S

Moulin Rouge on crack

You've got your singing, you've got the music, now film it in grainy black and white, add a healthy dose of absurdism, over-the-top acting, and a barely sensible plot. Apparently this is director Guy Maddin's calling card. The film is a definitive example of "artsy-fartsy". Not only is it b&w and grainy, but it switches frequently to color and back, and has no segues into or out of flashbacks. The brand of humor is definitely unique and strange. Unfortunately, the high art gets so high as to be out of reach of the mainstream, and thus it will have less appeal to the general public. It's still an experience in itself, tho. For further craziness, check out the short-films in the bonus features, particularly the Sissy Slap Fight.

*** out of *****

Dumb & Dumber meets Navy Seals meets National Treasure

The recipe for this film involves two wacky guys fresh off the latest failed romantic comedy. Pretend they have some sort of military training, because they spend most of the movie running around and flailing at bad guys. Now take a big treasure hunt for a long-lost battleship from the civil war, with mysteries to be solved and clues to be found - and throw that part in the garbage. The whole setup for this movie was that it was a big Indiana Jones-style adventure, puzzling out the location of this ship in darkest Africa. But the film gets preoccupied with an Outbreak-style mystery and a lot of punching, fighting, and antagonist-whuppin'. The primary search is all but abandoned for the majority of the film. Everything that happens is either totally coincidental, contrived, a stroke of luck, or outright outside the bounds of suspension of disbelief. It's a dumb action movie with lots of thrills, but very little skills.

** out of *****

Cartoons + Travelogue

With a running time of only 42 minutes, this is Disney's shortest feature release. It's a politically motivated film that was designed to improve US relations with Central and South America during WW2. There is nearly no plot and it's a combination of a travelogue for the southern continent, four complete Disney cartoons featuring Goofy and Donald Duck, and some musical numbers reminiscent of Fantasia. Many scenes are not animated or are a cross of live-action and animation, mainly in scenes involving dancing with animated characters and backgrounds. It's worth noting that the travelogue portion of the program depicts South America over sixty years ago, and it's a much more developed area now with significant political and commercial environments and issues. Even for its day, this is probably a utopian illustration. The film also introduces Jose Caricola, a parrot that introduces Donald Duck to Brazillian culture. Portions of the film are dedicated to chronicling the making of Three Caballeros, the sequel to this film. It also ends rather abruptly. It's an interesting snapshot of the period, but really only for Disney completists.

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

Cartoons + Travelogue

It's great to watch a tv series get better and better in just the first season. That way, you know that the subsequent seasons are going to be really sweet. That's the case with watching Samurai Jack. The first three episodes, which make up the original movie pilot, are deeply grim and hyperstylized, even moreso than the other episodes of the series, to the point that it doesn't work quite right. Luckily, the show gets its footing very quickly, and by the last episode it perfectly balances imagery, pacing, and humor. The last episode (#13) is completely laugh-out-loud funny. The stories are mature, rich, and full of plot. There's very little rehashing of overused kiddie morals that's seen in the mass production market. Samurai Jack is one of those cartoons that I feel cool watching and look forward to the future seasons. Alas, the show never achieved a resolution, a movie was cancelled due to poor returns on The Powerpuff Girls film, and the voice of the main bad guy in the show, Mako, died earlier in 2007, so we may never know how it turns out.

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

How to be a good Christian

It must've taken a lot of courage to turn the bitey, sarcastic tone on such a heavy-handed religion, but this snarky yet engaging film about when too much is too much really hits the mark. The straight-faced, caustic delivery of ultraconservative lines and situations is at times funny and at other times painful. It reminded me strongly of "But I'm A Cheerleader." The message it sends is clear through most of the film, but wobbles at the end as it becomes an afterschool special, instead. Still, the characters are enjoyable (if borderline psychotic) and it's frequently akin to the morbid fascination of watching a train wreck. The film's reviews were all over the spectrum because it was received as blasphemy by some and hilarity by others. I'm in the latter camp and intend to buy it.

**** out of *****

Fanboy gone wrong

The ads for this film, even the music video on the DVD, are peppy, upbeat, and generally exude an air of wacky fun, making you think that the film might be a comedy, or at least a sci-fi movie. In reality, this is a horror film, focusing mainly on scenes of abuse, torture, and gore. The sci-fi angle is merely used as a cover and an afterthought to front a detective thriller with no protagonist. The level of violence is unnecessarily excessive. That being said, it's quite a decently made black comedy, too, with strong themes of bullying and revenge. It invokes or pays homage to a large selection of classic cinema, particularly in a rather funny montage near the end. The final scene of the film almost makes up for the amount of blood that preceeded it. If you like the latest swath of violent excess released on DVD by the asian market (Oldboy comes immediately to mind), this could be your cup of tea. Otherwise, this is hardcore, unrated stuff.

*** out of *****

Cuban immigrant's rise to power.

Another negative film, even more nasty than the prior three. It's basically more of the same, except Pacino's character is excruciatingly unpleasant and unlikeable. The carnage isn't approaching, it occurs through the whole film, including a particularly gruesome scene only 30 minutes in. See, it's all about the morbid curiosity, I'm starting to figure it out. Watching horrible things happen to bad people, or watching bad people get their comeuppance. The first half of the film is a bit stuttery, more like the viewer is being dragged along with little explanation. Since it covers decades of events and so many people, it's another 3-hour epic saga. One of the perks of the film is that much of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is based off this film, so a lot of stuff is recognizeable.

*** out of *****

Ripoff of the remake of House on Haunted Hill.

Definitely ranks up there as one of the stupidest movies I've seen. And it had Chris Elliott! I must admit that there were a handful of scenes that were, despite their grossness or ridiculousness, genuinely hysterical, but definitely not as many as the first film. The humor is mostly urban attitude, although the cast features some classic actors who might be regretting their participation, especially James Woods' Exorcist-ripoff scene, as funny as it was.

** out of *****

Zuckers take over.

The drug and gangsta references are mostly gone from the series with this film, taking with it the extreme gross-out humor that was funny, but I mean, jeez. Replacing it is a more family-friendly Zucker treatment, known for their Airplane and Naked Gun films. They even brought Leslie Nielsen with them. This changes the franchise significantly, swapping edgy visuals for one-liners and slapstick. That's not to say the film isn't funny, it's great fun and extremely silly. I could've done without the is-it-over-yet? 8 Mile ripoff scene that just kept going and going and wasn't funny at all. Watch for one of Nielsen's signature lines towards the end. For a trip, also check out the alternate ending in the deleted scenes.

*** out of *****

Fourth installment in franchise

What to say? This is more of the same from the prior ones in the series. It's toned down to reach a wider audience, with less overt drug use and swearing, but high levels of sexual humor. The comedy is often weak, but there are moments of hilarity, especially involving Leslie Nielsen's genius, which is offered in all-too-brief moments. The plot is patchwork, with the various spoofs (of which there are very few) tied together with the most frayed of threads. It also features actors from the prior films reprising their roles, sometimes appearing to be bored by the whole idea. I guess my enthusiasm would kinda run out, too, if these were my only source of creative expression. Generally funny in a very basic way, but could just as easily have been direct-to-video.

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

Throwback feel-good rock n' roll fest

One look at the premise of the film and Kindergarten Cop immediately comes to mind, and with it all the bad cliches of the 80s, family, happy-ending films that wore themselves out with the edgy, hip-hop themes today. Amazingly, the art of the happy, 80's, kids learn valuable lesson movie is not lost. This movie is surprisingly good. It starts off a little weak and awkward, but you quickly get used to it and are even charmed by Jack Black's far left field antics. Genuinely funny and well-meaning.

**** out of *****

Duh.

Duh. Er, I mean, ok, well, let's focus on what's good... I laughed a few times. Mathew Lillard was great and Linda Cardellini was ok. I didn't expect the ending. Uhm... Oh, crap, I couldn't stand anything else. Everyone else was horribly miscast and when they started approaching accurate they suddenly went totally out of character. The movie was a *parody* of Scooby-Doo, not a live-action version. Scooby never farted! Poor Rowan Atkinson, he's so above this (well, at least he's funnier than this)... Scooby-Doo was almost unrecognizeable except for his voice. The movie's aimed at 5 year olds. If you're older than 5, don't waste your time. Not even worth it for adults that like to think they're five year olds. This film is exactly what Big Trouble manages to rise above.

*1/2 out of *****

More of the same as the first.

The first film tried very hard to not only parody the cartoon, but threw in some cruel mockery of both it and the audience who enjoyed it. This sequel thankfully takes a lighter, more accurate (tho still violating the spirit by a country mile), and more kid-friendly approach. Cue the MTV music video scenes. Cue the fart jokes. At least Scooby looks pretty hot in Daphne's thigh-highs. Damn, inside voice, inside voice... Anyway, the concept of all their old ghosts coming back is pretty goofy and, while over-the-top at times, it makes you feel more like a kid watching a cartoon than the first film. I could've done without the sappy love-interest bits, tho, which was apparently obligatory in any recipe product.

** out of *****

Very Bad Things meets Shakespeare's Macbeth

I believe this only appeared at the Sundance film festival (might be wrong). It's a very black-humored retelling of Macbeth in rural Pennsylvania in the 1970s. The VERY 1970s. It runs from kooky to evildark and back again throughout. You know the story, but adapt it to a drive-through diner and a bunch of PA rednecks. If you like insane but creepy, spiraling-out-of-control, hokey movies, this is a great choice. To make it even better, it's got Christopher Walken in it at his franlky-frank best. This is on my list to buy. It's got crazy carnies, gay sex, burgers, and fried HEDZ! It's a love story. >:)

**** out of *****

A horse, a horse, of course, of course...

Playing like a Reader's Digest Drama in Real Life, Seabiscuit hauls out all the appropriate cliches and stereotypes for a crowd-pleasing feel-good drama. It keeps you entertained and rarely gets dull. It doesn't, however, stand out apart from other similar sports dramas. In fact, the races even feel uneventful and predictable. The horse himself doesn't personify very well, either, which is kind of necessary since the movie isn't called "Seabiscuit's Jockey." All in all, it's pleasing, but not all that memorable.

*** out of *****

Family drama/comedy about infidelity

This movie should be a somber drama about spousal relationships, but it's got pointy edges. For one thing, it's funny in very normal, family-like ways which is pretty hard to pull off. Another is the occasional realism and intensity of family crises that feel like a home video during a minor disaster. Then there's the unreality and the Denis Leary who takes an unexpected involvement in the movie and it's where most of the laughs come from. In the end, this movie would likely affect married parents than it would most others, but it's still a strong drama and an interesting indie film.

*** out of *****

Get a doctor to save a village

This film is French-Canadian and therefore spoken in full Quebecois (French), though subtitled in english. The plot is a bit of a cliche on romantic comedies, except instead of a guy and a girl pretending to be something she's not, you have a guy and an entire village pretending to be something they're not. While this particular fable can wear thin if overused, it's different enough in this film to still generate entertainment. The movie itself is actually quite funny. It's one of those feel-good, upbeat stories like Amelie or Danny Deckchair, so if you want something other than horror, action, or drama fare, this is a good candidate. Flaws include the not entirely satisfying ending and the jarring storytelling switch of fantasy and reality in the beginning and end. Still, quite recommended.

**** out of *****

Sequel to Firefly tv series

The show is very good but not spectacular, it's weak at times and great at others, coming out to above average. The characters are likeable after you watch enough episodes and you get a familiarity with them. It's like a tv series about what if Han Solo were the star instead of Luke Skywalker. Many people compare the film to Star Wars, and it's valid because if you think about it, Star Wars has been the only serious sci-fi fodder for the past 6 years. Nathan Fillion has a real Harrison Ford thing going. The film is much darker and is obviously pulling out all the stops, trying for everything from the minute to the epic. While it's capable of standalone palatability, it's definitely vastly improved if you've seen the series beforehand. You have so much interest vested in the characters that the huge plot developments mean so much more. I wonder how I would've reacted if I hadn't seen the series. Seeing as I did, the film had a solid impact on me. Exciting, funny, and some welcome and unwelcome surprises for the fans. The film hasn't been doing so well and it's evident that the future of sci-fi cinema may be riding on it. Go see it and support not only good sci-fi, but budgetary restraint as well (it was made on $30 mil).

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

Comedy about orphaned kids shuttled between foster parents

Let's be frank: this movie is about Jim Carrey. I don't think he can perform in a movie without the movie being about him, even if he's not the main character. Granted that he's funny, but he chews up the scenery so violently that you can scarcely pay attention to anyone else. The overacting is particularly inappropriate in this role since Count Olaf appears elderly, yet Carrey jumps, wiggles, and hollers like a man posessed. The other characters are well and good, but they're always in Carrey's shadow. Plot-wise, the story is adequate, with a little too many deus ex machinas for comfort. What really works well is the scenery and environment which is a steampunk-ish combination of modern conveniences and industrial revolution. It was a good try and I hope they fine-tune if they plan to make sequels, but this was no Harry Potter.

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

The anatomy of a sex scene

This French film is about a director's attempt/process of getting a sex scene filmed for her movie. It involves dealing with the crew, the actors, and planning the definition. First off, this is a French film and thus has all the stereotypical baggage - there's a lot of long pauses, deep introspective and meaningful sentences spoken without much inflection or emotion, as well as indefinite pathos, no plot development, and no climax (no pun intended). It's also billed as a comedy and, as foreign films tend to go, it's really not. The only thing the film has going for it is full frontal nudity and an interesting documentary-style insight into how a sex scene works, at least in France. Unless you're truly dedicated to seeing it through, this is interminable and will put you to sleep.

*1/2 out of *****

Money makes you crazy.

A light and black comedy about three friends and how money corrupts, and dead bodies corrupt absolutely. It features decent acting and some interesting character turnarounds, as well as a good ending twist. I'd seen the preview for this at least 20 times since it came out, so it's about time I finally saw it. Worth the rental but definitely not very deep and it takes a little too long to get itself wound up, and then it waits a little too long before it goes for the jugular.

*** out of *****

Kung-fu western sequel to Shanghai Noon.

Buddy movies are usually cheesy, stereotypical fluff that's worth a few smiles, a feel-good vibe, and best forgotten. I'd have to say, however, that Shanghai Noon and this sequel are some of the best in the genre. They're cleverly written and the sequel only barely loses steam over the original. It's worth plenty of laughs, comical martial arts, and the two actors work off each other very well. This is pure entertainment.

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

Sticking heads on fish

Do a Google search on "uncanny valley". It's the theory that, the closer an anthropomorphized character's traits approach human, the more people adore it - until it gets too close and it plummets into a valley of disgust and fear. That's precisely where this film lands. If it wasn't for the lame and unfunny jokes, the unoriginal script, or the totally unlikeable urban-oriented characters, this film is DOA due to the visually unappealing and even bothersome character design. The fish designs are weak to begin with, but when they seem to photomorph the actors' faces onto the heads of those designs, it just gets unnaturally creepy. The movie has very little redeeming value and steals more than half its material from better films. A real chore to watch.

* out of *****

Romantic Comedy with Zombies

Is it a parody? Is it an homage? Whatever it is, if you can handle your standard modern horror film, you're definitely in for a treat. When you can get past the sometimes unintelligibly deep accents, the film has plenty of comedy in the form of dialogue, sight gags, subtle references, and physical comedy. The humor takes the edge off the dread and makes it giggly. The gore level is standard fare except for one, token lift - but even that turns out to be more of a groanfest than a stomach turner since it's a long-standing cliche. It even manages to justify itself skillfully by slipping in some genuinely deep moments that don't affect the pacing. Comedy horror rocks, this is definitely a must-buy on DVD.

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

Cat & cockroach

This animated tale from the 70's is based on stories written by Don Marquis concerning the life and times of a cockroach and the cat he pines for, Mehitabel. The story itself is pretty light and, while inoffensive and mostly all-ages, isn't really much to write home about. With the exception of an excellent George Harriman montage in the middle, featuring Ignatz & Krazy Kat-style animation (and even a cameo from the pair), most of the cartooning is stylish but very scribbly. It reminded me of Schoolhouse Rock combined with Fritz the Cat. It's a musical, with rather awkward numbers, that includes some trippy, psychadelic visuals. The tomcat is clearly Alan Reed, the voice of Fred Flintstone, distractingly so. Other voices include Carol Channing and David Carradine. Unfortunately, the DVD transfer is very poor. You can often see the horizontal lines of video, so it looks like someone just pointed a camera at a tv to record it. I've seen worse, but it's not a pinnacle of animation by any means.

** out of *****

Character-driven sequel

Let's get the bad out of the way first: Shrek 2's story is crap. It's the same story from a dozen romantic comedies that have already been made. It's barely interesting and it really doesn't rate. However, as Dreamworks apparently knows, the real money is in the characters and gag writing. If you bury a poop story under wild and zany characters, huge recognizeable parody, and zing after zing of well-paced gags, the story can move to the back burner. The hits come fast and furious and as many have said, it may require two viewings to catch them all, as well as a well-versed knowledge of pop culture and cinema. Be sure to stay through past the credits for the only scene with the dragon, regrettably. Also, check out who does the voice of the ugly stepsister.

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

Michael Moore is very good at what he does, and what he does in Sicko is make the viewer hate America, or at least the health care system, the corporations that underpin it, and the government that enables and profits from it. Seriously, I was angry after watching this film and completely terrified of the prospect of having no health insurance. While I know that Moore tends to push the fringes of exaggeration and color the argument with dramatics, tearjerkers, and comedy, the documentary still reveals a sad, sorry state of affairs for healthcare in the USA. Other countries are presented as utopias, while the individual cases presented from the US are the definition of systemic failure. What carries the viewer through is the humor, of which there is a wide variety and range, from laugh-out-loud silliness, to deeply ironic laugh-or-cry situations. We don't necessarily need the semi-fictional paradises that Moore visits elsewhere, but we aren't even anywhere near the underlying reality. As an extra bonus, the DVD's extra features are of great value if you enjoyed the film.

**** out of *****

Mid-life crisis amongst the vineyards

A lot of hubub was made over this film when it was in the theaters. After having seen it, I figure it was related to the same chemistry that made City Slickers so popular back in the day. They're both very pointedly targeted at 40-somethings having pangs of mid-life crises. The difference between the two is that City Slickers was a comedy and Sideways is just billed as one. There are some rare chuckles, but otherwise it's a pretty heavy drama with some comedic characters who leave their comedic parts elsewhere. It's also not very deep and relays a message that's been relayed in a dozen other movies already. While it's pleasant enough outside its target audience, it ends on a real downer note which it makes a merely feeble attempt to recover from, but not enough to lift the viewer during the credits from the previous low it sank to. Maybe you'll like it better if you know your wines.

*** out of *****

Islamic terrorists attack NYC, Muslims rounded up in camps...gee, this sounds familiar...

Before 9/11, this was apparently a weak movie. The script was hokey, the events were unbelieveable... I mean, c'mon, terrorists can't attack NYC, right? Watch the movie now. Unbelieveably prophetic. One Federal Plaza. Muslims and Palestinian suicide bombers. Middle Easterners suffer anti-Islamic hatred. All Muslim suspects rounded up in camps. Americans protesting their government actions. It has a cliche ending, but right up to that it's on the button. Like reading a script for September 11th. Creepiest of all, it was released on 11/6. Turn it upside down. 9/11. Makes you squirm between enjoying it and being very uncomfortable.

**** out of *****

Well, there sure is a lot of imagination in this videogame-turned-movie. Big props for the creative and creepy execution of the individual monsters and environments that our heroine encounters. They're definitely freaky, not necessarily scary, and make for a giggly good visual experience. The environments are also fun, too. Alas, they didn't spend enough time cribbing from their source material, Centralia, PA, and the result is just a weak imitation of what's really there (a more accurate depiction might've been even better), but what they do use is neat, even if the different scenes of the film are hardly discernable from videogame maps. Where Silent Hill falls flat is the plot and script. There's a really good story there, but it's like someone took scissors to the pages and there's critical information missing. Most of the creatures go entirely unexplained. The darkness goes unexplained. The ending is unexplained. Yeah, that creature's ugly, but what is it? Where did it come from? Why does it do that? There's too many gaps and so what starts with great potential ends up as eye candy that has no flavor. Oh yeah, and the climax is really gross.

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

N/A

I really liked Signs. Really really. It seriously had me whipsawing between a whole variety of emotions. I often went from giggly to scared to sad (yes, this movie made me cry - Zim-voice: curse you, weepy celluloid!) in all of a few minutes. It was extremely effective in keeping me on the edge of my seat. The humor was dished out at just the right moments when you're supposed to be scared, the best kind of suspense film humor. Look for the director, M. Night Shyamalan in the movie, too. I love his film, extremely minimal special effects, just expert use of camerawork and storytelling. You never know if he's pulling a fast one on you like Sixth Sense, or if he's gonna let the hammer fall this time.
My only complaints were the kid with the asthma and what inevitably occurs is getting really really cliched. Can directors please focus on some other human element than that during the important parts of every gothic horror, from Goonies to Panic Room?

**** out of *****

When you can't get a good actor for your movie, make one.

I never had much interest in Al Pacino until this movie. He played a lot of criminals and anti-heroes, which I wasn't thrilled with seeing. In S1m0ne, he's a desperate director trying to stay above water. He perpetrates a massive hoax upon the world by inventing an actress that the world falls in love with. Perpetuating the illusion, tho, turns out to be an addiction as well as a necessity. The film is filled with double-entrendes and humorous irony. Light on FX, I was expecting a mediocre result, but I was surprised as the film exceeded my expectations. Flaws include the predictable supporting characters and the dimensionless daughter, but the focus of the movie is on Pacino and his creation.

**** out of *****

Disneyesque animated adventure

This film reminded me a lot of Road To El Dorado. The stylish animation, the characters, and the action were quite similar. The fluid animation, uber-style characters, and unrealistic action sequences didn't help much. That's not to say they were bad - a healthy dose of suspension of disbelief can take you pretty far here, especially when the adventure is engaging. Alas, it doesn't always work that way and there are giant gaps in logic from time to time. Still, the CG is good, the characters are likeable but unmemorable, and it's worth a bucket of popcorn and a rental.

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

And you thought Pulp Fiction was hard-boiled

First, they invented the movie. Then came films that depicted a collection of short stories that intertwined. Then came Pulp Fiction to raise things to a new level of vicious violence and hard-boiled grittiness. None of that has got anything over Sin City. Stunningly produced in the most comic book-like live-action format I've ever seen grace the screen. While the violence is not as brutal as I expected, having been previously exposed to other similar fare, like From Dusk Till Dawn and Kill Bill, it's in-your-face and spotlit with artistic abandon. Nearly every line is campily quotable - there is no break in the classiness that takes you out of context and trips up the film. Darkly hilarious at times, even. I've always been a fan of Robert Rodriguez's work, but this is the icing on the cake - he's definitely one of my favorite directors now. Where Tarantino wants to brutally shock you, Rodriguez pushes it just over the line into campy comic book, where you're not quite so afraid to laugh and enjoy the action, with only a few exceptions. Wildly entertaining, definitely one to own.

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

Hoodoo? You do!

New Orleans never looked better in this film made before Katrina moved the furniture around. Luckily, it's easy to get engrossed in the Hitchcock-ian thriller and not think about what you've seen on the news. In fact, the setting of the film is very lovely. A hospice worker gets a job caring for a stroke victim in a remote bayou mansion. The wife exhibits suspicious voodoo-like behavior, and we take it from there. A bit slow to get started, it picks up speed once the real magic starts to happen. At that point, it goes from a dismissive and unfrightening attempt at a Twilight Zone episode to a very clever series of plot twists based on clues previously littered through the film, resulting in a cliched but nonetheless well-executed finale. It never really rises from being a general thriller to a scary horror movie, tho, which is pretty much spelled out by the PG-13 rating - fine by me, I like these if they're well-made. A few scenes seemed to be filler, and and a voodoo-shop should've been used to much greater detail. I also wasn't too fond of using a hospice as a plot setup, that didn't seem particularly appropriate. It's still fun to watch and I can almost hear Rod Serling saying: "An elderly couple, living in a bayou mansion. Scenic. Peaceful. Or is it?"

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

Lots of CG

I have to give this film a whole lot of credit. They certainly had a plan, an imagination, and a cornucopia of dazzling imagery and style they wanted to convey. Most of the time, they succeed rather well. But there are limitations to making an entire movie via CG. The graphics don't work all the time, and when they don't they're jarring to the eye. You also don't have any particular feeling of threat or danger when you know that no physical special effect could ever replicate what you're seeing on screen - stunts don't actually exist, peril is imaginary, and that makes the viewer apathetic towards the fate of the characters. Additionally, creating a whole movie out of a six minute teaser results in a wobbly script at best, with gaping physics deficiencies and plot holes. Nevertheless, the movie is visually gorgeous, demonstrating the riches that can be created with CG, and creatively entertaining, gimmicks and gadgets galore. This style is just better left to animation or comedy rather than action films, or at least that could do real stunts.

*** out of *****

Nazis, aliens, and optometry.

This is another film that tends to jump around in time a lot, but at least in this case they declare exactly what's going on at the beginning, although they also fail to explain why during the entirety. Broken into pieces, it details several major events in a man's life, ranging from being captured by Germans in WW2 to wedded domesticity, to kidnapped by aliens with a porn star. The latter of these three main elements doesn't fit with the rest of the film at all, but at least remains quirky. The war scenes are excellent and it would be hard to believe how nice the nazis were portrayed if it weren't based on Kurt Vonnegut, the author's, real experiences as a POW. It's a generally satisfying drama with a flailing, weak attempt at wrapping it in a sci-fi envelope. It's got enough humor to keep it afloat although it ends abruptly without climax or resolution, which is really frustrating. It's a good drama nonetheless.

*** out of *****

Mischronolocology comedy.

The story chronicles the love life of our heroine after she both catches *and* misses the subway on the way home from work. It's two incredibly effective romantic comedies, featuing entertaining parallels and both gentle and hysterical humor without being wild & crazy or inane. The characters are charming, sweet, and you're rooting for the heroine all the way. The ending is kind of tough and sudden, but doesn't fail to remind the viewer that hope springs eternal. Very worthwhile.

**** out of *****

It's been awhile since I've seen a good schlock horror movie, and Slither makes its case quite adeptly. If you're after excessive amounts of gore galore, incredibly black comedy, and a completely B-grade script, this is for you. The story of parasitic aliens landing on Earth and taking townspeople over is not a new one, nor will it likely be the last in its genre. The characters are all mediocre, but they perform with hammy goodness, so there's not much more you can expect. Script-wise, don't expect too much, either - the new ideas are few and far between; the execution is what's fresh. It's reminiscent of Shaun Of The Dead, but without as much restraint on the splatter. The DVD has a surprisingly extensive assortment of bonus features that are just as much fun to watch as the movie itself. It's clear that the crew and actors had an enormous amount of fun making the film and never really took it particularly seriously. Competent hokum.

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

N/A

Do you have the mentality of a 6 year-old? Great! You'll love this movie! Starts out stupid unfunny. Then goes on to physical humor unfunny. Then boring. Then animal unfunny. Then adventure unfunny. Then Cuba Gooding falls down a mountain about 7 times. More animal unfunny. Then family-values unfunny. Then Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) unfunny. And, finally, back to predictably stupid unfunny again. Do not rent unless you have some sick physical urge for huskies. Even if you just like them in general, avoid! Avoid! It is not even worth a rental! Hell, I used a buy-1-get-1-free to see it.

*1/2 out of *****

N/A

A little pre-Austin entertainment. Nice and mildly funny, a good showcase of Mike Meyers before he fine-tuned his schtick. I almost like him better during that period, because he wasn't typecast into a role. However, the movie lacked any significant substance and could've easily been a made-for-tv movie.

** out of *****

Star does weird stuff to a space station.

This film had a huge potential to be an intense, plodding supernatural sci-fi psychological thriller. If you can stand the pace, which is slower than a dead slug, the first 3/4 of the film are creepy and thought-provoking. However, this movie has no ending. In the end, nothing happens. Does he live or die? Who knows, who cares? What's going on on the space station? Who knows, who cares? The finale feels entirely too much like the director is chuckling and muttering, "Sucker," under his breath. The only lesson I got from this film is that if you learn to have patience, you'll regret it.

** out of *****

As the title suggests, this is not going to be a happy story. Bring tissues. Based on information recovered to illustrate historical events, it begins with Sophie Scholl and her anti-Nazi organization, White Rose, being arrested for distributing propaganda leaflets. From there, as Germany nears its defeat in WW2, a lengthy interrogation is followed by condemnation, conviction, and execution with startling speed. The first half of the film is mostly dedicated to police questioning, during which Sophie presents a moral argument against Nazi oppression. This is an easy argument to make, and the Nazi position is already indefensible, but it's presented with earnestness, clarity, and skill in performance that makes it watchable. The latter half is swift fascist justice in the most horrible manner as delays are voided, conviction is unimpeded, and closure is brutally final. During this, its very hard to endure Sophie's stoic adherence to her cause, as she tries very hard to put herself in a frame of acceptance, but the cracks show. A tough, little-known story of Nazi intellectual atrocity.

**** out of *****

Poor espionage shoot-em-up

We rented this film on the sole merit that xydexx was in it (sorta). A large chunk of the movie is displayed in a monochrome, washed out gray which must have some meaning, but is really only obnoxious. The action sequences aren't even action, they're just bang bang you're dead stuff. Very few stunts or FX. The acting can best be described as mediocre-to-poor. And the plot becomes so convoluted that it requires a five-minute monologue by the villain(?) at the end to finally explain it, and I still don't understand what happened. There are segments of clarity that make for decent spy-movie filler. Otherwise, it's sterile, but watchable, tho not recommended.

*1/2 out of *****

Soylent Green is ******!

If you don't already know the film's ending, you should get some more culture into you. The famous line at the end of the film is used today as a joke, cliche, and catchphrase altogether. The movie is slow to start, spending the first half in gratuitous shots of post-apocalyptic cityscape, followed by dragged-out romance that ends up being totally irrelevant to the plot. Add some gratuitous fight scenes, gratuitous skin, and other unnecessary filler until it eventually makes it to the second half, were we finally start moving the plot. At that point, it becomes a decent detective/action movie, with Charlton Heston doing a mediocre James Bond impression. The film does give a good sense of atmosphere and an idea of culture. The scene with the sweepers is pretty cool, too.

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

Standard political thriller

Open up a box of Saltines. Brush every single salt crystal off it. Eat it. That's Spartan. It is what it is and absolutely nothing more, which doesn't exactly sparkle the imagination or get those creative juices flowing and you really need to wash it down afterwards. Val Kilmer's character is completely and totally without depth, along with every other character. Any attempt at depth merely becomes bad Hollywood schlock. There's a mediocre plot that's not really as "twisty" as reviews have purported. It's mildly exciting, no car chases, no explosions, a few gun battles that are carried out without any flair or style. Somewhere in there is William H Macy doing absolutely nothing, unfortunately. Not a bad movie, but definitely an apathetic performance with other better options.

** out of *****

Tepid social drama with superheroes

How interesting can a superhero movie be without any bad guys or even superpowers? Answer: not much. This 'MTV's Real World'-meets-superhero-team film was clearly made on a low budget (and supposedly a mere 18 days). If it wasn't for the language, it could easily be a made-for-tv movie or afterschool special. The totality of the film consists of relationship dramas amongst a superhero team, crazy costumes and all. It also tries to be a comedy, with a few good lines in the beginning, but then it seems to get tired of itself, dragging the viewer along to its uninteresting resolution. It's a shame so little effort went into it because it's got a lot of names, including Jamie Kennedy and Thomas Hayden Church.

** out of *****

National Spelling Bee documentary

I could say that this documentary is to Spelling Bees what Trekkies was to Trek fans, but that would be a tad harsh. The families and kids focused on are from various walks of life, but almost none can be considered standard. There's the perfectionists, the rich kids, the poor kids, the urban kids, and the ADD kids, all under intense pressure from themselves and family to win the Nationals. There's little bits of inadvertent and ironic humor throughout the film and it's easily watchable. Oftentimes you'll find yourself trying to spell the words before the kids do - and you'll often get them wrong. A very nice and relatively harmless film that provides an inside view.

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

Try to guess why the nutjob is insane.

Another slow, plodding story that tries the patience with an unsatisfactory finale. The acting is basically just stumbling around and muttering, definitely not what I'd expect from David Cronenberg. He even holds back the gore which at least would've elicited something from me other than yawns. At least the film has atmosphere. The whole thing feels like it was ripped from a stage performance. This may impress others, but it definitely doesn't fall in the category of psychological thriller as described. More like stagnant drama.

** out of *****

Spidey vs Doctor Octopus - eventually

After the first token non-threatening Spider-Man bit to whet the appetites, we don't get another one for nearly an hour into the film. What gives? Yes, I understand this is about Peter Parker, too, but the long angsty close-ups, silences, and speaking at two words a minute gets old after the first try. 30 mins could've been cut from the film to make it move along much more smoothly. Nevertheless, for a purist like me, this movie was still full of surprises. J.K. Simmons as JJJ got a bigger part to my glee and tons of secret inside-jokes were strewn about (Dr. Connors, Peter's teacher, is baddie The Lizard, for example. And JJJ's son, John Jameson, is Man Wolf.). It also has plenty of continuity and plot progression outside the individual film and it sticks pretty close to the comic's storyline. The scenes with Doc Ock were great, but didn't quite capture the feel of the character, and totally lost it at the end. Nevertheless, it was a good popcorn-muncher, on par with the first. (BTW, I *hate* Kirsten Dunst as MJ).

*** out of *****

Mature, but not sick & twisted animated shorts

After all the bad poop, sex, and drug animations, you gotta take a break and watch something at least slightly more classy. Cutting Edge Classics is a good intermission during a Sick & Twisted marathon. The shorts are much more well animated, less gruesome, and don't make you feel dumber just for having seen them. Several are, in fact, quite excellent ('Ropedancers'), although others are inexplicable or boring ('Semper Idem', 'Insect Poetry'). The best of the bunch include 'Little Milosh', a fable with extraordinary CG animation, the absurdist 'Pigeon and the Onion Pie', 'Snowman', the very furry 'One Day A Man Bought A House' about a guy and a rat, and a few classic repeats from other animation shows, like 'Mons the Cat' and the moralistic masterpiece: 'Balance'.

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

Collection of tasteless animated shorts

As soon as this one started running, we realized that we'd actually gone to see it in the theater back in the late nineties when it came to town. What better way to refresh our memories - or traumatize them. This is the very first festival DVD that was released (and the first in theaters?). The shorts are therefore significantly amateur, low-budget, and occasionally unfinished. There's no need to mention that they're all pointless and disgusting. But, hey, that's the idea! It's mostly hit or miss, with a few really hitting high notes and most being subpar or, worse, spectacularly unfunny. Additionally, there seemed to be a heavy-handed dose of poop humor over other varieties. Our favorite was the almost-always wonderful Bill Plympton's "How To Make Love To A Woman", with everything else falling beneath, especially the nearly unwatchable and neverending "Lloyd" shorts.

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

Early 2005 release of the festival

Only moderately better than 'Unprotected', this festival is saved from disaster by the inclusion of "Here Comes Dr. Tran", a South Park-style stretch of silliness that comes as the last short of the show. It generates more laughs than every other animation in this festival combined. No surprise that it's available all by itself on DVD from its creators for an exorbitant price online. Eminently quotable. Otherwise, the rest of the bits are generally medicore or awful, highlights of which include: 'Proper Urinal Etiquette', 'Love That Pussy', 'Le Trésor Du Têtard Salé', and 'My First Boner'.

** out of *****

Nov '05 installment of the festival

It's just as well that this is the most recent and last installment we're going to watch of this series, seeing as it's probably the worst of them. Nearly half of the shorts are repeats from prior festivals, demonstrating that this show is pretty much dying out. Of the ones that remain, precious few are actually worth anything. It's heavily padded with incredibly bad flash animations by Bill Plympton (how the mighty have fallen). It even has the exact same intro as the previous festival's DVD. Of any value at all are "Doggie Style", "Lobster Shmobster", and "Frog" - out of over 30 other repeats and junk.

*1/2 out of *****

2003 edition of tasteless shorts

Jumping ahead several years, the selections have grown more classy overall (with the exception of yet more "Lloyd" shorts, make it stop!), not so much in content, but in production value and notoriety of the material. Still not perfect, however, because of the inclusion of a number of blatantly filmed-off-a-computer-screen flash animated shorts that truly reeked. Disappointingly, this included three Happy Tree Friends shorts which were blatantly taken from computer files, not even bothering to remove the advertising notations. Still, on the whole, there were more high notes in this one than in the 1997 edition. Our favorites included "Lessons in Nature", Bill Plympton's "Eat" (not including his crappy flash animated submissions), "Choke Spot Choke", and "1300cc". Best of all, if you've never seen it then you can't die happy, it includes the entire unedited "Rejected" short by Don Hertzfeld, an absurdist masterpiece of stick figure armageddon.

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

2003 version of the standard festival

Probably the worst of the Spike & Mike series. The majority of these appear to have been made by Sick & Twisted Festival fanboys, straight from their sketchbooks. Most aren't funny and the animation is either painfully crude or talentless two-frame flash-animations. Several classic shorts from earlier volumes are sequel-ized with ghastly results. Worse, the gallery is bookended with a DVD bonus: two intro's by Spike, himself. But all he does is swill a huge bottle of booze and fire artillery at stuffed animals in the middle of the desert. It just makes the entire production look that much less appealing. Of the merely tolerable shorts, the highlights are 'Gack Gack', 'Beyond Grampa 2', and two classics stolen from other, better animation shows: 'Hangnail' and 'Lupo the Butcher'.

*1/2 out of *****

A darker, less non-sequitur Alice In Wonderland-style.

Finally got a working copy via NetFlix. I don't like anime. Still don't, even after seeing Spirited Away. What I did like was the story. Very solid, very engaging, thoroughly creative. Instead of some bad guy chasing some good guy, we've got a straightforward, goal-oriented adventure/fantasy. It's also not watered down for children, having various darker, mature, and even complex elements while retaining the fairytale ideal. As well, the CG is melded with the anime almost flawlessly (except in the nausea-inducing flower-path sequence). I'd be willing to see more anime if it was all this easy to watch.

**** out of *****

Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?

Pure, unadulterated guilty pleasure. If you like Spongebob, this is for you. If not, don't bother. It has all the zaniness of the tv show with slightly better and more frequent jokes - even some more highbrow gags for adults stuck in, too. The production value is a bit better as well. The plot is sorta frivolous, on par with a basic tv episode, and the voice casting for King Neptune and his daughter, while recognizeable, aren't able to convey the overly characterized wackiness of the main characters. Funny voices required, but not present. Great fun for an overdose of classic-style cartoony goodness.

**** out of *****

Shakespearean Crossdressing

A look at the nondescript cover and the description might make you think it's rather dull, which is disappointing and probably why this great film of 2004 passed through theaters with little more than a whimper. In truth, it's probably one of the best - biting, funny, strong, and what an ending! Extremely strong and vivid characters, believeable settings, classy actors, and a stylish humor. Rupert Everett, in particular, is greatly entertaining as King Charles doing an impersonation of Captain Hook. The pacing never really slows down and it gets its story across in the time its given. Drawbacks include occasionally improper music (synths in olde England?) and it doesn't shine very favorably on its gay element, but that can be excused as part of the story. Still, the good outweighs the bad and this is going on my to-buy list.

**** out of *****

Heavy Metal for kids

Back when I was a wee lad, a movie came to town called Starchaser: The Legend of Orin. It was the first animated movie to be presented in 3-D! Wow, I had to see it! Unfortunately, due to homework, being grounded, or some other obstacle, I never got the opportunity and it left the theaters never to be seen again - until now. Recently released on DVD, this film from 1985 turns out to be basically Heavy Metal lite. Plenty of sci-fi violence, but not much blood and no 3D (aw!). Still, for all its halting dialogue and Rankin-Bass quality animation this is surprisingly entertaining with plenty of space battles and laser shootouts. It's also a precursor to a number of familiar modern film elements, including fembots (after Bionic Woman) and a ship that's designed suspiciously like Serenity from the Firefly tv series and film. Probably one of the better cheesy animated films from the 80s, despite the popsynth soundtrack, and that's saying something.

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

A parody/homage to the tv series, Ben Stiller/Owen Wilson-style

I rented three movies this weekend knowing that they all bombed in the theaters, but just wanting to edify myself to the fact of their existence. It just goes to show that reviewers (myself included) aren't always the best arbiters of your personal tastes. This movie, while a no-brainer and not particularly Oscar-bound, was a great bit of entertaining fluff, suitable for popcorn-munching. It generates a suitable amount of laughs and pretty much has a one-track mind, which in this case is a good thing since, when your comedy is that low, there's not very far to fall off. Expect the usual physical humor, outlandish bad guys, and stereotype supporting roles. A fun one.

*** out of *****

The Enterprise crew and their wheelchairs beat up a pseudo-Romulan kid.

I had heard that the bad guy in Trek X was supposed to be badder than Kahn. Uh, no. This one had its moments, but the bad guy, Shinzon, was unbelieveable as a leader or a villain. The Enterprise had the upper hand nearly all the time. It seemed like everyone was just going through the motions rather than actually getting into their parts. You could almost see the actors sighing boredly. Yeah, there's big fights, but you saw them in the trailer. I think it's time to retire the Trek movies or get a new writer, producer, and crew. This is as good a point as any. Marina Sirtis is looking old. And tired.

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

Rise of the Emperor

Number Three offered both the best scenes of the first trilogy, and the absolute worst scenes. The highlights include the story of how Palpatine becomes the Emperor. Ian McDiarmid was probably the best actor in the entire film. He was the awesomest greasy evil ever. It was also the best link to the original trilogy in the entire film. The down sides were unfortunately more common. The romantic dialogue and Natalie Portman in entirety were truly abysmal. I was expecting dominant royalty like Leia, but instead we get daytime soap whinyness. General Greivous was completely unexplained and his climactic battle scene was ridiculous overkill. Speaking of overkill, I got completely sick of the cityscape interstitials between every single scene. The whole film OD'd on CG yet again. It doesn't have to be real, just look believeably realistic, but this was almost an animated movie. The spinny-cycle thing, what the hell was that? And, gosh, how did any Jedi except Mace Windu, Yoda, or Obi-Wan get their lightsabers if they fight so badly? The worst scene ever, tho, was Vader getting off the operating table. We couldn't restrain ourselves and bust out laughing. That was truly awful directing. This was comparable to Ep 2, but made both prior movies obsolete - this film didn't build on the prior films at all, it makes them superfluous.

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

Mellow but unique slice of life comedy/drama

While the film is slow-moving which may be a major turn off for some who need distinct, spelled-out plot points to be entertained, it's otherwise a low-key story about three likeable characters who interact over time. Each has their own distinct life incidents and behaviors. In fact, the movie is more like people-watching than a storyline. Yes, there is a storyline, but it's pretty much background, a series of events, and the ending is not so much a resolution as a stabilizing event. It's kinda nice to see recovery and resolution, or learn-to-cope films, seeing people improve themselves, which is probably what makes this film enjoyable. It doesn't hurt that the situations are often amusing, not so much comedic but people doing and saying silly things in the passage of activity or conversation. Very pleasant.

**** out of *****

Steampunk Akira

In the past decade, there's been a surge of popularity in the realm of steampunk - that's basically imagining what the world would be like if the industrial revolution never ended, or began earlier and lasted longer, or such. This provides interesting new creative angles for stories that involve wildly ginormous inventions of mechanized, steam-powered machinery. That's really the star of this film as the characters are nearly lost in the background under the showcase of drawn and CG'd piston and lever-filled environments. It's probably best that it keeps your attention because looking at the characters can make the movie a little iffy. They're mostly mere puppets of the scenery and, when they manage to wriggle out of it, they can be downright annoying, like the superficial and extraneous character, Miss Scarlet, who seriously grates on the senses. The climax of the film starts about 45 mins before the end and is one continuous, repetetive calamity designed to suggest enormity, but instead gets tedious and doesn't pay off on the investment. Clever to watch, despite the flaws.

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

Hallmark Family Hour as seen by Sci-Fi Channel

This film didn't do too swiftly in the theaters and, unfortunately, it's not hard to see why. There's just not a lot of there there. The movie would be good for a 30 minute Twilight Zone or Tales From The Crypt (if they horror-ed it up a bit), but at 90 minutes, it goes way overboard. Aside from the desperately heavy and pandering reliance on a gay subplot, it telegraphs the whole shebang right up to the climax (where there is arguably a clever twist). There's no secrets or mystery, you just wait for the end, but it takes so long to get there. It's also rushed and clumsy, spending too much time on some scenes and too little on others, leaving the viewer feeling uninformed. It does have some good dark humor, so there's some minor saving graces.

** out of *****

Documentary about the number one

Another candidate that exemplifies the comment, "They should make all documentaries this way!" Terry Jones (showing his age), of Monty Python fame, narrates and stars in a journey through the ages, exploring the history of numbers, specifically zero and one. Beginning at the dawn of humanity, the one-hour program is filled with humor and rather good CG for a PBS program. I learned quite a lot of things about numbers and math that I'd never known during this trip through Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, Arabia, and into modern day. It covers why people needed numbers, how different cultures evolved mathematics, the conundrums of numbers during those eras, and how it was passed from region to region. Very competent, thorough for a program of this length, and enjoyable to watch. You'll never take ones and zeros for granted again. Highly recommended brain food.

***** out of *****

Camels in Mongolia

There is a lot of inconclusive discussion going on whether this is a documentary as it's billed, or more of a dramatization seeing that it has a script, a director, and appears to have actors. Imagine a very slow National Geographic documentary on Mongolian life that traverses nearly 90 minutes. Now remove all narration. Only the most die hard of cultural sociologists would dig this. However, it's more interesting if you add some camels and focus on the animal side of things just barely enough, and pace the film just crawlingly tolerable enough to make it watchable. This may sound bad, but it's actually a very good film. It simply requires a huge amount of patience and desire to get a bit of culture. There is a beginning, middle, and end and they are intellectually interesting. Probably the most you'll see of camels all year long. Could've done without the extensive and graphical birth scene, though.

*** out of *****

Two miserable stories

I didn't realize this film was made by the same guy that did 'Happiness' until after I saw it. Just so those of you who don't know are forewarned, unlike I was. Two truly unpleasant-to-watch stories of lessons(?) learned through crushing loss, failure, and despair. All the characters are, unlike most films, truly unlikeable, make bad decisions, and then suffer consequences above and beyond what should be merited for their actions. Great acting, but I have no idea what hardwiring I would need in my brain to enjoy the stories themselves. Conjures impressive levels of distaste. For maximum displeasure, watch the unrated version.

** out of *****

N/A

I mostly went to see this movie for two reasons: support for movies with furries in 'em, and to witness some of the best CG on the big screen today. I certainly wasn't let down. SL2 is a totally inoffensive little adventure with great FX ranging from the questionable to the stunningly believeable. It even has a twist that wasn't revealed in the trailers that I really enjoyed, cliche tho it was. The animation on the hawk, particularly, made me want to cry with happiness. If only this type of anthropomorphic styling could be applied to a non-all ages movie (like a big sci-fi film or an adventure movie)... Story-wise, it was very mild and perfectly balanced. A slight step down from the original, but a happy way to spend the afternoon.

*** out of *****

Kidnapping to solve a kidnapping

It doesn't take very long for this story to get underway. Within fifteen minutes, you've already got Christopher Walken kidnapped and past the point of no return. Then the movie starts to coast as the mind games set in. Walken is undeniably the best part of the film since the other characters are in turns pathetic and petulant. It's easy to see how they turn against each other - they're so cliched that you could do it yourself. The rest of the movie runs in the shadow of Reservoir Dogs or Very Bad Things, always threatening doom but never actually stepping up to the plate. Towards the end, gigantic plot holes materialize, so huge that they derail the resolution entirely. Also, the audio on the DVD tends to sound like it's coming through a carpet. It's fun getting there, but the destination isn't particularly convincing.

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

N/A

The biggest disappointment was that if you saw the trailer, you've seen the movie. And even that big climactic event was totally skimped on, as if they didn't have the budget available. Ben Affleck isn't Jack Ryan - he's Ben Affleck. It's Ben Affleck in the CIA: The Movie. Luckily, he doesn't grate on me enough for that to be a significant problem, but it could easily be for others. The events set in motion in this film, tho, are going to be rather difficult to top. I'm not certain how they'll make another Jack Ryan movie that goes further without blowing up the planet. Maybe they won't. When Harrison Ford was in the role, it was about a man in a situation. With Affleck, it's about a situation that happens to have an underwear model running around in it. And less romance scenes, please, I rented it to watch spy and espionage stuff, not Affleck makeout sessions. Bleah.

*** out of *****

Stating the obvious

I recommend waiting a few days to judge this film after you see it. Lots of folks have been raving about it, but once the logic of what is stated and done sinks in, it's really not all that. The guy eats McD's for 30 days, all day - but they admit that no one does this. Few eat there once a day and the sole example they found was healthy. Our hero gains weight and becomes unhealthy, but he was living a significantly vegan lifestyle, exercised, and was in perfect shape before he started - part of his experiment was to stop exercising, take as few steps as possible, and generally deviate from the pinnacle of health. Might that have had anything to do with his falling out of shape? It even acknowledges that at two of the four checkups, he got healthier while still on the diet. He points out that the soda has X amount of sugar, which is bad - but 20oz of cola has the same sugar as 20oz of orange juice. While silly, I question the educational, nonpartisan, realistic, and applicable lessons of the film. At least the biodegradation DVD extra is funny.

** out of *****

N/A

The flaws in this film stick out like a sore thumb. Particularly the bad dubbing in parts to the point of it looking like asian cinema. The other is the totally uncalled for full frontal male nudity. No, it's not the good kind, trust me. Otherwise, this movie alternately reminds me of Police Academy crossed with Clerks. Lowbrow, stupid, but effective humor. Like a drunken fratboy comedy troupe (which it is: Broken Lizard) decided to make a movie (and they did). It's a guilty pleasure.

*** out of *****

The adventures of a maverick SWAT team.

Feels very much like the start of a franchise ball rolling, tho I'm not sure it did well enough in theaters to merit its continuation. It's mostly a nothing movie with a shallow, featureless bad guy and stereotypical characters. On one hand, you've seen these characters before in so many other movies already, but on the other hand it's good to have this kind of familiar team going through the motions. The action really only differs in its intensity and it all comes down to the same neanderthal climax, divergent from the actual film's theme. Again, it's another popcorn muncher for the rental bin.

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

Ex-hacker assists in bank robbery.

If there ever was a morally ambiguous film, this would be it. The film can't decide if John Travolta's character is really a good guy or a bad guy. Maybe they're just setting up for a sequel? Whichever the case, the film doesn't support either reasoning, he does awful things but under lofty pretenses. Anyway, the film's chase and FX scenes are quite a lot of fun. It tries very hard to cater to the extremes of the geek and the urban crowd, but in doing so trips over itself more than a few times, including plot holes and borderline suspension of disbelief. Still good for a popcorn-muncher, at least.

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

Why revenge is bad

I'd made the small mistake of seeing Oldboy, the second film in Chan-wook Park's Vengeance trilogy from Korea, before this one. Sympathy is part one and Lady Vengeance is part three. There's really no direct connection between each film except for the underlying theme that seeking revenge is a bad idea, mmkay? This film undertakes a significant number of unexpected twists and didn't-see-that-coming turns, which make it a relatively cleverly-written moralistic tale. The tricky part is that it's told in the recent style of Asian ultraviolence. That doesn't mean vicious brutal battles, but it does include realistic assaults, cadavers, and traumatic injuries, two vivid autopsies, torture, and several scenes of physical damage that will make you wince. Much of this is conducted via humdrum application, outside the expected norms of film violence, which makes it more shocking because you aren't really prepared. To the film's credit, it commits these atrocities amongst a sparse field of absurd dark humor, which tempers the overbearing gloom to a degree. An excellent, deeply brutal story (Guillermo del Toro doesn't hold a candle to Park) that gets under your skin.

**** out of *****