katydid4819 Reviews

The Ring Two (2005)

'Two' Much Like the First One

[6/10 · 31 March 2005]

It's not better than the first. It's not worse than the first. It almost feels like the same movie at times actually. The Ring Two is The Ring chewed up and spit out by a different director, Hideo Nakata. Nakata directed the original Ringu, the film on which The Ring is based. You can see the different take the Japanese director has on the subject matter with this. Gore Verbinski, the director of The Ring, gave us suspense, atmosphere and some scares that haunted us. Nakata focuses more on the story than trying to get us to jump out of our seats.

Rachel (Naomi Watts) and Aiden (David Dorfman) have moved from Seattle in an attempt to start their lives over without the horror of the tape. But it appears that Samara has followed them when Rachel hears about the death of a teenage boy with a distorted face. In an attempt to put an end to it once and for all, she burns the tape and calls it a night. But no, no, no, it's not that simple. Samara is back and she wants something.

Samara, although no longer played by the same girl, is as terrifying as we remember. She looks waxy, dead and demonic no matter what she does. She has as crawling under our skin in the same gross and disturbing way that she crawls from place to place. What is it about the demon child that scares us so? Is it the thought that innocence shouldn't be that evil? Whatever the strange phenomena is, it is the heart and soul of The Ring Two. The girl is the only thing that gets shivers to crawl up your spine and that's because you never saw very much of her in the first film. Here she is almost the main character. That is the problem with the sequel to a horror film. All the shocks of the original are already out in the open. We have already seen the distorted face (who can ever forget the first time they saw that?), we have already been in the bottom of the well and we have already been to the Morgan's house… There is nothing new to frighten us and that is maybe why Nakata chose to focus on developing parallels between Rachel and Samara's birth mom. He makes the story more of a mystery than a horrific film full of cheap tricks.

The score is beautiful and is reminiscent of the atmosphere felt in the first film. The atmosphere, although not lacking here, is different. There are a lot more calm mysterious shots than suspenseful, seat-grippers. The whole film has a slower pace and even the ending doesn't have the hectic feel that you would expect. If you're expecting to be scared, I don't recommend this but it's not a bad way to spend two hours if you don't mind something slower. ***/*****

Robots (2005)

Robots No More than Shiny Parts

[5/10 · 29 March 2005]

In the world of Pixar, all other animation attempts seem to pale in comparison. At one time, Walt Disney was the king of these colorful stories. Now the new age of animation has come about with stories that appeal to kids on that same colorful level being mixed with subtle under texts that appeal to older audiences.

Kids films do well because of repeat business. Kids like to see the same thing over and over and over again. So, needless to say, the business is very lucrative and it's good to have your name attached to it as to assure yourself a piece of that money making pie. Because of that, names like Mike Meyers, Will Smith, Robert Dinero, Holly Hunter, Renee Zellweger and old favorite, Robin Williams, have all invested time to do some voice acting. Who would have thought this job stereotypically for ugly people would have Halle Berry among its ranks? Rodney Copperbottem (Ewan McGregor going PG for a day) is a bot made from second hand parts. His father is a dishwasher and cannot afford to give him the fancy accessories that other kids have. Bigweld (Mel Brooks), who believes everyone is special and can succeed one way or another, inspires Rodney. So he travels to the city to get a job as an inventor from Bigweld. Here it meets the random bot Fender, who is voiced by Robin Williams. We have come to expect something from Robin after the days of playing the genie in Aladdin. But here it feels as if he has been roped into the script, which is never the way that Robin Williams works best. He can't even stay on topic when being asked the simplest questions such as what is you father's profession on Inside the Actor's Studio.

As said above, the new standard for animated films are ones that appeal to all ages. So when Fox came along with the been there, done that concept that is Robots, I have to wonder who gave the green light on this project. There is an attempt at the subtext with the message that 'you can shine no matter what you're made of' but that is just more proof of the been there, done that aspect, and this one lacks some of the better parts that others who've tried this storyline, not to mention the complete lack of cultural references that have become a must since Shrek 2 saturated itself with them.

Perhaps Robots is simply a concept film. After all, it is very original to think of building all your sets and actors from scrap metal. This is a film that you buy for the incredible special features on the DVD. You might as well throw away the disc that contains the film and just keep the disc with the extras on it. Actually, better yet, use the first as a costar for you beverage to keep you refreshed while you enjoy the content of disc 2. **1/2 out of *****

Guess Who (2005)

More than just black and white

[8/10 · 29 March 2005]

I have not seen Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and so I am in no position to declare Guess Who as an adequate remake. I do not know that source material it was based on and so when judging its script I will, by default, give credit to the film that I actually did see.

That said, I enjoyed Guess Who much more than I thought I would. I was expecting a film built on weak chemistry and a money whoring cast. Now, the ladder may be true but it didn't affect that on screen presence that sells a film. Ashton Kutcher and Zoe Saldana have the perfect mix of trust and understanding with sexual sparks and heated eye contact. If you saw them walking down the street you'd probably say 'Aww, how cute'. As well as their chemistry with each other, they both share some with Bernie Mac, Saldana's father and Kutcher's soon-to-be father-in-law. It's connections like these that make one comedy float and another sink.

In the original, Katharine Houghton, the white daughter of Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, brings home a black man, Sidney Poitier. The tables have turned now as Theresa (Saldana) brings home her white fiancée, Simon (Kutcher) to meet her parents Percy (Bernie Mac) and Marilyn (Judith Scott). Every father worries about who his daughter will bring home but Percy has an especially tight grip on his daughter and is not prepared to give her up to just any man. He is even colder to Simon when he learns that Simon no longer has a job and plays no sports, although he did lie about test-driving for Nascar. And when he walks in on Simon and Theresa wrestling to get a piece of lingerie off Simon, Percy decides that's the final straw and that Simon is out of the house.

Of course, it's not the last straw because then there would be no movie. What follows is a mix of clichéd moments stolen from daytime soaps and a new bread of racial humor. We don't live in a perfect world and because of that, interracial couples turn heads. This film is a head that turns a full 360 to see the relationship from all sides with derogatory and benign humor toward white and blacks as a side note. Sometimes the film has you holding your side and there's still more coming.

Guess Who might appear crude from the outside but it's a charmer once you get past the rocky beginning. There are moments that could have been done without and some social commentary that it is perhaps not in the position to make but then again, what is Hollywood without controversy? And this is not really controversial; it's just a good laugh at the movie theater without a whole lot of B.S. like most other comic offerings now a days. ***1/2 out of *****

The Jacket (2005)

Loose Thread Don't Keep The Jacket From Working

[7/10 · 6 March 2005]

The Jacket has more than one little plot whole to sew up and a few loose buttons here and there but, at the same time, it is a fascinating, thrilling and spectacular story about the human mind and what it can sustain.

Adrien Brody plays Jack Starks, a wounded solider who has amnesia. He was shot in the head during Desert Strom and has now been shipped back to the US with nothing more than a pair of dog tags to tell him who he is. One day, heading down the high way and looking for a way to hitchhike to some reality, he meets a young girl named Jackie who is sitting with her mother because their car has broken down. Jackie's mom is too wasted to do much about the situation so Jack takes it upon himself to fix their car, which he does. He sends the mom on her way with a fixed car and to Jackie he gives the dog tags. As he trudges along, a rough, college dropout looking man picks him up. After a while the man asks Jack if he has ever been to jail and the question corresponds with a cop pulling them over to tell them they are driving too slowly.

And essentially, that is all Jack knows.

After being convicted of killing the cop he is sentenced not to prison but to a home for the mentally insane. Here we encounter the strange Doctor Becker (Kris Kristofferson) and his unusual and disturbing way of treating his patients. After tying them into straight jackets, he shoves them into morgue drawers. The first time we see this happening to Jack it appears like a version of human torture more than a treatment. But Dr. Becker tells us "You can't break something that is already broken".

But once Jack becomes accustomed to the drawer and the jacket, he begins to see things. Sometimes he sees the past and sometimes the future. In the past he sees what happened that day he supposedly killed the cop and in the future, he meets Jackie (Kiera Knightley) again. He meets her Christmas Eve, having no idea who she is, but discovers the dog tags in her house. But when he confronts her about them, she becomes hysterical and tells him that Jack Starks is dead.

The first half of this movie is like one long acid trip, with quick cutting camera angles and bursts of bright colors. The next half is more subdued and becomes less about the horror of Jack's situation, as he is now used to the drawer and even wants to be put back in so he can discover more about the future. Although the production design gives the feeling that the dead should be rising (just take a look at the poster art) the story has many softer notes to it such as therapy sessions Jack's secondary doctor, Dr. Lorenson (Jennifer Jason Leigh) has with her friend's mentally retarded son and the love story, although unnecessary, that develops between Brody and Knightley. Although there are maybe one too many times when you say to yourself "Now wait a sec, that could never happen," this is an excellent story about making a future with what you've got. ***1/2 out of *****

In Good Company (2004)

Comfortable Comedy

[7/10 · 21 February 2005]

In Good Company stars Dennis Quaid as Dan Foreman, a middle-aged man trying to keep all the loose ends of his life tied together. Topher Grace stars as the young ad executive who takes Dan's job. Grace comes from TV's "That 70's Show" where he plays a boy named Eric Forman. It's small, intricate details, not necessarily trivial like this, that make In Good Company a smart movie. The last name joke, although not meant as a joke as much as a nod to "70's Show" viewers, shows attention to detail, which is what sets the good movies apart from the bad.

Along with Quaid and Grace is Scarlett Johansson as Quaid's daughter who is fleeing the nest for the first time as she transfers to a new college and leaves Daddy a little at a loss. In addition to being demoted and losing his daughter, Quaid and his wife become pregnant. Aside from the issue with Johansson, all these circumstances are not easily adapted to after a certain point in life. As Quaid tells Grace, he is fifty-one years old. That means that when his child is twenty-one, he'll be 72. If he does eventually get fired as the company continues to downsize, it would be almost impossible for him to start again in his career at the salary level he's asking.

While Dan's situation sounds like more of a downer than a comedy, there is the lighter, contrasting side with the relationship between Johansson and Grace that blooms behind Quaid's back. It's simple and perhaps understated but it shows young romance well and provides for the request comically awkward moment when they are finally discovered.

The film is excellently cast. This is an ensemble piece. Nobody shines brighter than the next while each person helps to elevate the others. There is undeniable chemistry here, especially between Grace and Quaid. They're as unlikely a pair as you'll ever root for but that chemistry is the reason that the movie subtly creeps around and holds on so tight that at the end you don't remember how it got to you.

Smart comedies are hard to come by. Writer/director Paul Weitz does not come to the project as a stranger to this type of film, though. He is the man behind the success of About a Boy and, while In Good Company isn't as polished as 'Boy', it shows that they are from the same talent. Perhaps too much time was spent with Dan in Stepford before plunging him abruptly into his cooperate mess but despite some awkward transitional moments, 'Company' is executive with the flair of a man comfortable with the material and his vision. ***/*****

Before Sunset (2004)

Intimate Sequel

[9/10 · 21 February 2005]

I didn't see Before Sunrise. I think I should just come out and say that. I have been told that it adds an extra layer to the sequel and I have no doubts. It almost seems unfair for me to judge a movie this intimate without having seen its prequel. But on that note, it is impressive that the second half of this story could move me so. It's nothing more than one long conversation, probably a kin to ones that I have myself everyday. Yet there is something else here. There is something that is entirely relatable here yet still far enough out of our reach that we are sucked into the film because we want to know that magic that exists only in movies.

The story starts with a book signing. Jesse (Ethan Hawke), the author of a novel about a women he met once upon a yesterday and never saw again, is at the final stop of his tour of Europe here in Paris. This is the only part of the movie where he is alone and he sets the stage for what is about to come. He delivers a monologue to the press about a story he wishes to write about a moment that turns into another moment and that morphs into yet another and so on. He is basically describing what is to take place for the next hour. He spys a woman in the corner. He spys Celine (Julie Delpy) in the corner. After he wraps it up, they begin to talk. And they don't stop. Occasionally they travel to a new location be it a café or a park. Topics flow into each other – just as Jesse told us they would.

How do you write a conversation specific to two people yet understandable to anyone? Even after seeing the film I honestly cannot tell you. There is something beyond chemistry between Hawke and Delpy. That has been transformed from life to the page by these two. The co-authored the film. In a time of adaptations from every medium possible, it is hard to pick out original screenplays that stand strong and defend their category. Before Sunset is one of those rare scripts that does. The writing is the strongest part here.

This is essentially Delpy and Hawke's two man show. There is no one else of importance. They are rarely separate, even sharing the shot most of the time. They wrote the film, they star in it and for all anyone can tell, they were the only ones involved. The direction is so minimal that it is virtually non-existent. And there in lies the genius but it's funny how one simplicity can overshadow another.

Before Sunset is emotional provocative in the most subtle way. Were the sun to actually set in the background, you would never notice the difference. The film is shot in real time and so the sunset would sneak up on you the way the film does. One minute there's a sun and then before you know it the sky is pink and you realize you care whether or not they end up together when it seems only minutes ago they were just two people talking about whether or not they had sex nine years ago. ****/*****

Coach Carter (2005)

'Carter' Coached By Formula

[7/10 · 21 February 2005]

Coach Carter ***/*****

There have been a slew of sports stories to hit the multiplex in the last few years. They all have enough in common that we get tired of them yet they each have their own "thing" that makes them unique enough that we go to see them just to see what this story has that the others didn't. The inspirational, uplifting, based on a true story sports tales are a dime a dozen because, essentially, every athlete is one of these stories. What makes the boys of Friday Nigh Lights any different that your local high school football team? What makes coach Carter's players any different than any other teenage boys?

In the latest version of 'talented players with bad coach get good coach and start winning', Samuel L. Jackson plays coach Cater who comes to coach at his old high school where more kids end up in prison that end up with college diplomas. He is on a mission not only to improve the game record for the basketball team but to also improve the academic standing of his players. The boys live in a predominantly poor black neighborhood and all the stereotypes of this lifestyle show up to bat. Boy who's girlfriend is pregnant, the tough guy who hangs with his older cousin and gets into trouble although the camera makes it painfully obvious that he will be "saved" in the end and the one who tries to be that "savior".

Perhaps the movie shouldn't be ridiculed for following formula. After all, that is what sells and if movies didn't make back their costs, we'd have to find new ways to spend Friday nights. But the problem with formula is that we get tired of it when it's over used and man oh man is this formula getting old. It's almost akin to watching the day in life of anybody played before your eyes over and over and over again. You know who is going to say what, when and why and after a while you stop caring. The inspirational speeches coaches give at halftime of the pivotal game don't actually exist, you know.

But, like romantic comedies, horror and thriller films, when formula is twisted in some way or another, the movies are better than those that never had a pattern to work with in. The Sixth Sense is the classic horror film with a twist. It just happened to be such a good twist that it essentially became its own sub-genre of thriller films. A film like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is just a romantic comedy. It's just…backwards…and sideways. Whatever. The point is that it's a distorted version of what we're used to and, as a result, it has become a film with a growing fan base that is loyal to the extent that they might as well be called a cult.

Coach Carter, although not exactly revolutionary in the ways these two films are, had a chance to be. There is an entire sub-plot devoted to the academic progress of the basketball players. "They're student athletes. Student comes first." The point where this story is wrapped up also coincides with an ending of sorts to the athlete story. If, at this point, the filmmakers had chosen to end the film, they would have created a story more about the student than the athlete, making them not just another based on a true story sports film.

The Aviator (2004)

The Aviator Flys High

[8/10 · 3 January 2005]

To make a film documenting the life of Howard Hughs is an ambitious task. Luckily Matin Scorsese is an ambitious man. However, there are dangers to having a big-name director. As is sometimes the case, they feel that their name alone can carry a film. In other cases, most notably Scorsese's Gangs of New York, the Oscar whoring by the studios make the actual art of film-making feel like an after thought. Now it is known that Harvey Weinstein, The Aviator's executive producer, has made it his personal mission to get Marty a Golden Guy. But, fortunately, this does not carry into the film itself.

Leonardo DiCaprio found fame by playing off his boyish good looks in movies like Romeo + Juliet and Titanic. In those pictures it did not matter that he looked ten years younger than he actually was. Actually, that worked to his advantage. In The Aviator, however, he is playing a man and not a boy. Despite having a mustache and beard in one part, he still looks twelve. Thankfully, though, this is the biggest flaw with his performance. I'm not going to say that his acting (which is career best) over comes this short falling. I will say, though, that this "teenage boy" did a convincing job playing a man.

The Aviator documents Hughes's life from Hell's Angels through his aviation days to the onset of his OCD over taking him completely. The script, although well written in terms of dialogue and character arcs, seemed to skip over the explanation OCD, how it affected Hughes and why more strongly at some times than others. It also playes with his hearing disability, using it only when it aides in a cinematic moment and causes a bigger reaction. When the script is on fire with quick dialogue, Hughes never seems to miss a beat. When he is nervous at a movie premier, he is completely deaf to the reporter's questions.

The difficult task with the film is that it contains many biographical stories. Hughes may be the main one that all the others revolve around, but due to some outstanding work by the supporting cast, the smaller parts are equally as relevant. From Gwen Stefani to Alan Alda, no one is what you expect of them. Kate Beckinsale takes a break form crap like Underworld to show that, if she tried, she could be an actress. Of course, where would this list be without Cate Blanchet, who will finally win her long deserved Oscar this year with a fabulous portrayal of Kate Hepburn; a performance against which all future Katherines will be measured. Once she gets out of the awkward caricature stage she starts out in, there is no stopping her.

Even if it falls sluggish from time to time, the actors hold this one above the water. The actors and the excellent techs, that is. Now if only the Academy would award Marty so that he can go back to making movies where the trophies are the after thoughts. ****/*****

Meet the Fockers (2004)

Don't bother with the Fockers - See the original

[6/10 · 30 December 2004]

Meet the Fockers boasts an all-star cast, a box-office gold premise, and after all, it is the sequel to Meet the Parents. Why wouldn't you want to see it? Truth be told, it's not a bad movie. Actually, it's better than most of the run-of-the-mill comedies that get made these days. The problem with making sequels to successful movies is that the standard has been raised to heights not likely to be past. That's why you make sequels to movies like The Princess Diaries that have a built in audience already and weren't that great the first time around. If the sequel is better, both films benefit.

The problem with this film lies in its desire to milk its built in jokes to death. This is essentially cheating in the comic department. It means you're too lazy to work for new laughs. Of course, if you are the follow up to Meet the Parents, you have to have a token Focker or Jinxy joke. What makes a movie, book, TV show or conversation memorable, however, is something unique. You need to conquer new territory and claim it as your own.

Everyone is back form the first film. Jack is still the leader and Dina the token wife figure. Greg, or Gaylord as he is referred to now, still suffers the male nurse jokes and, as sweet as he is, we don't know how Pam puts up with all that he does. His mistakes can be forgiven but after a while you reach a point where it's overkill and even the audience is embarrassed. And speaking of embarrassed, there are the Fockers, Bernie and Roz. Not only do you have to wonder why Greg would ever let anyone meet these people but you also have to wonder how they don't notice that not everyone is as open and comfortable with their lifestyle. For example, Roz is a sex therapist who holds class in their backyard. You would think these people had never met a conservative before.

There is no lack of sex humor here. In fact, often it's not humor but just a mention of Greg's deflowering with the Spanish maid when he was fifteen. Or the thumbing though Greg's baby pictures only to end up with his foreskin in the fondue pot. This is how every scene progresses, and while it's funny at first, after a time you begin to wonder how old the screenwriters are.

Although those evolved could probably have had a more fulfilling experience doing another film, their careers will probably be momentarily boosted by this. People like this type of film and it is a nice escape. After all, it's far from reality. My rating is for the great cast and the over all good effort but the film has the fate of the $5 bin. ***/*****

Saved! (2004)

No Devine Intervention Here

[4/10 · 28 December 2004]

Religion and teenage soap-operas should be saved for straight to video. Unfortunately, someone saw something non-existent in Saved! that promoted it to a higher status. It's a religious satire that lacks the humor to make it an obvious satire and lacks the soul to make it religious. It's full of underdeveloped characters and plots with holes large enough anything to crawl through.

Jena Malone stars as Mary, the perfect Christian girl with the perfect Christian boy friend, Dean. When she finds out he is gay, she feels sleeps with him to prove things otherwise. Of course, this is breaking her perfect Christian girl rules so she says that Jesus made her. Now that is an original excuse! The thing is, she actually believes it. Her friends, led by Hilary Faye (Mandy Moore), are not the type to accept that though. Hilary Faye is the typical "popular" girl. She hates all those different than her and tries to convert them to her way of being. When Mary finds she is pregnant and Dean is sent to the Mercy House, she starts to become alienated from all those who once accepts her. She also begins to question what she has believed.

Mary's pregnancy goes unnoticed until nearly the end of the school year and she got pregnant at the end of the summer vacation prior. She wears large baggy clothing that don't cover her belly as much as make her look like a marshmallow. Mary does befriend one girl who can tell the truth. She represents the abnormal in Mary's life. Cassandra is the only Jewish girl at the Christian school. She uses harsh language and has sex without reserve. At every point in the movie, she can be called upon as the only truth around. She is the only thing believable.

Of course there are other characters that, if had more of a storyline to fulfill, might follow that same road as Cassandra. Most notably is Roland, Hilary Faye's brother who is in a wheelchair. He does not accept sympathy and is an embarrassment to Hilary over time as he begins to date Cassandra. Also present are Patrick, the horribly one-note character with a self-less crush on Mary, Mary's mom and the principle, also Patrick's dad. Most are space-fillers and waste dialogue instead of adding to the story.

Not only is Saved! a satire on religious antics, it also takes a stab at teenage social life. Hilary Faye trying to get everyone to convert to her religion, which accepts only one type of person, exactly mirrors teenage girls and their desires to be like the model society gives them. We are all supposed to look the same, talk the same and be the same. At the end of the third act, this dives into its political message about how we are all equal and should all be accepted as we are. Each character in Saved! represents a different stereotype that the world of pop culture sends to its own version of Mercy House.

Saved! is good but has one too many notes off key. It's an admirable effort from everyone involved and not a bad movie per say but just doesn't come off with the same flair it's obvious it wanted. Maybe if that intention wasn't so obvious, the film would not have been damaged by high expectations. **/*****

Closer (I) (2004)

Closer doesn't go far

[6/10 · 28 December 2004]

What kind of move ignores its subject matter? Closer is a movie about sex or love. Your pick. However, neither makes an appearance. Mike Nicohls gives us a movie with lust and striping (implied, at that) but leaves out the juicy details. If people are accusing Kinsey of keeping its hands clean, they haven't see Closer yet.

Based on the stage play of the same name, this is a movie about four people that play musical bed partners for two hours. It doesn't have to end there. There is no reason for us to go home to a real idea of the world other than that people get impatient if something takes longer than they were expecting. That's a great way to explain Alexander's failure without having to bring up the topic of homosexuality. In the case of Closer, the film could have ended after the first half hour, the second half hour and so on. There is a break between each set of screaming matches between yet another different pairing of the only four people in the movie. This is a convenient time to get a refill on your caffeine. What my dad refers to as "focusing agent" should make a tidy sum with this film. They should market together. I mean, how else to you plan to stay focused (for lack of a better word) during this event? With such a popular subject, such as love, it is important to be original and to offer something that the guy next door couldn't. A movie should offer something more than depiction of life. Closer presents a very bleak look at love and to accompany that should be a reason. What did these characters do that brought them to this? Why do they settle for it? Each of the four characters is practically that same as their counter part. Of course, there are small differences. Anna is a successful photographer and Alice is a stripper but these things are not big enough to build a character study on and that, at times, is what Closer aims for. In its dissection of this view on love, the characters should be the catalysts but instead serve more as puppets to deliver the witty line that does not add to the over all picture.

If we wanted solely a portrait of life, we would watch a documentary. A film is a medium of art that will be bombarded by critics and pretentious moviegoers (myself included) trying to find symbolism. The sad truth here is that the symbols we seek are often not there and what is happens to be nothing more than a chuckling director who knows he has the audience on a string. Still, even when the symbolism is far fetched, there needs to be something to differentiate a movie from a home video. Just because a moment is caught on film does not make it art. Closer is obviously art, no disputing. The problem is that no one bothered to make it interesting art. If I want to watch a movie about love or a movie about sex my choices are endless. Why should I pick this one? Because Natalie Portman is finally a "grown up"? Because Clive Own is the next big thing? Because Julia Robets ditched the Pretty Woman and $20 million pay check for this?

Maybe another day. ***/*****

The Polar Express (2004)

New Animation Technology Overshadows Story

[6/10 · 28 December 2004]

How do you adapt a 15 page children's book into a two-hour movie? You are going to have to stretch some parts and take liberties at others. The problem with adapting such a beloved book is that some people may have problems with liberties such as adding characters and dance sequences. With The Polar Express, Robert Zemecks and Tom Hanks, a dream team of sorts, do just this. Maybe their intention had nothing to do with bringing this magical book to life but was more about breaking boundaries with new animation. Because of this, they found it easier to add what they liked here and there because, after all, it's not hard to add anything from a shadow to a person with the new technology they employed for the film.

The book tells the tale of a boy who has lost his Christmas spirit. On Christmas Eve, he boards the Polar Express when it pulls in front of his house. The train takes its passengers (all children) to the North Pole for the first gift of Christmas to be given by Santa to a lucky one of them. The film stays true to each of these aspects, but if it were to have only this, the film would be over in thirty minutes. So, a couple of side characters are invented. There is young black girl, a know-it-all boy, a boy who won't sit with the others, and hobo who is as mysterious as the Christmas spirit. Some of their adventures are cute and add to the story. There is a wonderful scene where the main character climbs on top of the train and meets the hobo. Of course, there are other parts that could have been revised. When the train skids across ice, the two main characters have to stop the train and even though the girl has been told which is the brake, they second guess things for a while culminating in a cringe-worthy gesture by the little girl; she quickly gives up and buries her face in her hands.

The animation has been what's driven the buzz for The Polar Express. It's the latest form of motion capture, first used for Gullom in The Lord Of The Rings. The performance by Tom Hanks as the conductor (or one of his other six roles) is done by Hanks himself and then, using CGI, is animated and blended with the completely computer generated background. It is because of this that Hanks is capable of playing more than one character. There are many moments where he is the only actor in the scene although there are many characters. Some of his performances are recognizably him, such as the conductor or the hobo to a lesser extent. Others show the magic behind Hanks and the technology. He plays the main character without a trace of himself.

There are down sides to the animation too. The people have an unnatural air about them. Perhaps it's the eyes, which are the only part of a performance that cannot be captured by the motion capture system. The eye is often the entirety of a performance in some scenes and is also often said to be a window to the soul. Without "souls" the characters are lifeless. Although the images from the movie are able to sometimes almost able to mirror those from the book, the effect it has on the people is still problematic. ***/*****

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003)

Simple Tale Executed with Style

[9/10 · 21 December 2004]

This film is beautiful in all ways. Its setting is a lake somewhere in Korea, separated from the rest of the world. The main characters, which remain nameless through out the entire film, are a monk and his protégé, living on a houseboat in the middle of the lake. There is serenity to the film, which is rarely disturbed by dialogue. The majority of the story is told visually.

The film tells the story of the protégé's life; the journey he takes from innocent boy to teacher himself. Each season comes with it's own fable. In spring, the boy ties a rock to a fish, frog and a snake. He giggles as he watches them struggle but when the monk ties a rock to the boy's back, he tastes his own medicine. In summer, the boy, now a teenager discovers attraction and lust for a young woman brought to the lake to be healed. He experiences the pain of losing her, which will carry into fall where, now a man, he must be redeemed for a sin brought on by his actions in the summer. With winter and age comes the test to walk in someone else's footsteps and by spring, life starts over again.

This film brings the whole range of emotions to the table and subtly places each somewhere in this vast story. Only a little over and hour and a half, it feels like it truly could be a lifetime with its slow pace. However, its slowness is not a burden but serves more to enhance the slow quality of this type of lifestyle. In the Western world, we are a fast moving people. Even the two hours it takes to watch a movie often seem too much for some, who feel that they have too much to accomplish in a day as opposed to what we see in this film. Sometimes the simplist life will have the most to be proud of in the end.

Not lacking in the technicals, we are given a vast array of wonderful film-making aspects to chew on. The score, like the lack of dialogue, is never over the top or intrusive. The music, composed by Ji-Woong Park, is the perfect compliment to the cinematography, by Dong-Hyeon Baek. Both are understated, and simple. Still, like the film they grace, they are deeper than the four seasons.

Ki-duk Kim's screenplay is beautiful, although at times perhaps too simplistic, and contains a beautiful idea. It's the pacing that really brings the story to life. It is sure to remain one of my top screenplays of the year. It's not a story that sweats the small stuff. It's rare to see tales that accomplish this much without feeling over the top. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…and Spring is a masterpiece. ****/*****

Kinsey (2004)

Kinsey Relies on Appeal of Sex

[7/10 · 5 December 2004]

From an early age, we are interested in sex. Therefore, Bill Condon's Kinsey has a built in audience. The only problem is that some do not wish to see sex spoken of in one of their key forms of entertainment. But still, somehow, the curiosity is overwhelming.

Alfred Kinsey, played by Liam Nesson, is the star of this particular biop. In a season where every other movie is based on the life of someone, it's no longer a sure-fire thing that yours wont get lost in the shuffle. But thanks to Nesson and the rest of the cast, Kinsey stands right there with the others at the front of the line. The movie starts by giving a quick background of Kinsey, including setting up a poor relationship with his father. We are quickly introduced to Kinsey's obsession with gall wasps; we are also introduced to Laura Linney's character, Clara, Kinsey's soon to be wife. The first third of the movie is without mention of sex save the questionnaire being asked of Kinsey, which serves as the guidelines for his life story telling.

The first attempt Kinsey and Clara make at consummating their marriage is a disastrous one. However, once they have spoken about it with a sex specialist, the act no longer draws the negative light. After this, the gall wasp begins to fade as Kinsey's interest in studying humans and their sexual nature begins to take priority. He is selected to teach a sex course at his university and he approaches that with no intent to be subtle about his subject.

Although many are shocked by the abruptness of this course, Peter Sarsgaard's character, Clyde is not. Eventually, he and Kinsey will engage in a homosexual act, which Kinsey will tell his wife about. Bill Condon directs his entire movie with this same honesty. Some say that Kinsey has kept its hands clean in this procedure, but there was never a need to for it to get them dirty. Kinsey is more than just a surface level biop. It digs deep enough to show the audience that there is not tidy answer for the life of Alfred Kinsey that can be wrapped up and presented to you in a two-hour film. Part of the brilliance here is that a story about a man who took the mystery out of sex, has a life of mystery to us.

Kinsey has a very juicy subject. If it weren't about sex, would it still be interesting? The actual storytelling relies heavily on its subject matter. Had this been a movie about gall wasps, the methods employed by Bill Condon would not have held up. As entertaining as Kinsey is, the mechanics are not what makes it that. Nonetheless, superior acting elevates Kinsey and it is, after all, about sex. It would be unfair to judge the movie without including this. ***1/2/*****

Man on Fire (2004)

Action over Story

[4/10 · 26 November 2004]

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Well, in the case of Man on Fire, revenge is a dish that needs some explaining. The movie is more a collection of impressive special f/x explosions than a story about a man seeking revenge. There is a vague feeling in the background about a girl who was kidnapped but the story (or what there is of one) neglects this and simply continues to create more people to be killed even when you're sure that everyone who could possibly have even heard of the kidnapping is already dead.

Denzel Washington leads a wonderful cast and crew. He heads a film that should have had some level of decency based solely on the people who contributed to it. Washington stares as Creasy, a man with a violent past in the marines who takes on a job as a bodyguard for the daughter of a business-obsessed man living in Mexico. He tries to maintain a professional distance form the girl, named Pita (Dakota Fanning) but finds that he can't help being friends with her. Thus begins the first hour of Man On Fire, which looks like an explanation for the forthcoming crime. It is shot entirely at a distance and each portion is full of the expected. But in comparison with its sister half, the third act, the first hour comes off without a hitch.

When Pita is kidnapped in a flurry of gunshots and confusing swirls of the camera, the plot less, disaster movie starts and the audience that came for something with a brain can now get up and leave for the movie next door. At this time, the audience that just came from the sneak peak of _________ (insert name of big-budget, brainless action movie. Bonus points if it is a sequel) can now enter the theater. From this point on we are introduced to a range of characters from the Mexican reporter who agrees to help Washington get all the information he wants so she can write an article on him, to the numerous Mexican hit men who could have been played by one man for how interchangeable they are. Each aids in getting a shooting or being shot while telling where the next man is. The man behind this brilliant mess of a screenplay is Brian Helgeland, who has Mystic River and L.A. Confidential to his name. And the director who gets to take all the blame is Tony Scott (Top Gun). This is proof that sometimes the big budget can go to the head instead of to good use.

There are probably more gunshots, explosions and dead bodies in Man on Fire than dialogue. But half the dialogue there is should have been canned. Even the unpromted killings are more deserved than the ending that is concocted. We have to be thankful for its presence because it does end the movie, but we can't help but wish anything else had been put in its place. There isn't much more predictable than the conclusion that exists. Denzel Washington, Tony Scott and Christopher Walken fail to live up to their names and Brian Helgeland and Dakota Fanning take a step backwards in establishing theirs. This movie is a sad waste of talent that takes itself way too seriously for the joke that it is. **/*****

Birth (2004)

Born Premature

[5/10 · 6 November 2004]

Birth plays like a dream. You know who everyone is not because they've been introduced to you, but because you should know them. Look, there's Nicole Kidman with yet another bad haircut. And there's the man I think she is going to marry! From the beautiful opening scene of a jogger dressed in black against the white snow to the minute long shot of Nicole's unchanging face, Birth often asks you to make your own story to go with these images.

There are many people walking around on screen here. There are no characters to speak of, though. Everyone is devoid of human reaction and the young Sean is without a personality all together. Kidman plays Anna, a widow of ten years, who is about to remarry. Her fiancée leaves much to be desired. He is a stark contrast to Anna as he is the only person who was given an understandable reaction scene while the rest of the cast mastered their blank face technique. Anna's dead husband comes back during one of these memorable blank face dinner parties and tells her that she should not remarry. The only catch, aside from him being back from the dead, is that he is ten years old. Yet, somehow, Kidman finds away to be swept off her feet by this small boy and that gives her reason to turn her life upside down.

Sean is hard to believe as human being, let along Anna's dead husband. He shows no personality. You keep wanting to slap him. And her, for that matter. How can you love someone who can say nothing but 'It's me, Sean'? Once again, it is time to make an assumption or two. You could say that Sean and Anna have a mutual pshycosis and that, as rare as that is, this is just one big delusion that they are sharing together. You could assume that this actually is a dream and that Anna will wake up to someone telling her to take her meds with a twist ending mocking Memento's. Whatever the reason you choose, you have to choose one to make the rest of the movie more than a collection of scraps that hit the editing room floor once and now have been swept up and placed together by a filmmaker desperate to put another movie on his resume.

Birth is magical in an unreal way. Yet it is too anchored in reality to be a surreal film. The potential shines through at times but mostly it feels like a sleep you wish you could wake from. **1/2/*****

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Better Than the First Two!!

[8/10 · 6 November 2004]

J.K. Rowling showed the world the boy wizard on paper, a place where he could be whatever we wanted him to be. Now that he is on the silver screen, the audience is given a wonderful view of how one person sees the magical world of Hogwarts. However, for some people, if a director strays from the source material even a hair, the movie is immediately deemed a failure. What these people (fondly known as 'potheads') don't understand is that the books they love are many hours in length and the movies have a time crunch of 21/2 hours. And the movies are also based on the books.

If a viewer can swallow that fact that movie is not the book, then The Prisoner of Azcaban will come off as an excellent film. If not, then the differences from the book will most likely distract from the fabulous scenery, the improved actors and the inspired vision of Alfonso Cuaron. Cuaron's credits include The Little Princess and Y Tu Mama Tambien. What this movie shows is a combination of Cauron's other directorial works. He captures both innocence and the lack there of in the life of thirteen year-olds. Not to say there is promiscuous sex between Ron and Hermione in every other scene (although there is foreshadowing of a future relationship) but Prisoner of Azkaban captures the actuality of life, unlike the cookie-cutter version Chris Columbus created in the first two installments of the series.

All three of the principal actors have grown in their abilities since the last film. Perhaps it's the influence of a new director or maybe it's just that they've had four or five years to finally find the characters that they are playing. The whole cast, new and old, take their roles and give them the spike they need to stand out as their own. They are aided by a script that does not demand they recite such wooden dialogue as they did in the first two. The script is also much braver in cutting out material that would not have helped but just taken up time. This is where the potheads get angry but in fact this is just what the series needed.

Of course, this is not a perfect movie. It still has a bit of the sense of being very rushed (although not nearly as bad as the first one) and it has some scenes that leave the viewer thinking 'What…?'. For example, there are a couple points in the movie where story is going smoothly and then, we're walking in the garden with Lupin and Harry or we're in Lupin's office with Harry and the Professor. For a student-teacher relationship, they seem to be very good friends. Their friendship does exist in the book but not quite to the point where the movie uses it. Still, it's the only falture in the script to expand upon what's already there.

It's a shame that Cuaron is not staying on, but with much of his crew and the whole cast are staying, perhaps the Potter films are headed for a bright future. Prisoner of Azkaben is a better film than both its predecessors.

***1/2/*****

Miracle (2004)

No Miracles Happened Here

[6/10 · 6 November 2004]

There are too many good stories to bring to the big screen. Therefore, a hierarchy exists in the script room. Films with the underdog coming from behind to overcome enormous odds just aren't enough anymore. Miracle made the jump to production not because it's about this but because of its sub story about the effect the underdog's victory had. 'Do you believe in miracles?'

The story is about one coach trying to bring the USA Olympic team to glory against the unbeatable Soviets. His team is comprised of twenty-some athletes fresh from either Boston of Minnesota, hence a rivalry. Their average age is twenty-one while their opponets have been playing together for ten years. Of course we all know what happens because, like all other sports stories, this one comes with the tagline 'Based on a True Story'. But that, albeit important, is not really what matters. The main focus is here is how they do it.

The team has a drill. They skate from the red line to the blue line back to the red. Simple, right? After tying a game, the coach (Kurt Russell) brings his team back out onto the ice as the audience is leaving and makes them run this drill again and again and again and again and again and again… It's the most well done scene in the whole movie. It has you sympathizing with all the people on the screen. You understand Russell's anger and need to win but still can't believe he'd make them skate the drill again. Again and again. In the pit of your stomach you feel as if you may vomit yourself. The scene is set in partial darkness and scored subtly.

Too much time is spent trying to develop a side story about Russell's past career as an Olympian and how he feels he was robbed of a medal. This causes him to throw himself into his work and neglect his family. There are two or three arguments he has with his wife that start one way and then morph into wannabe 'money scenes' that might as well have tears streaming from the wife's eyes and a drunk, angered Russell. Instead, they try to get that same feeling across with their dialogue but that falters. However, everything comes across as silly and contrived.

Miracle is a Disney movie and it shows. It is clean family fun that is also uplifting and, from a distance, a good time. It gets across all the major points of the 'based on a true story' genre, including the side story built around the coach. The players are inter-changeable and yet you feel as if you know them. The movie gets you cheering and that was probably all it ever aspired to do. ***/*****

Alfie (2004)

Alfie - More than a cad

[8/10 · 6 November 2004]

What's it all about? That is the question that art tries to answer, whatever form it may be. Sometimes, like Alife, they come right out and tells us this is the intent. It is often those more subtle ones that fail anyway. Therefore, it was a smart choice to have Alfie narrate his story directly to the audience. This lets everyone breath easier because everything is put out there on the table for you to do what you will with it.

Based on the movie Alfie, which is based on the play Alfie, this new version, unoriginally titled Alfie, is the story of a cad who, of course, experiences a change of heart. Yeah, I know, cliché is the word here. Alfie is a cousin of the Romantic Comedy genre but because it is a one-man show, he can't quite be allowed into the club. But that's okay. Romantic Comedies are for women and Alfie, although still a chick-flick is appealing to men because a) they can relate and b) there is plethora (one of Alfie's daily vocab words) of young, attractive, scantily clothed women.

Jude Law is experiencing over-exposure this year. He is in six movies all to be released basically back to back. Unfortunately, none have brought the box office gold that someone of his looks might be expected to draw in. However, like so much else in this world, indicators such as this can be misleading. In Alfie, Law shows once again his versatility with character. He is all over the map while still being Alfie. You see him in so many states that might have been passed over by another. Law has shown before that he is not afraid to let go, as so many are. With two (!!) Oscar nominations under his belt, it is not unconceivable, although probably not possible, that he could wined up with another this year, maybe for Alfie.

Sometimes a film tries to do too much. Sometimes a film tries to do too little. It is hard to strike the right balance between the two. Most movies of the genre Alfie pretends to belong to, try for too little. They think that a big name star can carry them farther than something scratched just under the surface. Believe it or not, audiences like leaving the theater knowing they saw a movie that had more to it than they could understand. It makes them feel intellectual. This explains the appeal of the matrix. It has what everyone wants – tight leather, action, guns etc. – but it also has a glimmer, real or not, of a subtext. Alfie never actually dives into its subtext (This is good. You don't want the audience to walk away feeling stupid.) but hints at it. Giant bill-boards mark different passages of Alfie's journey, never really explaining themselves, but suggesting something more than the superficial surface most RomComs give.

So, what's it all about? Well, you'll have to see the movie first, but I can guarantee that they don't want you don't want to know. They'd be out of a job if we figured it out. ***1/2/*****

Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002)

Honestly Piercing

[8/10 · 2 November 2004]

Rabbit Proof Fence does a lot with very little. It has minimal plot and no big names to rest upon and still draws beauty from the sparse outback it was shot in along with real emotions from its viewers. It tells of aboriginal displacement without coming across as a documentary and yet still being informative and overflowing with information. Phillip Noyce's film is subtle, unique and should be looked to for inspiration.

Molly, Gracey and Daisy are three half-caste girls who range from eight to fourteen years of age. Molly is their leader. She is smart, clever, and uses minimal words but still appears wise beyond her years. Along with the other two, she is taken to Moore River, where the whites of Australia hope to keep her until she can marry one of them. Their plan is to breed the aborigines out of her and her kin. Being the girls she is, Molly leads Gracie and Daisy out of the camp by escape and across Australia with no other guide other than the Rabbit Proof Fence that is little more than poles and barbed wire.

It would be easy to make the story glamorized, to drum up the plot and add things that did not actually occur. After all, the bulk of this film is three young girls walking across desert with no conversation, reaction, or complaint. You have to ask yourself at a certain point how much of this is interesting and how can you translate the rest into two hours that an audience, which has been fed Hollywood blockbusters for too long, can take. What Noyce discovers in his film is that emotion is a stronger and more realistic special effect than Spiderman. If a person can say the film made them cry, they will probably not forget it soon.

Of course, that's easier said than done. It's not like people sit down and plan to spend millions on a bad movie. Everyone puts work into things and some come out with a result that shows that time and others don't. Rabbit Proof Fence shows effort and still manages not to boast its accomplishment by overemphasizing its emotional points. Even when it reaches a cliché moment, you have to turn your head the other way and remind yourself that it's not a dramatization, it really happened that way. And also, the only reason something is cliché is because it's been overused. It does not mean that it's not existent. In fact, it means the opposite. A cliché happens everywhere, all the time. Rabbit Proof Fence is so simple that a cliché is expected because otherwise, it would have to justify not having such an ordinary thing, thus taking away from the simplicity.

It's not often that a movie like this comes along. It went in with one piece of material and came out with the same one. It did not sub come to traditions that would guarantee it a larger audience support pool. Instead, it played to its strengths and came out a winner. ****/*****

Vanity Fair (2004)

Vanity Fair Tries In Vain

[2/10 · 24 October 2004]

Vanity Fair is a beautiful mess. It combines the beauty of elegant costumes, sets and people with the disaster that is Mira Nair's adaptation of William Makepeace Thackery's novel. Not only is the adaptation bad but also so is what Nair has done with it. If you read the book, the movie will break your heart. It has completely ripped to shreds the pages of the classic story.

If you haven't read the book and intend to waste your money on the film, I would recommend that first you read a couple of plot summaries of the novel. Otherwise, you may be very lost through no fault of your own but because there is no defining plot in the film. There are no central conflicts presented and it's not until about two thirds of the way through that you have at least an idea of what is trying to be done here. Even then, it is unclear. Reese Witherspoon plays Becky Sharp, a social climber. Vanity Fair is supposed to be her story but instead, it is crowded by a confusing and unnecessary cast of supporting characters. I suppose Vanity Fair is a story about love but also about how the social class system can create a barrier between people. If this was the intended idea the supporting cast would be needed but Vanity Fair is supposed to be about Becky Sharp and the movie is far too much of an ensemble piece for that to be the case.

Mira Nair's direction is too present. She throws in too much of herself with the scenes about India and actually in India. Where the hell is the point? There just seem to be times when Nair thought it was okay to throw in another shot of an elephant's ass or belly dancers or India food.

Speaking of unwanted, Reese's second child was not credited in the closing credits but is in every scene Reese is. Witherspoon and the crew seemed to think they could hide the fact that she was pregnant by putting her in big clothes but that didn't work. She still looks pregnant and it ruins the effect the clothes should have had. It also puts the movie out of sequence. In one scene Reese is very large and in the next you can only see her belly if you look for it.

Vanity Fair could have been brilliant. The material is there, Reese bring to the table the range that we have come to expect from her and a performance that could have taken her places if it had been used better. But the fact remains that there are too many moments where ends just don't meet and the audience is confused to the point where the film can't rely on its pretty scenery to distract from its larger flaws. *1/2 out of *****

Shall We Dance? (2004)

I'd Rather Not 'Dance'

[4/10 · 24 October 2004]

Sometimes it seems that the film should have been a musical. Sometimes there are just too many spots where it seems more logical for the protagonist to break out in song then deliver his sorrowful speech about the human condition. In Shall We Dance? they already have the dance aspect down. The most colorful moments are the dance sequences between Jennifer Lopez and whichever man she is pulling the hand of off her ass this time.

John Clark, played by a sullen Richard Gere, is happy but not happy. He wants something more from life. Despite a successful marriage to Susan Sarandon and two kids, he feels that monotony has taken over. On passing a dance studio one night on his way home, he sees the face of Lopez from the window. She externalizes everything he is feeling inside and he finds himself compelled to talk to her. Upon walking into the studio, he finds himself signed up for beginner's ballroom dancing. You know the rest – wife fears there's an affair, Clark discovers an actual love for dancing, befriends Lopez, they change each other's life, etc.

Singin' In the Rain used dancing in the place of sex. When they're dancing together, they're sleeping together. In Shall We Dance? they may have been going for something along the same line. Why else would Jennifer Lopez spend the entire movie looking like she is about to have an orgasm? It surpasses the serious dance face that some were going for. In actuality, the dancing is the best part of the movie. It's well performed, minus a few facial expressions, and obviously had the most time put into it. Richard Gere shows the he still hasn't lost what he acquired for Chicago, although that was a smarter career move.

Shall We Dance? is supposed to be a comedy. There are some funny spots but mostly the problem is that the filmmakers felt a sentimental aspect was lacking and went overboard on their attempts to fix that. Every scene is rank with a brooding Gere or Lopez. The script and acting falls second to the dancing and costuming. However, if you want to see good dancing, there are so many other movies that get that aspect at the same time as the script. See Singin' In the Rain or Chicago instead of this.

**/*****

Friday Night Lights (2004)

'Friday' Will Light Up Your Night

[7/10 · 24 October 2004]

There are many types of formula movies. A romantic comedy, a slasher, a thriller, the list just goes on. Sports movies tend to be formulaic too. Usually, it's the underdogs that rise to greatness through their coach. It also helps if the story is based on actual events. You see this played out in both directions. The bad is embodied in The Rookie, which sub came to the expectations of Disney. The other end of the spectrum is Friday Night Lights, which really is a formula but has the heart that The Rookies needed. Friday Night Lights will hopefully take its place next to films like Hoosiers as one of the greats about sports.

Billy Bob Thorton is the football coach in Odessa, Texas. The town lives and breathes football and they want nothing more than for their team to take state. The players are average teenage boys. They want to win for the glory it will bring their school/town but also to get scholarships out of Odessa, which we see through the opening credits, is not a place anyone would want to settle in for life. Thorton usually plays roles where he appears magnified. He is usually the stand out because of the nature of his character. Here, he plays the opposite of that. He is the most human of all the people in the film. He is grounded and realizes that 'the only difference between winning and losing is how people treat you.' His performance is subtle and, although not as showy as, say, Bad Santa, is just as good.

For a fan of football, the movie does not disappoint. The plays are excellent and anyone who has ever watched their very capable team fumble time and time again will feel those same feelings when watching this. At the same time, it does not lack the glory of the kick-off return run for a touchdown or the fifty-yard run by the player that isn't even a running back. It is the perfect mix of reality and hope.

While Friday Night Lights specializes in football, it does try and add character development. It's nice but, at times, falters and you have to remember, this is not part of the formula that it subscribes to. In these scenes, the cinematography tries for the stylized chaos look but comes off more as chaos than something art made. I don't think that the level of film-making should decrease with the genre and so that makes the errors in Friday Night Lights inexcusable but still they have to be looked at as attempts to widen the boundaries of this type of storytelling and that is commendable. Most sports films like to have character growth and often accomplish about the same amount as 'Lights' but what is different here is how it is made a main priority to try and get across some motives at the same times show incredible, miraculous touchdowns.

I won't spoil the ending but will simply say that it is 'perfect'. It is perfect the way Billy Bob Thorton tells his players to be. He gives a perfect speech to his perfect players in a perfect film.

***1/2 out of *****

Collateral (2004)

Cruise and Foxx

[8/10 · 24 October 2004]

Tom Cruise is superman as far as the American public is concerned. He is the typical everyman and that is why we love him so. He has the quality that everyone craves and he radiates the this-could-be-you-vibe like no other celebrity. In Collateral, he is the villain. Though still clothed in the everyman gray, his intentions and his heart are no longer as relatable. But yet, it's Tom Cruise, and everything he does seems to be relatable. Perhaps that's why he was the perfect choice for the anti-hero in this Michael Mann film.

Jamie Foxx is a nobody to the American public. But he's on his way up. Besides having a highly buzzed film, Ray, coming out this winter, he is playing the counter part to Tom Cruise. And he's acting Cruise off the screen!!!! He's subtle and natural and plays against Cruise's intensity like no other. Together they make an excellent on-screen couple with Cruise being showy and upfront and Foxx being low-key and passive. They are, together, one person. Sometimes it takes two people to be one and here is the perfect example. They complete each other.

Collateral is built on its script. Much of the film rests on the banter between Foxx and Cruise as they ride around LA in Foxx's taxi. Cruise has a few 'errands' to run and he's hired Foxx for the night. At first hesitant, Foxx eventually accepts. The plot truly is secondary and serves merely to give the actors something to talk about.

The city of LA plays itself and is lit with the colorful orbs you see in the ad with Cruise. They, like the city, appear almost to be a character of their own. They are in every scene and are the only actual witnesses to the night. No one else gets to see the relationship between these two halves of a man as they assume their position as a single person in the ending scenes.

Michael Mann's direction is superb. It pays attention to the details yet allows the broader aspects speak for themselves. He has composed a film of fast paced moments and small, slow conversations, each part holding its own in the big picture. There is something here that is not to be missed.

****/*****

A Home at the End of the World (2004)

'Home' Not The End of the World

[6/10 · 24 October 2004]

This is a small film with a small audience. After the nonsense about cutting out Colin Farrell's 'extremely distracting member' from the sex scene didn't create any new buzz, the movie was left to play to its minute slice of the pie in half empty art houses around the country. Still, just because mainstream America is too squeamish to sit through an openly gay film does not mean that the level of film-making is reflected in its box office totals.

Based on his novel of the same name, Michael Cunningham has written a screenplay that, although similar to The Hours in theme, is very unique. Its focus is on our search for acceptance, for the people who define us, for a home, even if it is at the end of the world. He creates three individuals to take the same quest in their own way. The first is Jonathan (Dallas Roberts), someone who needs to be loved but resents that quality about him. It makes him susceptible to pain because he takes everything as betrayal. Next to that, he feels that his life is always second to his best friend, Bobby's. Bobby is played by notorious bad-boy, Colin Farrell in his most toned down role yet. Bobby also needs people but not in a bad way. He just feeds off others and this feeding takes its toll on Jonathan. So much so that he heads off to New York and befriends a drifter, a personality of originality named Clare. The two of them play house despite the fact that Clare is older than Jonathan and he is gay.

Homosexuality is a major player in this film. And yet at the same time, it's not because only Jonathan is actually gay. Bobby would be classified as bisexual but that term comes with the same connotation as homosexual and so it is more accurate to say that Bobby just loves everyone. There is no word to describe his sexual inclination because it is not really a big enough part of him to demand a label. It does not matter – perhaps one of the larger themes here that will sadly get overlooked, as many people are not ready to embrace this yet.

A Home At the End of the World is not a groundbreaker but it is a pioneer. It is one of the few movies about homosexuality, and about it in a blunt, unmasked way, that could have a chance with the more mainstream audience. It is shot with the gritty quality of the independent film but it has mainstream Colin Farrell who may just have a shot of killing two bird with one stone here: proving that he can do more than just the tabloids and bringing homosexual films to a more 'out of the closet' place among other films. Later this year he will try this same task again on a grander scale with Oliver Stone's Alexander and if that proves successful, A Home At the End of the World can be credited as the beginning of that. ***/*****