.

The entire cast, from Katie Holms as a sneaky reporter who’s screwed over in more ways than one, to a brief appearance by The OC’s Adam Brody, is sensational. They all appear to be having a great time. We have a slick satire that is wholly enjoyable and filled with smart laughs. If this is only a preview of what’s to come for the rest of 2006, I can’t wait. GRADE: B+

Heist Anxiety: Spike Lee’s Joint “Inside Man” Has its Moments

What are typical elements of a hostage movie? Masked robbers? A bank vault full of unmarked bills? That one hostage who makes a stupid move because he feels he can save the day? What about the negotiator that runs the outside world and speaks to the robber via direct phone line? How about the demanding of a jetliner as getaway? Sure these are in just about every hostage movie. Some of these appear in Spike Lee’s new “joint” entitled Inside Man and others don’t. There are good things about the movie and there are quibbles. The good things outnumber the quibbles. Let’s examine things more closely.

The film opens with Dalton Russell (Clive Owen), addressing us, the audience. I gather we are going to be good friends. When we learn later in the movie that Mr. Owen is the man behind a white mask who just took an upscale New York City bank hostage, perhaps we’re on his side. Dalton and his buddies are scary and intimidating and they certainly mean business. This scene of them taking over the bank is rather suspenseful. This film must but serious right? Soon however, we learn that Dalton Russell is more like Danny Ocean in Ocean’s 11, cool and in charge. He’s a bad guy we’re supposed to like. So if we’re supposed to like him? Who are we supposed to dislike?

Enter two mysterious figures: Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer) as the owner of the entire bank chain & Madeline White (a fabulously pointy and stern Jodie Foster) as the inside woman if you will who knows high people in sketchy places. We learn that old fogy Arthur perhaps has something to hide in the bank that is being robbed and he enlists Madeline’s help. Perhaps this a major plot point or perhaps it’s just a red herring, but it’s a mystery nonetheless. I guess this is isn’t your typical hostage movie.

Then we have Denzel Washington as Detective Keith Frazier the hostage negotiator who wants to know exactly what the robbers want. And it doesn’t seem like they just want cold hard cash. When Det. Frazier isn’t trying to figure out what’s going on inside the bank in the present, he spends the future in soft, colorless scenes interrogating the hostages, some of who may or may not have been the robbers. So apparently the robbers get away? There goes the suspense. But not entirely.

While the beginning of the film when the robbers enter the bank is suspenseful, what’s really intriguing is what Arthur wants. Is he in on it? What does he have to hide? And of course, how much do we as an audience love seeing Jodie Foster playing wildly against type?

Remember I mentioned that this was a Spike Lee joint. So how much does the outspoken, mostly independent director put his own spin on the bank robbery situation? He uses cool camera tricks and adds his own racial tension flair to decent use. A cop mistaking a hostage for an Arab is funny in this post 9/11 world. Unfortunately, we don’t get the moral situations that were so present in say Do the Right Thing. And he certainly doesn’t offend like many found in his under appreciated Bamboozled. This isn’t a film about the ethical & racial implications of bank robbery, but it is a fun, entertaining two hours. I could think of worse ways to spend a dog day afternoon. GRADE: B-

Family Matters: "The Hills Have Eyes" Remake is Brutally Inconsistent

Spring is in the air and death is at the multiplex. When it comes to today’s scary movies there have been plenty of examples of “the more you show the less scary it is” (let’s say The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake?) and there have been examples of “the less you show the scarier it is” (how about The Blair Witch Project?) Both of these films were in the horror genre, yet were very different movies. I believe Chainsaw’s attempt was to disgust just about everyone while Blair Witch just wanted to scare everyone’s pants off. The Hills Have Eyes wants to do both and it’s bloodily frustrating.

First off I appreciate the filmmakers’ (the makers of the no holds barred High Tension) attempt to go all out. You can’t remake Wes Craven’s disturbing cult film from 1977 and hold back. That film has some extremely unsettling sequences and to retrain in a remake would be silly. The Hills Have Eyes definitely doesn’t follow the likes of the PG-13 rated When a Stranger Calls or The Fog in an attempt to get 12 year olds in the theater. (Although there was a 5 year old joined by his family when I saw the movie) This new film is violent, bloody and just wants to mess with your mind. However, I can’t say it is completely successful. But of course this IS just a horror film.

The plot is thankfully simple: a typical American family traveling cross country gets lost in the middle of desert only to be stuck in the middle of a government nuclear test site which is inhabited by a society of cannibalistic humanoids. In most cases horror films with simple plots, that don’t take place over a long period of time are definitely more “believable.” For instance, in the days that pass during the Final Destination films do you really believe that the characters would really spend all that time yelling at each other trying to figure out how to cheat death’s clutches? Of course the family in this film takes some bogus advice from a local nut job with three teeth and ends up stranded in the middle of nowhere. At least they have a full camper with food, drinks and lawn chairs.

Before we know it the crazy, mutant locals are terrorizing the father, the mother, the son, the two daughters, the son-in-law, the grandbaby, and the two dogs. There are plenty of people to kill off, which the film takes its time doing (of course one of the dogs dies first, don’t they always?). You think the film is going to go the Blair Witch route and just keep us in suspense but then BAM, we get a completely messed up scene in which one of the daughters is raped while the other cannibal helps himself to the other daughter, her head nearly gets blown off and the mother gets to witness this before being shot in the stomach. This scene in the original film is bleak, intense and incredibly upsetting. The disturbing quotient in the remake is also up there. These aren’t your typical horny teenager slashings. This is a family unit being brutally tortured.

In a sick way this scene is the high point of the movie. The rest of the film goes downhill from there. You sense from the disturbing sense of the previous scene that the rest of the film will be just as grotesque and disturbing, but ultimately isn’t. The Democratic son-in-law must search out these monsters and kill them off in typical slasher style in attempt to rescue his baby which the killers have kidnapped. Back at the campsite the surviving daughter and teenage son mourn the dead and prepare for the cannibals’ return. There are typical shocks and jumps throughout the film but nothing that really hasn’t been done to death before. Of course there is plenty of blood, which is always an added bonus. The gore isn't really all that disturbing, just excessive.

Wait? Why did I mention the son-in-law was a Democrat? Because the film, in a not so subtle way, wants to shove down the audience’s throat the political dynamics of the these two types of families: your average Middle American suburban Republicans and then the cannibalistic kind. And because the government went all nuclear on these people they turned into human flesh-eating Star Wars creatures that elicit chuckles when they should be scary. So its the American nuclear family vs. the ACTUALLY nuclear family. Get it? People are stabbed with American flags. The son-in-law totes a baseball bat (baseball is of course an American pastime) and wouldn’t you know the cannibal family has its own left-wing activist who wants to save the baby. The original film did this much more subtlety and more successfully, but perhaps that’s because modern audiences won’t understand the allegories unless it’s painfully obvious.

I’m sure you could sit there and analyze the film to death (ha!), but in so doing you also realize the film’s ultimate flaws. But when a horror flick has enough gore to fill an entire Friday the 13th franchise, who’s really complaining? GRADE: B-

The Man Show: Felicity Huffman is Not Your Average Housewife in "Transamerica"

Transamerica could have been a gimmick movie. Let’s see, a woman pretending to be a man who wants to be a woman. A one-note idea has been spun into a wildly entertaining dramedy about family dynamics and the courage to be who you are. The film seems to have ingredients of many other movies cooked together to make one generous helping of movie goodness. What we have here is a road movie. Place two people in a car traveling across America with plenty of comical and dramatic mishaps along the way. What we have here is a gender issue drama. A man throughout his whole life has always felt like a woman and decides to take the final steps to become the person he always knew he should be. What we have here is a buddy movie. Place two mismatched individuals in an inescapable situation and see what happens. Transamerica is the brilliant story of a man-to-woman transgender individual who just before his final surgery discovers he has fathered a son out of wedlock. Wow, I wonder if this film will ever play at the White House?

Desperate Housewives star Felicity Huffman is wonderful and surprisingly well cast as a man in final metamorphosis into a woman. As Stanley, or Bree the female counterpart, Huffman embodies the character with every quirky step, flick of the hair and line of eccentric dialogue. As Bree’s troubled teenage son Toby, Kevin Zegers is also exceptional. (He was that kid from the Air Bud movies). Just days before her final surgery, Bree gets a call from a New York correctional facility from her alleged son. She flies out there and pretends to be a Christian missionary assigned to make sure the young man gets on his own two feet. Toby hopes to move out to LA and become an actor… in adult films. Easy money, exciting career choice apparently? They decide to drive so that Bree can sell the car they’re driving when they finally arrive back in California. She hopes to leave Toby in the care of his stepfather or any other parental figure.

Boy is Bree in the pickle of all pickles. Young Toby has no clue Bree is really a man, although he senses something “different” about her, as most people do. And not only that but Bree is Toby’s father. That certainly would put a slight kink in any type of father-son relationship right? Bree and Toby’s traveling adventures unfold in fun, quirky vignettes. This mismatched pair is pretty uptight with each other. For instance, Bree explains to Toby why he should put his seatbelt on. She doesn’t want to see his insides splattered on the dashboard in the unlikely event of an accident. Bree knows she has to be quick, and sharp with the young man. After all, the kid does drugs, sells himself to grungy middle-aged men, and has a mother who committed suicide. Both Toby and Bree have secrets and it’s a wonder watching everything unfold before us.

The film is at times serious and at times hysterically funny. The situations these characters find themselves in are believable, but it is their sometimes unbelievable oddities that speak so much. A quick dip in a waterhole with a hitchhiker proves unsettlingly authentic and uncontrollably comical. The film works so well because of the underlying way that it is driving towards the various “what’s going to happen next” scenarios. The characters find themselves interacting with characters that I found reminiscent of Alexander Payne’s films. The movie has air of About Schmidt with a wonderful gender bender twist. The film is at times lightly humorous and then at times seriously dramatic which surprising works. You never feel that the filmmaker (fairly new Duncan Tucker) is tugging you in the wrong direction at the wrong time.

The film is fun, poignant and can surprisingly play well to a wide audience. Perhaps it is because Bree is ultimately played by a real woman so that it’s easy for a general audience to root for her. Perhaps a man in the role would have been slightly awkward. Huffman’s performance is a force of nature. This is a prime example of great storytelling that doesn’t need to be based on a true story. These characters are real people. You can't get any truer than that. GRADE: A

UPDATE: Oscar Forecast: Brokeback with a Slight Chance of Crash

UPDATE:Well the evening started off predictably enough. George Clooney? Check. Rachel Weisz? Check. Of course things turned completely topsy turvy when Jack Nicholson read the best picture winner: CRASH. Even he couldn't believe it. The screams echoed throughout the auditorium and my house as if the Red Sox had won the World Series again. Pure pandemonium. So I was most definitely sure that Brokeback Mountain was going to take the top prize and low and behold another film crashed its planned victory. As I mentioned in my forecast, if any film were to beat Brokeback I'm awfully glad it was Crash. It deserves it. Of course the biggest surprise of the night for me? I incorrectly predicted the Best Picture of the Year... but managed to get Best Live Action Short. Go figure. And just for funsies: My Total Score: 19/24 Entertainment Weekly's Total Score: 16/24.... paging EW's human resource dept....




Will Academy voters take the expected trip to "Brokeback Mountain?" Does "Capote" have a chance to "Crash" the party? And I must bid "Good Night, and Good Luck" to "Munich" because this year it’s “an honor just to be nominated.” If you’ve read ANYBODY’S Oscar predictions they are most likely right on the money. This year pre-Oscar awards and the buzz has done a good job of steering those who want to know the outcome of the Academy’s voting in the right direction. Having seen just about all the of the nominees I have decided to cast my own vote for who I think will win and who I think should win. Here we go:

Best Picture:
Will Win: Brokeback Mountain. You’d have to be living under a rock below the basement of the Republican Party National Headquarters to not know that Brokeback Mountain is most definitely going to take home the night’s biggest prize. Crash is the only film that could take away Brokeback Mountain’s glory, however the chances of that happening are slim to none. (But strange things can happen right Shakespeare in Love?) It would be the biggest surprise since The Pianist’s shocking trifecta win (Director, Actor, Screenplay).
Should Win: Brokeback Mountain is definitely most deserving of the award, but so are the other nominees. (If Crash were to win, it would certainly be just as fitting as Brokeback)However, my personal vote would go to Munich, which I gave the top spot on my Best Films of 2005 List.

Best Actress:
Will Win: Reese Witherspoon. Many have said this is the weakest selection of nominees in some time. However, there are some terrific performances here. On Sunday night it will come down to Felicity Huffman as a woman playing a man who wants to be a woman in Transamerica and Reese Witherspoon as singer June Carter in Walk the Line. Having not seen Transamerica, what I’ve heard is Ms. Huffman is extraordinary. But the actress that really stands out in this category is Ms. Witherspoon. The Academy loves giving this award to young, aspiring beautiful actresses (i.e., Halle Berry, Gwenyth Paltrow, Hilary Swank, Julia Roberts, and Charlize Theron just to name a few) which means Judi Dench will definitely have to sit this one out. It’ll be Reese’s night.
Should Win: I’m partial to Reese Witherspoon because I love Walk the Line and have not even seen Transamerica. Reese is a great actress and her charm radiated whenever she was on screen. She deserves it.

Best Actor:
Will Win: Philip Seymour Hoffman. This is a tough category for everyone in the running. This is an exceptional year for leading male performances. Everyone is deserving. Hoffman’s part is the most showy and he doesn’t just imitate author Truman Capote he becomes him. Although those who won’t vote for him will most likely vote for Heath Ledger who don't see this young actor's performance as a gimmicky parlor trick, but as a raw, emotional performance which exudes acting excellence. Having said that…
Should Win: Heath Ledger is definitely the one to look out for, because he has been just mediocre before in very mediocre movies. His performance in Brokeback Mountain as a conflicted gay ranch hand has won accolades from critics and audiences alike.

Best Director
Will Win: Ang Lee. He has been snubbed before and won’t be again come Oscar night. He made Brokeback Mountain palatable to mainstream tastes. It’s an issue film with out really being an issue film and most importantly is a very entertaining film. Having said that…
Should Win: Ang Lee! Steven Spielberg is one of my favorite directors and since he already has won this award twice I’m willing to share the wealth. Besides he was snubbed for directing War of the Worlds this year! Ok maybe snubbed isn’t the right word.

Best Supporting Actress:
Will Win: Rachel Weisz. I have to go with her simply because she has the most buzz and has collected the most awards. This is of course, one of the hardest categories to call. Many upsets have happened here in the past. Remember when Marcia Gay Harden won for Pollack? NO ONE saw that coming. Many believe votes will be split between her and Michelle Williams for Brokeback Mountain. Which of course leaves a surprise nominee available to snag the prize. Having said that…
Should Win: Amy Adams. I wasn’t all that impressed with Ms. Weisz in The Constant Gardener. She’s the heart of the film yes, but Amy Adams is also the heart of her film Junebug. A wickedly fun independent film, Adams plays a naïve, pregnant Southern woman who wants to name her child Junebug! Her performance is wonderful because she makes you laugh and shows great vulnerable emotion as well. The Academy loves funny supporting ladies. Remember Marisa Tomei and Mira Sorvino? My vote is for Amy.

Best Supporting Actor:
Will Win: George Clooney. Clooney is nearly a lock because he has come such a long way since guest starring on an episode of The Golden Girls. (Although everyone seems to remember him on The Facts of Life) With three nominations this year, the Academy obviously WANTS to reward him, and this is where they are most likely to do it. Paul Giamatti is the most possible upset, after his previous “snubs.” If he were to take the gold it would simply be a sympathy win. Of course watch out for dark horse Matt Dillon. Speaking of which…
Should Win: Matt Dillon. Mr. Dillon has come a long way since his teen years and as Crash’s solo acting nominee, his performance provides that film’s greatest dramatic arch.

Other Predictions:

Best Original Screenplay: Crash

Best Adapted Screenplay: Brokeback Mountain

Best Cinematography: Brokeback Mountain, or could Geisha prove too beautiful to ignore?

Best Editing: Crash

Best Art Direction: Memoirs of a Geisha

Best Costume Design: Memoirs of a Geisha

Best Original Score: Brokeback Mountain, or could John Williams win his 6th Oscar for Geisha?

Best Original Song: Crash ("In the Deep") or could it be a pimped out night for Hustle & Flow?

Best Makeup: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Best Sound: King Kong, watch for a possible Walk the Line upset

Best Sound Editing: King Kong, although the aliens in War of the Worlds sounded scarier

Best Visual Effects: King Kong, but I did hear that lion looked awfully realistic in Narnia

Best Animated Feature Film: Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Best Foreign Language Film: Tsotsi

Best Documentary Feature: March of the Penguins, but could Murderball kill the Penguins?

Best Documentary Short Subject: God Sleeps in Rwanda; A Note of Triumph

Best Animated Short: 9; The Moon & the Sun

Best Live Action Short: Six Shooter

Moore Melodramatic: Run Away from “Freedomland”

I was so ahead of “Freedomland” that I was already planning the rest of my day. Equal parts racial tension drama and Lifetime soap, Freedomland only begins to skim of the surface of what could have been a powerful film about race relations. Oh wait, but didn’t Crash just come out last year? And isn’t that film up for several Academy Awards? That’s because Crash is well written, well plotted and doesn’t manipulate its audience. If you want a gritty race drama rent something by Spike Lee. If you want dopey soapy movie-of-the-week melodrama turn on Lifetime. What you don’t want to do is sit through Freedomland.

Julianne Moore is a good actress. When given meaty roles she can bury inside a character’s psyche. However, give her weak dialogue and an over-the-top woman in despair role and she’ll be, um, over-the-top. She is a woman whose car was hijacked. She’s traumatized by the situation. She enters the hospital dazed and confused. Flash forward several hours later, and oh by the way, she just remembers her son was in the back seat of the car. The clock is set. The longer the police wait the shorter the time they have to find the kid. What does this have to do with racial tension? Well the man who stole her car just happens to be a Black man. And wouldn’t you know there’s a housing project right where her son was taken.

Of course the police quarantine these people as if they all had SARS perhaps hoping that if the carjacker is part of the community he’d be locked in too. What?? Is this making any sense?? Enter Edie Falco who is a mother of a lost son. Her and her fellow tragedy stricken mothers have formed a group that helps the police track down missing children. The search is on. Samuel L. Jackson is the cop who doesn’t dress like one, who is helping with Julianne Moore’s case. He’s got asthma or something because as she rants and raves (all that’s missing is a shaking bed and pea soup and we’d have Lind Blair from The Exorcist) about her stolen child he’s busy sucking out the last bits of his inhaler.

There are scenes of policemen yelling at the Black people in the living community and how they’re mad cause they’re being treated like dogs just because a white woman’s child just so happened to be taken by a black man. Yada yada yada. And of course a huge riot breaks out that looks like lost footage from Troy. The reason the whole racial tension plot is thrown in is to make the carjacking all the more dramatic. Whenever the director (Joe Roth of Revenge of the Nerds 2) wants the audience to feel dramatically manipulated he cuts to people arguing about race and such.
The film is basically pointless in that it seems to throw moral issues at the audience but it really doesn’t. The film doesn’t say anything about race relations. You’d probably be able to learn a better moral lesson from an episode of Full House. Skip this overdramatic dreck and rent the wonderful Oscar-nominated Crash on DVD. Steer clear of Freedomland. Frankly, I’d rather be carjacked. GRADE: D+

“Date Movie:” If You Cringe at Romantic Comedies, You’ll Cringe Here As Well

The only thing that lingers in your mind after seeing “Date Movie” is that annoying “Don’t Cha” song that is played about a gazillion times during the film. Other than that the film is quick, lame, and occasionally funny. If you’re expecting dumb this is your ticket. The problem that lies beneath the surface of Date Movie isn’t the purposely underdeveloped, clichéd characters or its “guess what movie this is from” script, is that it doesn’t pack in enough humor into its 80-minute running time. Watch about 15 minutes of any of the Scary Movie trilogy (and # 4 is on the way!!) if you want to laugh. Heck, rent Showgirls if you want to laugh. Date Movie isn’t supposed to be smart and sophisticated. If you don’t have high expectations you might find yourself having a mildly amusing time. Ok, ok maybe not.

Every recent romantic comedy is lampooned in Date Movie, which follows the likes of Not Another Teen Movie and Scary Movie. I certainly can’t wait for Action Movie, Flying & Magic Movie, or even Not Another Spoof Movie. (That’s a million dollar idea Mr. and Mr. Weinstein) Films like Meet the Parents and its sequel Meet the Fockers, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Hitch and let’s not forget that sap-fest When Harry Met Sally… certainly get what’s coming to them. Unfortunately most of the jokes involve disgusting things being thrown in front of the camera instead of true comedy. And if this film proves anything, it’s that fat people are ugly, disgusting and really, really funny. And you guessed it, this is the type of movie where the jokes don’t really go anywhere.

Most of the actors seem rather embarrassed to be here and others are having a gay old time. Fred Willard and Jennifer “Stifler’s Mom” Coolidge are rather amusing in a take on Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand’s characters from Meet the Fockers. Coolidge is funny all the time. Give her a ball of yarn and she’ll knit you one heck of a comedic scene. But of course like most of the film these characters are only funny because they’re trying to be the characters from the referenced film. Perhaps most of the jokes seemed funny written on the page but they didn’t translate very well. Of course I have to give writers Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer credit if only because they had the guts to write this movie and actually film it. I’d love to make a spoof movie, but there’s no way I’d actually want to show it to anyone.

Most of the jokes that do work aren’t very memorable but are worth a few stupid chuckles. I found myself laughing at the obviously mechanical kitty cat Jinxers as he lets out oodles of bodily noises on the toilet. Toilet humor is timeless and transcends all cultures. The fact that the cat was obviously fake is what sold it to me. After all wasn’t it just so silly that Robert DeNiro’s character actually taught his cat to use the potty in Meet the Parents? Boy that cat had it coming. And of course our romantic leads Alyson Hannigan (the flute girl from American Pie) and newcomer Adam Campbell beating up a homeless man to the tune of “If You Believe in Magic” was simply rib-tickling. A take on Mr. & Mrs. Smith was amusing as well.

If you watch a lot of movies you’ll mostly have fun guessing which film is being parodied. But like most recent spoof-a-thons the jokes won’t hold up very well over time. For instance, in the 25 years since the incredible parody Airplane! first took flight, the jokes are still funny and fresh. In 25 years I hardly believe any one will ever know Date Movie ever existed. GRADE: C

The Babysitter’s Clubbed: “When a Stranger Calls” is Light, Suspenseful Stuff

It’s amazing what a bunch of screaming 12 year olds can add to a suspense movie. As the lights dimmed and the Hilary Duff fans’ mouths didn’t shut up, I began to worry. Could the movie be ruined? Before I knew it as the chatting turned to screams which echoed throughout the theater I realized everyone was screaming for a reason: the movie is scary! We were all in the same boat. Just me and a bunch of WB fans. Who knew? When a Stranger Calls, a remake (surprise!) of the 1979 thriller of the same name, is a taut, suspenseful shocker that makes you feel uncomfortable and delights in scaring the audience right out of its pants. At about an hour in, a small group of kids ran screaming for the door.

So everyone knows the story. Like, my sister’s friend’s cousin was babysitting and she kept getting these strange phone calls from this creepy guy. And when the police went to trace the call, they found the calls were coming from inside the house. The guy had been in the house the whole time and murdered the young children without the babysitter knowing. That’s one hundred percent true. The only thing this movie is missing is the obligatory “based on actual events” insert. Okay so the story isn’t really true, but it could happen right? Well actually, part of what makes “Stranger” scary is the fact that the film is based in realism. Sort of. Come on I know this is Hollywood popcorn stuff, but work with me here. Everyone’s afraid of being home alone, especially in a strange house at night in the middle of nowhere. It’s that fear that plagues many of us. The film uses that to its advantage. And who hasn’t been a babysitter at some point? Of course the moral of the story is not take the babysitting job in the first place. But I digress.

Young Jill (Camilla Belle) is a typical teenage girl with a typical teenage life. (And she actually looks like a teenager!) Her boyfriend was caught smooching with her bestest friend and she’s devastated. She racked up a huge bill on her cell phone so her dad has cut her off. She’s grounded and has to resort to filling her weekend evenings doing more constructive things than going out and partying. Her father drives her to East Bumble Whatever to baby-sit two sleeping children in a huge high tech house with even bigger windows. There seems to be a remote control for everything, even the fireplace. So of course it’s impossible to turn on the TV. The house even comes equipped with its own tropical ecosystem with chirping birds and a pond full of fish. This is tended by Rosa the house’s maid, who we most likely won’t hear from for the rest of the movie. It’s dark its windy the house is creepy. Something evil is about to go down.

Jill is plagued by phone calls that result in more static than actual talking which seems a whole lot scarier than any dialogue a writer could come up with. The fresh young actress handles her situation as well as she can. She doesn’t stay ahead of us. After all we want her to be vulnerable. And she doesn’t do anything terribly stupid. Most of the time. The film has Jill’s friend stop by the house, which just seems kind of silly. Like they need in the film her just to kill her off. Because of course we know the more people that die in a movie the scarier it is. Not true. Director Simon West (Con Air) uses his frame to his advantage. He fills up the screen in most shots of the large windows. We are just waiting in bloody nervousness for something to come into frame. And of course you’ll need an extra hand to count the clichés but what difference does that make? This isn’t Lawrence of Arabia.

I must commend West for creating an unsettling atmosphere unlike those of The Fog or The Grudge. He also makes the villain credible, creepy and most important unseen for most of the movie. And after all he’s a real person. You won’t find Freddy or Chucky here. The film doesn’t rely on scary images of eerie children, scary puddles and the house is thankfully not haunted. It’s the realistic situation that’s frightening. Nor will you find piles of gore in this PG-13 film. Remember I mentioned the Hilary Duff fans? How else would they have gotten in? They screamed a lot and if their screams are any indication the film’s success, Sony Pictures will be screaming all the way to the bank. GRADE: B+

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