Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End **1/2

Directed by Gore Verbinski
Written by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, based on characters created by Elliot, Rossio, Stuart Beattie and Jay Wolpert

Starring:
Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow
Geoffrey Rush as Captain Barbossa
Orlando Bloom as Will Turner
Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Swann
Tom Hollander as Lord Cutler Beckett
Bill Nighy as Davy Jones
Chow Yun-Fat as Captain Sao Feng
Naomie Harris as Tia Dalma
Jack Davenport as Captain Norrington
Keith Richards as Captain Teague
Jonathan Pryce as Governor Weatherby Swann
Lee Arenberg as Pintel
Mackenzie Crook as Ragetti
Kevin McNally as Gibbs
Stellan Skarsgård as 'Bootstrap' Bill Turner

168 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action/adventure violence and some frightening images. )
------------------------------------------
The "Pirates" films have been surprising and impressing me for the last few years. When I first saw the marketing and advertisements for the first one back in 2003, I was not prepared for the amount of fun that I had with it. I expected maybe an amusing little action summer film, but I was not ready for biting humor that was tacked on, as well as the delightfully amusing performance from Johnny Depp, which he was nominated for. And then there was the sequel which ended up being just as good, if not even slightly better, than the first, and also including an extreme surprise ending which made me want this summer to come along to see how the saga is completed. And I must saw that while I did enjoy this next, and reported, last film in the series, I was underwhelmed by about half of it, which while I tried to listen to make sense of what was happening, continued to loose my interest just a little bit.

Last time, Captain Jack Sparrow was swallowed whole by a creature named The Kraken, and sent to Davy Jones' locker where he is supposed to spend eternity. But his companions have their own desires and wish to get him back. First there is Will Turner, who wishes to free his father's soul from the squid-like Davy Jones, but needs Jack to do so. And then there is his beloved Elizabeth Swan, who ended up being the one killing Jack and feels guilty about it. And then there is their captain, the newly resurrected Captain Barbossa, who needs Jack to complete the circle of Pirate Lords because they need to have a big meeting. The British runned East India Trading Company is planning on getting rid of all the pirates in the world, and their leader, the evil Lord Cutler Beckett will stop at nothing. Beckett stole the heart of Davy Jones to have control of the seas and get that crew on his side, and now he has his eyes on the Asian pirates, led by Captain Sao Feng. As the pirate lords all begin to settle down for their meeting, Beckett and Jones follow suit, which Jones trying to get back his heart and control himself again, and Beckett slaughtering anybody related to a pirate in cold blood.

Alright, first the problems. The third film does not offer any real fun entertainment, and the entire film is extremely soaked with depressing violence and heavy action scenes. Gone are the loads of fun that you had with giant wheels, swordplay, and natives chasing Jack Sparrow. From the very first minute, when at least thirty people are hung including a little boy, you just realize that this film will not be as entertaining as the other. The screenplay becomes extremely complicated, and for the youngins' it would be very hard to follow. I had a little bit of difficulty even, and I'm much older than the target age range. The politics are too strong here-there are the politics of the British, and then the politics of the pirates. This just didn't have the same feel to it as the others, and came across as far too heavy to be enjoyed. The first action scene which takes place in Singapore is just too heavy and gritty and dark, which is the opposite of why I love the original films in the first place. They had a dark look, but the action that was on screen was fun and exciting. Here I grimaced and was surprised with how much they got away with. In the first twenty minutes alone you see a woman get a bullet right in the forehead, and a man who is freezing cold snapping off his big toe. Even the music score by Hans Zimmer has taken a strange turn, and gone is that recognizable "Pirates" theme music that you notice begins every credit sequence, and is replaced with something different.

The first two hours or so of this massive film (which should not have people complaining at the length considering it's a mere fifteen minutes longer than the last one), is somewhat talky and even a little dull, especially if you are new to the pirate world. To get some of the in-jokes it is imperative to have seen the first two films (especially a running joke involving sea turtles which is so subtle in the first film that, even though it made an appearance in the second and this one, nobody seems to really ever mention.) Also ,in order to even really understand the story you have either had to have seen the second, or at least had an extremely comprehensive summary of it. This film does not work on its own at all. The first two hours were somewhat enjoyable, but most of it I did not really like. I had serious problems with the scenes in Singapore, and the character played by Chow Yun-Fat who annoyed me and I found somewhat useless. I wish that the entire council with the Pirate Lords was cut out and replaced with something else even. There are some good scenes in the first two hours-my personal favorite being Jack Sparrow's time in Davy Jones' locker which includes him talking to a whole bunch of Jack's-but the real meat doesn't come until the last forty five minutes-the climatic action sequence of the series. And while it may not be as fun as some other action sequences from the first two, the special effects are mind blowing and even more impressive than those from this year's "Spider-Man 3." And the ending was perfect-not copping out for the standard Disney ending-major characters are killed, there is a somewhat dark tone for the ending even though it seems happy. It was an interesting approach. And certainly stay after the credits for the real happy ending to surface. While they did leave it open in some ways for a fourth film if they wanted, I really do think that this is the best way to end it. There is vengeance, but there is also punishment and I admire how they did not cop out and have everything alright in the end.

The acting has not taken a turn for the worse, though, and its probably gotten even better. I may not be Johnny Depp's biggest fan, but I will admit that he's made a fantastic character out of Jack Sparrow. Orlando Bloom has gotten better as Will, even though he is strangely absent from much of this one as had Keira Knightly who seems to have taken over as the dominant hero. And I was so happy to see Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbossa return for ten seconds are the very end of "Pirates 2," that I was glad that excitement was not in vain, as Rush manages to steal several of the scenes he is in. Bill Nighy is just the dastardly villain as he was in the second film, and you even get to see his actual face that is not covered in the squid tentacles, and the secondary characters of Jack's crew is always worth a laugh.

I mostly admire the "Pirates" films for its incredibly cross of action and humor, and while this does have its comic moments it does not mesh well with the gritty action sequences that are here. The tone has taken a drastic shift that I just could not adjust to. I was satisfied with the ending, and while it is a difficult journey to get to the last hour, it does leave a strange hunger for another. I could hope to see another adventure with these characters as long as they shift back to the older formula. I wanted to have much more fun than I actually did with "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End," even if it does wrap up the story extremely well. The entire trilogy (which clocks in at just about eight hours) is well worth a watch, even though it conclusion is a bit messy and underwhelming.

Golden Door

Golden Door ***

Directed by Emanuele Crialese
Written by Emanuele Crialese

Starring:
Charlotte Gainsbourg as Lucy Reed
Vincenzo Amato as Salvatore Mancuso
Aurora Quattrocchi as Fortunato Mancuso
Francesco Casisa as Angelo Mancuso
Filippo Pucillo as Pietro Mancuso
Frederica De Cola as Rita D'Agostini
Isabella Ragonese as Rosa Napolitano
Vincent Schiavello as Don Luigi

120 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for brief graphic nudity.)

Note-Even though this is rated PG-13, I am quite surprised at the lenient nature of the MPAA in this situation. First of all this is an art films which is usually a prime target. And the content that they describe at Brief Graphic Nudity is artistic-I had no problem with it-but it is full frontal nudity for both male and females. I am somewhat happy that they did not limit the audience to this very well done film, as it should be seen.
-----------------------------------
"Golden Door" is more like an experience than a movie. I did not really know what it is was about when I went into the theatre, and for a 10:oopm showing I was unusually enthralled and completely involved in what was going on. But while watching this I actually felt like an Italian immigrant going through the motions of being a United States resident. And I enjoyed the little dialogue, the constant observation, the little background, and most of all the lack of any scenes showing the assimilation of the main characters into American society. This is a film about coming to America and not living in America, and at that "Golden Door" remains true.

"Golden Door" begins in Italy where we meet the Mancuso family, who are preparing to go off to America. At this point I did not follow what was happening. Perhaps I needed a little more to base off of or a little bit of background knowledge of the story. The family is a farmer's family, and a very poor one at that. But they manage to get on the boat on the way to America. On the boat they come into contact with Lucy Reed, an Englishwoman whose hopeful fiancee never showed up and now she needs a man to marry to get her into America. While the whole Mancuso family is intrigued by Lucy, it is the patriarch Salvatore who really wants her for himself, and when she asks to marry him to get into America he is pleased. Eventually the boat makes it to the United States offices where the second half begins, and the Italians and Lucy learn that it may be more difficult to get into the States than they imagined.

The marriage element is important to order to get a completely well rounded journey of what it was like to come into America. Marriage was another element involved for the immigrants, and by focusing the story on that in the second half really does give us a view at the many different obstacles these people went through. There is more physical work and shots of silence throughout the film, but I am sure this just highlights the experience as I can't imagine the immigrants acting jovial and excited-mostly fear or nervousness. I was expecting more of Charlotte Gainsbourg, a beautiful young French actress from "Science of Sleep" and "Lemming", although it is clear that the true heart of the film is from Vincenzo Amato's Salvatore. His final speech at the end about the place that the US officials have over the future of the Italians is perfectly delivered, even though the final shot of the immigrants in metaphorical water of rebirth is not. The finale is a bit misplaced, and if you really want to walk away with a powerful spell from the film just walk away right after the speech I mention above. Afterwards I had a newfound appreciate for the Italian immigrants, and if I date back a little bit I have family that probably went through similar situations. "Golden Door" is effective because it really does take us step by step into the process, and while it may not be entertaining enough for a lot of people to follow, it certainly is without a doubt extremely interesting to sit through.

And one a side note, I really do have to mention Vincent Schiavello, who passed away about two years ago. With only a small role in "Golden Door" it is just amazing how many films he has done. In his career he had almost 200 parts, and the fact that it is two years after his death and I have still seeing him in films just goes to show that he never did stop. And he is quite a talent that never really did get off the launch pad, but had his own little fan base regardless.

Angel-A

Angel-A ***1/2

Directed by Luc Besson
Written by Luc Besson

Starring:
Jamel Debbouze as Andre
Rie Rasmussen as Angel-A
Gilbert Melki as Franck
Serge Riaboukine as Pedro

88 Minutes(Rated R for language and some sexual content. )
----------------------------------
"Angel-A" is somewhat like the French and non-musical version of "Once," except maybe with a little bit more emotion and a sort of a cop-out ending. "Angel-A" leaves very little to interpret at the end, even though everything that happens before it is so wonderful and entertaining and enjoyable that you could forgive it. Somewhat like a French 2007 version of "It's a Wonderful Life," "Angel-A" also tells its story in black and white, capturing a special beauty as well as ugliness in the city of Paris-starting in the more seedy districts and than slowly getting grander and grander until towards the end there are images of the Eiffel Tower in all it's night time glory. I have not seen many films by director Luc Besson, but I can see the wide range of films that he tackles. I have always heard a lot about his big action films with guns and car chases, but with his imaginative, and ruined by America, animated film "Arthur and the Invisibles" and now this low-key romance film he clearly has talent with all genres.

"Angel-A" stars the very talented and very funny French actor Jamel Debbouze as Andre, a down on his luck, nice Parisian who owes a lot of big people a lot of cash. In debt to his ankles Andre only has a few hours left to come up with the money, and decides to throw himself off a bridge right before asking God for help. And then he sees another woman next to him who wants to end her life, and as she jumps in Andre jumps in after her. Andre saves her life, learns that her name is Angela, and that she is a stunning six foot something tall woman that is huge compared to his tiny height. Andre convinces her to not kill herself, and she decides to be in debt to him and do whatever he asks. She takes it upon herself to help him with his debt and takes him to a club where she takes numerous men into the bathroom stall and has sex with them for one thousand dollars a pop. Andre feels horrible about this and tries to get her to stop even though she refuses. And then he learns something about her-that she is an angel, brought to Earth to help him with his problems, and to help him like himself a little bit more.

There is not much of a story in "Angel-A" even though you could say its about the two of them trying to save Andre from his debtors. But this is really about Andre, poor Andre-a good man that just got involved with the wrong people. And for a while it is a love story, and a convincing one at that, with two people that are somewhat doomed from the start. Or are they? Both Jamel Debbouze and Rie Rasmussen (who is absolutely stunning) work so well together that it is impossible to resist the two of them, and after the film is over I was wishing there was more to watch them work together again. They have this somewhat love story happening between them, but also a kind of buddy comedy with their back and forth banter. Both seem to be involved in their conversations together, but at times both seem in their own worlds. And then there are moments where they are connected to the point that there is nobody else in the world. Besson's script works so well, and he writes dialogue with such immense talent. One scene that especially moved me to the point where I had minor tears in my eyes took place in a bathroom where Angela and Andre are looking at him in a mirror, and Angela tries to get him to tell himself that he loves him. The scene is the highlight of the film, with both actors topping each other with every line, that when Rie Rasmussen makes herself invisible you are thankful to finally be given a proper focal point. It's very well written too.

There is the comparison to "It's a Wonderful Life" even though there is not much background. This is quick and quiet film, paced like a gazelle, going through each scene quickly but allowing them all to be rich as well. We do not know much about Andre's past, except for what Angela assumes and except for a brief narration at the start. But we know that he is in debt, and that he clearly has had a past for him to get that much in debt. Even though this does not layer the character it makes it more likable, because aside from some jail time we do not know what led him down this path. The lack of detail does add richness and likeness to Andre, who could have been a horrible con man all his life. "Angel-A" is a great film until the final five minutes or so, where the film just kind of ends. It was not that I wasn't satisfied with how it turned out, but just the way it did. Besson seemed to not know how to end his script so he just stopped writing. Had the ending been tweaked a bit, "Angel-A" might have been on my favorites of the year, but instead it just became one of the funnest, enjoyable, and entertaining ones. I implore you to hunt this one, because it is a true winner, and an added shame that Luc Besson has stopped directing aside from two sequels to the Arthur films-and with the bomb of "Arthur and the Invisibles" in the United States, who knows if I will ever see them.

Paprika

Paprika **1/2

Directed by Satoshi Kon
Written by Seishi Minakami based on the novel by Yasutaka Tsutsui

With the voices of:
Megumi Hayashibara as Paprika/Chiba Atsuko
Tôru Furuya as Tokita Kohsaku
Kôichi Yamadera as Osanai Morio
Katsunosuke Hori as Shima Tora-taroh
Toru Emori as Inui Sei-jiroh
Akio Ôtsuka as Detective Kogawa Toshimi

90 Minutes(Rated R for violent and sexual images. )
--------------------------------------
"Paprika" is just one of those little films that I just cannot put my finger on, and even though I feel really lousy about it I have to give it a rating just below the level of recommendation. I do like the film, but there is a certain level of understanding (mostly lack thereof) that made it impossible to fully enjoy the film, despite the mind blowing animation. "Paprika" still proves that Japanese animators seem to care more about trying new things than the American ones. Even the lamer efforts (like the Tribeca choice "Brave Story") offer something new that I have never seen before. And this is no exception, and may be one of the visually satisfying films I have ever seen. And while the story does reach a high level of originality, I just could not understand what was going on, to the point where I did not want to embrace the visuals only. I wanted to have a key understanding to this complex world these character inhabited, and I wanted to understand every single thing that happened to them.

What I DID understand from "Paprika" is the general plot outline. I knew that there is a machine that was built for shrinks to be able to visit the actual dreams of their patients. And one thing that is common in all of the dreams, especially in the dreams of Detective Kogawa Toshimi, is the image of Paprika, who is the shrink Chiba Atsuko studying every body's dreams. The machine is stolen, however, by a mysterious figure that is present in every ones dreams. The figure begins to destroy the consciousness of people resulting in their deaths. And Dr. Chiba, or Paprika, decides that she has to get it back, especially when every ones dreams begin to mesh into reality unleashing hell everywhere.

My problem with "Paprika" was that it actually tried to have a groundbreaking story as well as amazing visuals. This was not made for the visuals, and should not only be seen for the visuals because there is a really complex little tale going on, which distracts you from only seeing this as eye candy. And there were moments where I just could not accept not knowing what was going on, and this distanced me from the enjoyment. I have accepted similar things in the past but this time I just could not. That being said, the visual candy presented here is an absolute amazement to watch, and that alone makes it somewhat mandatory to see on the big screen. There is such a use of vivid color and amazing detail. There is always something to look at, and it is always unique and original. I have come to expect a high level of expectancy from all anime films, and the fact that this is getting a release from such a high profile art film company is a clear indicator that it is well worth looking for.

And with that I feel ashamed giving "Paprika" the rating I did. I know at heart that I did view something extraordinary and unique and special, and yet I just cannot ever bring myself to watching it again. I do not want to imagine what this is like on a small screen, first of all, and second of all there certainly needed to be a but less complex, as opposed to just throwing a bunch of crazy images on the screen like a dancing kitchen appliance or really large men in a robot costume. I did not understand it, but I really wanted to, which makes "Paprika" a complete mystery. I can't see myself watching it again, but it definitely is something special and unique. So I give it a two and a half with a little bit of nudge because there is no real reason why, especially if your a fan of the strange and bizarre, for you not to see it.

Bug

Bug ***

Directed by William Friedkin
Written by Tracy Letts, based on his stage play.

Starring:
Ashley Judd as Agnes White
Michael Shannon as Peter Evans
Lynn Collins as R.C.
Brian F. O'Bryne as Dr. Sweet
Harry Connick Jr. as Jerry Goss

102 Minutes(Rated R for some strong violence, sexuality, nudity, language and drug use. )
-----------------------------------
If my memory serves well, it recalls that "Bug" was originally slated for release last December, and it was due to receive a limited release. The poster did not look like the creepy horror movie above, and it was low key. It did not splash Ashley Judd's face, and it just had someones torso with the word "Bug" written on their stomach. And then it was removed from the release list, and given a wide release a few months later where the marketing for it seemed to have changed. Now it's a horror movie-with comparisons to "The Exorcist" because of its connection with William Friedkin. But its clear about forty five minutes into "Bug" that it is not a horror movie, but a story about characters, relationships, past and future, and creepy bugs that are really just inside of the head. There are some disturbing images, but no jump scenes or classic horror movie moments. It's a surprisingly artistic film for a wide release, and its roots in theatre are apparent in every scene.

"Bug" takes place about 95 percent inside of a seedy hotel room, which is the home to Agnes White. The phone is always ringing, and instead of somebody answering there is just heavy breathing. Agnes believes it is one of her ex-boyfriends, who has just got out of prison. She lives in fear, but continues her life including her work at a populated lesbian bar, where she is friends with one of the other waitress' and fellow lesbians-R.C. R.C. introduces her to Peter Evans, a mentally disturbed and quiet young man that ends up spending the night on Agnes' couch. The next night he is still there and ends up bedding her, and her vulnerable state of mind begins to develop strong feelings for Peter. She buys into his insane theory-that the room is completely populated by bugs. Bugs that bite, even though people like R.C. claim that the wounds on his stomach are self-inflicted because he THINKS there are bugs. And then the important people enter-it seems that Peter is a Vietnam vet whose mind went insane and needs to be in a clinic. But Agnes will pay no attention and believes that everybody wants to take Peter away from her-just when she has nothing. She covers the room in a foil to block any computer signals from getting through, and she ends up giving in to the power of the "bugs."

I will admit that "Bug" was not what I expected, and I blame this on the poor marketing. The reason why no audience will find 'Bug" to be good is because it isn't what they expect. It is being marketed as one of the "scariest and disturbing horror films ever," when it is really a low-key, stage psychological thriller. This is a film about characters, and not scares, which many people will not understand (even though everybody is probably out watching the new "Pirates of the Caribbean.") The acting is all extremely well done, especially Ashley Judd whose transformation from this strong independent woman into this disturbed and insane individual may not be one hundred percent believable in relevance to the screenplay, but is acted to perfection. Michael Shannon's transformation is believable, and this is a man that drifts from quiet and soft-spoken to disturbed and outspoken and Shannon does it with such flow that you always remember that it is the same character. His constant tics and twitches remain rather consistent, and he actually acts as if there are bugs crawling everywhere even when we (the audience) is highly aware that there is not. The other three players do not do enough to be very memorable, and Harry Connick Jr. is somewhat not needed as Judd's ex. But the dialogue between the two leads is well written, their chemistry together seems natural, and all in all they work well together. Some were complaining that they could not understand why Judd's character would fall in love with such a madman, but she is very vulnerable and her life is in shambles to the point where just a little but of comfort is enough for her to go off the deep end.

I am interested in seeing this as a stage play, and even though I knew that it was based on a play there is a very good transition. This has the look and feel of a play, even to the point where I felt like the setting was an actual character of its own. The weakest scenes are when they drift away, like an early scene in the lesbian bar. I could have probably lived without her friend R.C's character, even though Lynn Collins is not bad to look at (see "Numb" hopefully one day for more examples of this.) Seeing how the environment suffers and transforms as a result of the characters transformation leads to an interesting parallel and discussion on the effect environment has on people, and the final moments only highlight this more. The cinematography during the "foiled" hotel room scenes is stunningly creepy to watch. All in all this is an interesting film more than a scary one. Fans of gore will only be resorted to one scene involving teeth they may find interesting, but anybody looking for an intelligent horror film need to look no further. "Bug" accomplishes just that, and its great to see that it finally is released.

Georgia Rule, Once, The Boss Of It All

Georgia Rule *1/2
Directed by Garry Marshall
113 Minutes
Rated R for Language and Sexual Content

"Georgia Rule" might have been a good movie while it was in development stages over at Universal. At its core it seems like something that would be more suitable for Focus Features or Fox Searchlight as this is really a dark family drama that somehow was made into a light and fluffy little comedy/drama. In one two hour period I was subjected to somebody suggesting oral sex, incest, binge drinking, and references to strong drug use in the past, all involving a teenager. And yet somehow this slipped by as something that three generations of women could go and see together. I guess that is Hollywood. Lindsey Lohan should get an award for just playing a variation herself (sarcasm) as Rachael Wilcox, a young woman who is somewhat of a rebel. Being forced to live with her grandfather (Jane Fonda) in a small town in Iowa, Rachael becomes a bad influence towards Harlan, a young Mormon boy in the area. After befriending and working for a local vet, Rachael gets mad at him and ends up confessing to being molested by her stepfather when she was twelve. She then tells him she was joking, but that's after he ends up calling up her mother and grandfather about it. Now the question is if she is serious or not, or is this rebel child just acting out and trying to get some attention?

I don't care how this looks or who is in it, the themes in "Georgia Rule" are completely screwed up, and the problem is that no character really seems to act very greatly about it. When a mother finds out that her husband has been molesting her young daughter, the reaction is not to calmly start to drink a lot-I would find that it would be much more drastic. But somehow this films diverts any of the serious side effects of what goes on, and ends up having some kind of togetherness mother/daughter moment at the end, as if nothing went wrong. I just could not understand how misleading and unrealistic this was. Even for a Hollywood movie it pushes the limits on what could be used to teach a moral and what cannot. Maybe if this ended up being what it should be-a serious family drama-"Georgia Rule" could have been more effective. But with such twisted themes being turned into something sweet and romantic (from the director of "Pretty Women!" and "The Princess Diaries!"), I feel like everyone will be cheated, and that it is not the proper way to go about this story. This is not the type of film for Lohan or even for a mother/daughter.

Once ***
Directed by John Carney
88 Minutes
Rated R for Language

There were moments all throughout "Once" that I have personally lived through-not the ones involving romance between the two main characters-but the scenes involving recording studios. And there were times where I felt that I could have omitted the movie as a whole and just went off to my dad's friend's house to watch him do the same exact things that occurred in the film. Perhaps not all aspects of this extremely musical film were made for me, and this is why "Once" was not hailed, by me, as a masterpiece like it is for everyone else. The part that did intrigue me a bit were the romance scenes, as like I have said in the past, I am a sucker for a good romance film. And "Once" is one of those "two people dialogue heavy" film, which means that I am allowed to avoid those plot contrivances and actually get into the heart of the relationship. And having recently experienced a similar experience, the romance aspect of "Once" was actually easy to get at my heart strings.

"Once" followed two musicians-one a street musician and one a single mother-who end up meeting one afternoon. Not labeling them with any names-writer/director John Carney follows this Guy and Girl over the next couple of days as they meet, sing together, and finally decide to record an album at a local recording studio. The Guy is planning on moving back to London shortly to win back the heart of the woman he loves, and the Girl is hopefully being reunited with her husband who has disappeared. All of this is intercutted with scenes of them singing, either with each other or alone, and this is where "Once" sometimes lost me. The music is fine, but after the eighth or ninth musical segment that does not advance the story and seems more like filler, I began to check my watch a bit more often than desired. Still the performances are fine, and after learning that the music was their own I was even more impressed, and the writing is perfect (although the accents did sometimes lose me.) "Once" is a special type of film because it is clearly a labor of love, and it has a lot of heart and compassion for its characters. This is a rare treat because even if one aspect does not appeal there is another that does.

The Boss Of It All ***1/2
Directed by Lars von Trier
99 Minutes
Not Rated-Language, Brief Comic Sexuality

Lars von Trier is notorious for showing films of strong controversial nature-his "America" trilogy alone (which only have two films thus far) created quite a stir with their themes of racism and possible anti-American ideas. And now he's back with something more simpler, and something a bit more funner: an office comedy. Being a huge fan of the American version of "The Office," this is certainly up my ally, and it does have a complex plot of identity, as well as an awkward and brilliant third act that makes you leave the room with a smile on your face. This is the story of a company president named Ravn, who hires Kristoffer to act like the boss when the boss disappears. Ravn needs Kristoffer to pose as the boss to close a deal with an Icelandic businessman, but when he gets angry the meeting ends in the hallway where Kristoffer introduces himself as the company president to a group of employees. And now Ravn is in a pickle. Nobody knows that he is the real company president, and he has always posed as an employee because he does not have the gut to be the boss to the group of Six Seniors that he loves very dearly. And so Kristoffer, whose name becomes Svend E., poses as the head honcho-the Boss Of It All. He soon learns that Ravn has been sending emails to the Six, all as the boss of it all telling them different things-and Svend has to improvise and act accordingly. And then he finds out that Ravn is also using Svend to royally screw his employees in a deal to sell the company, but Kristoffer finds this out and turns the tables a bit.

At the start, von Trier offers a narration where he claims that this is a film that is just meant to be a good time and not have any reflection for the viewer after. But its hard to stop thinking about "The Boss Of It All" because it is so damn entertaining and fun to watch. von Trier uses a special camera where he does not have to worry about the framing of a shot because a computer picks a random camera shot to use. There is not camera motion except for new shots, except for brief interludes where von Trier speaks to the viewer. This eases the worry for the director (even though I may not agree with this choice), much like the character of Ravn is trying to ease the worry of being a boss. This parallel is pretty intelligent even if I do not agree or approve of the method used. He also uses a method similar to the Dogma films of the past-no lighting, no music, actual sound stage. Lastly I'll mention the third act which is a conference meeting, one that is as awkward as it is revealing as it is hilarious. It was similar to a scene on "The Office" and I felt just at home. There isn't much to not like in 'The Boss Of It All"-it is extremely enjoyable and a welcome relief from von Trier's normal heavy, pretentious, and only mildly enjoyable films. Trier is on my list of film makers that I do not like as people-along with Gus van Sant. But unlike van Sant, I could admit that Trier does have talent, and "The Boss Of It All" proves that it is talent over a wide variety of genres.

The Wendell Baker Story, Brooklyn Rules, The Ex, Even Money, The Last Time

The Wendell Baker Story **
Directed by Andrew Wilson and Luke Wilson
95 Minutes
Rated PG-13 for some crude and sexual humor and language.

Luke Wilson's screenwriting and directing debut is a foul and often dull comedy that was rightfully shelved for the last two years. "The Wendell Baker Story" is full of lulls and yawns that whenever there is any real comedy present it can't even be appreciated because the viewer is too busy checking their watches or cell phones for the time. Wilson takes the lead as Wendell Baker, a small town business man that makes his little money by selling Mexican immigrants ID's with the Texas seal. When he gets busted by the cops and arrested, Wendell loses his best friend, his girlfriend, and his dog. When he gets out for good behavior he is placed under the care of Neil King (played by brother Owen Wilson), who operates a hotel for the elderly. He gets involved in a scam that King runs through the hotel, tries to win back the heart of his girlfriend, and help people all at the same time.

By the end of the film I felt that some time had passed, but that was all. There were some funny moments, and Seymour Cassel and Harry Dean Stanton both stole any scene that they were in. But for the most part this is an unorganized mess, and the only reason that it was even made was because all three of the Wilson brothers were active-with Andrew Wilson co-directing-and with Luke and Andrew both producing. Almost every scene goes on too long, the good jokes are few and far between. There was a surprise(?) Will Ferrell cameo that was worth the trip, but that is a five minute bit that eventually had to end. This is more of a decent effort than a successful comedy and the two years that it was shelved could have lasted longer. Instead this is receiving a release in a small handful of theatres that will probably last a minute.

Brooklyn Rules ***
Directed by Michael Corrente
99 Minutes
Rated R for violence, pervasive language and some sexual content.

"Brooklyn Rules" is a huge surprise: it is a good movie. It is not extraordinary-will not change the face of the gangster genre for the rest of time-but it is well acted, well written, funny, heart-wrenching, and interesting look at the mafia, friendship, and family. It is Scorsese-lite, and for once it does not try to be a copy of other mafia type films. "Brooklyn Rules" focuses more on character and not action, on friendship rather than plot twists, and it turns out to be one of the more satisfying films in recent memory. The film revolves around three friend, Michael, Carmine, and Bobby. The three of them grew up in Brooklyn close to the mafia and had to live with horrifying factors-like finding a dead, bullet ridden body in the front seat of a car. But the three of them managed to remain friends over time, all of them heading through life in a different direction. Michael (played by Freddie Prinze Jr, who surprises by turning it really good work here) goes to Columbia and hopes to go on to law school, Bobby hopes to settle down with his girlfriend and start a family, and Carmine has ties with Caesar, the most powerful mob man in Brooklyn (played by Alec Baldwin).

That is all that really needs to be known. Like I said this isn't a film strong on plot but about relationships. There are some obvious plot twists that can be seen a few seconds before they are about to happen, and some scenes are a little "cookie-cutted." The relationship that Michael has with his girlfriend Ellen was a bit unneeded. But if anything this has heart to go along with its violence, and its a smart and effective drama. All of the acting is well thought-out, and I was shocked to find that Freddy Prinze Jr. was capable of delivering powerful work. Alec Baldwin only has a couple of scenes, but has shocking screen presence. And like in any Italian mafia film there are the usual strong emphasis on faith, religion, and God, even though a death relating to an image of the virgin Mary (not to ruin anything) does question how strong the views of God are to screenwriter Terence Winter. This is a good film, chocked full of twists, heart, and humor and you will leave the theatre stuffed and satisfied.

The Ex *1/2
Directed by Jesse Peretz
92 Minutes
Rated PG-13 for sexual content, brief language and a drug reference.

But first, a brief history! "The Ex" was once called "Fast Track" and was released under this title for a mere week at the end of December of last year for Oscar consideration (which was a ridiculous choice.) It was slated for a release two weeks later, then was bumped another week, than another two months, and then finally another two months to May 11th. But that wasn't all. First it was only going to be released in New York. Than it was only going to be New York and Los Angeles, and then it was going to only be 900 theaters, and then finally it was released in 1100. Now all of those changes led to basically zero marketing, and zero hope for this being the Oscar hopeful that the Weinsteins (who pretty much have no idea how to market and care for a film) once had. And how is the film? In a word: awful. "The Ex" has a small amount of laughs, but is pretty much a dank, dumb, and depressing comedy starring Zach Braff (who really does a good job selecting his scripts in a careful manner) doing what he always does-freaks out about the fact that his life is changing. Braff plays Tom, who packs his bags with his wife Sofia and their few day old son, and moves from the big city to a small town. Sofia wants to be a stay at home mom, forcing Tom to go to work with his father in law at a New Age like ad agency. Tom meets Chip, wheel chaired but powerful, who is assigned to "mentor" Tom and show him the ropes. Sadly for Tom, Chip slept with Sofia once in high school and has never forgotten her, and he will stop at nothing to make sure that Tom's life is a living hell. Of course, the saint that he always is, Chip does not give a bad impression to anyone.

"The Ex" is basically a sitcom with the most unoriginal and lame plot twists, stretched out over a brutally long ninety minutes. I can't even call Zach Braff a good actor anymore because everything he does is a variation of the character he played in "Scrubs," "Garden State," or "The Last Kiss." This is just a dumbed down version of a similar character. Jason Bateman is funny at times, and does have a great screen presence, but talents like Amanda Peet and Mia Farrow are just coasting their way through. And at times it was like a "Who's who" of "Saturday Night Live" cast members-and the unfunny current "Saturday Night Live." The title is also a bit misleading as it infers that Sofia and Chip once shared something special and more deep, but it was a meaningless (at least to her) little fling that she somewhat forgot. I wouldn't really call that an "ex." Finally the ending is just ridiculous-extremely by the books and very easy to write-and while many people in the theater were laughing, I had my hand out in stupid amazement. Not to say that this doesn't have its laughs, and it does once in a blue moon, but on the whole it is a nasty little comedy-pointless and dead. I've seen this before and it does not need to be rehashed.

Even Money **1/2
Directed by Mark Rydell
108 Minutes
Rated R for language, violence and brief sexuality.

"Even Money" is a bit of a hard film to really judge-I know that deep down it is more melodramatic than it should be, the characters are very one dimensional, the score sucks, and despite a large and talented cast, none of the actors really know what they are doing, and do not even seem to care. And yet there was something oddly entertaining about it, even though it is a complete and utter mess. Taking its cue from the likes of Altman and P.T. Anderson, Mark Rydell has crafted a mosaic on the effects that gambling has on people. With three interconnected stories he followed the uncle of a teenage basketball played (Forest Whitaker), a struggling writer/wife/mother who is addicted to the slots (Kim Basinger) and two bookies (Jay Mohr and Grant Sullivan). And then there are the side characters-Kelsey Grammar as a crippled cop, Danny DeVito as a failed magician, and Ray Liotta are the angry husband-all of whom connect to Ivan, a mysterious mob like figure who can make or break the lives of everyone.

There is something compelling about the film, though, and I can't place my hand on what. It does entertain, even if it is a mess and has the quality of a television film. I must say something about the score, who is done so over the top that during the most serious scenes I was laughing a little inside. I could have maybe lived without the extended plot with Tim Roth's murderous assistant to the mob. I love Tim Roth, but his plot line somewhat made the film a bit unrealistic. If they wanted to make a mosaic of gambling it could have been with more realistic characters and plot. This is the weakness of "Even Money"-it does not take a human approach at the topic of gambling and tries to resort to colorful side characters, and more of a cartoonish tone. And Kelsey Grammer's, who is very good here, noir detective is misplaced and does not fit with the mixed tone the film has. "Even Money" is something to check out when it comes to a smaller screen, but certainly is not a must to watch now. This will float right by-no harm no foul.

The Last Time ***
Directed by Michael Caleo
96 Minutes
Rated R for pervasive language and sexual content.

Pity "The Last Time." Supposed to be released at the start of May for the normal limited release it was pushed back a week to April, and then scratched from the list and slated to go direct to video. And then somehow it was picked up, and is being released at one theater in LA, and the Quad in NY, and I'm sure that combined it'll make less than a thousand dollars (and I am saying that not only because of the zero marketing (prior to the films release I had not seen a single frame from the film) but also because of the five people that were in the theater with me on a Sunday night). Michael Keaton and Brendan Fraser play off each other perfectly as two salesman (Ted and Jamie) whose company is going through the worst quarter ever, only months away from revealing something revolutionary. Jamie is getting married and has an optimistic view of life, while Ted has been through some kind of tragedy and is cold and heartless towards his co-workers. And then he meets Jamie's fiancee, the lovely Belisa, and the two of them have a torrid affair starting with sex on the same bed as the passed on Jamie. And Ted begins to lighten up, even if his work suffers, while Jamie ends up going down a horrible path as he never makes a single sale. And the roles reverse. . .

What I appreciate most of the film is how director Michael Caleo mixes genres with success. At times this is a buddy comedy, and then it is a romance film, and then it is briefly a thriller, and then a satire on office politics, and it all manages to work without seeming muddled. He also gives every scene this certain tint and often has beautiful shots. And there is a rather ingenious plot twist at the end, which is what ended my twenty minute period where I was trying to guess how the film would end. Michael Keaton is wonderful here and evokes the master presence that he has in the late 90's with his comedies. Brandon Fraser isn't as good, and there is always something about his presence that makes whatever is happening laughable in a bad way, but here he manages to not go so over the top as usual. Aside from the romance which could have been toned down, I really did enjoy the office scenes and the large cast of characters there. From the evil boss to the discussions at the water cooler and then to the blue and monotonous tint of the workplace, this is clearly a film about how the office could screw people up and make them into things they are not, and how business always ends up becoming the most important thing. That little theme could be summed up from the very first shot and the very last shot-note the comparisons if you ever see this film. I am grateful that "The Last Time" was given a release, for if it went straight to video the odds were that I would never have seen it. It'll last a week, but will be out in July on video, and I implore that you give it a shot.

Shrek the Third

Shrek the Third *1/2

Directed by Chris Miller and Raman Hui
Written by Peter Seaman and Jeffrey Price

Starring:
Mike Myers as Shrek (voice)
Eddie Murphy as Donkey (voice)
Cameron Diaz as Princess Fiona (voice)
Antonio Banderas as Puss In Boots (voice)
Julie Andrews as Queen Lillian (voice)
John Cleese as King Harold (voice)
Rupert Everett as Prince Charming (voice)
Eric Idle as Merlin (voice)
Justin Timberlake as Artie (voice)
Susan Blakeslee as Evil Queen (voice)
Cody Cameron as Pinocchio/Three Pigs/Ogre Baby/Bohort (voice)
Larry King as Doris (voice)
John Krasinski as Lancelot (voice)
Ian McShane as Captain Hook (voice)
Cheri Oteri as Sleeping Beauty/Actress (voice)
Regis Philbin as Mabel (voice)
Amy Poehler as Snow White (voice)
Seth Rogen as Ship Captain (voice)
Maya Rudolph as Rapunzel (voice)
Amy Sedaris as Cinderella (voice)
Aron Warner as Wolf (voice)

93 Minutes (Rated PG for some crude humor, suggestive content and swashbuckling action).
------------------------------------------------
I will be the first to say that I was somewhat tired with the "Shrek" series about halfway through the first film. While everybody was shouting praises and calling it one of the best animated films of all time, I was scratching my head and hoping that "Monsters Inc." would swipe the Oscar that year. I only gave it two stars. And then there was "Shrek 2," and I was a little optimistic about the whole deal. Sure enough, it was funnier than the original, but it still didn't have that boost that I needed. I gave it three stars, but I never did watch it again. And now there is "Shrek the Third," and at this point I've just had enough. What was a mediocre satire about fairytale stories has turned into this endless array of stupid jokes, most of them based on wordplay (for example at the bar it's the UnHappy Hour. Get it. UNhappy hour. . . .ha ha ha). And with the large box office intake that will inevitably follow, there will probably be a fourth "Shrek" film that I get the chance to watch. Shame since this is easily the worst in a so-so series.

"Shrek the Third" has the beloved ogre still married to Princess Fiona, and filling in for the King, who has fallen ill. When the King ends up dying of this illness, Shrek believes that he will have to be the one that takes over the throne, even though all he wants to do is return to his beloved swamp with the rats and the mud. He becomes joyous when he learns that there could be another heir in the form of Arthur. Shrek boards a boat with his companions Donkey and Puss In Boots, and heads off to find Arthur. The only problem is that right as he is pulling out of port his wife yells out those famous words: "I'm Pregnant!" Now Shrek is worried about being a father to something that will probably be made fun of its entire life, even though his friend Donkey has children who are part donkey, part dragon. To make matters worse, the jilted Prince Charming wishes to be the heir to the throne and ends up finding all of the misfit fairy tale creatures-The Wicked Witch, evil trees, The Evil Stepmother-to gang up and take over the castle in Far Far Away, finally getting their own happy ending. And when Shrek ends up finding Arthur, finding out he is the bullies punching bag, and scares him out of wanting to be king, he has much more than he's bargained for.

There are some funny moments placed in the film every now and then, but most of the better jokes are just recycled versions of past jokes. Antics with the Gingerbread Man and Pinocchio still reign supreme, while the constant gross humor from Shrek's bodily functions remain grimacing. And while the animation in "Shrek the Third" is anything by recycled, in fact the images just keep getting better and better, my problem with all of the Shrek films remain the same: they are just so boring. No matter how much they try to pack into it, I could never find anything interesting at all. I found my eyes slowing falling at times during the third film. There was also a large abundance of adult situations and jokes, and instead of there being an "over the head joke for the parents" every now and then, "Shrek the Third" is packed with dirty humor-starting right away with Shrek and Fiona waking up in bed together, Donkey lifting the sheets, and then finding Shrek's naked body underneath. It's a wonder why Fiona got pregnant.

Any charm from the characters in the first film is slowly diminishing. The Donkey isn't even funny anymore, and Eddie Murphy's singing voice from 'Shrek" one was somewhat humorous-here it is just annoying. And then flow of all of them is completely unoriginal, and now that Shrek is a father it's just going to be more flatulence jokes than the others, as well as situations that probably have been written many times before. The appeal from "Shrek" should die down after everybody watches the awful third installment, even though to me the series was dead in the water from the beginning. Sorry if "Shrek' isn't my forte, but I can't really see it gaining constant momentum until the end of time. And aside from a large gross at the box office, I can't see this being a popular favorite ever.

28 Weeks Later, Memories of Tomorrow, Fay Grim

28 Weeks Later ***1/2
Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
99 Minutes
Rated R for strong violence and gore, language and some sexuality/nudity.

I will admit that I was no a huge fan of "28 Days Later." I found that it drifted from its original purpose about halfway through, and I lost interest. Now oddly enough I found "28 Weeks Later" to be a great surprise-intense, gritty, and extremely well made. By the ending it gave me a little bit of chills. This is clearly a better film, even though it does not have the same director or any of the same cast members. Taking place directly after the events of the first, the virus has been quarantined around London, and the infected seem to have all seized to be. Until two children end up discovering a woman (their mother) who appears to have the virus, but is immune to it. And then when her husband kisses her and comes down with the rage infection, it begins to spread again. London is on complete lock down, and the military is prepared to kill anything that they see moving.

Like the first there is social commentary, only here it fits in the broad scope of the film. The ending does in fact leave the viewer hanging for a third film, but I really do hope that they don't because it was chilling on its own. Director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo did not drift away from the style and feel of the first-often showing the film as a little grainy and dark, with shaky camera movement. Perhaps there was a bit too much shaking cameras, and the movement of the cameras and the speed of the infected sometimes made it hard to see what was happening. But "28 Weeks Later" is a terrific sequel, surpassing the first one, and being a great zombie creature film. This is intense and visually appealing horror film which I enjoyed immensely.

Memories of Tomorrow **1/2
Directed by Yukihiko Tsutsumi
122 Minutes
Not Rated-Intense Themes

"Memories of Tomorrow" is the second film in a month dealing with the disease of Alzheimer's-the first being "Away from Her." Now "Away from Her" dealt with the same topic in a tender and loving way, and all I could think about while watching "Memories of Tomorrow" was some kind of shoddy made for television movie. Not to say that the film does not tug at the heart, but it is done in a less convincing and less realistic way from the other film. Ken Watanabe is a fine actor, and probably single handily saves this from being complete trash. Watanabe plays Masayuki Saeki, a businessman living in Japan whose trip to the doctor informs him that he has an early onset of Alzheimer's disease. Saeki ends up loosing his job, and as his memory fades his wife does everything she can to make sure he can live a normal life-including making signs and labels on everything around the house. But Saeki still has problems-has feelings that his wife is cheating on him and then forgets that notion later, and is constantly upset at himself for doing this to her. This leads to a third act that is somewhat improbable, and finds the easy way out. "Memories of Tomorrow" is by default a sad film, by the subject matter alone, but I could not care for the characters as much as in "Away from Her." The script makes everybody one dimensional, there are some montages set to pop American tunes that were distracting, and the last twenty minutes became somewhat strenuous. Watanabe is worth seeing, and it's nice to see him play something more contemporary as opposed to the period pieces I am used to seeing him in. He should get more work, and as an Oscar nominee I am shocked that he does not.

Fay Grim ***1/2
Directed by Hal Hartley
118 Minutes
Rated R for language and some sexuality.

"Fay Grim' is the ten year later sequel to an indie film called "Henry Fool." I just saw "Henry Fool" recently and found it to be "alright," but certainly not as good as everyone made it out to be. The saving grace there were the three main performances, Parker Posey, James Urbaniak, and Thomas Jay Ryan (who was Henry Fool himself.) Now there is "Fay Grim," which I found to be a better movie mainly because it doesn't take itself so seriously. "Fay Grim" is a massive and complex tale taking place ten years later where Fay Grim (Parker Posey) is scared that her fourteen year old son is going to turn into a person like Henry. Henry has been missing for years after accidentally killing a man, and escaped on a plane pretending to be the Nobel Prize winning poet Simon Grim (James Urbaniak). Simon is in prison currently. Fay is approached by Agent Fulbright (played by a hilarious Jeff Goldblum) who wants to know if Fay knew anything about the whereabouts of Henry's notebooks, which he dubbed his "Confessions." Simon thought they were a badly written story, but Fulbright believes that they are CIA codes and that Henry was a spy. Fay gets involved in this complex plot involving terrorists as she hunts for Henry to see him one more time.

The humor of "Fay Grim" mostly comes from the fact that you never know exactly what is going on, but the fun is watching the characters respond. "Henry Fool" had this pretentious feel to it, and some of it was gross and parts a little unwatchable (like the throw up scene earlier on). But "Fay Grim' does not take itself seriously, and it just becomes fun. The characters are somewhat different from what they were in the first film, but ten years is a long time and everybody does change in such a large gap of time. The war of terror satire is acceptable, even though it catches you off guard, and the lack of action considering this is an action movie is hilarious. Whenever there is an intense action scene the action is replaced by a series of still photographs. You have to love low budget cinema. The acting is on par with perfection. Parker Posey is almost in every scene and has this screen presence similar to that of Lucille Ball (and the screwball comedy element is here.) Urbaniak was good here once again, and Thomas Jay Ryan was perfect as Henry Fool himself, even though he only shows up for one scene (and its the films best scene.) "Fay Grim" is another one of those films that is coming out in the theatre and HDTV on Friday, and coming out on Tuesday on DVD. Unlike the other films that have followed this format (with the exception of "Bubble" and perhaps "Diggers") it is well worth scoping this one out. I thought it was a better film that the first, and you do not need to see "Henry Fool" to appreciate and enjoy this one. It might help for the back story, but that's it.

No Country For Old Men

No Country for Old Men ****

Directed by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
Written by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy.

Starring:
Tommy Lee Jones as Bell
Josh Brolin as Moss
Woody Harrelson as Wells
Kelly Macdonald as Carla Jean
Javiar Bardem as Chigurh

122 Minutes (Rated R for strong graphic violence and some language. )
----------------------------------------
The last couple of years have not been very easy on the Coen Brothers. While in the early 90's they were responsible for such unusual and strange masterpieces like "The Big Lebowski" and "Barton Fink," the early 00's were filled with box office failures and fan worsts "Intolerable Cruelty" and "The Ladykillers." While I did enjoy both of those films, they still left many people scratching their heads and asking "Where have the Coen's gone?" Well, come early November when their newest film "No Country for Old Men" opens, those same questioning fans will stop creating marks in their scalps and will instead have their hands sweating as they watch this intense and extremely enjoyable story unfold before them. And luckily for me, I was able to attend a special test screening to the film, a week before the film attends the Cannes Festival, and a full six months before the film is given an actual public release. The audience seemed to enjoy it-there was a round of applause at the end even though there were no film makers present to enjoy that, and as I glanced at the surveys being filled out around me, many people were checking either the highest rating or one below it.

"No Country for Old Men" is another adapted work, but for some reason this strange and gritty chase story is almost as symbolic and haunting as something straight from the Coen's imagination. If it weren't for the words "Based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy" during the end credits, I would be saying they deserve a Best Original Screenplay award. There is no real main character or hero to root for, but the story is what matters here and not the characters. At the start, good guy Moss is hunting some deer when he stumbles upon a truck with a dead man, a bunch of heroin, and a cache of money with a couple of million inside. Moss of course takes the money with him, and when he returns home to his beautiful wife Carla Jean he discovers that he is now being chased by Chigurh, a psychopath serial killer who escaped from the town's prison and who will go after Moss until he gets the money. Along for the ride is Bell, the town sheriff who is trying to locate Moss and stop him from getting killed by the bad men.

Like all good stories, "No Country for Old Men" is powerful and exciting storytelling, and an interesting comment on society. This is a thriller in the vein of the Coen's own "Blood Simple" and is a complete return to form after some good, but overall minor, works. There are intense action scenes-Chigurh does not just have a little handgun, but a giant gun that makes a lot of noise whenever it is fired. And he plays dirty-shooting through key holes is one of his favorite games. There are terrific chase scenes-one with Josh Brolin and a dog and a lake come to mind. And there is that element of humor that all dark thrillers need-and since most of this film is rather silent (the script is clearly very descriptive), most of the humor comes from either the shock of the situation or just a facial reaction that one of the characters makes. It makes interesting comments on society by describing the state of the world today-how police are becoming obsolete and the world and the youth of society is slowly forming into no good criminals. This is why I believe the main character is Tommy Lee Jones' Bell, because we have to watch him watch everything happen around him, and even though he tries to make things right it is nearly impossible. The sick mind of Chigurh is far too powerful to be caught, and even Bell accepts that the world is too messed up to fully fix it.

The acting is all right on target, with the highlights being Tommy Lee Jones and Javiar Bardem. Jones is on a streak with his "accent films," and this as his follow up to the great "Three Burials" puts him on Oscar consideration watch next year. Javiar Bardem is brilliant as the killer Chigurh. Bardem, who when is wearing no makeup is a rugged and handsome actor, always manages to cover his face up and truly become the character he is playing. After the amazing transformation to the gentle and kind soul in "The Sea Inside," it was shocking to see the evil, long haired and sweaty Chigurh that he becomes. Josh Brolin hits the right spots even though his work is mostly silent, but effective. Kelly MacDonald is super beautiful and her brief scenes were fine by me. Perhaps the only real issue with character that I had was with Woody Harrelson. It wasn't that he acting was bad, but the role was so small and insignificant that I could not find the purpose of the character.

While the Coens do a good job at setting up pace and imagery, the first thirty minutes of the film do drag a bit, and it took me a while before the film caught my full attention. And then at another point you're completely invested in the film, right up to the final bit of narration and the final image right before the screen turns back and you are upset that the journey is over. I look forward to seeing it again, and to watching the first thirty minutes more closely knowing what I know now. One complaint that I heard from the audience was about the ambiguity of some of the deaths-but that is the point. The Coens leave you thinking, and allow you to come up with a series of solutions and scenes that they left out. It does not matter how certain things happen, just as long as you understand what the world is coming too. And how everyone, no matter what character, is the same, and will ask for someones shirt whenever they have a bit of blood on them. I recommend "No Country for Old Men," and cannot wait until November so I can see it again.

The Treatment

The Treatment *1/2

Directed by Oren Rudavsky
Written by Oren Rudavsky and Daniel Saul Housman, based on the novel by Daniel Menaker

Starring:
Chris Eigeman as Jake Singer
Ian Holm as Dr. Ernesto Morales
Famke Janssen as Allegra Marshall
Stephanie March as Julia
Peter Vack as Ted
Roger Rees as Leighton Proctor
Stephen Lang as Coach Galgano
Lindsay Johnson as Walter Cooper

86 Minutes(Not Rated-Sexual Content/References, Language, Brief Violence).
------------------------------------------
"The Treatment" is a pointless and tedious indie comedy that made it's appearance at last years Tribeca Film Festival, and managed to win the "Best Filmed In New York City Award." How it got away with that is a mystery, as the words "Treatment" and "Best' should not even be in the same paragraph let along a sentence. Complete with pretty awful acting and a script that doesn't know if it is a love story or a Freudian satire, this is an indie comedy tried and true. With not a large budget to boast, and no real big names to splash on the adverts, this is the type of film that could be a success only through the script and through characters, and Oren Rudavsky manages to tell a muddled story that does not need to be told at all, with very one dimensional characters that have no room to breathe in the short short running time. There is perhaps on decent thing about this film and that is Ian Holm, who single handily saves "The Treatment" was being a complete waste of my time.

"The Treatment" stars Chris Eigeman as Jake Singer, an English teacher living in New York City. Jake has recently lost his girlfriend Julia, and after a chance meeting in the city he is horrified to discover that she is getting married. He had somewhat hoped that one day they could get back together. He tells his shrink, the Argentinian Dr. Ernesto Morales who never seems to help Jake, but instead wants to constantly talk about his dead mother, or the positions of sexual intercourse that he wishes he were having. Everything changes when Jake meets Allegra, a young mother whose husband has just died leaving her plans to legally adopt her "daughter" Emily difficult to sought out. Jake is instantly attracted to Allegra, only to find that his doctor soon makes his life into a walking therapy session. He can't go anywhere without his doctor popping up somewhere (all in his mind, of course) and analysing every single move he makes, making this new found relationship and happiness for Jake very difficult.

It's hard not to notice the sitcom feel that "The Treatment" has, and the script is easily padded into the short 86 minute running time. The film is probably a love story at heart, but the scenes with the doctor popping up everywhere seemed pointless and did not really work, which is a problem when that is the entire gimmick to the film. The relationship between Jake and Allegra seems forced and there is little chemistry between the two actors, and even more little for the actors to work with. Everyone is just so stale and wooden. Chris Eigeman makes it easy to see why he has basically done nothing in the past, and Famke Jannson, although she does have this quiet beauty constantly surrounding her, seems disinterested and in another world. Even the character of the doctor is one dimensional and not fleshed out enough, although Ian Holm manages to make the best out of a badly written character. Holm is hilarious, and manages to just sit there in a certain manner with his glasses on a certain way, pressing his head into his body to give off the appearance that he has no neck-almost impish. Holm made me laugh whenever he was on the screen, but its clear that none of the humor from his character came from Rudavsky's pen.

One factor that I could admire from the film, aside from Holm's performance, is a scene involving an orphanage. A side premise is that Jannson's character wishes to adopt a young girl, Emily. The problem is that Emily needs two parents to adopt her and the fact that the husband half died a few months ago, Allegra is too scared to admit that to the adoption people. She just lies about him being alive. One scene has Jake in the house with the maid having misunderstood and telling the adoption agent that he is the husband. What could have been a one joke scene taken directly from a sitcom (and I could think of about five off the top of my head that have done such a conflict), turns into something more emotional and real. At the start of the scene I did roll my eyes, but by the end I was secretly impressed by how that little bit was handled. At least something good came from this. "The Treatment" is a useless exercise in indie film making-a somewhat quirky love story that feels forced from the animated opening credits. Perhaps if you're an Ian Holm fan it is worth seeing, but not until there is a video-this has no big screen value whatsoever.

Brand Upon the Brain!

Brand Upon the Brain! ***1/2

Directed by Guy Maddin
Written by Guy Maddin and George Toles

Starring:
Gretchen Krich as Mother
Sullivan Brown as Young Guy Maddin
Maya Lawson as Sis
Katherine E. Scharhon as Chance Hale/Wendy Hale
Todd Moore as Father
Andy Loviska as Savage Tom
Kellan Larson as Neddie
Cathleen O'Malley as Young Mother

95 Minutes(Not Rated-Nudity, Some Violence, Some Sex)
--------------------------------
Now I have only seen once of Guy Maddin's feature films-"The Saddest Music in the World"-and a couple of his shorts as they were presented before features at the IFC Center in Manhattan. Not knowing much about his work over the last two decades, it is still quite clear to me that he is one of the most visionary and talented directors still working. Maddin goes beyond the realm of imagination and enters into works of complete ambition and love. Maddin actually cares for his work, which is why whenever he tries to do something new and original, it ends up not being pretentious. You can sense the labor that he goes into creating his pieces. And with "Brand Upon the Brain!" I was able to experience Maddin's vision to the extreme.

"Brand Upon the Brain!" is a new silent film-told 99.9% in black and white, complete with overly dramatic facial expressions, grainy film, and title cards. The only real thing that separates this from silent films of the era are the extreme cuts and edits, and the nudity. Other than that, this is just about the real deal. Maddin tells the story of Guy Maddin in twelve chapters. Maddin has been written a letter by his mother to paint the lighthouse that she owned when she was younger. Maddin had his childhood there, where strange things would happen constantly, and he has been instructed to paint the house white-probably just to cover up the awful things that happened to him. His mother raised orphans, and when he was not eating grim dinners with the family, he was living with his angry mother and his father who was always downstairs in the basement working on experiments. These experiments catch the eye of Chance and Wendy Hale, a duo of harp playing teen detectives that decide to solve the mystery at the lighthouse. And then there is an odd twist as Wendy dresses up like her brother Chance, and then Guy's sister falls in love with her thinking that she is a he, and there are strange experiments with the father, all turning into this one of a kind experience where the plot becomes a side note.

Maddin is a very visual director, which is why the magic of this film comes from the images presented and not in the words written on the title cards. At times it is a little impossible to follow exactly what is happening in the plot, merely because so much is happening, but you can do your best. And it is a bit far-fetched, but it is the care and effort that Maddin clearly put into the work that makes it worthwhile. The version that it was presented to me was special, and not the way that many of you will be experiencing this. Being a silent film there was a fourteen piece orchestra, three Foley artists doing the sound effects(doors, waves, etc), and then there was a celebrity narrator reading through a microphone specific things that was written for the film. (My narrator was Tunde Adebimpe, whose work I am not familiar with at all.) To make matters even more awesome, the theatre that I went to was an old Yiddish theatre, and the screen was projected where the stage used to be, and I was sitting in a balcony seat. It was probably the perfect way to experience this one of a kind adventure.

I do admire how Maddin ends up telling his bizarre and nutty story through a silent film and not through a narrative, and I also admire how he told the story how he wanted to instead of trying to stick with the codes of that time period. The film has sex, it has breasts, it has lesbians, it has people eating the skin off others backs. The silent film was just a cool way to tell this story. And there is a constant act of feeling involved in the film, as Maddin uses an amount of cuts and edits constantly. I was always tempted to stop looking at the screen because I wanted to watch the musicians or the sound people doing their jobs, but whenever I did I felt like I was missing a crucial image on the screen. "Brand Upon the Brain!" does open this week with a prerecorded narrative and a score, but if it is possible in the next two days to catch the live event it will be well worth your while. This was quite an event, and it is probably more of a masterpiece in the way that it was presented to me. It makes you wonder what kind of nutty and original story Mr. Maddin will come up with next, and in what genius way he will present it. The film and the event are a must-see for any fan of silent film, or simply anything new and exciting-a welcome relief from the Hollywood bore, and more ambitious and exciting than any summer blockbuster.

Lucky You, The Flying Scotsman, Waitress

Lucky You *
Directed by Curtis Hanson
124 Minutes
Rated PG-13 for some language and sexual humor.

I have always enjoyed Curtis Hanson's work-from the intense "L.A. Confidential" to the surprise "In Her Shoes." "Lucky You' seemed like a recipe for success-perhaps a decent love story, both Eric Bana and Drew Barrymore are fine actors. And then it turned out to be one of those "great opening scene movies." In the film, Bana plays a gambling man, and in the first scene we are introduced to him trying to pawn off a digital camera to a woman that wants to give him a small amount of money for it. The scene is very well written and convincing, and promises a fun time for the next two hours. Instead we get a horribly written, poorly acted, cliched love story/father son relationship story, about a father and a son who have a poker rivalry. Bana plays Huck Cheever, who does not have a job, he just gambles in a Las Vegas casino. And when he isn't playing poker, he's playing small bets-one example is how he has to run five miles and then play eighteen holes of golf in under three hours. He rivals with his no good father, played by Robert Duvall, and then meets and falls in love with Billie, played by Drew Barrymore. Billie is warned by her sister, played by Debra Messing in both scenes, that Huck is a heart breaker who often puts himself first. Billie does not listen.

"Lucky You" is not a convincing love story-for one thing there is zero chemistry between Bana and Barrymore. It is a forced story as well. Most of the film is just poker game after poker game with no tension at all. It became boring to watch-and the last thirty minutes as all one game. It was endless, and I am not one of those guys that watch the poker games on ESPN. Often times I did not know what was happening-the poker lingo-or even which cards beat what. The love story was a mere afterthought in between the poker games, and I wondered if perhaps the love story was tacked on to get a film about poker out there to the masses. The script is very poorly written, but some pretty bad wordplay-"Sometimes nothing is everything. . . .You got it backwards kid. You play cards the way you should lead your life. And you lead your life the way you should play cards. . ." etc. "Lucky You" ends up being just a cliched mess, hitting all the standard bases you would expect in a film like this. No magic, no mystery. It isn't even directed well, as if Hanson got bored halfway. I expect better from him, and hope he redeems himself in the future. This is a boring "romance" film.

The Flying Scotsman **
Directed by Douglas Mackinnon
96 Minutes
Rated PG-13 for some mature thematic elements and strong language.

We've seen this movie before. The underdog tries to set a world record, and will stop at nothing to accomplish this task. When it comes to speed, the best film of that genre that I could think of is "The World's Fastest Indian," only here instead of machine power being needed to get to it top, it's the speed of man. Jonny Lee Miller delivers an acceptable performance as Graeme Obree, a cyclist who created his own bike using parts from a washing machine as a way to beat the one hour land record. With the help of his wife Anne and his manager Malky, Graeme dons a sweatsuit and becomes "The Flying Scotsman." After getting the record he not only has it stripped away from him, but begins to suffer from mental health problems that put himself and his family at risk, and yet he continues to press onward.

I would expect better from art house fare, and yet "The Flying Scotsman" does resort to Hollywood underdog techniques. Sometimes I do not mind, however the screenplay doesn't exactly get me involved, and never made me want to even bother rooting for Graeme. In a film like this, with a plot that I have seen before, care for the characters is exactly what is needed. The best thing to say about it is Mackinnon's direction, which has some beautiful dark shots of the area, and I can admire his use of one takes. "The Flying Scotsman' is mere entertainment, and at times it isn't even that.

Waitress ***1/2
Directed by Adrienne Shelly
107 Minutes
Rated PG-13 for sexual content, language and thematic elements.

"Waitress" is quite a wonderful movie, and the last film in what could have been a very good career by writer/director Adrienne Shelly, who was killed late last year while the film was in post-production. "Waitress" is certainly going to be the vehicle that will propel Keri Russell (from TV's Felicity) into a more high profile career, and this is her movie thick and thin. Virtually in every scene, Russell plays Jenna, a thirtysomething year old woman in an unhappy marriage to Earl, who is abusive and needy. Jenna works in a small pie diner where she bakes pies all day long, and she is somewhat of a genius when it comes to cooking. She ends up getting pregnant and even though the baby is completely unwanted, she decides to have it anyway. Jenna ends up having an affair with her doctor, and plans on saving up enough money to run away without Earl ever knowing that she was pregnant. And even though things stand in her way she is determined to be happy with her life.

Russell plays her part so well. She certainly is cute enough for a lead role-not beautiful but pretty nonetheless. She has a certain comic timing, aided well by Shelly's direction. Shelly plays a bit part as one of Jenna's waitress friends, the nerdy Dawn, which is more quirky comic acting done right. What I like about the film is that it is not your standard love story with Jenna falling in love with her doctor. Jenna never does fall in love with her doctor-instead it is just about escaping from her current situation. This is a film about a woman and not a romance, and "Waitress" passes with that concept. There is a fine performance by Andy Griffith as the owner of the pie shop, and he is still good after all these years. "Waitress" will have you leaving with tears at the end-not only because it ends on a note as sweet as the pies featured in every scene, but because you'll know that it is the last film you'll see by Adrienne Shelly, who possesses a certain knack for direction that will be sorely missed. It is a real shame, but this last film is a great tribute to herself. I loved this movie.