loopydate

This show is, without doubt, the most brilliant piece of random insanity ever produced.

Giving a synopsis is pointless, as there really is no plot, but here's the basic outline: Space Ghost, the intergalactic superhero has started a variety show. He needs sidekicks, so he enlists his former arch-nemeses Zorak and Brak to pitch in (from their Prison Pods, naturally) for the bits.

If you can find either of the Carton Planet albums ("Musical Bar-B-Que" or "Surf & Turf"), buy them. The show's off the air, but the spirit lives on in these CDs.

Whenever my family gets together, we inevitably end up quoting the characters (Brak in particular).

These characters, while brilliant on "Space Ghost Coast to Coast," "Brak Presents the Brak Show Starring Brak," and "The Brak Show," were never as great as they were on this show.

Though a child of the 1980s, I must admit to being a latecomer to the popular culture of the first decade of my life.

That said, it has recently become the goal of my best friend to reacquaint me with the films that she grew up on while I was watching `Laurel and Hardy' and `Three Stooges' shorts.

Our most recent viewing was of John Hughes' `The Breakfast Club' starring Emilio Estevez (Andy), Anthony Michael Hall (Brian), Judd Nelson (John), Molly Ringwald (Claire), and Ally Sheedy (Alison).

Needless to say, only being a few years removed from the ages of these characters, I could relate in many ways to the people and situations in the film.

In fact, Hughes had me until the very ending.

*Note: The remainder of this review contains spoilers, especially pertaining to the end of the film. If you haven't seen it and don't want to know what happens, please stop reading now.*

I am disappointed in the couplings Hughes gives us at the end of the film, for reasons bordering on personal. But, hey, we're all IMDB readers, I know you'll all be considerate (hold on while I wipe the dripping sarcasm off of myself).

First of all, what the hell was Claire thinking? Sure, there was obvious sexual tension between herself and John, but the fact that she chose him over either Andy or, especially, Brian, each of whom had been nothing but gentlemen to her is disheartening.

What kind of message is this sending? "Don't bother being a gentleman, son, she's going to pick the asshole, anyway. Sure, you can be kind and stick up for her when the bully is picking on her, but she likes him more, so why even bother?"

Several of my female friends have confessed to me that there are no gentlemen left. Well, that's the reason. There's no point in being the `nice guy,' because the `nice guy' always winds up alone or, worse yet, stuck in `best-friend' mode, never even considered boyfriend material.

Then, there's Alison and Andy. Where on Earth did this come from? Yes, Andy was the one who drew her out of her shell, but beyond that there was seemingly no connection between them.

Brian, on the other hand, was the best match for Alison. Yes, they were from entirely different worlds (she the introverted.um.weirdo, he the bookworm), but their conversation near the end about peer pressure shows that, beneath their shockingly different exteriors, they share a similar soul.

And isn't that what love is supposed to be?

I brought this up at the end of the film, to which my friend responded, simply, `Opposites attract.'

I won't argue that. There is something very attractive about the `other side,' but, honestly, have you ever seen an `opposites attract' pairing that lasted any significant amount of time? I know I, for one, have not. Every successful relationship I've ever seen has been between people who share common interests, common senses of humor.you get the picture.

I will acknowledge that a relationship between two people who are nearly identical in this way would be boring and also would fail. I'm not saying that an ideal pair would ONLY have common interests and the like, but what kind of relationship can stem from fundamental differences?

Yes, `opposites attract,' but they will eventually repel each other. I guess this is sort of a long-winded way to support an argument, but there it is.

If I had written `Club,' the film would have gone almost exactly the same way, start-to-finish, except that at the end, Claire would have wound up with Andy (who shared some of the `bad boy' traits that attracted her to John, but lacked the inherent `asshole' quality) and Alison would have wound up with Brian (kindred spirits, I'm telling you).

Don't get me wrong, I really liked this film, but there was something fundamentally wrong about the ending that almost ruined it for me. Being the resident `nice guy,' maybe I just naturally identified with Brian and wanted to see him happy at the end. But, once again, the nice, quiet, smart kid is the one that's left all alone.

God bless the class structure, eh?

My hopes were so high from this film. As anyone who's read my other posts knows, "A Knight's Tale" is one of my favorite films of all-time, so a reunion of Brian Helgeland, Heath Ledger, Shannyn Sossamon, and Mark Addy seemed like a goldmine.

On the other hand, I hate the horror/suspense genre. I hate it. That was one thing that worried me a bit going to see this last night, that this was going to be just another movie about people dying in creative ways (heck, the original title of the film was "The Sin Eater!").

On that note, I was pleasantly surprised. "The Order" was not a horror film. The plot was not just an excuse to get from elaborate murder to elaborate murder. Truth be told, I think the word "murder" is too strong for all but a couple of the deaths. I guess I would classify this as a thriller, except for one thing...

I wasn't thrilled.

I knew what was going to happen before it happened. I won't divulge spoilers here, but other than one little surprise with regards to the "Dark Pope," nothing about this movie had me on the edge of my seat.

Before I get too far, let me point out that I don't hate this movie. Not at all. It's fairly well-structured and well-acted. It just wasn't...anything special. It lacked the suspense of a good thriller, and it certainly lacked the levity which made "Knight's" wonderful.

Actually, I guess I'm not going to get too much farther. It's hard to put into words my disappointment in this film without it sounding like I hated it. It was fun (that could have just been because of who I saw it with, though), but it was not what I wanted or expected.

Five out of ten, bordering on six (a seven if they'd given Mark Addy's character more of a purpose).

*Sigh*

Watch "The American President" with anyone of the female persuasion, and that sound is going to be pretty prevalent.

Aaron Sorkin, in addition to laying the groundwork for what would become the greatest dramatic series in television history ("The West Wing"), has created a nearly-perfect love story.

Michael Douglas plays the idealized President. He thinks things through, hearing advice from every member of his inner circle before making the tough decisions. He is remorseful when he has to order a military strike, even in "proportional response."

There's one catch, though.

He's a single father.

In any other occupation, this would be something that would be easy to overlook. However, in the real world, the President without a First Lady would be very conspicuous.

Enter Annette Bening, a "pit bull" hired by the environmental lobby to try to force some legislation through. After an awkward initial meeting and an even-more-awkward discussion in the Oval Office, the sparks fly and, soon enough, Ms. Bening goes to Washington as the President's date to a state dinner honoring the new President of France.

The plot itself is unimportant. For a Sorkin piece, it is fairly derivative of most romantic "dramadies." Sorkin, best known for edgier work like "A Few Good Men," and the genre-busting "Sports Night," plays it a little safer here.

However, no one can spin a word like Aaron Sorkin, and the dialogue between Douglas and Bening is magical. Even in unbelievable circumstances, both characters are completely fleshed-out, and you believe that there is a chance that these two crazy kids (well...maybe not KIDS...) could wind up together.

Even though romantic movies are not typically my bag, "The American President" is not your typical romantic movie. Are there better date movies? Of course. "When Harry Met Sally," "Casablanca," and the oft-maligned (though I don't understand why) "Serendipity" would probably make better rental choices as far as the best date movie.

The difference between those (with the obvious exception of "Casablanca") and "The American President" is that "TAP" works as more than just a romantic movie. It works as a fine, overall piece of writing, acting, and directing.

"Most Extreme Elimination Challenge" is one of the funniest things to ever hit American television.

The show takes a Japanese reality/game show called "Takeshi's Castle" and turns it into...well...MXC.

It is nearly impossible to describe the greatness of the show...or even to describe what the show is even about. Needless to say, "Kenny Blankenship" and "Vic Romano" (backed ably by "Captain Tenneal" and "Guy la Douche") make for the funniest team of announcers in the business. What that business is, I'm not entirely sure about.

If this review seems a bit ambiguous, it's because I have a very hard time putting my finger on what exactly makes this show so great. Rest assured, though, that it is. Please watch!

*Sigh* I had such high expectations for this movie. I'm not sure why. I really didn't like the original "Matrix." The fight scenes were the only reason I'd ever watch it when it was on HBO or Showtime, and only then if nothing else was on.

I guess this time around, I hoped they'd pay more attention to the dialogue and try to make Keanu and company sound less like the machines they're supposed to be fighting.

I was wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate this movie. I really didn't. It was entertaining...as long as someone was fighting someone else or there was the chance that something might blow up very soon. However, anytime any character (even Hugo Weaving, who deserves SO much better) opened his or her mouth to speak, it all went downhill.

I left the theater with a headache, not because I didn't understand the plot (which I didn't, but a lot of that had to do with the fact that I really didn't care), but because this movie was so self-important it made me hate myself for paying money to see it, rewarding the Wachowski Brothers for pretending to be philosophers.

"X2: X-Men United" was infinitely better than "The Matrix Reloaded," and I have a feeling that "Terminator 3" probably will be, too. Don't be fooled by the hype: "The Matrix Reloaded" is overblown in just about every way.

But, MAN, were those fight scenes cool!

The main problem with any comic-book or superhero movie is that the portion of the audience that is unfamiliar with the characters and situations (usually a VAST majority) needs to be brought up to speed. If the writers drop you into the middle of, for example, the "X"-universe without explaining what mutants are, what they can do, and why "normal" humans are so afraid of them.

The first "X-Men" movie did an incredible job of giving the background of Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and his team of mutant superheros, the X-Men. However, director Bryan Singer was a bit limited by the fact that he couldn't jump right in headfirst to his story.

He faced no such problem with "X2: X-Men United," and has in the process created the greatest superhero film ever made. And, yes, I'm counting the original "Batman" and "Superman" films, as well as the more contemporary "Spider-Man" and all of the mediocre ("Daredevil") and just plain awful ("Masters of the Universe") films to be made in the meantime.

I saw "X2" opening night, and now, one week later, I literally keep replaying the movie in my head. From the opening sequence where crowd favorite Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming) tears up the White House through to the heart-wrenching conclusion, Singer hits all the right notes.

I'll be honest. I haven't read the comics in about seven or eight years. I don't know any of the contemporary stories, but from what I can remember, "X2" portrayed every character as accurately as it could (keeping in mind the fact that audiences would not buy any of the trademark X-Men storylines that involve time travel or outer space). Nightcrawler, the "furry blue elf" who looks like a demon, had the right mannerisms. Colossus (Daniel Cudmore in an incredible cameo) was just the right mix of gentle giant and imposing freak. Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) was written perfectly for what happened to her character (no spoilers here, folks. See it for yourself).

I can't stop thinking about this movie, and as someone who sees a lot of films, that's really something. Lines of dialogue, memorable visuals, and even the bit of Mozart's "Requiem" that plays throughout the opening sequence chase each other around my head as I write this, and this would be a long review if I put every word of it down on paper.

In short, see...this...movie. It is a truly mind-blowing experience, the likes of which I haven't seen in a theater since "Adaptation" (though that was mind-blowing in an entirely different way).

Before I leave, here are some of my favorite moments from the movie (I know I'll leave some out, forgive me):

~ Nightcrawler's romp in the White House. ~ Professor Xavier's first "143"-induced hallucination. ~ Siryn! ~ Iceman and the Dr. Pepper bottle. ~ The kid playing with the sabretoothed tiger skeleton in the museum. ~ Pyro's outburst at the Drake house. ~ Wolverine vs. Deathstrike ~ Any scene with Bryan Cox ~ The way Mystique still doesn't quite have the "Kelly walk" right. ~ The dogfight ~ The Angel x-ray in Stryker's office ~ "Shoot anyone that approaches. Even if it's me." ~ Magneto, his prison, and iron. ~ "We love what you've done with your hair." ~ Jean giving the Professor's monologue from the beginning of "X-Men"

This is almost a direct adaptation of Doyle's "Sign of Four" novel, with a couple of exceptions. Unfortunately, the exceptions are the ones that sap the story of its humanity.

The novel itself wasn't that great. Pretty much a standard Holmes story. However, the story is kept readable by Holmes' inner conflict. According to the story, Holmes can never truly rest. His mind must always be stimulated. That's why, if he does not have a case to solve at the moment, he uses cocaine to keep his mind going. This is totally missing from the movie. I'm assuming that the filmmakers wanted to preserve the "integrity" of Holmes by eliminating a vile habit from his personality, but in doing so, they remove the personality itself, making Holmes nothing more than a crime-solving machine.

Doyle was not a great romantic author, to be sure, but the relationship between Watson and Miss Morstan seemed to be slapped into the film. In the book, it isn't too much better, but it at least made Watson sympathetic. In the movie, he's pretty much relegated to being an arm for her to hold on to as she hears each bit of bad news.

Overall, this made-for-TV flick is not worth viewing. If you absolutely HAVE to, read the book, but pass on renting the video. It's really bad.

"Ocean's Eleven" is the kind of film that you enjoy watching, but that you'd really, really like to be a part of. The actors all look like they're having a blast, and the extras on the DVD confirm that theory.

For those who don't know, the eleven are George Clooney ("O Brother, Where Art Thou?"), Brad Pitt ("Fight Club"), Matt Damon ("Saving Private Ryan"), Elliot Gould ("American History X"), Carl Reiner ("It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World"), Don Cheadle ("Traffic"), Bernie Mac ("Get On The Bus"), Scott Caan ("Enemy Of The State"), Casey Affleck ("Good Will Hunting"), Eddie Jemison ("Schizopolis"), and Shaobo Qin (making his feature film debut). Julia Roberts ("The Player"), and Andy Garcia ("The Untouchables") co-headline the promotional work with Clooney, Pitt, and Damon, but their parts are actually fairly small, considering the magnitude of the actors in the roles.

Getting past that magnificent list of names, the film itself is what the advertising promised: A bunch of cool guys being cool. Clooney and Pitt, in particular, exude the sort of "Hey, wouldn't it be fun to rob three casinos?" "Yeah! I'll start calling the guys!" nonchalance that has made them both huge stars.

As an aspiring filmmaker who's struggling to finish writing his (VERY independent) directorial debut, the banter and the sense of unity that are so prevalent in "Ocean's Eleven" are very much things that I aim to imitate. As a fan of dialogue (as evidenced by the fact that I'm an avid Aaron Sorkin fan), Ted Griffin's screenplay is like music to my eyes and ears. Visually appealing (It's cool people! In Vegas!) and tightly-written, it was easily one of my favorite films of 2001, and having recently seen it again on DVD (my third or fourth viewing), it's fast climbing my list of favorites from any year.

Now, why couldn't I have thought of getting 11 cool people like Clooney, Pitt, Damon, and company for MY movie? Oh, yeah. I'm not Soderbergh...

I bought into the hype. I'll admit it. The advertising campaign for Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" swayed me. I was already listing it with my favorite movies of the year before I'd ever even seen it. DiCaprio for Best Actor! Day-Lewis for Best Supporting Actor! Scorsese for Best Director! Best Picture!

Well, you know what? After having seen it, I can only say this:

DiCaprio for Best Actor! Day-Lewis for Best Supporting Actor! Scorsese for Best Director! Best Picture! Diaz for Best Supporting Actress! U2 for Best Song!...get the picture?

I expected the film to be excellent, to be sure. I expected to be blown away by the brutality of the battle sequences and the interaction between great actors. The film delivered, and in a way I never expected.

I was almost literally moved to tears. I was one of the last out of the theater today, because I had to keep myself focused on the here-and-now, reassuring myself that there probably never was an Amsterdam Vallon whose father was slain by Bill the Butcher when he was a child. That the film, based around true events, was set a century-and-a-half ago, and that none of the people who were killed would have lived to see today anyway.

Still, though, Scorsese had me. He twisted me around his little finger, making me squirm during the bloodshed, tap my feet to the dance, become wide-eyed at the betrayals, and finally utterly crushed by the ending shot, a beautiful bit of demi-time-lapse photography on the growth of New York. It is in these closing moments that I could feel something rising in my throat. It wasn't a nauseous feeling, unlike some of the battle sequences (which left this usually hard-hearted moviegoer a bit uneasy). It was genuine emotion. I was horrified by what man could do and how quickly he could forget.

Scorsese has always seemed to have his finger on the pulse of the nation. How he could have known when this movie was shooting how close the storyline would be to modern events is beyond me. How he could have known that, on the brink of a war that few want, the youth of the nation (like me) is beginning to find their political voice...

Scorsese, one of the greatest cinematic minds of this or any other time, has once again made a picture that defines its times, intentionally or not. It is doubtful, however, that the film would not have worked without amazing performances by Daniel Day-Lewis, Jim Broadbent (fast becoming my favorite character actor), Henry Thomas, and surprisingly solid performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz (both of whom I had dismissed as "just another pretty face" long ago).

"Gangs of New York" is, without question, the most important movie of 2002. It was not the most entertaining, though it was certainly entertaining. It was not the most fun. It was probably not even the best (I'd wager to put "Road to Perdition" a notch above it). It was, though, the movie that will be remembered nearly thirty years from now, as we remember Scorsese's "Mean Streets" and his other cinema classics. This is the one that will be viewed in film classes for decades to come.

This is, to use a worn-out phrase, a must-see.

Thank you, Mister Scorsese.

One of the other postings on this movie summed it up just about perfectly: "They just don't make 'em like this anymore." Actually, that's not entirely true. They DO make them like this, but not nearly this good.

The wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time hostage scenario has been done to death in film history, but easily the best of this genre is "Key Largo," for any number of reasons.

1) Humphrey Bogart is one of the five best actors of all-time. 2) Lauren Bacall is the rare combination of beauty and acting clout. 3) Edward G. Robinson is so despicable that you can't help but love him. 4) The camera work is brilliant. 5) The story is impeccable.

And so on and so forth.

Really, there is not much else to say about this film other than: See it.

Do whatever it takes. Rent it, buy it, find it at a classic film fest, hope to catch it on TCM or one of those channels, whatever you have to do, see "Key Largo." Then see it again.

I've never been a fan of the horror genre. I loathe movies like "Nightmare on Elm Street" or "Friday the 13th" or "Resident Evil" or any of the other gut-'em style horror movies.

That said, there are a few movies in the genre that I've really enjoyed. Most were made back in the black-and-white era, when they didn't have the technical ability to show someone being gutted, so they had to insinuate it through unusual camera angles and quick cuts. Films like "Psycho," "The Birds," and even the original version of "The Haunting," while tame by today's standards were always able to frighten me more than Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhies, the Candyman, or any of their ilk.

Sadly, with the exception of a couple of movies in the '80s (i.e. "Jaws," but I'd really categorize that as more of an action/suspense movie than "horror"), there had not been a good horror movie made in Hollywood until M. Night Shyamalan gave us "The Sixth Sense" in the late 1990s.

So, when the trailers for "Signs" began showing up during the spring movie season of this year, a part of me was very excited by it. Shyamalan had wowed me before, could he do it again? I had stayed away from "Unbreakable," because I'd heard it was awful, and I wanted to keep Shyamalan on a pedestal as one of those writers/directors who "got it."

But, being a cynical non-horror fan, I stayed away from "Signs." I subjected myself to HORRIBLE "films" like "XXX" and upper-mediocre movies like "Swimfan" and "Simone," but I never got into a theater to watch Mel, Joaquin, and the gang.

Yesterday, as I'm driving home, I get a phone call from a friend, telling me that the local theater and a local radio station are teaming up for a special "Signs" screening that was only going to cost something like $1.50 per ticket. I figure, sure, why not? If I walk out in disgust, it's not like I paid the full $5, right?

The film was riveting. I could not tear my eyes away from the screen, save to occasionally steal a glance at the girl I came with (who had seen it something like 6-8 times before) to try to gauge her reactions so I'd know when to brace myself for the next "OMIGOD!" moment.

But the film was more than just scary, though it was certainly that. It was also one of the funniest films I've seen all year. There have been a couple of good comedies this year ("Goldmember" and the underrated "Death to Smoochy" come immediately to mind), but I'd argue that "Signs" was funnier than any of them.

The first time that "someone" arrives, the scene where Graham (Gibson) and Merrill (Phoenix) attempt to scare them off is absolutely hilarious, and just about any scene with the little girl was a riot. Shyamalan did an amazing job of playing the horror and the comedy off of each other, lightening every moment of near-unbearable tension with the sight of Merrill and the kids wearing tin-foil hats so the aliens couldn't "read their minds."

And, like in "The Sixth Sense" before it, Shyamalan brings together every detail (no matter how minute) from the entire story in the closing sequence, making every line of dialogue, every character quirk, every second of screen time important to the conclusion.

I would be VERY surprised with myself if I don't get back out to see this movie at least once more before it leaves theaters. And, yes, I'll pay full price this time.

This is one of the top 40 movies ever made?!? I must have seen a different "Wo hu cang long" than the rest of you, because the one that I saw was the most cliched, derivative, BORING "action" film I have seen...ever.

The first time I saw this move was in April of 2001, toward the end of its American theatrical run. I had bought into the hype, had placed it near the top of my Oscar predictions, and awaited finally being able to see it for myself with baited breath.

And then I saw it.

Big mistake.

Every plot "twist" was visible from the time the plot catalysts were introduced. Anyone who DIDN'T know who the thief was from his/her first non-masked appearance needs to have his/her head checked. The love stories were forced and unnatural. The action scenes, while visually impressive, were physically mediocre. Without the use of wires, this movie would have been something that the gang on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" would have lampooned. And they still should, regardless.

Yes, it was visually innovative. But to call this movie "breathtaking?" "Beautiful?" "Great?" No. No no no.

The fact that this movie currently sits at #40 on the Top 250 of all-time list frightens me in a very real way. It doesn't just chip away at my belief that movie audiences are sophisticated enough to realize a bad, if stylized movie. It takes a sledgehammer to the notion.

So, please do NOT see this movie, and if you do, PLEASE don't let the comments of others sway your view. This movie was bad. It was very bad. Importing it was a big mistake. Nominating it for Oscars was a mistake. Voting it into the top 40 movies of all-time? VERY big mistake.

Get the idea?

After the American Film Institute issued its list of the 100 greatest films of all-time, I started making regular trips to my local Hollywood Video to rent groups of three or four of them. My summer ran out before I could round out the top twenty, but of the handful that I got around to seeing, "Casablanca" was my favorite.

I'm currently enrolled in a Gangster Films class, where we screen and discuss classic films in the gangster genre. Having seen films like the original "Scarface," "The Public Enemy," and others, it amazes me that, while these films are great, they feel extremely dated.

The dialogue is clearly circa 1930, and the sets are all clearly just that, sets.

But then, you see "Casablanca." While the film is now 60 years old, it still holds up to modern cinema in every way. The characters are believable and sympathetic. Rick's unrequited love is painful (emotionally, not because it's awful, because it's not) to watch, not because Bogart is a great actor (though he is. One of the best), but because it's written in such a way that all of us who have ever pined for "the one who got away" know exactly how he feels.

I'll spare you a summary, because by now, you know the story. You know the dialogue, you know the shots. "Casablanca" is one of the most important films ever. It is almost perfect.

It is my sincere hope that the handful of people who gave this film a 1 out of 10 had mistaken 1 as being the highest mark available, because I'd hate to thank that anyone could possibly dislike this film.

*SLIGHT spoilers ahead, probably nothing you didn't see in the trailers*

I remember the first time I saw the trailer for "XXX," I turned to the friend I was seeing whatever film the trailer was in front of (how's THAT for weird syntax?) that I wouldn't expect a plot out of that movie, but the stunts looked cool.

As the release date drew closer, and the ultra-cool Vin Diesel (who I still think is the best bad-ass since Samuel L. Jackson) made the press circuit, I was starting to warm to the idea more and more, so when the aforementioned friend decided he wanted to get a "crew" together to watch "XXX" tonight, I was in.

So, I went in not expecting a plot and, boy, was I not disappointed. However, the sheer asininity (is that a word?) of the "story" was almost like an emotional vacuum, sucking away my ability to stare slack-jawed at the action like Cletus from "The Simpsons."

The only (and I mean ONLY) redeeming quality of this film was the stunt work. The opening sequence, the motorcycle-helicopter chase, and the gunfight after gunfight after gunfight were all pretty cool, but without a semblance of plot to hang these on, they just seemed like Rob Cohen's excuses to get people to "ooh" and "aah."

They have been calling "XXX" "this generation's James Bond." If that's the case, I hope my generation reconsiders. "XXX" had good stunt work, but the best spy movie of the summer is still "The Bourne Identity."

*OK, here comes a pretty big spoiler. Stop reading if you don't want to know how it ends (like you don't see it coming anyway)*

*Be absolutely sure you don't want to know how it ends*

*I'm about to tell you*

*Stop reading NOW if you want to be "surprised*

*DO NOT READ BEYOND HERE IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS*

*OK, I warned you*

One question: Why did Samuel L. Jackson have so much faith in XXX's ability to defuse "Silent Night?" We were given no reason to believe that he could handle something like that. Here's how it would have made more sense...

[XXX harpoons himself onto Ahab. SLJ turns to the Czech police.]

SAM JACKSON: Call off the jets!

[He watches XXX approach, that dumbfounded look on his face. He turns back to the Czech police.]

SAM JACKSON: Never mind! Blow the damn thing up!

[And they do. The end.]

Unfortunately, the wonderful master-of-physics screenwriter helps XXX figure out that putting a missile in backwards makes it blow up! Is that true?!? I don't see how it could be, unless the firing mechanism is in the back of the missile itself, and not in the sub.

ALSO, what the heck did Yorgi have on that boat that caused it to blow up like an A-bomb upon impact with that cliff?

And did the cinematographer get a new tripod for Christmas or something? That had more static shots than any action film I've ever seen. The movie I made with my friends this year had more dynamic camera work, and it was all done on a DV cam handheld by college students. We didn't have a $100,000,000+ budget to throw around, and I think ours beat this movie for cinematic skill.

And the acting was better.

But, I'm getting off-topic...

Anyway, DON'T see "XXX" unless you really, REALLY don't care about plot, shot sequencing, acting, or...well...a film. Go see "The Bourne Identity." Or, if you have to see a sophomoric spy film, see "Austin Powers 3." At least "AP3" was intentionally funny. And Dr. Evil was an infinitely better villain than Yorgi.

And there's talk of making this a franchise. Please, Rob Cohen. Don't do it. Vin Diesel's cool, but this movie was not. Vin, get yourself a gig as Juggernaut in "X-Men 3" or something. Do NOT make the sequels. And Mr. Cohen? Try a romantic comedy. Or, if you want to make "this generation's James Bond," see if you can't get yourself a job on one of the future Bond projects. Once Pierce Brosnan hangs up the vodka martinis, get the guy that played The Professor in "Bourne Identity" (whose name escapes me right now. I know I'll kick myself later when I remember it) to play Bond, and revolutionize the genre from the inside rather than trying to assert yourself in a saturated genre.

I gave this movie 3 out of 10 stars, because when it comes out on DVD, if you just skip between the action sequences, you'll have a damn good time watching it. Maybe even watching the whole thing with the MUTE button on would be better. Better yet, get some friends together, turn the volume low, and do a "Mystery Science Theater 3000" knock-off.

Just DON'T spend $7 on "XXX." Please.

...a very strange, enchanting film...

I was one of the millions of skeptics out there that refused to accept "Moulin Rouge" when it first came out. I, like many, assumed that the movie musical was dead. I was wrong.

I recently rented the film on DVD, and now can barely go a day without watching it (now that I bought it on VHS) or listening to the soundtrack.

Where to start?

Well, for one, Nicole Kidman has shot to the top two or three on my list of favorite actresses. After her amazing role in "The Others," paired with her mesmerizing performance as Satine, the beautiful courtesan in "Moulin Rouge," anyone who doubts her acting chops needs to get their head checked.

I've been a fan of Ewan McGregor's for a long time, but it was more of a fan-boy "Star Wars" type of respect. However, now that I've seen him carry himself as a leading man (in a non-indy, non-crappy-horror film), he, too, is now one of my favorites. While a bit crude, his singing voice is amazing. His portion of the "El Tango de Roxanne" sequence is one of the most heart-rending in the entire film, and at the end...well, without giving any spoilers, this hard-hearted movie fan got something in his eye.

After seeing his portrayal of Harold Zidler, I'm amazed that Jim Broadbent won his Best Supporting Actor Oscar for "Iris" instead of this. I guess it was a choice between the two roles, and "Iris" was a bit more Academy-friendly, but Zidler was one of the ultimate love-him-AND-hate-him characters put on-screen in a long time.

Apparently, I jump to conclusions a lot, because I had John Leguizamo pegged as an annoying little loudmouth. His portrayal of Toulouse Lautrec changed my mind. It was impressive enough that they made him look like a believable dwarf, and that the lisping French accent didn't grate on my nerves, but he carried several key scenes with a strength of character I'd never seen from him.

This movie is, to use a worn-out cliche, a roller-coaster of a film. It starts with an almost-ridiculously manic pace, jumping from shot to shot like a Linkin Park music video. Then, there's a wonderful, brief pause (for comic relief) as Christian (McGregor) begins to write his story. "There was only one problem: I'd never been in love!" I can't explain the shot, but it had to have been one of those that Baz Luhrmann came up with over a glass of absinthe.

Speaking of absinthe, the manicness of the film picks back up once Christian, Toulouse, the Unconscious Argentinean (possibly my favorite character in the film), and the rest of the Bohemians, have their first taste of the green beverage. After a brief encounter with Kylie Minogue's Green Fairy, they're rocketed into the Moulin Rouge itself where those with weak stomachs probably get nauseous from the frequent camera moves.

It is this kind of stop-and-go filmmaking that makes "Moulin Rouge" one of my favorite movies to come out in the last five years. Baz Luhrmann is truly a visionary, and the fact that he was denied a Best Director nomination is sickening.

Needless to say, the soundtrack is amazing. In what other movie (other than, perhaps, "A Knight's Tale 2") could you see such an eclectic mix of modern rock transposed back a couple of centuries? Seriously, in 1899, when the word "grunge" still meant dirt, the men at the Moulin Rouge are singing "Smells Like Teen Spirit," while the Diamond Dogs (the club's showgirls) croon "Lady Marmalade" and Satine belts out a medley of "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend" and "Material Girl." From there, Christian serenades Satine with "Your Song," "All You Need Is Love," "Heroes," "Love Lifts Us Up Where We Belong," "Silly Love Songs," and a host of others.

But, undoubtedly, the most amazing musical piece in the entire film is when the Unconscious Argentinean, with the help of the wicked (why?) dancer Nene, turns "Roxanne" into a spine-tingling tango. Mixing that song with (what I believe is) an original composition which I can only assume is titled "Why Does My Heart Cry?" lends the scene added potency, making it one of the most surreal musical experiences I've had at a movie since the "Golden Years" scene in "A Knight's Tale" (which I also loved).

Isn't it odd that David Bowie's music has been around from the days of jousting, through the Bohemian revolution, up until modern times? I wonder which era were the "Golden Years," exactly.

Anyway, I digress.

I know I've rambled about this movie for a while, but I definitely think it's worth the words. "Moulin Rouge" is the most visually amazing film I've ever seen, and if last year were not the year of "AKT," this would have been my favorite of the year.

So, kudos to Luhrmann, McGregor, Kidman, Broadbent, Leguizamo, and the rest of the people who assembled this truly amazing film. You all deserve a big pat on the back.

Ten out of ten, at least.

Last May, I had just finished my first year of college and had started hanging out with a group of my fellow staffers at the campus newspaper. Our favorite activity was going to movies. We got off to a bad start, making "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" our first choice. Blech.

We saw a couple more films that were good, but nothing to write home to Mom about. However, one night, my friend Jay called me and asked if there was a movie that I particularly wanted to see. I said no, but that "Knight's Tale" movie looked interesting. Little did I know how significant that offhand decision would be.

Right from the start, I knew this was a special movie. The witty banter between Roland and William as they try to figure out what to do about the late Sir Ector. Then, throwing the feisty Wat into the mix, it got better.

WAT: What do you mean, dead? ROLAND: The spark of his life is smothered in shite.

Then, Wat kicking and pummeling the armored body was a clear indication that this was something different. I had heard about the anachronisms in the soundtrack, but there was something oddly rousing about Queen's "We Will Rock You" at the first stadium scene.

From there, the movie got better and better, climaxing with one of the most satisfying movie kisses in years. In "The Princess Bride," Peter Falk makes reference to the final kiss between Westley and Buttercup as being the one that "blew away" the top five most passionate kisses of all time. I'd argue that Will and Jocelyn challenged them.

That movie solidified the friendship between myself, Jay, and our friend Jessica, and the three of us became inseparable. We still are, a year and a lot of hardships later.

I own the film on DVD, have the CD for both soundtrack and score, and find myself quoting it more times than I care to count. "A Knight's Tale" was, by far, the most significant film of 2001 for me, and I was thrilled to see it up for three MTV Movie Awards. It's a shame it was too "low-brow" for the Oscars, because I think that Doc Powell's "Pieces" could have taken Best Original Song.

Anyway, that's just my ultra-biased impression. For the record, Laura Fraser is RIDICULOUSLY gorgeous, and my one knock on the film was that her part was relatively small.

Oh, well. I'm just picking now.

"Sports Night" is, without a doubt, the greatest show in the history of television.

Let's start with the cast. My favorite character is Dan (Josh Charles), simply because his own neuroses often mirror my own. He's had his ego stepped on more than once, and he is wary of putting himself out in the world for fear that it will happen again. I also find that I have a lot in common with Jeremy (Josh Malina). We're unathletic types with a desire for sports (and, coincidentally enough, the office brunette). Sabrina Lloyd (Natalie) is one of the most beautiful women in the history of television. Felicity Huffman (Dana) and the amazing Peter Krause (Casey) have the best "will-they-or-won't-they?" chemistry since the first season of "Friends." And, what can be said about Robert Guillaume (Isaac) that hasn't been said already?

The writing is impeccable. As an aspiring writer, Aaron Sorkin is the pinnacle of my desired position. His work with "SN," as well as "A Few Good Men," "The American President," and "The West Wing" is the best ever produced. His way with the spoken word is unparalleled.

In fact, I was inspired to become a writer after watching the "Quality of Mercy at 29K" episode. The sheer human joy expressed by Dana after seeing "The Lion King," and her subsequent ultra-moving conversation with Casey was the most heartfelt moment I've ever seen on television.

DANA: I didn't know we could do that! Did you know we could do that? CASEY: Well, when I forget, something usually reminds me.

From there, Dan's scene with the homeless man at the end further solidified in my head that this is what I want to do with my life.

Thomas Schlamme and the other directors of "Sports Night" made the show the most visually dynamic program on TV, and I'm glad to see that "West Wing" has continued the Sorkin/Schlamme working relationship.

I regret not watching this show when it was on ABC, but I thank God for Comedy Central. My only gripe is that CC puts the show on at 2:30 in the morning (and even then, only a couple of days a week). If CC gave "Sports Night" a spot in their daily primetime lineup (may I suggest at 7:00 as a lead-in to "Beat The Geeks?"), it would please loyal "Sports Night"-owls a further reason to worship the Comedy Central higher-ups.