john_murdoch2002

I could write out a thoughtful analysis and use comparisons to previous episodes to point out how much of an absolute failure this episode was, but any effort I would put forth in writing would be more effort these writers put forth in this episode. However, I must meet a certain character requirement to fully convey my disappointment.

Anthology writing for an already established series takes a certain level of reverence and creativity to make it work. For example, the previous anthology episodes. For an example how to do it wrong, THIS episode, which thinks that it can just splice random anthology storylines into a very weak storyline about Leela suddenly falling in love with a prince, completely abandoning the love arc with Fry & Leela already established for the previous 10 seasons, then it tries to explain it away by copping out to be a "science experiment".

This Hulu season has already been a rough enough "reboot" with episode after episode seeming unattached to the previous seasons, but this episode capped off the feeling that the show is a hollow husk of what it used to be.

Futurama is one of my all time favorite shows, but this episode is enough to make the most loyal and passionate fan think it doesn't need another reboot. Because this review has already put more thought, effort, and reverence to Futurama than this episode ever did.

Okay, between this episode, All That Gene, and Mommy Boy, this show needs to take a break from Gene focused episodes. The fact that the episode excuses Gene's horrendous behavior and attitude about the Tamagotchi-like toy and allows him to shirk his school assignment, the writers have lost all touch with what made Gene endearing. Gene has been irresponsible before, even attached to weird things, but the end results of those episodes have always ended with him realizing that it was irresponsible and not realistic.

In these later episodes, they writers have had Linda excuse away his worst behavior and allow him to fester and digress as a character. With this episode, Bob, who is traditionally the levelheaded character of the show, felt that making apologies for losing Gene's game was a logical character choice, despite spending the first half of the episode telling him how irresponsible he was for not doing his assignment. While I understand children being irresponsible, the show's approach to these behaviors has been vastly different in previous seasons.

Whenever Gene episodes approach lately, I begin to dread having to sit through the episode. I sincerely hope the writers realize how badly they've been portraying him lately just to make him appear quirky.

There are some fun moments, the side story with Louise and Tina taking an old childhood ride and finding a way to make it fun as they get older was fun. But the show needs to be aware of what they're doing to Gene and how it's becoming more of a nuisance instead of endearing.

As anyone who knows me probably knows I am an avid and outspoken detractor of Michael Bay and all of his films. I've found them to be cheap exploitive and manipulative pieces of substandard film-making that appears to have garnered some attention due to his flashy style of directing. However, Transformers became one of the biggest movies of 2007 and, as such, I had to see the movie if only to have a merited opinion on the film. By the time the Autobots descended on Earth in the form of a meteor shower, one bit actor runs by the screen with a camera, yelling to it that it is "a hundred times better than Armageddon," I sat in the theater and wondered to myself if the actor knew how many volumes of honesty he was just speaking.

Transformers not only became the fun and exciting summer movie that I was waiting for all of 2007, but it proved to me that Michael Bay has it in him to make a movie that goes beyond exploitive and sociopathic tendencies, two underlying themes in all of his movies that I couldn't shake to the point where I couldn't enjoy them as passive fun. Here, the bitter angriness against the human race that is evident in all of his previous films has gone and we have a fun slice of juvenile entertainment that it seems that Bay has been waiting to make.

For anyone who grew up watching Transformers every Saturday morning, the plot needs no explanation. Autobot transformers battle Decepticon transformers on earth in a bid to protect humanity. However, this Transformers focuses less on the robotic characters than in the American government, a small band of army soldiers and one hyper-testosteroned yet socially inept teenager and his overly hot love interest, all of which sport some very strong and obvious spray on tans.

Sam Witwicky, played with youthful gusto by Shia LaBeouf, is given his first car, which happened to be a "robot in disguise" named Bumblebee, who was sent to protect Sam, who happens to be in possession of a map to find a key element for both sides of the transformers called the allspark. The autobots want to use the allspark to reignite their destroyed world while the decepticons want to use the device to create their own robotic army. Simple plot, not too hard to follow, but, hey, who needs to see existentialist character pieces in a movie about cars that become robots and fight each other? There are very cheesy moments and lines in the film, there are plot contrivances and there are some very over the top performances, but like I said earlier, this isn't a film that is meant to be scrutinized the way that a Scorcese or Bergman film was meant to be. So the best way to evaluate Transformers would be to judge the action and fun level. In both respects, the movie succeeds if only because it abandons the standard sociopathic Bay mentality and instead focuses on the entertainer that he has always strived to be. If I have a complaint with this film, it's that the camera needed to be pulled back more during some of the action sequences to get a better look at what was going on. Bay's style is very in your face, but there are points where I wanted to see more of the Transformer fights and get a chance to enjoy what I was watching.

And before I finish the review here, I have to give credit to the amazing visual effects that this film was able to accomplish. So seamless, on both the big and the small screen, where the effects where interactive machines would all of the sudden transform into the gigantic robots that they were. The very first time a machine transforms into another machine, the effect is so seamless that the movie shows the capabilities that computer effects have come.

Transformers is the fun summer film that hearkens back to a time when the blockbusters were entertaining and free spirited, much like Men in Black, Jurassic Park or The Mask. Not only that, but Michael Bay has also stood up to a very challenging task to me: making a movie that has actually made me excited to see his next film.

Watching Spider-Man 3 the other night simply reminded me of the old saying too many cooks spoil the broth. Such is the case with this movie, where there are so many plot lines that it would make for an incredible movie, but in the end, feels like there is really no balance to this outing.

In this outing, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has finally found a balance with his life, able to cope with being Spider-Man, a dutiful lover to Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), an excelling college student and a capable worker as a photographer for a newspaper. Yet this newfound balance has gone to his head as Parker starts to become self-focused, turning a blind eye to the suffering of Mary Jane, who's received some pretty scathing reviews from her first major Broadway production.

This newfound selfishness doesn't help much when Parker learns that his father's real killer wasn't the one who died in front of him in the first part, but was a man named Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church) who, through pretty bizarre circumstances, becomes the Sandman, a person who's genetic make-up is made entirely of sand. Thirsty for revenge, Parker leaves himself open to a symbiote that crashed down to earth and attached itself to him, amplifying his powers through his anger.

Throw in a story about a wanna-be photojournalist Eddie Brock, who is developing a hatred for Peter Parker, a model named Gwen Stacey who makes Mary Jane jealous, and Harry Osborne, who experiences a temporary memory loss (typical in most comic book story lines) and feels Peter is still his best friend, all vengeful thoughts put aside. Any one of these stories, heck, even any two of these stories, would make for a great and fun summer flick, but with the movie being a trim two hours and twenty minutes (I use the term trim loosely because for all the story lines, it should be longer for the audience to have a sense of closure by the end), feels a tad rushed and convoluted whereas it follows up a brilliant sequel that took it's time to develop it's story, relate all of it's characters and give them all a good climax for their stories by the end.

Here, Spider-Man 3 simply seems like a bad stew, many enjoyable moments, some funny scenes (particularly one with a maitre'd who everyone should recognize), and some convincing performances, most notably from Kirsten Dunst this time around, who brings a humanity to Peter Parker's love interest, something that seemed missing from the first two parts. But with all of these ingredients, they never really blend together and the movie simply collapses under the weight of it's numerous story lines.

While still a good slice of summer fun, Spider-Man 3 fails to live up to it's predecessor, which was near cinematic perfection, transcending the genre of super-hero movie to becoming a thoughtful character piece. Here, the movie is simply fun, but don't look for the emotional delivery the second one had. Just sit back, enjoy the ride and don't get too attached to any characters because by the time you do, the movie will sling to another one of it's layered story lines.

Let me just say that my experience seeing Snakes on a Plane was at a midnight screening on Thursday. Already, I was excited to see the movie, if only for the cheese fest that inevitably followed such a memorable title. By the time the movie started, there were already chants in the theater of the memorable Samuel L. Jackson line: "I've had it with these motherf***in' snakes on this motherf***in' plane!" And that is exactly what followed with this movie was something I had not seen since The Rocky Horror Picture Show: this movie became an audience participation midnight show.

And that is exactly how this movies plays. With the hokey acting from the supporting characters, the cornball script and the predictable storyline, the movie has already seemingly packaged itself in being tongue-in-cheek, which is actually a breath of fresh air from all of the overtly serious films that have come out of indie studios and the schlock that most modern blockbusters try to pass itself off as being something more (X-Men 3, Superman Returns, Kingdom of Heaven, etc.) Snakes plays out with a pacing like the movies we were always told were terrible, the horror movie sequels of the 1980s.

To describe the plot is basic at best: a man witnesses a murder at the hands of a crime lord who is nearly impossible to convict. Enter Samuel L. Jackson, who is in charge of bringing the witness into Los Angeles where he would be safe (which is kind of ironic if one sarcastically thinks about it). The crime lord finds out and dispatches the only kind of assassin he can get on board the plane: snakes. He has the Hawaiian leis sprayed with pheromones so the snakes will react viciously towards all of the passengers. Chaos ensues. Sam is the only man who can land the motherf***in' plane with the motherf***in' snakes.

The premise is very unique in the way that it allows the snakes to overtake the plane and wreak havoc on all of the passengers as well as the plane. As far as the horror factor goes, there are a few moments that will surprise you, but they are like snake attacks themselves: they're quick and jarring, but once it's complete, there isn't much more. But the ride itself is where the true fun is and that's where Snakes is truly in a class of it's own.

With some colorful, if not, generic, supporting characters like the rap artist who hates germs and being touched, the stewardess who is experiencing her last flight before she becomes a lawyer, the young child who has to look out for his younger brother, all of these characters add a degree of playfulness to the movie, even if they're character's never fully develop.

But let's face it, if you're spending you're hard-earned dollars to see Snakes on a Plane, you're not going in expecting to see The Constant Gardener or Finding Neverland. You're going to see some motherf***in' snakes on a motherf***in' plane, and believe me, you will. This movies has plenty of snakes and delivers them up in multitudes. How will this movie play outside of the fan base that has already clamored to see it? Only time will tell, but as far as I'm concerned, Snakes on a Plane is a very unique movie experience, one that's best had during a midnight screening with die hard fans who know what they're in for.

Alex Proyas had a very impressive debut with his first film, The Crow, back in 1994. Instead of his career taking off, he took the death of the film's lead, Brandon Lee so hard that he would be slower to choose his productions than most directors, taking on two more productions in the interim, the barely noticed Garage Days and the grossly underrated Dark City. Something about these three films led Twentieth Century Fox to consider Mr. Proyas for their big budget endeavor, 2004's I, Robot.

The film's plot is about a newly designed robot who is either guilty of murdering the man who created his top of the line brand of robot, the NS5, or there may be more to the murder than it appears. That's as far as the loyalty to the source material lies as the movie delves into action sequences and special effects to drive the story along. Not such a bad thing as Proyas seems to be playing in territory that he is not just familiar with, but aptly comfortable as the sequences are very entertaining, particularly a sequence where two semi trucks of NS5s pull up to Det. Spooner's (Will Smith) car and inevitable hell breaks loose.

Will Smith, who is always an interesting actor to watch whenever given the proper material to work with (Ali, Six Degrees of Separation) is playing away in familiar territory as the wisecracking playful tough guy who seems to know more about the world he's in than the rest of the characters. However, Smith's character of Det. Spooner has a prejudice towards artificially intelligent robots, which gives him a discernment towards living in a society that seems to welcome letting robots take over for them. One would hope that in the future, society would be a bit more adept towards their way of life and not be so uniformly inclined to all believe the same thing about comfort.

Now, this review will not examine the guilt or innocence of Sonny (an impressively scanned and captured Alan Tudyk), the robot accused of murdering the man who created him, but remain to examining the movie itself. Does this work as a summer film: yes. It's loud, exciting and boasts some of the best visual effects in computer captured imaging. However, does it work as a societal examination of letting machines and computers control our lives for us the way Assimov intended his novel to be? Not particularly. I, Robot doesn't take the time that it should in lingering in the society long enough to see the sociological effects of having a technology driven society. Such philosophies are sacrificed in favor of the summer film standards.

Proyas' touches can be seen in a few scattered scenes and one can tell where he fought to have his visions kept around. Alex Proyas is a man of unique vision, as his films like The Crow and Dark City have showcased. Here, only glimpses of his vision can be seen, but the screenplay from Akiva Goldsman and apparent pressures from the studio (something that Proyas has stated left such a sour taste in his mouth that he may never do a big studio production again) are the biggest hindrances that hold I, Robot back from being more than just a piece of summer entertainment. In an ironic mirror, studios seem to be the NS5's to Proyas' society in that they seem to have integrated themselves so much that they are the direct result of a loss of individuality.

When Brett Ratner took on X-Men: The Last Stand after Bryan Singer backed out, many fans were in an uproar. Would Ratner have the knowledge to stay loyal to the beloved characters that Stan Lee created? Would he have the depth that it would take to bring these characters to life the way that Singer did by making them so identifiable that non-comic book lovers could understand them as well? The answer to both questions is no.

Deep characters have never been a strong point for Ratner (look at the disaster that was The Family Man) and, unfortunate for him, the X-Men comic books are full of interesting characters and deep interpersonal relationships. Ratner sacrifices such qualities in favor of over-the-top special effects that seem forced and fight sequences that are become too boring unless your characters have red electronic bars over their heads that decrease when they're hit.

The storyline centers around a genetics facility that has discovered a way to permanently suppress the mutant genes, making all mutants lose their powers. The pacifistic mutants (displayed in Professor Xavier's school) are wary about this new cure, some are excited while some are offended. Then there are the hostile mutants (led by Magneto) that see the cure as a means of genocide. Naturally, Magneto's mutants attack the humans and all special effects hell breaks loose.

Then we have a subplot revolving around the return of Jean Grey, who we thought perished in the previous movie and how her powers have now reached a dangerous state, due to a repressed personality only known as the Phoenix. Phoenix doesn't like to be restrained, so what does the Phoenix do? Yes, naturally, she lashes out as we are told in the movie that when you cage a beast, "the beast gets angry." So, how does one calm such a beast? The answer is never really brought out because we have no connection to the inner mind of Jean Grey since she has even less lines in this film than Arnold Schwarzenegger had in the first Terminator. Jean is not the only wasted character in this film, look at the new character introduced in the film in Warren Worthington III (known to the loyal fans as Angel or Archangel). His father develops the cure, but before he can give it to him, Warren escapes. And that is the entire story we get around Warren Worthington, even when he goes to Xavier's school, we never see him interacting with the other X-men or even the inner turmoil that goes through a child's mind when he is rejected by a parent.

Now, I have been a loyal fan of the comic books for over a decade. I have collected the bio-cards, numerous issues and spin-offs of the series, background history of each character. Watching this movie aggravated me as a fan to see how it treated the characters who have become so beloved to me over the years. Under Brett Ratner's direction, the movie is hollow, lifeless and boring, three things that comic book movie adaptations should never be, especially one with such a rich history that X-men has.

Mission: Impossible III starts out promising a great premise for the series: a deeper story with a realistic grounding. There was the first Mission: Impossible, which had a cool and slick facade, but left many feeling confused, even betrayed at the movie's treatment of Jim Phelps. Then along came John Woo's version, which stated that it would have a simpler plot with better action scenes, but the plot was so simple to the point of being non-existent. Now, TV wonderment J.J. Abrams (Alias & Lost) promised a healthy synergy of the slickness of the first part with the intensity of the second. Of which, we get both, but the MI:3's pace is so rigid in juggling these two premises that the movie seems to play out like a long television episode.

Not to say that a long episode would be a bad thing, as Mr. Abrams has created two of the best shows on TV right now, but the problem lies with the dialog and the delivery. In one moment, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his new fiancé (Michelle Monaghan) are on a rooftop as Ethan is trying explain to her that he is going somewhere, but can't explain where he is going. The actors speak so quietly for so long that the emotion of the moment is almost lost. There are moments where Mr. Abrams' style of dialog does come out, but one must wonder if the other two writers actually hindered his dialog.

The plot of the movie revolves around Ethan Hunt's secret that he keeps from his fiancé about his true job working for the IMF and whether or not an agent can actually have a normal life. Said theory is put to the test when Ethan is called for a mission to retrieve an agent that has been captured, who was Ethan's first trainee that he personally graduated. A mishap with her during the mission causes Ethan to want to dig deeper into the nature of her mission which led to her capture.

Enter our henchman, Philip Seymour Hoffman, who does make for the best villain of the series (much like Blowfeld to James Bond) and Mr. Hoffman is an excellent actor, but when pitted against Tom Cruise on the screen, he does not come across as being threatening as much as he does a pawn in a much greater scheme (of which the movie begins starts to take more clever turns). Overall, the goal of the villains is never established except to come across that they are villains.

But audience don't go to Mission: Impossible for a coherent story or a balanced story during the summer, they go for spectacular action sequences. After all, this is the movie that is kicking off the summer season of blockbusters. This is where J.J. Abrams displays his talents as a director. This movie has many great espionage moments, the break into the Vatican is one of the best choreographed thriller scenes in recent years as well as the missile attack on the bridge scene one of the best action scenes of the decade. The action scenes are where this movie truly shines and it's a good thing there is an abundance of them in this film because when the film comes to meet one of it's more emotional scenes, it's such a jerky transition that the audience can feel like they're experiencing first hand what a manic-depressive goes through.

Still, the Mission: Impossible movie franchise has yet to find it's feet and by the third part of the series, it can seem a bit exhausting as the audience waits and compares the style. After three films and nearly $350 million spent on all three, you'd think it would be time that the series found a reliable foundation to fall back on to the way that James Bond or Indiana Jones has. However, the movie churns along like a giant tree without any roots: all display and grandioso, nothing grounding it.

It's a known fact that M. Night Shyamalan can make some truly scary movies. The Sixth Sense echoed Alfred Hitchcock, a comparison that is not tossed around lightly. Signs was an exercise of letting one's imagination fill in the horrific gaps of what the audience cannot see. But Shyamalan's latest outing dives into a new type of scary: That a filmmaker with such an accomplished resume, two Oscar nominations, and a very profitable background could create a film so bad that the audience would be more likely to find amusement hitting their heads against the seats in front of them in this movie.

The plot is sketchy at best, but "The Village" is about a village of people in an indeterminate setting have become threatened by mythical creatures in the woods who are beginning to invade the town. Meanwhile, Joaquin Pheonix says that he wants to venture into the woods to find some medicine from the outside towns. Pheonix and newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard share moments of fleeting love that is never truly defined. For that matter, neither is any of the characters' motivations. We are essentially watching people go through the actions, but the audience is left in the dark.

So essentially, Shyamalan is trying to show the dangers of hiding from one's past, but the story is so disjointed and poorly told that his message and story get lost in the chaos. A few more drafts or at least a ghost writer or two could have saved this story from incoherence, but it seems that Shyamalan saw this as his baby and wanted complete control over it. Since the film is now his own, he becomes the one who is to blame. Shyamalan should have known better.

This movie brought to mind an interesting riddle, what's a bigger crime: wasting a talented ensemble cast or framing a movie in a way that disconnects the audience from all attachment to the characters? We have Joaquin Pheonix, Sigourney Weaver, Adrien Brody, William Hurt, Brendan Gleeson and the promise of a newcomer in Bryce Dallas Howard, yet this movie proves that no matter how much talent you may have, if there's no motivation to work with, no clear goals of the characters, and lines so out of place and distractingly bad, talented actors becomes no more than a mannequins for the director to manipulate. Shyamalan should have known better.

Obviously, there is a typical twist at the end of an M. Night Shyamalan has become expected, whether it be "I see dead people", "They call me Mr. Glass", or "Swing away," relying on such twists can be a treat for an audience, but "The Village proves that relying on twists too much can make the audience realize they are on shaky ground and make them watch every step the movie takes. By Shyamalan's fourth film, the audience already begins to expect such an ending and instead begin looking at clues instead of the film itself, which in the case of "The Village" may actually be a good thing, but in this case, the payoff is so juvenile that one expects it from a sixth grade creative writing paper rather than from the man who made us "keep the secret" of "The Sixth Sense." (You can find the twist in the paragraphs of this review) Shyamalan should have known better.

Directors carry most of the blame if the movie they make isn't clear or interesting to an audience and here, Shyamalan is the man to blame. He stages his shots so that we never see any reaction on the characters faces during critical moments in the film. And the staging of each of the actors is so dehumanized and impersonal that it does more to draw an audience away from a film than draw them in. If the atmosphere looks great, one can credit the greatest living director of photography: Roger Deacons and the always talented costume designer Ann Roth. But their efforts seems wasted as the photography or the costumes are never given the chance to breath on their own. Shyamalan should have known better.

Although, we could make the argument that Shyamalan needed a more accomplished film editor. People like Andrew Mondshein (The Sixth Sense), Dylan Tichnor (Unbreakable), and Barbara Tulliver (Signs) all knew how to handle Shyamalan's disjointed storylines and add a depth, using the cutaways to reactions. Here, Christopher Tellefsen is satisfied allowing the camera to hold on shots where the characters' backs are talking to the audience, never cutting away to show us reaction shots or giving the film a satisfying pace outside of sterile. If he had stuck with any of the other editors he'd worked with, the film might have worked better, but he chose not to. Shyamalan should have known better.

You'd be hard pressed to find an enjoyable moment in this whole film. Watching this movie, one gets the feeling that Shyamalan should have written a few more drafts, made the film more clear, made the characters relatable or at least allow the audience in on their thoughts. For a director who has already displayed his own sixth sense for showing a depth of character (all together now): Shyamalan should have known better.

This is what a good summer movie should be.

Spider-Man 2 transcends the boundaries of being just another comic book movie to being a richly character driven movie with a very conflicted hero. Here, for the first time, we see the actual emotion behind the facade of the hero behind the mask. Gone is the richly colorful look of the first part, here in Spider-Man 2, we are plunged into a world of shadows and off colors.

Picking up two years after the first Spider-Man left off, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has his hands full with three full-time jobs. He is going to school full time, he is working full time to pay off his rent, and he is a hero always on call whenever he hears a siren. Not to mention, we see the emotional toll that has been taken on him, his only surviving family member, his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris), has become consumed with grief and loss over the death of her husband (incidentally, creating Spider-Man in the first part), Peter's friend Norman Osborne (James Franco) is now at odds with him since he has become consumed with revenge over Spider-Man killing his father (the Green Goblin), and his love affair with Mary Jane-Watson (Kirsten Dunst) is slowly being extinguished because he is never there for her to return the feelings she has for him. And this is all in the first fifteen minutes of the film.

As Spider-Man, Parker is even in danger of losing his powers as his exhaustion slowly begins to take over. Is it medical or is it because he has stretched himself too thin? Eventually, Peter decides to give up being Spider-Man to finally bring peace into his life. There is a brilliant sequence in this film when we see Parker returning to his alter-ego from the first part before the mutated spider bite as he puts on his glasses again, clouding his vision to the world around him. When he sees someone being beaten up in an alley, he turns around to walk away. When the familiar sirens fly past him again, he just eats a hot dog. In short, Parker has finally succumbed to being a New Yorker.

In the midst of all of this, we see the creation of a new villain, this time in the form of a deranged scientist named Doctor Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), who has four frighteningly powerful arms welded to his spine after a disaster with his life's work. This disaster not only turns the Doctor into Dr. Octopus (Doc Ock as the papers call him), but the artificially intelligent arms seemed fuse to his id, placating his desires to not want his life's work to be a failure. Doc Ock will try again at the expense of anyone around him.

The standout here is Tobey Maguire, who can convey the film's entire heart with a look or a gesture, but is most heart-wrenchingly done in his hesitations. For a man so used to having quick reflexes, when he has to slow down and realize what is going on around him, we are instantly in his head. Maguire also has to command the screen as Spider-Man and convince the audience that he can stand up to someone like Octavius and not seem fantastic.

Sam Raimi also does a knock-out job as well, knowing when to hold on a character's face long enough or swinging the camera along with Spider-Man to give the audience the exhilaration of flight. Raimi is more than competent enough to give this movie the look and feel of a moving comic book and by utilizing his most signature camera shot (zooming into and out of the character's eyes), the audience is invited to live for a moment in the tights of a superhero.

Spider-Man 2 has so many great messages to be heard in this film, the best of which seems to draw both Peter and Octavius together in the end: In order for the right thing to be done, does it mean that we have to put away what we want the most? In both cases, there are some strong arguments and that is what makes this movie such a surprise is the depth that it possesses. Seemingly, we have entered the bizarro world of sequels, where they seem to surpass the original (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Toy Story 2, etc) and Spider-Man 2 definitely joins these ranks. Perhaps in allowing a series to expand rather than compliment the original, we can expect more depth out of movies, which has been as equally absent in this day and age as heroes as Spider-Man 2 also suggests.

I fully believe that the end times are approaching. In the book of Revelations, it speaks of nation rising against nation and then all nations turning against the holy land. It also speaks of a time when those who believe in Christ and God will be persecuted. Outside of the seas boiling and the moon turning to blood, we are pretty close. With the media focusing on attacking Christianity (relentless focus on preacher abuse scandals and portraying religious people as thoughtless fanatics), we have fulfilled one prophecy and with the mess in the Middle East, another one is quickly being fulfilled. That's why watching The Passion of the Christ was such a powerful reminder for me of the passage: "Watch ye for ye not know when the master of the house will return."

The film chronicles the last twelve hours of Jesus' life, from his betrayal in the garden of Gethsemene to his conviction at the hands of society to his eventual death. This is all done in a brutal and graphic display. We see his captors physically abusing him in custody, we see everyone around him mocking him and his word, we see the horrific punishment that he was originally sentenced to, we see his journey to the top of Mount Golgoth, and then his crucifixion. All of this is pretty graphic to watch because of the depth of the cruelty and some may argue that this is a bit excessive, but the bible does support this display, both in the book of John outlining his sentence of forty lashes and even noting that when he was presented, he was beaten so badly that he was unrecognizable. So this vision that Mel Gibson has chosen to portray may be difficult to watch, but is a vision from the bible that has been looked over for many years.

And the violence is shocking. How shocking, you may ask? Shocking enough that in a society desensitized to violence and cruelty that it still managed gasps, tears, fainting, even in a few cases in this country, death. So this is one movie that is not for the squeamish. Yet, the film's primary focus isn't on the violence. It is juxtaposed with scenes from the last supper to scenes with the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus talks about loving one's neighbor, despite the abuse you receive. It is through these scenes that the audience shows both reasons for Jesus' life on earth.

And Mel Gibson himself has crafted this movie to perfection. The scenes are dramatically powerful, yet never overplayed so as to feel ostentatious or exaggerated. The emotions are overpowering and the drama of each moment is played perfectly, so an average audience, not accustomed to reading subtitles, can see the story vividly on the screen. Yet, the subtitles themselves are perfectly played, coming straight out of the bible and not feeling cheesy. And the brilliant photography by Caleb Deschenel paints the film like an old renaissance painting, bringing to mind the works of the Sistine Chapel.

Some of the best moments in this movie occur without any words whatsoever. The sight of Judas being plagued by his demons, the moments Mary has in remembering her son and watching the reactions on her face, the betrayal in the garden, all of the scenes take place without one word, showing that images on the screen are infinitely more powerful than the words spoken on the screen. Not to discredit the script in anyway which does take a little dramatic license, but overall follows the exact words in the Bible perfectly.

Faithful people believe that Jesus was brought to this world for two purposes, one is in his life be a living testament to God's love and power and the other was in his death to die for our sins. In his life, Jesus performed his Father's miracles, he spoke his Father's words, and lived his life avoiding sin to set an example for us on Earth to live a more heavenly life. Because Jesus was born a man, he bore the folly of all mankind since he was a divine figure who took the appearance of a mortal, which is why his death was so symbolic. For Jesus to suffer as much as he did at the hands of man, he took on the sins of mankind. So his death allowed the opportunity for man to be redeemed through Jesus' sacrifice.

Overall, this is the finest film that I have ever seen. A movie has never moved me and influenced me that way that this film has. What this movie sets out to accomplish is to create a curiosity about religion. It makes people wonder the accuracy, the power, the affect it could have on those who watch it, and cause people to make a decision about their own faith, which I believe should be the goal of all art. As an audience, we take out of this film what we want. Some see it as anti-sematic, some see it as a film of tolerance, some will see it as a violent excessive film, some will see it as a peaceful film. That to me is a true success that a film can allow for differing viewpoints in such a debatable topic like religion. Gibson has accomplished just that with this film, bringing to life his interpretation of the crucifixion and even leaving much for the audience to wonder for themselves. So with fine form, this movie and Mel Gibson succeed.

I'd rate this film higher than a ten because I believe this is one film that actually transcends ratings and belongs to the ages. My words could go on forever, but I don't think I have enough to express the true greatness this film.

Words can't begin to describe the admiration that I have for this movie. Even to this day, six years after seeing it for the first time, I can't get over the freshness, originality, and overall boldness of Alex Proyas' visionary masterpiece. Now that Proyas is getting a larger budget for I, Robot this year, I felt that it would be time to credit Proyas' earlier science fiction masterpiece in anticipation that I, Robot would only live up to this film.

From the opening shots of this film, the viewer is instantly plummeted into a bold and grand setting of an indistinct city that seems that this is how noir films of the forties would look if they were in color. After a display of the bizarre occurrence that happens to the city around midnight, we are introduced to the film's protagonist, a man named John Murdoch, who awakens in a bathtub, with no memory of his life or how he got where he was. Needless to say, what happened to the dead woman next to his bed. After a few clues that seem to trigger brief glimpses of his childhood, he is chased from his room by three odd looking figures, looking for him.

As Murdoch wanders the city, trying to find his identity, we learn that not only are the strange people (who are appropriately named The Strangers) looking for Mr. Murdoch, but a police officer named Bumstead is as well, searching for the killer of not just the woman in the apartment, but six other women who were murdered in the same manner as the woman from Murdoch's room. Also is Murdoch's estranged wife, who is trying to make a reconciliation with him after a falling out. Even a therapist that Murdoch has been seeing because of his wife's infidelity is searching for him as well. Everyone seems to have their own reason to be searching for Murdoch, and Murdoch is trying to figure out why, since he has no clue as to who he is. In a sense, Murdoch's quest becomes a search for identity in a world that is trying to label him. Is he a murderer, is he a jilted lover, is he psychologically damaged person, or is he a like the strangers who are pursuing him?

But that becomes the center question of Dark City itself, do we make up who we are or are we made up of experiences and memories? We realize this question when we realize the purpose of the Strangers' inhabitance of the city. They are actually aliens, whose race is dying out and they need to observe the human race to see what has made us thrive so much. So, we enter their experiment, which revolves around making the inhabitants of the city fall asleep at midnight while the strangers give them new lives by implanting new memories in them and changing the environment around them.

Murdoch also discovers that the reason the Strangers are coming after him is because he has developed an immunity to the experiment, not falling asleep when everyone else does. He has also begun to take on the traits of the strangers as well, gaining their power to "tune", which is the ability to alter their environment by will alone. This whole concept suggests two things, the first being that humanity has the ability to adapt and thrive in a new environment and the other is that as an individual, humans have the ability to shape their world to their own desire once they are fully aware of themselves and their desires.

The movie in itself is a brilliant commentary on our society as a whole which is displayed in the beginning with Dr. Schreber's rat experiment in the lab, which comes to symbolize a smaller scale version of the strangers' experiment for us, putting rats (humans) in a maze of a city (life) and seeing if they can find their way. Which also seems to suggest that as a society, we are merely just rats in a maze, wandering around until we come to the end. The strangers' insistence on doing everything as a group also brings up another interesting point about the human race is that our ability to be individuals is what makes humans thrive rather than conformity and similarity. "Dark City" takes such bold and brilliant concepts, suggesting so much about our society as a whole and even the importance of individuality over conformity. The themes, once read into, take on such a strong and complex turn, unheard of in most science fiction films of recent years.

Then there is the matter of the setting itself, for no science fiction film can be complete without a strong and symbolic setting. The setting is vast and detailed, and this isn't just the city, which is a sight to behold in itself. The underground world of the strangers themselves is claustrophobic, atmospheric, and actually is the most alien in architecture, suggesting a twisted, surrealistic world, yet one that is dependent on the world above them. The city above ground displays a rich noir feel in which one feels that there is something sinister lurking underneath it's surface. Even the blending of the time periods, seeing 30s architecture around 60s cars driven by people in 50s suits is even a hint off that the city has been fabricated out of different eras and pasts as one of the strangers even seems to suggest.

"Dark City" is a film rich in ideas, concepts, visual splendor, and atmosphere. It's the kind of film that one seems to enjoy being lost in, despite the danger that lurks in it's atmosphere. It's a film that reassures it's viewers that a strong understanding of oneself and staying true to yourself that one can conquer any world they are placed in. And as I, Robot approaches, one can only hope that lightning can strike twice with Proyas and his unique blend of visual grandeur and his depth will emerge and be embraced by a larger audience, who might seek out this film.

How glorious it was to watch this movie again. I must have seen this movie at least twenty times already and I still don't get tired of it. I always see something new, enjoy laughing at jokes I know by heart, the enjoyment one can get out of this film is limitless...if one can allow themselves a bit of twisted humor.

The movie is loosely based on real events that took place in Minnesota back in 1987. (I'm not referring to the character's names because they are clearly not the same people in real life). A man (William H. Macy) hires two guys (Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare) to kidnap his wife while he makes his father-in-law pay for the ransom. It's a far-fetched plan to begin with, but as the characters carry this plan out, it seems that the powers that be are making sure that this plan ends sour. Everything that can go wrong does go wrong for the kidnappers. After they kidnap the man's wife, they end up killing a patrol officer and two people who just happened to pass by. Enter Francis McDormand, a very content and very pregnant police chief, who is called in to investigate the crimes.

As this film carries on, we see a pretty clear juxtaposition of McDormand's character and how happy she is with her life being the way it is and how the kidnappers and everyone else involved in that plot become more and more greedy. Everybody that values money over life here seems to get their come-uppance. The kidnappers, the man, the kidnapped wife's father, everyone who places their own importance over anyone else's seems to get it in the end. For those of you who haven't seen this film, don't worry, I won't spoil the hows, just the whys.

On one side, it's a suspenseful thriller. At a second glance, the nuances of this movie's twisted humor shine. At another glance, the film looks epic in it's scope of a snow-swept terrain. But at the center of this movie is how getting carried away with the "American Dream" can become tragic.

The performances of Francis McDormand, William H. Macy, and Steve Buscemi are the real treats among this uncanny cast. McDormand's certainty and steadfast nature make for a perfect center point for the film. Macy plays his down-trodden loser to perfection in this movie. Buscemi makes a permanent career for himself here as the perfect weird little guy to put in any film.

But the biggest character of the film itself is the bleak and chilly scenery of the film and it is vividly brought to a life of it's own through cinematographer Roger Deacons, proving that he is the best living Director of Photography. Never overplaying the colors and using the natural lighting to stand out on it's own, Deacons frames and fills each shot to eerie perfection.

One thing that the Coen Brothers do so well is how they portray their characters at the farthest end of their rope. The characters in this film are pushed so close to the edge that it becomes both hilarious and chilling to watch the events unfold. This movie asks the audience to find humor a train wreck, not allowing the audience to blink, but allowing them to take the situation with a grain of rock salt.

With this one film, Peter Jackson solidifies himself as being one of the best filmmakers working today. His visionary work is put on masterful display here with the final chapter of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

What makes this installment so invigorating is how in depth Peter Jackson has made the audience aware of the characters. For as exciting as the previous two films were, they appear to only have been in service of this film, to lay the groundwork so the audience can understand the levity of each of their decisions, the torment their characters go through.

And the technicality of this film sets the standards for all other films. The effects work is so well crafted here, seemlessly blending models with computer generation with image control capture. The production design, costume design, and cinematography blend seemlessly together to create an epic mythical feel.

Perhaps the greatest effect of this movie is one that has eluded mainstream Hollywood for so long, making the effects in service of the story and characters. For as flawless as the effects are in this film, they only reflect what the actors convey to the audience. We believe that Gandalf is reacting to the hoard of Sauron's army, when we know there is nothing there. We feel a depth of grandure that is Minis Tirith, but only through Jackson's wonderfully tricky angles and the character's inhabiting the Middle Earth created around them.

And above all, themes of courage, friendship, loyalty, the corruption of power to name a just a few of the important themes that arise in this film. Peter Jackson has truly created one of the finest series of films ever made and they will go down in history along side other noteworthy epics like Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, and Ben-Hur. The only down side of this film is walking away with the knowledge that we can't look forward to another one next year.

Each shot of this pheonominal documentary has been painstakingly worked on for over four years and it shows in one of the most beautiful and moving cinematic experiences I've ever witnessed. This is a documentary that celebrates and illustrates the beauty in life through a new set of eyes that we've never used before. For those of us who can't be globe trotters, for those of us who admire the tremendous live show that nature puts on for us every day, and for those of us who have always dreamed of flying, this is the movie to sit back and take in this wonderful experience. Some of the images are so beautiful to witness, they may move you to tears out of sheer beauty. How many scripted movies can do that?

This should have won Best Documentary.

One of the many joys about going to the movies is getting more out of a film than anticipated. After hearing rave reviews from both The New York Times and an "A" average from Entertainment Weekly, I figured "The School of Rock" would be a pretty enjoyable film. When I left this movie, my legs were shaking from the sheer joy and inspiration that this movie elicits. If anyone is wondering what kind of film this is, the best allegory would be to imagine what it was like the first time you saw "Big" with Tom Hanks.

The School of Rock is about a lazy dreamer, Dewey Finn, played by Jack Black, who knows what is great about rock music, but can't quite be as great as the artists that inspire him. Since his vision is only narrowed to rock music, he hasn't ventured anywhere else in the world, leaving him in debt to his roommate for rent money.

Finn assumes his roommate's identity as a substitute teacher at a prestigious elementary school in order to pay the rent. When he meets the students, there is an immediate culture class, in that Finn has the inspiration, but lacks the class whereas the students have the class, but lack the inspiration.

When Finn hears the students playing in their music class, he gets the idea to start a rock band with the class as his band members. From here, the movie takes a rather unique turn in that the script allows Finn to play off of the students' unique personalities and qualities instead of having them play off of Finn's eccentric personality.

Finn allows the students to be themselves while defying both their parents and faculty, reviving the non-conformist spirit of the 70s metal bands that Finn has immersed himself in. Finn branches out his love of the music to the class and relates it to them. The students, in turn, flourish and become more confident with their gifts.

Jack Black is perfectly cast as Dewey Finn. Black is the perfect embodiment for Dewey's eccentric and passionate behavior. But what Black also brings to this role is his musical gifts for both playing guitars and, in one hilarious scene, writing on the spot music about Math that would have the cast of Whose Line is it Anyway turn green with envy. Finn becomes the teacher that we all have either been blessed enough to have or have wished to have. This one role establishes Jack Black as the most prolific and dynamic new actor working in Hollywood today.

Joan Cusack also has a funny role as the uptight elementary school principal with a predilection for Stevie Nicks. Cusack herself is wonderful in most everything she does (look at her roles in Say Anything, Working Girl, and her brilliant comic turn in In and Out.) Her mannerisms and accentuation are so perfectly executed, she proves herself as the funniest lady in Hollywood.

As for the students themselves, they display enough individual promise to have a new career going for themselves. Miranda Cosgrove shines as the eager overachiever, Summer, Joey Gaydos is wonderful as the fledgling rock God, Zack, Maryam Hassan has a wonderful part as the timid singer with the great voice, Robert Tsai as the student who worries he isn't cool enough to be in a band, and Kevin Alexander Clark as the one student with enough attitude to match Dewey Finn's. These are only a few of the wonderful child performances that are on display in this film. Hollywood, treat these kids well.

All this wonderful acting talent works so well with a brilliant script by Mike White (Chuck & Buck). This script is witty, clever, inspiring, and sentimental enough that it isn't sappy, but not so light that it passes through you without leaving an impression. And Richard Linklater must be credited with bringing this movie to the screen with enough vivacity and passion that one could leave The School of Rock wanting to start their own rock band without even being interested in going into music.

If you were to ask any movie expert on what the greatest romances of all time were, they would say things like Bogart and Bergman in Casablanca or Gable and Leigh in Gone With the Wind. For me, Casablanca is the greatest romance movie of all time, but running a close second for me is Cusack and Skye in Say Anything..., a movie that walks the thin line of being a teeny-bopper romance flick, a goofball comedy, and an insightful view on the relationships between a boy and girl. Say Anything... not only walks this line, but practically dances on it the way Gene Kelly would in Singin' in the Rain, with exhuberance, style, and an overall feeling of joy.

The chemistry between John Cusack as the immortal Lloyd Dobbler and Ione Skye as the envious Diane Court is unlike any romance film made with in the past fifty to sixty years. Lately, romance films have been giving us chemistry, but no reason to get behind the lovers and want to see them blossom. This task is flawlessly handled by Cameron Crowe, who gives perfect definition as to why the couple should be together. They open new worlds to each other, he shows her a world outside of books like she's been used to and she, in return, realizes that he is more than some average joe with no recognizable future prospects. Apart, they are talented, but together, they're connection is luminous.

I have seen this movie nearly one hundred times and have never tired of it. Not only is this a wonderful romance for the ages, but it is also a clever teenage film, showing the teens in this movie as deep, thoughtful, occasionally exaggerated, but we were all like that at that age, that's what sets them apart from the Freddie Prinze Jrs and Julia Stiles of today. The teens in movies today (outside of American Beauty) have become charicatures. In Say Anything..., they are a world within themselves and we become the priviliged tourists to take pictures as we pass by.

Say Anything... is a cult classic now, but as history progresses and movies become video discs in a library some where in the distant future, this one should stand out like Jane Austin and William Shakespeare do today in that this movie analyzes the youth of our time and treats them with the respect and intelligence that they deserve. Kudos, Mr. Crowe, for bringing such a beautiful, heart-warming, optimistic, and overall brilliant piece of art into this world. To see it is to make your life that much brighter.

*ding*

...I finally found the method to this film's frentic madness. Before, I used to get overwhelmed and think that there was no true depth to this film and thought it was just an attempt for Baz Luhrmann to establish himself as a unique film-making style. Turns out, it's not in his pace of film-making, but in the style of his shots that seem to encompass a world in and of itself that sets him apart from flash in the pan directors like Michael Bay and McG.

The film tells a heartbreaking tale of true love and how it transcends the boundaries of materialism and set standards. We have idealist Christian (Ewan McGreggor) who comes to Paris in 1899 to find his voice as a writer. As he meets a gala of colorful roommates who take him to the Moulin Rouge to pitch his play, he sees Satine, the crown jewel of the cabaret, and is instantly captivated by her. But unlike the other men who are put under her spell, Christian can see what Satine has hidden from everyone else and he falls in love with her. After Christian shows Satine that life (and love) can and does exist outside of the Moulin Rouge, they begin their love affair. But Satine is constantly dragged back into her world by The Duke who simply wants to buy her with material possessions.

What the film has to say about love is that it can transcend any drudgery and elevate those whose hearts are filled with it. Even in the darkest of places where "love is available to the highest bidder" as one song suggests, if you truly love someone for who they are, then love can exist anywhere.

Bax Luhrman creates a 17th-18th centuary like we've never seen, where the colors are vivid, the lighting has as many spotlights as it does shadows and the pace is more frentic than today's hustle and bustle. Though at times the songs and pace can seem out of place, it only helps to create one man's vision of the times. Luhrman's style may not be liked by many, but one cannot deny that it is his own.

At first, I enjoyed Moulin Rouge, but then the pace grew so fast for me that I became exhausted with it and couldn't find the depth that I once saw in it. Then watching it again on DVD on my TV has shown me that this is the best way to watch this movie so as not to be overwhelmed by the the big screen, but seen in widescreen so the TV won't cut out every facet of this festival for the eyes and ears.

Despite the ending, one can't help but feel grateful that love had existed, helped someone achieve their dream and give them the sense of freedom. And in doing that, Luhrman and company have truly embodied and modernized the Bohemian mantra of Freedom, Beauty, Truth and Love.

As a young boy, I was raised around marines. They were tough as nails, typical man's man guys. But I vividly remember going to the base screening of this movie at four and entering the lobby after the movie was over and saw that every one of these marines were reduced to tears. It was in one of these moments that I saw the true power of what a truly fantastic movie can do.

E.T.-The Extra Terrestrial is an emotional roller-coaster. One minute we're laughing, the next, we're afraid, the next, we're charmed, then saddened, then joyous. And all within the period of two hours. Since the film's release, the format has been copied to death, but to watch the film again, the undeniable power of the original still remains.

Steven Spielberg, during his idealistic period, created this movie as a way of dealing with many emotions that family movies avoided to be more Pollyanna-ish. But this was one of the first real movies for kids that never glossed over death, coming-of-age, and divorce without being either too smiley faced or too adult. This was a movie that cared about the audience (how many movies today can say that?). Another first was this actually had kids saying lines like "Penis breath" and swearing. This was unheard of in 1982, now it's as common as saying Cheesy Poofs.

E.T. is a good mature film for families to watch if they're ever bored of the same old PC Disney garbage that's been churned out post-Lion King. E.T. doesn't talk down to it's audience, it never insults their intelligence, it's a movie that is there to entertain and show kids what it means to be a true friend.

When I sat down to compose my top five list of greatest horror

movies (a feat inspired by High Fidelity), I took into account the

craftsmanship of the filmmaking, the creativity it took, how well the

filmmakers worked with what they had and how quickly it took me

to recover from the film. The list ended up looking like this:

1. The Exorcist 2. The Silence of the Lambs 3. Suspiria 4. Halloween 5. Night of the Living Dead

Now, why would Suspiria rank so highly on my list? The main

reason was that director Dario Argento's style and visual sense

set him in a class that was far beyond any other horror director I

have ever seen (I categorize Hitchcock in the suspense category).

If you watch his set up and choreography of each shot in Suspiria,

one can only imagine the time and effort that he took into making

the shot. The amount of time it took to adjust the lighting just right,

to get the actors to move in a certain way in their positions, the

placement of the set designs, the use of the simple, yet effective

music, all are executed in this film with such precision and

creativity.

If you watch the choreography of the first murder scene, you'll

notice how everything is set up just perfectly within the first minute,

using the next to build a sense of dread, the next to clench the

audience in a sense of fear, and that final minute to take that

sense a bit further and show the full brutality of a murder. That's

one thing Argento does well, deglamourizing murder. If you were to

watch of the murder scenes in Suspiria, you'll notice how

disturbing they are to watch, but at the same time, how they look

just fake enough to distance the audience from reality. By doing

this, Argento is able to both repel, but keep us grounded in the fact

that the violence in this film is fictional and should not be

glamorized.

Granted, the characters are never as clearly defined as, say, Jodie

Foster's in "The Silence of the Lambs" or Ellen Burstyn in "The

Exorcist," and there is a good reason for that. By doing this,

Argento still maintains that safe distance from the audience, so

the murders seem less glamorous. Also, this allows Argento the

ability to enter a more surreal universe and create an almost

storybook like surrounding.

Overall, the effect of this film is one of complete dread, where

suspense lurks around every corner of the gothic dance academy

and the audience is never quite sure where the attack is going to

come from. This alone should be grounds to make if an above

average horror film. But Argento's style takes it a step further to

become an icon in the horror film genre.

This movie is a feast for the eyes. It is sumptuously designed and choreographed to move like a living painting, to show how the realism can be surrealism. By having Waking Life open these doors, the possibilities are unlimited. But instead of really transporting the audience the way that 2001: A Space Odyssey did in 1968, the overall effect feels like a 500-level college philosophy lecture class.

That is the main problem with this film, it starts out by displaying an unconventional and revolutionary method of film animation that hasn't been attempted before and starting the audience off with the phrase: "Dream is Destiny." Okay, so we're in for a surrealistic journey, cool. But then we're introduced to the conventional way of opening up a film with a journey by having the main character be picked up in a boat/car and dropped off "where he needs to be." From there, the main character is hit by a car and wakes up to have people lecturing to him in long and drawn out monologues. By this point, the film has see-sawed from unconventional to conventional back to being unconventional, never deciding if it wants to have a direction, or play like and animated documentary. The audience isn't interacted with, it's talked down to from a vacuous script posing as intellectualism.

Fine, so you want to be a lecture film. What will the lecture be? Pretty much, simple stuff that anyone with half a mind and an open ear had heard before. So where does this "experience" of a film take us? Really nowhere. The film seems to want the audience to make up their own mind about what was "lectured" to them (as if the people who generally make up the audience for these type of empty existential indie flicks have never sat through a long and drawn out philosophy discussion before). But as for the character whose journey we are supposed to follow, he comes to no realization or achieves any kind of catharsis, he simply "floats away."

Overall, "Waking Life" is ingeniously designed, but overall an empty experience that plays as if someone animated an adaptation of a philosophy book that has already been covered. So this film gets my Zyrtek Indie Film Award, which is handed out to filmmakers with good concepts, but turn out to be self-proclaimed indie geniuses who mourn the fact that they are in a position that millions of film students wish they were in. These "artists" seem to enjoy writing movies about figuring life out when they seem to hardly grasp it themselves and instead sink into a quagmire of frustration, disillusionment, self-loathing which leads to self-praise (a cycle which seems endless for them) which overall leads to their clinical depression. Previous recipients of this award include Wes Anderson (Rushmore) and Lars von Trier (Dancer in the Dark). But a three out of four star film nonetheless, if only for the well-designed and well-meaning animation.

When I first saw this movie in the theaters back in 1998, I left the theater not remembering a single moment from the film. Watching it again on television, I began to remember the film more vividly in all of its disgusting and audience-insulting decadence. By watching it again, I discovered five reasons to advice everyone to stay as far away from this film as possible.

Reason number one: The movie is schizophrenic

The story is about a crew of drillers sent to destroy an asteroid heading for earth. Pretty simple, huh? But this mess of a film is so sloppily put together by Michael "Ed-Wood-Reincarnate" Bay, that it comes across as unbalanced. Many will argue that this is supposed to be a summer film, so we'll compare it to other summer films. Is it supposed to be a free-for-all action film in the sense of "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Then why does it get so melodramatic with the characters instead of allowing their individual quirkiness to run rampant? Or is it supposed to be a more serious adventure in the way that "Apollo 13" was? If so, then why doesn't the script display one ioda of technical knowledge of space? Listen to the NASA commentary on the Criterion DVD and you'll hear for yourselves. So as a summer film, it fails to find it's feet.

Reason number two: Who the hell are these people?

Every great story has a character that we either like and want to see succeed or despise and want to see fail or crawl out from their rut. In "Armageddon," all the characters are permanently stuck in a rut. Let's go through the cast: Bruce Willis, a stereotypical father who doesn't want the daughter to get involved with his best driller. Ben Affleck is the pretty boy who stares at pretty girl Liv Tyler with googly eyes throughout the film. "Armageddon" fails to give either Affleck and Tyler any sparks or any reason for Willis to resent Affleck (first he likes him, then he hates him, then he needs him, then he resents him, then he mourns him, then he takes pity on him - come to think about it, Affleck has a more believable love story going on with Willis than he does with Tyler). The rest of the cast seem to rely on stereotypes as well, wasting such talent as Michael Clarke Duncan, Steve Buscemi, Owen Wilson, et al as background, never really adding anything more than scenery to an already bland film.

Reason number three: Ed Wood is alive, well, and directing Pearl Harbor

Let's try to rationally put these scenes together. Helicopters arrive at an oil rig during a sunset (sunrise, whatever), then two seconds later, it's day. Say it was a long trip, huh? How about the fact that every time a helicopter flies by in this film, the earth and sky are instantly painted orange, regardless of what the previous scene was? A little too convenient, no? Though some may argue that this is a trademark of Michael Bay, one should think that trademarks shouldn't have to rely on time and space in order to work properly. Sunsets are scenery. As for the set up of the shots; they are over-dramatic (soap operas have more subtle direction than Bay), poorly organized, and framed terrible. He always seems to be pointing the camera up at someone. Extra #4 does not always need a hero shot. A good director knows that a camera is merely a tool for a director to focus the audience's attention on something in a scene (a good example is to look at Robert Altman's direction of "Gosford Park" and notice how at least two things are taking place in one scene). As for the camera constantly moving the way that Bay likes it, this is not directing, this is overcompensating.

Reason number four: "Can you reach into the glove compartment and pull out my brain medicine?" - Homer Simpson

Movies like "Armageddon" show little to no respect to an audience. They seem to say that if we shove a bunch of action scenes together, have a pop song on the radio, and worry little about the story, then the audience will see it. "Armageddon" is such a film that seems to have been constructed not by writers, but by a focus group and sales meetings that show the statistics of moneymakers. Yes, the Hollywood industry is just that, an industry, but it is also an art form and an entertainment forum. Bay has argued before that he likes to make films for audiences. If this is true, then he should stop trying to pound the audience into liking him with his overly boisterous films and focus more on telling the stories that he wants to tell like a competent director should. Remember, the great stories are the ones that can relate a deep story to a vast audience.

Reason number five: The success of this film is the first step to the oblivion of good risk-taking films.

As mentioned before, Hollywood is a business that wants to make money, which it should not be condemned for. Everyone wants to make money. Remember the immortal words of the good Affleck film "Boiler Room" when he said, "whoever said money is the root of all evil doesn't have it." But it's when these cookie-cutter movies become successful that we begin to see more dumbed-down films like them. If over-hyped and over-produced movies like this succeed, then it will open the door for other "Die Hard on a subway" and "It's like Armageddon meets Tomb Raider" pitched films. As an audience, we should demand more. We should demand more films that appeal to our intellect as well as our instincts. Movies have become depersonalized and we should encourage the filmmakers of today and tomorrow to tell stories that they enjoy. I will leave you with the final words spoken by Jay Sherman in "The Critic" when he said, "If the movie stinks, just don't go."

"Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" delivers to many of the fans what they have been asking for: More jedi battles, more development of the mythology, and less Jar-Jar. And Lucas does come through in this film in full bravado. (Warning, this review contains a synopsis for the entire film! All those who wish to not know anything about this should read this after seeing the film!)

The film is about how the recent assassination attempts on Padme Amidala; who is no longer a queen, but a senator, have forced her to seek protection from former Jedi friends Obi Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker. Anakin is still in training as this film unravels, but he seems to have grown more hot-headed and rebellious to the Jedi ways. When an encounter with a bounty hunter sends Obi Wan to seek out the person who is causing these attempts on Amidala's life, Anakin and Padme retreat to Naboo. There, Amidala and Anakin share a conflict of emotions, but we also learn that the reason for Anakin's unease was due to the nightmares he's been having about his mother, who he left in Episode I to become a Jedi.

Meanwhile, Obi Wan has traced an assassin's weapon to the planet Camino (food? crappy cars?) where he learns that a clone army has been built for the Jedi council under the supervision of bounty hunter Jango Fett. As Jango Fett escapes Camino to a planet (which name escapes me), he learns that Sith jedi Count Dooku has been ordering the clone army to be built before he is captured. Upon learning of this, Senator Palpatine decides to take the army as his own legally and use it to protect the galaxy and aid the Jedi in restoring peace to the galaxy.

Troubled by the dreams he's been having, Anakin returns to Tatooine in search of his mother, who he traces back to the (dah-dah-dah-duh) Lars Homestead. Upon his arrival, he learns that his mother was kidnapped by Tuskan Raiders and immediately leaves to search for her. When he finds her, she only sees him for a moment before dying in his arms. With his rage finally reaching a boiling point, Anakin slaughters the entire tribe (in his own words: "Not just men, but women and children, too.") His descent to the dark side has apparently begun.

Anakin and Amidala leave to aid Obi-Wan and what follows after this is sheer excitement with arena battles, jedi duels, and a fantastic war sequence where a pivotal weapon is in the design stage of being constructed.

One things that the Star Wars series is notable for is the wonderful environments that Lucas creates. In Episode II, he expands on his universe, giving the audience a more in depth look at the awe-inspiring planet Coruscant, taking us inside the city's skyways and streets where we only saw the skylines. There is also an interestingly hidden planet called Camino where the planet seems to be mostly experimental facilities overtop a planet full of water. The infamous Lars homestead is even painstakingly recreated to the degree that if this film does not receive a nomination for art direction, the academy clearly does not have their eyes open.

Many will complain about how the film lacks excitement in the beginning before the end, but to me, that only seems true because the end is so grand and exciting that it's easy to overlook the chase through the skyway at Corusant, Obi-Wan's duel with Jango Fett and Slave One on Camino, and the chase through the astroid field that makes for an interesting nod to Empire (I almost expected Obi-Wan to see a crater worm, but thankfully, that hand puppet didn't appear.)

Or many other complaints will be from the dialog in the romance between Amidala and Anikan, which does contain some cheesy lines, but I challenge anyone to find lines in there that aren't as cheesy as those in Moulin Rouge or Titanic. Epic romances are supposed to have a certain amount of cheesiness to them in order to make them succeed. In the end, the chemistry isn't as strong as the aforementioned films, or even Han and Leia's, but it does work.

Though this movie has many flaws, one must remind ourself that the original trilogy is just as flawed, only it's easier to have overlooked them when we were younger than it is now as we've grown up in a more cynical and critical time. In order to enjoy this film, one must "concentrate on the moment," "stretch out with your feelings" and this installment will not disappoint. Remember, Lucas never once tried to be Bergman.

Here it is, folks. A one hundred and fifty million dollar budget, an A-list cast, promise of some intense action scenes, supposedly going to be a great summer film, and in the end, turns out to be just another Michael Bay film: loud, stupid, boring, excessive hero and sunset shots, and a complete waste of audience time, crew's efforts, and money that could have been used to finance thirty "Memento"'s.

The redundant storyline (of which even writer Randal Wallace wants erased from his resume) revolves around a love triangle with the Pearl Harbor bombing at the center, which seemed to have been inspired when Bay noticed "Saving Private Ryan" eclipsed the box office of his "Armageddon" domestically and decided to do the same movie, as well as duplicating his lack-luster love story that centered in "Armageddon".

Now in order for romances to work, the audience must believe the characters have a reason to either be together or in love. Neither surface. The result is a waste of Kate Beckinsdale, who is reduced to staring blankly in every scene and seemingly to throw herself at everything that has a penis, be it Affleck, Hartnett, or that guy in the clinic. In fact, I even feel dirty as to how she stared at me from the screen.

As for the bombing sequence itself, it fails to either excite or inform. The CG planes are completely fake looking and the ships they bomb aren't even supposed to be around until the eightes. At least Titanic spent a large amount of time trying to detail the period accurately. Even my friend from the Navy, described this film as being "boring."

One thing "Saving Private Ryan" did well was depict violence in all it's shocking realism, and never trying to leave the audience with a happy feeling by the end. In "Pearl Harbor", the end result is merely a three hour film (of which I regret not using trying to mentally block out the fact I ever heard of this lousy film) that doesn't even show as much information (or any at all for that matter) or, let alone, do anything to actually credit the memory of the unfortunate lives lost at Pearl Harbor.

"Quantum Leap" is a fantastic show that has seemed to grow up with me. I loved watching it when it first came on, I remember being addicted to it when it was on USA, and now that it's on Sci-Fi, I've become hooked once again. Sam Beckett is my all-time favorite television hero, probably my all-time favorite hero, as well. He has a wonderful Jimmy Stewart quality about in him this show, but what I find the most appealing about his character is how he tries to help everyone he comes in contact with. That's the kind of hero I look up to, the everyday man who just tries to do good and Scott Bakula pulls this role off with style and restraint. Dean Stockwell is perfect as Sam's sidekick, Al Calavicci, who acts as his guide. Stockwell is energetic enough to make his presence both enjoyable to watch and onw who we anticipate his arrival.

I would love to see this made into a movie and would enjoy watching how it would be pulled off, whether it would follow one leap or many leaps that seem to be connected like in "Trilogy." If not a movie, then a revived television series. Whatever happenes, I will continue to watch the show and await the moment when it is announced that episodes will be released on DVD. That would be really interesting to see. "Quantum Leap" has found a special place in my heart and is one of my all-time favorite television shows. In fact, it's made such an impact on me, I found myself replacing expletives with "Oh boy."