Last night I went and did something I thought would be impossible in my lifetime.

I went a saw a good Batman movie in a theater.

What makes it all the better is that I had been pretty pessimistic about the Summer's season.

What with the remakes, the remaks of remakes, and the remakes of movies about books that have been scheduled lately I was pretty sure that originality was dead.

Well if it is it had one more death throe left in it because Batman Begins was good.

Not "jump out of your seat and hug you neighbor good", but certainly a "smile and nod" good.

It clearly didn't have the tremendous budget of the latest Spiderman films and the actors won't be up for any oscars but it more than made up for that with an actually intricate story.

Add a decent sprinkling of humor( and Morgan Freeman in a Batman movie, who saw that coming?)...

and it's well worth seeing.

Two pointy bat-ears up!

I saw Beautiful Boxer last night, and it was excellent. It's based on a true story about a Thai kickboxer who used his winnings to be buy a sex change. It's a fascinating movie, and Thai kickboxing is just really cool. And now this guy is a woman working as a model/actress in Bangkok. I would highly recommend this.

for Mr. and Mrs. Smith, one of the most enjoyable times I've had at the movies in a long time. Of course, I could be a bit biased, considering I view Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as the two hottest actors in Hollywood. Still, the previews were a bit misleading, leading me to believe it was going to be another junky summer flick. Instead, I got a laugh-out-loud funny action film, dealing with the seriousness of dishonesty and trust in marriages.

Think of this one as War of the Roses meets True Lies. While not as dark as the former, it isn't as bombastic as the latter. Jolie and Pitt play the titular characters who are in a loveless, boring marriage. The film actually takes its time, setting up these two before showing us what their jobs are: professional assassins. Five or six years into the marriage, these two finally discover their partner's secret identity, thanks to both being hired to kill the same mark.

Director Doug Liman handles the action effectively, just as he did in the excellent The Bourne Identity. What's mostly surprising is how darkly funny a lot of this stuff is--my favorite image is of Pitt kicking Jolie in the ribs as she lay on the floor. These two use violence as foreplay, and it is brutal (thought, sadly, not R-rated extreme--thanks for nothing, 20th Century Fox!). Watching both battle like the professionals they are is exciting, but I didn't really expect it to be quite as funny as it is. Even more surprising is the amount of honest emotion on display--when the two Smiths find each other falling in love again, it gives added weight to the farcical story.

If there is only one misstep, it's the lack of a true villain. While the Smiths fight each other, the film is in high gear, whizzing past us and taking us for a spin. But, inevitably it would seem, they team up to combat the teams of enemies who are there to eliminate both. The film ends without a satisfying conclusion, providing the film with its only truly disappointing aspect. That being said, a good time at the theaters is almost a guarantee with this dark slapstick film. ***1/2 (3 1/2 out of 4 stars)

I finally saw Crash last night. I wish I had seen it a month ago - as this would now have been my second or third viewing of it. This is definitely the best film of 2005 so far and I'd agree with nighttimer that it's probably the last picture that will make one think for the rest of the summer - if not the rest of the year. That doesn't mean it's cerebral - just that it's powerful, incisive entertainment.

The film touches on a number of social issues, but the central theme is race and racism - and how it permeates every level of our society, sometimes overt and confrontational, sometimes dormant until triggered. Crash follows a dozen or more characters through the course of two days in Los Angeles as their paths cross, merge, and collide. Some have criticized the film for the implausible contrivances of the plot. It has also been criticized for being manipulative, and/or melodramatic - and it is all of these things. So is grand opera. So is Greek tragedy. And, to me, Crash was much more along the lines of such heightened, almost allegorical, forms than, say, the natural realism of your typical coincidence-free soap opera.

The film is stunningly shot and edited, well-paced, and gripping throughout. And the cast is superb. I was particularly impressed by Don Cheadle (as usual), Matt Dillon, Terrence Howard, Thandie Newton, Michael Pena, and Sandra Bullock (convincingly playing against type). As in life, it's difficult to get a bead on any of the characters. Just when you think you "know" a character and can predict their behavior, something happens to thwart your expectations - in ways that are variously shocking, moving, disappointing, and exhilarating.

As it happens, I also saw Alan Parker's 1988 film, Mississippi Burning, the other night. Inspired by real events, the film is about two FBI agents (Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe) investigating the disappearance of a couple of civil rights workers in 1964. As this film was set during my lifetime, I was impressed not so much by how much things have changed in the past forty years, but by how much they haven't - and Crash just drove this point home.

I would recommend both films to anyone participating in the Affirmative Action thread.

I recommend a little-known flick: Stage Beauty. Set in early post-Restoration London, it tells the tale of a famous actor feted for his portrayals of women on the stage. At that time, women were not allowed to act, so men had to play their parts, and this man was the greatest of them all, adored by the masses for his masterfully romantic portrayals of women. The movie opens with his rendition of Desdemona's death in Othello. It is graceful, it is romantic, it is ethereal. But then Charles II changes the rules: not only may women play female roles, but men are forbidden to do so. In a stroke, the protagonist plunges from the heights of society to the pit of utter failure. Meanwhile, his lowly dresser has ascended to the stage and is now receiving the adulation for playing Desdemona that was once his. Yet the dresser secretly loves the protagonist, and tries her best to help him. The resolution of the tale comes in an absolutely shattering rendition of Desdemona's death scene, with the dresser playing Desdemona and the protagonist playing Othello. They play the scene unlike anybody has ever played it before, they play it with passion and integrity, and it absolutely blows away the audience (in the play) as well as the movie viewer. The shock and power of that scene, and its symbolic contrast with the opening scene, that alone is worth the price of admission. It will go down in my book as one of The Great Moments in Cinema.

I saw "The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill" the other day and quite enjoyed it. What a lovely little movie. It's a documentary that doesn't villify anyone. I loved it.

I saw Batman Begins a few days ago and I must say...it is one of the best films i have seen in a while. Believe all the hype!

To give a little background...i am an avid Batman fan. I think he is the best of all comic-book superheroes and i am one of those fanboys that think that Batman is so smart that he can overcome any situation. So going into this flick i had my skepticism...but by God did they get it right.

**Possible Spoilers**

Batman Begins is a film based on a comic-book...not a comic-book movie. What this means basically is that you can have no knowledge of Batman or the comics to appreciate it. I would assume thought that most people know the backstory of Bruce Wayne. His parents murdered, a city rampant with crime (they should have elected Giuliani ), the only way for the young bruce to honor the memory of his parents is to fight the forces of evil...so he dawns the cap and uses the symbo of a bat.

In this movie...everything about bruce wayne's transformation is explained and there are a lot of changes from the comic origin that give it a more realistic feel. I will try my best to avoid spoilers but many elements are very important. This Batman film is character and story driven. Its about one central emotion...fear. Bruce must learn to not only overcome his fear but use it to fight crime and make the criminals the ones who are afraid. In the movie we see Bruce's metamorphisis from a scared boy, to a vengeful teenager, to a man lost, to a ninja under Ra's Al Ghul, to finally the Dark Knight.

The plot is excellent, giving us a realistic view of a comic book legend. The setting is Gotham City, a place where crime and corruption runs rampant and where there is little hope for saving. Gotham is no longer the huge Gothic metropolis as it was in previous films. It is a more realistic type city with huge skyscrapers and huge rail system. The action is very quick. Instead of drawn out martial arts scenes of Batman taking on numerous foes. Batman does what he SHOULD be doing. Picking off bad guys one by one. You think that you are watching an Alien movie instead of Batman.

The acting is amazing...which is a no-brainer given the cast. Christian Bale IS Bruce Wayne. He plays the part of a millionare playboy to a T. His voice as Batman is very creepy yet very appropriate to strike fear into the hearts of criminals. Michael Caine is a wonderful Alfred (running out of adjectives here). He plays a small yet vital role as Bruce Wayne's caretaker. Morgan Freeman plays Lucius Fox...Bruce's "Q" as many call him. He is the man at Wayne Enterprises that provides Bruce with all of the gadgets Batman needs to fight crime. The suit, the batmobile, grappling hook...all explained. Katie Holmes' role is also small but i thought very effective. She is a Gotham DA who is uncorruptable and one of those idealists. Other notables are Liem Niessen, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe and Cilian Murphy.

All in all...there is so much i want to write...but the fact is that this is a Batman fanatic telling you to go see this movie. Its better than any other comic book movie that has yet to come out and hopefully it is the beginning of a trilogy. The end left open an awesome sequel...but to find that out you'll have to go see it! So Go!

Batman Begins

****1/2

I'd agree with both Leder and Turnea about Batman Begins which I saw this past Sunday.

This thing actually had a plot and it wasn't cartoony. Now if they could go ahead and un-make the other three and start over using this as a basis we might actually have some good movies on our hands.

It certainly wasn't the best movie I've seen all year but as far as the Batman movies go, the best by far.

I totally agree with you Cube Jockey and Turnea and leder as well. Christian Bale makes a mighty fine Batman and Bruce Wayne. I'm sorry, but I never could buy Michael Keaton as a playboy.

One gripe. When little Brucie Wayne and his parents leave the opera why did they go out through the BACK door? That alleythey stepped into looked like it was located in the Seventh Circle of Dante's Inferno.

A critic I know enjoyed the movie too, but he was probably right in saying that like Revenge of the Sith all Batman Begins had to do to be successful was not to suck as much as the last few installments. Mission accomplished!

And Wertz, if Matt Dillion doesn't get a Best Supporting Actor nod for his performance in Crash, I'll know the fix is in. He was superb in a tough and mostly unsympathetic role.

Yep. Matt Dillon is a very talented actor, who is underrated, in my opinion.
One of my favorite comedies was Something About Mary - he was so great
in that movie.

I did see Crash, and I found it to be a powerful film. It was over
the top, yet it seemed to work out okay for all intents and purposes. I would
recommend it to anyone who is thinking about relocating to Los Angeles.

Here's one that I bet nobody here has seen (since it just premiered last night in Los Angeles). It's a documentary called 16R (One Six Right), and you can view the trailer of this wonderful movie here. It's all about the busiest general aviation airport in the US and probably the world - Van Nuys airport. For people who love flying, this is a must see. For those who don't but wish to understand those of us who do hold the passion, check it out.

I saw Batman Begins over the weekend. Hand out the Oscars--there will not be a better film all year. Okay, forgive my hyperbole. I went in with high expectations for a great superhero film, but came out with an immediate desire to see it again. It isn't just a superhero movie. It's an intensely emotional psychological drama which happens to feature a superhero. It's probably the most emotional film I've seen since Tom Tykwer's The Princess and the Warrior. Christian Bale should get a Best Actor nomination, and kudos to Christopher Nolan's sure-fire direction. I don't want to say anything more, other than every adult should see this amazing motion picture. It will make you think even Spiderman 2 is child's play. Please be warned: this is not a children's film. I almost wonder if it should have been rated R just to get a particular audience.

Batman Begins: **** (Four out of Four Stars)

I also saw George A. Romero's Land of the Dead. Very good, the best zombie movie since Romero's own Day of the Dead (20 years ago!). It reminds you why Romero is such a talented director--he doesn't just make a zombie film. He makes a satire of modern-day culture filled with zombies. In this instance, Romero tackles our nation's strange desire to live oblivious to the horrors outside our borders. While it isn't a great film (it could have driven its points with more subtlety than it does), it is still far superior to the Dawn of the Dead remake or any of the Resident Evil movies. Please be warned: this is NOT A CHILDREN'S FILM! Graphic zombie gore galore. Nobody does zombie violence like Romero. It's complete with zombie feastings, headshots, mutilations, disembowelings, etc.

George A. Romero's Land of the Dead: *** (Three out of Four Stars)

*edited for grammatical corrections*

Steven Spielberg's latest blockbuster War of the Worlds begins with some awkwardly-written family moments between Tom Cruise and his two children (played by some nobody and Dakota Fanning). Then, the sky darkens and swirls, lightning starts striking, and alien spaceships in the form of tripods crawl out of the ground. The tension mounts as dumb New Jersey residents gawk at these threatening machines. Spielberg continues to tighten the screws and force us to shrink in our chairs for another hour or so into the film. At some points, I could feel myself quaking with anxiety and suspense.

And then, it falls apart in a blazing display of poor writing, editing, direction, and hamfisted maudlin manipulation. I should have seen the signs--such as, "Why do video cameras still work after the lightning storm knocks out all other electrical equipment?"--but I was naive and expected better from Spielberg. Once Tim Robbins enters the picture, you might as well get up and walk out. The story consists of Cruise and his children running around for the entire length of the film. No amount of good acting from Cruise or Fanning could salvage this trainwreck of a finale.

If that isn't bad enough, there are two surprise twists towards the end which are so absurd, you could feel the collective sighs of disbelief from the audience. Spielberg is a master of his craft, and the technical prowess is awesome (despite some obvious visual effects). It might be possible to view several metaphors that the film was trying to achieve, but its main story is such a dud, nobody will want to think about this one on the way home. I did, and it just made me angry.

Skip this one--go see "Batman Begins" or "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" instead.

War of the Worlds: ** (Two out of Four Stars)

*edited for some grammatical mistakes--there may be more*

I just saw this tonight with my better half and I was rather impressed.

!!!SPOILERS!!!

THE ARRIVAL: I didn't like the concept of fighting machines buried under ground. I thought that was just ridiculous, especially when Ogilvy made the comment that they'd probably been here for a million years. That was just stupid. Why would the Martians wait a million years before attacking? In the book they only attack because they have no where else to go... it seemed like a very long stretch that they were attacking after a million years.

THE FIGHTING MACHINES: On the other hand, the fighting machines were fantastic. Simply adorable I was 'gratified' to see they actually resembled some of my own earlier sketches and I bet the concept artist (I am SO buying any 'art of' book that follows this movie!!!) used the idea of a heart as a basis for his design. The mass of tentacles and the suppleness of the machines legs only strengthen the organic feel to the machines and I fully approved of them. Just as in the book, its the fighting machines that steal the show!

THE HEAT RAY: Ahh... I liked the way it was used, but I didn't like the idea. Molecular disintegration just isn't as 'cool' as a beam of pure heat.

THE MARTIANS: Totally horrible. They were nothing as alien like as the originals and they looked (to me at least) as if they were straight out of the film ID4. Given the amount of references to the first US War of the Worlds film, I wondered if perhaps Spielberg was giving the ID4 guys a salute?
What ever he was thinking, they sucked.

THE STORY: Was more like a remake of the 1953 film by Byron Haskin than an adaptation of the original book and I for one was happy that Speilberg didn't add HG Wells name to the title since this was simply not his story at all.

THE SPIELBERG STYLE: One of the most annoying things about mainstream American cinema is the tyranny of family values that is present in film after film after and Spielberg is the worst offender. It doesn't seem to matter whether its an island of dinosaurs or a poltergeist or a giant shark or aliens bent on destroying the world, time after time, Spielberg brings in the same old emotional porno formular.
How do you make the audience cringe? ...threaten a kid.
Literally half of this film is about the relationship between Ray Ferrier (Cruise) and his simply annoying children and (in my not so humble opinion) it detracts from the story.

THE ENDING: Was poorly done. Like so many films of late, the ending seemed rushed. Perhaps this is the formular of film making today or perhaps its just a lack of story telling skills in contemporay directors, I don't know, but I found the final scenes with the fighting machine and the soldiers to be very rushed and poorly done.

On the whole... 4/5 but thats only because I loved the fighting machines so much

I think its time for another take on War of the Worlds by Steven Speilberg. I can't really argue some of the points made by moif and FargoUT...but ill try to put a better spin on it.

Look...most people will criticize this film just because they do not see it as "Speilberg-esque". That it didn't have the same magic as his other films (ET, Close Encounters, JP). But i look at this movie and say...i was just entertained. This movie was worth my $10 and its worth it for anyone else as well.

**SPOILERS**
First...what i liked. I liked Tom Cruise's character a lot. He starts of as the deadbeat dad...and a real prick at that. But as the movie goes on...and events unfold...he changes. He is no longer this father who ust wants to get rid of his kids. He realizes that he is their only chnace at survival and he will do anything possible to ensure their lives and safety. He would run people over in the mini-van and was willing to kill. The relationship between the father and daughter was well done. The relationship between the father and son wasn't as good. It seemed like Robbie was just an angry kid. I think his reaction (revenge) is pretty normal for people in that situation. He doesnt want to run...he wants to fight. His father on the other hand doesnt have that luxury as he must take care of his daughter.

The tripods were awesome. I was legitimately scared of these behemoths. And the booming sound these things gave off was incredible. In fact the sound throughout the movie was just top notch.

I also liked that the film stayed with Cruise and his kids throughout. No president in a situation room planning out attack and no military heroes who crash a plane into the crafts. We follow Cruise and his journey only.

Many people didn't like the extended time in the basements. But i think to myself...if this ever happened...the basement would be the first place i go. It makes sense in context to the whole film. At one time the human race was living on top in peace...but now these alien beings have driven the all-powerful humans into wet and damaged basements in fear.

The best scene of the movie was definately the entire ferry scene. This is the Speilberg we know.

What i didn't like was as previously mentioned. The family twists was just downright ridiculous and the entire theater just sat back and said "yea right." But the way the aliens were defeated was how the book ended so even if it seems stupid...its how it should be.

All in all...a fine movie in my opinion. Definately better than a lot of the films put out by Hollywood. Go see it...its worth it.

War of the Worlds

***1/2

*SPOILERS*

Lederuvdapac, I honestly wanted to like War of the Worlds. I've been a big fan of Spielberg since I first saw "E.T.", but this movie is just dull. The first hour or so is intense and riveting, although it took an enormous leap on my part to suspend my disbelief. Since this takes place in modern-day America, I looked at it from a realistic perspective. Roger Ebert nailed it when he asked questions such as, "Why were these machines never located?" While I disagree with his complaints of the aliencrafts, I feel his opinion was spot-on. How deep were they? If so deep as to avoid us locating them, wouldn't they have been either crushed or damaged by earthquakes and shifting tectonic plates? This is science (albeit science-fiction). Even science fiction movies need rules--this one violated its own.

The second half is where the film goes down the crapper. As much as I disliked Cruise's son, it gave the film a dramatic purpose. After the son "died", the film loses its direction and spirals out of control. I will put fault on H.G. Wells for the ridiculous conclusion of using germs and microbes to thwart the alien invasion, but he wrote that story in the 19th Century! The filmmakers took liberties with every other aspect of his story--why not alter the ending to make sense? It's preposterous and really ruins the film's overall impact. Frankly, I stormed out of the theater very angry that Spielberg, of all directors, would resort to such a cheap tactic. It's the same cop-out ending that ruined an otherwise enjoyable Independence Day.

And then to bring Cruise's son back from certain death? Perhaps in story or on the radio, it would have made sense, relying on our imaginations. But to show that massive fireball--with zero chance of survival--and bring the son back was laughably bad and overwrought. The only thing that salvages the film in my mind is that I can look at this two ways: one, the ending is reality, in which case it sucks; or two, Cruise's character is consumed by the alien spacecraft while trapped in the cage, dies, and the rest of the film is his "heaven".

Furthermore, the film was a rush job, from pre-production to finished product in about 9 months. Something tells me a bit more time would have really improved it. I thought it grew less and less effective as it went along. Once they hole up with Tim Robbins, it almost seems like the movie makers threw up their collective hands and just picked something from a rough draft. The story loses dramatic tension, it lost my interest in any of the characters (I was actually hoping they'd be killed--not a good sign). It isn't that I disliked the extended basement scenes--I loved the similarly-length scene in Signs. The difference is that Signs stopped to recognize the humanity, where even during this grave threat to our world, we still need to turn to each other for support. WotW lost its bearings and floundered. This is no Close Encounters or Minority Report or even A.I.. I'd easily say it's Spielberg's worst effort to date.

Indeed. The booming call was much better done than the original 'Alloo alloo' described by HG Wells. I've been dreaming about it all night!


Agreed. In this Spielberg stuck to the narrative principle of the book and I think it worked even though I found the children to be an annoying distraction.


And of course, being trapped in a ruined house is one quarter of the whole original book...


And this is exactly why the story never should have been set in modern day America. Wells wrote his story in the context of Victorian England in that context, it made sense.

To bump it up to the 21st century just doesn't work very well at all. First and foremost, the actual shock value of being made to understand and be subjected to the reality of an alien invasion works just so much better in the original when the humans simply don't know about life on other planets or if they do, they can't conceive of it being in any way superior to humanity.

Also, the whole central concept of the book is the theme of evolution and the Martians (in the book) are presented as a natural evolutionary end product of creatures not entirely dissilimar to human beings.

Spielbergs Martians completely missed that point and were just miniature versions of the tripods which is the exact same mistake the 1953 film made. In the original, the fighting machines were just one form of body for the Martians, but in both this and the 1953 film they have become the actual Martians and the idea of having three legs has become the identifying theme of the Martians, which is sad because HG Well's Martians are just so much better than the three legged 'area 51' faced creatures of this film.

Since I'm not any sort of fan of Spielberg I can't say I agree with this... much. It wasn't his greatest film, seen from a cinematographical persepctive, but for me it was the best topic he's ever attempted since WOTW is my all time favourite book and I've waited many years to see it filmed with modern effects and with the original fighting machines instead of Byron Haskin's 'hover tanks'.

What you must remember is that the original is in fact divided into two books ('The Coming of the Martians' and 'The Earth under the Martians') and the dramatic tension, or action of the first is replaced in the second with a slower pace and a much more insidious ambience. The fighting machines take a back seat in the second book to be replaced by the red weed and the after effects the invasion takes upon the survivors (the Curate and the Artillery man).

By the way, there is a third WOTW film now available on DVD which is true to the book but made with an appallingly small budget (I haven't see this one yet because its literally only just been released) as well as a second modern retelling which is apparently very bad indeed...

For the last 7 weeks I've hit up a movie since we've had half price Tuesdays and here's what I've seen with a 1-5 star rating:

**There might be spoilers**

Star Wars III: Alright, fun, kinda slow in places with some good action. Hayden Christenson still can't act his way out of a box though. 2.5 stars, it's worth seeing if you want to finish the saga, and everything ties in pretty nicely as far as I can tell.

The Longest Yard: A fun and completely mindless film. If you're in the mood for something kinda funny and semi-entertaining then this might be your bet. Adam Sandler is somewhat funny and there's quite a few appearances by random people like Bob Sapp, Micheal Irving, Goldberg, and others. 2 stars

Batman Begins: Let me put it this way: I was completely and totally disapointed. Batman Begins quickly and ends poorly. The whole premis of the microwave gun/wmd thing is way off base as people should have been evaporating and what not. Also, when Wayne becoms Batman, his voice gets two octaves lower for no apparent reason. Scarecrow is only it the movie for a total of 30 minutes and there's not real bad guy, except the mafia/organized crime thing, but that didn't seem like it was supposed to be the main part of the moive. 1.5 stars




You sure about that?

Crash: An excellent film, which is very dramatic and well balanced. Probably the best movie I've seen in the last 2 months. I think it did an excellent job of portraying the racism, stereotyping, and cultural problems seen in the US (though it can bee demonstrated in any country). Also, several sides of each character are displayed and well developed. 4 Stars.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith: Another mindless action thriller. I thought it was fun to watch on the whole, but wouldn't see it again. Lots of big explosions and sexy people. The twist at the end is...alright, and the teamwork the two displayed really brought a tear to my eye. If you don't care too much for thinking and just want to be entertained this is your movie. 2 stars

War of the Worlds: Lots of discussion about this one and I agree with most of the analysis. The ending was pretty lame and too cheesy for me, though the middle was good and I thought very suspensful. I'm not sure how well it compares to the book, but I think it was worth watching...except the last 10 minutes. Definitely not one of Speilberg's best, and I hope his next one is a bit less sensational. 3 stars.

Yes, Crash is an excellent film. But unlike Magnolia or Short Cuts, the story seemed to be so focused on racism that it left nothing to read into. Both P.T. Anderson and Robert Altman know that themes should not be shoved in our face so forcefully that nothing else matters. That said, Paul Haggis's film is an excellent portrayal of racism in our modern days.

But I disagree with you on both Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Batman Begins. These two are currently the best films at the mainstream box office. As I said in a previous post, I believe Batman is the best film of the year thus far. It is not just the best comic book hero film ever made, it is also one of the best character studies ever made. Unlike any other film at the theaters right now, it actually brought tears to my eyes. When a superhero film can have me crying... now that's something special. I doubt I will see a better movie all year, but I suppose we will see.

As for Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I am in love with both Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, so I'm biased.

Johnny Depp's portrayal of Willie Wonka in Charlie in the Chocolate Factoy was great! Depp is a versatile and talented actor who gets my vote every time. The visuals were great. The movie is not only for the kids but for the adults too. FOUR STARS ****

In Theaters...
Batman Begins... Heavily influenced by film noir and German expressionism.
March of the Penguins... Have not seen it, but it looks great.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory... I hear it is good from several people. Looking forward to seeing it.

From Netflix...
The Truth About The Iraq War... Experts give their view of the war.
Blue Vinyl... A documentary about the vinyl inductry and its impact on the environment and people's health.

Hard to Find...
Bones of the Forest... Evironmental documentary.
War and Peace... Documentary about nuclear weapons and the fight for peace.

The Wedding Crashers is a very funny movie. Vince Vaughn steals the
show. Christopher Walken has a supporting role, and he is great, as usual.

Didn't you think the Michael Jackson makeup and 'do made him look vaguely creepy? I love Johnny Depp; he's an amazing actor, but my skin crawls every time I see the commercials for the movie.

Besides, I loved the original with Gene Wilder.

Depp does look a bit creepy as Willie Wonka. He definitely plays the role much differently than Gene Wilder did! Depp is totally over the top playing Wonka but it seems to work. I too loved the original, but I loved the special effects in this one. It is worth seeing.

I finally rented Million Dollar Baby. What an awful movie. I could not even get through the whole thing. How did this monstrosity win best actress, best director, best supporting actor and best film?????

The whole movie consisted of Hillary Swank in the ring or practicing in the gym, Morgan Freeman with his over dramatic voice overs and well, the rest was DEPRESSING and that is about it.

For anyone who has not yet seen this movie-- don't bother, it will only depress you.

Well the true original was the book...and I can remember as a child reading that book (one of my favorites!) and being suspicious and a wee bit creeped out by Wonka too. Dahl kind of leads one though their own imagination that Wonka perhaps is not all that sweet.

The original movie is a favorite in my home...but I must admit much of Wilder's comedy and such plays out far more on an adult level. This is not the case with Depp's version..the kids..not just mine all of them in the theatre found him hilarious. He was far more the child's character that Dahl intended him to be in this newest version.

I loved the movie..which I had not intended to do as I was pretty uninterested with the big corporate push this movie has had.
Yet I do love Tim Burton...Nightmare Before Christmas is perhaps one of my all time favorite children's movie, with James and the Giant Peach coming second and I think Big Fish is pretty wonderful too.

I thought this movie was far more in line with the book, a lot more child like and the dance scenes were great! The original movie takes about 30-40 mins to pick up and get interesting this one does so immediately.

I gotta disagree with you on that one. I thought Million Dollar Baby was one of last year's best films. It is depressing... but when are films supposed to be uplifting?

Mr. and Mrs. Smith was an intesesting movie. One part that ammused me was the part where they fought in the house and it got blown up.

Three out of four stars. ***

Sky High was pretty good. Main charector's girl friend became his arch enemy, his arch enemy became his best friend friend, and his best friend became his girl friend. Confusing? Just watch the movie and you'll get it. This was one of the better of the better movies Disney put out

Four out of four stars. ****

Hear, hear! I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought this movie sucked. From my LiveJournal review of the film:
It's not the worst movie ever made, but (with the possible exception of Unforgiven), it's definitely the worst thing Eastwood has ever done. I'd agree, hayleyanne, if you haven't already wasted your time on Million Dollar Baby, don't bother.

I would like to add a reccomendation for a film I saw recently which is now out on DVD. The film is "Downfall" and is a recreation of the 12 days from April 20th 1945 to May 2nd 1945 and the events that occured in the "Fuhrer Bunker" in Berlin during that time.

I found the movie a fascinating and gripping glimpse into the final days of the 3rd Reich, and I highly reccomend it to those who have an interest in World War II (or just well made films). It received an Oscar nomination for best Foreign Language film at last years Academy Awards, and has been very well received by many film critics.

I have a great fascination for WWII and I have seen this film
recently, as well. It was painfully good. I believe it gives a different glimpse
into what was going on - something I haven't seen in any other WWII film.

I took my two boys to see the movie, March of the Penguins. What an
incredible film. It follows a flock of Penguins, throughout the course of a year.
The footage is absolutely breathtaking. It's really a phenomenal
film in that it captures the beauty and depth that exists in these amazing
creatures.

I agree Downfall is easily one of the best movies I've seen this year (gotta love Blockbuster movie pass). Recently I've been on a foreign film (mostly Asian) kick - Warriors of Heaven and Earth was quite entertaining for me, as was a Jap movie called Premonition.

For me, a good movie is one that the story flows together well and it isn't ... what's the word I'm looking for ... disjointed (where they go from one scene to another without advancing the storyline, just assuming you'll know what it's about).

Saw the Brothers Grimm yesterday at the theatre - I enjoyed it given the darker look at the faery tales, but doubtful it's gonna win any awards. For pure enjoyment, it wasn't bad.

I also thought Downfall was great - I'm intending to see it again now that it's out on DVD. Bruno Ganz is terrific as Hitler - very human, but no less monstrous for it. It's the most gripping WWII film I've ever seen (even if the war itself doesn't really figure). The claustrophobic atmosphere of the bunker is very effective - and is a suitable metaphor for the whole blinkered Reich.

I was considerably less taken with March of the Penguins. (You can see my full assessment of it - though I must warn you that my online journal contains language that would not pass muster at America's Debate - here). In short, I thought it was rubbish.

The Brothers Grimm was fun, though with Terry Gilliam directing, I was expecting it to be a bit more over-the-top - and a bit funnier. Still, it's a nice take on the whole folklore tradition that the brothers documented and reminded me a lot of Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow. In fact, the two films would make a great double bill. Oh - and the Francophobes around here should love it - the French come off very badly.

I am not a fan of March of the Penguins either and in fact I took my children to see this and it seriously disturbed my youngest child. We had the to leave the theatre in the middle of the movie.

Basically because the story line goes like this...
Oh beautiful penguins, look how beautiful they are...DIE DIE KILL KILL! Oh look the penguins are so loving and selfless...DIE DIE KILL DIE! Oh look at the cute babies! Have you ever seen a cuter baby? DIE BABY KILL DIE DIE!

After about the third ride on this emotional rollercoaster my youngest screamed out loud.."Get me out of here!"
Once we were safe ..she told me..I would never have just took pictures..I would have helped that baby penguin.

I remember watching a David Attenborough documentry about these cranes (at least i thnk it was cranes) who had to walk across a huge salt flat when they migrated. The salt gets caught around their ankles and can, in some cases, slow them down so much that the baking heat kills them. They were concentrating on a particular family and the youngest chicks leg was a huge ball of salt witch left it limping way behind the whole flock. It was pathetically sad and I remember thinking that I'm just not harsh enough to ever be a nature filmaker.
At the end of the doucumentry Attenborough said it is their policy to not interfere with the course of nature, which is why they didn't help the young bird. But in this case he said they had to make an exception and they showed footage of them cutting the salt ball from the birds leg- I nearly cried!

jleavy - if you like asian cinema try 'Oldboy' a very well shot, interesting and enjoyable film.

Well, it is not art, but I went with my family to see Sky High.

I have to say, over the past few years I have enjoyed children's movies as much as any other genre I have gone to see in the theater.

Toy Stories, Finding Nemo, the Incredibles, all of these I thoroughly enjoyed.

Sky High was a fun and fairly crafty children's story. We all had a grand time. Yet I don't think I was inspired to loftier places or became a better person for watching it. Alas!

I just saw Sin City for the first time last week. I loved it and I have absolutely no idea why. I loved the visual aspect of it, but what I thought was underrated was the City itself. Whoever the director is did a great job of creating THE cesspool city. The place was an absolute hell-hole, but it was entirely realistic. I loved 99% of the storyline [but was a little put off by some of it [DON'T READ THIS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW A SEMI-IMPORTANT PART OF THE MOVIE] such as the whole rapist turning into a neon yellow mutated freek, and what Bruce Willis' character does to...prevent the rapist from...raping] but as I said, I loved it and I'm not entirely sure why.

**** and one half of a *

CP

I also thoroughly enjoyed Sin City - though I can't imagine the CleanFilms version lasting more than about thirty-seven seconds.

You may have known this, CP, but (like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow) all of he sets, all of the backgrounds, were computer generated. There isn't a real location in the entire picture. It's a tribute to the art directors and animators that such a convincing landscape could be created through technology alone - and remain so true to the design of the original graphic novels.

I think one of the reasons I liked it was that, even in such a squalid (and likely) dystopia, the good ended happily and the bad unhappily. And that, as Oscar Wilde wrote, is what fiction means.

As many of you may know, I very rarely go to a movie theater -- once every few years or so. I was so impressed by the films Microcosmos and Winged Migration that I had to go see March of the Penguins, made by the same bunch of folks.

It had one major flaw -- way too much narration. (This may only be in the English language version; I don't know.) The two previous films had very little narration. Other than that, I found it endlessly fascinating. Let me add one warning, which goes along with some comments which have been made here.

March of the Penguins, despite the G rating, is not a movie for children, or for very sensitive adults. It deals realistically with the facts of life and death among these strange animals. Do not see it if you think that movies about animals should be cute. See it if you want to know more about the way things really are in a world that the vast majority of us will never see.

When I heard they were doing it in CleanFilms I laughed. Who's the value voter that would see that movie censored or otherwise?

Yeah, I know, that was absolutely amazing. It looked like an actual city, and if you came into it without knowing about computer design, you would've said that the whole movie was filmed in Camden, New Jersey.


I think that's what might be why I liked it so much too Wertz. I think that the irony of a dystopia ending in the same way as a "happily ever after" story added to the experience greatly.

CP

Yet I wonder why the commercial push this movie has had here focuses on the "cuteness" of it. Also from the 20 min or so that I was bored by this movie the only thing I was knowing more about was..that my HDTV at home has a clearer picture and that I doubt penguins experience all the very human emotions that were being assumed of them by the movie's narration.


I have a movie that deals with realistic facts of life or death of another strange animal to highly recommend to anyone interested...
Baraka

I forgot to post that my better half and I checked out Hustle and Flow a few weeks ago starring Entertainment Weekly's breakthrough star of 2005, Terrence Howard.

It's the story of a Memphis pimp named DJay who gets it in his head that there's gotta be something more to life than peddling flesh so he decides to make a rap song. There's no sex. There's no gunplay or car chases and you can see more violence on a regular night of network TV.

Basically Howard's performance as the world's most compassionate pimp with a dream holds the film together. I appreciated the way the movie kept it real without trying to dumb it down for a mass audience. I have a feeling though that it's too tame and cerebral for younger viewers but the street slang might be too confusing for mainstream appreciation.

Howard is busy this year with appearances in Crash, Four Brothers and 50 Cent's upcoming debut , Get Rich or Die Tryin' (be still my heart), but this and "Crash" are where he really separates himself from the pack.

My wife liked "Hustle and Flow" a bit more than I did, but I'd give it a "B-" to a "C+." I'd recommend checking it out now, but you won't miss anything if you wait for the DVD in a few months.

I've just finished watching the second episode of the HBO series Rome, and I can't explain how impressed I am.

The series is not for the kiddies, but does not go overboard with the graphic violence or sexual content. All the familiar players are there, Caesar, Pompey, Cato, Cicero, Mark Antony, and a young Octavian, and all of them do a great job in keeping you glued to your seat, begging for more.

There's also a group of supporting characters who make the story quite interesting, one of whom is a crass Roman Legionaire named Titus Pallus. , who surley holds up the show by himself!

In all seriousness though, if you haven't seen it, do so. New episodes are every Sunday night, and the previous episode is played during the week.

Up to this point, Caeasr is in Gaul, but is making his way to Rome after some political manuvering by Pompey backfires, and the threat of civil war comes far sooner than planned.

Go watch it!

How large a production is it Titus? If its anything like some of the other HBO stuff I've seen then I must see it!

I've just seen 'der untergang' and found if very good it a bit predictable

I thought the guy who played Hitler was good, at one point I actually started feeling sorry for the character!

...of course, any one who has seen Emil From Lønneberg (an old Sweidsh kids TV series) knows how Hitler should be played by watching Emil's Dad!

Back to 'der untergang', and I thought it strange that the Soviets were shown as placid as they were though. Everything I've ever read of the Soviet attack on Berlin describes an absolute horror story, but in 'der untergang' the Soviets seemed very distant and almost as a dream rather than the raping avenging horde of terror most eye witness accounts describe.... a minor detail though. The rest of the film was very good. Very authentic and drab. Unrelenting on 'der Fuhrer'.

I enjoyed the first episode of 'Rome' a lot, haven't seen the second. What I found interesting was that it portrayed Roman attitudes towards sex, slavery etc honestly without imposing a modern moral judgement on the way Romans lived, which I think adds a lot to the show's realism.

Saw Crash at the weekend, enjoyed it a lot..

I'm really looking forward to Rome for a number of reasons.

It's had some great reviews - here as well as in the press, it's an interesting period of history, every serious drama I've ever seen that HBO are involved in has been truly exceptional, and it's a co-production with the BBC, so not only does it have a lot of top-notch Brit talent involved, it will be shown on UK telly only a few months after HBO airs it ( it's currently slated for November) rather than the year or so we have to wait to see things like The Sopranos or Deadwood.

In screen terms, I finally got around to watching Meet The Fockers, yesterday on TVOD. Having enjoyed Meet the Parents I found it funny, if undemanding and a bit twee towards the end. It was as if the screenwrites couldn't work out quite how to get from the succession of embarrassing set-pieces to the saccharine happy-ever-afters, so didn't bother to write any kind of transition and just lurched form one mood to the other.

But then, with cinema like this, one isn't really watchig it to be captivated by the plot. There is room for stuff that requires no intellectual effort as well as stuff that does, just as there is room for burgers and pizza as well as Michelin-starred Conrdon Bleu cookery.

The only unusual thing about the movies is that the exceptional stuff costs exactly the same to watch as the mindless bubblegum entertainment.

I just saw the movie 'The Brothers' Grimm' at the theatre, and thought I'd post a warning. I liked 'Sleepy Hollow', so I thought I'd like this one, and I hope I won't offend those who liked it, but here it goes....

I think this movie is played on an endless loop in hell. Nothing in Kong Fu theatre comes close to being as bad. Not even the guy with the eight foot long hair whip, or the one who thought he was a frog. "You kill teacher, I kill you" is captivating dialogue compared to what the Brothers Grimm offers. Godzilla versus Mothra is high drama. We were able to get free tickets to see something else since we walked out halfway through. Maybe it got better, but, well....it wasn't worth another hour of my life to find out.

I saw A Sound of Thunder recently because I thought being based on a Bradbury short story it'd be pretty good. The movie itself was definitely forgettable in my opinion and you'd be best served waiting for a rental and saving your $20. I give it a C+.

As one who did enjoy The Brothers Grimm, I can't say I'm offended - nor am I all that surprised. As I mentioned above somewhere, I was expecting a bit more from it, but overall thought it worked reasonably well. That said, I must admit that, for the first half hour or so, I was pretty disappointed. But I felt the film really picked up once the brothers started getting involved with the Lena Headey character.

I'm still not sure if the last two-thirds would have worked as well if the first third wasn't so all over the place. Maybe I'm giving Gilliam too much credit, but I wondered afterward if the addition of the third character to the "Brothers" equation was intended to give them a "third dimension" that they (and the film itself) didn't have at the start.

Anyway, you may still have hated it even if you had sat through the rest, but, to me, it was like watching two different movies - though neither would be to everyone's taste.


I just saw The Aristocrats this evening and almost hurt myself laughing. Speaking of films not being to everyone's taste, though, if you are offended by foul language, I wouldn't go within a mile radius of any cinema in which it is playing. Essentially, it's several dozen comedians (including Billy Connolly, George Carlin, Bill Maher, Drew Carey, Whoopi Goldberg, Jon Stewart, Phillis Diller, the South Park characters, etc., etc.) talking about an re-telling a single joke (whose punchline is "The Aristocrats") - and it's about the filthiest joke ever told - but the variations and related anecdotes are very funny. For whose with a sense of humor and without delicate sensibilities, it is highly recommended.

Id like to mention two films now out on DVD for rental, indie style.

'A Day without a Mexican' was charming, funny and thought provoking, Well worth the time. It deals with all Mexicans (in the US at least) suddenly vanishing for no apparent reason. It manages not to preach while presenting a humorous and somewhat political scenario.

'Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring" (Korean on Netflix) Beautifully photographed with little dialogue and incredible visuals, it deals with the life cycle of a boy to man and his monk mentor by the seasons on a floating monastery. I think its worthwhile for children because some life lessons about respect and consequences of ones actions are subtely adressed. Both my boys watched attentively throughout despite subtitles. Good rainy afternoon or mellow night flik, sure to cuddle you to a peaceful sleep.

Oh yes, I almost forgot- I saw 'Immortal'. We were up for just pure no thought SciFi on sunday night. Its been raining here for 4 weeks almost straight and we are 'movied' out, we were looking for an easy feed.
I cant classify this film good or bad. It looks complicated at the start, dont watch if you are tired, then it streamlines pretty well.
The gist: Excellect graphics mixed with real people, Egyptian gods, futurist theme, decent fantasy, sexual implications without nudity, no real plot but probably good stoning material. Its just that, an easy feed and modern graphic cinema to watch without need of more. Digital geeks and comic book lovers will enjoy I think.