Movie Review: Elephant

It's hard to review this film, due to the personal nature of it's presentation. I was deeply effected by the events of what happened at Columbine High School so many years ago. The wounds go deep. It almost effects me a bit more then the issues related 9/11 and the current fallout. I say this as a precaution for you the reader--my bias I cannot explain for privacy reasons, but it will most certainly be evident in this review, I'm sure.

I saw this movie for a variety of reasons. I like art movies, that much we have established. I like gay and lesbian issues and this had two, a minor plot element and a gay director. And of course, for more personal levels that I choose not to explain. The title is borne of the concept of an elephant being in the room and no one is talking about it.

It's EXACTLY how I felt about the Columbine massacre. Acts of violence are sad, wholly evil entities that devour more than they kill, meaning we might see the immediate piles of blood, but the effect lingers via survivors and onlookers. Looking at that standpoint, the issues at Columbine were an expression of some of this societies' ills personified. Michael Moore, who I do love as a filmmaker emphasized the issue of guns in this nation in the award winning Bowling for Columbine. It's an excellent analysis. Guns are too widely available.

But it isn't the only issue of what happened at Columbine. Like September 11th's committee just announced, it was a series of unfortunate events that worked in tandem to create the short lived hell.

I look at it symbolically.

The boys were in a microcosm of the world outside. Like the striated system of the haves and the have-nots, where everyone is filed into those who are above and those who are below, these boys were told they were to be the bottom. They were teased. They were mocked. And they lashed out.

The problem was, they did have everything, everything that could keep them happy. The confusion had begun. They could not experience the world as they were promised.

Sounds like most of America. We are promised we should dream big. But we will not get part of that pie, people, it's becoming more and evident to me.

*I'm going to go out on a limb and off on a tangent here, for I know of no other place to mention it. The killers' parents denied being part. They said they didn't know what their boys were doing. They just handed them the cash and moved on. I don't buy it one iota. I have too many friends with kids, know too many families. I cannot have kids of my own. A person who doesn't know what their kids are doing should not be having kids. It's part of loving and living in a family. Those parents were part of the issue, and it angers me greatly that they deny it. There, I've said it. Back to the story.

Their families aren't even mentioned in this movie. Instead, we are given glimpses, through a series of flashbacks, of these youngsters' lives. The movie rewinds, and we see them from a different angle. Their dialogue is unrehearsed and difficult to hear, as if real. Their costumes  are merely the actor's clothing. And each take goes on and on and on and on, without edit, like life.

So where's the movie part? Instead of dealing with the issues, the filmmaker goes and creates art so severe, he alienates  of those who are to benefit from the message. Did I say message? There is no comment as to the reason for the murder spree. It's sad really, that such a touchy subject is given barely the lipservice it deserves. I'm hurt.

Art is created and does not truly live until it is seen. A book is written and has yet to find life until it is read by someone. You hang kids' pictures on the fridge, not really looking for comments, but the art doesn't live until someone looks at it, correct?

Here is a situation where there is too much art. It's as if Gus Van Sant, the director, made it to defy criticism. You can't look at it, you can't be empathetically to this movie. It's that surreal. The art part never comes to life.

And as for the famed homoerotic overtones? What? The killers kiss, out of range of the focus of the camera. So? All it said to me was that they might have been getting out their homosexual urges via massacre. I don't buy it. It wasn't developed at all. It angers me further.

It's sad really. I'm thinking of working on a similar story just to justify this all.

Movie Review: Lost in La Macha

I have to tell you a wee secret.

One of my top ten all time movies is Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It was a stinkie piece of work, but I loved it. It had grandeur and a theme I could relate to. I became a vicious watcher of the director's work, Terry Gilliam (he's the only American involved with the ever quotable Monty Python comedy troupe from Britain), and his brand of imagery. I loved Time Bandits and really thought the 12 Monkeys had one of the key performances of Brad Pitt's career.

But each film suffered from a horrible plague if you ever read the trades. Mr. Gilliam tended to excess. My beloved Baron film was 10 million over budget before principal photography had even begun.

He was being despised by Hollywood, sadly, because of the business he was running, not by the quality of his work.

So when I read the story of Lost in LaMacha, I knew I had to pay it a visit.

Call it the summer of documentaries, my friends, because that is what this is becoming.

Yeap, another documentary. And worse?

Another good documentary.

Notice I say 'good,' not great. I think in this MTV generation of rapid editing personal camcorders and boomers' recent discovery of reality television, the documentary format is getting more and more structured and therefore, readable by a large audience.

So there's nothing new here, I'm afraid. Sure, it's great to see a film in true production. This beats the tram tour at Universal Studios anyday. The movie starts strong and shows all the work that goes into preproduction and how making a movie really is hard work. I say this because so many want to be involved with filmmaking without realizing the emotional commitment--this is technically when art and business collide--and the way the process can be very tortured.

In this picture, Terry decides to tackle the tale of Don Quixote. What's interesting is the obvious, but not mentioned, parallel between Quixote's dreaming of a world not there and the movie's director. But the fascination fades as the reality of a faulty production hits. Problem after problem unfolds, as if Murphy's Laws were unleashed by a wrathful God, and the movie tanks and isn't finished.

The problem is, when the ordeals mount and mount, it becomes a bit scary and we begin to feel like the filmmakers, drowning in an unforgiving sea. It's sad, really, because we like everyone involved (check out the giant he hires) but they suffer and no falling action is brough for us to bring us up from the hellish experience. I'm reminded of the dissatification I felt after watching Star Wars Parts One and Two. The pall could not be removed as I realized that the character of Anakin is going to end up evil. I don't want to see that. I don't think many people want to. So they hold back liking the movie.

Same here. So I only rank it as good. See it if you want to see the film process or are Terry fan. Yes, Johnny Depp is in it briefly and yes, he is still strangely profound for his few moments.

 

Movie Review: Stuck on You

I have to admit to I rarely go see comedies in the theatre. For me, they are the provence of stage work, where the laughter helps the performance and enhances the interactions. I've noticed over the years that I rarely attend movies that could be defined as 'comedy.' I'll go see if I'm with a group who insists or it's mixed with another genre, like a musical comedy, but rarely upon it's own.

Okay, yes, I'll go see Disney cartoons...those could be thought of as comedies, I suppose.

So I rent movies, like this one, Stuck on You, by the Farrelly Brothers.

I gotta give it to the Farrelly Brothers. They have an amazing ability to protray people with exceptional circumstances in a manner that is humanizing as it is humorous. I mean it. Really. I noticed it here and in There's Something About Mary. People with special needs are shown as they are, warts and all, but are surrounded by an entourage that truly is the scum of the Earth--making them seem all the more real. Mary's younger brother was obviously a man with a severely limited intellectual capacity, but he was the only normal one, it seemed, in the bunch in that he never was softed to the eyes of the audience.

Same goes for the tale of Walt and Bob (?) Tenor. They are conjoined twins of distinct personalities and woes. But the world around them seems to be the one with the real problems, through it's lack of acceptance or inability to understand.

Now don't get me wrong. There is severe juvenile humor placed throughout the movie and it gives it the R rating it deserves. If you saw There's Something About Mary, you know what kind of bathroom humor I'm talking about.

I give credit also to Matt Damon and Greg Kinnear. They work well as a team and come off as understanding each other. I really am impressed with Matt. He really has outdone himself in avoiding the pitfalls that have befallen his compatriot, Ben Affleck. Instead of trying to become a marquee name, he's done parts that have expanded his repetoire and his ability. Like this movie. It's not bombastic; it wasn't a hit. It was simple and sweet. Bravo for both.

Overall, a decent movie. No complaints.

Movie Review: Chuck and Buck

I love watching these art movies this summer! It's just one nice surprise after the next.

Damn. I spoke too soon.

Then, Chuck and Buck arrived in the queue.

I am still wondering why on Earth this movie is made. I kept thinking of that reason for pop art, Andy Warhol, who, in his own way, said that art is pretty much anything. A can of soup. A movie of a person sleeping all night.

I could only wish this movie had as much reason for existing. I've not a clue what I watched. I rented it on a recommendation from Entertainment Weekly's reviews. I tended to agree with them.

It's good to see I've developed my own mind apart from their critics. There is no amount of acting, writing, directing or spectacle that makes this movie worth watching. It's an interesting premise that might have looked good on paper but the finished product does not do a thing.

It's the tale of two childhood friends that briefly reconnect after years of growing apart. One has matured and grown up (Chuck, looking like a photocopy of Matt Gibson from Dharma and Greg) the other is still stuck in his formative years, those being the best days of his dismal life (Buck).  Buck begins to stalk his former friend even after several obvious communications that they are not to be in contact.

But here's the thing, people would have called the police at the amount of involvement Buck invests in his stalking. No one seems to do this, no matter how intelligent they are protrayed. I started to think that perhaps there was some kind of underlying reason, like they felt pity for Buck or something--which would be completely contrary to what's presented, for Buck is a throughly dislikable character. In fact, I hated all these people, I did not care if they lived or died and that's not a good thing.

Really, I'm almost angry at watching the movie, and I don't believe that was their intention. In fact, I doubt they had an intention at all. So why make it? Was it, like Warhol's can of soup, so we can watch art? Screw it, the soup can was more interesting in so many ways.

Not a good movie at all.

Movie Review: Taboo

Okay, I give up. I'm moving to Asia, I'm thinking.

Combine these last two movies (Fleeing By Night and this one, Taboo) and what my research suggests, I can think it might be  a better place for people of my persuasion.

This latest movie, Taboo, plays directly into that. It is a gbl film that isn't afraid of itself and doesn't reduce itself by having stereotypes or swishes for a less sophisticated audience. In it, a young, handsome man and excellent swordsman joins a local militia in support of the shogunate. He is incredibly beautiful in comparison to his more hardcore brethren in the army. He begins an affair with another soldier and soon the men begin to argue who shall have a date with him. The jealousy runs unabated and becomes a concern for the commanders.

Where the movie works is in that the homosexuality is treated as a part of life. Texts I have read (most notably Male Colours by Gary Leupp, Comrade Loves of the Samurai by Ihara Saikaku, and the Love of the Samurai by Tsuneo Watanbe and Jun'ichi Iwata) show, while not as prevalent as in Greek culture, homosexuality was accepted as a normal part of everyday life. It was even encouraged, (as it is slightly in this movie), for a man may wish to protect his lover moreso then an average compatriot. Even in the book and miniseries Shogun, when the main character becomes stranded in Japan, they offer him women and he refuses, so they offer him a man. He becomes furious and the Japanese look on confused.

It's as if the Japanese had never see homosexuality as a bad thing--not until they came in contact with the gaijin.

Asian movie making, aside from martial arts films, I've noticed have a completely different feel then European and American films. It seems, at least to me, that American films really emphasize plot; European films really emphasize character. For example, in a movie like Pulp Fiction or Citizen Kane, the movie toys with the storyline, bouncing about itself in flashbacks and sudden changes in direction. European movies take their time to let an individual grown before our eyes. Life is Beautiful has the narrator gradually understand the sacrifices his father is making, and truly, it becomes a beautiful, character driven work.

Then there are Asian films. I'm beginning to notice a sense of the ascetic. It's as if the image itself is what is important. The main protagonist in this movie, Kano, is always shot in profile to highlight his smoldering looks. The grounds are manicured. It's as if the wind blows on the director's command. There's an inherent beauty and a nice change from the heavy pacing and hurried attitudes we see here in America. This movie is no different.

Now, yes, I'm fully aware of my bias here. You've seen me mention my books above; you should already know my love for martial arts. So it really should be no surprise that I liked this movie. Is there martial arts? A little and it is used very well. Kano is shown as being an incredibly adept fighter. But when asked to fight his lover, his skill falters, and the commanders see. What a way to use fighting as part of a story. The fighting does, however, peter out by the end of the film.

I really do recommend this film, if it is something that remotely interests you. It was a sleeper/surprise and well constructed.

 

Meditation: Sleep

I still have problems sleeping. Here I am, enjoying my summer vacation and still, it takes me forever to unwind at night. I'm a night person, I know that. Look at me now. I'm here writing while my beloved is snoozing away. But even after I finish my nightly writing, I still lie there at night and worry.
 
About work. About what's going to happen with the next elections. What's going on with my friends. Sleep doesn't come quickly.
 
Even my meditation (not this daily writing, but the actual sitting down and letting go) has been interupted. My mind wanders and cannot focus this summer. Last summer? Not a problem. I sat everyday without incident. This year? Nada.
 
What am I so worried about? I feel fine, damn good, if you were to ask me. Been exercising everyday and finally doing some creative writing. I have time to cook and clean. Walk the dog. Even lost a few pounds.
 
I can honestly say I am well.
 
Then bed time comes. I lie there everynight and stare at the dark, hearing every noise and whatnot. Is such maliase the sign of something bigger going on? Am I attuned to something just beyond human existence? A listlessness that is all pervasive?
 
I will survive, of this I can be sure. I will eventually sleep. The benefit too, of summer is that I can sleep in, which I do. I even treat myself to naps when my chores are done for the day.
 
Poe once said, "sleep. Those little slices of death. How I loathe them."
 
Perhaps I'm merely suffering for my art, the problem with having a creative mind. Anyone else experience this?
 
So I keep writing. Maybe one day, I'll sleep well. I miss it too. There was a time when i would keep a sleep journal, complete with a dream annotation. Maybe I should try again. Just like Joseph in the Bible. I could interpret dreams.
 
*I know this is not a movie review, but there's something I've noticed these last few days. I write my movie review and then I'm geared up to write creatively. It's as if I warm-up to writing, so that's why I'm here and back to my Zen meditations and poetry book. Thanks for you time. I think I'm ready now. I'm not, after all, ready for bed.
 
 

Movie Review: Fleeing By Night

I have this good friend, someone I have every trust in the world with--except on one topic. We have wholly different tastes in movies. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We still go see movies on occasion together.
 
Besides, when did Siskel and Ebert agree?
 
But one thing was for sure, when those two agreed, it most have something pretty good, eh? Something worth buying a ticket for.
 
So when my colleague suggested this Chinese film, I was figuring it wouldn't be something I liked.
 
It started simply, a tale about an arranged marriage. A young cellist, living in America, comes back to China to meet his fiance. Through the meeting he sees a performance of an outstanding opera singer and becomes smitten. The fiance recognizes thi growing love between the two men and steps back. The actor, however, is in a liason with a wealthy patron. Rumors fly. The young man returns to America broken hearted and alone, but maintains contact with his once fiance.
 
The actor continues to feel for the young man and begins his own journey to be with him again.
 
My friend was right. I loved this movie.
 
What I loved was that it didn't fall into the American trap of having 1)yelling in a public place, 2)crying and hissy fits 3)all the gays swish, so the audience can find them in a crowd, 4)violence of any sort and 5)love born out of sheer beautiful people.
 
The young protagonist falls for the actor, because his performance is so full and rich-not because he's a blonde or running around all stunning-like. The girl doesn't storm out because her betrothed doesn't love her, but understands the force of their growing love. And the homosexuality isn't the issue, the availability of that love is.
 
Wow. That's nice to see and a rare treat, just like this movie. I really recommend it.
 
And there wasn't a single drag queen or self hating queen in the bunch. America has so much to catch up on.

I will tell you, however, I am going to listen very closely to what my friend recommends from here on out.

Movie Review: Dahmer

Ahhhhh, the beauty that is True Crime. Really, the province of yellow rags and celebrity gossip, I have to admit to this guilty pleasure. It all started with the book, The Stranger Beside Me by Ann Rule. Couldn't put it down. Proof that truth can really be more exciting than fiction.
 
And I was a fan.

I found I really did have an affinity for the serial killer. Not to say I wanted to act out their deeds or promote them to some kind of anti-establishment t-shirt. No, I used them for fuel, really, for my own creative writings. There's nothing like scaring the bejabbers out of yourself with such horrific prose, analyzing  it in your head for a few days and then spitting it back out as a tale.
 
It was such a path that lead me to the tale of Dahmer. Trust me, it wasn't like I hadn't already heard about the guy. I even had read two books about him. One, the piece by his father was actually very well written.
 
Dahmer's story is interesting in that he is a minority, not the mainstream profile for a serial killer. He had some traits common to the serial killer...other than the excessive body count...like hurting small animals and severe social isolation. But he was gay. I can only think of that happening three other times in the brief history of serials. Lee Wournos was a woman; Wayne Williams was black; John Wayne Gacy was also gay.
 
Secondly, as I had read more and more, Jeffrey was also surprisingly guilt ridden by the killings. Most killers boasted and wanted attention, but Jeffrey wanted to be caught. He looked as his spree like one would look at a disease, something to cure and rid.
 
Please, understand, I offer no sympathy for the devil. In fact, my readings have proven that these men and women are the reason for capital punishment. Humanity knows of no predators; perhaps this is nature's way of filling that vacuum.
 
Serial killers are a fascinating subject, pure and simple. The mind it takes to kill, repeatedly, with intelligence and cunning is the stuff suspense is made of.
 
And good movies. Most recently, Monster, with which the tale of Lee Wournos was elaborated on, contains, most probably, the most complete performance of a woman in modern history. The Oscar could not do justice to the acting in that motion picture. Charlize Theron brings the horrors this woman committed into perspective. She does create sympathy for this creature and a certain pathos.
 
The reason why I compare this movie to Monster, is because there is something going on I did not expect. I felt sympathy her, for Jeffrey Dahmer. I do not know if that was the intended result of the filmmakers, but it was certainly evident.
 
Now Dahmer is no Monster, as it were. The scope of the movie is wholly different. This movie comes off as one act play, with one major setting--Jeffery's apartment. But as the film unraveled, I went from expecting to be frightened to a remoted curiosity. There's an inherent fright factor in the stories of serial killers (see: Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs), rarely do you expect a dramatic interpretation of the suffering of a young man that motivates him to commit murder.
 
Yes, Jeffrey is the protagonist in this story. You don't want to like him, but here is something in his plight that we can, again remote, relate to. He comes off as so lonely (and a tight performance by Jeremy Renner, all the more human) that he kills to maintain a control over a totally un-extravagant life.
 
It's surprisingly deep and sickeningly rewarding. I felt dirty at my reactions to it, but I cannot deny it's impact.
 
Now, I have mentioned I knew of Jeffrey long before the movie, and there are many inaccuracies in what what happens within the plot of this movie. What people fail to realize is that filmmaking is a medium. That is, a way of perceiving the world. A book has thousands of pages as an option to explain something. A movie has a camera and two hours. I believe that the audience needs to appreciate the fact that sometimes items are discarded for dramatic effects. It's a sad sacrifice but sometimes necessary.
 
So if you are interested in what really happened, this isn't the movie to watch. If you want to see a riveting character development piece, then fine. I really found this to be a bit of a sleeper.

Movie Review: My Beautiful Laundrette

Wow. What can I say? For once, a queer movie where the gayness was not a detriment, not a foible. No one ends up dead because they are gay. No one is self-loathing because they like men. In fact, one character improves himself by his own acceptance. There are no drag queens or bars or men who swish into very shot.

And this was made in 1986? Back when Reagan was doing his best to deny that gay people existed? Impressive.

My Beautiful Laundrette is an interesting, rare piece of indie filmmaking. It's the starting point for Stephen Frears, who later create the great Dangerous Laisons and Daniel Day-Lewis prior to his Oscar turn in My Left Foot.

As for Day-Lewis, he's reduced to a secondary role, which is interesting. The dude is so intense with his energy, you watch him instead of the leads. You can see the future. And you can see it in every film since. Maybe it's because he's Irish. They aren't exactly known as a subtle people.

But the film does lack a certain guidance. It introduces it's credits in spin cycle, complete with bubbling noises, hinting it as a comedy, but it's far from it. It's very dramatic, but the depth is not moving, with no deep themes about changing worlds or changing minds. It's best defined as a character study. You have a character and watch what happens. It's not long enough that it becomes boring.

I actually recommend it for anyone into curio movies, but really, you aren't missing much.

And a Laundrette? I guess in the UK, that's what we would call a Laundromat. Those Brits. How they mangle English, no?

That's a joke, people.

Movie Review: Farenheit 9/11

Sheese. Talk about taking the wind out of your sails. I wanted to write some really scathing stuff here about this movie, but it's kinda hard to write scathing stuff about scathing stuff. This movie is very, very sharp.

And I liked it and not because I have issues with our president. I look at it from a movie point of view, this is powerful stuff and fluff. I added the fluff part, because, it seems (according to the Time magazine article I read) some of the information is incorrect.

But lets look the great speakers of the world. They aren't truly great on their message alone, but on the presentation of that message. Martin Luther King's importance was carried farther by his sheer force of personality on the pulpit.

But then again, so was Hitler's. The message was murder, but the presentation must have been mesmerizing.

Michael Moore is no MLK or Hitler. But his message is so different than other filmmakers out there today. I never realized that docs could have humor outside of the Osbornes or America's Funniest Home Videos. But there you have it, right up there on the screen. This filmmaker has an inherent sense of humor in his personlity, and it glows through his image of irony.

There is a message that Mr. Moore has had in the 3 movies I've seen. It's that there are two groups...the haves and the havenots. And I'm beginning to wonder if it's not becoming more and more obvious that something is brewing in his argument. As I watched this movie, I kept waiting for W to turn to the camera and merely state, "let them eat cake," as Marie Antionette did so long ago.

It's sadly apparent that our president is something of a putz. He's not accomplishing much these days outside of defending his decisions. That's not me talking, folks, that's just plain in front of us. But the movie goes one step further and making some very interesting links to some very bad people involved in 9/11. I'm hesistant to go all the way and say that he proves his case, but he makes a damning good argument. If half of what Mr. Moore brings up is true, then there are some legitmate concerns related to conflict of interests. It comes off as thousands have died and many more are dying that very specific individuals are getting quite rich. It is something to be upset about.

What I find amusing, however, is how quick the the right mobilized to downride some segments of the movie. However, they did not make comment on the whole piece. Just parts.

What does that mean, exactly? Does that mean that some of this is true?

Yikes.

If you want to know what I thought of the movie as a whole, yes, there is supreme entertainment value here. It does one of the two things I believe movies must do to achieve...either wow us or make us think.

Moore has a great presentation. He reads the Patriot ACt to congress from an ice cream truck driving around the capital building. Good show. Showing a woman who's son perished in the fighting in Iraq who is not comforted by her nation's leader's (or should I say 'leaders' because Bush comes off as a merely a puppet to his colleagues special interests) words. His voice eventually peters out and lets the images take the tale further. A smart move and again, good storytelling.

Out of Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11, Bowling is probably the best so far. The picture is much more complete in it's telling. I couldn't help thinking that this movie was a bit hastaly put together, with no real clear ending. It's like he had to get it out NOW because it's an election year. He might have had an even stronger argument if given more time.

SHould you see it? Yes, if you plan on living in this nation. One of our rights is the freedom of speech and this is the reason why. Of course, Bush, outside of this movie, has proven he doesn't really like the concept of freedom of speech (have you seen what he does to protesters at any of his rallys? You can't...they are moved as far from the press or arrested if possible..that's another movie, I'm guessing)--all the more reason to view.

Yes, it is bias, but what movie isn't? See, and either believe it or find the truth, but do give it a view. I'm curious what others will think.

peace.


And VOTE!!!!!

Movie Review: Cock & Bull Story

I saw your eyes light up on that title, didn't you. Mine did too. I mean, please, I used to exercise regularly with a boxing coach--so when I saw this title on a roster in the Advocate magazine, yeah, my eyebrows went up. A boxing and queer title.

My prayers had been answered. Now I didn't have to be a closet boxing fan anymore.

My mistake.

Lock the closet shut.

The movie hasn't arrive yet.

This movie sucks. I thought the last movie didn't have humor? This, I'm not sure how, has NEGATIVE humor. It's so busy trying to be dramatic, it actually sucks humor from you as you watch it. There is not a single smile, gaffuw or giggle in it's hour and a half.

The story is based on a play, and I have to say, you can tell which parts it was based on...it's the only point in the mess that makes sense for a moments. The rest, as the director/writer tries to fill in the backstory, is well, long and boring. Give us some credit! Let us put the pieces together! Please!

Why was this movie even in the queer cinema bin? It has two male characters who stand very, very close and call each other pejoratives a lot. Sounds like most straight couples, but this is two guys. Okay. And how is that gay?

Jacko, played by Brian Austin Green, is best buddies with Travis an up-and-coming boxer (don't they always seem to be that way? I mean, outside of Raging Bull, did anyone make a movie about someone trying to STAY a boxer?). Jacko is a loathsome facisimle of Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy. Even the same hairstyle. And Travis is so beautiful, he makes wearing the same color clothes for an entire movies something worth staring at. Why are they friends?

Because Travis says so. Repeatedly. It's never explained. Were they lovers? Secretly? It's never elaborated on. In fact, I began to hope Travis would crack the living shit out Jacko midway through the movie for the way he was being treated.

Or at least file for divorce.

But we don't know if they are together.

Ugh.

Brian Austin Green is really trying to get back into some kind of action, that much is evident, after his 90210 days. Heck, he even produced this puppy. It's too bad, because he kinda does stray from the pretty boy he portrayed on television. It's wasted, but it's there.

There is also something about the location. This really is the SouthSide of Chicago. You can smell the urine in the streets and the smoke is omnipresent. That part is good, but hardly a reason to watch this...the worse movie I've seen in some time.

Movie Review: Mambo Italiano

I'm confused, did I spell that right? That says something about how the movie is infused in my memory, doesn't it?

First, a bit of history...I was raised in an ethnic family. We were every bit of Italian, Jewish, Irish and Catholic, and totally New York. We all understood the jokes of Woody Allen; the Nanny was not as offensive to our little collective whole.

When My Big Fat Greek Wedding opened to mixed reviews, I gave it moderate interest. Everyone said it played on unfair stereotypes.

Then the phone calls started. Everyone would ask ME, explicitly, if I had seen it. Apparently, the movie sounded like what I had described at various water coolers. When my best friend, sans a review, merely stated, "I'm taking you to go see it," three days before my own impending nuptials, I had to figure that there was something going on.

I loved it. My partner and I giggled continously at the parallels in my life to the movie's. The mother's hairstyle. A gazillion people over for "a little dinnah." The differences in the two families. The guilt. The concepts of love.

The parallels between My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Mambo Italiano are very strong here, that's why I had to bring it up. The criticisms for that movie are the same that I had for this movie. The ethnicity is too strong for reality--in Mambo Italiano, the parents still have strong accents after living stateside for 40 years. The hair is still big; the foil wallpaper still finds itself in the stereotype. The fights are still over and around food. There is still matchmaking being played. It's almost as if you can't make a romantic comedy about the goyum and gentiles of the world. White people make dull love, I suppose.

I have to say, this movie is bad. It starts and stops. Beginning with strong editing that keeps a pretty predictable plot chiming along. But I also have to say, like my Big Fat Greek Wedding, I liked it. Yeah, I can relate. I've spent so much of my life escaping and running away from certain stereotypes, yet here I am, admitting to the comfort this movie gave me seeing them again.

Personally? I really think they could have added a bunch more humor. The jokes, somewhere around middle of the movie, die as the protagonist blurts out his angst. It's obvious the author was dealing with his own demons and this was the scene to smack them around. But having established a sweet smile so earnestly prior, the tone changes and the protagonist appears suddenly unlikeable and vicious. It's really too bad.

I also have to say, this, coupled with a recent conversation with my partner, I can't help thinking something autobiographic needs to be drawn up. It won't be as funny, but it might be a bit more real.

It's an idea.

Movie Review: Spiderman 2

What can I say? There's a great scene in Scream 2 where the characters get into a debate over when a sequel is better than it's original and how. I remember it well because my friends and I afterwards had the same conversation. Godfather 2. Toy Story 2. Addams Family Values.

And now Spiderman 2.

I've always had a problem with comic books being translated into movies. Being a professed comic book lover, I know the backstory of how the character was created. I know that Bruce Wayne's parents died. I know that Peter Parker got his powers from a spider bite.

But the poor, unenlightened public is clueless. Heck, they put Bush in office, and he doesn't have any power. So the filmmakers have to weed out the details and there goes the storyline. I have to suffer for everyone else's sake as they learn what I already knew.

Is that fair to me?

NO! Still, there is hope in the sequel and here it is.

THis movie doesn't have to worry about the backstory and what happened previously, really. Instead, the movie gets going to what's happening in the here and now of Spidey's world.

And it isn't very good. Every character has a storyline and is fleshed out on the screen. It reminded me alot like XMen in that manner. The film maker let's everyone have equal time, giving the film a feel that is not unlike a soap opera. We become emeshed in the tale and surely one or two characters come into our own view.

Here, the girlfriend, MaryJane is still pineing for Peter, but he never seems to be there, physically or emotionally for some reason. Peter is trying to fit the life of superhero onto his meager budget and it's not working. Harry Osborn is spiralling dangerously into nutcase territory with good reason...his father was murdered and his company is slowly going bankrupt. Even the villian has time to become three-D with his goal of a new power source. He creates fake arms with their own intelligence to help him with his work, but when the control microchip fails, he begins to lose control--and becomes obsessed with his own success. YOu even feel for the guy in the end and don't want Spidey to even hurt him.

Talk about your soap operas!

Good stuff. Probably the best movie I've seen in some time. I think it works not only because it stayed so close to the book it was based--you have Shakespearean actors combined with a horror movie prince (Sam Raimi directed the Evil Dead pictures. Great B movies with decent, gross scares) and you end up with something right down the middle.

Excellence.

I really really liked this movie.

But then again, I am a confessed comic book buff.

Movie Review: Shattered Glass

We all pretty much know that the Star Wars movies, these past two--are pretty much sucky, don't we? I mean, when did politics enter the storyline? What exactly is the purpose of JarJar outside of another cool toy tie-in?

It's because we have to put Lucas' kids through college and Willow flopped at the box office.

The only reason I bring it up is because of the star, Hayden Christensen. He is the star and backbone of this movie.

Hayden turned a sucky series of films into all the more suckiness. He whined alot. I have it on DVD if you want to see it. He looked good on camera, but I can't remember him doing anything more then whining thoughout the entire Attack of the Clones.

He made my head hurt.

I rented this movie because I'm a writer. I loved All the President's Men. Julia. The Front Page. His Gal Friday. It's a subgenre, and it's fun to have it at my beck-n-call. So when I read about his title in Time mag, I wanted to pay it a visit for some time.

And I will tell you, as Stephen Glass, the pseudo protagonist, Hayden had a lot to whine about. So here-it works well. The story is true, based on a youthful author for the New Republic. It seems he fabricates stories and no one has noticed. It wasn't too big a deal until he did a tale on hackers. And an internet magazine, Forbes.com, was furious at not hearing about the detials. So Forbes.com investigated and the ruse becomes exposed.

It leads to several scenes where Hayden can cry, cry and cry some more. I would have been upset, hadn't not actually worked with the story and the persona he has pretty much developed. I don't know what to think of the kid. He needs to do a wee bit more.

I know, I know, I always come down on the script, and the same here. I've not a clue why Mr. Glass fabricated these stories. It's never made clear if there's something Freudian lying underneath or the mere need to be paid attention to. I think the film would have carried more wait. As it is, the viewer becomes angry at Glass for his shengigans and doesn't really understand what happens in the end.

My wondering is who is "Tove Christensen?" The name is listed on the credits {I'm unsure if it's a male or female name...} as a producer. and I can't help thinking they got Hayden the job. Sorta like Bush escaping from Vietnam, only in reverse. Is this the source of Hayden's rise to fame? If so, I'm a bit concerned if we don't see him do something better soon.

All this picking on Hayden, and I'm sorry. I give the film high marks, however, for the rest of the cast. I saw Rosorio Dawson for the first time on Celebrity Poker this weekend on Bravo and thought she was nice, but didn't have much of an opinion about her. Then there was this movie. She had only, like, 10 lines, but still, she was not who I saw at the televised poker game, when acting might come in handy. Good stuff. Steve Zahn always rules and takes on great projects. It's also good to see him not doing horror or indie comedy. Leave it that to Jack Black.

Very good stuff on all levels. A decent read, I should think.

Just someone shut Hayden up.

Movie Review: Around the World in 80 Days

I already told you that I have a passion for martial arts movies. I've also already taken the time to explain that I have a thing for literature.

Now I'll mention that I've already seen this movie. Better. Elsewhere.

But that is not to say it's a bad movie, per se. Just that, well, I can't help thinking a person can do better elsewhere.

Surely, a parent could enjoy reading the actual Jules Verne novel and then go see it with their kids and then discuss the differences from both, but, well, you know parents these days. At least the ones I work with. That would take, I dunno, energy from whatever else they are doing.

You see, a crazy inventor (aren't they all like that?) gets a French assistant played by Jackie Chan.

There! Did you see it? You just predicted that there would be kung fu, didn't you?

Anywho, they make this wager that they can go around the world in 80 days. Since the setting is the turn of the century and that the technology isn't exactly up to snuff, there are trials and travials, oh, about every 15 minutes.

This being a Disney film, the action is techcally bloodless, the humor is bored/boredline camp and every plot twist is predictable. I mean, Phineas Fogg sees a painting that he really, really likes (since he's do scientific, he's not, you know, into art) and since the painter is a leggy blond--they MUST become an item.

But here is the strange thing, I found myself content at the end. In it's matter of fact tone, straight-laced pacing, and predictable outcomes, there's something comfortable about this movie. It's like a decent pair of wornout shoes or pizza from the same place again and again. So for all it's unoriginality, I can't really complain. Surely, if I had missed it, I would not have cried and probably would have picked up the DVD...for rental.