No Country for Old Men.

No Country for Old Men is a not an overhyped blockbuster movie. If you have seen the trailer, you probably thought it looked rather strange. You would be right, but in a wonderful way. (Audio review here.)

The movie is difficult to pigeonhole, but the story, set in 1980 in rural Texas, is fairly straightforward. Josh Brolin plays Llewelyn Moss, a rugged native who stumbles across a deserted murder scene where he discovers and absconds with a case full of money. From that point on, two men head up two very different methods of pursuit. Tommy Lee Jones is small town sheriff Ed Tom Bell (phenomenal name), who is trying to figure out what happened. Javier Bardem, whom you might recognize from The Sea Inside or a small role in Collateral, is a ferociously single-minded individual who has been hired by less than scrupulous people to track down the missing cash.

The movie is directed by the Coen Brothers, who have put together high quality offbeat films like O Brother Where Art Thou, Fargo, and Blood Simple. In those movies and many of their others, the brothers combine familiar movie elements into a single amalgam that defies being defined as a single genre. With No Country for Old Men, they have done the same thing, creating a movie that might be best described as a neo-western. Its deliberate pace, scenic framing, and South Texas location call to mind classic westerns. The tagline for the movie is that "There are no clean getaways," which implies that this is a heist movie. There are parts of that genre, and there are major components of a chase picture, all tweaked to fit the technologically crude era of 1980.

Now, that's the setup, but is this offbeat movie any good? The critics sure think so. Plenty of critics societies have already named this the best picture of 2007, including groups from from New York, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, D.C., and the National Board of Review. It's also probably the current favorite to win the Best Picture Oscar, for praiseworthy reasons that are easy to spot and completely justified.

The three lead performances have grabbed the headlines, and understandably so. Javier Bardem is absolutely terrifying in his atypical villainous role. There is no gimmicky mask or superpower, just pure evil. With merely a look or a stride, he exudes menace, more force of nature than mere bad guy. He is a bad dude, both fantastic and frightening. Because Bardem is so good, he overshadows Josh Brolin, who disappears into his self-confident Texas denizen, playing the chasee with a confidence that makes him an excellent anti-hero. Tommy Lee Jones is stellar as usual. He embodies a world-weary sheriff with one of the best combinations of drawl and lingo that you will ever hear. His drawl is accompanied by a script that is taken in large part directly from the book on which the film is based. The words are rife with a vernacular that could not be more perfect, eliciting grins from the viewer with both their humor and suitability. Even when you don't know what is said, you know precisely what it means. Of these three turns, Bardem has won many awards already, and will almost certainly be nominated for and win an Academy Award. Even though Brolin and Jones have not yet received many accolades, both are worthy of such honors; the problem being that that they are frequently eclipsed by Bardem's chilling portrayal.

Due to the magnetic acting of the leads and the character actors, who are great as they look and sound as though they have spent their entire lives baking in the dry heat near the Mexican border, the movie is extremely compelling despite a deliberate pace and almost no background music during its two-hour running length. Most chase-type movies are fast-paced and action-packed, leaving little time for suspense to grow; this is the opposite. There are no quick-cutting action scenes, but instead heart-pounding scenes that slowly ramp up the tension. Those intense parts are complemented by quieter scenes of conversation or investigation that maintain a foreboding dramatic undertone of upcoming conflict. While the film loses some of its building momentum late in the story, and the denouement does not quite match the brilliance of the preceding hundred minutes, the closing moments remain appropriate for a movie that doesn't offer any easy questions or answers.

All in all, this is a movie that is definitely worthy of the countless honors that it is receiving from critics across the country. Assuming the writer's strike doesn't waylay the Oscars, I suspect that this will be the frontrunner for Best Picture, and I'd bet a good chunk of money that Bardem will snag a Best Supporting Actor trophy. His performance and the film on the whole stand out from the year's crowd and are worth seeing, not for the popcorn movie crowd, but for fans of good, well-crafted cinema and story-telling.

Bottom Line: One of the best of the year. 8 of 10.

Disclaimer: This movie is rated R, for pervasive blood and brutal violence, and to a lesser extent, language. DO NOT take kids to this movie. Some adults won't want to see it either.

You are not alone.

I Am Legend debuted last weekend with a monstrous $77 million weekend, but is an atypical Will Smith blockbuster, largely bereft of the slam-bang action and/or comedy common to his big movies like Men in Black or Enemy of the State. (Audio review here.)

As learned from the tagline and excellent first trailer, the premise is simple: Smith is Dr. Robert Neville, the last man left in a desolate New York City, but he is not alone. Someone or something lingers, a mystery that drives the first hour, which is absolutely fantastic. With the exception of a few flashbacks that gradually answer the hows and whys generated by the plot progression, Smith interacts with no one except Sam, his loyal German Shepherd.

In this regard, I Am Legend is a cousin to the amazing Cast Away. While their respective tones are drastically different, both are set on islands void of humanity. Instead of a volleyball, Smith anthropormorphizes a dog. Hanks wrestled with inner demons on his deserted island, Smith confronts outer demons of some sort. The difference in supplies is noteworthy, and the two main characters are driven by widely disparate motivations, but the isolated survival instinct is similar, and watching Smith stretch himself as an actor is extremely enjoyable. Smith's character still possesses elements of the cocky, wise-cracking nature that moviegoers know well, but with merely a glance or a twitch, his confident veneer often cracks to reveal the effects of his time spent alone. Seeing that uncharacteristic vulnerability is initially disorienting, because we're not used to seeing a hero crack like this, but the awkwardness soon yields to awe at the powerhouse solo performance.

Aside from Smith's turn, the highlights of the movie are the breathtaking shots of a desolate New York City. We've seen the empty streets of a booming metropolis before, in movies like Vanilla Sky and 28 Days Later, but this is different. Not only is everything deserted, but also overgrown and eroded by nature and time. The minimal music and slow-moving cameras allow for an eerie and appropriate quiet within the movie, creating a game of I Spy in which one's eyes dart about, searching for familiar landmarks like Jumbotrons or Broadway signs.

The only downside to all this quality is that it doesn't last throughout the entire movie. Without giving too much away, I can say that following a key plot development, the third and final act transforms into a more familiar, action-type of movie, leading to a finale that satisfies, but doesn't quite match the preceding hour-plus. This dissonance is very reminiscent of 2004's Collateral, which similarly enthralled throughout before wimping out at the end, like a color scheme that matches at first glance but clashes upon closer inspection.

If you know what you are in for, you will enjoy the movie more thoroughly. I Am Legend is much more Cast Away than Independence Day, more Signs than Bad Boys. In his best performance yet, Will Smith proves that he has the acting chops to match his pretty face and ripped physique, deepening his own cinematic legend as he frequently carries this movie to great heights.

Bottom Line: Two-thirds of a great movie plus one-third of an average movie equals a good movie. 7 of 10.

Bee Movie and Batman.

As is evident from the trailer, Bee Movie is essentially what might happen if the public persona of Jerry Seinfeld were placed into the three-part body of a bee. Main character Barry B. Benson is Seinfeld, complete with wry comments, high-pitched excitement, and a slight disdain for authority. Unsurprisingly, the plot is a tad strained, but does provide a framework stable enough to sustain the various inevitable punchlines. The movie tastes sweetest when using Seinfeld's jabbing humor to poke fun at either the industrious efficiency of the hive or the oddities of humans. In this regard, Seinfeld shines as usual, leaving the engaged viewer smiling consistently, chuckling frequently, and roaring occasionally.

Determining whether or not you will like Bee Movie is a simple process. If you like Seinfeld's blend of comedy, you'll enjoy it. If you don't care for his observational humor, steer clear. It's really that simple.

Bottom Line: 6 of 10, plus one because I like Seinfeld.

Since the review was truncated, here are two fantastic new Dark Knight movie posters

I particularly love these two as a pair, with the contrast of menace and protection, frozen in what could conceivably be the same moment. Next year, this movie, Indiana Jones 4 (more on that soon), and Prince Caspian are all scheduled within a month. WOW!

Do you have any hope at all in humanity?

I haven't read any of Stephen King's books or stories, but I have learned two things from his movies. He possesses phenomenal insight into the human mind, and he is a freak. The Mist proves both points fully with a simple story: a mist engulfs a small New England town, and a few dozen of its denizens are isolated in a grocery store, forced to deal with enemies both outside and inside the store, both strange and familiar.

The best and brilliant parts of The Mist are the explorations into the psyche of the various trapped townsfolk. If someone's character is truly exposed when under pressure, then the extreme circumstances of this movie strip souls down to their essences, with frightening results. There are heroes and villains, leaders and followers, stalwarts and cowards. In previous uses of King's source material, writer/director Frank Darabont burrowed into the heart of hope in The Shawshank Redemption and delved into faith and the supernatural with The Green Mile. Both movies placed normal people into extreme circumstances, and did so exceptionally well. In that general thematic regard, Mist is similar to those two excellent films. More specifically though, it varies greatly, stressing the negative aspects of humanity rather than positive traits. Along the way, plenty of complex issues arise, and they are most frequently addressed with a rough, dull blade that gashes boldly through the moral fiber of civilization. The results are rarely pretty, but always compelling.

Lest you think this is a philosophical art house movie, let it be known that as a horror flick, independent of any deeper meaning, Mist consistently entertains, with a handful of superb knuckle-whitening scenes enhanced by an excellent cast. But a dark decision in the final act makes it impossible for even the most casual moviegoer to completely ignore the thick subtext of King and Darabont.

What prevents The Mist from being a great movie is the frayed nature of that subtext. While the story is rife with interesting points, the commentary fails to coagulate into a comprehensible bigger picture. In a sense though, the fractured themes better befit such a moody picture, one that strikes its audience at many levels, leaving the mind spinning in a mist of its own.

Bottom Line: 7 of 10 for a movie far smarter and deeper than the glut of recent horror releases.

A darker movie and a Dark Knight.

1) Prince Caspian trailer. May 16th, 2008. I'm stoked.

2) The Dark Knight. July 18th, 2008. I'm stoked.

Gone Baby Gone.

As I am federally mandated to point out, Gone Baby Gone is the directorial debut of Ben Affleck, a fact that is impossible to overlook while watching the movie. Sometimes I wish I could watch a movie while completely ignorant of its director, but that's another post. Anyway, Affleck clearly cares about this crime drama, both in content and location, and his loving fingerprints mark the film with a unique raw edge.

For a multitude of reasons, Gone Baby Gone can succicntly be described as a light version of Mystic River, which was likewise based on a Dennis Lehane novel. The subject matter is equally heavy and thick, also exploring family dynamics through a painful crime involving a child. Both movies are set in Boston, and the one thing that Gone does better, largely due to Affleck's devotion to his hometown, is capture the seedy bizarreness of the local culture. Beyond that, Gone trails River in every aspect, not to an extent that makes Gone a poor film, but merely a decent one that does not remotely reach the great heights Clint Eastwood achieved four years ago.

First, the story itself is weaker and more transparent, due in slight part to a bit of foreshadowing. The moral waters here are equally murky, but shallower once fully explored. Secondly, the cast is weaker; that's not so much a swipe at a solid troupe includes the always good Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris, but rather reminds how loaded River was with proven, veteran talent (Penn, Robbins, Bacon, Fishbourne, Linney, Harden). The younger faces here, like Casey Affleck, Michelle Monaghan, and (especially) Amy Ryan, acquit themselves well, but they do not possess the gravitas that can make such a film so much better. They are simply in a different league, the NFC versus River's superior AFC. Similarly, Affleck's movie sports an effective rough look and a less effective uneven flow, as opposed to the smooth and polished texture of Eastwood fluid masterpiece. For a first film though, Affleck's end product is impressive and worth watching for fans of the genre.

Bottom Line: Always decent, sometimes quite good, but it's nowhere near Mystic River. 7 out of 10.

The Kingdom.

I'm not going to get a full review written for The Kingdom, so these condensed thoughts will have to suffice. (Insert joke about time, marriage, etc.)

As the season has shifted from summer to fall, so too shifts the tone of cinema, from a noisy, adrenaline-infused summer to a dramatic, Oscar-contending autumn. Bridging that gap skillfully is a contemporary action-drama set in the divergent cultures of Washington, D.C. and Saudi Arabia, the latter of which is known by natives as The Kingdom. A team of FBI agents are thrust into this foreign world when something goes horribly wrong, and the movie tells that story with a facility that nearly minimizes the film's quality.

What Kingdom does extremely well is create a realistic world with well-rounded characters. The movie reveals strengths and flaws of the good guys and the bad guys, whether they're American or Arabian. It also offers a (to my knowledge) solid representation of the Arab world and presents their point of view in a fair and reasonable manner. Aided by docu-style cameras and a sandy color palette, Kingdom adds multiple moments of white-knuckle tension, with and without action, that rival anything put on screen in recent years. The lead actors are all solid and likable, and threads of humor and casual music run through the film, preventing it from becoming overbearing as it promotes pensiveness. This is one of the best action-dramas of this decade.

Bottom Line: Assuredly among the year's best films. 8 of 10.

Whoa...

Sort of looks like Anakin. I hope he's less petulant.

I remember everything.

One of better movie series of the last decades possibly concludes with the release of The Bourne Ultimatum, the third movie that follows super-secret spy/assassin Jason Bourne as he attempts to track down his past against the wishes of the United States government that trained him. The original, The Bourne Identity, was one of the best pure action movie in recent years. The sequel, 2004's Bourne Supremacy, was unsure and not quite as polished, but still solid. Now comes the series third installment, which just about wraps up the summer movie season.

The storyline follows a natural progression from the previous two movies. Now that Bourne has figured out who he is now and atoned somewhat for his sins, he wants to know who he was. In order to do that, he must race the government to various people who know the secrets behind his black-ops work.

Few cinematic characters are as perfect for action movies as Jason Bourne, from both an action and narrative standpoint. As he learns his past, he takes the audience along for the ride. But that process is not tedious backstory or mediocre character development, as is often the case in such movies. Instead, his quest is the story, which makes for a rapid-fire flick that simultaneously entertains and enlightens. Matt Damon's determined yet understated demeanor is ideal for the role, and the no-frills approach never distracts from a driving story that is filled with plenty of high-tech action.

In a lesser movie, the technological implausibilities might weaken the movie or distract from the storyline. But Ultimatum dodged that bullet in two ways. First, the story moves quickly enough that the viewer barely has time to think about what might or might not work before the flick is on to the next frenetic sequence. Secondly, the movie does not use the technology as a dominant point of the movie, like Enemy of the State. Instead the devices are merely a means to an end.

Also overshadowing the technology is another strong supporting cast. The always-good Joan Allen returns this time, joined by Scott Glenn and David Straithairn, from Good Night and Good Luck. Strathairn and Allen are compelling in every scene, particularly when they are together. Their exchanges crackle without flying over the top, and their restrained focus is as intense as any shouting match. They add a layer of gravity to the goings-on that separates Ultimatum from other summer action like Live Free or Die Hard.

Other differences between this and Die Hard lie in the technical aspects of the film. Director Paul Greengrass also helmed Supremacy, and he and his crew remedied one of the main problems of the second movie, which was the overly shaky camera work. Most of the shots are still handheld, but they are more static than before and pulled back a little in the fights. The music is surprisingly good too. As Bourne trots through Europe and Africa, the music travels along, mixing in pulsing strings, African drums, and even going completely silent when appropriate.

Ultimatum often echoes Identity, which is a good thing. Both possess a similar driving intensity interspersed with quiet moments that allow humanity to leak through. This one lacks the originality of Identity, but replaces it with the satisfying resolution that Bourne is seeking. On the whole, as the summer movie season wraps up, this is the best action film of the last few months. It's better than Die Hard, although it doesn't provide as much fun. It's a better film; Die Hard is a better movie, if that makes sense.

Bottom Line: Better than the second; not quite as good as the original, but still a bang-up way to end the summer movie season. A slightly generous 8 of 10.

Oh, I'm detecting nuttiness alright.

Ratatouille is the latest computer-animated release from Pixar, the company that has produced the best animated films over the last decade. The odd title is the name of vegetable stew and doubles as a pun on the main character, a rat named Remy. (Audio review here.)

Remy is no ordinary rat though. He resides in France amidst a colony that lives as rats do, thriving on the garbage and remnants of others, Remy is the exception because he has a finely-honed sense of smell and loves cooking. Through a series of fortunate events, Remy finds himself in Paris at a fine restaurant, where he learns how to interact with a kitchen boy named Linguini to create magnificent meals. Things of course get complicated, as Remy attempts to balance his passion with his family, and Linguini must handle being a celebrity through no talent of his own, while dealing with a sinister restaurant critic.

Like all of Pixar’s work, Ratatouille looks phenomenal. The rats in particular look good, with fine detail paid to fur in various states. The humans are not the most hyper-realistic creations seen on screen, but neither are they intended to be. This is a cartoon, and the artists seem to know that, because most of the characters border on caricature. The slimy French chef is ridiculously short and sports a pencil-line mustache. The critic has long and angular features that scream evil. Even though the movie is made with the most modern of technology, it is a throwback to the classic days of Disney and Looney Tunes, when merely a glance at a character would explain everything about a character. The bad guys look bad; the good guys are goofy but likable, and the gray characters share attributes of both, leaving the viewer guessing for a while.

One thing that separates Ratatouille from most of its Pixar brethren is the pervasive kinetic energy. Plenty of other movies, like Cars and The Incredibles, were drenched with action and movement, but it feels different here because the scope of the movie is centered on a rat. When you watch Remy race through a kitchen or up a building from close-up, it feels much wilder and more dangerous than watching a human make the same thirty-foot trek, which is appropriate since it is more hazardous for a rat to make that trip.

The question about all Pixar movies is twofold: how well does it play with kids, and how well does it play with adults? I suspect that Ratatouille may not be as accessible to kids as most of the rest of the Pixar library, because many of the characters are rats. Rodents are not as marketable or over-the-top memorable as a giant furry blue monster or an innocent little clown fish. Nor is the story quite as simple as some others. But the pace is brisk enough, and the story is understandable enough, thanks in large part to the brilliant animation, that kids should still enjoy the movie. Adults should enjoy it too, with the fine images, clever humor, and various twists and turns of the story. On the whole, Ratatouille is not as memorable as Finding Nemo or either Toy Story, but it is good enough to be tucked right behind them with Monster's Inc.

Bottom Line: 7 of 10 for the best family film of the summer. What the heck, call it 8 of 10.

We're in this together.

After a summer of movies filled with second, third, and fourth sequels, the most anticipated follow-up is finally here, and it is a fifth installment. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the story of Year Five at Hogwarts for lead characters Harry, Hermione, and Ron, although a large portion of the movie occurs outside the grounds of the teens' school. More than a children's book, this episode builds upon strong themes of fear and friendship to create a solid piece of cinema. (Audio review.)

(Note: I have read only the first five books.)

Order of the Phoenix (OOTP) tracks the ongoing saga of the interactions between the dark Lord Voldemort and Harry Potter, who is aided by the titular order, a sort of wizard Joint Chiefs of Staff. Many in the wizarding community doubt Harry's story that Voldemort has returned, and the Ministry of Magic has it in for Dumbledore, all of which means that Harry feels more alone than ever, despite the presence of people and places he loves. As always with a movie adapted from popular literature, two questions must be answered. 1) Was it a good movie, and 2) Was it a good adaptation of the book? Pleasantly, the response to both questions is yes, though each affirmative requires unique qualification.

Having read the book, judging the movie strictly on its own merits is very difficult, because gaps on screen are filled in subconsciously by knowledge of the book. But this movie seems to succeed apart from those pages. Relatively unknown director David Yates keeps the story Harry-centric, giving it a brisk pace and making the main arc easy to follow, although a few other truncated storylines and characters will be enjoyed more by those who know them fully. Expanded motifs of Harry's anger and loneliness are expressed clearly but not heavy-handedly, through both pictures and the words of multiple characters. As was the case with the previous two installments, viewing this movie without first reading the book may result in confusion or at least a lesser understanding of everything, but having seen the first four movies will be plenty to let one comprehend this episode to an enjoyable extent.

The latter question is more complicated. Many people will complain about plot elements that vary from the book. Those objections are true but invalid. Maybe a beloved character was axed, tweaked, or minimized. Perhaps a treasured moment was omitted or included in a disappointingly disparate manner. Make no mistake about it; many things were altered. But when an 870-page tome is being condensed into a two hour and eighteen minute movie, cuts must be made. Much like time constraints demanded that The Lord of the Rings focus largely on Frodo at the expense of favorites like Tom Bombadil, this story must focus on Harry Potter. There are reasons that he is the title character. So no one gets to see Firenze teach or Ron and Hermione fight or anything about Quidditch or prefects. Looking objectively at the modifications though, the primary story arc does advance satisfactorily without those missing parts. Perhaps the galloping pace could have slowed to a canter, as the movie was indeed a rarity that could easily have been twenty minutes longer. But the purpose should then have been to expand upon the elements already in place rather than to add missing ones.

The more important goal is that the movie be faithful to the spirit of the book, and on that level, OOTP hits its mark. Prisoner of Azkaban displayed the world of wizards better than any other Potter movie because of two key inclusions: the little ways magic was used in the background and the fantastic scene-setting shots. Yates nearly recaptures Alfonso Cuaron's brilliance, approaching it with elements like kittens wandering around in pictures and spectacular zooms over Hogwarts. Of equal importance, he also executes small moments even better than the source material, wonderfully depicting simple enjoyments like laughter and friendship are a stark contrast to the lurking complex evil of You Know Who. These small interactions imbue the movie with a soul that adds substance and humanity to an adventurous and magical universe.

OOTP suffers slightly from middle-film-in-a-series syndrome, but in a good way. Much like The Two Towers or The Matrix Reloaded, one gets the feeling that it picks up and ends mid-story, with only a necessary modicum of resolution, as though setting the stage for something grand. That promise of something huge just ahead actually enhances the power of the movie. It leaves one desperately awaiting the next chapter more so than any other Potter movie. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the next in the series, screams to be (re-)read before the seventh and final book is released next Saturday.

Ultimately, viewers who have not read the book should be able to follow along easily, and the movie should quench the appetites of fans with reasonable expectations. The gist of the book is explored in numerous ways, resulting in an experience that will leave one with a few thrills and chills, and a smile on one's face.

Bottom Line: A concise return to the spirit of the book, capturing the world with a proper dose of cinematic license. 7 of 10 for the second best movie in the series.

Edit: Oh yeah, like most all of the adult cast, Imelda Staunton rocks as Dolores Umbridge, worthy of hate mere seconds after appearing on screen.

Edit #2: Here's an interesting interview with Michael Goldenberg, the screenwriter who adapted the book.

Yippee-ki-yay...

If you're worn out by the relentless parade of movie heroes sporting tights or transforming into robots, good news currently awaits you at the theater: Live Free or Die Hard, a physical, action-packed antidote to comic book movies, which is the fourth chapter in the cinematic adventures of Detective John McClane. Having already survived Germans at Nakatomi Plaza, revolutionaries at Dulles Airport, and more Germans in New York City, McClane (Bruce Willis) is once again in the wrong place at the right time, as his simple task morphs into yet another odds-defying assignment. (Audio review here.)

Willis brings back his familiar character with a pitch-perfect blend of world-weariness and cocksure attitude. While he's saving the country, McClane has an innate ability to blend comedy with capability, willingly hurling unsavory nicknames and spewing determined anger rather than blandly yet skillfully executing his mission. Live Free separates itself from traditional action/adventure movies by organically working the humor into the fabric of the movie, rather than lazily relying on comic relief characters or contrived situations. Justin Long, perhaps most recognizable as the Mac guy in Apple's television ads, plays off Willis well as he is sucked into the chaotic events, with a defensive sarcasm and semi-rebellious side that effectively embody his role as a twenty-something computer hacker.

The comedy isn't the selling point of the Live Free though. The trailer promised huge effects, and the movie delivers in a BIG way. Oversized vehicles ranging from semi trucks to fighter jets are involved in adrenaline-pumping confrontations, and of equal importance, they bob and weave in relatively sensible ways. As opposed to the incomprehensible massive chaos of Transformers, there is an elegance to the action here. It's still over-the-top, but in an linear, choreographed manner that is easily followed and relished. Even though many of the stunts undoubtedly use CGI, the old-school physicality provides a sharp and enjoyable contrast to the digital attack the enemy is unleashing on the United States, as well as the cartoon-ish nature of many comic book movies.

Live Free has its share of improbability, as characters survive dangerous falls and endure endless physical abuse, and the technology sometimes seems all too easy. But in a movie like this, such conveniences are accepted if not expected as part of the genre. This isn't a serious Oscar contender with grand themes or undertones; it's summertainment, a popcorn movie designed as a diverting escape. In that regard it succeeds wildly, inducing winces, yells, and cheers from the audience.

One interesting note is that this rendition of Die Hard is rated ''only" PG-13, no doubt in an attempt to lure the lucrative teenage demographic. Some will be outraged by this apparent neutering of a franchise that was largely defined through the the R-rating earned by the pervasive vulgarities of the first three installments. Even the signature line (Yippee-ki-yay...) is obscured by sound effects. On one hand it's disappointing that Hollywood acquiesced to the almighty dollar. On the other hand the absence of a constant barrage of language is scarcely missed, as McClane's aggressive attitude is still intact, accompanied by plenty of derogatory terms that are not quite as profane. Maybe he mellowed with age.

Bottom Line: The best action movie so far this year. A rock solid 7 of 10.

Less than meets the eye.

I have low expectations for summer movies. I realize that they are often mindless entertainment with minimal plot and multiple explosions. That's fine. There is a place for such flicks, and I watch them without much hope of something grand. Remember that as I say this with no exaggeration: Transformers is the worst summer blockbuster I have ever seen. Let me take you through the anatomy of this horrible movie. (Audio review here.)

From the stiff opening voiceover that details the backstory, you sense trouble. Thirty minutes in, you're still waiting for the movie to gain traction, even though a big action sequence already happened. As the action wanes, the awkward dialogue blares through. You realize this isn't Shakespeare, but George Lucas could have improved this script. Simple words in the midst of action are one thing, but as the focus of several too-long scenes, the lame dialogue is painfully amplified. When you're not sure if the humans are delivering their lines better than the robots, that's a bad sign.

But you know more transformers are coming, so you wiggle your feet impatiently while anxiously awaiting their arrival. Finally the rest of the good guys show up. "Wow, those are sweet looking robots!" you think. You begin to settle in for a rip-roaring second half, until you realize there's not much else to them. It's like finally getting a date with that hot girl you've been crushing on, then realizing how unbelievably vapid she is before the main course is even served.

By then of course you're stuck for the remainder of the evening. You deal with the ill-fated attempts at creating drama. Every ten minutes, you wonder what the heck is happening or question the movie's logic, which is awful even for the genre. You laugh several times, though the causes are largely unintentional. Is that John Tuturro wildly out of place? Does Tad Hamilton actually have a leadership position in the military? You hope desperately that the show might end with something redeeming like an epic battle. Here come all the bad guys (out of nowhere), this could be good...but no. The final clash is big and loud, but also confusing and by that juncture, pointless. Emotional attachment isn't necessary in a popcorn movie, but there needs to be at least a minute level of curiosity. You don't care if they kill the humans or kill the robots or kill all of them. Whatever.

You sit through the credits, unsure of whether or not you want to be rewarded with a bonus scene. Yep, there's one. Yoikes, that was bad. At least it was short. Wait, there's one more, a final reminder of how miserably the movie failed, like the last rock that always crushed Wile E. Coyote.

The worst part is that Transformers has potential, as the trailer proves. Vehicles turn into giant robots! How is that not cool?!? But the flick scarcely if ever delivers on that promise. The visuals are representative of the whole movie. Well done, occasionally impressive, but too often fights or transformations are seen either from a distance too great or too close, depriving the audience of the true scope of the shot, and of any interest in the movie.

Perhaps a knowledge of the source material, with which I am only passingly familiar, would make the movie more palatable, but I doubt it. Director Michael Bay, whose projects have steadily declined since 1996's The Rock, has reached a new low.

Bottom Line: Please don't encourage a sequel by seeing this movie. 2 of 10.

Fantastic Four

Five movies into the summer of the sequel, the first release that is not a third installment is finally here. The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer is merely the second in a series, following 2005’s original that introduced moviegoers to Mr. Fantastic (Ioan Gruffold), The Invisible Woman (Jessica Alba), her brother The Human Torch (Chris Evans), and The Thing (Michael Chiklis). (Audio review here.)

The story in this follow-up is basic superhero stuff, picking up not too long after the last one ended. Mr. Fantastic is getting ready to wed The Invisible Woman, then bad things happen, and The Fantastic Four are called upon to remedy the problem, which involves the Silver Surfer destroying the planet and Dr. Von Doom doing whatever it is he does.

From there the heroes do their hero thing, which is accompanied by just enough side story to form slightly rounded characters and plot. Like its predecessor and the comic books on which they both are based, Silver Surfer is a different breed of superhero movie, one that varies in tone and content from recent renditions of more popular heroes like Batman, Superman, and Spider-man. With its multiple lead characters, Silver Surfer occasionally reminds of the X-Men flicks, but does not match the gravity present in those movies or other recent hits featuring the aforementioned main characters. Those are serious, more intense movies that can create wonderful cinematic experiences that feel more “real”. Not that any of these kinds of movies are truly real, but both of the Fantastic Four movies have a more cartoon-ish feel that distances them from reality.

This is both a blessing and a curse. On the downside, Silver Surfer does not have the emotional attachment that other superhero pictures have or at least desire, which limits the scope of the movie’s power. A surprising side effect is the everyday levity that is provided. If you and your buddies had bizarre superpowers, wouldn’t you frequently be making fun of each other’s gifts and using your own for not entirely kosher reasons? Movies with solo protagonists are rarely able to capture such interactions, but with its tight-knit lead characters, Surfer can and does, with degrees of success that vary like most attempts at humor, from clever and hilarious to flat and unfunny. Nothing is brilliant or profound, everything just creates a casual surface relationship between movie and viewer.

The minimal depth also allows for a streamlined hour and a half movie that has cursory side stories, unexplainable technology, and vague villainous motives, all of which is completely fine, if not preferable. Just as popcorn should not be loaded with substantive fruits and vegetables, popcorn movies like this one should not be loaded down with messages and complications that don’t enhance the story.

The shallow story and characters possessing only one or two dimensions means that the movie never has much chance of succeeding on multiple levels, so if you expect a serious action movie, you will be disappointed with Rise of Silver Surfer, as you likely were with the original. If you expect mindless superhero entertainment and a near carbon copy of the first installment, then you will leave the theater content with what you saw.

Bottom Line: There is a place for movies like this: DVD rental. 5 of 10.

Analog players in a digital world.

The latest movie in this summer of the sequel is a departure from the first three heavyweights of Spider-man 3, Shrek the Third, and Pirates 3. Aimed more at adults than adolescents, Ocean’s Thirteen is the clean-up hitter this summer. In baseball, a clean-up hitter usually has power. Ocean’s Thirteen has star power, perhaps more than any other release this summer, and the movie wields its weapons well. (Audio review here.)

While Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones are not back for this installment, all the men of Ocean’s Eleven and Ocean’s Twelve do reprise their roles. George Clooney and Brad Pitt head up the gang of thieves, aided by Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, and the rest of the crew that moviegoers have come to know over the last six years. The biggest addition to the cast is a name bigger than all of them, and his character is the catalyst for the caper that drives the entire film. The man is Al Pacino, playing a flashy casino owner who incurs the gang’s wrath by betraying Elliott Gould’s Reuben Tishkoff, setting the stage for the rest of the revenge movie.

The first film was a modern classic that thrived on the energy of Las Vegas and the cool confidence of Clooney and Pitt. Twelve lost much of those factors by bouncing around Europe and putting the band of thieves on the run. Thirteen returns to the franchise’s successful roots, taking place predominantly in the colorful world of Sin City and also placing the heroes in control most of the time.

In restoring those two key elements, Ocean’s Thirteen recaptures the spirit of the original. The dialogue isn’t as crisp or smart, but it’s close, and elements of the past glory are present. Things like con-man lingo and everyone bilingually communicating with The Amazing Yen provide well-done unexplained humor. Writers Brian Koppelman and David Levien (who penned quality guy flicks like Rounders and Knockaround Guys) do overuse the borrowed elements, as though they decided to repeat the good parts of the original’s script as often as possible, and the resulting jokes wear a bit thin over the course of the movie.

Returning to Vegas is a wise choice that simplifies the plot. Though staples of heist movies, like double-crosses and sleight of hand, are present, the story is largely straight forward. You know what the guys are going to do; you’re just watching to see how the crew overcomes the various inevitable obstacles. This makes it slightly less entertaining, but also makes for a very comfortable viewing experience, despite the required suspension of disbelief. The cinematography of Steven Soderbergh (under the pseudonym Peter Andrews) helps too; the pictures and transitions are not to the impressive level of Eleven, but they have their moments, as do the quirky uses of titles and graphics.

As is the case in many sequels, the cast slides effortlessly back into their roles. Clooney and Pitt are smooth; Damon is trying to prove himself; Bernie Mac is a fast-talker, etc. As the new guy, Pacino effectively joins the fray with a surprisingly underplayed part. He’s not the big, bold, brash near-caricature that he has morphed into through movies like Scent of a Woman and The Devil’s Advocate. He still looks the over-the-top part with his deep tan and vibrant suits, but he is more kniving than bombastic, which is a very appropriate choice for the movie.

Ocean’s Thirteen is the cinematic version of a lazy river ride at a water park. You hop in your inner tube and cruise around the lengthy pool, admiring the view, chatting with friends, and generally enjoying the laid-back experience. Unlike many of this summer’s blockbusters, it does not bombard you with loud effects or action scenes. It won’t shock and awe you by pulling wool over your eyes with a mind-blowing twist. Instead, gentle turns and reveals are sprinkled throughout, providing an enjoyable two hours spent with familiar and entertaining characters.

Bottom Line: A good summer diversion that returns to the roots of the series. Not as good as the first, but better than the second. 7 of 10.

The Trailer Park.

First some news. I've started writing a movie blog for the Topeka Capital-Journal's website. It should contain roughly the same content that I've been putting up here for a couple years, but with more consistency. I hope for a review a week, plus another post or two. For my first non-review thoughtsI made the first of what should be a series of posts entitled The Trailer Park, a collection of movie trailers. If anyone has trailer suggestions or ideas for posts, feel free to let me know. Unfortunately I don' think there is an RSS feed specifically for me, just for all the CJOnline blogs. I will likely cross-post that stuff here, but I would appreciate a click-through to bump my my hit count. You can even comment if you like, although you will need to register with the site to do so. Just behave.

Now, the first installment of The Trailer Park...

I love movie trailers. They're the cinematic equivalent of baseball's spring training. Just as most every team (except Kansas City) thinks they have a chance to make a playoff run, most trailers promise at least a diverting two hours in the theater, and many offer harbingers of greatness.

On a semi-regular basis, I plan to comment on the underrated art of trailers and share the best (or worst) trailers that I can find. Some will be for soon-to-be-released movies; some will be farther down the road; some will be blasts from the past.

As a side note, the term "trailer" originated back when movie previews used to be shown after feature films. The name stuck even after the previews were moved for obvious reasons. People would simply walk out after the main attraction was over.

Roll film...

Ocean's Thirteen--This week sees the summer's fourth straight big release that is the third in a series (no, the 1960 version doesn't count, because it was impressively boring). Judging strictly from the trailer, it looks like those involved may have recaptured the irreverent humor that made 2001’s Ocean's Eleven so good, rather than imitate the mailed-in Ocean's Twelve. We can only hope.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer—Earlier this week, a new trailer was released, revealing mildly intriguing new subplots. News also leaked that the movie will be rated PG, which is a little surprising since that rating will sometimes alienate older adolescents who think it too tame. The original Fantastic Four was just okay, worthy of a DVD rental. The pieces seem to be there to make this franchise huge, but something doesn’t quite click about the humor and superhero relationships.

Bee Movie--Jerry Seinfeld stars as the lead voice in this animated movie that appears to be aimed primarily at adults. If you like Seinfeld's brand of humor, you'll like the second teaser trailer, which is the better of the two. I'm not convinced that his shtick will play as well over a full-length picture, but I’ll definitely give it a shot in November.

Across the Universe--This is the best (or at least trippiest) trailer of the year. It’s helmed by Julie Taymor, who directed Titus and Frida, but is better known for directing and designing costumes for the Broadway production of The Lion King. This movie looks like a Vietnam Era love story synced with a Beatles soundtrack, which promises to be a great if offbeat theatrical experience. A September 28th release date is set.

Saving Private Ryan--In honor of Wednesday's 63rd anniversary of D-Day (which was ridiculously underplayed in the media), here is a glimpse at the war movie that changed war movies. When I saw this at age eighteen, this film struck me to the core more than any film had before or has since, as I tried to fathom storming Normandy before I could drink. Saving Private Ryan was completely deserving of the Oscar for Best Picture...that inexplicably went to Shakespeare in Love in perhaps the worst decision the Academy has ever made. Yes, I'm still bitter.

Close your eyes and pretend it's all a bad dream.

Batting third in the summer of the sequel lineup is Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End. Shot simultaneously with last year’s Dead Man’s Chest, this one picks up where that one left off. Which is to say…I have no idea. (Audio review here.)

Okay, that’s not entirely true. When last we saw Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow, he was being swallowed by the giant sea monster Kraken, which means that he's now surrounded by himself in a strange sort of purgatory located, that's right, at world's end.

The story initially involves getting Jack back from Davy Jones' locker, which is necessary in order to save pirates from extinction, because (if you remember from the second one) the British Navy is holding Jones’ heart hostage, and thus forcing him (he's the octopus-faced undead pirate) to exterminate the remaining pirates. If you were able to follow all that, good, because that's the most comprehensible portion of the plot. It's the trunk, from which plot lines and motives sprout like Hydra heads from every possible location, layering on additional story arcs that only complicate things. Hammering out all the whys and hows would take far more time and effort than such a movie is worth. Too often, the details of what's happening are fuzzy or uncertain, which is most frustrating because the plot is actually relatively simple.

Fortunately, that barely matters, because the point of the movie is to create moments and imagery that awe and enchant. On this level, Pirates 3 succeeds wildly. There are battles with visual effects so stunning that they are scarcely noticed. There's a great scene accompanied by wailing electric guitars that calls to mind the classic westerns of Eastwood and Wayne. The dramatic score is again filled with hard-driving strings and horns that rile adrenaline and make for an over-the-top movie experience. Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom are still beautiful people. There's a great cameo by a legendary rocker, and Depp still owns the idiosyncratic Captain Jack in every way possible. Just look at that poster! Is that not the epitome of cinematic coolness?

All these similarities to the first two are good, but also part of the problem. Some sequels (Shrek the Third) get ripped because they are too different from their predecessors. Others get downgraded because they are too similar, which is the category that Pirates 3 falls into. Many of the parts are good, but essentially it's is just more of the same, with an emphasis on the MORE. There is too much here in the almost three hour movie. Continuing the tree trunk analogy, the movie is an out-of-control tree that needs to be pruned back. Clip off those stray branches. Trim the bunny trails and betrayals. Shape the tree into a more presentable and palatable two hours plus.

Bottom Line: Pirates 3 had its moments, and wasn't a bad experience overall, but the exhausting length constantly throws needless curves and double-crosses into the relentless fray. As my dad said at the end, "I hope they stop." 4 of 10.

Where is Shrek?

The first Shrek came out of nowhere, an offbeat fractured fairy tale with a story suitable for kids and jokes aimed at adults. Shrek 2 contained more of the same, particularly the latter, with an emphasis on MORE. The story was cruder, with images and humor that I wouldn't want my kids to see, and overbearingly bloated with gags, as the writers stuffed aural and visual pop culture references in like Mark Mangino at a buffet. Watching the sequel felt like being bludgeoned with a comic hammer that screamed Look what we can do! That progression leads to Shrek the Third, batting second in the summer of the sequel, featuring an underwhelming trailer that threatened to continue the slide of the series. (Audio review here.)

Not unexpectedly, this is the worst of the three, but the reasons for its limited appeal are surprising. The creators heeded the complaints about Shrek 2 containing too many psuedo-clever jokes, which is good. Specific allusions like Mission: Impossible or Lord of the Rings have been largely replaced by general parodies of events like high school life and Broadway musicals. This alteration in humor is welcome but too severe, stripping the franchise of its definitive irreverent nature, which is bad. Shrek 3 swings the comedy pendulum from the in-your-face extreme of the second past the moderation of the first to a unpleasantly safe converse. It frequently feels more like a less saccharine Disney movie than a Shrek movie, complete with a schmaltzy moral at the end.

That's not to say that the movie isn't funny. The writing occasionally crackles; excellent comic timing is pervasive; and the sundry offbeat appearances of noteworthy characters like Captain Hook and Snow White are still entertaining. But on the whole everything feels restrained, like a kid who was reprimanded for doing something wrong and is now afraid to do much of anything. As much as I didn't like all of the prequels' base humor, this one needs more of it. The less flamboyant nature of the movie also diminishes its appeal to children, as does the metamorphosis of Shrek himself from rambunctious troublemaker to calmer father figure, a transformation that makes him more accessible to adults than kids.

In the end, the movie ends up feeling much like the main character. Just as Shrek himself feels that the confinements of the crown prevent him from being himself, the movie feels muzzled, neutered by knee-jerk reactions to the second movie. It isn't gratingly bad, but neither is it actively good. Shrek the Third (good title, by the way) merely idles its way through a rightfully short eighty-seven minutes.

Bottom Line: Third verse, different from the first (and second). Not quite the same, and notably worse. 5 of 10.

Courtesy of the New York Times, here is a meandering but good and interesting collection of thoughts on summer blockbusters, which are generally panned by critics. I don't think I'm as nearly as pretentious as many highbrow critcs, but then again, my Top Ten of last year only contained one or two big releases: M:I-3 in the ten spot and maybe Lady in the Water at number six. I'd like to think I reside in the cinematic mean between art and pop, capable of enjoying both.

There is definitely a place for what I call summertainment. I'm excited that the summer movie season has begun. I don't mind spending a couple hours watching cinematic eye candy like Spider-Man 3. But I have reasonable expectations; I don't anticipate being taken to new heights by any of the sequels in the next few months, but I would like to see good filmmaking. It's like going to a sporting event. I don't always expect phenomenal accomplishments, but I do expect to be diverted for a while, and I want to see teams and individuals play well. For me, good filmmaking or athleticism are part of being entertained. Just because my rating isn't high doesn't mean I didn't enjoy my time. Keep in mind though that like the author mentions, spectacle at its finest is buttressed by substance, as exemplified by films like The Matrix and Batman Begins. Movies like that are too few and far between. That is a shame.

A couple other movie notes: Shrek 3 will be my next movie. Apparently the running length is only 87 minutes. That will almost certainly be its strong point. Conversely, Pirates 3 is nearly twice as long, TWO HOURS AND FORTY-SEVEN MINUTES! Looks like a classic situation of the-trailer-is-better-than-the-movie. That may need to be one of my miscellaneous awards next year. I just need a namesake.

This could be the end of Spider-Man.

Buckle your seat belts. It's time for the summer movie season. Let's get this out of the way first: this is the summer of the sequel. Of the ten most hyped movies in the next four months, eight of them are sequels, and seven of those are at least the third in the series. Sequels are a tricky business, because there are often massive built-in expectations and points of reference. They can't be too similar to the prequels without risking boredom, but if they stray too far from the tone of the original, they risk alienating their audiences. Like last year's summer season, this year kicks off with the third movie in a blockbuster series. In 2006, the first out of the gate was Mission: Impossible 3; in 2007, it is Spider-Man 3. (Audio review here.)

When we last left Spidey three years ago, he had rid the world of Doctor Octopus, and had his identity revealed to his two closest friends, his girlfriend Mary Jane and his buddy/enemy Harry Osborn, whose father was the Green Goblin in the original picture. SM3 picks up not long after, in a New York City where Spider-Man has gone glam, with his name and image plastered all over the media. Peter Parker relishes his newfound fame, so much that it begins to impede his relationship with Mary Jane. As that hits the rocks, he finds himself vulnerable at an inopportune time, which leads to the chaos that forms the crux of the movie.

One strong point of the movie is that is has the same principal cast as first two and also possesses a continuous story arc. Both features (think about it) are actually rarities among superhero trilogies. That definitely helps in the continuity department, because the characters, locations, and relationships are familiar. On the downside, the similarities amplify the fact that little of the movie is original. We've seen Spidey swoop and soar through city canyons, and we've seen him fight nasty villians. With the exception of an early chase scene, nothing is particularly different, either in style or content. That's disappointing, as a Spider-Man movie begs to be exhilarating. Say what you will about the vastly different styles of the three Mission: Impossibles, but each of them had a unique feel that individually defined each movie and made like events more interesting.

While the lack of novelty is disappointing, the most significant attempt at being unique provides the most unusual portion of the movie. As Parker/Spidey undergoes a transformation in the middle act, the movie takes a bizarre turn into romantic comedy. The idea is commendable; too few movies take too few chances. But this one doesn't work. For twenty minutes you understand what is happening, but still can't quite believe it. It would be like if Golden State had gone into a stall offense when they were up 20 against Dallas last night. Sure, it makes sense given the circumstances, but it still feels completely wrong and out of place.

The bigger problem is the end consequence of the emotional speed bump. It's something very rare in superhero movies: Peter Parker is not likeable. Granted, that is part of the point, but when one starts disliking the title character, one loses interest in the movie, and that is huge strike against this kind of flick.

Like the later Batman installments, SM3 also has too many characters and stories for one movie. Instead of completely marginalizing the hero like Batman & Robin did, SM3 races through the stories of the antagonists. Two of the three could easily have filled the requisite two-plus hours in finer fashion. Then the villains' stories could have been fleshed out better to create the rare well-rounded superhero movie. Not only that, but Peter Parker's issues could have been expanded as well, in a manner more like its predecessors. One of the taglines for the movie is The Battle Within, and that promising fight unfortunately is not fully addressed, though in a pleasant surprise, numerous positive themes of responsibility and choice are.

Having said all that, I must provide the disclaimer that Spider-Man just doesn't do it for me. Batman does; Superman does; but Spider-Man doesn't. Maybe it has to do with Tobey Maguire's relatively diminutive stature, that I don't believe he could be a butt-kicking hero. Maybe the face-covering mask dehumanizes Spider-Man for me. Whatever.

People won't care that much; Spider-Man 3 will still make a webful of money. If you like the other two Spider-Man movies, you'll enjoy this one, which isn't painful to watch. There are plenty of characters and eventually plenty of action. But Spider-Man 3 matches its predecessors ways it shouldn't and doesn't match them in ways it should.

Bottom Line: 6 of 10 for the first big release of the summer and perhaps the final Spider-Man movie. Not bad, but nothing special.

Vote for Summer.

With the film industry apparently on the same schedule as Pepperdine, the summer movie season begins tomorrow, four days into May. But after the cinematic desert of the last two months, this oasis is more than welcome.

Here is my take on the big releases of the summer, ordered by how eager I am to see them. Links are to the trailer whenever possible...

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix--If I could pick one movie to see this summer, this would be it. And I haven't even read the book yet, so NO SPOILERS PLEASE! Just the trailer is enough to get me juiced though. I'm psyched for my Two Weeks o' Potter. (July 13th)

Live Free or Die Hard--Nudged out mostly because this at this point I don't know what will happen in Harry 5. Bruce Willis will undoubtedly be good in the role he invented, and the trailer looks sweet. It probably won't be great, but it will be great fun. (June 27th)

Ocean's Thirteen--The trailer makes it look as though the cast has gotten back to the irreverent nature that made the original so much fun. Good. (June 8th)

The Bourne Ultimatum--Jason Bourne seems like a nice guy; he's just misunderstood. Now he gets his revenge. Or something. Should be a good ride. (August 3rd)

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End--No, the second one wasn't that good, treading water for three hours. But the third one promises to go places in a big way and provide big summertainment en route. Plus Keira Knightley actually looks like a woman. I'm excited. (May 25th)

Spider-Man 3--I've said it a billion times. Unlike Batman or Superman, Spider-Man doesn't do much for me. Just check out my review of #2. But with two or three or four quality villains and strong interpersonal conflict, this one oozes potential. And I'm going to the midnight showing in four hours. Woo. (May 4th)

Ratatouille--I haven't bothered to learn much about this one yet, but it's the latest from Pixar, so I'm sure it will be good. (June 29th)

Transformers--It's like Independence Day, except with giant robots instead of aliens and Shia LeBeouf instead of Will Smith. Those are both negative substitutions, but this still seems like a classic Fourth of July movie in which the planet unites against mechanical forces of evil. (July 6th)

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer--I'm not exactly sure why, but this appeals to me. Maybe it's the slight twist of the villain being in the title. I didn't even see the original in theaters, and this one really seems more like a classic see-on-DVD release. But I'm intrigued. (June 15th)

Evan Almighty--Steve Carell first caught the eyes of movie-goers in Bruce Almighty, and now his plastic-faced character gets the sequel treatment as the man God (Morgan Freeman) commissions to build an ark for all the pairs of animals. I like the concept, but I'm not convinced it will be very good. (June 22nd)

Rush Hour 3--I wasn't wild about either prequel, although both were passable. Releasing a third movie six years after the second one, when neither star is on the rise, seems like a bad idea. (August 10th)

The Simpsons Movie--This one shouldn't actually be that bad, but I'm not a big fan of The Simpsons, so I probably won't bother to see it. But if you're a fan, go for it. (July 27th)

Shrek the Third--I think the best thing about this will be its unique title. The trailer was cringe-worthy, painfully packed with pop culture references and bad jokes. This one promises to officially put the franchise in neutral, if not reverse. I'm not paying money for it. (May 18th)

If I missed anything, feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, enjoy the summer.

The Dime Bag, volume VIII.

I haven't done one of these since last August, so I figured I'd better clean it out before the summer season starts next week. I hope to get a bit of a preview up before then, but who knows. So here are some brief comments about some of the movies I saw during my Oscar rush, plus one new figure skating parody...

Blades of Glory--Eight words: Will Ferrell, Jon Heder, men's pairs figure skating. Any additional description is superfluous. It is consistently funny, but isn't often as incisive as it could be. Like most movies of this ilk, this one is half an hour too long, with a few unnecessary scenes and a few that last too long. The flick only makes about five jokes, though it does them well and in about every manner possible. If you like Ferrell's others, you'll like this one. (5)

Cars--Though just as clever as it's Pixar predecessors, this one didn't quite have the charm. Still good entertainment, but it didn't have the universality of Finding Nemo or The Incredibles. Maybe Pixar's saccharine tendencies have worn a bit thin. (7)

Hollywoodland--This story about the rise and fall of George Reeves, TV's Superman in the 1950s, started well, but floundered as it resolved. Diane Lane was excellent as usual, and Ben Affleck was actually decent. Too bad the script mailed in the latter half. (5)

Babel--Another multi-layered drama in the vein of Traffic or Crash, but not as good as either. One story arc that didn't mesh at all, and the rest were only mildy interesting. Well-made, but not particularly likeable. (6)

Once in a Lifetime--A great documentary about the New York Cosmos, a 1970s soccer team comprised of international superstars. The archival highlights alone make it worth watching for soccer fans. The rise and fall of the team's fortunes are very engrossing as well. (8)

The Devil Wears Prada--A fairly predictable but enjoyable flick about a young woman (Anne Hathaway) who somewhat accidentally finds herself as the assistant of the wicked witch of the fashion world (Meryl Streep). It's really worth watching just to see Streep gleefully vamp her way through the movie. That and the great clothes of course. Or something. Let's just move on. (7)

Pan's Labyrinth--A great fairy tale set during one of the countless Spanish Revolutions. The contrast is gripping, and the debate of reality versus imagination is pleasantly unsolveable. #8 for 2006. (8)

Letters from Iwo Jima--Like I said in my Top Ten, it's a little tough to connect with this Japanese perspective on the WWII battle for Iwo Jima. But it's still Clint Eastwood at his finest. The film looks phenomenal and is surprisingly powerful. #5 of 2006. (8)

The Illusionist--This magician tale starring Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti might have been better had it not been overshadowed by that other magician movie, The Prestige. Illusionist isn't bad, but the production values aren't nearly as good, nor is it nearly as gripping as Prestige. But you could do far worse if you want something to rent.

Tsunami: The Aftermath--This is a two-part HBO movie that relies heavily on raw emotion as it relates the stories of a father (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and a journalist (Tim Roth) in the...uh...aftermath of the tsunami that crushed Thailand two and a half years ago. The emotion is palpable and is enough to make this a very good television special. But there's a reason it was "only" a TV movie and not a big screen feature. It just doesn't have that extra power to deserve such treatment, but it's still solid. (7)

One Shining Moment.

The Final Four starts tomorrow, and if you've been anywhere near any sports media, you know that it promises to be a great one. All four teams are very good, and each matchup has plenty of juicy storylines. I'm taking Florida to shut down UCLA again, Georgetown to overpower Ohio State inside, and the Gators to simply be more complete than the Hoyas in the final. It should be a great weekend, topped off by one of the year's great sports days on Monday, when the Royals open the season at home against Boston, followed by the national title game that evening. Good times.

But the real reason for this post is to share one of the greatest blog posts you will ever see. Someone deserves a medal for this. Here are the last ten renditions of One Shining Moment, CBS's annual musical montage that recaps the NCAA tournament. It's overwrought; it's cheesy; it's melodramatic. I love it. The college basketball season is not officially over until the song has played. I feel very strongly about this. I will never, EVER watch How I Met Your Mother because of its cheap promo that parodied this esteemed song. Doogie Howser should be dragged around in the street. Maybe he'll move to Wyoming.

But I digress. Enjoy One Shining Moment, one of the highlights of my sports year.

This is madness!

Sorry, this isn't a 300 review. I've been a little distracted lately by basketball and...uh...stuff, so I haven't gotten to a theater since the Oscars.

My bracket is basically screwed, although I do have three of my Final Four (KU, Georgetown, Florida) left as of this post, along with my national champion (Gators). But my key upsets (Texas, Notre Dame) didn't work out, nor did my "dark horse" Final Four pick (A&M). I also chose the wrong year to take all four 10-seeds and three of the 12s, since none of either seed won. The only decent surprises I predicted were VCU in the first round and Vandy into the Sweet Sixteen. Therefore I'm done in all my pools.

The tournament so far has been solid, even though I did miss much of the best action last weekend for a wedding. But here's the best finish to any game that will happen this year. It's the Division II national championship game. Defending titleist Winona State (in white) has a 57-game winning streak on the line. They led Barton by seven with 45 seconds left; the video picks up with the Warriors at the line, up five, with 35 seconds left. And...play!





Unbelievable.

...with honors!

Here are my miscellaneous movie awards for 2006. Enjoy...

Unbreakable award (best trailer): The Prestige. Not even close. The trailer breathlessly presents the three acts of a magician's trick, which conveniently parallel the film itself. It leaves the viewer with a sense of awe and excitement without divulging much of the intricate story. If only more preview editors could do the same.

Best Movie Moment: United 93, when the titular flight departs the runway. Despite knowing what had to happen, I found myself hoping against hope that somehow the plane might not get off the ground. When it did, my heart was ripped from my chest as a combination of pride and sorrow delivered chills through my body.

Kangaroo Jack award (worst trailer): Let's Go to Prison. Can we put the makers of this "movie" in jail? Here's how the pitch must have gone…

Dumb Writer: Okay, let's get that guy who hasn't done anything good since Punk'd, throw him in prison, and make it like a bad camp with every overdone jail joke possible.

Dumb Producer: Great idea. And let's put a bar of soap on the poster…just in case the audience doesn't pick up on the dozen gay jokes we put in the thirty-second trailer.

Unbelievably Dumb Executive: Sounds great! Let's do it!!

Baseball award (best documentary): Once in a Lifetime. I thought about placing this in my top ten, but lumping documentaries in with traditional feature films is too complicated for me. This one tells the story of the New York Cosmos (1970s soccer team), wonderfully capturing the era with an olio of period music and graphics. The fantastic, sometimes grainy soccer footage is often impeccably edited in rhythm with the music or narration, creating a sense of humor that seems appropriate given the ridiculous extravagances in which the team indulged. Any soccer fan needs to see this.

M. Night Shyamalan award (most underrated movie): Lady in the Water. Obviously. On Premiere's annual Critic's Choice list, this was dead last out of one hundred movies rated. Dead last. Rarely have critics completely whiffed on a movie this badly. Two words: BEDTIME STORY! Stupid people.

Ocean's Eleven award (best overall look): Children of Men. Seconds into the movie, the entire mood of the bleak futuristic world is entirely evident, and it never wavers throughout. Throw in pitch-perfect world-weary roles from a solid cast, and this film is the epitome of how cinema can create new environments for their audiences.

King Kong award (best theater experience): Casino Royale, with a couple dozen guys, was good, particularly the chair scene. Little Miss Sunshine was quality, with gales of laughter and even tears. But the start-to-finish winner is easily Snakes on a Plane. The serpents bite just about every human body part, and are killed in equally diverse ways. That induced countless cringes and screams from the people I was with, topped by Doug's "That was not necessary!!" Good times.

Yogi Berra award (movie that triggered déjà vu all over again): Glory Road. A few decades back, a coach takes over a struggling team and controversially integrates it. As they overcome persecution and their own differences, the team manages to learn a ton about the game and themselves, propelling them on a Cinderella run through their sport's biggest tournament. Remember the Titans? Nope. It's Glory Road, which was also a Bruckheimer production. I can't wait until he reworks the baseball version about Jackie Robinson so that Brooklyn wins the World Series in his rookie season.

Showgirls award (worst movie): The Last Kiss. I didn't see any completely horrid movies at a theater this year. So I'll give this award to a movie with a completely horrid foundational premise, that marriage is a transient and meaningless thing. Morons.

Deep Blue Sea award (wholly enjoyable movie that wasn't that good): Superman Returns. Almost all of this movie's quality was derived from imitating the original two movies, and the primary original storyline was a little sketchy. I wholly enjoyed it, but not entirely for its own merits.

Catch Me if You Can award (best opening credits): Casino Royale. Typical Bond opening credits, with girls dancing and guys shooting, except these were two-dimensional scenes composed largely of the four playing card suits. Good stuff, and a great stage setter for an enjoyable escape of a movie.

Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban award (best closing credits): The Fountain. Nothing too fancy here, but instead of merely scrolling through the names, these credits faded them in and out on different parts of the screen. Accompanied by appropriately ethereal music, the credits matched the tone of the film perfectly.

Snake Eyes award (movie that took a dive in the last act): The Departed. Yes, Scorsese put together an excellent film…for two hours. But the final twenty minutes are very unsatisfying. My bitterness has waned since I originally saw the film, as the close does seem more appropriate. But it is still unsatisfying, prevented the movie from being an all-time classic.

Batman & Robin award (most disappointing sequel): Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. I have a hard time believing that there were actually parts cut from this movie to include as deleted scenes on the DVD. Underworld: Evolution was pretty bad too, but it had less to live up to and was significantly shorter.

Shakespeare in (expletive deleted) Love award (movie most overrated by critics): The Queen. This was the #1 movie of the year according to Premiere's annual panel of critics. The two lead performances by Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen were worthy of such acclaim, but the film had very little technical merit. Absent the two leads, it would be nothing more than a decent TV movie, far from an Oscar contender.

Thanks for reading. As usual, I leave you with a few movies I'm anticipating most in the upcoming year. I find it interesting and sad that most of them are sequels of the third degree or more (and I didn't even list the third Spider-man/Shrek/Pirates/Bourne), but I suppose the best original films often lack the buzz until their releases are nearer. For what it's worth, 2006 was filled with a similar number of unoriginal ideas, but only one made my top ten.

Ocean's 13. June 8th. Judging from the trailer and set reports, the cast and crew seem to have recaptured the irreverent spirit of the original without getting lazy or gimmicky like the second one.

Live Free or Die Hard. June 29th. A current front-runner for best trailer and movie of 2007. Yippee-kay-yay, !#$%^*@###^&.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. July 13th. That's right, it's a Friday. The possibility of reading three Potter books and seeing this movie over the course of a few weeks is fairly invigorating.

Across the Universe. September 28th. The always innovative Julie Taymor directs this 1960s love story. The sweet trailer makes it look like a sort of musical set to Beatles music, which promises to be a trippy experience.


Be there. Aloha.

I hate Billy Packer.

As I've said before, March is the best sports month of the year. There is only one glaring problem with it: the annual resurfacing of Billy Packer. Since he primarily does ACC games during the regular season, I rarely have the misfortune of listening to him until tourney time or a big game late in the year, like yesterday's Duke-Carolina contest. As you can see on the video below, with scant seconds left in the game, Gerald Henderson of Duke (he's the black guy) hammered UNC's star player, Tyler Hansbrough, on a putback attempt. For the five minutes that it took to sort things out, Packer adamanty insisted that Henderson was going after the ball...WHICH WASN'T EVEN ON THE SCREEN WHEN HE SWUNG! Obviously I just gave away my stance on the incident, but I'm willing to listen to someone reasonably try to explain otherwise. Conversely, Packer won't shut up about how Henderson was clearly trying to block the shot, intimidating his too-polite partner Jim Nantz into an awkward silence that screams disagreement, or at least evenhanded-ness. The lesson, as always, is that Billy Packer is an idiot.

As for the foul itself, admittedly, Hansbrough probably shouldn't have been a 12-point game with fifteen seconds left, but that doesn't mean that Duke gets to crush his face. At the very least, Henderson's play was sloppy and irresponsible. Realistically, I think his cheap shot is as dirty a play as one can make in a basketball game, and is more than worthy of any suspension he might get. (I can't believe I'm defending Carolina.)