R

Three girls walk the length of Australia after they're taken from their family.

This film is quite harsh and views like a dramatized documentary which, in most senses, it is. The delivery is quite mature and deadpan from the children which unfortunately loses its charm as it becomes unrealistic. As well, while the film is about the long trek, the Australian outback becomes rather repetetive and encounters quickly begin to repeat themselves. Nevertheless, the suffering and tribulations are clearly expressed and the point is made with a minimum of fuss.

***1/2 out of *****

Zebra wants to be a racehorse

You're better off watching Babe. I could just leave it at that, but this is supposed to be a review, so here goes... Plenty of name-brand actors providing voice-overs. Same 'ol mouth-moving, facial-expression CG you've seen before. Generally harmless, feel-good family film. Entirely predictable, entirely cliched. It's got the standard quotient of "Aww!" with baby zebra in the beginning. Too much in the way of bird-poop jokes. There are a handful of puns and jokes that are aimed at adults, but the vast majority is wacky animal antics for kids. Love interest, evil racetrack owner, secret beneficiary, it's all there and it all plays out exactly like you think it will. Anyone could've written this script.

**1/2 out of *****

Rain, wailing, naptime...

Supposedly this is a landmark and classic film...to somebody. Long stretches of just staring, crying, or talking...very...slowly... The plot sounds interesting enough, but I've never seen an idea so promising turned into such an abysmal wreck. The characters are unlikable and the action is laughable. For a Kurosawa film about a samurai and a bandit, I'd expect better action. It's just a lot of writhing in the dirt, pitifully. Even the ending and moral are ridiculous non-sequiturs. Yech.

* out of *****

Life with a rat

While the movie sure sounded like a great idea, the plot involving a guy turning into a rat and the Jim Henson shop involved, the film never lives up to its expectations. The main disappointments are twofold. First, the premise suggests whimsy, fantasy, or at least some sort of special effects. None of that is present and it's a rather droll script, which leads to the second problem: the movie is kinda boring. The characters treat the main event of the story like someone has the hiccups or pneumonia, rather than turned into a rat. While that device is amusing at first, it doesn't work when used through the entire movie. The story is merely ok and never attains any level of being particularly interesting.

** out of *****

If I had to put Pixar's films on a scale, my personal picks would place Finding Nemo at the top and Cars or Bug's Life at the bottom. Still, all their movies are miles better than any other animated fare out there, so even their worst is better than everyone else's best. That said, Ratatouille falls right in the middle of the list - not their best, but not their worst. Each of their movies is more lovingly crafted than the one before and this is no exception - fur is rendered ultrarealistically, food is depicted as if you could smell it from your seat, and the panoramic city views are hard to accept as computer generated fabrications since they look like a snapshot. The story is where this things really soar, being both a gentle plot and an adventurous script. Characters are colorful, environments are lifelike, and the story holds your interest to the end. That said, there are some things missing or off. There is little in the way of comic relief - Remy's brother, Emile, seems like he should be the joke guy, but he contributes little, and the film overall has the comedy of a mediocre sitcom rather than the big gags of earlier Pixar pieces. The hair thing (that's all I'll spoil), is alo contrived for cheap laughs, some of the only big ones of the movie, and doesn't make a lot of sense. As wondeful as the well-crafted storytelling is, these elements that might raise it to the roof are too subdued, and thus the film places in my ranking where it does.

**** out of *****

Covalescing voyeur sees things he shouldn't.

Another stand-in-place film, the action takes place almost entirely in the main character's apartment as he looks out over his neighborhood while recovering from a broken leg. While the film is by Hitchcock, everything until the last 15 minutes of the film sure doesn't feel like it. It's playful, romantic and dreadfully slow. This could've easily been a 30 minute tv episode. The characters are unfortunately not very deep and sporadic, coming and going since it's all based in one room. Probably decent if you're into the classics, but hard to endure for a casual rental.

** out of *****

Infidelity leads to not having an apartment door

The advertising gimmick for this film is that it's a romance with a fantasy twist. It states that after the main character has an affair with a married woman outside his current relationship, everyone suddenly forgets who he is. Well, that's true, but it takes up about 10 mins of the movie. In fact, outside of those 10 minutes, that whole concept is completely forgotten, and what we have left is a really stupid protagonist making really dumb decisions with his dick, and a lot of stereotypical slow-moving foreign-film romance. It's presented in the frame of a fictional fantasy, but it never really does more than dip its toes in the water, and even confuses itself with a techno-thriller with the overhead satellite views. Nice to watch, some pretty neat visuals, but ultimately empty and confusing.

** out of *****

Teenagers rebel against a Cuban/Communist invasion.

Worst. Movie. Ever. Well, it's in my bottom ten, at least. There is so much horribly wrong with this film. The script is inane, the dialogue is laughable, the plot is unbelieveable, the climax is hypocritical. We often found ourselves laughing at what were supposed to be serious scenes. The production value is truly abysmal. Worst is the extremist ideal of "wouldn't it be great if there was a holocaust in the US and red-blooded, armed, patriotic, high-school football players beat back the nazis (commies)?" A right-wing wet dream.

* out of *****

Hotel concierge in peril

The film starts adequately enough without much evidence of maliciousness or danger and is, in fact, rather nice. It would make a cute, if uninspirational, romantic comedy. After twenty minutes, we get into the meat of the story, but discover that there's not much on the bone. Our heroine suffers through a not particularly threatening encounter with the antagonist who, while creepy, also has only one rather nonlethal weapon. The tension tends to run at a light Hitchcock-ian level, that's a slow burn of mild concern. The climax is merely a basic, uninteresting chase element. The focus of the film seems to be on empowering the main character to spend her time outwitting and beating the crap out of her pursuer, which just serves to make the film less scary. At no time was I actually concerned for her safety. At least, with Wes Craven directing, it was executed with a sprinkling of cheesy humor. In all, it's pretty standard and basic.

** out of *****

Stage comedy on Shakespeare

I went and saw these guys live for their All The Great Works show (historical novels) and was highly entertained. There's not a whole lot of comedy that can make me laugh until I can't breathe, but that show did it. I'm pleased to say that this presentation of all of Shakespeare's works in 90 minutes is equally hysterical. The actors' energy level is high and frantic and they spend nearly the entire show running, yelling, and quick-changing, throwing puns and foreign objects at the audience in rapid succession. The madcap behavior is nearly cartoony in its scope. It unfortunately drags a little in the middle, where plays normally do, but it winds up on a very high note, saving the funniest pratfalls for last. Highly recommended comedy genius, either live or on DVD. Be sure to watch the slightly different original show in the extras.

****1/2 out of *****

Hasty coverage of Brian Jacques' books

This video was originally a made-for-tv cartoon and it certainly shows, with farmed-out Rankin/Bass-style animation and obvious breaks for commercials. The original tv debut of Redwall was as an animated series and thus had ample time to cover all the nuances of the story in vignettes of 20-30 minutes, making for a more satisfying overall experience. Condensing the entirety into 90 minutes, however, makes for bad storytelling. The rush also bleeds into continuity, resulting in gaping plot holes and clear inconsistencies in environment and character behavior, with unintentionally humorous results. I understand that Redwall is geared towards tweens, but the lack of blood to show for the significant amount of violence that is portrayed stands out glaringly. The overall story, if perceived at a distance, is a decent one and deserves recognition, but is probably best viewed through the tv series rather than this Cliff Notes edition.

*1/2 out of *****

Heroine watches video that kills in seven days. Hilarity ensues.

Needs more dragons. The dragons kicked ass. When they were on the screen, the movie rocked. When they weren't, it was just decent. It was much fun to watch, but it was also abrupt and had a cut/paste feel to it, with very little segue. Things just kinda happened, then stopped happening without a lot of rhyme, reason, or smoothness. It seemed like an amateur job that needed a pro's fine touch. It's a shame the movie did poorly, otherwise we'd have a sequel - Now with more Dragon! Definitely the coolest critter FX I've seen in a long time.

*** out of *****

Ex-con steals the wrong identity.

It's hard to explain the movie without giving too much away. Suffice to say, stealing identities is wrong, kids. Don't do it. Or you'll end up dead in a Santa suit, on fire, with your head through a car windshield. Or something. Normally, I can't stand Ben Affleck anymore, but this was one of his pre JLo roles when he was still reasonably competent. Gary Sinise is also entertainingly nasty along with some other heavies from other films reprising their familiar roles as other heavies again. Good surprise ending, too, just when you think you know what's going on and all...

*** out of *****

N/A

I had the good fortune of seeing the very first Ren & Stimpy on the big screen when it was touring with the International Tournee of Animation back in the early 90's. When it was on tv, the first season was so popular that that's pretty much all that was ever rerun. Seasons 3-5 are episodes that didn't get quite as much airtime, but are nearly equally entertaining. It's the same ol' Ren & Stimpy that you loved as a kid (or as an adult), but showing signs that the animators had reached their stride. Many episodes were still fun, enough to make us laugh til we cried in a few cases, but it can get a little draining after a while. The Lost Episodes, however, are an entirely different animal. Made a few years ago for Spike TV, they represent an absolute gutting of anything resembling the original. The animation has the quality of a Flash production, the pacing is completely off, the voices and personalities are totally wrong, and it voids what the original tv show so carefully balanced: it crossed the line. Do you REALLY want to see Stimpy taking a crap? Or Ren being inserted into someone's anus? Neither did we. There are six episodes over two discs in the Lost Episodes set - we watched two of them and returned both discs because we couldn't take anymore. I'd gladly watch four more seasons of the original than the remaining four episodes on that set.

Seasons 3-4: ***1/2, Seasons 4-5: ***1/2, Lost Episodes: 1/2

Musical soap opera in NYC

I didn't have much in the way of high expectations for this film, having not found a lot of pleasure in the idea of watching a social drama about poor HIV+ college dropouts living a run-down NYC studio. Sounds depressing, right? Actually, that's quite a bit distant from the reality of the film. In truth, it's an energetic, life-affirming party for the most part. Many of the musical numbers are not just dancy, but actually rather inspired - in fact, nearly all the dialogue is either a song or sung dramatically. And when a real solid musical bit comes along, it involves quite a lot of moving and shaking, in a big production atmosphere. Not all the songs are like that - some resemble a VH-1 video and that's where the story tends to drag. There's probably 30 mins worth of story which goes on hiatus for every tune. While the film also has plenty of humor, it turns predictably tear-jerky in the latter third and then doesn't seem to know what to do, coming up with a disappointingly contrived conclusion. But the fun of the film is in the getting there, it's worth taking a look.

**** out of *****

Drugs are bad

It took me six years to finally gather up the courage to see this film. The reports I'd heard on it were that it left many people a wreck after viewing it, either in tears or with nightmares. I'd let it run up to the top of my NetFlix queue over the course of a year, twice, before deleting it just before we were about to get it. I finally put my foot down, braced myself, and watched. Luckily, this is not the most horribly depressing and soul-crushing film I've ever seen (that honor belongs to "Le Temps du Loup" and "The War Within"). Yes, it's got some very effective poignant moments and it's certainly not very nice to watch three otherwise average kids with storybook dreams wreck their lives, but it was tinged with just enough humor and delved a little too far into obsessive schadenfreude towards the end, nearly relishing in it, that the shock value was tempered. The production value is excellent, with snappy edits and presentation. Any gore, sex, or drug use is either stylized or suggested rather than overtly shown, to the point that I couldn't really understand why the film had an NC-17 rating. Not really much plot either, since it's mainly about the failure to achieve conflict resolution. Nicely hard-hitting, but not the emotional bomb it's cracked up to be.

**** out of *****

Sequel to...

Oh, please don't make me review this... *sigh* Well, I knew it would be bad, but we're talking only barely above House of the Dead here. The film is one gargantuan plot hole. Let's see - if you get bitten by zombies, you turn into a zombie, check. But, for no apparent reason, if you're shot you also become a zombie. If you've been dead and buried for 100 years, you become a zombie anyway. If you get chewed up by zombie dogs, tho, you don't become a zombie? And, somehow, you might become a huge-tongued, wall-climbing mutant - for no good reason at all. The movie has no sense of timing or pacing and feels like it was directed by a 5th grader. The action and creatures are simply comic-book, even the gore is massively toned down. Comparatively, the first film was a masterpiece. To kick you while you're down, they even leave the movie unresolved for a second sequel. Skip this one.

*1/2 out of *****

Sorta-spoof of original

Oh, the glorious 80's. If you wish to relive the campy, synthpop, period costume, deadpan delivery of that era, this is the film to rent. I can't honestly tell if they were parodying the genre or were really serious in the character depictions. Since it was made in 1985, I'm guessing the latter. What you end up with is not so much an outright comedy, but an attempt so hackneyed that it's as equally inadvertently funny as it is deliberately so. In this version, waste from a government experiment is the culprit and it animates an abandoned cemetery while big-haired 80's stereotype teens run around in circles. Two things of note... First, this is the most prodigious use of zombies groaning for "brains" of any zombie film I've seen. It's so cliched by now that it's highly amusing. Second, this is the film that launched Leanna Quigley, modern day scream-queen, to B-movie stardom by having her naked in some form or another for nearly the entire film. We're talking full-frontal Playboy material. As for the rest of the film, the gore is a bit harsher than the sequel, but never really for its own sake. Nothing is accomplished in the process of the plot, but it doesn't need to be. A fun classic.

***1/2 out of *****

More brains!!!

As if the original wasn't campy enough, this sequel cranks up the humor value a few notches, making the zombies sillier, enduring more physical humor, and actually gives them a few extra lines. To its detriment, as with many sequels, the second film must co-star children, and this one's just as formulaic as they come. Throw in not only a grade schooler in peril, but make them zombies, too. A plus for the film is that it's a completely different story (albeit with the same elements), but they use the same two protagonist actors from the first film, giving them new names and having them act out a parallel plotline to the first film, even making humorous references to the deja vu. The gore in this one is more cartoony and the violence is almost Three Stooges-like. In fact, except for a single scene, the film almost got a PG-13 rating. If you liked the first one, this is more of the same. Watch for the Michael Jackson "Thriller" zombie.

*** out of *****

Believe it or not, a sequel to the original.

This is a movie from back in the mid-80s that I never got around to actually seeing, even in snippets. It's made by Walt Disney and features a look & feel much more like the classic illustrations you'll find in the older Baum books. This is no musical, it's darker and more like Labyrinth and that type. There's a very annoying talking chicken that infests the first half of the film and some annoying nitpicks like too much time spent with the antagonist, only two main locations, and not enough shots of the quad Cowardly Lion costume. Otherwise, tho, this is an interesting movie lost to the bowels of the DVD rack and worth checking out for curiosity's sake.

*** out of *****

Surfing!

Documentaries are usually meant to be interesting and educational. They're not supposed to be fun. This one turns that conception on its ear. Not only is it surprisingly fun, it's enjoyable, exciting, and often very funny! It documents the rise and current status of surfing culture, with crazy animated clipart, colorful commentary from surfing legends, and spectacular surfing footage with all the wipeouts you could want. The soundtrack carries the film enormously, with upbeat peppy background tunes from the 50's and modern era. They also explain a lot of the terminology, technology, and inherent dangers. Clocking in at 1:40, it's amazing that I never got bored even once. A layman's introduction to surfing, and probably one of the best documentaries I've seen.

****1/2 out of *****

Heroine watches video that kills in seven days. Hilarity ensues.

The best audience for a scary movie is one full of screamers, usually groups of women. They gibber and screech at just the right moments. The Ring really wrung it out of them with plenty of scare-after-scare-after-scare scenes. It also had plenty of squirmy moments, where you're just aghast at what's happening/is about to happen. And it's all done with a considerable restraint of gruesomeness, which is thoroughly impressive considering how scary the movie is (I watched through my hand some of the time). Redefines 'creepy'. Probably the scariest film I've seen since Blair Witch. The acting is above par, but not spectacular, and the very tippy end didn't make sense, but there's a lot of things left unresolved during the film and the director frames it all in the most uncomfortable way. The less you know, the scarier it is. And they often let you stew in terrified ignorance for quite a while before giving you an inkling of what just happened.
And sometimes you were better off not knowing.

**** out of *****

Sequel-itis, asian style

Clearly taking advantage of the money to be made in ill-conceived and hastily produced sequels, The Ring 2 does pretty much what you'd expect. It goes back to the well and tries to pretend that no one saw the first movie, so when the surprises occur you'll find yourself saying, "Wait, I've seen this already." It relies way too much on people suddenly grabbing each others arms to scare you, at least four or five times, all telegraphed far in advance. Out heroine also seems to have forgotten everything she learned in the first movie, proceeding to leave her child alone repeatedly, with the inevitable results. Our bad spirit is also out of character from the prior film, behaving differently, exhibiting new powers, and generally mesing with the mythos that the first film set. In all, the franchise is now a basic, uninventive, unsurprising supernatural thriller with only mild entertainment value.

** out of *****

Documentary about the history of LotR fandom

Don't go into this documentary expecting to see wild and zany footage of a Lord of the Rings convention with people running around in costume, mingling with the cast, or such. The vast majority of the film is about the history of the popularity of LotR, from its inception through modern day. It's told mostly by the actors, filmmakers, and authors so it's really LotR talking about itself which makes the film appear a bit narcissistic. While it gets a humorous start, it quickly devolves into somewhat dull talking heads. In between those are scattered snippets of monologues with fans in a box (they apparently put a sealed booth at SDCC in '03 to let fans "confess" their loves of LotR), a handful of "Ringers" (fans), and interviews with questionably affiliated Hollywood names, like David Carradine and Cameron Crowe. If you're a LotR fan, this is probably required viewing, but for those not quite as rabid it's informative but tends to drag. Stay for the bits from the fans and watch the extra-special confessions in the Special Features.

*** out of *****

Krumping

Now and then I like to gamble on a movie and see if I'll like it or not, try something new. Rize was one of those gambles, seeing as I'm not overly fond of urban lifestyle themes or documentaries on dancing. Luckily, this turned out to be a relatively enjoyable exploration of a new dance style in the urban backwoods of LA called 'krumping'. Basically, it's flailing around really fast with a severe attitude, bump n' grind innuendo, and a little humor. It was originally started by clowns (yes, clowns) that are, generally speaking, a more benevolent brand of gang that are more about having fun and less about killing each other. There's a lot of entertaining moves and gyrations peaking with a full-scale stadium competition in the center of the film. Unfortunately, it loses the plot after that and devolves into a litany of how South Central is dangerous and poor, etc. The film also has an uncomfortable amount of little kids doing the nasty dance while adults are illogically insisting it has nothing to do with sex. Overlooking that, it's still a unique and entertaining diversion from the usual fare.

***1/2 out of *****

Health fads gone wrong in the 1800s

Featuring Matthew Broderick, Anthony Hopkins and a number of other recognizeable faces, the film tells the story of cereal mogul Kellog and his often deranged health club. It's not necessarily a wacky movie, but it's pleasant enough. There's also more skin than I've seen in most modern films, and it addresses some pretty touchy subjects, even by today's standards. Still, if this isn't a problem for you, there are plenty of funny bits and a relatively satisfying conclusion. The most interesting feature, to me, was the performances of Anthony Hopkins and Dana Carvey who were almost unrecognizeable. For whatever reason, this movie is only available in full-screen. :P

*** out of *****

Robin Williams, mostly

This film is nearly entirely about the visuals, and Robin Williams' humor. First, the design of the scenery, robotic doodads, and even the characters are brilliant. The film would probably still entertain if it was watched entirely on mute. I only wish they hadn't shot more than half their creative wad on the minutes-long Crosstown scene, which is incomparable in its Rube-Goldberg contraption-ness. The second leg of the film is Robin Williams, who detrimentally overshadows all the other characters. His energy is light years beyond the rest of the cast (including Ewan MacGregor in the lead, just as listless as he was in the lead of Valiant) and multiplied exponentially by the fact that his animated character is hyped-up to complement his comedy. This is pretty much 90% of the film because aside from the visuals and Williams, the rest is rather drab and mediocre. Word to the wise: a film should be animated because it can't be done with real people, thus the characters should behave unlike real people, thus the voices should complement the unreality of the characters (funny, unique, stereotypical - see Toy Story). There's a plot in there somewhere, too, but it's barely noticeable.

***1/2 out of *****

Four tales of robots

This is an independent film in English, but featuring mostly Asian-American actors. It's got a low budget, so don't expect any wild CG or special effects. In fact, most of the robot elements seem to be made from household items. This all lends a humanity to the movie, focusing on how people around the robots deal with things (except the rather silly third story about robot love). Three are dramas, achieving varying amounts of moral lesson and compassion, and one is humorous and makes a great break from the pathos. The acting is mediocre and it tends to move rather slowly, but its uniqueness makes you want to see how it plays out. Kinda neat if you're interested in some rudimentary sci-fi and culture.

*** out of *****

Heavy Metal for kids

Where to begin? This animated 80s outing from Canadian outfit Nelvana bills itself as a rock opera in the vein of Heavy Metal. The content of the film, with the exception of one gratuitious drug scene, is nearly Saturday-morning material. But nothing that I would get up early for. The pacing of the film, and especially the animation, is unnaturally lethargic. You can hear the voice actors having to speak in near slow-motion to match the overly-gesticulating characters on the screen. Many of the lines are so cliche and corny that they're nearly condescending, and they're sometimes delivered mumbled and spoken on top of each other. Pacing is hideous with extensive, drawn out and blurry landscapes followed by barely two seconds of expositionary transition. Supposedly, all the cats, dogs and rats were mutated after a world war, but cats, rats, and dogs are shown unmutated and populating the city. The characters are instead grotesque Don Bluth-wannabes that are simply unpleasant to look at and usually unidentifiable by species. The tunes would qualify for elevator muzak today. I guessed the ending five minutes in. Horrid.

* out of *****

The importance of being a virgin.

You get to be carried along as a bitter city guy tries to get his nephew laid. Definitely an interesting film with gray (as opposed to black) humor drier than even Oscar Wilde could've whipped up. The main character is nearly an anti-hero and at times there seems to be no good guys at all. A bit depressing at times and at others it feels like one long rant or a statement. At least the statement is basically good, even though it's emphasized with somewhat uncomfortable plot elements. Definitely not your typical good guy/bad guy movie.

**1/2 out of *****

N/A

I was expecting this to be a big steaming heap of poop. Surprisingly, it wasn't. While it was very loud and extremely difficult to follow at times, it was still satisfying throughout. Extremely geared towards the MTV crowd, with constant action, pretty boys, hot cars, naked women, clubs, and almost constant violent sports. If you can tolerate that, the underlying movie is pretty fun, surprise surprise.

*** out of *****

Twisty political action/thriller in Europe

I like twists! Never-saw-it-coming kinda stuff, that always brings a smile to my face. Surprises are good and this film has them by the pound. Every 10-15 minutes, something else happens that you didn't expect, which keeps the viewer totally engaged. It's also got a number of great car chases. Not CG'd ones with imaginary vehicles, but real smash-ups and exciting high-speed stunt driving. They don't make 'em like this anymore now that they can just fake all the action with computers. Some details of the film are left out, tho. The object everyone's chasing never gets explained. And the protagonist's affiliation is never clearly defined, which wreaks havoc on an explanation for his motives. Still, it's hard to be too unhappy when you've got three James Bond villains, Robert DeNiro, and Jean Reno all in the same movie.

***1/2 out of *****

Dinner on a coffin

A short time back, we watched 'Rear Window' which turned out to be a total bore. I admit that I had some trepidation about the prospect of another Hitchcock "masterpiece". Luckily, the prior experience was a fluke, and I can happily say that this movie is really cool. It's filmed so as to appear as one continuous shot, although there are actually nine cuts over the 90 minutes. It's a tense thriller that expresses itself almost entirely by dialogue and camera work over the course of a dinner party. Nearly every line has a double-meaning, forwards the plot, or is some form of dark humor so that keeps your attention throughout. The plot revolves around two murderers (who are allegedly supposed to be gay but it's not mentioned in the film) who not only hold a dinner party in the same room as the victim, but on top of the coffin to see if they can get away with it. Very exciting, edge-of-your-seat suspense without any car chases, blood, explosions, or other action. It demonstrates how good Hitchcock actually was at his work.

**** out of *****

Hamlet from the view of two extras

After a long wait, this film has finally hit DVD in the US. The original play ends with most of the main characters dead and the English envoy stating that Hamlet's chaperones, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, have been executed. That's the pair's only mention. This film, however, is all about them. Who are they? How'd they get involved? What happened to them while the rest of the play was going on? The approach is both existential, very silly, and very obviously adapted from the stage version. The characters slip in and out of victorian and relatively modern english at a whim which can be a little jarring, as well as the abrupt entrances and exits from the main Hamlet plot. The characters both seem to have no idea who they are, why they're there, and what their involvement is, despite the pages of the play that frequently flutter by. The viewer also has to wonder what the point is - why tell their story, especially since they have none? It's a cute concept, but it clearly doesn't hold up on its own. At least it's quite funny.

*** out of *****

N/A

Along the same lines of some memorably weird indie films of late, including Rushmore and Amelie, we have The Royal Tenenbaums. Imagine one of those great, quirky foreign films, but made by Disney and with a cast of famous American actors. Filled with humor and sentiment, you're carried through it without much of a dull moment, following the lives of a family trying to cope with the return of its expatriated father. Owen and Luke Wilson are particularly fun to watch.

**** out of *****

Manipulation as entertainment

This one flew by low on the radar when it zipped through theaters, so you may not have heard of it. It's actually an excellent courtroom drama with a lot of big players: Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, John Cusak. The film is a bit of a vehicle for each of them, as none of the actors play outside their usual schtick. But if you like their schtick (and I like these guys), then it's a fun mishmash of players. The film itself is quite enjoyable, with several giddy twists, although I would've liked to see more courtroom in my drama. The back-and-forth zing is what makes these types so grand, but there tended to be a lot of deviations into Tom Clancy as much as it clung to John Grisham. Still, it was good stuff if you're into this genre.

**** out of *****

Good-hearted collection thug goes on one last gig

I never did like The Rock, nor do I like wrestling. I thought he couldn't act and was just a dumb jock. Well, this film goes a good distance to proving that theory wrong, at least. Looking past the fact that many of the action sequences are just guys beating each other up with wrestling moves, it's both a funny and exciting action adventure, if rather cliched and fluffy. It's got both a satisfying ending and a soldi dose of Christopher Walken as the bad guy. That, at least, makes it easier to look past the film blatantly abandoning its hero-doesn't-use-guns moral towards the climax, which is enough to lose it some points.

*** out of *****

A Russian and a European discuss history and fine art.

This film may not be for everybody, you need to be in a real artsy-fartsy mindset to appreciate (and sit through) the film. The gimmick which drew me to it is that it's one 96-minute take, no edits or cuts, which is quite a feat. While the dialogue is not entirely comprehensible, there's almost no plot, and the humor is drier than the sahara, the "Making Of" documentary on the DVD is must-see. Before it, the film is difficult to understand, but the documentary on the film explains everything you've seen, bit by bit, and the entire film comes into focus.

*** out of *****