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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Akeelah and the Bee:” It is S-P-E-L-L-B-I-N-D-I-N-G

If there is anyone with the best catch phrase to compliment the wonderful family friendly “Akeelah and the Bee” it would be Tony the Tiger. His two-word review would simply be, “It’s grrrrreat!” This has to be the most suspenseful, nerve-wracking film that doesn’t involve a single gunshot, explosion or CGI effect. I give kudos, sheer brilliant kudos, to fairly new director Doug Atchinson for taking the typical movie-of-the-week feel good film and making it one of the best films so far this year. If you are one of the few who saw the excellent Oscar nominated documentary “Spellbound” then you’re sure to love this fictional tale about a young girl who wants to win the National Spelling Bee.

Eleven-year-old Akeelah Anderson is very smart. So smart in fact that she feels embarrassed by it. She has skipped a grade because she’s that beyond the other students. However she’s not doing well in school because she skips classes because they aren’t intellectually stimulating for her. Living in a slightly impoverished Los Angeles area doesn’t help her much either. Her school runs on a very tight budget and according to one little student, they can hardly afford kickballs. Akeelah has lost her father but lives with her mom (a ripped Angela Bassett) and her other siblings. So there sets up the typical I like this character because I want to see her overcome obstacles. But you know what it works. The film refuses to turn its characters into clichés and instead makes them into real people.

Akeelah is urged to enter a spelling bee contest at her school, but of course she doesn’t want to enter because the smart kids get beat up. After being forced to enter by her well-meaning teacher, wouldn’t you know little Akeelah kicks everyone’s butts! The school’s principal (ex-Revenge of the Nerd cast member Curtis Armstrong) is very encouraging to Akeelah and so enters his friend former college professor Dr. Larabee (Laurence Fishburne) to discover her sensational spelling skills. Dr. Larabee agrees to help coach Akeelah on her quest to become the nation’s best speller.

The film plays with emotions without ever making you feel manipulated. We get to laugh and have our heartstrings pulled in a terrific emotional balancing act that I must commend Atchinson (whose previous filmmaking effort was The Pornographer, whatever that may be) who wrote the script and directs which such fantastic whimsy. The film feels independent but has such a mainstream vibe that I’m surprised at the lack of promotion this film has received. (Even after being financially backed by Starbucks) The film’s editing is rapid fire which adds tremendously to the spelling scenes in which competitor after competitor is finally whisked away by a misspelled word.

The cast is uniformly good. Some of the actors are so unknown that sometimes their performances are a little too stiff. And if anything it almost seems to forget the race relations of the cast. For instance, Dr. Larabee refuses to coach Akeelah until she stops talking “ghetto” because it makes her sound unintelligent. Hey if I was as smart as her I would talk anyway I want. A main highlight is the film’s tremendously strong supporting character fellow Speller Javier (J.R. Villarreal) who befriends Akeelah at her first regional competition. Their friendship is strong and true, as opposed to most of these family-friendly films in which these relationships are unbelievable.

In the third act, which I won’t say what happens for it is too fun to spoil here, certain characters obviously make it to the National Spelling Bee in Washington DC, and the competition is fierce. It’s so refreshing to see kids competing in an intellectual challenge rather than winning the big game, the race or hitting that final homerun. It’s fun for the audience because we get to use our brains too. Of course with kids spelling such gargantuan words, I felt my IQ drop about 10 points. Akeelah and the Bee is a great story and it is told in such a captivating way. This is highly recommended viewing for E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E. GRADE: A-

Das Boat: The New “Poseidon” is Hardly Hell Upside-down

So May gives us our first “remake” of the summer movie season. Director Wolfgang Peterson who brought us such gripping films as Outbreak, Air Force One, and The Perfect Storm decided to go the disaster route and pay homage to those “let’s throw a bunch of has been celebrities together and watch them try to survive” genre films of the 1970s. I’m all up for watching people try to overcome ridiculous obstacles, which is why The Poseidon Adventure from 1972 is one of my favorite disaster films. It has everything to enjoy in a film about a luxury ocean liner that’s capsized by a tidal wave on New Years Eve leaving only a handful of former Oscar-winners to climb up through the dangerous, overturned ship in hopes of a rescue. Well now that you know the plot of the original. Let’s see how the new film, staring Kurt Russell, Josh Lucas, Richard Dreyfuss and a handful of other third rate actors, stands up.

The original film had a running time of about two hours. It takes an entire (slightly boring) thirty minutes to get to plot point one AKA the capsizing of the ship. The new film hardly wastes any time pushing the capsizing to within the first fifteen minutes. UPGRADE! Even though the actors in the original film had strong acting pedigrees, most of the supporting characters were stubbornly horrible actors. Take that little kid. Who wasn’t praying that little tyke was going to drown first? The acting in the new film is not particularly memorable but it’s far from terrible. UPGRADE! While the opening of the original film took a while to get going it at least set up memorable characters. I actually find myself caring about who lives and who dies. The new film spends about five minutes setting up the characters and their “stories” but alas the boat turns over before we can learn anything worthy of remembering. DOWNGRADE!

Remember I mentioned all the former Oscar-winners from the original film? The cast included the preachy Gene Hackman, the grouchy Ernest Borgnine, and champion swimmer Shelly Winters. It was rather fun watching such stars ham it up as they made their way through the ship. The new film plops people like Kurt Russell and Josh Lucas into our laps. But just our luck, Richard Dreyfuss shows up as an aging gay man. Of course we know he’s gay because he has a huge stud in his ear, and refers to someone on the other line of his cell phone as “he.” Welcome to the 21st century Poseidon! The rest of the cast consists of people you don’t really know. You know the “oh she’s from that movie” and “oh isn’t that the guy from…” type of people. We do get Oscar-nominee Matt Dillon's younger brother, Kevin Dillon looking pretty ticked off that he's stuck in films like Poseidon. This new cast? DOWNGRADE! Speaking of the cast, there is a serious lack of cutesy, Jewish elderly people! Where are the Shelly Winters and Jack Albertson replacements? One of the best parts of the original film was the Oscar-nominated performance of Ms. Winters, who gained weight for her role. DOWNGRADE!

One of the most obvious reasons for updating this story is to create more realistic and more intense special effects. The original film was made prior to CGI technology and it handled its effects rather well. (It earned a special achievement Oscar at the Academy Awards that year for special effects) I was worried that the new film was going to have the cast act in front of a blue screen the whole time. And while certain parts were obviously computer effects, I was pleased with how they turned out. UPGRADE! The film is a lot gristlier than the original. The capsizing of the ship by the “rogue wave”, and the horror it creates for the passengers, was done pretty well. UPGRADE! And now the most unfortunate thing missing from this new adventure: camp value. The original was goofy in such a good way that it made it that much better. This film pretty much takes it self seriously, as if it were Titanic 2 or something. While the whole premise itself is cheesy, I must admit the cheese factor was slightly low. The entire movie seemed to be lactose intolerant. DOWNGRADE!

If you’re even a slight fan of the original you’re probably going to enjoy this “reimagining” which according to its opening credits is based on the book. Oh I’m sure. At least it’s not “based on a true story.” This is pure, summer action-adventure. Turn your brains off like you had to do to enjoy Twister or Dante’s Peak and just enjoy the ride. GRADE: B

Mr. Scientology is Back in the Explosive “Mission: Impossible III,” Just Accept It

The first Mission: Impossible movie could have easily been called Mission: Incomprehensible. The plot of that film is so intricate and complicated it would of helped had it been spoken in German. But we accept what’s going on and just go with it. We know there are good guys and bad guys and its suspenseful seeing the good guys try and outsmart the bad guys. The second Mission: Impossible film’s story was a lot more streamlined but so was everything else in the film. The characters were just caricatures who spent half the movie running or driving around in slow motion with John Woo’s trademark birds flapping around in the background. Mission: Impossible III while not altogether original or brilliant manages to take the best aspects of the first two films and make a fun and exciting spy caper.

Thankfully taking the helm this time is first time director J.J. Abrams, creator of TV’s Alias and the sensational Lost. Abrams breathes some new life into the MI franchise by infusing the necessary items a film like this should have: an appealing visual style, action scenes that support and enhance the story, and of course all the behind the scenes spy stuff. Most of the film is shot using handheld cameras, which added a sense of urgency to the proceedings. It’s very hard to think any of the characters’ lives are really at stake when someone like Tom Cruise is the star. I really enjoyed the color palette of the film with its strong use of yellows and blues that seemed rather rare for a film like this. The film opens with a disjointing scene in which Cruise is tied up while Oscar-winning Capote star Philip Seymour Hoffman wields a gun next to a pretty girl’s face. In what could have easily been setup for a “woman in crisis” story the film fortunately doesn’t follow that lead.

The story does involve some unnecessarily complicated plot proceedings that seemed better left to Mission: Impossible I but I’m not really complaining. Let’s just say that Hitchcock would be proud because this entire plot of the film is a McGuffin. If you don’t know what a McGuffin is perhaps you shouldn’t be reading this. Take a film class for God’s sake! The film wants to be twisty without being confusing, but when it comes right down to it you get so caught up in what you think might be going on that you just go with it. I’d have to say at times I was a bit, lost (No pun intended). Which is why I won’t attempt to tell you what the film is really about.

Hoffman was a great choice to play the bad guy, which is one of the reasons the third Impossible outing stands out. We’re so used to Hoffman playing the nerdy or repressed supporting role that it seems so fresh to hear him say lines like “I’m gonna hurt her. And then I’m gonna kill you right in front of her.” Although it does seem like he’s just playing a more homicidal version of his creepy stalker character from Happiness. But I digress. And of course as Ethan Hunt, Cruise is really just playing Tom Cruise without the crazy jumping on couches thing. And his wife seems like more of a stand in for Katie Holms. You never really look up at the screen and say “Wow I wonder if Ethan Hunt is going to make it out alive.” But that’s to be expected.

This film probably has more action than the first two films combined which seems surprising given the John Woo treatment of number 2. The action setups seem natural in the way the film plays out. It’s never as if, ok things are getting slow, let’s blow something up. And remember I mentioned the spy stuff? While the second film seemed to forget it was a spy film, number 3 doesn’t. In one of the film’s coolest scenes we actually get to see Cruise’s team make a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask and in the blink of an eye we go from watching Cruise wearing a mask to the actual actor. Now THAT’S a visual effect.

Mission: Impossible III won’t win awards and it probably won’t really be remembered come ten years. It is however a great start to what looks like a great summer movie season. If this is any indication as to what the next few months has in store, it’s going to be impossible to wait. The film is cool and entertaining and fresh even at number three. Everyone involved with MI3? Mission accomplished. GRADE: B+

“United 93:” The First 9/11 Film is a Stirring Account of America’s Darkest Day

Much talk has come from director Paul Greengrass making a Hollywood film about the events of September 11, 2001. In what will most likely be one of the two most controversial films of the year, (the other being Oliver Stone’s take on 9/11 “World Trade Center” coming in August) Greengrass simply wants to present America with a story of ordinary people, on an ordinary day, who were forced to deal with unbearable tragedy. Perhaps most of us aren’t “ready” for Hollywood films to address the subject of 9/11. But does that mean filmmakers shouldn’t have the option to tell a true American story?

United 93 focuses mostly on the events of that day that seem to not be as well known. We all have the images of those two planes striking the World Trade Center. The rising smoke being the only thing in the bright blue sky. Those pictures are etched in our minds. The Pentagon in DC was also hit, but there were a lot of other things going on that day. One of which was the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 93. It took off from Newark and was en route to California, when it too was taken over by hijackers with the alleged intention of crashing into the Capital or White House in Washington DC. Because of certain complications, this flight was different from those of the three other planes. This is United 93’s story.

The film is simply and undoubtedly an observation. The film takes us into the national air traffic controls and airport towers in New York where we see normal people at work. The film basically reenacts the events of that day in real time. The film opens on the hijackers praying and preparing in a hotel room the night before. Perhaps the filmmakers chose to begin the film like this because many refuse to believe those responsible for that day’s horrible events were, in fact, other human beings. A haunting aerial shot of NYC the night before depicts the city unaware of the doom to come. No attempt is made to introduce characters. There is no backstory. The acting is naturalistic and most of the unfamiliar actors are not even actors at all. What we have is one of the most unconventional Hollywood films I’ve ever seen. And that is the way a film about 9/11 should be probably be made. There is no attempt to turn this story into a "Pearl Harbor" or "Air Force One." All that clichéd stuff is thankfully, and not surprisingly, thrown out the window. The film is more like a documentary and doesn’t turn the passengers into inhuman action stars.

The film is intense, gripping, emotional, and unflinching in its reenactment of 9/11. Any film dealing with the subject matter is going to be, but the movie is never exploitative. Director and writer Paul Greengrass doesn’t use the horrors of 9/11 to make the film “entertaining.”He simply depicts events. The film accurately portrays the pandemonium and confusion going on while certain flights were being hijacked. Phone calls to the president come with no response. There was a certain lack of communication that day and the film masterfully shows the disbelief that so many planes could be taken over all at once. The film never steps out of the air traffic towers or from the plane. We don’t get to see what’s going on elsewhere. It makes no political statements and doesn’t blame anyone.

As the scenes on-board the plane progress it becomes extremely heart-wrenching. However, the passengers and crew on this particular flight were able to plan to counteract the hijackers in hopes of just being proactive. These were everyday people who were faced with an awful situation. Because their flight was delayed and they were able to make contact with the ground, they learned of the other plane's fates and felt something could be done. They sensed vulnerability in the hijackers, which was true. After all they too were human and nervous and the film doesn’t portray them as invincible supervillians. Scenes crosscut with the passengers praying along with the hijackers doing the same. Phone calls of passengers saying their goodbyes are heartbreaking.

The film honors those that gave their lives on 9/11 and doesn’t exploit their tragedy for our sake. The film wants to be accurate in every detail and refuses to sensationalize what happened. This is a difficult, moving piece of American filmmaking. The film doesn’t want us to forget the events of that day. Like any of us ever could. GRADE: A

When Politics Go Pop: “American Dreamz” Serves Up a Slice of Americana

I have two confessions to make: I’ve never actually voted for anybody on American Idol, but I have recently gotten into the show. Fortunately, I DID vote in the presidential election so I am partially free of director Paul Weitz’s (American Pie, About a Boy) pop culture/political firing squad known as American Dreamz. At first a satire of the wholly popular reality show American Idol and the Bush Administration felt like an awkward fit. Like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. But really the more you think about it they go hand in hand. It’s our American right to let our voice be heard not only when it comes to who runs our government but ALSO who gets to win a coveted record deal on one of the country’s favorite TV shows. I guess it would take someone like Weitz who could see the connection between adolescence and baked goods, to come up with a film that throws terrorism, the presidency and pop culture into a cinematic blender. Of course the big question is did he pull it off?

I was excited to see American Dreamz, so I have to admit that the film didn’t quite live up to my high expectations although I would call it a moderate success. The actors are all good and well cast. We have Martin Tweed (Hugh Grant) as the producer & host of American Dreamz (a mix of Ryan Seacrest with a dash of the caustic Simon Cowell). Then there’s the wanna be superstar Sally (Mandy Moore, who seemed wildly appropriate for this role) and her loving yet pushy mother (the always wonderful Jennifer Coolidge) But Sally’s not the only one who loves the song and dance. We get Omer a Middle Eastern teenager who finds himself singing show tunes while in terrorist training camp! Martin is sick of the Sallys who always seem to make it onto his show; he wants some “variety.” Then we get dumb President Staton (a silver-haired Dennis Quaid, doing his best Bush impression) who’s been out of the public’s eye for weeks for who knows why. The public believes he’s had a mental breakdown but Staton’s Chief of Staffs (Willem Dafaoe channeling Dick Chaney, without the rifle) insists he do something to gain attention. So naturally he should appear as a guest judge on America’s favorite television show: American Dreamz. If this all sounds ridiculous it is. Weitz knows it is and he has fun with it. But alas this is not all.

There’s a terrorist plot brewing amongst Omer’s radical terrorist trainers who want the young man to unleash a WMD on live television (what a ratings grabber that would be!). There’s hardly any seriousness in the situation but an underlying sense of wit works nicely. We’re not really supposed to take what’s happening seriously. After all one of the film’s main targets is our media-obsessed society. I mean are the advertisements correct in notifying that this country would rather vote for a pop idol instead of their next president. I’d be afraid to believe it, but wouldn’t deny it if it were true. What one can gather from the film is that reality shows like American Idol is completely staged for the camera and that any idot can run our country and that even terrorists use their TiVo to rewind while watching live American television.

If there’s anything truly wrong with the film its not that it’s mean-spirited although it is. Or that is mocks our government and its sense of American pride, which it does. Or that it turns its characters into clichés, which it does. It’s that really the whole thing isn’t as flat out funny as it could have been. Believe me I welcomed the terrorist plot and the mocking of our president and the skewering of America’s strange obsessions. But when it came right down to it, the premise seems better than the final outcome. The actors have a great time lampooning everything American, but while they are having a great time, we wish we could get just a little bit more in on the fun. GRADE: B-

Diary of a Mad White Scary Movie Fan: 4th Installment More Like “Scary Movie Bore”

Spring 2000: Airplane! being my favorite movie of all time entitles me to experience joyous rhapsody every time a new spoof movie comes out. When I first heard of the news that there is going to be a parody of popular scary films, most notably Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, I was unbearably excited. The Waynes Brothers are the writers with some other guys thrown in. Anticipation ensues. Later, I find out that the R-rated film will be released exactly on my 17th birthday: July 7, 2000. I’m later disappointed to realize the one other person that will see it with me, my best friend & fellow critic, will not be 17 until November.

July 7, 2000: It is my 17th birthday. I’m finally old enough to buy tickets to R-rated movies. And what could be better than the movie I’ve been waiting to see all year opening on my birthday? My underage friend and I approach the ticketseller only to be turned away. For I cannot purchase two tickets. Alas, we buy tickets for The Perfect Storm and then have to sneak in. My dream of buying my own R-rated ticket for the first time on my own birthday is crushed. Flash forward 2 hours. I exit the theater practically in tears. Everything in Scary Movie went right. It was funny and not only was it a spoof movie, but it parodied movies that I love so much: slasher films. Critics basically hate the film, because of its gross out humor. I could care less. I would go on to see the film in theaters two more times that summer.

July 2001: I am vacationing in Ireland with my family. While I tour ancient Irish castles and kiss the Blarney Stone I think about how everyone in America is able to go see Scary Movie 2 while I have to drive around a foreign country for two weeks. My friends being my friends, wait to see the movie until my return to the States. I go see Scary Movie 2 and while I enjoyed it wholly. It was not nearly as good a film as the original. Of course on repeat viewings it gets funnier even though the poorly put together film is basically a bunch of sketch-like scenes sewn together. The cast is funny if not wholly inspired. Perhaps this was to be the last of the Scary Movies.

Early 2003: News breaks that a 3rd Scary Movie installment will be made without the Waynes. Airplane! co-writer/director David Zucker takes the helm. I wet my pants just a little. I finally have a marriage of one of the Airplane! guys with his own directorial take on one of my favorite film franchises.

October 2003: Scary Movie 3 opens to poor reviews, except for me. I loved the film’s humor and its take on the various film parodies. People seemed to be turned off by the lack of disgusting gross-out humor that was the first two films’ staple. Oh well. Mr. Naked Gun himself Leslie Nielson shows up. I almost wet my pants a little again. If Mr. Zucker were to direct a 4th Scary Movie, I’d be the first in line.

Late 2005: News breaks of a definite 4th Scary Movie film. I, unlike many others, am ecstatic. Anna Faris is returning, as is Regina Hall. I hear Leslie Nielson is back and even Molly Shannon has decided to join the cast according to Yahoo! Movies. One of the spoofed films will be War of the Worlds, which was one of my favorite films of 2005. This can’t get any better…

April 14 2006: Scary Movie 4 opens with a thud. Ten minutes into the movie and I’ve barely cracked a smile. Dr. Phil and Shaquille O’Neil? Come on. They had nothing funny to say. Ok, so Hot Shots! alum Charlie Sheen returns, but his one scene involves swallowing a bunch of Viagra pills. We get to watch him cavort around with his gigantic erection while a fake cat takes a liking to it. Jim Abrahams, one of the Airplane! guys, has been credited with the screenplay along with SM3 writer Craig Mazin. The writers surprisingly rely way too much on visual gas such as people getting hit in the head. This occurs every five minutes. My own head began to hurt after awhile. It wasn’t even really funny the first time. Hardly any of the dialogue is funny. What happened to lines like, “A hospital? What is it?”
“It’s a big building with patients, but that’s not important right now.”
It’s as if the writers have catered the jokes (which must of seem funnier on paper) to get laughs from 10 year olds. There were plenty of kids in the audience that were having a much better time than me. The film’s posters were funnier than most of the film’s jokes. Perhaps the marketing department should have written the film.

What about the actors? Anna Faris is funny, but never really gets a chance to shine like she did in the other films. The same with Regina Hall as best friend Brenda and Leslie Nielson as dopey US President Harris. When Molly Shannon shows up in a bit part its funny JUST because it’s Molly Shannon! The problem with the humor in Scary Movie 4 isn’t the “been there, don’t that feeling,” it’s that the jokes really aren’t all that funny to begin with. It’s one thing to recycle old jokes but there’s nothing really here that sticks out or goes somewhere even remotely memorable.

The shoestring plot revolves around an alien invasion ala War of the Worlds while Anna Faris solves the mystery of her new haunted house ala The Grudge. Other films spoofed include Saw, The Village, and Oscar winners Million Dollar Baby(?) and Brokeback Mountain. I laughed here and there but I found myself scratching my head for most of the film’s duration. Where did it all go wrong? If I’m surprised by anything, it’s that my initial reaction after seeing the film was, shockingly to my saddening surprise, I hope there’s no Scary Movie 5. (Of course when this movie comes out on DVD, I’ll probably end up buying just because the Scary Movie pedigree is good enough for me) GRADE: D+

A Slug’s Life: “Slither” is a Delightfully Disgusting Monsterfest

Slither is gross. Slither is disgusting. Slither is revolting. Slither is stomach churning. Slither is sickening. Slither is nauseating. I can’t think of any better compliments for such a film. What do you expect from a B-movie opus hell bent on being a creepy, crawly monster gore fest from the writer of the Dawn of the Dead remake? Those who like their films on the level of The Toxic Avenger, Night of the Creeps and how about The Squid & the Whale, oh wait, scratch that last one, will be delightfully pleased by this gooey monster movie homage. If you have an iron stomach that is.

Slither wants to repulse you. That’s its goal. Otherwise, it would have trimmed all the gross stuff to let 10 year olds in. The movie is slimy and gross the way Species was. However, that movie took itself WAY too seriously. The movie is comfortable in its roots of paying tribute to campy horror films the way Cabin Fever was. However, that movie didn’t take itself seriously enough. Slither is completely outrageously implausible, yet it knows it, and it runs with it. Writer/director James Gunn pays homage to everything from The Blob to Night of the Living Dead to The Fly.

So what does Mr. Gunn present us with that is so revolting (in a good way!)? The setting is a small southern town. (Isn’t it always?) Starla (Elizabeth Banks) is married to Grant (Michael Rooker) and their marriage seems to be on the fritz. (Isn’t it always?) One night Grant stumbles out into the woods drunk with a lady friend named Brenda (Brenda James). They stumble upon what seems to be a meteor of some sort, and something slimy has crawled away. (Aren’t things from outer space are always slimy?) Not being the sharpest knives in the kitchen, the two decide to follow the trail. (Don’t they always?) They come upon a gooey slime ball that shoots something into Grant’s chest. Grant suddenly isn’t exactly himself. They return back to town as if nothing happened. (Of course)

The next day Starla notices something peculiar about her husband. The audience knows a lot more than her. He begins to eat raw meat at a staggering rate. (Even a low rate wouldn’t seem normal correct?) Before we know it Grant has impregnated Brenda, hid her in a shed in the woods, where she too devours raw meat along with woodland creatures. She begins to balloon up. Grant begins to transform as well. The police get a look at one of his gangly arms after nearly attacking Starla, and reference him as looking like a squid creature. For most of the picture it is Grant as this continually morphing wormy, squid creature, who attacks animals and devours them, that gives most of the grotesque moments. But for as many times as we’re grossed out, we’re also laughing. The film is filled with your typical comical characters from the bigot mayor to the fumbling deputy. And it’s up to Officer Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion) to save the day.

Before we know it Brenda, the size of the Goodyear Blimp, erupts releasing thousands of slithering CGI slugs. The slugs seem to have a mind of their own and want to penetrate people’s mouths so they can gross us out even more. And alas the entire townspeople are turned into mindless zombies.

Obviously this isn’t a film for every taste. Those who enjoy their scares with slimy gore will rejoice (as did I). The film won’t win awards, but its fun and entertaining. The film always has its tongue planted firmly in cheek. The characters don’t spend time in mindless exposition in an attempt to fill us in on what exactly is going on. We don’t care. We just want to see nasty creatures get it on with the townsfolk. The film is obviously not without its flaws and for me, there was too much Computer Generated Imagery. It’s very easy these days to tell what’s really filmed and what is added with a computer. Computer effects, especially when it comes to horror, always seem to lessen the thrills. However, I found little to complain about here. After all, when a B-movie homage has no other purpose than to make you want to reach for a vomit bag intentionally, you can’t ask for anything more. GRADE: B (what else?)

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