Death Race

Death Race - R, Starring Jason Statham, Joan Allen, Ian McShane, and Tyrese Gibson / ACTION (aka Death Race 3000)

Yes, another remake. The original (Death Race 2000) starred David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone. It was laughable if nothing else, but the plot was somewhat different in that in the 1975 version, the racecar drivers were intent on mowing down pedestrians (some who were willing) for a thrill instead of racing to win (even if it means killing each other) in order to gain his freedom. In both cases, the drivers were cheered on by the TV-viewing public. Initially, we skipped over seeing the new version of Death Race in the theatre despite Statham's and Joan Allen’s presence for the simple fact that the previews made it look hokey. Upon renting it, however, we were both pleasantly surprised. It was not nearly as hokey as the previews made it out to be. There was a geeky little cast member that moonlighted on an episode of The Mentalist that was great (and more recently In Plain Sight), and there were other supporting cast that made the movie worthwhile. Of course, there were cheesy moments, and the movie was certainly violent as the previews foretold. The language was certainly gratuitous warranting the R rating. The movie was exactly what you would expect from an action movie of this type. It was theatre-worthy, and would have been worth the ticket had I been brave enough to spend the money to see it there. No, the plot wasn’t deep and intricate, but that isn’t what they claimed it would be, either.

The Happening

The Happening, Rated R for violent and disturbing images- Starring Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschenal, John Leguizamo, and Betty Buckley - Horror/Suspense

The Happening is okay. UNLESS you know Shyamalan made it and are expecting the kind of scripts like The Sixth Sense and Signs and The Village. The Happening falls a little short by comparisson. The script itself is not nearly as creepy as The Sixth Sense, not as witty as Sings, and not as original as The Village. It does have one redeeming quality, and that is Mark Wahlberg, which mercifully made this decent film fairly amusing. Standing on its own merits, it would have been rated better, but when you are expecting more (as one does from Mr. Shyamalan), it's somewhat of a let down.

Love Guru, 88 Minutes, Speed Racer, Made of Honor

Lots of theatre movies streeting this week:

LOVE GURU $30M
SPEED RACER $43M
MADE OF HONOR $46M
88 MINTUES $17M
YOUNG @ HEART $3M

88 MINUTES-R for disturbing violent content, brief nudity and language-Starring Al Pacino, Alicia Witt, Leelee Sobieski, Amy Brenneman, William Forsythe, and Debra Unger /CRIME/SUSPENSE/THRILLER
Set in Seattle, this is about a forensic psychiatrist/professor (Pacino) who is notorious for testifying on the stand to successfully lock up serial rapists, murderers, and the like—some even put on death row, and some even put away on nothing but his testimony--perhaps slightly embellished testimony. He gets a mysterious phone call announcing that he has 88 minutes to live. It appears this caller knows things that only someone close to him can know. Being a forensic shrinky person, he should be able to deduce who this might be, if it’s really someone he knows, right? That's what I thought. Things are further complicated when he finds that he is under investigation for the murder of one of his best friends—a clear frame job—but making it harder for him to uncover the identity of the caller.
The previews looked decent, and I was fairly geeked to see the movie, which I saw in the theatre. The language was a bit much. It wasn’t quite as good as I was hoping for, but I shouldn't have been disappointed, becaues here’s the problem with most psychological thrillers: you can only make it so clever, or you lose half the audience. That’s just how it is. To dumb it down completely would just be plain insulting; but to be fair, they really do have to dumb it down to some extent, or a fair share of the viewers would stare opened mouthed through 90 percent of the film. And some of you know that’s true and are just too nice to say so. Have you read Harrison Bergeron? You know, where they try to dumb everyone down to the lowest common denominator so everyone is on the same level, which, in reality, is pretty low, and so when the brainiac starts to think too much, his head starts to hurt and all of a sudden his head gets jumbled and he forgets what he was thinking about. Problem solved—no more brainiac. Well, that’s how movies are made. You can’t write a script that caters to those at the collegiate level. Because not everyone went to college. And that market share (college goers) doesn’t bring in enough revenue. It’s just simple math. It’s like the Kincaid/Flesh reading ease method-the thing that judges the level of writing. Newspapers use it. Magazines use it. As an editor, I urge my writers to use it. It basically tells you what grade level your writing is up to. Most shoot for the 8th grade level. Why? Because that’s what engages the most number people--what most people understand. Very few papers target the collegiate level. Sad, but true. And so is true for movies. Set it too high or too tricky, and BAM! There goes your audience. Set it so an 8th grader can understand, and you’ve got the widest possible audience, which translates into the most possible dollars. Unfortunately, every now and then people who have surpassed the 8th grade would like to watch a fairly clever film. Just once in a while would be nice. Now, I’m not being condescending, or if I am, I’m not trying to be. I’m just saying that it would be nice to get lost in a movie once in a while. To go, hmmm… did I miss something? Instead of gee…. I wonder what happens next, with enough sarcasm to sink an oil tanker. I’m not bitter. It just really would be nice to watch a movie not driven solely by the dollar for a change. That’s what makes indies so refreshing. Indies typically don’t target the mass audiences. Sometimes this is by mistake, sometimes it is purposeful. Either way, the end result is the same. They produce clever films because they know their audience will be narrow. They can choose a narrow ignorant audience (but why?) or a narrow clever one. Horray for indies!
All that ranting said, the movie was okay, if not predictable in many areas. Al Pacino is always decent. Leelee Whatever-Her-Name-Is is usually irritating. And so she is again here. She gets lost in presence of Pacino, however.

THE LOVE GURU-PG13 for crude and sexual content throughout, language, some comic violence, and drug references-Starring Mike Myers, Jessica Alba, Justin Timberlake, Romany Malco, Meagan Good, Omid Djalili, Verne Troyer, and Ben Kingsley (with Jessica Simpson) / COMEDY
First, the comic violence, according to every review I’ve read, can hardly be so, since the “comic” part of the “comic violence” was apparently absent. Second, I thought the “sexual content THROUGHOUT” was particularly telling. THROUGHOUT? Great! I was hoping it was just for a while, but I was glad to hear the WHOLE movie was filled with sexual content… you can never have enough of crude and sexual humor, can you? It just sounds so good to me already.
For those of you who have been with me for a while, you might recall the movies Mike and I rated for the theatre at the beginning of summer. The ones from 0-5, 0 being super sucky… Mama Mia and Kit Kittredge coming in at the 0 or 1 level, Iron Man and Dark Knight topping my list at 5. Remember? Well, this information that we passed along to the theatre came from the hour of previews they showed us, which included this lovely little movie, THE LOVE GURU. It, too, fell at the bottom of my list, I think at 1, if I recall correctly. The preview looked so bad that I couldn’t imagine seeing it under any circumstance. However, remember there were two lists; the theatre list that asked us how well we thought it would do at the theatre, and then I did one later based on how the movie was in reality (two so very different things—people see sucky movies all the time). I actually thought this movie would do better in the theatre than it warranted. And yes, I was correct, this horrible little film did $30M in the theatre. Why? Why, indeed. Mike Myers and Jessica Alba, I would guess. She’s a hottie, no? I’ve never bought a movie, good or bad, that hasn’t rented well with her on the cover. And for those in my generation, who can forget Wayne’s World? That was truly funny. SNL? Hysterical. Austin Powers? Marginally funny. Myers not only stars in this movie but he wrote it as well. And then for the younger crowd, there’s Justin Timberlake. Awwww… shucks… all the girls think he’s such a cutey. This movie has what we call star-power. The movie could be a comedy about bathtubs and people would go see it. Suckers.
So what makes this so bad, you ask? Well, that depends how old you are. If you’re a 12-year-old boy, perhaps you might think this is actually funny. How many penis jokes can you hear in a 90 minute timeframe and still be amused? Would it help if you mix in a reference or two about animal sex, or throw in a few HYSTERICALLY CLEVER names like Coach Chercov (get it??? HAHAHA) and Jaques “Le Coq” (EVEN MORE CLEVER)---wait here’s another---Guru Satchabigknoba (that’s my fav)? These are names you think up on the bus ride home in 7th grade to impress your buddies at school. And that’s about the age when you find them funny. Would you think the movie would be funnier, if when Guru Pitka, (Myers) was giving out his guru-ish advice (which sounds fortune cookie-ish) the first letter of each word in the advice, when put together, actually spelled naughty phrases if , kind of like an acronym? Ha ha ha ha ha……………….
In addition, the jokes regarding Verne Troyer (Coach Chercov, aka Mini-Me) are overdone and old. Enough already. I am the last person to be politically correct. (Some cliché about a pot and kettle comes to mind.) You know very well I am about as PC as Sarah Palin (who has managed to capture the attention of my husband, who now thinks he is in love with her due to her political stance, some t-shirt with her in a wonder woman outfit holding a gun, and her ability to field-dress a moose—how can I compete with that??) but really, there’s a point where these kind of denigrating jokes just aren’t funny anymore. It’s like the fat girl who constantly makes reference to herself being fat. Or the blind girl who makes blind jokes (saying “visually impaired” jokes just doesn’t have the same ring, does it?). The joke is funny the first time—even relaxes people. Time number 20 is over the top and is awkward. You might have a complex. It’s called dignity. Get some.
The Love Guru is just such a far cry from the intelligent comedic elements and banter found on SNL that it’s hard to imagine what Myers was thinking (or was he?). He’s actually a decent actor, and there really was no excuse for such a dumbed-down, child-like, absolutely ridiculous, and certainly self-serving/self-indulgent film. Myers clearly thought this was funny, and that is truly disappointing. Leaving him to do as he pleases, he is clearly not nearly as funny as when he is under constant and direct supervision. His idea of funny and the reality of funny are, apparently, worlds apart.

MADE OF HONOR-PG13 for sexual content and language-Starring Patrick Dempsey, Michelle Monaghan, Kevin McKidd, Kathleen Quinlan, and Sydney Pollack. COMEDY/ROMANCE
This is another one of those failure-to-be-funny-or-romantic romantic comedies. Or so it appears to me. But yes, most appear that way to me, to be fair. But tell me if this sounds in any way romantic or comedic to you? I’ll bullet it for you to highlight the non-romantic and non-funny parts.
· Tom has a best friend, Hannah
· Tom falls in love with Hannah
· Hannah falls in love with someone else
· Hannah decides to marry this Someone Else
· Hannah asks Tom to be her maid of honor (yes, maid of honor)
· Tom has to plan Hannah’s wedding, bridal shower, etc., while being in love with Hannah, and watching her marry some other dude

I’m failing to see the humor, or the romance, in seeing the love of your life get engaged to another and sitting back and watching it happen. What part is romantic?
Now, it could be that they just failed to properly explain the romantic part on the back cover, in which case, I apologize for my ill review. Perhaps it’s very romantic. And very funny. Maybe Tom changes his mind, falls in love with one of Hannah’s bridesmaids, and Hannah’s new dude ends up being super romantic and super funny? I don’t know—I’m just saying if the love of my life decided to marry another… and wanted me to participate in the marriage… well... I might be, you know, a little…. sad. I said it before and I’ll say it again (but I swear this is the last time) Hollywood takes the most unfunny things and tries to make them funny. Unsuccessfully.

SPEED RACER-PG for sequences of action, some violence, language, and brief smoking-Starring Emile Hirsch, Christina Ricci, John Goodman, Susan Sarandon, Matthew Fox, and Benno Formann/ FAMILY
Welcome back to the adventures of Speed Racer and Trixie as they try to save the family business. GO, SPEEDRACER, GO!!! There is no way you can’t watch this. I didn’t see it in the theatre, but I have to see it now, if it’s the last thing I do. It’s Speed Racer. Get the kids and watch it. Just do it.

TORTURED-R for violence including torture and language-Starring Cole Hauser, James Cromwell, and Laurence Fishburne/CRIME
FBI agents, organized crime, stolen money—yeah, it looks good. I like Hauser. An undercover FBI agent (Hauser) penetrates an underground crime ring and is instructed by a mob boss to track down stolen money. Looks a little brutal, and the language is probably rough.

YOUNG @ HEART-PG for some mild language and thematic elements-Starring The Young at Heart Chorus / MUSIC
I’m not really sure what this is. I guess this is a senior citizens choir called the Young @ Heart Choir. They are preparing for a rock show in their hometown, and they are learning new songs, which include songs from James Brown, and get this—Coldplay. Apparently they are kind of hard of hearing, and the rehearsals are a little chaotic. I guess it’s supposed to be quite funny. And I guess, You’re Never Too Old To Rock.

Baby Mama

BABY MAMA-PG13 for crude and sexual humor, language, and a drug reference-Starring Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Greg Kinnear, and Dax Shepard (with Sigourney Weaver). COMEDY

First, I must say there are some strong Saturday Night Live influences here (Fey and Poehler, and some staff). That was a good thing, at least for me. SNL has always been original and amusing. I originally saw this in the theatre. Probably the only movie I’ve seen in the theatre without Mike. I went with his mother and his three sisters, all who were pregnant at the time (oh, no, actually, Kesha had already had Joey…). They thought it would be funny to see this movie, in particular. I thought it didn’t look very good, but wanted to participate in the outing, and so I went. And yes, I was amused. It wasn’t the world’s best movie, but it was laugh out loud in several scenes, thanks to Amy Poehler, who is incredibly funny, and the doorman, and Dax Shepard, who also was in Without a Paddle. Not to shrug off Tina Fey’s performance, but she was more of a stabilizing force throughout the movie, and although funny, her lines were not laugh out loud, nor do I think they were intended to be.
Kate (Fey) is a single ambitious career woman working for a health food conglomerate, and decides she wants a baby but can’t have one. She hires a surrogate (Poehler), who happens to be from a much … different class. The class differences, along with the fact that her surrogate is irresponsible, a junk-food junkie, completely chaotic, and basically Kate’s polar opposite, creates a setting for some laughable moments as they try to get through the 9 months until delivery. There were a few times that were cringe-worthy where I thought they might have gone too far, like the scene when Angie decides she will carry Kate’s baby. The words she uses to let Kate know she has made her decision, and what that decision was, although not profane by any stretch of the imagination, were just a bit much for me. My husband laughed out loud, as he cringed. And yes, you can’t have a movie like this without some political agendas. Surrogacy? Artificial insemination? Natural childbirth? Okay, so this was funny (to me). In birthing class, the instructor says, “How many of you are planning on natural childbirth?” And everyone in the class raises their hand except for Angie and Kate. The instructor, who has a terrible lisp, is very pleased, and says “good for you!” to many people. She follows up and says, “Now… how many of you are planning on drugging and poisoning your baby with toxic chemicals during delivery for your own selfish comfort?” And Angie, sitting on one of those big exercise balls, raises both hands in the air, and screams as you would at a football game “whooo!!!whooooo!!” And of course she is the only one, and everyone just stares silently. Angie is still pleased with herself, completely unaffected by the lack of popular response. This was probably the most amusing part of the entire movie. And sadly, maybe of my last three weeks. It’s worth the rental. It isn’t the best movie you’ll see this year, but it’ll make you laugh at least once or twice if you’re grumpy, and will keep you laughing if you’re not.

Then She Found Me

Starring Helen Hunt, Matthew Broderick, Bette Midler
So I watched it. A mistake, I might add. Television programming on Saturday night sucked, and I watched it. It was sappy here and there, but not quite as melodramatic as one would have believed after reading the back matter on the DVD cover. Oh, but there were still many things with which I took issue. Where do I begin?
I guess I could always start with the good stuff. Helen Hunt was marvelously beautiful, and as always, was a believable actress in every way. She plays the role of a 39-year-old teacher who gets dumped by her child-like husband. There is a problem, however, in that Helen Hunt is actually 45. And although she is still very beautiful, she looks like she has lived through every one of her 45 glorious years, not just 39 of them, as the film would have had you believe. And this is Hollywood—if one wanted to look 39, one could easily do so. It’s called stage makeup. So why not put a little effort into covering the age? Not to be entirely superficial, but just put me down if I look like I’m 45 when I’m 39. (Okay, please don’t really do that [MICHAEL]). Actually, my husband can’t put me down because last month he had my name tattooed on his chest, and since my real name is Julianne, in the event of my death, his remarriage would have to be to someone else named Julianne—good luck with that. And for your information, I so told him not to do that. But it is kinda sweet, in a trailory kinda way, is it not? It looks good next to the very large Jewish star on his arm. (No, he’s not Jewish.)
Getting back to Ms. Hunt, who’s elderly looks are exacerbated by the presence of her screen-mate, Bette Midler, who plays the character of Helen’s mother. (Midler did a great job as well) Bette is in her 60s, but looks about the same age as Helen. It’s noticeable and awkward since she is playing the role of her mother. And as my husband so promptly pointed out, they didn’t even try to cover Helen’s age. Ouch.
So there was that. Then there was this little love triangle thing going on with Helen’s husband, who she was separated from (Broderick), and the father of one of her students (Colin Firth). You know, sad things happen. Husbands leave. But here are these screenwriters who want you basically to hate this hubby, who admittedly is the epitome of irresponsibility, and want you to love this man who she starts seeing afterward (although she’s still married--perhaps she forgot). And yes, this man she falls in love with is near perfect (unrealistically so…) and you can’t help but like him too. You cannot help but be irritated by her husband--constantly. Even with this irritation, who can forget the fact that she is a married woman? Perhaps most of the world can set this trivial fact aside and say, “Oh well, she made a mistake.” Well duh, I suppose she did—he’s a complete fool. And I suppose she’ll just have to suck that one up. Some mistakes you end up living with rather than ridding yourself of, and the fact that Hollywood and the rest of the world treats this situation—marriage--with such a disposable and flippant attitude, like it’s no more important than a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, is sad. How far have we fallen, from the days when the stigma of a divorce or separation was tantamount to that of being a whore? And women’s lib (cringe) might track me down and maim me with a flatiron for saying this, but how is that a bad thing, exactly? There is a lot to be said for social perceptions keeping us on our toes. Slowly things have become more acceptable, until now, we look back and what was once a horrible outrage is now not only socially acceptable, it might actually be vogue in some circles. Movies like this, where writers actually sway the viewer by creating a likable character in one and an extremely unlikable character in another make it easy to take our eye off what is really going on behind the curtain: a woman is cheating on her husband. Somehow this is rationalized because her husband is irresponsible and because she finds a much better man (ahem, the man that just happens to be sleeping with a married woman). The more you watch stuff like this without taking the time to understand what it really is about, the more it will start unconsciously to become the social norm. The scary part is, are your kids watching this? Do they see this for what it really is, or will they, too, eventually and unconsciouslly accept this pretty rationalization created by Hollywood? And how long will it take?

TROPIC THUNDER

This was written, directed, and produced by Ben Stiller. And he was also the star of the show. I have never been a Ben Stiller fan. Strike one. The other main star here was Robert Downy Jr., of whom I am a huge fan. However, their characters played the roles of actors. Bad actors. Now I'm wondering how much of a stretch that is to pull that off. How hard is it to pretend to be a bad actor delivering poorly written lines (how hard is it to write bad lines either, Ben), pretending to overact them? How hard is it, or how much of a stretch is it to pretend to be a spoiled and pampered big-time actor who is constantly catered to, to the detriment of their character, in essence, turning them into some unmanageable person who no one can stand to be around? I'm thinking this was not a stretch for either of them. Hey guys, just be yourself. We'll just keep rolling.

Strike two: the opening spoof on a commercial for a sports drink "booty sweat" was so wrong that I would have rated the movie NC-17. There was absolutely no excuse for this, no purpose for this at all. It added nothing to the movie, it did not support the story line in any way, was gratuitous, utterly vulgar, degrading, and I have no other words to do this justice. In fact, this part alone was simply X-rated. Keep in mind this was within the first 3 minutes of film, and I nearly walked out.

Strike three: The language was bad throughout the entire film. However, what got to me was not necessarily the language, but the sexual references. People have mentioned "innuendo." There is no innuendo here. This is spelling it out and drawing you a mental picture. There is no subtle undertone so some people will get it and others won't. There was one scene in particular with Jack Black who was attempting to "get clean." Black was offering services (that is an example of innuendo) to another actor in exchange for being released after having second thoughts. The "services" he offered were descriptive to the point of being nauseating. So wrong, in fact that the NC-17 rating again should be applicable.

A SMALL SHINING MOMENT
There was a shining moment or two in the film. (Gasp) Thankfully, someone thought to cast Tom Cruise and Matthew McConaughey, who were absolutely brilliant in their roles, although their screen time was insufficient. Cruise's performance was over the top and he was almost unrecognizable-this was laugh out loud funny. Matthew McConaughey brought a more serious tone to the film, and was not to be outdone by any cast member. By far, their presence in the film is the best thing about it.

I would never recommend this film to anyone for any reason. I would recommend that you wait for it to come out on DVD, fast forward to the parts with Tom Cruise (particularly the parts where he is dancing) and watch those 10 or 15 minutes of footage only. Spare yourself the crass, vulgar, and cheap slapstick that you can find in any comedy flick.

-Juli

Video Vault

THE PINEAPPLE EXPRESS

I suppose you are wondering why I would have seen this movie. The easy answer is that it had been at least five days since I had been to the theatre, and there really wasn't anything else playing that I wanted to see, or hadn't already seen. Mamma Mia! (plz). The Dark Knight? (saw it). Kit Kittredge? (shoot me). Step Brothers? (I saw the preview, which means I likely saw the best part of the movie and can fill in the rest with my imagination). Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 (chick flick… revive me so you can shoot me again). Star Wars? (waiting to take all the kids). I don't remember what else was showing. I just remember thinking that it was slim pickings. And so my initial response to Mike's suggestion that we go to the movies was just not to go. But he said, what about The Pineapple Express?

I didn't know much about it other than it was a comedy, and so, obviously, I'm thinking that I'd rather stay home and mow the lawn. With scissors. Then, Mike being the little salesman that he is, tells me that although it's a comedy, it's really more of an action/comedy, and it didn't look good to him at first either, but he read the reviews and it's supposed to be really good, and he's sure I'd like it. I'm skeptical, but since I have my laptop where it belongs (on my lap), and I'm already on the internet, I decide to look it up. Besides, I'm not sure where my scissors are.
Initial reviews were positive, and it did mention that it was action-packed, gory, in fact. This peaked my interest. BUT, it was written by Seth Rogen (Superbad-how ironic), and James Franco played a major part in it (Spiderman). It also revolved around dope smoking (the name of the "brand" of weed was the rare Pineapple Express). Rogen, Franco, and the drug aspect aside, it was enough to get me to go.

The Pineapple Express was actually not half bad. And although comedies are rarely funny to me, I did find myself laughing out loud on several occasions. This is a rarity that warrants a party or something. It was, however, over the top and vulgar on several occasions, and the language was gratuitous. This, I could have done without.

Probably the most surprising thing about the movie was the presence of James Franco. He was bad in Spiderman. He was OK in Annapolis. He was absolutely phenomenal in The Pineapple Express. I guess I've never seen him in a funny role, smiling from ear to ear and giggling the entire time. This is his niche. He must actually be that way. Or maybe he really was high throughout the entire filmmaking process instead of acting like he was. I choose to think he is actually a very happy person. Anyway, he was absolutely hysterical, and this is his role (not necessarily as a pot dealer, just as a humorous laid back person). He should never play those sucky roles where he has to play a pissy person. That is so not him—he is a funny man. So much so that Seth Rogen was actually going to play the part Franco played, but stepped down when he realized how much funnier Franco would be playing it.

Rogen's screenplay is unfortunately written in a way that creates characters that suck you in. Truly he is a gifted writer. I say unfortunately because the subject matter he chooses is simply a waste. It's a waste of his talent, and the movie, filtered with an ounce or two of morality, would be just as funny without causing me to cringe every time a vulgar reference is made, including a particularly crude one that even to make a point here I cannot repeat. I will say only that it had something to do with a supreme-being and ownership of a female reproductive organ. I can't believe I even explained that. My jaw dropped at the sound of it and I slowly turned my head toward my husband in awe and wonder and he, too, looked like a deer in headlights, wondering if perhaps we might soon be struck by lightning simply for being within earshot of such a phrase.
There were others, although not quite as offensive to me (or to God, I'm sure).

So, my little movie-viewing friends, I suggest that you not take your children to such a dope-peddling movie unless you condone pot-smoking and unless you think hearing sexual references and the f-word over and over again is an occurrence not unlike their home life. Yes, I'm referring to your teenage children as well. And what a shame, that they should miss out on Franco's stellar performance and Rogen's would-be brilliant script.

-Juli
Video Vault

X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE

I think Chris Carter wanted to believe this would do better than it is doing. I want to believe the cost of my over-priced movie ticket will be refunded. I also want to believe that Chris Carter didn't write a super long X-Files episode and con me into paying to see it instead of airing it on television. But alas, I have been suckered. Not only was it just an extra long X-Files television episode, it wasn't one of the better ones. Mike was upset that it was alien-free. The acting and dialogue were actually awkward and strained, and through parts of it I was actually uncomfortable because of it—like I was embarrassed for the cast (most notably, Gillian Anderson, who although looked great after her weight loss, performed poorly throughout the entire film). Duchovny also looked great; perhaps he took a few of Gillian's lost pounds, which suited him well. His acting was better than that of his ex-partner, but the dialogues and subplots between the two were weak, attempted to be dramatic but weren't, and just seemed out of sorts overall.

There were some political agendas present, which may have gone unnoticed by the liberal movie-going public—it didn't go unnoticed by me. I might have forgiven this had it been a white knuckle movie.
The ending was by far the weakest element of the movie, exacerbated by Anderson's sad performance. It attempted to be very dramatic, yet somehow missed the mark entirely and the result was sheer hokeyness.

The main storyline was OK, and that's as much praise as I'll give it. It was hardly worth them keeping the storyline hush-hush, as if it was some deep, dark, terribly inventive, and original idea. If it's any indication of the movie's worth, Stepbrothers is outperforming X-Files this weekend, and of course The Dark Knight is crushing it as one would expect, which would have been the case even if it had been decent. We saw X-Files on Saturday, only one day after opening, and it was only showing in two small theatres out of eighteen (I think), and there were only five other people in that theatre. BOMB.

There is another X-Files being tossed about for 2012, but I think it's contingent on how well this one did. I'm thinking this one might not see the big screen?

One a brighter note, the staff at Celebration Cinema were no longer wearing Mamma Mia! T-shirts, and the ticket girl looked quite pleased when I commented on the fact. Mike suggested she put her no-longer-needed-t-shirt on E-Bay, but I told her I didn't think anyone would buy it. I told her to use it for a dust rag. Even though the T-shirt looked stupid and the movie was super sucky, I think it would make a perfectly good dust rag.

NEW TO DVD JULY 28,2008

New to DVD Tuesday JULY 28, 2008

Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities


Truth is, I'm supposed to be editing a Web site for a hotel in Rome. Looks nice by the way. Pricey, but it's got a great view, or so the Web site says. I'm finished editing, but it could use another proof just to make sure. Thankfully I'm editing their English version site, not their Italian version site, although they want it in British English… those silly UK people spell everything all crazy and tense their verbs differently. So I'm supposed to be doing that, but I needed a break, so onto movie reviews I go. You can only dwell on driving directions to the Vatican and room amenities for so long before it just gets to be blah.

Anyway, onto movies… wow. Is it a sad movie week, or what? The big movie was Harold and Kumar followed by Shine a Light. Or vice versa; I can't remember. I hope Shine a Light took in more money at the box office, but I have a sneaky suspicion that Harold and Kumar sucked in the mindless masses and lessened to world's IQ by a point or two by doing so.

The new releases for next week are:

COCAINE COWBOYS 2: HUSTLIN' WITH THE GODMOTHER
DOOMSDAY
HAROLD AND KUMAR ESCAPE FROM GUANTANAMO BAY
NEVER BACK DOWN
ROLLING STONES: SHINE A LIGHT
SIDE SHO

And no, I didn't misspell the last one.

I saw the first COCAINE COWBOYS, which is based on a true story, as is this one. This is about Griselda Blanco, the coke trafficker in Miami who was basically responsible (they think) for the murder of hundreds and hundreds of people as she furthered her cocaine empire. The story is told through the point of view of Charles Cosby, her lover (until his betrayal). No, the first one wasn't all that good, but it served its purpose on the shelf as a good renter. A bit over the top, as I'm sure this one is, if not more. Entertainment Weekly writes, "The 'Godmother' makes Tony Montana look like Mother Teresa." What that tells me, other than the fact that the journalist who wrote that is super clever and witty (drip drip) is that they probably needed to take this one to the extreme to keep the viewing public interested. Can you say "shock value"? (rhetorical) It's not rated.

DOOMSDAY-R/UR for some strong bloody violence, language, and some sexual content/nudity. Starring Rhona Mitra, Bob Hoskins, Adrian Lester, David O'Hara, and Malcolm Mcdowell. Action/Sci-Fi. You know, the typical doomsday (as the name so appropriately suggest), the-whole-world-is-going-to-end-unless-one-select-person-can-save-us-from-this-government-made-killer-virus type movie. Yes, you've seen it before. At least I think that's what happens. It was in the theatre a long time ago, and you know I see a lot of movies, and that plot has been used before… they all get a little jumbled in here [pointing to my head]. I didn't hate it, even though it really wasn't by my choice that we saw it. It was a little over the top with the crazy characters, and the cannibalism thing was a little gross. The movie would have been just as fine without people eating people. I would have been fine with that. Other than that part, it was a pretty good movie. Lots of blood, lots of chasing, fighting, smashing, exploding, and of course, some subplots with love interests for those wives that got drug along to see it by their action-crazed husbands. Not naming names. (You know I'm kidding, I'm the first to jump for an action flick, and you couldn't pay me to see a chick flick.) I guess of all the movies available to see this week, I'd pick this one. But don't go around saying, "The crazy VV girl said Doomsday was great!" because that's not what I said. I said, given the competition, this is what I'd see, and the competition isn't competing very hard.

HAROLD AND KUMAR-R for strong crude and sexual content, graphic nudity, pervasive language, and drug use. Starring John Cho and Kal Penn. Now, let me just take a moment and redirect you to the reasons for which it is rated R. Any flags? Not sexual content. STRONG sexual content. Not for nudity, but for GRAPHIC nudity. Not for language, or for strong language, but for PERVASIVE language (we've had this discussion before about the difference, right?). Now, combine all that with the fact that it probably isn't a good movie to begin with, and I just fail to see the draw at all. I might sit through an Fyou or two for a REALLY good movie once in a while. But for this trash? They probably say it every two seconds to get the "pervasive" notation. Anyway, I'm sure you've seen the trailer, which probably sums up the entire movie very adequately. So I guess I don't feel the need to summarize for you.

NEVER BACK DOWN – PG13 for mature thematic material involving intense sequences of fighting, violence, some sexuality, partying and language-all involving teens. Starring Sean Faris, Amber Heard, Cam Gigandet, Evan Peters, Leslie Hope, and Djimon Hounsou. Action/Drama. Yes, his name is really Djimon. Like Digimon? That's not funny to you if you don't have kids or don't play with Pokemon. This is like Karate Kid for 2008. Only this kid is a little more masculine than pretty boy Ralph. It's like the identical story, no kidding. Whoever wrote the screenplay for Karate Kid should sue. I haven't seen this, but I'm sure I will because I have teenage daughters in the house. I'm guessing they might want to see this? That is it's targeted demographic. I saw the trailer and it looked cheesy and somewhat entertaining. I'm sure it hit the mark for its intended audience.

ROLLING STONES SHINE A LIGHT- PG13 for brief strong language, drug references and smoking. This was the one in IMAX everywhere. I didn't bother to see it. I'm not a huge Stones fan, but can deny their contribution to the music industry. Probably made for a decent story, but not on my must-see list.

SIDE SHO-R for horror violence/gore, language, some sexuality/nudity, and brief drug use. Horror. Stop me if you've seen this one…"A suburban family on vacation in the backwoods of Florida ventures off the beaten path…" Every horror movie made? Well, they stumble on a roadside attraction that has a dark secret… "the most twisted show on earth" this is the winner of the best feature film of the terror film festival, along with the best soundtrack. From Lucky Kitty Productions. That amused me. Of course, this looks downright gory and silly. Die hard gore fans will love it.

Quantum of Solace 007: Coming Not So Soon

Quantum of Solace 007 Coming Not So Soon

Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

QUANTUM OF SOLACE (aka B22, or Bond 22)

Quantum of Solace is the newest of Bond features based on Fleming's infamous and fabulously flawed government assassin, 007. Playing off the storyline created in Casino Royale in 2006, Daniel Craig once again portrays James Bond, this time bringing his character to the Bond persona we knew back when he was portrayed by the likes of Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan.
Casino Royale, the first Bond feature that delightfully introduced us to Daniel Craig, changed things up a bit when it took us back to the beginning. This at least began to answer questions for us such as, where did Bond begin? What was he like? Where did he come from? What is his background? Although Casino Royale didn't wrap this up in a neat little bow, it did gave us bits and pieces of the type of a man he was prior to his 00 status, and suggested how his job changed him and how the events that took place during Casino Royale shaped his character as we now know it. But to what extent?
This is where Quantum of Solace takes over. In the trailer, to say that Bond appears an angry man is a severe understatement. His love now dead after her betrayal as shown in end of Casino Royale, Bond is seeking revenge, and the trailer suggests he has gone rogue from MI6 (M is again played by the lovely Judi Dench). Of course, as so often the case, Bond thrives in the rogue agent persona.
The trailer gives off a dark vibe, distinguishing itself from the other Bond films. First Batman, now Bond? Is Hollywood in need of a Wellbutrin fix? In the past, Bond movies have typically had some form of intermittent comic relief with Bond's witty retorts, gratuitous half-dressed and lovely women with sexually-referenced names that thankfully your little ones don't always catch, and some surreal action footage that is often more amusing than suspenseful. Casino Royale left this behind somewhat in their successful attempt to make Bond more human and the film more realistic in general, but the trailer for QOS looks beyond simply realistic and well into bleak.
And the Bond Girls? The character of Camille is played by the lovely Olga Kurylenko, who played Nika alongside Timothy Olyphant in Hitman. The other is Gemma Arterton, a UK actress who is also in the upcoming Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. You also may have seen her on Entertainment Tonight (if you watch that garbage). Camille is about 5' 7" tall, and with heels, well… she's a little over 5' 10". Mr. Craig is only 5' 10", and as a result, they had Craig wear lifts in his shoes to make him taller than Camille throughout the shooting to make up the difference. Reportedly, Mr. Craig took this well—in fact, thinking it was rather funny. Apparently Ms. Kurylenko took every opportunity to razz Craig about it—but can you really blame her? The jokes just write themselves, do they not?
Daniel Craig said that physically, Casino Royale was a "walk in the park" compared to what he had to go through for QOS, so I would expect a lot more action from this one, which is saying a lot given the intense action scenes in the beginning of Casino Royale (the chase scene through the construction zones?). Daniel's training for the film included boxing, running, speed boating, and he apparently injured himself on three occasions during the filming.
And yes, my little Bond fans, there is yet another Bond movie in the pipeline (Bond 23 for now) scheduled for release in 2010. For those of you die-hard Bond fans, here is a chronological list of all the previous Bond movies so you can catch up before the latest one comes out.

Dr. No (1962) From Russia with Love (1963) Goldfinger (1964) Thunderball (1965) You Only Live Twice (1967) On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) Diamonds Are Forever (1971) Live and Let Die (1973) The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) Moonraker (1979) For Your Eyes Only (1981) Octopussy (1983) A View to a Kill (1985) The Living Daylights (1987) License to Kill (1989) GoldenEye (1995) Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) The World Is Not Enough (1999) Die Another Day (2002) Casino Royale (2006)

And before you ask, YES, there is a book by Fleming titled Quantum of Solace. No, this storyline does not follow that book at all—they share the title only—not even the characters are the same except for James Bond and M, so don't go thinking that if you've read the book that you are all Mr. Smartie about the movie. This is a completely original screenplay written by Neal Purvis, just based on the characters. Don't worry, a lot of the Bond films you've seen haven't been taken from Fleming's novels. Which ones weren't Fleming's stories? License to Kill was the first one (although it does take certain elements from a couple of his stories), GoldenEye (this is the first true original screenplay that made absolutely no reference to any Flemming story), Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough, and Die Another Day are the others.
So Die Another Day might not have been the best Bond film ever… but the rest of the non-Fleming written Bond films seem to be holding their own. After seeing the trailer for QOS, I have no worries about this one either.

And have you seen the poster?!! That's not a Walter PPK he's holding... SWEET!

NOW SHOWING IN THEATRES: MAMMA MIA! KIT KITTEREDGE

NOW SHOWING-UPDATED
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

IN THEATRES

If you recall, Mike and I saw an hour of previews at the theatre for the movies that were being released this summer. We were asked to rate the movies based on the trailers; which ones we thought would do well, and which ones we thought would bomb, based on a scale from 0-5, 0 being super sucky. The next day, I posted the list of movies with a new rating on my blog; not based on how well I thought they would do in the theatre, but based on how watch-worthy I thought they were. These are two very different things, of course, as there are many movies I wouldn't see that I think the public would flock to.

Personally, I was super geeked about all the comic book and superhero movies that were being released. It was like Christmas, and I couldn't wait to see Iron Man, Hulk, Dark Knight, and Hancock. I was pleased with all of them (As a side note, they are coming out with a new Punisher, and Watchmen!)

If you remember, there were several movies on the list that I gave a zero on the theatre list and a no $ to (signifying that you would be better off giving your money to a inept charity than to pay $.99 to rent it), due to the terrible trailor we saw. The two that come to mind were Mamma Mia!, and Kit Kitteridge: An American Girl. Coincidentally, both movies are currently playing in the theatre right now, as is the Dark Knight, which I rated a 5.
Before I continue my bash, I will begin by imploring you not to wait until the Dark Knight comes out on video to see it. I realize some of the Batman movies have been less than worthy. I assure you this is not one of them. Heath Ledger's performance is eerie and off-the-charts amazing, and reviews for the movie in general have been across the board positive. You can see it again when it comes out on DVD. Agreeing with the critics, this is certainly the darkest of the batman movies, and Ledger's permance makes the movie. A must see. Iron Man was fun, but this was made better. I can't say which I liked better, as they were so very different. All I can say is that you MUST see it.

Now, onto Mamma Mia! First, the demographic is women over 30 who appreciate Abba. Interestingly enough, that would be me. Heck, I even own Abba's greatest hits (although I do not actually listen to anything but Christian music, I still have a stash of old Cds). Even though I am the targeted demographic, I cannot imagine seeing this movie. First, you realize that although the song choice might be great, can you imagine Streep and Brosnan singing them? Dancing Queen? Can you say cheeeeeez? Hokey at best. Critics are bashing this left and right. At Celebration Cinema, workers are shamefully wearing Mamma Mia! T-shirts in a last ditch effort to promote what they know is a non-producer. The staff begrudgingly wears them, and when questioned, tentatively answes that they have not seen the movie themselves. The poor staff would appreciate wearing Dark Knight T-shirts, but of course, they need not advertise that movie. Yes, Streep is a near flawless actress, I dare say the best of her kind. Yet even she cannot perform miracles--which is what it would take to save this sad little number.
Now, onto Kit Kitteredge, which I bashed equally. Never has a trailer looked as boring as this. Never a trailer looked more like an advertisement for a product rather than a trailer for a movie. The trailer was but 60 seconds long and I nearly fell asleep. And I have insomnia. Not really, that just sounded funny. Shut up; it was so, funny. But in reading critics reviews, I must say it didn't get bashed as much as I would have expected. Ebert actually didn't bash it at all. (gasp!) It did get ripped on for it's political agenda and undertones, and a few said it did lean towards the boring side as the makers attempted to accurately depict the depression during WWII. Apparently the acting is quite good--it still looks like a snoozer to me, but like I said, the critics aren't being quite as harsh as I thought they would be.

Oh, and the X-Files is coming soon, and that looks absolutely great, and the plot is being kept super secret.. shhhh.... The original cast is back and it is a stand alone story.
PS, I waivered on my opinion of the Wanted trailer, saying it would be really good or really hokey; it was hard to tell. Thumbs up; this was a great action flick. My only problem with this movie was the constant vulgar references to Jesus/God, most notably in the beginning. They went a little overboard with that. The character of Janice had a potty mouth. I said yesterday this was out of the big theateres. I wrongly assumed they were pulling it Friday to make way for Batman, which they ran all through the night. Actually, this is still playing in one theatre at Celebration-you still have a chance to see it if you go this week.

NEW to DVD JULY 2, 2008

NEW TO DVD JULY 22

Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities
LAST WEEK there were 5 movies that had grossed over $10M in the box office. This week, there is but one. 21. 21 grossed $81M in the box office, and is the clear front runner for the week. I saw this as soon as it came out. Kevin Spacey is one of my favorite actors, and counting cards and con game movies suck me in every time. I was irritated with one thing only with the movie, but it wasn't with the actual movie, per se. My issue was with MIT, which was where the true story took place, but MIT refused to let them shoot the movie there. Now that's just plain mean spirited.

21-PG13 for some violence and sexual content including partial nudity-Starring Kevin Spacey, Jim Sturgess, Kate Bosworth, and Lawrence Fishburne. Drama/Crime. First, the acting was superb by all cast members. Kate Bosworth was my least favorite, and I could take her or leave her. Sturgess was great, and Spacey was his usual untouchable self. As mentioned above, this is a true story of a bunch of little MIT smarties who decided to ban together to count cards in Vegas to take in some extra cash—and lots of it. With a little help from their statistics professor (gosh I love statistics and probability) they get themselves into quite the mess, because as I'm sure you know, although counting cards isn't necessarily illegal, the casinos don't exactly welcome card counters at their blackjack tables. The DVD explains the card counting theory if you are interested.

Now… THE OTHER movies…

DARK HONEYMOON-Starring Roy Scheider, Tia Carrere, Lindy Booth, Daryl Hannah, and Eric Roberts. Suspense/Horror/TV. A man marries a woman after knowing her only a short time, and people start dying mysteriously around them, causing him to wonder if he really knows who he married. Looks.. like it was made for TV.

SIX REASONS WHY-R for violence and language-Starring Daniel Wooster, Chistopher Harrison, Jeff Campagna, Mads Koudal, and Colm Feore. Western. "Draw first, ask later." Looks as bad as the tag line sounds.

TURN THE RIVER- R for language-Starring Famke Janssen. Drama. A pool shark risks everything to escape her ex-husband and her past. Actually received decent reviews by critics.

TWIN DAGGERS-R for some violence-Starring Rhett Giles, Coco Su, and Veronica Bero- Martial Arts/Action. A hit man is hired by a woman to kill her twin, but falls in love with his target.

NEW to DVD JULY 15, 2008

New to DVD Tuesday July 15

Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities
THE BANK JOB-R for sexual content, nudity, violence, and language-Starring Jason Statham. Crime/Action/Suspense. You know how I love a good heist film. And you know I love Jason Statham. And of course there is the "based on a true story" element. And then throw in a little violence and action…. And you have my favorite movie of the week. You know how I feel about box office revenue. The masses so often see the movies I would never bother to spend a dime on, and they skip the ones they should be seeing. For example, here are the box office revenue earnings for the DVD releases this week:

STEP UP 2: THE STREETS $58M
COLLEGE ROAD TRIP $43M
THE BANK JOB $30M
SHUTTER $26M
PENELOPE $10M

It's actually quite rare to have 5 releases in a single week that have brought in over $10M in the box office. But back to the movies and their corresponding revenue—you couldn't have paid me to watch college road trip. You might have persuaded me, at gunpoint, to watch step up 2. If you could have convinced me the gun was loaded at a range that would prove to be lethal. Shutter looked eerie, but not necessarily bad. Just a movie that perhaps you wouldn't want to watch right before bedtime and quite honestly, I just didn't feel the need to subject myself to such torture. I would have been amused, I'm sure, but would have paid for it by being unsettled or disturbed later (no cracks about me already being disturbed). Penelope looks simply silly, and the only reason people are renting this movie from me so far is to see the Twilight preview that is included on the disc. I might have seen this if my kids would have begged me to take them. However,
thankfully they did not ask, and instead they have asked to see Kung Fu Panda (which was cute), Iron Man (oorah!), Hulk (SOOOOO much better than the first one), Hancock (very very good, Mr. Smith), Wall-E (cute and politically/satirically motivated—I was very amused), Indiana Jones, and they saw the new Narnia without me. I think there were others recently but that's all I remember at the moment.
So back to The Bank Job. This is based on a true story, but as usual, how much of it is true remains unclear. This is because the story itself was classified (the crazy UK people call this "D-noticed") by the government for reasons of national security shortly after it happened. A few days after the incident, the intense media coverage stopped completely as a result. Why was this DA-notice issued? Well, the producers say their inside source, made executive producer, claims it was because a safety deposit box, ravaged at the robbed bank, contained compromising photos of Princess Margaret. The safety deposit box belonged to murder suspect, Michael X (a black civil rights activist of the 60s). The story goes that MI5 knew Michael X had the compromising photos of Little Miss Margaret, and while he had them in his possession, he was untouchable. That is the part that is not confirmed. Michael X's government file is still scheduled to be sealed well into 2050. Coincidentally, Michael X was convicted and hanged for murder shortly after the robbery.
And although much of the story seems entirely implausible, a lot of the story is quite true. The locations (down to the chicken shack), the massive drilling, and the radio ham operator's overhearing of the thieves' conversations (made public again just recently). Some of these conversations are word-for-word.
DOES IT GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS? Everyone loves a conspiracy. Personally, I think the illuminati were involved…
Critics agree with me on this one, folks… this one is a must see.
Really, the others just pale in comparison.

NEW TO DVD, JUNE 10, 2008

NEW TO DVD TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008

BUCKET LIST-PG13-Starring Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman-Comedy/Drama. Two terminal cancer ward tenants decide to make a list of things they must do before they kick the bucket (get it? Bucket list?). Of course, given the actors and the genre, I’m sure you can guess they pick some fairly outrageous activities to complete their list. And it looks like they might have thrown in a little sap too. This actually is the box office winner of the week. I’m sure it must be well acted. Rob Reiner directed it, so it’s probably not horrible. I haven’t seen it though, so that’s all I can give you on this one.

JUMPER-PG13 Well, this is what it is. It’s an action movie. It’s a sci-fi movie. Thin on story and dialogue, thick on exploding things. I didn’t want to see this at all. But it happened to be the only thing decent playing at the time, at least of the ones that we hadn’t already seen, and Mike wanted to see it. I was impressed. I say that because I had pretty low expectations. I’m not saying it was a bad movie; I quite enjoyed myself, and that’s good enough for me. (I am easily distracted by shiny things.)There were lots of exploding things, lots of hitting and punching and fighting, and lots of flying through dimensional spaces. Cool. Not cool: the parts where they said things—the parts where the characters had to open their mouth and make noises. That wasn’t so good. Not terrible, just not so good. But the smashing and shiny lights part was great. The special effects were top notch, and the idea behind the story was interesting. The rest was mediocre. I like that word because it makes me think of eggs.

THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL-PG13 for mature thematic elements, sexual content, and some violent images-Starring Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, and Eric Bana. This is the story of Anne Boleyn and her sister Mary. Now, before I begin, I guess I will qualify by saying my writing contains something that could be considered by some to be SPOILING in nature. In debate, this is a historical movie, and therefore, a spoiler cannot actually exist, since the events portrayed in the movie have already taken place, actually about five hundred years ago. It is difficult to spoil a story to which you have already been made privy. So I will say this: If you have little or no knowledge of Henry VIII, his multiple wives, Anne Boleyn, her sister, and the effects his marriages had on English history, and you would like to learn this information from watching the movie, stop reading….. NOW. On the other hand, if you already know the story, or just don’t care if I fill you in here… feel free to keep reading.
I will begin by giving the movie an unwavering thumbs up. Of the movies this week, regardless of box office revenue, this is the movie to see.
That said, there is a qualifier. There are several types of historical movies. The first type you have undoubtedly seen in Miss Mitchell’s fifth grade history class. You all remember the one portraying Abe Lincoln or the Indians, with the dry actors who appear to be reading from something that more resembles a history book than a script. A little dry. Perhaps the one you slept through? Although terribly boring, poorly acted and hardly a production at all, you must give it credit for being historically accurate (political agendas aside). That is historical film type #1. Historical film type #2 are the ones that are historically accurate, but are embellished a bit to make it a stellar production. These are well produced, well acted, and overall smashing films. They are not necessarily filled with 100 percent truly historical information, but they also do not contain any contradictory information. They just filled in a gap or two where there was a need. For example, they might have embellished a bedroom scene (because who knows what really happened there?) or taken great liberties with some dialogue at a private dinner table between king and queen, or something of the sort. If there is a soliloquy in a historical movie, duh, it was fabricated (no one else was there.. do I have to spell this out for you? Stick with me, now). So, although the historical events were accurate, perhaps they took great liberties and added significant fluff and made a good production out of it. End of type #2. Then there is type #3. This is a good production, and filled with a lot of fluff to make it so, and they might have changed a few teeny weeny things in history that weren’t quite interesting enough or didn’t fit their FLUFF, and so they, for the sake of art, rewrote just a little bit of history. Not that they declared a new winner of the civil war, or denied the Holocaust, or other significant changes that alter the course of human events—just minor changes that do not have an impact on life as we know it today, but changes nonetheless. End of type #3. Then there is type #4. Oh… type #4.. I don’t really call it that. But children might be reading. This type takes more than a few liberties in rewriting history to suit their story. They add some FLUFF. For what purpose, I do not know, because the overall movie sucks. It is about as boring as that fifth grade film described in type #1. If you are going to rewrite history, at least you should have some motive, say, because you wanted to make your story more interesting (still not excusing it, just saying I UNDERSTAND it). So type #4 is both historically inaccurate and intolerably boring. (For a great example, watch TO KILL A KING, about Oliver Cromwell. Never a greater waste of an hour and a half.)
Now, into which type does The Other Boleyn Girl fall? Type #3, I suppose. A few things were historically inaccurate. Minor, not changing anything too terribly significant. However, what they did change were things that caused me to wonder why, at all, they would have changed them. For example, both Mary and Anne were already at court when they met Henry VIII. He didn’t come to their house and see them. Both Mary and Anne had spent significant time in France serving in the Queen’s court before coming to England. Katherine’s family had a strong influence over the Pope, and the Pope actually did deny Henry VIII an annulment. Completely ignoring the Pope’s ruling, Henry married Anne in a private ceremony anyway, because she was already pregnant (yeah, she was a hold out, but she did give in before she was married, as Henry reunited with Katherine several times during Anne’s quest to be Queen). This snub obviously separated England, beginning the reformation. Eventually Henry’s marriage was considered dissolved, because there really was no other choice, and Anne was crowned.
Anne was actually accused of adultery with many men, I think over four, in addition to her brother, after his advisor with a political agenda of his own, convinced Henry to start an “investigation” into Anne’s behavior. She was the last to be executed. She did make a very politician-like speech before execution, just like the movie showed, but her speech was documented word for word, (it was a private beheading) and that is not really what she said (the part about him being a good prince and never there was… that part was close). If you had access to the actual words Anne spoke at the time of her execution, which, by the way, were very telling of her character, why wouldn’t you use that?
They also muddied the ending a bit with the push toward Jane Seymour (who was eventually Queen, although technically never crowned) and the motives behind it. They glossed over the fact that Katherine had just died, reinforcing the fact that the marriage was, without question, over. If Anne met an early fate (after all, she couldn’t produce a son), he would be free to marry Jane. They also hopped, skipped, and jumped over the reference in the movie about Anne and Mary not being true “Howard” girls. Anne and Mary’s family attempted to stay on top for quite some time after the fall of Anne, and eventually Katherine Howard (Anne’s cousin) would also be Queen (and would also be executed for adultery). The maneuvering of the different families through Henry’s wives was truly mesmerizing.
What was interesting to me was that they tried so hard to be accurate in some cases, and yet were so flippantly neglectful in others. For example, it is well documented that Anne was not very pleasing to the eye. She had dark eyes, and dark hair. There are even wives tales about her having a sixth finger and unsightly moles. In the beginning of the movie, there is a dialogue that clearly makes reference to her being the less-fair of the two children. BUT they cast Natalie Portman in the role of Anne, and they certainly don’t go out of their way to make her unattractive or homely. So why even mention the fact that she is not terribly attractive if you aren’t going to attempt to make her look that way?
So it appears I am ripping on the film after giving it a thumbs up. Perhaps. I enjoyed the movie. Portman has come a long way since Star Wars. But I stumbled over some of the inaccuracies, and was dumbfounded about which inaccuracies they chose to include. If I didn’t know the historical events prior to watching the movie, I would be blissfully unaware of these inaccuracies—the film’s only flaw. Of course, I would also be misled.
Kids, let this be a lesson. Never skimp and watch the movie version of a book you are supposed to read for history class!

THE LIST

WITLESS PROTECTION – PG13 for crude and sex-related humor-starring Larry the Cable Guy and Jenny McCarthy. Comedy. An local sheriff stumbles in the middle of an FBI case and saves a woman from her kidnappers. Unknown to him, the kidnappers are actually the men sent to protect her. A battle over the woman ensues, and this is supposed to be quite the adventure. Do you know I’ve never seen anything with Larry the Cable Guy in it? Shocking, isn’t it?

GRAND- Woody Harrelson. Something about poker.

WIENERS- R for crude and sexual humor, nudity and language- Starring Zachary Levi (from CHUCK), Kenan Thompson, Jenny McCarthy, and Darrell Hammond. Comedy. I can’t watch this one. It looks more than kind of raunchy. Perhaps a little Road Trip-ish. I have to give this one some notoriety, though, as Zachary Levi is in it, and after all, he is a myspace friend, and Chuck is one of my favorite shows. (Dear Mr. Levi, please make a cleaner movie next time; I would love to see it. Thanks, JG) Wyatt (Thompson) and Ben (Levi) convince their friend to go cross country in a wiener-mobile, after their friend gets humiliated on the air by a TV doctor. Their mission? Revenge. Along the way they meet odd characters, including sixth grade teacher, played by Jenny McCarthy.

NEW TO DVD JUNE 1, 2008

NEW TO DVD TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2008

Drillbit Taylor-PG13 for crude sexual references throughout, strong bullying, language, drug references, and partial nudity-Starring Owen Wilson, Troy Gentile, Ian Roberts, Nate Hartley, and Casey & Dylan Boersma-Comedy/**A special caution to parents that there is male nudity, and the language is particularly crude.**Drillbit Taylor is the first film released after Owen Wilson’s reported suicide attempt last August, but was actually filmed before the desperation act last August. I don’t know exactly why (and likely no one does) Wilson purportedly decided to take his own life. But it does seem that Wilson, in this film as in his others (Wedding Crashers, You Me and Dupree, Zoolander) is a caliber above the movie itself. There is a slight chance that Owen enjoys being the best element of a movie. I doubt it. More likely, he is disappointed that the movies he is in are subpar and beneath him. Why he makes these movies I don’t know. Kind of like girls picking rotten boyfriends time and time again. When it’s not you, you keep wondering when they will ever get it. When it’s you, you just keep making stupid decision after stupid decision and stupid decision, and kicking yourself every time you do it. (Of course, not me J) Maybe after a while he wondered if he would ever get better at picking the right movie. Enough about Sad Owen. We hope Owen feels better, even though Drillbit Taylor isn’t an exception to the subpar movie streak. Now, you’re thinking, oh, the crazy video girl hates slapstick comedy movies, so of course, she would hate this movie. No, it just isn’t that good anyway, aside from my predisposition for strongly disliking no-brainer comedies. Owen does a decent job, or a good job, even. When he is allowed to do his thing, he is at his best, not confined by a script. However, the character he plays is a bit odd for him, and quite honestly muddy, and to Owen’s credit, there really is only so much he could do with it. Wilson plays a AWOL misfit soldier that is now homeless. Some rich geeky school kids (geeky to the extreme) who are being bullied (by a bully to the extreme) pay him to be their bodyguard. Owen takes their money and plans to milk it for all it’s worth. There are sort of two stories here, that are intertwined in an odd way—not separate and not able to stand alone (each doesn’t have a beginning, middle, end or even a plot), and yet not really intertwined enough to be a single story. This creates a really disorganized plot and story that is irritating if you are not easily distracted by the comedic element. The characters are a bit surreal, such as I mentioned above; the geeks are uber geeks, the bully is a psychopath, the bullying is over the top and as a result, is just not funny. Think Superbad, taken down a notch morally. Owen fans will still appreciate it.

Meet the Browns-PG13 for drug content, language including sexual references, thematic elements and brief violence-Starring Tyler Perry, David Mann, and Angela Bassett. Comedy/Slapstick. Just when I was thinking he was finished with these. How many are there, anyway? Are they in an attic? Is there a production line? Oh, bother. It feels kind of like American Pie, or National Lampoon’s, Scream, or Halloween (ok, not Halloween) Will it ever stop? Personally I wish they would just stop making slapstick comedy in general, but I know that’s just a silly pipe dream. I’ll settle for the end of any movie series that exceeds #3 with. exception of Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien, Predator, Alien v. Predator, Alien v Jedi v Predator, Alien v Spock v Predator, Travelocity Commercial Guy v Jedi, and Jesse Stone. A single mom living in the city of Chicago struggling to make ends meet finds out that her dad she never knew died. Not knowing where else to turn, she takes her kids south to his funeral, and meets that side of the family, The Browns. The Browns are like the hicks of Hicksville, the crass and rowdy and pleasant family and then she has some romantic interlude with somebody, hopefully not with anybody related, but I heard they do that in some southern areas and West Virginia and other backwoods places. I saw Wrong Turn and Deliverance, and I will never be the same again. Remember, kids, what you put in your head, you can never take out. I’ll prove it—try to forget your phone number. Don’t watch yucky things. Yucky in, yucky out. Anyway, that had nothing to do with Meet the Browns but you know me and distractions—just dangle something shiny in front of me. So, I’m sure this is just like Perry’s other movies. Did you like those? Then you will probably like this one. And his next 7.

Time Bomb-Starring Jake Busey, Matthew MacFadzean, and Vic Sahay/Thriller I ordered this because, why? Because Jake Busey is in it, and he is Gary’s son. I like Gary, and I like Jake, but he is usually in some pretty lousy movies. This is likely no exception. I haven’t seen this yet, and it is so unlikely that I will, but if I do I’ll update you. Busey’s character loses his son when his SUV explodes (don’t you just hate that?). Now a soldier in Iraq, every explosion reminds him of his son’s death. The military is working on an experimental virus that will turn soldiers into suicide bombers into suicide bombers to destroy the enemy, and due to some undisclosed circumstance, he does not know if he is already affected by the virus. Now he cannot tell which explosions are real and which are fabrications of his mind. Now, that just sounds downright silly to me. And these are the movies that cause me to wonder, in all seriousness, what person really read that script and though to themselves, this sounds like a great idea! A drunk script scout? More likely a rich producer making his own movie. Nevertheless, here is the movie, and even a fairly reputable actor worked on it, and to top it off, a distributor picked it up. A whole series of drunkards? Begrudgingly I must admit this scenario is unlikely. More likely is that someone read the script and thought, This is terrible! No matter—do you know how many people will watch this anyway? They will eat this up! And often they are right. It is rarely about the good movie, it is about the movie that sells. Sometimes I forget it is a business instead of an entity put in place to entertain me. They really should get their priorities straight. I think I’ll send a memo first thing Monday clarifying the need for a reorganization of priorities. UPDATE- I’m glad I watched this. First of all, whoever summarized the movie didn’t watch it. Allow me to accurately recap for you. So Jason (Busey) loses his son during an unfortunate auto explosion, and is sent to Iraq shortly after. Injured in the line of duty and under strong medication, he is witness to another soldier who dies from exploding from the inside, which he learns was from bio-experimentation. Not entirely sure if what he saw was real or drug induced, he continues with his duties after his recovery. Returning stateside after completing his tour of duty, he flashes back and forth between different tragic events in Iraq, his son’s death, and events at home, where people seem to be dying all around him. Jason discovers that he might be a carrier of the virus used in Iraq, which was designed to be spread and cause people to spontaneously combust, creating just enough unrest during the war on terror to get the “proper people” in office come election time. As he flashes from one moment and back again, Jason starts to wonder if he really is infected or if he, in fact, has gone crazy. SO THIS IS not at all bad like I thought it would be. The acting is very good and the dialogue is good too. The language, however, is terrible. F, F, F…. and so on. It’s gratuitous. Axing about 20 F Yous wouldn’t have caused the film any harm. I really thought this was quite good. If you can take the language, it’s worth the rental.

Vantage Point- PG13 for sequences of intense violence and action, some disturbing images, and brief strong language-Starring Forest Whittaker, William Hurt, Dennis Quaid, and Matthew Fox/Action/Suspense. This is definitely the movie to see this week. Whitaker makes the movie. Quaid is no lame duck either. Two secret service agents assigned to protect the President of the US while speaking in Paris attempt to thwart a known assassination attempt. Whitaker is an American tourist traveling in Paris watching the Presidential speech and believes he has videotaped the assassination of the President on tape. The story is replayed through different viewpoints, each time unfolding another layer to the event until it has been seen through every vantage point and the story made clear. The plot is intricate and well thought out, and the acting (and casting) is great, even in the not-so-visible roles. Great subplots and character backgrounds as well. There is some language in the movie, and yes, it is strong, but it isn’t throughout. A definite renter if you missed it in the theatre.

Thanks for visiting!

NEW TO DVD TUESDAY MAY 20, 2008

THE AIR I BREATHE-R for violence, language, and some sexual content/nudity DRAMA/CRIME Starring Kevin Bacon, Julie Delpy, Andy Garcia, Brendan Frasier, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Clark Gregg Emile Hersch, and Forest Whitaker. All I have to say for the cast is WOW. This was entirely filmed in Mexico. All I have to say for the story is two little words: HO KEY. A story about how we are all interconnected and how there are four emotions—hope, sorrow, happiness, and.. oh, I don’t remember the fourth one. Love? It’s based on some Chinese proverb. I think some writer must have eaten some bad Chinese food, taken his fortune cookie prophecy a little too seriously, and watched Magnolia and Crash one too many times, with a Saki chaser, pen in hand. (Or is Saki Japanese?) That’s not the point. The point is, it’s a great cast, and a silly idea for a movie. Why don’t you just join a cult and chant while you’re at it? I hear scientology is looking for recruits?

CLEANER-R for bloody images, violence and some language. Starring Samuel L. Jackson, Ed Harris, and Eva Mendes. (No, not Cleaner as in LEON, and no, the THE CLEANER, as in the Comedy) DRAMA/CRIME This is the story of a former cop (Jackson) who is now a cleaner. A cleaner, you say? No, not a hit man. And not just a janitor. Tom is the man who goes around and cleans up crime scenes after the dead bodies are removed. How would you like to have that job? Yicky (yuck+icky). The drama begins when Tom returns to the scene he has already cleaned to return a key, only to find Mendes, who he quickly learns is unaware that any crime has taken place. In addition to the oddity of her being unaware of the scene he cleaned up only yesterday, her husband appears to be missing. Hmm…. Coincidence? And the story continues from there, introducing Harris as Tom’s ex-partner. Apparently there is some rather graphic scenery of the dead bodies, I’m assuming of the scenes Tom is cleaning up. There is also some sort of “morally repugnant” twist near the end— I have no idea what this is about. I’m scared to find out. Most say this is filmed well, but isn’t mainstream enough to cater to the masses, yet isn’t unique enough to hit a specific niche. A mere fence rider that, uncommitted, may not be around for very long.

LIFE & LYRICS – NR Starring Ashley Walters. A nice little British number that got smashed and bashed and kicked around. DJ’s in south London battle against those in the North. Yep, that’s it. The whole plot. Take 8 Mile. Take it out of Detroit. Add some UK (not Queen’s English, either) accents. And make it in half the time with half the money and half the talent. And you have Life & Lyrics. I popped it in for a minute to see if it really was that bad. And oh, yes, my friends, the critics were on the money with this one. The DVD was better when it was blank.
MINUTE MEN-TVG DISNEY – I think this is the Zack and Cody kids? A spin off of the Suite Life? Not sure. My kids told me but I forgot. I asked if it was popular and they said “Yes!, Buy it.” And so here it is.

THE TAKE-R I just can’t. I can’t do it anymore. I can’t take it. I’m gonna snap. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY MOVIES ARE TITLED “THE TAKE”? FIVE. Why must they do that? Do you realize that the English language has more words in it than any other? (more than double) We have over a half million words to choose from, over 600,000 if you include all the variants. Over one million if you include the scientific terminology. The average person uses about 2,500 different words per day, but YOU ARE A WRITER. That makes you NOT an average person. When there are over 500,000 words to choose from, there is absolutely no reason at all why there should be duplicate movie titles—ever! PICK ANOTHER WORD OR PHRASE! When you string words together there are infinite combinations at your disposal. In protest, I refuse to review this movie. If you look on IMDB, good luck figuring out which “THE TAKE” is streeting next week. IDIOTS.

THE WALKER – R (you are all on the edge, wondering…. Is that crazy girl going to check to see if there is another movie with that title…..and does she need medication) Yes, thank you, I checked. And yes, there is another of the same title, but at least it was foreign, so it looks different, so it really isn’t THE WALKER, it just translates into THE WALKER. They get a marginal pass. Another British movie, with Woody Harrelson of all people, and… Lauren Bacall. This is a suspense thriller. Harrelson plays the role of a male escort, catering to Washington DC’s society women. Becoming famous by association and knowing everything about everyone, he somehow manages to get himself wrapped up in a murder investigation. Harrelson’s performance is supposedly top notch, which is never surprising.

NEW TO DVD TUESDAY MAY 13, 2008

New To DVD Tuesday May 13, 2008

BOTCHED-NR- Starring Stephen Dorff, Jamie Foreman, Geoff Bell, Jamie Murray, and Bronagh Gallagher. Horror/Comedy You know, Shaun of the Deadish. This was the winner of the New York City Horror Film Festival’s Best Actor and Best Feature awards. One normally wouldn’t think that comedy and horror would blend well. 1 part funny, 2 parts gore, 1 pinch of slapsticky one-liners, a dash of shock and awe… shake it all up, and voila! Botched! Pun emphatically intended. I’m sure it’s just as good (bad) as Shaun of the Dead. Basically the plot is probably irrelevant to the movie’s merits, but here goes: Stephen Dorff is Ritchie, a thief, who goes to Moscow to steal an artifact. Somehow (I don’t know how because I haven’t subjected myself to the viewing), he gets trapped in a high rise on the 13th floor (don’t they skip the 13th floor in hotels and high rises nowadays? I mean, obviously the floor is still there, but they call the 13th floor the 14th floor because people get freaked out by the 13th floor. But then if people knew the 14th floor was actually the 13th floor, wouldn’t they be freaked out by what was now called the 14th floor? And then they’d have to skip floors 13 and 14, and call the 13th floor the 15th floor….) and witness beheadings and some other twisted stuff. The last line of the DVD cover reads “Rest in pieces.” he he—that’s not funny.

COVER-PG-13 for mature thematic material, sexual situations and language, violence and some drug content. Starring Vivica A. Fox, Lou Gossett, Jr., and Aunjanue Ellis. Drama/Thriller A devoted Christian wife finds out her hubby is leading a double life, potentially destroying everything she’s ever known. As a result (and much to her surprise, she is arrested for the murder of a famous singer. An overly zealous prosecuting attorney with political ambitions rising above his desire for justice makes it his mission to prove her guilty. Although the plot sounds interesting, it looks second rate.

MAD MONEY-PG13 Starring Diane Keaton, Queen Latifah, and Katie Holmes. Comedy. Three desperate women from very different worlds decide rip off one of the most secure banks in America by stealing worn out currency on its way to the Federal Reserve shredder. It looks OK, I guess.

NORA’S HAIR SALON 2: A CUT ABOVE-PG13 Starring Tatyana Ali, Stacey Dash, and Bobby Brown. Comedy. The owner of the salon decides to sell the shop and pocket the prof

The Golden Compass

The Bait and Switch

“I don’t expect Christians to see God as a metaphor, but that’s what he is. Perhaps it might be clearer to call him a character in fiction, and a very interesting one too: one of the greatest and most complex villains of all—savage, petty, boastful and jealous, and yet capable of moments of tenderness and extremes of arbitrary affection – for David, for example. But he’s not real…

----Philip Pullman, author of His Dark Materials

Dec 2007

It is not without much research (and without bracing myself), that the movie, The Golden Compass will not make its way onto our shelves. This will be the third blockbuster movie that we have decided not to carry due to its content, which was in direct conflict with our Christian faith.

The first movie we chose not to offer to our patrons was Brokeback Mountain, due to its homosexual content. Our decision received a significant amount of attention—some good, some bad. This is surprising, given the 98% straight demographic in the US (slightly lower in the UK). In this politically correct era, even those not falling within the homosexual demographic apparently felt the need to give a shout-out to support the oppressed homosexual community. Can’t they even have a movie of their own? Absolutely. Just not in my store. Oh, the freedom of being the owner!

The second movie was The DaVinci Code, which we decided not to carry due to its religious content, or rather, anti-religious content. Sadly enough, this caused very little ruckus. I had less than five customers question why it was missing from our new release wall, and why it wasn’t up on the "new this week board." Apparently it’s OK to be politically incorrect in regards to those of No Faith—I guess their backing isn’t as strong?

Now, onto The Golden Compass. What? You saw it in the theatre and didn’t find anything religiously objectionable? There really wasn’t, or so I’ve heard. I never did watch it. Most critics say it was very well done. The things we did above--refusing to carry movies with questionable content, doing things that might offend a specific group of people—Hollywood doesn’t do this. A least not unless the flaming is intentional for the purposes of increasing their bottom line in some other way. I mean, gosh, a group of people might be offended (in this case, Christians), and could wreak media havoc, ultimately impacting their bottom line.

This is a BIG movie with grand special effects that cast ridiculously expensive actors and actresses. Movies of this caliber take money to produce. The Golden Compass ran over $180M. Now, obviously the production company and distributers expect box office revenue to exceed that figure—a figure that’s big even by movie standards. This requires an extremely large audience that needs to appeal not only to one segment of the population, but to as many as possible. Alienating an entire segment of the population is missed opportunity. That’s what we are. Opportunity. Cheddar. ROI. You can’t always please everyone, but Hollywood sure gives it a good whirl by trying to smooth out certain questionable material that would otherwise provoke a showdown with a cantankerous lobby.

So what was the end result of Hollywood’s smoothing out of Pullman’s God-bashing story? The classic bait and switch. It’s unlikely that it was intentional on Hollywood’s part, or even on the part of the author who is quite proud of his work and its anti-God theme. But the motivation of the multiple parties involved seems irrelevant when the end result is the same. How is this a bait and switch? Hollywood created the bait: here is this dazzling movie with wonderful characters, superb special effects, and a benign story line that is not offensive to the church or to Christianity. They removed all direct references to God and to the church (which were present in the book) and used other verbiage instead, which they deemed would cause less friction within the Christian community. His Dark Materials, at the hands of Hollywood, becomes the cheery Golden Compass. And now the switch: Suzie loved this movie so much, she went out and bought Pullman’s trilogy, which was written with the intent to discredit the Christian-based C.S. Lewis novels, The Chronicles of Narnia, God, and Christianity in general, in which Pullman depicts God not only as a fictional, fallible, terrible yet merciful character, but tells of his ultimate death, and thus the creation of free will. The author is not unclear in his motives, is proud to make a stand against Christianity, and is irritated by the use of words such as “spirituality,” which he thinks is a put-on. The result of this switcheroo is the creation of a backdoor into the world of atheism, a very subtle one--so regardless of Hollywood’s attempt at keeping this PC to ensure maximum profits, what they, in fact, have done, was disguised the author’s real intent, attracting many unsuspecting movie goers (including children) to Pullman’s books, who will have no idea that the books are slamming the entire premise of Christianity and promoting atheism (until after they’ve read it). I think I would have preferred the honesty of the upfront and in-your-face version. For example, “This is a movie is about atheism, and it’s anti-God.” At least you know what you are being offered so you can decide whether you wish to be a taker.

So why didn’t Hollywood do that? I think that part is obvious: Because the movie would tank, that’s why. The vast majority of the US population consider themselves to be Christian, and this outward announcement of an anti-God movie would ruffle feathers--the majority would feel this is crossing the line and just plain wrong. This line-crossing would have a huge negative impact on their bottom line--New Line would have suffered from massive boycotts, and Hollywood knew this! They didn’t become a large movie conglomerate without knowing what the public wants to see (and doesn’t want to see). They’re smart cookies. Anti-God-In-Your-Face-Movie=no revenue.

Well, I’m a clever gal, too. And you know what? I recognize this for what it is. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A simple bait and switch. I don’t tolerate bait and switches in stores, and I won't tolerate them in the theatre, or in my DVD player at home. I wouldn’t carry this movie if it were in my face, stating that it was anti-God, and no one would question that decision. Hardly anyone would want to see it anyway. But we know this story is anti-God, because the author said so. So how is it different, exactly?

So, Hollywood covers it up, smooths it out, and hopes we won’t notice that it’s the same story with a few words changed? Don’t worry, folks, you’ll find out when you read the books, which are abhorrent. And if they weren’t, all the trash they took out would have made it into the movie as-is! And just when you were thinking what a lovely movie it was, and, gosh you bet the books are good too, and, you heard there were three…switch….
I won’t stand for it when I know it’s there but cleverly disguised either.

You can argue that it’s OK because they took the “bad stuff” out (which mainly consists of substituting words for church and God), if that’s what you think happened. You can argue that watching the movie itself won’t hurt anyone. I guess the latter part is true, if that’s all that ever happened. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there, or Mr. Pullman wouldn’t see an increase in his book sales when the movie comes out. You know, like what didn’t happen when Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings came out with the movie to complement the novels (note the heavy sarcasm). What Hollywood really did was cover it up, tuck it away, and save it (read: bad stuff) until the movie-goers run to the bookstore to get the book. It is what it is--an atheistic God-bashing, Christian-hating story disguised as a marvelous and benign movie masterpiece in the vein of Narnia and Lord of the Rings. And I, for one, won’t be conned, nor will I let my children be.

So as a business, we have made the decision not to perpetuate Pullman’s anti-Christian agenda. Whether this agenda was clearly spelled out in the movie is irrelevant to me—it will be made clear when fans flock to the bookstore. Backdoor or front door—it all lets you into the same place. Of course, everyone will decide for themselves whether they should see this movie. I just can’t be the one to hold the door open for you. I hope you understand our position.

“I’m not deluded: Christians are. There is no God.”
---Philip Pullman

NEW TO DVD APRIL 14, 2008

NEW TO DVD TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2008

AVP:Requiem (Alien vs. Predator: Requiem) – UR- Starring Steven Pasquale, John Ortiz, Johnny Lewis, and Ariel Gade. Sci-Fi. Ah, yes, another in the Alien series. Or the Predator series. Or the Alien and Predator series. Unlike so many runaway sequels, especially number…. 7 (I think 9 if you count Predator and Predator 2) this one isn’t terrible. It’s actually quite good. The special effects are good and the acting isn’t horrible, although not vying for any Academy awards. The story line is actually original, and it truly is a sequel, not just more of the same story. A Predator is bringing home a dead Predator and a couple of facehugger thingys on a ship back to their home planet after winning their “game,” but soon discover the dead Predator wasn’t really dead. Actually infested with an Alien, it pops out and it kills the pilot, resulting in a crash landing somewhere in Colorado (why do aliens tend to flock to tiny hick towns?). Before dying, the Predator pilot sends out a distress signal to his home planet. Now this newly hatched thing is an Alien Predator hybrid, I’ll now call PredAlien. The facehugger thingys escape and kill two hunters in the forest. Meanwhile, Predators are on their way to earth to rectify this disaster. Needless to say, PredAlien and the facehuggers manage to wreak havoc on this little town, and Dallas (Pasquale), a recently released convict, and his former best friend turned sheriff (Oritiz), are on a mission to save the day. The National Guard is called in and tries to “help.” There is a lot of action, gore, and some language. Like I said, the acting is OK. I didn’t really care for Ms. Gade. Pasquale was very good, as was Ortiz and Lewis. In summary, it was a good movie, great considering it was a sequel of the 7th generation. I have only one major complaint. Ever watch one of those movies where something shocking happens, like some irreversible injustice happens to a favorable main character, or it ends with something good happening to an irritating character when clearly something bad was supposed to happen (you know what I’m talking about)? There are certain “movie rules” which one must follow. Good people win. Bad people lose. Main characters can only die at the end of movies. The most irritating or stupid characters get killed off first in horror movies. Why? Because that’s just the way it works. There are a few exceptions, of course, like movies based on true stories, and a few other oddities, I guess. What I’m trying to say is that there are those movies where it seems like the writer deliberately does something just to break the mold and for no other reason—like it doesn’t even fit with the story. Jack was hated, but Jack won the lotto, because the audience wouldn’t like it, or it would surprise the audience. Note to writers: Stop trying so hard. Most of us are simple people (I won’t speak for all of you). Let the good guys win. Make the bad people lose. People like to see justice served. This is one of those movies where the writer didn’t always follow the rules, and it made me a little angry, like when some kids (I won’t name names) colored outside the lines when I was in kindergarten. (I still don’t understand why Miss Miller had a problem with me taking their crayons away—where is the justice in that?)


The Backwoods (Bosque de Sombras)-R for violence, language, and brief nudity. Starring Gary Oldman and Paddy Considine (Bourne Ultimatum, Hot Fuzz) Thriller/Creepy Drama. In the vein of Deliverance and Wrong Turn, a couple decides to rent a house in the backwoods of Spain. They find a girl with extremely deformed hands chained and locked in a cabin in the woods (don’t you hate that?). They attempt to rescue her, but the locals are determined to keep her in her present conditions. Sounds groovy. I had a tough time with deliverance. I liked Wrong Turn. I have loved Gary Oldman ever since True Romance. And I like Paddy Considine. The plot sounds interesting, if not contrived. BUT, the movie was not reviewed well, with critics saying that not even two good actors can save a bad film. Of course, this could be the same critics that gave terrible reviews to Alvin & the Chipmunks, saying that it was not “respectful” of the chipmunk legacy. We all know how much $$ that movie ended up making. Whoops! I’ll get back with you on this one, as I will surely see it.


Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead – R for a scene of strong graphic sexuality, nudity, violence, drug use, and language-starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei, and Albert Finney. Suspense/Thriller. Two brothers (Hoffman, Hawke) conspire to rob their parent’s small jewelry store-an easy target, or so they think. When an accomplice decides to ignore the previously discussed rules that were in place to ensure the plan went off without a hitch, the deal goes terribly bad and the downward spiral begins. Reminiscent of the Tarantino flashback timeline, this does not start at the beginning and end at the end.



Border Lost-R For strong violence, language, some drug use, and sexual content- Starring Emilio Roso, Wes McGee, and Chris Cleveland. Action. A task force is put together to stop the crime against illegal aliens crossing the border. The operation is stopped for political reasons, and the criminal activities against the border crossers increase to drastic proportions. After an agent is murdered, a few rogue agents take matters into their own hands and seek revenge for their colleague. Well, this one just looks bad all around; from the story to the cover art, the tag line (“3 men, 2000 miles and a ton of ammo”), to the acting.


The Final Season – PG for language, thematic elements, and some teen smoking-starring Sean Astin, Powers Boothe, Rachael Leigh Cook, and James Gammon. Family/Sports. Based on a true story. One of those lovely underdog stories everyone loves, and one for the whole family. Set in a small town in Iowa, a high school baseball team must defend their record of 19 championships. When the coach is fired and quickly replaced by the young assistant coach, it seems nearly impossible… but of course, this is an underdog story… I haven’t seen it, but I’m guessing the good guys win in the end …


In the Name of the King-PG13 for intense battle sequences-Starring Jason Statham, Leelee Sobieski, Matthew Lillard, Ray Liotta, and Burt Reynolds. Action/Sci-Fi. A pack of half-man half-creatures (the Krugs) led by a wizard (Liotta), attempt to overthrow an entire kingdom. One farmer (Statham, coincidentally named Farmer), after a family tragedy brought on by the Krugs, stands up and fights with the King for vengeance, and finds he is more than he (and others) knew. Sobieski is so not good here—at all. Liotta was disappointing, not helped at all by the surrounding second-rate special effects. Statham is great. Reynolds is good. The wood ninjas were funny, but probably not supposed to be. Lillard served as comic relief, which might have been intentional, and though probably inappropriate for the movie, was enjoyable nonetheless. Overall the movie was not nearly as bad as the critics made it out to be. Statham truly did save the day, both in character in the movie and in real life in the film. It might not have been worth the full price movie ticket, but is certainly worth the rental.


Juno-PG13 for mature thematic material, sexual content, and language. Starring Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, and Jason Bateman. Offbeat Comedy. A teenage girl finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, and tries to find an adoptive couple for her baby. Normally I would be all over “offbeat” for the comedy genre. However… I happen to have 5 teenage daughters, ages 14, 16, 16, 17, and 17—so as you can imagine, I wasn’t rushing out to see a “funny” movie about teenage pregnancy. This won a few awards and was purported to be cute, well-acted, and well-written. Kudos. I fail to see how this can be remotely funny. As a foster parent and as an adoptive parent, I see the other side of the coin. I’m the person caring for those children born to the teenage girls who can’t, or won’t, take care of them. I’m the person who is witness to the aftermath, who plays cleanup to the emotional damage done, although admittedly always inadequate. I’m the person who plays intermediary between parent and child when the parent, 10 years later, decides they now have grown up and are finally able to be a responsible parent. And I’m the one receiving your tax dollars to make this possible. So, although I realize there was certainly no malice intended with the movie, if you were to look out of my window, you would not be able to see the humor, even if it were only presented in the form of intermittent comic relief. Climbing off my soap box, I will not say the movie is good or bad; I will say only that my lifestyle simply prohibits me from finding certain subject matters amusing. And that I like Jason Bateman.



Lars and the Real Girl-PG13 For some sex-related content- Starring Ryan Gosling, Emily Mortimer, Paul Schneider, Kelli Garner, and Patricia Clarkson. Comedy. This was nominated for an Academy Award for best screenplay. Lars (Gosling) has a girlfriend. Her name is Bianca. Lars is happy with Bianca. Interestingly enough, Bianca happens to be a life-sized doll. Yeah… a doll. But then Lars starts to develop this relationship with another female co-worker (a real person this time). And now Lars finds himself caught in this crazy love triangle with his girlfriend-doll and his female co-worker interest. This received some good reviews, and obviously did well at the Awards. Sounds a little odd, needless to say. Although I guess I said it anyway.

One, Two, Many: National Lampoon Presents-R for pervasive strong crude sexual content including dialogue, and for language and some drug use. Comedy/Slapstick. You know, there are, like, 25 of these National Lampoon movies. I buy them because they rent well. They look stupid, they all look like they have the same plot, the same type of actors, and the same crude and raunchy humor. I would review this, but it would be like reviewing the other 24. Here’s my quick take on this movie: If you liked the other 24, odds are you will like this one. If you didn’t like numbers 1-24, number 25 is not likely to be any better, so save the $2.99 and rent AVP: Requiem or In the Name of the King.

Retribution-R for some violent content. Starring Koji Yakusho, Manami Konishi, Manami Konishi, and Tsuyoshi Ihara. Horror. Official selection of the New York Asian Film Festival, FantAsia Film Festival, and Fantastic Fest. A young woman is found dead in a muddy puddle, but the detective assigned to the case discovers she has been drowned in sea water. The detective soon becomes the number one suspect as fingerprints and other items belonging to him are found on-scene. As more bodies turn up following the same modus operandi, the detective begins to question the link between the killer, the bodies, and the possibility of his own involvement.