I haven't seen it, but I would recommend One Day in September a 1999 I believe documentary about the Israeli Olympic hostage situations.

It is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen and they amazingly had interviews with a wealth of key players, including the one surviving kidnapper.

I try to show it in class every year. Simply amazing. I will try to watch Munich, but I'll admit I expect to be disappointed.
(Oh and BTW, the fact that my students tend to really like this documentary is an amazing testament. High schoolers tend not to consider liking documentaries. The only thing I have found that comes close is Four Little Girls, by Spike Lee.)

I saw Hostel this past sunday. Now I am a hard guy to scare and gross out. I mean killing someone, quick and decisively is one thing, but to sadisticly torture and murder people the way they did in this movie is [B]SICK[B/]. But if you like to see people getting carved like a christmas ham; go for it.

I suppose I should weigh in on Brokeback Mountain, since it's being touted as some sort of landmark gay film - and I'm some sort of landmark gay participant here.

First, I should mention that I feel this is a great movie. The direction, the acting, the cinematography, and the score are all top-notch. The screenplay is an excellent study in isolation and alienation, though it is relentlessly grim.

That said, I don't think it's a very moving story about a frustrated relationship - and I don't even think it's all that "gay". In short, it is a terrible adaptation of Annie Proulx's incredibly moving short story.

The major problem in this regard is that, unlike the source story, the central characters - Ennis del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) - seem to take no pleasure in their relationship. Their desperate few moments together over the course of many years are just as gloomy as the sex they have with their wives. The very few lines of dialogue in the story often relate to the physical pleasure of the relationship: "it got a be all that time a yours ahorseback makes it so goddamn good" and even the terse "gun's goin off" from their first encounter. Their physical bond is as important as their emotional one - and is that much more exceptional in that their time together marks the only bright spots in otherwise dreary and unfulfilling lives.

These lines are excised from the screenplay. In the film, there is no pleasure, even when the two are together. This makes the story much less about the relationship and more a character study of Ennis del Mar - a man so alienated that he cannot connect with anything - or anyone. As a portrait of a desperate life, Brokeback Mountain succeeds admirably - and Ledger's performance is effectivelt understated. As a "landmark film" about "hidden love", however, it is a signal failure. This makes it a rather chilly and distant film and it effectively removes the emotional core that made the short story almost unbearably moving.

As a final note, I am sick to death of reading about the "brave" performances in this film. John Kerr was "brave" in 1959's Tea and Sympathy. In 1961, Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine were "brave" in The Children's Hour, Dirk Bogard was "brave" in The Victim, and Murray Melvin was "brave" in A Taste of Honey. Claire Bloom was "brave" in 1963's The Haunting, Beryl Reid and Susannah York were "brave" in 1964's The Killing of Sister George, Marlon Brando was "brave" in 1967's Reflections in a Golden Eye, Rex Harrison and Richard Burton were "brave" in 1969's Staircase. In 1970, everyone was "brave" in The Boys in the Band. And so on - and on. By 1985, William Hurt won an Academy Award for his "bravery" in playing a gay character - very badly - in Kiss of the Spider Woman.

About every five years since, there has been a new "landmark" film in which a couple of allegedly straight actors pretend to be gay and actually kiss or something. Big deal. Playing a queer is no more challenging for a straight guy than playing heterosexual characters has been for gay actors for centuries. There have been central gay characters in films for decades now and it takes no special skill to pay opposite a man instead of a woman. The fact that Ledger and Gyllenhaal can't or won't convincingly play two characters who take pleasure in their relationship (or that writer Larry McMurty or director Ang Lee chose to spin the story in that direction) stikes me as being rather cowardly. Can we give this "bravery" idiocy a rest?

I recently viewed the documentary Grizzly Man. It is very interesting for
many reasons. It's about a man who spends summers in the Alaskan wilderness
where wild bears live. For over 12 years he goes there each summer
and lives in a tent and films his interactions with grizzly bears. It's some
very beautiful footage and he seems to genuinely prefer the company of
bears to humans. It's not only a look into his summers with the bears, it's
also a look into his emotional state-of-mind, which is somewhat questionable.
His life ends tragically and needlessly. The viewer is left wondering what the
heck he was trying to prove.

I just saw V for Vendetta friday, and it was one of the best movies I have ever seen. Its not for those that look down on violence against a government. It can be viewed as supporting terrorism; which in a sense I guess it does. But it supports terrorism when its necessary.

I also saw a film today....16 Blocks with Bruce Willis. It actually was pretty good! Mos Def was very entertaining, and Bruce did a respectable job with his character. Its one of those films that critics mostly hate but movie watchers who think they might have an interest in the film like. So, thats my reccomendation. If you think you might like this type of movie, you probably will like it. If your thinking oh no, another Bruce Willis cop movie, you might want to think twice.

I saw V for Vendetta last night.

It was enjoyable, though not exactly the best movie I've ever seen. I have to disagree with the hype.

It is not revolutionary in any sense really, it doesn't support terrorism (V is almost a spotless hero figure, who kills not one innocent civilian, even as collateral damage) nor does it present a very original story line except for one interesting twist (though this one is interesting). It follows a derivative "fight-the-power" story line complete with happy, sappy ending.

..but the visuals are awesome and the dialogue a joy at most times. The characters are mostly memorable (except for Portman the token love interest) and the movie doesn't lean to heavily on fight scenes, it tries to show a little intelligence.

It's worth the trouble for those who like action movies, but don't expect a poignant look at the treacherous nature of war time government.

Unless you like being sorely disappointed.

Sorry it took so long to see this, and to comment on it. Wertz, I agree and disagree.

I disagree that it's a great film. The direction, the cinematography and the score, were excellent. I wasn't really enamored of some of the performances, though, and quite frankly, I thought the screenplay was not nearly as good as it could have been. You're right - it was relentlessly grim.

Driving home, I had the feeling I had seen some of this movie in another incarnation. And then it hit me - this was little more than a rehash of a movie I had seen years ago, called "Same Time Next Year" with alan alda and Ellen Burstyn.

The trouble with "Brokeback", is that the two characters seemingly had less of a reason to continue their relationship over the years, than did the Characters in "Same Time".

All in all, I think I'd have to give it only a "B".

If you're thinking of going to see Thank You for Smoking I would definitely recommend it. The movie is funny, witty, fast, sharp, and for some reason you want the bad guy to win. For me there wasn't a dulll moment and there wasdefinitely some off-beat humor. I'd give it four of five. Also, I'll mention I saw it for $10.75 (in NY) which I think it ridiculous; but I'd say that it was worth paying to see. Overall, I think everyone would enjoy it and have a laugh.

We made one of our very rare visits to a movie theater recently to see The Libertine. Johnny Depp stars as John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester, a real historical figure who drank, wenched, and wrote satiric poetry during the time of Charles II. Don't expect a rollicking, bawdy comedy. This is a tragedy. Wilmot takes no pleasure in his lifestyle, and his eventual fate is terrible enough to make this almost a horror movie. Depp is excellent in another one of his offbeat roles. This is a depressing film to watch, not only for the wretchedness of the main character, but for the fact that it brings Restoration London to life as a filthy, noisy, crowded, violent place.

I'd agree, NiteGuy, that the script is, by far, the weakest element of Brokeback Mountain - especially when compared to the source material. I still think it's a great study in isolation and alienation, though (and, in that regard, the sexual preference of the characters is totally - totally - irrelevant).


Damn - everyone's seeing the films I want to see. Thank You for Smoking and The Libertine are at the top of my list - though I have seen V for Vendetta. I'm still mulling V over a bit, but I'd agree with turnea that it in no way "supports terrorism" - at least, no more than The Patriot did. Beyond that, I'm still not sure how successful it was as a political allegory, though it does raise a lot of challenging questions (more than it really addresses). If nothing else, though, the dialogue is amazing: the writing in parts of this film is absolutely brilliant. And I must admit that I found the climax exhilarating.

Interestingly, Guy Fawkes is something of a symbol for freedom-fighting and standing against tyranny in the film - quite the opposite of the way he's generally viewed in England. Given my Irish bias, though, I was delighted to see Fawkes treated, for once, as the heroic character he actually was.

As someone who has read the (comic) book, but not seen the movie, I'm very interested in seeing if V for Vendetta taps into the anarchist vision of Alan Moore and David Lloyd. I can see from the trailers that much remains while much more has been removed.

I'm hopeful that the movie hasn't been too neutered but I'll have to find out for myself.

Last good movie I saw was The Constant Gardner. Directed by the same guy who Wertz turned me on to with City of God, but here he's tackling how pharmacuteical companies use Africa as a lab to test their drugs on. Rachel Weisz won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her work here, but Ralph Fiennes does a good job in a somewhat murky role.

I too have read the V for Vendetta comic, ages ago. The main character is not supposed to be good or evil, and was in fact a supporter of or advocate for anarchy.

I read Moore completely disowns the movie and had no collaboration or support for it at all.

Speaking of comic books (er Graphic Novels) particularly those written by Brits... I just watched MirrorMask last night.

It includes the animation of Dave McKean and the storytelling of Neil Gaiman.

I loved it. The animation is wonderful and I enjoyed the story as I felt it was an interesting look into life and death and how badly we desire to control our lives.

I saw Inside Man last night and the most poignant thing I can say about it is this:

Go see this movie. Now.

I mean really whatever you're doing right now can not possibly hope to be as entertaining as this film.

The script is perfect, as opposed to flawless, (A flawless script is too predictable) the story so involving that even when you see the plot holes (and you will) I bet you won't care.

The visuals are without the flashy explosions and gunfights that carry so many bank robbery movies. The shots are the most impressive thing I've seen this year. King Kong cannot hope to have this much presence.

This is a movie that does not once insult the intelligence and I don't think I could say that about any film since maybe Hotel Rwanda. It's smart, it counts on the fact that you're smart. So rather that lead the viewer by the nose to some inevitable conclusion. It takes its time, and allows the characters to have so much fun you can't help but to join in.

..and after you've all had a good trip it lightly wraps up the central plot and fades off screen.

..not that it matters, it will play in your mind non-stop for quite some time.

It has a point, of course, the movie is at its core a showcase of the intricate nature of power of all categories.

...no one comes out of this movie without getting upstaged at least once and the wounded egos are quite likely the funniest things in the movie.

I saw V for Vendetta the weekend it came out. As a fan of the comic, I was pretty excited to see it. If I hadn't read the comic first, I would have loved this movie. But...well, the comic story is just so much better. And the ending isnt the same one as in the comic, and I think that might bethe biggest disappointment. It also made me want to learn to fight with knives.

I'm on a movie going kick lately.....

Inside Man is indeed worthy of the price of admission. One of the few times where I can say that the script/story lives up to the star power of the movie. And considering the movie casts Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster, Christopher Plummer, Clive Owen and Willam Dafoe....well lets just say they all really do take a back seat to the very, very thought provoking, suprising and entertaining story.

I love movies that make you think, keep you guessing and don't follow the typical plot line. Its not even typical in the way most movies try to be atypical....if that makes sense. I guess if I had to describe the movie in 3 words it would be Smart, Smart, Smart! Go see it. Turnea is correct in that you will not find a more entertaining way to spend 2 hours.

hmmmmm I don't want to burst your bubble, but the movie wasn't
as good as you say (IMHO).




Without giving anything away, the plot was lacking in a big way. One thing
I will say is that the movie wasn't too predictable, but at the same time, it
wasn't seamless by any means.



When you start comparing it with a truly important film like Hotel Rwanda
I have to speak up. This movie was a decent movie that people will enjoy.
No more and no less. It was very nice to see that Jodie Foster hasn't buckled
to the hollywood pressure by having a wretched face-life. She has my respect
for that.




The ending was anti-climactic.



That I agree with.




I found the story-line (without giving anything away) to be one that has been somewhat overused.



IT does keep you guessing, but a film needs more than suspense. It lacked a
solid, believable storyline. You will realize that by the time the movie is over.


On another note, I saw The Cooler with William H. Macy and Alec
Baldwin. It was great!!

I can’t say enough good things about V For Vendetta. I never heard of the comics, so I walked into the movie theater with no expectations. Actually I walked in twice. The first time a fuse blew on the projector and we picked up a pair of redeemable passes. I’ve walked away from movies feelings sad. This is the first one I walked away from wondering if I’m part of the problem. This is not a two-hour escape from reality.

I’ve been wanting to comment on Thirteen Days, released in 2000.


I don’t know how accurate the movie depicts real events, but I couldn’t help but compare it to Iran today, it made me wish we had cooler heads in the present White House.

Thought I'd revive this old thread to issue a warning to those with kids who are contemplating seeing the movie 'Barnyard'. My advice is: Wait for the video. It gets rather high marks with the eight and under crowd, judging by my sons' reactions...."Yes, you're right sweety, the whole concept of animals talking is simply gut-busting!" But just between us chickens () it's kid humor, not geared towards adults in any way we've come to expect from the wonderful Pixar films.

Speaking of which, I highly recommend 'Cars'. It's great for children and their parents, with a good life lesson thrown in.

Reading through the above posts, I guess I'll be the one naysayer for 'V for Vendetta'. I hated that film. Absolutely. Honestly. I'd heard it tauted in reviews as a 'cerebral movie'. I must disagree. Intelligent films play on subtlety. This one hits you over the head repeatedly and relentlessly with gratuitous cliches. I found myself able to predict what would happen next based on the cliches that hadn't been thrown in yet. The only thing missing was Bush (I mean, the leader in the film) hanging Gandhi on a pike...just out of meanness, er, I mean power, I guess.

I actually turned the video off about an hour and a half into it after (CAUTION! SPOILER!) one of the characters was killed for owning a Koran. It was just too much...literally, I moaned out loud (Mr P was already asleep). The next day, I played the rest of it while he was at the pool with the kids just to see if I was missing something. He came home, saw me, and the expression on his face catching me watching it a second time was the shock one might expect from finding me in 'flagrante delicto' with the gardener, or doing a line of coke on the living room table. The ending wasn't bad, but certainly not worth the torture (IMO, obviously I'm alone in this view so far here) of much of the rest of it. The Pigpen family doesn't recommend this film.

Kinky Boots.

I recently saw a few Kurosawa films on DVD, Seven Samurai being my favorite thus far.

I really enjoyed Syriana, also on DVD.

Am I the only person who really didn't enjoy The Constant Gardener? I fell asleep in the theatre. Perhaps I'll have to give it another chance.

Have to second the recommendation, of the highest order, for Cars. Fantastic movie.

Just saw Invincible, it was much better than I thought. Its not as much in the vein of Rocky as I'd thought it would be. Good flick, worthwhile.

Nope Mrs P you are not alone.
The thing looked cheesy from just the commercials.
1984 has already been done





and the mask looked just too stooopid.

I wont even rent the dvd.



As for my recommendations

Monster House was dull and yawn inspiring. No parents complained when the kids started running around the theater. Its good point is that it reinspired the art of conversation.

Did anyone else wonder if the 2nd Pirates was EVER going to end? and why any other main characters besides Jack? the other 2 are annoying.

The Decent sucked, big time. The used simple shock tactics for fear combined with trying to gross people out with slimy biological aspects, a day in the life of a chicken processing plant would be more horrifying overall. Though if you are into action heroes of the female gender, like tomb raider, you might be interested for that facet, and the intro of the movie does have at least one cool if not gross scene.

I did happen to rent capote, and I would have to say a very well done movie. Only on one occasion did I notice easy the mechanics of acting or actors over the characters and story, besides that I never really noticed anything save being immersed in a good movie, or the actors played the characters very well and the story also was very well done, not to much turbulence.

I saw X3: X-Men United and V for Vendetta and both were good if not exactly memorable. I can see why original writer Alan Moore took his name off of "V." But after those two I had no energy left for Superman Returns. I was starved for something resembling real life with actual dialogue, characterization and no computer-generated special effects all up in my face.

So, the wife and I went to see Miami Vice. Jaime Foxx and Colin Farrell didn't make me forget Philip Michael Thomas and Don Johnson, but HOORAY for a movie where the stars actually get busy between the sheets. Glad to see a "R" rated flick based on sex and not just violence. Definitely one for grown-ups and not just teens with overactive hormones.

I want to check out Clerks II, though I don't expect it to be any good.

Oh, and I liked The Constant Gardener AND Syriana. Neither was great, but they made you think and that's never a bad thing.

I usually don't watch horror flicks, but I did rent High Tension, a nasty French flick with some really weird (and badly done) dubbing and absolutely, positively, hands-down THE WORST PLOT "TWIST" IN THE HISTORY OF FILM. I kid you not. All logic and common sense is thrown out the window.

You should watch it just for the final 15 minutes alone. You will be struck dumb by the utter stupidity of it all.

I found The Descent to be an excellent horror film which contained a very nice balance of suspense, terror and bloodshed. The movie is actually more frightening during the initial hour, prior to the monsters attacking the women. Very good use of lighting (reminded me of Dario Argento's Suspiria) and sound effects. The claustrophobia and ever-increasing sense of danger permeates the film. The use of shadows and night-vision camera optics really creates an unsettling effect. The acting is very good as well, although it ends with some odd character actions. Not to be missed, especially in the darkened theater with others to scream along with. Contains one of the most jolting jump-scares in recent memory.

In the same vein, I was surprised to find The Hills Have Eyes remake to be an amazingly well-done slasher/survival story. Alexandre Aja (fresh from his High Tension success) goes even further and avoids the stupid plot twists this time around. This is one of the best true horror films in a long time. The graphic gore and violence is truly unsettling, and the filmmakers never play it for laughs. The characters are well-developed as much as can be, the performances are above-par for these kinds of films, and the filmmakers take a big risk with involving an infant in the mix (this could have easily come across as a cheap and disgusting ploy, but they avoid it by playing it with the seriousness of an actual child in danger). The film takes a bit to get going, but when it does, it doesn't stop until the conclusion. The middle section, in particular, is startling in its sheer audacity to kill some characters you'd expect to live until the end. One of the few films to actually shock the hell out of me. Note: rent the Unrated edition which is more pleasing for the horror fans.

I recently also saw the creative and inventive Brick. This one is a film noir/detective story set in high school. It's an odd experience, but if you are willing to go with it, the film is very satisfying. Good cinematography and great dialogue. Also quite funny in a dark, twisted way. This seems to be nearing the end of its theatrical run, so you may need to wait for DVD.

Oh, and I'll throw a kudos to V for Vendetta since it seems to be getting some thrashing lately. I wouldn't call it cerebral entertainment, but I was thoroughly entertained.

Here are a few reviews of movies that I've seen recently:

The Devil Wears Prada - If you are into high fashion or not it's a great movie because Meryl Streep is in and IMHO she can do no wrong. She plays a very high-powered fashion magazine editor and it is worth the price of admission just to see her seamless character work.

Home Prairie Companion - Yes, Meryl Streep is in this one, too. If you are from the midwest
or if you are a fan of Garrison Keillor's radio show, you will appreciate this movie. I'm from the midwest
and it reminded me of the things I love and miss about that area of the country. There's one spoiler,
and her name is Lindsay Lohan. She doesn't bring much to the role that is believable (to me), but otherwise
it's a fun film to watch.

On the subject of animated films, I agree with Mrs. P that Cars is a wonderful film. I also saw the Ant Bully which was enjoyable.

I still think Death Becomes Her is one of Meryl Streep's best films. Hands down one of the funniest comedic performances ever put to film. The film itself is good, but Streep is so amazingly funny, she elevates it to art. Very underappreciated.

I saw a preview screening of All the King's Men the other night and - good God - what a mess! This is the second film version of Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer prize-winning novel, based on the career of Louisiana senator/governor Huey P. Long, and it had looked quite promising. It was written and directed by Steven Zaillian, who wrote Schindler's List and directed A Civil Action and the cast includes Sean Penn, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins, James Gandolfini, Patricia Clarkson, and Mark Ruffalo. It could have been a resonant examination of populist politics, power, and corruption focusing on a compelling, if flawed, central character. Zaillian, for some reason, decided to concentrate on the domestic melodrama of the Jude Law character (which is, essentially, a rather tedious soap opera sub-plot) and abandoned the political content almost entirely - which leaves one to ask, "Why bother remaking All the King's Men in the first place?"

Sean Penn is quite good in what should have been the central role, but everything else - everything else - is a boring, incomprehensible study in how not to make a motion picture. This film is to be avoided at all costs.

Can't say enough great things about 'The Breakup' starring Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn.

JK/April fools. Oh yeah, it's Halloween and the first day of November, not April. It just felt good to recommend a movie for once. But, no, I'll issue my warning which is sort of saddly typical for me on this thread.

First, the name should tip you off that this is about a relationship breakup. I'm not saying this to be condescending, but because I was personally too stupid to put two and two together myself. Knowing this is about a relationship breakup and being disappointed because it isn't funny is a bit like seeing the movie 'ghost' and being disappointed that the main character dies. But I actually did expect it to be funny...probably because it is touted as a comedy and the only three humorous scenes on the entire movie are played during the reviews. If you like watching people bicker and shout at each other over irrelevancies, this movie is for you. Otherwise, pick another.

Oh, I should also say that I only watched the first hour, so the rest of it might have been sweet and/or gutbusting, but it wasn't worth the time to find out.

I saw a couple of "scary" movies this week. I'm not usually a movie theater goer, but here goes:

The Grudge 2: The first movie was suspenseful and interesting (I saw it on HBO, not in a theater). This movie was a little suspenseful in parts, but as a whole it stunk. Sure that Japanese woman is scary looking (not to mention sounding) but this movie was not as good as the first.

Saw III: I had not seen the two earlier movies in this franchise and that may have detracted from my experience. It does make clear references to sorting out some mysteries from the first two movies (I guess, I don't know exactly what happened in those movies, but there were flashback scenes). The movie begins as a macabre griesly torture fest and ends up actually having a plot. If you are easily grossed out, I highly recommend that you not attend this movie. As a whole, I'd recommend it if you like the genre and you like blood, gore, bones, compound fractures and interior anatomy on display.

Well, I'm a HUGE fan of the Saw trilogy [Saw II and III are the only two movies I've ever seen on their opening day]. I'm not real big on blood and gore, but these are the best horror movies I've ever seen. You REALLY need to see the first two to really appreciate the last one, so do that first. As for the movie itself...Awesome. The plot is well developed and it makes sense, the ending is, as is custom, incredible and surprising. I really don't want to give anything away, but I highly recommend it to anyone who isn't too squeemish about say...compound fractures being shown on camera.

CP

I just went to see Happyfeet with the kiddos and Mr P, and enjoyed it very much. It is a feel good film, and snapped me out of the post-holiday depression and grumpiness I've been experiencing all day (probably brought on by carbohydrate overload!). It's very humorous, too, and I highly recommend it.

While I'm recommending kid films, I'll also give two thumbs up for the egregiously titled "Flushed Away". This was an enjoyable film, with enough adult humor for the big people, and enough action for the little ones. Don't let the title dissuade you, it's the only unsavory part of the movie.

Thanks Mrs P- I was wondering which one to take the kiddies too and not be bored to death at the same time!

I saw a couple of more kid friendly movies recently. One was 'Charlotte's Web'. I really liked it. I have a soft spot for anthropomorphic "real" animal movies with good life lessons (the first 'Babe' movie is, IMO, one of the best children's movies ever made). I've always liked the story of Charlotte, and it was nice to see it brought to life. Templeton was a hoot... I hope they do this with Rikki-tikki-tavi some day.

I'll issue a small warning for 'Eragon'. First, I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie as a parent taking my children to see it. However, if you are looking for something along the lines of another 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Harry Potter' you're bound to be disappointed. The dialog is a little on the cheesy side, and there isn't the same sort of character development or gripping plot line. If you adjust your expectations accordingly you might like it...I certainly recommend it for kids (it isn't very violent...I'd place it along the lines of the first Star Wars movie in that regard).

Charlotte's Web is such a classic story. I'll definitely take my 6 year-old.

I took my boys to see Happy Feet recently and I wouldn't recommend it. It's not a bad movie but, it just didn't interest me that much. In fact, I fell asleep out of boredom, which usually doesn't happen to me. If you want to see a good movie about Penguins, I recommend March of the Penguins instead of this one. My 8 year-old didn't care for it, either. The music in the movie is great, though!

As far as adult movies goes, this one is a must - Blood Diamond. This movie is about the diamonds that were mined in the war zones of Sierra Leone and sold to fund a horrible civil war. It took place in the 1990's. Basically this movie not only reveals the atrocities that occurred in Sierra Leone, but it also shows the viewer how the American consumer has a hand in the bloodshed. It was excellent and Leonardo D. was so good in it. He has really developed as an actor since the Titanic.

Otherwise, I also saw The Last King of Scotland. The main character is based on Idi Amin, who was the president of Uganda in the 1970's. Forest Whitaker did a marvelous job of making a madman likable. As far as the plot of the movie goes, it is totally ficticious and rather contrived. However, the movie is definitely worth seeing, on DVD, if nothing else.

I recently saw "Unaccompanied Minors". The movie is much better than the initial previews led me to expect. 'Tis a warm, fun, with just enough goofiness movie.

In the past two weeks I have been to see Casino Royale, the new James Bond film, twice. First time I went on my own, just to check it out, and was pleasantly surprised by how good it was.

Second time was while I was at home over Christmas; I took my folks and the cinema was packed out. My mum is a long-standing Bond fan, particularly of Sean Connery (she's just a connery fan, it's fair to say). Both are old enough to have seen the whole franchise through from the beginning during their adult lives. Both of them though Casino Royale was not just a good Bond film, but a good film all round.

On the second viewing, I think it's downright brilliant. Daniel Craig, while he brings just the right note of cold, calculating brutality to a role that is essentially a state-sponsored killer, also has the acting chops to bring real emotional depth to the role (not something of which you could accuse, say, Roger Moore). Judi Dench, spared the bad jokes that crept back in during the later Brosnan films, also manages to suggest an inner life.

Eva Green (as the main love interest, Vesper Lynd) is terrific - human, complicated, both horrified and fascinated by what Bond is and what he does - as well as being stunningly gorgeous (nighttimer, if any of our past correspondences are anything to go by, you'll just LOVE the girl, and the movie).

The action sequences - particularly an opening free-running chase - are superb, with not so much as a single silicon chip enhancing them (the only SFX that was noticeable to me was some busy matte-work during the wide shots of a new jet plane).

And I can't get the theme song - You Know My Name by Chris Cornell (of Soundgarden fame) & David Arnold - out of my head. (If nothing else gets nominated, I would like to see this get an Oscar nod, but I think other aspects of the movie would be worthy nominees - Craig's central performance is arguably better than those of some past winners')

In summary, if you've ever enjoyed a Bond movie - go see this one, and if you've ever HATED a Bond movie, go see this one - it's REALLY good.

I also saw Casino Royale several days ago and also quite liked it. I was glad that they decided to abandon what had become a pretty rigid, gadget- and stunt-driven formula. In this adaptation, the writers stuck a bit closer to the spirit of Ian Fleming's character than most of the recent Bond films while giving the plot of the novel enough of an update to be relatively credible in the new millennium. My only complaint was with changing Bond's game from Baccarat to Texas hold 'em, which is a bit like changing Sherlock Holmes from someone who smokes a pipe to someone who smokes Marlboros. I guess concessions were made to the lowest common denominator, but seriously - is Baccarat that hard to grasp? They didn't think so when they made Dr. No and Thunderball and On Her majesty's Secret Service, where the game wasn't even central to the plot - or when they made the spoof version of Casino Royale. I mean, the two or three card hand with the highest face-value total without going over ten wins - how challenging is that? I guess the American public isn't expected to be able to figure out simple addition any more. *sigh*

Otherwise, though, I think it's the best Bond film since the early Sean Connery vehicles - and as good as most of them. For a fairly sedentary plot, it's extremely well-paced and the relatively gritty cinematography keeps the whole thing grounded in plausibility. Daniel Craig is terrific, as are Bond's presumed allies Eva Green and Giancarlo Giannini - with Mads Mikkelsen as a suitably sinister foil and the amiable gravitas of Judi Dench to keep the upper lips suitably stiff.

Here is the problem I had with Casino Royale, the beginning chase scene had unbelievable stunts and acts of danger. The part where Bond is a mile high in the air and for the sake of bravado decides to risk his life by jumping from one rigging to the next is just completely unrealistic and unbelievable. Then the end of the scene where he shoots a gas tank creates an explosion that makes 20 armed African embassy guards, all who had their guns pointed at Bonds' head, suddenly duck and cover, while firing no shots. Then Bond disappears like a puff of smoke. Too unrealistic for this viewer to take credibly. The part where the terrorist does a gymnastic like pole swing through a tiny hole in the wall was neat especially considering that Bond responded by running right through the wall. That's believable and entertaining.

The film makers switched the game from Baccarat to Texas Hold 'Em because of Hold 'Em's current popularity. Unfortunately, the problem with that is people are so schooled in Hold 'Em, that instead of focusing on the action and plot of the movie, they were analyzing the play of the characters. I know I was. I found myself looking at Bonds hole cards and saying, "He shouldn't even be in this hand" or "Why wouldn't he just call?"

By the time the predictable and putrid Die Another Day limped to a tiresome conclusion I was convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt the baddest spy on film with the initials "J.B." was Jason Bourne, not James Bond. The brutally effective directness of The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy totally blew away James Bond and his cliched, gadget-happy, madman-about-to-destroy-the-world plots. Between Pierce Brosnan, Halle Berry and Madonna it was hard to tell who gave the worst performance in "DAD." All I knew was this franchise was showing a severe case of tired blood.

Enter Daniel Craig. Easily the most controversial James Bond since the short, unhappy stint of George Lazenby.

I still think Craig looks like someone Bond would beat up. He's short. His hair is a mess. And he's not really all that good looking. My wife and kids are confirmed Sean Connery fans. Connery was the quintessential Bond and no substitutes are accepted. They tolerated Brosnan, ignored Timothy Dalton and gave the back of the hand to Roger Moore. Consequently, I saw Casino Royale at a matinee---alone.

The poor buggers don't know what they missed.

I still don't think Daniel Craig has that quality only Connerly possessed in abundance; men wanted to be like him and women wanted to be with him. His Bond is a lot rougher around the edges with considerably less dry wit and dry martinis. He can solve a problem with his brains, but doesn't mind if he has to use his hands to get the job done. This is not your father's James Bond and I have to admit that's fine by me.

The eye-popping chase scene didn't seem any more illogical than most of the trappings of a Bond film. It seemed to be there to emphasize this James Bond is more of the "blunt instrument" that M calls him. Or as one reviewer described the sequence:

Take for example – the wonderful chase sequence with Sebastien Foucan in Madagascar. In terms of athleticism, Bond is no match for Mollaka as Sebastien plays him. He’s one of the world’s great free running performers and Bond doesn’t have that in him. Instead, the advantage Bond’s character has is this. While Mollaka can navigate his surroundings phenomenally well… James sees the shortcuts, the angles that Mollaka skips past out of a desire to simply move forward. Bond doesn’t have to do the astonishing leaps or climbs, because he sees how to do it easier than his prey. It’s Bond’s keen powers of observation – what his eyes see that others do not, be it a butane tank or a twitch of an eye, he’s soaking it in, looking for his advantage. link

Yes, Julian, I agree that for eye candy Eva Green as Vesper fills up a cocktail dress quite nicely. The romance between Bond and Vesper seems natural as you can see why the two are drawn to each other. The elusive quality of "chemistry" is definitely present between them. However, Green doesn't quite push my "va-va-voom" button quite the way Caterina Murino did as Solange. Though her part was brief, she made it quite memorable. At least I enjoyed every minute she was on-screen.

All n' all, I'd say Casino Royale is a welcome return to a Bond without the bull of driving through ice castles in invisible cars. Maybe Craig's rougher edge will work its charms better the second time out. The accomplishment here is making a Bond flick good enough to deserve another installment.

Now if The Departed and Children of Men live up to their good word of mouth I'll feel like I've gone on a winning streak at the movies.

Firstly, let me say I absolutely loved Casino Royale, the high points were insanely high. That free-running scene was staggering. Did you know the bomb-maker who led Bond through the chase is actually the French guy who invented Free running?

There are however two problems I could not get over.
Firstly, I have no problem with them reinventing the Bond persona, but did they have to actually reinvent bond, and discard the previous 35 years of movies? This is a stand-alone film and essentially bins every film in the franachise as if it never existed. That was unecessary. I mean the whole point of the film is to watch Bond develop into the famous Bond persona we all know, except that this 'famous persona' comes rom movies which apparently never existed.

The other thing was the poker, that just irritated me. They needed to consult an actual poker player about the game. At no point did they play, and the entire PLOT of the film is that the bad guy is a maths genius who can instantly calculate odds, yet the chances of the four hands arevealed in the final hand existing at one table are about a trillion-to-one. Bond NEVER actually optplays his opponent, he just gets crazy lucky cards.

However: Judy Densh was BORN to play M, and the closing scene was wonderful. All in all, despite the problems, good movie.

And dear god but that car was beautiful...

Two films of recent release (still awaiting the arrival of Pan's Labyrinth in the Salt Lake market):

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer - Tom Tykwer's latest film is an odd one, more peculiar than anything he's done in the past. Tykwer's an exceptionally talented director when given the right material, and Perfume is right up his alley. Apparently the novel was considered unfilmable, which I would probably agree with. Tykwer does the best he can, aided by a good cast, lush cinematography, and outstanding production design. This is not a great film, nowhere near the caliber of Tykwer's penultimate film The Princess and the Warrior, but it is a very entertaining portrait of a serial killer with a scent to catch.

The story revolves around a young man, born with an incredibly gifted sense of smell, able to pick up every single odor around him. It is almost viewed as a gift one might grant a superhero. But instead of helping people, he murders them. His desire is to capture the (scent) essence of the beautiful women he encounters. If this sounds ludicrous and over-the-top, it is. Tykwer's deft direction grounds the absurd into a grim 18th Century France (humorously, most of the accents in the film are British). This is a difficult film to describe, much like it can be difficult to describe a scent.

That being said, there is an odd shift for the final twenty minutes. I'm not entirely sure the film deserves to take the leap into the surreal, given that it mostly comes off similar to Ridley Scott's Hannibal, reveling in the decrepitude of a psychopath. Let's just say that it's surprising the film was able to receive an R rating from the usually stingy MPAA. Maybe they were too shocked--or maybe they were laughing at how absurd the climax of the film is. Either way, I recommend this one to mature audiences who may appreciate the portrayal of the dark side of a man who seems to have no other sense but smell.

*** out of **** (3 out of 4)

Children of Men - The best film of 2006, so far as I can tell. Alfonso Cuaron's dark and disturbing vision of a near-future world which has fallen into chaos when all of humanity becomes infertile. What would happen to a world in which procreation could not guarantee our continued existence? Thankfully, Cuaron and his screenwriters have avoided trying to explain this phenomenon--an explanation would have cheapened the proceedings. Cuaron has crafted one of the most grounded science fiction films of all time, sometimes coming across more like a war film than anything else. The palette he uses to paint this future is bleak and gray, he might as well have shot this in black-and-white.

The cinematography in Children of Men is hands-down the best I've seen in a long time. Imagine the opening scene of Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan expanded into a full film. Cuaron and his cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki utilize a hand-held, almost-documentary approach to the camerawork. There are lengthy uncut takes as the camera follows the actors around. Two of these shots, in particular, will garner much study. One involves a breathtaking car chase, shot from the inside of the car. The other is a climactic battle, a nine-minute unbroken shot which follows Clive Owen through one of the most amazing displays of filmed choreography. This single shot involves tanks, grenades, gunfire, explosions... it is worth the price of admission itself. To drive home how risky this shot is, the camera lens becomes splattered with blood--and it remains there for nearly the rest of the take (Cuaron admits to digitally removing the blood splatter towards the end of the shot).

And yet, the single shot takes never draw attention to themselves, a remarkable feat. They create a feel of real time, allowing some excellent performances to keep the focus. In spite of all that occurs, it is the story and the characters that matter to Cuaron. Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Claire-Hope Ashitey, Pam Ferris, and Michael Caine all do phenomenal work, but it is Owen who creates the emotional center. Stoic and detached at the beginning, Owen evolves into his former self. It is difficult to keep back the tears when Owen breaks down crying in the middle of the woods, overwhelmed by the tragedy of everything around him.

I can not say enough about Cuaron's visionary look at an anarchistic future, boldly taking its place among the greats: Blade Runner, A Clockwork Orange, Minority Report, etc. This is a bleak and depressing film, offering up a glimmer of hope, showing that beauty can find a way to shine through even the darkest periods. Technically, this is one of the best movies I've ever seen, but what really gives it a place in cinema history is the care in telling the story, never faltering into maudlin or cheap emotional manipulation. Children of Men should be required viewing for anyone who loves cinema.

**** out of **** (4 out of 4)

Correction: the nine-minute unbroken shot is actually only about 6 minutes. Either way, it's still an impressive act of filmmaking.

The wife and I went to a small, independent theatre (death to the multiplex!) to see Notes On a Scandal starring Judi Densch and Cate Blanchett. We enjoyed a nice bit of acting by two actresses shining as they played characters that weren't all that sympathetic.

This movie would have been loused up had it been done by an American director and cast. I'm sure some hack director would have insisted on a no-holds barred catfight or at least a high-wire, computer generated death match between Densch and Blanchett.

I cant give away much of the plot, but in a year where women have found some juicy roles to play, both Densch and Blanchet deserve their Oscar nominations.

Highly recommended.

{chuckling} two members of my extended family are given to gratutitous swipes at American films, as such. perhaps the fact that they were born and raised on East 221st Street in the Bronx (like everyone else of their generation, my mother included) explains their need to sound 'superior' to American film generally.

Woody Allen, Spike Lee, Ron Howard, and Clint Eastwood come to mind as four American-as-apple-pie directors. i haven't seen all of the work of any of the four, but so far i haven't seen any unnecessary 'catfights', or any at all, come to think of it, in the works of theirs that i have seen.

i had the pleasure of seeing Little Children, directed by the Pomona-California-born Todd Field, this past year. in a women's book discussion group, there is a confrontation between two women with strongly differing views, to say the least, about what should be thought of Emma Bovary (whom one of the two was emulating in her own life). the scene was handled with as much nuance and subtlety as any i have seen by, say, Bergman.

highly recommended.

I've seen three movies over the last two weekends. I'll place them in descending order.

Zodiac: Edge of your seat mystery it's not. The interest is more cerebral as you watch the real life hunt for a wily serial killer defy over and over again the Hollywood cookie-cutter programs.

The joy in this movie isn't finding out who the killer is and catching him its watching the hunters slowly crack under the strain all while trying not to betray that the Zodiac killer is tearing their lives apart without laying a finger on them.

Breach: Another true-ish story and a good look into some of the thing we talked about in BoF's hypocrisy debate. The in-boggling contradictions that can drive the behavior of a seemingly ordinary person.
I think it could have been more compelling if character were subtly developed (subtly crossed the street when it saw these guys coming) but all in all it was a decent flick.

300:
I loved Sin City and I was ready for this to be almost half as good, maybe?

Nope.

First off the cultural undertones caused me the squirm in my seat for most of the film.

In fact the whole thing was so overbearing and under thought in ever conceivable way no one could exit theater without rolling their eyes at least once.

In terms of moral premise the movie gets an F double minus.

The action however was visually interesting and their are a few good lines.

Overall a C.

You'll like it a whole lot better if you find a way to kill of a few million brain-cells first.

I definitely agree! Outstanding performances! The subject matter certainly inspires conversation!

Children of Men

Dir: Alfonso Cuarón

Well, here's a depressing film and no mistake. Its almost as bad as a John Brunner novel!

Set in 2027 this is an adaptation of a PD James novel, set in a dystopian nightmare where the human race has become infertile. The story takes place in the UK, specifically in London and Sussex, when the contemporary problems of mass immigration, warfare and pollution have left most of the world in chaos. Only the UK has survived intact, but at the cost of becoming an oppressive society on the brink of complete collapse. Every where is dirty, ruined. London is full of urban ethnic detritus with rickshaws and graffiti every where the camera turns. Refugee's are a major problem for the last viable society on Earth and are rounded up into public cages by the military.

Clive Owen plays Theo, a jaded political activist who is settling down into alcoholic oblivion and awaiting the end of the world when his former wife Julian (Julianne Moore) suddenly resurfaces after twenty years. Julian has become a terrorist and needs Theo's help to smuggle out a young refugee who just happens to be pregnant... Thus is the plot.

This film is a deliberate statement regarding the world today. Alfonso Cuarón has confirmed this, but its fairly obvious from watching the film. Post 9/11 iconography saturates the film to so great a degree that its hard to take seriously its classification as science fiction. This is to sci fi what Stalin was to politics. Its also fairly obvious that this film plays to the idea that western society is doomed. Though the whole planet is apparently infertile, the focus of the film is solely on the west with London representing the last stand of European civilisation. The first baby born in twenty years is naturally born to an illegal immigrant from Africa who represents the coming new age.

The obvious symbolism has spawned some criticism on IMDb's forum for this film where people have called it a 'liberal wet dream' and I can see their point. Though Alfonso Cuarón appears to be trying to maintain an apolitical balance in the story, what he's actually doing, since he is not predicting the future is commenting on the present (he's said as much himself). This is not a 'what if' kind of film. It is a statement of opinion regarding how the world is today and that statement is radically left wing.

But its a good film. Far and away better than 'V for Vendetta' which tries to establish a similar point of view. More 'real', and way better made. The camera work, art direction and editing are all excellent and I can forgive the political bias as a consequence (something I could not do for 'V for Vendetta').

{possible spoilers}



i got around to seeing Notes on a Scandal, and am very glad i did. briefly Judi Dench plays a 'spinster' secondary school teacher nearing retirement. Cate Blanchett is in the role of a married-with-children, 30-something newcomer to the faculty.

Dench is as bitterly cynical as Blanchett is naively idealistic. they become fast friends. but, Dench's emotional neediness gets out of hand when she starts using an indiscretion Blanchett has committed to exercise increasing control over the younger woman's life.

perhaps i saw the uncut version, because the version i watched contained two, not just one, 'catfights' (the second was, by far, the crueler of the two).

both Dench and Blanchett received high praise, but i think Blanchett's performance was overhyped, and Dench's under-recognized. to be sure, Blanchett's portrayl was much more fully developed as 'the blonde' (if the reader will permit this retro descriptor) than that of a number of actresses whom i could name, but won't. however, that's about it, imo. by contrast, Dench's performance was positively jaw-dropping. she was her character. and, Bill Nighy, as Blanchett's 20-years-older husband, was excellent.

i recall thinking to myself, as i watched Notes: this is the best movie i've ever seen. fwiw, at least two of the audience-reviewers at imdb.com wrote the same thing. to the extent this is true, the credit must go to Dench.




on the surface Astronaut Farmer appears to be ordinary wholesome family fare (though rated PG, not G, because of one gory scene). yet, scoop away the corn pone, and it is as subversive a movie as i have seen in the past 30 or more years.

imagine an American-made film depicting an intact nuclear family in which the white male father is neither molesting his children, nor physically or emotionally abusing his wife, nor a drunk, addict, philanderer, or even a compulsive gambler. (alright, at one point he is diagnosed as clinically insane, but let's not quibble.) as if that were not implausible enough, he's a southerner -- indeed, a Texan! (had he been, say, a working class Italian American with no connection, of any sort, to the Mob, it would have pushed the envelope of credulity beyond the tearing point.)

the first question one might ask would be: how could such a project ever get financed in the first place? aside from a nutcase such as Mel Gibson, who would risk capital on such an implausible premise? as it turns out, this indie project is, in part, a vehicle for two child actors, Jasper and Logan Polish, who are daughters of this film's writers, producers, directors Mark and Michael Polish (additionally, Mark plays an FBI agent on screen). i guess there's nothing like putting your own daughters in your film to motivate an 'unorthodox' perspective on fatherhood.

perhaps what made this otherwise impossible premise acceptable by Hollywood PC standards were two (otherwise completely gratuitous) auto-de-fe's by the father (Billy Bob Thornton, who is actually from Arkansas, not Texas -- but let's not get carried away). in the first, he speechifies to a committee of officious Washington bureaucrats who wickedly want to stop a private citizen from launching a manned Atlas rocket from his backyard, words to the effect, ~if another country tried to land men on the moon, the US would probably declare war on them~. (the last i read, Japan and China have such ambitions; but, so far, there are no plans for war with either country on Dick Cheney's desk. [come to think of it, cross your fingers.])

in the other genuflection to the Hollywood Left, Thornton, responding to a rumor that violent force will be used by the US government to prevent his launch, says something like, ~they're pretty good at killing people with dreams.~ (conspiracy theories, anyone?)

the ever-radiant Virginia Madsen (why hasn't her career been at least as big as, for example, Jessica Lange's?) plays Thornton's wife, who stands by her man. Bruce Dern is, as always, convincing -- in this role as Madsen's father.

bring the kids. if none are handy, bring the kid inside yourself.

I haven't seen it, but intend to now, based in this and other recommendations.

However - memo to film-makers (and prospective parents):

Julian is a boy's name and not a girl's name. If you like the root, there are plenty of female variants (Julianne, Juliann, Julia, Juliet, etc) to choose from without choosing the wrong gender.

And if you want to be original, call your character (or your child) Bimmelstarkey or Flibbnifoot or some other made-up name nobody will conceivably ever confuse.

Isn't it odd how scriptwriters (and parents) are often keen to give their women a boy's name, in some fumbling towards memorability, but it rarely happens the other way around. When did you last meet a man named Rachel or Louise, much less see the male lead in an action flick with such a name (unless the script also laboured to point out the dissonance of their being called that)?

The same goes for Sylvester Stallone for naming Rocky's love interest "Adrian", though that's perhaps forgivable in an American-made film written and produced by Americans (unlike Children of Men). One half expects Americans to have unusual names, at least compared to Brits.

Of course, my rant could be entirely off beam, and the film could make it quite clear that Julianne Moore is playing someone with a stupid name.