Lady Chatterley

Lady Chatterley ***1/2

Directed by Pascale Ferran
Written by Pascale Ferran and Roger Bohbot

Starring:
Marina Hands as Lady Constance Chatterley
Jean-Louis Coullo'ch as Parkin
Hippolyte Girardot as Clifford
Hélène Alexandridis as Mrs. Bolton
Hélène Fillières as Hilda
Bernard Verley as Le père de Constance
Sava Lolov as Tommy Dukes
Jean-Baptiste Montagut as Harry Winterslo

168 Minutes(Not Rated-Sex, Nudity)
-------------------------------------
Now, I always claim to give every movie I see the benefit of the doubt, but I still have my apprehensions whenever I sit in my seat before a film begins. I never know-I could be watching a masterpiece, or I could be watching a dud-and sometimes there are clues based on the actors involved, or the directors. And then there are just my experiences with films of a similar type. Now, I guess I wasn't all that excited to see "Lady Chatterley-" which, in a nutshell, is a three hour French period romance film. Now maybe the length was a bit daunting-because if I was watching a bad film, there are 168 bad minutes involved with it. Or perhaps it was just my distaste for French films. Or maybe I was not interested in watching yet another period piece. But in the end, I proved myself once again that I should not judge something before I watched it. Everything seemed to click through every single entrancing minute of "Lady Chatterley," a very beautifully made, and very silent, French romance period piece.

"Lady Chatterley" is based on a novel by D.H. Lawrence, while was so risque for it's time that it was actually banned. The film follows our lead character-Lady Constance Chatterley, who is pretty much bored with her life. She is mostly stationed because of her husband's old war injury in his leg, and finds solace in her afternoon walks around her property. One day she catches a peak at the gamekeeper, Parkin, shirtless and washing himself, and she is suddenly entranced by him. She starts a strange friendship with him, visits him everyday, and before she knows it they are doing it in his hut. The affair deepens over time, her husband does not suspect anything until Constance begins to desire a baby.

For such a simple story, you may not think that 168 minutes is needed, but who needs a plot when you have a lead character like this one. The film is about how Lady Chatterley changes after her encounters with Parkin, and how they free her from the cell that was her life. The first forty five minutes or so are simple shots-her walking on the property, spotting Parkin, helping her husband. And then something happens. The day she sees Parkin she catches a glimpse of herself in the nude in a mirror, and she begins to wonder. For much of the film, lead actress Marina Hands is either having sex or not wearing clothing, but it is never gratuitous or unneeded. This story charts her change through all of her sexual encounters. In the beginning, both Chatterley and Parkin are wearing all their cloths, barely touch, and he is done within a matter of seconds. Over time, as their relationships deepens and deepens, they get more and more comfortable, and by the end Chatterley is a full woman-covered in flowers, literally, you will understand if you see the film. Sure there was so laughter in the audience because of the amount of stark nudity here, but it makes sense in the way that the Lady develops. This is artistic nudity, and not nudity for the sake of seeing nudity.

Every shot is full of romance-romance of love and romance for the country. Every single shot features some kind of a luscious landscape, and it is a wonder to behold. And with a three hour running length it never seems to lull at all. This is just a simple story that needs room to breath. Have patience and you will be fine. I must say I was surprised with my reaction towards the film. It's just breathing with so much life and romance, and there is an obvious care from director Pascale Ferran to the material. It is clear that a lot of love went into this project. And while I must say that if this went on for a few minutes longer, it would have overstayed its welcome just a bit. "Lady Chatterley' ends right about the time when you want to leave, and its exit is an abrupt and quick one. But its perfection. This is a lovely and welcome film that should be approached with an open mind. Forget the generalities-French, three hours, period romance-and embrace it for just those reasons.

Transformers

Transformers *1/2

Directed by Michael Bay
Written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman

Starring:
Shia LaBeouf as Sam Witwicky
Megan Fox as Mikaela Banes
Jon Voight as Defense Secretary John Keller
John Turturro as Agent Simmons
Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime (voice)
Hugo Weaving as Megatron (voice)
Tyrese Gibson as Sergeant Epps
Josh Duhamel as Sergeant Lennox
Rachael Taylor as Maggie Madsen
Anthony Anderson as Glen Whitman

144 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor, and language).
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Transformers" is an insult to summer movies, but what else could we expect from the master of disaster-Michael Bay. Bay is a legend at making bad action movies. Not only are they action movies, either, but they are big big big budget action pictures, usually involving an A-list star or two, and constant explosions-often paying tribute to the jarring camera motion that makes you want to have a seizure just to escape from the awful images on the screen. And in a summer where Shrek is just as boring as he ever was, and the pirates failed on making fun, and where the Fantastic Four were campy and corny, "Transformers" was the last real chance to make a fun fantasy tail this summer. And it ended up being a loud and clunky mess, and I will be in the minority when I say that "Spider-Man 3" is still the victor of fantasy-and "Die Hard" being the victor of action.

On the heels of his intelligent and thrilling "The Island," which is right now his best film ever, Bay has taken the classic Transformer toys from Hasbro and made them into on-screen hero's and villains. The Transformers are a group of alien robots that had their own civilization until they split into two groups-the protectors and the destroyers. The protectors are led by the heroic Optimus Prime, which the destroyers rely on Megatron to lead them. While on the hunt for a pair of eyeglasses worn by the great grandfather of Sam Witwicky (played by Shia LaBeouf, who is now in every movie currently out), the Megatron leads an attack on a United States army base. With the Defense Secretary wondering which country to declare war on, young Sam Witwicky is declaring war on the road as his father has just bought him a car. The car is strange, though, and the radio goes on at odd times, and sometimes seems like it is driving itself. That's because it is a transformer itself, and sure enough Sam embarrasses himself with it just after he gets the sexy Mikaela to allow him to give her a ride home. Eventually Sam is contacted by both sides of the transformers, considering that he knows where the eye-glasses on, and the military gets involved, leading up to a very very long battle on the streets where everything is knocked over and the town clearly needs a lot of rebuilding. The End-I've saved you a lot of trouble.

Now I was born a little too late to be interested in the "Transformers," and all I really knew about them before seeing the film was that little theme song on the television cartoon-"More that meets the eye. . ." So, even though it was fun watching it with the transformer nerds on opening night, I could not join with them as they clapped at the first transformation, or the appearance of Optimus Prime, or the appearance of Megatron, etc. But then again, it just wasn't very exciting either. Bay pads the film with useless subplots-including one about a group of computer hackers that leads to nowhere-and awful humor. The humor ranges on such juvenile topics as George W. Bush-who is laying on a bed in Air Force One with the camera zooming in a pair of big socks as somebody doing an awful Bush impersonation says "Could you go wrangle me some Ding Dongs, hon?", making customer service phone calls to India, and the ol' good cop/bad cop routine. Bay also strokes his ego when, during an invasion sequence, on character yells "This is so much more cooler than Armageddon!" The comedy also leads for some celebrity "cameos, including Bernie Mac as an annoying used car salesman, and Anthony Anderson who really has no purpose as one of the computer hackers. At two hours and twenty minutes this could have been an hour and forty and there would have been no loss. But Bay feels the need to pad the film to make it seem "bigger and better," but it just seems corny. One minor little clever thing was a scene where Sam tells Mikaela that there is "more than meets the eye, with her." That little in-joke I got.

The acting is very over the top and pretty ridiculous, with many big actors trying to get a check. While Shia LaBeouf is pretty much doing the thing he always does in every movie he's in, it's people like John Turturro that I am upset with. While he does deliver the most quirks out of his character than the others, it is still rather stale and forced, instead of him actually being interested in who Agent Simmons is. But then again, who cares who Agent Simmons is. It's easy to not care about anybody in this film, and character development is pretty much non-existent. And the obvious supporting characters-including the solider who, in the beginning says, "All I want to do is hold my daughter for the first time." Gee, I wonder if he will live or die. . . But enough about humor and acting, what about the action?

Truth is, the action throughout "Transformers" is pretty much the same as any other action that I have seen. Things blow up, and robots fight, but there just wasn't any feeling in it. The same with all of Bay's films-he does the action just to try and make something seem big, and he never makes the action into the art form that it really is. During the finale, while lasts a good half hour, I checked my watch several times to see if it was time to go home. And while the audience was roaring and cheering whenever Optimus Prime would throw something at Megatron, or whenever something actually transformed, I am sure that they are just twenty year old Transformer fans. When the other audiences go out on Thursday or Friday to see this, I can expect rather mundane expressions on their faces throughout the "action" sequences. In the end, I guess if your a fan of Transformers, you may find something to enjoy here, but everybody else should be spared this two hour and a half commercial for GM cars and eBay.

"Transformers" is probably the worst film of the summer so far. Worse than "Shrek the Third," which even if I did have low expectations its mostly because we've seen Shrek before. Worse than "Pirates of the Caribbean" which moved faster at a twenty minute longer length. Worse than "Hostel Part Two," and "Fantastic Four," and that is saying a lot. This is worse because it was going to be something new. Instead of a sequel it should have been the start of something great. But with Bay at the helm its impossible to do so, because he has his head so far up in the clouds that he can't even try to make an alien invasion film remotely intelligent-it's all about the effects and the lame jokes to keep bringing in the dollars. And while Bay will have the last laugh when "Transformers" makes pockets of money over the week and for the next month, its quality that should make the audience stay away from "Transformers 2," which was already green lit and set for a 2009 date.

Joshua

Joshua ***1/2

Directed by George Ratliff
Written by George Ratliff and David Gilbert

Starring:
Sam Rockwell as Brad Cairn
Vera Farmiga as Abby Caim
Celia Weston as Hazel Caim
Dallas Roberts as Ned Davidoff
Michael McKean as Chester Jenkins
Jacob Kogan as Joshua Cairn
Nancy Giles as Betsy Polsheck

106 Minutes(Rated R for language and some disturbing behavior by a child.)
----------------------------------------------
Within the genre of horror, there is a sub-genre that could be referred to the "creepy kid genre." These films include a kid or group of kids who are all effected by some kind of an evil force. They usually dress in nice clothing, and enjoy staring straight ahead at others without making any facial gestures, and speaking in a dull and monotonous tone. Usually they are plagued by some sort of a supernatural curse. For example, in "The Omen," the child Damien is the son of the devil. The title character in "Joshua" is a perfect example of the creepy kid genre, with one little exception-Joshua is just a really evil child and there are basically no real reasons for his creepiness. This is just the type of person that he is.

"Joshua" is a well-crafted and effective psychological thriller-sort of like a much creepier and more indie version of "The Omen," and only briefly touching upon religious themes just to keep the viewer guessing a little bit. It is one of those rare films that really does make you think about what you are watching before, during, and after the credits have rolled. And its one of those films that lays out a certain amount of pieces in front of you forcing you to put them together however you wish upon its completion. Leading the perfectly casted film are Sam Rockwell and Vera Farmiga. Rockwell, who has already established his greatness in my eyes with performances like "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," "Matchstick Men," and the upcoming "Snow Angels," perfects another lead performance as Brad Cairn, an overworked man who suddenly drops everything one day, grabs his nine year old prodigy son Joshua, and goes to the hospital, where his beautiful wife Abby-played by another rising actress Vera Farmiga-has her second child, Lily. When they arrive back to their posh Manhattan apartment, they begin to notice odd changes in Joshua's behavior. He is asking questions-did it hurt, Mommy?-and making odd comments-Daddy, you don't have to love me. It's not like its a rule. Brad does not seem to notice, and the rising problems at work block out any notice of the problems at home. And then Joshua's actions get darker and darker. And to make things worse, Lily cannot stop crying, driving Abby onto the verge of a nervous breakdown. Abby recalls her experience when Joshua was younger, and his constant crying put it on the brink of insanity. Brad begins to notice Joshua's behavior-his drawings of bloody people, how things slowly start to die around him-and he refuses to let him out of his sight until all of his questions are answers. That is, if he could survive. . .

It is wrong to market "Joshua" as a "horror film" because that will make people believe that this is another "Omen," and that they could expect a large amount of blood and gore. They will be sorely disappointed. The core of "Joshua" is a family drama, and a dark one at that. This is a family that looks like they are perfect-the films early amount of bright colors and wide open shots seem to be an open display onto their home. And then as it deepens in plot and conflict, the film becomes a little more closed in, and every single shot seems to be of a closeup. Although the film is titled after the son, this is really the story of Brad and his realization that not everything is what it seems. The film arcs around his discovery, and by the end we realize that we really do not know much about Joshua at all. Why is he like this? Was he always like this, or just after the birth of his sister? The films asks more and more questions, and only bluntly answers some of the them. The rest are for you to discover. The color scheme was also brilliant to watch, and I was not surprised to find out that this won an award for cinematography as last year's Sundance Film Festival. The light to dark look really does change the whole tone, and the blue light that emits constantly from Joshua's bedroom just makes us await the evil that is coming.

I was rather impressed with Jacob Kogan's performance as Joshua. Usually in these "creepy child" films, I am found laughing at the acting of the creepy kid in question more than being scared. There is just something about the pale makeup on the boy, as well as the overacting that they usually do that make them more comical. The only times that I was laughing throughout this was at something intentional, and never at the fault of young Kogan, whose creepiness is always effective. It was also fun to see Michael McKean as Rockwell's boss, even if he is limited to about four scenes, all of them under a minute. I wondered if his part was trimmed down a little bit.

The screening that I attended was a special advanced showing at Lincoln Center-the film actually opens this Friday, July 6th. Even though the screening was packed, I just don't think that "Joshua" will be a very big hit-at least not compared to the standards that Fox Searchlight would expect from their own product. But those that see it will be in for a treat. The screening I attended had members of the cast, the director, and a producer-but the two actors that I really did wish could be there-Rockwell and Kogan-were absent. In their places were Vera Farmiga-who looks just as good in person as she does on the screen-Celia Weston, who plays Brad's mother, and Dallas Roberts-in the important role as the boy's uncle. While the moderator was pretty terrible at asking questions, and quite keen on twisting the whole film into an anti-Bush allegory-which director Ratliff seems interested in staying away from-the little anecdotes from the cast-including Farmiga's mimicking of her sister who was going through a nervous breakdown during the filming of this-made for a worthwhile thirty minute questions and answer.

"Joshua" should find its audience, hopefully, and has the chance of being a minor success. It's a film to see if you want a long discussion later on. It's a film to see if you don't mind not having all the pieces laid out in front of it. At the end of the film you will have questions, and the answers should come from within. To accept that Joshua is actually pure evil is the first step. This is one of the most creative and intriguing little thrillers to come out on the indie circuit in some time-and a quite impressive at taking a familiar story and putting a different spin on it.

Ratatouille

Ratatouille ****

Directed by Brad Bird
Written by Brad Bird

Starring:
Patton Oswalt as Remy (voice)
Ian Holm as Skinner (voice)
Lou Romano as Linguini (voice)
Brian Dennehy as Django (voice)
Peter Sohn as Emile (voice)
Peter O'Toole as Anton Ego (voice)
Brad Garrett as Gusteau (voice)
Janeane Garofalo as Colette (voice)
Will Arnett as Horst (voice)
Julius Callahan as Lalo/Francois (voice)
James Remar as Larousse (voice)
John Ratzenberger as Mustafa (voice)
Teddy Newton as Lawyer (voice)
Tony Fucile as Pompidou/Health Inspector (voice)

110 Minutes(Rated G).
-------------------------------------------------
"Ratatouille" is easily the best Pixar movie since "Finding Nemo." I am not in that club of people that thought "The Incredibles" was the best computer animation film ever made, and I thought "Cars" was lacking just a little bit. But this is a winner every single minute its playing. Maybe I liked it because not only does it allow us to watch a world that we've never seen before (even though there were rats used in the film "Flushed Away"), but it also meshes that with real people, and makes this seem actually a little possible. The whole talking cars world was just a little too far out of the impossible, and it really did take a lot to accept that-something I still haven't done. But with an intelligent concept, a penchant for humor for the kids and the adults, and beautiful animation, Brad Bird has created yet another winner, and has set the bar high for next year's Pixar installment by the "Toy Story" and "Finding Nemo" crew-"Wall-E," which you are able to see a trailer for before the feature.

"Ratatouille" is the story of Remy, a common street rat that just cannot understand how his father, brother, and the rest of the rat colony are able to eat disgusting garbage. Remy has been blessed with the gift of smell, and only eats when he is able to find something worth eating. After an incident involving an old lady with a rifle and poison gas, Remy ends up separated from his family, and finds himself in the city of Paris. When he finds the restaurant that his chef hero Gusteau opened before he died, Remy befriends the garbage boy Linguini. Linguini cannot cook a single thing, but after a misunderstanding when Remy is cooking a soup, it happens to be a big hit and everybody is suddenly watching him. Linguini finds Remy and the two of them work a deal to become the greatest chef in Paris. Remy hides under his hat and pulls his hair to make Linguini like his puppet, and the two of them take the city by storm-and even make the three star restaurant suddenly get a little bit of acclaim. And then there is the sinister Head Chef who wants to take Gusteau's name and use it on frozen foods, until he discovers that there is more to Linguini that meets the eye, and there is a possible connection between him and the late chef.

Usually, especially of late, when I find myself watching these movies for the kids I watch with mostly a stoic and quiet reaction. For example, the recent 'Surf's Up" had me fascinated with how many minutes had passed as opposed to the action on the screen. But just about every single joke in "Ratatouille" hits the mark. And its a lot of fun to watch. Pixar has yet another winner, and this is just another in a long line of successes since the beginning of their company. And when its not all comedy, there is a certain depth in its lessons-one of them is towards the end and is a long speech about the work of a critic and his place when he is introduced to something new. It was almost enlightening. The voice work is pretty high profile without showing off. A lot of the times, these animated movies like to show off that they have big names doing the cast, but usually Pixar steers clear of those. And Patton Oswald is a lesser known actor, but has a familiar face. His work as Remy is perfect, and he somewhat resembles the character he is playing-and that is really hard to say without sounding mean. Peter O'Toole does some amazing job as a critic with a heart of ice who is ready to review the restaurant. It took me a while to place the voice to the character, and for some reason I kept thinking Christopher Lee. The others were pretty much unrecognizable, and all of the American actors seemed to be putting on fake French accents, so it was understandably difficult to point them out.

The animation sequences are, in a word, awesome. The chase sequences in Paris, the cooking montages, and just the rats in general. Even though the animators try to make the rats look cartooney and cute and friendly, the scenes where they are all in droves are very lifelike, and can make anyone grimace a little bit. I was also reading about a "wet chef" scene, and how the animators dressed someone up in a chef outfit and dumped water on him to see what a chef suit would look like on a wet body. I thought that was fascinating and wish I could spot that scene in a second viewing. Pixar has always upped the ante a little bit in all of their films, and they are clearly getting better and better. It's always hard for me to write a review of something that I give a high mark too. And the speech at the end of the film also does note the great fun one does have while writing something negative. But I just do not have anything bad to say about this. It's great fun. It's hilarious and clever and takes a rather short film premise and makes a successful feature about it. At almost two hours you almost barely take note of the time. I could actually recommend this animated tale to anybody of any age. Brad Bird has created the epitome of the family film, and "Ratatouille" is perfect for everyone.

Live Free or Die Hard

Live Free or Die Hard ***

Directed by Len Wiseman
Written by Mark Bomback and David Marconi

Starring:
Bruce Willis as John McClane
Timothy Olyphant as Thomas Gabriel
Justin Long as Matt Farrell
Maggie Q as Mai Lihn
Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy McClane
Cliff Curtis as Bowman
Kevin Smith as Warlock

130 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, language, and a brief sexual situation).
-----------------------------------------------
"Live Free or Die Hard" is comparable to the classic action films that seem to have disappeared for a while. Those ones like "Face/Off," which have a completely impossible plot but just explosion after glorious explosion and action sequences that seem impossible, and yet you just don't mind. Kind of like the original three "Die Hard" movies. And in that way, aside from the lack of any visible blood or foul language, "Live Free or Die Hard" manages to be a sequel to a film from over twelve years ago that still has the same feeling as the original. One thing that was missing from just about all the sequels-"Spider-Man 3" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" especially-was that they tried to take themselves a step further, and changed the overall tone of the other ones. But with this one, I got what I expected-an overly complicated plot that I have no way to ever fully understanding because most of it probably doesn't make sense, loud bangs, witty one liners, and than of course "yipee ki yay motherfu*ker," or sadly in this case "yipee ki yay motherfu(loud noise)." Curse you, PG-13 rating.

"Live Free or Die Hard" once again takes our favorite NYPD police detective John McClane, who never seems to be doing any work in New York. He is taking the mickey out of his daughter Lucy's maybe boyfriend who was trying to get funny with her in the front seat of a car, when he is called into work to travel to New Jersey and pick up computer hacker Matt Farrell and bring him to the FED's. It should only take an hour, and its an easy job. Of course, we know that this will lead McClane into a twenty four hour adventure. When he goes to pick up Farrell the two of them are attacked by an assassin trying to kill Farrell, and McClane gets involved in this plot that involves a past government agent who went bad, who is trying to shut down the entire country by hacking into one computer at a time. Of course, as "Die Hard" fans could know, McClane does not really know much about technology, and in the ever expanding world he joins forces with a series of computer hackers to take down the bad guy. That is until he kidnaps McClane's daughter, and then McClane is just ready to take down the bad guys by any means necessary.

There are plenty of loud noises, and pretty much eighty percent of the films two hour and ten minute running time are full of some kind of explosion or the other. There are some that seem a bit impossible, one of these include a breathtaking extended sequence involving McClane in a truck, some that are just hilarious to watch, including McClane taking on a female computer hacker-and also manages to find himself in a van, and then some that had the audience yelling "Ohhhhhh!" when it happened, one of these involve McClane crashing a moving car into a helicopter. But no matter how impossible they all seem there is something about them that actually make them worthwhile. And the special effects manage to make everything look pretty real. I could spot where computers were used, but it was not distracting. Since this was made so many years after the originals, I was kind of hoping for some kind of throwback to those films. Maybe a surprise appearance by McClane's buddy Al Powell, but that was not to be. The rating has even been trimmed to a PG-13, while the others were strong R's. When it comes to the violence it is not that bad. This film does have many brutal moments-explosions, people get shot or sliced up-just not the gore that I've seen in the others. What the PG-13 rating seems to do is the foul language is cut down, and while McClane does have his witty one-liners that he is famous for, he does not get the chance to say his favorite four letter word very often. If you watch the characters mouths and listen to the audio, there are many moments where the two don't fit, and it is clear that there is an R rating out there somewhere that they over dubbed to make PG-13. And, as I mentioned above, the famous phrase is somewhat cut a little bit, which just ticked me off. I thought you were allowed the "F" word a certain number of times in a PG-13, and I wish they broke the rules a bit.

Bruce Willis manages to play the part of McClane many years later without looking like a total fool, and the only thing missing from this one is his hair. There was a perfectly fine buddy element with Justin Long-the guy from those MAC commercials, and no matter how many movies he does he will always be known as "the guy from those MAC commercials." There's even a surprise appearance from Kevin Smith as a computer hacker, and his nerdy qualities fit perfectly into the character. "Live Free or Die Hard" managed to impress me because it wasn't a retread of the first ones. It updates itself-through its technologically heavy plot-and delivers what made the originals so good in the first place. There is never a dull moment, and this is the perfect remedy to the somewhat lackluster summer season we've had so far.

Evan Almighty

Evan Almighty **1/2

Directed by Tom Shadyac
Written by Steve Oedekerk

Starring:
Steve Carell as Evan Baxter
Morgan Freeman as God
Lauren Graham as Joan Baxter
Johnny Simmons as Dylan Baxter
Graham Phillips as Jordan Baxter
Jimmy Bennett as Ryan Baxter
John Goodman as Congressman Long
Wanda Sykes as Rita
John Michael Higgins as Marty
Jonah Hill as Eugene
Molly Shannon as Eve Adams
Ed Helms as Ed Carson

96 Minutes(Rated PG for mild rude humor and some peril).
---------------------------------------------
"Evan Almighty" is yet another sequel to a Jim Carrey film without Carrey in it. And they have always failed, even if "Evan Almighty" does have shades of enjoyable placed throughout. One main reason for its success if because it is actually using characters, not just concepts, from the first and giving them their own story. For example the only thing that connected "Son of the Mask" to "The Mask" was the actual mask, and Ben Stein. Considering the Ben Stein scene is always cut from the network television versions, I'm surprised that anybody even remembers that he was in the first. I guess he was the only actor that was willing to partake in the second, but that is for a review of a different movie. "Evan Almighty" takes advantage of the second best half of the film-Steve Carell, and if you haven't seen "Bruce Almighty" since it came out in 2003, you might even forget that he was in it. He was a nobody back then, and when "Anchorman" came out and he popped up I would say "Oh, it's that guy from Bruce Almighty." It wasn't until "40 Year Old Virgin" and "Little Miss Sunshine" or even "The Office" where he actually became a name. Yes, he was in "Bruce" as Bruce's biggest enemy-Evan Baxter.

Evan Baxter is still a newscaster, but this is his last broadcast as he is now taking the family away from him home in Buffalo and bringing them to Washington D.C, where he has just been elected congressman. His family is a little upset about leaving, but his wife is hopeful. And then a few days in, after work has already cut into family time, Evan is visited by God himself (Morgan Freeman, who in some cases should actually be God.) God wants Evan to build an arc, because on September 22nd, around midday, there will be a flood. Evan is not interested in doing it, and thinks the whole thing is all a joke, but eventually he comes to terms that this is God and that he has a mission. He begins to build an arc in his spare time, but finds that his beard is constantly growing no matter how much he shaves, animals follow him around in twos everywhere he does, and God has given him a strange robe to wear even when he leaves his house to go to congress meetings, all while getting his suspicious eye from Congressman Long, who wants to pass a bill that has more to it than it seems.

"Evan Almighty' is successful because of the delivery by all the actors. Steve Carell is a fantastic comedian and one of the funniest men around right now, but his supporting cast also has a great time as well. One is Wanda Sykes, whose rapid delivery and clearly improvised lines are some of the films best scenes. And then there is John Michael Higgins who ended up stealing the entire film in his two scenes in last years "The Break Up" has a nice supporting job as well. The script does head towards a more family friendly structure as opposed to the sometimes extremely raunchy "Bruce Almighty," but it does have a very good environmental message and one that I do actually care about. There is a lot of word play-God calls himself "Al Mighty" at one point, a movie theater advertises "The 40 Year Old Virgin Mary," and there is a lot to do with Genesis 614. Some of it is clever, even if the 614 thing got a little old after a while. There are about 100 musical montages of the family building the arc, which I could have lived without, but it is a big boat, and the soundtrack is all recycled family tunes from the past. i could have really lived without what Evan refers to as "the dance." It is in the trailer once, but I did not expect the five other times that "the dance" pops up, always an awkward and unfunny few seconds. At least there were no corny innuendos that always seem to pop up in these films.

I suppose the main problem with the film is the lack of any character development. "Bruce Almighty" actually had a plot and a resolution, and there was development with the Carey character. The problem I had from the very beginning, even when I first heard they were making this sequel, was that they use the Evan character. In the first film Evan was a jerk. And he seemed like he was a jerk no matter where he went, and in the end while him and Bruce have an understanding, he is still supposed to be a jerk. Not only is he not a jerk anymore, but he has a wife and three kids, which means that he had some kids and a wife when the events of "Bruce Almighty' occurred. And now this hate-able character is suddenly likable with no real shift or development. Perhaps if they started the film with him as a somewhat bad guy and than shift his attitude as the film passes. I just still can't shake that concept, no matter how stupid it does sound. The only thing that stays the same with Evan's character is his name, but I guess you have to forgive somethings in a family film such as this. Flaws and all, there was something consistently entertaining about the whole show, and it did hold my attention for the entire ninety minute run time. "Evan Almighty" is decent family fare and there are worse ways that you could spend a brief amount of time at the movies with the family.

You Kill Me

You Kill Me ***

Directed by John Dahl
Written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely

Ben Kingsley as Frank Falenczyk
Tea Leoni as Laurel Pearson
Luke Wilson as Tom
Bill Pullman as Dave
Dennis Farina as Edward O'Leary
Philip Baker Hall as Roman Krzeminski

92 Minutes(Rated R for language and some violence.).
--------------------------------------------
"You Kill Me" is a less entertaining and less depth version of 2005's "The Matador," which had a similar plot but has better characters. Not to say that this wasn't an entertaining yarn into the world of professional killer, but it just did not hold up it's 92 minute run time as it should have, and at times it felt like I was watching a worn out sitcom than an actual comedy. Premiering at last years Tribeca Film Festival, I sadly missed the screenings there because they were all sold out, but while I enjoyed the show I felt better about spending eleven dollars as opposed to twenty-five.

Ben Kingsley is great as the lead character Frank Falenczyk. Frank is a hit man, and apparently he is one of the best, even if we never get to see him at work. The only time we do is when he botches up the assassination of Edward O'Leary. His group needs O'Leary dead to ensure that they have a part of the neighborhood, or the Irish will take over. Frank falls asleep and is told by his uncle to go to San Francisco and attend AA meetings. Frank begrudgingly does it, and only does it because he loves his work. He gets an apartment and a job working at a funeral home and is constantly being watched by Dave, a seedy real estate agent who works for the family. Frank befriends Tom, a gay recovering alcoholic who agrees to be Frank's sponsor, and then finds love Laurel, who he meets at the funeral of her step-father. Frank decides that it would be beneficial if he recovered from destroyed his addiction, while he unknowingly allows his handler and uncle back in Buffalo to be taken advantage of by O'Leary.

"You Kill Me" has a flimsy plot, which I think was my problem with it. For the first part, we never really are given the chance to get to know anything about Frank. He starts as a drunk and its inferred that he's been one since he was in his teenage years. In "The Matador" there seemed to be a clear cut crisis, and there's information about what is happening to the lead hit man. I would have also maybe liked to see a scene of Frank at work, to establish what makes him such a great killer. This is also more of a love story than a story about professional killing, and this could have really worked with any occupation. The story with O'Leary actually seemed a bit tacked out, but the entire plot is really just existing to give something for Frank and Laurel to do. There just isn't much going on here, and it really does have the makings for a short film or a television show plot line than an actual in-depth film. The acting is all above par, with Kingsley delivering splendidly and Tea Leoni with deadpan hilarity. Luke Wilson is also not given much to do, but he manages to do well in the little screen time that he has. There is no real reason for him to be gay-it's not like he's interested in the Kingsley character, and perhaps he was only gay to avoid the notion that him and Laurel could have had an affair, which would have brought the film in a whole new direction. If that wasn't it, the fact that he was gay ended up providing a total of two jokes, neither of them funny on paper, but the way they are acted made me smile a bit. Bill Pullman is fun to watch, and its nice to see him having a comeback with more darker roles. I am curious to see the reception for "Nobel Son," another one of Tribeca's offerings, when it comes out later this year or early next.

Aside from the acting there are some moments of true comedic gold. Most of them occur within the AA support group (where Kingsley makes one too many "revealing" speeches). Him and Leoni also have a certain amount of chemistry, and crossing their subtle characters during their conversations make them the more mysterious couple that I've seen on screen. "You Kill Me" is enjoyable if it is taken with a grain of salt, because that is all it is. It's a quite entertaining hit man yarn that does not cross into more constructed characters that it should have. What is wrong with Frank is a little more heavy than what is wrong with Julien in "The Matador," but the screenplay never takes advantage of that. The only real reason for him being a drunk is to get him to Laurel which is the movies focal point. But with three plot lines-drunk, killer, love story-"You Kill Me" could have been a longer and more complex tale, but instead it is this-mildly enjoyable and indie entertainment.

1408

1408 ***

Directed by Mikael Håfström
Written by Matt Greenberg and Scott Alexander, based on the short story by Stephan King

Starring:
John Cusack as Mike Enslin
Mary McCormack as Lily Enslin
Jasmine Jessica Anthony as Katie
Tony Shalhoub as Sam Farrell
Samuel L. Jackson as Gerald Olin
Len Cariou as Father

94 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for thematic material including disturbing sequences of violence and terror, frightening images and language. )
--------------------------------------------------------------
"1408" is an extremely pleasant surprise and certainly one of the best "horror" films that I have seen in a long while on the Hollywood circuit. Two points of note. I say Hollywood circuit because there is an amazing horror film somewhere out there called "The Poughkeepsie Tapes," and that it strictly indie. And I put the word horror in quotation marks because I don't know if I would call "1408" a sole horror film. It uses the supernatural as more of a backdrop for a psychological character story, even though it is proven that the events in the film did indeed actually happen to the these characters and even if their are some jumps and scares and creepy things floating around. Centralized by a great performance by John Cusack, who is pretty much in every single scene somewhere, "1408" is a great night out and for once you can actually be scared at a horror film.

"1408" starts off with Mike Enslin (Cusack) going to yet another hotel and spending a night there with nothing bad happening to him. This is significant because Enslin is a writer who has drifted away from the fiction circuit and has turned off a leaf towards hunting out ghosts and other supernatural events. But he has yet to see one, and his failed belief in God has only made him more and more close to the fact that there are no ghosts at all. And then he gets a postcard with a picture of the Dolphin Hotel, and a message saying "Don't Enter 1408." So of course, he takes a trip to New York to go visit 1408. He is surprised by the manager who refuses to let him in because there have been fifty six deaths in that room, and the manager refuses to clean up yet another dead body. No one has lasted more than an hour in Room 1408. By law, he is forced to hand Enslin the key, and once he closes that door there is no turning back. It takes time before he begins to accept the strange things that are happening are more than just hotel staff screwing with him head, and pretty soon the clock sets itself to a countdown-60:00.

While there are some supporting characters popping up every now and then-Sam Jackson as the hotel guard (who does offer the films only curse word, of course,) Mary McCormack as Cusack's wife who he walked out on, Len Cariou as Cusack's father as a hotel demon, and lastly Tony Shalhoub who pops up for a minute as Cusack's publisher, but this is certainly The Cusack Show. Using that nice guy mentality that he showcases at the start it is impossible not to like the guy in any role he's in. Hell, even in "The Ice Harvest" he kills people and does everything for himself, yet there is something so likable in that personality. So he manages to create a character that we could care about as he lives with the demons of the room. There isn't much dialogue during the hotel scenes, and the device used to get him to open his mouth is a tape recorder which Cusack dictates to for research on his next book. "1408" may be the only horror film I can think of in recent memory that offers subtle character backgrounds, and while it is not laid out directly, charting Enslin's writing career correlates to what has happened in his family life. There is always a reason why he is writing what he is writing. Note the brief mention of the father, and the secret of why he walks out on his wife, which I don't reveal even if it is in the films trailers and television commercials.

And then lastly I'll speak of the ending. There is a moment, where I actually thought that this film was going to cop out on me and disappoint me in the third act. And then it takes a twist upon the twist and impressed me more. "1408" was a fun time. There was audience interaction-people "awwing" whenever something bad was happening, or because jumping up whenever some kind of a demon popped it's head out. It was fun to watch, and did not rely on excessive gore to effectively scare a crowd or even make something frightening. On the heels of the more gritty and physical intense "Vacancy" which also managed a good script on top of the scares, "1408" is probably a better film with more a more dense character arc. And with an ending that leaves it open to a viewer interpretation, I left the theater grinning and proud that I could be creeped out a bit by something Hollywood has to offer.

White Palms

White Palms ***

Directed by Szabolcs Hajdu
Written by Szabolcs Hajdu

Starring:
Zoltán Miklós Hajdu as Miklós Dongó
Kyle Shewfelt as Kyle Manjak
Gheorghe Dinica as Ferenc Szabó aka 'Puma'
Andor Lukáts as Dad
Oana Pellea as Mom

97 Minutes(Not Rated-Language, Some Violence).
-----------------------------------------------
The gym is quiet already. There is strange aura in the air as the little children prepare for something. One girl silently does a little flip on a bar over and over again, as if trying to get some fun out of the exercise. The other boys silently play, not speaking to one another as they do activities. And then the door slams open and the horror comes in.

"White Palms" is an interesting sports film, as it is unlike any one that I have ever seen. And leave it to the people of Hungary, who have made some films that I admire completely, to actually tell a sports story without relying on the old Hollywood ideas of sports-you know, that one coach that ends up changing everyone's lives with some kind of "words of wisdom." "White Palms" could be considered the "anti-sports film," as all of those cliches are twisted upside down as we watch a truly creepy and sometimes disturbing look at how things could actually be sometimes. Beginning in Canada we are introduced to Miklós Dongó, a very good athlete at gymnastics. He has come to Canada to be a teacher at a small gym, but seems uncomfortable by the warm greeting given by the head coach there. And then we flashback to a few years earlier, in Hungary, when Dongo was just a little boy, and that is the scene described above. Dongo was trained by a merciless and evil head coach who went by Puma. He'd start off with the boys lining up against a white chalked line, and then he would take a sword of some kind and trace the line, and if his sword crossed with the toes of any boy that ended up eking onto the line he would whip them in the leg, and the scar burns Dongo badly. Of course nobody believes that the coach would hit any student for something so small, and the parents disregard what the boy tells them. But the training is fierce and intense, with the coach not caring if the boys are having problems, or if they are hurt. And it is this training that is stuck into the mind of Dongo as he begins his work in Canada. It causes a problem when he hits a boy, and instead of giving him the boot, the head coach decides to give him Kyle Manjak to train, and Dongo makes it his mission to ensure that Manjak can win a competition, and at the same time decides to give the old sport a go by himself-having never won a national championship throughout his very expansive career.

"White Palms" ends up being a tragic story mainly because all of the Hollywood sports cliches are thrown down the drain. The Hungarian coach is one of the biggest examples of evil that I can find, and this character who is supposed to be a warm and caring type ends up being cruel and inflicting harsh punishment. And it is interesting to see this crossover to what I am used to. It is a tragic tale of cultural diffusion, as Dongo's behavior once he goes into Cananda and begins teaching does not leave a good impression of his country on the Canandian parents. And it is a tragic tale of the shattering of dreams and skill all because of a coach who simply does not know how to do his job properly. Throughout the flashback scenes of Dongo as a boy, the coach is constantly telling him that he is only one that actually has a chance at making a career out of this activity, but his coaching does not seem to try and make that a realistic possibility, which is why Dongo goes through what he does in the third act of the film. I will admit that I was a little put off by the ending, and the emotional arc seemed completed five minutes before the credits began-the finale at the Cirque de Solei performance seemed tacked on and the ending was extremely abrupt. I could not really see the point of that whole bit, and had it not had that ending, which left me distant from emotion when it should have been leaving an emotional impact, perhaps I would think slightly more highly of the film.

"White Palms" is certainly worth seeing, but it is not an easy film to get through. The sporting scenes are tough to watch because you never know what the coach is capable of doing next. You never know if he will release his anger through words and violence, and some images are shocking-not because of the graphic imagery, which there is not much of, but just the acts and the trials that the coach does and these kids have to go through to get through an afternoon of practice. I was more fascinated with the flashbacks than with the present day story, and there was something so gripping about the gym flashback bits that I could have probably sat through an entire film of just them. The teacher-student subplot in the third act is dark and a great trip away from the usual Hollywood sports story, but I still preferred the first half.

"White Palms" was not really given a full release by Strand Releasing, but in New York City it is playing at the theater in MOMA all week. This somewhat made my viewing experience awkward as many of the people that were in the screening room did not make the trip to the theater just to see "White Palms," but probably read in the program that the movie was starting at a certain time and just decided to poke their heads in. This resulted in people constantly getting up or coming in, and the elderly couple behind me with the wife who said, right when the credits rolled, "That was a hell of a bad film." But it is worth the effort to actually go to MOMA for the specific reason to seeing this. It is an interesting perspective on the sports genre, and just another grand Hungarian film.

Broken English

Broken English **

Directed by Zoe R. Cassavetes
Written by Zoe R. Cassavetes

Starring:
Parker Posey as Nora Wilder
Melvil Poupaud as Julien
Drea de Matteo as Audrey Andrews
Tim Guinee as Mark Andrews
Gena Rowlands as Vivien Wilder-Mann
Peter Bogdanovich as Irving Mann
Roy Thinnes as Peter Andrews
Michael Panes as Glen
Justin Theroux as Nick Gable

97 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for some sexual content, brief drug use and language.)
--------------------------------------------
"Broken English" is a waste of two things-the time of the Parker Posey and most of all the time of the viewer. There is no real reason for this film to be seen if not for the delightful and amazing leading role by Posey, who manages to constantly impress in no matter what film she is in, and I fear that the only real reason why this was even given a chance to see the light of day was because of the last name of the writer/director. Cassavetes. I suppose when you are the daughter of the legendary actor/director John Cassavetes and Gena Rowlands (who also makes an appearance in the film, probably for a very small paycheck) you can produce anything, even a recycled screenplay with recycled characters and situations. Lets see if you could find anything new in this storyline.

Nora Wilder (Posey) is turning thirty soon and she still can't seem to find the right guy. She is carted from loser to loser. First she dates an actor who seems really amazing and great, but after sleeping with him one night she finds out that he really is seeing somebody else, and probably just used her for that one little moment. And then there is this other guy she goes out with, and they go to the movies (and the Film Forum here in Manhattan is used for the interior shots) where he ends up spotting his ex-girlfriend and realizes that he is still in love with her and that it is too soon. That is when she swears off men, much to the chagrin of her married best friend, Audrey-who is oddly enough going through problems in her marriage as well. And then when she has finally give up she meets Julien, a dashing Frenchmen, and the two of them hit it off. In fact, one meeting at a party turns into an entire weekend, and at the end she learns that his work her in the United States is done and he is going back to France. And they part ways. And then she decides, at the spur of the moment, to quit her meandering job as a hotel guest services manager and takes her friend Audrey to France where she will find this mystery guy that could be The One and change her life around.

There are certain films where I am aware that the material has been done before, and I do often rely on the actors to try to push the film into a different realm of being. Case in point-last year's indie hit "Half Nelson." Now "Half Nelson" was a story of a drug addicted teacher and the student that he befriends. Now I was not a huge fan of the film, and the material was nothing new, but the two lead acts were able to push it out of being a total loss by making something special, and something memorable, with their characters. In this film Parker Posey is wonderful, but that is about it. Everyone else in the film exists solely as a one dimensional film character, and the etchings of humanity and realism that stem from Posey's performance do not emit from anybody else. Every single character is just extremely obvious. Starting with her boyfriends, there is the classic narcissistic Hollywood actor that she falls for because of his name and charm, and then he of course wrongs her by using her for a night of sex. And the plot line is somewhat absurd as Nora Wilder is not even an unattractive woman, and her entire anger towards not getting a man just doesn't seem to make sense. The entire time you are wondering "who wouldn't want to go out with her?" How many more stories do I have to see about a woman that wants to find the right man? And if this were a Hollywood film, I could understand, but when the standard romance plot ends up eking out into the indie circuit, that is when I get a little worried. I guess I could commend and be happy for Zoe R. Cassavetes for actually getting a film out there, and getting a great lead actress to star in an otherwise plot less and contrived script. But sadly I cannot even really congratulate her because I'm sure getting this film made wasn't that hard. With a small company backing it, and with a huge "connected" family involved it was probably very simple to get finance. "Broken English" is worth seeing on a small screen simply for the saving grace of Parker Posey who is an exceptional lead, but for the most part this picture is a dud.

Sicko

Sicko ***1/2

Directed by Michael Moore
Written by Michael Moore

Michael Moore as Himself

125 Minutes(PG-13 for brief strong language).
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Moore has always been the controversial figure in the public eye, and every three years or so when one of his movies is about to come out he causes a little bit of a stir. Now I discovered Moore in 2002, when his 2001 film "Bowling for Columbine" was still in theatres everywhere after his little stunt at the Oscars ("We will not support you, Mr Bush!" Ring any bells?). I thought it was a fantastically entertaining piece of work, meshing facts perfectly with drama and comedy. And then in 2004 when he made "Fahrenheit 9/11" I felt like he went a little overboard-meshing together biased and out of context "facts" with forced drama and little comedy. And now with "Sicko" I felt like I was watching the Moore I enjoyed back in 2002. I felt like I wasn't being conned, and that Moore actually did have a point. This also makes a great companion piece for the Romanian film "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu," which I just recently revisited on DVD.

Here Michael Moore is taking a closer look at the United States health care system. Focusing on stories from actual people that contacted him through his website, Moore doesn't talk about the Americans that do not have any health insurance, but instead for the Americans that do have health insurance, and are clearly not a step safer than those without. Many Americans have died because of a screening process that the health people put everybody through when they request certain treatments. Many people are denied treatments for stupid reasons, like something they contracted years ago. One woman was refused kemo because of a past yeast infection. And it's all for the health companies to save money, as the doctors all receive a special bonus if they save the company the most money in a quarter. Moore than decides to visit some other countries-focusing her on Britain and France. When he visits there he learns that all drugs are either the same amount-no matter that quality or quantity-or everything is paid for by the government. Hospitals and doctors in those countries do not even touch money, and the only place where money is dealt with is a small booth for a man gives out money to the people to cover any car or transportation fees they had to deal with in getting to the hospitals. And then at the end, like in all past Moore films, there is a bit where he gets involved with a group of people. In "Columbine" he got active with a young man who was bullet ridden with bullets from K-Mart. Here he brings a group of sick people who had problems from helping out during 9/11 and did not receive help because they were deemed "volunteers." What he does with then I will leave for you to discover.

The attacks to Moore are very obvious from this film. And at one point I was some what thinking of them myself. If you are so satisfied with the care that these other countries gives, why don't you just move there? or Moore is un-American because he makes an entire film about how our health care sucks and how other countries know what they are doing? He even does an entire piece where he talks about Hilary Clinton, and her selling out to make some money over giving up her health care focus. But Moore isn't trying to just shame out health system-at times he even points out the flaws in everyone else' system. What he is doing is offering a very good comparison, and than making the point that very much like the health care systems in Canada-which have everybody looking after one another and taking a part-we all need to learn from one another. America does borrow ideas from other countries-cars, wines, etc-and that health care should be no different. The government should not be focusing on their money when it comes to the well-being of the people.

"Sicko" is certainly Moore's best film since "Columbine," and during this entire film I never once felt like I was being conned. I never felt that Moore was twisting these scenes that he has to his advantage. There is a short little clip from a Bush speech at the very beginning, but I think it was used more for comedy than for any serious point-much like the way David Letterman skews Bush speeches during his show. Moore does not appear in the film as much as his past works, and he mostly turns the camera over to the people who are telling their stories. And their tears actually seem legitimate. While watching "Fahrenheit 9/11," whenever one of the interviewees were telling their stories with the tears in the their eyes it all just seemed so fake and obvious. Everyone just had the same problem. In "Sicko" I actually was upset with them, and their stories just made me plain mad. "Sicko" reminded me that Moore is capable of making fine documentaries, and he returns to the mesh of facts, drama, and comedy that made me interested in him in the first place.

And I need to make a note of the music. Moore had an interesting choice in tunes here, mostly sticking with instrumental pieces from other movies. The most notable is Danny Elfman's music from "The Nightmare Before Christmas," but I also noticed a lot from Thomas Newman, and recognized pieces from "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events," and "Little Children." This made me proud as Newman is one of my favorite movie composers, and it was great to see his work translate to other films.

A Mighty Heart

A Mighty Heart ***

Directed by Michael Winterbottom
Written by John Orloff, based on the book by Mariane Pearl

Dan Futterman as Daniel Pearl
Angelina Jolie as Mariane Pearl
Irfan Khan as Captain
Archie Panjabi as Asra Q. Nomani
Will Patton as Randall Bennett
Gary Wilmes as Steve LeVine
Denis O'Hare as John Bussey
Mohammed Afzal as Shabir
Perrine Moran as Ruth Pearl
Jeffry Kaplow as Judea Pearl

108 Minutes(Rated R for Language).
------------------------------------
"A Mighty Heart" is the result of Angelina Jolie's recent antics, and is more proof that we should not judge actors by their personal lives. While she may be in the news every other day because she adopted some kid or stole some others actress' husband, it is still clear that she can turn in some fantastic work, and that is what Angelina Jolie does during every second of "A Mighty Heart." And while you may not agree with what she does with her life, there is no denying that the final few minutes of this film will break your heart many times over. "A Mighty Heart" is a docudrama from Mr. Experiment-Michael Winterbottom. Winterbottom always manages to make something different-kind of like a British Marc Forester. He'll make a science fiction film ("Code 46), than a strong comedy ("Tristram Shandy") and then a sexually graphic music film ("9 Songs.") And after his great docudrama last year "The Road to Guantanamo" it is clear that he was the right choice for this, and his constantly moving camera and clear look for every shot makes this extremely realistic, as if you're actually in the middle of the action.

Based on the early 2002 incident, "A Mighty Heart" follows Mariane and Daniel Pearl, a marriage journalist couple. She is pregnant, and after 9/11 they travel to Pakistan to do some stories. They are only a day away from leaving for good, and Daniel just needs one last interview, with religious leader Shabir, but he never returns back home after the interview-if it ever even took place. Mariane becomes worried, and after she receives faxes with his tied up in a chair it becomes a constant investigation to ensure that he is returned safely. And while the odds seem to be in favor of him not having a safe return-Pearl was also a one hundred percent Jewish man-Mariane never seems to give up hope, and remains constantly cool and collectant during the entire investigation, until his eventual murder when she snaps.

This is not nearly a perfect film. Winterbottom makes this more about the investigation than about the actual woman, which it should be based on. The mighty heart in the films title could refer to Mariane, who never gave up in spite of all the throwbacks that came her way-even though she titled her book "A Mighty Heart" based on her husband. Jolie really does get into this character very well, and sadly the screenplay never really focuses on her until towards the end. While the first three quarters are a perfectly fine reconstruction of the investigation, filled with little details that I am sure were not known while the investigation was happening, the movie does not have any heart, and you remain pretty much distant from all the characters. If it weren't for the emotion, all given by Jolie, tacked onto the final twenty minutes, right after Pearl is declared dead (by beheading) I would have felt only like an observer without a care for anyone here. Even Daniel Pearl, played by Dan Futterman, had a good actor playing him, but was underwritten to only a couple of scenes, pretty much all in flashback.

I suppose in the end I could commend "A Mighty Heart" for showcasing that Angelina Jolie is more than just an "in the news, always" figure, and for Winterbottom's pretty flawless directing skills. He really does know how to get the viewer in the scene, no matter what is happening. But sadly the screenplay does not successfully find a focus for the story. It drifts too much from being a simple little detective story, followed by a political piece, and than the story of this woman. It tries to be all three, but I could never tell whose or which story they wished to tell. It's a good film, but for storytelling skills, the script needs a little more work.

Fido

Fido **1/2

Directed by Andrew Currie
Written by Andrew Currie, Robert Chomiak, and Dennis Heaton

Starring:
Carrie Ann Moss as Helen Robinson
Billy Connolly as Fido
Dylan Baker as Bill Robinson
K'Sun Ray as Timmy Robinson
Henry Czerny as Mr. Bottoms
Tim Blake Nelson as Mr. Theopolis

91 Minutes(Rated R for zombie-related violence. )
---------------------------------------
Once again, the zombie movie has been converted to a comedy in order to make some kind of statement about the society we live in. And "Fido" does it in a different way, beautifully directed and very well acted. It really is enjoyable during every minute of its running time. Alas, the central problem with the film is the script-the story, if you could even call it that, is practically not there at all, and the premise ends up being shaped into a sitcom, with the central characters just getting into a couple of little situations that end up being solved, all leading up to a final zombie showdown that is thankfully very brief, and not dragged out like the zombie segments in past films. Meshing zombie violence with 1950's family values seems perfect, and the social satire is spot on, even if the script never does pay off in the end.

"Fido" takes place in a 1950's that isn't plagued by any wars with only nations, but with zombies. The Zombie Wars have recently passed, leaving humans and zombies to live a life of tense peace. Towns have giant fences around them, and the zombies that get in are equipped with a necklace that makes them mind-numbing servants. This is a device perfected by a place called Zom Com, and they ensure that the dead stay that way. Their big trademark are funerals for the body and the head, as the only way to kill a zombie is to destroy its head or brain. The Robinson family are the only family on the block that do not have their own zombie-servant, but that changes when mother Helen gets one-who the little boy Timmy ends up naming Fido. Timmy had no friends in school, but Fido ends up befriending the boy quickly. Fido's only problem, of course, is that it has a hunger for human flesh, and this causes a problem when it eats the next door neighbor. Now zombies seem to be popping up everywhere, and the Head of Secruity at Zom Com, Mr. Bottoms, ends up tracing it directly to the Robinson zombie.

The acting is all spot on. Carrie Ann Moss is perfect as the overacting caring mother, who just just so happens to be good with a shotgun. A minor subplot involving her pregnant is disposable, even though I did guess it at the beginning although their are no hints. Dylan Baker, as always, delivers an off color and strange performance. I just can't see him as a father after "Happiness." But it is Billy Connolly who is amazing as Fido. Giving in a completely silent performance, except for a few grunts and groans, Connolly does his work almost as well as Chaplin or Lloyd, making a memorable character out of this compassionate and caring zombie. Connolly is funny when he is doing his stand up, but clad in complete zombie makeup it was a sure fire recipe for a great movie. There are no complaints regarding acting. The direction is almost flawless. Andrew Currie really does give a feel for the 1950's, making a "Leave It to Beaver," "Brady Bunch" type of environment-complete with the wacky, ladies man (or in this case zombies man) neighborhood, played by Tim Blake Nelson. Currie films with really bright colors, making the streets of this suburban area bright red and yellow and green, even when the town is under attack by zombies. And every single shot is beautiful to look at-and the big screen just highlights this.

But there is just not enough story, and the script seems to try to rely on this gimmick of zombies as pets. There are small little adventures, but none enough to arc over for a full ninety minutes. The script does have some interesting social comments-one involving racism. The running joke with Fido is that even though he is a blood sucking zombie, he is probably the only decent grown man in the town-there is either the distant father Bill, or the evil corporate giant Mr. Bottoms. All of that is there, and it is fine and makes a point, but the script just never delivers any wow moments, or any surprises for that matter. And this is why it pains me to not give "Fido" a recommendation rating, because I really did enjoy the film. Many of the 50's throwback jokes are priceless, including several black and white short educational films, and the line "Help! My Grandpa has fallen and he's getting up!" "Fido' is an interesting and very funny take on zombie films and just the role of zombies in general, but an actual story would be needed. This may inhabitant the look and setting or a 50's, 60's sitcom, but its a movie and it doesn't need the sitcom treatment.

Eagle vs. Shark

Eagle vs. Shark ***1/2

Directed by Taika Waititi
Written by Taika Waititi

Starring:
Jermaine Clement as Jarrod
Loren Horsley as Lily
Joel Tobeck as Damien
Cohen Holloway as Mason
Craig Hall as Doug Davis
Jackie van Beek as Anthea
Taika Cohen as Gordon
Rachel House as Nancy
David Fane as Eric Elisi
Morag Hills as Vinny
Brian Sergent as Jonah
Bernard Stewart as Zane

88 Minutes(Rated R for language, some sexuality, and brief animated violence).
---------------------------------------------
"Eagle vs. Shark" is a quirky indie comedy-as if we haven't seen plenty of those these days. And yet, while it does share shades of a more adult version of "Napoleon Dynamite"-oddly enough, as a side note, this is even coming out the same weekend that "Napoleon Dynamite" did three years ago-there is just something about these characters and actors that makes this almost a step above that very funny film. The thing that makes this differ from "Napoleon Dynamite" is that it has this certain amount of heart that is missing from that teen high school story. As wacky and out of reality characters these are, there is something about them that makes them seem real, and that is how "Eagle vs. Shark" is more than funny, it is charming as well. And it comes complete with New Zealand accents, making simple things like "Yes" and "Next" more quotable than the lines in "Fargo."

Loren Horsley stars as the Shark-whose real name is Lily-a rather young woman whose parents were killed in car wreck, and now she lives with her brother Damien, who has yet to realize that he is not good at celebrity impressions. Lily works at Meaty Boy, a fast food restaurant whose new burger is meat, than bread, and then more meat-"kinda like an upside down burger." The highlight of her day is a little after nine o clock, when in comes Jarrod, played by Jermaine Clement-who oddly enough had a television show on HBO starting this week "Flight of the Conchords"-which looks a little like this in terms of humor and style. Lily has a crush on Jarrod, but Jarrod is more interested in her co-worker, Ginnie. He gives Lily an invitation to his "dress as you're favorite animal party" to give to Ginnie, but when Ginnie throws it away, Lily takes it upon herself to go instead. At the party she comes dressed as a shark, while Jarrod is an eagle. He also discovers that she is the best female player at some video game that he is apparently "the best" at. The two of them awkwardly share a kiss, and then briefly have sex, to which Lily believes that they are going out, but Jarrod still goes around referring to her as "the best female player." Lily learns that Jarrod is actually training to kill Eric Elisi, a boy who picked on him in high school. She goes on a trip with him to his hometown, and visits his odd family-complete with his depressed, wheelchair father who just misses the son that was killed in an accident years before. As the showdown comes closer and closer, Jarrod clearly makes his priorities known, and breaks Lily's heart.

"Eagle vs. Shark" actually earns its quirkiness, and these character never seem quirky for quirks sake-they are actually believably insane. At times you could wonder why Lily-who is pretty damn adorable-could like Jarrod-who often comes across as mean and self-absorbed. And while he is, it is only because he is trying to get a little but of respect and love from his poor father-and perhaps killing his old nemesis is exactly what needs to be done. Lily is just in a strange funk after the death of her parents, which is why she goes through life in a deadpan and monotonic tone. And so this is more a film about two people finding each other when everyone else seems to be leaving them. Two people who just need a little bit of love during times of crisis. It's not about two outsiders finding each other, but two people that just need some happiness. There are some real tender moments throughout this film, and it never seems forced-its always flowing with the rest of the story. And at the same time it's quite hilarious, with some great little awkward one-liners, mostly coming from Loren Horsley, who should be more well known.

The style does seem like it does relate to films like "Napoleon Dynamite" and even "The Royal Tenenbaums,"-one member of Jarrod's family actually wears a jumpsuit throughout. But it never seems like Taika Waititi is stealing from either Jarod Hess or Wes Anderson, even if the main characters name is Jarrod. The style just seems fitting for this film. The hardly moving camera, or the many centered shots actually fits for these characters. I guess maybe the best comparison is with Mike White's "Year of the Dog," where White did many of the styles that Anderson uses (wide camera angles, detail shot followed by a detail shot followed by another detail shot and then a wide angle, or just having the characters in the center of the scene), but the difference is that White didn't known how to direct a film without going for the most simple shots he could find. "Eagle vs. Shark" is a simple, unconventional love story, and the minimal directing style just seemed fitting. There is even a great use of stop motion animation-a parallel story of two apples that both Lily and Jarrod throw away at some point in the film. It doesn't make sense when it is happening, but the last frame just says it all.

I enjoyed "Eagle vs. Shark" very much. It's a sweet and simple quirky comedy that never reminded you of those past films I mentioned above while it is happening. This actually has a level of heart, and a believability in the characters. I did love "Napoleon Dynamite," but everybody there just seemed like a caricature or just someone extremely fake. Here you could understand how these could be real people, and the central love story just makes more sense. This should hopefully be a big hit upon its release, unless people make the mistake of thinking it looks like all the others. This is a perfect treat for the summer.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, La Vie en Rose, Lights in the Dusk

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer *1/2
Directed by Tim Story
92 Minutes
Rated PG for sequences of action violence, some mild language and innuendo.

"Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," the newest installment in the summer of sequels, is just as stupid, lame, cartooney, and plot less as the first film from two years ago. Tim Story has made a mockery out of what could have been some of the best superhero films ever. Picking up two years later, we join the Fantastic Four on the eve of the wedding between Reed Richards and Sue Storm-also known as Mr. Fantastic and The Invisible Woman. Fantastic has the power of stretching himself anywhere he wants, and the Invisible Woman. . . well, you can figure that out. Joining them are Johnny Storm-The Human Torch, who can engulf himself in flames-and Ben Grimm-The Thing, who is just a giant rock form of his former self. The Thing has found love with Alicia, who is blind so can see his inner beauty-blah blah blah. And then. . . . disaster strikes as the Earth is being visited by a mysterious silver. . . surfer, who has destroyed a number of planets only after a few days of contact. And when the United States government finds the four's dastardly arch enemy Dr. Doom, they have to try and trust him to destroy the surfer.

There is just way too much silliness going on, and never any type of character development. The only real character that deems some kind of development could be The Thing, but with his blind lady love that inner struggle just pales away. Perhaps in Johnny Storm-the ladies man who watches as all of his friends are in happy relationships-there is some hint of sadness, but that just comes from him being a jerk, and not an inner struggle as a result of his superpowers. And in a ninety minute film-considerably shorter than most of the other summer fare of late, which could be a good thing-there are only two action scenes amidst as the talking. And once again, if the talking had been used to expand on these character-much like the talking throughout "Spider-Man 3"-I would not have minded, but it was just scientific jimber jamber. Seriously, they could just have been saying anything using big words and the audience would still not understand. The acting is extremely horrid-and Jessica Alba still can't be taken seriously as "one of the greatest minds in the country." Michael Chiklis, as The Thing, may be the best performance, but his cheesy jokes placed throughout just ruin it for him. I changed my mind. The best acting work was the three second Stan Lee cameo, which actually made me laugh. And most of all, I just feel bad for The Silver Surfer, who could have had his own movie in a year or two-and yet was reduced to an introduction in this dribble. "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" could be the worst film of the summer. I've given Tim Story his chance to redo his mistakes from one, and instead he gave me more of the same. While this may be slightly better than the first, it isn't saying much.

La Vie en Rose **
Directed by Olivier Dahan
140 Minutes
Rated PG-13 for substance abuse, sexual content, brief nudity, language and thematic elements.

I will be crucified for this one by some cinematic psycho one day for saying the next two statements. Statement One: I was not a fan of "La Vie en Rose," to the point where I will even say it was a bad film. Statement Two: I was not blown away by the performance of Marion Cotillard in any way at all. And while I exited the theatre I heard people use the words "amazing" and "great" in regards to it, while I was kind of confused. "La Vie en Rose" is a biopic of Edith Piaf, but don't let the fancy French subtitles fool you. There is nothing in this film quality wise that makes it any different from a Hollywood biopic. There are still the montages, the extended musical bits, the drug problems. And it is all centered by a performance by Miss. Cotillard, who is sure to get hoards of nominations and maybe even an Oscar nomination, but I could not seem to get into it. I was more impressed by the make-up department than her acting, which managed to show different ages by Piaf, as the film jumps in time more than "The Good Shepherd." Bloated and overlong, "La Vie en Rose" is sure to be hailed as a biographical masterpiece by critics and audiences alike, and yet I found it to be one of the more overrated films I've seen all year. I checked my watch far too many times, and when Marion Cotillard's name came onto the screen at the end, instead of joining my audience in applause, I got up and walked out of the screening room. In movie land-the life of Edith Piaf is no different than the life of Ray Charles, of Johnny Cash. The language may differ, but its all the same movie.

Lights in the Dusk ***
Directed by Aki Kaurismäki
78 Minutes
Not Rated-Brief Violence, Maybe Language. . . I Can't Remember

"Lights in the Dusk" is my first venture into the cinematic world of Aki Kaurismäki, and I asked myself why I waited. Perhaps it was because I had never heard of him before its release. "Lights in the Dusk" is a short, quick, minimalistic film noir drama that tells a very simple story, but is directed with such perfection that you don't even notice. The film stars Janne Hyytiäinen as Koistinen, a lonely night watchman whose only real form of a friend is a woman that owns a little food cart off the side of the road where he eats his dinner every night. One night he comes across a woman, Mirja, in a cafe, who ends up befriending him. Little does he know that she is only buttering him up so that she could aid her boyfriend in a heist where Koistinen works, which of course he easily falls for.

I've read that this marks the third in a trilogy made by Kaurismäki, known as the Loser Trilogy, and Koistinen is the classic definition of just that. Here is a man that has a nowhere job, and fails to see love right in front of his eyes. Instead he goes to what society deems beautiful-blonde hair, decent weight, nicely dressed-and that proves to be his downfall. There is a lot of humor here, a most of it I'm sure I missed just because there was so much. Simple images of a woman vacuuming a floor while her boyfriend and his partners drink had a few heads in the crowd laughing, and had me wondering what was so funny. It reminded me a bit of Jarmusch, especially the emphasis on color. That being said, each shot is a beauty to look at, which was strange because the trailer used the same images only made them gloss over, as if in a 1970's Technicolor film. I don't understand why the adverts did that, but I'm glad that it didn't linger into the film. "Lights in the Dusk" is worth scoping out, and it does demand several viewings, which the short running time does not make difficult.