josephtheowl Reviews

Independent America: The Two-Lane Search for Mom & Pop (2005 Video)

Laying on the liberal guilt pretty thick.

[3/10 · 5 July 2007]

I really wanted to like this documentary. I am a huge supporter of small businesses and my favorite places to eat and shop are the mom and pop shops this doc wanted to portray. Hell, I've had birthdays at small coffee shops, and I've spent countless summers hanging out at indie comic book and music shops.

But the fact is, the two "documentarians" don't present both sides of the argument, they commit the journalistic mortal sin of not telling the whole truth. They glance over that not so tiny detail, they don't fully mention how many people the "big bad" chain stores employ. They want so badly to vilify the Wal-Marts and Starbucks of the world (which is like shooting fish in a barrel) when in actuality, they themselves have probably shopped at these stores at one time or another.

Now, I'm no fan of the corporate coffee house (I don't drink coffee anyway), but I realize that they do employ thousands of people more than indie shops do, because indie shops really don't hire that often. Ergo the moniker "mom and pop shop". I myself work at a corporate bookseller, because I'm a college student in need of work. And even though mom and pop shops are family run, that doesn't necessarily make them "indie".

Once, when my family was in between homes, we stayed at a Best Western, and a lot of people forget that even though it is a chain business, many of these places are INDEPENDENTLY owned and operated (like Denny's). Hell, it says so behind the counter. And guess who runs the place? Not some evil Cheney-esquire megalomaniac, but a Korean lady and her 2 sons. Yes that's right, big chain stores can be run by families. And this documentary doesn't really cover that aspect in its entirety.

That's my biggest problem with the documentary, it doesn't make a clear distinction between Mom and Pop shop and Independent shop (like Al Gore blurring the line between oil consumption and pollution, 2 very obviously different things). Because there is a difference. The people who work at chain stores aren't evil, they're regular people who need a job and it just so happens that chain stores offer more starter job opportunities, which is a hard truth to swallow for some people.

Let's not forget that both Heather Hughes and her husband Hanson Hosein both work for a major cable news network. And quite frankly, I'm not buying their wannabe altruism one bit. If you wanna talk fighting big business un-ethics, they should talk about not buying any product made in China. Why didn't they just drive up to the corporate offices? Isn't that their true enemy? Or maybe it's because their big business employer might share the same building? However, I did like some of the documentary. I did like the fact that they actually stopped to talk to people, and they actually talked to a manager at a Wal-Mart (which employs a number of students, senior citizens and ex-cons who might not've been able to find employment anywhere else, and jobs help keep people out of trouble). And they did mention that Starbucks did start out as a small business.

Which is why I didn't give this doc a 1/10.

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Exactly what you think it is.

[10/10 · 2 July 2007]

If you enjoy in-depth plot, character development, and meticulously crafted dialog, then this movie isn't for you.

If you enjoy ridiculous, over the top action sequences, mindless fun and an explosion every 5 minutes, then this film is definitely for you.

Out of all the disappointing sequels spawned this summer (Spidey 3, Pirates 3, Shrek 3) this film actually delivers. It lives up to everything a "Die Hard" film is supposed to be about: Bruce Willis beating the living crap out of the bad guys and laughing about it afterward.

And the film most importantly doesn't take itself too seriously. At some points the movie seems to be parodying itself, which makes it even funnier. Most people in the audience were thoroughly entertained, which is what a movie should do.

The Factor (1996–2017)

I don't agree with some of the stuff he says but...

[9/10 · 1 June 2007]

I do find it entertaining.

I like watching the one-sided interviews where some peon is getting pummeled on national television by a guy with decades of experience and preparation.

Things I don't like are when the Factor producers hound someone for a story. That's a bit much. And the shouting contests. And the interrupting. And the perpetuation of celebrity faux-news. But it's part of the show, like trailer-trash fights on "Jerry Springer" or ego-feeding and Hollywood.

Yes, I know the show is conservative, but I watch a bit of Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and Bill Maher's shows too. It's a good idea to listen to different opinions, even if (and especially because) you don't agree with them. Would anyone really WANT to watch a show where they smiled and nodded with every single thing the host had to say? It would be boring and pointless, not to mention preaching to the choir.

The fact that so many people hate O'Reilly is good for ratings, and not only that, it engages people and it helps people choose a side. And let's be honest, guys like O'Reilly, Maher, Beck, even Colbert are just different characters playing the same game, and it reminds me of pro-wrestling (except nobody takes those guys too seriously). It wouldn't be any fun if there were only 1 kind of personality on TV "bloviating", as Bill likes to say, about the news.

Bug (2006)

I've Never Seen So Many People Leave a Theater

[1/10 · 25 May 2007]

While I really like Ashley Judd, this movie was easily the worst film I have ever seen. The trailers make it seem promising, but I assure you, there is no subplot, there is no twist ending, and there is no real depth or redeeming quality to this film. Watching a rhesus monkey eat lice would be far more entertaining, and would actually make exponentially more sense than this film.

People were leaving with only 10 minutes left in the movie, and at the last 20 minutes, my date and I (along with 99% of the people there), were laughing about how absolutely ridiculous the dialog was. The film itself is laughable from start to finish. I heard other people even say that "This was the worst film of the year." And that would be an understatement. When I left the theater, I was speechless as to how bad it was. It actually took a few minutes for it to sink in that I actually paid to see this and sat through it.

The subplot with the ex-husband, the best friend and the little boy were grossly underdeveloped, and the movie doesn't really explain anything at all. The blood and gore aren't even scary, it's just for pure shock value. Even "Dreamcatcher" was better, at least it actually had aliens.

The movie doesn't have 1 scary part in it. At one point, we were desperately hoping that it would at least turn out like "Species" or even "Species II", but instead, the film plays out like a bad Sci-Fi channel movie. Then again, that would be an insult to Sci-Fi channel movies.

Please, do not waste your time and $10 on this disgrace.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Emo-Man: An Action Figure Movie

[1/10 · 20 May 2007]

This was easily the very worst of the trilogy. Thank the lord on high I didn't pay money to see this movie. Because it's bad. Like Joel Schumacher's "Batman and Robin" bad. Like rubber bat-nipples and gratuitous homo-erotic butt shots bad.

I can see why the cast didn't want to be in the movie (as seen in the post-production interviews on practically every entertainment channel). Did the writers really think they could replace story with special effects? Sure, they made a gazillion bucks, but this crap movie will never win a real award, and it actually hurts the comic book genre deeply and will never gain any real seriousness.

Much of the dialog was labored and just plain bad, like the pie scene with Harry Osborn, or actually all of James Franco's dialog in all 3 movies. The "New Goblin"'s costume was nothing more than an extreme sports enthusiast's wet dream (a flying snowboard and a glorified paint ball mask).

Kirsten Dunst really didn't seem into the role. Why? Compare the number of times she screams in the first and second movies to this film. It's like she didn't want to waste her voice or make the effort.

Emo-Man was really, really terrible, like the part where he's disco dancing in public and carries an air of sexual harassment around him. I thought the symbiote was supposed to make him more aggressive, not turn him into a complete sleaze ball. Hitting Mary Jane, even accidentally, was incredibly out of character. When the pivotal moment of a story has to rely on abusing women, the movie automatically starts heading south.

Topher Grace as Venom was a terrible choice. I won't even start on how bad his dialog was and how completely they wasted Venom's potential.

Sandman was completely unnecessary. For a major antagonist, he's barely in the movie. All we get to see is how big a jerk Emo-Man is, then an underdeveloped love triangle, followed by ridiculously nonsensical fight scenes and finished off by poorly executed and mistimed comedic relief. I thought Peter Parker's character was supposed to be smart, but by the film's rushed ending, he doesn't vindicate himself and neither does Sandman.

The only redeemable parts in the film are the cameos by Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell. That is it. Please, save your $8 dollars.

The Critic (1994–2001)

It Stinks! (Just kidding)

[10/10 · 10 April 2007]

If there ever was a time we needed "The Critic", now, ladies and gentlemen, is that glorious time.

With more crap films being made now more than ever, we need a show that's unafraid to bash them mercilessly. "The Critic" was such a well-rounded cartoon with funny characters who were slinging random, situational jokes long before "Family Guy" was a twinkle in Seth MacFarlane's eye.

Sadly, "The Critic" is just one of many shows cut down in their prime. I think in the day and age of "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" being on the rise and "The Simpsons" being on the wane, this show would be very successful among adults who realize how nonsensical movies have become.

The Punisher (2004)

A tremendous disservice to over 30 years of history.

[1/10 · 29 January 2007]

I remember at the advance screening of this, I heard one guy say "It makes Hellboy look like Titanic." What the movie did was make the Punisher character much more palatable for American audiences. By making the Punisher two-dimensional and less controversial, they took away the emotional pain and helplessness readers of the comic book sympathized with when the cruelty of life corrupts a good man.

In the comics, Castle comes back from a grueling tour in Vietnam and wants to spend the rest of his life with his wife and 2 children in peace. But while they're enjoying a Sunday picnic in the park, they witness a Mafia hit and are subsequently murdered, only Frank (barely) survives. He's a victim and survivor of senseless violence, and when Frank becomes the Punisher, it isn't to "punish" the bad guys. He believes that society has gone insane, and his only purpose left in life is to force it to make sense. He's a vigilante and anti-hero, not because he kills or uses guns, but because he couldn't care less about law and order. Which even in real life, have failed countless people.

The part of the movie that really took a step into absurdity was when the Saint family's hit men killed his family. His ENTIRE family. I almost busted a gut laughing when one guy tried to escape a hail of gunfire by boarding a dingy. It's like if Batman had his mom, dad, third cousin Scooter, crazy uncle Joe and goldfish Goldy killed. It cheapens the effect of losing the few closest people to you when they show all these other obscure people dropping like flies. I also laughed when Castle's mom got shot in the leg because Thomas Jane's reaction was so unnatural. But by this point the movie was irredeemable anyway.

One Punk Under God (2006– )

Next-Gen Neoconservatism?

[10/10 · 4 January 2007]

It was a really bold move when Jay Bakker talked about accepting gay individuals into church instead of condemning them. I've had friends in church who are gay but must keep it a secret for fear of being ousted.

Viewers get to see a unique look into the inner conflict that (especially younger) Christians face today. They're automatically branded as part of the "religious right" when many times they're stuck somewhere in the gray area of politics. Guys like Bakker are marked too traditional for progressive liberals and too progressive for traditional conservatives. I think America has to be more open minded, more willing to do something about social issues, maybe instead of wasting time having Senate hearings about steroids in baseball.

I think it really does come down to "What Would Jesus Do?" Would he truly be out protesting or preaching messages of hate? Would he exclude people just because they were different? Or would he accept them for who they are? Wouldn't he love everyone just the same? I felt really bad for Jay when after taking a stand for what he believed in, he lost the support of the people who once agreed with him. It's an ugly thing that churches need money to get by, and it's hard not to feel like a crook when you ask for donations, but that's the cold reality of the gig.

Underneath the faux-punk image, Bakker seems like a deeply sincere person with the best intentions in the world. He displays a more real, compassionate, positive image of spiritual young people today, which because of the garbage on so many cable networks, people never get to see.

The Iron Giant (1999)

A non-Disney cartoon, I almost cried at the end.

[10/10 · 1 January 2007]

Here was a cartoon movie with loads of potential, and even more depth, one that gave children and parents alike a real, emotional story, and on top of that, it didn't treat kids like they were stupid. It's probably Vin Diesel's greatest role (because he doesn't say much, and sometimes less is more).

The Iron Giant learns mankind's inhumanity and obsession with irrational fear. The Giant is essentially a war machine, his purpose to conquer and lay waste to entire civilizations. Not unlike Frankenstein, he's ostracized and feared merely for existing. But from friendship he learns mankind's capacity to do good even in the face of impossible danger, and ultimately, sacrifices himself out of love.

I liked how we don't get to know where exactly the robot came from, or why it's here. I think that we're supposed to draw our own conclusions when we see strange visitors from the starry sky. And because we naturally fear what we don't understand, we feel the need to destroy it. Because it makes us look at ourselves in the mirror, and question our own purpose and existence. Maybe the things that fall from the heavens are too good for this world.

The Island (2005)

Doesn't do justice to its predecessors

[1/10 · 1 January 2007]

Others have mentioned "Logan's Run", "1984" and "Brave New World" as possible inspirations for the movie, but those do far more justice to the totalitarian/faux-utopian story genre. I just found it so terribly bad, like this was the low carb, diet coke version of a much superior film. And it's not because it was visually bad (though the scene where Ewan McGregor's character pees out metal pellets will forever burn an imprint into the pain sector of my brain), this shallow film seemed to miss the point entirely.

The blatant product placement, the smug and rather unlikable main characters take away from the basic premise and tired plot, which drags on for 2 hours too long. I think that was the Achilles' heel of the film. People have to be able to empathize with McGregor's or Johansson's plight, or at least like them a little, but I don't even feel sorry for them on any emotional level because they don't have humanistic flaws. It was not unlike watching a spoiled socialite use a rotary dial phone or an anorexic supermodel talking about starving children in third world countries . The clones are not like you and I. They are immaculate carbon copies with elementary school level educations, coyly unaware of their budding sexuality. They were raised on perfect body farms and tanning booths (probably), so who actually cares if they get scrapped for parts? It's a formulaic, Hollywood engineered effects-spectacular: have male and female leads that the 17-32 demographic finds attractive + a lot of special effects + tried (and tried and tried) and true plot = box office success, right?.

Except that the people who wrote this movie (it's not a film because it lacks expository depth, don't strain yourself reaching for the dictionary to tell me the definition) greatly underestimated the average movie-goer's intelligence. Yes, people including myself enjoy wasting money on dumb funny films if it makes them laugh, but only if it's on purpose (a la "Snakes on a Plane"). The cameos by Michael Clarke Duncan and Steve Buscemi had me wondering if Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck were going to show up, then Bruce Willis could crash through a window 'yippee ki yay' style after rising from his extraterrestrial grave and do "Armageddon 2: Asteroid's Revenge". The superficiality is kind of insulting by movie's end. Audiences enjoyed somewhat similar films like "The Matrix", "Blade Runner",(sigh) "V for Vendetta", and of course the previously mentioned classic novels/films "1984", "Logan's Run", and "Brave New World" because they were well written, despite astronomically lower budgets and outdated special effects.

But if you enjoy predictability, massive explosions, and artificial sweeteners, you just might enjoy this movie and all other saccharin Michael Bay movies. I for one, feel dumber for having watched it on cable.

Muppet Babies (1984–1991)

Favorite Show

[10/10 · 31 December 2006]

I remember countless afternoons watching the Muppet Babies, and it brings back some of my fondest memories. The show really taught me about the importance of imagination, which I remember my grandparents telling my mom ,was a word my brother and I would always use. Like when we would build forts from couch cushions, blankets, and pillows. Like when we would play 'Star Wars' just like Gonzo and Kermit would (I was Gonzo). I remember my eager anticipation for newer episodes or ones that I hadn't seen before.

It saddens me to think about a future generation that will grow up without the wonderful creativity and warmth of Jim Henson.

Loonatics Unleashed (2005–2007)

Weep for a future without retro goodness.

[1/10 · 28 December 2006]

There will be a time where kids will have grown up without ever seeing the one and only Bugs Bunny kiss (technically) another man on the lips. There will be a time where it won't be Duck or Rabbit season. There will be a time where the Tazmanian Devil will be dubbed politically incorrect.

But so help me now is not that time.

Nobody really wants an 'EXTREME' version of our beloved Loony characters. Whoever it is in marketing who comes up with "Corn Nuts: Corn gone wrong" and "Extreme Doritos" and evidently this festering turd should know that just because they have a degree in business or advertising or whatever doesn't mean they know jack about kids.

I think that they're doing a disservice to children, depriving them of one of the greatest and most iconic shows of all time. This show disgusts me, and it's not just the dated artwork or terrible dialogue. They misuse good voice talent, like Phil Lamarr, Michael Clarke Duncan, Candi Milo, and so many others. It lacks style, humor, character development, and most importantly, heart.

The show, like it's repackaged characters (Slam Tasmanian, Rev Runner, Ace Bunny) is but a shadow of it's former, timeless and beautiful self.

Animaniacs (1993–1998)

I grew up with this show.

[10/10 · 28 December 2006]

I remember episodes that to this day tug at my heartstrings. One was where they document the travels of a piece of discarded Christmas wrapping paper, another was when a pair of gloves decide to split and try to make it on their own. And one was where Slappy Squirrel has an episode and her nephew Skippy feels so distraught and helpless.And then there was the movie where Dot seemingly 'dies'. Even as a 7 year old boy, I learned what it meant to feel humbled.

And then I think about what's on weekdays and Saturday mornings nowadays. Spongebob Squarepants. Loonatics. And a thousand and one kinds of unoriginal anime. They will never hold a candle to the days when the Warner Brothers, and the Warner sister, ruled the golden screen and entertained millions of children. Through laughter and the occasional tear, kids could enjoy a program that didn't belittle their blossoming intelligence. And this was a show that both kids and parents could share a few laughs here and there, something that rarely happens these days when both parents have to work.

I checked what's on around the 300pm to about 500pm schedule after school and realized that there are no more cartoons outside of cable. There's no more after school specials. What do kids get instead after a long day at school to cheer them up?

"Reba". "My Wife and Kids". "King of Queen". "Dr. Phil".

It seems that the days of wit, charm, slapstick, and heart are lost to those in cartoonland, and apparently, so is the Wheel of Morality.

Clerks II (2006)

A coming of age story, even for thirty-somethings

[10/10 · 24 December 2006]

I think a lot of people can relate to not only getting older, but feeling older and suddenly having this overwhelming obligation to become a grown up and do grown up things. Getting married, having a career, being successful based on someone else's expectations. Yes it's a fart joke movie, but its got miles of heart and plenty of words of wisdom. It was great for Kevin Smith to reopen this chapter in the Askewniverse not only in Dante and Randal's lives, but taking an introspective look at his and our own lives.

Why do we feel ashamed to work at a fast food restaurant, as if we're smugly above it? Why do we feel the need to continually best others, to make ourselves feel better? To make us feel that we've accomplished more than someone else? Is life truly a competition? Isn't love and happiness enough? It's a deep and quite honest opinion about the human condition. This film like his others has a hidden sensitivity buried beneath its raunchy surface.

It was almost kind of inspirational.

V for Vendetta (2005)

The Legacy of Freedom Fighters or the Beauty of Capitalism

[5/10 · 24 December 2006]

The most important thing that anyone will ever remember about Ernesto Guevara de la Serna is that he was on a t-shirt worth $9.95. I'm sure el Che would be so proud. d With plenty of special effects and changes to the script, the graphic novel becomes a different film. It goes from being about anarchy in the UK to an American left wing, Hollywood/political machination.

If the script was written in the 90s, and the graphic novel written in the 80s, how could it possibly include slights against Dubya? So people would watch and love it and feel a little more like a rebel when they buy the special deluxe edition 2-disc director's cut unrated edition for $24.99.

The movie is suddenly more popular and especially more marketable than the book once it's against Bush. Because it's popular these days. The media must be controlled and must have an enemy. Wait, 'adapting' a book to follow a political agenda, doesn't that sound a little too Orwellian? I doubt they would've have made the film honestly if it didn't have an ulterior motive.

And if you polish some of V's less attractive attributes (let's have him make Evey eggs in a basket because it makes him more of a swell guy), he seems so much more likable after such a small gesture. V is an amoral antihero, with no qualms about murder. But the movie clarifies the black and white so you don't have to, because they don't want the audience to question V's motives, just smile and nod.

Quoting Alan Moore:"(The movie) has been "turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country.... It's a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives — which is not what the comic 'V for Vendetta' was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England." If the guy who wrote the original wants nothing to do with the movie, to quote one of my least favorite comedians "there's your sign".

Citizen Kane (1941)

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions

[9/10 · 24 December 2006]

The ending is what really got to me. When Kane finally realizes he's become what he's hated, what he originally fought against. It's such a real tragedy of a human train wreck. Kane tried so hard to be a good man (without really knowing what one was), to use his power and wealth for the truth and benefit of his friends. I think it emphasized the importance having a loving family during childhood, especially a mother.

The film laid the groundwork for many future villains of the silver screen: Norman Bates, Darth Vader, Lex Luthor, Dr. Evil. But it's fearfully symmetrical to our own society. Even if they aren't eccentric media magnates like Hearst. How many people could have turned out differently if they had someone that loved them since the day they were born, and even before? Is it truly art that imitates life, or does life imitate art? How many wealthy men swear to use their power for good but inevitably do not? And how many are loved by the world solely for their wealth and celebrity? Millionaires, billionaires, so called artists, athletes, people we worship? There's this scene where Kane is standing in front of what seems like thousands of people, and behind him the giant picture of himself as he's running for office, like many tyrants the symbol of the man becomes greater than the man himself.

Basic lessons like how money can't buy you happiness, how philosophically everyone needs friends, and the way the film builds to a crescendo, all of it up to that memorable scene. Rosebud. That ultimate loss of childhood innocence and wishing with every bone in your body to take it all back, like it was a terrible nightmare. Not unlike the story of Frankenstein, this movie is about the making of a monster.

Underworld: Evolution (2006)

So cool, they only wore leather!

[1/10 · 24 December 2006]

Wowee wowee. Just saw this movie on cable. Man, everyone had such cool names. Soren, Kraven, Corvinus, Sorkraveninus (j/k, lol!). And the costumes, the costumes, I'm betting if vampires were real, they'd only wear skintight leather. That's gotta be real comfy, especially after fighting in the water. Totally functional. And if werewolves were real, they'd never wear shirts too. Just trench coats like in the movie. There's no way anyone would ever notice a guy walking across the street with only a trench coat, going 'commando', even. Nonsensical, I say! I didn't think it was that gory, I mean not like Saving Private Ryan. An old guy getting stabbed by a tentacle, arm, spider leggy thing is totally better than being shot up. That old Corvinus guy was super strong too. He didn't die, for like 10 minutes after he got stabbed by Spiderman. They don't make old guys like that anymore, no sir! This movie does that, and more! And wowee did this movie have A LOT to say! It wasn't like they were doing the same movie again. Instead of fighting a super vampire at the end, they fought a super WEREWOLF! That's just so...super.

Kate Beckinsale's character was super cool. There are so, so very few movies where the heroine is strong, cool, and where's skintight clothing while doing crazy martial arts in midair with guns. So very few. I mean, her character's nothing like Lara Croft, or La Femme Nikita, or Alias woman, or Trinity, or Elektra, or Domino, or Catwoman, or BloodRayne, or Stripperella. It's a huge step toward objectification. Wait, objectification is a good thing, right? Those characters are so not one dimensional, they're, like, 5 dimensional or something.

My all time favorite part was when Spiderman (or was it Wolverine) pulls down the helicopter by the rope. Totally possible. I mean, rope is totally indestructible, even like the hook it's attached to. In-da-struc-ta-bull. The only problem with the film: more special effects and explosions. There just wasn't enough. Who cares about the story? All we want to see is guns and gals, and in exactly that order. And if Uwe Boll did the movie, that would have made it Oscar worthy, what with the dialogue and talking bits and all. Who would win, BloodRayne or Selene? That's so gotta be in the next one. They could be like long lost twins, like how this movie's got long lost twins. It's just never been done before. Never! That's why I gave it 1/10. For being number 1!

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Killing my childhood, one celluloid at a time.

[1/10 · 24 December 2006]

I'm very well aware most people don't share my opinion on this flick. I'm kind of strict when it comes to 1-10 voting, tried to look for redeemable qualities. But I probably missed the point, because the candy film, like the Wonka candy Charlie mentions, doesn't have to have a point. I guess.

Onward! List of why I didn't like this movie (to be read silently in Ryan Reynolds' voice):

10. Because (name withheld) will inevitably make more money on merchandising from this movie (like all other Burton movies) than from the movie itself. Come on, where's the heart when all they set out to do is make a buck?

9. Because there's no more disturbing boat ride down the mighty, dark brown, chocolate river (Hehehe). That scene alone was a conversation piece.

8. Because Willy Wonka's dad is Saruman.

7. Because Johnny Depp lacks Gene Wilder's classic, golden voice. If Depp's Wonka said coco bean one more GD time, I thought I'd chuck the remote through the TV screen.

6. Because Depp lacks the inner sadness you could see in Wilder's eyes, which you could almost hear in the strain in his voice as his emotions betrayed him. It's replaced by textbook homogenized, Burtonized eccentricity. And all of Burton's movies are starting to revolve around daddy issues.

5. Because Depp is in practically all of Burton's movies.

4. So is Helena Bonham Carter.

3. Seriously. Skeet Ulrich is good too. He's no 'poor man's Johnny Depp! Have you seen "Jericho"? It's like Lost's second cousin... that I have funny feelings for...in my pants.

2. I know that it's supposed to be more faithful to the novel(?), and that supposedly Dahl didn't like the first film, but this one lacked the sweetness that the original film had, which I loved and would watch constantly on VHS when I was younger. I think I died a little bit inside. It was like watching someone dress up as your dead childhood friend on Halloween to try and cheer you up. A worthy effort, but ultimately painful and a reminder that once you decide to grow up the child within you dies, usually along with innocence, bed-wetting and fear of God.

1. Deep Roy as the only Oompa Loompa. Geez, how many actors missed out on a fat paycheck because they only had to use 1 guy. The produced and modernized and urbanized songs were ho hum at most, I think it was supposed to be cool or cute or something. The old ones were kind of catchy and creative considering the times.

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

A look at the bigger picture

[9/10 · 15 December 2006]

It was in this one episode of "The X-Files" called Hollywood A.D., where Agents Mulder and Scully are discussing the true nature of zombies. Mulder asks why is it that when the dead come back to life they only want to hurt people. The more skeptical Scully mentions that ghosts and zombies are a representation of our own repressed violent and sexual urges, that zombies are what we fear most about our identity: deep down, we are mindless automatons that only kill and eat. There's a horrific truth to that kind of deadly simplicity. Zombies are traditionally impulsive, acting only on hunger.

Which is why the mall setting in both versions of Dawn of the Dead is so appropriate. Where once malls were a place for consumers to empty their wallets, it is now a target for LITERAL consumers to fill their stomachs. There may be an underlying morbid humor behind commercialism saving us from ourselves. That perhaps the only thing that separates us from them is our rationale to succeed.

Each character represents a generalized version of ourselves placed in emergency situations. Once we become gripped with fear, how we lose faith, how we feel helpless, how we learn the hard meaning of sacrifice, how much we change, how much we learn about ourselves, and only very rarely are we ever rational beings toward one another begins to show. There was a message behind the scene where Andre (Mekhi Phifer) shoots Norma (Jayne Eastwood) after she discovers his pregnant wife is now a member of the living dead. It said something about man's capability to murder each other out of desperation, whereas zombies never seem to harm other zombies. In fact, because of human flaws like petty arrogance and personality differences, the zombies are actually better coordinated and work more efficiently together than we do. That could be the reason why the undead were able to score such a swift victory over the living.

I'm convinced that the film could have started right after Ana (Sarah Polley) awakens from crashing her vehicle. Obviously the movie isn't perfect, but the scenes where the survivors in the mall are engaging in basically everyday activities (playing chess, having sex, hitting golf balls) shows that the people haven't forgotten their past, familiar lives, and that amidst all of the carnage they have a way to remember life before the end of the world.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

What hasn't already been said

[7/10 · 14 December 2006]

If his tombstone had to say something, would it be "He died for our sins" or "Please love one another"? If the most positive thing that people can remember about the LIFE of Christ was his death, if it takes a visual interpretation of the Crucifixion to stir your emotions because the words of the Bible don't do anything for you, than I'm not the only one who needs to go back to Sunday School.

I did not go see this movie en masse with the rest of the congregation because the story of Jesus really isn't something we should line up to buy tickets for in all eagerness to watch a man be slaughtered. If people lined up and paid money for 2 hours of emotional depth in a movie theater to feel better about themselves, they could have gone to church, which is usually accompanied by free punch and cookies afterward.

Media hype treats it as if it was a spiritual awakening for them to see a movie of about Christ while the book they've undoubtedly got at home sits in a drawer somewhere collecting dust. No one should feel obligated to see any movie, that's not what movies are fundamentally about. They should go to movies to be entertained.

I think the real tragedy in the death of Christ was that he believed in the best of us, in each person's capacity for goodness, but more times than not we end up betraying not only his trust but his memory. There were only brief moments where I saw Jesus the teacher, Jesus the philosopher, and Jesus the friend to outcasts. That's how I remember the guy. Not the controversy, not the theatrics, or the shameless promotion.

Nacho Libre (2006)

Pleasantly Surprised

[10/10 · 13 December 2006]

I had free movie tickets once and my brother and I wanted to see Superman Returns, but it was sold out for most of the showings. So we decided to go see Nacho Libre, which I thought was going to be a terrible Nickelodeon fart-joke movie. I knew that it was by the director of Napoleon Dynamite, a film that I personally detest though will quote time and time again.

Lo and behold, it IS a fart-joke movie, but because my expectations were so low, it actually turned out to be a better movie to me than Superman Returns. I really enjoyed this movie because of its simplicity, and it's relative honesty when it came to marketing the picture. It is what it says it is, without beating around the bush. And it's a kids movie that's actually okay for kids to watch, maybe not so much the violence but as long as they know (as most children do) that it's pretend. There isn't any gratuitous sex or skin to worry about, and I thought that it was a really kind of sweet, albeit childish movie.

I eventually bought the "Stretchy Pants" edition of the DVD.

The Last Samurai (2003)

Secularism and Traditionalism

[9/10 · 13 December 2006]

I thought that the film was one of Tom Cruise's better projects. It didn't need a gazillion special effects ("Minority Report") to bring the audience into a world that is so visually and culturally different but not unlike our own.

One of the biggest issues the movie deals with relates to modern day politics. Who says the Western way of life is better than anybody else's? What right as a freedom-loving people do we have to usurp the freedom of others to live as they want, to pray as they want, to pursue their own dreams and raise their children as they see fit? Religious and secular bureaucracies have imposed their will over different peoples under the guise of White Man's Burden. The Inquisition. McCarthyism. The Final Solution. Segregation. These so-called Manifest Destinies have often employed less than scrupulous methods in the name of god, government, and "bringing civility to the savages". Though history need not wonder who truly is the savage.

When a society begins to move toward modernization, often times it drifts little by little away from tradition, and not just religion or spirituality, but its roots. Knowing where we've come from, knowing our own cultural identity can help us understand where we're going as a united people and establish a balance between the past and present, secularism and tradition.

Hulk (2003)

The Incredibly Mediocre Hulk

[1/10 · 12 December 2006]

As a comics fan I'm embarrassed I took 3 of my friends to see this movie. It's made me more skeptical of the credibility of the superhero genre. The Hulk is supposed to represent a real dark, repressed part of the human psyche, the inner conflict within a man's mind made real. Instead, his motivation is reduced to "daddy issues" like so many teen adolescent dramas out there.

Except that Bruce Banner is a grown man.

Eric Bana, (who played an elite soldier in "Black Hawk Down", mind you) plays Bruce Banner, even though he doesn't resemble the nerdy, bookish scientist Banner in the least. Bana monotonously voices each line and doesn't seem to resent at all the Hulk persona, who isn't seen until a good 40 minutes into the 138 minute movie.

Just the way it was shot, the way scenes were put side by side with one another was awkward, and the explosion at the military complex scene with Josh Lucas' character 'Talbot' after he tries to extract a sample from the Hulk was farcical. Anytime the Hulk created vast amounts of destruction, nobody died. He tosses a guy through a window, guy doesn't die. He threw a tank and destroyed it, no one died (the army guys even report no casualties right after). He catches and throws a missile at a helicopter, sending it crashing down into a rocky canyon, nobody dies. I'm surprised Banner's dad David (Nick Nolte) and goldfish Goldie didn't bust out of their watery grave at the end. It's that ridiculous and laughable after a while.

The movie did more to hurt future comic book franchises than help. Ang Lee is usually a talented director, but this kind of film really isn't his niche. It's like having Michael Bay directing Schindler's List. Like everything in this movie, including Hulk's pants, it shouldn't and doesn't fit.

Rent (2005)

An Unexpected Depth

[10/10 · 12 December 2006]

If you'd have told me it was a musical, I probably would never have watched the movie. If you had told me that eventually it would become one of my favorite movies, I'd laugh in your face.

I knew that Rent was a Broadway show and loosely based on La Boheme, but truthfully I had no idea what Rent was about the first time I watched it on TV. In fact, I found it ridiculous that people would suddenly engage themselves in a well-choreographed impromptu dance number, where even total strangers knew the routine. I didn't even watch the film the whole way through.

The second time, however, I started really getting into the characters. And through lots and lots of suspension of disbelief, I sat through the whole film. But I realized the more I watched it the more I started understanding the deeper meaning of the lyrics and the relationships between the main characters. The character I think stood out the most (for probably obvious reasons) was Angel. Even though the character had AIDS, she manages to be the most positive and optimistic person in the movie. She had a beautiful outlook on life that many people typically don't share. Life is for the living, and she was the soul of the group.

The movie's about so many things: the importance of having positive, meaningful relationships (something Aristotle could appreciate), the AIDS epidemic in America, drug abuse, the death of the Bohemian lifestyle in New York City, the way one's own integrity is worth more than all the money in the world, to forgiving and loving ourselves, and to not wait until someone's on their deathbed to tell them how you feel. There's an emphasis on living a life without regret, of living each day as if it were your last, and that's how precious our time really is.

Superman Returns (2006)

Reintroducing the Man of Steel (a fanboy's point of view)

[5/10 · 12 December 2006]

If there was a franchise that could give comic book films some real cinematic gravitas, it could have been Superman.

The audience isn't shown every aspect of Superman. He is Clark Kent, a farmer's son from America's breadbasket and mild-mannered reporter. He's Kal-El, the sole survivor of Krypton. And he's the Man of Steel, hero of Metropolis. With that said, the movie doesn't do the character justice. Brandon Routh does an excellent job as an alien in disguise, not so much Clark Kent. Though he looks kind of like the real deal, throughout the movie he seems distant in his civilian persona when he shouldn't be. I didn't see the heart of the Man of Steel in this portrayal. He left Earth for a few years after knocking up his girlfriend, which already is highly uncharacteristic of every other version of Superman, and came back expecting his personal life to be the same. That's unrealistic, as if a man flying around in a cape was enough suspension of disbelief. It's Superman's imperfections, not so much his weaknesses, that make him human. He's got the weight of the world on his shoulders. But it's his humanity that makes him real, so to speak.

Although Kevin Spacey did a remarkable job portraying a less campy version of Lex Luthor (stealing from little old ladies on their deathbed), when it boils down to it, his "master plan" is basically a real estate scam. Luthor's ruthlessness doesn't match Superman's strengths. His beef with Superman doesn't feel personal enough, whereas in comics he harbors a visceral hatred and jealousy toward the Man of Steel, all the while portraying a charismatic and almost popular image in the public eye, a duality that isn't explored in this movie.

Kate Bosworth lacked the confidence and sass of Margot Kidder's Lois Lane. The smart, independent woman is replaced by an embittered echo of the gal reporter. Then, she runs back into the arms of Superman too readily, betraying her new beau (James Marsden) who's actually more of a man than Superman. Not only does Marsden's character Richard White save Superman at one point, he's going to raise his kid!

I saw a Jungian archetype on the silver screen, who out of political correctness represents "Truth" and "Justice", but not "the American Way". This is not the Man of Tomorrow who has over 70 years of heritage. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed parts of the movie (the homage to the Brando speech, Superman saving the airplane passengers) but it doesn't change the fact that it's a Hollywood, toy selling special effects juggernaut that people will fork over $8.50 a head simply because of the name, and not what it represents. I'll take the outdated effects and campy dialog of the original any day.