Reviews

There is nothing wrong with this version of the "Incredible Hulk." Everything from the actors to the production values feels right. In brief, the story gets the job done and there are enough human moments to carry the viewer through the action sequences that on occasion have a little too much action. The effects are fine, though most of them are standard issue things-blow-up-real-good stuff and sophisticated viewers will no doubt "see the wires" in some of the shots. (I must mention that the effect involving the Sound Cannons is new and very well done -- such a weapon is I believe feasible and readers of "Atlas Shrugged" will not doubt appreciate the possible reference to the "Thompson Harmonizer.")

I liked the movie in other words and I think most people will too, but leaving the theater, keeping in mind all that the movie had going for it, I had to wonder why I didn't like it as much as "Iron Man." It's hard to pin down but I think the gist of it is that Tony Stark the hero of "Iron Man" is always engaging the world, positively or negatively, and there is a pronounced character arc to his story. We get a real sense, thanks to Downey's remarkable performance, that his transformation could really happen. That it does happen in movie time, of course, means they happens way too fast for real life, but Downey makes us believe it. We like and cheer for him no matter what he does. There is never a trace of self-pity in him. Banner on the other hand is always on the run and his determined refusal to come to grips with his world distances himself from us throughout the movie. Likely his particular plight works better on television then on the large screen, especially in a movie as over the top as this one. Plenty of us can feel sympathy for Banner, I certainly can, but on the whole most of us aren't that compelled to watch a movie about it.

Another complaint I had was his relationship with Betty. Since we see nothing of what transpired before the laboratory episode between them, I had strong doubts that she would pitch aside her current relationship in an instant when Banner makes an appearance. I kept waiting for the "I love you Bruce but I'm not in love with you" scene, but it never came. Tiresome as that scene is, it is credible, and what I was seeing on the screen was not. Even Spiderman II handled that situation better, though admittedly not by much.

The final problem is this: what is really going on inside the Hulk's mind? Banner dismisses the notion but the transformation from raw, unstoppable force, to caring super-beast is strongly implied but we have no idea why, let alone how, it took place. Iron man inside his suit is still Tony Stark, but Banner inside the Hulk we are told is nothing, a zero, gone. We don't believe it, we can't believe it on the basis of what is happening on the screen, yet we are given nothing to work with to resolve the conflict.

So the film is a good beginning to the series and the way these stories interlock in future films should be quite interesting. "The Incredible Hulk" is not "Iron Man" but by the very nature of the material it was probably impossible that it would be.

I am going to try, but it is difficult to add anything to what has already been written about the film. Critical commentary has been all over the map and while the overall consensus is positive there have been strong dissents and an overall feeling that something is missing. In terms of sheer action and pace the movie certainly works. One critic complained that she found it boring and came close to falling asleep. If so, having a history of sleep problems myself, I must say I envy her. The film is so frenetic, so non-stop in it's rush to achieve whatever the goal is that it is after, that my eyes were never off the screen, even when I wished at times they were. Certainly the first hour of the film is the best. The lead-up to the quest is very well done and some of the imagery -- you will know it when you see it -- is startling, mind-bending in one instance. The introduction of the characters is well-done and the overall context -- a very intense cold-war conflict being played out in America is credible given the times. Moreover, the use of Russians ("Soviets" be precise) as the bad guys, very bad guys, is wonderfully refreshing -- I am so tired of movie Nazis monopolizing cinematic evil. And just to see Harrison Ford in full Indy get-up is a joy beyond words.

Let's start with the characters. Indy is old. The film makers make absolutely no bones about it, almost rubbing it in. His punches seem slower probably because they really are. Like Rocky, however, he can absorb tremendous punishment and just keeps coming at you no matter how many times you punch him down. Shia leBeouf is quite good and for all those who worried he was going to be the human Jar Jar Binx of the picture, can relax. He does just fine. And Karen Allen, in contrast to Indy, is ageless. And unlike Ford's mostly dour performance, her's is best described as giddy. She is obviously so delighted to be back in an Indy film that it comes across probably too well. And Cate Blanchett does a great villain, utterly convincing.

Technically the film is a marvel. The depiction of the 50's is so well-done that you half expect Marty McFly to show up. Everything works, which is why I give the first half four stars. But after the first half, Crystal Skull is pretty much one over the top action sequence after another. If you like that kind of thing (and mostly I do), this is the kind of thing you will like. The problem is that you start to see the influences and they creak even worse than Indy: George has once again raided ideas from his stack of Uncle Scrooge comics and this time I really felt the late, great Carl Barks was robbed. Everything from the ants (nasty, hideous, horrifyingly gross ants) to the jungle clearing Paul Bunyon machine come from those comics. If you think of the Russians/Soviets in the second half of the film as crazed Beagle Boys led by Magica de Spel, you know all you have to know.

All that is forgivable, however. What I think what was really missing was a McGuffin that we cared about, which in the best Indy pictures has been something possessing a culturally religious connection. The substitute, the "Crystal Skull" is just not that interesting. Lucas is on record stating he felt bad about using the Ark of the Covenant in the classic, never to be equaled first film, because it had upset and offended people (we live in time when the act of breathing upsets and offends some people), and did not want to do that again. Both the Ark and the Grail are objects that are direct links ("Radio transmitter," was the phrase used in the first movie) to God. Whether you believe that or not, these artifacts are a core part of our culture, and the quest for these sacred objects has tremendously dramatic potential. You know at once why people would go crazy to find and possess them. Which is why the first and third Indy films worked so much better than the second (remember the magic rocks?).

So while I liked the film, this is why I give the second half of the movie two stars. The fourth and the second have to be marked up as mostly fun failures.

I did not go into "I am Legend" expecting much. I liked the Charleton Heston version and there was also one other I have not seen. To be fair, there was some good stuff in the movie, here and there: the numerous shots of NYC devoid of people are impressive and though one soon feels the profusion of such shots is unnecessary (only the dimmest would not have gotten the point early on), it was understandable that the producers are eager to share their accomplishment. The movie must have cost a bundle. Better use it all.

Moreover, Will Smith has a few effective scenes, and it was not his fault that he was upstaged by his canine co-star, who deserves some kind of animal Oscar (I believe there actually is such a thing). Finally, the myth of "I Am Legend" is a powerful one. It's a strong story, the kind of story it would take considerable effort to mess up. Who has not felt at times that he is among the last of humanity, struggling to survive while surrounded by vampires (figurative vampires) -- perhaps at a family gathering or company picnic? Yet the movie can be barely said to work. It is one of those films in which any given scene is either good, but we've seen it before, many times before, or bad, and we really don't want to see it now at all. A film in which drama is repeatedly sacrificed to special effects and big scenes. One leaves the film not so much hating it, but wondering what was the point? To the screen writers of this travesty here is a clue: without drama, there can be no point. This is terribly lazy screen writing. For example, the credits reference the work of both prior screenplays. Did the currently screen writers somehow find the original source material weak and insufficient? If so, why even make the movie? This is what we call a bad sign.

Here is an example of how bad it is, one of many. Since nothing substantive follows from the scene, I think I can describe it without spoiling anything.

The scene is a flashback. It shows a huge, panicking crowd trying to escape. People are being given eye scans to see if they have contracted the virus (what the virus turns the infected into will be noted shortly.) A soldier who is doing the scanning, first gets a bad (positive) reading on the hero's wife. Now remember, Smith's character is a medical doctor. One of the Army's highest ranking in fact. Here's what happens. Smith starts yelling at the soldier, screaming out his rank and demanding the man scan his wife again. The soldier complies (why would he be reluctant to give a second scan?). This time the reading is negative. End of scene.

What is wrong here? For one thing, a real doctor would know at once that either the instrument is defective or the soldier does not know how to use it. Since the procedure is quite simple, the latter possibility can be ignored. There's not much time. The first, however, cannot. There is a grave risk that the instrument is defective. Which means infected people have likely been allowed through. His wife may be now become of them. Remember, Smith is a top ranking military doctor. He must be aware of that risk. He must be aware of his responsibilities. What to do? What a real doctor would do is stop everything, use another detector, and perform the scan again.

The situation now is quite tense. If his wife passes this scan, at least we can be confident that she is free of the disease. But if she fails… He tests her again. Either way, the danger of infected people having gotten through is considerable. The terror on Smith's face should show the decisions he has to make and at once.

This alternative scene would also, btw, tie directly with a later scene, the best in the film, so the audience would be prepared for it.

But the variant scene, the one with that thing we call drama, is not in the movie. Instead we get explosions, helicopters spinning out of control, and a chance for Smith to bawl out a white guy for no reason whatever. The whole screen play is like that.

It gets worse. Smith talks along with an entire sequence in Shrek (I) to tell us how much he loves that movie? Why? What does this add? He gives us a lecture on how much he likes Bob Marley's music. I like it too, but why are these scenes here? What is the point? (I suspect, cynically no doubt, the company that made "I Am Legend" has financial interests in both).

There is also something vaguely racist about the whole business. If you imagine a movie about a white doctor being besieged… Well, this film piles it on. New York is perhaps the most diverse city on earth. Why, when the plague hits does it turn the victims into incredibly buff, twenty-something, white people (who would be killers on a basketball court)? Smith really hates them. One long action scene demonstrates the full degree of that hatred -- but they are his patients, for god's sake! Why in that scene would he risk throwing his life away for the sheer joy of killing them? And wouldn't you think that Smith, who is himself is immune to the plague, as a doctor would find that fact an incredibly important clue? Nope. He does nothing with it.

Ebert has written about the offensive stranger on the bus. The smelly, boring, crude, and obnoxious individual, always too close for comfort and who is impossible to ignore. Now imagine a two hour bus ride with that individual. That is what this movie and its screen play is like.

For shame on all concerned.

Except, Sam the dog.

I went into this film fearing the worst. I had become concerned over the past months as it became increasingly clear that the film was at great risk of losing direction, the vision if you will, that had drawn readers to the books series in the first place. That it was doomed. I feared this strange kind of anti-Narnia, was likely being so diluted that BO disaster was certain. That may still be the case if the bulk of early reviews are to be believed (but see Ebert's all-out glowing review.) Admittedly, the movie probably works better if you have read the first book (I had), but those readers are precisely the people who would likely complain the most. I worried and yet . . .

Despite its breathtaking pace, both in terms of action and concept introduction -- we all agree this is not your typical fantasy -- the Golden Compass worked for me. I thought the people involved had done the best they could in making this movie tell the story, making the best possible film despite the conflict and panic that must have gone into it. The sincerity shows. The cast is superb, the action sequences, the effects, the sheer look of the film, are triumphs. I stayed through all the credits, which seemed to last for almost as long as the movie, and good gracious, what a lot of people worked on this! It's expensive all right, but the money is all on the screen. These people should be saluted.

Dakota Blue Richards (it appears if you want your daughter to have a movie career these days, you had best name her Dakota) in a great year for the debut of young actresses, stands out as the best of them. She has poise, indomitable courage, fierce determination and it just keeps coming. The whole movie depends on her and if she had faltered, they truly would have had a disaster on their hands, a "calender" movie with no where to go and nothing to do. Whatever the ultimate financial fate of the film, I think young Miss Richards has a great future ahead of her.

So I am recommending the film highly, though I respect the objections that have been made against it. I think if people just relax and go with it they will find themselves enjoying it immensely. However, if you grit your teeth and go into critic mode, yep, you guess it, you won't enjoy it at all.

As for myself, I would have liked the producers to have gone with the original extended version - everyone knows the last few minutes were cut. Moreover, with a full three hour version just like "Lord of the Rings," I think all the objections would have been met. A director's cut will likely appear some day and I think at that point people will realize how great this movie truly is. Such an enhanced cut would fill in a lot of the details of this world, more fully develop the scenes and characters, and truly give a feeling of being part of the adventure, instead of just watching it. Of course, for the Golden Compass series, by then it may well be too late.

Here's hoping it's not (I dare not say praying). Here's hoping that audiences will respond so this noble beginning of a great philosophical adventure and permit it to continue.

It's all bottom line at this point, folks.

When I first encountered the story of Burt and Linda Pugach, some many years ago, in the paper back edition of Burt's biography, what I read on the cover I simply could not believe. At first I thought it was a novel, some kind of elaborate publishing hoax with a rather sick premise, but gradually I came to realize this was for real. I didn't buy the book, I confess. I treated it like it was radioactive and after a few minutes I put gingerly in back on the rack thinking: no good can come from this. But, I never forgot the essence of the story. What did it say about them, us, everyone? So when the documentary was finally made I jumped at the chance to see it.

The DVD is probably the way to go with this story, not watching it in theaters. It is just to intimate, in all the senses of the word, a tale. Watch it all, cut scenes, features etc. Most of all, make sure you listen to the commentary track. At the end, you will then be able decide for yourself. Personally, I think the documentary did their story as fairly and as in depth as could be done. It really is an outstanding achievement. It frustrates some people however because it must seem the truth is missing: this story is so off the scale, so far beyond "Freudian," that while it is tempting to make psychological assessments, don't. The overwhelming majority of people are not competent to do so -- I'm certainly not -- and one would advise against it in any event. Here are two people who themselves probably, even after fifty years of living with the story, have no idea what really happened. But they are living whatever it was, and that is all they or we need to know.

As for Burt, he remains one scary dude, as the director himself would find out first hand, yet one cannot help but respect him, in a way. He is a survivor with a strong element of luck in his life, if that is correct way to put it. He certainly suffered, both before and after his crime, but whether he suffered enough I leave to others to judge. He's smart, resourceful, and in a word indeed "obsessed." "Determined" doesn't quite seem to say it about Burt. For someone who is 80, he comes across as sharp and tough as ever. Given all that he has been through and all that he has done, this is no small accomplishment.

I should point out that Burt does at times appear callous and indifferent to Linda's blindness (a point the director himself makes in the commentary), but I can't help but wonder if he simply does not see Linda as she is now, but only sees her as she was in the late 1950's. The documentary seems to come to that conclusion as well. Love is blind, in more ways than one. Certainly forgiveness is, if it is to be worthy of the name.

As for Linda, she's an old-fashioned girl who was saving herself for the right monster and one day Mr. Wrong did come along. Nevertheless, I confess I like her. She is obviously quite talented, intelligent, witty and every bit Burt's match in toughness. But as with Burt, I'm relieved I never had to interact with either of them. I care for them both, however, and certainly one of the most amazing things about "Crazy Love" is the degree we come to view both of them as human beings. This is not a freak show. There is so much suffering in the world if these two people can hold on to some measure of happiness given their history, then more power to them. I think as a viewer, you can't help but hope the best for them and at the end of the film wonder what will happen to the other when either of them dies.

This hasn't quite been the great year for movies that I had hoped for, but it has certainly been a very good year for comedies, and "Mr. Bean's Vacation" is the best so far. It is also quite a daring film -- who would have imagined a G-rated, live action comedy these days, and without any fart jokes? Where's Mel Brooks when we need him? Just kidding.

This movie homage, and I can it can be argued that it is, to the great Tati films of "Mon Oncle" and "Mr. Hulot's Holiday" is Rowan Atkinson's triumphant farewell to the great character he created. It is hard to imagine any other actor living today pulling this off. Indeed, "Vacation" comes very close to being a silent film -- though I want to assure anyone wandering in from a showing of Transformers, that there are explosion. Now over at the well-known movie review site, half the critics are complaining about Mr. Bean's mugging. Half the critics at that site will apparently complain about anything. But when you have a face as brilliantly expressive as Atkinson's, gosh people, you use it. To moan about that, well, it's like going to a Fred Astaire movie and complaining about the dancing.

But more than that, every scene works, fast or slow, the pacing is perfect. Silly scenes or heartfelt, or both, the comedy never flags. It is one of those movies that long afterward you will be recalling scenes and laughing. The casting is perfect. William Defoe? Yes! There is also a lot of feeling here. I completely bought every one of the characters and their relationships. That is great comic writing.

It also has one of the best endings of any movies out there. For some reason, contemporary films are having a terribly difficult time with coming up with a satisfactory ending. Not "Mr. Bean's Vacation." It has an astonishingly goofy conclusion, one that Mel Brooks at the top of his form would have had a hard time equaling.

I cannot recommend this movie enough, though I wish it had been longer. Take your family to see it -- it will be a long time before anyone can say that again about a contemporary comedy.

It is possible that a movie can be so bad that while not exactly being "so bad it's good," can still achieve a kind of transcendence that defies categorization. This is one of those films for which criticism fails, is utterly irrelevant. Yes, I saw the movie, I experienced it, but I still don't believe it. It happened but I am much too frightened to repeat the experiment. There is something so incredibly off and wrong about this film, that it was like watching the antics of a doomed expedition exploring an unknown literary continent, where everything you have ever learned about characterization, plot, consistency of tone, are banished leaving only a void. I remember watching it in it's entirety one Saturday night. My wife had just turned it on and I was in the vicinity and decided to just check it out for a minute or so.

Now, you have to understand my wife not only has terrible taste in films. No, not only that, but she has some kind of radar that permits her to find ghastly things that even if I went searching for them could never stumble across in a million years. So I glanced at the thing, expecting to get up and leave very short order -- and found myself frozen on the sofa. I could not move. It was like I was caught in some tractor beam of dumb rays pulling me out of this world. As each minute passed, I expected the movie to bottom out and maintain some level of consistency from then on. But it kept getting worse in a strange, dare I say perverted way, as if a demented Shakespeare had twisted everything he knew upon itself to create a monster, a mind virus that once it infected you, would never let go. I was absolutely enthralled (I have no other word to describe it.) There were no limits to this thing. Where had it come from, why had it been permitted in this universe? There were no answers, because there were no answers possible. It was something about a plane going back in time, then forward in time, while people went crazy and all the while the past was being consumed by creatures I guess could be described as super Pac-men -- yes, they were "eating" the past -- and for all that, all I could do is give up and submit. It was like whiffing ether, but never quite going under -- for hours.

I had never been a Steven King fan, though I liked "Stand By Me." I realize he has a compulsion to write and like every other writer has his good and bad days. I respect him for his success. But even drugs could not explain this. Even mental illness could not explain this. King did a story I recall about a strange cell-phone tone that turned people into zombies. That story I believe is a metaphor for this movie.

Watch it if you must, but do so at your own risk. You have been warned.

I suppose it's embarrassing to say this, but of all the summer movies, I was most captivated by the trailers for Underdog. They had a kind of goofy sincerity that seemed just right for what the picture was trying to do. Unfortunately, except for marketing (and the audience -- the movie is holding up very well in its second week), it was abandoned by everyone, especially Disney. The early reviews were overwhelmingly terrible. It's as if the movie were entitled; "Shoeshine -- Norbit's Disreputable Dog." And the comments on IMDb . . . I can't believe the hyper-ventilating that is being said by some. What is wrong with these people? "Disney raped my childhood" and similar rubbish. This is a fun, very silly movie, that takes on the increasingly lame, oh-so-serious superhero movies (Superman mostly, but with parts of Spiderman thrown in as well) and their increasingly boring clichés and turns them on their head, resulting in a romp; i.e a light, fluffy piece of entertainment that is thoroughly enjoyable -- and I'm a cat person.

I think too many critics need a vacation. Perhaps one long enough for them to consider another line of work, like fast-food preparation, or re-cycle sorting. These dreary people should be sent to the critics pound (if only there were such a place). What were they expecting/demanding: "Citizen Kane" with a tail? The cast was just right, the effects very good, the writing funny and only slightly crude at times. In fact, I was going to give the film 8 stars, but bumped it up to 9 because there were no f*rt jokes. Everyone in the film did a fine job and Disney should have been proud of it instead of dumping and running.

Lighten up everyone, and go see this movie.

I had high hopes for Sunshine when I first began reading about it and I am happy to report they were not dashed. Technically superb, the film grabs you from the beginning and never lets up. I felt drained at the end of it and that I am here to tell you is a good feeling. Except for going over the top near the end -- a "spoiler" that some reviewers at the well-known film review site have already given -- the screenplay felt right. Very tight writing that was a joy to behold.

In any event, the situation is dire enough without bringing in that extra element, which adds an unneeded and unnecessary element of violence I will not discuss. Stil I almost see why they did it and it is not a major flaw.

This is adult SF, the kind that only the English seem capable of making anymore. There is so much to like about this film -- the cast of mostly unknowns is superb, the acting never falters, technically the effects are outstanding. Though borrowing elements from "Silent Running" and "2001," "Sunshine" never feels derivative. There was never a sense that "I've seen this before," which happens all to often these days. There is also a remarkable visual and visceral feel of both what approaching the sun must be like as well as traversing the solar system (Mercury's appearance is darn cool). It's hard for me to imagine anyone checking their watches during this one.

Note: I gather the movie premise is based on some actual science -- that a form of strange matter in a "soliton mode" could enter the core of the sun and begin to snuff it out. So there you have it -- the first hard science fiction solar snuff film. The premise doesn't really come into play, however, so just go with it and enjoy the show.

Bravo to all concerned and if the Academy ignores this one, for double shame.

After the fourth film, I had decided I would skip the remainder and move on with my life. I liked what the films had done, liked the cast, and the production was always first rate, but the feeling on my part was "so what?" I found myself wishing Rawlings had stopped at five books. I no longer felt involved.

Happily I can say I was completely wrong. A few weeks ago, I began to hear buzz that this film was very good indeed. And the reviews on the well-known movie review site were remarkably positive, so I decided to give it try. I am sure glad I did. This films works, there is real danger and conflict, and the actors, old friends and new, rise to the occasion. It is a movie with children, not a children's movie. "Teenage adults," I probably should say.

As always the world of HP is beautifully realized and the new characters are fully developed and fit in perfectly. In the case of the new head-mistress of the defense against the black arts, the monster is as loathsome as can be. There is still plenty of humor in the movie, but it is humor with a bite. This is probably the most ruthlessly satirical of the films (so far) and well-worth seeing more than once. People who complained about POTC:AWE may well complain about this one too as it gets fairly complex who is doing what to whom, but the pacing never flags and the ride is well-worth it.

Particularly interesting is newcomer Evanna Lynch as "Luna Lovegood," a traumatized character who seems at first will just be played for cruel humor, but comes into her own as a fighter fully worthy of the Order of the Phoenix. This is a wonderful film debut and certainly offers promise of her going on to do great things.

I even found myself wishing it had been longer. This movie definitely saves the series and primes us for the final two films. Now, I can hardly wait to see them. Great job to all concerned, especially the director.

I am recommending this movie, never doubt that. The good news is that Jack is back and the Black Pearl has him. There are a lot of funny bits, the action sequences are every bit as good as you have heard, and the pacing is just right. The nearly three hours zips right along. And the story resolution among Elizabeth, William, and his father works fine. Yes, do stay for the final scene after the credits. (And for those who hate Bloom & Knightly, go away. The actors are doing exactly what these movies ask of them and doing it very well.)

And there truly is so much here to commend in this film, particularly as we follow our heroes to the "haunted shores" of the afterlife. Time after time you will be asking yourself: how did they do that? As a mythology, it never flags and the three movies taken together are a remarkable cinematic accomplishment which took increasing risks that paid off.

So why am I sour on the screen play? Here's the problem. As is well known, when they started shooting the final film (Note: they only completed 40% of AWE when they were filming DMC), the screen play for the third was not yet finished. This is a bad thing. See this movie and you will understand why this is a bad thing. What happens when you do that is story holes open up. And what do I mean by holes? It means a given character acts as the screenplay demands he act -- forget about what the character has said/done prior or what we know about him or have seen him do. He/she has become a puppet to the screenplay. I could easily list three major instances where this happened and I am sure any fan going through the movie scene by scene could come up with many more.

It did not have to be. The two screen writers are first rate as is the director. But once marketing and management got a hold of the thing, it became schedule-driven and I guess it couldn't be stopped. Certainly, Disney did not return my calls. To be fair, probably most viewers will not notice or will not care. But greatness beckoned, and they settled for okay and full-speed ahead for the effects.

Oh well, I'll see it again anyway.

First the good news. The movie looks every bit as good as you would have hoped. The performances are surprising effective, with Gerard Butler doing an outstanding job holding the film together. If he had faltered, the 300 would have been in big trouble. Butler brilliantly conveys the impression of a first-rate leader, a man whose men would follow him anywhere. This is acting that never gets nominated, but it is still great acting. Note to casting: every time you are thinking of George Clooney, get this guy instead. You'll have a much better movie.

Finally, while people can and do complain about the historical accuracy, it's actually close enough so that the essence of the story comes through and to be fair (this movie must have just missed an NC-17), and there's no reason to be squeamish about it -- the real battles and atrocities must have been every bit as gory.

And yet, for all that, I was disappointed. The subject is so inherently dramatic, I have to wonder why Miller felt compelled to put in so much pornographic imagery, including his signature composition -- the beautiful girl being ravished by the hideously ugly creature(s). Psychologically, I think I understand the gimmick -- the readers of such graphic novels being mostly adolescent boys or such "at heart" that they are eager to have it both ways: being "shocked and indignant" at such repulsive actions while at the same time wondering: "How can I get such a deal?" A little bit of this stuff goes a long way, but it seems that Miller piles it on. Admittedly, I kept hoping the Oracle would return. She (an enthralling Kelly Craig who really needs to get more work) was awfully cute and her advice couldn't be any worse than what your broker gives you.

But the bigger issue may be that these images are so overpowering as stills, that they impede the movie's flow. This is a serious problem for a movie like this where flow and movement is everything. It is a credit to everyone involved, and I am especially singling out Butler again, that they keep the thing from stumbling upon the grotesque. 300 was often like a meal with way too many spices. Palatable, but it could have been better.

Since when have we become such a bunch of PC stiffs? People, especially film critics, have been writing about this move like they had never heard, let alone seen, any of the movies in the comedy revolution from "Blazing Saddles" to "Dumb and Dumber." The former uses the N-word (Gasp!) and the latter makes fun of the mentally retarded (No!). Oh my lord, what are we going to do?! Well, lighten up for one thing. No one is going to join the anti-fat equivalent of the KKK (there is no such thing, BTW) because they watched this movie.

It's not perfect, but "Norbit" is very funny. Yes, I laughed my ass off -- and then put it back on my shoulders, and laughed some more. Rasputia joins the ranks of the great screen monsters: Godzilla, the Stay-Puff marshmallow man, and that T-Rex in Jurassic Park. And there are some classic screen gems: Rasputia's ride down the water-slide is worth the price of the movie itself. The film is also to be commended for the great make-up work. If you didn't know, believe me, you wouldn't know.

Are there stereotypes here? You bet. Here's the horrendous, earth-shaking, truth: a stereotype is a categorization of a group of people that contains an element of truth. Sorry, but it is not the job of comedy to be kind. It is the job of comedy to find humor and hope amidst the wreckage. "Norbit" does that. There is a lot of sweetness in the movie.

Will I burn in hell for enjoying this movie as much as I did? Judging from the critical reaction, it is highly likely. Well, I was going there anyway. Might as well have some laughs on the trip.

To get it over with, "Rocky Balboa" works. Having been old enough to see the first one when it came out (29 years ago!), I find this a very good film to conclude the series. There is so much humanity on display in the movie. As I was watching. I kept wondering (and hoping): could a Rocky movie be done without a fight sequence? There are enough stories going on here, one of the film's disappointments is that many of the characters and their stories needed to be rounded out and deepened (which is why I am giving it an "8"). It could have been significantly longer to do them justice. But of course, there is a fight sequence, further proof as if any is needed that I will never be a big studio executive. So while I think the film works best outside of the ring, nevertheless, the fantasy of the Great White Dope (and I mean that with utmost affection) continues to resonate powerfully. The guy takes fantastic punishment and just won't give up, a metaphor which unquestionably endears him to a much larger segment of the population than fight fans.

How well will it do? Early box office returns indicate that the film will do well, not great however, and nowhere near the original, but well enough. Everyone will be happy (except for a few disgruntled film critics) that the movie was made. And those who love the series will get to see it go out in style.

For those familiar with Guest's work, this wonderful little picture (I'm tempted to say "slice of life," but that isn't accurate either) might not seem to fit in with what he has done before. This is a long way from "Spinal Tap." It isn't a parody and it's far deeper psychologically than any farce you're likely to see this year. There are plenty of funny moments to be sure, but this film has a profound sense of loss to it as well. In short, there are a lot of unfunny moments, some close to being disturbing, and they are likely to catch the average viewer (and critic it appears) off guard. The characters take a beating and it shows. It works, it's believable, I was completely caught up in it, but I can understand why some had problems with it.

I would have liked the ending to have been less abrupt, to follow what happened to the one actor in the movie within a movie who did get a nomination, but what is there is perfect enough. Fred Willard is very good as an out-of-control Hollywood reporter who is a lot smarter than he looks and acts. And yes, Catherine O'Hara is worthy of an Oscar nomination. She won't get one, of course, as this is the kind of performance that never gets recognized by the Acadamy. But if you get to see what she does in this film, you will be well rewarded. For Your Consideration is that good.

This is one of those films you are either going to love or hate. I find it difficult to believe anyone would be neutral regarding it. For Hollywood to have even attempted such a thing is astonishing and that it holds up even today (change a few names here and there and the present world emerges) is a testament to the thought and talent of all the people involved in depicting such a future war. The cast is outstanding, the writing is clear and believable (the film is essentially an abbreviated re-telling of what happened in Russia during the German invasion), the theme strong and compelling. Or you can take it as a Cold War artifact, done five years before the entire Eastern Bloc started to unravel. But however you approach the film, it gives you a lot of think about.

The quote in the summary is from Shakespeare and while not wanting to appear pretentious, I thought I would try something different in this mini-essay, something more along the lines of a critical assessment than an actual review (irrelevant now -- the audience has spoken, decisively) because I believe many of the A-list critics (see www.rottentomatoes.com for the grim details), missed the boat on this wonderful film.

This is a fully and beautifully realized world of myth, magic, and voodoo and happily everyone keeps a straight face as they confront it. If the symbology is a bit too literal at times, well, the sea brings that out in people, particularly in this part of the world of three centuries ago. Where creatures, such as the Kraken, a beast of relentless fury, can be slowed but not stopped. Where the "heartless" Davy Jones collides with the Flying Dutchman (a conflation that I believe is a first). And where, despite the rich fantasy, the emotions, conflicts, psychologies are all too real, even in Jack Sparrow (the role Johnny Depp was born to play). He is heading for a terrible fall, as in truth are all the major characters. Elizabeth has come to understand that whatever the degree of her attraction for Jack, the man simply cannot be trusted. His core is hollow, which I suspect Jack himself now realizes and is at the root of his deep problem that he no longer knows what he wants. He knows what he doesn't want, to be sure, yet it is unclear to what degree he can fight back against even that realization. And poor Will Turner, clearly stretched to the limit, is in a situation nearly as bad. Others are also in supreme jeopardy. (One of the great things about this film is the taking of minor characters from the first film, such as Norrington, and putting them head to head against Sparrow and Turner -- and watching them hold their own as they come to grips with their own fate.)

In short, there is the possibility for great tragedy here -- if the writers have the courage to follow through (no more rum and cross-dressing jokes, please!) Could we have a Hamlet on the high seas? I believe we could. The elements are there -- but will marketing permit it? It's anyone's guess. Following the analogy of POTC:DMC being the "Empire Strikes Back" of the trilogy, we all know what happened in that case: will a great opportunity be lost as we endure the sea-going equivalent of "Ewoks?" Or worse? I am worried. As is well-known, shooting of the third film began before the script was complete, a bad sign. The next installment could go all the way (on the order of ET and Titanic), but it would be foolish to count on it.

Still to have come this far is an incredible achievement. To those A-list critics (3:2 against) who either did not watch the movie or could not bring themselves to view the first film -- there's a reason it's called a sequel, guys -- for shame. But as noted, the public, and indeed the world, has spoken. Good luck to all people involved in the production of the concluding film : "At World's End."