Reviews

Thought-provoking documentary about the way the media is covering the war in Iraq, concentrating on the work done by the Arab network Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera is continually accused of bad reporting and using anti-American propaganda, but the truth revealed in this documentary is that they are, if at all, only slightly more biased than any U.S. news organization. And that's only because they are under pressure from Arab officials and of course, because they actually live where the bombs are falling (one reporter who is interviewed in the film is killed by a U.S bombing raid that seemed almost intentionally aimed at Arab news networks).

Despite the way U.S. politicians try to portray them, the Al Jazeera staff are on the whole balanced, calm, intelligent, and many admire the U.S. (one man even plans to send his children there for school), but strongly oppose the way The Idiot (oops, I mean Bush) is handling it. And who can blame them? They're the ones with bombs falling on their heads.

The best scenes in the film are the discussions between an Al Jazeera journalist named Hassan Ibrahim and a U.S. Military Press Officer named Josh Rushing. They are on opposite sides of the war, but both men are kind and open-minded and willing to truly listen to and consider the other's points. Discourse like this, between two rational and humane people, is what we need more of.

Talk about an appropriate title.

This is a collection of 11 short stories directed by indie stalwart Jim Jarmusch ("Strangers in Paradise", "Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai") that have been filmed over the last 18 years, all of which involve two or more characters simply sitting at a table, conversing over...yep, coffee and cigarettes.

In the hands of a lesser director that might be extremely boring, but Jarmusch is a master of subtle understatement and great deadpan humor. This may be one of the funniest movies you've ever seen in which no one cracks a smile.

Almost all the actors play themselves, which adds a meta-theatrical, slightly surreal touch to it all.

Among my favorite stories are one in which an overly eager Alfred Molina has a surprise in store for coolly arrogant fellow actor Steve Coogan and a great one in which Cate Blanchett plays both herself and her jealous cousin Shelby. Then there's the one where Tom Waits and Iggy Pop meet in a dive bar to discuss things and have a smoke (to celebrate quitting smoking), Jack and Meg White of the White Stripes experimenting with a Tesla coil, and in the funniest casting, RZA and GZA of the Wu-Tang Clan sharing some downtime with, of all people, Bill Murray. I also like the one with Spike Lee's twin siblings, Joie and Cinque, dealing with an invasive waiter (a hilarious Steve Buscemi). Almost all the stories are excellent, but there are three that are very forgettable and pretty unnecessary, and they're all in a row, which disrupts the flow of the film. If those three had been taken out, "Coffee and Cigarettes" would be just about perfect, but it's still really good. And those three are out of the way in the first half, anyway.

For the first hour the movie feels mainly just like fun. Straight-faced, deadpan, B&W comedy just like "Strangers In Paradise". But as it goes on, and strange connections are made between the stories, it seems to have a sudden dreamlike depth to it.

The final story in particular, in which two old men in a dark room (Bill Rice and Taylor Mead) discuss life while on a coffee break that feels like it'll last forever, has a distinct "Waiting For Godot" feel and ends the movie on a perfect note of haunting, existential sadness.

It was at that point that I realized I hadn't just watched a string of jokey short stories, but a string of jokey short stories that say a lot about human nature and life in general.

And if that's not enough to interest you, how often do you get to see Tom Waits and Iggy Pop have a conversation? Or RZA, GZA, and Bill Murray?

Aw, damn. We can't make fun of Mario Van Peebles anymore. Always something of a laughing stock (despite a few good contributions, like a good performance in "Ali" and directing "New Jack City"), Mario Van Peebles has made himself instantly much cooler by making this fun and suitably chaotic film, which chronicles the making of his father Melvin's landmark film "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song".

I've never seen that film, but from what I understand it's not exactly great, but was revolutionary for existing at all. It's about a black man "taking it to the man" and actually getting away with it, which was unheard of at the time.

Mario plays his own father, and "Baadasssss!" certainly doesn't candy-coat it. Melvin was essentially a good man, but could be incredibly cold and mean, and to his own family, and the film shows that. It also takes us back to the notorious scene in "Sweetback" where Melvin used his own 13 year-old son in the scene where the the titular character loses his virginity. This scene was difficult and uncomfortable for everyone involved, EXCEPT Melvin, which is telling.

The movie is swiftly paced and stylish, but I couldn't help feeling that it could be a little better. It feels a little messy and disorganized at times. Still, good stuff.

Jim McKay ("Our Song", "Girls Town") directs this provocative yet optimistic slice-of-life film set in Brooklyn, which recently premiered on HBO.

Covering the events of one long day in the lives of several people in and around a popular neighborhood restaurant that is set to shut its doors soon, "Everyday People" is pretty much all talk. But like "Smoke", another character-driven, slice-of-life film set in Brooklyn (and one of my all-time favorite movies), the talk is fascinating, and the characters' stories weave together in a way that is truly satisfying.

Someone once said (I think it may have been Gene Siskel, but I'm really not sure) that the true test of a good movie is whether it feels like the characters were alive before the movie started and go on living after it ends. Well, "Everyday People" passes that test with flying colors. Though there are far too many characters for each of them to be fully developed, this is an extremely well-written and acted film, and each character feels very real.

Also, McKay deserves credit for not tying up the film with a pretty bow. It ends on a note that feels good, but he leaves several characters' destinies up in the air. After all, most problems aren't solved in a day, and it's nice that McKay understands that.

An added bonus: it features lots of new music by one of America's most brilliant and underappreciated singer-songwriters, Marc Anthony Thompson, a.k.a. Chocolate Genius (pick up 1998's "Black Music" if you need proof).

Is this movie stupid? Yes. Are there tons of jokes and lines that fall flat? Yes. But is it painful? No. And is it pretty damn funny in places and does it have lots of fun characters? Definitely.

The title pretty much says it all here. It's about dodgeball, and in the great tradition of sports comedies like "Caddyshack", it's also a class struggle, about the underdogs vs. the rich ***holes.

I thought I was getting tired of Ben Stiller, but he's great here as playing a send-up of the typical villain in those types of movies. It's a lot of fun to watch him with puffed-up blondish hair, a Leather-Man-from-the-Village-People mustache, and an affected "tough" speaking tone play the kind of idiotic bad guy we all love to hate.

"Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story" isn't a great movie, or anything even approaching that, but it does work more than you expect it to, and it's more or less worth plunking down the change.

Whenever I'm watching a movie like "The Terminal", and all I can do is shake my head and roll my eyes while most of the audience laughs and claps, I always wonder if I'm just being a grump. Then I remember that, no, I don't consider myself a cynic, so it's something wrong with the movie. And boy, is there a lot wrong with this movie.

The first 30-40 minutes are actually quite good. Tom Hanks plays Viktor Navorski, an immigrant from a fictional Eastern European country named Krakohzia who finds himself with an invalid passport upon his arrival in New York, and since he cannot set foot on America soil without a working passport, he is confined to the airport for an indeterminate time period. Hanks is, of course, great, and the swooping camerawork that follows him through the gigantic terminal with all the flashing lights, fast food and souvenir stores is excellent. We can feel Viktor's confusion and helplessness, and the hints he picks up about how to make life in an airport more tolerable are amusing.

Then the movie begins to wander, aimlessly. Lame subplots are brought in to pass the time, like Viktor playing matchmaker for a friendly airport employee (Diego Luna) and a predictably tough-on-the-outside, tender-on-the-inside INS agent (Zoe Saldana). This subplot is weak to begin with, then is dropped entirely for nearly an hour before wrapping up in a nauseatingly cutesy way.

That's the other major problem: the sappiness. Spielberg's always been eager to lay on the sappiness in many of his films, and it really kills "The Terminal". A very good and intelligent film could have been made with this story and cast (which also includes Catherine Zeta-Jones, Stanley Tucci, Chi McBride and Kumar Pallana), but after the promising beginning it heads right into sappy, cliched, unrealistic nonsense.

Interestingly, it's loosely based on the true story of Iranian refugee Merhan Nasseri's experiences at France's Charles De Gaulle airport. I'm guessing that's VERY loosely. That is, unless Nasseri became a working class hero for the staff, had fun foiling the fussy jerk in head of security (Tucci) and had a starry-eyed romance with a flaky stewardess (Zeta-Jones) complete with cornball speeches in front of a gleaming, hand-made water fountain.

Yeah yeah, I know it's supposed to be whimsical. I still say there's a big difference between whimsy (which requires intelligence and a light touch) and a movie like "The Terminal" which irritatingly condescends to the audience by turning what could have been a fascinating film into a pandering, phony, mush-fest.

Hanks and Zeta-Jones are both quite good, but the movie itself is a huge waste of time. After the overrated "Catch Me If You Can" and this mess, maybe Spielberg should stay away from comedy.

I like Michael Moore a lot, but he can sometimes be annoying even when you agree with him. I was looking forward to "Fahrenheit 9/11" but I had heard so much about it I was already sick of it before I saw it. I wasn't prepared for the absolutely staggering, emotionally devastating film that it is.

Even if you don't agree with Moore or like him, there is no denying that this is powerful, powerful stuff and so timely that it hurts. Whether you think George W. Bush is awesome or if you agree with Moore that he's an incompetent, moronic douchebag (I'm in the latter camp), this film is essential viewing, if only to let you know what's actually happening in the world in a way that the news won't show. You can come to your own conclusions.

Despite the heavy subject matter, there are also frequent moments of levity that are appreciated (my favorite being a product demonstration on live TV). But even with these, you will leave deeply affected, no matter what political party you lean towards. Moore puts a human face on things that most of us don't like to think about.

Whether you buy Moore's assertions about the ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family is up to you. I'm not sure, but I do know that white men in suits can get away with a hell of a lot, and sometimes they do.

A funny, provocative and immensely entertaining satire, "Saved!" goes after the religious hypocrisy at a Christian high school with cutting and effective wit.

Life is peachy for Mary (Jena Malone, "Donnie Darko"). She's a popular student at American Eagle Christian High School, she has all the right friends, her mother (Mary-Louise Parker) has just been named the #1 Christian Interior Decorator, and she has the perfect boyfriend, Dean (Chad Faust). Things get complicated when Dean spontaneously tells her he thinks he's gay. After bumping her head and having an hallucination, she decides that God wants her to "cure" him by having sex with him.

Before she can find out if it worked, his parents find out his secret and ship him off to a place called Mercy House for "de-gayification". Then she finds out she's pregnant. Life isn't peachy for Mary anymore, and ironically it's the best thing that could have ever happened to her.

Up until this point, Mary's best friend has been Hilary Faye (Mandy Moore), a smugly superior, self-serving beeyatch who looks down her nose at everyone around her under the guise of trying to "help" them. Moore, who seems to thankfully lack all the annoying pretensions of her pop-singer peers, is really developing into a great actress, and here she takes a supremely hate-able character and really has fun with the role. As a character, Hilary Faye is almost on a par with "Election"'s Tracy Flick (played by a still-cool Reese Witherspoon), and that's saying something.

For once, actually experiencing problems that are frowned upon at a Christian high school firsthand, Mary can see how shallow and hypocritical Hilary Faye and her other friends are, and begins gravitating towards the unpopular kids in school, like Hilary Faye's paraplegic younger brother Roland (Macauley Culkin) and the only Jewish kid in the school, rebellious Cassandra (Eva Amurri, in an awesome performance).

The stellar cast also includes Martin Donovan as Pastor Skip, one of those annoying preachers who think that going by their first name and using slang ("Let's kick it Jesus-style!") will make him "cool" to the kids, Patrick Fugit ("Almost Famous") as Pastor Skip's son, a kind and non-judgmental kid who Mary takes a liking to, and Heather Matarazzo ("Welcome To The Dollhouse") as one of Hilary Faye's jealous friends.

As with most effective satires, "Saved!" is pissing off a lot of hardcore Christians because they find it offensive. They don't get it. The movie is not poking fun at religion itself, only the narrow-minded hypocrites who use it selfishly to discriminate against others and make themselves feel superior.

After Hilary Faye angrily throws a Bible at Mary after a silly, failed "exorcism", Mary picks up the Bible and says "This is not a weapon!". She means it literally, of course, but such a statement resonates on many different levels.

I'm making "Saved!" sound much more serious than it is. It has important points to make, but first and foremost it's a comedy, and it's a very funny one, with many well-written and likable characters. Highly recommended.

I like the idea of remaking the feminist, 1975 horror film "The Stepford Wives" into a campy, satirical comedy. It could have been brilliant. But instead it's shallow, and the satire is obvious and ham-handed rather than daring, as it could have been.

Nicole Kidman is good and it's great to see Matthew Broderick and Bette Midler on a screen again, and both are good. Some (not all) of the dialogue is quite clever and funny, especially early on, and it's never boring.

But despite the fact that it's moderately entertaining throughout, the high number of wrong notes in the storyline, and especially a huge, HUGE hole in the plot that makes absolutely zero sense, ruin its chances for a recommendation.

In a nutshell, it's not painful to watch (until the end), is well-acted and cast, but essentially worthless, and suffers from the most inexplicably huge plot hole I've seen in some time.

The original ain't exactly a classic, but it's better.

Very good documentary about an extraordinary schoolteacher named Georges Lopez who runs a one-room school in rural France where he teaches children from ages 4 to 11 all at the same time.

The most fascinating aspect of the film is the way it observes the children. It's amazing to see young children interact once they've forgotten they're being observed, seeing them play and fight and learning new things about life every minute. You will definitely find yourself flashing back to your own early childhood.

It's also interesting to note that even in a one-room school in rural France, there are troubled bullies, shy outsiders, and all manner of children you'll find anywhere.

"To Be And To Have" is fascinating, very moving, and the French countryside is stunningly beautiful to look at, but it's certainly not a fast paced film. Definitely worth it if you've got patience, though.

I was thoroughly lukewarm on the first two Harry Potter films, and though I was a little intrigued because this new installment was directed by Alfonso Cuaron ("Y Tu Mama Tambien"), I still wouldn't say I was looking FORWARD to it.

Boy, am I glad I went.

"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is one of the most thrilling big-screen experiences I've had in quite a while.

Harry (a quickly maturing Daniel Radcliffe, and all the better actor for it) is now in his third year at Hogwarts School Of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and has just received word that a dangerous murderer named Sirius Black (an enjoyably berserk Gary Oldman) has escaped from prison. Black was a friend of Harry's parents who betrayed them, leading to their deaths, and now he's after Harry.

That may sound like a pretty spare story, but it's all the movie needs. From beginning to end, it's one amazing, creative set-piece after another.

Maybe I just didn't notice before because I didn't really care for the films, but was Hogwarts School always this beautiful? The grounds of this school are absolutely breathtaking. I'd go to school there in a second.

Even though I was intrigued by Cuaron directing the film, I hadn't really expected his style (as opposed to the apple pie non-style of the previous director, Chris Columbus) to have an impact on such a mainstream, multi-million dollar commodity as a Harry Potter film, but I was thankfully wrong. In addition to the more whimsical and amazing visuals, Cuaron actually brings a lean and mean edge to the film. That's right, I said the new Harry Potter film actually has "edge". Not a whole lot, but certainly more than the previous films. The story moves quickly (even when it takes its time), it's genuinely exciting and sometimes scary, and what happens to the characters actually seems to MATTER.

There's also a rather brilliantly done time-travel twist near the end, which is actually what's responsible for me raising the star rating by half a star.

After this rip-roaring, exhilarant film, I'm actively looking forward to the next Harry Potter film, which has never happened before. At least I am if Cuaron's directing it.

Fast food is good. I freely admit to running through fast food drive-thrus (Wendy's, Taco Bell and McDonald's being my top 3) often, sometimes several times a week. And I'm not the only one. I'm also one of the many millions of people in the country who are, uh...not thin. Think there's a connection?

In "Super Size Me", a documentary from talented debut filmmaker Morgan Spurlock that manages to be both entertaining and horrifying, he attempts to draw a parallel between the fast food culture we live in and the rampant (and ever-increasing) rate of obesity in America.

To do this, he launched into a little science experiment. A 33 year-old New Yorker in excellent health, he would eat nothing but McDonald's for an entire month, to gauge the effects on his body. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner at McDonald's and whenever they asked him to supersize, he would have to accept.

Before starting, he consulted three doctors, a cardiologist, a gastroenterologist, and a general practitioner, all of whom said this experiment obviously wouldn't be GOOD for him, but that the damages would be minimal.

Instead, the results were pretty shocking. Spurlock gained almost 30 pounds (over 10 in the first week), saw his cholesterol skyrocket, and experienced frequent nausea, chest pains, mood swings and loss of sex drive.

During this month he also drove around the country, interviewing several different people on the topic (including a "Big Mac enthusiast" who has eaten over 19,000 Big Macs). His research on our fast food culture definitely yields some interesting information, especially when he interviews a group of 1st-graders, and more of them can identify Ronald McDonald than Jesus or George Washington.

"Super Size Me" isn't perfect. It's a little repetitive and has a certain thinness to it (no pun intended!) that prevents it from being one of the truly great comedic documentaries of recent years like "American Movie" or "Bowling For Columbine".

But even if it falls short of greatness, it's an entertaining and thought-provoking film (especially if you're, uh...not thin).

Spurlock is a witty and engaging host (sort of like Michael Moore but not as much of a windbag), and I also liked his girlfriend (a vegan chef!) who looks on his experiment with a mixture of amusement, horror, and dismay. Just like we do.

When I saw "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" last October, it was one of the most amazing experiences I'd ever had in a movie theater. Combining pretty much everything I've ever loved about movies since I was a little kid into one fantastic (half of a) film, it was like a blast of pure oxygen, a jolt of adrenaline that stayed with me for weeks.

"Kill Bill: Vol. 2" is not the same kind of film. The people who are saying that the two movies are very different in tone and style are correct. This is by no means a bad thing, though, because their differences make for a fascinating comparison.

"Vol. 1" is paced to kill, a movie that seldom pauses for character development or even dialogue, yet STILL possesses extraordinary emotional depth, mostly because of Uma Thurman's stunning, Oscar-worthy performance. The Bride (whose name is revealed in "Vol. 2") is one of the most fiercely sympathetic characters in movie history.

"Vol. 2" is much more introspective and relaxed, more about emotions than violence (although there is plenty of it). I have a feeling that many will be bored with it, as they were with "Jackie Brown". But like "Jackie Brown", I think this film will also reveal layers upon layers of riches upon each viewing, and will age beautifully.

In "Vol. 1", The Bride crossed O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) and Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) off of her death list, and now in "Vol. 2" she has three people left to kill who played a hand in the Massacre at Two Pines: Budd (Michael Madsen), the one-eyed Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah) and of course Bill (a great David Carradine), none of whom are going to make it easy for her.

During a terrifying scene where the Bride is buried alive, the film switches to a flashback of her days as a student of the ruthless kung-fu master Pai Mei (Gordon Liu). This sequence is actually my favorite part of the whole movie, and Pai Mei is hands down one of the most entertaining characters I've seen in a long time. When the flashback ends and we find out why the Bride was remembering his teachings at that particular moment, it has a remarkable emotional payoff (set to the gloriously triumphant "L'Arena" from one of Ennio Morricone's spaghetti western scores).

In the end, I think I slightly prefer the no-holds-barred mayhem of "Vol. 1" to the more laid-back "Vol. 2", but is it still a totally awesome and entertaining movie? Does the story come to a satisfactory conclusion? And is Uma Thurman's performance just as extraordinary as it was in the first film? Yes, yes and yes. Hell yes.

"Mean Girls" is the third movie in the past month to take huge influence from an 80's classic. First, there was "The Girl Next Door" which borrowed from "Risky Business" with generally good but not great results. Then came "13 Going On 30", a female version of "Big", and it was terrific. Now comes a new "Heathers" for the '00's in the form of "Mean Girls", and while it has a couple problems, it's mostly a very clever satire of teen life.

Lindsay Lohan, fresh off last year's highly entertaining "Freaky Friday" remake, stars as Cady Heron, a teenage girl who's been homeschooled her whole life in Africa, but now that her parents have had to move back to the states, she has to enter public school.

Shy and awkward, she is befriended by two "unpopular" kids, punky Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and gay Damian (Daniel Franzese, from "Bully").

Then, because of her natural prettiness, she is sought out by "the Plastics", a group of 3 extremely shallow girls who rule the school, under the cruel leadership of Regina (Rachel McAdams). She considers joining their group for a time, until Regina selfishly betrays her, and then with the help of Janis and Damian, decides to destroy the Plastics' "organization" from the inside out.

Very, very sharply written by Tina Fey from "Saturday Night Live" (she's the extremely witty "news anchor" who co-hosts "Weekend Update" with Jimmy Fallon), "Mean Girls" might get a little thin in the middle, but for the most part it's very smart, very dark, and very funny.

The performances are uniformly good as well, with Lohan, Caplan and Franzese being standouts, as well as Fey herself as a teacher, and several of her SNL peers (Tim Meadows, Ana Gasteyer, Amy Poehler) pop up in funny roles.

It may not be as satisfying as "Clueless" (another movie it takes influence from) or quite as haunting as "Heathers", but it's definitely worth the price of a ticket.

Kate Hudson stars as Helen Harris, a young single woman who lives life in the fast lane. When her sister and brother-in-law are killed in a car accident and surprisingly will their children to Helen instead of her other sister, the uptight, straight-edge suburban Mom Jenny (Joan Cusack), much predictable, candy-colored comedy and life lessons follow.

Actually, the first half of "Raising Helen" is surprisingly interesting and effective. Kate Hudson is as likeable and charming as ever, almost making you forget that she's only been in two good movies (the great "Almost Famous" and the quirky, barely-noticed "Desert Blue"). The kids aren't annoying yet, and Helen's crises are interesting and frequently funny.

In the second half, though, the huge number of cliches and trite subplots becomes more and more annoying. Eventually, the whole thing becomes so predictable that you can practically predict the next shot (when Helen and Jenny are having an argument, it's a foregone conclusion that the kids will walk out of their rooms together and sit on the stairs, listening, and looking through the banister).

Sometimes a movie this predictable can still be enjoyable, but the characters here just aren't interesting enough to do it. And the romance between Helen and a Lutheran pastor (John Corbett) is a major snooze.

I've definitely seen worse, and "Raising Helen" is actually pretty good in the first half, but it's at least 20 minutes too long, and by the end has become so utterly average that it's downright depressing.

A couple of years ago, when "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" was such a smash hit (a movie that I had, at best, lukewarm feelings towards), I had a suspicion that Nia Vardalos wasn't quite so amazing a writer as everyone thought she was. Turns out I was right. Except instead of her work staying mediocre (like "...Greek Wedding"), it's taken a turn toward terrible with "Connie and Carla".

I was actually looking forward to this movie, because it has a potentially very funny story, and I was totally open to giving Vardalos a chance to impress me this time. Connie (Vardalos) and Carla (Toni Collette) are best friends and a singing act who perform showtunes for dinner theater. They aren't very good and their boyfriends urge them to give up.

Then, one night, they witness a mob murder, are seen, and run off to L.A. to hide. Settling in the predominately gay West Hollywood area, they go to what turns out to be a drag club, and get the fantastic idea of how to hide out and still be able to do what they love (sing on stage): pose as drag queens.

A potentially funny story. That's mostly not. The writing sucks, plain and simple. The jokes are stale and weak, the physical humor forced and lame, and most of the characters (particularly the gay characters) are condescending stereotypes.

The one interesting plot line has David Duchovney as Jeff, who is in town trying to reach out to his drag queen brother (Stephen Spinella) who had been kicked out of the family years before. There's something of worth there, and Duchovney gives the film's best performance, but that's pretty much where the movie's good qualities end.

Other examples of the horrible writing:

1. Connie and Carla are apparently too stupid to figure out that, even as drag-queens, performing as "Connie and Carla", especially as they get popular, is not the best idea if they're "hiding out".

2. Connie and Jeff, who are shoehorned into a romance subplot, have a clichéd way of running into each other and falling down. Vardalos has them do it not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES. Yawn!

3. The way the mobsters find out where Connie and Carla are. I won't spoil it, but it's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.

4. When their boyfriends find out where Connie and Carla are and come to L.A., they find them by seeing them giving a live street interview on the news. Then the old boyfriends come running around the corner and are there, just as Connie and Carla are finishing the interview (which seemed very short). Is their hotel, like, RIGHT THERE?

5. I probably don't even have to tell you that the climax involves a big show where the mobsters, the police, old boyfriends, Jeff, and every other supporting character magically appear at the same time.

Ugh.

"Van Helsing" could very well be the funniest movie of 2004. The only problem is that the parts that are SUPPOSED to be funny aren't funny at all, and all the parts that AREN'T supposed to be funny are hysterical. This is one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen, and not in a good way.

Hugh Jackman plays the famous titular character (who I don't believe was ever envisioned as a swarthy superhero, but oh well), who is sort of like the James Bond of whatever century this is set in (I didn't care enough to notice). He has gadgets, works for the Catholic church, and goes around killing monsters.

While the original character of Van Helsing was only after Dracula, this Van Helsing also fights Frankenstein's monster, the Wolf Man, and in the first horribly bad scene in the movie, Mr. Hyde (who is shown here as a sort of ultra fake-looking giant pudgy caveman).

There are simply too many idiotic parts in this movie that I couldn't possibly recite them all. There's Kate Beckinsale's ludicrous "gypsy" accent ("Ze Frankenstein monsta!"), Richard Roxburgh (who was great in "Moulin Rouge") playing one of the worst Draculas in movie history, the terrible "brides of Dracula" (one of them taunts Van Helsing with the devastating grade school put-down "Too bad. So sad!"), the dopey comic relief, the complete over-use of (badly done) CGI... I could go on and on. And I haven't even mentioned Jackman bounding around in a loincloth, or the "funny sidekick" played by David Wenham who I was dearly hoping would get killed.

On the plus side, there are some pretty nice sights here and there, of mountains and castles and such. All completely fake of course.

Some movies can be dumb in a smart way (like the "Charlie's Angels" movies), or at least dumb in an entertaining way. "Van Helsing", though it certainly has enough unintentional laugh-out-loud moments to make it slightly bearable, is so dumb and so long (almost 2 1/2 hours!) that it ends up draining the energy from you instead of giving you a surreal good time, like the best "bad" movies can do.

Combining all the classic monsters into one film is a nice idea, but it was already done in 1987, in "The Monster Squad", one of my favorite horror movies as a kid. That movie was much scarier than this piece of crap, and was INTENTIONALLY funny. So rent that instead.

A thoroughly charming and very funny female twist on the Tom Hanks classic "Big", this one should take gorgeous and loveable Jennifer Garner from TV-stardom directly into movie stardom.

The movie starts in 1987, when Jenna Rink (Christa B. Allen) is a gawky and unpopular 13 year-old with a huge crush on Rick Springfield and is completely unaware that her sweet but overweight neighbor and best friend, Matt (Jack Salvatore, Jr.) has a huge crush on her.

After a disastrous attempt to become popular, she wishes hard to be 30 (after reading an article in a women's magazine about being "Thirty, Flirty, and Fabulous") and as it can only happen in the movies, she wakes up the next morning a successful 30 year-old (played by Garner) with no memory of the last 17 years.

The usual fish-out-of-water jokes ensue, but Garner brings a freshness and sparkle to the ordinary material, and is aided immensely by Mark Ruffalo's extremely likeable performance as the adult Matt, who she seeks out immediately.

"13 Going On 30" is predictable, but in the best way a movie can be. You're GLAD that the people who you want to wind up together WILL wind up together, and you're content knowing that the story will come to a happy and satisfying ending, because you wouldn't want anything less for these characters.

After being pummeled by the humorless, pointless "Man On Fire", "13 Going On 30" was a refreshing surprise. It's entertaining, fun, features great performances, great songs (from the Go-Go's, Belinda Carlisle, Billy Joel, Pat Benatar, Talking Heads...) and it makes excellent use of its New York setting. Cool.

A wild and frantic comedy/drama/thriller, set in Ireland, about the lives of several people whose lives interconnect in surprising and often funny ways. Sounds great, right? Well about 2/3 of it is.

Events are set in motion when a small-time crook named John (Cillian Murphy, "28 Days Later) breaks up with his girlfriend, Deirdre (Kelly Macdonald, "Trainspotting", "Gosford Park"). She takes up with an older married man named Sam (Michael McEllhatton) who is later robbed by John and his friend Lehiff (a riveting and menacing Colin Farrel), who is being tailed by a cop (Colm Meaney), etc, etc, etc...

All the stories bounce off each other and connect at surprising times, and the effect can be exhilarating and exciting. All the actors are very good as well, particularly Farrel and Shirley Henderson, in a touching and funny performance as Dierdre's cynical, bitter sister.

Overall the film is pretty good, but when the story isn't really going anywhere, it drags and the chaos of it becomes a little grating. It's also difficult to understand what the actors are saying sometimes because of their thick Irish accent and slang.

It's a pretty good film, though, the kind I might watch in the future if I'm channel-surfing and I come across it.

Ehh, the (**1/2) is more a rating for a few select scenes that are pretty awesome rather than the whole, because as a whole, this movie didn't engage me very much.

As Achilles, Brad Pitt isn't bad, but he looks like a surfer and sounds like one when he speaks. Eric Bana is pretty good as Hector, the most sympathetic character in the film.

So two good fight scenes (especially the one between Pitt and Bana), a few good battle sequences, and a very good scene between Pitt and Peter O'Toole. That's the awesome stuff, everything else ranges from alright to dull (and the dialogue sounds like a medieval soap opera most of the time).

It looks really nice, but in the end it's more exhausting than entertaining.

A shifty script and style overkill drowns this over-the-top kidnapping story.

Denzel Washington stars as Creasy, an alcoholic former Marine predictably haunted by the past who reluctantly accepts a job in Mexico City as bodyguard to a little girl named Pita (Dakota Fanning).

The first half of the movie, which is about Pita gradually drawing Creasy out of his shell, is ok. Washington is his old reliable self and Fanning once again proves to be one of the best child actors working.

Then, Pita is kidnapped and apparently killed. Creasy swears to the family that he'll kill everyone responsible. Fun!

Director Tony Scott has two great movies under his belt (1992's "True Romance" and 1995's "Crimson Tide"), but this film goes on the pile of his other style-over-substance movies.

In "Man On Fire" Scott experiments with all sorts of crazy film and sound techniques (even the subtitles don't stand still), which is pretty cool for about 30 minutes. After that, it feels annoying and manipulative, because it's obviously just there to distract from the very ordinary story.

What's most troubling is the fact that Creasy's character goes from being a human being in the first half to being a sadistic vengeance machine out of a Chuck Norris movie in the second. If it was a good movie, it might examine what makes Creasy nearly as ruthless and vicious as the people he's after, but instead it just paints him as some sort of big, cuddly, moral hero. We're supposed to love him because he reads the Bible and because Pita names her teddy bear after him (aww!). Probably a good thing she can't see her Creasy-bear cutting off fingers, ears, and blowing people up.

It's not a terrible movie - the acting is pretty good, and the cinematography is good when the editors aren't trying to give you an epileptic seizure. But this is an overlong and brutal movie (that fails to examine its brutality) and it leaves a sour taste in your mouth, no matter how much they try to cover it up with "Gladiator"-style singing on the soundtrack.

In this lackadaisical Italian thriller, a 10 year-old boy named Michele discovers a deep pit in a field near his rural home. To his shock, inside the pit is a kidnapped boy, dirty, starved, and chained to the floor. At a delicate age when reality still can't quite override his imaginative fantasies, Michele is horrified but excited by this "adventure" and, unable to undo the chains, brings food and water to the boy in the hole while trying to figure out who kidnapped him.

This is a great set-up for a thriller (based on true events), and there are some wonderful scenes, particularly the ones between Michele and Fillipo (the boy in the hole). The acting is uniformly good and the Italian countryside is gorgeously photographed.

So why only 2 stars? Because it's boring. Really, really boring. The premise is interesting but after setting it up, the movie just lies there, going nowhere for long stretches of time.

A lot of the favorable reviews for "I'm Not Scared" mention that it "takes its time". Unfortunately, this is one of those instances where "takes its time" is code for "boring as hell until the kinda exciting conclusion".

A couple weeks ago I wrote that "Van Helsing" was one of the dumbest movies I'd ever seen, and not in a good way. Now here's "The Day After Tomorrow", which is also monumentally dumb, but in a very good way. Though both are pretty stupid in concept, "The Day After Tomorrow" is ambitious and entertaining, while "Van Helsing" was dreary, dull and unimaginative.

Harkening back to the sci-fi disaster flicks of decades past with the word "Day" in the title ("The Day The Earth Stood Still", "The Day The Earth Caught Fire", "The Day After"), "The Day After Tomorrow" is a movie about mass-scale destruction with a point to make. It's about the devastation that could be caused to the Earth in the future because of global warming. But mostly, like director Roland Emmerich's "Independence Day", it's about letting those special effects fly and showing us some crazy stuff.

Global warming causes the melting of the ice caps which triggers a huge and devastating climate change on Earth, causing, among other things, cantaloupe-sized hail in Tokyo, tornadoes that tear L.A. apart, and in the film's scariest sequence, a gigantic tidal wave that covers most of New York City. The L.A. and New York scenes feature some truly amazing special effects.

Also like "Independence Day", it features a large cast, with the characters grouped in different places, enduring different hardships. The only group of characters I found interesting were a teenager named Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal, looking a bit lost in his first big-budget, mainstream film but doing a good job), some of his friends, and some other people trapped in the upper floors of the New York public library.

Along with tremendous special effects, "The Day After Tomorrow" features great cinematography and a well-done sense of dread in its first half. To see thousands of birds flying south all at once because of something they know and the characters don't is an eerie sight.

But oh boy, is it dumb. The dialogue is terrible, and there are many scenes where characters say something and then glare at each other while intense music plays and you half expect the actors to crack up. This is also a movie in which it's possible to outrun cold air (which actually makes for an exciting scene), and where even after New York City has been flooded by a tidal wave, there is still someone behind the information desk in the library to helpfully point out where the nearest phone is.

However, the dumbness of "The Day After Tomorrow" didn't detract from my enjoyment of it, and in some cases even added to it. Besides, you don't go to a movie like this for character development or dialogue. You go to see some awesome sights, get a few thrills, and you're lucky if just 2 or 3 of the characters are halfway interesting, and on those counts it delivers.

This is a big, bold, cheesy theme-park ride of a movie, and if that's all you expect, you won't be disappointed.

Every once in a while, an indie comes along that has an awesome cast and a story that sounds really interesting and can't-miss, but the movie sucks. Some recent films belonging to this unfortunate category are "Levity" and "The Safety Of Objects", and now here's "The United States Of Leland".

Said awesome cast includes Ryan Gosling, Kevin Spacey, Don Cheadle, Jena Malone, Lena Olin, Michelle Williams, Chris Klein, and Kerry Washington. Gosling plays Leland P. Fitzgerald, the teenage son of a famous author (Spacey) who commits a disturbing and unforgivable crime (murdering a retarded child), but doesn't remember it and doesn't seem to have any sort of motive.

Don Cheadle plays a teacher in juvenile hall who is trying to understand Leland (and also exploit him by writing a book about him), and Jena Malone is his ex-girlfriend. We see their deteriorating relationship (due to her heroin addiction) in flashback. Sounds like an awesome little drama, huh? I thought so, too.

The fact is that this movie is just badly, badly written. The dialogue and narration are painfully pretentious and laden with irritating platitudes about "life", the characters are all two-dimensional indie cliches, and while it does manage to make Leland sympathetic in some ways, it glosses over his crime.

For the most part, there's no problem with the acting. Gosling (who was Oscar-worthy in "The Believer") is a tremendously talented young actor, but the way they're written, none of these characters (least of all Leland) even feel like real people, so there's not much he can do but mumble his ridiculous lines and look sad.

Jena Malone is the most memorable. She has one of the most expressive faces I've ever seen. Even playing an underwritten character in a bad movie like this, she can break your heart with one look. When she's got good material to work with (as in "Donnie Darko" or "The Dangerous Lives Of Altar Boys"), she's really amazing.

But this is not good material. Maybe after a massive rewrite it could have been something worthwhile, but as it is, "The United States Of Leland" is ponderous, inert, and for a movie that seems in love with how "deep" it is, it's really shallow.

I was one of the five people who didn't completely fawn over the original "Shrek". I thought there were parts that were hugely clever and funny and it was beautifully animated and had a good soundtrack, but as a whole I found it uninvolving and despite its engaging, carefree spirit, a bit dull.

"Shrek 2" is pretty much exactly the same. Beautiful animation, quirky rock and pop songs on the soundtrack including a cover of an old Buzzcocks song (!), and there are some very clever jokes. But Mike Myers' faux-Scottish accent is still annoying, Eddie Murphy's voice is still PROFOUNDLY annoying, and once again, the story itself is uninvolving for the most part.

"Shrek 2" picks up just after the honeymoon as Shrek and Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) are getting home. They receive an invitation from her parents (the King and Queen of Far, Far Away) to come home so they can meet her husband. So it's basically like "Meet The Parents" with fairy tale characters. I think they could have been a little more creative.

There's also a complicated subplot about a scheming Fairy Godmother (Jennifer Saunders) and her dim son, Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) that isn't interesting enough to go into.

One good new character is Puss-In-Boots (Antonio Banderas), a witty little cat who can disarm anyone by turning on his big, weepy kitten eyes. Hopefully for "Shrek 3" they could get rid of Donkey (Murphy's irritating character) and keep Puss-In-Boots around.

There are some good jokes scattered around, such as a TV show that's like "Cops" called "Knights" and a scene where a giant gingerbread man is attacking a Starbucks, and the people inside run out and take cover in...another Starbucks right across the street.

And once again there's some good songs (by artists like Tom Waits, eels, Counting Crows, Frou Frou). But they blow that in the end, because of all the songs in the world, they actually choose "Livin' La Vida Loca" as the closing number (did ANYONE EVER want to hear that song again?)

So it's smart and pretty funny in places, but like the original "Shrek" there's just something not quite satisfying about it.