Mulan Meets Showgirls: MEMOIRS not all it's cracked up to be

First of all, I'm very thankful that I am not Japanese. No offense to the culture, but, "I want a life that is mine."

The performances in Memoirs of a Geisha were actually very good. Michelle Yeoh, Ken Wantannabe, Ziyi Zhang (or Zhang Ziyi), Youki Hudoh, and Li Gong (the Asian mix between Jennifer Connely in Requim and Cruella DeVille) were all superb in there performances. I do have a question, though- does it matter that Zhang is Chinese??? I was very impressed with their English, as the entire cast works primarily in Asian films. As actors, they all made strong choices, obviously did their homework, and embodied their characters very well.

The story is slightly hard to understand. Being ignorant Americans, we sometimes need things explained. For instance, each character, it seemed, had more than one name, or names similar to another's, so I sometimes lost who they were talking to. And as good as their English was, I almost wished that it was all in Japanese with subtitles. I would much rather read subtitles than find myself stuck on something that I missed. I also wished they explained all the politics of Geisha-ing a little better- at times it made them seem almost like glorified prostitutes, which I know they are not. Since Zhang's character, Sayuri, was clueless going into it, it gave the perfect opportunity to explain things. While they took advantage of this at some points (for instance, the bidding process... creepy...) it could have been used more.

This film is trying to be more beautiful than it is. There are some wonderful shots, like when Chiyo (Sayuri as a girl) is running through those orange Pagodas (is that what they're called?) which is slightly reminiscent of that image from Jules et Jim. The Japanese culture is incredibly beautiful by itself, but it felt like they were trying to force it to be beautiful on film.

The story line is also quite intersting... I have not read the book, but I have a strange feeling that it does not end the same way. In fact, I was disapointed by the ending (although, I know if Speilberg had kept it, they would have been married with 2.3 kids and a dog in the ending shot.) The rest of the film, it appeared (I really have no idea about Japanese culture) tried to stay true to the life of a Geisha that may have happened, but the ending seemed incredibly fake-happy and forced. I wished they also focused more on what Geishas do- we had a couple of glimpses at dances, but all in all I was not impressed. The story itself was huge. I almost felt like I watched an entire trillogy of movies in one.

Perhaps director Rob Marshall should stick to musicals. Or perhaps this story was better left on paper. Either way, it was quite the disapointment. The story is interesting, and worth seeing, but the way it was done was unsatisfying. See this film if you have an interest in the culture, but don't see it if you're a feminist. Overall Grade: C+

Where Did We Go Right?: THE PRODUCERS great despite critics complaints

If you liked the Broadway show, The Producers, then you will also like the film. If you're not used to stage shows, be forewarned: YOU ARE WATCHING MUSICAL THEATRE!

As Brecht forced the notion that his audiences were watching theatre down their throats, so does The Producers. Right off the bat, the chorus is singing to the camera, and using the set and blocking right off of the stage. There is no doubt about it, you're watching a musical. Unlike the 2002 film Chicago, which reenvisioned the musical specifically for film audiences, The Producers plays it like they were playing to a packed theatre. Director Susan Stroman, who incidentally also directed the play, keeps that musical theatre world consistent throughout the whole film.

Nathan Lane, Max Bialystock, is a washed up Broadway producer. He meets up with a mousy accountant Leo Bloom, Matthew Broderick, and they devise a skeme to make 2 millions dollars off a flop. Lane, as always, is absolutely incredible. Broderick, however, was slightly disapointing. It was interesting to see him in a role that is much more over the top than he is used to doing, but it did not read well on screen. He was actually a bit annoying. I hate to compare it to the original, which was not a musical, but it seems Gene Wilder is unreplacable in that part. I was quite scared by what to expect from Will Ferrel in his role as Franz Leibkind, the German writer of the play Max and Leo decide to produce (Springtime for Hitler.) Ferrel blew me away. I was so pleased by his performance. Not only was his voice excellent, but he did not play Will Ferrel. I actually forgot it was him for a while. Another person I was a little worried about was Uma Therman. Unfortunately I was not as pleased with her performance. Remember vhen Ulla belt? Vell, it sounded more like Ulla turned her mic up. Thurman was just not big enough for musical theatre, or for the world that was created in this film.

Gary Beach, the original who played Roger De Bris on B-way, was great, as was his common law assistant, Carmen Ghia, played by Roger Bart, also from the original cast. The tons of chorus girls, and grammas, were incredible, and spectacular. And the surprise after the credits was the icing on the cake (I would have been very sad without it...)

The musical was always known for it's obsene humour, and the fact that it made fun of just about everyone. The shock value has worn off for someone who knows the words to all the songs by heart, but there still is something slightly devilish seeing all those glittery swastikas on the big screen. And the Mel Brooks humour is there, although not as much as I would have hoped (look in the background, you'll be surprised what you find!)

This film is fun for all. It's funny, and entertaining. Anyone who likes musical theatre, Mel Brooks, and even those who might not, will like this film. Definately go see it in the theatres. Overall Grade: B+

See DICK, See JANE. Laugh, Dick! Laugh, Jane!

This new remake of the 77 film starring George Segal and Jane Fonda is actually quite enjoyable. Jim Carey, Dick Harper, and his wife Jane, Tea Leoni, run out of money and decide to become robbers to pay the bills.

Judd Apatow, writer and producer of this year's comic masterpiece, 40 Year Old Virgin, comes back for another before the year's up. Unfortunately for him, this is no where near Virgin, but it still delivers laughs.

This is an enjoyable, fun movie. There are plenty of funny moments, and the actors did very well. Carey was not as over the top as he sometimes can get, and Leoni was nothing extraordinary, but still enjoyable. Alec Baldwin plays Dick's ex-boss that screws the company over ENRON style, and he does a great job playing the rich jerkoff. Again, non of the performances were super spectacular, but they were entertaining and enjoyable.

There was an underlying commentary throughout the movie on the economic state of society. I enjoyed the fact that while the whole movie kept that theme, it wasnt shoving it down your throat or slaughtering the film (like the embarassing remake of the classic The Stepford Wives did.)

Overall, this film was nothing special, but it was still quite enjoyable and funny. You should see this if you're in the mood for a light silly comedy. Overall Grade: C+

Sticks and Stones: THE FAMILY STONE is quite the Christmas upset

In the spirit of films like Meet the Parents, only backwards, Sarah Jessica Parker, a conservative Meredith Morton, who spends the holidays with her boyfriend Everett's, Dermot Mulroney's, hippie liberal family.

Diane Keaton, who plays Sybil Stone, the matriarch, is, as always, delightful, funny, and great in her part, as is all the family. Rachel McAdams never ceases to amaze me with her vast array of characterizations- this time, she plays the bratty youngest sister, Amy. Luke Wilson plays Luke Wilson, who apparently is a stoner ladies man of sorts. Tyrone Giordano plays the deaf gay son, Thad, who has a black boyfriend, played by Brian White. (all we need is someone in a wheelchair, and we have an after school special.) Elizabeth Reaser plays the pregnant sister, Susannah, who's there with her daughter, Savannah Stehlin. Craig T. Nelson randomly completes the crazy family as the father, Kelly Stone.

All in all, I would love to have this family as my in-laws. But of course, I am far from a conservative buisiness woman, who apparently, hippies prey on. The story sets up that Amy already dislikes Meredith, and the rest of the family follow suit quickly. Amy is absolutely horrible to her, more so than any spoiled little sister should be, and sends Meredith on a spiral through a hellish weekend. So hellish, that she has to call her sister, Julie, played by Claire Daines, in for backup. And to make it even more ridiculous, Everett starts falling for Julie, and Ben (Wilson) falls for Meredith.

Take their love quadralatiral, add some illegal psychlotropic substances, and a bunch of bad plot twists, and get the train wreck that is this movie. And the ending is ALMOST acceptable... until she gets back off the bus (SPOILER- after the whole fiasco, Julie leaves, Everett chases after her, she says it's ridiculous, it won't work, gets on a bus, the bus drives away... and then, the bus stops, and she runs back off... gag me.) Then it turns into Stepmom meets the ending of any Disney movie.

Definately the chick flick of the season, all of you who obsessively watch Sex in the City will want to run out and watch this holiday film. For all the men, and whatever women are left besides me, be sure to miss this one. It's a shame, because some of the performances are pretty good, but this will definately make you more pissed off than anything else. Overall Grade: D+

Shock and Awe: King Kong to be Classic for Our Generation

Peter Jackson's homage filled remake of the 1933 classic is one of the greatest most amazing films I have ever seen.

That being said, let's move on with my review.

I always wonder what it would be like to have been an audience member in the early days of film. Those who had never seen the magic of CGI, or knew what special effects could accomplish, (or knew who The Bumble was- think about it...) must have been in total awe and fear when they first saw Kong on the big screen. Jackson has actually been able to recreate that for movie goers today.

This film will suck you in, (forgive the spider pit pun) terrify you, and bring tears to your eyes. The effects are absolutely mind boggling. Andy Serkis, who studied gorillas for six months to play the giant ape the same way he did Gollum in LOTR, brought such a magic to the character. Though no real shots of a gorilla was used, you will swear he is real. All the time they spent on Kong must have deffered them from spending time on other CG characters. Ann tends to look a little fake at times when traveling in Kong's hand, and the stampede with the raptor attacks are definately disapointing where graphics are concerned. All of that, however, is forgivable and slight in comparison to the rest of the film.

The suprising casting of Jack Black was happily not a mistake. Since all of the characters were much more spawned out, Black fits Carl Denham very well. He gets to play the wise cracking jerk, and does a great job of keeping charcter through the whole movie (meaning, he refrains from playing Jack Black.) Adrian Brody, Jack Driscoll, and Naomi Watts, Ann Darrow, give great performances as well. All of the actors did a fine job- the characters were all much more three dimensional and human than those in the original. Unfortunately, this also left us wondering more about them after their parts in the story end.

Jackson made sure to put in several homages to the original in this version. There were some slight changes and some drastic changes, but all were made respectably, and I had not major complaints with any of them. Jack plays a writer, not a sailor, and Denham films scenes straight from the 33 version- with Ann and actor Bruce Baxtor, played by Kyle Chandler. In the end of the film, a huge change is that Ann is not present on stage for the showing of Kong. Instead, a replacement actress is in her place. This is consistent with the new characterization of Ann, however, so is a forgivable alteration.

As much as each character is more three dimensional, so is the relationship between Ann and Kong. In the original, while you feel bad for Kong, you never really empathize with him. This version really seperates him from being the beast and being an actual character. You actually see their connection grow, and see his love and sacrifice for her.

Though I give Jack Black the utmost credit and respect in this role, the final line was slightly disapointing. He almost had it, it seemed, but there was just something missing from his delivery.

The film is shot marvelously. The images are absolutely breathtaking. Jackson was able to create this incredible world where everything was just slightly fantastical that it made it almost magic. The film is scary, though, and has some graphic scenes, so I'd be wary bringing young kids to see it, but everyone should go out and see this film. Overall Grade: A+

The Passion of Aslan: NARNIA sure to send imaginations flying

Ever since I was little, C. S. Lewis' classic books have held a special place in my heart. And with the incredible success of Peter Jackson's LOTR movies, I was very excited to see what was in store for The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Shrek director Andrew Adamson teamed up with Disney (who better to make a Christian allegory) to create this beautiful epic fairy tale.

During the war, four children are forced to move out to the English country side, where they stay in a huge mansion. Lucy, the youngest, played by Georgie Henley (who looks oddly enough like my sister when she was little,) stumbles upon a wardrobe which transports her to another world. Eventually, all of the children are brought to Narnia where they join the Rebellion of animals and mythical creatures to fight the evil White Which and return peace to the land.

Then there's Aslan, voiced by Liam Neison, who dies for Edmund's sins and through the old magic is brought back to life. There was just some allegory that could not be avoided, but I was pleased to see that many of the Biblical references were left out of the film.

Henley's little pig nose and wide-eyed cuteness, though a little much at some points, worked well in the part of Lucy. The other children, while not horrible, were ok. Susan, played by Anna Popplewell, was also good, but the character doesn't have much to work with in this film (on par with the book.) The two boys, Edmund, Skandar Keynes, and Peter, William Mosely, while not horrible, did not inspire the same noble and courageous feeling as the characters should have, which I believe is partly due to the script. I feel that the sibling relationships were sacrificed to make room for the dazzling fight scenes, and other magestic storylines.

James McEvoy gave a mediocre performance as Mr. Tumnus. There was something lacking in his character, or maybe too present (a little Lucy-Tumnus thing going on?)

This film has some of the most amazing special effects ever seen to date. Besides Mr. and Mrs. Beaver, who seemed slightly too cartoony, differentiating between CG characters and real characters was almost impossible. The fight scenes were amazing- and brutal for a PG Disney movie!

Having read all the books numerous times, I know the story by heart, so I'm not 100 percent sure how well the storylines and characters played to someone who went in fresh. For me, however, I was very pleased by the film adaptation. I would definately recommend this for children of all ages, and all those who like to expand on their imaginations. Overall Score: B+

Everything I Never Needed To Know I learned from ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW

This film does an excellent job of saying absolutely nothing.

Directed by, and starring, Miranda July, this film has a setup similar to that of Magnolia or Crash- a bunch of random people and how their stories interact. July plays the starving artist Christine Jesperson, who's power color is pink. Her art makes no sense, and she is slightly neurotic and lonely and desperate. She sends a video of her work to big art exec Nancy Herrington, played by Tracy Wright, who finally watches it and may or may not be touched by it. Christine then meets Richard Swersey, played by John Hawkes, who in the first scene sets his hand on fire in effort to either deal with his divorce or to make his kids think he's cool. Richard is a shoe salesman, and Christine finds herself there every day. They have the most awkward courtship imaginable and end the movie on a date.

Richard has joint custody over his two mulato sons, Miles Thompson (Peter) and Brandon Ratcliffe (Robby). Inspired by his older brother, Robby, who's about six or seven years old, ends up in an online filty cyber relationship with a woman. They plan to meet, and in a surprise twist, two other stories collide (on the off chance you do see it, that part's too good to spoil.)

The film portrays itself as obviously indie- long, artsy, reflective shots, and strange, "different" people. After I finished it, I spent a few minutes in quiet reflection thinking about what I had just seen, and came out of it realizing I just wasted an hour and a half of my life. It left me feeling pointless and slightly confused as to why the story had no major point. See this movie if you're weird, lonely, and if you're power color's pink. Overall score: D

The Truman Show: Hoffman's performace is brilliant in the beautiful, yet dry, CAPOTE

If you would like to see some of the greatest performaces of the year, go see Capote. Just be sure to go to a theatre with comfortable seats. The film, while beautifully shot, is slow, dry, and dare I say, boring.

Capote is the story of author Truman Capote, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, on his journey to write the book In Cold Blood, about two young men who slaughter an entire family in small town Kansas. While researching for his book, Capote becomes very attached to one of the convicted men, played by Clifton Collins Jr. (a voice in the Grand Theft Auto video game.)

I was first drawn to this movie by the fact that Hoffman played the title role. For years, we have seen him playing the weird friend, the mean spirited med student, or the burned out musical guide helping the story along the way. Never were two roles alike, and never was I disappointed with a performance, but finally he gets the title role! At first, I thought I was going to claw my ears off- Capote talks in a very distinct lispy, relaxed (gay man) voice. After the first few minutes, however, you barely notice it. You also forget that you are watching Hoffman. His performance is absolutely brilliant- he completely embodies the character of Capote, and makes this introverted story worth watching.

Catherine Keener plays Harper Lee, Capote's best friend, and author of To Kill a Mockingbird. She's there as Capote's support through the film, helping him get his research, and being there for him, even though the self-concerned Capote gives no regard to the success of her infamous book. Keener gives another great performance, something slightly different from what we're used to seeing her as, and she looks old! Also, a surprising performance by Collins, playing Perry Smith. His character was left slightly open ended before his execution, which, I guess, is how Capote must have felt. He comes off as such a nice boy, as they all do, before he reveals how he (SPOILER) single handedly murdered the entire family. It put kind of a damper on the nice boy image.

Besides the great performances and the fact that it was a beautiful film to look at, Capote really didn't do anything for me. It was well done, and an interesting story, but too dry for most audiences. I would be pleased if Hoffman gets a nomination out of this, but not something to go run out and see. Watch it if it's on TV, or if you rent a movie by yourself on a rainy day. Overall Grade: C