AmateurMovieReviews.com

This movie is about the story of a trip in the life of youthful Ernesto "Che" Guevara, a historical revolutionary icon in Latin America. It is well done, and sends an excellent message. Most of all, it is true and it makes you think a lot about injustice, revolution, and what is noble to do in life and what is not.

The premise is this; Che Guevara and his good friend Alberto Granado decide, when they are young, to go on a trip all around Latin America, to see the land, to meet people, and maybe discover something about themselves. They are from Argentina, and they have never even been out of the country before. Here in the US we are used to traveling all over the place because it is fairly simple to do so these days, and our country is very large, so we do it a lot, and it is common, for example, to have families spread out across the company. However, it Latin America, first of all people are poorer, but moreover, the lifestyle is different, and families stay closer, and people don't travel outside of the cities where they are born very often. So for Che and his friend, this was a great undertaking, to travel around the continent. Ernesto ("Che") is school to be a medical doctor, and his friend is a biochemist. One of the amazing parts of the movie is when Ernesto is at dinner with his family not long before they take off, and his father says something like, "are you sure you want to do this? You are one semester away from becoming a medical doctor." To which, Ernesto responds "this is traveling around the continent of south america. Being a medical doctor can wait". To which, thankfully, his father smiles back at his beaming son. It is amazing that Ernesto has the foresight to realize that he should take this opportunity while he is young, and see the world, and try to understand something about the life we live, and about his home continent and the people of Latin America.

Anyway, the movie is called the Motorcycle Diaries for a reason. They are taking a motorcycle to make this trip! A terrible, aging motorcycle that is going to take them all around the suffering country roads of Latin America. They plan to go far south along the coast and return through the Andes, working their way to Maccu Piccu (a famous, ancient Incan city), and then staying for a while in a leper colony (soon to be their medical specialty) in the Amazon. The plan is to be finished by Granados's 30th birthday (Che is only 23!).

They of course, run into lots trouble in small towns in other countries (although at least language is not a barrier, since they all speak spanish, except some of the indigenous people), and of course, they find girls and do plenty of partying. Ernesto has a girlfriend in another town from where he lives. They stop to see her in the beginning and they are very clearly in love, but although it tears at him, he knows he has to leave her to go out and discover. He gets a letter from her after a few months whose details we never know, except that she is out of his life. I think he made the right choice. Even if they belonged together, he needed to see the world to know that. Anyway, somewhere in Colombia they lose the motorcycle. After lots of trouble, they try to fix it for the last time and end on foot. As Ernesto puts it eloquently, he says, "on foot, we will meet more people, and feel closer to the land". Even though it is going to take a much longer time. He is right, though. This is when they really start to learn. Walking, they meet lots of locals, and they start to learn about the injustice going on in Latin America. The governments taking land away from honest sharecroppers, kicking natives out of the places they have always lived, forcing people to take extremely dangerous jobs in mines, for example, because they are communists. It is terrible. The injustice starts to eat at Ernesto, and he is constantly thinking and writing (letters to his family, and in his journal) about the people who are defeated by these terrible governments, and about how he is not the same after viewing and somehow partaking in the acidity of this injustice.

Eventually, they reach the leper colony, where they are treated extremely well. They now have a place to sleep, new clothes, food every day, and they have some respect because they are working with the doctors. But even here, Ernesto is bothered by the division between the doctors and patients. At the leper colony, even though leprosy is not contagious under treatment, the Amazon river divides the living quarters of the lepers from the quarters of the caregivers, and the nuns who run the camp insist that all the caregivers wear gloves when working with the sick. As Ernesto points out, this is clearly just symbolic, and he chooses not to do so. Symbolic of what? Of the division of people, despite the fact that the damger is artificial. It reflects his compassion toward the sick people of the South American countries, lost and ignored by a government that treats them like lepers. This is very profound. he makes good friends through being compassionate to the sick, even engaging them in a soccer game. When the nuns refuse to serve him lunch with the lepers, his patients steal food for him to eat. When they are going to leave the next day after a few weeks at the camp, it is Ernesto's birthday, and in the midst of a joyful party on the "staff side" of the river, he takes off swimming across the Amazon (an extremely dangerous endeavor) for the "sick side" to celebrate with and say goodbye to his sick friends.

After the leper colony, Ernesto's friend, who shares his ideals but has a plan for settling down (he is older after all), go back to work in a famous hospital, and Ernesto admits that he has been changed by the trip and may not be ready to go back to medical school yet. We know from history that this means he is feeling the seeds of the revolution in which he will become a major figure. The injustice you see in this movie is amazing, startling, and moving. It is hard for us to understand it in North America, but the political conditions in Latin America at that time were intense and dangerous. The social climate was extremely delicate, and after that time, many fascist governments were overcome by revolution. When you see what Che Guevara sees, you are inspired and you feel what he feels. It is very impressive and it makes you want to do something. This movie is both heartwarming and alarming, and I recommend it to anyone who wants some food for thought about life, justice, and standing for something.

I am sure somebody has already reviewed this here, but I thought that I might as well put in my two cents. I just saw this movie, and I saw in playing in a theatre on my University campus...so although it's out of the theatres, I got a nice look at it on the big screen.

This movie is rife with special effects. It was clearly made to impress, and something like every five minutes you are bombarded with some enormous impressive image, in high detail. For example, even when we are just seeing a scene about Lex Luther in his boat, the scene begins not inside the boat's cabin's but over an impressively stormy, computer-animated sea. Or when the crystal starts growing in the sea, we see great dramatic view of the crystals growing from the bottom of the ocean. Also, when we see superman flying into space with the enormous crystal, for example, we feel like we are there because the enormous rocks are falling all around us. The only thing that is annoying is how fake superman looks when he is flying, because he looks absolutely computer animated. I don't think this is a big deal, though, since we all know it's not real, and everything is so computer animated these days that soon we are going to think that real life looks like that.

Back to Lex Luther, though, I must say that Kevin Spacey does an excellent job of playing the creepy, and sometimes comic, villain. Kevin Spacey is one of my favorite actors and I like how he entangles into the role, making us laugh in the very beginning when we meet him, stealing some dying widow's fortune and then throwing away the wig he is wearing and exposing up to the bald Lex we have always known. On the subject of casting, while Lois Lane is very beautiful, I don't like the actress they chose. She somehow didn't fit the part of Lois in my head, but that is obviously a personal preference. The other characters were fine.

The movie is nice. It is an exageration of all the other Superman movies. They poke fun during the movie at common phrases surrounding Superman ("truth, justice and all that stuff"), and make fun of hero movie in general by exagerrating everything. For some people, this makes the movie phony. In fact, my friend next to me during the movie couldn't keep from laughing during the scenes where Superman makes daring, predictable rescues, because they are so iconic and anti realistic. If you ask me, the movie does this intentionally, and it seems like a trend these days to make fun of the traditional way of making a movie, in a movie of the very same genre. For example, we see cartoons making fun of cartoons, gangsters making fun of gangster movies, and heroes making fun of their former selves, as here.

I really liked that they spent the first 10 ten minutes of the movie playing the famous Superman theme, and showing prior credits. I really liked that they gave us time to work up old memories of superman while absorbing the good old dramatic music and getting us in the mood for action.

Now, about the plot. The thing is, I liked the plot in that not everything turned out perfectly (that is, Lois and Superman don't end up together). When I saw the beginning of the film, and we discover that Lois is married, I realize that her son Jason must be Superman's, which of course we learn later when he saves his mom in an asthmatic fit when he throws a
PIANO at her attacker, but then I found myself wondering, how can they take a noble hero like Superman and allow him to break up this nice family? And the fact is, they don't let it happen, which I admire, but there is still something wrong about the son being his. Obviously it is necessary for there to be plenty of sequels, but I feel unsatisfied with an ending where Superman is just "around sometimes", and Lois has to see him but doesn't get to be with him. But I also don't want her husband to be shafted because he is also a very good man. Anyway, I guess it makes sense because although the boy is his son, he will never have to know it because being Superman is such a strong secret anyway. But what will happen to Clark? It's something terrible for him. But since he is superman anyway I guess he will strong enough to get by alone.

I liked the movie, it was entertaining. It was funny because they exaggerated so much and often Superman ended up making fun of himself and his past. The story line was clever enough, I can't complain except that it is cheesy, and as I said before, I think that that was really part of the point of the movie. They know that Superman is an icon and that it is hard to compete with the tradition of the story, except by adding thousands of amazing special effects. It is clear that this movie was made with 3-d in mind, and since it actually showed in some 3-D IMAX theatres, I think that even for me, and I don't like action movies and stunts very much, it would have been an amazing experience. I hope you like this one. It's no deep film, but it's a nice evening of entertainment for any age.

The Story: A scientist's experiments with matter transference cause his molecules to become mixed with those of a fly, with tragic consequences.

It's always a risky proposition to revisit an old favorite horror film. Sometimes it's as great as you remember it, sometimes you find previously undiscovered chills or depths of meaning or character, sometimes you find it to be cheesy but fun or cheesy but bad, and sometimes you find... not much at all. It's a gamble, but every time I go to the video store and see row upon row of endless sequels and straight to video junk, I get the urge to roll the dice anyway. Roll away...

At the beginning of The Fly, Helene Delambre (Patricia Owens) is turning herself in for the murder of her scientist husband Andre (Al Hedison, who later changed his name to David to disguise his association with this film). His head and one arm have been crushed in a huge factory press and she calmly tells Andre's brother Francois (Vincent Price) and Inspector Charas (Herbert Marshall) that she did it but can't disclose why.

The inspector lets her go on her own recognizance while he begins the investigation, and a devastated and puzzled Francois tries to get her to explain her actions. Clues begin to suggest that it has something to do with a white-headed house fly that she is obsessed with and has sent her son Phillipe (Charles Herbert) looking for. Eventually, Francois claims to have caught the fly and tricks her into opening up...

Andre's latest experiment was a matter transmitter, a science-fiction looking contraption that would disintegrate objects in one compartment and reintegrate it in another one at a different location. After a few successful tries with dinner plates and the like (and an attempt with the cat that doesn't turn out nearly as well), Andre decides to try it on himself. Something goes wrong, but we don't see what it is at first because Andre keeps his head and one arm covered with a towel as he tries to hide the results from his wife. Of course, a fly had gotten into the mix and he is revealed to have the head and arm of the poor creature. So what became (and will become) of the fly that everyone's looking for? Sorry, I'm not that kind of reviewer.

So, is this a good movie? Bad? So bad it's good? Well, as I check out reviews elsewhere, I see all three verdicts, and each has its merits, I suppose, though I don't necessarily agree with any of them. Here's my take:

Good stuff: Vincent Price! The man was always incapable of giving a bad performance, and here in a rare sympathetic role, he is nearly flawless. A bit campy sometimes, but he wouldn't be Uncle Vincent otherwise and for the most part he plays everything quite straight. The other performances are well and honestly done, with no real standouts to speak of. Everyone shows up and does their work well if unremarkably.

The budget is indulgent here as well. This is one of the few horror films of its era that could afford color, decent if unremarkable music, professional-looking sets, and good (though limited) special effects and makeup. No element calls much attention to itself at all, either for better or worse. Competence reigns supreme in The Fly. Which brings us to...

Bad stuff: Competence. Mere competence. Nothing in The Fly, aside from Price's performance (and all he had to do was show up and say his lines), is anything more or less than professional and... drab. Dull. Blah. Forgettable. And this is death in an old science fiction horror flick. Better ridiculous or overwrought than boring, I always say. The movie politely knocks on the door, sits daintily on the couch making polite conversation without raising its voice, and then leaves without leaving any muss or fuss or signs of its presence whatsoever. It just leaves the feeling that it's now an hour and a half later in your life and you still haven't got the dishes washed yet.

The Fly is the kind of date you can always bring home to meet Mom, knowing she'll feel comforted in the fact that you'll come home on time, sober and with every hair still in place. Okay if you're that type of person, but I wanna score or at least get smacked around for trying. In other words, The Fly isn't a bad time but you'll never get to second base. Whether this is a good thing or bad is up to you. Personally, I don't feel like I got ripped off but I feel quite unsatisfied and empty.

To me, the fun of movie gambling is the danger of losing everything or the thrill of coming home rich. With The Fly, I broke even. Damn.

P.S. Yes, that is James Clavell, the author of Shogun, getting screenplay credit.

Rent is a recent film, but as everybody knows it was first a broadway show. Therefore it has merits on two levels -- as a story, in which case the credit really goes to the original show, and we can take note of some of the differences in story later -- and as a movie. An incredible thing about this show-made-movie is that almost all of the **original cast** from Broadway performs together in the film version. Even though I never saw the show before seeing the movie (though I knew a lot about the show because of its popularity and several friends who liked it), I think knowing that this cast worked together from the beginning adds something to the (already heavy) emotional weight of the movie.

Anyone who is comfortable with homo/trans/tri/heterosexual issues is going to love how this film (show!) treats them, and anyone who isn't should see this anyway to get a taste of how those kinds of differences are so unimportant in light of how we ALL deal with life and troubles in the same realm, as human beings.

The story is about a group of friends who live in Alphabet city in New York, living a Bohemian lifestyle, just trying to make ends meet, and dealing with critical issues like AIDS, multi-sexuality, depression, drug addiction and suicide. On top of that, they are dealing with issues of self-awakening, understanding of others, dealing with loss, and standing for what you believe in while still trying to survive.

Of course, this is a musical, so if you hate when you see a movie where people are constantly breaking into song, you may get annoyed with this. However, the story is absolutely profound and you should give it a chance. You are probably going to forget that they are singing anyway.

Let's look at the cast of characters; you could say that the main character is Mark, although the friends all play important roles. Mark is an aspiring filmmaker / starving artist who is interested in making documentaries about the reality of life on the street and the difficulties of inner city and poor life. He lives with best friend Roger, who is lovesick over a girlfriend who died recently. Mark's bisexual ex-girlfriend is Maureen, and she has now turned to women and is dating beautiful lawyer Joanne. Mimi, who lives downstairs from Mark and Roger in Alphabet city, is a nineteen year old heroin addict who works in a night club dancing and is in love with Roger. Last, Tom Collins, a good friend of Roger and Mark, visits from his job teaching at a university and brings Angel, a sweet transvestite, into the gang when he meets her at the beginning of the movie. The first scene of the movie is of the cast on an actual stage, singing the opening song of the musical. It is obviously not pretending to be anything but it's musical origin, and this beginning pushes forward immediately the main message of the story - that we can't measure our lives in minutes or events, only in the love we collect along the way.

In the beginning of the movie, Benny, another old friend who has now married into a political family and basically owns the dump he used to live in with Mark and Roger, tells them that they need to leave or pay all the past rent that they have ignored. Benny's wife's family wants to tear down the old buildings and build a recording studio and other fancy stuff. Maureen is staging a protest against the action and Benny offers them free board indefinitely if they stop it. Naturally, they refuse. We are introduced to their Bohemian lifestyle and hippie-ish beliefs when we see how they protest in the streets, burning things to stay warm and ignoring calls from their families on Christmas day. But this strange group seems happy enough just struggling to get by.

We meet, in the first few scenes, Mark, Roger, who remains pretty reserved all the time, and Collins and Angel, who finds Collins after he is mugged in the street and they become fast friends and then, lovers. We discover that Angel and Collins, both gay men, have AIDS, and so does Roger, though we learn it a little later. Angel is an advocate for and avidly attends Life Support meetings, a support group for people with AIDS. He encourages all the others to come, because they are in one way or another highly affected by AIDS. The story takes place in the 80s in the height of the AIDS epidemic, so although it seems like an out-of-proportion number of people in the story are HIV-positive, it is not unrealistic considering the height of ignorance that existed, and the high rate of infection, especially in poorer communities and among gays, We see people in the Life Support meetings dealing with feelings about the diseasea dn trying to live their lives normally in the grip of a scary unknown. We also meet Mimi in the beginning, when she goes upstairs to bother Roger, who pushes her away. His past haunts him every moment. He avoids going out with friends, and he avoids getting interested in anyone, especially Mimi. His previous girlfriend haunts him. They were both heroine addicts and we see in a wave of music how they fell in love and did drugs together, only to learn that they both have AIDS. We infer from what is shown that his girlfriend died. This is one place that the movie differs from the original show. In the movie, we don't know exactly what happens to Roger's ex-girlfriend, only that she died, seemingly from AIDS or maybe from an overdose, since he is particularly bitter with Mimi about her addiction to smack. But in the show, we hear that in fact, his girlfriend committed suicide when she got the HIV test results, leaving behind a note that said "we have AIDS". In my opinion, this would have been super-powerful and should have been included in the movie. Regardless, this is what makes Roger push away Mimi, not only his past but the fact that he has the disease now and doesn't see any reason to do anything but wait to die. Much of the movie is his friends convincing him otherwise.

We watch the evolution of the friendships as the whole group seems to gel. Angel is incorporated into the group, and she is absolutely full of life. Always dressing in bright colors, always joyful, always supportive and always encouraging the others to enjoy life and to support each other even under the worst circumstances (drugs? AIDS? Suicide? Most of these guys have had it pretty rough - and anyone who thinks this is an exaggeration is living too comfortable of a life), she is the lifeline of the group. And as we watch the relationship between her and Collins evolve, we fall in love with her too ... they have found a true love, in the face of all the terrible things. And they provide a good lesson for anyone who is not comfortable with bisexuality or transsexuality - one cannot help but feel deeply for the two of them in love. Sometimes it just takes a story like this for some bigotry to be fought - people need to see and feel that LBGQTA people fall in love and life just like all the straight and "normal" people. This is why it is so heartbreaking when we see that she is the first who begins to deteriorate under the influence of the disease.

We also are introduced to the crazy Maureen when we see her show, which is a protest against throwing all of the poor people out of their homes and building whatever they want. What is supposed to be a peaceful protest turns violent when the police are unleashed on the crowd for no reason, but the commotion they create by their attack is indistinguishable from if the crown actually started the riot themselves. This is supposed to be a real story, and a pretty realistic interpretation of a real riot that occurred there in the 80s. It is terrible, but in the end they all get away from the commotion okay, and Mark sells some footage that he shot of the riot to a news company so they will see what really happened at the protest. They go to a cafe to celebrate and run into who else, but Benny, who is responsible for calling out the police who initiated the violence. In a show like only broadway can produce, they sing about their Bohemian lifestyle, the strengths of their beliefs even in adversity, and laugh in Benny's face about how uncomfortable he is around the ideals that he himself used to have. This night, Roger and Mimi finally get together when they realize by talking that they both have AIDS and that life is too short to be cold to other people because you are scared. Roger has a difficult time, but he decides that it is time to put himself out there instead of hiding until the disease takes him over.

In the midst of all this, Maureen and Joanne, in a rocky relationship because Maureen is continuously too friendly with other girls (and guys), a behavior confirmed adamantly by Mark from their previous relationship, have some fights and some loving moments, all awkwardly in front of Mark, who still can't resist Maureen. After a big fight, as a resolution they decide to do the equivalent of getting married and make a life-long commitment to each other. There is a fancy engagement party (Joanne's family is obviously quite wealthy), which is another model for how the world should be, accepting of all sexual styles and preferences. The event goes beautifully until Joanne catches a drunk Maureen flirting with one of the catering waitresses, and they fight with each other and break up for good in front of everyone. This is when things start to break down for the whole group.

Roger and Mimi's budding relationship goes wrong when Roger finds out that Mimi had dinner with Benny to try to convince him to leave the guys alone in their home. It turns out that Mimi and Benny had had an affair a few months before, and even though we don't find out if anything actually happened at "dinner", Roger is fed up and refuses to see Mimi anymore. She goes back into a drug-filled world and after some time gets involved with Benny again. Angel's health rapidly deteriorates as the Life Support group gets smaller, although at last Roger, Mimi, and the others are attending all in support of each other. After some time, they lose Angel and despite their difference are brought together at her funeral. This part is very painful, and now the last happy couple is also broken. Collins' pain is very real and everyone feels the loss of the lifeline of the group. It has been less than a year since they met her, and now she is gone.

After the funeral, Roger leaves New York and drives off to Santa Fe, to wander in the desert and think about how angry he is with life. Mimi gets worse, does more drugs, and then gets lost form the others, living on the street. Mark is alone in his home now, working on a film of all their adventures together, balanced between the rest of his friends. Joanne and Maureen aren't talking. At the funeral for Angel they fight on their way out, and even Roger and Mark fight before Roger leaves.

After some time in New Mexico Roger realizes he's in the wrong place and heads back to New York. They are all looking for Mimi but she is nowhere to be found, they don't even know if she's still alive. Not even Benny has heard from her. When Roger gets back, it's Christmas again, just like one year ago when the story began. Collins has returned to visit and while they are talking the girls yell up to the apartment that they have found Mimi. This is the great finale of the movie. They bring her up, barely clinging to life. She is delirious. Roger sings a song to Mimi that he wrote for her while coming back from Santa Fe. They are realizing, when it is almost too late, that they need to live life to its fullest. Mimi seems to have died, but suddenly she comes back to life, giving her and Roger a second chance and showing them all that they should do the same with each other and in their friendships.

We can learn a lot from this movie, and i can never convey its emotional impact, it is only something you can understand from watching it. There are so many things wrong in the lives of these people, and they realize after it all they should be filled with the joy o living, the joy that Angel felt and imparted onto them until her last moments alive. This is a message that you can get from a lot of movies, but this story has such a huge impact because their lives are realistic, their problems are important and their ideals are reachable. The movie is full of uncomfortable issues, and it explains that we need to see past these problems if we want to enjoy this world. The message is absolutely valuable, straightforward, and real.

some of my favorite lines from the movie are:

-"there's only us, there's only this. forget regret, or life is yours to miss.... give in to love, or live in fear!" (finale, other songs, main theme)
-"you'll never share real love until you love yourself" (Roger to Mimi)
-"live in my house, I'll be your shelter. just pay me back with one thousand kisses" (Angel, "I'll cover you")
-"goodbye, love...hello, disease..." (Mimi to Roger, when he leaves for Santa Fe)

My favorite scenes are:
-when Collins and Angel sing "I'll cover you" in the street, because it is a raw moment of the beauty and purity of their love.
-Angel's funeral, when Collins sings in front of the others; the pain is real, and by suffering it with them we learn something.
-After the funeral, in the graveyard, when they fight. because their pain is raw; they just want to be happy, and it tears them apart.
-the finale, of course. not just because Roger and Mimi can be together. Because the words are so beautiful, and the message so solid.

Please watch this movie. I don't think it made it into the mainstream, because it is sort of a cult story, and deals with a lot of controversial issues, not to mention the musical nature of it. But even if you are not as sentimental as I am about the message, the movie has a lot to say that is worth hearing, and I think everyone should experience it at least once. I am unable to describe how it affected me. I am not gay, I am not Bohemian, I am not a hippie, or any of the stereotypical things that you think a person who loves this movie would be. I simply love the message that we have to embrace life. We hear it time and time again but we don't understand it. We don't appreciate the weight of our friendships, the value of our minutes with them, and how lucky we are when so many have to deal with adversity. And seeing the joy through that adversity, lots of adversity, is the miracle of Rent.

The Story: A scientist and the woman who loves him battle with the horrifying results of a teleportation experiment that has turned tragically wrong.

Remakes! There is a special circle of Hell reserved for dirty politicians, crooked lawyers, spiteful X's, and whoever the bastard is who first said "Hey, that's a good movie. Let's make it all over again and trash its memory forever." Remakes are always lurching, sanitized, lowest common denominator, trend-of-the-month monstrosities with no personality of their own except for the suspicious odors of formaldehyde and brimstone wafting through the theater.

And all generalizations are false. The Fly is a monstrously well-made and powerful film, while its predecessor is a competent but dull B movie. Sometimes bad guys do good things despite their worst intentions. This is like a deal with the Devil at the crossroads, except Old Scratch forgot to collect on his part of the deal.

At the beginning of The Fly, research scientist Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) invites Veronica (Geena Davis), a reporter, back to his lab to see his teleportation device. Just like in the original film, the scientist has two telepods set up in his Frankenstein-like lair. Put an object in one, flash some special effects hither and yon and the object appears in the other pod. Well, the setup has a few bugs to work out yet - living creatures don't come through it looking so healthy. As Seth and Veronica's relationship develops into love, Brundle fiddles with this and that until he's confident (or drunk) enough to try the ultimate experiment - to teleport himself from one pod to the other.

Hey, it worked! But of course, we know that there had to be a fly in there somewhere or we would be stuck with a romantic comedy. Why didn't he change like in the original movie? Oh yeah... because this is the 1980s and we can make this a very gruesome movie with more psychological depth. This time, the change is disturbingly gradual. As Brundle's body begins to gradually discard human parts (check out the collection in the medicine cabinet!) and gain fly parts, his mind undergoes a gradual transformation as well. As the film progresses, and we come to feel more and more pity for the man and the woman who loves him, we also become more and more horrified as his looks and behavior take on inhuman and animalistic, vicious tendencies...

Okay, I'll stop there. Are there many surprises from this point on? From a plot standpoint, not really. Some of the particulars of Seth's mental and physical degradation are shocking, but all is built from a logical foundation once you accept the basic premise. I can't describe any particulars for you, since it would ruin shocks and surprises for the uninitiated and those who have seen the movie know that descriptions wouldn't do it justice anyway. Suffice it to say that The Fly is one of the most surprising, scary big-budget horror movies of the 1980s and is well deserving of the acclaim that it collected - not to mention the Academy Award for the makeup.

Well, you already can tell that I consider this a good movie. The performances on the whole range from sturdy and workmanlike to inspired, though Goldblum's performance could have used a lot more subtlety in my view. The pathos that comes through is due more to the horror of the situation itself and the destruction that is wrought upon those around him than from anything Goldblum does with his role. I suspect he was picked more for his natural insectoid looks than for his acting skills and would have rather seen a more restrained and dignified actor in the role (supporting actor John Getz, perhaps?). Davis's role, on the other hand, is justifiably star making in its honesty and sympathy.

In contrast to the effect of the original film, we are treated to a much more intelligent and complex array of characters and situations, and Cronenberg's usual allegories and personal obsessions are fortunately held in abeyance. There are a few "deep," "metaphorical" elements here and there, and a few moments that are momentarily silly and destructive to the mood (and a ridiculous cheat dream sequence), but all in all this is a remarkably restrained and straightforward film for Cronenberg. Someone somewhere must have shackled the poor man and kept him from his usual creative frenzy, and in this rare instance I approve.

In the end, this movie breaks all of the rules - it's a remake, it's a modern special-effects blockbuster, it's a movie made by an idiosyncratic artist hampered by commercial restraints, and it's a thinking person's gore movie. Plus... it's a David Cronenberg movie with normal, sympathetic characters and no overt obsessive navel gazing. All in all, Cronenberg's "Fly" is that rarity of rarities: A deal with the devil that turns out to be a good deal for all concerned.

Except of course for Seth Brundle and the people in his life.

This movie is. a. classic. Let's face it; it's a kid's movie - but let's face it; ANYone can enjoy it. And not because it's the Lion King, for example. This is a fairy tale, a true fairy, lock, stock, and barrel. And it doesn't pretend to be anything else. In fact, the movie is a story inside a story, when a sick boy (Fred Savage....he's so young and tiny!) is stuck at home and his grandfather comes over to read him a story - a book called The Princess Bride, a fairy tale of fairy tales. As his grandfather says, it has everything - danger, royalty, heroism, comedy, true love. Although the kid isn't too excited about having a book read to him (as the grandfather says, "when I was a kid, television used to be called books"), what else can he do? He's sick. So in the end, he says okay, and waits for the story to unfold. We find ourselves in the very beginning of the story, when Wesley and the Princess meet. She is a commoner, who lives in the countryside, and Wesley is a farm boy, who is completely under her control. Whenever she finds the smallest task, she asks him to do it for her. He always replies with "As you wish", and does anything she asks. Soon enough (and we're talking about in five minutes of movie, here) they fall in love, "true" love, and they are already making out in the sunset, etc. etc. Then one day Wesley has to go to sea, for some reason I can't remember, but I guess that it is for war. He tells the girl that he will come back for her, and that nothing can stop true love. She receives news soon after that Wesley's ship has been attacked by the famous Dread Pirate Roberts, and that there are no survivors. She doesn't sleep for days, and basically loses all will to live. But of course, she must go on. The next scene we find her five years later, chosen by the prince of the land, Prince Humperdink, to marry him and become the Princess. Although she does not love him, he is allowed to marry anyone he wants from the land that his family rules, so she agrees. We see her presented to the crowd as future princess and queen. She lives in the castle while awaiting her wedding, and goes horseback riding as her only reprieve from the terrible lonely live that is about to surround her. It is on one of these rides that she is kidnapped in the woods by some men claiming to be circus performers. There is a little old man, a giant, and a Spaniard who is an expert in sword fighting. They were actually hired to kidnap the princess and deliver her to the prince's enemies in order to begin a war with them.

They take her on a boat and are well on their way to the other country when they notice a ship following them. The princess insists that they are going to be caught by Humperdink, who is clearly the best hunter who has ever lived (really, since this is true from what he see of him in the film), so they are pretty nervous about the second ship in the water. Anyway, it turns out that they reach the Cliffs of Insanity, their destination, before the other ship can catch up. They climb together up a rope that they had clearly put there before for that purpose, and while they think this "docking" will help them lose their follower, they are wrong. He pulls his ship up right next to theirs and jumps out, climbing up the ripe right behind them. Not wanting to be chased or caught by anyone, the little man leaves behind his Spaniard to kill the man in black who is climbing the rope behind them. When the man in black gets to the top, they have a pleasant conversation while the Spaniard lets him relax for a few minutes after his climb to the top, before they resume fighting. That is one of the great things about this movie; it is overly ridiculous. They discuss the Spaniard's past, and we hear for the first time that his father was killed by a six fingered man and that his entire life has been dedicated to finding the man and taking revenge for his father. We don't learn anything about the man in black, because, of course, he has to remain mysterious.

They finally sword fight, a sport that is a passion for each of them. The moves and stunts during the fight are impressive, but even though the Spaniard has studied swordplay all of his life, it is clear that the man in black is better. They both begin fighting with their left hands and each switches to the right hand as a surprise. It is very funny. In the end, the Spaniard is caught without his sword and the man in black doesn't kill him - after a few words of respect, he simply knocks him out so that he can't follow him either.

Soon, he catches up with the other two kidnappers and the princess, and once again the man leaves the giant behind to contend with (and kill) the man in black. The giant doesn't want to surprise the man in black with a rock and kill him as the little man suggests; so instead he misses with the rock and asks for a "fair" fight, hand to hand, although the odds are clearly not even since he is a giant giant. Somehow, after a few blows that clearly have no effect of the giant, the man in black climbs on his back and chokes him from behind until he passes out, but again not killing him, the naturally honorable thing to do.

He goes on to find the princess and the stupid old man. He finds them resting together. The little man says that he is clearly no match physically, but that he is the smartest man alive, and that it would be impossible for the man in black to compete with his brain. Thus, the man in black challenges the little man to a battle of wits. He pulls out a little vile of poisonous powder, and places powder in one of the wine glasses before the two men. He says that the little man should choose which one he wants, and then they both should drink, and one of them die. This is one of the best parts of the movie. The silly little man makes a ridiculous show trying to figure out which glass has the poison, and after some time he chooses (although he switches the glasses when he thinks the man in black is not looking), and they drink. While laughing about his victory, he falls over dead.

The man in black then takes the princess and they start walking. He asks her why she has betrayed her true love to marry the prince and she realizes that he is the Dread Pirate Roberts himself, come to steal her. He says that he remembers killing her love. When they see Humperdink pursuing them on the horizon, she pushes the man in black over a steep hillside, and as he rolls down it he cries, "as.... you... wish..." and she realizes immediately that it is her Wesley himself, and consequently throws her own self down the hillside after him. They land at the bottom together, kiss and make up, and then are chased into the treacherous fire swamp by Prince Humperdink and his other men.

Through some miracle they make it through the fire swamp (where the three dangers are fire coming out of the ground, lightning quicksand and rodents of unusual size, and no one has ever come out alive). On the other side, though, they get apprehended, and when the princess realizes that they are going to kill Wesley if he doesn't surrender, she begs her Prince to let him go if she will marry him after all. He agrees, takes the princess home, and immediately throws Wesley into prison, where he is tortured by a strange machine that was built by one of Humperdink's henchmen, the six-fingered man.

Now the rest of the story must ensue, filling the time between the princess's "capture" and her wedding to Humperdink. The Spaniard and the giant reappear, and since they now both feel an affinity for the man in black, and they have heard about the wedding of the princess, they know that they must do something to help him. In the end, they try to find him, they go to stop the wedding, and they all become very good friends. Humperdink is killed along with the six-fingered man, and everyone is happy. Wesley even hands along his place as the Dread Pirate Roberts (a role handed him by the real pirate and the pirate before him) to the Spaniard, since he doesn't know what to do with his life after the revenge has been reached.

It is cute to see Fred Savage reacting to the story all the time. He gets nervous when things go wrong, and since he clearly doesn't want his grandfather to notice it, his grandfather makes fun of him anyway. He offers a few times to leave the boy alone and stop reading the story, but of course the boy refuses this. He says it is very gross at the kissing parts, except of course in the end, when the kisses are extremely important because of the clarity of the true love.

This movie is excellent and amusing for kids and adults. I recommend it one hundred percent. It not only tells a good story but also teaches about life, and that even when things are serious, one can joke a little. It also makes fun of ordinary fairy tales, teaching that all those things you hear in stories are too exaggerated to be true, but that they can teach something anyway. Most importantly, this movie emphasizes the fact that true love is more important than anything else we encounter. I think this is the primary point of the story (and that grandfathers aren't always that boring).

The Story: A nerdy skid row florist's apprentice becomes a celebrity by inadvertently inventing a talking man-eating plant, which quickly grows out of control and turns him into a reluctant murderer.

B-movie king Roger Corman used to make movies almost as guerilla-type operations. There was a time during the late 1950s and early 1960s when he would use left over sets from previous movies to make new quickies as the sets were being torn down around him and his crew. Most of the time, the results were fun but obviously cheap and rather forgettable. Little Shop of Horrors, on the other hand, was a happy accident in every way. This two-day film was made for a reported $27,000 and has proven to be a comedy/horror classic with scores of imitators and admirers. It even spawned a Broadway musical version that was later successfully turned into a film by Muppeteer Frank Oz, starring Rick Moranis and Steve Martin.

According to legend, Corman found himself one Friday afternoon with a finished film and some skid row sets that weren't due to be torn down until early the next week. He asked his regular screenwriter Charles Griffith to come up with a screenplay that could utilize the sets. Griffith cannibalized his own script for Bucket of Blood, changed the sculptor character into a nebbishy florist employee, added more jokes and goofy subplots, and had it all ready for filming by the next morning. Corman drafted his usual crew and a cast of his faithful repertory actors and filmed the whole thing before the crews showed up Monday to dismantle the sets.

The film stars Corman regular Jonathan Haze as a Seymour Krelborn, a geeky apprentice in Mushnick's (Mel Welles) skid row flower shop. The sign in the window says "Lots plants - cheap!" in what is not the first and certainly not the last in a nearly non-stop series of assaults upon the integrity of the English language ("What do you call this salad?" "Caesarean." "Does your plant have a scientific name?" "Yes, of course, but who could denounce it?"). Seymour brings in a goofy-looking little decrepit plant one day. He names it Audrey Jr. after the sweet flower shop girl (Jackie Joseph) he has a crush on. Everyone in the shop except Audrey makes fun of the pathetic thing until Seymour accidentally discovers its taste for blood ("Feed me," it implores, "feeeeeed me! More!" The voice was done by screenwriter Griffith, by the way) and it grows into a magnificent specimen. He becomes a local celebrity and the flower shop finally becomes a success. The plant becomes more and more voracious, and more and more intelligent and controlling, until Seymour finds himself pressed into service providing human food for it. Eventually, Seymour's secret is found out and he is on the run.

On the surface, this sounds like a simple remake of Bucket of Blood with a slight change of venue. The basic plot is rather similar and some of the scenery and music is even recycled from the previous film. Where this film rises above its predecessor is mostly in the added dimensions of the supporting characters, from Bucket of Blood star Dick Miller as a flower-eating customer (Mushnick's inferior looking flowers have more nutritional value than actual pretty ones, it would seem) and Myrtle Vail as Seymour's hypochondriac mother (but all those alcohol-based medications sure do get her through the day) to Jack Nicholson in one of his first roles as a masochistic dental patient named Wilbur Force ("Oh God," he exclaims in the dentist's chair, "Don't stop now!"). The dialogue has also grown several layers of wit, nuance and style since the earlier film.

All in all, this is one of the most hilarious comedy horrors ever, and for a change is not even without suspenseful and rather shocking moments as well. This movie provides a never-ending supply of clever one-liners and original, quirky and multidimensional characters. The jokes come in fast and furiously, from the lowest slapstick to surprisingly sophisticated verbal wit. If it weren't for its obvious (but quite charming) cheapness and the rushed quality of the sound, camera work and editing, it would be a nearly perfect film. As it is, it is still an undying horror comedy classic, deserving of and nearly demanding repeat viewings. Viva skid row!

By Simon Woodhouse

When it comes to pitching a film to studio execs, I guess sometimes it pays to be a well known, Oscar winning writer/actor/director. If Woody Allen wasn't Woody Allen, how far would he have got pitching a film that's a supposed Greek tragedy set in New York, and tells the tale of a middle aged sports writer who becomes involved with a porn star? Not only that, but at various points during the film Greek thespians pop up in the guise of mythological figures. And add to this scenes shot in an ancient amphitheatre, which feature masked players speaking Shakespearian style dialogue.

Mighty Aphrodite has all these things. But what on paper seems like it might not make much sense, actually becomes one of Allen's funniest films once it's up on the big screen.

As with most of Allen's films that feature him in front of the camera, he's playing a slightly neurotic, quick-witted New Yorker. Though the character of Lenny Weinrib is standard Woody Allen stuff, he does have a heart, something that other Allen characters sometimes tend to lack. When we first meet Lenny, he's discussing childbirth with his wife Amanda (Helena Bonham Carter). Lenny's not keen on the idea, but eventually they end up adopting a child. They name the boy Max, and for a while everything is good. Then Lenny starts to get the urge to try and find the boy's mother. Eventually he tracks down Linda (Mira Sorvino). Up until this point the film is amusing, however, once Lenny and Linda start to interact, it becomes a whole lot funnier. Linda is a porn star and a hooker, but totally unashamed about it. She's not the sharpest tool in the box, but she has a good heart. Lenny feels sorry for her, and they start to spend time together (but it's totally platonic). He then tries to fix her up with an aspiring young boxer.

Because Lenny is just an ordinary guy, his attempts to help Linda don't really work. But his failures provide the film with some of its funniest moments. In one particularly good scene, Lenny tries to persuade a local gangster to leave Linda alone. The guy and his minder are huge, and Lenny is just Lenny. This mismatch of characters, the bringing together of two people who would never normally meet, means the encounter is priceless. It's a theme that runs through the whole film, but it never becomes tired or over-used.

As with lots of Allen's films, Mighty Aphrodite feels a bit like a whole string of short comedy skits linked together to form a larger story. But that's fine, because these different little chunks mean the film never runs out of steam. And it doesn't rely on one visual gag, or a solitary, vaguely amusing premise to keep it going (as is often the case in lots of other comedies).

The film rolls on and Lenny becomes more confused about what he's doing with Linda. At the same time, he's drifting apart from Amanda. Various characters from Greek mythology pop up to try and advise him, but they just muddy the water.

Though this all sounds a bit heavy, it's not. Even when contemplating the tragic, the character of Lenny does so in the exaggerated, desperate way that's become Allen's trademark comedy style. Mira Sorvino is brilliant as Linda. Her high-pitched, whiney New York accent, though slightly exaggerated, fits the character perfectly. She's a tall girl as well, and so towers over Lenny, making them even more of an odd couple. As with all Allen films, the jokes are in the dialogue. There's some physical humor, but it's mostly what the characters say that'll make you laugh. You have to pay attention though; because the writing is so sharp the funnies come in continuous waves. However, this means the film easily stands up to repeated viewings. Being based loosely on the idea of a Greek tragedy, the film has a twist at the end. It's not tragic though, instead leaning more towards the ironic.

Mira Sorvino won a well-deserved Oscar (best supporting actress) for her portrayal of Linda. Allen is his usual hysterical self, with the character of Lenny being his best onscreen persona of recent years. If you're not a fan of his, however, there's nothing here that'll convert you. But if you are keen, or even just a casual observer, Mighty Aphrodite is a must see.

The 1981 film The Postman Always Rings Twice is a remake of a 1946 movie, which itself was based on a James Cain novel of the same name. So we're dealing with material that is twice removed from its original source, meaning that there were likely significant differences or omissions along the way. Having never read the novel or seen the 1946 version, I was going into this viewing of Postman with no prior knowledge of what I was in for.

The Postman Always Rings Twice opens with a drifter named Frank Chambers (played by Jack Nicholson) trying to hitch a ride to Los Angeles. Frank is clearly an idler and a con man, as evidenced by the way he convinces diner owner Nick Papadakis (John Colicos) to give him a free meal when he (Frank) doesn't have any money. To do this, Frank made up a story on the spot about how he was supposed to go to L.A. to look up some friends and begin work as a machinist. The only problem is, the guy he was riding with took off and grabbed Frank's wallet in the process.

Nick immediately perks up when he hears that Frank is a machinist because he needs a mechanic to take care of the service station that is attached to the diner. He offers Frank a small salary plus room and board in order to forget about Los Angeles and stay on. Frank at first turns down the offer, but after he realizes that he doesn't really have any place better to go he accepts.

The more time Frank spends at the Twin Oaks Diner, the more he lusts after Nick's beautiful, much younger wife Cora (Jessica Lange). The effects of being out in the middle of nowhere probably got to Cora because she is attracted to Frank also, and the two soon give vent to their feelings one day when the husband is away on business.

After awhile, Frank and Cora realize that they want to be together openly without having to sneak around. But that of course means they have to get rid of Nick. The two scheme together to plan Nick's murder, but they completely mess up the execution of the plan. Nick doesn't die, so Frank and Cora are right back where they started from. Although Cora tries to break it off, she knows deep down that she could never be content with Nick now. So they try a different murder plan, which ends up working.

The rest of the film then deals with the aftermath of Nick's murder. With Frank and Cora, nothing ever works out smoothly, so there are cops to deal with, a trial, shady lawyers and assistants, insurance company representatives, etc. It seems that everyone is out to make sure that Frank and Cora don't end up together.

On the whole, I found the major plotline of The Postman Always Rings Twice to be extremely disturbing. There wasn't a single redeeming quality in either Frank or Cora, so I was basically spending two hours of my time with lying, scheming murderers. It wasn't a comfortable experience at all, which is probably what the filmmakers intended.

One of the biggest problems I had with this movie was accepting Jack Nicholson as the Frank. He looked so scummy, dirty, and untrustworthy in his role that I didn't for one second believe that a woman like Cora would be interested in him, that she could "love" him so much that she would risk going to the gallows for him. That point wasn't sufficiently addressed by the script, in my opinion.

Another point that the screenwriters chose to avoid was the question of how a woman like Cora ended up being married to a man like Nick in the first place. Nick wasn't attractive at all, was much older than Cora, and wasn't even particularly nice to her. It didn't make sense that she would be with him, and yet there she was. This bothered me a great deal when I was watching the movie because I just couldn't figure it out.

These problems, along with the rather abrupt ending, made me feel that the 1981 version of The Postman Always Rings Twice wasn't as good of a film as it could have been. If you skip this one, you won't be missing out on too much.

Those who love foreign films can be ready to experience a definitive feast with the latest comedic farce Volver, directed by the immensely talented Pedro Almodovar. The film stars Penelope Cruz, known more in America for being the companion of the likes of Tom Cruise and Mathew McConaughey, and she delivers a riveting performance that has some talking of an Oscar nomination.

The film is billed as three generations of women who manage, somehow, to survive it all, insanity, fire, superstitions, apparitions and death. Cruz plays Raimunda who is married to Paco, a rather pathetic man. Yohana Cobo plays a teenage daughter while Lola Duenas handles the role of Sole, Raimunda's sister. The third generation role is filled by Carmen Maura who plays the mother of the two sisters. The mother has theoretically perished in a fire that also claimed her husband. However, the mother appears in the form of an apparition at various points in the movie.

Cruz, also known for her exotic beauty, has been panned for her performances in recent popular American films. But in teaming up with Almodovar for the third time in her brief career, the sultry-looking, Madrid-born movie star proves she is worthy of attention for her acting ability as well.

The two previously teamed up in 1997 with Live Flesh and then again in 1999 with All About My Mother. Cruz points to Almodovar's insistence on perfection as being critical for bringing out the best in her.

Though her career already spans more than 30 films, the 32-year-old Cruz appears ready to receive accolades for yet another foreign film. Volver is being embraced by critics and audiences alike, bringing Cruz the attention that goes with a stellar acting performance.

The film is rated R.

The Story: A hideous vampire takes up residence in a German city and begins a plague that threatens to decimate the populace.

How much slack do you give a movie for innovation and influence? How much outdated technique and laughable acting do you ignore if the monster is good and the film's heart is in the right place? I can give a silent film such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari or Metropolis very high scores because they hold up magnificently and are still more effective than most modern films.

Nosferatu, on the other hand, despite some of the most effective andfrightening images in film history, demands some soul-searching when it comes to rating it. It is an undeniable classic, but when I watch it with a critical eye it often falls short of its reputation.
The story of Nosferatu will be quite familiar to most horror fans, as it is simply the Dracula story with names changed in a futile attempt to bypass copyright laws - the trickery failed and Bram Stoker's widow ended up suing the filmmakers anyway. Young realtor Hutter (Gustav von Wangenheim) is sent to a sinister castle in the Carpathian Mountains to sell Count Orlok (Max Schreck) a house in Bremen.

The prologue is unfortunately very sloooooow and hideously, laughably overacted in the worst silent film manner. Perhaps I should warn less patient people right up front not to give up on the movie at this point. Fast forward if you must - you won't miss anything of note and things pick up later. Hutter meets the people in the nearby village, who of course are terrified of Orlok and insist that evil things will happen if he goes. He gets a ride as far as a carriage is willing to take him and is then picked up by a ghostly carriage and met by Orlok (Max Schreck).

Orlok is initially covered by so much clothing that he looks freaky but still somewhat human. However, he is revealed to be a hideous vampire later on. This creature is perhaps the most horrific vampire ever captured on film, with his long claws, bat ears and rat face. Even if the rest of the film were wretched (it isn't), it would be worth seeing for the first view of the vampire Orlok alone. We are treated to some stop-motion creepiness as Orlok loads up his coffin and rat friends for the trip to the city. The stop motion and negative printing effects are often criticized as outdated, but I think they add a wonderfully surreal feel to the film and are among its most effectively spooky moments.

Orlok eventually arrives in the city (aboard an empty ship - someone got hungry on the trip) and the streets gradually become full of hearses as the town begins to be decimated by a mysterious "plague." The Renfield character, named "Knock" here (Alexander Granach), does his loony bug-eating bit in the local asylum and is perhaps the best of a long line of insane Dracula henchmen. Just try not to let a nervous laugh escape as he exclaims "Spiders!" Hutter's wife Ellen (Greta Schroeder, who everyone in the movie thinks is beautiful but to me looks distractingly like a rather ugly, overacting man in drag) has some kind of psychic revelation and figures out a way to end the madness.

There is a lot to celebrate in this film. All the scenes with Orlok or Knock performing their horrific duties are beautifully chilling and still effective nearly 80 years later. The early scene where Orlok (as a hyena-like creature) terrorizes some horses is eerily convincing as well. Many of the minor characters are well done, and the location photography (though deteriorated and somewhat washed out with the years) is often striking.

The primitive special effects scenes are very creepy as well. However... This film has the same major problem as many other horror films of the 1920s and 30s - horrible, horrible lead actors that require immense effort to even look at. Thankfully, they are not always on screen but when they are they almost fatally drag the film down. Another complaint is the lack of camera movement. In some other films you hardly notice this (and in Dr. Caligari or Metropolis it is actually stylistically beneficial), but this movie screams for some tracking shots and it is quite distracting at times. It is one of the most chillingly atmospheric horror movies of all time and still retains an undeniable spellbinding power.

I am against tampering with classic films as a rule (and cheerfully support the death penalty for colorizers), but Nosferatu is a great film that could use some heavy editing and restructuring. Nonetheless, this still is the first of the great vampire movies and as a fitfully frightening, atmospheric classic should be seen once by anyone with any interest at all in the history of horror. Seeing it more than once, however, may seem too much like a homework assignment.

The Story: Good-looking country boy Caleb Calton gets more than he bargained for when he unknowingly gives a beautiful vampire hick girl a ride back to some friends.

The opening shots of Near Dark are truly amazing. The first ten minutes completely build up the intensity and atmosphere for the duration of the film. While Caleb takes strange but sweet Mae (Jenny Wright) to her destination in his old beat up truck, the dark sky begins to turn bluer by the minute. As the sun draws closer to rising over the desolate dirt road, Mae's time begins to run short. She becomes quite persistent, almost frenzied, begging Caleb to hurry; while in the background the brightness of day unfolds. In the middle of the long, blank dirt road, he stops the truck and takes out his keys. The sun has almost given full delivery to a new dawn now. In order for Mae to make it back before it's too late, she must kiss Caleb. With a few seconds of reluctance, their infatuation grows upon each other; and within a few more seconds, Caleb will never be the same.

Caleb's human deterioration is absolutely genius. His transformation is practically immediate, as he tries to make it back home to his sister and father by foot. As he moves towards the house, stumbling almost without direction in a nearby field, his legs give out from under him causing a collapse. Slow to recover, he gathers himself from the ground and makes it back on the road to his house, only to be grabbed by an unknown arm and thrown into a Winnebago. This is when Caleb's destiny is realized. The reality of his future existence is shaped before him. And the gang gives their introduction. He is given a week to prove himself to them. If he doesn't succeed in his job, his new life will be simple and short-lived.

Director Kathryn Bigelow's intelligent visualization of countrified vampires is a well-respected offbeat classic. Back in 1987, when this motion picture surfaced, it set the standard for modern day vampire stories; and still does to a degree. Bigelow's undead team of murderous leeches perform their job much different from the traditional bloodsucker. Near Dark contains no scenes with long pointed fangs, garlic necklaces or stakes through the heart. Not a single frame contains a hero with a cross in hopes of sending the devilish spawn back to hell. However, one essential ingredient is weaved into the story. The vampires dread one customary factor, sunlight.

Near Dark carries a truly inventive tone, with unusual characters and a restrained setting. For the duration of the movie, our cast is trapped in either a vehicle with aluminum foil covered windows or a rundown motel. All of these type scenes are shot up close, giving off a trapped appearance. The sequences of night let the camera roam free, much like the evil of the film. A truly great example of this is a view of the vampires as they come up a dark hill, as the camera provides this sight for us from afar. A faint light silhouettes them as they come over the rise like a group of pure, walking terror. This shot is remarkable. It's moments like these that live proudly off of style, or mood, other than communication between personalities. The music provided by Tangerine Dream has a unique behavior of it's own, piercing certain scenes of the film with perfection. The score fits the drama entirely, with suspenseful measures at the correct moment.

The acting is controlled efficiently from everybody in Near Dark. The gang of vampires consists of four, aside from Caleb and Mae. The head vampire is Jesse, played by Lance Henriksen (Pumpkinhead, Aliens). He truly conquers this role, as the oldest of the group, as well as the most knowledgeable. His appearance and the expressions given off to the camera are compelling and dreadful simultaneously. The woman by his side is known as Diamondback (Jenette Goldstein). She was in fact turned into a vampire by Jesse years ago. With spazzed out white hair and the grave look on her face at all times, she is just as fear giving as Henriksen. Joshua John Miller plays Homer, whom is the perception of a man living in a child's body. Once Mae has found interest in Caleb, Homer becomes merciless and jealous; for he was the one who turned Mae into a night creature. He now wants a companion of his own, and at the same time wants vengeance against Caleb; because he feels Mae was stolen from him. This is quite a unique role, played very well by Miller. Although technically, he's got the mind of an adult, his behavior is distorted due to being stuck in a young boy's body.

Bill Paxton (Predator 2, A Simple Plan) gives one of his greatest performances ever as Severen, the craziest bloodsucker of the bunch. His goal is not only to take apart the living, but also to humiliate them before they die. He is also the most comedic element here. Severen's greatest moment takes place at a bar, which is swiftly turned into a tavern of death. While hunched over a victim leaning against a jukebox, he looks up before sinking into the neck and says "I hate em' when they ain't been shaved". After feeding, he looks back up simply to burp and drool blood for the viewer's eyes. This is one of the best shots of the film, showing precisely how grim Paxton's character is, while accomplishing humor as well.

Near Dark is one of my all time favorite vampire films and definitely hasn't lost its touch over a life span of fifteen years. It actually gets better with time. Kathryn Bigelow's wonderful work doesn't live off of lots of blood and gore, but instead relies on a smart story and brilliant characters. Many films pay some deal of respect to this gritty portrayal of what the life of a vampire is like (notably The Forsaken). If you have never been fortunate enough to view the exceptional work of art, you are sadly missing out on possibly the best vampire films of the 80's. Highly recommended.

Stuart Little 2 is the sequel to 1999's Stuart Little, a children's movie about a talking mouse with human-like qualities. The mouse, named Stuart, is taken in by the Little family and treated just like another one of their children. In fact, Mr. and Mrs. Little refer to Stuart as their "son" and their real son, George, calls Stuart his "brother." Other things that distinguish Stuart from other talking animal characters in movies is the fact that everyone sees Stuart for what he is. In other words, the human beings in the movie realize they are encountering a talking mouse, but they don't even bat an eyelash.
So that's the premise that must be accepted before sitting down to view Stuart Little 2. The sequel was made because the original was very successful and grossed well over $100,000,000 in the U.S. alone. That success was enough to bring the entire original cast back to reprise their roles: Geena Davis as Mrs. Little, Hugh Laurie as Mr. Little, Jonathan Lipnicki as George, Michael J. Fox as the voice of Stuart, Steve Zahn as Monty, and Nathan Lane as the voice of Snowbell, the family cat. Also added to the cast for the sequel were Melanie Griffith as the voice of Margalo and James Woods as the voice of the Evil Falcon.

As the film opens, we get a chance to see how Stuart is adjusting to life as a member of the Little family. Things don't seem to be going as well for Stuart as he had hoped. For instance, Mrs. Little is very overprotective of him and doesn't let him do things that other kids get to do. In addition, George is starting to want to go out and do things with friends without Stuart tagging along. Basically, Stuart is very lonely and could use a good friend of his own.

Just like that, a bird literally falls out of the sky and into Stuart's car. The bird's name is Margalo and she has injured her wing as she was being pursued by the Evil Falcon. Stuart immediately brings her back to the Little residence to take care of her. He is sure the rest of the family will like Margalo and says she can stay until she is completely healed. They do, and she does.

However, it turns out that things aren't quite what they seem. Margalo is actually working in cahoots with the Evil Falcon and routinely dupes people with that injured wing bit. The motive is to gain access to a house so she can then steal jewels and pass them on to the Evil Falcon. The target this time is Mrs. Little's wedding ring.

Margalo takes the ring and disappears, but this particular job wasn't quite as simple as the others. That's because she actually started to care for Stuart and felt she had a real friend for the first time in her life. Stuart, too, refuses to believe that Margalo would just leave without saying goodbye, so he goes out to track her down. There is a final confrontation with the Evil Falcon, and I'm pretty sure you can guess who wins!

Stuart Little 2 wasn't as successful as its predecessor, and I think the main reason for that is the fact that the sequel pretty much focused on the animals alone rather than on the way the animals interacted with the humans. Whereas in the first movie, we got to see how Stuart's relationship with George and the rest of the Little's developed, in this movie we were watching Stuart get along with other animals. That just wasn't as interesting or entertaining.

This movie doesn't have very much to offer adults who are watching with their children, but it should be able to hold your kids' attention. At just an hour and ten minutes long, it's short enough that they won't get too tired of sitting there and there are enough action sequences to prevent them from being bored.

Overall, Stuart Little 2 is a decent movie to rent. It's not one that you'll treasure as part of your own collection, but you'll definitely get your money's worth for Family Movie Night if you have young children.

By Simon Woodhouse

I do like movies with a theme. If there's a coherent thread running through the story, something that ties it together in the subtlest way, then it elevates the film to a new level of greatness. Themes might not be obvious at first. It may take a bit of work to wheedle out exactly what the film makers are getting at. But once you see the connection between all things in a movie, it adds an extra layer of enjoyment.

The theme within The Remains Of The Day runs through not only the story and the characters, but the title as well. Everything is evening. It's twilight, the day is ending, people are aging. Old ways are being brushed aside, things that were once important aren't so anymore. It's about change and then the end. This may sound a bit bleak, but the movie is actually full of life. However, if you're prone to shedding a tear or two when things get sad, you'll want to have a couple of tissues handy.

Though the movie features several sub plots, its main focus is the character of Stevens (Anthony Hopkins), a butler in a large stately home in England. The timeline within the film switches back and forth between the late 1930s and the mid 50s. These two eras show Stevens at his best, and then as he's quite a bit older. To say he's a complex character is a bit of an understatement. But many of his facets are hidden beneath an outer layer of reserved British decorum. And it's this that makes him so interesting. Stevens is a man dedicated to his job, and devoted to his employer, Lord Darlington (James Fox). When Miss Kenton (Emma Thompson), joins the staff of the stately home as housekeeper, Stevens treats her with the same aloofness as he does everyone else. But as time goes by an unspoken bond develops, despite Stevens' best efforts to resist.

There's no romance between them, but it's just bubbling below the surface. As the film progresses, you find yourself willing Stevens to let his guard down for just one second, and tell Miss Kenton how he really feels. There are several scenes where he seems to come very close to doing so, but never quite crosses the line. Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson are a joy to watch. The scenes where they are together, whether arguing or coming oh-so-close to romance, are the films highlights. In fact, if some of the subplots could have been left aside and the movie concentrated more on this relationship, it wouldn't have suffered.

The interplay between Stevens and Miss Kenton is set against a backdrop of political intrigue. Lord Darlington is a man of conscience, and feels very badly about the way Germany was treated after WWI. In light of this, he wants to try and help the nation recover. But by doing so he unwittingly starts to assist the Nazis. Though Stevens witnesses all of this, he never passes comment. His devotion to Lord Darlington is such that he can never criticize his beloved employer.

All the intrigue involving Lord Darlington, and exchanges between Stevens and Miss Kenton, take place in the 1930s. In the parts of the film set twenty years later, Lord Darlington is dead and Stevens is working for a new employer, an American businessman called Lewis (Christopher Reeve) who's retired to England. During these segments, Stevens has the opportunity to reacquaint himself with Miss Kenton. He never says as much, but it's obvious he regrets having never taken things further when they both worked together all those years ago. The 1950s scenes also contain some of the most poignant moments. Before his death, Lord Darlington was accused of being a traitor by the British press. When Stevens mentions where he works, people bring up the fact that his former employer was a Nazi sympathizer. When faced with such situations, Stevens denies having known Lord Darlington. This in no way makes him seem cowardly, but rather he can't bear to hear anyone talk about Lord Darlington in such a way.

The final few scenes all take place in the 1950s, and this is where the film really pulls at the heartstrings. Stevens meets Miss Kenton for the first time in twenty years. As they take tea together by the English seaside, they seem like the perfect match. I won't spoil the ending, but this is where you'll need to be ready to wipe away a tear or two.

For some people, the thought of sitting through a period drama such as The Remains Of The Day has all the appeal of watching paint dry. But there's nothing dreary about the film. It moves along at a cracking pace, and bristles with no end of fine performances. The subplots and the flashbacks blend together perfectly, and the story is neither confusing nor dull. If you like movies that feature characters with real depth, first class acting, intriguing storylines and a glimpse of life how it used to be, The Remains Of The Day is the film for you.

Most people would probably give anything to be famous because that would mean being able to buy anything, go anywhere, do anything, and just generally enjoy a lifetime of leisure. It's the stuff of fairy tales, after all. But from time to time, we get a story about a famous person who simply wishes to be anonymous, if only for a day. That's precisely what the 1953 William Wyler film Roman Holiday is all about.

Roman Holiday stars the incomparable Audrey Hepburn as Ann, a princess who is touring the world with her family. Their current stop is Italy, and Ann is at that age where she is pretty much tired of the whole "royal duty" thing. She wants to go out on her own and see Italy the way a regular person would. So she waits until the rest of her family and entourage are asleep, and climbs out through the window to begin her adventure.

Ann soon runs into a man named Joe Bradley (Gregory Peck) who is on his way back to his apartment after a late night out with friends. Joe notices that Ann doesn't belong on the streets, and sensing that she has no place else to go, offers to let her sleep at his place for the night. Ann accepts, and the two continue on.

The next day, Joe, a newspaper reporter, is late to work. He makes up an excuse on the spot, saying that he was busy interviewing Princess Ann. His boss then shows him a published article that claims Princess Ann was sick the night before, which essentially means Joe has been caught in his lie. But Joe is not interested in that point anymore. He's struck by the photo of Princess Ann because he realize that that's the young woman he took home to his apartment. Thinking quickly, he immediately strikes a deal with his boss: Joe will get a real interview with the princess -- an exclusive, with photos and all -- for a $5,000 payoff. The boss, while skeptical, nevertheless agrees to the proposal.

Joe then calls a photographer friend named Irving (Eddie Albert) and the two of them plan to take Ann out to see the sights. Of course they don't tell her that they're working for the newspaper, and Ann doesn't tell them that she's a princess, so that leads to some interesting situations.

As Joe and Ann tour Rome, Joe is quickly won over by the princess's charm. She is so innocent, genuine, and happy that he can't help but soften up towards her. They start to fall in love even though both know deep down that nothing could ever come of their relationship.

The rest of the film deals with the budding relationship that can't last very long and the eventual revelation of everyone's identities at the end.

I thought Roman Holiday was an excellent movie for many different reasons. First of all, it was fantastic to see the emergence of Audrey Hepburn as a true Hollywood star. Roman Holiday was Hepburn's first major film and paved the way for her long, successful career. Her performance as Princess Ann was so remarkable that she took home an Oscar for Best Actress. Hepburn positively glows each time she is on the screen, and it's so easy for viewers to believe that she could be a princess.

Gregory Peck was good as Joe Bradley too. It was fun to watch his character transform from a mostly cynical reporter to a sentimental, unselfish person after spending time with Ann.

As good as the actors were in this movie, another compelling reason to see the film is for all the external shots of Rome. Roman Holiday was shot entirely on location, so viewers get to see Rome through Ann's eyes, just as if they were seeing the Eternal City for the first time themselves. It's a magical tour that will make you want to jump on the next plane to Italy, rent a scooter, and do all the same things Ann and Joe did.

Overall, Roman Holiday is a fun, entertaining, lighthearted film that you won't want to miss. I recommend renting this one the next time you're in the mood for an old-fashioned romantic comedy.

For me, the best sports movies are those that focus on underdogs. You know what I mean: when teams or individuals that are undersized and underpowered dig deep and come up big against a favored opponent. There seem to be very few areas in life where people continually push themselves to the limit, but sports is one of them. It makes for interesting drama, which is why there's never a shortage of sports films at the video rental store. One of the best sports movies out there is 1993's Rudy.

Rudy is based on the true story of a young man named Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger, played by Sean Astin. Rudy hails from a large, blue-collar, devoutly Catholic family in the Chicago area. The entire family lives and dies with Notre Dame football, and are slightly amused when a young Rudy tells them he will play for the Fighting Irish someday. Kids from the Ruettiger's neighborhood just don't end up at Notre Dame.

What started out as a childhood dream persists with Rudy even as a young adult. He doesn't immediately go to college after high school, but starts working in a steel mill with his father and brother. After a tragic accident claims the life of Rudy's best friend, he decides that the time to pursue his dream is now. Rudy's whole family thinks he's crazy when he says he's moving to South Bend to go to Notre Dame, but they reluctantly let him go.

Unfortunately for Rudy, it's not as easy to get into Notre Dame as he thought. He can't just walk on campus and start enrolling in classes. Instead, he has to take classes at nearby Holy Cross until his grades are good enough to meet Notre Dame's rigorous standards. Rudy's first application to Notre Dame is rejected, as are many subsequent ones. But Rudy is nothing if not determined, so he keeps plugging away until he finally does get in.

Once admitted to the university, Rudy can try out for the football team. The problem is, he's the smallest guy out on the field (by far) and not exactly the most talented. As you might expect, a program like Notre Dame, with such a storied history and deep-rooted tradition, attracts the top college football prospects in the nation, so it would be a stretch for even extremely gifted athletes to make the team, let alone someone like Rudy.

As expected, Rudy is cut during summer workouts. It's a crushing blow that looks like the end of his lifelong dream. But that old determination kicks in again and Rudy works his butt off to earn a spot on the practice squad. This is a thankless position that keeps Rudy suspended between two worlds. Though he can practice with the real team, he's not officially recognized as a member of that team. So his dream hasn't quite come true yet.

Since it took Rudy so long to get into Notre Dame, he only has a small window of opportunity to turn his dream into a reality. With the help of a groundskeeper named Fortune (Charles S. Dutton) and a friend named D-Bob (Jon Favreau), Rudy is eventually able to run onto Notre Dame stadium as a member of the Fighting Irish.

Even though anyone who is remotely familiar with Rudy's story knows what happens in the end, it doesn't prevent this movie from hitting all the right notes and being a very emotionally satisfying experience. I've seen Rudy a number of times and I still get choked up at the end every time I view it. That's pretty powerful stuff, if you ask me.

I thought Sean Astin was terrific as Rudy. He really looked small out there among the other players, which added to the enormity of what this guy did. Can you imagine what it would have taken for a guy of Rudy's size and stature to earn a place on the Fighting Irish roster? The accomplishment was nothing short of amazing.

Rudy is a truly inspirational film that reminds us how important it is to pursue our dreams no matter how far-fetched they seem and no matter how many times other people tell us we can't do it. This is a must-see movie that is suitable for any viewer and will strike particularly close to home for those who have ever played sports.

In order for a romance movie to work, the lead characters have to be believable as a couple and likable as individuals. Those are critical components because if the audience doesn't like the characters, they won't care about them or what happens to them. This is a problem that plagued the 2001 production Sweet November right from the beginning, and the film never quite recovers from this first misstep.

Sweet November stars Keanu Reeves as Nelson Moss, a very driven and successful advertising big-shot. Moss is one of those guys who's constantly thinking about work (even while having sex with his girlfriend) and who can't seem to step back and enjoy life.

One day, as he's at the DMV to get his license renewed, he runs into a woman named Sara Deever, played by Charlize Theron. Deever is, as is usually the case in these types of movies, the exact opposite of Nelson. She doesn't have a high-powered career, isn't ruled by her cell phone, and doesn't arrange meetings. Instead, she is an animal rights advocate who lives a seemingly carefree, unconventional life.

Sara is taking the driver's license exam just like Nelson, and when he asks her for an answer to a particular question, she gets busted. She is thrown out of the exam room and told she can't come back for 30 days, during which time she won't be allowed to drive. Nelson sees Sara outside, apologizes for what happened, and tells her to call his secretary to get reimbursed for any money she might lose by not being able to drive.

But Sara apparently doesn't think that money would be sufficient recompense for what Nelson has done. She therefore shows up at his apartment and threatens to cause a scene unless he agrees to drive her somewhere. Nelson reluctantly does so, at which point Sara orders him to drive to Oakland so she can rescue a couple of cute puppies that were about to become the subject of scientific experiments.

By this point in the movie, viewers have a good idea of what kind of people Nelson and Sara are. Both, to me at any rate, were extremely annoying. Nelson was supposed to be a powerful exec, yet he let himself be pushed around by this woman. Sara was supposed to be a breath of fresh air or something, but she just came off as desperate and needy. Ugh.

Unfortunately, the story continues. Sara, true to her unconventional ways, can't even date men in a normal manner. Typical relationships are not an option for her, so what she does is allot a man 30 days -- one month -- to get to know her and then move on. In her words, one month is "long enough to be meaningful but short enough to stay out of trouble." As it so happens, she has the entire month of November free, and offers Nelson the chance to move in with her for that month.

Seeing as how Nelson recently got fired and how his girlfriend just left him, he accepts Sara's offer. Never mind the fact that he's only known her for a couple of days and that she has acted like a crazy woman that entire time.

So they move in together, genuinely fall in love, and then a plot twist (which any viewer can see coming from a mile away) crops up that stands in the way of that love.

As I said before, the characters in this movie simply weren't likable in any way. Their relationship wasn't based on any kind of solid foundation and wasn't believable in the least. The characters seemed to enjoy playing mind games with each other, which reminded me of a couple of high school or college kids rather than full-grown adults and served to make the entire situation even more cloying and unbelievable, if that's possible.

Plus, Keanu Reeves is just such a bad actor that I could barely stand watching him on the screen. His delivery is so wooden and emotionless that I had to fight the urge to laugh whenever he opened his mouth. Remind me to stay away from his movies in the future!

Overall, Sweet November is a film that isn't worth your time. Everything in this movie has been done before (and done much better), so don't bother.

By Simon Woodhouse

How much can a story be changed, and still bear the title of the original work? In the case of Hollywood movies, the answer is a lot. I realize films aren't books and books aren't films. They're two completely different mediums, which means a straightforward translation from one to the other probably isn't going to work. There have to be compromises, changes that allow a book or a film to work in their own right. These sorts of adaptations are fine, as long as they maintain the essence of what made the original great. And if they can improve on what was already there, then all the better. But if something is altered just for the sake of making a few extra bucks, or to pander to a particular audience, then that's bad.

In literary sci-fi circles, War Of The Worlds by H G Wells is a real heavy weight. It's been around for over a hundred years and is still very readable. In fact, time has actually improved it, because not only is it a sci-fi classic, but it's also a period piece. Set in England at the end of the 19th century, it shows mankind riding a wave of industrial achievement that had humanity thinking itself invincible. Then the Martians show up and demonstrate just what it means to be a real superpower. Reading the book now, it's easy to see how inadequate mankind really was back then, and this is what makes it all the more chilling. To set the story in any other era besides the late 19th century, straightaway robs it of some of its strength. And you'd have to question the wisdom of anyone who'd choose to do so.

The latest version of War Of The Worlds is set in modern day America. It tells the story of Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) and his struggle to survive an alien invasion of Earth. Ray is an everyman character - a basic kind of blue-collar guy who we're all supposed to be able to relate to. He's got a couple of kids, but they live with his ex-wife. As the movie starts, she's leaving the kids with Ray for the weekend. He's not much of a father and so the children aren't thrilled to be there. Events then go from bad to worse when Ray's neighbourhood is struck by a massive electrical storm.

Up until this point the film is bearable, but then the dual demons of massive plot holes and terrible over acting rear their ugly heads. When most of us would be running in the opposite direction, Ray leaves the kids home alone and goes to investigate the lightning strikes. Apparently, aliens buried their fighting machines on Earth at some unspecified point in the past. Since then, New York (the setting for the first part of the film) has been built over the top of some of them. But at no point during all the digging of foundations, or laying of utility pipes etc, did anyone find the alien hardware. Now the aliens have come back to reclaim their fighting machines and get on with the business of invading the Earth. Why they didn't do this in the first place, and not bother with the effort of burying all their stuff, is never explained. Anyway, they're back and this time they mean business. Ray and a whole crowd of gormless onlookers stand and watch as one of the machines emerges from a hole in the ground.

Even though most of H G Wells original story has been butchered by the movie makers, they have stayed true to his vision of the alien fighting machines. Not only have they stayed true, they've also brought them to life in pretty convincing form. So the aliens start popping up all over the place, and promptly set about trashing everything in site. Ray and family scarper, with a mind to head for Boston, home of the kids' mom. Seeing as the kids are so central to the plot, it's worth giving them a special mention. Ray has one boy and one girl (naturally). The girl is Rachel (Dakota Fanning), and besides the alien fighting machines, she's the best thing in the film. For the first hour or so she easily out acts The Cruiser. The boy is Robbie (Justin Chatwin), an awful, whiny teenager who I would have happily left to be vaporized by the aliens.

Besides these three, there aren't really that many other people in it (not with speaking roles that is). I suppose after paying The Cruiser an astronomical salary, the movie makers couldn't afford to hire anyone else. Tim Robbins pops up two thirds of the way through, playing the part of a deranged survivalist. Anyone familiar with the novel will recognize this character as a composite of The Parson and The Artillery Man.

The story lurches on with Ray and co struggling towards Boston. Rachel loses the savvy charm she displayed in the first part of the film, and instead alternates between screaming and crying. The Cruiser manages to destroy a fighting machine (of course), something the whole US army hasn't been able to do. There's a whole heap of over-cooked melodrama, especially in the scenes involving Tim Robbins character. Some of the set pieces aren't too bad, especially the bit where the fighting machines attack a ferry. On the whole though, the film is a missed opportunity. All the elements are there, but they're just mishandled. Too much emphasis is given over to the wholesome family element, which comes across as annoying after about half an hour.

And whilst I'm on the subject of the wholesome family thing, at no point during the movie did I get the impression Ray cared one jot about his kids, which kind of destroys the films emotional push. There's absolutely no onscreen parental chemistry between The Cruiser and the two actors playing his offspring. Even when he's carrying Dakota through most of the last hour (can't ten year old kids walk in movieland?), it's as if she's just a prop to make him look good. And why is it that when Tom Cruise is in a film, he's in every single scene? I don't think there's a frame of this movie that doesn't have his face in it. Is it rampant egotism on his part, or the movie makers trying to get their moneys worth?

If the film hadn't been called War Of The Worlds, I think it would have fared a bit better. The movie bears so little resemblance to the book that it seems pointless using the same title. Not only pointless, but a bit of a slap in the face for H G Wells. If you haven't seen this movie, but want to experience a sci-fi classic, read the book. If you haven't seen this movie, but want to watch a sci-fi film about the Earth being invaded by aliens, watch Independence Day. It says a lot for War Of The Worlds when it can be bettered by a movie starring Will Smith.

This past weekend I watched the movie "Christmas with the Kranks". Now let me preface this review by saying that I am a huge fan of the John Grisham novel, "Skipping Christmas", upon which this movie is based, so I definitely had some preconceived notions about the film.

"Christmas with the Kranks" stars Tim Allen as Luther Krank. Luther and his wife Nora (played by Jamie Lee Curtis), are depressed this holiday season. Why? Because their only child, Blair, has gone off to Peru for a year with the Peace Corps.

After a morning of adding up the expenses of the previous Christmas (which tallied up to a whopping 6000 dollars), Luther has a brainstorm. He proposes to Nora that they simply skip Christmas this year. Without Blair around what fun would Christmas be anyway? An instead of spending 6000 dollars on trees and cards and gifts for everyone else, Luther suggests that they spend the money on themselves-- to go on a Caribbean cruise.

At first, Luther's wife says no way. But when he explains to her that the cruise, at 3000 dollars, would actually cost half the price of a traditional Christmas, Nora becomes intrigued. They decide to book the cruise and go on diets. The cruise is set to leave on Christmas day.

The first order of business is to notify everyone that they will not be celebrating Christmas. Luther types up a memo for all of his work colleagues, explaining that he will not be participating in any company holiday events and will not be giving or accepting any Christmas gifts. Nora tells the same thing to her friends over a luncheon, and they are stunned that the Kranks will not be hosting their annual Christmas Eve party.

Things go haywire quickly when Luther snubs the local Cub Scout Christmas tree sale. Even Nora can't bear the thought of not having a tree, but Luther is firm: no Christmas decorating whatsoever.

That doesn't sit too well with neighborhood head honcho, Vic Frohmeyer (played hilariously by Dan Akroyd). Frohmeyer heads the annual neighborhood Christmas decorating committee and he expects everyone on his street to put a gigantic plastic Frosty the Snowman decoration on top of their roof. Luther has done it in the past, but this year he refuses to pull Frosty out of hiding. This leads to a hilarious confrontation between the Kranks and their angry neighbors.

Luther and Nora diet during the decadent holiday season and Luther even begins tanning at a local tanning salon (not a pretty sight). They are all ready to skip Christmas and head to the sunny Caribbean-- until they get a Christmas Eve phone call that changes everything.

Blair, their only child, misses them terribly and will be coming home for Christmas after all. She has gotten a leave and will be bringing her new fiance to meet the family for Christmas. She can't wait to come home and see the tree and the big Christmas Eve party. She'll be home in 12 hours.

Luther and Nora have to scramble to scrap their cruise plans and instead set up for their usual Christmas Eve party. With little time to spare, they have to decorate the house, buy gifts, scour the town for a Christmas tree and for some party food-- and worst of all they have to rummage up some guests for their annual gig!

And with all hope of going on their precious cruise completely gone (Blair would feel terrible if she knew they planned to go away), Luther does something that truly symbolizes the spirit of Christmas.

Now of course if you are a fan of the book it is easy to compare this movie to the story. I admit when I first read the book, I could see the move playing out before me and I didn't picture the movie to be the way that it turned out at all. But I must say I was pleasantly surprised. At first I couldn't imagine Allen and Curtis as the lead characters (I imagined Luther and Nora to be a little older), but I think they portrayed the Kranks really well. I really enjoyed this movie and expect that watching "Christmas with the Kranks" will become a Christmas tradition in my family.

By Simon Woodhouse

When I think of Africa, I'm often reminded of the Moon - I'll explain. The Moon has two sides, the bright face we can all see in the night sky, and the dark side that's only been glimpsed by a hand full of people. Africa has two faces as well. There's the side we all know, the image painted by wildlife documentaries - herds of wildebeest sweeping across the plains, lions, leopards, elephants, that kind of thing. Then there's the other side, the images people don't want to see, the terrible inner city squalor, the shantytowns, human beings living as if they were still stuck in the world of five hundred years ago.

The Constant Gardener shows the dark side of Africa. There are no wildebeest, no lions, no romantic photo opportunities to be had whilst ballooning over the Serengeti at dawn sipping champagne. This film takes place in the Africa that people can't and don't want to see.

The movie starts as it means to go on, with a brutal killing. We then meet Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes), a British diplomat working in Africa. He's a mild-mannered man, the quintessential English gentleman. But his stiff upper lip is put to the ultimate test, when he has to identify the victim of the brutal killing, because it might be his young wife, Tessa (Rachel Weisz). Before this happens, however, the film jumps backwards in time and shows how Justin and Tessa first met. This is a clever ploy, because it puts their relationship in context. We see them at their happiest - falling in love. When the flashback ends, and we're with Justin in a squalid African morgue, the moment he lifts the sheet off the corpse has so much more power.

From here on the film jumps back and forth a lot. We see more of Justin and Tessa together, learn about their lives and why they're in Africa, as well as being shown what happens after Justin leaves the morgue. The movie piles on the intrigue, with all sorts of suggestions about Tessa's fidelity and why she married Justin in the first place. All this is set against a backdrop of industrial malpractice by a powerful pharmaceutical company. The plot gets a bit complicated (and this isn't helped by the flashbacks), but basically a new drug is being sold in Africa that may be doing more harm than good. The pharmaceutical company is getting away with this because it's Africa, and no one really cares what happens to the penniless masses.

The movie is shot in an almost documentary style, with shaky camera angles and grainy film. This gives it an added element of realism, but I found that a bit disconcerting. If the face of Africa portrayed in the movie is the dark side of the Moon, the film makers are free to show life there in anyway they want. But by using a very realistic style, they're saying 'this is real'. If it is, then kudos to them for bringing it to the world's attention. However, if the scenario they've created is an amalgam of all the worst bits, thrown together for the sake of a good story, then that's exploitation. Exploitation of both the audience and the people of Africa.

Putting those concerns aside, the movie is a compelling story, at least to start with. As the plot rolls on though, the water becomes more and more muddy. Exactly who was Tessa, and why was she in Africa? Justin is drawn into the shady goings on of the pharmaceutical company, and the movie turns into a conspiracy theory tale. As is often the case with conspiracy theories, they walk a fine line between believability and nonsense. And this is the direction the film takes as the last half an hour rolls past.

Unfortunately the finale leaves a lot to be desired. It's very contrived, and lets down what started out as a promising story. On the plus side though, Ralph Fiennes turns in a good performance as Justin. His character is a little unbelievable at times, i.e. how can someone as good looking and decent as Justin be single, and therefore ready and willing to fall in love with Tessa. Rachel Weisz fleshes her character out nicely, but Tessa is a little too good to be true at times.

None of these little flaws really spoil the film too much. It's a good, solid thriller, with enough threat and menace to keep you watching. If you're the sort of person who's wary of big business, and thinks large corporations are the work of the devil, the conspiracy theory within the film will appeal to your sense of paranoia. The movie might not be for the squeamish, as there are a couple of gruesome scenes. Mostly the violence is alluded to rather than shown, which in some ways is worse because you start imagining all sorts of gruesome goings on. It's not a ten out of ten film, but it's certainly very watch-able.

I read Daphne du Maurier's novel Rebecca back when I was in high school, but I didn't remember too much of the plot. So I thought I'd review it quickly by watching the movie version instead. That led me to renting the 1940 film of the same name, produced by David O. Selznick one year after his Gone With the Wind took the world by storm.

Rebecca marks the Hollywood debut of famed English director Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock came to the project with an impressive resume of films in the mystery/thriller/suspense genre, including The Lady Vanishes, The 39 Steps, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Sabotage. He therefore seemed like a perfect choice to direct du Maurier's psychological thriller.

Rebecca opens with one of the most famous lines in literature: "Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again." It is spoken by the as-yet unnamed narrator, played by Joan Fontaine. The main plot then unfolds in a flashback, and we're taken to Monte Carlo where the narrator is the paid companion of a woman named Mrs. Van Hopper (Florence Bates).

Mrs. Van Hopper is interested in hobnobbing with the rich and famous rather than actually enjoying any of the attractions that Monte Carlo has to offer, but she can't seem to find anyone worth talking to. Then she notices an old acquaintance named Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier). Though Mrs. Van Hopper tries to get Maxim to commit to a social engagement, Maxim succeeds in brushing her off.

Later, Mrs. Van Hopper falls ill and must stay in bed for several days. During that time, the narrator becomes very friendly with Maxim. The two lunch together, then start taking long drives out by the coast. As it turns out, they fall in love and soon decide to get married.

The couple return to Manderley, a vast, sprawling estate that has been in the de Winter family for ages. When the new Mrs. de Winter arrives, she is greeted rather coldly by the servants. Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), the head of the household staff, is particularly unfriendly towards Mrs. de Winter, and it doesn't take long to figure out why. Mrs. Danvers was extremely fond of Maxim's first wife, the lovely, mysterious Rebecca de Winter. Rebecca died in a boating accident the year before, and Mrs. Danvers hasn't quite gotten over the death. Indeed, Rebecca's presence still fills Manderley. Rebecca's things are laid out exactly as they were on the day she died, no one is allowed to use the west wing (where Rebecca had her rooms), and the staff try to get the new Mrs. de Winter to behave as much like Rebecca as possible.

As the story progresses, it turns out that Rebecca's death might not have been an accident after all. There are a couple of twists to the plot, but nothing really substantial in my opinion.

Although I didn't remember all the details of Daphne du Maurier's novel before sitting down to watch this movie, I recalled that I liked the book very much. That's why I was surprised by my reaction to the movie. I felt it was rather boring and uninteresting, and I can't fathom why the film has gotten such good reviews (and a Best Picture Oscar to boot) over the decades.

Maybe the problem for me lies with the fact that the movie was directed by Hitchcock. Because of that, I expected the plot to be scarier or tenser than it actually was. Furthermore, I expected a knock-your-socks-off twist, which never did come. Instead, this was actually a pretty straightforward story. Yes, at the beginning I did wonder what it was about Rebecca that everyone loved so much, but that curiosity quickly diminished. By the end, I didn't really care what happened anymore.

In addition, I didn't find the characters likable at all. Maxim and Mrs. de Winter were too one-dimensional for my tastes. Mrs. Danvers was more interesting, but her evil disposition was so clear from the start that nothing she did was a surprise.

Overall, I don't think Rebecca would appeal to today's typical moviegoer. People throw around words like "psychological" and "atmospheric" to describe this film, but I'm not buying it. It was boring, plain and simple!

The war in Iraq has renewed a great deal of interest in the American legacy in Vietnam, as evidenced by President Bush's recent trip to Vietnam under the guise of trade relations. Make no mistake, the trip to Vietnam was a symbolic one meant to stir up emotions on the part of the public. If the public is confused as to what message this trip was to represent, that is no crime as much of what the government does these days regarding the Iraq War is confusing and undecipherable.

Let it be known, the war in Iraq is not the Vietnam War. There are innumerable differences between two conflicts, although the symbolism makes sense. To a degree, the Iraq War is closer to the Soviet/Afghanistan War on the 1980's, although making a moral comparison between the Soviets and US/British troops is next to impossible as the Soviets waged a conventional and chemical campaign of genocide solely to extend its borders and protect a Marxist dictatorship. The Soviets lost, showing the difficulty of waging a successful campaign in that part of the world.

So, the question is, why has the US/NATO invasion of Afghanistan been relatively successful? Why do the Afghani people not kill themselves in the same manner as the Iraqis? Perhaps, the answer to that lies in the phrase "Hearts and Minds." The Afghanis embraced the liberation from their Taliban overlords. In Iraq, "Hearts and Minds" has not won out.

The term "Hearts and Minds" derives from the legendary phrase of former President Lyndon Johnson when he committed troops to the battlefield of Vietnam to start America's most brutal and ill-conceived war. In Johnson's words, the war would not be won in battle, but in the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people who wanted freedom from communism. While the Vietnamese wanted freedom, they wanted freedom from foreign invaders. They perpetually fought wars with China, Japan and France before the American troops landed; troops whom they considered foreign imperialist invaders looking to keep North and South Vietnam separate so as to maintain a free market economy in the south. No, the communist regime was far from benign, their brutality was among the most vicious atrocities waged against the population. The United States, however, misunderstood the "hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese people and were never able to get the support they required in order to achieve victory. The United States faced three options: use the atomic bomb on Hanoi; admit defeat; or use the guise of Vietnamization, training and supporting the South Vietnamese army to fight a proxy war while the US could withdraw with honor. Vietnamizing the war was simply an elaborate way of admitting defeat and it fooled no one.

In 1974, the Vietnam War was, for all intents and purposes, over. A documentary emerged that year that would go on to win the Best Documentary category at the Academy Awards. So controversial was the film, Frank Sinatra actually apologized to the nation TV audience for the fact that the film one. That documentary film was titled, appropriately enough, HEARTS AND MINDS and it was the most scathing indictment on the effects of the war on the civilian population that the world have ever seen.

HEARTS AND MINDS focuses on the public's misunderstanding of the war and how it was sold to the American people as a war no different from World War II, where there were no shades of gray when it came to defining the aggressor and the victimized. In Vietnam, the people who received the main brunt of the war and its devastating effects were the Vietnamese civilians. What makes the film so chilling is when American leaders and soldiers are interviewed and routinely dismiss and degrade the civilians. "Vietnam would be a beautiful country if it wasn't for the people. They are backwards and primitive and they get in the way." "In Asia, people don't respect life like we do in the west." These sentiments are cross cut between the ravages of bombing missions on mainly civilian targets that left people homeless and their relatives killed.

To a degree, HEARTS AND MINDS is not entirely honest in the way in which it only presents a picture of the American soldier as a villain while not presenting any of the good the soldiers had done. (Please do not be so naive to assume that there were no heroic and compassionate American soldiers) Nor does it present the brutality of the communists. The film does, however, paint a realistic picture of the horrors that war wages and, sadly, that is a lesson the world never seems to wish to learn.

If there's one form of betting I never quite got into, it's horse racing. I don't know the first thing about it really, but have always been amazed at how some people can tell just by looking at a horse whether it's a champion or not. These experts are so good that they make a lot of money at their craft, either by buying the horses, training them, or racing them (sometimes a combination of the three). But as with other areas of life, looks can be deceiving when it comes to horses -- and the men who surround them, for that matter. And that's one of the main themes of the 2003 movie Seabiscuit.

Seabiscuit is based on the true story of an underdog horse who won the hearts of horse racing fans all across America during the Great Depression. In the process, Seabiscuit helped save the lives of three men at a time when they desperately needed saving. Here's how the story unfolds.

The three men all come from different walks of life, but all share two things in common. The first is that they are simply going through the motions of daily life and have lost any real interest in what they do long ago. The second is that they have a deep love for horses.

One of the men is named Charles Howard (played by Jeff Bridges), a millionaire automobile tycoon who hasn't been the same since his young son died tragically in an accident. Another is Tom Smith (Chris Cooper) a former horse trainer who the industry left behind because of his strange ideas about how to handle thoroughbreds. The third is Red Pollard (Tobey Maguire), a down-on-his-luck jockey with bad vision. The three men somehow come together at the Howard farm and talk about getting into horse racing. The only thing they need is a horse.

Smith likes a particular undersized horse known as Seabiscuit. The horse comes from a champion bloodline, but hasn't quite lived up to expectations. Seabiscuit is lazy and ornery, but Smith has a feeling that he can get Seabiscuit to come around.

The rest of the film deals with the way Howard, Smith, and Pollard combine their efforts to turn Seabiscuit into a champion. They experience a great deal of success early on, but then things slowly start to unravel. First Red gets hurt, then Seabiscuit gets hurt, and it seems that the whole saga will come to an end right there. But Seabiscuit inspires such faith in Red that he vows a comeback -- for both of them. Amazingly, he makes it happen.

It's not surprising that Seabiscuit has been labeled a sports movie. After all, the main focus is indeed on horse racing, and the major twists and turns of the plot follow along with the way typical sports movies play out. But this is an oversimplification of the effect that Seabiscuit can have on viewers. More than anything, I thought this film was about faith and belief -- not in some abstract higher power, but in ourselves. No matter how low we sink, no matter how desperate our circumstances appear on the outside, and no matter how the odds are stacked against us, we can work to make things right again. This is a powerful message that is delivered beautifully through Red, Seabiscuit, Tom, and Mr. Howard.

The performances in this movie were very good all the way around. Maguire and Bridges were both solid and convincing in their roles, and really helped set the tone for the entire film. But Chris Cooper stole the show, in my opinion. The subtlety he evoked out of this character and the deep knowledge of both horse and human nature that he showed is what made Seabiscuit work for me.

The movie is not perfect, and is actually quite boring in some parts. But the racing scenes and the ending are a great payoff for viewers who stick it out that long.

Overall, I do recommend watching Seabiscuit. The movie was nominated for six Oscars, including Best Picture and adapted screenplay, so you know that there's a great deal of substance to it. It's truly an inspiring story that you can appreciate whether you have an interest in horse racing or not.

The Story: A psychotic murderer institutionalized since childhood escapes to kill his sister while his doctor chases him through the streets

Halloween is of course the movie that made struggling writer/director John Carpenter and unknown newcomer Jamie Lee Curtis superstars, and to this day is arguably the best work either has done. It was made for about $350,000 and eventually grossed a then-astonishing 80 million dollars. What is easily forgotten until you let this cruelly effective screamer catch you unaware again is just what a stark assault of brute horror it is.

We open on a malevolently grinning Jack o' Lantern on Halloween night and move into prowling camerawork with beautiful blue-dominated lighting around a nice, middle class small-town home. We've studied our Argento films and recognize that someone's gonna get it. Someone does get it, in a quite scary but not overly graphic prologue. 15 years later, a psychotic young man whom psychiatrist Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) has given up any hope of helping and is indeed terrified of, escapes from the booby hatch he was sent to after dicing his sister up, and the fun quickly begins.

From here on out, there is no real plot to speak of. We simply meet some refreshingly sympathetic, likeable and intelligent teenagers (probably the last time we ever see such people in a slasher film, sadly enough) and some children Curtis is babysitting. In contrast to most slasher flicks to follow, we identify with and feel terror for these people as they one by one stumble helplessly into the masked nut job's clutches. This builds to a protracted showdown between the knife wielding psychopath and the last teenaged survivor (Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie). The festivities come to a close with a classic, matter-of-fact final line from Pleasance (who delightfully stays just about a millimeter on the right side of overacting - a triumphal peak of his career).

I don't really want to go into more detail, because this is the kind of film you just allow to happen to you and surprise you as it assaults your senses, and to give many more details would dampen the effect. If you just walk into this film and let it do its work on you, you will be guaranteed quite a few jolts and jumps, and you and your date will have finger-shaped bruises on your forearms for days afterwards. It's that good, and that unforgettably intense.

This movie has wit, style and class to burn and comparing it with the hundreds of cheap imitators or even the few good slasher films to follow would be unfair. At this hungry stage in his career, Carpenter was a master of timing, mood and color. He once called Halloween "my Argento film" but managed to outclass Argento just this once. The brightly colored but precisely positioned and shaped lighting recall Suspiria without being a copyist, and the long, studied camera shots leading to the vicious attacks recall the finest moments of Argento's giallos. Where Carpenter parts company with Argento and virtually all of the imitators is in his restraint. There is so little blood in this film, I would imagine it could almost be shown on television with but a few minor cuts.

The music by Carpenter himself deserves special praise here as well. It is, like some of Argento's scores, a deceptively simple synthesized score but Carpenter is more subtle and masterfully builds the suspense in each scene by starting with a simple rhythmic pattern and almost imperceptibly building upon it until your nerves are ready to shatter.

Unfortunately, the slasher film imitators to glut the horror market in the following years were able to copy the particulars (teenagers, sex, masked murderer, dead bodies showing up later, and so on) without coming close to an understanding of style and class. If you have seen many of the copies but managed to miss the original, some of the effect and some of the surprises may be slightly dulled.

This film is truly one of a kind and one of horror cinema's true artistic triumphs. Rent or buy this one to watch over and over again, and use it to show your friends what true quality horror is. This film deserves a place in the horror pantheon with Psycho, the Exorcist and Night of the Living Dead as a groundbreaking masterwork.

Rodgers and Hammerstein's The Sound of Music is perhaps one of the most popular musicals ever to hit the stage. When director Robert Wise turned the story into a movie in 1965, the production reached an even wider audience and garnered even more fans around the world. The Sound of Music remains one of the most popular musicals ever made, even four decades after its first showing in theaters.

The Sound of Music is based on the true story of the Von Trapp Family Singers. Captain Von Trapp (played by Christopher Plummer) is the widowed father of seven children of varying ages, from 16 on down. The Von Trapp children are a handful, and have run off several governesses from the home. As a result Capt. Von Trapp has to keep trying to find someone new to take care of his children.

One day, a woman named Maria (Julie Andrews) comes to the Von Trapp family by way of a convent. Maria is a nun who is unsure of her calling, and who, on the advice of her Mother Superior, is taking some time to consider her future. Maria doesn't really seem to fit in at the abbey. She is always so bright, cheerful, and full of life and joy that she has trouble obeying the strict rules that the nuns must adhere to. The mother superior thinks it would be a good idea for Maria to spend a bit of time in the outside world to be absolutely certain that the sisterhood is for her.

At first, the Von Trapp children treat Maria the same way they treated all their other governesses. Namely, they disobeyed her, played tricks on her, and generally tried to make her job as difficult as possible. This of course made Maria look bad to the captain, who thought she should have no trouble taking care of the children. That's probably because he was so strict with them himself and they obeyed his every order immediately. In fact, he doesn't even bother addressing the children by name. Instead, they each have been assigned their own whistle signal, so whenever the captain wants a specific child, he just blows the proper signal out on the whistle.

Maria is appalled at the way the captain runs his household and she is determined to do things differently. She believes the children should play and have fun, not be subjected to harsh rules all the time. Thus, she starts to reach out to them through music, teaching them a variety of happy tunes that they sing throughout the day. This eventually wins the children over, but the captain is another matter entirely.

Nevertheless, Maria is such a charming, honest, refreshing woman that Captain Von Trapp falls in love with her in due course. Maria struggles for a bit with the question of whether she should leave the convent or not, but does end up in the captain's arms.

The entire story is set against the backdrop of World War II, with the Nazi invasion of Austria (the Von Trapps' home) imminent. Thus, a subplot involves the family's harrowing escape from Salzburg just prior to the invasion.

Like most people, I've seen The Sound of Music many times. Each time I watch it, I find something new that I like about it. The first time I viewed the movie, the famous songs immediately caught my attention. There are so many that you'll recognize right off the bat, including "The Sound of Music," "Do Re Mi," "My Favorite Things," "Sixteen Going on Seventeen," and the beautiful "Edelweiss."

But with subsequent viewings, I started appreciating different aspects of the movie. I learned to enjoy the love story between the captain and Maria, I learned to sympathize with what the children were going through, and I learned to appreciate the significance of Capt. Von Trapp fleeing his homeland.

Overall, I think The Sound of Music is one of the best family films ever made. Sure, it's cheesy, overly sentimental, and highly predictable. But that doesn't diminish the viewing experience at all, in my opinion. I can understand why this movie wouldn't appeal to everyone, but I definitely side with the majority here when I say this is a film that shouldn't be passed up!

Would you grab an opportunity to be able to control your life and the way your life is influenced by other people? What if suddenly, a strange but kindhearted man gives you a tool like a remote control to well, control your life with just the click of a finger?

I believe most of us would grab the opportunity to be god and to rule over his life and the lives of others. I mean what kind of person would pass away that chance of being an omnipotent being who can rewind his life, go fast forward to check on his future and click pause or stop if he wants to do other things or if he simply no longer wants to be in a specific episode in his life?

But try to watch Click, starring Adam Sandler as the busy and highly ambitious architect who was so busy earning a living and pushing his career he no longer had time for his family and even for himself, and you may want to change your mind.

I have never been a fan of Sandler although I have seen some of his slapstick movies. But after watching Click, I know I will always look forward to seeing him again in another movie. But that is giving away my good reviews and praises for Click which I assure you is an A-one movie that everyone must see!

I thought Click was a comedy knowing Sandler's forte and I was not disappointed because it really made me laugh all throughout the movie. What with the shebang antique of Sandler's dog and his stuffed duck which I refuse to dignify here so I will not talk about it. If you are so curious then why not watch the movie?

To get back on track, Sandler is a workaholic architect whose major problem is how to be able to choose the right remote control for their home gadgets. Funny how he clicks the remote control to watch television only to find out that he clicked the garage remote control instead.

Tired of this everyday fiasco with the remote, Sandler walks out of the house and goes to a nearby store to look for a universal remote control. He finally got one which has never been market tested before and has not even been introduced to the market. What is good is that the universal remote control is free but with the caveat that it is not returnable.

"But why would I return something which I got for free," Sandler asked Morty (Christopher Walken), the storekeeper who still looked like Dracula to me. So Sandler gets home and discovers that he can control the pissing time of his dog with just a click of the fast forward button.

He thought he was already going out of his mind when he finds out that he can even click the stop button and go look for other channels when he does not want what is before him like that scene when his wife's friend Janine (Cathie Coolidge) starts her monologue about how she has been ignored and betrayed by her past husbands.

Sandler becomes so dependent on his remote that he clicks on the fast forward button when it suits him like when he wants to spend some time with his family but is burdened by work, or when he has to give back massages to his wife Donna (Kate Beckinsale) before she allows him to make love to her and a lot of other incidents.

He is also able to control his career and promotion thanks to the remote control because he finds out what the Asian visitors like about their place and then he suggests they go there to the delight of his boss Mr. Ammer (David Hasselhoff). His trouble starts when he spends money he did not have to buy presents for his family, believing that he was already promoted!

The fast forward buttons shows Sandler that his promotion was not due in the near future but in over a year. So where would he get the money to pay for those things? How to return the new bike when his son says it was already given by his dad so why should they return it to the store?

He has no choice but to click on the fast forward to that time when he is already promoted and already an associate of Mr. Annar. The problem is, he gets more work and work and work and he has began to rely on the remote control to run his life and career.

But Sandler's dilemma really starts when the remote control starts to operate on its own and chooses the part of Sandler's life to be lived in fast forward! He could not longer control the remote but his attempt to return it to Morty proved futile because as Morty said "the remote is not returnable!"

The comedy becomes horrific and tragic when Sandler finds out that he has missed out on some of the most important parts of his life like the growing up of his children and the estrangement between him and his wife who, as it turned out, was already married to another guy!

The worst part, Sandler realized, is that he has become the owner of the company he has been working for and has become so busy and so self centered he was not even with his dad when the latter passed away. The scene where Sandler tries to go back to that moment when his father died became tragic when Morty told him he can never rewind the remote to that time because he was never there!

Sandler finds himself alone and lonely and even a stranger to his son and daughter who has started to call their stepdad "dad". Sandler saw his son Ben get married and then himself having a heart attack and dying without even experiencing his own life just because the remote keeps on fast forwarding his life for him.

This movie made me laugh but it really made me cry buckets of tears near the end when Sandler died alone and lonely just because he had no time for his family. This movie should make us think about our priorities in life. Watch this movie and I tell you, it would.

Back in the 1980's, if there was a teen movie made, chances are it had John Hughes' name written all over it. Hughes was the undisputed king of teen films and had quite a knack for capturing all the struggles and angst of high school and putting it on the screen. The Breakfast Club is one of the best known films of this genre, and for good reason.

The Breakfast Club stars Judd Nelson, Molly Ringwald, Emilio Estevez, Anthony Michael Hall, and Ally Sheedy -- all of whom were teen movie icons at the time -- as a group of high school students sentenced to the worst punishment that could befall anyone at Shermer High: they had to serve Saturday detention. In other words, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. that day, those five students would make up The Breakfast Club.

After the students arrive in the library (where they'll serve their entire detention), Principal Vernon (played by Paul Gleason) lays down the ground rules for the day. First, he gives them an assignment to do. They are to write an essay about who they think they are, which of course everyone groans about. Second, there is to be no talking. That seems like an easy enough rule to comply with since the five students appear to be just about as different from each other as could be. And third, they must all stay in the library at all times.

At first, the students don't talk to each other, but then John Bender (Nelson) starts making rude comments to Claire (Ringwald). That's when Andy (Estevez) jumps in to defend her, and Brian (Hall) pipes up to remind everyone that they're supposed to be quiet and just write their essays. Allison (Sheedy) is in her own little world and doesn't seem to care what's going on with the others.

After this first exchange, we get a clear idea of the stereotypes that these characters are supposed to embody. Bender is the "rebel" or the "loser," depending on which side you want to take; Claire is the privileged, snobby prom queen; Andy is the jock; Brian is the brain; and Allison is the basket case. Yes, these are all stereotypes, but anyone who has ever gone through high school can tell you that these labels do hit close to home.

As the day drags on and on, the kids eventually start talking to each other more and opening up about different things. They share their experiences and their struggles, and it soon becomes clear that no one's life is quite what it seems to be on the outside. Each and every one of the kids is dealing with a different kind of pressure, and none of them is having an easy time of it. The best scenes in the movie are the ones where the characters talk about their home lives and eventually reveal why they are in detention in the first place.

The ending to The Breakfast Club is rather predictable, but that wasn't the important part of the movie anyway. The important part was the journey that the characters take during the detention, and that's the part that the viewer will remember.

Like most other teenagers in 1985, I saw this movie countless times when I was in high school and I loved it back then. But when I recently decided to watch it again, I have to admit that I was a bit worried about how I would react to the film as an adult. It's been more than 20 years since the movie was released, and very few pictures hold up over that much time.

Surprisingly, The Breakfast Club was still very watchable after all those years. Sure, the clothes, hairstyles, language, and music are all dated; but the larger themes that the movie addresses are still universal. High school kids still struggle trying to find themselves and their place in the world, and as long as that happens, I think The Breakfast Club will always mean something.

Although I wouldn't exactly call The Breakfast Club a must-see film, it is entertaining enough to watch at least one time. If you can get past the external quirks that date the film as 20 years old, you ought to be able to enjoy it.

By Simon Woodhouse

If there's ever a sub-genre within horror movies that's ripe for a parody, it's zombie films. Even when they're trying to be serious, stories involving the un-dead provide plenty of laughs. And while I'm on the subject, what exactly are the un-dead? I'm not dead, so I guess that makes me one of them. Anyway, I'm being side tracked. Back to the matter in hand. Another thing that makes zombie films so perfect for a parody, is the lack of rational explanation needed to clarify the origins of said zombies. It doesn't seem to matter where the ghouls came from, which means there's no need for any pesky back-story, and so the laughs/frights can start straight away.

Shaun Of The Dead (SOTD) follows this same basic set up. Vague TV news reports establish that no one knows why people are turning into zombies, but in a film like this, plot isn't really important.

Shaun (Simon Pegg) is a bit of a dimwit. Ok, so perhaps that's a bit harsh. But he's not the sharpest tool in the box. He works in an electrical appliance store, has a girlfriend called Liz (Kate Ashfield) and shares a house with his best friend Ed (Nick Frost). Though he's in his late twenties, he's not done much with his life, and has no set plans for the future. If he can spend a couple of hours a day on the Playstation 2, and the rest of his time in the pub, he's a happy man. But heroes are often found in the most unlikely of places. Cometh the hour, cometh the man - and when the zombies start freaking out, Shaun steps into the fray.

Set in inner city London, the film starts off as just another normal day for Shaun. He receives no respect from the youngsters at work, argues with his step dad, and tries to persuade the out of work Ed to tidy up the house a bit. He's also promised Liz he'll book a table at a swanky restaurant, and thus stop her from moaning that all they ever do is spend their nights in the pub - but he forgets. She promptly dumps him, and to make up for this Ed takes him to the pub and they both get really drunk. Even though this is an ordinary day, Shaun keeps seeing odd things. A vagrant in the park attempts to eat a pigeon, there's a car crash outside his house for no apparent reason, and there's a weirdo outside the pub groaning and staggering about.

SOTD is one of those films where the laughs come so thick and fast, it's difficult to keep up with them. There's also a mixture of physical comedy and dialogue gags, which means it works on two different levels. What plot there is involves Shaun trying to rescue his girlfriend and his mum from the zombies, and take them somewhere safe - the local pub. He's aided in this task by Ed. Between them they make a brilliant double act, and it's the scenes where they're together that are easily the funniest. When Shaun and Ed tackle a zombie in the back garden, they try to stop it by throwing records at its head, but then get into an argument about which discs deserve to be hurled and which don't. In another scene they run a zombie over in a car, and then stop to ask it if it's all right. Being such a hapless pair, it's a surprise they manage to save themselves let alone anyone else. But they do, and eventually make it to the pub, where they barricade themselves inside.

Hysterical for the first hour, the film loses momentum a bit when our little band of heroes reach the pub. As well as Liz and Shaun's mum, they've also rescued Liz's flatmate Dianne (Lucy Davis) and her boyfriend Pete (Peter Serafinowicz). Seeing as this is a zombie film, it's only fitting that one of this lot die in a really gruesome way. Seeing someone being eaten alive by a group of the un-dead isn't a very pleasant thing to watch, even if it's in a comedy film. The rest of the gore in the movie is mostly there for laughs, like when Shaun and Ed impale a zombie on a piece of garden furniture. If you keep watching as the end credits are rolling, you'll see that the film makers have used the whole premise as a comment on modern urban life. This subtle message adds a nice touch, and pushes the idea of zombies in a new direction.

SOTD is a British film, and so contains mostly laddish humor written in a very English way. If you like the sorts of TV shows where there's (canned) audience laughter, SOTD might not be your cup of tea. I suppose enjoyment of the film really hinges on whether you can identify with Shaun and Ed. I can, and so rate SOTD as one of the funniest comedies of recent years. It's also the sort of film that stands up to repeat viewing, as each time you watch it you'll see something new. After SOTD, you'll never be able to take zombies seriously again, which is ok, because they've always been a bit daft anyway.

For me, part of the magic of the movies is that they can come to represent a very specific time and place in my own life. There are certain films that had such a tremendous effect on me that I am instantly transported to a different time when I see them. Thelma & Louise is one such movie that always takes me back to my senior year in high school.

Thelma & Louise stars Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon as the title characters. Thelma is a housewife who's married to a verbally abusive man named Darryl (played by Christopher McDonald) while Louise is a waitress who's involved with a guy named Jimmy (Michael Madsen), a nice man that simply can't commit to their relationship. Both women are stuck in a rut and need to get away from things for a while. Louise suggests taking a fishing trip, which Thelma reluctantly agrees two. Thelma leaves an explanatory note for Darryl and the two head off.

Their first stop is a roadhouse not too far from home where they decide to have a few drinks and let off some steam. Thelma has one too many and starts getting very close to one of the other patrons. This man is very interested in her, and does everything he can to get her to go home with him. Although Thelma does begin to get intimate with him out in the parking lot, she has second thoughts and tells him to stop. But the guy won't listen to her, and it's pretty clear that he intends to rape her.

Just then, a gun-wielding Louise comes to her friend's rescue. The man relents and lets Thelma go, but makes a disrespectful comment to Louise before the two women leave. This hits a nerve in Louise and she ends up shooting the man. And in that instant, the course of the women's lives change forever. Instead of going on a leisurely fishing trip for the weekend, Thelma and Louise now find themselves running for their lives.

The rest of the film deals with the women's attempt to make it to safety in Mexico. They are being chased by the police, of course, and the head detective is a man named Hal Slocumb (Harvey Keitel). Slocumb is actually sympathetic to the women and thinks he can help them, but Louise isn't taking any chances and won't give Slocumb the opportunity to talk.

So the women press on, heading south despite the fact that they don't have enough money to get them there and despite the fact that they must detour around Texas because Louise refuses to travel through that state. The adventures they have along the way are memorable, and have a profound effect on their characters. Their lives change, and the two women actually get to live a little before the end of the film.

In my opinion, the defining quality of Thelma & Louise is the deep friendship that exists between the two women. Their love for each other and their loyalty to each other is evident in nearly every scene, and their commitment to each other all the way to the bitter end is what makes the movie so rewarding to viewers. Anyone who has ever had a best friend -- that one person who you could share everything with -- will readily identify with what these characters go through on their journey.

Sarandon and Davis were both phenomenal in their roles, and both were (deservedly) nominated for Oscars. Neither won that year (Jodie Foster took home the prize for her turn as Agent Starling in The Silence of the Lambs), but that doesn't diminish their accomplishment. Although Sarandon and Davis might have seemed like an unlikely combination prior to 1991, I can't think of two other actresses who would have brought as much chemistry, sympathy, and strength to the roles of Thelma and Louise.

It's not often that I recommend buying a DVD for your collection, but Thelma & Louise is a movie that everyone should own. The story holds up just as well today as it did 15 years ago when the film first came out, and the themes contained in the plot are still every bit as relevant as they were back then. Watch this movie again, and relive the strongest friendship you ever had.

Like most movie fans, I pay almost as much attention to the director of a film as to the starring actors. The director can influence whether or not I want to see the movie regardless of the kinds of reviews it has received at the box office. For instance, Ang Lee and Steven Spielberg are very reliable directors that deliver an excellent product more often than not. Oliver Stone, on the other hand, is a director that I choose to avoid at all costs.

Martin Scorsese falls somewhere in the middle. While I've absolutely loved some of his movies (Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver), others have left me bored out of my mind (Gangs of New York, Bringing Out the Dead). So I wasn't sure what kind of reaction I'd have to his latest work The Departed.

The Departed is based on a highly successful Hong Kong film whose English title is Infernal Affairs. The cast list of The Departed reads like a Who's Who of Hollywood: Jack Nicholson, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, and Alec Baldwin all lend the film incredible star power. With a cast like that, odds are good that the final cut would be well worth watching.

Nicholson stars as aging Boston mob boss Frank Costello. He's managed to avoid capture all these years by having well-placed informants in the police squad. In fact, he has recently succeeded in getting Colin Sullivan (Damon) firmly entrenched as a Massachusetts state trooper. Costello has groomed Sullivan since he was a young boy and basically can control every move he makes.

At the same time, the state troopers are busy placing an informant of their own, Billy Costigan (DiCaprio) among Costello's men. Costigan must go all in for the job. He even has to serve time in jail just to make his background more suitable for Costello's crew.

Both sides discover at around the same time that they have a mole in their midst, and the rest of the film deals with the way Costello and Sullivan try to sniff out Costigan while at the same time Queenan (Sheen), Dignam (Wahlberg), and Costigan try to find out which guy in the department is actually working for Costello. It's a gripping plot with plenty of powerful sequences and close calls.

In addition to all that, there's a subplot that involves a woman named Madolyn (Vera Farmiga). She's a psychiatrist at the police department, which brings her into contact with both Sullivan -- whom she ends up dating -- and Costigan.

But the real treat of this movie, at least for me, was watching the performances of all these great actors. Matt Damon switches gears a bit and plays a truly bad guy for, I believe, the first time in his career. I thought he was fantastic as Sullivan and really pulled off the two-faced balancing act rather well.

I was also pleasantly surprised by Leonardo DiCaprio's turn as Billy Costigan. I've always thought DiCaprio was a decent actor, but I never really noticed one of his performances before this. But he was so intense and gritty as Costigan that I couldn't help but be amazed at his performance. He is no longer the fresh-faced boy that played Jack Dawson in Titanic almost a decade ago. DiCaprio has definitely grown on me as an actor!

Martin Sheen, Mark Wahlberg, and Alec Baldwin were all terrific in their supporting roles too. Sheen spent so many years playing President Bartlett on television's The West Wing that it's easy to forget that he's no stranger to the silver screen.

The only performance that I didn't particularly care for was Jack Nicholson's. There were many scenes in which his character was just plain weird (like when he met Sullivan at the adult theater) that it was hard for me to imagine that he was a notorious crime boss. I didn't see the original Infernal Affairs, so I don't know if the character's supposed to be that way or if that's Nicholson's doing. Either way, it was just too odd and made him stick out from the rest of the characters.

Overall, The Departed is a very good movie and is one that you should see while it's still in theaters!

There have been very few movies released under the Disney banner that I've wanted to see for myself. Instead, I mostly end up watching these movies just because they're usually suitable for the entire family. If I actually enjoy the film, that's simply an added bonus.

But things were different with the 2006 release of Eight Below starring Paul Walker. This was based (very loosely) on a true story that I had heard about while living in Japan, and I wanted to see what Disney's take on the whole thing would be. I always seem to enjoy movies featuring dogs anyway, so I figured I would have a good time with this movie.

Walker plays a researcher named Jerry Shepherd who is stationed with a few co-workers in Antarctica. Jerry knows the lay of the land and often goes out with a team of sled dogs to check things out. Therefore, he gets tasked with taking Dr. Davis McClaren (played by Bruce Greenwood) out on the sled to a particularly remote area in search of a rare meteorite.

The two manage to find what they're looking for, but then get a distress call over the radio. There's a major storm moving in and the team must evacuate now or risk getting stranded for the entire winter without supplies or access to the civilized world. To complicate matters, Dr. McClaren falls through some ice on the way back to base camp and nearly drowns, but the highly trained dogs are able to save him.

Shepherd thinks the team will evacuate in two airplane trips. The first one will carry out the human researchers, and the second one will be for the dogs and some important equipment. But he hears the devastating news that there's simply no time for two trips. The dogs will have to stay, and Shepherd will have to wait a few days for the weather to clear up before coming back to get them.

Shepherd doesn't like it, but can't argue with the logic behind the decision. He chains the dogs up outside near the camp, and heads out to safety. Unfortunately, the storm turns out to be far more severe than anyone expected. The plane isn't able to go back in a couple days, or even a couple weeks. Eventually, Shepherd has to accept the fact that he won't be able to rescue the dogs, and he goes all the way back home to the United States, where he learns that he won't be able to get to the dogs until the next season (about six months later).

The film then switches to show the dogs and how they work to survive the harsh elements of Antarctica. First, they escape from their chains. Then, they realize that no humans are going to be around to give them food, so they learn to hunt for food themselves. Finally, they manage to break into the camp and get food from the supplies left there. Will the dogs be able to hold out until Jerry and McClaren return for them? Or will the elements be too overpowering? This is a Disney movie, so I'm sure you can figure out the answer!

Overall, I thought this was a highly enjoyable film. It was interesting to see the dogs quickly regain their survival instincts after having been taken care of by humans for so long. It was neat how the dogs worked as a team and were clearly able to communicate with each other to make themselves more effective against the various foes that they encounter out in the wild.

There's not much to say about the human actors in this film. I thought Walker and Greenwood were decent enough, but not outstanding. Jason Biggs had some funny moments as Shepherd's friend and colleague Charlie Cooper, but Moon Bloodgood was mostly forgettable as Katie the pilot.

I think Eight Below is a movie that is definitely worth watching even if you don't have children. Anyone who likes dogs or has ever had a family pet will be able to identify with the utter helplessness that Jerry Shepherd feels when he has to leave his beloved animals behind. And you'll certainly understand why Jerry couldn't "just forget" about the dogs and go on with his life.

By Brandi M. Seals

A Cinderella Story is just one movie in the line of many that has taken the story of Cinderella and adapted it for a modern audience. Sometimes it can be tiring when another one comes out. After Ever After, I have pretty much blown off all the Cinderella movies. It is not that they are bad per se; it is just that the story has been told. There is no mystery as to what is going to happen. We all know things start off bad and regardless of how dreary things look; everything works out in the end. It is for that reason that I never went to see A Cinderella Story. I figured I would save my movie money for a movie that had not already been done twenty times over.

The other night, I happened to catch A Cinderella Story on the Family Channel. If you have not seen it yet, check the Family Channel's listings. They tend to replay things over and over again. Anyway, it was Tuesday night, nothing was on and my husband was working late. Basically I had nothing to do, so I decided I might as well watch the movie. It was sure better than working on the laundry.

So there I sat, watching the movie I vowed I would never watch. I have to admit, it is not as bad as I thought it would be. It is quite juvenile (think The Princess Diaries) but it is a fun movie.

The movie tells the tale of Samantha Montgomery (Hilary Duff). She is a senior in high school working her butt off for her step mom, Fiona (Jennifer Coolidge). Fiona is a ditz with an addiction to plastic surgery and botox. She is always having something done. She was married to Sam's dad before he died and since his death, she has become somewhat of a dictator.

She now runs his diner, which she renamed Fiona, but she is never there. She only shows up to boss Sam around, and to pocket money from the cash register. All the employees hate her and her two stupid, whiny daughters. They only stick around to protect Sam and because they loved her father, Hal.

Sam is not connected to her family at all. Her true family is made up of those that work at the diner. They look out for her and protect her when they can.

At school, Sam is not very popular. The cool kids call her diner girl and treat her like she has the plague. She feels out of place in school, except when she is around her best friend, Carter. Sam's goal is to graduate early and go to Princeton.

One day she met a boy from her school in a Princeton chat room. They bond over feeling that they are not what people think they are. They talk to each other constantly but do not trade names. They ponder whether they know each other or not and finally decide to meet at the Halloween dance.

They meet and have a great time. Sam is able to see the guy's face and knows he is Austin Ames, the football quarterback and class president. He is a guy Sam never thought she could get. He is one of the popular kids. She is leery of revealing who she is. She goes to the dance as Cinderella, but has a small mask on the disguises her face. Despite being able to see most of her, Austin is unable to figure out who she is.

They have a great time together but before Sam can reveal who she is, she makes a mad dash for the door. She is late. She needs to get back to work before Fiona finds out that she left.

Time goes by and Sam never reveals who she is, but her evil stepsisters figure everything out and make fun of her at a pep rally where they reenact the whole romance and Austin finds out the truth. He does not go up to her and she is devastated. Luckily at the game, Austin has a change of heart and leaves the game to be with Sam.

The movie is cute and aimed at the teenage or younger crowd. It is not the best Cinderella movie out there, but if you are bored it is not a bad way to fill your time.

By Brandi M. Seals

American Pie is the story of 4 high school guys looking to lose their virginity before they graduate. This movie is a classic and I do not think it will ever go out of style. It stars Jason Biggs, Eugene Levy, Chris Klein, Thomas Ian Nicholas, and Seann William Scott.

The movie is crass at times but that is what makes it funny. I do not know what exactly it is about American Pie that makes it so great, but all the characters have great chemistry together. They seem like they really would be friends. They are typical high school boys in pursuit of a good time.

The guys get sick of being virgins and make a pact to lose their virginity by prom night. Each goes a different route. Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas) tries pleasing his girlfriend (Tara Reid) for once. His brother hooks him up with a Kama Sutra-like book that is a guide to the female orgasm. After giving her a little incentive for having sex, Vicky decides that she is ready to do the deed.

Oz (Chris Klein) takes the advice of a college girl he went out with and becomes more sensitive. He even joins a jazz choir where he meets Heather (Mena Suvari). Heather comes across as an uptight goody two shoes, but we quickly learn that there is more to her than is revealed in the first impression. Oz, being the sensitive guy he is, never admits that they get it on, but we all know they did.

Good ol' Jim (Jason Biggs) has no luck with the ladies. He is awkward but loveable. He has a chance with foreign exchange student Nadia (Shannon Elizabeth), but he blows that quickly and Nadia is sent back home. He then gets desperate and asks Michelle (Alyson Hannigan) to prom. Michelle seems like the quintessential flute toting band dork but on prom night we learn there is more to Michelle than meets the eye. She is actually a kinky sex fiend.

Paul Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) takes a different approach. He pays a girl to say he is really great in bed. This starts a buzz and everyone wants to go out with him. That all changes when a girl turns down Stifler (Seann William Scott) to go out with Finch. To get even, Stifler spikes Finch's mochachino with laxatives which leads to a very gross bathroom situation. Suddenly no one wants to be seen with Finch.

Luckily, Finch has always appreciated older women. He runs into Stifler's mom (Jennifer Coolidge) at the after prom party. He makes quick work of seducing this hot mom.

In the end, all the guys accomplish their goal of getting laid.

If you like movies like the 80s classic Porky's or even National Lampoons Van Wilder, you will love American Pie. It is funny and witty without being too far over the top. Regardless if you are male or female, the movie puts you right back in high school as if it were yesterday.

One thing that makes the movie so great for me is that the school they attend (East Great Falls) is based on East Grand Rapids in Michigan. I used to live about 5 minutes from East Grand Rapids and when I watch the movie, I remember living there. When they eat at the diner, they are actually at Yesterdog. They have the best hot dogs I have ever had. Stifler's cabin on Lake Michigan is reminiscent of the Holland/Grand Haven area. The whole movie is set in Michigan and I guess the movie just reminds me of home and that is what I like about it.

Even if you do not have the same connection to the movie as I do, you can still appreciate the fact that this movie was a gamble. Nothing like it had really been made yet. All the well known actors in it were just starting out their careers. There is an innocence and rush to the movie that is not usually found in teen movies. The actors are usually too old to really portray the angst of being a teenager but I think all the actors really nailed that in American Pie.

There's really only one movie that I possess which I can watch over and over countless times and never get tired of. One movie that I can watch without wanting to skip through the "boring" scenes. One movie that always chokes me up at the emotional parts even though I know they're coming and have seen them so many times before. That movie is Forrest Gump, the 1994 Oscar winner for Best Picture of the Year.

The film stars Tom Hanks in the title role. We start the movie with Forrest sitting on a bench waiting for a bus, and he's obviously anxious to go see someone. While he's waiting, he opens up a box of chocolates and offers one to the woman sitting next to him. Although the woman declines, Forrest keeps talking to her. He notices her shoes, which sets him off on a narrative about his life. We flashback to his childhood, and see that he grew up with a single mother who ran a boarding house in Alabama.

Forrest was not a "normal" boy. His IQ was much lower than that of other kids his age and he walked funny enough to require the use of special braces on his legs. He was what we might call slow, but not quite fully retarded. He could fend for himself, but had a naivete of character that would come to define him throughout his life.

Forrest's mother, played by Sally Field, does everything in her power to convince Forrest that he is a normal boy. She makes sure that he can go to the regular school despite not having the minimum IQ required, and she tells him that he can do anything that other people can. She refuses to allow Forrest to believe that other people are better than him and, after someone refers to Forrest as stupid, reminds him that "Stupid is as stupid does."

Although the first woman that Forrest was talking to at the bus stop eventually leaves as her bus arrives, another person takes her place, so Forrest keeps on talking. We are going to get the full narrative of his life up to that point, and it has certainly been a full life. As we will see, Forrest has been directly involved in every major event in American history in the four decades of his life.

The rest of the movie consists of the same kind of back-and-forth crossovers between the past and the present. We get to witness Forrest go to college on a football scholarship, where he plays for the Crimson Tide under legendary head coach Bear Bryant. We see Forrest go to Viet Nam, where he gets shot, earns the Purple Heart, and the Congressional Medal of Honor. We see Forrest go to the White House to meet presidents. And so forth and so on.

Through it all, Forrest wishes his one true love, Jenny (Robin Wright), would agree to marry him. Jenny, however, is constantly involved with the wrong crowd and soon gets into drugs. Nevertheless, she does come in and out of the picture quite frequently.

Forrest Gump covers so much ground during its running time that it would be impossible for me to touch on all the magical moments that the viewer is in for. Instead, this is a movie you simply must experience on your own in order to enjoy its full impact.

The first thing you'll notice about Forrest Gump is the tremendous performance turned in by Tom Hanks. Prior to this movie, Hanks usually starred in comedies like Turner & Hooch and Joe Versus the Volcano. I never considered him a serious actor before, but I was overawed by what he did in Forrest Gump. He won the Best Actor Oscar that year, and deservedly so. As film critic Roger Ebert said, it's hard to imagine anyone else playing Forrest. Additionally, Sally Field, Robin Wright, Gary Sinise (as Lt. Dan), and Mykelti Williamson (as Bubba) were all truly memorable as well.

Forrest Gump is a movie that takes viewers on a unique journey that won't soon be forgotten. It will make you laugh and make you cry. Most of all, it will make you notice and appreciate the goodness of the human spirit as embodied by Forrest. This is a movie that you must have in your collection.

By Simon Woodhouse

Science fiction movies often seem to be the domain of beautiful people. The heroes are square-jawed and muscle bound, the heroines voluptuous and pouting. Only the bad guys are ugly, a simple characterization ploy that seems to come straight from the Disney school of film making. Not only does beauty often equal goodness, it usually means intelligence as well. In sci-fi films, ugly people are either bad, or stupid, or both.

A similar form of stereotyping can be found in Gattaca, but for once it suits the story, and may even have been intentional on the part of the movie makers. While the film certainly features plenty of beautiful people (Uma Thurma, Ethan Hawke and Jude Law), it also delves into a subject very, very rarely seen in Hollywood movies - physical disability.

In the world of Gattaca, people are divided into two types - 'Valids' and 'In-valids'. Valids are genetically pure, designer people who have been fashioned in test tubes. As part of the process, their parents get to choose everything about them, right down to the color of their eyes. In-valids are people created by a bout of good old fashioned rumpy-pumpy. However, this means they're susceptible to the sorts of genetic defects that can have far reaching consequences. Any potential problem can be detected at the moment of birth, thus allowing the powers at be to map out an in-valids whole future.

Vincent (Ethan Hawke) is an in-valid, which despite his high IQ means he's destined for a life of mopping floors and emptying trash. He doesn't want that, and so embarks on a scheme to get what he does want - a chance to be part of a mission to Titan.

When we first meet Vincent it seems as though he's already achieved his goal. But then the story leapfrogs backward, and via a voice over provided by the main character himself, the back-story is established. Not only does this help to explain what might have otherwise been a complicated premise, it also introduces an interesting sub-plot. Vincent has a brother, a valid who his father adores. Anton, conceived in a test tube, is taller, stronger and healthier than Vincent. Sibling rivalry explains a lot about Vincent's drive to better himself.

Now the back-story is out the way, the film moves forward, and we learn exactly how Vincent plans to realize his dream. In the world of Gattaca, genes are currency, and identities are traded on the black market. Vincent links up with a shady member of the underworld, who in turn introduces him to Jerome (Jude Law). Jerome is an exceptional valid, but thanks to a car accident is now confined to a wheelchair, and therefore has lost his god-like status. However, the powers at be don't know about the accident, and so Jerome is still on the valid list. Vincent buys the other man's identity, and thus moves one step closer to making it onto a ship bound for Titan.

Though its message is never delivered in an 'in your face' way, the movie makes all sorts of comments about how society looks down on disabled people. When Vincent is first introduced to Jerome, their bargain is portrayed as a way for Jerome's identity to once again be seen as a productive member of society. Jerome's wheelchair, and the use of terms like valid and in-valid, further reinforce the idea of how society only wants to see what is perfect. Anything blighted or damaged must be hidden from view.

With Jerome's help, Vincent secures a place on a mission organized by the Gattaca Aerospace Corporation. In the weeks leading up to the launch, he helps modify the flight plan. Whilst working on this, he meets Irene (Uma Thurman), another Gattaca employee. He starts to fall for her, but it's a risky affair. Can he trust her to keep his secret? All's going well until his mission director is murdered, and the police start snooping around the Gattaca offices. From here on the tension steps up a notch. Though neither Vincent nor Jerome are completely sympathetic characters, it's hard not to feel drawn in by what they're doing. By the time the finale rolls around, you'll be rooting for them.

Filmed in an almost noir style (though it's not black and white), the movie features simple, elegant settings, and stylishly dressed players. A heavy use of shadow gives it a foreboding air, something that feels more and more ominous as the end draws nearer. When the final scenes do pass by, they bring a bittersweet ending. But that doesn't feel at all out of place.

The three principle leads all distinguish themselves, but it's Jude Law who gets the gold medal. His portrayal of the hopelessly vain Jerome, a man pretending to be dealing with his disability, whilst at the same time slipping further into alcoholism, is brilliant. Uma Thurman (always elegant), fits the character she's playing perfectly. Ethan Hawke probably gives the best performance of his career, and if it hadn't been for Jude Law, he would have stolen the show.

Focusing more on dialogue than action, the movie won't be to everyone's taste. It's a character piece, and features none of the usual sci fi trappings (laser guns, space ships, funny little aliens). But if you like your movies to provide a thought provoking scenario, and a bittersweet ending, you'll certainly be drawn in by the world of Gattaca.

There are very few television shows whose plotlines lend themselves to the silver screen. Can you imagine anyone trying to make a movie based on Desperate Housewives? But one show that did seem like the perfect candidate for a theatrical tie-in was the wildly popular Chris Carter creation The X-Files. So when Fight the Future was released in 1998, fans were ready to see what their favorite TV show looked like on the big screen.

Fight the Future opens with a scene showing two men walking through a vast expanse of snow and ice. A title card tells us that this was happening 35,000 years ago in what is now North Texas. The men are apparently hunting some game and have tracked their prey to a cave. They go into the cave prepared for the final confrontation, but are surprised to find what can only be called an alien creature. The men fight, and the creature spills the famous black, oily substance that X-Files fans know too well.

The scene then changes to the present, showing several boys playing in the modern North Texas landscape. One of the boys falls into the same cave that served as the arena for the long-ago fight we just witnessed. As the boy's friends crowd around the opening and ask if he's okay, we clearly see that he is not. The black oil has taken over his body and we know he's done for. The same goes for the rescuers who are subsequently called in to find out what's going on. Soon, unmarked vans that practically scream "government conspiracy" arrive and start to clean up the mess.

With that, we switch locations yet again and go to the Federal Building in Dallas. There has been a bomb threat, and FBI agents are sweeping both that building and surrounding ones. Two of the agents assigned to this task are Special Agents Fox Mulder (played by David Duchovny) and Dana Sculley (Gillian Anderson), the main characters of both the television series and this movie.

Although the agents discover the location of the bomb in time to have a specialist come in and try to disarm it, the explosives nevertheless detonate, thereby destroying almost the entire building. How did the bomb go off? Did the specialist make a mistake and cut the wrong wire? No. He just sat in front of the explosives and calmly watched the timer tick down to 0:00. Obviously, there's more to the situation than meets the eye.

Thanks to information provided by a man named Alvin Kurtzweil (Martin Landau), Mulder and Scully don't just take the bombing at face value. They dig a lot deeper and soon find out that the bombing was related to the incident in North Texas, which in turn was related to the larger government conspiracy that Mulder has been trying to get to the bottom of for almost his entire career. The rest of the film then deals with Mulder and Scully's investigation into the conspiracy. However, since the television series wasn't over yet, viewers immediately understood that the two agents wouldn't get all the answers.

Screenwriter Chris Carter said that one of the biggest challenges of making an X-Files movie was doing a story that would be worthwhile to the show's regular viewers and be interesting to those who'd never seen an episode before. I think Carter and director Rob Bowman succeeded in that respect.

When I saw Fight the Future in the theater, I was a big X-Files fan, so everything naturally made sense to me and I didn't really think about how the movie would play for someone seeing the characters for the first time. However, I recently had the opportunity to re-watch the film on DVD -- after several years of not seeing a single X-Files episode. I was surprised at how well Fight the Future has held up as a movie in its own right. I was still interested in what was happening in the film even though I had long forgotten what the whole conspiracy thing was about.

Overall, Fight the Future is a decent thriller that is entertaining enough to watch whether you're an X-Files fan or not. The story is understandable, the characters are interesting, and Duchovny and Anderson have great chemistry. This is a good movie to see on a quiet Friday night at home.

I always have mixed feelings about watching a movie that has received as much critical and popular acclaim as Brokeback Mountain. On the one hand, I can almost always be assured that I'll be in for a truly fantastic film, which is something of a rarity these days. On the other hand, my expectations for the movie, based on all the praise and buzz I've heard, might be so high that the actual experience can't possibly live up to the standards I've unconsciously set. So I was a bit anxious to see which category Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain would fall into.

Brokeback Mountain stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal as two cowboys named Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist. Ennis and Jack first meet in 1963 when they take a summer job herding sheep for a rancher named Joe Aguirre (Randy Quaid). Both men are in their early twenties at that time.

The job requires Ennis and Jack to camp out on Brokeback Mountain for the entire time. One or the other of them is occasionally allowed to go into town to restock their food supplies, but for the most part they are isolated on the mountain together for a few months.

During this time, they obviously have no one to talk to except each other. They slowly start to form a bond of friendship that eventually blooms into lust. The two men then sleep together after a particularly long night of drinking, which leaves both of them confused. After all, both of them proclaim that they "ain't queer."

Their relationship becomes a bit strained after their first night together. While Jack seems to be open to the possibilities of what could happen, Ennis definitely struggles with it. "This is a one-shot deal we got goin' here."

The two men finish out their summer on Brokeback Mountain, and then head their separate ways, doing their best to continue on with "normal" lives. Ennis marries longtime girlfriend Alma (played by Michelle Williams), and Jack marries a rich rodeo star named Lureen Newsome (Anne Hathaway). Both men hold down jobs, have children, and try to keep up appearances. But the women in their lives know something is not quite right, that their men are not quite content or happy. However, neither Alma nor Lureen can figure out exactly what's going on.

Then one day (five years later), Ennis gets a postcard from Jack saying that he would be passing through town and would like to visit. Ennis suddenly becomes very excited and spends a great deal of time getting ready for Jack's arrival. Alma also gets ready, thinking that they will all go out together. When Jack finally shows up, however, Alma gets to see what's been bothering her husband for so long. At first, Jack and Ennis share a hearty embrace. But that soon turns into a fiercely passionate kiss, which Alma witnesses from the window of her apartment.

To say that she is shocked would be an understatement. Michelle Williams does a wonderful job in that scene, showing just from the expression on her face how her entire world has fallen apart in a matter of seconds.

From there, the movie deals with Ennis and Jack's love affair, which spans two decades. The men meet once a year or so for "fishing trips," and must content themselves with spending just a few days together. Ennis seems to be fine with that arrangement, but Jack wants so much more. In fact, Jack thinks that they could even live together on a ranch somewhere and that no one would know the difference. People would just think they were two friends helping each other out or whatever.

But Ennis knows different. Other men would talk, and there could be seriously violent repercussions if anyone ever suspected the true depth of their relationship. Ennis should know, as he saw his own father engage in acts of hatred and bigotry towards a gay man. Ennis's unwillingness to budge from that position hurts Jack, and causes a rift that they never overcome.

I can barely explain my initial reaction after seeing Brokeback Mountain. The film moved me like no other in my entire life -- and that's not simply hyperbole. I was awed at what I had just seen: it was a masterful work all around, from Annie Proulx's original story to Ang Lee's direction to the unbelievable performances by Ledger, Gyllenhaal, Williams, and Hathaway. I had never before seen a move that made me want to watch it again in its entirety before the credits had even finished rolling.

There were so many things I liked about Brokeback Mountain that I don't even know where to start. First of all, the cinematography was just breathtaking. The film, particularly the early scenes on Brokeback, is beautiful to look at -- independent of the story that's unfolding on the screen. Second, Ledger and Gyllenhaal do a tremendous job of bringing Ennis and Jack to life. We see their struggles and we sympathize with them, completely and utterly. Third, the supporting cast is perfect as well. This is Ennis and Jack's story, no doubt, but Alma and Lureen are important to it and Williams and Hathaway don't disappoint.

Overall, I have to say that Brokeback Mountain is one of the best films I've ever seen in my life. Some critics have complained that it's overly long and moves very slowly, but I didn't think so. I needed all that time to get to know Ennis and Jack, and in the end, I felt it was too short. Watch this movie if you haven't done so already!

The Story: Three sadistic killers embark upon a road trip of murder and mayhem while attempting to evade the wrath of a vengeful sheriff.

Back in 2000, moviegoers were treated to a teaser touting musical madman Rob Zombie's first foray into filmmaking. In a genre dominated by safe, PG-13 rated excuses for horror, fans all around the world chomped at the bit to see what promised to be an unflinching and frightening gore-fest. Three years and several MPAA-demanded cuts later, Zombie's flick finally saw the light of day. Perhaps inevitably, the general consensus seemed to be one of disappointment. House of 1000 Corpses, while certainly above average in several respects, suffered from Zombie's limited experience, bizarre editing, sub-par acting, and no doubt from the cuts required to obtain its R rating.

Two years later, Rob's back, and I'm happy to report that this time around he's delivered a film that fires on all cylinders.

The Devil's Rejects opens with a voiceover reminiscent of a certain horror movie that took place in Texas. The year is 1978. Sheriff John Quincy Wydell (William Forsythe) and his posse arrive at the Firefly compound- guns a blazing. Wydell's brother, George, was killed by the Fireflies (Mother Firefly specifically, who is now played by Leslie Easterbrook) in the first film, and John wants revenge in the worst way. As he prepares his men for battle, the family inside the home has no intention of going quietly. A massive shootout ensues, and by the time the smoke clears, four officers are dead, with seven more injured. Mother Firefly is taken into custody as Otis (Bill Moseley) and Baby (Sheri Moon Zombie) escape. One unfortunate member of the family does not make it out alive.

Now on the run, Otis and Baby call Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig), and agree to meet him at a pre-determined location, the Kahiki Palms Motel. Through their conversation, we learn of exactly how the three know each other, answering a question that was left hanging at the end of the first film. As Otis and Baby wait at the motel for Spaulding to arrive, they take a musician hostage, along with his friends and family. Otis has a little fun with the wife, and then takes the two men out to the desert to dig up some hidden artillery. When the gents get a bit testy, Otis proclaims that he's the Devil, and proceeds to do what he does best. Murder. The ladies don't fare much better, as they're left in the hands of Baby back at the motel.

Meanwhile at the police station, Wydell interrogates Mother Firefly, and attempts to get information out of her. Firefly is uncooperative to say the least, and has some choice things to say about the sheriff's departed brother, prompting the lawman to rough her up a bit. Wydell loathes the Firefly family, and wants them brought in alive so that he may inflict his own vision of justice. To hasten the manhunt, he hires the two toughest bounty hunters he can find (Danny Trejo and Dallas Page) to pick up on the trail of the murdersome trio, who have been dubbed "The Devil's Rejects" by the local media.

Once Spaulding arrives, he takes Otis and Baby to seek refuge at Charlie's Frontier Fun Town, a whorehouse run by Spaulding's brother, a pimp by the name of Charlie Altamont (Ken Foree). Whether or not Charlie and Spaulding are actually related is dubious, but they're undeniably two peas in a pod, and Charlie opens both his home and the spoils of his labor to the three reprobates.
The fun doesn't last, because it's not long before Wydell and his goons catch up to ruin the gang's party. A thrilling climax follows that finds the hunters the hunted, the good guys the bad guys, and the bad guys, well...they're definitely still the bad guys. I'd love to tell you more, but I'm just not going to. You'll have to find out for yourself, and I highly recommend that you do.

The Devil's Rejects, a sequel of sorts to House of 1000 Corpses, is Rob Zombie's second feature film, and is thankfully leaps and bounds better than his first offering. Rather than making a film that is merely a summation of classic horror influences, Zombie has created an original story that actually makes you appreciate why you liked those very movies in the first place. This film just doesn't pretend that it takes place in the 70's, it dives right in with the look, feel, and sound of the decade, throws on some arterial-red camouflage for good measure, and becomes the 70's. This is classic exploitation here, folks, and it pulls no punches. How Zombie got away with an R rating is beyond me. This one has it all: full-frontal nudity, sadistic violence, sex, and enough colorful language to make Quentin Tarantino blush.

Zombie has greatly improved as a director/writer and lets the film shine through his characters and story instead of camera tricks and gimmickry. The jarring vignettes that plagued his first film are gone and he's wisely replaced them with the type of shots and wipes that blend in perfectly with the timeline of the picture. He's also ditched using his own music (which I enjoyed in the first film, but didn't seem to fit the 1977 setting) in favor of tunes straight out of the decade. The humor is still there, and although it's the darkest shade of black, there are enough one-liners to keep one grinning throughout the film.

The acting is also much better this time around (well, for the most part; but I'll get to that a little later). The cast reprises the same characters played in the first film, but they behave much differently in The Devil's Rejects. They seem like real people, despicable and reprehensible; only shadows of the forgivable caricatures that they were in the original story. Moon is the most improved, and although her portrayal of Baby is still annoying at times (the "Chinese, Japanese..." line quickly springs to mind), it's a vast improvement from her previous performance. Moseley has also toned it down a few notches, and isn't nearly as over the top as he was in House of 1000 Corpses. Haig, who was a delight in the first film, is every bit as fun to watch as a Reject.

The supporting cast is phenomenal. Most notable is Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead) as Charlie, who chomps up every frame in which he appears as Spaulding's hustling brother. Forsythe also gives one of his more memorable performances as a brother who will stop at nothing to avenge a loved one. Add to their performances those of genre favorites Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes), PJ Soles (Halloween), Danny Trejo (From Dusk Till Dawn), Steve Railsback, Geoffrey Lewis, etc., and you get the idea of just how important casting is to Zombie.

Unfortunately there are a couple of things that don't work. Leslie Easterbrook looks quite a bit like Karen Black, but sadly cannot match Black's portrayal of the Mother Firefly character, nor transcend the character to anything above that of a cartoon. Easterbrook goes way over the top, making it practically impossible to take her straight-faced. Fortunately, her scenes are few and far between.
There are also a couple of scenes that seem out of place. When Wydell finds out that the killers have been using aliases based on Groucho Marx characters, he brings in a movie critic (Robert Trebor) for questioning. The banter between the two is meant as comic relief, but in a movie with humor so black that you almost feel guilty laughing, this overachieving attempt momentarily disrupts the pacing and mood of the film. There's also a pointless (albeit mildly funny) scene involving a chicken that runs a little long.

When it's all said and done, The Devil's Rejects is a difficult movie to classify, but one that's destined to become a cult classic. It's not a horror film in the traditional sense, but one that fans of the genre will certainly lap up with gusto. It has elements of horror, exploitation, grindhouse, comedy, crime drama, and action- all rolled into one dark and disturbing piece of cinema. This is not a movie for the squeamish, nor is it for those even remotely offended by graphic, sadistic violence, or harsh language. What it is, however, is one of the finest movies of its kind and easily the best horror film to hit theatres for years.

Liza Johnson

I thought that this movie did a fantastic job of drawing me into the world. I really feel that much of the dialogue and interesting aspects of the casting choices made it clear to me of the direction of the movie, and of the storyline itself. I really feel that I was connected to this production. I enjoyed it very much because it presented a strong idea of the story line, and the characters were very clearly formed. I really enjoyed this production. It spoke to me, and I really felt like I belonged in this world with the characters that I saw before me.

I think that the way that the characters presented their own individual characteristic was very creative. The actors were able to take the lines that had already been written and turn them into moments which created full blown characters worthy of respect and admiration. The characters were among the most creative aspects of the movie itself. The actors had an amazing ability to conduct the business of the movie and go about the lives of their characters, while at the same time staying true to themselves.

I also feel that the set itself was very creative. The lay out of the set pieces did actually leave a lot to the imagination, and one was able to picture the world outside of the movie. The interior of the set highlighted the actors’ performance and made it clear to the audience what the style of the movie was. The elements of the set design allowed the world of Eliza to come through in all parts of the movie.

Another creative aspect of the movie was the use of language. It is understood that the accents are an important part of the movie, but the actors in this particular movie use the language so much to their advantage. The audience, who in most areas of the world have no background knowledge of the style of the time, was still enthralled by the language use in this movie.

The actors in this movie worked very well together as an ensemble. The main characters of Henry and Eliza capture the completeness and complexities of a romantic relationship as they offer a wonderful portrayal of the duo. I really feel that the group had a great rapport, as the entire ensemble worked together to create an interesting AND moving movie. Each of the actors works as a single unit, along with each other actor, to create a tight and uplifting ensemble of actors. The actors were very in touch with each other. You could tell, by the emotions they expressed and by the actors body languages, that they were working together as a team. Often times, actors would express ideas simply with a look or a sign, instead of even lines.

I feel that the actors had a really good sense of expressing emotion through their body language. Each of them had facial and body expressions that clearly depicted their character and their emotions. There was a lot of expressions in between the characters with their facial expressions and their eye to eye meetings.

Each actor came across as very believable and very different from each other. Each character was clearly depicted by the actors who portrayed them. Each actor had a distinct way of speaking as their character and each actor was able to present their ideas in completely different ways. The character of Eliza was very distinct, and the voices and accents that she used really helped to portray her character. All of the characters were very well drawn.

I feel that the best aspect of the production was the way that the actors worked together as a group. They really had a great rapport, which I feel made the production something that is very interesting to watch. The group worked very well together and this made the production very interesting. I feel that the best directorial choice was to have the ensemble work together and create a very tightly woven cast that was really able to tell a story to the audience by working together as a team.

Liza Johnson
Bowling for Columbine

After having seen Bowling for Columbine four times in the past few months, I have come to really enjoy the movie. I have read both of Michael Moore's books, and have also seen his first documentary and I realize that a lot of what he has to say must indeed be taken with a grain of salt. Ideas that come from his movies, books, and thought groups like Amnesty International and Project Censored are probably all based on truth, and most likely give correct information. The movie presents things in a very real time, in a very real way. There are so many things involved in the move itself that you never really know what could be false. You just have to take it all together at once, and hope that somewhere you are getting the right idea.

However, one must be aware when dealing with any of these groups that a lot of the ideas might be taken out of context, skewed slightly, or changed a little to make it all appear stronger towards the left. This is just the reality when dealing with political and social activists such as Michael Moore. It is the same as watching Fox News you know that whatever they report will take a far right stance, where as the same thing reported by Michael Moore can make the right look really, really bad. However. Taken all of this into account, if you can reasonably believe 20 percent of what Michael Moore says in this particular documentary, it is a VERY scary world out there. Even if you cannot safely say that most of what he said is true, even if only a small part of it is true, there are many things that he presents in this movie that end up being very frigtening indeed.

The first time I saw this film, I was studying abroad in France. We decided, one afternoon, to see an English film, and this was the only one playing. To make matters worse, it was the Fourth of July, and the four people in my group and I were the only Americans in the theater. As the show went on (with French subtitles), we sank lower and lower into our seats, horrified by what we were seeing, and humiliated to come from the country where all of this was taking place. We, the four of us, laughed a few times out loud at Michael Moore's satire and the amazing things he brought up. However, we were the only ones who laughed at all. The other audience members seem disgusted by the facts that he presented. We tried to be as quiet as we could while we were laughing, absolutely sure that someone was going to take us all out behind the theatre and get very, very angry at us just for being from the country we were. However, nothing bad happened. It just opened our eyes to our country, and what is currently going on in it.

What I found very enlightening in this documentary were the interviews with so many people who absolutely loved their guns. It makes you shake your head at the stupid things they would say, much like you would dialing through channels if you accidentally ended up on Jerry Springer, except in this case it didn't seem so obvious it was all a joke. The people who talked about keeping guns under their beds scared me. Also, Timothy McVeigh's brother scared me a lot. His discussions about the things he kept on his farm, and his reasons behind having them kind of freaked me out. The most disturbing, however, was the interview with Charles Heston. I couldn't believe the things he was saying about guns in America, it made me want to call him up myself and give him a piece of my mind.

One of the things I found in this movie that you really had to think about as you watched it and realize that it might not be exactly true, was a lot of what he said about Canada. I think that the majority of the facts were probably true, but watching it you realized that when he was knocking on doors in Canada and found them all unlocked, he could have easily edited together the doors that WERE unlocked, and edit out any he found locked. Its little things like that, which are obviously done for production reasons, that you have to be careful of while you watch this movie. You always have to know that things have been edited together, and things might be left out that don't agree with Michael Moore's opinions.

Most of all, this movie made me realize that there are a lot of people in America who are gun happy, and who might not care about anything but "protecting" themselves. As a future teacher, I know that these ideas might be something I will have to deal with if I teach in areas where people believe these sort of things.

By Simon Woodhouse

On the whole, I think it's fair to say most people watch movies to be entertained. Maybe informed a bit as well, but mostly entertained. Pure entertainment though, after a while, can start to feel a little shallow. Every now and then it doesn't hurt to watch a film that deals with a weighty issue. And if the events portrayed are also based on a true story, then the subject straightaway takes on more relevance.

Unfortunately, the act of genocide is nothing new. But, as they say, time heals all wounds. Perhaps that's an over exaggeration. However, people seem to deal with a subject like genocide a little more easily if it took place in the distant past. We like to think society evolves as it moves forward, and that something as horrific as genocide couldn't happen in this day and age. It's a nice idea, but totally unrealistic.

Hotel Rwanda tells the story of Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), the manager of the Les Milles Collines hotel in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. As a character, it's impossible not to like him. He's smartly dressed, well spoken, even-tempered and has the air of someone who really cares about those around him. He's also very good at his job, running the hotel as if it were his own. On a larger scale, Paul is a Hutu, a social class within Rwandan society who share the country with the Tutsi. Tutsi are in the minority, but for many years formed the ruling elite, a situation brought about by Belgium colonists who resided in the country at the beginning of the 20th century.

At the start of the film, relations between the Hutu and the Tutsi are tense. However, an agreement is about to be signed that will hopefully help to calm things down. A UN press conference is taking place at the hotel, with reporters from all over the world covering the story. One of these is Jack Daglish (Jaoquin Phoenix). The head of the UN forces, Colonel Oliver (Nick Nolte), is also there to make sure things run smoothly. For a short time it looks as though the country is heading for a peaceful future, then the Rwandan president is killed and the Tutsi are blamed. The fragile coexistence between the Hutu and the Tutsi disintegrates. Hutu militias, egged on by provocative radio broadcasts, set about trying to remove the Tutsi presence from Rwanda once and for all.

Focusing more on the human side of the story and less on the violence, the film follows Paul's desperate attempts to protect the refugees who turn up at the hotel. As his wife is a Tutsi, he bares them no ill will, and so offers sanctuary to both Hutu and Tutsi a like. Being such a sincere character, it's difficult not to feel for Paul and be drawn into the plight of the refugees. But somehow the film has a sanitized feel about it, something that's brought about by a lack of 'grit'. I suppose there are two trains of thought here. If the violence had been too graphic, the film's audience might have been smaller, and thus less people would know about the things that happened in Rwanda. On the other hand, by not showing just how brutal the killings were, the movie has a made-for-tv lightness about it. Personally, I think if you're going to make a film of this type, you have to show exactly what happened. There's no need to go over the top, but one or two scenes depicting the full horror of the violence are necessary to put what happened into context. Perhaps this would have resulted in the film makers being accused of sensationalizing the violence. But how can you sensationalize something that actually happened? It is estimated that a million people died in Rwanda, and often in the most appalling fashion. To not show even one of these killings feels like an attempt to play down what really happened.

But this lack of an ultra-realistic approach doesn't detract from some fine performances. Don Cheadle takes top honors, and at times it feels as though you're watching a real person and not an actor. Nick Nolte is also good, portraying the frustration of being there, but being unable to offer the sort of help the UN is supposed to.

I guess it's always difficult to know how to end a film like this. As it is, Hotel Rwanda goes for the soft option. It's a happy ending, something that doesn't suit the subject matter. Genocide should leave the audience with a bitter taste in their mouths, not a warm glow inside. If the film makers had been a little braver, Hotel Rwanda would really have made people sit up and take notice. And though it's certainly not a bad film, it is a missed opportunity.

Back in the mid-1990s, there was no hotter filmmaker out there than Quentin Tarantino. The mainstream success of 1994's Pulp Fiction suddenly made people want to review his older work, and it launched a string of movies that tried to emulate the Tarantino style of slick action coupled with heady dialogue and memorable characters. The 1997 Kiefer Sutherland vehicle Truth or Consequences, N.M. is one such film that has been dismissed as a poor substitution for Tarantino. After finally getting around to renting the DVD last weekend, I tend to agree with that assessment.

Truth or Consequences, N.M. was the first film directed by Sutherland, who was more famous at that time for playing the villain in teen flicks such as Stand By Me and The Lost Boys than for his moviemaking prowess. At any rate, he got behind the lens for Truth or Consequences, a basic robbery-gone-wrong movie that will instantly take fans back to the decade where those kinds of plots were everywhere.

Vincent Gallo stars as Raymond Lembecke, a low-level drug dealer who did two years in the pen after refusing to roll over on Eddie Grillo (played by John C. McGinley), the guy above him. When Raymond gets out of prison, he figures that Eddie owes him something big for taking the fall like that, so he's disappointed when all Eddie offers him is a job in a warehouse moving boxes around. Raymond isn't going to stand for that, so he comes up with a plan to rob Eddie of a large shipment of heroin. Raymond will steal the drugs, sell them, and then run off with the money.

But the plan was just bad news right from the beginning. First of all, the warehouse was supposed to be empty when Raymond and his crew went in for the score. But Eddie and another guy were in there, which of course led to a confrontation. Second, Raymond's crew wasn't exactly made up of the best thugs around. He was working with Curtis (Sutherland) and Marcus (Mykelti Williamson), as well as with his girlfriend Addy (Kim Dickens). Curtis turned out to be a trigger-happy psycho who likes to shoot first and ask questions later. So when Eddie and his friend started threatening Raymond for having the audacity to come in there and try to steal from them, Curtis shot them. That led to the third thing that went wrong: the guy with Eddie turned out to be an undercover DEA agent and he was wearing a wire!

Raymond and his gang grabbed the suitcase full of drugs and took off. The police just barely miss nabbing them at the beginning there, so the rest of the film follows Raymond and his gang as they attempt to elude the cops and sell the drugs to the highest bidder. Unfortunately, everything continues to go wrong -- from picking up hostages to upsetting the mafia -- which leads to a final showdown in the town of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.

As you can see, the plot of Truth or Consequences, N.M. shouldn't be anything new to anyone who watched other Tarantino-inspired films a decade ago. There weren't any interesting twists, turns, or surprises along the way and you'll probably be able to predict nearly everything that happens.

The only thing that could have saved this movie was the acting, but unfortunately, the talented cast didn't come through in this respect. Maybe it's because I've gotten so used to seeing Kiefer Sutherland play one of the good guys (as Jack Bauer on the TV series 24), but it was really jarring to watch him play Curtis. His acting was so over-the-top that it came off as clownish and annoying. Some people have said that Sutherland's performance was one of the highlights of the movie, but I didn't find that to be the case at all. This was one of the few films in which I thought Sutherland's presence detracted from the overall product.

The other cast members did ok with the material, but again, there wasn't a knockout performance that could make the viewer forget how trite the screenplay was.

Truth or Consequences, N.M. was one of those middle-of-the-road movies for me. I didn't particularly like it, but I didn't hate it either. If you see it, it won't be a complete waste of time. If you skip it, you won't be missing much.

The Story: A mysterious plague turns the world's population into flesh-hungry, undead ghouls, forcing a group of survivors to seek refuge inside an abandoned shopping mall in this re-imagining of George A. Romero's classic film.

As the tiresome "remake debate" continues, Hollywood unflinchingly continues its current trend of reviving and repackaging popular classic and foreign horror films for modern Western audiences with increasingly positive returns. Regardless of who's doing what to such venerable fan favorites as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Ringu, and now Dawn of the Dead, at the end of the day, all an average horror fan like myself really wants to know is 1) does the movie remain true to the spirit of the original and 2) is it any good? Though every purist's fears are confirmed in the extensive liberties taken with George Romero's narrative structure and established mythology, the new Dawn of the Dead should provide a welcome change of pace for zombie fans looking for fresh blood in an old corpse.

One morning in suburban Wisconsin, nurse Ana (Polley) and her husband awaken to find a young neighborhood girl, seemingly injured, standing in their bedroom doorway. To Ana's horror, the lipless little girl lunges and bites a hunk out of her husband's neck. Just seconds after his death, Ana's husband rises and chases her into the bathroom, where she barely makes it out the window. Escaping in her car, Ana is shocked to discover that the world has literally gone to hell overnight as sirens wail, helicopters hover overhead, and fires blaze out of control while her bloody husband hauls ass after her in a murderous rage. After the surrounding chaos sends her hurtling off the road and into a tree, Ana wakes from unconsciousness to find herself in an apocalyptic world beyond her wildest nightmares. In the company of a hardened police officer (Ving Rhames), a level-headed nice guy (Jake Weber), and a troubled young man (Mekhi Phifer) and his very pregnant, Russian wife (Inna Korobkina), Ana takes up residence in a presumably empty shopping mall to devise a plan while an army of ravenous zombies gather outside.

Not content with taking the safe road, Troma alumni and Scooby Doo scribe James Gunn proves with the intriguing pre-credit sequence that he's capable of successfully building new and interesting situations on the foundation of Romero's basic premise. Though the first hour is highlighted by a few intensely well-staged attacks, the midsection suffers from introducing a bland band of zombie fodder when the time would have been better spent fleshing out the main characters until the exciting, zombie-filled final third.

Where much of the original's success is attributed to the chemistry of its four, well-drawn protagonists, Gunn's script is so cluttered with secondary characters there's little room left for the leads, all of whom are capable actors, to grow. Just as I was getting a handle on the initial group's personalities, Gunn introduces C.J. (Micheal Kelly), a gun-waving security guard and his cronies, followed by a truckload of largely uninteresting survivors including Steve (Ty Burrell), the token cynical, wisecracking asshole. Characters even play against type in several instances: the usually sensitive Michael is the first to suggest that they shoot an infected survivor while hot-headed C.J. takes a sudden heroic turn near the end. Surprisingly, the best human moments in the movie come when stone-faced Kenneth begins an amusing long distance friendship with a gun store owner stranded on the roof of his shop, right after turning his back on the group. Using dry-erase boards and binoculars to communicate, the two exchange information, play chess, and indulge in a game of "shoot-the-celebrity-zombie" to crowd pleasing effect. And as expected, blatant stupidity is no exception here as one female character one-ups Alien's Lieutenant Ellen Ripley by putting everyone's life in immediate danger, driving across a zombie-packed street to retrieve a dog that had seemingly only been with the group for a couple of days.

What Snyderss movie lacks in characterization, it makes up for in frantic zombie-action. A far cry from Romero's eerily shambling, blue-faced automatons, these things owe more to 28 Days Later director Danny Boyle's "infected" as they come running at you full-speed ahead, wild-eyed and shrieking for human flesh before tearing you to shreds in an undead dog-pile. Though many have expressed concern over this aspect, Snyder pulls it off without a hitch as every zombie scene is executed to terrifying effect. Try throwing a pie in the face of one of these things; you're likely to pull back a stump. In other words, Roger wouldn't want to play around with these guys. Not only are they the most intensely frightening zombies since Day of the Dead, they're ironically the best looking cinematic undead since John Vulich and Everett Burell's work in the Tom Savini's 1990 Night of the Living Dead remake. Though the quick editing during the finale didn’t allow me to get a good look at much of the impressive make-up work, many zombies featured early on in the movie such as the "the one-armed jogger", "the janitor" and of course that disgusting "fat lady" are sure to become zombie fan favorites.

Though far from the graphic excesses of Romero's seminal masterpiece, I was nevertheless surprised by some of what I saw. While you won't see any gratuitous intestine-pulling, you will catch a quick glimpse of "the janitor" munching on exposed guts. When compared to the original, the head-shots aren't excessive, but they are probably the most realistic ever filmed as scalps detach, blood splatters, and chunks fly. In addition to a nice Savini-style head explosion and a couple of head-impalings, I was caught off guard by some incredibly graphic chainsaw action that had the audience in an uproar. And while a few overhead shots were achieved via CGI, the majority of effects are practical and un-intrusive, save for one silly bit involving a baby zombie (that's right).

Snyder's Dawn looks great with a washed-out look that gives its suburban wasteland settings a gritty, realistic feel. However, where the mall in Romero's version was an important component of the film's underlying themes, here it is merely used as a convenient setting for the survivors to hole-up while the situation outside becomes progressively more hopeless. Though Snyder shows a quick montage of the group playing around the mall, the sense of fun and false freedom inherent in Romero's situations are lost. Although a few of the popular rock cues drag the movie into the mainstream gutter, they counterbalance Tyler Bate's eerie, doom-laden score well enough to work.

Despite an unnecessarily large cast, weak characterization, and a sluggish middle, Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead is an undemanding, often exciting zombie movie with style to spare. Before dismissing it as just another slick exercise in "MTV" filmmaking with nothing to say, Snyder's simple depiction of vastly different people working together to survive a crisis is effective considering the country's post-9/11 environment. Though it probably won't convert many of its detractors and wasn't quite as terrifying as I anticipated, the new Dawn of the Dead should provide fans with something to chew on until the lameness of Land of the Dead is forgotten.

The Story: A mother and her 6 year old daughter move in to a rundown, old apartment building. Almost immediately, water starts to drip from their ceiling.

Hideo Nakata really did surprise quite a few people with Ring, me being one of them. I can safely say that the image of Sadako climbing out of that TV set still makes the little hairs on the back of my neck stand up to this day, so I was eager to find out what his latest offering would be like. With a very similar and slick presentation, this is a spooky and quite unnerving oriental ghost story; beautifully shot and convincingly performed. Mind you, since this film is another collaboration between Nakata and Suzuki Koji, the same writer as Ring, and with such a familiar set of reoccurring themes, we should expect nothing less.

Dark Water is basically the story of Yoshimi. She is a young mother coping with a difficult divorce and determined to bring up her eight year old daughter, Ikuko, to the best of her ability. The story kicks off with them moving into an old and rundown apartment block on the outskirts of town. The building is dull and grey, the corridors are all indistinguishably bleak and the floors are inexplicably short on tenants. It's full of creepy touches too; the elevators are slow and noisy, strange creaking and banging sounds can be heard intermittently, and then there's the water; straight away they have to cope with a ceiling which drips constantly. The building attendant at the front entrance is typically useless, so they try to catch it all with saucepans and buckets and what have you. But where is the water coming? And if it's from the flat upstairs, who lives there?

As events unfold, the film turns into a series of questions, mainly about specific plot devices that are used to slowly raise the tension levels. Some of these are convincingly iconic and simply convey messages without dialogue. For example, there's the husband who chain-smokes so emphatically when he appears, does this allude to some kind of guilty secret? Also, there's the guy at the front desk that's reluctant to help her, does he know something Yoshimi doesn't? And what of an early scene where Yoshimi and Ikuko come to view the property and their shoes and umbrellas are the only warm colours in the whole dull landscape; what's that meant to imply? Anything or nothing, is this imagery significant or is Nakata toying with us? When we are suitably confused, things take a turn for the supernatural with devices like the little red satchel. How come no matter how many times Yoshimi throws that satchel away it always finds it's way back into Ikuko's hands. Also, what's with this water business? No matter how many utensils they get to catch the drips, it never seems enough. Similarly, who is that shadowy figure that we catch a glimpse of in the lift's CCTV camera? And, quite frankly, where the hell are the other tenants? Needless to say, the imagery is piled on thick and the film slowly builds to a chilling climax.

Actually, the key word there was 'slowly'; long sections of Dark Water go at a snail pace. Nakata is a good at his craft and the pairing with Koji is fruitful, but there is a certain amount of recurrence that is off putting. Mother-child relationships played a huge role in Ring and Ring 2, as did water and drowning and likewise the concept of the avenging ghost. It's a shame, then, that these themes ring so deeply through Dark Water because, sadly, the feeling of familiarity you get while watching it works against it and makes the film drag heavily in parts. I would have much preferred to see the pair take a fresh direction, but perhaps I'm just hankering for an experience as unique as watching the original Ring. Dark Water isn't that, but it is a decent effort all the same and so shouldn't be overlooked entirely. It's one of those films that you'll be watching and for quite a while you'll think it's excellent. All of a sudden, though, while you're taking everything in, you'll realize that the pace of the film has ground to a halt and you're actually quite bored. Then, when you're not expecting it, something genuinely spooky will catch your attention and you're back to liking it again. It's a bizarre loop of being scared then bored, scared then bored, and obviously this is going to affect any decision as to the film's merits. I reckon this one will divide the critics somewhat, that's for sure.

I would say this film is ultimately too slow and lacks the originality needed to be considered a classic, but it is genuinely unnerving and when the jumpy bits do come along, they are brilliant. There's a big scare about twenty minutes in and it shook the whole audience when I first saw this at the cinema. Sometimes that is enough to recommend any horror, but that's not the only reason this film is worth watching. Nakata is good at doing these kinds of movies and it shows in every frame. For cinematographers alone this is quite an adventure.

All in all, Dark Water is a good solid ghost story but it won't knock your socks off like Ring did. It is a slow piece, but it has some good scares. If you have a little patience, you might just appreciate the chilling mood of the piece and come away genuinely shook up. At the first screening I went to, I saw a lot of people who were.

The Story: An introverted high-school girl repressed by her mother, taunted by her peers, and either pitied or ridiculed by faculty, erupts with more than just teen angst at her prom.

On Halloween in 1976 a modestly budgeted film from a young director and an up-and-coming new author opened in cinemas and no one has thought about high school proms the same way since. That director was Brian DePalma, and the author was Stephen King. The movie, of course, was Carrie and it proved to be a big success for not only the director and author, but also for the young actors in the cast, some of whose careers would rise to superstar levels.

But is the movie really that good? Yes and no.

The story begins in a high school gym class. The weirdest, in other words most ostracized, girl in school is Carrie White. As the credits roll we see her female classmates frolic around a steamy locker room in various states of undress without a care in the world. Unlike the other girls however, Carrie does have a care, a great care. She's in the showers bleeding to death! At least that's what she unknowingly thinks her first menstruation is, which she started while washing and, ahem, touching herself.
She screams for help and stumbles out of the shower only to be laughed at by her classmates. A maxi-pad dispenser is ripped from a wall. "Plug it up" they all shout as they pelt the frightened girl with feminine hygiene products. Ironically they behave much like bratty little girls as they make fun of Carrie for childish misunderstanding about becoming a woman. Her emotions literally explode as (intrusively) concerned teacher Miss Collins (Betty Buckley) slaps her to gain her attention and her latent telekinetic powers simultaneously explode a light fixture overhead. It's a well-juxtaposed scene and it's one of the most honestly dramatic in the movie.

Miss Collins punishes the girls by sentencing them either to detention after school with her, or forfeiture of their prom tickets. All the girls go along but Chris, (the future ex-Mrs. DePalma, Nancy Allen) the unspoken leader of the "cool girls." She voices her opinion that neither option sits well with her and she summarily has her tickets revoked. As all spoiled brats do, she must blame someone else for her problems and Carrie is perfect for the job. An intense hatred builds.
After doing some reading, Carrie finds out not only about her period, but also about her senses. She knew she made that light fixture explode and finding out that power was inside her made her think differently for the first time that maybe she was special.

Unfortunately, as Carrie begins to understand her burgeoning womanhood and mental abilities, her mother Margaret (played with a hellfire-and-damnation, zealous intensity by Piper Laurie) becomes convinced beyond a doubt that the girl's a sinner. Margaret White is why Carrie thought she was bleeding to death in the shower. She'd sheltered the girl from all things the scripture decreed as sinful. Mrs. White, you see, was what people thought of as a nut. She locks Carrie in a closet, forcing her to do penance at a makeshift altar that is more revolting than reverential. That closet, and the frightening, glowing-eyed crucifix that hangs in it, are part of the great visuals from the movie I mentioned earlier in the review.

Meanwhile back with the cool kids...

Sue, the good witch to Chris' wicked witch, actually feels bad for shower incident and wants to atone for it. She convinces her boyfriend and star athlete, Tommy (a young William Katt, long before he donned red tights for TV fame) to ask her to the prom.
Hearing Carrie is going to be at the prom, wicked witch Chris decides to make Carrie's life hell for ruining her good time. Chris enlists her boyfriend Billy (a young John Travolta still smelling of Sweat Hog) and a few of their idiot friends in a plot to ruin the biggest night of Carrie's life.

Carrie reluctantly goes to the prom and she actually has a wonderful time. She dances, laughs for the first time in the film, and is even crowned prom queen! If that sounds fishy to you, your smeller is working right. The fix was in on the coronation. In a moment that builds upon the earlier horror of blood, Carrie steps into position and is doused with several gallons of swine blood. Dripping with blood and wild-eyed as an electric banshee, Carrie turns her lifetime of pain outward and takes retribution against her school, her peers, and finally her mother.

Now that first scene is great and I don't want to sound like I'm waffling, but I can't help but wonder why DePalama focused so much on the nudity? There is a certain unrestrained and childish innocence to the way the girls behave and seeing them disregard their own nakedness illustrates it, but even though the girls behave in a completely asexual way, and the visual illustrates a point, it's still fairly prurient. DePalma handles this film like he has others in his career, with excess.
How DePalma excesses most in Carrie is visually. He uses a lot of gimmicky camera tricks, the equivalent of animated gifs on the internet. His favorites are soft focus shots, wherein both the foreground and background are in focus. A close-up on Tommy's face would share the screen with Carrie standing in the background, both with equal visual crispness. The point can be made that it's a choice having something to do with the duality of the characters and the equality of their situations. To me it's jarring and forces me back from the story simply because my eyes are not used to seeing things like that. It disengages the audience, something a film in which the director wants and needs connection with the protagonist shouldn't do.

As annoying as some of the soft focus and slow or fast motion shots are (and there are plenty), the scene most bogged down with overused gimmick shots is the finale, what could and should have been the best scene in the movie. Swirling kaleidoscopic shots, the screen splitting into various views of simultaneous action, and over-used slow motion all make that scene a bloody mess.

In addition to the visual chaos presented in the cinematography, the two-dimensionality of the characters also hampers the film. Sissy Spacek showed great range and potential, but Carrie, along with nearly every other character, lacks real depth. Instead they are very easily defined and definable stereotypes. You have the geeky wallflower the good girl, the bad girl, the dumb jock, and the stand up all-American boy-next-door. The teachers and principal are no less 2-D and Margaret White is so over the top with her hell-fire and brimstone speeches about sin and the flesh it's easy to imagine Piper Laurie playing it that way for laughs, in particular the scene in which she talks about the night of Carrie's conception. Hearing it in the southern dialect she and Carrie speak (giving the impression they were outsiders in town to begin with) is actually a bit funny. "His brey-uth smelled lahk cheap whiskey, and Ah LAHKED IT!" Now I'm sorry, but if there isn't some humor in that overblown characterization, then I need to stop laughing at Carol Burnett's Scarlet O'Hara impersonation.

In his defense, DePalma was obviously not afraid to push the limits of what he could do while making Carrie. For my money he could have delved a little more into the psychology of menstruation, blood, womanhood, and power, but he didn't. Either way, the movie, while being less than completely satisfying and suffering today from what may have been edgy and artistic in 1976, does deliver some thrills like an old fashioned fright flick ought to. It's interesting to watch for nothing else if to wonder what the hell DePalma was thinking sometimes.
On a positive note, when Carrie confronts Margaret for the final time in their home the scene is pretty exciting. DePalma's willingness to go out on a limb works there. It's compelling and provides a visual that packs a lot more whollop than the eerie, but visually lackluster cap to the tormented relationship between mother and daughter found in the King novel. (In the novel, Carrie slowly stops her mother's heart.)

Immediately following that scene however, I was pulled back out of the story again to think about how unintentionally cheesy the whole thing really was when it ends. Needless to say It was an attempt to provide that one last shock that may work for some viewers, just not this one.
So the movie is that good, and that bad. I can see why some people love it and others pan it. I'm middle of the road, but I do have to say I would certainly miss it were it not in my collection. It's enjoyable, pop entertainment and it's fun seeing so many well-known stars in early roles.

By Simon Woodhouse

I'm no mathematician, but I know it's better to spend a little money and make a lot, rather than spend a lot and make none. Sometimes, I get the impression people in Hollywood can't grasp this basic concept. Or if they do, there appears to be more kudos in being able to say your movie cost $200m to make, as opposed to $10m. There's also a hint of snobbery - if something only cost $10m it can't possibly be any good. Whereas $200m means it's going to be great. The same way of thinking rubs off on the audience as well. As a member of the cinema going public, I would love it if this ethos were true. But I've lost count of how many big budget films I've fallen asleep in.

Apart from huge production costs, big budget movies also shell out wads of cash on marketing. I read somewhere recently (I forget where) that the average movie marketing budget is a whopping $60m, a figure that's not included in the production cost. Despite what some actors and directors might say, making movies isn't about artistic expression or pushing the boundaries of storytelling - it's about cash. In light of this, I'll go back to my original point, surely it's better to spend a little and make a lot.

Everything about The Blair Witch Project (TBWP) is simple, and that includes the plot. In a nutshell, it's the story of three young film makers who head out into the woods of Maryland, with the notion to make a documentary about the Blair Witch. They're never seen again, but a year later they're footage is found and that's what you're watching in TBWP.

If like me, you find 'reality TV' almost too unbearable to watch, you can blame some of its inception on TBWP. Filmed in the style of an ultra-amateur documentary, the movie comes complete with shaky camera angles, very low production values, and a 'cast' whose emotional self-restraint is hair-trigger light. But having said all that, it's also really, really scary.

Like more conventional horror movies, TBWP starts off with the cast in a jovial mood. Filming the documentary seems like it'll be a fun way to spend a weekend, and even though they'll be camping in the woods, it'll still be a laugh. They arrive in the town of Burkittsville (formerly Blair), and interview a few of the locals, asking if they've heard of the Blair Witch. All this is just set up, but it works well, because it feels like they're interviewing real people and not actors (which some of them were). From all this, we learn that a guy called Rustin Parr murdered seven children in the woods outside Burkittsville during the 1940s. When asked why, he said an old woman he saw outside his cabin told him to do it.

The movie is full of clever little touches, the first being when the documentary makers interview a Burkittsville resident named Mary Brown. If there was ever a candidate for a witch, she is it. By using such a creepy looking character, the film places the image of a witch in the audience's mind, without actually showing one.

Now the back-story and the set up are out the way, the trio of documentary makers head out into the woods. In another clever little ploy, the characters in the film share the same names as the people playing them. Leader of the group is Heather Donahue, a rather bossy, big-mouthed girl. Michael Williams and Josh Leonard (sound technician and cameraman respectively), seem happy enough to just follow Heather around, and pretty much do anything she says. The hiking through the woods goes well enough to start with, and they make it to Coffin Rock, their first location, without too much hassle. It's not until the first night outdoors that things start to get a bit weird. Josh claims to have heard cackling, but doesn't seem too bothered about it, so neither are the other two.

From here on in things start to get more and more creepy. On day two Heather gets them lost, they find weird stick men hanging from the trees and something keeps coming round the tent at night. The jovial nature of the expedition goes out the window, and the three documentary makers start to bicker and fight. Like the worst sort of reality TV, this gets irritating at times. I don't think I've ever sympathized with characters in a film as much as I have with Michael and Josh - if I'd been lost in the woods with Heather, I'd have murdered her myself and saved the Blair Witch all the hassle.

Filmed with no script, very little direction and a massive amount of improvisation, it's probable that the actors weren't acting at all, instead just being themselves. So is what's on screen real arguments, and real footage of three people being driven to their wits end? No, but it does seem that way at times. Bearing this in mind, however, the end is surprisingly powerful. If you buy into the whole premise, you'll be drawn into the movie and the finale will work. If on the other hand that all seems like too much work, the end will just come as a blessed relief.

Devoid as it is of special effects, music, proper sets and a large cast, the film takes a bit of effort to appreciate. You have to use your imagination. If you can do this, and imprint your own idea of what's following the documentary makers through the woods, you'll be scared. If you can't, you won't - it's as simple as that. I could and I was, which for me makes TBWP one of the scariest films I've ever seen. This assessment, however, is subjective. But what can't be argued with is how much money the film made. Shot for around $35k, it went on to gross $248m worldwide, giving it the highest profit-to-cost ratio of any film ever made (and that's in the Guinness Book of Records). Prior to its release the movie makers came up with a dream marketing plan. They set up a website that suggested the events in the film were real, and even went as far as making a documentary (aired on the Sci-Fi Channel and called The Curse of the Blair Witch) that further reinforced the notion. Gullible teens bought into all the BS, with many people refusing to believe the film was anything but real.

Inevitably there was a sequel, which stunk to high heaven. TBWP's premise was so original it couldn't be repeated and made to work again. But as I mentioned at the beginning, it's impossible to watch the film and not think it isn't in someway responsible for today's glut of reality TV shows. If that's so, then I guess there really is a curse, and we're all victims of it.

Everything we do has a corresponding reward or punishment. So goes the law of karma. So too goes the story of the Ant Bully which should make every child of tender years become too scared to even touch another ant in his life again!

Can you imagine yourself turning into what you hate most? This can be scary depending of course on what you really hate most! Ant Bully gives us this warning as the lead character Lucas, also nicknamed "The Destroyer" because of his penchant for destroying and colonies brutally, becomes what else but a teeny, weenie ant.

The movie starts with a very appropriate prologue, the departure of the parents of Lucas for a vacation to Spain, without him of course. So what should the cat do when the mouse is away? Rejoice of course! As did Lucas when his mom, who has been annoying him to the maximum level by calling him "Peanuts!", left for that long overdue trip.

Sullen he surely was when his parents got out of the door but Lucas should feel more morose if he knew what was coming to him. Accompanied by a seemingly demented grandmother who believes aliens are out to get them and hounded by a neighborhood kid bully who lords it over the other neighborhood kids by virtue of his size and might, little boy Lucas Nickle vents out his anger and frustration to an ant colony in their yard.

Lucas makes use of his water gun to spray water on thousands of helpless ants. Ever experienced a heavy typhoon wash out your house? Then this is the experience one gets just looking at how the very tiny ants get flooded by Lucas. One of the ants who get victimized by the flooding is the wizard ant Zoc who vowed to destroy the destroyer with his magic potion.

Watch how Zoc's potion, which they manage to pour inside Lucas' ears when they sneaked inside his bedroom, work like magic and shrink Lucas into ant proportion. His grandmother finally proved her theory of an impending alien abduction when she sees Lucas being carried away by ants, thanks to a magnifying glass.

The adventures of Lucas the ant bully begins after he was sentenced by the Queen ant, not to die, but to live the life of an ant. Thanks to the wisdom of the queen ant, Lucas is spared his life but then he has to face the challenge of coping up with the difficult life of an ant.

A sympathetic and peace-loving ant Hova volunteered to look after Lucas and to teach him the ways of an ant. Most of us think that ants are very small creatures and they are so annoying most of the time. However, the ants have a saving grace and that is their unity and industriousness.

Lucas finds himself helpless when he was made a member of one group of ants who are competing against another group of ants vying for the most number of sweet gummies! Easy for Lucas if he was still his old size but now that he has shrunk, he finds it hard to travel from one leaf to another.

This movie contains its own slapstick comedy with fart jokes and that funny thing about the ant Hova crossing her heart, rather her butt! However, there are important lessons to be learned in terms of kindness, unity, forgiveness, friendship and love. Watching the film has made me realize how we humans forget the value of having each other in our quest for a better life.

Lucas was transformed into a hero when he saved the colony from insect predators which looked like ugly giant wasps! That scene when he was eaten by a giant frog was gross especially when Lucas and the other victims were shown inside the frog's stomach. But the friendship between him and Zoc started when Zoc tried to save Lucas from the frog as a favor to his friend Hova who was worried sick about Lucas.

It seems like the story was heading for a happy ending as Lucas learned to appreciate the ants. However, Lucas remembered that he signed a contract with that ant buster who is about to annihilate the anthill in no time at all. In his desire to save the colony, Lucas bribes his new-found friends who helped him find his way to his house.

The group had a good time flying around the living room of Lucas and looking at the photos of the different tourist spots like the Pyramid of Egypt. Imagine how easy life can be if we were that small! We could have already traveled the whole world just by flying through the different posters and miniatures around the house. On the other hand, life can also be very dangerous for small creatures because you never know what lies out there.

Unable to stop the ant annihilator, Lucas lead the ant colony in preparing for a war against the ant buster! The ants won, thanks to Lucas and Zoc finally agrees to help him get back to his original size.

Lucas has grown big just minutes after his mom and dad arrived home and to their surprise, they found a different and a more appreciative Lucas waiting for them! And to showcase his newly-found bravery, Lucas stood up to the neighborhood bully and became an instant hit among the small in his neighborhood who realized that even if they are small, they can be big and do big things if they are together.

This is a very good movie for kids who may learn a lesson or two about living life to each his own. Kids will learn the value of every living thing and will realize that nothing in this world deserves cruelty.

While that closure could already be a happy ending for the movie, the director went as far as showing Lucas getting his gummies and throwing them to the ant hill for his newfound friends to enjoy! If you want a movie with a heart and which is not boring then this is it!

When North Korea detonated a 500 kiloton Atomic Bomb (the equivalent of 500,000 tons of TNT) recently, the communist North was quite adamant about their perceived nuclear power and they threatened the USA with nuclear war, no less. Maybe someone should tell them that the USA has nuclear bombs that have 20 megatons of power (20,000,000 tons of TNT worth of power. Yes, twenty million tons of TNT) Hard to believe that in Kim Jong Il's big DVD collection he did not pick up a copy of the 1982 documentary ATOMIC CAFE, a look at the love of the atomic bomb that was prevalent from 1945 - 1955. Yes, there was quite a bit of love for the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, and those fun little nuclear warheads.

The film starts with clips of the first atomic bomb test in the desert of New Mexico and then shows up the dropping of Fatman and Little Boy on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then we see the chilling continuation of testing in the Bikini Atoll and then later learn the Soviets have detonated an atomic bomb of their own, launching the paranoia of the Cold War.

ATOMIC CAFE pieces together a string of newsreel footage, industrial films, defense department footage, and radio audio reels to create a comically chilling look at the early days of the bomb in American society. While ATOMIC CAFE provides a point of view that is decidedly left of center and designed to mock the American ideals of the deal, it is understandable to the degree that this was a very serious subject that many people simple were not taking as serious enough as they should when the bomb was first dropped. Plus, it is hard not to laugh at footage of Richard Nixon speaking with Nikita Khruschev and saying, "You are ahead of the USA in some ways such as the rocket ships to outer space, but we are ahead of you in terms of things like color television sets!" (We also get to see Nixon ring a mental health bell in celebration of mental health day. Don't ask)

It is also chilling to see liberal icons like Lloyd Bentson and Lyndon Johnson advocating the use of the atomic bomb and nuclear proliferation. While we know that the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many have forgotten Pres. Harry Truman saying that serious consideration was giving to dropping atomic bombs on North Korea and Manchuria in order to stop the Korean Conflict. (The Korean War ended during Eisenhower's administration after Ike basically said if you don't cease fire, the bomb is coming)

Much of the weirdness factor derives from the corniness of the footage of the day. All art forms evolve, so it would be understandable that the early days of TV and radio would have a primitive silliness to them. Much of the footage of atomic propaganda films were not made by top of the line Hollywood professionals, so the writing and acting is very silly, but shocking when one considers the goofy attitudes people had towards weapons of mass destruction. Then again, the footage from the devastation of Japan and the effects of the people were censored for forty years, so the public truly had no idea as to the devastating effect. Plus, the bomb protected the stability and security of the free market of US society, something the filmmakers unfairly mocked. Remember, the Cold War went two ways. At the time of this film's original release, the Soviets were waging a chemical war in Afghanistan and waging a campaign of genocide, but they get somewhat of a pass here. (Although there is a very chilling and ominous "joke" that Kruschev directs towards Nixon that did the Russian Premier no public relations favors in the USA)

Also shocking and chilling is how American citizens and soldiers were routinely exposed to radiation fallout from atomic tests and told just to scrub up. Tea loaded off of cargo ships are allowed into the USA as the tea is only mildly radioactive. Such lunacy underscores a very common notion of the America that one was: American was at one time a simpler and more naive society. Now, while we wax nostalgic about this simplicity when watching old TV reruns, the reality is that this simplicity was also extremely dangerous as these simple attitudes extended to nuclear weapons, their potential use, the paranoia that derives from such a possible scenario and how it all changed the fabric of American society when that first bomb was detonated in New Mexico in 1945.

ATOMIC CAFE is a stirring documentary that has been somewhat forgotten today, but is easily still relevant in our world which is no sophisticated, but has not changed.

By Simon Woodhouse

Are there any original stories left to tell? Maybe not, but there are certainly lots of variations on a theme that still have life left in them. Thing is, movie makers have got to tread carefully. If you're not setting your film up as a straight remake, but the basic premise reminds everyone of something that's come before, you stand to be accused of making a rip off.

As far as most people are concerned, there's only one film about sharks. Do I really need to speak its name? Ok, I will. Jaws is the be-all and end-all of shark movies. It may have spawned a whole host of lousy sequels, but the original really can't be beaten when it comes to big, bad fish eating people like they're going out of fashion. Any film maker brave enough to tackle the same sort of subject, had better be ready for some harsh criticism if their product seems like it's borrowing too heavily from its masterful predecessor.

The poster for Deep Blue Sea (DBS) contains a simple tag line - 'Bigger. Smarter. Faster. Meaner.' Bigger, smarter, faster, meaner than what? The picture on the poster features an enormous shark about to bite a woman's head off. Perhaps the tag line is referring to this, i.e. the shark is bigger, faster etc. than she is. But I can't helping think that's it's the film makers way of trying to compare their movie to Jaws. So is DBS all of those things when lined up against Steven Spielberg's fishy epic? Yes (with the exception of smarter), but it certainly isn't better.

No shark film would be complete without 'shark-vision', a camera angle that lets us see the world from the shark's point of view. DBS has this, and uses it in the very first scene. Reminiscent of teen slasher movies, the film starts with a group of beautiful young people enjoying some smooching action on a yacht out in the middle of nowhere. They've hardly had time to get down to business when a large, hungry shark shows up and tries to eat them. Luckily the film's hero, Carter Blake (Thomas Jane), arrives in the nick of time and saves them. Which is just as well, because the toothy fish was no ordinary shark. I won't bore you with the technical details, but somewhere out there in the deep blue sea is an experimental research lab, where a group of boffins are trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease by experimenting on shark brains (no, I'm not making this up). The said experiments are making the sharks very big and very smart. So smart that one of them escaped. It's never explained how it escaped, but maybe it tunneled its way out.

Apart from the opening scene, the rest of the movie takes place in and around the research lab, which is a converted submarine base. This is where the boffins are doing their stuff with the sharks. After a bit of nonsense sudo science, we get down to the nitty-gritty - the sharks go crazy-ape-bonkers and start trying to eat the scientists. All this is taking place in the middle of a hurricane, which means the scientists can't be rescued. Just to add to their woes, the research center starts to sink. If you haven't seen the film, you can play a fun little game while you're watching it - have a go at guessing which of the irritating cast members will be the next to get chomped. When the chomping does happen, it's pretty spectacular. Though there may be a lot of things wrong with DBS, the shark effects aren't one of them. Things have come a long way since Jaws, with its laughable rubber shark. The beasties in DBS really do look like the real thing. But unfortunately the actors don't.

Besides Thomas Jane as the muscle-bound hero (I think there must have been a clause in his contract that stopped him from being allowed to wear a shirt with sleeves), there are plenty of other stereotypes for the fishes to feed on. Saffron Burrows plays the super-serious Dr. Susan McAlester, someone who never stops frowning. Samuel L. Jackson is her boss, Russell Franklin (watch out for his chomping scene, it's ace). Then there's a whole bunch of lesser 'stars', who I can't be bothered to list. They all have names and faces, but as far as I'm concerned, they could simply be listed as fish bait #1, fish bait #2, fish bait #3 and so on.

As the film rolls on, and the lab sinks deeper and deeper, the sharks get in and start swimming along the half flooded corridors. In the meantime, our heroes are trying to find a way to the surface. This means each scene turns into a set piece that involves someone getting chomped. Eventually there's almost no one left, and it's time for the grand finale. I won't spoil the 'excitement', but if you thought the end of Jaws was a bit far-fetched, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Though it may not sound like it, I do enjoy watching this film. It easily falls into the 'it's so bad it's good' category. There's nothing more amusing that watching actors being all serious and scientist-like, whilst at the same time talking absolute drivel. It might not have been intended as a comedy, but DBS is hysterical. If you bear this in mind, and watch it with a few friends, you'll probably enjoy it as much as I do.

Now that my son is getting older, he's able to focus his attention for longer periods of time. While I wouldn't want to attempt taking him to a movie theater just yet, he does very well with watching DVDs at home. He can sit through about 45 minutes of a typical children's movie before getting bored, which usually means we need at least two sittings to get through an entire film. Our latest movie-viewing adventure, the 2005 release Racing Stripes, was one that he chose himself based on the DVD cover picture.

The film opens with a torrential downpour that's forcing a traveling circus to pack up and leave in a hurry. Since haste makes waste, we get the feeling that something will be overlooked or left behind, and that is indeed what happens. A baby zebra in a cardboard box is left in the middle of the road. It doesn't take long, however, before another car comes along and stops just in time to avoid running over the box. The man turns out to be Nolan Walsh, and he just happens to have a farm where he can keep the baby zebra for the night.

Nolan brings the zebra home, and his 13-year-old daughter Channing (played by Hayden Panettiere) instantly falls in love with the animal. She names it Stripes and wants to keep it, but Nolan is in favor of finding the rightful owners. We never do get to see if an attempt was made to locate the circus because the movie fast-forwards three years and we jump to a now 16-year-old Channing and a much bigger Stripes (voiced by Frankie Muniz).

Since this is the kind of movie where the animals talk and engage in their own dramas away from the human eye, we soon get to meet the other major players on the farm. First, there's Tucker (Dustin Hoffman), an aging pony who used to be instrumental in training race horses back when Nolan Walsh was known as the best trainer in Kentucky (until he gave it up after his wife died in a riding accident). Then there's Franny (Whoopi Goldberg), a wise goat who's been around for a long time too. We also have a rooster named Reggie (Jeff Foxworthy), two CGI-animated flies named Buzz and Scuzz (Steve Harvey and David Spade), a rival horse named Trenton's Pride (Joshua Jackson), and a love interest named Sandy (Mandy Moore).

The basic plotline here is that Stripes doesn't realize he's a zebra and is different from the thoroughbred racehorses that he sees practicing at the nearby track. He wants to race and is convinced that he can beat any of the horses out there. The other horses laugh at him and put him down, but the animals at the Walsh farm are on his side. The only thing Stripes has to do is get someone to ride him so they can see how fast he is.

His opportunity comes when the animals concoct a plan to sabotage Channing's dirt bike (yes, her father doesn't want her to ride a horse, but apparently motorized dirt bikes are just fine). She'll be late for work if she doesn't find an alternative mode of transportation soon. She asks her father to let her ride Stripes and he reluctantly agrees to do so just once. Of course, it turns out that Stripes is very fast and Channing convinces her father to train Stripes for the big race that's coming up in a month. This being a children's movie, I'm sure you can figure out how everything ends!

Overall, I have to say that Racing Stripes was a decent enough movie for young children. My son really enjoyed seeing the zebra and other animals "talking" throughout the movie and the images on the screen held his interest tolerably well. Older children and adults might not derive as much pleasure from the recycled plot devices here, but that's to be expected with most movies aimed at younger audiences.

The movie is only an hour and a half long, so I say go ahead and rent the DVD. If nothing else, you'll at least have fun trying to guess which actors are voicing some of the main characters!

Although I prefer to watch movies where I pretty much know what I'm getting into, I don't mind viewing films in which the screenwriter and director take some chances. David O. Russell's I Heart Huckabees is movie that takes plenty of chances, and I liked what he was trying to do, but in the end this work failed to entertain me. Here's why.

I Heart Huckabees stars Jason Schwartzman as a poetry-loving activist named Albert. He is on a mission to preserve the country's open spaces by preventing huge department store chains like Huckabees (the film's version of Wal-Mart or Target) from building on previously undeveloped land. But he gets sidetracked from his mission because of several coincidences: basically, Albert keeps running into a tall, skinny African man (played by Ger Duany), and he has a feeling that there's an underlying reason for all this.

Albert can't shake the feeling, so he finally decides to do something about it. He goes to two so-called existential detectives, a married couple named Bernard (Dustin Hoffman) and Vivian (Lily Tomlin). In an effort to find out whether these chance meetings with the African man are in fact mere coincidences or if they have a deeper, more significant meaning behind them, these detectives follow Albert around as he completes his daily tasks. They analyze everything he does and try to identify the motive behind his actions. Then they couch everything in existential or other philosophical terms to make it all sound very important.

During the course of the investigation, we get to meet other people who are involved in Albert's life. First up is Brad Stand (Jude Law), a high-level sales executive at Huckabees who represents everything that Albert hates about big corporations. Brad is a good-looking, slick-talking charmer who has a story for every occasion and instantly wins over nearly everyone he comes into contact with. Brad also plays a very large role in Albert's attempts to get to the bottom of his coincidences with the African man. For example, whenever Albert falls into deep meditations, it's Brad's face that he sees and it's always Brad who's standing in the way of his (Albert's) objectives.

As Albert tries to work through everything, Bernard and Vivian introduce him to a man named Tommy (Mark Wahlberg). Tommy is firefighter who is fiercely and obsessively against the use of petroleum. His mania for this particular cause convinces his wife to leave him (taking their daughter with her), which throws Tommy into an even bigger cynical funk. While Bernard and Vivian have been telling Tommy that everything is connected, Tommy is starting to feel that just the opposite is true. Nothing is connected and nothing means anything. He converts to that line of thinking and tries to convince Albert to join him.

If you're still following along with the plot summary, then you're sure to realize that there's a whole lot of talking in this movie without a whole lot of action, and that's one of the things that made me dislike I Heart Huckabees. If the characters in a movie are going to talk that much, they better be interesting, likable characters. That wasn't the case for me at all. I thought Albert was whiny and annoying, and he irked me every time he was on the screen. Plus, his greasy, unkempt appearance was almost painful to look at. I didn't like him at all and didn't care whether or not he ever found the answers he was looking for.

The same can be said about every other character in this movie, too. We get to know them only at the surface level, and even though they talk about rather deep topics, the viewers never gets to feel as though we're really connecting with the characters. The concept of consulting with existential detectives is so absurd that I couldn't even begin to identify with any of the movie's major players. Sure, I can understand wanting to find out the meaning of your life, but the way this quest was presented in I Heart Huckabees was uninteresting.

Overall, I don't recommend that you watch this film. I know that I Heart Huckabees has received some good reviews, both in the press and by word-of-mouth (which is why I watched it in the first place), but I don't think it lives up to the hype.

Review by Garnet Brooks

This film is an adaptation of Alexandre Dumas' book of the same name. The film stars Jim Caviezel, Guy Pierce, and Richard Harris. In reducing it to film length a good deal of the book's thousand page material is left out or altered.

Edmond Dantes is a trusting and naive young man who is happily employed aboard a ship and who is about to be married to his love. On a voyage, his captain becomes ill with a brain fever and Dantes in defiance of the first mate Danglers rows to shore on Elba in order to save the life of his captain. His best friend Fernand Mondego goes with him. Contact with anyone on Elba is forbidden for the island is the prison of Napoleon Bonaparte who has been exiled there. The political climate is turbulent in France and there is a conspiracy to free Napoleon and return him to power. Dantes' captain dies. Napoleon secretly gives Dantes a letter which he says is harmless and he asks Dantes to wait till someone contacts him to receive the missive. Dantes is foolish enough to agree to this. Though he does not know it, Mondego has seen him take the letter.

Back in port at Marseilles the owner of the shipping company, a man named Morrell, promotes Dantes to captain because of his efforts. Danglers is furious. Dantes can now ask his love Mercedes to marry him right away. His happiness is short lived though. He has enemies. Mondego envies him and wants Mercedes for himself. Danglers and Mondego plot together. Dantes is reported to the local prosecutor. This man Villefort demands to see the letter. He is convinced that Dantes is innocent and is about to let him go. Fate has something else in store for the man. Dantes names the courier who is to pick up the letter. The man is Villefort's father, M. Clarion. The father is a Bonaparte sympathizer and the son is ashamed of it. In the political climate it would have doomed Villefort's chances for high office if anyone knew who his father was. Villefort sees his chance to cover up the scandal forever and he spirits Dantes away to the infamous Chateau d'If prison. His family and friends try to get him released. They are told he is dead.

Dantes is imprisoned on an island in a castle of stone. He is there alone without hope for five years till another man tunnels his way into Dantes' chamber. The man is a priest, Abbe Faria. The priest is also a man of learning. He teaches Dantes to read and then gives him a lengthy education as they tunnel together trying still to get out. The abbe was also a soldier before he turned to god and he teaches Dante to fight. They are near the exterior wall of the chateau when the tunnel collapses injuring Abbe Faria. Before he dies he imparts a secret map to Dantes. With it Dantes can find the treasure of a fabulously wealthy man named Spada. Dantes has an idea for escape. He sews himself up in the canvas shroud instead of the priest and he is taken out of Chateau D'If. He does not realize that what they do with the dead bodies is throw them over a high cliff into the sea below. Still, he manages to get free of the death shroud and swim away to a nearby island.

Swimming to shore, Dantes is confronted with a band of brigands. He has to fight for his life and in doing so he wins a place among them. He also wins a friend for life, Jacopo. He ships out with the brigands seeing the world and earning his keep. He parts with them on good terms taking Jacopo with him. He makes his way to the Island of Monte Cristo and finds the treasure in a grotto there. Now Dantes is ready to implement a plan of vengeance against those who betrayed him. He finds that his fiance Mercedes married Mondego only a month after his presumed death. Dantes buys an estate and enters French society setting up an elaborate plan to cause his enemies to suffer and bring them to ruin. He finds that Mercedes has a son named Albert and uses the boy to further the plot.

The film is dramatic and action filled. It has its nicely done sword fights. There is a kidnapping and daring rescue. The action takes place in beautiful settings. The sea in and around Marseilles and Monte Cristo is magnificent. Both the Chateau d'If and the island treasure setting have vast cavernous spaces. It takes place on grand ships and in even grander drawing rooms. The props and the costumes are lovely. When Monte Cristo is introduced to society he arrives at night amid fireworks in a balloon. Orientally clad servants pirouette and climb as the balloon descends.

The film is a good one despite the departures from the book. The DVD version has especially nice extras. It has the usual director's audio commentary. There is a segment on production design in rendering the Napoleonic Era. The segment on author Alexandre Dumas is particularly well-done. It has a segment about the choreography of the sword fights. There is the usual deleted scene feature.

Review by Garnet Brooks

This two hour film is based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's story of the same name. It is one of a series starring Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes and Edward Hardwick as Dr. Watson. Several of Conan Doyle's stores starring this pair were produced as weekly television episodes by Granada Television.

The film begins with gloomy, gothic music that matches the dank and dark setting. The music gradually transforms itself into the Holmes' series theme. We see a castle in the fog and the dark then outside on the moors, the feet of a dog. The large hound's feet appear to be luminous, green and glowing. A man in a dinner jacket is smoking a cigar. He is outside the summer house near the gate and when he hears the hound, he runs in terror up the terrace trying to escape but he collapses, lying there alone.

The scene changes. It is London and the crowded streets are filled with activity. Inside Holmes' rooms in Baker Street, Holmes is sitting at a table set for tea. He has engaged Dr. Watson in a discussion about a man's cane he has found. The cane has a silver tip and a silver grip. It has indentations that Holmes tells Watson are the result of dog bites. As Holmes finishes telling Watson his idea of the description of the man who owns it, the man appears outside the window. It is Dr. Mortimer and he has come to ask for help with a mystery. He fills them in on the particulars. It seems that in the middle 1700's a man named Hugo Baskerville had kidnapped a girl. She escaped him and met her death on the moors. A massive hound appeared and hunted down Sir Hugo killing him. Since that time the local people have reported sightings of the hound which they think is demonic. Recently Sir Charles Baskerville had met his death and the circumstances strike Dr. Mortimer as suspicious.

Sir Charles is the man glimpsed running to the Baskerville summer house before he died apparently of a massive heart attack. Dr. Mortimer has made the acquaintance of Sir Charles' heir. Sir Henry Baskerville, the heir, arrives from America and immediately receives a strange letter. Constructed of newspaper print he is not sure if it is a warning or a threat. Holmes tells him it is a well-meant warning.

Dr. Watson agrees to go with Dr. Mortimer and Sir Henry to Baskerville Hall to investigate the strange occurrences. Holmes says he is detained in London. We see Baskerville Hall first in fog and at night. The setting invokes gothic images and sustains the air of suspense and fear. At the hall the three men are greeted by Mr. and Mrs. Barrymore long retainers of Sir Charles. They seem wary and afraid.

The mystery begins to play itself out. Nearby neighbors Mr. and Miss Stapelton are introduced. Sir Henry invites them and some other local residents to dinner. Among them is Mr. Franklin, a litigious astronomer. They discuss the rumors circulating. The local curate believes that the hound may be real. One of the things of concern to all is the supposed presence of an escaped convict in the neighborhood. The man Selden has been convicted of brutally slaying a family.

There are other curious and ominous occurrences. What is the reason Mr. Barrymore signals to someone on the moors at night? Why is Mr. Stapelton furious that Sir Henry seems to court his sister? Who is the mysterious man in a hat who roams the moors? And most important of all, is the hound a real mastiff or is it supernatural in origins?

The plot begins to unfold and this time Dr. Watson seems to have the full responsibility of solving the puzzle and protecting Sir Henry. The plot is intricately woven. It is an engaging and suspenseful story. Conan Doyle's detective Sherlock Holmes is a master of logic and scientific deduction. Yet later in his life Conan Doyle came to believe in the supernatural. This film is one in which either a scientific or a spiritual explanation could be true. It is not till the final scenes that the viewer finds the answer to this riddle.

By Brandi M. Seals

Mona Lisa Smile is the story of Ms. Watson (Julia Roberts) and the year she spends teaching art appreciation at Wellesley during the 1953-1954 school year. The film was released in 2003 and stars Julia Roberts, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Kirsten Dunst, and Julia Stiles.

In 1953, Katherine Watson is a free spirit who graduated from UCLA. She accepts a teaching position at Wellesley College, an all female school. She is shocked that the students at Wellesley, the school that holds the smartest women in America, are not preparing for careers, but are rather in pursuit of a Mrs. Degree. For the most part they go to school until they get married and never do anything with their knowledge.

Katherine is definitely a feminist at heart and works hard to change the minds of her students who seem to think that being a housewife is the only thing in their future. Some of them immediately accept that they will be housewives. The notion is so ingrained in Betty (Kirsten Dunst) that she takes an immediate dislike to Professor Watson and does her best to scathe her in her week editorials in the paper. Betty is under the impression that women should claim their spot in the home and reject any notion of the contrary.

On the other side of the fence is Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal). She is extremely outspoken, embraces casual sex and even has a diaphragm. Most of the girls fall somewhere in between. As they get an education and learn to consider different points of view, they struggle with boyfriend problems.

Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles) considers going on to law school at Yale much to the chagrin of Betty. She applies after Professor Watson gets her an application. Joan gets in, but then decides to elope. One of the most poignant moments in the movie happens when Professor Watson finds out about the sudden marriage. She is disappointed, but Joan points out that Professor Watson is not following her own lesson. She is always teaching her students to look beyond the surface, but when she sees a housewife, she only sees someone trapped in a life that has no merit.

It is in this moment that the movie comes full circle and manages to represent both feminist views - that women should have the write to work outside the home and do whatever they want, and that if what they want to be is a housewife, then that should be accepted by everyone as well.

The movie also wraps things up nicely when the women at both extremes (housewife Betty and free-loving Giselle) decide to be roommates. Despite Betty's upbringing, she decides that she is worth more than a cheating husband and files for divorce the same day she graduates. Since she is not welcomed at her parent's house, she and Giselle decide to become roommates.

Ms. Watson chooses to leave Wellesley after one year, because restrictions that would be placed upon her if she returned. As she is leaving campus for the last time, her students follow her taxi on their bikes. Clearly these women were affected by her presence and her beliefs and they wanted to say thank you.

I love this movie because it gives women a look into the past and see what life may have been like. While I am sure the overwhelming stodginess showcased in the movie was a bit overdone, I think it is still a fair look into the past. It will make any woman appreciate the choices she has now and what it took to get those choices.

I did, however, notice a few discrepancies in the film. In one scene Julia Robert's character calls Julia Stiles' character, Julia. It is when they are on the porch and Ms. Watson is congratulating Joan on getting married. Look for it when you watch this movie. It is shocking that the slip made it into the finished product.

Another slip up that may be easier to miss comes up when Ms. Watson hands Joan an application for Yale Law School. On the application the words "juris doctor" are misspelled as "jurus doctor."

Look for other slip ups as you watch. You will find dozens if you pay close attention.

By Simon Woodhouse

Sometimes I'm not sure whether there are more stereotypes in action films or comedies. I think the stereotype plague is so rampant in both of these genres; because neither wants to waste time creating complicated characters. Action films require instant action, and comedies need immediate laughs. Stereotype characters offer the audience personality types they can recognize immediately, and film makers don't seem to care whether these sorts of people actually exist or not. I tend to think not, and that the whole stereotype thing is created by Hollywood for the sole purpose of providing lazy film makers with cardboard cut out characters.

The Forty Year Old Virgin tries to deliver one such stereotype. Andy Stitzer (Steve Carell), as the movie's title suggests, is a forty year old virgin. He lives alone, collects action figures (which he never takes out of their boxes), plays video games, dresses very conservatively and rides a bicycle to work. At work, he's employed in the billing department of an electronics store. A thoroughly nice, likable guy, Andy should fit the stereotypical image of what a forty year old virgin is, but somehow he doesn't. He looks the part, and all the trappings are there, but the image doesn't match the personality. His elongated virginal status is explained in a series of flashbacks. Each shows a disastrous sexual encounter where he came oh-so-close to doing the deed, but never actually made it. He them goes on to explain how he gave up trying, and now at forty years old, doesn't think he'll ever get there.

Why doesn't Andy come across as a convincing forty year old virgin? The answer's simple - he's too self-confident. He's half stereotype, and half something else, which makes for a very confusing character.

Anyway, when his 'buddies' at the store find out he's a virgin, they decide to try and do something about it. This leads to a series of set pieces, none of which are very convincing. I know this is a comedy, so it doesn't have to be convincing, but some scenes are played straight, as if the movie has something relevant to say, whilst others are just out there in la-la land. The down to earth side of the film involves Andy's attempts to woo Trish (Catherine Keener), a woman he meets in the store one day. The more outlandish scenes involve a speed-dating encounter from hell, and a drunken mismatch with a woman he meets at a nightclub. Though these scenes are funny, they're also a bit predictable. And in both of them Andy gets himself into a position (no pun intended), where he could lose his virginal status if he really wanted to. He's a forty year old virgin, but he's not really bothered about it, which kind of makes a mockery of the films basic premise.

The movie changes pace about two thirds of the way through, and becomes more about Andy's attempts to form a relationship with Trish. The virgin side of things is played down a bit here, and the film becomes a Hugh Grant style romantic comedy - yuk! Implausible things happen that seem very out of character. Andy takes Trish's teenage daughter to a class about birth control, when only a few scenes earlier the girl appeared to hate him. Trish has another daughter, who is mentioned so much it seems likely she'll appear at some point, but she never does.

The thing I found most difficult to understand is why Andy is a forty year old virgin. He doesn't seem to have a problem talking to women, and they seem to like him as well. He's not unattractive, and only has slight nerdy tendencies, none of which are apparent on the surface. Perhaps I was looking too deeply into what is, after all, a light-hearted comedy. But if the basic premise doesn't work, everything else falls down.

Of the supporting cast, most of which are Andy's pals at the store, David (Paul Rudd) is the best. In fact, Rudd's performance is far more watch-able than Carell's, and for me he saved the film. The other character who made me laugh was Paula (Jane Lynch), Andy's boss at the store. She had the whole scary, sexually rampant, older-woman-on-the-prowl vibe down to a tee. Had both of these two been given more screen time, the movie would have been a lot funnier. That's not to say it wasn't amusing, but from what I'd heard I was expecting something that would make me laugh out loud, which it did, but only once. Had it been more over the top, more ridiculous (in the vein of Anchorman, a film featuring a lot of the same cast), then the outlandish scenes would have seemed more at home. As it is, Virgin is a mish-mash of styles, none of which really work when squashed together in one film.

The Story: An expedition is sent into the Amazon to search for a missing TV crew who were filming a documentary on cannibalism, all they recover is the crew's footage...

This infamous film from Ruggero Deodato tells the story of an expedition into the Amazon headed by Professor Monroe who, with two guides, Chako and Miguel, and a captured Native (who is forced to lead them to his village) go in search of four missing TV filmmakers (three men and a women) who were making a Documentary on Cannibalism.

Their journey into the green inferno of the amazon forces Monroe to witness the savagery of, not just the environment itself, but also it's inhabitants. The most shocking of which is a ritualistic punishment for adultery. The wronged man pulls a naked, screaming women out of his canoe and across the mud flats where he at first violates her with a large stone dildo before ramming a ball of mud studded with rock shards between her legs. He finally beats her to death with the dildo. It is a truly disturbing scene of sexual violence, with no detail spared, either in the violence or the nakedness of the women. This is the first scene that signposts the uncompromising journey Monroe, and us, are about to be taken on.

Once at the village (of the Yacumo) they are met with hostility. There are signs of a fire at the village, and burnt bones lie in the ruins of a hut. Gaining the natives trust, Monroe learns that the trail of the missing crew leads to one of two warring cannibal tribes, 'The Tree People'. The Yacumo nervously lead them to the cannibals camp. Monroe plays a tape recording, and the Cannibals believe he has captured the voice and think him a powerful shamen. They lead the Professor and his men to a bone sculpture made up of the remains of the missing crew and their film cans.
Monroe returns to America with the crews footage and the TV company plan on editing the film together to broadcast. The Professor researches the filmmakers: they were Alan, the director, Faye his girlfriend and script girl, and Jack and Mark the camera operators. Monroe is shown an earlier documentary they made, called "Last Road To Hell", that shows war and executions in Africa. He is informed that it was all faked and even set up by Alan and his team.

The salvaged footage shows just how arrogant they were and that their ruthlessness carried through to murder, as Monroe sees the Yacumos being herded into a hut which is then set on fire. Alan planned to film it as an attack by the cannibal tribes.
This evil is just the beginning and the rest of the footage shows how they exploited, violated and raped their way through the tree people to gather authentic footage. Acts that finally lead to their grizzly demise.

Few films carry as much controversial baggage around with them as Cannibal Holocaust. Other films, such as "Salo", "Men Behind the Sun" and "Guinea Pig", may ultimately be more disturbing, but their distribution, either to the U.S and Europe was small, or concentrated in the 'Art House' circuit. Holocaust was launched world wide to general audiences. The advent of video ensured that its extreme reputation would thrive. Its a reputation it lives up to.

Once again Deadato teams up with writer Gianfranco Clerici (L'Ultimo Mondo Cannibale and House on the Edge of the Park) to create another solid, brutal slice of extreme cinema. Don't let the unexpectedly sedate, even romantic opening credits theme (by Riz Ortolani, whose work here is exceptional) fool you, Deodato is about to serve up a dish suitable only for the strongest stomachs.

The scenes of brutality, be it the fake Human violence or the sickeningly real animal snuff, are dished up to the viewer with complete seriousness and are completely unapologetic in their graphic detail. The animal slaughter is, as with most Italian cannibal films, gratuitous and utterly reprehensible. True, the real deaths of the animals when combined with the extreme special effects (by Aldo Gapparri) for the human deaths give the film an almost palatable sense of savagery, but no film is worth the suffering these creatures go through. The infamous turtle scene is truly disgusting and, as the killing is done by Alan and his crew, the spurious excuse that is used by the likes of Deodato and Umberto Lenzi that "it's only what the cannibals do anyway" can not be used here.

Away from the animal atrocities though, Deaodato with expert help from his editor Vincenzo Tomassi and cinematographer Sergio D'Offizi, has made an exciting and thankfully serious movie that stands head and shoulders above such trash cinema efforts like Lenzi's "Cannibal Ferox" and D'Amatos "Trap Them and kill Them". The documentary footage looks suitably authentic with its light flares, scratches, jump cuts and ever-moving camera. Nearly 20 years before the pseudo mondo footage of "Blair Witch", Deodato shows us how it's done. This technique also helps the gore effects to no end. Instead of the static close ups of patently false looking latex appliances being carved up that ferox went for, Deodato chooses to film his gore scenes from a slight distance with unstable camera set ups. Add to this the absence of garishly fake blood, (Gaparri choosing a darker, disturbingly realistic colour) and what you have are truly unnerving dismemberments and beheadings. It's here that the score come into it's own as the familiar electronic base sound of Italian exploitation cinema opens the gore scenes before the wonderful theme music comes in with the ominous base underpinning the graphic splatter.

The most famous gore scene is of course the native woman skewered on to a huge wooden pole that enters between her legs and exits from her mouth. It's a bizarre and gruesome spectacle. Much was said at the time about this scene being real, but Deaodato has perfectly described how the effect was created and reports since have backed him up. The only example in this movie where you DON'T believe the hype.

As in "L'Ultimo Mondo Cannibale", Holocaust never shies away from male and female nudity. Whether in the playful scenes of Monroe with the Yacumo women or the shockingly brutal rapes, D'Offizi's camera is there to capture every detail.

That none of the characters (with the exception of Monroe) are in the slightest bit sympathetic makes you not care for their safety and as such allows no empathy with them for the viewer. But even this is an example of the duality of this film. Normally this would be a fatal error, but here it also works to overwhelm the viewer in the feeling that there is simply no saving grace in this savage, cruel world. A feeling that adds up to a powerfully nihilistic experience for the audience.

Deodato has stated that Holocaust is a film attacking the attitude and ignored responsibilities of the media to the people they are reporting on. The footage pretending to be "Last Road to Hell" does indeed contain authentic mondo scenes of executions and mutilated bodies in Africa, but the implication in the movies that it is faked is an obvious attack by Deaodato on Gualtiero Jacopetti and Franco Prosperi, two real life documentary filmmakers (who made Mondo Cane the film that started the whole mondo craze, and the infamous Africa Addio) who faked supposed real events of riots, executions and torture in their films to boost the few authentic snuff scenes they had.

Monroe, who becomes the conscience of the film, states how the crew's footage should be destroyed, that it's an inhuman, murderous con that should never be seen. But it is here that Deodato trips up over himself. He condemns Alan and his team (just as he is condemning Jacopetti and Prosperi) for their actions, but has he not, as Director, set up animals to be slaughtered for supposed real life footage shot by his fictional film crew, does he not revel in the same (all be it faked) bloodshed and violence so important in selling his film to the public, that he so loudly condemns?

Cannibal Holocaust (just like the slightly superior "L'Ultimo Mondo Cannibale") is a film that's very hard to recommend. The animal suffering is a grotesque abomination and should never have happened. Yet the film itself is a well made, exciting and ultimately satisfying wallow in the blood stained waters of extreme cinema. The gore is exceptional in its execution, the exploitation scenes plentiful, the Direction, music, editing and camera work of the highest quality. A movie that's a very, very guilty pleasure.

The Story: A class of Japanese children are kidnapped and forced to kill each other until only one is left, or else they all die.

In a future Japan, unemployment has exploded, children boycott schools and show explicit defiance. So the authorities take control in a shocking way. A class of children are picked by lottery to take part in the 'Battle Royale'.
The film focuses on one such ill fated class. They are kidnapped and taken to an isolated island. They are confronted by their trusted teacher Kitano (Takashi Kitano) who tells them the shocking details... they have 3 days to kill each other and only one may be left alive at the end!

They find that there are collars around their necks, these they are told will explode if they attempt to escape, or remove them (and this is demonstrated in a truly shocking gore scene). They contain microphones so the adults in charge can monitor them. If, after the 3 days, more than one child is left alive all the collars will explode. The children have no choice, it's kill or be killed. If they don't, they'll all die anyway. They are given a bag containing a random weapon (everything from a machine gun to a frying pan) and let out one at a time onto the island.

At certain times during, and at the end of each day, Kitano announces over a loud speaker the names of the children who have died. And as the children are killed, we see at the bottom of the screen the names of them (split into boys and girls) and how many are left alive. And to watch this number slowly drop and drop makes for grim viewing.

What is most disturbing is that the children are played by children, not young adults. A bit of casting that was very controversial in Japan. The school bully types cope best with the situation and some kill their classmates without hesitation. Some even with pleasure. One older child involved is a survivor from a previous game and another has volunteered to play for fun. He becomes the films scariest character as he ruthlessly machine guns down, boys and girls with calculated coldness. But so appaling is their situation that some of the children simply break down and wait to die while others commit suicide (like a boy and girl who hold hands as they jump to their deaths from a cliff).
Some band together into groups to help each other cope as they try to think of a way out of the horror. But the very nature of the 'game', that if you dont kill each other, you will all die anyway, slowly eats away at the bond. And paranoid children, scared of who they can really trust, armed with guns and knives, can only lead to one thing. And to see these classmates, friends, turn on each other after all their noble attempts to stand together, is a shocking and depressing sight.

We learn a bit about a few of the children (the film focuses mainly on a small group of the kids out of the 42, but we see EVERY ONE of the children as they are killed) and their relationship with each other through short flashbacks. The main two children we follow through this hell are a boy named Shuya and a girl named Noriko.

The violence is uncompromising and bloody. Children stab and hack at each other and shoot each other down without mercy. The film never shys away from the horror, whether its the damage inflicted on the victim or the slow psychological destruction of the killer.
The performances are all outstanding. Fujiwara and Maeda, with nearly the whole movie to carry, are espcially good as the 2 portagonists and Kitano is effectively emotionless adding a scary realism to his characters extreme behavior.

This is a truly exceptional piece of work by all involved especially director Fukasaku and writer Kenta Fukasaku who adapted the screenplay from the highly successful novel by Koshun Takami. So yes, it's exciting, yes it's action packed but it's also uncompromising, shocking, deeply moving and very sad. I can think of no other 'action/horror' film that covers all those emotions and it's this combination that makes "Battle Royale" such a unique viewing experience.

A serious adult film about the destruction of childhood in its most explicit form.

By Christina VanGinkel

Has anyone else noticed that there seems to be a comedic trend in Christmas and/or holiday shows that does not take away from the traditional feel good sense that many of the early Christmas classics portrayed, but that adds a layer of goofiness unlike anything before it? For example, a holiday favorite that was and continues to be an icon of what constitutes a Christmas show, a Miracle on 34th Street, portrays its average, ordinary characters in a world where, though almost anything is possible, especially if jolly old St. Nick is involved, the characters are still average people, with ordinary lives? However, the newer Christmas themed shows revolve around a world, where comedic action is the norm. They make us laugh. They make us forget the mounting tally we have spent on gifts for everyone from our own kids to the newspaper delivery boy. They are above all else, fun to watch.

These shows are definably not for everyone, yet they have their following, me amongst them. I enjoy the old classics, such as Miracle on 34th Street, the original Scrooge, and the various animated classics such as Rudolf and Frosty in all their own variations. However, I also enjoy these new classics, as I personally refer to them, just as much if not more. Christmas season would not be what it is today without at least a viewing or two of the Griswold family in Christmas Vacation, nor would it be without Elf, or Home Alone. A Christmas Story was one of the earliest of these. Actually, when I think of A Christmas Story, I think it falls somewhere between the two, the old classics, and the comedic filled holiday shows, as the family is typical middle class, stay at home mother, working father, two kids, and a shopping store Santa Claus. But who could not laugh when once again a child is lured by the attraction of sticking his tongue to a freezing cold metal pole, as the whole audience sits back laughing, knowing full well what is about to happen. In addition, what child would not want a Red Ryder BB gun; even if all the adults around him are telling him, he is going to end up shooting his own eye out.

The more I think about it, some of the shows I think of as new are actually twenty years old or older, so the trend in comedic action at Christmas time when it comes to movies is really not that new, but it is fun to watch. Comedy is relaxing, and what better time of the year to destress in front of a good and funny movie than during the holidays when tensions can run high with visiting relatives and money flowing from our pockets at the highest rate it has all year long.

Some of my personal favorites include the Griswold's in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, the 1998 version of Scrooge, titled Scrooged, Elf, Earnest Saves Christmas, The Santa Clause 1, The Santa Clause 2 (3 is being released in theaters this season!) Jingle All the Way, all the Home Alone shows, Gremlins, and Christmas with the Kranks (I love the part where the Mrs. is in the store trying on bathing suits and in walks her priest!).

While this is just a short list of a few of my personal favorites, I have to add that I have not seen all the many other Christmas and holiday comedies, though there are quite a few more. If you do an online search, for Christmas Comedies, the lists you will find are long and varied. A friend pointed out that for those who celebrate Hanukah, that Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights, though an animated holiday fable, is as funny as any of those I picked as favorites. Bad Santa is another one. I actually caught part of Bad Santa on television last year, but never was able to watch the whole show. My husband said he found it hilarious though.

If you are looking to lighten your holiday mood, then be sure to check out as many of these as you can fit in your schedule. Some are definitely for more of an adult crowd than others, so check the recommend ratings for each before popping one in when there are younger kids around. Happy Holiday Viewing Everyone!

by Gregg Hall

There have been many classic movies remade years later, some are good and some are not. It depends on the how the story is interpreted. In the early movies sex and violence are hardly ever shown they are implied. In the newer versions they don't hold back anything. This might be what is appealing to the new audiences. They have seen the classic and want to see the actual murder or love scene between two characters.

In the newer versions of movies they have been able to take special effects to a whole new level. Sometimes this isn't always good. In the 1960's series of Batman, the cheesiness of the show was the best part. Batman always had whatever they needed to escape or apprehend the bad guy. For example, he would say "good thing I put this vial of shark repellent in my bat belt this morning". Never has anyone been better prepared for anything since the old Batman shows. In the remakes they took him to a whole new level making everything very slick and futuristic. They took out the innocence, the heart and soul of why we loved it so much as children.

Another example of a remake gone badly is Godzilla. The reason everyone loved the old Godzilla movies is because you could tell it was a man in a monster suit crushing a cardboard Tokyo. Half the fun of watching these movies was to see how fake many things were and try to find the wires swinging the monsters around. In the recent version, they made Godzilla the bad guy. This turned the character into something else. Even in a remake the basic personality of a character shouldn't be changed. In the old movies he was the protector even if he destroyed everything he was trying to protect.

But there are great remakes of mediocre classic movies. For example, the movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, starring Gene Wilder, this movie was based on a book and for anyone who loved the book the original classic movie was a disappointment. But in the updated version, starring Johnny Depp, they stayed very close to what the author of the story was trying to convey. Making the new release an instant classic.

Then there is the comic remake of the classics. Often a writer will take the best parts of a particular genre and combine them into a comic spoof, these movies have formed a genre all their own. Mel Brooks is a master with this type of remake. For example, Blazing Saddles pokes fun of the old westerns and makes a statement about racism. Another classic remake was Young Frankenstein, based on the old Frankenstein movies.

By Simon Woodhouse

For me, good acting requires the thespian involved to display a whole range of subtle emotions, each one appropriate to the scene they're in. Staring manfully toward a point far off on the horizon doesn't fall into this category. In fact, any sort of vacant, blank expression strikes me as not really being acting at all, in the same way that silence isn't music.

Historical epics, be they from the genres 1950/60s heyday, or part of the more recent batch, seem to have a lot of this sort of 'acting'. Perhaps it comes from the whole 'actions speak louder than words' thing, because historical epics certainly have more than their fair share of fighting/chasing/running scenes. However, there has to be something in between the fighting and chasing and running, otherwise it's very difficult to feel any empathy with what's happening on screen.

In Kingdom Of Heaven, Orlando Bloom plays Balian, a poor French blacksmith. When we first meet him, he's in a bit of a state. His wife and child have just died, an event that's seriously testing his faith. But as luck would have it, a famous knight, Godfrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson), rides into town and promptly informs Balian he's his real father. The young man then decides to throw his lot in with Godfrey, and follows dear all dad back to the Holy Land, where he's been fighting in the crusades for the last few years. During this trip, Balian is given a crash course in sword fighting. I always imagined becoming really proficient with this sort of weapon took a lifetime of training. However, that's not the case in Hollywood movie land. After ten minutes practice Balian is wielding a sword like a pro, and is easily as skilled as Godfrey's battle-hardened crew.

This example of playing fast and loose with reality sets the tone for the rest of the movie. Before the first third is over, Balian has gone from poor blacksmith to commander-in-chief of his dad's forces, and the movie makers have set him up as the saviour of the Holy Land. I realise watching certain films requires a suspension of disbelief, but that ethos usually applies to sci-fi or fantasy movies. When a film based on actual events presents its main characters in such an unbelievable way, it's difficult not to wonder what else has been exaggerated or ignored.

Anyway, the film roles on and Balian arrives in the Holy Land, becomes a knight and takes control of his dad's forces. All this takes place during a period of relative calm, within which the warring Christians and Muslims are observing a fragile truce. Balian then crosses paths with the beautiful Sibylla (Eva Green). Unfortunately she's married to the movie's main baddy, Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas). I guess the idea of Christians versus Muslims is a sensitive subject in today's world, so in light of this, the film makers have made the main baddy a Frenchman. Guy de Lusignan wants the Christian/Muslim conflict to start up again. He's aided in this endeavor by Reynald (Brendan Gleeson), the manic leader of the Knights Templar. Csokas and Gleeson take it in turns to deliver one over the top performance after another, as all baddies must do in every historical epic. But this does make a change from Orlando Bloom's stoic, expressionless performance, which quickly becomes irritating to the extreme.

Inevitably, Balian and Sibylla hook up, which places the young man on a collision course with Guy de Lusignan. But seeing as Balian is a Christian, it's also inevitable he ends up fighting Muslims (after all, this is the crusades). And so the stage is set for what I suspect is the real reason for the film being made - an epic battle involving thousands of CGI 'extras'. Ever since the final Lord of the Rings film showed how massed armies could be brought to life inside a computer, Hollywood seems to have been falling over itself to find a use for this sort of technology. Historical epics provide the perfect backdrop for large-scale conflicts, but there has to be some humanity as well, otherwise it's all style over substance (an expression that sums up Kingdom Of Heaven in a nutshell).

Apart from all those mentioned above, the movie also features Edward Norton as King Baldwin IV, and Jeremy Irons as Tiberias. Both of these characters are good guys, and so look miserable throughout the whole film. Why is it that only the bad guys ever seem to have fun in historical epics? Anyway, neither of them particularly distinguishes themselves here, instead turning in workman-like performances that are instantly forgettable. In fact, instantly forgettable pretty much sums up the movie as a whole. It's neither good nor bad, instead occupying the middle ground where most films go to die.

If you're a fan of this type of movie, you're probably better of watching something like Spartacus (1960). Back then, films contained a bit more grit, and even had characters you actually cared about. Kingdom Of Heaven, on the other hand, contains a whiter than white, flawless good guy, who's so infuriatingly perfect he's almost celestial. But this lofty pinnacle means the character of Balian ranks right up alongside Santa and the Tooth Fairy on the implausibility scale. And because he's so unrealistic, I found it hard to care about what happened to him in the end, something that is also true of everyone else in Kingdom Of Heaven.

Click on "Post A Comment" (powered by Blogger) just below this message to add your comment to this movie discussion forum.

I've liked Vince Vaughn ever since I saw him in the movie Swingers about a decade back. Since that time, he has emerged as one of America's most popular comedic actors and has delivered a string of commercially successful films in the last few years. Jennifer Aniston was on of my favorite television actresses when she starred on the hit sitcom Friends for ten years, and has even had a couple of hit movies along the way. So when these Vaughn and Aniston decided to pair up for the 2006 film The Break-Up, I knew I had to see it.

The premise of The Break-Up is nothing original. Vaughn and Aniston play Gary and Brooke, a typical couple who, after dating for a couple of years, buy a condo together despite not being married. This joint real estate ownership presents a problem when they decide to break up: both of them refuse to move out of the home.

The break-up was precipitated by the usual minor problems that just build up over time. Gary doesn't help with the housework, doesn't put any effort into the relationship, and doesn't appreciate anything Brooke does for him. Brooke, meanwhile, constantly nags Gary and never comes right out and tells him what she wants. Instead, she expects him to pick up on her subtle hints and indirect statements. These problems eventually push Brooke to the limit, and she decides that she's had enough.

Both continue living in their condo while their realtor tries to find a buyer. The market is good right now, so it shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks. During that time, Gary and Brooke have to try to coexist under the same roof while each attempts to move past the relationship. Gary buys the pool table that he's always wanted and puts it in the dining room. Brooke brings home an endless parade of rich, successful guys who want to date her. And through it all, Gary and Brooke are just downright mean and nasty to each other. They do and say things that are deliberately intended to hurt each other, and more often than not, their shots hit the desired targets.

I sat down to watch this movie thinking that I would be viewing a "romantic comedy." In the beginning, there were a couple of funny scenes. But after that, the film became rather dark and depressing. Gary and Brooke were being petty and selfish, and there was nothing funny about that behavior.

Furthermore, I wasn't sure what kind of emotions the filmmaker was trying to evoke from me. Was I supposed to want these two to get back together? Was I supposed to be choosing a side, deciding which one of the characters to support during the movie? Was I supposed to be against both of them? I felt pulled in all those directions at different times, and that made for a very uneven viewing experience.

I was sympathetic towards Aniston's character Brooke at first because I felt that she was right in her assessment of Gary. He really was a slob who didn't seem to care one way or the other about their relationship. But the more I thought about what Brooke was doing, the less I liked her. She basically did not want to break up with Gary at all. She only wanted him to realize that he couldn't live without her. In other words, she was again being indirect instead of telling him what she really wanted. That's not exactly a mature approach, and it pretty much turned me against her by the end of the movie.

Vaughn's character Gary frustrated me just as much. He was just so stubborn and dense throughout most of the movie that I had a hard time believing he could have made it as far as moving in with Brooke in the first place. It seems that he would have found a way to screw that relationship up long ago.

Overall, I have to say I was disappointed in The Break-Up and can't recommend it to you. It felt like the filmmakers weren't sure what they wanted this movie to be. Plus, without giving away what happened at the end, I have to say that it was very unsatisfying. I didn't feel that I had invested my time wisely in getting to know those characters for an hour and forty-five minutes.

In the movie industry, there are several films that have earned the dubious distinction of being one of the biggest flops of all time. Ishtar was such a film, as was Cutthroat Island, a $92 million dollar bomb that raked in just $10 million at the box office. The 1991 Bruce Willis movie Hudson Hawk has to be considered part of that club.

Hudson Hawk cost $65 million to make and was hyped as the first major blockbuster of the 1991 summer season. But the movie flopped with both critics and audiences alike. It was widely panned and made only $17 million during its U.S. release. I managed to avoid Hudson Hawk for 15 years, but decided to watch it this weekend just out of curiosity. After all, the actual movie couldn't be nearly as bad as everyone made it sound, right?

Boy, was I wrong! Sometimes the critics are dead-on in their assessment, and this was one of those occasions. Willis stars as Hudson Hawk, a highly skilled cat burglar who was recently released from the Sing-Sing penitentiary. The moment that he gets out, he is approached by a gang of mobsters headed up by the Mario Brothers. They blackmail him into stealing a horse statue that was crafted by Leonardo da Vinci. The statue is currently in an auction house and is scheduled to be sold to the highest bidder the next day, so Hudson Hawk has to move quickly.

He teams up with his buddy Tommy Five-Tone (played by Danny Aiello) and they map out a strategy for getting in and out of the auction house with the treasure. What makes these two guys unique is that they sing songs while they're committing their crimes. This apparently helps them keep track of time so they don't get nabbed by the security guards or the cops.

Hawk and Tommy successfully steal the da Vinci statue, and hand it over to the Mario Brothers. It turns out that it's not the statue itself they're after, but rather a piece of crystal that's hidden inside the statue. According to legend, the crystal is part of a mechanism that runs a special machine da Vinci devised during his lifetime. The machine supposedly was capable of turning lead to gold. This is something that evil couple Darwin and Minerva Mayflower (Richard E. Grant and Sandra Bernhard) want for themselves, and is part of their plan for "world domination." It's the Mayflowers who are actually pulling the strings behind the Mario Brothers, and they're the ones who end up with the crystal.

Are you confused yet? Well, that's not a good sign, as the plot just gets more twisted from there. There's another group after the crystals as well. They consist of a bunch of operatives named after candy bars, and they could be a secret arm of the CIA or they could just be another gang of crooks. And I suppose I should mention Andie MacDowell's character Anna Baragli. She starts off as an art appraiser, but is not really who she appears to be either.

As you can probably tell from the plot summary, Hudson Hawk is one mess of a movie. It is possible to follow the story as it plays out on the screen, but it's just not very interesting. There are so many double-crosses and fake identities that I stopped caring who was who and which side they were on about halfway through the movie. By the time the end came, I forgot who I was supposed to be rooting for.

The acting performances were simply atrocious. Bruce Willis played Hudson Hawk exactly like his David Addision character from the television show Moonlighting. There was nothing about him that even hinted that he could be an amazing cat burglar, so I just didn't buy the premise of the movie. In addition, Grant and Bernhard were so over the top as the Mayflowers that it was annoying rather than funny.

Overall, Hudson Hawk was every bit the stinker that the critics made it out to be back in 1991. If you've managed to avoid it for this long, then there's absolutely no reason for you to attempt a viewing now. If you've already seen this movie and just happened to come across this review while surfing the Internet, allow me to apologize for stirring up bad memories!

Let me begin by saying good lord, what a treat this one is! I enjoyed Underworld, but didn't get to watch it as closely as I would have liked (as a parent I'm a member of the eternally distracted club) so I was a bit fuzzy on the original details and as this is a sequel I felt I needed to do some checking. I paused the DVD, went over to my PC and wikied the original. The basic gist is this: 1600 years ago, a plague swept the planet and a man named Alexander Corvinus is the only survivor in his village. His genetics allowed for a mutation of the virus that turned him into the first immortal. He fathers three sons: Marcus, born an immortal, who when bitten by a bat transforms into the first vampire; William, also born immortal, was bitten by a wolf and becomes the first werewolf (also known as Lycan) and another son, born human, who passes on this virus in his genetic code and it will eventually allow for one of the descendants to become a hybrid vampire/Lycan. This descendant is Michael Corvin (Scott Speedman), whom vampire and Death Dealer (Lycan killer) Selene (Kate Beckinsale) finds herself attracted to. He is both bitten by a werewolf and a vampire and becomes the first hybrid, with powers that appear limitless.

In Underworld: Evolution we begin right where Underworld leaves off...Selene has killed Viktor, leader of the Vampires, who has betrayed Marcus and William and imprisoned them both. Marcus breaks free of his prison and immediately begins to search for his brother...as the original Lycan, William lacked the ability to change back into a human and caused much death and destruction before being locked away. In order to find him, Marcus needs the key to his coffin and the blood of someone who knows where he was 'buried'...as it turns out, Selene's family was not killed by Lycans as she always believed...Viktor killed them after having Selene's father build William's prison to keep the location secret. Marcus realizes that buried deep in Selene's memories is the map to where William remains, and that she also has in her possession the amulet that is the key to his cell.

Marcus finds them quickly, and it's only the sunrise that allows them to escape. At sunset, they seek Tanis, an exiled vampire cleric, and discover that the Corvinus legend is in fact true, and he arranges a meeting for them with someone he claims will help stop Marcus from freeing William.

I won't ruin the rest of the story for you, because this is actually a movie WITH a story and goodness knows that's damn rare. One of the best parts for me, a huge vampire fan, is when Michael and Selene become intimate...a great addition by the writers, as most vampire stories leave vampires sexually impotent, getting satisfaction only from drinking blood. I've always thought this was a silly notion, and personally couldn't imagine going through an immortal life celibate, so this actually garnered applause.

Len Wiseman directed this masterpiece, brilliantly, too, I might add. The settings are so dark that at times the movie appears black and white (except for the blood, of course), and the special effects are dead on and not overdone. Marcus' wings are amazing...he is able to use them as weapons and when he pins characters to things with them you can't help but let out a 'man, that is SO COOL!'. The transformations of characters into Lycans and Vampires is seamless and often beautiful...Kate Beckinsale is stunning in this role, and I just can't accept her as anything but Selene. Her hair is the perfect length, her costume, though not typically vampiric, is practical for her duties, and her boots are to die for. Yes, pun intended. Scott Speedman is well cast, too...he's in such fantastic shape that it borders on superhuman so his powerful hybrid status is easily believable. All characters are very well developed, and I have to give the writers and Wiseman credit for taking the time to do the movie properly. I have a great need to know all about the people I'm watching on the screen, and if I don't I just don't enjoy the film as much. The flashbacks to Selene's childhood are such a nice touch...we see her as a human, vulnerable, lost...and then we see what she has become. Traces of the human still linger, hundreds of years later, and it is this humanness that allows her to love and rage against darkness.

Great film, and do yourself a favor and rent the original too so you can watch it first. I'm sorry I didn't. This one gets a Rowan Rating of 11 out of 12 monkeys.

Who would have thought that cars would make a very good film subject. No dear, I am not talking about a documentary on the different kinds of cars. I am talking about "Cars", that movie by Disney Pixar which became a hit not only among kids but adults as well.

But wait. Don't get me wrong. I am a thirty something person who loves movies that are well-appreciated by three-year olds but that doesn't make me a weirdo. It's just that I am young at heart and I intend to remain one.

Expect Disney Pixar to come up with very good cartoon movies that is a sell-out to people of all ages. The same production was responsible for hits like Toy Story and Finding Nemo.

I actually saw this movie four times already, one in the theater and three times (and counting heaven forbid!) in DVD. Well, I have no say what's playing on our home movie because when it comes to entertainment, kids reign!

What I like about this movie is the endearing quality of the characters. Each one has its own quirks and intricacies but they are all very lovable. But what will make your hearts bleed is the inside story on the life of Doc Hudson, a former racing champion who ended up as the magistrate of this little town called Radiator Spring.

Doc Hudson was a former racing champion who had to bow out of the racing scene after he met an accident in the tracks. He was so frustrated about how his fans could easily abandon him that he became a recluse in Radiator Spring. Like most of us who have been abandoned by people who should have been there when it matters most.

But wait! You should also hear the story of Lighting McQueen, a Piston Cup aspirant who is so full of himself he thinks he is the mightiest among them all. Lightning is so selfish he caused his own trouble when he forced his hauling truck named Mac to proceed to the Interstate, knowing that Mac was so sleepy already.

Call it a twist of fate but Lightning ended up in Radiator Springs, captive to a former city lawyer named Sally, who is also a car by the way. You can feel Lightning's frustration when he was judged guilty of destroying Radiator Spring's road and was sentenced to captivity until he is able to repair the road.

Can you imagine an expensive and well-groomed racing car to be working with tar and enjoying the company of a tow truck named Mater? Duh! That would be the day.

One character which also earned a few laughs from me was Luigi, the tire shop owner and a self-declared lover of Ferraris. Oh I could still see the look on his face when Michael Schumacher went to his tire shop just after Radiator Spring became famous again due to Lightning. And wait! There's also that Italian named Pitstop who can change tires in seconds!

Like I said, this movie is not only fun but is very poignant as well. I could not forget how Sally the lawyer brought Lightning to a spot overlooking the whole radiator Springs and the Interstate. I felt pity for the town and its car resident as Sally narrated how Radiator Springs was transformed from a bustling city to a forgotten one when the government decided to reroute the cars just to save 10 minutes of driving time.

But to tell you frankly, nothing could be as heartwarming as seeing Lightning sacrifice his ambition to become a Piston Cup champion. Instead of winning the race, Lightning chose to come back and help the old champion, who was by then a wreck of a car, reach the finish line.

Lightning wanted to win the race because he wants to become the next face of Dinaco. But fate is good. He may have lost the race but DInaco still offered him a contract. Sad to say, Lightning said no, thanks to the offer but asked Dinaco if they can airlift Mater using a helicopter as his friend is looking forward to riding that flying thing!

Unbelievable, you may say. How can a success-driven person, nay car, suddenly make a 360 degree turn? Well, you can't blame Lightning because he has apparently fallen in love with Ms. Sally. And believe me, when you're in love, anything goes.

Each one of us can learn from Lightning and Doc Hudson's story. It is important to be on top of the game but in the end, what matters most should be our friends and the people we love.

Incidentally, I have also watched Toy Story 1 and 2 and I also fell in love with both movies. Well, what can I do? I told you I am a kid living in a grown up's body. Well, I sure am eagerly waiting for the next movie from Disney Pixar.

I know that the 2004 Paramount Pictures release called Alfie is a remake of a 1966 movie of the same name, but I've never seen the original version, so will not be making any comparisons to it in this review.

The 2004 version of Alfie stars Jude Law in the title role. He plays a womanizing limo driver who realizes that his life, which mostly consists of bedding an endless string of women who ultimately mean nothing to him, is going nowhere.

As the film opens, the viewer immediately sees that this will be a different kind of movie. That's because Alfie talks directly to the camera, even in mid-scene, so we feel that we are that much closer to the action. I thought this technique would get tiresome as the film wore on, but it didn't. The main reason for that was the way Jude Law made Alfie a very charming and endearing character. Even though he's perhaps not the best example of a human being that this world has to offer, Alfie was nevertheless likable, and that fact was crucial to the success of the film as a whole.

Being a limo driver seems to suit Alfie very well. He says early on that his goal is not to be the richest man around. Instead, he just needs to earn enough money to cover his expenses -- which, at this point, seem to be Gucci suits and Prada shoes. Dressing well is essential to Alfie's womanizing ways, and here again Law succeeded in making the character believably stylish without going overboard.

There are other perks to Alfie's job. Namely, he gets to meet a lot of high-class women and these are the ones that he hooks up with more often than not. First, there is Dorie (played by Jane Krakowski of Ally McBeal fame), whose husband is a successful businessman that completely ignores her. Next is Julie (Marisa Tomei), a single mother who actually seems to have her life together. Alfie really likes Julie, but doesn't realize it until after she dumps him. Then there is Lonette (Nia Long), the ex-girlfriend of Alfie's best friend Marlon (Omar Epps), whom Alfie ends up impregnating. Other women include the needy, often imbalanced Nikki (Sienna Miller) and Liz (Susan Sarandon), a powerful and successful business tycoon.

The overall tone of the movie was rather depressing as each one of Alfie's encounters serves to show exactly how empty and meaningless his life is. He tries to keep a positive outlook through it all, but we sense that just underneath the surface he's an extremely lonely person and is very scared about ending up completely alone when all is said and done.

Alfie didn't do very well with the critics or at the box office, so I wasn't expecting too much out of this film. But I was surprised at just how much I liked it, and I think a lot of the credit goes to Jude Law. I've seen many other Jude Law films, including the critically acclaimed Cold Mountain, but his performances never impressed me before. Although I won't go so far as to say that I was wowed by his turn as Alfie, I will say that I thought he was perfect in the role. He was good-looking enough to make me believe that these women really would fall for him, and as I mentioned before, he was charming and likable throughout. This movie would have been a complete disaster if the lead role had been miscast, but fortunately that wasn't the case.

The film wasn't perfect by any means. There were several slow spots in it and with a running time of an hour and forty minutes, it felt too long. But there were some genuinely touching moments along the way, and some real humor too. My overall impression was that we were getting an accurate look at what Alfie's life was really like, so I was willing to overlook the uneven feel to the production.

On the whole, I liked Alfie much more than I thought I would because its positive aspects were strong enough to make me forget about the flaws. I recommend that you check this movie out despite the mixed reviews it received. You might be surprised at how much you like it too.

The Story: The sands run red with blood as a masked, machete-wielding maniac stalks staff members at a hedonistic island resort in Broken Lizard's slasher spoof.

From Mel Brook's comic masterpiece Young Frankenstein to the abysmal Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the 13th, the horror genre is no stranger to spoofs; however, many fans will agree that the majority of horror-spoofs fail miserably due to a lack of respect for the genre and its fans. Fortunately, the Broken Lizard comedy troupe (Super Troopers), slasher fans themselves, deliver a rare spoof that manages to be both funny and engaging without patronizing its target audience.

On Pleasure Island, Costa Rica, washed-up Jimmy Buffett wannabe Coconut Pete (Paxton in a great comic turn) and his crew of over-sexed twenty-something's are busily entertaining droves of young guests when a mysterious murderer, cloaked in a poncho and tribal mask, begins hacking up the staff. Interestingly, the killer leaves a message warning the staff not to inform the guests unless they want more to die. With nothing standing in the way of fun, who would want to break up Coconut Pete's 24-hour bacchanal? Is it Machete Phil (the genitalia-less madman of island lore), a disgruntled guest, or a staff member with an agenda? And what's with the ever-changing Coconut Pete lyrics scrawled near the duty schedule? You'll have to refrain from shooting soda out of your nose or dropping your popcorn in a fit of guffaws long enough to find out as Broken Lizard pack every scene with lowbrow humor and outrageous site gags while keeping you guessing, and in a few instances, on the edge of your seat.

Anyone familiar with and receptive to Broken Lizard's goofball brand of humor should have lots of fun with Club Dread, but die-hard horror fans may also find themselves enjoying it more than expected as Chandrasekhar and company infuse the stalk n' slash scenes, some of which are played straight, with enough suspense and bloody gore to sustain interest. Those same fans might also appreciate how Broken Lizard address standard slasher conventions (i.e. obvious red herrings, copious drug/alcohol abuse, loners die, etc.) without directly referring to the movies that defined them - I know I did. That is not to say, however, that genre fans won't pick up on scenes that, as expected, pay homage to both the Halloween (P.O.V. shots) and Friday the 13th series (the impossibly fast killer) in style and execution. Obvious as those references may be, the ending of Club Dread gives this reviewer reason to suspect that the Broken Lizards may also have an affinity for Buddy Cooper's lesser-known slasher The Mutilator (AKA Fall Break), as it seems to directly quote that low-budget gore-fest's ridiculously over the top finale.

As in any comedy with an over-reliance on gags, you can expect to endure a few flat groaners along the way, but the Lizard's throw so many jokes at you that by the time you've finished rolling your eyes over one, another one comes along and takes the wind out of you. Fortunately, the knee-slappers far outweigh the forehead-slappers, making it easier to forgive the Lizard's lads for any comic transgressions. Perhaps Club Dread's biggest fault is in its running time, which is 10 to 15 minutes too long for any comedy. Chandrasekhar keeps the action moving for the most part, but trimming a few minutes from the film's mid-section or a couple of lesser gags could have gone a long way in tightening the pace a bit. Also, I'm still puzzled as to why the murders continued as staffers made every effort to abide by the killer's "no tell, no kill" policy. Of course, most slasher films have never had much going for them in the way of logic, so this is a minor gripe.

Aside from a healthy dose of intentional humor, Club Dread doesn't add anything new to the tried-and-true slasher formula, nor does it try to, as its moderately effective stalking scenes are merely setups for more gags. And though most dyed-in-the-wool slasher fans will probably be able to spot the killer by the halfway mark, there's still a lot of fun to be had in watching the scenario play out. For the benefit of our male readers, it's probably worth mentioning that Club Dread sports one of the most anticipated nude scenes of the year as Cabin Fever cutie Jordan Ladd performs an amazing gymnastic feat whilsttopless. Now, if that last bit wasn't enough to get your movie-going dollar, then Club Dread's juvenile sensibility just isn't for you. Me? I'm not complaining.

The Story: Vampires are terrorizing California and only the slayer can save the day.

The movie that spawned a hit television show of the same name. Buffy is your cliched fashion-obsessed valley girl, but lately she's been having weird dreams. In them she becomes other people, other girls who lived centuries ago and who seem to always be fighting a mysterious stranger. Her nightmares are scary enough, but back in the real world several of her classmates have recently begun turning up dead...with some nasty neck mutilations. Hmm, what in the world could it--AHH! Why vampires of course, and as it turns out, Southern California has become a new hot spot for the bloodsuckers.

Enter into the picture Merrick who tells Buffy that she is the new slayer. Apparently, as long as vampires have been around there have been girls gifted with special abilities to fight them and save humanity. Buffy's dreams were about the old slayers, he tells her, and the foe she faces in them is a nasty and powerful vampire named Lothos. Merrick tells Buffy that it is her fate to battle it out with Lothos, whether she wants to or not.
As one might imagine, Buffy is not thrilled with the idea of battling the undead and she believes it more likely that Merrick is just a dirty old man with delusions. Merrick decides to prove his story so he takes Buffy to the graveyard, where he tells her to sit near a fresh grave...one of the recent victims of the mysterious string of killings. Before long, out pops a vampire and Buffy has to save Merrick and kill the creature.

And so begins Slayer Training 101. Merrick does his best to teach Buffy all the cool vampire dispensing tactics and other lessons he's learned over the years. Buffy still isn't into the idea of having to give up her social life to battle Dracula, but she gets the hang of things. While slayer training drags on, Lothos and his helpers are raising an army of vampires to take over the city. And humanity's only hope lies with Buffy...the VAMPIRE SLAYER!

This is really a great little film, cheesy in parts (and with a title like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, how could it not be?) but very fun nonetheless. Paul Reubens (aka PeeWee Herman) has a role in the film as Lothos' right hand man, er, vampire. If I didn't see his name on the box, I might not have recognized him with the long hair and make-up. Paul brings a lot of humor to the movie (though he never uttered "I know you are but what am I? HeHe") and that's one of the things I enjoyed most. The movie doesn't always play things straight. Both Paul Reubens and others like David Arquette lighten the mood a lot, which is something I appreciate in horror films, at least to some extent.
Playing opposite of the humor side of things is Donald Sutherland as Merrick. I think Donald really nailed his role and brought a sense of reality to the movie. Kristy Swanson does a good job in her portrayal of Buffy, transforming from a shallow, airheaded teenager to a kick-ass vampire slayer.

Another plus to the film is that the filmmakers did a good job of building suspense, from that moment when you know something is going to happen, to a vampire popping out. A lot of the night scenes especially, are just dripping with creepy atmosphere.
The major flaw of the movie is sometimes it goes overboard with the humor into the territory of just plain stupid. Near the end of the film, the principal of Buffy's high school is seen handing out detention slips to dead vampires (HAHA...oh wait) and a lot of the dialog between Buffy and her like-minded friends comes off pretty dumb as well. I'm all for mixing humor and horror, but I'm a little picky when it comes to putting humor in any kind of movie...it should be funny.

Fortunately though, the strengths of the movie outweigh the weaknesses. This is one of my favorite vampire movies of the 90's and I fear I may be alone in my opnion, but hey, opinions are like...you know. I say see the movie and judge for yourself.

The story: Birds in a small California town lose interest in bugs and berries and begin chasing bigger game.

The Birds is Alfred Hitchcock's second and last true horror film (though the inferior Frenzy in 1972 may qualify as horror) and arguably his last true classic. It begins playfully enough in a pet store (watch for Alfred here), with practical joker Melanie Daniels (Hedren) meeting her match in Mitch (Taylor) and following him up from San Francisco to Bodega Bay to attempt a last laugh. Would it be spoiling any surprises to say that of course they begin to fall in love? Hedren also gets uneasily involved with his possessive mother (Tandy) and regretful school-teacher ex (Pleshette). This is all amusing and Pleshette especially is quite sympathetic and affecting. This is when those with more modern tastes in horror films wonder when the birds are going to get testy, but Hitchcock is just setting you up to feel for these people when life gets ugly.

Eventually, a bird performs an aggressive act. Then two birds. Then smallgroups, building up to larger and larger groups of birds until the whole town is under siege and the film becomes quite intense and violent, especially for the early 60's. This all builds to an inconclusive ending that many find unsatisfying but I think is the only ending possible and one that lets you decide for yourself what is going to happen in the future. As usual, Hitchcock did some experimenting in this film. The experiment this time was the lack of music. The only background is bird noises, sometimes electronically generated and quite unnerving. There are also a few startling editing devices used to mostly fine effect.

I'll tread lightly now, because though there are no true plot twists or amazing revelations, it is best to walk into this movie knowing nothing else. Suffice it to say that Hitchcock manages to get the major characters isolated at various times and in true Hitchcock form, everyone is a potential bird dinner. Back in the old days, it wasn't just the bad guys or annoying people that got killed. In fact, there are no unsympathetic characters in the Birds, which adds to the suspense. You want everyone to get out alive. There are no overtly gory scenes, but there is enough tension for two or three modern horror films once the action gets cranked up. The claustrophobic scenes in a phone booth and in a dark attic are especially frightening.

It is a quite harrowing movie at times, so just relax and be harrowed. Hitchcock was a master at getting you to like his characters before putting them in dangerous situations, so there are many times where a modern film would fall flat while the Birds soars. This is because so much time and effort was taken to develop the characters before the first avian encounter.

The negatives: The special effects are given quite a bit of praise even today. I'm sure that at the time the film was made they were state-of-the-art but even to me they only work convincingly about half the time. The most effective scenes are the ones with real birds simply gathering and looking menacing, and I believe the sounds are more effective than the visuals here. The horror convention of having people make idiotic decisions to get themselves where the birds can whack them is also in abundance here. Also, as is not unusual with Hitchcock, some of the acting is a bit stiff and flat. Come to think of it, though, some of the acting looks worthy of an Oscar compared with much modern horror.

So, is it a perfect horror film? Not at all. Is it effective and scary and worth seeing at least once? Absolutely, and I own a copy myself and have seen it probably a dozen times. The Birds is another of the horror classics that is recommended material for the modern horror filmmaker to study, as there are many effective stylistic and storytelling elements here that are no longer in use. This is the 21st century horror fan's loss.

There was a sequel made in 1994, but director Rick Rosenthal was so disgusted with the final product that the film was credited to the pseudonymous Allan Smithee. I have not and will not watch this one, but be warned that it's universally regarded as trash.

The 2005 Tony Scott film Domino is said to be based in part on a true story. It is about a real-life female bounty hunter named Domino Harvey who used to be a model before turning to the more dangerous trade of tracking down criminals. Keira Knightley stars in the title role, with supporting performances from Mickey Rourke, Delroy Lindo, Edgar Ramirez, Lucy Liu, and even former Beverly Hills, 90210 teen idols Ian Ziering and Brian Austen Green (playing themselves).

The plot of Domino is a bit confusing at first because the story is not told in chronological order. In addition, some scenes are told again from a different vantage point or redone entirely in order to show what really happened (when a character mistakenly speculates about what went down the first time). Yes, eventually the viewer gets a pretty clear picture of what the plot was about, but that's only after seeing the entire thing.

The movie starts with Domino Harvey already in FBI custody, so we know the events will be flashbacks. This serves to remove some of the suspense from a few key scenes because we know Domino is still alive. As she says, "This ain't Sunset Blvd." so we know that screenwriter Richard Kelly is not going to employ the dead narrator technique used in that classic.

Domino is talking to an FBI psychologist named Ms. Miles (Liu) who is trying to extract information about $10 million in stolen money and about an explosion that took off the top of a famous Las Vegas hotel. Domino is very willing to talk, and starts her narrative from the beginning. And by from the beginning, I mean from her childhood.

So we get the first in a series of flashbacks. This one shows a few of the events that have helped shape Domino into the person that she eventually became. The flashbacks continue on to show how Domino first hooked up with her bounty hunting boss Ed Mosbey (Rourke) and his partner Choco (Ramirez) by paying $99 for a scam seminar run by those two and bail bondsman Claremont Williams (Lindo). Domino accosts Mosbey and Choco as they are trying to hightail it out of the seminar with the customers' money and demands that they take her on as a member of the team. Mosbey likes Domino's toughness and her looks, so he agrees.

Domino proves to be very good at the bounty hunting game, and the team starts to enjoy considerable success. Domino is even named Bounty Hunter of the Year, which brings about a whole subplot involving Ziering, Green, and a reality TV show. Things seem to be going well until Claremont Williams sets the gang up on a mission that involves the mafia. The details of that mission and the fallout from Williams's miscalculation become the focus of the rest of the movie.

Domino was not successful at the box office. It barely grossed $10 million in its three-month U.S. theater run, which is a figure that even an average film can attain in a couple of weeks. I guess some people were turned off by the way the film was edited: there were lots of quick cuts and weird camera angles used throughout, as Tony Scott clearly took some chances in an effort to give the movie a different feel. I found that I didn't mind the camera angles so much as I did the choice of Keira Knightley as Domino.

I thought Knightley was not right for the role at all. She seemed far too small and delicate to play a bounty hunter. I know that was supposed to be the point, and one of the other characters even calls her "delicate" very early on in the film -- perhaps in anticipation of the audience's reaction. I don't know what the real Domino Harvey looked like, but I thought the filmmakers should have taken some liberties when casting the role and should have given the lead to someone who would have been more convincing as a bounty hunter. Ordinarily, I really like Knightley, but she didn't work in this role at all.

Overall, I didn't think Domino was a good movie. There are certainly some funny moments and interesting scenes, but the film as a whole lacked cohesion. In the end, it just seemed like a bunch of scenes thrown together. I wouldn't bother with this one if I were you.

Directed by Kurt Wimmer (he also did equilibrium, which I liked), starring Mila Jovovich as lead character Violet Song jat Shariff. The opening credits are designed to have the feel of a Japanese anime piece or a live action coming book, and this continues throughout the film with the extensive use of bright and contrasting colors as well as 'soft focus' close ups of the cast to make them appear blurry and generated.

Violet greets us with a voice over "Hello. My name is Violet and I was born into a world you may not understand." Our timeframe is the late 21st century, following a pandemic of a highly infectious blood spread virus dubbed hemophagia. It was initially developed by the government in attempt to create super soldiers, but of course the genie got out of the bottle. People infected with the disease develop superior strength, skill and speed...as well as an extreme sensitivity to sunlight and lengthened canines which leads to these 'hemophages' being termed vampires by most. Though they have superhuman powers, their lifespan is drastically shortened...only 12 years from infection to death. The government uses the public's fear of infection to control the population, and nearly all the hemophages are captured and exterminated by the Arch-Ministry, who have infiltrated the government and pull all the strings of power.

Violet is one of the few remaining hemophages...she was pregnant when infected, captured and experimented on until her unborn child was forcibly aborted very late in term. She's 36 hours away from her 12 year mark and has spent the past decade working with the underground resistance movement of fellow hemophages attempting to overthrow the head of the Arch-Ministry: Vice-Cardinal Ferdinand Daxus. He has created a super weapon to wipe out the remaining hemophages, and Violet poses as a courier to pick up the weapon with the intent to steal it and either bring it to the resistance or destroy it if captured.

She is directed by both the resistance and the Arch-Ministry to not open the case...but she cannot resist and is horrified to discover that inside is a human child, harboring within him many secrets. The resistance attempts to destroy the child, but Violet anticipates their brutality and what they destroy is merely a hologram. She brings the boy (Cameron Bright) to friend and fellow hemophage scientist Garth (William Fichtner) who has long been searching for a cure, in hopes the boy can be reverse engineered to save the hemophages instead of exterminating them. Garth discovers that the antigens in the boy have nothing to do with hemopagia, but instead are designed to kill humans...and that he has a ruthless protein in his system that will kill him in less than eight hours.

The boy doesn't speak at first, but as he gets to know Violet he reveals that his name is Six. The two share a special bond, him never knowing a woman and her longing for her dead child. Daxus has also implanted in the boy a tracking device, and upon their next encounter he reveals that Six is his clone and that he intends to use the deadly antigens to control all of humanity by releasing them and then selling the cure.

A decent film all in all, with fantastic special effects. Violet's clothes and hair change at will based on her situation in a very chameleon like fashion. And good lord, I loved her costumes. So futuristic and gorgeous...it almost makes me want to work out. Mila is gorgeous, and I think she is absolutely perfect in any Sci-Fi heroine role...I'd watch an hour of her eating toast, honestly, but it pleases me to no end that our generation has a woman like her to entertain us. She's very gifted, and that's a rarity. Cameron Bright as Six is wonderful as well...he's still in his pre-pubescent angelic stage, and that always plays well on the big screen.

That said, the story and the script are terrible...I got the general gist of what was going on, but there was very little story development other than visuals, which are of course subjective. The script is poorly written and all over the place, and the details of hemophagia are sketchy at best. Perhaps I want too much...but I need some background, folks. Another beef were the weapons...characters could carry unlimited amounts on their person and they would just magically appear out of thin air. I'm sure there's an explanation for this, but no one bothered to tell me in the film so instead of thinking 'how cool' I though 'how silly'. I have, of course, done some research and learned that this is called 'dimensional compression'...but I prefer to not have to wiki my movies as I watch them. And, despite the fact that watching Mila kick ass is a great way to spend an evening, there was just too damn much fighting.

I've read that the studio yanked this one out from under Wimmer because they didn't approve of what he had done with the film and the story...a bad choice, I believe. Wimmer's equilibrium was well done, and despite all the Gun Kata the story is clear and we understand why the hero does what he does. In this film, your guess is as good as mine.

Rowan's Rating Scale: This one gets 6 out of 12 monkeys. Better than what was on TV last night, but don't go out of your way unless you dig Mila.

The Story: An intergalactic pile of red jelly comes to Earth for a munching spree, and it's up to hero Steve McQueen to save the day.

One of the most well known of the 1950s teens vs. monsters movies, The Blob inspires almost as many opinions as there are viewers to express them. In this corner; the laugh-at-good-bad-movie crowd, chortling at the low-budget effects, sometimes corny performances and stereotypical story. In the next corner are those who argue that this is actually a very good and unfairly criticized sci-fi horror flick - hey, folks, they argue, there are good effects here as well (the Blob munching an old man-s arm is creepy and believable, for instance) and a few fairly tense moments! In the other two corners are those who dismiss it outright and those who couldn't care less and are engrossed in Terms of Endearment or Kramer Vs. Kramer.

We can safely ignore the third and fourth corners as we watch The Blob with fresh eyes and realize that the other two both have their points. Yes, this is a well-made movie for its time and genre and yes, there is a lot of cheese here as well - some delicious, some with a bit of green fur growing around the edges. Since you-ve already seen it or else have already decided you can't be bothered, we won't spend much time on a full dissection here. Let's just stun this sucker a bit, poke and prod a little and let it stumble away, OK?

Young Steve (Steve McQueen in his first starring role) sees a meteor crash, goes to check it out, finds a glowing red Blob (surprise!) engulfing an old man's arm (in an admittedly tense and well-constructed and acted scene), and in typical late 1950's fashion, goes on a futile mission to convince the town's grown-ups that they are in danger. Of course, no one will believe him (He looks like Elvis! Those crazy kids have certainly reached the ultimate in rebellion!) and Steve has to gather up other misunderstood wild youth to save the town from the ever-growing Blob. And so on.

I've skipped lots of details and left out most of the characters, but what else do you need to know about the plot? Can I tell you anything that could possibly surprise you once you realize that this is simply a "rebel with a cause" teen flick crossed with a well-made "growing monster from space2 B movie? Don't you expect the kids to be acted by adults, some with dangerously receding hairlines? Don't you expect the special effects to be a mix of throwaway dime store props with a few surprising moments of realism? And would you be surprised at all to find out that the kids manage to convince the grownups that they are really okay after all, or that only a few minor characters get Blobbed and all is neatly tied up in the end? Of course that's more or less what you expect, and that's what you get. Verdict? A fun and forgettable evening's entertainment, a "take the brain off the hook and pop some corn" flick after a hard day's work or a harder day's fishing. This move works well on many levels. It's a good insight into the early days of sci-fi/horror, coming from a time when the cold war was still hot, amidst the atomic age. When we were begining to really question "what is out there in the vast universe?". Some films got it right, some didn't. This falls into the "Got it right" category. Though i doubt if aliens do exist, they are big-ass lumps of carnivorous jelly. (Why do all aliens in B-movies have to be deadly?) The whole, fear of outsiders, which was rife in the public's mind due to the "evil" communists, which is most apparent in Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

A few unexpected things before I go; The energetic opening theme song, accompanying an amusing blob cartoon. The tune was composed by none other than a young Burt Bacharach, by the way. A few unexpectedly shocking Blobbings, one of which may even make you flinch a bit. Unremarkable but very professional camerawork, editing and music. The only backwards drag race I recall ever seeing. And most surprising of all, some quite effective and nearly believable performances, highlighted of course by that of the nowhere near teenaged Mr McQueen.

In summation, The Blob is the kind of movie that, if done wrong, can be annoyingly forgettable. If done right, it's enjoyably forgettable. "The Blob" gets it right. It attempts be nothing more (and is nothing less) than a fun, goofy, charming monster meets teen movie. You'll remember it until you forget it. That's a promise.

The Story: Four men from the New Zealand National Air and Space Defense protect a small New Zealand fishing town against aliens killing humans to use for their intergalactic fast-food chain.

Many of us have already seen Dead-Alive, and if you're one of the ones who hasn't, go get it! Prior to Dead-Alive, Peter Jackson and four of his close friends put together a film called Bad Taste. Filmed over a four year period and on a budget no bigger than $250,000, this sci-fi horror epic set the tone for his later Dead-Alive.
A small fishing town in New Zealand has been captured by aliens other than earthlings. Derek, played by Peter Jackson, heads a group of three others working for the New Zealand National Air and Space Defense. They're brought in by their superiors to eliminate the aliens and save the town.

Derek is working on a hillside via a two way-radio. This gives him an over view of the town and its surroundings and allows him to communicate with Barry (Pete O'Herne) down below. Barry however, has problems of his own; he's being run down by a man with an axe. In an attempt to guide Barry to safety, Derek guides him out to the rocky beach, unfortunately, the man follows and Barry must disperse of him with his .45. (What we see here is a man who loses half his head, and the first indication that this movie is going to be great!)

After the man's (or should I use the term alien's) death, we're taken just outside of town to a man driving a car to the same place our dim-witted hero's are trying to save. Giles, played by Craig Smith, is in route to collect donations for a charity. Although you're left wondering whether or not this charity is legit. Even further from town are Ozzy (Terry Potter) and Frank (Mike Minett) awaiting further instructions from Derek.

Eventually, our four hero's attempt to save the collector from the aliens who've captured him. In doing so, they find out the towns people have all been killed, dismembered, and packaged for an intergalactic fast-food chain. And I'm sure if I continue to give any more of this film away, I'll be killed, dismembered, and packed away for intergalactic fast-food from those of you reading this!

Where to begin? Peter Jackson is brilliant! Both on film and behind the camera as the films director. His character Derek is both funny and repulsive at the same time. Jackson has the uncanny ability to splice gore scenes with live action sequences seamlessly. Thus giving the movie its unusual sense of reality. And the gore comes thick and fast. From a big bowl of vomit soup, to a guy jumping through someone with a chainsaw.
Terry Potter (Ozzy), Pete O'Herne (Barry), Mike Minett (Frank), and Craig Smith (Giles) all work together exceptionally well. Doug Wren as the alien leader also plays his role perfectly.
Jackson's make-up effects are also extremely effective. While not nearly as abundant as in Dead-Alive, there's still plenty to write home about and you'll be using your frame by frame button to see this over and over again.

So what's wrong with the film? I have some minor gripes about some of the acting, but over-all it's acceptable. Near the end of the film, the gunfight is a bit to long and the choreography leaves a lot to be desired. Specifically with some of the hand to hand combat scenes. Outside of this though, the film's a boatload of fun and you can see where this film set the tone for Dead Alive. With this film, Dead Alive (A.K.A Brain Dead) Meet the Feebles and the Frighteners, Jackson was on top form. I prefer watching these old school shlock horror gore fests then sitting through his laboriously long Lord of the Rings trilogy. Don’t get me wrong, they are cinema masterpieces, but a tad too long to be watching midgets talk about a magic ring. Though they do kick the ass of Harry Potter any day.

In the end, this is a must own. I doubt you'll find it at your local video store, but if you do, rent it! I guarantee you purchase it afterwards.

The Story: 200 years after the debacle on the prison planet of Fiorina 161, a strangely new and inmproved Lieutenant Ellen Ripley is in for a few surprises aboard the military space station Auriga.

Five years after the commercial disappointment of rock video veteran David Fincher's bleakly nihilistic Alien 3, surrealist French director Jean-Pierre Jeunet resurrected the venerable and often imitated franchise with mixed results. Where Alien 3 attempted, and on some levels succeeded in, a return to the stripped-down, survival-horror approach of Ridley Scott's original classic, Alien Resurrection is clearly intended to appeal to fans of James Cameron's rip-roaring, Oscar-winning sequel. With tongue planted firmly in cheek, Alien Resurrection is a slickly produced, B-movie thrill-ride with enough guns and gore to entertain, but not enough substabce to return the series to its former glory.

On board a United Systems military research vessel, a team of scientists, lead by the effortlessly sleazy Brad Dourif, have succeeded in using DNA recovered from the prison on Fiorina 161 to create a new and improved version of Lieutenant Ellen Ripley (Weaver), the series' inexhaustible heroine. Growing at an accelerated rate, Ripley soon regains control of her now scientifically-enhanced, super human motor functions as well as her memories of her three deadly encounters with the alien previously. In addition to her new physical prowess, Ripley demonstrates remarkable intuitive powers in her realization that they have surgically removed an alien-queen from her and are containing it somewhere within the station where it will spawn and destroy them all.

Soon, a commercial freighter containing a motley crew of grizzled space-pirates, including adorable android Annalee Call (a glaringly miscast Ryder), docks their ship to unload a curious bit of cargo. As it becomes apparent that the arrival of Hollywood's cutest klepto was no accident, her gang takes control of the research vessel in a hail of gunfire while the alien-queen's offspring conspire to escape within its corridors. Soon enough, the chase is on as our anti-heroes blast their way through the ravaged space station with those slithery, slimy Xenomorph's snapping at their heels. The closer the dwindling pack comes to escape, the more Ripley begins to realize that the link she shares with the alien-queen runs deeper than she could have imagined.

As a high-octane, sci-fi/action flick, Resurrection succeeds on all levels with its eccentric cast of comic-book toughs, hyper-kinetic gunplay, and exciting alien attacks, but fails to generate much suspense and lacks the strong characterization that made the first two Alien movies such a triumph. Even with the interchangeable inmates of Alien 3, we still had our beloved Ripley to root for, but this smirking, macho-posturing posturing incarnation of the character is so, well, alien and far removed from the heroine we've come to know, it's hard to identify with her as she caresses the floor in physic rapture, cuts wise, and muscles her way through each situation. As for the supporting cast of strong-arms, Ron Perlman (City of Lost Children, Cronos, Hellboy, etc.), Michael Wincott (The Crow, Curtains) and Dominique Pinon's invalid Vriess are equally comical and visually striking as they mug and swagger (or roll) their way through each scene, completely overshadowing Ryder's brooding android, who instead of eliciting sympathy, only sticks out like a sore thumb.

Despite the lack of any one sympathetic character and the fact that Alien movies have never been much on plot, monster and horror fans will most likely be more interested in all the chest-bursting, face-hugging, acid-dripping fun the series is known for; and in this area, Resurrection doesn't disappoint. Instead of trying to rely on the same old aforementioned shock tactics, Resurrection serves up a few new nasty surprises in the form of an ingeniously brutal alien escape, a chamber of genetic horrors, and a harrowing underwater chase sequence that ranks as one of the series' most memorable set pieces. And though the alien-queen and her drones are cool-looking as ever, what was once terrifying is merely fascinating here due to the obvious use of CGI, evident since Alien 3. Also, some may find it hard to suppress a giggle when they get a load of the comically revolting, cartilage wriggling, alien/human hybrid that appears during the deliriously ludicrous climax.

Though it may be damn near impossible to surpass or even equal the high cinematic standards set by the first two Alien films, director Jeunet, cinematographer Darius Khondhji, and writer Josh Whedon (TV's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel) succeed in delivering a visually exciting, action-packed blast that's certainly never boring. And while Resurrection's over-the-top, caroon-like antics may be prove to be a bit much for fans of the original's smartly minimalist combination of claustrophobic atmosphere, believable characters, and unbearable suspense, it should provide indiscriminate fans of the series with one hell of an adrenaline fix until Lieutenant Ellen Ripley (in one form or another) inevitably returns for another round of alien ass-kicking at a theater near you.

The 1999 movie Dudley Do-Right was a live-action film based on a cartoon of the same name. The cartoon had a very short run on television (it lasted only from 1969-1970) as a spinoff of the popular Rocky and Bullwinkle Show (1961-1973). The film version starred Brendan Fraser in the title role and Alfred Molina as the villain Snidely K. Whiplash. Dudley Do-Right's love interest, Nell Fenwick, was played by Sarah Jessica Parker, and her father, Inspector Fenwick, was played by Robert Prosky.

Dudley-Do-Right opens with a scene from Dudley's childhood. He is talking with his two best friends, who happen to be a young Nell and young Snidely (who already has a penchant for black clothes). All three kids already know what they want to do when they grow up: Snidely says he's "going to be the bad guy"; Nell wants to travel the world; and Dudley wants to become a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He even has his own miniature Mountie uniform that he loves to dress up in.

We then flash forward many years to find that Dudley has indeed fulfilled his dream. He is a Mountie stationed in the quiet Canadian village of Semi-Happy Valley, and really doesn't have much to do except bumble his way around the lodge that serves as his headquarters.

But things soon get interesting when Snidely K. Whiplash and his gang appear on the scene. Snidely has an ingenious plan to take over Semi-Happy Valley: He's going to make it seem as though there's gold to be found in the area, and he'll capitalize on the new gold rush that's sure to ensue. First, he drives off all the regular townsfolk by spreading a rumor that there are vampires in the area. Then, in order to start fooling the rest of the population, Snidely shoots gold-colored flakes and nuggets into abandoned mines and local streams. One day, a down-and-out drifter prospector named Kim (played by Eric Idle), finds a golden nugget. At Snidely's  insistence, Kim appears on the "Regis and Kathie Lee Show" to talk about his discovery, which of course sets off the gold rush that Snidely has been anticipating.

As people flock to the area in droves, Snidely becomes the richest man around. He takes over every business and renames the town after himself. Dudley senses that something isn't right, but he can't quite put his finger on what the problem is. To make matters worse, when Dudley tries to enlist the help of other agencies, Snidely's connections get him removed from the RCMP. The rest of the film follows Dudley's attempts to stop Snidely, get his job back, and win Nell over.

Most movies are made to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, but I think Dudley-Do Right fails in that aspect. It would be very difficult for someone not familiar with the cartoon to enjoy this film on its own merits. Without having the cartoon as a reference point, it's almost impossible to appreciate the characters in the movie because their actions are over-exaggerated and make the actors appear, well, cartoonish.

The only person who I thought perfectly captured his cartoon counterpart was Molina. He was just excellent as Snidely K. Whiplash, the stereotypical villain with the curling mustaches, the black attire, and the evil plan. Molina was a lot of fun to watch, but unfortunately, he couldn't save this film.

I thought Brendan Fraser was the wrong actor for Dudley Do-Right. Back in 1999, Fraser was a pretty popular star with movies such as George of the Jungle and Encino Man to his credit. So the Dudley Do-Right role probably seemed like a good choice at the time. But Fraser never seemed comfortable with the role, and wasn't able to pull it off convincingly. I also thought someone other than Sarah Jessica Parker should have played Nell, so that was another strike against this movie.

The film was also short on plot, and ran just one hour and 17 minutes, a time that includes a 5-minute cartoon at the beginning. I didn't think studios released movies that were much shorter than 90 minutes, but I guess I was wrong.

Overall, only hardcore fans of the Dudley Do-Right cartoon will appreciate the movie version. Everyone else should just stay away from it.

In 1898, the novel War of the Worlds by HG Wells was published; it was a forward thinking tome from Wells' imagination dealing with subject matter humanity had yet to seriously consider. On October 30, 1938 the novel was performed on Mercury Theatre On Air radio as a Halloween treat and was read by actor Orson Welles. Mass panic ensued as many listeners believed it to be a genuine Martian invasion they were listening to live, despite frequent spoken notices to the contrary during the broadcast. It is thought to be the most successful dramatic broadcast in the history of radio. In 1953, the first War of the Worlds movie was released, directed by George Pal...it went on to win an Academy Award for its special effects.

Stephen Spielberg gave us his version in 2005, with the basic plot line of the story the same but set in modern times, as an illustration of the alien war "through the eyes of one American family fighting to survive it". We begin on an ordinary day in New Jersey, our main character Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) is a dock worker and leaving the job for the day to return home to care for his two children, Rachel and Robbie. Ray is divorced, and his wife, Mary Ann (Miranda Otto) has custody but is dropping off the kids for him while she travels to Boston to visit her parents with her new husband. The kids simply don't respect him at all and have little faith in his ability to provide and care for them.

The invasion begins with a spectacular electrical storm...the first indication that something is amiss is the repeated lighting strikes in the exact location. When the storm ends, not only is the power off but nothing electronic will function, including cars and phones. Ray heads out to investigate and discovers with the rest of the residents a hole in the ground of a busy intersection...the ground begins to rumble, and a giant tripod machine emerges from beneath the surface, trumpeting a sound that will make your hair stand on end. It begins to move, blasting people with heat rays and turning them to ashes. Ray manages to escape and return home to his children. They flee in a minivan that has a replaced solenoid (done at Ray's suggestion to get it working again) and head for Mary Ann's house in the suburbs. It has been untouched by the aliens, and the family hides in the basement overnight. When they hear a rumbling in the night, followed by an unearthly screeching, they take further cover in a sub-basement room. At first light, they find the home and everything around them destroyed by a 747 that has fallen from the sky.

It becomes obvious to us at this point that the message is 'you cannot hide, you are not safe'...the family heads for Boston in hopes of finding Mary Ann alive and well. They lose Robbie along the way when he decides to help the military fight the tripods, and quickly notice a 'red weed' that seems to be taking over all plant life. We soon discover that the alien tripods are for harvesting humans, and their blood is extracted and sprayed by the tripods all over the landscape to aid in the growth of the red weed. There is a flaw to the alien takeover plan, of course...they have no immunity to the bacteria that occurs naturally in our environment, and it begins killing them off a bit at a time. The humans are victorious.

Sounds great, doesn't it? It isn't. It was perhaps the most boring 116 minutes of my life. Tom Cruise as Ray is an acceptable choice, and I believe him to be a wonderful and gifted actor (think Born on the Fourth of July, not Top Gun, okay?)...but the script is AWFUL. Trite, predictable, with nearly zero character development. Dakota Fanning (adorable and talented!) as Rachel is the only one we get to know with any sort of depth, and it isn't enough...I was actually GLAD when the tripod snatched her up because I knew the movie was almost over. Tim Robbins as Harlan Ogilvy is a waste of space in the film...he's so poorly written that the lines that SHOULD be meaningful and thought provoking made me roll my eyes and groan. And the worst part of the film? The plot holes. We're told that the aliens have been watching us and placed their ships on our planet millions of years ago..but how did they know we would evolve and become human? They couldn't...and therefore the ships being here is ridiculous, as they need human blood to feed and there were no humans when they were placed. As far as I'm concerned, Spielberg just tossed that in so he could have a special effects extravaganza with ships coming out of the ground. And yes, the effects are top notch and very cool. But that's all there really is to the film...so if you're bored and a graphics nut, rent it. If you're an HG Wells fan, don't waste your time.

Ordinarily, I'm not a fan of musicals and don't enjoy sitting through them. For example, it was a chore for me to make it through Chicago, which won the 2002 Oscar for Best Picture. However, there is one musical that I can watch again and again, and that's My Fair Lady. My Fair Lady, based on the George Bernard Shaw play Pygmalion, was originally adapted for the stage by the legendary team of Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Lowe. After its amazing success on Broadway, Lerner wrote the screenplay for the 1964 Warner Bros. movie directed by George Cukor.

My Fair Lady stars Rex Harrison as Professor Henry Higgins, a brilliant linguist and a "confirmed old bachelor." As the movie opens, Higgins is on his way to India to meet a man named Col. Pickering (played by Wilfrid Hyde-White) to discuss the latest linguistic theories. But Higgins happens to run into Col. Pickering in London, as the Colonel was on his way to see Higgins.

The two men discuss their various theories of language learning, and find that they disagree on a particular point. While Pickering is sympathetic to the plight of the poor and feels that they can't be blamed for the way they talk, Higgins takes the opposite view and says that anyone can be taught to speak well if only they tried hard enough and had the right teacher. In fact, Higgins is willing to wager that he can take a lowly peasant woman and pass her off as a high class lady in just six months. Pickering reluctantly agrees.

A dirty flower seller then catches Higgins' eye, and he realizes that she would be the perfect subject for his undertaking. Her name is Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) and he tells her to report to his home the next day.

When Eliza arrives, Col. Pickering once again voices his objections to the scheme, but Higgins pays him no attention. He is already too caught up in how he's going to transform Eliza and is far too stubborn to call the whole thing off.
The rest of the film deals with the way Higgins teaching Eliza how to be a lady, and the romantic relationship that develops as a result of the six months that they spend together.

My Fair Lady is one of my favorite films of all time. It is a wonderful story that is populated by brilliant actors and terrific songs that perfectly express what is going on in the plot. I can't imagine anyone else playing Henry Higgins; Rex Harrison was simply perfect. He brought just the right amount of irascibility and humanity to the role, and it was fun seeing him transform as much as (or perhaps even more than ) Eliza by the end of the movie.

Much has been written and said about the choice of Audrey Hepburn for the Eliza Doolittle role. Many people felt that Julie Andrews, who played Eliza on Broadway, would have been a far better choice. But I disagree. I thought Hepburn was fantastic here. She was convincing both as the flower girl, and of course as the lady that she turned out to be. Hepburn's stunning beauty really made the ballroom scene work; someone like Julie Andrews would not have had the same impact in that very important scene. That's not a putdown aimed at Andrews' looks, but let's face it: not many women could hold a candle to Audrey Hepburn in her prime!

The supporting actors in this production also turned in memorable performances, especially Hyde-White as Col. Pickering, Stanley Holloway as Alfred P. Doolittle, and Gladys Cooper as Henry Higgins' mother.

And of course I must mention the songs. Lerner and Lowe really outdid themselves with the score for My Fair Lady. Every single song is inspired, and will stick in your head long after you're finished watching the film. My favorite one of all is "On the Street Where You Live," which was sung by Jeremy Brett in his role as Freddy-Eynsford Hill, one of Eliza's suitors.

If you're looking for a wonderful musical to watch, you can't go wrong with My Fair Lady. Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn make a remarkable couple, and their story is one that you'll never forget. This movie is a keeper, and one that you'll want to purchase for your own collection.

By Simon Woodhouse

For along time, whenever I used to sit through the end credits of a movie, I'd wonder why the name of the person in charge of casting appeared so close to that of the director, the producer and the leading actors. The director and the producer are crucial to what takes place behind the camera, and the actors sort out what happens in front of it. But the person in charge of casting, surely all they do is suggest which potential stars might be right for which particular roles. Why is that so important?

The importance of the person in charge of casting can only really be seen in movies that are miscast. When the casting is just right, when the best person for a particular role is given that role, the audience doesn't really notice. The people on screen are the characters they're playing, and not just actors reciting lines whilst looking at the camera.

Superman The Movie is a triumph on so many levels (plot, script, acting), but it's the casting that really makes the film what it is. Christopher Reeve, an unknown at the time, is Superman; it's as simple as that. Others had played the role before him, and also taken up the reins afterwards, but no one nailed the character quite like he did. I can imagine as soon as Lynn Stalmaster (the person in charge of casting on the film) saw Christopher Reeve it was a done deal.

The story of Superman is well known by now, even to people who aren't superhero fans. But anyway, I'll offer a quick recap. Kal-El (to give him his birth name) is the sole survivor of the planet Krypton, a world destroyed when it shifted orbit and moved too close to its own sun. Doting parents Jor-El (Marlon Brando) and Lara (Susannah York), put little Kal into a life capsule and shot him into space. After eons of whizzing through the void, he crash lands on Earth, where he's adopted by Jonathon (Glen Ford) and Martha Kent (Phyllis Thaxter), who give him the name Clark. Luckily enough, the Kent's are decent folk and so young Clark is raised right. After growing up on the Kent's farm, and then learning who he really is and where he comes from, Clark moves to the city of Metropolis.

This whole chunk of the story, which is really just set-up for what's to come, is given plenty of screen time. In fact, Superman himself doesn't appear until forty-five minutes into the film, and even then it's only a fleeting glimpse. By devoting so much time to the back-story, the film makers portray Superman as more than just a costumed hero. He's a real person, with a history on Earth that's absolutely relevant to who he is. Dedicating so much time to this section of the film was a brave move by the people in charge. They could have chosen the easy option, and had Superman appear within the first five minutes, thus satisfying that section of the audience that's only interested in action sequences. In order to compensate for this, when Superman does make his first proper appearance it's a classic movie-going moment. During this fifteen minute montage he catches a helicopter with one hand, foils a bank robbery, nabs a jewel thief, saves the US president and rescues a cat from a tree. What more could anyone ask for?

Vitally important to any superhero film is the main character's alter ego. If this person isn't a believable entity in their own right, the whole movie will crash and burn. But there are no such worries here. Not only is Christopher Reeve the ultimate Superman, he's also the best Clark Kent to ever appear on screen. However, what would Clark be without his Lois? The character of Lois Lane, Clark/Superman's love interest, is so pivotal to any interpretation of Superman that if she's miscast the project is on shaky ground. But if Christopher Reeve is the ultimate Superman, then Margot Kidder is also the best Lois Lane. Not only does she nail the role perfectly, she also has a real chemistry with Reeve (whether he's Superman or Clark). Another key ingredient in a superhero movie is the villain. Superman's arch nemesis was always Lex Luthor, and he's brought to life here by Gene Hackman, in a role that's the perfect combination of threatening menace and acerbic wit.

Once all the elements are in place, the movie turns into the ideal mix of action, angst and humor. Lex Luthor's obsession with real estate leads him to hatch a plot that involves firing a nuclear missile at the San Andres Fault, and thus causing half of California to fall into the sea. At the same time, Clark is trying to win Lois's heart (without much success), Superman is doing the same (with plenty of success) and Lex is devising a plan to kill our hero.

Essential to all superhero movies is a sense of humor. At times, the dialogue in Superman The Movie is so witty it almost seems like a comedy. Lex Luthor delivers most of the funnies, but some of the scenes involving Clark and Lois are also pretty good. Besides the laughs, there are moments of genuine romance, sorrow and suspense. The last twenty minutes are all action, as Superman struggles desperately to thwart Luthor's evil scheme. However, it's the scene where he pulls Lois from her wrecked car that's the most gripping.

Blessed as it is with so much talent (in front and behind the camera), it's hardly surprising the movie did good work at the box office and therefore spawned three sequels. Of these, only Superman II lives up to its predecessor, and that's probably because it was filmed back-to-back with the first movie. Last year's rather dire Superman Returns can't be placed in the same league as this film, dependant as it was on style over substance. But if you watched that movie and thought it was good, have a look at this version if you really want to see Superman at his best.

The 2005 major motion picture release of Jarhead caught my attention because of the intense feel of the trailers and the intriguing tagline of "Welcome to the Suck." It was billed as a movie that would reveal the truth of what life was like in the U.S. Marine Corps during the first Gulf War. Usually I don't like war movies and don't go out of my way to watch them. But this one looked different and starred a wonderful group of talented actors, including Jake Gyllenhall, Peter Sarsgaard, and recent Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx, so I decided to give it a try.

Jarhead is based on the memoirs of Anthoy Swofford, who was just 20 years old when he enlisted in the Marine Corps. Swofford is played by Gyllenhall, and we get brief, requisite glimpses of what happens during basic training. These scenes, complete with a screaming, in-your-face drill sergeant and the standard "This is my rifle…" litany were reminiscent of Full Metal Jacket and didn't strike me as anything original or fresh.

After completing basic training, Swofford is assigned to a unit of snipers under the command of Staff Sgt. Sykes (Foxx). At first, Staff Sgt. Sykes does a couple of things to humiliate Swofford, but as Swofford and his friend Troy (Sarsgaard) emerge as the best sniper and spotter in the unit, a sort of tenuous respect develops between them. The Marines spend most of their time doing training exercises and talking about their loved ones back home until they get the call they've all been waiting for: a "situation" has arisen between Iraq and Kuwait, so a U.S. military presence is required in the Middle East. The Marines are going to the desert to see some action.

If you were expecting these Marines to act scared and reluctant to go, you'd be all wrong. In fact, Swofford and his crew are portra