Seraphim Falls

Seraphim Falls **1/2

Directed by David Von Ancken
Written by David Von Ancken and Abby Everett Jaques

Starring:
Pierce Brosnan as Gideon
Liam Neeson as Carver
Angie Harmon as Rose
Anjelica Huston as Madame Louise
Michael Wincott as Hayes

115 Minutes(Rated R for violence and brief language.)
-------------------
It seems that westerns are returning to the big screen, as there is this new found fascination with them. And they aren't just westerns-they are some of the most gory and bloody things I've ever seen. "Open Range" was tame, and so is this one compared to things like "The Proposition" or "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada." Unfortunately, "Seraphim Falls" ends up being somewhat effective, but not exciting enough, and strangely padded at times. An entire middle section is not necessary, and does make the film suffer, but at times when it is a battle of the wills and a revenge battle between two men, "Seraphim Falls" is a massive success.

We begin meeting a man with a beard and a bear skin coat. He is trying to make a fire, but gets shot out by five men, all with horses and true weapons. The man runs through the forest, and finds himself stuck in the water rapids, falling down a waterfall, and on his own once again. This is Gideon, and he is under the watchful eye of Carver and his crew. Carver assembled four other men to help assist in killing Gideon, for reasons unknown to the viewer until towards the end. I will not spoil them here. And for the next few days, in post Civil War era, the two men will outsmart one another, braving through the woods and desert, getting involved with kidnappers, families, and horse thieves, until they finally have their showdown together in the middle of the desert, under the beating sun, where they give up horses and water just so that they will have the weapons they need to finally do one another in.

There isn't much plot here, but there isn't much development in the story. Most of the story involves Gideon walking around the forest, trying to outsmart Carver into finding him. And what he does is smart, and as Gideon is watched by Carver we begin to sort of tell him to do things. At the start, Gideon manages to create a fire for himself, and he tries to warm himself up. Carver eventually manages to find him, and to throw him off Gideon walks around the campsite, as if trying to create many different paths to throw Carver off. Right before Gideon does this, I found myself wanting to tell Gideon to do that. When it comes to the point where I can anxiously wait for a man to create a fire as he freezes, you know there is a some talent behind the camera. The films best scenes are when Brosnan and Neeson are alone, and trying to go after one another. The weak link was the additional plot turns in the middle, which divert attention away from the real story. Gideon gets involved with some wanted robbers, who decide that they need to kill him because he knows too much. He could go into town and turn them in. So Gideon kills them, and takes their horse, which is branded. The horse changes hands, and eventually Carver is running away from some people that want to turn him in and collect the reward money, thinking that he is one of the robbers. It just seems to pad the running time, taking away from any excitement from the chase. I could have lived with the film being twenty five minutes shorter if that end part was just trimmed from it.

I could applaud David Von Ancken for his directorial debut, and he really does do a good job with the western genre. However, given some of the more gritty and exciting westerns in the last two years or so, this one does lack a certain push that made those others so successful. Perhaps those other two were just made with more experience, or perhaps this film is just underdeveloped. In any case, it is a stunning debut, and I can expect more from him in the future. Maybe he could give the western a second try. The look and visuals of this films are breathtaking, taking us from the lightly snowy fields to the dank and dry desert where the climax takes place. I also applaud him for not shying away from some realistic bits. There are moments where we just watch as Gideon tries to survive, spending five minutes building a fire, or taking a bullet out of his shoulder. And Brosnan plays these scenes so well, sometimes making it seem like the camera isn't even on him. Drifting away from James Bond may have been the best thing that he ever did, proven especially by his work in last years "The Matador."

Brosnan and Neeson deliver stellar performances, and I finally have my question of why Brosnan had that beard in every interview I've seen him in for the past year answered. The eventual reason as to why Carver is after Gideon is not really surprising, and if I had thought about it, I might have figured it out before seeing it. But it manages to play with the audiences emotions. For a time you begin to wonder if you were wrong all along-maybe Gideon is the bad guy. But then you see his reaction, his face, and you realize that there is nobody to hate here, and nobody to love. They are both men at fault, and they are both innocents. These two men seal their fate because of the vengeance Carver wants, and the pride that Gideon has. "Seraphim Falls" has a somewhat tragic ending, but at the same time a happy one-an ending of understanding and an ending of kinship. The moral here is that life goes on, and it is far too short to hold grudges. I am reminded of the final scenes of "Greed," the silent masterpiece from the twenties, which also ends in the desert. That film ended with two former friends in the desert without food, water, or horse, all because of their greed and desire for money. This one has similar fashion, but somewhat more hopeful. Well, hopefully more hopeful. "Seraphim Falls" is more than good effort, but the focus gets distorted in the middle, making it hard to enjoy every one of its minutes. It is certainly worth looking for to see the debut of a hopefully great film maker in the near future. I really do enjoy these westerns from time to time, and I hope this isn't the last.

Smokin' Aces

Smokin' Aces ***

Directed by Joe Carnahan
Written by Joe Carnahan

Starring:
Ben Affleck as Jack Dupree
Andy Garcia as Stanley Locke
Alicia Keys as Georgia Sykes
Ray Liotta as Donald Carruthers
Jeremy Piven as Buddy 'Aces' Israel
Ryan Reynolds as Richard Messner
Peter Berg as "Pistol" Pete Deeks
Taraji Henson as Sharice Watters
Chris Pine as Darwin Tremor
Martin Henderson as Hollis Elmore
Jason Bateman as Rip Reed
Common as Sir Ivy
Matthew Fox as Bill

109 Minutes(Rated R for strong bloody violence, pervasive language, some nudity and drug use. )
---------------------
"Smokin' Aces" is Quentin Tarrantino-lite, and for once that is actually a good thing. It doesn't have that rip off feeling to it, and its gritty, dark, hilarious, and one of the best times you'll have at the movies this year. I haven't felt as satisfied and stuffed after seeing a movie than I have seeing this once. It is the follow up to Joe Carnahan gritty cop drama "Narc," and I may be on my own on this one, but he seems to be growing. Taking out similar looks and gritty feels, "Smokin' Aces" is simply more satisfying, and much more easy to invest yourself into.

"Smokin' Aces" begins on a stakeout, where we meet cops Donald Carruthers and Richard Messner, who learn that a contract is about to go over the head of Buddy "Aces" Israel, a Las Vegas magician/entertainer, who is about to snitch to the FBI the actions of mob boss Primo Sparazza. Carruthers and Messner get their assignment from their chief Stanley Locke, who tells them that they must find Israel, and return him safely to FBI headquarters. We then meet the large group of hitmen that are assembling themselves to find Israel, and collect the big price over his head. There are the(what I believe) lesbian hitwoman couple, Georgia Sykes and Sharice Watters, who are staying at the hotel where Israel is staying. There is a group led by Jack Dupree, a bail bondmen, who are quickly all slain by The Tremors-a group of tongue licking, chainsaw holding, Neo-Nazis who behave pretty much like animals. And then there is Buddy himself, addicted to coke, and secretly living in the penthouse of a Las Vegas casino, where his men know that he is about to snitch and are all planning to kill him. Chaos unleashes itself as the hit men, the cops, and Israel all find themselves at the same hotel, where everyone wants him but nobody wants to work together.

There isn't anybody to care about, and nobody that you could relate to, but for some reason "Smokin' Aces" ends up being the most entertaining thing I've seen in a month. The dialogue is crisp, and never seems like a carbon copy of a Tarantino flick. The camera is often just hanging around in the room with the characters, with overlapping conversation, and some useless little dialogues, giving it a very natural and realistic feel. The plot is interesting, and has enough stories so that when one is going on you don't miss one of the others. The gun fights take no prisoners, and this movie kills off characters like there is no tomorrow-very easily and simply. All the acting shockingly good, even Ryan Reynolds who is able to accept a role without any cute glances or witty one liners. Maybe there is more too him that meets the eye. And then there is Jeremy Piven, the man himself, who has come along way from the supporting roles in John Cusack movies. He was always a main highlight in those, and he steals the show in every scene he is in. Hell, he steals the show in all the scenes that he isn't in, as every single scene ends up being about him anyway. There is nothing preventing me from saying that Joe Carnahan has talent. He could tell a good story, and do it in a way that it seems like it's actually happening right outside. And with this being progressively better than his last film, I wonder what he has up his sleeve next. See this one-it's a good old fashioned great time at the movies.

Catch and Release

Catch and Release **1/2

Directed by Susannah Grant
Written by Susannah Grant

Starring:
Jennifer Garner as Gray Wheeler
Timothy Olyphant as Fritz
Sam Jaeger as Dennis
Kevin Smith as Sam
Juliette Lewis as Maureen
Joshua Friesen as Mattie
Fiona Shaw as Mrs. Douglas

124 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for sexual content, language and some drug use)
----------------
"Catch and Release" is a bit of a surprise, telling an age old story and then managing to sidestep all the normal cliches that it would normally have-and for that I am most thankful. Of course, it isn't perfect, and there are quite a number of scenes that I have seen before, but for its target audience it is somewhat delightful, and they will get the most out of it. Everyone else might find themselves groaning just a little bit, but not too loudly. It is also somewhat unbelievable, and these characters change a little too quickly.

"Catch and Release" begins with a death-the death of Gray Wheelers fiancee, where the cause of death is still unknown to me. I don't think they went into detail on it, but it doesn't matter. At the funeral she is still not over it, and hides in the bathroom for a large chunk of it. Two people-her fiance's best friend Fritz, and one of the caterers-don't seem to be grieving that badly, as Gray is forced to endure listening to them have some quick and pointless sex. She makes herself known after the caterer leaves, leaving Fritz embarrassed. Gray never liked Fritz anyway, which is exactly why she will have to fall in love with him by the time the movie is finished. Gray can't afford to live in her rented home, and was depending on getting married to have a roof over her head, so she moves in with Sam and Dennis-another two of her fiancees best friends. Sam is the guy that puts the quotes on tea boxes, so every now and then he provides meaningful insight from a famous author or public speaker, and Dennis is the friend that has had to sit for the last six years while his best friend has the woman that he would rather be with. I think we've all been that guy. And then Gray begins to find out that the man she thought she knew the last few years is exactly the opposite. Not only did he fool around with another woman in LA whenever he would visit Fritz, but he also had a three year old son that he would send three thousand dollars to every month for child support. The mother, Maureen, eventually comes looking for him as she didn't get any money from him for two months, meets Gray and the rest of the gang, and finds herself staying in the house too, and of course Gray finds herself falling for Fritz, who turns out to be different than the person she always thought he was.

There's a few things that this avoids, even though the plot sounds very cliche ridden and sappy. For example, there isn't a single character here that you could really hate. Even the typically annoying characters you end up liking. For example, the character that is normally the evil mother in law ends up showing many human characteristics towards the end. The mother in law wants the engagement ring back, and she doesn't relish the idea of giving any money to this person that may or may not be his son. But at the same time we see that she is just grieving. She isn't evil or a bad person, she is just upset. She did loose her son after all. And then Dennis, the man who is secretly in love with Gray, seems creepy at first, and kind of a jerk. After all, he is making advances to a woman that just lost her future husband, but then we realize that he is conflicted. He is upset that his friend died, but at the same time he is probably a little happy that he is out of the way. Maybe he has a chance now. Even the Maureen character sidesteps the typical "whorish mother who is really the enemy to the main character," and ends up being a bit of a saving grace, bringing most of the wit to the entire film. And all of the characters are probably conflicted, as they thought so highly of this man that ended up being the exact opposite of the person they thought he was. There is a bit of conflict here hidden within all the characters, but the script doesn't allow that aspect to shine very much.

Writer Susannah Grant seems to be more concerned with telling a typical story as opposed to showing more breath into these characters. This conflict could have been fleshed out more, and I wish they focused more on that than the ridiculously contrived love story between Fritz and Gray. That was a bit unbelievable, and I couldn't see anything in their attraction aside from some vulnerability and grief. The relationship portion also paved the way for some awful dialogue:

Gray: What's your favorite color?
Fritz: Gray.

I mean seriously. Did Grant name Gray that just so that she could add that little "clever" line in there? Probably.

The acting is halfway decent. Jennifer Garner isn't too bad, but this role isn't as complex as it should have been. The same goes for Timothy Olephant. Then you have Kevin Smith, who is being himself. Smith doesn't have the acting ability to go past that laid back, casual, drunk, but we end up loving him anyway. He also brings in some dialogue that seems to come from something he wrote, making me wonder if he added a bit of Smith to his character. "Catch and Release" is somewhat underwritten, focusing on the typical Hollywood romance aspects as opposed to being the subtle character piece that it should have been. But when this better aspect unravels itself, it becomes a somewhat rewarding and interesting film. It certainly isn't perfect, but it is decent, and rather enjoyable. Those looking for this kind of romance-comedy-drama will have a good time. It isn't a bad film at all.

Blood and Chocolate

Blood and Chocolate *1/2

Directed by Katja von Garnier
Written by Ehren Kruger and Christopher Landon, based on the book by
Annette Curtis Klause.

Starring:
Agnes Bruckner as Vivian
Hugh Dancy as Aiden
Olivier Martinez as Gabriel
Katja Riemann as Astrid
Bryan Dick as Rafe

98 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for violence/terror, some sexuality and substance abuse.)
----------------
"Blood and Chocolate" is yet another Gothic romance trying to surpass "Underworld," which surprised everyone and actually ended up being good. No film has yet been able to include the same elements, and be a success, not even the sequel to "Underworld," and this one is no exception. There are three main things that could end up being clues to this being a horrible flick.

1) The title. I recall seeing the trailer for this in the middle of December, and it was a classy movie I was seeing too-I think it was "Blood Diamond." And in the end, when the trailer came on, and that serious announcer guy said it, the entire theatre started laughing.

2) The cast. Do you recognize anybody in the cast? I do, but then again I see three hundred movies a year on the big screen. The average movie goer probably wouldn't, if they were smart enough, seen anything that any of these actors were in, and there is a reason why they are all in the same movie together.

3) The timing. It's January, as I've pointed out in many many other reviews this month, and this is actually coming out on the first crowded weekend of the new year. For it to be buried underneath all of those other movies may have been the biggest clue.

But I bit my tongue, and instead of looking for reasons to hate the movie, I tried to look for reasons to like the movie. And in the end, there isn't many reasons to like it.

"Blood and Chocolate" does take an interesting approach, taking a path that is normally reserved for vampires. Beautiful young women mostly end up being vampires, but in this case they can end up being werewolves, and that is the case for Vivian. When she was younger, her entire family was killed because of what she was, and she has always blamed herself for their death. Flash ahead to about ten years later or so, and she is now a young woman living with her aunt, and her horrible cousin, in Budapest, Romania. There are laws in the werewolves community, most of them her cousin Rafe doesn't like to follow. One of them is never to hunt out of the pack, and when an American tourist ends up dead, Rafe is the first suspect to the leader of the pack, Gabriel. Vivian ends up sneaking into a church and meets graphic novelist Aiden, who is doing research on werewolves for his newest book. Aiden lives a life of secrecy, even only putting his initials on all his books. With his persistence, the two eventually fall in love, but Gabriel finds him a threat. He doesn't want Aiden to find out that they are all werewolves, and sends Rafe to tell Aiden that he has to either leave the country by the end of the night, or he will die. But of course, his love for Vivian is so strong that he won't leave the country. . .

I think that the root of all the problems is the horrible script, as there are lines of dialogue that are laugh out loud funny. The direction is actually halfway decent, and the Romanian visuals are often breathtaking, as usual. This is obviously a more pretty version of Romania than the grainy visuals of "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu." But the whole story is far too silly to be saved by a few nice visuals. I think I'm just getting sick of the whole Gothic love plot, with two lovers who have trouble being together because one of them is from a different species. There is not much to explore in that genre, and this is pretty much the same story as "Underworld," except on earth, with wolves, and a little less violent. It is hopefully a fad that I won't have to endure once every single year. I think that "Underworld" was just a fluke, a lucky piece of chance that is rare to ever happen again. The acting is exactly what you would expect in something like this. Agnes Bruckner is attractive enough, but doesn't have the skills to carry a movie by herself. She is better in supporting roles, very much like in the underseen "Rick," but big enough to be on the poster twice is false. People like Oliver Martinez, from "Unfaithful", also don't know how to deliver any kind of emotion, and those like Hugh Dancy and Bryan Dick(whose name fits the character) we'll be unlucky if we ever see them again. "Blood and Chocolate" is not exciting, and a completely silly plot. Even the big action finale doesn't spark the slightest bit of emotion. I don't think this will even appeal to those who are into this kind of stuff-hopefully they will see right through it. It's tired genre, only a couple of years old. This doesn't exceed anything more than some good photography.

Epic Movie

Epic Movie Zero Stars

Directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer
Written by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer

Starring:
Kal Penn as Edward
Adam Campbell as Peter
Jayma Mays as Lucy
Faune A. Chambers as Susan
Jennifer Coolidge as White Bitch
Crispin Glover as Willy
Darrell Hammond as Captain Jack Swallows

86 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual humor, language and some comic violence.)
--------------
Here we are, just a few weeks into the new year, and the year's worst movie has already been handed to me on a silver platter. "Epic Movie" is not only the years worst, but one of the worst of the entire millennium-an embarrassment for the directors, writers, the actors, and even anybody ever involved in the spoof genre, period. I did not laugh a single time in any of it's short amount of minutes, and what saddened me was that a lot of the audience(mostly kids ages ten to twelve) couldn't stop laughing. It is upsetting to see that the youth of America finds this humorous, and it's box office paves the way for Friedberg and Seltzer to try their hands at another spoof movie-and then to fail yet again. It is times during movies like this where I am grateful that I can see them for free, for if I wasted a single solitary cent on this drivel it would be too much.

"Epic Movie" is a spoof movie, so of course the plot doesn't have to have any rhyme or reason. Just as long as they throw in enough witty and clever gags based on some movies of late is usually enough. But the biggest problem here is that none of the gags are funny let along being clever or witty. We start off meeting four orphans. There is Lucy, whose uncle was just killed in a museum(The Da Vinci Code?). She follows a bunch of clues to a vending machine where she finds a Wonka bar, and wins a Golden Ticket(Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?). The next orphan is Edward, who lives in a Mexican orphanage, and wants to one day be a lucha libre wrestler(Nacho Libre?). He is kicked out of the orphanage, but on his way out he finds a Golden Ticket. And then there is Susan, who is on a plane only to find it filled with poisin snakes(You can guess that one. . .) She is thrown out of the plane by Samuel *goddamn* Jackson, and lands on Paris Hilton, who had a Golden Ticket in her purse. And finally there is Peter, a mutant who is often tormented by the others(X-Men, maybe. . .?) I can't remember how he finds his ticket, and I don't really care. Anyway, the four orphans head to Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, only to find out that he is a madman, and plans on taking actual limbs from the children and putting them in the chocolate. He stashes them away in a room, and when Lucy escapes she finds a magical wardrobe which takes her to the land of Gnarnia(changed for legal purposes) which is under the reign of the evil White Bitch, and the orphans have to band together to try and stop her, and save Gnarnia. . . whatever.

In a spoof movie, the plot shouldn't matter, and Friedberg and Seltzer take that to heart. Nothing really makes sense, but it shouldn't. But they've decided to load their script with some of the worst attempts at humor imaginable. I almost want to see it again just so I could count the number of times people get hit in the head and private areas, and how many times they trip and fall-because the number would be in the double, and maybe even triple digits. They weren't making fun of the movies they wanted to satire, they were just dressing actors up in the same outfits, and then having them get hit in the head. It really isn't funny to see Nacho Libre eat Nacho Cheese Doritios, or Magneto getting hit in the end with a giant piece of metal. And so many of the characters ended up dancing to rap songs-that happened at least three times.

Perhaps the only actor who did a decent job was Darrell Hammond as Captain Jack Swallows(Pirates of the Caribbean?. . . get his name. . .ha). He managed to do an actually decent impression of him, and got pretty much the same vocal qualities. But then again that's what he does for a living. He did impressions on Saturday Night Live-of course he's the only decent one here. Everyone else, especially all of the four main characters, are horrible, and should be kicked out of Hollywood for having this on their resume. For some reason I get the idea that this writing/directing team, also responsible for the horror that was "Date Movie" last year, think that they are actually being clever and witty, and find that they are reaching new ground with the spoof genre. Sadly, I think the spoof genre is officially dead, even though it was never brought to life that highly. I could imagine Friedberg and Seltzer in front of their computers, proud of themselves that they are making connections in all of the plots to these so called "epic movies." It seems that they haven't learned from their mistakes as the humor here is the same from "Date Movie." All they care about is the money, even if they are repeating the same unfunny jokes in every minute. They don't even bother to spoof "epic movies," and just randomly selected movies that came out last year. I don't remember "Nacho Libre" being so epic. Perhaps the best reward that comes out of seeing "Epic Movie" is that the running time is short. It says 86 minutes, but the credits run for a good twenty minutes, making this the quickest bit of torture anybody will ever have to endure. Note to Friedberg and Seltzer, please stop making these. I don't think I have the stomach to sit through more of your horror shows, even if I didn't contribute a dime to you. I'll be writing about this one at the end of the year, and not in favor of it.

God Grew Tired of Us

God Grew Tired of Us ***

Directed by Christopher Dillon Quinn

Co-Directed by Tommy Walker

Written by Christopher Dillon Quinn

Featuring:

John Dau

Daniel Abul Pach

Narrated by Nicole Kidman

89 Minutes(Rated PG for thematic elements and some disturbing images.)

-------------

"God Grew Tired of Us" is a fascinating documentary-at both times humorous and heartbreaking. And this does not seen like the proper time for it to be out-it should have been out last month to be considered for awards, because it's one of the better documentaries around at the moment. It is a strange experience, that somewhat plays with your emotions. Looking back, I feel like of angry at myself that I laughed at times-and I recall chuckling in the theatre while everyone else was dead silent. More on that later. It tells a very interesting story from the only perspective that it could be told from-and the points of interest are not discovered until about fifteen minutes into the film.

Beginning with a little background information on Sudan and the persecution that many were facing. We get the standard footage that we've seen before-the people of the area, gaunt and thin from hunger. We get a painted picture of something that we've seen millions of times, before finally focusing in on the true subject-three men-John, Daniel, and Panther. These three men have been chosen to go and live in the United States-get schooling, get work, and start a new life for themselves. Why? They are part of a group of men, known as The Lost Boys, who have no idea where their parents, or any other family could be. It is here where the film gets very interesting. We follow these three men as they begin to discover everything for the first time. They are amazed by the concept of a shower, they are blown away by television, and they are fascinated by doughnuts. They are always asking questions, and always experiencing new things. When the holiday season comes, they put up the Christmas tree, watch Christmas movies, and go see Santa Claus at the mall, but they are always asking "Why?" It is like watching "Borat," except without all the dirty jokes. We see them face many trials-what happens when they have to work many hours not allowing them to see each other often. Or what happens when one of their friends goes missing, and returns mentally unstable-probably from missing home and living in a new environment. But at the same time they discover that America is a land of opportunity, just as long as you allow it to be.

The title refers to an interview with one of the men-who believed that life was getting so difficult in Sudan that they felt that god was getting tired of them-and was just waiting for them all to disappear off the face of the Earth. And as morbid as that seems, "God Grew Tired of Us" is a happy experience-an experience of discovery and being introduced to something great. I'll admit, it was humorous at times watching these three men seeing things for the first time. Watching Daniel pour himself a bowl of Ritz crackers into a thermos, smashing them all with a hammer, and then pouring milk into it was indeed comical, but at the same time very depressing. These people have lived in an entirely different plane of existence for years and years, that making a simply bowl of cereal is done incorrectly. As impoverished and difficult Sudan must be, as described in the beginning, I feel that we could learn something from them. One of the biggest problems that John, Daniel, and Panther faced was that they had to work a lot. They weren't tired from the work-in fact they were glad to be given the chance to work. Instead, they were angry about not being able to see each other. A big difference between life in the United States and life in Sudan is that family is not valued as much. Family is a big deal in Sudan, and through this film it seems like it is the most important thing. It also doesn't seem like something valued as much here in the U.S.

"God Grew Tired of Us" is very interesting to watch, and as extremely grand experience. It saves itself from the typical "Discovery Channel" like opening and turns into a very powerful story. It also does meander a bit towards the end, and during the last ten minutes there were so many fade outs that I didn't know when to start putting my coat on. With any luck it'll spread around more, as this is something that should be seen. And there is certainly a lot of celebrity backage behind it too. Not only does Nicole Kidman do the narration(which oddly enough doesn't distract the viewer from what is happening on the screen), but the producers list boasts names like Brad Pitt, Dermont Mulroney, and Catherine Keener. And I would thank them for getting this film around. It is not only giving out great political messages, but it is also a story that is very enjoyable to watch. It is certainly the best documentary around at the moment, and the first truly good film of 2007.

Breaking and Entering

Breaking and Entering **1/2

Directed by Anthony Minghella
Written by Anthony Mingella

Starring:
Jude Law as Will
Juliette Binoche as Amira
Robin Wright Penn as Liv
Martin Freeman as Sandy
Ray Winstone as Bruno
Vera Farmiga as Oana
Rafi Gavron as Miro
Poppy Rogers as Beatrice

120 Minutes(Rated R for sexuality and language.)
-----------------
After weeks and weeks of delayed anticipation, "Breaking and Entering" is finally released in New York City. Those tricky Weinsteins decided to screw around with our heads once more, and instead of giving this a proper release date last month like planned, they had to go ahead and do a "one week only Oscar consideration run" and to top it off, they only did it in LA. Well, "Breaking and Entering" was ignored by the Oscars, and for good reason. This isn't a great film-it barely comes close to being considered a good film. But there is a lot of effort in it, and there is a script that has ideas, only just too many of them. Writer/director Minghella doesn't seem to know what he wanted to tell his story about, so he decided to chock it full of everything-family relationships, father/daughter, mother/son, crime, a bit of detective work, affairs. I found it hard to keep up with what was happening now. But it's absorbing, and surprisingly entertaining. even though it is a little confused.

"Breaking and Entering" is a story about crime-crimes against the law and crimes against the heart. Our hero, if you could call him that, is Will, an architect whose newest project is working in an office in King's Cross-an area in London impoverished, and kind of dangerous. He is working to try and change the neighborhood for the better. Will lives with his girlfriend of ten years-the Swedish Liv, who many simply call his wife. Liv has a daughter from a previous relationship who is very difficult-doesn't want to eat, doesn't sleep, keeps Will and Liv up all night. She even has to use a certain kind of towel. If it's yellow, or has any yellow in it at all, it's no good. Maybe it's autism-maybe it's a plot device-I don't know. What I do know is that Liv's daughter Beatrice is not at the top of Will's priority list. He is too busy with work to be completely concerned with her, and even shows up late to family psychiatrist meetings. It all is fine until one night the office is broken into, and Will is missing his laptop, and several of his tiny scale models used for. . . modeling. The criminal is Miro, a young boy who is drifting down the wrong path. After escaping a Bosnia uprising with his mother, Miro doesn't like to go to school, and spends his days making petty cash as a thief. His mother, the beautiful and vulnerable Amira, doesn't trust anyone, and works as a tailor in her home. She wants what is best for her son, almost lost him once, and doesn't want to loose him again. Will stakes out in his office as the crimes continue, and eventually discovers who the thief is. He begins to bring clothes to Amira to have tailored, until he figures out what to do about her son, the crook. However, he begins to fall under a kind of strange spell, and finds himself attracted to Amira, leading to an affair, and leading to moral dilemma's all around.

The main problems with "Breaking and Entering" is that too many is happening. Instead of focusing on one point, Minghella drifts far too much, introducing many ideas and concepts in the first half that are unneeded, and not even brought back in the second half. One of these is Will's partners attraction to one of the cleaners. There are two scenes involving this, and then neither character is even seen until the last minute or so. The second is Will's conversations with Oana, a Russian hooker in King's Cross who keeps him company when he is staking out in front of his office. She's in two or three scenes, wears skimpy outfits, and talks to Will about life-and then tries to charge him fifty pounds. And then she steals his car, which was an even more useless subplot as she brings it back in the later half. Now I don't mind seeing Vera Farmiga in skimpy outfits for ten minutes, but she was just not needed here. Perhaps the original cut was about three hours long and all of these little subplots and characters were drawn out a bit more, but in the current cut it is overlong and not needed. In addition to these additional characters, the story doesn't stop making new additions. The affair subplot comes so much later in the story that it is more like a footnote. There was no basis for Will's attraction to Amira, and it comes out of nowhere-as if Minghella was trying to duplicate the success of "Closer" by turning Jude Law into another adulteress boyfriend. And in the end, the affair was just a tool to make the ending-which was far too neat and tidy-possible. There were also hints to an affair between Liv and her daughter's dance teacher, but that was only in one line of the script, and discarded quickly after.

The performances are mediocre, and nothing extraordinary. In fact, this seems like a showcase for actors trying to display their knacks(or lack thereof in some cases) for accents. It seems like the only two displaying their real accents were Jude Law and Ray Winstone. There was Robin Wright Penn as a Swedish woman, Juliette Binoche as a Bosnian woman, and Vera Farmiga as a Russian. Mysteriously none of these actresses are of those races, and to add to the mystery, none of them were very good at pretending they were either. Law seemed to be the only natural here, but then again he was just playing the part the same way that he plays every single part-with that boyish charm but dark undertones.

I think that Minghella has a winner here buried underneath too much uselessness. It is directed well, and there are a number of interesting shots-one of my favorites involved the first break in, where we just see a desk in the office, and then suddenly a shower of glass cover part of the screen. It may not sound like much, but within the context of the film it was a beautiful image. And he really does capture the seedy heart of London, often putting a darker hue on the outside scenes as opposed to the indoors. The skies are normally gray in this area, with the sun not shining very much at all. But, if the script was a little toned, the rating could be bumped higher. There is too much going on, and he should have stuck to one story, instead of introducing all these little sub characters who disappear soon enough. There was also no repentance in the end at all, for anybody. Suddenly, after all the lies and betrayals and crimes against the heart, everything turns out fine and dandy for all three of these people. There was not even the sense of mystery that while everything seems alright, there are still a few issues that need to be sorted through. Everybody goes home happy. The theme of the film is supposed to be that using the heart could just about be as bad as breaking the law, but there is no justice for what anybody did-which left the third act very much a downer. I did not walk out with a satisfied feeling-I walked out with the feeling of disappointment. That if another run of proofreading was done I may have seen something more than just full of good ideas-but something that was successful in conveying these ideas. "Breaking and Entering" is entertaining-I didn't get the urge to check my watch once, and it was a pretty long film-but it is just too much bull, and needs to stop straying away with useless devices and people.

I am conflicted with this one. I did enjoy it, but it doesn't have what it needs to qualify as a recommendation. I suppose I could say that it is flawed, but I'll give you a little nudge. On both the art house field and the mainstream field it's one of the better films of the year at this point, but nothing award worthy in the least.

Tales of the Brothers Quay

Tales of the Brothers Quay ***1/2

Directed by Stephen and Timothy Quay

Contains the films:

The Cabinet of Jan Svankmajer (1984)

The Epic of Gilgamesh (1985)

Street of Crocodiles (1986)

Rehearsals for Extinct Anatomies (1986)

Dramolet (Stille Nacht I) (1988)

The Comb (From the Museums of Sleep) (1991)
Anamorphosis (or De Artificiali Perspectiva) (1991)

Are We Still Married? (Stille Nacht II) (1991)

Tales from the Vienna Woods (Stille Nacht III) (1992)

Can’t Go Wrong Without You (Stille Nacht IV) (1993)

In Absentia (2000)

134 Minutes including 10 Minute Intermission(This Is Not Rated-Disturbing Images)

-------------

In the second half of 2006, I was able to see two things that fascinated me more than anything else. The first was "Viva Pedro," a collection of eight films by Pedro Almodovar. Since I enjoyed the few films by Almodovar that I had seen, I was grateful to be given the chance to see a bulk of his filmography in a short period time-films that are rare to see on the big screen nowadays. At the end of November, I was able to see one of the most visually masterful films I have ever seen-"The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes." This is my first trip into the world of The Brothers Quay, and I learned that the bulk of their filmography-a collection of music videos and short films-is unavailable at the moment. And now I am able to combine the quickness of seeing a collection of films, and the chance to explore a new filmmaker(s) with the retrospective "The Tales of the Brothers Quay,"-opening this weekend at the Film Forum for one week. Zeitgest films have decided to release brand new prints of many of these shorts films-films that should be seen on the big screen or not at all.

Stephen and Timothy Quay are identical twin brothers from Pennsylvania. They reside in England at the present time. Over the last twenty five years they have been masters of miniature figures-creating vast animated sets, and doing all of their work through film and not through computer. Seeing these short films, you have to keep one big thing in mind-you won't have a clue what the story is, but this is the idea. It doesn't matter what the story is-not the story that the Quay's had in mind. Half of the fun is coming up with your own interpretation, making your own ideas based on what is happening on the screen. And these are some of the most unique and fun creations that you will ever see. Little baby faces with stuffing in their heads instead of brains, a man with a large bump on his head that he rubs to make his eyes spin, severed heads-all of them made out of clay, wire, mortar, metal, and glued together. They do not seem like puppets, but they seem like things you'll find in the trash. Nothing makes sense, nothing is in proportion, and yet everything is perfect-you wouldn't want it any other way. Every single shot is so carefully tended to that you could almost feel the passion coming out of the screen.

This is dark stuff, but also very creative. The brothers are influenced by Eastern European literature and classical music and classic art. One of the films(and my least favorite of the collection) is called Anamorphosis, and is basically an art lecture put to stunning animation which studies a technique in art where symbols are found depending on which angle you look at something. There are paintings where you can't exactly see what is being shown, but if you look at it from a certain angle degree to the left it is clear. They also adapt The Epic of Gilgimesh into a ten minute masterpiece. The best of the works come at the very end, the more recent In Absentia, which ends with you staring at the blank screen wanting more. This is about a young woman who is writing letters over and over again with tiny broken pencil shavings while in a metal ward. I get the same feeling while watching these as I did while watching "Inland Empire." You can't exactly put your finger on what is happening, but you can't take your eyes off the screen, afraid to blink that you might miss something. And when it is all over, you emerge from the theatre as if you had been dreaming-sleepy and exhausted. I cancelled the plans to see another film after this one because I wanted these to be fresh in your mind. I would like to see them again. "Tales of the Brothers Quay" shows how nightmares are created, putting us into the world that we can only see when we are sleeping, and it is never that screwed up. This is a great collection of shorts that should be seen on the big screen, because justice probably can't serve it on the small. There is too much to see, too much to bask in, too much to watch. And although each one is equally confusing, they are all special and unique-each one presenting something in a different way, however small. I am thankful to be able to see these films, and thankful for discovering the Brothers Quay. In the middle of January, where film fans don't have much to see unless they haven't finished with the Oscar haul from the year before, "Tales of the Brothers Quay" is the perfect remedy. Who would have figured that the only thing worth seeing at the moment in a few years old?

This program is just over two hours, and has a brief intermission after the first six films. I've listed the films that are playing at the Film Forum for this week, but there is a maximum of thirteen films depending on the venue. The other two films playing in the program are Nocturna Artificialia from 1979, and The Phantom Museum from 2003. Unless back by popular demand this is the only week the program will be playing, so I suggest you make the effort to see them. They are well worth it, and will haunt for well after you leave the theatre.

Alone with Her

Alone with Her **

Directed by Eric Nicholas
Written by Eric Nicholas

Starring:
Colin Hanks as Doug
Ana Claudia Talancón as Amy
Jordana Spiro as Jennifer
Jonathon Trent as Matt

78 Minutes(This Film is Not Rated-Nudity, Violence, Language)
--------------
There is no doubt in my mind that "Alone with Her" is a creepy, unsettling thriller, but it just isn't a very good one. This is a standard stalker story, tried and true, and the only thing that makes it the least bit different from stalker films of the past is the way it tells the story. Made with a dirt cheap budget, "Alone with Her" is told from only twelve different camera angles-all hidden cameras that the stalker hides along his victims house. We can only see what the stalker can see, and we can only see what is in the way of the camera. The creepy thought of not being able to see anything could have been used effectively here, but it never is. We pretty much see everything, but some screams out of camera view could have been some good effect. But this is the eventual problem with this film-it treads no new grounds, and is your standard stalker thriller. I suppose the film making method is a gimmick, and one that stops being creepy about half way in. This gimmick can't hold up for the films entire length, which is so short that length shouldn't be a problem.

"Alone with Her" tells the story of Doug, a man who puts his video camera in a duffel bag every morning and takes a walk around his neighborhood. He makes sure he gets some extra special camera shots of women, never failing to go up their skirt. And then he sets his lens on someone more special to him, Amy Ruis, who he begins to obsess over. He follows her home, and sneaks into her apartment when she leaves. He does the usual stalker things-laying in her bed, smelling her pillows, licking the comb that she used the night before in an uncompromising position. He then goes the extra mile and goes to the electronic store, buying twelve hidden cameras and putting them in all different areas of the apartment-certainly not forgetting the view that directly faces the shower. Doug begins to eavesdrop at all times in Amy life, but gets heartbroken and angered when her friend Jennifer convinces her to go out with Matt, a man who she works with. Doug decides that he has to enter her life, and takes on the persona of a "nice guy" who she meets at the coffee shop. Doug is always there for her-offering to make a web site so that she could sell her art work, offering to take her to the hospital when she needs stitches done, and helping her out when she looses her job. But of course we know that he probably caused the accident that led to the stitches, as well as doing what happened which led to her job being lost, just so that he could come sweeping in at the right moment. And he makes sure that she is always sick whenever she could have a date with Matt-even going so far as to put something in her bed to lead to a nasty rash. And she might even find herself falling for him a little bit to. . .

This is a very strange film to watch because of the hidden camera method that is used. For example, you feel weird even considering the lovely Ana Claudia Talancón attractive, because the entire time you feel like this creepy, sweaty stalker guy watching her. The shower scenes have no enjoyment, and end up being kind of gross-and don't even get me started on the bedroom scenes. But after the halfway mark, the cameras stop being an interesting method, and they aren't an annoyance. They are just there, and you realize that there is nothing really new being explored here. We've seen this kind of story before, and the camera gimmick is just a way to try and make it seem edgy and new. And by the third act you can guess all the surprises minutes before they happen, and it stops even becoming interesting. By the ominous end, the last seventy-five minutes seem more like two hours, and I was shocked to learn when I walked out of the theatre that only a mere hour and fifteen minutes had passed.

Colin Hanks takes a trip away from his normal nice guy persona into an evil and creepy character that I don't think his father Tom ever took on. There are indeed moments where he seduces the viewer into his nice-guy charm, and when you see his reaction to Amy going out on a date, there is a mere fraction of a second where you almost feel sorry for him, and then you see that he is watching all of this from a camera and this sympathy just goes away. Both Hanks and Talacon have enough to carry this whole film, as most of it is just them two anyway, but their script doesn't allow them to walk on any new grounds. Doug ends up being a stalker and Amy the victim, and nothing more. Talacon also tries to show some kind of third dimension in her character-namely in one scene where she is playing with her dog in the park. She notices a couple, tenderly kissing on a blanket by a tree, and she looks at them with tears in her eyes. It is little moments like these where I am grateful for actors to try and mold a bad script into something halfway decent. There are a few director choices that I was happy with as well-one of them being the lack of music throughout. It does add to the intense realism that this has, and to add some suspenseful music during the movie heavy scenes would have broken away from this. "Alone with Her" tries to break away from the typical thriller with its film making method, but it doesn't try to break away from it with the script, which is always more important. It's an interesting shot, but nothing special.

The Italian

The Italian **

Directed by Andrei Kravchuk

Written by Andrei Kravchuk

Starring:

Kolya Spiridonov as Vanya Solntsev

Mariya Kuznetsova as Madam

Denis Moiseenko as Kolyan

Dima Zemlyanko as Anton

Sasha Sirotkin as Sery

99 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for some violence, sexual content, language and thematic issues. )

----------

"The Italian" is an obvious tear jerker, and doesn't even try to pretend that it isn't. It is a modern day Charles Dickens tale without the charm, and without the conflict. Everything seemed so easy to do in this, and the end makes you roll your eyes in how perfect things turn out. I suppose that that could be a refreshing thing, but I just found it completely irritating. In the world of "The Italian," the good guys are very good, and the bad guys are bumbling and sometimes stupid. There's even a bad guy that changes his mind at the end and lets the hero continue his quest. But I couldn't really care. I suppose our main character and actor Kolya Spiridonov is the saving grace, and manages to carry this contrived screenplay to great heights, which is incredible because he can't be more than ten or so. But this film is too easy, too obvious, and too simple.

"The Italian" begins in a Russian orphanage, where everyone is elated because a couple is coming to adopt a child. The young orphan Vanya is groomed and prepped to be viewed by the couple-a young Italian one. The three of them manage to hit it off, and oddly enough the woman in the couple even hugs him seconds after meeting him. They decide to adopt him, and Madam, the owner of the orphanage is excited-not so much for Vanya but for the large check that the couple intends on giving her. Vanya even begins to be called "The Italian" by the older orphans, who live in their own little shack and often get stoned. One of them whores herself around so that the group could buy food. Vanya's peace is disturbed when one of the mothers of an abandoned boy comes for her son, only to learn that her son has been adopted. Vanya talks to her by the bus stop, and learns a few days later that she has killed herself. Vanya suddenly begins to rethink being taken by this Italian couple. He begins to wonder about his own mother, and if she comes back to visit him he doesn't want to be missing. He escapes from the orphanage with the help of the whore orphan, and goes on a quest, braving the Russian streets, to find the home where his mother is. All the while he is pursued by Madam, and her horny husband, who refuses to allow this money transaction to be taken from her.

Like I said, this is a tear jerker, and one that is far too easy. Vanya knows exactly where his mother will be, because in her file there is an address. And the ending comes out of nowhere. Something is happening(and it'll involve blood), and then two minutes later the credits on rolling, and all is happy. I am all for heartwarming films once in a while, but this was just cookie cutted to perfection, and goes over the top to try and be heartwarming. It doesn't earn any tears because the script is so contrived and simple. No conflict, and I could never get emotionally invested into anything that was happening. Once again Kolya Spiridonov is the saving grace of the film, in a wonderful performance. He offers the perfect balance of cute and innocent, and also mature and wise behind his years, as he travels the streets, meeting people, and running away from those who are after him. "The Italian" is good for those who are easily seduced into happy endings and carefree plots, but if you want to be moved through earned emotions, look elsewhere. "The Italian" is more Tear Jerker 101, and writer/director Andrei Kravchuk needs to mature a bit as a writer if he wants a satisfactory heart wrenching drama. 2007 continues to disappoint, even in the art house world.

Mafioso

Mafioso **

Directed by Alberto Lattuada
Written by Rafael Azcona, Bruno Caruso, Marco Ferreri, Agenore Incrocci, and Furio Scarpelli

Starring:
Aberto Soldi as Antonio Badalamenti
Norma Bengell as Marta
Ugo Attanasio as Don Vincenzo
Gabriella Conti as Rosalia

105 Minutes(This film is Not Rated, but acceptable for all audiences)
------------
"Mafioso" is "A History of Violence" for its time, except with less gore and more laughs. Well, things that resemble laughs, but do not exactly succeed as them. Originally released in 1962, Rialto Pictures decided to use this as their next repertory film, and it is always fun to watch something old like this on the big screen. But I couldn't bring myself to love this film, or care about the characters. It was amusing to see, and I suppose that there could be worse things to do to pass the time, but I didn't see the need to re-release it.

One of the main problems with "Mafioso" in my opinion was the way the plot moves. We begin with a social commentary, and even somewhat of a satire, and then we move into darker territory. We begin in Italy, where foreman Antonio Badalamenti has just traded his bonus money for vacation time, and intends on bringing his wife Marta, and his two daughters, to his hometown in Sicily. Marta doesn't want to go, and dreads the idea of leaving Italy. Antonio persists that Sicily is part of Italy, but the matter is closed. They are going. We know what they are in for when they pull up onto the corner in a Sicilian village to find a funeral. "How did he die?" asks Antonio, in a caring matter. "Two bullets," is the response, and the family drives off quickly after. It's not soon until they are meeting the family, including the mannish Rosalia, who somehow managed to find a person who would marry her, regardless of her full moustache and her hairy arms. Since it is the first time she will meet the family, Marta tries to shower her in-laws with gifts, and that backfires when she gives Antonio's father a pair of gloves, forgetting that he only has one hand. Marta can't get used to the families customs, and especially can't get used to the way the meals work. While she is full from her dinner, she learns that those were only the starters, and a giant bowl of pasta awaits. Antonio decides to cave and shorten the vacation to ten days, and then allow him and his wife to visit her side of the family for a few days. All is well until Antonio delivers a package to a friend in the village, Don Vincenzo, who also happens to be a big mob boss. And he offers Antonio an offer-an offer to kill a man who betrayed his friends-and Antonio ends up getting put into a large box and shipped off to New York City to find this man.

Even though the film is called "Mafioso," I was enjoying it before the entire subplot about the mob was brought up. And the vast shift in tone from the silly and comedic to the darker and violent where no laughs are had was nonetheless awkward. By the end I felt that I was watching a different movie, and the not so promising and ominous ending brought upon some chuckles in the theatre, but left a sour taste in my mouth. Aberto Soldi is hilarious, and I read that he is considered an Italian Peter Sellers. I was smiling with joy when he visited his family and began to sing around the dinner table. It's not that this is a bad film, but there are probably much better Italian comedies to release than this one. I did not get much enjoyment out of it, especially in the last half, and from a promising start it is all downhill from there. I can't see this one popping up in art houses throughout the year with the phrase "Back from Popular Demand" next to it, and if it does I will possibly considering seeing it again. Maybe there is something I missed the first time, only I doubt it.

The Hitcher

The Hitcher *

Directed by Dave Meyers
Written by Jake Wade Wall and Eric Bernt, based on the 1986 screenplay "The Hitcher" written by Eric Red

Starring:
Sophia Bush as Grace Andrews
Zachary Knighton as Jim Halsey
Sean Bean as John Ryder
Neal McDonough as Lieutenant Esteridge

83 Minutes(Rated R for strong bloody violence, terror and language.)
------------
If there is anything good that could be said about "The Hitcher," the next in a long slew of horror films slated for this portion of the year, it's that it does try to tell an actual story, but it still ends up drifting to the normal horror film cliches-too much blood, cardboard characters, silly jump scenes-that will make even the die hard horror fan roll his eyes. It isn't another installment into torture like most horror films gear into-there are some conversation, stupid ones though, but at least not all humans are treated like pieces of meat, being hung up and beaten and mangled. There's even a few car chases. But in the end, "The Hitcher" is just plain stupid, a horror film that could have had some character development, but just ends up being more of the same-more of a teenage couple being chased by a madman, more of the same conversations, and more of the same lame action. And it is indeed a remake, because no horror movie that comes out anymore can be it's own story-it all has to be a repeat from something else. Now I've never seen the original film, but this reeks of remake from beginning to end.

The film begins with a rabbit running down a highway road, right before getting hit by an oncoming car. I had a feeling that the rabbit was doomed, simply because it looked fake. They wouldn't kill a real rabbit, but they wouldn't hesitate in killing a CGI one. This offers no point than to give a little blood, and to tell signs of things to come, as if we didn't know that already. And then we meet the two main characters, and screaming teens, Grace and Jim. There's a bit of back story where Jim is picking Grace up for spring break, but it's not going to be the destination that matters, but the journey. On the way, in the middle of the rain, they just avoid hitting a man standing on the highway. The car stops, and they debate about if they should talk to him or not. They opt not to, but Jim feels funny about it. Pulling into a gas station(it's always a gas station), the man ends up walking in, right after getting a drive from a trucker. Jim offers the man a ride when he realizes that he might not be as creepy as before-he's even wearing a wedding ring. On the way, the man, who names himself John Ryder, pulls a knife on them, and tells them to utter four little words: I Want To Die. Jim and Grace band together, unlock the door, and kick John out of the car. But it doesn't stop there, because for the next day they will be hunted by John, framed for the murders of multiple people including cops, and bruised and battered continuously-it seems like spring break will not shine its nice little head on these two.

So what do we have? There's the standard dream sequence scene-where one of the characters is acting like he's awake, and then he is attacked, but it turns out to all be just a dream. There's the cardboard characters who have no trace of humanity in them at all. Well, maybe that's not fair. Right before John Ryder slaughters an entire family, Grace asks Jim if he ever thought about having kids. I know it's supposed to bring humanity into their relationship, but they are only 20. I have a feeling that neither one of them has even considered children. There's the silly fact that Grace holds a gun to Ryder's head for half the flick and doesn't even shoot. She threatens it a lot, but never does it for the sole reason that it would make the movie an hour shorter, and that could be a good thing. And when Sophia Bush and Zachary Knighton are running and screaming, Sean Bean just looks at them with a dirty stare, and shoots many people. I like Sean Bean a lot, but he literally is doing nothing here. He doesn't even look interested in being there. The first time we see his face he is supposed to be looking beyond the camera, but he looks like he is looking beyond the camera, and into a daydream world where good horror movies were made, and not drivel like "The Hitcher." This is clearly a paycheck part, and nothing more to him.

Now, the real sad part is, if you are looking for gore and screaming and a standard wide release horror film, this is probably the best bet. It tells a story at least and doesn't resort to cheap useless gores like graphic brain surgery(except maybe a scene involving handcuffs towards the end, although I was looking for something more from it knowing how horror is made nowadays). It isn't like "Primeval," because it has an actual script with dialogue that is coherent, and it surpasses things like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" because it doesn't go over the top. But it is so repetitive, and the same nonsense over and over again. They scream, they run, they find down time, scream, run again, maybe a car chase here and there, have a talk with the police. It became the longest 82 minutes of my entire life-a cat and mouse chase with no end in sight, and then a third act "surprise" that makes things go on even longer.

One last thing I want to discuss is to go back to Sean Bean, but talk about his character. I know nothing about John Ryder than I did before I went in. All I know is that he kills people. I think it would have been more interesting, and in a smarter world this is what would have happened, we could have explored his part a tad more-his past a little bit, why he is who he is. He shows signs of being an interesting character study two times before the end, but then instead of getting into that we get a person getting ripped in two, and then someones head blown off, respectively. Who gets cut in half and who gets their head blown off are questions that I will leave to you to find the answer to, but when and if you do you won't really care all that much. "The Hitcher" is more middle of January blues that just won't let go for another week. Hopefully this is all that is in wide release this week, and maybe the art house fare will treat me better. To the general movie audiences. . . sorry. . . .you're out of luck. . . maybe you could catch the wide release of "The Last King of Scotland" in theatre 2.

Primeval

Primeval *

"Primeval" is a complete failure while it tries to do the two things that it wants to be. It fails to be a good monster movie because the monster is only in it for about ten minutes, and then it fails to be a movie with a good political message because it has this stupid monster in it for ten of it's minutes. "Primeval" is the love child of what would have been if "Hotel Rwanda" and "Snakes on a Plane" mated, and it is a foul conception. We get a horror film that isn't even scary, taking itself way to seriously, and then trying to deliver some kind of message about the state of the world in Africa. And it has some truly laughable scenes, and lines of dialogue that'll make you bursting out in tears. . . especially if you paid ten dollars to hear it. This was supposed to come out in April or May, but then a few days before its release date it was pushed up to last weekend, but a studio(Hollywood Pictures) that before 2006 hadn't had a film come out in five years. It had barely any television ads, and features of cast of all unknowns(except perhaps Orlando Jones, but then again he is pretty unknown as well). I'm surprised that Hollywood Pictures didn't just cut their loses and burn all the existing prints. They might as well have.

"Primeval" boasts that it is about the biggest serial killer in the history of the world-but it's not a man, it's a. . . . . . killer crocodile! (Gasp!) And a group of people(guy, girl, black man who complains about the fact that he is the only black person in the crew, the usual crew) all band together to take a journey to Africa to catch this killer croc known as Gustave. The three people are Tim, an anchorman who screwed up on a story a few days earlier, Steven his cameraman, and newcomer Aviva who may or may not be sleeping with the boss in order to get this job. She better be if you knew where the job was. War torn Africa is their place of business, and the three of them meet up with Matthew, who claims that he has the necessary tools to capture the croc alive. However there is a problem, especially when Steven ends up capturing on film a slaughter of a shaman and his family by the Hutu rebels. The Hutu's find out that these deaths are on film, and make the American reporters their next targets. With the Americans trying to survive from the rebels, they also have to deal with this giant killer crocodile that will literally eat you in seconds, and doesn't even mind chasing you down a vast empty field. Even the Crocodile Hunter might not have made it out of this one, but he might have not even made it through this movie.

Sadly, the crocodile is hardly in the film, and when he is he looks like he was created off of a laptop computer. Even the normal crocs that were by the rivers looked to be the work of a CGI, and with an unknown production company backing this it becomes clear why. This is the problem with "Primeval." When you make a film about a killer monster, it is important to actually feature the monster for a certain portion of the film. Half of the time they were running away from the Hutu rebels, slowing everything down to the max, and when they even slammed a political message in your face I was completely shaking my head. The message was that the croc had a taste for human flesh with the civil war dumping millions of bodies in the rivers, and without the war things might be different. This is taking itself way to seriously for a little B monster movie that cost little to nothing to make, and will get little to nothing of that cost back.

The script is filled with those little one liners that think they are clever but don't come close, and there are enough jokes about Steven being the only black man that even a stereotype isn't the right word. Steven wears a jersey that says "Harlem" for half the movie, says that slavery was a good thing because it got people out of Africa, and complains when Aviva sings "Amazing Grace." He says, "Don't sing a negro spiritual in Africa." I guess that was supposed to be funny, but the other three people in the theatre didn't think so either. Some other classic lines were "The car can't be stuck, it's a goddamn Range Rover." I can say this is easily the worst Range Rover commercial that I have ever seen. "Primeval" shouldn't have been pushed up to January 12th, it should have been pushed up to a time way before that, and announced after its release so that nobody would have to sit through this painful film that has the audacity to call itself a monster movie. Maybe if it were a true B monster movie, bad special effects and all, I could have found some entertainment. I could have chuckled at the blood splattering on the cameras, but instead I just groaned. Instead it is splattered with unnecessary political commentaries, and a monster that comes in halfway through, leaves for thirty minutes, and then makes a short appearance at the end. And there is a lot that you could do with a killer crocodile. Hell, if you could make a whole movie about snakes on a plane, there is enough to do a croc in Africa.

Miss Potter

Miss Potter **1/2

Biopics are prime bait for the Oscars, and this is indeed the time of year where they reign supreme. Thankfully "Miss Potter" is one of the first biopics in recent memory that does not involve the films topic to be falling into the world of drugs and alchohol, although of the title character of this film did get involved it that world, it might have been a little more interesting. "Miss Potter" plays it very safe, and is a by the numbers story of Beatrix Potter, whose children books are one of the most popular in the world-something strange considering she was a single woman when she wrote them. Not only is it unthinkable for a woman to stay single in these times, but it is unthinkable for them to even bother doing something with their lives. And it isn't a complete waste-the acting is fine especially-but the film is almost too safe, too whimsical, and far too predictable to be considered good, let along be in the running for any awards. But then again, safe, whimsical and predictable are just about the only films often in the running anyway.

Renee Zellweger gives a good performance as Beatrix Potter, who has been drawing ever since she was a little girl. She would bring her little sketchpad to her father, who would remark kindly, but her mother did the exact opposite. Her mother is a natural born housewife who doesn't expect her daughter to do anything for herself, but only for her family. Beatrix doesn't even really have any friends except for the characters that she draws-little bunnies with blue jackets especially. Beatrix brings her book "The Tale of Peter Rabbit" for a series of publishers, until one finally accepts. They assign Norman Warne to supervise the book, simply because he is their brother who recently joined the company, and they figured they could dump this book on him. Little did they know how big it would end up. Norman has big visions for the book-wanting it to stand out on bookshelves. Beatrix just wants the book to be cheap, even though that is a concept that is unthinkable for the publishers. Eventually the book is released, and over one thousand copies are sold at the local bookshop, and Potter is suddenly a household name for children. Norman convinces her to write another book and then another book and then another book, all the more falling deeper and deeper in love with her. Beatrix reciprocates his feelings, and eventually they decide that they want to marry. His sister, Millie, is thrilled by the idea, but her parents are a different story. How dare Beatrix Potter marry a common tradesman, they exclaim. But Norman and Beatrix decide to defy the odds and marry, even with the obstacles that lay in front of them.

"Miss Potter" claims to be a biopic, but seems like every single other British film that takes place during this time period. It didn't even have to be about Beatrix Potter, and could have pretty much been any average woman. And the typical "rich woman marries a common man' story has been done to death. I don't know how much truth is here, because I didn't do any research before or after but it came to the point where I began to wonder if Beatrix Potter's life was anything more than tired old cliches. Renee Zellweger is very good here, and Ewen McGregor brings that likable charm that he brings to every other film he has ever been in. The film also has some pleasant animation, in the vein of a book that would have come out back in those times. Beatrix would be drawing and see her hand drawn characters come to life right in front of her.

A final problem with the film is that it doesn't lead up to anything at all. There is not a conflict really, and only a small portion of Beatrix Potter's life is covered to be a full life story. They pad the script with small flashbacks to her childhood, which lead to another cliche when a "surprise" comes to the end. And when the film fades out, and we have little text that tells us what happened to Potter next, I was surprised that that was where the film ended. And nothing really happens-Beatrix doesn't really change, and this becomes nothing more than an entertaining piece of fluff. Overall, the film is far too "cute" and "by the books" to be something more than just a mere something to do. Very much like "Arthur and the Invisibles," this was released for one week in 2006 by the Weinstein Company as a way to try and snatch a few acting nominations, but again they didn't need to bother. "Miss Potter" isn't an awards film, and it doesn't even come close. This is light entertainment, and its audience will find this film in a heartbeat.

Alpha Dog

Alpha Dog **1/2

When January comes rolling alone, I am sure that any film goer is grateful for a shred of an "ok" film. Something that is actually tolerable, and shows signs of effort. "Alpha Dog" is a film like that-not perfect, entertaining, and doesn't seem as if the studio released this at this time simply to dump it out. This is actually a decent film, but just about misses the mark of being something good. "Alpha Dog" is another film about a bunch of teenage dopeheads that do stupid things for stupid reasons-and those stupid reasons pretty much all involve drugs, arguments, and then battles over petty amounts of money. And while almost all of the characters end up being contrived plot devices as opposed to actual characters, there was a small bit of intensity, especially towards the end. It's hard to really recommend, but if you are through with the awards films and have nothing else to see this month, you certainly could do worse than this.

"Alpha Dog" tells the true story of Jesse James Hollywood. Hollywood was arrested recently after a five year stint on the FBI's Most Wanted list after he masterminded the kidnapping and eventual murder of a young boy because of a drug deal gone bad. Hollywood-whose name here is changed to Johnny Truelove-was indeed one of the biggest drug dealers in his little suburbia town. And he spends a lot of time with his two friends Frankie and Tiko. He also likes to boss around Elvis, who will pretty much do anything for Johnny. Truelove is the foundation of the group, and when they aren't out in the valley selling drugs, they are hanging out or partying in the house than Johnny bought with his drug money. At one of these parties, Johnny ends up angering the wrong person-drug dealer/skinhead Jake, who won't pay Johnny the money that he owes him. Jake tries to borrow money off of his father, but his stepmother refuses to take part. This little development leads to the unthinkable. Because of their feud, Jake ends up trashing Johnny's house, and even leaving a little care package on his rug. Johnny decides to get revenge, and the perfect chance comes during a drive in his van, where he sees Zack-Jake's stepbrother. Johnny grabs Zack and holds him hostage, but he has bigger problems to worry about when he remembers that it is his girlfriends birthday. He enlists in his friends to watch the kid, who seems somewhat grateful to be able to get away from his overbearing mother, and given the chance to just hang out for a while. Frankie takes the kid under his wing, and introduces him to some friends where Zack ends up having the night of his life. But Johnny begins to get worried, especially when he finds out that he could get life for taking the kid, and he decides that they might have to kill him.

There were some moments towards the end where I really couldn't figure out which direction the story was going, and a ten minute sequence in the valley where the climax takes place was very intense and keeps you watching. I didn't check my watch once during the whole thing, which is something special for a film this time of the year. However, there were numerous problems. The script was padded with more "f's" than the word "fluffy," and some of the party scenes got repetitious. I understand that this was what life was like for these kids, but I didn't need to see them party, get high, make lame joke, party, and then get high again. Most of the acting, especially the supporting cast, did not amount of anything more than a bunch of angry teenage kids spewing dirty words and doing drugs. Very standard characters. The main cast didn't do that bad of a job-even Justin Timberlake did what he was supposed to be fairly satisfactory. He's pretty much one of the only central characters here that end up showing a heart. Bruce Willis and Sharon Stone are probably doing some paycheck work here, but they do a decent job as well.

One of the biggest upsets that the film has is the ending, which weakens it greatly. During the climatic scene I actually was interested in the film, and it reached an odd intensity that I didn't think this film could reach. And then there is a mock interview a few years later with Sharon Stone's character, where she yells at the people that kidnapped her son. The film should have ended here, but writer/director Nick Cassavetes(whose previous film was "The Notebook"-go figure) decided to tell us what happened next to the characters. This might be alright in giving a little bit of closure, but we could probably figure out what happened to the characters because of the news and how this is a true story. To have ended on a more emotional level as opposed to a level of finality would have been much better, and during Stone's speech I was just praying to myself that the screen would go black, and the ending would have been more tearful and haunting. Even though the film starts off with Johnny's story, the film is really about Zack, and to have ended it about him would have been far more effective. If you see this film in theatres, I suggest leaving after the mock interview. It is even safe to say that the ending knocks the film from a three rating to the current two and a half. It was that tacked on and unneeded.

"Alpha Dog" is a decent film, which is more than I ask for this time of year. It has, for the most part, contrived characters and a script that could have been cleaned up a bit, but it does have moments that are effective, with some decent lead acting aside from the lame supporting bits. This may not be the memorable movie event of the year, and in a few months it probably won't be on any Best Of lists, but it is rather enjoyable. It isn't good, but it certainly isn't dull.

Arthur and the Invisibles

Arthur and the Invisibles **

There's no doubt that "Arthur and the Invisibles" is a cute and entertaining little children's flick, but it doesn't exactly have the push to make it memorable. I saw this film today, and I don't have much recollection of it all, and there are even a few plot devices that I don't remember either. And although it did have some moments of pure entertainment, I just can't see it being honored in a few years as a great animated film. I bet once February and March rolls along, it'll be out of the minds of kids everywhere. The Weinstein Company gave this a special one week only run during the last week of December in LA for an Oscar consideration run, but they didn't need to bother(ironically they didn't really need to bother, because just last week this was ruled ineligible for Oscar running. It didn't have enough animation to be put in the category). Director Luc Besson is a very well known French director who often likes to explore various different genres. Taking a look at his previous films-including "The Fifth Element," and "Leon"-it may be a bit of a shock to see that this was his next project. Shocker! An innocent children's flick. Well. . . maybe not that innocent.

"Arthur and the Invisibles" is told with two stories. It starts off live action, introducing us to ten year old Arthur. Today is Arthur's birthday, and he spends the morning sifting through old books that his grandfather had-including blue prints of his inventions. Arthur lives with his grandmother, as his parents live in the city in a quest to find better jobs. Arthur gets the bad news that his parents won't be able to see him on his tenth birthday, and to make matters worse he learns that a man is taking his grandmother's house unless of course his grandfather-Archibald-could sign a paper and pay a certain amount of money. And the man is coming in two days to take the house. It seems like an easy fix-all they have to do is get his grandfather to come and sign a simple document. But it is much more difficult than that, as Arthur's grandfather has been missing for years in a jungle looking for a pile of rubies. Arthur knows that the rubies are in his backyard somewhere, and he follows a list of instructions in his grandfather's room that tell him how to get to the Land of the Minimoys(which enters us into the animated section)-a group of tiny little elf like creatures that live in the garden. Arthur ends up shrinking to their size, and is told that he must finish the mission that his grandfather started years ago. The mission to the help the Minimoys against the evil M. . . . and the rest of his name is too horrible to fully say(now does that sound like something familiar?) Arthur heads off with the beautiful princess Selenia, who is turning one thousand in a few days, and the adorable little Betamache, the two hundred and ninety nine year old boy who is almost a grownup, to stop the evil M and restore peace to the land of the Minimoys-as well as find the stack of rubies to help his grandmother buy off the contractors.

Oddly enough, there were a few things that I couldn't exactly follow in the storyline, which is strange because it's a children's movie. Besson seems to leave out some things, and he cuts a lot of scenes short before there could be some decent development. I didn't exactly get the full story of the rubies, and then I got lost a little more when the evil M was explaining what made him so evil. My interest was fading from time to time. The animation is amusing to look at, but it is uninspired, and looks like every single so-so animated film has looked for the past few years. I was hoping that the Land of the Minimoys would look a little more incredible-I was even hoping to look in the background for some small detail/visual puns. But considering that Besson too the opportunity to create his own world with its own history, background, etc, I'll give him a little bit of credit. It is probably more difficult making a film about a bunch of creatures that don't exist, as opposed to giving a bunch of robots their own city. The animated Arthur counterpart looks nothing like the live action one, and they didn't even look like they were trying. Arthur is complete with a few inches more and sleek white hair that sticks out in all directions. And the Princess character looked a little too sexually suggestive for a movie like this-complete with a rather large bust and a pair of jeans that are far too tight. I wonder if that's just the French portions of the film shining through. . .

The voice casting is a little questionable, and I have the feeling that the studio didn't trust the film enough which made them get the urge to get people like Robert De Niro to splash over the advertisements. The two best talents were not De Niro, as the King, or Harvey Keitel, but they ended up being David Bowie and Jimmy Fallon. Bowie I knew played the bad guy, and it played it to perfection. The evil M was a slimey little creature, and Bowie's prim and proper English accent made it the perfect mesh of sinister and imaginative. And oddly enough, Jimmy Fallon was the perfect choice for Beta, my personal favorite character. I bet Beta would be classified by many as the annoying sidekick who gets in the way, but he was adorable and his constant smiling puts a smile on my face as of this writing-Fallon did it well, and I didn't even realize that it was him until about halfway. There is one thing that confuses me a bit. Fallon and De Niro and Bowie were all overdubbing the original French version, which gets me to wonder how the original film in France played the live action scenes. I'm sure that Freddie Highmore and Mia Farrow don't speak fluent French, and none of their lines seems overdubbed, so I can't place my finger on how they managed this. It's easy to change the language on an animated character, but somewhat more on a live action one. I guess I'd need to see some kind of making of special.

"Arthur and the Invisibles" does have a few moments, and it keeps your interest, but it is another entry into the animated film dud festival. There is nothing very memorable about it at all, and it being ineligible for the Oscar will probably make about zero difference. I suppose the kids will enjoy it, even though it is a bit confusing, but some of the animated adventures are amusing, and you really could probably do worse. This is the first new film I saw in 2007, and I hope that it isn't a sign of things to come.

The Top 10 Best(and Worst) Films of 2006

The Top 10 Best(and Worst) Films of 2006

Alright all. It's the moment that we've all been waiting for, as I finally announce the best and the worst of 2006. It was a rather difficult decision, and quite a number of things had to get sacrificed. 2006 was a fine year for film, and it shows in the way that my list ends up showcasing and honoring films from all throughout the year instead of just the last few weeks-although there are plenty of last minute additions that ended up ruining my first draft that I made before Christmas. Before I get into the best, I'll (dis)honor some of 2006's more weaker efforts-the bottom of the barrel, and the complete trash.

The Worst Films of 2006

1. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning
2. Little Man
3. The Return
4. The Oh in Ohio
5. Bobby
6. The Grudge 2
7. Date Movie
8. Big Momma's House 2
9. Fast Food Nation
10. Running with Scissors

The Best Films of 2006

10. Stranger Than Fiction-Directed by Marc Forester

It may have seemed to come and gone, but "Stranger Than Fiction" is one of the more original and delightful films to come out this year. Will Ferrell was pretty much perfect in his second low-key role of the role(the first being the mediocre "Winter Passing) and he's as good at not being an idiot as he is being one. "Stranger Than Fiction" takes a premise that could have easily been screwed up in the hands of a less filmmaker, and it also has a premise that could have been taken advantage of through comedy alone. A character in a book is real, but can still hear the voice of the writer narrating his entire life, in a nutshell. The script takes a very dark turn, though, and focuses on comedy throughout the beginning, and then posing some interesting questions about art, literature, and their place in society. This is a film that may not seem to be, but is, worthy of much conversation afterwards, and should at least be honored at the Oscars for an Original Screenplay nomination. This comedy strangely moved me towards the ending, and I feel that this is the perfect place to start my list. This is also the first time I ever put a movie on my list that rated a ***1/2, but I still wanted to honor it for sure.

9. The Death of Mr. Lazarescu-Directed by Cristi Puiu

Now this is the one that I expect will have some people scratching their heads. What is this? "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu" was an under seen little Romanian film from April, charting the final day of the title character-a man in his sixties or seventies who is sent from hospital to hospital on a night where he is not feeling well at all. No doctor will treat him, and they don't find him important enough to operate on. As Lazarescu falls slowly into oblivion, the only person that bothers to help him is his nurse, who does what she can to get him the proper medical care he needs. "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu" is a dark dark dark dark comedy, and also a commentary on the medical care system in Romania-and it seems like one hell of a horror story. At a two hour and sixty minute run time, and a pace as slow as a turtle, this is a film for the patient, but a very rewarding one. You care for Lazarescu by the end of the film, and what may or may not be the end of his life. After seeing this earlier in the year I envisioned this as something that should be showered with awards, but instead it's showered with the sounds of crickets whenever I mention it. It's on DVD right now, and I suggest you scope it out somehow.

8.A Prairie Home Companion-Directed by Robert Altman

Little did we know last June that "A Prairie Home Companion," a joyous and uplifting film all about death, would in fact be Robert Altman's swan song. After seeing this last June I said it was the best film of the year at the time(and then I saw 7 more that were better). I was glad that Altman returned to the portions of his films that made him famous-giant ensemble casts, overlapping dialogues, musical performance's. In a way I enjoyed this a little better than "Nashville," only because the music here never grew tedious. I enjoyed every single performance, and it added that Garrision Keiller is a great host. By the end, I had tears in my eyes-I was so happy to be watching it and I didn't want it to end. Not only is this a celebration of life and death, but also the career of Robert Altman. A great film and a fitting end to a very long and filling career.

7.The Last King of Scotland-Directed by Kevin MacDonald

Go home DiCaprio(although I'll talk about you a little later). Try again Peter O'Toole(although you were wonderful in Venus). This year, as far as actors are concerned, it's all about Forest Whitaker, who played the frightening and yet charming Idi Amin in "The Last King of Scotland." Amin seduced a nation into thinking that he would bring back Uganda to its people with his wit and charming good nature. And then in the end, his paranoia and insane way of thinking led to the murder of hundreds and thousands of people. Told through the main character of his physician, Nicolas Garrigan, "The Last King of Scotland" begins as if it were a light hearted comedy/drama-there's even a little romance thrown in, but it soon turns into one of the most intense and dramatic stories of the year. It's difficult to watch at times, but has such a power that just sucks you in. If Whitaker looses the coveted statue this year, then it is a sin. And Paul Giamatti knows exactly what I'm talking about.

6.Pan's Labyrinth-Directed by Guillermo del Toro

The last film I saw in 2006, "Pan's Labyrinth" is a fantasy masterpiece. "Pan's Labyrinth' is a modern day fairy tale, and between this and Terry Gilliam's brilliant "Tideland," this is the victor story of innocence. "Pan's Labyrinth" is a dark dark fairy tale, one of the darkest films I've seen, about a young girl who is brought into a fantasy world where a faun gives her three tasks to see if she is the ancient princess of this fantasy world. At the same time, she is under the rule of her stepfather, the one of the cruelest men in any film this year or any, who kills people and then asks questions. This is visual masterpiece, and is good old fashioned great storytelling. Not for the faint of heart, but if you refuse to see this on the big screen then you are depriving yourself of one of the most rewarding fantasy films ever.

5.The Departed-Directed by Martin Scorsese

Extremely entertaining, paced like no other film this year, and powerhouse performances make "The Departed" thrilling. But to be honest, I'm not obsessed with this like others were. I can't exactly put it on the ballot for Best Picture of year, but if Scorsese does win Best Director, I'll be glad to see that he gets it for something well worth it-giving it to him for "Gangs of New York" or "The Aviator" would have been a waste compared to "Goodfellas," "Taxi Driver," or "Raging Bull." Leo DiCaprio was very good here, which is a surprise considering he's not my favorite actor in the world, and Jack Nicholson is obviously having a ball and turning in a great performance, which makes it win-win.

4.Babel-Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

The third in the trilogy by Inarritu connecting various characters to one seemingly innocent situation. In this case he observes how a gunshot in Morroco could affect people as far as Japan. While the story in Japan may not be the perfect fit to the situation, and how it connects is fairly silly and not as fitting as it could be, the entire film is emotional brilliant. Brad Pitt gets to show a wide range of emotions here, and the beautiful beautiful beautiful Cate Blanchett, even though she spends most of the film moaning on the ground, was great in the first in a grand trilogy of performances. This film hooked me in from the very first shot, and is one of the few times where handheld camera work is actually effective. And even if you don't like the film, I can't understand anybody who is not affected by the story of the nanny of the two kids she is trying to guard. The best of the four, by far!

3. Little Miss Sunshine-Directed by Jonathan Dayton/Valerie Faris

Thanks to a booking at the theatre I work at, I was able to see "Little Miss Sunshine" eight times(a personal best), only paying to see it twice, and each time was as rewarding as the next. This is a perfect film about winning, loosing, and how those are not the only two things in this world-as we follow the Hoover family on their quest to the title beauty pageant in their broken down VW bus. It's funny, endearing, powerful, and a constant joy to watch. The final scenes will leave even the coldest heart smiling, and the very last shot never fails to brighten up my day-even just thinking about it. There is also fine fine acting from every single member involved, especially Alan Arkin(who reminds me of my dad almost every day) and Abagnail Breslin, who is a perfect balance between very mature and yet carrying the innocence of a child.

2.Children of Men-Directed by Alfonso Cuaron

Remember those last minute additions I mentioned in the introduction. Well, "Children of Men" is one of them. This was an intense, bleak, dark look into the near future, only twenty years from now, where woman are infertile, and the human race is slowly killing each other. Clive Owen becomes involved with an organization trying to save a girl who is actually pregnant, and could be the miracle the world needs. Cuaron's direction is flawless, and he sometimes does one take scenes that last for minutes at a time-but mammoth one shots-with explosions, and chases, and gunfights. Some of it was incredible to watch, and it's film making at its finest. By the first twenty minutes your already sucked into this destroyed world of England, and you even may shed a few tears this early on. "Children of Men" will likely be ignored, but if you want to see some of the finest directing/visual work this year, I recommend seeing this on the big screen. This film grabbed me right from the first second.

1.Little Children-Directed by Todd Field

I believe that Kate Winslet is the most beautiful actress around right now, and it also helps that she is extremely talented. Here in "Little Children" she is able to show a number of different emotions-from excited, to vulnerable, to passionate, to fearing for the life of her and what matters most to her-something that Helen Mirran couldn't do in "The Queen." I think Winslet should finally win the Oscar. That being said, the rest of "Little Children" is incredible too-another dark look into the world of suburbia. Every single main character in this film is an adult, but their actions are so childlike that they are worse than their children that play in the community pool and sandbox everyday. And during some of their most vulnerable moments, the sound of train whistles are heard in the background, as if trying to entice them to get away from this life. The last twenty minutes are some of the most frightening minutes I've spent in a movie theater, as I approached the edge of my seat, wanting the film to end to see what happens, but at the same time never wanting the experience to finish. And what happened to all the acclaim for Jackie Earle Haley. They were saying he could get a supporting acting nod, and I never heard of that again. He sure does deserve it.

There are no characters to really root for here. They all do their good and their bad. Even Ronald, the sex offender, shows signs of being human, but he completely erases it with some of the acts that he does. But he is trying. Over the last few years I have come into the practice of observing characters instead of always trying to relate to them, or finding too much to hate. Some of my favorite characters in the last few years of film are those that do some of the most wretched things. Things that you don’t think you can forgive them for. Well, maybe they don’t want you too. "Little Children" is about looking for a life better than the one you have, but at the same time it is about keeping and accepting the life that was given to you. To ignore the various train whistles that call out to us in the midst of a crisis. To try and make life work without succumbing to the temptation of the first thing that falls in your lap, and most of all to abide by the rules of life, which never seem to change from being a kid. Instead, they just get a little more mature, but the meaning never ceases.

Here's to 2007. . .