Brogan

The first time I saw SIDEWAYS was in late October with most of the major critics from Phoenix, Arizona. I skipped work because I was going out of town when the evening screening was going to be on, and I have always enjoyed Alexander Payne's films. After watching the movie, I felt like I was on a enjoyable and exciting ride. I felt surprised and excited about watching this movie, and I immediately called all of my friends on my cellular and told them to, GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!

Now four months later, and four viewings later, I still hold a enjoyable soft spot for SIDEWAYS, as being the best unexpected film I've seen in 2004, I had no idea what to expect with this film, and being one of the funniest films of all time! Not since ROYAL TENENBAUMS have I seen a comedy, where I keep laughing just as much the fourth time, as I did the first time.

SIDEWAYS, is a simple tale, failed writer Miles Raymond (Paul Giamatti) decides to take his long time friend Jack (Thomas Hayden Church) out on a last fling to the California Wine Country before Jack gets married. Miles intention is to show Jack the awe and greatness that wine has to offer. Jack's intentions for the trip is to get laid as many times possible before he's married.

Along the trip, Jack (and the viewer) is introduced to Maya (Virgina Madsen), a waitress at the Hitching Post, a restaurant that Miles visits enough to where Maya and Miles already know each other. Then at one of the wineries, Jack meets Stephanie (Sandra Oh) a sexually active single mom who is attracted to Jack, yet doesn't know about his marriage plans.

From there on, the viewer, along with Miles and Jack, are taken for a enjoyable and unforgettable trip that is touching, depressing, exciting, and very very humorous.

What makes this Payne's best film is that first, his characters are very real. Yea, I have met over-achievers like Tracy Flick (ELECTION) and women who don't have a clue like Ruth (CITIZEN RUTH), and my father reminds me of Warren Schmidt (ABOUT SCHMIDT), but the character of Miles is one of the few cinematic characters that I can relate to.

First, who hasn't taken money from their mother? Such as the scene when Miles and Jack visit Miles' mother, then sneaks up to her bedroom and takes some of her saved money to finance their trip? Second, there is that love that you thought could work and tried so hard, yet it failed, and you sit there wondering what went wrong, such as Miles with his ex-wife Victoria. Third, why is it that opposites attract when it comes to friendship? Miles, the intellect, loves wine, literature, movies, and golf. While Jack, the handsome one, loves flirting with women, then having sex with them. These two men are so very different, yet they remain best friends, despite all of their ordeals.

Then there are the little things that Payne does with this film. Such as the characters having "bed heads"; driving not too fancy cars; being a little overweight; the protagonist purchasing an issue of "Barely Legal" (the new issue); the characters are not glamorous; having not too fancy jobs (Miles is a junior high English teacher; Jack is a voice over for commercials; Maya is a waitress; and Stephanie is a server). But it's those little realistic elements that make SIDEWAYS such a classic film! It's those touches that make Alexander Payne a unique and distinguished storyteller, and a great filmmaker.

Finally there is the dialogue. Despite this film being full of conversation, the dialogue is great! Miles going ballistic and threatens to leave if Maya or Stephanie orders an Merlot. Jack asking Miles if he "drink and dialed." Stephanie with her subtle and calmness around Miles, but totally different around Jack. And Maya, the type of girl that many men dream of. The monologue that Madsen gives to Giamatti about the reason why she loves wine is a fantastic and very emotional monologue.

I am so glad that SIDWAYS is getting the recognition that it deserves. This film DOES deserve to be nominated for Best Picture, Payne did a fantastic job directing, both Church and Madsen did excellent jobs with their performances, and Payne and Taylor adapted a wonderful story into a classic screenplay.

But my heart goes out to Paul Giamatti, why did he get ignored? His performance of Miles was fantastic and great!!! But since it's pretty obvious that this years Best Actor is going to be singing "What I'd Say" after hearing his name announced (that's Jamie Foxx kids), Giamatti should have at least get recognition for his wonderful performance. Yet DiCapprio was excellent as Howard Hughes, Chadle was great in HOTEL RWANDA, Depp is and will always be good, Foxx did do a great job as Ray Charles, and I'm glad that Eastwood is getting recognized for his acting ability as well as his directing.

SIDEWAYS is one of those films that a few more years from now, everyone will be quoting it, "I'm not drinking Merlot!" "Did you go into the dark side?" Some people won't admit it, but SIDEWAYS is the type of film that begins trends, when so many movies follow them. A lot of people my age praised other Fox Searchlight films from 2004, NAPOLEON DYNAMITE and GARDEN STATE are the two movies that most people my age talk about and praise. SIDEWAYS is my type of movie, and I feel that forty years from now, this film will still be discussed. It is a pure classic! ***** (out of five)

Leave it to Martin Scorsese, he is one of the few reliable directors who graces in age, still manages to make outstanding movies. I thought his previous film; GANGS OF NEW YORK was the best film of 2002 (and still stand by that comment). Scorsese who was once known for showing us the gritty realistic world of New York City's "Mean Streets" with the Little Italy thugs (MEAN STREETS), anti-hero loners (TAXI DRIVER), fallen hero (RAGING BULL), bizarre world of Soho (AFTER HOURS), realistic thugs (GOODFELLAS), gangsters controlling Las Vegas (CASINO; it wasn't in NYC, but it still had the similar theme), guilt ridden paramedic (BRINGING OUT THE DEAD), and the war between immigrants (GANGS OF NEW YORK). This is the Scorsese that all of us know about and remember. Yet Scorsese was also responsible for telling us about a single mother in the southwest struggling to survive (ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE), the final farewell concert of a fantastic rock/folk group The Band (THE LAST WALTZ), and the story of Jesus Christ (LAST TEMPTATION OF Christ). Now Scorsese has become the storyteller of one of the most enthusiastic and eccentric billionaires of recent years, Howard Hughes.

In THE AVIATOR, Scorsese portrays Howard Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio) as several different roles: filmmaker, womanizer, entrepreneur, engineer, germ-phobic, and aviator. The film tells about the achievements that Hughes accomplished such as the movies HELL'S ANGELS & THE OUTLAW, the building of an airplane that can fly above 20,000 feet, acquiring TWA and making it a international airline, and the design and building of the largest airplane ever the Hercules (now known as the Spruce Goose). Yet Hughes went through so many conflicts with his business: Pan Am Airline chief Juan Trippe (Alec Baldwin), Maine Senator Ralph Owen Brewster (Alan Alda), Louis B. Mayer (Stanley DeSantis); his romance: Katharine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett), Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsdale); and himself: paranoia, and obsession compulsion disorder.

THE AVIATOR discusses all of those elements in rich detail, that after watching the movie, you begin to realize the amazing accomplishments that Hughes did. Wonder why the only thing we most remember about Hughes was being a recluse who was afraid of germs. And would like to know more about Howard Hughes and see the films that were discussed in the film.

This isn't a Scorsese film that people want another TAXI DRIVER, GOODFELLAS, CASINO, or RAGING BULL would expect. This is a different kind of Scorsese, one who is telling a story about a man, who is no different that him. A dreamer who dreams big and ignores what his advisors, and partners tell him, then come up with projects with amazing results.

DiCaprio proves that he his under-appreciated actor in this film. While most of the public see him as that goofy kid who shouts, "I'm king of the world!" in TITANIC. Yet most don't realize his talent with such roles as in WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE and CATCH ME IF YOU CAN. THE AVIATOR shows that DiCaprio is a great actor, giving a realistic portrayal of the eccentric Hughes in some scenes, and a man who cleanses the germs that represent people he dislikes or negative incidents. Blanchett does a amazing job with her performance of Katherine Hepburn with the way her head is tilted back to the pronunciation of words to the snobbish like personality she has when she is around her parents. While Beckinsdale also does a great job playing the very sexy Ava Gardner who has a love/hate relationship with Hughes, a woman who hates him at times, but will help him when he needs help.

The supporting performances by John C. Reily, Ian Holm, Alec Baldwin, Alan Alda, Danny Huston, and Matt Ross are all top rate and also deserve recognition as well.

And Scorsese proves that he one of the best directors of all time with several elements. First the pacing of the story, the film never drags and at running time of 169 mins. it kept my attention on what was going to be happening next. Second, some of the scenes of the film were of complete beauty and wonder. One scene that blew my mind was during the filming of the aerial scenes from HELLS ANGELS which showed how dangerous it was filming the dogfight scenes from that film, seventy years before computer generated images would replace that technique. Third, the acting by the actors was top notch and very convincing. Finally, the story of Howard Hughes himself was unique and original and I think there will never be another person like Howard Hughes.

This has been quite a year of movies: COLLATERAL, SIDEWAYS, KILL BILL VOL. 2, THE INCREDIBLES, RAY, A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT, THE TERMINAL, FAHRENHEIT 9/11, BOURNE SUPREMENCY, OCEANS TWELVE, CRIMINAL, SPIDER-MAN 2, MEAN GIRLS, HARRY POTTER & PRISONER OF AZKABAN, and SPANGLISH were all films that were amazing and all were among my favorite films of this year (yet I still need to see LIFE AQUATIC and FINDING NEVERLAND). But I think it will be hard to beat THE AVIATOR, for it's story, characters, and epic feel.

The Academy has snubbed Scorsese for 30 years; they did the same thing for Roman Polanski until THE PIANIST. Now I think its time for the Academy to acknowledge Scorsese for his craft and technique. While some people will believe that Scorsese should have won his Oscar back in 1980 with RAGING BULL, or in 1990 with GOODFELLAS, I feel that it's time to recognize Scorsese for something! And THE AVIATOR is one film that I think that most Scorsese devotees (like myself) feel is worthy of recognition. Plus, if this movie wins both Best Director and Best Picture, then two of my favorite directors will win Oscars (Scorsese and Michael Mann, who produced AVIATOR).

So that is why I am rooting and hoping that THE AVIATOR will collect Oscar gold. The best movie of the year, and don't miss it!!!!! ***** (Out of five)

To be honest, I saw this movie back in August at a special advance screening. I was actually so overwhelmed because I got to meet and talk to Steve Soderbergh before and after the film. In my opinion, Soderbergh is one of the few directors whose films I can trust for quality entertainment, intellect, and style. But to review the movie back then would have been unfair, it's like judging the first demo take of the Beatles song "Strawberry Fields Forever" before George Martin added the tape loops.

So I decided to wait and review the movie after seeing the final cut, and I was actually pleased that I did that, because just like what I've been telling people for four months and will continue to tell people "Twelve is different that Eleven." "Oh, o.k. so it's not good." Is what most reactions are after I make that comment. "No, not true," I replied. OCEANS TWELVE is different that OCEANS ELEVEN, the same way KILL BILL VOL. 1 was different that KILL BILL VOL. 2. VOL. 1 was the ultimate homage to the films of the Shaw Bros., VOL. 2 was the homage to the Spaghetti Westerns. OCEANS ELEVEN captured the hip and cool feel of the Vegas heyday of the 60's, when Frank, Dino, Peter, Sammy, and Pal Joey ruled the strip. OCEANS TWELVE captures the European feel when Truffaut, Godard, and Fellini were kings of the art house cinemas. OCEANS TWELVE takes place three years after the infamous "Belligo heist" when Danny Ocean (Clooney), gathered his crew of men and managed to steal over $160 million dollars from casino Mongol, Terry Benedict (Garcia). Now Benedict has tracked Ocean and his entire crew, and the situation has turned into what Danny's wife Tess (Roberts) alerts Danny about Benedict knowing who did the heist, "the basement is flooded and the lights are out." So Danny gathers his entire crew back together again: Rusty (Pitt), Linus (Damon), Basher (Cheadle), Saul (Reiner), Ruben (Gould), the "Mormon twins" (Affleck & Caan), Yen (Qin), Dell (Eddie Jemison), and Frank (Mac). The first scene when the entire crew are all together manages to create some nice witty in-joke laughs, such as Turk Malloy questioning Ocean, "and since when was this called 'Oceans Eleven?'" The problem is that Benedict knows who pulled off the heist three years ago, he's angry and wants all $160 million dollars back, plus three years worth of interest. The problem, Ocean and his crew can't pull off any job in America since their faces are well known. The solution, go overseas to Europe and pull off another heist to payback Benedict.

Yet there is still two other problems, first, it turns out that Rusty had a relationship with Isabel (Zeta-Jones) and suddenly left her after she was about to find out the person who pulled off a heist was actually Rusty. Now Isabel is one of the top detectives of the Euro-Pol force for the crime division. Second, there is another master thief Toulour (Cassel), who calls himself "the Fox" decides to have some fun of his own with Ocean and his crew. OCEANS TWELVE succeeds the same way OCEANS ELEVEN did, is one of the most enjoyable, witty, and entertaining movies of the year. Yet, like KILL BILL VOL. 2, OCEANS TWELVE is more plot and character orientated. And with OCEANS ELEVEN where the focus of the romance was Danny and Tess; OCEANS TWELVE it focuses on Rusty and Isabel, with some very enjoyable flashback scenes. Soderbergh again has a batting average of Barry Bonds, and hits another home run with this film. His directing is fantastic, capturing the look, mood, and feel of the European heist films such as GRAND SLAM, the original Italian JOB, and TOPKAPI. Such as the pan of the camera to focus on a particular character, the rapid zoom close-up shots, and the freeze shot before cutting to another scene. Yet he blends it well with modern European style with the technology, talk, and fashion of the modern hip world. I mean, I would love to hang out with this crew! I also highly enjoyed the soundtrack music supervised and composed by David Holmes (who also did Soderbergh's OCEANS ELEVEN and OUT OF SIGHT). Holmes did a great job using his very hip-techno mixes and songs and mixing it well with 60's era European artist such as actress/singer Ornella Vanoni, and composer Piero Umiliani. And the performances are fun and enjoyable to watch. It is obvious that all of the cast members had a fun time while making this movie, and it shows. Yet, that doesn't mean that the viewer should be left out, since there are some witty scenes that make a lot of reference to the previous film, the way Linus trying to understand how Danny and Rusty operate, and about the twelfth member of the crew looking like somebody else. While OCEANS TWELVE doesn't have a intelligent or great plot like COLLATERAL, SIDEWAYS, RAY, or THE INCREDIBLES. It does exactly what it promises. It promises fun, enjoyment, and laughs, and that is exactly what you will get when watching OCEANS TWELVE. This isn't the most intellectual film of the year, but it is the best looking, and one of the most entertaining and best films of this year. Hats off to Soderbergh, Holmes, writer Geoge Nolfi, and the entire cast for OCEANS TWELVE, for making a delightful film! ***** (out of five)

COLLATERAL has been the movie I've been anticipating the most this past summer. Yea, movies like SPIDER-MAN 2, TERMINAL, BOURNE Supremacy, and THE VILLAGE were films that I was excited about, and was very pleased with the finish product. Then films like SHREK 2, and MANCHURIAN CANIDATE were films that I wasn't excited about, and winded up being pleasantly surprised. Yet, I was expecting a majority of the summer films to be like I-ROBOT, DAY AFTER TOMORROW, and VAN HELSING, look good, but no substance. COLLATERAL was a different story, since the least appreciated director working in Hollywood today, Michael Mann, directs it. Watching the sneak preview tonight, everybody in line was psyched up because it was the new "Tom Cruise film." I sat in line with my tiny Pocket Essentials copy of the filmography and career of Michael Mann. When I asked people in line if they knew who Michael Mann was, I got from everybody, "uh, nope!" No surprise there. I've been building up my excitement for this movie the last couple of weeks by watching the previous films from Mann's career, Thief, THE KEEP, MANHUNTER, LAST OF THE MOHICIANS, THE INSIDER, ALI (director's cut), and my favorite HEAT.

I also watched the episode of the directors that airs on Encore about Mann's life and career and reading my two paperback books about Michael Mann's films (no big surprised, both books were published in England). In short COLLATERAL in America will be hyped as the "New Tom Cruise film" in Europe, it will be known as the "New Michael Mann film." To put it simply, I analyzed and studied what all of Mann's films have in common and what his style was, then I watched COLLATERAL. COLLATERAL has a hit man, Vincent (Tom Cruise), arriving at LAX in the late afternoon, with not really giving details at first what his objective is. A cabdriver, Max (Jamie Foxx), is shown beginning his evening shift. After Max picks up a customer, Annie (Jada Pinkett Smith), he convinces her that he knows the fastest way to get around Los Angeles, and proves it to her. By having an enjoyable conversation, Annie is intrigued and interested in Max, so much that she gives him her business card, hoping to talk to him again soon. After what seems like what is going to be a great night for Max, the next customer is Vincent, who asks if Max can take Vincent to five different stops in L.A. for the evening, paying Max twice the amount for a cab driver's pay. Max doesn't see this as a problem, until while at the first stop; a body falls down on Max's taxi. It turns out that Vincent is a hit man and the five stops involves with five different people that Vincent is planning on killing. While Vincent and Max travel around L.A., with Max hesitating with what he is doing, a police detective, Fanning (Mark Ruffalo) visits the apartment where Vincent made his first kill, the man isn't there, but there's a broken window and evidence of struggle. While Vincent has Max take him around L.A. to different locations for his contract killings, Fanning is investigating on who did murder the man in the apartment. COLLATERAL similar to Mann's previous crime films, (Thief, MANHUNTER, L.A. TAKEDOWN, and HEAT) is very intelligent and clever, that is what I love about Mann's films. The criminals are smart, while the police officers are also smart (no bumbling crooks or doughnut eating cops in Mann's films). The character of Vincent shows that he is a professional with his job by the way he holds his gun (the similar way all of Mann's characters hold their guns, holding it up while aiming at the same time). While the character of Fanning shows logical motives to what could have happened to the people who were killed.

This isn't a slam-bang action packed film, but then again, there isn't a Michael Mann film that is all action and no plot. HEAT and Thief gives complex characters with their motives, feelings, ambitions and personalities, while COLLATERAL does the same thing. If you pay attention to what the characters have to say in COLLATERAL (at least Vincent and Max), you will see them as people, not characters. COLLATERAL is a thinking man's thriller. The acting by Jamie Foxx is good; it's nice to see Foxx being able to give a performance that is different than the comedic roles that he has played in the past (BAIT, HELD UP, BOOTY CALL, etc.) COLLATERAL shows that Foxx can do a great job being a serious actor, and hopefully for his sake, will be seen as a serious actor. While Ruffalo, and Pinkett Smith also do good jobs with their supporting roles. But it is Tom Cruise who proves to do a fantastic job with his role as Vincent. Not since INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE has Cruise left his good guy, heroic image for a dark character, (well the same might also be said about MAGNOLIA). But Cruise shedding his handsome image shows that he really put a lot of effort into playing Vincent. The character of Vincent is for me the most enjoyable and fun villain that I've seen since Daniel Day Lewis' performance as Bill the Butcher in GANGS OF NEW YORK. A villain that shoots out fantastic lines like a Sergio Leone film. But it is Mann's directing is what really impressed me with this film. All of his trademarks are shown in this film. First the digital high definition camera work looked great! Since Mann hasn't worked with Dante Spinotti since THE INSIDER, both Dion Beebe and Paul Cameron do a great job giving COLLATERAL the Mann look, blue lighting with the various TOT (tricks of the trade) shots.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, only Michael Mann can make a city like Los Angeles and make it look like a beautiful city with the cinematography. Besides the cinematography, Mann uses his other trademarks, the great soundtrack, this time it is techno music mixed with, blues, and Latin, and the characters (particularly Vincent) dressed sharp and stylish. But since Vincent is a criminal, he doesn't wear a tie, similar to Neil McCauley, DeNiro's character in HEAT. Plus Mann shoots on location in L.A., making the city more realistic, mixing office high rises with Koreatown stores and nightclubs, and old well kept apartment buildings. In my review of HEAT I praised Mann for giving the viewer an accurate look of Los Angeles. Since L.A. is my second home, Mann uses the same moves in COLLATERAL. I could go into more detail why I loved COLLATERAL, but why spoil the party? This is the best film I have seen all summer and perhaps this year (although I still love KILL BILL VOL. 2). My expectations were met and like all of Mann's other films, COLLATERAL requires multiple viewings. For people who love Michael Mann films, I would rank this film his 3rd best, behind HEAT and THE INSIDER. For people who enjoy a smart intelligent thriller, like BOURNE Supremacy, but not as much action and less jerking of the camera, then COLLATERAL should please you. But if you're looking for an action packed Jerry Bruckheimer /Michael Bay film, then watch something else. But COLLATERAL is the first film this year that can be considered worthy of an Oscar nomination or two. Great show! ***** (Out of five)

I know I'm going to be getting a lot or criticism about this movie; at least I think I am, so here we go. First of all, FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is a documentary. Now I know some people are going to be saying, "Documentary!?!?! What are you nuts?!?!? This movie is very bias and one sided!" Ah yes, that's true. This movie is very one sided. However, aren't most documentaries one sided? THE KID STAYS IN THE PICTURE (a great documentary) discusses what a great man Robert Evans was for Hollywood. THE FOG OF WAR, McNamara's view of the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam War. SUPER SIZE ME, the American consumption of fast food is damaging our health. These three films are all considered documentaries, and they all take one side of the issue. The only recent documentary that I can think of that stays in the middle of an issue and gives the facts, is the excellent ONE DAY IN SEPTEMBER. But FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is indeed quite a movie to see because Michael Moore does bring up questions about our "War on Terror." The beginning of the film was very satirical with the results of the 2000 election with Al Gore announced as the winner and stating "Was this really a dream?" Then the first eight months of what Bush did in office by going on vacation a lot (which I do remember, Bush was usually on vacation). Then the very tragic day of September 11th 2001. Moore does a great job with this film by not actually showing the iconic images of 9/11 with the planes hitting the World Trade Center towers. Instead he just shows a pitch-black screen with the audio noises of 9/11. I've been talking to quite a few people about this scene and I've received a lot of interpretations of this. "We've seen the images so much that it is in our memories forever." "Giving us the feel of what it must have been like for the people who were in the WTC towers, with chaos and confusion." Then Moore shows us the horror and look on the people's faces as they look up towards the sky, bawling at what they were witnessing. Moore then shifts focus with the Bush family and their connections to the Bin Laden family. Now quite a few people will be denying that the Bush family had anything to do with the Bin Laden's, but Moore does discuss business deals and partnerships that were shown with photos and clippings from newspapers that do give pretty good support of his argument (I've taken a university argumentation class last spring and Moore does give evidence and warrants for his claims). Plus seeing a video footage of Rumsfield shaking hands with Hussein in 1983 does make the viewer question the Bush Administration's past. Moore does explain other issues including the infamous, going to war on terror, by going to war on Iraq issue. It is interesting to see a different side on the War in Iraq compared to major news networks repetitive footage of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, with the troops standing around like police officers, or seeing a tank roll by. Moore shows the viewer footage of some of the U.S. soldiers excitement of power and control. Such as the scene where a solider discusses blasting a heavy metal song that has the lyric "the roof is on fire." While other scenes show other U.S. soldier who question why the Iraqis don't seem pleased that the U.S. troops are over there. Then when footage is shown of children killed and houses destroyed, you begin to wonder yourself. FAHRENHEIT 9/11 does have some very emotional scenes, such as Lila Lipscomb's story, a Flint, Michigan resident whose son was killed in Iraq. One can't help but feel emotional and supportive of Mrs. Lipscomb. Then when Mrs. Lipscomb arrives at the White House in tears, only to have a Bush/Iraq supporter harass Lipscomb by saying "this is

all staged!" A viewer can't help but to show pain and anger at the same time. Or shock and anger when a Taliban official was visiting the White House in early 2001, and a female reporter comments how horrible the women in Afghanistan. Only to have the Taliban official make a comment, "I feel sorry for you husband with what he has to go though with you." Or the scene with President Bush sitting in the Florida classroom for an extra 7 minutes reading along with the class "My Pet Goat" as Moore gives commentary with "what was Bush thinking at the time?" FAHRENHEIT also has some very hysterical scenes, Paul Wolfowitz footage before getting ready for a TV interview by placing the teeth of a comb in his mouth to pat his hair down, then licking his hand to pat the hair down again. Some of the footage of the comments that Bush makes including the comment "you are my home base." John Ashcroft singing the very hysterical song "Let the Eagle Soar." And my personal favorite, Britney Spears smacking her gum and giving allegiance to G.W. After watching FAHRENHEIT 9/11, I put on my copy of the Pink Floyd (or mostly Roger Waters) album THE FINAL CUT. FINAL CUT is a concept album about the scarred memories of wars from the past and the continuation of war right now. the album was released in 1983, and it's disturbing how the message still stands 21 years later. THE FINAL CUT is an excellent companion piece to listen to after viewing FAHRENHEIT 9/11. Although FAHRENHEIT is not as humorous or entertaining as Moore's BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. Yet, FAHRENHEIT, I feel is a better and more important picture than COLUMBINE. FAHRENHEIT deals with our leaders, the people who control the free world. Yet do our leaders deserve the creditability they get from the media? (especially the Fox News Network). Legendary filmmaker Jean Luc-Godard said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." So if Conservatives are upset with FAHRENHEIT 9/11, why don't they make a movie supporting Bush and the war in Iraq earlier? Now that FAHRENHEIT was #1 at the box office, the Republican Party is making a Bush documentary. I am willing to see the film, however, I am curious to see how well they use their warrants and evidence with the claims they make on how great a President G.W. is. Michael Moore has said on numerous interviews that he only had one objective with FAHRENHEIT 9/11, to get people to vote in this November's election. Now whether you support Moore or not, no one can't deny that because of this film, people are ready to go out and vote this November. Too bad this movie wasn't released in October. But if pro-Moore and pro-Bush supporters are registering and ready to vote this November because of FAHRENHEIT 9/11, then THAT is where this movie has succeeded! If you are an anti-Bush person, then you should see this film.

If you are a pro-Bush person, you should still see this movie. The only way to win an argument is to listen to what the opposing side has to say, which most Bush supporters I know are not doing, that is why most of the claims of their arguments aren't valid. And even if you don't support Moore of Bush, still see this movie. If you don't agree with what Moore is saying, then discuss and investigate his claims. That way you are at least informed with what is going on in our government and world. Again, that is where Moore and FAHRENHEIT succeed. DON'T MISS THIS MOVIE! ***** (out of five)

There is something that I was educated about Steven Spielberg 13 years ago right before HOOK was released. Not every Spielberg film is going to be a classic. When there is a new and upcoming Spielberg film, audiences are anticipating for it to be another classic, like JAWS, RAIDERS, E.T., etc. I, at least learned that not every Spielberg film is going to be a classic. The film however, is at least going to be good. That way my expectations are not raised that high. And when a movie like SCHINDLER'S LIST, or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN come along, I will be pleasantly surprised, and wind up loving the film.

The past ten years, Spielberg's films range from the classic (SCHINDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, AMISTAD, & MINORITY REPORT); underrated and deserves at least two viewings (A.I. & LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK); and highly entertaining (JURASSIC PARK, and CATCH ME IF YOU CAN). Spielberg isn't trying to make every movie a classic, he's trying to at least be entertaining. With that said, Spielberg's latest film, THE TERMINAL, falls under the highly entertaining category.

TERMINAL tells the story of Viktor Navorski (Tom Hanks), a immigrant from a fictional Eastern European country who is visiting America for the first time. When Viktor arrives at the immigration office at the New York City airport, he is informed to report to the office of one of the Homeland Security chiefs, Frank Dixon (Stanley Tucci). Dixon informs Viktor that his home country's government is under attacked, Viktor's visa into the U.S. isn't accepted, while Viktor can not return to his native land. Dixon's solution is to have Viktor wait at the airport, possibly illegally sneak out of the airport onto American soil, and have immigration officers worry about Viktor's fate.

Viktor, however decides to at least apply for a travel visa, with the immigration office, getting rejected at every visit. Viktor knows that he can't return home and doesn't want to break any laws, decides to wait for a legal approval to enter into the U.S.

While waiting, Viktor meets and befriends some of the airport terminal employees. There a shy food server (Diego Luna) who's secretly in love with one of the INS officers (Zoe Saldana) . Gupta Rajan, the rude janitor (played by Wes Anderson regular Kumar Pallana) who thinks that Viktor is possibly a intelligence officer, while he takes pleasure watching the dashing passengers ignore the "wet floor" signs as they slip on the wet floor. A baggage handler (Chi McBride) who sees Viktor as being harmless. And Amelia Warren (Catherine Zeta-Jones), an airline stewardess who has dated several men (including married men), yet finds normal attraction in Viktor.

From taking my Spielberg/Lucas class a few years ago, analyzing the themes and subtext messages in Spielberg's films, TERMINAL is more or less a film about a man moving into a new neighborhood. Similar to previous films done about a new figure moving into town and changing the lives of everybody (CHOCOLATE & THE MAJESTIC as recent examples). TERMINAL does follow that familiar plot element. Except, this time the hero doesn't move into a town, but an airport terminal instead.

Yet, like a town there is a assortment of personalities: the timid and shy young man who loves the girl who is so caught up in her career; the humorous and cool older man; the grumpy and misunderstood elderly gentleman; the antagonist who sees the hero as a threat; and the very beautiful woman that the hero falls in love with. If it sounds like a Frank Capra film, then no surprise it is. However, remember that Spielberg was highly influenced by Capra-Corn.

I enjoyed the performances in TERMINAL, with Hanks proving again that he is one of the greatest actors working in cinema. The first 30 minutes of the film, Hanks does a fantastic job playing Viktor as a man who doesn't understand or speak much English. One scene that stands out with Hanks' performance is when Viktor finds out for the first time about a military coup going on in his homeland from the cable news reports. Hanks gives a marvelous performance with his character showing pain, anxiety, fear, confusion, and sadness all at the same time. I mean, darn it, that scene had me in tears when I was watching it, you can't help but feel sorry for the guy.

The supporting performance in TERMINAL are also quite good. Stanley Tucci gives another good role playing the man who insists that he is doing the right thing, despite being the only person who thinks that. Diego Luna, Chi McBride, Kumar Pallana, and Barry Shabaka Henley do all give superb performances. I did feel that Catherine Zeta-Jones also gave a good job, yet I personally would have like to have seen more of her character.

The amazing thing with TERMINAL is the set design, reconstructing the airport terminal. Since Spielberg couldn't shoot at a real airport, he constructed a fictional terminal from a airplane hanger. And looking at the terminal, you would think it was real. I knew before hand that the terminal was only a set. Yet, I did enjoy overhearing other audience members whispering to each other "is that LAX? Kennedy? or Logan Airport?" Set designer Anne Kuljian and Production Designer Alex McDowell did a fantastic job creating a realistic airport terminal. With the arrival/departure reader board with the flapping letters & numbers; to the massive amount of stores and restaurants. The terminal features Borders Books, Burger King, Sbarro Pizza, Nathan's Hot Dogs, Discovery Channel Store, Hugo's, and even a Verizon Wireless Phone store (it's only fitting since the Verizon spokesperson is the co-star of the film. On a side note: it would have been funny to see Zeta-Jones' character leave the Verizon store shaking her phone and complaining that particular store's cellular phones do not work.

But since this summer has been filled with massive special effects extravaganzas, it is nice to see a film again that focuses on characters and not visuals. So far, I would say that THE TERMINAL is the most enjoyable film this summer (along with HARRY POTTER & THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN). Like the past summer's from the previous years, it is fun to see big lavish movies like SPIDER-MAN, PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN, MINORITY REPORT, and X-2. But then it's very comforting that plot/character driven films like ROAD TO PERDITION and SEABISCUIT are also released. And that is exactly what TERMINAL is, a highly entertaining plot/character driven film. It is not a Spielberg classic, but it is very enjoyable and entertaining. And that's good enough for me! ***** (out of five)

For me The Haunted Mansion at Disneyland is one of my favorite rides at the entire park. I put it high on my list along with Splash Mountain and Space Mountain. I even enjoy it more than Pirates of the Carribean. I even have a copy of the limited soundtrack of the entire ride, as well as the other "Haunted" houses at Disney parks worldwide. For me The Haunted Mansion was the ultimate spook house ride, adding thrills, chills, with state of the art special effects. When I saw the movie, my hopes were high considering that the Disney Studio did a decent job of making a ride into a film with PIRATES, but after watching the movie, I was extremely disappointed. The story involves Jim Evers (Eddie Murphy) a successful real estate seller along with his wife/partner Sara (Marsh Thompson). When the Evers advertisement flier was left in front of the mansion, Sara gets a phone call to arrive at the mansion alone for a proposition. Jim who messed up his anniversary, decides to take Sara and their two children, 13 year old Megan (Aree Davis) and 10 year old Michael (Marc John Jefferies) along with them to the lake. But when Jim hears Sara taking the phone call about the mansion, he sees it as a real estate opportunity. When they arrive at the mansion, they are greeted by a emotionless and creepy butler Ramsley (Terence Stamp) who works for Master Gracey (Nathaniel Parker). The mystery about why Ramsley and Gracey invited Sara to the mansion has something to do with Gracey's past, as Jim along with Megan and Michael discover the secrets among the mansion. I will say that when I was watching the movie, at the beginning it looked very promising. The story for the movie was going along with the ride and I was getting pleased with the film. Then after the credits, and opening scene, Eddie Murphy's character appears, and for a few minutes I thought I was watching deleted scenes or a sequel to DADDY DAY CARE. I was sitting there wondering, this movie is "The Haunted Mansion?" This is suppose to be based on the ultimate spook ride on any amusement park, and it seems way too much like a family comedy. Then as the movie progressed, I was pleased with the sets, the costumes, and even the plot involving Ramsley and Master Gracey, but it was the presence of Eddie Murphy that was really bothering me. It felt like that I was riding the Haunted Mansion ride, yet I was sitting next to an obnoxious and chatter mouth man in the "doom buggy," (which is how I felt about Eddie Murphy in this film). Then more things began to bother me, the throw away characters of Ezra (Wallace "Inconceivable!" Shawn) and Emma (Dina Spybey). It's bad enough that Shawn has to keep saying "Unexplainable!" to try to get some laughs out of the adults who recognize him from PRINCESS BRIDE (it doesn't work). Then there is the character of Madame Leota (Jennifer Tilly) who I thought was a great choice for the film and does appear at first to be what I expected, similar to the ride, creepy and mysterous. Then, in order to obtain the "Disney cuteness" they make her a reoccurring character, even having a scene with the crystal ball being fasten in a seatbelt in a car, oh boy. I did enjoy also the references the movie made to the ride (the statues that follow your move before going on the doom buggie). Then there were scenes where some of the ride refrences could have been a little more scarier or just plain better. Like the singing statues, they should have been singing "Grim Grining Ghosts" a song that is used on the ride and even creates that frightening image of their presence. Instead, for yuks they sing "By the Light of the Silvery Moon" or "She'll Be Comimg 'Round the Mountain," ho ho, ha ha. For me it seemed like that director Rob Minkoff was trying to use elements from GHOSTBUSTERS and THE MUMMY in trying to make HAUNTED MANSION successful, he failed. What he should have done was watch PIRATES then possibly rework the film to get the feel of what it takes to make a feature film based on a popular theme park attraction. Also, Eddie Murphy, I felt was a MAJOR casting error. It gets very annoying very fast when a actor has to make a wise-crack with every scary image or object that is being shown. Plus, like all comedians, when the actor is "mugging" the camera thinking the material is funny, it's not funny to the audience. Comedy works with reaction and surprise, by telling a joke and thinking it's funny, the joke turns out to be annoying, and that is what Murphy was in this film. I enjoy Eddie Murphy, TRADING PLACES, 48 HRS., and BEVERLY HILLS COP were great! Even Eddie Murphy "toned down" in NUTTY PROFESSOR, BOWFINGER, SHOWTIME, and DADDY DAY CARE were enjoyable. Then again, Murphy starred in VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN and PLUTO NASH, and we all know how those films turned out. In this film, he comes off more annoying than anything else, similar to his vocal role in SHREK (which I thought was a very overrated film), it seems that Murphy was limited to what he could say and react since Disney wanted this to be "a blockbuster family film." Murphy should have gotten advice from Ramsley (Terence Stamp who also co-starred with Murphy in the hilarious BOWFINGER) with K.I.T. (keep it together) and that is what Murphy really should have done with his performance in this film.

Why did Minkoff try to make HAUNTED MANSION more cute than frightening? Because it carried the Disney logo? That didn't stop other more intellectual and dark films like BLACK HOLE and TRON from being made. It seems that PIRATES director Gore Verbinski didn't set any barriers with tone of violence and fright and made PIRATES a enjoyable picture. With HAUNTED MANSION, Minkoff appeared to try to make the film scary, but not too scary, since I'm sure the Disney executives were saying, "there will be five year olds in the audience, this is our blockbuster Holiday family picture Rob." Overall, I wanted to enjoy THE HAUNTED MANSION but I couldn't, and I'm pretty darn lenient when it comes to liking movies (I enjoyed LEAGUE OF EXTRADONARY GENTLEMEN for pete's sake!) But it felt like I was cheated and robbed of what I wanted this movie to be. The movie had the sets, make-up, and special effects; but that doesn't make it a good movie. I haven't been this disappointed in a anticipated film since MEN IN BLACK II. Go ahead and see it, but... BEWARE! *** (out of five)

<Possible Spoilers> One of the most anticipated films this Christmas is the new Tom Cruise film, THE LAST SAMURAI. I personally was very excited to be seeing this movie (along with RETURN OF THE KING), and I am pleased to say that it is worth the wait. Tom Cruise stars as Capt. Woodrow Algren a U.S. Calvary vetertan who's seen his share of bloodshed. Algren keeps having haunting flashbacks of seeing his fellow officers and commander, Col. Benjamin Bagly (Tony Goldwyn) slaughter Native Americans (including women in children). Algren is offered by his friend Zebulah Grant (Billy Connolly) and Bagly to train soldiers in Japan to fight against the Samurai warriors. Algren who has been drinking in his sorrows and looking for a excuse to die feels that this his is moment, he agrees to take the offer and sails off to Japan.

Over there Algren meets English journalist/photographer/interperter Simon Graham (Timothy Spall) who informs both Algren (and the viewer) about the Japanesse customs and traditions. It turns out that the Japanese government, like America have problems with expantation of the railroad, which railroad workers and the Emperor's soldiers are killed by the samurai from the surrounding areas. Algren's expertise and knowledge of previous war experience is much needed for the Japanesse soldiers who wish to "finish" off the samurai and continue to build the railroad, very much like the western civilaztion. Algren trains the men, yet when Col. Bagly informs that Algren must have the soldiers prepare for battle the next morning, Algren disagrees believing and even showing that the men aren't ready yet. Col. Bagly ignores Algren's comments and orders the unprepared men to fight the next morning. Bagly believes that since the Emperor's soldiers have rifles that they can defeat the primitive samurai's with their "sticks and arrows." The next day, as Algren and the soldiers wait for the samurai in the forrest, the warriors arrive and practically kill all of the Emperor's soldiers, at least the ones who didn't retreat with Col. Bagly. Algren stays behind and since he's been looking for a way or reason to die, he figures to fight to the death. As eight samurai warriors surround Algren ready to strike, Algren takes one of the samurai flags and defends himself with it. This impresses Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) the village leader and head samurai. As Algren is then knocked to the ground and is about to be killed by one of the warriors, with quick thinking, he defends himself by stabbing the warrior in the neck killing the samurai. Katsumoto orders his men to take Algren alive instead of death. As Algren recovers he realizes he is being taken care by a beautiful mother who lives in the village named Taka(Koyuki Kato). It turns out that the warrior that Algren killed was Taka's husband. Katusmoto informs Algren that he wants him alive to study the "western" way of battle and war. However when Algren gets is a lesson of the way the samurai lives as well as the traditional way of the Japanesse culture. But even most important, Algren learns the ways of fighting and defending himself like the samurai. Like one of my favorite films this year (SEABISCUIT), LAST SAMURAI is a familar road traveled. And like SEABISCUIT, it might be a familar road, yet it is a very enjoyable ride. When I was watching this film I was ready to dubbed it "DANCES WITH WOLVES GOES EAST." Then as the film continued, I enjoyed this film more, simply because the action scenes were more enjoyable. Yet, although both films have the plot of the individual who was a part of the advancement of the modern world, then realizing that they enjoy the traditional world of what was thought to be their enemies. Having the central character realize that the world and environement he grew up in was wrong. But, I still did highly enjoy this film. Tom Cruise did a very good job in this film. However, I don't think he will be getting that "Oscar" this year. Cruise wasn't as good as his role in MAGNOLIA, however with LAST SAMURAI Cruise proves that he is one of the best actors working in film. Timothy Spall(ROCK STAR,& VANILLA SKY) did a great job as the "comic" relief as well as the sidekick to Cpt. Algren. Tony Goldwyn (GHOST & THE 6TH DAY)does his usual passable role as the villian. However if anyone comes out of this film deserving a Oscar nomination is Ken Watanabe who played the head samurai, Katsumoto. Watanabe, coming from Japan, gives a outstanding role as the leader who teaches both Algren and the audience that death is meaningful as long it was done with honor. Listening to the audience members after the film was over, a lot of people were impressed with his performance. I will say that Ken Watanabe should get recognized for his moving and emotional performance. The directing by Edward Zwick is enjoyable. Zwick who is no stranger to epics (GLORY & LEGENDS OF THE FALL) does a very good job with this film making the 150 mins. go by pretty fast and entertaining. But the cinematography by two time Oscar winner John Toll (LEGENDS OF THE FALL, BRAVEHEART, ALMOST FAMOUS) does a amazing job! Some of the scenes and images of this film were just very beautiful with the lighting, the images of the flower blossoms, and the tricks of the trade (TOT) shots.

What really impressed me with this movie was the fight scenes with the samurai swords. Woha! I am a Akira Kurosawa fan, and seeing the sword fights done in this film makes the fights in the recent MATRIX films look pale in comparison. There is one fantastic scene of a unarmed, yet a trained Algren who is surrounded by government samurai's who all have swords. Watching this as well as a few other action scenes with the samurai fighting were great, making most of the action scenes from most of the 2003 films look boring to silly (except for ITALIAN JOB, PIRATES, & KILL BILL). I do applaud Edward Zwick for bringing the excitement and fantastic samurai fighting from the Kurosawa films. Overall, I think THE LAST SAMURAI will get some Oscar nods (Cinematography, Ken Watanabe; maybe picture & director) and it is that grand epic tradition like GLADIATOR, GANGS OF NEW YORK, and BRAVEHEART. It was at times predictable, but it was a fun and enjoyable ride. Right now, for me, I would say that SEABISCUIT, MYSTIC RIVER, MASTER & COMMANDER, FINDING NEMO and LAST SAMURAI will be the "front runners" for nominations for Best Picture. But that might change with other films including Gus Van Saint's TURTLE, 21 GRAMS, and, of course, PETER JACKSON's RETURN OF THE KING. But compared to the majority of the films out this year (like GIGLI...yeesh!) LAST SAMURAI proves to be one of the more enjoyable and entertaining films of 2003. ****1/2 (out of five)

Leave it to director Terry Zwigoff to make a movie like this. It felt like I was staring at a pile of vomit on the ground for 90 minutes, yet I was fascinated and intrigued while looking at the vomit. What I mean to say is that what I saw on screen was offensive and vulgar, however I was entertained and even enjoyed what I was watching. Willie T. Soke (Billy Bob Thorton) is a drunken loser, a man who is not afraid to drink until he pukes, or urniates on himself in public. During the holiday season Willie and his short partner Marcus (Tony Cox) work at shopping malls or department stores as Santa Claus and his little elf. Then when Christmas Eve comes, Willie and Marcus make a late night visit to the department store, breaking into the store safe and running off with the money, and plan on doing it again the following year. The next holiday season, Willie and Marcus arrive in Phoenix and take a job at a shopping mall, convincing the mall manager (the late John Ritter) that they will work for almost nothing and by not hiring "little person" Marcus is discriminating against short people. Yet this time around, Willie meets a attractive and sultry cocktail waitress Sue (Lauren Graham) who gives out a unique pleasure of why she wants to fornicate with Willie. Plus Willie befriends a shy yet sensitive kid (Brett Kelly) who has Willie stay with him at his fancy house with his clueless grandmother (Cloris Leachman). But the head mall security guard Gin Slagel (Bernie Mac) has his suspicions of the mall's new Santa and friend and does a investigation of their background. For starters, just because the title of the movie has "Santa" in it, doesn't make it a sequel to ELF. This is one movie that the kids should stay away from. But this is one of the most enjoyable dark comedy I have seen in a while. Like I said eariler, you normally wouldn't be laughing at what is being shown on the screen, but you can't help but chuckle. Thorton's character of Willie has to be the most sleezy character in cinema history. Willie is so vulgar that he makes Travis Bickle look like a saint. But Thorton since a lot of us have seen Thorton's personality and behavior in public, this is a role that is very fitting for him. Willie is the opposite of the typical hero, just when you think he might possibly redeem himself and become a decent person, he'll get drunk and do something foolish. I not only enjoyed Thorton's performance but also the supporting performances of Tony Cox, Lauren Graham, John Ritter, Bernie Mac, and Brett Kelly. I am always pleased to see short people being given the chance to show their acting ability, such as Peter Dinklage in STATION AGENT, and Tony Cox is given the chance to show his wonderful acting in this film. There are even some scenes in which Cox shares with Throton that has Cox steal the scene for comedy. Graham also gives an enjoyable performance as the woman who still finds Willie attractive despite how disgusting he can be. John Ritter (who is already being missed) shows his talent by playing the shocked and stunned mall manager who catches Willie doing some obscene actions at time. Child actor Brett Kelly gives a good performance as the kid, avoiding the cliche standards of being a adorable and cute kid and instead appearing to look more like a real kid who could exist. And Bernie Mac, who I always find enjoyable, gives a enjoyable performance as the corrupt and egotistical mall manager. Terry Zwigoff has made films about the "outcasts" of society with his films CRUMB and GHOST WORLD, which I highly enjoyed both of those films. Zwigoff does a good job again by being the person who likes his protagonists to be different from the Hollywood standards. When other director's could have easily made Willie a likeable character right away, Zwigoff manages to keep Willie and other characters in this movie offensive throughout the film. This isn't going to be a box office hit, then again name one Xmas film that was successful in the box office and well liked (GRINCH and both SANTA CLAUSE films were successful in box office, but not well liked by many). But given some time, I can see BAD SANTA being a cult film, similar to other holiday films including A CHRISTMAS STORY, and IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. But this is the type of movie that isn't really a genuine holiday film, like GREMLINS and DIE HARD 1 & 2; which is where I would put BAD SANTA along with. Yet it is entertaining and enjoyable, but when you are finished watching the movie, you'll more than likely say, I can't believe I watched that movie, and enjoyed it. **** (out of five)

Ever since I saw UNFORGIVEN, I was conformed with my thoughts on Clint Eastwood. I always thought of Eastwood as the "action-packed," gun carrying superstar who said tough-guy lines like "Do ya feel lucky punk?" and the classic, "Go ahead, make my day." Then after watching UNFORGIVEN, I was blown away on how different of a western it was, aging gunfighters, who are past their prime, now are going to be doing one more job. Now I am a strong devotee of Clint Eastwood, watching and buying DVD copies of all of his films (that includes the hokey EVERY WHICH WAY and ANY WHICH WAY films with "Clyde"). With MYSTIC RIVER, I was a little disappointed not seeing Clint in front of the camera, which I always do enjoy. Yes, he's pushing 73, but still, it's a nice familar face. But after watching MYSTIC RIVER, I got past not seeing Clint's face, yet his work as a filmmaker showed. MYSTIC RIVER is based on the Dennis Lehane best seller, which takes place in a certain section of Boston, near the river. Three boys are playing on the street and decide to use a stick to write their names in the wet cement. A car pulls up and a tough looking man comes out saying he's a cop, and is threatening to arrest the boys for defacing property. After the officer asks where the three boys live (two lived on that street, one lived a few blocks away), the boy who lived a few blocks away is ordered by the man to get into the back of his car to "take him home." The scary and sad thing is that the boy wasn't taken home right away... Flash-forward to 25 years later, where the three boys are adults. Jimmy (Sean Penn) is a business owner of a corner store, he served some time in prison, got out and is trying to make a new life. Jimmy is in his second marriage to Annabeth (Laura Linney) and has three daughters, Jimmy's eldest daughter, Katie (Emmy Rossum) is 18 and works for Jimmy at his store. Sean (Kevin Bacon) is a Boston homicide officer who still gets phone calls from his ex-wife who doesn't say a word, yet Sean knows it's her and talks to her still with no response. Then there's Dave (Tim Robbins) the adult who still is suffering emotionally from the time he went into the backseat of the police officer's car. On a Saturday night before Jimmy's daughter's communion, Katie goes out driking with some friends. Later that night, Dave came home with blood on his hands and shrit, Dave's wife, Celeste (Marcia Gay Harden) is worried on what happend to her husband. When Jimmy and Annabeth go to their daughter's communion, Jimmy is upset that Katie didn't show up. Sean along with his homicide partner, Whitey (Laurence Fishburn) get a call about a car sitting in the middle of the road with blood. It turns out that the car was Katie's, with Katie's body found not far from the car. The story has several conflicts and revealing information about the character's of the film as the plot continues. I was highly impressed and pleased with MYSTIC RIVER. After watching this film, KILL BILL Vol. 1, SCHOOL OF ROCK, and LOST IN TRANSLATION; the last four weeks of movies have been much better than the last ten months. It is obvious why critics are calling this one of the best pictures of the year, it's because its true! I was hooked on the mystery of both the character's past that was involved with the plot, as well as the mystery about the murder of Katie. It's no surprise why the mystery for MYSTIC RIVER works so well, the screenplay was written by Brian Helgeland, who won an Oscar along with Curtis Hanson for his adaptation for L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, the best crime-noir film since CHINATOWN. The film manages to give full rich detail on the three characters and even gives detailed information of the supporting characters as well. Another important factor in which Eastwood should be applauded for is shooting the film in the actual location in which the story takes place, outside of Boston. If there is a film or story where the location becomes part of the character, then it's critical to have the story take place in that location, otherwise it won't have right feel for the movie. Think of Michael Mann's HEAT taking place in L.A. but shot in Chicago, it would take away the impact of the film. With MYSTIC RIVER, Eastwood demanded that the film needed to be shot Charlestown, Boston instead of the studio's decision of Toronto (because it's cheeper). The acting by Sean Penn is along with Bill Murry, as one of the best this year. I have always enjoyed Mr. Penn's work (I've can see Penn being the most talented young actor under 50 (along with Edward Norton and Johnny Depp). Penn gives a very fantastic performance in this film, you could actually feel his grief when he finds out that his daughter was killed. Yet kudos should also go out to Tim Robbins for his performance of Dave, the man who is still scarred by the actions that happened to him 25 years eariler. Robbins manages to have a convincing look of emotional scars that have been haunting him for years, and it shows in his eyes. I also enjoyed the performances and the investigating plot of Kevin Bacon and Laurence Fishburne's characters. Bacon can be a great actor in a bad movie (HOLLOW MAN for example) yet Bacon proves that he can even carry his own performance along with Robbins and Penn. And Fishburne shows that he is one of the most powerful supporting actors working in Hollywood with this film. I would finally have to give credit to Eastwood himself. No longer being seen as the man who is use to carrying a .44 magnium shooting bad guys. Now he's the figure who thinks about even questions on why did he shoot that man, like he discussed in UNFORGIVEN and in this film as well. Eastwood manages to tell a story in which the characters might appear fine, yet they have ghosts inside of them that will haunt them forever. And before I forget, Eastwood's brauva talent shows again by being the score composure for this film! I expected the usual great music by Eastwood regular Lennie Neihaus, but when I saw that Eastwood composed the music, I was pleasently surprised. Also, for those other Eastwood fans out there, a familar face makes a unexpected yet highly enjoyable cameo appearance. I'm not going to say who it is, but when you see this familar actor and make the connection, it is a nice treat. MYSTIC RIVER proves once again that Clint Eastwood is one of the best directors still working. Sadly, most people can't imagine Eastwood as anything else but Dirty Harry; and when Eastwood passes away, people will then say, "oh wow, he did do a lot of work." Well, I'm saying it now, Eastwood is a underappreciated director, watch his other directed films: BIRD, BRONCO BILLY, BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, and MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD & EVIL, and you too would hopefully agree with me that Eastwood is a darn great director! There is no doubt that MYSTIC RIVER is going to be remembered come Feburary when the Oscars are announced. I can see this film having nominations in several catagories, especially Best Actor (for Penn), Best Supporting Actor (Robbins), Best Director, and Best Picture. This film was even nominated for Best Picture at the Cannes Film Festival, which in my opinion is the more suitable Academy Awards. Look what won Best Picture at Cannes last year- Polanski's THE PIANIST. I rest my case. One of the best films this year! ***** (out of five)

<POSSIBLE SPOILERS> Oooh baby! I've been a fan of Quentin Tarantino since I first saw RESIVOR DOGS over ten years ago. In my Intro. to Cinema class I took my freshman year at college, in the fall of '94, I did a report on RESIVOR DOGS. When I was asked by my classmates on what film I was doing my report on, I replied RESIVOR DOGS, directed by Quentin Tarantino. I got a blank and expressionless reaction after saying that, with a response of "who's he?" I had to answer, "he's the man who wrote NATURAL BORN KILLERS," to get a full response from the classmate. Then two months later to my pleasure and enjoyment, Quentin Tarantino became a household name, and PULP FICTION would change cinema history. Then to my displeasure, EVERYBODY loved PULP FICTION. People would dress up like the characters, quote the movie, even explain philosophical sub-text of the movie. The film attracted the same people who thought Ferris Buller was a "righteous dude": sportos, motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, etc. In the later part of 1994 until 1996, a cinema geek couldn't go anywhere without hearing the name Quentin Tarantino. Tarantino surprised everybody with his follow-up to PULP FICTION with JACKIE BROWN, a well done and intelligent homage to the blaxploitation film of the 1970's. A majority of the people that were attracted to Tarantino from PULP FICTION (like the people associated with Ferris Buller) felt Tarantino didn't have what it took to make a entertaining movie. But JACKIE BROWN did deliver a great story with detailed characters and great dialogue. It was just a film that needed to be seen more than once to enjoy. Years later rumors and spectulation began to arise on Tarantino's whereabouts. Causing a mystery surrounding a man who was claimed to be the man who "talked too much." Now, 2003, six years later, Tarantino returns with his 4th film, KILL BILL, and for those who felt Tarantino "lost his touch" will be reborn again, and for those like me, who always enjoyed all of Tarantino's films, will have their expectations surpassed with this film. The plot for KILL BILL Vol. 1 is very simple, it's a revenge story. However, since Tarantino directs the film, it's not important on what the story is about, but how the story is told. Look at RESIVOR DOGS and PULP FICTION. Both films have stories that are pretty simple, a diamond hiest gone wrong, and two men delivering a briefcase to their boss. But seeing the way the storyteller tells those stories is what makes Tarantino a brilliant director. The story is about The Bride (AKA Black Mamba; Uma Thurman) is shot and left for dead on her wedding day. The Bride was attacked by the team she use to work for The Deadly Vemon Viper Squad: O-Ren Ishii/Cottonmouth (Lucy Liu); Vernita Green/Copperhead (Vivica A. Fox); Budd/Sidewinder (Michael Madsen); Elle Driver/California Mountain Snake (Daryl Hannah); and their leader, Bill (David Carradine). Four years later, the bride comes out of her coma and immediately seeks revenge on the people that tried to kill her. But, since this is a Tarantino film there is his usual style of filmmaking including: fantastic shots, complex characters, great dialogue and monologues, a groovy soundtrack, wonderful settings, and even a style of its own. The characters are explained their background in detail as well. However, with BILL the actors then display impressive and amazing acrobatic movement as they fight. Tarantino even does a Jean Luc-Godard approach by manipulating the audience with having total control of the film and even the viewers. Such a case is by having the dialogue of the Bride character name "Bleep" out when characters speak it. It similar to the "what's in the briefcase" theory of PULP FICTION, it's left up to the viewers opinion. Then there is the tast of retro-feel with the beginning title have the "Shaw Scope" and the 70's style music and title card with the words "Our Feature Presentation" appear. And like a Tarantino film, watching the film a second time around, one could pick up on things that they missed. (i.e. CHAPTER ONE- 2 <the number 2 is circled>). There is the flashy and stylish scenes, such as when O-Ren Ishii and her crew, Sofie Fatale (Julie Dreyfus), Go Go Yubari (Chiaki Kuriyama), and others as they arrive at "The House of the Blue Leaves." With the people moving in slow-motion to the cool beat of Tomoyasu Hotei's "Battle Without Honor of Humanity," then Tarantino giving the film a great tracking shot following the character's around the club. Should I not forget the fight scenes? Which I say make THE MARTIX RELOADED look pale in comparision (since the MATRIX resorted to being a philosophy movie instead of action) and even surpasses the upcoming LAST SAMUARI with Tom Cruise (yes, I've already seen that film and KILL BILL's fight scenes are more impressive). And why shouldn't they be, it was advised by the legendary Woo-ping Yuen who also did all three MATRIX films and CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON. Yet, while the Wachowski focused on the complex meaning and mystery of what the Matrix is, and give less action, Tarantino gives more action and having the viewer decide the meaning, which makes the film more meaningful and

enjoyable. Don't get me wrong, I highly enjoy MATRIX and MATRIX RELOADED, but the action in those films are not as impressive as KILL BILL. Then there is the discussion of blood, is there a lot? Well, the blood ratio in this film makes PULP FICTION look like a PG13 film, and no I'm not kidding. There is blood in this film, a lot of blood. Then Tarantino hints to the audience that the blood factor shouldn't be taken seriously, such as a decapitation with blood shooting out like a fountain. That obviously could never happen, we know that and Tarantino knows it, and makes that point clearly with this film. Tarantino even makes it more clear about the violence by having a Japanesse animatied sequence showing massive blood and violence. Yet to inform the audience that it shouldn't be taken seriously. I haven't been excited watching a movie the second time around more than the first time since last years GANGS OF NEW YORK. This was one fantastic and highly entertaining film. It's a point that most Hollywood and studio filmmakers should acknowlege when it comes to filmmaking. It's not important on what the story is about, but how you tell the story. Tarantino believes in that statement and it shows with KILL BILL. My only complaint is that I could have easily watched another 100 minutes or so of this film being how entertaining it is. I will say this and stand by this comment. I think KILL BILL would be more entertaining as a whole than watching any one of the LORD OF THE RINGS films. Which isn't really a fair statement to make, but as for pacing and enjoyment, it is a true statement.

It's a shame that Tarantino doesn't release Vol. 2 by December 31st, since the quality and satisfaction Vol. 1 shows, it could have easily been a contender for this years Oscars. I might be dreaming and off in la-la land thinking of that statement, KILL BILL nominated for Best Picture, since there is a lot of violence (the Academy ignored the modern masterpiece CITY OF GOD). But hey, PULP FICTION was nominated for Best Picture. With the exception of SEABISCUIT, LOST IN TRANSLATION, RETURN OF THE KING, FINDING NEMO, MYSTIC RIVER and maybe LAST SAMUARI and MASTER AND COMMAND, is there any other film that should be nominated for Best Picture? Until then, if KILL BILL gets any awards or not, there will be a following for it for the next couple of years, making the PULP FICTION following becomming a thing of the past. ***** (out of five)

Believe it or not, but it has been almost two years since this planet lost one of the most amazing poets of music, George Harrison. And almost 1 year after the tribute concert that was performed for this feature. Some of George Harrison's closest and personal friends performed a tribute concert on November 29, 2002 at London's Royal Albert Hall; one year to the date of George's death of cancer. Some of the performers include a fantastic line-up: Eric Clapton, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, Joe Brown (an English performer that The Beatles opened up for), Billy Preston, Ravi Shankar, and even the two surviving Beatles, Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney. The entire concert was a tribute and remembrance of his achievement in life, by performing his songs from both as a Beatle and a soloist. The concert and performance of this film is amazing, it is was a very wise decision to have this film be released on the big screen. Being that I am a HUGE Beatle and George Harrison fan, I was both overwhelemd and even emotionally touched during some of the performances from this concert. My personal favorite numbers were Eric Clapton doing a fantastic performance of "BEWARE OF DARKENSS" (from Harrison's solo album ALL THINGS MUST PASS); Clapton and Billy Preston's duet of my favorite Harrison song, "ISN'T IT A PITY," and Paul McCartney performing another one of my favorite Harrison songs, "ALL THINGS MUST PASS." There are also very great noteworthy performances including Jeff Lynne doing "I WANT TO TELL YOU," and "THE INNER LIGHT," Tom Petty performing "TAXMAN" and "HANDLE ME WITH CARE." And Billy Preston playing "MY SWEET LORD." I haven't forgotten the other "surprising" appearances, but why ruin the surprise? I was delighted to see some of some more guests appear, making the film more enjoyable. (Wink. Wink. Nudge. Nudge.) For me, the performances are top-rate and fantastic! But CONCERT FOR GEORGE doesn't quite reach the masterpiece status of THE LAST WALTZ or STOP MAKING SENSE for concert films. The flaw is more from director David Leland's part. Unlike Scorsese's LAST WALTZ, Leland keeps cutting to the audience reaction and cheers, where Scorsese never showed the crowd's faces during the concert performances for The Band. This gave the viewer the illusion of being at the show, by watching the performers all the time, and never seeing a audience member "groovin'" to the songs. But the biggest flaw with the film is the structure. Leland has a song being shown, then the sound dies down and... BAM! It cuts to an interview. Don't get me wrong, I was delighted to hear what Ringo, Eric, and Tom had to say with their personal stories and memories of George. But where Scorsese passed, and Leland failed; THE LAST WALTZ would show an entire song without any interruptions, then after the song is finished in LAST WALTZ, then Scorsese cuts to an interview. Leland cuts to an interview in the middle of the song! For me it was very distracting and annoying, especially when Top Petty was performing the highly enjoyable Traveling Wilbury song, "HANDLE ME WITH CARE." Fortunate, I was told that the DVD that will be released on Nov. 29th, is going to have the entire concert, without any interruptions, which is very satisfying for me. However, the performances and the concert itself is a fantastic concert film, and I would considerate the best "concert film" of this decade. Plus, it is very very delightful to see McCartney perform songs that aren't from his catalogue.

Performances: ***** (out of five) Film itself: **** Overall: ****1/2

For the last five years George Clooney has proven to the entertainment world his talent as a actor. From his role on the t.v. show ER, to feature films of OUT OF SIGHT, THREE KINGS, OH BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? and SOLARIS, Clooney has proven the entertainment industry that he is a very talented and highly enjoyable actor. Now Clooney is in the director's chair with the help of screenwriter Charles Kaufman and director/producer Steve Soderbergh in the film CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND. CONFESSIONS is the first starring film of the usual supporting actor Sam Rockwell who appeared in GREEN MILE, GALAXY QUEST, CHARLIE'S ANGELS, and HEIST. Rockwell plays Chuck Barris, creator of the game shows "The Dating Game," "The Newlywed Game," and his most famous role as creator and host of "The Gong Show." The story begins with Barris trying his hardest on getting a girlfriend. Then it tells that Barris also wanted to be a success on television and still have a woman to love. Barris does find that woman with Penny (Drew Barrymore), and does have success with television with game shows that are considered to be foundation of reality television. What people don't really know about Barris is that although he was a popular for creating game shows and hosting "The Gong Show" he was working on the side, as a assassin for the CIA. Barris admits in his autobiography, that the screenplay is based on, that during the 1960's and 70's he was a assassin for the CIA. In the film, Barris is shown taking "free lance" assassin assignments for CIA Agent Jim Byrd (George Clooney). Barris then takes on dangerous assignments in Sweeden and East Berlin, while as a chaperone for the contestants from "The Dating Game." The humorous thing is that testimony interviews from people who know Barris (including Dick Clark) talk about how there were times when Barris would be out of his office for a couple of weeks, and no one knows where he went. CONFESSIONS shows that George Clooney can be just as good at directing as well as acting. I really enjoyed how Clooney used the editing techniques, time lapses and scene changes in the film. One example would be a scene where Barris is on a visitor tour of the NBC Studios, Barris walks away to ask the visitor center where can he apply for a job as a tour guide, then without noticing a edit, Barris is then seen giving a tour of the studio. Clooney even has fun with the film with tongue in cheek humor as the first tour guide explains to the group that her favorite show filmed at the NBC Studio is "The Rosemary Clooney Show" (Rosemary being George's real life aunt). And Clooney also has fun with casting some famous friends in small roles throughout the film. I won't spoil the surprises, but it's another enjoyable element for the film. And the cinematography in the film is also very impressive as the film is mostly dark with shades of light shinning in parts. The acting in the film is very very well done. Rockwell, who I always enjoyed, does a terriffic job as Chuck Barris. Rockwell does show the tourture and suffering that Barris must have suffered when realizing the consequences from the people that he killed. Drew Barrymore plays her most adorable role since THE WEDDING SINGER as the loving and gentle Penny, who's is willing to immediately forgive Barris for having an affair with a different woman, but states that he is only given one more chance. Julia Roberts is average as a fellow CIA operative who meets Barris on some of the assignment locations while they have a steamy affair. Roberts does some of the most bizarre love-making moves I have yet to see on film. And Clooney does a very impressive job playing the cold, calm, and witty Agent Byrd. Clooney proves that he can play a dark villan in CONFESSIONS, just as good as the sensitive man role in SOLARIS. I've been telling people for the last three years that Clooney is a highly talented man, and thankfully, 2002 is the year where I am proven right with both SOLARIS and CONFESSIONS. Although CONFESSIONS is very well done for it's directing style, fast pacing, good acting, and great story with dialogue (written by Charlie Kaufman). I can't see it as among the best films of 2002. Don't get me wrong, it is very well done and enjoyable, but from the other films that are coming out within the next three weeks (GANGS OF NEW YORK, CHICAGO, THE TWO TOWERS, etc.) I think CONFESSIONS will be overshadowed by the other films. But if CONFESSIONS will prove anything, it's that: 1.) Sam Rockwell can carry a leading role by himself and do a darn good job with it. 2.) George Clooney is a very good director with style and look and he can have a very good career with directing. 3.) Chuck Barris is not going to be famous for just for being the host of "The Gong Show" anymore. CONFESSIONS is a very entertaining film, and just like Tom Hank's THAT THING YOU DO! it's a "welcome to directing a film," for a talented actor. ***** (out of five)

I've recently got a "A" in one of my college classes titled, "Spielberg/Lucas." In that class the instructor lecture on the style of visual, characters, and plot for a Spielberg film. We made "connections" with all of Spielberg's films, what did JAWS, E.T., CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, and SCHINDLER'S LIST all have in common? With Spielberg's latest film, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, is this the same Spielberg that is famous around the world?

CATCH ME IF YOU CAN is a very different Spielberg film. It's a off beat comedy with a bit of suspense mixed into it. Critics and fans have been criticize Spielberg for the last twenty years for his attempt for doing a comedy film which was 1941. Now, Spielberg has managed to succeed in making a enjoyable comedy film. Where 1941 had tons of slapstick comedy and buildings falling apart in the name of laughs, CATCH ME is more from personality and wit. CATCH ME IF YOU CAN is based on the true story of Frank Abagnale Jr. (Leonardo DiCaprio). Frank is known to be the most successful con-artist and check forger in U.S. history. Abagnale posed as a Pan-Am air pilot, doctor, and proscutor, when he didn't even complete high school. Abagnale also went around the world making and cashing about $4 million dollars with bogus checks. Despite that the checks would bounce like a rubber ball, Frank had enough intelligence to fool the banks and even the the companines he claimed he worked for. It took federal agent Carl Hanratty (Tom Hanks) to identify Frank's mistakes, which led Carl on a cross country pursuit for Frank. While Carl is staying around the clock trying to figure out more about Frank and his whereabouts, Frank keeps changing his name, occupation, and girlfriend. The only two people that remain close to Frank's life is Carl Hanratty, and Frank's father, Frank Abagnale Sr. (Christopher Walken). The film shows that one of the reasons why Frank remains to do his numerous crimes is to purchse expenisve things for his divorced father who is depressed from having his wife leave him on her request, and the closing of his family owned stationary store (where Frank learned about his numerous tricks of forgery). When I heard about CATCH ME being the new Spielberg film, I bought a copy of the book written in first person by the real Frank Abagnale. I highly enjoyed the book with the way Abagnale explains on what he did, how he did it, and the numerous funny parts that would be great to be put on film. After watching the movie, I was slightly disappointed in the film. There were some parts in Abagnale's book that I was looking so much forward to be seeing in the movie, including a part in the book where Abagnale gets involved with bailbonds man. Sadly to my disappointment, it wasn't featured in the film. I then read a interview on why Spielberg was so attached to direct CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, and when you watch the movie, it's obviously shown on the screen. Spielberg loved the father/son relationship between Frank Sr. and Jr. In fact, the relationship was partially mention in the book, in the film, it's carried thoughout the film. While the movie does touches on the various career changes and check forgery. Also, since the book was written in first person, the character of Carl Hanratty was mention here in there, where Hanratty is the second most seen character in the film, right behind Frank. But other than that, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN is a very enjoyable and entertaining film. I've always been devoted to Mr. Spielberg, and this is a very different film for him. It is historical, takes place in the past, but it's the first time where most of the film is being told from one character's narrative. Spielberg does a great job with telling the story, he even adds a nice touch of the mid 60's film style and mood with the opening credits being animated, very similar to the opening credits of dozens of 60's comedies. Then John Williams also adds the final touch with the jazzy score that is heavy on the clarinet and brass than the usual strings. Most people groan and moan when they hear the name Leonardo DiCaprio, "oh no! Not that guy!" I do agree DiCaprio does get overexposure, but he is a good actor. Look at WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE and THIS BOYS LIFE, he did a excellent job in both films. I think most people just think of DiCaprio in TITANIC which wasn't his fault as much as it was James Cameron's. DiCaprio might win over some people with his performance in this film which shows that DiCaprio did understand the personality and that Frank had a fun time while doing all of the check swindeling. Christoper Walken breaks out of his stereotyped acting that many comedians and t.v. shows have made fun of in the past, and delivers a very good performance. Just watch the scene when he talks to Frank Jr. about his still love and devotion to the woman that left him for another man. But Tom Hanks is the pro, and he proves it again in this film. Hanks portrayal of Hanratty with the Boston accent and the combination of the clumsy actions yet intelligent mind makes the Hanratty character the most enjoyable federal agent since Tommy Lee Jones Sam Gerrad in THE FUGITIVE. Hanks did a brilliant job with Michael Sullivan in ROAD TO PERDITION, and he does it again with Carl Hanratty in CATCH ME IF YOU CAN. I can not judge if CATCH ME IF YOU CAN should get any Oscar nominations (I haven't seen GANGS OF NEW YORK, ADAPTATION, and CHICAGO yet). But from what I've seen, CATCH ME is great, but it's not better than TWO TOWERS, MINORITY REPORT, SOLARIS, ROAD TO PERDITION, BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and PUNCH DRUNK LOVE. If there should be any nominations, then Hanks should get nominated for Best Supporting Actor for playing Hanratty.

CATCH ME IF YOU CAN is a very enjoyable film, it's a big risk of a film for Spielberg to return to comedy. But this film proves that Spielberg can now do any genre, including comedy, and pull it off. Great job Mr. Spielberg! ***** (out of five)

I've been admiring Martin Scorsese's films for the last twelve years, ever since I first watched GOODFELLAS. I've saw his new release films on the big screen since then, and loved them (CASINO, CAPE FEAR, AGE OF INNOCENCE, KUNDUN, & BRINGING OUT THE DEAD). I would even see re-releases or special screenings of his classics brought back on the big screen (GOODFELLAS, TAXI DRIVER, LAST WALTZ). In fact it was eariler this year that I watched THE LAST WALTZ for the first time on the big screen, and I noticed the camera shots and techniques that Scorsese used in story films, were also used in a concert film! Scorsese tried nine years ago to tell accurate peorid piece film of a New York that has been long past with AGE OF INNOCENCE. He made a great love story with effective performances, yet the pacing was very slow, coming from a man who speaks 175 words a minute. GANGS OF NEW YORK is the latest film that Scorsese has been put on the "work in progress" list for the last twenty-five years, Scorsese filmed it, it had production nightmares and problems, getting pushed backed several times including the incident of September 11th 2001. Now after all the wait, negative production press reports, and hype, is GANGS OF NEW YORK a TITANIC, or a HEAVEN'S GATE? I'm a very pleased to say that from my anticipation and wait, that GANGS is a extradonary film that has the feeling of a successful epic like TITANIC, and not a laughable failure like HEAVEN'S GATE. GANGS OF NEW YORK has a very simple plot, but so do a lot of other great movies. In 1846, the five points of New York City is being fought by two gangs who wish to control the area, the Dead Rabbits immigrants lead by Priest Vallon (Liam Nesson) and the native Nativists lead by William Cutting (Daniel Day Lewis) is was called Bill the Butcher. After the Nativists defeated the Dead Rabbits, killing Priest Vallon, the priest's son Amsterdam, was taken to a orphanage for sixteen years until he was old enough to take care of himself. Now, the adult Amsterdam (Leonardo Di Capprio) is vowing for the revenge of the death of his father, by killing the man who took his father's life, Bill the Buthcher. Bill takes a liking of Amsterdam by training him the ways of life around the five points. The way the gangs steal, the way to kill a man, the corperation of the courrption of politics, and even the most tender and best parts of carving up a pig. Amsterdam learn all of Bill's traits, but also falls in love with one of Bill's women, Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz). Jenny makes her living by being a prostitue but earns more of a living by becomming a highly successful pickpocket. Amsterdam faces the conflict of either to continue to vow the vengence of his father's death, or to live the lifestyle which is better than anything he has ever lived before, with the most ruthless man known. Some people are expecting GANGS OF NEW YORK to be the epic film that answers everything. Well, it's not a David Lean epic, a Stanely Kubrick epic, or even a Steven Spielberg epic, it's a Martin Scorsese epic. While I was watching GANGS OF NEW YORK, I couldn't get out of my mind that this is the same film directed by the man who did TAXI DRIVER and ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE, and it would have been only those other credits on Scorsese's career, had Scorsese directed GANGS when he wanted to. But there have been several other films since, RAGING BULL, LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, GOODFELLAS, CASINO, AFTER HOURS. etc. And this film is the same visionary mind behind those other films. There are scenes where the Scorsese trademark is shown, the obvious scene is when Scorsese has a excellent track shot that shows immigrants coming off of the boat onto the New York pier, only the men to be taken from the U.S. government by drafting them in Union army with a war that they have no idea where or why they are fighting. A story like that is worthy of a good film alone. And Scorsese does his "Hitchcock cameo" in the film by appearing as the head of a weatlhy family household. But there are other scenes in GANGS that I was amazed to be watching on the screen. There were scenes of astonishing beauty with the creation of the sets of the dilapidated New York and the descriptive lifestyles of a New York resident of the 1860's. The long shot of the fighting match on a river raft showing steamships and sail ships towering over the people and buildings. The detailed costumes of the immigrants, the natives, and the high class ellite. Then there is the acting. DiCapprio does a decent job as Amsterdam, but he wasn't' as enjoyable to watch in this film, as he was in CATCH ME IF YOU CAN (he was much better in that film). Cameron Diaz was good as Jenny, showing that she is a actress trying to break out of the "pretty face" roles of CHARLIE'S ANGELS and SWEETEST THING and taking on complicated roles like GANGS and VANILLA SKY. I also enjoyed the supporting roles of Jim Broadbent as the corrupt politician who associates with the gangs, Henry Thomas as another street gang member who wishes to win the heart of the popular Jenny, John C. Reilly as a corrupt and twisted officer who feels that he has a upper hand of the five points only by being a police officer, Liam Nesson as the heroic and influenal priest, and Brendan Gleason as the man who knows more about the priest's past than Amsterdam knows. But who does the film belong to, who stands out of the entire cast? Daniel Day Lewis gives his best performance of his career in this film, and yes, I'm including his role in MY LEFT FOOT. I haven't seen a villian so twisted, human, and likeable since Henry Fonda's character of Frank in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. Lewis' role of Bill the Butcher isn't as showy as Hannibal Lecture, or over the top like the overrated Denzel Washington role of TRAINING DAY. If Denzel won a Oscar last year for TRAINING DAY, then Daniel Day Lewis should win a Oscar for this role. There have been several good performances this year, Tom Hanks in ROAD TO PERDITION, Adam Sandler in PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, George Clooney in SOLARIS, and Hugh Grant in ABOUT A BOY. But I couldn't believe that all of those performances would be overshadowed by the performance given by Daniel Day Lewis. Lewis' performance as the one eyed butcher shows the audience the early stages of the mafia boss. Where we are use to the modern mobster boss image of Robert DeNiro in UNTOUCHABLES, Marlon Brando in GODFATHER, and James Gandolfini in SOPRANOS, Lewis is along the same class of actors and images of a powerful crime boss. Lewis gives the role of Bill the Butcher more human traits and personality than any villian I have ever seen. Having a fondness of cutting meat, upholding his part of controlling the laws, and ruling his area of the five corners with his iron fist. People need to realize that the character of Bill the Butcher is the early stages of the now known mafia boss, a man who has a lot of power, and supports his people by giving the needy meat or money. Bill's mafia like presence and attitude in shown early when he criticizes Amsterdam by not "presenting" Bill with any valuables or gifts. To me, I say a film characters work if the villian is just as good or more effictive than the hero. The role of Bill is so powerful and effective that it is among the best villians in the history of cinema. Would I like to see Lewis win a Oscar? YEAH! You bet! But I think the character of Bill will be better rewarded as being a memorable character like Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecture, and Forrest Gump (yet those are Oscar winning roles also). From looking at the images, performances, and story of GANGS OF NEW YORK, I can easily say that it is my favorite film of 2002. I've been waiting for this film for the last two years, and I am so relieved to say that it was worth the wait. I watched the film with seven other people who's taste in films are all different than my own. After the lights went up, all of us were applauding and cheering saying how that was one darn well made film! One person commented a flaw that bothered her, the editing. She said that it made the film too "choppy" making things not fully explained. Yet I told her that the film was originaly over three hours and for this being close to three hours, the film seemed like a hour long.

If the Academy is awarding directors who haven't gotten a Oscar yet, like what a lot of people said about Ron Howard last year (although I thought he deserved it), then why not give Scorsese his Oscar. Scorsese should have gotten his oscar twelve years ago when he did GOODFELLAS, but it went to Kevin Costner instead with the overrated DANCES WITH WOLVES. The buzz has been going around for the last several months that Scorsese might get his long awaited Oscar with this film. And I say that I would rather see Scorsese get his Oscar with a amazing film like GANGS OF NEW YORK, than good but not great films like AGE OF INNOCNECE or KUNDUN. How does GANGS on my personal view rank on Scorsese's career? For me, it's not as good as GOODFELLAS or CASINO, but I thought it was better than RAGING BULL and TAXI DRIVER. I know that's a very big bold statement to make, but I stand by that, and ask me again in a year or ten years, and I'll still stand by it. Scorsese put a lot of work and effort into this film, it shows, and he succeeded. Academy Members: Give Mr. Scorsese his Oscar! This is the best film of the year! ***** (out of five)

For the last couple of years, film audiences have gotten Science- Fiction films mixed with Science-Fantasy. STAR WARS, LORD OF THE RINGS and MATRIX are Science-Fantasy, where 2001,A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, and MINORITY REPORT are Science-Fiction. Science-Fantasy is more about locations, worlds, legend, and creatures/species. Science-Fiction is more about taking the emotions and thoughts of the human mind that is explaining the philosophy of human existance. Where more questions are given than answers provided. Such as 2001, what did the monolith represent? A.I., can a machine be intelligent enough to have emotions? MINORITY REPORT, should the technique of preventing a crime still be used when people can possibly change their mind and not commit the crime? Steve Soderbergh's lastest masterpiece, SOLARIS, ask the question, can a person love a being that looks, acts, and has the memory of a deceased loved one, but really isn't that person?

SOLARIS is based on the Stainslaw Lem novel that was made into a long, but very well done film by Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky. The story is set in the future, psychartrist Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) who has been suffering for the last couple of months after the sucide death of his wife Rheya (the very beautiful Natascha McElhone). Chris is asked to go out to the space station that is above the water planet of SOLARIS where all but two of the crewmen have died. When Chris arrives on SOLARIS, he sees that the two survivors, Snow (Jeremy Davis) and Helen Gordon (Viola Davis), are still having psychological sufferings. As Chris investigates with what happened at the station, he wakes from sleeping one time to see a person or creature that is exactly the splitting image of the deceased Rheya. In one of the most heartbreaking scenes in cinema, Chris dismisses this person or thing being his dead wife back from the dead and sends her out into space as he breaks down into tears. Then a few hours later after Chris goes to sleep again, the appearance of the thing that looks and acts like Rheya appears again. And should Chris believe that it is Rheya back from the dead? Or is this a hallucination that is created by Chris' mind?

SOLARIS is like Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, in being a film that is full of philosophic questions. I feel the reason why nimrods are dismissing and getting angry with SOLARIS is that they believe it will be as fun filled like OCEAN'S ELEVEN, or action packed like ALIENS since Soderbergh and James Cameron worked on the film. It's not. If there is any movie where your brain is required to be used before seeing the movie, while seeing the movie, and after seeing the movie, SOLARIS is that film! If you don't like using your brain while watching a movie, then catch the next showing of DIE ANOTHER DAY or MAID IN MANHATTAN.

SOLARIS is a film that proves that Steve Soderbergh IS one talented and versatile director. Most entertainment shows and film audiences think of Soderbergh as the director of easy to understand films like OCEAN'S 11 and ERIN BROCKOVICH. But this is the same brillant mind behind complex films like SEX LIES & VIDEOTAPE, THE LIMEY, and TRAFFIC. While I personally find TRAFFIC to still be Soderbergh's best film, a hair-line fracture behind TRAFFIC is now SOLARIS. I was so glad and pleased to see that Soderbergh respected the story and sci-fi genre by making SOLARIS into a highly intellectual film where thoughts are required, characters are the key element to a film, and technology and location are used with what they should be used for, background support!

Georgy Clooney proves that he IS one of the best and underrated actors working in Hollywood. Clooney does a fantastic job with his acting of the in-pain and confused Chris Kelvin. But the scene that really got me emotional was the scene when Chris breaksdown in tears. Natascha McElhone, I have always seen to be a very beautiful and underrated actress that should be given more leading roles. In SOLARIS, McElhone manages to have one can't help but to think about their significant other (being male and female) and just wanting to love them even more. Jeremy Davis does a fantastic job as the some-what disturbed and confused Snow, who might or might not have to answers to the happenings on the station. And Viola Davis is good as the strong minded and conflicting Gordon.

If SOLARIS proves anything, it's that Soderbergh, unlike most Hollywood directors, hasn't sold out to the evils of box office success, and continue to make films the way he wants to make them, and tell the stories the way he wants to tell them. Why are people walking out of this movie angry and upset? I believe it is because the film requires a lot of thought. This same exact thing reminded me of a film that was released last year that I loved but people looking for a brainless film hated, VANILLA SKY. And for those who hated VANILLA SKY, then stay away from SOLARIS. But for those who like intelligence and symbolism as a main ingredant for a film, then SOLARIS is the ideal film for you. Right now, most people will be dismissing SOLARIS as a slow, weird, and pointless film. But ask me this question, what movie will be more talked about and praised twenty years from now, SOLARIS or XXX? Only time will tell, but I'll be hoping it's SOLARIS. Since SOLARIS is becomming to be a box office failure, hopefully like another intellectual sci-fi film that suffered the same fate, BLADE RUNNER, SOLARIS, WILL be the next cult favorite. This is one of the best films of 2002, and please see SOLARIS the way the film should be seen, on the big screen. ***** (out of five) ONE OF THE BEST FILMS OF 2002!!!

(POSSIBLE PLOT SPOLIERS) John Leguizamo is a talented actor. Don't believe me? Look at his two roles in the Baz Lurhman directed films MOULIN ROUGE as Toulouse Lautroc the French dwarf and as Tybalt in ROMEO & JULLIET. He was also good in Brian De Palma's CARLITO'S WAY, and even doing a voice over of Sid in ICE AGE. So why not give Mr. Leguizamo his break and give him a leading role in a film? I'm all for that, I'll sign the petition that will cast Leguizamo as the leading man. He's more human than most action stars. Granted, he got top billing in Spike Lee's SUMMER OF SAM, but he was part of the four person cast of Mira Sorvino, Adrien Brody and Jennifer Espiseido. But why put him in as the lead in such a silly movie like EMPIRE? The trailer for EMPIRE has the movie being about Vic Rosa (Leguizamo) a man who trusts and invests his millions of drug earned money into a stock deal set up by Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). It turns out that Jack conned Vic, and Jack ran off with Vic's millions. Now Vic wants revenge. Is that the plot, sort of. But after timing the film, that doesn't happen until the end of the third reel of the 5 1/2 reel film. So what is this film about? Sadly, if you've seen one film where the main character deals with: "everytime I try to leave, they just pull me back in" crisis, then you've seen EMPIRE. Granted, De Palma's CARLITO'S WAY was the same way, but that film due to De Palma's pacing and directing made it more unique and enjoyable, not to forget the acting by both Al Pacino and Sean Penn.

Vic is a drug dealer in the Bronx who sells LSD, PCP, one of those drugs where you lick a piece of paper and get high (sorry, I'm not into the drug culture, and I don't want to be). Vic is a nice drug dealer, he gives some neighborhood boys a Playstation 2 if they wash his car for the next month, then goes after the boys' mother who took their money for her personal reasons. Vic has a pretty girlfriend, Carmen (Delilah Cotto) who is going to school and trying to live a good life. Carmen's classmate, Trish (Denise Richards) invites Carmen to attend one of her parties at her boyfriend's place. Vic and Carmen go, meet Trish's boyfriend, Jack, and Vic and Jack have a buddy relationship that turns sour after realizing the greed for the root of all evil, money. Universal originally had this film schedule for release in February of 2003, but I'm guessing since the box office intake of 8 MILE for it's opening weekend wasn't good enough, they pushed this film up so they can have another Holiday release for more box office gold. Well, it's not going to work. This is a movie where at times it tries really hard to be good, and it succeeds, like Leguizamo's acting and the cinematography by Kramer Morgenthau are very good and impressive. But it's the other things that ruin EMPIRE, most notably the acting. Peter Sarsgaard is a good actor, look at SALTON SEA, but here he reminded me too much of Topher Grace and his character in TRAFFIC. Sadly, I wasn't the only person in the audience who thought of that. Delilah Cotto is attractive and pretty, but her acting was too much similar to Marisa Tomei. It was depressing to see former screen beauties Sonia Braga and Isabella Rossellini playing old lady characters. Are these the same sexy females from KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN and BLUE VELVET? But the campiest and hysterical bad award goes to Mrs. Sheen (Denise Richards). You haven't lived a full life until you see Richards wearing a black afro wig, and trying to be serious about it. And this is the same person that complained about her image on the UNDERCOVER BROTHER poster that brought out the assets on her?(sorry for the pun)

I can't blame Franc Reyes, it's is first time and that is understandable. He does have some good ideas and there are some scenes that can work. But with the standard protagonist trying to break out of the crime world plot that has been seen too many times, it doesn't make EMPIRE anything unique. Allthough, I'm still laughing from remembering that image of Denise Richards with the afro, it stll cracks me up.

There are so many other good movies out this season, HARRY POTTER, 007, SANTA CLUASE 2, FAR FROM HEAVEN, FRIDA, etc. Even if you're looking for a good action flick, DIE ANOTHER DAY is a good film, or wait for TWO TOWERS or GANGS OF NEW YORK. But for EMPIRE, if you are a devoted fan of Leguizamo (and I mean even watching his sort-lived but good t.v. sitcom of Fox several years ago), then this is at least worth seeing for his performance as a lead. But if you're looking for a action filled, rap music soundtrack, no nonsense, in yo face film.... look somewhere else. You won't find it here. And I'm still laughing at the image of Denise Richards with the afro. **1/2 (out of five)

I didn't originally care much of any Western genre films. It wasn't until I sat down and watched all of Clint Eastwood's masterpiece, UNFORGIVEN, when it first came out, that I began to discover what a excellent genre the Western films were. I saw that at the end of the film that Eastwood dedicated UNFORGIVEN to "Sergio (Leone) and Don (Siegal)." I then watched and began falling in love with Sergio Leone's films, FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, THE GOOD THE BAD & THE UGLY, FISTFUL OF DYNAMITE, etc. But it wasn't until I watched ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, did I realize I found my favorite Western. To me, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST is not only my favorite Sergio Leone film, but my favorite Western of all time. It has the most original characters, a very well done story, fantastic direction, and the most beautiful score of all time. For me, WEST is the achievement of Leone's career, it was the only Western film Leone directed that was actually shot in America, at Mounument Valley, the location of several of John Ford westerns. I find all of the characters in WEST to be original and different. Jill (Claudia Cardinale), the prostitute who is settling down for a new life until she finds out her husband, Brett McBain (Frank Wolff) and his children were murdered. Cheyenne (Jason Robards) the outlaw who actually has a good soul inside of him that loves Jill and does whatever he can to help her. Harmonica (Charles Bronson) the man who expresses his vengence and pain by playing the harmonica , but is also very quick with his gun. Then there's Frank (Henry Fonda), my favorite role in Fonda's career as well as my favorite villian of all time. A villian so cold and vicious, a man who uses witty remarks and shows his evil personality by killing anyone who get in his way. But it's not just Frank with the witty remarks, but also Harmonica and Cheyenne give some memorable lines as well. The story, written by Leone, shows the talented director use of creativity. The story was also co-written by Dario Argento, who would later become a legend himself the Italian horror genre, notably with SUSPIRIA. And co-written by Bernardo Bertolucci, who has done directed modern Italian neo-realism films like THE CONFORMIST, 1900, and THE LAST EMPEROR.

Then there is Enni Morricone's score. The most beautiful and moving score I have ever heard. Morricone using a different musical insturment to identify each of the major characters. Jill has the string instruments. Harmonica, naturally has the Harmonica. Frank has the electric guitar. And Cheyenne has the banjo. The score of "Man With Harmonica" is very popular and influental that it was recently be redone with a techno dance score and even played on a recent episode of THE SOPRANOS. But it's the actual theme for the movie, that has become a modern classic, that the song is being played at weddings replacing "Here Comes the Bride" or "Cannon In D." If you heard the theme of WEST, you would understand why. Everytime I hear the theme, tears are still coming out of my eyes. The musical score, is without a doubt the best score ever written! Then there is the visuals of the film, the way Leone shot and edits the film. The intense opening scene where three of Frank's men (Jack Elam, Woody Strode, and Al Mulock)are patiently waiting for Harmonica to show up. Elam traps a fly in the barrel of his pistol and listens to it buzz; Strode has drops of water cumulative add on his hat; Mulock cracks his knuckles. Then the showdown between the three of them against Harmonica. The first scene where Fonda's character is seen. The scene when Jill arrives in Flagstone, and rides the horse carrige through the scenery of Monument Valley. The revealing of why Harmonica is given his name, and how he acquired the instrument. I know people will argue with me about the best Western film. UNFORGIVEN, THE WILD BUNCH, THE GOOD THE BAD & THE UGLY, BUTCH CASSIDY & THE SUNDANCE KID, THE SEARCHERS, STAGECOACH (1939), SHANE, FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, HIGH NOON, THE OX-BOW INCIDENT, RIO BRAVO, MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, and even BLAZING SADDLES are all excellent Westerns that many will considered to be their favorites. But none of those westerns has the look, mood, and feeling that ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST has. It's those elements that are inside WEST that gives it it's soul. And this Western has one of the most powerful souls ever put on film. Sergio Leone will be remembered for FISTFUL OF DOLLARS since it was his first successful box office hit, and THE GOOD THE BAD & THE UGLY because it's his most popular. But people should remember Leone's work with ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. The "true" wester epic of his career. If you should catch ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, please see it the way it was ment to be seen, in it's widescreen format, or letterboxed. And please catch the full 165 minute version, not the butchered 145 minute version. Or better yet, if it's playing at a cinema house near by, then catch it there! This is a masterpiece, and I am so pleased to see that as the years go by, WEST is becomming more loved and is the second favorite Western on the Internet Movie Database list. I just hope as the more years go by, that it will be number one. At least it's seen as a classic, and after watching all of it, you can understand why. Please, whenever this film is on Turner Classic Movie, or any pay per-view movie channels, sit down and watch this classic. I hope Paramount Pictures will understand how many people love this film and will finally release it on DVD. Hopefully it will be soon. Don't miss this movie, please see it! ***** (out of five) ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME!

I was so fortunate yesterday to experience a miracle in the cinema. While thousands were flocking to see the latest installment of the HARRY POTTER series, I instead traveled over thirty miles to catch Stanely Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY on the big screen. I've seen it several times on cable, video, and DVD. But watching it yesterday on the big screen was a whole new experience, a experience that I will never forget. Some people will call 2001, Kubrick's best film. I would disagree, I personally like A CLOCKWORK ORANGE as my favorite. But 2001 is a hair-line fracture behind CLOCKWORK. Both films are on my top 20 films of all time. I would have personally like to see 2001 on the Cinerama screen at the Hollywood Archlight Cinerama dome on Sunset Blvd. in Hollywood, but beggars can't be choosers. Seeing it on a big enough screen was pleasing enough. How can I describe 2001 to those who have never seen it before? 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is a film before it's time. It's the most influental Science Fiction film of all time! Yes, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is more of a influence than STAR WARS and MATRIX. In fact, when George Lucas was directing STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE, he kept asking his crew about the space scenes in A NEW HOPE: "is it as good as 2001?" This is a movie that was released before David Lynch's career began, that required several viewings to understand the meaning of the film. Like I said before, I saw the film several times, and watching it on the big screen last night, I discovered new things with the plot. What other person could think of directing a movie in 1968, where a computer is the most reliable and intelligent instrument on a space ship? And thirty-three years later, in the year 2001, the computer is the most reliable instrument on the international space station. Or who else could think of showing a video game of a man playing chess on and with a computer, in 1968? Remember that this movie was released when The Beatles were still putting out new music, the Vietnam War was going on, and San Fransico was psychedlic central. Speaking of which, this is the film that is dubbed, "The Ultimate Trip." Since people who watched 2001 when it was first released, would drop acid, run up to the front of the theater to lay down and look up at the screen. I pity Warner Bros. for not giving a full re-release of this film last year in 2001, (or at least a one screen per city re-release). But instead releasing SCOOBY-DOO and BALLISTIC on thousands of screens across the nation, I guess money talks. But why should I mention those pieces of garbage with this film review? I told people for years, and I'll tell you now that I would consider placing a video screen continiously showing 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, with a picture frame around the screen and putting it in a art museum. When hundreds of years eariler, artists like DiVinci, Monnet, Van Gough, and 20th century artist like Picasso and Dali would express their art though paintings, Kubrick did his expressing through film. This is one of the best movies of all time. If you ever hear or find out that 2001 is playing on a cinema screen in your area. I highly urge you to catch it the way it was always ment to be seen, on the big screen. And I'm sure, Kubrick would agree with me. This is one of the best films of all time, so giving it ***** (out of five) is to little for the praise it deserves. But see the film yourself and be the judge, and I hope you'll agree with me.

Geeze, it was just last year I was raving about the most hyped film of last year, HARRY POTTER & THE SORCERERS STONE. I loved how well done it was protrayed from the J.K. Rowling best seller, the actors, sets, costumes, etc. I thought Daniel Radcliffe, was excellent as Harry Potter, as well as Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley and Emma Watson as Hermoine Granger. Now, 364 days later, I experience more magic again in the follow-up sequel, HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS. This time, unlike the original, the film begins right into the plot. Where the original introduced viewers to characters, locations, magic items and history. Think of it like, uh... LETHAL WEAPON 2, it begins right into the action, which CHAMBER OF SECRETS does as well. It's been three months since Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) left Hogwarts for summer vacation, and it hasn't been a fun summer since Harry is living at Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths), Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) and rude cousin Dudley (Harry Melling). But Harry wonders why haven't any of his friends from Hogwarts (particulary Ron and Hermoine) haven't written to him. Then Harry meets Dobby, a house elf who warns Harry not to return to Hogwarts. Harry ignores Dobby, since Hogwarts is a million times nicer than his realitives. But this year attending at Hogwarts there are some faces introduced. First is Lucius Malfoy (that wonderful character actor Jason Isaacs) the cruel and vicious father of Harry's rival Draco Malfoy. Then there's Professor Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh) who smiles proudly and is the most vain person you could ever see. But this year at Hogwarts (and why does this happen when Harry attends school there?) there is evil lurking about that turns some students petrified and messages written in blood on the wall warning about "the Chamber of Secrets." Like I said, I highly loved the orignal film, THE SORCERER'S STONE, and how does this one come up to par? This is another winner! I enjoyed this film just as much, if not more than the original. But then again, I've read the first two books of Harry Potter, and I enjoyed CHAMBER OF SECRETS more than SORCERER'S STONE. Why is this film better? First, the film goes right into the action, I understand the original had to introduce the world to the story, and that was fine. Yet this film goes right into the action and begins telling us what is going on. Like the STAR WARS, GODFATHER, and BACK TO THE FUTURE films, it assumes that we did see the first film (and who didn't?). Second, I always thought the action was more exciting and intense in CHAMBER OF SECRETS, and in this film it shows. Third, Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson all fit into their character roles so fine and well, that we are now acceppting them as Harry, Ron, and Harmione, just like we accept Harrison Ford as Han Solo, or Al Pacino as Michael Corlone. It's just that this time around, all three young actors seem more relaxed and calm about playing their roles, and I don't blame them. Plus the same goes for the other actors who are returning to this film. Finally, it's more darker, complex, and exciting than the original. With HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS, the Potter films are becomming to be a series worthy of being placed with other great series like STAR WARS and INDIANA JONES. This film running about twenty minutes longer than the original, goes just as fast, if not faster than the original. Proof: I didn't have to go to the bathroom, I stuck it out through out all of the film. Sadly, this film isn't getting the hype like the original. I'm guessing that the press is tired of hyping up the Potter films and figures that it's going to be a hit. Then there are those people who feel like STAR WARS, "you've seen one, you've seen them all." Well, I'm hoping that word gets around and people realize that like the books, the Potter films are getting better as Harry gets older. I guess you can say that Harry Potter is indeed like fine wine and ages well with it. This film should do more business than the original, but not even the superior EMPIRE STRIKES BACK couldn't make more money than STAR WARS (A NEW HOPE to the Jedi fanatics).

All I can say is that the later part of 2001 is returning again with the success of another HARRY POTTER film. And I know it will return next month with LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS. It's a pity that we are going to have to wait for two years for HARRY POTTER & THE PRISONERS OF AZKABAN. It's also a pity that we won't experience the wonderful Richard Harris playing Professor Albus Dumbledore again. But hopefully the wait will pay off since I thought PRISONERS OF AZKABAN was much better than CHAMBER OF SECRETS (here's wishing Alfonso Cuaron the best of luck!)

But as for the films out right now, CHAMBER OF SECRETS is a excellent film. Is it for the entire family? Maybe, it depends. If the kids didn't get scared from the first one, or from reading or listening to the book, then it would be a great film for them. It helps build the imagination. If the kids might get scared, then SANTA CLAUSE 2 is a very nice alternate, NOT 8 MILE, which some parents seem to think it is. All in all, Harry's second year at Hogwarts is a successful one. And hopefully it proves that the Harry Potter films aren't going to be a overrun franchise like the BATMAN or STAR TREK films. Harry Potter now belongs in the dignified series. Don't miss it! ***** (out of five)

(POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS) When I hear that a movie is under two hours, especially a movie directed by a talented director, I begin to feel disappointed. To me, a short film means, not enough time to develop characters, plot, setting, etc. My top ten favorite films of all time run at two hours or are longer. But then there are those films, that are around ninety minutes that are brilliant with plot, character and setting. FARGO, RUSHMORE, and THE OX-BOW INCIDNET are all films that run under 100 minutes, yet they have more texture in that short time than most of Kevin Costner's films. I was shocked to see and hear that the latest Paul Thomas Anderson film, PUNCH DRUNK LOVE was 94 minutes. BOOGIE NIGHTS running time was 152 minutes, MAGNOLIA's running time was 188 minutes, I was beginning to accept Paul Thomas Anderson as a epic length director. But with PUNCH DRUNK LOVE, Anderson manages to pull off another splendid delight with only 94 minutes of film. I've been saying for months that PUNCH DRUNK LOVE is going to do for Adam Sandler what THE TRUMAN SHOW did for Jim Carrey. Adam Sandler will be accepted as a actor and not just for laughs. As I said this to the countless teenagers and young adults who wanted to see PUNCH DRUNK LOVE, they didn't listen and expected to see HAPPY GILMORE, BILLY MADISON, or MR. DEEDS. Now don't get me wrong, I've always enjoyed Adam Sandler's work. I loved him on Saturday Night Live (from Opera Man to one of the "Gap Girls"). I saw BILLY MADISON and HAPPY GILMORE on opening day and kept telling people that Sandler is indeed a very funny guy. I even enjoyed the Sandler box office hits of THE WEDDING SINGER and BIG DADDY. I forgave Sandler for doing the unfunny films of BULLETPROOF, THE WATERBOY and LITTLE NICKY. Then I began to cringe when I heard Sandler's name after watching the awful MR. DEEDS, was Sandler selling out? Now I've regain my faith for Sandler, with thanks to Anderson for regaining my faith in Sandler's talent. If there's any film that fits the typical personality of Sandler characters, PUNCH DRUNK LOVE is it. Sandler plays Barry Egan, a timid man who runs a business of making unbreakable toilet plungers. Barry is the only male sibling with seven sisters. Barry's sisters tease and ridiculed Barry all of his life, by calling him cruel names like "Gay Boy." Barry doesn't deserve this treatment, he's just timid and shy. But it's this teasing and taunting from the sisters that builds up the anger and aggression in Barry that at times, Barry can't take it anymore and just cracks. Barry has two projects that he works on that occupy his time: buying as much Healthy Choice Pudding to collect frequent flyer miles to fly free for a life-time. And, most important, his new romance with Lena Leonard (Emily Watson) a very nice and pretty girl who brings out the good side of Barry. Yet, in Provo, Utah, a sleezy phone-sex owner, Dean Trumbell (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) sees Barry nothing more than a pervert who is cheating him out of hundreds of dollars. I've had people come up to me, yelling and screaming at me about how awful PUNCH DRUNK LOVE was, and that it was one of the worst films of the year! Well, these are the same nimrods who love shallow movies like MR. DEEDS, THE WEDDING PLANNER, most of Sandra Bullock's films. I saw PUNCH DRUNK with high expectations, and came out with a much bigger response. I LOVED THIS FILM!!!! I haven't seen a much more original and true to life romantic film like this in years! The way the character of Barry is very agressive and angry, yet is changing it to being more calm, for his love of Lena. There are some scenes where Sandler's performance is so well done, that I was both laughing and felt sorry for the guy at the same time. Kudos credit goes to Emily Watson playing the very nice and gentle Lena, and Anderson regulars Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the sleezy Dean Trumbell and Luis Guzman as the reliable Lance. But if this film belongs to anybody it's both Sandler and Anderson. Sandler gives a very complex and detailed performance that it is worthy of a Oscar, not a nomination, but a statuette! Just watching some of the scenes I looked closely at the face of Sandler, and he managed to give the character of Barry much complexity that not many other actors can give. I thought the character of Barry was MUCH better than Denzel Washington's Oscar winning role for TRAINNING DAY. Then there's P.T. Anderson, who's directing with the long angles, the track shots, the multi-color images between scenes, and placing a perfect way to use Harry Nillson's underrated score from Robert Altman's POPEYE, by using the Shelly Duvall song, "He Needs Me" to fit into the story so well. Anderson won a Cannes Film Festival award for Best Director for this film, he deserved. And if there was any justice, Anderson should get at least nominated for this film. This is perhaps the best work I've seen Anderson do for a film, and it's less than half the running time of MAGNOLIA. I loved PUNCH DRUNK LOVE very much that it's one of my favorite films of both this year and of all time. And if you think what those negaitve ninnies said about it being the worst movie of all time. Those same people said the same thing about EVITA, MEMENTO, and JAY & SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK, you be the judge. As for me, I highly recommend this film, and I'm waiting to hear Sandler's acceptance speech (at least for the Golden Globes). ***** (out of five)

For the first time in the history of the Cannes Film Festival, a special Jury Prize award was given for the first time for a documentary. Never before has a documentary been awarded at Cannes, yet the judges felt that the documentary that they saw was extraordinary and deserved to be recognized. The documentary is the latest documentary directed by Crusader Michael Moore titled BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. Either you love Michael Moore or you hate him, just like Radio Shock Jock Howard Stern, you either love him or hate him. A lot of people that I know feel that Michael Moore is too liberal and ignore anything he says or prints. Yet, everyone does agree that Moore does make excellent points in supporting his viewpoints and ideas. Moore has directed documentaries in the past that would go after General Motors, and successful corporations like Nike. In BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE Moore explores the National Riffle Association (NRA), NRA president Charlton Heston and the second Amendment in the Constitiution "the right to bare arms." The opening scene, which is quite funny has Moore apply for a bank account. After opening up an account at the bank, he receives a free gun! Moore brings up a excellent question asking the bank manager, "aren't you a little afraid to be handing out guns at a bank?" Then Moore is shown at a barber shop getting a haircut while the barbershop also sells bullets. Moore explains in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE how April 20, 1999 began as a ordinary day. It wasn't until after eleven o' clock in Littleton Colorado that the world for schools and teenagers changed forever with the Columbine High School masscare. Moore has the cameras go down the halls of Columbine High School, showing the viewer that it is no different than any of the other thousands of American High Schools. Yet on the soundtrack, is the 911 emergency call audio tapes being played having the sounds of people crying and in panic over the tragic incident. Then some of the most horrorific scenes ever seen on film is shown as the actual video tape cameras in Columbine show the April 20th incident. The picture shows the cafeteria of studnets sitting around only to be shown hiding underneath the tables, then franticly running out of the school. Later showing the two students responsible for the shooting carrying guns and throwing explosives. While the 911 recording of one the shooter's fathers worried that his son might be involved with the shooting. BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is one of the most powerful films that I have ever seen. Some might seen it as liberal propaganda, but people need to look closer to what this film is really about. Moore shows that other countries around the world have just as many, if not more guns than the people of the U.S. Yet the U.S. has 11,000 gun related homicides a year comparing to 38 in Japan and the 67 in England. Moore asks the question why are there so many gun related murders in America. Moore then asks those questions to several people as well as the questions about the Oklahoma City Bombings and militia life to James Nichols (brother of convicted terrorist Terry Nichols). I loved the answer James Nichols gives after Michael Moore states: "the Constitution states the right to 'bare arms' nuclear missiles are arms also, should citizens have those as well? "No, there are crazy people out there!" Nichols replies. Moore also talks about the Columbine Shooting incident to SOUTH PARK co-creator and former Columbine High student Matt Stone. The influence of Heavy Metal music related to the Columbine shooting to Marilyn Manson (who gives perhaps the best and most intelligent answers in the entire film). And asks Charlton Heston himself on why does he always appear in town for a NRA meeting after a tragic incident. Heston appeared in Columbine less than a week after the incident, in Flint Michigan (Moore's hometown) a few days after a six year old boy killed his classmate, and Heston was even in Tucson last week a few days after the tragedy at the University of Arizona. BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE has both very hysterical and very emotional scenes in the film with Moore making his point about the issues of gun control in the United States. I saw the movie twice already in the conservitive city of Phoenix (Scottsdale to be exact) and after both showings I was pleased to hear and see that the film got a round of applause and a standing ovation from the 500+ audience. I never seen that done for a movie, from the both times that I saw it. I will tell people that you can agree or disagree with Michael Moore and his viewpoints about the NRA and gun laws. But this movie must be seen for the issues that are discussed, to see how celebrities like Charlton Heston, Dick Clark, Marilyn Manson, and Matt Stone are really revealed, and what the news media likes to put on the news everynight. Thinking about it, the last four years, the biggest news stories two of the four years delt with guns: the Columbine incident and the Washington D.C. sniper shootings. What message does that send the rest of the world about America? I'm not going to get anymore into it or discuss politics. But I will tell you to see this movie, when you are a gun lover or hate the sight of guns. This is one of the most thought provoking movies that I have ever seen, and Michael Moore should get a Oscar for Best Documentary for this classic! Cannes is already intelligent enough to recognize it, the Academy should also. Don't miss it! ***** (out of five)

(PLOT SPOLIERS) For the past seventy some years, Hollywood has been a "getaway" for people to escape the cruel world of reality and venture into that fantasy world. The world were the bad guys get their justs, the hero gets the heroine (or vice versa), and the film ends with a happy note, you get up leave the theater feeling good again. But the European new wave directors like Jean Luc Godard and Werner Hertzog do whatever they can in their films, because they use the camera as a instrument, and make films the total opposite of the Hollywood studio films. Critics call those directors artist and brilliant for their work. Now one Hollywood director is doing what he can and put into his movies, only because he can, and Roger Avary shows that in his latest film THE RULES OF ATTRACTION.

Unlike the recent slew of "teen comedies" or college films, where there is the hero, the sex obsessed friend, the cute high achiever girl, the crusty old dean or teacher, etc. RULES OF ATTRACTION is a film more based on the reality of the college world. The reality where Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek) believes that he can have sex with a girl while being sober. Where Lauren Hyde (Shannyn Sossamon) believes that her boyfriend, Victor (Kip Pardue) is in Europe and is very faithful to her. But Lauren does what she can to get ahead in school by giving her professor, Mr. Lawson (Eric Stolz) sexual pleasures. The world where Paul Denton (Ian Somerhalder) is a homosexual and feels that he can get any man he desires, and he feels that he can have a relationship with the hetrosexual Sean. And the real world, where Lara Holleran (Jessica Biel) has sex with the enitre football team.

This is harsh and cruel, bad sadly, it's the truth. This is what the real world is like, and director Roger Avary and writer Bret Easton Ellis do a excellent job showing it. When I watched RULES OF ATTRACTION the two things that blew my mind away was both the story and the directing. The story (which I described above) is pretty much the characters that you can't sympathize with, but instead you really know people like that. It's depressing to realize that, but sadly it's true. Then the directing by Roger Avary, who does a excellent job of telling one person's story, then rewinding everything and telling a different story from another character. Plus the brilliant scene of a split screen image of Sean and Lauren walking to the same class and as they talk to each other, the viewer is given the chance to see both full faces at the same time. Something that I haven't seen in film before.

There are images from RULES OF ATTRACTION that will be in my memory forever. One scene is how Lauren loses her virginity, the other is Laura dancing only in her underwear as she's about to get "gang bang" by the football team. But most of all, the extremely depressing sucide scene as the beautiful Harry Nilsson tune "Without You" is being played on the soundtrack. A very touching and emotional song for a strongly disturbing scene.

Lately I've been exposed to the French New Wave world of Jean Luc Godard and Jacuqes Demey, as well as the Neorealist world of Frederico Fellini and Michalengo Antonioni. Films that have symbolism about how society is on this planet. Film critics praise those films (especially those of Godard) as masterpieces and works of art. Now, those same hypocritcs are bashing RULES OF ATTRACTION as a pointless and cruel film. It is cruel, but it does make it's point. It does tell those now and those in years to come what the college life was really like in the early 21st century.

People and film critics usually scoff and critizie films that actually describe today's society, like FIGHT CLUB and AMERICAN PSYCHO (also written by Ellis). Critics would rather watch a film that takes place in La-La Land like LORD OF THE RINGS and GOSFORD PARK. A world that doesn't exist, but a world people would rather be in. Three years ago, I would hear people complain and say how horrible the movie FIGHT CLUB was. Now, there isn't a male college dorm room where I don't see a poster up for FIGHT CLUB (it's replacing the stereotyped John Belushi "Bluto" poster from ANIMAL HOUSE). Give it another three years, and RULES OF ATTRACTION posters will be up all over univeristy dorm rooms. This is going to be the next cult classic. Is it cruel, yes. Is it disturbing, yes (in fact I almost walked out after the first ten minutes). Is it brilliant and excellent, yes. And for that I applaud Roger Avary and Bret Easton Ellis. They are actually telling a story, the way the twenty something world is really like. A lot of people will be calling this a masterpiece a few years from now, it's October 2002, I'm calling it a masterpiece right now! ***** (out of five)

Sixteen years ago, I guess famous film producer Dino DeLaurentiis felt that a psychological thriller about a retired federal agent going into the mind of a serial killer, called MANHUNTER, wasn't that intresting. Then five years latter, the follow up to that film, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, won every major catageory for the Academy Awards (remember that acceptance speech, Director Jonathan Demme gave saying "uh" sixty some times?) Then when Tom Harris published the third in the series, HANNIBAL, DeLaurentiis scooped up the bidding and made HANNIBAL one of the most successful "R" rated box office grosses of all time. Now ninteen months later, DeLaurentiis feels that going back to the beginning of the Hannibal Trilogy will make more money, eventhough his studio produced the film adaptation of the first of Harris' novel. Since Dino feels that the public WANTS to see Sir Anthony Hopkins put on that grey jump suit, slick his hair back, and givethat errie stare as he has that wicked smirk. RED DRAGON, the latest film adaptation of the Lecter trilogy is the prquel to SILENCE and HANNIBAL. Similar how PHANTOM MENACE and TEMPLE OF DOOM are to A NEW HOPE and RAIDERS. Here's the story, in case you haven't seen MANHUNTER or read the novel. Retired federal agent Will Graham (Edward Norton) is asked by former boss and friend, Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel) to do a research on two grisly murders in Southern U.S. Both crimes had the entire family murdered with grotesque results. Graham trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together by thinking like the murder is still lost and confused in some parts. So to get answers to difficult questions, Graham seeks the assistance of the serial killer he captured and nearly lost his life from years eariler, Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). Lecter, as usual, gives riddles as clues, as he tries to minipulate personal answers from the authority figure questioning him. Yet, unlike Agent Clarice Starling, Will Graham is no pushover, and doesn't trust or rely on Lecter for anything but the serial killer's identification. The viewer is then given the story of a physical and emotional tourtered young man, Francis Dolarhyde (Ralph Finnes). A quiet and isolated man who usually keeps to himself, until he befriends a blind photo developer, Reba McClane (Emily Watson), who turns Francis into a more social person and a little more open. But there are very dark secrets and mysteries that lie within Francis that is very terrifying to reveal. Now the big question, how is RED DRAGON compared to SILENCE and HANNIBAL? And how is RED DRAGON compared to Michael Mann's MANHUNTER? Let me start off with the first one, how is the film in the Anthony Hopkins Lecter trilogy. This was a very well done and great thriller. It's not as exciting or intense as SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, but it's not as grotesque or at times as silly as HANNIBAL. RED DRAGON has more of the mood and feeling that SILENCE has with focusing more on the federal agent trying to uncover the serial killer's identity than hunting down the known killer and uncovering his whereabouts. Like SILENCE, Lecter isn't a major character but more of a strong supporting. Lecter is given his screen time, but Graham and Dolarhyed are also given their screen time, a little more than the "Cannibal." Now how is RED DRAGON compared to MANHUNTER? Well, the best way to describe it is by doing a Shakespeare comparison. Think of the Franco Zeferill's 1968 version of ROMEO & JULLIETT and the 1996 Baz Lurhman's ROMEO & JULLIETT. One version was very faithful to the characters, costumes, setting that was written around the peorid when Shakespeare wrote it. While the other focused more on the plot, dialogue, and characters as the Shakespeare classic, yet made it more stylish and flamboyant. While Michael Mann's MANHUNTER is more of the Lurhman's ROMEO & JULLIETT by telling the RED DRAGON story very stylish, and flamboyant. Brett Ratner's RED DRAGON, is more faithful and loyal to the original writing of the Thomas Harris novel. There are the comparisons, now how is the movie? I really enjoyed this version of the RED DRAGON story more than I expected to. After seeing some half-hearted remakes done lately of classic films (i.e. PSYCHO, DOWN TO EARTH (Heaven Can't Wait), etc.) It is definitly one of the better adaptations or remakes done recently. But it is obvious that screenwriter Ted Tally (who wrote the screenplay for SILENCE) and director Ratner tried to put Dr. Lecter in the film as much as possible, giving the audience what they want. As many scenes with Hannibal Lecter in it. But the story is more about Agent Will Graham, than Dr. Lecter. But the acting in RED DRAGON is very well done. Edward Norton does a great job as Agent Will Graham, proving that Norton is still, one of the best actors working in Hollywood today. Ralph Finnes does a great turn as a villian being very quiet yet gives that haunting look on his face, the same expression we've seen from him as Amon Goeth in SCHINDLER'S LIST. There is even a excellent personal conflict scene that Finnes acts out excellent. The supporting cast of Keitel, Parker, Watson are also good. And I couldn't think of a better actor than Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing the sleezing Tattler reporter Freddy Lounds. And of course, Hopkins gives another great performance as Hannibal Lecter, Hopkins most popular role. But I feel that people should also remember Hopkins in other great performances in AMASTAD and ELEPHANT MAN than just Dr. Lecter. I enjoyed the musical score from Danny Elfman. And I was so pleased to see that Dante Spinotti who was the cinematographer for the original MANHUNTER, returns to do the cinematography for this film as well. However, without Michael Mann present, the painter is present, but the visualist isn't. Making the look of RED DRAGON not as mesmorizing or as beautiful as MANHUNTER was. Which is why I would still lean towards MANHUNTER more than RED DRAGON. The look and style of MANHUNTER appealed to me more than RED DRAGON did. But don't get me wrong, in this season of summer left-overs and horrible fall releases (i.e. BALLISTIC & THE TUXEDO). RED DRAGON will sure to please the film public and those who love Dr. Lecter. Like what other comments are said, it will get people back into the Lecter mood again. But for people like me, it would get you in the mood to watch MANHUNTER and compare and contrast the two films. RED DRAGON, a smuge below as good as SILENCE, but quite a bit better than HANNIBAL. A bloody good show, (sorry for the pun). ****1/2 (out of five)

I've only seen a episode of the show that was a few years ago. I remember that it was a mostly English cast except for the main star. It didn't seem that bad, but it appeared to be a little low-budget, but I never cared much for sci-fi t.v. shows. But when I herd the main character's first name when I first saw the show, I just sank in my seat. But I get a lot of jokes about me and this show. I wonder why?