Pasafist

If you were looking for a clean movie, Steve Taylor's film Blue Like Jazz is anything but. Make no mistake, there's no alter call, no stunning realization, there's no exhortation, or trumpets blaring, there's no rapture, or angels and even the manger is empty. If you were expecting a piece of "Christian" art you won't get it here.

Based on Donald Miller's bestselling memoir/essays of the same name it tells the story of Don Miller, a born and bread Christian kid from Texas who finds himself at Reed College in Oregon. There he shed's his clean cut ways and discovers that we all have to rebel sometimes.

Like an Evangelical Rumspringa Blue Like Jazz is full of objectionable PG-13 content that might make a church lady faint. Swearing, drinking, sexuality and drug use are all accounted for in this film and director Taylor uses it not to offend but disarm. This is a story about the search in everyones life for authentic faith in a secular world. Make no mistake the content in this film is not clean, but it's also not gratuitous. For this film to really work you have to believe that these college aged kids are real. To whitewash it is to destroy the very message trying to be conveyed. This is a film about the meeting of the sacred and the secular, and that never feels clean.

The screenplay tends to lose focus and a good amount of suspense is wasted because you can see a lot of Character motivations from a mile a way. One or two more passes at the screenplay may have fixed some of the meandering plot points, but overall there are moments of sweet serendipity, moments that are honest and real, unfortunately it makes the weaker, and sloppier points of characterization and plot stick out like a sore thumb.

For instance there is a love story buried in this tale and lead actors Marshall Allman and Claire Holt have a sweet and natural chemistry, but the screenplay has a secret it sits on and forces Holt's Character Penny into the background, and shift focus to a character that is funny, but not as compelling. Another pass on the screenplay may have brought this relationship to a higher place.

All in all though for the not easily offended Blue Like Jazz is gutsy, sweet, and pretty funny. Warts and all it presents a fairly realistic and quirky look into the nature of belief, finding truth, and gaining purpose when the world around us looks plastic and manufactured. I liked this movie, warts and all.

It's a film about faith, it's a film about life, and it's a film about how we all have to wake up one morning and decide if what we believe is true. It should spark some really nice dinner conversation, about the nature of faith, and the nature of God. It's about the melding of the sacred and spiritual, but more importantly it's about coming to the realization that we're all dirty, broken, and have rebelled, and yet God doesn't give up on us.

Now where do I get that Coltrane album.

It's not fair. It's shocking, and If you have a Netflix account it is essential that you sit down and spend an hour and half watching the documentary DEAR ZACHERY: A LETTER TO A SON ABOUT HIS FATHER. I mention Netflix because it is part of their watch instantly section and I can say without a shadow of a doubt: you need to see this film.

Directed by Kurt Kuenne, it's a story about him on a quest to make a movie for Zachery Turner whose father, David Bagby, was brutally murdered by his Mother. When the Canadian courts let her go on bail it turns into a story of his Grandparents fighting to stay in Zachary's life. These Grandparents never give up. But mostly the story is about the people we leave behind and the legacy that we leave in their hearts. If you think your life is useless, if you think you haven't made an impact on the people around you, then think again. This movie pulls you in at the beginning and doesn't let go.

To tell you anymore about this story is to ruin the emotional impact of a film that will leave you in tears, and thanking God for the people around you. In 90 minutes I laughed, cried, was made numb, angry, philosophical and by the end I rejoiced in the beauty of the human spirit. I saw through some very dark turns that love can conquer all. But more importantly I learned the giving up is never an option and that it's our duty to help those in need.

The film begins with some cheesy computer graphic logo, and the moniker MSNBC Films presents and maybe that's what caught me off guard. I almost turned it off right then and there. But by the time it's over the cheesy little touches made the film feel like it was made by real people and not slick Hollywood documentary film makers. It feels like one of those photo montages at a funeral, or a wedding. It a small snapshot into the lives of of people ravished by tragedy and it ends on a bittersweet note that for once shows the power of real life.

DEAR ZACHERY is one of the most powerful and moving documentaries I've ever seen. It's an emotional film that will leave you angry and yet hopeful. It tells a story that can't be made up, it rejoices in the best of people, during the darkest periods of their lives. I've seen thousands of films in my life and DEAR ZACHERY is a rewarding film, that does what all great films do. It makes you rejoice in the human spirit and demands that if we see something wrong we fix it. Please see this film, I promise you won't regret it.

I hope that in 30 years someone decides to remake Gran Torino. Hopefully it will be a shot-by-shot remake like 1998's Psycho, or maybe someone tries to do a direct homage to it, or maybe a Japanese remake or didn't they make a Turkish version of Star Wars? I really don't care how they remake it. I just want to prove how masterfully Eastwood breathes life into a story that in wrong hands could be a melodramatic mess, or a bad Sitcom.

Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) is a guy missing his decade, he still lives in the home he raised his family in, even though the rest of the neighborhood disappeared years ago. His home is still painted while the homes around him fall apart. The post-war suburban paradise that once was is long gone replaced by gangs, crime, and the Hmong immigrants who have replaced his former white-bread neighbors.

Kowalski has lived a life of hard work and maybe a little regret. He's a decorated Korean War Vet, a husband who's just buried his wife, and a father that has lost touch with his sons. Don't get him started on his bratty Grandkids who want him to die so they get his stuff including a sweet 1972 Gran Torino. Kowalski is a man who poured his heart and soul into a country who doesn't need him anymore and a family that is ready to send him off to Boca to die. Everything changes when he catches his neighbor trying to steal his Gran Torino, and he is introduced into a world that just might let him get the redemption he so desperately needs.

Eastwood has crafted a beautiful film that is honest. With an approach that is so matter of fact and never over sentimental. In the wrong hands this could translate as boring. Yet Eastwood finds a way to make the film real without boring us. It's funny when it needs to be funny, gripping when it needs to grip, and emotional without being overtly emotional. Kowalski exists in the real world, he's abrasive, he's angry, he drinks, smokes, chews tobacco and has lived long enough to not have that politically correct filter that everyone in my generation was issued at birth. He built the world with his bare hands and wishes that people we're polite, kids respected their elders, and is tired of taking crap from everyone. But it's not because he's a monster and Eastwood instills a warmth in Kowalski that drives the film forward.

The supporting cast works because they are real kids. Newcomer Ahney Her deserves notice as Sue, a smart plucky kid that Kowalski aids and Bee Vang hits the right marks as Thao, Sue's brother who Kowalski takes under his wing. Eastwood doesn't ask for gut-wrenching performances from these two kids, only honesty and that's why they work. When the climax hits it's apex Eastwood doesn't ask his cast to react as characters in a movie, but as regular kids. Gran Torino is not what I expected, it's not Dirty Harry meets Grumpy Old Men. It's a powerful film that sneaks up on you and pulls you along. At any moment it could have been shallow, at any moment it could have been melodramatic, and at any moment we could have hated Kowalski. Trust me there is plenty not to like about this guy, but Eastwood shows us his frustrations, and emotions not by acting them out, but by being real and by giving Kowalski a warmth we don't expect.

Gran Torino makes me wish I had treasured the moments I could have had with my Grandfather. It also challenges me to reach out even If I don't want to. Gran Torino is not about telling a fake story about redemption, it's about real people with real problems and how they find within themselves the power to take responsibility for their lives and in that they find the strength to overcome what life has dealt them. Gran Torino will not change the world but it may make you look at your fellow man with a little more compassion.

I ran into an old friend at a party once and I hadn't seen her in a long time. This old friend and her partner had traveled down the wrong track and they both battled severe drug problems. They were also blessed with two young sons who were brought up in an environment that couldn't have been healthy for anyone. These two little balls of light were just a wonder to look at.

That night as I sat and watched those two boys run and jump and play I realized something, even under the worst circumstances, for a little while, children hold onto to their innocence. These kids were growing up in the worst possible place and yet they were still just kids. I make this tragic observation because its essential to getting to the heart of Terry Gilliam's bold and powerful new film TIDELAND.

The film opens with a personal note from the director. He states that many people will not like this film and there is a lot of truth to that statement. Just head over to Rotten Tomatoes and you can read critical opinions that run from indifference to scathing. And while I agree TIDELAND is a difficult movie to watch, I believe that the negative reaction to the film is not because it's a bad movie but because we (as adults) have forgotten how to be children.

Jaliza-Rose (Jodelle Ferland) is a young girl living in a world full of drugs and alcohol. Her parents are deranged and so addled with drugs you really wonder how Jaliza stays so grounded. Things are pretty bad for Jaliza Rose who has made friends with decapitated doll heads. As the film opens her Mother (Jennifer Tilly) dies of a methadone overdose and her heroin addicted ex-Rockstar Dad (Jeff Bridges) takes her out onto the prairie because he's afraid the authorities are going to be looking for him. But no sooner has dear-old-Dad settled them into a home more disgusting than the one they were just in, he ODs leaving Jaliza-Rose to fend for herself. The rest of the film follows Jaliza-Rose on an adventure full of fake subs, evil witches, strange taxidermy and metal sharks. Along the way she meets Dickens (Brendan Fletcher), a grown man with the mental capacity of a little boy and Dell his bee hating older sister. By the end of movie you agree with Gilliam who says "When you drop a child they usually bounce." TIDELAND is a hard movie. It requires you to leave any expectations at the door, and it demands that you think and experience it not as adult, but as a child. If you cannot do this, you will not like this film. In fact it will revolt you. It will confuse you. But if you can enter TIDELAND with a real childlike heart you will experience a rare treat. A film that is simply about being a child. You will revel in Jaliza's imagination, you will cheer her pluck and spirit, and you will see a performance by a 12 year old girl that is by far the best performance I've seen all year.

Jodelle Ferland fills the drab hills of the prairie with such reckless joy and childlike wonder you forget that you're sitting in probably this weird almost Gothic cinematic landscape that Gilliam has devised. Her performance is the glue that beyond the beautiful cinematography, the masterful script, and the intense atmosphere, hold the film together. It's so vivid and varied. I loved that each of her disembodied doll heads had their own emotions and character. I loved how she interacted with every strange character as if they were normal and not out of the ordinary.

This is the film that introduces the character of Dickens wearing half a scuba suit. He's running around Jaliza-Rose's house like a crazy man, and she just looks at him and takes him in stride. We watch as these two people; one a child and the other a man with the mental capacity of a child become fast friends. We watch as Jaliza develops her first crush. This of course leads to some pretty intense and dark scenes. It pulls no punches in frank discussion of the (almost) sexual relationship between these characters with out resorting to sensationalism.

TIDELAND is the kind of film that will provoke strong reactions. But because of its sheer reckless abandon, this is a masterstroke of a film. TIDELAND is compelling, beautiful, dark, tragic, weird, magical, and darkly funny. But more importantly it lets the adult audience do something most films starring children don't do: it demands we think and actually become children again.

Just before I sat down to watch the film LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE I was leafing through a copy of Douglas Adam's final anthology of writings called The Salmon of Doubt. In an article he wrote called "Turncoat" he mused "I wonder if we don't have too much comedy these days...nowadays everybody's a comedian, even the weather girls... We laugh at everything. Not intelligently anymore, not with sudden shock, astonishment, or revelation, just relentlessly and meaninglessly." After the movie was over I couldn't get that thought out of my head. Here is a film that attempts to be dark, attempts to be charming, attempts to be edgy, attempts to be independent, and is yet drops the ball because in the end it has nothing cohesive to say.

Olive Hoover (Abigail Breslin) is the cutest little kid in the world. The kind of kid who just looks at the world with wide-eyed wonder. She sweet even if the world around her isn't so. Her Dad (Greg Kinnear) is a bad motivational speaker and an even worse role model, her mom (Toni Collette) is far to permissive, her brother (Paul Dano) hates his life and has taken a vow of silence, her grandpa (Alan Arkin) snorts heroin, and her Uncle Frank (Steve Carrell) has shown up on their doorstep after a botched attempt to take his own life. This motley family is about to make a 700 mile trip in a beat up VW Van with a busted clutch to get Olive to the National Little Miss Sunshine beauty contest in Redondo Beach. Will they survive each other? Or will Olive's dream of becoming a beauty queen come crashing down? LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE is the kind of movie that will leaving you feeling good at the end only because it ends on such a high note. The last ten minutes of this film are easily the best. They're what you're going to talking about as you leave the theater. As for the other 90 minutes well that's up in the air.

The film is far to moody. There is a fine line between dark humor and just plain darkness. LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE spends too much of it early scenes developing realistic characters. They laugh, they cry, and then the film betrays this honesty by asking them to fall into farce. The screenplay goes into auto-pilot and the characters turn into independent film clichés'.

The actors do the best they can with the material but alas the film feels so artificial. You start to see some themes pop out that would make good talking points in an article or interview, but in the context of the film it's all just filler. Every character gets to wax poetic then they get to do something silly. Then the film makes some blanket statement about how life is as phony as a beauty contest, there is an act of rebellion, and then everybody hugs.

The films biggest problem is that the screenplay is such a rip off of NATIONAL LAMPOON'S VACATION. Except instead of Wally World the Hoovers are on their way to Redondo Beach and there is a Proust scholar in the car. There is even a scene in which a dead body shows up and they have to put it in their car. I was waiting for Randy Quaid to show up and ask Greg Kinnear's character for money. That's what this film needed, Uncle Eddie! LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE is a "dark comedy" that's far too dark and not really all that funny. It has it's moments, and on the surface it is very sweet and charming. Little Abigail Breslin steals the show, giving Olive a wisdom beyond her age, and a wide-eyed wonder. But unfortunately the film is not worth the price of admission. I'd skip this beauty contest.

There is a key scene missing from Oliver Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER. It's the scene that is forever burned in my brain. We saw it hundreds of times, over and over, the local news couldn't help but show us it with a frequency that could only be called sadistic. Since the scene is not present here the film works. Because it's not there the film has a resonance much higher and more powerful. WORLD TRADE CENTER is a film that has all the cards stacked against it and succeed because it remembers that 9/11 was not a day about politics, it was not a day about heroes or villains. No, 9/11 was a day about people doing their jobs and stepping up in the face of tragedy.

When John McLoughin (Nicholas Cage)and Will Jimeno (Michael Pena) showed up for work on this morning they never expected to find themselves buried under the rubble of the Twin Towers. They assumed the day would be pretty uneventful. They kissed their wives, hugged their kids and went to work. But, when duty called these men answered it, and found themselves trapped. Leaving their families wondering, their friends comforting, and a country mourning. In a matter of hours these two Port Authority Police Officers fought for survival, and made themselves and many other men heroes. A lot can happen in the midst of evil, and sometimes it can inspire the greatest good.

What WORLD TRADE CENTER does best is transport us back to that day. When we woke up that morning all was well, by the time we went to bed the whole world felt the repercussions. On September 11th politics was put on the back burner, our petty differences fell away, and we became united. Some gave blood, others cleaned up, for one grand moment America seemed like one. American flags flew, police and rescue workers streamed into the city to help, the once loathed Mayor became a hero, and the President's rally cries were heard and accepted. Oliver Stone's film captures those moments with such reckless ease, its amazing he got away with it.

The film is the embodiment of people who are holding onto the mundane problems in the world. Holding onto the mundane because the gravity of the world around them is too much to bare. My favorite moment involves Jimeno talking about the theme song to Starsky and Hutch. On the surface it's a man trying to use comedy to quell his fear, but the scene goes deeper, this man is holding onto a stupid television show because it proves he's still alive. Hollywood has given us hero's whose lives are so exciting and are always exciting. But real people have down time, they laugh, they go see stupid movies, and watch stupid television shows. The only way to hold on is to revert to the mundane, it's the only cure for a world gone insane.

Nicholas Cage and Michael Pena embody McLoughlin and Jimeno with real humanity. The film traps them under rubble for most of the films running time, so all they have is their voices, their emotions, and their humanity to get them through.

On the surface, Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal play these men's wives with a vulnerability and fierceness. We see their pain, none so clear, as when Gyllenhaal as Jimeno's wife wanders aimlessly around a pharmacy trying to clear her head, or getting out of the car because the red light is too long. That light never seems so long as when you need to get somewhere fast.

I've heard many say "how dare they make this movie?" "How dare Hollywood profit from this tragedy?" I say "how dare we leave our history to be written by people with an agenda., by people who didn't live through it?" Ten years from now I would be proud to show this film to the next generation, to show them that amidst all the upheaval, amidst all the tragedy, America was united for one brief moment. WORLD TRADE CENTER has no agenda except to harken back to a time we've since lost.

WORLD TRADE CENTER is missing one key scene. It's missing the planes flying into the building. This is not a film about terrorists, or evil. This isn't even a film about the Twin Towers. This is not a film about planes, presidents, or what has happened since. WORLD TRADE CENTER is a deeply moving example of people who wanted only one thing: to get home from work that day.

The other night my wife and I drove two and a half hours to meet some old friends for dinner. We hadn't spoken in some time so it was great reminiscing about old times, waxing poetic about the memories and experiences that profoundly changed our lives, and laughing at jokes that only we as old friends would have remembered. It was probably the most fun I've had in a long time. I bring this up only because it was going through my head as I sat and watched Kevin Smith's CLERKS II. A film that's more of a reunion, a chance to return to a simpler time, and unfortunately a swan song to a bygone era.

I can't believe it's been over a decade since we've checked in on Dante (Brian O'Halloran) and Randal (Jeff Anderson). They've continued working at the Quick Stop and the crappy video store, but alas as the film opens we watch as it is all destroyed by fire. With few prospects, and little motivation for anything better the guys get jobs at Mooby's, the local fast food restaurant, slinging burgers, fart jokes, and pop-culture references with reckless abandon. Above all, things haven't changed that much.

That is until Dante decides to get engaged and move to Florida to run one of his father-in-law's car washes. On this eve of extreme change, Dante must come to grips with leaving his friends, giving up on unrequited love, and convincing Randal that the term "porch monkey" is a racial slur. Of course he has help, Jay and Silent Bob (Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith) are around for the fun, as well as his new boss Becky (Rosario Dawson), and Elias (Trevor Fehrman) a LORD OF THE RINGS fanboy that will forever be the butt of Randal's cruel jokes. By the end of Dante's last day of work jokes will be told, various people will be offended, and a donkey will be..... oh never mind.

How does one sum up CLERKS II? Yes it's funny, of course it's offensive, but at its heart it is syrupy sweet. That is how Kevin Smith gets away with it. Every single movie he has made (well except for Jersey Girl) could easily be called perverse, offensive, and disgusting. But because Smith wraps it all up with a gooey sentimental center he gets away with it. Like a monkey that s throws its feces at passerby's, all it has to do is smile, do a little trick, and we instantly forgive him.

But what is missing from this film is a sense of freshness. CLERKS II's weakness is in that it's only geared at us kids who watched CLERKS in our basements and laughed along. Most newcomers will probably not give into the sense of nostalgia that the film brings along with it. There is nothing in this film for a mass audience. As much as I loved the adventures of Dante and Randal, Jay and Silent Bob, and Kevin Smith as director it's almost as if we have presented us with a great family reunion but not an original film.

Kevin Smith is a talented writer and a genuine guy, but isn't it time he move on and try something more challenging? Isn't it time to put Jay and Silent Bob away and create a new batch of characters. I can't believe that in twelve years the only thing he has to show for it is two slackers in the Quick Stop.

Okay, I'll stop bashing now and mention that there are some great things in this movie for sure. Smith still has knack for comedy and timing. Trevor Fehrman's turn as Elias, the innocent Christian boy forced to take Randal's constant torture steals the movie. He has this innocent and plucky resiliency the keeps you rooting for him. His conversation about Pillow Pants, a troll who lives in his girlfriends nether regions, will having you rolling because his commits every inch of his being into making you sympathize with him . I also appreciated his mid film team up with Kevin Weisman. Hell hath no fury s two Lord of the Rings fans scorned. I also like that Smith kept everything interesting. He keeps it loaded to the brim with enough silly cameos, funny laughs, and even a song and dance sequence that will keep a smile on your face.

For fans of the "View Askew Universe" CLERKS II is a nice trip down memory lane. But it also feels more like a swan song grasping for a time not so long ago when a groups of guys armed with a camera and a little money changed the face of independent film forever. As you plop down your hard earned money in a vane attempt to channel the day twelve years ago you first discovered CLERKS remember you can try to relive the past, but it's just not the same.

Has M. Knight Shyamalan lost his mind? Is he a mad genius or just loopy? Has he created a masterpiece or a mess? These are the questions I'm still grappling with after watching THE LADY IN THE WATER. This is most interestingly beautiful, confusing, and downright strange films I've have ever seen. Wow, trying to come up with words to explain what's going on in my mind after watching this film is impossible. I'm not sure if I've seen the future of the cinema or the end of a popular director's career. But I do know that THE LADY IN THE WATER cannot be ignored.

I think walking into this film, I had many preconceived notions. I know what an M. Knight Shyamalan film is, or at least what it's supposed to be. But THE LADY IN THE WATER challenges every one of those notions. There's no surprise ending, there are very few scares, and the film feels sloppy, half-hearted, overly confusing, and I understand why most will dismiss it. This is a movie that can't quite be nailed down and since the film bucks any and all convention. It's easy to find the conventional flaws everywhere.

The acting is disjointed, the plot is a mess, the dialogue is overly simple, the story is far too complicated and it all combines into something that seems pieced together on the fly. It feels almost as if Shyamalan has drawn a line in the sand. This line is all logic. This line is how far he expects us to go, and then out of nowhere the line suddenly falls apart. Shyamalan pushes us so past the line, it's easy to just give up. I think the line comes at a different point for each of us. The line disappeared to me when the little boy begins to read cereal boxes. It is so weird, so out of left field. This was at that point in which I had to decide if I should give up any semblance of logic and just give in to the sheer absurdity of it, or whether I should give up and pan it. Where that lines falls with you, may decide if you have a positive reaction to the film or not.

The plot is simple, or maybe not. A "Narf" named Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) shows up in a pool at The Cove, and apartment community in Philadelphia. What's a "Narf?" Well it's kind of like a mermaid with human feet, or maybe more like an angel or a muse that lives underwater, both would be appropriate. Anyway Story is rescued by The Cove's resident superintendent Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti). Story is looking for a writer who's written work will cause a positive change in the world forever. On that trail Cleveland must protect Story from an evil creature bent on destroying her.

But what is this movie exactly? It is a bedtime story come to life. It's a fanciful yarn, a child's story and a wild imagination run amok. Like how MULLHOLLAND DRIVE was dream realized on film, THE LADY IN THE WATER is a campfire tale, it's not a terribly cohesive, and demands that the audience put the pieces together. I liken it to the weird tales I created with my action figures as a kid, or a nonsense story that a first grader may try to write. It's not designed to be pulled apart, just experienced at that moment. None of the pieces quite fit, a lot of times if feels as if the film is grasping for straws. Sensing that it's lost most of the audience it gives into its oddness, and it revels in it. But is that by design?

The other side of the coin is that this is a badly made movie. It's the wild ranting of an over zealous personality. The first credit you see as the film comes to a close is "Written, Produced, and Directed by M. Knight Shyamalan" and since he's been so successful maybe this film is an example of what happens when you allow a director too much room, and no editorial comment from the studio. Maybe this is a self-indulgent vanity piece, a sloppy mess of a movie that would have been easily dismissed had it not been created by Shyamalan himself.

Honestly, I don't know where I fall. I think I want to see the movie again. But I like the notion that this could be a step in the right direction for film as a whole. That Shayamalan has crafted a film that way ahead of its time. I'd hate to realize that there is nothing there because it would rob that odd sense of madcap joy I experienced with the film.

THE LADY IN THE WATER is the perfect remedy for what's wrong in Hollywood. Even if you hate every single moment of it, it encourages strong reactions. Whether that reaction is confusion, anger, or awe, this film cannot be easily ignored. So at this moment I think I will argue that THE LADY IN THE WATER is a brilliant film. That Shyamalan will get ribbed for it now, but will later be rewarded with a strong cult following. It's easily the best film I've seen all year.

When one attempts to create a list of the worst hack directors in Hollywood, Gore Verbinski, is in the top 3 for me (right behind Bret Ratner and Michael Bay). These men have made millions in Hollywood peddling half-hearted, and over bloated popcorn flicks for years, and have gotten very good at it. So, when the receipts start to pour in for PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MANS CHEST, Gore Verbinski will probably laugh all the way to the bank. I ask why? Why do we as humans keep going to see movie like this? Why does the entire audience hoop, holler, and cheer? And why can't I have the fun everybody else seems to be having? DEAD MAN'S Chest begins on the wedding day of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan. Their nuptials are ruined when they are taken into custody for the events of the original film. Will is guaranteed freedom and release for himself and his bride but only if he will retrieve a compass from Jack Sparrow, and deliver it to the evil East Indian Trading Company. This sets off a series of events that bring Will, Elizabeth, and Captian Jack Sparrow face to face with the mysterious Davey Jones and the motley crew of the Flying Dutchman. Will there be Action? Will there be Swashbuckling Adventure? Will Johnny Depp act like a Drag Queen on a harbor cruise? Of course.

I can easily sum up this film in one word: adequate. It got a lot of nicely paced action sequences, some silly comedy, and there is just the right amount of peril and suspense hiding around the corner. You won't have a bad time, if you must run out and see this movie, the theater is the place. But if you were expecting a deeper more fulfilling visit with the characters of the first film, or at least a better more fleshed out story, you'll be sadly disappointed. DEAD MAN'S CHEST is just more of the same.

All the characters show up say their lines, and seem to be having a good time. But there's nothing else there. Orlando Bloom is the hero, Keira Knightly is the Damsel with bite, and Johnny Depp is Johnny Depp pretending to be Keith Richards as a pirate. The screenplay does nothing to let us into their lives, their motivations serve the script only, and while they don't do a bad job, the script doesn't really ask them too. This is a point A to point B kind of a movie, every motivation serves the screenplay, not the story.

As for the action scenes. There are two worth mentioning and save the film from being utterly boring. The first is an elaborate chase scene on an island with swinging cages, angry natives, and Jack Sparrow tied to a giant bamboo pole. The other scene involves a waterwheel and a ton of swashbuckling. This scene comes late enough into the movie that it almost saves the entire picture. The last fifteen minutes are a breeze because that scene really creates a lot of momentum.

Director Verbinski show again that he can take pretty pictures, and stage large special effects sequences. But very little of it is groundbreaking or worth writing home about. He doesn't up the ante at all. Great sequels ask us to take the next step, to challenge what came before, or a least given the characters more depth and freshness. DEAD MAN'S CHEST is simply a two and half hour rehash of the original PIRATES film, with a less interesting villain and some anti-capitalist nonsense thrown in.

The film also suffers from a running time that is just unacceptable. Like the first PIRATES film, DEAD MAN'S CHEST is a 90 minute movie stretched over two and a half hours. So much happens in this film, and so much of it is inconsequential to the plot. Because the plot in and of itself lacks any meat. This film is the middle of a planned trilogy, and since it has very few surprises, character depth, and plot revelations that I just know the third installment will be very, very lackluster.

I understand that people like these kind of movies. I don't because I know that there are so many talented people out there with awesome stories to tell, and character to create. DEAD MAN'S CHEST is just a rehash of the same thing. It's big, loud, and lacks subtlety, and charm. A Hollywood blockbuster for sure. It's adequate, people will like it, but this is not a great film.

It's good to know that farce is alive and well in the world. Since the mid 90's it feels like film makers have lost their grip on truly great weird comedy. Movies that speak to the few and turn off the rest. It seems that even as the tools to unlock our imaginations get flashier and flashier, and special effect budgets grow and grown, American film grow static and stale. Then when it seems like all hope is lost, a film like NACHO LIBRE comes along.

Somewhere in Mexico, a young priest named Nacho (Jack Black) longs to be recognized. He's tired of serving the same bland food to the young boys in his charge. He's tired of being disrespected by the other priests. He longs to be a luchadore (a Mexican wrestler), and to gain the affections of the stunning Sister Encarnación (Ana del la Regura). Then when all hope is lost he teams up with a new friend named Esquelta, and takes the Mexican wrestling world by storm. Will the orphan boys get better food? Will Nacho win the heart of Sister Encarnación? Will he lose everything he has, on a quest to become a great warrior? Giving this movie its due will provide those answers and more. The movie not perfect. It's a little overlong and some of the jokes fall flat on their face. But there is an earnestness and a sweet gentility in the film that will win you over. You cannot enter this movie with the wrong attitude and if you don't like weird movie its not for you. But if you let it entertain you and if you give into the fact that it really bizarre, it will work. You have to take every scene with grain of salt and logic must be thrown out the window. But if you turn off that part of your brain that strives for everything to be plausible, than this film will entertain.

Then for no apparent reason the movie does something I didn't quite expect, it begins to tackle a serious subject. Behind all the silliness is a story about how legalism traps us in a place of boredom and predictability. Whether it be religious legalism or secular legalism, NACHO LIBRE is about a misfit who succeeds because he goes out on a limb. He doesn't give up his religious fervor when the chips are down, when his atheist friend tells him to give into science and logic, and he doesn't give up on God because men of cloth treat him badly. He stays true to his faith and not his religion. This message is not beaten over the audiences head. This is not a religious picture. But it gives the film a dimension that I didn't expect.

Director Jared Hess, doesn't stray to far from his Napoleon Dynamite roots. But that's okay. It works here and he hits the right comic tones. I can't wait for the DVD because I'm convinced that the film really needs to be viewed a second time. Knowing what to expect allows the audience to settle into Hess skewed comedy. The film is very dry and if you don't know what to expect its easy to dismiss the comedy and think the film is horrible. You have to work at it a little bit and let it sink in. But when you get it you'll love it.

If you're looking for an hour and half of silliness you can't go wrong with NACHO LIBRE. It's cute, sweet, and you get to stare at Jack Black's upper torso for far too long. Trust me if you like weirdly sweet Mexican wrestling comedies this is the film for you.

I'm kicking myself for not appreciating my high school and college lit courses until it was too late. Because it seems like every time I go to the movies I remember back to one of the classics in literature that I callously never read. It was Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal I thought back on after finishing THANK YOU FOR SMOKING, because I now realize that modern satire is joke.

Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhardt, In The Company of Men) is as smooth as the cigarettes he's promoting. As the main lobbyist for big tobacco, it's his job to look America in the eye and say "Want to smoke." The film follows him as he convinces group after group that Big Tobacco is the victim and that those who are fighting against him are the villains. There are bumps along the way, including a senator from Vermont (William H. Macy), a nosy journalist (Katie Holmes), and a few attempts on his life. But with some good old American B.S. he may just make it.

THANK YOU FOR SMOKING is an almost biting satire, it presents all the characters a great satire needs, and it's full of button pushing ideas that should drag the audience right along with it. But squanders them by playing too safe, by not taking sides, and by coping out at the last moment. Great satire should end with half the characters dead lying in a physical, psychological, or farcical bloodbath. Like in Swift's A Modest Proposal, where he mentions that his countrymen would do well to resort to cannibalism. The hero of the story should be standing next to God, or burning in hell for his misdeeds. THANK YOU FOR SMOKING just winks at you, provides a couple of laughs, and that's all.

The major problem is that the screenplay, by Jason Reitman (who also directs), falls in love with the main character to a degree that allows him the opportunity to get away with everything. That's would be fine, but the villains in the film are not drawn as well and so his victory's seem paltry. His Villains are so stereotypical and the actors bring nothing to them that is very profound. Satire without some blood and guts on the floor is pointless.

As for the performances they just sit there. No one is big enough. That actors wander in and out of each scene, and the only one we really get to know is Nick. But Nick is not that vulnerable, even when the script tries to paint him that way. Aaron Eckhardt is too confident. I didn't believe his small moment of insecurity once. Because the script doesn't let him fail for long.

THANK YOU FOR SMOKING is not a bad movie. It's pretty funny and It's quite timely. But as a satire it's not focused enough, and it doesn't pull enough punches. I'm glad I saw it, but I don't recommend it.

Perhaps you've seen the TV commercials that feature a bunch of guys jumping off roofs, climbing up walls, and flying through the air without a net. It's called Parkour. I liken it to skateboarding without a board, cliff jumping in the city, or urban acrobatics. What it is, is breathtaking. It's almost a ballet of the streets. To call it merely an extreme sport sells it short. It's one part professional wrestling, two parts cliff jumping, and nine parts pure adrenaline. Parkour demands skill, determination, and a lot of insanity. So of course when I heard that a movie based on it was being released I had to check it out.

Set in Paris, 2010, a wall has been erected around a dangerous Parisian Ghetto called District B13. The cops have left, the schools have closed, and an evil drug-lord named Taha (Larbi Nacari) has gained control. In the midst of the chaos Leito (David Belle) has somehow protected one building from falling apart. His home and family are torn into chaos when Taha kidnaps his young sister(Dany Verissimo) and turns her into a junkie. Leito is then thrown into prison, only to be released when he is forced to guide an undercover cop (Cyril Raffaelli) back into District B 13 to stop a bomb that could kill millions.

Produced by Luc Besson, DISTRICT B13 feels like a music video mixed with a car commercial. It's the definition of a pure action film. Guns blaze, people fly through the air, car tires screech, and for it's paltry running time of 85 minutes you hold onto your seat not quite sure if you breath. Did I also mention it's in French with subtitles that fly by so quick you have to catch up or you'll be left to wallow in the Chaos. This is not your mommy's french language film.

The action in and of itself is awe-inspiring. Without any special effects or wires these guys work without a net. Jumping off rooftops, dodging bullets, swinging from ropes and pipes, and taking out the bad guys effortlessly. These sequences are well worth the price of admission. In fact these Parkour guys should take their Urban acrobatics on the road. It's awesome.

As for the plotting and acting, of course its sub-par. This a film designed to show off what these athletes can do. The story is very convoluted. You can follow it, but don't follow it too closely or it might give you headache. Which is a shame because the film clings to its plot so much that the middle section drags on trying to tie up loose ends it didn't really need to bring up anyway. I will admit I was tickled pink by it's pro-democracy stance though. Its thinly veiled attack on french socialism had me scratching my head at first. I guess I didn't expect it.

At this point you're probably wondering if you should plunk down your hard earned cash to see this puppy. If you like lots of action ,then yes, DISTRICT B13 is worth the admission price. If you're looking for anything more thoughtful or strong on character and plot, then no. DISTRICT B13 is the kind of film that has its audience built in, anyone else will be underwhelmed.

If I had to sum THE DAVINCI CODE up in one word, it would be lackluster. It's the kind of movie that will have its defenders. But for the most part, they will be defending Dan Brown's Novel, not Ron Howard's movie. It's not that the film is incompetent. It just doesn't try hard enough. It sits there never quite compelling you to do anything but watch it. It's a thriller with very little thrills.

Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), Harvard University's most gifted Symbologist, is in Paris giving a lecture on his new book. When he is accidentally thrown into the middle of a murder investigation, in which he is the prime suspect. His only allies are Sophie Neveu, the murdered man's granddaughter, and Sir Leigh Teabing, an eccentric Brit with a passion for the holy grail. Langdon must outrun an over zealous police chief (Jean Reno), a psychotic Albino Monk (Paul Bettany), and a mysterious man called only The Teacher. In the process he stumbles over the biggest mystery of our age: just what is the Holy Grail? Director Ron Howard does his best to keep us interested in the story. It's been simplified and changed drastically from the source material, probably so that modern moviegoers can grasp the material a little easier. The thing that surprised me most about the changes in the story, were how they dramatically changed Robert Langdon's character motivations. The Langdon of Dan Brown's famous novel is an expert in the Grail symbology and goes as far as to defend it to Sophie. In the film he plays more of the Devil's Advocate questioning more and going as far as to call most of it bunk. This changes the end of the film dramatically taking a bit of real passion out of it. In essence you're left with a postmodern twist on the story that zaps a lot of meaning out of the plot.

Screenwriter Akiva Goldsman script shies away from the controversy of Dan Brown's book, it feels as if the producers sensed a boycott and got cold feet. I think it hurts the film. Honestly, if your going to court controversy you should jump full in. If not you've lost the battle. Now I wished I hadn't slaved through Brown's book. The film doesn't fill you with much desire to read the book it's based on.

On a purely cinematic level it fails because it's not all that compelling. None of the characters are drawn full enough for you to care about them. They are lost in a film that has a point A and a point B, but the journey to get there is paved with boring car chases, fake drama, sloppy gun play and incredibly stilted reveals. No one seems to have any honest motivation, and problems are solved but not explained. For instance Langdon and Sophie have this thing called a cryptex, they need to solve a code to get a piece of paper out of it. But instead of showing us how Langdon figured out the code it just jumps to him solving it.

My favorite moment was when Langdon and Sophie need to get to a library to figure out a riddle. In Dan Brown's novel they spend hours in a library, in the film Sophie borrows some random guy's cell phone and they figure it out on a bus. I chuckled.

All in all THE DAVINCI CODE is the kind of movie that's made to cash in on one of the most popular books in recent history. Its got star power, its got a big name director, its got a giant budget. But it's missing a human touch. It's missing a central heart. It's not a film about people. It's a film that just sits there and then fades to black. Amidst the controversy, amidst the hype, the boycotts, and the millions it will rake in at the box-office THE DAVINCI CODE is much "ado about nothing."

Where was I on September 11, 2001? Where was I as America was under attack? I was sleeping. I got a frantic call from my big sister, and when I turned on the TV to see what happened all I got was static. I lived eight miles away from ground zero and I felt cut off from the world. As I finally found a channel on the TV that worked I saw the Twin Towers fall on live. I didn't hear any explosions, I just saw a picture of two giant buildings falling. I saw smoke rise as I drove to work later that afternoon. The world had forever changed, but except for the pictures of anguish and shots of buildings falling down I heard no explosive sounds from my vantage point. Do you remember a sound? Except if you were in lower Manhattan probably not.

UNITED 93 is a film about an isolated moment in the middle of extreme chaos. It's about mundane people living their mundane lives thrust into the most horrifying event in modern history. It's a film about what a true hero is. It's about evil men whose true cowardice united ordinary people. But on a deeper level it's a film about big events in life and how you very rarely hear a sound.

On September 11th 2001, four planes were hijacked. Two hit the World Trade Center, and one hit the Pentagon. The last plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. That plane was UNITED 93, to some it could have looked like a footnote to that horrible day. But it became a symbol, because ordinary men and women took back the plane and gave their lives to save lives on the ground. Greenglass puts us right in the middle of this life and death drama. We meet the hijackers, we meet the flight crew, and we meet the passengers. We don't get to know them, but in real life do you really know who's sitting next to you? The film watches as people get ready for takeoff, as tower officials look at the skies on computer monitors. We check in with the FAA, the military, and we see that on September 11th life was pretty normal. Then we watch helplessly as every one of these people is thrown into a tailspin when a plane disappears off a computer monitor. We watch as a tiny green blip just disappears. That flight hit the North Tower and it had just begun.

What Greenglass wisely does is not focus on the carnage. We don't even see the first plane hit the World Trade Center, and when the second one finally does there is not a big explosion. We see it on a TV, with the CNN ticker tape moving slowly by. We see smoke, but we see no carnage. Only Silence. In a more conventional film we would probably see every explosion, but even as United 93 hits the ground we hear nothing, only silence. Because for the most part things only blow up in the movies.

This device works well. It makes UNITED 93 feel real. The people feel real. The action feels real. I liken it to watching a home movie. United 93 is so simple and effective I almost looked for the time and date stamps in the corner of the screen. It's natural and raw. That's why it is so effective and that's why it needed to be made now.

September 11th's history is still being written. As we get further and further from it a romantic version of these events will begin to unfold. You want proof check out a World War II film made in the 40's and compare it to PEARL HARBOR. UNITED 93 is a film that's effectiveness will be felt 50 years from now when that generations Michael Bay decides to make a silly film about a girl and a guy who find love on the 65 floor of the trade center as they fall. But in the here and now UNITED 93 will stand as a record of Hero's who saved the day, of the confusion that overtook us all, and of the raw power of real life.

I'm struck with the thought that with the proliferation of VCR's and DVD's the cinematic experience has been lost. We complain about people talking in the theater and peoples cell phones going off. But as I was sitting there in the theater watching SLITHER I dreamed of a time when cinema was about the audience, when people laughed at movies, screamed when things were scary, and I long for that time when going to the local theater was a collective experience, and not about total silence and good behavior.

James Gunn's SLITHER is a throwback film. A horror comedy that feels like it was written in 1985 from a screenplay that was written in 1954. One night in a small West Virginia town a meteor falls to ground and an alien life-form is released from it's core. That alien infests a local man, and then through some amazingly gory special effects creates small slug like creatures that infest the local population and turns them into zombies. It's now up to the local sheriff, his childhood sweetheart, a foul-mouthed mayor, and a teenage girl to stop this menace from taking over the rest of the world.

Trust me if you've seen NIGHT OF THE CREEPS, CRITTERS, or GHOULIES you've seen SLITHER. If you like that kind of thing then this is the movie for you. It's short, sweet, and too the point. You won't be gushing about how wonderful it is or anything, but as a diversion the movie works.

The film jumps when it needs to jump. The characters while not very developed are alive enough that you care about them, and while the film need more laughs, it still winks back at you with its tongue firmly in cheek. You leave the movie not very fulfilled but satisfied.

What would have helped the movie was some more humor, a ton more gore, and well just more. The first act just goes on and on, and the finale is really lackluster and breezes by an breakneck speed. I easily could have given this movie fifteen or twenty more minutes to build to something a lot more substantial. But alas it begins and ends without really paying off. What's there works, but with all the potential it had, the final showdown was so fast I felt a little cheated. For once I just wanted a little more.

But if you like this kind of thing, a fast moving silly horror movie with a lot of gore than the film benefits from the cinematic experience. An audience that likes silly horror comedy's and gets the in jokes will make it more fun. The experience is also enhanced by the jokers who throw popcorn, and the teenage girl who screams after every jump scene. Alas that experience is probably few and far between in the modern multiplex but it would certainly help those who go see SLITHER.

V FOR VENDETTA is pure drivel. I get that out of the way at the top of this review because I know it will not be the popular opinion. But at some point I've realized that I'm nobody if I'm not honest. So I'll say it right now, V FOR VENDETTA is not an action movie, it's a propaganda film. It's a film about how great anarchy is.

About 50 or 70 years into the future Great Britain is run by a totalitarian dictator (John Hurt). Books, music, and all sorts of free expression are banned. The government has created a police state that keeps people in line. Then a shadowy masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving) steps out of the shadows and fights the government by exposing their corruption through terrorist actions. Buildings are blown up, television signals are stolen, and caught in the middle of it all is Evey (Natalie Portman). Evey, the reluctant student of the mysterious V, will play a pivotal role in overthrow of the government, whether she wants to or not.

Now where do I start. On a purely cinematic level this movie is not very fluid. Most scenes revolve around characters talking about how horrible things are. They talk and talk and then talk some more. The screenplay is so verbose that any action you may have been expecting flashes by in seconds. V's origin is told and retold at least 4 different times and there is a subplot involving an actress that just goes on and on.

As for the rest of the film, the best scene involves a humorous take on the government. It's bold and the man involved in the full on attack of the social order doesn't parade around in mask. He's bold because he puts his name and face out for the world too see. Yes he pays the consequences for his action, but he used the tools at hand to subvert the government. He didn't need bombs, he didn't need violence, he just needed to be socially disobedient.

But V this movies hero hides behind a mask of platitudes and terrorist actions. He's too proud to put his face out there for the world to see. He's like a man who writes a manifesto about how horrible the world is and signs it with an alias. Who wants to listen to a coward. V believes that the only way to get people to listen is to blow things up and to murder the men in charge. But what then? Do you start another government? Does that one become corrupt? I know its not a popular idea but did you ever just think that maybe human beings are rotten to the core? That our hearts are dark? That if given the right circumstances we all could be Hitler? I know I've lied, I've stolen things, and I've hurt the people I love the most. I've even made my wife cry and I know there are people out there that think I'm a jerk. So I ask you am I good person? I strive to be, but the human condition drags me down.

That's why we invent law. Whether it be moral law, or traffic law, laws are put in place to fight against the human condition. But Laws are so easily corrupted, from going 35 in a 25 miles per hour zone, or murdering your neighbor for his sneakers, we break laws because we are weak, selfish and at our cores we don't want anybody to tell us what to do.

V operates in a place where humans are basically good except for those that disagree with him. Government and greed are the problems. He and those who agree with him are the ones who are right. Organized religion is wrong. Politics is wrong. If we can somehow get rid of them the world will be a better place. But alas isn't he himself turning his followers into robots? What if one of his followers challenged him? Would he be labeled a traitor? Would he be sent away? The final outcome of V FOR VENDETTA may seem helpful, but why replace one tyranny for another.

I know I've gone off on a tangent here. I know my comments may make some people angry. But alas I live in America and for all the horrible things that are going wrong, I'm glad I can still thank God that I live in a country where many men and women strive to do what's right. I can question my government without having to resort to terrorist actions and where men and women can believe what they want. We are "One Nation Under God", be it a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or Zeus the God Of War. My faith in America is not in the government. My freedom is not protected by George W. Bush or V the mysterious masked vigilante. It come from some place higher, some place stronger than myself. Terrorism breeds more terrorism. Anarchy breeds nothing but chaos and V FOR VENDETTA is a horrible education in hedonism and nihilism.

Do you want change the world? It begins in the human heart. It begins when you strive to do good regardless of whether the Government is protecting you or not. It's means dying not for self, but for others and striving for truth and not empty platitudes. V FOR VENDETTA is about a coward, and that's just sad.

Sometimes I'm presented with the challenge of making sense of Christian entertainment. Working in Christian radio a number of weird videos pass across my desk. Today the promotions manager at work handed me a wild looking DVD and asked me If I would watch it and tell her if I thought it was safe for a family audience. What I was treated to was probably the silliest "supernatural" thriller I have ever seen.

THE VISITATION, based on the best selling novel by FRANK PERETTI, tells the tale of a Pastor named Travis, who lost his faith when he lost his wife, and of a town in the middle of a spiritual crisis. The town of Antioch has experienced a series of weird religious miracles. A boy survives a deadly car crash without a scratch, a man is healed of knee pain when he touches the tears that come from a wooden crucifix, a picture of Jesus has shown up in a mildew stain on a shower wall, and the local shopkeeper has gotten out of his wheelchair and walked. Then, a stranger named Brandon Nichols (Edward Furlong) comes to town ans is seen as the man who made all these miracles happen, so obviously the town embraces him as the second coming of Christ. But alas things may not be what they seem, and it's up to Travis and Antioch's new Veterinarian (Kelly Lynch) to figure out just what is going on.

I guess in every group there is a special language that outsiders can't quite understand. In evangelical Christianity we call it "Christianese." THE VISITATION is steeped in it. Even I felt like I needed a refresher course. If your not familiar with the lingo most of this film will make little sense. Every moment of the film seemed to be predicated on some basic Christian Theology without any entry way for those who are not familiar to catch up. It also renders a lot of the dialogue corny and contrived.

But if you can get past that you probably won't even be able to figure out just what the movie is trying to say. There is no logic to the world that created in this film. Good and Evil may be defined but why can someone cast out a demon in one scene and not be able to do it in another scene? Are the demons really demons? If they are really Demons how exactly do they manifest themselves as humans? Why go through all the trouble anyway? These questions are surprising because normally Frank Peretti as an author defines Evil in terms that make sense and because he is listed as one of producers on the film the rough script by Brian Godawa (TO END ALL WARS) had to have passed his desk at some point during the production. Is his novel as convoluted as the screenplay? I would hope not.

I especially loved the nod to "CSI" as the plucky Vet (Kelly Lynch) uses an a CAT scan to read a piece of newspaper. It seems to be the only reason that her character is a vet, is so that someone can use this machine to gleam absolutely nothing that is important. But I laughed as that black piece of paper was run through the machine. It was silly.

More importantly who the heck came up with the ending of this film? I've seen some really bad closing moments in movies but THE VISITATION'S hokey ending actually mad me laugh. It is easily the dumbest closing moment I've ever seen. It involves a chisel and a Bible and it really does have to be seen to be believed.

As for the cast you really can't blame them for their performances they're as good as they can be. Randy Travis plays the dull pastor whose faith never waivers with as much passion as he can. Martin Donovan gives Travis enough passion to keep his performance watch able, and Kelly Lynch does what she can with the damsel in distress role. As for Edward Furlong he gets the Christian Slater award of excellence for his over the top tirade in the closing minutes of the film.

Don't rent this movie unless your prepared to toss popcorn at the TV and laugh heartily at its complete and utter insanity. This is a bad movie and if you like that kind of thing this will be your cup of tea. If not flee far away from THE VISITATION, oh and by to answer my promotions director this film is not safe for a family audience.

One of the unsung heroes of modern cinema was Jim Henson. Besides his truly brilliant Muppets, he did have a bit of a dark side. Anybody who hasn't been wowed and slightly frightened by LABYRINTH, or experienced the beauty and eerie splendor of THE DARK CRYSTAL should run out to the video store and pick them up today. It's amazing he's been gone for a decade. But after sitting down in my warm easy chair to watch Dave Mckean's darkly powerful MIRRORMASK, the latest film to come from the Jim Henson Company, I can attest that his legacy of far off worlds and amazing stories still exist.

MIRRORMASK tells the story of a young girl named Helena (Stephanie Leondis). She's on the verge of becoming and adult, and on the verge of teenage rebellion. Her father runs a circus that is held together by his dream and not much more. Helena's had it with the circus life and wants to be normal. As the film opens she has a big fight with her mother on this very subject. When her mother falls ill later that night, only a risky surgery can save her. In turn Helena is whisked away to a magical land that is on the verge of falling apart. Only the Mirrormask can save her world and the mysterious world she's now inhabiting.

I've always considered myself a pretty creative guy. But oh my goodness, where did the magical world of this film come from. It's like nothing I've ever seen. I almost think I have to watch it again, because hot darn this place is just marvelous. Computer graphics, blue screen effects, and wild character make-up are mixed to create a world that is so unique and yet plausible. There are surprises hiding around corners and every frame is jumping with some new and bizarre set-piece and characters that just jump out at you.

The film, written Sandman creator, creator Neil Gaiman and director McKean, is as close to a comic book, without being totally animated, as you can get. It's dark and puzzling and yet so amazing. It's a shame I didn't get to see this on the big screen because it is an awe inspiring work.

This film is proof that you don't need a complicated story to make a complicated movie. In all honesty the story is simple, it could really be the plot of an Afterschool special. But MIRRORMASK demands to watched because it's visually stunning, and is brimming with creativity.

The film dramatic wight rests on young Stephanie Leondis. As Helena she captures the amazement and savvy of a young girl who is about to become a women. It could be a thankless task for her, the film doesn't really require much. But there is a self awareness and subtle charm trapped behind this young ladies eyes. How she is able to craft a such a simple performance and yet not get lost in the world around her is beyond me. She makes it look easy.

But the strongest virtue of this film is that it is a perfect mix of wild imagination and careful plotting. It allows the story to use its special effects not be overpowered by them. MIRRORMASK is a very calculated film, it's smart, and yet simple enough for young children. This movie has a little something for everyone.

The music is also quite wonderful. MIRRORMASK is the kind of movie that I would love to watch without dialogue and just the music score underneath it. It hit all the right chords without overpowering any of the action.

If you liked THE DARK CRYSTAL, LABYRINTH, or ALICE IN WONDERLAND than seek out MIRRORMASK. Trust me it's a visual delight. It is also one of the most powerfully creative and beautiful films I've ever had the pleasure to watch.

As a sat in the dark cinema getting ready to experience last weekends number 1 hit MADEA'S FAMILY REUNION, I entered in with a little curiosity and left with a lot of confusion. Namely why? Who in their right mind thought this should have been filmed? Who in their right mind thought that it would work? and how can I possibly write a review of this movie without ripping it to shreds? It would be so easy. MADEA'S FAMILY REUNION is a bad movie. It's a bad melodrama and it's overbearing main character sucks the life out of the film causing any bit of honest reflection to fall out of favor. But then for the brief moment it looks like the film could redeem itself. The whole direction of the film just changes for the good. There is a brief moment that is so compelling, and interesting. It actually got me thinking of an idea for a much better movie. But I'll get to that in a minute.

MADEA'S FAMILY REUNION is based on Tyler Perry's successful traveling play of the same name. It' a story of two sisters, Lisa and Vanessa. Lisa is about to marry the most eligible man in Atlanta, everything looks perfect. But he's beating her. Vanessa is living with her Aunt Madea, trying to provide for her two young children. She's also nursing some deep rooted fears that she comes face to face with as a hot young bus driver begins wooing her. Their Mom is a evil witch of women whom has all but given up on Vanessa and is forcing the marriage between Lisa and her abusive fiancé for her own financial gain.

Over seeing all of this is Madea. She's an over the top, tough as nails, and just plain sassy women whom ascribes to the idea that "sparing the rod, spoils the child." She's been dragged into court and is forced to take in a young foster daughter or go to prison. By the way if you didn't already know Madea is played by this films writer, director, and producer Tyler Perry. He also stars as a cousin and Medea's flatulent husband.

There is a lot in this movie. Too much in fact. It plays like a very special episode of "Blossom" with one piece of conflict after another. Then without much fanfare each problem is neatly wrapped up and then Madea acts like a sassy Grandma, and her husband farts. That is whole movie in a nutshell. Not one moment of any subtlety, not one moment of honesty, just sit-com action and issues that are glossed over. Scene after scene just clunk into themselves, of course their were moments that made me laugh, and at least it was somewhat watchable. But, had I not plunked down my six bucks I probably would have the urge to walk right out (I've never walked out of a movie before, so I probably wouldn't have, but the idea was in my head and that's all that matters).

But then something much more interesting occurred. The family reunion portion of the film takes over. Madea disappears for a long time and for twenty or thirty minutes the film offers a glimpse of African American culture that just blew me away. These few scenes felt honest, real, and were handled with passion. Cicely Tyson shines as the long suffering aunt whose motivations are loving and yet she pulls no punches. The film didn't resort to Madea's clowning and pulled off a much more poignant outcome . Her final speech was the heart and soul of this movie. Had it ended here the film would have been much harder to rip apart.

But alas Madea jumps right back in and kills the whole thing. The final act of the film is both sad and pathetic. If I were in a room with Mr. Perry I'd really ask him what the purpose of Madea in this story? If you removed her from the film would it have hurt the film in any way? Why not put Tyson in the role as the wise Aunt and not yourself in a dress? The best parts of this film did not include Madea, so why force her into the movie? In all fairness I can understand why this material would work in a live theater environment. Big characters like Madea are fueled by audience reaction. Melodrama works better in the theater as well so I can understand why his plays are so successful. But as a film MADEA'S FAMILY REUNION is a waste.

Post Script: I have a million dollar idea if anybody wants it: why not make a dramatic realistic film about the typical African American family reunion. It is a compelling idea that could make a very good film. So run with it, and skip this movie.

A few years back I sat through a weird movie called CQ. It was this film about a visionary young director making a crappy movie. It was about the creative spark that hit people even if the outcome is complete deck. That movie came back to me while sitting through TRISTRAM SHANDY: A COCK AND BULL STORY.

SHANDY is a kind of mockumentary/period drama about a real actor named Steve Coogan. He's a big star in Britain (really!). He's stars in the film within the film as the lead character Tristram Shandy. The film is based on a popular British novel called The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. It's a huge novel that will be impossible to film, so of course they do. It also follows Coogan the actor whose life is as chaotic. But to try to sum up the story would be impossible except to say that it's a story about the creative process and the toll it takes on one man and the people around him. Plus Gillian Anderson has a cameo.

Yet it's funny. In a British way. Not being aware of much in British humor (except for Monty Python) I missed a lot of jokes. There was a women behind me in the theater that laughed a lot. But except for her this theater was filled with old people and they didn't for the most part make a peep so I'm not quite sure how effective the movie is, but I laughed a little. I especially like the scene with the gigantic birth canal with fallopian tubes that they lowered Coogan into upside down.

Yes I will admit the film was a little over my head. Not that I couldn't follow it. I just wondered if their was something more I needed to get. Was there a piece of dialogue that I couldn't quite decipher? I left the movie having seen it but amazingly I forgot most of what I had seen after I left the theater, well except for the giant birth canal.

All this to say, that I would like to watch this film again sometime. With other people, and maybe as a group we could figure out if there was some deeper meaning other than that life is chaotic and tragic and our life stories are interesting even if we never get passed how we were born. Even this review is interesting, if kind of random. I apologize for that. Please somebody go see this movie and tell me what I'm missing. Because I liked it, and yet I'm not sure it hit me quite the way I was expecting.

One wonders if this review is not a COCK AND BULL STORY on its own . It is as if the way this film was shot and edited together has effected the very way I will interpret cinema forever or maybe I'm just a crazy man who needs to be locked up. Please break me from this misery because I'm at a loss to quite explain the film and yet if you were standing near me I might be able to rattle on for 25 minutes about what the film was about. Hmm... I've never quite felt this way before.

All this to say I recommend this film and yet am unable to put the film into any real place. Go see it you'll understand.

I have been eagerly awaiting THE SECOND CHANCE. A film that was written and directed by Steve Taylor and starring Michael W. Smith. Imagine my two childhood heroes making a film together. It was too much for me to bear.

THE SECOND CHANCE follows Ethan Jenkins (Michael W. Smith) a suburban pastor whose life is just getting comfortable. He had a successful recording career that ended in rehab, and has since taken the associate pastor gig at The Rock, his fathers mega-church deep in the heart of suburbia. When Ethan's methods get in the way of the church boards plans he is sent to The Second Chance Community Church. It's a small inner city church Ethan's father started when Ethan was a child and he's there to learn and observe. Second Chance is in the middle of the inner city and is presided over by Pastor Jake (Jeff Carr), a former pro basketball player who is trying to save his community from the plight of gangs and drugs. Its an uphill battle and he sees Ethan as just another suburban do-gooder that will leave when the going gets tough. Can these men work together? Will Ethan stick with Pastor Jake? Or will other insidious plans cause a rift in the 'hood? THE SECOND CHANCE is a film with very lofty goals. It's a film that reveals one of the biggest problems that is plaguing the Christian Church in America: racial and class separation. There is a problem with terms like "Black Church" and "White Church." and "Rich Church" and "Poor Church." They're false. There is only one church and we all should be invited. Ethan and Jake are two souls caught in the middle. Ethan is out of his comfort zone at Second Chance and Jake is tired of the Suburban church throwing money at his neighborhood problems and not helping out. Does the Second Chance film succeed in opening our eyes to the problems in our own backyard? It does.

Director Taylor fills his film with rich colorful characters. But at times his actors can't get into them. For instance I particularly loved the sassy women playing the choir leader. She has such a small role and yet she fills it with color and realism. Other performers just aren't as skilled and the dialogues they have sound like dialogue and not real life conversations.

As for the two leads, Smith and Carr give competent performances. Both are first time film actors and against the odds grow into their characters. There are a few moments early on that felt a little wooden but as the film progresses I bought their relationship, and them as the characters.

The major flaw with the film is the long winded first act. The script dumps a lot of plot conflict on the story and the long walk around the 'hood confused me a little. But then there is this scene with Smith, a small child, and a paper plate. WOW! Taylor and Smith nail it. This was a small moment in a lot of disjointed clutter that was perfect. I hoped for more honest moments like that and they definitely came.

I also liked that the film had a good natured sense of humor. There were moments when I saw Taylor's wit and good natured ribbing poking out. Trust me you won't look at prayer and a lottery ticket the same way again.

But how will this admittedly "Christian Film" play to the unchurched masses? I don't really know. It feels more like an exhortation to the Christian Community and I wonder how someone on the outside would be able to follow it. That is not a negative. If this film gets the Christian community to enter into a discussion about how to fix a great divide between the rich and poor, between the Black Church and the White Church, then I applaud it. But it is also a good look into what goes on inside the Christian community and may cause those who don't quite understand to ask questions and there is nothing wrong with dialogue.

THE SECOND CHANCE is not a perfect film, but it tries and it has guts. Moreover its watchable and more importantly honest. I liked it an applaud all involved.

Marriage is a crazy dance many people in our modern Cosmopolotian world choose not to take. The apostle Paul warned young men that it's a better life not to be married and yet here we are in 2004 with hundreds of Divorces daily, and still men and women walk down that isle into eternity. People are pledging their lives to one another. Marriage still goes on even if society and our own greed and selfishness tries to break it down.

It wasn't until I sat down and watched THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS that I realized how many movies are about real Marriages. Hollywood seems preoccupied with fake superficial stories where things sometimes go wrong, and yet by the end everybody loves each other, or they like to focus on the romance, or the out and out horror of it all. But let be honest and ask the question why hasn't anyone really attempted to look at marriage in the context of what it is: a union of two people, with fears, feelings, and a deep angst.

Marriage is not unlike teeth. They are strong, you can grind away at them and yet they stay rock hard. But you must take care of teeth, if you don't they break apart. Improper dental hygiene will cause cavities at first, but if you progress your gums can bleed, they can get filled with puss, they can rot and they can finally fall out. Marriage like teeth can fall apart if you don't fix it.

In the SECRET LIFE OF DENTISTS we meet Dave (Campbell Scott, The Spainish Prisoner) and his wife (Hope Davis, Nest Stop Wonderland). They share a profitable life and dental practice together. They have three beautiful daughters, and a marriage that is as common as any. That is until Dave catches his wife in what he thinks is an affair. The rest of the film is a dark and humorous, silly and tragic spiral into the worst and best of what makes marriages what they are.

Director Alan Rudolph (Trixie) takes what could be an average slice of life and elevates it with well placed dark humor. He also gives Dave his own id, in the form of Denis Leary. Leary plays the part of the crotchety guy with a kind of subtle bravura. Sure we've seen him play it a thousand time before but the way Scott reacts to it, its priceless.

Scott and Davis have a really good chemistry together. The film cast them perfecty because you feel the anguish and the grasping for each other. It works because although they're pulling apart from each other. They are grasping at the same time. IUT makes for tension that feels real and not forced.

At the end of the day the Scret life of Dentists is about what makes us human and what draws us together and what ultimately keeps us together as well.

Christmas time is here. It's a time of Joy and maybe even a little pain. It's that special time every year I give the cynic in me a little time off. It's also the time I let myself get pulled into the movies of the season. I'm not talking about the fodder for Oscar that permeate this time, or the stupid little comedies created to play off these high class art. I'm talking about those movies about Christmas, the really engage and audience. Films like IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, A Christmas STORY, MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET, or MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS. Films that on the surface are a little schmaltzy and silly, but have so much heart I can't stand to be pulled in.

THE POLAR EXPRESS follows the adventure of a young boy whom has lost his faith in Santa. He muses the question any growing boy would ask "Does Santa exist?" When a mysterious train appears on his front lawn on Christmas Eve it whisks him away on an adventure that could take him to meet the big man himself. Was it a dream? Does Santa really exist? All these question will be answered in 90 minutes

Christmas has a new movie: THE POLAR EXPRESS. A film so sweet, and breathtaking it's hard as a critic to shower it with negatives. Of course I could… I could tell you there are moments when the films momentum screeches to a halt, the ending goes on forever, and the tone of the movie is a little to sweet for its own good. I also thought the needless cameo by Steven Tyler completely dragged me out of the film. "Oh look it's the guy from Areosmith," I mused. It took me out of the film for a moment because I thought I was in a much cheaper film. But I will not acknowledge those small trifles anymore.

This film is breathtaking. It's one fueled entirely by imagination. The new computer imaging effects do a great job of conveying a magical aura, without drawing us into reality. I don't believe we'll ever get to the point where a computer generated person will look human, (and that's just fine with me.) Had the creator's of the Polar Express tried to do that it would have destroyed the look of the film. But the characters odd movements, and almost human emotions strike the right chords.

I loved the dancing chef's And waiter's sequence on THE POLAR EXPRESS. It was silly and so full of life. I wondered if they had tried to shoot this film in live action (without green screens and body suits) what would this sequence look like. My thought: Bad Broadway. But the CGI characters could fly through the air, do difficult physical stunts and all without the scene feeling choppy. This is the first big sequence and it sets you up for the even more amazing wonders to come.

The Polar Express also takes us on an adventure in speed over and icy lake, down the steepest hill imaginable, and introduces us to characters that are both vibrant and fun. Tom Hanks fills at least 5 roles, and gives each one their own aura. I especially loved the vagrant Hurdy Gurdy man whom appears and disappears to help out the young hero. The scene on ski's… I really don't want to ruin it for you.

THE POLAR EXPRESS is high art aimed at a young audience. If you have a heart of stone, I wouldn't recommend you waste your money here. But if you like to be whisked away to far off lands, if you have a place in your heart for Christmas, give THE POLAR EXPRESS a try. It's so much fun.

Growing up a Protestant kid in the 80's I tripped over the story of Nate Saint, Jim Elliot and the three other missionaries who were brutally murdered by the Waorani people in 1956. It is the tragic story that caused a sensation in the United States. Not because the men died in vain, but because the wives of these men reached out to these violent people and changed their lives forever. It's a story that captivated me. In fact when I was eleven I told many people that I one day wanted to make a movie about these very people. To my surprise THE END OF THE SPEAR came along and does just that.

SPEAR tells the tale from the vantage point of young Steve Saint (Chase Ellison), Nate Saints (Chad Allen) pre-teen son, and Mincayani (Louie Leonardo) the Waorani leader whom killed Nate Saint with his own spear. It begins as the Waorani people are on the verge of the extinction. Their violent society has the Ecuadoran government ready to go in and kill them all, and their warlike ways have made them unable to survive very long anyway. It's only when Saint's wife (Cara Stoner) and sister Rachel (Sara Kathryn Bakker) move into the tribe and attempt to reach out to the Waorani women that redemption begin to take hold.

I walked into SPEAR with very little expectation. You have to understand I have seen hundreds of horrible "Christian" films. Most are not worth the film they are printed on. But SPEAR works. Yes it's got some very clunky scenes, the dialogue is a tad bit simplistic, but it has a dramatic tension I wasn't quite expecting. I was actually moved by scenes. I rooted for characters and did not feel talked down to. SPEAR is not a movie about saving souls, it's a movie about characters. It is the kind of movie that if given a chance will spark debate and inspiration. It's motive seems innocent and not heavy handed.

The cinematography while simple by Hollywood's standard is effective. The score doesn't get in the way, and Director Jim Hannon fills his story with just enough detail that it's believable. He gets performances out of his actors that are simple and understated. It's not Oscar caliber, but that's not to be expected. The dialogue works, even if the Subtitles seem to rob the Waorani language of any real nuance, it's simple and get us from point A to point B as well as it can. There were moments I wanted to movie to explain the motives of it characters a little better. But for what it's worth SPEAR is still effective.

My qualms with the casting of Chase Ellison as Young Steve should also be noted. Some heavy scenes fall on this young boy and unfortunately he doesn't have the chops to hold it on his shoulders. A better child actor should have been sought. Casting children can be very hard. But the only scenes I didn't buy fell on this poor kid to vocalize and the poor material stuck out like a sore thumb.

I also hated the ending. It hurt the picture. There must have been a more powerful way of ending it. But unfortunately it pushed the story into the melodramatic range. It also introduced a supernatural twist that needed an explanation. We saw the scene earlier and these events didn't occur, why now? Hopefully this sour ending will not hurt the rest of the picture for most audiences. I for one was a little disappointed.

But all in all END OF THE SPEAR is not a bad film. It has its flaws. But at its heart it's the kind of movie that will inspire those whom let it. It will move those whom allow it to move and hopefully it will open a dialogue about International Missions. A job that has gotten a bad rap by people whom don't understand its importance in shaping the modern world. I'm glad that this story was told and that I had an opportunity to see it.

***1/2 (out of 5)

Something happened in the 80's. There was a defining moment that systematically changed how people look at the world. I didn't know it then but when my teachers told me of the first Thanksgiving and the story of Indians and Pilgrims living together in a peace in harmony little did I discover that it was all a lie. By the time I got out of Elementary school I heard the heartbreaking story of how the white man killed every last Native American with extreme malice. So what was the truth, who was at fault? It was only after years of figuring out just how history works that I came to the conclusion that (for the most part) History is rarely black and white and the monsters and heroes that have become part of the story are rarely as monstrous or heroic as they seem.

That's what makes Terence Malick's THE NEW WORLD so bold. It doesn't try to tell a story about America, but he tells a story of two people trapped between themselves and the world that continues to change around them. You will find little here about how horrible Europeans are or how savage the Native Americans are, instead you get a lyrical poem about the simple curiosity that must have come over the Native Americans and European Settlers at the birth of America.

THE NEW WORLD begins just as America does at the dawn of the Jamestown Colony. Its 1607 and two ship has dropped off the men who will successfully settle the land. Captain John Smith (Colin Farrell) is sent to the local Native Tribe to make friends and alliances for their very survival. He meets and falls for Pocahontas (Q'Orianka Kilcher) who asks her father the king to spare Smith's life. On Pocahontas' instance the King helps the men of the Jamestown settlement survive their first winter, but disowns his daughter after he realizes these men are not leaving.

Terrence Malick has crafted a beautiful film. The score is lush, the photography beautiful, and the performances are just golden. At the heart of this film is a simple (and yet dramatically complicated) love story. I could have been set anywhere, in fact hundreds of films have dealt with the theme. But Malick gives us characters worth rooting for and embracing and a story that is told simply and beautiful.

Q'Orianka Kilcher embodies Pocahantas with such a sweet demeanor and striking curiosity. She is strong, and joyful, and seems unfazed by the world around her. I loved the scenes when she goes to England. Somehow her performance, which was so raw and passionate, made me believe she had never seen Western Civilization before. She is the lynch pin to this film and somehow carries it with an amount of courage and yet a simple aloofness. She makes acting look easy.

Malick also wisely doesn't pull the story down by cluttering it with dread, or political correctness. Some will probably argue that the film turns a blind eye to the suffering cause by 17th Century Colonialism. But that's not what this film is about. THE NEW WORLD is about a girl, who becomes a women at a time when the world was changing.

The film is also about groups of people exploring each other for the first time. The Settlers and the Native people don't have histories baggage to hold them back. They are simple men and women trying to figure out who these strange people are that have moved into their neighborhood. It's amazing to watch, the outcome of this history can and will be discussed for years and years. But THE NEW WORLD is not that forum.

I have my qualms with the end of the film. The story could have been a little stronger, but because the characters have so much heart and the film is so beautiful I didn't mind. At the end of the day plot developments are pointless, when you have Characters with heart and power. THE NEW WORLD is a film worth watching, and embracing. It's a strong character driven tale that is both bold and daring simply because it chooses heart over politics