Appaloosa Movie review:

Ed Harris writes, directs and stars in Appaloosa, an old-school western that epitomizes the genre just a bit too much. Viggo Mortensen, Jeremy Irons and Renee Zellweger also star in the well-reviewed picture.

Appaloosa follows Virgil Cole and Everett Hitch, played by Harris and Mortensen respectively, two lawmen-for-hire who arrive at a small town (guess its name!) in desperate need of law enforcement. With their three lawmen missing and presumed dead, the city has fallen victim to a sleazy cattle herder named Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons), whose legion of men steal, rape and pillage at will. Cole and Hitch immediately put their foot down, but tensions run high, even after Bragg is convicted of murder.

For the record, I love westerns, or at least westerns made in the last couple of decades. If done right, a western can hearken back to the days of old while injecting a modern sense of action and drama. Interestingly, Harris take a different angle with his direction; in complete contrast to last year's 3:10 to Yuma, the direction here is intentionally basic and simple. The movie feels like a western of old, at least in terms of appearance, and this works. To some degree. Beyond that, I won't say the direction was anything amazing.

As far as screenplays go, Appaloosa, co-written by Robert Knott and based on a book by Robert B. Parker, is pretty impressive. Aided by strong performances by the two leads, the screenplay develops good chemistry between Cole and Hitch. The movie doesn't shy away from humor, and despite its rather dry look and feel, the character dynamics are anything but. The screenplay is the strongest part of the movie.

Unfortunately, the movie itself is rather boring. The first half of the movie is pretty good, and Harris teases us with a few exciting paths the movie could have taken (specifically with a certain hostage situation). Unfortunately, the second half just drags on with very little action and a lot of dull plot points. I am perfectly fine with a western that has very little action, but it better deliver in the end. Appaloosa has very little action, and the action that it does have is pretty disappointing. We are subjected to a couple rather cliche stand-off sequences, many of which don't make much sense. Appaloosa was set up to have a great finale between the two lawmen and Bragg's legion of gunfighters, but... this was not the case. Poo.

Oh, and Appaloosa continues to confirm my opinion that Renee Zellweger is one of the most overrated actresses in the business.

Appaloosa is not a poorly made film, and in fact it has a lot going for it, but ultimately it is a disappointing and dull western. Recommended only to big fans of the western genre.

Australia Movie review:

Baz Luhrmann's Australia crawled its way into theaters this Thanksgiving, not exactly the grand entrance he - and 20th Century Fox - imagined when they set out to make the first epic romance in years. The $120 million can only be described as a box office failure, netting less than $20 million over the five-day frame, and the movie isn't quite good enough to garner the major awards this film was made for. Still, Australia is a strong and engaging entry from the Moulin Rouge director, and worth seeing in theaters.

Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman are 2008's Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh, a rugged outbacker and a British aristocrat who come together despite instant disgust toward one another. The comparison to Gone with the Wind is founded, as not only every other critic and his mother are providing the same side-by-side, but Australia is - off the top of my head - the first major romantic epic since 1997's Titanic. With sweeping scenery, beautiful visuals and a romance splintered by pride, career and war, Australia is a sight to behold. Even if it doesn't quite reach that coveted level of being Oscar worthy.

Kidman stars as Lady Sarah Ashley, a woman who has traveled from the United Kingdom to meet her husband and help him with his financial investment, a cattle farm in northern Australia called Far Away Downs. When she arrives, however, aided by the scruffy Drover (Jackman), she discovers that her husband has been murdered with a spear by the aboriginal King George (David Gulpilil); however, a young, racially mixed child named Nullah (Brandon Walters) has a different story, and it involves the seedy Fletcher (David Wenham), one of her husband's employees. With him removed from the equation, it is now up to her and Drover to drive their cattle to the city of Darwin, where the army is waiting for new stock. However, their much larger rival, King Carney, who all but monopolizes the cattle trade in Australia, will see to nothing more than their failure to deliver, no matter what the costs. At the same time, Lady Ashley must protect Nullah from the government, as they are taking all children of mixed descent (white father, aboriginal mother) to insert into re-education courses.

Australia is a film of minor social commentary and the looming of war, but more than anything else it is a good ol' fashioned romance. The movie doesn't always take itself seriously, especially in the beginning, as we are introduced to the wild "west" of the Outback and the utterly clueless Lady Ashley, who screams every time something bad happens. In this way, the movie does hearken back to days of old, where the characters were a little silly and purposely placed at far ends of the spectrum, so that when their characters finally came together in romance, it would be all the more entertaining. Still, under the surface, Luhrmann has filled his picture with interesting characters and quality actors; though Jackman and Kidman play two drastically different individuals, Luhrmann cuts through their superficial contrasts rather quickly - perhaps a bit too quickly to be regarded as realistic. Nullah, the wide-eyed, smiling child who is central to the film's storyline, is also rather unique, as is some of the other supporting characters. Less enticing is Fletcher, who, as a one-sided villain, comes off as a bit cliche for my liking.

The romance between Jackman and Kidman is quite good, and this is the make-or-break for the movie. Without chemistry, the film would be lost to forced devises, but thankfully the two Aussie actors (though one of the characters is an Aussie) hold their own. I don't know if they'd go down as the most memorable pair, but both deliver quality performances (aside from Jackman's teary eyed delivery of the movie's big line, something like "Just because it is, doesn't mean it should") and keep things going.

Most remarkable is the visuals and cinematography, which is not too surprising considering who is at the helm. Even visually, Australia is predominantly traditional in its approach, though Luhrmann doesn't keep that from limiting him. While I would have loved to see a lot more sweeping visuals of the Australia countryside than are used, Luhrmann creates a slightly surreal world by successfully taking advantage of painted landscapes and other effects that properly bridge modern special effects with antiquated faux scenery. His use of slow motion is top notch; the technique that so many directors use to ill fortune is mastered here, as Luhrmann draws us into the emotions of a scene by lingering on a specific shot for much longer than usual. A shot near the end, of Fletcher walking outside to see hundreds of Japanese war planes coming to Darwin, is one that I will remember for a long time. Simply remarkable.

On the flip side, I felt that the editing was a bit cluttered in places, leading to, at times, choppy pacing. There were certain scenes, none of which I can recall off the top of my head, where I wish Luhrmann would have gone a different direction with a shot or stayed on one camera angle for a while longer. It seems as though Luhrmann had many more sweeping shots that were ultimately sliced and diced on the editing room floor. To go along with that, some scenes transition rather abruptly, or, more commonly, I never felt a sense of mounting as the story went on. In the final act, I expected the suspense of will-they/won't they to gather steam until the picture had reached a boiling point, but instead Luhrmann just switches between one character and the next without a proper flow or sense of cohesion. There are also several chronological or logical issues that the film suffers from, such as the stampede scene that changes from night to day when it is convenient for the director, which are a bit distracting. None of these problems are disastrous for the picture, but Australia never overpowered me in the way that a movie like this should.

"Powerful" is a word I like to use to describe Oscar-worthy movies, and I can't quite use that here. Australia is engaging, exciting and well-made, but it is only modestly powerful, if that. While a good chunk of the film is devoted to the issue of racial segregation in Australia, it felt more like Luhrmann stuck this in to capture a piece of Australia rather than to create a story about it. The fact that just earlier this year the Prime Minister of Australia formally apologized to Aborigines for the crimes committed against them also makes the issue less strong. Beyond the politics of the film, if there are any at all, everything from the action to the romance just lacked the power I expected. I was engaged, yes, and even hoping that Jackman and Kidman would find each other at the end, but overpowered, I was not.

Australia is a well-done film, and the sheer size of the picture deserves to be seen on the big screen, but there are enough little flaws, many of which are not mentioned in this review, that keep it from the upper echelon of films. An epic romance like this is made for Oscar glory, but between its shortcomings and its dismal box office performance, its chances are slim, and frankly undeserved. Again, I recommend Australia, just not for the Oscars.

Special Movie review:

In an age where superhero movies rule the box office, it's refreshing to see a different kind of superhero movie: one starring underrated actor Michael Rapaport. In the movie Special, directed and written by Hal Haberman and Jeremy Passmore, Rapaport plays a man who, after being prescribed some pills, is given the gift of telepathy and flight. Well, at least he thinks he has those gifts. In reality, he's having a severe psychotic reaction to his medication, but that doesn't stop him from performing heroic deeds - or at least what he thinks are heroic deeds.

Special is a clever little film. Neither stellar nor mediocre, it is by all means worthwhile, if ultimately unmemorable. Rapaport plays his part well, balancing between heroic do-gooder and troubled meter maid with ease. His performance as what is essentially a severe schizophrenic is quite masterful, though he will never get the awards to prove it. Aided by a pretty decent screenplay, Rapaport drives the film to a satisfying conclusion. As for the directors, kudos to them for taking us into the mind of such a figure - and pulling us back out at times, to where it's never clear what exactly was real and what was in his head. In many ways, it's like a less clever Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, only where the line between reality and imagination is much more blurred.

Special may possibly be the lowest budget superhero film to ever hit theaters (it is playing in very limited theaters right now), as there are very few special effects and a gritty, off-the-cuff look to it. For the type of film Special is, this works handily. Who knew that a superhero movie could cost under a million dollars to make? Take that, Ang Lee.

There's not much else to say about Special. Rapaport does a good job, the story is interesting and the conclusion fulfilling, though the movie is a victim of its own concept. Since Rapaport is not truly a superhero, the movie never allows him to truly have a major superhero experience; as a drama and character study, it works better, but as such there's no real point. Ultimately, it is what it is - and what it is I'm not quite sure - and it could make for a worthwhile rental if you're in the mood for something a little different.

Religulous Movie review:

I'm an atheist. I don't really make it a secret, but I don't go about promoting it either. Why? As proud as I am of such a status, I hate when people walk around talking about God all the time, and I'd be doing quite the same - only with an opposite message. Nevertheless, it rubs me the wrong way when religious people get offended by non-religious people, as if they don't think that we get offended when they try to convince us of some illogical, mythical creature.

Now that I've offended eighty percent of you, Religulous is the movie for the other twenty percent. If you don't speak openly of your atheism or agnosticism, which I'm sure is most of you, you can live vicariously through Bill Maher, who hosts this documentary that appears to have only two purposes: convince people that God doesn't exist, and make fun of those who do.

Of course, those who are religious are unlikely to be swayed by Bill Maher, Then again, they are unlikely to watch this movie in the first place. If Maher's true intent was to persuade the religious, he would have done so in a less controversial and comical way; after all, you're not going to win over too many converts when you're punching them in the face time after time.

But for us atheists, it sure is fun to watch.

Religulous basically follows Maher around the United States, Europe and Israel as he interviews Christians, Mormons, Jews and Muslims, trying to get them to prove that God exists - or even say something intellectual and truthful - while throwing underhanded barbs at them the whole time. His interviewing style is always abrasive and at times cringe-inducing; his earlier interviews, where he talks with a bunch of truckers at a truck stop church, are more cordial, but when he comes across those who don't have a clear answer, he pounces. Then again, in his truck stop interview, he's talking to a bunch of guys twice his size - and the door is behind them.

Maher, and director Larry Charles, only go overboard in one scene, where Maher implies that a Muslim cleric is a terrorist. At least he doesn't do it to his face, but rather via faux subtitles during the editing process. Nevertheless, most of the film is hilarious, as Maher does get his hands on a few crazies, a Senator who clearly didn't know who Maher was before agreeing to the interview and even the rabbi who attended President Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial seminar. Interestingly, the most liberal and dubious people he interviews are Catholic priests, who pretty much sound like they think God doesn't exist.

While surely biased, Maher does present some pretty interesting facts that I didn't know about; I've been meaning to look them up to see just how factual his claims are. If anything, the movie would have been even better had Maher spent a little more time on comparing fact vs. fiction, as there are some intriguing developments raised throughout.

Religulous is not for those who are easily offended, but for those who doubt the existence of God, or at least the institution that is formalized religion, this is a must-see.

Role Models Movie review:

It's only been a year since Knocked Up arrived in theaters, but since that time the top comedies in America have been branded Judd Apatow - or at least starred one of his many friends or colleagues. From Superbad to Forgetting Sarah Marshall, not to mention the Seth Rogen-starring Zack and Miri Make a Porno, these movies have been funny, engaging and witty. They're not for everyone, of course. With edginess comes crudeness, and not everyone likes to watch movies with a bunch of wisecracking men talking about sex and swearing a lot, but for the rest of us, these guys, whether it's Apatow or Rogen or Paul Rudd or what not, seemed to have found a perfect formula that doesn't look to be growing old anytime soon.

Enter Role Models. At first glance, the movie appeared to be one of those many forgettable comedies that appear over the course of a year; it had a funny concept, but the likelihood of anything beyond that was remote. The movie starred The 40-Year Virgin's Paul Rudd and American Pie's Seann William Scott, two rather funny men, but Apatow's name was nowhere to be found; Rudd, who also wrote the movie, appeared to be branching out, always a risky manuever. Hell, at least when Seth Rogen branches out he just jumps ship to Kevin Smith's domain, not to David Wain's camp, a man whose claim to fame thus far has been writing and directing the Paul Rudd-starring The Ten, which was just not that good at all. So, Role Models looked like a watered-down clone of better material in the past.

But wait! The very first scene is hilarious. And then the second. And then the third. The audience is laughing, not mere chuckles but hearty laughs. Hell, there were even a couple people who laughed just a little too long, and you can picture the guy's large stomach in the front jiggling as that deep sound emits from his throat; and tears coming from that girl with the shrill laugh that never seems to stop. We'll ignore the two drunks guys that had to leave within the first minutes to go puke in the bathroom. And then there are those jokes that seem to linger, where half of the audience laughed right away and the others catch on a second later, chiming in after the film is already moving on to it's next. Wow. This is not what I was expecting.

Role Models is one of the funniest movies of the year. Smart, edgy and ultimately heartfelt, the movie has its fair share of sex jokes, swearing and banter, but it works perfectly on many levels. Rudd, Wain and the couple of other co-writers took a simple concept and wrote an intelligent screenplay around it: two men get in trouble and are forced to do community service through working in a "Big Brothers Big Sisters" type of organization called "Sturdy Wings." They are each paired with a troubled kid, Rudd with McLovin' (Superbad's Christopher Mintz-Plasse), who prefers to dress up as a medieval warrior, and Scott with a 10-year old boy named Ronnie (Bobb'e J. Thompson), who is a massive troublemaker. Despite the odds, the four find commonality with one another, but not before lots of smack talking, female advice and inappropriate jokes ensue.

Beyond the clever screenplay, the movie is filled with the right people. Rudd and Scott are excellent in their respective roles, and both of the "boys," Mintz-Plasse and Thompson, are also on-note. Mintz-Plasse needs to be careful not to typecast himself, but he does play the socially awkward nerd so very well. Thompson is a force to be reckoned with, and just seeing him, a little African-American kid, dressed up as Kiss is priceless. Elizabeth Banks, who also starred in Zack and Miri, unfortunately doesn't have much to do, but Jane Lynch, who has had roles in The 40-Year Old Virgin and the Apatow dud Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, is hilarious as the Sturdy Wings founder, a woman who thinks she knows everything and is good at street-talk, but who basically comes off sounding like a frenetic idiot.

Role Models never loses its pacing, even in the final act, and we even get a few medieval battle scenes to boot. Go figure. There have been a lot of great comedies this year, and it's hard to determine exactly where this one falls, but Role Models is easily one of the funniest movies of 2008.

Let the Right One In Movie review:

As thousands of screaming fans wait with bated breath for the release of Twilight at the end of this week, another romantic vampire film is currently in theaters, at Twilight may have trouble claiming its the best vampire movie of the year. Let the Right One In, known in its native Sweden as the easily pronounceable Låt den rätte komma in, is a dark "childhood bonding" film that fires on all guns.

Let the Right One In is a tale about a socially awkward young boy named Oskar who, during one winter, befriends a girl named Eli who has moved in next door. Amidst a rash of recent murders, the boy soon discovers that his friend is indeed a vampire. While she resists sinking her fangs into her fleshy friend, she does help him stand up for himself and teaches him what it's like to actually have a friend. You can only imagine what happens to Oskar's bullies, of course. The movie, which is currently ranked #236 on IMDB's Top 250, is thus your pretty typical kid's movie: friendship, first love, school troubles and bloody vampire action.

Director Tomas Alfredson, working off the novel and screenplay by John Ajvide Lindqvist, has made a fine picture that does manage to tackle all of these elements at once (no, I wasn't kidding). There is a level where the film is about two kids bonding, but then, for the more bloodthirsty crowd, there is a good amount of bloodletting. No, Let the Right One In is not a horror movie in the traditional sense; the vampires are by no means villains, and they don't fly out of the darkness to scare you. There's never a sense of dread, yet the movie has a continuous feeling of abandonment that works in its favor. Set in a Swedish winter, the film looks as dark and cold as the temperature is meant to be, and Alfredson must be complimented on this achievement. When you think about it, there isn't a ton of dialogue either, yet the picture just works.

Neither of the lead performances are going to win any awards, but Kåre Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson have good chemistry together. Leandersson plays a good vampire, especially one who hates what she is and how she must "live." These two kids really drive the film and do a good job of it.

On an entertainment level, Let the Right One In is incredibly fun to watch. It isn't funny, it isn't action-packed and it isn't scary, but it works because it has likable characters and a believable story. This feels like a vampire story that could exist in our world, nothing like the action-vampire pics of recent times (think Underworld). Beyond that, the movie has an incredibly simple but well conceived climax. Some may not like it because it lacks a normal story arc, but once again, I think that plays in its favor.

We'll see if Twilight can match this, but somehow I doubt it.

Let the Right One In does have subtitles, but if you can get past that minor "inconvenience," I highly recommend this picture.

Quantum of Solace Movie review: B-

It's 2:13 a.m., which means Quantum of Solace, the new James Bond film, concluded just fourteen minutes ago. Used to going to sleep by 11 on weeknights, I am extremely tired, fearing my alarm in just a few hours and must warn of typos. My eyes certainly closed a few times throughout the movie, and whether that's a symptom of or a cause for, Quantum of Solace left me desiring more.

Quantum of Solace is not a bad movie. It has a good amount of action, some beautiful women, a car chase, a plane chase and some witty Bond humor. It's entertaining by every essence of the word, and those looking for a slick thrill ride should be entertained. New director Marc Forster has brought much of the same grittiness that Martin Campbell implemented in Casino Royale, and it's good he did, because Quantum of Solace is the first sequel in the James Bond franchise. In other words, this movie starts out minutes after the finale of Casino Royale, where Mr. White was, ahem, apprehended by Bond (Daniel Craig). James Bond. This go around, after Mr. White escapes, Bond sets out to recapture the man, though he has to go through a scheming CEO and a bombshell with a revenge plot of her own before getting to him.

Unfortunately, Quantum of Solace is the movie I feared it would be, a relatively poor continuation of the absolutely excellent Casino Royale. You bring in Marc Forster, whose claim to fame so far has been Finding Neverland, and what do you expect? Forster is not an action director, and never will be, though he tries his hardest here. The movie does have grit, some blood and some intense moments; there is plenty of action for Bond fans to feast their eyes on. Still, the action and everything else feels like a copycat of Casino Royale, only without the heart, soul and wisdom that that film had. Furthermore, while a decent action movie, it feels even less like a Bond film than Casino Royale did.

But with Casino Royale, we, as an audience, willingly relinquished a little bit of what Bond was about to bring him into the modern day, to make him a spy for the 21st century and to compete with much more intimidating action heroes like Jason Bourne. Campbell, who had already once rebooted the Bond franchise with Pierce Brosnan's Goldeneye (one of my favorites), did it again, this time going back to basics, making Bond more realistic and serious. The movie was long and not always action packed, but when the action was there, it was pretty explosive, and when it wasn't, it was interesting to listen to. We cared about the characters and we liked Vesper, even when she did betray the man she loved. Beyond that, there was a truly scary villain named Le Chiffre and an intriguing, smart plot to back him up.

Gone is most of that. There's more action, sure, but does that make an action movie better? The pieces in between, the elements that form the puzzle and make everything work, just don't. I'll even go so far as to say they're boring. There are a couple of Bond girls, but dull and uninteresting doesn't describe them enough. The first one, Agent Fields, isn't developed at all and is only there to look pretty - though Forster forgets that he's supposed to show her on-screen in something alluring, or nothing at all. Camille (Olga Kurylenko) is meant to be the main Bond girl, and while she can pack a punch, she still comes off as a damsel in distress, gets very little screen time, no character development and not much to do other than to get in Bond's way... and Bond doesn't even get to bed her in the end. Mathieu Amalric is a pathetically lame villain, and not even worthy of mention. Quantum of Solace sets the stage for a truly intriguing and complicated mess of politics, double crosses and betrayals, yet it appears as though the producers have this planned for the next Bond flick, as they sure as hell never follow through with any of that here. The uber-bad guy is never caught and very little is done; Quantum of Solace feels like the middle film of a trilogy that has no ending.

In other words, the plot sucks. And regardless of its quality, it isn't grand enough, at least visually, to qualify for a Bond flick, even a grittier, more realistic, 21st century Bond flick. There is no truly memorable action scene, no captivating Bond girl (oh, absolutely no sex or, really, even the allusion to sex) and so on and so forth. All we get is a bunch of quips from Bond and M (Judi Dench, who must have negotiated hard to get an unnecessary amount of screen time), quips that are at times quite funny but reminders of a Bond we thought we had altered just a few years back.

And that brings me to my next point. Quantum of Solace, while looking somewhat like Campbell's Casino Royale, does feel more like an old school Bond flick, as there is more humor and less intelligent plotting. If for some reason the studio decided to go back in this direction (I don't know why they would, as Casino Royale received the most money and the best reviews of any Bond film), fine, but go back with a vengeance. If you're going to make a classic Bond film, give us a little more of that James Bond music (still missing in its purest form), mannerisms and sexiness. And for God's sake, have more sex! Whether we're talking about old or new Bond, there needs to be more Bond girl and more sex. This isn't meant to be shallow, nor meant to imply that old or new Bond should treat sex in the same way, but Forster especially treats sex like it's completely taboo. I just don't get it.

Anyway, Quantum of Solace is action without plot, a sequel that does what sequels do best: fail to live up to their predecessors. It is entertaining, and like all Bond films I'm sure it will grow on me over future viewings, but it's disappointing. Why MGM didn't throw as much money as it needed to keep Campbell on as director is beyond me, and why they hired Forster is a question I'd love to ask. A better, more drawn out screenplay and a different director would have made a world of difference.

Still, because it's James Bond, go see it in theaters anyway.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno Movie review: A-

Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Kevin Smith's latest film that is apparently so controversial that it hasn't been able to advertise its whole title through a variety of advertising methods, stars comedy wunderkind Seth Rogen and hottie Elizabeth Banks. The pairing of Rogen, who is undoubtedly at the peak of his career right now, and Smith, the father of modern, profanity-filled comedies, is a masterstroke. While neither of their best, Zack and Miri Make a Porno is a funny, entertaining, and despite its billing as controversial - and its title - sweet romantic comedy.

Rogen and Banks star as a plutonic couple who have been best friends since elementary school, but who have fallen on hard times and are having trouble paying their bills. When their electricity and water get switched off, they resort to the only logical course of action: make a porno, and make lots of money. While my argument would be that anybody can get amateur porn online for free or quite cheap, they plan to make $20 a pop by selling DVDs to their high school reunion mailing list. Of course, through the course of filming the porno, they realize that they love each other. How sweet life is.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno is an oddly sweet film, but one shouldn't be surprised; Smith is the best at turning edgy, profanity-laden dialogue and simple stories into movies with likable characters one can relate to. The romantic element is there, though guys should not be frightened: Zack and Miri Make a Porno is quintessential Kevin Smith, or at least Kevin-Smith-meets-Seth-Rogen humor. Those who are offended by swearing should avoid this picture, as it has more swear words than most other films released in 2008 combined. Then again, those poor saps who are offended by sex won't like this picture either, as there is a lot of graphic sex, and one very disastrous anal sex scene. However, as with most Kevin Smith films, the swearing and sex aren't there simply to have swearing and sex; the dialogue is hilariously witty, and the sex plays into the screenplay as well.

There are very few flaws with the movie. The first half is funnier than the second half, as the third act has some sequences that are a little more serious and quasi-romantic. The movie does lose its edge in a few small spots, but never truly falters.

On the flip side, the casting is pitch perfect. Rogen and Banks have great chemistry together; Banks especially is terrific. She's hot, funny and can play the goofy best friend card quite well; it's great to see her getting an influx of roles, especially ones suited to her brand of humor. Supporting actors are also great, including Craig Robinson (Darryl from "The Office") and Justin Long as an emotional gay porn star. Long's sole scene is a highlight of the film.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno is one of the funniest movies of 2008, and works on many levels. The acting is great, the writing edgy and the story oddly touching. Highly recommended.

W. Movie review: B-

In one week, American citizens will decide the fate of the country for the next four years. Sadly, I cannot be completely confident that they will make the right choice and move away from the party that has screwed over this world so much over the last eight years. I can say with confidence, however, that George W. Bush and his administration will be looked back upon in history as one of the most deceptive, corrupt and anti-American governments in United States history. They sought to make the world safer after 9/11 and proceeded to make it more dangerous for everyone, especially Americans. They have crapped all over the Constitution and done it with a cocky smirk. The economy is in the tank, the foreign policy is disastrous and the world hates us more than ever. Way to go, President Bush.

W. is the latest film from Oliver Stone, a movie brazenly released before Bush has even left office. This rather unprecedented move presents a predicament; how can you properly assess a character when his story isn't complete? Stone, known for his liberal preferences, apparently felt that he didn't need to know the final chapter in Bush's legacy to be write his story - frankly, we'll be paying for his mistakes for years, so who can wait that long? W., however, is not the liberal tirade against Bush like most people would expect; in other words, it is not Fahrenheit 9/11, a movie that I thought was effective only to the audience it was designed for: Democrats. Stone has deliberately subdued his viewpoints to appeal to broader audiences, and the result is a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, Republicans (the crazy ones that still approve of Bush) could watch this film and not be completely offended, as W. portrays Bush more as a tragic character than a deliberately malicious one. Stone's George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) is a man of simple tastes and simple goals; not a simple man, but a man who wears his beliefs on his shoulders. As such, surrounded by the right men, he is easily manipulated without ever realizing it, and listens a little too closely to the likes of Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) and Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn). This Bush is flawed but "likable," and you feel for the situation that he has gotten himself into; put in this perspective, one has to believe that the real George W. Bush has to be more affected by a war gone wrong and low approval ratings than he lets on; no one wants to be hated by billions of people, and he will be living down his legacy for the rest of his life. Of course, while Bush is portrayed with some compassion, he is not necessarily viewed positively either; and if he is, the rest of his administration certainly is not.

W. is interesting, and takes a very unique look at Bush's life that I doubt will be repeated anytime soon. The movie is more of a character study than anything else; it is certainly not a historical biopic that addresses every issue. For instance, Stone jumps from the late 1990's to 2003; two of the most notable events, the contested 2000 election and September 11th, are never shown and in many ways, barely mentioned. This was a mistake for Stone to completely ignore these events, but, then again, his avoidance of topics that everyone knows about and remembers allows him to focus on other storytelling aspects. Instead, Stone decides to focus on Bush's strained relationship with his father, and his psychological complex to step out from under his shadow. Whether this conflict is a reality or not is anyone's guess, but it's an interesting one.

While enjoyable, the movie isn't perfect. The movie lacks power and energy at times; it lacks the epic feel that JFK, Platoon and a variety of other Stone movies possess. In many ways, the movie is small, and that works both in its favor and against it. Furthermore, Stone went out of his way to cast actors - or apply makeup to them - to make them appear like their real-world counterparts. Brolin is great as Bush, as is Dreyfuss as Cheney, but some of the characters come off as caricatures, as less funny versions of their "Saturday Night Live" counterparts. No one falls victim to this approach more than Thandie Newton, who has the look and sound of Condoleeza Rice, but who has the look and sound a bit too much. She's unintentionally funny, and stands out like a sore thumb compared to everyone else. Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair is also quite bad.

W. is a film of conflicting flavors, performances and quality, but Stone manages to find a pretty good balance. The movie is neither great nor forgettable, and is certainly worth seeing for the utterly disturbing war room scenes. In a rather weak year for performances, Brolin could be looking at an Oscar nomination, though I somehow doubt it. By March, no one is going to want to be reminded of Bush, and maybe that's why Stone decided to make his movie now.

Body of Lies Movie review: B

Alien. Blade Runner. Gladiator. Black Hawk Down. Kingdom of Heaven. If you look at the laundry list of films that Ridley Scott has directed over the years, he has made some of the best movies over the last three decades. He has very few critical misses, and most of those misses aren't complete disasters. Basically, you give him a camera and a few good actors, and he'll make a quality film.

Body of Lies is Scott's latest movie, a CIA narrative starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. DiCaprio stars as Roger Ferris, an up-and-coming field agent who has made a career of immersing himself in Arab countries and getting information that helps the United States in the War on Terror. Crowe plays Ed Hoffman, his handler, who generally spends his time walking around in pajamas and talking on his cell phone while watching his kids in Washington, D.C. After a series of attacks in Europe, the pressure is increased to produce the whereabouts of Al-Saleem (Alon Abutbul), the head of an Al Qaeda group. Ferris is assigned to Jordan, where he immediately strikes up a fragile friendship with the head of Jordanian intelligence, Hani (Mark Strong). There, he must walk that narrow line of appealing to diplomatic relations and allowing for proper, strategic intelligence, and satisfying Hoffman's desire for immediate information.

Body of Lies is a gorgeous film, with crisp, gritty visuals and scenery that looks like it was captured on location. Scott captures my long-distance view of the Middle East, a wasteland of desert that is also beautiful when seen in the right light. As a CIA film about operatives and terrorism, it would have been easy for Scott to get caught up in the visuals and deliver an onslaught of explosions, filthy marketplaces and expansive deserts and miss the storytelling altogether. Thankfully, Body of Lies is a well-balanced picture with a great story, tight pacing and a continuing sense of suspense that starts in the first minute.

Body of Lies received a very mixed response from critics, with some calling the script and story loose and unorganized. I disagree. The movie is exactly the kind of modern CIA story that walks that fine line of delivering an exciting experience while still maintaining some sense of reality in the way the plot is carried out. The movie bounces around between 10 or 12 different locations, often iteratively; Scott doesn't confine his characters or story to a single place, which just isn't representative of the global issues we're facing. A bomb may go off in the Netherlands, but the source may be in Jordan while the leads may be in Iraq and the counterintelligence in the United States. That's just the way things are, and Scott captures this sense of globalization very well. He also captures the idea that the big wigs in the U.S. - and their methods - are not as effective as they once were.

The bottom line is that Body of Lies is suspenseful and exciting from the first minute to the last. DiCaprio turns in another fine performance and continues to prove that he can tackle just about any character and transform himself into that person. Crowe is equally good, though his role is much smaller and less intense. Iranian actress Golshifteh Farahani also delivers a good performance, perhaps as the one innocent in the entire picture. The screenplay and story work, though the movie isn't for everyone; the film isn't traditional in its narrative approach, and those looking for a mindless us-versus-them terrorism story should probably consider watching The Kingdom instead.

The only noticeable flaw with Body of Lies is the ending. Perhaps it's more realistic for things to come together quickly and then slip into the shadows, but the climax feels abrupt and unsatisfying. Without giving too much away, I was looking for something a little more elaborate, though at the same time I appreciate the revelations that come to light in the final minutes.

Body of Lies is not without its flaws, but it is an exciting and engaging movie about CIA operations in the Middle East.

Review by Robert Bell (C)

Attempting to be a geopolitical thriller that emphasizes the smug and detached perspectives of the men, both Western and Eastern, who manipulate and exploit those within the line of fire, Body of Lies has some aesthetic heave but is so structurally inept and contrived that it is difficult not to groan at every creaking turn.

Exacerbating this issue is some slightly outdated terrorist intelligence that tries to reveal the new age of information intelligence that simplifies the issue and ignores both Palestinian pride in martyrdom and the global filtration of terrorist information and funds that reaches much farther than America and the Middle East.  It is not a lack of knowledge that creates these issues, as clearly a great deal of Intel and research went into the story when it was written, but more an issue of overlooking some glaring realities for the sake of a dramatic arc that, as mentioned, should only fool the foolish with its obvious intentions.

Based on David Ignatius's 2007 novel about a CIA operative, Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), who learns of a terrorist ringleader operating out of Jordan, Body of Lies examines his efforts to infiltrate the ring while being used and manipulated by both his own government, which is embodied by Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe), and Jordan criminal intelligence, which is embodied by Hani (Mark Strong). 

In between the many life-threatening scenarios, Ferris develops a hard-on for an Iranian nurse living in Jordan named Aisha (Golshifteh Farahani), which as one can only imagine has a purpose outside of showing what a charming guy Roger Ferris can be.

Scott's borderline fetishistic obsession with slow-motion explosions, aerial tracking shots and purposefully juxtaposed colour schemes matches the material well, as many of the action sequences are really quite tense and impressively crafted but his slatternly attempts at emotional urgency are often amusing. 

Visually oriented individuals looking for some inherently male knuckle-dragging antics should be pleased with the on-screen pissing contest but everyone else will have to make due with minor amusements and a better-than-usual performance from DiCaprio.

Righteous Kill Movie review: C-

Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro team up once again in the new serial killer movie Righteous Kill, an event that should be exciting for any film fan. Unfortunately, someone invited Al's new favorite director Jon Avnet to the party.

Avnet last directed Pacino in this year's 88 Minutes, and what a cluster that was. My thinking was that perhaps Avnet had learned from his mistakes with that one (poor pacing, weak story and shoddy directing) and made a masterpiece with Righteous Kill, but what I discovered about three minutes into the film was that mathematics work. What the hell do I mean by that, you ask? Here's the function: Al Pacino (positive) times Jon Avnet (negative) equals a negative. Al Pacino (positive) times Robert DeNiro (positive) times Jon Avnet (negative) equals...a bigger negative. Yes, Righteous Kill is that bad.

The movie is about two longtime partners who are assigned to a case to investigate the deaths of several bad guys. Poetry is left behind, and it's clear that a serial killer is at work. Of course, since the victims are all creeps, the logical conclusion is that the killer is, in fact, a police officer. Is it Donnie Wahlberg, who is upset that this fall he has to star in this movie rather than a Saw sequel? Or is it John Leguizamo, who wonders how get screwed over by starring in the one Pacino/DeNiro film that sucks? Or is it one of the esteemed actors, who realized that their fading careers have, in fact, led them to this painful juncture in life? Or is it someone else?

While neither DeNiro or Pacino is great here, the real problem is the screenplay by Russell Gewirtz and the direction by Avnet. It's amazing that Gewirtz can produce such a smart and edgy film like Inside Man and then follow it up with a complete pile of crap. Righteous Kill lacks the originality and complexity that DeNiro and Pacino so desperately need to satisfy fans. Of course, a bad director can massacre a decent script - or make a travesty out of a bad one - and Avent is that director. His decision to show flashbacks, therefore effectively killing any pacing or plausibility of the picture, is disastrous. It became obvious to me who the killer was within the first few minutes, and that is not good. To make matters worse, the movie lacks suspense, excitement and energy, three things I was really looking forward to with Pacino and DeNiro together.

Basically, Righteous Kill is a disappointing waste of time. I didn't go in with huge hopes, but I figured a DeNiro/Pacino movie had to be decent. I was wrong. There's no sense of greatness or power when the two are on the screen, and maybe that's because they have so little to do. Righteous Kill is boring and predictable.

Blindness Movie review: B-

One of my most anticipated movies of the fall, Blindness is from director Fernando Meirelles, best known for City of God and The Constant Gardener. A man with amazing vision and the ability to create absolutely beautiful and deep pieces of work, I had high hopes for the apocalyptic picture. Unfortunately, the movie didn't quite hit the mark.

Blindness stars Julianne Moore as a woman who wakes up one morning to find that her husband (Mark Ruffalo) has been infected by a patient and can no longer see. As they quickly discover, the disease has become an epidemic and spread through the country. The government acts quickly and decides to quarantine the unfathomable illness by putting its victims in an old asylum. Strangely, the government decides not to put any of its employees in harm's way, and instead leaves these blind people to fend for themselves. As the asylum's inhabitants expand in numbers, the place turns into a crap-infested boiling pot, as the various wards turn against one another to horde food. The fall from innocence is swift, creating a dangerous situation where no one can be trusted. However, there is one variable few of them know: that the doctor's wife (Moore) can still see.

The picture is a disturbing one, as Meirelles doesn't shy away from showing the people's desperation and misery (shit, literally, is everywhere, people wander around naked, etc.). The asylum turns into a breeding ground for rape, corruption and murder. While there are good people, there are bad people, too.

The movie, based on the novel by José Saramago, explores some interesting issues, and also introduces a series of imaginative events. However, there is something about the picture that I just didn't buy. It's hard to pinpoint, but my general reaction is that the development of events happens too suddenly. The government throws the afflicted into a building and then just ignores them, with no interest in solving the problem or helping them? It just didn't make much sense. The movie needed another twenty minutes tacked on to the beginning to develop the characters and circumstances; as is, things felt rushed and unrealistic.

As things developed, I still wasn't totally engaged in the picture. While I could certainly fathom things crumbling at the seams, the blind people seem overly helpless; a little more focus on the things that the people do to accommodate themselves would have helped me connect with the characters, because as is they came off as cowardly and pathetic. When the Third Ward begins charging for food - and then start demanding women in exchange for food - the other wards just seem to shrug and give in. Perhaps the idea was to relay a sense of hopelessness, but I didn't buy it.

Unfortunately, Meirelles' beautiful cinematography is all but missing from the picture. The director takes the film's title way too literally, as the movie often doesn't look that good. Furthermore, the picture seems to be intentionally edited in a fragmented way, leaving us to connect the pieces. Blindness seems to have been made by an entirely different director. Furthermore, I wouldn't say the acting is anything to scream about; while not bad, none of the actors stand out in any way or form; even Gael García Bernal, who has a surprisingly small role, doesn't make an impact.

Nevertheless, complaints aside, Blindness is a dark and disturbing trip into an apocalyptic world that works if you let it. The final third of the film is particularly mesmerizing, despite lacking the same focus and intensity as the rest of the picture. Had Meirelles added another 20 to 30 minutes to the picture, it could have been a truly effective epic; instead, it's just a decent look at a what-if situation.

Choke Movie review: B-

I navigated my way to FilmJabber today and a realization swept over me: I hadn't written a review for Choke yet. How could I have not written a review for a movie I saw over two weeks ago? Oh yeah... I went to Mexico the next morning and then proceeded to get miserably sick for the subsequent week. Silly me.

Choke, the latest movie based on the insane work of Chuck Palahniuk ("Fight Club"), is about a sex addict who falls in love with his mother's doctor, but realizes he has to come to terms with his own existence before being able to do the dirty deed with her. Sam Rockwell stars as the main character, Victor, who works at a colonial reenactment camp and who visits his dementia-stricken mother (Angelica Huston) as everyone but himself so that she'll talk with him. Kelly Macdonald (No Country for Old Men) stars as the odd doctor who takes a liking to him.

Those looking for the mastery of Fight Club may be disappointed, as David Fincher is "replaced" by actor and first-time director Clark Gregg (he played the S.H.I.E.L.D. agent in Iron Man), the screenwriter also by Gregg, and Brad Pitt and Edward Norton by Rockwell. Rockwell is an underrated actor, but he still isn't either of those two men. Of course, none of those comparisons aren't fair, because the problem isn't Rockwell or Gregg; Choke just isn't Fight Club. It is a smaller story, a comedy, and has nothing to do with split personalities or terrorism or action or making soap. Nevertheless, Choke, by default, raised some odd expectations among filmgoers that will have to be undone before one is able to completely enjoy the picture.

On its own, Choke is pretty good. Pretty good. It has some hilarious moments, and it has some slow moments. Rockwell is great in the lead, and along with the supporting cast embraces the screenplay by Gregg. He makes a likable yet twisted lead who is somehow able to make us feel for him despite his disposition as a complete and utter asshole. Nevertheless, the screenplay, while good, is not great; for whatever reason, there are segments that miss the mark or feel unfinished. The movie feels overly long at times, even though its entire running time is only 89 minutes.

Choke is not without its flaws, but it's an entertaining and disturbing film nonetheless. Recommended to those who liked twisted comedies.

Body of Lies Movie review: B

Alien. Blade Runner. Gladiator. Black Hawk Down. Kingdom of Heaven. If you look at the laundry list of films that Ridley Scott has directed over the years, he has made some of the best movies over the last three decades. He has very few critical misses, and most of those misses aren't complete disasters. Basically, you give him a camera and a few good actors, and he'll make a quality film.

Body of Lies is Scott's latest movie, a CIA narrative starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. DiCaprio stars as Roger Ferris, an up-and-coming field agent who has made a career of immersing himself in Arab countries and getting information that helps the United States in the War on Terror. Crowe plays Ed Hoffman, his handler, who generally spends his time walking around in pajamas and talking on his cell phone while watching his kids in Washington, D.C. After a series of attacks in Europe, the pressure is increased to produce the whereabouts of Al-Saleem (Alon Abutbul), the head of an Al Qaeda group. Ferris is assigned to Jordan, where he immediately strikes up a fragile friendship with the head of Jordanian intelligence, Hani (Mark Strong). There, he must walk that narrow line of appealing to diplomatic relations and allowing for proper, strategic intelligence, and satisfying Hoffman's desire for immediate information.

Body of Lies is a gorgeous film, with crisp, gritty visuals and scenery that looks like it was captured on location. Scott captures my long-distance view of the Middle East, a wasteland of desert that is also beautiful when seen in the right light. As a CIA film about operatives and terrorism, it would have been easy for Scott to get caught up in the visuals and deliver an onslaught of explosions, filthy marketplaces and expansive deserts and miss the storytelling altogether. Thankfully, Body of Lies is a well-balanced picture with a great story, tight pacing and a continuing sense of suspense that starts in the first minute.

Body of Lies received a very mixed response from critics, with some calling the script and story loose and unorganized. I disagree. The movie is exactly the kind of modern CIA story that walks that fine line of delivering an exciting experience while still maintaining some sense of reality in the way the plot is carried out. The movie bounces around between 10 or 12 different locations, often iteratively; Scott doesn't confine his characters or story to a single place, which just isn't representative of the global issues we're facing. A bomb may go off in the Netherlands, but the source may be in Jordan while the leads may be in Iraq and the counterintelligence in the United States. That's just the way things are, and Scott captures this sense of globalization very well. He also captures the idea that the big wigs in the U.S. - and their methods - are not as effective as they once were.

The bottom line is that Body of Lies is suspenseful and exciting from the first minute to the last. DiCaprio turns in another fine performance and continues to prove that he can tackle just about any character and transform himself into that person. Crowe is equally good, though his role is much smaller and less intense. Iranian actress Golshifteh Farahani also delivers a good performance, perhaps as the one innocent in the entire picture. The screenplay and story work, though the movie isn't for everyone; the film isn't traditional in its narrative approach, and those looking for a mindless us-versus-them terrorism story should probably consider watching The Kingdom instead.

The only noticeable flaw with Body of Lies is the ending. Perhaps it's more realistic for things to come together quickly and then slip into the shadows, but the climax feels abrupt and unsatisfying. Without giving too much away, I was looking for something a little more elaborate, though at the same time I appreciate the revelations that come to light in the final minutes.

Body of Lies is not without its flaws, but it is an exciting and engaging movie about CIA operations in the Middle East.

Review by Robert Bell (C)

Attempting to be a geopolitical thriller that emphasizes the smug and detached perspectives of the men, both Western and Eastern, who manipulate and exploit those within the line of fire, Body of Lies has some aesthetic heave but is so structurally inept and contrived that it is difficult not to groan at every creaking turn.

Exacerbating this issue is some slightly outdated terrorist intelligence that tries to reveal the new age of information intelligence that simplifies the issue and ignores both Palestinian pride in martyrdom and the global filtration of terrorist information and funds that reaches much farther than America and the Middle East.  It is not a lack of knowledge that creates these issues, as clearly a great deal of Intel and research went into the story when it was written, but more an issue of overlooking some glaring realities for the sake of a dramatic arc that, as mentioned, should only fool the foolish with its obvious intentions.

Based on David Ignatius's 2007 novel about a CIA operative, Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), who learns of a terrorist ringleader operating out of Jordan, Body of Lies examines his efforts to infiltrate the ring while being used and manipulated by both his own government, which is embodied by Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe), and Jordan criminal intelligence, which is embodied by Hani (Mark Strong). 

In between the many life-threatening scenarios, Ferris develops a hard-on for an Iranian nurse living in Jordan named Aisha (Golshifteh Farahani), which as one can only imagine has a purpose outside of showing what a charming guy Roger Ferris can be.

Scott's borderline fetishistic obsession with slow-motion explosions, aerial tracking shots and purposefully juxtaposed colour schemes matches the material well, as many of the action sequences are really quite tense and impressively crafted but his slatternly attempts at emotional urgency are often amusing. 

Visually oriented individuals looking for some inherently male knuckle-dragging antics should be pleased with the on-screen pissing contest but everyone else will have to make due with minor amusements and a better-than-usual performance from DiCaprio.

Breakfast With Scot Movie review: B

Review by Robert Bell (B)

Drastically simplifying the complexities of internalized homophobia in relation to the public presentation of same-sex unions and historically feminine characteristics, Breakfast with Scot succeeds mainly in spoon-feeding some unfortunate realities of the homosexual persuasion to a mainstream audience that likely had not given it any prior thought.  Everything is presented in an entirely digestible televised light where lifelong struggles are battled and won with the aid of minor life events and well placed speeches.  Said simply, Breakfast with Scot is entirely unrealistic and idealized but perfectly affable nonetheless.

 The niceties start with gay couple Eric (Tom Cavanagh), an ex-Toronto Maple Leaf who now commentates for a sports network, and Sam (Ben Shenkman), a decidedly swishier lawyer who stands by his man regardless of having to hide his relationship from the outside world.  Their relationship is mostly stable aside from Eric's need to remain in the closet for professional reasons and the occasional impact his apparent self-loathing has on Sam's tender sensibilities.

Everything, however, is uprooted when Sam's brothers girlfriend dies of a drug overdose and leaves her 11-year old son Scot (Noah Bernet) without a home.  Since Sam's brother Billy (Colin Cunningham) is off gallivanting around South America, the child is inevitably dumped on the happy gay couple, who really had no desire for children in the first place.  The issue is only exacerbated when they discover that Scot is a musical-obsessed, boa wearing, gay stereotype, which of course irks the hell out of straight-acting Eric.

In fact, something that can be said for Breakfast on the whole is that, aside from the vaginal presentation of young Scot, the characters are grounded with a naturalness and heed that thankfully avoids cliché, for the most part.  It is true that Eric's initial aggression is a bit overdone and his tendency to befriend only the women at work is pretty amusing but Cavanagh plays the character with sincerity, understanding the need to avoid caricature while ensuring that his instinct to “straighten up” Scot comes from a compassionate and pragmatic place.

These occasionally thoughtful portrayals help mask some lamentable realities, such as the fact that a gay man with Eric's degree of socially constructed anxieties would likely have married a woman and spent his free time trolling for dick on the internet.  Truthfully, many negative factors are glossed over with a rainbow flag waving idealism that settles for glib observations about the true emotional impact that a lifetime of being taught to mask ones feelings for the sake of survival has on someone.  These ideals transition from both Eric's personal revelations to the eventual, and inescapable, acceptance of Scot's flamboyance regardless of society's willingness to embrace it.  An examination of darker themes, however, would have made for a very different and less commercially viable film, and given the political climate, may not have been appropriate.

Comedy and drama are juxtaposed appropriately, making for a mostly pleasant viewing experience.  If social realities are ignored and the attitude of ABBA listening fabulousness is adopted, Breakfast might become a favourite for some.  For most, however, the film will exist as a cute and pleasant, but forgettable, look at a new kind of family with different, but similar, problems.

Towelhead Movie review: B

In the day of political correctness, it's nice to see a movie that bucks such a trend while still having something smart to say. Towelhead, from American Beauty writer Alan Ball, is an unconventional drama/almost-comedy about race and sex in the early 1990's. Set in Texas during the first Gulf War, Towelhead revolves around Jasira (Summer Bishil), a 13-year old Lebanese-American girl who is beginning to find herself sexually. Though her father (Peter Macdissi) is also American, he has a strict view of what's proper and a harsh form of love. This, coupled with the fact that Jasira has discovered how to give herself orgasms, leads to a variety of awkward-to-bad situations, including a relationship with a black boy (Eugene Jones) her father disapproves of and a few run-ins with her much older next door neighbor, played by Aaron Eckhart. Maria Bello and Toni Collette also star.

Towelhead is an exploration of sex and racism, though I can't say I'm quite sure what the intent of the story is. Nonetheless, the movie is an intriguing and entertaining picture - albeit a disturbing one - that touches on subjects rarely seen in a major film. From female masturbation to rape of a minor, teenage sex and more, Ball doesn't hold back many punches, which is not surprising since he is, after all, the guy who wrote American Beauty (granted, Towelhead is based on a book by Alicia Erian). The movie is well-written, albeit in an unconventional way, and the result is a slow-boil picture that gets better over time. It takes a little getting used to, as many of the scenes are rather blunt and it's not quite clear whether you should be disturbed or laughing at any given time. I was expecting more of a comedy than what Towelhead actually is, but Ball slips in some dark humor from time to time. Ultimately, the movie is as funny as you want it to be, as some of the most serious moments are also the funniest.

The real strength comes from the actors, who all deliver terrific performances. Twenty-year old Bishil has the tough role of headlining a film with bigger actors than her and playing a 13-year old girl who in one way is completely innocent to the world yet is naively aware of her sexual power over men. Her performance is a strong one, as she manages to create a character who is both a victim and instigator of the many situations that occur. Macdissi is also very strong as her overbearing father, a man who must consciously make the effort to come off as nice. His performance is probably the strongest of the group. Eckhart, meanwhile, plays sleazy very well, and manages to do so in a way where we still feel some compassion for him at the end. Collette also delivers a quality performance.

Towelhead is not without its flaws, however. While never slow, a few scenes could have been snipped here and there to cut the running time. The first act takes a little getting used to, as previously mentioned, and there are a few scenes that could have been smoothed over a bit. Of course, it doesn't help that the movie is going to be compared to American Beauty, due to the strong involvement of Alan Ball and its suburban, sexually charged setting. This comparison may not be fair, but the movies are similar enough in tone and energy that Ball makes it hard to avoid. Unfortunately, Ball is no Sam Mendes, and Towelhead feels a bit plain at times. It works for this picture, but I didn't see anything too impressive here.

Nonetheless, Towelhead is an engaging and entertaining drama with quality writing and directing. It may not be good enough to qualify for the Oscars come March, but it is one of the better movies of 2008.

Eagle Eye Movie review: B

Review by Nathan Samdahl (B)

Eagle Eye, director D.J. Caruso’s follow up to the successful Disturbia, delivers on most of the promise seen in its entertaining, but overplayed trailer.  A cross between The Game and 2001: A Space Odyssey (in concept, not execution), the film unravels at a fast pace as the prolific Shia LeBeouf and the sexy Michelle Monaghan become increasingly entwined in a deadly game neither of them can win.  Strong supporting performances by Billy Bob Thornton, Rosario Dawson and the Shield’s Michael Chiklis help ground the plot, which at times, despite being consistently exciting, is a bit ludicrous.

While certain elements of the film concerning the omnipresent reach of the antagonist are a bit hard to swallow, Eagle Eye is a wild ride with a strong twist that changes the whole landscape of the film.  However, for me, the twist, while being essential to the overall story, diminished my interest in the movie.  This is perhaps because after this point the mystery of the movie is almost completely gone and the film changes gears to follow a more WarGames plotline, which in face of past films (such as WarGames), felt a bit derivative.

The visuals in Eagle Eye are fairly strong.  The action scenes and special effects are big and in your face, better than most, but not unique in the same way as scenes in summer fare such as The Dark Knight or Wanted.  However, the speed at which the action scenes unfold help greatly to cleverly cover up some of the sizeable plot holes that in retrospect keep the film from reaching a higher plateau of action films.

Eagle Eye is a very enjoyable movie, perhaps because or despite the film’s quintessential Hollywood approach-big, loud, over-the-top, filled with big stars and non-stop until the end.  Shia LaBeouf is engaging as usual even though his ever witty rebel approach does not really show a new side to him after similar roles in Transformers, Indiana Jones, and well just about every other Shia LaBeouf movie.  Probably not to go down in the annals of great Hollywood films, Eagle Eye does have potential to be a big draw at the box-office and in the face of rather weak competition (even though I am sure Miracle at St. Anne will be a better film), is your best bet for a thrill this weekend.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona Movie review: C+

Review by Alice Graves

I used to think that Woody Allen could do no wrong. When I lived in New York I went to see each new movie on opening night. I stood out in the freezing rain to see "Hannah and Her Sisters" but it was worth it. I came away from that movie renewed, inspired, and optimistic about the possibilities of love and life. It was his most uncynical film.

Allen's early films were howlers aimed at a college-educated (preferably in comparative literature), urban audience. Like "Love and Death," his hysterical historical movie about a plot to assassinate Napoleon with references to philosophy, literature and the Marx Brothers. Thirty-three years later, it is a classic.
I even liked "Hollywood Ending," his own Hollywood ending of sorts. In it he conjured Sophocles by creating the role of the film director who becomes hysterically blind and can't see the movie he is making. It's hilarious but it has essence. It has something to tell the audience. The movies coming out of Hollywood are not worth seeing. In the end, the Allen character moves to Paris, where his work (like that of Jerry Lewis) is appreciated.

Allen made two more films in the US before leaving for London, where he made Hitchcockian thrillers "Match Point" and "Cassandra's Dream," with "Scoop" thrown in the middle for a comic breather.

And then on to the Continent.

As much as I hate to say this, I was disappointed in "Vicky Christina Barcelona." I loved the city of Barcelona used as a backdrop. I am ready to move there. But the characters were shallow and the story was murky. The character with the most depth, who we barely saw enough of, was the American expatriate Judy, played by Patricia Clarkson. She is simply unforgettable as a woman who knows the score, and her scenes made the movie worth seeing. Scarlett Johansson is beautiful to look at, as are Javier Bardem, Rebecca Hall and Penelope Cruz, but their characters were all one-dimensional.

Maybe Allen is trying to tell us that Americans are gullible and know nothing about love. But Bardem and Cruz, so passionately and violently in love, are not convincing either. Yes, their love inspires them to create art, but is art love or is it merely art?

Allen is brilliant at making his locations a character in his films, and his actors are lovely to look at. I even thought Bardem was sort of cute as the psycho killer in "No Country for Old Men," but I'll take that one up with my shrink.

If you're wavering on whether or not to see "Vicky Christina Barcelona," I say see it, because it's Woody Allen which makes it better than most of the tripe on multiplex screens these days. But don't expect the Woody Allen who made "Annie Hall" or "Take the Money and Run" and don't expect to roll in the aisles howling with laughter, your giant cola spurting through your nostrils. Woody Allen, like a fine wine, has mellowed. Just inhale and sip.

Burn After Reading Movie review: B

Last year, the Coen Brothers finally found their maker when they won several Oscars for the stirring film No Country for Old Men. One of the best movies of 2007, though in my opinion not the best, No Country seems to have propelled Joel and Ethan to a new level of a popularity. In other words, the Coen brothers could make Disaster Movie and people would have lined up in droves. Thankfully, they decided to put their brains together for more original fare, like the idiotic comedy-thriller Burn After Reading.

Burn After Reading is a clever movie about how a job firing and divorce proceeding leads to a comedy of errors that gets the CIA involved, relationships destroyed and people dead. Too bad the Coen brothers, even with their renewed popularity, couldn't get any big names into their film. All the dual directors could muster up was Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, Brad Pitt and George Clooney.

Without giving too much of the plot away, the movie is about a couple of idiotic fitness club employees (McDormand and Pitt) who stumble across a CD that contains what they believe to be top secret spy information. While the files do belong to a CIA analyst (Malkovich), they aren't nearly as important as first expected - but that doesn't stop them from starting a cat-and-mouse game between the CIA, the Russians, and a variety of people that "all seem to be sleeping with each other."

As with most Coen brother comedies, Burn After Reading is at times inconsistent. There are stretches where things aren't all that funny, but the directors are more concerned about the overall effect of the movie rather than the hilariousness of each little scene. While not perfect, Burn After Reading does seem to be the movie the Coens set out to make. It has its laughs, it has a lot of weird characters and a goofy plot that most writers could only dream of pulling off. And, unlike No Country, it has an ending that wraps everything up all nice and neat.

What really makes Burn After Reading is the actors, though. While Swinton really doesn't get much to do, the rest of the leading cast - and some smaller members as well - really pull out all the stops. McDormand, a Coen brothers regular, is great. Malkovich, while not quite up to Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance in Charlie Wilson's War, also plays the eccentric spy quite well. The real stars, though, are Pitt and Clooney, both of whom turn in pitch-perfect performances. Pitt's exuberant, bumbling character is classic; from his hairdo to his zany mannerisms, this is one of his most memorable performances to date. As for Clooney, how many other actors could pull off a womanizing yet socially awkward government employee with nervously twitching eyes and paranoid delusions? Clooney has always excelled in playing the smart-idiot (another Coen brothers movie comes to mind), and he has done it again here.

David Rasche and J.K. Simmons also turn in great, memorable performances as two not-overly concerned CIA agents. In fact, their comedic timing is so perfect that their few scenes are some of the best of the movie.

Burn After Reading is an enjoyable and funny film if you like offbeat, quirky comedies, though at 96 minutes, it still feels a bit long at times. The movie picks up in the final act, but there are a few stretches that could have used some tinkering. Nevertheless, though not without its flaws, Burn After Reading is an entertaining, early-fall entry to theaters.

Bangkok Dangerous Movie review: C

Review by Robert Bell (C)

With a dash of unnecessarily gratuitous violence, a sprinkle of overt misogyny and a veritable cornucopia of unintentionally amusing character traits, Bangkok Dangerous is in no danger of garnering any Oscar nominations, which for the most part appears to suit it just fine.  Despite playing it straight - which makes it that much more amusing - the film seems to be at least a little bit aware of its own ineptitude and desire to cater to the lowest common denominator, which includes guns, tits and severed limbs. 

While on a routine assassination mission in Thailand, Joe (Nicolas Cage) reflects on the isolationist nature of contractual killing and whines a bit about how hard it is to make friends while brutally murdering various baddies.  To help him out with his somewhat convoluted assignment, Joe enlists the help of a street criminal named Kong (Shahkrit Yamnarm), who picks up suitcases from high-class hooker Aom (Panward Hemmanee). 

In between routine slaughters and heroin injections, Joe makes a visit to the local pharmacy to get some Bactine for a miscellaneous gash and meets the demure, sexless and conveniently mute Fon (Charlie Yeung), an inhuman male fantasy who giggles a lot.  Inevitable he starts up a flirtation with the young woman that hits a wall when he blows someone’s brains out all over her cream coloured jacket. 

Teenage boys will surely find a great deal of pleasure in the many profane utterances and bullet-ridden chase sequences throughout, as will a certain selection of grown men (business in the front; party in the back).  This movie was made for that demographic and they will likely complain only about the first lethargically directed hour before the titties flop out and the blood starts flowing.

Regardless of maturity or let’s face it - competence, Bangkok Dangerous treads along at a decent clip and can be perceived as entertaining by a variety of different kinds of people for a variety of different reasons.