Reviews

Believe is like Firestarter meets Touched By An Angel – it has an adorable little girl with scary psychic powers and all the adventure associated with that, plus good deeds that no ordinary human could perform. The actress playing the show's main character is named Johnny Sequoyah, an odd name for a girl. She plays Bo, an equally odd name for a girl. But, hey, Bo knows how to read minds (maybe), Bo knows pigeons (in a way), and Bo knows the future (sort of).

Besides Bo, there are two groups of characters. One group is trying to catch Bo. We don't know why, but it can't be good. The billionaire in charge of this group doesn't have a mustache to twirl, but I'm sure he would if he had one. His main agent seems reasonably competent under normal chase and fight circumstances, but she is oddly oblivious of her ultimate quarry's powers. Didn't anyone tell her she's not chasing an ordinary child?

The other group is trying to prevent the first group from catching Bo. These are the Good guys, as in capital G good: they don't care about money, eschew the use of guns, and just generally want to make sure Bo stays free to help people. Clearly, they don't know how Bo is going to help anyone, because apparently even Bo herself doesn't understand her powers herself. But that doesn't matter, because they're Good.

The second group picks a guy named Tate to protect Bo and keep her away from the first group. Apparently, it doesn't matter that they have to pluck him off of Death Row, because, hey, he cleans up good after a shave and a haircut, and he apparently knows some Kung Fu. He also inexplicably takes an immediate shining (no pun intended) to Bo thanks to a some random butterflies, not that he would ever admit it: a recently sprung convict has to keep up his crusty, skeptical exterior (even when we can tell he has a heart of gold)!

My sarcasm may make it sound like I didn't particularly like Believe, but I did. For one thing, Alfonso Cuaron directed the first episode, and he presents us with some cinematic elements that TV rarely provides, such as an incredibly gripping car crash scene early on. But the best thing in this show is Bo. Johnny Sequoyah plays her with a wide-eyed innocence that disguises what I perceived to be a worldly and wise understanding of everything going on around her. This girl grabs your attention in every scene: I couldn't wait to see what she was going to do or say next every time she appeared on screen.

I enjoyed Believe a lot – I am very much looking forward to seeing where it goes!

***Seriously, LOTS of spoilers, so proceed with caution!*** Revenge of the Sith is so good, I hardly have words to describe it. My wife, who is not a particular fan of the series, came out of the theater asking, "Where did all that good acting come from?" It is a legitimate question after Jake Lloyd's wooden acting and Jar-Jar's entire "performance" in Ep. I, and the absolutely wretched romance scenes in Ep. II. Here, you care about the characters. You feel Anakin's ambivalence, Obi-Wan's anguish, Padme's sadness, Mace Windu's righteous anger, even the Emporer's lust for power.

Even moreso, you feel for the characters because of how they interact so believably with the other characters. Anakin must choose between the Emporer and Obi-Wan for his master. Obi-Wan must choose between loyalty to Yoda/the Jedi Order, and loyalty to his protégé. Padme is torn between love for her husband and her trust in Obi-Wan. And behind it all, the Emporer is manipulating Jedi against Sith, Clone Army against Separatists, and the need for peace and security against power and dictatorship.

And the action! The initial space battle is excellent, but it overwhelms the senses. Extremely satisfying, though, are the lightsaber duels, starting with a re-match of Obi-Wan & Anakin vs. Count Dooku, ending in Christopher Lee's digitally-placed head separated from his stunt-man body. I particularly liked the fight between Obi-Wan and General Grievous, especially its start as Grievous lights up, count 'em, FOUR lightsabers! And of course the final fights, Obi-Wan vs. Anakin, and Yoda vs. the Emporer are not just thrilling, but amazingly epic in their scope and execution.

And, oh, the tragedy! To see Yoda literally crawl away on all fours in defeat; tears rolling down Obi-Wan's cheeks as he stands "victorious"; Padme's funeral procession; Darth Vader dismembered and burned; twin babies born to lives as orphans -- gut-wrenchingly effective.

Then there are all the fine, little touches to satisfy the hard-core Star Wars geek that I am because of all the cool bridges Lucas creates from this movie to the one he released way back in 1977. Where to begin? Yoda tells Obi-Wan that Darth Vader has consumed Anakin, setting the stage for Obi-Wan later telling Luke that Vader killed Luke's father. The Senator from Alderaan flies around in the SAME SHIP that we first see Princess Leia fleeing in with the stolen technical details of the Death Star. Yoda tells Obi-Wan that his old mentor, Qui-Gon, has discovered the "secret of immortality," setting up Obi-Wan telling Darth Vader in the 1977 movie that "If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." C-3PO gets his memory wiped, and R2-D2 doesn't! (That one's just TOO funny.) Now for my small quibbles, because I have never seen a movie I thought was completely perfect. I heard somewhere that, a couple years back, Samuel L. Jackson begged George Lucas not to script his character dying in some wimpy way. George rewarded him by making Mace Windu's death the entire movie's, arguably the whole six-episode series', turning point. Natalie Portman, apparently, did not similarly beg. Padme's death is not only pointless, it took me out of the movie. Also, it feels incongruous to me to see Darth Vader, IN the suit, and hear him ask about Padme, like he cares. It makes sense, yes, but it just does not feel right to me.

I would have named the movie, "The Fall of the Jedi." Because "Jedi" can be singular or plural, that name would have referred both to Anakin's personal story and to the destruction of the entire Jedi order. The movie isn't about the Sith seeking revenge at all -- it's about them seeking power. However, I guess if you wanted the word "Sith" in your title, it wouldn't sound cinematic to call it, "The Power Grab of the Sith." Anyway, whatever its name, it was excellent. I am torn between giving it an A-, which would tie it with Return of the Jedi, and an A, which would tie it with Empire Strikes Back in my personal movie grading database. By way of comparison, I gave an A+ only to A New Hope, my all time favorite, and I gave a B to both Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. Finally as of today, May 31, I have seen Revenge in the theater twice; I believe it speaks well for it that I'd like to see it at least once more on the big screen.

I thought Sin City was bloody good. It reveled in darkness and sadism, sometimes too much, the heroes were impossibly hardy, it was misogynist, and the noir style got tiring. However, easily trumping those quibbles were the facts that it was thrilling, shocking and incredibly cool looking. The greatest thing about this movie, though, was the characters! Just look at this partial lineup (in no particular order):

Marv -- He's a big lug who can suck up wounds like crazy, spit blood, and quip, "Is that all you got?" This guy is the closest thing the movie has to a traditional "superhero" type. His powers are tremendous strength, near invulnerability, high agility, the ability to slip out of bonds, and of course a knack for scaring people with his ugly mug. On a morals level, he's no Clark Kent -- he's all about the end justifying the means. Any means, including merciless torture and murder. But the poor guy is so pathetic that a prostitute sleeping with him gives his life purpose; you can hardly help caring for him.

Kevin -- What is this kid's story? He's a depraved, mute cannibal with razor-like fingernails and preternatural quickness and stealth capability who enjoys reading his Bible, yes, we get that, but where did he come from? I'd love to see a whole movie about how he became what he was.

Nancy -- Such a sweetheart! However, with her, the film misses a chance at an even better characterization. She was set up to be the inspiration for Hartigan's redemption, so she should have remained unsullied. Instead, she grew up to be an exotic dancer in a sleazy bar. Her career choice clashed harshly with the wide-eyed innocence, the trusting nature, the naiveté central to what the plot needed her for. Somehow her character still worked pretty well, though.

Gail -- Would she really have killed Dwight if he had not negotiated his way out of it during their confrontation over how to proceed with Jackie Boy's body? Was she in love with him, or in love with the fantasy of being in love? Surely being a prostitute honed her skill so she could have made Dwight believe what she wanted him to believe. I think her true loyalty was to the women under her direction, and that she was using Dwight's genuine love for her merely to manipulate him into helping them.

Cardinal Roark -- Did he have a homosexual relationship with Kevin, or did he really believe the pseudo-spiritual nonsense about eating peoples' souls? Probably both. He seemed the type who thought himself not only above man's law, but above God's law too.

Yellow Bastard -- What an unrepentant, no-conscience sack of pure, petty evil! I must give the movie kudos for daring to highlight a character who is a sadistic, murdering pedophile and getting away with only an R rating.

I give this movie 8 out of 10.

I liked it but I didn't love it. A completely character-driven story, Million Dollar Baby had excellently textured characters, brilliantly but subtly acted by the main three, Eastwood, Swank, and Freeman. The pace is easy; it carries the viewer along, keeping him involved without sweeping him away.

But if you're going to base your movie on the characters' distinctive, impressive, and sometimes surprising actions in the film, on what they have gone through off-screen in their pasts, don't you have an obligation to the viewer to reveal what happened in their pasts that account for how they're responding to the events of the present? In Freeman's case, the viewer gets satisfaction. Scrap (Freeman) reveals to Maggie (Swank), and thereby to the viewer, all about his 109 fights, how he lost his eye, what happened to result in him settling in as a janitor in Frankie's (Eastwood) gym, and why he risks his old body to come to Danger's defense.

But Scrap is a secondary character. You don't get the same satisfaction with the mains.

Frankie feels so guilty about something that happened between him and his daughter in the past that he goes to Mass and sends her a letter every week for years on end, and never gains absolution. What happened? Not knowing, the viewer is forced simply to accept at face value that Frankie would all but turn his life over to taking care of Maggie. The acting is so good, we can accept it, but the movie loses some of its power by not explaining to us.

Same for Maggie. She is willing to sacrifice her body for her dreams and she displays an ambition so powerful it's nearly superhuman. It all comes, we learn, from her relationship with her father. But who was he, what happened to him, and how was he such a powerful influence on her? The movie never tells us. And so, as Maggie dedicates herself to Frankie, again, we can accept it at face value, but since we don't know these important details about her, that's all we can do -- we cannot fully understand her. Thus, again, the movie loses some of its power.

Maybe I'm asking the impossible. Many will say, "Just appreciate the movie for the masterpiece of characterization and acting that it is." And I do. I do appreciate it. I appreciate how the characters interact, their dialog, the richness of their portrayals. I appreciate the movie's use of light and shadow to create mood, its subtle cinematography, its understated way of presenting the characters to the viewer.

Nonetheless, I am left not . . . quite . . . satisfied.

8 of 10