Reviews

The logo was Disney, but Operation Secret Santa has quite a bit of the Pixar feel...and that's a good thing.

John Lasseter produces, and Pixar music regular Michael Giacchino lends a top-notch score. The pacing is great, everything is kept light and fun, and the animation itself is quite nice.

I was delighted to see a new animated holiday story put in the mix that has some solid production values. While I wouldn't put it on the level of some of the Pixar shorts (shown in theaters before their feature films), for TV, it's a stand-out. Perhaps, if it is well received, we'll see a return of new, animated shorts for the holidays like this one. Cross your fingers.

In the middle of watching X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE, I had this feeling like I'd seen it before. It was the 10:15am showing on opening day, so that wasn't right. But since the first X-MEN installment some 10 years ago, there have been quite a number of films in the superhero genre. Before that first X-MEN, it was pretty difficult to get it right; up until then, I wasn't sure anyone except director Richard Donner (SUPERMAN) had a clue what makes a hero super, or what makes a movie about that hero a good one.

These days, I'd say that Hollywood's got it down cold. They can crank these superhero flicks out with quite a bit of money and not a lot of thought. It's a science. Which is kind of how it felt to watch WOLVERINE. Steely cold science. Impressive at times, sure, but not a surprise. Thrill ride? Sort of. Maybe more like building the roller coaster than riding it.

Don't get me wrong, everything looked great. The score was another solid one from Harry Gregson-Williams. The sound design was crisp and in-your-face, like it should be with a modern action film. Plus, we actually had some acting from, you know, actors (I'm talking specifically about Liev Schreiber - and now I like him as an action guy too). There were even a couple of (small) surprises along the way. It was by no means unpleasant. It just wasn't SPIDER-MAN 2. Actually it reminded me at times of watching "Heroes" on TV. But with more money on the screen. Lots more.

We're now at a point where the whole superhero movie genre has laid out one big formula for itself. Going beyond that for the screenwriters and directors doing new superhero movies is going to be a tough nut to crack. DARK KNIGHT showed us it was possible (although I'm not admitting it was entirely a break from formula as some have claimed - just that it did a better job at enhancing said formula). WOLVERINE does not, however, move us beyond what's already been done and said about heroes. It's just "this year's model".

I still had fun. I didn't feel cheated. But another one like this, and maybe I will. Six out of 10 stars.

If you like action or crime drama, you probably saw something on MACHINE, maybe the cover, and thought 'hey this could be cool. So what if it's direct-to-video, it's probably just the usual indie budget issues.'

That's what I thought too. I was SO wrong.

This is from the school of post-RESERVOIR DOGS filmmakers that believe all you need for a modern crime drama are some cool looking people shooting other people down with cool looking guns, all the while maintaining their cool. Now I'm not a big fan of RESERVOIR DOGS, but Tarantino at least had clever dialog, good blocking, gritty lighting, some nice camera moves, Harvey Keitel, and most of all, a story to tell - he knew guys looking cool and shooting off guns doesn't make a movie. So yeah, Michael Madsen was in DOGS; now he's been in this one, a real dog.

It is difficult for me to describe a film this bad. My viewing experience of MACHINE was something like this: 'Wow, that's the worst camera-work I've ever seen...ever... it's really grainy, like that digital grain Michael Mann got for COLLATERAL with all those cool night scenes with Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise...except those guys aren't in this one, and this just looks BAD. Oh, there's Neil McDonough, wow he's great as ever...wait, is that all we get of him?' You get the idea.

The really astonishing thing was that Madsen and McDonough STILL knocked out good performances (the only reason there's a star in my rating) - a credit to their professionalism. But when they're not on screen (and that's most of the time), then it's just a painful exercise in what not to do when making your own movie. Your uncle probably frames up a better shot with his little hand-held at family get-togethers, than what these guys did here. This DVD is not what you want to watch; it's what you use when you run out of coasters for your drinks.

If you saw the name Harold Ramis and thought of GHOSTBUSTERS, or GROUNDHOG DAY, you thought wrong. Now I didn't expect GROUNDHOG DAY, but I hoped for more than something resembling the characters of RESERVOIR DOGS in one of the FINAL DESTINATION films. With Mr. Blonde doing pratfalls.

Why does the story arc for THE ICE HARVEST resemble a modern gloom-and-doom slasher flick more than it does a crime drama or comedy? And why didn't director Harold Ramis help write the screenplay? Certainly pairing him up with the film's screenwriter Robert Benton (SUPERMAN, BONNIE AND CLYDE) would have made for better storytelling than the other screenwriter on the movie, Richard Russo.

But honestly, I don't know for sure why this film has such a bitter, oppressive undercurrent. It's one thing for characters to have traits of vulgarity; it's another when they're so vulgar you at best only pity them, and certainly don't want to see them in a movie. At least I don't. Film characters must have aspects of their personality and/or circumstances I can relate to or sympathize with (even if they represent some criminal element), or I won't care enough to watch them; as often they become too frustrating, pitiful, or unintelligent to care about. It's because of this lack of value placed on the characters that makes THE ICE HARVEST feel more like a slasher flick than a crime drama. As for the comedy element, it is there, but just seems out of place with so much brooding going on. Or perhaps the timing is just off.

While some of the film is almost unwatchable, there are good scenes: Oliver Platt's poignant monologue delivered in a half-sleep state from a couch; or a beautifully photographed scene with John Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton fumbling with a heavy trunk on a dock (easily the movie's highlight); or Cusack and Platt walking in on the family Christmas dinner; or the film's last 20 minutes (gaping plot holes notwithstanding); But that's not enough to make a good film - maybe a good film short.

It's my understanding that this is Ramis' first indie film. I have to wonder if he wasn't helped rather than hindered, by the guidance of a big studio in his past work. 4 out of 10 stars.

THE PINK PANTHER is my contender for the worst movie of 2006, and I'll qualify that: It's getting extra points taken away, because while there might be movies just as bad, there are also movies being made by folks with much less talent, that are far better than this turkey.

How do you get Steve Martin to write this poorly? I mean, is this the same actor/writer who did the King Tut skit on SNL? Who wrote LA STORY, BOWFINGER, THREE AMIGOS! and a lot of other really funny, well-produced stories? Did he have a contract to fulfill, to get out of? THE PINK PANTHER has jokes that are so stale, I think they must have yawned more than I did.

Okay, next question: How do you cast the terrific Jean Reno and find absolutely nothing whatsoever for him to do? This is the actor who played LEON! But here, he's like a stand-in: he follows Martin here and there. He drives Martin around - not in a chase, mind you, nothing so involving, but just around town. He does a lot of standing next to Martin. Oh, and he scribbles in a notepad. I could have done this part, ME! What a waste.

Another question: Who gets Kevin Kline (who was so great in SILVERADO and THE ICE STORM, and who certainly knows how to make us laugh, like his role in A FISH CALLED WANDA), and manages to commit scenes to film that make him appear unfunny, stiff, even bored? Did his jokes get cut?

Finally - perhaps most importantly - who could ever believe they could top the Blake Edwards/Peter Sellers version and its (especially early) sequels? Perhaps everyone was too intimidated trying to follow up greatness, I don't know. But while I'm fine with remakes if there's a reason, this movie only exists to prove we didn't need another one. With the current Hollywood remake climate, that kind of message almost justifies the movie's existence...almost.

So yes, I gave it 2 stars out of 10 instead of 1 or none, because I believe the actors have real talent, the music composer Chris Beck is still great, and the other crew actually know how to make a good movie. (Even the studio suspected it was bad and released it in February instead of the summer release they had planned.) And I'm also being positive here, that Steve Martin will get back on track, and give us a comedy next time that's actually, you know, funny. Because to me, THE PINK PANTHER just looks like 90 minutes of writers' block.

I vacillate on whether the 20th Century Fox studio claim that HOUSE OF BAMBOO is film noir is really accurate or not. For one thing, it's in color. For another, it's shot in Cinemascope. Also given it's made in 1955, I have to think of it more like a new gas/electric car: it's a hybrid. But unlike most compact hybrids out these days, this one's a full-size truck.

There are action sequences that feel more like they belong in Frankenheimer's THE TRAIN or Sturges' THE GREAT ESCAPE than in a so called noir picture, but I'm not knocking them. They're well staged, and like the entire film, terrifically photographed. But then there is the use of silhouette and high contrast more akin to noir, and the story too feels more in that vein, although more on the sparse side; certainly not a Raymond Chandler THE BIG SLEEP kind of story! Honestly, I found it no less thin a story than Fritz Lang's THE BIG HEAT. As critical as the story is, if films were only that, I'd just be reading books. What's done visually plays a pretty big part in this format.

Speaking of the cinematography, some critics have stated the widescreen use is overkill here, but I must beg to differ. With so many modern films shot more and more like television, with only close-ups and two-shots, and barely a moment of establishing frame to see where everything is happening - and with action sequences and dance numbers shooting this way now - it was refreshing for me to see the entire frame used, with characters often at either end, and action allowed to play out wide, without fast moving camera-work to pump it up. Of course the problem is that many will view a DVD of the film now, where wide shots just look far away (unless you've got a large home theater screen). But that's not the fault of the filmmakers - Cinemascope was meant for the big screen.

When the camera does move, it's clever work. The blocking is also terrific and surprisingly fresh (or again perhaps just not used anymore and so fresh all over again to my eyes). Some say it's all too tricky, but it's far less tricky than all of the motion-control work we're used to seeing now, and often (in this film at least) more involving. Director Samuel Fuller is doing the right shots at the right time here, and that takes everything on screen up a notch.

I'm not sure why there's criticism over the location, but I found the setting in post-war Japan to be as crucial to HOUSE OF BAMBOO as post-war Vienna was to THE THIRD MAN, or for that matter Monument Valley to a John Ford western. Sometimes the setting becomes one of the characters, which when done right as it is here, can only be a plus for the picture. Fuller puts it all to good use. Perhaps it's the Hollywood techniques brought into play, but I can't think of another picture, including all of Kurosawa's work, that looks exactly like this. I'm not saying it's better, just a different take on the locations, and so enjoyable as such.

I'll make the argument that Kurosawa, for example, would film a Japan he knew, but overlooked images because he was used to them, just like I wouldn't take a picture of the Golden Gate bridge because I live 45 minutes away from it. But Fuller looks at it more like a tourist if you will, and so commits to film here things that are unique or uniquely shot. You have enough of these memorable images and you start to have a memorable film. If this were another kind of film, I might not think all those fascinating shots were of such importance. But if this is trying to be noir, then it's all about the atmosphere that the landscape and settings convey. Noir or not, it truly got me caught up in the story.

I have to admit being swayed by a great score from Leigh Harline (as conducted by none other than Lionel Newman), but that's what a good score should help to do: make a decent film good and a good film great. But I also must admit that if I just look at the pieces of this film, I would never rate it so highly. It's a case, for me at least, of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, of everything working together just right to make a solid piece of entertainment, noir or otherwise.

First - I want to address everyone who's already seen X-MEN: THE LAST STAND. If you left during the end credits (or even earlier, as did some viewers in the show I attended), you missed something that easily raised my vote half a star or so: the last scene of the movie.

If you haven't seen THE LAST STAND, make sure you SIT THROUGH THE CREDITS. I'm not going to give anything away, but I think it's worth the extra few minutes. It's interesting that more and more films do have something during, in the middle of, or after the end credits. Since I sit there until the house lights go up or the film runs off the reel, it feels more like a bonus feature, just for a patient moviegoer. But in this case, it's a crucial scene, left quite literally for the very end.

Director Brett Ratner has a strong action film background which includes the RUSH HOUR series, and there's some very solid action sequences here. As a kid reading The X-Men comics, it was really the fight scenes that kept me turning the pages. The film media lends itself perhaps even more to that kind of physical storytelling. THE LAST STAND does not disappoint in this area.

Personally I think this franchise needed at least one entry that was firmly planted in the action category and THE LAST STAND is it. What I hope is that it doesn't become the rule, and that more character driven sequels are in its future. There are now a wealth of superheroes (and villains) presented to us in this X-Men series, and we could stand to learn a lot more about each of them.

This time, however, story wasn't the point, as much as it was a tool to setting up the action. It's almost a Hong Kong martial arts approach; a bridge just to get you to the next fight scene. But with actors like Ian McKellan, those bridges seem much more rewarding. Honestly, he's such a solid Magneto that much of the film owes him a lot for holding things together when the plot gets flimsy. Kudos also to casting Kelsey Grammar as one of my favorite old-time X-Men, Beast. He was spot-on, in my book, and seeing Beast and Angel finally brought into the film story just made it feel complete in a way the other two movies did not.

In making movies out of other media like comic books, there's always going to be some fairly severe story compression. In that process, characters are often quite distorted from their original print versions, and I understand anyone who has objections about how Iceman or any of the other characters have been treated in this series with regard to origins, respective ages, and so on. I admit my own disappointment in the handling of Juggernaut, who could have been a plot point, not to mention a deeper character, all on his own. And I've never liked the way Cyclops has been portrayed in any of the films, though I don't believe the problem is with actor James Marsden, but rather how his character has been written.

Rather than debate those details and give anything away, I'll just say that film is not the printed word (or the well-drawn comic), and there are always concessions. This is not the most serious or character rich entry into the series, but it's a lot of fun, especially if you want to play "spot the superhero or villain". There are certainly more of them here than the other 2 films combined. And many film goers, who are unfamiliar with the comic stories, won't be bothered by any of the omissions or deviations from the comics.

So if you're expecting the kind of serious approach present in the recent BATMAN BEGINS, this isn't really in that league. If, however, you're looking for an amped up action entry and like the Marvel characters, this is probably going to be a good night out. Make sure to get there early enough to see the 20th Century Fox fanfare (with the slightly lingering "X"), and don't leave during the end credits, or you'll miss the end of the movie!

I am not a fan of the TV show "Friends", but I have been impressed with some of the work the cast members have done outside of the show (David Schwimmer's performance in BAND OF BROTHERS, for one). Courteney Cox is nothing short of excellent here, and there are good performances from other cast members, especially Anne Archer, who I've liked ever since I saw her with James Coburn in 1972's rodeo picture, THE HONKERS. Nora Dunn also turns in a good performance, and if all the leads were as strong, my overall impression of "NOVEMBER" would be different.

But the casting of James LaGros in a major role here doesn't work at all. I don't know if it was the inexperienced director or a bad fit for the role (certainly LaGros has plenty of experience himself), but he's hard to watch, especially when sharing a scene with Cox, who acts circles around his one dimensional performance. This dynamic was so distracting that it pulled me out of the story for a moment whenever he was on screen.

Fortunately he's not on all the time, for November is almost completely from Cox's character's perspective. It's perhaps a study in perception more than anything else, a modern suspense thriller that really isn't a who-dun-it as much as a painful reconstruction of events. Because the film doesn't cheat and cut to someone else's perspective just to answer the viewers' questions (a courageous and applaudable choice for the filmmakers), there are questions that remain unanswered for a majority of the picture. When the time came to give answers, I didn't always feel there was enough information to do so properly, but that's a minor issue. These weren't the "drive you crazy" plot points, but smaller things I thought should have been clear by the film's end.

Aside from these problems, I never felt the film drag (as is often the case in lower budget pictures), so the few story problems did not occur in the editing room as far as I can tell. The short running time reflects this, and these filmmakers understand that one shouldn't be so inclined to make epic length pictures unless it's absolutely critical to the story (a point the major studios seem to forget quite often). If I have issue at all with the run time here, it's the snail pace at which the end credits roll (I guess they were making sure we could read it all). Regardless, the major questions that create suspense were nicely revealed; the time flew by watching the film unravel, and there was certainly a "payoff" for me by the end.

A better directed and/or cast actor opposite Courteney Cox would've boosted my rating on this film a couple of stars. I suppose that's why the big time casting directors get the big bucks; the leads can make a film. But a miscast actor, as in "NOVEMBER", almost broke this otherwise enjoyable movie. 6 out of 10.

Kevin Costner likes to make long movies. Offhand, I can't think of one he's directed that was under 2 hours. At approximately two and a quarter hours, OPEN RANGE is no exception. Too bad, because with some trimming in the first hour, he could have had his best film in years.

That first hour contains so much exposition it's tough to sit through. When not explaining characters, there's a lot of sitting around, riding horses, and other scenes that just seemed like Costner trying to catch a little of the flavor of SILVERADO, but without success. Scenes go on too long, and others really could have found the cutting room floor without me missing them. The only fortunate thing from this is lots of screen time for Robert Duvall, who at least keeps many a scene watchable. It often feels like Costner divided the film in half, gave the first to one screenwriter and the second to another. Whatever really happened, it doesn't work.

But if you can tough it out through that first hour, you're in for a pretty good western. The dialog becomes crisp, the action picks up, and the lengthy exposition of the first hour finally plays itself out in Western fashion. I actually forgot how long I had to wait to get to the good scenes once they arrived.

I can't say the film is unpredictable, but quite enjoyable once it gets up to speed - at least as modern westerns go. (Think very much about any one plot point and you might get frustrated.) There's always a feeling that OPEN RANGE wants to be like one "from the good ol' days", but doesn't quite have that kind of movie magic. Although Michael Gambon makes his presence known, some of the other bad guys don't quite have enough lines or screen time (like Kim Coates' gunslinger) for us to get a sense of threat from them. Still, Bening, Costner, Duvall and the great Michael Jeter all turn in good performances. It's not John Ford, but if you're looking for a modern western, you could certainly do worse than OPEN RANGE.

First, I have to say that I'm really not a fan of documentaries, and in general they put me to sleep. That said, IMAX films are some of the only documentaries I've ever been able to sit through. Part of that, perhaps most of it, is their extraordinary presentation. It's a terrific format, and the films made for them are usually well put together.

RING OF FIRE is such a film (at least in it's original IMAX format - I have not seen the DVD). The title refers to the ring of volcanoes on the Pacific Rim, not a hard subject for me to be interested in to be sure. The narration is genuinely informative if not all that exciting.

But it's the cinematography that really makes RING work. The combination of great camera work, and the format itself, was immersing. Short of visiting these volcanic sites (and I'd imagine at some personal risk), I doubt a better experience could be had on the subject. You can forget all that stock volcano footage you've seen before, RING has all that beat, hands down.

If anything, the film's 40 minutes just isn't long enough for me. But even modern IMAX work like James Cameron's ALIENS OF THE DEEP run about the same length. This most likely is due to the expense of shooting the format, but it's still unfortunate. Also, I'm not sure if this can even be seen in an IMAX theater these days, and it will certainly lose much of it's impact on DVD. In comparison, IMAX has done a couple of other films (on the space shuttle and the ISS) that I found superior to this one overall. But as documentaries go, RING OF FIRE is still quite good, and certainly worth the time. 7 out of 10 stars.

Someone had a good idea when they thought up the premise for FOUR BROTHERS: Four tough guys return to their home town in search of answers concerning their mother's sudden death. It made a good trailer, sure enough. But something happened along the way that turned a good premise into two hours of complete confusion. It's hard to know where to begin.

The actors are all first rate and there is certainly some chemistry on screen. But what they're doing, where they're going, none of this makes a lot of sense. I found myself often trying to figure out a scene - is this a comic moment, or is it supposed to be suspenseful? Are the characters acting irrationally, or are they supposed to be this thoughtless? There is rarely any logic to the storytelling that I can determine, and the film stumbles into a series of random events more than I care to recall. Perhaps there's fault in the editing (there are three editors listed - why three?), but it's hard to tell where it went wrong.

Even worse are those moments where I found myself thinking "oh, he's not really going to do that, is he?"...immediately followed by the character doing what I thought no well written character would possibly do. At the convenience of the wafer thin plot, characters seem to lose all rational thought, and then moments later regain it. This kind of writing never plays like the reality director John Singleton seems to want us to buy into. I think he's got a lot of talent, but he needs to find better scripts, and better ways to execute them. Even the action sequences are below standard, and only surprising because they are so nonsensical.

I wanted to like this one, but there's just too much frustration in the viewing, and I'll have to think twice before checking out Singleton's next film; this one is just plain bad. 3 out of 10 stars.

Director Antoine Fuqua came to my attention upon seeing THE REPLACEMENT KILLERS (which I mainly saw because John Woo and Chow Yun-Fat were involved). Mira Sorvino had just won her Oscar, and as is now commonplace, chose an action picture as a follow-up. Fuqua's directing style greatly impressed me, and I haven't been disappointed in anything from him since (including BAIT, starring a yet-to-be-Oscar-material Jamie Foxx, and TRAINING DAY, which won a Best Actor Oscar for Denzel Washington's chilling performance). It's clear he knows how to direct his leads.

That couldn't be more true with TEARS OF THE SUN. Willis and crew are convincing (even when the story is not) as individuals making tough choices about trust in life-and-death situations. Willis gives us a war-torn, aging soldier; confident enough to lead his men, yet struggling with choices he himself doesn't fully understand. It's not a completely realistic character (no one in his position and with his training would really buck orders as he does here - BLACK HAWK DOWN certainly handles this overly abused dynamic with more realism). Willis breathes conviction into it nonetheless, forcing my suspension of disbelief.

Even when Monica Bellucci gets a little too annoying in her pacifistic obliviousness (hard to believe given her location and past experiences), insisting on resting the patients when enemy soldiers are bearing down on their position, Willis makes interesting character choices that motivated my interest. His delivery is thoughtful, even when the dialog is not. He is much more of the puzzle we're trying to decipher here than the plot, which is surprisingly simple. I think he's still underrated as an actor, and feel this is perhaps his best performance since 12 MONKEYS.

Director Fuqua also gives us the emotional backdrop of a modern war-torn West Africa in his story, and pushes it to the forefront of many scenes, to make his message clear without becoming preachy. It's a difficult balance to achieve, but I felt he pulled it off here nicely. He paints a brutal and relentless landscape that feels pulled right out of the headlines, and in doing so makes us overlook the shortcomings of the story with a harsh, gritty real-world scenario.

Ultimately, TEARS OF THE SUN is a movie greater than the sum of its parts. If you break it all down, it doesn't look like much, and the typical Hollywood elements of the story certainly don't help that. But taken in the moment, with all that Willis and the cast bring to it, and Fuqua's clever direction, we have something much more engaging than one might expect at first glance. Top this off with another strong Hans Zimmer score, and you have something which is at the least entertaining if not consistent; and in the best of moments, emotionally immersing and impacting. I would also recommend seeing the extended cut over the original theatrical version. 8 out of 10 stars.

While having a big budget rarely guarantees a film will be good, it generally seems likely there will be entertainment value, even at some basic level. HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY does look expensive, but that's about as far as it goes. There is no discernible plot (that was left in the book, and those who've read it will need a good memory to fill it all in), no characters of interest (save the only film's laughs from Alan Rickman's one-liners), and no reason given as to why we should watch one minute longer.

This has to be the dullest sci-fi/comedy/whatever movie I've seen in a decade. It's a painful exercise in movie watching stamina, and I had to take several breaks just to ease the frustration, all the while hoping, given the source material, it would get better. Rest assured, it does not.

Rickman, Zooey Deschanel (I liked her in ELF) and the usually good Sam Rockwell seem like they're just improvising until they get the next page of the script that never arrives. Clearly director Garth Jennings hasn't the experience with actors to motivate interesting characters on screen, and no wonder: coming from a music video background, he's never had to work with them.

Perhaps that explains Rockwell's impersonation of a rock star. It would also explain why there's no story here, since videos don't need them and rarely have them. I don't blame Jennings, but the new system that hires music video directors and expects they know things about film making that don't exist in the other medium. The director does know how to put pretty images on the screen, and there's a good soundtrack, but again these are the qualities of a music video, not a film.

Unless you want to see a film that looks like it was assembled by the Infinite Improbability Drive, stay away from HITCHHIKER'S. If you're looking for good sci-fi/comedy, try GALAXY QUEST (also with Sam Rockwell and Alan Rickman) instead. But if you want the HITCHHIKER'S story, you'll have to read the book. It seems to have been left out of this movie entirely.

HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE is the fourth film in the franchise, and the better of the four. I believe it's better on almost every level, except perhaps if you think the stories needed to stay light. GOBLET OF FIRE is the one that finally gets serious.

Mentioning the serious tone, I must comment upfront that there is good reason for a PG-13 rating. Younger viewers could have some trouble (nightmares?) with some of the villains and creatures we meet here. The subject matter does grow quite dark at times, and there are moments bordering on horror. I rarely agree with the MPAA on their ratings, but this time I think it's justified; you've been warned.

The darker, more serious nature of the film makes perfect sense, however. Potter and his school mates are older, and the tone of the film rings with it. More serious issues are brought to the surface, and some more adult themes, as Harry approaches adulthood. More than that, the film is the first to take itself more seriously, and I think it's just the change the series needed.

The Harry Potter series overall is really not so original. It borrows from so many fantasy stories and films that I can hardly count the references any longer. It's been one of the more annoying points about the franchise overall (and why I have trouble giving higher marks to this or any of the films). There are some tangents the story takes that linger a bit long, but I've felt that was true for all the POTTER films. It's the old problem of what to leave in from the book, and what to cut. I certainly would have shorted scenes to bring down that 2 1/2 hour run time. But with GOBLET OF FIRE, we do begin to move past most of the clichés and dive deeper into the characters and some of the more creative story arc ideas, and that's certainly progress.

That is not to say that the humor and fun is gone. While the laughs are tempered to fit the story, they are frequent enough without seeming forced. The acting by the young stars is better, showing that they've grown into their roles. The older actors are great as always, and new to the series is the wonderful Brendan Gleeson, and another fine actor - who I won't mention for fear of giving away a plot point.

The special effects are I think standard for movies of this type - I saw nothing that really wowed me, but then again everything was strongly designed and rendered, with few if any seams showing. The music is new as well: John Williams' themes are still present, but the baton has been passed on to highly capable Patrick Doyle. He sheds new light on old motifs and generally breaths life into the musical storytelling once again. It seemed as if Williams was bored by the last film, and it's nice to hear something new even as director Mike Newell took us in a different, darker, more grown-up direction. He even found a way out of the standard Harry Potter opening scenes - I'm sure you know what I mean.

For GOBLET OF FIRE to be the 4th in the series - where sequels usually sag and creak and we run out of the theater wondering what possessed us to go in the first place - it is a milestone from that perspective. I can think of few fourth outings worthy of anything but direct-to-video or late, late night TV. Moreover, it made me actually look forward to - instead of dread - the next in the series.

Since Pixar is the standard by which we judge so-called 3-D long form animated features these days, and since Disney made this movie themselves, I must say that CHICKEN LITTLE is not up to the Pixar standard. But it's not all bad either.

First, the story holds together pretty well, considering the mileage they have to get out of the concept. And it's nice to see another Disney animated feature that doesn't try to be LITTLE MERMAID or BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Thankfully, no one breaks out into song here. And although there are in fact story problems, the main issue seems to be pacing, or a lack of editing. More than a couple scenes go on just too long, and my mind started to wonder as sure as the kids sitting next to me.

There are plenty of comic moments, and I did find myself laughing out loud a few times, but the characters never quite won me over. A couple were cute, but none written with the ability to move me in any way. In that way, they fail as actors (I'm speaking of the animated characters here, not the hard working voice talent). There wasn't a Buzz Lightyear or Nemo or Mr. Incredible to be found, not one character you'd really call memorable, one you'd want to see a lot more of. That's a tough thing to create, but Pixar has a gift for it. Disney used to of course, and their theme parks are full of them, but I couldn't find a Baloo in this movie.

On a technical note, the computer animated work is a bit under the standard too, I'd say. Many textures were lovely, but some were lacking, and other simply didn't work at all. Sometimes things didn't have the "weight" they should, or seemed to move awkwardly. There wasn't anything I would consider groundbreaking (like Violet's hair in THE INCREDIBLES), or even just strikingly beautiful (like the jelly fish in FINDING NEMO). But hey, I'm being picky here.

The real question for any animated feature is: was it fun? And yes, it was. All the kids that sat near me seemed to laugh a great deal, and that certainly counts for a lot. There were a couple of jokes that were perhaps borderline and not what you'd find in a Pixar movie - or an older Disney cartoon for that matter. But there's no doubt kids will have a pretty good time.

Whether anyone remembers the characters in a year is another story. Perhaps that's a question only us bigger kids would ask. Ultimately finding that answer, however, will lead to making films that become classics (and continue to bring in revenue), regardless of how they are animated. CHICKEN LITTLE is a fun film, but no classic. In truth, it's probably only a one time viewer. 6 stars out of 10.

I really stayed away from MEMOIRS FROM AN INVISIBLE MAN for a long time. I couldn't imagine cult-horror/action director John Carpenter pulling this off. But it's actually very well made, quite enjoyable and proves Carpenter's range is greater than many of us would believe. MEMOIRS is as slick a movie as anyone in Hollywood would crank out. It's the thoughtful Carpenter direction, packaged in a Tony Scott style wrapper.

What Carpenter doesn't get quite right is keeping Chevy Chase from smirking a few times too many (an arguably tough chore I'm sure, since that's what you'd usually want him to do more of in any other film). That pulls us out of the moment and made me uncertain just what was intended in a couple of scenes. There are other times when I felt the filmmakers went for a joke a bit outside the range of the rest of the comedy. Because really, MEMOIRS is not so much a comedy as it is a look at what would be the misery of invisibility and not the greatness of it. Mostly the humor is borne out of that misery, and that makes the film a little more compelling and thoughtful than a typical popcorn flick.

The special effects don't feel dated as much as one would expect, and are sometimes quite remarkable. Hannah does well considering she's acting against an effect or by herself half the time - certainly harder than it looks. The cast is all good, and Michael McKean and Sam Neill stand out as you'd expect.

Shirley Walker's score is really the best of any Carpenter film I can think of - perhaps because he stayed out of it this time. I won't say I haven't liked a John Carpenter score in the past, and he does cook up some good melodies, but it's often the weak link. I know he has fun doing them, but music helps the whole story succeed, and Carpenter would be better off turning over his melodic ideas to a pro like Walker more often.

Actually, I think this kind of movie is where Mr. Carpenter needs to return to - a mainstream story that shows his range. His vampire, alien, undead serial killer plots are getting pretty thread bare of late, and maybe there's just not another good story to tell there. He's given us plenty of the best of those - heck he pretty much reinvented the genre with films like HALLOWEEN; what more could he show us in that world? I say come on back to the mainstream, Mr. Carpenter. MEMOIRS proves you can do it, and well at that.

Director Sidney Pollack has given us some very fine films in the past; THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR and TOOTSIE come immediately to mind, and he won an Oscar for OUT OF Africa (although it's not high on my personal list of his films). But not even Mr. Pollack can make a great film without having a script to start with. I think that's the lesson of THE INTERPRETER. There are many things that are just not well thought out here, and the whole suffers as a result.

Penn is great as always, Kidman does a lot with her character, but often they're wandering through the scenes in a story that doesn't seem to know where to go next. Actually the fact the movie makes any sense at all is a credit to Pollack's experience and talent. There are some great ideas here, and there's certainly a level of entertainment achieved; even some thought provoking moments. But it's clear the filmmakers weren't working from a well prepared script. 6 out of 10.

I have nothing against low-budget films, and I don't believe you have to flash a lot of hardware to make good sci-fi (an excellent example is the recent PRIMER). But ALPHAVILLE (une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution) is a poor mix of vivid imagination and all-too-casual production. Was the swinging back-and-forth of a few large studio microphones on their boom stands supposed to invoke a futuristic tension? What about the sloppy placement of current or older model cars in 1960's city locations that rarely appear to be futuristic? These elements can, with careful setup or editing, work in a story like this. But here they seem as if they were last minute decisions, with no pretense, thoughtlessly thrown in to substitute for better set design or art production or locations. If these elements were supposed to help the satire, it was lost on me. I think what Rod Serling and crew accomplished with the use of light and shadow and often limited sets, in his original "The Twilight Zone" series a few years earlier, was generally more effective (and affective) in the genre than what we have in ALPHVILLE.

Also not to my liking is the editing and lack of momentum for the first 30 minutes or so. I liked most of the film that followed, and found the eventual plot points fairly involving, but the introduction to this world of ALPHAVILLE lacked anything to push us forward into it. Rather than enjoying the more nonsensical aspects at the top, I only felt confused, and often bored. I'll admit that some of the cinematography is outright clever, if not just plain fun; but at other times equally dull and awkward, almost as if there were a second unit of student filmmakers, whose shots were inter-cut with Godard and crew's work. These kind of inconsistencies were annoying at best, but often frustrating - and that's not where an audience needs to go in experiencing even the most experimental types of cinema.

Once we do get enough of the story to understand what we're seeing, however, there's more than a few very fine moments, and some fairly memorable scenes. There are fine performances, especially from Anna Karina, and the film is often thoughtful (even if much of the subject matter has been covered in many stories after this one). But the beginning gave me such a lost-at-sea feeling, that it's difficult to recommend wading through it to enjoy the more intelligent, creative and even exciting moments of the film.

IMHO, art-house films have a tendency to get away with poorly or hastily conceived production and story elements in the name of experimentalism, but I'm not letting ALPHAVILLE off the hook. All involved could have given us a brilliant work, but there are too many problems for me to excuse. View only if you're a true Godard die-hard, or want to see how a well-crafted ending doesn't always mean a good beginning. At least the title is correct: this film is certainly a strange adventure. 5 out of 10 stars.

Not to insult Tony Jaa, but one has to think someone is a little, shall we say, light-headed, to do some of the stunts he does in ONG-BAK. That said, anyone who sits through the wafer-thin and often meandering story to watch Jaa (Panom Yeerum) do what he does here and isn't completely stunned by what they see, can't be a real action fan, IMHO.

There's certainly a lack of money on screen and the seams show often enough (especially in the film stock/color timing areas, where the image is often overly dark or something approaching monochrome). In this day of CROUCHING TIGER, HERO, HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS and KUNG FU HUSTLE I'm starting to get used to the idea of bigger budgets, rich colors, beautiful lighting and sets, and more character development in fight films. But you won't find any of that in ONG-BAK. The film when I saw it, looked bad enough to be an old '70's film print, run on TV way too often.

However, the fights are the focus, and they're mostly done right. The big stunts are often presented with multiple camera angles in succession, which I found saved me a few times from blurting out, "what just happened? I wanna see that again." Usually, you see it a couple of times. At least the filmmakers know why we watch the movie.

I must mention a very annoying problem with the US DVD release: the only English subtitle track is for the hearing impaired (although not listed as such - clearly a mistake), which means that all the sound effects and several music cues gets spelled out as well, often filling up the bottom and into nearly the center of the screen - very annoying for an action movie. The subtitles run over the frame, not below it as is more common in widescreen presentations on DVD, so it makes matters worse. I found myself trying to look through them to see what was happening in a few scenes. It became so annoying (at least to me, whose hearing is fine and is not used to so much subtitle clutter), I almost broke down and went for the dubbed English track, but came to my senses and stuck it out. (You have been warned, however.)

I understand Tony Jaa's next film will have a much larger budget. Let's hope they keep the raw feel to the fight scenes and put the money into a decent script and better film stock. It's pretty hard to sit through at times. The bottom line for this one is: If you need a good story, look elsewhere; if you want to see the amazing Tony Jaa in action, you won't be disappointed. He and the fine stunt crew/actors might be the only great thing about ONG-BAK, but when you can do what they do, without wires or stunt doubles, that's probably enough.

I don't like shoving films into a genre, mainly because a good film won't fit neatly into any one category. On the other hand, such genre groups are handy for general discussion and making "best of" lists, and so here I am sticking films in categories despite myself.

That said, there's not much film noir that stands up to OUT OF THE PAST. THE THIRD MAN, DOUBLE INDEMNITY, THE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS and SUNSET BLVD. come quickly to mind. TOUCH OF EVIL, THE BIG SLEEP and THE SET-UP (even though it's a boxing movie) as well. It's a short list, and OOTP is right up there for me.

One reason is a superior plot thread. I actually found myself thinking "where is this going?" instead of "oh, please don't go there". Another reason is Robert Mitchum's outstanding performance. But really, there's not much to criticize here.

As it's not the first title coming to mind when one usually mentions the genre, I'll have to put the overly used phrase "don't miss this" in here, as any fan of film noir - or simply good movies - should make sure to see it. Unless you're one of those stuck on color film and think L.A. CONFIDENTIAL is noir, you're bound to like it.

I expected a lot out of movie with such a reputation such as SPOORLOOS (known as THE VANISHING in the US). Perhaps then it was my expectations that led to the disappointment I felt by the film's end. There are plenty of things to like, but not enough thrills to really be a great thriller.

First the good: A solid cast gives us characters with real depth throughout. They maintained interest for me even when the story took some implausible or uninspired turns. For example, the actors' telling of the content of the dreams they have is much more involving than the content of the dream itself. Dreams can be weird, but usually we notice they are. For a character to put such belief in a purely obvious art-house movie dream concept was a serious flaw in the story. But the actors made their characters' belief credible, so one can still suspend disbelief - it didn't bring the film to a halt even though it should have for me.

Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu is absolutely chilling as a man on a bizarre and dangerous journey to understand himself. His part of the story is the most consistent and he's the reason to watch the film, in my opinion. But that brings me to the bad points. His character had so much depth, that I saw where he was going with his intentions. This telegraphed the ending for me; not in detail but certainly in overall outcome. As for Gene Bervoets' character, while again well acted, made too many of those decisions where you just want to talk to the screen and tell the character, "are you stupid?" or "don't do that!". I'm always disappointed whenever the audience knows what to do (or not to do) but the character just ignores all common sense, reasoning, and any information before them, for no reason other than to move the film forward or just make it longer.

Perhaps just as bad is the omission of the obvious in a story. SPOORLOOS has a curious ambiguity with regard to law enforcement's roll in the film's events that Hitchcock would never have overlooked. I can't elaborate without revealing things, but I wonder which is worse: when police don't show up at all in a thriller, or when they show up only at convenient plot points.

So while I found the first half of the film interesting and the characters engaging for the most part, SPOORLOOS fell way short of its reputation. I won't say it's entirely predictable, just a lot more than it should have been. I was annoyed that while credits rolled, I could come up with better ways to resolve the story.

That left me with a few questions, two of which are: is a suspense film really suspenseful when you can figure out the ending 20-30 minutes before it happens? How much of a thriller has to be thrilling to be a good one? Maybe this is more about what a viewer expects, and what they've seen before. Perhaps it was better when it came out (but there's still the comparisons to Hitchcock and how much better he could craft this type of thriller). I've seen much worse, and it's certainly not a waste of time. But personally, I'm at a loss for why this film is rated so highly.

Thanks to it's release on DVD, I have managed to watch the first 4 seasons of "ANDROMEDA" while avoiding pesky TV commercials. Thus, my take on the series might be different from someone who had the show's rhythm broken by advertising - talk about taking one out of the moment. I really wanted to like this show from the beginning, mostly because of its origins with Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry. I strongly disliked actor Kevin Sorbo's previous show "HERCULES" (except for the rare appearance by the brilliant Bruce Campbell), but was willing to give his new show a try anyway. After 4 seasons (season 5 is still airing and not available on DVD as of this writing), here's my take on ANDROMEDA: This might be as clear of a case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde writing as I can remember in a TV series. There have been episodes that stand up with the best of sci-fi television writing (the original "TWILIGHT ZONE", "City on the Edge of Forever" episode of "STAR TREK", "The Inheritors" episode of "THE OUTER LIMITS", etc.). The two-part episode that ended season 4 was probably the best thing I've seen from TV since "TAKEN", the Spielberg mini-series.

But when ANDROMEDA is bad, it's really bad. I've never been a fan of "BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25TH CENTURY", and some of ANDROMEDA's shows must be compared to the very worst of "BUCK ROGERS". Unfortunately, it's not like there's a good season or a bad one. It's, as my summary states, a roll of the dice. This 50/50 result of script writing (and I really must put the blame there) is in some part due to the pace that TV writers must produce these days. But there's the rare quality TV show out there to make the case that it can be done. I won't blame the actors, because when the writing is good, they're all fine - even impressive at times.

I think the issue with ANDROMEDA is a lack of clear cut identity. Is it a light space romp with plenty of humor? Is it a serious take on a potentially exciting premise? Is it experimental? Is it space opera? Unfortunately, the answer is 'All of the Above'. Beyond this, it's hard to define just why the show is sometimes terrific and other times pathetic. The one thread that I found had to do with the character Trance Gemini. It seemed when the show centered on her, it was usually better than when it didn't. But even that is not always the case.

So my recommendation for viewing ANDROMEDA is this: If you like your sci-fi goofy, this might work for you. If you're really hardcore sci-fi, it also might be worth sifting through the episodes on DVD. As I said, when it's good, it's hard to beat. For special effects junkies, Season 4 has some stellar (excuse the pun) and stylistically unique CGI work, some of the best I've seen on TV. For most casual sci-fi viewers and others however, I imagine wading through the bad apples to get to the good shows will be more trouble than it's worth.

I heard Mr. Sorbo comment on that last season 4 episode I mentioned earlier, and he seemed to think it was their best and they should do more like it. I fully agree, but as the show is running out to it's end now, I think this was a case of finding what was best about the concept way too late. I really wanted to like it, but overall just not as good as it should have been.

KAGEMUSHA is a film I've liked better each time I've watched it. Having just viewed the latest Criterion DVD release, I found myself so captivated that I could not help but give it my highest rating. I'd grown so accustomed to the washed out colours of older prints that I felt like I was watching a different movie altogether - that is until the final unmistakable 45 minutes, which were burned into my memory on the first viewing. As others have commented, the director's use of colour and light is simply stunning.

Watching the film again also helped crystallize in my mind another pacing element director Kurosawa seems to have completely made his own: the balance between dialogue heavy scenes that drive the characters and offer exposition for the story, and those scenes that are visually driven. In KAGEMUSHA in particular, I saw how these two scene styles are completely divided. There is almost no dialogue whatsoever in a visually driven scene (I would be tempted to call these "action" scenes); these are all about light, colour, movement, and (unlike modern convention and certain film executive's fears that all must be verbally explained) use little or no dialogue to communicate what we see so clearly played out. Both types tell the story with delicate pacing and great depth - perhaps too much for many moviegoers used to a faster pace and more shallow characters (that's not a slight - it's just what we're all used to these days, myself included).

Ultimately it is this balance of dialogue and vision that gives the film such power. I'm probably in the minority, but I actually enjoy this film more than RAN, although both to me are similar in some ways, and yet unique in film as a whole. I was trying to think of weak points in the film, but I simply couldn't. To me it's 3 hours of near-perfect cinema.

Director Kurosawa has made a few of my favorite films, including HIGH AND LOW (more correctly translated Heaven and Hell), RED BEARD, and IKIRU. KAGEMUSHA now joins that list, and should have long ago if not for my mistaking bad film prints for lack of visual quality - shame on me. I will also mention that fans of movies with dream sequences (is that a sub-genre?) should not miss the one here. Highly recommended.