I guess I'll be the first to review the new Transformers movie here. I saw it last night.

First, a disclaimer...my taste in movies doesn't seem to be mainstream from what I've gathered over the years (nor is my husband’s). By the end of this movie, some people in the audience actually applauded, as Mr P was whispering in my ear, "Can we leave NOW?" I wanted to see it because the trailers looked very interesting, the reviews have been good, and my kids have been begging me to see it. Since it's PG-13 and the kiddos are young, I had to see it to approve first.

I don't understand why they made this just slightly too over-the-top to be PG. Some of the comic relief was funny, but it just went too far, at times, delving into slapstick. The first hour was rather good, but in the style of Michael Bay, by the end there had been a great many eye-rollingly cheesy lines, and it seemed to be a tad too long…as well as rife with plot gaps that I might have happily ignored if the dialog wasn’t goofy. Let’s put it this way, it was good until the transformers started talking. Then it became a children’s movie, yet rather than adding innuendo in such a way that it could be enjoyed by both children and adults alike (ala Shrek), it didn’t bother to do so. Seemed a bit lazy to me. I don’t want to have to explain masturbation, for example, to my young ones right now and don’t think I should have to when viewing a movie about space alien robots. It did nothing whatsoever for the plot or storyline. Perhaps it would have been amusing in an American-Pie style of movie, but were just out of place in this one.

In a nutshell, it was over-the-top on many levels. The special effects were (of course) great. But the gratuitous frequent zoning-in on the body parts of female lead characters was tiresome. Look at her as she lifts her arms to gaze into the car hood! Ect. Okay, we get it, she is very beautiful...persons interested can go to the internet and find her image and stare at it as long as they like. It doesn't add to the story line, nor is it of artistic significance in this type of film. Moving along...It would have also been nice if the names weren't so ridiculous. Of course they had to remain true to the characters, but had I written the film I would have tried to overcome that inherent flaw by throwing those names out only once or twice, and never during a tense scene. “I’m not leaving Bumblebee” just makes one want to snicker. It’s comic relief at an inappropriate time. Did Megatron really have to come out of his freeze and immediately say, "I am Megatron"?

It seemed perfectly suited towards children but too over-the-top at brief times for the age category in which it was most suited. I don't understand why they made it that way. Children could overlook the many questions and plot holes, but several situations weren't child-friendly so we're left with a (young) child unfriendly movie that is simultaneously a bit too corny (at times) for adults. It could have been really, really good without the unrelentingly cliched corniness. I'd say about ten minutes of unnecessary dialogue total (at different times) ruined it for me. I'd give it a B minus overall.

Mrs. P... tsk tsk. One does not listen to and comprehend the dialogue of a movie based on a cartoon based on a toy! You are to look at the pretty lights and recoil at the solar plexus crushing sound system. In fact, you should walk into a movie like that knowing everything there is to know about the story so that you might mock it for forgetting Se2Ep13 when Optimus Prime showed that he could be as evil as a Decepticon and that it was his personal curse to always fight that urge.

Can I take my son Danny? He's 8.

You're right! I don't know what I was thinking. But, I don't have any prior knowledge of transformers.



My oldest is almost nine, and I would probably take him. The violence isn't really over-the-top because it isn't graphic. No worse than star wars, and my kids have seen all of those. The dialog was a little too much (references to masturbation, ect), but it goes by quickly and there are very few of those types of references, so he'd probably miss it the first couple of viewings. It might be a problem if you own the movie and he sees it 20 times and starts repeating the dialog. He will DEFINITELY LOVE IT though. The entire time I was watching the film I was thinking of how incredibly cool my kids would think it was.

They applauded when I went to see it, too! I was a bit surprised.



Exactly!



Well, this is one reason why it is PG-13. The parents were, in fact, the best part of the whole movie. Apparently, the filmmakers realized this... they included little snippets of them in the credits.



I thought it worked. Sometimes the best little character bits have nothing to do with the plot or storyline.



Well, the lead character was a teenage boy... so, this definitely had something to do with that.



It was suited to the PG-13 crowd. I think it fit in with that crowd.




The fight scenes were too hectic and blurry. This masked the benefit of the cool special effects.

I give it a C.

My hubby is a huge Transformers fan and is planning to see the movie this weekend with some of his army buddies. Based upon the previews, I think he's going to be disappointed because it doesn't seem at all like the original cartoon/movie. I mean, there were not many humans in the original Transformers and the main characters were definitely the Transformers themselves.

On another note, I'm really interested in seeing Ratatouille! We were planning to go see it this past Friday, but the only theater in town (or anywhere around town, for that matter) isn't playing it.

Being a Netflix family, we tend to wait and catch "new movies" when they're released on DVD. Current cinema to me is anything that's been released on DVD in the past 2-3 months

We just recently watched "The Prestige". Since the movie we'd watched just prior was "The Illusionist" (which, IMO, was a much better film - I LOVE Edward Norton), it wasn't as impressive as it probably would have been otherwise. We figured out the whole plot concept/ending of The Prestige in the very beginning. There were some very good performances (from the male actors in particular), but I thought the movie itself was trying a little too hard.

Next up: The Last King of Scotland and Pan's Labyrinth...can't WAIT to watch both of these!!!!

I saw Transformers last week and I thought it was a decent action flick. It had the nice (not sure how realistic) cool factor of high tech US military technology (F22, Mrs. P). Some nice chase scenes, very nice vehicles (aka the Autobots), and a good action-packed final scene.

Yes, it was cheesy in terms of dialogue and plot line. The hook was good and a creative way to introduce the Transformers' presence on Earth, but in the end it was a movie aimed at teenagers.

As such, I give it a B+.

I guess I'm just getting pickier in my old age

I've seen Ratatouille and while it was very pleasant and a little funny at times unless you want to take children it's a DVD wait. I can say nothing bad about the film, but nothing to rave about.

Pan's Labyrinth was great one of the two truly great films I've seen in months. the other being the aforementioned Half-Nelson (and Brick but I'm late to the table on that one). I guess I'll catch Transformers, I heard there's a great preview for the Simpsons movie .

I saw Sicko the other night and must admit I was a bit disappointed. I should also confess, though, that I saw it at the end of a very long day and even dozed off once or twice. It was more of a straightforward documentary than the usual Michael Moore movie, with fewer gimmicky sequences (the much previewed trip to Gitmo being one of the rare exceptions), and much less humor. This is odd because, while the subject is damned depressing, scrupulous reservations haven't stopped Moore from exercising acute irony or indulging in lampoon in relation to, say, unemployment, gun violence, racism, terrorism, or autocracy - none of them very cheery topics.

The main problem, though - and it's more my problem than Moore's, I suppose - is that there was little information in the film that I didn't already know - and, unlike previous Moore films, the presentation didn't make the information that much more interesting. Overall, it's a pretty innocuous little movie, though I doubt that will prevent Moore's critics from developing apoplectic panty-twists - without even having seen the film. If they could manage to ignore Sicko, it would probably disappear from the public consciousness as quickly as the Patients' Bill of Rights.

Ratatouille was fun. It is basic Pixar stuff, slick animation and a story about how being yourself will win others over. A good story, and I enjoyed it.

Transformers was AWESOME. I love the original cartoon, and I thought this did a great job of balancing the old with the new. Special effects are excellent, and the story is pretty good. Can't wait for the sequels. One of the few films I have actually watched at the theater, I have seen this one 3 times, and loved it every single time!

Just got "Half Nelson" on DVD, will report back later when I actually get to watch it!


P.S.



My understanding is that this cut was actually rated R for overall intensity. Mr. Spielberg appealed to the board himself, and got it reduced to PG13 without any edits. I might be wrong, but it is what I read. I don't get it, but apparently it was actually over-the-top for PG13 until the movie-god himself talked to the board.

I saw "The Transformers". Was disappointed, too. One thing I kept going back to was how Megan Fox looked too old to be Shia LaBeouf's girlfriend. I mean, he practically has baby fat on his face compared to her. The same goes for Megan's jock boyfriend. It was weird. Even weirder, for some reason every time there was a close-up I was certain there would be a thin mustache on her lips, ready to make me jump in my seat. Other complaints include teenagers can act dumb around girls but they usually don't go out of their way to and I don't know why Jazz and Ironhide were so angry. Perhaps you can't bother squeezing subtle character differences into a movie that's already too long so you end up tinkering with the story of the Autobots for expediency. The Decepticons don't seem as bad to me perhaps because they spoke less. I was waiting for Starscream to get petulant and make mild threats.

By the time the climatic fight comes around everything is so overwrought, from the acting to the plot, that the CGI can't save the film. I wanted to see blood too, preferably some peppering the camera with human gore, and though dozens of people are killed there isn't a drop. I think it would've been better if they just said screw the humans, let's focus on the robots. I agree with Mrs. P: "American Pie" with a slice of killer toaster.

This is true, though I did know a man named Courtney recently. Ha Ha. Sucks for him.

But yeah very unusual... Drew Barrymore is a continuous source of discomfort for my gender identity.

My husband took our two boys (ages 6 and 9) and a friend of our older son (age 11). I somehow thought the movie was PG as opposed to PG-13 and didn't realize the rating until after the movie was over and had to apologize to the mother of the eleven year old for not checking with her before hand. All three boys loved the movie. My husband did not. From what I've read and heard, the movie is not smart enough for the more sophisticated viewer, but good enough for most kids. For anyone who is familiar with the L.A. area, we went to a place called "The Grove". It is an outdoor shopping center with an awesome movie theater.

On another note, I've seen a lot of movies on DVD over the past couple of weeks. One in particular, was quite good. It is called "Sherry Baby" and it stars Maggie Gyllenhaal. She plays a recovering drug addict who tries to reconnect with her young daughter after being released from prison. It's a stellar performance and I would say a very realistic storyline. Definitely worth viewing if you like drama.

I broke down and took the kids to see Transformers today (even the five year old...it would have been cruel to not include him). Unfortunately that meant I had to sit through it again, but they absolutely loved it, of course. The adult issues just went over their heads, not a problem...some bad language, but they know not to say it and substituting "oh my goodness" during the many action scenes would have obviously been over the top stupid.

One thing about PG13 movies, though...the previews for other movies before the show can be rather adult. The classic line of the day was when my (almost nine year old) turned to me with concerned wide eyes and whispered in my ear (after watching a preview for 'I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry') "Mommy, is it true that if you aren't really gay but say that you are, they'll put you in jail?"

Edited to add: Has anyone here seen the new Harry Potter movie?

I'll probably get the scoop on Potter after this weekend. I had some things to do in Huntsville and since Sicko wasn't playing anywhere in the Birmingham Area I took it in while I was up there.

That's over 100 miles to see this movie... sort of.

It was the first Moore film i actually caught in theaters and it's a solid viewing experience for anyone regardless of economic class or political affiliation.

Wertz is right that it's very straight foward.

Basic Idea: Universal Health Care works in the rest of the first world, why not do it here? Can't do any worse than what we've got now (we're number 37! woohoo! )

Enough humor to keep me awake though nothing much I didn't already know.

Moore just says in an organized, poignant fashion what a lot of us think about our health care and our [unprintable] insurance companies.

Definitely worth the time and money.

Sorry to be OT, but that cracked me up.

To be clear works means you don't die and people don't call you twice a day asking for money.

That is a lot to ask for in the States.

I'll likely start a thread but I've seen what this film talk about in person. Had a appendectomy a few years back. It takes a cattle wrangler to get insurance to pay up.

We aren't #37 because our system works so great...

Perhaps this isn't current cinema, but tonight I watched the DVD of this documentary and it was amazing. So, if you get a chance, check out The Hobart Shakespeareans. This guy's philosophy on education is refreshing. The one major thing he teaches children - and, for the most part, successfully - is respect... for themselves and others.

It was amazing watching 5th graders reading Huck Finn. It was more amazing watching them get it... some of them in tears as they read. An entire class reading Lord of the Flies in the 5th Grade. Learning to comprehend the themes of Shakespeare in the 5th Grade. Kids in a poor, violent section of Los Angeles, many of whom speak English as a second language. I was in awe. I was envious. Granted, not every teach has had their class incorporated into a not-for-profit organization (by a former student now at Yale), but this is a teacher who found a way to do what he could to teach.



Yes. And it was okay. I overheard someone say as we were leaving, "It's interesting that this was the longest of the books and the shortest of the films." Interesting... and therein lies the biggest flaw. If kids are willing to read a 900 page Harry Potter book, they are more than willing to watch a 3 hour Harry Potter movie.

The problem I had with it is that, in my opinion, the filmmakers couldn't decide what to cut and what to keep, so they kept it all in truncated form and weakened the story. You got very little character development regarding new characters. The only character who manages to survive this is Dolores Umbridge... absolutely excellent performance by Imelda Staunton. This film is a lot of hints and tastes of character. Kreacher is but a cameo in the film - as is pretty much every member of the Order of the Phoenix. Ultimately unsatisfying.

There's also much less action in the film so it moves slower... most of the action occurs at the end (and it's cool).

It's darker than the others, but then so's the book. With the other films, I could enjoy the film separate from the books. This is the first time with this series, however, that I would say the book was infinitely better than the film... If you haven't seen the film or read the book... read the book... it's sooooo much better.

If you've read the book... the film is not awful and it's not great... it's okay. Ultimately unsatisfying.

Netflix has added a Watch Now feature to allow you to stream movies straight from the internet. Not all of its films are available but there is quite a library including a strong lobrary of documentaries.
On top of that my two year old daughter has become addicted to the old Pink Panther cartoons.

I have seen two films that I would highly recommend.

One film is an Italian film translated as The Tiger and the Snow. It starts Robert Begnini of Life is Beautiful fame. He is essentially the same character but he is hopelessly in love and that love takes him into modern war torn Baghdad and back.

It is the best film I have seen in a while and probably my favorite of the year.

Then there is a lesson in modern debt accumulation that is a documentary called Maxed Out. If our schools continue to incorporate Life 101 style classes to help young people become independent young adults, this documentary is an important one. It is a powerful and sobering examination of the modern American consumer.

The Simpson Movie

I have a question for you. Would the movie be too inappropriate for a 9 and 12 year old??? My nephew is in town and loves The Simpsons and he's dying to go see it. Of course my older son feels he's plenty old for such humor.

No, the movie should be fine for them. I saw it today with a 3 and 9 year old. Make sure you sit through the credits.

The Simpsons Movie was a bit of a disappointment as I suppose was inevitable.

The show rides as strong as any of the popular comedies of the present day, but it is no longer head and shoulders above the competition. The magic of the first eight seasons or so is what made me a devoted fan and, as writers find work elsewhere, the real power of the Simpsons has waned.

The biting sarcasm, the way they mocked everything pop culture, and the sympathetic nature of the characters signify where the edge has been lost a bit.

The Simpsons have become caricatures of themselves to some extent.

The movie is a little better than an hour-long episode.

Too much Flanders (or at least, wasted Flanders, not nearly as funny as he could be)

not enough Willy or Burns or Dr. Hibbert or Barney or Green Day

Just enough Moe, one of my favorites.

..but pretty entertaining. A matinée if you ask me.

Edited to add:
Kidnap Conan and bring him back!

I ended up taking my two boys (6 and 9) and my nephew (12) to see The Simpsons. It was a fun movie and appropriate for the younger viewers. I loved the way they made fun of our inept governor here in CA. For the Simpson experts it may not hit the mark in terms of brilliance, but I throroughly enjoyed it!

I saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix last week and thought it was okay.

My daughter and I both thought is strayed a bit farther from the book than the previous HP movies. Although the story was true to the book, it did not go into the depth (obviously) and left out what my daughter felt were key details.

The movie was shorter than I expected (at just over 2 hours).

I also finished reading the seventh book of the Harry Potter series the day before I saw the Order of the Phoenix. The book was good, until the very end. The ending was too cliche and a bit childish for my liking, but ah well.

I agree regarding the new book. It seemed like the ending was tagged on like she had to make a decision either way and didn't make it until the last moment. It certainly wasn't predictable, I'll give it that.

Now that they've minimized the role of Kreacher in Order of the Phoenix to, basically, a cameo (along with some other characters)... it'll be interesting how this will play out in the future film version.

Got out of the 90+ heat wave baking the city and retreated to a movie theatre to watch The Bourne Ultimatium, the third of Robert Ludlum's novels featuring superspy, Jason Bourne.

If you've seen the first two movies, this one won't disappoint as it takes up from the end of the previous installment, The Bourne Supremacy as Jason continues his search to find out his true identity.

If you prefer stuntmen to CGI, fight scenes that look painfully "real" and a car chase that ups the ante considerably as to what to expect from this staple of action movies, TBU will not let you down. I actually heard people cheering and giving high-fives after one particularly stylish, but brutal, throwdown.

It's not profound, but it is exciting, smart, well-written, moves along briskly and Matt Damon is a bona-fide action hero.

The only thing that may bother you is director Paul Greengrass's fondness for hand-held camera shots. What he gains in gritty realism, he occasionally gives away with some shaky shots that make it hard to tell what exactly is happening a few times.

Damon says this is his last time playing Bourne and since Ludlum only wrote three novels featuring the character, continuing to crank out Jason Bourne flicks with a different actor doesn't sound very promising to maintain the standard set by the trilogy.

Best movie I've seen this summer.

I saw This Is England.

It was violent and troubling. It deals with the mindset of English skin heads in the early 1980's. The main character is a 12 year old boy (brilliant young actor) who is a sort of lost soul after his father dies. He gets involved with a group of skin heads. Most of them are just decent young people who are bored. The antagonist is a man who spent some time in jail and for various reasons is very angry and violent. He clings to racist ideology. The movie is done very well in that it is layered in terms of emotions and degrees of goodness and badness in each character. We are not all one thing all the time and this movie really captures that essence of humanity. Though I would not see the movie again, I'd give it a big thumbs up for quality and seamlessness of characters.

Sounds like the British American History X.

I watched another movie streamed from Netflix called Water. It is a dubbed movie from Bollywood. It is a social drama dealing with the treatment of widows in Gandhi era India.

I am looking forward to the release of Invasion since I am a si-fi fan and saw the other Body Snatcher movies.

Not to rain on your parade, Ted, but The Invasion looks to be an extremely flawed movie because the execs at
Warner Brothers weren't happy with the way the flick did in pre-screenings, so after director Oliver Hirschbiegel had finished they brought in The Wachowski Brothers and their hand-picked director James McTeague to shoot additional scenes and kick up the action. Since the movie is only 93 minutes long, there are whole sections of the movie that are very different from what Hirschbiegel had intended.

I don't know if the reshot scenes make for a better movie, but right now the reviews on RottenTomatoes.com are overwhelmingly negative. It seems like the tampering of the studio may have exchange psychological terror and paranoia for car chases and shoot-outs.

This looks to be one of those movies that might be improved by waiting for the DVD and hoping that the Director's Cut restores the original version of the director. As it stands now, you might want to read a review or two before you go unless you're just a die-hard Nicole Kidman fan.

It's in the same genre, I'd say. A moral lesson is to be learned. The usual recipe.

Another movie that I saw (on DVD) is called Tsunami: The Aftermath

It was originally an HBO production. It basically follows the events of the 2004 tsunami and its aftermath. It is a story about the survivors and their attempts at relocating loved ones and dealing with the unimaginable. In particular, there is a couple from England who take their daughter on vacation to Thailand. In the early morning of the day the tsunami hits the wife goes out on a scuba diving trip with some other tourists. The tsunami hits while they are out diving and they don't even know it has occurred until they get back to the beach and see the havoc.

Warning: It was a very difficult movie to watch as a parent, as one of the main thrusts of the film is the search for a couple's 6 year-old daughter. It is a highly emotionally charged film and not for the weak at heart (like me).

One more thing about it: I hesitated to see this film because I was concerned it was merely an exploitation of what happened. But the director (Bharat Nalluri) did a very fine job of exploiting the exploiters in the aftermath of the tragedy, as opposed to the victims.

In a bit of bait-and-switch, while my wife sent the kids to watch The Simpsons Movie, we were supposed to see The Bourne Ultimatium. But after dropping them off at the ticket window while I parked the car in the nether regions of the lot, I walked in to see she had instead purchased tickets to Talk To Me.

Now I'm a big Don Cheadle fan, but I found this biography, Ralph Waldo "Petey" Greene, a fast-talking, take-no-crap disc jockey working for a Washington D.C. radio station in the late Sixties to be pure made-for-television fodder. If it wasn't for the raw language of the movie, there's no reason this couldn't have debuted on USA or FX networks. There's just not enough there to justify the feature film treatment.

Director Kasi Lemmons does a good job of recreating the fashions (such as they are) of the era and the music is a major plus. The performances by Taraji P. Henson (Hustle & Flow, Smokin' Aces) as Greene's long-suffering, sexy girlfriend, Vernell and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Inside Man, Dirty Pretty Things, Children of Men) as Dewey Hughes, the polite program director who first doubts Greene has the right stuff for the job and eventually becomes his biggest supporter, are almost as good as Cheadle's highly likely to be nominated lead acting.

But Lemmons, only on her third movie, doesn't know when to give the story a little goose to get it moving. The pace drags when it should be picking up. Even the big moment of the film where Petey goes on the radio to try and cool out the city that is exploding in riots following the murder of Martin Luther King Jr., feels a little flat and forced to me. It's one of those odd movies where you appreciate how hard the actors are working more than what the movie actually accomplishes.

Talk to Me is worth a DVD rental, but it's not a must-see. Hopefully, if Cheadle is successful in getting the financing for the Miles Davis bio flick he plans to direct and star in, he will put it together in a film that truly is award-worthy.

Pan's Labyrinth

Wow. The finest integration of fantasy and reality that I've ever seen. Definitely not for kids. My only complaint would be the English title; the faun in the labyrinth is clearly not the god Pan.

Gigantic (A Tale of Two Johns)

Documentary about the band called They Might Be Giants. It's actually refreshing in this age of documentaries trying to cute and arty that this thing is pretty straight forward, interviewing the two musicians (both named John) who are the heart of the band, and folks who worked with them, about their career. Add in some some concert footage and you have a nice little rock and roll film. Scenes where famous people recite lyrics from their songs and a few scenes like a discussion with a historian about James K. Polk (subject of one of the band's songs) add just the right touch of quirkiness without going over the top. Enjoyable for folks like me who thought that TMBG were at their best with the albums Flood and Apollo 18.

(By the way, why is it that there is quite a bit of discussion about what the name of the band might or might not mean, but nobody ever mentions the fact that They Might Be Giants was the title of a fairly well-known play and movie?)

Some older stuff, courtesy of Turner Classic Movies:

It Happened in Athens (1962) tries to exploit the 1960 Olympic Games in Rome by telling a story set in the first modern Olympics in Athens in 1896. The hero is a Greek shepherd boy, played by the oddly named Trax Colton (born Louis Morelli), an actor who appeared in exactly two movies. His co-star in both was the legendary Jayne Mansfield, who is wildly out of place here as a Greek (!) actress who promises to marry whoever wins the marathon, expecting it to be the favorite, the man she is already engaged to marry. Mansfield, as usual in her films, makes fun of her own sexpot image, wearing pseudo-Victorian outfits that display her famous bosom to its best advantage, and stripping down twice to her corset. (As my better half remarked, in her role as a publicity-hungry star with no apparent talent, Mansfield is basically playing a 19th century Madonna.) With one thing and another, the shepherd boy winds up running in the marathon without needing to qualify; he's so naive he shows up in his best Sunday suit to run, and they have to cut the legs off his trousers to make running shorts for him. He also falls in love with Mansfield's maidservant. Mansfield makes a play for him, apparently more because she's expected to than for any real reason, he wins the race, but Mansfield goes back on her promise and everybody is happy. An extremely silly and laughably bad, but headscratchingly weird movie. The great athlete Bob Mathias, winner of the gold medal in the decathalon in 1948 and 1952, appears as the coach of the American team.


Becket (1964) stars Richard Burton in the title role and Peter O'Toole as King Henry II. Set about a century after the Norman Conquest, it deals with the conflict that comes about when Henry appoints his Chancellor (and only friend) Becket to be Archbishop of Cantebury, in an attempt to make sure the State has complete power over the Church. When he takes on the new position, Becket has a sudden change in character and firmly opposes his friend's attempt to rule over the Church. It all leads up to Becket's murder in the Cathedral and his sainthood soon after. A few liberties are taken with history, but it's a vivid portrait of an England not far out of barbarism. Both lead actors are quite good, Burton more thoughtful and O'Toole more passionate. Worth seeing.


A Bucket of Blood (1959). I hadn't seen this Roger Corman cult classic in many, many years. As one of the three horror comedies done at about the same time, it's not as continually entertaining as The Little Shop of Horrors and not as insane as The Creature From the Haunted Sea; in fact, it almost plays as straight horror. A guy who works at a beatnik coffee house (Dick Miller, in the "Walter Paisley" role which has so often been referenced) wants to be an artist despite a total lack of talent. When he accidentally kills a cat and covers the body with clay, the beats accept it as a great sculpture. The next step, of course, is human figures. The story is pretty much by the book, but the fun comes from the satire of the beatnik subculture and its artistic pretentions.

That'll Be the Day (1973) I watched this as part of my obsession with films dealing with old rock 'n' roll. This one is actually more of a character study/domestic drama, set in the UK. A early scene, set in the 1940's, shows the protagonist as a young boy. His father returns (from the War, I presume) but soon abandons his wife and son. Fast forward to the late 1950's. The son (David Essex) is a bright student, but he decides to avoid going to University and instead hits the road and gets a low-paying job handling beach chairs at a seaside resort. He meets a Teddy Boy (Ringo Starr, doing a pretty good job as an actor) who gets him a slightly better job with a carnival and who introduces him to the pleasures of the opposite sex. Eventually he goes back home, helps Mum in her shop, gets married, and becomes a father. Will history repeat itself?

That's all there is to the story, really. There are lots of other characters who show up, but the focus is on the protagonist, who isn't particularly likable. The film would be of little interest if it didn't do such a good job (as far as I can tell) of recreating lower middle class Britain in the late 1950's and early 1960's. (I'm sure many Americans, and perhaps some Brits, were baffled by a scene in which the protagonist's friend states that he and his University colleagues prefer "trad" [Dixieland jazz] to rock 'n' roll.) Worth a look for that reason.

And three British horor/science fiction films I had read about for years but never seen:

Night of the Demon AKA Curse of the Demon was a fine dark fantasy about a skeptic who finds himself placed under a death spell by a sorcerer. Subtle and atmospheric, with an excellent performance by the fellow who plays the magician. It's well known that the director objected to the audience actually seeing the demon (and it is revealed very early in the film.) I have to agree that it doesn't quite go with the whole Val Lewton feel of the movie, but it's actually a pretty decent special effect, in a sort of Ray Harryhausen way.

Village of the Damned is, of course, the famous adaptation of The Midwich Cuckoos. Everybody in a small English town loses consciousness for a time, even the animals. When they wake up, all the women of child-bearing age -- even the virgins -- are pregnant. The result is a bunch of white-haired, unsmiling, super-intelligent children with telepathic powers. A simple story, really, but very nicely done with British understatement and realism. (Is this the first use of Evil Children With Glowing Eyes?)

These are the Damned AKA The Damned, despite the similar title and the theme of weird children, is quite different. It starts off with an American tourist attacked by a gang of Teddy Boy thugs, led by Oliver Reed in a nice Malcolm McDowell/A Clockwork Orange kind of role. The plot suddenly shifts into science fiction when the hero and the bad guys stumble into a secret government project where ice-cold, radioactive children have been raised underground since birth. A very bleak and pessimistic film.

Too late. I went to see it since I was a big fan of all of the Body Snatchers movies.

As you say it is mediocre (but nor bad really) – wait for the DVD is good advice.

Thanks

Well, that was a blessing in disguise, NT.

The Bourne Ultimatum is one of the most disappointing, albeit over-hyped movies I've seen in a long time. I have not heard one bad review about this movie and I promised hubs he would enjoy it - action and all. But there were some major flaws. First of all, the shaking of the camera (done to add authenticity to a very far-fetched plot line) gave me a mild headache. It was too much action, if you ask me. Even my hubs agrees and he's a man. While I liked the character that Matt Damon played, as well as the other actors, the storyline was so absurd to me it was hard not keep a straight face. I actually laughed out loud a few of times at how over the top this film went. It was amusing to see very skilled actors spewing lines that they themselves surely found obscenely silly.

Does anybody out there agree with my review? Just curious.

If you liked Water, you should also see Fire and Earth - the other two films by the same director, Deepa Mehta. I haven't seen Water yet, but the others I saw weren't dubbed, they were English language films. Interesting that this one is dubbed.

Fire is about marital/sexual relationships in India. Earth is about the splitting off of Pakistan from India. Both fantastic films.

I saw an excellent movie - a second viewing for me... Funny Games by Haneke. An excellent comment on violence in film. Beautifully acted. Apparently, Haneke was asked to do a remake (which they are doing) and he said he would do it only if it was a shot for shot remake. Apparently, from what I've heard, it is going to be the same right down to the gesture.

I agree, Doomed. I saw this movie a couple of nights ago because the reviews from both critics and regular viewers were so good. It was definitely action-packed. Basically every minute was "tense", to the point that an hour into it I started looking at my watch. One can only stand so much action, then it all starts to blend together and become boring. In fact, there was so much action that there was no time, or room, for character development at all. I found myself wondering why I cared what happened to any of these people anyway? Of course there was the necessary, almost 'mission-impossible' level of willing suspension of disbelief (but not quite that bad, thankfully). And of course there was the obligatory political statement towards the end (reminded me vaguely of Terminator II with the ending thumbs up in the melting pot). Overall, I'd give it a C or so.

Edited to add: My husband did like the movie, though (we rarely disagree on movies, but this was one he liked and I didn't).

I have to second and third the C grade for Bourne Ultimatum. I really like the Ludlum books, and was hoping that this one would deliver like the first two, but was disappointed. And not just for the overtly Anti-American subtext, with eeeeevil politicians doing bad things. More for the shaky video, the unrealistic settings, and the almost complete lack of story development. My wife is a bigger fan and she liked it more. That could be related to the ever-increasing size of Matt Damon's biceps, however. If you are looking for suspension-of-disbelief, you may be better served watching the new Die Hard, which is probably at the $1.50 show near you.

Just a note, Water is not a Bollywood film but was filmed in Sri Lanka and produced by Canadian and various International companies... and as such it is available in both English and Hindi (with subtitles) versions, as it was filmed in both.

It's fine and dandy with me if some folks didn't dig The Bourne Ultimatum. Different strokes, and all that, but I do take issue with the "overtly Anti-American subtext" remark.

Carlitoswhey may have noticed a hidden agenda in the script that I missed, but if you took every movie that suggested the CIA and federal government have done illegal things, manipulated events or otherwise been engaged in unsavory acts and characterized them as "anti-American" we'd be stuck with nothing but Disney flicks and endless variations of Meet the Fockers.

I would suggest that anyone who thinks director Paul Greengrass is advancing a "anti-American" agenda in The Bourne Ultimatum should watch his previous film, United 93. It's tough to watch 40 brave Americans try to thwart terrorists who are attempting to crash a plane into the U.S. Capitol building on September 11, 2001, but Greengrass does an exemplary job in depicting an almost unwatchable event.

Minus a trace of anti-American subtext.

One "Meet the Fockers" is plenty. But how many times do we have to be hit over the head with a frying pan that our government is corrupt. I think we know it and so does the rest of the world. Do we really need to be reminded at about $10 a pop?

Could the movie have spent 5 minutes explaining why there even was this top-secret unit of which Bourne is a member? What threat(s) they responded to? The only thing we know is that they assassinated a Russian guy, a German guy and an African guy. No why's or wherefores, unlike the current situation where we are responding specifically to Islamic terrorists. A little context would have balanced it out, that's all. No, it wouldn't even come close to excusing brainwashing guys to kill people, yada yada. It's a fictional movie, and the fiction is all about power-drunk bad white guys secretly running the government. Sorry, I call that an anti-american subtext, and by 'american' I mean checks and balances, etc.


You apparently did not listen to the Director's commentary on the Bourne Supremacy, where Greengrass tells us how paranoid and oppressive America had become since 9/11. I know his point of view, because he told me on a DVD that I own. As for United 93, it was very pro-American-passenger-on-that-particular-flight, but was also very anti-Bush in my mind, the way it showed Air Traffic looking for the 'missing' Bush to authorize a shootdown of the passenger plane.


Yeah, that's a bit of what I meant. The weird thing is that the same people who complain about corrupt government are the ones who want to make it even bigger.

I'm surprised no one asked Flansburgh and Linnell themselves - the band's bio usually mentions that the name comes from the film based on James Goldman's play (whose title is a reference to Don Quixote's tilting at windmills - which were not of course giants, but thinking they might be demonstrated either heroic imagination or dementia). Anyway, I must look for Gigantic - I agree that those are TMBG's two best albums (though Lincoln isn't bad, either). Thanks!


It's the first use of Evil Glowing-Eyed Children that I know of - and probably the most effective. Village of the Damned was made when films were more dependent on craft and imagination than gimmickry and stunts. Which brings me to the reason I'm posting here:

I'm afraid I have to agree with most of the technical criticisms of the film that have been leveled here - and share the disappointment of many here, especially, as has been mentioned, since the film has been getting such rave reviews (97% at Rotten Tomatoes last time I checked).





While I can't say that it was only Greengrass's "fondness for hand-held camera shots" that bothered me, it was certainly the main thing that bothered me. I wish someone had told me beforehand that Paul Greengrass had directed the film: I would have known what to expect. The problems that afflicted The Bourne Ultimatum are the same problems with which United 93 (and, to an extent, The Bourne Supremacy) was beset - primarily, a director without much of a clue about coherent film-making. United 93 and Ultimatum are both chaotic to the point of being incomprehensible.

I'm not talking about being able to follow the story here. The plot of Ultimatum - such plot as remains - is pretty straightforward and is roughly the same as the first two films: Matt Damon himself described it on The Daily Show as "The Bourne Redundancy"). I'm talking about coherent photography. Film is a visual medium - the story is told through pictures. Much of film's terminology is derived from the visual arts - and there's as much focus on composition, line, color, rhythm, and focus. Many terms used to describe styles of paintings have been applied to film: directors can take classical or romantic approaches to film-making; movies can be realistic or expressionistic or naturalistic or surreal; film noir might use chiaroscuro, while more romantic films may emulate the lighting of impressionist painters; and so on. It seems Paul Greenglass is attempting to be the Jackson Pollack of film-making.

I didn't have minded the hypertension or the sustained action to which Mrs. P and doomed refer - these have worked quite well in films ranging from Terminator to Children of Men - it was the way in which the tension was (artificially) sustained and the fact that the action of the plot was subverted to the relentless action of the camera.

The heightened energy created by jump cuts, crash zooms, drifting framings, racking focus, uncompleted pans, and generally jittery camera-work can be quite effective - it can create a sense of immediacy, of movement and pace, of being in the action (films like Natural Born Killers and Man on Fire - even Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives - come to mind). In more able hands (like those of Oliver Stone or Tony Scott), this type of shooting and cutting might have resulted in a flashy, rough-edged film that was as gripping as it was exhausting. With Greengrass, though, the result more often tends to be an incoherent mess. He showed considerably more restraint in The Bourne Supremacy and the result was a much better composed picture. With Ultimatum, he never applies the brakes - there is not a single static shot in the entire film (in which there are 3200 shots in 105 minutes - about two seconds per shot). Worse, the "intensified continuity" of the film results in far too many shots in which the viewer can't even discern the subject of the frame. In a couple of sequences - especially the fight scenes - this works (in that photography is about as disorienting as being caught in the middle of a brawl). But sustained over an hour and forty-five minutes, it does not work.

The viewer needs to know what is going on in a film visually. Greengrass gives us nothing. Listening to the few bits of dialogue without the images, the film would be easy enough to follow. But if one were watching The Bourne Ultimatum without volume, one would not be able to grasp the first thing about the plot, any of the characters, or any of their motivations. The visual information just isn't there. In terms of impact, Ultimatum is more like a thrill ride than a movie. One comes away having been affected physically - but without a story having been told.

In Bloody Sunday, this technique was used somewhat more sparingly and it worked very well (as it did in The Battle of Algiers made thirty-five years earlier). And I thought Greengrass was a director with some promise. The Bourne Supremacy didn't change my opinion much either way. While this technique was getting a bit old by United 93 - especially as it seemed to be taking over the film entirely - it still seemed appropriate: we couldn't tell what was going on in so many shots because no one knows what was going on during much of the film's action - and it helped underscore the "real time" setting. The main problem with United 93 - and with The Bourne Ultimatum - is that they only become coherent when the script is about to venture into complete fantasy.

In United 93, the only thing we really come away with about the flight itself is that terrorists were going to crash a plane into the Capitol Building and that the passengers stormed the cockpit with a tea cart causing the plane to crash prematurely and saving the day. In reality, while we don't know what the target was, we do know that the cockpit was never breached. In the film, that fictional event is about the only thing to emerge from the chaos of the plane scenes. The other sequences, while a bit more comprehensible, are similarly skewed. The film is biased toward the valiant flight controllers and prejudiced against the relatively sluggish military. Again, neither seems to have much to do with fact. In The Bourne Ultimatum, there is little in the film that isn't chaotic - and the only real moments of clarity and calm are at the end of the film - just in time for another flight of fancy. More on that below. But, stylistically, I'm afraid Paul Greengrass is turning out to be an artist who's less akin to Jackson Pollack than he is to Pablo the Chimp.

As to the "political" content of the Bourne trilogy...





I'm not quite sure I grasp your complaint here, carlito. Are you suggesting that if the Blackbriar boys, instead of assassinating a Russian guy, a German guy, and an African guy, had assassinated a Saudi guy, a Pakistani guy, and a Syrian guy, the film would have been less "anti-American"? I know you don't mean the film would be less "anti-American" were the antagonists bad black guys, so I can't quite see what difference "a little context" would make in bad guys upsetting checks and balances, etc.

In any event, you don't seem to be saying that the film itself is anti-American, but that it is about anti-Americanism, about bad guys of whatever color doing "anti-American" things. If checks and balances are your concern, any film about the CIA is going to have an "anti-American" subtext - and, usually, an "anti-American" . Unless, as nighttimer suggested, you're denying that the CIA has been involved in planning and carrying out political assassinations - not to mention overthrowing foreign governments, installing military dictatorships, spying on American citizens, interfering in foreign elections, and causing the deaths of large numbers of innocent people - then the mere mention of the letters C, I, and A implies an anti-American flouting of checks and balances - at the very least. Indeed, since Richard Helms, the corrupt intelligence chief plot has practically constituted a sub-genre of espionage films.

I just don't see how the charge applies more to this film than it does to just about any other espionage move ever made. In fact, any spy movie that didn't involve corrupt leaders or double agents or political collusion or seditious informers or insider conspiracies would be pretty pedestrian stuff. Or do you just prefer Evil Geniuses with buxom assistants (but no distracting national affiliations) developing a death ray for sale to the highest bidder with only a gadget-laden stud standing in their nefarious way? Like nighttimer says, different strokes and all that - but the Bourne series seemed to be going for a bit more "realism" which means a bit less cleavage, somewhat more likely villains, and fewer wristwatches that transform into personal helicopters.

And, despite all the hyper-real Queasicam photography, it was in its attempt at "realism" that I felt the film most disappointed. Not because of the far-fetched plot or all the unidimensional characters that were too good or too evil to be true (the premise alone demands a pretty hefty suspension of disbelief) - but because of the film's resolution.

My problem with the "politics" of the film is common to many spy movies - and, well, most fiction in general. As Oscar Wilde said, "The good ended happily and the bad unhappily - that is what fiction means." And that's kinda what I meant above by saying that both Ultimatum and United 93 only become coherent when they're about venture into absolute fantasy. In United 93, it was to make the passengers look "heroic" and the authorities to look incompetent, at least by comparison. In Ultimatum, it's to give the audience a gratuitous "happy ending": whistle-blowers triumph and end up testifying before Congress; renegade agents fighting for truth, justice, and the American way ride off into the sunset, vindicated; and corrupt officials are caught and punished - even Deputy Directors of the CIA. This may not be "anti-American", but it's certainly anti-realism. It was good to see this movie's batch of villains get their comeuppance, but after three films, two of which were pretty riveting, with relatively satisfying endings, I was expecting something a bit more... convincing.

Maybe Greengrass has got this whole style-over-substance thing out of his system now and can return to the promise that was demonstrated in Bloody Sunday. I certainly hope so: his next project is supposed to be an adaptation of Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Imperial Life in the Emerald City - and it would be very depressing to see such good material rendered incomprehensible.


I hope you enjoy Pan's Labyrinth, CR. Like just about everyone here who's commented on it over the months, I thought it was great. There were quite a few good films released last year, but with Children of Men and The Queen, it was one of the best. It's a nice blend of fantasy, romance, horror, war, and coming-of-age movies - and works pretty well in each genre.

I watched Hot Fuzz because I loved "shaun of the dead" so much- it was not quite as funny- but dang funny still. I just bought Pan's Laybrinth- I haven't had a chance to watch it yet- but can't wait considering the great reviews.

Tranformers I liked as some good escapism action adventure sci-fi.

Simpsons movie? Best movie EVER iin the history of film making The alaskan references had audiences here in stitches- the writer OBVIOUSLY has been here for some of the inside humor- the boob lady and the comment "You can never be too fat or too drunk" is PURE Alaskana

I just saw a good German file The Lives of Others. A good thriller and historical as well.



http://movies.aol.com/movie/the-lives-of-others/26624/main

I just barely finished watching The Lives of Others as well. I've been waiting to see it since it bested Pan's Labyrinth at the Oscars for Best Foreign Film. I wanted to see just what the Academy thought was better. I can understand now. I may not agree--I still think Guillermo del Toro's fantasy/horror story is superior--I thought this film was absolutely beautiful and touching. It's a quiet, brooding drama driven almost entirely by dialogue. And it is gut-wrenching and haunting. Highly recommended to anyone who loves great drama.

I saw 3:10 to Yuma on Friday and came away impressed! A great western....and not necessarily because of the action (although their was plenty of that). I felt that all the principle actors did an outstanding job with their characters. Russell Crowe was fabulous as Ben Wade...a thoughtful, but murderous leader of a gang of murderous thieves. Equally impressive in a more subdued (but nonetheless powerful) role was Christian Bale as Dan Evans...a down on his luck rancher desperate for money to keep his farm and his family's respect. Evans takes on the thankless and difficult task of escorting Wade to the train that will take him to prison (thus the title of the film) and it is this journey that captures the heart of the film.

The interaction and growing relationship of the two principle characters keeps the film interesting and by the end you are on the edge of your seat wondering if Dan will be able to make good on his commitment AND his promise to his son. The final 30 minutes are simply excellent.

Also impressive in a smaller role is Ben Foster as Charlie Prince...the sadistic sidekick to Crowe's Wade who is determined to free Wade at any cost. In addition, Peter Fonda does a terrific job in a supporting role as the bounty hunter Byron Mcelroy.

I would have to say this is my favorite movie of 2007 so far. Definitely gets from me!

Wertz, I luv ya like a brother from a different mother, but I STILL think "The Bourne Ultimatum" rocked and "United 93" was equally good. Guess that's why ice cream comes in more flavors than vanilla and chocolate.

I haven't gotten over to see "No End In Sight" yet, but the best documentary I've seen recently was The Bridge, which is one of the most difficult, yet moving film experiences I've had in quite a while.

A synopsis:

Early in The Bridge, director and producer Eric Steel offers a picture-postcard view of the Golden Gate Bridge as it spans the bay from Marin County to San Francisco. It's a sunny day with blue skies and puffy white clouds, and the waters of the San Francisco Bay glisten under the bridge's rust-colored girders. Near the end of the shot, almost unnoticed at the bottom of the frame, something splashes into the water. One of the 24 people who jumped off the bridge in 2004 has just died.

Inspired by a 2003 New Yorker article about suicide notes, director and producer Eric Steel documented the Golden Gate Bridge for the entire year of 2004. (The bridge is by far the most popular place to commit suicide in the country.) Filming every day from multiple viewpoints, Steel and his crew recorded several of the over two-dozen attempts that occurred in 2004. Steel then interviewed the victims' families and friends. The resulting footage includes some of the most disturbing images you may ever see.

It is difficult to accept at first that the footage is real, that it hasn't been doctored in some way by special effects or computer animation. Suicide is so culturally taboo that seeing people perform it evokes contradictory impulses of shame and revulsion but also empathy and fascination. This would be an uncomfortably voyeuristic experience if Steel weren't so careful not to exploit the material. It's an almost unbearably sad one instead.

Steel eschews a voice-over commentary that could soften the impact of the suicides. Nor does he offer the solace of a professional opinion. No psychiatrist or police officer provides explanations or excuses. The workings of the bridge--how it is maintained and patrolled, for example--are barely noted. No one mentions efforts to build a "suicide-proof" barrier along the bridge's pedestrian walkway. link

93 minutes of watching people jump to their deaths? Not exactly something you settle down with a big tub of popcorn and a Slurpee. But I didn't find the film to be the least bit exploitative. Suicide happens and when it does the universal question is "Why?" Steel does a good job of helping the viewer to see the jumpers as more than troubled souls and I came away from the film with a better understanding of why someone would take their own life.

Neither preachy, nor pandering, "The Bridge" takes on a difficult, and personal subject and presents it without sentimentality or sensationalism. It's been weeks since I watched it but it's stayed in my mind far more vividly than any multi-million dollar, big budget, bloated Hollywood craptacular clogging up the theaters this summer.

Recommended. Just not for voyeurs or the easily upset.

Well, again, different strokes. I didn't think United 93 was bad, just that it had problems. The Queasicam style worked much better in it (indeed, I thought the incomprehensibility may have been largely intentional), but I did feel it was a bit too fictionalized and would have preferred even less clarity if the narrative decisions were going to be so skewed.

We'll have to agreeably disagree about Ultimatum altogether, I guess - though it did, at least, give a fair amount of screen time to the excellent Joan Allen (who doesn't get nearly enough work) and, overall, the performances were quite good - though, damn, is Albert Finney not aging well. It looked like he'd been hammered together before each scene. But the direction, cinematography, and editing overwhelmed everything else - the acting, the script, the design, even the score. That's not n