DannyBoy-17

I went to see the Kid with a Bike knowing just the basic story, and that it was a film by the famous Dardenne brothers. I haven't seen any of their other work, like La Promesse or L'Infant, but I was hoping to get an idea of their style from this film. The film's narrative starts out very strong, almost relentless: 10-year-old Cyril Catoul has been abandoned by his dad, and he wants him back.

Cyril will do anything to find his dad, running away from his state-run orphanage, lie, fight, anything, despite mounting evidence that his father wants nothing to do with him. He meets Samantha, a hairdresser who agrees to take him in on weekends while he searches for his dad.

The directors do a good job of showing Cyril's disintegration as he realizes his dad wants no part of him, but this all happens within the first half of the film. I found the latter half where Cyril is seduced into a local gang and then commits a crime to be less engaging, and the ending, though hopeful, seems a bit off. Also, I wish the film had spent more time on why Samantha wants so badly to help Cyril. There's very little background given on her character. All throughout though,

Thomas Doret does excellent work as Cyril, but I'd say this is definitely more of a rental, not worth the price of theater admission unless you're a real Dardenne aficionado.

There are some movies you're not supposed to take anything away from besides an experience, a feeling, a rush. The obvious comparison for this film is Run Lola Run, as another reader indicated, but that film had far more cohesion than "Uncertainty." It had potential: running a domestic drama in contrast to a thriller is an interesting concept. After all, bringing your boyfriend to meet the family when you're secretly pregnant and unmarried is as ripe for tension as being chased by gunmen through the streets of New York. If you had to choose one, which would you pick?

I thought to myself at times that I was watching the male and female versions of what we look for in suspense, the domestic manners drama and the gangster thriller. The parallel narratives work for a little while, but then strangely, the tension completely deflates in Brooklyn, while it continues to build in Manhattan.

If the dramas had both advanced and each situation gotten tenser, with the mother finding about the pregnancy and getting involved, just as the gunman found them in Chinatown, that would have made for interesting parallels. As it was, you're left with a very unclear ending and a sense of pointlessness to the whole enterprise.

While I'm slightly curious as to what the writers were trying to do, whatever it was, it didn't really work. So my curiosity is somewhat sated. Try "The Hurt Locker" for an excellent indie film out there right now, or for JGL fans, "500 Days of Summer" is just fine.

I left the theater initially just arguing with my dad that the tale isn't so hopeless as he thought. We talked for a little while, and then shortly after we got home, I turned to him and had to give him a hug. The vision in this film is very disturbing, I suspect, because we live in wartime.

Our country is in the midst of a war that we are not certain how to stop, and there are other conflicts in the world around us that we haven't committed to ending. Israel and Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia-there are many cases right now of desperate armed conflict much like what we see in this film.

It is my sincere hope that HOPE can be revived in these regions: there are relief workers in all of these areas and peace workers fighting for it. Brave groups like Medicines Sans Frontieres, the UN, other NGOs, and parts of our government that are trying to instill hope and foster peaceful solutions. I don't know what can be done in the Sudan, but thinking of people like Don Cheadle's character in Hotel Rwanda, one start is trying to just save lives and say "Enough bloodshed."

Even where I live here in New York, we have youth that are used to violence in their lives, along with drugs and teenage pregnancy. However at the same time, in the school where I work, they find hope to go to college, get out of the neighborhood, and/or maybe even change it for the better. I don't think we can call ghettoes and slums lost causes, because once we do all that is left is to cut ourselves off from them like severing limbs.

If we do cut ourselves off from our local and international war zones and conflicts, we will end up creating the kind of apartheidist society envisioned in Children of Men where force is the only answer anyone has anymore. The infertility problem in Children of Men is more of a symbol than a science-fiction creation: it stands to me for a lack of hope, a resignation: King spoke of that death of the spirit that comes when we stop fighting for what we believe in, and to King, that meant NONVIOLENT action against all oppression.

If this film serves as a wake-up call, it will do some good. At the very least, it is a potent well-acted suspenseful allegory. SPOILER: It is enough that watching this film, you honestly believe that gunmen could hush in awe at the sound of a baby's cry.

Let us heal the broken parts of our world.

I watched the Apostle two nights ago, and I rented it partially out of guilt. I saw a film called "The Ice Harvest" that made me realize I wanted something a bit more inspiring, more wholesome, more spiritually focused in film. The Ice Harvest strangely enough also has Billy Bob Thornton along with John Cusack as some of the most profane and greedy but not nearly the most messed up characters in a rural Kansas town. Sex, violence, the whole mix, and what's worse, a sloppy ending. So, I rented this because I wanted to be uplifted.

The Apostle often delivers a brand of Southern comfort, simplicity and humanity that's quite refreshing without being naive: I thought it was an important and sobering note that the old man who gives Duvall a tent also sleeps with his rifle on his chest watching him. That combination is very human and very American: we live at once in love and fear of each other very often.

Another wonderful thing about this film is it is race-conscious but very much about integration, all God's children like Duvall says. I love the moment when Blackwell tells Duvall how black he sounds on the radio for a white man.

As for being inspired spiritually, I almost cried when Duvall prayed over Billy Bob, "Troublemaker." As a matter of fact, I think that moment is the spiritual high point of the film, the sinner converting another sinner and saving a church. If we had immediately seen the police coming for Duvall after that, it would have served as a great coda to reminds us that within sinners like Billy, there are saints/good men, and within "apostles" like Duvall, there are sinners.

None of us are as pure as the driven snow, but none of our souls are so black that they can't be redeemed. That's one of the great things about CRASH: that is a film that shows both corruption of the decent and the unexpected decency lying within the corrupt.

The main problem with Apostle, like Ice Harvest oddly enough, comes down to a sloppy ending. (SPOILER) Duvall draws it out for far too long with the sermon: once the police have arrived, it needs to come to a close. Would an officer wait that long to arrest a man for first degree murder? Duvall's rally cry of "Get Behind Me Satan" is quite effective, but it drags on for ten minutes. Finally, Sammy's acceptance of Jesus, given what has already happened to Billy Bob, lacks the punch it should have.

It brings me back to an eerie feeling that I got throughout the movie: this particular branch of Christianity that the Apostle is representing seems to shout a whole lot what really shouldn't need that kind of volume. I was taught a year or so ago the phrase "Preach the gospel at all times: when necessary, use words." It means that it's in our actions that we show our love not just in our words, and it's not just love for other Christians, but for non-Christians as well. And we don't just gather together and praise God so that we may be saved, but we continually strive to be closer to God and bring others closer to God and further from the devil and to CREATING RECONCILIATION AND JUSTICE in the world, working alongside the "devilish" as well as the saintly.

Remember that scene where Duvall drags the guy out of the bar? It reminds me that there are those who say there's the world of the devil, and the world of God and we should steer clear of the former. However, I think it's a world we need to engage and learn about: we need to be in those bars, not just dragging men out, but learning why they're in. We need to figure out about why men really go to strip clubs, why women work there, WHY women abort their children, WHY teens have premarital sex, WHY divorce occurs, and not just dismiss them as things of Satan to be steered clear of. Good fences do not make good Christians.

Now if the worlds of "The Apostle" and "The Ice Harvest" could be combined, that would be a very powerful movie about Jesus in the real world.

I will say though that the last bit of the Apostle (SPOILER) is a great reminder of Duvall's power: he continues to preach even as a prisoner on a chain gang. Now THAT is Holy Ghost Power. Amen. Continue to seek Him, praise Him, serve Him, and love Him!

I guess there had been enough built up about Brokeback Mountain as a great expression of the purity of love that I was really thinking "Best Picture" material as I went in to see it. So, my expectations were high: they weren't met.

For one thing, the plot seems to get lost about 3/4 of the way through the film. Especially once Jack is gone, I began thinking that the plot had lost its focus, and I was just waiting for the ending. The performances are worthwhile though, especially Ledger who seems to arrive already burdened or repressed even as the film just starts. Actually, it reminded me of Billy Bob Thornton's performance in Sling Blade, and suddenly I remembered how excellently Ledger had played Thornton's son in "Monster's Ball."

However, the thing about Brokeback Mountain is it's not a great film: it's a well-made film about a subject almost no one is willing to tackle, men on the DL. Men carrying on homosexual affairs within the confines of marriage and family, not because they want to, but because they believe society's reaction to the truth would be so brutal that they'd be in fear for their lives.

This was the 60s-70s, and to some degree, the fears these men have could still exist today. I wonder how much things have changed; are cases like Matthew Shepard rare anomalies or are they the kind of thing that could happen to many men who came out openly and refused the confines of marriage?

I read one Christian site review that said the film was artistically made but still seemed to condone these men's choosing of homosexual relations, which they see as sinful. Still, it is what comes naturally to them, and as long as they hurt no one else in the process and mutually consent, then what is the harm? Why persecute them?

In the end, the film is at times shocking, at times challenging, but overall more of a slow character study. Ledger is worth bearing with, seeming to always have layers to pull back of anger and passion. The film becomes remarkable not as a great work, but as a well-done film about a very difficult subject. ***.5

Well, "The Man on the Train" takes a long time getting where it wants to go and is very French in its sense of humor and dialogue, but as they say, all's well that ends well. In this case, it's a great ending. I had turned off this movie around an hour in, bored by the dialogue and lack of plot advancement, right around when Luigi arrives in town.

DO NOT DO THIS! I decided to give it a last chance. From there, the film gets more interesting, and the ending sequence, virtually wordless as we go between each man's "operation," is suspenseful. The interesting thing about "Man" is that it's not about trading places: it's about two people who wade in the waters of each others' lives but never quite dive in. That could have been unfulfilling, but it turns into an engaging narrative on the "what ifs" we all ask ourselves instead of becoming an overly contrived caper.

Rochefort powerfully conveys his frustration and anger, while Hallyday becomes more sympathetic as the film goes on. The ending shots of him sitting in the house by the piano are totally understandable: Milan sees Manesquier's life as leisure, while Rochefort sees in Milan's a life of adventure. Both of them have that "grass is always greener" problem, and both of their lives unfortunately, as unchanged, lead to dead ends. I suppose you have to be the risktaker for a while in order to enjoy the leisure, and maybe you have to have been stuck in a dull life to enjoy the risks. It seems as if neither has ever known the other side and so ends life with regret about what could have been. Let it be a lesson to us all!

Someone else said that this film reminded them of American Beauty, and I agree: there is some similarity of an immature man unhappy with his career attempting to get things right in his family and personal life. However, in the case of Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey,) the methods were far more intentional: Lester decided to turn into a kid again, to buy what he wanted, to start smoking weed, and take a job with no responsibility. Lester Burnham never cared about status: he wanted freedom. David is a case of a man who has his freedom but craves a higher status and seems tortured at how unhappy the people he loves have become. David Spritz is more haphazard and less methodical in his journey.

The one commonality in the two characters is finding focus and respect in a physical exercise. For Lester, weightlifting purifies him, strengthening him, whereas David finds focus in archery, aiming for targets. Their goals are definitely different. American Beauty centered a great deal more on Lester's pursuit of sex with a lovely teenager, a purely rebellious move, whereas The Weather Man is after career advancement, regaining status.

Out of many subplots, Verbinski's film does best dealing with David's relationship with his father and craving for his respect. David struggles to gain his father's respect through his job offer in New York, to write a book that will impress him, but he seems to win approval easiest by doing the right thing for his own son. Michael Caine does a fine understated job of trying to correct the denigrating situation his son's family has descended into.

The film is crass, at times producing humor, and other times simply unnecessarily crass such as the moment between Noreen (Hope Davis) and David discussing BJs.

The Weather Man often seems more like a collection of scenes and subplots searching for an arc more than a ready-made story like American Beauty, but the lesson certainly seems less hokey and more realistic than Sam Mendes' film. Unlike American Beauty's asinine rebellion/renewal angle, this ends up as a story about learning to want what you've got when you can't get what you want, accepting reduced status and lowered expectations in life when necessary. David realizes that he cannot do all things for all people and finally hits the bullseye by staying true to what he does best: that's an essential lesson for us all to learn.

I have been running "Lord of War" through my head; cinematically, it promises to be a more interesting film than it ends up being. The first shot of the path of the bullet from start to bloody finish promises a stark look at the gun-running industry, and to a degree, there is some truth to it. However, I also wonder how much of the film is Hollywoodized. I kept on thinking that it felt like a Hollywood story of corrupt power like that of Tony Montana or Johnny Depp in "Blow."

The strange thing about Cage's character is perhaps that he doesn't want to be a "warlord;" he doesn't want an empire. He wants to be a great provider for his wife and family; tragically, he's more in love with his product than any human being. Leto does an awesome job as Cage's brother, Natali, a man who is as loving as he is insecure.

The film is extremely well-written, and Cage does a great job of portraying his character sympathetically though certainly morally bankrupt. You do begin rooting for this guy to get away (well, at least I did) with his crimes.

I wish I had walked out of the film with a greater sense of anger or passion about preventing gun violence: instead, I walked out feeling I had been hit with a cynical, bitter look at gun violence that didn't motivate me at all.

There's a monologue I once read in college that talked about how "the hand was made for the gun," and not the other way around. I suppose if the film had delved more into our natural tendency towards gun violence and less towards the morality of selling arms, it might have delivered a stronger punch for me.

Jim Jarmusch movies, as a rule, need to be viewed late in the evening. The man's sense of humor and timing is not like your usual comedy: it fits that the first of these was made for Saturday Night Live, because these sketches need a late-night crowd.

None of these sketches are amazing, though almost all of them have a certain kind of funky humor that it's enjoyable IF YOU LET THEM BE. There is a giggle to be found in watching the gorgeous Renee French leaf through a guide to knives and semi-automatics over her coffee and cigarettes, the White Stripes' demonstration of a Tesla coil in a coffee shop, RZA's and GZA's health warnings to Bill Murray, Vinnie Vella's "silent type" kid, and Isaach de Bankole's uncomfortable reunion with his moody friend Alex. All of these and the better ones, Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan and Cate Blanchett, have some dose of humor, or at least appreciation of the art of people watching.

The line that may define the Jarmusch style is his first line to Steve Buscemi in "In The Soup." As an independent television director, Jarmusch interviews Steve for a part, and the first thing he says is "You're reading my dog's mind, aren't you?" Now, in most circumstances, this would not be funny, but if you're in JUST the right mood, something good starts bubbling up inside of you. That's a lot like what this movie does, over the course of 12 short sketches, percolate a sense of the bizarre. Just go and see the damn thing, and you'll have your own thoughts.

In trying to figure out why Kill Bill Volume 2 lacked the punch of Volume 1, I am left with two possibilities: either, I am a bloodthirsty action-movie addict unsatisfied by the relative lack of limbs, or Tarantino's dialogue did not live up to my expectations. Fortunately, on Saturday night, I recalled the prophetic words of Ms. Mia Wallace who basically asked Vincent Vega one night at Jackrabbit Slims, "Why do people feel the need to fill uncomfortable silence with B.S.?" She then became quite lively when it turned out that Vincent actually had something on his mind, and it turned into a fun conversation. From what I've seen in this movie, Mia Wallace would have walked out on a date with Bill. Here, the majority of the conversations are rather unnecessary. From Budd and Elle discussing "Which one are you filled with" to Bill's long-winded discussions of life and death and superhero mythology, there is a sense of aimlessness to the monologues. Compare "Ezekiel 25:17," or Tim Roth's set-up to introduce himself to the gang in "Reservoir Dogs." Bill is blowing hot air compared to any one of them. (O-Ren Ishii came close to getting somewhere with her warning to the Yakuza.) I seem to be in the minority opinion here, though about the quality of conversation. Frankly, I preferred the silent treatment that O-Ren Ishii gave The Bride to Bill's death-by-monologue style. Dialogue should be led by intention: Bill's questioning towards the end of the film seems to have absolutely no bearing on his ultimate wish to see The Bride dead. So, it seems to be filler material. By the way, (SPOILER) if there's anything to address in dialogue, why not address that The Bride's about to kill her daughter's father? And why doesn't it bother the kid that Daddy's gone, after he's the only one she's seen for years? I suppose it was the climax of the film that disappointed me most: maybe it's just that the Tokyo showdown was so much more elegant and over-the-top that it feels like it should have ended the film rather than (SPOILER) a sitdown bit of swordplay in a backyard. In terms of cinematography and music, the film is also not quite up to the level that Kill Bill Volume 1 scored (b&w sequences, Zamfir music, anime, shadow swordfights.) Fortunately, the Pai Mei sequence harkened back to the cinematic style that was all over Volume 1. Ultimately, Kill Bill Volume 2 is an inferior but still worthwhile product. The showdown with the Crazy 88 and O-Ren Ishii will be Kill Bill's image in popular memory for years to come. VOLUME 1: ****. VOLUME 2:***.

I was disappointed in the Return of the King, because it returned me to the same problem I experienced in The Fellowship of the Ring. "When is this film supposed to end?" I asked myself that in the first and third volumes, but NOT in the second film which is now in my mind the best of the trilogy. Although the central battle here is incredible, and the effects stupendous, there is still something bloated about it in the end. Too many characters, plot lines, and endings. If the film had ended at the coronation in Gondor, I would have called it wonderful. As it was, people were sighing in their seats. It felt the same in the first film with the multiple wide angle shots and soaring score that then went back in for close ups and further action. A fan of the books said, "You can't expect them to wrap up this great quest so quickly." My reply is, "Why not?" Hitchcock told incredible stories, but he made sure to have quick and powerful endings. Jackson's weak in that spot. Somehow, The Two Towers managed to avoid this temptation and told its stories in greater simplicity.

I stopped being a fan of fantasy novels a while back, and I do wish that this film had given me back that love. As it is, I was more fascinated by the heartstopping battles in The Last Samurai than what The Return of the King offered us. TOP TEN FILMS OF THE YEAR: 1.Kill Bill Volume 1 2.Dirty Pretty Things. 3.The Last Samurai 4.American Splendor 5.Finding Nemo 6.Seabiscuit 7.The Magdalene Sisters 8.Identity 9.Lost in Translation 10.Big Fish

I wanted to like this film. I've enjoyed the bit of sailing that I've done in years past, and I like old-fashioned adventure movies. I was hoping that this would be something rousing on the scale of "Last of the Mohicans," in taking old-fashioned literature and making it for a modern audience. However, this film is missing something of the innovation that made "Mohicans" such a stunner: more importantly, the villain is missing.



In Mohicans, the figure that chills the soul is Magwa (Jodhi May), who coordinates the attack on the English twice and becomes the central figure in the second half of the film. Hawkeye (Day-Lewis) is a noble hero along with Uncas and Chingachcook, but their heroism is made all the more thrilling in light of the threat of Magwa. In "Master," we only get a hint of the enemy, mostly his cunning, without a sense of a real conflict between them. Unfortunately, that leaves the drama to be between Mathurin (Bettany) and Aubrey (Crowe) which doesn't quite speak to the chase that they're on.

The Acheron is essentially a Hitchockian McGuffin: it's what they've been sent to grab, and the mission lacks a sense of the motive for going after the Acheron. Actually, reading that initial mission of the Surprise evokes the taunting of Merovingian toward Neo and Morpheus in the Matrix Reloaded. The Merovingian reasserts his power by claiming they do not know the reason why they were sent. Like the Keymaster, the Acheron is a means to an end: it is not a "why." The crew of the Surprise does not really know the "why" of getting the "prize": they're in it for the "how." So, they are in a sense powerless without this "why." Theirs is a small game in a big war.

Maybe if the film had ended when Crowe decides to land the ship on the Galapagos and go home, it would have been a more interesting tale about pride, determination, and wisdom. As it is, with their lucky break, both Mathurin and Aubrey get what they want which dissipates their dramatic tension rather flatly.

So, although beautifully made with flashes of eye-popping brilliance (how the hell did they do the sequence around "the horn"?), it doesn't make for great drama, nor consistent enough action. We're left with a half-empty epic, its beauty filling the eye, but leaving the heart thirsty. ***.5

-Dan Marrin

"The Station Agent" is probably one of the most sparsely plotted and worded comedies I've ever seen, but it manages to be funny and engaging at the same time. It really is about very small changes, and the development of friendship. However, I have to say it lacks an ending. This film lacks an ending more than a lot of movies out there: it doesn't just end BADLY. It doesn't actually END. I had to go see the last half hour of "Lost in Translation" afterwards to feel I'd actually seen a full film. (Interesting choice in the search for the right ending, given that "Lost" closes with a series of awkward goodbyes that each feel unsatisfying until the final one.)

What is an ending anymore when we're dealing in an age when a sequel is actually the second half of the story, and when actual screenplays are cut into two films? Kill Bill left me hanging, but it did so in a very satisfying way: I had been on a journey, and I knew what was going to happen next to a degree. I was engaged on a ride that I was eager to get back on: I think Empire Strikes Back did the same thing for people. Interestingly though, I don't think the Matrix screamed sequel at its close. Though its ending certainly foretold of greater things to come, the journey at the center of the film was over. The prophecy had been fulfilled to a degree, and Thomas Anderson became The One.

Then again, Star Wars didn't need a sequel either. The battle was over; the friends were united; the bad guy was destroyed. It was simply such a success that a sequel was a no-brainer.

Art films meanwhile, no matter how successful, rarely get sequels. It just doesn't seem to work. 'The Full Monty' MIGHT be able to pull it off, but audiences don't seem to generally buy into independent film sequels. Where's the originality in it? So, I don't see "The Station Agent Volume II" coming around anytime soon. We've got to make do with what we've got: Fin is with friends, joking about his chances with the local librarian, at peace. He has come a long way over the film. However, there still seems to be something missing at the close, something unfulfilled.

Maybe it's that Fin needs to meet Joe's father, or get a phone in the station, something little to complete the circle. As it is, there's no "denouement" so to speak. I don't know: maybe I was too caffeinated when I went. Maybe I just need to try to relax and concentrate on enjoying what WAS on screen, but I'm still wondering "Where's the ending?"

-Dan

You know, back when I was watching Alien 3 over and over again, as a big fan of David Fincher, I realized that perhaps the scariest element of the movie wasn't the alien: it was the Company. Throughout the third film, Ripley is racing against time to avoid the Company's arrival to pick up and transport the alien to be used for their bioweapons division. The same problem occurred in Aliens, and once again it happens here.

Only in Alien, the personality of the Company is really embodied in Ashe (Ian Holm.) I've seen Ian Holm do a wide variety of characters, but this character is chilling. His performance alone makes us understand why Ripley so distrusts Bishop (Lance Henriksen) in Aliens. He is the exact same as the ship itself and the space around him: cold, calculating, and unfeeling. Having to display any emotion besides determination is a bit of a NUISANCE for him.

(SPOILER) When only Parker, Lambert, and Ripley are left, Lambert makes the interesting point to Ashe: "You admire it [the alien.]" Ashe responds, "I admire its purity of purpose: survival, unencumbered by guilt, remorse, or delusions of morality." The morbid fascination Ashe, and by extension the Copmany, shows for this killing machine chills me more than the machine itself, perhaps especially given the war-torn times we seem to be living in. Indeed, his attack on Ripley is to me more frightening this time around than any of the attacks of the alien, besides of course the initial eruption (SPOILER) from Caine (John Hurt) whose experience is still the most revolting and disturbing thing in the film. It didn't take fancy special effects to convey the eerieness of the alien's taking of Caine as its host organism.

So, yes, in the end, "Aliens" is a far more intense and gratifying film, but when it comes to personifying the creation of the alien, and the heartless calculation of those who would use it, this film is chilling. You won't leave shaking, but it still sticks with you.

I have to say that this film doesn't quite work: for one thing, the

score enters in at all those high emotion moments to too high a

degree. The plot twists and turns don't quite make sense, with the

final killer revealed seeming almost like a Scooby Doo ending.

However, the real loss here for me is that the ending does not do

Dave's character justice. So, he's been killed and put in the river.

He's missing. And the last thing we see is the river, almost like

that last shot in Psycho where the jeep is being pulled out of the

pond. However, this shot gives no indication of him being located,

just "washed away" as is Jimmy's sin seemingly washed away by

his wife. All he can do is throw up his hands when Bacon gives

him that hard stare.

This is a shame especially because the only character that really

hits you is Robbins, besides Fishburne as Sean's partner Whitey.

Robbins, as partnered with a wonderfully alive Marcia Gay Harden,

is cynical, hopeful, scared, frightening, nurturing, delusional, funny,

cunning, smart: in short, he is human and multi-dimensional.

Sean Penn doesn't seem to be able to find all the angles on

Jimmy Markham.

So, in the end, if this goes up for anything, I would hope it wins

Robbins a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Besides that, I wouldn't

award it a thing: yes, it is all about acting and drama and plot.

However, just because you're making an "adult" film as opposed

to a kid's movie, you still have to show skill. FInding Nemo was

better plotted and executed than this, Clint. Better luck next time.

The first piece of good news: "Lost" is the first independent film, in case anybody was watching, that penetrated the "Top 10" since the beginning of the summer. None of the summer's indies, no matter how praised, got there till now. Thankfully, Bill Murray is a name that still gets some box office attention, especially from 20-somethings like me that grew up with his stuff.

The bad news: "Lost" is not a Bill Murray movie, at least not like Scrooged, Ghostbusters, or Groundhog Day. This is the other guy who's trying his hand at Hamlet (well done), Rushmore (ditto) and The Royal Tenenbaums (??) He's not going for slapstick, though certainly still a physical comedian. The comedy of "Lost" seems to transform halfway through into a somber love story about two drifters, both married unhappily, in the wrong place...but maybe at the right time.

More good news: "Lost in Translation" relies on moments, not plot, and the moments work. The hospital waiting room scene, and all the Santori scenes, are hysterical, and even when the comedy erodes, Murray is ABLE TO HOLD HIS OWN DRAMATICALLY. That was the revelation for me: we've seen Murray try to be serious in his comedies, whether repentant or reflective, without getting at us. However, he finds that balance here between a melancholy and a lighthearted guy who's falling in love in spite of himself.

Speaking of balancing moments, the last ten minutes are a great balancing act between Johannson and Murray as they try saying goodbye in a formal, easy way over and over again until finally giving in at the last minute. The emotion works and clarifies a lot of what's been unsaid up to that point, though given the secretive nature of the ending, there's still some unsaid to the audience.

The other interesting issue here is the way the movie rather haphazardly depicts Japan, or at least the city of Tokyo, as a hyperactive land of (fill in the blank) imbeciles? bourgeoisie? really really shallow short people? techno-addicts? imbeciles? party people? Every time Johansson escapes from the city, she seems to find the good in the culture, but Murray seems disgusted throughout a lot of the movie (though he does love the music). Then again, better to be honest than politically correct...

I agree that "Lost in Translation" is Murray's best shot to get an Oscar nomination: much like Jack Nicholson in last year's "About Schmidt," he has put in a quiet tragicomic effort that hits home. ***.5 Johansson's character more than holds her own with Murray, despite the age factor: he plays young, she plays it old. One of the best scenes in regards to that is the sad-sack Murray cheering up the despairing Johansson with the line "You're not hopeless," which is such a reversal of who'd normally give the punches in the shoulder...

So 5 questions for Sofia Coppola: (Sofia, feel free to write back) 1.To what degree is this autobiographical?

2.Did you write this with Murray in mind, and if not, how'd he get there?

3.Why is the first shot of Johansson's butt? (Not that I'm complaining, especially given the alternative of Murray's butt.)

4.Tell us everything about how the scene with the short Japanese woman in the hospital waiting room came together.

5.Do you think, and how do you think, this will play in Japan?

The Secret Lives of Dentists. I'd kill the guy who made the title up, if only that no major theater chain is going to distribute a title like that. Maybe "Family Practice" would have made a better title? Ahh, anyways... I liked this film: I wasn't ready to see Freddy vs. Jason for a late show, since I've never taken well to Mr. Krueger's style of cutting, especially late at night. This turned out to be an at times equally grueling experience, (the vomit, the sadness) but with big payoffs:

1.The performance of the three leads. Campbell Scott, Hope Davis, and Denis Leary each nail their characters, though of course we're only in the mind of Scott for the movie. Davis' character is more of an enigma: is she cheating, is she leaving, is she not in love with her husband? It's amazing to watch Scott OVER and OVER again saying "I love you" before going to bed with his wife and have her say NOTHING in response every time. Scott's final explosion from the built-up frustration is the small but substantial payoff we need. Leary shows up a bit too much as his alter ego, Slater, but some of his jabs come out so well that you forgive him.

DAVID (in the car): "My father always told me when you're mad, whatever you do, don't get in the car." SLATER: "Yeah, well...f**k him." (Turns on the ignition.)

2.The kids. My sister is convinced the girl who played Leah (Cassidy Hickwell) will be one to watch 20 years from now. She really does transform herself into part of Scott's body, even becoming his mouthpiece in some of the conversations with Slater, and pulling off some great lines at what 3? 4 years old max? Whatever Rudolph did to get them to bond paid off.

3.The script: this doesn't feel like a book or a play. There's enough happening here visually, with David's funny fantasy sequences (loved the drop-off at the house) and the goings-on at the house itself, that for the most part you aren't so conscious of the dialogue. And the dentristy metaphor works, even with the interesting final shot, which I'm guessing is meant to mean an examination of the state of the marriage. You should know I've hated every Alan Rudolph movie I've tried to watch- hated Breakfast of Champions, hated Afterglow, hated Equinox (except for that GREAT LAST SHOT!). So, I was happily surprised with this: here's to his next project! ****

I guess I was surprised how enjoyable and just light this film was. It seemed like it could have almost been rated PG with a risky enough ratings board. I mean, think about it: no shootings in the climactic minutes, no sex scenes, not all that much obscenity, and no scandalous or heavy concepts to take in. The Italian Job seems weirdly almost a family film... The Italian Job is like some of the great caper/action flicks (Sneakers, The Firm) in that there's a smart villain who can anticipate the movements of his opponent, and the good guys do have to work as a team to meet the challenge. There're some brilliant moves in this game, and the players are obviously having a great time. I mean, even in the REHEARSAL of driving the Mini-Coops through the train tunnels, you can tell how charged these guys are. And the chemistry between all of them, given what a strange hodgepodge they are, reminds me a lot of what made Sneakers so great. However, Sneakers also had THE BOX. And THE BOX has a lot of symbolic things going for it, like the prelude to the information superhighway, the meaning of spying in the post-Cold War world, ideas about media control, and perception of reality mattering more than reality. Here, we've got the same charm, but all we're talking about is gold. So, this is a fun movie, but it won't stick in popular memory like Sneakers has for me and many others. It's a great night out, and this summer, that's all I'm looking to get. ***.5

This was the word that kept on coming out of my mouth during the action sequences in Bad Boys 2. I think my first DAMN came when the Haitian gangster on the side of the jeep goes splat against the pillar of the parking garage and then DOWN THREE STORIES shattering a phone booth. There were a whole bunch of "DAMN!"s during the subsequent car chase, which ends rather anticlimactic but until the end is PURE EYE CANDY. That chase was something out of Terminator. The shots of those cars flipping and turning and flying was better than anything done in Matrix motion in "Reloaded." The "DAMN"s continued throughout the movie with the final "DAMN!" coming of course with the bad guy's demise, which of course I won't give the details on. Never to fear: it is NASTY! Anyways, I came in wanting to have a good, brainless time, and I got it. However, I have to say: the first half hour and last half hour of this movie are great fun. The HOUR AND A HALF in between really seem to lag. This movie could have been cut 45 minutes short and made into even more fun.

One thing I really enjoy with Mike & Marcus is how you can never quite tell who's playing the straight man (as in ordinary) between Lawrence and Smith. Each has their wild side, and their normal side. For Smith, it's turning into Clint Eastwood at the Klan rally, and for Lawrence, it's turning into Ashanti after accidentally gulping down X-Tasy. The scenes in the mortuary, or where the two of them take on Marcus' daughter's date were FANTASTIC, and they filled a need for new humor that was severely lacking until that time. Martin Lawrence has perhaps the craziest bulging out eyes I've ever seen...

I'm surprised this film didn't make more money this weekend, but I'm sure it'll do fine. This is definite fun in the theaters for the effects and chases, but even on the small screen, you'll leave smiling. ***

I know most guys my age, when thinking of movies to take a girl to, are probably thinking right now about "Alex&Emma," or maybe if she's hard-core enough you could both enjoy "T3." Well, I've been out of the dating game for a little while, and out of the movie game for a film buff. (Last Hollywood film I saw was Bruce Almighty, and that was bad enough to get me to swear off for a little while...) However, somehow things came together that I got to take a beautiful girl to see what was a perfectly fun movie yesterday afternoon, and I was not the only guy taking a date to Finding Nemo! I love animated movies that offer something to both adults and kids, like Monsters, Inc. and Spirited Away. This is another perfect example of that trend. First comment out of my mouth after it was over: I said to Ali, "These guys know how to deliver a heightened sense of reality." The colors, the movements, the FEEL that these guys bring to the ocean is incredible, and hopefully based on some great research and photography.

Now if only Winged Migration was making this much money...;>)

Again and again, when thinking about action movie sequels, I come back to the Empire Strikes Back as a model. For one thing, it deepened the storyline, with Luke entering Jedi training and finding out more about his family. For another, it deepened the relationships of Han and Leia, and Darth and Luke. On the most important level, it introduced us to brand new worlds and characters like Yoda and Boba Fett, Cloud City, and Dagobah. Finally, the great ride ended with one story completed, and another one begun. Since the Matrix is my generation's Star Wars (I believe), Empire is worth a comparison. The Matrix Reloaded clearly does not match up, for two big reasons: the characters are diluted more than in the first film, and the resolution of "Empire" is absent at the end of "Reloaded" in a big way. I kept thinking there were so many moments when the film might end all of a sudden, but the one they chose was so far drawn out.

Also, in "Reloaded," as my friend pointed out, none of the characters seem to be having as much fun as they did the first time around, except for Agent Smith, who I guess is now just SMITH. However, even his character is no longer the main bad guy, and that's a big hole in the film: the lack of a central villain to focus on. I suppose the closest thing is the Merovingian, smartly played by Lambert Wilson, but even that conflict is diluted in the midst of all the philosophical talk and side battles.

Finally, what's really lost for me is the mind-blowing surprises of the first film: the first time we see Neo dodge bullets, when he actually stops the bullets, when Morpheus and he fight for the first time, when Neo ENTERS Agent Smith, all of these events that are now like iconic imagery to me-- "Reloaded" creates little of that by comparison, with the sole exceptions (SPOILER) of the multiple Neos on the TV screens and Neo's furious flight through the city at the end. (NOW THAT EFFECT IS WAS WORTH THE WAIT!)

Let's see what they do with Revolutions. **.5

IDENTITY might seem like a normal slasher film from the commercials, but those who saw the preview might get an inclination that this is more than a mere motel slasher flick by the fact that (and this may be a SPOILER) four of the main characters come to realize they have the same birthday. There is an odd connection to each one of the people who have come to this motel, and honestly, the film hinges upon your ability to suspend disbelief. However, if you're willing to accept the twist (and it's a lot easier to swallow than the mindf***k that was BASIC), the film will give you a very good time. It's definitely derivative of some other films, but it's got its own merits as well, fine performances from John Cusack, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Ray Liotta, Clea Duvall, and Amanda Peet. Think the Usual Suspects with a dash of Fight Club. Or actually just remember the screenplay by Donald Kaufman in ADAPTATION...***.5

If you're looking for a comforting film that makes sense and touches the heart this weekend, rent Barry Levinson's "Avalon." I did that last night, but Friday, I was just looking for fun and got it with the definitely B-class monster movie "Dreamcatcher." They don't make them like this anymore.

This is one of the most bizarre fun times I've had at a movie so far this year, far better than Signs. "Dreamcatcher" is an alien monster movie that has no aspirations to be anything other than that. Whereas "Signs" became another leaden attempt at Shyamalan to make some statement about human faith and destiny in an alien attack, "Dreamcatcher" simply wishes to have some fun in telling a truly bizarre story. And it does that! The pace is quick enough, with side-swiping cuts reminiscent of Star Wars, that you are constantly wondering what the next surprise will be.

I have to say though that in terms of actual scares, the movie loses a lot after the initial first half hour. I actually heard a woman scream out loud during the bathroom scene, which is definitely the most suspenseful sequence in the movie. After that, it all goes downhill more or less in terms of fright, but if you want a good time in this time of anxiety and craziness, this is it. You may never again get to see Donnie Wahlberg play a retard with lymphatic leukemia who calls us all to battle with the immortal words "Sooby Sooby Doo, we 'ot some work to do." By the way, besides some very well done jumps and choreography by the "stars" of Flight of the Osiris, the short before the film is actually kind of loud and obnoxious.

5 and a half hours of driving that day, allergies, and a nearly empty theater made Dark Blue a bit less of the experience I had expected. However, even with all that, I still think it managed to be a pretty well-acted film with two main assets: 1.The look of South Central, especially during the riot scenes which are simply madness to watch. 2.Russell's performance, seeing this guy who is a criminal but somehow able to seem heroic in his own mind and to us as well (much like Sy Parrish in the recent thriller "One Hour Photo.")

I ended up enjoying the film, although the trailers seem to make this much more into some kind of conflict between Russell and Rhames, even though Rhames' role isn't that big. It's got a very big resemblance to Training Day, but it lacks the narrative pull that that movie managed to find and the chemistry that Denzel found with Ethan Hawke. Speedman and Russell are a good match-up, but you never see the rookie seem smart enough to do right on his own.

One good thing, though: after all the emphasis these days on youth, it's nice to see Kurt Russell and Lolita Davidovich, who I'm guessing are around the same age, as the main couple of the movie. See this movie if you're ready for a dark look at LA law enforcement, with little redemption but intense acting. ***.5

Always start with the good: Considering how silly I thought it was to cast a pretty boy like Ben Affleck in a role I see as being made for someone a bit more brazen (I would have picked Jim Caviezel), Affleck does surprisingly well in portraying the endurance, brilliance, and frustration of his character. 2.Jon Favreau as Foggy and Affleck have a great rapport. 3.Jennifer Garner is gorgeous, and she and Affleck have some of the best fighting chemistry since Morpheus met Neo. 4.The explanation of how Daredevil uses his "radar sense," starting from childhood, is far more original than what SPIDER-MAN did to explain "spider sense:" particularly in the subway where he hits the railing to get a sense of the layout of the room, in the rainstorm where he can "hear" Elektra's face, or the first scene in the hospital where an IV drop makes a sonic boom. This truly is an inventive great special effect, and it delivers with the last fight.

Bad points: the Kingpin. The Kingpin is white. I hate to say this, Stan, but the Kingpin has to be white. Why? Because no black man would ever be able to get to the kind of power that Marvel Comics always gave to the Kingpin. The Kingpin is THE crime lord, and he runs and manipulates any game he wants to. There's no explanation given in Daredevil as to how this guy became what he is, and frankly I don't buy it. I'd buy him as the leader of a gang and maybe a businessman, but not THE HEAD OF ALL NEW YORK CITY. And frankly, they bill the character as being that without making any impact. At least, Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino) in Dick Tracy PLAYED that kind of character like the head of a city. This guy -- what does he do? He stands over his window, watching.

So, actually a lot like Spider-Man, the origins here are well told, but the villains still leave a lot to be desired. However, I have to admit, this screenplay's far more clever than Spider-Man. Foggy, I loved the "Sanford&Son" reference. :>) ***