Reviews

Cage and Molina make magic happen, until it all goes POOF!! in the 2nd half, Bruckheimer formula blows again; C-

Seriously? This is what two Oscar worthy actors can offer? Cage and Molina would have been an awesome hero and villain combo, but the darn kid and his ridiculous girlfriend plot keep getting in the way. Not to mention that Monica the magnificent is barely in the film at all.

Mid way through it is obvious that we are following the Bruckheimer formula of connect the dots summer movie "magic". Change location, stage mini action sequence, change location, have pathetic romantic sub plot, change location, insert silly animal antics, change location, insert car chase (really? they are frickin' sorcerers!! why the h3## are they DRIVING around??!?!!).

If you want to waste your money, go ahead. They DID spend some on the F/X, but nothing new to see here. In fact, spend your money on seeing something else you liked a second time. You'll be thankful.

The wonderful thing about Nicolas Cage is that he throws himself into the role, good or bad, 100%. Which is exactly what a movie like this needs of its leading man, who is on screen almost the entire film. Therefore, if you're willing to watch Cage ham it up with reckless abandon in this remake of the 70s cult thriller, then you're in for an enjoyable experience.

Eerie in a way that movies now a day just aren't, The Wicker Man uses the most of all the production devices at its disposal. Sets and surroundings are surreally bizarre; the musical score is creepy and uncomfortable, and the costumes are unsettling and sometimes disturbing. It figures that a stage director like LaBute would find inspiration in all these cinematic devices, as they are equally, if not more important to the stage work world he comes from.

However, without the smoke and mirrors of the production crew, the plot is rather thin and develops at a snail's pace. In true seventies fashion, the film is more character driven and unconcerned about delivering a definitive beginning, middle and end story arc that wraps up nicely. It's more about Cage's character's journey and how he deals with the situations he finds himself in.

As the film progresses, the situations seem more and more bizarre, yet answers fail to come, and as an audience member it can prove to be frustrating. However, Cage's performance and LaBute's direction, propped up by a great supportive cast, compels you to watch it. The island Cage finds himself on, investigating a missing child, is just slightly unlike the rest of the world. The sense is that we're watching an Amish community based on the principles of a beehive. Burstyn's queen bee performance is every bit as powerful as her turn in Requiem for a Dream (why isn't this woman working more often?) and the supporting females are the most unlikely bunch of femme fatales yet every bit as menacing.

The film plods along and requires the audience's trust, as we are often as much in the dark as Cage is. The twist ending is a slight shock, but probably not as much as it was 30 years ago. Yet it was interesting enough to give this film a slight recommendation, though i do realize it isn't for everyone's taste, especially those who like their films quick and tidy.

Grade: B

Any Spike Lee/Denzel Washington collaboration is cause for celebration, as they always seem to bring out the best in each other. This time isn't any different, but what really surprises is how well the rest of the cast carries the film, making Washington almost seem like a bit player. Owen commands the screen as the master criminal matching wits with Washington's hostage negotiator. Foster is suave and smooth in a way Washington normally is, and Plummer has a quiet reserve and vulnerability that has made some of Washingtion's characters truly memorable.

It's great to see Spike removed from the political expectations that so many of his films convey, though this film does tackle a few race issues amongst the intrigue. In fact, Spike's casting prowess allows the film to be populated by a number of ethnic minorities, giving the film some added realism and tension, two elements this film has in spades.

The premise is simple, as Owen and friends enter a bank and proceed to take customers and staff hostage while the police waits outside. Owing a lot to Dog Day Afternoon (which is a good thing--that's one of my all time favourite films), this bank robbery gone bad is gripping and will leave you guessing right until the last frame. Spike crams each frame with intensity and the actors are more than game.

In typical Spike fashion, there are several layers to the film and the characters' motives are equally complex. He knows when to stylize the action and when to leave it raw. He pays just as much attention to dialogue heavy exchanges as he does to gunplay and smoke bombs. The result is a formulaic hostage film played out to perfection, with just enough twist and turns that everything feels fresh, exciting, and intense.

Inside Man is perhaps one of the best rentals of the year, and I eagerly await Spike and Denzel's next collaboration. This one is definitely for film fans and casual movie goers alike. I don't want to say too much in fear of giving anything away, but you won't be able to tear yourself away from this film.

Grade: A

There are several types of comedies. There are the ones with good jokes, or good performances, or good premises. There are ones that are funny parodies or situationally funny. There are even the ones that are so stupid, they're funny. Sadly, Nacho Libre is none of these, and fails miserably as a comedy in any form.

Hess' follow-up to the unbelievably successful and quietly yet riotly hilarious Napolean Dynamite is perhaps a legendary bomb of a sophomore jinx. Never has such promise and buzz been squandered so quickly. Jack Black, single handed saviour and upstager of many a film sets his career three steps back as the lead character, a monk cook at an orphanage who moonlights as el matador, Mexican wrestler.

Relying on the odd and ridiculous, Hess tries to recapture the magic that made Napolean Dynamite quirky, yet lovable. However, Black's zaniness works best when the world around him is normal; but in this film his insanity is lost in the sea of ludicrous that populates the film. And none of it is funny. There's just a series of scenes where people get punched or hit or kicked or crushed and it's supposed to be funny. WWE is funnier than this, because they play it straight. This film goes for the laughs and ends up empty.

Perhaps the only funny thing is Jack Black's accent, but even that gets tired and annoying quickly. Avoid this film at all costs. In fact, watch Mexican wrestling instead. It has more drama, romance, and comedy than a thousand Nacho Libres combined.

Grade: D-

It's such a treat to be able to go to the multiplex and see a film like Pan's Labyrinth, when more often than not, there are 4 screens showing the latest Adam Sandler or Tom Cruise flick. It's even more exciting when the theatre is half full on a Saturday afternoon. I'm sure there wasn't a disappointed movie goer in this theatre.

The film is an interesting mix of genre, part Spanish Civil War tale/part children's fantasy fairy tale. Between these two lies a beautiful depiction of how a child can cope with horrors both real and imagined, possible and imminent, and a testament to a child's strength in the face of adversity. When a child is living a most wicked life, even the most terrifying supernatural being pales in comparison, even this one: So the movie sways, between the real life horror and the complex underworld reminiscent of classic European fairy tales. You know the ones, where Hansel and Gretel cook the witch, instead of just running away. Or Little Red Riding Hood is saved because the woodcutter disembowels the wolf, but not after poor grandmama is savagely eaten. There are no apologies for wicked behaviour, real or imagined, in this film, as the closest fairy tale element Pan's Labyrinth shares with Disney is a tinkerbell like creature from a movie with a similar name.

The fantasy is breathtaking and frightening in equal amounts, causing the viewer to gaze dumbfounded against their better instincts to look away. It is Ofelia's (the child in the film) courage that pulls us along, as she knows nothing can hurt her in this fantasy realm as much as the pain she feels in her everyday life for her mother and unborn sibling, trapped in a marriage of convenience for the lead villain.

And what a villain this film has! A memorable fairy tale depends on its antagonist to be unnaturally cruel or morally corrupt. Sergi Lopez plays the adversary with such menace, such cruelty and such inhumanity that you'd swear he was someone not from this world. Yet we can see and understand his drive and motivation as a direct result of his unfaltering belief that orders must be followed and rituals held fast. It is this contrast between making moral decisions for oneself, and blindly towing the line that situate the characters as good or evil.

Though not an entirely easy film to watch, in that triumph is born only out of pure suffering and sometimes the right choices are not the easiest or safest ones, Pan's Labyrinth is able to somehow feel exhilarating in its telling of a story quite distressing. This can be attributed to its stellar cast performances, lush musical score, and eye popping fantasy visuals juxtaposed with its gritty wartime realism.

This is one fairy tale that will stand the test of time to rest alongside other greats. It is truly deserving to be on so many year end critic's Top 10 lists. Go see so for yourself.

Grade: A

How bizarre, that two films centered on the mystery of magic and the timelessness of love situated in similar eras with a love triangle at the centre, would come out in the same year. Both films starring talented casts, no less. I speak of The Prestige and this film, The Illusionist.

For as much as The Prestige was as puzzling a film as this one, both are relatively easy to figure out with a keen view and knowledge of film or storytelling. Perhaps this is where the similarities must end, and comparisons no longer be drawn, because as I see it, The Illusionist is centered around a pure love story, Romeo and Juliet style, where no force can keep the loves separated. By contrast, The Prestige is about the relationship between two men who just can't seem to quit each other (not in the Brokeback Mountain sense) or let bygones be bygones, letting their professional quarrels spill over into their personal lives.

So, if inseparable love and undying passion is your cup of tea, then The Illusionist will fill your cup. Norton and Biel play their emotions beautifully, and Giamatti and Sewell continue their quest to be considered the best supporting actors in Hollywood. It's no secret that this film enjoys the better cast. Yet it keeps its secrets, unlike the foretelling found in the aforementioned film of similar theme and setting.

Norton really carries this piece, adding another top notch performance to his amazing resume. He comes across as vulnerable, yet powerful, a necessary trait for a star crossed lover facing opposition from the authorities and upper class. The movie's time and setting allow the film to draw out its key conflict, as Sewell and Giamatti must engage in a civil, cordial cat and mouse game with Norton, so as not to embarrass or misrepresent themselves. I can't imagine this same conflict in modern times, as a good pistol whipping or other gun play would solve this film in a quarter of an hour.

The Illusionist is not full of tricks, twists and shocking surprises. Instead, it mesmerizes you with sharp wit, sweet thoughts and stunning visuals that situate love where it belongs: out of this world.

Grade: A-

It is extremely frustrating when a studio deceives you by selling a film as something it is not. The Break-Up is NOT a laugh a minute comedy of he said/she said. It is not the playful battle of the sexes so guiltily enjoyed in Peyton Reed's previous film Down With Love. It is, however, an enjoyable (that's perhaps not the right word) take on the part of a relationship we rarely see in an otherwise romantic comedy.

Centering a film on the ugly side of dating is a risky task, which is why it is understandable that the studio would try to sell the "hilarity" of incompatibility. Yet by doing so, the film's trailer really sells short the strength that this film has as a dramatic rendering of an adult relationship gone sour.

Vaughn and Aniston give strong, believable performances as a couple in crisis. Their attraction and chemistry is right, in that you can see these two hooking up, but not exactly hitching up. Neither one deserves the other, as both display their worst faults as their relationship devolves. A strong supporting cast plays their pals caught in the crossfire, with some funny results and some ridiculous mugging at times. Reed does a fine job of hitting the right notes, though the jump between comedy and drama can be a little jarring.

The film tries to realistically deal with a couple's break-up, yet finds truth in the dialogue more often than it does in the actions of its characters. Some honest reactions spill forth from the mouths of the hurt, confused couple dealing with their emotions, but their over-the-top responses by way of making grand purchases and throwing away their hard earned lives and bodies at a whim seem less real and more made in Hollywood.

Still, in the end, without the misleading theatrical trailer and real life romance (and prior break-ups) of the two leads, the film is convincing and entertaining. Just expect a lot more screaming than laughing.

Grade: B

Brian De Palma has an uncanny ability to keep you in suspense. In some instances, like Mission: Impossible or Carlito's Way ,the suspense is so intense that you can hear a pin drop in the theatre. On the other hand, De Palma's suspense can be of the variety that keeps the viewer guessing, "When will this movie ever end? Or, more importantly, will it ever actually begin?" It is within this category that The Black Dahlia falls, alongside De Palma's other notable attempts, Mission to Mars and Femme Fatale.

Now it's easy to hate on De Palma, just as easy as it is to trumpet him for notable works like Scarface and The Untouchables (and my personal fave, Wise Guys). This is because when he fails on a film, he fails miserably. 100%, absolutely, "so bad it's good", win another Razzie it's that awful, miserable. In attempting to revitalize the noir genre for the umpteenth time, De Palma gives us a clouded, convoluted and at times contrived film that does make us yearn for the noir of yesteryear, only to forget this one that really missed its mark.

This film sucks all the life out of the excellent cast, or should i say, Josh Hartnett sucks the life out of his co-stars, while he's sucking so bad on screen. A quick glance at the worst films of the past decade will show Hartnett's ability to accurately choose the worst projects in Hollywood (Sin City aside). This is unfortunate, because on paper, The Black Dahlia looks intriguing. A script based on a James Ellroy novel and an unsolved real life murder in 1940s Hollywood. Sounds like L.A. Confidential all over again.

Sadly, it tries stylistically too hard to be reminiscent of the noir films De Palma is so fond of and neglects to update its genre for today's audience. So it feels like an old film transported ahead in time where today's audience is more sophisticated and savvy, leaving little to the imagination and drawing out plot points much longer than needed. The acting borders on melodrama, while the dialogue sounds classically inspired, but delivered like a grade 9 student reading Shakespeare for the first time, hitting all the wrong notes.

It is a movie searching for an identity, telling its tale using mixed up genre codes, but not in an attempt to create something new (which would have been nice) but in a way to disrupt the viewer's connection to the film and degrade decades of film history in the process. It jumps around like a poorly conceived student film yet manages to prod along at a pace so tedious that you'd wish it were a student short film.

Still, some actors manage to emerge unscathed (see Eckhart and Johansson in other films), while Hilary Swank reminds us just how miraculous it is that her name will forever be preceded by "two time academy award winner". Now there's a mystery that will forever go unsolved.

Grade: D

It's always nice to see a director-actor duo collaborate in successive projects, especially when they can be removed from the massive studio work situation that surrounds a film like Batman Begins, which is where we find Nolan and Bale, filling in time between Bat films. A subsequent pairing allows the director and actor to further their relationship and speak in a kind of shorthand, bringing their collaboration to new heights. Think of Scorcese-DeNiro and Scorcese-DiCaprio, or Spike Lee-Denzel Washington for examples of this.

The term relationship is key, as The Prestige centers around the relationships the characters have with each other and what is perceived as their connective tissue plays both within and beyond the film. The audience is placed in a very strategic position of both knower and seeker of knowledge, and like a good magic trick, it is what we perceive and expect that will equally guide us and trick us towards the final act, or what is referred to in magic circles, as "The Prestige".

Nolan's previous work (Memento, Following, Insomnia) has built upon his manipulation of audience engagement with film texts, and tweaking our sophisticated knowledge as viewers in such a way that our work as an audience helps propel the film as we are forced to guess, then second guess our preconceived notions of where his films are headed. Without recognizing our intelligence as an audience, the film would have no place to go.

The psychology of Nolan's films are like that of a masterful storyteller, akin to Robertson Davies' Fifth Business set of novels. The make up and structure of the medium, whether it is writing or film-making, or magic tricks, is key to the enjoyment of the medium's content. We are well aware as we watch The Prestige, how the film unfolds in three acts, exactly as the magic pieces are described in the film. It is both a pleasure to behold on a story level, as well as a film level. Technically, it is parlaying exactly what it is being mystically told as the plot develops. This movie is a classic example why film schools exist.

Without giving too much away, this film is a pleasure on many levels, and worth subsequent viewings to fully appreciate and explore. The cast is perfect, as Bale and Jackman play two anti-heroes, whose sides we can easily assume or oppose, depending on how one reads the film and the characters' motives. Johansson plays a wonderful femme fatale, who we never can quite trust. Is she part of the illusion, or the only source of truth? Where does Caine's character's loyalties lie? His performance may perhaps be the best of the bunch, another testament to how prior work with a director leads to greater performances in their own ability to work in shorthand with each other.

If you can't tell by my tongue tied review, this film has volumes to speak about. Another thought provoking piece to add to Nolan's young but impressive resume.

Grade: A

Perhaps the most interesting concept in mainstream film this year, Stranger than Fiction has Ferrell playing the character in Thompson's newest novel, though he just recently has become aware of his status as fictional character. The idea is brilliant, much in the vein of Charlie Kaufman's crazy "plot within a plot" films like Adaptation, Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Thankfully, the entire cast is up to the task of making the most mileage out of this quirky concept. Ferrell's crazed lunacy works wonders here, as his everyman abilities blend nicely with his penchant to spazz out in full improvisation mode. He equally carries the romantic, psychological, and comedic sub plots with ease, effortlessly engaging with his co-stars.

Gyllenhaal deftly handles another May-December romance, adding to her growing resume. She and Ferrell have a bizarre chemistry that you'd think you'd only find in a novel (or a film), further adding to the perplexity of the film's converging plot lines. She is sexy and charming, but believably drawn to Ferrell in way that's hard to explain, without the help of Hoffman's literary professor character.

Hoffman continues his career resurgence, as he is quickly morphing his history of brilliant leading man turns into stellar supporting roles that are upstaging his co-stars. Here he propels the film forward by guiding Ferrell's character arc and bridging the two major plots together. Hoffman demonstrates his comedic prowess in both physical and lyrical delivery, and is a treat to watch.

Finally, Thompson, who is normally one of my most hated screen foils for no reason other than she's the type of Brit that irritates me, rather than entices me, is quite charming as the writer of the entire piece. Thankfully, her screen time is limited, though she delivers well, much as she did in Love Actually.

This film has to be seen, possibly multiple times, to be fully appreciated. You will enjoy it on a multitude of levels.

Grade: A-

Nothing is more fun than settling down with a couple of friends to watch a B horror flick, filled with enough laughs, both intentional and unintentional, along with just enough plot and scariness that you remain involved. Slither does this to perfection, resurrecting a lost art that was beginning to die in a sea of horror films that take themselves too seriously, while seriously sucking up the screen.

Slither announces its awfulness right off the bat, when Rooker starts running around looking like a grotesque elephant man mixed with The Fly; yet when confronted about his appearance he casually says, "It's just a bee sting." Instant credibility and appreciation from this reviewer! The preposterous plot is played with full on dedication and seriousness by the leads, which adds to the pleasure of watching this one. There's no attempt to cleverly wink at the audience; just a knowledge that if they are watching this, they know just as well as the filmmakers that it is everything it is supposed to be.

The pleasant surprise of Slither wasn't the silly plot about an alien possessing a man so that he could procreate. Instead, it was a pleasant surprise that the action and suspense were good enough to warrant genuine fear and fright amongst the laughs. There is a bathtub scene, wisely used for the film's poster, that makes taking a bath akin to Psycho's effect on taking a shower. Even though it seems out of place in the film, it works along with the rest of it, and gives the viewer more than they expect from such a low budget film.

Slither is a definite renter and has me anxiously awaiting a sequel. This is to slug films what Chuckie is to possessed doll movies. A total guilty pleasure and sure to please B movie lovers.

Grade: B-

The latest Kevin Smith film is always cause for anticipation, because he always seems to have something interesting to say. Whether it's a comment on Catholicism, an anecdote about Tim Burton or Prince, or a comparison of the Star Wars trilogy vs. The Lord of the Rings, he has a funny, insightful take on a number of subjects.

Unfortunately, Clerks 2 has none of the insight, humour, or clever wit that Smith's previous works delighted us with. In fact, even his self-proclaimed "poo-poo jokes" miss the mark in this one. Perhaps it is his return to a dried-up comedic well, stocked with unprofessional actors and tired delivery and dialogue, that makes Clerks 2 seem so parched for pleasure.

The only actors worth watching aren't on screen enough, and when they are, Smith's film school dropout directing skills cramp them to the point where the audience is just aching to leave. Smith's previous work actually made me want to visit New Jersey, but I was hoping the whole town would burn down with the Quick Stop as this film plodded along. Anything to give it some action, drama, or the slightest bit of comedy.

About the only good thing in the film is Rosario Dawson, a spark of life and refreshing sweetness amongst a cast that pales in comparison. Even though Dawson's discovery as an actress is not unlike Smith's gang of goons, it's strikingly obvious that she has honed her craft throughout the past decade, whereas Smith and friends seem stuck in the early 90s. Granted, Smith and Mewes (Jay and Silent Bob) are always fun to watch, but they jumped the shark with their self titled film, and should be put to rest. Jason Lee provides a great cameo, proving that he still possesses the best delivery of Smith's dialogue. I can't wait until those two can hook up again and make us forget this film, Kevin Smith's WORST FILM EVER. Take that to your comic store, Silent Boob! Post-edit: With this film slated for DVD release in November, i encourage you to skip this sequel, even as a rental, and opt for Smith's other sequel, "An Evening with Kevin Smith 2: Evening Harder". He's just so much better as a speaker and writer, instead of pretending to be a screenwriter and director. Grade: D

Superman has always been the most iconic of superheroes; the superhero that all other superheroes must be measured against. So, a film version of the most widely known hero on Earth (or Krypton) should fittingly be the film that all superhero films look to for inspiration. Sadly, this fifth film in the Superman franchise is uninspired.

Granted, i've never been the greatest Superman fan. Comic book fan, yes. Superman fan, no. i just couldn't get my head around why someone as powerful and extraordinary as Superman would be interested in someone so plain and uninteresting as Lois Lane. She's certainly no Mary Jane Watson. i also couldn't stand the way his superpowers increased with every issue, to the point where the need to use one power seemed redundant considering he possessed another power that made the first one pointless. (Much like that last sentence.) Furthermore, given such extraordinary powers, Superman never really seemed in danger, despite the whole Kryptonite thing, which seemed easily overcome by sheer will power, when only moments earlier it was deathly crippling.

So, it was with much trepidation that i viewed Superman Returns, buoyed by the fact that Bryan Singer had jumped ship from X-Men 3 to oversee the Hero of all SuperHeroes. Singer had done such an amazing job with another comic book franchise i didn't really care too much for, so i was anxious to see what he would do with this storied material.

Frankly, i wish he'd stayed on X-Men, and let Brett Ratner (or even the original Warner Bros. choice, Tim Burton) have their shot at Superman, as Singer's heavy hand takes all the fun out of the red and blue underwear sporting Superhero, weighing the film down with too much drama.

Now, don't get me wrong, i'd be the first to tell you that a comic book movie benefits from drama. Spider-Man 2 being the most perfect example of that. However, Superman Returns tries too hard to ratchet up the love story between Clark Kent and Lois Lane, but when you have two boring leads like Routh and Bosworth, the audience couldn't care less about will they or won't they. Singer should have taken a lesson from Burton's turns on the Batman franchise, and let the villain take center stage, as Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor could have been every bit as good as Jack Nicholson's Joker, with more screen time. Only Parker Posey was as delightful to watch on screen.

The action set pieces are well done, but as i stated earlier, there's no real sense of impending failure or doom. They feel drawn out, because Superman's inevitable triumph is a no brainer. Which makes the overlong ending feel like Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King all over again, begging audience members to say, "Let's get this over with!" When the greatest highlights of the film include the 1978 original installment's musical score and Marlon Brando voice-over (cleverly re-used for the film's opening), the question must be asked, should they have even started to make this in the first place? Grade: C

So bad, it's good, seems to be the moniker for this film straight from the start. Terrifically bad, and knowingly so, this film plays the ludicrousness for laughs, winking the entire time. Using the Leslie Neilson approach, good actors playing it straight for comic effect, this film takes its amusing premise and runs with it.

Right from the start, the film puts us in an 80s action setting; island locale, dirt biking intro, guy stumbles upon villain with evil henchmen in tow. The music tells us it's serious, but the lines of dialogue tell us otherwise. Then the "money" shots of snake carnage occur and the audience is howling along for the ride.

Imagine an "Airplane/Airport" type of film paired with "Anaconda" and "Python"! Thrill as Samuel L. Jackson delivers lines like, "I want these motherf***ing snakes off this motherf***ing plane!" with as much conviction as hit-man Jules from "Pulp Fiction"! Delight in the technological wonder of the Snake Cam! You will be entertained! When you really think about it, combining the three common phobias of flying, snakes, and enclosed spaces, should make for a terrifying film. The genius is in how they take this preposterous scenario and play it for laughs, action, and melodrama. Director David R. Ellis, who took similar goofy material to guilty pleasure territory with "Cellular", guides this perfectly, when it could have easily gone off course. Jackson's conviction and commitment to this film (and the rest of the cast for that matter) make it an enjoyable bit of foolery. I only wish they had given the lead villain a real kick-ass martial arts scene to end the film. I can't wait for the sequel, "Snakes on a Boat"! Grade: B

Pulse is a strong candidate for worst film of the year. It's completely devoid of any interesting characters, any interesting camera work or visuals, and anything the least bit horrifying.

Set in what i assume to be a futuristic time where everything looks the same as it does now, only there's no sunlight or working indoor lighting, Pulse tries to makes us afraid of our digital machinery, as if it were a new storing place for hell's angels. Instead, it makes us afraid of more Japan horror being remade as cheap one-note American crap.

i don't know where to begin to describe the banality of this film. Another reviewer really nailed it when they said the film would be more tense if we actually cared whether the lead actors lived or died. Even the normally plucky and watchable Milian is relegated to interchangeable terrified and puzzled looks. The soul stealing imagery and black plague like marks that are supposed to be so terrifying get lost in the film's direction, and would be scarier as a series of still photographs.

The lack of sunlight makes the characters seem pale and boring, or maybe they were just that way to begin with. Inexplicable coincidences and convenient meetings attempt to stitch the film together but it's a total lost cause. Who, what, or where it all happened are completely lost by the end of the film, and the sense of bewilderment i felt at the end was perhaps the most horrifying part of the experience.

i have seen the future of reality horror, and it is sitting through a screening of Pulse.

Grade: F

The immediate thought that ran through my mind after seeing this film, (after 'Thank God that's over!") was how much i felt like when i had seen "The Matrix Reloaded". After being completely taken by surprise and blown away by the originality and complexity of the first, original film, i felt completely let down, confused, and saddened by how that first film is tarnished by this sequel.

Now, of course, in hindsight, i can appreciate the second Matrix film as a worthy installment of the series, and perhaps filled with the most rewatchable fight scenes of the entire trilogy. Hopefully, the same will be said about this film once all is said and done. Yet, for the time being, it seemed as though "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" is more said, than done. My initial feeling is that it sucked the life out of the original, spat back the enjoyable lines and character references, and created a ridiculously complex back story that makes it incomprehensible with its laboured pace and unsatisfying faux ending.

Which is the problem of the second installment of pre-planned trilogies. It's almost as though the filmmakers hold back, knowing they have to save something for the final film, or else why bother? (Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers notwithstanding). Which, in response i say, why bother with a middle chapter if it's going to be so unfulfilling? Johnny Depp's role as Captain Jack Sparrow is still as much fun to watch as it probably is for him to act out. But his place in the movie as the bonafide hero takes a bit of the edge away which made him so dastardly to cheer for in the first film. What this film lacks is the presence of a real great villain, as Geoffrey Rush is sorely missed during the film. Both Orlando Bloom's Will Turner and Keira Knightley's Elizabeth Swann seem like mere window dressing, as they try to cram as much cast from the first film that it makes more seem like less.

Much like the second Matrix film, this film will most likely be remembered for its excellent action sequence, mid-way through the film. Yet, by then most of the audience will be just as turned off or tuned out as Depp's inspiration, Keith Richards. This isn't a plot line that's too complex because it's so brilliant. It's a plot line that takes so long to develop that it becomes too laboursome for the audience to care less. Just give us the popcorn movie experience we loved so much the first time around.

Unfortunately, like a bad movie spoof, this film is too full of repeated remarks and familiar circumstances, and not enough fresh, fun thrills. i wish i had Adam Sandler's remote from "Click" so i could fast forward half this film, and then on to the third one, where they must be storing all the fun and excitement this one left behind. Not enough booty to salvage this one from the depths.

Grade: C-

There comes a time in every comedian's career, where they say to themself, "Self, how will I be remembered? Have I made a difference? Am I just a big, life long fart joke?" This film is Adam Sandler's atonement, for a career filled with body gags and yelling sprees, temper tantrums and booby jokes.

"Click" is Sandler's attempt at "It's a Wonderful Life", a Scrooge tale of life's past, present and future. He has created a story meant to make movie goers feel like they must live their lives in the present, enjoy their kids, take care of their health and relationships, and not let work run/ruin your life. And if you don't mind the telegraphed plot line, you might enjoy watching it unfold.

i've always been a passive Sandler fan. i enjoy his two second sight gags and cameo appearances by friends Rob Schneider and John Turtorro. i also enjoy his angry rants and screaming insults. This film, though definitely trying to be more grown up and appeal to a wider audience, still offers those tidbits of Sandler past. (i especially liked the young Asian boy at the start of the film--talk about getting comedic mileage from such an insignificant role).

However, as the film progresses, Sandler does what cinematic history has seen from the likes of Robin Williams and Jim Carrey, and tries to put some dramatic weight into the film. Unfortunately, the plot is so predictable and obvious, that it would have been nice if he had put an ironic spin on the age old morality tale.

Don't get me wrong. i have complete trust and faith in Sandler's ability to take an everyman role and run with it. His brilliant turn in "Punch Drunk Love" is proof of that. Yet, as Sandler's star slowly turns towards the funny drama, as opposed to a dramatic comedy, his off-beat schtick loses its lustre.

What normally makes a film like this work, is a supporting cast that is just as willing to provide an impact in glimpses of the lead's past, present and future, and unfortunately Kate Beckinsale, Sean Astin, and Henry Winkler are mere charactatures for Sandler to act upon. Only Christopher Walken manages to steal scenes, though this should surprise no one.

I applaud Sandler for not resting on his past formula, while still giving fans a little of what they've come to appreciate from him. It's too bad that he wasn't able to give us a glimpse as to the future of the Scrooge fairy tale, settling instead for another rehash of the present story arc of second chances. This film is, in the end, easily forgettable, and like all things in the present, they quickly become history. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Grade: B-

Matthew McConaughey is quickly becoming the male Meg Ryan. Romantic comedies are certainly his domain, and he has had a string of hits which position him as the leading man who is hard to catch, but willing to play the cat and mouse game of 30 something dating.

Sarah Jessica Parker, putting in a very Carrie Bradshaw type performance, steps into McConaughey's love interest role with much fire and spirit, though not as much chemistry as McConaughey had with Kate Hudson in "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days".

Indeed, that film and this one share much the same tone and structure, as both leads are interested in each other for different motives, yet find themselves actually falling in love. If you think i'm spoiling it for you, then you obviously don't know the romantic comedy genre.

"Failure to Launch" is a welcome addition to the overdone genre, sharing room with some of the more recent better attempts, such as the aforementioned "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days", "The Wedding Planner" (also starring McConaughey), and "Down With Love". Though not as good as any of these films, "Failure to Launch" has many similar things going for it.

First of all, there's the generic naming of the cast. McConaughey stars as "Tripp", not to be confused with past performances as "Steve 'Eddie' Edison" or "Ben Berry", all of which could be confused for superhero names. It lets the audience know that he's a guy's guy, and in case you didn't catch it by the name, multiple scenes of Tripp doing buddy activities with the guys, will let you know he's a man-boy, just waiting for the love bug to hit.

Then, there's Parker's role as Paula, who comes with the requisite quirky friend, Kit, played by Zooey Deschanel. (i almost wish they'd kept her real name, to heighten the quirkiness). Of course, Kit is much more interesting than Paula, but that never enters the mind of the lead, because the male lead's best friend, who isn't looking for love, must blissfully fall for the female lead's friend, so there's always some karmic feel good moments during the inevitable breakdown between the leads before they confess their true love for each other. Again, i'm giving nothing away here folks.

So far, you must be saying, how can this formulaic drivel be entertaining. Well, thanks to a great supporting cast (c'mon, we'll watch Kathy Bates do anything, especially after that scene in "About Schmidt"), and two endearing leads, this film takes the genre's formula and plays it perfectly. A little bit of humour, a little bit of drama, some tension, but all entirely watchable, except for the ridiculous subplot that tries to connect the balance of nature to the harmony of Tripp's love life. That was annoying from start to finish.

Seeing as this was a review of a rental, i can recommend it for renting. i do pity those who paid for it in theatres, but i definitely approve of it for purveyors of romantic comedies.

Grade: B

Pixar studios has become such a leader in the animated film department, they have to challenge themselves because no one else seems to want to set the bar higher. Well, they do a wonderful job meeting their own challenge of creating a film completely filled with inanimate objects. Despite the fact that cars do not move of their own free will, Pixar populates this film's world with characters, personalities, and relationships that are tantamount to what car lovers do to their own vehicles.

Cars is no "Finding Nemo", "Toy Story", or "Monsters, Inc." Still, it is a solid, enjoyable film with superb animation and enough wit for both kids and adults alike. In the certain to be released (in the not so distant future), Pixar Box Set, "Cars" will not be the crappy movie that you have to take thrown in with the hits, because it deserves its own recognition.

Making talking cars look and feel like they have real issues and life problems is a massive undertaking. Yet Pixar's smart casting and keen eye for detail in their animation of lead characters really brings this story to life. Though the plot line is telegraphed from the beginning (there's absolutely no question what each car's story arc will be) it is an enjoyable ride getting there.

It helps that we, as a culture, anthropomorphisize our vehicles already. So it isn't such a stretch when a car comes on screen, that it already has a perceived personality in our minds. We have personified certain car makes and models with human characteristics and tendencies, and the people at Pixar play into these preconceived notions to situate the cars as characters. It's an auto lover's dream come true.

If it weren't for a longer than average running time (for an animated 'kids' film) and a plot that leaves no room for doubt, Cars would be talked about with the likes of animated cinematic greats. Though the backdrops aren't as lavish as "Finding Nemo" and the world of make believe not as spellbinding as "Toy Story", it remains a steady pace car and keeps Pixar batting 1000.00. i can't wait to see what they come up with next.

Grade: B+

i can sheepishly admit, i am a fan of Tom Green. Whether it's Organized Rhyme, his own "The Tom Green Show" both pre and post MTV, or his first forays into film, "Freddy Got Fingered", "Road Trip", and 'The Chad' in "Charlie's Angels", I look forward to watching what he will do next.

With this in mind, I can honestly say, "Bob the Butler" is a horrible film, whether you like Green or not, whether you like movies or not, or whether you have a pulse or not.

What i enjoy about Green is his ability to find humour in such simple things as a cheese sandwich. i love watching him interact with others, altering the everyday altercation with either a minute change of pace, or a major social faux pas, both played with deadpan mock seriousness.

What i don't particularly like about Green is when the joke runs too long, or the joke isn't funny to begin with. The nice thing about all the aforementioned resume bits of Green was quick editing in mind, or jokes that, if they weren't funny, they were bizarre enough to shock you or make you think. Bob the Butler is devoid of any of these things.

The film takes the premise that Green's character cannot hold a job, until he finds himself as a butler for an oddly cast, anal retentive, control freak Brooke Shields. What ensues is a bland, run of the mill, stereotypical movie about a babysitter who is not liked by the kids until they eventually warm up and want the babysitter to be their parent, who is missing out on the kids until they realize too late that the fired babysitter was actually better for the kids than their own parenting.

What's so disappointing is not just the rehash family film formula. It's that Green is as far removed from this type of thing than any comedian, that any hope for him messing within the parameters of this formula is never realized. The opening cartoon credits, if filmed as a live action weekly series staring Green, would be so much better than this boring, uneventful snooze fest. Three things Green has never been accused of, until now. Perhaps that's why he did it.

Grade: D-

Dreamworks outdoes Pixar this summer, by offering the best animated feature of the year. Monster House is cool for kids, yet certain to be a hit with grown-ups. It manages to strike a chord with children by inhabiting the world they live in, full of creepy old men living in haunted houses, while at the same time, offering up enough scares and laughs to keep any 30 year old kid at heart thoroughly entertained.

The animation is nothing short of inspired, as the motion capture technology truly breathes life into the CGI animation. Facial expressions, "camera angles" and "tracking shots" are planned with painstaking detail; it's truly a sight to behold. You'll forget you're watching a 'cartoon' right from the fluttering leaf of the opening credits.

Not content to stop there, the filmmakers have added to the superb animation with equally superb writing and a cast to deliver those lines. Familiar voices (see the above credits) fill the adult characters with a lot of humour, even though each adult is given only about 5 minutes of screen time. Each actor does a lot with their 5 minutes, completely deserving of their pay check. The clever casting of Jon Heder makes this the first film to get full dynamite for his cameo, as he fits in perfectly as an arcade legend.

Still, with all this going for it, Monster House would have failed if its child roles didn't measure up. Fortunately, the three leads steal the show, aptly performing voice work that stretches from childhood tomfoolery to ghastly terror to puppy love, all within the same scene. Their honest approach to the scripts' clever and accurate depiction of children almost too old for trick or treating, yet not quite old enough to forget the bogeyman, makes this a film that will certainly become a perennial Halloween favourite. I know I could watch it a thousand times over.

Grade: A

Have you ever watched a movie and it becomes startlingly obvious that the actors you're watching probably had more fun making this film than you are actually watching it? Well, that's definitely the case with Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, a film that tries to revive the buddy cops, noir, and postmodern film movement, as well as the careers of director Shane Black and actors Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer.

Don't get me wrong. This is not a bad film. Far from it. In fact, the way in which Downey and Kilmer throw themselves into their roles with such reckless joy is the reason why this film works. Despite the mish mash of genres, the film ultimately never fails to entertain, much to the obvious talent both actors have for both comedy and drama.

Whoever thought to pair these two actors together deserves an Academy Award for casting. They are truly undervalued as thespians (present author excluded--i've always admired and enjoyed both of them in nearly every film they've done, turkeys included) and together they make a dynamic pair. They have cohesive comic timing together, and know where and when to camp it up and when to play it straight.

This kind of chemistry is normally lacking in male-female casting, and though the true stars are Downey and Kilmer, Michelle Monaghan holds her own. This is probably the role that landed her opposite Tom Cruise in this summer's Mission Impossible III. She brings a degree of sexiness along with the balance of laughter and tension that this film plays with.

i can usually tell i've enjoyed a film when i immediately want to watch it again with the commentary, and this DVD was just as fun to listen to as it was to watch. Kilmer and Downey continually crack jokes like actors who have seen the highest pedestal and watched it fade away, yet could really care less because their film work speaks for itself. These are two stars who have lived the Hollywood dream, both in and out of the limelight, critical darlings and media punching bags and lived to tell the tale. This commonality sparks commaderie and it shows both on and off screen. It's fun to watch these two fine actors enjoying each other's company.

Grade: B+

There isn't a more thought provoking, timely, or definitive vision of our times than this brilliantly adapted film of the Alan Moore comic book. V for Vendetta explores an England of the near future, that isn't a far stretch from the political climate we currently live in. It exposes the fine line between government policy and government fallacy. It inspires and restores faith in the power of people whose governments no longer serve their interests (a plot point that hits too close to home for this writer's likening, at all levels of government). All the while, the film manages to entertain, intrigue, and enlighten us at the same time.

Great science fiction has always given us moral or political or historical lessons for our time, using the setting of the future as its tool. The film alludes to this when 'V' states: "A writer uses lies to reveal the truth, while a politician conceals the truth by using lies" (sorry, that may be misquoted, but the premise remains). The science fiction genre allows us to detach our present day selves from the problems and issues of our time, to become fully immersed in similar themes, albeit in a bleak, futuristic setting. This detachment brings a clearer, cleaner canvas in which to debate and recognize the same issues troubling our world.

The parallels are obvious, and the current political/media rhetoric surrounding "terrorism" today isn't shied away from. The Wachowski brothers, who brought us "The Matrix" trilogy, infuse Alan Moore's original graphic novel, with current political hot buttons. One character boldly states, "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter". This point sums up the crux that exists and drives both this film and our current news and political climate.

Perhaps what is the most triumphant feature of this film, is how all of this is packaged within a very stylistic, extremely well directed action thriller. Though not "action packed", the film moves along nicely, powered by a beautiful score by Dario Marianelli who is equally adept at propelling you along and keeping you in suspense. Extremely strong performances by the entire cast should not be ignored come Oscar time.

Indeed, Natalie Portman gives her best performance since "Leon: The Professional", ("Closer" notwithstanding) and perhaps felt some of her own liberation from the shackles of George Lucas' horrible writing and directing of Star Wars Episodes one through three. Hugo Weaving gives an astounding performance, even without the use of facial expressions. His inflection and delivery make what could have been a clown into a convincing cinematic character. Finally, the always fabulous yet understated Stephen Rea does more with his own facial expressions than most actors do with an entire page of dialog.

This film is a must see and certainly requires multiple viewings. Don't wait until the 5th of November to rent this one.

Grade: A

Will Ferrell continues his winning streak with yet another irreverent take on the bizarre worlds that exist within our culture. First he tackled the 70s local news era in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. Then the world of suburban soccer matches in Kicking and Screaming. This time around, he pokes fun within the increasingly popular NASCAR circuit in Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.

What makes Ferrell's films and characters so popular and fun to watch, is that he is self deprecating, yet entirely lovable as dim witted everymen. He can easily go over the top and extreme for the big laugh (I'm caught in a glass case of emotion!!!), yet his varied line delivery and altering of tone can make even a line like, "Thank you Baby Jesus" seem like the greatest punch line on earth.

Ricky Bobby is just as funny, if not funnier than most of Ferrell's previous work. It helps that he is smart enough to surround himself with other comedic talents, such as Sacha Baron Cohen, more commonly known for his persona, Ali G. In addition to Cohen, Talladega Nights includes two fine dramatic actors, John C. Reilly and Michael Clarke Duncan, playing it straight for laughs unlike any comedian could.

With a supporting cast like this, Ferrell and friends are encouraged to improvise wildly, spurring each other to new heights as they maintain their composure. Witness Reilly's multiple line deliveries at the dinner table during the closing credits' outtakes, and you realize just how talented comedic actors need to be. (And when it comes to talented actors, NO ONE can rival John C. Reilly!). i'm sure there's another film and a half worth of jokes on the cutting room floor, making the forthcoming DVD release a much anticipated event.

In fact, i had the impression while watching that there must have been more filmed, seeing as Cohen's hilarious French NASCAR driver (Jacques Villeneuve???) shares very few scenes with Ferrell. As a fan who loved the film, I would have liked to have seen more, but I appreciate the editing for the sake of story movement and pacing. The predictable story arc makes for a nice, comfortable zone for the jokes to fly, and you'll be laughing throughout the film without any worries about laughing right through a plot point. A real winner.

Grade: A-