 Older Films (All)
Here's another classic that everyone has seen, or should. I'm surprised to learn how many people aren't familiar with it, given its classic simplicity: Twelve jurors deliberate a murder trial until a verdict is bitterly hammered out. Except for brief bookend scenes, the whole film takes place in one room, an actual New York City jury chamber, with twelve distinguished character actors. This was Sidney Lumet's debut film and he was out to prove he knew his stuff; never once does he repeat a shot, and watch the camera angles: The camera gradually gets lower and lower as the film progresses, as we come to stare into these angry faces as the men deliberate and question each other's motivations. It's captivating stuff, driven by sharp dialogue from a brief era when the script was of paramount concern. Even though its politics lean towards the liberal, it's still worth seeing as a primer on the importance of civil duty and the careful balance of the American justice system. This is a film for every proud American to see. –Scott Hardie
Here's a film that needs to make up its mind. Its comic premise is a 13-year-old girl discovering her 30-year-old life, but it loses that perspective often as the adult subplots take on a life of their own. It sets up adolescence as a nightmare for its protagonist, then she spends the rest of the movie telling people how good it was. It cheers her innocent perspective for a business proposal, then teaches the teenagers in the audience that innocence gets you nowhere in business. And don't even get me started about its loose ends and forgotten characters. "Muddled" is the persistent mental state of this film, which I suspect is the result of focus-group tampering with the original screenwriters' vision. That it is still as funny as it is gets credit for Josh Goldsmith and Cathy Yuspa's brisk screenplay and Jennifer Garner's complete devotion to the role. They see this character and her world in three dimensions, and are unafraid to make her the butt of some of the jokes herself. Garner is totally convincing in the part from the first word out of her mouth; she happily demonstrates the value of thorough rehearsals and giving a shit. Assuming her television schedule doesn't interfere, she has a real film career ahead of her in comedy and drama alike. For me the film had a good half-dozen belly laughs including a whopper at the end, but individual results may vary. I couldn't help but be disappointed in the magazine subplot, on which the movie spends an inordinate amount of time but in which it is clearly not interested, judging by how it is immediately forgotten after it has served its purpose. The protagonist spends two weeks working hard on a business proposal, and we get intriguing hints of what it will turn out to be (not that it's hard to guess), and after all of that setup, what's the payoff? A half-assed, mumbling, incoherent, 30-second speech to her staff about the magic of adolescence, following by uproarious cheering and sobbing coworkers. What planet does this scene take place on? What connection to even the film's fantasty-reality does this moment have? I would guess that the entire original scene had been jettisoned at the last minute and they had, I dunno, two hours to write and film a new version before release, but the props are so carefully arranged that I must wonder if this scene was actually meant to play this way. In the movie's otherwise well-practiced comedy routine, this scene is a major stumble. –Scott Hardie
The first act is one of the strongest, creepiest "you're about to enter a haunted space" setups I've ever seen. Too bad the rest of the movie is one blunder after another that makes no sense and is still somehow predictable. What a waste of potential. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:26am EST
Great disaster film... plot eh... too much repetition in film –Scott Horowitz • November 30 2009, 3:31pm EST
Does pretension have an odor? Can you smell it? I think I know what it smells like. I just stuck my face in it for two hours. I did not simply watch Alejandro González Iñárritu's vision; I was subjected to it. This is an overbearing showboat of a film. There is an interesting story here, and some top-notch acting, but the film is so determined to broadcast on its own wavelength that it gradually becomes interminable. In one scene, I turned on the subtitles momentarily to make out some hushed words, and I did not realize until several minutes later that I had left them on, because no words were spoken nor any noise made during that time. This movie is really in love with being itself. I do see why people like it. First of all, the performances are indeed fantastic, as the two (almost three) Oscar nominations accurately reflect. Benicio Del Toro has the trickiest part, as his character's motives are entirely internal, but I was impressed by the focus all three leads demonstrated. I would like to know why Naomi Watts's face was partially or totally obscured during all of her big scenes; if that was part of the message, I missed it, except to suggest that her suffering was inexplicably less important than that of the two men. Though I don't agree with screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga's decision to play the scenes out of chronological order once again (it plays like an attempt to distract us and it weakens what should have been a gripping conclusion), I do credit him for the film still making sense despite it. That's a lot harder than it looks. Also worth mentioning are the cinematography and score, both creative and refreshing without drawing attention to themselves. I know I'm picking on a movie to which I give three stars. It is a good movie. But in my judgment, it betrays its better elements by being too interested in its own cinematic self-gratification. It is art overdone. I think I will not give Iñárritu a pat on the back; I can sense he has already done that himself. –Scott Hardie
To most viewers, Lee just can't seem to make a film bigger than himself. They cite Norton's racist monologue as dangerous self-indulgence by Lee, even though that scene is in the original novel. Doesn't Lee deserve credit for crafting such a powerful drama while juggling its themes? Cool indifference separates these three young men from their victims, and staring in the face of that which he fears most, each man loses his cool. There's much going on under the surface, which is the compliment Lee never gets. –Scott Hardie
premise: A woman has been a bridesmaid 27 times and has romantic misadventures of her own. Starring Katherine Heigl, James Marsden, and Edward Burns. Katherine Heigl is ready for primetime, a charming actress who can play everywoman, or an ordinary person as we like to see ourselves onscreen – that is to say, a struggling administrative assistant able to afford a large Manhattan apartment and look like she visits a beauty spa every weekend, but still has crippling self-confidence issues. Heigl's personal magnetism carries a lot of weight in 27 Dresses, a by-the-numbers romantic comedy whose plot leans heavily on "Fred Flintstone moments," those contrived misunderstandings that wouldn't happen if the characters would just give each other a moment to explain themselves. You'll wind up liking Heigl and her movie in spite of itself. –Scott Hardie • March 29 2008, 10:58am EST
This film deserves all the praise it is getting for being gripping and bleak, and especially for being ambitious; until the end it avoids so many clichés of the genre. It never even gives us a clear look at a violent act (and there are many), preferring to make its impact with style and immediacy. Don't believe the buzz that it's a scary film, though; it's a drawn-out character study with a horror-film premise. A more interesting lead actor would have improved it, but my biggest gripe is how quickly it thinks men would turn into rapists with the lid of society taken off. –Scott Hardie
Apparenlty anyone can take a Frank Miller graphic novel, a modest CGI budget, and a bluescreen and create a visceral thriller that achieves rare heights of spectacular violence. What made Sin City a great film was literate dialogue; this film's script couldn't be more clunky if it tried. ("Only the hard and the strong deserve to be called Spartans. Only the hard. Only the strong.") With enough gore to make you question what a movie has to do to get an NC-17 for violence – it would seem that having multiple slow-motion close-up decapitations isn't enough – 300 is firmly positioned as an adrenaline rush for the young male demographic, and it recouped its budget in the first two days of release, so here's looking forward to next summer's 301. The film is exceptionally good at being what it is, a stylish action picture removed from the laws of physics. You don't have to own a PS3 to love seeing bare-chested men shouting curse words at the cartoonish eight-foot warriors baring down on them, but it sure helps. –Scott Hardie • March 18 2007, 10:39pm EST
This movie deserves its reputation as one of the funniest of the eighties. It keeps building comic scenarios to one big payoff after another. Had it been made today, there would have been more double-crosses at the end and much raunchier sex jokes. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:45am EST
So what do you do when the decorations are up, your guests have arrived, the music is playing, and the mood is just right? You send everyone home and call it a night if you're one of the makers of this movie, which puts in place some talented actors, great set design, a fabulous score by Duncan Sheik, and an unusually emotive tone, but does nothing much with them. In its rush to cover thirty years of plot from the book, the movie (adapted by original novelist Michael Cunningham) skips the little moments that make these lives worth watching; every other scene involves moving in, moving out, somebody being born, somebody dying; you know the score. The movie is melodramatic in its heart, with a spectacularly ridiculous death scene in the opening minutes and clumsy foreshadowing & symbolism throughout, but director Michael Mayer does his best to reign in with a gentle touch the plot's enthusiasm for its own twists. The main character comes through vividly, a slow-witted but charming young man who spends his lifetime quietly fighting against the demons of his orphaned youth, and Colin Farrell brings a crucial magnetism to the part. But the tick-tock of the running time keeps the film speeding by at an unappealing pace, and too many ridiculous scenes (Sissy Spacek tries pot? Colin Farrell is a 24-year-old virgin?) keep the film grounded in mediocrity no matter how solid its indie cred. It has its charms, but not enough of them. This one simply got away. –Scott Hardie
It takes a certain love of words to get the most out of this picture. It takes a belief that wit is a redemptive virtue, that artful language can cast a magic spell on even the dullest scene. That's not to suggest that the rest of this film is lacking or that the script doesn't have its blemishes, but just to emphasize the best thing about this film, the pleasure it takes with its words, both original and quoted. Combine that with the quirky, half-cocked charm of backwater Nawlins and you have a film that could be called "Wonder Boys" meets "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil," except that both of those films were low-key comedies, and this is a mournful drama. Whatever you want to call it, it's one of the best and most pleasing films to have slipped by unnoticed during the Oscar season. I have grown so weary of critics for whom sincerity is a cause for snickering. However calculated its plotline may be, this film attempts to evoke authentic emotion and authentic Southern flavor, and should be judged on the success or failure of these attempts, not derided for aspiring to them. How boring the movies would be if the best ones were incapable of touching us for lack of trying. Here's a real old-fashioned Movie, made for viewers who don't let suspicions of artifice spoil the fun of a good yarn, who enjoy the precision exposure of a key plot twist instead of patting themselves on the back for guessing it in advance. This film is not made for, and should probably be skipped by, viewers who would rather a film be hip than be honest. To the rest, I cannot recommend this enough. If Scarlett Johansson is beginning to repeat the same "tics" from other films, she's still capable of virtuosity in her big dramatic scenes. John Travolta, tired of having zero street cred after whoring out his talent for so many paychecks, is eager to get back into a real character, and seems to relish every well-turned line. Elliot Davis's photography seems to make the New Orleans of our imaginings come to life, and his collages of colorful neighborhoods are well used as bookends for the film. Best of all is Grayson Capps's arrangement of music for the film, contributing half of it himself; his choices raise the film's spirits and strengthen its sense of place. This is a rare treat, a film in possession of full body, mind, and soul. –Scott Hardie
The —mockumentary” format is a wonderful medium for comedy, since it allows the jokes to come directly from the characters instead of from any plot contrivance. Like the best of them, this film creates characters so endearing that by the end, you start laughing just by seeing them on screen. Its weakness is that it enjoys its (well-done) folk music so much that the performances take over, pushing the characters, and the jokes, into the background. While most of the actors are just right, Eugene Levy (!) never overcomes his central character’s tedious speech pattern. I can’t quite recommend this. –Scott Hardie
This unusual thriller isn't really about what you'd expect, its Philip K. Dick plot or its rotoscoped visuals or its war-on-drugs theme. It's really just about these peculiar characters and the ramifications of their moral choices. It's fascinating. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:32am EST
Having already expressed my opinion in my Ten Best Films article about the movie, I would like to say further only that I am continually fascinated for the variations that Jean-Pierre Jeunet keeps doing on his work. His films have a sameness about them, most directly because he tends to work with the same cast and crew every time, but in each there is new depth beneath the voluptuous surface. At this point I would see a Pokémon movie if Jeunet directed it. "A Very Long Engagement" is among his best to date and should not be missed. –Scott Hardie
Given their link, I suspect this is how much I would have liked 'High Fidelity' without Jack Black. This is an endearing, surprising, and very funny comedy, one of the most likeable films of 2002. Even given the familiar arc of the reformed curmudgeon and how well we get inside the characters' heads, their capacity to surprise us throughout is amazing. Grant's subtle mastery of his character is the best performance of his career, and young Nicholas Hoult is so convincing in every scene. (Is this what he's like for real?) –Scott Hardie
Don't expect the comedy that the advertising promises: This is a deep, sad, slow film about a man reflecting on his meaningless life. That's not to say that it lacks funny moments, though; there are some, and Delmot Mulroney's cluelessly tacky half-wit doesn't take long to begin generating giggles simply by appearing on screen. Nicholson gives a fascinating performance as the anti-Jack, a man devoid of the passion for wickedness that is the actor's defining trait. This is Payne's deepest if not best work. –Scott Hardie
A tense thriller only by Clint Eastwood's drowsy standards, this movie assembles a great cast but gives them all under-developed bit parts. There are a few smart lines and memorable moments, and it's all pleasant enough, but sustain some tension please. –Scott Hardie • April 16 2011, 8:52am EST
First I think it's really boring, since metafiction needs comedy's manic energy to engage. Then Kaufman considers using fake plot devices, and I hope he does. Then he does, and the characters turn into cartoons, and the movie gets worse, because it lost its authenticity. Then I realize it: Kaufman is saying that Hollywood screenwriting is inferior because it can't make us care. Then I wonder, can I let him get away with making a bad movie just because he did it on purpose? But then I run out of space. –Scott Hardie
We all had crappy summer jobs in college (my movie would be called Taco Bell), but Greg Mottola weaves enough fiction and period realism into his tale to make it a treasure. It's funny, and sweet, and sexy, but it should have skipped the epilogue. –Scott Hardie • November 14 2009, 2:06pm EST
Too bad this DVD includes a trailer for "Monster" and footage from "Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer," two superior films about the same subject. Wuornos was such an electric person that when her temper arrives on-camera in this doc, it looks like sparks are going to start coming out of the television. But the long story of her road to execution is less than captivating, and the themes explored here (the questionable sanity of a person asking for execution, the life of abuse that leads one to murder, the exploitation by bottom-feeding media types) are so well-trodden by similar films and Nick Broomfield's earlier work that this film is barely necessary. Apparently Broomfield thought that getting access to Wuornos in her final days on death row compelled him to devote another film to her, but the end result isn't justified. That's partly the fault of a lack of a central message. The film makes so many arguments that near the end it begins jumping from one to the next in mere sentences. It demonstrates that Wuornos was too crazy to be executed, yet acknowledges that the law is clear about that not mattering. It shows us how crazy Wuornos went after ten years on death row, as though she was perfectly sane when she murdered seven strangers. It purports to tell her true story (Broomfield calls her the most honest person in the movie), but watches as she changes her story to suit the way the legal winds are blowing. It half-heartedly explores her early life, as suggested by the title, but glosses over her teen years because it doesn't have witnesses in a courtroom compelled to tell stories about them (which is where it gets many details of her pre-adolescence). It paints Jeb Bush as a villain for scheduling her execution just before an election, but shows that he's simply obeying the law and indeed even Wuornos's wishes by granting her a quick execution after she waives her final appeal. It even goes after media types who seek to build careers out of Wuornos's suffering, simultaneously retrodding the subject of the previous documentary and ignoring the fact that it's part of the problem. This documentary is like a shooting game in the video arcade, a dollar for one minute of gunplay: The gun gets fired at many different targets and almost always misses, and the game ends not because an objective has been achieved but because the running time has elapsed. –Scott Hardie
Ouch! Opening-day reviews have been scathing for this desperate Oscar nominee-wannabee, with some critics even calling it the worst film of the year. (My favorite quote: The Boston Globe's Wesley Morris says it's "full of brilliant highlights, and they're all in Colin Farrell's hair.") I see their complaints, and yet... I got it. I was receiving the signal it was broadcasting. Maybe that means I'm dumb or unsophisticated, but perhaps it just means that I think like Oliver Stone thinks. I've been on his wavelength for years; "Platoon" and "Natural Born Killers" are two of my absolute favorite films, and "Any Given Sunday" and "Born on the Fourth of July" aren't far behind. It's not his typical spirit-of-youth vs. parental-wisdom conflict that appeals to me, and certainly not the whole noble-warrior ethic, just the way that he charges ahead into his films with absolute sincerity, because what he is trying to communicate is the most important thing in the world at that moment. Stone is one of the most intense of today's popular filmmakers, and he cares so passionately about his message that you either take it or leave it. There's no point in seeing "Alexander" unless you're prepared for Oliver Stone to communicate his meaning to you very urgently. What is Stone's meaning? That Alexander, perhaps more than any other person in history, lived his life to the fullest. Today's kids are lucky not to move back in with their parents after they finish state college, but here was a man who decided before puberty to conquer every land he knew and keep going, who saw no reason to stop when he ran off the map and ran out of roads. Forsaking his father's throne, he conquered and built his own empire, and conquered still more. The greatness of Alexander the historical figure is inarguable, but Stone is a stone-cold liberal, and can't resist portraying him as a benevolent (and beloved) ruler who is done in by cultural isolationists who want their society to stay the way it is. Stone said in an interview that Alexander would have gone after Osama bin Laden, and he's on to something: After putting that murderer's head on a pole, Alexander would have routed the leaders of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, turned them into the 51st through 54th states, made their former rulers the governors, and adopted their cultural norms into the American mainstream. Alexander's approach to cross-cultural empire-building would be completely unthinkable in A.D. 2004; it wasn't so long ago that we slaughtered the Native Americans instead of embracing them when we took their land, and yet our modern sensibilities require us to rebuild at great expense our destroyed Iraq instead of claiming it as our own. Whether Alexander's world would be better than Bush's I do not consider important (there I differ with Stone), what matters is how clearly the film delineates the values that made this legendary figure the great leader he was. It's not a perfect film by any measure, and the critics are right to make their many complaints. For one, it breaks the mood with typical Stone-isms, such as the conspiracy theory about Alexander's "real" cause of death and the extended red saturation of the picture after Alexander's serious wounding in India. The film is obvious with its symbolism, and severely screws up the portrayal of Alexander's sexuality. (See how lustfully he regards Roxane and how solemnly he regards Hephaistion? Stone got it backwards.) It's far too long, with an endless closing monologue that may be the first time you'll ever wish Anthony Hopkins would stop talking. Its dialogue is atrocious and its lead actor often inadequate. And yet, despite these flaws and more, the film is never, ever phony. Whether it started with a flawed vision or not, it is true to that vision in every frame. This is a genuine red-blooded film, un-self-conscious and unafraid. Its flaws cannot be ignored, but seen from just the right angle, it has its own kind of brilliance. –Scott Hardie
After I dreaded another by-the-numbers Tim Burton remake, I was thrilled to discover a much more challenging, original, and engaging film. It doesn't just look incredible; it makes bold choices in adapting Carroll's work. This will be one of 2010's best. –Scott Hardie • March 28 2010, 10:49am EST
Though I have watched isolated scenes here and there over the years and the best moments are of course part of our culture by now, I'm diving into the Alien series start-to-finish as a first-time viewer, so my comments here come from that perspective. Is it just me, or is this nothing more than a monster movie done extremely well? The producers say in the bonus-disc interviews that it illustrates our collective fears of the time, but that's only in peripheral ways: There is fear of corporate infiltration of our culture, fear of new biological threats emerging from the wilderness, and a woman's fear of rape by desperate men from the lower class, but all of these fears are represented as drops in a bucket compared to the rubber mannequin representing the alien itself, an impressive idea rendered unimpressive by needing to be taken seriously as anything but an extraterrestrial bugaboo. In that half-second moment when Dallas encounters the creature in the air ducts, it looks remarkably like a stuntman in a suit. No genre has been so altered by advances in special effects technology as science fiction, and where an attempt was made to create this alien with a detailed costume instead of the fake-looking CGI of today, it came out, well, hokey. (How I look forward to comparing this to "Alien: Resurrection," which I do not expect to win.) But it does have one thing that films today lack in their dependence upon special effects: A script that gives dimension to the characters and the situation. Ash's speech about admiring the monster's purity may be spoofed by clever Nintendo games these days, but it's a stroke of genius for a film that aspires to create ice-cold chills up your spine. This isn't just a monster that wants to eat you for its own sake; it's something that a human corporation actually desires for acquisition, expending human lives to obtain for further expending of lives. Striking as it is, Ash's speech may not make the movie monster anything more than a movie monster, but it's an admirable attempt to try. The film would have benefitted from some brief exposition mentioning whether humanity has interacted with aliens by the time this story takes place. We catch small hints like the way Ripley casually asks if a beacon is human in origin, but it's that much harder to get into the mindset of these hunted sailors if we don't know how truly "alien" this experience is for them. The buildup to the alien might be suggestive enough of its importance, however, as the vastness of the set for the crashed alien ship (almost denied by the studio) give the discovery a valuable sense of grandeur. And yet, it all comes down to the characters ignoring pleas of "let's get the hell outta here" and one lowering himself down so he press his face against an obvious biological threat, because the plot requires him to do so. For all of the impressive sets and intellectual turns of the screenplay, this is a monster movie, and no amount of cleverness or skill can conceal that simple lack of ambition at the most fundamental level. The film is not invalid; certainly it deserves its status as a beloved masterpiece of horror, but even the best film that can be made from this premise is not as good as a similar film that could be made from a better premise. –Scott Hardie
This is an otherwise terrific film poisoned at the core by two terrible mistakes, one of them necessary and one of them not. The necessary mistake is bringing Ripley back to life and making another "Alien" movie at all. The third film may have been made in a scramble, but it had an ending worthy of the series and the character that Sigourney Weaver had given so much effort to defining. But, "Resurrection" seems aware of the price it must pay to have the conceit of a surviving Ripley, and it goes to extraordinary lengths to make the dual comeback (Ripley and the series) not just tolerable, not just plausible, but actually desireable. This Ripley has a sense of humor that the other lacked, and in fact the film as a whole is much more eager to entertain than it's predecessors; it's easily the most "fun" film in the series to watch. Sometimes it gets cartoony in its ambition, such as in Dan Hedaya's cross-eyed astonishment at his own impending death, but the film is such a marvel of visual invention and aggressive characterization that it's all but impossible not to be pleased on some level by the results. It's easy to look at Jean-Pierre Jeunet's films and see one of the most visually interesting directors working today; with his usual collaborators Marc Caro and Darius Khondji, he has come up with some of the most exciting camera angles and color palettes I have seen on film. If he can take a film series that is simultaneously sacred and tired, and instill it with this much individuality and freshness, I'd watch him make just about anything. The unnecessary mistake is the turn the film takes in its third act, after an intriguing opening act and a brilliant middle section. The idea of a human-alien hybrid baby has surely been around since the word "sequel" first occurred to Alan Ladd Jr. (you can even see a drawing of one in the original design concepts for "Alien³"), but it's such a bad idea, so offensive to the art and the audience, that it should never have been attempted; imagine the battalion from "Saving Private Ryan" coming across Hitler in ladies underwear, singing German children's rhymes, and you have some idea how badly this character damages the film. And it doesn't help that the creature itself is so hideous! The aliens have always been hideous, but in a cool and thrilling way; this thing is just so utterly repulsive that when it's on the screen, you can't bear to look at it. I swear, when that thing got face-to-face with Ripley and sniffed her, I'd have turned the movie off if it uttered "ma-ma!" in a baby's voice, which is the direction the sequence seemed to be going. I suppose that if we are to reap the benefit of Jeunet taking his chances with some wild visuals, we must witness the disasters when he misfires. The creature's death scene, which should be satisfying because it involves the death of the creature, somehow tops the ugliness up to that point; Winona Ryder's look of disgust as the creature's organs splatter onto the floor and are sucked back up into its abdomen says it all. As I am nearly finished with the series, I'd like to point to The Onion A.V. Club's review of the boxed set. It briefly makes an interesting analysis: Since the films each contain the same basic elements, can each one not be seen as a "variation on a theme" illustrating each director's unique strengths and weaknesses? That case is weakest for David Fincher and strongest for James Cameron ("Aliens" is perhaps the archetypical Cameron film), but I like the idea all the same. –Scott Hardie
In hindsight it was a brilliant move to hire James Cameron to direct this film, as it would become one of his best-regarded action masterpieces, but what a mad choice it must have seemed at the time. Here was a tyrannical perfectionist who wanted to make a very different film from the established original (with its protective fans) at an exponentially higher budget, and he barely had time to finish it on schedule. Fortunately for the studio, Cameron was and is a professional, and for every time he gets carried away ("Titanic"), he has two more occasions where he pushes the absolute limits of the budget and shooting schedule without breaking them. (One of my favorite bits of trivia about "Terminator 2" is that Cameron made the entire film, from germinal concept to final theatrical cut, in nine months, and yet it was a massive production with the then-highest budget in movie history. This man knows his shit.) "Aliens" doesn't rebel against its series, but it certainly belongs more to James Cameron than any other person involved, real or fictional. With its all-consuming obsession with futuristic military gear, with its muscle-bound female warriors (this is "Mom as Action Hero"), with its restless ambition tempered with a professional's contentment for delivering the goods, this is an archetypical Cameron film, and his talent as an action filmmaker is worth regarding so highly as to transcend the film itself in importance. If you have ever felt that burst of adrenaline at Ripley snarling "get away from her you bitch!", then you have enjoyed a master at work in his genre, on par with Hitchcock at thrillers and Lean at epics. The film has its weaknesses, such as Bill Paxton's aggressive brand of buffoonery and an unsatisfying epilogue after the astounding final spectacle. But there aren't words enough to recommend this film as a powder keg of dynamite entertainment. For those who don't like sci-fi action films, this is one of the few worth seeing for its appealing filmcraft; for those who love the subgenre, there's no explanation needed. This is one of the all-time greats. –Scott Hardie
premise: Jim Cameron documents bizarre life forms discovered deep undersea and theories about aquatic life on Europa. Cameron and his brother built the underwater camera for Titanic and used it again for Ghosts of the Abyss, so they may as well take it for another spin. This time, nature provides all of the special effects that Cameron needs, but otherwise this is as engaging and thought-provoking as his best work, full of amazing sights and delights for the mind. Perhaps most interesting is his explanation of how a craft might be send to Europa's ice-covered oceans to look for the exact kind of recently-discovered aquatic life that has adapted to extreme conditions in our own depths. More filmmakers with a gift for narrative storytelling and awesome visions should try their hand at documentaries. –Scott Hardie • February 1 2009, 11:43am EST
What a mess this movie is. In some ways that's a benefit, as it disguises the rough edges as some kind of artful obscurity and gives the overall film a kind of haunting incoherence, but more often the film comes across as a big sloppy mess in need of several rewrites. Studio interference was the problem according to David FIncher, who quit the project as soon as principal photography was complete, and that claim makes sense; you can't build sets for a monastic planet and then arbitrarily change it to a prison planet without some incongruity. The film is barely effective as horror, giving us a monster who dutifully attacks on cue (such as the moment when it violates its own vague rules of conduct by attacking the warden in front of the entire prison populace) and who is created by computer animation that obviously isn't ready for prime time. It functions best as a experimental new direction for the "Alien" series, giving it religion and complex characterization in the same dosage that the previous film gave it big guns and explosions. There are noble failures and ignoble successes in Hollywood, and this ranks among the former. Action and horror fans will be disappointed, but fans of independent cinema may appreciate its murkiness of story and grittiness of attitude; this film may have walked down the wrong path, but it's determined to make the most out of its choice, and plays out with conviction. –Scott Hardie
This is not a film for everyone: It demands great patience, and forgiveness for its characters’ misdeeds. But its reward is a perfect image of a young couple just learning the words to express what they’re just starting to feel. So many scenes may seem frivolous, but there’s a rich hidden layer of meaning here, spread liberally across bleak and beautiful images of North Carolina. At first it seems like the work of a perceptive female director, but eventually it’s clear, this is the work of a man who wants to communicate how love felt when it happened to him. –Scott Hardie
[Spoilers ahead.] To paraphrase "Ghost World," this movie is so bad, it's beyond good and back to bad again. It's the kind of film for which the utter destruction of humankind at the end, including the tearing-to-pieces of the two protagonists, counts as a redeeming virtue. To say that this movie is designed to appeal to the intellectually bankrupt would mean that it's meant for human consumption at all, which may be the scariest thing about it. It might possibly hold some entertainment value for people just coming out of a five-year coma, but then again, it might hit too close to home, because it feels like a five-year coma. For me, the most depressing thing about it was that I rented it in hopes of discovering the worst film of 2005, but it still wasn't bad enough. (Who honestly rents a movie like this expecting it to be good? Never mind; I don't want to know.) These days, when most directors slip into slow-motion action sequences, it's because they want to show off their cool photography or bring you into the action, but in this case the film has neither anything interesting to look at nor any sense of blocking or direction to the action. It's like the film has the faintest glimmer of an understanding of how to be entertaining, but not why. Whole sequences go on aimlessly for minutes at a time: At a moment when nameless extras were wandering around silently in the dark with nothing happening, I dozed off for five minutes, but when I awoke, nameless extras were still wandering around silently in the dark with nothing happening. Is the premise of the entertainment value that a vaguely-defined, unknown human might theoretically be attacked by some kind of monster, and the endless meandering around is hypothetically intended to mount tension of some sort? I won't call the film boring, but I will call it an invitation to clip your toenails and maybe start a load of laundry. I will give the film credit for the most perfect casting since "Mystic River": Christian Slater plays a man who's been shut out of a profession he was never very good at but who keeps hanging around hoping for a break, Tara Reid plays a ridiculously unqualified pretty face way too young for her job, and Stephen Dorff plays someone we don't like well enough to want to learn anything about. –Scott Hardie
premise: A stalker (Colin Hanks) worms his way into the life of an ordinary stranger (Ana Claudia Talancón) by filming her surreptiously. The entire film was recorded with hidden cameras. In the land of cinematic gimmicks, recording an entire feature on hidden cameras sounds dangerous: Actors disappearing off camera or out of focus, poor film quality, boring camerawork. But Alone with Her succeeds very well in spite of its limitations: By sticking to four distinct camera looks (including a pretty cool simulated nightvision), cheating by filming in high definition, and placing the many individual cameras very carefully, the film never gets boring visually. For a second you wonder why it even credits Nathan Wilson as director of photography, before you realize just how damn good of a job he did. The film also earns unexpected points for being so expressly opposed to stalking, which it pretty much has to be if it wants to avoid the "torture porn" niche for which it seems tailor-made. The DVD offers safety information for potential victims, and in his commentary, the director keeps returning to the invasiveness and repulsiveness of the crime and how it strikes unwitting victims. Of course, the movie itself isn't really about stalking, per se – it's about taking us across a range of emotions as we're forced to watch such an act. There's guilt at the voyeurism, then disgust at the criminal, then sympathy for the victim, then indignation when she spurns him, then excitement when he gets the upper hand, then horror at what he does with it, and more. Depending on your disposition in life, you might be unable to identify with one character or the other, but the film does its best to invoke a variety of feelings. The film stars a pair of lead actors who deserve to build good careers. Talancón maintains her naturalism in spite of so many unusual filming situations, and creates a simple woman who is as fascinating just to watch as she should be. Hanks doesn't look much like his famous father, but he does have the same ordinariness and easy charm that makes him believeable as the nice (if slightly weird) guy next door. The film risks breaking its naturalism in a few places, where the lines sound too scripted or the moment too plotted, but those are minor blemishes. This is a stirring, very well-made thriller that keeps making the right choices. –Scott Hardie • October 25 2007, 1:29am EST • 1 reply
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] Our nation's culture is a long way down the road of underachievement by now, so it's inevitable someone would see symmetry in the popularity of a president who defiantly avoids newspapers and the popularity of a tv talent contest that celebrates amateurs not good enough for real careers. Fortunately the someone who noticed is Paul Weitz, who previously used his stars Hugh Grant and Dennis Quaid to sharp effect, and here carves a wicked, timely satire. I wish it was sharper, but it still has plenty of laughs. –Scott Hardie • March 18 2007, 9:48pm EST
The best achievement of this film is its authenticity, which had to have been painstakingly realized. For a harsh reminder of flashy Hollywood phoniness, just watch the "Road to Splendor" featurette on the DVD; it's like a splash of cold water after seeing something so real and interesting for two hours. Harvey Pekar is a fascinating person and fortunately the movie sees fit to include him, even appearing on-screen with the actor playing him, Paul Giamatti, who doesn't break character. It's the only reasonable way to translate a comic book that presented fictional recreations of real life, and in addition to Giamatti in character and the real Harvey, we even get the comic book Harvey commenting on the action with them. This is not more Harvey Pekar than you need, just more than you're used to. Always funny and warm despite the man's deeply-ingrained misanthropy, this movie is a pleasure to watch, and it contains the funniest pickup line I've ever heard. Only once (in Harvey's collapse late in the film) does it ring false. This movie is so good because it puts us on the screen. Most of us are not unflappable dramatic heroes or the beautiful people who have meet-cutes in romantic comedies; we're ugly schmoes with boring lives, but that doesn't mean that we are without value. We know humor, we know creativity, we know feeling, we know dignity, we know why we're still alive and what we should probably do with our time. Harvey and Joyce make reliable, intelligent messengers of the value of ordinary humanity. This film is recommended for anyone who uses humor or art to get through the grinding mundanity of existence. It is also a must-rent for those who like metacinema; here's calling all Charlie Kaufman fans. This is definitely not escapism, but it will help you feel a whole lot better about being yourself, and it's a heck of a good time besides. –Scott Hardie
Hailed for looking as honestly at love under these circumstances as it could and still have the mandatory happy ending, this film is granted greatness by its two lead characters, who refuse to sink to the levels that everyone expects of them. The film takes a long survey of their complexes of pride and need, and winds up showing the best and worst that love can do to human beings, no small achievement. The military training subplot is also remarkable, hitting the expected notes with such commitment and passion that we overcome any quibbles about the unlikeliness of it all. Lou Gossett deserved his Oscar for the drill sergeant, playing not the recruit-obliterating machine later embodied by R. Lee Ermey but a gentler, wiser man who knows that not applying pressure at the right moment can have an even bigger influence on his trainee. He senses from his first meeting with Richard Gere that the young man will be worthy of special attention, and his decision to behave as Gere's literal and figurative punching bag to allow the young man to put his past behind him is a gift that I found moving. There's feeling and subtext in all of the relationships in the film, but none more so than the sargeant and the officer candidate. The film has minor weaknesses, including a final scene that gets carried away with itself and a failure to overcome the nagging sense that these characters experience far more personal growth than thirteen brisk weeks would allow, but those faults pale in consideration of how much the film gets exactly right about its characters and the reasons why we consent and refuse to be used by other people. It's a film blessed with considerable insight into human nature, and a new personal favorite of mine. –Scott Hardie
It's not remotely plausible, and its plot makes no sense after you think about it, but this adventure has wit and class that the National Treasure movies don't even realize they're missing. What gorgeous locations, and what intriguing mysteries. –Scott Hardie • July 31 2009, 11:17pm EST
Woody Allen never topped this film and never will. It's not just a hilarious comedy in a sea of mediocre relationship movies; it captures the unique regret of a broken-up couple who knows they can never love like that again — so personal, so strong. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:40am EST
Winner of the Foreign Language Oscar in 1996, this comedy tells of fifty years in a rural Dutch village, and the kind of warmth and good humor that takes that many years to build. –Scott Hardie • August 22 2010, 5:53pm EST
This is definitely the PG treatment of anger and child abuse; the N-word is about as risqué as it's willing to get. But for an audience seeking a warm, gentle tearjerker, it's very satisfying; probably one of the best crowdpleasers of 2003. Luke, a ringer for the real Fisher, captures the gentlemanly discipline of a naval officer, and model Joy Bryant is engaging as his patient girlfriend. The climactic face-to-face confrontation with Fisher's past is worth the buildup. This film may handle its subject matter with kid gloves, but it's still immensely entertaining. –Scott Hardie
Apt comparisons to This is Spinal Tap! can be made of this documentary about a hard-luck Canadian metal band. But by the end, it becomes something unexpected: A moving portrait of two lifelong friends who need each other, and of artists staying true to their principles, however tacky their music may be. –Scott Hardie • November 27 2011, 3:58pm EST
Let's be honest, here. If you are a fan of the series Aqua Teen Hunger Force (which appears in happy 15 minute bites on Adult Swim on Cartoon Network), in which case, you'll most likely know what to expect, and will find enjoyment in this movie. If you are not a fan, and do not understand the inside jokes and oblique references to what has come before, this movie will be a LONG boring movie, and you will be confused at the end. There is no way to explain this phenomenon, and I can only in good conscience make this recommendation. If you have cable, watch the 15 minute show on Adult Swim (they move the time and showing around, so you might have to look for it) a few times to see if you will enjoy this. If you don't have cable, find someone with cable. The series is hit or miss in its humor, and I would never tell anyone to spend money on this to see if they like it. If you like the series, go see the movie. It has a quasi-explanation of where the ATHF come from. Plus, it's got Bruce Campbell in a cameo role as one of the characters! See if you can find him!! –Aaron Shurtleff • June 7 2007, 4:17pm EST • 1 reply
Rarely do I rate a film I have not seen in its entirety, but twenty minutes of this wretched garbage was enough. Working on a friend's computer, I overheard dialogue from this film as her roommate watched it in the living room, and I eventually wandered over to observe a few scenes. It disturbs me that the scenes I considered so execrable as to make the movie a definite must-never-see (the peeing statue, the urine sample with Mini-Me behind the curtain) were the same scenes that Roger Ebert called the funniest. That's the best that movie could do?! I previously had zero interest in seeing any more Austin Powers films; now I have gone beyond zero and will actively pursue not seeing them as an agenda: The next time one is coming out, I will spend the preceding months gleefully looking forward to missing it. "I still believe that at any time the no-talent police will come and arrest me." --Mike Myers –Scott Hardie
Where others found this film intriguing, I instead found it well done. It tells the story competently, really getting inside the blankness that Bob Crane embodied (with most of the credit due to the perfect blankness of Kinnear), but it gets so lost in that fog that it seems to lack any spark, any verve. And that may be due to the fact that it's just not a compelling tale, the story of this man with no reason to live except to keep on having sex. It's not like he found it difficult to conceal or had to face any major consequences over it. If he didn't care, should we? –Scott Hardie
James Cameron has invented an exciting, dazzling new world, both on screen and in filmmaking in general. His riffs on American myths (and foreign policy) give meaning to what is otherwise an incredible visual experience and breathtaking thrill ride. –Scott Hardie • February 6 2010, 8:54pm EST
I wanted to LOVE this film. I honestly did. Parts of it took my breath away - from the intensity of the action to the emotions of the actors. Brilliant performances throughout this one - and the cinematography took some recent directors to school. But I felt the film tried to do too much - it's almost as if the separate story lines in the film would have been better served as short films instead of one big clump of tenuously connected events. I didn't see much value in connecting the stories that were connected. Absolute best story involved the deaf Japanese girls. Worth at least one viewing, although I'm still mulling over the movie's objective. (Maybe my problem was watching it the first time without subtitles - oh, and my irritation at seeing full frontal female nudity yet again with no male nudity to be had). –Anna Gregoline • April 23 2007, 12:25pm EST • 1 reply
In a summer of unnecessary remakes, it's no small distinction being the most unnecessary of all. "South Park," Larry Park and others have taken the shock out of seeing kids swearing and drinking, and today's audiences are too cynical to swallow either a winning ending or a sportsmanlike ending for these scheming underdogs, so what's the point? This film update has a number of hilarious lines delivered in deadpan monotone by Billy Bob Thornton (an acquired taste of a movie star if there ever was one), and the kid actors are surprisingly good, probably due to Richard Linklater's influence. But its tone waffles so much between serious and slacking that it winds up limping to a finish that barely registers. When the studios ponder why film attendance was so low this summer, they should place some blame on dull, unwanted wastes of time like this one. –Scott Hardie
The "slobs vs. snobs" comedies of the eighties became the "just slobs" movies of today, and this is a mildly funny one, with Seann William Scott as a wild-eyed slacker dimwit. The first fart joke happens 7 seconds in, and that pretty much sets the tone. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:21am EST
This series has been described as a ten-hour version of "Saving Private Ryan" (I'm sure it was pitched to HBO that way), but that's an inaccurate oversimplification. It covers WWII from Normandy on, and the cinematography and action scenes are intentionally similar, and its heroic soldiers symbolically represent all GIs from the war, but the similarities end there. The biggest improvement is that "Band of Brothers" deals with real soldiers, and is intensely authentic. For every rough edge they leave in because that's the way it really happened, they reap tremendous rewards when it comes to showing the true great accomplishments of this one company: Dropping behind enemy lines in D-Day, participating in Market-Garden in Holland, fighting the Battle of the Bulge, liberating Dachau, and capturing Hitler's Eagle's Nest. Having the participation of the real soldiers, especially in a one-hour documentary on the bonus disc, reminds us that this isn't just some Hollywood fantasy in which we thrill at heroic achievements; this is a true story about men who gave their lives and limbs to defend the world. All soldiers fighting for just causes deserve respect, but surely the soldiers of the 101st Airborne are among the most accomplished in modern history. It takes time for the individual men to stand out, since many look alike and their names are not spoken often, but by the end of ten hours nearly every one of them can be recognized for his individual personality and accomplishments. We spend eight months in their lives (plus scenes from two years of training), know how most of them regard the others, see the experiences that bond them. Like many such series, each episode focuses on one character in particular, but there's still plenty of attention paid to other soldiers like Guarnere and Luz who never get a starring role. The only two real villains of the series, Sobel and Dike, are eliminated in one episode each, leaving the weather and the war as the proper antagonists; this film doesn't go searching for dramatic personal conflicts between the men just to craft a better story. (It still escapes me why Sobel was such a bad guy, not counting his field incompetence. When he was mean to the trainees, that was his job; his function was to teach them how to hate.) How HBO decided to spend $125 million on a ten-episode tv series I do not know, but I'm glad they did it; the money is apparent on screen. That I know such amazing sequences as the crowded, fiery skies above Normandy are mostly computer-animated does not detract from their awe. The most harrowing sequence, enduring the artillery fire in the Battle of the Bulge with almost no cover, is among the most terrifying visions of Hell I have ever seen on a screen. Though the early action sequences lack the fascination of the later ones because we are not yet familiar with the men, they are at least intense spectacles. It is difficult to imagine how this story could be told any bigger or truer than it has been told here. If the series has a weakness besides taking too long to define these similar men as individuals, it is the sensation of running out of steam towards the end. After Bastogne and horrific artillery fire, the movie just doesn't seem to have the strength left to emphasize the later events. The concentration camp is not nearly as affecting as it should be: we viewers have seen the photographs of those emaciated Jews after being liberated, and the film seems content to recreate that superficial feeling of "gosh, how sad" instead of truly looking at the horror with open eyes like it could have; we barely even see any corpses. The final episode is so lazy as to convey the capturing of the Eagle Nest, the crown jewel in Hitler's empire, as a minor footnote, something the boys took care of almost as a lark. Perhaps if there was no combat involved, the series does not know how to communicate that the achievement was important? It's true the soldiers had experienced history overload by that point and just wanted to call it quits and go home, but there's no reason why the episode has to match their ambivalent feeling of time being wasted. It's a weak denouement to an excellent series. Worth special mention is the DVD package, which is so vitally informative as to make you wonder how someone could have followed along with the series on television. The "Field Guide Manual" breaks down every soldier with a name and face, allowing you to leave the action when confused and look someone up, and the maps, glossary, and historical timeline are all exceptionally elucidative; the series was so much richer for having them. The segments on the bonus disc are annoyingly over-edited but do provide a wealth of behind-the-scenes information, especially about the ten-day boot camp that the actors endured. Rent the series and progress through it steadily, so as to take full advantage of the bonus materials along the way and give the story context. It is a phenomenal miniseries, a ten-hour epic of American heroism, told with great pains to authenticity; I cannot imagine any adult viewer not being enriched by having seen this film. –Scott Hardie
Don’t fall for the trailer, which advertises this as a quirky romantic comedy starring a man-hungry Kudrow; it’s a tenebrous drama in which Kudrow plays one of several weird, inappropriate supporting characters. There’s very little that’s conventional about this microproduction, and that helps it, in that its out-of-left-field pleasures are so sudden and unpredictable. But it’s hard to evaluate whether this film was a success, because there’s no clue what the hell it was trying to accomplish: The actors seem to be on the same wavelength, but we’re not on it with them, and the tone is inconsistent and confusing. –Scott Hardie
premise: Trey Parker and Matt Stone star in a David Zucker comedy about two friends who invent a new sport that becomes a silly, runaway success. This film's poor reputation kept me away for ten years, until my enjoyment of South Park compelled me to see every last thing Parker and Stone have done, even this film in which they starred but made no other credited contributions. They're funny in it, and so are the many odd supporting players, but it's a David Zucker film through and through. He likes his comedies non-stop and varied: Don't like this joke? How about this one? How about this one? There's one part that really turned me off, a desperate and unfunny hospital scene in which the heroes clumsily put defenseless patients through painful hijinks, but the rest of the movie is surprisingly enjoyable, raunch and all. I watched the whole thing with a silly grin on my face, enjoying Parker's quick wit and Stone's affable silliness. Perhaps low expectations, and the respect they've now earned with so many solid episodes of South Park, are the keys to enjoying this underappreciated comedy. –Scott Hardie • January 8 2009, 9:18pm EST
You know that scene in a mystery where one character explains the whole plot, and finally it all makes sense, but after he leaves, the protagonist analyzes one little thing he said and the whole story comes unraveled, and the protagonist must go digging for the true explanation? Repeat that scene about nine times and you have this film’s plot. If this was intended as a spoof of the mindfuck subgenre, it was a wild success. It’s a beautifully shot film, and the actors are energetic, but by the fifth major plot twist you realize there’s no point in caring. –Scott Hardie
For Batman fans, finally all is right with the universe. Joel Schumacher's widely hated film adaptations have been replaced by a film that is dark, intelligent, detail-obsessed, and sophisticated. If it has a few corny one-liners, their number is far fewer than in the average summer blockbuster, let alone one featuring this most misconceived of superheroes. For years, fans (and critics) have argued that a serious approach would best suit this character, and despite my skepticism the fans have been proven correct: This film is intense but not incoherent, gloomy but not remotely depressing, and easily the best approach to the character yet attempted. I don't know if its sequels can remain this serious, since Batman's other nemeses are intrinsically cartoony, but I very much look forward to finding out. More, please. –Scott Hardie
If the cinema is an emotional medium in which directors try to make you feel a certain way about their subject, then it must be true some directors want to hurt you just to make their point. Battle in Heaven is hostile to its audience, so I don't recommend it despite its high rating. It frequently goes for minutes at a time without dialogue or action, and it puts its sympathic hero through more excrutiating humiliations than any Ben Stiller comedy could muster. But, if you're patient and willing to interpret the film's turns for yourself, it sings a quiet, sad song about a man's quest to redeem himself in the eyes of his god and his country, and I'm glad to have heard it. I won't lie; I was first attracted to the film by its frequent graphic sex scenes, without which I suppose no one would be attracted to it, but I was lucky to have enjoyed it despite itself and I don't think many others will be so lucky. In other words: Actual results may vary. [Major spoilers ahead.] My interpretation depends on an ethnic stereotype about Roman Catholic Mexicans, but it's not like the film doesn't depend on them either, including such shots as a family of eleven slowly pouring out of a single car like they're performing in a Ringling show. The hero, Marcos, believes in the sanctity of life, even for a prostitute, even for a baby that his wife bullied him into kidnapping from her best friend. He stares with almost pedophilic focus on happy, singing children and seems stirred. I believe he wonders, if all of these people are sanctified, why not me too? His life heaps one humiliation upon another, and no one tells him they love him; his wife can barely mumble the words in an attempt to win his favor after smacking him so hard he loses his glasses. Marcos hears a footballer remark about going back to his loving family and declares it a fantasy. He is a proud, patriotic Mexican, so much so that when he passes through the film's symbolic version of Heaven and arrives on a mountaintop and sees a glorious vision of the countryside beneath him, he is moved to tears. This convinces him to try for redemption with the prostitute he loves, but she reacts to his vow to do the right thing with a good-bye kiss and indifference. After he turns on her with silent rage, he takes the only redemptive path he knows, and earns his way into Heaven in the final seconds of the film. He is not a Christ figure because his sacrifice would save no one but himself, and whether he's worthy of blessing after the things he has done is questionable, but I for one found his journey moving and thought-provoking. In its own nearly-unwatchable way, it's one of the best films of the year. –Scott Hardie
I had never seen the original "Get Shorty," so I arranged to watch it and this sequel on consecutive nights. This probably improved my opinion of "Be Cool," because I caught the many, many references to the original film, from repeated lines to matching camera angles to repeated plot points. (One of these, the ominous sound of the downstairs television in the middle of the night, really wears out its welcome after the seventh time, believe me.) This isn't just a film that plays its hero with a totally different tone and makes obligatory fun of cash-in sequels; it really does know the first film inside-out and makes an admirable attempt to hit the same notes. Sadly, it's a failed attempt. If the first film took none of its characters seriously, this one veers too far in the other direction, providing Chili Palmer with a young music protegé so innocent and wholesome that she creates a sort of comedy vacuum whenever she appears in a scene; it would be like giggling in the presence of Mother Teresa. As a film about the music business, it is forced to stop several times for song performances; while well-photographed (especially the rock concert), these scenes tend to kill the film's comedic momentum. Not that the film has much momentum; Elmore Leonard hasn't been this dull or this slack in years. Whole scenes do nothing but advance the plot. Was any consideration given to actual jokes? This movie got all dressed up for nothing. It's not a total wash. The music is actually pretty good, until the tidal wave of pop super-production takes over in the final act. On the whole, the actors are terrific; Vince Vaughn and Andre Benjamin sink completely into their obnoxious villains, and Robert Pastorelli gives a delectible final performance. Harvey Keitel seems to think he's auditioning for another Scorsese movie because he brings a distinct ferociousness to his disposable character, and he acts circles around his fellow cast in the process. One scene, where the Rock ambushes the heroes at home and proceeds to audition a poorly-chosen "monologue" for them, is uproariously funny. It's just that the film overall is so jokeless, as if it hired all the actors and provided all the plot and then forgot to do anything funny with them, mechanically going through the motions of a feature film. That scene with the Rock works so well because it has precisely the comic intensity that the rest of the film lacks. If "Get Shorty" failed because it didn't seem to believe in its own jokes, at least it had jokes, and was intermittently funny. This is an earnest failure. –Scott Hardie
premise: When an accident erases all of the videotapes at their struggling rental store, Mos Def and Jack Black resort to re-filming classic movies themselves with a camcorder, with silly results. Written and directed by Michel Gondry. It's pretty hard to hate a movie this lighthearted and silly, but it is possible to get sick of it. Michel Gondry is more than capable of tapping into his childhood imagination for whimsical ideas, but his characters are all just children in big bodies, and his films seem to have little connection to reality that would make us care. He's got a wonderful point to make here about the value of creativity and making your own art and being active instead of passive in your recreation, but getting his point is not the same thing as enjoying his movie. It gave me a few laughs and a lot of smiles, but it's not better than Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or even his surreal music videos, and feels like a golden concept that could have gone further with a stronger script. After the movie, go online for all of his "Sweded" films, included Gondry Sweding his own trailer. –Scott Hardie • December 9 2008, 8:15pm EST
premise: Adam Sandler discovers that the bedtime stories he tells at night turn true the next day. For what it's worth, this review is based on the 2/3 of the movie I actually saw. I've walked out on movies in the past but this is one I arrived to late. I probably would have enjoyed what I saw more if I had seen the premise unfold instead of being thrust into the middle of it. As it was, I enjoyed it a lot. This film requires serious suspension of belief, aside from bedtime stories coming true. A handyman is given the opportunity to determine the theme and then manage a new luxury hotel. But only if the gazillionaire entrepeneur likes his idea better than his regular flunky. Sandler determines to use the bedtime stories to make his real life dream come true by manipulating the children to say a story that will give him an edge in the competition. See, it's the children's contributions to the stories that are the parts that actually happen. Lots of funny Sandler moments without too much of his high-pitched voice inanity. Sight gags aplenty and only minimal potty humor. My biggest concern was that this was a film targeted toward small children made by Adam Sandler. 'Nuff said. I went to the theater expecting to see a different film but the hosts changed their minds at the last minute. Fine. It turned into a positive experience not because of the high quality of the film but because it didn't offend me like I thought it might. My daughter enjoyed it immensely and I'm considering letting her write her own movie reviews. Guy Pearce and Lucy Lawless make for an unusual pair for comedic foils and don't really do a credible job of it. Try again, you two. Courtney Cox makes an unremarkable show of being the Mom of the two children and Russell Brand as the inexplicably British accented room sevice buddy is only mildly amusing but Keri Russell shines as the unexpected love interest. Add to this an unending supply of jokes centered on a bug-eyed guinea pig (many times actually funny), and it made for a pretty entertaining movie. If only I had seen the first third of the film... –Steve West • January 3 2009, 2:31pm EST • 1 reply
Odd, that I have little to say about a film that consists entirely of conversation. This is considered by some to be the apex of Richard Linklater's work and I won't argue; certainly he uses his talent for dialogue to maximum effect. It's riveting: You're grabbed within the first scene and you don't even realize the time passing, eavesdropping on this extended first date as the camera simply follows the actors and lets them talk like intelligent normal people. I doubt the availability of such middle-of-the-night entertainments in a city like Vienna, but suspension of disbelief is not something this film requires in spades. It is true to its reputation as one of the most romantic films of modern times and well worth a rental for any couple. What is it about this loquacious film that leaves me unable to find words to describe it? See it and be left speechless for yourself. –Scott Hardie
Naturally this film was billed as one of the most romantic releases of the year, and that's no lie, but don't rent it seeking a good excuse to snuggle on the couch. It's a complex sequel that depends on a thorough understanding of the 1995 original. (Alternatively, you could do like I did, and watch them in the same sitting for maximum enjoyment, though that kind of undermines the feeling of ten years having passed.) This talky romance is nearly film noir, with characters so wounded from their time apart that we ache and splinter along with them. This is a much more sharply emotional film, with Jesse's outburst on the boat and Céline's breakdown in the van being standout moments in a pair of films comprised of so many great scenes. But even with the well-turned phrases (marriage is "like I'm running a small nursery with someone I used to date") and the wonderful performances by Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, this film is not entirely satisfying. It is nearly half an hour shorter and takes place in a fraction of the time, and absent entirely are the pedestrian encounters that gave the original film some vibrant local color. Other than a fantastic early conversation in a café, the dialogue is all business, and the two leads spend little time talking about anything other than themselves and their relationship; in other words, they've now grown as self-absorbed and boring as they weren't in the original film. Still, even a flawed Linklater film is a fascinating one, and we should all be so lucky to realize it when we fall in love with a partner as interesting as either of these lovers. Footnote: Stay away from Roger Ebert's review until you see the film; he gives away the ending. His editor seriously needs to crack down on the spoilers. –Scott Hardie
It sucked. –Scott Hardie
This film is two exuberant hours, winningly played by three leads who know how to act with their faces. It’s smart and very sunny, a delight to see. What held it back from being good as well as pleasing was its overdependence on what seemed like dozens of musical montages, replacing the weak dialogue as often as the director could get away with it. Maybe that’s because the dialogue was contrived: Would a British mother so obsessed with society storm into a wedding obviously in its final moments to make such idiotic accusations? And more actual soccer would have helped. –Scott Hardie
The first Futurama movie suffers from a plot that turns at right angles seemingly out of nowhere, but the parts come together coherently in the end, and besides, it delivers what counts: Lots of big laughs, and lots of fan-service. –Scott Hardie • February 21 2010, 9:58pm EST
The third Futurama movie is the most cohesive, spending lots of its running time on an extended riff on Lord of the Rings. It's familiar but very funny, the kind of movie where you wait to laugh because the jokes are coming so fast. –Scott Hardie • May 9 2010, 7:48pm EST
They're so vexing, Matt Preston invented a term for them: "Fred Flintstone moments," those times when everything would be fine if one character would let the other get a word in edgewise, instead of repeatedly interrupting their explanation and then storming out / hanging up before they can finish. There are seven such moments in "Better Than Chocolate," a movie that would be a lot better if its characters stopped behaving like clueless sitcom cartoons and simply listened to each other for a minute. The film is a frustrating conglomeration of lesbian issues, after the filmmakers polled Canadian lesbians as to what they'd most like to see in a film about themselves: Just as it finally settles into romance, it takes an awkward veer into politics, and vice versa. Finally it culminates in the kind of ridiculous ending where supporting characters rush onto the scene one-by-one just in time to resolve each of the dangling loose ends. I give it credit for being a highly enjoyable film; I had a grin on my face the whole time. But it's still lousy, and a clear demonstration of why the plots of films should not be determined by poll results. –Scott Hardie
There are a great many movie-lovers for whom the phrase "a return to form for director Tim Burton" causes elation. Few American directors -- Spielberg and Shyamalan come to mind -- have achieved the kind of popular success and name recognition that Burton has while staying completely faithful to what interests them so personally. (Well, almost; there was that unfortunate "Planet of the Apes" business.) Those who have missed the old Tim Burton since "Ed Wood" will not be disappointed by this film, nor will those who, like me, appreciated the underrated work he did in the late nineties. I find myself in agreement with the film's detractors over their main criticism, that the film values its visual splendor over characterization, but I differ on whether that is a flaw. This film was made for its particular visual inventions, and there's probably no one who could have pulled it off quite like Burton, cinematographer Philippe Rousselot, and their team of art directors. Besides, it gets the characterization right on the only two characters who are supposed to be three-dimensional, the father and son at the center of the story. Credit is due to the all of the actors in those parts, but in particular to Albert Finney, who must convey a lifetime of having been this idiosyncratic oddball. Even my own personal gripe about the film, an anticlimactic ending after such a brilliant one was foreshadowed from the start, pales in consideration of the film's themes about the heavy price one pays to be an iconoclast and the unifying power of a family narrative. I wasn't just wowed by the film's images or drawn in by its characters, I was impressed with its thoughtfulness. This is a film to be seen and loved by all. –Scott Hardie
I think there is an inherent risk of misinterpreting a film from a foreign culture. This film is bizarrely hilarious, except the ending, which is just bizarre! Maybe you had to be there?! A mockumentary about a third rate superhero's trials. See it! –Aaron Shurtleff • November 19 2009, 3:26pm EST
My understanding is that this is more of a flat-out comedy for Chinese audiences, which must have a different sense of tone and timing. We're on another whole wavelength, but on the plus side, we can appreciate it as a satire of cinematic hubris and capitalistic greed. You Ge reveals real depth to his comic lead, and Donald Sutherland has a moment of genuine sweetness at a crucial point. It's a failure due to cultural barriers (and being way too slow), but it's intriguing nonetheless. –Scott Hardie
I don't necessarily mind when plot takes over from what initially seems to be a gentle character film, but I do mind when apparently intelligent people do really stupid things just to advance that plot. At every turning point, you instinctively think of what the character should do, and then watch him or her do the exact opposite, and you just want to scream. Are we supposed to feel sorry for victims in thrillers when they bring it on themselves? I keep hoping someone will notice Chaplin's talent, but he keeps appearing in garbage like this. –Scott Hardie
Improv can be a blessing or a curse. At best, it grounds the comedy in the characters and unlocks material that can't be dreamt up at a keyboard. But at worst, as in this low-budget mockumentary, it can result in a jokelessness, a movie that's amusing but rarely funny. And that's not even considering the meandering plot, which forgets characters, conflicts, and even the central arc of the main character. Blackballed is well-acted by its improv experts, who often get intense with their weirdo personalities, but it could have benefitted from a few more sharp zingers being written in advance for when scenes have trouble getting off the ground, and it would help if the main character was a stronger presence instead of merely playing witness to the oddballs around him. Paintball fans might enjoy the film because of its subject matter, although the three scenes of actual combat are difficult to follow in terms of who shot who and who's still on the battlefield. Blackballed comes off fairly slick for its budget and manages to be consistently amusing, but it's a dysfunctional underachiever that fails to score any big laughs. –Scott Hardie • September 17 2006, 9:42am EST • 1 reply
premise: Ridley Scott's influential sci-fi classic stars Harrison Ford as a detective who tracks down artificial humans at the cost of his soul. A quarter-century after its initial failure at the box office, Blade Runner has joined a pantheon of widely-respected but dramatically ice-cold sci-fi classics like Metropolis and 2001: A Space Odyssey. There's so little warmth here, and not just in the refrigerated laboratory scene. Now appreciated as a cerebral cult classic, with the help of a much-improved director's cut, it plays best if you ponder its comments about the wastefulness of human invention and our self-perception as the gods of our world; less so if you're looking for a simple, fun action-adventure. A landmark of cyberpunk fiction, it introduced themes that other filmmakers still haven't resolved all these years later, even if they have found ways to make them more entertaining. –Scott Hardie • April 14 2008, 2:46pm EST
I give this film credit for delivering what it promises: Big, loud, dark, dumb entertainment, with low-grade Gothic pretensions and a silent, charismaless anti-hero. Throw in even more physics-defying stunt choreography and moronic symbolism and you get the worse "Daredevil." Polish the script and demonstrate the skill of blocking your fight scenes for the camera and you get the better "The Punisher." The material is more or less the same; it's all in the execution. There are three good things about this film, namely Chris Gorak's above-average set design, Gabriel Beristain's stylish photography, and Ryan Reynolds's surprisingly satisfying one-liners. I would have been better able to enjoy the film if the dialogue wasn't nearly completely banal. Listen to Blade and Whistler debate the plot with each other despite devoting their lives to it, and notice how they recite the most basic details with the slow, careful articulation of a first-grader reading aloud for the class. I realize that "Vanity Fair" isn't for everybody, but is there something wrong with wanting more than vapid, poorly-recited exposition in a movie? It's empty calories. The action is a mixed bag. For every great shot, like the villain smashing Blade through the floor or Blade catching his boomerang in a different spot from where he threw it, there are a dozen choppy, difficult-to-follow sequences that are the nearly inevitable result of hiring actors who are not stuntmen and have no combat training. Seriously: What is the fucking point of hiring real thespians for action roles, when they are required to fire weaponry and kick people but not to recite any meaningful language? I want to like Dominic Purcell, but he's far too junior-grade to play the Ultimate Villain role in which he has been cast here; what, was Howie Long unavailable? Again I give praise to Ryan Reynolds's delivery (and his physique — I think he put on Jessica Biel's entire body weight in muscle), but otherwise this film is messy, useless tedium. –Scott Hardie
It's a rare comedy concert documentary that fails on the performance level, because any act big enough to warrant release as a film is well-honed by the time it's caught on camera. There's also rarely anything that could go wrong on a technical; you cold hold a camcorder in the audience and it would still be an entertaining film. So the only evaluation of such a piece is how much you enjoyed it, and my star rating speaks of my reaction. Jeff Foxworthy is a master of this kind of material by now, and bats nearly a thousand with his extended bit. Bill Engvall is the most down-to-Earth of the bunch, poking fun of himself as a person instead of the people around him or some character he has invented. Ron White's nervousness shows through his mannerisms and permanent grin, but he's got solid material and just the right bitter tone for delivering it. The least appealing is Larry the Cable Guy, a boy among men with his fart jokes, irritating catch phrases, and obviously put-on persona. The skits are hit-and-mostly-miss, but the stand-up material (about 90% of the film) is very funny stuff, told by guys who know how to make just about anybody laugh. –Scott Hardie
premise: In 2004, a liberal blogger makes good on his promise to move to Canada if Bush is reelected. Starring Breckin Meyer and Anna Paquin. Blue State isn't for conservatives, but viewers on the political left will find a movie that cares about their ideals. This setup (man makes good on a promise to move to Canada if Bush is reelected in 2004) could have merely been used to launch a generic romantic comedy: Establish why he moves to Canada, and promptly forget about politics for the rest of the movie. Instead, it features a number of interesting discussions about politics and current events from beginning to end, with characters who would be fun to meet and debate with in real life. The misadventures that the characters get into up north stretch not just plausibility but audience patience, and the screenplay has some damn sloppy structure, but at the movie's heart are characters who love America and want to do the right thing about it, a message that will resonate four years later with Obama supporters. –Scott Hardie • March 23 2008, 4:18pm EST
Back to the Columbia Mall again, this time to see Bolt. FLK1 and FLK2 are absent this time but these once a month Saturday showings appear to be gaining popularity in the autism community. There must have been fifty families represented today. Some children I haven't seen before and this is our sixth outing. There is an incredible display of affection among this crowd with more hugging and kissing of children than I normally see at public gatherings. Just an indication of how much these parents love their special children. The adventure began before the movie started. One young man sitting about seven rows behind us was hilariously announcing that he needed to be quiet now. Hilarious because he was nearly shouting this. This child also acted as a human TiVo throughout the film, loudly repeating the last few words of each spoken line and a few of the sound effects as well. It was like watching the movie twice, the second time on a two second delay. There were kids crying, biting themselves, parents cooing and comforting, and in the middle of this cacophonous symphony - a movie was playing. The first five minutes of the film were awesome, a representative clip of the TV show in which Bolt starred. The last five minutes were equally entertaining as Penny (Bolt's human) and Bolt are reunited after a long separation and he helps save her from an enormous fire without benefit of superpowers. Superlative. Then there was everything in between... I'm starting to dislike the use of celebrity voices in an attempt to drive the popularity of a film as opposed to using talented voice actors to display their talents. Using Patton Oswalt in Ratatouille was inspired. John Travolta was okay in this one but didn't really lend anything to the role with his voice alone. Susie Essman did her best in her role as Mittens, the former house turned alley cat. Using gimmicky choices for some of the voices was hit and miss. Malcolm McDowell was fine as the villain (typical) but I didn't know it was him until afterward but James Lipton was a superb choice as the director. I didn't know it was him but as I watched the movie and heard his pretentious prattling, I was thinking how much that character reminds me of James Lipton. I found out after the film and was surprised to see he was doing a parody of himself. A few lines were very memorable. A gushing hamster says to his hero, Bolt, "Every minute in your presence becomes the newest greatest moment in my life." And one half of an overtly gay pigeon couple wants to throw a TV plot idea at Bolt but defers to his partner with the line, "Tom's better at pitching." Oh, and the entire recue from the animal shelter scene was very funny. I'd say go and watch it for the beginning and final scenes. And there's just enough in the middle to get you through it. But just barely. –Steve West • December 6 2008, 2:43pm EST • 1 reply
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] Jason Mewes: "De Niro who?" Paris Hilton: "I think I'm going to cry." Jason Mewes: "I have that effect on women." Bad-movie junkies found a dream come true in this romantic comedy pairing the hotel-chain princess with the guy who plays Jay of Jay & Silent Bob. It's a perfect-storm of cinematic badness, full of homophobia and shit jokes, starring two people whose main facial expression is visible strain at trying to remember their Dick-and-Jane lines. Kevin Smith appears long enough for a loud fart joke, and it's his nepotism that has led to godawful productions like this and 2002's worst film Vulgar, since he leverages his success into starring vehicles for his talentless stoner buddies. Edited without breaks between scenes and featuring the "actors" wearing what looks like their own clothes, this is precisely the nuclear-grade disaster it seems. –Scott Hardie • March 18 2007, 9:45pm EST
I have wanted to see this well-received indie thriller since before I even knew who the Wachowski brothers were, but I'm kind of glad I didn't see it until I was already familiar with the Matrix trilogy, because the similarities are obvious. Partly that's in the superficial details (Bill Pope's wild camera angles, Don Davis's overbearing musical score), but it's also in the spirit of the film: Like "Revolutions" and the original "Matrix," it starts out going in one direction with a particular fascination, then switches gears and becomes something else entirely, and asks the audience to sustain heavy tension for a prolonged period. If the film has a weakness, it's the length: Five fewer minutes of double-crossing and eye-shifting would have improved the whole, since the film takes place in two apartments among a tiny cast and after a while it feels like it's going in circles. Mostly I'm struck by the dialogue and how sharp it is; I am still amazed that the same Wachowskis who wrote the sparkling dialogue in this film and the original "Matrix" also authored the boring, monologue-heavy "Reloaded" and "Revolutions." They have real talent for crafting suspense and creative cinematography, and they know how to make the most of their actors (the three leads here are phenomenal), so if they can go back to writing fresh scripts again, they should have a long career in this business. I recommend this to anyone curious about the directors' other work, or fans of clever erotic thrillers in general. It is as good as its reputation. –Scott Hardie
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] California high schools have been the setting for everything from time-traveling stoner comedies to alien-invader horror flicks, so why not a hard-boiled detective noir? Brick takes the concept and sprints with it, delivering line after line of brilliantly punchy, rapid-patter dialogue that springs from pulp gumshoe novels of the 1930s. It's a ticklish joy for viewers who enjoy sharp wit and actors who can keep up with the pace, and almost qualifies the movie as a comedy despite the dark neo-noir at the core of its complex plot. There's a smooth, efficient style to the film's look as well, with a harrowing foot-chase that ends with an unexpected abruptness, and a sparseness of detail in the environments that suggests they're unrealistic archetypes as much as the characters are. A premise this challenging and prone to self-serious camp can only succeed with total commitment from the cast and writer-director Rian Johnson, and it's a qualified and highly entertaining success. –Scott Hardie • March 18 2007, 9:49pm EST
This movie is about as interested in race relations as 'Bruce Almighty' is in theology. Those who accuse it of having too many stereotypes are missing the tone: It's a cartoon. On one hand, it lacks just as much respect for its characters as for the races they represent, giving none of them either a fleeting moment of plausibility nor a single detail that doesn't set up a plot point or a punchline. On the other, it has a dozen funny moments, only ten of which were spoiled by the trailer. Kudos to Martin, Eugene Levy, and Missi Pyle for jobs well done. –Scott Hardie
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] After Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, I didn't think Ang Lee would be robbed of the Best Picture Oscar yet again, but there you have it: The best film of the year settled for trophies for Lee and his writers. Maybe that's due to a red-state backlash by people who won't even see the movie, because those who do see it know that it's not really about two cowboys in love: It's about how any two people denied their feelings by society will see their lives decay, the same potent message conveyed by Lee's other films. Here is his purest and most heartbreaking distillation of the theme to date, as two men discover feelings they didn't know were possible and learn how to appreciate life to its fullest, and then have to pretend they don't know how to feel that good. There's little intellectual argument here and no agenda save the one we project onto it; the film succeeds solely by striking at the heart with powerful force. It's a majestic and profoundly moving epic for anyone who knows how good it feels to love. –Scott Hardie • March 18 2007, 9:46pm EST
I'm no fan of cheap sentimentality, especially when it's constantly cued by a hyper musical score (as in 'Liar Liar'), but I can forgive the film's need to appeal to a mass audience. It was still very entertaining throughout, and if it had been made for adults, it would have had to face profound theological questions that would have crushed it. A few scattered jokes are hilarious (the corpse's identity in particular tickled me), and the breezy efficiency of Shadyac and Steve Oedekerk is both a blessing and a curse. Beware of giant continuity errors. –Scott Hardie
Goodbye, Age of Irony: When Bruce Campbell plays Elvis and Ossie Davis plays JFK and the movie takes them seriously, we’re back to cinema that respects its characters and audiences. This movie creates a lot of its humor by building on its absurd situation instead of coasting on it, and there are sufficient horror elements too, but the best element is how deep the themes go, well past the indignity of old age and into the grand illusions of American culture. Except for its overwhelming obsession with penis jokes, this is one of the best, most surprising films of 2003. –Scott Hardie
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] Steven Soderbergh's explicit experiments with Bubble were whether a film released simultaneously in theaters, on cable tv, and on DVD could be successful (it was), and whether a film shot on real locations using only non-actors and no scripts could work (it did). However, his implicit experiment was even more interesting: Could a story told with the scarcest of details still manage to entertain? Yes, in the form of a pleasant hypnotic trance induced by watching these ordinary people go about their mundane lives with just enough dots connected for it to mean something. It's the unfulfilled promise of reality tv, the opportunity to watch the quiet milieu of everyday life, and you can't turn away from it. There is a plot, and some creepy imagery courtesy of the baby dolls in various stages of completion at the factory where the characters work, but the focus here is on the timbre of ordinary life and how it feels when something happens to you that's only supposed to happen in the movies. –Scott Hardie • March 18 2007, 9:43pm EST
Oddly (or perhaps not), I was reminded of "2001: A Space Odyssey" while watching this film. Both are revered as the apex of their genres, but both are also such dreadfully s l o w pictures as to become difficult to watch. While Kubrick was inviting us to ponder our place in the cosmos with his blank passages, this one seems to suggest that its characters are often lost in thought, scheming and calculating and pondering their place in the "sewer" that is organized crime. That's great, except that we are left out of the loop: There's scant dialogue for minutes at a time, as we cut between shots of the plane taxiing to the terminal and Bullitt waiting for it and the plane taxiing to the terminal and Bullitt waiting for it and the plane taxiing to the terminal and Bullitt waiting for it. It's the kind of film that makes you wish your DVD player could skip 30 seconds at a time like a TiVo. I'm all in favor of movies that inspire deep analysis, but not while they're still taking place! Whatever the frustrations of its pacing, the film has appeal, from McQueen's self-assured cool to the simplicity of its central mystery to the much-vaunted authenticity of its locations and bit players. And of course, there's the sensational car chase sequence, which is invigorating and totally convincing. If "Bullitt" were stripped of its centerpiece, it would no longer be a classic, but it would still be a worthwhile thriller. I just wish I could strip it of some of its dead time between the good stuff. –Scott Hardie
Ryan Reynolds is great in this minimalist thriller told from the perspective of a man buried alive with two hours to get free. The plot twists cut like a knife, as we share his desperation. There's a surprising amount of action, considering the space. –Scott Hardie • December 2 2011, 12:12am EST
I get the impression that Kevin Willmott is a glass-half-empty kind of guy. He has written and directed this clever fake documentary about how American history would have gone differently had the South won the Civil War, presenting a society where all non-whites are slaves and oppression dominates pop culture and America sees itself as superior to the rest of the world. According to the supplemental interviews on the DVD, his goal is to point out that this is the way America really is today, that we only pretend we've left behind the atrocities of the Confederacy but they persist in our culture. Me, I'm a glass-half-full person: Sure there are vestiges of slave culture in a few name brands today and we should continue eradicating them, but we've made tremendous progress and this alternate history demonstrates to me just how different we have become. For one thing, a black man like Willmott couldn't have dreamed of making a political statement like this without a sea change in social and physical freedoms. As for the film, it's one inspired invention after another, with political parody like Americans demanding that the Canadian government pays them "slavery reparations" for all the escaped slaves who gained amnesty there after the war, or cultural parody like a fake commercial for Runaways, a gritty COPS-like tv series that profiles law enforcement that violently captures fleeing slaves. Some of it makes you laugh at the audacity of the jokes, and some of it is disquieting enough to inspire moody reflection, but there's almost nothing boring about it. It's an important and funny film that I recommend to every American, whether they're inclined to see our nation's social progess as half-finished or half-unfinished. –Scott Hardie • August 20 2006, 1:39pm EST • 1 reply
Has it come to this? When I rent a straight-to-DVD flick in which Heather Graham plays a free-spirited wedding-magazine editor named Pippa McGee, I expect to see a train wreck worthy of being called the worst film of the year, so I can go back to Steven Spielberg and Ang Lee movies until next winter. But no: This film, shrill and vacuous though it is, has fleeting moments of wit and – loathe though I am to say it – charm. I can't even honestly call it a bad movie, not that I didn't fast-forward through the phony redemption and lovey-dovey scenes inspired by Screenwriting 101. If Heather Graham is eager to extend her streak of awful movies, she need only combine her "talent" with Uwe Boll to produce a film so incalculably horrible that FEMA will have to be dispatched to theaters showing it. In the meantime, congratulations to the makers of Cake for attaining a minimal level of mediocrity. –Scott Hardie • February 4 2007, 1:10am EST
More like Captain AmeriCANT. Yep, that's all I got. Starts great, but it's full of wasted potential, some major characters with terrible development, and overall not a fantastic piece of cinema. But not awful. –Jon Berry • July 29 2011, 1:31am EST
"Is it hard work being so dense?" asks Shirley MacLaine in this film, and for once, instead of channeling past lives, she seems to be channeling the audience's frustration. This straight-to-DVD washout is a obnoxious cavalcade of stupidity, accented by a circus-like musical score that gets louder every time the film gets extra-moronic. Not only is it the kind of sub-"Roseanne" melodrama that gets drunk on treating ordinary life events as High Drama, but it is rotten with clichés, from the grinning game show host who's an asshole off-camera, to the mangy dog that ruins the big family dinner by running on the table, to the protagonist who secretly attends a friend's book-reading from the back row only to learn that the book is about her. One of the first lessons I learned in creative writing class was that mid-scene entrances and exits of characters are signs of desperation by a writer, who shuffles around the characters when she can't think of anything worthwhile to have them say or do. It speaks volumes that "Carolina" has the most such entrances and exits I can recall seeing in one place; the film can't seem to sit still for thirty seconds without a new character walking in, or another storming off, or a door slamming, or an elevator opening, or a car pulling up, as if the film is in the constant business of pretending to have something happen. Screenwriter Katherine Fugate based the tale on her own grandmother, who raised three girls single-handedly, and I can admire that level of selflessness in a woman, but it gets awfully hard when the fictional version is so aggressively repellant. One scene has her attending a movie with her daughters, in which she shouts at the characters on the screen and passes around bowls of gumbo from her own kitchen instead of buying popcorn, then stands up and loudly chews out the manager who comes to remove her. I can't tell if these behaviors were invented merely to give the scene conflict or if someone actually thought this material was funny, but if the film's goal is to endear us to this colorful old grandma, this scene (like most others) has the precise opposite effect. [Plot spoilers ahead.] The only positive mention I can give the film is its acting, particularly by Shirley MacLaine and Julia Stiles. They may be playing highly obnoxious and highly implausible (respectively), but they know what they're doing, and having former drama coach Marleen Gorris in the director's chair probably helps. But their talents are wasted on a movie pitched at a thirteen-year-old girl's perception of reality, in which a Stiles can play a 21-year-old television producer (!) who goes unemployed for the better part of a year while living in a cavernous apartment and throwing expensive-looking formal parties. There's no use developing your characters when the screenplay needs them to turn on a dime, such as when Randy Quaid's character is chastized for being a lifelong drunk and then later is chastized for showing up late to a family event because he was at an AA meeting, or when Mika Boorem's character obsesses for months over her lottery numbers to the point of hyperventilation, then casually shrugs off the $24-million jackpot when the numbers finally do come up because she's learned that the only important thing is that she was "right" about them all along. I've seen Cocoa Puffs commercials with more verisimilitude. Amateurish and sheetrock-stupid, this torturous production is an early contender for the worst film of 2005. –Scott Hardie
premise: Pixar tells the story of a talking sportscar who gets stranded in a small midwestern town and learns humility from Real America. Ever since being freed by the success of Finding Nemo, Pixar's recent films have been much more about the personal vision and personal obsessions of their directors, and that makes them hit or miss; you're either on their wavelength or you're not. I liked WALL-E. I definitely did not like Cars. Unlike me, John Lasseter is obsessed with cars and racing, and married some action scenes about the two to a hokey hicksville cartoon with Larry the Cable Guy as a chortling pickup truck. Talk about ambitious! The jokes are flat, the animation is weaker than Pixar's standards except in the racing scenes, and the implications of the nature of these talking cars is disturbing to contemplate. You watch the movie thinking about how they grew up, what they think about the usefulness of their form, whether they need certain biological functions. This is a movie that never should have been made. –Scott Hardie • January 24 2009, 12:44pm EST • 1 reply
The movie featured all the characters of the first film but not a single new joke. Cliche driven bumpkin-as-spy plot mixed with NASCAR. I would have preferred sliding down a barbed-wire bannister into a pool of lemon juice. –Steve West • July 2 2011, 12:41pm EST
The producing family behind the 007 franchise have wisely made a course correction with this latest entry, reinventing him for this post-9/11 decade just as the similarly Martin Campbell-directed GoldenEye reinvented him for the 1990s. That's not to say that he's chasing terrorists or oil magnates or fundamentalists, just that the world around this Bond is much more sinister and plays for keeps, and so must he. Gone are the gimmicks and the super-villains and the cartoony action (there's no CGI Bond windsurfing into North Korea here), and in their place is a tough, athletic, virile Bond who has emotional weakness, underestimates his enemies, and gets blood on his shirt – a lot of blood. Fans will appreciate the renewed energy of the series, and non-fans will enjoy an engaging action thriller that jettisons any series backstory, but most of all, the film seems tailor-made for onetime series fans who lost their faith in the Moore and Brosnan eras when the once elegant, sophisticated series became an action cartoon. Why does it feel like it's been such a very long time when we see this new Bond practice actual spycraft? –Scott Hardie • November 19 2006, 10:33am EST • 1 reply
Hiyao Miyazaki didn't always have a magic touch. He fills this mid-eighties dud with bland archetypes for heroes and villains, lame physical comedy, and a weird lack of wonder at the events that transpire, such the discovery of a fucking flying castle. This is ho-hum early work from an animator who luckily mastered his craft in other films. –Scott Hardie • February 4 2007, 1:18am EST
Previous Payne/Taylor movies like Election and About Schmidt succeeded as satire, with rich targets to skewer. This one doubles down on the corny Midwestern innocence and lacks purpose. It's warm & fuzzy in parts, but fails to be funny. –Scott Hardie • August 13 2011, 2:15pm EST
Odd that this was the first theatrical movie I've seen in ages not to be preceded by a computer-animated admonishment to "please turn off your pagers and cell phones." If you ever doubt what makes a movie good instead of mediocre, beyond your own enjoyment of it anyway, consider this an example. While numerous films this summer have started with disposable, formulaic plots, "Collateral" demonstrated genuine interest in the fundamental morality of its two main characters, while "The Bourne Supremacy" possessed a master's precise sense of style and pacing. On the other hand, while "Cellular" does get a lot of mileage out of its not-unreasonable high concept, it has precious little time for anything not directly related. This is the kind of minimal-effort thriller where every offhand detail about a character is mentioned either to set up a later plot point (will her skills as a biology teacher help her disable an attacker? will the digital camera in his cell phone be used to record something important?) or exists only for the sake of comic relief (William H. Macy with green mud on his face! ha, ha) so that the film doesn't become an awful bore. This isn't a bad film by any means, exhausting most of the permutations possible with such a premise and blessed with four primary actors who are very good at what they do, but like its soulmate "Phone Booth," it just doesn't care to be about anything more than itself. At least the seemingly endless cat-and-mouse game that suffices as the final showdown between hero and villain redeems itself at last with the cleverest use of a cell phone in a movie full of clever uses. –Scott Hardie
This weird hybrid of Indian melodramatic musicals and Chinese martial-arts epics can't decide whether to take itself utterly seriously or to be cartoonishly silly. At nearly three hours, it has some good action and great shots, but way too much filler. –Scott Hardie • June 8 2009, 2:00am EST • 1 reply
It was a no-brainer to hire Tim Burton to direct this remake (ahem, "re-imagining") of the original, since he specializes in elaborate, whimsical visual landscapes with a hint of malice beneath the surface. This is a bountiful world of wonder with detail in every corner of the screen; several of the sets are worth the price of admission alone. But if Burton's strength is his eyes, his weakness is his heart, and the film's fumbling attempts at intimacy in the final act play like a unnecessary epilogue, even if I suspect Burton is parodizing himself with the rubber-glove hug scene (you'll know it when you see it). I also take issue with the obnoxious Oompa-Loompa songs that bring the film to a screeching halt, but these are small quibbles. By now, you know what you get when you buy a ticket to a Tim Burton spectacle, and this one is no different. It's a feast of gorgeous imagery, (literal) eye candy of the best kind. –Scott Hardie
I'm a sucker for spectacle, and this 'Moulin Rouge!' successor has it. Marshall, a choreographer making his first film, updates the elements of the classic musical with flashy camera moves and editing that help (not hinder) the show, and effectively buries the musical numbers more within Roxie's mind. The five leads are all great in their big numbers, especially Catherine Zeta-Jones, who was born to tear up a stage, and John C. Reilly, who's starting to get typecast as the sad-sack husband because he's so good. –Scott Hardie
In adapting P.D. James's Britain-centric sci-fi novel, Alfonso Cuarón has chosen to ignore its statements about Parliament and hereditary rule, and make a more universal film that meditates on the subjects of hope and faith on a global scale. Along the way, he paints in topical commentary about Abu Ghraib and Homeland Security, but they're at the margins; the film is out to convey intense feelings of despair for humanity and suggest what it's like for hope to grow amidst it like a flower in a wasteland, a theme shared with its contemporary Pan's Labyrinth. The despair is clear: In a world where no more children can be born and society has given up, bombings in the streets barely register, and the government is capable of genocidal atrocity without objection from all but a handful of people. Though the cold, disenchanted hero undergoes the usual emotional transformation demanded by this sort of material, the impact of seeing this dystopia is hefty, especially since it's painted with imagery from the real world around us today: Yes, this does feel like how we would turn out if we lost hope too. Critics have made much of the action scenes undertaken in virtuoso long shots of 4-6 minutes, which demonstrate Cuarón's obvious technical expertise (even faking them must have been difficult), and the sequences are riveting for the verisimilitude generated by the technique. You don't have to be a film geek to appreciate how electric they feel to watch. I do wonder if Cuarón isn't so invested in the technique of his film that he neglects the importance of plot; he swears off narrative as a director, and yet the film would be more satisfying if the characters weren't one-dimensional and seemingly lacking in personal history. In that area the film is poor, but it is rich in its thematic urgency and ability to invoke powerful feelings about the fragility of our humanity. –Scott Hardie • May 13 2007, 11:38am EST
An autistic teenager discovers her martial arts prowess in this Thai movie, named for her beloved M&Ms, that anyone familiar with autistic children will find hilarious. It's like watching Forrest Gump using tae kwon do in a movie called Dr Pepper. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:21am EST
When I was a kid, I was told you had to have a reason to frown. The people behind this movie should have learned that lesson. They tell a gloomy story – a somber man returns home after a prison sentence for the drunk driving accident that killed his young son – and they capture the depressing subsistence-level poverty of life in the Ozarks, but they fail to put anything compelling in the tale to make the journey worthwhile. We're shown scene after scene of anguish, including a grotesquely over-the-top sequence where traumatized wife Lisa Blount first throws herself at her returned husband then collapses into wails of grief for her loss, but there's not one scene in the movie that entertains, illustrates, or educates, with the arguable exception that thems mountain folk sure do sing some purty ditties. Writer-director Ray McKinnon apparently created the film as a vehicle for his wife Blount, but he winds up delivering the only memorable performance, as the local scumbag who enjoys picking away at old scabs. A film needs more redeeming qualities if it's going to spend this long wallowing in a pointless bog of misery. –Scott Hardie
This film is advertised as a quirky comedy about five eccentrics, but I rented it as a cautionary tale about my own overindulgence in movies. It turned out to be neither; instead it was a somewhat boring tale of five people who were interesting for perhaps a few minutes only. If they watched movies all day to escape from their own lives, then why would we want to watch their lives for eighty minutes? There are few insights into the life of a hard-core cinemaphile, but many insights into cinema from the educated perspective of one, and some priceless lines. –Scott Hardie
This mess about a hapless father, an ungrateful son, and their wacky alien "dog" fails at being funny and even worse at being touching. The kid is way too hard on both of them for his "regret" to mean much, and the alien design is freakishly distracting. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:23am EST
The 99%-CGI remake gets the art design right, especially in the monsters. But everything else goes very wrong, from gaps in the plot, to shots ripped off from better movies, to hammy overacting. (Did Neeson and Fiennes really do Schindler's List?) –Scott Hardie • April 20 2010, 11:00pm EST • 10 replies
I rented this kiddie flick just for fun, and I got what I wanted. It's surprisingly inventive with new turns of the plot, almost never feels dumbed down for the little ones. The animation is significantly improved from the television series, mixing in CGI as needed to produce more complicated shots that couldn't be done well on television. I could have done without the obligatory pop-song transition after every big scene, but overall this is fairly high-quality children's entertainment, and a film John Ritter probably would have been proud to call his final. (Too bad it missed golden opportunities to spoof "Godzilla" and "Spider-Man" for parents in the audience.) –Scott Hardie
First, the 3-D animation was terrific. Second, everything else sucked. Poor story and plot development, non-sensical conflict, suspension of physical laws, incredible misunderstanding of basic human nature, cliché-driven character dreck - it's all in there. –Steve West • September 19 2009, 6:44pm EST • 2 replies
premise: Friends enjoy a party in Manhattan until a monster attacks the city. The entire film is recorded on their handheld camera. Produced by J.J. Abrams. This low-budget horror film was subject to a massive wave of buzz before its release, which is somewhat unfounded given how very little was known about it before release. Now it has arrived and the very people who anticipated it seem disappointed, perhaps because it's merely good instead of truly great, but I think its perceived flaws are really its strengths. Some say that the obliteration of New York landmarks is an inappropriate reminder of 9/11, but I think it's about connecting us to the primary fear of our time like Godzilla once did (and didn't I Am Legend just destroy New York too?). Some say the horror elements are too predictable and clichéd, but I think the film's intention is to deconstruct them with a cinema-verite approach, treating them as real events happening to real people, to show how other movies have drained them of their power. And some say that the uneventful first act is too boring of a setup with undefined characters, but the sudden disruption of mundane daily life with the monumental is the point here; I'm reminded of no less than James Joyce, who made literary history writing about the profound intruding upon boring everyday lives, although he didn't have a giant monster. Perhaps the problem really lies in what you want out of this movie. If you've seen horror-survival movies and you want a smart deconstruction of the genre by people who have also seen them, you're in for a good time. But if you expect more traditional pleasures like well-developed characters and attractive photography, this is Oscar season; go see something else. –Scott Hardie • January 29 2008, 12:59am EST
I admire Jim Jarmusch's willingness to be unconventional as much as everybody else, but the nature of risk-taking is that it sometimes leads to disaster, and that's the unfortunate result in this case. What started as a short in 1987 with Steven Wright and Robert Benigni drinking coffee, smoking, and barely understanding each other in conversation led to a series of such shorts, and after fifteen years Jarmusch decided to tie them all together with a final few that nicely reference the earlier material verbally and thematically (not that any of the skits truly seem like they're truly connected except for these passing references to each other). It sounds like a great idea, but it never gets off the ground comedically or thematically, due to what I can only describe as a lack of any fucking reason to exist other than "why not?" The late great Gene Siskel held movies to a standard that they had to be more interesting than a documentary of the same actors eating lunch, and I find it highly ironic that this film, in which the stars play outsized versions of their public personas meeting and chatting, would fail his test miserably. There are so many long boring pauses (Reneé French and the White Stripes), so many moments where the actors circle endlessly around the same pointless topic (Alex Descas and Isaach De Bankolé), and especially so many ridiculous monologues that you cannot imagine the actors ever really saying (Alfred Molina and Steve Buscemi) that it becomes a trial of willpower not to hit the chapter-skip button. This project had the potential for greatness, but the reward of a few scattered laughs is not worth the price of seemingly never-ending torment via skits that no reason to occur. –Scott Hardie
It’s nice to know you’re watching a Best Picture winner while you’re watching it. This won’t win the Oscar simply because it’s a melodramatic period drama from Miramax, it will win because it’s also an excellent film, beautifully photographed and richly detailed. Law and Kidman worked hard to maintain a bond during filming to make their passion seem real (it worked), but they mostly play out two separate storylines, and I had trouble deciding which was more interesting. Zellweger invaluably puts the relief in comic relief. Some may find this film too cold; I wasn’t moved, but I was impressed. –Scott Hardie
I had been wondering what turn Michael Mann's career would take after "Ali" flopped. Would he pursue his course into straight drama even if it seemed the material didn't suit him? Or would he step back into the safe confines of the formula thriller on which he built his career? He apparently chose the latter, or had it chosen for him, and the result is a film that feels like regression for a director that was making such progress. Considering that Mann's thrillers were always supreme entertainment, the best of them ("Heat") ranking among my favorite films, it's not such a bad place to find sanctuary. Here, as always, he digs deep into these two lead characters, each one in a unique position to look deep inside the other one. Their conversations, particularly the one beginning with Vincent's childhood, are fascinating little scenes, every one of them self-contained and woven together to form a film. When the plot must advance, it is rarely abruptly; Mann is genuinely interested in these men and their dialogue, and soft-pedals into each big scene after dwelling wisely on their words. Despite Mann's comfortingly mellow touch, despite total engagement in their complex characters by the two lead actors, the film is denied greatness by the very act of playing it safe. It requires frequently ridiculous contrivances to keep the plot going, including being founded on the biggest contrivance of all (why wouldn't Vincent just rent a car and drive himself around?). It goes through the standard pressure-points of the genre with such rapidity, bringing on the routine traffic stop scene so early in the affair, that it seems desperate to play conventional and doesn't know how: This film is plainly improvisational by nature, from being filmed on video to allow the actors limitless takes, to the way it introduces arbitrary points of interest simply because it finds them interesting. Had the film been allowed to follow its own path instead of being crammed into a traditional thriller's structure, drummed-up final showdown and all, it could have really been a knockout. –Scott Hardie
Why do vanity projects so often make their stars look bad? Hamill seems to forget that Courage is a MacGuffin, and the late scenes, where the protagonist stands up for Courage, must be about the protagonist. But the man has already been established throughout the film as clueless, boring, and out-of-touch. In other words, what’s the fucking point of the entire third act of the film? This fake documentary is so poorly made (the cameraman is a constant presence on screen) and jarringly cross-cut that maybe it’s not worth asking. The many cameos provide fleeting relief, thank Hamill for that. –Scott Hardie
There isn't much insight about O'Brien to be found besides his constant need for an audience that gives the movie its title. But all I wanted was a funny 90 minutes feeling like I was hanging out with O'Brien between shows, and it delivered those laughs. –Scott Hardie • February 12 2012, 4:34pm EST
Everyone else compares this to —Auto Focus,” so I may as well too: It’s more compelling, able to inspire sympathy for its hero by making him feel sorry for his own banality. In other words, this whole tale is a long-overdue, 113-minute apology for —The Gong Show.” Clooney the director is quick to overcome the heavy-handedness in the opening minutes, finding a style that is bouncy and jovial when appropriate, but capable of lapsing into dark and frigid within the same scene, as two montages ably demonstrate. The best element is Charlie Kaufman’s literate, cagey screenplay; is that any surprise? –Scott Hardie
[Spoilers ahead.] My review of —The Prophecy” has been lost to time, but in it I wrote of one of the most precisely defined subgenres in all of cinema, the one whose films concern an eternal war between heaven and hell with humans caught in the middle, where a single human woman will turn the tide of war (often because she carries the unborn anti-Christ), and where a world-weary human man is unfazed by encounters with Biblical headliners like Gabriel and Uziel only to wind up face-to-face with Satan himself. So many Catholic-derivative films have shared this exact premise that they have become a category unto themselves, and it becomes pointless to compare them against each other because they’re just so damn much alike. —Constantine” repeats the formula with a gargantuan budget and some damn slick photography, but it struggles with the same plot holes that all such films seem to, such as why an omnipotent God can possibly be engaged in an eternal war, and why humans are so arrogant as to place ourselves at the center of a struggle between beings of sometimes infinite more power and importance than us. Oh well; it’s a fun movie, just not a remotely remarkable one. –Scott Hardie
I really wanted to hold this film in higher regard, but it committed too many plain filmmaking errors: There are few cinematic contrivances more frustrating than the villains waiting in the exact spot where the heroes will happen to arrive, and standing there patiently out of frame while the heroes have a heartfelt conversation, before finally striking. Such extreme coincidence shatters all pretense of believability, leaving you with nothing to enjoy but the technical expertise of the filmmakers, and that ain't much in a not-ready-for-USA-Network amateurpiece like this. Ray Liotta is the only actor who makes an impression, but after eating nails for breakfast in tough-guy parts like "Narc," even Liotta can charitably be said to be phoning this one in. (It is said that he took the part with no prep time when Matt Dillon couldn't fulfill the contract; I hope Dillon didn't let this film down to finish the dismaying "Employee of the Month.") The movie has scenes that work, such as when Liotta sees over and over in his mind the drop of blood that changed his life, and when he seems genuinely nervous about his first date in what might be his entire life, but the film rarely goes for long without leaning on another flimsy contrivance to support the plot it shouldn't be taking so seriously in the first place. This full 180-degree transformation of a monster into a man is better than the film that tells it. –Scott Hardie
This dark and unsettling fairy tale explores all kinds of childhood fears starting with separation anxiety, but the real achievement here is the visual panache. This is another stop-motion cartoon treat for fans of The Nightmare Before Christmas. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:18am EST
Vince Vaughn stars in, co-produced and co-wrote this film. A definite vehicle to highlight his talents. Lots of jokes about the sometime absurdity of relationships and all four couples have relationship reunions of sorts. The island resort hosts were just plain creepy and Jean Reno was miscast as the French love guru. –Steve West • November 7 2009, 10:20pm EST
This movie is completely preposterous from start to finish, and it seems to bear little difference from the other DMX films to date, all produced by Joel Silver for minimal intelligence and maximum marketability. But, on the bright side, it’s a hell of a lot of fun in spite of itself: The action scenes are appropriately over the top, and the music is exhilarating. It’s amusing to see DMX, Jet Li, Gabrielle Union, Anthony Anderson, Tom Arnold, and even Kelly Hu boiled down to the essences of their celebrity personas. A little more ambition is all the filmmakers need next. –Scott Hardie
This sped-up action movie is trash, but it's self-aware, above-average trash, exciting to a fault. It gets a lot of mileage out of its crazy premise and cartoon logic, until it's dragged down by ugly misogyny, playing a public rape for laughs. –Scott Hardie • April 26 2009, 2:22am EST
[Major spoilers ahead.] Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco deserve a lot of credit for making an intelligent film about race that defies political correctness, but their willingness to embrace negative stereotypes undermines the otherwise accomplished production. They establish a pattern of double-reversals: After introducing characters who are unlike crude racial stereotypes, they pull the rug out from under you by revealing that the characters are in fact just like the stereotypes, then do it again by revealing that no, actually, they are not. Each time the first such twist occurs, the film seems to shoot itself in the foot like —American History X” did, preaching a message of racial acceptance while revealing black people to be thuggish criminals and white people to be justifiably paranoid. By the time the second twist arrives and the characters turn out to be the decent, reasonable human beings we assumed from the beginning, we wonder what the point was, since we were only manipulated into believing otherwise (if we believed it at all). The movie makes a great show of its characters discovering that their racial prejudices are wrong, a pattern that threatens to make it predictable, but does it amount to anything? —Do the Right Thing” reveals that its characters are not really racist, that their racism is only an embodiment of their much deeper, hard-wired anxieties; when —Crash” reveals that its characters are not really racist, it shows that their racism is only a plot contrivance. But I’m being too hard on the film. In most regards it’s great stuff: These are interesting, well-spoken characters, who are not always meant to be taken seriously. There’s humor in the film; I especially liked Ludacris’s pompous criticisms of lowbrow black culture while slinging the n-word around himself (and that’s not even mentioning the ironic casting of the part). And there are moments of raw tension, too, as when Terrence Howard challenges white cops to do what he has always expected them to do, or when Thandie Newton must place her life in the hands of a monster in what is clearly the film’s brightest flash point. I, for one, loved the —Magnolia”-like meta-twist at the end that bound these characters together on a night that made meteorological history. If every scene in the film is not entirely convincing (would a black director cave that quickly to pressure from a racist coworker after presumably facing a career full of prejudice?), every emotion is, mapping terrain with peaks of suspense and valleys of anguish. It’s an impressive debut from a filmmaker clearly conscious of his medum’s ability to craft a strong message; I just hope that his next message has more to do with actual reality and less to do with Hollywood reality. –Scott Hardie
Without Jeff Bridges's magnificent performance, this would be a so-so drama with some good old-fashioned country songs and pretty shots of the southwestern landscape. Bridges elevates it into something very affecting. He earns its pathos. –Scott Hardie • May 22 2010, 7:39am EST
Let's hear it for filmmakers who are honest about their own failings. In the making-of featurette on this straight-to-DVD release, writer-director Ernie Barbarash admits that he made it because he was so unsatisfied with how his "Cube²: Hypercube" turned out. If the best way to criticize a movie is to make another one, I suppose that goes double if you're the filmmaker responsible for the original mess. On the whole, "Cube Zero" is the weakest film in the horror trilogy, but it still has a great deal going for it. This one steps out of the cube and tells the story of a former child prodigy who is a computer technician working on the project. Maybe it's because most of the other actors are so lousy, but Zachary Bennett is terrific in the part, carving out a highly sympathetic and human character in the midst of artificiality. He and fellow technician David Huband (the only other good actor) must shoulder the film's moral theme, whether one is truly absolved of guilt for wrongdoing when "motivated" by god or government. Obviously Mr. Barbarash isn't familiar with a history book or a legal brief, but really he's interested in the souls of his characters... Or he seems to be, anyway, within the boundaries permitted by this grim series, which very few characters survive. That's one of the two most off-putting elements, in fact: The grisliness of the death scenes. The original "Cube" had more of a traditional low-budget feel to it (I'm still amazed that the entire set was one room), and the film was so cheap that the victims in the elaborate death scenes looked like the mannequins they were. But computer animation has come so far along that even a super-low-budget release like this one can afford crisp, photorealistic effects, which only serve to make it seem like someone went to a great deal of trouble to animate the most graphic elements of human torture. This isn't quite another "Cannibal Holocaust," but it does portray gore and agony in such crisp high-resolution as to make you question the motives of the filmmakers. Like its predecessors, it never does completely explain why someone would go to so much trouble to watch such suffering; the original dodged the question by limiting its perspective to the victims, but this prequel doesn't get off so easy. Speaking of which, the biggest problem with the film is its human villain. When finally we meet one of the "men upstairs," he turns out to be a ham-fisted cartoon character, as if one of Carmen Sandiego's henchmen broke into a live-action film. It's not that the actor is bad so much as that the character is inappropriate; he couldn't do a worse job of breaking the tension if he delivered every line after sucking on a helium balloon. "Cube" has always worked best when its scares are taken seriously — one of the most chilling moments comes when a technician enters the cube and pauses in muted horror at what he has just done — and this villain is far too cartoonish to appear hand-in-hand with such grim material. I hope that Mr. Barbarash is prepared to try yet again. –Scott Hardie
I give this film credit for good intentions. It tries to recreate the basic elements that made the first 'Cube' so intriguing while adding plot twists and cool special effects. But a mishandled ending right out of a bad hour of 'The X-Files' is not an improvement on the original's open ending, since it reveals that what's really going on is actually really boring. Also, the sequel's token psycho-killer is just as obnoxious a presence as the first film's. But there are intriguing ideas none the less, and those special effects are something. –Scott Hardie
Proof that CGI has cheapened the movie spectacle can be found in criticisms of films like this one, when viewers complain about the artificial sight of thousands of CGI soldiers bearing down on an immense computer model of the Forbidden City. The problem is, that ain't CGI. The filmmakers really did outfit a legion of extras in extravagant golden armor so that they could march across a set as enormous as the real palace. A few of the dangerous elements were faked (the flying spears and spurts of blood are drawn-in), but the film went to incredible lengths to put on a grand show, and that's the point: This isn't just a story of a corrupt royal family, it's about how living every day in such impossible extremes of beauty and decadence can make it seem reasonable to sacrifice tens of thousands of lives to score a point in a family argument, and the movie piles on those extremes in order to drive the point home. This is a film of exquisite beauty, set in one of the most breathtakingly gorgeous locations in history, and it makes its better-received contemporaries Pan's Labyrinth and 300 look paltry. (image) (image) (image) At its center is a family drama as stagey as the story's origin in a play would indicate. The characters feel the burden of the empire watching their every move – literally, since they are followed everywhere by attendants – and they speak to each other with rigid formality, forcing the actors to communicate in slight deviations and shifts. The film's weakness is that the characters rarely lay down their formality in private and speak to each other like normal people, and the plot hinges on secrets that only seem to remain secret because of this social code, even if that's part of the point. This is the closest Yimou Zhang has come to marrying the emotional complexity of his early work with the grand extravagence of his recent films, and it's a striking combination. –Scott Hardie • April 21 2007, 5:38pm EST
Who is this movie made for? It's marketed as a campy spy-sorority action movie, but it has very little action, all filmed incoherently. It's stupid enough that I thought maybe it was intended as an empowerment film for teenaged girls, but 90% of the plot involves a lesbian romance, and one in which a homicidal criminal seduces a good-natured college girl no less. Lesbian audiences are not the pickiest people around (see the success of "Better Than Chocolate"), but I can't imagine them getting behind this unflattering portrayal, in which the lesbian elements are essentially a tease for horny guys in the audience. This was a germ of a good idea for a comic strip, and maybe it made for a good 11-minute action short, but it doesn't begin to support a feature film because there seems to be no plan here, no aim or purpose to the film. It is said in the making-of featurette on the DVD that the script was written in a matter of hours and the pitch was greenlit on the spot by a studio executive, and the film plays that way. I would still complain about the movie running in ten different directions even if one of them worked, but it can't seem to get a single element right. The plot is implausible beyond even the most tolerant suspension of disbelief, especially after the D.E.B.S. catch one of their own in bed with the villain, walk away from them both, and then grill that member for days about the whereabouts of the villain. Its characters are not people but empty ciphers, primarily distinguishable by their race. (Why does the black one have to be bossy and aggressive?) The villain is supposed to be 21 but comes across like a world-weary thirty-something, making the seduction even creepier. The headmistress character is apparently brain-damaged for no reason other than to make the D.E.B.S. look smart in contrast, which just makes the film even more baffling to watch. The villainess has a few funny lines ("I'm blowing up Australia." "Why?" "I don't like their attitude!") while her loyal henchman seems to have a good fifty or sixty IQ points on everybody else and is perpetually bemused about it, but otherwise there's nothing to recommend. This film proves once again that a good premise should be the starting point for the movie, not the only point. –Scott Hardie
If you stay away from superhero movies because most of them are awful, don't go to this one hoping for different. The characters demonstrate wildly inconsistent behavior when they're not doing physically impossible feats and healing mortal wounds in seconds for no apparent reason. Colin Farrell's snickering is perhaps the most characterization anyone gets. The cinematography and sets are interesting, but we barely get to see them for all the shadows. This is shrill, dumb, boring Hollywood action cinema. –Scott Hardie
Spoiler warning. While this film soars in its moments of visceral thrills and complex acting from Russell (who seems to be thinking ten things at once), its failure to reach greatness is in the clichéd, moralizing ending, unbelievable in the face of what has come before. I could accept Russell betraying Brendan Gleeson out of revenge for the botched ambush, but not because Russell suddenly turned into a good guy. Such a smart film (and a great lead performance) deserves better. Also good is the cinematography, fresh despite this being the millionth L.A. film. –Scott Hardie
So many movies get remade that were perfectly fine in the first place. How often do filmmakers get to revisit material that failed to capitalize on its potential the first time? I look forward to finding out whether the American remake ironed out the flaws in this somewhat lacking Japanese horror film. While it does a good job of creating a truly spooky atmosphere, it has an awkwardness of pace, such as when the mother makes a ghastly discovery then takes her sweet time getting back to her imperiled daughter. It also doesn't help that the whole film feels muted; the original score is really pretty good but there's so little of it throughout the film, letting the tension dissipate. But there's excellent work by two lead actresses here (including 6-year-old Rio Kanno in her debut film), and the best set that money could buy, one that transforms itself several times over and always convincingly so. The film may steal some of its images, but it knows what it's doing: A lift of the most famous image from "The Shining" transforms into a heartbreaking shot that ties together all the symbolism of mother and daughter. I can't quite recommend the film on its own, but if you rent it in preparation for the remake or just to see all of Hideo Nakata's work, you won't be disappointed. –Scott Hardie
Trust me: Do not consume an entire extra-large beverage during the opening credits. This semi-arthouse horror flick applies a layer of prestige to its commercial flaws with slick, ominous art direction and an Oscar-calibre cast (Jennifer Connelly, Pete Postlethwaite, John C. Reilly, and a well-disguised Tim Roth), but the flaws gradually wither it from the core like termites. For one, there's the annoyingly precocious kindergartner who demonstrates the intelligence of an average twelve-year-old, well-acted by little Ariel Gade but constantly reminding us we're watching a movie. Then there's the ridiculously over-the-top finalé, which cranks to eleven a film that had previously been enjoying a nice, creepy four. And there's the clumsy foreshadowing, which smartly refuses to show the villain in person until the final act but gives away the key to her mystery in the opening minutes, and which has a landlord explaining in detail how the shower's glass panel is unbreakable as a giant, blinking indicator that it will later separate mother and daughter in a crucial moment. I'm also getting sick and tired of horror movies where angel-voiced little kids sing their creepy nursery rhymes in an attempt to unnerve the audience: It hasn't been scary for years, Hollywood. Still, the film gets a few things really right. I like the choice to put so much of it inside the mother's head and subject her to migraines; with its oppressive photography and screeching sound effects, I could almost feel the migraines inside my own head. (I mean that better than it sounds.) The teenaged boys who initially seem to be the cause of the problems may be obvious red herrings, but they help to ground the film in plausibility until it derails in that big climax at the end. And the film makes smart choices on the little details, like having the landlord and the lawyer both abandon the heroine at crucial moments in an echo of her childhood, and making the apartment seem cluttered and lived-in at all times, not clean like most movie apartments. [Spoilers ahead.] How does the film compare to the Japanese original? Well, they're very similar, and it's almost pointless to distinguish between them since they're about equally good and about equally effective as horror movies. The original went for sadness as its primary effect with a heartbreaking shot near the end, but this one is more focused on its duties as a horror film, raising the tension and making the conflict more personal. Whereas the Japanese mother makes a sad choice of her own volition, the American mother essentially has her hand forced by the villain, which makes the villain seem a hell of a lot meaner but strips the mother of her soul; here she only reacts to the events of the plot instead of causing them. And while this film wasn't shooting for the original's melancholy epilogue, having the American heroine leave it with a smile on her face strikes a false note after everything that has come before it. Ultimately the films are too similar to bother separating; the Japanese original is slightly better, but neither is particularly worth renting. –Scott Hardie
This delivers what it promises: Many funny lines from perfectly-cast Fey and Carrell, silly supporting players, and a lame mixed-up-in-crime plot right from the 1980s. The photography is bad enough to be distracting, but the movie brings a lot of laughs. –Scott Hardie • June 16 2010, 9:17am EST
Jabs at consumerist society were at the heart of the original 1978 "Dawn of the Dead." When anarchy reigns and there are monsters everything trying to eat your brains, aren't some things more important than designer jeans and muzak? And that's my only gripe about the new film (other than an abrupt ending), that it has no interest in being a satire or making a statement or developing a theme. It exists as 100% entertainment only, when there is enough talent on both sides of the camera to push this great material further. That said, as 100% entertainment, it fucking rocks. Purists may argue that the instant zombification of corpses and the running zombies that have shown up lately (most famously in "28 Days Later...") are cheating and 'unrealistic' (what?!), but they clearly have the effect of ratcheting up the tension. This is a thoroughly modern "survival horror" movie in which a gunshots have replaced creaking floorboards as the definitive sound effect. Instant zombification eliminates the old cliché of whether a loved one is a zombie or merely sick (although this movie does cheat with one person at death's door for a prolonged time), and it allows for a quicker elimination of an oversized cast of characters, in which there is enough room for two standard-issue jerks this time. This movie is fast-paced and generates a palpable sense of anarchy and of the absense of hope. It also gets very creative, particularly with the cinematography, which is not too lazy to set up several complex wide shots to establish the full range of the chaos. This is a highly technically proficient film, creative and done with real effort. There is no weak link among any of the major talents involved, including the actors. It could have been a great film if it had demonstrated interest or awareness in anything other than itself and its predecessors, but for a pure-escapism survival horror movie, they don't come much better than this. –Scott Hardie
Here's what the 2004 remake wasn't: Satirical, interested in more than itself, smart beyond a technical proficiency. Make no mistake, it's a zombie horror film first and foremost, but more than once it transcends its material with undue brilliance. There's no layer of ironic self-awareness here, no characters created only to be zombie food, no artificial tension between the main characters because one of them was a born jerk. It's funny, honest, well-photographed, totally engrossing, and tense as all hell. This is how the genre is done. –Scott Hardie
I appreciate the dreamlike black & white photography that made the towns seem artificial. I like Neil Young's raw, jangling musical score. I laughed at Johnny Depp's perplexity and the allusions to William Blake's poetry. The first act and especially the second act of the film are funny, daring, and eye-opening, but the film's slowness gets the better of it in the final act. Look, I know what the film is trying to suggest about the hero giving up his bodily form and achieving a higher plane and all that, but the march through the Native American village plays like the film is trying to demonstrate what eternity feels like. It wastes what little momentum the film had been building as it drifts off to a limp conclusion. Were there not other, more entertaining ways to get the point across? –Scott Hardie
Jean-Pierre Jeunet's cannibalistic horror film has some of his hallmarks, including innovative art design and quirky character development, but unfortunately lacks his narrative drive with a weak protagonist. It's odd, and passably entertaining. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:31am EST
I didn't expect any actual demonic fornication to take place, but certainly a film called "Demonlover" and starring Gina Gershon shouldn't be this fucking dull. It's a tale of corporate intrigue told mostly in meetings. That's right, meetings: You have them all day long at work; would you like to see more of them at home on DVD? And these meetings take place between people speaking French, Japanese, and English, so every line has to be translated once or even twice, increasing the fascination considerably, believe me. When one of the companies, a Japanese adult animation producer, finally broke the meeting to demonstrate their product, I never thought I'd be so happy to see hentai in my life. The problem is that it's a bona fide highbrow art film in lowbrow packaging. Me, I rented this several months ago and waited until I was in the mood for a sexy, trashy thriller with Gina Gershon, sort of like "Bound" gone corporate. Instead, it's classy and artistic, a serious exploration of business ethics and the similarities between corporate politics and BDSM. It would almost be silly if it weren't so slack-paced and dull. Besides, the sex in the film is not sexy, reducing these intelligent, ambitious women to rape victims held at gunpoint or even drugged and brainwashed. There's a lot being said here about issues of control versus submission for female executives in an industry that objectifies them, but I hope you're in the right frame of mind if you sit down to hear it. –Scott Hardie
Not as fresh as El Mariachi or as weird as Once Upon a Time in Mexico, the weakest chapter in the series rarely rises above mediocrity. It succeeds largely on the superhuman charisma of Antonio Banderas, who was born to play this role. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:34am EST
Not much laugh-out-loud material but plenty of chuckles and a few tug-at-your-heartstrings teary moments. Fairly predictable plotline even for a kiddie movie still delivers consistent charming scenes. What's the big deal over Russel Brand (yawn)? –Steve West • July 17 2010, 2:29pm EST
It's refreshing for a movie to star a supervillain, so much so that I wanted to see more of his work in the early scenes before his inevitable conversion into something less interesting. This is watered-down Pixar, mildly ambitious and contentedly so-so. –Scott Hardie • August 7 2010, 10:31am EST
I'm not terribly bothered by cartoons that act like what they are. It's the cartoons that don't know they're cartoons that get me bent out of shape. This movie has apparently been created with no reference point in reality; its characters are plastic sitcom archetypes with no thoughts beyond their own trajectory in the overworked plot. Don't you hate it when fluffy sitcoms ask you to take their characters seriously, after they spend most of their time milking those same vapid, moronic characters for cheap laughs? This movie plays like the most self-serious sitcom finalés in tv history. I liked the outrageous Madea character and look forward to seeing her again next year in a true comedy, not a weak drama that doesn't have a clue how artificial and trite it is. And that's not even mentioning the convenient hypocrisy of the plot, in which the main character lies to, steals from, and even tortures her ex-husband nearly to death, while the film preaches a message of Christian forgiveness and the redemptive power of belonging to the church. That the poor woman has already suffered so much at the hands of her cartoonishly cruel partner (all he needs is a moustache to twirl while he cackles) is irrelevant; one does not deserve credit for forgiveness after one has gone on a cathartic revenge spree. Again, I don't mind a revenge movie that knows it's a revenge movie, but I object to a revenge movie that genuinely believes it's a pious Christian fable about acceptance. Please. (Ending spoiler: In a movie with so many ideas stolen from better films, including the title, I was particularly irked by the ending stolen almost shot-for-shot from "An Officer and a Gentleman," one of my favorite films and one that earned its dramatic flourish at the end by playing conservatively up to that point. Here it just plays like a contrivance with no reference to what has come before, like most of the other scenes.) –Scott Hardie
Oh my god, I love this movie! It is not a comedy, although I have seen it called that. This is a story about a man who finds that he has OCD and Tourette's syndrome, and what he goes through trying to get his life together. Excellent, but disturbing.. –Aaron Shurtleff • November 19 2009, 3:32pm EST • 1 reply
A standard Euro action flick that stays close to the 2006 original, this sequel is fun early on, but drags to a lame anticlimax. It delivers the expected combat scenes, but much less impressive parkour stunts this time, perhaps because they got too big. –Scott Hardie • June 20 2010, 2:17pm EST
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] James Bond wasn't the only one chasing a parkour superstar this year: Luc Besson filled his latest glossy, bargain-budget action flick with self-trained stuntmen practicing the exercise fad. The electrifying opening chase scene featuring parkour founder David Belle being chased through the windows and up the lattices of a twisting apartment complex is worth the rental all by itself. The rest of the film may be by-the-numbers action cheese, but Besson knows his discipline like a master cheese-smith. –Scott Hardie • March 18 2007, 9:41pm EST
The movie is as strong as I recall the novel being, except without the "dust bunnies" and other inessential nonsense. The three lead actresses are great, especially Kathy Bates in a complex role. Maine looks foreboding in the steel-gray photography. –Scott Hardie • February 4 2012, 5:48pm EST • 1 reply
Quickly finding its proper audience on DVD is this burgeoning cult classic, not yet three years old. It slipped past me at the time, but in the spirit of the film, I feel as though I was destined to see it just now and understand it as though I had never missed it. I kid, but the film has a remarkable ability to make you feel as though everything has a proper place and a meaning, even if you don't know what they are. That's due in part to the film's philosophy (accepting God's plan brings joy), but also due to an abundance of scenes that fit like square pegs in round holes. The film is a mishmash of tones and styles and homages, and while the theistic conceit justifies them on a plot level, they don't make for the most satisfying film. For all the coincidences and conceits that we are asked to swallow, we are promised a knockout ending, and what comes is smaller than what precedes it. The film gets less fascinating, not more so. But it is worth seeing, and not just for its growing status. 25-year-old (!) director Richard Kelly demonstrates remarkable self-assurance with the film, guiding it from one oddity to the next, using near-constant slow motion to maintain the tone. It plays like an ideal dream, one in which the incongruous, repeating imagery makes sense if we think it through. (How interesting that this came out only a few weeks after "Mulholland Dr." by David Lynch.) The film takes advantage of its unusual structure to pay tribute to 1989s adolescence, when the kids who would become Generation X were beginning to sense that the whitewashed, philosophically empty world their parents had made for them wasn't worth the trouble. And hey, "E.T." with the bikes and Drew Barrymore. Footnote: Richard Kelly has, I think, moved on to some other project by now, but the IMDb still lists "Knowing" as his next film, and I love the premise. A broken water main (love the reference) unearths a time capsule beneath an elementary school, and the children's drawings within show silly drawings of an imagined future world. But the investigator realizes that one child drew tragic events that really did come true in the decades to come, all except one that has not yet happened, and the investigator must race to prevent that final vision from coming true. I don't know if a similar premise with a more conventional structure would help rein in Mr. Kelly in a beneficial way, but I look forward to finding out. –Scott Hardie
I suppose this supernatural thriller is a little far-fetched at times, but a lot of that can be written off by the film’s main conceit, revealed by the surly protagonist in a terse conversation with the American about his religious beliefs. This film primarily exploits those beliefs for entertainment value, but it gets a hell of a good murder mystery out of them. I haven’t seen a crime thriller this densely plotted since the similarly excellent —Minority Report.” Leung and Liu convince us that they’ve had marriage problems for a long time, and Morse is as nicely understated as always. –Scott Hardie
Bond's first outing is the strong foundation that carried the series. What fun it is to see Bond practicing his spy trade, something missing too long now. If Connery had not been this charming or the movie this cool, there would have been no Bond series. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:27am EST
Dracula the novel certainly wasn't for everybody, and the same is true for Francis Ford Coppola's film, but not for the same reasons. It's a rock opera without the rock or the opera, a Baz Luhrmann film without the cartooniness. The modern pop sensibility suits the Gothic Euronovel well, if that's your sort of thing, like exquisite baclava served with a root beer float. And it features a gorgeous score by Wojciech Kilar. –Scott Hardie • August 9 2006, 11:20pm EST
premise: An epic fantasy adventure begins! Based on the books by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman. As far as book adaptations go, the movie was pretty much spot on as to the book. I mean, yeah, there are things that have to be cut out, so it's not like you won't notice little things missing here and there, but the major points of the story are all there. If you've read the books, you know what you'll be getting. Story-wise, this was a great movie, in my opinion. The story does seem a bit dated (it is an older story, after all), but it is still enjoyable. The problem, for me, is the mixture of standard animation with computer generated animation. Some people are fans of that, but not me. There are scenes where the main characters (who are animated in the usual fashion) are fighting the draconians (all of the dragons and draconians are done in computer animation), and it's painful to watch. You can see that sometimes, it is not synched up well, and it is a distraction. I like to immerse myself into a story when I watch a movie, and I can't deal with too many distractions like that. The casting was OK. Keifer Sutherland was (surprisingly for me) very good as Raistlin Majere, and his voice really fit the character well. I couldn't get down with Lucy Lawless as Goldmoon, however. Maybe it's the fact that I still think of her as Xena, and the two characters couldn't be more different. The less said about Michelle Trachtenberg as Tika, the better. I thought that Jason Marsden as Tasslehoff Burrfoot worked well, too, and the actor who voiced Flint Fireforge did well, also. Overall, I would say that it's worth seeing if you are a fan of the series, with the caviats mentioned above. I cannot speak to the experience of seeing this having not been previously exposed to the books, since I obviously read the books long ago. The series was one of my favorites when I was younger, so the story isn't exactly super complex, but it is enjoyable, and the characters are a pretty motley group with different perspectives and morals. It's not your typical bunch of heroes that are all agreed on saving the world and fighting for justice, if you know what I mean. –Aaron Shurtleff • April 19 2008, 11:08am EST
Not since —Snow Falling on Cedars” has such beautiful cinematography graced such a mediocre film. It ends as a terrible monster movie (this being the umpteenth film to change Stephen King’s original ending for the worse), but it’s got a decent beginning, with humor, mystery and a genuine feel to the friendships, not to mention a great opening credits sequence. The failure is in the ridiculous material itself; this is probably the best possible movie that could be made about giant rectum-dwelling leeches. King now lacks the imagination and Kasdan now lacks the heart, and they bring each other down. –Scott Hardie
I can deal with Zach Galifianakis being so irritating (even though the movie's clear subtext is that Robert Downey Jr. is worse to be around). I can deal with the unmistakable similarity with Planes, Trains & Automobiles, which we could dismiss for being twenty years old if Due Date didn't seem to borrow so much from it. What I can't accept is that this just isn't very funny. There are a handful of small laughs, and would be a lot of big ones if the trailer hadn't spoiled all of them. Want to see something funny and save time? Watch the highlight reel and skip the movie. –Scott Hardie • July 31 2011, 4:41pm EST
This is a movie at war with itself. Like its introverted protagonist, who hides behind a ventriloquist's dummy when he feels social pressure, it leans on caricatures, cheap jokes, and implausible setups when the film lurking within is uncommonly sweet, charming, and funny. More scenes of Vedra Farmiga being a vulnerable single mom (the sweet), Adrien Brody gently coming out of his shell (the charming), and Milla Jovovich acting like a clueless teenager throwing a temper tantrum (the funny) would have helped the film. Instead it wastes time on family dysfunction that would make for a boring episode of Dr. Phil, and forces its characters to do things wildly uncharacteristic and unlikely (such as the "thank you" note) to set up scenes of contrived sympathy. Did Ben Stiller contribute to this script? Farmiga, Brody, and Jovovich are captivating, giving nuanced performances that deserve to be seen by wider audiences, and Illeana Douglas even manages to do well when the screenplay's on her side. I recommend this film despite its terribly awkward passages and overeager menu system (you think Jeff Dunham made contributions?). At heart, it's a charming little gem. –Scott Hardie
What new can I say about one of the most beloved children's films of all time, especially so by my generation? All I can add is my perspective as someone who has never seen it until now. (That's not entirely true; I think I must have seen it when I was four. But my only memories are those generated by the film's lingering presence in our culture in the twenty years since it was released.) What strikes me most is how well Spielberg does what he does best, creating something wholly believeable out of artificial special effects. E.T. is a movie character of great empathy; he is instantly likeable and, as time has shown, unforgettable. The film generates so much empathy towards E.T. by showing nearly every scene from his perspective, or from the perspective of Elliott as his surrogate. The only world this film knows are the places E.T. explores after he arrives, and the only villains are the ones who seek to rupture that world. They're such simple antagonists that their plain-white cars have "United States Government" printed on the doors. Whether or not the digital removal of guns from these shadowy villains' hands hurts the film, I cannot say, but the weapons do seem unnecessary in that E.T. would barely know what they are; the men are already threatening enough. What doesn't go so well in the restored version is the CGI face on the creature. It's very well animated, to be sure, but it just doesn't seem to be there in the same scenes with the human actors. If the lack of adequately moving lips demonstrated the limits of animatronic puppets in 1982, then the fact that the face seems detached from the body (and the rest of the shot) demonstrates the limits of CGI in 2002. Watching this film for the first time, it is easily understood how a generation of children fell in love with it. It is made with an understanding of humanity lacking in films of technical perfection, but it achieves an emotional perfection instead. It generates very specific, very powerful feelings in nearly everyone who sees it. No wonder; nearly everyone remembers what it was like to be a child. –Scott Hardie
Only by my standards could this be called a 2005 film: Haley Joel Osment filmed it in the spring of 2000 before moving on to "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence," and it saw various foreign releases (theatrical and video) until Miramax quietly distributed it stateside on DVD in the first week of January 2005. That's a shame, because it's a powerful film with a great story to tell, the kind of authentic drama you assume is pure autobiography only until you learn the writer-director was born after it takes place. A living, breathing, bleeding portrayal of rural Poland under Nazi oppression, the film tells its tale with such attention to detail and such three-dimensional characters that it feels much more real than most movies that take place in the present, and as a result the film is considerably more thrilling and more disturbing than it could have been. More than a week has passed since I watched it, and still I'm haunted by one character's villainy, turning the scene over and over in my mind wondering whether I could find a way out if I were in little Osment's shoes. I probably couldn't. No one could. The inescapability of this kind of evil is one of its most chilling traits. I mentioned the attention to detail. One of my favorite scenes comes when a boy and girl make a show of locking themselves in a barn, pretending to engage in sin, but they only wind up sitting in a tub full of black seeds and sprinkling handfuls on each other. There's no symbolism to the scene, no advancement of the plot, no statement about the characters; the scene is about nothing more than the simple pleasure of watching how seeds bounce off of naked knees. The film has an important story to tell, but does not tell it so urgently that it neglects to pause at moments of interest. Overall, the film has a few flaws too large to overlook, including some heavy-handed foreshadowing that may as well display on the screen in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS which characters are doomed, but its strengths are many: Intelligence, raw tragedy, a deep consideration of religious morality, a beautiful score by Jan A.P. Kaczmarek, and a performance good enough to remind you why Willem Dafoe used to be regarded so highly. Don't let another five years go by before you see this. I recommend it highly. –Scott Hardie
Robert Rodriguez's first feature is a jaw-dropping achievement in ultra-low-budget filmmaking, a $7000 crime movie better than most thrillers Hollywood puts out every year. It's clever and well-choreographed as an action movie, and great entertainment. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:33am EST
I rented this because it is a favorite film of Matthew Preston, and I see how it has shaped him, and why he loves it. The film never fails to be interesting, even in those overdone Spielberg moments that make your eyes roll. A large part of its power comes from the set design, which creates a convincing world: You feel like you could enter the internment camp and walk from building to building and recognize every room, every face you saw. The actors are all good, especially young Christian Bale, a master of accents even back then. When I watched the film, I was under the impression it was successful, widely respected, and had won Best Picture. Afterwards I learned that it was a flop, pissed on by the critics who distrusted Spielberg's attempts to grow up, and was shut out of the major categories by the similarly-titled "The Last Emperor." That was too bad for Spielberg at the time, but it's to our benefit now; we get to enjoy this overlooked gem, this Best Picture that never was, with an open mind. Rent it and see for yourself; it has so much to like and admire. –Scott Hardie
Ending spoilers ahead. Can you sue a movie studio for giving you whiplash? This movie goes through so many twist endings, it laps itself and keeps on going. In the final act, there were not one, not two, but six twist endings. The director's last name is "ruse" so I should have known, but this is ridiculous. One single twist ending is bad enough when you have a good film on your hands: Matt Dillon works hard to get us into the head of this angry loser, and despite some abrupt changes in tone, the film ultimately works well in both its darker and lighter moments. And it has some great lines, most of them drenched in profanity. Some argue that the twist endings illuminate the philosophy of the film as explained in the voiceover narration, but me, I think they're a cop-out because the writer-director didn't have real confidence in his story; he could have told the same philosophy without the con game. And stacking twist endings upon more twist endings is like trying put out a fire with gasoline. If I docked this film a half-star for each twist I'd have to give it a negative rating, so a single measly half-star will have to do. Stop the DVD when the news reporter is explaining what happened to the hero and you've got yourself a pretty good movie. (Footnote: I love how the DVD menu spoofs the menu for "Office Space," a film with a similar premise, right down to the mention of "P.T.S. reports.") –Scott Hardie
Funny this should be considered a Charlie Kaufman movie. Kaufman wrote it and it thrives on his characteristic neuroses, but the idea originated with Michel Gondry (via a friend) and the film was created to indulge Gondry's particular talents, not Kaufman's. In truth it's a collaboration between a lot of people, not the least of them Jim Carrey, but as a fan of Gondry I must maintain the truth, that this is his film above all. I say that because the heart of the film is in its visually creative suggestions of a mind doubling back on itself. Without giving away the story, I can say that much of the film takes place inside an unstable mind, and so the film loops through old memories, makes people and objects disappear as they are forgotten, and goes out of its way to establish a completely convincing dream-state. (It's a shame that the conscious scenes aren't filmed more sharply to differentiate them. The film seems like it's setting us up for a trick in which it reveals a waking scene to be a dream, but it's not.) Gondry is a gifted creator of optical illusions, as evidenced by his delightful short works, and here he creates beaches inside houses, city blocks with only one end, a man the size of a child, and other wonderful tricks of the eye. But the film is not content to rest on its visual inventions; it goes to great lengths to develop its multidimensional protagonist, and even its supporting characters, who have little dialogue, come across as well-drawn. Here the credit goes to Kaufman and the ensemble cast, but I want to single out Carrey for special mention. Here he creates a character who is, I suspect, very close to his real self. He has indicated that he is actually a quiet, shy person who likes to keep to himself, and forces himself to be extroverted in his career because it makes him a better person -- much like the quiet, shy protagonist must force himself to extroverted around his garrulous girlfriend. Carrey is convincing as this meek soul while still being "Jim Carrey!" in some scenes; that he can marry the two into one believable character is a credit to his self-actualization as an actor. I hope he has the future ahead of him that he deserves. Though "Eternal Sunshine" might bore a few viewers (those who don't enjoy introspective, dialogue-driven films like "Lost in Translation"), most audiences should enjoy its general playfulness and good humor, and be touched by its bittersweet undertones. It is a thoroughly satisfying film. –Scott Hardie
This early and very funny Woody Allen comedy may seem tame by today's wild norms for obscene material, but that also gives it an aura of gentle concern for its oddball protagonists. Even when they're being humiliated, the film is only celebrating the quirks that make them human. It's refreshing to learn that a 25-year-old film that once explored perversion can now make us feel good about being normal. Well, except for the sheep-fucking. –Scott Hardie
There's no problem casting David Duchovny, Orlando Jones, and Julianne Moore as scientists – they exude intelligence as human beings. The problem is casting them as moronic scientists with rocks for brains and expecting us to sympathize. (Now, asking supporting actor Seann William Scott to play a moron, that's just fine.) Evolution is a dim-witted comedy pitched at the broadest possible audience, and having pratfalls and rectum jokes for the kids does tend to water down the wit ostensibly pitched at adults. In other words, it's only mildly funny with this cast and this premise, but it's content to plod along in big-loud-stupid mode like most other expensive movies, and that's a shame. Great creature effects, though. –Scott Hardie • February 4 2007, 1:00am EST • 1 reply
Moore may still have yet to equal the pathos in "Roger & Me," the keystone film in his career, but he is not a man of small ambitions, and this film is earnest in its desire to do right by itself. Moore hired a team of fact-checkers and defense attorneys to protect every claim it makes, and it is careful in its arrangement, instead of playing fast & loose with the facts like his earlier (and sadly, more entertaining) films. But the thing is, he still gets it wrong, in the conclusions that he draws. Yes, it's a fact that two months passed before we invaded Afghanistan and searched for bin Laden after 9/11 happened, but that's due more to the real work of getting a well-executed military maneuver of that scale underway than to any secret plan Bush had to invade Afghanistan as a primer for invading Iraq. Really, if Bush and company planned all along to invade Iraq and saw 9/11 as the perfect opportunity, as Moore claims, then why would they wait two months to do it and risk letting the nation's thirst for blood fade away? Perhaps, the conspiracy theory goes, perhaps the president didn't want many deaths in Afghanistan to dissuade the people from invading Iraq, but I can only estimate that capturing bin Laden alive instead of letting him get away would have done much more for Bush's cause. Misrepresentation of history aside, Moore's film is easily at its best when attacking Bush the man as highly unethical. The litany of complaints lodged at the man adds up to a startling case of corruption and impropiety; whatever his achievements as president, Bush has put his own personal agenda and the financial well-being of those in his circle above the needs of the nation. He isn't the first president to send men to die for a personal agenda, but it's morally offensive all the same. The film loses coherence when it turns away from Bush in its second half; the grieving mother of a dead soldier and the raw footage of bloody corpses in Iraq are powerful, but make Moore lose his train of thought. Many directors have been tamed by subjects bigger than them; my own choice for the best film of last year was the somber work of a formerly wild, flashy director coming to grips with profound subject matter. Moore doesn't go for sadness or fear or (thank God) irony, but a little bit of that Iraq footage goes a long way, and by the end of the film we're ready to condemn war in general instead of George W. Bush. Still, the film contains some of Moore's trademark humor, and his "can you believe this?" reaction to hypocrisy from public officials. Some viewers were turned off by his ice-cream truck and Army brochure stunts, but I found them amusing; a helpful bit of levity in a sea of evilness. I also disagree with the common claim that this film can be enjoyed by people of any political stripe; watching its malicious portrayal of Bush, I could only imagine how enraged it would make me if I were a conservative. The only reason for conservatives to see this film is because it is, cinematically speaking, one of the most important films of 2004, but they should expect Bush to receive the same treatment in it as the title character in that other important film of 2004. –Scott Hardie
For the initiated, Fanboys has its moments, celebrating the bonds of friendship that come through fandom. But it's pretty bad, straining to set up unbelieveable scenes with weak, predictable payoffs. These are not the laughs you're looking for. –Scott Hardie • July 12 2009, 5:24pm EST
[Ending spoilers ahead.] Complementing Drew Barrymore's instant likeability as an actress is her shrewd business sense: As a producer, she knows how to put her endearing nature to good use in film projects. "Fever Pitch" is hardly the most cold-and-calculated romantic comedy ever made, but its obvious cross-gender appeal and refusal to break with genre convention guarantee that it will please audiences and make its star/producer even richer. There's a lot to like about it, including Nick Hornby's well-turned phrases and the surprising ease with which the forever grinning Jimmy Fallon slips into the lead role, matching Barrymore's winsomeness. If I have a major complaint about the film beyond its genre-formula structure, it's that it ends too abruptly: Within thirty seconds of the film's beginning, the voiceover narration notes that the film takes place during the Red Sox's championship 2004 season, but that final stunning victory comes within the final thirty seconds of the film, seeming as hurriedly tacked-on as the ending actually was. Perhaps the film is better off as a rental, where you can enjoy the original ending that the filmmakers intended. –Scott Hardie
This is strictly fanservice, as anyone with name recognition of the title can tell at once. Luckily for fans, Square gives some of the best fanservice in the business. This breathlessly-paced movie is stuffed with spectacular action scenes, an unbreakable sheen of cool, and countless inside jokes to the video game that inspired it. If you've enjoyed the game, you can't go wrong with this flick. If you have no idea what Final Fantasy is, well, this isn't the place to learn. –Scott Hardie • September 24 2006, 10:05pm EST
Few movies ask Vin Diesel to tell jokes and not punch people for two whole hours. More should; he's good. When mobster Jack DiNorscio defended himself on trial, it unlocked his inner stand-up comic, and this movie is based on the funny real transcripts. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:40am EST
Spoiler warning. I rented this because of who directed it, and I was pleasantly surprised to enjoy it. It’s not so much a bona-fide thriller as a study of manners. Like an evil episode of —Seinfeld,” the main character is forced by social customs to do things he desperately does not want to do. The plot is unnecessarily contrived, but at least it makes good on all the setup: The dialogue and the nuances are right; these five characters seem unique and realistic. Unfortunately, the film blows it all in the final fifteen seconds with an inexplicable, gratuitous twist ending. –Scott Hardie
Already Pixar has become legendary for its complexity, in both animation and characters. Their fifth feature film doesn't disappoint, even if the plot does feel like a retread of 'Toy Story' and its sequel. Here they create positive role models out of three lead characters who grapple with physical, emotional, and mental handicaps, with Marlin's neuroses being especially complex for the genre. But the film's greatest accomplishment is technical, in how a vast palette and generous use of light & shadow create this wonderous, beautiful world. –Scott Hardie
Those seeking the ubiquitous Oscar-season highbrow costume drama will get their fix from this film, but I prefer to think of it as more of a comedy. Certainly it's all but guaranteed to leave you smiling, with a fairly steady stream of playfulness and wit, and a wholesomeness that is threatened by only the slightest hints of impropiety. Over a century of special effects improvements are put to work illustrating J.M. Barrie's boundless imagination, and it's to their credit they even come close. What I liked best about the effects were the different art styles matching the different media: The bear waltz (CGI), the cowboys vs. indians game (film stock), the pirate fantasy (stop-motion), the elaborate "neverland" sequence (live actors), all are clearly taking place in the same mind yet each has a unique aesthetic appropriate for its context. This film is a long shot for the art direction Oscar but I find myself rooting for it. If the film has a weakness, it is that it never really comes to life. This sanitized, toothless (and largely fictionalized) version of Barrie's collective muse lacks any real power, treating what would be its most powerful dramatic turn as a delicate fantasy. It's an interesting storytelling choice, totally appropriate for the subject matter, and it makes this a good film for children to see, but it means the film is working with one hand tied behind its back. Still, the actors give fine performances, especially young Freddie Highmore and his crystal-clear outrage when he has a temper tantrum. The film is the best possible result of its director's choices. –Scott Hardie
I missed this film as a teenager and its premise has intrigued me ever since. Like a lot of pompous atheists, I'm confident in the ability of science to (eventually) explain everything unknown to man, and here's a film about med students who attempt to discover what happens after death. It's such a wonderful premise that the film could have presented almost any vision of the afterlife and been forgiven, but that isn't necessary; the film chose a psychological angle that was light on the jump scenes and heavy on the pathos. The film has a slow build-up as each character gradually comes face to face with their past sins, and even the shallow chauvinist inspires sympathy when he comes to regret his crimes. Given the director and year of release, I expected something cornier and more difficult to swallow; I was pleasantly surprised to discover an intelligent film, with heart, unafraid to deal with a profound subject. It has aged well. –Scott Hardie
premise: After her daughter disappears during a long flight, Jodie Foster must take matters into her own hands to rescue her. [Minor spoilers.] When your level of creativity is to cast Sean Bean not as the villain, but as the creepy guy you think is the villain but turns out not to be, your well has run dry. This movie stitches together inspirations from recent movies like Panic Room, Air Force One, and The Forgotten, all of them mediocre but still better than this, and it doesn't come anywhere close to the master inspiration The Lady Vanishes. The movie gets a little juice out of the high concept, and Jodie Foster would be good just ordering pizza, but there's not much to recommend here. –Scott Hardie • January 19 2009, 11:06pm EST
It's possible to make a funny comedy about incompetent suicide bombers, but this ambitious production fails to pull it off. The characters are played way too broadly: The blowhard, the coward, the moron, etc. There's a few funny moments, but not enough. –Scott Hardie • November 12 2011, 9:35am EST • 1 reply
Finally, Robert Rodriguez has found a way to combine action and plot at once. His previous action trilogy – "El Mariachi," "Desperado," and "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" – was a dazzling piece of work, full of vivid imagery and colorful characters, but those existed in a sort of free-form state, with a feeling that each movie could have rearranged its scenes in random order and been approximately as entertaining. By adapting Frank Miller's comics so carefully, Rodriguez's "Sin City" can't help but have the narrative thrust he was lacking. Because it's an anthology, it still doesn't form one single coherent film, but it does have three complete stories with beginnings, middles, and endings. And it's proof just how good Rodriguez can be when he has discipline. Make no mistake; this is a guy movie's guy movie. (Critic Jeffrey Westhoff quipped, "You know you've gone beyond run-of-the-mill movie violence when you need to use the plural for 'castrations.'") A borderline NC-17 level of violence is one of the selling points for the film. But if you have the nerves for it, this is a true roller-coaster ride of a film, and the excitement comes more from Rodriguez's technique than any of the action. It's presented in a gorgeous black and white is used both to boil images down to their essence, as when Clive Owen's white profile sinks into blackness, or when Rodriguez wants to show a striking level of detail, such as in the close-ups that reveal the nuances of the prosthetics work on Mickey Rourke's face. (This film will be long forgotten by the time its deserved Oscar for Best Makeup is given to some other title.) Rodriguez uses animation in a liberating way, presenting bodies and cars and bullets in constant motion against a vast backdrop of urban sprawl and unyielding rain. Like the comics that inspired it, "Sin City" has no time to pause and think because it has a lot of action to resolve in a limited timespan, and it barrels through the material with abandon, striking one astonishing image after another. This is an action movie on steroids, tempered by its themes of self-punishment and redeemed by its brilliant sense of style. It's not for everyone, but the level of violence can tell you that. Besides being difficult to recommend, I wish I could say it was more perfect. The breaks from reality sometimes get too difficult to swallow, as characters are shot full of bullets and struck repeatedly by speeding cars but keep on walking, and also fall several stories at a time without a scratch on them, both reminiscent of the recklessly bad "Daredevil." And some of the actors, particularly Bruce Willis and Michael Madsen, haven't figured out how to deliver the hard-boiled prose with conviction and rhythm, so their dialogue rings terribly flat. But these flaws and a handful of others are minor in the scheme of things, a slight tarnish on an otherwise brilliant work. This is the visual feast for the first half of the year. –Scott Hardie
It's a safe bet that Kahlo herself probably would have disapproved of the Americanization of her life story, but I hope she would have liked its verve and splendor. This movie is brimming with visual innovation, blending its action with Kahlo's art to suggest a collision of the literal and the perceived, a trick tried by many films and done well by few. Those who say Hayek lacks the proper gravity for the part should recall that Kahlo's stature was assumed decades after her death. This is a stirring tribute to an important Mexican. –Scott Hardie
Bond's second adventure threatened to mis-step with a leaden pace and dull guest appearances, but Connery continued to anchor the series with his masculine mojo. The exotic foreign locales help to liven things up, but they shouldn't have to. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:27am EST
Unlike most movies based off of popular tv series, this did not have the feel of "Elongated TV Episode." NON SPOILERISH INFORMATION: We are treated to having views of how things are going on in both of the worlds. We see where some of the characters in Amestris (Ed's homeworld) are now, and how they are doing. Not so much so that it distracts. Just to see that, truely, everyone still seems to be connected and life did go on for most. Yet some are still burdened by guilt. One of the interesting things in the movie is the bits of history that are injected into it. Having taken a few years of German class when I was in school, I was already familiar with a decent amount of what was going on it the country at this point in history. As well, the history channel has often made mentioned and showcased instances of Hitler's fascination with occult and items of mythilogical value. In anycase, I do not want to say too much in case you might want to see it. Below, is a tad bit more information, but it gives a big spoiler for the Television Series. Which, incidently, is very much worth watching. WARNING: SPOILER heavy. ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE SERIES A little background information: At the end of the TV series, we were left with Edward Elric, being seperated from everything he's ever known and loved in the "Real World." For those who recognized the events, during World War I in Europe. His brother Alphonse had finally gotten his body back. Besides the fact that Ed was on the other side of the Gate now, his younger brother also ended up with a type of Amnesia. Basically the last several years that he spent running around with Ed looking for the Philospher's Stone, were offered up as an unknown sacrifice. The Movie: The start of the movie goes back in time, to a point where Ed and Al (who was at this point still a spirit entrapped within a metal body) were still together and attempting to stop a mad scientist who had just created a vile weapon. The brothers dispose of him. It is then mentioned that no one ever heard from him again. Then we shoot back towards the present seeing that Ed is in a car with someone who looks surprisingly a like to his younger brother Alphonse. After having car troubles, they end up hitching a ride with a band of traveling Gypsy Ladies who are going to the Carnival. Which, incidently works out great for these two since Alphonse (Heiderich) is part of a group that is showcasing a rocket there. Little does Ed know though that this would ultimately lead to a whole lot of trouble. Thusly, does the FMA movie begin. They are currently in Munich and the year is 1923. –Lori Lancaster • June 7 2007, 2:36pm EST
Chess is not a game enjoyed by people with no attention span, yet that seems to be the target audience of this documentary on the subject. It is edited with such schizophrenic abandon that it often becomes difficult to follow, cutting between different events and film formats faster than Oliver Stone's wildest imaginings, and playing the musical score so loudly that the speech (much of it in Kasparov's Russian accent) cannot be comprehended. This is also the second documentary I've been in less than a week in which a significant amount of the narration was delivered in a breathy and unintelligible whisper for no apparent reason, a storytelling gimmick that had no welcome to wear out in the first place. But the real sin of the film is reporting what happened without exploring it in anything but a superficial, symbolic way. There's even an interview with one chess reporter who pats himself on the back for doing real investigative journalism instead of being a PR puppet, but the film doesn't follow in his footsteps. It presents as literal history Garry Kasparov's explanation for his historic 1997 loss to computer Deep Blue: Another grandmaster was feeding it moves, and IBM refused to prove otherwise though they easily could have. The only "investigation" taking place is corresponding interviews with the Deep Blue team, who explain without illuminating. Why didn't they give up the computational logs that Kasparov asked for? Why did they go to such extreme lengths to secure their control center? Why do they continue to refuse a rematch after the financial bounce from the original victory has worn off? These are questions the film makes the viewer eager to hear answered. For all of Kasparov's explanations about how computers "simply don't play that way," it gradually dawned on me that something much more interesting had taken place than a computer beating a human with strategy: A computer, with more than a little help from its assistants, beat a human with psychology. Kasparov claims that there had to be two computers involved since Deep Blue seemed to play so poorly in Game One and so masterfully in Game Two, but he's obviously a stranger to games like poker and pool, where the fundamental principle of the hustle is to seem much easier to defeat than you are. Deep Blue, probably instructed by its team to play poorly the first time (rather than spontaneously developing the strategy), psyched out Kasparov by throwing the first match and then whooping him in the second, a trick that both parties admit was enough to throw Kasparov off his game. He drew the next three matches and threw the fourth under increasing psychological pressure from IBM – first agreeing to his demands about the logs and then refusing, toying with his staff and reporters by locking them out of the building as security threats, pretending to spy on his hotel room, et cetera. For all the discussions of the pros and cons of being the human or being the computer, none of the interviewees did much to acknowledge one of the most obvious weaknesses of the human, that he can be defeated psychologically while the computer is invulnerable. Maybe it wasn't the film's intention to communicate that that's what happened, but I was left with a strong impression of it all the same. –Scott Hardie
Since I already expressed the bulk of my opinion in my Ten Best Films article about the film, I have little more to contribute here. Since that article was intended to highlight the positives of this wonderful film, I'm instead going to use this space to gripe about its one big negative. Nothing says indulgence in the indie-film industry these days like the "perfect" musical soundtrack, and I haven't heard a film so delighted with its own taste in music since "Moonlight Mile." When he sent out the script to potential financiers, Zach Braff reportedly sent a mix CD of the songs along with it. Sure, they're pretty songs, but what does Braff accomplish by letting them speak for him? In the finished film, he stops the action for a "perfect" song so often that it seems like the songwriters should be given a screenplay credit; they're doing half of the talking for him. On another level, I don't like being subjected to one man's "perfect" taste in music simply because he has the talent to mount a film production; more than once I felt like Braff's song selection wasn't trying to complement the scene, it was trying to make him look hip and knowledge about music. This isn't entirely fair, since some of the music is very appropriate, like the Simon & Garfunkel song. But it got on my nerves, and kept me from enjoying the film more. It's a very good picture that shouldn't be dragged down by Braff's showiness with his music collection. –Scott Hardie
For those who don't love zombie movies, or a great deal of automatic weapons fire, there's nothing to see here. But those with the stomach for this kind of violent gore-fest will be treated to a reasonably thought-provoking new variation on the theme, filmed by an original master who still knows how to direct the best eviscerations in the genre. I just wish there had been more to it: The film does its ninety minutes so well that I was left wondering how good another 45 would have been, since it does a brilliant job of introducing Marxist and Nietzschean concepts into Romero's eternal struggle between the haves, the have-nots and the undead, but then does nothing with them once introduced. Recent zombie flicks like "28 Days Later..." and "Shaun of the Dead" have found new variations on the same theme and followed them through to their logical conclusions, but Romero's latest flick concludes with a bullet-riddled finalé just as it should be warming up. It's technically excellent and Romero still loves to include fun little iconoclastic asides, but its shallowness ultimately makes this a minor effort from a director too long denied a film project large enough to encompass all his ideas. –Scott Hardie
Something about this movie seemed ahead of its time: It had the same ironic detachment that characterized humor of the late nineties. None of the characters seem to matter, because they're all clichéd archetypes, and the movie holds them at an arm's length. Chili Palmer doesn't emerge as a real character, but as a stiff and almost robotic embodiment of "cool," as defined by Hollywood. But he does have a sense of humor, and if the crime world of the movie as seen through his eyes is detached and safe, it is also a place of clowns and degenerates and weirdos, an assortment of great supporting characters made vivid by some brave actors and the snappy Elmore Leonard banter. That same author provided the film with a wonderful assortment of fake-outs and reverse betrayals that keep the movie running strong, like its own self-renewing power source. I just wish the film hadn't been so self-consciously hip: A comedy doesn't need to care about its characters, but it does need to take them seriously if it wants them to generate humor, and this film seems to pose triumphantly beside itself for being so cool. I, for one, was turned off. –Scott Hardie
More proof that comedians can handle drama with ease: Wacky laff-factory director Jerry Zucker turned out one of the most moving (and traditional) romances of the nineties without even trying. What set out to be a thriller told from a ghost's perspective turned into a sexy love story on the lightning-in-a-bottle chemistry of Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore, and in light of their decline ever since, they're something to see at the peak of their charisma. Some of the gags invoke groans and still more could have been done with the core concept of a ghost's dilemma, but this is a great story that still holds power years later, and one of the best farewell scenes of its kind. –Scott Hardie • June 24 2007, 12:34am EST
This has a well-deserved reputation as a top-notch anime classic, but it did not interest me when I saw it upon its initial release. I'm willing to chalk that up to my immaturity: When I went wading in the film's cyberphilosophy a decade ago, the water seemed too cold, but now it's just right. Perhaps the film merely benefits from the popularization of Gibson and Stephenson's ideas via "The Matrix" and other works. Who knows? It's still an entertaining film from start to finish, with enough breakthrough animation techniques to wow any cinemaphile on a purely visual level. I wish it didn't rush through its dialogue so quickly (the boat scene delivers the essence of the film's philosophy at a breakneck pace), and the gratuity of the nudity is annoying, but I'm glad to have come around on this gem of the genre. –Scott Hardie
Success has had a predictable effect on Mamoru Oshii: With each project, he is more free to explore the philosophical questions that fascinate him, without needing to justify them as entertainment. At its best, "Innocence" is a rumination about the human need to create life in its own image: We make dolls for our children so they can practice making their own human offspring, but the rise in artifical intelligence might someday force the question of whether dolls want to be created in human likeness. Oshii's thoughts on the matter are well portrayed, even if he does rely too much on quotes from Descartes and Confucious and Milton, but the real problem with his latest film is that it's just no fun to watch. Oshii comes up with such interesting musings that his film should feel like a rush of discovery and curiosity, or at the very least it should have some more humor or action or drama to keep things lively, but the film is paced like a forced march through drudgery, making his philsophy as appealing to consume as cold, dry spinach. It doesn't help that the visuals are so incongruous. Oshii and his team labored at length to create their beautiful CGI world, so textured and realistic, but the effect is ruined whenever the film's characters appear in it. Drawn in traditional 2-D animation style with minimal detail, they never even remotely look like they belong in the same film as the lush 3-D backgrounds. I don't know if Production I.G. had the budget or technology to animate the main characters in 3-D CGI, but that would have been preferable. Still, the film is gorgeous when it simply evokes its 3-D metropolis in haunting detail, with the centerpiece being a dreamlike mansion filled with images suggested by religion and philosophy and made real on the screen to eerie effect. It's a movie worth seeing for filmgoers satisfied by beautiful images alone, but the story isn't told with enough enthusiasm to make it worthwhile to anyone else. –Scott Hardie
premise: Four great actors (Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and John Houseman) play old friends literally haunted by a figure from their past in this 1981 light horror film. What a great cast, including then-unknown Alice Krige setting the course of her career with this film. Too bad it only puts them (slowly) through the motions of a fairly standard ghost story, with no surprise about what really happened all those years earlier or what will happen at the movie's end. The title pretty much declares outright that this will be a generic movie, and you get what you sign up for. At least the special effects are good, including a creepy jolt involving an automobile accident. This is a so-so rental for ghost-movie fans at best. –Scott Hardie • January 25 2009, 12:19pm EST
Among the many ironies of the tremendous success of "Titanic" is that the story cannot be translated into another filmmaker's vision for many years to come; Cameron's take on the events has become the lasting cinematic paradigm of the tragedy. Witness this film, directed by the same man but telling an entirely different story with different actors and different effects, yet it seems to have come straight from the bonus DVD included with the 1997 film. Perhaps that's just the presence of Bill Paxton, obviously not even remotely interested in Titanic but going along graciously because he was invited, narrating the dives and making you expect to hear about nine-inch-thick glass portholes on the submersible. But I think it's the power of Cameron's instant classic; when you see the same rooms and hear the same phrases, you can't help but be distracted by overwhelming memories of the previous picture, and Cameron is kind enough to dwell on each moment for maximum savoring. The best material works in this way, evoking the tragedy of the Titanic and the heroism of some of its crew, attempting to explain why this story has resonated so deeply for ninety years despite it not having a traditional mythic form. Say whatever you want about Cameron's melodramatic excesses, this is a fascinating story, and for ninety minutes you're engrossed by modern archeology at its most exciting. The element that holds it back, besides its awful taste in pop interludes, is its focus on the Kelvysh, the ship that brought them there, as though badly folk-singing Russian sailors are more interesting than the wreckage they're floating over. This material was cut from the film to make it the standard 60-minute length for IMAX theaters, and those viewers didn't miss much. As long as the submersibles are underwater exploring, which they are for the majority of the duration, it's an intriguing film with strong nostalgia for any lover of the 1997 film or the Titanic story in general; those audiences shouldn't miss it. –Scott Hardie
Boy likes girl. Boy follows girl. Girl almost sees boy. Boy continues following girl. It goes on like this for 90 minutes in this near-wordless film about modern alienation, which observes a few small quirks of human behavior and a lot of mundanity. –Scott Hardie • May 23 2010, 3:35pm EST
This film was an instant legend, quickly replacing "Ishtar" as the gold standard of ill-conceived flops. But audiences love to trash certain ambitiously overhyped productions ("Hulk" and "Matrix Reloaded" came out during the same summer and got similar treatment), and I've enjoyed numerous earlier films by writer-director Martin Brest, so I approached it with an open mind. What do I conclude? It's not the Chernobyl that the buzz would have you think, but in places it's disturbingly awful, and it's certainly the worst movie Brest will ever make, since it's probably his last. The pattern of the movie is simple: It has a really awful, awkward scene that makes you squirm. Then it has a tolerable scene, and some idling, and then a few good scenes that make you think it's working after all, and then BAM! it's awful again. Maybe some viewers wanted it to stay terrible, but I didn't; the actors worked hard enough and the screenplay is thoughtful enough that I kept hoping it would maintain the tone of its better scenes, but here's proof that good filmmaking is hard to do. Ben Affleck makes the least convincing mob enforcer I've ever seen, but he creates a believable human being otherwise, and it's plain by watching him that he's putting real effort into the part. Jennifer Lopez fares far worse: Not only is she totally unconvincing as a Sun Tzu-quoting, Yoga-practicing assassin, or an assassin of any sort -- I honestly expected for some time that she would be revealed as a decoy -- but her baby-talk delivery begins to wear on the nerves. I noticed how often she demonstrated on Affleck her philosophy of confusing an adversary with emotions, but I did not enjoy it; this is not a character with whom I wanted to spend two hours of my life. Christopher Walken, Lainie Kazan, and Al Pacino are terrific by contrast in their single scene each, reminding us like a splash of cold water what good acting looks like. Their characters are not entirely convincing either, but we can't take our eyes off of them. (I don't know what to make of Justin Bartha as the brain-damaged kid: He's working hard, but the character is such a device of the plot that I cannot estimate Bartha's contribution to the character or the film.) Though some scenes are truly revolting, like the by-now classic "turkey time," the movie's worst problem is its pacing. There are so many long stretches of film where the characters just stare at each other, trying to figure each other out, that we want to go back in time to the editing room and take over. The final scene, which seems to go on for an eternity, is such a pain in the ass to endure (just go already!!) that it single-handedly wipes away whatever good will the better scenes may have earned, and drags down the rest of the film. It's well known by now that focus groups hated the original bloody ending and Joe Roth changed it, and while the final moments might make technical sense in terms of the plot, they sure don't feel like they belong at the end of what has come immediately before. The whole movie is awkward, but the final moments just plain feel like an alternate ending that was not intended, which is exactly what they are. Watching Al Pacino got me thinking. He starred in "The Godfather," which has the highest user rating of any film in the IMDb, and now (probably as a favor to Brest) he appeared in "Gigli," which is rated thirteenth from the bottom. Has any other star had such a huge divide between their best-liked and least-liked films? –Scott Hardie
Gosh, isn't it a shame that the rich person and the poor person, who are obvious soulmates, are unable to express their love in an oppressed society? That's a tale told in many costume dramas every year, and "Girl with a Pearl Earring" tells it just well enough to make us care this time around. It succeeds best at creating Vermeer's world: His palatte becomes the movie's color scheme, his perspective of certain rooms becomes the camera's perspective. Some of the wide-angle shots even look two-dimensional. Its failure is to get us inside Vermeer's head in any other sense; Colin Firth gets top billing but barely says a dozen lines in the whole film, mostly staring off into space, daydreaming. No wonder the painter produced so few works. Griet, the titular girl, comes through as a realistic character who makes plausible decisions, and Scarlett Johansson helps us understand her motives even if she overdoes the skittishness. This is only slightly more accessible than your average Merchant Ivory production, but it looks fantastic and the creation of 1665 Holland on the screen is worth beholding. –Scott Hardie
A young man's painful devotion to his brain-damaged mother fuels a begrudging love for his failed Communist homeland in this quirky drama that reminds you of the infant laboratory monkeys that preferred the cloth mommy over the wire mommy in spite of their real physical needs. It's an illustration of the power of denial as comfort, both for the deluded mother that the Berlin Wall still stands, and for the boy that this frail, confused person who came home after her coma is not a new person worthy of acquaintance but still the same mother who raised him and loved him (albeit inadequately). Their story plays against the death of East Germany, a country founded on lies and pretense, an empty vessel into which its devotees like this mother could pour their affection in a transmutation of their regret and sorrow. We always lie the most to the ones we love. This isn't an entirely gloomy film; I'm dwelling on its more depressing elements. Billed semi-reasonably as a comedy in its promotional materials, it does contain the clever schemes the son will devise to make his mother believe East Germany lives on, and the resultant comedic payoffs. There's also a wealth of interesting supporting characters here, from a biological father with an unexpected kindness, to a celebrity-of-the-state who agrees to do one final act in service of his deceased homeland. The actors are all capable, rising above a few weaknesses in the script; Chulpan Khamatova does a good job of seeming necessary as the girlfriend long after the screenplay should have her dump the hero and move on with her life. The cast is led capably by Daniel Brühl as the son, a young actor who possesses Tobey Maguire's same blend of wounded innocence and clever mischievousness. This film may bore those devoid of interest in recent history, but for anyone else it's all but guaranteed to inspire thought on the ways that love of country and love of family can supplant one another, and it has a gentle way of bringing fond memories to anyone who has ever had a mother or been a son. –Scott Hardie
George Clooney is a newsman's son and an impassioned liberal. Here he makes a powerful statement against the tyranny of fear, by celebrating a journalist who refused to be intimidated into admitting that his sound reasoning was flawed. Great stuff. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:34am EST
Scorsese's mob epic is a deservingly appreciated landmark of the crime genre. It's seductively charming in early moments, then increasingly frantic and paranoid as the world closes in on its hero. If you see no other Scorsese film, make this the one. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:31am EST
Eastwood doesn't fake racism very well, but at 78, he can still play damn mean. His version of Crash is completely predictable, but done very well, with a strong cast and Eastwood's trademark understatement. His last performance is a sharp one. –Scott Hardie • November 13 2009, 10:54pm EST • 1 reply
Hearing that this was one of the bleakest animated films of all time initially deterred me from seeing it, but there are important rays of sunshine between the clouds. Compared to a film like Osama that is relentlessly depressing, the laughter and scenes of joy in this film give dimension to the tragedy that surrounds them. If they bring an unforced smile to your face, then you have already begun down the road that leads to emotional devastation by the end. There's no mystery why several major critics have ranked this film with "Schindler's List" among the most grief-inducing war movies ever. To those who say that we should bomb the Middle East and turn it into a parking lot because of the homicidal actions of a few radicals, I submit this film as a wrenching illustration of the effects of bombing civilian targets during war. It is profoundly inhumane and has tragic consequences for thousands of innocent people. Strange that I should attempt to cast the film in an "educational" light, because the writer-director intended it to "educate" audiences about the protagonist's hubris in leaving his aunt's home, but audiences missed that message and focused on the suffering in the story. They can be forgiven, perhaps; one does not count the drops of rain when getting soaked in a downpour. Regardless of its timeliness sixteen years after it was finished, this movie has earned its status as one of the most moving of all war films, and should be seen by anyone brave enough to try it. –Scott Hardie
What a disappointment. Ryan Reynolds would have been a much better Wally West than Hal Jordan. The plot was convoluted and annoying. –Scott Horowitz • June 30 2011, 4:38pm EST
This attempt to make mumblecore palatable for mainstream audiences is sharp as a knife and well-acted by Greta Gerwig and Ben Stiller, who create two unique individuals. But it's still not appealing enough to satisfy anyone beyond its moody demographic. –Scott Hardie • April 11 2010, 4:23pm EST
Rodriguez's zombie movie is a good homage to crappy horror flicks that don't deserve such affection, but Tarantino's muscle-car thrill-ride is much better. It's riveting and totally unique, and the plot's wild acceleration from 0 to 60 is a great rush. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:30am EST
The daily experience of an American GI stationed in Iraq, measured by the futility he feels when policing a city that doesn't care whether he's sent home dead or alive so long as he leaves, is an important thing for stateside Americans to understand. But surely it deserves a more probing film that this, which merely captures the daily lives of select soldiers with precious little insight or commentary. The film is a shapeless mass of chronologically-ordered footage, as the soldiers patrol and patrol and patrol some more in what plays very much like a two-hour episode of "Cops: Baghdad," but rarely does it ask hard questions about what it feels like to fight a war that some of them think is unjustified, and rarely does it probe the effects of the occupation on Iraqis (for better and for worse). Most of its expression comes when the soldiers show off how much they've been practicing their rapping skills, but there's way more than enough; if the amateur rap in this movie were released a soundtrack, it would need two discs at minimum. A tighter focus in the editing room, as part of a larger philosophy of making a fucking point, might have whipped this footage into something better, something these soldiers deserve for the hard jobs they do. –Scott Hardie
For me, seeing this Demi Moore haunted-lighthouse movie in the same weekend as Ghost didn't do it any favors. It goes for cheap jolts instead of lingering dread, it has a predictable twist, and it's just plain not very bright. Moore is a talented actress lacking broad appeal, so she gets stuck doing this kind of straight-to-DVD junk that has no use for her intensity or intelligence. The Welsh island setting is gorgeous, though. –Scott Hardie • June 24 2007, 12:42am EST
premise: Will Smith stars as Hancock, a modern superhero (possible spoilers) This movie is a typical Will Smith action blockbuster. Which, honestly, is his best genre. Set in modern day LA, Hancock is not your average superhero. He's a depressed drunkard whose attempts to save the day are met with criticism rather than praise. The town is sick of him and he is sick of him. Enter Jason Bateman, un upbeat PR specialist who specializes in philanthropy and is determined to turn Hancock into a superhero of Superman caliber after he saves his life. His wife, played by Charlize Theron seems to have a mysterious connection to Hancock, although she won't let on and Hancock can't remember what the connection is anyway. The movie starts off as more of an action comedy with Will Smith style Mr. Cool humor. But when the connection between he and Theron's character, Mary, is revealed, then you get the makings of a true superhero movie. I only wish there was more knowledge of the back ground story. Usually for a Batman or Spiderman flick, I can turn to Will to fill me in on the background of the comic. I would have liked to have had more info on the genesis of the superhero characters, but it is explained as well as it can be in the time frame and with emotion. The key villian is a little under developed. He does have a deformity, and he does acquire henchmen (fellow inmates whose crimes were thwarted by Hancock thus landing them in jail). Mostly though, Hancock follows tradional, very basic Superhero genre formulas and updates it to a more laid back modern day attitude. I wouldn't put it up there wih other superhero movies, but it is a good family film. I enjoyed it. –Jackie Mason • January 4 2009, 9:35pm EST
We expect a CGI children's film to provide dazzling visuals, music, and the odd in-joke meant solely for mom and dad. What we don't expect is one that commits as wholeheartedly to its premise as this one. While they sing, and speak, and seem to have an unusual culture all their own, the movie's Emperor Penguins remain anatomically accurate -- no grasping things with flippers here -- and (to a large extent) limited in their perspectives of the world around them. Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, and Brittany Murphy (in a surprisingly strong vocal performance) may belt out R&B standards, and Elijah Wood (as the youngster protagonist) may have the typical quest-romance story required in such stuff, the degree to which the penguins act like penguins is astonishing. And when humans do finally turn up, they are and remain appropriately foreign and forbidding presences to the animals of the film. Director George Miller and the team at Dreamworks have clearly studied the landmark March of the Penguins, and in grafting a comparatively grounded version of the film's chosen critters onto the standard plotline (borrowed, in this case, from equal parts The Trumpet of the Swan and Footloose), they manage no small amount of invention along the way. Robin Williams tags along as not one, but two sidekicks from two different penguin species. –Kris Weberg • November 24 2006, 12:12am EST
A brittle, selfish, unlikeable heroine who doesn't change. Absurd gaps as if half the scenes are missing. A crazy woman happily getting pregnant by her own illegitimate son. Rip Torn's naked ass. It all adds up to one of the worst movies of any year. –Scott Hardie • July 11 2010, 8:57am EST
In the ongoing process of renting debut films by contemporary directors whose later work I admire (Wide Awake and Following are coming up next), I have found nothing but gems so far, including Welcome to the Dollhouse and Bound. Here's another homerun, hit by Paul Thomas Anderson in 1996. It has the focus on character and dialogue of his later work, but doesn't push the stylistic envelope, keeping things as cool and collected as the protagonist. It's a thriller for people who don't like thrillers but do like a solid character study. And it even includes forward-references to PTA's later films, such as the names of Sydney's old friends from Atlantic City. Fans will find more to love than the average viewer, but it's still an enjoyable flick for anyone who thinks Vegas and noir work well together. If the pattern keeps going this well, I might even rent Alien³. –Scott Hardie
This movie is about two brothers, who have separately achieved stardom in boy bands, exploring their secret incestuous relationship while on a private camping trip. Forgive me, but I was expecting some kind of no-holds-barred satire of pop music and all its dirty laundry, or at least some kind of gay/celebrity/incest sparks of any sort. But no: This is a serious drama about two young men deciding whether or not they're in love; the fact that they're brothers or pop stars has virtually nothing to do with it. The clash of expectations doesn't detract from the film's good points, such as the screenplay's sharp ear for natural dialogue, the actors' comprehensive use of body language, or difficult shots such as a winding mountain road seen between two passengers in an SUV. It does, however, leave you wondering why you're sitting through a talky little relationship movie when a much more interesting film could have been made from the same material. –Scott Hardie
The nadir of the series requires a fan's memory for names and faces, looks like it was lit by candlelight, and has far too many inessential scenes stretching it out. I liked a few parts, especially the animated fairy tale, but I hope for a better finish. –Scott Hardie • July 10 2011, 5:13pm EST
Now that's more like it. Part 2 is what the seventh Harry Potter always should have been: Epic, exciting, revelatory, and (mostly) relentless. It could stand to have a little more emotional catharsis at the end, but it's pretty good fun. I'm satisfied. –Scott Hardie • October 27 2011, 10:59pm EST
Potter fans automatically put this film on the same lofty pedestal as its forebears, but as an outsider, I was left scratching my head why. The cutting of half the tale to cram it into a movie's running length hurt it immensely, as it felt rushed and seemed to be missing crucial details; the Weinsteins would have filmed the whole novel and cut it into two films. Once again Harry stands there like a dolt forever on the verge of being murdered until he's rescued just in time by the broadly-drawn supporting characters. The idea of a magical tournament is an exciting one, but even by kid-movie standards, the rules of this contest are poorly established and then broken left and right by the characters without consequence, making it a series of things happening loudly instead of a story. As usual, the technical craft that goes into bringing the story to life is superb, especially the visual effects, but the story itself needs some better care if it's going to survive the transition from page to screen with anyone but die-hard fans to enjoy it, many though there are. –Scott Hardie • September 24 2006, 9:37pm EST • 1 reply
The odd Potter films excite me while the evens bore, this one included. It feels like it's just positioning the pieces for the big ending. It's for fans only, requiring familiarity to understand anything. Good music and photography, I guess. –Scott Hardie • December 13 2009, 5:47pm EST
premise: The fifth film in the Harry Potter series. The last thing that I expected would improve a Harry Potter movie would be to cut out more of the source material, but I shouldn't be surprised. The books are sprawling tomes stuffed with their own complex mythology and social history, and that doesn't spell excitement for a casual fan. David Yates, whose quiet drama The Girl in the Café was great and nothing like Harry Potter, pares down the tale to its essentials, and in the process makes the most fun adventure in the series yet. It still has a certain lack of sophistication that gives it away as a kids movie, but it's one that entertains all audiences, including muggles with no interest beyond the closing credits. The film's biggest weakness is shared with the other films, letting the other (grownup) characters come to Harry's rescue while he does almost nothing to save the day himself, but at least we're used to it by now. Here's looking forward to what Yates does with movie six. –Scott Hardie • October 16 2007, 11:24pm EST
[Scott's original review was lost in a technical glitch. His conclusion: "Prisoner of Azkaban" is fast-paced and exciting with impressive visual effects, though it did itself a disservice by cutting interesting details from the book for sake of pacing.] –Scott Hardie
Most haunted-house movies are unusually effective on me, but after a while the formula can wear awfully thin. Aidan Quinn and a pre-fame Kate Beckinsale try hard to carry this so-so thriller, but they can't help with its predictable plot or tame scares. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:35am EST
From the details at right, you could guess the plot, but that doesn’t matter. This film isn’t what it’s about, it’s how it’s about it. Initially boring and then seeming to be a simple mindfuck, it eventually wins you over by conspiring with you against its characters, instead of the other way around. It’s also clever and has a wicked, black sense of humor, or so I hope; I couldn’t stop laughing during the epilogue. —L.O.V.E.” will bring a smile to my face for years to come. What a nightmare this would be to live, but what fun to watch. –Scott Hardie
premise: Romantic comedy with an all star cast follows several coincidentally linked Baltimore 20/30-somethings who are trying to ride the crazy love rollercoaster. It's obvious this movie was written by two Sex and the City writers. Any fan of the show will recognize the title as a more memorable line from the series delivered so matter-of-factly by Ron Livingston. What this film does that SATC didn't was capture more than just the swiging single girl perspective. The opening string of scenes captures a female woe that is universal to single women everywhere. I admit I was a bit skeptical that this one line from a tv show could be made into a whole movie plot. It is a little hard to care about all the individual characters at first, but the storylines draw you in because they are all very familiar. Almost every character, every story line, and even every scene strikes home somehow for probably everyone starting right off the bat with the opening scene of the little girl and little boy in the play ground. I found myself reminiscing on my own playground memory and nodding along. And not that men are the bad guys in every scenario. The Scarlett Johansen-Kevin Connolly situation shows that women can be the players, and men the saps who watch the phone or misinterpret signals. Not only can you see yourself in almost every character but you can match each one up with someone you know, or knew. This movie does that good of a job illustrating all aspects of the dating/love/relationship/marriage thing. It was good to see Justin Long in a grown up role. Ginnifer Goodwin in a starring role. Ben Affleck in a role that suits his acting style best: small but meaningful. Jennifer Anniston in the "always a bridesmaid" type of role she plays best. Although I think my favorite character was the older woman sipping a brandy and talking about husband 1, 2, and 3 in one of the the SATC-the-early-years, mock-umentary type scenes. Hilarious! Ditto on the two ladies sitting on the bench talking about men and their ironic break up lines. –Jackie Mason • October 16 2009, 11:34pm EST • 1 reply
Well, it's better than 'Bulworth,' probably because it doesn't try to elevate its hero to some kind of holy saint. Even the character himself knows he's a sambo, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have some valid points to make about American politics. It's a shame that the film didn't make like its protagonist and ditch its tepid script in favor of sharp social commentary, which predictably provides the only moments when the film seems to be alive. Rock is better when he only tries to please some of the people. –Scott Hardie
Though it occasionally wobbles when trying too hard to force the plot along, this sleepy drama mostly succeeds at maintaining a warm, dreamlike state of Boomer nostalgia, which is really its point. The less you know about Stephen King's book, the better. –Scott Hardie • June 18 2011, 1:19pm EST
What can I praise about this that hasn't already been said about either the film or the stage musical? It's worthy of the buzz, a tour of the varied emotions that make up the gay experience in the post-glam era for many. I'm usually one of the visibly uncomfortable people trapped in the audience by an insensitive, in-your-face performer who likes to get a rise out of his targets, but with that behavior confined to a fictional film, it's a lot of fun to be in on the joke. The songs are deceivingly complex, my favorite being the one performed in the ice cream shop with the Korean backup band ("Hedwig's Lament"?). Those with zero interest in glam rock and the gay experience need not apply, but for most audiences this one's a delight. –Scott Hardie
This film is the work of a fan. Director Guillermo del Toro loves Mike Mignola's comic and has struggled for six years to create an authentic film version. (He disclosed in a recent interview some of the idiotic things that studio execs suggested on the way, like making Hellboy a normal-looking dude who just happened to come from hell, or a normal-looking dude that only turns into Hellboy when he gets angry.) With the participation of Mignola as a producer, del Toro has made a film that captures the spirit and especially the characters of the comic book, and that's a worthwhile accomplishment when the source material is so rich. The nineties gave us plenty of surly anti-heroes in the same vein, but none of them are quite like the blue-collar monster exterminator Hellboy, and it's a pleasure to see him come to life at last. We have del Toro's respect and thorough understanding of the comic to thank for that. "Hellboy" may let down a few fans for a few reasons, but at least del Toro didn't take the same route Ang Lee did and try to create something alien out of the material; he recognized that it's successful and popular for a reason, and sought to preserve that on film. Unfortunately, having a fan as the director often brings its own limitations, and chief among them is the tendency for the film not to have enough patience for the laypeople in the audience. After a fantastic prologue that introduces the villains and brings Hellboy into the world, the film does a rushed job of bringing us up to date with the character in present day and introducing his allies. We want to see the big action setpieces later, but there's no need to hurry to them; we also want to get to know these bizarre, interesting characters. Liz Sherman came across as a guest character from some other movie (there's insufficient effort made to justify her neuroses when the movie rests its chief interpersonal conflict on them), and Abe Sapien seemed somehow to get less action in the movie than he did in the trailer. Tom Manning exists as the idiotic blowhard whose only purpose is to doubt the hero at every step (call it the Dwayne T. Robinson role), and the character is annoying no matter how good Jeffrey Tambor is at playing him. The only supporting character who came across well is Professor Broom, who succeeded by virtue of being so immediately interesting anyway and because of the efforts of John Hurt and Kevin Trainor to play him that way. To put this all another way: I would have been happy to see more of Professor Broom, but I was satisfied with getting to know him as much as I did; the same is not true for the rest of the cast, including the villains. As many critics have argued, the plot could have benefitted from more exposition. When your villain is a writhing, extradimensional mass of tentacles that will doom Earth by floating in the sky over major cities, and you are not making an anime film, you need to do a pretty good job of explaining things. Whether del Toro figured that more exposition was unnecessary or just too boring to bother, it feels like a miscalculation. It's unfair of me to dwell on the subject of a good film not being a great one, so let me mention what else it does right. The action scenes are a treat, especially Hellboy's confrontation with the blade-twirling Kroenen. There's a rich wellspring for humor in its curmudgeonly hero, so much so that you wish his mouth had been used as often as his fists. The movie has fantastic makeup (the kind that always gets unjustly forgotten come Oscar time), and doesn't dwell on it -- there are closeups of the bizarre creatures, but never just so that we can gawk at the work. The actors are all successful in their roles, but let's face it, the casting agents deserve the praise for their triumph. (I love their choice for the uncredited voice of Abe Sapien; you should recognize it right away.) On a budget that is constrained by Hollywood standards, the sets are detailed and voluminous, and all fit a precise aesthetic that helps the film establish a feeling that we're watching scenes from another world. Finally, I loved the titular prop from del Toro's The Devil's Backbone (one of my favorite horror films) making a brief appearance. Whether or not you should see the film depends on your threshold for idiosyncratic super-hero films that don't make a lot of effort to appeal to a mass audience. It's reminiscent of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" in how carefully it creates its complex world and how inaccessible it winds up being as a result. (That's not to say that Hellboy should have been a normal-looking dude who just happens to come from hell, however.) If the X-Men movies were over your head, don't bother with this one. But if you're looking for something fun and off of Hollywood's well-beaten trail, or if you happen to admire Guillermo del Toro's work, this is worth your time. –Scott Hardie
It's weird to call anything Guillermo del Toro makes "by the numbers," but here it is, a standard Hellboy adventure with the standard payoffs. It still has visual invention to spare and plenty of chuckles, but the fresh feeling of the first one is gone. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:21am EST
I bet this movie would only be forty-five minutes long if it was played at normal speed: This may be the slowest film Stanley Kubrick never made. Mainland China's understandably patriotic response to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," this film seems to steal liberally from that 2000 landmark, but of course that film stole liberally from earlier wuxia flicks, so what we're seeing is refinement of refinement. That suits the theme of the film, as the characters themselves progress through levels of enlightment as the plot repeatedly transcends itself. The film did exceptionally well in China both critically and commercially, and since it is so determined to contrast itself against Ang Lee's masterpiece, I don't mind saying that I enjoyed it less, though not by much. By comparison, its action sequences are poorly blocked for the camera and take for granted the defiance of gravity instead of using it to enhance the message, and its star-crossed lovers never seem like more than tools of the plot (though that's appropriate since we usually only see them through other characters' flashbacks). I didn't expect much of this film, and the first half-hour is a vacuous mess. But gradually the characters emerge and the tale takes on deeper signficance, and by the end it has done an excellent job of contrasting several different meanings of patriotism, and the action sequences have been triumphant exercises in excessive style. Not one shot in the film lacks careful consideration, and the rain-soaked courtyard and scroll library wll etch themselves in your memory. It might have been a better film if it had freed itself of its inferiority complex over "Crouching Tiger" and stopped imitating that paragon of the genre... but then again, maybe not? –Scott Hardie
The usual quibbles over accuracy surrounded this film upon its release, and the untold story is just how many of the amazing elements of the tale were true. But regardless of the story's origin, it's a brilliant notion for an adventure film, albeit one with racial overtones that play awkwardly among contemporary politics. Reliable action director Joe Johnston delivers another competent thrill-ride that conceals most of its considerable visual effects in plain view, and Viggo Mortenson is more than up to the task of revealing his hero's wounded soul. My favorite element was the showcase of recognizeable character actors in bit parts, including a real treat as the aloof Major Davenport. The film as a whole is simultaneously too long and too simple, but it's solid entertainment for anyone who has fond memories of Indiana Jones. –Scott Hardie
Director Robert Harmon reminds me of Rumpelstiltskin: He spins straw into gold, and nobody knows his name. He made the classic 80s thriller "The Hitcher" and now returns to similar territory with this film about a vengeful widower on the trail of a highway-bound serial killer. It's a clear demonstration of how a director can start with the most conventional story and make it fascinating by applying a keen sense of style. This is one slick movie, with a sharp eye for framing shots in and out of focus. It has no problem coasting on its visuals; the first line isn't spoken until nearly nine minutes into the film. That's probably a good thing, since the plot is not only clichéd but economical, giving us almost no details not related to the story; these characters don't seem to have any existence outside of what happens to them in this film. This is far from greatness, but it's worth a rental if you want to see how style can distinguish an otherwise unremarkable film. –Scott Hardie
This stand-up concert film starring (and made by) Louis C.K. was good enough to be the first such film admitted to the Sundance Film Festival, and that feels appropriate: It's some of the funniest of his self-effacing, warts-and-all confessional comedy. –Scott Hardie • April 26 2012, 9:17am EST
Maybe this movie was doomed from the start. As you know from the unavoidable trailer (the same one that spoils every good joke), it's about an unflappably smooth ladies man who can play every romantic note perfectly, and an endearingly clueless schmoe who doesn't let his total lack of sophistication stop him from yearning for women way out of his league. Think for a second: Which man would be far more interesting as the lead in a romantic comedy? Now guess which man this movie makes the colossal mistake of focusing on instead. Hey, there's a certain appeal to Mr. James Bond in the first two acts of the movie, but sooner or later he must get out of the way for Mr. Everyman to triumph over the odds in the end, since the slob is the only one facing any odds and the only one capable of inspiring audience sympathy. The movie contrives a subplot about how the ladies man loses his cool whenever he's around the leading lady so that his story can pretend to have some tension, but after seeing him in action, it's not plausible for a minute. This fundamental miscalculation is symptomatic of a larger problem with the movie, that it's always looking in the wrong place. When the leading man finally lays his heart on the line at a speed-dating event, the movie focuses on the anonymous bit player next to him. When the leading lady is suddenly moved to tears and storms off on the first date, the scene lingers on her companion instead of following her. Later, when the leading man's talking to her through her apartment door and trying to express his genuine feelings, the camera looks through the peephole and distorts his face like a funhouse mirror, but that scene cries out to be told from his point of view, not hers. The whole movie is one mistake after another, with jarringly inappropriate sight gags, torrents of phony-sounding exposition in the leading lady's introductory scenes, and far more Fred Flintstone misunderstandings than any movie should be allowed to have. It takes one hell of a big mess for these four appealing lead actors not to make a difference, but this movie is that bad. Stay away. –Scott Hardie
This film apparently has two screenplays. One provides the dialogue; it is witty, funny, and unpredictable. As expected from a Charles Webb novel, it understands its characters very well. The other screenplay provides the plot; it is contrived, ridiculous, and aggravating. Like a teenager taking a lover for the first time, it rushes to get to every base, instead of slowing to enjoy the pleasures along the way. The dialogue can be rather charming when the plot stops sprinting long enough to take a breather, but as you can guess from my star rating, that doesn't happen nearly often enough. What else need I say? It stars Heather Graham. Granted, she is given an unbelieveable character to play, but it's little surprise she's no good. The other actors at least manage to appear to be slumming it, while Graham strains to play her vacuous bimbo, never realizing she need not act at all to achieve the effect. I would say that she ruins the film, but I cannot imagine it being much better if the entire cast had talent instead of just most of them. –Scott Hardie
Though more gritty than most mainstream studio films get these days, Bruce Willis’s latest thriller is otherwise completely conventional. Seen —The Negotiator”? —Panic Room”? —John Q”? A thousand other films like them? Then you’ve seen this one already. It does nothing new and breaks absolutely no ground, going through the usual paces with its double-kidnapping storyline about the idiot police force, the desperate hostages, the smug villains, and the everyman cop caught in the middle. It feels like the four hundredth sequel to —Die Hard” and not just because Willis is the star. He plumbs some unexpected depths of emotion as his usual wounded tough guy, and I have to mention the freshness of the duotone, animated opening credits (they play like deleted scenes from Willis’s —Sin City”), but otherwise this film just a paycheck to everyone involved and a waste of time for the audience. There are better thrillers out there. –Scott Hardie
premise: A loving spoof of action movies, from the director (Edgar Wright) and stars (Simon Pegg & Nick Frost) of Shaun of the Dead. Most action movies are quotable for all the wrong reasons. Hot Fuzz, a loving send-up of the genre, includes the typical cheesy shine-ons whenever the hero gets the better of his opponent, but it's the offbeat character moments that really bring the laughs. Pegg & Frost have become the mismatched odd couple of modern British comedy, but the humor doesn't come from their differences; their friction ramps up the humorous into the hilarious. The same movies wouldn't be half as good without their friendly banter. Hot Fuzz delivers what it promises, lots of action and lots of laughs, delivered with an ironic perspective that would be a turn-off if it wasn't so clear how much the filmmakers really love the movies they're spoofing. This movie is to action-comedies what Scream is to slasher films. Take it seriously and you might be disappointed by the obvious solution to the mystery driving the plot, but then, isn't that true of most action movies? It's about the comaraderie, the sound of automatic weapons, and the tongue-in-cheek fetishizing of tough-guy one-liners. It's for anybody who gets a giddy grin at the possibilities inherent in the premise or the cast. –Scott Hardie • November 24 2007, 12:46am EST
Since it's 1986 in theaters all year, we may as well have a movie in which the characters travel to 1986. This buddy comedy is sloppy and formula-bound, but scores laughs again and again. You'll love or hate Rob Corddry's vulgar bully; he appealed to me. –Scott Hardie • June 3 2010, 10:59pm EST • 2 replies
If I do not go to the same extreme as critics and hail this as one of the best films of the year, it is a reflection on the art, not on the story. I'm overwhelmed by the experience of Paul Rusesabagina, the undistinguished everyman who found a way to save 1200 lives during the Rwandan civil war. He did not set out to save lives – in fact, the film shows him always reluctant to take on more people – but once the refugees were in his care, he went out of his way to protect them and comfort them, using ingenuity at every turn, never resorting to any more violence than banging a pot around the kitchen. His is an amazing tale. The film that tells it is good if not great. Since Western influence inspired the civil war in the first place, it seems like the real story trying to emerge is why the world looked away while Rwanda murdered itself. The film states openly that Europe and America don't give a damn about Africans getting killed, but it doesn't see the irony, that it must overcome the same problem. After a steady diet of Holocaust films, most recently the devastating "The Pianist," it's hard for a white audience to get worked up over some well-dressed people forced to collect their drinking water from a swimming pool (the horror!), whatever their race. A few bridges are wisely built with some prominent white characters, including a journalist who asks helpful questions about the Tutsis and Hutus so the audience has a primer, but I must insist again that the most interesting story is why the world did not intervene: If there's one thing us white Americans are good at, it's feeling awful sorry about how we didn't help out these people or those people when they needed us. The movie is at its best when it dangles the hope of foreign aid and then snatches it away. But I'm focusing far too much on the negative. This is every bit the moving drama it should be with this source material, which two lead performances that bring out the vigorous humanity in their real subjects. The film's soundtrack also does everything right, ranging from innocuous pop songs while establishing the peace that's about to be broken, to perfectly ominous low-frequency hums during times of mounting dread. And the film often shows us a happy, joyous Rwanda, all the more powerful reminder that it's a place worth preserving. Whatever its inadequacies, the film as a whole is unforgettable work, a portrait of a real hero in a fascinating place. It is worthy of attention from every audience. –Scott Hardie
I wonder what it would be like to watch this movie with a circus knife-thrower. There's a person who has devoted years or possibly decades to training, just to be able to throw knives at an assistant a few feet away without actually striking them. I wonder whether the knife-thrower would be moved to fits of discomfort or laughter by "House of Flying Daggers," in which knives soar through the air pulling off all kinds of effects: They spontaneously stop spinning with their blade forward, they circle like boomerangs around the action, they slice through many tree-like stalks of bamboo when needed (other times getting impaled in a single stalk), they soar through the air like flocks of birds when thrown by offscreen assassins too far away to see their targets but strike a whole platoon of soldiers with deadly accuracy. In whatever fantasy China this is, knives spin through the air so often they may as well be considered weather. I'm not criticizing the film, only commenting on its primary visual motif, which makes good on the title. This is a film of elegant visuals and elaborate choreography, and viewers who like this kind of movie (you know who you are) will be in for a treat. Odd that a Zhang Yimou film doesn't pack more of an emotional punch or thematic depth, but it's more interesting than "Hero" and arguably more accessible to the average Western moviegoer. If you aren't familiar with this new renaissance of balletic martial arts films, this is an excellent place to get started. –Scott Hardie
This is about what you would expect from the advertising and reviews: A smart, very well-acted drama about two well-balanced sides of a moral conflict. Ben Kingsley is moving and convincing in his lead role, and Shohreh Aghdashloo is striking in a too-small role as his wife. There is a natural sense of doom with this kind of material; since the two parties cannot share what they both want, one or both must be unhappy at the end of the film. But the situations never feel forced; every moment feels like a natural progession for the characters, no matter how ludicrous it is, because the actors have done such a good job of making them into real people. It is sometimes too overbearing with its visual symbols (a dead bird!) and musical score, but mostly it's a tranquil, intelligent film. Now let me get more specific. What bothered me about this film was a problem from start to finish, that the characters' motivations were so vaguely established. We don't get the specifics of Behrani's exile from Iran, but we do get a sense of his desperation, fine. What we lack is a full explanation of Kathy's motivations and the business tax error that got her into this mess. From what I heard, she seemed to be responsible for the oversight, which made it difficult to sympathize with her, because every hardship in the film was her own fault. I could tell the movie wanted to be even-handed about them, but giving us clearer information about the tax problem and why it's not her fault (maybe her husband did it and they haven't been able to track him down?) would have helped the film immensely. In the end, I decided to give the movie an "it ruled" rating (just barely), because it achieved something worthwhile: Even if we don't agree with both characters, even if we take sides with one of them, we do understand both sides of the conflict, and we do feel some sympathy for both. The film did achieve what it sought; I just wish it had done better by itself. Also troublesome for me was Behrani's final resolution. Maybe I'm just ignorant of Muslim cultures, but that doesn't strike me as hunky-dory. Then again, it happens every day; just read the news... Behrani is one of the most noble and magnetic film characters I have seen in some time; this is a man who I would definitely like to spend two hours getting to know. The contrasts between him and Lester are so pronounced: The way each man treats his family, wears his uniform, regards his lover. They form a great duality that stands well for the film's central issue of today's dual America, torn between its natives and its immigrants. It is hard on us natives, yes, but in Nadi and Kathy it shows the possibility for concession and understanding. –Scott Hardie
This smart complex romantic comedy starts out with multiple plots and a hyper-emphasis on neurotic personality traits rather than a love story. As the film progresses, the multiple plots merge in a lovely way and "real" characters emerge as the lead female changes her perspective on them and her own life. –Jackie Mason • March 25 2011, 12:39pm EST
Dreamworks has produced an animated stunner, visually at least. Why do animated characters require greatness to be considered interesting? Do kids need that to maintain interest? I don't, but it was extremely watchable nonetheless. IMAX 3-D rules! –Steve West • April 10 2010, 3:07pm EST • 1 reply
We'll always wonder how the film would have been with a director who was a fan. (It probably would have been more fun.) Lee draws out the pain of the character, who has always been one of the most cursed of Marvel superheroes: Until the conflict between father and son gets externalized (and ridiculous) at the end, it makes for intriguing drama. And the split-screen effects gracefully convey the wild visuals of comics. It would be nice to see some of the action, though; three of the four action scenes take place in darkness. –Scott Hardie
You're on your own here, viewers. I went into this movie knowing nothing except a scant story premise and that it was made by the underappreciated David O. Russell. I enjoyed it immensely, laughing longer and harder than I have at many movies in many months. It wasn't until the next day, when I talked to other moviegoers and read reviews and comments online, that I discovered what a vitriolic response it inspired in most people. "Dull"? "Unfunny"? "Boring"? Did I somehow wind up with a different movie than other viewers did? I laughed from start to finish, at every audacious risk the movie giddily took, at its jokes both highbrow and low. Mark Wahlberg was the funniest among the terrific cast, playing the craziest loon with the straightest face. I've heard that the philosophy isn't very deep, that it's all Human Psychology 101 stuff. So? If you want philosophy, rent Waking Life (another movie that was undeservingly accused of being philosophically shallow). This movie uses existentialism only as scratch material for its crazy comic riffs; it has as much to do with real philosophy as "Seed of Chucky" has to do with the real filmmaking industry or "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason" has to do with the real publishing business. Besides, it's not the subject matter, it's what the film does with it, and this one goes on insane benders that would give stoners a headache, cruising wildly from one hilarious twist to another as its characters attempt to decode their mundane reality and arrive at bizarre conclusions. If you get a silly grin just thinking of the wild cinematic digressions explored by Paul Thomas Anderson and Wes Anderson, imagine them with a heady, punchline-thick screenplay and actors who clearly do not care how ridiculous they seem. Based on comments from so many other viewers who were bored stiff, I cannot guarantee that you'll enjoy this film, but for some, like me, it is a wild adventure of uninhibited creative ambition, and a riotous madcap romp till the final frame. –Scott Hardie
premise: Will Smith plays the lone immune survivor of an airborne plague, roaming the streets of Manhattan with his dog, avoiding contact with something dangerous within the city. On the footsteps of I, Robot, here comes another Will Smith sci-fi action movie that might not be as cerebral as its venerated source material, but is still a lot smarter and better-made than most of the brainless CGI-riddled junk that Hollywood churns out (much of it also starring Will Smith). Following a man into the depths of loneliness after three years of solitude, it has a undercurrent of bitter sadness, unusually grim and emotional for a movie founded upon explosions, stuntwork, and special effects. It also makes a great adventure, as the hero makes Manhattan his private playground and does things we never could. It's a shame that the filmmakers traded down in their efforts to distance themselves from the source material (really? the title comes from Bob Marley now?), because the film would have been better as a straight adaptation. But it's still a smarter, richer movie than it could have been. –Scott Hardie • March 30 2008, 8:57pm EST • 1 reply
Many LGBT movies deal with identity crises, but this comedy aims for a wider audience, by telling a very funny true story about a slippery con artist who merely happens to be gay. Jim Carrey's mania is just right for the role and he gets a lot of laughs. –Scott Hardie • October 1 2011, 8:20am EST • 1 reply
For "Titanic" Roger Ebert apologized, "You don't choose the most expensive movie ever made to reinvent the wheel." That's the case here: I find myself forgiving this film's obvious lifts from other popular movies and its frequently clichéd dialogue, because the studio needed bankability to make this expensive a project, and the good material here is worth the price. I often complain that filmmakers should only alter the source material if they can improve upon it, and the fundamental differences here are not so much an improvement as a necessary evil, whichout which the project could not have been made. As many Asimov fans have griped, a film more closely based on the original writing would have been smarter and more rewarding, but I see no reason to gripe in the event of an Asimov movie being made, since it rarely happens at all. [Plot spoiler in this paragraph.] Instead of the obnoxious proportions of the chip on Will Smith's shoulder or the distracting plot holes (once in a safe place, why didn't James Cromwell just come out and say what was going on?), what bothered me most about the film was a missed opportunity for some perfect simplicity. The screenplay goes to a lot of trouble to talk about how the robots have evolved into a more perfect form, with spectres of code that were not written by programmers. Part of the reason this sort of spontaneously-existing code bothers me so much in films like this one, "The Matrix," "Ghost in the Shell," and many others, is that I write computer code for a living, and trust me, it could no more write other code than the chair you're sitting in could spontaneously generate another chair. But mainly, it's because this whole "evolution of machines" explanation was unnecessary: Everything the villainous software does in the film can be 100% justified using the first law of robotics; the explanation is right there from the very first frame of the movie, hidden in plain sight. I would have liked this explanation more because it would have been more plausible, and I suppose plausibility is a minor concern in a movie where Will Smith surfs away from an explosion on a fucking door, but the point stands. I enjoyed this film despite its rough edges. The high-speed battle in the tunnel is just the kind of summer thrill ride that audiences await all year long with justified eagerness. There's no lack of action entertainment here, nor enough intriguing ideas to carry them; there's the strangest sense here that instead of the sci-fi nonsense existing only to support the action scenes like in most blockbusters, the actions scenes are there to bankroll the science fiction. –Scott Hardie
Patrick Creadon's documentary is good at spelling out how we racked up our steep national debt (the abridged 90-minute version anyway), but is short on solutions and even shorter on style. There's not much here that you couldn't get by surfing Wikipedia. –Scott Hardie • March 22 2012, 9:35pm EST
'Scream' it ain't, but it is an interesting attempt to subvert the slasher genre while staying true to its traditional elements. Too bad it stays so true to its traditional elements that it becomes boring: We've witnessed most of these scenes before in so many other movies. There's a wonderful Big Secret lurking under the routine plot, but it's undermined by a cheap Final Shock that, when you think about it, amounts to nothing but a shock. And what's with the gaps in exposition? At least the music was creepy and cool. –Scott Hardie
It should have been great. Mike Judge does satire very well, that is when people realize he's being satirical, and who better to rail against the dumbing-down of America? His plot sends two ordinary people 500 years into the future, where they are the smartest people on Earth due to successively stupider generations. It inverts Judge's Beavis and Butt-head concept (two idiots in a normal world), and sets up a comic goldmine for taking stupid-American jokes to their logical extreme. But a funny thing happened on the way to the punchline: The movie got so into its lame trying-to-escape-the-thought-police-and-return-to-present-day plotline that it neglected to include many gags. Imagine Office Space with half as many jokes and you have an idea of the comedy wattage here. Some of the material is very funny, and the deleted scenes hint that more good material was cut out, but poor test screenings sapped the studio's nerve and this was re-edited for a disappointing quickie release so fast you could've blinked and missed it. It's an ironic shame that morons in the audience are to blame for turning a smart satire of stupidity into a moronic let-down. –Scott Hardie • June 17 2007, 10:50am EST
It's not that rap can't work in a period musical; it's that rappers can't make movies. OutKast are brilliant musicians with limitless charm and creativity, but when they go this far out of their element, they need to be reigned in by a director who knows the territory, not a buddy who shot some of their music videos. Everybody here wants to make a Movie, and that gives it the pace of rush-hour traffic as it comes braking to a halt every two minutes for an intense scene where André experiences profound love or where Big Boi gives or receives lethal threats. It needs very much not to take itself so seriously. The songs are great, but then almost all of them are reworked from OutKast's best album, and listening to that album with your eyes closed is vastly more entertaining than watching this clumsy mess. –Scott Hardie • April 22 2007, 5:29pm EST
premise: A sci-fi spoof of Charlie's Angels with an intentional D-grade sensibility. Anna Nicole Smith's last film. There are bad movies that slowly win you over with self-deprecation and a sort of weird appeal. Then there are bad movies that make you burst into laughter every few minutes at how seriously they take themselves. Then there are some that are just plain depressing, making you sink into your couch with despair at the human race that made them. Illegal Aliens is that kind of bad movie. It got a small wave of attention for being Anna Nicole Smith's last movie, posthumously released, but it's as trashy and unappealing as anything else she created in her sorry life. This spoof of Charlie's Angels and Men in Black casts Smith in a trio of alien-fighting protectors of Earth. Her partners are "the competent ones," not because they do their jobs effectively, but because they don't spend critical scenes poking a dildo in their ears and talking on a dildo like it was a telephone. For some reason, Smith adopts the chirpy, high-pitched voice of a grating cartoon character, and the phrase "nails on a chalkboard" doesn't do the character justice. But she's nothing compared to the villain, a temper-tantrum-throwing caricature of whatever the director thought he was lampooning. Joanie Laurer's performance makes her WWE career look like Masterpiece Theater: She channels her inner 4-year-old, alternately screeching and gutturally groaning her dialogue as loudly as she can, all with pouty, constipated expressions on her face, like Judy Tenuta covering Cannibal Corpse. It's the worst performance of its kind that I can recall seeing. How am I supposed to evaluate anything else about the movie when these two central performances are so off-putting they force you not to pay attention? Furthermore, who really cares? This is a bad movie thoroughly aware of its own badness and hopeful to entertain in spite of itself. It attempts to be clever with sight gags and cheap stock footage, which I would give it credit for if the attempts were successful. This is not a bad movie for bad-movie enthusiasts, just a depressing ninety-minute eulogy for a bottom-feeding celebrity who didn't deserve the attention in the first place. –Scott Hardie • October 20 2007, 4:07pm EST
This is precisely the sort of movie that gives artsy debuts by young indie directors a reputation for being unbearably pretentious. Like Sofia Coppola but untempered by her modesty, it piles on the quirky characters and moody navel-gazing, seemingly determined to defeat any chance it has of being genuinely moving because it's too busy being adorable. Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels and Emile Hirsch are game for the material, but they could be a whole lot better with real characters to play instead of these independent-film clichés. If writer-director Dan Harris has much of a frame of reference beyond the superhero films he's more famous for writing, he doesn't demonstrate it here, attempting to tug a heartstring while quoting Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins. The "shocking" final-act revelations only confirm that A) the film doesn't trust the audience to have figured out the obvious a half-hour earlier, and B) it thinks it's a whole lot deeper than it actually is. –Scott Hardie
This year I made a necessary adjustment in my rating of movies, because gorgeous and visually exhilarating films that otherwise had little or no merit, such as the Matrix sequels, were winding up some of my most praised titles every year, a trend that stayed true to my personal priorities as a film-lover at the expense of my reviews having any value to anyone else. I couldn’t help but think of this seemingly insignificant switch when I watched this French-Hungarian sci-fi graphic novel brought to startling life on film, because it contains some of the most complex, gorgeous, and original imagery of the year, but houses them in a stale, half-baked plot that doesn’t stir the imagination anywhere near as well as they do. Filmed with the same technique as —Sin City” and —Sky Captain,” in which the actors are real but literally everything around them is pure CGI, this movie is a creative feast for the eyes, set in a dystopian 2095 New York where blue-haired mutants live among ancient Egyptian gods returned to the Earth they claim they created. Possibly inadvertently, it inspires thoughts about the place of man in the fictions he creates to entertain himself and demystify the universe, but the plot is too murky and confusing to be much fun, and the tone of the film is muted when it should be as vibrant and lively as its visuals. If you’re the kind of viewer who appreciates sequences of exquisite beauty just for their aesthetic value, you should see this film, but to general audiences I just can’t recommend it. –Scott Hardie
Released only two weeks into the new year, here is a comedy that is likely to be one of the warmest and kindest of 2005. Like Paul Weitz's previous film "About a Boy," this one tells a totally implausible story with so much emotional verisimilitude that it doesn't seem to matter. So what if these men would actually despise each other? So what if the older man would be fired on his younger boss's first day? So what if the film lacks the backbone to turn the younger boss into the villain he should be? It defies conventional expectations by populating a movie about corporate takeover with kind, gentle, friendly human beings who honestly like each other. David Lynch redefined his own expectations as a filmmaker when he took a similarly PG-rated turn with "The Straight Story," but with this release Weitz is only reinforcing his reputation as a upbeat filmmaker devoted to positive male relationships. Dennis Quaid might have been robbed of his potential as a leading man in his youth, but he has aged into an excellent father figure in his recent films, a square-jawed embodiment of gently-fading masculinity who guides his younger costars into adult virility. Will Russell Crowe still be this manly in his fifties? Here Quaid shows again why he has always been underappreciated as an actor, because he brings grace and integrity to roles that do not show them off. Quaid's performance is one of the best reasons to see "In Good Company," which may be transparent in its plot machinations but is unexpectedly true in its emotional tone. –Scott Hardie
Shirley MacLaine has played "lovable" grandmas before in much worse movies, but this old lady is wise and patient, and anchors an above-average dramedy. Cameron Diaz's ditzy lines sound like they were intended for a sitcom, but she delivers them sincerely without aiming for a joke, because after all, her character doesn't know that she's funny. At this point, it's probably beyond hope that Curtis Hanson will return to the great heights of his best movies. –Scott Hardie • July 18 2011, 8:07pm EST
Samuel L. Jackson and Juliette Binoche are actors of effortless appeal, but even their combined charisma is not quite enough to convince us that the love story supposedly at the heart of this post-Apartheid drama is anything but a distraction from the much more important events going on around them. Nelson Mandela’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was one of the brightest ideas of the twentieth century: Instead of trying to forget the atrocities committed in the country’s name, a decision that continues to plague Germany after sixty years, his Commission offered amnesty to any officer of Apartheid who gave a full confession of his crimes and listened to his victims’ stories in court. The film partially bungles these testimonial scenes when it populates a montage sequence with the same faces we’ve already seen, making it seem as if this nationwide program has approximately ten participants, but worse, it turns to an unconvincing and dramatically inert love affair between two reporters covering the events. As a white Afrikaan and a black American, their dialogue about the past and future of South Africa is interesting and awkwardly hopeful, but the film puts them in the way of better material. It also would help if the DVD included subtitles, since the South African accent is occasionally incomprehensible; I had to rewind a crucial scene three times just to understand why the hell it had happened. This is a thoughtful film about an interesting historical experiment and not at all difficult to watch, but I wish I could say it was better. –Scott Hardie
Like 'Unfaithful' a few months later, this film takes a short story about violence, and adds a first and second act. It's successful; the ending seems to be a natural progression from the painful domestic drama that preceded it. Wilkinson and Sissy Spacek use precise timing to communicate so much through pauses. Sure, this is a story that's been told a million times, and sure, it's not quite as shocking as it thinks it is, but it's almost exhilarating how perfectly made it is. If you love great dramas, this is not to be missed. –Scott Hardie
premise: A former Army sergeant (Tommy Lee Jones) is determined to find his missing son, a soldier returning from Iraq. Inasmuch as a movie about topics as somber as war and death can "rule", this one did (kind of like saying that Schindler's List "ruled"). But rule it does, as it takes a serious look at the heavy price of war that is paid by *everyone*... all without a single bullet fired or bomb dropped anywhere -- in fact, with barely a cumulative moment of combat to be seen in the whole length of the film. And even more poetically, it does so with nary a political stance or moral indictment, but with sheer patriotism and humanity. Admittedly, I was surprised to see Susan Sarandon playing wife to Tommy Lee Jones in a film about war -- I suppose it should have been some kind of tip-off... but her supporting role was introduced with such fluid subtlety that, "Was that Susan Saradon?" only entered my head as an afterthought to her very brief first scene. And, as it turns out, the marriage of these two actors unfolds into a perfect synthesis of the dichotomous study of human nature in wartime that follows, because there really is no glorification and no villification here -- no black or white -- just a disturbingly realistic portrayal of people coping in complex and confusing times and situations... including a few poignant micro-studies in gender and race/ethnicity issues along the way, assisted by the fine acting of Charlize Theron. I highly recommend it. –Amy Austin • October 19 2008, 9:09pm EST
This tightly-wound heist movie demands concentration as it juggles action on five levels at once for its entire second half. It's a mental workout that makes you feel exhilarated. Its biggest drawback is not going even further with its great big ideas. –Scott Hardie • August 15 2010, 11:45am EST
It's a blast to see Indy back from the cinematic retirement home, still surviving impossible stunts and discovering ancient secrets and charming the audience like magic. This one feels routine and has too much CGI, but it's still a familiar good time. –Scott Hardie • June 14 2009, 11:59am EST
Nothing can top the impact of the original "Raiders" because its freshness cannot be reproduced. But "Last Crusade" had an undeniable benefit of being last: It was made with full knowledge of what an Indiana Jones adventure was, and how to play that formula off of audience expectations to both please and surprise. Harrison Ford's laconic style ("No ticket!") has never worked better, giving Indy a battered dignity in the face of whatever humiliations his father might present. Spielberg was determined to create a viable Indy backstory with this film, and he succeeded, giving us a portrait of the man's life with plenty of room for further installations. "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" was a fine show following in the tradition established by this film and proved its depth and durability. This was the most well-rounded of the Indy films and remains both my favorite and Spielberg's. –Scott Hardie
I cannot fathom what Steven Spielberg thought he was making with this movie, but I can understand his need to repent five years later with a more serious Indy film. This has to be one of the most shrill, irritating films ever to become a renowned classic. Where the original "Raiders" made you seize your date's forearm in excitement, this film can make you pull out your hair in aggravation: Whole scenes consist of Kate Capshaw running around in circles shrieking her head off. This is Spielberg with all of the talent but none of the taste, putting all of his directorial skill towards achieving an effect that feels like nails on chalkboard, and Spielberg nails the effect. By the time the action-filled final act began and the film found its footing again, it was far too late: In terms of tone and overall effect, this has to be one of the worst and most aggravating films I've ever watched. –Scott Hardie
Few films illustrate the story-vs-style schism as well as this one does. Viewers like me who enjoy a creepy atmosphere and prolonged sense of dread will eat it up, while viewers who require a story will be disappointed. For horror fans, it delivers the necessary jolts and gore, but its pacing is decidedly slow, as if the characters are half-awake. It also has an annoying bad habit of cross-cutting several scenes together at once, such that we're taken out of each scene just as it's getting interesting, only to return minutes later. These elements would be less annoying if the movie weren't so good otherwise. It takes place in an understaffed and desperately underfunded emergency room in the middle of the night, as the staff debates the cost of care, whether to ship their patients to other hospitals, whether to close to trauma, whether to conserve supplies even when they're needed. This is surprisingly well-grounded in reality for a cheap-shock horror film. At the end of the first act, there's an incident of unwitting malpractice and the staff uneasily conspires to cover it up, giving each character either fear of being caught or a guilty conscience. This event, interesting all by itself (this film could easily have been a gripping drama about hospital ethics instead of a horror movie), provides a strong psychological foundation for the terror that follows, by throwing the already-desperate characters off balance and establishing an air of paranoia and malfeasance at this creepy hospital. It's the masterstroke that makes the film work; without it, there'd be little to the movie but the jump scenes and gross-outs. There's so much to like in this film, from the psychology of the horror, to the crisp blacks and greens that set the tone for this graveyard-shift ER, to the actors who capably communicate that they're ethical people trapped in an unethical situation. It's the kind of movie you don't mind not making sense because it's doing what it's doing so well. But it leans too hard on "shocking" revelations at the end, breaking the spell of the atmosphere, and it has that unfortunate slackness of pace. It's said this is the first film in a planned trilogy, and I'm already looking forward to the others, but that information is not crucial to enjoying it: This is a highly interesting little movie by itself, enough of an ethical tug-of-war to appeal to drama fans with enough skin-crawling shocks to appeal to horror fans. It's worth a rental. –Scott Hardie
An undercover cop infiltrates a gang while the gangster's mole infiltrates the police department, and each one works feverishly to expose the other. That's the simple premise of this surprisingly complex thriller, and it is brought terrifically to life by two actors who wear the weight of their consciences on their tired sleeves. Andy Lau plays well against the ironies tossed his way by the screenplay, such as his girlfriend's bright idea for a novel about a man with disassociative-identity disorder, but Tony Leung doesn't need the help; the painful accumulation of the ten years of hell he has suffered in his seemingly endless undercover assignment are visible every time we see his weary eyes. Like "The Grudge" and "The Eye," this is another recent Asian thriller about to get an American remake (DiCaprio, Damon, and Scorsese are a promising combination), but except for some possible trouble distinguishing the similar-looking minor characters, this version should play just fine for most American viewers. It has the brooding intensity and hunger of any De Niro or Pacino entry in the genre, and enough thematic complexity and symbolism to satisfy more discriminating viewers. The film does have a few annoyances (it has more ringing cell phones than "Cellular" for Christ's sake), but patient viewers will likely come to appreciate its carefully arranged plotline and expert sense of tone. –Scott Hardie
Tarantino's WWII flick from the forgotten "macaroni war" genre is ambitious, intentionally preposterous, superbly acted, and endlessly entertaining, once you accept his limited interest in moral consequences. I could watch this movie go on for hours. –Scott Hardie • January 23 2010, 7:36am EST
premise: A documentary about the cultural impact of America's most infamous porn film, which caused an uproar over censorship and cultural values. You can't make a boring film about sex (unless you're Catherine Breillat). Watching Inside Deep Throat is exciting, partly because of the sex but mostly because the sex makes every interview subject so excited. While the documentary is aimless in its exploration of its subject, veering between themes like censorship, independent filmmaking, crime, and bottomed-out lives without a clear purpose, it does feature a lot of interesting people and lives along the way. The most affecting is Linda Lovelace, who famously and spoke out against pornography years later in a futile effort to erase the sins that ruined the rest of her life. Her false claims about being forced to perform at gunpoint weakened her argument, and Inside Deep Throat's impossible claims about the porn film's sky-high box-office tally also diminish its authority, but it's still a entertaining look at a cultural flashpoint of the seventies. –Scott Hardie • July 19 2008, 11:40am EST
Like slathering on cologne after skipping a shower, all the flashy style and casual intelligence Spike Lee can bring to this picture only mask the truly dumb script that it started with. The script is so well-versed in heist genre history that it names its own predecessors in dialogue, but the characters still make banal, idiotic mistakes because the plot requires them to, keeping them three steps behind the audience at all times. Denzel Washington's detective is so bumbling that the filmmakers seem to have added as an afterthought a scene mentioning that this is literally his first assignment with hostages. He's not just out of his league with the villains; he doesn't belong beside his fellow officers. Who wants to watch Forrest Gump play chess against Garry Kasparov and be asked to root for Gump? But of course, smarts aren't everything in a movie, and there's enough breezy style and raw tension in various scenes in the film to make it plenty enjoyable. The heist itself is impressive, seemingly predictable but suddenly surprising, and thrilling in its audacity. The best moments are the quiet ones, where the cops chit-chat and Washington talks face-to-face with the heist mastermind. Jodie Foster may seem bored, but she brings sharp individuality to a character who deserves more attention. It's a fun film, just not as smart as the people making it or the people watching it. –Scott Hardie
I really wanted to like this movie. The concept of a 'luck thief' is intriguing, and the screenplay comes up with devilish tests of luck for the various contestants. But, as with comedy, you can't make an effective thriller without a pulse. Scene after scene drags on pointlessly, and a subplot about a cop on the survivor's trail begins to irritate for constantly interrupting the main action. The final moments are meant to be the most intriguing, but by then the audience is exhausted. –Scott Hardie
Apparently you don't have to be American to be a starry-eyed first-time director desperately aping Quentin Tarantino; Irishman John Crowley pulls it off with aplomb in this underachieving Dublin tale that intersects a dozen major characters with sudden criminal violence and offhand pop-culture references. I'm not one to oppose sex or violence when they're used appropriately (even the extremely dark-natured Irréversible never stepped out of line), but here they're used as obnoxious window dressing in a story that would be better told without them. Colm Meaney's insecure bully of a detective is a fascinating character, but does he really belong in the same film as dopey misanthrope Cillian Murphy or sweet-natured wallflower David Wilmot? Still, if you accept the sometimes-sudden transitions between tones, this film has a number of good laughs in it, including the especially Tarantinoesque revelation about brown sauce and coffee. The film has the confident forward momentum necessary for this sort of material, taking turns pounding its poor characters in rapid succession like a whack-a-mole game. Other than a poorly-filmed double car-crash scene and some moments when the Irish brogue gets too tangled to interpret, both of which may send you reaching for the rewind button, it's a generally pleasing film for fans of black humor and, well, Tarantinoesque fits of comic violence. –Scott Hardie
The final Futurama movie is the weakest and most forgettable of the bunch, with its characters' relationships and development treated like a rushed afterthought. There are a few chuckles for longtime fans, but no big laughs like the other titles. –Scott Hardie • July 2 2010, 8:46am EST
This is what you expect it to be, a funny film with rich supporting characters, but a sub-par effort from the Coen brothers, who fell under studio influence here, not to mention are not working from their own script. What's good about the film is the delightful banter between the characters; it reminds us how little great repartee we hear in movies any more. All of the actors are good in their roles, especially note-perfect George Clooney, who plays this character with the ease of getting dressed in the morning. (I remember reading when "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" came out that the Coens were planning to direct a film about a fatuous lawyer blinded by his own self-love, and had already made up their minds that Clooney was perfect for it.) I got numerous laughs out of the little references, the double-takes, the perfect timing of so many scenes. It is good comedy, skillfully done. What hurts the film more than it should is the overkill. Too many scenes are wound up with loud music or cartoony payoffs or asinine movie clichés that got old decades ago. Clooney's assistant, played by Ted Raimi look-alike Paul Adelstein, is given material that practically requires him to turn to the camera and scream, "Laugh! This is funny!" The plot is also predictable, partly because this is a traditional screwball comedy and partly because the trailers gave away nearly every turn. [Spoilers in this paragraph.] The worst offense, however, is that there is little romance in this romantic comedy. Given that the entire second and third acts depend on Clooney falling in love with Catherine Zeta-Jones, it's awfully convenient that he does so with absolutely zero romantic conversation between them. The Coens are welcome to make an ironic comedy in which the characters believably fall into lust or infatuation, but here they expect us to accept that these two really do fall in love after spending ninety minutes establishing that A) neither one seems capable of it, B) neither one trusts the other for a second, and C) there is no such thing as love in their business. It's the wrong way to go with a movie like this, especially with these directors. This film is recommended to those with an ear for good dialogue, and open-minded Coen fans who don't mind the brothers making a commercial misstep. It's not terrible, but it's hardly the best work from anybody involved. –Scott Hardie
Robert Downey Jr. is the best thing in Iron Man and it knows it, adopting the actor's intelligent and world-weary charm as its own. It gets all the superhero details right and then some, with an unusually strong origin story in Afghanistan. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:26am EST
As you'd expect, it's pretty, fast and fun like its predecessor, with exciting action scenes and a decent attempt at emotional depth. But it's also less smart and less funny, and wastes way too much time setting up future crossover movies. –Scott Hardie • May 11 2010, 10:53pm EST • 1 reply
I agree with the film’s supporters that by plotting backwards, Noé skips the traditional payoff, freeing the film to focus on the larger themes of misanthropy and destiny. But I still don’t believe the violence is adequately justified: As profoundly sad as they are, the later scenes do not fully redeem the earlier depravity. Say what you want about Noé belonging to this place in French cinematic history, this film strikes me as quickly and poorly executed, trash that could have been art with proper care. The endless meandering conversations and camerawork, and the three-page script (!), are its downfall. –Scott Hardie
Before Ghosts of the Abyss and Aliens of the Deep and whatever underwater documentary with the word "Terminators" in the title that he's going to make next, Jim Cameron went to the ocean floor to film the wreckage of the Bismarck, and this Discovery Channel documentary paid the bill. It's as meticulously researched and patiently narrated as his other films, with recreations that vividly bring the sinking to life, but it's so wrapped up in its WWII lore that it may as well have been funded by the History Channel instead. If you're bored by the minutiae of battleships, I suggest avoiding an entire documentary on the subject, no matter what bells and whistles Cameron adds to the presentation or what depth is added by the submarine angle. Even Cameron seems incredibly bored when he appears on camera. –Scott Hardie
Normally it turns me off when a comedy tries to contort itself into a moving drama, but here's an example of that action saving a movie from itself. This overachieving gay indie thinks it's funniest when it's most flamboyant, with the effect of neatly-trimmed nails on chalkboard. What saves it from an early ejection from the DVD player is the strong chemistry of its leads, who make us care about their love story despite being heterosexual actors already well known from tv. (Oh, how I wish it was promoted as starring the guy from "Wings"! and the guy from "The Pretender!" and the guy from "Star Trek: The Next Generation"! instead of their real names.) I can't recommend it, but I don't regret seeing it. –Scott Hardie
Brendan Fraser is the wrong choice for the villain in a taut crime thriller, but indie movies have to attract financing somehow. Scott Glenn has the real key role here as a criminal trying to keep his life together, but the film isn't as good as he is. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:38am EST
premise: A young man discovers he can teleport at will. Starring Hayden Christensen and Samuel L. Jackson. Directed by Doug Liman. Here's a concept: A movie that shows what it would be like if an ordinary man had the ability to teleport, and also if he and everyone he knows was brain-damaged. The characters in Jumper are short on imagination, personality, and vocabulary, like the movie itself. It dreams up a man who can teleport at will, who realizes the moral implications of his talent, and the best it can do with him is have him be attacked by nameless agents who have scarcely any stated reason for coming after him? [Spoilers ahead.] Just when you think it can't get dumber than that, it turns the man into a superhero who references comics by name. Except he's not interested in saving anyone – it shows him ignoring dying people who only he could rescue, then has him abandon an unwitting fellow traveler to be crushed under a tank. It's one thing for the movie to pass off comical scenes where he leaves wide-eyed bystanders atop historical monuments in his travels; it's another thing to show him kill innocent people and not care. How many different writers altered this script over time? The only thing to praise in the movie is the action, which takes advantage of the film's premise in some interesting ways, and doesn't skimp on the special effects. But the rest of the movie is a dull waste of potential, starting with a premise that could lead to a hundred interesting stories and choosing one that isn't. It adds insult to brain-cell injury by informing you constantly that you're only watching a prequel; the rest of the Jumper series will no doubt bore audiences for years to come. –Scott Hardie • February 18 2008, 10:39pm EST
premise: Quirky and inquisitive 16-year-old (Ellen Page) deals with various consequences of exploring relationships. So I finally got around to seeing one the most hyped films of 2007, and I didn't hate it... but I didn't really love it, either. In keeping with my usual "spoiler-free" movie MO, I managed to stay rather unaware of the plot & details of this film (except for the obvious issue of teen pregnancy and the usual trailer tidbits)... despite its Oscar status and a high profile that even staked a national news presence (albeit unintentionally, I'm sure) in one of the most disturbing stories of teen pregnancy of the decade (Teen ‘pregnancy pact’ has 17 girls expecting). Based on a quoted researcher's astute comment regarding this, however -- along with actually viewing the film -- I'd say that it was Juno itself that was unfairly tainted by the news story. Contrary to the hypothesis of "the ‘Juno’-Jamie Lynn effect", I didn't see any particular "glamorization" of teen pregnancy going on in Juno. However, I did have an unshakable perception of mildly pro-life leanings under the slightly derisive (albeit humorous) overtones and commentary on women's health-care clinics... which only resulted in an annoying prolongation of and complete agreement with the feeling in Scott's description of the film's opening sequence: ...Rainn Wilson as a convenience store clerk using hipness to the point of nuisance, then dials down the ironic banter to a sustainable level for the remaining ninety minutes. I guess, for me, the "ironic banter" -- though funny -- was just slightly over "a sustainable level" for serious appreciation? The "hipness" becomes "tragically hip" and, dare I say it... a wee bit inauthentic. My overall feelings from the (slightly strained) dialogue were that a) Diablo Cody, while displaying a fine and unique talent for writing, must be a pistol with quite the colorful background and upbringing herself -- in fact, I'm betting that she was a handful of a teenager; and b) am I just getting "too old"??? Perish the thought. Don't get me wrong, though... I did enjoy the film quite well, and I found Juno herself -- along with *all* of the characters, actually (and probably, most of all, J.K. Simmons as her dad and my particular standout/favorite among the supporting cast) -- to be quite likable. And like Scott, who ranked Juno as #6 of his "ten best" of 2007 (do I vaguely recall his naming 2007 a bit of a thin year?), I found the heart of the film to be in a young woman's poignant mini-revelations and first lessons in life and love. Underneath her precociously witty and modern teen exterior, Juno is really an ingenue. And underneath its tragically hip and modern take on teen pregnancy, Juno is really a sweet coming-of-age story. –Amy Austin • November 13 2008, 10:19pm EST • 8 replies
Juno is one of those fragile little indie films that you have to see before the weight of its buzz makes it impossible to appreciate It navigates a risky minefield of indie quirk and arrives triumphantly at the other side, touching and terrific. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:44am EST
This is an uneven project, but what it does best, it does very very well: The thrilling spectacle of a highly-detailed alien world, and action sequences that delight with their visual inventiveness. This is a film of images first and foremost, and is best appreciated as such. There are pictures here that will stay with you for years, especially as the camera zooms and soars around the action; this is the first fully-CGI film I can recall that used Hitchcock's famous "Vertigo" effect, but it fits the style of the film perfectly. The opening shot, soaring across and down and through and out of the corridors of an exploding spaceship, is a full two minutes of giddy visual excess that alone is worth the rental. If you're like me and you treasure most the films that give you new images to soak up, this one is a feast. Sadly, it won't appeal to everyone. The villainess, though well-voiced by Anjelica Huston, is insufficiently explained by the film; we get the gyst of who she is and what she wants, but the gyst is simply not satisfying and her scenes are difficult to follow. There are other issues too: A generic fantasy-quest plotline, occasional moments of wince-inducingly banal dialogue, enough gratuitous T&A to supplant a year's subscription to Heavy Metal, and second-rate character animation. (When it's focused on the characters, this often looks like the best Playstation cut-scene ever made.) But it has some charming elements too, like truly original character design, a wonderful choral score by Farid Russlan, a great "virtual interview" on the DVD that shows off facial animation skills that for some reason didn't get used in the film, and the year's most enormous cinematic ambition. I cannot tell you whether you'd like this film, but I can tell you that I enjoyed it a great deal. –Scott Hardie
In her effort to teach Westerners (the film's spoken language reveals its audience) that there's a great deal more to the famous book than a mere catalog of sexual positions, that it is in fact a deep spiritual consideration of the profound nature of romantic love, Mira Nair has created an erotic film with all the high sexual charge of a Joseph Campbell interview. It's a tedious, mannered tale about supposedly sexually-liberated people, but good acting, beautiful costumes, and iconic symbolism are only worth so much when the film lacks entertainment value. By the time the perfunctory ending arrives, you'll likely have lost any interest you ever had in studying the ancient text. –Scott Hardie
Those (like me) in search of a truly terrible film may pass this one up. Sure, its entire plot is a series of contrived mistakes made by its idiotic protagonists. Sure, it has gaping plot holes even within its own illogical framework. Sure, it substitutes CGI in lieu of Australia’s actual beauty. And yes, they did add more scenes with the talking kangaroo, in an apparent attempt to improve it. But, it does have one wonderful asset: Anthony Anderson. If any man can take a farting camel joke (something that tarnished even Star Wars) and make it work, it’s him. –Scott Hardie
What a weird blend this movie is. Parts of it are hilarious, especially Nicolas Cage impersonating Adam West. But the tonal shifts between light comedy and vicious violence are too much, and the characters change their morality at a moment's notice. –Scott Hardie • April 28 2010, 9:39am EST
premise: Breakdancin' kid breaks his dumbass noggin in a talent show and awakens from a coma twenty years later. Okay. Clear sign I'm spending *way* too much late-night/early-morning TV-watching time, I know... Yes, this movie actually deserves to suck for being the lamest reason/excuse/"plotline" to bring back the 80s, ever... but I still had to upgrade it anyway for bringing back the 80s in some of the stupidest/funniest lameness ever. If you want to feel a little bit old while taking a good chuckle-spotted moon walk down memory lane, then this movie isn't a *total* waste. After all, I had all but forgotten about tight-rolling (a memory traumatically blocked by my lifelong curse of having cankles, no doubt... but I see that Katie Holmes recently got a good dose of Internet-raking for try to initiate a jean pegging comeback... ha!). Highlights that saved this piece of crap from total suckitude include some pretty chuckle-worthy Karate Kid jokes, Bobby Lee's robot training, a pretty decent revival of the art of breaking at the climax of the, um, movie, and... my personal favorite -- a moment that would almost single-handedly propel this tripe into the realm of "It ruled"... if only it weren't for the other 107 minutes of run-time -- the awesomely laugh-worthy cameo appearance of a certain 80s TV-star/stud-turned-international singer/stud-turned-campy Internet/advertising stud. I don't want to give anything away with any spoilers or anything, but... just don't hassle my Hoff -- word! Certainly no need to go out of your way waiting up for its appearance on cable... but if it just happens to be on in the background and/or you just *really* want to ensure that you're engaged in some highly effective multi-tasker time-slaying while on the computer... well, then this junk-food for the brain can rule at something! –Amy Austin • October 20 2008, 5:06am EST
I believe the term for movies like this should be "hypothetical comedy." The director tells Will Ferrell to deliver all of his lines really hyped up, mixes in some shots of Mike Ditka staring at him and puts some peppy ska tunes on the soundtrack, and voila, it's supposed to be funny. (You think I'm making this up. One of the DVD extras shows the producer explaining the film: "Well, it's about Will Ferrell as this soccer coach, and Mike Ditka's in it... See, already you're laughing.") There's just scene after scene that make no sense, like Ferrell handing out pet finches to his baffled players. Ferrell can be funny when he has a meaty character to play, but mostly this movie has him stuck playing the same emasculated, imaginationless everydad that make tv sitcoms such a bore. His only funny scene comes when the man gets hepped up on caffeine and turns into a raging jerk, which means Ferrell finally gets to play a meaty character. This summer's "Bad News Bears" remake wasn't very good either, but at least it had real jokes in it, not high energy and the premise of comedy happening. This movie is worth nobody's time, especially Farrell's. –Scott Hardie
For fans of the master's work, the only surprise here is how tame this film is: There is almost no conflict, no suspense, and no villains. Young kids are the ideal audience of course, but adults are left waiting for the other shoe to drop: Are the two old ladies going to pull a "Hansel & Gretel" with that wood-burning oven? When is the snotty witch going to return to challenge Kiki's powers? The film is cheerfully free of any real worries, as gentle and innocent as anything else Studio Ghibli has turned out (although the young protagonist shows her underwear even more than poor Nausicaä). It's a fine film, spirited and funny and masterfully animated. Fans must not miss this gold standard of the master's filmography. –Scott Hardie
Miramax extended their history of wrong moves by chopping what would have been one of the most triumphant and visceral action films of the year into two halves, denying us a coherent masterpiece. In turn, I will deny this film the credit that it very much deserves. It‘s an empty premise for a film with artsy ambitions, this —tribute” to bloody samurai revenge epics, but Tarantino charges into it full-throttle, giving us 114 deaths, almost all of them accompanied by gushing fountains of blood. The many dramatic pauses eventually become tedious, but when the actors do move and speak, wow! –Scott Hardie
[This review contains ending spoilers, so beware.] As with last year, I refuse to rate one half of a film. I would not be so opposed to the cutting of "Kill Bill" into two parts if it did not damage the film so much: Part one provides the entertainment in form of action spectacle and humor, and part two provides the emotional resonance that gives the story so much depth. Each half without the other is lacking an essential element, and the combined film would have been an exuberant masterpiece that would have easily been one of the best films of the year and gotten Uma Thurman her deserved Oscar nomination. Look, I know Harvey Weinstein is well-liked in Hollywood because, on the whole, he does champion art over business. Nobody else in the business would have funded this film at all without significant changes. But, as the viewer, how can I not be frustrated with film-ruining decisions made so Weinstein can make or save a buck? Consider the biggest weakness of "Vol. 2," that you leave it with a certain dissatisfaction. We have seen the story completed, and yet we feel like there's something missing, some action sequence that at least makes "Vol. 2" feel like it's worthy to follow the battle against the Crazy 88. In the script, there was such a sequence: Bill and the Bride were written to have an elaborate final battle with their katana on the beach at sunrise, the Bride in her wedding dress. But the film ran over schedule, and Weinstein ordered that it be completed in a hurry, so Tarantino whipped up a quicky solution to the conflict that is over nearly in the blink of an eye. We've waited anxiously for three and a half hours for her to kill Bill, and that's it? Granted, their total time together in this film, flashbacks included, is easily the most time she spends with any of the people on her hit list, so the "showdown" is prolonged. But it sure doesn't play like a culmination of what came before it. I shouldn't dwell on the negative just because I'm mad. This coulda, woulda, shoulda been a great movie, and that "Vol. 2" still a very good one is because of Tarantino's talents. Here he reaffirms his fading status as one of the most interesting screenwriters in the business, with dialogue that soars, runs, and crawls as needed, that can find valuable insights in unlikely sources, and that can even mock itself from time to time. Even when the characters make unbelieveable claims, such as when Bill says he reads comic books, they have been blessed with immense storytelling talent, and they're simply putting it to use whether they're telling the absolute truth or not. The dialogue is not just the engine driving this film, it's frequently the focal point, and Tarantino has a knack for making you grateful for his careful word choices. There are two other strong elements to the film. There's the pastiche aesthetic, but for all its strength, it seems more than a little put-on at times. The other is the aforementioned emotional resonance, as we finally learn why the Bride betrayed Bill and why Bill betrayed the Bride. Every accusation (including mine) that "Vol. 1" was only a pointless, empty series of battles now has its answer. These characters are not the wind-up action figures they seem on the surface; there's a remarkably tender dynamic between Bill and the Bride, played by the actors with generous attention to every line, and the requisite throwaway scenes hold a fascination all their own. If it seems strange that Tarantino spends so much time building up a character with dramatic scenes, only to have the character eliminated quickly with a too-brief action scene, ask yourself whether the point is the drama or the action. In fact, that's one reason I reject the pastiche aesthetic; the film is working so very well as drama that when it switches gears into chop-socky mode with the ridiculous kung-fu master, that comes as a jarring momentum-killer. I would have preferred the film throw out its homage elements and stick to straight drama and action, because there's obviously enough quality in those departments to sustain the whole film. Even with the silly throwback elements, even cut in half and robbed of the ending that it and we deserve, this remains one of the most soulful and best of modern action movies, a glorious marriage of style and, thanks to "Vol. 2," substance. –Scott Hardie
It's a shame that most people today have only encountered the legendary Ealing Studios comedies via the Coen Brothers' pallid, meandering remake of The Ladykillers, because they contain some of the blackest humor ever committed to film. Take this entry, for instance: Louis Mazzini (Dennis Price), the son of a noblewoman disowned for eloping with her Italian singing tutor, is so appalled by her fate -- burial in "a hideous suburban grave" -- that he determines to take back the title by eliminating the eight heirs in line before him. Price's cold-blooded narration -- at one point he complains that "It is so difficult to make a neat job of killing people with whom one is not on friendly terms" -- and his deliberately mannered performance are backbone enough for any movie. In a bravado gesture, all eight heirs are played, in a remarkable gender and age-defying feat, by Alec Guinness, one of the screen's great chameleons. This would be gimmick casting in lesser hands; Guinness convinces so thoroughly that the use of a single actor in the roles of every member of the D'Ascoyne line simply generates the sense of a family resemblance. Likewise, no ingenue has been more naively prim than Valerie Hobson's Edith, nor any femme fatale more sinisterly inviting than Joan Greenwood's cooing Sibella. That Louis is trapped between the two women, one of whom represents the social graces he desires and the other a cunning physicality he lusts for, merely adds to the wicked laughter the film inspires. –Kris Weberg • November 24 2006, 12:59am EST
This is a pretty dumb movie about pretty smart ideas. Too many rewrites left it crammed with inconsistencies and clichés, and the dialogue is laughably bad. But it has a great hook at the start, and stunning disaster scenes that belong in a better film. –Scott Hardie • August 30 2009, 1:27pm EST
This brief documentary is too short to provide much context, but it captures an amazing story with you-are-there authenticity. When Thor Heyerdahl's belief that South Americans settled the South Pacific was dismissed by historians as impossible because their primitive rafts wouldn't survive the voyage, he set out to make dramatic proof that it was possible: He built a raft using only the tools of the era, with no modern equipment aboard except a radio and movie camera, and set sail. This film was assembled from the footage and makes for a great adventure tale, a story of modern intellectuals versus the same elements that have battled mankind since ancient times. It's a special story and worth seeing. –Scott Hardie
Seeing this film and —Diary of a Mad Black Woman” so close together proved to me what I’d always suspected about that most damnable trait of a bad movie: Cartoonishness. Tyler Perry’s earnest drama wants us to take its characters seriously and be moved by them, but it fails because they’re plastic people existing in a sitcom-like cartoon reality. On the other hand, —Kung Fu Hustle” knows it’s a cartoon and deliriously embraces this trait, using CGI to escalate its martial-arts silliness to Looney Tunes extremes. At first the antics were mildly annoying, but it didn’t take long for the film’s high spirits to win me over, and by the end I was giddy with excitement at each new trick Stephen Chow managed to pull out of his hat. This is a movie for people who see a lot of movies, who love not being able to predict what crazy idea the filmmakers will come up with next, who enjoy a movie most when it is a labor of love rather than a commercial work made for the opening-weekend box office. Chow and his talented cast and crew, most particularly the CGI artists who stretch his characters out like old Plastic Man cartoons, had the time of their lives making this delightful wonder, and their fun is infectious as you watch it. It’s light-hearted, hallucinatory fun, a parade of increasingly clever sight gags and double-takes, and it’s some of the most fun you can have at the movies this year. Don’t miss it. –Scott Hardie
premise: An apartment-building super befriends a water nymph who washes up in his pool. M. Night Shyamalan has quite a chip on his shoulder. A victim of overnight success with The Sixth Sense and its famous twist ending, his earnest and more thoughtful followups like Unbreakable, Signs and especially The Village were booed for their gimmicks of "twist endings" that weren't twists at all, but integral parts of the story, as audiences missed the points he was trying to make. A turning point in his diminishing career, Lady in the Water indicates that he has become so bitter that he now thumbs his nose at audiences by giving them a boring, half-developed children's fable in the name of entertainment, hates critics by having one eviscerated by a monster as he declares it unrealistic, and considers himself a unheralded storytelling genius as evinced by his representative in the film, a raging egotist of a writer who could change the world for the better if everyone would just take him seriously. Shyamalan has clearly touch with a lot of things, first and foremost what makes an interesting story that carries your interest from scene to scene. From any other writer-director, this film would merely be a misbegotten mess, but from Shyamalan it shows how a modestly talented filmmaker can ruin himself by believing his own hype. –Scott Hardie • April 9 2008, 11:10pm EST
I take it from her Academy Award that Jolie is capable of acting, but she doesn't seem capable of any expression here at all, unable even to scrunch up her face when delivering a punch. Too much plastic surgery? Her laziness and disinterest characterize the whole film, which coasts on its few good ideas and exotic locations, but is riddled with needless plot holes and boring interpersonal conflict. I'm getting very tired of action spectacles with a grand sense of art direction but a half-ounce of care given to writing or acting. –Scott Hardie
All of the actors here strive to define their characters, but they must all bear the burden of terrible miscasting. Only McDormand breaks free to create a three-dimensional character, and only with hers could you have an interesting conversation. It’s a shame that the film didn’t focus more on its characters, where it had some potential for greatness, instead of laboring towards its plot's inevitable conclusion. Funny as some of the lines are (especially from Navilo), is there a single scene in this film that doesn’t serve primarily to further the plot? Warmth and humor help, but something big’s missing. –Scott Hardie
This headlong dive into a Maxim-like fantasy of London organized crime has impeccably good-looking people acting smart and, more importantly, acting cool, but gradually the actors find the humanity under their characters. Especially good are Daniel Craig as a man who has learned that swallowing his pride is essential to success in his business, and the ever-reliable Colm Meaney as his boss's hard-nosed messenger. The film isn't kind to its women, but it does pull off its macho-metrosexual blend fairly well, and earns several big laughs. It's a good choice for genre fans or anyone wondering whether Craig will make a good Agent 007 (on this evidence, yes). –Scott Hardie
Edward Norton creates two very different characters, a philosophy professor and his pot-farmer brother, in this genre-bending indie movie. But the film's real appeal is its thoughtful consideration of bigger issues: Love, faith, humanity, language, identity, courage. Various characters debate these topics openly and intelligently, like an Oklahoman version of Waking Life with a subplot about homicidal drug dealers. Its surrender to the necessity of plot is a weakness, especially during the obligatory showdown in a dark warehouse that feels phony, but most of the movie is refreshing food for thought; these characters have more on their minds than just the mundane details of their day. I discovered after seeing it that writer/director/co-star Tim Blake Nelson studied classical philosophy and even discussed it in press interviews, which is pleasant but not really a surprise. –Scott Hardie • January 25 2012, 9:41pm EST
God, being the indecisive omnipotent being that he is, decides to send a new messiah to earth, but then decides that instead of a savior, maybe it would be better to just destroy mankind (and audience) with poor dialoge and bad acting. –Erik Bates • May 31 2010, 1:08am EST • 1 reply
It's one of the most pleasing tales the movies can tell: Dedicated teacher overcomes bureaucratic obstacles and classroom hostility to unlock the hidden genius of his students and change their lives for the better. That's probably why it's been told so many times, and this version is gratifying but adds nothing new to the formula. It's been a tremendous hit in France, which is odd because it's exactly the sort of shallow, calculated product the French often accuse Hollywood of putting out, but there's no denying the joys of the film, which include some beautiful choral singing and no shortage of ingenious solutions when the teacher encounters resistance in the classroom. It's a big pleasure and I recommend it, but I wish it had been more ambitious. –Scott Hardie
It's too bad that everything about this movie (including the DVD cover) gives away its paranormal secret, since its slow, steady reveal is so good. More interested in its dark mood and character than any mere scares, this is a sophisticated horror movie. –Scott Hardie • April 1 2012, 10:37pm EST
I'm a stranger to the original Internet shorts, but whatever the subject matter, the phrase "the first feature film to be created entirely in Macromedia Flash" got my attention. I was impressed with the fluidness and forward momentum of the film, knowing that many of the individual shots had to have taken upwards of a day to create. It could have wound up playing a lot more disjointedly than it does. Whatever political-correctness alarms were going off in my head over the adaptation of parasitic, vicious monsters into loveable cartoon characters, I concede that the pimp is becoming an iconic figure in American trash culture, and the film is pleasantly enjoyable once you swallow that bitter pill. A few scenes induce big laughs, especially a violent commercial for an action figure, and the voice actors nail their material, in particular Lil' Kim and Jill Talley. It's too tasteless to recommend, but I can't say it didn't give me a few laughs. –Scott Hardie
The limits of indie quirk are tested in this anti-family film, where bizarre characters who couldn't exist in real life intersect and learn things and hug. It works in spite of itself due to a talented cast across the board, who nail their every scene. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:43am EST
premise: John McClane returns, older and even more grizzled, to battle high-tech terrorists in the Internet age. Somehow even stupider than the ads made it seem, this uninspired sequel-by-the-numbers vindicates every doubt that series fans expressed about director Len Wiseman, and vindicates every time Willis declined to waste his charisma on another retread of Standard Bruce Willis Action Movie. It's not boring – stuff gets blown up real good – but it's so married to the formula, you can predict what font they'll use for the closing credits. The portrayal of computer technology is ridiculous even by Hollywood's crazy standards, and that says nothing of the portrayal of the limits of the human body: McClane is thrown many stories through the air and slammed into concrete walls, and he just gets up and keeps going, apparently having completed his evolution from blue-collar everyman to Looney Tunes drawing. What made the previous Die Hard movies so popular and enduring was not Willis's charm or the explosions, but the elevation of the material into something greater than a genre picture. The first took a high concept and ran with it, inventing the action-movie formula that has become a cliché since. The second worked its way through a labyrinthine plot that made the defeat of the villains seem like a Herculean achievement instead of inevitable. The third was determined to keep the audience guessing, with puzzles and unpredictable turns of the plot. But the fourth? Like Wiseman's abominable Underworld movies, it's perfectly content to stick to the formula and be just like every other predictable bore that preceded it, devoid of ambition. Movie-making is damn hard work, so Willis is right to ask why he should waste his time making something that isn't good. Willis, and McClane, deserve better. –Scott Hardie • December 22 2007, 1:03am EST
Murray has always had a tragic-clown undercurrent to his comedy, so it’s not as much of a stretch for him to disappear inside this sad character as it was for, say, Jack Nicholson in —About Schmidt.” He is, however, the perfect embodiment of this tired tv star, able to turn on his potent charisma like a light switch but mostly too melancholy to bother. Coppola plays his wit against Johansson’s intelligence and femininity to create a fascinating relationship; we could listen to these weary two talk for hours. Though bordering on pretension, Coppola’s film is good-hearted enough to make us care. –Scott Hardie
This film is reminiscent of last year's "May" for its exploration of a morbid sexual fetish in the terms of a cinematic genre. What gives this film a tremendous boost are its artistic aspirations, with a score of rich classical music and a d.p. who likes to play with film grain and repeated imagery. There's no denying the high degree of professional polish on this low-budget indie shocker, but look past the surface and you see a film that is only feigning confidence in the material; the cheap jokes and contrived scenarios are cracks in the wall, with the obnoxious detective and his 18 bullets being especially incongruous. But there's a very good film here for most of its running time, with a commanding lead performance by Desmond Harrington (I loved his nervousness when offering to write a manual for free), and willingness to consider his fetish and its consequences from numerous perspectives. This is a must-see for fans of the psychological thriller. (Ignore the Netflix description that misrepresents the plot.) –Scott Hardie
I enjoyed this unshowy drama from start to finish, even if it did seem to run long. Here are six actors who have perfected their roles onstage, and are able to communicate years of friendship together; they communicate as much in body language as dialogue. John Glover won a Tony for his dual role and I can see why; the two brothers are such totally different characters that it becomes striking how much alike they look. I laughed the most at Jason Alexander's self-conscious queen, who endures his disease with gallows humor, but the material is known not for its laughs but for its gentle compassion and its honest depiction of eight gay friends dealing with the spectre of AIDS in thoughtful ways. For those who would identify it's a must-see; for the rest of us, it's merely a pleasant rental. –Scott Hardie
If the experiment is not a total success, at least we admire its ambition. On the centennial of the film camera's invention, forty famous directors used it to create new films. They had to work under the same conditions as its inventors: One continuous shot of 52 seconds, a maximum of three takes, no synchronous sound, and no artificial lighting. Most of the directors used their film to honor cinema as a concept, and the documentary about the project eggs them on by asking them "Why do you film?" and "Is cinema mortal?" (Too many directors don't have answers to those questions and only shrug, which makes you wonder if the pretentious answers given by the artistes are only made up.) Some of these metacinematic shorts wound up being interesting, such as Claude Lelouch's demonstration that film technology changes but subject matter doesn't, or Kiju Yoshida's jab at the aforementioned artistes by showing the limitations of what nonfiction film is capable of recording. Theo Angelopoulos's striking segment shows Ulysses waking up in a strange land and making his most bizarre encounter (us), while Merchant/Ivory show us a McDonald's attracting customers on what would otherwise be a European street unchanged since the 19th century. David Lynch's segment is the most ambitious, celebrating Hollywood's power to create fully-realized fiction (his is the only segment to deal with Hollywood at all), while Yimou Zhang playfully contrasts royal Chinese tradition with silly Americana, with help from Kurt Cobain. Other films sadly come across as a waste of time. Too many of them show us people staring at the camera for an extended period, or doing nothing of consequence like waving at a train or nursing a baby. Others get metacinematic by showing a camera filming us, which would be more interesting if nearly a fourth of the directors on the project hadn't thought of the exact same thing. The worst projects are the ones that reveal no planning, as the directors simply filmed the first thing that came to mind, though Spike Lee does get a laugh out of what must have amounted to two minutes of brainstorming. For some the 52 seconds are not enough, but for a disappointingly high number of the director, 52 seconds wind up being too many, as they don't approach the project with sufficient interest to film something worthwhile. Could you believe that segments drag on, finished at the 30-second or 40-second mark, because the rules of the challenge demand a 52-second take? People staring motionlessly at the camera is no more interesting the eighth time than the first. There's interesting material here if you're willing to sit patiently through the boring stuff to get to it. What should have been an illumination of the progress of cinema instead becomes an illumination of how some directors are too lazy or busy to devote themselves to a one-day project, but are all too happy to act like important cineastes when interviewed. Though most of the directors on the list are predominantly European and have no name recognition for American viewers, look up each one's filmography and you'll see that almost all have created films that we recognize (at least that was the case for me). In the end, the results of this experiment were not nearly as interesting as they should have been, but it produced enough worthwhile material to get you thinking all the same. –Scott Hardie
This upbeat documentary about a ballroom-dancing course taught to fifth graders across New York City is charming and sure to appeal to anyone who likes kids, and on that basis, I would recommend it to some. But one single word in the opening narration ruined it for me personally: "Mandatory." This program is compulsory for 6,000 poor, innocent children who don't deserve to be forced to dance in step with one another, usually in front of a city-wide audience at an annual competition and now in front of documentary filmmakers as well. Watching the movie, I had nothing but painful flashbacks to my own mandatory dancing classes growing up and how, like most of the kids, I hated every second of it. It's one thing to push the kids who sign up for this kind of thing voluntarily, but the principal who openly berates her slow-learning students because she wants the elusive trophy comes across as nothing but a soft-spoken drill instructor. The only value I see to the competition is teaching kids how to cope with defeat; likewise, the only value I see for the kids in this documentary is learning that sometimes you're made to look like a fool for other people's bemusement. –Scott Hardie
premise: The New York zoo animals leave Madagascar only to land in a game preserve in Africa. So this month's movie took us to one of Magic Johnson's theaters. The same Magic Johnson of NBA and AIDS contraction fame. I really admire his efforts to bring renewal to various urban locations and this particular theater seems to be helping in those matters here. We brought our two girls, our wayward son, and our niece's 10 month old toddler who we were babysitting. Just the right group to benefit from a movie showing targeted at an autistic audience. With this large a group, it helps my wallet that the tickets are reduced price for these showings. There was a table full of autism awareness literature and home-made crafts for sale like earrings, ribbons and greeting cards in an autism theme at the entrance to the theater we were in. Just enough time to get them settled and a trip to the snack bar. It's dificult to be sure that anything bought at the snack bar is gluten-free so we tend to bring snacks with us and nobody complains. In line in front of me was Funny Lookin' Kid 1 who couldn't decide between plain and peanut M & M's. He was debating with FLK2, apparently a younger sibling, who threatened a tantrum if his M &M's had peanuts in them. This was merely my interpretation of their grunts and glaring. They could have been discussing global warming for all I know. Two verbally uncommunicative kids doing their best to make their intentions known. As their argument became louder and more demonstrative, Mom showed up to save the day and they settled for Whoppers. Go figure. So I get my stuff and head back to the theater to find FLK1 and FLK2 sitting right in front of me. It served as a reminder of why these showings are important and despite the distraction for me, I took pleasure in my tolerance of their autistic behavior. The best joke of the movie happened during the opening credits when the Dreamworks logo of the young boy fishing from a crescent moon gets mugged by the movie penguins who steal his fishing rod and reel in dinner. The movie goes steadily but not sharply downhill from there. The same animals from the first film are all represented again with the same voice actors. The same relationship details are replayed: Melman the giraffe expresses unrequited love for Gloria the hippo; Alex the lion is still egotistically concerned with how events effect only himself; King Julien is remarkably monomaniacal; and Chris Rock gets to say 'crack-a-lackin' several times. And there's the rub. What's diferent about this movie from the first one? Oh, yeah. We get introduced to Alex's parents who lost their cub from a game preserve by poachers. Yawn. The penguins are used just right. I would probably enjoy a film exclusively devoted to them but maybe not. Their limited screen time may have lent to my appreciation of their antics. What I could have done with a lot less was kung-fu granny and Sacha Baron Cohen's King Julien. Annoying little bastard. Cedric the Entertainer was sadly wasted as a monkey flunky with little addition to the movie but will.i.am was an inspired choice to voice another egotistical animal, this one an amorous hippo. The conflict was a stupidly transparent lift of the Lion King conflict of rightful king, jealous rival for the throne, clever plan to use the child to usurp the throne, miserable failure of unrightful king when given opportunity to rule, rescue from imminent death (lack of water this time instead of food), banished son returning to save the day. The differences (there were a few, of course), just didn't seem numerous enough to outweigh the notion that constantly crept into my mind: Haven't I seen this somewhere before? If I were Disney, I'd consider litigation. The kids loved it but Dad was very lukewarm. –Steve West • November 22 2008, 6:11pm EST
You don't need my recommendation to see this cultural phenomenon (it has already inspired the usual tug-of-war over family values), but that's just as well because you're not quite going to get it. The film is satisfying because there's only so much you could ever want to know about emperor penguins, and the movie reaches that point two-thirds of the way through its running time. I believe that it succeeds so well because it exhausts such a limited subject, but while I can criticize its artistic limitations, I can also admit that it's a pleasure to watch. This footage captures what humans have wondered ever since the flightless bird was first spotted, how in the hell it can breed and raise its young in such a brutal environment. The answer is filmed with crisp photography that frequently shows the birds down to their individual feathers, and also astounding, as we learn how these birds literally do not eat for months as they incubate their eggs. If you see the movie, forget the talking heads and simply lose yourself in the elegant compexity of nature. –Scott Hardie
[Spoilers.] Takashi Shimizu's criticism of the recent fad of J-horror flicks (The Ring, The Grudge, Dark Water, The Eye, Pulse) has an honorable premise: Attack the audience, not the industry. His hero, a documentarian captures a suicide on camera and becomes obsessed with the grisly footage, rewinding it over and over while we're forced to watch over his shoulder as Shimizu condemns our bloodlust. When the hero journeys into subterranean caverns to find more horrors, he brings a pretty woman back with him, but she turns out to have a taste for his blood, and Shimizu seems to be shouting a warning about allowing this kind of psychological disturbance into our mainstream culture and shared consciousness. Or at least, that's what I presume his argument was, since to me it seemed like he was criticizing the J-horror genre for being incredibly boring. His hero wanders and wanders and wanders to the point where we expect the end credits to start rolling he's been gone so long, and he stares so long and hard at his video monitors that we want to plead for mercy from Shimizu for ever wanting to watch a movie in our lives. The pace accurately captures the mindset of this lonely, cautious man, but it fails to entertain and needed a longer development phase. (The movie was made in nine days.) Just because a movie challenges the mind doesn't mean it has to bore the spirit. –Scott Hardie
premise: The life of Marie-Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst) and her marriage to Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman), told with a few modern touches. Directed by Sofia Coppola. Like her contemporary Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola's movies are beginning to seem alike, no matter how much she changes the setting. Here's another story of an intelligent, high-spirited young woman bored by the men in her life and trapped in a luxurious, comfortable, and totally lifeless environment. Pity she doesn't have a filmmaking career to work out her upper-class demons like Coppola does. I kid. Really, I like all of Coppola's innovations here, from focusing so closely on life in Versailles that we understand Marie-Antoinette's royal perspective, to slipping in modern music and props that breathe new life into an aging story. It's a gorgeous movie, set in a world of opulence unequalled by any in our imaginaton; had this been filmed on sets instead of the real palace, they would have won an Oscar. And yet there's a familiarity to it, a lack of excitement, perhaps partly due to how many years Coppola spent preparing this movie before the cameras rolled. It's a good movie with elements of greatness. –Scott Hardie • October 20 2007, 10:34pm EST
If there were some colorful new superlative that had not yet been employed to praise the documentaries of Ken Burns, Mark Twain might be able to think of it, but I can't. This is one of Burns's best films, painstakingly crafted and ceaselessly riveting. –Scott Hardie • January 27 2012, 8:53pm EST
With only a few worthwhile moments buried in a huge, smoking dogpile of inconceivability, this film ranks as one of the poorest I've seen. Instantaneous knowledge of the complex workings of futuristic equipment abounds. It's visual remarkableness is heavily outweighed by it's stunning lack of likeability. –Steve West • March 13 2011, 9:00am EST
How well this film communicates the difficult but often thrilling life aboard such a ship is a great accomplishment, but its greatest is getting us so engaged with so many characters in such short time. The most underdeveloped is sadly the captain himself, as his best scenes are there to build up the characters around him, but Crowe’s abundant presence makes it seem as if he’s three-dimensional anyway. This is an exuberant action film of many emotions (perhaps the most moving of 2003’s cerebral blockbusters), but thematically it’s just as interested in seeing what brings out the best in humanity. –Scott Hardie
Every director wants to be Hitchcock. Woody Allen gives it his best shot with this twisting thriller about an affair and its cover-up, and he hits the right notes throughout. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is great as a man who never thought he'd do these things. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:47am EST
Setting aside the silly controversy over humanizing Hitler (he was human), this fictional tale of 'what might have been' is hit-or-miss in effect. Me, I was taken in by its pensiveness and clarity, but others might be bored stiff. The most electrifying element is Hitler the public speaker; Noah Taylor is ablaze with hate in those scenes. The extreme camera angles are tiresome and the irony does get heavy-handed, but this remains a fine, thoughtful film about our strange capacity to reject human kindness. See it and think. –Scott Hardie
It would give you some sense of this film's oddball sense of humor to learn that the craft services guy contributed a commentary track to the DVD. The best element of this smart variation on the slasher genre is the loving attention to detail, especially by Bettis, who creates limitless nuance with her voice and body language. She's helped by a good cast that's in on the joke and loving it. I must complain about the excessive symbolism and foreshadowing; the film seems determined to spoil its own good surprises. –Scott Hardie
Put Happiness, Ghost World, and Lost in Translation into a blender, and it starts to look like this loopy 2005 indie comedy, often mislabeled as a drama. It's laugh-out-loud funny in some parts, and endearingly sweet in others. –Scott Hardie • January 31 2012, 7:49pm EST • 1 reply
premise: In a time of ages past, there was an ancient warrior civilization known as Sparta... Take on 300 Well... it sucked. It was nice to have Kevin Sorbo in it, and the latent homosexuality 'real fans of genius' song was cool, but that was about it. I'm glad that this was only a Library loaner and that I did not have to waste money on this. Almost all the jokes were crude and revolved around sex. Sure, sexual jokes can be funny, but I watch parodies because I at least want something witty from time to time in my humor, not just 'lets see how many ways we can fit britney and sex into this.' The pit of death was funny at the beginning, but after a while it just dragged on an became too repetitive. I suppose this would be a decent movie to invite a bunch of buddies over to see so that everyone could make fun of the lameness of it all. Hmm,,, "Meet the Parents, Pirates of the Caribbean" I did not see any of this in there. I saw too many American Idol refs though. –Lori Lancaster • November 16 2008, 6:35am EST
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] Movies like this are why December is my favorite month at the cineplex. It's a gorgeous, lavishly-created adaptation of a classy piece of literature, with some showy acting performances and grand waves of melodrama. As long as it doesn't take itself too seriously – this one has a generous and self-depricating sense of humor – it's some of the best entertainment movies can offer, letting us inhabit other people's lives, great lives, the same way a novel does. The critics weren't kind, but I found it to be a moving story with great villainess, still resonating in my heart weeks later. But what I loved most about it was Dion Beebe's rich cinematography: Nearly every shot was a complex play of light, color, and detail, giving the film the look of a painting. (example) It's the kind of movie where if you happen to pause it, you wind up studying the screen, admiring the composition. I'd love it even if it didn't include a fan-service reference to that Ang Lee movie with which it shares its lead actresses. –Scott Hardie • September 24 2006, 9:24pm EST
I've read highly complimentary reviews of this documentary from non-fans of all sorts, who insist that knowledge of Metallica is unnecessary to appreciate the sight of these inimitable rock icons allowing viewers into their therapy sessions and other humiliating moments in their by-now depressing lives. That's a plenty accurate conclusion, and I reluctantly recommend this doc to other non-fans on the strength of that information. But speaking as a fan, as someone who watched every doc the band has made and worn out every CD of theirs he owns and screamed his lungs out at their concerts, I was frequently bored by this documentary because it doesn't dig deeper into these men, nor does it rock to fill in the gaps. If you thought Dave Mustaine's misty-eyed admission that he still wishes he was in the band was the high point of the film, watch Megadeth's episode of Behind The Music; it's far more penetrating and emotionally raw than this lifeless lump of footage, with a subject being far more critical about themselves. If you enjoyed the moments when Metallica clicked and each song finally came together and the music sounded great, rent their A Year and a Half in the Life of doc about the making of their 1991 album; it shows these rock icons at the peak of their creative focus and talent, successfully portraying them as flawed human beings who also happen to be hard-rock masters, while being funny and touching and lively and totally engaging, everything this flat bore is not. I liked the album "St. Anger," but it's a shapeless mess and an underachievement, two things I could also say about its making-of documentary. Perhaps on its own this doc is interesting, but after so many better movies about the band, its a minor film. –Scott Hardie
The last time Michael Mann turned one of his tv projects into a feature film, it resulted in Heat, one of the smartest and slickest crime pictures the genre has seen. Miami Vice instead seems like Mann-by-numbers: There's the gloss, the attention to detail, the vivid locations, and the belief in the audience's intelligence. But it's missing a center, as if the inspiration stopped at the title, with a typical action-thriller plot borrowed from the textbook. In interviews Mann said he wanted to probe into the psyches of undercover agents and why they put their lives and loves at risk, but by all indications he completely failed, probing more deeply into their shower and hair-combing routines. Circumstances forced an improvised ending, but the film is a mess long before it gets there, albeit a pretty mess. –Scott Hardie • February 19 2007, 6:19pm EST
When I see a mediocre movie and I'm upset about it afterwards, that's usually a reflection of wasted potential. None of these actors are bad (John Travolta actually works fairly hard), but they simply cannot find the rhythm to make this material work. The movie alternates between scenes of glaringly obvious intentions (watch out for that truck little doggie!) and bizarre lulls in which we, and indeed the film itself, cannot guess what effect it wants to achieve. It also makes for such a comprehensive study of film clichés that screenwriting students could use it as a reference guide. I could go on and on with gripes (why does it take them three days to drive from Iowa to Chicago? what does Andie MacDowell see in William Hurt? why do the DVD cast credits list birth-and-death dates for the actors when all of them were still living at the time? why can't Randy Newman let twenty seconds of screen time pass without introducing more blaring country music on the soundtrack?), but the movie has its charms. There are several big laughs, more than one of them at the expense of tabloid newspapers, and its weird charm works largely to the efforts of John Travolta. I rented it to see Robert Pastorelli one last time and was disappointed that he didn't get to deliver any jokes (who in the hell casts Robert Pastorelli as the straight man to William Hurt?), but I did not regret seeing it. It's a pleasant waste of time. –Scott Hardie
I rented this "modern pirate story" after a friend told me tales of working at the studio during filming. (Basically: Ned Beatty was super-nice; Faye Dunaway stayed in her trailer the whole time.) It's entertaining enough, but overlong, given to too many plot twists that make no sense and exist only for their own sake. If you can last through the avalanche of transparent exposition in the first act, I give it a marginal recommendation for the adventure elements, and for another classy performance by Ms. Dunaway in a trashy role. –Scott Hardie
[I am careful as always to avoid spoilers, but as this film has a highly charged final act, you're best off not reading anything about it in advance. Go out and see this very good film before someone spoils it for you.] Clint Eastwood has gradually become the Ernest Hemingway of tough old directors, turning out pictures that have no spare dialogue, no spare moments, and no spare symbolism. The only style here is lean efficiency. That filmmaking method suits brainless Hollywood blockbusters, and if Eastwood were interested in them he could probably make a pretty damn good one. But being naked and being empty are two different things: There are strong moral themes running through Eastwood's films; he has asked the same question here in "Unforgiven" and "Mystic River" and other films. The commentators who knee-jerked into accusing this film of having a political agenda have missed the point because they have objectified one of the main characters, thinking that Eastwood is dealing with the character's condition instead of the character's request. (In other words, the condition exists only as a plot point to set up the request, which is the real level at which the film is thinking, and the level at which we should be responding to it.) If I understand Eastwood as a filmmaker, the what in his movies exists only so he can ponder the how, the question of how his characters keep arriving at the decision that they do. It's a question that obviously fascinates him, and by now it would probably bore us if he were not a storyteller of considerable talent and certainty. The film has its weaknesses — they call it "classical," I call it "clichéd" — but it is not a difficult film to watch, that's for sure. Eastwood finds the anticipated (and very funny) punchlines in the banter between the headstrong athlete and the reluctant trainer, and he provides the usual satisfaction inherent to the arc of a sports movie. It is also evocatively photographed, frequently hiding portions of the characters' bodies in shadow as they speak, forcing us sometimes to consider the words independently of the speaker. It's a fulfilling, well-acted, self-confident film, exactly the sort of professionalism that has become the hallmark of Eastwood the director. Those who enjoy his films, and there are few who do not, should not miss his fine new one. I hope they are allowed to make up their own minds about it. –Scott Hardie
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] Two brothers find a bag full of money and debate whether to give it to the poor or spend wildly. I lost count; is this Standard Hollywood Plot #8 or #9? It doesn't really matter anyway when a film is told with this much charm and style. Danny Boyle and Frank Cottrell Boyce evoke the world as seen by a nine-year-old boy who counts Catholic saints as his playmates: With a lot of imagination. One sequence has a house rise up from the ground board-by-board around the boys as they picture a new house; another loses them in a sea of schoolchildren as they feel lost in their new school. The younger boy spends the film wondering whether his mother went to Heaven, and to reinforce it, shot after shot looks down on him from above, including a delightful sequence where he wanders room to room and the camera passes through walls as it follows him through the house. The film's Expressionism also allows it to link themes together: After the younger boy is cast as Joseph in the school play and runs away on a journey similar to Joseph's, he remains lit by a spotlight as if he's still on stage, further suggesting that the film's reality as we see it is largely a product of his imagination. All the neat visual tricks up Boyle's sleeve wouldn't amount to much if the film wasn't also an enormous pleasure to watch, like the emotional equivalent of a loving hug from a child. It's full of life, and takes as much joy in its traditional British wit as in its CGI sight gags and playful synthesizer score by John Murphy. When the young boy gets a big goofy grin on his face, so do we, partly because the film is so good at putting us in his mindset and partly because he's just plain adorable. The only place where the film's originality falls short is in its villain, a vaguely sinister criminal who shows up every fifteen minutes to make the same threats over and over; less of him would have meant more of the boys (or the saints) and a better film. Besides, the movie finds a much better conflict between the brothers themselves, as the younger one struggles to do what he thinks is the good Christian deed despite the other's warnings to hoard the cash. Viewed as a family film, it's so entertaining you hardly notice what a great children's morality play it is, but adults will enjoy it on a deeper level, appreciating how many rules it breaks as it retells one of the most reliably entertaining yarns in the movies. –Scott Hardie • September 24 2006, 9:26pm EST
If, like me, you expect to see rousing sports entertainment and unashamed American patriotism by renting this film, you'll probably be as satisfied as I was. It's not really about the game (the cinematography is rarely showy), and it's not really about the players (the screenplay sees almost all of them as generic amateurs). It focuses its attention on coach Herb Brooks, a wise decision as his adversarial coaching method is the most interesting story here. Kurt Russell has done an admirable job of maturing from a hungry-eyed young bad-ass into a weary-eyed middle-aged bad-ass, and he plays Brooks with the attention to performance that the man himself used in the locker room. The only significant misstep is the underuse of Patricia Clarkson, who is cast as the billionth wife-who-wants-her-husband-to-come-to-bed in a sports movie, or any movie about male competitiveness; it's apparently impossible that she might actually support her husband in his obviously important and difficult endeavor. Anyway, "Miracle" is a good rental for Memorial Day or any day; it's an exciting film that sidelines the sports action in favor of its interesting protagonist instead of the other way around. –Scott Hardie
premise: In a film by Dave McKean, Neil Gaiman, and the Jim Henson Company, a teenager disappears into a bizarre fantasy world that needs her help. Here's a fantasy movie for people who thought Labyrinth was too plain. Inhabiting a dream landscape far richer and stranger than anyone's subconscious could actually invent, this adventure tale combines CGI, puppets, paintings, drawings, and live action to create a gorgeous production that continues to reveal astonishing new sights all the way through its ending. It finds emotional power in its story about a teenager breaking free from her parents, even if the characters are thinly-developed. It's too bad this film didn't find a larger audience; it's hard to imagine anyone not being charmed by its many imaginative surprises. –Scott Hardie • March 25 2008, 11:00pm EST
premise: A woman who has always wanted a baby finds out she only has a few days left to conceive. For bad-movie junkies like me, Heather Graham is the most reliable actress in Hollywood. Just when this movie seems at last to be getting its act together and becoming remotely watchable, bam! It stumbles again! Another tasteless joke, another forced plot device, another annoying line reading. This is a brainless sitcom apparently lacking a script, in which the actors hem and haw their way through what seems like mumbled improv. Forget cracking jokes spontaneously; this cast can't even make it through entire sentences, as if they've all suffered recent blows to the head, especially semi-stoned best-friend Mia Kirshner. Their slow-witted blankness is offset by the cartoonishly hyper musical score, which keeps playing its little heart out in an attempt to carry the disastrous film all by itself. Graham has one genuinely moving moment in her acting, in an inevitable burst of emotion late in the film (notice the score try to outdo her), but otherwise she's as dull and talentless as ever, changing in and out of her British accent like a costume. She's not just a bad actress; she consistently chooses some of the worst star vehicles in the direct-to-market movie business. Her name on the DVD case has become a promise that the film is going to suck, and she doesn't disappoint with this film. –Scott Hardie • December 14 2008, 8:10pm EST • 1 reply
I've seen voyeuristic exploitation. This is not voyeuristic exploitation. "Monster" (the true story of Aileen Wuornos) digs into the sordid life of its serial-killing prostitute heroine with an unflinching eye, but unlike "Dahmer" and "Ed Gein" and other films of the burgeoning little subgenre, it is genuinely interested in its protagonist's soul and not just the demons that torment her. I'd call this film closer to "Boys Don't Cry" in its empathetic portrait of a doomed, ugly life. The best scenes are, understandably, the love scenes. They reach that certain magical exuberance to which most romantic films aspire but only one or two a year achieve. I expect this to be the only film I ever see in which the most uplifting scene is accomplished with a Journey song. The scenes in which Wuornos kills her johns are repetitive and mostly boring; I take that as indication that the director's heart wasn't in them. Mine sure isn't. I have watched plenty of scenes of someone murdering someone else, but I have never watched a woman quite like Aileen Wuornos. The scenes where she desperately tries to calm the gathering storm in her lover's worried eyes are the best. The film has gotten the most attention for its acting, and rightfully so. Theron's performance has been praised far and wide, and indeed she embodies this unique, bizarre creature utterly and completely. There is never a moment, a nanosecond, when we can see the actress behind the character. The effect is that Wuornos, who was of course a fascinating real person, becomes a real person on screen instead of a character, a vehicle for the plot or actress. Watching Theron's viruoso scenes in this film, it occurred to me that I've been wrong to disapprove of acting-showcase scenes in ambitious films; those moments when the film stops so that the actor or actress can deliver a wrenching monologue perfectly timed for a clip in the Academy Awards broadcast. When a rock song stops so that the guitarist or drummer can play a solo, does that cheapen the song by stroking the musician's ego? No, not usually; it's as much about singular effect as it is about taking a moment to recognize the supreme talent of the musician. When "Monster" stops periodically for a monologue from Theron, it is not to say "wow, lookit dat girl act!" but to achieve an effect that it has gone to great lengths to set up. I don't know if this is one of the greatest performances in film history (unlike the man who said it I'm not qualified to say), but it is one of the greatest performances I have ever witnessed. To me, the controversial performance is Christina Ricci. There are two schools of thought on her unconvincingly line deliveries: That Ricci is simply not good enough to handle the material, or that she is correctly playing a character who is lying and not very good at it. I'm inclined to believe the second, but I admit the possibility of the first. Regardless, when Ricci's authenticity cracks and we can clearly glimpse the actress at work, it hurts the scene. Of the other actors, the johns are particularly good in their brief scenes, and it was a treat to see an actor who so frequently plays serial killers himself here play victim to one (though I suppose he already did in "Natural Born Killers"). Other comments: How did Selby's mother-figure recognize that Aileen was a prostitute, in the approximately one second they saw each other? Necessary for the plot, yes, but hard to believe. Also, I was disappointed to see another cliché of films about doomed, downtrodden lives, when the victim has the car window down and is making waves in the rushing air with her hand. As a symbol of daydreaming about freedom (flying away as a bird?), it has been just about exhausted by now. I recommend "Monster" absolutely. It's one of the best films of 2004. The lead performance makes it a must-see, but the high it generates in its best scenes is a valuable experience in itself. If it is not too late for you, see this film in a movie theater! Do not wait for the DVD! I say this because the soundtrack needs to encompass you, and the giant screen needs the tiny nuances of Toni G's makeup and Charlize Theron's expressions to give you the full effect of the main character's face. No matter how or where you see this film, do see it; it's remarkable. –Scott Hardie
I would rate this higher but it scared my daughter. She still enjoyed it but animated films lately are geared more toward adults and not kids. I thought it was hilarious. Hugh Laurie shines as Dr. Cockroach and Bob the Ooze is predictable but funny. –Steve West • April 11 2009, 1:28pm EST
It seems silly a year later to even try to reflect on last summer's action-comedy hit, since it has inspired both an upcoming tv sitcom (even though it itself was based on a failed tv sitcom) and a Hollywood supercouple who would seem weird if Tom and Katie weren't around. But the movie is a nutty little entertainment and easy to like, coasting by on Brad Pitt's one-liners and some fantastic sets. It's about as good as $110-million comedy with two giant stars can be, which is to say, we're lucky any wit from the original script survived. It's not a good movie, but it's a fun one. –Scott Hardie • August 13 2006, 5:40pm EST • 1 reply
If prizes were given out for good intentions, Spielberg's latest might deserve Best Picture. While carefully avoiding partisanship for either side, he shows the origins of the modern era of middle-eastern conflict, that eternal circle of eye for an eye for an eye, and in doing so suggests that simple revenge is no kind of policy for a nation attacked. It's a lesson still relevant decades later, and Spielberg applies his usual technical brilliance and richness of detail to make it seem fresh, but isn't this movie just a little too smart to score such a simple point? Given the pedigree, I expected a plunge into the depths of human regret over violence wrongfully inflicted and the psychological effects of being an assassin, but the analysis stayed on the surface and the story moved on to increasingly unrealistic turns, such as when the hero empathizes with the slain Olympic athletes on an individual level that has nothing to do with him, his work, or the movie. Something more and deeper and better could have come of this. Perhaps good ambition doesn't go hand in hand with good intention? –Scott Hardie • February 4 2007, 12:49am EST
premise: Parodies of great fictional detectives work together to solve a dinner-party murder. Starring Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers, Eileen Brennan, Maggie Smith, Truman Capote, Peter Falk, David Niven, James Cromwell, James Coco, Elsa Lanchester, and more. Some ideas work much better on paper. Neil Simon dreamed up a spoof of whodunits where the world's greatest detectives compete to solve a murder when they're all invited together at dinner. But Simon has nothing but contempt for his subject, painting some of the sharpest characters in genre literature as imbeciles and presenting them with an unsolvable mystery that breaks laws of physics and whose solution could be revealed any of ten different ways because it doesn't really matter. Worst of all is his treatment of Charlie Chan: To call the antiquated detective a racist caricature is valid, but to go over the top with such an ugly, offensive portrayal is a real turn-off. This movie started with a great premise and one hell of an awesome cast, and wastes them with such withering contempt for the material that it should never have been filmed in the first place. –Scott Hardie • March 29 2008, 12:32am EST • 1 reply
Horror movies with this kind of setup are a dime a dozen. While "My Little Eye" ultimately doesn't transcend its premise, it scores a lot of points for rising above it. This is an arthouse-dweller's horror film, excelling in unnecessary disciplines, especially the cinematography. While most of the shots are on grainy video in poor lighting on a small, redundant set, photographer Hubert Taczanowski and editor Marguerite Arnold find limitless possibilities with camera placement and sound synching, such as one fascinating sequence when one character is seemingly summoned by an off-camera orchestral. The cameras fit the plot and were probably chosen for budgetary reasons, but never do they feel like a crutch or a handicap; instead they liberate the film to try new things. Another word about that set: It's a house especially built for the film, and it's clear how much careful planning went into the layout and appearance. This is not the kind of clean, orderly movie house that it seems like no one lives in, nor is it the kind of ultra-grungy nightmare house that one would live in (see "The Blair Witch Project"). Besides it looking plausibly like someplace these characters would have lived for six months, it functions so well for so many shots, especially the hallway shots and the window shots, that by the end we know it inside out; we know for instance what route one character would have to take to escape. That kind of achievement isn't unheard of, but I choose to mention it here. The screenplay is the most interesting element, simultaneously the film's biggest strength and biggest weakness. It is a strength in the dialogue: Frequently fascinating, playful, and unexpectedly thoughtful, the conversations in this film almost always strike the precise note needed for the scene, tilting our loyalties from one character to the next as each one seizes control of the discussion. The premise is ridiculous when you think about it, but the dialogue never treats it as such; the characters are aware of the gaping holes in the logic of their predicament, sincerely kick themselves for getting into it, and then reasonably talk themselves into staying; this isn't the kind of horror movie where the victims only stay in the killer's presence because the plot requires them to do so. Sadly, the plot is the film's weakness, as it only truly appears in the third and final act, and by then is an unwelcome intruder. This film got by so well for so long on only its dialogue and intriguing photography that when the murders began in earnest and the film felt compelled to explain the truth behind the situation, I felt disappointed. Like Wendigo two years ago, it should have freed itself from the requirements of its genre and the need for exposition, and pursued a deeper truth than whodunit. (Another notable failure of the script is the character development, which is virtually nonexistent. Five characters were mentioned at the start, but two of them were so blank that I thought they were the same character for most of the film.) This film isn't for everybody. Fans of traditional horror films may think it doesn't have enough exposition or action, while art film fans may agree with me that it had too much. And espite some inventiveness in the department, it's not an easy film at which to look, because of the nature of its photography. (Would you want to watch 90 minutes of webcam footage?) Still, I recommend it for most viewers, certainly those who still think there's potential in a slasher-amongst-us premise but have grown bored of the same-old. Don't be expecting a commentary on our voyeuristic culture (this film was written before "Big Brother" entered the world), but do expect an engaging thriller of above-average intelligence and some genuine chills. –Scott Hardie
Hiyao Miyazaki's attention to detail and sense of character continue to charm after all these years. I'm surprised that his most beloved movie is among his least substantial, but I liked it a lot. The musical theme by Jô Hisaishi is a deserving classic. –Scott Hardie • July 24 2011, 3:57pm EST
[Ending spoilers ahead.] I never thought I'd be so disappointed in a film designed to illustrate Nietzsche's best-known quote. It's well-acted, sure, and in the early scenes it seems to be going somewhere. But it spends its middle act going around in circles, and by the time it tries to pull a surprise ending on you by revealing two characters to be total frauds, you get the distinct feeling it thinks it's smarter than it is. What's the point here? That the most self-righteous born-agains are sometimes pretending? That the rich use the poor and throw them away? They could have called this "My Summer of Duh." –Scott Hardie
It’s no surprise that Eastwood doesn’t care about the whodunit details of the murder even as he expertly reveals the solution. He also certainly doesn’t care about style, though he gets that right too. This film is whole-heartedly about its themes, most centrally the theme of loyalty, and it’s one of the best meditations on the subject in recent cinema. Incongruous elements, such as detective Bacon’s seeming obliviousness, all finally make sense (or not) in a smartly ambiguous ending that forces you to think it over. The acting quality goes without saying. There’s even room for a criticism of gentrification. –Scott Hardie
Your enjoyment of this film may depend entirely on your ability to recognize the characters. Many of us have been (or known) this unique kind of social misfit, and many of us haven't. Being a member of the first group, I enjoyed the film immensely, but I can't imagine members of the second group getting most of the humor, because it comes in those moments of recognition. Some critics have attacked the film for trying to have it both ways, by turns mocking and rooting for its characters, but I think that provides two avenues of enjoyment for the audience; you can pick the one you like, or even enjoy both. Neither effort compromised the other. (Plot spoilers ahead.) What I believe did compromise the film overall was the endless triumph the character enjoyed. His embarassments were mostly private, and every conflict led to his clear victory over the bullies and popular kids. What would "Welcome to the Dollhouse" have achieved if Dawn Weiner's schemes had proven successful every time? We root for her because she rails against the system, not because she beats it, and the system doesn't seem so bad when it is beaten so easily. Napoleon is clearly smart enough to get ahead in his school's social network — that he doesn't employ social graces could indicate ironic detachment or some sort of self-limiting personality disorder, but either way the film suffers every time he's proven not to be the loser he appears to be. This isn't a triumph of a loser against his own nature; it's a story about a guy who isn't a loser but acts like one for unknown reasons, probably cinematic reasons. For its humor, consistency, and gracefulness, I'd rate this one of the best films of the year if it didn't shoot itself in the foot so regularly. Still, I have to praise those attributes. Director Jared Hess (working from his script with Jerusha Hess) knows his town, his characters, and his movie inside out, and works them for all they're worth. The film almost never has a misstep in tone, and there are a handful of moments with perfect style, like Napoleon's emergence in his brown suit. There are also a significant number of laugh-out-loud moments, many from Elfen Ramirez, who developed a monotone delivery style that soon brought me to giggles even when he wasn't saying anything funny; his scene on the steps where he decides to run for class president was, for me, the funniest in the film. And it's good to see Tina Majorino acting again after five years away from the camera; she is the most nuanced, subtle nerd in the film, but those cues and signals add up. I'm glad to have such fine talents in service of helping me remember the better moments of my own teen nerd-hood. –Scott Hardie
This testoserone-fueled Da Vinci Code rip-off goes to an awful lot of trouble to provide so little entertainment. It has plenty of action and mildly clever twists, but in ten years it will be seen as a relic of a misbegotten era in our culture. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:35am EST
This sequel sells its increasingly preposterous plot twists with an ever-wider shit-eating grin on its face. It keeps moving as fast as it can before the audience can catch on that they've been sold expensive non-entertainment. It's lame and forgettable. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:36am EST
This scary and powerful thriller is among the most violent Best Pictures, a contemplation on man's helplessness against the ravages of the natural order. The foley artists worked overtime to make the faint, precise sound effects a key part of the plot. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:29am EST
Don't you hate that sinking feeling during a movie when you realize you're not supposed to know a key plot element that was casually given away by the press or the trailer? This film would play a lot better as a quiet little drama that gradually pulls the rug out from beneath you as sinister undertones are revealed, but for many audiences who will see it because of the Oscars attention or the book, it seems instead to take forever getting to an inevitable conflict. The emphasis on plot over character is furthered by Philip Glass's typical overwrought score, in which such mundane acts as a knock at the front door send his orchestra into shrieking hysterics, as if This! Is The Most Intense! Movie! of All Time! Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett have more in common than spelling their names weirdly: They're superb actresses who can't make a bad movie, but who can waste their talent in a mediocre one. Dench has several disquieting monologues and Blanchett is a lightning rod for audience sympathy, but the movie doesn't know what kind of film it wants to be and pulls away from them. This could have been an icy little character-based thriller, but itstead it's a portentious Best Picture wannabe with a score that huffs and puffs and wants to blow your house down. It's a disappointment. –Scott Hardie • September 13 2007, 10:00pm EST
Rod Lurie's heroines suffer nobly for their principles, and this is another of his polished dramas that delivers his message with a punch. Every aspect of this under-released picture is top-notch, especially the cast, each of whom nails their big scene. –Scott Hardie • May 3 2009, 3:39pm EST
"If you can understand what I'm saying, you're not paying attention," says a woman in this film, speaking directly to us dumb Americans who pretend to understand this kind of work. I don't have enough knowledge of Godard to evaluate this film in its proper context, so the only reaction I can express as an uninitiated viewer is mild befuddlement. Here Godard throws out many ideas about violence, and in the English translation they are well put – "He who kills a man for an idea is not defending an idea but killing a man" – but he does little or nothing with them after bringing them up, inviting no further reflection from his audience. Just because the bulk of his film falls in the "purgatory" chapter of his hell-purgatory-heaven model doesn't mean it has to be so dull and meandering. The best part of the film is the long montage of violent images in "hell," which dwells on for so long as to compel consideration of the futility and wastefulness of violence. A whole feature could have been made of that poetically edited collage, or should have. –Scott Hardie
Oasis is the story of two unlikely people finding each other and finding love. I know what you're thinking: Here's a premise we've seen before. This movie is different, however, and I think you really get a feel for the characters in a way that I've never had for movie characters before. Jong-du Hong has just been released from prison for vehicular manslaughter, to find that society, and particularly his own family, are barely accepting of him. One of his first acts is to bring a fruit basket to the family of the victim of his accident, as a way of apologizing, which is one of the first clues that Jong-du's thought processes are not on the same wavelength as most others. While there, he meets Gong-ju Han, the niece of his victim. Gong-ju has, I believe, cerebral palsy (I don't recall that this was stated in the movie directly, but that is my conclusion), and has troubles of her own functioning in society. From here, the movie takes an interesting trip through the lives of these two societal "misfits " and into a place of serenity and acceptance. I hate to give anything away, so I'm trying to be vague about details. This is a great film, and I have to confess that, although the ending disappointed me, I think I would recommend it to others. As a warning, there is a rape scene in the movie, so sensitive viewers should take note of this. –Aaron Shurtleff • August 9 2006, 5:08pm EST
The freshness and verve of the original films are gone, and the "cool" act is increasingly transparent, but this sequel still coasts along pleasingly on the appeal of its leads and setting. Matt Damon makes the most of his deserved bigger role. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:47am EST
Say what you will about it, this film at least delivers in spades what it promises. It's a banquet of celebrity appearances, heist intrigue, smooth laughs, beautiful locales, and a near-overdose of that same casual sense of cool that carried the first film. These actors know how to be charming, and they make it look easy, but you can sense the experimentation and improvisation going on at every moment; I doubt that any one scene was delivered perfectly in the first take. (Well, maybe the exploding car.) It's hard not to be entertained by a movie this aggressively eager to please, and I will complain only about the dreary lull when the characters face their biggest setback and the celebrity-as-himself cameo that goes on far longer than it should. Every cast member makes the most of his or her three minutes of screen time, with Catherine Zeta-Jones and Brad Pitt garnering the most sympathy as the characters with the most to lose; Vincent Cassel and/or his body double also make a memorable impression with the museum heist. The trailer gives away some of the best jokes but there are plenty more, some of them easy to miss ("don't go all Frankie Muniz on me") but many of them perfectly executed, like the lost-in-translation exchange with Robbie Coltrane. If there's anything at all that you like about movies, this film's kitchen-sink approach means that it's sure to have it. –Scott Hardie
Disney's gallery of aquatic life has some rich photography and an appropriate sense of grandeur. But it's marred by relentlessly imbecilic narration with countless strained non sequiturs, and a redundant, generic preachiness about saving the oceans. –Scott Hardie • July 2 2010, 8:42am EST
It’s not without irony that Quentin Tarantino led the jury that awarded this Korean thriller the Palme d’Or at Cannes, since it shares so many of his strengths as well as his biggest weakness. Intense to a fault, this revenge flick follows a man determined to find out who kept him sealed in an apartment for fifteen years, a quest that leaves him bloodied and his enemies robbed of various body parts. It’s a carnal, vicious film where even the lovemaking is violent, and it contains one electrifying fight scene where the hero beats his way through a whole gang in a single, unbroken three-minute shot. But the movie has such an intensity of focus that even the minor scenes are treated as epiphanies, a momentum-killing style that frees the viewer’s mind to wander just as the clockwork plot demands concentration. There’s a revelation at the end of the film that would make M. Night Shyamalan jealous, based on the kind of labyrinthine plot that rewards multiple viewings as you understand just how carefully the trap was set, but the film is so exhausting that you can’t imagine watching it more than once. –Scott Hardie
Rodriguez’s direction has gotten sloppy since Spy Kids, and while those goofy films may have benefited from it, this one is weakened. There are so many good moments that you long for them to be organized into a more coherent plot, and so many great close-ups that you long for more distance shots to establish the positioning. We expect Depp to steal the show, but not Blades, who simmers with memories of injustice the way Banderas should. I hope that with Rodriguez’s two trilogies complete, he learns some patience before beginning another film; may it be his masterpiece at last. –Scott Hardie
Once upon a time, I went to see "Titanic" in a movie theater with Matt Preston on opening day, before anybody knew much about it, including its running time. After ninety minutes of romance, the iceberg struck the ship. Matt leaned forward in his chair, eager to watch the quick sinking of the ship so that he could make a badly-needed trip to the men's room. As the scenes dragged on and it began to dawn on him that the sinking would take even longer than the setup, he slowly retreated back against his seat with a noticeable resentment. I couldn't help but recall that moment while watching "Open Range," a movie that is obviously going to end with a gunfight. The motivation is established, and the characters enter town for the battle, talking about how they're ready to get it over with... and then there's another forty minutes to go before anyone pulls a trigger. Not that it hurts the film, because nearly every scene is pleasantly watchable in its own right, but wishing the characters would just get the ending over with so they could get on with their lives doesn't do much to keep the fire of interest burning. And yet it's mostly a very good film, well acted by Robert Duvall in particular, who these days seems nearly incapable of being boring. The nature photography is excellent, albeit laid on a little thick, as if Costner felt insecure in his nature-photography street cred. Best of all, the film is believeable, despite consisting almost entirely of genre clichés, due to Costner's belief in the material. Watch the glimmer of fury he demonstrates when he kills the man who takes Annette Bening hostage in the alley, and his dark past seems like more than an fireside anecdote. You can't make an old-fashioned movie without conviction, and this film has it, through good decisions and bad. It's satisfying, but there's better available on the rental shelf right now. –Scott Hardie
Please save this review until after you have seen the movie; it is best enjoyed with a minimum of spoilers. What this film gets right is the realism of this situation. As the couple progresses from concerned mutual support to outraged bickering to grim resolve, their words in the water ring true; the only moment when the dialogue strains for believability is the quarrel over the laptop, but authentic banality is a lot harder to pull off than it would seem. The shark behavior also seems exactly right; they're predators but not as aggressive as Hollywood usually portrays. Even the material on the boat seems plausible, which is important because the movie can't rest on the "true story" credit alone. For my money, the best sequence was the methodical unfolding of the accident on the boat: Anyone familiar with the story knows that the couple is doomed to be left behind, yet the scenes are so realistic as to seem that at any moment the crew will remember the couple and wait for them; as in the best productions of "Romeo and Juliet," there's a very palpable feeling of hope that the characters will manage to escape what we know deep down is their fate. What the movie doesn't do right is have the ambition to go beyond the material. It has opportunity to excel in two areas, as a high-tension, white-knuckle thriller with an original premise, and as a philosophical exploration of what it truly means to be cut off from civiliation and even land itself. It doesn't go on long enough to be that profound; the rescue mission begins just when the characters are primed to break through to new levels of awareness and take the movie with them. Fucking "Cast Away" with Tom Hanks did a better job of exploring this theme. Going for the thrills wouldn't have been as rewarding as getting cerebral, but at least it would have been rewarding in its own way; the trade-off with portraying sharks realistically is that the characters do little for sixty minutes except shoot worried glances at circling shark fins. There's an all-too-brief moment when Susan wakes up and Daniel is missing and the movie seems truly frightening, but it doesn't seem willing to torture its pitiable characters enough to elicit real scares. I'd like to single out the trailer for criticism, for spoiling virtually every interesting element of the film. When the characters panic in the darkness, it's a creepy moment in the trailer that hints at even scarier material in the film, but no, that's about as unhinged as the characters get. And I could swear one line in the trailer had Daniel claiming he saw an island in the distance, and I thought at the time that the trailer had spoiled the ending; instead, I watched the whole movie waiting for the damn island to show up and the movie ended in a different way, undermining the low-key final scenes for me because I didn't think they were final. Lion's Gate wisely put everything they had into the marketing for this film and it paid off, but doesn't it stink when a good movie doesn't compare to the great movie being advertised? –Scott Hardie
I thought this movie was going to be dull and depressing, but it turned out to be interesting and depressing, so I loved it. The plot is revealed at a sensible pace. The characters are complex and unpredictable. There's a touch of 70s pop psychology conveyed through Judd Hirsch's character, a psychiatrist, but it roots the movie in time without being overly annoying. The characters are clearly the highlight, coming across as people rather than types or mere plot devices. Also, being in the Top 14 of all users on goo.tc is extremely important. –Steve Dunn • June 7 2007, 1:52pm EST • 1 reply
Trey Parker and Matt Stone are entertaining even when they make a bad movie. Like so many episodes of South Park, this one sets out to parodize witless porn movies and laughless D-grade comedies, and becomes one itself. It has a few laughs. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:38am EST
Relentlessly bleak, humanistic only in sparing us visions of bloodshed, "Osama" is a difficult, important film. If you doubted that the elimination of the Taliban was a worthwhile endeavor, or that having to wear a burqa is the worst burden imposed on women in some Muslim nations, this is a clear record of the inhumanity suffered by many in Afghanistan only yesterday. We spend much of the movie fearing that the heroine will be executed for her crime, but when the sentencing comes, it reminds us that some fates are worse than death. There's nothing entertaining about this film, and you have no reason to feel guilty for skipping it (I almost did too), but it's an inspiring reminder of the value of freedom, education, and equality. –Scott Hardie
There may not be a way to make this movie sound appealing, since the material it covers is so bleak that I struggle to recall one of its characters ever breaking into a smile. And it doesn't help that the script is so flat-footed that it makes these veteran actors seem like amateurs. But this is indeed a good film and worth seeing, since it probes one of the most critical issues in modern America (inner-city poverty & violence) and roundly condemns its subject without going over the top or becoming politicized. There's no big dramatic payoff or liberal speechifyin', just a frank portrayal of Chicago's inner-city by two intelligent young residents who look around them, find it depressing, and know they have to get out by any means possible. Ernest Dickerson, a cinematographer known for bright colors, directs the film in blacks and whites against his instincts, making the boys' world seem bleached by day and engulfed in shadow by night; only in the characters' dreams do vivid colors emerge. There was little that could be done about the awkward dialogue (I've read the book and several passages seemed to be quoted verbatim), but the film transcends it as both a competent artistic production and an important cry of anguish for people struggling with poverty every day. It's definitely worth seeing. –Scott Hardie
It was ok. –Scott Hardie
Liberal viewers looking to work up a little post-election rage can still depend on this firecracker, more incendiary and coherent than "Fahrenheit 9/11" despite Michael Moore's greater ambitions and budget. This one is relentless and jaw-dropping, showing rapid-fire montages of insanely biased comments from news anchors and the results of surveys showing how many more times Fox viewers are to believe erroneous information than public broadcasting viewers, not that public broadcasting is an ivory tower of perfect objectivity. What I think this documentary misses is a larger issue, beyond just Fox News as propaganda: Fox News as entertainment. This channel is to journalism what the WWE is to wrestling, it offers a grand story of the heroic champion president and the squirrelly, conniving Democrats who want to chip away at his greatness. This channel tells its news as part of an ongoing portrait of American politics as mythology, satisfying you with the righteous triumph of its hero and keeping you coming back to find out how the story progresses. I wouldn't describe it a news channel in any sense beyond the nominal; it's a form of news-themed television entertainment. "Outfoxed" misses this issue and makes a case against Fox News Channel as a right-wing propaganda machine, constantly distorting the truth with conservative & religious bias, so I'll judge it on that merit. It's generally strong stuff, convincing of its points despite your nagging suspicion that it's taking the most extreme moments and splicing them together. Its best strength is its reliance on actual footage, which gets much more screen time than the interviewees, most of whom are famous for their liberal bias; the footage of Bill O'Reilly in particular is damning. The film strays off-topic a few times, such as when it stops to portray O'Reilly as a mean-spirited debator, or in its ridiculous pro-activism epilogue (a transparent ass-kiss for MoveOn.org for funding the project), but for most of its running time it is a withering, passionate decry of Fox's twisted take on journalism and the ease with which it gets away with it. It set out to prove a point and succeeded well, and on that merit I applaud it. Because the urge was overwhelming, I turned on Fox News Channel after the movie, to take a random sampling at that moment in time. An interviewee was telling Hannity how good it is that this administration's re-election will restore family values to our nation, then Colmes said (over cartoony music) that after the break, they'd discuss loony liberals who now had to make good on their promises to move to Canada. –Scott Hardie
By now, indie rebel Todd Solondz is known for several trademarks, and they all make the usual appearances: The unblinking stare at unconventional morality, the blunt transgressiveness of his punchlines, the rooting for a pitiable loser who doesn't even achieve a symbolic victory, the gleeful pressing of political hot buttons. But with this film, his most accomplished to date and his first drama, he adds two new techniques: Lyricism and allegory. Before, he simply showed us freaks and pariahs with no meaning beyond their own little worlds; here, he crafts a genuinely haunting, visually beautiful movie about a girl who means a lot more about what it is to be free in our radically politicized society. The film is of abortion, but it is not about it: It does not comment on whether abortion is right or wrong in this context or any context. It succeeds at treating both its pro-life and pro-choice characters evenly, at first making them into comical stereotypes and then revealing the depths of compassion beneath them. Instead, the film takes the most passionately charged issue of modern America and quietly shows that people on both sides are prisoners of their own beliefs, taking other people's lives so they can hold their precious values so dear. When the film, in a scene of breathtaking beauty, puts its heroine in a toy tugboat and sends her downriver, Solondz makes clear that the spirit of oppression Mark Twain railed again a century ago is still lurking in our nation today, and still children are largely paying the price for it. If you're heard of "Palindromes" before, it's probably because of its casting gimmick: Eight different actresses of varying races and ages (and even gender) play the same 13-year-old white heroine. Since every actress plays her alike, it's not very distracting, but it does beg the question of what exactly Solondz is trying to achieve. Every review I've read seems to interpret his choice differently, from suggesting that Solondz argues we're all equally oppressed when any one of us is oppressed, to suggesting that Solondz wants us each to identify with the heroine by giving us as many different heroines as possible, to suggesting that Solondz wants us to realize that we judge different people differently even if they make the same choices. My own interpretation, which proved to be correct when I bought the DVD and read the eloquent liner notes, is much simpler: Solondz is telling an emotional story as much as a political one, and each actress represents the heroine's emotional state and self-perception at that moment, sometimes sweet, sometimes ugly, sometimes grown-up, sometimes heartbreakingly innocent. When she finds salvation in a Christian household, her awkward path there makes her feel like a giant freak who doesn't belong, so Solondz casts a morbidly obese black woman to stand out among the tiny white children ("Gulliver among the Lilliputians" as Solondz puts it). After she has a particularly difficult journey and feels world-weary, he casts 43-year-old Jennifer Jason Leigh to play her. These external manifestations of her inner emotional state are invisible to the other characters and in another movie would be invisible to us too; by showing us so explicitly how the heroine feels about herself at every turn, it makes the movie that much more wrenching and powerful. Before, Solondz has made us think; at last he is making us feel. There are numerous other virtues worth mentioning, not the least of which are the brilliant performances by Sharon Wilkins, Debra Monk, and especially Ellen Barkin in their roles, but my words would be wasted if I have not already convinced you to see it. There are people who cannot enjoy a movie on the subject of abortion and people who cannot enjoy a movie with different actors in the lead role; there's nothing wrong with that, and those viewers are right to skip this title. But for viewers open to this material, and especially viewers who have seen Solondz's other movies and will appreciate how he is openly building on the foundation of his earlier work, will hopefully find this movie as exquisite and as moving as I did. It is not to be seen lightly, but it is to be seen. –Scott Hardie
Fair warning to the interested: Pan's Labyrinth isn't a fantasy film with beautiful imagery, it's a grueling, graphically violent war movie that happens to include some fantasy elements and beautiful imagery. Much like director Guillermo del Toro's excellent earlier film The Devil's Backbone – he considers this a sequel in spirit – it's an allegory for the Spanish civil war that juxtaposes the cruel realities of fascism against the optimistic fantasies of the opposition (in both cases children), who are portrayed as noble but ill-equipped to stop their own oppression. What del Toro wants to say about the failed Republican resistance to Franco, and about good's resistance of evil in general, is said by the blossoming flowers shown at the beginning and end of Pan's Labyrinth, a striking visual device from a director who delights in presenting unexpected visions without warning. You never know where del Toro will place his camera or what trick of lighting or makeup he'll employ next, but his techniques always inspire a reaction in the audience, and he uses it to make great points. You'll be alternatively scared and stirred by del Toro's shocking effects, but if you understand his symbolism, you'll be touched on an even deeper level. –Scott Hardie • February 1 2007, 5:23pm EST
When Charlyne Yi interviews people about love, she gets some great tales and some cute kids. But when the fake documentary forces material about boyfriend Michael Cera or the film crew, it drags to a halt. The entire second half feels pointless. –Scott Hardie • December 6 2009, 12:22am EST
This slack-paced J-horror flick has more in common with the original novel than the free-spirited Playstation game that took its concepts and ran with them. The long setup may be par for the course with Masayuki Ochiai, whose ambitious 2005 film Infection spent its first hour establishing paranoia and dread among its main characters before the supernatural emerged in the second half. Here the ghouls and goblins wait until the final 30 minutes, but that might be more a consequence of the film's obviously limited budget than on Ochiai's apparent determination to establish his characters' pathos and neuroses before pitting them against evil. It's noble of him that his heart is in the dramatic scenes (since it obviously isn't in the clichéd, paint-by-numbers horror scenes), but he lets them go on too long and too aimlessly, and for a long time the film seems to be going nowhere. Eventually it does, since even the "resolution" neglects to close a giant plot hole that, I suppose, might have been meant for a sequel. I'm a fan of the Playstation game and of Ochiai's other work, and I found this film torpid and unsatisfying, so I can only imagine how it will play for someone who isn't. –Scott Hardie
How appropriate that this movie comes with its own built-in metaphor for its quality, the "mixed bag" carried around dutifully by the hero. The surviving elements of the Philip K. Dick story that inspired it are intriguing, as the witless Ben Affleck gets to play detective and solve his own ruined life. The plot almost takes on the form of a superhero film, with the hero's superpower being the ability to pull out of his bag whatever item he happens to need at that moment in time. (Conker the Squirrel would be proud.) What doesn't work are the gunfights, car chases, and many, many explosions, which are the film's main selling point but seem redundant and run-of-the-mill. Not that you couldn't have guessed, but they're also implausible in the extreme. I guess the filmmakers figured that if you're going to throw believeability out the window by casting handsome dull-knife Ben Affleck as one of the top computer engineers in the world, you may as well have him move faster than bullets and drive his motorcycle like one of the top stunt drivers in the world, too. Suspension of disbelief isn't the real problem anyway (this is sci-fi for cryin' out loud); it's the general laziness of the production, as all parties involved seemed to be going through the motions. Particularly grim and difficult to watch is the epilogue, which was filmed in haste after testers rejected a less tidy ending that at least was driven by the characters, not by plot contrivance and abominable dialogue. At least John Powell's score was refreshing. –Scott Hardie
The words "animated Iranian memoirs" don't usually send people rushing to rent a title, but this film deserves widespread attention. It's not just a moving and spirited life story, it's a look into real life in Iran too easily forgotten in modern times. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:38am EST
I somehow went this long without seeing one of the landmark movies of my high school class, and though its politics seem quaint today, it successfully captured the early-nineties mentality in a time capsule worth revisiting in decades to come. What I liked most about the film was that its villains weren’t the pompous, greedy, cigar-chomping, moustache-twirling robber-barons that Hollywood typically makes of characters like them; they were realistic men guilty only of making a bad but understandable decision in a moment of fear, a fear born of ignorance. Of course, Tom Hanks’s passionate monologue as he translates the opera was the standout moment that won him the Oscar (and its even more impressive that Hanks nailed it on the first take), but I’m equally fond of the scene’s silent epilogue, as Denzel Washington goes home to his sleeping wife and stares into the darkness as if he’s thinking of Michael Furey’s grave. It’s a transcendent moment in a solid production that should be remembered for its quality and humanity even as its cultural significance gradually wanes. –Scott Hardie
The most interesting thing to learn about this movie is that it was originally conceived for Hitchcock. The premise of a morality play for a rude yuppie is so old-fashioned, it's almost quaint. Unfortunately, there's only so far for the idea to go, and the movie becomes very contrived just to last 81 minutes. It also has a needless twist at the end, perhaps a little wink to modern cinema. Schumacher insists on cranking up the tension so much in every scene that it's easy not to notice how well his style sometimes works. –Scott Hardie
Don't let the cover image fool you: That woman is having much more fun than anyone watching the movie could. I suppose it's not the mess it could have been, given that it's another Roger Corman quickie rip-off of "Jaws," but Bradford Dillman's dignified effort to give his hero two dimensions (he never comes close to three) is about as useful as sorting trash in a dumpster. The only possible reason to watch it today – and don't mistake this comment for a recommendation – is to glimpse early work by filmmakers of such later accomplishment as John Sayles, Joe Dante, Jon Davison, Phil Tippett, and then-17-year-old Rob Bottin. If you get bored during the movie, feel free to look them up; almost everything else they've done is better than this production. –Scott Hardie
Sometimes it takes a vacuous sequel to highlight what few things worked in the lousy original. This wretched foreign cash-in, which re-used none of the original's cast or crew, plainly demonstrates the limitations of the low-budget horror movie, and yet none of it makes sense. They had the budget to blow up a helicopter, yet not to produce flying fish that looked even remotely plausible? The fish attacks look exactly like what they are: Bad actors, smeared with red dye, screaming while shaking around with rubber fish props. It's a sad little waste of time, without a flicker of entertainment value, even in watching Lance Henriksen's no-nonsense cop. It's tempting to view this as James Cameron's debut film – it opens with a scuba-diving couple having sex inside a sunken ship, which actually turned out to be the perfect way to consummate Cameron's career, and the female protagonist to be one tough survivor in the final sequence – but the truth is, Cameron directed very little of this project and had nothing to do with the final cut; his name is only attached out of contractual obligation. In other words, what might seem to be the sole reason to watch this dark, depressing, nasty little bore, in fact does not exist. –Scott Hardie
There's a reason why the phrase "diminishing returns" is often associated with sequels to sequels. After already being given less the second time around, how much less is left to give in the third? The only new elements in this third film (and second disappointment) from the mini-industry cranking out Pirates of the Caribbean movies is the presence of a Rainbow League pirate council, well-paid Chow Yun Fat as a far-eastern pirate, and the quirky afterline as imagined by the rum-addled brain of Jack Sparrow, but only the latter is a sight worth seeing. This movie continues the decline started by the second film, ironically getting more boring as more action is piled on, and the pointless return of Geoffrey Rush affirms that the filmmakers can merely reintroduce old elements without spin and audiences will think that's worth something. As always, the technical teams do a brilliant job, and the rousing Pirates themes have rightfully become the adventure-music standards of this decade. But would it kill them to put in a few more jokes, or demonstrate a sense of wonder about these amazing happenings? Apparently passing three hours of the audience's time is enough. –Scott Hardie • June 17 2007, 11:52am EST
By attempting to top the original, this sequel wound up making it look even better. Audiences fell in love with the original Pirates not just because of Johnny Depp's flamboyant weirdness but because it was that rare achievement, a massive summer blockbuster that was really good, with intelligence and wonder and obvious care taken by the creative team to craft entertainment of a fine caliber. The sequel, sadly, is exactly what the original wasn't: Big, loud, clunky, and stupid. Here we have characters making bad decisions just to further the plot, action scenes without consequence, amazing sights that don't register in anyone's reactions, and so many pointless plot twists that the movie invites easy parody. Predictably, the production design and animation teams do their jobs admirably, especially in the creation of a wholly-CGI villain who seems more real than the humans appearing beside him, but everyone else phoned in their work so Disney could reap their easy mega-fortune. I have no illusions about the movie industry being a business and everyone involved with this film only doing it for the money, but the first Pirates proved that some filmmakers still take the time to create quality entertainment at this level, and sequel shows how rare that is. –Scott Hardie • June 17 2007, 11:39am EST
I really enjoy this one. This was better than the last 2 made. If you haven't seen it go see it. Awesome movie –Chris Lemler • June 9 2011, 4:35pm EST
While a step in the right direction after the dreary 2nd and 3rd titles, this streamlined sequel is sadly just as lacking in the sense of humor that distinguished the original. It's fun but not funny, settling everything with a sword instead of a quip. –Scott Hardie • June 11 2011, 10:59pm EST • 1 reply
Any time cinemaphiles like me complain about the studios spending fortunes on the stars and the effects but inexplicably skimping on the script, we're longing for movies like this, where the writers, director, and even the actors were given the time they needed to make it good. I think I would have enjoyed it more if the trailers hadn't spoiled the whole thing for me, but I can't ignore its craft, nor the true weirdness that Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush relish bringing to their parts. –Scott Hardie
Miyazaki once again puts most animators to shame with his joie de vivre and attention to detail. His take on The Little Mermaid is for young kids, but it's as gorgeous as any other film he's made, especially the breathtaking first few minutes. –Scott Hardie • November 5 2009, 10:20pm EST • 1 reply
Matthew Preston calls them —Fred Flintstone moments,” those squirm-inducing scenes where everything would be all right if the other characters would just give the hero a moment to explain himself instead of telling him what a jerk he is, and this film has plenty. It is also overloaded with clichés, stolen jokes, stolen hustles, obvious pros in the close-up shots, two deus ex machinas, and wall-to-wall macho posturing. Some decent pool and Walken’s fascinating weirdness prevent this from being the zero-star train wreck it should be, but mostly it’s an awkward, obvious showcase for Callahan’s conceited asshole of a protagonist. –Scott Hardie
This isn't a bad movie, but it's a ho-hum recreation of what remains the much more powerful original, which I suggest renting instead. Like Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot Psycho remake, you wonder why it goes to such trouble to be so mediocre. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:42am EST
[Ending spoilers ahead.] As much as I disliked this predictable thriller, I would love to see a genuine behind-the-scenes expose about it, because I could swear the included ending isn't the original ending. It's not because it's unhappy, it's because the film so carefully sets up a procedural third act in which an innocent woman will be charged with her husband's death after she unwittingly planted clues that she's his killer all week long – an ending that would not sit well with Sandra Bullock's bland but loyal fanbase, so they pulled an American Beauty and dropped the courtroom drama in favor of a quickie epilogue that affirms the "value" of what came before, the heroine learning life lessons and the audience learning they should have seen a different movie. Bullock likes safe formulas, but to her credit, she's very good at what she does, and here she inspires us to care about a woman standing at a moral crossroads – but she's hamstrung by the film's off-putting message about predetermination: She causes her own unhappy ending, and yet she is powerless not to cause it. Some would say the film exposes free will as an illusion; I say she could have prevented her unhappy ending by pulling her head out of her ass and figuring out her predicament even half as quickly as the audience does. This isn't a movie about free will; this is two hours of watching a dense woman make mistakes you can see coming a mile away. Avoid it. –Scott Hardie • March 29 2007, 11:23pm EST
At the heart of this entertaining little Sundance baby about an aging rock band that never made it is a somewhat complex portrayal of a woman anxiously on the verge of middle age. It's no surprise that lead singer Jacki is so sharply seen, since the film is autobiographical and Gina Gershon is a good actress, but what is really interesting is how well the film captures her mindset besides just leaning on her occasional voiceover narration. Every single character exists on camera exactly as Jacki sees him or her, both friends and enemies, and this would be a remarkable achievement in character perspective if it did not seem to occur by accident, given that Jacki is not present in every scene to witness it. (On the other hand, the scenes without her seem unrealistic, so perhaps we see them as she imagined them happening after the fact. But on the other hand, is it more likely that the filmmakers went to such trouble to establish unrealistic scenes and one-dimensional characters on purpose, or that I imagined something that wasn't there?) The film does cut corners where necessary, including filming an entire performance without one of the band members (a double plays her in deep shadows) when the actress was presumably occupied. But not every such measure hurts the film: The fact that each band member keeps wearing the same few outfits eventually makes you realize how silly it is in other movies that characters can afford to wear different clothing in every scene. I liked the film overall. I liked the performances, especially Gina Gershon as the lone three-dimensional character present. I liked the music on the soundtrack, because it's always fun to recognize music from your own collection in a movie. What I did not like were the flat songs actually performed onscreen by the band, the fact that the film kept recycling the same two sets, and especially the melodramatic subplots that detracted from a comfortably low-key production. It's not a great movie about aging or about rock n roll, but it is a fun and interesting one about both. –Scott Hardie
If you have any interest in "Primer," avoid the reviews and the Netflix description, which give away a crucial discovery that doesn't come until some time into the film. See, the movie's about four amateur engineers building a machine in their spare time, and so much of the fun of the first act comes from the knowledge that their machine does something, but they and we have no idea what. Several tantalizing clues are dropped, until the truth emerges in a moment that should send chills up your spine, and then the film really takes off... What you should know in advance is that this is not the most satisfying of films. It's a puzzle without a definite solution, though you may safely invent several possible solutions. Actor-writer-director-cinematographer-producer-editor-composer Shane Carruth apparently decided early on that the film should have no canonical plotline under the layers of deception and unrelated information, since the characters lose track of the truth just as we do. It can be maddening in this way, putting you through a maze that doesn't have an exit, and the first twenty minutes add insult to injury, making you sit through the most agonizingly dull engineer techno-speak this side of Star Trek. Carruth is an engineer by trade and the talk adds up to a halfway plausible machine for all I know, but there's a way to make that kind of discussion interesting for the audience, and this movie doesn't know it. But, if you put up with the film's two biggest flaws, you're in for a treat. This has been called a mindfuck on the order of "Memento" and "Donnie Darko," and certainly it bears a similarity. However, this film isn't interested in the souls of its heroes like those two were; it's a low-key thriller in which a few unassuming techheads stumble onto something remarkable, and react to it. That repeating cycle of newfound awe and imaginative applications are the spark here, and they're entertaining from start to finish. Carruth also deserves to be lauded for pulling off such a balanced, healthy film with drop-in-a-bucket funding ($7000 budget) and limited shooting space; it never feels like it lacks for adequacy. This is an impressive achievement in micro-indie filmmaking, and damn entertaining yarn as well, if you don't mind the pieces forever not fitting into place. –Scott Hardie
A transgendered filmmaker tries to heal her relationship with her brain-damaged, Jekyll-and-Hyde big brother. It's meandering and needs to take some artistic license, but it's a unique story. She needs more perspective on how she makes her brother feel. –Scott Hardie • August 15 2010, 9:49am EST
[Spoilers.] There are three things I learned by newly watching this classic from start-to-finish and studying every article I could find about it: 1) The way to surprise people is not to hint at what's coming. That sounds obvious, but it isn't. Hitchcock was sick the day they were to film the private eye going up the stairs and being attacked, so since everyone else was there, the crew decided to try filming it without him. They filmed it using the traditional cinematic language of suspense, such as ominous close-ups of his feet touching each step and the anxiety clear on his face. But when Hitchcock returned, he threw out the footage and just shot the private eye going up the stairs like it would appear in any ordinary scene, and then BOO comes the attack. Which version do you think delivers a bigger shock? 2) The 1998 remake was a disaster, but as far as I can tell, it was made with modest intention: An experiment to determine whether a classic movie, remade shot-for-shot and line-for-line, would play as well as the original. In other words, is a movie's power in the sum total of its components, or is something else necessary? The overwhelmingly negative reaction to the remake proves the latter, indicating that it was not just Hitchcock's special talent but also the magic of Psycho's release being such a cultural touchstone in 1960 that made it so special, but that doesn't mean the remake was a bad idea. By being so bad, it helped us appeciate the original even more. 3) Hitchcock ruled. (Yeah, yeah, I knew that already.) –Scott Hardie • June 17 2007, 11:19am EST • 1 reply
premise: A biography of the pre-FBI lawman who chased John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd. Starring Christian Bale and Johnny Depp. Because this is about the mutual understanding and sympathy that develops between a bank robber and the lawman pursuing him, who have only a few scenes together, and because it is written and directed by Michael Mann, it is impossible not to think of Heat while watching this movie. But a key part of Heat's success was the way it alternated between cold scenes with Robert De Niro's rigid, disciplined thief and hot scenes with Al Pacino's wild-eyed firecracker of a cop. Christopher Nolan based the Batman-Joker dynamic in The Dark Knight on Heat, reversing the sides of the law. This time, perhaps because it was more historically accurate, perhaps because he cast the wrong lead actors, perhaps because he's getting mellow in his senior years, who knows why, Mann decided to make both men cold, stiff, and robotic. The result is a lifeless movie that fails to stir the audience or make much impression. Even the prolonged shootouts, and there are several, seem rote. The movie intends to be deep, but neglects to reveal enough of its subtext, at least to me. Watching interviews with Mann and the cast on the DVD afterwards, I had several epiphanies like "oh, that's what his expression meant" or "that's why he did that." If your movie needs footnotes to be understood, it's in trouble. Christian Bale is a very internal actor who can summon complex emotions, but can't always project them, and his performance here is muddled. Johnny Depp is more than charismatic enough to play the celebrity outlaw John Dillinger, but he's also too smart for the role. We can't buy that this sophisticated man with intelligence in his eyes has spent only a few weeks of his adult life outside of prison, and that he doesn't have a plan beyond the next morning. Marion Cotillard is much better as Dillinger's sweetheart, who's smarter and tougher than he is. A movie about her would have been a lot more interesting. –Scott Hardie • February 21 2010, 9:34pm EST
premise: Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Djimon Hounsou, and other members of an eclectic cast star in this stylish deconstruction of superheroes. Into an increasingly crowded off-brand superhero marketplace comes Push, another Heroes-inspired production without the silly costumes or notions of saving the world. This movie is the anti-Jumper: Both movies are completely preposterous, with a lot of pointless action, antagonists with barely-explained motives, parental abandonment issues, and interchangeable bad guys Samuel L. Jackson and Djimon Hounsou. But Jumper lacked imagination; it had the ingredients but not the recipe. Push is a triumph of stylish direction, committed acting, believable special effects, a brooding soul, and best of all, actual thought given to what these characters might do with their abilities and how they might feel about the ridiculous conflict they're caught up in. This flick is loads of fun for fans who like their superhero movies brainy and stylish. –Scott Hardie • February 7 2009, 11:22am EST
premise: A direct sequel to Casino Royale finds Bond seeking revenge and pursuing the same criminal organization. This follow-up to Casino Royale has all of its gravitas and craftsmanship, but none of its soul. A story about an assassin losing the ability to feel is interesting, but the continued adventures of Agent Killbot lack something. Bond seems to be the same man at the end of this movie as he started, despite what happens, and the journey doesn't seem to have been worth it. The production was so rushed that the dialogue (what little there is) was often written the day of filming, which does not benefit the outcome. Still, even if it didn't have the same sense of purpose that made such a difference in its predecessor, it's an above-average action flick. The influence of the Jason Bourne movies is now crystal clear, especially with a trio of scenes that seem deliberately lifted from that other series, and this ramped-up tempo gives the action scenes an adrenaline shot in the arm. The movie is one breakneck chase scene after another in a variety of vehicles and locations, each more spectacular than the last. I just wish all of the money and skill that went into this picture could have been put to better use than the sum of its parts. –Scott Hardie • December 10 2008, 10:24pm EST • 1 reply
Much like its characters, three bank robbers desperate to get out of Manhattan after a heist, this comedy has moments where it begins to take off, only to settle back down into a maddeningly slow pace. Bill Murray is funny, but not funny enough for this. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:36am EST
Aside from the special effects, the only part that was relatively interesting to the group over here (4 kids, 3 adults) were the glimpses of the Sci-fi con and Storm Troopers. Nostalgia for the campy 70's flixs is the only thing it has going for it. –Lori Lancaster • April 7 2009, 9:16am EST
Robert De Niro's weight fluctuations threatened to distract from his performance, but his raw power cannot be denied. He's terrifying as the wheels of jealousy spin in his head. This is rightly revered as one of Scorsese's (and the 1980s') best films. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:46am EST
I've been putting off reviewing the Indiana Jones trilogy, which I recently saw for the almost-first time, because what would be the point? All three films are widely beloved, especially the classic "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which excelled far above its adventure-film predecessors in both quantity and quality of action scenes. There isn't a dull setpiece in the entire film, and yet there's much more to the film than the evocation of pulp adventure material: Even the minor characters are intelligent, and the film is as convincing a version of the old "Pandora's box" parable as has ever been made. If it has a weakness, it is the pseudo-childishness with which it treats its Nazi villains, like toy action figures to be smashed together; the Nazi torturer who stands out of the crowd comes across as a far more dangerous threat. "Raiders" set the bar high for action movies, and its appeal has rarely been exceeded. –Scott Hardie
premise: To a group of randomly-selected strangers, an eccentric casino owner promises $2 million to whichever of them reaches a distant destination first. It's amiable enough for Comedy Central on a Sunday morning, but not much creativity went into this second-rate Mad Mad Mad Mad World wannabe. Unless you count Jon Lovitz driving Hitler's antique car as a spark of inspiration, more thought seems to have gone into this review than the script. –Scott Hardie • January 26 2009, 8:19pm EST • 3 replies
premise: Pixar's latest film, developed by Jan Pinkava and finished by Brad Bird, features the adventures of a rat who dreams of cooking in a fine French restaurant. As Pixar digs deeper into the particular obsessions of its stable of filmmakers, it loses not just sizeable chunks of its audience not interested in professional motorsports or French cuisine, but some of the epic scope of their ambitious earlier films. Brad Bird's last film was The Incredibles, which redeemed the half-baked satire of its first half with some terrific whiz-bang adventure sequences in its second half. Late in the production of Jan Pinkava's modest, sweet-natured tale of Parisian chefs, Bird took over and tried to inject more action and suspense, but it's too little too late: This tale simply feels too small, too dull, and too static for filmgoers accustomed to more from the kings of modern animation. It's not that the film puts its focus on human (and rat) personalities over action sequences; it's that those personalities just aren't interesting enough to carry a whole film. Of course, the animation is superb, there are a number of laugh-out-loud funny moments for kids and adults, and best of all, the film will make you want to cook. –Scott Hardie • April 3 2008, 12:12am EST
Directors make choices and that's why we love them, but too often do they refuse to allow a meeting between the actor and the famous person being portrayed. (Russell Crowe had to meet with John Nash secretly and later said it helped him immensely.) "Ray" is evidence that the participation of the subject, when he is willing to endure the the warts-and-all treatment, can enrich a biopic with information and authenticity. Jamie Foxx is nearly indistinguishable from the real Ray Charles, and so is the film, seeming to comprehend in full his complexities and insecurities and hidden strengths. It is sometimes too pat, with an abrupt conclusion and the rudimentary psychoanalysis so typical of the genre, but its best attribute is how well it understands its subject and how well it portrays him. We don't need a moment with a blank screen to understand how Charles saw the world: He was such a strong personality, striding without a cane or dog everywhere he went, so intrinsically dignified in every thought and gesture, that we come to realize that an understanding of his blindness would be inessential to an understanding of the man himself. He was a great man for his accomplishments both public and private, and this cinematic life summary is an honorable tribute to the spirit that made him so. –Scott Hardie
If you prefer to see a real film, rent 'Manhunter' by Michael Mann, the 1986 version of this film. It is soulful and stylistic, and its villain is not a clichéd cartoon. But to be honest, this version blows it away for sheer entertainment value. Anthony Hopkins is still riveting as the unblinking Lector; he's worth every penny he demands. Though this film is implausible in parts, it's rarely so indulgently ridiculous as 'Hannibal.' And it goes easy on the gore, action, and jump scenes in favor of atmosphere. Just because it was only made for profit doesn't mean it's cheap. –Scott Hardie
Like the sequel-in-spirit to last year’s overachieving —Cellular,” this low-budget thrill ride plays like a B movie that wants to give you your money’s worth. It’s the kind of the tightly-written little entertainment that ends after it has explored every twist of its simple premise, and the cast and crew clearly enjoyed their work. Cillian Murphy has the looks to play a villain like this but unfortunately his skills leave something to be desired; his cold-hearted rogue feels more like a nuisance than a threat, especially next to the commanding Rachel McAdams, who never loses control of the film from start to finish. It’s a minor, forgettable movie, but a fun ride while it lasts, and it shouldn’t be missed for fans of the genre (or of McAdams). –Scott Hardie
Like in Punch-Drunk Love, Adam Sandler's obnoxious man-child character is surprisingly effective in drama, but this movie belongs to Don Cheadle as his forgiving, ethically-torn friend, the only one who understands the weight of all that happens. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:42am EST
[Scott's original review was lost in a technical glitch. His conclusion: "Remo Williams" is not very bright but it's sometimes hilarious, and definitely not deserving of its reputation of one of the worst films of the 1980s.] –Scott Hardie
The first "Resident Evil" movie made what I considered a mistake by rejecting the characters and stories from the video games and inventing a new scenario in the same setting. If you have the rights to the source material, you can turn elsewhere for inspiration if it produces better results, but if not, why bother? They could have filmed the scenes from the games word-for-poorly-translated-word and it would have produced a better film than the original. Here's proof that there's more to it than that. This film continues the journey of Milla Jovovich's super-heroine, who is capable of spontaneously developing whatever talents or abilities the screenplay requires of her at any moment, but this time it steeps her tale in much more of the games' mythology. She gets an authentic Jill Valentine as a sidekick, Nemesis (catch-phrase intact) in all his uglyness as an antagonist, and numerous action sequences from the second, third, and fourth games shot-for-shot. And somehow, still, it is not enough to improve the film. There's a laziness here on nearly every level, exemplified by a screenplay that sees nothing wrong with effects without causes, such as when Milla Jovovich crashes through the window on a motorcycle for a rescue she has no way of knowing is necessary at that time or by that means. You can stage action scenes like this and still be entertaining (I enjoyed most of them), but that's not the same thing as being good. For every superior action film and horror film released every year, there are a dozen sub-par or outright terrible ones, and this falls easily into the second lot. Its only redeeming qualities are hard work by Jovovich, some clever cinematography, and a willingness to toss a few bones to the video game fans with passing references and cameos. Otherwise, this film is an empty, poorly-lit mess with little reason to be seen. –Scott Hardie
premise: A CGI-animated extension of the video game series, using the same voice cast. After three craptacular Milla Jovovich movies that didn't have much to do with the Resident Evil games to start with and went downhill from there, Capcom has pulled a Marvel and started making their own movies instead of letting someone else screw them up. I don't know whether the exact same animation team and creative talent that worked on this also worked on any of the games, but what matters is that it feels very much like the games and takes place in their world. It's set in the "present" of video game series, between 4 and 5, but is essentially a sequel to the events and characters of 2. If you don't know what that means beyond the numbering of the game titles, then this isn't the rental for you – it's an entertaining action-horror flick with a lot of terrific animation (other than the sloppy lip-syncing), but I can't imagine anyone but series fans bothering to see it. Those who do will appreciate its inside references and consistency with the games, down to personality tics of the main characters. It also shares their attention to detail and silly over-the-top action scenes. This DVD is a lot of fun, and does the series right. –Scott Hardie • January 18 2009, 7:50pm EST
Few of my childhood memories are as vivid as screaming my lungs out in the theater upon Mombi's awakening. That sight, along with the endearing Tick Tock and the Wheeler who turned to sand, have stayed with me long enough to inspire a rental of this film as an adult, just to see it with grown-up eyes. It's awkward in early passages and strikes me as too slow-paced (surely today's kids would sleep through it), but I'm astounded by the amount of effort and imagination it took to bring this world and characters to life. CGI has opened up fabulous possibilities, but it also seems to have made filmmakers lazier: When forced to create a character animatronically, one must get very creative, and here we have a round little robot man operated internally by an upside-down contortionist with his legs folded over his chest. Maybe it's best Jim Henson didn't live to see today's movies. Anyway, lest I turn any further into a curmudgeonly old grump, let me also praise the fine acting by a veteran cast (especially the one newcomer, Fairuza Balk, who centers the film like a pro), and the general fearlessness of the production. This was a sequel to a beloved classic, yet it discarded and distorted many of the characters; and it was a Disney film, yet it contained truly horrific, unnerving passages. It doesn't matter that this film can never be in the same league as its classic predecessor; what's important are the high marks achieved by this film, technically and creatively. It's an underappreciated 80's gem, new wave minions and all. –Scott Hardie
Not a dreary drama about a failing marriage, this film is a cry of rage against giving up on your dreams for fear of failing at them, and it only really sparks when it hits that nerve. It's a beautiful, expertly acted movie, with a haunting score. –Scott Hardie • August 1 2009, 5:49pm EST • 1 reply
Not to be confused with the Jack Black comedy possibly inspired by its real-life subject, this documentary covers a year at the Philadelphia-based Paul Green School of Rock, an after-school program for kids who want to be rock stars. Some of the kids have no talent but are charming anyway, reminiscent of the cherubic standouts from —Spellbound,” but a few of them are remarkably gifted, including an astounding twelve-year-old who whips through one of Van Halen’s most pyrotechnic solos without breaking a sweat. Though Green himself comes off as a personal tyrant mostly interested in the glory of having coached the guitar masters of tomorrow, the movie about him and his school is endearing and full of energy, a pleasure even for audience members who don’t like rock music or cute kids. It’s one of the most fun movies this year. –Scott Hardie
One of the best things a film can do, and this goes double for documentaries, is just to show us a professional at work. Simply watching a skilled laborer perform his craft or an artist assemble her work takes us out of ourselves and lets us experience what it's like to be that person. There are perhaps five minutes of great singing by the mariachi performer featured in Romántico, a man with a somber face and voice, but the other 75 minutes of the film achieve a lesser fascination. Documentarian Mark Becker's intention was to follow around one of the mariachi who perform in his California neighborhood, and he found a natural storyteller in his subject Arturo Arias. The film took an unexpected turn when Arias abruptly returned to his family in Mexico, but Becker followed him and wound up covering a year in his life. The film portrays daily living in an impoverished small town, with its hard labor under a hot sun and the constant anxiety over declining health without a doctor in sight, but it also shows us a father who adores his teenaged daughter (who seems nonplussed to be filmed) and listens to the stirring tales of a man who has spent a lifetime refining them. Nearly free of stylistic touches save for a few extreme close-ups and paired images, this documentary gets out of its own way and lets this weary, earnest man tell us his life story. It's rarely compelling, but it does inspire warm feelings and vivid memories. –Scott Hardie • June 24 2007, 12:59am EST
It may be hard to do wrong by material about disabled people finding the courage and spirit to live independently, but such inspirational trifles are not usually as entertaining as this one. Funny in unexpected ways, this witty Irish comedy applies its brain as much as its heart, and seems as awake as most films on the subject are dreamy. I do fault it for having too conventional a storyline and pulling the standard heartstrings in the standard order, but perhaps that's a consequence of its public funding. Whatever its limitations, it manages to pull off a graceful subtlety on the minor points of its story, and it has two excellent lead performances by able-bodied actors who never fail to communicate what they mean even when they don't have real lines to speak. Only the most cynical viewer would fail to enjoy this smart, touching little entertainment. –Scott Hardie
Originally conceived as a joint project for Stephens King and Spielberg, a grandiose haunted-house tale for the ages, this miniseries eventually saw the latter drop out, but that didn't hurt it: While it bears King's weaknesses, it also bears his strengths, including a sharp sense of character and an uncanny creepiness that makes you want to pop in the second disc even after the exhaustingly long first one ends. (Word to the wise: The first disc is two thirds of the series.) King says in the bonus materials that he prefers the miniseries to the movie because it gives his ideas room to breathe and his stories the breadth of a novel, but I think it's because ABC gives him greater latitude as producer and storyteller; this picture seems to include every idea in every margin of his overstuffed screenplay, and it's so full that it has to rush in the closing minutes just to tie up the loose threads. Some of the plot elements can be unsatisfying, such as a main character who shifts ideologies so radically that you can't tell if she's been possessed, gone crazy, or is just badly written, but that same unsettled nature sustains the tension by denying you a solid footing as a viewer. King is a novelist whose weaknesses are his strengths and vice versa, and that same up-is-down quality makes this miniseries an imposing thriller. –Scott Hardie
premise: Jennifer Anniston and Rob Reiner are the perfect pair for this romantic comedy. some spoilers, but not more than were let on in the trailers Rob Reiner and Jennifer Anniston prove once again that romantic comedies don't have to boring "chic flicks". They can be clever, adventurous, well written, and explore real human emotion rather than fairy tale feelings. While Reiner's previous When Harry Met Sally, and The Story of Us, and Anniston's The Break Up were so realisitic they drudged up emotions so raw and basic and heavy, Rumor Has It is a dash lighter and more playful while still touching on those unglamorous real life relationship feelings. Sarah Huttinger (Anniston) returns home to Pasadena for her sister's (played by Mena Suvari) wedding. She has just accepted her boyfriend's proposal and is wrought with modern day confusion over whether she should marry this man who seems perfect, or continue to make an "adventure" out of her life by not tying herself down. She soon finds out from a pep talk with her grandmother (expertly played by Shirley MacLaine) that her mother (who died while Sarah was young) had the same reservations before her marriage to her father and ran away for a weekend with the mysterious Beau Burroughs (Kevin Costner), an old flame from her high school days. Before long, it is revealed that Sarah's grandmother also had a fling with Burroughs and their family story inspired the book on which "The Graduate" was based. Sarah freaks when she realizes that the timing of her mother's tryst may have resulted in this Burroughs being her biological father. She then sets off on a journey to find Burroughs, determined to figure out her paternity. The humorous chain of events lands her full circle by the end of the movie having to face the original problem over her engagement cold feet and helps her shed new light on her feelings. This movie is well directed and well cast. It is nice to see Kevin Costner in a comedic role. His character is so cool and elusive, you don't even recognize who is playing him at first. The film is light hearted and enjoyable. In traditional Reiner and Anniston fashion, it deals with real relationship feelings and problems. But it does so in a whimsical Shakespearean "Much Ado About Nothing" kind of way. –Jackie Mason • January 4 2009, 9:58pm EST
This heart-on-its-sleeve romantic comedy has a few good laughs, mostly courtesy of Dylan Moran, but mostly it avoids any real comedy or real feeling by overdoing the hero's mistake and then overdoing his redemption (and overdoing Hank Azaria's villain). –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:33am EST
John Grisham adaptation checklist: √ Idealistic, suave protagonist uses shady methods but is redeemed by good intentions. √ The villain's ultimate sin: Thinking he's above the law. √ When not ignoring the morality, underline it more than necessary (by turning Dustin Hoffman's character into a bona-fide good guy instead of the lesser evil like in the book). √ Colorful Southern location to make the tale slightly less boring. √ Not plot holes so much as gaping plot chasms: Early scenes, character motivations, and entire subplots make no sense in the context of the final revelations. √ Vaguely positive mention of Southern Baptists. Yup. "Runaway Jury" got 'em all. It's well-cast, well-acted, well-written, entertaining, and a totally mediocre product. What did you expect, Oscar nominations? It's not boring if you're hard up for something to rent, but you could do a lot better, including both versions of "12 Angry Men." –Scott Hardie
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] Low expectations always help a movie seem better (I guess that Poseidon remake wasn't too horrible...), but how could a gritty, child-in-peril thriller with nobody's favorite movie star Paul Walker as a bottom-feeding mob bagman turn out to be this good? First, it has a method to its gruesome madness, revealed in full in the cleverly animated closing credits if you didn't catch on sooner: The movie is a gory adult fairy tale, where the babyfaced Cameron Bright (good actor for his age) encounters pimps, pedophiles, and pushers as the Brothers Grimm might have portrayed them. Second, it takes the grit into delirious, NC17-skirting excess, with graphic hedonistic sex and gunshot wounds so improbable they had to be created with CGI. An early shot of a victim-hurtling, point-blank shotgun blast shown from the gun's point of view sets the tone for a movie that's like the killer shark of Tarantino knockoffs, unable to stop swimming or it will die. If you can stomach it, it's one hell of a movie. –Scott Hardie • April 24 2007, 9:30pm EST
The reviews for this film praised it for not making some of the same mistakes most action movies make (such as defying physics and surrendering to the urge for ridiculous chase scenes), but avoiding the pitfalls of its peers is never enough to make a film good in its own right. Besides, it commits other mistakes left and right, like giving us a police captain who doubts the heroes at every step for no apparent reason, and languishing in tin-eared clichés about loose-cannon officers and disloyal family criminals. To me, the most annoying element was the constant quoting of the original theme song in the score, as though the film was desperate to have something, anything, in common with the original series after it paid for the rights. (This brings to mind the question of how the main characters know of the original series well enough to sing its theme song yet don't notice that they all have the same names as the tv cops.) What the film gets right is the action. The bridge scenes, especially a realistic-looking CGI plane landing, are very well-executed. It's always clear when we're watching stuntmen (a fistfight in the shadows? come on), but both the stuntmen and the actors bring a plausible feel to the action, appearing tired after climbing and running and fighting. The premise of the film, a crime war in the streets of L.A. over an international criminal, seems reasonably represented in one sequence when a street gang acquires some rocket launchers and goes after their quarry. (I think we're supposed to assume that more such scenes are taking place throughout the city, but some mention of the fact would have helped.) Little surprise, the film is weak on characterization, despite a few good throwaway lines likely improvised by the actors such as the Tupperware reference. Olivier Martinez does a good job of building an interesting character over the course of two hours, only to watch the film discard him as a supporting villain (?!) in the final minutes. The conflicts between characters are canned bullshit, such as "you broke my sister's heart! (for reasons that are never explained)" and "partners are supposed to stand up for one another! (even when one of them is a poison in the unit)." The film presents the illusion of interesting supporting characters by hiring interesting supporting actors such as LL Cool J and Michelle Rodriguez, but they are introduced in a hurry and dropped from the action in an even bigger hurry. The only justice the film does by its characters is a sequence showing what each of them is doing in the moments before the call to action comes, a montage that demonstrates a creativity and thoughtfulness otherwise lacking from the film. Good action films are hard to do, but this one succeeds at the biggest challenge, providing original, entertaining, and sufficient action. It's a failure in the other elements, making it passable entertainment at best. For a smarter, better-acted cop film that is not afraid to confront questions of police morality (something that "S.W.A.T." shies away from despite several opportunities), rent Dark Blue, which even manages to do a better job of showing Los Angeles descending into criminal chaos. –Scott Hardie
One of the funniest and most ambitious movies of 2002 was little-loved by audiences, probably because of its tedious nature. We know where the story will go and it's certainly not in a hurry. But the wit of its assorted one-liners cannot be denied, especially when delivered by such old pros at satire as Pruitt Taylor Vince. This film does fall flat in a few scenes when it resorts to sitcom setups - I think Niccol doesn't trust his good material enough - but overall it's funny and satisfying. Pacino should try more comedy. –Scott Hardie
Remember the conventional wisdom on "Pirates of the Caribbean"? It was a family-friendly action film based on a theme park attraction, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and directed by Gore Verbinski, and the trailers made it look hammy and brainless. How could it possibly have been any good? But it turned out to be a little smarter and a lot more fun than the conventional wisdom could have predicted, one of the surprise good entertainments of the year. History has repeated itself with "Sahara," a miscast Clive Cussler adaptation directed by the son of Michael Eisner on his first large-scale production, which looks unyieldingly stupid in the trailers. Whoever directed the marketing for this film has chosen to highlight the dumbest moments and hard-pedal the preposterous Confederate-Ironclad-in-the-African-desert premise, making this look like a colossal stinker. But to my happy discovery, it isn't. All those same dumb moments are in the movie, diluted with two hours of skillfully directed action sequences and performed by actors who, if not right for the parts, at least approach them with high energy and dedication. Matthew McConaughey is an underappreciated workhorse of an actor, bringing unneeded intensity to roles like in "Reign of Fire" and "Frailty" that other actors in his place would merely phone in. His laid-back slacker persona couldn't be more wrong for the Type-A millionaire globetrotter Dirk Pitt, but other than a certain hamminess (unavoidable in this kind of film), he manages to carry the film anyway, with charm and energy. He's matched by the equally miscast and equally devoted Steve Zahn and Penélope Cruz; only the mild-mannered villain, the world's least scary genocidal warlord, is given a perfunctory performance. Cussler has always preferred the fantastic to the plausible. In "Sahara," that approach sometimes inspires delight, as when the heroes resourcefully escape the desert in half of a wrecked plane, and sometimes it inspires groans, as when Dirk Pitt spends a full minute dangling helplessly from a ledge unable to save himself but, as soon as the villain's back is turned, effortlessly climbs back up. It doesn't help that the characters explicitly point out the flaws in their own movie, like when the sidekick mentions (twice) that there's no way the hero's method of victory at the end should have worked, and when the villain says that "nobody cares about Africa," as if acknowledging that the setting is likely to bore most of the film's target audience. Also making the film difficult to enjoy is the schizophrenic musical selection, blaring classic rock songs at the most inopportune moments, as when "Sweet Home Alabama" plays while the characters are cruising through an impoverished, plague-stricken African village. It's a credit to the film's charm that it manages to be highly entertaining despite these recurring annoyances. And speaking for myself, I can't help but appreciate it when a mainstream film goes to the trouble of including scenes of no consequence: When Dirk Pitt bought his female companion a pair of exotic seashells and explained how science had yet to determine why they glowed in the dark, I rolled my eyes because I knew that in some later scene they would use the shells to see in the dark and/or discover how the shells worked; but no, the scene has no relation to anything else in the movie, and exists only so we can enjoy the appeal of actors McConaughey and Cruz flirting with each other. "Sahara" might be built out of every stock adventure-movie cliché in the book, and its far-fetched plot details are often introduced less than gracefully, but it's still a lot of fun, not half as brainless as it seems, and unexpectedly gratifying. It's the last movie I would have expected to recommend, but here I am doing it. –Scott Hardie
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] There was just too much slackness of pace for this Korean flick to make the top ten, but I'm happy to call it one of my favorite films of 2005. It has something for everyone: Part thriller, part science fiction, part drama, part comedy, part horror, all weird. An unstable man convinced his former boss is an alien invader kidnaps him, shaves him bald, straps him to a chair, and plots to kill him, while his more intelligent captive plots an escape. It's a strange, unpredictable battle of imagination, and the film takes great pleasure in walking the line, going a long time without saying for sure whether the boss is an alien, or his captor is insane, or possibly neither, or possibly both. It follows in a new Korean trend of ultra-violent pictures that don't skimp on the gory injuries, but it's actually a gentle film at heart, more interested in its hero's fragile innocence than what horrors he's capable of inflicting in his seeming madness. I can't recommend this funny little freakshow enough. –Scott Hardie • September 24 2006, 9:23pm EST
When a teen film is smart enough to sidestep (most) clichés and make its characters as intelligent as its viewers, do you praise it for doing only what every movie should do? In this case, I don't much give a damn. Julia Stiles and Sean Patrick Thomas are so sympathetic and likeable and, yes, complex that they win the film away from that nagging feeling that this has all been done before. Their romance has appeal because it is not the central element of the film, nor of their lives, nor even of their conversations. It seems borne of genuine affection rather than the needs of a screenplay. The film is good at addressing many "900 pound gorillas in the room" of race and family that would other films would let pass unspoken, although the abrupt ending dodges one such issue, what it will mean for their romance if these two kids wind up going to different universities. Ultimately it doesn't matter: This is a film for the heart, not the mind, the sort of film you can't leave without a dance in your step and a crush on one of the leads. –Scott Hardie
I believe the reports that this film went through something like 200 rewrites, because it shows. The film operates on a gradually sliding scale from scathing satire to conventional romcom. I'm tempted to go back and chart the joke rate from start to finish, just to see if the line is at the perfect declining 45-degree angle that I imagine. I complain because it could have been more; it has sharp teeth in its first act and a number of fantastic punchlines, and the cast clearly enjoys playing their archetypes. But then it falls victim to the trap of so many good comedies, and gets so wrapped up in its plot that it forgets to tell jokes, or relies on a few dusty, terrible clichés. By the time the paramedic says that only one passenger can ride along in the ambulance and the men reply, "I'm her boyfriend!" "I'm the father!" and "I'm the father's boyfriend!", you're praying for the film to end before you forget how good it started out. Perhaps they should have stopped sometime before number 200. –Scott Hardie
What could I possibly say about this masterpiece that hasn't been said already? Spielberg's technical expertise was never in doubt, but this film proved what "The Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun" failed to prove, that he's a filmmaker of considerable artistic talent as well. I know the criticisms of this film, that it doesn't get inside Schindler's head until his final scene and that it reaches for the easy emotional punch at the end, but I understand Spielberg's choices and agree with them. What makes the film so good is not its class or even its emotional impact, but its faith in the value of this one true story to affirm all people of all religions, and the way it turns itself over completely to that faith, setting aside other concerns and simply telling the tale for what it was. This film has earned its place in history. –Scott Hardie
If you thought "Driving Miss Daisy" was too fast-paced and difficult to follow, here's a movie just your speed. It does tell a story with feeling and it does get slightly more lively in its second half, and it's refreshing to see a pro-American foreign film for a change, but the whole thing is about as thrilling as an afternoon at a law library. This one's a sleeper hit without the hit. –Scott Hardie
The film follows the comic's geeky ethos of cramming endless references and inspirations into every corner of the screen, staying clever and fun all the way through. It's clumsy about its subtext, but at least it has one, rare for a hyper teen comedy. –Scott Hardie • September 15 2010, 8:05am EST
There are three things I never want to see again in a horror movie: - A heroine running headlong into a slasher waiting just off the edge of the camera's view, in a direction the heroine was looking the whole time, but the heroine not noticing the slasher until the slasher comes into frame. - The slasher magically teleporting around the scene of a kill, so that he can emerge from behind any object or piece of furniture at any time, even if the heroine saw him standing in one place and never stopped looking at that place before he popped out beside her. - The slasher clairvoyantly knowing the exact spot where his intended victim will later stand, so that he can hide near it in a bathroom stall, projection booth, tv news van, theater control booth, or closet, and spring out when the moment is just right. I don't mind "Scream 2" bringing up bad horror-movie clichés when it's making fun of them, like with the old the-villain-is-not-really-dead gag at the end. But it commits a heinous number of these clichés with serious intent, and for a film whose premise is knowing the flaws of other horror movies, that's inexcusable. But what really disappoints me about the "Scream" series and its whole self-awareness is that the victims are still just victims. We're introduced to (bear with me) kind, interesting, funny human beings, only to see them stabbed dead for a quick shock. It's unpleasant business. In typical slasher films, the heroes are witless morons who don't see it coming; in the "Scream" films, the characters have the cosmic misfortune to know they're doomed to die for nothing, and there's jack they can do about it. I get sick watching the death scenes, and not in the way the filmmakers intended. I still appreciated Jamie Kennedy's sarcastic and Kevin Williamson's clever take on sequels, and the prologue is brilliant. But where the original "Scream" was 70% witty deconstruction of cliché and 30% actual cliché, this sequel seems to have the proportion reversed. It has all the self-awareness of sequels but still doesn't realize it's failing to capture what made the original work so well. –Scott Hardie
As anyone could have predicted, the final "Scream" sequel seemed to go back to where the series started, but in fact deviated even further from what made the original so good. Gone almost completely from the film is any self-aware joking about horror movies or sequels: The first two opened with great prologues that spoofed horror-movie conventions with a barrage of references, but the third film's prologue is a straightforward scene in which a major character is stalked and attacked, with no humor or insight or purpose other than its own minimal entertainment value. There's still miles of territory the "Scream" films could have covered in their half-academic, half-parody exploration of the genre, but the third film gives up and goes through the motions of typical horror, with mild results. On the plus side, by taking itself so seriously, it has perhaps the most scary incarnation of the "Ghostface Killer" (I always wondered what the Wu-Tang Clan made of him), and for the first time there's not the self-defeating sense that Sidney Prescott could stand up to him with her wit alone, but a sense that the characters really are up against something that's not playing by the rules. Granted, the film overreaches in trying to establish its villain as supernatural, a ploy we are not going to fall for, but in the process it does make its villain seem a lot more powerful than his/her predecessors, and that gives it a certain gravity. Even if the humor is not on the level of the earlier films, there's still good material with a self-mocking Jenny McCarthy and the grin-inducing silliness of Parker Posey. It's just a shame that knowledge of horror sequels doesn't save this one from being the same boring rehash that most of them are. –Scott Hardie
The hype is accurate: This is intelligent, rousing entertainment, the only adult film of the summer, and the first Oscar contender of the year. In fact, its biggest flaw is that it's a little too perfect, never reaching too far to become a work of art instead of merely being entertainment perfected. Chris Cooper is excellent, and the film buries itself very convincingly in the time period. There's little tension (the title of the movie isn't 'War Admiral'), but it's a sports movie, what can you expect? At its best moments (plural), the audience breaks out in applause. –Scott Hardie
Some plot clichés aside, this rollicking family comedy is really an excuse for Robert Duvall and Michael Caine to have fun making a movie together, and their enjoyment is infectious. It's a minor film that presses the usual buttons and entertains well. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:42am EST
I often lament good movies sabotaging themselves with the unnecessary, terrible twist endings that quickly wore out their welcome as a recent cinematic fad. This one doesn't qualify because it wasn't so good in the first place and because it's plain from the first scene that there's a Big Secret lurking underneath, but damn if it doesn't deserve to be lamented anyway; this is a crappy plot twist for the ages. "Writer-director David Koepp flies so far off the rails that his film might someday be spotted soaring in Jupiter's orbit," wrote Nathan Rabin in The Onion, and that sounds about right. The real crime is that we do not care; the first two thirds of the film are so obviously about nothing but stalling for time, and so many other crappy movies have had so many other crappy plot twists as of late, that all we can do is tick off another one on the count. What is it now, infinity plus one? –Scott Hardie
[spoiler] This survival-oriented Western is gripping for most of its running time, especially in the wordless first act where fugitive flees lawman through frozen forest. But it stumbles in the final act, especially with a degrading supernatural ending. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:40am EST
At last, Joss Whedon’s feloniously mishandled sci-fi tv series gets its feature film sequel, and as expected, it’s dense with character details and in-jokes for fans while being just as exciting and surprising as the best episodes of the short-lived series. —Firefly” took the unpromising concept of a pistols-and-horses Western set in the space age and made it work through talent, charisma, and force of will, and —Serenity” extends the premise to a bigger canvas without the limitations of a weekly serial. Thankfully, it also abandons or goes easy on the more gimmicky elements of the show, such as the swearing in Mandarin and the silent space sequences, focusing instead on the complicated plot it has to tell, resolving one of the series’ central mysteries in a dense two hours while still managing to fit in a number of sensational action scenes. The uninitiated are likely to enjoy it even if they don’t understand what the hell is happening most of the time, since the film seems made unapologetically for fans who already appreciate its sarcastic wit and consistent ability to pull the rug out from under you just when you think you get it. The film is a treat, and I strongly recommend it, but first you have to rent the original 14-episode series that inspired it. Together they’re worthy of every ounce of love and praise the fans lavish on them. –Scott Hardie
My love of the Matrix films is no secret, but I have never been fond of Don Davis's bombastic score, which assaults the ears like a blanket of napalm. At the risk of sounding like an old man, tone it down already! I couldn't help but think of Davis while listening to Steve London's equally overachieving score for this low-budget horror indie. Every action, even the slightest twitch of a shoulder, is underscored with screeching violins and thunderous chords, as if he accidentally overbooked the orchestra and, aw shucks, he may as well use 'em. It's a distraction during the unevenly-paced film, which consists mostly of Steadicam shots that lurk in the woods watching the heroes from afar. It's a time-honored gimmick of the genre, but really, 65 minutes of it in a single film is enough. Really, the only three things I can praise in this witless, ham-fisted excuse for entertainment are A) the creepy makeup on the villains and victims, B) the creepy cinematography during the psychic premonitions, and C) the extra-creepy discovery made by the hero when he wakes up chained to a chair in... well, does it matter? The rest of the movie is so infuriatingly edited (intercutting and leaving scenes just as the tensions mounts) and poorly acted (I'd call Tim Murphy a poor man's Viggo Mortensen but I don't want to compliment him) that it's not worth renting by anyone, anywhere, any time. It starts with an intriguing premise – naked teenager shows up covered in blood at a police station and won't talk – but insists on badly miscalculated attempts to create and maintain an air of dread, losing its good ideas in a morass of stupidity and minutes wasted at a time. Avoid it. –Scott Hardie
I can't fault Chan or Owen Wilson one bit for this mess. They're still doing what they do best, and Chan's fight scenes deliberately echo his prior hits in a nod to his impending retirement. But this film is otherwise an awful waste of time and 50 million dollars. The most irritating element is the relentlessly hyper soundtrack, which frequently tarnishes Chan's grace with a Looney Tunes idiocy. But the film is also bloated with anachronisms (acceptable) and plot holes (not). It even fakes the outtakes at the end. Sacrelige! –Scott Hardie
I missed Stephen Chow's first hit on my way to the hilarious Kung Fu Hustle. This one is every bit as zany and entertaining. The wild CGI is what you notice first, but the success of the film lies in the funny little human touches of its cast. –Scott Hardie • February 22 2012, 9:11pm EST
Some young men finally grow up when their parents die. Others do when their first son or daughter is born. What happens is a permanent end to a comfortable existence as a slacker, but this film draws a lot of laughs from how resilient as slacker attitude can be in the face of adversity, which in this case just happens to be hordes of flesh-eating zombies invading London. The film mines a rich vein of horror-movie humor (anyone with even a remote familiarity with Romero will count multiple in-jokes), but the focus is always on the process of this 29-year-old boy becoming a man, and it's a transformation illuminated by plenty of observational humor and dry British wit, the kind of thing you'd get if "Seinfeld" took place in London and happened to feature a zombie outbreak in a sweeps-week episode. The cast is uniformly terrific, investing their characters with welcome nuance (I liked the way Lucy Davis communicated her character's crush on Shaun with inflection alone), but the triumphant scene-stealer is Nick Frost as the slovenly buddy in a role written perfectly for him; he provides the film's biggest laughs and a considerable amount of its charm. The screenplay by star Simon Pegg and director Edgar Wright is a reliable foundation for the film; it is tightly paced and knows exactly how to get where it's going with important interludes that seem like comic diversions. The film strikes a handful of false notes, such as when one character meets an unexpectedly (and very) gory death by zombies, but overall it does a fantastic job of walking that tightrope between horror and comedy, between serious and silly, between meaningful and frivolous. The growing trend of the day in cinema as in cuisine is to combine divergent flavors, and "Shaun of the Dead" is among the most benefitting, realizing some of the best potential in the intersection of a standard horror-movie crisis and a romantic comedy's idealism. It's superior entertainment. –Scott Hardie
Teen movies are like horror movies: The vast majority of them are as dumb as bricks because the audience isn't discriminating, but every once in a while, a great one comes along that takes advantage of the genre's unique access point to our psyche. She's the Man is not one of the great ones. It is one of the recent string of Shakespearean plays "adapted" – that is, dumbed down and then dumbed down some more – into the teen movie format, standard clichés intact and every punchline visible a mile away. The sexist soccer coach that sets the plot in motion is a particularly unbelieveable specimen from Planet Sitcom, not that the movie demonstrates an understanding of the basic rules or strategy of soccer when it shows the sport being played. –Scott Hardie • May 29 2007, 8:41am EST
This is Holmes for ADHD sufferers, a four-hour mystery stuffed into half that time with rapid dialogue and hurried fight scenes. It's fun, with a clever screenplay and classic twists, but the real charms are the lively score and art direction. –Scott Hardie • December 28 2009, 11:23pm EST • 4 replies
More than three hours passed as I watched "Short Cuts," and not once did I notice. It has the fascination of real life, as we watch ordinary people pass from points A to B to C to D to E in their lives, never seeing the larger picture to which they all belong, and never being boring. They could have kept going for another three hours and been just as interesting. As with most of his films, Robert Altman here prefers to make lots of little points rather than one big one. Any single one of these stories, stretched to feature length by itself, would have been interesting but too mundane to say anything of consequence; put together and overlapping one another, they multiply until themes emerge. We see Fred Ward and Annie Ross react indifferently to deaths that horrify his wife Anne Archer and her daughter Lori Singer, who imagine being cared about just as little. We feel the simmering anger under Matthew Modine and Chris Penn when they obsess over the imagined infidelities of their wives Julianne Moore and Jennifer Jason Leigh, not because they were cheated on but because they believe their wives to have gotten greater gratification out of the other experiences. Lili Taylor and Bruce Davison reject pleas for forgiveness from their fathers Tom Waits and Jack Lemmon for abandoning them as children. Peter Gallagher and Robert Downey Jr. invade and destroy other people's homes to fill their own internal voids. Over and over, we see fathers abandoning children, wives cheating on husbands, good people causing death, men blaming women for sexuality imposed upon them, people lashing out at strangers and then regretting it, and everybody drinking without ever getting drunk. By repeating these incidents, Altman gets to have both the authenticity of daily life and the thematic richness of good fiction, and numerous other directors have repeated the archetype to suit their own films. This is one of the best "mosaic" films I have seen. And through it all is the central idea of Altman's career, that life happens by chance: All of the good fortune and bad fortune that befalls these characters is the result of pure happenstance no matter how much or little they plan their lives. If you see the film, seek out the Criterion Collection edition. Not only does it come with all of the original short stories collected into one paperback book, but the bonus disc includes a feature-length behind-the-scenes documentary ("Luck, Trust, and Ketchup") that is as endlessly engrossing as the film it elucidates, with unique perspectives from each member of the large cast. Just don't believe anything Altman says in it: His storytelling tool is misdirection, making you think he's concerned about something else so that his real point seems to come across by itself; in every interview in this bonus feature, he seems to up to his usual tricks. Fortunately, his fine film speaks for itself. –Scott Hardie
For years I've listened to friends lament that the mediocre "Titanic" ranks among the top-grossing movies of all time, but I never really understood their disenfranchisement until this colossal banality ascended to the top of those same ranks. This movie out-earned "E.T. the Extra fucking Terrestrial" for cryin' out loud. It's not a great movie; it simply had a great marketing campaign. Like the original, it's not really actively bad, except perhaps for the awkward fart jokes put in for the immature ones in the audience (and their kids). It's merely flat and jokeless, expending a great deal of energy to tell jokes with minimal comedic impact. Referencial comedy can be funny if you do something with the references, but simply putting a Starbucks Coffee in a medieval village is not funny in and of itself. I dunno, lots of people saw this movie and liked it enough to see it again; the proof is in the returns. But I sat there stone-faced for most of the film, and I can't recommend it. (To be fair, I did laugh at Puss-in-Boots's entrance, and Pinocchio's secret.) The other problem with the film is an overwhelming tackiness, especially in the choice of musical numbers; I know Pixar makes quality animated entertainment look easy, but Dreamworks only boosts their competitor's reputation. On the whole, this is forgettable crap that doesn't deserve to be on any list with the truly great movies it spoofs, like "E.T." –Scott Hardie
Shrek gets to compare being a wild bachelor ogre to a domesticated house ogre. Sadly, the villains suck but Puss in Boots provides plenty of chuckles and the best line is saved for last. It's truly worth the wait. –Steve West • May 22 2010, 6:40pm EST
Kevin Spacey, playing "shrink to the stars," is the best thing about this mopey indie drama overstuffed with quirk. The movie sets up confrontations and catharses that it's not willing to follow through on, but it does project its feelings very well. –Scott Hardie • March 22 2012, 6:30pm EST
Scorsese and DiCaprio take on film noir, showing a desperate man's cracking mental state as his past refuses to leave him alone. Originality is not its strong suit, but it's creepy, and packs disturbing dream imagery and great one-scene performances. –Scott Hardie • March 6 2010, 1:29pm EST
By now this film has already racked up considerable acclaim and is a major Oscar contender, so there's little need for me to make a case for you to rent it. I can report that I watched it with rapt attention, grateful bemusement, and honest emotion, as the story shifted gears from character-driven observational comedy to slapslick farce to bracing drama. Of all its moods it evoked depression the best, the kind that lurks under the surface when you appear functional, the kind you curse only after it has defeated you in some small contest yet again. Paul Giamatti's Miles is forever hanging his head and calculating the fastest route to a drink; he is a stone-cold alcoholic and the film would be more honest to identify that as the root of his problems, but of course that isn't the point. This film is proof that even the oldest, most overdone plotlines can still serve well when approached with creativity and ambition. The story told here is as old as the hills and the characters are predictable semi-archetypes, but as he always does, Alexander Payne refuses to see them in terms of "story" and "character," but as experiences and people. His protagonists are as complex as any in the movies, capable of inspiring sympathy and disgust and pride; you never get the feeling you know them entirely, even by the final frame. I found myself feeling for the characters' misfortunes even though they brought it upon themselves, something that I rarely do as a moviegoer, and I credit Payne's careful attention to character detail with making his "people" so involving. I'll happily add my voice to the chorus and call this one of the best films of the year. –Scott Hardie
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] Advent Children is made to excite and is likely only to excite video game fans. Silent Hill, on the other hand, is made to scare the bejeezus out of you, and is likely to have that effect on anyone. This year's valedictorian of the what-the-fuck-is-going-on school of horror moviemaking, the movie strands its heroine in a nightmare beyond reason or redemption, bringing her (and us) visions of things that cannot be. It's H.P. Lovecraft for the Playstation generation, and it's a gorgeously freakish vision to behold. –Scott Hardie • April 22 2007, 9:14pm EST
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] Apparently all her work helping James Bond and training geishas isn't good enough, because Michelle Yeoh still has to slum through horrible straight-to-DVD camp like this to pay the bills. Truth be told, even though the movie's as incredibly stupid as Yeoh looks in her superhero costume, I confess to enjoying it anyway. She plays a millionaire fashion model and cosmetics heiress (!) by day, but by night, she puts a colander on her head and prowls the city on her hi-tech motorcycle, battling incompetent thugs led by a cheap rip-off of the villain from Star Trek: Nemesis, who himself was an expensive rip-off of Billy Corgan. If Yeoh and costar Richie Ren didn't do the whole movie with goofy grins on their faces and a weird innocence, it would be unbearable, but somehow in spite of its lack of decent action and sub-Catwoman moronity it manages to be a silly good time. Don't bother renting it; it's strictly for people who get a grin just seeing Michelle Yeoh on a movie screen. –Scott Hardie • September 24 2006, 9:20pm EST
Some movies become classics instantly, but those that have to earn the title seem to deserve it much more richly. "Singin' in the Rain" was a soon-forgotten modest hit upon its initial release, but its exuberance and spirit were undeniable, gradually earning it a deserved reputation as Hollywood's greatest musical. Whatever Gene Kelly's professional difficulties, he was a brilliant dancer, and this film builds so well upon his earlier work (half in tribute, half in parody) that it would seem like his single best performance even if it wasn't. Donald O'Connor has also gained immortality for his version of the semi-original "Make 'Em Laugh," throwing himself around the set like the most graceful stuntman in the business. This is a cheerful production with astounding song-and-dance routines, almost impossible to dislike. –Scott Hardie
premise: This sequel picks up in the lives of the four friends, who three summers later, still share a bond and a mystical pair of jeans. I first have to say, I was a big fan of the original movie. First off, it has the coming together of 4 successful television phenoms - Amber Tamblyn of Joan of Arcadia, Blake Lively of Gossip Girl, America Ferrera of Ugly Betty, and Alexis Bledel of Gilmore Girls. A sisterhood of strong acting will always draw me to a movie. In the overstretched world of sequels, the title and concept of this sequel is simple. But it works. The first movie, taking place the summer the girls are 16 takes them on individual coming of age adventures and ties them together through a mystical pair of pants that somehow fits all of them. This installment picks up after their first year of college. The premise is the same, however, I didn't find myself bored with the concept. I was once again interested in the challenges the girls faced with school, friendship, family, love/romance, sex...all taking them to exotic locals once again. And the format keeps you from zoning out by flipping secen by scene to what a different girl was doing at the time. And who could get sick of seeing blue Mediterranean waters! Once again, I think I found myself most interested in the stories of Carmen (Ferrera) and Tibby (Tamblyn) Bridget's story (played by Lively) borrows a bit too much from In Her Shoes. Bridget is probably the most troubled character and while she resolved some of ther family issues, I feel that there wasn't enough time to really let her character have any fun (maybe she had too much fun in the first movie when she was in Mexico!) Lena (played by Bledel) portrays a more typical story (love-heartbreak-love), but it is enjoyable anyway and serves as a control to some of the more serious themes and serves as something anyone watching can relate to. The famous pants really take a back seat here. As is fitting. As the girls grow older, silly superstitions become more passe and they are able to deal with the 4 major themes, love, trust, strength in self, and reconciliation with family in a more grown up way (as we all must eventually). This installment is a perfect follow up to the original movie. The ending didn't really seem to leave room for another after this. I could honestly see a third movie taking place maybe when the girls are say, my age and dealing with themes such as marriage, babies, death of a grandparent perhaps, job choices etc. Done in the right way, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 3 could be just as enjoyable as is 2 predecessors. –Jackie Mason • March 1 2009, 9:28pm EST
Few movies have more divided critics and audiences this year. The former are carried away with its zest and visual splendor, the latter bored by its lazy plotting and characterization. As far as I'm concerned, this is the kind of film in which the story exists for the sole purpose of justifying the visuals; frankly, the film was generous with details, not stingy. If you're trying to figure out the mystery being investigated by the heroes, you're really paying attention to the wrong part of this movie. The film was famously inspired by a six-minute short of towering robots attacking New York, and so it's only appropriate that the best sequence is that one, near the beginning. For its magnitude and sheer genius of execution, that sequence is worth the price of admission by itself, an explosion of deco aesthetics and old-fashioned Adventure wrapped up into a miniature action masterpiece. The rest of the film is worthy of it, gleefully and skillfully going over the top whenever possible, and that means often. For a viewer like me who loves good movies for the striking new images they give us, this is a treasure trove of wonders. It's not a perfect film, due to the aforementioned weakness of the script, and the technology occasionally betrays itself with a faint blue aura around the actors in close-ups. But it cannot be underappreciated for its wealth of visual invention; this movie is the reason why so many creative filmmakers turn to animation to present their ideas, and it paints a glorious future for animated cinema, not a dreary one. Entertainment should always be this bold. Footnote: I must condemn the use of Laurence Olivier in a cameo role fifteen years after his death, manipulated to play a new character with old footage. Even the critics who deplore this kind of classless stunt find themselves apologizing for it, but I won't. Any number of famous living actors would have been terrific for the cameo, and even a nobody would have been better than resurrecting a dead man for the part. It's a black mark on an otherwise brilliant film. –Scott Hardie
This film takes a strange trip, winding up proving itself wrong without intending to make a point at all. It began as a John Landis documentary comparing politicians (especially George W. Bush) to used car salesmen, with the emphasis on lying being a part of both jobs. Then Landis met Michael Bennett, a price slasher who sets up blow-out sales at car dealerships by offering extreme sales tactics; the guy is a fascinating character (he'd have to be) and his reputation for selling something like 200 cars in four days precedes him. That's the problem, I guess. The introduction got me so psyched up to see Bennett go to work selling fleets of cars in a jiffy that the actual results were a letdown: He blew his big lead on the first day, and the crowds never returned. Whole scenes consisted of him barking through the loudspeakers to an empty dealer lot. If it was Landis's intention to demonstrate the man's dishonest nature by making a dishonest film, then he succeeded, but his comments on the DVD and Bennett's own genuine conviction that he's an honest man don't do much to support that hypothesis. Like the best circus barkers, Bennett and Landis summon us to watch a grand spectacle, then give us very little once we're inside the tent. At least it has a fantastic Stax soundtrack that vividly brings Memphis to life. –Scott Hardie
premise: A woman holds a horrid little sexual secret! Watch what happens when she reveals it to her friends and family! Ugh! This was written and directed by Bob Goldthwaite (apparently he's not Bobcat anymore), and it shows. I won't reveal the big secret, but you're told what it is 2 minutes in, so I'm really not hiding anything from you. I was tempted to rate this 'It sucked', because it really wasn't very good, but, honestly, the main actress really does do a great job in the movie. (Plus, she's cute, and I don't normally find blondes cute, so take that for what it's worth.) I honestly feel sympathy for her character, which doesn't happen often, especially in a movie which is so full of distractions and crud. The actress (Melinda Page Hamilton) hasn't really done much else, but I hope to see her again in more movies, preferably not with Bobcat Goldthwaite writing/directing. Anyhow, the girl gets engaged to her "dream man", and agonizes over whether to tell him the big secret she's been holding since she was a young, naive college girl. Unsurprisingly (and this movie would blow if they didn't), she tells him, and he is not amused. At all. Then, her family finds out, and they pretty much disown her. Eventually, things work out, she dumps the fiancee, meets someone new, etc. etc. etc. I won't spoil the rest of the movie, but the message at the end seemed to be (to me) "It's OK to lie and hold secrets back from people. In fact, life works better that way!" I do not agree with that, and so, that's probably a big part of my dislike for this film. This movie is billed as a romantic comedy. It's not funny. Maybe it's one of those dark comedies, where they aren't funny in a serious way that make people say they are comedies, but don't expect the funny, because you won't get it. The situation is ludicrous, but that's about it. It's really kind of more heart wrenching to see how everyone privy to the secret changes how they feel about the main character. If you're looking for a weird and different movie, this could be your cup of tea. If nothing else, you'll see what I think passes for great acting, so you can judge your opinion of my opinion based on this, because I can't say enough about what a great job Melinda Page Hamilton does in this movie. I might start a fan club! [EDIT] Apparently, this movie has also been called Stay, so if you see that, it might be the same movie. The version I watched was called Sleeping Dogs Lie. –Aaron Shurtleff • May 9 2008, 3:26pm EST
The Academy was right to crown this the best picture of 2008: It's a gripping, dazzling telling of a great story. I use the adjective "brilliant" when describing Danny Boyle's work and this is no exception; he outdid himself with a great entertainment. –Scott Hardie • August 2 2009, 7:27pm EST
I have always wondered what a science fiction film would be like if it were planted firmly in reality, with a hero who is self-centered and has a 9-to-5 job and doesn't enjoy risking her life to unravel a supernatural mystery. Now I have the answer: When the film is good and the actress is great, it works. This film belongs to Julia Ormond, who chisels her compassionless character out of pure ice and makes us sympathize with her because of her integrity. The film isn't always convincing around her, especially when it depends on every ancient cliché in screenwriting school – Gabriel Byrne can't tell what pay phone she's calling from until he hears a foghorn? I wonder if she'll get in trouble at the harbor and he'll arrive just in time to rescue her! – but Ormond and the rest of the cast use sheer willpower to forge through the material, and they are the true rewards here. Even if it wasn't about a cold-hearted Copenhagen geologist investigating the murder of a deaf Inuit boy who had a connection to an extraterrestrial meteor that crashed in Greenland in 1852 and might cause or solve any number of global crises, I'd still say this is one of the most unique and highly memorable films you could possibly treat yourself by renting. Give it a try. –Scott Hardie
I've wanted to see this since enjoying Sherman Alexie's book, and it didn't disappoint. It's a gentle, practically PG-rated road-trip movie with a different perspective and literate dialogue. Gary Farmer is great playing the complicated father figure. –Scott Hardie • March 11 2012, 7:52pm EST • 1 reply
What could have been an intense thriller or a stylish action flick wound up being neither by trying to be both: Joe Carnahan set out to make the kind of blood-soaked, anything-goes flick that 1970s audiences would see at a drive-in theater, or (ahem) grindhouse theater, but style is not among his strong suits. Weird elements like moronic redneck assassins bringing chainsaws to a gunfight can't play against such a somber, post-9/11 tone. Had Carnahan fully committed himself to making a serious project that suits his nature, he might have had something really sharp like his previous films. Smokin' Aces is entertaining and I liked it in spite of itself, but its jokes fall flat, its plot twists are screamingly obvious, and it's just too slow. –Scott Hardie • June 23 2007, 11:02pm EST • 1 reply
As a fan of silly, completely implausible Hong Kong action movies (another Qi Shu flick, Gorgeous, ranks among my favorites in the subgenre), I would have to label this one as a mediocre example of the subgenre. Technically, I watched this movie before the weblog commenced, but I was so underwhelmed by it that I didn't bother writing an official review, which almost never happened. It's slight and transparent. The action scenes are impressive enough as long as Qi Shu isn't in them (she's as convincing doing martial arts as Drew Barrymore), but the dialogue scenes send the movie flying off the rails -- and while that's normally a plus for this subgenre, I don't mean it as a compliment here. I simply didn't believe the characters' transformations from poker-faced ass-kickers into giddy preschool girls, and the need to one-up the other characters demonstrated by Karen Mok's detective was bothersome at best. This kind of movie is candy for your eyes and poison for your brain; you know already whether or not you'd like it. –Scott Hardie
premise: A high school senior is haunted by her dead twin as she vacations with friends in the Louisiana bayou. Directed by Dan Myrick of The Blair Witch Project. In his audio commentary, writer-director Dan Myrick makes clear that he has no lack of ambition, since he models himself after Hitchcock by emphasizing story and character over the trappings of genre. The problem, then, must be lack of talent, because the story and character are awfully slim in this brain-dead Euro-horror remake, even by direct-to-video standards. The soundtrack eagerly rachets up the tension every time the heroine finds herself alone, even when it's clear nothing scary is about to happen. The film wants to be scary, but doesn't have a clue how to create characters in peril that we care about, how to indicate real menace lurking in the shadows, or how to deliver the goods when the moment finally arrives, leaning on shoddy CGI probably necessitated by the film's budget, and a laughably "shocking" ending. The other Euro-horror release this month, The Orphanage, is like a master class in creating intense dread compared to this amateurish mess. –Scott Hardie • January 26 2008, 1:15am EST
We know roughly how the plot will go; what surprises us is the warmth and eloquence employed in the process. That’s appropriate, since he’s a flatterer and she’s a playwright, but it reminds us how badly most romantic comedies slack off when it comes to what a man and woman falling in love should say to one another, as though desirous stares were enough. Keaton is luminous and honest, and it’s no mystery why all the men in the movie fall for her. It would have been better without rushing the ending so much, but it was still a joy. –Scott Hardie
premise: The lives of a rich Los Angeles family, including Adam Sandler, Tea Leoni, and Cloris Leachman, are changed by the arrival of housekeeper Paz Vega. Maybe James L. Brooks has been making cartoons too long. This sub-sitcom "drama" bears no resemblance to real life, but it strives for heart-wrenching drama in nearly every scene. A character is in meltdown at any given moment, and the endless string of crises really tests an audience's willingness to care. This family needs professional therapy, not a cinematic stereotype, the magical poor racial-minority who solves all the white folks' problems. Whatever dramatic-acting cred Adam Sandler built up in Punch-Drunk Love is torpedoed here; he joins everyone else in a hyperactive scene-chewing frenzy. Some movies need to be medicated. –Scott Hardie • July 27 2008, 6:10pm EST • 3 replies
Knowing that this film is the work of a novice writer-director who struggled to make his ideas clear on "Project Greenlight" (he lost the competition but got the film financed anyway) could be the key to enjoying it. Many films use clichés and few deserve get away with it, but gosh, you just want to cut the kid some slack; he's trying his darnedest, you know. The film is pretty good when it settles into the daily lives of its down-to-Earth protagonists, playing out like a low-key riff on "American Beauty" with more plausible dialogue. Nicky Katt's poorly-developed pawnbroker is a weakness, spouting off wise sayings while never demonstrating any actual wisdom, but David Strathairn's put-upon everyman makes a sympathetic lead: He loves his wife and he loves his father-in-law and he even loves his mischievous dog, and this is the story of his standing by them as they reject him and test his patience, because that's what everymen do. Ultimately the uplift can ring a little phony (especially when the ends are tied too neatly in the closing scenes), but Murphy has an ear for dialogue and a suberb casting director, and he works this laid-back drama into a touching and traditional yarn. This might be one of the most pleasing little indie movies this year. –Scott Hardie
A children's competition is an easy subject from which to draw exhilaration and drama, and Blitz finds the right notes. He helps these kids make a real impression, which is tough considering how alike some of them look. We know that one of them will win (would Blitz show us eight losers?), but there's real drama watching them get whittled down, and young Harry Altman's facial contortions at the microphone are hilarious. Would it have killed Blitz to show us each word on the screen, though? –Scott Hardie
Strange that a film being hailed as the best comic book adaptation ever should open the same weekend that Superman's dad died. I'm always wary of the hype that a sequel is better than the beloved original (when in truth it's only fresher in mind), but a mid-90s rating on the TomatoMeter can't be wrong. This film is a true marvel, the first superhero movie I can recall in which I actually grew impatient with the superhero scenes, waiting for the secret identity to come out and play. The film's real power is not in its dizzying f/x showcases (which do not disappoint for what they're worth), but in the depths it manages to find in the soul of Peter Parker, who maintains a sunny disposition in the face of near-crippling bad luck and self-sacrifice. If this sounds like I'm overanalyzing a two-dimensional fictional character, don't get Sam Raimi started on the subject! Better yet, do; the only complaint I have about the film is that it ends, leaving us yearning for even more psychoanalysis and soul-searching from a man in colored tights. If "Batman" and "The Crow" failed to make it seem possible that superhero angst could be made not just believeable, but even fascinating, here's the counterpoint. There's little to be achieved in comparing this film to its predecessor, since they are so similar in content and excellence. But I can't help making certain points: Where a real menace like Doctor Octopus (thank goodness they said his full name!) allows for some much better battles than the tacky Green Goblin, there's little room for psychological conflict between a hero and villain who have barely met, and in that absence you realize how much was actually going on between Peter and Norman two years earlier. My biggest gripe about the original, that Spidey's wisecracking sense of humor was lost in script revisions, has been partially addressed here with more one-liners (even from Ock), but I'm still not satisfied that the writers care what a definitive element of the character it is. I'm also pleased to see the tradition of Marvel references continue: Fans will recognize not just people and names, but even poses and specific moments from the comics; this film is not willing to throw away its source material after buying the license like too many others. Finally, with all due props to Willem Dafoe and Cliff Robertson, the film gets more quality out of Alfred Molina and Rosemary Harris in essentially the same roles in the sequel; here's proof of the benefit of hiring classically trained actors for popcorn movies, as they single-handedly give the film extra layers of nuance. It's impossible for me to discuss the film in full without giving away surprises in its final act, so here's your big fat spoiler warning for the rest of this review. I'll also speculate on future films based on my knowledge of the comics, so stay away if you don't know what happens to various supporting characters in the original storyline. Forgetting my familiarity with the comics and my investment with the story as a viewer, as a cinemaphile it was extremely gratifying to see genuine progress with both Mary Jane and Harry in the final act. I had been dreading the possibility (even likelihood?) that the sequel would end with the characters in the same place, with MJ's unreciprocated gestures of love for Peter and Harry confiding in his best friend Peter that he'll get revenge on Spider-Man for his father's death. The tendency for studios is to stretch these things out indefinitely, abusing our emotional investment in the characters. When MJ ran past the fountain in her bridal gown and the wedding march chimed on the soundtrack, it struck me as one of the most joyous images I had ever seen put to film, and that sensation was no doubt influenced by the sudden dawning that the movie was willing to go somewhere with these characters instead of spinning them around in perpetual circles. So thank you, Mssrs. Raimi and Sargent and Chabon, for getting it right this time and establishing a precedent of progress for the series. Hopefully the third film will complete Harry and MJ's character arcs before the actors move on to other projects and the series proceeds without them. Speaking of which, I must voice three requests for the next sequel if they're going to set up Harry as the villain, which is a treacherous thing to do since they seemed to exhaust the cinematic possibilities with another Green Goblin already. First and foremost, they need to come up with more interesting things for him to do in the costume scenes, to use his villainous superpowers in new ways, or we're in for a boring retread of the original. If the writers can come up with new things for Spidey to do in every film, then certainly they can come up with new things for one of his villains to do just once. Second and least importantly, I hope they open with another villain next time, in a throwaway action sequence to calm the cravings for Spider-Man before settling in for so many scenes of Peter Parker and Harry Osborne, sort of like how the James Bond films open with an unrelated action sequence to whet the appetite. The Lizard is one possibility because he's so one-dimensional as a monster, but Curt Connors could have enough conflict with Peter to carry the fourth film all by himself, so bring in Rhino or Hammerhead or one of the villains who would be inadequate as the main antagonist but could still make for a single interesting battle. Third and most important to me personally, make good on the bridge scene. The moment when Green Goblin killed Gwen Stacy by dropping her from the bridge while Spidey rescued the tourists was one of the greatest moments in Marvel history, the moment that elevated the lame Goblin to his status as Spidey's greatest nemesis in the first place, but the original film cheated by allowing Spidey to save the girl and the crowd. As much as I want the new Goblin to do different things from the old Goblin, I do hope he reenacts what Norman meant to be his shining triumph, but this time he drops the girl and the tourists a moment earlier, giving the scene its proper payoff, a dead girlfriend. Hey, Kirsten Dunst wants out of further sequels, doesn't she? Here's a way to write her out, to do the classic moment justice, to follow through on the risks that MJ willingly assumed in the second film, to give future Spidey films years' worth of angst, to remind viewers why the Goblin in so important in the first place, and to sucker-punch the audience members who think Peter gets happy endings, all in a single moment of film. Plus, it would allow us the rare opportunity to see Spidey hate his enemy as much as his enemy hates him, allowing for an even more interesting dynamic between them. If the producers decide not to go this route, and I'm not holding my breath, then I hope they come up with a resolution just as (or even more) appropriate, meaningful, and shocking, as the final shot of the second film hints they will. –Scott Hardie
The careful balance found in Spider-Man 2 is lost here among too many villains (3?!) and a goofy riff on emo angst that's on the wrong wavelength. The last movie made action figures into believable human beings; this film achieves the opposite. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:30am EST
The joy of Miyazaki's films is in their richness, both in the visuals, where he patiently adds extraneous details to make every scene look real, and in the worlds, which thrive with so many multi-faceted characters that you don't know who's really good and who's really evil until well into the second half. This ambiguity allows for a moral exploration as well as a visual one, even if Miyazaki has to make his point in the end. He's getting repetitive at this late stage in his career, but he still makes gorgeous masterpieces of animé. –Scott Hardie
The sense of fun that this reboot brings is just what the series needed. It's vital again, though I'm not sure its abandoning of any deeper meaning is the plus everyone thinks. Hooray for a solid, thrilling adventure that dusts off an old favorite. –Scott Hardie • May 7 2009, 10:45pm EST • 3 replies
One of the chief complaints about the first two prequels is that they felt like trailers for a better movie coming in the future, so it's nice to have finally arrived at that better movie. This film successfully capitalizes on twenty-eight years of series history to make its every turn convincingly seem like an earth-shattering development; a first-time viewer with no advance knowledge of the series would get a fraction of the enjoyment. (It's a good thing for Lucas that audiences the world over already love his series.) This film is not just the culmination of the six-film series but also its climax, the point towards which the earlier films were driving and from which the later films derived, the point of no return. It's a credit to Lucas's strength as a storyteller that even though we know what Anakin Skywalker's fate must be, the film plausibly dangles hope that another outcome is possible, and bona-fide dramatic tension develops in the last movie you'd expect to have it. It carries the strength of the messenger sequence in "Romeo and Juliet": No matter how many times the play has been performed in these five centuries and always turned out the same way, you still have hope that Friar Lawrence's messenger will arrive in time to give Romeo that news that will let him live happily ever after with Juliet, but Romeo's ill-informed servant speeds by and doom closes its grip on the young lovers. Lucas may like to rewrite his own history, but still, even he wouldn't change the ending of "Sith," and yet throughout it, the battle for Anakin's soul has such compelling power that we hope against the inevitable, and I suspect we will still be able to hope it when revisiting this film after ten years or twenty years. It's every bit the "space opera" that was the original in 1977, except it replaces the freshness of youth with the richness of age. For capturing the full weight, power, and majesty of the "Star Wars" saga in one powder-keg of a finalé, this film is, in my mind, the best of the entire hexalogy. What helps it get there is an effort to overcome the weaknesses of the previous two films, which I admit had many flaws even though I did find them nearly as off-putting as many viewers. It can be agreed that the performances were wooden, so here Lucas employed dialogue coach Christopher Neil to help the actors find the rhythm of their lines and the conviction to carry the heavier material. To address charges that the dialogue was flat, Lucas hired an uncredited screenwriter (whose name I cannot for the life of me find right now after reading it a few days ago) to polish the draft, and it resulted in great moments like Palpatine's chilling monologue at the opera, where he hints at the hidden depths of evil within himself. If the special effects in the first two prequels seemed like demo reels for the CGI gurus at ILM, now Lucas actually uses them to entertain and tell a story, and lets their magnificence demonstrate itself. And though Jar-Jar Binks is given a hat tip with two fleeting appearances on screen, he is wisely kept mute. The cumulative meaning of these changes is clear: Lucas can be faulted for having poor judgment when the series started, but he has the capacity to learn from his mistakes and improve himself. Were he to have filmed all three chapters at once, we'd have gotten a "Sith" riddled with Jar-Jar's annoying presence and more yawn-inducing galactic politics, but the man clearly has a self-improvement streak, and I defy viewers not to give him credit for it. What's left beyond the dialogue, which sometimes remains stiff even with the script revisions because of Lucas's insistence on keeping to his classic adventure-serial paradigm, is the spectacle of the affair, and that's what everyone has truly come to see. Lucas does not disappoint, delivering a droid villain twice as deadly as Darth Maul's double-sided lightsaber, and breathtaking alien worlds such as the neon garden jungle where Aayla Secura does battle. John Williams's score is cranked to maximum intensity, heightening the sensation of "space opera" and helping the dramatic material transcend itself, as when Anakin is at last left alone to ponder Palpatine's offer in the Coruscant sunset and we realize this CGI-animated sci-fi cartoon has an actual soul inside it. If I have any real complaint to register, it's that the film drags for too long between its brilliant middle act and dynamite conclusion, taking too much time for its characters to learn information that we in the audience have long known, and more judicious editing would have preserved the momentum of the picture through this necessary stretch. But that's a minor quibble in the face of such ambitious storytelling and otherwise excellent craftsmanship. "Star Wars" has long been the iconic apex of science-fiction entertainment, and the best achievement of its final chapter is drawing upon the series's grandness and enduring popularity to go further than the series has before, into action sequences of awe-inspiring breadth and deep into the tortured soul of its iconic antagonist. This is 28 years of cinematic history realized in the best possible way. –Scott Hardie
The first question you should be asking yourself is, "Have I read this already?" Seriously. I cannot stress the importance of reading the graphic novel (or it's graphic-less novel form) before seeing this movie. The story (which is by Neil Gaiman...if you are familiar with his work, that will mean something to you, take it for what it is) in the movie is not exactly identical to the graphic novel's plot, which was something of an annoyance to me. I think that a lot of the appeal to me of Gaiman's works is the way he tells a story, and relates everything to everything else. This movie, while still enjoyable, changes enough of the novel's original plot line that it really end up lacking in the end, though what it is that is missing escapes me. This is, to give it the best genre I can, a magical, romantic fairy tale. A young man, trying desperately to win the heart of a woman who intends to accept the marriage proposal of another man, sees a falling star, and swears to return that star to his beloved, if she would but consent to marry him. Feeling that such an oath is so much hot air, she accepts, and thus young Tristan sets out on a quest to return the star to her. Unfortunately, the star has fallen on the other side of The Wall, which is the border to a magical realm (in the novel, it's Faerie, but that's not mentioned in the movie, in which the land is called Stormhold). And, if you are familar with Neil Gaiman, there are a host of sub-plots and side plots that all run parallel to the main story, which would be too much of a spoiler to discuss, I think. The acting is very good. Michelle Pfeiffer plays an evil witch. Robert DeNiro plays a dashing pirate captain (the funny twist on this character does not happen in the novel!). Charlie Cox does a very good job with the role of Tristan. And the star of the film (pun intended) is, of course, the lovely Claire Danes, who plays the part of Yvaine. You'll understand the pun when you see the movie! Of course, I have a huge crush on Claire Danes, so take that into consideration. In summation, I give this a It Ruled, but I am bothered by the changes between the novel and the movie. I'd say see the movie and read the novel, and see which you prefer, but see the movie! –Aaron Shurtleff • September 7 2007, 3:40pm EST • 2 replies
Big ideas are the currency of Stardust and it gets pretty far on them, with lightning pirates and aging witches and fratricidal princes. But Claire Danes is terrible as the blank female lead, and the homophobic jokes just fall flat. Too bad. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:35am EST
Perhaps the most widely misunderstood studio movie of the nineties, this mega-budgeted sci-fi film was betrayed by its marketing, which promised a gung-ho action extravaganza for the kind of viewer who likes all them pretty 'splosions. The film is far more than competent with its action content, delivering highly adrenalized combat sequences that juggle the interests of multiple characters at once without ever becoming incoherent, but there's a wealth of extra meaning that went unmined by audiences. Critics picked up on the movie's signals but misinterpreted them, calling the soldiers fascists and film dehumanizing. What almost no one seemed to suspect was that a genre movie this expensive could have a deliberate satirical slant to it: Of course the soldiers are fascists and the film is dehumanizing; director Paul Verhoeven and writer Ed Neumeier are trying to argue that those are terrible things and that nationalism eventually devalues individual life to the point where it is wasted on a grand scale. Verhoeven and Neumeier painted a forest, but critics saw only trees, and audiences saw only paint. When I first saw this film a few weeks ago, I was already aware of the filmmakers' real intentions via an article I had read about misunderstood movies, and I enjoyed them as much as I thrilled at the surface-level science fiction entertainment: The disturbingly detailed "arachnid" villains, the expansive view of a star armada falling into formation above a planet, the ballet of destruction caused by the well-trained soldiers and their weapons. But it's the film's real meaning that stayed with me. An ultra-conservative friend who liked this movie once argued that our country should adopt its system of compulsory military service as a prerequisite for citizenship, since only those willing to serve the state deserve to receive its benefits. Now I see how wrong-headed that notion is, that it punishes those opposed to militarism (reducing the peaceful and the conscientious to second-class citizens) and prevents its adherents from considering any notion of justice (the soldiers shout down any suggestion that humanity might have inspired the bug attacks). The problem with nationalism is that it empowers patriots at a steep cost to their humanity, their ethics, their values. It prefers war over peace, and it refuses to grant its enemies even the slightest consideration. Verhoeven and Neumeier have expressed disgust that their film has inspired jingoism rather than diminishing it; a cynic would chuckle at the inevitable failure of their message in the face of American bellicism if the cynic were not in total agreement with the fascist characters of the film. What do I make of the other reason the film failed to gain respect, the alleged sluttiness of its female lead? On their commentary track, Verhoeven and Neumeier claim to have been blindsided by the audience hatred of Denise Richards's character. Some preview audiences turned in blank sheets except for the words "kill the bitch!" in big letters. What is her crime? Falling for another man while dating the hero? They're teenagers, which would make the relationship unstable if it were committed to begin with, but the couple doesn't even achieve physical intimacy until just before they go their separate ways in military service, so I can't imagine what fidelity she owes him. Does the fact that he joined the army to gain her approval, which she never remotely pressured him to do, somehow obligate her to worship him? How is it that he sleeps with another female soldier in his unit but does not get a hint of scorn from the audience? The filmmakers said they were trying to be "good feminists" by letting the female lead pursue her own romantic agenda, and were baffled by backlashes from audiences all over the world that seethed with anger at this woman who dared to smile at another man besides the hero. In the future, when women get to fight and kill and even shower beside their male counterparts as equals, apparently they still owe them unwavering romantic allegiance. What an unfortunate perception to befall such a well-conceived, forward-thinking film. It deserves to be reconsidered in full; hopefully the high volume of material on the special edition DVD can help to turn the tide of audience favor back towards it. –Scott Hardie
Forget ponderous philosophical ruminations on the blurring line between technology and people: This old-fashioned adventure movie pays a few lines of lip service to its overwritten anime brethren, then gets on with the spectacle. This is exhilarating entertainment at full throttle, much like the nonstop-action formula that served Indiana Jones so well, as 1866 London becomes a battleground between the grandest machines of war that Katsuhiro Ô ;tomo can devise. It actually earned a stunned "wow!" in my living room as one astounding sight topped another. Ô ;tomo is a master animator, crafting unparalleled detail into every shot, and here his work is successfully enhanced by CGI trickery that allows his rooms to spin on an axis and his 2-D characters to encircle each other in three dimensions. I'm glad that I saw "Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence" only a week before this: That movie made it look impossible to combine traditional anime and 3-D CGI, but "Steamboy" makes it look easy. Ô ;tomo's skill at animation is the very best thing about this feature and it deserves to be widely seen. I wish the rest of the movie was as easy to recommend: It drags in the second half as the action becomes unremitting (the subtitled version that I watched is 20 minutes longer; both versions are on the DVD). And for large portions of the film, there's not much color either, as the characters explore the drab, shadowy bowels of a massive machine world. But if you still want to enjoy a firecracker of an adventure movie with breathtaking visual detail, you can't go wrong with this film. It's one of the best pure entertainments of the year. –Scott Hardie
This probably isn't the worst straight-to-video dreck churned out by Disney's tv division (I don't have the stomach to find out). But it's still lousy, content to be an underachievement in every way, and designed to introduce this fall's Pokémon-themed Stitch tv series. It pushes the interesting lead characters aside to focus on Jumba, Pleakley, Gantu, and a new villain seemingly voiced by Gilbert Gottfried. Considering that it's named after Stitch, it does little with him after turning him into a good-natured altruist. Beware! –Scott Hardie
You never know when a movie's going to get to you. I rented this one on a whim, having enjoyed other films by Kathryn Bigelow and James Cameron (who hasn't?), but I was not prepared for the mental experience of watching it. This film comes stuffed full of good ideas, both technical and technological. I refer you to the major critics if you want an academic dissection of how Bigelow uses virtual reality to break the fourth wall of cinema and comment on the thriller genre. But the visceral impact of her rape-murder sequence is stomach-turning, producing its effect by making us watch the emotional response of a person watching it, getting the same mileage out of mere suggestion that "Irréversible" went to great lengths to demonstrate graphically on screen. For me the biggest thrills were the filmmaking tricks, as Bigelow's POV camera snakes its way through the city, from one hotel ledge to another, from a rooftop to the street below. It took three years to plan these sequences, and they make the film even without other glorious images like the millennial street celebration. It's a minor letdown that the second half of the film isn't as good as the first, settling into off-the-shelf thriller conventions and abusing the economy of characters, but I was taken by surprise at just how emotionally invested I was during the final moments, pleading for the movie to end on the right note. Some viewers found the dialogue cheesy and the film's timeline preposterous (is it not obvious this is an alternate Earth, people?), enough viewers that I can't recommend this film to everyone. But if you're willing to tolerate implausibility as the price of thought-provoking science-fiction, or if you merely enjoy the high-wire acts that most Bigelow and Cameron films are, this is a film to experience. –Scott Hardie
This weird comedy doesn't run in predictable directions with its neat premise (its hero Will Ferrell can hear the film's narrator in his head). It's more interested in the warm human moments between its odd characters. This one's for the brain and heart. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:45am EST
My memories of seeing this in high school were vague, so I had to rent it again as an adult and form a more dependable opinion, and besides, it allows me to prolong the tradition of renting debut features of directors whose later work I admire. Reviews at the time questioned the wisdom of Luhrmann's fish-eye lens and bizarre camera angles, but it's funny how a decade and two completely apeshit-crazy follow-ups can make a film seem down-to-earth. It's little surprise that what is best in the film is the captivating dance performances, because the movie can hardly be bothered to tell much of a story around them. The movie began life years earlier as an improvised stage play, and grew through so many different incarnations that the movie is overstuffed with competiting plotlines; in a rush to cover everything before the audience gets restless for another dance number, many subplots fall by the wayside. The one that I found most interesting, the inevitable but promising love story between the leads, was shamelessly glossed over as the hero went from admitting his love for his partner to ditching her without a word, but apparently since the romance began with only a few meaningful glances, it was only appropriate to resolve it that way as well. Like the two leads getting lost in a sea of supporting characters in the final shot, the film loses its way en route to the finish, but it certainly contains some remarkable dancing along the way. It's worth a rental even for those turned off by Luhrmann's excesses in his later films. –Scott Hardie
It's a simple horror premise that could go so wrong: The apprentice of a mad doctor studying immortality keeps waking up only to be murdered again. The film is moody and approaches philosophical, and succeeds at being unsettling more often than scary. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:29am EST
There are some fun parts in this thriller about amateur criminals who kidnap a mob boss, but it takes its twisty plot too seriously. Christopher Walken is no longer scary at this stage of his career, but it's good to see young actors trying to top him. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:34am EST
This by-the-numbers indie comedy travels familiar roads, but it's charming and warm, and inspires welcome feelings. Amy Adams and Emily Blunt play siblings like they've lived lifetimes of mutual frustration. Watching them work is a simple pleasure. –Scott Hardie • October 8 2009, 10:43pm EST • 1 reply
[Scott's original review was lost in a technical glitch. His conclusion: "Super Size Me" is funny and important, and Morgan Spurlock's mcdiet is not as unrealistic for many fat Americans as the film's detractors say it is.] –Scott Hardie
Say whatever you want about this being a horrible film, and you’d be right, but at least it’s not lethargic. It flails and strives and pleads for laughs, fueled by a manic cartoon energy that isn’t afraid of absurd sight gags and contradictory music. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop at —over the top” and soars off into the stratosphere, leaving the audience to wonder if it will ever suddenly come down and crash. (Yes.) I suppose shrillness and buffoonery are still funny to some, not to mention misogyny, but outside of a few satirical zingers I thought this was disappointing garbage. –Scott Hardie
This movie isn't bad, but it misses so many chances to go somewhere with its premise, like commenting on our culture or getting more creative in the action scenes. Half an hour of subplots was trimmed in editing, so maybe it was intended to go deeper? –Scott Hardie • October 18 2009, 8:54am EST
premise: Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, and Helena Bonham Carter film the bloody Broadway musical about an insane barber who slices his customers' throats. Len Cariou and Angela Lansbury they ain't. Burton regulars Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter can't sing with the intensity of the stage production, nor portray the heights of madness they should. Depp in particular made a fatal acting choice when he decided Todd should be distant and stoic, when instead Depp should ham for the camera as a raging, wide-eyed lunatic – it would be vastly more entertaining, it would be in the spirit of the show, and if Depp has a problem with that kind of performance (as I expect he does), then he's the wrong man for the role. The result of this poor casting is a film made by people who like Sweeney Todd very much but aren't the right folks to pull it off. It's a curiously muted and purposeless movie, with little macabre fun to be had, and little sympathy for the devilish protagonists. To its credit, it looks great, rendering mid-1800s London with Burton's typical Impressionist flair, with terrific costumes by Colleen Atwood. Depp's makeup suggests a man who never sleeps, and before long you realize that his loft is designed without a bedroom. The supporting actors are generally good, especially Ed Sanders as the boy Toby, who might be a better singer than any of the adults around him. But there's a much better film to be made of this musical by people who understand it better. –Scott Hardie • January 1 2008, 9:22am EST • 2 replies
"Ambitious" doesn't begin to describe it. Charlie Kaufman puts his feelings about life, love, identity, creativity, and death into this sprawling production, and the primary feat is that it even begins to cohere. It's weird and sad, and totally profound. –Scott Hardie • February 9 2012, 4:35pm EST
Much is made of Stephen Gaghan's dense, layered screenplay, the sort often called labrynthine. I'm of the crowd who believe that trying to keep up is part of the experience, and who like it that way. Watching this movie is an act of concentration, in which you spend half your brain power watching a scene and the other half stitching the previous scene into the growing quilt of scenes that came before it so that they make sense. None of this has anything to do with Gaghan's message, but it sure keeps you from dozing off. And hey, the whole plot's right there on Wikipedia if you get lost. Gaghan's message is different things to different people. Many critics think that it's the futility of trying to control regional politics in the modern era. Roger Ebert understood it to be that the world's oil is running out and world powers are getting more corrupt in their pursuit of what little oil is left. Instead, it got me thinking with disgust about the oil barons of the Middle East who spend their fortunes on palaces, yachts, and sports cars while their people wither away from hunger and disease; if oil does run out in ten years, the region will again be poor and backwards. The hero of Syriana, if the film has any heroes at all, is a Saudi prince who wants to invest his oil fortune in his country to give it a future, and it's telling that this prince who happily sells every drop of oil he can is the West's target for elimination. Through the story of the prince and the Western men who influence his fate, sometimes from distant continents, Gaghan forges a tale of tension, sadness, and thought-provoking politics. It's worth seeing. –Scott Hardie
Zack Snider indulges his bloodlust in this short film drawn from the Watchmen mythos, a parable that was intended to inform the larger novel but in Snider's hands becomes a grim orgy of unspeakable violence. That would be fine if it were good. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:24am EST
Petey Greene's outspoken personality and unique vantage point on the civil rights movement made him a great figure for a biopic, but this film belongs to Chiwetel Ejiofor as his jealous friend, who wants to be Greene and can't. We know how he feels. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:45am EST
Finally, an animated feature that will wow adults also. Touching moments and a villain without superpowers. The chameleon was cute and understated enough that I could get past the pet sidekick shtick. Terrific soundtrack. –Steve West • November 27 2010, 3:48pm EST • 1 reply
Trey Parker and Matt Stone's crime is that they're in it to amuse themselves first and the audience second. If, and only if, you happen to find the same things hilarious as they do, such as cheesy self-serious Jerry Bruckheimer movies, you're going to enjoy a send-up like this one. It's cheerfully, tirelessly obscene as it tears apart the empty values our nation seems to hold dear these days, and often note-perfect in its satire. I regret the studio meddling that forced the boys to deliver it early and unfinished, since there are some jokeless passages in the middle that could have used more attention, but what we got in the end was still a treat. –Scott Hardie
premise: A Thai melodrama that mimics several American film styles, most notably Westerns. You don't hear many movies described as a "technicolor Thai Western," especially with imagery this bold, and it's an even bigger surprise to discover that the parts with the eye-popping visuals are the weakest. This Thai film, which took years to score an American release, has a great first act, a love story between a peasant boy and a rich girl who fall in love in a river of neon-green grass. Then the film turns into a action movie, aping Westerns and war movies and gangster pics, and it falls flat, seeming not to have a clue what to do with each genre. The Chinese Kung Fu Hustle successfully mixed martial arts and gangsters with a similar love story, but that was a screwball comedy told at a quick pace by a filmmaker who knew what he wanted to do; this murky melodrama feels lost and slow-witted by comparison. Admire the photography, but don't bother watching it. –Scott Hardie • May 18 2008, 12:52pm EST
premise: A high school girl finds that she is a very special individual. Chaos ensues. It's really not a surprise what makes our young protagonist special, so I'll come right out and say it: Vagina dentata. Brings a shudder to every man's loins, let me assure you! Well, this movie deals with a young woman, who has taken her pledge to remain pure until marriage very seriously. Which I guess explains why she's never been to a gynecologist (until a very "poignant" scene midway through the film, of course!) ever in her life to have discovered this before a very unfortunate sexual assault (not that there is any other type of sexual assault). Then, things go a bit crazy, stuff happens and men suck. Yeah, this movie pretty much makes men look like mean jerks, and they get what they deserve. Girl power! First of all, there are several scenes in this movie where they show the big stacks of what we should assume is a nuclear power plant in the background. Because, obviously, living close to a nuke facility would cause such craziness as a woman just spontaneously having vaginal teeth. I have issues about the safety of nuclear facilities (more specifically, the truth of the danger of them versus the paranoia commonly spread about them), so this didn't sit well with me. Personal issue. Second, most of the male characters are pretty scummy in this film. I mean, yeah, it would be horrible for mostly innocent, good men to be subjected to what I am sure you all can imagine happens to the men in this film. But, they could have tried to be less stereotypical in the portrayal of bad men. It also struck me as how quickly the character goes from a nice girl who pledged to be abstinent to an avenging angel who..um..uses her special qualities for the betterment of her little area of the world. Really? I would like to think that your typical woman would be a bit more shocked and dismayed about discovering such a mutation, rather than just using it as the main character does. What do I know, though? Honestly though, for the subject matter, the film is not too gory, other than a few bloody "stump" shots and some nearly hilarious looking severed penises. [DISCLAIMER: I have never seen a severed penis, and if I find that a severed penis lying on the ground actually looks like that, I will apologize. I hope I never have reason to discover what a severed penis looks like!] And, amazingly, the sexual content is pretty tame. This movie could have been nigh-pornographic, and it is refreshingly good that the sex scenes are mostly PG-13 (except for the men screaming, and the severed penises, of course!). This movie was OK. It had its good and bad points, but it was entertaining enough. I would recommend it with reservations, and only to people I knew would find this kind of thing entertaining. –Aaron Shurtleff • July 17 2008, 4:23pm EST • 4 replies
A movie about a teenager with vagina dentata can go in lots of directions, and this one does, satirizing the conflict between sexual repression and objectification in our culture with an unexpectedly smart script. Too bad it gets dumb at the very end. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:26am EST
Summer action fans will get their fix, as this film brings violent, pulverizing force back into action films missing since 'The Matrix' made them graceful and lithe. One final big action scene to top it off would have been nice, but what's there is exhilarating. The main problem is that it's almost totally derivative of the first two films, its main creative impulse seeming to be, 'Hey, let's have a female terminator this time!' It desecrates T2's nobility and depth while bringing nothing new or interesting to the table. Blah. –Scott Hardie
premise: An unwilling virgin gets encouragement and pressure from his friends as he woos a single mother. Judd Apatow directs Steve Carell. There's something about this movie that's like There's Something About Mary. Almost a decade ago, that movie built early buzz among film hipsters with a killer cast and trailer, then unsurprisingly turned into a blockbuster hit with its scatological and sex-anxiety humor, and, flush with vindication, the hipsters praised the artistic genius of the Farrelly brothers for bucking the system and making a movie their way. A few of us were left cold by the movie itself, wondering how intelligent adults were turned into 13-year-old boys, laughing at penis jokes and relating to anxiety about pretty women. It's not that the movie was bad; it's just a mystery to us how it became a massive hit with middlebrow cred. The same story now applies to Judd Apatow's 40-Year-Old Virgin, a movie that shouldn't appeal to 40-year-olds anywhere but has somehow made Apatow a revered new king of Hollywood comedy. It may have a great supporting cast, with Romany Malco, Seth Rogen, and Paul Rudd nailing their lines, and some surprising visual gags from out of nowhere, on par with, say, "Brett" turning out to be Favre. But most of the time, it's just not funny, meandering around in humorous riffs without taking off. Apatow sets up his scenes and then lets his actors improvise most of the dialogue, which lends unpredictability at the expense of a screwball pace. What should be a madcap sex romp sags into a muddled sitcom about male sexual anxiety that's squeamish for all the wrong reasons. It's not a bad movie, but it's a very overrated one. And the less said about the Age of Aquarius, the better. –Scott Hardie • December 10 2007, 10:39pm EST • 1 reply
The action scenes are incomprehensible and impossible, and the humor leans way too heavily on surface references to the TV show. But it benefits a lot from a giddy air of ridiculous rule-breaking, and has pretty good throwaway gags if you listen closely. –Scott Hardie • August 17 2010, 11:52pm EST
I have heard great things about "The Abyss" for fifteen years, and as I see it now while trying to finish the James Cameron oeuvre, I am struck by how thoroughly it demonstrates his strengths and his weaknesses. For the latter, there is the human element: Many actors' chief complaint about Cameron is that he spends hours every day obsessing over the most minute details of the hardware on display in his films, but his direction to the cast is often as simple as "look scared." Luckily, he is wise at casting: Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio are actors of undoubtable intelligence, who provide a foundation of believeability and sympathy in an ocean (forgive the pun) of fantastic concepts; like Sigourney Weaver and Kate Winslet, they carry the human element well enough that Cameron doesn't have to. Cameron's strength is in the extreme technical detail of his work; the payoff of his obsession is that these amazing, unfamiliar worlds feel totally real, as close to the real thing as the movies can get. In this film, the sensation of actually being at the bottom of the ocean aboard this industrial rig is remarkable, and it inspires fascination. If the science fiction element seems superfluous to the film, especially during the cliched and too-implausible ending, it's because Cameron has done the real-world stuff so impeccably well. This is not Cameron's best work, but it is pretty good, and carries my strong recommendation. –Scott Hardie
The best that can be said about this generally pointless made-for-tv documentary about the "Alien" series is that is sure has some exciting footage when it plays whole scenes from the famous films. Normally I'm irked whenever a behind-the-scenes feature overuses footage from the film it promotes, because it points to a lack of content. In this case, that footage is the best content, because the doc itself is essentially a summary of the films. What behind-the-scenes material it does contain is either so abbreviated as to misrepresent the true story (such as portraying Walter Hill and David Giler's screenplay for the original as a valuable, welcomed contribution) or to omit important parts of the production story (such as barely mentioning Vincent Ward's involvement in the third film). I suppose it's useful for anyone who doesn't want to sit through the exhaustive documentaries included on four discs of the "Alien Quadrilogy" boxed set, or to serve as a two-hour trailer for anyone who has not seen the series, but mostly it's a waste of time. –Scott Hardie
This is one of those ideas that looks good on paper. Andy & Larry Wachowski enlisted some premier talent to direct these short films, and the animation is often very impressive. They wrote the screenplays to tie into the feature films in small ways, and those inside references are fun to catch. But does this project really amount to anything? For all the work that was put into it, even Matrix fans are likely to see it once and forget about it. The best film is 'Kid's Story,' about an instantly sympathetic teen. The worst is the insipid 'Matriculated.' –Scott Hardie
The best thing about this documentary on the so-called dirtiest joke of all time is comparing the comedians who perform it. Each one seems to deliver the punchline in their own definitive style: Paul Reiser is conversational. Andy Dick is overenthusiastic. Steven Wright is meticulously articulate. George Carlin is gleeful about it, relishing the act of joke-telling. Drew Carey underlines his with a Broadway-esque pose. Richard Jeni is self-deprecating. Billy Connolly tells it like your funniest chum down at the pub. Emo Phillps falls back on his whiny, broken-voiced persona. Gilbert Gottfried just plain shouts it. As these accomplished comedians and countless more dissect The Joke, it's possible to gain a deeper appreciation of their style and of professional comedy in general. But it's also possible to get really, really tired of hearing it, which is why I can't quite recommend this. It's interesting and frequently laugh-inducing while it lasts, but you'll be drained by the time Tim Conway starts mugging for the camera over the closing credits. –Scott Hardie
Martin Scorsese, a born director, is so gifted that one of his minor efforts can still win over critics and become an Oscar front-runner. "The Aviator" brings the charm, fascination, and downward spiral of Howard Hughes to the screen in a massive production so accomplished that Scorsese makes it look easy. It might be three hours long, but it feels like twenty minutes, whizzing by and never coming close to wearing out its welcome. Scorsese is able to attract top talent to his films, and here he fills almost every speaking role with a familiar face, in a way that doesn't distract like it did in "Cold Mountain," perhaps because every character here is supposed to look glamorous. Cate Blanchett makes the strongest impression as Katharine Hepburn, incredibly grating in her first scene (a golf date with Hughes) but soon emerging as the most perceptive and most human character in the movie. Leonardo Di Caprio has trouble convincing as Hughes partly because he bears no resemblance, but few actors better embody the heedless ambition of youth, and Di Caprio is able to suggest that Hughes was driven to such successes by his demons, always trying to stay one step ahead of them. The film doesn't have much of an emotional impact; indeed, its main character is essentially the same character at the end that he was at the beginning, but the only major gripe I have is with the editing: I have not seen this many blatant continuity errors, from shot to shot, in any movie that I can recall. It boggles me how this film could have gotten an Oscar nomination for Best Editing. –Scott Hardie
I'm surprised to learn online that the second Futurama movie seems a lot more popular than the first. It has a few laughs and great animation, but it mostly drags, and intercuts too much between simultaneous subplots that rob it of momentum. –Scott Hardie • April 18 2010, 10:50am EST
As filmmakers, the Coen brothers score more hits than misses, and I think that's partly because they don't start films based on lousy ideas. For this one, they dreamed up what it would be like for their endearingly dopey slacker friend to be caught in the middle of a Raymond Chandler mystery. That isn't to say that the film made itself from there, since the script is very clever and the actors dig into their characters (especially Jeff Bridges), but there's an unmistakeable core of goofiness at play that has made the film a justifiable cult classic. –Scott Hardie • August 13 2006, 6:07pm EST • 3 replies
This neo-Western functions primarily as a starkly photographed travelogue of a post-apocalyptic landscape, and it looks gorgeous. It has some enjoyably silly ideas and sillier acting, but you must overlook a few big plot contrivances to appreciate it. –Scott Hardie • May 29 2010, 9:08am EST
This bullet-riddled vigilante fantasy has two original, colorful characters and some striking photography for a debut feature by a non-filmmaker. But the jumbled storytelling and absence of any actual moral contemplation don't help it go down too well. –Scott Hardie • May 2 2009, 1:03pm EST
Not all trilogies have a weak middle installment. I was underwhelmed by Doug Liman's version of "The Bourne Identity," finding that it lacked something like James Bond's wit to carry it through the more slack moments. "Supremacy" solves that problem by thoroughly removing all slack: This is a throbbing, intense, restless thriller, the kind that leaves you panting after each chase and exhausted by the final credits. Some viewers were bothered by the hand-held camera work and fervent editing (director Paul Greengrass seems constitutionally incapable of holding a shot for more than three seconds), but it's a subjective complaint; I could count the rhythm of his beats and tell that he knew exactly what he was doing. There's briskness for sake of flash and briskness for sake of film, and here the style serves the tension being created. This is near-flawless suspense entertainment, constantly engaging your brain while turning your knuckles white, as smart and sophisticated as adult audiences deserve. A major element of the film's success is the exceptionally good soundtrack by John Powell, who apparently has a fan following that I'm just now discovering. His brooding music keeps the pace and tension of the action on screen but is unafraid to experiment with melody, rearranging the first film's theme and putting it to better use. More than once it seems as though the action on the screen is an accompaniment to the music! The first few times I was impressed by the score, I thought, "Huh, this music's pretty good, and I barely ever notice film music." After a half-dozen such moments, I thought, "This really is some great music; I'll have to add this to my Amazon wishlist." It didn't take much longer for me to think, "God damn, I've gotta buy this soundtrack tonight." And still it continued to impress me. John Powell is going to win an Oscar someday. Few actors are able to ground what could be preposterous material around them and still be an "everyman," because the everyman is supposed to be astounded by what he encounters in film. Matt Damon seems to have graduated from the Harrison Ford and Keanu Reeves school of action stardom, playing every scene straight, keeping the emotion contained within the emotional scenes and keeping the heroism out of the film entirely. Jason Bourne may have woken up one night with the ability to kick ass and some enemies whose asses needed kicking, but Damon has him go about his business with a tireless, working-class mentality about a job that needs to be done. When he's finally offered some peace of mind in the final minutes, he seems too tired to accept it, and after two hours of chases and fights this intense, we're too tired to argue with him. –Scott Hardie
This sequel to Bourne Supremacy borrows its tight plotting, fast editing, and shaky camerawork, putting off many filmgoers. I liked both movies, even if this one feels a little like warm leftovers. Matt Damon and Joan Allen are still damn good. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:30am EST
I enjoyed this film the first time I saw it, when it was a trailer that told me two-thirds of the plot; seeing the actual movie was almost unnecessary. But it’s a likeable picture, a bit of lightweight science fiction for audiences ignorant of Bradbury and seeking a few slightly cerebral thrills. Except for a penitent passage near the end, Kutcher can handle drama (it’s called underacting), and Melora Walters creates a strong presence as his mother. It might have been great if it had developed its characters beyond their use in the plot, and not had an arbitrary ending. –Scott Hardie
Bill Shatner's interviews with the other Star Trek captains are sometimes shallow (Chris Pine has little to say about acting because his career is about 5 minutes old), sometimes bizarre (Avery Brooks IS from outer space and can apparently only communicate via improvised jazz duets), and sometimes surprisingly profound (Kate Mulgrew gets Shatner to admit how terrified he is of death). Trekkers will love it because they eat up the tiniest crumbs that fall from the Star Trek table, but non-fans won't find much of interest. –Scott Hardie • November 5 2011, 4:38pm EST
premise: A teenager gets trapped in a fantasy world full of cat-like people. Produced by Hiyao Miyazaki's Studio Ghibli. It may have been produced by Studio Ghibli and animated with their usual attention to detail, but this isn't a Hiyao Miyazaki film, for better and worse. It tells a lightweight story lacking the emotional punch of Miyazaki's productions, but it has a silly, carefree spirit with real charm. Go in expecting the usual tropes of children's movies (including an endless series of farewells) and you might find yourself grinning at the film's goofiness. –Scott Hardie • March 28 2008, 1:08am EST
Another Narnia film ports the mythos to screen with visual sheen but no understanding of what makes a tale worth telling. The characters are blank, the action routine, the twists predictable, and the special effects lame. At least the costumes are good. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:41am EST
premise: An adaptation of the C.S. Lewis classic in which four children venture into a fantasy land to rescue it from an ice queen. I enjoyed the Narnia books as much as any kid, but then I grew up. Where the Lord of the Rings films were sophisticated, complex, and challenging, the underdeveloped Narnia films they inspired are probably all doomed to be as dull and imagination-free as this first title, that is if they even get more than two or three titles in. There's just not much to like here, with filmsy two-dimensional characters, a rushed introduction, and overwhelming Christian allegory that doesn't paint non-believers in a very good light. This is another Hollywood misfire where a vast fortune is spent on special effects and marketing, but no one can be bothered to enrich the script. What a waste of money. –Scott Hardie • March 27 2008, 9:44am EST
Ken Burns's exhaustive 11-hour summation of the what, how, and why of the war is as riveting now as it was upon its release, providing context for today's angry partisanship. It is revelatory, heartbreaking, and encouraging in equal and great measure. –Scott Hardie • March 26 2011, 9:44pm EST
This film doesn’t contain enough traditional ballet to satisfy dance enthusiasts, and not enough backstage drama to entertain average filmgoers. So who would get the most out of it? Perhaps cineastes seeking an insight into Robert Altman’s creative process, since he’s essentially putting himself on film here. The dancing, beautifully photographed though it is, is a metaphor for art in general, and the delicate means by which auteurs like Altman collaborate with gifted, egotistical performers to bring it to life. It is an incomplete film and cuts away too often from the dancing, but it’s a wonderful treatise on creativity. –Scott Hardie
If you don't like Michael Moore, don't buy it when someone tells you that you'll like "Fahrenheit 911" anyway. If you don't believe that corporations are the most dangerous, evil force on Earth – which this documentary establishes as its primary assumption from the get-go – don't expect to like this movie, either. That's not to say that either film isn't worth seeing, just that they suffer from fatal cases of preaching to the choir; you pretty much have to begin in agreement with them to get anything out of them. The other primary problem with this documentary is its overzealousness in proving the threats posed by corporations: Instead of establishing a clear thesis and choosing only evidence to support that thesis, it spends two and a half long hours chronicling every story it can find that suggests the evils of corporations, from the patenting of animal genomes to the suppression of journalistic integrity to the ownership of natural elements like water to the inequity of sweatshop labor to the support of fascism in the pursuit of profit. Most of the tales that it tells are interesting, but it would benefit immensely by choosing an angle and sticking to it, rather than issuing a blanket condemnation of all corporate practices no matter the industry. The film is intelligent and occasionally funny and well-edited by co-director Jennifer Abbott, but it is less than the sum of its parts. –Scott Hardie
premise: F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story about a man who ages backwards is grafted onto a Forrest Gump-like tale of a life full of adventures and coincidences. Starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, directed by David Fincher. (Major spoilers ahead.) It's no wonder that this movie feels so much like Forrest Gump. It was written by the same screenwriter, Eric Roth, and began development in 1994. That long gestation period resulted in the film's biggest weakness, that every filmmaking team that got their hands on it over the years made changes, and it feels like a lot of the pieces don't fit with each other. Early chapters go into great detail about Benjamin's adventures in Russia, filling almost an entire act of the movie, then by the end, he goes to India, he brushes his teeth on a mountain, he rides his motorcycle, he comes home. That's it, in a matter of seconds? Somebody liked some chapters and didn't like others, and along the way the movie got uneven. It seems to run out of creative steam around the time Cate Blanchett shows up at his doorstep, with 40 minutes left to go but no more ideas about what to do with the time. And I won't even get into how the movie cheats us out of seeing what he should look like at the end of his life. If this sounds like a negative review of what is actually a pretty good movie, it's because I'm disappointed that the movie came so close to greatness and missed it. The first two-thirds of the movie are so good that it was shaping up to be the best film of the year. It has a new spin on the lifelong love story. It's steeped in mannered New Orleans color. It has genuinely funny scenes like the unlucky faith healer. It has some beautiful (if too brief) ballet dancing. Brad Pitt and especially Cate Blanchett deliver good performances, him making Benjamin into more than a cipher, and she creating such a strong love interest that she seems like the lead while being in only half the movie. The makeup and CGI that makes them old, particularly hers in the hospital, is astonishing. Just when this movie was looking like something extraordinary, it creatively went on break and never really came back. I recommend the good movie that it is, but I regret not seeing the great movie that it could have been. –Scott Hardie • January 17 2009, 10:31am EST
Though it's not very good at concealing who the villains are, and its scenes follow the same pattern over and over – hero and heroine arrive at exotic locale, discover clues to an ancient mystery, are chased away by villains – those are problems with the famous book, and the utterly faithful approach mandated by the book's popularity means they're unavoidable. What the movie gets right is its release date: Despite its cerebral subject matter, this is popcorn entertainment perfect for a summer evening, a fun adventure across Europe with a bounty of inspiration for its plot details. There's a reason Hollywood already cashed in on the formula with National Treasure; it's Indiana Jones with emphasis on being a college professor. There's no reason not to see this movie (it's far too make-believe to threaten anybody's faith) and have a great time at it. –Scott Hardie
Christopher Nolan continues to demonstrate how much better Batman stories can be when taken seriously. The crown jewel of the film is Heath Ledger's psychotic, re-imagined Joker, cinema's most hypnotically captivating villain since Hannibal Lecter. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:22am EST
premise: An alien visits Earth in this remake of the 1951 classic, starring Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Connelly. (Every remake is new to someone out there. Spoilers ahead.) Even though that wasn't its point, the original Day the Earth Stood Still inspired one of the core plot elements of so many other alien-visitor stories: Mankind will assume the alien is hostile and attack it rather than try to learn from it. Kathy Bates, an intelligent and compassionate woman (even her villainess in Misery was a caretaker), is the wrong person to lead the gung-ho, the-aliens-are-going-to-kill-us-all charge here, and it contributes to the film's feeling of going through the motions for no particular reason. That's what baffles me about this picture: The filmmakers have been trying to make this movie since 1993, back when its two stars had just done Point Break and The Rocketeer, and what does a decade and a half of planning get them? Some ambiguous mishmash about why the human race has to be exterminated, some more ambiguous mishmash about why the alien changes his mind, and slightly more detail about the tanks and planes mounting the resistance. This is the kind of brainless junk studios crank out hastily to make a buck when they realize they're sitting on the rights to a classic with a famous title they can slap on a poster, not the work of auteurs who have thought long and hard about what the original film meant and how to update its urgent message for a modern world. This film may be dull, especially since it's about the most important day in the history of mankind and all, but it has a few saving graces. Keanu Reeves is perfectly cast as a robot-like alien visitor (did he audition for Gort?), and he finds some interesting physical movements for his character, like the way he scales over a cemetery wall as fluidly as taking a step. Jennifer Connelly and Jaden Smith both deliver pretty well in the big emotional climax they were hired for. The film has a fraction of the sense of awe and wonder it should have about an event of this magnitude, but it still has enough to keep you thinking throughout. With the same material, this could have been a much better movie, but it has just enough to keep you entertained until the end. –Scott Hardie • December 21 2008, 8:57am EST • 1 reply
This five-chapter drama has some of the best acting I've seen in years, profiling five women with harrowing ties to a dead body in a field. Marcia Gay Harden is outstanding as a worried mother with deep wells of compassion. This is a heartbreaking movie. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:37am EST
premise: A young man suspects that sinister forces are toying with him when he realizes that he keeps dying violently, only to wake up in a new life each time, traumatized and amnesiac. [spoilers] Despite its promising premise, this movie offers exactly one (1) life and death for the hero before revealing the nature of the sinister forces, which might make suitable villains for a minor episode of The X Files. From there, it's a slow slog through one walking-speed chase scene after another, as the hero is menaced by pretty tv actresses and CGI smoke effects. And he becomes a superhero at the end, another film in 2008's lamest twist-ending fad. There are a few intriguing moments when the hero enters a new life unprepared, but like the legions of underachieving horror movies before it, this one has no ambition to be better than the paltry sum of its parts. –Scott Hardie • August 17 2008, 6:02pm EST
Scorsese's adaptation of the Chinese Infernal Affairs keeps its dense plot intact but transplants the action to the Irish mob in Boston. What, would the Italian mob in New York have felt too familiar? This is damn good, riveting throughout. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:36am EST
It's a credit to this cheap cash-in prequel to Rose Red – filmed on such a limited budget that the actors are sometimes bluescreened in front of still photos from the original sets – that it has ambition to transcend being just an adaptation of a knock-off novelization of a niche tv miniseries. The problem is that it has nowhere to transcend to: The entire story from start to finish was already told in flashbacks and exposition in Rose Red, so it has nothing to do but put its cast through the motions. They bring their A-game to this B-movie, but the whole film feels like a footnote and their professionalism is its pleasant typeface. –Scott Hardie
Trust me; I'm a film buff, and neither am I this attractive nor do I get laid this often or this easily. Rent Cinemania if you want to see a more authentic portrayal of film buffs and the quiet, lonely, well-ordered lives we lead. But authentic characters are not what this movie seeks; it exists to evoke the mindset of the time and place, the student revolutions in Paris in 1968. Bernardo Bertolucci captures the confused, noble innocence of the moment, and in his characters he finds three viewpoints on the conflict. Isabelle's two strongest traits throughout the film are her unbreakable bond with Theo and her instinct to protect Matthew from their abyss, and the ending provides the characters with the perfect opportunity to demonstrate their dynamic. I don't understand how some viewers can complain of this film lacking a plot; surely it is more about tone and style, but so much happened that I found myself wondering how only days had passed. I can only praise the story so much, as it comes straight from the original Gilbert Adair novel. What strikes me more is the tone, a particularly vivid recreation of the newfound sexual liberation of the 1960s and the conflict between the status of young people and their ambitions. (The maturity of the actors makes it difficult to remember that these characters are teenagers.) There's a delicate clarity to Theo's battle with his father and the way the twins try to initiate Matthew into their dynamic because they never found anyone else who sufficed. If teenagers are masses of conflicting hormonal urges and experimental identities, the effect must be multiplied for intoxicated movie teenagers in 1968 Paris, and this film runs the gauntlet of crises without ever overdoing them. If the characters are far more literate and well-spoken than they should be, even with their obvious intelligence, it is countered by their languor; you can see them as slackers of the nineties if they'd been born a generation later. Teenaged love is desperate and quick to blossom, and here is a film true to the complexity of it; these characters are more sophisticated and more interesting than the lust-addled horndogs of "Y tu mamá también." There's a reflex we have to reject young acting prodigies like Michael Pitt because they're good-looking and seem to try too hard; I have seen him compared to the often-maligned Leonardo DiCaprio more times than I can count. But he's the right actor for this part despite his good looks, because this character would be trying very hard to act sophisticated among his new friends, and he wouldn't pull it off completely just as Pitt seems to fail in the part. Like Christina Ricci's teenager in love with a grownup in "Monster," there's a difference between a character who cannot convince and an actor who cannot be convincing. Eva Green and Louis Garrel have roles no less difficult and play them well, never resorting to histrionics or staginess, though that's most likely the director's sense of quality control. I am no fan of the gaudy 1960s aesthetic in general, but I enjoyed this down-to-Earth portrayal of the mood, and the way it soft-pedaled its perfect-storm convergence of teenaged hormones, a shifting political landscape, and drugs and sex and rock 'n roll instead of pushing every scene to the limit. This gentle, sad, but nevertheless vivid film is one of the best of the year. –Scott Hardie
This Irish film was so dull, it made me wish I was watching The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. It combines a ghost story and a romance, but goes nowhere with either, and ends abruptly in what feels like the beginning of the second act. That's really all? –Scott Hardie • July 31 2010, 1:25pm EST
The only thing preventing this film from being enjoyed is the palpable audience bias against it that persists almost a decade later. Just because it's artsy Miramax Oscar-bait doesn't mean it's bad. Once seen, it's an easy film to like and even easier to appreciate, rich with location details and complex characters. It also frays the emotional nerves in the best way, as affecting as any Best Picture winner since "Schindler's List" and able to imprint its romantic imagery onto your memory for years to come. If you've been avoiding it since it first came out, lay down your bias and discover its treasures. –Scott Hardie
This movie is best when conjuring up great scares out of nothing: Using just the soundtrack and some ambiguous photography, the Pang brothers can send chills up your spine with an empty hallway. But it’s a self-serious bore the rest of the time, and the half-baked screenplay is the main problem: It has the protagonist flying into hysterics at the smallest provocation, and asking why no one believes her after she fails to explain her problem. The characters’ motivations (especially Dr. Wah’s) are questionable, and the exposition is awkwardly crammed in. I hope the forthcoming American remake will be better. –Scott Hardie
In a year of political documentaries questioning the wisdom of war (and the wisdom of those who question war), this one proved nearly unassailable for the age of its titular interviewee. Apparently it's true that anything gets respectable if it lasts long enough: McNamara is as arrogant now for patly condemning war as he was then for making it, and yet he is given a free pass by the mostly liberal critical body for having the courage to, what, condemn the firebombing of a hundred thousand people? As usual McNamara is all too happy to seem anti-war while making statements that ultimately justify war, but at least he's wise enough to back off from giving a real apology for his errors in the Vietnam War because he knows by now that veterans' pride is more important than his own. As for this film, it is doggedly paced, but Philip Glass's score gives it some intermittent perk, and there are some creative visual ideas such as dropping statistics from a bomber. I wish it had contained more revelations, but McNamara has by now already said what he's going to say about the war, so the best this film could hope to accomplish was to collect and clarify his points. It is admirable for its humanitarian heart, but it is simply not compelling, and the Bush administration's refusal to acknowledge criticism makes it impotent as a case against the war in Iraq. –Scott Hardie
[spoiler] Some movies ease into a supernatural revelation slowly, like the superb Smilla's Sense of Snow. This one turns on a dime into sci-fi crud, turning a mediocre thriller about false memories into a real snooze with a lame alien villain. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:39am EST
Roman Polanski stays sharp with this slow-building suspense picture that draws heavily on his feelings about living in isolation to avoid foreign prosecution. If the plot details don't completely satisfy, remember that the real point here is the emotion. –Scott Hardie • December 19 2010, 9:30pm EST • 1 reply
This would-be futuristic thriller blends ideas from Jean-Luc Godard and David Bowie together into a intriguing mishmash of sci-fi philosophizing, but as it limps towards its anticlimactic ending, it seems as if one set of ideas is dragging the other one down. In one corner: Consumer credit is now based on human sexuality, and people only date to boost their buying power. The movie riffs endlessly on this idea, such as when a woman is sentenced to two years of hard labor (teaching high school!) for deflowering a teenager and robbing him of his future buying power, and there discovers a Thoreau-quoting rebellion underway. In the other corner: An alien has come to Earth and assumed human form to find her planet's wayward prince, but if she spends too long in human form, she won't be able to swim back out to sea and return to her home. This story is told with scenes of the alien learning how to talk and how to eat, but it never goes anywhere dramatically and it never makes a point, eventually causing frustration whenever it distracts from the much more interesting political story. Were this alien subplot nixed from the start, this would have been a much tighter, much better production. Perhaps that's a misnomer: This film is so micro-budgeted it evokes the D-grade sci-fi of 1950s where alien outfits were made of tin foil. This is supposedly a future society where everyone is stamped with a bar code on their wrist and undesirables are exiled to a prison colony on the Moon, but people still wear blue jeans and drive Acuras? The illusion is shattered whenever the movie looks around; the narration mentions "on the surface, things still looked the same," because the producers didn't have a budget for anything but ordinary cars, ordinary clothing, ordinary locations, everything from present day. If you can forgive the film its microscopic budget (easy) and sit patiently through its dull alien-visitor material (not so easy), you're in for an intriguing vision of the future of our consumer society. –Scott Hardie
[Minor spoilers.] I've said it before, but no bad movie is quite as painful as a good movie that was within reach of greatness and missed the mark. "The Girl in the Café" is a good movie about a diplomat whose romantic awakening spurs him to conscientious political action. The problem is, it begins as a better movie, a very well-acted romance about this icy civil servant and the patient young woman who begins dethawing him after a chance encounter in a coffee shop. So much of their relationship is communicated in precise nuances of gesture and body language that we watch in fascination as it unfolds, awaiting the big romantic flourish at the end as the man finally reaches the end of his emotional arc and comes vividly to life; instead, the romance gradually fades into international politics about extreme poverty in Africa until the romance is barely even attended to in the final scenes. The characters debate an important international issue, but the movie fails to make the matter nteresting; at one point the young woman points out that all the diplomatic reports would be more compelling if they had pictures of the starving and suffering, and it occurs to us that the same could be said for the movie itself. Like the flipside of John Boorman's recent "In My Country," an outspoken and deeply felt movie about a dull romance that gets in the way of interesting politics, here we have a quiet and intellectual movie about some dull politics that get in the way of an interesting romance. It's hardly impossible to succeed at both, and "The Girl in the Café" comes close. For over an hour it seems to be headed for somewhere really pleasing, but it takes a wrong turn at Reykjavik. –Scott Hardie
In fairness I must mention that I enjoyed seeing this movie, though that had more to do with the circumstances (seeing it with an interesting new friend) than with the film itself, which is both more contrived and more manipulative than any film I've seen in a long time. It has a number of big laughs, and more warmth than most teen movies these days can muster, slick corporate products that they generally are. The actors are all capable, especially an overachieving Timothy Olyphant as the charming villain. For much of its running time, I was willing to forgive its contrivances and give it an above-median rating, but in its final act it just sank deeper and deeper under the weight of its own conceits and plot holes. (Spoilers lurk ahead in this review.) Like most Ben Stiller comedies, which are similarly self-defeating, this movie sets up scene after scene in which the essentially innocent hero is embarrassed by cosmically bad luck. He is lured into a strip club? Why, there's his father's best friend at the bar! He is lured into a stranger's swimming pool at night? Why, it turns out to be owned by the school principal! At nearly every turn, this good kid is tricked into doing something bad despite himself, and inevitably another character shows up to catch him at it. After this happens a half-dozen times we wonder why the kid doesn't just lock himself in his room for good, since the universe obviously hates him. (One of my gripes about Ben Stiller embarrassment comedies, "Meet the Parents" being the gold standard, is that the hero too often causes his own embarrassment through duplicity or stupidity; thus we are incapable of feeling sorry for him. This film at least evades that trap by having the hero get away clean every time he intentionally breaks the rules, and only getting him in trouble whenever he breaks them against his will.) Some of the film's contrivances are minor and can be forgiven, such as the encounter at the strip club, which leads into a funny moment between the hero and his witness. Others are more frustrating because they aren't the setup merely for a cute joke; the plot depends on them. Take the confrontation in the bank, after the villain has cleaned out the hero's account: I'm no expert in bank law, but it seems to me that the teller who neglected to ask for any identification, and just forked over someone else's $25,000 to a stranger, would be the one facing jail time for the mistake, not the hero for being dodgy about the villain's identity. When I saw this scene, I thought, "Well, no problem; she'll be fired and the bank is insured, so it will make good on the missing cash." But no, I'm watching a movie in which common sense has a lower priority than plot machinations, and it's a setup for the final act of the film. Also too contrived is the final showdown between the hero and villain in the hero's living room with his parents: We find ourselves questioning the glaring plot holes that this scene creates. How did Eli (the boy director) edit the porn footage into a finished form, complete with a titles sequence, before the hero even got home from filming it? How did the villain know that such a thing was even being made, and manage to steal it from Eli, who presumably would have been awake and editing it? How could the villain steal this videotape in an effort to blackmail the hero and yet not realize what it actually is? How could the school principal be lured (in a suit) in the wee hours of the morning after the prom by parents who had not even been told what the villain's visit to them was all about? Because the scene is total bullshit, that's why. This movie takes place in some kind of parallel universe where forces conspire to make the worst possible thing happen to the hero every time he enters a room, no matter how implausible such things may be. Maybe it's pointless to criticize the movie for being unrealistic. I have read some negative reviews that complain that high school is nothing like this, but that's like attacking "Super Troopers" for its inaccurate portrayal of law enforcement. But there's unrealistic and then there's unbelieveable, a point at which a movie forces so many coincidences that it damages our ability to enjoy it, and this film reaches that point about two-thirds of the way through. The laughs get to be fewer and fewer as we sense the movie twisting beyond plausibility in order to put more screws to the hero. It is inauthentic and manipulative, and that it is probably better than most recent teen movies is a sad reflection of the state of our entertainment. –Scott Hardie
With the ferocity of a wounded animal, a tough heroine dominates an intense mystery on a frigid Swedish island. Its graphic violence is a lot to take, but true to the novel's meaning about the abuse of women. This is a thriller with its fangs bared. –Scott Hardie • July 2 2010, 8:53am EST
premise: A turn-of-the-centry girl must travel to distant lands, discerning friends from enemies, in this stylish fantasy thriller. Plenty of fantasy movies have thrown together unlike elements. The same year as this film, Stardust combined airship pirates with evil witches and talking stars with medieval princes. Theoretically, there's nothing wrong with The Golden Compass tossing together airship cowboys, good witches, truth-telling compasses, animal familiars, intelligent extradimensional dust, talking polar bears, gypsy scholars, robotic wasps, and a mountain of other bullshit. It's that it introduces each new element so arbitrarily and without any sense of wonder; the characters simply accept talking polar bears who are mad about their stolen body armor as if they're all over the place. Superhero movies aren't a bright genre on average, but at least their characters usually remember to show a sense of wonderment at the amazing events they're involved in. These characters have zero personality and zero emotional investment in their plight, which doesn't exactly inspire us to care what happens either. The movie becomes a series of increasingly ridiculous story elements only appealing for their camp value; the filmmakers obviously worked very hard at producing something joylessly devoid of entertainment value. Who in their right mind thought this would launch a franchise? –Scott Hardie • May 30 2008, 7:33pm EST • 3 replies
Sometimes you're just not on a movie's wavelength. I could tell that this 40s-style melodrama about WWII intrigue was well-crafted, but I just didn't find myself interested at all in its outcome or characters. I didn't expect to find these actors boring. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:28am EST
premise: This Spielberg-produced kids adventure movie has become a cult classic after being standard viewing for any child of the eighties. For a 30-year-old guy who loves movies so much as an adult, I sure missed a lot of them when I was a kid, especially the classics of my generation. No Star Wars. No Tron. No E.T., at least that I remember. The list goes on and on. I caught up to most of these over the years, but one of the biggest titles always eluded me. For a while, it was fun to get the universal reaction from people, "You've never seen the Goonies?!" But recently the time came to fill in that hole from my childhood. It's good, of course, but what's the point of saying so? Everyone my age has seen it countless times, and everyone else either bothered to catch up with it at some point, or didn't. What it feels like to finally see The Goonies after all these years is what it must feel like to lose one's virginity later in life: You feel normal now, and while of course the experience itself was anticlimactic after years of doing without, it still makes your heart race and you see why everybody likes it so much. Man, I would have loved this movie when I was 7. Pirates and crooks and treasure and traps! This is about as much fun as kid movies get, by a filmmaker who had a string of really good ones up until Hook. It doesn't have the power and thematic depth of E.T. or even Poltergeist, but for a movie that aspires only to be great entertainment, it's a big success, like a giddy, wide-eyed trip on a roller coaster with your friends. This is pure fun. And it couldn't be made today, at least not the same way. Spielberg's clout let him put in the swear words that reflect the way kids really talk to each other, but no studio today would risk the diminished returns of a PG-13 by including that kind of language. The fat kid wouldn't get picked on as much, and the Asian kid wouldn't be allowed to stumble over his pronunciation of English, for fear of protests by sensitivity groups. These days, brainy Martha Plimpton would be the coveted girl instead of pretty Kerri Green. The explosions would be bigger CGI effects, and Sloth would be much more twisted and gritty. That's not to say that a Goonies made today couldn't be plenty good in its own right, just that this film is a relic of a different age. I'm glad to have finally made its acquaintance. This feels like reaching back through the years and shaking hands with my seven-year-old self. I'm wise enough to know that this isn't about me wanting to be him again. This has always been about him wanting to grow up and be me. Like The Goonies, becoming who I am has been worth the wait. –Scott Hardie • January 18 2009, 11:57am EST • 1 reply
There's a nightmarish anxiety caused by an enemy that cannot be vanquished and will not stop coming after you, but that's the only thing scary about the bugaboos in this fast-track sequel with incredibly low ambitions. Dozens of times, the ghosts simply appear somewhere in the frame with their long black hair and white skin and frozen-scream expressions, and, well, that's pretty much it. You can get the same effect by looking at photos of the Cure. Don't they need to do something? They're emblematic of the whole movie that way. Normally films like this are at least a success with their production design, but not even a Shinto shrine inspires anything more than the same bland, humdrum look. I like Amber Tamblyn's performance even though her character has the emotional presence of a trembling chihuahua, but otherwise this vanilla scarefest is all boo and no bite. –Scott Hardie • October 14 2006, 10:58am EST
The elements are here for a good farce, and there are even a few good lines; I laughed more than once (especially at Ajay Naidu). But it's a satire of pornography and televangelism pitched at the intellectual level of an ABC family sitcom, and it makes terrible running gags out of impotence and closeted homosexuality. The vacuum of talent named Heather Graham can't help much, but the real problem is the screenplay, which is ridiculously transparent at progressing the plot. At least it ends on the right satirical note. –Scott Hardie
I’m usually a cautious judge of powerful films if they deal with inherently potent subject matter, but this eulogy for 9/11 firefighters faces an unexpected challenge: It has the difficult task of getting us back into that unique state of unspeakable grief in the weeks following the attacks. That it succeeds is due primarily to LaPaglia’s performance, sustained anguish interrupted only once in a fantasy sequence. Even at only 85 minutes it’s hard to stay attuned, but it’s worthwhile; there won’t be much better statements of 9/11 grief than this. Perhaps this will serve future audiences better than current ones. –Scott Hardie
OMG! Do NOT see this piece of crap! I love mindless comedy as much as anyone, but this is truly the worst movie I have ever watched. A bunch of guys go out for a bachelor party in Vegas, and nothing hilarious ensues. –Aaron Shurtleff • February 2 2010, 12:26pm EST • 9 replies
If you ignore its reputation and take this on its own terms, this is a very quotable and often hilarious screwball comedy about a ridiculously out-of-control weekend in Vegas. It does right by its heritage, the raunchy slob-fest comedies of the 80s. –Scott Hardie • August 15 2010, 11:15am EST • 1 reply
It doesn't feel right to complain about a good film being too long, but in this case it's true. There are too many superfluous scenes, and a boring epilogue about final revenge wouldn't have to happen at all if the characters had done the smart thing in the first place. But the film coasts on a graceful charm, sort of a scuzzy Australian 'Ocean's Eleven,' and the casual dialogue is just right between the three brothers. Especially good are David Thrussell's music and Guy Pearce's creation of a literate scumbag, hiding his intelligence. –Scott Hardie
It's like a middle-school writing class had a screenplay contest and the "winner" got filmed. This movie is so amateurish and dreadfully boring, it makes you forget the cast has done good work before. It practically screams out for MST3K treatment. –Scott Hardie • January 21 2011, 11:14pm EST
Sorry, fans: Despite my earnest efforts, none of Douglas Adams's books have held my attention beyond the halfway point. Adams was a writer of many brilliant ideas that tended to burn out quickly. Take the dolphin material that opens this movie: Once you chuckle at the notion that dolphins are imperceptibly more intelligent than humans, all you're left with is the clever wordplay, which could kindly be called funny but not ha-ha funny. Though it includes a fair bit of Adams's narration (he wrote every draft except the final one), the film burns millions of dollars for every minute of screen time, so it understandably has little time for anything that isn't part of the plot, and there's a feeling that everything is rushing by at a breakneck pace, with barely a moment to glance at the many sight gags crammed into the background. Combine this with an unexpected cartoonishness – the shrillness of Joby Talbot's hyperactive score is nearly unbearable in the multiplex – and the film becomes more difficult to like the longer it plays. But like it I did. I haven't laughed this much since the last Jason Schwartzman movie. Adams's cerebral goofiness is in full bloom, and the special effects realize his every impossible conceit, with special credit for the exceptionally well-done sequences illustrating the Hitchhiker's Guide itself. I loved Mos Def's facial contortions during the poetry reading, but as expected, Sam Rockwell stole the whole film in the most plum role, taking Zaphod's conceitedness and irresponsibility to exaggerated extremes. With its toss-everything-in-the-blender approach to comedy, including everything from sight gags to puns to clever wordplay to physical comedy to non sequitors to satire, there's enough here to appeal to every moviegoer no matter their comedic tastes. For such an expensive and eager-to-please movie, I just wish it had been more ha-ha funny. –Scott Hardie
Richard Gere is game for the unflattering biopic of Washington Irving and his fabricated biography of Howard Hughes, and the film is pleasantly interesting, but it neither probes through to Irving's true motivations nor cranks up the tension enough. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:44am EST
I hate movies like this. It's really pretty good, honest, but it's so shamelessly positioning itself for an Oscar, such a pretentious, self-significant pas seul, that you can't help but root against it. Streep and Julianne Moore are excellent (Nicole Kidman is adequate), but Philip Glass's annoying score distracts from them. The film is at its best when it links its three women, both narratively and thematically, and it makes very important points about freedom versus responsibility. If only it was as good as it thinks it is. –Scott Hardie
It pales in the shadow of —First Blood,” but this bare-bones chase film succeeds by virtue of three crucial elements. First, Del Toro and Jones are good enough actors to convey their characters’ complex thoughts without uttering even a word. Second, the choreography makes their fights desperate, as both men grunt and struggle for ever-shifting control; it doesn’t look like —movie fighting.” Third, the movie goes for long passages without dialogue, keeping up the tension with music or a lack thereof. It would be better if they didn’t try to explain Del Toro’s motives (he’s crazy), but it’s pretty good. –Scott Hardie
Thank you, Roland Suso Richter, for giving the world yet another highly-stylized psychological thriller in which the hero goes back and forth in time, unsure what is real or memory or nightmare, unsure who is really who, trying to prevent the accident that ruined his life. After the modest success of "The Butterfly Effect," "Identity," "Gothika," and other films in the derivative subgenre, I'm surprised Miramax wasn't able to rush this one into theaters for a quick buck. Anyway, if I'm upset with this film, it's because, for a while there, it seemed to be going somewhere. After an intriguing prologue and brilliant opening credits sequence, the film was on the ground running, repeatedly pulling the rug out from under the hero and photographed with a glossy sheen. But its zip gradually faded away, until the limp final scene that provided little plot closure and zero emotional closure. The most interesting scenes of any movie show where the filmmakers' hearts lie, and in this one that's the electric first act. Too bad about the last one. –Scott Hardie
How often is it that Edward Norton is a movie's biggest weakness? A role as a stage magician seems well-suited to his calm, trick-up-his-sleeve confidence, but it's that same quality that makes him a cold fish in scenes of passion. That might be a bigger problem if this film was truly the grand romance promised by the commercials, but it's much more of a densely-plotted mystery and police procedural like an Agatha Christie thriller, and as such it's very entertaining. The characters are likeable and reasonably intelligent, and the stage sequences are fascinating, full of wonder and dazzlement that would enthrall a crowd even today, let alone a century ago. What sells them are the special effects, which are so obviously special effects – it's CGI intentionally made to look just a little unreal, as the illusions would seem to their audience. The mystery behind the plot isn't much of one, but movies like this can excel at style and spectacle, and sometimes that's enough. It's a fun mystery and well worth renting. –Scott Hardie • October 31 2006, 11:38pm EST
You don't need my praise to decide to see this film. The name Pixar is long synonymous with high-quality entertainment; see one of their films, and you won't miss another one ever again. "The Incredibles" is a fast-paced action-adventure that is unexpectedly full; it the longest all-CGI film to date. While it doesn't go for laughs very often, and it takes a while to rev up to full speed, it's a dizzying roller coaster ride once it lets loose. The jungle chase, reminiscent of "Return of the Jedi," must not be missed in theaters. This film is solid entertainment, and there's meaning in it, too, about the turns our society has taken away from individuality and towards litigation. What I think it does especially well is break, at long last, the mold of the cartoon as children's entertainment. All of the Pixar films to date have entertained me (well, maybe not the overrated "Monsters Inc."), but every single one of them till now has been a children's film that was made well enough to appeal for adults. Never for a moment in "The Incredibles," even in the scenes starring the kids, did I sense that I was watching a children's film. From start to finish, it seemed more like a superhero-themed adventure tale that would appeal to kids if they happened to see it. It doesn't exist to please the kids first; it exists on its own terms. This is one of the holy grails that Pixar has been after, and they have finally achieved it, a film with truly universal entertainment appeal. This is a strong recommendation for all audiences, especially while it's still playing on the big screen. –Scott Hardie
Though its emotions never come all the way into focus – Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn seem to internalize their characters' grief until there's little none left to see – this thriller is every bit the masterful production guaranteed by its pedigree and promotion. Having two recent Oscar winners in the lead roles can help: Penn does a chivalrous, urbane variation on his usual weary tough-guy, while Kidman convincingly suggests that her character could be either a genuine victim surrounded by conspiracy or the liar at the heart of it, a traditional noir role made unusually savvy and convincing by one of the best actresses currently working. The efforts of the actors are lent invaluable aid by the real United Nations building, which gives the film such a sensation of realism that we forget the characters are archetypes and come to care, even deeply, about the outcome of their tale. For me, by the time Kidman faced a critical choice in the third act, the feelings and motivations on both sides of the issue were so clear that I felt myself just as torn as she, and I realized the film had succeeded in creating a true three-dimensional moral dilemma. It would have been nice if the African nation in the film had been a real one to match the real UN building (what a letdown when the narration mournfully reads off the names of "slaughtered innocents" and we can only think they're not real people), but the politics are not truly central anyway: This is not a film about grief, it's a film about what grief can do to the people who bear it. That such a useful post-9/11 subject comes in the form of a captivating and expertly-made thriller is icing on the cake. –Scott Hardie
In a summer of cartoons and superheroes, this film positioned itself as action entertainment for grown-ups, even taking a quick shot at Spider-Man. It’s mature, yes, but that doesn’t mean that it’s smart, or good. Wearily mediocre, in part because of one of the blandest leading men in the business, this disappointment would seem unoriginal even if it wasn’t a remake of a genre classic. But Green, Stratham and Def generate some laughs, and the action sequences are professionally executed, not that we would expect less from Gray by now. Too bad Norton fought it; his charm could have helped. –Scott Hardie
[Spoilers!] Considering the wealth of story-telling possibilities they allow, it's a shame so many time-travel movies wind up with the same three or four plotlines. I'm sure that's due to the usual restrictions of making art this expensive, but it's no less disappointing when an idiosyncratic and sharply acted thriller like this succombs to the conventional necessities of its budget. Adrien Brody and a grunged-out Keira Knightley suggest the depth of their bond after an incident that neither can forget, and there's an urgency to their romance that most films are simply not able to muster. I even appreciated the firm sense of timing John Maybury was able to bring to the film from his music-video background, making the hallucinations trippy but not over-the-top, and inventing an end-credits animation so fascinating it gets its own explanatory bonus feature on the DVD. But these strengths are diluted by a deadened atmosphere, as if the film dreads its mandatory ending and is stalling for time until then. It's a mishmash with some uncommon qualities that I'd like to recommend, but on the whole it's too much of a long, limp letdown for me to do that. –Scott Hardie
This impressive satire of marketing culture has been criticized for lacking sharper teeth, but I think its casual, bemused charm (thanks especially to Duchovny) is key, because the one scene where it goes WAY over the top is the only wrong note it hits. –Scott Hardie • May 5 2010, 11:12pm EST
premise: A documentary follows the quest for the world record high score for 1982 arcade game Donkey Kong and the quirky competitors pursuing it. Following in the tradition of competitive-subculture documentaries like Word Wars and Spellbound, this cult favorite finds plenty of weird, interesting characters as it follows the world champions of Donkey Kong in their struggle to top each other. The difference is that Scrabble tournaments and spelling bees have audiences; nobody seems interested in what these men accomplish besides the handful of other arcade high-score enthusiasts around them. It's a lonely, unhealthy pursuit, and the most reward any of them get out of it is 15 minutes of fame in a documentary that makes them look weird. Is it any surprise that the community rallies around their established champion? They're such a tiny subculture that they can't bear the disruption that a fresh outsider might bring. Unsurprisingly, King of Kong plays loose with the facts in order to tell its story, but it carries a number of potent messages about unfair competition and unhealthy obsessions without spelling any of them out, and it has a number of funny sequences. You don't have to be a fan of classic video games to enjoy this movie, but it does help to have been on the outside of a clique, looking in. –Scott Hardie • March 24 2008, 9:41pm EST
The pre-ordained (self-ordained?) Oscar front-runner of 2010 is as funny and worth seeing as you may have heard, and as loose as its royal subject matter will allow. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush deserve their nominations for two marvelous performances. –Scott Hardie • January 29 2011, 7:37pm EST
Supremely poignant and intimate story of family, culture, pride, friendship and betrayal, as well as an exposition of the troubled political climate and history of Afghanistan. To borrow from another of the author's titles: a thousand splendid tears. –Amy Austin • August 25 2009, 6:30pm EST • 2 replies
For a pair of filmmakers who built their careers on being subtle and quirky, it's unnerving to watch the Coen brothers veer into broad comedy, as they succumb to the demands of studio budgets. I enjoyed this film much more than "Intolerable Cruelty," perhaps because its outbursts, however loud and awkward, are still confined within the boundaries of its odd little cartoon world, as was the case with "O Brother Where Art Thou?". It takes time to get accustomed to these bizarre characters sharing the same physical reality with each other; the sensation is akin to watching the Disney, Looney Tunes, and other classic toon characters on-screen together in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," but without the humans. However, once the film is accepted, it can cause big laughs, especially as the clockwork machinations of its plot begin to take the precise turns they should for each of the main characters. Tom Hanks is fascinating and obviously thrilled to be playing such a lily-tongued loon, and his infectious sense of fun gives the black comedy a needed lift. Because the movie is so deliberately weird, it might put you off if you feel like you don't "get it," but there's nothing to get; this is lowbrow entertainment pitched at a highbrow frequency, in case you missed the farting sounds while accomplished character actor J.K. Simmons contorted his face. There will be viewers on both ends of the spectrum who dislike it, but I found it hilarious, and I thought its flaws gave it a character all its own. This is a strange but delightful little comedy. –Scott Hardie
This movie is as good-looking but devoid of real feeling as its star Keanu Reeves, semi-drowsily going through the motions of its convoluted romance plot. The setting is pretty, at least, and it's good to see these stars together on-screen again. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:44am EST
[major spoilers ahead] Like its teenaged protagonists who desperately want to grow up, the filmmakers here are like kids who start cooking in the kitchen when their parents are out, and they aren't quite ready to handle the delicate alchemy. Some things taste surprisingly good when made with an authentic touch, but there are spills and splatters along the way, and watch out for that stove fire near the end! The film's naive earnestness finally gets the better of it, erupting in an unintentionally hilarious conclusion spoofed quite deliciously a few years later in "Pumpkin" (and I rarely level the "unintentionally hilarious" accusation, so believe it). Still, even a pretentious, cliché-riddled film like this can sneak past our defenses and touch us if it is willing to go places we only imagined, and I'm certainly not the only person to daydream of having an adventure like the protagonists here. That fantasy is given weight by the commanding lead performances, especially by Angela Bettis, who uses the same nearly infinite bag of performance tricks she demonstrated in "May" last year. This young woman is a twentysomething Joan Allen, so delicate and so precise with every tiny movement of her face, and she proves more than up to the task of giving her walking stereotype some fascinating, perceptible depth of personality. Director Don Most (who graciously allows a big, welcome "Happy Days" reference in through the kitchen door) shows promise, shifting the amateur-hour plot dynamics to the back burner and bringing the sympathetic inner selves of these giddy young adults bubbling to the surface. Whenever he directs again, I'll try a bite to see if he's improved. –Scott Hardie
Drawn-out killing scenes and a rape scene that lasted entirely too long. As the credits rolled, I was sick to my stomach. How did Mari's brother die? Why was Krug in jail? There's something to be said for character development, even in a horror film. –Erik Bates • October 4 2009, 11:53am EST
True, it has an underdeveloped villain, confusing editing in the action scenes, and some major continuity errors, but this is nowhere near the mess that the critics made it out to be. These old heroes are just as thrilling as they were a century ago, and any lover of the literature ought to be intrigued enough to enjoy it. There's a grandeur here, and a sly sense of humor, with references to other Victorian heroes. If it valued its characters over the explosions, I'd love a sequel. –Scott Hardie
It's a shame this fairly good film had to end on a misstep. The problem is not the plot twist itself, which is an integral part of the story and not a very big surprise, but the method by which it is delivered to the audience, since that method would undermine everything the characters set out to accomplish. The film still wouldn't be perfect without this mistake - Winslet's over-the-top histrionics are particularly bad and it uses clichés like crutches - but it would be much better. –Scott Hardie
We don't really need a drama to educate us that the Stasi were corrupt and good people suffered in East Germany, but this one mines history for an effective thriller about a cold officer forced to choose between duty and justice in his surveillance job. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:28am EST
This film (this trilogy really) may be the best cinematic definition of —too much of a good thing” there ever was. Our eyes are too exhausted by the end to appreciate fully the majesty of these hundreds of breathtaking visions, and our hearts too wrenched to be truly moved any further. Besides, the abundance of epilogues doesn’t help. But it’s easy to acknowledge the artistry of the craft here, and even easier to recognize the colossal scale of the accomplishment: This is, simply put, one of the biggest movies of all time, a stupendous achievement in filmmaking, and terrific entertainment. –Scott Hardie
This colorful action flick wouldn't be half bad if it didn't steal every tired cliché it could think of, if the characters had more than faint hints of personality, and if Jason Patric's groan-inducing cartoon villain didn't ruin every scene he's in. –Scott Hardie • August 21 2010, 9:19am EST
Many major reviewers held it against the film that it was artificial camp, not the genuine article. Roger Ebert wrote that it "has been made by people who are trying to be bad, which by definition reveals that they are playing beneath their ability." I disagree. By all accounts, these seasoned actors had to work very hard to be this bad; nobody was slacking on the job with this film. This isn't a mockery of D-grade horror classics (though it makes plenty of jokes at their expense), it's obviously a loving recreation. There are two ways to judge the success of such an endeavor, whether it succeeds at its primary goal and whether it is still entertaining in the process, and in both regards I give it high marks. Writer-director-star Larry Blamire is writing a love letter to the genre, and his lifelong viewing of awful flicks gives him an impressive vocabulary of clichés and references and sight gags. Until its final act, the film also avoids the deadliest pitfall of the real thing, the listless tedium that makes watching it an ordeal. It simply doesn't let up with the gags, having one of the highest joke-per-minute rates outside of a David Zucker production, and that approach soon turns even its minor witticisms into hilarious zingers. Not everybody is wired to enjoy this kind of straight-faced goofiness, but I had to pause the movie to breathe I was laughing so hard. This is a strong recommendation for anyone in need of a solid farce. –Scott Hardie
This Cadavra sequel continues Larry Blamire's streak of diminishing returns. There are too many characters and too much plot for any of it to build any comic momentum. The 15-minute "making of" featurette packs more laughs than the whole movie. –Scott Hardie • August 26 2010, 9:02pm EST
This reminded me of the similarly frustrating What Dreams May Come: Very pretty CGI visions of the afterlife, but what a slow, tedious bore otherwise. The movie can't just make a point; it has to dwell on every scene long after we get the message. –Scott Hardie • May 9 2010, 7:37pm EST • 2 replies
This film isn't so much a mind-fuck thriller along the lines of, say, Memento, as it is a warning about the anxiety, stress, insomnia, and loneliness we Americans feel today. It's good as both, and skinny Christian Bale is scary to watch go crazy. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:39am EST
A professor tells his colleagues that he is a caveman who has survived to the present day. They question his story, and in the process debate biology, history, philosophy, and religion. That's the whole movie. What a great concept, if the ideas and performances can back it up, and they do. The late Star Trek writer Jerome Bixby made this script his life's work, and it's packed with his considered thoughts on a wide variety of subjects. It's also packed with Star Trek actors, which might be how it wound up in my Netflix queue in the first place. It's very thought-provoking, although possibly insulting depending on your religious beliefs. It's the best movie I've seen in some time now. –Scott Hardie • March 31 2012, 7:55pm EST • 1 reply
What could have been a fantastic, memorable revenge/justice film from Korea somewhat comes off as a little tame, a little safe, and sometimes, a little questionable. Fantastic action and a great premise save the film, however. –Jon Berry • June 12 2011, 8:48pm EST
This kind of film is why I love to see movies, to see spectacular visions that I've never seen before. This film lacks the human core of its predecessor now that Neo is seemingly invulnerable, but at least it doesn't take 90 minutes to get to the action payoff; this whole film is the action payoff. It contains several astounding set pieces that producers will try to imitate for years. Any fan of over-the-top action should giggle themselves silly. The exposition isn't clunky so much as just plain boring, but who's going to see this film for the witty dialogue? –Scott Hardie
All makes sense in this final chapter (including why this needed to come so soon after Reloaded). It’s a whirlwind of special effects and artful destruction, the dismantling of this complex fictional world. The anime-derived showdown is a wonder to behold, as is the overlong fight at Zion’s gates, even if neither is particularly moving. This is not the visual achievement Reloaded was, and has even less focus on its main characters, but it has more emotion, more humor, more acting, and much better storytelling. These Matrix sequels don’t transcend their genres, but as high-tech entertainment, they are towering achievements. –Scott Hardie
This offbeat comedy sends up military "intelligence" and New Age quackery with uneven success. It has a terrific cast and crack timing, but its weakness is an anticlimactic ending. The whole movie feels like a big buildup to a punchline that never comes. –Scott Hardie • November 7 2009, 12:22am EST • 2 replies
Frank Darabont strikes out on his fourth King adaptation, a routine horror film that misses ample opportunity for social commentary. Worst is the over-the-top ending that has nothing to do with the original story and punishes you for caring what happens. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:41am EST
What if a song were the only way to bring back lost memories? An amazingly emotional movie with a damn good soundtrack reminds us all just how important the soundtrack of our lives can truly be. –Erik Bates • August 30 2011, 10:23pm EST
Nicholas Sparks seems obsessed with tragic love, dooming his protagonists to witness the deaths of their lovers and cherish the memories they had together. His victim in "The Notebook" remained alive and breathing, but was dead all the same: A confused, near-silent victim of Alzheimer's who had once been a vivacious, spirited young woman. The skill of Gena Rowlands and Rachel McAdams in bringing this woman to life is essential to the believability of this at-times ludicrous tale (would a backwoods-dwelling carpenter really debate with his hayseed father the merits of Whitman and Tennyson?), but the most difficult role falls on James Garner, who effortlessly conveys his resolve and the volume of his suffering, haunted not by the spirit of his wife but by her empty body. All four leads are terrific, but Garner is in a class all by himself, in a role worthy of an Oscar nomination. The movie around him is not too shabby, either. Robert Fraisse photographs the film in the amber hues of warm memories, and the final scene is a striking illustration of the twilight of life. The film skimps on the war scenes for budgetary reasons, but the screenplay makes them seem inconsequential anyway. The noteworthy supporting cast includes another fine turn by Joan Allen in a archetypical genre role (is there a part this woman cannot play with utter believeability?), and James Marsten demonstrates the same affable blandness that suits him in the "X-Men" series except that this film's heroine gives him what he deserves. The film's weakness is in its clichés both spoken and structural, even ones that don't make sense, such as the waspy socialite mother who won't let her daughter date a poorboy even though she herself regrets leaving one. "The Notebook" doesn't transcend its genre, but it is a skillfully acted and worthwhile addition to it. –Scott Hardie
The ironic slant of the satirical newspaper is easy to misunderstand, which kept this from its planned release years ago, but it's a treat for Onion fans. It follows recognizable situations through to their logical conclusions, with hilarious results. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:43am EST
Guillermo del Toro produced this film and mentored its director, and it feels very much like his Pan's Labyrinth and The Devil's Backbone, but more of a pure ghost story. It's insanely tense stuff, two hours of white-knuckled suspense. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:47am EST
The make-it-up-as-we-go ethos of improvised comedies is not usually my thing. But when this one clicks, it scores some huge laughs, like a whispered brawl at a funeral, and unwitting quotes of TLC lyrics. Naked Gun fans, don't miss this. –Scott Hardie • September 24 2010, 8:35am EST
A math professor & student solve murders. Their philosophical debates are fascinating. The rest of the movie is painfully bad, all stilted dialogue and bizarre characterization. It's The Da Vinci Code except unwatchable between the cerebral parts. –Scott Hardie • August 14 2011, 8:20pm EST
This movie's reputation for being an entertaining battle of wills between an ambitious law student and his implacable professor isn't based on screen time; the latter has very few scenes. But I enjoyed the film as a thoughtful, if slightly dated drama. –Scott Hardie • February 3 2012, 9:51pm EST • 1 reply
Time has passed since the phenomenon of "The Passion of the Christ." The charges of anti-Semitism, which depended on a viewing of the film in a certain context (or in some cases on not viewing the film at all), have been forgotten. The controversy over Mel Gibson's father was correctly dismissed as irrelevant. We remember that the film blew up the box office and that some churches attended in droves, but the details are lost. What is left is the film itself, which is unmistakably the powerful, focused vision of a filmmaker with a single purpose, and a monumental work of art. Saying that Gibson failed to include more of Christ's teachings or that the film was not put into a proper historical or religious context is missing the point. For Gibson as for many Catholics, there is a neverending meditation on Christ's suffering on the cross, and Gibson was in a unique place to produce a film on the subject. He put tens of millions of his own dollars into the project and the future of his own career, knowing he would suffer scrutiny for his initial choice to abandon subtitles, and made a fearless film about a subject of profound significance to him. It is rare that people in Gibson's position make films this way, with an absolute devotion to the art above every other possible consideration, but he has done it and on principle alone we must be grateful. What of the blood and torture? For many the film goes too far, showing us violence we do not need to see or losing its point in all that sound and fury. But that misses the point as well, for the suffering and violence are the essence of the film; the emphasis is not on Christ's achievement but the physical price he paid. The message of the film is that Christ's physical suffering must not be denied. It is portrayed here so vividly and so thoroughly as to extinguish all doubts about its importance in the scheme of things; it is central to Gibson's faith, and not to his alone. Of other elements of the film, I have only praise. It was a wise choice to film in Aramaic and Latin (historical accuracy being irrelevant), and this film is the most authentic-looking recreation of a Catholic view of the period that $25 million can buy. The actors give the roles the total conviction they require, in particular Jim Caviezel of course, who made the physical sacrifices necessary to bring Gibson's film to life; this is as much the lead actor's achievement as it is the director's. Countless shots are created in the right mindset, showing us the gore as Jesus and his witnesses would have seen it, not from the omniscient viewpoint we have always imagined it by. There is no misstep here, no moment when the film does not know exactly what it is doing, no mistake in judgment nor tone. This film will rightly be remembered for embodying so fully the courage of its filmmaker's convictions. –Scott Hardie
David Hyde Pierce and Clayne Crawford are great in this darkly comic thriller, each one trying to outsmart the other and survive the night. The movie's spell is broken by needless third-act twists; it was pretty good with a narrower focus up until then. –Scott Hardie • November 5 2011, 10:08pm EST
I didn't bring to this movie any love for the stage version because I've never seen it, but apparently I still thought better of it than most critics. It has an unmatched extravagance of design; every shot and every square foot of the set are filled with detail. One critic complained that a lot of art direction doesn't equal good art direction, but I liked what I saw and I was grateful that they piled on so much detail, crafting one gorgeous vision after another, because it gave me something to enjoy during Andrew Lloyd Webber's middling songs. By the end of the film I had grown to like them, but their schizophrenic lack of structure and rhyme scheme, changing melodies at whim, became so distracting that I wound up ignoring most of them. Gerard Butler is adequate as the Phantom (if too young and handsome), while Emmy Russom uses her lifetime of opera performance to great effect as Christine, carrying the production on her capable shoulders at only 16 years of age. Joel Schumacher hasn't always delivered quality films, but he is an undeniable master of the complicated technical aspects of film production, and here he marshals an exquisite set and talented cast into a fine performance of a less-than-fine musical. It's all window dressing, but what amazing window dressing it is. –Scott Hardie
The full emotional impact of this film doesn't come until nearly two hours in, with a long shot of its title character scurrying back over the wall into the ruins of the Warsaw ghetto, when the full scope of the loss is finally plainly visible. This movie is not nearly as grand as 'Schindler's List' and its lead not as decent: He's not a samaritan, not a hero, just a man trying to survive. Brody defines his aloof character with nuance, and Polanski's rhythms could be timed with a clock. It's a fine, very personal cap to the career of one of the great living directors. –Scott Hardie
It's riddled through with clichés and awkward expository dialogue, but I enjoyed the hell out of this adventure classic anyway. This is simple, straightforward, white-knuckle-thriller entertainment, a big summer blockbuster before Hollywood started cranking them out every weekend. Pardon the flimsy script and you're in for a hell of a great adventure. –Scott Hardie
One of Nolan's lesser mindfucks, this one deserves its cult following for its period atmosphere and good performances by Bale and Jackman. But it fails to say anything with its convoluted revenge story, and its explanation of the magic tricks is a cheat. –Scott Hardie • March 28 2011, 11:13pm EST
Full of New Orleans backwoods stereotypes, voodoo, and jazz, this animated production lacks in likeable characters. It's redeemed by a pleasant musical score but Disney repeats the dead parent theme again. Not their best effort. –Steve West • December 12 2009, 12:43pm EST
There’s some exciting action cinematography here, peaking very early when a character dodges bullets in mid-air while they deflect off her sword and hit the camera. But that same overboard implausibility sinks the film like a boulder: The two main characters, a cold-blooded assassin and an anti-government terrorist, have the physiques of a ninth-grade schoolgirl and a waifish runway model, respectively. Except for the two well-played villains, I doubt that anyone in the film could kill a bug. The action scenes have potential, but rarely do the actors perform multiple moves in the same shot: It’s all punch-cut-kick-cut-jump-cut-swing-cut-jab-cut. Too bad. –Scott Hardie
I grew up reading The Punisher. He may have debuted in 1974, but to me he hit his stride in the nineties, among other revenge-driven antiheroes like Spawn and the Crow. My generation (class of 1996) was one that fantasized about vengeance, whatever that said about our feelings of inferiority. The unhealthy kids took automatic weapons to school and shot up their classmates; the healthy kids, including me, read bloody comic-book escapism like this and got it out of our system. Today I am surprised to see so many reviewers missing the point entirely. Roger Ebert in particular chastised the film at length for not having a lighter tone. It makes me wonder how many of them know what an antihero is. The Punisher is supposed to be a grim, cheerless character; his cold hatred never subsides and his morose war never ends. I fear that a lighter tone would send this character into nightmarish "Batman & Robin" territory, which nobody wants to see. "Scarface" it ain't, but revenge stories need to brood, not romp. That's what I loved so much about this film: It very accurately captured the spirit of the Punisher comic books, funereal in the dialogue scenes and completely, mercilessly badass in the action scenes. Frank Castle doesn't dodge bullets, or fly, or do gravity-defying kung fu in slow motion. He's an old-fashioned action star; he shoots a hell of a lot of people and he blows a lot of shit up . When he is victorious, it is usually because of thorough planning. The movie accurately portrays him as an intelligent man, always advancing some internal monologue in his head, rarely speaking aloud. (I had worried the film would turn him into a grunting, ultra-macho super-soldier like Matthew McConaughey in "Reign of Fire.") It draws specific inspirations from the comics, transporting in Howard Saint and the Russian, and I recognized the popsicle-interrogation scene from Punisher War Zone #1, identical except that he used a wet bar of soap in the comics. The movie changes minor details -- New York becomes Tampa, Vietnam becomes the Persian Gulf, two children become one -- but it was essential to my enjoyment of this film that it was so faithful to the spirit of the comics, more so than it needed to be. Uninitiated viewers may like it less, for that reason. I can only imagine that this film would come across as a mediocre shoot-em-up without a familiarity with the feel of the comics. We know that certain characters are doomed at the beginning, and the film seems to be rushing to get its first act over with; more anguish and more of a sense of loss would have been to the film's benefit, as would a less hokey guardian angel to nurse Castle back from death's door. I don't mind having a fat guy as the comic relief, but I do mind when every word out of his mouth and every apparent thought in his head involves food; some of us "lardasses" are actually capable of thinking about other things, especially when our lives are in danger. With "Road to Perdition," I got to see my childhood hometown appear for one fleeting scene; here I get my current homehown for the entire picture. It was great to applaud with the rest of the audience when we got our first look at the Tampa skyline. I recognized locations: The diner where Joan waitressed was the Goody-Goody, the Windham Hotel was Wyndham Towers, and the "Cuban district" was Ybor City. All of the details felt right until the lengthy shot of the Punisher standing alone on an empty Sunshine Skyway bridge, a heavily-trafficked stretch of I-275 that I have never seen anywhere close to empty in more than a hundred trips over it. Overall, I was quite pleased with the portrayal of Tampa; certainly this makes up for the last film made here, "Cop & a Half." I am happy that the producers chose to make a movie in Tampa, and proud that it turned out to be a good one. –Scott Hardie
This is one of the most exceedingly well-made films of the year, a classy achievement made for a mature audience. I’ve not read Greene’s novel, but I know of its sad prophecy of war, which the film bears out with an epilogue of newspaper headlines detailing further American involvement. It’s a good reminder in this day and age that good foreign-policy intentions often yield disastrous results. Michael Caine is remarkable in the lead role, communicating his desperate needs and his subtle transformation so honestly. The only flaw was that it didn’t move me; like Phuong, I emotionlessly awaited the victor. –Scott Hardie
Silly and completely implausible, but still charming and entertaining, this is passable entertainment but completely mediocre. The plot twists come a little too late for an audience already familiar with this genre, but they're not entirely predictable, and the actors pull them off with charm. The actors also refuse to overplay the material, grounding their behavior in reality even if their motivations are questionable. And there are plenty of nuances; count all the Kurt Vonnegut references if you get bored. I think Al Pacino could be interesting ordering lunch. –Scott Hardie
This is a love-it-or-hate-it movie. Though I happen to fall into the latter group, I can tell what the former group sees in it: Some well-executed jump scenes, impressive cinematography, and a complicated mystery to unravel. But in my opinion, jump scenes are a distraction, the images are not impressive enough to save the film, and the movie considers the mystery solved just when it should begin putting the final pieces into place. I have no problem with a cinematic ghost lacking a backstory, but when a movie goes to this much trouble creating an elaborate history for its restless spirit, it needs to go the final mile and put the pieces together. How exactly did Samara create the videotape? I understand what the two characters did to arrive at the final scene, but how exactly does the curse accommodate that? We can guess at the answers, but in a film that treats its plot so literally, we should not have to; another ninety seconds of exposition would settle everything. I want to like this movie. D.P. Bojan Bazelli dreams up elaborate images and the visual effects team pull them off with aplomb, especially in the scene where reality and video occupy the same space, and Rick Baker provides some truly disturbing corpses. Hans Zimmer's soundtrack struck the right tone, as creepy and detached as Samara's video, which itself is sufficiently unsettling to justify the plot. But the plot details keep accumulating with no apparent purpose, such as the bathtub suicide, and the movie can't seem to decide which of three horrible people is its true villain. The ending is a particular let-down: It's not the twist ending; it's not the bad ending; it's the lack of real resolution at the end (were they already planning the sequel?) that causes such a strong dissatisfaction as to weaken the picture as a whole. There are plenty of people out there who can enjoy this movie, but they'll have to find it without my recommendation. –Scott Hardie
Is it possible that "Aliens" has ruined us for strong maternal heroes? After figuring out Samara's secret in the original film, Rachel should no longer become terrified by her presence, and regard her as a predator to be fought off, especially when Samara threatens her son. I don't necessarily buy Rachel's transformation from a lousy, mostly-absent mother in "The Ring" into Suzie Homemaker in the sequel (which is wise to build a plot point on how her son calls her by her first name), but taken as the conceit of the film that Rachel now feels a push to protect her son, it's unsatisfying and downright disappointing to see her become nearly petrified at the alarming signs of Samara's interest in him and each new corpse that she produces. It's telling that "The Ring Two" comes most alive when it finally uses the one F-word granted by its PG13 rating, in a moment of maternal toughness that we've been waiting for Rachel to flash for the entire film. More scenes like that one and this film might have been something interesting, instead of the drab, languid mess that it is. Too many scenes drag on far beyond their ability to make a point, particularly when Rachel comes home to find her son watching tv; the film circles around that nap-inducing slog for what seems like an eternity before something finally happens. I hesitate to charge any film with the dreaded "b" word (boring), but these filmmakers have made it easy for me, by underestimating the level of interest the audience can maintain in these hollow ciphers of protagonists. There's watchable material here, along with a chilling Hans Zimmer score and some impressive technical effects, but they're lost in a sea of cold, gray nothingness. Pretentiousness isn't doing the horror genre any favors. –Scott Hardie
Ed Burns broods grimly in this moody murder investigation, like The X Files without the supernatural. It's a fairly weak indie movie, but it does stir feeling for its wounded hero, and the photography of snowbound Nova Scotia is haunting. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:46am EST
Attending a midnight showing of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" is something I can now cross off the things-I-want-to-do-before-I-die list. Don't misunderstand: I watched this on DVD in my living room, not at a movie theater. And it's not a judgment of the film itself, which was easy to like and a lot better than I expected. It's that, based on the evidence (reading about the film online, watching the modern-day interviews on the DVD, and most damningly, listening to the "audience participation" bonus audio track on the DVD), it sounds like a miserable experience. If I understand correctly, the fans used to recite the lines and sings the songs and play out the gags in unison, with the joy of shared experience. At some point in the nineties, probably with the 1993 home video release, it devolved into a mad cacophony of people shouting at the screen. Listen to that "audience participation" track for yourself and ask if you can make out A) any dialogue whatsoever from the film, or worse B) anything being said by the fans. I lasted through thirty seconds before the sound of a hundred (?) people all shouting different things at once was more than my patience could bear. What's good about the tradition continuing is that new generations will still be exposed to this wonderful movie that almost no one would see if it were not, by now, an institution. The songs are still just as weird as they ever were, the performances (especially the hedonistic Tim Curry) are just as hilarious, and the movie is just as much silly fun. Obviously the songs succeed as camp, but some of them also work just as straightforward songs, especially the transcendent "Floor Show" sequence. My only complaint is the lack of dialogue between many of the songs, such that we're still reeling from the last big number when the next one starts, but Frank would agree with me that too much of a good thing is a good thing. I'm glad to have seen the film the way that I did. –Scott Hardie
This movie is nowhere near as hellish as the trailers or the presence of Seann William Scott would indicate. Yes, it is preposterous, with scenes such as characters tumbling down a mountainside that would kill them three times over, then getting up with barely a bruise. But it also has an energetic, playful spirit, evoked most of all (in a film featuring Christopher Walken) by the cinematography, which comes up with a dizzying number of ways to show objects hitting men in the head. It’s fun, and smarter than it has to be, and for those reasons I recommend it. –Scott Hardie
This is 80s-style action at some of its high-gloss, high-budget best. Arnold was finally starting to realize his potential for grounding ridiculous action sequences by being so ridiculous himself at the center, though he was forced yet again to play the wronged soldier out for revenge. Richard Dawson ate up a role that teased his reputation as a grade-A asshole off the television screen. Full of the peculiar plot holes that only a film like this can generate (how is the show still filming after the crew flees the set?), this one's a pleasure as timeless as Arnie's scowl. I wonder, how come "Predator" gets to be the answer to that recurring trivia question about which 80s movie starred two future governors, when this film came out the same year? –Scott Hardie
Of course it ruled. This is one of the most beloved 90s films, a prison epic as revered for its accurate sense of decades gone by as for its triumphant, engaging story. Frank Darabont and Stephen King have made other good movies, but nothing like this. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:32am EST
Is it possible to consider this film any other way than as a fan of The Simpsons? It begins the fanservice even before the studio bumper is over. So many of us have loved the show at one time or another that the movie arrives in your hometown theater with the cultural goodwill of a visiting wartime president. Much like the writing-staff alumni that made this film, it unites us; the newspapers could proclaim, "Today, we are all Springfieldians." But is it funny? It can't live up to the glory years that broke so much ground (what can?), but for a series in its eighteenth year, this is some pretty triumphant comedy. It riffs tirelessly on pop culture, American foibles, its own rich characters, and general weirdness, with so many different comedic styles that no one can't find something to laugh about. Some movies never find their comedic center and give you the impression they're throwing every joke at the screen in desperation; The Simpsons has such a massive comedic center that these many varied styles bounce around inside it comfortably. Like any good movie arriving at the end of a long trail of hype, it suffers from being too short. Eighteen years they worked on this, and they couldn't crack a 90-minute running time? But it's eighty-seven terrific minutes while it lasts, a true comedy for everyone. Let's hope it's not 2025 when we see the next one. –Scott Hardie • September 11 2007, 1:20am EST
By now, the name of screenwriter Ehren Kruger in the credits all but guarantees a smarmy, mediocre script that seems to elbow you constantly to point out how clever it is. This is the hack who produced such unctuous let-downs as "Scream 3," "Reindeer Games," "Arlington Road," and the two "Ring" movies, all of which were so wrapped up in the ingenuity of their unguessable twist endings that they saw nothing wrong with their zero-dimensional characters and chasmal plot holes. Cursed with the same weaknesses as its forebears, "The Skeleton Key" aspires to better itself by borrowing local color from New Orleans and building an atmosphere of mounting dread, but it fails at both attempts. The movie simply doesn't know how to make its audience care what happens, especially about its dim-bulb protagonist as she stumbles her way through a mystery that Nancy Drew would have solved in the first act. It's mediocre filmmaking based on a mediocre script, and only the set designers and sound editors seem to make any effort to transcend the material. There's simply no compelling reason to see this competent but empty waste of time unless you're a sucker for any ghost story set in the Big Easy (like I was). –Scott Hardie
All of the pieces are here for a really good drama, with two actors at the top of their game. But the movie, presenting a bad case of "Hollywood crazy," never really takes off beyond bland ruminations about friendship. There's some great music, though. –Scott Hardie • October 1 2009, 8:29pm EST
The bar has been raised for children's fantasy films ever since Harry Potter came along, and this winning entertainment is up to the challenge, delivering a fleet-footed adventure with appealing actors as the young leads. It's minor but a lot of fun. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:32am EST
The lives of an Israeli family are explored, as a young woman prepares for her arranged marriage to an actor from Syria. I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. The characters are well played, and it gives some insight into life in this area. –Aaron Shurtleff • April 7 2009, 9:53am EST
[Scott's original review was lost in a technical glitch. His conclusion: "The Terminal" represents Spielberg putting his self-designated break from big movies to good use, telling an interesting story and being effortlessly funny and moving.] –Scott Hardie
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] Hell exists on Earth and Tommy Lee Jones evokes it perfectly in his first feature film, as his characters traverse a vast, scorching stretch of southern Texan wasteland with only enough water and shoes for one of them. The film is at times funny and quirky, but this epic journey into a desert inferno takes it to a whole different level, where a man careless towards others learns how careless the universe can be towards him. Depending on your outlook, that lesson might inspire you to laughs or to tears (or both), but either way the film can be deeply moving. It's a statement of personal values – namely, that a life has meaning when you give it one – by Jones, a star who has always exuded integrity and now invests his film with it. His unpredictable tale gives us funny characters, a harrowing journey over the Mexican border, and a hell of a lot to think about. –Scott Hardie • March 18 2007, 9:39pm EST
When Gary Sinise's speech about the Morlocks in "Ransom" contains more genuine feeling than an entire film version of "The Time Machine," there's a problem. This film is the poster child for the money paradox in Hollywood, in which film studios will lavish tens of millions of dollars on sets and special effects, without any worthwhile script to put them to good use. It's like buying yourself a tuxedo and a Rolls Royce for a trip to the corner 7-11. I loved the special effects, specifically the two long trips through time. And the Eloi cliff-hugging homes, suggested by Steven Spielberg in the eleventh hour of development, are a fascinating touch. But there's nothing really going on here: The book argued that we should not allow the wealthy and the poor to become too far divided, the original movie argued that we should not allow nuclear proliferation, and this one argues what, that we should not build underground apartments on the moon? Thanks screenwriters, I'll try to keep that lesson in mind. In other words, this is pure entertainment, and weak at that. The film moves along at such a brisk pace (only 96 minutes!) that it has no time for character development, no time for humor, no time for anything except its own scrawny plot. The deleted scene, phony though it is (no such idiotic blowhard would ever be hired to run a prestigious university), would have at least given the hero some personality and the film some desperately-needed levity. The confrontation with the villain is a microcosm for the film: Talented actors, intriguing makeup, accomplished set design, decent fight choreography, amazing visual effects... and there's nothing compelling about it. I don't know what happened; John Logan has written intriguing screenplays, and certainly the source material is solid. Whoever decided to spend eighty million dollars and do nothing of interest with it has produced a colossal waste. –Scott Hardie
Audrey NIffenegger wrote this as a novel because it was such a big story. The filmmakers lacked that wisdom and raced through his (not her?) lifetime in under two hours. It's a good romance, with a few moving scenes, but it goes by too much like a blur. –Scott Hardie • November 7 2009, 7:55pm EST
There's a car flying off an overpass and landing perfectly parked on an auto transport, a person being tossed around as a weapon in a melee, and a hero who, for the life of him, just can't seem to keep his shirt on. Now you know whether this movie is for you. Honestly, it's got some plot holes (um, weren't there two trucks?), and the acting and script are barely adequate, but who's expecting Orson Welles? I want to see people get kicked and shoot at each other. You'll forget it in a week, but it's fun while it lasts. –Scott Hardie
If Joan Allen brings so much focus and life to bit parts in commercial films, it's no wonder she's capable of carrying an indie movie on her shoulders when the lead role is written specifically for her. Just as the blend of malaise, anger and bemusement fit Kevin Spacey like a glove in "American Beauty," so does this role play precisely to Allen's strengths: A woman betrayed and simmering and unsure of her future and blunt about her needs, while still maintaining the air of elegance and poise that define her. Allen is capable of sharpening her insults with the same ice-cold cruelty as Spacey, and equally capable of suggesting the depths of despair and pride that her self-awareness sometimes brings her, but the movie's poor release date and her lack of a Y chromosome will keep her from getting the Oscar that Spacey won and she deserves. She's one of the best actresses working today, and this film deserves to be seen simply to appreciate the perfect precision of her performance. There are times when the film is magical, when Costner's jocular supporting character demonstrates casual charm or when one of the daughters' crises brings a moment of pathos to the production. But the gifts of all six primary actors are betrayed by the film's recurring pretentiousness, when it includes scenes that it thinks are artful or whimsical but produce the sensation of your bumper car being hit from behind. Its most egregious example comes when the youngest daughter's gay best friend (already an indie-film red flag) decides to prove he's not scared of bungee jumping, and his attempt sends him crashing through the living room windows; Allen tries in vain to show frustration but the other actors are told to laugh spontaneously at the preciousness of the moment, and you just want to gag at the film shoving its artfulness down your throat. Had a half-dozen scenes like this wound up among their deservedly deleted brethren on the DVD, the rest of the film would have been one of the best of 2005, for the strength and intelligence and clarity it otherwise possesses. Allen's fantasy about the obnoxious radio producer is hilarious, and the third-act plot twist is an unexpected delight, not the shameless cheat that most critics charged. This is a fine film even when it gets in its own way, and it's a must-rent for any lover of good drama or admirer of Joan Allen. –Scott Hardie
Paul Newman and the rest of the cast have a strong feel for their characters. But the story is utterly predictable. Maybe this became the model for every against-all-odds courtroom redemption movie over the three decades since? R.I.P. Sidney Lumet. –Scott Hardie • April 12 2011, 12:08am EST
Even the critics were ripe for a Shyamalan backlash: Just as his "Signs" was overrated three years ago, his "The Village" was underrated this year, even though they have a very similar set of strengths and weaknesses. Had the films come out in reverse order, I expect the public opinion of them would be reversed. That's the best explanation I can offer for the simmering hostility that met this film upon its release and has branded it in the public consciousness as a disappointing misfire. I watched the film with open eyes, and what I saw what Shyamalan's best film since the one that made him a superstar. Shyamalan's skill is not action, it's atmosphere; he has conjured up more scares out of ambient noise and shifting shadows than half the directors of his generation combined. Whether his dialogue is intentionally stilted or not is beside the point; Shyamalan should engross you well enough with the picture that the dialogue seems right even if it isn't. He has always been a better director than a writer, and come to think of it, David Koepp covers similar material and is a better writer than a director. Perhaps it's time for the two men to pool their strengths? What tires me about Shyamalan is the persistent misconception that his films have twist endings, simply because his most famous production did. "Unbreakable" revealed an interesting character detail in its final moment, but this detail did little to alter the plot or nature of the film as we understood it. "Signs" had no more of a twist ending than any other film about similar subject matter would; it was totally run-of-the-mill. The so-called twist ending of "The Village" does reshape the plot as we understand it, but in a meaningful way that reveals genuine thematic depth in our current political climate; it enriches the film instead of serving itself, and the film would not be nearly as good without it. It is such a no-brainer turn of the plot that had any other director made this film, it would not even be considered a twist ending. As a filmgoing community, let's please move past this notion that Shyamalan's movies are all about the twist at the end; it defeats our ability to enjoy them for what they are. So what is "The Village"? It's an immersive film that very effectively puts you into this time and place. Roger Deakins's photography often uses candlelight against a backdrop of near-total shadow to suggest how we should feel about this town, which Shyamalan apparently intends as symbolism about the resilence (and appeal) of innocence. The actors are all very good, and they should be; this film put together one of the best casts of the year. Bryce Dallas Howard has a laughably self-serious diary on the DVD, but the young woman can act. She capably carries the film on her shoulders, appearing in most of the shots because of Shyamalan's repeated use of perspective to communicate her blindness. Truly, he's a talented director, but he needs to go back to pure drama or direct somebody else's script before his career is ruined by being unable to live up to lofty expectations. –Scott Hardie
There's a curious thing happening in Danny DeVito's black-hearted send-up of American divorce: Nothing. The material seems to scream out for an over-the-top approach, as we see a bitterly estanged husband and wife do things to each other on screen that no husband and wife would do in reality, but what plays like escalation of the conflict is in fact its culmination, and the film never breaks through to a truly madcap, screw-loose level of marital warfare. That's not to say that I think the film should get cartoony, as one of its strengths is the intelligence and refinement with which its characters carry out their cruel revenge against each other, but there's the unmistakable impression that the film is merely getting warmed up when it ends. Perhaps that's because DeVito's original cut, over 3 hours long, was pared down to under 2 hours by studio insistence, and what's left plays like a nine-course meal if you only get to eat half of each course. There's good material, but it's disappointing. –Scott Hardie
The genre is called "romantic comedy;" this film succeeded fairly well at the romance but didn't seem to know how to pull off the comedy. Debra Messing has some of the sharpest comic timing on television right now, so it's a rare sight to watch her bungle punchlines and strain unconvincingly with pratfalls. I hate to say it, but after seeing this film, I can't help but question her talent. As Grace Adler, she works in a deep groove of irony, so her acting can only be truly appreciated on a technical level. But in "The Wedding Date," she is tasked with creating a three-dimensional woman for whom the audience is supposed to develop strong sympathy, and she's out of her league. The further we get from Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan's glory days, the easier it becomes to appreciate how thoroughly they mastered the genre. A film that seems to go about everything the wrong way deserves some left-handed compliments. It overcomes a totally unbelieveable setup with the sheer charisma of its two leads; Dermot Mulroney plays a gigolo who doesn't need the money and just happens to have an Ivy League education, and somehow makes him seem like one of the most down-to-earth, not to mention watchable, characters in the movie. Photographer Oliver Curtis is determined to bring soft-focus back into vogue (or fail trying), and Holland Taylor is one of very few actresses who can pull off the lines she says here, which are the kinds of things that no mother would ever announce about one of her daughters. If you're looking for a date movie, you're probably better off with "Hitch" or even "Sideways," but if you wind up in the theater for this movie, that wouldn't be so bad. –Scott Hardie
This horror remake looks great, with lush art design and visual effects. Too bad it's content to stop improving there: Other than a barely touched-upon Oedipal conflict, there's very little subtext or significance, and too much wasted potential. –Scott Hardie • February 27 2010, 8:26pm EST
premise: Henry Fonda plays an average Joe who gets caught up in a case of mistaken identity. I caught this movie on a lazy afternoon intermission while on vacation recently. Alfred Hitchcock directs and Henry Fonda stars in this drama about a New York musician who happens to get mistaken for a man who has been performing a string of recent robberies. Maybe I was expecting too much from a classic award winning director and actor but I found this movie entertaining to watch, but anti-climactic and dull to digest in the end. I cared about the character's situation and even the mystery he was trying to uncover to free himself. But I was expecting that at any moment, a really intriguing "NO WAY!" kind of plot twist was going to come at me or at least a really gripping discovery involving the men he was trying to find as alibi witnesses. But at the end of the film I found myself going "meh", as in yeah, I can see that happening in real life so it's not all that interesting. And the side story about the wife going crazy and being temporarily put in the mental home was completely unnecessary to the plot. But perhaps, I suspect it was added because the "going mad" theme was a popular type of side story to put in a movie given the era in which it was made. So I might be a little biased in my confusion given the time period I'm viewing it in. –Jackie Mason • August 10 2009, 10:36pm EST
The first time I saw this movie, in theaters with Jason Fedorow and Denise Sawicki, I was a former fan of the series who had grown too tired of trying to keep up with its labrynthine mythology after missing only a few episodes. I still enjoyed the film because it has some amazing sights and plenty of Mulder's deadpan humor, but I'm not surprised to have liked it even more today, after watching the first five seasons in their entirety on DVD. This was plainly made for fans first: The hefty slabs of exposition may sound to a casual observer like ridiculous bullshit made up just to give the movie a semblance of a story, but longtime viewers would recognize it as major steps forward in the ongoing ridiculous bullshit of the series. The film is ultimately unsatisfying because A) Scully once again plays the damsel in distress to Mulder the hero, and B) there is no significant closure at the end. Jesus, Chris Carter wasn't kidding when he told Fox in 2001 that the series could go on in perpetuity, even if its entire cast quit. (Luckily Fox didn't agree.) I look forward to reaching the final episode and seeing at last whether the series is capable of its own demise. As for the movie, I recommend it, but I recommend it even more strongly if you start here and work your way to it. It's a great ride. –Scott Hardie
premise: Picking up six years after the tv series ended, the FBI lures back Mulder & Scully to help solve the disappearance of one of their own after a self-professed psychic gives the case a paranormal angle. X Files fans have never quite forgiven the series for its unresolved ending (though a few of us liked it that way), and following up six years later with a feature film that ignores the main storyline isn't a way to reward their patience. It doesn't help that the film is so dour and joyless, almost completely lacking adventure and a sense of humor, choosing instead a weighty morality play about how ethical it is to prolong a life by unnatural means, with its characters in a fog of gloom as they wade through the mystery. This feels like a season-seven misfire, accomplishing a lot with its stylish photography and moody atmosphere, but not terribly entertaining. It doesn't do much to please series fans, and the non-initiated will find it a gloomy and unusual thriller, so enjoy it for what it is and hope that the truer "ending" will someday come. –Scott Hardie • July 29 2008, 12:22am EST • 3 replies
Action director Chan-wook Park returns with a dark drama about a priest horrified to have become a vampire. Like his best work, it probes deeply into human nature and features some thrilling photography, but it's sometimes hampered by shrill overacting. –Scott Hardie • November 29 2009, 6:38pm EST
You can almost hear the bottom of the superhero barrel being scraped. This two-hour preview for The Avengers is not compelling and cuts away every time it starts to build momentum, but it does possess some charm and beautiful designs for Asgard. –Scott Hardie • May 15 2011, 8:03am EST • 3 replies
Somehow not terrible. That's what I thought of the film after I saw it. Not only is it the latest seemingly cheap entry in the children's-film/action-film hybrid subgenre (of which audiences have already grown reasonably wary), but it jettisons the marionettes and barely shows the ships, the two things that made the tv series so dear to fans. This was a recipe for doom, and credit is due to director Jonathan Frakes (how I will miss his career after this flop) and whichever executive greenlighted the $60-million budget. Frakes made the film an enjoyable, light-hearted romp that balances theme, plot, character, and action setpieces surprisingly well, and the budget was spent well on top-notch visual effects and set design, even if the use of bluescreen was a touch excessive. I saw the film with a die-hard Thunderbirds fan -- in fact, that's pretty much the only reason I saw it -- and he was even more pleased than I was. So it can't be terrible. But how? –Scott Hardie
I read that the original Australian version split the stories of the teenagers and the adults into two halves of the same film instead of intercutting them, a wise decision. But this film is already riddled with curious flaws, like truly incorrect casting of the two leads and a muddled, contrary symbolism, and strangely, I think that's why I like it: Better to have a heartfelt failure than soulless perfection. The cinematic equivalent of a sigh, this gentle, patient film is to be enjoyed for its cinematography and setting, not its intrigue. –Scott Hardie
Burton has occasionally faltered when venturing into other filmmakers’ territory, but he rules his home turf like no one else in the business, crafting one magical masterpiece after another with such consistency that his name now gets stamped on the title frame like a brand identity. This spiritual sequel to —The Nightmare Before Christmas” was co-directed by Burton and shares both his Gothic, Expressionist aesthetic and the charming, befuddled everyman who is his usual hero, but the difficulty of making it in traditional claymation was apparently too much of a burden for the filmmakers to bear, because it ends abruptly and wastes no precious seconds deviating from the simple plot. Why create such an enchanting world in a unique physical dimension and spend so little time there? The film does inspire laughs with some great sight gags, and damned if its little clay puppets don’t tug a heartstring or two, but ultimately the film is just too short to satisfy. –Scott Hardie
The main criticisms of this film are that it’s a letdown after Kaige’s previous work, which I have not seen, and that it is overly manipulative, with which I vigorously disagree. Certainly, this is an old-fashioned, melodramatic tearjerker, but it earns its sentiment, and a lack of subtlety does not necessarily equal a lack of quality. The sacrifices that drive the plot are convincing. The actors mostly hit the right notes, especially Yun’s eyes in the final seconds. There are very few films that make me cry, but I’m still a pushover for father-son dramas; this one left me weeping. –Scott Hardie
[Spoilers ahead.] It's a gory slasher-film remake from Tobe Hooper: If that information makes it sound appealing, you'll probably like it more than I did. It's not the killings that I minded, it's that they seemed disconnected from the rest of the movie. As the mystery centered on the building itself, I came to suspect the man who built it, which alas, that was just a red herring. Too bad, since it would have made a lot more sense than the villain who arrives out of left field with no explanation as to his identity or how he got there. Maybe they're saving that information for a sequel, but who cares enough to wait and find out? It's fairly obvious that Hooper and his creative team are trying to fashion a new horror villain for the pop-cultural pantheon, stealing elements of his character from the greats who came before him, but I've seen scarier monsters on boxes of children's cereal. The movie didn't miss every mark. I loved how the camera was frequently off-center in a shot, maintaining constant tension because of the expectation that something is going to jump into the empty space in the frame. And whatever location they found was a great one; this rathole is even dingier and more depressing than the much-vaunted set of "Dark Water." But the movie has a low-budget feel in a bad way (cartoonishly squishy sound effects during the kill scenes) and the killer defies all reason, especially with a body count that high over that long a period of time and never being suspected let alone caught. I appreciated the film's attempts at being something better than it was, such as thematically tying the young women's deaths to the way Hollywood chews up and spits out so many young actresses, but ultimately it was just another ho-hum slasher flick with a lousy script and an uninteresting villain. –Scott Hardie
It ruled. –Scott Hardie
Ever since I read Roger Ebert's denunciation of mountain-climbing movies many years ago (basically: why should we worry for these idiots who put themselves into peril for their own hubristic pride?), I have been unable to muster much sympathy for the subgenre. "Touching the Void" is the best mountain-climbing film I have ever seen (out of, like, three) and will probably be hard to beat in the future, but it still couldn't break the curse. At a moment when the imperiled protagonist begins beating his head against the wall of ice shouting, "Stupid! You are so stupid!" all I could think was: "Yup." But that doesn't mean it's not a well-made film. To translate Joe Simpson's firsthand account of the experience from book to film, director Kevin Macdonald arranged for Simpson and fellow climber Simon Yates to narrate, then he filmed extensive and grippingly realistic reenactments with actors and stunt climbers. It does diminish the suspense to see Simpson and Yates alive and well on camera, but since this is arguably the most famous incident in the history of the sport, there's little need to pretend. In fact, this film almost feels like it was intended for mountain climbers, as it spends almost no time explaining why these men would want to make such a deadly journey. I guess that much can be assumed. Worth special mention are the cinematography and outstanding musical score, which elevate the sometimes plodding film into a rare level of excellence. Except for a clumsy sequence in which the protagonist loses his sanity, the film never breaks its intense spell and top-notch craft. It's riveting. I recommend a rental. Perhaps worth mentioning is the story of seeing the film: I had gone to the theater to see "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra," but the 16-year-old night manager informed me that the reels had gotten lost in delivery. The only other movie playing at the time was some documentary called "Touching the Void." Having forgotten the title, I thought it was "Stepping into Liquid" and reluctantly bought a ticket. When the movie opened in a field of ice, it took me a few seconds to stop wondering where in the hell the surfers were. –Scott Hardie
This unnecessary, contractually mandated sequel is a sufficiently cheerful but fairly standard adventure for its first two acts, then finally gets around to delivering Pixar's signature emotional wallop towards the end and gains overdue depth. –Scott Hardie • July 8 2010, 8:18am EST • 2 replies
By now the James Bond formula has become so rote that writers can apparently reproduce it in their sleep, which would explain this movie. There's the unflabbably cool hero and his European sports cars and fine attire, with the good woman and the bad woman dueling for his affections, and the colorful villain who combines the mad scientist with the cold strategist. Add a tacky musical number over the opening credits and you don't even need the Broccoli family. Jason Statham is every bit as electric a lead actor as Pierce Brosnan, but that may be the film's only strength; not even Bond movies with their corny one-liners and plastic sex kittens are this downright stupid. With dialogue so terrible that not one word need be changed to spoof it ("I'm afraid your flight's been canceled." "I'm afraid you've been canceled!"), the film contains not one single convincing moment between plausible adult characters; everyone is a brain-dead action figure and/or an ugly ethnic caricature. Perhaps the self-admitted lack of wit befits the film's orgy of physically impossible action scenes, but it makes the cartoonish original film look like a model of naturalism. The action scenes themselves are mostly satisfying, including a third-act battle that evokes Jackie Chan's show-stopping gang battle in "Rumble in the Bronx," as Statham improvises weapons out of fire hoses and pieces of scaffolding, but even this high point has no sense of pacing or blocking, becoming dizzying where Chan was dazzling. You'll find your action-spectacle fix in "Transporter 2" if that's what you're after, but you'll have to sit through wince-inducing dialogue and an avalanche of tired genre conventions to get it. (Note: This movie, with its close-up cinematography and B-movie plotline, might play a lot better on DVD than in theaters.) –Scott Hardie
premise: An American couple gets caught up in drug-trafficking intrigue while taking the Trans-Siberian railroad across Russia. Maybe if I had seen this movie in a different mood or with lowered expectations, I would have appreciated it more. It's beautifully shot, capturing the majestic tranquility of the Siberian winter (or is it summer?), and the acting is superb. But frankly, I found it dull as hell. It takes forever to begin introducing thriller elements, and the plot twists are all so carefully foreshadowed that they seem patently obvious when they arrive. Of course none of the characters are quite what they seem, and yet they are exactly what they seem under the surface, and what always happens in movies like this happens. The critics must have seen something in it that I didn't, because for one of the best-reviewed thrillers of this year, this was a real let-down. –Scott Hardie • January 4 2009, 4:45pm EST
If you're going for the direct comparison, this film has much better production values than the original, but it's uneven, with an excessive amount of attention paid to filking, fan films, and Trek-themed rock bands simply because they make for good footage. (And if those are the best moments pulled from those rock concerts, I won't be buying tickets any time soon.) But there's no real reason to make a direct comparison, because this material simply exists on its own terms. Roger Nygard could make ten more of these and they'd all be more or less the same, and whether there are celebrity interviews or not, the films are funny and eye-opening. I liked the international theme here, especially the Serbian segment, where the values of Roddenberry's federation took on special meaning to a frightened, war-torn people. It was also good to catch up on the major participants in the first film and find out they've only gotten wealthier and crazier. If the film has a real weakness, besides the fact that it's directed exclusively at Star Trek fans and would have almost no value to outsiders, it's that it doesn't find a real answer to the question that it poses constantly and is even printed on the DVD: How much is too much? Fans are asked again and again whether they are normal, and no matter how elaborate their Enterprise-themed apartments are and how many Borg implants they put on their cats, they always agree that "some fans take it too far, but not me, I'm normal." Watching the film at home, it's easy for us to conclude that these people are the extreme fans, but the film never does find out who they think the extreme fans are. I could assume it's each other, but it would be nice if the film could provide that answer for itself. –Scott Hardie
"The Matrix of the eighties," says one Netflix user, and that sums it up. The only thing more striking than the look of Tron is that it hasn't been copied for other films since. The bonus materials make it clear that the effect is not difficult or expensive to do, and yet it remains original more than twenty years since the film was released. That makes it easy to forget that the film is also a great adventure yarn brimming with good concepts; even its campiness about video games is charming. –Scott Hardie
MINOR SPOILERS ALERT Visually astounding and extremely appealing to computer nerds (they were actually using REAL unix/linux commands!). Going into this film, I expected a non-stop cheesy action flick that devoted itself to to kick-ass graphics instead of the storyline. Instead I was stunned to find the story to be extremely introspective, philosophical, and emotionally touching. There are so many layers to the background given about the "Grid" that I found myself pondering existence, religion, and societal norms. There are moments that seem to drag on, but when put into context of exactly what the situation is, it all comes together nicely. Kevin Flynn says more than once that there is more than one solution to problems and that sometimes the best action is to take no action at all. He proves on at least two occasions that he is the most powerful being within his creation, but does not interfere with allowing his programs to make their own decisions. It's been more than 48 hours since I've seen the movie and I'm still pondering the enormous amounts of philosophy I took in. –Matthew Preston • December 23 2010, 11:47am EST • 2 replies
Ben Stiller hasn't been funny in years, and keeps hoping big ideas can save him from mediocrity. Here he lampoons clueless, un-self-aware hotshot filmmakers by being one. Robert Downey Jr. is great, but he can't carry this sloppy mess by himself. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:25am EST
Another short film made from Watchmen leftovers, this fake documentary explores the uninteresting 1940s superheroes from the novel's backstory. It frequently gets in its own way with tv newsmagazine verisimilitude, often distracting from itself. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:24am EST
This tale of a Mexican boy who sneaks across the border to find his mother in Los Angeles loses points for being predictable and too overtly political, but it has scenes with real heart and its characters feel real. It's not great but worth a rental. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:25am EST
Probably the most thoroughly pleasing film of the year after —Antwone Fisher” (which shares its sunflower motif), you’d have to be very cynical not to enjoy this alluring picture. It helps that it acknowledges its own debt to Italian-tourism films and to the laughable yuppie-therapy nature of its premise (—that is so Oprah!” complains the heroine). Films like this succeed with an engaging lead, colorful supporting players, and beautiful scenery, so that no matter what happens in the story, there’s always something on the screen to keep you smiling. Best is the no-nonsense friend played by the endearing Sandra Oh. –Scott Hardie
This film commits the ultimate sin for an action movie: It’s boring! It waits half an hour to introduce its bland characters (the —incompetent henchman” is the most developed), and takes almost three times as long giving us exposition that finally explains the story, just in time for the action finish. There’s too much running around between the (four? five?) locations, and pointless posing before and after the action. It squanders the potential of its premise, vampires vs. werewolves, by having them shoot guns at each other, and can’t even do that in a fresh, new way. What a stinker. –Scott Hardie
premise: Diane Lane plays an FBI cyber-crimes investigator on the trail of a murderous, "untraceable" web site. I don't necessarily mind a movie that criticizes America's lust for graphic bloodshed with two hours of graphic bloodshed; Natural Born Killers did it very well a decade ago. But I do mind a movie that takes such a bare-bones approach to it, providing a flimsy motive for its villain and no sympathy for its heroine beyond Diane Lane's natural likeability. Maybe the film could have worked better by taking place entirely on the web, a gimmick that would have echoed co-star Colin Hanks's turn in Alone with Her last year, or by showing many more of the people who choose to log into such a disturbing site, instead of one skateboarder and a chorus of obscene morons posting comments. Instead, it dramatizes the search for a moralizing killer through the perspective of a law enforcement agent who, though disgusted by his methods, registers virtually no opinion of his message. Without a proper vessel for its ideas, the film becomes an empty torture-porn knockoff with little entertainment value. The plot turns are telegraphed well in advance, the killer's abilities exceed the suspension of disbelief, the archetypical clueless police-chief character is as dumb as ever, and the surprises are revealed with little ceremony, such as the killer's identity. This movie is worse than a thriller-by-numbers, because it can't even follow the numbers correctly. It gets points for a semi-plausible explanation of how a website could be made untraceable, and throws them away with such careless errors as a hacked car computer and a desktop computer that can serve tens of millions of hits in a minute. To paraphrase its chief idiot, any American who views this movie is an accomplice to crap. –Scott Hardie • February 6 2008, 11:25pm EST • 4 replies
Like WALL-E, this feels made for fans of smart, offbeat animation first and kids second. It's full of lively visual design and packs a powerful emotional prologue. Who expects the talking animals to be the best part of a great Disney movie? –Scott Hardie • May 30 2009, 6:12pm EST
This quick-witted 2009 indie drama had perfect timing, being about finding your soul amidst corporate downsizing. George Clooney and Vera Farmiga are possessed of superhuman charm and use it. It has a somewhat predictable story, until the bold ending. –Scott Hardie • April 10 2010, 12:46pm EST
Revered masters of sketch comedy, the UCB crew gets to show off their lightning-quick timing and groupthink in this recording of their live show. Funnier and sharper than their Comedy Central series, this is some hilarious 90-minute improv by solid pros. –Scott Hardie • August 30 2009, 2:06pm EST
How many big-budget spectacles get more interesting the longer they run? The Wachowski brothers' talky, overly cerebral approach to action filmmaking has its fans and detractors, who will love and loathe this film in predictable proportions, but here they put their big brains behind a story that's actually about something other than itself. Watching V's masterful plan unfold is a pleasure if you're not familiar with the source, and the spirited allusions to Guy Fawkes and political theory grant a deft touch to what have could have been a heavy film. Because its terrorist hero is never wrong, it would not seem to want audiences to think about its subject, but I think it does: It treats V with complete moral rightness because our society treats terrorists with complete moral wrongness, the only way to challenge our preconceived notions about the certainty of our values. Would we still root for V if the film were the same but took place in America? If the villain were named President Bush and looked just like him? Suddenly the patriots and the principled would be divided, exposing our hypocrises; liberals who claim to love America would root for her corrupt government's overthrow, and conservatives who claim to despise moral relativity would shift allegiance to a character depending on whose government he was blowing up. This is a lot to think about for those viewers who just want some pretty explosions, but the movie will satisfy that demographic just as well as it flatters our inner poli-sci major. I'd be inclined to like it better if it didn't have a number of technical irritations, chiefly the poor sound editing by Ben Barker (or maybe just the speaker system at the theater where I saw it). Several critical pieces of dialogue, including a threat whispered from V to an enemy, were virtually inaudible underneath Dario Marianelli's score and the ambient sound. But the film is more for the eyes than the ears anyway, with the art direction standing tall on the shoulders of previous gothic-deco comic adaptations before it, and excellent final work from the late cinematographer Adrian Biddle. I loved the visual boldness of the film that extended even to its gorgeous poster. It's a striking, challenging film for anyone who likes their action films brainy. –Scott Hardie
Charged with combining Universal's greatest classic-cinema monsters together into one film, writer-director Stephen Sommers apparently decided to include Universal's greatest plot holes and clichés as well. This is precision formula filmmaking; undermining its jokes and shocks because you know exactly when each one is about to happen. This is the kind of movie in which every punch sends its victim flying twenty feet through the air, and no one exits a building without smashing through a giant window. Its plot is seemingly constructed entirely out of contrivances: At least thirty times, someone arrives at the exact moment and location they are needed by the plot with no explanation of how or why they happen to be there, and frequently they disappear with no explanation either. These contrivances, which eventually become amusing by their sheer frequency of occurrence, are not limited to characters: Wouldn't you know that the stroke of midnight happens at the exact second when one character needs it to survive, without having watched the clock to time it? Or that there are two separate full moons in a film that apparently takes place in less than a week? Or that one character translates an ancient Latin inscription into a rhyming verse in modern English? Or that the heroes walk into crowded downtown Prague with Frankenstein's fucking Monster without anybody raising an eyebrow, despite constant references to how easily noticeable he is? I realize that films involving automatic crossbows and sunshine grenades require some suspension of disbelief, but this plunges over the line and into some deep chasm of implausibility, gleefully inventing wild coincidences all the way down. I felt myself turning bitter while my disappointment with the film grew. If I don't have enough time to watch all the good films that come out, why should I waste it watching bad ones like this? Why should anybody? Besides time, it's a waste of 150 million dollars that Universal will likely not recoup. The sad part is that if more time/effort had been put into the script, something that costs 0 million dollars to improve, then the film would have gotten better reviews and gotten a bigger opening and had longer legs at the box office, and would have broken even or come close to it. It happens sometimes that bad movies make big profits, but why be in the business of making bad movies when good ones often earn even more money? Universal spoke openly about their hopes to turn this film into a franchise: sequels, a tv series, a theme-park attraction, video games, everything. But how would anybody be interested in all that if the film is so forgettable? The script is its weakest link. Whenever the characters begin to discuss their feelings or insights or anything not related to the plot, they can barely get out two sentences before something attacks them. When the film is ending and the characters are saying their various goodbyes to one another, they don't actually say any words at all because the film can't imagine what they might have to say to one another; they stand there gaping at each other in silence. (I wonder if "meaningful glance here" was actually written in the script.) The film does have one huge element in its favor: Most of its humongous budget was apparently spent on its production and special effects. This is a beautiful film, in which the CGI doesn't merely enhance the action but is also used to fill in voluminous sets and populate them with bizarre sights. The masquerade ball, the vampire hatcheries, the mountaintop castles, the carriage chase; these expansive set pieces would have been impossible without computer imagery, and the film is enriched by them. I wish that less of the film was set in darkness so that I could better see these sequences, but they're still impressive. The film employs excellent cinematography; images like the werewolf atop the flaming carriage and Van Helsing atop the Notre Dame will stay with me. Miscellaneous other comments: –Scott Hardie
It's not a new story in Hollywood, the old lech pursuing the young maiden, both of them revealing hidden dimensions as the story turns. What makes this movie so good is Peter O'Toole's charm and exuberance. This is man you'd like to spend two hours with. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:41am EST
Asian action films are among the most derivative films in the world, and this one isn’t content just to rip off John Woo and Yuen Wo Ping, but also takes from Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson. It’s a bloody, overstuffed mess with a kitchen-sink approach to genres, but damned if it doesn’t work for much of its running time, giving us many fleeting moments of beautiful action imagery. The actors gleefully throw themselves into their roles, especially Kenji Matsuda as a deliriously clownish thug in a suit. A more cohesive story and fewer agonizing pauses would have made it perfect. –Scott Hardie
On this DVD's surprisingly non-dull bonus documentary about the two-year restoration of "Vertigo," one of the project heads, who has undoubtedly seen it hundreds of times as a matter of necessity, remarks that he envies the new generations who will get to enjoy the film for the first time. I am one of the people of whom he speaks: For all the movies I've ever seen, I regretfully admit that not a single Hitchcock has been among them. It's an oversight I intend to correct in short order by renting his trifecta of greatest films, "North by Northwest," "Psycho," and first and foremost, "Vertigo." I understand that the legendary status this film came to achieve with critics has to do with what it reveals about Hitchcock the man and director, what he thought about making fiction and what he thought about women. But, because this is my first Hitch, I can only express how thoroughly I enjoyed it as a gripping thriller. Jimmy Stewart's rusty voice may wear out its welcome early, but his effortless charm and sympathetic nature never do. It is simultaneously crucial and preposterous that a hardened man like him would fall so passionately in love for a mysterious woman in a matter of days, but Stewart nails the performance with carefully measured intensity and those big vulnerable eyes. At first he seems to keep the world at an arm's length because he disdains it, but through Stewart's performance we gradually come to recognize the easily wounded spirit he's protecting within, long before that part of himself is ripped open by Hitchcock's torturous plot twists. And what a plot. Hitch's direction may seem boring and old-fashioned against today's genre pieces, but it proves how captivating a great thriller can be when it has a fantastic story and sticks to it with rapt attention, something that doesn't happen much any more. Whether or not there truly is anything supernatural happening is as unimportant as whether the kid in "The Sixth Sense" actually sees ghosts, when you consider that the tension would be just as high one way or the other. It's an engrossing tale, well told, that leaves you guessing till the breathtaking final shot; that is, if you're lucky enough not to have seen it yet. If so, don't wait a lifetime to change that; this is one classic mystery that will not disappoint. –Scott Hardie
In the summer of '88, this adventure-comedy was probably considered too cheesy and too formula-bound. Two decades later, it's just goofy, old-fashioned, and fun. Jeff Goldblum is so likeable, and great scenery in the Andes helps too. –Scott Hardie • February 4 2010, 6:40pm EST
Expounding on a theme over and over is not the same thing as being deep about it. Pedro Almódovar is rightly praised for his vivid photography and his sensitivity to women's issues, but unless I was just on the wrong wavelength, his tone is all wrong. The characters greet some shocking developments with minimal reaction, and tension and humor miss their mark. Things pick up better in the second half, but even then, the "surprising" revelations are not exactly hard to predict. –Scott Hardie • June 17 2007, 10:39am EST
premise: Keri Russel stars in this bittersweet comedy that reminds when life makes lemons, make lemonade. Or rather, lemon meringue pie. If you saw and liked Juno but could do without the copious sass, you'll really be charmed by Waitress. Keri Russel plays Jenna, a small town waitress who is rather gifted when it comes to making pie, but that is about the only happy thing in her life. She hates her controlling idiot husband and has been saving her tips for the day when she can leave him. However there is a barrier at every turn, especially when she finds out that she is pregnant. This really is a movie about women, but it's real underlying themes are universal. It celebrates life's little joys, amid the ups and downs and does so in a comical way. It's female characters are working class heroines. One living with a controlling self absorbed husband who she has no love for. Another with a bed ridden crippled husband who she is taking care of. The third is single and lonely. Whenever Jenna is feeling a strong emotion, be it diappointment, joy, sensuality, she closes her eyes and dreams up a new pie recipe to fit her feelings, a running symbol througout the movie which is quite charming. Which is probably what I liked so much about this film. It doesn't over complicate. It's characters prove that artists exsist everywhere, even if the medium is mundane and work related. The pie is an outlet for expression in a world where she doesn't have much of an option to express herself in other ways. And that art, be it born from pain or joy, can bring happiness to others. However this movie isn't simply about existence, there is a larger theme as well..... Spoilers ahead!, skip to last paragraph... The ending was perfect for the story line. Going through the whole movie just wanting happiness for herself for a change and not caring for the baby growing inside her, Jenna gets a nice surprise when she realizes what she actually wants and realizes her true path to happiness in the end. It's also a good answer to the movie's other theme, that the main 3 women (representing basic personality outlines that all women can pare themselves down and fit into) judge their self worth based on what men think of them or feel about them. The idea that all women need a man in their life to love them, or make them feel sexy, or notice them. A theme that is treated in an unbiased fashion in both negative and positive lights. Seeing the main character finally choosing to love herself first, despite how the two men in her life made her feel during the duration of the film, makes for a good lesson taught and buttons up the story as sweetly as the symbolic pies throughout. /end spoilers It would seem by the front cover that this is a chic flick directed at groups of women sitting around eating popcorn together and crying but it really is a story about respecting self and finding self worth. For the male characters struggle with this same basic problem even if they aren't the main focus. Again, making it universal. I recommend it to any gender. –Jackie Mason • January 30 2009, 11:35am EST
[excerpted from Ten Best Films feature] I don't know Johnny Cash, but I do know an actor playing Johnny Cash very well. Joaquin Phoenix doesn't just transform himself into the beloved singer, he plays the role with subtle clues that help us understand the man better. Arguably the most crucial scene in the movie is Cash's audition for Sam Phillips, where he uneasily mumbles through hymns until Phillips convinces him to play one of his own songs, and in three minutes he changes from a simpering, self-ashamed amateur to a confident, sexy, deep-voiced pro. It's that kind of close-up look at the making of a legend that fuels biopic musicals like this, and though this one suffers from a bad case of "Behind the Music"-itis (an overemphasis on the drugs & booze that seemed like fairly minor parts of his life), it's just as riveting as any expose of a complicated and charismatic celebrity. And it benefits from having some of the best damn music in any film this decade. –Scott Hardie • September 24 2006, 9:22pm EST
premise: Garbage collecting robot uncovers plant that sends signal to humans, who have abandoned the planet, to return. So I take the girls to the AMC Theater for the monthly showing of a movie specifically for autistic children. The movie itself is not for autistic children but the theater is adapted for the population. The lights are dimmed but not darkened. The sound is lower. There are no previews. The kids often display rocking behavior and are often noisy. This distracts patrons of regular showings when your kid is the only one doing it and, in fact, is what started these special showings in the first place. A woman and her autistic child were actually thrown out of a theater because her child was considered disruptive. This audience is full of these types of kids and the parents are obviously tolerant. Thank you AMC and its nationwide campaign to set aside these times for special shows. As for the movie, Wall-E was a drag for me. Like watching a silent movie with no dialogue cards. The only voice coming from Fred Willard for the most part. I don’t get emotionally attached to cartoon robots regardless of how high they might rate in the cuteness factor. The love interest in the sleek Jolie-esque robot, Eve, kinda bummed me out when she turned out to be such a bitch. The Jabba humans were largely unlikable, hedonistic blobs of pudding and the concept of a ruined Earth incapable of sustaining life doesn’t fit with my own views of apocalyptic Earth. A roach survives! Hah! I get jokes. Not funny. This supposedly takes place 700 years after Earth abandonment yet we see only one roach! What has it been eating for 700 years? Where are all the other robots for that matter? Suspension of belief for a cartoon, I understand. But there seems to be a serious ecological message attempting to be sent here. If you’re offering a serious point, you need to back it up with facts not just fantasy. Too harsh? Perhaps. But from my end of the aisle, the movie just didn’t deliver. My daughters will still want a copy and I’ll be sure to get it. But it’s destined to gather dust next to their copy of Fox and the Hound. –Steve West • November 15 2008, 7:37pm EST
The recent Pixar films are hit-or-miss depending on your personal tastes. WALL-E turned some people off with its lack of dialogue and unpromising premise, but I loved its sense of joy in the possibilities of animation. I watched this with a grin. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:25am EST • 1 reply
The latest short film in the series doesn't achieve the spirited zaniness of The Wrong Trousers, but it tries. The sight gags provide a little fun, and it's nice to see the old pair again after all these years. –Scott Hardie • June 18 2011, 11:45pm EST
Zach Snider's ultra-faithful adaptation of the legendary graphic novel is nearly perfect, fascinating for scene after scene until the overlong final confrontation. It keeps the rich character development and complex themes of Alan Moore's masterwork. –Scott Hardie • April 7 2009, 1:20am EST • 3 replies
I haven't seen the original, but I can imagine how good it is. This film, while breezy and fun, is clearly a knockoff of something better. You expect to see the actors enjoying themselves because you know they only did the movie to crack each other up and have a good time. The acting is good and the timing exquisite, but there are no big laughs and you see every joke coming. At least it doesn't suffer for lack of momentum, as there isn't a dull moment, but at 84 minutes you wish they had provided an epilogue. Luis Guzmán rules. –Scott Hardie
Finally, just what we need: A comedy almost completely devoid of any sense of humor, starring actors who have all played the same roles much better in other movies that seemed worthy of them, with an incessant musical score that underlines every faint echo of an emotional cue. This is one of the laziest films I've seen in a long time, with a cast that obviously doesn't care. For an actor trying to break into movies, Ray Romano comes across as a no-talent who isn't even fit for television, while Christine Baranski plays her nine thousandth shrill bitch; she ought to receive some kind of career achievement award by this point. Does this film even remotely resemble the best movie that could have been made from this premise? How do you start with a retiring president running for small-town mayor against the well-liked local handyman, and wind up making a movie about a flat, unconvincing love triangle in neither of the principals treat each other with courtesy and the actors simply go through the motions? You do it by making a film on auto-pilot, that's how. This film is already far beyond redemption by the time a Smash Mouth song puts the final nail in the coffin. –Scott Hardie
After enjoying Happiness and Storytelling so much, I knew I couldn't last long without seeing Todd Solondz's most famous film. It is certainly his most painful, as young Dawn Weiner (three-dimensional though she is) stands as a universal symbol for all of us who were once geeky adolescents, while the main characters in his other films stand only for themselves. What Dawn experiences here is a knuckle-chenching nightmare of childhood torments, and if you experienced painful ones yourself, this film may go beyond catharsis and actually reopen old wounds. Strong as the film is, I found it the least satisfying of Solondz's three films (I have not seen his disowned "Fear, Anxiety & Depression") because it doesn't build to any result: the scenes accumulate instead of adding up. I also didn't laugh much, but that's my problem. If you're in the mood for an 87-minute Pathetic Geek Story, this is the rental for you. –Scott Hardie
A winning family film, a beautiful travelogue of the New Zealand coastline, and an Oscar nominee for Best Cinematography and Best Lead Actress in an ideal world: This low-key charmer lives up to its hefty reputation. The outcome of the plot is never in doubt, but the unexpected path it takes to get there is a pleasure. Young Castle-Hughes is expressive and strong, but the most difficult role is played by Paratene, who succeeds at being many things to many characters (and many viewers). If the film has a particular weak point, it’s the languid ambient score by Lisa Gerrard. –Scott Hardie
The central premise of this movie has always been contradictory: "Can a man and woman be good friends without sex getting in the way?" The movie doesn't want them to be good friends, of course. It has warm fuzzies to deliver. All that a romantic comedy really needs are two appealing lead actors and a funny script that doesn't play stupid, and this one has become a favorite for two decades on that simple combination. It loves its characters, lets them be people instead of tools of the plot, and has jokes that still bring laughs a generation later. –Scott Hardie • October 29 2007, 12:28am EST
By his third major release, M. Night Shyamalan was already starting to seem like a hack whose only real talent was in disguising his pedestrian material with a high-gloss professionalism. This film, made in 1997 but seen by me now for the first time, drives the point home. He's got plenty of skill as a director, but his weakness is his screenwriting, which reminds me of the kind of amateurish material I wrote in junior high school: Meticulously plotted and affecting a grown-up air, secretly paranoid that no one will realize how ordinary it is, and indulgently self-impressed. I look forward to the day, should it ever come, when Shyamalan directs from someone else's (good) script. Then I think he'll really be on to something. That's not to say that the film lacks charms, just that it packs in too many artificial ones. Robert Loggia is convincing as the grandfather beloved enough to put the plot in motion, and even if young Joseph Cross is given impossibly complex monologues for a fifth-grader, he at least gets credit for refusing to overplay any of them. (It struck me that he probably auditioned for "The Sixth Sense," and would have been good in it.) There's some genuinely funny material here, and occasionally touching as well. The film has the overbearing foreshadowing typical of its genre, but when it comes to the payoff, it's surprisingly restrained and casual about it. There's not even the worst element of children's films, the obligatory victory scene of throngs of children cheering at the tops of their lungs for the hero! (On the other hand, it does have that desperately overeager musical score that feels compelled to put an underline, circle, and exclamation point on every emotional cue, the seocnd-worst element of children's films.) On the whole, this is a near miss, a film that just isn't genuine enough to be taken seriously. But it's not bad if you're in the need for a warm comedy about Catholic school - and who isn't? - and those viewers who still believe in Shyamalan will find things to like. –Scott Hardie
If the producer credit for Brian Robbins isn't sufficient warning, let me be clear: This movie is another dumbass two-hour sitcom episode trying too hard to convince you it's funny, the sort Hollywood lazily tosses out every spring starring formerly well-regarded stars now available at cut-rate salaries (Marisa Tomei, William H. Macy, Ray Liotta) and awkwardly cramming a life lesson into each character's lame-brained arc because their IQ has nowhere to go but up. To be more specific, Wild Hogs pretends its a biker comedy for suburban dads, but it's actually targeted squarely at women, because in his heart no man is interested in seeng a cutesy furtive romance stalled by a stammering loser's nerves, or jokes about how a husband and father is so emasculated that he "hilariously" chokes after gulping down too much mashed potatoes and gravy in a feeble attempt to prove his manhood, or (I swear I'm not making this up) a scene set in Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Yeah, this movie was made for guys. Totally. –Scott Hardie • June 17 2007, 11:05am EST
premise: The daughter of an eccentric novelist returns home to collect his love letters to his late wife so she can sell them. I can understand Will Ferrell sticking his toe into the indie-drama waters to see if there's a future career for him beyond zany comedies, but he's chosen a particular frigid pond to try it. This bleak little character movie is joyless and mostly actionless, which wouldn't be a problem if it were halfway good. Ed Harris seems cramped in his portrayal of an aging eccentric, caged in by the awkward character, while Zooey Deschanel does her best to act at home in a despicable heroine who permanently extinguishes audience sympathy with an act of animal cruelty early in the film. When Ferrell gets a big showy scene near the end, it seems way out of character. Writer-director Adam Rapp has a lot he wants to say about makeshift families and the way we allow ourselves to suffer quietly rather than reach out, but he hasn't figured out how to say it in a way that anybody would want to hear. –Scott Hardie • December 15 2007, 10:24am EST
Hypekill may have spoiled this one for me; I found it languid and tame. It's called "country noir," but noir is meant to lack a moral hero; this protagonist is perfect and prevails by winsomeness. At least the poor Ozark backwoods looked authentic. –Scott Hardie • January 2 2011, 3:08pm EST
What a sad, strange story. The Netflix description gives you the background, but it doesn't communicate the quiet elegance of this documentary, filmed in soft black and white with the emphasis on visual composition, since many of the shots intentionally echo one another. This movie is sometimes depressing, sometimes bleakly humorous, and sometimes surprisingly violent, all derived from its morbid subject matter. Writer-director-producer James Marsh stays true to the source material while filtering it for audience expectations: He highlights three of the most entertaining stories – a madwoman who enjoys smashing windows everywhere she goes, a 13-year-old fugitive outlaw, and a famous Opera singer reduced to subsisting on cattle feed on her own pipe-dream farm — and he gathers the stories together into narrative bundles, dealing with chilldhood in winter, youth in spring, adulthood in summer, middle age and marital strife in autumn, and old age in another winter, diminishing the sense of disconnection the stories might otherwise have. The film started slowly, but by "spring" I was enjoying it immensely, for its ability to distill an interesting story into a few lines of bleak narration and striking photography. My only two complaints are the introductory paragraph at the start of each season, which spoils much of the mystery, and the highly irritating choice to read the notes of the insane asylum's attending physician not in a normal voice, but in a breathy whisper that grates on the nerves. The grisly subject matter of dozens of murders and suicides makes this a hard movie to recommend, but if you can see something pretty and worthwhile in sad little tales like this, it might be worth the chance. It's one that will stay with you. –Scott Hardie
In the bonus doc accompanying this film on DVD, Ralph Bakshi pats himself on the back for following the wise lesson he had learned at Terrytoons, that budget doesn't matter as long as you have heart. That's true, but this movie's passion lies in other bodily organs further south. Besides, its thematic ambition is so large that the micro-budget and corner-cutting work against it; it arrives like a giant of a man wearing a midget's best suit. The extended use of rotoscoping is particularly annoying, because nothing of consequence seems to be happening in most of the scenes that use it; it's almost as if Bakshi paid so much for archived war footage that he had to cram a lot of it into the film. But there are enough weaknesses elsewhere, such as the reusing of the same shots over and over, that you just can't get past the lousy animation and appreciate the socio-political message for what it is, not that Bakshi is in any way subtle about it. I'm grateful for Bakshi releasing the kind of cartoon he wanted to make and now bowing to commercial pressure, but getting his mind out of the bedroom and relying less on lazy animation techniques would have made his movie as good as the ideas behind it. –Scott Hardie
X-Men First Class is a great comic book movie. it went back to the feel of the first one where they made you feel that mutants can exist in our world. The cast was superb, and even thought they ignore continuity, it was done very well –Scott Horowitz • June 13 2011, 1:51pm EST • 6 replies
[Vague ending spoilers ahead.] You know that feeling you get when you're disappointed by a movie that extends a tv show franchise, like say Star Trek, when you wonder why you just paid ten bucks to see something you usually see for free in your living room? That's the problem with a series: Unless they pull out all the stops to make a great entertainment, you know they're just phoning it in because the next installment is inevitable. The Last Stand has been marketed as the final X-Men film but there's approximately zero people who believe it; the film has been a big success and most of the cast is enthusiastic about returning again. (As for Halle Berry, she shouldn't let the screen door smack her ass on the way out.) The effect of knowing it's just another link in the chain is that there's no reason to care. The two big plot developments of the picture are both erased with a big ol' slap of the reset button at the end. The actors sleep through their performances and are given interchangeable lines so it doesn't matter anyway. The best script innovation I can think of is that both Angel and Beast are given complete arcs with endings, so they can sit out the next picture without wondering like we now must with Nightcrawler. I don't want a lot from an X-Men movie, but one thing I do want is that it stays true to the characters. That shouldn't hard; each only has one dimension anyway. But with the exception of a brief fight in the woods, Wolverine here behaves like somebody's dad on a sitcom, warm and fuzzy and completely devoid of his charming gruffness. Magneto flies wildly out of character, cold-dissing one fallen comrade and making such a slow, grand entrance into the final battle that UN peacekeepers could be dispatched from other continents in time to stop him before he arrives. (Speaking of Magneto, can we please get a different villain already? The Batman movies would be awfully boring if he just kept facing the Joker over and over.) I'm being hard on the movie because Bryan Singer made it look so easy the first two times. The studio wanted their big summer blockbuster and they got it, but there's nobody piloting the ship into more interesting territory. That said, for what it is, it's got some great special effects, fun action scenes, and some good jokes (especially from Beast), and the writers at least had the sense to give us character showdowns that make sense, like Iceman vs. Pyro and Juggernaut vs. Shadowcat. There were fifty people in the makeup department, so I don't know who to credit for the genuinely frightening look of Dark Phoenix, but whoever it was did a great job. John Powell's stylish pseudomilitary score even made an impression amid the chaos. 20th Century Fox is definitely going to make another sequel – they're the real juggernaut, bitch – but I hope they get someone like Bryan Singer who's going to give a damn whether it's done well or merely done. –Scott Hardie • August 13 2006, 6:36pm EST • 1 reply
I found this more fun than X2, and easier to follow. It is true, I am pretty dumb about movies, and I found X2 confusing. But X3 was pretty cool. A funny note: Darrell and I didn't know Kelsey Grammer was playing Beast and somehow we got through the entire movie without becoming aware of this fact. Upon seeing his name in the ending credits, we reversed back to a scene near his introduction and laughed wondering how in the world we could have missed that. I mean it is completely obvious, especially if you don't look at the guy :P. A TINY SPOILER: if this was "The Last Stand" then why do we need that last 2 seconds before the credits? Oh yeah... and a quick web search indicates that we missed more justification for a sequel by not watching to the end of the credits. EDIT: Sorry,. this has been a shameless attempt to get $R. I did wanna talk about the movie but my uninformed opinion is pretty worthless when we already have Scott's review. –Denise Sawicki • August 8 2007, 7:59am EST
I'm a fan just like the filmmakers, and so I feel the same desire to include as many characters and subplots as possible. But even at 150 minutes, the film feels like it's rushing to get to every scene, and most of the main characters have only five or six lines each. The film does provide great entertainment, though, especially in Nightcrawler and Wolverine's big fight scenes, and the visual effects and makeup are top-notch. I'm bothered by one character's heroism at the end, however. It's plot contrivance. X3 needs no such excuse to exist. –Scott Hardie
While watching this film, I was increasingly amused each time it found a new way to incorporate some other extreme sport into the action, as each turn in the plot required the hero to snowboard, para-sail, grind a railing, etc. It's thoroughly preposterous, but is there any other way to make such a film? I think it started as a rip-off of Bond but became more of a tribute and eventually sought to overshadow Bond, though I doubt that's possible; Diesel is anything but suave. Fewer silly clichés and some sense of fun outside of the action scenes would have helped. –Scott Hardie
Laura Linney may not have much acting range beyond the perpetually annoyed authority figure, but she's damn good at it. She was deservingly nominated for an Oscar for her strong work in this film, playing a mother and sister trying her best to raise the men in her life without losing herself in the process. Ken Lonergan's one-act play grew into this feature drama about a pair of grown-up orphans; losing their parents turned the girl into a rigid Christian planning every step of her life and the boy into an unaccountable heathen who lives in the moment. Reuniting as adults, they rub off on each other in surprising ways, turning the film into a rare rumination on sibling relationships and responsibility. But I'm making it sound dull; the film has a snarky wit and is cheerfully unpredictable. Especially good is Lonergan's well-crafted dialogue, which gives each character a distinct voice and makes you realize how deeply they believe what they say. This is a film to listen to, smile at, think about, and be grateful for. –Scott Hardie • June 24 2007, 1:16am EST
A nifty independant superhero flick that has lots of comedy. Sort of like Spider-man meets Podpeople -only without a radioactive spider and with a cosplayer school teacher longing for excitement instead. Pretty Cool. (2005) –Lori Lancaster • April 7 2009, 9:20am EST
premise: A decade in the lives of three investigators of Zodiac, a San Francisco serial killer active in the early 1970s. This is a filmmaker's film, excelling in technical areas like cinematography and sound editing, but lacking in the human warmth that would give it wider appeal. David Fincher avoids pumping up the film with artificial suspense like in his previous Panic Room, and sticks obsessively to the plain facts of the investigation, spelling them out one by one... except during one brilliant sequence, when he shows what kind of tension he's capable of generating. [Ending spoilers ahead.] I'm disappointed by the final scene featuring the main character, because it provides a reward for his obsession that flies in the face of the movie's apparent premise that there can be no happy ending to this kind of obsession; it's like making a grim drama about a gambling addict who slowly loses everything he has, but finally wins big money in his final scene. (Yeah, the story is true, but the filmmakers structure their narrative by picking and choosing which true events to portray.) Overall, it's a very good movie that rewards rapt attention and appreciation of Fincher's visual style. –Scott Hardie • November 5 2011, 11:23am EST
Hands-down, the best horror comedy, and quite possibly regular comedy film of the year (all time?). Clever, sarcastic, and original humor combine to make this film gut-bustingly hilarious. –Erik Bates • October 4 2009, 12:02pm EST
A very funny horror-comedy that spends little time on zombies, preferring to develop its misfit quartet of main characters. Woody Harrelson and a surprise guest star deliver (improvise?) the biggest laughs, but there's good material here for everyone. –Scott Hardie • January 15 2011, 9:44am EST |
|
Funeratic • Celebrity Goo Game • Thorough Movie Reviews • Tragic Comedy • Gothic Earth • GooCon: Villa Ridge 2 • Pirate Paradise |
Welcome to Funeratic! Please login or register. ©2012 Scott Hardie | RSS |
