natw

Robert Redford reportedly spent years trying to get this project off the ground, so it seems odd that he appears to be sleepwalking throughout the whole thing. The plot is as thin as the 79-year-old's hair, with virtually nothing happening. The writing is also sub-par, filled with weak dialog dealing mainly with senior-citizen sex urges and other old-man humor that falls flat before the Appalachian Trail hike even begins. Nick Nolte, with his unkempt appearance, gravelly voice and crude outlook on life, is the lone bright spot here. He does an admirable job with little to work with, and you get the feeling you wish you were watching him in a better movie. Unfortunately, there isn't much chemistry between the two veteran actors. "A Walk in the Woods" stumbles from the first step and never gets its footing.

I expected this documentary to lean left. I expected it to show all of Lee Atwater's warts. I expected it to shine a harsh light on the dirty campaign tactics that define modern politics. However, I wasn't prepared for the severe leftward tilt of its content. Goodness, if only we had known how angelic Michael Dukakis was, we wouldn't have elected him president, we would have proclaimed him pope! Viewing this film it becomes obvious that his political views and poor campaign had absolutely nothing to do with his landslide defeat. It was all because of that awful man from South Carolina and the millions of sheep who were tricked into voting for the vice president! It's a shame there couldn't have been more balance instead of a litany of complaints from defeated opponents and a condemnation of many of the same tactics used by Democrats. I would have preferred a more rounded look at the man and of politics in general, where both sides have committed their share of bashing, scheming and pandering.

I didn't think it was possible, but I finally watched a Ray Winstone movie that wasn't very good. "Tracker" has a fine premise and could have provided a valuable history lesson, as few Americans (myself included) have little knowledge of the Boer Wars. However, despite the gorgeous New Zealand scenery, the plot, direction and acting are fairly lame. Temuera Morrison, playing the native Maori being tracked, overacts to an embarrassing degree and even Winstone - one of my favorite non-American actors - seems to be doing little more than going through the motions. The plot is predictable, the dialog stilted and the movie itself does little more than take up time.

"Almost Famous" is nearly perfect as a film about the glory days of rock 'n' roll, when we thought our music just might change the world. But this is not an expose on the dangers, debauchery and shallowness of rock's practitioners. It is an achingly sweet coming-of-age tale that explores issues faced by musicians of the rock era, their fans and all those on the sidelines. The protagonist, William Miller (Patrick Fugit), is a precocious, fresh-faced 15-year-old who has been infused with the magic of rock by his older sister, a wonderful Zooey Deschanel, who has had enough of her domineering, protective mother (played with relish by Frances McDormand) and leaves home to become a stewardess. She bequeaths to William her precious treasure trove of albums. Young rock writer William is mentored by Creem magazine editor Lester Bangs (the magnificent Phillip Seymour Hoffman. "Be honest and unmerciful," Bangs advises) and gets a plumb assignment from Rolling Stone magazine to cover an up-and-coming band, Stillwater. He ends up on the road with the group, precariously balancing a fan's exuberance with a sense of professionalism. William is befriended - and protected in a strange way - by another teen, Penny Lane, a groupie (no, "band-aid," she declares) who uses William to get close to Stillwater's lead guitarist, Russell, played by Billy Crudup. Kate Hudson, as Penny Lane, is simply astonishing, lending depth to a role that could easily have become a cliché. Every scene in which she appears seems to take on a luminous quality, partly because of her angelic appearance and bubbly personality. William falls for Penny (who wouldn't?) but his love is unrequited, as she wants desperately for Russell to love her back. There are many things going on here, but director Cameron Crowe handles them all with aplomb, bringing the plot to an unexpected but satisfying conclusion. As one who personally experienced rock's golden age, the movie touches me in a very personal way. But even for those who had the misfortune of being born after Zeppelin rocked the arenas, "Almost Famous" delivers an emotional wallop. I saw this movie shortly after its release in 2000, and I have revisited it many times since, which is as rewarding as listening to old records again and again. To do otherwise would be like playing Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band one time and then throwing the album away.

Guess what? My cat sprouted wings and flew up into the sky, eventually landing on the moon and starting a whole new population of space cats. That's about as believable as the ridiculous plot in this movie. Occasionally an action movie is interesting enough that it is worth suspending belief a bit. I accept that. "Salt," however, doesn't just bend believability, it folds it into and throws it in the trash can. Gee, a single (though really hot) woman can outwit and outfight everybody in the CIA, Secret Service, KGB, Washington, D.C., police and anyone else standing in her way. She can successfully escape from CIA headquarters and a church crawling with agents and police. Yeah, right. I've seen comic book superheros more believable than the characters in this movie. I couldn't believe that professional movie critics actually applauded this movie. For shame.

With "Avatar" James Cameron practically bludgeons us with his own brand of "green" political correctness. Let's see ... An advanced race of people invade a serene wilderness in order to subjugate the peaceful natives. No, that doesn't sound anything like the leftist drivel passing for American history today, does it? Politics aside, the movie is breathtaking in its scope, with special effects that are nothing short of miraculous. Viewers are certainly drawn into the world of Pandora. Watching the movie, with its green-screen wonderment, provides a welcome escape from our everyday lives. Unfortunately, this movie fails us in other ways. While I certainly don't share the tree-hugging politics of Cameron and his ilk, I could have appreciated the movie more if he would have at least inserted some nuance into the characters. Instead, we have the stereotypical colonel trampling the forest and mowing down the peaceful aliens while spouting B-movie lines. Oh well, guess you can't have everything, even for $250 million.

"The Blind Side" is a decent movie about some decent people who gave a decent young man a chance at life. Unfortunately, that's about as exciting as it gets. As a feel-good movie, it pales in comparison to many other films I would place in the same category. Take "October Sky" as an example. It has many similarities to "The Blind Side." Both are about a teen-ager who has had little encouragement in his life and an adult who sees potential and nurtures it. Both have positive outcomes. And both are based on true stories. But "October Sky" gave us a much more compelling story and kept us more emotionally involved. The fault may lie partly on the subject matter, but I believe there it more to it than that. I, for one, believe Sandra Bullock's Oscar was one of the least deserved in recent history. I may be no drama expert, like some who are on the message board claim to be, but to me her performance was uninspired. All in all, much of the time while I was watching the movie it seemed like something I'd seen a million times on the Hallmark Hall of Fame channel or a Lifetime movie of the week.

Gee, let's see... 1. Why didn't C.J.'s defense attorney subpoena C.J.'s boss at the TV station, who would have told the jury that C.J. had been pushing a story about the DA planting evidence? That would have at least put reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. 2. Michael Douglas warns C.J. that prison phone calls are monitored (duh...). But apparently his flunky co-conspirator detective wasn't aware that parking garages serving the DA's office would probably be videotaped. Besides, the donut-creating "terror" scene was stupid. 3. C.J. was smart enough to develop a brilliant plot involving a fake interview that earned him a journalism award, but so dumb he gives his girlfriend a copy so that she could later make the connection between his fake story and the murder. Take these mistakes, throw in some poor acting and a totally unnecessary car chase and you have "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." Better yet, don't watch the movie in the first place, and save yourself an hour and a half.

Quentin Tarantino is victorious in a re-write of history with this joyous romp through World War II, in which Jewish-American recruits kill Nazis and put so much fear into the survivors Hitler himself is impressed. Many will criticize this movie, citing its historical inaccuracy, intense violence and peculiar staging. But I felt they all came together perfectly. The viewer is constantly forced to readjust, like an over-matched defender in a football game. Christoph Waltz is outstanding in a juicy role that should earn him an Oscar. Waltz's turn as a courteous and urbane Nazi who conducts his Jew-killing duties with relish is a hoot. And as if viewers weren't satisfied enough with the journey, we are treated at the end with a delightful twist that caps the fun. I recommend "Inglourious Basterds" with a caveat: Enter into the viewing experience with an open mind and hang on for the ride. You won't be disappointed.

This turkey is a total waste of time. The plot was so full of holes it couldn't float in a tub of jelly, the characters were developed as well as film in a greenhouse, and the dialog sounded like it was written by a three-year-old with a learning disability. I actually felt sorry for Morgan Freeman, hearing some of the lines he had to utter ("Do you think this is the OK Corral and you're some kind of action hero? You're a teacher, for God's sake! Wise up!"). About the only thing good about this movie might be that other producers now realize parts of Bulgaria work pretty well as a stand-in for the American Northwest. Please do yourself a favor and put this one back on the video store shelf where it belongs.

"Food Inc." certainly provides a lot of food for thought (pun intended). It is a worthwhile documentary and deserves some attention. However, it is unfortunate that it is so biased. Full disclosure: I am a journalist who writes for an agricultural publication which takes advertising dollars from some of the corporations slammed in this film. So I may have a slight bias toward farming. But I would like to add a little balance. For instance, how many people realize that E. coli can infect organic foods as well as corporately grown foods? In fact, it is likely that some of the spinach involved in the E. coli outbreak of a few years ago was grown on an organic farm. Organic produce can easily be tainted with E. coli, since it usually comes from animal feces, and manure is often used to fertilize organic fields. But that bit of information was conveniently left out of the documentary. Also, it is ridiculous to blame the food industry for the California family's love affair with fast food. To claim they are virtually forced to eat McDonald's burgers because broccoli is too expensive is laughable. A family can eat a well-rounded diet very economically. And that, by the way, is largely because of the wonderful advances made by the agricultural industry over the past few decades which has made food production more efficient.

This movie, about love lost and found, started out full of promise. An Eskimo village in the Canadian arctic is visited by a British mapmaker in 1931 who befriends an orphaned native, Avik. Avik contracts tuberculosis and the mapmaker flies him to Montreal, where he is raised in a Catholic hospital/school. He heals, learns English and meets a girl who, like him, is a half-breed, and they enjoy an episode of puppy love until she is whisked away. So far, so good. We anticipate the two meeting again. A decade later he ends up as part of an RAF bombing crew in World War II. Coincidentally, the girl is also working for the British military, reading the photographs taken by Avik on his bombing runs. Also, she is involved with the man who rescued young Avik years earlier. This was one of those movies that sent one to the kitchen after the first act to microwave some popcorn and enjoy the rest. Unfortunately, the second half was disappointing. The characters, relationships and situations don't live up to expectations. Much of the cinematography is excellent, and it's not a total waste. But the film could have been so much more.

This movie was a waste of nearly three hours. OK, we get it, Spike: Black people were treated like dirt during World War II just like they are now, right? This heavy-handed history lecture rubbed me the wrong way all the way through. I rented it because I'm a history buff and I am fascinated by WWII, but there wasn't much to like here. Lee made a jumbled mess of this historical fiction. It was disappointing to see him insert such crude stereotypes (the racist white commander, the fighting black brothers, the black-white sexual tension) in this piece. I guess he doesn't have much left to say, so he's saying all the same, old tired things again. By the way, I'm no expert, but isn't it unlikely that these footsoldiers - especially black solders - would be equipped with Browning automatic rifles instead of regular, single-shot bolt-action bolt rifles? Doesn't seem possible.

"Frozen River" is another of those under-the-radar movies that keep popping up in this era of big-budget, big-name extravaganzas. And, like many others along the same lines, it is a satisfying piece of work, providing consistent drama. Melissa Leo is excellent in the role of Ray, a "gambling widow" who does what she must to care for her kids. The movie ambles along on a steady pace, keeping us interested throughout. Unofortunately, like many independent pics, the director avoids opportunities to stoke the fires of drama. It is understandable in one sense, but disappointing in another. As an example, we are taken to the brink of exciting plot points on several occasions: when the women are pulled over by a trooper; when they inadvertently leave a baby on a frozen road; and when the son nearly sets the trailer on fire with a blowtorch. With all these incidents, we are half expecting major results, such as the the women getting caught smuggling, the baby dying or the trailer burning down. It's understandable in one sense that the director chooses not to proceed to the seemingly obvious results. However, the viewers sometimes feel a bit teased by such elements. All in all, though, this is a very good movie that is worth a watch.

How is it possible that Clint Eastwood can continue, after all these decades, to make and star in great movies? Because he's the man, that's why. Eastwood scores again in "Gran Torino," a sort of "Dirty Harry" meets "Grumpy Old Men." Clint shows us again why he deserved the Irving Thalberg award. He is a true legend in the movie business. This tale presents Eastwood as a crusty, bigoted Korean War veteran whose weathered face hints at a world of horrors he has visited. He grudgingly befriends a Hmong family next door, taking an interest in them after his beloved wife dies. He has no warm fuzzies for most people - even his own family - but slowly develops a deep respect for this immigrant clan, realizing after several incidents in the neighborhood that they embody some of the human traits he holds dear: honor, justice and loyalty. "Gran Torino" is one of the best movies of 2008 and it's a travesty that it didn't even get a single Oscar nomination. Nevertheless, Clint proved once again that he can hold his own, whether as a 30-year-old gunslinger or a 78-year-old grandpa.

The premise of "Frost/Nixon" certainly doesn't elicit much excitement. A movie about one person interviewing another person, even if one of them is Richard Nixon, seems like it would be a yawner. But Ron Howard turns it into a captivating piece of cinema. My first reaction was that Frank Langella was robbed for not winning the Academy Award. After setting aside my initial reaction and contemplating the movie, I became even more convinced. His performance was one of the best I have seen in years. Langella did what even Nixon failed to do: He made him a seem like a three-dimensional human being. He should have won hands down. I spent the summer sitting in front of the television set watching the Watergate hearings (we didn't have many channels back then), so it was fascinating to see this movie. But for those who didn't, it should still be a must-see. Not only will you learn a little about an important piece of history, you will be imminently entertained. Frost/Nixon is a real winner.

Director Adam Brooks offers a chick flick with an interesting twist. A young girl badgers her soon-to-be-divorced father into telling how he and her mother met. After finally relenting, he agrees to tell the story. But he also adds other tidbits, including relationships with other women, and he tells her he will change the names. That way, she - and the viewers - won't know who the mother is until the story comes to an end. It's a refreshing twist on the genre, with the male describing his romantic interludes rather than the female, and it works on a number of levels. Actually, the plot reminded me of the screen version of the musical "Momma Mia," in which Meryl Streep's engaged daughter invites her mother's lovers to her wedding in a plot to determine which is her father. Of course, in this movie, young Abigail Breslin knows who her mother is, but she doesn't know which character in Dad's story is her. The dad (Ryan Reynolds) spins an interesting tale in which three love interests are weaved in and out of his life. Will the girl's mother be his high school sweetheart, Emily? Or will it be the kinky but substantive Summer? Or maybe cute, quirky April? Or maybe another side character in the story? We are left to wonder. More importantly, we are genuinely interested. The ending is satisfying without being contrived. Guys, if you have to see a chick flick (and who doesn't?) this year, you could do a lot worse than this one.

It's often difficult to provide commentary on a movie with such a heated topic. It seems that whatever you say, you're always conscious that someone may consider you a "homophobe" (whatever that is) or that you're skirting the issue. However, I feel I have a pretty good compass as a movie fan: I can judge a film strictly on its own merits. Having said that, I rate "Milk" as a slightly better-than-average biopic, not a masterpiece, as breathless critics fell over themselves to proclaim. Again, I feel the same way about actors. While I personally despise everything Sean Penn stands for, I've always said I believe he is one of our finest actors today. However, I still didn't feel he put in Oscar-worthy work here. The movie just seemed to drag in parts and, while it held my interest, it just didn't enrapture me.

The highly underrated "Zorro, the Gay Blade" does what, unfortunately, a lot of comedies don't: It entertains. George Hamilton is perfect in his duel roles as the long-absent son of the legendary Zorro and his identical twin, who has joined the British navy and flaunts his effeminate lifestyle. I don't understand why this movie gets such a low rating on IMDb. It may not be classic cinema destined for a spot in the Smithsonian, but it delivers what it promises: Lots of laughs. Sure, the characters are stereotypes, many of the scenes are over the top and the plot is perhaps a bit uneven. But in a farce, there's nothing wrong with that, and that is what this movie is. Ron Leibman as the corrupt alcalte and Brenda Vaccaro as his long-suffering wife add to the film with their wonderful over-acting. The movie has a good comic pace and even manages to finish on a warm note. Sure, it isn't perfect, but not many movie comedies can manage to accomplish what it should: This one does.

Ken Burns gained fame with this major work and deservedly so. Admittedly, I am an unabashed lifelong fan of the sport, but I believe anyone with any type of interest in American history would do well to invest several hours on this wonderful documentary. His groundbreaking style is evident here, such as the innovative use of panning over still photographs and the mix of people who lived some of events, along with modern historians who have spent their lives studying them. I believe that to understand America is to understand baseball, and Ken Burns certainly follows that philosophy. Of course, with any human endeavor, there is room for improvement and points of criticism. My minor criticism may include the inordinate focus on the Yankees, though I agree it would be difficult to produce a documentary on the sport without spending a lot of time on that team, since it has embodied such a large part of its history. It is admirable that Burns made a commitment to include a major part of baseball's history that has been overlooked by many: the influence of blacks and the Negro Leagues. However, as important and necessary is that inclusion, it does seem that at times to spends a bit too much time on it at the expense of other worthy subjects. Still, such a criticism is minor. This is a wonderful compilation worthy of every minute you spend watching it.

Being a history buff, I rented this movie because of the subject matter. The idea of the Ellis Island experience at the turn of the century focusing on one small group is intriguing. Unfortunately, the movie falls flat. Much of the story is simply boring; nothing much happens for long stretches. The director uses goofy imagery (offered up in the form of daydream sequences) in an apparent attempt to break up the glacial pacing, but instead, it clashes with the authentic look and feel of the movie. The characters are also poorly drawn. In the end, we don't really care as much about them as we should. It's a shame that this wasn't what it could have been. I would still like to see a good movie about the American immigrant experience, but this one isn't it.

I got "Honeydripper" based on the sleeve information, which made it seem like it might be interesting in the same way that the excellent Samuel L. Jackson vehicle "Black Snake Moan" was. The movie did keep my attention somewhat, but I was disappointed with its slow pace and meandering nature. Plus, the director could have done a better job of depicting basic elements of the plot. For instance, on the "big night" that is supposed to be making money for the club, there appears to be about 12 to 15 people in the nightclub. I don't think he could have made enough money to pay expenses on that. Anyway, I guess disappointment is my basic reaction. If you're interested in blues in the integrated Deep South, check out the aforementioned "Black Snake Moan." It is a superior movie.

I realize actors sometimes make movies just for the money, and I don't really have a problem with that: Everyone has a right to pull down a buck. But I applauded Jodie Foster when she turned down an opportunity to reprise her role as Clarice Starling in "Hannibal," the awful sequel to "The Silence of the Lambs." No kudos from me, however, for her decision to star in "The Brave One." While not as horrid a movie as "Hannibal," it is certainly below her standards. After watching this movie I was surprised at the mostly positive reviews it got. I thought it was a lame attempt to resurrect the vigilante flick. Besides its general poor quality of the writing and direction, there are three major problems here: The transition from gun novice to sharp-shooting killer, the under-developed subplot involving her radio career and the ridiculous wrap-up when Terrance Howard asks Jodie to indulge him by shooting him in the arm. Pretty lame, if you ask me.

There should have been a movie made about the fabled MIT blackjack team Strategic Investments. Unfortunately, it shouldn't have been this one. "21" takes the basic premise of the true story and throws virtually everything else out. Now, I don't have a problem with a bit of poetic justice; real life sometimes doesn't translate handily to drama. But this movie didn't add anything interesting. The script is amateurish and the dialog clunky. The acting was third rate; even the great Kevin Spacey and Lawrence Fishburne couldn't manage to rise above the material. I believe there was supposed to be some sort of relationship between Jim Sturgess and Kate Bosworth but I yawned my way through it, so I guess I missed it. This is truly the worst movie I've seen in a long time. I don't recommend taking a gamble on this loser.

"There Will Be Blood" reminded me very much of "Gangs of New York," which also featured another scenery-eating performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. The cinematography is lush, the acting deep and the overall feel of the film majestic. But it is ultimately unsatisfying. The movie traces the life of a misanthropic loner who turns the American dream into a nightmare. Day-Lewis refers to himself as an oil man, and that's what he is. He lets nothing get in the way of getting what he wants, though we're never really sure what that is. Money isn't really the goal, as he turned down a deal offered by Standard Oil that would have made him a multi-millionaire. "What would I do?" he asks as he turns down the deal. No doubt, Day-Lewis is a masterful actor, adept at turning in performances of larger-than-life characters. I was disappointed, however, in the Eli Sunday character, as played by Paul Dano, who was so good in "Little Miss Sunshine." It's unfortunate that a movie often praised as being iconoclastic reverts to the tired stereotype of the hypocritical, self-aggrandizing preacher. And, frankly, Dano's performance is somewhat lacking in nuance. The movie meanders over 2 1/2 hours before crashing to a jarring end. "I am finished," Day-Lewis's character pronounces. He should have said that about an hour earlier.