I, too, have never heard of the Polar Express until the movie. But Ive also never seen Star Wars.

Ack!!!!!!!!!!!

Beeep!! Beeep!! Beeep!!!

EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!

Unit Alpha1 Deploy Transport!

Unit Alpha2 Deploy DVD!

Unit Bravo1 Deploy Popcorn!

Unit Charlie4 Deploy Lucas Gear, Solo autograph, and R2D2 Ice Cubes!

This is NOT a Drill!, I say again, This is Not a Drill!

This is a tragedy people!!

GO!! GO!! GO!!

Nope. Never heard of it.

Well I saw The Polar Expres last night. Just to warn all the parents out there..It may be just a little too early for this movie. My 5 yr old has gone Santa crazy now. She came right home..made a list..wants to go see Santa now..right now. It is all she can talk about. I think I am going to have to celebrate St. Nicholas day this year...which isn't a bad idea..kind of disappointing Americans don't.

The movie was really good tho..a great story. Animation is a little clunky at times but it was still cool to see something new.

I just finished watching A Home at the End of the World which was excellent. It is a bit cliche and tired, but the performances really make it work. There was a big hub-bub about Colin Farrell's nude scene being excised from the film (due to audience distraction), but the film is a very touching portrayal of a non-traditional family and the problems they have. Farrell gives an excellent performance, although kudos also to Erik Scott Smith for playing the teenage Bobby. Very impressive--it was one of the few times where I could actually believe the adult actor is the grown-up version of the young kid.

Robin Wright Penn and Dallas Roberts are also excellent as the other two in the threesome family. And Sissy Spacek is top-notch, pretty much stealing the movie whenever she's on screen (as all great actresses tend to do). The screenplay is a basic made-for-TV story, so what sets this apart is the haunted characters who have pasts, particularly Bobby. His need for acceptance, his desire to make others feel wanted is so well portrayed by both Smith and Farrell.

And lastly, they better release a director's cut of the film with Farrell's nude scene. After all, it WAS the reason I rented it. Hey, don't judge me!

Gotta give another big for THE INCREDIBLES!!

For all you ladies out there who want to see a feel-good movie over
the long holiday weekend, I highly recommend Bridget Jones:
The Edge of Reason.

It's not really a guy's sort of movie, though anyone would definitely
enjoy the humor of it!!

Here's a recommendation for Oliver Stone's Alexander, which has gotten lambasted by ... well, by pretty much everyone. I guess I'm in the minority on this one, which often happens, but I didn't expect to be left out by the professional critics as well. I feel so alone!

My "Alexander" review, courtesy of my keyboard:

------------------------------------------

Oliver Stone's "Alexander" has been on the receiving end of a great deal of controversy and slanderous criticisms. And to a very slight extent, the opinions condemning the film have merit. But in picking apart the film, piece by petty piece, these critics have unfairly tarnished what is otherwise an above-average epic, not quite reaching the heights of "Ben-Hur" but far superior to "Gladiator". All in all, Stone has created a beautiful-looking film with good performances, brutal war scenes, and some over-the-top Shakespearean melodrama.

Of course, it isn't hard to see why people are upset. "Alexander" does not focus on the man's conquests, but instead on his emotions, his drive, his reasons. It asks, "Why?" when moviegoers seem to want to know, "How?" Even the mainstream critics have trashed Stone's creation, which surprised even me. If anyone is to appreciate his work, it should be the pro-critics. One obvious clue should come from the title and its noticeably absent "the Great". Stone is not focusing on the legend, but on who the real man might have been. Taking that course, it is no surprise people are disappointed.

There are flaws, of course, as with every film. Primarily, the voiceover work by Anthony Hopkins is harshly detrimental, in filmic terms. Voiceover is considered some of the worst technique in storytelling, and "Alexander" is chock full of it (presumably because Stone has so much to say in so little time). Elements we want to see are instead told by Ptolemy (Hopkins) as we watch Alexander's army wander from battle to battle. There's a commonly-held philosophy in screenwriting: don't tell--show! Some of Ptolemy's monologues are decent and allow us further insight into the story, but some simply gloss over important elements of Alexander's life.

And it is far too drawn out. With only two major battle scenes, "Alexander" strives towards great drama instead of great action. And while Stone's battle scenes are brutally intense, they are often cut short or interrupted before any sort of climax. One jarring example comes during the first intense battle between hoardes of Persians and the Macedonians. Midway through, so it seems, the film cuts to Alexander parading in through the Persian empire, victorious. With so many scenes of Alexander's armies wandering around through deserts, you think he could have excised a couple to shorten the length.

But those flaws aside, "Alexander" is an absolutely stunning film to watch. It is pure eye candy in a way most films only wish they could be. Where movies nowadays revel in CGI to "create" a look, Oliver Stone uses old-fashioned camera tricks (filters, panoramas, etc.) to establish a visual palette that puts the recent (and similar) epic "Troy" to shame. This is a rare big-budget Hollywood sword-and-sandals film where the sets look like ancient buildings. Where the crowds of fighting extras are, for the most part, real people. Where the blood and brutality of battle is shown in graphic detail. In a crucial scene, Stone implements a pink (almost infrared) filter which provides for some of the most gorgeous images I've ever seen in a major motion picture.

Colin Farrell has his work cut out for him with the role of Alexander and succeeds quite admirably. He portrays Alexander as a conflicted man who becomes legend with his death. Angelina Jolie chews the scenery, complete with a strange Russian/Transylvanian accent. This is exactly the type of film Jolie's face was made for--and she excels here. Most impressively is Val Kilmer, giving a bravura performance as King Philip. This is Oscar-quality work from Kilmer, and if justice holds out, he should get a nod for supporting actor.

Oliver Stone has made an epic of grand sweeping vision about a man who arguably doesn't deserve it. He's pared off "the Great" legend and myth, strived to look at Alexander the man, whose impressive conquests overshadowed his flaws. In doing so, he'll find himself lambasted by almost everyone. People dislike thinking of their legends as problematic humans. And Stone's flair of over-the-top soap opera makes the film a likely target for cynical crabbies (and before I create the wrong picture, I am myself a cynical crabby). I find myself wondering why I appreciated the film as much as I did--my jaded side seems to have been beaten into submission.

In closing, "Alexander" is not a great film, but it is a very good one. It is a step up from "Troy" (which I also enjoyed), but it isn't the grand Best Picture of 2004 that I was anticipating. Once the dust settles and it is relegated to the video stores, people may come to recognize the good qualities of this truly epic film. When all is said and done, this is a solid 8 out of 10 on the IMDb rating scale. It could (and should) have been better, but it certainly isn't the disaster critics are talking about.

Add me to those who never heard of this until the film came along. And having seen the trailer, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in seeing so much as another frame of the thing. I can't stand Tom Hanks (and I understand he voices about a half a dozen characters), though I have tolerated his presence in one or two films. But I also detest Christmas movies, so this is a totally lethal combination for me.


I am right there with you, logo - though I would also recommend The Ref, probably the best Christmas movie ever made (it even has the obligatory "Christmas message" in a form that is not only appropriate, but also doesn't make you want to throw up). In addition, it's one of the funniest movies ever made regardless of the season.

Yes, it's hilarious! I saw it last year, per your recommendation.

Last night I saw a great movie called Being Julia . It stars Annette Bening,
who gives a superb performance as a "fading beauty." Jeremy Irons costars.

I'd give it an 8 1/2 on a scale of 1 to 10.

For those who like real historical movies, I highly recommend "Queen Margot" - this 1994 French epic is stunning. Made me so sorry I don't know French - had to divide my attention between events on the screen and subtitles. Superbly casted, this movie is a visual treat with amazing costumes and scenery - even though the events on the screen (St. Bartholomew's Night, etc.) are hardly pleasing to watch.

Sorry if I'm playing catch-up, but I caught The Incredibles last night and thought it was really really good.

For an ostensible kid's film, I thought there were some very grown-up themes and moments. (As distinct from "adult" which these days seems only to mean nudity and sexual references in filmic terms.)

The animation was mostly jaw-dropping and at times staggeringly good - they seem to have got hair, water and foliage off pat. Some scenes show a night-time coastline of an island, and I have to say that what I saw on the screen could easily have been live action photography. Indeed, dusk, twilight, and night are some of the things that traditional film-making has never been able to satisfactorily capture - film stock is either too grainy, or the lighting has to be too obvious. Our eyes adjust to the light, but the camera can't do the same. CG now seems able to simulate that.

More than most recent animation, this film creates the most believable and sympathetic cartoon characters I've seen come out of America - all the way through it's clear that story was the main driver, rather than some kind of show-off exercise.

Also I thought it was quite brave of Pixar to move away from being quite so jokey as they have been, allowing plot and character to hold the attention rather than relying on situation and sight-gags. After seeing this I wonder how long it will be before an entirely animated action movie comes along.

Animation has come a long way since Steamboat Willie, my friends and I agreed.

Last night I saw a Korean film called, A Tale of Two Sisters. Its was supposed to be a sort of psychological horror movie, and the over all story was pretty intriguing, but there were alot of confusing twists and things left unclear. And the same sort of cheesy ghosts that are in the Ring and the Grudge. Worth watching though, its about two sisters and their abusive step-mom.

I would highly recommend Finding Neverland starring Johnny Depp. Depp's performance in this movie was amazing and I won't be at all surprised if he gets an Oscar nod for it.

Great story and it'll make you fall in love with Peter Pan all over again.

I hardly ever go to the movies, so I can't comment on any recent releases, but I had to add my thumbs up to "The Ref" - funny movie! Also, another great "dysfunctional family" holiday movie is "Home for the Holidays" with Holly Hunter, Robert Downey Jr. and the amazing Anne Bancroft. I crack up every time I see it. Great fun for those whose families are exasperating, but loved nonetheless.

I just saw Sideways with Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church. It's about these two friends going up to the wine country a week before the Thomas Haden Church character gets married. The really great part about the movie is the contrast between the two characters and their methods for dealing with their mid-life crises. I would definitely recommend it, especially if you like wine.

Voices Of Iraq

Seen: Rent at Netflix or in select theaters

Web Page: http://www.voicesofiraq.com/

Joshua's Review: A 150 camera's were given to the people of Iraq, 400,000 hours of film were given back, directed and filmed by the people of Iraq. This form offers an interesting take on Iraq displaying both negative and positive sides of Iraq through the eyes of its people. The film also includes many interviews with top Sheiks and religiously leaders, as well as top ranking political figures.

The film was edit to show both sides. Both people who felt that life was best under Saddam, and others who feel the progressive movement of Democracy will come to the people of Iraq. The man concerns seem to stem from the lack of security, or police, in and around cities. Other concerns surround occupations, and self government.

I have read many critics of the film about the way in which it was edit and what has been shown. They fear that this film is not an accurate portrayal of Iraq or an accurate portrayal of the feelings of the Iraq people. Though they present no evidence to show such a claim, it does make one think about documentaries and the way people can manipulate film. The reviewers forget to mention the montage of torture tapes that were contained in Uday's private stash. The lack of comment on the numerous and brutal way in which Uday tortured and killed people makes me wonder if these same people who criticize the editing really could ever be shown something that will convince that the war might actually have done some good. I am under the impression that anyone against the war will view this film as an inaccurate portrayal of life in Iraq in 2004.

Despite the views on the war one may have, the world view now on Iraq is that we have this new country on the verge of democracy and we must insure its success. The insight of the documentary should help people to see the direction the country of Iraq needs to take:

1. secure its people
2. provide democracy
3. remove occupation
4. modernize sewer, water, and electrical systems

The main thing that is shown is the sense of hope for their country the Iraq people strongly display through out their film. This may stem from the letter that was sent with the cameras which read: "What is most important is that you have the person explain their greatest hopes and dreams for the future - for themselves and their people." Which sparked the debate and hopes for democracy.

Other Review: The producers of this groundbreaking documentary distributed 150 digital video cameras across Iraq to enable everyday people -- mothers, children, teachers, sheiks, even insurgents -- to voice their perspectives on issues such as war, terror and the democratic reform. The result is a unique tableau documenting Iraqis' lives and their hopes as they struggle with years of turmoil and strive to build a civil society. Note: Contains graphic content.

The Motorcycle Diaries -- excellent film. A road trip film (on an old motorcycle and then later on foot) beautiful filmed, and an engrossing story. I'd give this 4.75 out of 5 stars.

Kinsey -- Interesting film. I enjoyed learning some historical context surrounding the famousy Kinsey Reports. 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Maybe it has already been recommended-- But I just saw on DVD: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It is a really interesting film and think it was worth watching because it was original. In the movie, people are able to have portions of their memory erased. So, if you had a bad relationship-- you can just erase it. It was a neat exploration of this idea. Jim Carrey (out of character for him); Kate Winslett; Kirsten Dunst.

fixing quotes...

Shouldn't a Kinsey rating use six stars?

Tee Hee! But of course!

Had a video fest this weekend, and wanted to comment on some of them:

Supersize Me -- I'm really enjoying documentaries these days -- I remember a time when you really had to be into a particular subject to get any enjoyment out of one. This documentary was funny, disgusting and educational. I was glad to be a vegetarian after watching Morgan vomit up his supersize burger and fries. I also couldn't watch the stomach-stapling surgery either, but other than that found it to be very entertaining. One caveat: eat dinner a good 2 to 3 hours before watching this film if you have a weak stomach. 4.25 stars

Latter Days -- I really enjoyed this film about a young LA gay man who falls in love with a mormon missionary who lives in his apartment complex. There were some weak performances from a few of the actors, but I thought the story was rather touching. 3.75 stars

Lost in Translation -- I really loved this film the first time I saw it in the theatre -- but it, well, loses something in the translation to the small screen. At the theatre I felt emeshed in what was happening and the visuals of Tokyo. It's not quite the same on video, but I imagine that it would be better on a large screen tv.
Theatre version 4.5 stars; video/dvd version on small screen 4 stars.

Last weekend I sat down in front of the TV and scanned the channels. I came across a movie called The Storm of the Century. Thinking it looked interesting and that I could use an extended lunch break I sat down to watch it.

To my surprize it seemed to NEVER END!! Turned out It was a Steven King story that had been air originally as a mini-series, and this past weekend it was being run, beginning to end without any title breaks!!

Too late, I was hooked. So I sat and watched the entire thing. It was a wonderfully surreal horror movie with a fantastic surprize philosophical hook!

I lost an entire Saturday, but I made up for it with the pounds I gained by sitting on my rear and eating for hours on end.

Anyway, I recommend this "movie-series" to everyone (over the age of 13 or so) it was really a fun ride while it lasted, and lasted, and lasted.

I saw Hotel Rwanda, and it was incredible. I highly recommend it. Im sure most of you already know the plot, but to make this post a little longer:

Its about the genocide that happened in the mid-90s in Rwanda, and specifically about a hotel manager who sheltered the refugees in his hotel. Its interesting, because it seems the genocide happened because the people were apathetic. The Hutu army made it no secret what they were planning to do, but most people didnt believe it was going to happen...And then one day, it did. Even the main character, Paul, didnt really believe it in the beginning and was sort of upset that his hotel was being used a refugee camp. Its also interesting how sad the international response was to the whole crisis (I was pretty young when this happened, so I only vaguely remember it).

Over the past 6 weeks I've seen a ton of movies, most of which I've forgotten.
Some recent theater viewings include:

Racing Stripes: It's a movie about a zebra who thinks he's a horse, and
ends up racing against a bunch of horses. It was pretty lame. Don't waste
your money on this one.

Sideways: The actors were excellent, and the plot was interesting.
It's got some funny scenes, too.

Please don't mind if I hijack the topic for a moment. I don't make it out to the movies much anymore. I most recently saw Alien vs Predator which was a fun movie. I'm a sucker for subtitles, so thanks for the recommendations throughout this topic. If you don't mind subtitles, I'd like to suggest a few rentals that are worth watching:

Roberto Benigni's 'Johnny Stecchino' - Hilarious movie, have a beer or two - it's even funnier. Bananas have never been so hilarious.

'Princess Tam Tam' - Classic film starring Josephine Baker, whose enthusiasm and happiness is infectious. She sings like an angel.

'King of Hearts' - A clever film set during World War I - ironic, funny and memorable.




Cracked me up.



-Jessica

Hotel Rwanda, starring Don Cheadle. He is a magnificent actor.
I hope he gets the academy award for his performance in this movie.
I would highly recommend this film.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events was not worth seeing, Jim Carrey or not. While the scenes and landscapes were fascinating, the anachronistic features didn't work, and the evil Count character somehow missed the mark of being a good villain. This movie combined plots from several books in the series, and it didn't pull it off. What I thought would be a movie similar to The Addams Family was as dark, but it just wasn't that funny.

This isn't really current as in the theaters, but I just checked out Control Room as one of my Netflix rentals. Control Room is a documentary primarily focused on Al Jazeera from the beginning to the "mission accomplished" phase of the Iraq war. It also focuses on the journalists there in general and the military's relationship with them.

I'd highly recommend picking it up.

OK OK did anyone see Star Wars Episode III yet?

Yep! Sat in on the 12:45 a.m show on opening thursday--would have done the 10 a.m. but after a week of 12hr shifts I needed a 3 hour nap first.

Alright I am a Big Time Star Wars geek so I gotta dmit I was a little disapointed. A little more of the background could have been used--especially explaining how Obi Wan learns how to become part of the force.

Outside of that action action action
Non stop fighting--really fun to watch space battles and lightsaber battles out of the wazzoo. The Yoda/Emperor fight is freakin FANTASTIC. You would think it possible but it was just flat out fantastic.

This is a darker movie though--think Empire. While nothing is really very graphic some have voiced concern about whether small kids should go. I would take them as nothing is out and out VIOLENT that they already don't see on TV the violence really never passes Buffy the Vampire Slayer levels--you are not getting Saving Private Ryan kind of stuff. Even the part where Anakin catches fire after having his legs and arm cut off doesn't really get very graphic--its almost detached from view. You see it but it doesn't seem violent yeah hard to explain. when he catches fire it is more like watching an object catch fire--it really doesn't hit you in an emotional way.

I was hugely unhappy with the movie's end scenes--it seemed more to me as if Lucas just wanted it all done and just slapped the end scenes in. They are poorly done. The whole birth scene is rushed and the part where anakin becomes vader in the suit is cool but is then ruined with a rip off of the frankenstein "Its alive" scene. Also when he learns Amidala is dead there is this really lame reaction scene
that makes Vader seem more woody allen than dark lord.

Now Star Wars is over--except for the possibility of 2 television series--which i pray are on cable or they will be stupid in trying not to offend the cultural weinies and their "decency" standards.

No Star War? I have nothing to look forward to now.

Christopher,

You're right about the end scenes, although, I could appreciate the quick-cut interplay between the "birth" of Darth Vader and the birth of his kids. I also agree with you about Vader's reaction upon hearing of his wife's death.

The other thing that really bothered me about the movie was how easily Anakin accepted the death of Mace Windu, and turned himself over to the Emperor. All too easy, considering the discussion just moments prior between them about what to do with the Emperor.

One of the scenes that did get to me though was Obi-Wan bringing Luke to his aunt and uncle to raise. The shot of Owen standing on the ridge, looking at the double sunset was right out of "A New Hope", with Luke doing the same thing.

All in all, I think that George Lucas is a great storyteller, as far as ideas go, but that he should really leave the actual screenplay to someone else, like he did with "The Empire Strikes Back". The dialog is just plain wooden in many spots, and it seems that Lucas doesn't know what to do with actors that aren't engaged in an action sequence.

On the other hand, I enjoy a good space battle or light-saber fight as much as anyone, and this film certainly delivers on that score. And speaking of scores, I enjoyed John Williams work in this picture. Mostly very subtle, with hints of themes from all of the prior films, plus quite a bit of new material.

All in all (and with apologies to Roger Ebert), I give it a "thumbs up".

You're right about one other thing, Christopher - Star Wars is done, Star Trek is now shuttered and dark. Nothing new of a similar vein to either on the horizon that I've heard about. It's a shame. Old friends have moved on, and no one else has moved into the neighborhood. It's gotten kind of quiet around here.

I just rented Sideways and White Noise. I didn't like either of them. For the life of me, I don't understand why Sideways got all the attention it did at the Oscars. Boring IMO. White Noise started off good, but devolved and was a real disappointment.

I just rented the Aviator-- I hope it is good.

Any other suggestions????

I agree with you on Sideways. Outside of the scene involving the woman and the motorcycle helmet, the movie was a total bore.

My kids both saw Star Wars and liked it. I refuse to go. I'll watch it (maybe) when it comes out on DVD.

I'm renting "Team America" this weekend. It looks like the sort of warped comedy that I usually like.

Aviator - Excellent movie. Cate Blanchett was AMAZING as Kate Hepburn.

Sideways - I loved it (sorry Halleyanne). Funny but frustrating movie. Paul Giamatti got slighted in not at least getting a nomination for his performance, imo.

Team America - An acquired taste but I thought it was funny as heck. Completely irreverent, which I naturally love. Just bought the uncensored DVD to see what I missed.

Revenge of the Sith - Very nice close to the prequel trilogy. I look forward to the DVD so I can FF past the Padme and Anakin scenes.

I haven't seen the Revenge of the Sith yet, but I will on Saturday (we have a sitter). I've been disappointed with the Star Wars movies after the first two. Jar jar binks was the limit for me. I envisioned the character creaters thinking of potential toys to market in that movie, and it wasn't even subtle. I didn't see the next one in the series. Those movies are getting progressively weirder. I think of George Lucas as starting to take on some of the eccentricities of Howard Hughes. He's probably sitting in a room somewhere afraid of the germs.

One movie I rented this week that I really like is 'Phantom of the Opera'. I got it because Mr P is out of town for the week, and I don't think he'd like this movie. I've watched it three times in three days. I can't pinpoint what I find so intriguing about it. I'm not an Opera lover (never seen one), and I'm not a fan of musicals (usually hate them). This movie is basically all singing, all of the time, but it works for me. The theme of tortured, disfigured genius hiding in the shadows and obsessively in love gets to me, I guess. It is also visually stunning.

It's been awhile since I've been in a theater, but I must mention one
movie that I did see a few months ago: Million Dollar Baby.
It was hyped up so much that I went in expecting a decent plot
and some unforgettable performances. What a let-down! The movie
reminded me of another of Easwood's called Mystic River.
It started off okay, then took a nose-dive 1/2 way through.

Anyway, as far as rentals go, I saw One Hour Photo, with Robin Williams.
He played a very believable weirdo.

I cannot comment of the Star Wars movies, since the last one I saw
was The Empire Strikes Back, when I was around 8 or 9 years old.
(I agree with Mrs. P that the guy who's behind all the nonsense, George Lucas,
seems to have fallen off of his rocker.)

I must admit that most of my recent DVD rentals have been pretty disappointing as well, Hayleyanne. A couple of recent rentals that I did[/i enjoy, though, were [i]Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (sorry PE - I liked it in spite of Jim Carrey) and National Treasure, which most people hated, but that I thought was a bit of a hoot.

I also quite liked Kinsey, especially Liam Neeson as the man obsessed and Laura Linney as the (mostly) supportive partner, both of whom were brilliant, and The Woodsman, which will not be to everyone's taste as it deals with a very difficult and challenging subject (and a couple of scenes are pretty emotionally harrowing).

I happened to have seen The Woodsman recently. It is not a "feel-good"
movie, by any means. Kevin Bacon did quite an exceptional job of portraying
a pedophile. However, I am not sure what the message of the film was -
not all child molestors are "bad guys"?

Last night I view The Aviator. About 20 minutes in my husband fell asleep,
which I predicted would happen. I enjoyed the movie, though.
It's kind of a slow-moving, low-key film, but worth renting, I'd say.

Heh - I watched The Aviator last night, as well - and I wish I had fallen asleep. It's not the worst film I've ever seen by any means (and two of the flying sequences were good), but it's certainly the worst picture Martin Scorsese has ever made. And talk about revisionist! Hello - this is the same Howard Hughes we're talking about, isn't it? Howard Hughes the racist? Howard Hughes the anti-Semite? Howard Hughes the ridicluously promiscuous bisexual? Howard Hughes who abused numerous women? Howard Hughes the seriously deranged obsessive compulsive? Howard Hughes who, despite all the film's rationalization, was a war-profiteer? Noooo... this was Howard Hughes the intrepid American hero who triumphed over the Pan Am monopoly and produced immortal classics like The Outlaw, starring Jayne Mansfield's cleavage. Puh-lease. What next - a biopic about Hitler called The Artist?

The most interesting thing about Hughes - the fact that he was a barking loony - was almost glossed over. It was entirely written off as some glib Freudian quirk, making him look like a man with a soap fixation because his mother once told him he wasn't safe while giving him a bath (an incident that's referred to about every five frames). The film had the psychological depth of a Geico ad.

Worst of all, though, is Cate Blanchett in what has to be one of the most embarrassing performances in cinema history - and she got an Oscar for it! WHAT the hell were people going on about? This is not even an impersonation of Katherine Hepburn (as some critics characterized it), it is a caricature of a bad drag artist doing Katherine Hepburn as Tracy Lord in The Philadelphia Story. And, I'm sorry, if you're going to "recreate" famous people who are immortalized at one's local Blockbuster, you should at least try to aim at a physical resemblance. Apart from her accent, the most distinctive feature of Katherine Hepburn (before Parkinson's set in) was her thin Aquiline nose. You do not cast someone with a schnozz like a potato unless their peformance is going to brilliantly make up for it in some other way. Instead, we had Cate Blanchett in what looks like a performance that was mailed in. Dorothy Parker once described Hepburn herself as "running the gamut of emotion from A to B". Blanchett didn't even make it to the alphabet. Kate Beckinsale was far, far, far better as Ava Gardner in this flick - at least she got emote a bit and throw herself around once in a while. And she has the single moment in the film with a wee small spark of humanity in it.

To be fair, Blanchett isn't quite as bad as either Gwen Stefani or Jude Law in their actor impersonations (Jean Harlow and Errol Flynn, respectively - I think), but they're each in the thing for about thirty-seven seconds, so the fact that they're both just awful doesn't really get a chance to sink in.

John C. Reilly is quite good as Hughes' accountant, though he has little to do but periodically fret. Alec Baldwin isn't bad as an evil corporate stereotype and Alan Alda is okay as a corrupt Senator stereotype, but neither is ever able to rise above the heavy-handed painting of their characters. I'm surprised Scorsese didn't have them wearing black hats and twirling moustaches. Leonardo DiCaprio is also relatively okay considering that he's in almost every shot of the movie, but I never really thought of Howard Hughes as sounding like a boy soprano or looking like an adolescent with a progressive aging disease. And his capturing of Hughes' mania consisted of little more than a series of twitches, blinks, and a bit of writhing about on the floor. Mel Brooks was more convincing in High Anxiety.

One thing I almost appreciated was the fact that the cinematography avoided saturating every shot with amber light and the sepia tinting that has become the hallmark of most recent films trying to convince the audience that they're period pieces. Instead, the color yellow is almost absent - even greens are bleached from most shots. So we end up with a picture that is predominantly blues and reds (or cyans and pinks), making it feel like one is watching one of those old 3-D movies without the glasses.

Unless there's nothing else you'd be remotely interested in watching - and have three hours to throw away on absolute fiction pretending to be "historical" - I'd give this thing a miss.

Not having seen either this or Million Dollar Baby at the time of the Oscars, I was a bit disappointed that Scorsese's film lost out to Eastwood's - the latter, after all, has already received many accolades. Having now seen The Aviator, I'm flabbergasted it was nominated at all.

LMAO When you put it that way, I'd have to agree. I knew nothing
about Howard Hughes (except that he and I share the same b-day, and similar
phobias ) before I saw this film. They do paint him out to be a sort of
under-dog hero.



Yeah. In that final scene, I was saying to myself, "All right, already.
I get that mommy caused the complex!"



Well, all's I'm gonna say is Million Dollar Baby got some awards and it SUCKED!



He's great in everything he does.



As long as we are going to disect the entire movie, I've gotta say that I was
curious if the Juan character (owner of PanAm) was originally a hispanic.



Leonardo is just okay, as usual.


Your critique has been more entertaining than the movie, that's for sure!

Million Dollar Baby was easily one of 2004's best films. I thought all the build-up would ensure a disappointment, but I was wrong. Hilary Swank deserved her Oscar, for giving a ballsy and complete performance. The cinematography was astonishing, revelling in shadow like few films I've ever seen. The script was well-written, with good use of dialogue and character development. It takes a bit to get into, since it's a very bare bones film. There are no visual effects, no extraneous plot lines, just simple, effective storytelling. Kudos to Eastwood! Definitely deserved his directing Oscar for this one. **** (Four out of four stars)

House of Flying Daggers was another one of 2004's great films and, in my opinion, one of the best looking films ever made. Zhang Yimou's "Hero" was just a warm-up for "Daggers", which is far more enjoyable (it doesn't focus as much on politics as "Hero" did). The acting is good, especially from Ziyi Zhang, who is easily becoming one of my favorite actresses.

Unfortunately, if you don't understand Mandarin, you will have to take your eyes off the screen to read the subtitles. And this is only negative because the cinematography by Xiaoding Zhao is truly astonishing. It is a feast for the eyes, with gorgeously saturated colors and good use of movement. The most spectacular scenes occur amidst a forest of bamboo trees, with a strikingly surreal green which compliments the luxurious costume design. How this film lost out to "The Aviator" at the Oscars for cinematography is anybody's guess. Did the Academy just not watch this film?! **** (Four out of four stars)

On the other hand, Blade Trinity is a horrible, disgraceful film which ruins an otherwise decent series. Both "Blade" and "Blade II" stuck to their comic book origins, making for good, intelligent entertainment. "Blade Trinity" is David S. Goyer's directorial debut, and it shows. The decision to hire hack actor Ryan Reynolds is just one of many poor choices on Goyer's part. Mid-way through the film, I was just hoping for it to end. Unlike its two predecessors, it isn't scary, creative, or enjoyable. It is boring, cliched, and embarrassing. Don't waste your time on this dud. *1/2 (One-and-a-half out of four stars)

I'm a big fan of Zhang Yimou, and I agree that House of Flying Daggers was beautiful, and the sound design was excellent!

If you haven't seen any of his older films like Raise the Red Lantern, Ju Dou, The Story of Qiu Ju and To Live, I highly recommend that you do. They're not in the same genre as Daggers or Hero, but they're all very moving.

I wish I had read your review before I wasted my $2.50 renting "Blade: Trinity," FargoUT. It was a bad, bad, bad movie.

I loved the first two installments, but the third time the well ran dry. Wesley Snipes sleepwalks through his part and seemed as bored as I was watching this crap. Ryan Reynolds is poison. The dude just cannot act and Goyer's leaden touch as a director means he should stick to screenwriting and comic books. Much as "The Matrix Revolutions" killed that movie franchise, you can stick a fork in the hope of any more "Blade" flicks after this misfire.

Far more enjoyable were two documentaries I recently watched, "Outfoxed" and "The Corporation." "Outfoxed" is a pretty lopsided, but enjoyable slam at Rupert Murdoch's FOX News and rips into Bill O'Reilly quite well. "The Corporation" is a very serious and well done look into how corporations have gathered so much power. It is very entertaining, but lags a bit due to overlength and some slack pacing. It could have been edited into a really excellent documentary, but I'd give it three stars or thumbs up or whatever.

Now I'm going to see "Crash" this week while all the zombies are going back for their third, fourth and fifth helping of "Revenge of the Sith."

To Live is still probably my favorite Yimou film. I still get chills when I watch the army come charging down the mountain. I think it's his most successful film to date, mostly because it balances the emotional side with the story (House of Flying Daggers was more emotion driven while Hero was more story driven).

I just watched Assault on Precinct 13. It was to be honest pretty bad. It was entirely illogical. The reaction of the people trapped inside the building, the police entry tactics just all of it. The acting was wooden and you wanted most of the characters to just die. It's as if they intentionally attempted to make a B-movie where people make impulsive and unplanned decisions and the villians are constantly in plain site but are not in danger despite the scope on several of the rifles. It is the most illogical movie I have ever watched in my entire life. I almost suspect it was intentionally shot in this way to maybe pay homage to the low budget origina to I guess honor the original B-Movie by making another B movie?

Anyway by far the worst movie I have watched of late and I recently watched the Chronicles of Riddick.

The Aviator was just okay. I thought Dicaprio did a fine job of capturing Scorcese's Hughes (not the real Hughes of course).

An entertaining movie I recently watched despite its holes and cheesiness was National Treasure. I generally hate Nic Cage especially in action roles but this was an intentionally light and playful movie. I avoided it suspecting that it was going to be horrible but I thought It was moderately enjoyable and I do not regret watching it. Nic Cage dating Diane Kruger though? Not believable but it is still an okay movie.

I few weeks ago I saw Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room. Its a documentary about...Enron, and it's quite interesting. It gave a thorough explanation of what happened and why the corporation collapsed. It left me a bit chilled at how many other companies do this, and angry that it happened in the first place. I would recommend it, if anyone's interested in that sort of thing. It's based off a book by the same name.

Man On Fire, with Denzel Washington. It's a winner with the guys.
How do I know? My husband stayed awake through the whole movie.

Denzel is brilliant, as usual. I'd give it a 4 out of 5 stars.

***warning - the movie is violent.

I watched that on pay-per-view the other day, and I was really impressed too.

My recent cinema visits have been:

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy The effects were satisfactory, the acting was reasonable, the overall effect pleasing. However, I can't help feeling a little underwhelmed. It's next to impossible to have been British, much older than ten or 11 in 1980, and to have a vaguely off-the-wall sense of humour and to have escaped reading, listening to or watching the Hitchhiker's at least twice. So the story on the big screen, while it certainly did the material justice, was just over-familiar to me. I'm pleased that it got made, and that it did well at the box office, because the sequels haven't had the same kind of attention here, especially the later ones. But in and of itself, I'm only giving three stars because it did what it was supposed to and nothing more.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith I'd heard and read mixed reviews of this one. Mostly, people were negative about a lack of focus, wooden acting, poor dialog and character development, overwhelming special effects, and basically most of the same things that have been said to some degree about all the Star Wars prequels. A few people said that Anakin's turning to the Dark Side (he said, freeing the inner geek) was almost instantaneous and deeply unconvincing.
So I watched with low expectations, which is never a bad way to watch a movie.
And I wondered if the naysayers had seen the same film as me. I thought it was really rather good. It was certainly comparable to any of the opening trilogy, IMO (which were all child-centred bubblegum cinema, postmodernist nostalgia notwithstanding). I really liked the whole dark and brooding atmosphere, the sense of inevitable doom. It was like a old Greek tragedy - hubris calling down dark fate. Rather satisfying, I thought. On the downside, the dialog was still stilted (my friends I I ran a sweepstake to guess how soon someone would say "I've got a bad feeling about this" and "we've got company"), but anyone who's ever seen ANY George Lucas movie knows he can't write dialog if his life depends on it - so why it's a surprise to anyone mystifies me. Overall, I'd give this four stars.

Sin City
I saw this one yesterday. Kudos from the very start for having a "Special Guest Director" at all, let alone having it be Quentin Tarantino. I really enjoyed this from start to finish. If you haven't seen it, it's based on the Sin City graphic novels (i.e. comic books) written by co-director Frank Miller, and the narrative takes the form of loosely interwoven but separate character-driven stories set in a criminal netherworld. The narrative tone is similar to, but darker than, Pulp Fiction. Stylistically it's like nothing I've ever really seen before, on a screen at least.
But the stories are compelling enough (cheers Frank!) for the stylistic quirks and flourishes to be in the background, where they belong. Some great performances for the cast, too, notably Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke (who's wilderness years must surely now be over). And Clive Owen was great. He was once touted as the next Bond, and was widely perceived to have blown it in the flop that was King Arthur because he didn't really threaten. Well, I defy anyone to see him in Sin City and say the same now.
I'd say Lucas could learn a lot about directing actors in a green-screen studio from this movie, and I'd give it seven and a half stars (out of five )

As an aside, the trailers for Batman Begins, War of the Worlds and Unleashed make me look forward to some more great summer movies this year.

The wife and I saw Crash this evening.

It was very, very good. The ensemble cast includes Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Thandie Newton, Brendan Fraser, Matt Dillion, Larenz Tate, Chris "Ludacris" Bridges and several other familiar if not necessarily well-known actors. Simply put, the film is about race relations in Los Angeles and the way everybody hates or distrusts everyone else that isn't part of their racial group.

There are several moments in the film that make you literally jump in your seat and the language is raw, but honest. It makes you think not only of the bigotry and stereotyping of the characters, but your own as well.

We gave it two thumbs up. It's probably the last movie that will make us think during the rest of the summer. I have passes for Batman Begins next week so we're going to take the kids and check it out.

Julian, I share your appreciation for "Sin City." It is off-the-chain! Easily the best time I've had at the movies this year. It is the BEST adaptation of a comic book. Period. It makes no compromises from the orignial material and doesn't try to rewrite them or dumb it down for mass consumption. Robert Rodriguez lovingly pays respect to Frank Miller's vision and put it up on the screen in all its scarlet glory.

But this ain't for the kiddies or the weak of stomach. It is a HARD "R" and the violence makes "Kill Bill" look like a cartoon.

And Carla Gugino is fab-u-lous!