Able to Leap Tall Plot Points in a Single Bound: Returns will leave you feeling unresolved

Bryan, why didn't you stay with X-Men??? Whyyyy?

Ok, now that I've got that out of my system, we can move on.

Character-loving director Bryan Singer passed on finalizing the X-trilogy to undertake a major project: the new Superman movie, Superman Returns. Ignoring the third and fourth Christopher Reeves' versions, Singer wanted to continue the story of this fictional American hero in a way that today's audiences would enjoy. Similarly to Batman Begins, this was a more modernized and more serious look at the well known story of a comic book legend.

What Singer brought to X-2, deeper views into the characters, he tried desperately to bring to Returns. 6 years ago, relatively unknown Singer brought a fun X-Men movie to the big screen. When he 3 years later released the sequel, audiences came out with more than they expected. The first film was a fun action-hero movie. The second went farther, delving into these characters' backgrounds and lives, bringing depth and reality and current issues to the screen. It was no longer simply good guys versus the bad guys. If you look at Superman throughout the years, his television show, comics and movies have been mostly about good versus evil' Superman versus Lex Luther. Everybody knows the story in some form. The die-hard fans know past the generic story line, but generally, Superman has been about saving the day. Trying to recreate the giant step away from the superhero movie, Singer made Returns more about the characters and the relationships they shared than about Clark saving the day.

The story begins with Clark Kent/Superman, played by young TV star, Brandon Routh, returning much like he first arrived to the Kent farm, by crash landing. He had been gone for five years. We find out that during that five years, he went to Krypton, found nothing, and came back (he must have hit traffic.) Clark moves back to Metropolis and the Daily Planet to find things moving at a very swift pace. He also finds out that ex-love interest Lois Lane, Kate Bosworth, is engaged to editor Perry White's (Frank Langella) nephew, Richard White (X-Men's James Marsden) who she has a son, Jason, with, played by 6 year old child actor, Tristin Lake Leabu. Wait a minute. He's been gone 5 years. The last time him and Lois were together, they slept together. And some time in between, she met, engaged, and mothered a child with this other guy? Forgive me for questioning the laws of nature here, but this boggled my mind a little bit. I'm sure you can see where this ends up in the film, but I won't completely spoil the ending. Ok, so maybe Super-aliens have a longer gestation period, or a faster growing ability. But how do you explain the fact that Bosworth, nine years younger than actress Margot Kidder was when she play Lois in Superman II, is supposed to be five years older than we last saw Lois (who I believe was about 25 in the second film.) And how is it that Routh, also who should be playing a five years older Clark, was actually the same age as Reeves when we last saw him?

Ok, so maybe the age of the actors doesn't matter, it's how they play the characters. Here is where my biggest argument with the whole movie enters. Bosworth's Lane is similar to that of a high school girl! I thought I was watching Mean Girls more than a season, Pulitzer winning, 30 year old journalist/mother. I would have completely ignored the fact that the actors were so young if they had believably played the fact that they were 5 years the senior of the characters in Superman II.

Singer opens up a world of character backgrounds and plots and interesting details to this film that he goes absolutely nowhere with. This is the curse of trying to make it more than just a superhero flick. One thing at a time, Bryan! We know there are going to be sequels, one already in the making for 2006 with Singer as the director, so there is no need to waste all the story possibilities on one film. (SPOILER... sort of) Save Jason's true identity for another movie, tie up the loose ends, and tell us what really happened during those 5 years!! The film shoves so much down our throats and does not give us enough to digest.

The biggest upset was Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. It wasn't Spacey's performance that lacked. I believe it was more the fault of the writing. The brilliant moments Spacey gives us reach not much farther than those shown in the trailers. We lose the humor I know was there somewhere by everything else that was going on. There are one or two moments of pure hilarity in the beginning by young improv comedian, Parker Posey, who plays Lex's woman, Kitty Kowalski. ("Wow, Lex, that's really something... it's like frickin' Gone with the Wind") Not only do we lose the malicious humor of Luthor, but the Clark-looks-just-like-Superman references start out so strong in the beginning of the movie. I was so excited at the prospect of this movie being able to poke fun at that. Then, it just disappears, as does Kent.

This giant, exciting epic film just leaves you as an audience member kind of feeling unsatisfied. It's NOT unenjoyable; it's actually quite fun at points. But it leaves you feeling like it could have been so much more than it was. You actually completely forget that you're watching a Superhero movie since there's barely and superhero-ing!! There are very few action sequences and very few of him saving the world. As simplistic as that sounds, that's what the character of Superman is all about. It's great to see more realistic characters, but it is quite the overload for one film. It's worth seeing in theatres because it is very beautiful to look at. I would recommend it, but you will most likely feel as unsatisfied as I did.

Overall Grade: B-

101 Reasons To Become Bullemic: Devil as painful to watch as Prada is to wear

After seeing Anne Hathaway's boobs in Brokeback Mountain, I knew those Disney, fresh-faced Princess films were long behind her. I was incredibly excited to see her in this new movie with Meryl Streep, an actress who I admire very much, called The Devil Wears Prada. True, I was a little anxious (fashion is not my forte,) but I knew I had little to fear with this film. It's amazing how false confidence in a movie can make you sick to your stomach.

Or maybe it was the quote, "'[size] 2 is the new 4, and 0 is the new 2.' 'I'm a 6.' 'Which is the new 14.'" I suddenly felt very bloated in my size 12 jeans. After I stopped trying to figure out what new size I would be, not only did my head hurt and my self esteem plummet, but I also started a downward path towards loathing of this film. Now, I know that some of this is meant to poke fun at the thinning fashion industry, but some things the film just took so seriously, and instead of enjoying myself, I found myself infuriated!

I am by no means an angry feminist; let me just clear the air on this. I am also quite the fan of satire, which this, by no means, was. My pain came generally from two faults with this movie: mostly the subject matter, and slightly, Hathaway's role.

Hathaway, who plays journalist-hopeful Andy Sachs, gets a temp-to-hire job working at THE fashion magazine, Runway, under editor-in-queen, Miranda Priestly (Streep.) Andy starts out as a liberal, frumpy "I don't care what I look like," (hey, kind of reminds me of... me) girl, who soon (get this...) learns the WONDERS of fashion. Through this 2 hour journey, Sachs learns how to dress, and, the most important thing in life, how to accessorize. She become engulfed in her job. Now, a typical movie would jump right to this strong willed woman standing up for herself and her loved ones. Not this movie- it exclaims, screw them! This is what's important! "Everybody wants to be us." It thrives on business, fashion and popularity being the most important aspect of life. There was always this little bit of doubt that maybe family and friends were more important, but it told young women they have a choice. You can stay with family and friends or you can be a success. If you are a success you will know all the right people, wear all the right clothes, and clothes ARE important! Do not forget that fashion is all around you- even that ugly cerulean sweater you may have bought on clearance for 3.99 at T.J.Maxx. (I threw out my cerulean crayon.) The movie stresses the importance and artistic value of clothing, which I'm sure does have some resonance in the fashion world, but for me, in my ripped sweatpants and free tee-shirt I got from some college event, I felt physically offended by its message.

Of course, in the last five minutes of the film (SPOILER) Andy realized the error of her ways and runs home to her (ex?) boyfriend ready to start back at the bottom. Isn't that sweet?

Let's go back to the story surrounding Hathaway's character. Frumpy girl finds herself in a very high up position. She gets a makeover and suddenly is gorgeous and wonderful. She realizes she's in over her head and that she is forgetting about and losing touch with her friends. Why does that sound familiar? Oh, because it's the same plotline as Princess Diaries! (Except with the lack of nasally humor from Heather Matarazzo.) Enough said.

There was only one aspect of this movie that, for me, made it actually enjoyable, and that was the performance by Meryl Streep. She managed to take this horrible, evil character and give her more substance than I have seen in a long time. She was funny, incredible, and touching. I am sometimes in awe of this woman. If I were to ever watch this movie again, I think I would fast forward to any scene that she's in because she is such a joy to watch. You hate her, but by the end you completely understand and feel for her. It's incredible: I was so infuriated with this film, yet I was absolutely in love with Streep's performance.

My problems with this film seem somewhat insignificant in the long run because I am sort of a tomboyish cynic. I must say, you will be more inclined to enjoy this film if you are of the now-matured audience that first saw Princess Diaries, and if you tend to like boderline-chick-flicky-type movies. If you watch Sex in the City, which is also directed by Prada director, David Frankel, you'll probably like this movie. If you enjoy Meryl Streep, you will absolutely adore her in this film, and no matter how you feel about my opinion on the "issues," her performance is reason enough for anyone to see it. Something to rent for a girl's night get together (unless you invite girl friends like me.)

Overall Grade: C+ (The + is for Meryl.)

Napoleon Complex: Make sure you wear your stretchy pants to see Nacho... just for fun

Anyone familiar with Jared Hess and his awkward sense of humor will know exactly what to expect from his latest film, Nacho Libre. Hess took pop culture by storm two years ago with his indie comedy, Napoleon Dynamite which featured John Hedder as a lanky high schooler with chapped lips (there's one in every school) and Tina Majorino, also known as the girl from Andre. Though everyone may fast forward through the dance scene at the end, Dynamite has become one of the most quoted movies (until the release of last year's 40 Year Old Virgin.) Hess was able to create a very indie very weird film with a PG rating that everybody and their mom (who, by the way, goes to college,) loved, and sold more "Vote for Pedro" shirts than one can even imagine. In going into Nacho Libre, (meaning, "Free Nacho,") I wondered, could he do it again? Could his out-there, slow paced humor carry another PG movie to a pop-cult favorite? And could Jack Black, who surprised us all in King Kong, be not Jack-Black-y?

The answer to the first question... is yet to be determined since the height of Dynamite's popularity was after it's release on video. And the answer to the second question, is... almost.

The story of Nacho, a half Mexican, half Scandinavian (which explains the paleness) brother in a small Catholic Church somewhere in Mexico is a very simple one. Nacho has been in the brotherhood all his life, an outcast, who feels that he does not fit in. He desires to be a fighter (un luchador) and feels that it is his goal in life to achieve this. A pretty nun enters, played by Ana de la Reguera, a poor, dirty Mexican joins, played by Hector Jimenez, and a small boy named Chancho (Darius Rose) gets his hopes up.

Besides the style of Dynamite, Nacho also breaks conventions, meaning it doesn't follow the typical movie formula. Although this film follows much more of a story line than Hess' first, which, arguably, had no story line at all, it doesn't trail along the pattern of every under-dog/boy-meets-girl movie. Audiences expect that typical story, however, which makes this stand out (in a good way.) It's definitely not the same old, same old.

The addition of big name Jack Black to the cast was very shocking to me at first. Jack has a tendency to play very similar characters in most of his movies, but never ceases to amaze me. Those who thought he was just another dirty comedian were stunned by the incredibly kid-friendly and encouraging School of Rock. That answered the question, could Jack Black be PG............13? And most surprising of all was his being cast in Peter Jackson's King Kong released last year. That answered the question, could Jack Black play anyone other than Jack Black? Now, could he do it again? As I said before, almost. He was doing very well, actually, at keeping his character (although, you'd think he'd be able to afford a better linguistic coach... I believe he crossed into a little Italian, maybe even some boderline French at points.) The part that really annoyed me was his song (which is completely spoiled by the trailer... you all know it, "I ate some bugs, I ate some grass...") that he, Nacho, wrote for Sister Encarnacion (Reguera.) Suddenly, I remembered that we were watching Jack Black, and as I saw him mock guitar chords, I knew I had been taken out of the film.

Nacho Libre is the result of a tiny, miraculous low-budget indie film director becoming a huge success and getting a bigger budget. It is a fun film, and definitely something I found humorous at times, but, as with Napoleon Dynamite, something better left until it comes out on DVD. If you did not enjoy Hess' first film, odds are, you will not like this one, since the style and humor is very similar. It's goofy and silly, and ended positively; definitely appropriate for all ages, though I'm not sure if it could hold the attention span of an 8 year old. Again, fun, but nothing spectacular.

Overall Grade: B-

Mrs. The Cable Guy Must Be So Proud: Cars a run-away hit!

After a plethra of dissapointing animated trailers, I've really been scared to see any CG film at all this summer. With one of the voices in Doogal publically admitting the movie's awfulness, and the summer film Barnyard that stars a transgendered cow (he has utters...) I could only hope and pray for the best. Fortunately for me, and for Disney, Over the Hedge was not the only funny, entertaining CG film of the year.

Cars, from director/writers John Lasseter (a Disney favorite) and first time director Joe Ranft (a voice in nearly every Pixar movie who unfortunately passed away last year,) brought together an all-star cast and the great animators of Disney to create a really great film. A side note: an "In Memory" montage dedicated to Ranft, who voices Red and Peterbuilt in Cars, is oddly placed after an absolutely hysterical group of John Ratzenberger clips, who voices Mack in Cars and many other Pixar film, so beware. The unsuspecting movie goer will find themselves laughing half-way through the memorium.

This film is about, as is obvious from the title, cars; not just regular cars, but cars that act as people would. One of the most brilliant aspects of this film is to watch the different adaptation animators made so that audiences actually saw these cars as people, and not just inanimate vehicles. Their manuerisms fit together so perfectly that I completely forgot that these characters were anything out of the ordinary. In Cars, super-star rookie race car, Lightning McQueen, voiced by crooked-nosed pretty boy, Owen Wilson, finds himself lost in the middle of nowhere, also known as Radiator Springs. There, after tearing up the center of town and being sentenced to fix the roads before he leaves, McQueen meets the quirky members of this has-been Rt. 66 town and in the end, learns a very valuable Disney-type lesson.

Learning that Larry the Cable Guy, the Blue Colar headliner, was "gitin' 'er done" in this new film made me cringe a little. After the unsuccess of his own movie, I was terrified to see what this loveable hick could bring to a family film. I was, surprisingly, surprised. Larry actually carried this movie comedically with his character Mater ("as in Tow Mater." Say it outloud a few times, you'll get it.) His gotta-love-the-dumb-guy charm and his wit made his scenes a crowd favorite. All his jokes were innocently clean, as well, making this film very family-friendly.

Many other talents were involved in Cars, including acting legend Paul Newman, who played the old, wise car, Doc Hudson, Monk star Tony Shalhoub, as Luigi doing what he does best- an accent (remember Wings?) Low Rider Cheech Marin as Ramone, naughty comedy legend George Carlin as the hippie VW bus, Filmore, and Batman (or Beetlejuice) himself, Michael Keaton as McQueen's top competition, Chick Hicks. Each character took on the personality of the type of person you'd normally see driving the vehicle they were (I'm kind of a Filmore who drives a Sarge.) Ramone, who's talents' voice is unmistakeable, always had a new paint job on his car, Mater was a rusty old pick-up, and Sarge (played by Paul Dooley) was an army-clad sensible, American Jeep. My absolute favorite part of the film was Sarge's SUV Boot Camp (since I own a mud-splattered Wrangler myself.)

The biggest dissapointment, however, which seems to be a theme with the latest animated movies, is the big name female comedians with absolutely no part whatsoever. Bonnie Hunt, who I admire very much as a very funny actress, plays Sally Carrera, a sporty New York car that found herself owning the local motel (made out of traffic cones.) Her part could have been played by anyone, and it would not have effected the movie at all. She had no funny lines (or at least no memorable funny lines) and no substance at all. It's a trend with Disney movies that the comic relief is always a guy, and the females' (besides the great villanesses,) job is to be the pretty love interest of the leading character. This is very similar to my arguement with Over the Hedge and the lack of a part given to improv comedian Catherine O'Hara. There was another female voice in Cars, a smaller part played by Jenifer Lewis (one of Whoopie's back up singers in Sister Act,) Ramone's girlfriend, Flo. She did have a slightly funny part, but it was definately much smaller than Hunt's.

The story, like many a Disney tale, is overall very heartwarming. I was amazed how attached I was to these characters by the end of the film. The audience goes on a journey with the characters, and even though it is very typical Disney (SPOILER: it ends happily, and everybody learns something) there was much to enjoy and be enthralled in. Although the story is great, the movie is fun, and the animation is fantastic, the film would most likely have lost audiences without the brilliant (if by accident only) simplistic wit of Larry's character, Mater. This is a movie that had me and my friends rolling in tears with laughter, and is appropriate for all ages. If for no other reason, see this film to see the most mind bogglingly incredible CG movie (animation wise) to date. I would definately recommend this to everyone.

Overall Grade: A-

Don't Push the Button, the Button is Bad... and Connected to an Explosive Charge in my Head: MI:III an edge-of-your-seat, exciting summer must see!

If you were one of the many throroughly confused by the first Mission Impossible and thoroughly dissapointed by the second, then you are bound to be completely and totally enthralled by the third. Lost creator J. J. Abrhams shows audiences what a thrilling action movie should be all about. Not to mention that his supporters brought back about half of the liberal audiences who would have otherwise boycotted the movie on behalf of Tom Cruise.

Cruise's character, Ethan Hunt, is back again, this time getting married. Abrhams does a great job of personalizing characters. Before, Hunt was just an agent capable of doing the impossible for the greater good. Now, similiar to Lost's backstories, we see Hunt at an engagement party surrounded by friends and loved ones- a normal, happy person. Suddenly, with a coded phone call, he is thrown back into the agent world to save Lindsay Ferris (Keri Russel, who's looking much better now that her hair's grown back.)

Enter our favorite character actor, Philip Seymour Hoffman. He plays Owen Davian, head of quite the conspiracy, and possibly one of the most confidently evil bad guys to date. He is merciless, viscious, and so sure of himself. I never cease to be completely blown away by Hoffman's performance.

Along with a great storyline, MI:III also has the action and "cool toys" that we have come to love from these movies. It goes past the realm of "there's no way they could ever do that," to "Oh my God, I can't believe they just did that!" As an audience member, you will be on the edge of your seat and completely into every minute of this movie. I found myself nervously drumming and holding my breath at points. You are so sucked into the film that you forget how impossible these missions are.

Lost fans will notice some familiar things in this film. First of all, the music is, if not the same, almost identical. Perhaps because composer Michael Giacchino also does the music for the TV show. Also, before you go see MI:III, rewatch the episode of Lost where Ethan hangs Charlie, and Jack desperately performs CPR.

This film is nothing life changing, but if you're looking for something fun, thrilling, and exciting this summer, this is the blockbuster to go see. It is by far the best of the trilogy. And for those of you who are worried about Mr. Cruise, you forget that you're even watching him. There are so many other things going on in the movie, you will be too stimlulated to think about anything else (although, the explosive charge in their heads drew quite the parrallel to aliens that scientology tries to "zap" out.) This film is fun, and definately worth seeing.

Overall Grade: A-

When Does X-4 Come Out?: X-Men 3 dissapointing end to a triliogy

As one of the most anticipated films (and sequels) of the summer, X-Men 3: The Last Stand, was somewhat of a let down. Not that it was a horrible film, because it was actually quite good. But as the ending of the epic triliogy of one of the greatest comic book stories of all time, it was unsatisfactory.

While Bryan Singer was down under shooting Superman Returns, (and apparently helping Peter Jackson shoot King Kong...) Brett Ratner became the new X-director. Singer, who's fame as a director took off after Usual Suspects, grew before our eyes as a director. The difference between X-Men and X-Men 2: X-Men United was wonderful to witness. The second one seemed to work out the flaws of the first one, and was a much stronger, powerful and more enjoyable piece of film. As an X-fan, I could not wait to see how much better still the third movie was. Unfortunately, Rush Hour director, Ratner, just did not seem ready to take on such an enormous project.

The second X-movie's epic power was incredible. Looking at how triliogies generally go, the first one introduces the characters, the second deals with a major conflict, and the third swells up into a culminating moment where all ends are tied and the audience is left feeling satisfied and perhaps a little teary eyed. X-2 had such a driving force, that no doubt the third one would continue is momentum. This is where Ratner just did not make the grade. His use of overdramatics tried to pull the audience in (Hugh Jackman's final Wolverine moment of, and I quote, "Noooooooooooo!) This is a perfect example of a director trying too hard to make an epic finale and not letting the story tell itself.

There were so many new characters introduced that it almost seemed at points like a side show act. Some mutants seemed like they were just showing off what visual effects could do now, or just to wow the audiences. The biggest upset as far as characters go was the almost non-existant Angel, played by Six Feet Under's Ben Foster. He is in the trailer more than he's in the movie. There was an incredibly interesting opening shot of him as a boy, and a great subplot with him and his father, which was unfortunately only in about the first 2 minutes and the last two minutes of the movie. He seemed to serve no other purpose than to tear a few father-son heart strings. The whole subplot unfortunately was unecessarily and quite annoyingly done.

Some of the characters were wonderful, however. There was of course, Beast, played by television brainiac Kelsey Grammar. His character was one of the most enjoyable points in the film. He was witty and very real- Beast, also known as Dr. Hank McCoy, was actually sort of a government liason to the mutant world. He sat with the president and other officials and helped with difficult decisions. It was sort of a slap in the face to the biggoted mutant-hating world of humans. (He was only blue and furry, of course... we all know that someone black or gay or Muslim could never hold an official position such as that. This is only fiction............. and I do hope you realize my cynical sarcasm there.) This film, more so than the other films, brought out the real issue that has been woven into X-stories for years: civil rights. That all men, black, white, christian, atheist, jewish, muslim, gay, straight or mutant, are people, with the same capacity as any other human being. It also pointed out that not every group of people is good or evil. The mutants break into two distinctive groups in this film: the rebels, who plan on destroying those who wish to destroy them, and the X-Men, who stand up against the rebel mutants to protect their fellow humans. This one also had much more underlying homosexual themes: a "cure" to this "disease" they call "mutation." Very powerful stuff.

Social themes aside, there was one other incredible aspect about this film: Jean Grey, played once again brilliantly by Famke Janssen. I will not give too much away (I'm sure you figured out she is alive from the trailers, or any of you who have read the comics, OR any of you who know that her mutant name is Pheonix,) but her part in the film is great.

So, standing on its own, this is a great, enjoyable film. However, the brilliant ending to a three-part epic it is not. Plus, with the open-ending and hidden ending (stay after the credits!) there is no possible way this can be the end. There is a Wolverine movie announced, but sadly, no other X-films. Definately go see this one if you are a fan at all of the X-franchise. Do see the other two movies first if you have not seen them at all. You may want to rewatch the first two before hand, but it is not necessary. A very enjoyable film.

Overall Grade: B (on its own) C (as the ending of a triliogy)

Stepford Wives Meets Animal Farm: Hedge an all around triumph sewn tightly with social commentary

Directed by Tim Johnson (Antz and Sinbad) and first time director Karey Kirkpatrick (the writer of Chicken Run,) Over the Hedge is hands down THE BEST animated film of the year!

Not that it had much to beat. Ice Age 2, Curious George and the sure-to-be-a-cult-inside-joke-classic-in-some-small-town, Doogal. But this film has been compared to recent animated hits such as Madagascar and Finding Nemo.

I first heard about this film when I saw an early trailer for it with Steve Carrell. Haven recently peed my pants from 40 Year Old Virgin, the idea of an animated Carrell was irresitable. The more I saw, the more I loved. Shatner doing a Shatner impersonation, Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara coupled together again, and Allison Janney to boot! This film had a ridiculous cast, and I was not let down at all by their performances. There was only one complaint I had in that department. Oddly enough, singer Avril Lavigne played William Shatner's (Ozzie's) daughter Heather. There was a very forgettable side story with the two of them, which I found very uneccessary. I wouldn't have minded it as much if I didn't have the unnerving feeling that Lavigne's character's screen time replaced what could have been brilliant comedy of O'Hara and Levy. O'Hara, who plays the mother porcupine, Penny, hardly has any lines. Being quite the fan of the Christopher Guest movies, I longed for their witty banter that has worked so well in other films. Oh well, let's hope there are deleted scenes.

Hedge is about a hungry raccoon RJ (Bruce Willis) who angers a hybernating bear (Nick Nolte) and is forced to replace a year's worth of food. He relies on a "family" of quirky animals who accept him as one of their own. These animals wake up from hibernation to find that most of their forest has given way to Suburbia, complete will cell-phone-while-driving-their-SUVs-and-drinking-coffee-lattes-and-eating-their-fake-cheese-flavored-chips Americans. Adults will appreciate humor and references (better catch up on your Citizen Kane quotes) that does not classify itself as ADULT HUMOR (except maybe for the private-licking and the arbitrary "squirrel's nuts" joke.)

Unlike Ice Age 2, this film does not shove dirty humor down your throats, nor does it sugar coat the world like the pre-school Curious George. This film has humor and situations that EVERYONE can enjoy. And the animation is absolutely incredible. It is so real- but still very cartooney. Send your kids, go with your kids, or go by yourself! Whoever you go see it with, definately go see it in theatres. This is a great summer movie!!

Overall Grade: A

So Dramatic The Con of Man: Da Vinci unrightfully scorned, but far from a masterpiece

Despite the fact that advertisements for the Da Vinci Code have lined streets, malls and subways for the past month, the publicity for this movie that was most effective was undoubtedly thanks to the Catholic Church. Religion has fascinated people since the beginning of time, and for some reason, the idea of religious conspiracy has a far more intriguing grasp on people than religious faith. Not to mention that this film is based on a book that is the adult equivalent of Harry Potter. It is no wonder that film audience around the world flocked to this movie, disregarding the horrendous reviews it received from critics.

Before I go any further, I must say that I did read the book. I was completely enthralled by it, and was on the edge of my seat. Although, I do appreciate it as a piece of fiction (much like the Bible itself.) My biggest concern going into the film was what they were going to cut. Not that I minded one less puzzle or a missing line, but I just was a little wary that audiences would be able to follow it if they had not read it. After seeing the film with someone who had not read it, I realized that although I needed to fill him in on tiny aspects, he seemed to get the general gist of it. I wish they had explained some things slightly more (for instance, they show those shocking images of the ritual that Sophie, played by Audrey Tautou, walks in on, but never really explain what's going on.) If you are interested at all in the religious mythology and the conspiracy, I definitely recommend you read the book first. You can enjoy the movie for what it is without reading it.

That being said, let's move on.

Director Ron Howard did an odd job of starting the story off. Similar to the book, the film starts out with the murder of Jacques Sauniere (John-Pierre Marielle), which is fine, but the events that follow seem extremely awkward. Everything is spun quickly into this desperately overdramatic sequence of events. There was such a heavy weight given to the things they were talking about, but it was not giving that same meaning to the audience. We could tell that yes, these things were very important to these people on screen... but we did not feel this importance.

The performances were sub-par. Tom Hanks as the lead role of writer Robert Langdon was definitely miscast. He played the part as extremely dull, which in turn made points of the film extremely dull. And one thing that should have been completely removed was his claustrophobia. Howard tried to use it as a character builder by adding a childhood story to it, but in fact, it made it corny and unnecessary. Tautou was fine. Unfortunately, her character was not given much. The family aspect of the book which was such a big part, did not carry over to the film, and so it seemed much of what made Sophie's character interesting was left out. Ian McKellen, although not at all how I pictured this character, played grail historian Sir Leigh Teabing. He definitely was one of the more interesting parts of the movie. And I must say that I have never disliked Jean Reno, who plays Captain Fache, and I continue to agree with my belief. (I even liked him in Pink Panther.)

Although far from the fictional "masterpiece" that Dan Brown's novel has come to be, this film definitely did not deserve the scorn it got from all the critics. It is an interesting film, and definitely worth seeing. It is a nice change of pace from the lighthearted comedies and blockbuster action movies the summer will be jam packed with. There were some disappointing changes made from the book (the fate of Bishop Aringarosa, played by Alfred Molina, and the odd Priory ending,) but readers and non-readers alike can enjoy this film. I definitely recommend seeing it in theatres if you are really excited about it, but be prepared to sit for a long time.

Overall Grade: B-

From the Latin Word Meaning "Warm and Fuzzy": Akeelah will leave you spellbound

If I had Akeelah's vocabulary, I'm sure I could come up with a word to describe this film. Director Doug Atchison, who oddly also directed The Pornographer, wrote this family film about a young girl growing up in a poor community in southern L.A. where being smart was definately not cool. Akeelah, played by Keke Palmer, who unfortunately made her screen debut in Barbershop 2, is an eleven year old girl who finds herself easily getting 100's on all her spelling tests and winning the high scores at Scrabble effortlessly, while her classmates fail without caring. The school principal, played by Curtis Armstrong ("Booger" from Revenge of the Nerds... that's right, her principal is Booger...) finally convinces her to enter into the school spelling bee. From there, she takes an inspirational journey that will have you feeling happy, hopeful, and actually a little giddy (without feeling corny.)

Feel-good family films are so hard to come by now. Everything has to be the depressing hard truth or the dirty comedy. Watching this film, I almost felt like a kid again, remembering all those underdog movies I grew up on. It's fun, and suspenseful (think of how edge of your seat the documentary Spellbound was.) Best of all, it promotes positive messages from studying, to family and community.

Now let's get past all this seemingly sugar-coated stuff. I hate corny, cheesy humor that film makers find it so necessary to put in kids movies nowadays. Appparently, humor can either be ridiculously dumb or dirty and foul. This movie definately proved that theory wrong. I was laughing quite a bit. Not only was I laughing, but I actually found myself unable to stop smiling when the movie ended. Granted, I felt like a dork, but those who I saw it with were doing the same thing.

Now, some may say it's feel-goodness is a major flaw, but I say this is not so! If every single film that came out was like this, then yes, it would be a bit much. But these genuinely good, inspirational FAMILY films are so hard to come by. And think about it: it's a FAMILY film. One that you would take your grandmother and your 4 year old cousin to. This is not a film that's meant for drinking night with the guys. Once you get past the fact that Starbucks produced it, you can see what a gem this little movie is. Plus, Laurence Fishbourne is in (and produced) it, so you can make Matrix references if you get bored. (Also, an adorable hispanic kid you'll fall in love with- J.R. Villarreal- and wonderful Asian stereotypes.) DEFINATELY go see this film if you have kids, know kids, or were a kid once yourself.
Overall Grade: A

Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut: Scrat the only saving grace of The Meltdown

Since I was such a fan of the first Ice Age, I was extremely excited to see what they would do for the second one. Though, I have to admit I was a little nervous about some of the cast that joined for this project, I was still hopeful.

As with many of this years films, I was completely disappointed. First off, I was horrified at the forced dirty humour. They took every opportunity to make every fart joke, and play on words involving a swear as possible. Now, I am about as far from conservative as you can get, but I always feel that when movies start forcing dirty jokes, then they really have just lazily given up trying.

Along with disappointing attempts at humour, there were the obnoxious performances by Sean William Scott and Josh Peck as the two opossums. And then there was Queen Latifa, who voiced a female mammoth who thinks she's an opossum. I bet you can just see the wacky antics unfolding (and procreation jokes, seeing as how Manny- Ray Ramono- thinks she's they're the last two mammoths on Earth.)

The films only saving grace was the always lovable Scrat. Doing the same old Scrat-chases-acorn skit, he never failed to make us (the audience) crack up hysterically.

Scrat's Looney-Toon-esque scenes are the ONLY reason that you should see this movie. The rest of it is pitiful. Children may or may not find it amusing, but as far as the adult opinion, this is one animated film you can skip.

Overall Grade: C

I Come From a Land Down Under: Hopkins' performance will keep you in love with Indian

Set in the late 60's in New Zealand, spunky motorcycle enthusiast Burt Monroe, played by the prestigious and always wonderful Anthony (or is it Antony?) Hopkins, dreams of making it to the Salt Flats in the US to set the world record for the fastest Indian (an old type of motorcycle.)

We just keep getting amazing things coming from down under, lately. Australian director Roger Donaldson, who unfortunately also has Dante's Peak under his belt, gives us a great story to watch unfold.

The story, like preceding films lends itself to be slightly too long at points, follows Monroe's travel from New Zealand and across the US. He's a jolly chap that everyone seems to like, even after meeting him for five minutes, and meets many characters along the way. It all builds up to the moment when he reaches his destination of the Bonneville Salt Flats, which is caried out beautifully by Hopkins. That plus some gorgeous imagery makes this film highly enjoyable.

This is the most legitimately feel-good movie I've seen in a long time. It was beautifully done, though not flawless, and amazingly performed (as always, Sir Hopkins.) I recommend this film to anyone. Again, it tends to drag at certain points, but you will find yourself engulfed in the story, so you will not care.

Overall Grade: B

Snake-aphobia?: Slither can't balance gross out horror and black comedy

I admit that I hate horror, but I can appreciate the horror genre. In films like Arachnaphobia, the audience can laugh, and still be scared to take a shower because the balance of horror and comic relief is done well. In Slither, however, directed by Scooby-Doo writter James Gunn, that correlation is unbalanced, and boderlines mere stupidity more than anything else.

The film is not scary. And although it is filled with blood and guts, it is not grossly gory (meaning I was perfectly fine sitting there eating while watching it.) Besides one or two jumpy moments, it was ridiculous and unsuspenseful.

The smart talking mayor, played by Gregg Henry, provides some comic relief, but he began to get more obnoxious than anything else. The attempts at black humour were sad, and came off as ridiculous.

This was not that funny, nor was it scary, two of the things it prided itself in being. If you like silly horrors and cheesy comedy, you may enjoy it, but I for one, did not.

Overall Grade: C

Let's Hope Your Kids aren't Curious: Curious George lends to be a bore

Let me start by saying that the only reason I saw this was because I was babysitting, and that is what the girl I was babysitting wanted to see. That being said, let's get on with the review.

The character of Curious George has long been loved in the hearts of children. I remember them being some of the first books I was able to read. The story of the film, Curious George, was cute; very suitable for small children five and under. I can't say that I wouldn't enjoy this if I were 3 (although even at the age of 3, I may have found it too cutesy and boring), but definately as an adult this movie was NOT enjoyable.

First of all, Drew Barrymore should not be put in any children's movie for fear her acting may scare the kids in the audience. Even animated, she sent chills up and down my spine.

The second thing that was obnoxious was the animation. I'm not one hundred percent sure how they got it to look like that, but it was quite the annoyance during the course of the movie.

Like I said before, this movie was cute. If you have small children, it's definately worth taking them (although you may be bored slightly.) If, however, you are above the age of five, do not waste your time.

Overall Grade: B (in respect to pre-schoolers)

Did Your Minkey Direct This: Pink Panther dissapoints while belittling the intelect of audiences

When I was growing up, I watched as my father and his friends laughed and laughed over the Pink Panther movies. Even at a young age, I could recognize Peter Sellers' comic genius. So when I heard they were making a new one, I was quite excited, especially since it was starring Steve Martin and Kevin Kline (who was until this time, a respectable actor.)

Even after I saw the horrendous trailer, and wondered what on Earth Beyonce was doing in it, I still hoped that it would be good... at least funny. I was sadly, sadly wrong.

After "hits" like Just Married and Cheaper by the Dozen, director Shawn Levy reaches an all time low in desecrating a comic institution. The jokes, dirty jokes, fart jokes and mutilated rip offs of Pink Panther original jokes, were forced and spoiled by the trailers. The originals were always witty by subtly inserting jokes and odd situation, British humour, and things in the background you may not notice the first time you watch. The new one clearly does not trust modern audiences to find that subtle humour funny, so tries to shove it down our throats.

For example, in Return of the Pink Panther, there is the classic scene where Sellers is in the bathtub. There is no music, just Sellers carefully drowning himself in his situation. In the 2006 version, Martin finds himself in a simliar situation. First of all, they soil the scene by putting music to it. Second of all, the joke's been done, so we know what to expect. Third of all, the only thing drowning here was Martin in his attempts to make us laugh.

Another example, the original Panthers always poked fun at Sellers' horrible French accent. In, Revenge of the Pink Panther, Clouseau says he was attacked by a "bimb." "Do you mean Bomb, Inspector Clouseau?" "That is what I said a bimb!" In the new one, we witnessed about 15 minutes as Martin dribbles out the word "hamburger," (right before he, by the way, shamelessly falls in love with NYC... was that patriotic plug REALLY neccessary?)

So, the first film of 2006 I saw was disgustingly disapointing. There was one funny moment, which I won't ruin, that involved tough guy Jean Reno. If you are at all a fan of the originals, DO NOT go see this movie, for you will get sick to your stomach. If you have never seen the originals, treat yourself to renting all the old ones instead of wasting your money on this atrocity.

Overall Grade: F

2005: A look back at some brilliant cinematic acheivements

OK, so at the beginning of this year, right before the Oscars, I made a mad rush to finish watching all the major films of last year, and so slacked on my review writing (you know, focusing on school and all that...) So here are some breif reviews of the films I've watched since I left off:


Syriana
(dir. Stephen Gaghan)
Although I'm still not 100 percent sure what was going on, it was an enjoyable film. Much in the spirit of Magnolia, Crash, and Traffic, which Gaghan wrote the screenplay for, multiple stories intermingle as the film progresses. Like Munich, it's not so much a feel-good movie, but it's definately worth seeing.
Overall Grade: B+

The New World
(dir. Terrence Malick)

Malick does a great job here of creating a very intimate feeling between the audience and nature. His stylistic editing does unfortunately get in the way of the story. The first half of the movie was, in my opinion, quite entertaining. I felt relaxed and attached to this natural world, like a vivid daydream. Unfortunately, about half way through it, my concentration and caring was abolished, and I found myself checking my watch more than the screen. At the end, when Pocahontas (an incredible performance by teenage actress, Q'Orianka Kilcher) and John Rolfe (Christian Bale) marry and return to England, I was almost hoping for her to hurry up and die so the movie would end more quickly. I feel like Malick's style, while beautiful and reflective at times, really killed him in the telling of this story.

Overall Grade: B-/C+

A History of Violence
(dir. David Cronenberg)
This film was a lot different from the gory special effects that are normally very prevelant in most Cronenberg films, but it did delve into ideals that really make you as an audience member think about and question. Ex-Fellowship member Viggo Mortensen plays Tom Stall, a small town family man who gets caught up in some gang related incident. Is he who he says he is? Definately watch this one to find out. Also, watch it to witness the five minutes of screen time that earned William Hurt an Oscar nomination.
Overall Grade: A

Match Point
(dir. Woody Allen)
I'll admit first of all that I am quite partial to Mr. Allen's comedies, and was excited to see one of his first dramas in a while. Match Point, which I ignorantly didn't realize was a tennis term until the opening credits, is a film that uses the metaphor of that moment in a tennis game when the ball sort of sits for a moment on the net, before deciding which way to fall. Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays a poor tennis player (from Ireland, even though he had a British accent) who falls in love with and marries a rich girl, played by Emily Mortimer, my new favorite not-so-well-known actress (despite her part in the putridly disgusting 2006 version of Pink Panther.) He meets and then falls in love with the sexiest woman currenly on the big screen, Scarlett Johansson (which was also the name of my turtle.) This film was incredible, my number 3 favorite of the year. It will have you questioning your morals. It's only downfall is that, as with most Woody Allen movies, it is very dry at points; where Allen's comedies normally pick up these dry moments by inserting his humerous mumblings, this film lacked.
Overall Grade: A

Good Night and Good Luck.
(dir. George Clooney)
First of all, I just need to commend Mr. Clooney on his accomplishments this year. He really has come a long way since just being that pretty face on E.R. This film was great. Also very dry, and a film you really need to pay attention to follow. It really gave an intimate look at Edward R. Murrow (incredibly acted by David Strathairm) and the McCarthy scandal. Definately worth seeing, even if you know nothing about the scandal.
Overall Grade: A

Breakfast on Pluto
(dir. Neil Jordan)
Irish director Jordan, who brought us such films as In Dreams, The Crying Game, and one of my personal all time favorites, Interview with a Vampire, brings to the screen this seemingly light-hearted novel about a small town Irish transvestite (the ever-amazing Cillian Murphy), his misfit friends, and his trials and tribulations of growing up. Although it tended to drag at points and was arguably a little too long, this film jumped into my top 5 of the year (sorry, Good Night and Good Luck.) I reccommend this film for even those who aren't obsessed with all things Irish.
Overall Grade: A

Walk the Line
(dir. James Mangold)
I have to say, I loved it. I was everywhere from bouncing and tapping my feet, to holding back tears. I was completely into the whole thing (except when I started to notice the very, very uncomfortable seats in the theatre...) As it seems to have been a trend with films over the past couple of years, the film seemed long (again, could have been the seats.) I honestly can't remember what complaints I had with this film, though I did have some, so they couldn't have been that memorable. Definately go see this film with your family (if your family is broken, on drugs, drunk, or in jail...)
Overall Grade: B

March of the Penguins
(dir. Luc Jacquet)
The stars of this film are absolutely amazing. Emporor penguins are incredible creatures. The only other amazing thing about this film is that it was a documentary that EVERYONE knew about. This year seemed to be the year to be a penguin, with those slick characters in Madagascar, and the upcoming Happy Feet. Honestly though, it was an animal documentary. Nobody got this excited when we went to see the dolphin IMAX documentary in high school... and we got to skip school for that. The gerneral populus finally realized that documentaries can be interesting? Anyway, this film is good, entertaining, informational, and makes mating and getting eaten by predators OK for children.
Overall Grade: B

Junebug
(dir. Phil Morrison)
From the guy who brought you "The Upright Citizen's Brigade," came this incredible little film. Like a backwards Meet the Parents, upper class Merideth, played by Embeth Davidtz, travels to hickville, USA, to meet her new husband George's (Alessandro Nivola) parents while scoping out a slightly off-kilter artist in the area. While the film itself is great, the best part about it is Amy Adams. Adams plays the bubbly, meer-cat loving Ashley, George's brother's pregnant wife. I kept hearing all of this praise about her, and I kept wondering how one performance could impress so many people. Then I saw it, and I understood. I don't want to give too much away, but check this film about for the outstanding performances, including the "O.C.'s" Ben McKenzie.
Overall Grade: A

Constant Gardener
(dir. Fernando Meirelles)
I just recently saw Meirelles film, City of God, which forces me to say, you win some, you lose some. Gardener was dry, slow, and made me feel so unattached that I really did not care what was going on. Within the first minute of the film, we see that Tessa (Rachel Weisz) dies. The next scene, we see her and Justin (Ralph Fiennes) meet. I immediately felt uninterested as to her who her character was because I knew I couldn't get attached. It was quite the commentary on... something. I really lost the meaning of it, and was completely confused as to what the scadal that was going on was. City of God, in respect, was incredible. I was excited and intruiged the whole time. Meirelles, in my opinion, needs to find a balance, like he did in City, of commenting on an issue and presenting a story.
Overall Grade: C-

Three... Extremes (Saam Gaang Yi)
(dirs. Fruit Chan, Takashi Miike, Park Chan-wook)
Be prepared to be disturbed. Extremely, extremely disturbed. Three... Extremes is a collection of three films by Asian directors Fruit Chan (Dumplings) from China, Takashi Miike (Box) from Japan, and Park Chan-wook (Cut) from Korea. Without giving anything away, these three horrific (in a good way) films will terrify you... not meaning that you'll have nightmares, but meaning that you will be disturbed, bothered, troubled, uneasy... and any other synonym. Don't see this if you're faint of heart, or if you've just eaten. DO see this if you enjoyed films like Chan-wook's Old Boy or any of those recent Asian thriller hits. Artisitcally beautiful pieces of work.
Overall Grade: A-


The Squid and the Whale
(dir. Noah Baumbach)
Sorry, Breakfast: you've been knocked out of the top five. Director of Life Aquatic, Baumbach's semi-autobiographical story is one of my favorites of the year. It follows the story of a couple's divorce (Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney) and the effects on their children (Jesse Eisenberg and Owen Kline.) At first, I was a little confused as to the time period because, although it is set in the early 80's, there were modern day cars driving by. Oops. Oh well, that did not distract me for long as I was completely engaged and addicted to this dry yet amusing story. I enjoyed the symbolic journey all the characters took in this film. I would definately recommend it to those who can appreciate it. (Duh.) More specifically, if you enjoyed the tones of films like Life Aquatic and Royal Tennenbaums, you'll definately enjoy this film.
Overall Grade: A-

The Feel-Not-So-Good Movie of the Year: MUNICH brilliant, though upsetting

If you're looking for a way to recover from the Christmas Blues, rent The Baxter, but if you are really in the mood for an incredibly well done cinematic event, see Munich.

The film is based on the undercover retaliation of the horrific assasination of the Israeli Olympic team by a group of Arabs. In the film, the Israeli government puts together a top secret group full of "the common man" unsuspecting assasins and bomb makers. They are sent to kill a list of men who aided in planning the Munich attacks.

At first, we are thrown into a hectic paced sequence of authentic news clips from the actual 1972 disaster. In one of the more brilliant shots, a tv was showing the well known image of one of the masked assasins waving on the balcony of the hotel where they kept their hostages. In the background, we see the actor playing the assasin run out of the hotel room and reinact it- in other words, we see the same shot from two different angles (except the one on the tv is the actual 1972 footage.) It was extremely powerful. My parents both refused to see this film; "We lived through it, and that was enough for us." This part of the movie made me understand- this sequence was realistically disturbing and intense.

The incredible Hulk Eric Bana plays Avner, the lead everyman secret and governmentally justified assasin. His performance, among others, including the virtually unrecognizable Geoffrey Rush, put us straight into the time period. Director Steven Spielberg does the incredible job of keeping the film in the period of the 70's. One aspect that added greatly to this film was the fact that he really didn't use any big names, besides Bana and Rush, who most movie goers wouldn't recognize anyway. This way, we weren't watching Tom Cruise run around screen as we were with Spielberg's other film this year, (sorry, Chris...)

Anyway, to wrap this up (since, anyone who has been following has noticed this has been to be continued for about 3 months), Munich was in fact an incredible film. I did, however, feel like I wanted to curl up and hide for about a week or so. Definately watch this movie for the beautiful piece of cinema it is, but do not go if you're looking for escapism. Final Grade: A-

Gone Fishin': BROKEBACK so much more than this year's "gay movie"

This year has brought us some absolutely incredible acting and "Brokeback Mountain" is no different. The performances in this film are some of the most amazing I have seen yet, and the film itself was enjoyable, compasionate and very well made.

Jack Twist, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Ennis Del Mar, Heath Ledger, find themselves alone on a mountain for a summer keeping watch over sheep (I'm no shephard or cowboy, so I was a little lost as to exactly why the sheep were on the mountain to begin with.) On a cold, drunken night, the two find themselves sleeping next to each other (and shortly after, sleeping with each other.) Over the course of the summer, a playful romantic relationship begins to form between the two men. They part at the end of the summer, realizing they need to go back to the real world- Ennis has a fiancee lined up. He marries Alma, in a breathtaking performance by Michelle Williams, and they start a family. Jack meets Lureen at a rodeo, played by Disney's princess Anne Hathaway, and marries her. Their lives seem to be perfectly fine apart, until a postcard from Jack brings all those feelings flooding back. Now, both men deal with the pure happiness of their forbidden love affair versus their disintegrating real lives.

In one of his 3 headlining performances this year, ("Proof" and "Jarhead," plus narration in one animated short,) Gyllenhaal is looking good as far as Oscar nominations are concerned. His performance as the more accepting Twist is great, and is only deterred by the makeup. As odd as that sounds, they had to make the 24 year old progress to almost twice his age. The makeup, not only for him but for Hathaway as well, was dissapointing. It wasn't horrible, but especially with those two actors it was inconsistent. In one scene, Hathaway looked as if she had aged 15 years, where Gyllenhaal looked the same. Still, that was the only thing that really detracted from Gyllenhaal's believability. Hathaway gave a shocking performance- at least from what we are used to seeing her in- it was a very commendable step forward in her career, but her character was very flat and lacking. Another surprising performance was that of Williams. Although brought to fame by her obnoxiously dramatic "Dawson's Creek" character, she is obviously destined for bigger and better things. Her incredible performance in "Brokeback" as the unappreciated wife and working mother was a strong point in the film. (I'm predicting at least a nomination from it) Another incredible performance was that of Ledger. Ennis was the focal point of the film, as it mostly followed his life, and Ledger was impecable at it. The character was very introverted, and he really played his intentions very well- you could almost see what was going on inside his head.

The roles of the two men fit perfectly together. Jack wanted to start a life together and live in happiness, but Ennis knew that it would be too dangerous to be open about this in their society. Although this movie is obviously about a gay relationship, director Ang Lee hardly presents it as a gay rights film or a "typical gay movie." These were just two characters in love. They don't even reference homosexuality (accept after they have sex for the first time, and Ennis proclaims, "I'm not a queer.") I really appreciated the way it was dealt with in the film. You just see the two men miserable in their regular lives, and happy only for the moments when they are together on Brokeback Mountain.

One of the films downfalls, which was one of the things I was anxious to see, was how the relationship started. Their friendship budded, and they got drunk one night, and although Jack was obviously the more open one and made the first move, Ennis was the, let's say, giver. I felt like they wanted to jump into the relationship too quickly, unless that was something cowboys did when they were in the middle of the woods for prolonged periods of time. Afterwards, the progression of their relationship was wonderful. But it was a little sudden how it got started. Another down point is that some parts seemed to drag a little. Don't drink your soda too quickly while watching it, or you may start to notice that more than the film. The biggest downfall of the movie, which I mentioned before, was the aging process, but also I wish we saw more of Jack's life. The movie really focused on Ennis, and it left me wanting to see more of Jack and Lureen and their little boy.

This is a great film- it deals well with the subject of a homosexual relationship by making it more about a love story, with a love that can never be fulfilled. You may not want to take your Southern Catholic Grandmother to see it, but I think that even some people who are not accepting of homosexuality can enjoy this movie, and even sympathize with the characters. I'm not sure if it will have a wide release, but if it is playing near you, definately go see it, especially if you like love stories (but don't expect a happy ending.) Overall Grade: A-

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+