kmberger

Most people who seek out this movie do so for its legendary nine-minute, brutal, graphic rape scene. They're either drawn to it by some need to see this infamous scene, or repulsed by the fact that it even exists. If that's all you see here, you're missing a finely crafted, very challenging film that has a lot to say about fate, destiny, and the course of our everyday lives.

Irreversible is a story told backwards, using this gimmick as a path to its ultimate theme: if you knew the future was bleak and horrible, would you still want to see it? After a brief prologue that sets up this theme ("Les temps detoured tout" - Time destroys everything), we see nothing but chaos. The camera-work is dizzying and disorienting, the dialogue is shouted and overlapping, the cuts quick and blinding. Ten minutes later, a vicious act of retribution on a rapist occurs. Shortly after that, the actual crime is seen - the rape of Alex (Monica Bellucci) at the hands of a total stranger. Both of these heinous acts are filmed without the jump-cuts and off-kilter perspectives - we see them with sickening clarity.

That's the future (or the present). The rest of the film establishes the three main characters - Alex, her boyfriend Marcus (Vincent Cassel) and her ex-lover Pierre (Albert Dupontel) in happier times as they head to town for a party. Each scene takes a step back - not only in chronological time, but in thematic distance from the chaos and violence of the early part of the film. We see these three tease and joke about sex and relationships, even with that dark shadow of the known future echoing behind every simple touch or every spoken word.

But the film is brightening as it goes backwards, reinforcing the theme that time does destroy everything (as the future becomes the past), but also that even the worst horrors can never truly overshadow a happy past. Bellucci and Cassell (real life husband and wife) have a perfect on-screen chemistry, one that's shown with more than dialogue or action; it's evident in their comfort with one another.

By the time the film ends, director Gaspar Noe has shown you the depths of human depravity, but he's also rewarded you with a sense of optimism that you may never have guessed was coming. He carefully constructs a film built on horrible realities and open-ended possibilities. He's clever enough to unfold his story in such a way that we know the ending, but still can feel good about the beginnings.

For those who think this is a film intended for shock alone, they might be surprised at its depth. It's definitely not for everyone - not by a longshot - but there's more here than meets the eye.

Thirteen was co-written by a fifteen year old (Nikki Reed), basing the events on her own true-life experiences. That's impressive enough on it's own. And it has a knock-it-out-of-the-park performance by Holly Hunter, who gives everything to a role that needs everything she's got. But something just doesn't quite click to perfection in this film. Maybe it's the constant flow of tragedy and angst that never lets up on these two girls. Maybe it's the over-the-top freefall that good-girl Tracy (Evan Rachel Wood) has when she tries to fit in with new best friend Evie (Reed). Maybe it's that every adult in the film seems clueless and stupid when it comes to anything that these kids are doing on the street, in the middle of the night, over and over again.

I don't doubt that things like this happen - every single day, in every single city - but as a dramatic effect, it starts to become saturated and overblown, losing its effect in the wake of trying to be shocking. Maybe this is where a more experienced screenwriter could have tightened up the flow and hit a little closer to the heart of the drama - namely, the connection between the two girls that has almost nothing to do with the drugs and the sex and the rebellion; just the fact that neither feels like they belong anywhere, or to anyone. Good enough for what it is, but I think it could have been more.

Writer/director Dylan Kidd has turned out an excellent character study here in the guise (at least in marketing and trailers) of a coming-of-age story. The filming is immediate and engaging, using a shaky-cam and lots of close-ups and tight shots to make the settings more intimate and conversational. The script is blinding, as Roger dispenses more self-help wisdom than a guest on Dr. Phil or Oprah, and he does it with the brash arrogance of a deluded intellectual.

Roger, brilliantly played by Campbell Scott, is a guy everyone knows. He bounces from bar to bar, picking up women like its a pastime, but ultimately he's undermined by his own intelligence and desire to be free and single. He's experienced more than his share of heartbreak, but he doesn't like to admit that or dwell on it. He'll just bounce back, but it's not as easy as he thinks when he has to overcome the venom of his own hurtful words.

He's a complicated guy, Roger, and his life seems to get a little more complicated with the arrival of his sixteen-year-old nephew Nick (Jesse Eisenberg). Nick's worried about how to deal with the ladies, so he came to the one man who knows it all - Uncle Roger. Roger sees a way to rebound himself after an interoffice relationship with his boss (Isabella Rosselini) has fallen apart - he'll take Nick under his wing and teach him the ways of love, giving himself a kickstart in the process.

For the rest of the night, Roger and Nick hop from place to place, with Uncle Roger chatting a mile a minute about women, how to get them, how to talk to them, and Nick trying to soak it all up like a sponge. It's witty conversation, but it's heavy and meaningful as well - Roger's words aren't just come-ons, they're looks into his own mindset. Campbell Scott plays Roger with all sorts of textures - he's not oily and nasty; he's a smart guy who doesn't quite know all the rules, but thinks he does. And he's never honest with himself.

Scott's never delivered a stronger performance, and the young Eisenberg more than held his own. 'Roger Dodger' is a solid film that has far more depth and meaning than the typical Freddie Prinze Jr. get-the-girl flick, and has much more to say about relating with others and yourself. Highly recommended - Rating: 8/10

Todd Haynes has crafted a masterpiece here. As another reviewer here mentioned, he built 'Far From Heaven' as a Douglas Sirk movie, complete with pitch-perfect sets and costumes, and even the washed-out Technicolor of 50s Hollywood. He couldn't have done it better, and it's important that he crafted his movie in the image of these old melodramas - because the entire focus of 'Far From Heaven' lies in how people find themselves trapped by their environments, unable to break free of the molds of their lives and caught in a momentum of the times.

Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore) is a liberal-thinking housewife who's mildly tolerated by her more conservative friends, who think it's quaint that she's interested in the NAACP. Patricia Clarkson is the most genuine of these friends, giving a strong performance that isn't entirely filled with hateful stereotyping - she personifies the '50's ideal' that is so strong and prevalent in the Whitakers' lives.

Dennis Quaid is Frank Whitaker, a prominent advertising executive who is trying to come to terms with his own homosexuality. He resists it, going to counseling to 'fix' his problem, and finds himself crackling under the pressure of living up to expectations.

Cathy herself is dealing with Frank's issues by developing a friendship with her gardener, Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert). Raymond is a single father and an educated man, but is also black. Though he enjoys art museums, he's looked at with scorn by a society that still draws lines based on race. Even his own society does this, when he brings Cathy to his neighborhood for a brunch and a dance.

'Far From Heaven' is a tough movie to watch, since suppression is so central to every character. Things ought to be a certain way, and when they aren't - these aren't the people and this isn't the time for that to be generally accepted. The most poignant moments are between Cathy and Raymond, as their relationship could, at another time and place, become a wonderful romance. But here, in the 1950s Douglas Sirk world that Haynes has created, they must keep themselves in the roles designed for them by the world and society. It's telling that Cathy's one real emotional breakdown relates entirely to Raymond - not Frank.

Quaid's performance is good, but he chews a bit too much scenery during his outbursts. Moore is wonderfully understated, as her emotions are kept just beneath the surface. I thought her role in 'The Hours' was more heart-wrenching, but this role calls for a little more restraint. Haysbert is fantastic - his chemistry with Moore carries the movie and builds a forceful sympathy from the audience - we WANT to see these two find a way to make it work and build a life together.

Outstanding film that is almost perfect in every way. Rating: 9/10

Those Gyllenhalls, they sure can act. Maggie, like her brother Jake, turns in great performances like they're routine - she makes it look easy. In 'Secretary', she delivers a layered, complex performance as Lee Holloway, a disturbed young lady who deals with stress by cutting herself - the pain pushes away everything else that's bothering her.

As she's released from an institution back into the world, she takes her first job as secretary to lawyer E. Edward Grey, played by James Spader. From then on, the movie explores their relationship and how it affects Lee, taking her from the quiet, self-damaging wallflower into the determined and strong woman she becomes.

The film's use of S&M in the relationship between Lee and Mr. Grey makes it a bit controversial, but it's not really the focus here. The idea of Lee as the submissive and Mr. Grey as the dominant have little to do with their sexuality and everything to do with their personality issues.

Lee can't handle extreme emotion without resorting to pain, because she can't take control of her own life. What she sees in Mr. Grey is love - absolute love, the likes of which she can't find with her fiance Peter (Jeremy Davies). That love allows her to give him the power of her pain - by doing that, she's finding something worthy to focus on instead of the nothingness of her sewing kit and iodine.

Mr. Grey, for his part, is a man who can't deal with anything except in his own ordered, regimented way. He cares for his orchids but little else, and the steps he takes with Lee open up his wary heart. He's slower to develop than she is, and to take the final steps towards a real, lasting relationship, he has to be dragged there by the force of Lee's own will.

The key to this film - and S&M relationships in general - is that Lee (the submissive) has all the power, not Mr. Grey (the dominant). She sets the terms by which the relationship will be conducted, seemingly for the first time in her entire life (including the relationships with her family). Lee finds love and desire in Mr. Grey, and pursues it while healing her own shattered psyche in the process.

Maggie Gyllenhall is luminous here. She can say more with a facial expression than most can in a Shakespearean soliloquy. She gives herself completely over to the part, without a wink or a nudge that she's just kidding, or thinks any part of this is silly. She becomes Lee Holloway, which is the best compliment you can give an actor. Spader, for his part, follows in a long string of oddballs, but doesn't go over the top, as he could have been tempted to do. This is Maggie's movie, and he supports it and plays off it well.

Rating: 8/10, based on the strong performance of Maggie Gyllenhall and the character of Lee Holloway, but nocked down due to a poorly-constructed finale that just doesn't fit with the rest of the film. Highly recommended.

'Phone Booth' was shelved for months in the wake of the sniper attacks in the DC area last year. Now it's in full release, and since it was made, Colin Farrell has become the hottest thing in Hollywood. So here's a chance to see a rising star in a film he made before his big breakout. It's interesting enough for that - and its strong setup - but unfortunately not enough else.

The hook for the film is outstanding. Farrell plays Stu Shepard, a conniving press agent who manipulates everyone he knows to get marginal gains. His phone is his lifeline - it defines him. Every day, he uses an old-style walk-in phone booth in NYC to call a young ingenue that he's heavily flirting with (played by Katie Holmes). After making his daily call, the phone rings - it's a man who tells Stu not to hang up, since he's got a rifle aimed right at him. That's it - the rest of the movie plays off of that tension.

The good: Farrell gives a paper-thin role everything he's got. Stu is the kind of guy who thinks he's a player, and maybe on some basic level, he is one. But he's just one of a million faces in New York, and isn't given any depth by this script. We know he's married (to Radha Mitchell), and for all his sleaziness, apparently hasn't cheated on her. Yet. But his story is incomplete. We don't know where Stu comes from, how on earth he got into this situation, or most importantly, why we should care. Despite all that, Farrell almost pulls it off by portraying Stu's false bravado and quickening panic - it's easy to empathize with his plight.

Keifer Sutherland is used brilliantly here as the voice of the sniper. He has the perfect voice - great pitch, distinctive sound, and puts just the right emphasis on the sinister and the nearly-psychotic. He's very threatening. However, the character of the sniper is a problem. He has way too much information about Stu (from what, bugging the phone booth? Does he do anything else but follow Stu around?), and is shown as the all-powerful, all-knowing villain who can't be beaten because he sees everything. Even the cops become wary of him. A voice like this definitely creates tension - he could do anything! - but there's no rhyme or reason here. Thin motives are suggested rather than offered - it's clear that this isn't a script designed to get in the head of a sniper, but one designed to make everyone watching nervous as hell. Does it work? For a while. Then it becomes repetitive and even silly.

On the downside, we have Forest Whitaker misused as an earnest-beyond-belief policeman who seems to have read the script - he realizes Stu's predicament from what seems to be pure intuition. Radha Mitchell cares way too much for a guy the movie spends a lot of time turning into a superficial jerk, and Holmes is nothing more than window-dressing.

After a promising start, 'Phone Booth' doesn't seem to know where to go. It gets wrapped up in false finishes and teases, but works itself into a corner, and doesn't seem willing to commit. If Stu was supposed to be a jerk that gets redeemed, then what's the problem with *really* making him a jerk, and giving this a real payoff when he sees the error of his ways? If the tension is to pay off, we need to have real emotional investment, and it just isn't there. Without giving spoilers, there's even a hedging on the sniper himself near the end of the movie, regarding his motivations.

I would rather have seen this with a tighter script, trimmed down to about 45 minutes, and aired on TV as part of an anthology series. Whitaker's 'Twilight Zone' would have been a better home for this. Rating: 6/10, based on the strong hook and the performances of Farrell and Sutherland, who carry the whole film on their backs.

First off, I never read the book. So any comments here are based entirely on the film itself.

It has credentials. Based on a Stephen King novel (which is hit-and-miss, some being good, some being crap), adapted by William Goldman and Lawrence Kasdan (two of the better adaptors/screenwriters out there, a definite plus), and directed by Kasdan, 'Dreamcatcher' had the potential to be a well-crafted adaptation. Toss in a quality quartet of actors as the lead group of friends (Timothy Olyphant, Thomas Jane, Damian Lewis, and Jason Lee), and Morgan Freeman and Tom Sizemore as military officials, and you should be golden, right?

Well, not exactly.

'Dreamcatcher' has an impressive start, as the four friends go on their annual retreat to a mountain cabin in the dead of winter. Seems that they all share a hybrid ESP gift, given to them by an old friend, and the camaraderie shown by these guys is well-played by their actors. While they're up at the cabin, a stranger shows up with a bizarre infection and later 'births' a vicious alien creature.

At this point, we're okay. The movie's established good relations with its lead actors, it built some tension with the infection, and delivered an effective scare with the first appearance of the alien. After that, though, the entire plot heads off down the 'alien invasion' track, becoming little more than a glorified B-monster-movie. The quality camaraderie of the four friends is mostly wasted, and Freeman and Sizemore exist mainly to direct the story towards its inevitable climax. After the beast shows up, 'Dreamcatcher' just falls in on itself and collapses.

Lots of problems here. First, the story seems little more than a mish-mash of old King plot devices. The four friends sharing the secret past ('Stand By Me') band together to face down the alien enemy years later as adults ('It'). The alien itself has the ability to take over minds, and the ESP powers the kids-turned-men have seem reminiscent of 'Tommyknockers'. Throw in the quickly-spreading infection ('The Stand') and the car accident near the remote cabin ('Misery'), and there's very little that's new here.

Secondly, the film doesn't pay off on the promising opening it delivers. Lee, Olyphant, Jane and Lewis seem like natural buddies, lifelong friends (which they are, as far as the story goes), but they have really only the one scene where they get to play off each other. A few flashbacks are given to their childhood, but that only makes you realize more how little emphasis was given on their friendship as adults before the film turned into a creature feature.

I agree that the idea of Jonesy's (Lewis) mind as a warehouse of memory is a well-executed one that works visually as well as within the context of the story. But too little else in 'Dreamcatcher' is as original or given as much thought. By the time the whole saga plays out, you've pretty much lost your taste for it, and the shocks that were given in the first act have long since worn off. Average at best.

In 'Full Metal Jacket', Stanley Kubrick's take on the Vietnam War, no easy answers are given. This isn't a simple tale of men in war - it's a tale of how men become warriors, how they detach themselves from humanity and reality in order to deal with the worst horrors they'll ever see, and how some of them can't make it through that.

Powerfully acted by a group of mostly no-names at the time (though some have gone on to bigger and better things, like Vincent D'Onofrio, Matthew Modine, and R. Lee Ermey), the film starts off in boot camp. There, Drill Sergeant Hartmann (played with great venom and bluster by Ermey) proceeds to dehumanize the recruits and turn them into the proud, killing-machine Marines they need to be. Ermey has all the best lines in the film - most of them unprintable here (check out the quote section) - as he continually berates and belittles the new Marines, all the while shaping their mentalities for the war they'll be shipped off to. Some don't fare as well as others, as Private Pyle (D'Onofrio) has a memorable meltdown as the film bridges from basic training to Vietnam itself.

There, Private Joker (Modine), working as a military journalist, finds himself the center of several nasty and brutal scrapes shortly after the Tet Offensive. The scenes here aren't Hollywood polish - they're gritty, confusing, and seemingly random - just like real war. The climax of the film culminates in a bombed out shell of a city, where the squad has to deal with the threat of a VC sniper and the uncertainty of a broken chain of command.

Kubrick creates a harsh and realistic view of war here, one that wouldn't easily be matched on screen for several years. 'Saving Private Ryan' is a different kind of movie altogether. 'Blackhawk Down' is probably the closest, and owes a lot of its battle-scene staging to this film. Private Joker's continual John Wayne impressions send a clear signal that this is not your standard John Wayne-esque war movie, with clear heroes and clean victories. Vietnam was a messier war, and the single goal of most men sent there was simple: Get out alive.

'Full Metal Jacket' is a very powerful war movie, and probably has a good argument towards being the best Vietnam film ever made.

This one had a chance to vault among the top five or so of Bond films. All the key elements are there: A defined and strong villain; a world-spanning and over-the-top plot set in motion by said villain; two lovely ladies that have something to offer besides cheesecake; and some worthy set pieces of the series.

But it's not quite enough to push it past such Bond entries as 'Dr. No', 'Goldfinger', and Brosnan's best, 'GoldenEye'. Due to a script that relies all too much on double entendres and sexual innuendo, 'Die Another Day' induces more groans than it does gasps. Despite all his heroics, the most astounding thing about James Bond is that he can still win the girl with opening lines like, 'Magnificent view,' while ogling the bikini-clad Halle Berry. Please. Give it a rest.

'Die Another Day' tries things a little differently than previous Bond films, which is the good thing. More vulnerability is given Bond, as the film starts with him being captured by North Korean soldiers and held captive for fourteen months, during which he endures torture and interrogation. After he's released in a trade for Korean terrorist Zao (Rick Yune), he's essentially disavowed by MI6, left to fend for himself while he goes to catch the bad guys. Without giving too much away, this film's villain is one of the best-developed of them all.

It's a good setup, involving Korean army connections, genetic identity manipulation, diamond-smuggling, and an orbital satellite called Icarus. British playboy Gustav Graves (Toby Stephens) is a match for Bond in style, panache and recklessness and is a good foil for 007. Zao has a great look for a henchman with his diamond-studded scars. Many of the action sequences work very well, particularly the fencing duel and the car chase through the ice palace. And John Cleese as Q pops in for a quick scene and a few very funny one-liners. Also thrown in for good measure are several throwbacks to classic Bond: Berry' bikini shot (Dr. No), lasers as deadly weapons (Goldfinger), and Roger Moore's old jetpack pops up.

The framework is there; but the details kill the fun. Berry's Jinx never quite clicks with Bond as she's working (and competing) with him. Michael Madsen is tragically miscast as an American NSA bureaucrat. The dialogue, as mentioned, is crass and silly - always going for the punchline without fail to the point of ridiculousness. It's a grating habit, and for a movie that seemed to want to try something a little different with the Bond franchise, disappointing.

A good actioner, an excellent (though not classic) Bond outing. It could have been one of the very best, but fell a little short.

It's refreshing to see a film where the principals involved seem to be enjoying themselves immensely. 'Ocean's Eleven' is just such a film. Rumor is that George Clooney got the star-studded cast to waive their usually high fees as a favor to him. As a result, he ended up with a massively talented group of actors working their way through a remake of an old Rat Pack flick, with acclaimed director Steven Soderbergh at the helm. What else do you need?

Recently paroled con Danny Ocean (Clooney) assembles a crew of eleven con-artists and thieves to pull off the heist of a lifetime: Robbing over $150 million from the vault of three Las Vegas casinos. Without giving anything away, the caper itself is imaginative and completely unrealistic - which is why it's fun to watch play out. Refreshingly, the mark of the con, casino owner Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) is no dummy. He's smart, clever and careful, and that plays into the twists and turns of the heist.

The best part is in watching Clooney, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Matt Damon, Carl Reiner and the rest diving headfirst into their roles. They have parts that are built on style and attitude, but rarely ham it up. They have natural chemistry (especially between Pitt and Clooney - their rapport is great). The dialogue crackles crisp and stylish. These thieves aren't vulgar or violent - they're smooth and refined and almost never lose control.

'Ocean's Eleven' is a display of cool, a production of style, and a very enjoyable heist flick to boot. Well worth your time, it does what many movies fail to do but seems so simple: It entertains.

Now forty years old, 'Dr. No' seems dated to someone of this generation seeing it for the first time. But remember this: Without 'Dr. No', not only is there no James Bond (the most successful franchise in movie history), there probably is no 'action' genre to speak of. It's an important film for its place in Bond folklore and pop culture - but it's no slouch as a film itself.

The first of Ian Fleming's novels to be brought to the screen, 'Dr. No' offers up the Bond formula: A dashing leading man (Sean Connery, the first and best Bond), a bigger-than-life villain (Dr. No, played coldly by Joseph Wiseman), a procession of gorgeous women (the most notable being Ursula Andress' Honey Rider - probably the gold standard of Bond girls), and action galore.

Many key Bond elements are introduced for the first time. M. The Walther PPK. Bond's predilictions for baccarat and martinis (shaken, not stirred). SPECTRE. The most famous theme music ever, as played by John Barry's orchestra. And of course, the attitude and style that marks these films.

For its time, 'Dr. No' is a landmark of action. But viewed today, most of its elements are either dated (rockets to the moon) or have become ingrained as cliche (island fortresses, femme fatales, "Since you won't live long enough to use the information, I'll tell you..."). The car chases have blue-screened backdrops and the sets are often hokey and filled with smoky pyrotechnics. Even given all that, however, 'Dr. No' is quite a lot of fun. Wiseman's chillingly arrogant villain sets the tone for all future Bond adversaries even though he has precious little screen time. Andress is still one of the most beautiful women ever to grace a Bond film. And of course, to most people, Sean Connery simply IS James Bond.

An all-time classic that has its place in history assured.

Hitchcock has made some flashier films (The Birds, Psycho) and some more technically proficient films (Notorious, Rear Window), but in many ways, Vertigo is one of his absolute best.

*Possible spoilers*

Jimmy Stewart turns in a performance that at first glance looks like one of his standard Everyman Hero roles of the day. However, Scotty Ferguson is anything but that - he's a man who becomes consumed by love, lust and obsession. He finds himself drawn to Madeleine (Kim Novak), only to lose her just as he's falling in love with her. The only thing to draw him out of his depression is Judy (Novak again), a lookalike for Madeleine. Scotty proceeds to make her over into his dead love in a creepy descent into madness where reality and fantasy no longer have any distinction for him.

'Vertigo' is a film that holds up quite well after 44 years. Yes, the pacing is a little slow, especially in the first half of the film. But that's a deliberate choice. Hitchcock was clearly capable of ramping up the action in other films; 'Vertigo' doesn't need that. Scotty's mental state is best shown as a slow spiral, and it is even more disturbing on repeated viewings.

This film has been described by other comments as 'dreamlike'. I'd agree with that. Bernard Herrmann's excellently haunting score; a script that is light on dialogue and heavy on imagery; and Stewart's rock-solid performance give 'Vertigo' a depth to the suspense. It's a nightmare and a fantasy at the same time.

'Vertigo' is a classic of American cinema. Even after four decades, it still has something to say about the nature of love and obsession. And it's brought to you by the master of suspense. Nearly flawless. 10/10.

Some have said that those who played the game or enjoy genre fantasy films might find something to like in 'Dungeons & Dragons'. They couldn't be more wrong. This is a useless, clueless film from start to finish that has no idea of what it wants to be. It combines elements of a bad script, terrible acting, and average special effects to create a gloriously bad achievement. It's a would-be franchise that shot itself in the foot right out of the box. And if this is any indication of what future installments would have looked like, to that I say, "Thank God."

Jeremy Irons plays the evil wizard Profion straight out of Overacting 101 - he's all sneers and shouts and waving hands. His lackey Damodar (Bruce Payne) is blue-lipped and black-armored (therefore evil) and exudes all the menace of an overripe eggplant. Thora Birch - wonderful in 'American Beauty' - looks like she was blackmailed into this role, as she's completely catatonic throughout the film, giving her Empress Savina (the wholesome representation of all things Good) zero energy and appeal.

How about those heroes? Marlon Wayans (Snails, the thief) is completely annoying, offering nothing to the proceedings; Justin Whalin (Ridley, another thief) - the nominal hero - is a goofball who'd be outclassed by the cast of Baywatch; and Zoe McLellan (Marina, the mage) is the only one who seems to even try to keep to a thematic element of fantasy, though she's in way over her head.

'Dungeons & Dragons' is a complete mess and a complete waste of your time. If you want a fantasy film that draws upon the roleplaying game, try the one that D&D was based on in the first place: 'Lord of the Rings'. Keep this thing as far away from your television as possible.

'Glory' is, without a doubt, the best film ever made about the Civil War. Granted, it has its issues with historical accuracy and does highlight patterns and events within the war that weren't as important as the uninformed viewer might think. Other comments on this movie have pointed out, quite correctly, that the Civil War was not wholly fought over slavery, that the makeup of the 54th was more upper-class and educated than runaway slaves, and other minor issues that separate 'Glory' from something like Ken Burns' documentary work.

Quite frankly, these errors are irrelevant to creating a great, sweeping epic of a film such as 'Glory'. The ideals here are not in reproducing historical fact; they are in creating an image of an all-black regiment serving in a war that is now more noted for its social impact than its economic roots. This is the story of the black man's role in the Civil War - a story that shows men of all colors battling for their ideals, showing the same courage, bonding under the same stress, and giving their lives the same way. This is a film that is now shown regularly in history classes and rightly so; very few films have captured the sense of war so brilliantly. 'Saving Private Ryan' does such for World War II; 'Glory' is the picture of record for the Civil War.

It's filmed beautifully, as cinematographer Freddie Francis took home a number of awards, including the Oscar, for his portrayals of the various battles. Best of all is the final struggle at Fort Wagner, the bittersweet pinnacle of the 54th and a tearjerking dramatic display no matter how many times you've seen it. It's simply a wonderful scene mixing drama, confusion, bravery and violence and offers an empathic look into the experiences of these soldiers.

The acting all around is superb, as Denzel Washington turns in an intense performance that netted him a Supporting Actor Oscar. He's hardened and defiant; best shown in the whipping scene where he never flinches - only a tear runs down his cheek, no matter how many ugly scars line his body. A powerful performance. All the actors seem to consider this film, and their roles in it, of utmost importance; as if the story they are telling desperately -needs- to be heard. Morgan Freeman and Andre Braugher as other soldiers, and Matthew Broderick as Shaw don't hold anything back.

'Glory' is an emotionally-charged film that never sugarcoats the harsh realities of war, but also highlights the bravery and fortitude of the men that fought it. Historical errors and dramatic compromises aside, this is a wonderful film that illustrates the Civil War and its devastation unlike any film before it.

Eminem could have taken an easy road. He could have costarred in the latest Steven Seagal flick, or done a cameo for the Farrelly Brothers' next movie. He could have cashed in on anything he wanted to with his first movie, but he chose something a little more challenging than that.

'8 Mile', named for the road that is the northern border between Detroit and the suburbs, is loosely autobiographical, shaped around the events of an up-and-coming rapper named Jimmy "Rabbit" Smith Jr. (Eminem). Rabbit has to balance working for a living at Detroit Stamping with his dreams of a rap career and an escape from the trailer park he calls home with his mother (Kim Basinger) and little sister Lilly. At night, he cruises the city in his beat-up car with his friends, the 313 crew (named for Detroit's area code). One of the 313 is Future (Mekhi Phifer), who organizes rap 'battles' downtown, where young MC's square off against each other with stylized insults and rhymes - winner gets all the respect.

The film starts with Rabbit psyching himself up for one of these battles, showing none of the anger and cockiness that the real-life Eminem is so known for. Rabbit is unsure of himself, knowing he has talent but intimidated by the forceful personalities that surround him and not quite ready to burst out of his shell and let the world know who he is. Even standing on stage, mic in hand and silent, hearing the boos and calls of 'Choke!', you can see that Eminem the actor has something here, a sense of character that isn't just him playing himself. It's an intensity and a force of personality that is waiting for an outlet and he keeps it smoldering throughout the movie.

Director Curtis Hanson (L.A. Confidential) keeps the film flowing as sidebars and challenges arise that twist Rabbit in the wind. His mother's boyfriend is a complete waste and not much older than he is. Money is always an issue. An opportunity for free studio time arises, but with strings attached. A muse of sorts (Brittany Murphy, elegantly trashy here) wanders into his life at just the right time. And finally, another rap battle against his rivals, in the same place he choked before. By the time he takes the mic again, the audience has seen his long, hard climb to this point. Opportunity is there, all he has to do is seize it.

And seize it he does - the final rap battle brings the house down. Eminem finally lets loose with the skills we all know he has into a series of cathartic rhymes, taking on all comers. The last rap, where he takes all the bad things people have said about him and uses them to build himself back up, is pure genius and pure adrenaline. By the time all is said and done, Rabbit walks off into the distance on his own - with all the confidence he'll ever need.

Hanson and screenwriter Scott Silver make some good choices here. Eminem's real-life controversial attitudes towards gays and violence is muted with Rabbit to the point where he befriends and sticks up for a gay coworker. The final scenes aren't the big payoffs - the record deals, the demos, the sold-out concerts - but instead are personal victories. Phifer and Basinger do creditable jobs of building up and supporting Eminem's inexperience as an actor and help carry the film through.

It's a worthy debut, and a movie to take seriously. '8 Mile' is gritty, honest, and rewarding.

'Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone', being the first in a series, suffered from the problem of exposition: by having to explain the rules and denizens of an all-new world it left its own plots and thrills to be short-changed. On its own, it just didn't pack enough punch.

The second movie in the series, 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets', doesn't have that problem. It can get rolling from the first frames right on through into the thrilling climax sequences, and benefits greatly from the familiarity. We already know who the characters are, we've already seen most of Hogwart's School, and we have an idea of what to expect. Director Chris Columbus and screenwriter Steve Kloves, adapting this book as closely and faithfully as they did the first one, don't let us down. High adventure and high drama unfold on the screen.

There are changes. First and foremost are the physical changes in the young cast members, most notably in the boys. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron) and Tom Felton (Harry's nemesis Draco) all have grown like weeds and had their voices drop into that grainy in-between range that hits all teenaged boys. For some, especially Felton, the growth spurts help their performances (Draco Malfoy is now a lot taller and even more sinister. He's no longer a kid playing at being nasty - he just is.). Emma Watson (Hermione) doesn't have as drastic a change, but she does seem more comfortable in her role. Given a part that swings wildly from sedate to obnoxious, she has reined in her extremes far better than she did in 'Sorceror's Stone'. Radcliffe is also more confident as Harry, though a little uneven in his reactions to his surroundings. Still, as he's in almost every scene, he handles himself quite well. Grint, the best comic actor of the three leads, gets a few chances to show his stuff here, but like Watson, is less a part of the story this time around - it's pretty much Harry's movie.

Returning from the first film are the main adult roles, as well. Alan Rickman (Snape) is as drily dark as ever; Maggie Smith (MacGonagall) and Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) return, but have precious little to do in this installment. The late Richard Harris (Dumbledore) is given more depth and substance here - as he will be throughout the series - and is wonderful with his balance of whimsy and wisdom. He'll be sorely missed, and terribly difficult to replace.

New additions on the adult side include the arrogant and narcissitic Godefroy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh, delightfully hamming up every single scene), and Draco's father Lucius Malfoy, a malevolent force of darkness (Jason Isaacs, seeming to enjoy himself almost as much as Branagh). The best thing you can say about the adults is that they all seem to be having a blast doing these pictures, in a way that proves acting is not a chore or a burden - but a ton of fun.

The events in 'Chamber of Secrets' are darker and more dangerous than the first film, as Harry discovers deeper plots than before. There are some scenes that probably aren't appropriate for the really young children in the audience, but most of the older kids have seen much worse in lesser pictures. The event pieces are good thrills and well-executed: best are the flying car hurtling towards Hogwart's; the spider encounter in the Dark Forest, and the penultimate battle with the serpentine basilisk inside the Chamber itself.

It's a fun ride, more focused on the plots and twists than the first film was, though still prone to drawing out the action in the same style as the book. There's not much reason to mess with a good thing, but Columbus will probably take some hits for a lack of originality in his direction. So what? It's still a very enjoyable film, and should satisfy Harry Potter fans quite nicely.

'Rounders' is to poker players as 'The Hustler' was to pool sharks. It's a literate, informed film that gives a glimpse into the lives of men and women that most people can't even begin to understand; an entire subculture that exists just below the surface of everyday life.

Matt Damon plays Mike McD, a poker player who lost everything he had in a huge pot to a Russian mobster (John Malkovich), and tries to leave that life behind him as he heads off to law school. As an old friend Worm Murphy (Edward Norton) is released from jail, Mike realizes that not only hasn't he really left his past behind, but he never really meant to in the first place.

'Rounders' is a quiet movie with a subtle script that is filled with poker jargon (if you don't know the game, it takes a couple viewings to really follow the card-playing scenes). It's not splashy or outrageous; it's a series of character studies that look into the lives of people who play cards for a living - people to whom the words 'gambling' and 'luck' are vulgarities.

It's a well-written script, with tons of quotable and memorable lines. Just check the quotes section on the main page for a sampling - everyone has attitude to spare, since showing even a hint of weakness is death at the card table. ("If you can't spot the sucker in the first half-hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker.")

Essentially, 'Rounders' is an acting clinic. Top-notch talent is used here, the best of which are Damon and Norton. Damon's everyman card shark is just on the border of respectibility, and has a sense of duty and loyalty that haven't been seen since the days of chivalry - but Damon is at his best here, disarmingly charming, easygoing, but with a heart of stone at the table. Norton's Worm is a degenerate all the way, but still with that leftover rebelliousness from his youth that just invites trouble wherever he goes. Also good here are Malkovitch as mobster Teddy KGB (although with a thick and silly accent) and John Turturro as the eternal grinder Joey Knish. The only weak spot in the cast is Gretchen Mol as Mike's girlfriend Jo - she's eternally whiny, cloying and obnoxious, and it's quite unbelievable that Mike would ever have settled down with a woman like this.

All in all, though, 'Rounders' achieves a good dramatic pace, excellent dialogue, and makes every poker game seem like the finals of the World Series of Poker: everything on the line for a million bucks. It owes almost everything it has to 'The Hustler', but there are worse films to lend inspiration.

The Harry Potter books are only the single most popular children's stories in existence - most children under the age of thirteen (and a good chunk of adults as well) can recite the books verbatim. Drawing from fantasy literature and owing quite a debt to earlier writers such as Roald Dahl, J.K. Rowling made her stories about Harry the Wizard into a phenomenon. It's been a merchandising groundswell, a boon to children's literature, and a godsend to parents everywhere. What could be better than having your child dive into a 300+ page book for hours on end? Why, making those books into movies, of course. No pressure.

The trickiest thing about adapting a book to a film is striking the balance between what works on paper and what works on screen. Time is a natural restriction: a book has as long as it needs to describe the setting and the events and can delve into as much detail as the author deems necessary. The reader can always put the book down and start up again another time, after all. A movie, on the other hand, is a one-sitting event. Because of this, it needs to be more concerned about not overwhelming the viewer. When transferring a book to the screen, things are usually streamlined, details (and sometimes characters) are omitted, and the end result is usually a reinvention of the original story.

'Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone' doesn't reinvent the book it's based on. It copies it almost word for word to the screen. Almost nothing is left out, virtually no event is ignored, and the result is a dense film that runs two-and-a-half hours and is virtually indistinguishable from the book. If you've read the book, you've seen the movie. So the question is, was this the right decision?

It's a matter of taste, and the backlash on cutting anything from the original story probably would have been marketing suicide, but it definitely affects the film in terms of pacing. While one of the beauties of reading a story like Harry Potter lies in unraveling the details of this new and strange world over the course of the school year, watching the same thing is a much different experience. In an effort to show you as much as possible about the world Harry now lives in, it walks a very tight line between marvel and overload. If it weren't the most popular book in the world, a tighter film probably would have been made.

That said, 'Sorceror's Stone' is still a beautiful film to watch. The set design of Hogwart's School is breathtaking. Every corner hides a little bit of magical (and computer-generated) trickery. Most of the effects are seamlessly done, with a few minor exceptions (mostly involving wide-angles of flying broomsticks). It's a bit overdone at times, with the swelling score by John Williams and the panning shots of the school and the main hall - but that's the point. Hogwart's is a realm of magic and mystery, and is always presented as larger than life.

Casting is critical to a budding franchise like this one, and in general, 'Sorceror's Stone' gets it right. The kids, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) drive the entire story, so they are key. All are good choices and seem up for the roles, but Radcliffe and Watson don't quite seem comfortable just yet. Grint, for his part as the lovable loser Ron Weasley, nearly steals the show every time he's on screen - he's got just the right balance of whimsy and mischief mixed with his humble down-home origins.

For the adults, the best castings are Richard Harris as Dumbledore (just right in his wizened expertise, always with a sparkle in his eye that says he knows far more than anyone else does), Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid (the loyal lummox with a heart as big as he is), and best of all, Alan Rickman as Professor Snape (who utters every word, even the most benign, while oozing sinister menace. He's delightful.). Maggie Smith as Professor MacGonagall is also excellent, just as Maggie Smith always is.

This is first in a series, and as such involves a huge amount of exposition and explanation. The entire film is consumed with who Harry is, why he's important, what's going on with all these wizards, and opening doors that will be explored in later episodes. This means characters are introduced that don't do much of anything - yet. (Ginny Weasley and Nearly-Headless Nick, to name two.) This means that the plot surrounding the Sorceror's Stone is necessarily thin. This also means, that if the film (and book before it) has done its job, you'll be back for more when the next ones arrive. On that note, 'Sorceror's Stone' succeeds wonderfully in bringing to life this delightful story of the boy who was a wizard and the remarkable world that invites him in.

This is only Paul Thomas Anderson's fourth film, but he's already earned a reputation as an auteur, an actor's director, and the hippest thing in Hollywood. He also has been guilty of letting his movies go on a bit too long and in meandering directions, and being prone to pretentiousness in setting his scenes. Either way, he's not a director who compromises. So it's something of a surprise that 'Punch-Drunk Love' is less of a sprawling collective of dysfunction than his previous films, and more of a focused drama on one man's search for happiness and acceptance.

Adam Sandler is that man, Barry Egan, an LA entrepreneur with seven sisters. Barry suffers from a severe bipolar disorder that can manifest itself in sudden outbursts of violence and depression. His sisters don't help matters much, reminding him constantly of past embarrassments and constantly harping on his current life's situations. Things begin to change for Barry when he finds an old harmonium in the streets, begins to wear a suit to work, and is introduced to Lena Leonard (Emily Watson). This leads him along an awkward and difficult path where he finally explores his own personal demons and opens himself to someone else - perhaps for the first time.

Sandler is the story here, as the entire movie revolves around him, to the extent that most camera angles take his point of view (even following him through his paces as he walks through doors and hallways. We always know what's going on with Barry.). The rest of the characters exist to frame Barry's disorder. His sisters provide his anxiety; his coworkers are bystanders to his eccentricity; Lena is his outlet to his tender side; and the porn hotline he calls (and causes him endless troubles in one of the films weaker sidelines) preys on his desperation.

This tactic does a few things: some good, some bad. On the good side, it focuses the film unlike any of P.T. Anderson's previous works, which were mostly ensemble pieces ('Hard Eight' was a smaller cast, but still revolved around three people.). Everything is invested in Barry's twists and turns and his bipolar tendencies. He's a complete jerk one scene, then a sympathetically distraught fool the next. It's to Sandler's credit that he doesn't go too far over the top with this role. There's humor there, but it's mostly understated. Sandler's Barry rarely makes eye contact with anyone for too long, almost never smiles or laughs genuinely, and seems eternally on the edge between total breakdown and euphoria. It's a tight line to hold, but Sandler does a creditable job. It's entirely on his shoulders to keep the picture together.

The downside to all of this is that the rest of the cast is left mostly in the dark. We don't know too much about Lena Leonard, other than she travels quite a bit and seems to have endless patience towards Barry's disaffections. Philip Seymour Hoffman is given a thankless role as the owner of the porn line that tries to defraud Barry - then physically assault him in a very incongruous plot that doesn't really work well. Hoffman is game for the role, as he is for every part he takes, but there just isn't anything for him to do other than swear up a storm and act like a total sleaze. With the focus so totally on Barry, this is expected, but still disappointing - there's a lot more story involved in these other characters.

Taken at face value, 'Punch-Drunk Love' is a story of one man's struggles to overcome himself and establish his own identity. It runs a little deeper than that, as the world acts as Barry's shadow, guiding him along to places he probably never would have found on his own. It's alternately uncomfortable, shocking, silly, tender, and unpredictable. P.T. Anderson has made probably his most accessible film to date, holding back the reins and letting Adam Sandler have his day in the sun as a dramatic actor. He's up to the task, and the film is a testament to his efforts. An imperfect Anderson film is still quite a sight to behold.

'The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys' follows the adventures of a group of fourteen-year-old boys that express their rebellion against their Catholic school upbringing by drawing comics and plotting exotic vengeance against their nemesis - Sister Assumpta (Jodie Foster, also a co-producer).

The focus is on instigator and plotter Tim Sullivan (Kieran Culkin), whose family life is so dysfunctional it's given attention in morning prayers in class; and dreamer and storyteller Francis Doyle (Emile Hirsch), who is the heart and soul of the piece and the creator of the Atomic Trinity - the comic-book alter egos of the boys. Culkin and Hirsch give painfully accurate portrayals of young teenaged boys burdened by every aspect of what they perceive to be a harsh world. The church and the school can't understand them, Sister Assumpta keeps a close eye on them, and they're suspected of every wrongdoing (rightly or not). Worst of all, one girl, Margie Flynn (Jena Malone), draws Francis to the edges of the boys' club as his feelings for her start to cloud his loyalties to his band of brothers.

There's nothing simple here. Sister Assumpta isn't just a dragon lady out to get the boys because she hates children; she feels frustrated by her inability to connect with the boys. Tim Sullivan isn't just the designer of mad plots (such as the key scheme to steal a panther from the zoo and unleash it on the Sister); he's a disaffected youth trying his hardest to deal with the realities of his life in the only way he knows how. Francis Doyle isn't just a dreamer; he's a conflicted boy in the midst of exiting childhood for good and he knows it. The comics he draws aren't just daydreams of a boy's mind, they're his own interpretation of the ways his life changes day by day.

It's a textured tale that offers realistic interaction between the boys (Culkin and Hirsch turn in standout performances) and the girl (Malone in a very vulnerable supporting role). To tie the film together, and weave the fantasy realm of the Atomic Trinity into the real-life world of the school grounds, director Peter Care adds in animation sequences that bring Francis' story to life. Produced by Todd MacFarlane's studio (the same group that did the animated 'Spawn' for HBO), the boys' alter-egos reflect their flesh-and-blood counterparts, all the way to the bitter end.

'Altar Boys' is a worthy effort, a tender reminiscence to the times in all boys' lives where they must make the journey from boyhood to manhood. It's not just one step, either, it's a series of obstacles and challenges that daunt even the best of us. This film is worth seeing, even for those of you who don't happen to be altar boys.

'Ghost Ship' is basically a haunted house story set at sea. A crew of a salvage ship headed by the gruff Murphy (Gabriel Byrne) heads into the Bering Strait to find a long-lost ocean liner, the Antonio Graza, missing for the past forty years. Of course, once they board, they find that the ship holds the ghosts of that ill-fated voyage, and their own salvage operation becomes secondary to escaping the ship alive.

Pretty standard fare here, at least on the surface. Given these parameters (stranded ship, a handful of explorers, ghosts aplenty), you'd think a halfway decent horror movie could come out of it - generating at least a few scares. You'd be wrong. 'Ghost Ship' is even less than a by-the-numbers scare flick, because it tries far too hard to be different. Instead of original, however, it ends up convoluted, confusing, and altogether flat.

Director Steve Beck (Thirteen Ghosts) helms a very weak and disjointed script by Mark Hanlon that papers over every character's backstory and motivation (including the ghosts) to provide the gore and mayhem that it thinks works as scary suspense. A key misfire: The movie opens by showing the audience the gory fates of many of the ship's original passengers - sparing nothing in severed limbs and gallons of blood. That's a cringe-inducing effect, not a scare-inducing one. Squeamish viewers will be turned off immediately, and any sense of foreboding (what DID happen to all those passengers?) is immediately sacrificed for the instant gratification.

This kind of thing happens all the time - there's almost no feeling of dread or suspense of any kind. When things do happen, they're usually quick and bloody. That can work in a slasher flick, but in a ghost story, you usually expect a little more sophistication. One hint as to what might have been is a nicely filmed sequence in the middle of the film, where Greer (Isaiah Washington) walks into the old ballroom, only to watch it rebuild itself back into 1962, complete with sultry torch singer. A great shot, the best in the film, that is of course mishandled and wasted for shock value. Ah well.

The salvage team members are mostly mercenaries, driven by greed when they find a cache of gold in the hold of the ship. You really don't care much for any of these folks, though Epps (Julianna Margulies) is given some sympathy by being the de facto heroine. Of course, when the only personal detail you're given about her is her first name (unlike everyone else, who is only referred to by last names) - that's a bit of a reach.

All in all, it's a needless film, and one that is mishandled and cheapened from the get-go. Skip this one, and go see something really scary, like 'The Ring', instead.

The Bond franchise looked dead. All of Ian Fleming's original novels had long since been transferred to the silver screen. The last two efforts with Timothy Dalton were abject failures of both execution and popularity. Add to that the legal wrangling over the rights and a slew of other would-be action franchises, and it seemed as though Bond's days in the sun were long gone.

Enter 'Goldeneye' and Pierce Brosnan. Everything changed, as the old suave and debonair secret agent was given a 90's update, brought into the new age of action, and giving birth to a resurgence in the appeal of Fleming's timeless hero.

The success of 'Goldeneye' was key. If it flopped, Bond really was finished, and the whole franchise was cooked. If it succeeded, another batch of sequels would be ready to go, and the franchise would breathe new life. It was all or nothing. And it delivered the goods.

Brosnan had been the original choice to take over as James Bond when Roger Moore retired from the role, but was contractually obligated to TV's 'Remington Steele', so Dalton got the role instead. Eight years later, he was still the natural fit, and that helped ease the transition.

Other changes needed to be made. Samantha Bond came on board as the new, 90's-friendly Moneypenny, who could hold her own with James on the innuendo scale, and serves as the eternal foil to the randy secret agent. The best change, however, was the addition of Dame Judi Dench as the new, hard-nosed M, a female authority figure to temper Bond's 'boys will be boys' mentality. She's gruff, she's decisive, and she's got attitude to spare. One link to the past was Desmond Llewellyn as Q, back again for another round as the master of the spy gear.

So there are the changes, how how is the film? Excellent, and on par with the standards set by the older, beloved Bond films. There are four key elements to any Bond film: the villain, the plot, the stunts and the women. 'Goldeneye' hits solidly on at least three of the four.

Sean Bean is a twisted shadow of the hero as 006 - Alec Trevelyan, a former associate of Bond believed killed in Russia, but secretly behind the theft of Goldeneye - a Russian orbital weapon capable of delivering a massive electromagnetic pulse to anywhere on the globe, causing catastrophe and mayhem in its wake. As an ex-agent, he's an equal of Bond and knows all his tricks.

For the women, there is one deadly and one sultry, both appealing in their own way. Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen) is an assassin who specializes in 'intimate' kills, and has a psychotic delight in physical confrontations. Natalya Simonova (Izabella Scorupco) is a programmer who had worked on Goldeneye and falls in with James Bond - she's everything feminine that appeals to the agent, as well as bringing something to the table - she knows the computer systems that can stop the weapon.

The stunts work, for the most part. There are the daring dives (bungee-jumping off the side of a dam), the vehicle chases (a tank in the streets of a small Russian town), and the climactic struggles (atop a satellite hundreds of feet off the ground). It's well-filmed, nicely paced, and offers enough thrills without completely crossing the lines of believability (with one or two minor exceptions).

The plot is the only really thin part - there's no real rationale given behind 006's plots, other than he's the Villain. At the end, some mention is given about a theft scheme and revenge on the English for atrocities committed on the Cossacks after World War II, but there isn't the world-spanning, power-mad, fiendishly over-the-top scheme that is almost always found in a Bond film. Alec Trevelyan is dangerous, yes, but he's not quite in the same league as Goldfinger or Dr. No.

'Goldeneye' did what it set out to do - it revitalized an old franchise to the point where Brosnan's fourth go-round as Bond is about to be released, and there appears to be no slowing down. In an ever-changing world, it's always nice to know that one thing is always constant. Bond. James Bond.

Michael Moore is a maverick filmmaker in every sense of the word. He's extreme, he's opinionated, he challenges the biggest institutions he can find, and he has a quirky sense of humor and timing that makes him one of the best documentary-makers out there.

"Bowling for Columbine" is his latest film, a look at the gun culture of the United States. His major focus is on several elements: the Michigan Militia; the Columbine shootings; the track record of American history as it relates to guns and violence; a look at Canada and its startlingly lower homicide rate involving guns; and a school shooting of a six-year-old girl in his hometown of Flint, Michigan.

For Moore, a lifelong member of the NRA, the basic question is this: Why are there so many gun deaths in the United States as compared to other countries such as Canada? With such a complex issue, Moore can't give any easy answers, but he does address most of the major components of the issue. Is it lax gun laws? Is it an inherent violent nature? Is it music, media, movies that influence our thought processes? Is it anger or resentment?

He seems to settle on the idea of a culture of fear that inhabits suburban America, which leads them to want to protect themselves in any way possible from a perceived threat that may not actually exist. One pertinent sequence in the film illustrates this - Moore wanders into a subdivision in Canada, opening doors and walking into houses because nobody seems to lock their doors - and he's greeted with mostly friendly reactions, and certainly no threats. "Thanks for not shooting me," he tells one homeowner.

Moore's modus operandi here is fairly similar to the structure he used in his debut, "Roger & Me." He plays the part of American Everyman, a little befuddled at what he thinks are simple questions asked of people who have no ready answers. His 'man on the street' interviews with other common folk are used mostly for laughter - clueless kids and goofy militia members. James Nichols - brother of Terry and associate of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bombers - comes across as completely insane.

A lot of this is, of course, a result of creative editing. Moore has the power to portray everyone how he sees fit - those who he agrees with are given much more respect in the editing process than those he doesn't, such as Nichols. Since he's not claiming to be impartial, he can do this, but it hurts his overall cause somewhat if the opposing opinion isn't given any credence at all.

Moore's claim to fame is going after the big boys, representing the common man. Here, he does so in an appeal to K-Mart headquarters on behalf of Columbine survivors, and an interview with NRA spokesman Charlton Heston.

Moore has a good sense of timing regarding when to go for humor value and when to bring in the serious issues. He offers some disturbing statistics and shows some very provocative footage, such as the security tapes from the lunchroom at Columbine, which clearly show Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - the shooters. Chilling stuff.

Overall, it's a powerful piece of filmmaking that deserves to be seen, if only for the questions it raises. Whether you agree with him or demonize him, Michael Moore certainly makes people think and makes people talk.

If you watch the tape, seven days later, you die. That's the tagline for one of the creepiest, most effective horror thrillers to hit the screens in years.

'The Ring' is a remake of a Japanese film and novel, ably directed this time around by Gore Verbinski (best known for 'The Mexican'). It stars Naomi Watts as Rachel Keller, a journalist whose niece dies under mysterious circumstances exactly one week after having watched that cursed tape. After tracking down a copy of the tape and seeing for herself what's there, Rachel finds herself drawn into a maze of mystery and intrigue mixed with the paranormal, working against the clock. If the stories are true - she only has seven days to unlock the secrets of the tape.

The key to this film lies in the visuals. Obviously, in using a VHS tape to show this ghostly curse, it's important to have a strange, creepy look to the tape - it holds all the visual clues for the story to follow, as well as setting up the theme and mood for the entire picture. Everything on the tape is grainy, black-and-white, and silent. There is a definite foreboding to the whole thing, even though, as one character says, it looks like an art-school project.

Visuals are also important in the rest of the filming - most of the action takes place in gloomy, dark, and remote locales. It's the Seattle area, so it's almost always raining. Most interiors are gray and stark. A rundown cabin in the woods. A lighthouse and farm on a cold, barren island. From the initial scenes, which are more vibrant and colorful, to the end sequences, things in Rachel's life are veering her closer to the secrets in the tape and the terrible answers she's looking to find. Visually, the film grows darker and grimmer as the seventh day approaches.

Watts handles this with a mixture of tension and unavoidable curiosity as Rachel's psyche is assaulted by tragedy and fear. A lesser actress might fall into the usual scream queen traps - all stumbling and screaming - but Watts is better than that. She shows fear, yes, but also resolve and a good sense of intelligence even as she draws closer to the end. This is certainly her movie - she's the focus around which everything unfurls, and she holds her end together quite well.

'The Ring' is a ghost story, and a very tightly-plotted one at that. Everything in the tape is a clue to the mystery, and as it unfolds, more and more layers are evident. The film does its audience the credit of not completely spelling out each and every detail, or walking through every step of the plot. It reveals enough to bring gasps and shivers and even scares when it has to, and never resorts to manipulating the facts and motivations to achieve a cheap surprise. There are twists, but there are seeds for those twists that fester in the background until they're needed - providing great chills along the way.

This is a well-designed, well-executed thriller that has scares to spare, and a chilling backstory that will leave the audience in shivers even after the film is over. Top-notch psychological horror here.

Let's be honest here. The appeal of The Transporter is not in a gripping, tightly-plotted script that speaks to the intricacies of human nature. The appeal of The Transporter is in the action. The appeal is the highly-choreographed, Hong Kong-inspired, thrill-a-minute martial arts and stunts that make movies like this great fun.

Directed by Hong Kong veteran Corey Yuen (Jet Li's Fong Sai Yuk movies) and coscripted by French action master Luc Besson (La Femme Nikita, Leon, The Fifth Element), The Transporter is the story of Frank (Jason Statham), an ex-military man who now earns a lucrative living in France as a transporter; a man who drives criminals and delivers packages, no questions asked. Frank has three rules: Number one, never change the deal. Number two, no names. And number three, never open the package.

Well it wouldn't be much of a movie if Frank didn't break the rules - and it's rule number three that proves his downfall, as he opens the package in his trunk only to find the lovely Lai (Shu Qi). This starts a chain of action sequences that lead to a very cloudy and obscure plot which serves mostly to offer up more bad guys for Statham to beat the living snot out of.

And beat them up he does. The action sequences are the saving grace here, with boundless energy (and an endless supply of goons) and inventive setpieces. The movie starts with a high-energy chase scene down alleyways, up stairs, and every which way but the right way on one-way avenues. Another top-notch scene involves an outnumbered Statham fighting off a barrage of mooks while all of them have to deal with overturned barrels of oil - there's more slipping and sliding than there is punching and kicking there. It all adds up to a lot of fun.

There's no depth and mystery involved in a picture like The Transporter. It is what it is, and it aims to please. For pure entertainment (and a few double-take moments), it's well worth the time spent.