Jackass Number 2

4 Stars

What a sad, depraved culture we live in. Man fishing. Fart masks. A puppet show, using the male’s fifth appendage as the puppet. But it’s just so funny.

This is normally the point in a movie review where a plot outline is given. But “Jackass Number 2” is without plot. Anyone familiar with the show and two subsequent films would know that there is no plot. It’s a series of hilariously painful, disgusting and grotesque stunts strung together. It’s not fiction. I don’t even know what to classify it as, because it’s not a documentary either. It just is. And what it is is funny.

I have this theory that the “Jackass” saga is in actuality the most brilliant concept known to the entertainment business. Since the invention of film, people have locked to the cinema, truly all forms of art, as a form of escapism. They watch the films on the screen as a departure from the daily drudgery of life, fantasizing that they’re Humphrey Bogart saying good-bye to a one time love in “Casablanca” or they’re Superman, zipping around Metropolis, saving lives. And the crux of my theory is that everyone wants to do stupid stuff. Every person has a secret desire to pull one stupid, insane stunt. I guarantee it. I’m not saying they should, in fact I warn against. But everyone has that desire to. And “Jackass” plays on that desire.

Relentlessly it plays on it. The viewer will run a full range of emotions. From laughing uproariously to nearly vomiting (and for the exceptionally squeamish, they probably will vomit). The most cringe worthy, for myself anyway, was Steve-O’s beer enema. The most hilarious was Bam, who is absolutely terrified of snakes, locked in a trailer with a king cobra. And the most sobering event in the film comes from Chris Pontius after a horse milking stunt when he earnestly proclaims how ashamed he is of himself.

Judging this film on the standard criteria is just impossible to do. They aren’t acting. There’s no script. Mise en scène is the last thing on director Jeff Tremaine’s mind when he’s trying to capture the running of the bulls. It’s shot documentary style. It really comes down to whether or not one can stomach and get joy out of watching a group of masochists cause intentional harm to themselves.

“Jackass” documenter Tremaine was able to consistently make us laugh. And he new exactly what direction to take the film in order to keep us guessing, and keep us right on the edge of our seats. The film started off tame (by “Jackass” standards, for whatever that’s worth), and as the film progressed, so did the extreme nature of the stunts. They would get progressively physical, progressively cringe worthy, progressively hilarious.

I there isn’t anything inherently wrong. It’s just good, wholesome fun. Minus the wholesome. Don’t take the family. Finish the popcorn early in case you need a basin in which to… do what some people have done after watching a stunt. Only see this if you can handle it. They put warnings at the start and end for a reason.

Crank

Non-stop action fused with comedy highlight the new Jason Statham vehicle, Crank, which gets your adrenaline pumping till you want to explode. It’s an interesting and totally unique concept. But why was I experiencing deja-vu?

Chev Chelios (Statham) is a hit man who has just been hit with a slow acting poison known as the Beijing cocktail, which blocks the adrenal glands, effectively cutting off your natural resting supply of adrenaline. In order stay alive and exact his vengeance upon the Latino crime lords who sentenced him to death, Chelios has to stay moving to pump out abnormal amounts of adrenaline, and goes so far as to overdose on epinephrine (artificial adrenaline) and get a full defibrillator shock to the heart.

It’s an action film in the purest sense of the term. It fills all 83 minutes of its unusually short run time with action that never stops, which works in favor of rookie writer/directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor. In fact, I don’t even mind the short runtime, because any more of all that running and fighting would have been just too much to handle, even for hardcore adrenaline junkies.

Jason Statham has this natural talent of portraying this big, tough, intimidating man that you wouldn’t want to cross, and then he cracks a joke without cracking a smile which makes him seem much more down to earth, though still intimidating. And that type of energy was brought to the whole production. It’s a big tough action film from start to finish, but jokes around without dropping the overall serious tone, keeping the audience reminded that no matter what, he’s going to die.

And the ending isn’t the real payoff of the film. In recent years, a lot of emphasis has been placed on the surprise or shock twist ending of a film that will leave you asking “what the hell?’ (thanks to The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects). But for Crank, it’s the journey to the end that makes the movie satisfying. It’s like a rollercoaster. You laugh and scream the whole way through, not just at the end when you come into the unloading platform.

While this was Statham’s film, it wouldn’t have worked as well without the great supporting cast around him. Amy Smart takes what could have been a throwaway role of Chelios’ girlfriend, but turned into an impressive performance, keeping up with Statham’s humour. And you can’t help but recognize and acknowledge the talent of perennial scene stealer Efren Ramirez (Napoleon Dynamite).

But while it is a genuinely enjoyable film, I can’t help but think I’ve seen this before. Neveldine and Taylor seemed to have taken a cue from former Statham collaborator Guy Ritchie and Quentin Tarantino before him on the visual style. Hype-noir action/comedies that aren’t made by Ritchie or Tarantino have the misfortune of being compared against the films of the British auteur and his American predecessor. They each set/matched the standard of which all films of the genre are going to be compared for a long time to come. Whether or not it’s justified in this case, too much suggests direct influence to not warrant the comparison. It’s that, or it just seems like Speed, only in a person instead of a bus.

Beerfest

The Broken Lizard comedy troupe has had an on-again-off-again love affair with fans and critics alike. They broke into the mainstream with their uproariously funny Super Troopers in 2001, followed by the disappointing Club Dread in 2004. And in order to get their recent hilarious offering, Beerfest, made, they had to pay penance with 2005’s mostly horrible Dukes of Hazzard. But luckily, they made us fall back in love with them with the new flick, and it’s a true return to form for them.

In Beerfest, brothers Jan and Todd Wolfhouse (BL’s Paul Sotor and Erik Stolhanske) travel from their home in Colorado to Munich to honor their dead father’s burial wishes. There, they stumble upon a long standing sub-celebration of Oktoberfest known as Beerfest. Automatically dismissed as they belong the illegitimate bloodline of the family who sponsors the Beerfest, and because they are American, Jan and Todd decide to come back the next year, after putting together the ultimate beer drinking team. They ask college buddies Landfill, Barry and Fink (Kevin Heffernan, Jay Chandrasekhar, who also directs and Steve Lemme) to round out the team and endure 12 grueling months of beer drinking training.

What really made both Beerfest and Super Troopers work is the fraternal aspect of the comedy. No one person is a comedic island, all relying on the other four for support. That team effort has become lost as comic’s star status and egos have inflated. While the films of Steve Carell and Will Ferrell are funny, they are more about the star, with the supporting players doing just that, supporting. You rarely see a team effort in a comedy.

It’s a sophomoric film that plays to our childish humor, and never tries to go high-brow. And the attraction of these types of films is the hands down fun and enjoyment of it, without needing to think too much about the jokes.

While funny and mostly original, I did walk away with a feeling like I had seen it before. It fell into the mold of the great party flicks that came before it. Like Animal House and Bachelor Party before it, it’s raunchy and loud and bawdy. It’s entertaining, I’ll give it that. But it’s just derivative.

All the earmarks of a comedy were there. The timing of the actors was obvious, but the poor editing job did it’s best to hide that. Lucky for us, it failed. And quite frankly, who likes CG beer? Not I. If you can’t drink it, what’s the point? But when the jokes are so funny you’re rolling in the seat, you’ll hardly notice the technical flaws.

It’s good to see the raunchy comedy making a comeback. This along with Clerks II and Jackass 2 make the theatre a good place for guys to go and hang out. The comedy flick world is littered with cheesy rom-com’s for the girls and tamer fair for teens and younger. The beer and fart jokes almost went the way of the Betamax and 8-track, and were replaced by the neurotic and inexplicably relationship challenged Jennifer Aniston.

3 Stars

The Covenant

By Matthew Woodward

WC: 542

When watching the new Renny Harlin flick “The Covenant”, one has to ask themselves “Am I at a movie theatre, or did I just turn on the Saturday Night Sci-Fi Channel movie?”

Ipswitch, Mass. was founded in the 1600’s by five families who fled England because of their mystical pagan powers. The Putman’s were thought to have been killed off in during the Salem witch trials. Now, in 2006, the four male descendents of the remaining families are developing their magical powers, with the leader, Caleb Danvers (Steven Strait), reaching the full maturation of his powers on his 18^th birthday. The families formed this covenant to keep each other in check, as the powers drain the life force of those using it. The long lost heir of the Putman family comes back into town to take all the powers for himself.

I found three metaphors in the film: puberty (get the powers at 13 years old, with full maturation at 18), drugs (the powers are addicting and slowly kill you) and to a lesser extent homosexuality (“my adoptive father caught me using magic when I was 15, and we kept it quiet”). All three were obvious, yet an attempt was still made to obscure them.

The lore and mythology was presented in an un-convoluted way. It’s easy to follow and straightforward. So there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. It’s just simplistic and derivative, with nothing to really get excited about. You could almost figure it out without having even seen the movie.

Harlin seems to have taken a cue from MTV in making this film, adopting the philosophy of “Laguna Beach” that everyone in your high school just got back from a Teen People photo shoot. He must have cast models, as there isn’t a shred of acting talent in the entire young cast. At the end of the film I was wondering if I had seen a film comprised entirely of cut footage and rehearsal shots. I was left with the distinct impression that just off camera was a stagehand holding a stack of cue cards for the cast to read from.

And the camera work was straight out of the late 80’s to early 90’s music video library. Half of it looked like a schlock Ozzy Osbourne video, the other half resembled Madonna’s “Like a Prayer.” This kind of filmmaking is completely unappealing. I understand that the core audience is probably 13-18 year old girls, and they most likely find that sort of filmmaking wondrous and spellbinding. Unfortunately for Harlin, and myself, 13-18 year old girls aren’t the only ones who see films. There’s a whole world of intense filmmaking techniques out there that would have made this film more enjoyable and pleasing to the eye. I know. I’ve seen it. Many have developed and mastered these techniques. But Harlin, no matter how much of a seasoned veteran he is, is making mistakes and “artistic choices” that reek of rookie director.

Not to mention the end fight scene seemed taken punch for punch from the Saruman/Gandalf fight in “Lord of the Rings” or Harry/Voldemort fight in “Harry Potter”. I could go on and on about how this reeks of un-originality: “The Craft” with dudes or “The Lost Boys” with witches.

Half a Star

The Black Dahlia

Brian De Palma has been a maestro of modern film noir. From “The Untouchables” to “L.A. Confidential”, even “Mission: Impossible” showing glimpses of noir. But with his new entry into the genre, “The Black Dahlia”, starring Josh Hartnett, Aaron Eckhart, Scarlett Johansson and Hilary Swank and set in 1947 Hollywood, he misses, but just barely.

Hartnett and Eckhart play two boxer/cops assigned to the grizzly murder of Elizabeth Short (Mia Kirshner), an aspiring actress who was found in a field carved and disemboweled. Twists, turns and sub-plots fly in the who-done-it, with the prerequisite femme fatales being Johansson as Eckhart’s loving girlfriend and Swank as an acquaintance of Short, who also happens to be the daughter of one of the more influential men in Hollywood.

It’s hard to come up with a more cohesive and in-depth plot summary for various reasons. I don’t want to give too much away. I barely understood it myself. And, by fault of De Palma or editor Bill Pankow or writer Josh Friedman, the story is so convoluted that it would take an entirely separate article to explain it. It’s an interesting story to be told, it was just told poorly. And I don’t know who to blame. It had wonderful dialogue, and when I was able to follow the plot, I could. There was nothing too inherently wrong with the editing as it was. Nice even cuts and it flowed nicely. I can’t think of a better modern director to handle this type of film. But it was one, or all of those, which contributed to the downfall of what could have been a fantastic film, a true breakout for Hartnett. I just can’t figure out who to blame for the poor storytelling. All the wrong portions of the story were told, some left unresolved.

In this day and age, classic film-noir style walks the very fine line of parody and sincerity. And “Dahlia” went back and forth. Eckhart’s Det. Blanchard seemed almost a goofy stereotype of 40’s cops, while Hartnett’s Det. Bleichert was as hard nosed as they come, challenging Humphrey Bogart for noir supremacy. The entire cast, really, handled the somewhat archaic style of acting without making it seem too hokey.

The acting is top notch all the way through. Hartnett has settled quite comfortably into this style, as his past three major films (“Sin City”, “Lucky Number Slevin” and now “Dahlia” have been of this genre and its sub-genres.) He was an actor I had originally written off in the late 90’s as a pin-up boy with no real talent other than to look good onscreen. But he shows some real charm and chops on screen when playing a style. He’s one of those young actors that will come up and join the ranks of the more prominent and serious actors, and major awards are in his future, that’s my prediction anyway.

But the true center of attention of this film is the sheer visual beauty of it. Credit should go to both Hungarian cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond for paying homage to the classic noir films and Italian Oscar-winning production designer Dante Ferretti (2005 for “The Aviator”) for accurately and beautifully rendering the look of 1947 Hollywood(land). Zsigmond used the classic tricks of the trade to his advantage, and made a compelling and stark contrast between the feminine and the masculine characters by altering the focus to be softer on the females, making them appear angelic till true motives and intentions are revealed.

Ferretti was the only one to bring the new millennium into the classically stylized film. He made it more graphic and gory than what would have been shown in ’47. I urge the weak stomached to stay away.

3.5 stars

Snakes on a Plane

Once in a great while along comes a film that is the next big “cult classic”. Snakes on a Plane is that film for this generation. But it has defied all logic of the cult classic. It had a strong following before it was even released. Scratch that – before it was even done filming.

A year ago fans caught wind of a new film with the simple and obvious title Snakes on a Plane, or SoaP as it became affectionately known as, and latched onto it to create the biggest internet sensation since 1999’s Blair Witch Project.

SoaP is about just that- snakes on a plane. FBI Agent Nelville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) has been assigned to escort surfer Sean Jones (Wolf Creek’s Nathan Phillips) from Honolulu to Los Angeles after Jones witnessed crime boss Eddie Kim (Byron Lawson) murder a district attorney. In order to keep Jones from testifying, Kim orders the release of several crates full of the most poisonous snakes from around the world on Pacific Air flight 121. Agent Flynn has to keep the passengers and crew, and particularly Jones, safe from the deadly reptiles at 30,000 feet above the ocean.

Critics and non-Soapaphiles were quick to push this into the “so-bad-it’s-good” category, but I doubt their commitment to the sheer enjoyment of this film. Because that’s where it succeeds. SoaP is an unpretentious action thriller that delivers on all counts. It’s a pulse pounding thriller that keeps you guessing as to who will live and who will die (though the archetypal minor characters are there to provide us with good death scenes). The action is never over the top and always exciting. And the comedy is never displaced. It’s always funny when it intends to be, and serious when it needs to be.

One would want to question what A-list actor Jackson is doing in a presumably B-list film littered with B and C-list actors (David Koechner and Kenan Thompson of “SNL” and “ER’s” Julianna Margulies are the next most recognizable people). But Jackson is always the consummate actor, never turning down a role because work is work no matter how prestigious the gig. As an added bonus it shows he has a sense of humor. In a recent interview on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” he claimed he signed on to star after only seeing the film’s title in a trade magazine, having never seen a script.

I found no real flaws in the acting. Nothing award worthy or having a significant impact on the craft of acting, but nothing inherently wrong with it. Everyone was in top form.

Let’s give credit where credit is due- director David R. Ellis (Cellular and Final Destination 2) and screen writers John Heffernan (debut) and Sebastian Gutierrez (Gothika). As many view this film as a bad film that screams cheesy, it could have easily been handled as such. The film could have elicited more groans of annoyance than cheers of excitement. But it wasn’t. It was taken seriously enough to not take itself too seriously, and keep it tight and cheese free.

The unambiguous-ness worked in its favor as well. Last year was littered with metaphoric titles that had to be deciphered in order to understand the movie, or they had little to actually do with the main plot. But when you walk into a movie called Snakes on a Plane, you know exactly what you’re getting.

I can’t imagine a time when I had that much fun sitting in a movie theatre watching a film. There was an excited energy in the air as the crowed awaited the now iconic line- “I’ve had it with these mutha-******’ snakes on this mutha-******’ plane!” and proceeded to shout along with the screen. Part of the enjoyment of the film comes from that very collective experience, but the quality of the film is separate from the viewing experience.

4.5 stars

Accepted

Frat Pack freshman Justin Long has elevated to his own starring vehicle with the college comedy Accepted, but while his comedic skills are finely honed, anchoring his own film is something he’s just not ready for.

Having been rejected from every college he applied to and getting the “we’re very disappointed in you” lecture from his parents, Bartleby Gaines (Long) decides to placate the parental units by creating his own college, going so far as to forge an acceptance letter, create a fake (though unfortunately functional website), using his tuition money to rent an abandoned facility to make his own college, South Harmon Institute of Technology (think about the acronym it creates) and even hiring wayward former professor Ben Lewis (Lewis Black) as the dean of the fake school. It all starts to unravel when other recent high school graduates show up to S.H.I.T. after receiving acceptance letters from the website. Gaines has to keep up the appearance of a functional school so uses the tuition money from the incoming freshman to actually turn the building into a “do it yourself” type of institute of higher learning.

The usual college comedy stereotypes exist in the world of Accepted. Frat boys are cocky, preppy jerks. The dean is an uptight, greedy man with an inferiority complex. And the hot chick will learn the error of her ways and go with the nerdy guy. And they aren’t even done well. It’s carbon copy of the films that lay the ground before it. I like to think of it as a diet Animal House or a low-carb Revenge of the Nerds.

Where the movie really fails is that it puts on the façade of a complex film with a deep message, but it’s really just a simple, shallow film.

2.5 Stars

A few new movie trailers… (must have quicktime)

The Prestige
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Children of Men

Quite frankly, I’m really looking forward to Children of Men because I like Clive Owen, and let’s face it, the end of humanity is just a whole bucket load of fun. The Prestige looks quite interesting.

As for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles… I’m apprehensive. From the trailer I can’t really ttell which direction they’re looking to go with the characters. Is it dark and moody like the original comics or is it goofy and actiony like all other subsequent incarnations? I’m gonna keep my eye on it just so I can see how it goes. Depending on certain factors, I may pass on the theatrical presentation. Mainly I dislike seeing animated films in theatres. I mean, I hate kids. And I hate movie talkers. And put the two together and you get 95% of the animated film audience.

The Break-Up

Romantic comedies follow the same old plot cliché of two people trying to form a relationship with hilarious happenings along the way (usually in the form of slap stick and cheesy jokes). What makes The Break-Up different is that it is about just that, a break up instead of a hook up. What makes it the same is that it has lame acting, tired dialogue, and weak direction.

Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston play Gary Grobowski and Brooke Meyers an on the rocks couple who rent the same condo in Chicago together. As with any break up, both parties think they are in the right, and refuse to relent in the face of other guys and girls they each parade in front of the former significant other. Brooke goes so far as to prance around naked sporting a recent “Telly Savalas” wax job, while Gary befriends and steals away her new boy toy via video games.

With humour like that, how could it go wrong?

Well there’s the lack of any discernable chemistry between Vaughn and Aniston, for one thing. They may be good off screen, but on screen it was just painful to watch. This was exceptionally prevalent in Vaughn. He’s shown time and time again his knack for comedy in Wedding Crashers, Old School and Swingers, so my only deduction for this unfunny anomaly in his filmography is the costar, Jennifer Aniston.

And Aniston. Why do you still play Rachel (Friends)? I realize that was the launching pad for your career, and you only quit playing her two years ago, but it’s time to move past that. These are feature films, not a television show, different kind of acting. Stretch your range a bit. Some people are still rooting for you to do well. Leave Rachel behind, and focus on what makes Brook be Brooke. And if you can’t find any difference between Rachel and a movie character, don’t pick the script.

When Peyton Reed hit the scene in 2000 with the surprisingly funny Bring It On, I must admit I had high hopes for him, as did many critics. It was a novice outing with a funny teen film as the first major studio film, in the vein of Cameron Crowe, Kevin Smith and Richard Linklater. And maybe those three respected filmmakers set the bar too high for him to reach. Since Bring It On it’s been a painful fall from grace, and this is just another low blow to his career.

I’d comment more on the writing, but it’s been a month since I’ve seen it, and I blocked most of the dialogue from my memory. But I do remember that it generally went “fault of his…fault of hers… she’s a bitch… he’s a bastard” only dragged out for an excruciating hour and 45 minutes. Throw in a few emotional breakthroughs and that’s the film in a nutshell.

Breaking the mold of an already faulty genre does not an instant classic make. It just means it’s an unusual addition to the faulty genre, rather than an exception. And Reed should have paid closer attention to the romantic comedies that Linklater (Before Sunrise), Crowe (Jerry Maguire) and Smith (Chasing Amy) made following their teen flicks. The devil is in the dialogue, and more attention should have been paid attention to it. Oh, and casting the right people for the parts, rather than the flavours of the month. That really helps too.

1.5 Stars

Nacho Libre

The Frat Pack has been exploding all over the place. Will Ferrell has had his starring vehicles. As has Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Owen and Luke Wilson and Jack Black. Jack Black beats Owen Wilson, Ferrell and freshman initiate Justin Long to the summer movie comedy throne with Jared and Jerusha Hess’ follow-up to Napoleon Dynamite, Nacho Libre.

Nacho Libre is about a man (Black) who was raised in a Catholic run Mexican orphanage. He studies to be a monk and is employed as the resident chef, making food that would be considered cruel and unusual punishment in the American prison system. But while he enjoys his work, he still desires to achieve his life long dream of becoming a Luchador (wrestler). This goes against the teachings of the monastery, so he fights in near secrecy as Nacho Libre, donning a mask to conceal his identity. He hopes to fight in a title match, winning money for the orphanage to have better food and a mode of transportation to go on field trips.

This film is really intended to hit only a few specialized audiences. Kids who will watch anything thrown at them (it’s produced by Nickelodeon Studios), Jack Black fans, Napoleon Dynamite fans, and to a much lesser extent, wrestling fans.

Black runs this film. Where in his other films, like School of Rock and Shallow Hal, he had to rely on the supporting cast to really make the film, Nacho Libre could have been an hour and a half of just Black running around in tights, and it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. But it serves for a very interesting paradox. While Black dominates this film, he doesn’t come off as completely overbearing, as one might have expected. It’s his film, but he’s oddly repressed enough to allow his Mexican co-stars (each making their American major film debut) Ana de la Reguera and Hector Jimenez show off their talent.

The heart of the film still beats with all the marks of the Hesses. It’s slow, simple and quiet. But not to the extent of it being bad. But again, you really have to have liked Napoleon Dynamite in order to fully enjoy this new venture. One can only hope that the two quickly learn that while the formula may have worked once (and now perhaps twice), it won’t work every time, and they explore their range of filmmaking.

The wrestling scenes, while far between and almost too short, are highly entertaining, and should make any wrestling fan let out even the faintest of laughs.

It’s an enjoyable film, but I’m afraid a bit too specialized, and my tastes are too broad to adequately suit it.

2 stars

Superman Returns

It’s been almost 20 years since the Man of Steel last saw the silver screen, and 10 of those (as well as a reported $40 million) had been spent trying to get this film off the ground. The project had many different people attached in that time, including Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, McG and Brett Ratner directing, and Nicolas Cage, Brenden Fraser and Ashton Kutcher all rumoured to play the Kryptonian. With all that talent and financial backing in the 10 year development stage, this was set to be the biggest movie of the year.

Brett Ratner traded Bryan Singer for directing duties on X-Men: The Last Stand, and Singer went for unknown Brandon Routh to don the cape and tights.

Superman Returns is about just that- Superman returning. We start with both Superman and Clark Kent returning from a five year absence (why no one put two and two together, I’ll never know) to a world that has radically changed, and Superman now ponders if he should have even come back. The love of his life, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is now engaged and has a young child. Kent is barely able to get his job back at the Daily Planet, and, oh by the way, Lane won the Pulitzer for writing an article entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.” Of course trusty old Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has been freed from jail, thanks to the absence of Superman at his appeals trial, and is up to his old tricks, only this time with the very same technology that Superman had been sent to Earth with from Krypton, which Luthor had stolen from the Fortress of Solitude.

Superman has never been a multi-layered superhero. He never had the brooding angst which made Batman such an interesting hero. Superman had all the powers that could make him perfect. He invincible to everything except a rare metal that very few even knew existed. And he stood for truth, justice and the American way. Very one dimensional. And what broke down here was that they tried to infuse internal dilemmas into a story that never really had any. Warner Brothers wanted another Batman Begins without realizing that Superman is NOT Batman. And the story suffered for it.

It also lacked the charm of the original film series. It fell victim to the 21st century and was too much action, not enough substance. All glitz and no glamour. The true appeal of Superman, at least for me, is concocting somewhat interesting stories out of this flat character. And I for one was not interested.
The principal cast is where it really begins to break apart. Brandon Routh makes a fine Superman, but just wasn’t there for Clark Kent. I didn’t buy him. He was almost too good looking to be believable as a loveable dorky reporter and a handsome superhero. Christopher Reeve was just perfect for it.

I really can’t say enough negative things about Kate Bosworth. I’ve never been too fond of her in the first place, but Lois Lane is just as iconic as Superman, so she had some mighty big shoes to fill. And she didn’t. When I was watching her, I felt like I was watching a bad imitation of all the Lois Lanes in the past, rather than watching Lois Lane. She lacked that inner spunk and naivety which made both Margot Kidder and Teri Hatcher shine in the role. And the thing is, Singer came oh so close to casting the right person. But instead of putting Parker Posey in as Lois Lane, she had squander her talent in the equally alliterative, yet less important role of Kitty Kowalski, Luthor’s female henchman.

But wouldn’t you know it, Kevin Spacey really came from left field and played a perfect Lex Luthor. And I think he did it right. He acknowledged Gene Hackman’s interpretation, but brought his own style to it, and played it a bit darker, a bit more megalomaniacal than Hackman’s. And he stands as the saving grace of the film.

Singer should have stuck with the X-Men franchise. I don’t blame him for leaving it for his dream project, how often does that get dropped into your lap. But he was better there, and I think he had more to work with, and less pressure to deal with. Superman was just too big for him.

He also faulted when it came to the construction of the film. He relied way too much on digital effects, what I dub the George Lucas trap. Plenty could have been done with set pieces and creative stunt work. But he opted to trust all that to a computer, and in the end he blurred the line between real-life and animation (pay attention to Superman’s face, it’s too perfect at times).

It accomplishes being a fun, entertaining film. But I have a feeling that that’s really not what they were aiming for. And since both the filmmaker’s intentions and the audience’s expectations were not met, it is ultimately and unfortunately a failure.

3 stars

A Prairie Home Companion

This is one of those films where you like it, but you’re not entirely sure why. It’s charming. It’s a charismatic film which draws you in, you recognize its faults, and you just want to keep watching, enjoying yourself.

A Prairie Home Companion is based on Garrison Keillor’s (he also plays a version of himself, dubbed just GK) public radio show of the same name. The show is performing it’s last show ever in the same live theatre it’s been performing it in for the past 30 years or so (no actual time frame is given, and I’m going to operate under the presumption that this is a fictional version of the show). The cast of characters that make up the show include Yolanda and Rhonda Johnson (Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin), sort of like the Carters, only grown up. Two folk singing, joke telling cowboys Dusty and Lefty (Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilly), and a noir-ish security guard aptly named Guy Noir (Kevin Kline), who is on the lookout for a stranger known only to us as “Dangerous Woman” (Virgina Madsen). Lindsay Lohan, Tommy Lee Jones and Maya Rudolph round out the rest of the very large principle cast.

It would be too hard and too lengthy to discuss everyone’s performance in great detail, so I’ll try to stick to key points. Kline was just amazing. He hasn’t been this funny since A Fish Called Wanda and for my money, was the shiniest starriest (yeah, I can say it) person in the film. Streep and Tomlin’s shtick got to grating at times, and you wish they’d stop. But then again, I’m one of the few people in the world that isn’t really a fan of Streep (she’s a great actress, don’t get me wrong, just not my cup of tea), so that may have had something to do with it. Harrelson and Reilly seemed like they had been doing that act for years, and seemed perfectly at home on stage with each other (them doing the dirty jokes was classic). Jones was good in his brief onscreen appearance, cold as the ice he didn’t want in his glass of water, which played well off of Kline’s zaniness.

Robert Altman is one of those directors who are just master storytellers. He constructs his films in such a way that even if it isn’t the best or even really good; you’re still engrossed in what they’re saying. Cause you feel they’ve been doing it for so long and they’ve done it so well that you treat it as if it’s the most important thing you’ll ever hear, even if he’s just talking about a trip to the grocery store. Very few filmmakers are like that. I’d have to put Sidney Lumet and maybe Martin Scorsese in that category.

It’s a charming little film with a big cast that just clicks on many levels.

4 stars

The Lake House

It’s been 12 years since Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves saved a bus load of Los Angelinos from a mad man. Now they’re writing love notes in Chicago, the barrier of time be damned.

Bullock plays Kate Forester, a new resident at a busy Chicago hospital, who has to move out of the titular lake house to be closer to work. She leaves a note in the mailbox for the new tenant, which is picked up by Reeves’ Alex Wyler. But here’s the catch. For Alex it’s April 2004. For Kate, it’s April 2006. The two continue to exchange letters, and form an odd love affair. How is this possible? How does Wyler explain the situation to Forester before she becomes cognizant of it in her own timeline?

I’ve long been a fan of fiction centered on time travel, or the bending of the fabric of time. I think it’s interesting how they work in all the intricacies of it. This film kind of took liberties with that, to their credit, but unfortunately didn’t always make it work. There were some instances where the couple changes the past or future because of the letters, like the tree growing in front of Kate’s apartment building. But then they concede that time may be cyclical, i.e. the concept of fate and what not. Not to consistent with its theories, and that thing, above all else, bugged me.

It was fun to see these two together again, as they had an undeniable chemistry in Speed. Reeves, however, needs to stick to action films. While fun to watch onscreen, he is by no means a great actor. He’s barely any good, without being downright bad. Constantine exemplified this by providing us with the most unintentionally funny lines of dialogue I’ve ever heard. He’s a bit stiff in The Lake House, though does provide a better reading of his lines. And since I don’t really expect much of out Reeves, he can impress me with even a minimal amount of work.

Bullock returns to the “chick flick” genre that has brought her fame and fortune during the course of her career. And it seems to be where she’s most comfortable. Bullock appears to love romantic films, and slips into her various characters with the greatest of ease. But it by no means implies that she phones in her performance.

What shines for me is Alejandro Agresti’s direction. His meticulousness (despite the conflicting time travel theories) attention to detail and subtle visual clues (of which there are many) make this a beautifully realized film. While I’m still trying to figure out the mechanics of how that gorram mailbox worked, you don’t really care as you’re watching the film, it’s like an afterthought.

3.5 stars

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest

Captain Jack is back with William Turner and Elizabeth Swan in tow, while the East India Trading Company has warrants out for their (and former Commodore James Norrington) arrests. It’s double crosses and secret pacts abound on ye olde Black Pearl.

The entire cast returns from the first film as the nuptials of Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Swan (Keira Knightley) are interrupted by their arrest for the aiding of Cpt. Jack Sparrow’s (Johnny Depp) escape from custody at the end of the first film. Turner is then offered a deal. If he can get Sparrow’s famed compass which does not work and bring it to the conniving Cpt. Bellamy (Alex Norton) than both he and Swan will go free. He agrees and goes on a hunt for the elusive Sparrow. Sparrow meanwhile has had an unfortunate run in with famed pirate Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), to whom Sparrow owes his soul, and if he doesn’t make good on their deal of 100 souls for Jones’ half human/half sea-creature crew, then Sparrow will be forced into servitude. And as a bonus subplot, Turner is reunited with his long lost dad, Bootstrap Bill Turner (Stellan Skarsgard).

I must preface the rest of the review with the fact that I did like it, and it was a good film. I really enjoyed it.

It was a different film though. But in neither a good nor bad way. It’s a hard to describe sort of thing. The first film was a very tight film, with everything working together, and it was pretty character driven, with the action element. But director Gore Verbinski seemed to take it into a different direction with the second (and subsequent third) installment of the franchise. It was infinitely more action oriented, and since it is a companion piece it would be hard to fully appreciate or enjoy without third, which we have to wait just under 11 months to see (fyi, it’s been titled Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End). Verbinski does set up the end to lead into the third one, with the shocking departure of one character, and the even more shocking return of another.

And to Verbinski’s credit, it is still a well crafted film. It’s got the swashbuckling grandeur that made the first one so enjoyable. It’s a true delight to see, because even with the human/shark hybrids wandering around the deck, you can’t really see any CGI, which itself is marvel in this day and age.

The performances of all involved were top notch. I could speak volumes on Depp as Sparrow or the chemistry between Bloom and Swan. But the two who really show cased their talent in this film were Nighy and Jack Davenport. Nighy was acting through both prosthetics and a computer generated beard of tentacles. But he was able to keep his very expressive face and every so often you could see a hint of Nighy peaking through the make up. And Davenport as the now-broken Commodore Norrington who has since been discharged from the Royal Navy and now travels about searching for Jack to get some of his former life back in order. We first see him on the pirate haven island of Tortuga. Davenport plays a pitch perfect moody and broken man, with inklings of Sparrow inside himself, which is why I believe he detests Sparrow so much. Norrington is starting to become a version of Sparrow.

The biggest annoyance I had with this film was the recycling of old jokes. A few at the beginning were just fine, I chuckled. But some just got beat to death. About halfway in I was sitting there thinking, “Alright, I get it, the goddamn rum is gone!” That removed me from the picture.

I can’t down vote a film just because of a minor annoyance like the repetition of jokes. Certainly not one which was an otherwise enjoyable experience, and was by no stretch of the imagination bad. But I have to take into consideration that they made it a companion piece with the conclusion a year away, instead of a stand alone film.

4 stars

X-Men: The Last Stand

The X-Men fanchise, from comic books to tv-shows to the films, has always been about the struggles of minorities in not just America, but the world. And that essence, that spirit, has never waivered, regardless of who handles the interpretations.

In X-Men: The Last Stand Brett Ratner takes over where former director Bryan Singer (who left to make Superman Returns) left off. The mutant population is continuing to be divided between Professor Charles Xavier’s (Patrick Stewart) notion that humans and mutants can cohabitate peacefully and Magneto’s (Ian McKellen) camp, which strive for mutant domination. The split is further exacerbated by the discovery of a “cure” for the mutant gene by Worthington Labs. The result is an all out civil war between Magneto’s army and the X-Men fighting alongside the humans.

Iceman (Shawn Ashmore), Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page), Colassus (Daniel Cudmore) and Rogue (Anna Paquin) have all graduated to the ranks of X-Men to join Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Storm (Halle Berry) as part of the team. They are joined by new mutants Beast (Kelsey Grammer) and Angel (Ben Foster) in the fight, while Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones) sides with Magneto.

As I said, X-Men has a spirit, an essence. And that is difficult to destroy. Ratner, despite his best efforts, was unable to accomplish that. But, unfortunatly, he took an insightful film series with magnificent allegories of current minority affairs and turned it into a frantic action flick that didn’t have anything to say. The third, and shortest film, was an hour and 45 minutes of missed oppurtunities and unnecessary plotlines.

Many characters were useful for one or two minutes, and were some of the most blatent deus ex machinas I’ve ever seen on film.

But, to the film’s credit, the strength of the cast alone propels this film beyond my expectations. With the notable exception of Halle Berry. Her off screen whining for a larger role in the new film translated poorly to execution. But one can easily look past her (and subsequently Storm’s) inflated ego to appreciate team mentality and comradery that really makes this film work. And it’s a testament to that spirit of the franchise I’ve been talking about, that when working together, good things can happen.

I’d be remiss in giving it a low rating, for the faults of Ratner, who was out of his element. But I’d also be remiss in giving it a high rating because I’m a fan boy.

3 stars.

Ok… I’m enthusiastic for Clerks II. Kevin Smith is one of my idols.

In his myspace blog, he was talking about the premiere of Clerks II at Cannes.

Guess what… Eight minute standing ovation.

That gives me hope.

Well kinda. Marie Antoinette got a poor reception. I don’t know how much of that is due to it being an American film about French history, being reviewed in France. Maybe they didn’t understand what Sophia Coppola was trying to accomplish. I’m looking forward to it… I like Coppola, and Kirsten Dunst, and Jason Schwartzman.

Richard Kelly’s new film, Southland Tales wasn’t recieved well. I’m looking forward to it because, shit… it’s Richard Kelly. The man behind Donnie Darko.

I’m waiting to see how Richard Linklater’s films fare. He’s showing A Scanner Darkly out of competition, and Fast Food Nation in competition. They both look damn good. Point of fact, Linklater is the first director in Cannes history to debut 2 films at Cannes.