Blinded By the Light: While a Disappointment, “Sunshine” is Still a Dark Science Fiction Entry

It’s apparent that Danny Boyle’s “Sunshine” succeeds much more splendidly if you’re mostly unaware of cinema’s long list of science fiction space entries. There’s “2001,” “Event Horizon,” “Alien” and many more from where that came from. “Sunshine” borrows heavily from all of those, but I think its purpose is that of homage rather than rip off. If you’re willing to look at “Sunshine” as if it could stand alone, it succeeds as a thrilling space saga that has some moments of wonder and moments of shock and lots of lots of bright light.

The movie Sunshine is kind of like the sun itself. You know it’s there and you know you really shouldn’t look and the longer you stare at it the more damaging it is. If you really look deep into this film, you’ll notice that there isn’t very much original material and you’re more likely to notice its flaws. The basic story revolves around a small space flight crew who has been sent on a mission of mercy. In the future the sun is dying and they must plant a bomb (Armageddon?) to “reignite” it otherwise all of life on earth would parish. The film focuses on the space crew characters rather than overly dramatic melodrama back on Earth. This particular mission is also the second mission to be sent out: the first mission failed in that they first crew was never heard from again. Perhaps a malevolent force is responsible?

The film stars a great cast of what I like to call “serious actors.” The film thankfully gives us serious people, not a bunch of idiotic oil drillers ala Armageddon. It’s easier to care about people who are taking their job seriously instead of silly goof-offs. These actors include Cillian Murphy who’s been a great talent since staring in Danny Boyle’s terrific apocalyptic zombie thriller “28 Days Later.” Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon star Michelle Yeoh is in charge of the spaceship’s greenhouse, which nurses all of their oxygen and edible plant life. Chris Evans (from Fantastic 4) gives a great performance as a fellow astronaut/scientist.

The film has three distinct acts, two of which succeed. We learn how these scientists live on the ship. We see how their ship holds a huge solar panel that blocks the sun’s powerful rays as they approach closer and closer to their goal. The effects here are very decent for a film that has a particular lower budget than average summer fare. With not nearly as half of the money as, say, “Transformers,” “Sunshine” packs some interesting visual punches. I really believed that these people were in space. Eventually they get a signal from the ship that was the first mission. Eventually going to investigate becomes an unwise move, as the film sets up its least effective act. While it provides some chills and overall dreadful atmosphere, it doesn’t really work because it has an overwhelming “been there done that” feel.

Frankly, the ends of most of Danny Boyle’s pictures are particularly disappointing. I have to admire him wanting to take a risk by going somewhere the audience doesn’t really expect but often times he gets a little silly. And the ending here is sort of a confusing mess that kind of kills everything we’ve seen before it.

Having said that there’s enough in Sunshine that I liked. Will some people find the material too weird? Sure. Will some people find it too much of a rehash? Of course. See “Sunshine” for yourself and make the call. GRADE: B

Yellow Tale: “The Simpsons Movie” is Definitely Worth Your D’oh

It only took eighteen years but the longest running animated sitcom family has finally leaped triumphantly to the multiplex for a subversive, hilarious time at the movies. Yes, we’re talking colorful 2-D animation with people of a yellow hue in the wonderful Simpsons Movie. I can remember some early memories of catching The Simpsons on Fox when I was a young thing. The Simpsons were all the rage and everyone had a T-shirt that said, “Don’t have a cow, man.” Flash forward 18 years and The Simpsons are still on although I’ve lost touch with them over the years. While I’m more a nostalgic Simpsons fan (only the first 10 seasons are really stupendous) everything you could ever want in a Simpsons full length feature is present here.

The Simpsons Movie trailer gave no real clues as to what the plot of the movie could be. There were so many random lines and scenes shown, that the plot just seemed incoherent. But now it’s completely in focus: basically Home screws up royally, the entire Springfield community wants him and his family dead, and he’s forced to take a long hard look at himself and find the courage to admit that he’s a true screw-up. Of course everyone’s favorite slacker father Homer J. Simpsons really means well, whether he’s ringing Bart by the neck or slacking off at his job at the power plant.

Those who are worried that the movie can’t be as good as it’s first few seasons on TV need not fear. The writers, who are numerous, have come up with really funny gags, lines and situations. Each family member gets his or her time to shine. And like the TV show, the beginning scenes which seem to have nothing to do with anything will set the story’s plot in motion. Green Day performs for Springfield to raise awareness that their lake is the most polluted in the country. The townsfolk respond by throwing garbage at the band. Eventually the town is banned from polluting the lake until Homer decides to dump a silo full of his new pet pig’s droppings into it. This leads the EPA to quarantine the entire town. Meanwhile, little activist Lisa Simpson finds an Irish boyfriend. Bart begins to feel more loved by the Ned Flanders. And Marge is upset that Homer could be so ignorant and dimwitted to cause such a catastrophe.

So the Simpsons are on the run from the angry Springfield mob, while we the audience are on an odyssey of laughs, laughs and even more laughs. There is so much fun stuff here I can’t even describe it all. The film’s humor is a little dirtier since it’s not restrained by TV censors; which leads to the film’s biggest surprise laugh when Bart is “revealed” to the audience. Homer gives the finger and Marge curses, but it all fits along with their characters. There are sight gags galore like Home poking himself in the eye with a hammer and witty dialogue such as little Ralph Wiggum proclaiming “I like men now” after witnessing Bart’s full monty.

If you were a Simpsons fan or are still a Simpsons fan there is so much here to enjoy. And if you’ve never watched the show then there’s no better time to start. Every character is here blown up to live sized proportion with beautiful traditional animation. Like a perfectly frosted donut, “The Simpsons Movie” is a real treat. Mmm donut. GRADE: A-

King of Queens: “I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry” Ain’t a Gay Old Time

Two straight men get married to reap the legal benefits. I do believe this was a good idea. I really. really do. It’s just that somewhere from log line to finished film something just went wrong. Terribly wrong. I’d buy this situation as a sitcom. But to call the film “I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry” a sitcom stretched to feature length would be an insult to television comedy. Kevin James is a funny guy. Adam Sandler used to be a funny guy. One of the writers wrote some Golden Girls episodes and two others wrote “Election,” “About Schmidt” and “Jurassic Park III.” Well there ya have it folks.

Dennis Dugan is one of the most consistent directors in Hollywood. He makes piece of crap after piece of crap and yet he still finds work. He’s responsible for some of the worst comedies. But you know what? I find some of them actually funny. He started with Problem Child, hit it big with Happy Gilmore, reunited with Sandler in Big Daddy, and made the guilty pleasure baseball flick The Benchwarmers. But what he has made with “Chuck & Larry” is simply a bad movie. I’ll be honest I laughed a few times and I really did want to like it. It’s pretty bad, but still watchable.

The biggest insult is a movie that pours out crude humor only to give in to sentimentality at the end. I’m not buyin’ that crap. Either be mean-spirited and rude or be sappy and corny. Never never never mix the two together. You’ll end up looking like an idiot director who doesn’t know his ass from his elbow. And that’s what we get with “Chuck & Larry.” Sandler and Kevin James portray Brooklyn fireman. Sandler is an annoying lady’s man and James is a single father of two (his flamboyant son is a running gag in the movie). James finds out that if he were to get killed in the line of duty his children would be left to fend for themselves or something like that. But, according to plot point 1, if he were to enter into a domestic partnership with a man his “spouse” would be able to inherit all his money or something like that. Why this obvious straight man would consider faking a marriage with a man and not a woman is beyond me. And why Sandler as an annoying homophobe would go along with it is also still beyond me. And there you have the movie, in which these two guys must pretend to be married, while still making gay jokes and eventually becoming the butt of other peoples’ gay jokes.

I wouldn’t really say the film makes fun of gay stereotypes as much as it makes fun of how straight men perceive gay stereotypes. Obviously all gay men have sex 24/7, get excited to find lube at the grocery store and listen to Cher and watch “Brokeback Mountain” all the time. The only thing really insulting is how put together this movie is. The movie just kind of limps along with scenes that seemed to be thrown together at the last minute. The movie was obviously written as a list of jokes, which in turn were written into scenes, which in turn were put together to create a “movie.” And you just know a movie is in trouble when the best part about it is actress Jessica Biel who is decedent as a gay friendly lawyer who Sandler has the hots for.

And of course the movie tries to shove a sappy message down our throats about tolerance, accepting who you are, and letting people live their lives the way they want. All the while they want us to laugh at the stereotypes being flashed across the screen. This movie works like a vegetarian slaughterhouse film with Burger King product placement. It just seems wrong. I still do believe this could have been a good movie. I really, really do. The film isn’t a total loss: it has a pretty decent soundtrack. Well at least that’s something! GRADE: C-

Wide & Prejudice: “Hairspray” is a Big Fat Fun Musical Comedy

The movie musical “Hairspray” is probably the tamest John Waters has ever been. And that’s most likely because he didn’t write or direct this version. Instead, this fantastically enjoyable film is based on his cult flick from 1988 starring a pudgy Ricki Lake who dreams of fame in the form of dancing on a local dance show in Baltimore circa 1962. This upbeat musical is also based on the equally upbeat Broadway show that won numerous Tony Awards back in 2002. With original songs from composer Marc Shaiman, this version of “Hairspray” is every bit as enjoyable as live theatre and it’ll have you taping your toes ‘til Tuesday.

Everything that director Adam Shankman could have squeezed into frame is utterly enjoyable from start to finish. I liked the colors, the spirit, the costumes and the set. The film takes place in good old 1960s Baltimore. After singing about rats in the street and the local flasher (John Waters in a perfect cameo) Tracey Turnblad (newcomer Nikki Blonsky) hitches a ride to school on a garbage truck. She and her friend Penny (the comical Amanda Bynes) watch The Corny Collins Show everyday after school. It’s an American Bandstand-type local dance show that stars the local hunk of their dreams Link Larkin (Zac Efron of the bafflingly popular “High School Musical”). Of course, it’s only the local white teens who get to shimmy and shake everyday on the show, except for once a week during “Negro Day” in which the Black community gets its share of grooving. Mean lady manager Velma Von Tussle (a magnificently wicked Michelle Pfeiffer) rules the roost and insists that integrations shall never occur. After all, these are (gasp) colored people! And did I mention John Travolta plays Tracy’s mother. Her big fat geek mother.

The film has a high camp value without ever really going overboard (this isn’t “Rocky Horror” after all). Newcomer Nikki Blonsky as teenage dreamer Tracey was, at first, little too perky for my taste, but she is a great talent and she definitely carries the movie with its cheery beat and important message about tolerance, the importance of change and being proud of who you are. It carries a message, but doesn’t really cram it down our throats. If we can be singing along and taping our toes and receive a little social commentary, what’s wrong with that?

The movie is so extremely lively that it feels as if you’re watching the play. You really don’t feel very disconnected from the story as you do in other movie musical adaptations like “Rent” or “The Producers.” “Rent” was too serious to be fun and “The Producers” was too silly to be taken seriously. “Hairspray” seems just right. And even if you don’t know the music going in, you’ll be singing the songs on your way out. Travolta does a good job of making us believe he’s a woman. While the make-up job isn’t exactly flawless, he has the acting chops and enough good dialogue (thank you screenwriter Leslie “Mrs. Doubtfire” Dixon) to let us forget that there’s a man behind the mask. On the other hand, Travolta in drag seems kind of gimmicky so I wouldn’t recommend seeing this movie just because he’s in a fat suit. We’ve all seen “Mrs. Doubtfire” and “Toosie.” This isn’t the king of drag queen movies by any means, but it has solid energy and a fun beat that will have you smiling even after the credits roll.

I actually found myself believing that Edna and Tracy are mother and daughter dancing and shimming to Marc “Everyone has AIDS” Shaiman’s catchy and funny tunes. The supporting cast is also terrific. Pfeiffer is great as the racist TV manager. I love her in evil roles (“I’m Catwoman hear me roar!”) and here she really gets to shine. It’s fun to be able to hate her. James Marsden has a surprisingly good turn as the host of The Corny Collins Show. I’m actually a big fan of Amanda Bynes, and I’m probably the only one who finds her film “She’s the Man” utterly entertaining. She has good comic timing and makes a good friend to Tracy. And let’s not forget Christopher Walken as Edna’s faithful husband. You haven’t lived until you’ve seen Walken and Travolta in a fat suit dancing together. Queen Latifah belts out some great tunes, as does Elijah Kelley as Penny’s forbidden love interest (thanks to conservative mommy Allison Janney, as indispensable as ever).

The movie plays up the ‘60s iconography greatly, not only with period costumes and the hairdos, but the political climate as well. We’re talking segregation! Like seriously, there’s a rope separating the Black dancers from the white dancers. Come on! They act as if the Black dancers are Al-Qaeda or something. Frankly the Black students have better moves than their Caucasian counterparts. It’s like “Pleasantville” with racism! “Hairspray” is just fun fun fun. It kind of has the quirky vibe of the 80s musical “Little Shop of Horrors” without the macabre humor. It was amusing and the songs are upbeat, catchy and tuneful (and witty for that matter). I can’t wait for “Serial Mom: The Musical.” GRADE: A-

Aye Robot: “Transformers” is a Blast, But it Won’t Transform Contempt for Michael Bay

There are several things you should expect in a Michael Bay film, lots of cuts, slick cinematography, lots of military personnel and complete disregard for public property. I mean seriously how many buildings has this guy destroyed in his entire filmography? Michael Bay is a visionary director no doubt and he has his own “style” but he’s constantly ripping himself off. I mean how many of the shots in his latest film “Transformers” were exact replicas from his earlier films? I’m surprised he didn’t just use the same footage from “Pearl Harbor” and erase Ben Affleck. One thing that this film didn’t have which I loved was the absence of uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer. If anyone is guilty of over-producing it’s that guy. Oh God that guy irks me. Unfortunately we get so many trademark Michael Bay-isms it’s enough to give you a headache from the constant combat and shaky cameras. But, yes, Michael Bay certainly knows how to make an entertaining popcorn movie, if not a particularly memorable one.

The plot here is pretty simple even if you’ve never seen the show. The Transformers are alien robots who can shape shift into metallic objects from anything to automobiles to cd players. There are the good ones (Autobots) and the bad ones (Deceptacons) and they’re both after some kind of cube that is supposedly so powerful that it the Deceptacons want to use it to take over the universe. But to us, it’s just the McGuffin and we don’t really care. We just want to see these robots transform before our eyes and kick each others’ asses.

We can directly compare this film with the 2005 blockbuster “War of the Worlds” and 1998’s “Independence Day.” All are similar in concept and execution, but these two films have something that Michael Bay never does: completely memorable moments. Spielberg’s films, for instance, always certain scenes that stick out: such as the first tripod attack, the ferry attack and the basement attack (in “Worlds”). It’s been a few days since I saw “Transformers” and I can’t really pick out a completely memorable action sequence. That’s because it’s all just action, nothing too special, although he’s completely competent as a director, but what’s exciting to him, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s exciting to me or the rest of the audience. And who could forget the White House or Empire State Buildings blowing up in “Independence Day” no one who saw that film has since forgotten those scenes.

Having said that “Transformers” really is a fun movie and it does have memorable aspects such as rising star Shia LeBeouf, who is as charming as ever. Seriously, there is no stopping this kid. They kid is so charming that he instantly raises it to another level. I mean you could have all the computer effects in the world and it wouldn’t come close to creating the lasting appeal that this actor makes. He imports his charming “Disturbia” teenage angst character and lets him out of the house finally. He adds some humanity to the robotic proceedings and it’s easy for the audience to identify with him. Of course it wouldn’t be a Michael Bay movie without lovey dovey romance stuff, but thankfully that’s mostly a sidenote here. We get Lindsay Lohan look-a-like Megan Fox to fill in. This midriff revealing auto mechanic whiz could give Mona Lisa Vito a run for her money.

The only major flaw is that the film takes a little while to get fully going, (including annoying cross cutting between Shia’s storyline and that of military men surviving an attack in the Middle East) once the good robots are all introduced, there is lots of chatty fun banter between the robots that is just simply wonderful. The film is written by Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman, who were responsible for “The Island,” which I enjoyed even though it completely bombed (bad marketing if you ask me). They have given the robots equally corny and funny lines of dialogue and even have them attempting to hide in the backyard from Shia’s parents. They find having to hide out annoying and one of them comically suggests that he “take them [the parents] out.” But not only does it take a while to get going, Michael Bay also doesn’t really know when to quit. That last action sequence goes on pretty much forever.


If Michael Bay’s point was to make a fun live action cartoon, then he has succeeded with “Transformers.” Of course I’ve never seen the original cartoon from the 80s (I know shame on me) so I can’t really compare them, but I think he has successfully transformed this 80s icon into the 21st century with style, wit and entertaining action (lots of action). GRADE: B+

The Cook, the Chef, a Rat and His Brother: Pixar and Disney Concoct a Savory Delicacy called “Ratatouille”

Geez, Paris is certainly having the best summer ever. “Paris, je t'aime” was an ode to the powers of love in Paris. Michael Moore's "Sicko" painted a portrait of the healthcare industry by exploring how France’s national healthcare is superior to the USA’s. And now we have a sweet animated film about a rat with a taste for great food set in Paris, France. Yes, you read that correctly. This movie is about a rat who loves gourmet food so much he dreams of being a great chef. This is a premise only Pixar could pull off with such delight and enthusiasm that while watching it, nothing else in the world will seem to matter. It’s a truly delicious treat.

Pixar has first taken the cardinal rule of CGI animation and tossed it out like a bad piece of cheese: making non-stop, clever pop-culture references. This film relies on intelligent writing and good storytelling instead of useless wisecracks. Also, instead of setting this film in 2007, they set it anytime. This is a movie that can be viewed 50 years from now and it’ll still be just as timeless. We get a real story with real characters that are extremely lovable. This is in the vein of the early Disney classics. It’s the first Pixar film that feels like it was meant to stand the test of time.

Remy (Patton Oswalt) the rat is a cute little rodent who lives somewhere in France with his entire rat infested colony. He argues with his brother who insists that eating garbage is a nice way of living. Not only is the animation of these rats amazing but they’re also just wonderful characters that you want to take home with you. We open the film learning about Remy’s wanting to explore outside the colony; he dreams of being more than just a rat scrounging for garbage to eat. Then he’s suddenly separated from his family and he winds up in Paris which is the home of his favorite (deceased) chef’s restaurant: Gusteau's. There he ends up meeting the goofy and lonely Linguini (a human, voiced by Lou Romano) who has just been hired as the new garbage boy. This is a top tier restaurant and we get our evil villain sous-chef, Skinner (Ian Holm) who is supposed to be next in line after Gusteau’s death. But it turns out that Linguini may have an even closer connection to Gusteau.

Then we get scenes in which Remy is able to help Linguini become a great chef in the kitchen much to the other kitchen workers’ jealousy including Colette (voiced wonderfully by Janeane Garofalo). The scenes in which this young man and rat form a quick bond are priceless and charming. Their banter is witty and Remy's ablity to conrtol Linguing under his chef's hat (by pulling on his hair) is so witty it's beyond believable. The animation here is simply stunning and it never takes away from the fun storyline. The simulated camera movements are technically proficient and create a sense of fluidity that’s nearly indescribable. The voice work is top-notch and having a few no-names with the stars definitely works in its favor.

I was never a really big fan of “The Incredibles,” but it was a good film. Writer/director Brad Bird is obviously a tremendous talent in that he obviously had a vision that ended up being a cinematic masterpiece. He manages to make the basic premise of “rats in a kitchen” into a hard-warming, intellectual film that pushes computer animation the farthest it’s ever gone. There are no gimmicks; no need to release the film in 3D. This is true American filmmaking that just so happens to tell a story set in Paris. And there aren’t too many chefs in the kitchen like on most animated films; Bird is the solo credited writer.

Another aspect worth mentioning was the way they were able to turn a food critic (voiced menacingly by Peter O’Toole) into a full fledged character with obvious jabs at critics in general who get pleasure in writing negative reviews (it is fun after all). There is pleasure in watching someone else crash and burn and I enjoyed this little poke at criticism in general. (Much more than Lady and the Water’s horrific attempt at criticizing critics last summer)

This is a movie that kids will love; there’s plenty of fun mischief and colorful characters. And adults will love it even more. Even if you don’t like rodents or cooking much, you will find lots to enjoy. I like whipping up food in the kitchen and I’ve never found rats to be particularly creepy so I was overwhelmed with joy after watching “Ratatouille.” This is almost guaranteed to win at next year’s Academy Awards for Best Animated Feature, unless “The Simpsons Movie” ends up being the next “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.”

Speaking of which there are so many nods here to other classic Disney animation. We get a hero who longs to be somewhere else (The Little Mermaid). Someone who pretends to be something he’s not (Aladdin). A non sappy portrait of family values (The Lion King). And not to mention cute talking critters (take your pick). And let’s not forget that Remy suffers from Disney’s single-parent syndrome. See, this is destined to be a classic. Do yourself a favor and savor the sweet taste of Disney and Pixar’s latest gem. GRADE: A

Medicine Man: Michael Moore’s Scathing Doc “Sicko” Proves Laughter is the Best Medicine

It’ll make you laugh! It’ll make you cry! It’ll make you want to move to France! Michael Moore’s brilliant healthcare documentary “Sicko” even paints a realistic and positive view of Cuba to the dismay of Republicans everywhere. It may be the home of a hated dictator but it’s home to one of the best (supposedly) health care systems in the world. The U.S. is always bragging about being number one at this and at that, but how about the way our insurance companies treat their paying customers? We live in a country where hospitals reject us if we don’t have the right insurance card and doctors refuse treatment because we can’t afford it. They even let patients die because procedures, that are done everyday, are too “experimental.”

Moore’s film, while blatantly liberal-minded as always, does a wonderful job at being basically bipartisan. (except for the goofy shots of George W. Bush) This film isn’t really an attack at one person (such as the head of a corporation or the Head of State) but it does attack an industry that is supposed to be caring for the people of the United States of America. While there are millions of people with health insurance, many of us will come across a situation in which we need medical assistance and we’ll simply be passed by even if we’re supposedly covered. That’s us, the good old U.S. of A.

While many will find Moore himself to be a cloying, manipulative man, there is one thing he is certainly guilty of: making extremely engaging (whether you agree or not), entertaining movies. This guy has taking several moderately interesting subjects and turned them into enjoyable experiences. I mean I’m the last one that would line up for a documentary about our health care system, but Moore cuts together so much fun stock footage along with all of his interviews with interesting people and turns it into a masterpiece of non-fiction cinema. There are parts that are just fall down funny that are too good to spoil here. He understands that laughter is a universal language. Hopefully his humor will bring people of differently political sides together (then again this is America). And then there are the parts that will anger you and make you shed tears. Moore makes some strong statements that are sure to get people riled up as usual. And some might disagree with how non-fiction this all is.

Moore deliberately makes the case that while in the US there are medical miracles happening everyday, there are still thousands of cases of people being denied medical help for the stupidest reasons. He uses so many examples it’s impossible to note them all. One 22 year old woman was diagnosed with cervical cancer and her insurance company told her she was “too young” to have cervical cancer and promptly denied her coverage. A Black man was refused a bone marrow transplant because the procedure was deemed to “experimental.” He later died because of his ailments and his wife gives a powerful, emotionally devastating testimonial. Another case that was shocking involved a young mother whose infant came down with a terrible fever one night. The hospital she was at didn’t accept her insurance and by the time she was able to be transferred to another hospital her baby succumbed to her illness. A similar case occurred overseas and the hospital promptly treated the baby, saving its life. Why is it in America if you don’t have the right form, income or insurance card are you denied help?

Moore disagrees with the US health system and praises the likes of Canada, France and even Cuba(!?) as having successful “socialist” (yikes!) national healthcare (most of which is shockingly FREE). He insists that if we had a national health system most of us would be better off. But that would mean the rich paying more taxes so that everyone (including the poor) would get free healthcare. Who would want to pay more taxes? And who would want to (sometimes) wait months for free healthcare? Moore presents his arguments and it’s hard not to agree with most of them, but there will plenty who will be irked at the sight of Moore paying tribute to Joseph Stalin’s memorial. I’m surprised he hasn’t been blacklisted yet.

Speaking liberally for a moment, I’m guessing our government doesn’t want to fund a national healthcare because we’re spending billions funding a war that shouldn’t have begun in the first place. The point is everyone deserves equal healthcare whether you’re rich or poor, black or white, conservative or liberal. This is a film that could help to start to close the gap of blue vs. red that is dividing this great, but flawed, nation. GRADE: A-

Bruce Almighty: John McClane Kicks Computer Geek Butt in the Explosive “Live Free or Die Hard”

Perhaps they could have called it “Die Hard: Byte the Dust.” The fourth installment of the macho Die Hard series is an action thriller for the computer hacker generation. While the film ups the action ante it also adds lots of techno jargon and shots of computer screens doing things that I’ve never seen them do in real life. But it is a true fact that we rely too much on computers and technology, especially in this high tension, post-9/11 world. Bruce Willis returns to the role that made him an action icon as John McClane who must foil a plot that could bring doom to nearly half the country.

Speaking of 9/11, it’s interesting to see how action films have changed since September 11, 2001. If you look at Die Hard with a Vengeance (or any of the original trilogy for that matter) you’ll notice how particularly “unscary” the terrorists seem. They’re unrealistic and cartoonish. You never really fear for the civilians’ lives in these films because terrorism seemed like a fantasy. But now we know after 2001’s tragic events that very bad people can do a lot of serious damage. And now movies are mentioning 9/11, these films are set in a world where terrorism is our biggest concern and national threat. It has become personified in people who despise our American way of life. Terrorism has become an evil cinematic predator, not just a loony bunch of foreigners with machine guns toting one-liners.

Here we can see that terrorists don’t have to be from a foreign country. We get thirty something “Scream 2” villain Timothy Olyphant, as Thomas Gabriel, who wants the power turned off on the eastern part of the US. Why you ask? We’ll that’s a third act development, so that means it’s hush hush here. But I will tell you that he does have a coolness to his evil personality that makes him even more sinister. He’s the villain that dresses nicely all in black. He could spend his days shooting the LL Bean summer catalogue in-between his villainous duties. He heads a ragtag team of techo-nerds who hack into the country’s computer systems. They turn all the traffic lights green, they cause anthrax scares in Washington DC buildings, and they can even cause traffic to run into each other in underground tunnels.

Speaking of computer nerds, this time McClane is paired with the Mac guy from those Apple commercials. Justin Long is a fun, hip addition. He’s sort of the computer geek ying to Timophy Olyphant’s computer geek yang. Instead of the stereotyped minority sidekick (like in “Vengeance” with Samuel L Jackson) Long is a computer hacker who is on Gabriel’s hit list, until McClane foils the assassination attempt. Any computer geek who knows what Gabriel is up to needs to be disposed of. And this is no building or airport McClane must save, but nearly half the country. There is no transportation, communication or electricity and congress has been evacuated. It hasn’t been this crazy since the non-existent Y2K bug failed to show itself. And to make matters worse, McClane’s teenage daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) just might make a perfect feisty hostage.

The film doesn’t seem watered down in terms of violence even though this is PG-13. Honestly, making a Die Hard film that anyone can get into seems worse than giving "Hostel 2" an R rating. I mean seriously should a group of unsupervised 10 year olds go see this film? While there isn’t much actual graphic violence, the intense crashes, consistent gunplay and glossy coolness factor all just seem wrong for impressionable youngsters. While the violent action is just a little far-fetched it seems extremely plausible for young children to get their hands on guns and try to act cool by firing weapons.

Director Len Wiseman (“Underworld”) has a good visual sense and his strong suit here is definitely action action action. I mean he makes McClane take out a helicopter with a car just because he was out of bullets. The other addition I enjoyed here was Maggie Q as the slinky, sexy Asian baddie who gives McClane a run for his fighting money. Their fight sequence is a highlight and McClane’s one-liners, including his description of this poor henchman’s demise, (she’s a villain she’s gotta die right?) is priceless and too good to spoil here. “Live Free or Die Hard” is a slick, action-packed movie. It’s a great summer flick that brings the Die Hard films into the 21st century with style, humor and impressive stunts. GRADE: B+

Daze Inn: John Cusack Goes Crazy When He Checks Into Creepy Room “1408”

There are plenty of scary movies that take place in and around hotels and motels. “Psycho” is probably the most famous and most classic motel chiller. It was a film that not only caused many Americans not to bathe but most likely put small mom and pop motels out of business due to it’s classic Bates Motel setting. “The Shining” put the Overlook Hotel on the cinematic map due to its creepy effect on Jack Nicholson’s character. It turned him mad and it frightened the audience. And I’m probably the only one who is scared of the 13th floor of hotels due to the horribly bad yet incredibly watchable made for cable thriller “Nightmare on the 13th Floor.” Hotels can be scary places and the latest film “1408," while not destined to become a classic, is no exception.

John Cusack plays a writer who travels all over to find the most haunted places. He stays in hotel rooms where murders and other strange happenings occurred. But unlike other cinematic ghost hunters, he doesn’t actually believe in the hauntings. He writes these books because it’s a way of dealing with a past tragedy in his life. He refuses to believe anything of a supernatural nature; that is until he checks into room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel in New York City. Hotel manager Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson) insists that Mike Enslin (Cusack) not stay in room 1408. It has a terrible, violent past. There have been over 50 strange deaths because of that room. People check in and they don’t check out. The room has strange presence that can’t be explained; yet Mike knows there has to be a rational explanation. Let’s cut to him staying in the room as he proceeds to have the most terrifying experience of his life.

Swedish director Mikael Håfström has some interesting twists up its sleeve and in doing so he makes a very creepy movie. The plot mainly consists of Cusack trying to get out of the room once he knows it’s a realistically creepy place to be. And by the way Cusack goes give a great performance in what is essentially a one-man show. I guess had Samuel L. Jackson been in it more, they might have had to add snakes to the title in some form. The room itself is technically proficient. It’s a fantastic example of wondrous production design. We get to know that room inside and out and the various ways Mike attempts to escape it are eerie. The film establishes the room’s sinister presence the moment Cusack steps into it. The film does a great job of turning what appears at first to be an ordinary hotel room and making us believe it’s an area of hell on Earth. This movie has many genuinely frightening moments guaranteed to give you the chills.

Ghost movies or haunted place movies are almost always bogged down by too much exposition. The film sets up the room as a sinister place and that’s all. We don’t learn anything we don’t need to know. And there is usually way too much about why a person would choose to go into a haunted place if they know so many have died there. We buy right away that Cusack would go in there because he’s a non-believer. The reason he doesn’t believe is explained through a third act plot development in which we learn he has a young daughter who was ill and died. I would have liked not knowing about his daughter, since it comes into the film more as a plot revelation, yet it’s shown in the trailers, so I haven’t really spoiled anything.

We later learn that he doesn’t believe in God, because if God were real he wouldn’t have let his daughter die. Of course the point of the movie is to show how one can become a believer in the course of short time; in the case of this film an hour spent slowly becoming mentally disturbed by staying in this haunted hotel room. Most horror movies do have a positive view of religion whether it’s “The Exorcist” or “The Omen.” Here we witness a man who refuses to believe in the otherworldly who slowly comes to the realization that there are things in life that you can’t explain. And in doing so we as an audience member are welcomed into making our own theories about the unexplainable. I guess I’m getting a little too deep. The point is to see this film, be creeped out for 94 minutes and go nowhere near any inn called the Dolphin Hotel. GRADE: B

The French Connection: “Paris, je t'aime” is a Sweet, Fun Ode to the City of Lights

“Paris, je t’aime” is a collection of shorts from American directors like the Coen Brothers, Gus Van Sant and Alexander Payne, German director Tom Tykwer, Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón and even Frenchmen Gérard Depardieu! The concept has come from producers Emmanuel Benbihy and Tristan Carné. A total of twenty-one completely various directors have come together with actors of nearly every ethnicity in eighteen stories of love and loss set in Paris, France. While some films are forgettable, most are charming and fun.

The films do range from hysterical, delightful, sweet, original, to plain, ordinary and downright bizarre. But it’s always a fascinating watch. And the best part is that if you’re watching a film that is less than interesting a new one is going to start in 5 minutes time. It’s like speed dating for film fanatics. The shorts all range in technical style but they remain visually similar. You can tell they are all part of the same collective work. Some are funny, some are sad, most are in the very least watchable. It’s hard to tell what exactly the film as a whole is really saying besides that Paris can work wonders on people. The city has a strange quality that can help mimes fall in love or cause trouble for American tourist Steve Buscemi while waiting for a train.

Alexander Payne’s (“Election,” “Sideways”) was probably my favorite. He’s terrific at telling great stories with lonley yet realistic people. Take “About Schmidt”, for instance. That film had a very slow, unappealing look which was a relfection of how the characters felt. Jack Nicholson was a lost soul and it was the magic of Payne’s deliberate direction that made it so successful. And one of the reasons his short works so well is due to where it’s placed in relation to all the other shorts. By the time this film is shown we’ve heard beautiful spot-on French accents and here we’re given an American woman voiceover in a God-awful French dialect that is an insult to anyone who speaks French. This story of a lonely American tourist works on every level.

The most interesting short stylistically was Vincenzo Natali’s romantic and scary vampire film starring Elijah Wood. It was sort of “An American Werewolf in Paris” meets “Interview with the Vampire.” Wood is an American tourist who falls in love with a beautiful vampire. The blood here has a gorgeous red-orange hue that reminded me of the colorful blood found in “Sin City.” A visual delight.

Gus Van Sant takes a different turn by presenting us a possible love between two young men. A young Frenchman (young Hannibal Lector in the god awful “Hannibal Rising”) presents a long monologue to another young man who seems either disinterested or so fascinated by what this man is saying that he remains speechless. That is until we realize that the young man doesn’t speak a word of French…

Wes Craven has proved before that he can make movies that aren’t scary. Unless you count Gloria Estefan’s acting in his “Music of the Heart.” This film isn’t in the horror genre but it does have an interesting spiritual element. (Including a cameo of Alexander Payne as the ghost of Oscar Wilde) His film also probably has one of the most satisfying endings. Many of the films end abruptly, prompting me to shrug my head and think, “Okay I guess that one’s over.”

“Run Lola Run” director Tom Tykwer loves playing with time. He shows a complete romance in time-lapse photography and he features a great performance from Natalie Portman. She has one of the best lines in the entire film. She plays an American actress in Paris shooting what sounds like a horrible movie: “I play a prostitute that is kidnapped and held prisoner by her pimp. He beats her and rapes her. But they eventually end up getting married.” If that doesn’t sound like a winner I don’t know what does.

There are a few films that don’t entirely succeed, but that’s okay. There are so many films here that the bad ones just kind of leave the mind and then there’s plenty of room to remember the great ones. So grab some French fries and fall in love with this film already! GRADE: B

Fantastic Bore: “Rise of the Silver Surfer” is Anything But Tubular

I enjoy average movies. Heck, I even enjoy bad movies. I’m sure on some level everyone does. Sometimes you just want to sit back and relax and take in a goofy, silly, horrible movie that revels in it’s awfulness. Then there are the ones that are so bad that you wish you were actually watching a good movie. First off, dont get me wrong "Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer" is not a horrible movie. Yet it’s not a fantastic (pun intended) movie. It’s somewhere inbetween, but it’s a movie that while watching it will make you long for something else, anything else. It’s not so much a problem that yes it’s kiddie, immature and cartoonish (think Saturday morning level children’s entertainment) but it’s not even good kiddie, immature and cartoonish entertainment. It’s better than the first film which shows just how awful the original truly was.

As directed by Tim Story, who was also responsible for “Barbershop” and “Taxi” (what exactly qualifies him to direct this?) the film is not even on the level of so bad it’s good. First of all, the film just looks boring. The cinematography is too bright; there’s too much key lighting and if you’re going to shoot a bright movie at least make it colorful. This looks more like a comedy than a superhero movie. The action is not all that exciting. It’ll cause you to yawn more often than grip the arm rests. Also, because of the success of the "Spiderman" films, "Batman Begins" and the "X-Men" films, we’re all used to dark, mature, entertaining comic book superheroes, not a bunch of clowning around. And now that this film has acquired a PG rating, we know from the beginning that perhaps this is going to be more along of the lines of "Power Rangers" rather than the brooding drama of a "Batman." Because many of the recent comic book movies are so good, it’s easy to distinguish "Fantastic Four" as simply sub par.

The best performance of the four main cast members is still Chris Evans, as Johnny Storm the Human Torch, who’s got that cocky, hip attitude down pat. Jessica Alba (Johnny’s Invisible Woman sister Susan Storm), who looks like she just came back from the drag show Nomi Malone “Showgirls” look-a-like contest, attempts some vague emotion. Ioan Gruffudd as the future husband of Miss Storm is pretty wooden in the role of the scientist leader. His acting is stiff and I’ll blame the director for letting him give such a boring performance. (And speaking of stiff, is there a reason why this guy gets nervous around beautiful women at his bachelor party? Doesn't he realize he's marrying Jessica Alba??) Michael Chiklis (TV’s “The Shield”), who is under lots of rock make-up, has some good one-liners as The Thing. He has wooed the blind woman from the first film into a full-fledged relationship. But I guess hearing Lionel Richie’s “Hello” on the soundtrack was never meant to be.

The script in this second installment written by Don Payne and Mark Frost revolves around a bunch of global anomalies that have been occurring around the world ala “The Day After Tomorrow.” Los Angeles has a black out, what a shocker. Asia’s oceans have frozen over. And other strange catastrophic events are occurring (One of which leads to the resurgence of Dr. Doom, played by Nip/Tuck’s Julian McMahon). It’s as if the planet were dying. Of course it’s left at that because this isn’t “An Inconvenient Truth” or anything. It appears the planet’s fate is in the hands of some sort of celestial villain who is controlling a T-1000 look-a-like who rides around the world on his silver surfboard. This “Silver Surfer” (who kind of looks cool) as he is eventually nicknamed might just be a big enough match for the Fantastic 4. Of course that puts the dampers on Susan and Mr. Fantastic’s wedding plans (They have to stop a crashing helicopter during the ceremony in a unexciting, yawn-inducing sequence).

One amusing idea the film has to offer is when Johnny comes in contact with the Surfer it causes his powers to shift with whichever teammate he touches. So when he embraces his sister Susan, she bursts out in flames crying, “I’m on fire! I’m on fire!” Eventually Johnny is able to use all four powers to help defeat the enemy. And it’s ok kids, because the Silver Surfer is really a good guy, he’s just under mind control. Susan, the super hero, is able to break the emotional barrier even if Jessica Alba, the actress, isn’t. And by the way, composer John Ottoman adds yet another boring music score to his resume.

Did I really care for any of this? Not really. This movie is dumb and mildly entertaining. Yet it acheives a major feat: it’s a definite step up from the first film. It’s towards the bottom of the barrel when it comes to comic book flicks (although I’ve never seen the craptistic "Daredevil," "Elektra" or "Ghost Rider"). It’s too bad that "Knocked Up" is rated R, because I’d recommend dragging the kids to see that instead of the kids dragging you to see this. GRADE: C

Danny Ocean, Prince of Thieves: “Ocean’s 13” Fits Somewhere Between 11 and 12

Ah, to be George, Brad or Matt. They could make utterly awful films and yet they’d still manage to be superstars. “Ocean’s 11” brought them all together. It was fun, exciting and memorable. Then there was the sequel “Ocean’s 12.” It was not fun, boring and forgettable. After the disaster that was “12” I was all but prepared to never give Ocean’s con gang a third shot. And now with “Ocean’s 13,” it’s mostly a mixed bag. Put simply it’s better than part 2 but not as good as part 1.

“Ocean’s 11” was a great movie. It had a great structure: Here’s Danny Ocean, here are his con artist men, here is the bad guy, let’s rob him. Fun, comedy, suspense, suaveness, style and plot twists abounded. “Ocean’s 11” was the definition of cool. “13” brings us back to the casinos where the audience feels right at home. The cast is good as usual, and I welcomed the wonderful Al Pacino and the sultry Ellen Barkin (who has some humorous scenes with Matt Damon) to the cast, however when you’re pushing eleven main characters, adding more only takes screen time away from the others. Thankfully there’s not a traditional love story subplot to waste any time.

What’s missing is the key to why the first film was such a success: screenwriter Ted Griffin. His story was great (with a good setup and interesting twists), his characterizations were great (was it his idea to have Brad Pitt eating something in every scene?) and he truly made you care about what was going on. He put you on the side of expert thieves and con artists (like he did in his other phenomenal script “Matchstick Men;” go rent that now!) and perfectly balanced all of the numerous characters. The first film was such a fun and rewarding experience. George Nolfi’s screenplay for part 2 was horrendous. It was jumbled and muddled and he turned everything off that we liked about the characters. Sorry I’m venting, I never got to write a review for that piece of garbage. And now we get writers Brian Koppelman and David Levien who wrote the popular poker drama “Rounders.” Their first smart move is to set the film in Vegas where it’s hip to be cool and it’s even cooler to be George, Brad or Matt. Their story revolves around Pacino’s hotel owner scuzball who double-crosses Elliott Gould. Gould ends up in the hospital because the double cross apparently gives him a heart attack. So Ocean and his gang of merry thugs decide to give Pacino a taste of his own medicine.

It is fun to see the gang working together again to squeeze all the money out of the hotel’s casino in one opening night evening. Instead of just robbing him, they’re going to rig all the games so that the everyday gambler can walk away with the millions. A decent idea, that’s not exactly pulled off well. There’s still plenty of confusion here. The first film was never confusing. The film expertly handled each set up so that we, as non-experts in committing crimes could understand what was going on every minute. We were right in there with the gang; here we kind of feel like an outsider, forced to ask the person next to us, “Do you get what they’re doing?” And probably the silliest stuff here (almost as silly as Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in "12") involves David Paymer as a hotel rater who's stay at the hotel is less than spectacular.

The film’s strongest element is it’s director who also doubles here as his own cinematographer. He is a visual storyteller whose style is just simply scrumptious. I wouldn’t be surprised if he used thirteen different colored filters. He paints with his lens and the film is worth it to see all those beautiful saturated colors.

Ok ok so the bottom line here is if you enjoyed “Ocean’s 11” you’re probably going to think “13” is adequate. But that’s just the problem. If you’re going to make a third ocean caper then it’s got to be great not just adequate. I don’t want to say that the movie robbed me of my two hours, but, like Pacino's character, I felt cheated. GRADE: C+

Last Hostel on the Left: Eli Roth’s Bloody Sequel “Hostel Part II” is Better Than Part I

One thing came to my mind while watching “Hostel Part II:” The guys who run Guantanamo Bay must serve double duty as members of the MPAA film ratings board. Or at the very least Rob Zombie must be the head of it. (Of course I know better after seeing the informative documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated")There’s no other explanation as to why this film got an R rating except that it’s bound to make a killing at the box office. But let’s be honest, that’s no real reason to dislike a movie because frankly this isn’t half bad. In fact, I liked it much better than the first Hostel, so director Eli Roth is headed in a good direction.

The first film was over hyped, they used Quentin Tarantino’s name in vain and the ads claimed the movie was based on actual events. Yeah sure. But here there’s no hype, no overwhelming urgency to check out the second hostel chapter, and yet after seeing it, I have to say I enjoyed it a lot more than it’s predecessor. The first film took too long to set up the idea of a sadistic hunting club that pays big bucks to torture and kill backpackers. Here we already know about the existence of this torture palace so we can get to the good stuff with minimal exposition. We’re introduced to new characters and we actually get to see more of how these sick bastards actually get to “purchase” their victims: eBay-style of course! Richard Burgi and Roger Bart are two buddies who fly out to Slovakia to take part in the fun. I enjoyed and didn’t predict how their characters would eventually turn out.

I liked how the opening picks where the first film left off: Paxton (Jay Hernandez) has escaped by train with only eight fingers. I honestly wanted Paxton to die in the first film because he was such a misogynistic jerk, but by the end it was hard not to root for him. These sick freaks who pay to torture these people are so perverted you couldn’t help but hope for Pax to get the heck out of there. But I’m glad his role here is short.

The film then introduces its new main characters pretty Beth (Lauren German), skanky Whitney (Bijou Philips) and geeky Lorna (Heather Matarazzo basically reprising her Dawn Weiner character) as they decide to travel to Slovakia from their art school in Rome. Roth makes the good decision to make them female, not annoying frat guys. Having women in the leads means a scarier, more suspenseful film (Case in point: “The Descent,” go rent it now). Having females in danger, for the most part, is scarier than men in danger and that’s the way it’s been since horror films have been made. I know it seems wrong to constantly have women in peril, but it works for the audience’s benefit. And Roth has written female characters who aren’t complete morons or jerks like in the first film. The non-bloody scenes aren’t as torturous the second time because I actually found myself enjoying the characters. I enjoyed Lorna even if I didn’t understand why she went on this vacation with the other girls. But the way it works here is the more you care about a character the quicker they die. It takes a while longer to give a crap about the skanky blonde and the pretty brunette.


Having said all that, let’s get to the reason people want to see movies like this: gore gore gore! I don’t think Eli Roth should be locked up for showing such graphic violence although I’m sure some would put him on the same level as the fictitious Hannibal Lector. I have to give him props for having the guts to go full out with his movies, this by far out surpassing the horrible (and unintentionally funny) Cabin Fever. The violence here is mostly so extreme that it borders on the silly and anyone with half a brain will realize that you shouldn’t take all of this too seriously. I mean how serious can you take a film that has a man’s genitals being cut off and fed to dogs? Roth uses the extreme violence as means to comical catharsis. Crazy I know, but I need give myself a reason to think any of this junk is actually worth my time and money. (And by the way, I’m not a parent and I know that if you bring your child to see this, you are more messed up than Mr. Roth himself.) There is one scene that is so perverse and disturbing that you actually feel for the poor character. In fact you may even feel for the humility of the actor. He takes it that far.

Roth is simply paying tribute to the gross out films that he grew up on in the 70s and 80s and can you blame him? Growing up watching the likes of Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper and George A. Romero (let alone Faces of Death) obviously had an effect on someone, which I have to respect. And here we are in a new generation of torture horror with the Hostels, Hills Have Eyes, High Tensions and Saws. “Hostel Part II” is not a film for everyone, but aren’t you curious about it in the slightest? No? Well obviously. GRADE: B

Womb Raider: “Knocked Up” Delivers On All Accounts

“Knocked Up” is, so far, the funniest movie of the year and one of the best. Now I realize we still have more than 6 months to go, but I have found 2007 to be kind of lackluster. There are plenty of good movies, but not many excellent ones. “Knocked Up” is an amusing riot from start to finish. Director and writer Judd Apatow has made a movie that takes everything everyone loved about the “The 40 Year Old Virgin” and makes an uproarious, affecting and, best of all, intelligent movie about human nature that’s worth every penny of the ticket price.

We’re first introduced to Ben Stone (played by Seth Rogen). Stone is the most appropriate last name for this slacker because he spends most of his time with his friends in a drug induced cloud of stupor. This unproductive twenty-something lives in a messy crib with his fellow slacker buddies Jason, Jay, Jonah and Martin (who all have the same first names in real life). Their dream job is starting a website in which they catalogue all the female nude scenes for every movie ever made. They can tell you who strips, when and for how long. I guess you could call them entrepreneurs. It’s obvious that Ben has no real goals in life and enjoys sitting on his bum. Maybe we’re all just a little bit jealous of him.

Then we meet altogether Allison Scott (played by Denny-loving “Grey’s Anatomy” star Katherine Heigl). She works behind the scenes for the cable TV network E! and has just been promoted to an on air job interviewing celebrities. This is not before having to deal with a complaining Ryan Seacrest (in an amusing cameo) who believes, along with the rest of the world, that Jessica Simpson is simply dumber than mud. Allison lives with her sister Debbie (the wonderful Leslie Mann) and her husband Pete (the indispensable Paul Rudd) and their two adorable kids. Unlike Ben’s life, Allison’s life is going somewhere and she’s destined for great things. Then after a night out of celebrating with Deb, Allison and Ben’s lives collide: they meet, they drink, they do it, and Allison gets pregnant.

Apatow stages every scene with some form of humor, emotion, reality, believability or wit. Every scene has a pay off. Debbie and Pete are supposed to be a reflection of Allison and Ben. I loved how Debbie and Pete (who are in a rut) aren’t just supporting characters, but they have their own appealing story arc as well. These characters are all realistic people who, to me, have scarily realistic conversations. If you don’t believe that people talk like this and reference pop culture every 10 seconds, listen in on my conversations with friends. They even quote movies with each other. And by golly Paul Rudd does a great Robert De Niro impression!

Heigl and Rogen seem like an odd match but that’s exactly the point: we all know that opposites attract. Here we have two completely different personalities who are forced to bond. We get to watch their struggle to get to know each other, become friends and possibly fall in love. These two actors are great at portraying the emotions they both go through in this extremely stressful situation. Their encounters are natural, realistic, charming and truly successful in terms of believability. Their quest to get through their pregnancy and start a new life is such a rewarding experience. Apatow knows that comedy and drama fit hand in hand.

There is so much to love in this movie it’s impossible to describe all of it. Rogen’s slacker/drugged up friends are so completely likable I forgot that in real life I would probably find these people annoying; they have no real jobs or motivations yet Apatow has given them amazingly funny things to say. For instance, one slacker says his bearded friend’s face looks like Robin Williams' knuckles. As Heigl’s older sister Mann is comic gold (you’ll probably remember her as the drunk woman who wanted French toast and vomited on Steve Carrel in “Virgin”). And her 7-year-old daughter spends her free time Googling words like “murder” on the Internet.

The whole screwball pregnancy comedy has been done before, in fact, it has been done to death. But somehow Apatow has created a surprisingly original take on the “she’s having a baby so we’re all going to act crazy” comedy. There are no talking babies or high concept ideas here, just great writing and funny characterizations (and plenty of entertaining improvisations). It’s true that this is a perfect combo of “Nine Months” and “Animal House.” The dramatic parts are real and emotional; the funny parts are comical and sharp. It’s probably one of the best combinations of comedic raunch and truthful drama. It seems that Mr. Apatow and all involved have delivered a million dollar baby. GRADE: A

Roach Motel: “Bug” Will Either Get Under Your Skin or Drone On and On

Like the characters in "Bug," I’m feeling slightly paranoid. Unlike the characters in "Bug" I'm not a complete wacko. I'm scared because we found a huge spider in our house the other day. I’m talking Buick-sized here. If one innocent bug (assuming it wasn’t poisonous, seeing as though we live in Connecticut) could make me practically fear for my life, what could hundreds of bugs do? If you want to see a movie in which hundreds of creepy crawly insects attack innocent locals then “Bug” is not it. “Bug” shares much more in common with Hitchcock than “Arachnophobia.” And while it is psychologically taut and watchable from start to finish, it may cause involuntary laughter from those not inclined to deal with a movie called “Bug” that, SPOILER, never shows a single insect on screen.

Based on a stage play by Tracy Letts (who also wrote the screenplay) “Bug” is not a film to be easily liked (read: not mainstream) but it’s a good alternative to the big budget summer spectacles. This is a movie worth praising simply for how different it is. It’s the complete opposite of what you’d expect from a movie opening on Memorial Day weekend. If you’re going to check out Pirates 3 and it’s sold out, I don’t think I could honestly recommend “Bug” because odds are you’re likely to walk out halfway through it. But that’s not because it’s a bad movie, it’s because most moviegoers have been trained to accept a certain type of cinematic structure that is simply different in “Bug.” It’s simply about a couple of emotionally lost characters who talk to each other in a grungy motel room and the mental breakdown that follows. It’s tensely directed and makes you feel uncomfortable and claustrophobic and it has really gross parts as well. It’s a movie easy to dismiss but hard to forget.

William “The Exorcist” Friedkin is an over-the-top director. His films tend to get a little ridiculous and he’s not exactly subtle. For instance, never see “The Guardian” which is about a nanny-posing, tree-worshiping druid. I’m not making this up. I *wish* I was making this up. (It makes the Ashton Kutcher movie of the same name seem like “The Godfather”) Having said that he’s a great director of actors and he wrings a spectacular performance from Ashley Judd. Her scenes (which is basically the entire movie) command your attention; you can hardly keep your eyes off her. Michael Shannon is a lonely drifter who is introduced to Judd by her best gal pal (Lynn Collins). Judd’s a lonely, southern woman and she enjoys the company no matter how odd Shannon seems. (She’s obviously lonely since she lives in a motel literally in the middle of nowhere) Meanwhile, Judd’s crazy ex-husband (perfectly wacky Harry Connick Jr.) is bugging her ever since he was paroled.

Like I mentioned earlier the film is based on a play and it’s obvious: minimal staging, theatrical lighting, lots of monologues, a small cast and lots of psychological tension. The entire movie you’re really thinking what’s the point of all this and where is this going, and then it just ends, and you have to ponder for hours afterwards about what you just witnessed. It will get under your skin and either stay with you and make you think, or it will make you grab a can of Raid and make you swear never to see it again. Like a play there are two acts: the first involving the meeting of Judd and Shannon’s characters. They eventually make passionate love and then he confesses that after serving in the Gulf, the military planted tiny bugs into his body that feed off his blood. Judd pretty much buys this nonsense right away and it sets up the second half of the film in which they basically go completely berserk. Their final scenes achieve a superior lunacy that I found fascinating to watch. This is some tremendous acting because I bought everything they were saying. I almost felt that these actors would need counseling after playing these roles. They present us with some very disturbing (ripping out teeth much?) and vibrant images (a room covered with tinfoil looks cool) and it’s hard to remove yourself from what’s going on.

The allusions to “Psycho” are there: a seedy motel setting and a great opening tracking shot that is repeated throughout the film. Something is coming and we don’t know what, and that’s exactly the point. Because like the enigma-filled TV mystery “Lost,” “Bug” is a mysterious mind trip that you can’t escape. It may bug the heck out of you but it’s a completely watchable and worthwhile experience. GRADE: B

NOTE: During my screening, several people got up and left. They left with probably less than 15 minutes left to go in the movie. The movie is 100 minutes long. If you can stand the first half hour and get up that far into the movie, you’re more of a moron than I give you credit for.

One Flew Ogre the Cuckoo’s Nest: “Shrek the Third” is a Decent Chapter in the Overly Popular Series

My favorite movie of all time is “Airplane!” As strange as it sounds, I love movies so much that I love when movies reference other movies. I remember vividly going to see the first “Shrek” movie. It was practically the “Airplane!” of fairy tale movies. It was about time that an animated film came along that poked fun at the various clichés made uber popular by Disney cartoons. All that those elements like a princess stowed away in a tall tower, slaying dragons, magical woodland creatures, and talking animals all had it handed to them in the first “Shrek.” The film was a sensation that not only wont the first Animated Film Oscar but spawned a sequel and now a third chapter. This third outing of “Shrek” brings back all the characters we’ve come to adore in a story that is mostly enjoyable.

The first “Shrek” had the benefit of its originality. When Princess Fiona is singing to a bird in the forest and her high notes causes it to self-combust, that was a laugh riot! That film turned fairy tale clichés on its head and finally spoofed all the good-natured fun to be found in Disney movies with plenty of a adult humor. “Shrek the Third,” while it still has moments of pure hilarity, just has a slight “been there, done that” feel. It’s obvious that the filmmakers really had to concentrate on getting a decent story (there are nearly five writers) because the first two “Shrek” films didn’t necessarily require a third chapter. It’s obvious that this third film is here to make money and satisfy fans, and in those regards it’s bound to succeed.

At the end of the last film Princess Fiona (in ogre form) and the lovable “Shrek” are living the life of luxury in the kingdom of Far Far Away. Fiona’s parents the Queen and King are the rulers, but the King (in frog form) is dying (in a hilarious scene). As part of his last words, the King announces that there is an heir to the throne to be found in a man by the name of Arthur. Since Shrek doesn’t exactly find himself to be king material, (nor father material even though Fiona is preggers) he sets out with Donkey and Puss in Boots to find this Arthur and make him rightful King of Far Far Away. Of course the devious Prince Charming and all the other storybook villains have other plans in store.

First time director Chris Miller has made a technically brilliant computer animated film. Computer technology has come a long way since the first “Shrek” and it’s obvious. The characters definitely move more realistically, the camera moves are more fluid and the colors are simply beautiful. The details on the characters are amazing from the stubble on Prince Charming’s face to the way the animals’ hair moves realistically. And not surprisingly the talented cast pretty much steals the show. Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas, Rupert Everett are all in fine form.

The film has several riotous standout moments. The Gingerbread Man has a hilarious sequence in which is life flashes before his eyes. He has many funny memories such as being baked in the oven and being tortured by Lord Farquaad in the first film. Shrek finds Arthur, (Justin Timberlake) who happens to be a teenager in high school, in what has to be a highlight sequence. All the teens talk in a funny mix of Valley Girl talk and Renaissance vernacular. Common lines here are “Like, totally ew-eth.” Also new to the film are the squad of princesses, who must take down Charming’s raid of Far Far Away, including Amy Poehler as Snow White (who has a standout sequence with forest critters), Amy Sedaris as Cinderella, Cheri Oteri as a narcoleptic Sleeping Beauty, and Maya Rudolph as the scheming Rapunzel, complete with hair extensions. And there are about a gazillion other talented actors giving their voices that would take days to list.

I can’t help but think this third outing is just a padded, moneymaking product, but it’s an entertaining product. The characters that we all fell in love with are back and it’s a worthy summer movie. There are plenty of randomly funny sequences, but I think it’s time for Shrek to retire back to his smelly swamp. GRADE: B

Down With the Sickness: “28 Weeks Later” is an Infectiously Good Sequel

“28 Days Later” scared the crap out of me. I’m sure it scared the crap out of you. It was one of those great scary movies that come along every few years and just blow you away. Last year’s was the British import “The Descent.” Remind me not to go cave diving anytime soon. It seems nearly impossible to make a successful horror sequel from such an outstanding first start. (Does the God-awful “Blair Witch 2” ring a bell?) Bigger doesn’t automatically mean better, but “28 Weeks Later” is a gloriously entertaining follow-up that is every bit as intelligent and frightening as it’s predecessor.

Sometimes sequels with a clean slate of characters and crewmembers just don’t work. I’d love to say that’s why “The Birds II: Land’s End” wasn’t successful but that figuring out that mess could take 28 weeks time. I was worried that Jim, Selena and little Hannah weren’t around. By the end of the first film, you felt as if you were experiencing the horrifically disastrous apocalypse with them. And besides isn’t the cardinal rule to continue a horror sequel with the previous film’s survivors? Not in this case, but it turns out to be a good thing.

New director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo has made his film similarly to Danny Boyle’s without just ripping off his style (the film is also shot mostly on Digital Video). It feels as if Boyle could perhaps be behind the camera, but alas his only credit here is as executive producer. At least we don’t get an overwhelmingly dark and crazy third act, although I’d have to say the ending here is in the least…bleak. Our new characters consist of Don (The Full Monty’s Robert Carlyle) who escapes the intense precredit sequence without his wife, because the guy LEFT HER BEHIND. How fascinating to start a movie with a cowardly hero! Let’s thank the brave writers Rowan Joffe, Jesús Olmo and Fresnadillo.

After nearly 6 months, the infection (which consists of the “rage” virus that turns bitten humans into ravaging, blood-vomiting lunatics) that has nearly wiped out England has been abolished (And by abolished I mean it’s going to come back in the second act). Don is able to return to what’s left of society and is reunited with his children Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton). The United States Army is in charged of helping the Englanders’ reenter civilization. They are taking no chances and have severely guarded an enclosed area. The outside areas still have rotting corpses all over the place. Leave it to the US to help rebuild a society torn apart by malevolent forces (you see what I’m getting at here or what?) And as it turns out, Tammy and Andy’s mommy (Catherine McCormack) survived the opening sequence but she somehow carries the “rage” virus but doesn’t show any outward symptoms. Perhaps a cure is in order.

I think you can pretty much guess what happens next, so I won’t spoil the fun. If you’re willing to buy how the outbreak begins again then you’ll have lots of fun and you’re bound to jump out of your seat at least a few times. The characters here are just as interesting as the previous film’s and they’re likable including Army nurse Scarlet (Rose Byrne) and US soldier Doyle (Jeremy Renner). I guess the exception here would be jerk soldier Flynn played by Lost’s Harold Perrineau; just because he got off the island is no reason to be all cocky. Fresnadillo has presented some really suspenseful sequences including one that is seen nearly entirely through a night vision lens.

“28 Weeks Later” is a fully competent, enjoyable follow up to 2003’s fantastic “28 Days Later.” It has just as much suspense and surprise, and like all sequels it’s all pumped up. It’s certainly gorier, so the weak stomached might want to skip the big meal before seeing it. I’m not sure a third film could be made successfully (28 Months Later?) because that would just seem like overkill, but when smart sequels like this are produced who knows what number three could bring. GRADE: B+

A Bug’s Life: “Spiderman 3” is a Web of Summer Fun

Don’t be fooled by some of the critics’ lesser reviews of the third installment of the wildly popular Spiderman series. While I’d have to agree that you’re jaw won’t drop and you won’t be overwhelmed by feelings of awesomeness, my spidey sense tells me that if you enjoyed the first two films, there’s still plenty to love. Sam Raimi returns to the helm to add his trademark style of fun, humor and enjoyable action into this pumped-up, song-filled (kind of) tale of Peter Parker, his webslinging alter ego, and the love of his life Mary Jane Watson.

Raimi and his older brother Ivan have written this third script with help from “Spidey 2” scribe Alvin Sargent. Overall it’s a mixed bag. There is a lot to be excited about. A meteorite crashes down which unleashes a creepy, crawly black substance that will be important later on. We’re introduced to criminal-on-the-run Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) who just may be responsible for Peter’s uncle’s tragic murder. He falls into a government experiment and becomes the villainous CGI-centric Sandman, whose effects are startling to witness.

The Raimis also introduce several other characters. Topher Grace stars as freelance Daily Bugle photographer (read: Peter’s rival) Eddie Brock. He will turn into the villain Venom, which is one of the coolest villains to hit a Spiderman movie since Doc Ock. His semi-girlfriend is New York City Captain Stacy’s (James Cromwell) daughter Gwen (Bryce Dallas Howard, who I still haven’t forgiven for Lady in the Water, shudder). She has a slightly annoying perky quality that seems right at home in a Sam Raimi/comic book movie. Daddy Ron Howard must be proud. Sam Raimi regular Bruce Campbell turns in an amusing cameo as a French restaurant’s maître d’. All of these characters are basically as interesting as they need to be and nothing more.

And that’s okay, because those that have returned are in fine form as well. Toby Maguire is a great Peter Parker and he even makes a great superhero. At the film’s start his in-limbo friendship with Harry (James Franco) takes a turn for the worse when he begins behaving like his father’s (Willem Dafoe) psychotic Green Goblin character. Except Harry’s villain is much cooler, hipper and interesting. (IMDb refers to Harry’s alter ego as the “New Goblin” whether that’s accurate is beyond me) I enjoyed Harry’s character arc a lot more than I thought I would. But what audiences really want to know is how Peter and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) are doing. Peter wants to marry MJ but with the introduction of Gwen that’s highly unlikely. Jealous are we, MJ? There is some soapy love triangle stuff going on here, which will either bore you or be entertaining enough so that you won’t truly mind. And I’d be a horrible critic if I didn’t mention J.K. Simmons who shines and provides big laughs as always as the Daily Bugle’s editor-in-chief.

And not only does this new Spiderman adventure contain new villains but it contains singing, dancing and lots of crying. Apparently this is bad for some critics but I highly enjoyed it. MJ is in a Tony-award winning musical on Broadway and when Peter Parker becomes infected with a certain outer space black slime, it not only brings out his dark side, but his dancing side as well. If you thought the “Rain Drops Keep Falling on My Head” segment in Part 2 was corny, just wait till you see what is in store for you here. It seems odd and out of place, but it definitely goes with Peter’s new dark alter ego (complete with emo bangs and eye liner) and I welcomed it.

While most people will find something to complain about, (I guess technically Sandman’s story could be completely removed without any real loss, but his effects are awesome) you’re bound to enjoy some aspect of Spiderman’s third go round (such as anything having to due with Venom). It has a great mix of action and slow talky parts and yet you’ll probably never even notice that the film runs over two hours. It’s impossible to top the amazing second chapter, but this is definitely a worthy conclusion of the Spiderman trilogy. Of course, this franchise is bound to keep going and going, so enjoy these movies while they’re worth your time and money. GRADE: B+

NOTE: I heard that Bono is writing the music for Spiderman’s Broadway debut. Just a fun fact, do what you want with it.

And They Call It Puppy Love... The Terrific Fable “Year of the Dog” Has Bite

Where has Molly Shannon been lately? The last time she headlined a movie, it was the critically panned “Superstar.” She has since shown up in smaller supporting roles in movies like “Wet Hot American Summer,” “Talladega Nights” and even “Marie Antoinette.” How come this funny lady hasn’t had top billing since 1999? Who knows really, but “Year of the Dog” is a triumphant return. Here, she is funny and emotionally deep as a woman whose best friend is her dog. And then her dog dies.

As Peggy, Shannon imbues the awkward loneliness that was the central characteristic of her Mary Catherine Gallagher SNL character. Of course, here she is playing it for emotional depth, rather than broad comedy. This seems like a role written for her. She has restrained herself and she’s surprisingly capable of being extremely moving. Peggy loves her small dog Pencil. She lets him sleep in her bed with her and she even shares meals with him. She also has an office job at a company where she has a loyal female friendship with Layla (Regina King). King is terrific in this role as the off the wall friend, a supporting role that is usually played by Shannon.

One night poor little Pencil is sniffing around the yard and is tragically poisoned. Peggy is devastated, as is the audience, because her whole world is gone. She is at first consoled by her neighbor Al (John C. Reilly), and then suspects that perhaps he might have something to due with Pencil’s unfortunate demise. Eventually Peggy meets animal lover/vegan Newt (Peter Sarsgaard). A strong friendship builds between them and he insists that she adopt a new dog. Soon she pours herself into animal charity and animal rights activism. She promptly adopts a vegan lifestyle and begins a mission to help animals any way she can. Even when her new adopted dog (an abused German Shepherd) becomes aggressive with her, she refuses to just kick him out. She knows he’s just an animal and she still wants to care for him.

There are a few other people in Peggy’s lives: most notably her brother Pier (Thomas McCarthy) and his wife Bret (a perfect Laura Dern). They are your average suburban young power couple. They have a young daughter and a baby. Bret is the type of young mother who is at constant odds with her daughter’s school’s administration and feels movies like “Babe” are too powerfully emotional for young children, despite its G-rating. Peggy baby-sits for her niece one weekend, in which she promptly drags her to an animal sanctuary where farm animals have been saved from slaughter. Of course an attempt to visit an actual slaughterhouse doesn’t go over too well with the little tyke.

Wanting to take a youngin’ to the slaughter house is just one example of the dark nature of the film, which at times almost seems like Todd Solodnz directing “Erin Brockovich.” It’s funny that Peggy would take a 5-year-old girl to see cows get turned into hamburger meat, and while they never actually make it there, you can’t help but laugh at the absurd situation. Peggy soon goes from animal loving to animal crazy. Her transformation from dog lover to animal activist to animal rights absurdity is not to be missed.

All of Peggy’s actions are a direct result of her pet’s heartbreaking death. It’s through Pencil’s death that Peggy finds out what her meaning in life really is. It’s very unpredictable to figure out what bizarre action she’ll take next or how she’ll end up. We’re not sure if the film is going to follow Peggy and Newt into a blissful relationship and when we find out that’s not the case, we’re completely ready for the next step in the plot. The characters are richly defined and rooted in realistic human behavior. For instance, when Peggy brings in vegan cupcakes to her office, her co-workers quickly refuse the desserts as if they were made of cyanide.

First time feature director Mike White, who co-scripted last year’s odd Mexican fable “Nacho Libre” does a great job behind the camera (a camera which hardly moves; he let’s the actors do the work). His characters are quirky and interesting and he constructs a narrative of true human nature. His film will make you laugh and cry; it’s a fun fable that’s paws above the rest. GRADE: A-