Reviews

It's incredibly sad that the producer of "Schindler's List" is now working with a criminal to make films that are little better than Nazi propaganda. Full of lies and slander, "America", like its predecessor "2016" is not only reprehensible, it is dangerous.

More a laundry list of disproven ultra-right wing talking points than a film, "America" makes even the most one-sided Michael Moore project look like the pinnacle of fair and balanced political commentary. Happily, there is a very real chance he will be in jail soon, but until then it is vitally important that Dinesh D'Souza's work be boycotted and exposed for the fraud it is.

In 1979, in the fictional town of Lillian, Ohio, a preteen boy named Joe Lamb is trying to cope with the recent death of his mother, who was killed in a factory accident. Much to the frustration of his father, the town's deputy sheriff, Joe copes by immersing himself in a project lead by his best friend, Charles. That project is a horror film, shot on a SUPER 8 camera, and Charles has enlisted the help of not only Joe, but the rest of his misfit friends, and has surprised everyone by talking Alice Dainard, the prettiest girl in school, into playing the hero's wife. On the night of the first big shoot, the would be filmmaker witness a train crash. Pretty soon, the town of Lillian is swarmed by military men, who won't tell anybody what is going on. Abrams and Spielberg may be the only two people in Hollywood who still know how to keep a secret, so I won't spoil that by going into the plot too much further. But I will say that Super 8 lives up to every bit of hype and expectation surrounding it. This is a beautifully crafted, emotional, funny, scary, thrilling movie that enthralls an audience the ways Spielberg's 80s classics did. And this is coming from someone who has been accused of "worshipping" Spielberg. Abrams has recreated the look and feel of vintage Spielberg expertly, down to the last detail. For a Spielberg fan, it's an absolute joy to behold.

But Abrams somehow manages to do this without completely sacrificing his own unique voice as a filmmaker. It's got the twists and turns of Lost, the personality of his Star Trek, and, like most Abrams projects, a leading lady who propels the whole thing. In this case, it's young Elle Fanning, who, as Alice, projects such a genuine combination of childlike innocence and ahead of her years maturity, that you can't take her eyes off of her whenever she's on screen. The entire cast is terrific, especially Joel Courtney as Joe, and Riley Griffiths as Charles, but Fanning steals the movie. We become completely involved with these characters in a way we rarely do with adult Hollywood heroes. I found myself caring every bit as much about the budding romance between Alice and Joe as I did the more spectacular events of the film.

And it is spectacular. Abrams and Spielberg give us action/suspense scenes that evoke Spielberg's classics Jaws, Jurassic Park, and E.T. They also come as close to the emotion of E.T. as any film of this type has done since then. Super 8 is the kind of film for which the cliché "You''ll laugh, you'll cry" was invented. If you're a child of the 80s and complain that they don't make movies the way they did when you were a kid, well, Abrams and Spielberg have done exactly that.And Michael Giacchino further establishes himself as one of the best film composers to come along in years. His score soars with emotions and build suspense in the vein of (of course) John Williams.

I also have to take a moment, as former amateur child filmmaker, to talk about how well rendered that aspect of the story is. It certainly added an extra level of enjoyment for me that I vividly remember the days of trying to make my own blockbusters with nothing but a camera, a few friends, and wildly overactive imagination.

It's worth mentioning, by way of warning (especially to parents) that Super 8 is rated PG-13 for a reason, namely the intensity, and for an E.T./Goonies like tendency to have the kids swear. Most audiences will get past this, but certainly some will not, and I'm absolving myself of any complaints.

Movies like this are the reason I love movies. In an age when trailers give away everything, Super 8 unfolds before us, capturing us in its spell, and never letting go. It's an unforgettable movie experience. A film to be treasured,

"King Solomon's Mines" is one of the great adventure novels of all time, but it seems so difficult to successfully adapt to the screen, for no reasons that I cannot fathom. This may be the weakest version yet, paling even to the pathetic 1985 Richard Chamberlain/Sharon Stone debacle. While the director brags about using the same African locations as the classic Steweart Granger/Deborah Kerr version, it's clear that this was a misuse of the $50,000 budget. The acting and overall production values are so weak, that it's clear all of the money has gone into travel costs. A better, more spectacular movie could have been made in the deserts of the American southwest and jungles of Hawai, and none would have known the difference.

Of the no name cast, only the actor playing Allan Quatermain acquits himself reasonably well. His performance is perfectly adequate, and he has screen presence. The rest of the cast is abysmal, and the changes from Haggard's book don't even serve to make the story more contemporary or exciting. This is the kind of film that gives the straight to DVD industry the reputation it has, and it's likely only the opportunity to cash in on "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (hence the title) , which opened around the same time.

Skip this one, and see either the Granger version, or the made-for-TV Patrick Swayze version. Or even "Police Academy 6: City Under Siege". All do a better job of capturing Haggard's book, and are just more fun.

"Salt" starts out as a well made but painfully routing fugitive on the run thriller, then tries valiantly to do something original and different. Unfortunately, the routine section of the film is actually the better movie, as the plot twists become more and more ridiculous and don't hold together, and ultimately we are left caring nothing about any of the characters.

Writer Kurt Wimmer has come up with a great concept, but a poor screenplay. Director Phillip Noyce tries, but there's only so much he can do with the material, and his only sillier tendencies also get in the way.

In the end, "Salt" is barely worth a look, but it's actually the least satisfying of the major action films of summer 2010. "Inception" was brilliant, and all of the others at least knew they were just dumb fun. "Salt" tries to be smart, and falls on it's face. The spectacular chase scenes almost save it . . . but not quite.

Knight and Day" is a comfort food movie. It's a pleasant diversion, a fun time at the cinema that doesn't ask a lot of of it's audience and offers an enjoyable ride. We've seen it all before, but it worked pretty well then, and it works pretty well now.

June Havens (Cameron Diaz) is an average perky blonde romantic comedy heroine who runs into the charming and mysterious Roy Miller (Tom Cruise) at the airport, and is sucked into a series of misadventures when Roy turns out to be a secret agent fighting rogue elements in his own agency . . . or maybe HE's the rogue agent . . . It depends on who she listens to. there's a mysterious device called the Zephyr that Roy is either protecting or trying to steal. All of this is fairly predictable, and, again, nothing new. But director James Mangold ("Copland", "Walk the Line", "3:10 to Yuma") always knows how to make a film play, and his skills haven't deserted him here. His pacing is brisk and fun, and he stages some terrific action (including one sequence from Diaz' point of view that did feel genuinely new).

Of course, this is a star vehicle, and whether you enjoy it will depend a lot on how you feel about Tom Cruise. Dismissing his personal life as utterly irrelevant, I find him to be a solid and dependable actor who does action better than almost anyone in Hollywood. And, here, he gets a rare chance to flex his comic muscles, and hie's quite funny (though too much of the best material is in the trailer). Diaz is pleasant, but tries a little too hard to be cute. And, occasionally, the film itself has the same problem.

But, overall, it's a funny little spy movie. part adventure, part romcom. Not destined for any Ten Best Lists, but enjoyable summer entertainment.

The one name in Hollywood today that can be truly, universally trusted every time is Pixar Animation Studios. Their two "missteps", "Cars" and "A Bug's life", are disappointments only in that they don't contend for best movie Pixar has made. They're A minuses instead of A's. "Toy Story 3" joins the pantheon of great Pixar films, and all-time great sequels. It stands out as the best film of 2010 at this point. While it may not be as brilliant from start to finish as the second "Toy Story" film (the animated equivalent of "The Godfather Part II"), is so engaging, so witty and entertaining and exciting, that adults and children will be pulled in all the way. And the third act ramps up the emotion to a degree equal to the best of it's predecessors (my 5 year old nephew had to turn around and ask "why are you cwying?") The highly publicized plot line deals with the toys beloved owner Andy moving on to college, and choosing the fate of his beloved toys. Through one of those complex farcical events that seems so common in Andy's household, the attic bound toys (minus Woody, who is supposed to go to college with Andy) are accidentally donated to a daycare center. Woody, of course, has to rescue his friends, but there is some doubt as to whether they want to be rescued: Andy hasn't played with them for years, and the daycare, a toytopia presided over by lovable teddy bear named Lotso Hogs Bear (voiced by Ned Beatty, in a welcome return to the screen), promises the chance to be played with everyday. And when these kids get older, new kids replace them. To the love starved toys (especially Jesse the yodeling cowgirl, who is terrorized of repeating the experience she had with her beloved Emily), this seems like the opportunity of a lifetime. It goes without saying that all is not as it seems.

Part of the genius of Pixar is that, in what are ostensibly children's films, they deal with very sophisticated and adult themes. Here, the struggle to grow up while holding onto the joy of childhood is captured beautifully, as are the themes of moving on and dealing with the loss of loved ones (there is a a brief reference early in the film, just a few lines, where Woody's reaction, between the animation and the greatness of Tom Hanks voice acting, is an exquisitely subtle and poignant heartbreaker). And, of course, the comedy is hilarious. I wouldn't have thought there was still new material left to be milked from the Potato Head's detachable appendages, but the new twists are innovative and hysterical.

If you have kids, take them to "Toy Story 3". If you don't, go anyway. Pixar has once again proved that they are the most reliable name in film today.

Not only is this is a putridly cloying, saccharine, manipulative piece of weepy drivel (and I like a good heartwarming feel-good movie, but this isn't a good one), not only is the direction an unmotivated and incompetent mixture of slick, locked-down to the point of sterility and hand-held cinema verite, not only is Roasario Dawson in it, but the film actually presents suicide as a viable, and even possibly noble solution to certain problems.

Will Smith has never been as bland as he is here, and the performances are uniformly shallow. Because I enjoyed the flawed but effective "The Prusuit of Happiness", form the same director and star, I tried desperately up until the end of this film, to like it. But it's boneheaded attempt to present masochistic self-destruction as an idealistic redemption is not only moronic, not only twisted and sick, it's genuinely dangerous. This "inspiring movie" has infinitely more potential to do harm than any ten nudie flicks or slasher movies combined. It is one of the worst, most shameful pieces of garbage Hollywood has ever had the disgrace of producing, and the world is a lesser place because it exists.

And I'm being nice.

It's not really cool to like Dreamworks Animation anymore. Sure, they're not Pixar. Sure, they're too hung up on star power and pop culture references. But I've still enjoyed the majority their films more than I have a lot of what's out there. And I love the first two "Shrek" movies. Their funny, entertaining, terrifically animated, and, too me, some of the best animated love stories that have been made. Most fairy tale romances perpetuate the idea that love is for beautiful people (even the masterpiece "Beauty and the Beast" has it's cake and eats it too on this point), and Princes and Princesses are better than common people. "Shrek"'s idea of finding happiness in who you are was much more palatable to me. i found the first film a delight, and the second even better.

But the third was only okay. The humor wasn't nearly as clever or funny, and the heart just wasn't there like it used to be. "Shrek Forever After" isn't as good as those first two. But it's a big step back in the right direction.

The story begins with Shrek getting used to being a father. He loves Fiona and the kids, but he misses his old life as a menacing ogre. He's seen more as a lovable tourist attraction now, and he doesn't like it. So, he makes a deal with the mysterious Rumpletiltskin (surprisingly NOT voiced by a name actor) to get one day back in his old life. In exchange, he gives up one day from his past. A day from his childhood that he doesn't even remember.

Unfortuntaely, that day turns out to be the day he was born, and this leads to an "It's a Wonderful Life" scenario where Shrek doesn't know Fiona, Donkey, Puss-in-Boots, or any of his friends, and Rumplestiltskin rules the Kingdom with a tiny iron fist. The resulting story is a great deal of fun, with Fiona now a warrior leading an ogre rebellion, the Gingerbread Man fighting as a gladiator against Animal Crackers, and so forth. The humor isn't back to it's highest heights, but there are a good number of genuine laughs. And the heart is back bigtime. I found "Shrek Forever After" surprisingly touching..

Okay, it's not as good as "Toy Story 3" is likely to be, nor is it as good as "How to train your Dragon". but I had a blast with "Shrek Forver After" and can't wait to take my niece and nephew

Let's start by getting a few things out of the way: I actually enjoyed "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", the much maligned Kevin Costner/Kevin Reynolds 1991 version of the timeless tale. Yes, Costner's accent was atrocious (though more High School and community theater actors who trash it should consider how sure their British accent is good, because, guess what guys: most of you who have commented to me on it over the years really aren't any better at it than Kevin is), but I felt he made a better "Indiana Jones" style action hero than he was given credit for, and, for all the films many flaws (for me, the biggest was the all over the map portrayal of the bumbling Satanist Sheriff which was far from Alan Rickman's finest hour) it was fun in the same way the early "Batman" films were. So, you won't hear me make any references to how "unlike other Robin Hoods", Russell Crowe can speak with an English accent. I didn't find that all that clever when Cary Elwes first said it, and considering some of the dreadful accents Elwes has attempted in films like "Twister", you couldn't find a more outrageous example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Second (I can't believe I'm saying that after such a long paragraph), the common expectation that this is a "Gladiator" rehash is, while understandable from some trailers, off the mark almost entirely. Other than Crowe's appearance and an element of dramatic political machination, the two films bare no real resemblance. Sure, this owes something to "Gladiator" and "Braveheart" because they're the current standard for this sort of epic. But unless you think "Iron Man" is just "Spider-Man" covered in metal, "Robin Hood" and "Gladiator" are not the same film, for better or worse. "Robin Hood" isn't as good a film as "Gladiator" was. But, for me, it was easily more enthralling than the more recent efforts at sword fight epic genre (i.e. "300" or "Clash of the Titans").

What this is is "Batman Begins" to "Prince of Thieves" Tim Burton "Batman": a more real-world take on the material, and really very much a prequel. This doesn't become the Robin Hood tale as we know it until the very end. Your like or dislike of the film may well depend on how well you respond to that fact.

Crowe plays Robin Longstride, an archer in Richard the Lionheart's army who has deserted the brutality of the crusades, joined by his friends Little John, Will Scarlet, and Alan A Dale. On returning to England, a complex (but easy to follow) series of events leads him to assume the idenity of Sir Robert Loxley, a nobleman whose widow, Marian (played by the incomparable Cate Blanchett), is unable to inherit her lands due to English law.

Meanwhile, Richard's failure to return places his brother John on the throne. John, of course, is a bad King who overtaxes and brutalizes the people. John is also unaware that his trusted aid and friend Godfrey (Mark Strong, Hollywood's latest villain of choice) is conspiring with the King of France to invade England.

Crowe, Blanchett and company all give strong performances, and Max Von Sydow and Eileen Atkins steal the film in supporting roles. Brian Helgeland's screenplay is a smart and literate sort of alternate history Robin Hood: the relationship between King John and his Chancellor (William hurt) echoes Henry VIII and Sir Thomas More. A proposed "Charter of English Rights" is essentially the Magna Carte. Helgeland has blended very different elements of British history into the most British of folk tales. It's a bold choice, and one that could easily become laughable. For some, it probably still will be. For me, it worked.

It comes down most of all to Ridley Scott's ability to tell and pace a story, and to create stunning visuals. He may not be at the very top of his game here, but he's close. This is the most briskly entertaining film he's since "Matchstick Men".

By no means is this the definitive cinematic "Robin Hood". If there is or can be such a thing, it's the Errol Flynn/Michael Curtiz classic, but even that version is hampered by the fact that Flynn was a better stuntman than actor. And certainly there are generations that argue the Disney animated film (the first "Robin Hood" I knew) or the Sean Conney/Audrey Hepburn vehicle "Robin and Marian" is the only true Robin Hood. For that matter, there are those who feel that way about "Prince of Thieves", "Men in Tights", or any of the various TV incarnations.

For me, Robin Hood is the quintessential adventure story. I'm up for revisiting it any time someone has has a truly interesting or new take on the material, or just can tell it well. I believe that Ridley Scott and company have created a unique and interesting film that won't make anyone forget their previous favorite versions, but adds something to the history of Robin Hood on screen. And, most importantly, they've made a summer adventure blockbuster that's more satisfying than a lot of what has been out there lately.

At first glance this gives the impression that it is going to be a laughable blaxploitation flick, and it does contain moments where it veers in that direction. However, the basic story idea is much stronger than might be expected, and is a respectable effort at portraying racial issues in the World War II era Army. The recognizable cast is hit and miss, with Glynn Turman, Richard Pryor and the underused Billy Dee Williams faring best. Stephen Boyd, however, stops just short of twirling his bushy mustache in an overindulgent star turn.

The obviously low budget leads to inconsistency in the production values. The locations are great, the effects and action are weak. Imagine if "Saving Private Ryan" had consisted of half the platoon getting killed exactly the same way Vin Diesel's Caparzo had (except we do get to see the shot because they effects can't handle it), then Hanks, Damon and Burns drove around in a jeep and shot five Germans for the climax. Yet, the denouement, with the heroic soldiers receiving no respect for their accomplishment because they are black, and Boyd's racist Captain being effected by this, is compelling, as are the sequences of of Turman's character writing in a journal of his imagined exploits if the soldiers were allowed to fight instead of digging latrines.

In short, "Black Brigade/Carter's Army" doesn't quite succeed. But it's a respectable failure, not a bad joke. It could be remade as a very good film, and, as it stands, is an interesting effort.

It's amazing that such talented people, both in front of and behind the camera, were even able to make a film this bad, this shockingly, painfully unfunny.

"Year One" is a chore to sit through, as the bored actors go through long stretches without soliciting even chuckles from the audience for the tired, lowbrow jokes they're spouting. Both Jack Black and Michael Cera are capable of greatness, but here the material is for far beneath them that they are unable to do anything. Not even David Cross and Hank Azaria are funny. How did director Harold Ramis, who has given us classics like "Groundhog Day" in the past, stumble this badly? And with the writers of "The Office", no less? A complete waste of everyone involved, and an insult to audiences. Almost tragic.

No other film has ever captured the runaway shopping cart experience with such startling reality. Few have even dared try. FOX News personality Glen Beck currently ranks runaway shopping carts as the #3 greatest threat to national security, and yet before this film, no one had the courage to tackle this issue. Kudos to Pink Wombat Cinema for bringing us this terrifying cautionary tale, and daring to speak the truth.

If you see a runaway shopping cart, be sure to contact the police, or, even better, the department of Homeland Security, immediately. Do not let this rolling radicals terrorize our country.

See "The Basket Case." You'll be a little sadder, but a lot wiser.

"Knowing" is a like a bizarre rip off of M. Night Shyamalan (and why would anyone want to rip off Shyamalan at this point?) mixed with a little "DaVinci Code", some brainless sci-fi, and end-of-the-world pseudo religion. Director Alex Proyas has created some nice visuals, but it's such a pointlessly bleak and stupid movie that it's impossible to imagine how it was thought anyone would be entertained by this. If anyone needs to know how to predict disaster, it's Nicolas Cage so he can stop making movies like this. Insetad of paying to the see the film, covert $7.00 into quarters, and flush them down the toilet one by one. It will be just as cost effective, and twice as entertaining.

I want to hurt this movie.

Tyler Perry has really outdone himself this time, making the deep artistic statement "I'm black, and I have a fatsuit." Sure, this statement has been made before by Eddie Murphy, Martin Lawrence, and others, but Perry adds a certain panache to the blackness and the fat suit that makes this more than just a movie about a black guy in a fat suit: it is THE movie about a black guy in a fat suit.

There may be other movies out there which you are tempted to see: "Slumdog Millionaire" may have won several acadmey awards, but where's the black guy in the fatsuit? How is that a movie? Tyler Perry continues to push the boundaries of artistic excellence with drag AND a fat suit, and we can only hope some day he decides to throw bad accents and white face into the mix.

"Poltergeist" is one of the great horror films. It's the kind of movie that makes the genre respectable. But when i read posts praising Tobe Hooper's accomplishment's, I have to take issue.

By nearly all accounts, Steven Spielberg was the creative force behind this film. We are talking about accounts from Producer Frank Marshall, and nearly all of the major actors, some of whom imply that Hooper barely said a word to them onset and was "chemically enhanced" most of the time. "Poltergeist" bares the unmistakable touch of the master, who not only storyboarded, wrote and produced the film, but, most agree, was the de facto director. Look at the shot selection, cinematography, etc. It SCREAMS Spielberg.

So, I agree that 'Poltergeist" ranks as one of the great horror films. It has always been my standard by which GOOD horror is judged. But credit Spielberg more than Hooper.

Okay . . . I give "The Village" a lot of flack, but it had redeeming features. Some nice atmosphere, solid characterizations. "The Lady in the Water" . . . well, I liked the two lead actors. But Shyamalan's latest monument to himself is infinitely worse than even the weakest moments of those films. It's not a question of where it ranks on a list of Shyamalan's films. It's a question of where it ranks on the list of worst films ever made. Gory but not scary, slow but devoid of character development . . . Mark Wahlberg is DREADFUL in this film, and he has proved himself a more than capable actor in the past. I couldn't even find any enjoyment in watching the adorable Zooey Deschanel. And James Newton Howard's score is so egregiously aping Bernard Herrmann's Hitchcock scores, he should be sued.

If there is anything in all of creation that you hold dear, avoid this movie like the cancerous plague on the anus of cinema that it is. This movie made me question my will to live on a planet where films this bad are made. Okay, that last line was maybe a SLIGHT exaggeration. But only slight. Seriously, I'd rather watch a marathon of "Armageddon", "Batman & Robin", "The Avengers" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" back to back than sit through ten minutes of this again. Trust me: even you Shyamalan defenders aren't likely to enjoy this one. There's no touching human element like in "Signs" (or like some of you found in "The Village"). It's just pointlessly, gory, dreary tedium. If you want to see an infinitely superior film with a similar premise, check out Frank Darabont's "The Mist." Better on every possible level. Shyamalan wants to be seen as a modern Hitchock, but this time, he comes closer to Ed Wood. I am seriously beginning to wondering if he plagiarized "The Sixth Sense."

I'm only sad it opened to respectable business (if universally scathing reviews). Captain Ego needs a dose of humility and reality. And to have his kneecaps broken.

And, being a softy, I went easy on this one.

Ang Lee's version had the nuances of a classic Greek tragedy. And, in the end, that's what superheroes are: they're the modern day equivalent of the Greek and Norse Gods of ancient times. We don't love Superman just because he can fly and lift heavy things. We love him because he is a symbol of the best in humankind, and yet also suffers from the same doubts, fears and unrequited love that plague us mere mortals. Superheroes are supposed to be fun, yes. But it does not have to be "turn off your brain" fun. But, then . . . "turn off your brain" fun has its place. While being painfully aware of its cheesy weaknesses, I had a great deal of fun with "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer", and even confess a great fondness for Joel Schumacher's "Batman Forever". But that's just it: The Incredible Hulk, as directed by Louis Letterier, was not that much fun.

The new film is not a "Batman Begins"-style reboot as was long rumored. No, it's actually more akin in many ways to "Batman Forever" (though Letterier does use the opening credits to set up a slightly different version of the origin story than we saw in the previous film). We open with Bruce Banner (now played by Edward Norton) on the run from the government, who wants to use his alter ego, the Hulk, as a weapon. The government forces are lead by hard as nails, blood and guts, shoot first and later, cigar-eating General William "Thunderbolt" Ross, played by . . . William Hurt? Seriously? WILLIAM FREAKING HURT. The ultimate stuffed shirt. The man who put the "ass" in "pomp-ass" (we know it's not spelled or pronounced that way, but in Hurt's case, it should be). As a piece of casting, this is akin to watching Kelsey Grammar portray a rodeo cowboy. It just doesn't work. In Hurt's defense, he does provide the film with its greatest moments of tension: we wait with baited breath to see if his mustache is going to fall off. But the smug self-satisfaction he seems to be taking in his own overracting makes his performance unbearable. And it doesn't help that most of his scenes are with Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky, a soldier with Captain Ahab-like obsession with defeating the Hulk, but an annoying tendency to slouch and shuffle like a 1920's Jazz musician with his shoes on the wrong feet when he walks. Roth, after his Academy Award nominated turn in the underrated Rob Roy, underwent some sort of bizarre religious conversion and gave up his talent for lent. Hurt and Roth are engaged in a titanic struggle to see who can chew the scenery more egregiously. No one wins, but the audience certainly loses.

Banner, desperately seeking a cure for his condition, is lead back to his lost love, General Ross' daughter Betty (Liv Tyler). Norton and Tyler have an easy, breezy charisma that Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly may have lacked in those roles, but do not approach the same level of depth. And, besides, far too little of the film focuses on them. This is one of those comic book films that seems more interested in the villains than the heroes, but we're not talking Jack Nicholson as the Joker here. We're not even talking Scott Paulin as the Red Skull. We're talking WILLIAM *^@$# HURT AS . . . sorry. That was just a piece of casting that really didn't work for me.

But the bottom line is, after two-time Academy Award Winner Lee's cerebral human drama failed to connect with mass audiences, the goal here was not to delve deeply into the characters, but instead to provide a series of exciting action set pieces. The was supposed to be the "hulk Smash" version, and I went in embracing that and prepared to enjoy it on its own merits. After all, I've been arguing since 2003 that Universal Pictures and Marvel Studios were foolish to jump to the conclusion that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon made Ang Lee an action director. That film featured eye-popping fight scenes, but in its heart and soul wasn't that far removed from Lee's previous Oscar-nominee Sense and Sensibility.

But Letterier's direction makes one yearn for the steady hand of Brett Ratner or Mark Steven Johnson. It was as if Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay chose to band together and combine weaknesses. And darn it if Ang Lee didn't give us much better action sequences. Truth be told, while there may be more action senes in this film, in terms of quality, they don't even come close.

This is not a film that is likely to make anyone desperate to have two hours of their lives back. It's not terrible. It's just . . . really not very good.

RECIPE FOR "SPEED RACER" MOVIE: 2 Cups "300." 2 Cup "Cars." 4 Cups "The Fifth Element." 6 Cups "Dick Tracy." 3 cups "Batman and Robin." 3 Cups "The Brady Bunch." 1 tsp plot.

Mix, drink, then vomit all over the place.

A complete disaster for the Wachowski, who badly needed a comeback. They will be Lucky to ever work again. When the greatest entertainment value in a film comes from trying to figure out if John Goodman has lost weight, you know you have a bad film.

Awful, awful, awful. The "Howard the Duck" of the 21st Century. This movie should be disemboweled.

The bashing of this film has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with human decency, and a rudimentary knowledge of film as art. Simply put, NO ONE who knows anything about film could fail to spot how artistically dreadful it is. Acting, writing, and most of all direction are sub-Ed Wood. Wood at least had a vision. Cain is just a moron with no talent.

There is not one microsecond of competence here. Home movies of potty training a 3 year-old would have more artistic and historic value, and would no doubt be more artful shot.

This is an awful, awful movie. Everyone involved needs extensive debriefing before they can rejoin the human race. It doesn't get worse than this. It if it did, universal Armageddom would be desirable.

And think what I would have said if I wasn't being nice!

"10,000B.C." is not a great movie.But it is a fun movie. Director Roland Emmerich has spent much of his career imitating other filmmakers,culminating in 2000s "ThePatriot",whichfeatured hardly an original moment.

But Emmerich seem to have finally decided with his two films (this and "The Day After Tomorrow") that he is what he is:a guy who makes big,silly,cheesy, spectacular,popcorn blockbusters, and he's good at it. The action is thrilling,the CGI mammoth and sabre-toothed tigers are cool,and the overall mix is considerably more entertaining than last year's somewhat similar "300",whichwas TOO stylish,and even less substantial than this one.

If you want to see a great film,find somewhere that's still running "No Country For Old Men." If you want a dumb fun warm-up for this summer's blockbusters,"10,000B.C."is good bet. Emmerich is back in classic form as a rich man's Roger Corman,and that's a good thing.

This is an awful,wretched,painful,terrible film, ranking second only to the excremental smear that is "September Dawn" on the list of inept cinematic portrayals of LDS history. Questions of history aside, it's just horribly made, with cinematography that looks like an 8mm home movie, and acting that wouldn't pass in a junior high school play.

The ending sequence is one of the most hilariously ludicrous in movie history.Unlike the utterly worthless "September Dawn" (which I cannot stress enough may be the worst film ever made), "Brigham" has some value as a sort "Plan 9 From Outer Space" type curiosity.If you want to laugh at the silliness of it all,and see Joseph Smith portrayed as Bull Shannon,it may be worth your time.

it's amazing to me that a society which has mastered the concept of fire is capable of making a film this bad. Too insipidly, cloyingly cutesy to be edgy, too crass, juvenile and vulgar to be cute, and not funny enough to be either.

Additionally, there is not one single iota of genuine wit, emotion, or originality in even one frame of this odious film. It's as someone took "At First Sight", "Daredevil", "My Big fat Greek Wedding" and "Bend Like Beckham" (among others) and threw them in a blender. Worse than that the film is insulting to every group it portrays: blind people, Italian-American, African-Americans, Indian-Americans, limousine drivers, therapists. Even the portrayal of prostitutes is somehow beneath the dignity of the profession.

The ludicrous, predictable plot would be easily forgivable. After all, this is a romantic comedy. We're there to have fun and feel good. But this film sabotages itself so completely with violent swings from saccharine to sleazy that it's just about unwatchable. It's not just bad, it's "Plan 9 From Outer Space" bad. There is no justice if it doesn't reach the IMDb's worst list.

Considering that director James Keach and producer/co-star Jane Seymour have done good work in the past, this is all the more painful. A truly horrendous, painful movie-going experience. It was an insult to my backside that it had to sit through this. When I die and go the Hell, I can say "No thnaks. i saw 'Blind Dating.'"

Imagine if the "Lord of the Rings" series ended with the fellowship reaching the mines of Moria, Loegolas and Gimli decided to be friends . . . and that's it. That's essentially what we get in disastrously disappointing denouement to "The Work and the Glory III: A House Divided." The less interesting subplot of the fictional Steed family is wrapped up satisfactorily (in fact, for the first time in the trilogy I really cared about these characters. The Joshua/Nathan story, merely a tepid, uninspired LDS "Legends of the Fall" in part I, is now deeply moving). But the strength of "W & G" (best displayed in the second film, easily the best of the series, aside from it's slapdash ending) is it's portrayal of early LDS Church history. in particular, Jonathan Scarfe's portrayal of Joseph Smith is a performance for the ages. When these films center on Smith and Andrew Bown's Brigham Young, they're to notch. Sadly, despite some compelling scenes for Scarfe and Bowen early on, the film then tries to end too abruptly, leaving the best parts of the story untold. It's as if producer/used car salesman/anti-Christ Larry H. Miller suddenly ran out of money and decided to wrap things up in a half-heartedly fashion. He bolts from the ending so quickly you'd think he's discovered the film contained gay cowboys.

"A House Divided" demonstrates how this series flirted with great film-making, and sadly, fell just short. I still remain a tremendous fondness for these films and their moving portrayal of events which i hold sacred 9and yet are presented in a way as to be compelling to people of all religious creeds), and am glad they were made. Jonathan Scarfe is the screen's definitive Joseph Smith. It's just a shame that lack of money and other concerns led to the most anti-climactic ending since "X-Men: The Last Stand." See it, it's well worth it. But it ends at least another hour to tell the best parts of the story.

Two and a half stars out of four (could have made three and a half, as did "American Zion", without the dumbfounding fizzle-out at the end).