Hot Rod

Hot Rod *1/2

Directed by Akiva Schaffer
Written by Pam Brady

Starring:
Andy Samberg as Rod Kimble
Jorma Raccone as Kevin Powell
Bill Hader as Dave
Danny R. McBride as Rico
Isla Fisher as Denise
Sissy Spacek as Marie Powell
Ian McShane as Frank Powell
Will Arnett as Jonathan

88 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for crude humor, language, some comic drug-related and violent content. )
----------------------------------------------------------
Forgive me for being frank, but "Hot Rod" sucked. I can't even imagine somebody finding this funny, because it took the random nature of comedy that works well when somebody who is actually funny presents it, and throws it onto its head. The only real comparison that I could make for this is "Billy Madison," because that took an actor who at the time had a little bit of momentum but was virtually not really known very widely (Adam Sandler) and mixed him with a wacky group of friends, and a pretty girl that has acted better and knows that she has. And here, instead of Adam Sandler, it is Andy Samberg, who I know nothing about because he is a member of the current "Saturday Night Live" which I would rather die than commit myself to watching. That show needs to get its priorities straight and stop thinking its so clever-but that's another story. Other than the fact that I've heard I look like him, Samberg's humor is unknown to me, and I think that it'll stay unknown.

Samberg plays Rod Kimble, a twenty something year old that does not have a job, but hopes to be discovered one day as a great stuntman. When his stepfather, Frank, ends up in need of a heart transplant, Rod needs to help him raise the money-50,000 dollars. He needs to make sure that Frank is alright so that he could kick his ass and finally gain Frank's respect. And to do this, he will perform the greatest stunt ever-jump over 15 school buses on a motorcycle, one more than Evil Kenevil did. And he assembles his crew to get in top physical shape, gets a girl who has a super-jerk boyfriend, and plans on raising the money to save Frank's life, and finally beat him up.

There are so many misses in this film-from a two minute segment where Rod falls down a mountain, to an oddly edited and extremely extended joke on the phrase "cool beans." It is obvious that Lorne Michaels is trying to get Samberg to become another Adam Sandler, but in order to become another Adam Sandler, Samberg would have to actually be funny. But there isn't much comedy going on here. In fact, most of the film falls so flat that its actually dull to watch. I'm all for random humor, but it has to actually be funny and not just random actions just for the sake of random action. It has to be consistent with the characters and with the story. The very pretty Isla Fisher, who was hilarious in "Wedding Crasher" and very good in "The Lookout" actually looks bored in this film, and I felt sorry for her as she subjected herself to such awful comedy as getting thrown up on or getting fruit punch spilled on her shoes. And how Sissy Spacek or Ian McShane got themselves into this mess I will never know.

"Hot Rod" is the "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigalow" of 2007. Back in 2005, 'Deuce" was sandwiched between "Wedding Crashers" and "The 40 Year Old Virgin," and it was the most embarrassing and unfunny comedy I'd seen in a long while. "Hot Rod" is sandwiched between "Knocked Up" and the promising "Superbad." And at the end of the summer, I think both "Hot Rod" and Andy Samberg will be forgotten.

The Bourne Ultimatum

The Bourne Ultimatum ***1/2

Directed by Paul Greengrass
Written by Tony Gilroy, Tom Stoppard, Scott Burns and Paul Attanasio, based upon the novel by Robert Ludlum

Starring:
Matt Damon as Jason Bourne
Joan Allen as Pamela Landy
Julia Stiles as Nicky Parsons
Scott Glenn as Ezra Kramer
Albert Finney as Dr. Albert Hirsch
David Strathairn as Noah Vosen
Paddy Considine as Simon Ross
Colin Stinton as Neal Daniels

115 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for violence and intense sequences of action).
---------------------------------------------------------------
"The Bourne Ultimatum" is the next to last of the many "three-quels" that this summer had to offer, and in the end it is the best of the bunch. After "Spider-Man" and "Pirates of the Caribbean," both which did not back the punch that I was hoping for out of both of those stories, Bourne does not disappoint-it exceeds expectations highly, and became possibly the best in the series. After the mediocre and headache inducing "The Bourne Supremacy," director Paul Greengrass did everything he did wrong in that film right in this one, and is clearly one of the most apt people to do action films. He continued to prove with this, as he started when he directed "United 93" last year, that he has the power to skew time. When I watched both this film and that one, I was struck with the fact that his movies make time go faster, and the one time I looked to see the time during "Bourne" it was an hour and thirty minutes later, and I assumed that it was only about forty-five.

Now this demands that you have seen the other two films to know what is going on, and even I-who saw both films a while back-had to think hard to remember some of the little details that they shot at you. The basics: Jason Bourne woke up on a boat one day not knowing who he was, but knowing that he had amazing fighting powers. And over time he's pieced together, with the help of his girlfriend Marie who was killed in the second film, that he was a spy, and now he's being hunted. . . yet again. This time the CIA group led by Noah Vosen thinks that he is the source to newspaper reporter Simon Ross's article that could screw them over. So they plan to take him down, even though former Bourne chaser Pamela Landy does not see Bourne as a threat. Meanwhile, Bourne is haunted by more flashbacks to events that happened in his past, and he tries to dig into those memories to figure out more about his past, all by being helped by another agent-Nicky Parsons-who was one of the people after him from the very beginning, and who has more to her that meets the eye.

Now "The Bourne Ultimatum" does answer many questions, wraps up a few story lines, but it also opens a few doors that it does not bother going back to answer. One is a potential love story between Bourne and the Nicky Parsons characters, played by Julia Stiles, whose relevance is grower as each film passes. It playfully hints at that, leading to a great shot that is a throwback to a shot in "The Bourne Identity," but it never fully answers that. Jason Bourne has all the answers that he could hope for in this installment, and hopefully a fourth film will continue the mystery. However, Bourne scribe Robert Ludlum is dead, and the original trilogy that he wrote cannot continue with his ideas, but there is a fourth and fifth Bourne book with a new author-having never read them I can't imagine what happens in them, but another trip with Jason Bourne in a few summers would be welcome.

Greengrass is great behind the camera, directing action scenes with not only skill, but a certain amount of realism. He also does scenes that could have been simple and safe with such a labyrinthine nature. Take a scene early in the second reel where Damon is giving directions to the newspaper reporter, who is being tailed. His phone is tapped, he is being watched. And in a segment that is at least fifteen minutes long but feels like a snap, Greengrass does this intense cat and mouse chase without any action at all. Just dialogue, logic, and acting. It's brilliant. This can easily be defined as an action film even though there is only two car chases and a fistfight in the whole two hour running time. Matt Damon does a great job as well, and the whose-who of side characters-Joan Allen, David Strathairn, Albert Finney, and Paddy Considine are all great. I was massively impressed with this third installment, especially after the miss of "The Bourne Supremacy." "The Bourne Ultimatum" is proof that August is not the dumping ground for the summer blockbusters but just good timing. This will not be crowded with other releases, and has time to breath and be discovered.

This Is England

This Is England **1/2

Directed by Shane Meadows
Written by Shane Meadows

Starring:
Thomas Turgoose as Shaun
Stephen Graham as Combo
Jo Hartley as Cynthia Fields
Andrew Shim as Milky
Vicky McClure as Lol
Joseph Gilgun as Woody
Perry Benson as Meggy
George Newton as Banjo
Frank Harper as Lenny
Jack O'Connell as Pukey Nicholls
Kieran Hardcastle as Kez

100 Minutes(Not Rated-Language, Sex, Violence)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It pained me that I am not giving "This Is England" a recommendation rating, because it is two thirds of a good movie. It headlined by a young man named Thomas Turgoose, who is only fifteen years old and packed a performance with so much punch that he was a winner every time he was on-screen, and that was a painfully bad metaphor. And this kid is really amazing, and throughout the sometimes unfocused screenplay he is always there to be great and provide the movie with the heart that writer/director Shane Meadows fails to do with his words. And as a follow up to the last film that I saw his make-the great "Dead Man's Shoes" from last year-"This Is England" is somewhat of a messy affair, both literally and accidentally.

Having missed it at last years Tribeca Film Festival, where I passed it by because I wanted to see the odd "In the Land of Merry Misfits," "This Is England" received an opening thanks to IFC. Thomas Turgoose plays Shaun, a young boy living in England in the mid-80's. His father was killed in the war, and it is a sore and sensitive subject to the young man, who lives with his very caring and kind mother. When he is bullied at school because of the clothing he wears, Shaun ends up finding solace in a group of good skinheads that hang out under a tunnel-Woody, his girlfriend Lol, their friend Milky, among others. They accept him in their little group, and he shaves his head and gets their clothing and begins to go out with them as they destroy old houses. And then Woody is visited by one of his old friends who got out of prisoner, Combo-who could be defined as a "bad skinhead' I guess-at least in context with the film. And there is a civil break between Combo and his group-who are more like nationalist English people-murderous, angry, racist and extremely bitter. And Shaun is forced to choose now-which is the better way to go?

"This Is England" doesn't follow Shaun through his choice as a political battle. He is far too young to be concerned with the political aspects of anything. To Shaun, politics begin and end with the death of his father-the war is bad because of the way his father was killed. These people are bad because they killed his father. It's that simple. To Shaun, the choice is more of a social and personal battle. Shaun just wants to be accepted. He wants friends, something that he can't get at school because they are always bullying him. He will go where people like him, regardless of what they are doing or what they stand for. And the young Turgoose plays this so well, and I could see the character getting messed up in the hands of somebody not nearly as talented or mature. He is sweet and innocent, and at the same time brutal and mean-but only when he is forced to be to gain acceptance. But you always see that good nature in him-if it is just when he is talking to his mother, or even when he is talking to the one girl that he fancies-the wonderfully named Smell. He is the best part of this movie, hands-down.

But the screenplay lacks a certain focus, and at times it drifts into this additive scenes that just did not give anything to the overall film. A mentioned love sub-plot between Combo and Lol is one of them-it just really wasn't needed unless they wanted to give Combo a more human side, but it just seemed so contrived and forced. When the film doesn't follow Shaun it makes its biggest mistakes, and it does this far too often that it should. And then ending-oh jeez the final few minutes where they really try to tug at your heartstrings. I knew something along those lines would happen, but I didn't want it too, and when it did I just groaned a little bit. I will commend Meadows for doing a good job in the directors chair, really giving it an 80's feeling, with both the gritty look as well as the kickin' soundtrack, which is something amazing. "This Is England" is a near miss, but should be seen to discover Thomas Turgoose who is certainly going to be big if he churns them out at this rate.

Now Playing at:
IFC Center

Them

Them **1/2

Directed by David Moreau and Xavier Palud
Written by David Moreau and Xavier Palud

Starring:
Olivia Bonamy as Clémentine
Michaël Cohen as Lucas

77 Minutes(Rated R for some violence/terror. )
-------------------------------------------------------------
* The following review does contain a mild amount of spoilers starting in the third paragraph. For this reason I have stated a couple of reasons why I rated the film the way I did in the first paragraph before expanding on it later on, trying to be as spoiler free as possible. Read with caution.

I must say, as I walked out of a special advanced screening of "Them," that I was a bit conflicted with how I felt about it. On one side it was a fairly entertaining horror film with a very creepy ending. It was quick, only clocking it at a little over an hour and ten minutes, and it did not rely on gore-instead it relied on a claustrophobic and highly taut method involving a strong number of closeups and small rooms. And then on the other side I could not really see the point of it all. It did not get you involved in the "them!" portion of the film, which was good as it made the anonymous even more creepy, but it also did not get you involved in the lead characters. Aside from a brief ten minute bit at the beginning with them eating food and making out on the floor, you care as much about the leads-Clementine and Lucas-as you would about a dirty mop or an ant on the floor. But then on the other side, this view of them just gives you enough knowledge about the two of them as the "them!" people would know about them, making the viewer look at them in the eyes of "them!" So I was conflicted. I could not really decide how I fully felt about the film at all. Looking back at it, "Them' is ambitious, it is effective for the most part, but after a day or two goes by after its over and done with, it is forgettable.

It's a very simple story, and like I said-once it gets going it just flies by, as you would expect in something that is only seventy-five minutes long. After a creepy prologue where you know that danger is lurking around the corner, we are introduced to Clementine-a teacher-and Lucas-a writer, who have a secluded house in the country. The two of them have a romantic evening, but when they go to sleep creepy things begin to happen. The television set goes on in the middle of the night, and no matter how many times Lucas shuts it off it finds itself back on again. And there is that creepy hooded person in the house that is after them as they run away. Following them through an almost real time cat and mouse change, Clementine and Lucas are followed by THEM!

There are a couple of interesting aspects in the screenplay for "Them." One is Clementine's role as a teacher and the ultimate revelation of who "Them" is. But this revelation just seemed a bit odd considering the events of the first hour of the film. The prologue at the beginning, as well as many of the things that occur in the house during the chase sequences, seems supernatural, and a lot of the times implausible. Trying to be realistic and bone chilling does not work because most of the time what happens in the film is impossible. What makes it creepy is not the screenplay but the way it is shot, which really makes you feel like your in a confined space. Maybe seeing it in a tiny theatre and sitting very close to the screen would just add to the claustrophobic atmosphere. The final minute or so does leave a pang of horror with you just because of the whole anonymity of the whole situation. I did not guess revelation of "them!" but that's because its impossible to. Like I said you kind of have the feeling its supernatural most of the time. And to highlight this anonymous quality, you barely know anything about the lead characters, a mark that has both good and bad aspects. On the bad side, it distances the viewer from caring about them in any way. You watch them with amusement as if you would watch a spider walk across the floor. On the good side it makes you feel like one of "them!" You are watching with amusement as opposed to horror, which is what "them!" did as well. The viewer is almost as sick as "they!" are.

And so my conflict comes full circle. Did I like "Them?" Yes, parts of it. I like the way it was made and it quick and clear and concise way it tells it story. I also liked it more than most horror movies around right now, although this certainly does not hold a candle to the terrifying "Poughkeepsie Tapes" which finally got a release date for next February. But in the end, "Them" left such a conflicting feeling in my stomach that I clearly could not really fully recommend it. I left with a puzzled reaction, really trying to think about what I should give it for the readers. So I'll not recommend it, but I wouldn't discourage anyone from seeing it. It's interesting, and it makes you feel odd in a way. It may not have you covering your ears to not hear any loud jump noises, or it may not have you covering your eyes to avoid seeing something brutal and creepy. But it is directed well even though the screenplay is flawed, and it makes you think.

"Them' opens on August 17th, at the Cinema Village in New York City, a very nice small triplex in the city that I am not raving about just because I used to work for the company. They go hand in hand with the small screen and theatre that I mentioned above, as all of their rooms as equally small with a screen that goes with it. I saw it at an advanced screening at the Walter Reade in Lincoln Center, and on the weekend of August 17th I will write a reminder that "Them" is opening that weekend.

The 11th Hour

The 11th Hour **

Directed by Nadia Conners and Leila Conners Petersen

Narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio

91 Minutes(Rated PG for some mild disturbing images and thematic elements. )
---------------------------------------------------
Well, it is yet another week and we are "treated" to yet another documentary telling us about the dangers of global warming. And during this quick and unneeded documentary, I was struck with a few thoughts.

1) Perhaps if I haven't seen "Arctic Tale" I may have gotten some needed information from this.
2) Perhaps if I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth," I may have gotten some needed information from this and enjoyment from "Arctic Tale."

At this point, I feel like I've seen the same different documentary many times over, and I do not know how many more times I can stand a documentary about global warming. And while "An Inconvenient Truth" did it in a rather formal matter-literally as it was like watching a presentation-"Arctic Tale" tries to do it with cute and cuddly animals, and "The 11th Hour" shows a couple of disturbing images, just to plant these thoughts into your heads. I am just plain tired of seeing these types of documentaries-these documentaries that tell me the same risks, the same ways that I can prevent the dangers, and the same message, how we all need to accept that we are all part of the problem but we can still change things as a group. And how did this possibly get a significant release from a big company when its pretty much the same thing once again-well, a big name helps!

Instead of the Al Gore show, we get the Leonardo DiCaprio show, who barely does any narration and hands most of the scientific fact scenes to talking head images of Stephen Hawkings, and other scientists that I honestly do not know much about. And maybe if I was not tired of the global warming warnings, and the repeated facts and repeated evidence and repeated patterns that all of these films seem to get their hands on, this may have been interesting fare. While the information was presented in a more urgent and "in your face" kind of way, as opposed to Gore's presentation where he found a way to appeal to people of all ages-through humor and a more likable nature. DiCaprio clearly does care about the environment and the issue, but he looks like he's reading a card off screen instead of actually knowing all the information. And he is resorted to looking outside of a moving car window often, pondering the environment as they drive past forests and other wildlife areas.

So I guess in the end the two star rating for "The 11th Hour" seems like the most fair thing I can do. On one side, I do believe that global warming is real, and I find nothing in all the evidence that shows it can't be true. The signs are there, and I accept all of the things that we all need to do, as one, to prevent it from happening or from at least prolonging it for longer than it is needed. My own viewpoint aside, perhaps this is a good documentary to see if you haven't already seen one of the many other global warming warning docs around. I personally do recommend "An Inconvenient Truth" at least once, as it is both informative and highly enjoyable. But considering this provides much of the same information with just different faces, and the same warnings, it just isn't needed. So its informative unless you already know, which then it is just there.

"The 11th Hour" opens on August 17th in limited release-in New York I know that you'll be able to find it at the Landmark Sunshine Cinemas. I saw it at a pre-opening screening at the Walter Reade in Lincoln Center where a few of the scientists were in attendance and did a brief questions and answers after the screening which I did not watch because I had other matters to attend to. Unless you feel super passionately about the issue and wish to give as much money to it as possible, or know nothing about global warming and its warnings, see the film. If you already have some kind of understanding to the issue and have seen a previous documentary on the subject, skip it and see 'The King of Kong" that weekend.

NYC Noir Double Feature: Kiss of Death and Pickup on South Street

The next double feature that I was lucky to see was the matching pair of "Kiss of Death" and "Pickup on South Street," which both share the actor Richard Widmark, who is also new to me. Aside from this actor, I can't really find a common link, aside from the overall genre of the two films, as these are two noirs from a different bag. First up was "Kiss of Death," from 1947:

Kiss of Death (1947) **1/2
Directed by Henry Hathaway

Now I was recently introduced to Victor Mature earlier in the week with the very entertaining, but imperfect, "I Wake Up Screaming." Here, six years later, he has matured (no pun intended) with a more serious and less playful role as the flawed hero Nick Bianco. After a jewel heist gone bad, Nick is sent to jail where he is asked to rat on the other three people that were involved in the heist. He decides that he will when one of the members, the rat Tommy Udo, ends up abusing his wife until she decides to kill herself, and he also wants to protect his two children.

"Kiss of Death" is slow, almost painfully slow to an extent. It does take its sweet time telling this story, often lingering on one scene for more time than is needed. Mature is fantastic here, and it was no surprise that I read that this is often cited his best role, as it is also filled with much depth. Compared to "I Wake Up Screaming," which seemed a less serious murder story-with him being the charming lead with the charming smile etc-this is much more heavy, and this character is filled with as much flaw as their is good. But in the end it lost some impact just because of the pacing, and the second half just seemed to drag on and drag. Actor Richard Widmark, in his first film role, is great as Tommy Udo, one of the sickest characters I've seen in the genre, and he barely even gets any screen time. But when he is revealed in between the closed door, the shot is just plain chilling.

------------------------------------------
Pickup on South Street (1953) ***
Directed by Samuel Fuller

"Pickup on South Street" certainly has a lot of things going on, and it passes the eighty minutes without question. A pickpocket who is a week out of jail ends up getting caught after he steals a wallet out of a woman's purse. The wallet happens to have a scientific chemical formula that the woman was delivering for her ex-boyfriend to enemy agents, and she was being followed by the government who had their suspicions about her. And in her quest to get it back, she ends up falling in love with him. And so we have our mystery-what is so important about this formula? We have our love story. We have our police detective tail. And we have some wonderful comedy, often provided by Thelma Ritter's character of Moe, an informant who demands a certain amount of money for her services as the cost of living increases.

Here, six years after "Kiss of Death," Widmark plays the lead pickpocket-Skip McCoy. Widmark has this certain look about him-not trustworthy and yet oddly comforting. And he plays the two faced character so well-one who seems to want to change his ways, and yet one who will obviously do anything he can to save his own neck. Jean Peters as Candy is lovely, and this film has fun with the closeup making her look like a complete angel. "Pickup on South Street" is only eighty minutes long, but there is so much going on that it seems to just fly by. This is a bit more of a playful noir, with does not exactly make New York the seedy and sick place that 'Kiss of Death" paints it to be. It still is seedy, with its odd mixture of characters, but the core love story paints it as a place of hope, where everyone is possible for a change.

For more information on the NYC Noir Series, visit the Official Film Forum Website!

NYC Noir Double Feature: I Wake Up Screaming and Sorry, Wrong Number

The next double feature during the NYC Noir Festival, brought to us by the great great Film Forum in Manhattan is "I Wake Up Screaming" and "Sorry, Wrong Number." While this was not as compelling a double feature as "The Woman in the Window" and "Laura," I was introduced to a few new actors, and enjoyed myself for the most part. First up was "I Wake Up Screaming":

I Wake Up Screaming (1941) ***
Directed by H. Bruce Humberstone

When up and coming model/actress is found brutally murdered in her apartment, her promoter and her sister are the two suspects. The promoter, a fellow by the name of Frankie Christopher (Victor Mature), is hunted by Police Insp. Ed Cornell (Laird Cregar in a great and creepy performance), and when he isn't given the third degree he is being consoled by Jill Lynn (Betty Grable.)

This is technically considered the first real American film noir, even though it is steps below others. For one thing, it is not as seedy and dark as other ones I've seen. There is no real femme fatale, unless you actually count the woman who is murdered, and at the core there is a real love story, one that is even sappy at times. But its fun to watch, even though it is a minor film in the bulk of things. The double surprise twist ending I could not guess coming, and once again nothing can beat black and white on the big screen.

--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, Wrong Number(1948) **
Directed by Anatole Litvak

My first real disappointment when it comes to the NYC Noir Series. "Sorry, Wrong Number" is based on the radio show of the same name, and while I have never heard the radio program, I can guess that it was a great deal better than the film. Its funny how even back then Hollywood was making films off of things on television and the radio. Nothing can escape its clutches when a profit can be made. This film marked my first encounter with Barbara Stanwyck, and I must say I was underwhelmed by her hammy and over the top and loud and annoying performance as Leona Stevenson. Sick and bedridden one night she overhears two men talking about a murder on her telephone. With her nurses gone and her husband never coming home was work, Leona worries and begins to use her phone to figure out the secrets to her husbands disappearance, and the conversation of the murderers.

Nothing seemed to work throughout "Sorry, Wrong Number." There is nobody to like or nobody to even want to care about getting through to the end, mostly because Stanwyck is so unlikeable. Even Burt Lancaster, who blew me away in "Sweet Smell of Success," just seemed to lack a bit. And the film is talky and boring. I could never really get into the story, even though the idea of telephone being the only thing that you have to survive a creepy one, and has been the basis for some other exciting thrillers in the last few years-"Phone Booth" and "Cellular." But perhaps this was just an adaptation that failed in the long run, but it was the first film in the series that made me want the short running time to just be a bit shorter.

For more information on the NYC Noir Series, visit the Official Film Forum Website! (and they really should pay me for all this free advertisement!)

NYC Noir Double Feature: The Woman in the Window and Laura

My first double feature at the NYC Noir Festival was "The Woman in the Window" and "Laura," both from 1944, and both exploring the fascination that men have with photographs of women that they know nothing about. And while you will have missed the double feature if they only run a day, you can still rent the two of them over the course of the festival and watch them from you're own home. This one has a certain theme running through both films and makes for a great double feature. The first was "The Woman in the Window."

The Woman in the Window ****
Directed by Fritz Lang

Edward G. Robinson stars as Professor Richard Wanley whose wife and children have gone away for a few days on holiday. He mulls this over with his friends who all warn him not to go crazy in their absence, and then they talk about this beautiful woman in a portrait next door. When they leave he goes outside and looks at it, and finds the subject waiting by the picture for the next man to come by. When she invites him back to her place to look at sketches from the artist, he agrees, and what happens next is, of course, the nice enough guy getting involved in something far too deep for him, and far too gritty and violent.

"The Woman in the Window" is an intense ninety minutes, with Robinson doing his best to over him his tracks even though he left so many holes in what he's done. Joan Bennett is fantastic and very easy on the eye as the femme fatale. What I liked about this was that it seemed like a low-key noir at the time. It does not have a flashy musical score, it does not have that many metaphors in the dialogue, and its acted a bit more quietly than "Sweet Smell of Success." To me it felt more like a more independent noir at the time compared to the big ones that came before and after. But it's a lot of fun to watch, its as intense now as it probably was back then, and the sexual undertones of obsession are there in every single scene. And the third act surprise ending will have you laughing for not figuring it out earlier. This is a great great film.

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

Laura ***
Directed by Otto Preminger

The more famous of the two films, "Laura" is another tale of sexual obsession and near necrophilia. When detective Mark McPherson falls in love with the victim of a grisly murder, Laura Hunt, he realizes that there was plenty of others in life that were in love with her-and who all had a motive for death. One is Waldo Lydecker (played by a great Clifton Webb), who was jealous of her sometimes engagement to Shelby Carpenter (played by an early Vincent Price, and it was certainly odd to see him as a playboy).

I enjoyed "Laura," but this is certainly one of the more flashy noirs that I was talking about-with a significant theme, bigger names, etc. At times it grew a bit tedious, but the great third act was a real stunner. What I'm noticing about these is that they always have a sucker punch for an ending, not like many of the mysteries now-a-days which flop out by the third act with a ridiculous twist.
------------------------------
"The Woman in the Window" and "Laura" make a great double feature. Comparing and contrasting similar themes and motifs, they work hand in hand that in 1944 I would have considered one a rip-off of another.

For more information on the NYC Noir Series, visit the Official Film Forum Website!

The Simpsons Movie

The Simpsons Movie ***

Directed by David Silverman
Written by James L. Brooks, Matt Groening, Al Jean, Ian Maxtone-Graham, George Meyer, David Mirkin, Mike Reiss, Mike Scully, Matt Selman, John Swartzwelder, and Jon Vitti, based on the television series "The Simpsons" created by Matt Groening

Starring:
Dan Castellaneta as Homer Simpson/Itchy/Barney/Grampa/Stage Manager/Krusty the Clown/Mayor Quimby/Mayor's Aide/Multi-Eyed Squirrel/Panicky Man/Sideshow Mel/Mr. Teeny/EPA Official/Kissing Cop #1/Bear/Boy on Phone/NSA Worker/Officer/Santa's Little Helper/Squeaky-Voiced Teen (voice)

Julie Kavner as Marge Simpson (voice)

Nancy Cartwright as Bart Simpson/Maggie Simpson/Ralph/Nelson/Todd Flanders/TV Daughter/Woman on Phone (voice)

Yeardley Smith as Lisa Simpson (voice)

Harry Shearer as Scratchy/Mr. Burns/Rev. Lovejoy/Ned Flanders/Lenny/Skull/President Arnold Schwarzenegger/Kent Brockman/Principal Skinner/Dr. Hibbert/Toll Booth Man/Smithers/Guard/Otto/Kang (voice)

Hank Azaria as Professor Frink/Comic Book Guy/Moe/Chief Wiggum/Lou/Carl/Cletus/Bumblebee Man/Male EPA Worker/Dome Depot Announcer/Kissing Cop #2/Carnival Barker/Counter Man/Apu/Drederick Tatum/Sea Captain/EPA Passenger/Robot/Dr. Nick (voice)

Marcia Wallace as Edna Krabappel (voice)
Joe Mantegna as Fat Tony(voice)
Albert Brooks as Russ Cargill (voice)

87 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for irreverant humor throughout)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Simpsons Movie" has been stirring up in the minds of its creators ever since it was created in 1989. This show is only two months younger than I am, and I have heard rumors of its film for years and years and years, and after a mere eighty five minutes it is over. And what can I say? It was good, entertaining, and like watching an episode of "The Simpsons," an activity that I do not partake in very often. What I admired about it most was that it did not try to take another step forward. Aside from the crisper animation, the jokes are very much the same, the gags are just as silly, but they do not try to push the limit-that is to say, you won't see any graphic sex jokes or any language (aside from a g-damn). It's an extended four part television show, and that was good enough for me.

The town of Springfield goes Al Gore to try and protect Lake Springfield, after Lisa Simpson gets fed up with the constant dumping of garbage into the river. When Homer gets a pet pig and fills a giant tube with its droppings (as well as his own), he is forced to find a place to get rid of it. When the line at the actual dump is too long, and there is the promise of free doughnuts, Homer just dumps the cylinder into the lake and causes pollution levels to rise. The government, including President Schwarzenegger, is forced to act, and Springfield gets a giant dome erected above it to make sure that nobody gets in or out. When the town finds out that it was Homer who polluted the lake, the Simpsons are forced to flee, and they go to the country of Alaska to try and figure out what to do, even though the others are all fed up with Homer's constant stupid actions to even want him to be a part of the family anymore.

There are several good gags, and many jokes a minute even though not all of them work. I do perhaps wish that the plot was a little different, as most of the film involves The Simpsons away from the town, and the colorful characters that all live there. While the script does find a place for every single background character, many of their scenes are less than ten seconds long and are a little blip. I also wish there could have been the inclusion of Sideshow Bob, as Kelsey Grammar's character is always welcomed with open arms. Maybe if the plot stayed in Springfield there could have been more inclusions, but the film mainly focuses on the Simpsons. The plot could have been just a little less preachy, and not have a political agenda, because the overall message is one that I just commented I was tired of in my review for "Arctic Tale."

There is some good guest work including Albert Brooks (who must make another movie already) and Tom Hanks as himself. "The Simpsons Movie" is fun and entertaining and light, and what I enjoyed about it was how it actually lived up to its expectations. It did not try to be an amazing summer spectacle, and stayed low-key and actually seemed to be something that the fans could actually enjoy. And from what I hear, except for one or two people, the fans are pretty satisfied with the film. And now, after 18 long years of waiting, fans can finally sit down and enjoy the film version of the longest running animated television show ever-although not the greatest like many would claim.

Wet Hot American Summer

Wet Hot American Summer **1/2

Directed by David Wain
Written by David Wain and Michael Showalter

Starring:
Janeane Garofalo as Beth
David Hyde Pierce as Henry
Michael Showalter as Coop/Alan Shemper
Marguerite Moreau as Katie
Michael Ian Black as McKinley
Zak Orth as J.J.
A.D. Miles as Gary
Paul Rudd as Andy
Christopher Meloni as Gene
Molly Shannon as Gail
Ken Marino as Victor
Joe Lo Truglio as Neil
Amy Poehler as Susie
Bradley Cooper as Ben
Gideon Jacobs as Aaron

97 Minutes(Rated R for strong sexual content, language and a drug sequence. )
--------------------------------------------------------------
To the horror of a few of my friends, I have never seen "Wet Hot American Summer," but thanks to a special midnight screening at the famed Landmark Sunshine Cinemas in Manhattan, I finally got to see David Wain's precursor to upcoming "The Ten," which I will be reviewing next Thursday. And I must say, as Michael Showalter told the audience who has never seen the movie before the screening, I kept my expectations rather low, and got quite a bit of enjoyment from it, and even a little bit of nostalgia. "Wet Hot American Summer" successfully depicts the summer camp lifestyle, and even though this was sleep away camp and I went to day camp, the point was still made across.

Here its the last day at Camp Firewood. There are a series of colorful characters-the shy Coop, the camp loverboy Andy, the slutty Katie, the lunch worker Gene, the gay McKinley, and his two friends-the goofballs J.J and Gary. And then there is the camp director Beth, and the astro-physics teacher that she has her eye on, Henry-who is believing that a giant satellite is about to fall onto the camp, killing all life there. And on the last day, with all the camp hormones surging to get some last minute action, everybody is trying to find something of the summer to cling onto.

There are many laughs (mostly involving the gay counselor, a boating trip, and telling time with the sun), a couple of misses (mostly involving the satellite, the outcast camper, an arts and crafts teachers, and trying to locate a telephone), but the real enjoyment I got from this was just the whole camp experience. Summer camp is a fun time, being a camper or a consuler, just because everybody is having a good time just being away from everything. I think one scene kind of sums it all up. It's the talent show, and a kid comes up and balances a broom on his hand for three seconds, and the entire camp just applauds him. And it was times like these that I enjoyed most from camp. And for the most part, "Wet Hot American Summer" got it right, even if it does have moments where the comedy is all wrong. This was a midnight screening from last Friday and Saturday, so you missed the moment to go, but its worth a rental, and I look forward to "The Ten." I really did enjoy seeing this film in "it's element," and the people in the audience who have seen it a jillion times probably enjoyed it more than I did. But that's the fun of a cult film. If I didn't see it with people that got more enjoyment from it, I may not have liked it as much as I did-but the inclusion of people clapping while characters clapped, shouting when they did, or even smelling like weed and booze, really did add to the experience.

Molière

Molière **1/2

Directed by Laurent Tirard
Written by Laurent Tirard and Grégoire Vigneron

Starring:
Romain Duris as Jean-Baptiste Poquelin dit Molière
Fabrice Luchini as M. Jourdain
Laura Morante as Elmire Jourdain
Edouard Baer as Dorante
Ludivine Sagnier as Célimène
Fanny Valette as Henriette Jourdain
Mélanie Dos Santos as Louison Jourdain
Gonzague Requillart as Valère
Gilian Petrovski as Thomas

120 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for some sexual content. )
-------------------------------------------------------
"Moliere" is flawed-far too long, pretty much unneeded in many aspects-but is mildly amusing and somewhat entertaining to make it not a complete waste, even though it over stays its welcome on many accounts. This is a ninety minute story told in one twenty, and no matter how many comedic mix-ups and gags and mistaken identities are in this bulky farce, it still didn't make me want to check my clock any less-and sadly a broken cell phone made this impossible. Of all the French films that could have been released from that country, I do not really know why Sony Pictures Classic's chose "Moliere." Perhaps they thought it would make a small fortune, but all I know is there is probably many more interesting picks from the country than this period historically fiction comedy. And having little to no knowledge about the playwright Moliere, I am sure that the screenplay was covered in "in" jokes for those that were experts. Maybe one day I can revisit "Moliere" will a new found knowledge and a new found appreciation, but until that day, this will be a rather entertaining little ditty-a mere mark-on my film history.

Excellent French superstar Romain Duris played Moliere, who, as I learned here, disappeared for a thirteen year period during 16th century Paris. This film offers an idea of where he was during that time. Arrested because he owed collectors, Moliere is taken from his acting troupe and sent to the clutches of M. Jourdain. Jourdain asks Moliere to give him knowledge of theatre and acting, because he wrote a play professing his love for the beautiful Célimène. Moliere agrees because it will clear his debt. And so he goes with Jourdain, and is told not to let his wife-Elmire Jourdain-know anything about what her husband is up to. Pretending to be Mr. Tartuffe-a priest-Moliere does not expect to end up falling for the beautiful Madam Jourdain, and the comedy of errors that stems from these few years ends up becoming the inspiration for the great plays that followed.

There are some very funny moments placed all over "Moliere," most of them involving M. Jourdain, who resorts to many different lengths to try and win Celimene's heart-one of which involves dressing up like a woman to infiltrate her home at one point. But on the whole, "Moliere" is a much too long affair with no real ultimate purpose. It's merely there and that's that. An entertaining little diversion. Romain Duris is a very talented actor, but compared to "Russian Dolls" and "The Beat That My Heart Skipped" this is not a performance to rave about. The real star is the French beauty Laura Morante, who at 51 years of age looks like she is a little older than thirty. I do wish I knew a little bit more about the playwright Moliere because I may have gotten a greater appreciation for the film-and from how the film ends I can tell that a lot of the events here are placed a little bit in his other later plays.

The technical aspects are all on target-the costumes and settings are beautiful to watch, and the visuals are there for you to gloss over. But that really is the highlight of the film, which falls a bit flat especially in the third act. I probably can recommend "Moliere" to those that have a better understanding of the playwrights background, but for everyone else, myself included in that category, it is really is just mere entertainment-a little bit of fun to pass the time, even if that time is a bit more than it should be.

Playing at:

Landmark Sunshine Cinemas

Lincoln Plaza Cinemas

NYC Noir: Sweet Smell of Success

Sweet Smell of Success ****

Directed by Alexander Mackendrick
Written by Clifford Odets and Ernest Lehman, based on the novel by Lehman

Starring:
Burt Lancaster as J.J. Hunsecker
Tony Curtis as Sidney Falco
Susan Harrison as Susan Hunsecker
Martin Milner as Steve Dallas
Sam Levene as Frank D' Angelo
Barbara Nichols as Rita
Jeff Donnell as Sally
Joe Frisco as Herbie Temple
Emile Meyer as Lt. Harry Kello
Edith Atwater as Mary
The Chico Hamilton Quintet as Themselves

96 Minutes(Not Rated)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting on July 27th, my beloved Film Forum (the best theatre in New York City when it comes to revival programming, in my opinion), will be showing noir films that are set in New York City. The mini-festival runs until the end of August, showcasing up to 46 films before culminating in a weekend run of "The French Connection." Sadly I'll be away that week, and will miss the chance to see and review it. But in their place you will get to see special reviews for roughly twenty-six of the features, even though that is subject to change at any time. Kicking the festival off was a two day run of "Sweet Smell of Success," which was released first in 1957.

"Sweet Smell of Success" is a nearly perfect noir film, and a great opening for the festival. Having never seen it before, I was struck by how much New York City has changed, and the crisp dark seedy images of New York in its glory days offered much comparison to the state of it at the moment. Here we see man's ego being the centerpiece for the rich and impressionable, and we focus on Sidney Falco, a man who will suck up to just about anybody to get to the top. That anybody happens to be newspaper writer J.J. Hunsecker, whose daily column in the paper is pretty much a danger zone if he writes somebody up in a negative light. At the moment he is a little ticked off at his sister, Susan, and her engagement to Steve Dallas, a member of The Chico Hamilton Quintet. But he is even more ticked off at Sidney because he ordered Sidney to break up their relationship quite some time ago. And so Sidney, to try not to get on J.J's bad side, ends up coming up with a little plan to ensure that the young lovers are son drifted apart, and he goes upon his quest to try and get the chance to stand alongside J.J, even if it means selling out numerous people along the way.

Several things come to mind during "Sweet Smell of Success" that strike the viewer right away. The first is the amazing cinematography-New York at its seediest. Everything and everyone covered in a strange dark shadow, with the background images-the lights, the glamour, the theatres, the nightclubs-all radiating this strong light. Next is the great acting-by both Tony Curtis and especially Burt Lancaster, who I have honestly never saw in a movie before. This festival is allowing me to see a couple. These two characters are some of the more egotistical men I've ever seen on film. J.J. with his greedy obsession with the power that he has, glaring down at everyone beneath that thickly framed glasses. Sidney, wanting to share that power with him-calling women "dames" and refusing to go out with a hat and coat because he doesn't want to have to tip to hat or coat check people. J.J. using Sidney because he knows that Sidney will do anything he asks, and Sidney not realizing that he is being used because he is so twisted with the hunger for power. Sidney never realizes that he is always being used as a puppet next to J.J., always thinking he is one step higher. Story aside, this is the focus of the film-their relationship, even though it is the most selfish one there is. Next is the music-Elmer Bernstein's honestly catchy score, and his main theme that several people were humming as we exited. And finally, the dialogue. The theatre was certainly abuzz with laughter at some of the lines:

"I'd hate to have a bite of you. You're a cookie fulla arsenic!"
"You're more twisted than a barrel of pretzels."
"You're dead, son. Get yourself buried. "
What am I, a bowl of fruit? A tangerine that peels in a minute?"

and that's just a tiny bit of it. . .

But this is classic film noir-a genre that I sadly know very little about and wish to know more. And thanks to Film Forum I'll be able to see several of the films: and on some days they offer double feature or even triple features, all for the one admission price of 10.50. That may seem like a lot, but then again this is New York, and what is the chance that you will see some of these films on the big screen for a while. But as for "Sweet Smell of Success," I was floored. I was intrigued in the story from the start, and it looked great. This film defines a whole era of cinema that I wish I knew more and more about. A whole era that I have only just cracked the surface, and with "NYC Noir" I will be only twenty-six films into that era-not even a dent, but a start.

For a complete listing of the films being played at Film Forum's NYC Noir, click HERE!

No Reservations

No Reservations ***

Directed by Scott Hicks
Written by Carol Fuchs, based on the screenplay "Mostly Martha" by Sandra Nettelbeck

Starring:
Catherine Zeta-Jones as Kate
Aaron Eckhart as Nick
Abigail Breslin as Zoe
Patricia Clarkson as Paula
Jenny Wade as Leah
Bob Balaban as Therapist
Brian F. O'Byrne as Sean

105 Minutes(Rated PG for some sensuality and language. )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No Reservations" is a nice, light-sometimes somber affair-and it doesn't pretend to be anything else. This won't win awards for originality, but it's well made, well acted, and well executed. It takes a story that is a prime target to be ridden with cliches, and it avoids, for the most part, a couple of them, even though at times it does succumb to scenes and images that we've seen a million times before. But I enjoyed it. It's sweet, and that's what it sets out to do. It takes a story we've seen before, and does it well, and for that reason it is a nice two hours to spend at the theatre on a hot day. There is nothing to expect from it, and you get what you think you're going to get out of it. Being the first top billing for Catherine Zeta Jones in some time, you have to wonder if maybe she really saw something in the script to want to do it. . . or perhaps she just needs some quick money. Ironically, this film both offers a decent script, and it obviously gave the actors a paycheck.

Catherine Zeta Jones plays Kate, who is possibly the best chef in New York. But at great cost. She may be the head chef in a kitchen in Manhattan, but she also does not have a boyfriend, no real people to call her friends, and she is seeing a therapist on order from the restaurant manager-she, on occasion, freaks out whenever a customers complains about her food. One night her sister is supposed to come and visit, but she gets into a car accident instead. Her sister dies, and Kate is left to care for her niece-the young Zoey. Kate doesn't know anything about raising a child, but is doing is because it was her sister's wish in case anything ever happened to her. Kate takes a few days off, and finds that there is a new chef in the kitchen-Nick. Kate is ticked because she likes to be in charge of who she works with, and the two have a rocky start. But, like in all romance movies, she has a change of heart, and with the help of the prodding nine year old besides her ends up finally finding true love, yada yada yada. . .

It isn't the most original story-and it's even a remake of a German film "Mostly Martha"-but its sweet in its own way. It is surprisingly engrossing, and there are many laughs to be have-especially the scenes with Bob Balaban as Kate's quirky psychiatrist. The three main leads-Zeta Jones, Aaron Eckhart, and young Abigail Breslin who really has to avoid becoming another Dakota Fanning-all work well together, and make multiple dimensions in their characters. Of course at times the film does succumb to a few "family friendly" cliches. When Kate and Zoey finally start to connect, there is that pillow fight scenes where the feathers all fall out, and there is that image of them on the floor with the slow motion feathers falling all over them. One thing that struck me a bit odd was how the film never explored Kate's feelings about taking on a child. She never seemed like it was disrupting her life, and she never blamed the child for changing her life in such a big way. This was a nice touch, as she really does seem to want to help the child.

The film also avoids a courtroom scene, which I thought we would see. At one point, Zoey's principle tells Kate that she has been falling asleep during class-this is because she spends so many late hours at the restaurant-and there was the phrase "call child services." And in my head I was imaging a courtroom scene where she is gaining custody of the kid, and in a weaker film they would have tried to tug at the heartstrings a bit too hard, but this avoids that greatly, and the term "child services" is never brought up again. Instead the incident seems more of a way for Kate to discover the mistakes that she is making, to try and become a better mother.

Lastly I'll mention the music. Philip Glass was on board for this one, and I found it strange when I saw his name in the credits. I'm used to him composing these majestic scores for such period dramas as "The Hours" and "The Illusionist," or "Notes on a Scandal." And seeing him doing this wide release Hollywood romance was a change of pace, but he falters not at all, and does music just as majestic as this independent films. It's great work, as usual. "No Reservations" is a nice little two hours spent at the theatre. It isn't perfect, but it's charming and ultimately winning.

Playing at:

Mostly everywhere.

I Know Who Killed Me

I Know Who Killed Me *

Directed by Chris Sivertson
Written by Jeff Hammond

Starring:
Lindsay Lohan as Aubrey Fleming/Dakota Moss
Julia Ormond as Susan Fleming
Neal McDonough as Daniel Fleming
Brian Geraghty as Jerrod Pointer
Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon as Agent Julie Bascome
Spencer Garrett as Agent Phil Lazarus
Gregory Itzin as Dr. Greg Jameson
Bonnie Aarons as Fat Teena
Kenya Moore as Jazmin
Thomas Tofel as Douglas Norquist
Rodney Rowland as Kenny Scaife
David Figlioli as Lanny Rierden

106 Minutes(Rated R for grisly violence including torture and disturbing gory images, and for sexuality, nudity and language. )
----------------------------------------------------------
One of America's most beloved actresses, Lindsay Lohan, returns with yet another masterpiece of add to her very diverse filmography-"I Know Who Killed Me."

OR

One of America's most joked about actress Lindsay Lohan returns with yet another complete failure to add to her impressively dismal resume-"I Know Who Killed Me."

And with the latter description, we have a winner. On the heels of her creepy mother daughter relationship film "Georgia Rule" at the start of the summer, Lohan returns to kill the summer and her career with two things so bad that I don't even know which is worse. And, alright fine I'll admit, you could probably now say that she is at least TRYING to divert away from the teenie bop image that she conjured for herself after movies like "The Parent Trap," "Freaky Friday," and "Mean Girls," but in the end-those were actually three decent films. And by trying to pick the most inane, stupid, illogical, and pathetic excuse for a thriller does not show that she has a "range of talent," it just shows that she has a "range of tolerance" as she works with some of the most unimaginative and sadly talentless people in the industry.

"I Know Who Killed Me" starts off with Lohan as Aubrey Fleming, a perfect little high school student. She wants to be a writer, so she writes these horrible pulp stories that we hear a little bit about. She plays the piano, but wants to quit so that she could write these horrible stories more often. And she has a boyfriend who she refuses to sleep with because she'll be going away to college soon to write some more of these horrible stories. . . all the time. And then she is kidnapped one night, forced to endure night after night of torture, and then she is found seventeen days later on the side of the road. She is brought to the hospital, but when she wakes up and her parents are hovering over her saying "Aubrey, you're going to be alright," she responds with "Whose Aubrey?" She claims that she is Dakota Moss, the daughter of a drug addict whose mother is now dead, and who is whoring herself to men and working as a stripper to makes some kind of ends meet. And the police are angry because she is not helping to catch the real killer, and her parents are angry because they have suffered enough, and the parents of another girl who was killed are angry because they want revenge. And Dakota's angry because everyone thinks that she is somebody she isn't. And this identity crisis escalates into something darker as Dakota tries to find out the secrets of everything, more or less.

I kind of think that Lohan was under the impression that with "I Know Who Killed Me" she could be taken seriously as an actress. And in this life, being taken seriously as an actress means that she has to
1) show more of her body-it's very important to have a sex scene or two
2) scream and yell-it's important to have been kidnapped
3) curse more-especially in those scenes where you're really angry

And since she manages to fulfill all three of those requirements, it means that she has proven her range. Right? Wrong! Lohan has never been worse. She was actually better in "Georgia Rule" than she was here. All of her more "raunchy" scenes-the sex scene, the strip club scenes, the torture scenes-she does with so much awkwardness and staleness that it just wasn't believable. She never made me feel sorry for Aubrey or Dakota or whoever she was. She was just plain annoying. And don't get me wrong. I am not being harsh to Lohan for her behavior outside of film. Honestly, I couldn't care less if she was actually caught sniffing cocaine in the back of a car going 120 miles per hour with her at the wheel. It's her movie that I went to see, and its her movie that was horrible-and it would have been horrible had it been released a week ago before her arrest, and it would have been horrible had it been released a year ago before she was arrested the first time. And Lohan looks like an Oscar contender compared to everybody else that surrounds her. Every single background character-from her parents, to her boyfriend, to the police, to the doctors-look like they are having the worst time working her. Nobody puts any emotion, everyone is wooden as can be, and they all look like they need some energy, and right away. I was bored just watching them, and this is only an hour and forty minute movie.

And now lets move on to technical work. First, the direction. Director Chris Sivertson seems to think that he is some kind of David Lynch film student, and he does all the classic Lynch techniques-the dark road, the close ups on the screaming actresses face (which I saw in "Inland Empire" last year), and the strange use of color. Every now and then Sivertson will cover the screen in this beautiful shade of blue, and while this is a bit gritty and dark, it served no point than to try to make the film more gritty and dark. And then the script, which is just ridiculous. In these thrillers, there is always that point where the viewer kind of wants to have answers, however bad. But the answers that this screenplay presents are just so implausible that there is no way that you will guess it. There are two twists here. The first is the mystery of Lohan's strange memory problem. There is no way that you will guess it because the concept of it isn't introduced until well after the hour mark, and it is so ridiculous and out of this world that any sane person would even think that it would be a possibility. And then the second twist, the ultimate answer to who the killer is, is even more inane-once again I did not see it coming because there was never a clue except for when Dakota knows who did it. And when she knew, I still didn't know. And the final minute was more impossible notions, defying most laws of. . .well, I guess life.

It's a shame this was no good, but yet again I have been disappointed with the prospects of a dark thriller. The same thing happened with last year's "The Black Dahlia," but unlike that one, this seemed to have no hope from the get go. If Lohan did not sign on, I doubt this would have had a theatre release, and would have either aired on Starz one night or just went straight to video. Or it may never have been made. At least that way you'll know that your intelligence is spared for an hour and forty minutes. "I Know Who Killed Me," as well as Lohan's outside behavior, is sure to spare me of another one of her failed attempts to do more "serious" work.

Playing at:

Mostly everywhere.

Laura Smiles

Laura Smiles ***1/2

Directed by Jason Ruscio
Written by Jason Ruscio

Starring:
Petra Wright as Laura
Kip Pardue as Chris
Mark Derwin as Mark
Jonathan Silverman as Paul
Stephen Sowan as Billy

98 Minutes(Rated R for sexual content, language and brief violence. )
--------------------------------------------------------------
I have a new found admiration and a new found love for Petra Wright-the star of "Laura Smiles" an actress that I've never seen before and wish I have. Not only is she beautiful, but she packs such an enormous amount of energy into this multi-dimensional character that it is one of the better performances I've seen this year by someone who I'm sure I won't see for a while. "Laura Smiles" played at Tribeca two years ago which is where it came to my attention, and I was lucky enough to attend a special free advanced screening of it (it really opens on the 27th, but I saw it on the 26th. . . .oooo). In an audience of about 100, it made me curious to if the actual release will get that many people per showing. It is certainly worth scoping out. It is oddly intense, and the first half of the film has this constant creepy mood that doesn't let go, whether we watch our title character just sit there in her car, or if we watch her actually dazing out into one of her odd daydreams.

When we first meet Laura, she is about 25 and she is meeting her fiancee, Chris, in a diner. The two talk, and he agrees to play hooky from work to go and see a movie with her. And then tragedy strikes when he is struck down by a moving car. Flash ahead to nine years later, and Laura is married and has a son named Brian. It is never said that the son is Chris', but I have a strong feeling that it is-just the timing and the age of the kid. She is married to Mark, and seems happy, even if she is seeing a shrink. But something happens to Laura every now and then-she is triggered by an impulse to be with other men. And this constant adulterous nature begins to threaten the peaceful life that she has created for herself-as well as the somewhat peaceful lives of those around her.

There are two things that make the film effective. The first is the ingenious structure of the screenplay, which constantly plays with your emotions as bits of information come into light. In the beginning, we hardly get a sense at how deep the relationship between Laura and Chris really is. And his death comes as a mild shock, but we can't feel impacted by it because we knew little to nothing about his character. And when Laura begins acting funny, it isn't until after we find out more details about her and Chris when we stop seeing her as this insane and crazy comedic character, and see her for the tragic one that she really is. These little flutters of information and realizations that Ruscio decides to throw at us whenever he feels like really do build the suspense. Answers to little details like how another character got a scratch on his head are not answered until fifteen minutes later, but they really do keep you involved, and certainly made me exclaim aloud several times.

The second thing is, like I said, Petra Wright's performance as Laura. While some people in the crowd would laugh at some of the dialogue, which could be considered awkward at times, Wright makes it realistic. She really does become Laura, and she gives off such a look of beauty and innocence that you begin to see how sad this person really is. And you feel for her. And you want her to smile, but most of the smiles really come at the beginning. And still, even though Laura was happy at one point, her idea that happiness is fleeting seems to have been something that she's experienced all her life. Even though Laura was happy with Chris, there is this sense that she was always somewhat disturbed-something went wrong that stretches beyond the death of what I believe to have been her only love. "Laura Smiles" may slip right past you-and it might not even extend beyond the New York area, but it is certainly worth scoping out, and Petra Wright is certainly somebody to keep an eye on-both professionally and aesthetically.

Playing at:
CC Cinemas Village East

Live-In Maid

Live-In Maid ***

Directed by Jorge Gaggero
Written by Jorge Gaggero

Starring:
Norma Aleandro as Beba Pujol
Norma Argentina as Dora

83 Minutes(Not Rated-Nothing Really Objectable)
------------------------------------------------------------
I ended up getting to the theatre a little earlier than I thought I would on the afternoon that I was set to see "Live-In Maid." It was playing at the Film Forum, a theatre in Manhattan that shows a lot of foreign films that play nowhere else in the city, or classic films (aside from "Live-In Maid" the triplex was showing Woody Allen's "Manhattan," and Fritz Lang's "Metropolis.") This theatre is great at decoration, and along one of the walls there is also plenty of information about all the films that are playing there. And surrounding the poster for "Live-In Maid" there were plenty of reviews and photographs from the films, which I took a glance at, and learned a few things. The first thing I learned was a little bit about the actress-Norma Aleandro. She is compared to Meryl Streep in terms of being well known. And every movie that she is in in her Latin American country is usually met with glowing reviews-this one no exception. But this is considered an independent film in her country as well, with Jorge Gaggero being a first time writer and director. In fact, Gaggero was nervous about asking her to be in his movie, but she agreed after reading the script. The second thing that I learned was the back story-the historical facts of the films-something that the movie itself leaves out a bit. In 2001, the country of Argentina was going through an economic decline so powerful that it changed the lifestyles of literally everyone in it.

And Beba Pujol is going through difficulties because of the economy. Once a rich matron, Beba had it all. And now she is so bad off that she is forced to go to pawn shops to try and pawn her coffee pot. And she is so bad off that she can't afford to pay her maid of the last twenty-eight years, Dora. Eventually Dora is forced to resign from her post, simply because she knows that Beba cannot afford to pay her. But can Beba really go on without Dora, a firm rock in her life for the last three decades? And that is pretty much all the back story that you need to know before watching this charming film.

You may notice that in the cast list that I provide, I only put the two leads on the list. There are other characters, but all of them are completely background when these two women are on the screen. Norma Aleandro may be more famous than Norma Argentina (who, I learned from the reviews stapled onto the wall, was an actual maid for many years being getting the part in this film) but she is easily matched in a great performance by Argentina. And together they ignite the screen. This is a film about a friendship-an odd one and one that has no expression-but a strong friendship nonetheless. Dora, sad faced with eyes of somber experience, looks at Beba in a new way. She is not angry by the fact that her loyal employer has problems paying her, but sees her as an equal now. The class difference that has always been there since the start of Dora's tenure is slowly disappearing as Beba becomes less and less important financially. And considering the two of them barely speak to one another, there is just tenderness in all of their moments together that you are reminded of a marriage between two people that probably would both die within a few months of each other. The core of the film is this friendship, and Gaggero screenplay and story are so simple, that it is really does require the two great performances by the two Norma's, who really do put life into both of their characters. I can imagine that, on the page, Beba and Dora may not seem amazing, but the actress' really do put strong effort into it. The work between the two of them is about equal to the six or seven great lady performances in "Evening."

"Live-In Maid" is a well acted charmer, and that is that. It is a nice little film about friendship, loyalty, and the kinds of relationships that form over a long period of time, whether you want them to or not. At a brief hour and twenty minute run time, it is not something to devote yourself to, and when you leave you may forget it a few weeks later-but for a first time film it has a lot of say about class systems, and relationships between them, and it is quite an achievement.

Now Playing At:
Film Forum

Arctic Tale

Arctic Tale **

Directed by Sarah Robertson
Written by Linda Woolverton and Mose Richards

Narrated by Queen Latifah

85 Minutes(Rated G)
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Arctic Tale" is yet another global warming warning documentary-straight on the heels of "An Inconvenient Truth," and "March of the Penguins." And next week I get to see an advanced screening of the new documentary "The 11th Hour," which looks as if it'll offer the same exact warning and similar facts and stories. I am somewhat getting tired of this message being rammed down my throat, and "Arctic Tale" tries to tug at your heartstrings by showing the viewer cute and cuddly arctic animals that are dying because of our mistakes. And during the credits they even show cute little children giving us advice on how to save cute and cuddly animals like this. So it's all one big cute and cuddly showcase that is really all done to put the viewer on some guilt trip. But I think that people are tiring of this documentary trend, and soon enough I will be avoiding nature documentaries just as much as I avoid the political one. Because I'm tired of getting this message told to me. And judging by the one person in the theatre with me, I think everybody else is too.

"Arctic Tale" is narrated by Queen Latifah. Actually, she isn't even billed as the narrator. She is billed as the "storyteller." And I remember about two months ago seeing the trailer for this and the narrator began saying "Join storyteller Queen Latifah," and I laughed silly-just the notion of Queen Latifah being called a storyteller. Well, she tells us the stories of the wonders of the ice kingdom, and shows us a polar bear who was just born-who they name Nanu, and a baby walrus named Seela. No other animal is named here except those two, and that is why the film makers follow them around over the course of the next fifteen years. They are born, learn how to catch and kill animals, follow their mothers around, and both experience loss-Nanu is forced to leave her mother one day, and Seela has to endure the death of one of her protectors. And they avoid death, etc, all because of the changing climates.

Now the stunning film capturing of the animals are their lives is amazing. The great photography of the arctic life and the snow and the landscapes are beautiful, and on the big screen they really do stick out more so than they would on video. I could have basked in these images for quite some time. i wish I saw it on a bigger screen, and not at the local art house which is a nice theatre but suffers from a small screen. The problem with "Arctic Tale" is two fold. First fold: I know all this stuff already. I know how to prevent global warming, and I know the impact that its having all over the world. For Nanu and Seela, they have been born at a time where the strict schedules that their mothers have to live with nature are changing because either the weather is too hot, or the changing of the seasons is late. They are living in a time of crisis because they have to go through extra lengths to survive. And it tries to put the audience on this massive guilt trip-trying to make us feel bad for the horrors that these wonderful animals have to go through. At least "An Inconvenient Truth" had some facts about the issue and presented us with information. This provides us with great footage, but just constantly places blame.

The second problem with the film is Queen Latifah. Her storytelling method is just plain annoying. Instead of a scientific narration, or one by Morgan Freeman which sounds scientific just because he has a great voice, the writing seems like something Latifah wrote herself. When presented with an interesting fact-that walruses rub their mustaches against each other for identification purposes, Latifah says "Those sweet 'staches aren't just for style!" And when the two polar bear cubs lallygag around when their mother bear calls them, Latifah says "When your mother's a polar bear. . . you best be going!" Other greatly written "scientific" lines include "That's just how they roll," and Everybody's up in each others business!" And of course, who can forget, after all the walrus' eat and Latifah says "Somebody starts a game of pull my flipper. . ." and then there's the walrus flatulence minute that feels like it goes on for an eternity. And then it happens again later on. In fact, "Arctic Tale" goes to extreme measures to appeal to children, even to resorting to crude humor, all to try to get them to listen to the dangers of global warming.

The soundtrack is another horrible thing in this documentary, and just adds to the loss of credibility. Classic tracks like "We Are Family" and "Celebrate" background certain scenes. There was just so much eye-rolling going on here, that all of the interesting facts and the stunning visuals were just overlooked and the annoying narration and music became the centerpiece. "Arctic Tale" could be passed on and in its place, something a little better-like the two docs I stated above-could take their place. But I can recommend it for it's visuals, so when the video comes out, you could rent it, put it on mute, and play something on a CD player-make your own score. Virtually anything is better than the sound in this.

Playing at:

Angelika Film Center

AMC Lincoln Square and IMAX

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-A Reflection on the Book and The Last Ten Years

As a warning to anybody who plans on reading this, this is probably the most personal thing that you will ever see written on this site. I know I usually am strictly about the reviews and that's that, but this seems to warrant some kind of column on it.

The last month has been quite a strange one, emotionally and mentally. I graduated from high school, with twelve years of education under my belt, getting ready to embark on college in the coming January. On the same day as my last day of school, I quit my job, ending over a year of working at the first place I ever called work. And then a few weeks later, the seventh and final Harry Potter book came out in stores. I know you might be thinking-"Is this guy a nerd or what? Writing an entire thing about the new Harry Potter book!" And I bet you are wondering how there could be a connection between graduating, quitting my first job, and the new book coming out. But there is one, and its all about things ending. Believe it or not, the publication of this final book is actually a symbol for the third big closing to my childhood.

In preparation of the final book coming out, I spent the last month or so re-reading the other books in the series, so I could read the last when it comes out, and read the series in order. And as I read them, I ended up remembering the first time I read the books-and I noted a pattern.

As I read the first book (The Sorcerer's Stone) I recalled when the series first came out. I was in the fifth grade. It was a new thing, really, even though three of the books were already out. But people were slowly getting curious about them. I remember my fifth grade teacher deciding to read them aloud to the class-we would all gather in the corner as she read these books. I had copies of all of them of my own, and choose to read-along with her. She would change voices along with the characters, even though her creativity could not go across the vast palate of character that writer J.K. Rowling had to offer. She read the first three books of that series, and then I graduated-it was June 2000, and the fourth book of the series was being published in July of 2000.

That was the beginning. The first three were out, and it would be the years of passing in between that marked the publication of the next four in the seven book series. The fourth book came out fresh out of elementary school-I probably thought I was hot shit to-having just graduated, and now reading a book that was over 700 pages long, as if it were a giant tomb. And I read it that summer, and sure enough, not only had I changed, but the tone of the entire series changed. It was suddenly darker and more mature, and I liked how the change somewhat reflected me, even if it was just all in my head, because I certainly knew nothing at 11. And this was the crucial moment in the series where everything just changed-plot wise too. The story arcs were forming as well.

I entered junior high school, and in those three terrible years there may have been no publications, but I certainly changed a lot. I was a growing teenage boy, and so was Harry, and that was proven in 2003 when the fifth book in the series was published, and I was experiencing deju vu by graduating once again. The basis of the fifth book was political-all about civil war and civil conflict, which is odd because at that time in my life I was becoming aware of the importance of politics in the world. I was going into high school, where such knowledge would be imperative and extremely necessary. And when the sixth book came out two years later, the book was full of romance and love, the kind of thing that I was also trying to look into around that time. Yes, the Harry Potter books were being published as my life went on, and it seemed like at every major milestone in my young adulthood, a new book was there to egg me on.

And now there is the final, coming at the ironic moment of my graduation and my advancement from school and work. And its fitting. The books started at the start of my getting out in the world, and they ended at the moment where I'm going out on my own. The safe haven of childhood and innocence is now broken as I advance up in my education, and I have no more books to look forward to.

So when I rushed through the new book over the course of three days (to remain spoiler free I barely went on my message boards, or read reviews, or talk to anybody who I knew was interested in the series), I finished it, and with the final three words-the last sentence-I not only shut the book on Harry Potter, but I also shut the book on the last twelve years. I shut the book on my schooling. I shut the book on those summer days every few years when the new book would be published, and with heightened anticipation I would read on to see what happens next. And not just me, but many others. Out and about on Friday night I did not go to the midnight celebration, but I did show up at around 1am to pick up a copy, after the lines cooled down a bit. And I looked around in a nostalgic reverence in my eye-everybody, greater fans than I I'm sure, was so happy to be there. Clad in some kind of dress related to the book. On line for hours. But some of them cannot know how much the series actually meant to me. These are the books that maybe my kids will find one day and I could tell them that they were popular fantasy story when I was a kid- very much like my dad tells me about certain series' that he read when he was young. And I would hope that they could get the same thing out of them that I did.

So that is it. They are done. There will never be another one. In fact, J.K Rowling never has to write a single word for the rest of her life. But that doesn't mean that the massive amount she already had will go unnoticed. They will be around forever-a staple in children's fantasy literature, and a staple in my childhood. When I finished the new Harry Potter book I also came to terms with the fact that the first stage of my life is done. And thinking back from the moment my fifth grade teacher started the first book and the first sentence on the first paragraph, little did I know how, completely by accident, those books would follow me to the end of high school, and end at the beginning of something else.

And it was a good show. . .